The influence of Jeremy Taylor, of Thomas 4 Kempis, and of William Law was to set Wesley upon the way toward Christian Perfection. Nothing less than inward and outward holiness was to be his goal from 1725 until his death more than sixty-five years later. But these guides also set Wesley upon the path of discipline, of the imitation of Christ. The first
Journal opens with the well-known words: "It was in pursuance of an advice given by Bp. Taylor, in his Rules for Holy Living and Dying, that about fifteen years ago [about 1725 ], I began to take a more exact account than J had done before of the manner wherein I spent my time, writing down how I had
John Wesley and Modern Religion employed every hour." * A Kempis' Imitation of Christ, let it be said once more, is not a mystical book, but the product of monasticism. It is a book for ordered lives, setting out rules and methods for a selfdenying, sometimes ascetic, way of living. And, in like manner, one should recall that the William Law who influenced Wesley was not William Law, follower of the mystic, Jakob Boehme, but Law in his earlier period, the author of A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life and of Christian Perfection. Part of the teaching of Law was: "either Reason and Religion prescribe rules and ends to all the ordinary actions of our life, or they do not: If they do, then it is as necessary to govern all our actions by these rules, as it is necessary to worship God." * Wesley's practices at Oxford and in America are too well known to need detailed repetition, but their general character should be recalled. A writer, sometimes said to have been William Law, summed up the habits of the Oxford Methodists in an approving paragraph: "That this society think themselves obliged in all particulars to live up to the law of the gospel. That the Rule they have set themselves is not that of their own inventions but the Holy Scriptures, and the orders and injunctions of the Church, and that not as they perversely construe and misinterpret them, but as they find them in the holy canon. That, pursuant to these, they have resolved to observe with strictness not only all the duties of the Christian religion according to their baptismal engagements, but the fasts, the prayers, and sacraments of the Church; to receive the blessed Communion as often as there is
The Discipline of Life opportunity; and to do all the good they can, in visiting the sick, the poor, the prisoners, &c., knowing these to be the great articles on which they are to be tried at the last day; and in all things to keep themselves unspotted from the world. It would be found that, if they rise earlier than ordinary, if they are sparing in eating and drinking or any expensive diversions, *tis to save time and money for improving those glorious ends; and not, as is unfairly insinuated, that they make such things to be essentials in religion, much less out of a gloomy and Pharisaical spirit, to shun the company or upbraid the practices of others.
These are the Rules, this the Method, they have chosen to live by." ® Unquestionably the Oxford Methodists carried their enthusiasm to excess. Rising early, carefully abstaining from other than godly company, treating every act as affecting eternal destiny, Wesley sometimes showed traces of that morbidity which Tyerman noticed. But meeting together to review the day and plan work for the next, visiting the sick and prisoners, catechizing children, relieving the poor and suffering, strict observance of the statutes of the University and of the Church and weekly communion were their chief characteristics. Wesley insisted that he could best pursue holiness at Oxford because he had there religious friends, retirement, and opportunity for public and private prayers and for frequent communion. Samuel Wesley, Jr., was no friend to fanaticism; but he wrote lines on the death of one of the Oxford Methodists, William Morgan, which are fair to the whole group.
John Wesley and Modern Religion Whose Zeal for other Men's Salvation shown, Beyond the reach of Hell secur'd his own.
Glad'ning the Poor where e'er his Steps he turn'd, Where pin'd the Orphan, or the Widow mourn'd:
Where Pris'ners sigh'd beneath Guilt's Horrid Stain, The worst Confinement, and the heaviest Chain:
Where Death's sad Shade the Uninstructed Sight Veil'd with thick Darkness in the Land of Light.
Our Saviour thus fulfill'd his great Design, (For Human may be liken'd to Divine, ) Heal'd each Disease that Bodies frail endure,
And preach'd th' unhop'd-for Gospel to the Poor.
Nor yet the Priestly Function he invades, 'Tis not his Sermon, but his Life, persuades.
Humble and teachable to Church he flies, Prepar'd to practice, not to criticize.
Then only angry, when a Wretch conveys The Deists Poison in the Gospel Phrase.
To Means of Grace the last Respect he show'd, Nor sought new Paths, as wiser than his God.
Their sacred Strength preserv'd him from Extremes Of empty Outside, or Enthusiast Dreams; Whims of Molinos, lost in Rapture's Mist,
Or Quaker, late-reforming Quietist.
He knew that Works must here our Faith employ, And that 'tis Heav'n's great Business to enjoy.® During his later years at Oxford, after 1732, Wesley was influenced by John Clayton of Manchester, who sympathized with the High Church views of the Nonjurors, Dr. Deacon and John Byrom. Concerning Clayton's influence, Wesley wrote: "The two points whereunto, by the blessing of God, we had attained, we endeavoured to hold fast: I mean, the doing what good we can; and in order thereto, communicating as often as we have opportunity. To The Discipline of Life these, by the advice of Mr. Clayton, we added a third, —the observing the fasts of the Church, the general neglect of which we can by no means apprehend to be a lawful excuse for neglecting them." ' It is possibly to Clayton's influence that one must attribute Wesley's interests in the so-called Cowstitutions of the Holy Apostles and Ecclesiastical Canons. These, he thought, were of such early date as to make them authoritative. Wesley was also influenced by Dr.
Deacon's service book and by the teaching of this very High Church group of Nonjurors, and part of his Georgia troubles came from his strictness in these matters.
It must not be inferred that Wesley was of a sour, forbidding spirit at Oxford and in America. In the first place, he was a man who rejoiced in strictness and in methodical living. In the second place, his austerity was not excessive. Mr. Edwyn Bevan favorably contrasts Wesley, in this respect, with Augustine, to whom "more and more the many colours of life seemed to him only an undesirable stain upon the white radiance of eternity." * Mr. Bevan is thinking of Wesley's moderation of view in his later years; but the contrast holds good for his earlier period also.
"You seem to apprehend," he wrote to Mrs. Chapman from Georgia in 1737, "that I believe religion to be inconsistent with cheerfulness, and with a sociable, friendly temper. So far from it, that Iam convinced, as true religion or holiness cannot be without cheerfulness, so steady cheerfulness, on the other hand, cannot be without holiness or true religion. And I am equally convinced that true religion has nothing abe John Wesley and Modern Religion sour, austere, unsociable, unfriendly in it; but, on the contrary, implies the most winning sweetness, the most amiable softness and gentleness." Wesley may have been thinking of Augustine, who was stricken with shame because he could not eat after fasting without some "gust of sensual pleasure," when he added: "Do you refuse no pleasure but what is an hindrance to some greater good or has a tendency to some evil? It is my very rule; and I know no other by which a sincere, reasonable Christian can be guided.
In particular, I pursue this rule in eating, which I seldom do without much pleasure." ® Not only was Wesley not a morbid, unhappy man; he was not seeking to commute his sins by good deeds.
When, in the disturbed days immediately preceding and just after his Aldersgate experience, he said hard things about his previous experience, he stopped to note that he had not been consciously trying to acquire merit by his own works. "I take religion," he wrote to Richard Morgan from Oxford in 1734, "to be not the bare saying over so many prayers, morning and evening, in public or in private; not anything superadded now and then to a careless or worldly life; but a constant ruling habit of soul, a renewal of our minds in the image of God, a recovery of the divine likeness, a still-increasing conformity of heart and life to the pattern of our most holy Redeemer."
The year before, Wesley had written to his mother, that "when I am entrusted with a person who is first to understand and practice, and then to teach, the law of Christ, I endeavour, by an intermixture of reading and conversation, to show him what that law
The Discipline of Life is—that is, to renounce all insubordinate love of the world, and to love and obey God with all his strength." 1?
It was to attain to a "ruling habit of soul," to 'a recovery of the divine likeness," that Wesley followed rules and methods. He was, it must be remembered, seeking holiness, nothing less than Christian Perfection; and he believed that there were means which God had commanded "in order to that end." These means were what Wesley called "instituted," that is, those, such as prayer, reading, meditation on the Scriptures, and frequent communion, which he believed to be commanded in the Scriptures as interpreted by the early Church. Other means were "prudential," that is, "recommended by wise and good men."
Among these latter were meeting together for counsel, keeping strict account of one's time, rising early, working by method, and the like. In 1734, Wesley summed up his beliefs in a letter to Richard Morgan.
"God everywhere declared (1) that without doing good as well as avoiding evil shall no flesh living be justified; (2) that as good prayers without good works attending them are no better than a solemn mockery of God, so are good works themselves without those tempers of heart from their subserviency to which they derive their whole value." *"
In another chapter it has been shown that Wesley maintained to the end of his long life habits of regular « prayer and of frequent communion. Moreover, he continued, almost to the end, the practice of meditation and of self-examination which characterized his earlier period. Sometimes, as was remarked above, he
John Wesley and Modern Religion considered taking up again even the minutiae of his Oxford discipline. "Let me be again an Oxford Methodist!"' he exclaimed in 1772; "I am often in doubt whether it would not be best for me to resume all my Oxford rules, great and small." ** But it is necessary to examine in more detail his teachings concerning regularity, ""methodism," in the years after 173.8.
In 1773, Wesley wrote that "the Methodists, so called, observe more of the Articles, Rubrics, and Canons of the Church than any other people in the three kingdoms. They vary from none of them willingly, although the English canons were never established by law." ** Although he could not acknowledge the authority of many of the canons," he recorded, in 1744, that he had as curate always observed the rubrics with "a scrupulous exactness, not for wrath, but for conscience sake." And he added:
"this, so far as belongs to an unbeneficed Minister, or to a private member of the Church, I do now." ** In detailing what he meant, Wesley began by listing the "days of fasting or abstinence to be observed."
These were the forty days of Lent, the Ember Days at the four seasons; the three Rogation Days; all Fridays in the year except Christmas day. 'There is plenty of evidence that these fast days were neglected in the eighteenth century; indeed, it is Wesley's argument, in the passage in An Earnest Appeal which is here cited, that he observed the canons and rubrics better than those who accused him of laxity. And Wesley continued to observe the fasts and festivals of the Church. In December, 1773, almost thirty years
The Discipline of Life after that quoted above was written, Wesley recorded in his Journal, that he celebrated "the solemn feastdays, according to the design of their institution."
These days included Christmas day, St. Stephen's day, St. John's day, and Holy Innocents' day. The next year, 1774, Wesley wrote: ""During the twelve festival days, we had the Lord's Supper daily; a little emblem of the Primitive Church." *® In this, of course, he was going beyond the practice of the Church of England in his devotion to what he believed to be the practice of the Primitive Church; and this, let it be remembered, was not in Wesley's so-called High Church period, but when he was seventy-one years old.
Ten years later, 1784, when Wesley abridged the Book of Common Prayer for the American Methodists, he omitted most of the holy days "'as at present answering no valuable end." '® Does this mean that Wesley had come to the opinion that the observance of fixed times for fasting or celebration has no value?
Again a glance at his practice is instructive. In 1782 the Diary, which is not available for the previous forty years, once more comes to the student's aid. It has been seen that in 1773 and 1774 Wesley was observing the festivals of the Twelve Days from Christmas to Epiphany, in the latter year communicating every day. What of the years from 1782 to 1791, the years when he was deleting most of the holy days as answering no valuable end for the American Methodists? In 1782, Wesley received the Lord's Supper eight times during the Twelve Days; in 1783, eight times; in 1784, eight times; in 1785, seven times; in 1786, nine times; in 1787, seven times; in 1788, when
John Wesley and Modern Religion Wesley was eighty-five years old, twelve times; in 1789, nine times; and in 1790, the aged man communicated four times.
Of the value of fasting Wesley was never in doubt from his Oxford days until the end. He and his companions in the University fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays as well as on the regular fast days of the Church, although Wesley had had some doubts as to the obligation to observe Wednesday. Recommendations to fast are scattered through the Journal and the Letters. Sermon XXII, Discourse vii "Upon Our
Lord's Sermon on the Mount," is upon the duty of fasting and sets forth at length the reasons for the practice. This was possibly written before 1738; but in 1785 Wesley advised Adam Clarke to recommend the sermon in every society."" Fasting, according to this sermon, has no merit in itself, but "is only a way which God hath ordained, wherein we wait for His unmerited mercy; and wherein, without any desert of ours, He hath promised freely to give us His blessing." 7 That is, fasting is one of the "means"; and to attempt to attain the end without the means is
"enthusiasm." | In 1789, Wesley viewed with regret the neglect of fasting by his people. '"'While we were at Oxford," he wrote, "the rule of every Methodist was, (unless in case of sickness,) to fast every Wednesday and Friday in the year, in imitation of the practice of the Primitive Church; for which they had the highest reverence. Now this practice of the Primitive
Church is universally allowed. 'Who does not know,' says Epiphanius, an ancient writer, 'that the fasts of Lads The Discipline of Life the fourth and sixth days of the week' (Wednesday and Friday) 'are observed by the Christians throughout the world?' So they were by the Methodists for several years; by them all, without any exception; but afterwards, some in London carried this to excess, and fasted so as to impair their health. It was not long before others made this a pretence for not fasting at all. And I fear there are now thousands of Methodists, so called, both in England and Ireland, who, following the same bad example, have entirely left off fasting; who are so far from fasting twice in the week, (as all the stricter Pharisees did), that they do not fast twice in the month. Yea, are there not some of you who do not fast one day from the beginning of the year to the end? But what excuse can there be for this? I do not say for those that call themselves members of the Church of England; but for any who profess to believe the Scripture to be the word of God.
Since, according to this, the man that never fasts is no more in the way to heaven, than the man that never prays." 7?
From the beginning Wesley stressed the necessity for regular public and private devotion. In Georgia he began daily service, dividing the public prayers according to what he believed to be the appointment of the early Church. He was apparently following
Hickes' Reformed Devotions, itself an abridgment and "reformation" of a Roman Catholic work. The service was divided into the early morning service at. five; the Communion and sermon at eleven; the evening service at three. For daily devotion, there were public prayers at five and, apparently, in the evening.
John Wesley and Modern Religion But these did not last, on week-days, more than seven or eight minutes. Dr. Curnock very shrewdly suggests that "probably long prayers, long hymns, and long, prosy sermons, more than anything else, destroyed the early morning services of the Methodists in the last years of the eighteenth century." *
Private devotion, prayer, meditation, reading the Bible and other books, Wesley recommended constantly by precept and example. His own habit of early rising and regular prayer and meditation is well known. But he insisted upon the same plan for others. This was not a matter of feeling or impulse.
"Tt is therefore our wisdom to force ourselves to prayer—to pray whether we can or no," is his advice to a correspondent who had been infected by Madame Guyon's quietistic doctrines. "To another inquirer he wrote: "Certainly your friend will suffer loss if he does not allow himself time every day for private prayer. Nothing will supply the place of this. Praying with others is quite another thing." "°
Prayer was to be a part of the devotional exercise of the individual; to this was to be added meditation and reading. One of his preachers was rebuked for his little reading. 'Fix some part of every day for private exercises," wrote Wesley. 'You may acquire the taste which you have not; what is tedious at first will afterwards be pleasant. Whether you like it or no, read and pray daily. It is for your life; there is no other way, else you will be a trifler all your days, and a pretty, superficial preacher. Do justice to your own soul; give it time and means to grow. Do not starve yourself any longer." ** Members, as well as | 224 The Discipline of Life preachers, were expected to follow the same regimen.
In his letter to the Bristol Societies, in 1764, Wesley advised: ""To the public, constantly add the private means of grace, particularly prayer and reading.
Most of you have been greatly wanting in this; and without it you can never grow in grace. You may as well expect a child to grow without food as a soul
' without private prayer; and reading is an excellent help to this." ?" And for the reading, Wesley had specific directions. '""The most profitable way of reading," he wrote Martha Chapman, in 1772, "'is to read in an exact method: Suppose a chapter or two
(as time may serve) in the Old Testament with the Notes [his own] in the morning; and a chapter more . or less of the New Testament and Nofes in the afternoon or evening. Next to this it might be useful to read the Works [again his own] in order, only not too fast. For all reading should be joined with meditation and prayer. Read a little, pray and meditate much," 7° _ This introduces a somewhat neglected aspect of Wesley's work. In Wickham Lege's English Church
Life from the Restoration to the Tractarian Movement, there is an excellent chapter on devotional works popular in the eighteenth century, including
Roman Catholic works translated and adapted for Protestant use; but the author seems to be unaware of the extent to which Wesley participated in the _ publication and circulation of such books. |
That Wesley had a high opinion of Bishop Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying, William Law's Serious © Call and Christian Perfection, and Thomas a Kempis'
John Wesley and Modern Religion Imitation of Christ goes without saying. The latter Wesley thought should be in every house—along with his own "Instruction for Children" and his Primitive
Physic. The Imitation was undoubtedly what Henry Moore called it, Wesley's "favourite guide." The third book that he published (1735), it was reprinted in full in 1750; and extracts from it were published in 1741 and reissued in 1746, 1759, 1777, 1780, and 1788. Taylor and Law were both included, in abridged form, in the Christian Library, the collection of fifty volumes of Christian literature which Wesley hoped to circulate as a sort of "'five-foot shelf" of the world's best religious books.
Perhaps a glance at the works, in addition to those mentioned, which Wesley published for the benefit of the Methodists, preachers and members, will best clarify Wesley's intentions and interests in regard to private devotion. Most of the works which he printed were abridged—and frequently mutilated; but the concern here is not with his literary taste but with his devotional interest.
The books which may be classed as devotional include religious treatises helpful for meditation and those providing definite religious exercises. Among the former are Bishop Hall, Meditations and Vows,
Divine and Moral; An Extract from the Whole Duty of Man; Pascal's Thoughts on Religion, and other subjects; The Spiritual Bee: or a Miscellany of Divine
Meditations, Extracts from the Letters of Mr. Samuel Rutherford; Contemplations Moral and Divine, extracted from the works of Lord Chief Justice Hale;
A Relation of the Holy War (Wesley's abridgment of The Discipline of Life Bunyan) ; Baxter's Saints Everlasting Rest; Spiritual Letters Written in Spanish, from the writings of Don
Juan D' Avila. Of works designed as guides to spiritual exercises may be mentioned: A Collection of Prayers for Families; Dr. Horneck's The Happy Ascetic: or the best Exercise (containing prayers suitable for each exercise) ; An Extract of the Christian Sacrifice: a Treatise showing the Necessity, End and Manner of receiving the Holy Communion, together with suitable prayers and Meditations, by Simon Patrick, late Bishop of Ely; Devotions for Every Day of the Week, and the Great Festivals.
Some of these works call for comment. The Collection of Prayers for Families had been printed separately, and Green's description of this work will be helpful. "It contains a morning and evening prayer for each day of a week. This devotional manual is admirably suited to its high purpose. The prayers are comprehensive, but brief, each covering about a page and a half." 7° The Devotions for Every Day of the Week, and the Great Festivals was a work, originally by John Austin, a Catholic, but adapted for Church of England use by a Mrs. Susannah Hopson. George Hickes (1642-1715), the Nonjuror, further reformed the work; and it was Hickes' version which Wesley adapted, abridged, and printed.
This work had influenced Wesley in Georgia. He had used 'it in his public and private devotions, as it was said to have been used in nonjuring oratories.
The work, too, was useful to Wesley when he compiled his Charlestown Hymnbook, although he could not include some of Austin's hymns. Hickes proJohn Wesley and Modern Religion vided daily devotions, divided into Matins, Lauds,
Vespers, and Compline. In his edition, Wesley changed these to Morning, Noon, Afternoon, and Evening. The character of the work as issued by Wesley is described thus by Green: "Wesley has inserted
'The Office' for each day of the week, and under the head of Devotions for the Great Festivals, the Office of our blessed Saviour, the Office of the Holy Ghost, the Office of the Saints, and the Preparatory Office for Death. Under the head of Occasional Devotions are the Office for a Family, two Litanies, and a number of Prayers. . . . Generally the Psalms written by Austin are given in full in the earlier part, in the latter several are omitted, but there is little or no verbal revision; a few only of the hymns and of the shorter prayers are given, and the passages of Scripture are not as a rule inserted." *° This much detail has been given in order that the reader may understand the nature of the devotional works which Wesley hoped to circulate among his people. That the Christian Library was not extensively sold was a matter of deep regret to him, for he felt that he had provided abridgments and corrections of a rich treasury of Christian literature. And he had. If his emendations were not always wise, his intentions are evident enough. Aside from doctrinal and other works, the devotional literature in the Christian Library would alone have made the distribution of the set immensely valuable to the Methodists and contributive to the preservation of Wesley's religious ideals. | It is necessary to turn to the Rules of the Methodist
The Discipline of Life Societies and to the Minutes of the Conferences to see how far the Society organization was intended to regulate and systematize the devotional life of the Methodists. The General Rules of the United Societies set forth three things expected of all who continue in the societies: (1) Doing no harm; (2) doing good; (3) "attending upon all the ordinances of God." This latter was explained as follows: "Such are, the public worship of God; the ministry of the word, either read or expounded; the supper of the Lord; family and private prayer; searching the Scriptures; and fasting, or abstinence." To secure the carrying out of this, as well as the other rules, the: societies were under strict oversight. The more mature Christians met in "bands"; and the third '"'direction"' to the bands, issued in 1744, was:
"Constantly to attend on all the ordinances of God: in particular,— "1. To be at church and at the Lord's table every week, and at every public meeting of the Bands.
"2. To attend the ministry of the word every morning, unless distance, business, or sickness prevent.
"3. To use private prayer every day; and family prayer, if you are at the head of a family.
"4, To read the Scriptures, and meditate therein, at every vacant hour. And,— "5. To observe, as days of fasting and abstinence, all Fridays in the year." *!
More particular directions were given to the preachers, with the injunction that they should not only observe them themselves, but '"'enforce the use of them on all other persons." 'These directions, in the John Wesley and Modern Religion form of questions, were printed in the Large Minutes
(1763). They stressed early rising and morning devotions, which Wesley believed conducive to both physical and spiritual health. Then the "means of grace" were set forth.
They are either Instituted or Prudential:— "Tt. The Instituted are, "(1) Prayer; private, family, public; consisting of deprecation, petition, intercession, and thanksgiving. Do you use each of these? Do you use private prayer every morning and evening? If you can, at five in the evening; and the hour before or after morning preaching [usually five or six o'clock]? Do you forecast daily, wherever you are, how to secure these hours? Do you avow it everywhere? Do you ask everywhere, 'Have you family prayer?' Do you retire at five o'clock?
Searching the Scriptures by, ""(i1) Reading: Constantly, some part of every day; regularly, all the Bible in order; carefully, with the Notes; seriously, with prayer before and after; fruitfully, immediately practising what you learn there?
"(ii) Meditating: at set times? by any rule?
(iii) Hearing: Every morning? Carefully; with prayer before, at, after; immediately putting in practice? Have you a New Testament always about you?
'""(3) The Lord's supper: Do you use this at every opportunity? with solemn prayer before; with earnest and deliberate self-devotion?
'"*(4) Fasting: How do you fast every Friday?
The Discipline of Life ""(5) Christian conference: Are you convinced how important and how difficult it is to 'order your conversation right?' Is it 'always in grace? seasoned with salt? meet to minister grace to the hearers?' Do not you converse too long at a time? Is not an hour commonly enough? Would it not be well always to have a determinate end in view; and to pray before and after it?
"TI. Prudential Means we may use as common Christians, as Methodists, as Preachers, or as Assistants.
"(1) As common Christians. What particular rules have you in order to grow in grace? What arts of holy living?" *?
Other. "'prudential means" are concerned with society meetings and the like and not particularly with "arts of holy living."
Before concluding this sketch of Wesley's devotional regulations, a word should be said about services peculiar to the Methodists. In the Conference
Minutes of 1744-1748, preserved in John Bennet's and Wesley's copies,'* there are calendars of ""WatchNights, Intercession-Days, Love-Feasts and LetterDays." In Bennet's Minutes for 1745, for example, the list is as follows:
Watch-Nights. Inter-Days Love-Feasts. Letter-Days.
Aug, 2 Sept. 6 Aug. 18 Aug. 13
Aug. 28 Oct, 3 Sept. 15 Sept. 10
Sept. 27 Nov. 8 Oc 13 Octy.'S8 Nov. 1 Dec. 6 Nov. 17 Nov. 12
Nov. 30 Decis 15 Dec. 10
Zot John Wesley and Modern Religion This series of special days, about one a week, was in addition to the regular class and band meetings, the Friday fasts, the morning services, where held, and the Sunday meetings. The "letter days" call for little explanation. Early in the history of the Methodist Societies, a special session of the class meetings was set aside for the reading of letters detailing individual experiences, the progress of the revival, and the like. The Intercession days, the Love-feasts, and the Watch nights were perhaps originally modeled on Moravian services. The first were days set aside for prayer services for special objects, the conversion of friends, the ongoing of the work of God. The others were more peculiarly Methodist meetings.
Wesley's explanation of his love feasts is as follows:
"In order to increase in them [members of the bands] a grateful sense of all his mercies, I desired that, one evening in a quarter, all the men in a band, on a second, all the women, would meet; and on a third, both men and women together; that we might together
'eat bread,' as the ancient Christians did, 'with gladness and singleness of heart.' At these love feasts (so we termed them, retaining the name, as well as the thing, which was in use from the beginning) our food is only a little plain cake and water. But we seldom return from them without being fed, not only with the 'meat which perisheth,' but with 'that which endureth to everlasting life." ** Eating bread and drinking water together, the members spoke of their spiritual life, their trials and triumphs, their hopes and fears. Later, all members of the classes, not Zag The Discipline of Life merely the "select bands," were permitted to join in this observance.
The watch nights were outgrowths of a practice which seems to have sprung up spontaneously at Kingswood. A number of people frequently met at the school and spent the greater part of the night in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. 'Some advised me," wrote Wesley, "to put an end to this; but, upon weighing the thing thoroughly, and comparing it with the practice of the ancient Christians, I could see no cause to forbid it. Rather, I believed it might be made of more general use. So I sent them word, I designed to watch with them on the Friday nearest the full moon, that we might have light thither and back again. I gave public notice of this the Sunday before, and, withal, that I intended to preach; desiring they, and they only, would meet me there, who could do it without prejudice to their business or families. On Friday abundance of people came, began preaching between eight and nine and we continued till a little beyond the noon of night, singing, praying, and praising God." *° This was the general plan for later watch nights.
"We have often found a peculiar blessing at these seasons," wrote Wesléy. "There is generally a deep awe upon the congregation, perhaps in some measure owing to the silence of the night, particularly in singing the hymn, with which we commonly conclude:
Harken to the solemn voice, The awful midnight cry!
Waiting souls, rejoice, rejoice, — And feel the Bridegroom nigh." 36
John Wesley and Modern Religion To an objecting clergyman, Wesley's reply was:
"Sir, did you never see the word 'Vigil' in your Common-Prayer Book? Do you know what it means?
If not, permit me to tell you, that it was customary with the ancient Christians to spend whole nights in prayer; and that these nights were termed Vigilian, or Vigils. Therefore for spending a part of some nights in this manner, in public and solemn prayer, we have not only the authority of our own national Church, but of the universal Church, in the earliest ages." °"
Thus did Wesley invoke the authority of the Primitive Church for methods he thought useful in promoting and guiding the. devotional life of his followers. In all, his aim was to deepen the individual's sense of the love of God; but this could not be done without the use of means. '"'Why are we not more holy?" was one of the questions in the Large Minutes.
The answer was "Chiefly because we are enthusiasts; looking for the end, without using the means." To the eighteenth century this answer was more meaningful than it is to the reader to-day. Enthusiasm was, in their minds, associated with those sectaries of the Commonwealth who claimed to possess the Holy Spirit, who despised the Church and its ordinances and the slower and more prosaic methods which historic
Christianity had ordained for the nurture of the spiritual life. If the Methodist talked of being "filled with the Spirit," he did not mean—or, at least, Wesley did not intend for him to mean—anything that precluded the sober and time-honored means of grace.
CHAPTER X WESLEY'S DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH Ir Wesley strove to preserve discipline and method in religion, he also sought to keep his followers in the stream of Church life. In any discussion of Wesley's beliefs about the Church one must reckon with a confusion that is partly owing to the dust of controversy and partly to a failure to distinguish carefully Wesley's essential ideas. The student of Wesley will do well to have in mind the various forms which the corporate fellowship of Christians has taken in the West. Usually these are distinguished as episcopal, presbyterian, independent, and the like; but such definitions rest upon matters of organization rather than upon any deep-lying social differences.
The sociological divisions which have been made familiar to Western readers through the writings of Ernst Troeltsch offer a better basis for the study of Wesley's great experiment.
Troeltsch recognized three great types "'of the sociological development of Christian thought:" the Church, the sect, and mysticism. It is with the first
two that one has to do in considering Wesley, for he early repudiated mysticism. "The Church-type, to characterize very briefly Troeltsch's idea, attempts universality and uniformity. Its essence is its objective, institutional character, and it makes place
John Wesley and Modern Religion in the institution for various degrees of capacity and maturity. 'The Church is the great educator of the nations." To an extent, the Church compromises with the social order in which it exists. The secttype, on the other hand, aspires to "direct personal fellowship between the members of the group" and seeks for "'personal inward perfection." The sects are voluntary groups and small in comparison with the larger and supposedly universal institutions of the Church-type. Troeltsch believed that both types stem back into the New Testament; but the Churchtype emphasizes grace, while the sect-type tends to exalt the Law, as, for example, the Sermon on the Mount.
However much of a caricature of Troeltsch's elaborate discussion the above paragraph may be, perhaps it makes plain that there is a vital distinction between the two types of institutional expression. There is, of course, no thought of prejudgment by the use of the terms, "church" and "'sect."" While the latter name rose partly as a term of reproach, those groups which may be called sects, to distinguish the sociological type to which they belong, are granted by most liberal Christians to-day the right to be considered —
Christian churches as truly as any other. The nomenclature is only for the sake of preserving the distinctions between the ideals and structure of the two groups.
No one will deny that Wesley began as a High Churchman devoted to the Church of England. His father and mother were both of the same persuasion, and his brothers remained much the same throughout
Wesley's Doctrine of the Church ~ their lives. High Churchmanship, in the eighteenthcentury sense, let it be said again, was not a matter of ritualism. In 1755, when the question of separation from the Church of England was being hotly debated, Charles Wesley set forth his High Church views in the following lines:
Yet, while I warmly for her faith contend, Shall I her blots and blemishes defend?
Inventions added in a fatal hour, Human appendages of pomp and power Whatever shines in outward grandeur great, I give it up—a creature of the State!
Let others for the shape and colour fight, Of garments short or long, or black or white; Or, fairly matched, in furious battle join For and against the sponsors and the sign;
Copes, hoods, and surplices the Church miscall, And fiercely run their heads against the wall; Far different care is mine; o'er earth to see Diffused her true essential piety.?
The Churchmanship of the Wesleys in Oxford was the Churchmanship of the early eighteenth century, consisting of devotion to the Church, high ideas of passive obedience and the like, to which they added the ordering of their lives by what they conceived to have been the customs of the Early Church, especially in the observance of fasts and in ascetic practices.
In Oxford, Wesley had been led to prize the A postolic Constitutions as of the highest antiquity and authority. During part of his sojourn in America,
Wesley was studying the Constitutions and was much influenced by them until he decided that they were of later date than he had thought. But a study of these ga7 John Wesley and Modern Religion Constitutions of the fourth century reveal much which either directly influenced Wesley or was congruent with his beliefs at this time. According to the Constitutions, there were to be daily services, morning and evening, and fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays. 'The eucharist is spoken of as an "'unbloody' sacrifice," and baptism is the "'laver of regeneration."
Marriage of the clergy, while not forbidden, was restricted; and among those whom the clergy were forbidden to marry were servants and widows, a prohibition which may partly explain Charles' violent opposition to John's proposed marriage to Grace Murray and his actual marriage with Mrs. Vazeille. The threefold order of the ministry was taught, and it was expressly stated that presbyters were not permitted to ordain deacons, deaconesses or readers, not even singers or porters. All ordination was restricted to bishops.
In the Ecclesiastical or Apostolical Canons, which he also studied at this time, there are other points of belief which coincide with his position in Oxford and, largely, in America. 'Trine immersion is enjoined; the marriage of unmarried clergy forbidden; and the three orders uncompromisingly proclaimed. |
On the question of apostolic succession, Wesley at this time, held high views. It is unnecessary to illustrate this, since the fact is generally admitted. But it may be worth while to state more fully Wesley's position on the Lord's Supper and on baptism during this earlier period. In 1725, Wesley wrote his mother that he had always supposed "that when I communicated worthily, 7.e., with faith and humility, and —
Wesley's Doctrine of the Church thankfulness, my preceding sins were ipso facto forgiven me." To this his mother agreed, although her answer would indicate that she is thinking of repentance and the state of mind of the communicant rather than of communication itself. In Wesley's Forms of Prayer (1733), the prayer for Sunday evening thanks
God "for so often feeding my soul and body with thy most precious body and blood, those pledges of love, and sure conveyances of strength and comfort." '
The prayer for the communicant is that he may approach the altar with gifts of "humility, faith, hope, love, and all those holy dispositions which become the solemn remembrance of a crucified Saviour." The Lord's Supper was a real means of grace, but the emphasis is placed upon the disposition of the communicant in his solemn remembrance of the Lord's death.
On his voyage to America, Wesley was reading Brevint, probably, as his editor says, the preface concerning the Christian "Sacrament and Sacrifice," ° which the Wesleys later reprinted. "At the holy table,' wrote Brevint, "the people meet to worship
God, and God is present to meet and bless His people."
The Sacrament is a memorial, a sign of present graces, a means of grace, a pledge of future glory, a commemorative sacrifice, a sacrifice of ourselves and our goods. Brevint's position, which Wesley so far accepted as later to reprint it as a preface to Hymns on the Lord's Supper,® may be seen from a few short excerpts.
The Lord's Supper "is not a bare memorial only, but may actually convey as many blessings to me, as it brings curses on the profane receiver. Indeed, in John Wesley and Modern Religion what manner this is done I know not; it is enough for me to admire." 'This Victim having been offered up in the fulness of times, and in the midst of the world, which is Christ's great temple, and having been thence carried up to heaven, which is His sanctuary, from thence spreads salvation all around, as the * burnt-offering did its smoke. |And thus His body and blood have everywhere, but especially at this Sacraa ment, a true and real presence... . This great and holy mystery communicates to us the death of our blessed Lord, both as offering Himself to God, and as giving Himself to man. As He offered Himself to God, it enters me into that mystical body for which He died, and which is dead with Christ; yea, it sets me on the very shoulders of that eternal Priest, while
He offers up Himself and intercedes for His spiritual Israel. And by this means it conveys to me the communion of His sufferings, which leads to a communion in all His graces and glories. As He offers Himself to man, the holy Sacrament is, after the Sacrifice for sin, the true sacrifice of peace-offerings, and the table purposely set to receive those mercies that are sent down from His altar." 'Nevertheless, this sacrifice, which by a real oblation was not to be offered more than once, is by a devout and thankful commemoration to be offered up every day. ... And thus do we every day offer unto God the meritorious sufferings of our Lord, as the only sure ground whereon God may give, and we obtain, the blessings we pray for....
To men it is a sacred table, where God's minister is ordered to represent from God his Master the passion of His dear Son, as still fresh, and still powerful for Wesley's Doctrine of the Church their eternal salvation. And to God it is an altar, whereon men mystically present to Him the same ~ sacrifice, as still bleeding and sueing for mercy."
These lengthy quotations are necessary, since there is no doubt that they represent John Wesley's views before 1738. In the same way, numerous references attest his belief in baptismal regeneration. Here again, views expressed by another set forth clearly what he seems himself to have believed. In this instance the "'other" was his father. In 1700, Samuel
Wesley wrote a "Short Treatise on Baptism," and John published it with some abridgment.' Its general tenor is clear from a few quotations. 'The benefits received from baptism are "the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death''; entering into covenant with God; admission into the Church. "By baptism, we who are
'by nature children of wrath,' are made the children of God. And this regeneration which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith.... By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the Apostle, 'the washing of baptism.' Our Church therefore ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes itasacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness." 'The treatise further defends effusion as John Wesley and Modern Religion a mode—although the quantity of water used was said not to be material—and the baptism of infants.
This is high doctrine, indeed; but his doctrines, overstrained and highflying as some of them were, must not be allowed to cloud the essential beauty of his piety nor of his conception of the Church. Perhaps nowhere in his writings is there a phrase which more aptly sets forth his ideal of the Church than that which occurs in his Forms of Prayer, where he speaks of the Church as the "Catholic seminary of divine love." * The Church is a guide and support and, in a true sense, brings men into the presence of Christ.
It has been assumed by some writers on Methodism that the conviction which Wesley arrived at, about 1738, concerning salvation by faith, and his own heightened experience of the love of God changed his
High Church views and made him a liberal Churchman, if not a Dissenter at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. Five months after the Aldersgate experience, John and Charles Wesley had an interview with the Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson; and in that interview the Wesleys contended for the rebaptizing of those who had received Dissenters' baptism and were dissatisfied with it. The Bishop disapproved, having no liking for rebaptism and believing Dissenters' baptism valid. The next month
Charles called again on the Bishop and somewhat incensed that prelate by insisting on approval for rebaptism of a woman who had been baptized by a Dissenter.° December 30, 1745, seven and a half years after Aldersgate, Wesley wrote to his brother-in-law,
Wesley's Doctrine of the Church Wesley Hall, concerning the Church and ministry:
""We believe it would not be right for us to administer either baptism or the Lord's supper unless we had a commission so to do from those bishops whom we apprehend to be in succession from the Apostles. ...
We believe that the threefold order of ministers . . . is not only authorized by its apostolical institution, but also by the written Word." '° Three weeks after writing this letter, Wesley read the book which changed his opinions concerning the nature of the ministry in the Primitive Church; but the point'to be noticed here is that changed views of immediate communion with God or of faith did not compel new conceptions of the Church and ministry. The most that can be said is that increased emphasis upon faith tended to soften Wesley's zeal for institutional requirements, and association with non-Churchmen weakened his exclusiveness.
In many parishes, Methodists were excluded from the communion table. In others, the Methodists scrupled to receive the sacraments at the hands of men whom they believed ungodly. Some of the preachers insisted that they should have the right to administer the sacraments as well as to preach. The question of separation from the Church was becoming acute. In the Conference of 1744, the question,
"Do we separate from the Church?" was answered:
"Wedo not. We hold communion therewith for conscience sake, by constantly attending both the word preached, and the sacraments administered therein."
But already Wesley was forced to face the possibility that, after his death, the Methodists might secede John Wesley and Modern Religion from the Church. 'We are persuaded," runs the answer to Question 12, "the body of our hearers will even after our death remain in the Church, unless they be thrust out. We believe notwithstanding either that they will be thrust out, or that they will' leaven the whole Church. We do, and will do, all we can to prevent those consequences which are supposed likely to happen after our death. But we cannot with good conscience neglect the present opportunity of saving souls while we live, for fear of consequences which may possibly or probably happen after we are — dead"?
Already, by 1745, Wesley was defining schism as causeless breach, rupture, or division within the Church; and he declared the Methodists were no more guilty of this than they were of murder.'? This definition of schism helped Wesley, not only in defending the Methodists from the accusations of their enemies, but also for discussion of the legality of separation. He could not say that separation was illegal, if he regarded schism, not as the sin of leaving the Church, but as raising needless divisions within the Church.
By 1755, the situation was tense. Charles was in a state of excitement that vented itself in letters to all and sundry. He confided to a close friend that he was doubtful of his brother. The preachers, he feared, would overpersuade John.'* Already Charles and John were disputing whether ordination meant separation.
John said, "No"; Charles, "Yes." The preachers were, indeed, pressing Wesley hard; and, in Septem- — ber, 1755, he wrote to the Rev. Samuel Walker that \ Wesley's Doctrine of the Church some of the arguments put forth he could not answer.
The arguments were, that the preachers could not confine themselves to the Liturgy, and that there were several things in the Book of Common Prayer which seemed contrary to Scripture. Besides, the laws of the Church were in part papistical. Finally, many of the ministers of the Established Church were not sent of God, and their doctrines were subversive to the gospel. Wesley confessed that he could not at that time answer to his own satisfaction, and that his decision to remain in the Church rested on no good premises—a terrible condition for a logician. But he insisted that the essence of the Church to him was not in her orders and laws but in her doctrines and worship.**
It is not necessary to follow the controversy over separation, which recurred again and again; for the present it is enough to note that Wesley was arriving at a definition of the Church. Already, in his Earnest
Appeal, he had said that the Church is visibly joined "by assembling together to hear His word and partake of His supper." And Wesley interpreted the XIXth
Article of Faith as defining the visible Church of England by three essentials: (1) living faith; (2) preaching, and consequently hearing the pure word of God; (3) a due administration of the sacraments, "the ordinary means whereby God increaseth faith."
According to Wesley, the Church visible is defined not by Catholic but by Protestant standards. The Church is to promote faith, but its essentials are doctrine and worship. But Wesley's growing tolerance was too much even for a strict adherence to the deJohn Wesley and Modern Religion mand for "pure" doctrine or for unsullied worship.
In his old age, he admitted that he could not defend the Article altogether. To do so would be to declare the Church of Rome not even a part of the Catholic
Church. "Whoever they are that have 'one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of all,' I can easily bear with their holding wrong opinions, yea, and superstitious modes of worship.
Nor would I, on these accounts, scruple still to include them within the pale of the catholic Church; neither would I have any objection to receive them, if they desired it, as members of the Church of England." '®
As early as 1755, Wesley declared that he who has no assurance that his sins are forgiven may have "'a kind or degree of faith which distinguishes him not only from a devil but also from an heathen"; and he added that, on this faith, he might "admit him to the Lord's
Supper." '7 The Church was distinguished by doctrine and worship, but the terms were inclusive, not exclusive.
Wesley did not intend that his Methodist societies should be taken for a church. When Troeltsch wrote that Methodism "'belonged essentially to the sect-type and not to the church-type, in spite of its earnest desire to remain inside the Established Church," he was thinking of the Methodist Societies and not of Wesley's own ideal for them. Canon Overton once wrote: "It is a purely modern notion that the Wesleyan movement ever was, or ever was intended to be, except by Wesley—a Church movement." ?® But Overton's exception is just the point: Wesley did intend his movement to be a Church movement. Unless
Wesley's Doctrine of the Church his repeated statements, repeated for fifty years, are to be set down as sentimental maunderings, the conclusion is not to be avoided that he wished his societies to be societies within the Church. He came to prefer the simplicity of Methodist meetings to the drawlings of clerks and the unedifying sermons of unawakened clergymen; but he insisted that Methodist services were purposely designed of to be worship, as that term is understood technically. The Methodist service was worship, "but not such as supersedes the Church Service; it presupposes public prayer, like the sermons at the University. If it were designed to be instead of the Church Service, it would be essentially defective; for it seldom has the four grand parts of public prayer, deprecation, petition, intercession, and thanksgiving." *° Tyerman thought Wesley was wrong in insisting on short prayers in Methodist services, but he understood that Wesley required this because the services did not supersede but presupposed the public prayer of the Church.
No one supposes that Wesley contemplated the existence of two types of church organization, the church-type and the sect-type, as sociological institutions, and deliberately set about their combination.
But, in the face of the evidence, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that Wesley did deliberately seek to combine the qualities of an individualistic, intense religious piety, best attainable at its highest in a voluntary society, with those qualities characteristic of the Church. That this did not endure in England after Wesley's death, was doubtless inevitable; but its failure should not obscure the Founder's dream.
John Wesley and Modern Religion That this was Wesley's ideal was shown plainly in the setting up of the Methodist Church in America.
Whatever may be said of his ordinations, this much is sure: Wesley deliberately inaugurated a Church in America. Unquestionably the American Methodists departed from Wesley's wishes in this respect, but he intended to provide for the continuation of Church life for those who could no longer enjoy this under the English Establishment. His purpose was plainly expressed in his certificate to Dr. Coke. He would take care of those who wished "to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England" and who "are greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, according to the usage of the said Church." ?* In other words, since the mark of union with a Church, according to Wesley, is unity of doctrine and worship, he was providing for just that. To accomplish this further,
Wesley issued what he called an "edition" of the Prayer Book, abridged and renamed "'Sunday Service."
Just as in England he had tried to retain his followers — as members of a religious society within the Church, so in America he designed the continuance of Church life according to the doctrines and worship of the Church of England, although not in dependence upon English bishops, and with such changes in Articles and Liturgy as seemed necessary in view of American conditions. | Wesley's belief in the Church is evidenced also by his continued belief in the importance of the sacraments. In one who insisted so much that the visible
Wesley's Doctrine of the Church Church is a company of faithful men, and who believed so heartily in regeneration, the retention of infant baptism is, at first thought, inconsistent. But Wesley never believed baptism a mere ceremony. He noted that faith was given to some of his converts when he baptized them; and he had regard for that "inward grace, which is supposed by our Church to be given with and through that sign to all infants." ??
His father's tract which was quoted to illustrate Wesley's views on baptism before 1738, was published by Wesley in 1756; and there is no indication that Wesley then disagreed with it. Indeed, the tract was printed without any note that it was a reprint of his father's treatise. There is some indication that Wesley modified his views in later years. In Sermon XXXIX, he declared it to be certain that "our Church" supposes all baptized in infancy to be at the same time born again. 'Nor is it an objection of any weight against this," he added, "that we cannot comprehend how this work can be wrought in infants. For neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in a person of mature years." Sugden thinks that his further statement may indicate some hesitation: ""Whatever be the case with infants, it is sure all of riper years who are baptized are not at the same time born again." ** In Wesley's
Sunday Service, which he prepared for the American Church, the service is abridged, and there are two significant omissions. In the minister's closing exhortation to thankful prayer, he is to say: 'Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is grafted into the body of Christ's Church," instead of "regenerate and grafted" as the Prayer Book has it.
John Wesley and Modern Religion Also in the Thanksgiving prayer, "that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption" has been changed to read: "that it hath pleased thee to receive this Infant for thine own Child by adoption."
But the change was not thorough, for Wesley retained the prayers "'to sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin," and "that he may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration." Wesley wavered as to baptismal regeneration, but he continued to regard the sacrament of baptism as a conferring of grace.
Whatever Wesley's views on baptism, his interests were not centered there. Baptism was a rite already performed so far as most of his hearers were concerned. The Lord's Supper was on a different footing.
There is the less need for details here, since Dr. Rattenbury has an excellent exposition of Wesley's views accessible to readers in Wesley's Legacy to the World.** It is necessary only to make clear the general nature of Wesley's views throughout his evangelical ministry.
To understand Wesley's high conception of the Lord's Supper one must keep in mind his discussion of the means of grace in his sermon on that subject, which is included in the Standard Sermons." There are, says Wesley, means which are ordained of God asas. the usual channels of His grace. "These means ; Wesley understood to be "outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby He might convey to man, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace." The Wesley's Doctrine of the Church words which he uses are from the Prayer Book. The chief of these means are prayer, searching the Scriptures, receiving the Lord's Supper; but their value depends upon their subservience to the end of religion.
"Use all means as means.... not for their own sake, but in order to the renewal of your soul in righteousness and true holiness." 'There is in them no intrinsic power whatsoever. In this spirit one should partake of the Lord's Supper, for in this "ye openly exhibit the same by these visible signs, before God and angels, and men; ye manifest your solemn remembrance of His death, till He cometh in the clouds of heaven."
Eating | of that bread and drinking of that cup are "the» outward, visible means whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joyin the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken, and the blood of Christ once shed for us."
In 1745, John and Charles Wesley published their Hymns on the Lord's Supper, signing themselves "Presbyters of the Church of England" and prefixing as a preface extracts from Dr. Brevint on "The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice." ?* Thus the book which John Wesley read on his way to America was reprinted with hymns arranged under the various divisions of the Preface. The communicant was to expect the presence of Christ at the sacrament:
In Thy ordinance appear, Come and meet Thy followers here.
Sinner, with awe draw near, And find thy Saviour here.
25] John Wesley and Modern Religion The Lord's Supper is the supreme rite in which the recipient may expect the grace of God:
Fasting He doth, and hearing bless, And prayer can much avail, Good vessels all to draw the grace Out of salvation's well.
But none like this mysterious rite Which dying mercy gave, Can draw forth all His promised might And all His will to save.
Certainly the manner of this conveying of grace is mysterious, but the Wesleys reject any suggestion of materialism in the sacrament:
These the virtue did convey, Yet still remains the same.
Who shall say how bread and wine God into man conveys!
In a real sense, the Lord's Supper is a showing forth of Christ's death, not only to men, but to God.
Father, let the sinner go, The Lamb did once atone, Lo! we to Thy justice show The passion of Thy Son.
And in this sense the Eucharist is a sacrifice, a commemorative sacrifice.
The death Thou never canst repeat, Once offer'd up to die no more.
Wesley's Doctrine of the Church Yet may we celebrate below, And daily thus Thine offering show Exposed before Thy Father's eyes; In this tremendous mystery Present Thee bleeding on a tree, Our everlasting Sacrifice.
But not only is the sacrament a commemorative sacrifice before God, but it is a sacrifice of man himself and of all that he has.
Take my soul and body's powers, : Take my memory, mind, and will, All my goods, and all my hours, All I know, and all I feel, All I think, and speak, and do; Take my heart—but make it new.
These quotations will give some idea of the Wesleys' hymns for the Lord's Supper. It should be plain from these that the doctrine was not Roman but evangelical, in the best sense of the word, and true to the highest type of Anglican piety. Wesley makes several claims for the sacrament. In the first place, it is commanded. It is also, as the Reformers thought, a preaching of the gospel. But the sacrament is a real means of grace; the recipient is to take it in faith that the Lord will fulfil his promises and confer upon the true worshiper "'that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken, and the blood of Christ once shed for us." 7"
Thinking of the Lord's Supper as at the heart of Christian worship, Wesley also regarded it as peculiarly fitted for those who can truly say, "the rememJohn Wesley and Modern Religion brance of our sins is grievous unto us." "In latter times," he wrote, "many have affirmed that the Lord's
Supper is not a converting, but a confirming ordinance. And among us it has been diligently taught that none but those who are converted, who have received the Holy Ghost, who are believers in the full sense, ought to communicate. But experience shows the gross falsehood of that assertion that the Lord's
Supper is not a converting ordinance. Ye are the witnesses. For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to God (perhaps, in some, the first deep conviction) was wrought at the Lord's Supper." ?* Or, as he put it again: "'no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness."
These hymns were published in 1745, and the statements just quoted were made in 1740. That essentially these opinions were retained by Wesley throughout his ministry is evident from his publishing in 1788 a which he had written for his pupils in Oxford in 1733.
In this sermon he declares the Lord's Supper to entail as benefits: "the forgiveness of our past sins, the present strengthening and refreshing of our souls." And he lays upon sinners especially the necessity of coming to the Communion: "what surer way have we of procuring pardon from him, than the showing forth the Lord's death; and beseeching him, for the sake of his Son's sufferings, to blot out all our sins?" By practice and precept, Wesley urged his people to attend the Lord's Supper. In 1764, in the midst of his work, he advised the societies at Bristol to lose no opportuWesley's Doctrine of the Church nities of receiving the sacrament. All who neglected it suffered loss; most of them had become '"'dead as stones." °° Three years before he died, he wrote to one of his preachers concerning a young man who neglected this sacrament, that, "if he obstinately persists in that neglect, you can't give him any more tickets for our society."*! 'The Church and the Sacraments" was not a rallying cry but an expression of Wesley's unwavering devotion to the visible symbols and means of the ever-present and ever-active grace of God.
It is evident, then, that to Wesley the esse of a visible Church is the possession of doctrines and sacra~ ments: for a visible Church is a congregation of faithful men, "in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." Because of this definition, Wesley contended, until his death, that he had not separated from the Church of England: he held to what he considered to be the essentials of Anglican doctrine; and he worshiped, whenever possible, in communion with the Church of England.
Although he had not in everything obeyed the bishops, he had remained in communion with the Church and he held her doctrines. Whether such a definition and such a defense are in themselves defensible is not now the question. Undoubtedly Wesley so believed.
But while Wesley believed the esse of the Church to be doctrine and worship, of which the sacrament pf the Lord's Supper was a central part, he did not despise the outward government of the Church. This
Zo9 John Wesley and Modern Religion belonged to the bene esse of the Church, and even — after he had become convinced that there was no one form of church government required in Scripture, he yet retained his belief in the wisdom and expediency of the government of the Church of England.
Wesley had not come easily by his change in belief concerning church government. As late as '1745, as has been seen, he held to his High Church views that three orders of the ministry were required by Scripture and by the practice and teaching of the Primitive
Church. With more ingenuity than reason, he had defended his preaching throughout the kingdom on ~ the ground that he had, in ordination, received '"'an indelible character" which gave him power to preach and to administer the sacraments without regard to parish boundaries. 'The Moravians were novel and unprimitive in their church discipline, it seemed to him, because their bishops were "mere shadows," and were so named only to please those who lay stress upon the ""Threefold Order." The Moravian ordination seemed, to him, evidence that they looked upon episcopal ordination as nothing. These objections
Wesley listed, in a letter to the church at Herrnhut, as among those things "which seem not agreeable to © ' the gospel of Christ." °" a Such firmly held opinions, which were agreeable to him by reason of his High Church upbringing, were — little affected by his belief that conscious fellowship — with God is the privilege of all Christians or by his — own experience in Aldersgate Street. But the opin- — ions could not hold against what he took to be cogent —
Wesley's Doctrine of the Church argument. The Man of Reason was as real as the Churchman or the Saint in Wesley. In 1746, he read
Chancellor King's book on the constitution of the Primitive Church and was thereby convinced that bishops and presbyters, or elders, are of the same order
"and consequently have the same right to ordain."
This is, of course, a direct denial of the claim that episcopal government wherein the bishops alone can ordain is by divine right. This view was confirmed to Wesley by reading Stillingfleet's Irenicon. Of the latter he wrote, in 1756: "I think he has unanswerably proved that neither Christ nor His Apostles prescribed any particular form of Church government, and that the plea for the divine right of Episcopacy was never heard of in the _ primitive nicch,"'.** Such a position may be thought by modern readers to have been a greater innovation in the eighteenth century than it really was. Nineteenth-century controversies have tended to slur over the fact that many of the great names of the English Church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, to say nothing of | the eighteenth, can be cited for this very doctrine concerning episcopacy. For this matter, no less than
St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century can be quoted for the view that the episcopate is not a distinct order; and with him agreed most of the schoolmen.** It was Archbishop Ussher who an- -swered Charles the First's question as to whether aeercrs ini the Ancient Church ordained, by saying: "I can shew your Majesty more, even where