are melancholy and striking proofs.' 1 Or, to turn to another class of evidence-that of contemporary or nearly contemporary historians-this is the way in which Tindal, in his 'Continuation of Rapin's History up to the Present Time' (1763), speaks of the Methodists:-'This year [1739] was distinguished by the institution of a set of fanatics under the name of Methodists, of which one Whitefield, a young clergyman, was the founder. . . . Striking in with the common fanatical jargon and practices of enthusiasm, he soon found himself at the head of such a number of disciples as might have been dangerous to the public repose, had they attempted to disturb it.' After owning the loyalty of the Methodists, he adds: 'The Established clergy, instead of imitating the practice of former times, were far from persecuting himself and his followers, and wisely treated him at first with reserve and afterwards with silent contempt. This moderation had not the desired effect; it set the founder to encroach on parochial churches without the consent of the incumbents, to the great danger of the peace of society.'' This is the way in which Smollett, who wrote about the same period, described them :-'Imposture and fanaticism still hung upon the skirts of religion. Weak minds were seduced by the delusion of a superstition styled Methodism, raised upon the affectation of superior sanctity and maintained by pretensions to Divine illumination. Many thousands in the lower ranks of life were infected with this enthusiasm by the unwearied exertions of a few obscure preachers, such as Whitefield and the two Wesleys.'

13

It will be seen that all the evidence quoted has been lay evidence. Clerical evidence might be suspected of prejudice. Professional jealousy of the irregular workers might account for the hard judgment of the clergy upon them. Still, will anyone seriously contend that men of deep Christian conviction, like Bishop Benson, Bishop Gibson (whom, in spite of his bitter antagonism, John Wesley, with a noble generosity, described as 'a great man, who is, I trust, now in a better world,' and 'a man eminent for piety and learning'), Bishops Horne, Secker and Horsley, and Dr. Waterland, deliberately

1 Lives of the Chancellors, by Lord Campbell, vol. v. ch. cxxxix. p. 191. 2 Continuation of Rapin's History of England from the Revolution to the Present Time, by N. Tindal, vol. xvii. (v. of continuation), p. 439.

Smollett's Continuation of Hume, in five vols, v. 375.

opposed Methodism, although they knew it to be a work of God? The hostility of such men as Bishops Lavington, Warburton, and Hurd was of a different character from that of the prelates above mentioned; but no unprejudiced person can think that in opposing Methodism they were consciously fighting against God.

Nor was it only the Church which as a body was hostile to Methodism. In the journals of both the Wesleys and of Whitefield we find constant reference to the opposition of Dissenting ministers. The amiable Doddridge, who was perhaps a little too anxious to please everybody, was evidently embarrassed by the friendship of Whitefield. He had not the heart to exclude him from his house, or even from his pulpit, at Northampton, but he plainly lets us see that it would have been much more satisfactory to him if his inconvenient friend had kept at a distance. But even the half-hearted sanction which Doddridge accorded to the Methodist drew upon him the severe displeasure of his Dissenting brethren.' Dr. Watts, though he afterwards became friendly with Lady Huntingdon and the Methodist leaders, strongly disapproved of Doddridge's conduct, and rebuked him roundly, on the ground that he was losing caste by his intimacy with Whitefield. 'I am sorry,' he writes, 'that since your departure I have had many questions asked me about your preaching in the Tabernacle, and sinking the character of a minister, and especially of a tutor, so low thereby. I find many of our friends entertain this idea; but I can give no answer, as not knowing how much you have been engaged there. I pray God to guard us from every temptation.' Whitefield's biographer thus describes the opposition he met with from Dissenters :- Bradbury lampooned him, Barker sneered at him, Watts was silent, Coward's trustees were insolent to Doddridge because he countenanced him.' They called him 'honest, crazy, confident Whitefield; Doddridge was obliged to assure his friends that he saw no danger that any of his pupils would prove Methodists.' Neal wrote to Doddridge on his commendation of Whitefield's sermon, saying that 'he could not reconcile it with the low,

'See Life of Lady Huntingdon, i. 137, 139, 200.

2 Philip's Life of Whitefield, pp. 262, 263.

incoherent stuff he used to hear him utter at Kennington Common.' Doddridge replied that he must look upon it as an unhappy circumstance that Whitefield came to Northampton when he did, as he perceived that, in conjunction with other circumstances, it had filled town and country with astonishment and indignation. The Wesleys, being far stricter Churchmen than Whitefield, do not appear to have embarrassed the Dissenters with any overtures of friendship; but, had they done so, there is little doubt that they would have been regarded with the same suspicion as Whitefield.

In short, outside their own circle the early Methodists. were almost universally disliked and despised. The only places where they could get common justice done them were in the higher secular courts and at the Royal Palace. John Wesley did not go one whit beyond the truth when, in his 'Loyal Address to the King 'in 1744, he described the Methodists as a people scattered and peeled and trodden under foot.' In his Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion' (a short piece, but one of the most telling he ever wrote) he asks: What evil have we done to you, that you should join the common cry against us? Why should you say, "Away with such fellows from the earth! It is not fit that they should live"?' In his 'Farther Appeal,' he asks with real pathos : 'Is there one writer that has reproved us with love? Bring it to a single point. "Love hopeth all things." If you had loved us in any degree you would have hoped that God would some time give us the knowledge of the truth. But where shall we find even this slender instance of love? Has not everyone who has wrote at all (I do not remember so much as one exception) treated us as incorrigible? Brethren, how is this? Why do ye labour to teach us an evil lesson against yourselves? Oh, may God never suffer others to deal with you as ye have dealt with us!' And again: 'Warm men cry out to the people, wherever one of us comes, "A mad dog! a mad dog!" if haply we might fly for our lives, as many have done before us.' In fact, the whole treatise gives

' Gledstone's Life of Whitefield, pp. 324, 326.

2 Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, p. 6.
Farther Appeal, p. 108.

an admirable illustration, set forth in that pathetic and forcible language which Wesley knew so well how to write, of the way in which the Methodists were treated. When John Pawson showed some inclination towards Methodism, his father, who was a worthy, respectable man, warned him that 'the Methodists were so universally hated that it would ruin his character to go among them.'

But it is needless to multiply proofs of a fact which must be perfectly patent to all who have even a superficial acquaintance with the history of the times. Admitting, then, the fact, how are we to account for it?

Their case has been compared with that of the early Christians, who were 'made as the filth of the earth and the offscouring of all things.' But, in point of fact, the hostility to the first Christians is more easily accounted for than that displayed to the first Methodists. There is no difficulty in seeing how the doctrine of the Cross would be to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness. But why should it have been so with the Methodists? The Christian religion, according to the doctrines and forms of the Church of England, was unquestionably the religion for which, in theory at least, the vast majority of the nation had an unfeigned predilection. The Methodists believed every one of those doctrines, and desired to alter not one of those forms. 'Where,' writes John Wesley in his 'Farther Appeal,' 'is there a body of people in the realm who, number for number, so closely adhere to what our Church delivers as pure doctrine? Where are those who have been approved, and do approve themselves, more orthodox, more sound in their opinions?'

The luxury, and apathy, and eagerness for preferment, especially of the higher clergy, were general subjects of complaint. The Methodists obviously possessed just those very qualities the lack or supposed lack of which in the rulers of the Church was causing such grievous discontent. They were undeniably frugal and temperate in their lives, most energetic in their work, and not only careless about, but utterly unwilling to accept, any preferment. The profligacy and vice of the lower orders not only shocked the feelings but endangered the safety of the public. The Methodists were obviously doing the very work which was needed,

and which other agencies had proved impotent to effect. They could point to living arguments in their favour. To quote once more from Wesley's 'Appeal,' 'the drunkard commenced sober and temperate; the whoremonger abstained from adultery and fornication, the unjust from oppression and wrong; he that had been accustomed to curse and swear for many years now swore no more; the sluggard began to work with his hands, that he might eat his own bread; the miser learned to deal his bread to the hungry and to cover the naked with a garment. Indeed, the whole form of their life was changed; they had left off doing evil and learned to do well.' And yet the very men who were yearning for such a change in the public morals were bitterly hostile to the party, and the only party, who by their lives and teaching were remedying the very grievances complained of. What were the causes of this hostility?

I. One of the chief causes may, perhaps, be found in a fact which has so often been referred to in this work that an apology is needed for referring to it again. It is this: that after the many changes and turbulent discussions, both in the religious and the political world, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the nation in the eighteenth century was above all things anxious for quiet. Now, 'quiet' was the very last epithet that could be applied to the early Methodists. Their incessant bodily restlessness was but a picture of their mental and spiritual activity. To 'rest and be thankful' was the very last thing that they desired. They were unpopular from the very same cause which brought about the unpopularity of the Deists. Utterly dissimilar as the two parties were in most respects, they were alike in this: that neither was content to let things alone. So much has been said on this point elsewhere that it need merely be touched upon here; only it must be fully taken into account in estimating the unpopularity of Methodism.

2. The Methodists contrived to arouse suspicion on two points apparently very dissimilar, about which the English

1 Farther Appeal, pp. 196, 198.

2 Bishop Gibson in one of his pastorals classes the Methodists with the Deists, Papists, and other disturbers of the kingdom of God.' The expression 'disturbers' illustrates what is said above.