9935

tyranny.' But the Methodists of that time actually felt just the contrary.

The motives which prompted the bishops to go against the Methodists were sometimes very sincere and sensible. In a most moderate manner, Bishop Gibson wrote: "God forbid that in this profane and degenerate age, everything that has the appearance of piety and devotion should not be considered in the most favorable light that it is capable of. But at the same time it is surely very proper that men should be called upon for some reasonable evidences of a divine commission from God, a. when they use the language of those who have a commission from God, b. when they profess to think and act under divine inspiration, c. when they claim the effects of preaching as a work of divine power, d. when they boast of the result of their preaching as the work of the Holy Ghost, e. when they claim the spirit of prophecy, f. when they speak of themselves in the language and under the character of apostles of Christ, g. when they claim to propagate a new gospel." The bishop analyzed the Journals of Whitefield and brought these objections to them in this orderly manGibson did not like this enthusiasm; he considered that "it is one thing to pray for the Holy Spirit, and another to pray by the Holy Spirit." Few people had any ability to pray in public; hence the bishop took a stand against it.37 This position taken by Gibson had much influence. His Pastoral Letter of 1739 was widely read and went through several editions; above all, it tried to deal with facts.38 Wesley replied to Gibson and argued to the point, that the bishop was not careful to distinguish the Methodists from the Moravians; and that both were quite distinct groups.39 But the bishop could not be persuaded, and he continued his opposition to Methodist teachers on the ground that they were boastful and vainglorious; and they thought themselves to be doing some especially great work. Gibson brought out good evidence to prove this point, for the Methodists very

ner, 36

bluntly said theirs was the task of reforming the Church. Most naturally the bishops could not tolerate the imputation of such corruption to their Church.40 Nevertheless, the Bishop of London was not clear cut in his stand. He could find fault, and that ably; but he could not suggest a remedy. He said that true Christianity lay between the excesses of the enthusiasts and the lukewarmness of irreligion.41 Gibson was correct in this. And when Fitchett says of him: "He, like many of his clergy, held the curious theory that the Divine Spirit acted everywhere in general, but nowhere in particular; while the deluded Methodists taught the incredible doctrine that the Holy Spirit worked in individual souls," it would seem that Fitchett did not do Gibson justice for his well thought out position.42

All the bishops, however, did not show the restraint of Gibson in their objections to the enthusiasm of the Methodists. John Green, Bishop of Lincoln, could not see any outward signs that the Methodists could meet their claims.43 Butler, the author of the Analogy and Bishop of Bristol, denounced Whitefield and Wesley for their actions. "I hear, too, that many persons fall into fits in your societies and that you pray over them." The bishop objected to this way of doing things and advised Wesley to quit preaching here and yonder; to settle down; and to cease to break the law of the Church. Wesley told the bishop point blank, that he would work wherever he could do the most good.** Lavington, of course, had to be violent: "It is but too notorious, that the same enthusiasm under the same management, hath driven numbers of these unhappy creatures into direct madness and distraction, either of a moping, or raving kind." Lavington drew up much proof for this statement; just and fair proof -which was just contrary to his usual method of attack.

1945

The bishops of the Church saw the moral conditions of their time, and were concerned for it. Archbishop Secker, in 1738, openly said: “An open and professed disregard for reli

40 Observations Upon Conduct of Meth., p. 22.

41

Pastoral Letter, p. 4.

42 Fitchett: p. 340.

43

Principles and Practices of Methodists, p. 24ff. "Whitehead: vol. ii, pp. 120-121.

gion is become, through a variety of unhappy causes, the distinguishing character of the present age." He figured crime and bad living to be on the increase. The clergy were not influential; they were laughed at; they led base lives. He urged people everywhere to take life seriously.46 Gibson, too, in his thoroughgoing manner went into the situation confronting the Church in detail. He warned the people against lukewarmness in religion. He railed against formal Church attendance, and pleaded that the people should learn to delight in real devotion and private prayer. Sincere dislike of gross evil in self and in others was the test of true religion which he set up. People were playing at religion. "And there is danger of their being led to think too favorably of their condition, in an age which affords them so many examples of notorious and open wickedness, and a total neglect of the public worship of God."47 Truly Gibson saw clearly.

In the light of the above conviction, Gibson scored the people. Personal attendance at Church, without attention and devotion, was not an act of religion. Men should regard their stations in life as God's appointments and should serve them as such. The Word of God and not the opinions of the world should be the measure of man's duty. Strict observance of one branch of duty was no excuse for the neglect of another part. Thus Gibson spoke vigorously for a clean Church and national life.4 48 "It must always be remembered, in the first place, that we are Christian preachers, and not barely preachers of morality.49

Bishop Butler in his famous Analogy expresses his view by saying, "It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much a subject for inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it, as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing

46

Eight Charges, ed. 4, 1790-quoted in Jackson: Cent. of Wes. Meth., pp. 18-19.

47 Pastoral Letter, p. 5.

48

Ibid., pp. 6-11.

"Ibid., p. 25.

remained but to set it up as a principle of mirth and ridicule, for its having so long interrupted the mirth and pleasure of the world."50 Thus the bishops were very much concerned with the state of affairs in their day, and felt that every effort should be put forth within the Church to remove the crying evils which they recognized as clearly as anyone else.

With this in mind, it can be seen how the bishops viewed the Methodist movement. They felt that it prevented the Church from facing the evils of the day with a solid front. Butler told Wesley, "If you desire to be extensively useful, do not spend your time and strength contending for or against such things as are of a disputable nature; but in testifying against open, notorious vice, and in promoting real, essential holiness.' This was splendid advice to anybody, and this was just what Wesley was doing. But the bishops undoubtedly felt that the Methodists caused strife and contention within the Church and thereby weakened its power to combat evil.

9951

The bishops felt that Methodist doctrine was disturbing to the Church. Wesley was accused of holding the doctrine of "sinless perfection." He denied to the Bishop of London that he held this doctrine or that he even knew what it meant.52 Lavington cited John Wesley as telling a woman that she was in hell if she had not the assurance of salvation. Wesley investigated this accusation and in A second letter to the author of enthusiasm of the Methodists and Papists compared, he showed Lavington had told an untruth.53 Lavington continued his attack and said that scepticism, infidelity, doubts, and denials of the truth of revelation, and sometimes even atheism itself resulted from the Methodists.54

Not only Methodist doctrine, but also Methodist morality disturbed the Church. Gibson intimated that the Methodists were not careful for their conduct.55 Bishop Horne as vicechancellor, before the University of Oxford called the Meth

Butler's Analogy, Advertisement, p. b. 2.

50

81

Southey: vol. ii, p. 202.

52

Works, vol. v, p. 347.

3 Ibid., vol. v, p. 373ff.

"Enthusiasm, etc., p. 125.

odists "the new lights of the tabernacle and the Foundry," and accused them of teaching a bad faith and a lax morality.56

The organization of the Methodists was also thought to weaken the Church. Gibson gives the list-bands and societies; superintendents; exhorters; quarterly meetings; moderators; visitations these are all unwarranted in the law and are therefore illegal.57 Archbishop Robinson objected to lay preaching.58 Thus on every hand, and for every conceivable reason, the Methodists found themselves opposed by the bishops. Some of these bishops showed sanity in their opposition, others showed For this reason the Methodists did not trouble themselves to obey the bishops in all things. Whitefield was said to show scant courtesy to the bishops. 59 But though the bishops were wrong in their judgments and slow in their actions, Churchmen felt that they were the constituted authorities of the Church and as such should be obeyed until "they should judge it proper to revoke or supersede themselves."60 The Methodists were no worshipers of the episcopacy, especially when they thought these bishops to stand in their way for saving England.

none.

Yet the Methodists would not admit that they broke any Church law in their unhappy relationships with the bishops. "Are you not guilty of canonical disobedience to your bishops?" Wesley was asked. "I think not. Show me wherein," was his answer.61 Wesley did not, however, think himself subjected to the will of a bishop. "But did you not take oath to obey him?" Wesley's reply was emphatic, "No, nor any clergyman in the three kingdoms. This is a mere vulgar error."62 Under this treatment Wesley evolved his idea of Church government. "As to my own judgment, I still believe 'the episcopal form of Church government to be Scriptural and apostolical,' I mean, well agreeing with the practice and the writings of the apostles. But that it is inscribed in Scripture, I do not see." This opinion,