Chapter 12

“They stood and under open air adoredThe God who made both air, earth, heaven and sky.”And whether they were listning to his word, with attention still as night; or were lifting up their voice in praise, as the sound of many waters; many a time have I been constrained to say in my heart,How dreadful is this place! Thisalsoisno other thanthe house ofGod! This is the gate of heaven!*Be pleased to observe. 1. That I was forbidden, as by a general consent, to preach inany church (though not by any judicial sentence) “for preaching such doctrine.” This was the open, avowed cause: there was at that time no other, either real or pretended; (except that the people crouded so:) 2. That I had no desire or design to preach in the open air, till after this prohibition; 3. That when I did, as it was no matter of choice, so neither of premeditation. There was no scheme at all previously formed, which was to be supported thereby; nor had I any other end in view than this, to save as many souls as I could. 4.Field-preachingwas therefore a sudden expedient, a thing submitted to, rather than chosen, and therefore submitted to because I thought preaching eventhus, better thannotpreachingat all: First, in regard to my own soul, becausea dispensation of the gospel being committed to me, I did not dare,Not to preach the gospel; Secondly, in regard to the souls of others, whom I every where saw,seeking death in the error of their life.4. But the author ofthe observationsand ofthe case of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point offield-preaching, thinksfield-preachingworse thannot preaching at all, “because it is illegal.”Your argument, in form, runs thus:“That preaching which is contrary to the laws of the land, is worse than not preaching at all:“But fieldpreaching is contraryto the laws of the land:“Therefore, it is worse than not preaching at all.”*The first proposition is not self-evident, nor indeed universally true. For the preaching of all the primitive Christians was contrary to the whole tenor of theRomanlaw; the worship of the devil-gods being established by the strongest laws then in being. Nor is it ever true, but on supposition, that the preaching in question is an indifferent thing.But♦waving this, I deny the second proposition; I deny thatfield-preachingis contrary to the laws of our land.♦“waveing” replaced with “waving” for consistencyTo prove which, you begin thus, “It does not appear, that any of the preachers among theMethodists, have qualified themselves and the places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration.”*I answer, 1. That act grants toleration to those whodissentfrom the established church. But we do not dissent from it. Therefore wecannotmake use of that act. 2. That act exempts dissenters from penalties consequent on theirbreach of preceding laws. But we are not conscious ofbreaking any law at all. Therefore weneed notmake use of it.In the next section you say, “They have broken through all these provisions,in open defianceof government: and have met, not only in houses, but in thefields, notwithstanding thestatute (22 CharlesII.chapter 1.) which forbids this by name.”*I answer, 1. We do nothingin defianceof government. We reverence magistrates, as the ministers of God. 2. Although we have met in thefields, yet we do not conceive that statute at all affects us: not only because that act points wholly atdissenters; whereas we are members of the established church; but also because (they are your own words)it was evidently intended to suppress and prevent sedition: whereas no sedition, nor any the least approach thereto, can with any colour be laid to our charge.In your third section you affirm, “That the act of toleration itself cannot secure us infield-preaching, from the penalties of former laws.” We have no desire it should; as not apprehending ourselves to be condemned by any former law whatever. Nor does what you add, “That the act of toleration forbids any assembly of personsdissentingfrom the church ofEngland, to meet with the doors locked,” affect us at all; because we do notdissentfrom it.5. Inthe case of the Methodists briefly stated, your first observation is, “The act of toleration leaves them liable to the penalties of several statutes made against unlawful assemblies.”I suppose then these several statutes specify what thoseunlawful assembliesare; and whether unlawful, as being condemned by previous laws, or made unlawful by those statutes.And it still remains to be proved, that our assemblies areunlawful, in one or other of these senses.You next observe, that, “thedissentersof all denominations, qualify themselves according to the act of toleration: otherwise, they are liable to the penalties of all the laws recited in this act.”I answer, as before, all this strikes wide. It relates wholly to “personsdissentingfrom the church.” But we are not the men. We do notdissentfrom the church. Whoever affirms it, we put him to the proof.You go on, “One of those laws so recited (viz.22 CharlesII.chapter 1.) is that which forbidsfield-preachingby name; and was evidently intended, not only tosuppress, but also topreventsedition. As the title of theact declares, and as the preamble expresses it,to provide farther and more speedy remedies against it.”*Was this then, in your own judgment,the evident intention of that act,viz.To provide remedies against sedition? Does the verytitle of the act declare this? Andthe preamblealsoexpress it? With what justice then, with what ingenuity or candor, with what shadow of truth or reason, can any man cite this act against us? Whom you yourself no more suspect of a design to raise sedition (I appeal to your own conscience in the sight of God) than of a design to blow up the city ofLondon.6. Hitherto therefore it hath not been made to appear, thatfield-preachingis contrary to any law in being. However, “It is dangerous.” This you strongly insist on. “It may be attended with mischievous consequences. It may give advantages to the enemies of the established government. It is big with mischief.” (Observations, SectionI.andII.)With what mischief? Why, “evil-minded men, by meeting togetherin the fields, under pretence of religion, may raise riots and tumults; or by meetingsecretly, may carry onprivatecabals against the state.” (Case of the Methodists, page 2.)“And if theMethodiststhemselves are aharmlessandloyalpeople, 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.Whitefieldsays, 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 arein earnest. You do notmeanwhatyousay. Do youbelieve,Mr.Whitefieldhadeighty thousandhearers at once? No more that you believe he hadeighty millions. Is not all this talk ofdanger, mere finesse? Thrown in purelyad 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 ifyou 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 thepresentstate of things. The largest congregation thatnowattend the preaching of anyMethodist, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congregations, either atBristol,Kingswood,Newcastle, orLondon? 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. Allfield-preachingis 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 everany 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 fromfield-preaching.7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section ofthe observations. “The religious societies, you say, inLondonandWestminster, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but on the contrary have beencountenancedand incouraged both by the bishops and clergy.” How is this? Havetheythen “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration?” Havethey“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, tocountenanceandencourage” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a private, inoffensiveway;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If those meetings areunlawfulin 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 notdissentersfrom the church; therefore theycannot use, and they donot needthe 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 ourmannerof preaching, in the second part of theobservations. 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 ofconfusionor oftumult, but of peace.” I trust we do: nor is there anyconfusionortumultat all, in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times when the sons ofBelialmix therewith, on purpose to disturb thepeaceableworshippers 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, tothe 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 beenso limitedwhen I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was notappointed to any congregationat 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, thislimitationwas never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection, to my preaching up and down inOxfordorLondon, or the parts adjacent, inGloucestershire, orWorcestershire;Lancashire,YorkshireorLincolnshire. 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 toItinerants. But the church has provided inthatcase; They are not to preach in any church (Canon 50.) till they shew their licence.”The church has well provided inthatcase. But what hasthatcase to do with the case of common clergymen? Only so much as to shew, how grossly this canon has been abused, atIslingtonin 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.Wesleybeing asked, By what authority he preached, replied, By the authority of Jesus Christ conveyed to me by the (now) archbishop ofCanterbury, 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 outthis latter partof the commission: for that would have shewn his reader, therestraintandlimitation, under which the exercise of the power is granted.” Nay, I did notprint the latter partof the words, for a plainer reason, because I did notspeakthem. And I did notspeakthem then, because they did not come into my mind. Tho’ probably if they had, I should not have spoken them: it being myonly concern, to answer the question proposed, in as few words as I could.But before those words, which you suppose to imply such arestraint, as would condemn all the bishops and clergy in the nation, were those spoken without anyrestraintorlimitationat 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 themethodistsdo 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 curatedesires 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. Wewill notleave the ship: if youcast usout 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 thelaw 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 thedoctrinesI teach. The main arguments brought against thismanner of teaching, have been considered also. It remains, to examine the most current objections, concerningthe effectsof 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, inthissense, a disturber of the public peace?When he came intoJerusalem, (Matthewxxi.10.)all the city was moved, (ἐσείσθη) shaken as with an earthquake. And the disturbance arose higher and higher, tillthe whole multitudecried 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 thatStephen, even from the time he begandisputing with the Libertines and Cyrenians, till the peoplestopped 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 theNazarenes, (commonly calledapostles) who wherever they came,turned the world upside down. And above all the rest, thatPaulofTarsius, who occasioned so much disturbance atDamascus, (Actsix.) atAntiochofPisidia(chapterxiii.) atIconium(chapterxiv.)atLystra(verse 19.) atPhilippi(chapterxvi.) atThessalonica(chapterxvii.) and particularly atEphesus. The consequence of his preaching there was, Thatthe whole city was filled with confusion. Andthey all ran together with one accord, some crying one thing, some another: inasmuchas the greater part of them knew not wherefore they were come together.*2. And can we expect it to be any otherwisenow? Although whatwepreach 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 onyourpart. All is peace, till you raise that disturbance. And then you very modestly impute it tous, and lay yourownriot atourdoor!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 whomthe 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 ofSatanunto 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 atEphesuson the like occasion. He did not lay the disturbance to the preacher’scharge, butbeckoned 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 ifDemetriushath 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, andtwo 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.(Lukexii.51, 52, 53.)And the foes of a man, shall be they of his own houshold.(Matthewx.36.)Thus it was from the very beginning. For is it to be supposed, that aHeathenparent, would long endure aChristianchild? Or, that aHeathenhusband would agree with aChristianwife? Unless either the believing wife could gain her husband; or the unbelieving husband prevailed on the wife to renounceher wayof worshipping God: at least, unless she would obey him in going no more to thosesocietiesorconventicles, (ἑταιρίαι) as they termed the Christian assemblies.*4. Do you think now, I have an eye toyourcase? 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 wouldSt.Paulhave said to one whose husband forbade her, to followthis wayany 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.(Matthewx.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. (Lukexiv.26.)*“O, but this is not a parallel case. For they wereHeathens; but I am aChristian.” 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 theIndianwoods to cry out, “Christianmuch drunk,Christianbeat men,Christiantell lies,Devil-Christian! Me noChristian.”*And sothouwilt 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 ofconscience, that you restrain your wife and children from hearingfalse 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 whatmay bethe 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 inEnglandwho 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 yourchoice 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 heardmore 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 doyoutalk 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 cannotforcethe conscience of any one. You cannotcompelanother, 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 tostarvethem into conviction, or tobeateven truth into their head, You maydestroythem, in this way, but cannotconvertthem. 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 bycontributinga penny a week (the usual contribution in our societies) andletting 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 fromtheirindictment. It is the easiest thing of a thousand, for one atNewcastleto say, that I have beggared him and all his kindred. If one of the long-bearded men onTyne-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 theTurks, 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 aTurk.” My friend, take knowledge of your own case. If you had not first took me for aTurk, 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, feelthese words, they would notinlarge their desires as hell; but becontent 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 thereforehave lessthan if they had not heardme: because they wouldgrasp 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 disowntheir children, ifafter the way which they call heresy, these worship theGodof their fathers. Hence therefore somehave less, of this world’s goods then they had in times past, either because theyearn less, or because theyreceive less, from them on whom they depend.Thirdly, It is written, thatthose who received not the mark of the beast, either on their fore-heads, or in their right hands, either openly or secretly were not permittedto 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 lifeat all; (as pawnbrokers, smugglers, buyers or sellers of uncustomed goods) others cannot follow itas they did before. For they cannot oppress, cheat or defraud their neighbour: they cannot lie, or say what they do not mean; theymustnow speak the truth from their heart. On all these accounts, theyhave lessofthis world’s goods; because theygain lessthan they did before.♦“will” replaced with “well”Fourthly,all that will live godly inChrist Jesusshall suffer persecution: If in no other way, yet at least in this, thatmen 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 sobad 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 touchyou? Areyouone 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 employedA. B.for several years. By your own account, he was an honest, diligent man. You had no objection to him but his followingthis 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 thenyouare 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 atyourhands: and will require it in an hour when you think not. Foryouhave 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 isyou;youwho call yourself aprotestant!Youwho cry out against thepersecutingspirit of thePapists! Ye fools and blind! What are ye better then they? Why,Edmund Bonnerwould havestarvedthe hereticks inprison: whereasyou starvethem in theirown houses.*And all this time you talk ofliberty of conscience! Yes, liberty for such a conscience as your own: a consciencepast feeling; (for sure it had some once) a conscienceseared 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 isGod of this world. But expect not liberty to worship God in spirit andin 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 fromAmerica, one CaptainRobert WilliamsofBristol, made affidavit before the (then) mayor of the city, that “it was a common report inGeorgia,Mr.Wesleytook people off from their work andmade them idle, by preaching so much.”The fact stood thus: at my first coming toSavannah, 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 havemade them idle? Would they hereby have hadless, or considerablymore time for working?10. The same rule I follow now, both atLondon,BristolandNewcastle-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 ofyouwho turn them out of their employment, have the confidence to talk ofmymaking 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 eithercausingorencouragingidleness, 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. Youmake 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 callmadness: (I mean, inward religion) to make them just asmad, asPaulwas when he was so accounted byFestus.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 utterdistractioninyouraccount; but in God’s it is sober, rational religion: the genuine fruit, not of a distempered brain, not of a sickly imagination, butofthepowerof God in the heart,ofvictoriouslove, and of a sound mind.♦“trampleing” replaced with “trampling”12. I grant, secondly, It is my endeavour to drive all I can, into whatyoumay term another species ofmadness, which is usually preparatoryto this, and which I termrepentanceorconviction.I cannot describe this better than a writer of our own has done. I will therefore transcribe his words.“When menfeelin 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 theysaw damnationbefore them, andbeheld with the eye of their mind the horror of hell? What if they shouldtremble and quake, and be so taken uppartly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation,asto weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour to shew themselves weary of life; would you scruple to say, that they werestark mad? That these fellows had driven themout of their senses? And that whatever writer it was, thattalked at this rate, he was fitter forBedlamthan 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 thehomily on fasting. And consequently, what you have peremptorily determined to bemere lunacy and destruction, is thatrepentance unto life, which, in the judgment both of the church and ofSt.Paul, isnever to be repented of.13. I grant, thirdly, thatextraordinarycircumstances 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.

“They stood and under open air adoredThe God who made both air, earth, heaven and sky.”

“They stood and under open air adoredThe God who made both air, earth, heaven and sky.”

“They stood and under open air adored

The God who made both air, earth, heaven and sky.”

And whether they were listning to his word, with attention still as night; or were lifting up their voice in praise, as the sound of many waters; many a time have I been constrained to say in my heart,How dreadful is this place! Thisalsoisno other thanthe house ofGod! This is the gate of heaven!

*Be pleased to observe. 1. That I was forbidden, as by a general consent, to preach inany church (though not by any judicial sentence) “for preaching such doctrine.” This was the open, avowed cause: there was at that time no other, either real or pretended; (except that the people crouded so:) 2. That I had no desire or design to preach in the open air, till after this prohibition; 3. That when I did, as it was no matter of choice, so neither of premeditation. There was no scheme at all previously formed, which was to be supported thereby; nor had I any other end in view than this, to save as many souls as I could. 4.Field-preachingwas therefore a sudden expedient, a thing submitted to, rather than chosen, and therefore submitted to because I thought preaching eventhus, better thannotpreachingat all: First, in regard to my own soul, becausea dispensation of the gospel being committed to me, I did not dare,Not to preach the gospel; Secondly, in regard to the souls of others, whom I every where saw,seeking death in the error of their life.

4. But the author ofthe observationsand ofthe case of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point offield-preaching, thinksfield-preachingworse thannot preaching at all, “because it is illegal.”

Your argument, in form, runs thus:

“That preaching which is contrary to the laws of the land, is worse than not preaching at all:

“But fieldpreaching is contraryto the laws of the land:

“Therefore, it is worse than not preaching at all.”

*The first proposition is not self-evident, nor indeed universally true. For the preaching of all the primitive Christians was contrary to the whole tenor of theRomanlaw; the worship of the devil-gods being established by the strongest laws then in being. Nor is it ever true, but on supposition, that the preaching in question is an indifferent thing.

But♦waving this, I deny the second proposition; I deny thatfield-preachingis contrary to the laws of our land.

♦“waveing” replaced with “waving” for consistency

♦“waveing” replaced with “waving” for consistency

♦“waveing” replaced with “waving” for consistency

To prove which, you begin thus, “It does not appear, that any of the preachers among theMethodists, have qualified themselves and the places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration.”

*I answer, 1. That act grants toleration to those whodissentfrom the established church. But we do not dissent from it. Therefore wecannotmake use of that act. 2. That act exempts dissenters from penalties consequent on theirbreach of preceding laws. But we are not conscious ofbreaking any law at all. Therefore weneed notmake use of it.

In the next section you say, “They have broken through all these provisions,in open defianceof government: and have met, not only in houses, but in thefields, notwithstanding thestatute (22 CharlesII.chapter 1.) which forbids this by name.”

*I answer, 1. We do nothingin defianceof government. We reverence magistrates, as the ministers of God. 2. Although we have met in thefields, yet we do not conceive that statute at all affects us: not only because that act points wholly atdissenters; whereas we are members of the established church; but also because (they are your own words)it was evidently intended to suppress and prevent sedition: whereas no sedition, nor any the least approach thereto, can with any colour be laid to our charge.

In your third section you affirm, “That the act of toleration itself cannot secure us infield-preaching, from the penalties of former laws.” We have no desire it should; as not apprehending ourselves to be condemned by any former law whatever. Nor does what you add, “That the act of toleration forbids any assembly of personsdissentingfrom the church ofEngland, to meet with the doors locked,” affect us at all; because we do notdissentfrom it.

5. Inthe case of the Methodists briefly stated, your first observation is, “The act of toleration leaves them liable to the penalties of several statutes made against unlawful assemblies.”

I suppose then these several statutes specify what thoseunlawful assembliesare; and whether unlawful, as being condemned by previous laws, or made unlawful by those statutes.

And it still remains to be proved, that our assemblies areunlawful, in one or other of these senses.

You next observe, that, “thedissentersof all denominations, qualify themselves according to the act of toleration: otherwise, they are liable to the penalties of all the laws recited in this act.”

I answer, as before, all this strikes wide. It relates wholly to “personsdissentingfrom the church.” But we are not the men. We do notdissentfrom the church. Whoever affirms it, we put him to the proof.

You go on, “One of those laws so recited (viz.22 CharlesII.chapter 1.) is that which forbidsfield-preachingby name; and was evidently intended, not only tosuppress, but also topreventsedition. As the title of theact declares, and as the preamble expresses it,to provide farther and more speedy remedies against it.”

*Was this then, in your own judgment,the evident intention of that act,viz.To provide remedies against sedition? Does the verytitle of the act declare this? Andthe preamblealsoexpress it? With what justice then, with what ingenuity or candor, with what shadow of truth or reason, can any man cite this act against us? Whom you yourself no more suspect of a design to raise sedition (I appeal to your own conscience in the sight of God) than of a design to blow up the city ofLondon.

6. Hitherto therefore it hath not been made to appear, thatfield-preachingis contrary to any law in being. However, “It is dangerous.” This you strongly insist on. “It may be attended with mischievous consequences. It may give advantages to the enemies of the established government. It is big with mischief.” (Observations, SectionI.andII.)

With what mischief? Why, “evil-minded men, by meeting togetherin the fields, under pretence of religion, may raise riots and tumults; or by meetingsecretly, may carry onprivatecabals against the state.” (Case of the Methodists, page 2.)

“And if theMethodiststhemselves are aharmlessandloyalpeople, 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.Whitefieldsays, 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 arein earnest. You do notmeanwhatyousay. Do youbelieve,Mr.Whitefieldhadeighty thousandhearers at once? No more that you believe he hadeighty millions. Is not all this talk ofdanger, mere finesse? Thrown in purelyad 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 ifyou 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 thepresentstate of things. The largest congregation thatnowattend the preaching of anyMethodist, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congregations, either atBristol,Kingswood,Newcastle, orLondon? 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. Allfield-preachingis 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 everany 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 fromfield-preaching.

7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section ofthe observations. “The religious societies, you say, inLondonandWestminster, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but on the contrary have beencountenancedand incouraged both by the bishops and clergy.” How is this? Havetheythen “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration?” Havethey“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, tocountenanceandencourage” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a private, inoffensiveway;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If those meetings areunlawfulin 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 notdissentersfrom the church; therefore theycannot use, and they donot needthe 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 ourmannerof preaching, in the second part of theobservations. 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 ofconfusionor oftumult, but of peace.” I trust we do: nor is there anyconfusionortumultat all, in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times when the sons ofBelialmix therewith, on purpose to disturb thepeaceableworshippers 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, tothe 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 beenso limitedwhen I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was notappointed to any congregationat 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, thislimitationwas never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection, to my preaching up and down inOxfordorLondon, or the parts adjacent, inGloucestershire, orWorcestershire;Lancashire,YorkshireorLincolnshire. 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”

♦“whereever” replaced with “wherever”

♦“whereever” replaced with “wherever”

10. “The bishops and universities indeed have power to grant licences toItinerants. But the church has provided inthatcase; They are not to preach in any church (Canon 50.) till they shew their licence.”

The church has well provided inthatcase. But what hasthatcase to do with the case of common clergymen? Only so much as to shew, how grossly this canon has been abused, atIslingtonin 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.Wesleybeing asked, By what authority he preached, replied, By the authority of Jesus Christ conveyed to me by the (now) archbishop ofCanterbury, 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 outthis latter partof the commission: for that would have shewn his reader, therestraintandlimitation, under which the exercise of the power is granted.” Nay, I did notprint the latter partof the words, for a plainer reason, because I did notspeakthem. And I did notspeakthem then, because they did not come into my mind. Tho’ probably if they had, I should not have spoken them: it being myonly concern, to answer the question proposed, in as few words as I could.

But before those words, which you suppose to imply such arestraint, as would condemn all the bishops and clergy in the nation, were those spoken without anyrestraintorlimitationat 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 themethodistsdo 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 curatedesires 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. Wewill notleave the ship: if youcast usout 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 thelaw 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 thedoctrinesI teach. The main arguments brought against thismanner of teaching, have been considered also. It remains, to examine the most current objections, concerningthe effectsof 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, inthissense, a disturber of the public peace?When he came intoJerusalem, (Matthewxxi.10.)all the city was moved, (ἐσείσθη) shaken as with an earthquake. And the disturbance arose higher and higher, tillthe whole multitudecried 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 thatStephen, even from the time he begandisputing with the Libertines and Cyrenians, till the peoplestopped 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 theNazarenes, (commonly calledapostles) who wherever they came,turned the world upside down. And above all the rest, thatPaulofTarsius, who occasioned so much disturbance atDamascus, (Actsix.) atAntiochofPisidia(chapterxiii.) atIconium(chapterxiv.)atLystra(verse 19.) atPhilippi(chapterxvi.) atThessalonica(chapterxvii.) and particularly atEphesus. The consequence of his preaching there was, Thatthe whole city was filled with confusion. Andthey all ran together with one accord, some crying one thing, some another: inasmuchas the greater part of them knew not wherefore they were come together.

*2. And can we expect it to be any otherwisenow? Although whatwepreach 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 onyourpart. All is peace, till you raise that disturbance. And then you very modestly impute it tous, and lay yourownriot atourdoor!

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 whomthe 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 ofSatanunto 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 atEphesuson the like occasion. He did not lay the disturbance to the preacher’scharge, butbeckoned 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 ifDemetriushath 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, andtwo 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.(Lukexii.51, 52, 53.)And the foes of a man, shall be they of his own houshold.(Matthewx.36.)

Thus it was from the very beginning. For is it to be supposed, that aHeathenparent, would long endure aChristianchild? Or, that aHeathenhusband would agree with aChristianwife? Unless either the believing wife could gain her husband; or the unbelieving husband prevailed on the wife to renounceher wayof worshipping God: at least, unless she would obey him in going no more to thosesocietiesorconventicles, (ἑταιρίαι) as they termed the Christian assemblies.

*4. Do you think now, I have an eye toyourcase? 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 wouldSt.Paulhave said to one whose husband forbade her, to followthis wayany 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.(Matthewx.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. (Lukexiv.26.)

*“O, but this is not a parallel case. For they wereHeathens; but I am aChristian.” 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 theIndianwoods to cry out, “Christianmuch drunk,Christianbeat men,Christiantell lies,Devil-Christian! Me noChristian.”

*And sothouwilt 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 ofconscience, that you restrain your wife and children from hearingfalse 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 whatmay bethe 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 inEnglandwho 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 yourchoice 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 heardmore 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 doyoutalk 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 cannotforcethe conscience of any one. You cannotcompelanother, 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 tostarvethem into conviction, or tobeateven truth into their head, You maydestroythem, in this way, but cannotconvertthem. 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.”

“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.”

“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 bycontributinga penny a week (the usual contribution in our societies) andletting 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 fromtheirindictment. It is the easiest thing of a thousand, for one atNewcastleto say, that I have beggared him and all his kindred. If one of the long-bearded men onTyne-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 theTurks, 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 aTurk.” My friend, take knowledge of your own case. If you had not first took me for aTurk, 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, feelthese words, they would notinlarge their desires as hell; but becontent 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 thereforehave lessthan if they had not heardme: because they wouldgrasp 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 disowntheir children, ifafter the way which they call heresy, these worship theGodof their fathers. Hence therefore somehave less, of this world’s goods then they had in times past, either because theyearn less, or because theyreceive less, from them on whom they depend.

Thirdly, It is written, thatthose who received not the mark of the beast, either on their fore-heads, or in their right hands, either openly or secretly were not permittedto 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 lifeat all; (as pawnbrokers, smugglers, buyers or sellers of uncustomed goods) others cannot follow itas they did before. For they cannot oppress, cheat or defraud their neighbour: they cannot lie, or say what they do not mean; theymustnow speak the truth from their heart. On all these accounts, theyhave lessofthis world’s goods; because theygain lessthan they did before.

♦“will” replaced with “well”

♦“will” replaced with “well”

♦“will” replaced with “well”

Fourthly,all that will live godly inChrist Jesusshall suffer persecution: If in no other way, yet at least in this, thatmen 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 sobad 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 touchyou? Areyouone 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 employedA. B.for several years. By your own account, he was an honest, diligent man. You had no objection to him but his followingthis 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 thenyouare 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 atyourhands: and will require it in an hour when you think not. Foryouhave 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 isyou;youwho call yourself aprotestant!Youwho cry out against thepersecutingspirit of thePapists! Ye fools and blind! What are ye better then they? Why,Edmund Bonnerwould havestarvedthe hereticks inprison: whereasyou starvethem in theirown houses.

*And all this time you talk ofliberty of conscience! Yes, liberty for such a conscience as your own: a consciencepast feeling; (for sure it had some once) a conscienceseared 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 isGod of this world. But expect not liberty to worship God in spirit andin 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 fromAmerica, one CaptainRobert WilliamsofBristol, made affidavit before the (then) mayor of the city, that “it was a common report inGeorgia,Mr.Wesleytook people off from their work andmade them idle, by preaching so much.”

The fact stood thus: at my first coming toSavannah, 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 havemade them idle? Would they hereby have hadless, or considerablymore time for working?

10. The same rule I follow now, both atLondon,BristolandNewcastle-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 ofyouwho turn them out of their employment, have the confidence to talk ofmymaking 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 eithercausingorencouragingidleness, 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. Youmake 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 callmadness: (I mean, inward religion) to make them just asmad, asPaulwas when he was so accounted byFestus.

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 utterdistractioninyouraccount; but in God’s it is sober, rational religion: the genuine fruit, not of a distempered brain, not of a sickly imagination, butofthepowerof God in the heart,ofvictoriouslove, and of a sound mind.

♦“trampleing” replaced with “trampling”

♦“trampleing” replaced with “trampling”

♦“trampleing” replaced with “trampling”

12. I grant, secondly, It is my endeavour to drive all I can, into whatyoumay term another species ofmadness, which is usually preparatoryto this, and which I termrepentanceorconviction.

I cannot describe this better than a writer of our own has done. I will therefore transcribe his words.

“When menfeelin 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 theysaw damnationbefore them, andbeheld with the eye of their mind the horror of hell? What if they shouldtremble and quake, and be so taken uppartly with sorrow and heaviness, partly with an earnest desire to be delivered from this danger of hell and damnation,asto weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with words and behaviour to shew themselves weary of life; would you scruple to say, that they werestark mad? That these fellows had driven themout of their senses? And that whatever writer it was, thattalked at this rate, he was fitter forBedlamthan 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 thehomily on fasting. And consequently, what you have peremptorily determined to bemere lunacy and destruction, is thatrepentance unto life, which, in the judgment both of the church and ofSt.Paul, isnever to be repented of.

13. I grant, thirdly, thatextraordinarycircumstances 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.

Back to IndexNext