By the preaching of the two Wesleys and of Whitefield, a large number

of persons in London had been converted; and most of these had been

incorporated in the Moravian bands. When Wesley went to Bristol, at the

end of March, the work in London devolved, to a great extent, on his

brother Charles. Disputes soon sprung up. On Easter day, Charles had

a conversation with Zinzendorf “about motions, visions, and dreams,

and was confirmed in his dislike to them.” On April 28, Whitefield

preached in Islington churchyard; and, after he had done, Bowers, a

Moravian, got up to speak. Charles Wesley says: “I conjured him not;

but he beat me down, and followed _his impulse_.” On the 16th of

May, a dispute arose, in the Moravian meeting at Fetter Lane, about

lay preaching. Many were zealous for it; but Whitefield and Charles

Wesley declared against it. In June, another Moravian, John Shaw,

“the self-ordained priest,” as Charles Wesley calls him, “was brimful

of proud wrath and fierceness”; and two others, Bowers and Bray,

whom Whitefield designated “two grand enthusiasts,” followed Charles

to Blendon, “drunk with the spirit of delusion.” In the Moravian

society, Shaw “pleaded for his spirit of prophecy”; and charged Charles

Wesley “with love of pre-eminence, and with making his proselytes

twofold more the children of the devil than they were before.” Many

misunderstandings and offences had crept in; and Wesley came from

Bristol to put things right. A humiliation meeting was held at Fetter

Lane; and “we acknowledged,” says Wesley, “our having grieved God by

our divisions; ‘one saying, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos’; by

our leaning again to our own works, and trusting in them, instead of

Christ; by our resting in those little beginnings of sanctification,

which it had pleased Him to work in our souls; and, above all, by

blaspheming His work among us, imputing it either to nature, to the

force of imagination and animal spirits, or even to the delusion of

the devil.” Things seem to have proceeded more smoothly till about

September, when, in the absence of the two Wesleys, “certain men

crept in among them unawares, telling them, that they had deceived

themselves, and had no true faith at all. ‘For,’ said they, ‘none has

any justifying faith, who has ever any doubt or fear, which you know

you have; or who has not a clean heart, which you know you have not;

nor will you ever have it, till you leave off running to church and

sacrament, and praying, and singing, and reading either the Bible,

or any other book; for you cannot use these things without trusting

in them. Therefore, till you leave them off, you can never have true

faith; you can never till then trust in the blood of Christ.’”[330]

This was a serious heresy; and, on November 1, Wesley hurried up to

London to put a check to it. He acknowledges, that the Moravians

still held the grand doctrine of justification by faith; and that the

fruits of faith were “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

He testifies, that they were free from the sins of swearing, theft,

gluttony, drunkenness, and adultery; that they had no diversions but

such as become saints; that they regarded not outward adorning, and

were not slothful in business. He confesses, that they fed the hungry,

and clothed the naked; that their discipline was scarce inferior to

that of the apostolic age; and, that every one knew and kept his proper

place; but, despite all this, he found them far from perfect.

On first entering the society, he found Mr. Bray “highly commending

the being still before God; and speaking largely of the danger that

attended the doing of outward works, and of the folly of people running

about to church and sacrament.”

On Sunday, November 4, the “society met at seven in the morning, and

continued silent till eight.” In the evening, at Fetter Lane, “some

of the brethren asserted in plain terms: 1. That, till they had true

faith, they ought to be still; that is, to abstain from the means of

grace, the Lord’s supper in particular. 2. That the ordinances are not

means of grace, there being no other means than Christ.”

Three days later, Wesley had a long conference with Spangenberg, who

substantially avowed the same opinions. At night, the Fetter Lane

society sat an hour without speaking; and then there followed a warm

dispute, to prove that none ought to receive the Lord’s supper till

he had “the full assurance of faith.” Every day Wesley met with many

“who once knew in whom they had believed, but were now thrown into idle

reasonings, and were filled with doubts and fears. Many had left off

the means of grace, saying they must now cease from their own works,

and must trust in Christ alone; that they were poor sinners, and had

nothing to do but to lie at His feet.”

Wesley did his utmost to correct this state of things, and then, on

November 21, went back to Bristol. On his way, he came to Wycombe,

where he unexpectedly met Mr. Gambold and a Mr. Robson. He writes:

“After much consultation and prayer, we agreed—1. To meet yearly at

London on the eve of Ascension day. 2. To fix then the business to be

done the ensuing year; where, when, and by whom. 3. To meet quarterly

there, as many as can; viz., on the second Tuesday in July, October,

and January. 4. To send a monthly account to one another, of what

God hath done in each of our stations. 5. To inquire whether Messrs.

Hall, Sympson, Rogers, Ingham, Hutchins, Kinchin, Stonehouse, Cennick,

Oxlee, and Brown will join with us herein. 6. To consider whether there

be any others of our spiritual friends, who are able and willing so

to do.”[331] This arrangement is important as indicative of Wesley’s

purpose at this early period of his history; but it was never put into

execution. The rupture with the Moravians made it a dead letter.

Five weeks afterwards, he returned to London with a heavy heart.

“Scarce one in ten of the Moravians retained his first love; and most

of the rest were in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one

another.” His soul was sick of their “sublime divinity.” He had a long

conversation with Molther, one of their ministers, and ascertained that

the difference between them was the following:—

1. The Moravians held that there are no degrees of faith; and that no

man has any degree of it, before he has the full assurance of faith,

the abiding witness of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ

dwelleth in him. Wesley dissented from this.

2. The Moravians taught that the way to attain faith is to wait for

Christ, and be still: that is, not to use the means of grace; not to go

to church; not to communicate; not to fast; not to use private prayer;

not to read the Scriptures; not to do temporal good; nor to attempt

doing spiritual good; because it was impossible for a man to use means

like these without trusting in them. Wesley believed just the opposite.

3. The Moravians thought that in propagating faith, guile might be

used: (1) By saying what we know will deceive the hearers, or lead them

to think the thing which is not; (2) by describing things a little

beyond the truth, in order to their coming up to it; (3) by speaking as

if we meant what we did not mean. Wesley denounced all this.

4. The Moravians believed that the fruits of their thus propagating

the faith in England were: (1) Much good had been done by it; (2) many

were unsettled from a false foundation; (3) many were brought into true

stillness; (4) some were grounded on the true foundation, who were

wrong before. Wesley, on the contrary, thought that very little good,

but much hurt, had been done, by such proceedings.

This was the state of things when Wesley “began the first Methodist

society in England.” He was dissatisfied with his old Moravian friends,

and well he might. He had been prominent in the formation of their

society at Fetter Lane, on the 1st of May, 1738; but his hopes and

aspirations concerning it were blighted; and hence he formed another

society of his own. Moravian heresies had, in London at least,

corrupted the Moravian bands; numbers were offended; these and others

repaired to Wesley; Wesley took down their names, and met them every

Thursday evening for spiritual advice and prayer; success followed; and

the Methodist society was instituted. We must return to this subject in

the next chapter.

Wesley spent most of the year 1739 in Bristol and the immediate

neighbourhood; but, at different times, he rendered important service

in other places. At Blackheath, he preached to twelve or fourteen

thousand people; and on Kennington Common to twenty thousand. In

Moorfields, he had a congregation of ten thousand. In Gloucester he

preached to seven thousand;[332] and in Bath, Bradford, and elsewhere,

to great multitudes. He also preached, at least once, in the mansion of

Lady Huntingdon, taking a bold text for such a fashionable audience:

“The cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the

desires of other things, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.”

He also met with some adventures and incidents worth mentioning. In

riding to Rose Green, his horse suddenly fell, and rolled over and

over. A gentleman, at Bradford, who had wished him good luck in

the name of the Lord, told him that his fellow collegians at Oxford

always considered him “a little crack-brained.” In one instance, the

pressgang came when he was in the middle of his sermon, and seized one

of his hearers. While preaching in Turner’s Hall, London, the floor

gave way, but fortunately the vault below was filled with hogsheads of

tobacco, so that the crowded congregation only sunk a foot or two, and

he proceeded without further interruption. At Oxford, he was grieved

to find that none now visited the workhouse and the prison, and that

the Methodist little school was about to be given up. At Stanley, on

a little green, he preached for two hours amid the darkness of an

October night. At Newport, he addressed “the most insensible, ill

behaved people” he had seen in Wales; one old man cursing and swearing

incessantly, and taking up a great stone to throw at him. The people of

Wales generally he found as ignorant of gospel truth as the Cherokee

Indians; and asks, “What spirit is he of, who had rather these poor

creatures should perish for lack of knowledge than that they should

be saved, even by the exhortations of Howel Harris, or an itinerant

preacher?” Words these well worth pondering; for they are added proof,

that Wesley, even as early as 1739, was not opposed to the employment

of lay evangelists.

The principle upon which Wesley acted was to shrink from nothing that

he judged to be conducive to his being made a Christian.[333] On this

ground he went to Georgia, and to Germany; and says, “I am ready to

go to Abyssinia or China, or whithersoever it shall please God to

call me.” He was accused of being an enemy of the Church of England;

but maintained that he was not. The doctrines he preached were the

doctrines of the Church, as laid down in her prayers, articles, and

homilies. He allows that there were five points of difference between

him and many of the clergy; but he contends that _they_, not _he_,

were unfaithful to the Church. The points were these:—1. Those from

whom he differed spoke of justification, either as the same thing with

sanctification, or as something consequent upon it. He believed it to

be wholly distinct from sanctification, and necessarily antecedent

to it. 2. They spoke of good works as the cause of justification. He

believed the death and righteousness of Christ to be the whole and

sole cause of it. 3. They spoke of good works as existing previous to

justification. He believed that no good work is possible, previous to

justification, and therefore no good work can be a condition of it;

till we are justified we are ungodly, and incapable of good works; we

are justified by faith alone, faith without works, faith producing all

good works, yet including none. 4. They spoke of sanctification as if

it were an outward thing. He believed it to be an inward thing,—the

life of God in the soul of man; a participation of the Divine nature;

the mind that was in Christ. 5. They spoke of the new birth as

synonymous with baptism; or, at most, a change from a vicious to a

virtuous life. He believed it to be an entire change of nature, from

the image of the devil, wherein we are born, to the image of God;

a change from earthly and sensual to heavenly and holy affections.

“There is, therefore,” says he, “a wide, essential, fundamental,

irreconcilable difference between us. If they speak the truth as it is

in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I teach the way

of God in truth, they are blind leaders of the blind.”[334] He contends

that he “simply described the plain, old religion of the Church of

England, which was now almost everywhere spoken against, under the new

name of Methodism.”[335]

Wesley was a great reader; and some of the most interesting entries

in his Journals are his critiques on books; but, in 1739, he seems to

have been too busy preaching to have had time for reading. The only

notice of this kind is the following: “1739, October 23. In riding to

Bradford, I read over Mr. Law’s book on the new birth. Philosophical,

speculative, precarious; Behmenish, void, and vain! ‘O what a fall is

there!’” This is a harsh reflection upon an old friend; but, about a

year and a half before, there had been the unfortunate quarrel with

William Law, already mentioned. See pp. 185‒8.

Up to the present, Wesley’s mother had been his chief counsellor.

Immediately after his conversion in May, 1738, he went to Germany,

and returned to England in September. It so happened, that he and his

mother had no interview until nine months after this. Before he went to

Herrnhuth, he had related to her the particulars of his conversion, for

which “she heartily blessed God, who had brought him to so just a way

of thinking.” Meanwhile, however, she had been prejudiced against him,

and had entertained “strange fears concerning him, being convinced that

he had greatly erred from the faith.” This was not of long continuance.

Hence the following entry in Wesley’s journal:—

“1739, September 3.—I talked largely with my mother, who told

me that, till a short time since, she had scarce heard such

a thing mentioned as the having God’s Spirit bearing witness

with our spirit: much less did she imagine that this was the

common privilege of all true believers. ‘Therefore,’ said she,

‘I never durst ask for it myself. But two or three weeks ago,

while my son Hall was pronouncing these words, in delivering

the cup to me, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was

given for thee,” the words struck through my heart, and I knew

God, for Christ’s sake, had forgiven me all my sins.‘ “I asked

whether her father (Dr. Annesley) had not the same faith;

and whether she had not heard him preach it to others. She

answered, he had it himself; and declared, a little before his

death, that, for more than forty years, he had no darkness, no

fear, no doubt at all of his being accepted in the Beloved.

But that, nevertheless, she did not remember to have heard him

preach, no, not once, explicitly upon it: whence she supposed

he also looked upon it as the peculiar blessing of a few; not

as promised to all the people of God.”[336]

Ever after this, Susannah Wesley resided chiefly in London, and

attended the ministry of her sons John and Charles. She heartily

embraced their doctrines, and conversed with the members of their

society. Hence the following from one of her letters to Charles, dated

December 27, 1739:—

“Your brother, whom I shall henceforth call _Son Wesley_,

since my dear Sam is gone home, has just been with me, and

much revived my spirits. Indeed, I have often found that he

never speaks in my hearing without my receiving some spiritual

benefit. But his visits are seldom and short; for which I never

blame him, because I know he is well employed, and, blessed be

God, hath great success in his ministry. But, my dear Charles,

still I want either him or you; for, indeed, in the most

literal sense, I am become a little child, and need continual

succour. For these several days, I have had the conversation

of many good Christians, who have refreshed, in some measure,

my fainting spirits. I hope we shall shortly speak face to

face. But then, alas! when you come, your brother leaves me!

Yet that is the will of God, in whose blessed service you are

engaged; who has hitherto blessed your labours, and preserved

your persons. That He may continue so to prosper your work, and

protect you both from evil, and give you strength and courage

to preach the true gospel, in opposition to the united powers

of evil men and evil angels, is the hearty prayer of, dear

Charles,

“Your loving mother,

“SUSANNAH WESLEY.”[337]

Reference is made in the above extract to the death of Samuel Wesley,

which occurred on November 6, 1739, at the early age of forty-nine. Up

to the very last, he was strongly opposed to the Methodist movement of

his brothers. In a letter to his mother, written only seventeen days

before his death, he says:—

“My brothers are now become so notorious, that the world will

be curious to know when and where they were born, what schools

bred at, what colleges of in Oxford, and when matriculated,

what degrees they took, and where, when, and by whom ordained.

I wish they may spare so much time as to vouchsafe a little

of their story. For my own part, I had much rather have them

picking straws within the walls, than preaching in the area of

Moorfields.

“It was with exceeding concern and grief, I heard you had

countenanced a spreading delusion, so far as to be one of

Jack’s congregation. Is it not enough that I am bereft of both

my brothers, but must my mother follow too? I earnestly beseech

the Almighty to preserve you from joining a schism at the close

of your life, as you were unfortunately engaged in one at the

beginning of it. It will cost you many a protest, should you

retain your integrity, as I hope to God you will. They boast of

you already as a disciple.

“They design separation. They are already forbidden all the

pulpits in London; and to preach in that diocese is actual

schism. In all likelihood, it will come to the same all over

England, if the bishops have courage enough. They leave off the

liturgy in the fields; and though Mr. Whitefield expresses

his value for it, he never once read it to his tatterdemalions

on a common. Their societies are sufficient to dissolve all

other societies but their own. Will any man of common sense, or

spirit, suffer any domestic to be in a band, engaged to relate

to five or to ten people everything, without reserve, that

concerns the person’s conscience, howmuchsoever it may concern

the family? Ought any married persons to be there, unless

husband and wife be there together? This is literally putting

asunder whom God hath joined together.

“As I told Jack, I am not afraid the Church should

excommunicate him (discipline is at too low an ebb), but, that

he should excommunicate the Church. It is pretty near it.

Holiness and good works are not so much as _conditions_ of our

acceptance with God. Lovefeasts are introduced, and extemporary

prayers, and expositions of Scripture, which last are enough

to bring in all confusion; nor is it likely they will want any

miracles to support them. He only who ruleth the madness of the

people can stop them from being a formed sect. Ecclesiastical

censures have lost their terrors; thank fanaticism on the one

hand, and atheism on the other. To talk of persecution from

thence is mere insult. It is—

“To call the bishop, Grey-beard Goff,

And make his power as mere a scoff

As Dagon, when his hands were off.”[338]

Sixteen nights after writing the above, Samuel Wesley went to bed as

well as usual. At three next morning, he was seized with illness,

and, four hours afterwards, expired. John Wesley, at the time, was in

London, and Charles in Bristol; but, as soon as possible, they hastened

to Tiverton, where they rejoiced to hear that, several days before he

went hence, God had given to their brother a calm and full assurance of

his interest in Christ.

In reviewing the events of the year 1739, it only remains to notice

Wesley’s publications. These were the following:—

1. “An Abstract of the Life and Death of Mr. Thomas Halyburton. With

recommendatory Epistle by George Whitefield, and Preface by John

Wesley.” Oswald: London. 1739.

Halyburton was a Scotchman, and was born in 1674. At the age of

twenty-six, he became a Presbyterian minister. Ten years afterwards,

he was appointed Professor of Divinity in the college of St. Andrews;

but almost immediately was seized with pleurisy, and died in the

thirty-seventh year of his age.

Wesley’s preface is dated “London, February 9, 1739,” and the book

was published within a few weeks afterwards; for Wesley’s brother

Samuel, in a letter bearing date, April 16, 1739, says: “I have got

your abridgment of Halyburton; and, if it please God to allow me life

and strength, I shall demonstrate that the Scot as little deserves

preference to all Christians, as the book to all writings but those you

mention. There are two flagrant falsehoods in the very first chapter.

But your eyes are so fixed upon one point, that you overlook everything

else. You overshoot, but Whitefield raves.”[339]

Wesley’s abridged Life of Halyburton is a beautifully written, and

most edifying book. Why did Wesley publish it? There can be but

little doubt that his chief reasons were:—1. Because it contains a

living exemplification of real religion. And 2. Because Halyburton’s

struggles, doubts, fears, and general experience, previous to his

finding peace with God, through faith in Christ, bear a striking

resemblance to the case of Wesley himself. After describing that the

kingdom of God, within us, is holiness and happiness, and that the way

of attaining it is a true and living faith, Wesley, in his preface,

says: “This work of God in the soul of man is so described in the

following treatise, as I have not seen it in any other, either ancient

or modern, in our own or any other language; so that I cannot but value

it, next to the holy Scripture, above any other human composition,

except only the ‘Christian’s Pattern,’ and the small remains of Clemens

Romanus, Polycarp, and Ignatius.”

In the same preface, Wesley propounds thus early a doctrine, which

afterwards held a conspicuous place in the system of truth he taught.

In answering the objection, that “the gospel covenant does not promise

entire freedom from sin,” he writes: “What do you mean by the word

sin? Do you mean those numberless weaknesses and follies, sometimes

improperly termed sins of infirmity? If so, we shall not put off these

but with our bodies. But if you mean, it does not promise entire

freedom from sin, in its proper sense, or from committing it, this is

by no means true, unless the Scripture be false. Though it is possible

a man may be a child of God, who is not fully freed from sin, it does

not follow that freedom from sin is impossible; or that it is not to

be expected by all. It is described by the Holy Ghost as the common

privilege of all.”

2. Another of Wesley’s publications, in 1739, was entitled: “Nicodemus;

or, a Treatise on the Fear of Man. From the German of Augustus Herman

Francke. Abridged by John Wesley.” Bristol: S. and F. Farley. 1739.

The subject of the treatise was peculiarly adapted to Wesley’s present

position; and the whole is written in his best, nervous, clear, classic

style.

3. Wesley’s third publication was two treatises of ninety-nine pages,

12mo; the first on Justification by Faith only; the second on the

Sinfulness of Man’s Natural Will, and his utter inability to do works

acceptable to God until he be justified and born again of the Spirit

of God: by Dr. Barnes. “With Preface, containing some account of the

author, extracted from the Book of Martyrs. By John Wesley.”

This was another book congenial to Wesley’s present feelings; inasmuch

as it was full of the great doctrine, which was now the theme of his

daily ministry.

4. Towards the end of 1739,[340] Wesley published his tract, entitled

“The Character of a Methodist.” He states, that the name of Methodists

is not one which they have taken to themselves, but one fixed upon them

by way of reproach, without their approbation or consent. The tract was

written at the urgent request of numbers of people, who were anxious

to know what were “the principles, practice, and distinguishing marks

of the sect which was everywhere spoken against.” The distinguishing

marks of a Methodist are, not his opinions, though the Methodists

are fundamentally distinguished from Jews, Turks, and infidels; from

Papists; and from Socinians and Arians: neither are the marks of a

Methodist “words or phrases:” nor “actions, customs, or usages of an

indifferent nature:” nor the laying of the whole stress of religion on

any single part of it. “A Methodist is one who has the love of God shed

abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him; one who loves

the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with

all his mind, and with all his strength. He rejoices evermore, prays

without ceasing, and in everything gives thanks. His heart is full of

love to all mankind, and is purified from envy, malice, wrath, and

every unkind or malign affection. His own desire, and the one design of

his life is not to do his own will, but the will of Him that sent him.

He keeps not only some, or most of God’s commandments, but all, from

the least to the greatest. He follows not the customs of the world;

for vice does not lose its nature through its becoming fashionable. He

fares not sumptuously every day. He cannot lay up treasures upon earth

any more than he can take fire into his bosom. He cannot adorn himself,

on any pretence, with gold or costly apparel. He cannot join in any

diversion that has the least tendency to vice. He cannot speak evil of

his neighbour, no more than he can tell a lie. He cannot utter unkind,

or idle words. No corrupt communication ever comes out of his mouth.

He does good unto all men; unto neighbours and strangers, friends and

enemies.” “These,” says Wesley, “are the principles and practices of

our sect; these are the marks of a true Methodist. By these alone do

Methodists desire to be distinguished from other men.”

Such were Methodists when Methodism was first founded in 1739. No

wonder God was with them, and honoured them with such success. Is John

Wesley’s Character of a Methodist descriptive of all the Methodists

living now? Would to God it were!

5. Another of Wesley’s publications, in 1739, was entitled: “Hymns

and Sacred Poems. Published by John Wesley, M.A., Fellow of Lincoln

College, Oxford; and Charles Wesley, M.A., Student of Christ Church,

Oxford.” London: 12mo, pages 223.

As this book has recently been reprinted by the Methodist Conference

Office, (“Wesley Poetry,” vol. i.,) a detailed description of its

contents is not necessary. Suffice it to remark, that, besides the

productions of his brother, the volume contains at least twenty

translations from the German by Wesley himself, and that these are

among the finest hymns the Methodists ever sing. In fact, with a few

exceptions, the hymns of the two Wesleys are the only productions in

the book worth having. Many are devout but literary rubbish, and

utterly unworthy of being used in public worship. Some of the poems are

passable; a few are beautiful; but others might have been left, without

any loss to the Christian public, in the limbo of oblivion. Had the

publication consisted only of John and Charles Wesley’s hymns, it would

have been one of the choicest productions ever printed; as in other

things, so in this, an admixture made it weak.

6. It may be added, that it was probably in 1739 that Wesley published

an extract of his journal, from his embarking for Georgia, October 14,

1735, to his return to London, February 1, 1737; but of this we are not

certain, the first edition being without date.

The substance of this has been already given, and hence we pass, at

once, to the year 1740.

1740.

[Sidenote: 1740 Age 37]

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.[341] 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;[342] 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.[343] 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.”[344]

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.”[345] 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.[346] 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.”[347]

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.”[348]

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.”[349]

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.”[350]

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.”[351] “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.”[352]

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,[353] and appears henceforth to have

spent his days in inglorious _stillness_, enjoying the benefits of a

_quiet_ religion and a harmless life.[354]

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.”[355]

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.”[356] 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,[357]

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.”[358]

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.”[359]

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.[360]

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.”[361]

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.”[362]

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!”[363]

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?”[364]

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.”[365]

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.”[366]

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.”[367]

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.”[368]

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.”[369]

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.[370] 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:—

“Why is this _wrangling world_ thus _tossed_ and _torn_?

_Free-grace_, Free-will, are both together born;

If God’s free grace rule _in_, and _over_ me,

His will is mine, and so my will is _free_.”

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.”[371]

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.”[372]

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.”[373]

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.”[374]

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.”[375]

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.”[376]

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!’”[377]

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.”[378]

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.[379]

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.