1740.

1740.

1740.

THE Moravian wranglings brought Wesley to the metropolis in 1739; and, on the 3rd of January following, he left his friends, still “subverting one another’s souls by idle controversies and strife of words;” and came to Bristol on January 9.

Here he purposed to remain; but within a month he was back to London. A young surgeon, of the name of Snowde, had met in Bristol a man of the name of Ramsey, who in a state of destitution and distress had applied to Wesley for relief. Wesley employed him in writing and in keeping accounts for him, and afterwards in teaching a school instituted by the Bristol society. Ramsey brought the young surgeon to hear Wesley preach. Both were rascals, and availed themselves of an opportunity of stealing £30 that had been collected towards building Kingswood school. Snowde went off to London; fell in with his old acquaintance; committed highway robbery; was arrested, tried, and condemned to die. While in Newgate, awaiting the execution of his sentence, he wrote to a friend, adjuring Wesley, “by the living God,” to come and see him before his death. Wesley, who had been robbed so sacrilegiously, started off, on a journey of more than two hundred miles, purposely to visit the convict thief. He found him apparently penitent, and having only a week to live. On the day before his sentence was to be executed, the poor creature wrote:—“I trust God has forgiven me all my sins, washing them away in the blood of the Lamb.” Next morning a reprieve was sent, and, six weeks afterwards, he was ordered for transportation. Whether Wesley assisted in obtaining the commutation of his sentence we have no means of knowing; but as soon as the affair was settled he returned to Bristol; where, with the exception of a brief interval of about a week’s duration, he continued until the month of June. The rest of the year, excepting about three weeks, was spent in London.

In Bristol, the work, in its outward aspects, was greatly altered. Wesley writes:—“Convictions sink deeper and deeper; love and joy are more calm, even, and steady.”

Still there were a few instances similar to those that had occurred in the previous year. On January 13, while he was administering the sacrament at the house of a sick person in Kingswood, a woman “sunk down as dead.” A week after, she was “filled with the love of God, and with all peace and joy in believing.” On January 24, after he had preached in Bristol, another woman caught hold of him, crying:—“I have sinned beyond forgiveness. I have been cursing you in my heart, and blaspheming God. I am damned; I know it; I feel it; I am in hell; I have hell in my heart.” On April 3, the congregations in Bristol were remarkably visited; and “the cries of desire, joy, and love were on every side.” Five weeks after, another phase of excitement was presented. The people began to laugh; and, though it was a great grief to them, the laughing spirit was stronger than they were able to resist. One woman, who was known to be no dissembler, “sometimes laughed till she was almost strangled; then she broke out into cursing and blaspheming; then stamped and struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could scarce hold her; then cried out, ‘O eternity, eternity! O that I had no soul! O that I had never been born!’ At last, she faintly called on Christ to help her,” and her excitement ceased. Most of the society were convinced, that those who laughed had no power to help it; but there were two exceptions: Elizabeth B—— and Anne H——. At length, says Wesley, “God suffered Satan to teach them better. Both of them were suddenly seized in the same manner as the rest, and laughed whether they would or no, almost without ceasing. Thus they continued for two days, a spectacle to all; and were then, upon prayer made for them, delivered in a moment.”

What are we to think of this? Wesley attributes it to Satan, and, in confirmation of his opinion, recites an instance which had occurred in his own history while at Oxford. According to their custom on Sundays, he and his brother Charles were walking in the meadows, singing psalms, when all at once Charles burst into a loud fit of laughter. Wesley writes:—“I asked him if he was distracted; and began to be angry. But presently I began to laugh as loud as he; nor could we possibly refrain, though we were ready to tear ourselves in pieces. We were forced to go home without singing another line.”

Amidst all this, however, there were happy deaths at Bristol. Margaret Thomas died in the highest triumph of faith, her will swallowed up in the will of God, and her hope full of immortality. And one of the Kingswood converts “longed to be dissolved and to be with Christ;” some of her last words being, “I know His arms are round me; for His arms are like the rainbow, they go round heaven and earth.” These were among the first Methodists that entered heaven; and, no doubt, it was deaths like theirs which prompted not a few of the triumphant funereal hymns that gushed so exultingly from the poetic soul of Wesley’s brother.

The New Room at Bristol, as the first Methodist meeting-house was called, was now opened. Wesley expounded and preached daily, choosing for exposition the Acts of the Apostles, and for sermons the greatest texts of the New Testament. He was also one of the most active of philanthropists. The severity of the frost in January threw hundreds out of work, and reduced them to a state bordering on starvation; but Wesley made collections, and fed a hundred, and sometimes a hundred and fifty, hungry wretches in a day. He visited Bristol Bridewell, and tried to benefit and to comfort poor prisoners, till the commanding officer gave strict orders that neither Wesley nor any of his followers should in future be admitted, because he and they were all atheists. Of these same Bristol “atheists,” Wesley himself writes, “They were indeed as little children, not artful, not wise in their own eyes, not doting on controversy and strife of words; but truly determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” Such they were when Wesley left them at the beginning of the month of June; and such his brother found them. “O what simplicity,” remarks Charles Wesley, “is in this childlike people! O that our London brethren would come to school at Kingswood! These are what they pretend to be. God knows their poverty; but they are rich.”

Unfortunately broils generally broke out where Charles was pastor. This was his affliction, if not his fault. Before June was ended, he began to “rebuke sharply” some who thought themselves elect. He also read his journal to the bands “as an antidote to stillness.” When some of the people cried out, he “bade them to be quiet.” He reproved Hannah Barrow before the assembled society at Kingswood; and exercised discipline upon others. All this might be proper and expedient; but it was evidently of little use; for, when his brother returned to Bristol on September 1, his first sermon was addressed to backsliders. He met with one who had become wise far above what is written; and another who had been lifted up with the abundance of joy God had given her, and had fallen into blasphemies and vain imaginations. Later in the year, he found many “lame and turned out of the way.” There were “jealousies and misunderstandings.” There had been a Kingswood riot, on account of the dearness of corn. Charles Wesley rushed into the midst of it, and, finding a number of his converted colliers, who had been forced to join the disturbers of the public peace, he “gleaned a few from every company,” and “marched with them singing to the school,” where they held a two hours’ prayer-meeting, that God would chain the lion. He had to warn the people against apostasy. Some could not refrain from railing. John Cennick, in December, told Wesley that he was not able to agree with him, because he failed to preach the truth respecting election. The predestinarians formed themselves into a party, “to have a church within themselves, and to give themselves the sacrament in bread and water.” So that when Wesley, on December 26, went to Kingswood, in order to preach at the usual hour, there was not more than half-a-dozen of the Kingswood people to hear him, all the others having become the followers of Calvinistic Cennick.

There were other troubles in Bristol, in 1740. After several disturbances in the month of March, the mob, on the 1st of April, filled the street and court and alleys round the place where Wesley was expounding, and shouted, cursed, and swore most fearfully. A number of the rioters were arrested; and, within a fortnight, one of them had hanged himself; a second was seized with serious illness, and sent to desire Wesley’s prayers; and a third came to him, confessing that he had been hired and made drunk to create disturbance, but, on coming to the place, found himself deprived of speech and power.

Concurrent with this unpleasantness, other parties used their utmost endeavours to prejudice the mind of Howel Harris, gleaning up idle stories concerning Wesley, and retailing them in Wales. “And yet these,” says Wesley, “are good Christians! these whisperers, talebearers, backbiters, evil speakers! Just such Christians as murderers or adulterers!” The curate of Penreul averred, upon his personal knowledge, that Wesley was a papist. Another man, a popish priest named Beon, while Wesley was preaching in Bristol, cried out, “Thou art a hypocrite, a devil, an enemy to the Church. This is false doctrine. It is not the doctrine of the Church. It is damnable doctrine. It is the doctrine of devils.” At Upton, the bells were rung to drown his voice. At Temple church, the converted colliers, and even Wesley’s brother Charles, were repelled from the sacramental table, and threatened with arrest. William Seward, the friend and travelling companion of George Whitefield, came to Bristol, and renounced the friendship of the two Wesleys, “in bitter words of hatred;” and Mr. Tucker preached against them, and condemned their irregularities in reforming and converting men.

So much respecting Bristol: let us turn to London. For the first five months, in 1740, Charles Wesley was the pastor of the London Moravians and Methodists, but conjoined with him was Philip Henry Molther, who was the Moravian favourite.

Molther was a native of Alsace, and a divinity student in the university of Jena. In 1737, he became the private tutor of Zinzendorf’s only son, and instructed him in French and music. On the 18th of October, 1739, he arrived in London, on his way to Pennsylvania. Bohler had left England; and the society in Fetter Lane was under the care of the two Wesleys. Being an ordained Moravian minister, the people were anxious to hear Molther preach. At first, he spoke to them in Latin, with the help of an interpreter; but shortly was able to make himself understood in English. He was not satisfied with the Fetter Lane Moravians, for, says he, they had “adopted many most extraordinary usages.” The first time he entered their meeting, he was alarmed and almost terror stricken at “their sighing and groaning, their whining and howling, which strange proceeding they called the demonstration of the Spirit of power.” Molther, however, soon became extremely popular. Not only was the meeting-house in Fetter Lane filled with hearers, but the courtyard as well. Within a fortnight after his arrival, Wesley came from Bristol, “and the first person he met with was one whom he had left strong in faith, and zealous of good works; but who now told him, that Molther had fully convinced her she never had any faith at all, and had advised her, till she received faith, to be still, ceasing from outward works.” This was on November 1; and what followed, to the end of 1739, has been related already.

In January, 1740, Molther requested Wesley to furnish him with a translation of a German hymn; and the magnificent one beginning, “Now I have found the ground wherein,” was the result. For this, Molther, in a letter dated January 25, 1740, thanks the translator, and says, “I like it better than any other hymn I have seen in English.” He then adds:—

“My dear Brother,—I love you with a real love in the wounds of my Redeemer; and whenever I remember England, and the labourers in the kingdom of our Saviour therein, you come in my mind; and I can but pray our Lord, that He may open to you the hidden treasures of the mysteries of the gospel, which, as I have seen by two of your discourses, you want to know and to experience a little more in its depths. It is a blessed thing to preach out of that fulness, and by experimental notions of the blood of Christ. If you seek for this as an empty, poor sinner, it undoubtedly will be given you, because it is only for such; and when we cannot reach it with our desires, we may surely believe that our hearts are not empty vessels. This is a very great and important thing, and a mystery as well as all other things, unless the Lord hath revealed them unto us. I wish that our Saviour, for His own sake, may give you an entire satisfaction in this matter, and fill up your heart with a solid knowledge of His bloody atonement. My love to your brother Charles and all your brethren. I am your affectionate and unworthy brother,

“P. H. Molther.”

From this vague and misty epistle, it is evident that the views of Molther were not entertained by Wesley. For this we are thankful. Who can tell what is meant by loving a man “in the wounds of the Redeemer”? and by having the heart filled “up with a solid knowledge of His bloody atonement”? With all his imperfections, Wesley had learned to express his ideas in language much preferable to this.

Molther remained in the metropolis till about September, 1740, when, instead of proceeding to Pennsylvania as he intended, he was recalled to Germany. During this ten months‘residence, his diligence was exemplary, but its results disastrous. In the daytime, he visited from house to house. At nights, he met the bands, and often preached. James Hutton, in a letter to Zinzendorf, dated March 14, 1740, writes:—

“Most beloved Bishop and Brother,—

“My heart is poor, and I feel continually, that the blood of Christ will be a great gift, when I can obtain it to overstream my heart.

“At London, Molther preaches four times a week in English to great numbers; and, from morning till night, he is engaged in conversing with the souls, and labouring to bring them into better order. They get a great confidence towards him, and many of them began to be in great sorrow when they expected him to be about to go away. I humbly beg you would leave him with us, some time longer at the least. He continues very simple, and improves exceedingly in the English language. The souls are exceedingly thirsty, and hang on his words. He has had many blessings. The false foundation many had made has been discovered, and now speedily the one only foundation, Christ Jesus, will be laid in many souls.

“John Wesley, being resolved to do all things himself, and having told many souls that they were justified, who have since discovered themselves to be otherwise, and having mixed the works of the law with the gospel as means of grace, is at enmity against the Brethren. Envy is not extinct in him. His heroes falling every day almost into poor sinners, frightens him; but, at London, the spirit of the Brethren prevails against him. In a conference lately, where he was speaking that souls ought to go to church as often as they could, I besought him to be easy and not disturb himself, and I would go to church as often as he would meet me there; but he would not insist on it. He seeks occasion against the Brethren, but I hope he will find none in us. I desired him simply to keep to his office in the body of Christ, i.e. to awaken souls in preaching, but not to pretend to lead them to Christ. But he will have the glory of doing all things. I fear, by-and-by, he will be an open enemy of Christ and His church. His brother Charles is coming to London, determined to oppose all such as shall not use the means of grace, after his sense of them. I am determined to be still. I will let our Saviour govern this whirlwind. Both John Wesley and Charles are dangerous snares to many young women. Several are in love with them. I wish they were married to some good sisters; though I would not give them one of mine, even if I had many.

“In Yorkshire, Ingham and W. Delamotte are united to the Brethren. Some thousand souls are awakened. They are a very simple people. Some months will be necessary to bring them into order, and Toltschig will not hurry as we Englishmen do.

“At Oxford, some good souls at first could not be reconciled with lay teaching, stillness, etc.; but now some will come to Christ. About six are in a fine way. Fifty, or thereabouts, come to hear Viney three times a week, and he gets their hearts more and more. He is poor in spirit, and gradually returns to first principles.

“At Bristol, the souls are wholly under C. Wesley, who leads them into many things, which they will find a difficulty to come out of; for, at present, I believe, it will not be possible to help them. First their leader must feel his heart, or the souls must find him out.

“In Wales, some thousands are stirred up. They are an exceedingly simple and honest people, but they are taught the Calvinistic scheme. However, the young man, Howel Harris, who has been the great instrument in this work, is very teachable and humble, and loves the Brethren.

“My father and mother are in the same state, or rather in a worse. My sister is much worse than ever. But, when grace can be received, they will be blessed instruments, and bring great glory to Him in whose heart’s blood I desire to be washed.

“I am your poor, yet loving brother, and the congregation’s child,

“James Hutton.”

This is a long, loose letter; but important, as descriptive of the Wesleys and of the work of God in general, from the standpoint of the Moravians. They evidently thought themselves the prime, if not the only, instruments in the present great revival; and this, excepting Scotland, Wales, and Bristol, to a great extent, was true. The work they had already done and contemplated was marvellous. A curious letter, dated December, 1739, is published in Doddridge’s Diary and Correspondence, vol. iii., p. 265, in which Zinzendorf addresses Doddridge as “the very reverend man, much beloved in the bowels of the blessed Redeemer, pastor of Northampton, and vigilant theologian.” Recounting the triumphs of the gospel, he tells the Northampton pastor that Switzerland has heard the truth; Greenland resounds with the gospel; thirty Caffrarians had been baptized; and a thousand negroes in the West Indies. Savannah, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Berbice, and Surinam were expecting fruit; ten or fifteen heathen tribes in Virginia were about to be visited; Ceylon and Lapland had both been reached; the gospel was being preached in Russia; Wallachia was succoured; Constantinople was blessed; through the whole of Germany the churches were preparing for Christ; and the Brethren were about to go to the East Indies, to Persian Magi, and to New York savages. All this had been done within the last twenty years. The Moravians, like a hive of bees, were all workers. By the grace of God, they had accomplished wonders; and yet, in London at least, through false teaching, they were in danger of being wrecked. The Wesleys tried to keep them right; but, in doing so, incurred censure instead of receiving thanks. A long extract from one of James Hutton’s letters has just been given; and another must be added. He writes:—

“John Wesley, displeased at not being thought so much of as formerly, and offended with the easy way of salvation as taught by the Brethren, publicly spoke against our doctrines in his sermons, and his friends did the same. In June, 1740, he formed his Foundery society, in opposition to the one which met at Fetter Lane, and which had become a Moravian society. Many of our usual hearers consequently left us, especially the females. We asked his forgiveness, if in anything we had aggrieved him, but he continued full of wrath, accusing the Brethren that they, by dwelling exclusively on the doctrine of faith, neglected the law, and zeal for sanctification. In short, he became our declared opponent, and the two societies of the Brethren and Methodists thenceforward were separated, and became independent of each other.”

This is a painful subject; and hitherto, by both Moravian and Methodist historians, has been touched with a tender hand; but men have a right to know the foibles and follies of the good and great, as well as the virtues and victories for which they have been wreathed with honour. Besides, the recent publication of the memoirs of James Hutton renders it requisite that something more should be said respecting the squabbles of 1740.

In the extracts just given, Hutton accuses Wesley of telling men that they were justified when they were not; of envy; of being at enmity against the Moravians; of being able to awaken sinners, but not to lead them to the Saviour; of being a dangerous snare to young females; and of being displeased at the decline of his popularity, and offended with the Brethren’s easy method of salvation. Is all this true? Let us see. The Moravian statements have been given with the utmost honesty; let the reader take the Methodist statements on the other side.

Be it borne in mind, that Wesley was one of the original members of the Fetter Lane society, founded on the 1st of May, 1738; whereas Molther was first introduced among them in the month of October, 1739. Uneasiness and cavils sprung up immediately after Molther’s arrival; and, before the year was ended, Wesley had to come twice from Bristol to try to check germinating evils, and to put wrong things right.

On New Year’s day, 1740, he writes: “I endeavoured to explain to our brethren the true, Christian, scriptural stillness, by largely unfolding these words, ‘Be still, and know that I am God.’” The day after, he “earnestly besought them to ‘stand in the old paths.’ They all seemed convinced, and cried to God to heal their backslidings.” Wesley adds: “He sent forth such a spirit of peace and love, as we had not known for many months before.” Next day, January 3, Wesley set out for Bristol, and returned a month afterwards. He now found his old friends pleading for “a reservedness and closeness of conversation,” which perplexed him. He was told that “many of them, not content with leaving off the ordinances of God themselves, were continually troubling those that did not, and disputing with them, whether they would or no.” He “expostulated with them, and besought them to refrain from perplexing the minds of those who still waited for God in the ways of His own appointment.”

Thus he left them on the 3rd of March. Meanwhile, “poor perverted Mr. Simpson” declared to Charles Wesley, that no good was to be got by what he called the means of grace, neither was there any obligation to use them; and that most of the Brethren had cast them off. Charles, accompanied by Thomas Maxfield, called on Molther, who talked “against running after ordinances. They parted as they met, without prayer or singing; for the time for such exercises was past.” Maxfield was scandalized, and Charles Wesley foresaw that a separation was unavoidable. On Easter day, when preaching at the Foundery, he appealed to the society, and asked, “Who hath bewitched you, that you should let go your Saviour, and deny you ever knew Him?” A burst of sorrow followed; but, on going to Mr. Bowers’, in the evening, to meet the bands, the door was shut against him; and proceeding to Mr. Bray’s, the brazier, he was threatened with expulsion from the Moravian society. The day after, at Fetter Lane, Simpson reproved him for mentioning himself in preaching, and for preaching up the ordinances. He answered, that he should not ask him, or any of the Brethren, how an ambassador of Christ should preach. He adds: “I went home, weary, wounded, bruised, and faint, through the contradiction of sinners; poor sinners, as they call themselves,—these heady, violent, fierce contenders for stillness. I could not bear the thought of meeting them again.” Simpson said, “‘No soul can be washed in the blood of Christ, unless it first be brought to one in whom Christ is fully formed. But there are only two such ministers in London, Bell and Molther.’ Is not this robbing Christ of His glory, and making His creature necessary to Him in His peculiar work of salvation? First perish Molther, Bell, and all mankind, and sink into nothing, that Christ may be all in all. A new commandment, called ‘stillness,’ has repealed all God’s commandments, and given a full indulgence to corrupted nature. The still ones rage against me; for my brother, they say, had consented to their pulling down the ordinances, and here come I, and build them up again.”

During the week, Simpson called upon Charles Wesley, and “laid down his two postulatums:—1. The ordinances are not commands. 2. It is impossible to doubt after justification.” In a society meeting, at the Foundery, he further stated that “no unjustified person ought to receive the sacrament; for, doing so, he ate and drank his own damnation;” and J. Bray declared, that it was “impossible for any one to be a true Christian out of the Moravian church.”

Simpson wrote to Wesley wishing him to return to London; and, on April 23, he came, and found confusion worse confounded than ever. “Believers,” said Simpson, “are not subject to ordinances; and unbelievers have nothing to do with them. They ought to be still; otherwise they will be unbelievers as long as they live.” Wesley writes: “After a fruitless dispute of about two hours, I returned home with a heavy heart. In the evening, our society met; but it was cold, weary, heartless, dead. I found nothing of brotherly love among them now; but a harsh, dry, heavy, stupid spirit. For two hours, they looked one at another, when they looked up at all, as if one half of them was afraid of the other.” “The first hour passed in dumb show; the next in trifles not worth naming.”

The two Wesleys went to Molther, who explicitly affirmed, that no one has any faith while he has any doubt; and that none are justified till they are sanctified. He also maintained, that, until men obtain clean hearts and are justified, they must refrain from using the means of grace, so called; but, after that, they are at perfect liberty to use them, or to use them not, as they deem expedient. They are designed only for believers; but are not enjoined even upon them.

Wesley was at his wits’ end; numbers came to him every day, once full of peace and love, but now plunged into doubts and fears. Just at this juncture, his brother printed his fine hymn, of twenty-three stanzas, entitled “The Means of Grace,” and circulated it “as an antidote to stillness.” “Many,” said Charles, “insist that a part of their Christian calling is liberty from obeying, not liberty to obey. ‘The unjustified,’ say they, ‘are to be still; that is, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate, not to do good, not to endeavour, not to desire; for it is impossible to use means, without trusting in them.’ Their practice is agreeable to their principles. Lazy and proud themselves, bitter and censorious towards others, they trample upon the ordinances, and despise the commands of Christ.”

Wesley preached from the text, “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die;” and “demonstrated to the society, that the ordinances are both means of grace, and commands of God.” It was also probably at this period that he preached his able and discriminating sermon on the same subject, and which is published in his collected works. He specifies as the chief means of grace:—1. Prayer. 2. Searching the Scriptures; which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon. 3. Receiving the Lord’s supper. He allows, however, that, if these means are used as a kind of commutation for the religion they were designed to serve, it is difficult to find words to express the enormous folly and wickedness of thus keeping Christianity out of the heart by the very means which were ordained to bring it in. All outward means whatever, if separate from the Spirit of God, cannot profit the man using them. They possess no intrinsic power; and God is equally able to work by any, or by none at all. Wesley then proceeds to prove from Scripture, that, “all who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in the means which He hath ordained; in using, not in laying them aside.” He likewise answers the following objections:—1. You cannot use these means without trusting in them. 2. This is seeking salvation by works. 3. Christ is the only means of grace. 4. The Scripture directs us to wait for salvation. 5. God has appointed another way—“Stand still, and see the salvation of God.” Finally, Wesley concludes thus:—“1. Retain a lively sense that God is above all means, and can convey His grace, either in or out of any of the means which He hath appointed. 2. Be deeply impressed with the fact, that there is no power nor merit in any of the means. The opus operatum, the mere work done, profiteth nothing. Do it because God bids it. 3. In and through every outward thing, seek God alone, looking singly to the power of His Spirit, and the merits of His Son.” The whole sermon is intensely Wesleyan; full of keenly defined and powerfully enforced Scripture truths. Let the reader read it: it will benefit both his head and heart; and, perused in the light of these painful facts, it possesses historic interest of great importance. Such a sermon must have had a powerful influence at such a time, and bold was the man, who, in the midst of such disputers, had the fidelity to preach it.

It was a time of great anxiety. The work in London was in danger of being wrecked; and, more than that, some of Wesley’s oldest and most trusted friends, in this afflictive emergency, proved unfaithful.

The Rev. George Stonehouse, vicar of Islington, was converted in 1738, chiefly through the instrumentality of Charles Wesley, who, for a time, officiated as his curate. Many were the warm-hearted meetings, held, by the first Methodists, in the vicar’s house. His affection for the two Wesleys was great; and, in November 1738, when they were forsaken by all their friends, and well-nigh penniless, he offered to find them home and maintenance; and yet, six months afterwards, he yielded to his churchwardens, and allowed Charles Wesley to be excluded from his church. Imbibing Molther’s heresies, Stonehouse sold his living, married the only daughter of Sir John Crispe, joined the Moravians, and retired to Sherborne, in the west of England, where he fitted up a place capable of accommodating five hundred people, in which to hold Moravian meetings. In 1745, he had a lovefeast, the room being grandly illuminated with thirty-seven candles adorned with flowers; and all the sisters present being dressed in German fashion. Shortly after this, he abandoned the Brethren altogether, and appears henceforth to have spent his days in inglorious stillness, enjoying the benefits of a quiet religion and a harmless life.

Wesley sought counsel of his friend Ingham, and received in reply the following letter, full of piety and mistiness, and now for the first time published.

“Osset, February 20, 1740.

“My dear Brother,—You ask, what are the marks of a person that is justified, but not sealed?

“I cannot give you any certain, infallible marks. One to whom the Lord has given the gift of discerning could tell; but without that gift none else can know surely. However, it may be said, that justified persons are meek, simple, and childlike; they have doubts and fears; they are in a wilderness state; and, in this state, they are to be kept still and quiet, to search more deeply into their hearts, so that they may become more and more humble. They are likewise to depend wholly upon Christ; and to be kept from confusion; for, if they come into confusion, they receive inconceivable damage.

“On the other hand, if they continue meek, gentle, still,—if they search into their hearts, and depend on Christ, they will find their hearts to be sweetly drawn after Him; they will begin to loathe and abhor sin, and to hunger and thirst after righteousness; they will get strength daily; Christ will begin to manifest Himself by degrees; the darkness will vanish, and the day-star will arise in their hearts. Thus they will go on from strength to strength, till they become strong; and then they will begin to see things clearly; and so, by degrees, they will come to have the assurance of faith.

“You ask whether, in this intermediate state, they are ‘children of wrath,’ or ‘heirs of the promises’?

“Without doubt, they are children of God, and in a state of salvation. A child may be heir to an estate, before it can speak, or know what an estate is; so we may be heirs of heaven before we know it, or are made sure of it. However, the assurance of faith is to be sought after. It may be attained; and it will be, by all who go forward.

“We must first be deeply humble and poor in spirit. We must have a fixed and abiding sense of our own weakness and unworthiness, corruption, sin, and misery. This it is to be a poor sinner.

“If I were with you, I would explain things more largely; but I am a novice; I am but a beginner; a babe in Christ. If you go amongst the Brethren, they are good guides; but, after all, we must be taught of God, and have experience in our own hearts. May the Spirit of truth lead us into all truth!

“I am your poor, unworthy brother,



“B. Ingham.



“Rev. John Wesley, at Mr. Bray’s, Brazier,

in Little Britain, London.”

This is a curious letter, and will help to cast light on some of the expressions which Wesley himself had used concerning his own experience. As yet, the Methodists had much to learn. Meanwhile, Ingham and Howel Harris came to London. Charles Wesley says, the latter, in his preaching, proved himself a son of thunder and of consolation. Cavilling, however, followed. Honest, plain, undesigning James Hutton “was all tergiversation, and turned into a subtle, close, ambiguous Loyola;” while Richard Bell, watch-case maker, seemed to think, that he and Molther and another were all the church that Christ had in England. A man of the name of Ridley rendered himself famous by saying, “You may as well go to hell for praying as for thieving;” and John Browne asserted, “If we read, the devil reads with us; if we pray, he prays with us; if we go to church or sacrament, he goes with us.”

Ingham also, as well as Harris, “honestly withstood the deluded Brethren; contradicted their favourite errors; and constrained them to be still.” In the Fetter Lane society, he bore a noble testimony for the ordinances of God; but the answer was, “You are blind, and speak of the things you know not.” Wesley preached a series of sermons—1. On the delusion, that “weak faith is no faith.” 2. On the bold affirmation, that there is but one commandment in the New Testament, namely, “to believe.” 3. On the point, that Christians are subject to the ordinances of Christ. 4. On the fact, that a man may be justified without being entirely sanctified. These discourses were followed by five others, on reading the Scriptures, prayer, the Lord’s supper, and good works.

The result was increased commotion. Some said, “We believers are no more bound to obey, than the subjects of the king of England are bound to obey the laws of the king of France.” Bell declared that, for a man not born of God to read the Scriptures, pray, or come to the Lord’s table, was deadly poison. And Wesley, after a short debate, was prohibited preaching at Fetter Lane.

This brought matters to a crisis. Wesley had done all he could to correct the growing errors; but Molther was a greater favourite than Wesley; and the man, who had founded Fetter Lane society, was now, by Moravian votes, commanded to go about his business, and to leave the pulpit to his German superiors.

The thing had become an intolerable evil; and, at all hazards, the heresies must be checked. Substantially they may be reduced to two:—1. That there are no degrees of faith; or, in other words, that there is no justifying faith where there is any doubt or fear; or, in other words (for we feel it difficult to gripe such an abortive dogma), no man believes and is justified, unless, in the full sense of the expression, he is sanctified, and is possessed of a clean heart. 2. That to search the Scriptures, to pray, or to communicate, before we have faith, is to seek salvation by works; and such works must be laid aside before faith can be received.

This is not the place to confute such errors. Suffice it to say, that, before half-a-dozen years had passed, the London Moravians dropped the very doctrines, for opposing which Wesley was expelled from preaching in Fetter Lane. Their stillness was declared to mean, that “man cannot attain to salvation by his own wisdom, strength, righteousness, goodness, merits, or works. When he applies for it, he must cast away all dependence upon everything of his own, and, trusting only to the mercy of God, through the merits of Christ, he must thus quietly wait for God’s salvation.” This is a doctrine to which Wesley raised no objection; but it was not the doctrine of Molther, Browne, Bell, Bray, and Bowers, in 1740. Then as to the doctrine concerning degrees in faith, it is right to add, that such a dogma was never taught by the general authorities of the Moravian church; but it was taught by Spangenberg, Molther, Stonehouse, and other Moravians in London, the result being the disastrous confusion to which we are now adverting. Indeed, it is a notable fact, that, only two months after the Fetter Lane disruption, Wesley himself clears the Moravian church from the aspersion, that it held such heresies. They were the spawn of foolish fanatics, who regarded themselves Moravians, but were hardly worthy of the name. On September 29, 1740, Wesley having stated what the errors were, observes:—“In flat opposition to this, I assert: 1. That a man may have a degree of justifying faith, before he is wholly freed from all doubt and fear; and before he has, in the full, proper sense, a new, a clean heart. 2. That a man may use the ordinances of God, the Lord’s supper in particular, before he has such a faith as excludes all doubt and fear, and implies a new, a clean heart. 3. I further assert, that I learned this, not only from the English, but also from the Moravian church; and I hereby openly and earnestly call upon that church, and upon Count Zinzendorf in particular, to correct me, and explain themselves, if I have misunderstood or misrepresented them.” Wesley thus puts the blame on the right shoulders. It was not the Moravian church, but a few of its foolish ministers and members, at Fetter Lane, that circulated these heresies.

What was the result? If the Fetter Lane society did not exclude Wesley from their membership, they, on the 16th of July, expelled him from their pulpit; and hence, four days afterwards, he went with Mr. Seward to their lovefeast, and, at its conclusion, read a paper stating the errors into which they had fallen, and concluding thus:—“I believe these assertions to be flatly contrary to the word of God. I have warned you hereof again and again, and besought you to turn back to the ‘law and the testimony.’ I have borne with you long, hoping you would turn. But, as I find you more and more confirmed in the error of your ways, nothing now remains, but that I should give you up to God. You that are of the same judgment, follow me.”

Without saying more, he then silently withdrew, eighteen or nineteen of the society following him.

Two days afterwards, he received a letter from one of the Brethren in Germany, advising him and his brother to deliver up the “instruction of poor souls” to the Moravians; “for you,” adds the writer, “only instruct them in such errors, that they will be damned at last. St. Peter justly describes you, who ‘have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin;’ and take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of damnation.”

The day following, the seceding society, numbering about twenty-five men and fifty women, met for the first time, at the Foundery, instead of at Fetter Lane; and so the Methodist society was founded on July 23, 1740.

A fortnight later, Wesley, “a presbyter of the church of God in England,” wrote a long letter “to the church of God at Herrnhuth,” in which he states, that, though some of the Moravians had pronounced him “a child of the devil and a servant of corruption,” yet, he was now taking the liberty of speaking freely and plainly concerning things in the Moravian church which he deemed unscriptural. He enumerates the heresies which have been so often mentioned. He tells them, that a Moravian preacher, in his public expounding, said: “As many go to hell by praying as by thieving.” Another had said, “I knew a man who received a great gift while leaning over the back of a chair; but kneeling down to give God thanks, he lost it immediately through doing so.” He charges the Moravians with exalting themselves and despising others, and declares, that he scarce ever heard a Moravian owning his church or himself to be wrong in anything. They spoke of their church as if it were infallible, and some of them set it up as the judge of all the earth, of all persons and of all doctrines, and maintained that there were no true Christians out of it. Like the modern Mystics, they mixed much of man’s wisdom with the wisdom of God, and philosophised on almost every part of the plain religion of the Bible. They talked much against mixing nature with grace, and against mimicking the power of the Holy Ghost. They cautioned the brethren against animal joy, against natural love of one another, and against selfish love of God. “My brethren,” concludes Wesley, “whether ye will hear, or whether ye will forbear, I have now delivered my own soul. And this I have chosen to do in an artless manner, that if anything should come home to your hearts, the effect might evidently flow, not from the wisdom of man, but from the power of God.”

On September 1, Charles Wesley wrote to Whitefield in America, as follows:—

“The great work goes forward, maugre all the opposition of earth and hell. The most violent opposers of all are our own brethren of Fetter Lane, that were. We have gathered up between twenty and thirty from the wreck, and transplanted them to the Foundery. The remnant has taken root downward, and borne fruit upwards. A little one is become a thousand. They grow in grace, particularly in humility, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus. Innumerable have been the devices to scatter this little flock. The roaring lion is turned a still lion, and makes havoc of the church by means of our spiritual brethren. They are indefatigable in bringing us off from our ‘carnal ordinances,’ and speak with such wisdom from beneath, that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very elect. The Quakers, they say, are exactly right; and, indeed, the principles of the one naturally lead to the other. For instance, take our poor friend Morgan. One week he and his wife were at J. Bray’s, under the teaching of the still brethren. Soon after, he turned Quaker, and is now a celebrated preacher among them. All these things shall be for the furtherance of the gospel.”

Whitefield’s reply to this is unknown; but on November 24 he wrote as follows to James Hutton:—

“I have lately conversed closely with Peter Bohler. Alas! we differ widely in many respects; therefore, to avoid disputations and jealousies on both sides, it is best to carry on the work of God apart. The divisions among the Brethren sometimes grieve, but do not surprise me. How can it be otherwise, when teachers do not think and speak the same things? God grant we may keep up a cordial, undissembled love towards each other, notwithstanding our different opinions. O, how I long for heaven! Surely, there will be no divisions, no strife there, except who shall sing with most affection to the Lamb that sitteth upon the throne. Dear James, there I hope to meet thee.”

Here, for the present, we leave the London Moravians. We say, for the present, for unfortunately we shall have to recur to them.

The year 1740 was a year of troubles. A month previous to the Fetter Lane secession, a man of the name of Acourt bitterly complained, that he had been refused admission to the society-meeting, by order of Charles Wesley, because he differed from the Wesleys in opinion. “What opinion do you mean?” asked Wesley. He answered, “That of election. I hold, a certain number is elected from eternity; and these must and shall be saved; and the rest of mankind must and shall be damned; and many of your society hold the same.” Here we have another bone of contention.

Up to the time of Whitefield’s visit to America, he and the Wesleys had laboured in union and harmony, without entering into the discussion of particular opinions; but now, across the Atlantic, Whitefield became acquainted with a number of godly Calvinistic ministers, who recommended to him the writings of the puritan divines, which he read with great avidity, and, as a consequence, soon embraced their sentiments. Secrecy was no part of Whitefield’s mental or moral nature. With the utmost frankness, he wrote to Wesley, informing him of his new opinions.

Wesley was the son of parents who held the doctrines of election and reprobation in abhorrence. While at college, he had thoroughly sifted the subject for himself, and, in letters to his mother, expressed his views in the strongest language. Whitefield, on the contrary, was no theologian. His heart was one of the largest that ever throbbed in human bosom; but his logical faculties were small. When he read the Calvinistic theory, he was not conversant with the arguments against it; and hence, with his characteristic impulsiveness, he adopted a creed, which far more powerful minds than his had not been able to defend. Southey remarks, with great truthfulness, that, “at the commencement of his career, Wesley was of a pugnacious spirit, the effect of his sincerity, his ardour, and his confidence.” No wonder then that these two devoted friends were soon at variance.

One of Whitefield’s letters, dated June 25, 1739, has been already given. The following is another, hitherto unpublished, written a week later:—

“Gloucester, July 2, 1739.

“Honoured Sir,—I confess my spirit has been of late sharpened on account of some of your proceedings; my heart has been quite broken within me. I have been grieved from my soul, knowing what a dilemma I am reduced to. How shall I tell the Dissenters I do not approve of their doctrines, without wronging my own soul? How shall I tell them I do, without contradicting my honoured friend, whom I desire to love as my own soul? Lord, for Thy infinite mercy’s sake, direct me so to act, as neither to injure myself nor my friend! Is it true, honoured sir, that brother Stock is excluded the society because he holds predestination? If so, is it right? Would Jesus Christ have done so? Is this to act with a catholic spirit? Is it true, honoured sir, that the house at Kingswood is intended hereafter for the brethren to dwell in, as at Herrnhuth? Is this answering the primitive design of that building? Did the Moravians live together till they were obliged by persecution? Does the scheme at Islington succeed? As for brother Cennick’s expounding, I know not what to say. Brother Watkin I think no way qualified for any such thing.

“Dear, honoured sir, if you have any regard for the peace of the church, keep in your sermon on predestination. But you have cast a lot. Oh! my heart, in the midst of my body, is like melted wax. The Lord direct us all! Honoured sir, indeed, I desire you all the success you can wish for. May you increase, though I decrease! I would willingly wash your feet. God is with us mightily. I have just now written to the bishop. Oh, wrestle, wrestle, honoured sir, in prayer, that not the least alienation of affection may be between you, honoured sir, and your obedient son and servant in Christ,

“George Whitefield.



“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, at Mrs. Grevil’s,

a grocer, in Wine Street, Bristol.”

This was within three months from the time when Wesley, at Whitefield’s request, began his career of out-door preaching at Bristol. Two months later, Whitefield was, a second time, on his way to America. Wesley wrote to him, opposing the doctrine of election, and also enforcing the doctrine, that, though Christians can never be freed from “those numberless weaknesses and follies, sometimes improperly termed sins of infirmity,” yet it is the privilege of all to be saved “entirely from sin in its proper sense, and from committing it.”

In reply, Whitefield wrote as follows:—

“Savannah, March 26, 1740.

“My honoured Friend and Brother,—For once hearken to a child, who is willing to wash your feet. I beseech you, by the mercies of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, if you would have my love confirmed towards you, write no more to me about misrepresentations wherein we differ. To the best of my knowledge, at present, no sin has dominion over me; yet I feel the strugglings of indwelling sin day by day. I can, therefore, by no means, come into your interpretation of the passage mentioned in your letter, and as explained in your preface to Mr. Halyburton. If possible, I am ten thousand times more convinced of the doctrine of election, and the final perseverance of those that are truly in Christ, than when I saw you last. You think otherwise. Why then should we dispute, when there is no probability of convincing? Will it not, in the end, destroy brotherly love, and insensibly take from us that cordial union and sweetness of soul, which I pray God may always subsist between us? How glad would the enemies of the Lord be to see us divided! How many would rejoice, should I join and make a party against you! How would the cause of our common Master suffer by our raising disputes about particular points of doctrines! Honoured sir, let us offer salvation freely to all by the blood of Jesus; and whatever light God has communicated to us, let us freely communicate to others. I have lately read the life of Luther, and think it in nowise to his honour, that the last part of his life was so much taken up in disputing with Zuinglius and others, who, in all probability, equally loved the Lord Jesus, notwithstanding they might differ from him in other points. Let this, dear sir, be a caution to us. I hope it will to me; for, provoke me to it as much as you please, I intend not to enter the lists of controversy with you on the points wherein we differ. Only, I pray to God, that the more you judge me, the more I may love you, and learn to desire no one’s approbation, but that of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ.”

Two months after this, Whitefield wrote again:—

“Cape Lopen, May 24, 1740.

“Honoured Sir,—I cannot entertain prejudices against your conduct and principles any longer, without informing you. The more I examine the writings of the most experienced men, and the experiences of the most established Christians, the more I differ from your notion about not committing sin, and your denying the doctrines of election and final perseverance of the saints. I dread coming to England, unless you are resolved to oppose these truths with less warmth than when I was there last. I dread your coming over to America, because the work of God is carried on here (and that in a most glorious manner), by doctrines quite opposite to those you hold. Here are thousands of God’s children, who will not be persuaded out of the privileges purchased for them by the blood of Jesus. There are many worthy experienced ministers, who would oppose your principles to the utmost. God direct me what to do! Sometimes, I think it best to stay here, where we all think and speak the same thing. The work goes on without divisions, and with more success, because all employed in it are of one mind. I write not this, honoured sir, from heat of spirit, but out of love. At present, I think you are entirely inconsistent with yourself, and, therefore, do not blame me, if I do not approve all you say. God Himself teaches my friends the doctrine of election. Sister H—— hath lately been convinced of it; and, if I mistake not, dear and honoured Mr. Wesley hereafter will be convinced also. Perhaps I may never see you again, till we meet in judgment; then, if not before, you will know, that sovereign, distinguishing, irresistible grace brought you to heaven. Then will you know, that God loved you with an everlasting love; and therefore with lovingkindness did He draw you. Honoured sir, farewell!”

A fortnight later, on the 7th of June, Whitefield, writing to James Hutton, says:—

“For Christ’s sake, desire dear brother Wesley to avoid disputing with me. I think I had rather die, than see a division between us; and yet how can we walk together, if we oppose each other?”

He wrote again to Wesley as follows:—

“Savannah, June 25, 1740.

“My honoured Friend and Brother,—For Christ’s sake, if possible, never speak against election in your sermons. No one can say, that I ever mentioned it in public discourses, whatever my private sentiments may be. For Christ’s sake, let us not be divided amongst ourselves. Nothing will so much prevent a division as your being silent on this head. I am glad to hear, that you speak up for an attendance on the means of grace, and do not encourage persons who run, I am persuaded, before they are called. The work of God will suffer by such imprudence.”

On the 16th of July, Howel Harris wrote to Wesley:—

“Dear Brother John,—Reports are circulated that you hold no faith without a full and constant assurance, and, that there is no state of salvation without being wholly set at liberty in the fullest sense of perfection. It is also said, that I am carried away by the same stream, and, that many of the little ones are afraid to come near me. Letters have likewise informed me, that, the night you left London, you turned a brother out of the society, and charged all to beware of him, purely because he held the doctrine of election. My dear brother, do not act in the stiff, uncharitable spirit which you condemn in others. If you exclude him from the society and from the fraternity of the Methodists, for such a cause, you must exclude brother Whitefield, brother Seward, and myself. I hope I shall contend with my last breath and blood, that it is owing to special, distinguishing, and irresistible grace, that those that are saved are saved. O that you would not touch on this subject till God enlighten you! My dear brother, being a public person, you grieve God’s people by your opposition to electing love; and many poor souls believe your doctrine simply because you hold it. All this arises from the prejudices of your education, your books, your companions, and the remains of your carnal reason. The more I write, the more I love you. I am sure you are one of God’s elect, and, that you act honestly according to the light you have.”

On the 9th of August, Wesley addressed Whitefield as follows:—

“My dear Brother,—I thank you for yours of May the 24th. The case is quite plain. There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion. Therefore, for a time, you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when His time is come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind. Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our course with joy. I am, my dearest brother, ever yours,

“John Wesley.”

In the same month, Whitefield wrote to Wesley:—

“Charlestown, August 25, 1740.

“My dear and honoured Sir,—Give me leave, with all humility, to exhort you not to be strenuous in opposing the doctrines of election and final perseverance; when, by your own confession, you have not the witness of the Spirit within yourself, and consequently are not a proper judge. I remember brother E—— told me one day, that he was convinced of the perseverance of saints. I told him, you were not. He replied, but ‘he will be convinced when he has got the Spirit himself.’ Perhaps the doctrines of election and of final perseverance have been abused; but, notwithstanding, they are children’s bread, and ought not to be withheld from them, supposing they are always mentioned with proper cautions against the abuse of them. I write not this to enter into disputation. I cannot bear the thought of opposing you; but how can I avoid it, if you go about, as your brother Charles once said, to drive John Calvin out of Bristol. Alas! I never read anything that Calvin wrote. My doctrines I had from Christ and His apostles. I was taught them of God; and as God was pleased to send me out first, and to enlighten me first, so, I think, He still continues to do it. I find, there is a disputing among you about election and perfection. I pray God to put a stop to it; for what good end will it answer? I wish I knew your principles fully. If you were to write oftener, and more frankly, it might have a better effect than silence and reserve.”

A month later he wrote again as follows:—

“Boston, September 25, 1740.

“Honoured Sir,—I am sorry to hear, by many letters, that you seem to own a sinless perfection in this life attainable. I think I cannot answer you better, than a venerable minister in these parts answered a Quaker: ‘Bring me a man that hath really arrived to this, and I will pay his expenses, let him come from where he will.’ I know not what you may think, but I do not expect to say indwelling sin is destroyed in me, till I bow my head and give up the ghost. There must be some Amalekites left in the Israelites’ land to keep his soul in action, to keep him humble, and to drive him continually to Jesus Christ for pardon. I know many abuse this doctrine, and perhaps wilfully indulge sin, or do not aspire after holiness, because no man is perfect in this life. But what of that? Must I assert, therefore, doctrines contrary to the gospel? God forbid! Besides, dear sir, what a fond conceit is it to cry up perfection, and yet cry down the doctrine of final perseverance. But this, and many other absurdities, you will run into, because you will not own election. And you will not own election, because you cannot own it without believing the doctrine of reprobation. What then is there in reprobation so horrid? I see no blasphemy in holding that doctrine, if rightly explained. If God might have passed by all, He may pass by some. Judge whether it is not a greater blasphemy to say, ‘Christ died for souls now in hell.’ Surely, dear sir, you do not believe there will be a general gaol delivery of damned souls hereafter. O that you would study the covenant of grace! But I have done. If you think so meanly of Bunyan and the puritan writers, I do not wonder that you think me wrong. I find your sermon has had its expected success. It has set the nation a disputing. You will have enough to do now to answer pamphlets. Two I have already seen. O that you would be more cautious in casting lots! O that you would not be too rash and precipitant! If you go on thus, honoured sir, how can I concur with you? It is impossible. I must speak what I know. About spring you may expect to see,

“Ever, ever yours in Christ,

“George Whitefield.”

Wesley’s sermon was already published. Let us look at it. It was preached at Bristol; and, in some respects, was the most important sermon that he ever issued. It led, as we shall shortly see, to the division which Whitefield so devoutly deprecates; and also to the organisation of Lady Huntingdon’s Connexion, and to the founding of the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales; and, finally, culminated in the fierce controversy of 1770, and the publication of Fletcher’s unequalled “Checks;” which so effectually silenced the Calvinian heresy, that its voice has scarce been heard from that time to this. Viewed in such a light, the difference between Wesley and Whitefield was really one of the greatest events in the history of Wesley and even of the religion of the age.

Wesley’s sermon, entitled “Free Grace,” was founded upon Romans viii. 32, and was printed as a 12mo pamphlet in twenty-four pages. Annexed to it was Charles Wesley’s remarkable “Hymn on Universal Redemption,” consisting of thirty-six stanzas of four lines each. It is also a noteworthy fact, that, notwithstanding its importance, it was never included by Wesley in any collected edition of his sermons; and, in his own edition of his works, it is placed among his controversial writings. There is likewise a brief address to the reader, as follows:—

“Nothing but the strongest conviction, not only that what is here advanced is ‘the truth as it is in Jesus,’ but also that I am indispensably obliged to declare this truth to all the world, could have induced me openly to oppose the sentiments of those whom I esteem for their works’ sake; at whose feet may I be found in the day of the Lord Jesus!

“Should any believe it his duty to reply hereto, I have only one request to make,—let whatsoever you do be done in charity, in love, and in the spirit of meekness. Let your very disputing show, that you have ‘put on, as the elect of God, bowels of mercies, gentleness, longsuffering,’ that even according to this time it may be said, ‘See how these Christians love one another.’”

Having laid down the principle that God’s “free grace is free in all, and free for all,” Wesley proceeds, with great acuteness, to define the doctrine of predestination; namely, “Free grace in all is not free for all, but only for those whom God hath ordained to life. The greater part of mankind God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this He absolutely decreed, because it was His sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives, He gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their damnation.”

Having effectually answered the objections of well meaning people, who, startled at a doctrine so spectral, say, “This is not the predestination which I hold, I hold only the election of grace,” he sums up as follows:—

“Though you use softer words than some, you mean the selfsame thing; and God’s decree concerning the election of grace, according to your account of it, amounts to neither more nor less than what others call, ‘God’s decree of reprobation.’ Call it therefore by whatever name you please, ‘election, preterition, predestination, or reprobation,’ it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this,—by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be saved.”

This presents the doctrine in all its naked, hideous deformity; but it is fair, and no Calvinian dexterity can make it otherwise.

Wesley then proceeds to state the objections to such a doctrine:—

1. It renders all preaching vain; for preaching is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with it or without it, will infallibly be saved. And it is useless to them that are not elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned.

2. It directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after holiness, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell.

3. It directly tends to destroy several particular branches of holiness; for it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ, and leads a man to treat with contempt, or coldness, those whom he supposes to be outcasts from God.

4. It tends to destroy the comfort of religion.

5. It directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works; for what avails it to relieve the wants of those who are just dropping into eternal fire!

6. It has a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation; for it makes it unnecessary.

7. It makes the Christian revelation contradict itself; for it is grounded on such an interpretation of some texts as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenour of Scripture.

8. It is full of blasphemy; for it represents our blessed Lord as a hypocrite and dissembler, in saying one thing and meaning another,—in pretending a love which He had not; it also represents the most holy God as more false, more cruel, and more unjust than the devil; for, in point of fact, it says that God has condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire for continuing in sin, which, for want of the grace He gives them not, they are unable to avoid.

Wesley sums up the whole thus:—

“This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination. And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every asserter of it. You represent God as worse than the devil. But you say, you will prove it by Scripture. Hold! what will you prove by Scripture? that God is worse than the devil? It cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never can prove this; whatever its true meaning be, this cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, ‘What is its true meaning then?’ If I say, ‘I know not,’ you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures, the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense at all, than to say it had such a sense as this.”

In Whitefield’s letter, already given, and dated September 25, 1740, he states that already he had seen two pamphlets published against Wesley’s sermon. One of these probably was the following: “Free Grace Indeed! A Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, relating to his sermon against absolute election, published under the title of Free Grace. London: 1740. Price sixpence.”

In a subsequent advertisement, Wesley writes, “Whereas a pamphlet, entitled, ‘Free Grace Indeed!’ has been published against this sermon, this is to inform the publisher that I cannot answer his tract till he appears to be more in earnest; for I dare not speak of ‘the deep things of God’ in the spirit of a prizefighter or a stageplayer.”

With great respect for Wesley, we feel bound to say, that this is not worthy of him. The pamphlet referred to is before us, and is written with great ability, earnestness, and good temper. Wesley was not bound to answer it; but he had no right thus to brand it.

About the same time, another pamphlet was published, on the other side, entitled, “The Controversy concerning Free-will and Predestination; in a Letter to a Friend. Recommended to Mr. Whitefield and his followers.” 8vo, pages 36. As the controversy continued, it waxed warmer. Here Whitefield is spoken of as a man of “heated imagination, and full of himself”; “very hot, very self-sufficient, and impatient of contradiction”; “dogmatical and dictatorial” in his way of speaking, and wont to finish his oracular deliverances “with his assuming air, Dixi.”

The pamphlet concludes with a verse which contains the pith of the whole production:—

In the month of October, Howel Harris took up the question, and wrote to Wesley, telling him that preaching electing love brings glory to God, and benefit and consolation to the soul. He adds: “Oh, when will the time come when we shall all agree? Till then, may the Lord enable us to bear with one another! We must, before we can be united, be truly simple, made really humble and open to conviction, willing to give up any expression that is not scriptural, dead to our names and characters, and sweetly inclined towards each other. I hope we have, in some measure, drank of the same Spirit, that we fight the same enemies, and are under the same crown and kingdom. We travel the same narrow road, and love the same Jesus. We are soon to be before the same throne, and employed in the same work of praise to all eternity. While, then, we are on the road, and meet with so many enemies, let us love one another. And if we really carry on the same cause, let us not weaken each other’s hands.”

In another letter, addressed to John Cennick, and dated October 27, Harris writes in less temperate language:—

“Dear Brother,—Brother Seward tells me of his dividing with brother Charles Wesley. He seems clear in his conviction, that God would have him do so. I have been long waiting to see if brother John and Charles should receive further light, or be silent and not oppose election and perseverance; but, finding no hope of this, I begin to be staggered how to act towards them. I plainly see that we preach two gospels. My dear brother, deal faithfully with brother John and Charles. If you like, you may read this letter to them. We are free in Wales from the hellish infection; but some are tainted when they come to Bristol.”

In November, Whitefield wrote to Wesley as follows:—

“Philadelphia, November 9, 1740.

“Dear and honoured Sir,—I received yours, dated March 11, this afternoon. Oh that we were of one mind! for I am persuaded you greatly err. You have set a mark you will never arrive at, till you come to glory. O dear sir, many of God’s children are grieved at your principles. Oh that God may give you a sight of His free, sovereign, and electing love! But no more of this. Why will you compel me to write thus? Why will you dispute? I am willing to go with you to prison, and to death; but I am not willing to oppose you. Dear, dear sir, study the covenant of grace, that you may be consistent with yourself. Oh build up, but do not lead into error, the souls once committed to the charge of your affectionate, unworthy brother and servant, in the loving Jesus,

“G. Whitefield.”

A fortnight later he wrote again to Wesley:—

“Bohemia, Maryland, November 24, 1740.

“Dear and honoured Sir,—Last night brother G—— brought me your two kind letters. Oh that there may be harmony, and very intimate union between us! Yet, it cannot be, since you hold universal redemption. The devil rages in London. He begins now to triumph indeed. The children of God are disunited among themselves. My dear brother, for Christ’s sake, avoid all disputation. Do not oblige me to preach against you; I had rather die. Be gentle towards the——. They will get great advantage over you, if they discover any irregular warmth in your temper. I cannot for my soul unite with the Moravian Brethren. Honoured sir, adieu!

“Yours eternally in Christ Jesus,

“George Whitefield.”

Just at this time, Wesley was expounding Romans ix. at Bristol, where Calvinism was becoming rampant in the society. Charles Wesley writes: “Anne Ayling and Anne Davis could not refrain from railing. John Cennick never offered to stop them. Alas, we have set the wolf to keep the sheep! God gave me great moderation toward him, who, for many months, has been undermining our doctrine and authority.”

The difference was continued by Whitefield writing his “Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley; in answer to his sermon, entitled ‘Free Grace’;” with the motto attached, “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

The “Letter” is dated, “Bethesda, in Georgia, December 24, 1740.” After reiterating his reluctance to write against Wesley, he proceeds to state, that he now did so at the request of a great number of persons, who had been benefited by his ministry. He accuses Wesley of having propagated the doctrine of universal redemption, both in public and private, by preaching and printing, ever since before his last departure for America. He says that Wesley, while at Bristol, received a letter, charging him with not preaching the gospel, because he did not preach election. Upon this, he drew a lot; the answer was, “preach and print;” and, accordingly, he preached and printed against election. At Whitefield’s desire, he deferred publishing the sermon until after Whitefield started for America, when he sent it out. Whitefield asserts, that, if any one wished to prove the doctrine of election and of final perseverance, he could hardly wish for a text more fit for his purpose than that (Romans viii. 32) which Wesley had chosen to disprove it. He charges him with giving an “equivocal definition of the word grace,” and a “false definition of the word free;” and adds: “I frankly acknowledge, I believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number; and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death, which is its proper wages.” In reply to Wesley, he argues that, because preachers know not who are elect, and who reprobate, they are bound to preach promiscuously to all; that holiness is made a mark of election by all who preach it; that the seventeenth article of the English Church asserts, that the doctrine of “predestination and election in Christ is full of unspeakable comfort to godly persons;” that dooming millions to everlasting burnings is not an act of injustice, because God, for the sin of Adam, might justly have thus doomed all; that God’s absolute purpose of saving His chosen does not preclude the necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through which He has determined the decree shall take effect; that the doctrine of election does not make the Bible contradict itself, for though it asserts, that “the Lord is loving to every man, and His mercy is over all His works,” the reference is to His general, not His saving mercy; that it is unjust to charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy; and that, on the other hand, the doctrine of universal redemption, as set forth by Wesley, “is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of His blood;” and Whitefield challenges Wesley to make good the assertion, “that Christ died for them that perish,” without holding, as Peter Bohler had lately confessed in a letter, “that all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell;” for “how can all be universally redeemed, if all are not finally saved?”

In conclusion, he writes:—

“Dear sir, for Jesus Christ’s sake, consider how you dishonour God by denying election. You plainly make man’s salvation depend not on God’s free grace, but on man’s free will. Dear, dear sir, give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn-book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn-book; and instead of making man’s salvation to depend on his own free will, as you have in this sermon, you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign, distinguishing love; you will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and will print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it ‘Free Grace Indeed’—free, because not free to all; but free, because God may withhold or give it to whom and when He pleases.”

About three weeks after the date of this letter, Whitefield set sail for England, bringing his manuscript with him. On his arrival in London, in March, 1741, he submitted it to Charles Wesley, who returned it to the author, endorsed with the words: “Put up again thy sword into its place.” The pamphlet, however, was published; and Whitefield gave Wesley notice, that he was resolved publicly to preach against him and his brother wherever he went. Wesley complained to Whitefield—1. That it was imprudent to publish his letter, because it was only putting weapons into the hands of those who hated them. 2. That, if he really was constrained to bear his testimony on the subject, he might have done it by issuing a treatise without ever calling Wesley’s name in question. 3. That what he had published was a mere burlesque upon an answer. 4. That he had said enough, however, of what was wholly foreign to the question, to make an open, and probably irreparable, breach between them. Wesley added:—

“You rank all the maintainers of universal redemption with Socinians. Alas, my brother! Do you not know even this, that Socinians allow no redemption at all? that Socinus himself speaks thus, ‘Tota redemptio nostra per Christum metaphora’? How easy were it for me to hit many other palpable blots, in what you call an answer to my sermon! And how, above measure, contemptible would you then appear to all impartial men, either of sense or learning! But, I assure you, my hand shall not be upon you. The Lord be judge between me and thee! The general tenour, both of my public and private exhortations, when I touch thereon at all, as even my enemies know, if they would testify, is ‘Spare the young man, even Absalom, for my sake!’”

David and Jonathan were divided. An immediate schism followed. Wesley writes:—“In March, 1741, Mr. Whitefield, being returned to England, entirely separated from Mr. Wesley and his friends, because he did not hold the decrees. Here was the first breach, which warm men persuaded Mr. Whitefield to make merely for a difference of opinion. Those who believed universal redemption had no desire to separate; but those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation, being determined to have no fellowship with men that were ‘in such dangerous errors.’ So there were now two sorts of Methodists: those for particular, and those for general, redemption.”

Here, for the present, we leave the subject; and turn to other matters.

In 1740, as in 1739, the pamphlets published against Methodism were many and malignant. One was entitled: “The important Doctrines of Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Regeneration, clearly stated and vindicated from the misrepresentations of the Methodists. By Thomas Whiston, A.B.” London: 1740. Pp. 70. Mr. Whiston is unknown to fame. Wesley never noticed him; and, though his production is now before us, an analysis of its contents would weary the reader without instructing him.

Another was, “The Quakers and Methodists compared. By the Rev. Zachary Grey, LL.D., Rector of Houghton Conquest, in Bedfordshire,”—the laborious author of more than thirty different publications, a man of great ingenuity and research, but an acrimonious polemic, who died at Ampthill, in 1766.

It is a curious fact, that Whitefield was far more violently attacked than the Wesleys were. “Aquila Smyth, a layman of the Church of England,” accuses him of having published two letters against Archbishop Tillotson, “in the spirit of pride, envy, and malice;” and of having “detracted the most valuable works of other men, in order to aggrandize himself, and gain credit for his own weak, impudent, and wicked performances.” His “behaviour exposes him to the scorn of every reader;” and his “consummate impudence” is unequalled in the Christian world. There “is a juggle between him and Wesley to deceive their followers, and to prevent an inquiry into their corrupt and abominable doctrine;” and, finally, after calling him “a brainsick enthusiast,” Smyth declares, that Whitefield has taken up five thousand acres in America, under the pretence of educating and maintaining such negroes as may be sent to him; but really because he hopes to realise from the transaction a more plentiful fortune than he could have gained in England by five thousand years of preaching.

So much for the spleen of Aquila Smyth. In the Weekly Miscellany, edited by Mr. Hooker, there appeared, in several successive numbers, fictitious dialogues between Whitefield and a country clergyman, the object of which was to make Whitefield contemptible; and the whole were finished with a promise from the editor, that he would abridge, for the benefit of his subscribers, the history of the Anabaptists, and would show that there is a near resemblance between them and their descendants, the Methodists.

The Rev. Alexander Garden, the Bishop of London’s commissary at Charlestown, in America, published a series of six letters on justification by faith and works, in which he accused Whitefield of “self contradiction,” of “arrogant and wicked slander,” and of being “so full of zeal that he had no room for charity.” He contemptuously speaks of Whitefield’s “apparent shuffles,” “miserable distinctions,” “mob harangues,” and “false and poisoned insinuations.” Whitefield “deceives the people, and has no talent at proving anything”; he is “a hare-brained solifidian, and runs about a mouthing”; he has “kindled a fire of slander and defamation, which no devil in hell, nor jesuit on earth, will ever make an effort to extinguish, but will fagot and foment it with all their might”; “he dispenses to the populace in a vehicle of cant terms, without sense or meaning”; and “in a mountebank way, he fancies himself a young David, and that he has slain Goliath.”

Whitefield was again severely handled “by a presbyter of the Church of England,” in an able pamphlet of forty-four pages, entitled “A modest and serious Defence of the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, from the false charges and gross misrepresentations of Mr. Whitefield, and the Methodists his adherents”; but this was a castigation which Whitefield merited, for his ill judged and unneeded letter, published in the Daily Advertiser of July 3, 1740.

The most violent attack of all was in an octavo pamphlet of eighty-five pages, with the title, “The Expounder Expounded, by R——ph J——ps——n, of the Inner Temple, Esq.” London. Some parts of this disgraceful production are too filthy to be noticed; they must be passed in silence. In other parts, Whitefield, for publishing his journal, is charged with “saddling the world with one of the grossest absurdities and impositions, that folly or impudence could invent”; “his book is nothing but a continued account of his intimate union and correspondence with the devil”; and he himself may be seen “upon the hills and house-tops, like another Æolus, belching out his divine vapours to the multitude, to the great ease of himself, and emolument of his auditors.” “Charles Wesley lent him books at Oxford, which threw his understanding off the hinges, and rendered him enthusiastically crazy”; at college he “deemed a lousy pate humility, foul linen was heavenly contemplation, woollen gloves were grace, a patched gown was justification by faith, and dirty shoes meant a walk with God. In short, with him, religion consisted wholly in nastiness, and heaven was easiest attacked from a dunghill.” These are the mildest specimens we have been able to select from this cesspool of a perverted intellect and a polluted heart.

Another pamphlet, published in 1740, and consisting of eighty-four pages, was entitled “The Imposture of Methodism displayed; in a letter to the inhabitants of the parish of Dewsbury. Occasioned by the rise of a certain modern sect of enthusiasts, called Methodists. By William Bowman, M. A., vicar of Dewsbury and Aldbrough in Yorkshire, and chaplain to the Right Honourable Charles, Earl of Hoptoun.” As yet, neither the Wesleys nor Whitefield had been in Yorkshire; but Ingham and William Delamotte were there, and had been the means of converting a large number of the almost heathenised inhabitants of the west riding. The reverend vicar tells his parishioners, that “an impious spirit of enthusiasm and superstition has crept in among them, and threatens a total ruin of all religion and virtue.” He himself has been “an eye-witness of this monstrous madness, and religious frenzy, which, like a rapid torrent, bears down everything beautiful before it, and introduces nothing but a confused and ridiculous medley of nonsense and inconsistency.” It was matter of thankfulness, “that the contagion, at present, was pretty much confined to the dregs and refuse of the people,—the weak, unsteady mob, always fond of innovation, and never pleased but with variety;” but, then, the mob was so numerous in the west of Yorkshire, that the danger was greater than was apprehended. The author declines to determine whether “these modern visionaries, like the Quakers, are a sect hatched and fashioned in a seminary of Jesuits; or whether, like the German Anabaptists, they are a set of crazy, distempered fanatics;” but certain it is, that their “enthusiasm is patched and made up of a thousand incoherencies and absurdities, picked and collected from the vilest errors and most pestilent follies, of every heresy upon earth.” “Their teachers inculcate, that they are Divinely and supernaturally inspired by the Holy Ghost, to declare the will of God to mankind; and, yet, they are cheats and impostors, and their pretended sanctity nothing but a trick and a delusion.” They had been allowed to use the pulpits of the Church, “till, by their flights and buffooneries, they had made the church more like a bear-garden than the house of prayer; and the rostrum nothing else but the trumpet of sedition, heresy, blasphemy, and everything destructive to religion and good manners.” It was high time for the clergy to put an end to their “pulpits being let out, as a stage, for mountebanks and jack-puddings to play their tricks upon, and from thence to propagate their impostures and delusions.” “These mad devotionalists held, that it is lawful and expedient for mere laymen, for women, and the meanest and most ignorant mechanics, to minister in the church of Christ, to preach, and expound the word of God, and to offer up the prayers of the congregation in the public assemblies.” They also taught, that “the new birth consists in an absolute and entire freedom from all kind of sin whatsoever;” and likewise “denounced eternal death and damnation on all who cannot conform to their ridiculous ideas.” “Whilst adopting to themselves the reputation of being the chief favourites of heaven, the confidants and imparters of its secrets, and the dispensers of its frowns and favours, they were really furious disciples of antichrist, reverend scavengers of scandal, and filthy pests and plagues of mankind.” Such are specimens of the meek language used by the reverend vicar of Dewsbury.

We have already noticed one production of the fiery and furious Joseph Trapp, D.D., published in 1739. The publication of that produced others, in 1740. One was entitled, “The true Spirit of the Methodists, and their Allies, fully laid open; in an answer to six of the seven pamphlets, lately published against Dr. Trapp’s sermons upon being ‘Righteous over much’”: pp. 98. The anonymous author says, that one of these six pamphlets is full of “false quotations, lies, and slanders,” and concludes with “an ungodly jumble of railing and praying.” The Methodists are branded as “crack-brained enthusiasts and profane hypocrites.” “The criterions of modern saintship are the most unchristian malice, lying, slander, railing, and cursing.” Whitefield is pronounced “impious and ignorant.” The “false doctrines and blasphemies of the Methodists, their field assemblies and conventicles in houses, are contrary to the laws of God and man, of church and state, and are tending to the ruin of both.”

Another pamphlet, of 127 pages, was by Dr. Trapp himself, and entitled, “A Reply to Mr. Law’s earnest and serious Answer (as it is called) to Dr. Trapp’s discourse on being righteous over much.” The reverend doctor, as inflammable as ever, pronounces the Methodists “a new sect of enthusiasts, or hypocrites, or both; whose doctrines and practices tend to the destruction of souls, are a scandal to Christianity, and expose it to the scoffs of libertines, infidels, and atheists.” This is not an unfair specimen of the whole 127 pages. William Law, however, was far too stout an antagonist to be silenced by Dr. Trapp. His “Serious Answer” to Trapp’s sermons, and his “Animadversions” on Trapp’s reply, whilst written in the highest style of Christian courtesy, are witheringly severe. They may be found in Wesley’s collected publications, edit. 1772, vol. vi.

Another doughty anti-Methodistic champion was the celebrated Dr. Daniel Waterland, chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, canon of Windsor, archdeacon of Middlesex, and vicar of Twickenham; one of the greatest controversialists of the age, who died at the end of the year of which we are writing, and whose collected works have since been published in eleven octavo volumes.

A few months before his death, Waterland preached two sermons, first at Twickenham, and next at Windsor, on regeneration, which, without mentioning the Methodists, were undeniably meant to serve as an antidote to the doctrines they preached. These he published in the form of an octavo pamphlet of fifty-six pages, accompanied by a mass of notes in Latin, Greek, and English, from all sorts of authors. The title of the pamphlet is, “Regeneration Stated and Explained, according to Scripture and Antiquity, in a Discourse on Titus iii. 4, 5, 6;” and its subject may be inferred from the following definition:—“The new birth, in the general, means a spiritual change, wrought upon any person by the Holy Spirit, in the use of baptism; whereby he is translated from his natural state in Adam, to a spiritual state in Christ.” Written from such a standpoint, the pamphlet of course was a tacit condemnation of the doctrines of the Methodists. It is immensely learned, but far from luminous; full of talent, but likewise full of error; exceedingly elaborate, but, to an equal extent, bewildering.

We shall mention only one other attack on Methodism and the Methodists made at this period. This was a pamphlet of fifty-five pages, with the title, “The Trial of Mr. Whitefield’s Spirit, in some remarks upon his fourth Journal.” The author makes himself merry with the discovery, that this new sect of enthusiasts, by taking to themselves the name of Methodist, have unintentionally stigmatised themselves with a designation which is branded in Scripture as evil. “The word Μεθοδεια, or Methodism, is only used twice throughout the New Testament (Ephesians iv. 14, and vi. 11), and in both places denotes that cunning craftiness whereby evil men, or evil spirits, lie in wait to deceive.” It is alleged that Wesley, Whitefield, and their followers, “have taken an appellation, perhaps through a judicial inadvertence, which the Spirit of God has peculiarly appropriated to the adversary of mankind, and to those who are leagued with him in enmity to the interests of righteousness and true holiness.” This was an ingenious hit; the writer, however, forgetting or misstating the fact, that the name of Methodists was not self-assumed, but imposed by others. “Μεθοδευσαι δε εστι το απατησαι—to be a Methodist, says St. Chrysostom, is to be beguiled.” And, from this, the author wishes the inference to be deduced, that, because the new sect of enthusiasts were called Methodists, they were all beguiled, and, of course, Wesley and Whitefield were the great beguilers. The remainder of the pamphlet is a critique on Whitefield’s Journals, which, it must be admitted, were unguardedly expressed, and which, before being printed, ought to have been revised by a kindred spirit, possessed of a soberer judgment than Whitefield had.

The Methodist persecutions of 1740 were chiefly of a literary kind. It is true that Charles Wesley met with a rough reception at Bengeworth, where Henry Seward called him “a scoundrel and a rascal”; directed the mob to “take him away and duck him”; and actually seized him by the nose and wrung it. This was bad enough, but the treatment of John Cennick and his friends was even worse. While he was preaching at Upton, in Gloucestershire, the mob assembled with a horn, a drum, and a number of brass pans, and made a most horrid hubbub; the brass pans being also used in beating the people’s heads. A man likewise put a cat into a cage, and brought a pack of hounds to make them bark at it. Another fellow and his wife, who kept an alehouse at Hannam, rode through the congregation, thrashing the people with their whips, and trampling them beneath their horses’ hoofs. Little children collected dust, which their upgrown patrons cast upon Cennick, who was also struck violently on the nose, and became a target at which to hurl dead dogs and stones. But even violent and contemptuous treatment like this was not near so painful as the scurrilous attacks encountered through the press. In this way, the persecution of the Methodists was something more than a localised outburst of spleen and hate; for, in all sorts of squibs, they were gibbeted, and exposed to ridicule, throughout the kingdom.

Wesley’s trials were not trifles; but, in the midst of all, he bravely pursued the path of duty; and, after the final separation from his foolish, fanatical friends at Fetter Lane, his labours in London were attended with considerable success. On August 11, while forty or fifty were praying and giving thanks at the Foundery, two persons began to cry to God with a loud and bitter cry, and soon found peace. Five days after, a woman, at Long Lane, fell down and continued in violent agonies for an hour. In September, a great number of men forced their way into the Foundery, and began to speak big, swelling words; but, “immediately after, the hammer of the word brake the rocks in pieces.” A smuggler rushed in and cursed vehemently; but, when Wesley finished preaching, the man declared, before the congregation, that, henceforth, he would abandon smuggling and give God his heart.

Wesley’s efforts to do good were various. In London, he induced his friends to contribute the clothing they could spare, and distributed it among the poor of the Foundery society. In Bristol, besides visiting numbers of people “ill of the spotted fever,” he took into his Broadmead meeting-house twelve of the poorest people he could find, who were out of work; and, to save them at once from want and from idleness, employed them for four months in carding and spinning cotton.

Wesley concluded this eventful year at Bristol, by holding a watchnight meeting, proposed by James Rogers, a Kingswood collier, noted among his neighbours for his playing on the violin, but who, being awakened under the ministry of Charles Wesley, went home, burnt his fiddle, and told his wife that he meant to be a Methodist. To his death, James was faithful, and, besides many other important services, was the first Methodist preacher that preached at Stroud in Gloucestershire.

This was the first watchnight meeting among the Methodists. The people met at half-past eight; the house was filled from end to end; and “we concluded the year,” says Wesley, “wrestling with God in prayer, and praising Him for the wonderful work which He had already wrought upon the earth.”

The meeting soon became a favourite one, and was held monthly. Wesley writes: “Some advised me 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.” ‘The church, in ancient times, was accustomed to spend whole nights in prayer, which nights were termed vigiliæ, or vigils; and, sanctioned by such authority, Wesley appointed monthly watchnights, on the Fridays nearest the full moon, desiring that they, and they only, should attend, who could do it without prejudice to their business or families.

Little more remains to be said concerning 1740. During the entire year, Wesley preached in only three churches, namely at Newbury, and at Lanhithel, and Lantarnum, in Wales. His favourite text was Ephesians ii. 8, showing that his mind and heart were still full of the glorious truth, salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

One of his publications has been already noticed. Another was a third volume of hymns, pp. 209, by no means inferior to its predecessors in poetic excellence, or Christian character. The book is also possessed of considerable historic interest, containing, as it does, a long hymn of twenty-two verses, descriptive of Charles Wesley’s history up to this period; and likewise several hymns addressed to Whitefield; and one “for the Kingswood colliers.” The volume consists of ninety-six hymns and poems, only four of which are selected from other authors. The preface is remarkable, giving a description of the man possessed of a clean heart. He is freed from pride, self will, evil thoughts, wandering thoughts, doubts, fears, etc. Wesley, a quarter of a century afterwards, declared that this preface contains the strongest account that he ever gave of Christian perfection; and admitted, that some of the statements needed correction; especially, that the perfect Christian is so “freed from self will as not to desire ease in pain;” that, “in prayer, he is so delivered from wanderings, that he has no thought of anything past, or absent, or to come, but of God alone,” etc. Wesley never taught anything respecting Christian perfection, but what was, either directly or indirectly, contained in this preface; but some of its strong assertions he wished to modify.

Another publication, issued in 1740, was entitled, “Serious Considerations concerning the Doctrines of Election and Reprobation. Extracted from a late author.” 12mo, twelve pages. It is a condensed, well argued tract on what had become a bone of contention between Wesley and his friend Whitefield. The address to the reader is beautiful: “Let us bear with one another, remembering it is the prerogative of the great God to pierce through all His own infinite schemes with an unerring eye, to surround them with an all-comprehensive view, to grasp them all in one single survey, and to spread a reconciling light over all their immense varieties. Man must yet grapple with difficulties in this dusky twilight; but God, in His time, will irradiate the earth more plentifully with His light and truth.”

Another of Wesley’s publications was a 12mo tract of nineteen pages, with the title, “The Nature and Design of Christianity, extracted from a late author” (Mr. Law); and another was Wesley’s second Journal, extending from February 1 to August 12, 1738. 12mo, pp. 90.

The year 1740, in Wesley’s history, was not marked with great religious success; but it was one of the most eventful years in his chequered life. There was a full and final separation from the Moravians; there was the separate organisation of the Methodist society at Moorfields; and there was the controversy with Whitefield. All these matters will again demand attention.

↑ Back to top