With what mischief? Why, “evil-minded men, by meeting together _in the
fields_, under pretence of religion, may raise riots and tumults; or by
meeting _secretly_, may carry on _private_ cabals against the state.”
(_Case of the Methodists_, page 2.)
“And if the _Methodists_ themselves are a _harmless_ and _loyal_
people, it is nothing to the point in hand. For disloyal and seditious
persons, may use such an opportunity of getting together, in order to
execute any private design. Mr. _Whitefield_ says, 30, 50 or 80,000
have attended his preaching at once. Now, 1. He cannot know one tenth
part of such a congregation. 2. All people may come and carry on what
designs they will: Therefore 3. This is a great opportunity put into
the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.
“With what safety to the public these field-preachings may be continued,
let the world judge.” (_Ibid._ page 2, 3, 4.).
*May I speak without offence? I cannot think you are _in earnest_.
You do not _mean_ what you _say_. Do you _believe_, Mr. _Whitefield_
had _eighty thousand_ hearers at once? No more that you believe he
had _eighty millions_. Is not all this talk of _danger_, mere finesse?
Thrown in purely _ad movendam invidiam_? You know governments generally
are suspicious; especially in time of war: and therefore apply, as you
suppose, to their weak side; in hopes, if possible, to deliver over
these hereticks to the secular arm. However, I will answer, _as if_ you
spoke from your heart. For I am in earnest, if you are not.
First, “The preacher cannot know a tenth part of his congregation.”
Let us come to the _present_ state of things. The largest congregation
that _now_ attend the preaching of any _Methodist_, are those (God
be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part
of one of these congregations, either at _Bristol_, _Kingswood_,
_Newcastle_, or _London_? As strange as it may seem, I generally know
two-thirds of the congregation in every place, even on Sunday evening,
and nine in ten of those who attend at most other times. 2. “All
people may come and carry on what designs they will.” Not so. All
_field-preaching_ is now in the open day. And were only ten persons,
to come to such an assembly with arms, it would soon be inquired, with
what design they came. This is therefore, 3. No “great opportunity put
into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” And if ever
any disturbance has been raised, it was quite of another kind.
The public then is entirely safe, if it be in no other danger than
arises from _field-preaching_.
7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth
section of _the observations_. “The religious societies, you say, in
_London_ and _Westminster_, for many years past, have received no
discouragements, but on the contrary have been _countenanced_ and
incouraged both by the bishops and clergy.” How is this? Have _they_
then “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according
to the act of toleration?” Have _they_ “embraced the protection which
that act might give them, in case they complied with the conditions of
it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several
statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?”
How can they escape? Have they “qualified themselves for holding these
separate assemblies, according to the tenor of that act”? “Have then
the several members thereof taken the oaths to the government?” And are
the “doors of the places wherein they meet, always open at the time of
such meeting?” I presume, you know they are not: and that neither “the
persons nor places are so qualified as that act directs.”
How then come “the bishops and clergy, to _countenance_ and
_encourage_” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a
private, inoffensive way;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If
those meetings are _unlawful_ in themselves, all their inoffensiveness
will not make them lawful. “O, but they behave with modesty and
decency.” Very well; but the law! What is that to the law? There
can be no solid defence but this: They are not _dissenters_ from the
church; therefore they _cannot use_, and they do _not need_ the act of
toleration. And their meetings are not seditious; therefore the statute
against seditious meetings does not affect them.
The application is obvious. If our meetings are illegal, so are theirs
also. But if this plea be good (as doubtless it is) in the one case, it
is good in the other also.
9. You propose another objection to our _manner_ of preaching, in the
second part of the _observations_. The substance of it I will repeat,
and answer as briefly as I can.
“They run up and down from place to place, and from county to county:”
that is, _they preach in several places_. This is undoubtedly true.
“They draw after them confused multitudes of people:” that is, “_Many
come to hear them_.” This is true also. “But they would do well to
remember, God is not the author of _confusion_ or of _tumult_, but
of peace.” I trust we do: nor is there any _confusion_ or _tumult_ at
all, in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times when the
sons of _Belial_ mix therewith, on purpose to disturb the _peaceable_
worshippers of God.
“But our church has provided against this preaching up and down, in
the ordination of a priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the
powers then conferred upon him, to _the congregation where he shall be
lawfully appointed thereunto_.”
I answer, 1. Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just
as you propose it, it proves, That no priest has authority, either
to preach or minister the sacraments, in any other than his own
congregation.
2. Had the powers conferred been _so limited_ when I was ordained
priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not
_appointed to any congregation_ at all: but was ordained as a member
of that “College of divines,” (so our statutes express it) “founded to
overturn all heresies; and defend the Catholic faith.”
3. For many years after I was ordained priest, this _limitation_ was
never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection, to
my preaching up and down in _Oxford_ or _London_, or the parts adjacent,
in _Gloucestershire_, or _Worcestershire_; _Lancashire_, _Yorkshire_ or
_Lincolnshire_. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering
me to exercise those powers wherever I came.
4. And in fact, Is it not universally allowed, that every priest, as
such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, either to preach or to
administer the sacraments, in any congregation, ♦wherever the rector
or curate desires his assistance? Does not every one then, see through
this thin pretence?
♦ “whereever” replaced with “wherever”
10. “The bishops and universities indeed have power to grant licences
to _Itinerants_. But the church has provided in _that_ case; They are
not to preach in any church (Canon 50.) till they shew their licence.”
The church has well provided in _that_ case. But what has _that_ case
to do with the case of common clergymen? Only so much as to shew, how
grossly this canon has been abused, at _Islington_ in particular: where
the churchwardens were instructed to hinder, by main force, the priest
whom the vicar himself had appointed, from preaching, and to quote this
canon; which, as you plainly shew, belongs to quite another thing.
In the note you add, “Mr. _Wesley_ being asked, By what authority he
preached, replied, By the authority of Jesus Christ conveyed to me by
the (now) archbishop of _Canterbury_, when he laid his hands upon me
and said, Take thou authority to preach the gospel. In this reply he
thought fit, for a plain reason, to leave out _this latter part_ of the
commission: for that would have shewn his reader, the _restraint_ and
_limitation_, under which the exercise of the power is granted.” Nay,
I did not _print the latter part_ of the words, for a plainer reason,
because I did not _speak_ them. And I did not _speak_ them then,
because they did not come into my mind. Tho’ probably if they had, I
should not have spoken them: it being my only concern, to answer the
question proposed, in as few words as I could.
But before those words, which you suppose to imply such a _restraint_,
as would condemn all the bishops and clergy in the nation, were
those spoken without any _restraint_ or _limitation_ at all, which I
apprehend to convey an indelible character, “Receive the Holy Ghost,
for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed
unto thee, by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive,
they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.
And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his Holy
sacraments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.”
You proceed, “In the same journal he declares, that he looks upon
all the world as his parish, and explains his meaning as follows; ‘In
whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty,
to declare unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of
salvation. This is the work which I know God hath called me to.’ Namely,
_by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery_: which directs me how
to obey that general command, _while we have time, let us do good unto
all men_.”
11. You object farther, “That the _methodists_ do not observe the
rubrick before the communion service; which directs, so many as desire
to partake of the holy communion, to signify their names to the curate
the day before.” What curate desires they should? Whenever any minister
will give but one week’s notice of this, I undertake, all that have any
relation to me, shall signify their names within the time appointed.
You object also, that they break through the twenty-eighth canon,
which requires, “That if strangers come often to any church from other
parishes, they should be remitted to their own churches, there to
receive the communion with their neighbours.”
But what if there be no communion there? Then this canon does not touch
the case; nor does any one break it, by coming to another church purely
because there is no communion at his own.
As to your next advice, “To have a greater regard to the rules and
orders of the church,” _I cannot_; for I now regard them, next to
the word of God. And as to your last, “To renounce communion with the
church,” _I dare not._ Nay but let them thrust us out. We _will not_
leave the ship: if you _cast us_ out of it, then our Lord will take us
up.
12. To the same head may be referred the objection some time urged,
by a friendly and candid man, viz. “That it was unlawful to use
extemporary prayer, because there was a canon against it.”
It was not quite clear to me, that the canon he cited was against
extemporary prayer. But supposing it were, my plain answer would be,
“That the canon I dare not obey: because the law of man binds only so
far as it is consistent with the word of God.”
The same person objected, my not obeying the bishops and governors of
the church. I answer, I both do and will obey them, in whatsoever I
can with a clear conscience. So that there is no just ground for that
charge, that I despise either the rules, or the governors of the church.
I obey them in all things where I do not apprehend there is some
particular law of God to the contrary. Even in that case, I shew all
the deference I can; I endeavour to act as inoffensively as possible:
and am ready to submit to any penalty, which can by law be inflicted
upon me. Would to God every minister and member of the church, were
herein altogether as I am!
VII. 1. I have considered the chief objections that have lately been
urged against the _doctrines_ I teach. The main arguments brought
against this _manner of teaching_, have been considered also. It
remains, to examine the most current objections, concerning _the
effects_ of this teaching.
Many affirm, “That it does abundance of hurt: that it has had very bad
effects; insomuch that if any good at all has been done, yet it bears
no proportion to the evil.”
But to come to particulars, “First then, you are disturbers of the
public peace.”
What, do we either teach or raise sedition? Do we speak evil of the
ruler of our people? Or do we stir them up against any of those that
are put in authority under him? Do we directly or indirectly promote
faction, mutiny, or rebellion? I have not found any man in his senses
yet, that would affirm this.
“But it is plain, peace is broke and disturbances do arise, in
consequence of your preaching.” I grant it. But what would you infer?
Have you never read the bible? Have you not read, that the Prince of
peace himself was, in _this_ sense, a disturber of the public peace?
_When he came into |Jerusalem|_, (Matthew xxi. 10.) _all the city was
moved_, (ἐσείσθη) shaken as with an earthquake. And the disturbance
arose higher and higher, till _the whole multitude_ cried out together,
_Away with him, away with him; crucify him, crucify him, and Pilate
gave sentence, it should be done_. Such another disturber of the public
peace, was that _Stephen_, even from the time he began _disputing with
the Libertines and Cyrenians_, till the people _stopped their ears, and
ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned
him_. Such disturbers of the peace were all those ringleaders of the
sect of the _Nazarenes_, (commonly called _apostles_) who wherever
they came, _turned the world upside down_. And above all the rest, that
_Paul_ of _Tarsius_, who occasioned so much disturbance at _Damascus_,
(Acts ix.) at _Antioch_ of _Pisidia_ (chapter xiii.) at _Iconium_
(chapter xiv.) at _Lystra_ (verse 19.) at _Philippi_ (chapter xvi.)
at _Thessalonica_ (chapter xvii.) and particularly at _Ephesus_. The
consequence of his preaching there was, That _the whole city was filled
with confusion_. And _they all ran together with one accord, some
crying one thing, some another_: inasmuch _as the greater part of them
knew not wherefore they were come together_.
*2. And can we expect it to be any otherwise _now_? Although what _we_
preach is the gospel of peace, yet if you will violently and illegally
hinder our preaching, must not this create disturbance? But observe,
the disturbance begins on _your_ part. All is peace, till you raise
that disturbance. And then you very modestly impute it to _us_, and
lay your _own_ riot at _our_ door!
But of all this, our Lord hath told us before. _Think not that I am
come to send peace upon earth_: that this will be the immediate effect,
wherever my gospel is preached with power. _I am not come to send peace,
but a sword_: this (so far as the wisdom of God permits, by whom _the
hairs of your head are all numbred_) will be the first consequence of
my coming, whenever my word turns sinners from darkness to light, from
the power of _Satan_ unto God.
I would wish all you who see this scripture fulfilled, by disturbance
following the preaching the gospel, to remember the behaviour of that
wise magistrate at _Ephesus_ on the like occasion. He did not lay the
disturbance to the preacher’s charge, but _beckoned to the multitude
and said, ye men of Ephesus――Ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing
rashly. For ye have brought these men, who are neither robbers of
temples, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess_: (not convicted of any
such notorious crime, as can at all excuse this lawless violence.) _But
if |Demetrius| hath a matter against any, the law is open, and there
are deputies_ (or proconsuls, capable of hearing and deciding the cause)
_let them implead one another. But if ye enquire any thing concerning
other things, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly._
3. “But you create divisions in private families.” Accidentally, we
do. For instance, suppose an entire family to have the form but not
the power of godliness; or to have neither the form nor the power; in
either case, they may in some sort agree together. But suppose, when
these hear the plain word of God, one or two of them are convinced,
“This is the truth. And I have been all this time in the broad way
that leadeth to destruction:” These then will begin to mourn after
God; while the rest remain as they were. Will they not therefore of
consequence divide, and form themselves into separate parties? Must
it not be so, in the very nature of things? And how exactly does this
agree with the words of our Lord? _Suppose ye that I came to send peace
upon earth? I tell you nay: But rather division. For from henceforth
there shall be five divided in one house, three against two, and two
against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son
against the father: the mother against her daughter, and the daughter
against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and
the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law._ (Luke xii. 51, 52, 53.)
_And the foes of a man, shall be they of his own houshold._ (Matthew
x. 36.)
Thus it was from the very beginning. For is it to be supposed, that
a _Heathen_ parent, would long endure a _Christian_ child? Or, that a
_Heathen_ husband would agree with a _Christian_ wife? Unless either
the believing wife could gain her husband; or the unbelieving husband
prevailed on the wife to renounce _her way_ of worshipping God: at
least, unless she would obey him in going no more to those _societies_
or _conventicles_, (ἑταιρίαι) as they termed the Christian assemblies.
*4. Do you think now, I have an eye to _your_ case? Doubtless I have;
for I do not fight as one that beateth the air. “Why have not I a right
to hinder my own wife or child, from going to a conventicle? And is
it not the duty of wives to obey their husbands? And of children to
obey their parents?” Only set the case seventeen hundred years back,
and your own conscience gives you the answer. What would St. _Paul_
have said to one whose husband forbade her, to follow _this way_ any
more? What directions would our Saviour have given to him whose father
enjoined him, not to hear the gospel? His words are extant still,
_He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.
And he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me._
(Matthew x. 37, 38.) Nay more, _If any man cometh to me, and hateth
not_ (in comparison of me) _his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, yea and his own life, he cannot be my disciple_. (Luke
xiv. 26.)
*“O, but this is not a parallel case. For they were _Heathens_; but I
am a _Christian_.” A Christian! Are you so? Do you understand the word?
Do you know what a Christian is? If you are a Christian, you have the
mind that was in Christ; and you so walk as he also walked. You are
holy as he is holy, both in heart, and in all manner of conversation.
Have you then the mind that was in Christ? And do you walk as Christ
walked? Are you inwardly and outwardly holy? I fear, not even outwardly.
No; you live in known sin. Alas! How then are you a Christian? What a
railer, a Christian? A common swearer, a Christian? A sabbath-breaker,
a Christian? A drunkard or whoremonger, a Christian? Thou art a Heathen
barefaced; the wrath of God is on thy head, and the curse of God upon
thy back. Thy damnation slumbereth not. By reason of such Christians
it is that the holy name of Christ is blasphemed. Such as thou they
are, that cause the very savages in the _Indian_ woods to cry out,
“_Christian_ much drunk, _Christian_ beat men, _Christian_ tell lies,
_Devil-Christian_! Me no _Christian_.”
*And so _thou_ wilt direct thy wife and children in the way of
salvation!――Woe unto thee, thou Devil-Christian! Woe unto thee thou
blind leader of the blind! What wilt thou make them? Two-fold more the
children of hell than thyself? Be ashamed, blush, if thou canst blush.
Hide thy face. Lay thee in the dust. Out of the deep cry unto God,
if haply he may hear thy voice. Instantly smite upon thy breast. Who
knoweth but God may take thee out of the belly of hell?
*5. “But you are not one of these. You fear God, and labour to have a
conscience void of offence. And it is from a principle of _conscience_,
that you restrain your wife and children from hearing _false
doctrine_.” But how do you know it is false doctrine? Have you heard
for yourself? Or, if you have not heard, have you carefully read what
we have occasionally answered for ourselves? A man of conscience cannot
condemn any one unheard. This is not common humanity. Nor will he
refrain from hearing what _may be_ the truth, for no better reason than
fear of his reputation. Pray observe, I do not say, every man (or any
man) is obliged in conscience to hear us. But I do say, every man in
_England_ who condemns us, is obliged to hear us first. This is only
common justice, such as is not denied to a thief or a murderer. Take
your choice therefore. Either hear us, or condemn us not. Either speak
nothing at all, or hear before you speak.
But suppose you have both read and heard _more than you like_: Did you
read and hear fairly? Was not you loaden with prejudice? Did you not
read or hear, _expecting no good_; perhaps desiring to find fault? If
so, what wonder you judge as you do? What a poor mock-trial is this?
You had decided the cause in your own breast, before you heard one word
of the evidence. And still do _you_ talk of acting out of conscience?
Yea, a conscience void of offence?
*We will put the case farther yet. Suppose your censure was just,
and this was actually false doctrine. Still every one must give an
account of himself to God: and you cannot _force_ the conscience of any
one. You cannot _compel_ another, to see as you see. You ought not to
attempt it. Reason and persuasion are the only weapons you ought to
use, even toward your own wife and children. Nay, and it is impossible
to _starve_ them into conviction, or to _beat_ even truth into their
head, You may _destroy_ them, in this way, but cannot _convert_ them.
Remember what our own poet has said,
“By force beasts act and are by force restrain’d;
The human mind by gentle means is gain’d.
Thou canst not take, what I refuse to yield:
Nor reap the harvest, tho’ thou spoilst the field.”
6. Every reasonable man is convinced of this. And perhaps you do not
concern yourself so much about the doctrine, but the mischief that is
done, “How many poor families are starved, ruined, brought to beggary!”
By what? Not by _contributing_ a penny a week (the usual contribution
in our societies) and _letting that alone_, when they please, when
there is any shadow of reason to suppose they cannot afford it. You
will not say, any are brought to beggary by this. Not by gifts to
me: for I receive none; save (sometimes) the food I eat. And publick
collections are nothing to me. That it may evidently appear they are
not, when any such collection is made, to cloathe the poor, or for
any other determinate purpose, the money is both received and expended
before many witnesses, without ever going through my hands at all. And
then likewise all possible regard is had, to the circumstances of those
who contribute any thing. And they are told over and over, _if there be
a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath_.
But where are all these families that have been brought to beggary?
How is it, that none of them is forth-coming? Are they all, _out
of town_? Then indeed I am in no danger of clearing myself from
_their_ indictment. It is the easiest thing of a thousand, for one at
_Newcastle_ to say, that I have beggared him and all his kindred. If
one of the long-bearded men on _Tyne_-bridge, were to say so just now,
I could not readily confute him. But why will you not bring a few of
these to tell me so to my face? I have not found one that would do this
yet. They pray, you would have them excused.
I remember a man coming to me with a doleful countenance, putting
himself into many lamentable postures, gaping as wide as he could,
and pointing to his mouth, as tho’ he would say, “he could not speak.”
I enquired of his companion, what was the matter? And was informed,
“he had fallen into the hands of the _Turks_, who had used him in a
barbarous manner, and cut out his tongue by the roots.” I believed him.
But when the man had had a chearful cup, he could find his tongue as
well as another. I reflected, how is it that I could so readily believe
that tale? The answer was easy, “because it was told of a _Turk_.” My
friend, take knowledge of your own case. If you had not first took me
for a _Turk_, or something equally bad, you could not so readily have
believed that tale!
7. “But can it be, that there is no ground at all for a report, which
is in every ones mouth?” I will simply tell you, all the ground which
I can conceive. I believe many of those who attend on my ministry, have
less of this world’s goods than they had before, or at least, might
have had if they did not attend it. This fact I allow; and it may be
easily accounted for, in one or other of the following ways.
First, I frequently preach on such texts as these: _Having food and
raiment, let us be content therewith. They who desire to be rich, fall
into temptation and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts, which
drown men in destruction and perdition. Lay not up for yourselves
treasures upon earth, where the rust and moth doth corrupt, and where
thieves break thro’ and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where neither rust nor moth doth corrupt, and where thieves do
not break thro’ and steal._
Now should any of those who are labouring by all possible means, _to
lay up treasure upon earth, feel_ these words, they would not _inlarge
their desires as hell_; but be _content with such things as they
had_. They then probably might not heap up so much for their heirs, as
otherwise they would have done. These would therefore _have less_ than
if they had not heard _me_: because they would _grasp at less_.
Secondly, wherever the gospel takes effect, _the foes of a man will
be those of his own houshold_. By this means then some who hear and
receive it with joy, will be poorer then they were before. Their
domestic foes will, in many cases, hinder, embroil, and disturb the
course of their affairs. And their relations, who assisted them before,
or promised at least so to do, will probably withdraw or deny that
assistance, _unless they will be advised by them_. Perhaps their
nearest relations: it being no new thing, for parents to disown their
children, if _after the way which they call heresy, these worship the
|God| of their fathers_. Hence therefore some _have less_, of this
world’s goods then they had in times past, either because they _earn
less_, or because they _receive less_, from them on whom they depend.
Thirdly, It is written, that _those who received not the mark of the
beast, either on their fore-heads, or in their right hands_, either
openly or secretly were not permitted _to buy or sell any more_.
Now whatever the mystery contained herein may be, I apprehend the
plain mark of the beast is wickedness; inward and outward unholiness,
whatever is secretly or openly contrary to justice, mercy or truth.
And certain it is, the time is ♦well nigh come, when those who have not
this mark, can neither buy nor sell, can scarce follow any profession,
so as to gain a subsistence thereby. Therefore, many of those who
attend on my ministry, are by this means poorer than before. They will
not receive the mark of the beast, either on their forehead or in their
hand: or if they had received it, before, they rid themselves of it as
soon as possible. Some cannot follow their former way of life _at all_;
(as pawnbrokers, smugglers, buyers or sellers of uncustomed goods)
others cannot follow it _as they did before_. For they cannot oppress,
cheat or defraud their neighbour: they cannot lie, or say what they
do not mean; they _must_ now speak the truth from their heart. On all
these accounts, they _have less_ of this world’s goods; because they
_gain less_ than they did before.
♦ “will” replaced with “well”
Fourthly, _all that will live godly in |Christ Jesus| shall suffer
persecution_: If in no other way, yet at least in this, that _men will
by revilings persecute them; and say all manner of evil against them
falsly, for his sake_. One unavoidable effect of this will be, that men
whose subsistence depends on their daily labour, will be often in want,
for few will care to employ those of so _bad a character_. And even
those who did employ them before, perhaps for many years, will employ
them no more; so that hereby some may indeed be brought to beggary.
*8. What does this touch _you_? Are _you_ one of those, “who will have
nothing to do with those scandalous wretches?” Perhaps you will say,
“And who can blame me for it: may I not employ whom I please?” We will
weigh this. You employed _A. B._ for several years. By your own account,
he was an honest, diligent man. You had no objection to him but his
following _this way_. For this reason you turn him off. In a short time,
having spent his little all, and having no supply, he wants bread. So
does his family too as well as himself. Before he can get into other
business to procure it, thro’ want of convenient food to eat, and
raiment to put on, he sickens and dies. This is not an imaginary scene.
I have known the case; tho’ too late to remedy it.
“And what then?” What then _you_ are a murderer. _O earth, cover not
thou his blood!_ No it doth not. _The cry thereof hath entered into the
ears of the Lord God of sabbaoth._ And God requireth it at _your_ hands:
and will require it in an hour when you think not. For _you_ have as
effectually murdered that man, as if you had stabbed him to the heart.
It is not I then who ruin and starve that family; it is _you_; _you_
who call yourself a _protestant_! _You_ who cry out against the
_persecuting_ spirit of the _Papists_! Ye fools and blind! What are
ye better then they? Why, _Edmund Bonner_ would have _starved_ the
hereticks in _prison_: whereas _you starve_ them in their _own houses_.
*And all this time you talk of _liberty of conscience_! Yes, liberty
for such a conscience as your own: a conscience _past feeling_; (for
sure it had some once) a conscience _seared with a hot iron_. Liberty
to serve the devil, according to your poor, hardened conscience, you
allow; but not liberty to serve God.
*Nay, and what marvel? Whosoever thou art that readest this, and
feelest in thy heart a real desire to serve God, I warn thee, expect
no liberty for thy conscience, from him that hath no conscience at
all. All ungodly, unthankful, unholy men; all villains of whatever
denomination, will have liberty indeed all the world over, as long as
their master is _God of this world_. But expect not liberty to worship
God in spirit and in truth, to practise pure and undefiled religion
(unless the Lord should work a new thing in the earth) from any but
those who themselves love and serve God.
9. “However, ’tis plain, you make men idle. And this tends to beggar
their families.” This objection having been continually urged for some
years, I will trace it from the foundation.
Two or three years after my return from _America_, one Captain _Robert
Williams_ of _Bristol_, made affidavit before the (then) mayor of the
city, that “it was a common report in _Georgia_, Mr. _Wesley_ took
people off from their work and _made them idle_, by preaching so much.”
The fact stood thus: at my first coming to _Savannah_, the generality
of the people rose at seven or eight in the morning. And that part
of them who were accustomed to work, usually worked till six in the
evening. A few of them sometimes worked till seven; which is the time
of sun-set there at Midsummer.
I immediately began reading prayers and expounded the second lesson,
both in the morning and evening. The morning service began at five, and
ended at, or before six: the evening service began at seven.
Now supposing all the grown persons in the town, had been present
every morning and evening, would this have _made them idle_? Would they
hereby have had _less_, or considerably _more time for working_?
10. The same rule I follow now, both at _London_, _Bristol_ and
_Newcastle-upon-Tyne_: concluding the service at every place, winter
and summer, before six in the morning: and not ordinarily beginning to
preach, till near seven in the evening.
Now do you, who make this objection, work longer, throughout the year,
than from six to six? Do you desire, that the generality of people
should? Or, can you count them idle, that work so long?
Some few are indeed accustomed to work longer. These I advise, not
to come on weekdays. And it is apparent, that they take this advice,
unless on some rare and extraordinary occasion.
But I hope, none of _you_ who turn them out of their employment, have
the confidence to talk of _my_ making them idle! Do you (as the homely
phrase is) cry wh―― first? I admire your cunning; but not your modesty.
So far am I from either _causing_ or _encouraging_ idleness, that an
idle person, known to be such, is not suffered to remain in any of
our societies; we drive him out, as we would a thief or a murderer.
“To shew all possible diligence,” (as well as frugality) is one of
our standing rules: and one, concerning the observance of which, we
continually make the strictest enquiry.
11. “But you drive them out of their senses. You _make them mad_.” Nay,
then they are idle with a vengeance. This objection therefore being of
the utmost importance, deserves our deepest consideration.
And first, I grant, it is my earnest desire to drive all the world,
into what you probably call _madness_: (I mean, inward religion) to
make them just as _mad_, as _Paul_ was when he was so accounted by
_Festus_.
The counting all things on earth but dung and dross, so we may win
Christ; the ♦trampling under foot all the pleasures of the world, the
seeking no treasure but in heaven; the having no desire of the praise
of men, a good character, a fair reputation; the being exceeding
glad when men revile us, and persecute us, and say all manner of evil
against us falsely; the giving God thanks, when our father and mother
forsake us, when we have neither food to eat, nor raiment to put on,
nor a friend but what shoots out bitter words, nor a place where to lay
our head: this is utter _distraction_ in _your_ account; but in God’s
it is sober, rational religion: the genuine fruit, not of a distempered
brain, not of a sickly imagination, but _of_ the _power_ of God in the
heart, _of_ victorious _love, and of a sound mind_.
♦ “trampleing” replaced with “trampling”
12. I grant, secondly, It is my endeavour to drive all I can, into
what _you_ may term another species of _madness_, which is usually
preparatory to this, and which I term _repentance_ or _conviction_.
I cannot describe this better than a writer of our own has done. I will
therefore transcribe his words.
“When men _feel_ in themselves the heavy burden of sin, see damnation
to be the reward of it, and behold with the eye of their mind the
horror of hell; they tremble, they quake, and are inwardly touched
with sorrowfulness of heart, and cannot but accuse themselves, and
open their grief unto Almighty God, and call unto him for mercy. This
being done seriously, their mind is so occupied, partly with sorrow
and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this
danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of meat and drink is
laid apart, and loathsomeness (or loathing) of all worldly things and
pleasure cometh in place. So that nothing then liketh them, more than
to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour of body
to shew themselves weary of life.”
Now what if your wife, or daughter, or acquaintance, after hearing
one of these field-preachers, should come and tell you, that they
_saw damnation_ before them, and _beheld with the eye of their mind
the horror of hell_? What if they should _tremble and quake_, and be
so taken up _partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest
desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation,_ as _to
weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour to shew
themselves weary of life_; would you scruple to say, that they were
_stark mad_? That these fellows had driven them _out of their senses_?
And that whatever writer it was, that _talked at this rate_, he was
fitter for _Bedlam_ than any other place?
You have overshot yourself now to some purpose. These are the very
words of our own church. You may read them, if you are so inclined, in
the first part of the _homily on fasting_. And consequently, what you
have peremptorily determined to be _mere lunacy and destruction_, is
that _repentance unto life_, which, in the judgment both of the church
and of St. _Paul_, is _never to be repented of_.
13. I grant, thirdly, that _extraordinary_ circumstances have attended
this conviction in some instances. A particular account of these I have
frequently given. While the word of God was preached, some persons have
dropped down as dead; some have been, as it were, in strong convulsions;
some roared aloud, though not with an ♦articulate voice; and others
spoke the anguish of their souls.
♦ “articlute” replaced with “articulate”
This, I suppose, you believe to be perfect madness. But it is easily
accounted for, either on principles of reason or scripture.
First, on principles of reason. For how easy is it to suppose, that a
strong, lively and sudden apprehension of the heinousness of sin, the
wrath of God, and the bitter pains of eternal death, should affect
the body as well as the soul, during the present laws of vital union;
should interrupt or disturb the ordinary circulations, and put nature
out of its course? Yea, we may question, whether while this union
subsists, it be possible for the mind to be affected, in so violent
a degree, without some or other of those bodily symptoms following?
It is likewise easy to account for these things, on principles of
scripture. For when we take a view of them in this light, we are to add
to the consideration of natural causes, the agency of those spirits who
still excel in strength, and as far as they have leave from God, will
not fail to torment whom they cannot destroy; to _tear_ those _that are
coming_ to Christ. It is also remarkable, that there is plain scripture
precedent of every symptom which has lately appeared. So that we
cannot allow even the _conviction_ attended with these to be _madness_,
without giving up both reason and scripture.
*14. I grant, fourthly, That touches of extravagance, bordering on
madness may sometime attend severe conviction. And this also is easy
to be accounted for, by the present laws of the animal œconomy. For we
know, fear or grief, from a temporal cause, may occasion a fever and
thereby a delirium.
It is not strange then that some, while under strong impressions of
grief or fear, from a sense of the wrath of God, should for a season
_forget_ almost all things else, and scarce be able to answer a common
question: that some should _fancy_ they see the flames of hell, or
the devil and his angels around them: or that others, for a space,
should be _afraid_, like _Cain, whosoever meeteth me will slay me_.
All these, and whatever less common effects may sometimes accompany
this conviction, are easily known from the natural distemper of
madness, were it only by this one circumstance, that whenever the
person convinced tastes the pardoning love of God, they all vanish
away in a moment.
Lastly, I have seen one instance (I pray God I may see no more such!)
of real, lasting madness.
Two or three years since, I took one with me to _Bristol_, who was
under deep convictions; but of as sound an understanding in all
respects, as ever he had been in his life. I went a short journey, and
when I came to _Bristol_ again, found him really distracted. I enquired
particularly, at what time and place, and in what manner this disorder
began? And I believe there are, at least, threescore witnesses, alive,
and ready to testify what follows. When I went from _Bristol_, he
contracted an acquaintance with some persons, who were not of the same
judgment with me. He was soon prejudiced against me: quickly after,
when our society were met together in _Kingswood-house_, he began a
vehement invective both against my person and doctrines. In the midst
of this, he was struck raving mad. And so he continued till his friends
put him into _bedlam_: and probably, laid _his_ madness too to _my_
charge.
15. I fear, there may also be some instances of real madness,
proceeding from a different cause.
Suppose, for instance, a person, hearing me, is strongly convinced,
that a liar cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. He comes home, and
relates this to his parents or friends, and appears to be very uneasy.
These _good Christians_ are disturbed at this, and afraid he is running
mad too. They are resolved, he shall never hear any of those fellows
more; and keep to it in spite of all his intreaties. They will not
suffer him, when at home, to be alone, for fear he should read or pray.
And perhaps in a while they will constrain him, at least by repeated
importunities, to do again the very thing, for which he was convinced
the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience.
What is the event of this? Sometimes the Spirit of God is quenched and
departs from him. Now you have carried the point. The man is easy as
ever, and sins on without any remorse. But in other instances, where
those convictions sink deep, and the arrows of the Almighty stick fast
in the soul, you will drive the person into real, settled madness,
before you can quench the Spirit of God. I am afraid, there have been
several instances of this. You have forced the man’s conscience, till
he is stark mad. But then, pray do not impute that madness to me. Had
you left him to my direction, or rather to the direction of the Spirit
of God, he would have been filled with love and a sound mind. But you
have taken the matter out of God’s hand. And now you have brought it to
a fair conclusion!
16. How frequent this case may be, I know not. But doubtless most of
those who make this objection, of our driving men mad, have never met
with such an instance in their lives. The common cry is occasioned,
either by those who are _convinced_ of sin, or those who are inwardly
_converted_ to God: mere madness both (as was observed before) to those
who are without God in the world. Yet I do not deny, but you may have
seen one in _bedlam_, who _said_ he had followed _me_. But observe, a
madman’s saying this, is no proof of the fact: nay, and if he really
had, it should be farther considered, that his being in _bedlam_, is
no sure proof of his being mad. Witness the well-known case of Mr.
_Periam_; and I doubt more such are to be found. Yea, it is well if
some have not been sent thither, for no other reason, but because they
followed _me_: their kind relations either concluding, that they must
be distracted, before they could do this: or, perhaps hoping, that
_bedlam_ would _make_ them mad, if it did not _find_ them so.
*17. And it must be owned, a confinement of such a sort, is as fit to
_cause_ as to _cure_ distraction. For what scene of distress is to be
compared to it? To be separated at once from all who are near and dear
to you; to be cut off from all reasonable conversation, to be secluded
from all business, from all reading, from every innocent entertainment
of the mind, which is left to prey wholly upon itself, and day and
night to pore over your misfortunes: to be shut up day by day in
a gloomy cell, with only the walls to employ your heavy eyes, in
the midst either of melancholy silence, or horrid cries, groans
and laughter intermixt: to be forced by the main strength of those
“Who laugh at human nature and compassion,”
to take drenches of nauseous, perhaps torturing medicines, which you
know you have no need of now, but know not how soon you may, possibly
by the operation of these very drugs on a weak and tender constitution:
here is distress! It is an astonishing thing, a signal proof of the
power of God, if any creature who has his senses when the confinement
begins, does not lose them, before it is at an end!
How must it heighten the distress, if such a poor wretch, being deeply
convinced of sin, and growing worse and worse (as he probably will,
seeing there is no medicine here for _his_ sickness, no such physician
as his case requires) be soon placed among _the incurables_! Can
imagination itself paint such a hell upon earth? Where even “hope never
comes, that comes to all!”――For what remedy? If a man of sense and
humanity, should happen to visit that house of woe, would he give the
hearing to a madman’s tale? Or if he did, would he credit it? “Do we
not know, might he say, how well any of these will talk in their lucid
intervals?” So that a thousand to one he would concern himself no more
about it, but leave the weary to wait for rest in the grave!
18. I have now answered most of the current objections, particularly
such as have appeared of weight to religious or reasonable men. I have
endeavoured to shew, first, That the doctrines I teach are no other
than the great truths of the gospel. 2. That though I teach them, not
as I would, but as I _can_, yet it is in a _manner_ not contrary to
law: And 3. That the _effects_ of thus preaching the gospel, have not
been such as was weakly or wickedly reported: those reports being mere
artifices of the devil, to hinder the work of God. Whosoever therefore
ye are, who look for God to _revive his work in the midst of the years_,
cry aloud, that he may _finish_ it nevertheless, may _cut it short in
righteousness_. Cry to _Messiah the Prince_, that he may soon _end the
transgression_, that he may _lift up his standard_ upon earth, sending
by whom he will send, and working his own work, when he pleaseth, and
as he pleaseth, till _all the kindreds of the people worship before
him_, and the earth _be full of the knowledge of the glory of the
|Lord|_!
_December 22, 1744._
* * * * *
_An_ ACT _of_ DEVOTION.
1 BEHOLD the servant of the Lord!
I wait thy guiding eye to feel,
To hear, and keep thine every word,
To prove, and do thy perfect will:
Joyful from all my works to cease,
Glad to fulfil all righteousness.
2 Me if thy grace vouchsafe to use,
Meanest of all thy creatures me,
The deed, the time, the manner chuse;
Let all my fruit be found of thee;
Let all my works in thee be wrought,
By thee to full perfection brought.
3 My every weak, though good design,
O’er-rule, or change as seems thee meet;
Jesus, let all the work be thine;
Thy work, O Lord, is all-compleat,
And pleasing in thy Father’s sight;
Thou only hast done all things right.
4 Here then to thee thine own I leave,
Mould as thou wilt the passive clay;
But let me all thy stamp receive,
But let me all thy words obey;
Serve with a single heart and eye,
And to thy glory live and die.
The _End_ of the _Fourteenth Volume_.