Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-Century England: The Struggle for True Religion (Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs) 9780192855756, 0192855751

Table of contents :
Cover
Anti-Methodismand Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-Century England: The Struggle for True Religion
Copyright
Preface
Contents
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
1: A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition
The Rise of Methodism
Controversial Practices
The Lavington Affair
Print Culture
Transatlantic Networks
Conclusions
2: Justification and Assurance
Post-Restoration Soteriology
A ‘System of Moral Ethicks’
Competing Authorities: Pro- and Anti-Methodist Sources
Assurance
Conclusions
3: Perfectionism and Self-Denial
Wesley’s ‘Holy Living’ Asceticism
Whitefield’s Self-Denial
‘Righteous Over-Much’?
The Perceived Dangers of Evangelical Self-Denial
Conclusions
4: Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery
Pagano-Papism
Christian Antiquity
The Medieval Church
Histories of Protestant Schism and ‘Enthusiasm’
Conclusions
5: Deism and Melancholia
Defining ‘Deism’
Melancholia and Suicide
The ‘Immediate Inspiration of God’
‘Spiritual’ and ‘Sensual’ Enthusiasts
‘Seek and you shall find’
Conclusions
6: Miracles and Demons
Methodism and Miracles
A ‘Preternatural Agent’?
The Middleton Debate
‘Old Latitudinarian Excesses’
Conclusions
7: Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’
Doctrines of Original Sin
A ‘Diversity of Passions and Humours’
Heaven and Hell
‘Orthodoxy’ and Infallibility
Conclusions
Epilogue and Conclusion
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Index

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

OXFORD THEOLOGY AND RELIGION MONOGRAPHS Editorial Committee

m. n. a. bockmuehl   m. j. edwards g. d. flood   s. r. i. foot d. n. j. macculloch   h. najman g. ward   j. zachhuber

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

OX F O R D T H E O L O G Y A N D R E L IG IO N M O N O G R A P H S Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide Christian Interpretations of Herem Passages Christian Hofreiter (2018) An Avant-­garde Theological Generation The Nouvelle Théologie and the French Crisis of Modernity Jon Kirwan (2018) Jansenism and England Moral Rigorism across the Confessions Thomas Palmer (2018) A Redactional Study of the Book of Isaiah 13–23 Jongkyung Lee (2018) A Vaisnava Poet in Early Modern Bengal Kavikarnapura’s Splendour of Speech Rembert Lutjeharms (2018) Rhythm A Theological Category Lexi Eikelboom (2018) Preaching and Popular Christianity Reading the Sermons of John Chrysostom James Daniel Cook (2019) Encountering Eve’s Afterlives A New Reception Critical Approach to Genesis 2–4 Holly Morse (2020) Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa Human Suffering and Divine Play Gopal K. Gupta (2020) Non-­Identity Theodicy A Grace-­Based Response to the Problem of Evil Vince R. Vitale (2020) Quakers, Christ, and the Enlightenment Madeleine Pennington (2021)

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­ Century England The Struggle for True Religion SI M O N L EW I S

1

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Simon Lewis 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2021940863 ISBN 978–0–19–285575–6 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.001.0001 Printed and bound in the UK by TJ Books Limited Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Preface This book originated as a doctoral thesis undertaken at the University of Oxford between 2013 and 2017. The research for the thesis was generously supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History. I owe a debt of gratitude to my doctoral supervisor, Brian Young, whose knowledge of eighteenth-­century doctrinal controversies is unsurpassed. Both he and William Gibson undertook the unenviable task of reading the whole manuscript, providing a perfect balance of constructive criticism and uplifting praise. Without their support I doubt that this book would ever have been completed. Individual chapters have benefited greatly from the input of Robert Armstrong, John Coffey, and Alan Ford, the last of whom helped me improve the quality of the introduction considerably. The process of converting the thesis into a monograph was undertaken at Trinity College Dublin, where I was generously supported by an Irish Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship between October 2018 and December 2020. During those two years I benefited greatly from the conviviality and encouragement of my colleagues in the Department of History. Foremost among those colleagues was Robert Armstrong (who acted as my mentor), David Brown, Joanne Lynch, Bríd McGrath, Graeme Murdock, Helen Murray, Micheál Ó Siochrú, Máté Vince, Ciarán Wallace, and Patrick Walsh. I am also indebted to the editors of the Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture and Literature and History for granting permission to reproduce material from articles published in their journals. Furthermore, I extend my thanks to the Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs editorial board for their early enthusiasm and sustained commitment to this book. Finally, I wish to dedicate this book to my parents, who have been supportive throughout this journey.

June 2021

Simon Lewis

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Contents List of Figures List of Abbreviations

ix xi

Introduction 1 1. A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition 10 The Rise of Methodism 12 Controversial Practices 15 The Lavington Affair 23 Print Culture 26 Transatlantic Networks 30 Conclusions 34 2. Justification and Assurance 36 Post-­Restoration Soteriology 37 A ‘System of Moral Ethicks’ 41 Competing Authorities: Pro- and Anti-­Methodist Sources 45 Assurance 52 Conclusions 58 3. Perfectionism and Self-­Denial 60 Wesley’s ‘Holy Living’ Asceticism 61 Whitefield’s Self-­Denial 67 ‘Righteous Over-­Much’? 70 The Perceived Dangers of Evangelical Self-­Denial 73 Conclusions 77 4. Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery 79 Pagano-­Papism 82 Christian Antiquity 86 The Medieval Church 93 Histories of Protestant Schism and ‘Enthusiasm’ 97 Conclusions 104 5. Deism and Melancholia 106 Defining ‘Deism’ 108 Melancholia and Suicide 110 The ‘Immediate Inspiration of God’ 113 ‘Spiritual’ and ‘Sensual’ Enthusiasts 119 ‘Seek and you shall find’ 121 Conclusions 123

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

viii Contents

6. Miracles and Demons 125 Methodism and Miracles 128 A ‘Preternatural Agent’? 132 The Middleton Debate 136 ‘Old Latitudinarian Excesses’ 139 Conclusions 142 7. Anti-­Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’ 144 Doctrines of Original Sin 146 A ‘Diversity of Passions and Humours’ 150 Heaven and Hell 156 ‘Orthodoxy’ and Infallibility 161 Conclusions 164 Epilogue and Conclusion Bibliography Index

166 171 203

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

List of Figures 1.1 Enthusiasm Display’d, or The Moor-­Fields Congregation (1739). Etching. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington D.C.22 4.1 The Parallel Reformers, or The Renowned Wickliff and the Reverend Mr. Whitefield Compared: Shewing by Many Parallel Instances ye Great Resemblance between Those Pious Divines in Respect of Christian Zeal and Fortitude (c.1740).98 Etching. © The Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, Oxford Brookes University. 5.1 Harlequin Methodist, to the Tune of ‘An Old Woman Cloathed in Grey’ (s.d.).

113

Etching, 17.1 × 24.7 cm. © The Trustees of the British Museum. 6.1 William Hogarth, Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism (1762). Etching, 37.1 × 32.4 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1932.

131

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

List of Abbreviations AEH BJRL BL Bodleian CCEd CH CUL EMV FP HJ HLQ HR JECS JEH JRHLC JRL JTS Lavington 1 Lavington 2 Lavington 3 Life, Context, and Legacy LPL Manuscript Journal

MH ODNB PWHS RRR SCH s.d. s.l. SPCK

Anglican and Episcopal History Bulletin of the John Rylands Library British Library Bodleian Library Clergy of the Church of England Database, https:// theclergydatabase.org.uk/ Church History Cambridge University Library Early Methodist Volume Fulham Papers Historical Journal Huntington Library Quarterly Historical Research Journal for Eighteenth-­Century Studies Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture John Rylands Library Journal of Theological Studies [Lavington, G.], The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists, Compar’d (London, 1749) [Lavington, G.], The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared. Part II (London, 1749) [Lavington, G.], The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared. Part III (London, 1751) Hammond, G., and Jones, D.C. (eds), George Whitefield: Life, Context, and Legacy (Oxford, 2016) Lambeth Palace Library Kimbrough Jr, S.T. and Newport, K.G.C. (eds), The Manuscript Journal of the Rev. Charles Wesley, M.A., 2 vols. (Nashville, TN, 2007) Methodist History Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004) Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society Reformation and Renaissance Review Studies in Church History sine datum, i.e. without date sine loco, i.e. without place of publication Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

xii  List of Abbreviations SPG Tillotson, 1–2 Whitefield, Journal 1

Whitefield, Journal 3

Whitefield, Journal 4

Whitefield, Journal 5

Whitefield, Journal 6

Whitefield, Journal 7

WMQ WMS Works

Works, Journal I–­VII

Works, Letters I

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts The Works of the Most Reverend Dr John Tillotson, Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, 3rd ed. 2 vols. (London, 1722) Whitefield, G., A Journal of a Voyage from London to Savannah in Georgia [December 1737–May 1738] (London, 1738) Whitefield, G., A Continuation of the Reverend Mr Whitefield’s Journal, from his Arrival at London, to his Departure from thence on his Way to Georgia [December 1738–June 1739] (London, 1739) Whitefield, G., A Continuation of the Reverend Mr Whitefield’s Journal, during the Time he was Detained in England by the Embargo [June 1739–August 1739] (London, 1739) Whitefield, G., A Continuation of the Reverend Mr Whitefield’s Journal, from his Embarking after the Embargo, to his Arrival at Savannah in Georgia [August 1739–January 1740] (London, 1740) Whitefield, G., A Continuation of the Reverend Mr Whitefield’s Journal, after his Arrival at Georgia, to a Few Days after his Second Return thither from Philadelphia [January 1740–June 1740] (London, 1741) Whitefield, G., A Continuation of the Reverend Mr Whitefield’s Journal, from a few Days after his Return to Georgia to his Arrival at Falmouth, on the 11th of March 1741 (London, 1741) William and Mary Quarterly Wesley and Methodist Studies The Works of John Wesley (Bicentennial Edition), general ed. Frank Baker and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Oxford, 1975–83, and Nashville, TN, 1984-) Ward, W.R., and Heitzenrater, R.P. (eds), The Works of John Wesley, Vols. 18–24: Journal and Diaries, I-­VII (Nashville, TN, 1988–2003) Baker, F., Oxford Edition of the Works of John Wesley, Vol. 25: Letters I (Oxford, 1980)

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Introduction History is, of course, often written by the victors. John Wesley and George Whitefield are remembered as founders of Methodism, one of the most influential movements in the history of modern Christianity. Their opponents—many of whom viewed Methodism simply as an ephemeral nuisance—have, on the other hand, been virtually forgotten. Yet these critics must not be ignored, as historians have tended to do, for a detailed examination of their ideas and concerns provides us with not only a very different perspective on Methodism, but also a fundamental reappraisal of the doctrinal priorities of the Georgian Church. The purpose of this book, therefore, is to explore the polemical attacks on Wesley and Whitefield, thereby placing Methodism more firmly in its contemporary theological context. Once this is achieved, Methodism—rather than appearing as an aberration or dramatic innovation—can be placed in the broader perspective of the ‘long Reformation’; as part of the Church of England’s continuing struggle to define itself theologically. Eighteenth-­century Methodism was a divisive phenomenon, which attracted a torrent of printed opposition, ranging from satirical cartoons to sermons. Scholars of early anti-­Methodist literature have focused predominantly on sa­tir­ ic­al depictions of Wesley and Whitefield.1 Others, such as John Walsh, have explored the various ways in which Methodism was perceived to disrupt the social and political status quo. In response to the Halévy thesis—which posited Wesley as a counter-­revolutionary proto-­capitalist—Walsh has shown that early Methodism was often perceived as detrimental to the economy because it attacked wealth and, allegedly, distracted the laity from their work.2 The seemingly

1  See A.  Lyles, Methodism Mocked: The Satiric Reaction to Methodism in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1960); R. Glen, ‘The Fate of John Wesley in English Satiric Prints’, in T. Macquiban (ed.), Methodism in Its Cultural Milieu (Oxford, 1994), pp. 35–43; B. W. Krysmanski, Hogarth’s ‘Enthusiasm Delineated’: Nachahmung als Kritik am Kennertum, Eine Werkanalyse, Zugleich ein Einblick in das sarkastisch-­ aufgeklärte Denken eines ‘Künstlerrebellen’ im englischen 18. Jahrhundert, 2 vols. (Hildesheim, 1996); B.  W.  Krysmanski, ‘We See a Ghost: Hogarth’s Satire on Methodists and Connoisseurs’, Art Bulletin, 80 (1998), pp. 292–310; M.  C.  Anderson, Imagining Methodism in Eighteenth-­Century Britain: Enthusiasm, Belief & the Borders of the Self (Baltimore, MD, 2012); B. C. McInelly, Textual Warfare and the Making of Methodism (Oxford, 2014); P. S. Forsaith, Image, Identity and John Wesley: A Study in Portraiture (London, 2017), ch. 8. 2  See J.D.  Walsh, ‘Élie Halévy and the Birth of Methodism’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 25 (1975), pp. 1–20; J. D. Walsh, ‘John Wesley and the Community of Goods’, in K. Robbins (ed.), SCH, Subsidia 7: Protestant Evangelicalism: Britain, Ireland, Germany and America c.1750– c.1950: Essays in Honour of W.  R.  Ward (Oxford, 1990), pp. 25–50; J.  D.  Walsh, ‘ “The Bane of Industry”? Popular Evangelicalism and Work in the Eighteenth Century’, in R. N. Swanson (ed.), SCH, Vol. 37: The Use and Abuse of Time in Church History (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 223–41. See also D. Hempton, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit (New Haven, CT and London, 2005), pp. 87–92.

The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0001

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

2  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy subversive nature of Wesley and Whitefield’s evangelistic practices, such as open-­ air and itinerant preaching, has been discussed by several scholars, who have provided insightful discussions of Methodism’s complex relationship with the established Church. As these studies have shown, Methodism was perceived as a threat to ecclesiastical authority because of its alleged breach of various canons. Any threat to the Church was, of course, also deemed a threat to the State and a boon to the Papacy. To many divines, evangelicals were simply continuing the treasonous work of their Puritan ancestors by condemning all who had not ex­peri­enced a spiritual ‘new birth’, which was independent of works. Methodists were, therefore, accused of ‘fostering popery, Jacobitism, and antinomianism’.3 Clearly, there were no obvious demarcations between political, social, and theo­logic­al objections to Methodism. The prominence of theology in these disputes has, however, been neglected by scholars. This is surprising, given that Methodism emerged at a time when numerous doctrinal threats, such as anti-­ Trinitarianism and deism, were posed to ‘orthodox’ Anglicans, who identified with the primitive church. The dearth of such scholarship reflects the limited attention paid by historians to eighteenth-­century Anglican theology. Despite the relatively recent contributions of Brian Young and Robert Ingram, there remains much work to be done in terms of correcting the stereotype—advanced by Victorian Tractarians—that Georgian Anglicans replaced ‘dogmatic theology’ with ‘rationalism’, thereby eschewing ‘mystery’.4 The theological vitality of the Georgian clergy is not recognized in Donald Kirkham’s Outside Looking In: Early Methodism as Viewed by Its Critics (2019), which discusses anti-­ Methodist theology. Rather, Kirkham’s claim that anti-­ Methodist Anglicans espoused a faith ‘built on reason’ is reminiscent of Victorian historiography. Despite its impressive coverage of printed sources, there are several other limitations to Kirkham’s study. First, by drawing a fine line between doctrinal and socio-­political objections to Methodism, it underestimates the wider impact of theology in eighteenth-­ century society. Second, Kirkham neglects the theological nuances among anti-­Methodist authors, leading to the erroneous implication that there was uniformity among these polemicists. Finally, 3  See W.  M.  Jacob, ‘John Wesley and the Church of England, 1736–40’, BJRL, 85.2–3 (2003), pp. 57–71; J.  Gregory, ‘ “In the Church I Will Live and Die”: John Wesley, the Church of England, and Methodism’, in W.  Gibson and R.  G.  Ingram (eds), Religious Identities in Britain, 1660–1832 (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 147–78; W. Gibson, ‘Whitefield and the Church of England’, in Life, Context, and Legacy, pp. 46–63, at 63; E.  Loane, ‘Wesley, Whitefield, and the Church of England’, in Ian J. Maddock (ed.), Wesley and Whitefield? Wesley versus Whitefield? (Eugene, OR, 2018), pp. 62–86. 4 B. W. Young, Religion and Enlightenment in Eighteenth-­Century England: Theological Debate from Locke to Burke (Oxford, 1998); B. W. Young, ‘Theology in the Church of England’, in J. Gregory (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Vol. II: Establishment and Empire, 1662–1829 (Oxford, 2017), pp. 392–428; R. G. Ingram, Reformation without End: Religion, Politics and the Past in Post-­Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2018); M. Pattison, ‘Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688–1750’, in H. Nettleship (ed.), Essays by the Late Mark Pattison: Sometime Rector of Lincoln College, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1889), II, p. 47.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Introduction  3 despite claiming to be a study of Methodism ‘as viewed by its critics’, Kirkham’s work provides a limited penetration into the minds of those who attacked Wesley and Whitefield. Clearly, Kirkham recognizes that the past—particularly the Regicide and Commonwealth—was ‘fresh in the minds’ of many eighteenth-­ century Anglicans, leading them to perceive Methodism as ‘revived Puritanism’. Paradoxically, however, Kirkham’s work is characteristic of many histories of Methodism in the sense that it overstates the perceived novelty of Wesley and Whitefield’s activities. This is evidenced especially by a chapter in which op­pos­ ition to so-­called ‘innovative practices’, such as open-­air preaching and ex­tem­por­ ary prayer, is discussed.5 Focusing on the period between John Wesley’s 1738 Aldersgate conversion and Whitefield’s death in 1770, my study uses early anti-­Methodist literature as a lens through which the theological vitality of the eighteenth-­ century Church of England is illuminated. Rather than being reliant on ‘reason’, many anti-­Methodist divines grounded their polemical attacks in patristics, of which some of them were leading scholars. Many also shared Wesley and Whitefield’s determination to defend orthodox dogmas, such as Trinitarianism, the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, and eternal damnation. Furthermore, several anti-­Methodist High Churchmen were noted opponents of freethought, a heresy which they believed was fuelled by Methodism. It is, therefore, erroneous to view orthodox attacks on Methodism as simply ‘rational’ onslaughts against ‘revelation’. In fact, these authors’ perceptions of Methodism were shaped by their prior engagement in numerous doctrinal controversies. For these polemicists, attacking Wesley and Whitefield formed merely part of a broader defence of ‘true religion’. While the phrase ‘true religion’ will seem jarring to postmodernists, many eighteenth-­ century theologians believed that ‘truth’ was discernible and, sometimes, even enforceable. By integrating anti-­Methodism into the wider doctrinal disputes of the eighteenth century, these discussions highlight the dangers of viewing theo­ logic­al controversies in disparate, unconnected silos. Crucially, this study avoids the reductionist assumption that doctrinal debate was simply a scholarly exercise, which had limited ‘real world’ impact. Rather, by blurring the distinctions between theological and socio-­ political objections to Methodism, this book bridges traditional divides between social and intellectual studies of eighteenth-­ century religion. Throughout this book, the terms ‘evangelicalism’ and ‘Methodism’ are used interchangeably. In an eighteenth-­century context, neither term is easy to define. This difficulty of definition is illustrated by the fact that Wesley and Whitefield disagreed on fundamental theological points. Wesley, as an Arminian, believed that all could be saved if they turned to Christ. Whitefield, on the other hand, 5 D.  H.  Kirkham, Outside Looking In: Early Methodism as Viewed by Its Critics (Nashville, TN, 2019), pp. 59, 218.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

4  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy taught a Calvinistic soteriology, arguing that saving grace was reserved only for the elect. Etymologically, ‘evangelical’ is derived from the Greek word for ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’: ευαγγελιον (euangelion). ‘Evangelicalism’ will be defined by the ‘Bebbington Quadrilateral’ of (1) biblicism: the belief that all truth is conveyed in the Scriptures; (2) activism: a missionary zeal to spread the Gospel; (3) conversion: the belief that inward change must occur; and (4) crucicentrism: a focus on salvation through Jesus’s death on the cross.6 There is some validity in Timothy Larsen’s claim that, in an eighteenth-­century context, ‘Protestant orthodoxy’ should be another definitional criterion for ‘evangelicalism’. Those, such as Wesley and Whitefield, who conformed to Bebbington’s criteria were, of course, staunchly opposed to Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. Larsen’s reference to ‘orthodoxy’—by which he means Trinitarianism—is, however, more problematic.7 The Trinitarian credentials of most eighteenth-­century evangelicals were beyond doubt. There were, however, occasional exceptions to this rule. Take, for instance, the Dissenting hymn writer Isaac Watts, whose opposition to anything not ‘plainly revealed in Scripture’ was viewed by some as a sign of Arianism (a denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ). Robert Robinson, a Baptist evangelical, espoused a similarly complex Christology, claiming that prayers should not be addressed to  the different persons of the Trinity, while strenuously denying charges of ‘Unitarianism’.8 Defining ‘Methodist’, which was a divisive and derisive term throughout the eighteenth century, is equally problematic. It originated as a pejorative title for Wesley’s highly methodical ‘Holy Club’ at Oxford during the early 1730s. By the late 1730s, however, it had ceased to denote a single individual or group. Followers of Wesley and Whitefield, along with evangelical parish incumbents and, occasionally, Moravians, were labelled as ‘Methodists’. Some evangelicals, notably John Wesley, embraced the title, albeit reluctantly at first. By 1749 Whitefield had become frustrated that Wesleyan Arminians were ‘monopolising’ the title.9 During the 1750s William Mason, a Calvinist evangelical and clockmaker of Bermondsey, advanced a definition of a ‘Church of England Methodist’, which deliberately excluded Wesleyan Arminians.10 These theological divisions were 6 D.  W.  Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London, 1989), ch. 1. 7 T.  Larsen, ‘Defining and Locating Evangelicalism’, in T.  Larsen and D.  J.  Treier (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 1–14. 8 I. Watts, The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity, or Father, Son, and Spirit, Three Persons and One God, Asserted and Prov’d, with Their Divine Rights and Honors Vindicated by Plain Evidence of Scripture, without the Aid or Incumbrance of Human Schemes (London, 1722), p. 5; A. P. F. Sell, Christ and Controversy: The Person of Christ in Nonconformist Thought and Ecclesial Experience, 1600–2000 (Eugene, OR, 2011), pp. 39, 47–9. 9  Quoted from D.  C.  Jones, B.  S.  Schlenther, and E.  M.  White, The Elect Methodists: Calvinistic Methodism in England and Wales, 1735–1811 (Cardiff, 2012), pp. 154–5. 10  See S. Lewis, ‘Devotion and Polemic in Eighteenth-­Century England: William Mason and the Literature of Lay Evangelical Anglicanism’, HLQ, 82 (2019), pp. 379–406.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Introduction  5 often ignored by anti-­Methodist Anglicans, especially during the 1730s and 1740s, when Methodism was often associated automatically with the Calvinist evangelicalism of Whitefield. William Warburton, the future bishop of Gloucester, paid little attention to evangelical infighting in ‘The True Methodist’ (1755). In this manuscript, which was originally intended for publication, Warburton advanced a positive definition of a ‘Methodist’, which excluded both Wesley and Whitefield. A ‘true Methodist’, according to Warburton, was someone who was ‘no enemy to learning’ and maintained ‘good order’. Also, the ‘true Methodist’ avoided all the ‘pernicious extreams of superstition and Enthusiasm’ exhibited by Wesley and Whitefield, such as their tendency to trust ‘Extempore thoughts or abilities’.11 Contrary to the picture often painted by its opponents, eighteenth-­century Methodism was a complicated movement, which incorporated a diverse spectrum of religious traditions.12 Methodism’s emphasis on ‘heart religion’ can be traced back to the teachings of continental Pietists, such as Philipp Spener (1635–1705) and his protégé, August Hermann Francke (1663–1727).13 Also, both Wesley and Whitefield’s teachings of self-­denial stemmed, at least partly, from their early reading of the Non-­Juring divine William Law. Furthermore, Wesley was influenced by the sacramental writings of other contemporary Non-­ Jurors, such as the Manchester Jacobite Thomas Deacon, and earlier ‘holy living’ Anglican authors, including Jeremy Taylor, bishop of Down and Connor (1661–7).14 Conversely, Methodists—particularly Calvinist Methodists—were influenced by Puritan authors, such as John Bunyan (1628–88) and Joseph Alleine (1634–68), who stressed the importance of conversion. Many of Wesley and Whitefield’s controversial practices, including open-­air and itinerant preaching, mirrored those of Alleine and other Restoration Dissenters, who had been ejected from their parishes.15 Paradoxically, therefore, the most innovative feature of Methodism was its melding of multiple religious traditions. It was no more in­nova­tive than it was regressive. 11  W. Warburton, ‘The True Methodist, or Christian in Earnest’ (1755), JRL, MS 253B, fols. 2, 50–2, 64, 83–4, 134. 12 See J.  D.  Walsh, ‘ “Methodism” and the Origins of English-­ Speaking Evangelicalism’, in M. A. Noll, D. W. Bebbington, and G. A. Rawlyk (eds), Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990 (New York, 1994), pp. 19–37. 13  See W. R. Ward, The Protestant Evangelical Awakening (Cambridge, 1992). 14  See G. Hammond, John Wesley in America: Restoring Primitive Christianity (Oxford, 2014), passim; G. J. Joling-­van der Sar, ‘The Controversy between William Law and John Wesley’, English Studies, 87 (2006), pp. 442–65; I. Rivers, ‘William Law and Religious Revival: The Reception of A Serious Call’, HLQ, 71 (2008), pp. 633–49. 15  See D.  B.  Hindmarsh, The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Autobiography in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2007), ch. 1; J.  Coffey, ‘Puritanism, Evangelicalism and the Evangelical Protestant Tradition’, in M.  A.  G.  Haykin and K.  J.  Stewart (eds), The Emergence of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities (Nottingham, 2008), pp. 252–77; I.  Rivers, Vanity Fair and the Celestial City: Dissenting, Methodist, and Evangelical Literary Culture in England 1720–1800 (Oxford, 2018), ch. 4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

6  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Ever since Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260–c.340) wrote his Ecclesiastical History during the fourth century, Christians have used the past as a weapon to justify their providential mission. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the past was a battlefield on which Protestant authors—such as John Foxe (c.1516–87), Peter Heylyn (1599–1662), and Gilbert Burnet (1643–1715)—fought for ‘truth’.16 Contrary to Paulina Kewes’s claim that the ‘cultural cachet of politeness’ caused partisan history to fall ‘out of fashion’ during the Hanoverian period, eighteenth-­century historiography remained not only polemical but also providential.17 During this period, authors scrutinized numerous politico-­theological issues through a historical lens, offering visions for the future based on the past. It is no coincidence that the Dissenting historian Daniel Neal published his four-­ volume History of the Puritans (1732–8) amid increased calls for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which denied public office to Protestants who refused to take Anglican communion.18 Despite the blatant partisanship of Neal and others, it would be condescending to dismiss the self-­ ­ awareness of many eighteenth-­century historians, who sought the impossible goal of objectivity. For instance, in his response to the first volume of Neal’s History, Isaac Maddox, future bishop of St Asaph and Worcester, cited various scholars—including Thomas Fuller (1608–61)—of whom Neal approved.19 As shall be seen throughout the chapters in this book, contemporary perceptions of Methodism were rooted firmly in the past. Chapter 1 charts the rise of Methodism, focusing particularly on the development of its relationship with the Church of England. The turbulent nature of this relationship was evidenced by the explosion of anti-­Methodist literature during the late 1730s and early 1740s. This chapter proceeds to discuss the sale, dis­sem­ in­ation, and readership of these texts. Much of the early anti-­Methodist literature was pitched to a lay audience, whom the authors sought to deter from revival meetings. To numerous clergymen these meetings were hotbeds of immoral and 16 M. Phillpott, The Reformation of England’s Past: John Foxe and the Revision of History in the Late Sixteenth Century (New York and Abingdon, 2018); A.  Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-­ Century England: The Career and Writings of Peter Heylyn (Manchester, 2007); J.  H.  Preston, ‘English Ecclesiastical Historians and the Problem of Bias, 1559–1742’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 32 (1971), pp. 203–20; A. Starkie, ‘Contested Histories of the English Church: Gilbert Burnet and Jeremy Collier’, in P.  Kewes (ed.), The Uses of History in Early Modern England (San Marino, CA, 2006), pp. 329–45. For broader discussions of historiography in early modern England, see D. Woolf, ‘Historical Writing in Britain from the Late Middle Ages to the Eve of Enlightenment’, in J. Rabasa, M. Sato, E. Tortarolo, and D. Woolf (eds), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, Vol. 3: 1400–1800 (Oxford, 2012), pp. 473–96. 17  P. Kewes, ‘History and Its Uses’, in Kewes, Uses of History, p. 25. 18 J. Black, Charting the Past: The Historical Worlds of Eighteenth-­Century England (Bloomington, IN, 2019), p. xii. For Black’s discussions of Neal’s History, see Chapter 5. See also J. Seed, Dissenting Histories: Religious Division and the Politics of Memory in Eighteenth-­Century England (Edinburgh, 2008), ch. 2; R.  G.  Ingram, ‘Representing and Misrepresenting the History of Puritanism in Eighteenth-­Century England’, in P. D. Clarke and C. Methuen (eds), SCH, Vol. 49: The Church on Its Past (Woodbridge, 2013), pp. 205–18; Ingram, Reformation without End, ch. 11. 19  Ingram, ‘Representing and Misrepresenting’, p. 211.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Introduction  7 riotous behaviour. Crucially, such perceptions illuminate the convergence of socio-­political and doctrinal concerns. Indeed, immorality and disorder were often described as effects of Wesley and Whitefield’s ‘solifidian’ soteriology. Chapter 2 explores the soteriological clashes between Methodists and their High Church opponents. It locates these exchanges as a continuation of a historic dispute over definitions of ‘true’ Church of England doctrines, as taught in the Thirty-­Nine Articles of Religion, an Elizabethan formulary, to which all clergymen— both upon ordination and when they were presented to a new living—subscribed.20 Calvinist evangelicals believed they were fulfilling the work of Reformed Anglicans, such as John Edwards (1637–1716), who had maintained the ‘good old way’ of the Reformation after the Restoration. Anti-­Methodist High Churchmen, on the other hand, perceived these harangues as merely a feeble attempt to reignite a war already won by post-­Restoration Arminian divines, most notably George Bull (1634–1710). Arminian evangelicals, such as John Wesley, occupied an awkward middle ground in this dispute. Despite his overt anti-­ Calvinism, Wesley was often charged with aiding Whitefield and other so-­called ‘antinomians’ by denying that works were a condition of the new birth. Paradoxically, however, Methodists were sometimes attacked for their rigorous regimen of self-­ denial and perfectionism. Chapter 3 further highlights the convergence of sociological and theological ideas by exploring responses to Methodist asceticism. It shows that Wesley and Whitefield’s concerns about allegedly sinful luxuries were shared, not only by members of the laity, but also by several of their Anglican opponents. This chapter, therefore, de-­emphasizes both the novelty of Methodist perfectionism and the alleged lethargy of the Georgian Church. Those divines, such as Joseph Trapp, who attacked Methodist perfectionism viewed such teachings as a theological, as well as a social, transgression. Basing this theory on the example allegedly set by sixteenth-­century German Anabaptists and other radical Christian groups, Trapp and others described a direct lineage linking perfectionism, anticlericalism, and antinomianism. Discussions of sixteenth-­century Anabaptists featured prominently in attacks on Methodist ‘enthusiasm’, which are explored in Chapter  4. Methodists often faced charges of ‘enthusiasm’ because of their seemingly irrational emphasis on supernatural experiences, such as prophecies and bodily agitations. Allegations of ‘enthusiasm’ often featured alongside the interlinked charges of ‘schism’ and ‘­popery’. When defining each of these three transgressions of ‘true religion’, anti-­ Methodist High Churchmen cited historic examples of ‘enthusiastic’ and schismatic papists. To these divines, the ‘schismatic’ acts committed by Methodists represented not only a political rebellion, but also a sin, reminiscent of regicidal 20  See J. D. Walsh, ‘The Thirty-­Nine Articles and Anglican Identity in the Eighteenth Century’, in C. d’Haussy (ed.), Quand religions et confessions se regardent (Paris, 1998), pp. 61–70.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

8  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Puritans, who had allegedly aided the Papacy during the previous century by toppling both the Church and the monarchy. Methodists, on the other hand, posited their work as a continuation of the Reformation, comparing their opponents to ‘popish’ and schismatic Counter-­Reformers. By exploring the conflicting ways in which Methodists and their opponents deployed histories of ‘popery’, this chapter illuminates not only the many varieties of anti-­Catholicism in eighteenth-­century England, but also the highly contested status, purpose, and meaning of the Reformation during this period. As with ‘popery’, ‘enthusiasm’ was a subjective term in eighteenth-­century England. To deists, such as Peter Annet, all priestly religions were guilty of ‘enthusiasm’ because they defended ancient tales of miracles, which transcended the laws of nature. One might imagine that, in the minds of most Anglicans, Methodists and deists operated in completely different worlds. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Chapter  5 explores the perceived relationship between Methodism and deism. By showing that discussions of deism featured prominently in the printed attacks on Wesley and Whitefield, this chapter offers a fundamental reappraisal of the perceived relationship between early evangelicalism and irreligion, while also illuminating the ways in which anti-­Methodism was informed by other theological controversies. Crucially, by showing that attacks on evangelicalism often mirrored attacks on irreligion, this chapter argues that categorizations such as ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Counter-­Enlightenment’ are unhelpful when describing contemporary perceptions of Methodism and deism. As with deists, Methodists were often viewed by their clerical opponents as melancholic ‘enthusiasts’—the antithesis of ‘true religion’. Attitudes to miracles was another litmus test for ‘true religion’. Some religious groups, such as Roman Catholics and evangelicals, were open to the possibility of new miracles. Orthodox Anglicans, on the other hand, believed that miracles had ceased shortly after Constantine’s conversion during the fourth century, which marked the end of Christianity’s days as a marginalized sect. Others, however, displayed far less trust in patristic accounts of miracles. The Cambridge librarian and Anglican divine Conyers Middleton believed that miracles had ceased by the end of the first century. More controversially, deists denied that miracles had ever occurred at all. Each of these beliefs is explored in Chapter  6, which discusses anti-­ Methodism in the context of the eighteenth-­ century miracles debate. Building on the previous chapter’s discussions of the perceived relationship between Methodism and irreligion, Chapter 6 also illuminates several clergymen who feared that Methodism’s emphasis on the supernatural fuelled doubts about biblical and patristic miracles. Methodism also attracted opposition from Latitudinarians and heterodox ‘Rational Dissenters’, whose grievances are explored in Chapter 7. As with many of the categorizations applied to seventeenth- and eighteenth-­century clergymen,

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Introduction  9 the term ‘Latitudinarian’ has pejorative origins. During the 1650s it was used to describe Cambridge Platonists, such as Henry More, who—despite conforming outwardly to the expectations of the Interregnum establishment—were suspected of harbouring secret yearnings for the return of episcopacy. When these Cambridge divines sided with the newly restored Church of England, they were accused of ‘Latitudinarianism’ by liberated royalists on the one hand and defeated nonconformists on the other.21 During the eighteenth century the charge of ‘Latitudinarianism’ was hurled at clergymen who sought a broad established Church, in which all would be entitled to use their ‘private judgement’ to interpret the Scriptures. Georgian Latitudinarians believed that ‘human’ formularies, such as the Thirty-­Nine Articles, contravened the sola scriptura ethos of the Reformation, as outlined by William Chillingworth (1602–44), who stated that the ‘Bible only is the religion of Protestants!’22 To Latitudinarians and Rational Dissenters, Methodists stifled the progress of the Reformation by defending ‘human’ dogmas, such as the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, infant baptism, and Trinitarianism. Ironically, these orthodox doctrines were also defended vociferously by anti-­Methodist High Churchmen, who associated the controversial practices of evangelical leaders with the ‘enthusiastic’ excesses of the Reformation. To some, the Reformation had ended long ago, meaning that the Methodists’ endeavours were, at best, redundant, and, at worst, damaging. To others, the Reformation was a work in progress, which was being stifled by the Methodists’ dogmatic zeal for ‘orthodoxy’. The term ‘Methodism’, therefore, conjured up different images for different people. These images were, however, always rooted firmly in the past, thereby reinforcing Ingram’s argument that eighteenth-­ century doctrinal controversies stemmed from questions unresolved by the Reformation.23

21  J. Spurr, ‘ “Latitudinarianism” and the Restoration Church’, HJ, 31 (1988), pp. 61–82. 22 W.  Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation (Oxford, 1638), p. 375; Young, Religion and Enlightenment, ch. 1. 23 Ingram, Reformation without End, passim.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

1

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition In 1744 George Whitefield described the ‘Torrent of Opposition’ facing him and other evangelical itinerants. To Whitefield, such opposition was a positive sign because it showed that Methodist preachers were following a ‘Divine Commission’.1 In An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (1743), John Wesley similarly interpreted this hostility as a providential sign, citing ‘Blessed are ye when Men shall revile you and persecute you’ (Matthew 5:11).2 As has been shown by several scholars, such opposition sometimes took the form of physical violence and mob action.3 In addition, Methodists faced a torrent of printed criticism. We know from Clive Field’s exhaustive bibliographies of eighteenth-­century anti-­Methodist literature that well over five-­hundred attacks on evangelicalism were published in Britain between 1738 and 1800. Yet, their distribution was not spread evenly across this period. Indeed, around two hundred of these attacks appeared between 1738 and 1745. Up until the early 1740s, it was usually Whitefield who was centre stage in these polemics. By the mid-­1740s, however, it was Wesley who was gaining most of the limelight and, inevitably, the criticism. This sudden shift in focus was largely due to Whitefield’s lengthy visits to the American colonies, which enabled Wesley to gain a foothold in England.4 The bulk of these printed assaults were written by Anglican clergymen of varying levels of seniority, ranging from bishops to curates. It was, however, not un­ usual to see Dissenting ministers and members of the laity attacking Methodism in print. These polemics took many literary forms. A relatively small number of them were satirical assaults, which were often bawdy in tone. Rather than focusing on doctrinal controversies, the aim of these plays, poems, novels/ novellas, and illustrations was usually to ridicule Methodist leaders by portraying 1 G. Whitefield, An Answer to the Second Part of an Anonymous Pamphlet, Entitled, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect Usually Distinguished by the Name of Methodists. In a Second Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of London, and the Other the Right Reverend the Bishops Concern’d in the Publication Thereof (Boston, MA, 1744), p. 15. 2 J. Wesley, An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, 2nd ed. (Bristol, 1743), p. 34. 3  J. D. Walsh, ‘Methodism and the Mob in the Eighteenth Century’, in G. J. Cuming and D. Baker (eds), SCH, Vol. 8: Popular Belief and Practice (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 213–27; M.  F.  Snape, ‘Anti-­ Methodism in Eighteenth-­Century England: The Pendle Forest Riots of 1748’, JEH, 49 (1998), pp. 257–81; S. Lewis, ‘ “Five Pounds for a Swadler’s Head”: The Cork Anti-­Methodist Riots of 1749–50’, HR, 94 (2021), pp. 51–72. 4  C.  D.  Field, ‘Anti-­Methodist Publications of the Eighteenth Century: A Revised Bibliography’, BJRL, 73 (1991), pp. 159–280; C. D. Field, ‘Anti-­Methodist Publications of the Eighteenth Century: A Supplemental Bibliography’, WMS, 6 (2014), pp. 154–86.

The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0002

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  11 them as self-­interested tricksters and sexual predators.5 Most of the early anti-­ Methodist literature, however, adopted a considerably more serious tone by addressing numerous theological, social, and political concerns. Some polemicists composed fictional dialogues, in which the Methodist character was portrayed as the antagonist.6 In addition, several bishops, including Edmund Gibson of London, and Richard Smalbroke of Lichfield and Coventry, attacked Methodism in their pas­ tor­al letters and episcopal charges.7 Numerous other anti-­Methodist works took the form of open letters to specific evangelical leaders.8 By far, however, the two most common forms of anti-­Methodist polemic were sermons and commentaries on specific evangelical leaders. Of course, newspapers and periodicals played their part in opposing Methodist ‘enthusiasm’. During the late 1730s and early 1740s, the most staunchly anti-­Methodist periodical was the Weekly Miscellany. The editor of this stridently Tory High Church periodical—which was also renowned for its attacks on anti-­Trinitarianism, deism, and Dissent—was William Webster, incumbent of Depden, Suffolk, who published under the pseudonym, ‘Richard Hooker of the Inner Temple’. In 1741, however, the Weekly Miscellany quietly folded after a nine-­year print run. By focusing increasingly on Methodism, this periodical had, in its later years, become decidedly niche. Early issues had stressed the fundamental role played by women as moral reformers, and advocated women’s education. Yet, issues published after 1738 adopted an increasingly hostile attitude towards female religious activism, which Webster and other High

5 For examples of anti-­Methodist plays see The Mock-­Preacher: A Satyrico-­Comical-­Allegorical Farce (London, 1739); T. Este, Methodism Display’d: A Farce of One Act (Newcastle, 1743); S. Foote, The Minor (London, 1760). For poetry, see The Methodists: An Humorous Burlesque Poem (London, 1739); T. Cooke, The Mournful Nuptials, or Love the Cure of All Woes: A Tragedy (London, 1739); Dr Codex’s Pastoral Letter Versified, by Way of Caution against Lukewarmness on One Hand and Enthusiasm on the Other (London, 1739). For novels/novellas see The Accomplished Methodist, or The Life of David Nefas, Esq. (London, 1739); [R. Graves], The Spiritual Quixote, or The Summer’s Ramble of Mr Geoffry Wildgoose: A Comic Romance, 3 vols (London, 1773). For satirical cartoons see Enthusiasm Display’d, or The Moor-­Fields Congregation (London, 1739); Harlequin Methodist, to the Tune of ‘An Old Woman Cloathed in Grey’ ([London?], s.d.); Doctor Rock’s Speech to the Political Mob in Covent-­Garden (London, 1743). 6 See The Question Whether It Be Right to Turn Methodist Considered in a Dialogue between Two Members of the Church of England (London, 1739); A Plain and Familiar Dialogue between a Steady and a Wavering Christian, Occasioned by the Defection of the Latter from the Doctrines and Ordinances of the Gospel and Primitive Unadulterated Christianity (London, 1749). 7 E. Gibson, The Bishop of London’s Pastoral Letter to the People of his Diocese; Especially Those of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster: By Way of Caution, against Lukewarmness on the One Hand, and Enthusiasm on the Other (London, 1739); R. Smalbroke, A Charge Delivered to the Reverend the Clergy in Several Parts of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry in a Triennial Visitation of the Same in 1741 (London, 1741). 8 See  T.  Land, A Letter to the Rev. Mr Whitefield, Designed to Correct His Mistaken Account of Regeneration, or the New Birth (London, 1739); E.  B., An Expostulatory Letter to the Reverend Mr Whitefield, and the Rest of his Brethren, the Methodists of the Church of England, Wherein the Rites and Ceremonies of That Church Are Considered, and the Partiality of Those Gentlemen with Regard to the Practice of Them Condemn’d (London, 1739).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

12  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Churchmen had begun to associate with Methodism. Thus, Webster probably alienated at least some of his female readers.9 This chapter contextualizes early anti-­Methodist literature by charting the roots of Wesley and Whitefield’s complex relationship with the Church of England. It focuses particularly on their controversial practices, such as open-­air and itinerant preaching, which were deemed to contravene parliamentary and canon law. By discussing these practices, this chapter illuminates the ways in which theological polemic informed, and was informed by, socio-­political issues. These contextual explorations are enhanced further through discussions of the sale and dissemination of early anti-­Methodist literature, thereby elucidating both the popularity and readership of these publications.

The Rise of Methodism Born in 1703, John Wesley was the son of Samuel Wesley (1662–1735), incumbent of Epworth, Lincolnshire. In 1720 John entered Christ Church, Oxford, where he was ordained deacon in 1725. He was subsequently elected fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford (1726), and ordained priest (1728). In 1729 John, along with his younger brother, Charles—who had matriculated at Christ Church three years earlier—formed a ‘Holy Club’ for the purpose of theological study and the pursuit of righteousness through prayer, fasting, and charity. The group quickly gained the pejorative title of ‘Methodists’ because their rigorous regimen was perceived by some of the Oxford community to be overly methodical.10 In December 1735 John and Charles travelled to the new American colony of Georgia to assume the respective positions of minister of Christ Church, Savannah, and Secretary of Indian Affairs. During the voyage aboard the Simmonds they encountered some Moravians. In 1722 these Protestant refugees from Moravia had migrated to Herrnhut, the Saxony estate of Count Nicolaus Zinzendorf, a Lutheran Pietist, who provided them with sanctuary. Influenced by Zinzendorf ’s fervent piety, the Moravians soon experienced a revival of religion, fuelling missionary work across the world, including to Georgia. The Moravians on board the Simmonds left a lasting impression on John Wesley, who was captivated by the calm piety they displayed during a hazardous storm.11 9  See C.  J.  Cupples, ‘Pious Ladies and Methodist Madams: Sex and Gender in Anti-­Methodist Writings of Eighteenth-­Century England’, Critical Matrix, 5 (1990), pp. 30–60. 10  For the Oxford ‘Holy Club’, see H.  Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism (London, 1989), ch. 2; R. P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN, 2013), pp. 37–64. 11 For the Moravian diaspora, see C.  D.  Atwood, Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem (University Park, PA, 2004); W. R. Ward, Early Evangelicalism: A Global Intellectual History, 1670–1789 (Cambridge, 2006); A.  S.  Fogleman, Jesus Is Female: Moravians and Radical Religion in Early America (Philadelphia, PA, 2007); M. Gillespie and R. Beachy (eds), Pious Pursuits:

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  13 In February 1736 the Wesley brothers arrived in Georgia, though Charles’s time in the colony lasted only a matter of months. In August 1736 the emotionally and spiritually depressed Charles left America for England, where he acquired lasting acclaim as a hymn writer. John’s two years in Georgia were marred by limit­ed opportunities to engage with the indigenous people, altercations with Dissenters, and, most notably, his tumultuous relationship with Sophia Hopkey, whom he excommunicated when she married another colonist. Her enraged husband, William Williamson, began legal proceedings against Wesley, who fled the colony in December 1737.12 Upon his return to England in February 1738, Wesley was a demoralized man. For guidance he turned to his Moravian friend, Peter Böhler, who urged him to ‘preach faith till you have it; and then, because you have it, you will preach faith’. On 24 May 1738 Wesley reluctantly attended a religious society meeting on Aldersgate Street, London, where the preacher spoke on Martin Luther’s preface to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. In his journal entry for that day, Wesley described the life-­changing effects of the preacher’s words: About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.13

This event, Wesley claimed, marked the point at which he was ‘born again’.14 He devoted the remaining fifty-­three years of his life and ministry to travelling across Britain and Ireland, preaching about the ‘new birth’, which was independent of good works. Nevertheless, Wesley, as an Arminian, believed that it was possible for the regenerate to backslide into sin and fall from grace.15 This view was not shared by Whitefield, a Calvinist evangelical, who believed that the grace of God was irresistible to the elect. Whitefield’s background could not have been any more different from that of the Wesley brothers. Born in 1714, George Whitefield was the son of Thomas Whitefield, proprietor of the Bell Inn, Gloucester, who died when George was only two years old. He subsequently gained a stepfather, who mismanaged the Bell Inn, causing the young Whitefield to defer his schooling and assist in the running of the German Moravians in the Atlantic World (New York and Oxford, 2007); R.  Wheeler, To Live upon Hope: Mohicans and Missionaries in the Eighteenth-­Century Northeast (Ithaca, NY, and London, 2008); K. C. Engel, Religion and Profit: Moravians in Early America (Philadelphia, PA, 2013). 12  For Wesley’s Georgia mission see Hammond, John Wesley in America. 13  Works, Journal I, pp. 228, 249–50. 14 For Wesley’s Aldersgate experience and its wider significance see M.  K.  Olson, Wesley and Aldersgate: Interpreting Conversion Narratives (Abingdon and New York, 2018). 15 For a concise overview of Wesley’s soteriology see T.  H.  McCall and K.  D.  Stanglin, After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology (New York, 2021), ch. 3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

14  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy establishment. As a result of childhood measles, Whitefield developed a per­man­ ent squint, for which he was teased throughout his life. In 1732 he matriculated at Pembroke College, Oxford, as a servitor, which entailed the performance of various menial duties for wealthier undergraduates. At Oxford Whitefield encountered the Wesley brothers, and engaged with the Holy Club.16 For a period of several weeks in 1735, Whitefield was confined to his rooms, stricken by illness, which he viewed as the work of Satan. He later claimed that, throughout this ordeal, God was ‘purifying’ his soul and quenching his ‘thirst’. Eventually Whitefield was ‘delivered’ from his illness, causing him to ‘truly rejoice in God’. It was, apparently, from this moment onwards that God was ‘abode’ in Whitefield’s soul.17 In 1736 the recently ‘regenerated’ Whitefield was ordained deacon in Gloucester Cathedral by Bishop Martin Benson. During the following year Whitefield published The Nature and Necessity of Our New Birth in Christ Jesus, in Order to Salvation, based on a sermon he had recently preached in St Mary Radcliffe, Bristol. In this text Whitefield alleged that—despite it being ‘one of the most fundamental Doctrines of our holy Religion’—the new birth was not something that most ‘Professors’ in the Church had experienced. Despite its provocative tone, this sermon failed to agitate the clergy. Some probably assumed that this annoying little upstart would soon be gone from their shores for good.18 As with the Wesley brothers, Whitefield felt called to America. In February 1738 he sailed for Georgia, where—with the authorization of the colony’s trust­ees—he was to succeed John Wesley as the minister of Christ Church, Savannah. Shortly after his arrival in May 1738, Whitefield devised a plan to build an orphanage in Georgia. His inspiration for this institution was the Halle Orphanage in Germany, founded in 1695, by August Hermann Francke. By December 1738 Whitefield was back in England, raising money for his ‘Bethesda’ orphanage, which was built in 1740. One fundraising strategy was the sale of Whitefield’s Journal (1738–41), which was filled with daily accounts of prophetic encounters with God. In January 1739 Whitefield was ordained priest by Bishop Benson. By the summer of that year, however, Whitefield and Benson were engaged in a ‘punishing correspondence’, which stemmed from the former’s open-­air preaching. This highly controversial practice characterized eighteenth-­century Methodism and was a major catalyst for the decline of Wesley and Whitefield’s relationship with the Church of England.19

16  B. S. Schlenther, ‘Whitefield, George (1714–1770)’, ODNB. 17 G.  Whitefield, A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr George Whitefield, A. B. Late of Pembroke-­College, Oxford. From His Infancy, to the Time of His Entring into Holy Orders (London, 1740), pp. 48–9. 18 G. Whitefield, The Nature and Necessity of Our New Birth in Christ Jesus, in Order to Salvation: A Sermon Preached in the Church of St. Mary Radcliffe, in Bristol (London, 1737), pp. 1–2. 19 Schlenther, ‘Whitefield, George (1714–1770)’; Gibson, ‘Whitefield and the Church of England’, p. 47.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  15

Controversial Practices Initially, the relationship between Methodists and the Anglican hierarchy was a relatively cordial one. John Wesley’s early prison ministry was supported by John Potter, bishop of Oxford, who translated to Canterbury in 1737. In February 1739 Potter met with the Wesley brothers, receiving them with ‘great affection’.20 Slightly tenser, but far from hostile, was the Wesley brothers’ early interactions with Bishop Gibson, a Whig divine, who was nicknamed ‘Walpole’s Pope’ for his close association with the prime minister throughout the 1720s and much of the 1730s.21 In October 1738 both John and Charles Wesley were summoned before Gibson to answer various complaints he had received regarding their teachings. One such complaint was that the Wesley brothers ‘preached an absolute assurance of salvation’. Gibson questioned whether the brothers meant ‘an inward persuasion’, following careful examination, that one was ‘in a state of salvation’. This form of ‘assurance’, Gibson believed, was a characteristic of ‘any good Christian’. The brothers responded that the doctrine described by the bishop was identical to what they taught. Gibson was also sympathetic to their religious societies, choosing not to classify them as ‘conventicles’. He did, however, adopt a sterner stance on some of the Methodists’ other teachings, such as their alleged neglect of good works, which, he warned, was reminiscent of the ‘Antinomians’ of ‘King Charles’s time’. Gibson also disagreed with John and Charles’s belief that Anglican clergymen should be permitted to rebaptize Dissenters who conformed to the Church of England. Gibson closed the meeting by assuring the brothers that they had ‘free access’ to him ‘at all times’. They thanked him and left.22 Whitefield’s early relationship with Potter and Gibson was also far from hostile. Upon his return to England from Georgia in December 1738, Whitefield visited both bishops, who received him favourably.23 Gibson’s opinion of the youthful preacher soon soured, however. In February 1739 the Wesley brothers once again visited Gibson, who—despite continuing to display cordiality towards 20  Loane, ‘Wesley, Whitefield, and the Church of England’, p. 80. For Wesley’s relationship with the Church of England, see also F. Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 2nd ed. (London, 2000); Jacob, ‘John Wesley and the Church of England’; Gregory, ‘ “In the Church I Will Live and Die” ’. 21  See N. Sykes, Edmund Gibson Bishop of London, 1669–1748: A Study in Politics and Religion in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1926). This close association was severed when Gibson organized an episcopal bulwark against Walpole’s Quakers Tithe Bill (1736), which would have shielded Quakers from the ecclesiastical courts for the non-­payment of tithes. See S.  Taylor, ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the Church of England, and the Quakers Tithe Bill of 1736’, HJ, 28 (1985), pp. 51–77. 22  Manuscript Journal, I, pp. 150–1. The rebaptism of Dissenters was a practice endorsed by Non-­ Jurors, such as Roger Laurence (1670–1736), a former Dissenter. See R. D. Cornwall, ‘Politics and the Lay Baptism Controversy in England, 1708–1715’, in R. D. Cornwall and W. Gibson (eds), Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832: Essays in Honour of James E. Bradley (Farnham, 2010), pp. 147–64; R. Stevens, Protestant Pluralism: The Reception of the Toleration Act, 1689–1720 (Woodbridge, 2018), ch. 5. For the rebaptism of Dissenters, as taught and performed by John Wesley, both before and during his Georgia mission, see Hammond, John Wesley in America, passim. 23  Loane, ‘Wesley, Whitefield, and the Church of England’, p. 81.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

16  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy them—dismissed Whitefield’s Journal, which was ‘tainted with enthusiasm’. Despite initially conceding that Whitefield was a ‘well-­meaning youth’, Gibson grew increasingly concerned about his activities.24 In August 1739 Gibson wrote his Pastoral Letter, cautioning the people in his diocese—which included the American colonies—against Whitefield’s ‘enthusiasm’. This transition from cordiality to outright hostility was fuelled in no small part by Whitefield’s controversial practices. One such practice was extemporary prayer, which Gibson perceived as a rejection of the ‘Established Worship’ outlined in the liturgy.25 Soon John Wesley was following Whitefield’s example by praying extemporaneously, earning him a rebuke from his mother, Susanna, and his older brother, Samuel, both of whom associated this practice with schism.26 Another controversial practice undertaken by evangelical preachers was open-­ air preaching, which was reminiscent of Restoration Dissenters. On 17 February 1739 Whitefield preached his first open-­air sermon on Kingswood Hill, near Bristol.27 Ever the propagandist, Whitefield claimed that this practice was necessitated, not by ministers barring their churches to him, but by the vast crowds who came to hear him preach. In his Journal Whitefield claimed that, on 24 February 1739, he was forced to preach on the steps leading up to a ‘Poor-­house’ in Bristol because both the building and the yard were full. The following day Whitefield rode to ‘Bussleton, a Village about two Miles from Bristol’. After reading prayers in the church, he chose to preach in the churchyard because the congregation was so ‘vast’.28 John Wesley was initially reluctant to follow Whitefield’s example. On 31 March 1739, after witnessing Whitefield’s open-­air preaching in Bristol, Wesley made the following observation in his journal: I could scarce reconcile myself to this strange way of preaching in the fields, of which he [Whitefield] set me an example on Sunday; having been all my life till very lately so tenacious of every point relating to decency and order, that I should have thought the saving of souls almost a sin if it had not been done in a church.

During the following day Wesley preached on the Sermon on the Mount. He observed that this text provided a ‘remarkable precedent’ for open-­air preaching. On 2 April 1739 Wesley chose to be ‘more vile’ by preaching his first open-­air sermon. The service, conducted in a brickyard in Bristol, was, according to Wesley, attended by approximately three thousand people.29 Bishop Gibson 24  Manuscript Journal, I, pp. 162–3. 25 [E.  Gibson], Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect, Usually Distinguished by the Name of Methodists ([London], 1744), p. 24. 26  Jacob, ‘John Wesley and the Church of England’, p. 69. 27  Schlenther, ‘Whitefield, George (1714–1770)’. 28  Whitefield, Journal 3, pp. 38–40. 29  Works, Journal II, p. 46.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  17 believed that such gatherings drew people away from their ‘proper Business which God has required them to attend’.30 Also, it was often feared that members of the laity who chose to become itinerant preachers were putting both local and national industry at risk. George White, a Lancashire parson, predicted that the ‘visible Ruin’ of the country’s ‘Trade and Manufacture’ would imminently ensue unless the activities of these evangelical itinerants ceased.31 Some feared that disruptions to labour and industry would naturally lead to disruptions within fam­ ilies. Such fears often featured in discussions of lay itinerants, who were perceived to have no guaranteed source of income. One critic of lay preachers asked How many handicraft men, who have nothing to depend upon for their subsistence, and that of their wives and children, but their daily Labour (already perhaps too much inclined to Laziness) will forsake it to run after him [Whitefield]?32

Some predicted that Methodist converts and their families would become burdensome to their parishes as soon as they were completely destitute. Ralph Skerret, chaplain to the Earl of Grantham, stressed that those who let attendance at revival meetings disrupt their daily labours were acting ‘to the certain prejudice of Themselves and their Families’. Skerret warned that such behaviour would cause masses of families to ‘seek Relief ’ from the ‘parishes to which they belong’.33 Skerret’s fears were confirmed by one anonymous curate, who stated that, because of Whitefield’s preaching, ‘several poor People, who before supported themselves and [their] Families by their Labour, had now left off to work, and were become burthensome to their Parishes’.34 Finally, it was often claimed that Methodism created divisions within families, especially when husbands and wives displayed differing attitudes towards evangelical religion. An anti-­ Methodist riot that occurred in Wednesbury, Staffordshire, in 1743, was allegedly sparked by divisions between a collier and his wife, who ‘absented herself ’ with a Methodist preacher.35 30 Gibson, Pastoral Letter . . . Enthusiasm on the Other, p. 51. 31 G.  White, A Sermon against the Methodists, Preach’d at Colne and Marsden in the County of Lancaster to a Very Numerous Audience, at Colne, July 24 and at Marsden, August 7 1748 (Preston, 1748), p. iv. 32  A Letter to the Right Reverend the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England: Upon Mr Whitefield’s Extraordinary Manner of Preaching the Gospel; His Criminal Presumption, and Enthusiastick Doctrine (London, 1739), p. 17. 33 R.  Skerret, The Nature and Proper Evidence of Regeneration, or The New and Second Birth: Considered in a Sermon Preach’d in the Parish-­Churches of East-­Greenwich, in the County of Kent, upon Whit-­Sunday; and St. Peter the Poor, London, on Trinity-­Sunday, 1739 (London, 1739), pp. vii–viii. 34  A Curate in the Country, Observations on the Reverend Mr Whitefield’s Answer to the Bishop of London’s Last Pastoral Letter (London, 1739), p. 26. 35  Some Papers Giving an Account of the Rise and Progress of Methodism at Wednesbury in Staffordshire, and Other Parishes Adjacent: as Likewise of the Late Riot in Those Parts (London, 1744), pp. 21–2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

18  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy An anonymous polemic, entitled The Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit (1740), cited 1 Timothy 5:14 to defend the notion that women should not ‘wander from House to House in Search of [religious] Instruction’. Rather, ‘it was God’s Command that the younger Women should marry, bear Children, guide the House, and be employed in the necessary and important Offices of domestic Life’.36 The authorship of this popular work did not remain a mystery for long. Indeed, Benjamin Mills, a Dissenting minister of Maidstone, Kent, swiftly named Samuel Weller, perpetual curate of Maidstone, as the author.37 Weller, who served in Maidstone between 1712 and 1753, was a ‘model parish priest’, whose duties included presiding over ‘daily morning prayer, with evening prayer also on Saturday, holy days and eves, and daily in Lent’. It was ‘exceptional’ for one minister to convene so many services during this period.38 Significantly, Weller recognized that clergymen needed to avoid complex language and theological jargon if they wished to make their tracts accessible to much of the laity. In one instance, he thanked the SPCK for sending him some ‘short and plain treatises’ to distribute to his parishioners. Such concision was, according to Weller, uncharacteristic of ‘voluminous writers’, whom he described as his ‘great enemy’.39 Weller was not, however, an enemy of theological learning. Indeed, he rebuked Whitefield for condemning ‘the Letter-­learned Clergymen of the Church of England’. As Wesley and Whitefield found, many of their antagonists were learned not only in the Scriptures, but also in the letter of the law.40 Indeed, some of the Methodists’ practices, including itinerant and open-­air preaching, were seen by many as violations of parliamentary and canon law. The ultimate authority on this matter was Bishop Gibson, who had discussed the ‘statutes, constitutions, canons, rubrics, and articles of the Church of England’ in his seminal work, Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani (1713).41 In a 1744 anti-­Methodist polemic, which he published anonymously, Gibson noted that the 1670 Conventicles Act (22 Car. II. c. 1) prohibited people from gathering for religious meetings in fields. He added that there was no mention of field preaching in the 1689 Toleration Act, implying that the practice remained prohibited under the 1670 legislation. Citing the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical (1604), Gibson stated that itinerant preachers who entered a parish without a licence from the

36 [S. Weller], The Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit: In Some Remarks upon His Fourth Journal (London, 1740), p. 35. 37 B. Mills, An Account of a Controversy between the Rev. Samuel Weller: L.L.B. Minister of Maidstone in Kent; and Benjamin Mills, A Dissenting Minister in the Same Town: Occasioned by a Reflection Cast upon the Dissenters in a Late Anonymous Pamphlet, Said to Be Written by Mr Weller, Intituled, The Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit (London, 1741). 38 J.  Gregory, Restoration, Reformation, and Reform, 1660–1828: Archbishops of Canterbury and Their Diocese (Oxford, 2000), p. 258. 39  Quoted from Gregory, Restoration, Reformation, and Reform, p. 266. 40 [Weller], Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit, p. 41. 41  S. Taylor, ‘Gibson, Edmund (bap. 1669, d. 1748)’, ODNB.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  19 diocesan bishop were violating Canon  L.  The ‘practice of Licensing Itinerant Preachers’ was, according to Gibson, occasioned during the ‘early Days of the Reformation’ by the ‘low Talents of many Incumbents’, whose abilities were restricted to reading the Books of Homilies (1547, 1563, and 1571)—collections of prepared sermons, written by leading Reformers. This ‘defect’ had, however, been ‘remedied’ by the ‘liberal Education’ of ordinands, thereby eliminating the need for itinerant preachers. Also, by lending their pulpits to itinerant ­preachers— who often attracted an entourage—incumbents were potentially violating Canon XXVIII, which instructed them to forbid communion to ‘strangers’ from other parishes.42 Wesley and Whitefield’s disdain for the canons could not have been clearer. In his Earnest Appeal Wesley alleged that none of the 141 canons was ‘legally establish’d by the Church’—a point on which he failed to elaborate. He may have meant that the canons were never ratified by Parliament, though this argument was usually deployed by lay controversialists, who believed that canonical adherence was required only from the clergy. On the other hand, Wesley could have been referring to the fact that the primacy was vacant when the Convocation of Canterbury formally adopted the canons in 1604 (Richard Bancroft, who drafted the canons, was installed as archbishop of Canterbury shortly afterwards).43 Whitefield displayed a similarly flippant attitude towards the canons, particularly Canon L, which he viewed as an impediment to the spread of ‘true religion’. Since the ‘generality’ of the clergy had, apparently, abandoned the ‘good old Doctrines’ of the Reformation, it was the ‘principal Employ of every true Minister’ to preach the gospel from ‘Place to Place’, ‘County to County’, and ‘Pole to Pole’.44 Whitefield was, however, happy to flaunt his Anglican credentials when it suited his cause. Indeed, he denied violating civil restrictions on conventicles and field preaching, claiming that these laws applied only to Dissenters. Ever the diplomat, Whitefield assured Bishop Gibson that, like ‘Sailors’ who refused to abandon a ‘leaky’ ship, he and his followers saw ‘no sufficient Reason to leave the Church’. These ‘sailors’, of course, included numerous members of the laity.45 Several scholars have considered the ways in which the laity, particularly women, were empowered by their evangelical conversions, which often emphasized individual experience. For some women, such as Sarah Crosby, Methodist 42 [Gibson], Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect, pp. 3–5, 11. 43 Wesley, Earnest Appeal, p. 41; G. Bray, ‘Canon Law and the Church of England’, in A. Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Vol. 1: Reformation and Identity, c.1520–1662 (Oxford, 2017), pp. 168–85. 44 Whitefield, Answer to the Second Part of an Anonymous Pamphlet, pp. 5–6. 45 G.  Whitefield, An Answer to the First Part of an Anonymous Pamphlet, Entitled, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect Usually Distinguished by the Name of Methodists. In a Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of London, and the Other the Right Reverend the Bishops Concern’d in the Publication Thereof (Boston, MA, 1744), p. 7. See also D. Hempton, ‘Methodism and the Law’, BJRL, 70 (1988), pp. 93–107.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

20  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy class meetings provided opportunities to assume leadership roles, including as exhorters and—with Wesley’s reluctant approval—preachers.46 As has been shown by Phyllis Mack, the conversion narratives of Methodist women often described prior experiences of spiritual isolation and familial loneliness, triggered by bereavement or an abusive husband. Conversion alleviated these feelings of isolation and loneliness by generating ‘protective relationships’ and ‘passionate friendships’ within the Methodist ‘family’. Also, by highlighting shared emotional experiences that transcended social boundaries, Mack has deflated the traditional stereotype that Methodist emotionalism only appealed to the poorer, less educated, members of society. In their letters to Charles Wesley, both John Gambold, an Anglican divine (and subsequent Moravian), and Nathaniel Hurst, an apprentice, ‘used similar images—a gaping abyss, an earthquake—to express their feeling of existential terror’.47 There were, of course, aspects of Methodism that deterred many social elites. As Nigel Aston argues convincingly, the ‘honour code which still informed elite values sat awkwardly against’ Methodism’s ‘call to repentance’ and its emphasis on ‘human guilt’. Nevertheless, Wesley and Whitefield’s opposing attitudes and theologies generated differing results among social elites. Theologically, Whitefield’s Calvinism appealed to ‘polite’ converts, such as the Countess of Huntingdon, by providing them with a ‘gratifying sense of spiritual election to match their high caste on earth’. Wesley’s failure to gain many ‘polite’ converts cannot, however, be explained solely in theological terms. Temperamentally, Wesley was far less willing than Whitefield to acknowledge his ‘social superiors’.48 It would also be erroneous to view female religious activism as the preserve of evangelicals and other ‘radical’ Protestant movements. Following the Glorious Revolution, High Church doctrines, such as the apostolic succession and passive obedience, were supported 46 E. K. Brown, Women of Mr Wesley’s Methodism (New York and Toronto, 1983). See also the following works by P. W. Chilcote: John Wesley and the Women Preachers of Early Methodism (Metuchen, NJ, 1991); ‘John Wesley as Revealed by the Journal of Hester Ann Rogers, July 1775–October 1784’, MH, 20 (1982), pp. 111–23; She Offered Them Christ: The Legacy of Women Preachers in Early Methodism (Nashville, TN, 1993); ‘Sanctification as Lived by Early Methodist Women’, MH, 34 (1996), pp. 90–103; Her Own Story: Autobiographical Portraits of Early Methodist Women (Nashville, TN, 2001); Early Methodist Spirituality: Selected Women’s Writings (Nashville, TN, 2007). For more recent works on eighteenth-­century Methodist women see E. M. White, ‘Women, Work, and Worship in the Trefeca Family 1752–1773’, in G. Hammond and P. S. Forsaith (eds), Religion, Gender, and Industry: Exploring Church and Methodism in a Local Setting (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 109–22; B. C. McInelly, ‘Mothers in Christ: Mary Fletcher and the Women of Early Methodism’, in Hammond and Forsaith (eds), Religion, Gender, and Industry, pp. 123–36. See also multiple essays in J. Lenton, C. M. Norris, and L. A. Ryan, Women, Preachers, Methodists: Papers from Two Conferences Held in 2019, the 350th Anniversary of Susanna Wesley’s Birth (Oxford, 2020). 47 P. Mack, Heart Religion in the British Enlightenment: Gender and Emotion in Early Methodism (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 29–30, 75–82. This stereotype is often associated with E. P. Thompson, who described Methodist emotionalism as ‘perverted eroticism’. See E.  P.  Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1963), p. 370; D. Hempton and J. D. Walsh, ‘E. P. Thompson and Methodism’, in Mark A. Noll (ed.), God and Mammon: Protestants, Money, and the Market, 1790–1860 (New York, 2001), pp. 99–120. 48  N. Aston, ‘John Wesley and the Social Elite of Georgian Britain’, BJRL, 85.2–3 (2003), pp. 128–9.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  21 by several influential Tory–Jacobite women, including Mary Astell, Anne Finch, Elinor James, and Susanna Hopton.49 In 1745 Mary Hill of Salisbury published An Essay on Schism, which—while advertised as an anti-­Methodist polemic— attacked all who rebelled against ‘Christ’s spiritual authority’ by separating from the Church of England. Citing Ignatius of Antioch (d. c.108) and Dionysius of Alexandria (d. c.264), Hill observed that a ‘schismatical temper of mind’ was condemned by the Fathers, to whose teachings High Church authors often appealed.50 Clearly, the pursuit and dissemination of patristic knowledge was not limited to clerical ‘professionals’, who underwent a ‘lengthy apprenticeship’ in ‘esoteric knowledge’.51 Despite these nuances, the stereotype among Methodism’s opponents was that evangelical ‘heart religion’ appealed primarily to women and the labouring poor. Bishop Gibson claimed that Methodism appealed especially to ‘ignorant’ ­women.52 Weller was similarly repulsed by the idea of ‘several Women of the lowest Rank, and meanest Education . . . sitting in close Debate upon the important Subjects of Religion’.53 Methodism’s popularity among women generated allegations of sexual predation against preachers. During the late 1730s and 1740s most of these accusations were levelled at the youthful Whitefield. In 1739 the Oxford don and poet Joseph Trapp alleged that Whitefield’s ‘enthusiasm’ appealed to ‘women of a most infamous and prostitute character’.54 Similar allusions to sexual deviance appeared in an early anti-­Whitefield cartoon, Enthusiasm Display’d; or, The Moor-­ Fields Congregation (1739), which depicted him bare-­ legged, surrounded by female admirers. Where one woman in the cartoon is labelled ‘hypocrisy’, another is labelled ‘deceit’ (see Figure 1.1). Methodist ‘love feasts’ were an especially potent source of rumour and gossip. While Methodists claimed that these nocturnal events were merely opportunities for believers to share in communion and fellowship, others alleged that this was simply a front for a much more sordid agenda. One author crudely alleged that such meetings enabled

49  See M. Zook, ‘Religious Nonconformity and the Problem of Dissent in the Works of Aphra Behn and Mary Astell’, in W.  Kolbrener and M.  Michelson (eds), Mary Astell: Reason, Gender, Faith (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 99–113; S.  Apetrei, Women, Feminism and Religion in Early Enlightenment England (Cambridge, 2010), ch. 4; P. McDowell, The Women of Grub Street: Press, Politics, and Gender in the London Literary Marketplace, 1678–1730 (Oxford, 1998), ch. 3; G. Wright, ‘Manuscript, Print, and Politics in Anne Finch’s “Upon the Hurricane” ’, Studies in Philology, 111 (2014), pp. 571–90; S. Lewis, ‘ “The Faithful Remnant of the True Church of England”: Susanna Hopton and the Politico-­ Theology of the Nonjuring Schism’, JTS (forthcoming). 50 M.  Hill, An Essay on Schism: With Several Discourses Contrary to the Methodists-­Doctrine (Salisbury, 1745), pp. 22–3, 25–6. 51 J. Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford, 2009), p. 406. 52 E. Gibson, The Charge of the Right Reverend Father in God, Edmund, Lord Bishop of London, at the Visitation of his Diocese in the Years 1746 and 1747 (London, 1747), p. 6. 53 [Weller], Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit, p. 36. 54 J. Trapp, The Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger of Being Righteous Over-­Much (London, 1739), p. 55.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

22  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy

Figure 1.1  Enthusiasm Display’d, or The Moor-­Fields Congregation (1739). Etching. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Washington D.C.

Whitefield to fixate upon ‘a youthful creature’s lily breast’.55 Yet Whitefield was not the only itinerant preacher who faced such accusations.56 An article in a 1747 issue of the Gentleman’s Magazine claimed that ‘now and then a bastard-­child was bro’t into the world’ by ‘female devotees’ of an unnamed Methodist preacher of Salisbury. The author also attacked Methodism’s popularity among ‘the meaner sort’ of people.57 An item in a 1739 issue of the Weekly Miscellany similarly described Methodist itinerants as ‘Ringleaders of the Rabble’.58 Another author alleged that many of those who attended these assemblies returned home drunk on ‘Geneva [gin] potions’. Uncouth behaviour at field services was sometimes said to degenerate into violence, with ‘vast Multitudes of the Rabble’ committing ‘Devastations in the Farmers Grounds, by breaking up Inclosures, trampling down the grain, pilfering Turneps, &c.’59 The Weekly Miscellany described one individual who had been ‘in imminent Danger of 55  The Amorous Humours and Audacious Adventures of One Whd. (London, 1739), p. 7. 56  For more on evangelical preachers who faced allegations of sexual deviance during the ‘long’ eighteenth century, see W. Gibson and J. Begiato, Sex and the Church in the Long Eighteenth Century: Religion, Enlightenment and the Sexual Revolution (London, 2017), ch. 5. 57  Gentleman’s Magazine, 17 (1747), p. 531. 58  Weekly Miscellany, 12 May 1739. 59  Genuine and Secret Memoirs Relating to the Life and Adventures of that Arch Methodist, Mr G. W—fi—d (Oxford, 1742), pp. 25–6, 85.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  23 suffering Violence, only for expressing a Dislike of Mr. Whitefield’s Conduct’. This periodical also claimed that some of Whitefield’s followers had even ‘threaten’d to pull down Churches because their Master and his Brethren were not suffer’d to preach in them’.60 Another, particularly infamous case of intimidation occurred on the evening of 4 February 1739 at St Margaret’s, Westminster, where the Friendly Society was due to hear a sermon preached by John James Majendie, who was deputizing for their lecturer, ‘Mr. Morgan’. Before Majendie was able to preach his sermon, Whitefield—who had been waiting in the vestry—was escorted into the pulpit in a ‘tumultuous Manner’ by ‘several young Men of his Party’.61 Opponents of Methodism were not, however, averse to using the ‘rabble’ for their own ends. Indeed, it was the labouring poor whom squires and, occasionally, vicars bribed when they wished to recruit a mob and drive invasive itinerant preachers out of their parish.62 Perpetrators of popular protest and religious violence were not, however, without agency. As Michael Snape has shown in his study of anti-­ Methodist rioting in rural Lancashire during the late 1740s, attacks on itinerant preachers sometimes formed part of a longstanding grassroots defence of local festivals and traditions.63 Despite remaining Church of England clergymen until their deaths, Wesley and Whitefield encouraged numerous practices which were contrary to socio-­ religious norms. These practices included extemporary prayer, itinerant preaching, conducting outdoor services, and allowing ‘ignorant’ members of the laity—both male and female—to share their experiences of the new birth. Sometimes these practices were compounded with personal attacks on respected Anglican authorities, both living and dead. As will be shown in the next chapter, Whitefield attracted a storm of criticism when, in 1739, he compared the late Archbishop John Tillotson (1630–94) to Muhammad. Also, one of the most not­ able anti-­Methodist polemics stemmed from a personal attack on its author, George Lavington, bishop of Exeter.

The Lavington Affair Prior to his engagement with Wesley and Whitefield, Lavington’s ministry was characterized by two interlinked agendas: safeguarding the Protestant succession and supporting the Hanoverian monarchy. During his time as an undergraduate and fellow of New College, Oxford, Lavington was a member of the staunchly

60  Weekly Miscellany, 12 May 1739. 61  Weekly Miscellany, 10 February 1739; 24 February 1739. 62  Walsh, ‘Methodism and the Mob’, p. 216. 63  Snape, ‘Anti-­Methodism in Eighteenth-­Century England’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

24  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Whig Constitution Club. On 28 May 1715 Lavington, along with the other club members, suffered violence at the hands of a Tory mob for celebrating George I’s birthday. During the mid-­1740s Lavington served as chaplain-­in-­ordinary to George II. In 1746 he was consecrated bishop of Exeter, which had witnessed anti-­Methodist rioting during the previous year.64 According to the testimony of the itinerant preacher John Cennick, one female victim of the Exeter mob was ‘struck with a Stone on her Eye so violently’ that she was unable ‘to see out of it’ for ‘many Days’. Other women were apparently derided with slurs, such as ‘Whitefieldite Bitch’ and ‘Cennicking-­Whore’.65 As bishop of Exeter, Lavington was privy to concerns, including those of Dissenters, about the spread of Methodism in his diocese.66 In 1748 a manuscript pretending to be an extract from Lavington’s recent visitation charge started circulating. It stated that Lavington had preached the following: My Brethren, I Beg you will rise up with me against moral preaching. We have been long attempting the reformation of the nation by discourses of this kind. With what success? Why none at all. On the contrary, we have very dexterously preached the people into downright infidelity. We must change our voice—we must preach Christ and him crucified. Nothing but gospel is; nothing will be found to be the power of God unto salvation besides. Let me therefore again and again request, may I not add, Let me CHARGE you to preach Jesus and salvation thro’ his name . . . There are some who are gone out from us, refusing to be under political government, and therefore no friends to the Hierarchy; of whom, yet it must be said, their preaching is right and good in the main; though the persons are immethodical in their practice.67

The author’s praise for ‘immethodical’ people who had recently ‘gone out’ from the established Church was, of course, intended as a reference to the Methodists. In August 1748 an anonymous ‘Clergyman’ congratulated Lavington on his apparent determination to see ‘Moral Preaching’ replaced with ‘Justification by Faith . . . the Doctrine of the pure Church of England’. The ‘Clergyman’ described 64  C. Haydon, ‘Lavington, George (1684–1762)’, ODNB; C. Haydon, ‘Bishop George Lavington of Exeter (1684–1762) and The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists, Compar’d’, Southern History, 37 (2015), pp. 62–3. For some of Lavington’s political sermons see A Sermon Preach’d in the Abbey-­Church at Bath, on Occasion of the Rebellion, October 13, 1745 (London, 1745); A Sermon Preached before the House of Lords, in the Abbey Church of Westminster, on Friday, May 29, 1747 (London, 1747). 65 J. Cennick, An Account of a Late Riot at Exeter (London, 1745), pp. 14, 15, 19. 66  Lavington kept a letter, dated 1 January 1750, from John Lavington, a local Presbyterian minister, who expressed his alarm at the recent activities of a ‘vagrant Methodist preacher’. It is unclear whether the two men were related to each other. The Presbyterian minister’s willingness to approach Bishop Lavington suggests that the latter had quickly gained the respect of the local Dissenting community. See O.  A.  Beckerlegge (ed.), The Lavington Correspondence: Being the Letters to the Author of The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d (Bunbury, 1980), p. 15. 67  LPL, Secker MS, VIII, fol. 31.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  25 the Methodists as largely ‘strangers’ to him, though he claimed to have read some of their books, which he found to be full of the ‘Primitive Spirit of Christianity’. The ‘Clergyman’ praised Lavington for his seemingly sympathetic attitude towards the Methodists, and urged him to encourage them into his pulpits. It is unclear whether this piece was meant to be satirical, or whether the author was simply fooled by the fictitious charge. Others were certainly not fooled by it.68 Upon his return from America in July 1748, Whitefield was presented with a copy of the manuscript, which he instantly perceived to be fraudulent. He sought in vain to suppress its circulation. The manuscript fell into the hands of a London printer, who ensured that it received a wider circulation.69 At least one copy of the ‘Charge’ reached Ireland, where Charles Wesley first encountered it. In his journal entry for 11 September 1748, the younger Wesley joked that the work was ‘worthy to be written in letters of gold’.70 On 8 September 1748 the Daily Advertiser printed Lavington’s response to the ‘Charge’. After describing the ‘Charge’ as ‘mere Fiction’, Lavington attacked the Methodists. Despite conceding that there were ‘several well meaning ignorant People among them’, Lavington believed that ‘the Sect in general’ was ‘actuated by a Spirit of Enthusiasm’ or—in the case of ‘their Leaders and Teachers’—by ‘something worse’.71 Lavington’s sentiments angered the stewards of John Wesley’s London Foundery, who stressed that many Methodists were ‘Men of Learning and Good Sense’.72 On 5 October 1748 Whitefield wrote to Sir James Stonhouse, a physician and friend of Lavington, urging him to inform the bishop that he (Whitefield) had nothing to do with ‘the printing of His Lordship’s pretended Charge, or of the Pamphlet occasioned by it’. Whitefield added that he had spoken ‘to the Officious Printer, who did it out of his own head, & blamed Him very much’. While Whitefield regretted that Lavington had been given ‘an Occasion’ to ‘declare His aversion to what is called Methodism’, he conceded that he was unable to ‘blame His Lordship’ for condemning the movement, given the circumstances. Whitefield closed by expressing his hope that Lavington, along with ‘any other of the Right Reverend the Bishops’, would ‘converse’ with the Methodists. This incident

68  A Letter to the Right Reverend Father in God George, Lord Bishop of Exeter, Occasioned by His Lordship’s Late Charge to the Clergy of his Diocese: In Defence of those Principles of the Methodists, Objected to in His Lordship’s Charge (s.l., [1748]), pp. 3–4, 11. 69  Despite its seemingly wide circulation, I have traced only two extant printed versions of the ‘Charge’. The first is in Lambeth Palace Library (Secker MS, VIII, fol. 32). The second is in the United Library at Garrett-­Evangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois, catalogued as An Extract from D. Lavington the Bishop of Exeter’s Charge . . . (s.l., 1748). 70  Manuscript Journal, II, pp. 547–9. 71  I have been unable to trace a copy of the 8 September 1748 issue of the Daily Advertiser. However, we know that the item appeared in this newspaper—and on that date—from a response that Wesley’s stewards wrote on that same date (see next citation). The stewards stated that Lavington’s item had appeared in ‘this Day’s Daily Advertiser’. The quotations from Lavington are taken from the 9 September 1748 issue of the General Advertiser, in which Lavington’s item was reprinted. 72  Quoted from F. Baker, ‘Bishop Lavington and the Methodists’, PWHS, 34 (1964), p. 40.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

26  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy illustrates the change in character experienced by Whitefield during the latter half of the 1740s. Indeed, it is hard to believe that the pragmatic and diplomatic Whitefield seen here was the same individual who had compared the late Tillotson to ‘Mahomet’ only a few years earlier. Ultimately, however, Whitefield’s negotiations had little effect.73 Between 1749 and 1751 Lavington published anonymously his three-­volume Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared, to which this book will refer extensively. After Whitefield responded to the first volume, Wesley entered the fray by responding to volumes one and two.74 Increasingly confident that he knew the author’s identity, Wesley addressed his response to the final volume to ‘the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Exeter’.75 This manoeuvre convinced Lavington to admit authorship.76 The Lavington affair is a significant episode, which not only illuminates the survival of manuscript polemic in eighteenth-­ century England, but also the difficulties experienced by authors who sought to maintain their anonymity. The fact that Lavington’s treatise had gone through at least four editions by 1754 shows that there was clearly a readership for anti-­ Methodist texts. Its popularity extended to Cork, where George Harrison, a bookseller known to Lavington, disseminated copies of the first volume to prom­ in­ent ‘Gentlemen’, including Jemmett Browne, bishop of Cork and Ross, who gained ‘great satisfaction’ from it.77 The bawdy nature of much of Lavington’s discussions would have rendered this work accessible to a broad readership. Various other printed attacks on Wesley and Whitefield sold well and went through mul­ tiple editions. Many of these polemics, on the other hand, were published only once, and largely forgotten afterwards.

Print Culture While most eighteenth-­century anti-­Methodist works were published in London, some appeared in the university towns of Oxford and Cambridge, and, to a lesser

73 Beckerlegge, Lavington Correspondence, pp. 2–3. For Whitefield’s change in character during the 1740s, which was due, at least in part, to the death of his infant son in 1744, see chapter  10 in H. S. Stout, The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991). See also B. S. Schlenther, ‘Whitefield’s Personal Life and Character’, in Hammond and Jones, Life, Context, and Legacy, pp. 12–28. 74 G. Whitefield, Some Remarks on a Pamphlet, Entitled, The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d; Wherein Several Mistakes in Some Parts of His Past Writings and Conduct Are Acknowledged, and His Present Sentiments Concerning the Methodists Explained (London, 1749); J. Wesley, A Letter to the Author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d (London, 1750). 75 J. Wesley, A Second Letter to the Author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d (London, 1751), p. iii. 76 G.  Lavington, The Bishop of Exeter’s Answer to Mr  J.  Wesley’s Late Letter to His Lordship (London, 1752). 77  LPL Secker MS, VIII, fol. 73: Harrison to Lavington, 27 August 1749.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  27 extent, in various other provincial towns, including Preston, Newcastle, and Bristol. Provincial anti-­Methodist publications were usually generated by visits from prominent itinerant preachers. For example, it is no coincidence that a relatively large number of anti-­Methodist polemics appeared in Newcastle during the same year (1743) that John Wesley visited the city.78 Similarly, The Imposture of Methodism Display’d (1740) by William Bowman, vicar of Dewsbury and Aldborough, Yorkshire, was sparked by the local activities of the Moravian preacher and former Oxford Methodist Benjamin Ingham.79 The cost of early anti-­Methodist literature varied considerably and had little bearing on whether it sold well or not. The first anti-­Methodist play, entitled The Mock-­Preacher (1739), was priced competitively at sixpence. Its price, short length of thirty-­two pages, and bawdy tone would have made it accessible to a diverse readership.80 Several other pieces of anti-­Methodist satire, which were of a similar length, were also priced at sixpence, including The Methodists: An Humorous Burlesque Poem (1739) and Dr Codex’s Pastoral Letter Versified (1739). Ultimately, however, none of these works went beyond one edition, suggesting that they failed to generate much interest. Numerous anti-­Methodist sermons were also priced competitively at sixpence, including The Doctrine of Assurance (1738) by Arthur Bedford, who was noted for his Orientalist scholarship and his attacks on ­theatres. Bedford’s thirty-­nine-­page sermon must have sold reasonably well, given that it went through two editions. There was certainly a readership for sermons at the popular end of the market. Most eighteenth-­century ‘booksellers regarded sermons—both new and second-­hand—as a staple of their trade, and this was in part due to the ubiquity of demand’. It was, therefore, not unusual to see ‘char­it­ able printers’ producing ‘cheap sermons’ for the ‘benefit of the poor’.81 One particularly popular anti-­Methodist sermon was Joseph Trapp’s Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger of Being Righteous Over-­Much (1739). Based on ‘four Discourses’, preached in several London and Westminster churches, this work was first published in London on 5 June 1739. It was advertised as something that needed to be ‘read by all Persons, especially at this Time, as a Preservative against the dangerous Principles and Practices of Mr Whitefield and his Followers’.82 In the space of less than one year, Trapp’s Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger went through four London editions. The fourth edition was reprinted in Cork, enabling some 78 For an index of these provincial works see Field, ‘Anti-­ Methodist Publications: Revised’, Appendix 4. 79  For Bowman, who will be explored more thoroughly in Chapter 7, see S. Taylor, ‘The Bowman Affair: Latitudinarian Theology, Anti-­Clericalism and the Limits of Orthodoxy in Early Hanoverian England’, in Cornwall and Gibson, Religion, Politics and Dissent, pp. 35–50. 80  For more on this play see S. Lewis, ‘The Mock-­Preacher (1739): More than Just an Anti-­Methodist Play?’, PWHS, 59 (2014), pp. 178–85. 81  W. Gibson, ‘The British Sermon 1689–1901’, in K. A. Francis and W. Gibson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon, 1689–1901 (Oxford, 2012), p. 21. 82  London Daily Post and General Advertiser, 5 June 1739.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

28  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy townspeople to possess preconceived ideas about Methodism in the years preceding its arrival in the city, which served as the location for prolonged anti-­ Methodist rioting between 1749 and 1750.83 A fifth and sixth London edition of Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger followed in 1758 and 1761. Priced originally at one shilling, Trapp’s work would have been targeted primarily at the middle end of the market. Presumably, it was the type of work that would have been disseminated among the various London coffee houses, which were frequented by the middle ranks of society. There was, of course, no homogeneous ‘middling sort’ during the eighteenth century. Rather, the middle ranks were deeply divided between the ‘interests of the City, the un­titled gentry and the literary/professional community’. It was for this reason that different coffee houses often catered for different professions and political persuasions.84 Regardless of these professional and political divisions, Trapp’s defence of a moderate degree of pleasure and entertainment would have resonated with much—though, as will be shown in Chapter 3, not necessarily all—of the middling laity. This work was, however, pitched as more than simply a text for middling-­sort consumers. The London booksellers responsible for the first edition—Stephen Austen, Lawton Gilliver, and John Clarke—offered an ‘allowance’ to ‘any well-­disposed Person’ who bought multiple copies of Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger for distribution ‘among the Poor’.85 Another popular anti-­Methodist sermon was Henry Stebbing’s Caution against Religious Delusion (1739). Within a year of its initial publication, this sermon had reached its sixth edition. Initially, it may seem surprising that Stebbing’s sermon sold so well, given that the printed price for it was a relatively expensive three shillings. Of course, the printed price of a book did not always match the price paid by consumers. Rather, it was normal during this period for copy-­owning booksellers to act as ‘congers’, who set an artificially high price for a book. Acting as wholesalers, these congers would then haggle with other—usually smaller— booksellers, convincing them to buy bulk copies of the book. Once they were in possession of bulk copies, smaller booksellers were free to set their own price for the book. Presumably, many, if not all, of those who bought copies of Stebbing’s work would have paid less than the printed price of three shillings.86 As with

83  The Cork edition of Trapp’s work is undated. Since it was copied from the fourth London edition (1739), we can assume that it appeared in 1740 or shortly afterwards. The origins of Methodism in Cork can be traced back to the arrival of Jonathan Reeves, a Wesleyan preacher, between 1746 and 1747. For Methodism and anti-­Methodism in eighteenth-­century Cork see Lewis, ‘ “Five Pounds for a Swadler’s Head” ’. 84 N. Hudson, Samuel Johnson and the Making of Modern England (Cambridge, 2003), p. 120. 85  London Daily Post and General Advertiser, 5 June 1739. 86 J. Raven, The Business of Books: Booksellers and the English Book Trade, 1450–1850 (New Haven, CT, and London, 2007), pp. 89–90.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  29 Trapp, Stebbing was a renowned controversialist and defender of Anglican orthodoxy, possibly explaining why this sermon sold so well.87 One conger who was responsible for the publication of several anti-­Methodist works was the London bookseller Charles Rivington. Long before anybody had heard of Wesley and Whitefield, Rivington had published numerous defences of Anglican orthodoxy, including many of the attacks on Benjamin Hoadly during the Bangorian controversy.88 Intriguingly, Rivington also published some of Wesley and Whitefield’s early works, including those on self-­denial.89 When Rivington published these works, neither Wesley nor Whitefield had started engaging in the seemingly anticlerical practices, such as itinerant preaching, by which their ministries would subsequently be characterized. By 1738, however, Whitefield had secured his reputation as an insubordinate ‘enthusiast’. Thus, by this point, Rivington was publishing the anti-­Methodist works of orthodox High Churchmen, such as Tipping Silvester and Arthur Bedford.90 Other booksellers, such as Thomas Cooper of Paternoster Row, adopted a neutral stance, publishing works by Methodists and their opponents.91 Sometimes anti-­Methodism enabled authors to draw on existing prejudices and repackage old works as attacks on Wesley and Whitefield. In 1731 Gilbert Nelson, a schoolmaster of Houghton-­le-­Spring, near Durham, published a two-­volume work entitled The Use of Human Reason, in Religion, to Convince Ourselves of Truth, and to Persuade Our Selves to Practice. In this work, which was written at the height of the perceived deist threat, Nelson claimed that the ‘holy Scriptures’ exceeded ‘the most refined Reason’. Nevertheless, Nelson instructed his readers that ‘a right use’ of reason was essential if one was to resist those ‘false Prophets’ and ‘false Christs’ who had been preying on Christians throughout the ages. Presumably, this work did not sell well because no copies of the second volume are extant. Nelson’s work subsequently reappeared in 1741 as a truncated 444-­page single tract, published in London. Bizarrely, Nelson—who, by this point, had been presented to the living of Oakley, Suffolk—amended the 87  For Stebbing see B. W. Young, ‘Stebbing, Henry (bap. 1687, d. 1763)’, ODNB. 88  For examples see A Modest Enquiry into the Bishop of Bangor’s Preservative against the Nonjurors: Humbly Offer’d to the Consideration of His Lordship (London, 1717); J. Smith, Modest Review of the Lord Bishop of Bangor’s Answer to the Reverend Dr Snape, or The Charge of Misrepresentation Impartially Consider’d (London, 1717). 89  See J. Wesley, A Sermon Preached at St. Mary’s in Oxford, on Sunday, September 21, 1735 (London, 1735); J.  Wesley, The Christian’s Pattern, or A Treatise of the Imitation of Christ (London, 1735); Whitefield, Nature and Necessity of Our New Birth in Christ Jesus; G. Whitefield, The Benefits of an Early Piety: A Sermon Preach’d at Bow-­Church, London, before the Religious Societies, at One of Their Quarterly Meetings, on Wednesday, September 28. 1737 (London, 1737). 90 T.  Silvester, The Scripture Doctrine of Regeneration Stated, and Shewn to Concur with the Baptismal Service of Our Church: A Sermon Preach’d before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, Feb. 26. 1737–8 (London, 1738); A.  Bedford, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Stated According to the Articles of the Church of England (London, 1741). 91  Cooper sold many of the early editions of Whitefield’s journals, along with numerous anti-­ Methodist works, including Trapp’s Nature, Folly, Sin and Danger.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

30  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy original title page considerably. Indeed, the title page of the 1741 edition claimed that the work had been written ‘in answer to the Methodists’. This claim was, of course, false. Excluding the title page, the 1741 edition was an exact copy of the first eight chapters of the original work. Consequently, it contained no references to Methodism beyond the title page. Since Methodists were often accused of being false prophets who discarded reason, it is easy to see why Nelson chose to repurpose his 1731 work as an anti-­Methodist tract. Similarly, the title page stated that this work addressed the ‘Doctrine of Free-­Grace . . . According to the Church of England’. Contemporaries would have read this as meaning that it advanced the Arminian doctrine of free will as an antidote to Whitefield’s Calvinism. Readers would have been surprised to find that Nelson’s discussions of this topic made no reference to Whitefield. Ultimately, this so-­ called anti-­ Methodist polemic only went through one edition. Given its mammoth size, it is unsurprising that, like its previous incarnation, it failed to sell. Some anti-­Methodist works, on the other hand, found a receptive audience on the other side of the Atlantic.92

Transatlantic Networks The importance of transatlantic evangelical networks has been illuminated by scholars, such as Susan O’Brien and Frank Lambert.93 Also, as has been shown by Michael Crawford, Presbyterian Moderates in Scotland and ‘Old Light’ Congregationalists in New England engaged in transatlantic anti-­evangelical networks.94 Yet, while studies of transatlantic eighteenth-­century Anglican networks are burgeoning, little scholarly attention has been paid to the ways in which these networks facilitated the two-­way flow of anti-­evangelical sentiments.95 Copies of various anti-­Methodist polemics were shipped from England to America, where they were disseminated by colonial Anglicans. 92 G. Nelson, The Use of Human Reason in Religion: In Answer to the Methodists; the Doctrine of Free-­Grace Being Explained in the Medium, According to the Church of England (London, 1741), unpaginated title page and pp. 249–50. The CCEd contains two separate entries for Nelson. See ‘Nelson, Gilbert (CCEd Person ID 137255)’; ‘Nelson, Gilbert (CCEd Person ID 126461)’. Information on Nelson’s ministry can also be discerned from another of his works, The Happiness of Man, first published in Durham in 1736, and republished (again, in Durham) in 1738. While the first edition listed Nelson as a ‘Schoolmaster’, the second edition listed him as ‘Rector of Oakley, in Suffolk’. 93  S. O’Brien, ‘A Transatlantic Community of Saints: The Great Awakening and the First Evangelical Network, 1735–1755’, American Historical Review, 91 (1986), pp. 811–32; F.  Lambert, Inventing the ‘Great Awakening’ (Princeton, NJ, 1999). 94 M. Crawford, Seasons of Grace: Colonial New England’s Revival Tradition in Its British Context (New York, 1991), pp. 167–72. 95 Jeremy Gregory discusses this topic briefly in ‘Transatlantic Anglicanism, c.1680–c.1770: Transplanting, Translating and Transforming the Church of England’, in J. Gregory and H. McLeod (eds), SCH, Subsidia 14: International Religious Networks (Woodbridge, 2012), pp. 127–43, at 139. For transatlantic eighteenth-­century Anglican networks see T. Glasson, Mastering Christianity: Missionary Anglicanism and Slavery in the Atlantic World (Oxford, 2012); A.  M.  Koke, ‘Communication in an Anglican Empire: Edmund Gibson and His Commissaries, 1723–1748’, AEH, 84 (2015), pp. 166–202.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  31 Following a recommendation from Alexander Garden, commissary of South Carolina, copies of Stebbing’s Caution against Religious Delusion were sold in Charleston in late 1740.96 That Edmund Gibson’s 1739 Pastoral Letter was dispersed even more widely is unsurprising, given that, as bishop of London, he had overall pastoral responsibility for the colonies.97 Indeed, it was standard practice for colonial clergymen to receive copies of their bishop’s pastoral letter each year. Alexander Garden, Timothy Cutler, rector of Christ Church, Boston, and Archibald Cummings, commissary of Pennsylvania, were three colonial clergymen who praised Gibson’s 1739 Pastoral Letter for its preventative checks against Whitefieldian ‘enthusiasm’. In a letter dated 31 July 1740 Cummings informed the SPG that he had recently ‘had a number of them reprinted here [Philadelphia] and dispersed’ among the colonists.98 Yet other, more remote parts of the colonies struggled to access these tracts. In November 1740 Thomas Colgan of Jamaica, Long Island, felt compelled ‘to begg that the society [SPG] wou’d be pleased to bestow’ copies of Gibson’s Pastoral Letter and Daniel Waterland’s Regeneration Stated and Explained (1740). Colgan’s desire for the latter work had been occasioned by the ‘false and erroneous opinions concerning the Doctrine of Regeneration’ spreading among his flock.99 In August 1741 Ebenezer Miller of Braintree, Massachusetts, similarly requested copies of Gibson’s Pastoral Letter. Miller viewed this work as an antidote to the ‘utmost confusion’ generated by Whitefield’s recent tour of New England.100 Another popular anti-­Methodist export was Weller’s Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit. In a letter to the secretary of the SPG, dated 25 September 1741, Cutler lamented that he only possessed ‘two sets’ of this work. He added that it would ‘highly serve’ the plight of colonial clergymen if the book was ‘spread abroad’.101 Cutler did not have long to wait before the Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit was reprinted in Boston by Thomas Fleet, who also published the staunchly anti-­ evangelical Boston Evening-­Post.102 The SPG proceedings for 1741–2 noted that twelve copies of the Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit were among a consignment of books that had recently been sent to Ebenezer Punderson, the society’s 96  South Carolina Gazette, 30 October 1740. For Garden’s life and ministry, see F.  E.  Witzig, Sanctifying Slavery and Politics in South Carolina: The Life of the Reverend Alexander Garden, 1685–1756 (Columbia, SC, 2018). 97  Gibson’s management of colonial affairs was marred by regular breakdowns in communication between him and his commissaries. See Koke, ‘Communication in an Anglican Empire’. 98 LPL, FP X, fols. 58–9: Garden to Gibson, 24 April 1740; W.  S.  Perry (ed.), Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial Church, 5 vols (Hartford, CT, 1873–8), II, pp. 210–11: Cummings to the Secretary [SPG], 31 July 1740; ibid., III, pp. 350–1: Cutler to Gibson, 14 January 1741. 99  Bodleian MS B.7.2 (USPG Papers), fol. 113: Colgan to the Secretary, 22 November 1740. 100  Bodleian MS B.9 (USPG Papers), fol. 12: Miller to the Secretary, 4 August 1741. 101 Perry, Historical Collections, III, pp. 357–8: Cutler to the Secretary, 25 September 1741. 102  Boston Evening-­Post, 19 October 1741. For more on Fleet and the Boston Evening-­Post, see L.  Smith, The First Great Awakening in Colonial American Newspapers: A Shifting Story (Plymouth, MA, 2012), pp. 45, 52–3, 108–9.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

32  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy missionary in North Groton, Connecticut.103 Copies of Weller’s polemic are also known to have reached the southern colonies. In April 1742 Alexander Garden thanked the SPG for delivering several copies of the book, which, he claimed, had ‘done good service’ in Charleston ‘and in several other places’.104 Colonial Anglicans were still disseminating the Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit as late as 1750. In a letter dated 8 November of that year Hugh Neill of Dover, Delaware, informed the SPG that this book had helped to calm the ‘late confusions, introduced by ye New Lights & Itinerant Teachers of other Sectaries’.105 The popularity of this work can be attributed to its accessible style and content. As will be shown in Chapter 3, the Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit contained a theological defence of recreational diversions, which would have resonated with lay readers, not only in England, but also in many colonial cities. By the early eighteenth century even the traditionally Puritan city of Boston had given way to a consumerist ‘Anglicization’, providing opportunities for social activities, such as dancing. It is, therefore, unsurprising that this work sold well, both in England and America.106 As a result of transatlantic Anglican networks, the views of anti-­Methodist divines in England were sometimes shaped by reports received from colonial clergymen, who clashed with ‘New Light’ evangelicals. Bishop Gibson was, of course, privy to much intelligence from colonial ministers. In a letter to Gibson dated 28 May 1739 Timothy Cutler attacked Jonathan Edwards, Congregationalist pastor of Northampton, Massachusetts, whose A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God (1737) was the most influential revival narrative across the English-­speaking world. The phenomenon described by Edwards had, according to Cutler, been triggered by several Harvard ‘Visionaries’, including a ‘Refugee from Canada’, who taught ‘the Scholars French, and insinuated himself into the Esteem of many, by a sober Life, and demure Behavior [sic] mixed with much Enthusiasm’. Cutler also described those ministers who endorsed Edwards’s Faithful Narrative as ‘men of the lowest Form in Learning and Judgement’. Gibson was not the only Anglican divine in England who gained news of colonial evangelicalism from Cutler.107 103  ‘An Abstract of the Charter, and of the Proceedings of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, from the 20th of February, 1740–41, to the 19th of February, 1741–42’, in H. Stebbing, A Sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts: At Their Anniversary Meeting in the Parish Church of St. Mary-­le-­Bow, on Friday, February 19, 1741–2 (London, 1742), pp. 44–5. 104  Bodleian MS B.10 (USPG Papers), fol. 138: Garden to the Secretary, 9 April 1742. 105 Perry, Historical Collections, V, p. 96: Neill to the Secretary, 8 November 1750. 106  For the importance of dancing in colonial Virginia see R. Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740–1790 (New York, 1982), pp. 81–7. For religious opposition to dancing in eighteenth-­century America see A. Wagner, Adversaries of Dance: From the Puritans to the Present (Urbana and Chicago, IL, 1997), ch. 4. For more on ‘Anglicization’ in eighteenth-­century New England, see J.  M.  Murrin, ‘Anglicizing an American Colony: The Transformation of Provincial Massachusetts’ (PhD Thesis, Yale University, 1966). 107  D.  C.  Stenerson, ‘An Anglican Critique of the Early Phase of the Great Awakening in New England: A Letter by Timothy Cutler’, WMQ, 30 (1973), pp. 482–3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  33 As a former Congregationalist divine, Cutler had all the zeal of a convert. In 1719 he was appointed rector of Yale. Three years later, however, Cutler and three other professors seceded from the Congregationalist Church following a lengthy immersion in various Anglican texts held in the college library. They subsequently sailed to England, where they were ordained at St Martin-­in-­the-­Fields by Thomas Green, bishop of Norwich, on 31 March 1723. During their stay in England, these ‘Yale apostates’ were awarded Master’s degrees by both Oxford and Cambridge.108 At Cambridge Cutler met Zachary Grey, a stridently Tory High Churchman, with whom he maintained a long-­distance friendship.109 As a result of his correspondence with Cutler, Grey was one of the first Anglican divines in England to be exposed to news of the Northampton revival. In late September 1735 Cutler wrote to Grey, claiming that the events in Northampton had resulted in many ‘distracted and bewitched Converts’.110 In a subsequent letter to Grey, dated 24 September 1743, Cutler likened Whitefield’s attacks on colonial Anglicans to a ‘battering-­ram’. Noticeably cruder, however, was his claim that, because of evangelical itinerant preachers, ‘Our presses are for ever teeming with books, and our women with bastards.’ Crucially, this letter also describes a transatlantic anti-­evangelical book exchange between Cutler and Grey. In return for a copy of Grey’s recent anti-­Methodist polemic, A Short History of the Donatists (1741), Cutler enclosed a book by ‘Dr. Chauncy’.111 The author in question was Charles Chauncy, Congregationalist minister of the  First Church, Boston, and leading ‘Old Light’ opponent of New England 108  For the ‘Yale Apostasy’ see R. E. Daggy, ‘Education, Church, and State: Timothy Cutler and the Yale Apostasy of 1722’, JCS, 13 (1971), pp. 43–67; J. D. Hoeveler, Creating the American Mind: Intellect and Politics in the Colonial Colleges (Lanham, MD, 2002), pp. 55–60. In 1713 the colonist Jeremiah Dummer donated over a thousand books to Yale Library, including writings by Latitudinarian authorities, such as John Tillotson, Ralph Cudworth, Henry More, Isaac Newton, John Locke, and Robert Boyle. The Dummer collection also included ‘primitive and high church classics’, such as William Cave’s scholarship of the Fathers. Samuel Johnson, who subsequently founded King’s College, New York, was one ‘Yale apostate’ who immersed himself in these primitivist works. See P. Doll, ‘The Idea of the Primitive Church in High Church Ecclesiology from Samuel Johnson to J. H. Hobart’, AEH, 65 (1996), pp. 6–43, at p. 21; D.  F.  M.  Gerardi, ‘Samuel Johnson and the Yale Apostasy of 1722: The Challenge of Anglican Sacramentalism to the New England Way’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 47 (1978), pp. 153–75. 109  J. Nichols and J. B. Nichols (eds), Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century, 8 vols (London, 1817–58), IV, pp. 297–8: Cutler to Grey, 5 June 1735. 110  BL Add. MS 6396, fols. 7–8: Cutler to Grey, 31 [sic] September 1735. The date given on this letter is, of course, incorrect. 111  Nichols and Nichols, Illustrations, IV, pp. 302–4: Cutler to Grey, 24 September 1743. A Short History of the Donatists was published anonymously. Grey is also identified as the author in a letter to him, dated 23 April 1741, from Thomas Potter (son of John). In this letter Potter optimistically predicted that one of Grey’s friends, ‘Mr. Chapman’, would enjoy reading ‘the History of the Donatists’ when he recovered from the smallpox. See Nichols and Nichols, Illustrations, IV, p. 337. The original advertisement for A Short History of the Donatists appeared four days after Potter wrote this letter (see London Daily Post and General Advertiser, 27 April 1741). Robert Ingram also identifies Grey as the author of this anti-­Methodist work. See Ingram, Reformation without End, p. 243n68. Clive Field mis­ iden­ti­fies the author as ‘J. Trevor’ because the preface contains an affidavit by someone of this name (see Field, ‘Anti-­Methodist Publications: Revised’, p. 177).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

34  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy evangelicalism. Presumably the book to which Cutler referred was Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (1743), a mammoth attack on evangelicalism, derived largely from Chauncy’s interviews with various ministers, who had clashed with itinerant preachers.112 As with anti-­Methodist authors in England, Chauncy’s attack on New England evangelicalism was rooted firmly in the past. More specifically, he viewed evangelicalism as a resurrection of the al­leged­ly antinomian teachings of Anne Hutchinson, who was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1638.113 On 5 April 1745 Chauncy’s work was published in London by Thomas Longman and Thomas Shewell of Paternoster Row.114 It was subsequently cited in an anti-­Methodist work by Theophilus Evans, incumbent of Llangammarch, Brecknockshire. Drawing on Chauncy’s Seasonable Thoughts, Evans cited numerous instances of religious ‘enthusiasm’ in colonial America, including James Davenport’s infamous 1743 book-­ burning event, which will be explored in Chapter 3.115 Given his interest in colonial affairs, it is unsurprising that Zachary Grey similarly utilized a colonial anecdote in one of his anti-­Methodist polemics. Appended to Grey’s A Serious Address to Lay-­Methodists (1745) was an extract from a 1741 anti-­Whitefield work by Alexander Garden, describing the Dutartres family of South Carolina, who were executed in September 1724 for killing two militiamen in an armed struggle. Garden attributed the family’s millennialist fervour to a ‘strolling Moravian, Dutch, or Swiss Enthusiast’, who ‘filled their Heads with many wild and fantastick Notions’. Both Evans’s and Grey’s works, therefore, illuminate the ways in which anti-­Methodism in England and Wales was sometimes informed by knowledge of events on the other side of the Atlantic.116

Conclusions By illuminating the popularity and dissemination of early anti-­Methodist literature, this chapter has shown that theological polemic maintained a healthy 112  For Chauncy, see E. M. Griffin, Old Brick: Charles Chauncy of Boston, 1705–1787 (Minneapolis, MN, 1980); J.  S.  Oakes, Conservative Revolutionaries: Transformation and Tradition in the Religious and Political Thought of Charles Chauncy and Jonathan Mayhew (Cambridge, 2017). 113  For Chauncy’s discussions of the Hutchinson controversy see A.  S.  Lang, Prophetic Woman: Anne Hutchinson and the Problem of Dissent in the Literature of New England (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1987), ch. 4. 114  Daily Gazetteer, 5 April 1745. 115 T. Evans, The History of Modern Enthusiasm: From the Reformation to the Present Times, 2nd ed. (London, 1757), p. 114. Although anti-­Methodism in Wales is beyond the focus of this study, Evans’s work will continue to be discussed because, as a London publication, it formed part of the fight against Methodism in eighteenth-­century England. 116 [Z. Grey], A Serious Address to Lay-­Methodists (London, 1745), pp. 22–9. For Garden’s work see Take Heed How Ye Hear: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St. Philip Charles-­Town, in South Carolina on Sunday the 13th of July, 1740 (Charles-­Town, SC, 1741), pp. 30–7. I have found no record of Garden’s sermon being republished in England. Presumably Grey received a copy from Cutler or another colonial contact.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

A ‘Torrent’ of Opposition  35 readership throughout the middle decades of the eighteenth century. Some of the most popular anti-­Methodist texts were written by noted divines, such as Stebbing and Trapp. Nevertheless, the popularity of Weller’s tract shows that the style and content of a work was sometimes more of a selling point than its authorship. These attacks on Wesley and Whitefield raised numerous social and political concerns, ranging from the legality of open-­air services to charges of sexual deviance. These socio-­political concerns were interlinked with doctrinal grievances. For instance, allegations of sexual immorality and criminality often went hand in hand with charges of antinomianism. As will be shown in the next chapter, evangelicals were often branded as antinomians because of their teachings on justification by faith alone.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

2

Justification and Assurance Eighteenth-­century Methodists were far from theologically homogeneous. Take the Calvinism versus Arminianism dispute between George Whitefield and John Wesley. In the sermon that sparked this controversy, Free Grace (1739), Wesley claimed that ‘all preaching’ was rendered ‘vain’ by Calvinists, who viewed evan­ gel­ism as ‘needless’ to the elect.1 Whitefield responded that, far from being ‘needless’, preaching was one of the predestined ‘means’ by which the elect found Christ, who was the only one able to discern the elect from the ‘reprobate’. The duty of ministers was, therefore, to ‘preach promiscuously to all’. It was, according to Whitefield, the ‘established Doctrine of Scripture, and of the XVIIth Article of the Church of England’ that ‘GOD intends only to give a certain Number saving Grace, thro’ JESUS CHRIST; and that the rest of Mankind are left to perish under the Imputation of Adam’s Guilt’.2 Wesley denied that his teaching of Arminianism contravened the Thirty-­Nine Articles, of which he claimed to be a firm supporter for most of his ministry.3 In a 1756 letter to James Hervey, a Calvinist Anglican clergyman and former Oxford Methodist, Wesley claimed that ‘predestination’ was ‘barely’ defined in Article XVII, which was devoid of any reference to the ‘reprobate’. The Calvinist doctrine of predestination was, furthermore, incompatible with Article XXXI: Of the One Oblation of Christ Finished upon the Cross, which taught that ‘Christ, by his death alone . . . fully satisfied for the sins of the whole world.’ The Reformers could not, therefore, have intended Article XVII to teach ‘absolute predestination’.4 Thus neither Wesley nor Whitefield agreed with Gilbert Burnet’s influential Exposition of the Thirty-­Nine Articles (1699), which validated both Arminian and Calvinist interpretations of Article XVII.5 1 J. Wesley, Free Grace: A Sermon Preach’d at Bristol (London, 1739), p. 8. 2 G. Whitefield, A Letter from the Reverend Mr George Whitefield, to the Reverend Mr John Wesley, in Answer to His Sermon, Entituled Free Grace (Boston, MA, 1740), pp. 11–12. 3  In 1775 Wesley was pressed by John Fletcher to abridge the Thirty-­Nine Articles for what became the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. Omissions from the resulting Twenty-­Five Articles included Article XVII. Wesley also made this abridgement in the Sunday Service for Methodists in the United States (1784). See  P.  F.  Blankenship, ‘The Significance of John Wesley’s Abridgement of the Thirty-­Nine Articles as Seen from His Deletions’, MH, 2.3 (1964), pp. 35–47. 4 ‘Mr Wesley’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. James Hervey, 15 October 1756’, in J.  Hervey, Aspasio Vindicated, and the Scripture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended, against the Objections and Animadversions of the Rev. Mr John Wesley (Edinburgh, 1764), pp. 26–7. 5  See G. Burnet, An Exposition of the Thirty-­Nine Articles of the Church of England (London, 1699), pp. 145–70.

The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0003

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  37 Linked closely to these discussions of predestination were debates concerning justification and works. In one of his earliest sermons Whitefield claimed ‘that it is by God’s free Grace, if we are saved, not of Works’.6 Such teachings were abhorrent to numerous divines, including Bishop Gibson, who described works as a ‘necessary Condition’ of ‘being justified in the Sight of God’ in his Pastoral Letter (1739). Gibson was, of course, writing at a time when Whitefield was still centre stage of the evangelical movement in England. However, the absence of an ef­fect­ ive ‘caretaker’ Calvinist leader during Whitefield’s 1739–41 tour of America meant that Wesley soon became the visible leader of English Methodism.7 In his journal entry for 13 December 1739 Wesley seemed to echo Whitefield by attacking the many ‘wise and learned men’ who described justification as a ‘twofold’ process, reliant on ‘faith and works’ as necessary conditions. In fact, when Wesley denied works as a condition of justification, he was referring not to a Christian’s ultimate justification (salvation)—of which works were a condition—but to their initial justification (conversion), from which they could fall.8 Despite these theological differences, Anglican clergymen often conflated Wesley and Whitefield’s theologies, labelling them both as solifidians. Rather than viewing the so­terio­ logic­al clashes between Methodists and orthodox divines as a new controversy, triggered by a new movement, this chapter locates these clashes as a continuation of a longstanding dispute—dating back to the Restoration—over the meaning of ‘true’ Church of England doctrines, as outlined in the Books of Homilies and the Thirty-­Nine Articles.

Post-­Restoration Soteriology The Restoration Church of England placed ‘moralism’ firmly at the centre of its ethos. Most Restoration divines sought to ‘reconnect morality and goodness, to repair the moral damage done to the nation by “Solifidian” sectaries who had severed virtue from piety’. The classic example of this teaching is Richard ­ Allestree’s The Whole Duty of Man (1658), the ‘most successful book of the age’.9 Even in the middle decades of the eighteenth century The Whole Duty of Man remained a highly influential text among both the clergy and the laity. In 1730 Daniel Waterland, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, advised u ­ ndergraduates to consult this text when preparing ‘short private Devotions’.10 By 1745 at least

6 G.  Whitefield, Jesus Christ the Only Way to Salvation: A Sermon Preached on Kennington-­ Common (London, 1739), p. 10. 7 Gibson, Pastoral Letter . . . Enthusiasm on the Other, p. 47. 8  Works, Journal II, p. 128. 9 J. Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689 (New Haven, CT, 1991), pp. 279–330, at pp. 282, 285. 10 D. Waterland, Advice to a Young Student: With a Method of Study for the Four First Years (London, 1730), p. 4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

38  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy forty-­five editions of this ‘High Church manual’ had been published in England.11 Charity schools provided their students with ‘a Bible, Common Prayer Book, and Whole Duty of Man’ before they departed to commence work as apprentices or servants.12 Another influential authority among Restoration Anglicans was George Bull, who later served as bishop of St David’s between 1705 and his death in 1710. In Harmonia Apostolica (1669) Bull sought to ‘confute the Antinomians and Solifidians’ by reconciling the two seemingly conflicting views of justification advanced in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle of James. Paul’s claim that ‘a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law’ (Romans 3:28) was, according to Bull, merely a reference to the ‘impossibility of justification by the Mosaic Law’. In no way did this verse contradict the passage: ‘Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only’ (James 2:24). Bull was, however, careful to add that James had not endorsed ‘the perversions of the Papists’ by describing works as ‘the principal or meritorious cause of our justification’. Rather, James had meant that ‘good works, of piety, sanctity, and obedience’ were ‘conditions necessarily required’ of anybody who wished to be ‘acceptable unto God to salvation’. For Anglican communicants these pious works followed baptism, by which one first ‘received the mysteries of regeneration’ as an infant. Any regenerates who neglected these works of holiness risked falling from grace.13 Bull’s so­teri­ology was rejected by several Reformed clergymen—including William Beveridge, Thomas Barlow, and Thomas Tully—who believed that James had described works, not as a condition of justification, but rather as evidence of its occurrence. Their Reformed interpretation of Paul and James’s teachings was provided with further ammunition in the form of the eleventh and twelfth Articles of the Church of England, neither of which supported Bull’s soteriology.14 These Reformed rejoinders failed to match the success and influence of Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica. However, the suggestion that the soteriology of John Tillotson, archbishop of Canterbury (1690–4), was ‘virtually a facsimile’ of Bull’s

11 J. C. D. Clark, English Society, 1660–1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics during the Ancien Régime, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2000), p. 295; R. D. Cornwall, Visible and Apostolic: The Constitution of the Church in High Church Anglican and Non-­Juror Thought (Newark, DE, 1993), p. 20. 12 S. Trimmer, Reflections upon the Education of Children in Charity Schools (London, 1792), p. 30. For an earlier example, see R.  W.  Unwin, ‘Charity Schools and the Defence of Anglicanism: James Talbot, Rector of Spofforth 1700–1708’, Borthwick Papers, 65 (1984), p. 29. 13 G.  Bull, Harmonia Apostolica, or The Mutual Agreement of St. Paul and St. James, trans. T.  Wilkinson (London, 1801), pp. 10, 15, 120, 294–5. See also J.  S.  Chamberlain, ‘Moralism, Justification, and the Controversy over Methodism’, JEH, 44 (1993), pp. 652–78; A. McGrath, ‘The Emergence of the Anglican Tradition on Justification 1600–1700’, Churchman, 98 (1984), pp. 28–43. 14 S.  Hampton, Anti-­Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford, 2008), p. 99. Article XI: Of the Justification of Man declared that ‘we are accounted Righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own Works or Deservings’. Article XII: Of Good Works similarly described ‘Good Works’ as the ‘fruits of faith’, which ‘follow after Justification’. See Burnet, Exposition, pp. 122, 128.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  39 teachings is only partially correct.15 Sometimes Tillotson echoed Bull by stating that Paul had only excluded ‘the law of the Mosaical administration’.16 On other occasions, however, Tillotson diverged from Bull by claiming that Paul had excluded both the Moral and Mosaic Laws. Under such a rule Paul and James had described two different types of ‘justification’: an initial justification, independent of works (baptism), followed by a second justification, achieved by living a moral life (ultimate salvation).17 The latter belief was taught by Isaac Barrow (1630–77), the first Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, whom Tillotson admired.18 The notion that Paul and James taught two different types of ­justification—one without works, and one with works—was rejected by Bull as a ‘popish’ invention, which had been propagated by the Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621). It is, therefore, ironic that the virulently anti-­Catholic Tillotson endorsed this teaching. As will be shown, Bull and Tillotson’s conflicting teachings on justification became a divisive issue among some anti-­Methodist Anglicans.19 As with Bull, Tillotson’s soteriology was viewed as legalistic by anti-­Arminian theologians, most prominently John Edwards (1637–1716), a Calvinist Anglican divine of Cambridge.20 In the first of his three-­ volume work, The Preacher (1705–9), Edwards accused Tillotson of ‘disparaging the Doctrines of Revealed Religion’.21 In a later polemic he accused the late archbishop of ‘Asserting Justification by Works’ in a manner akin to the ‘Church of Rome, and of the Disciples of Socinus’.22 Edwards’s anti-­Tillotson sentiments were overshadowed by the praise bestowed on the late archbishop by eighteenth-­century Anglican Whigs and Dissenters (on both sides of the Atlantic), who admired Tillotson’s moral teachings and his irenicism.23 Edwards’s contempt for The Whole Duty of 15 Hampton, Anti-­Arminians, p. 60. 16  J. Tillotson, ‘Sermon CLXXIII: Of Justifying Faith’, in Tillotson 2, p. 481, cited in Hampton, Anti-­ Arminians, p. 62. 17  J. Tillotson, ‘Sermon CLIII: Of the Necessity of Good Works’, in Tillotson 2, p. 346; ‘Sermon LVI: Of the Nature of Regeneration, and Its Necessity, in Order to Justification and Salvation’, in Tillotson 1, pp. 390–2. 18  I. Barrow, ‘Sermon V: Of Justification by Faith’, in J. Tillotson (ed.), The Works of the Learned Isaac Barrow, D.D., Late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge, 2nd ed. 3 vols. (London, 1700), II, p. 79. 19 Bull, Harmonia Apostolica, pp. 78–9; C. F. Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (London, 1966), p. 37. 20  For Edwards, see D. D. Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation (New York, 2011), ch. 6; J. Griesel, ‘John Edwards of Cambridge (1637–1716): A Reassessment of His Position within the Later Stuart Church of England’ (PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2019). 21 J. Edwards, The Preacher: A Discourse, Shewing, What Are the Particular Offices and Employments of Those of That Character in the Church (London, 1705), p. xxxi. 22 J. Edwards, The Arminian Doctrines Condemn’d by the Holy Scriptures, by Many of the Ancient Fathers, by the Church of England, and Even by the Suffrage of Right Reason (London, 1711), p. 218. 23  For some eighteenth-­century biographies of Tillotson, see [F. Hutchinson], The Life of the Most Reverend Father in God John Tillotson, Arch-­Bishop of Canterbury (London, 1717); T. Birch, The Life of the Most Reverend Dr John Tillotson, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1752). For Tillotson’s popularity among the Congregationalist professors at Harvard, see Norman Fiering, ‘The First

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

40  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Man also put him at odds with much of the Anglican clergy and laity.24 It is, therefore, unsurprising that Edwards’s writings often conveyed a siege mentality, in which Calvinism’s survival in the Church seemed precarious. In the third volume of The Preacher (1709) he lamented that various doctrines, ‘esteemed as Popish Points by some of the most judicious of our Divines’, both during and immediately ‘after the Reformation’, were being ‘defended as Articles of Orthodox Faith’. These allegedly ‘popish’ doctrines included ‘Predestination on fore-­sight of Works’, ‘Justification by Works’, ‘the extravagant Power of Man’s Free-­Will’, and the ‘final Apostacy of the Regenerate’.25 While Edwards gained little support from his Anglican brethren, his unpopularity should not be overstated. Indeed, his enduring appeal was confirmed by the posthumous republication of several of his works during the 1720s and 1730s.26 Also, The Preacher became a fundamental authority for Calvinist Dissenters, who sought to portray Anglican Arminians as doctrinal schismatics. In a 1715 polemic Charles Owen, a Presbyterian minister, cited Edwards to support his allegation that the ‘very Bulk of the [Anglican] Clergy avowedly dissent from Calvin, whose Doctrine is contain’d in the 39 Articles’. Owen lamented that the ‘Name of that glorious Reformer’ had become ‘odious to many of those that appropriate to themselves the Title of the C---h’. Such individuals, Owen claimed, showed ‘degeneracy from their reformed Mother’.27 Jonathan Warne, another Calvinist Dissenter, provided an even more enthusiastic assessment of Edwards’s works. In 1737 Warne described his Dissenting brethren as the ‘best Churchmen’ because of their adherence to those ‘Fundamental’ doctrines contained in the Church’s ‘Articles and Homilies’. These ‘Calvinian’ doctrines could be found in the works of various Church of England authors, including Archbishop Ussher (1581–1656), William Beveridge, and, most recently, John Edwards. Warne urged his readers to purchase Edwards’s books as a means of discerning the ‘Deceit of the Arminian Clergy’.28 It was from Warne’s writings that Whitefield first encountered Edwards’s

American Enlightenment: Tillotson, Leverett, and Philosophical Anglicanism’, New England Quarterly, 54 (1981), pp. 307–44. 24  In the first volume of The Preacher, Edwards attacked The Whole Duty of Man for its emphasis on ‘Moral Vertues and the Practical Part of Religion’ (pp. 49–50). Edwards subsequently condemned the book’s discussions of ‘Faith’, which contained ‘not a Word of Relying on Christ, or Trusting in him and his Merits’. See J.  Edwards, The Doctrin of Faith and Justification Set in a True Light (London, 1708), p. 179. 25  John Edwards, The Preacher: The Third Part (London, 1709), p. 4. 26  For some examples, see J. Edwards, The Doctrines Controverted between Papists and Protestants Particularly and Distinctly Consider’d: And Those Which Are Held by the Former Confuted (London, 1724); Theologia Reformata, or Discourses on Those Graces and Duties Which Are Purely Evangelical, and Not Contained in the Moral Law: And on the Helps, Motives, and Advantages of Performing Them (London, 1726); Remains of the Late Reverend and Learned John Edwards, D.D. (London, 1731). 27 C.  Owen, Plain-­ Dealing, or Separation without Schism, and Schism without Separation: Exemplify’d in the Case of Protestant-­Dissenters and Church-­Men (London, 1715), p. 30. 28 [J. Warne], The Church of England Turn’d Dissenter at Last, or The Generality of Her Clergy Have Forsaken the Most Material Doctrines of the Common-­Prayer (London, 1737), pp. iv–vi.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  41 The Preacher, which, he believed, would ‘edify the future Age’. Whitefield’s in­fam­ ous attack on Tillotson was, therefore, little more than a reiteration of the sentiments conveyed by Edwards a generation earlier.29

A ‘System of Moral Ethicks’ Josiah Tucker, an Anglican clergyman from Bristol, was responsible for the production of Whitefield’s first printed denouncement of Tillotson. On 12 May 1739 the Weekly Miscellany printed an article in which Tucker reported hearing the following words uttered by Whitefield during a ‘private Conversation’: I then went to the University, where I began my Studies in the usual Manner, applying myself to the Mathematicks, and Classical Learning . . . I also dedicated proper Seasons to the reading of the Sermons of our best Divines, Sharp, South, Calamy, and some of Tillotson’s I have read since; Mr. Wesley has read him more; but his Works I now look on only as a System of Moral Ethicks; but think he knew no more of true Christianity than Mahomet.

As soon as Whitefield left the room, his scathing denouncement of Tillotson was immediately noted down by Tucker, who authenticated it by asking Whitefield to sign it.30 Far from denying the report’s authenticity, Whitefield repeated his attack on Tillotson in several further publications. In his Journal entry for 30 March 1740 he spoke of an encounter with a trader who had recently experienced the new birth. The trader handed Whitefield ‘seventeen Volumes’ of sermons by Tillotson—of whom he had previously been a ‘great Admirer’—and instructed Whitefield that he was free to do what he ‘would with them’.31 Whitefield’s lengthi­ est attack on Tillotson, however, appeared in two letters to a ‘Friend [Samuel Mason] in London’, which he wrote during his visit to Georgia in January 1740.32 These letters were published widely on both sides of the Atlantic.33 29  Whitefield, Journal 5, p. 19. 30  Weekly Miscellany, 12 May 1739. This item was reprinted in the 1 October 1739 issue of the Boston Evening-­Post, thus exposing New England readers to the ‘Mahomet’ story. 31  Whitefield, Journal 6, pp. 15–16. A later journal entry described one of Whitefield’s female converts, who had previously been a ‘great Admirer of Archbishop Tillotson’. Whitefield was thankful that, once the woman’s ‘Eyes’ were ‘opened, to discern spiritual Things’, she could ‘no longer take up with such Husks, fit only for carnal, unawakened, unbelieving Reasoners to eat’. See Journal 7, p. 2. 32  Samuel Mason, the recipient, was a London publisher, responsible for the sale of much Calvinist evangelical literature. 33  The 22 March 1740 issue of the South Carolina Gazette advertised Whitefield’s first anti-­Tillotson Letter as due to be printed the following week. It must, therefore, have received its initial publication in Charleston in late March of that year. This piece, along with Whitefield’s second letter on Tillotson and another letter addressed to colonial slaveholders, was subsequently published by Benjamin Franklin in issues of the Pennsylvania Gazette between 10 April and 1 May 1740. Franklin also compiled the  three letters and sold them in book format. See  G.  Whitefield, Three Letters from the Reverend

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

42  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy The first letter contained the infamous ‘Mahomet’ insult, thereby reinforcing Tucker’s earlier account of his conversation with Whitefield. According to Whitefield, this insult had originally been spoken by John Wesley ‘in a private Society’. This letter also highlighted a sermon in which Tillotson described the ‘Renovation of our Hearts and Lives’ as both the ‘Terms’ and ‘necessary Causes and Means’ of ‘our Salvation’. This statement, Whitefield argued, contravened the teachings of the Apostle Paul by ignoring the ‘all-­sufficient, perfect and everlasting Righteousness and Death of Jesus Christ’. If Paul had been alive at the time of the sermon’s publication, he would, according to Whitefield, have declared an ‘ANATHEMA’ against it.34 In the second letter Whitefield quoted extensively from Edwards’s The Preacher. For instance, he joined Edwards in lambasting Tillotson’s claim that one could ‘not find any where revealed in all the Scripture, that there is a God’—a statement that both authors viewed as deistic.35 Alexander Garden was the only anti-­Whitefield author who addressed this criticism of Tillotson. Both Edwards and Whitefield had, according to Garden, misrepresented Tillotson by disregarding what he said before and after the passage in question. Rather than denying that the Bible contained any ‘Mention’ or ‘Confirmation’ of a god, Tillotson had described the futility of citing scriptural ‘Revelation’ when addressing a non-­believer. The Scriptures, after all, ‘suppose’ rather than ‘reveal’ the existence of a deity.36 Tillotson was not, however, the only seventeenth-­century authority attacked by Whitefield. In March 1740 Whitefield published another Letter to a ‘Friend in London’— probably Samuel Mason again—in which he followed Edwards’s example again by condemning The Whole Duty of Man. This ‘much admir’d Book’—which one author had already cited when charging Methodists with antinomianism—was, according to Whitefield, designed to ‘civilize’ rather than convert its readers. Whitefield was particularly disturbed that he could not find the word ‘Regeneration so much as once mentioned’ in the ‘Index and general Titles at the End of it’.37 He also contested Allestree’s claim that evidence of God’s ‘second Mr G. Whitefield (Philadelphia, PA, 1740). In England, Whitefield’s first anti-­Tillotson Letter received its initial publication in the 3 July 1740 issue of the Daily Advertiser. 34 Whitefield, Three Letters, pp. 2–5. If Wesley did speak these words, his views of Tillotson must have mellowed somewhat by 1750, when he included some extracts by the late archbishop in his Christian Library. Wesley sought to show that Tillotson was ‘as far from being the worst, as from being the best of the English writers’. See J.  Wesley, A Christian Library: Consisting of Extracts from and Abridgments of the Choicest Pieces of Practical Divinity, Which Have Been Publish’d in the English Tongue, 50 vols. (Bristol, 1749–55), XLV, p. 295. 35 Whitefield, Three Letters, pp. 5–12. For Edwards’s attack on this statement, see Edwards, The Preacher: A Discourse, p. 150. 36 A. Garden, Six Letters to the Rev. George Whitefield, 2nd ed. (Boston, MA, 1740), p. 44. 37 G. Whitefield, A Letter from the Rev. Mr Whitefield from Georgia, to a Friend in London, Shewing the Fundamental Error of a Book, Entituled The Whole Duty of Man (Charles-­Town, SC, 1740), p. 4. In 1739 an anonymous opponent of Whitefield had praised the ‘admired Author of The Whole Duty of Man’ for recognizing that teaching the ‘Moral Attributes of the Deity, was the Only Security against Religious Error’ of the ‘Enthusiastic Kind’. See A Curate of London, A Short Preservative against the Doctrines Reviv’d by Mr Whitefield and His Adherents (London, 1739), pp. 10–11.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  43 Covenant’ with Adam (the covenant of grace) could be found in the passage ‘the Seed of the Woman shall break the Serpent’s Head’ (Genesis 3:15). This passage, Whitefield claimed, described the ‘free Gift and Promise of Salvation made to Adam’. It did not describe a ‘Covenant’ because there was ‘not a Word of any Condition mentioned’. Whitefield questioned why Allestree had failed to see the ‘false Divinity’ in believing that God ‘entered into any Covenant at all, with Man after he had broken the First?’ God’s only other covenant was, apparently, with ‘the second Adam, the God-­Man Christ Jesus’ (the covenant of redemption). Since Adam had failed to ‘keep the first Covenant’ when he was in a state of ‘perfect Innocence’, Whitefield saw no reason for God to make another covenant with postlapsarian mortals, who ‘hate God by nature’. To Whitefield the notion of a second covenant between God and humanity compromised one of the key tenets of Calvinism: unconditional election. In fact, while Calvin was not a covenant theologian, various implications of the covenant of grace, such as preparation for salvation, were present in Calvin’s soteriology. Of course, ‘preparation’, under Calvin’s rule, stemmed from the humbling work of God, not human effort.38 Whitefield’s attack on The Whole Duty of Man’s federal theology was swiftly lambasted by an anonymous ‘Presbyter of the Church of England’, who was perplexed by Whitefield’s implication that humanity remained bound by the terms of the prelapsarian covenant. By suggesting that postlapsarian humans were expected to maintain ‘absolute Innocence and Perfection’, Whitefield had created ‘an Inconsistency between God’s All-­Sufficiency and his Justice’. Under such a rule, one ‘might well with Amazement and Despair cry out, Lord who can be saved?’ The ‘Presbyter’ was equally determined to correct Whitefield’s claim that God had not ‘entered into any Covenant at all, with Man’ after Adam’s fall. In fact, there were various ‘other Covenants between God and Man, recorded in holy Writ’, such as God’s ‘Covenant with Abram and his seed’. These later ‘Covenants’ did not ‘obstruct or take away that Universal Covenant made with Mankind after the Fall’. Rather, they were added ‘for the Preservation’ of this Covenant of Grace, to which they were ‘subservient’. While perfection was no longer required under the terms of this ‘New Covenant’, salvation still relied on two interlinked conditions: ‘Repentance’ and ‘Faith’. The ‘Presbyter’ praised The Whole Duty of Man for teaching the ‘necessary Duty’ of repentance. By describing repentance as a condition of salvation, the ‘Presbyter’ was reinforcing an Arminian soteriology

38 Whitefield, Letter from the Rev. Mr Whitefield from Georgia, to a Friend in London, pp. 5–6. Writing in response to Perry Miller, Everett H. Emerson was one of the first scholars to argue that there was no clear dividing line between ‘Calvinism’ and ‘covenant theology’. See  E.  H.  Emerson, ‘Calvin and Covenant Theology’, CH, 25 (1956), pp. 136–44. See also chapter  2 in C.  W.  Bogue, Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace (Cherry Hill, NJ, 1975). For Wesley and Whitefield’s discussions of federalism, see J.  Hood, ‘Federalist Brothers: The Shared Covenantal Substructure of Whitefield and Wesley’s Theology’, in Maddock, Wesley and Whitefield?, pp. 105–23.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

44  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy which, by the early decades of the eighteenth century, had become the mainstream pos­ition in the established Church.39 The clergy were equally quick to defend the late Archbishop Tillotson. Thomas Church, vicar of Battersea, was one of the first divines to attack Whitefield’s ‘severe’ treatment of the ‘most reverend and eminent Prelate’.40 Theophilus Evans subsequently compared Whitefield’s ‘Mahomet’ insult to Henry Sacheverell’s claim that Archbishop Grindal (1519–83) was a ‘false Son of the Church, and a perfidious Prelate to the Toleration of the Genevan Discipline’. Sacheverell, a stridently Tory High Churchman, voiced these sentiments in an incendiary sermon, preached at St Paul’s Cathedral on 5 November 1709, in which he attacked the Revolution Settlement. In February 1710 Sacheverell was impeached before the House of Lords for sedition. Evans observed that the ‘second Article of Impeachment’ discussed Sacheverell’s treatment of Grindal. Yet Whitefield—a ‘self-­conceited, opinionative Novice’—had faced no formal discipline for censuring Tillotson, one of the Church’s ‘greatest Divines’, and a much ‘greater Man’ than Grindal. Defences of Tillotson and The Whole Duty of Man were not, apparently, restricted to the clergy.41 An article in the 5 July 1740 issue of the Universal Spectator and Weekly Chronicle implied that the laity were prepared to resort to violence as a means of defending these seventeenth-­century authorities. According to the author, an unnamed ‘Methodist Teacher, who had recently been preaching in Marybon-­ fields’, had instructed his congregation that one ‘might as safely read Plays, or profane Books, as the Whole Duty of Man, or Tillotson’s Works’. The crowd ‘resented’ this instruction ‘so highly’ that the preacher was forced to escape in a ‘Hackney Coach, which was almost broke to Pieces by the Mob throwing Stones and Brickbats at it’. Clearly this article implies that, among the laity, there was a strong sense of loyalty towards Tillotson and The Whole Duty of Man. Of course, physical assaults on Methodist itinerants were not uncommon. Open-­air services often ‘contained their share of criminals, of psychopaths, of the shiftless, and of 39  A Presbyter of the Church of England, Defence of the Author of the Whole Duty of Man from the False Charges of Mr Whitefield and the Methodists His Adherents (Reading, 1740), pp. 15, 19, 26, 21–2, 25, 30–1, 34. Whitefield’s attack on Allestree’s federal theology was subsequently addressed by some Presbyterian ‘Querists’ of Philadelphia. The Querists argued that God’s ‘Free Gift and Promise’ to Adam contained an ‘implicit Condition’: faith in the ‘true Gospel Doctrine’. In his determination to avoid the ‘Arminian Scheme’, Whitefield had risked teaching ‘Antinomian’ doctrines. See The Querists, or An Extract of Sundry Passages Taken out of Mr Whitefield’s Printed Sermons, Journals and Letters: Together with, Some Scruples Propos’d in Proper Queries Raised on Each Remark (Boston, MA, 1740), p. 14. 40 T.  Church, An Explanation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Church of England Concerning Regeneration, Works before Grace, and Some Other Points Relating Thereto (London, 1739), p. 47. 41 Evans, History of Modern Enthusiasm, p. 119. For Sacheverell’s attack on Grindal, see H. Sacheverell, The Perils of False Brethren, Both in Church, and State: Set Forth in a Sermon Preach’d before the Right Honourable, the Lord-­Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, at the Cathedral-­ Church of St. Paul on the 5th of November, 1709 (London, 1709), p. 35. For Sacheverell’s trial, see G. Holmes, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London, 1973).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  45 misfits’. It is, therefore, unlikely that the preacher’s condemnation of these seventeenth-­century authorities was the sole cause of this attack, though the author probably sought to add an element of respectability to the rioters by portraying them in this light.42 Alexander Howie, incumbent of Oxford, Pennsylvania, provided a more nuanced account of lay attitudes to The Whole Duty of Man. In a letter to the secretary of the SPG, dated 17 July 1740, Howie reported that, during a recent visit to the region, Whitefield had ‘desired a great auditory’ to burn copies of this book. While ‘many serious people’ were ‘shock’d’ by Whitefield’s ‘antichristian order’, others, apparently, were so ‘enthusiastically mad as to obey it’.43 As an alternative to ‘moralistic’ texts, such as Tillotson’s sermons and The Whole Duty of Man, Calvinist evangelicals endorsed the writings of Reformed Anglicans, including Beveridge, Edwards, and Ezekiel Hopkins, who served as bishop of Derry between 1681 and his death in 1690. In a letter, dated 19 November 1748, to a fellow clergyman (also associated with the Countess of Huntingdon) Whitefield recommended the writings of Beveridge and Hopkins. Both divines had, according to Whitefield, maintained the ‘good old way’ of the Reformation.44 In 1762 a reading of Beveridge prompted the conversion of a young Rowland Hill, who, after being denied priest’s orders, became an Independent preacher.45 William Mason followed Whitefield’s example by praising Edwards’s ‘excellent Book the Preacher’ in one of his many defences of Calvinist evangelicalism, published between the 1750s and 1770s. Sometimes, however, the Reformed credentials of certain authors were disputed.46

Competing Authorities: Pro- and Anti-­Methodist Sources The anonymous editor of a 1739 work duplicated extracts from two sermons on ‘regeneration’ by Ezekiel Hopkins and Henry Hammond (1605–60), a royalist divine. The editor hoped that, by comparing these texts with two recent anti-­ Methodist sermons by Henry Stebbing and Ralph Skerret, readers would be exposed to doctrines that—before the arrival of Whitefield—had not been ‘known in the Church of England’ for a ‘long Time’.47 Skerret’s sermon was on John 3:5:

42  Universal Spectator and Weekly Chronicle, 5 July 1740; Walsh, ‘Methodism and the Mob’, p. 221. 43 Perry, Historical Collections, II, p. 207: Howie to the Secretary, 17 July 1740. 44  ‘Letter DCCXI: To the Rev. Mr. L----, London, 19th November 1748’, in The Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, 6 vols. (London, 1771–2), II, p. 206. 45 Clark, English Society, p. 295. 46 W. Mason, Methodism Displayed, and Enthusiasm Detected: Intended as an Antidote against, and a Preservative from the Delusive Principles and Unscriptural Doctrines of a Modern Set of Seducing Preachers, 4th ed. (London, 1759), p. 29. 47  Dr Hammond’s Exposition of Gal. vi.15 . . . and Bishop Hopkins’s Exposition of John iii.5 . . . To Be Compared with the Late Sermons of Dr Stebbing and Dr Skerrett on the Same Texts, 2nd ed. (London, 1739), p. iii.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

46  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy ‘Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’ This passage, Skerret claimed, showed that all ‘become regenerate in Baptism’. To avoid falling from this ‘regenerate’ state, Christians needed to maintain ‘Stedfastness [sic] in the Paths of Virtue’.48 The editor compared Skerret’s sentiments with those preached by Hopkins on the same passage. Hopkins’s sermon condemned those who believed that, once baptized, the ‘Guilt of Original Sin is washed away, and that a sober religious Life . . . is sufficient for the obtaining of Heaven without those hard and inexplicable Notions of Regeneration and the New-­birth’. To the editor the similarities between Hopkins and Whitefield’s teachings on regeneration were striking.49 Stebbing’s anti-­Methodist sermon, published as A Caution against Religious Delusion, focused on Galatians 6:15: ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.’ Stebbing defined the faith by which one was ‘born again’ as a ‘lively Faith’ filled with ‘brotherly Kindness’ and ‘Charity’. He condemned those, such as Whitefield, who viewed the ‘new Birth’ as a ‘sensible Operation’, which could be ‘felt and distinguished as the Hand of God upon them’.50 Stebbing’s definition of ‘regeneration’, the editor claimed, contradicted that advanced by Hammond in an earlier sermon on the same passage. It was, according to Hammond, once the spiritual ‘Seed’ was ‘sown’ in a person’s heart that they became ‘truly regenerate’. Those who had ‘long lived in an enormous antichristian Course’ were often ‘strucken on a sudden’, enabling them to ‘date their Regeneration, and tell you punctually how old they are in the Spirit’.51 By displaying Hammond as a proto-­Whitefield the editor was treading on very dubious ground. Following the Restoration, Hammond’s most prominent work, A Practical Catechism (1644), was often praised alongside The Whole Duty of Man for encouraging charity and repentance, thereby steering Christians away from the solifidian winds into which many had blown during the Interregnum.52 Indeed, Hammond had prefigured Bull by arguing that ‘Sanctification is precedent in order of nature to justification.’ The ‘first part’ of sanctification consisted of

48 Skerret, Nature and Proper Evidence of Regeneration, pp. 13, 22. 49  Dr Hammond’s Exposition, p. 19. For Hopkins’s sermon in its entirety, see E. Hopkins, ‘Sermon XI: The Nature and Necessity of Regeneration: Or, the New-­Birth’, in The Works of the Right Reverend and Learned Ezekiel Hopkins, Late Lord Bishop of London-­Derry in Ireland, Collected into One Volume (London, 1701), pp. 518–67. 50 H. Stebbing, A Caution against Religious Delusion: A Sermon on the New Birth, Occasioned by the Pretensions of the Methodists (London, 1739), pp. 7–8. 51  Dr Hammond’s Exposition, p. 7. For the sermon in full, see H. Hammond, ‘The XV. Sermon. Gal. VI. 15. But a New Creature’, in Sermons Preached by That Eminent Divine Henry Hammond, D.D. (London, 1675), pp. 237–43. 52 M.  McGiffert, ‘Henry Hammond and Covenant Theology’, CH, 74 (2005), p. 274. See also J.  W.  Packer, The Transformation of Anglicanism, 1643–1660: With Special Reference to Henry Hammond (Manchester, 1969).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  47 belief and repentance, thereby forming the ‘faith which is required as the condition of our being justified’.53 The editor’s evangelical interpretation of Hammond was placed under scrutiny in the 11 August 1739 issue of the Weekly Miscellany. The author of this article argued that, when Hammond described the importance of being able to ‘feel the Spirit’, he did not mean ‘Impressions’ that transcended ‘natural Operations’. Rather, he meant ‘inward Graces’, such as feelings of ‘Fear, Love, Joy or the like’. To support this point further, the author cited Hammond’s claim—advanced in the same sermon—that the ‘Spirit’ was present in ‘every Fear of Judgement’, ‘every Affliction’, and ‘at every Sermon’. Crucially, Hammond had conceded that it was often difficult for Christians to pinpoint the time of their conversion because ‘there are many Presumptions in our Hearts falsely grounded’. Finally, the author noted that the ‘Abridger’ had omitted a passage from Hammond’s sermon that seemed irreconcilable with Whitefield’s teachings on the new birth. In this omitted passage Hammond stressed that, during baptism, the Holy Spirit ‘infuses itself ’ into a person’s heart, where it ‘grows up with the reasonable Soul’. Those who feared that they were not in a ‘regenerate Condition’ because they had not experienced a ‘notable Change in themselves’ did not need to worry. Anyone who found the ‘Effects of [a] Spiritual Life’—such as a ‘Religious Education’ or an ‘unacquaintedness with Sin’—in themselves needed to ‘acknowledge God’s Mercy’, which had ‘prevented’ them from being ‘as bad as other Men’. It was, therefore, ‘impossible’ to make Hammond’s agreement with Stebbing on this subject ‘plainer’.54 Hammond was not the only seventeenth-­century theologian who was the subject of a tug of war between Methodists and High Churchmen. An equally contentious issue was the way in which Methodists and their opponents read The Life of God in the Soul of Man (1677) by Henry Scougal, a Scottish Episcopalian divine. John Wesley read this book in February 1736, during his Georgia mission.55 While not one of his key texts, Wesley’s reverence for The Life of God was evidenced by his publication of an abridged edition in 1744.56 James Guthrie, the Ordinary of Newgate Prison in London, described The Life of God as a text that Wesley disseminated to potential converts, instructing them to ‘peruse it carefully’ because it contained ‘necessary Instructions concerning their future Happiness’.57 More noted, however, was Scougal’s early influence on Whitefield. 53 H. Hammond, A Practicall Catechisme (Oxford, 1645), pp. 114–15. 54  Weekly Miscellany, 11 August 1739. 55  Works, Journal I, p. 360. 56  For the reception of Scougal in eighteenth-­century England and Scotland, see I. Rivers, ‘Scougal’s The Life of God in the Soul of Man: The Fortunes of a Book, 1676–1830’, in R. Savage (ed.), Philosophy and Religion in Enlightenment Britain: New Case Studies (Oxford, 2012), pp. 29–55; Rivers, Vanity Fair, pp. 156–63. 57 [J.  Guthrie], The Ordinary of Newgate, His Account of the Behaviour, Confession, and Dying Words, of the Malefactors, Who Were Executed at Tyburn, on Wednesday the 13th of January, 1741–2 (London, 1741), p. 33.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

48  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy According to Josiah Tucker’s account of his conversation with Whitefield, the itinerant had described The Life of God as a ‘Book worth its Weight in Gold’.58 In A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr George Whitefield (1740) Whitefield described his first encounter with The Life of God. Before he read this ‘excellent Treatise’, to which Charles Wesley had introduced him, Whitefield ‘never knew what true Religion was’. He was captivated by Scougal’s statement that Christianity was much more than simply ‘going to Church, doing hurt to no one, being constant in the Duties of the Closet, and now and then reaching out . . . to give Alms’ to one’s ‘poor Neighbours’. Rather, ‘true Religion’ was a ‘Union of the Soul with GOD, and Christ formed within us’. Upon reading these lines, a ‘Ray of divine Light was instantaneously darted in upon’ Whitefield’s ‘Soul’.59 Thomas Church agreed that The Life of God was ‘written with a great deal of Piety’ but denied that it encouraged the ‘strange Proceedings of the Methodists’. Where Whitefield viewed Scougal’s work as an attack on ‘moralistic’ teachings, Church argued the opposite. This text, Church noted, was prefaced by Scougal’s (and Tillotson’s) friend Gilbert Burnet, who probably wrote the second section of the book, entitled ‘An Account of the Beginnings and Advances of a Spiritual Life’. According to Burnet’s preface, Scougal endorsed ‘the 2d Letter’, believing it would ‘strengthen his own [work]’. Since Whitefield had not attempted to ‘confine his character to the former Tract’, written by Scougal, it could only be assumed that his admiration encompassed the whole work, including the section widely attributed to Burnet. Scougal’s belief that repentance preceded justification was, according to Church, evidenced by his instruction that it was necessary for the unregenerate to ‘break up’ the ‘fallow Ground’, ‘root out the Weeds, and pull up the Thorns’, enabling them to ‘prepare’ themselves for a ‘mighty Change’ in their souls.60 In addition, Church noted that Whitefield’s ‘overheated Imagination’ was condemned in The Life of God, which described the ‘Pretence of Inspirations’ as a characteristic of ‘every bold Impostor, or hot-­ brained Enthusiast’.61 Charles Wheatly, a Hertfordshire incumbent and respected liturgical theologian, also cited Scougal’s condemnation of ‘enthusiasm’ as evidence that Whitefield’s ad­mir­ ation for the book was misplaced.62 An anonymous ‘Curate in the Country’ similarly argued that Whitefield’s teachings contradicted Scougal’s condemnation of 58  Weekly Miscellany, 12 May 1739. 59 Whitefield, Short Account of God’s Dealings, pp. 27–8. 60 Church, Explanation and Defense, pp. 47–8, 57. 61 Church, Explanation and Defense, pp. 49–51. 62 C.  Wheatly, St. John’s Test of Knowing Christ, and Being Born of Him: A Sermon Preached at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. October 14. 1739 (London, 1739), p. 29. For Wheatly’s theology, see R.  Sharp, ‘Aspects of High Churchmanship in Eighteenth-­ Century England: Charles Wheatly (1686–1742) and the Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer’, in K.  L.  Cope and S. P. Gordon (eds), 1650–1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era, Vol. 19 (New York, 2012), pp. 31–44.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  49 spiritual ‘Pride and Vanity’.63 Furthermore, Samuel Weller denied that Whitefield’s Journal was written ‘in that humble and mortified Spirit’ to which The Life of God instructed all believers to adhere.64 Scottish Presbyterians also condemned Whitefield’s endorsement of Scougal’s work, which they viewed as a legalistic Arminian tract.65 It is unclear whether these Anglican and Presbyterian attacks led Whitefield to re-­evaluate his admiration for Scougal. It is, however, intriguing that The Life of God was absent from a list of books ‘recommended by Mr. Whitefield’, which featured in the 6 September 1740 issue of the South Carolina Gazette.66 Unlike the writings of Scougal and Hammond, George Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica was championed by only one side in this dispute: anti-­Methodist High Churchmen. Seemingly oblivious to—or unwilling to acknowledge—the works of John Edwards, several authors alleged that, by preaching justification by faith alone, Methodists sought to revive a dispute on which Bull had said the final word. One item, printed in the 30 June 1739 issue of the Weekly Miscellany, argued that followers of Whitefield were ‘mistaken in thinking that our thirty-­ nine Articles are form’d upon the Calvinistical Plan’. These individuals were, apparently, engaged in a plot to ‘revive the Quinquarticular Controversy’, which had been ‘dead, and bury’d these threescore Years (Bishop Bull having entirely put an end to it)’.67 Citing Edward Wells (1667–1727)—whose soteriology was influenced by the ‘Sentiments of Bishop Bull’—another anti-­Whitefield author claimed that Paul had stressed the ‘Necessity of good Works to Justification’, having only rejected ceremonial works, such as circumcision.68 A 1746 attack on John Wesley by Thomas Church featured a detailed epitaph to Bull. Despite initially facing opposition from those ‘bred up in Calvinistical Notions’, Bull had ensured that the ‘Truth’ soon ‘approved itself to all learned and

63  Curate in the Country, Observations on the Reverend Mr Whitefield’s Answer, p. 3. 64 [Weller], Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit, p. 8. 65  See [J. Bisset], A Letter to a Gentleman in Edinburgh, Containing Remarks upon a Late Apology for the Presbyterians in Scotland, Who Keep Communion in the Ordinances of the Gospel, with Mr George Whitefield, a Priest of the Church of England (s.l., 1742), p. 89; Acts of the Associate Presbytery; Viz. I. Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace . . . II. Act for Renewing the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Nations (Edinburgh, 1744), p. ix. 66  This item listed the following works: ‘[Matthew] Henry’s Comment on the old and new Testament’, ‘[William] Burkitt on the new Testament’, ‘[John] Guise’s [Guyse’s] Paraphrase on the new Testament’, ‘Bishop [Joseph] Hall’s Contemplations’, ‘Bishop [Ezekiel] Hopkins’s Sermons’, ‘[Thomas] Boston’s Fourfold state’, ‘[Benjamin] Jenks’s Submission to the Righteousness of God’, ‘[Benjamin] Jenk’s Devotions’, ‘[Ralph] Erskins’s Sermons and Sonnets’, ‘[Anton Wilhelm] Boehm’s Sermons’, ‘[Joseph] Allen’s [Alleine’s] Alarm’, ‘[Charles] Wesley’s, [John] Mason’s and [Isaac] Watt’s Hymns’, ‘[William] Beveridge’s private Thoughts and Resolutions’, ‘[Samuel] Wright’s born again’, ‘[Thomas] Shepherd’s sincere Convert and Parable of the Ten Virgins’, ‘[Thomas] Halyburton’s Life abridged by Mr. John Wesley’, ‘Gilbert Tennent’s presumptuous Sinner detected’. 67  Weekly Miscellany, 30 June 1739. 68  The Sentiments of Archbishop Tillotson and Sharp on Regeneration, and of Bishop Moor, Blackal, Bull, &c. on Justification by Faith Only, Recommended to the Perusal of the More Serious and Considerate Followers of Mr Whitefield (London, s.d. [1739/1740]), pp. 13, 45.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

50  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy unprejudiced Persons’. Since then there had been ‘little or no Difference among the Divines’ on the issue of ‘Good Works’, which were widely accepted as ‘the Conditions of Justification’. There is an element of irony in the fact that Church cited Bull—a traditional defender of Arminianism—in an attack on Wesley, another Arminian. Clearly, by the 1740s, ‘Arminianism’ did not denote one, homogeneous doctrinal position. While acknowledging that Wesley had publicly ‘disowned’ the ‘worst Tenets’ of Calvinism, Church still charged him with unwittingly spreading Calvinistic soteriology by denying that works were a condition of the new birth.69 Wesley’s soteriology was certainly inconsistent with Bull’s. In fact, Wesley agreed with Tillotson that, where Paul had described an initial justification, independent of works, James had described a final justification (salvation), of which works were a condition. Yet, while Wesley stressed the importance of baptism as ‘the outward Sign’ of ‘inward Grace’, he disagreed with Tillotson’s belief that Paul was describing baptism, arguing instead that first justification entailed ‘an entire Change of Heart’.70 The differences between Bull’s and Tillotson’s teachings on justification were not lost on Samuel Hallifax, fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. In 1760 Hallifax attacked John Berridge, a ‘certain teacher among the METHODISTS’, who had recently preached ‘before the University of Cambridge’ on ‘Justification by Faith alone, without Works’. Hallifax’s work was not, however, typical of orthodox attacks on Methodism in the sense that he also rebuked the late Bull for treating The notion of two Justifications, a first and final, as false in itself, and foreign to the design both of St. Paul and St. James. His argument is this: that no one is entitled to the favour of even a first Justification, who hath not performed the works of Repentance; and therefore works are necessary as well to the first Justification as the second. The learned Writer was not aware that he was here contradicting the whole tenor of St. Paul’s writings, who constantly ascribes the Justification of a Heathen to mere Grace and Favour, only.

Instead, Hallifax praised the ‘excellent Dr. [Isaac] BARROW’ and ‘the celebrated Archbishop TILLOTSON’ for teaching that Paul had excluded the ‘Works of Morality, as well as the Ceremonies of the Jewish Law’. Hallifax’s reverence for Barrow and Tillotson probably stemmed from his Cambridge education.71 His 69 T. Church, Some Farther Remarks on the Rev. Mr John Wesley’s Last Journal, Together with a Few Considerations on His Farther Appeal: Shewing the Inconsistency of His Conduct and Sentiments, with the Constitution and Doctrine of the Church of England, and Explaining the Articles Relating to Justification (London, 1746), pp. 74–5. 70  Works, Journal II, p. 128; J. Wesley, A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (London, 1745), pp. 4, 28. For Wesley’s discussions of baptism, see K. J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville, TN, 2007), pp. 262–5. 71 S. Hallifax, Saint Paul’s Doctrine of Justification by Faith Explained in Three Discourses before the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1760), pp. iii, v–vii. Both Barrow’s and Tillotson’s sermons were

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  51 dismissal of Bull was not shared by George Horne, fellow (and future President) of Magdalen College, Oxford. On 7 June 1761 Horne preached an anti-­Methodist sermon, subsequently published at the request of the Vice-­Chancellor, Joseph Browne. In this sermon Horne praised ‘the incomparably learned Bishop Bull’, whose ‘work, the Harmonia Apostolica’, had caused the ‘total defeat’ of the ‘solifidian, or antinomian heresy’. Horne reiterated Bull’s argument that Paul and James had described the same type of justification. Thus, when Paul excluded works, he merely excluded those ‘heathen and Jewish works . . . performed without the grace of Christ’. Clearly there was no single response to Methodist soteriology on which orthodox divines agreed. It is unclear whether Horne’s sentiments were triggered by Hallifax’s denunciation of Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica.72 Horne’s sermon was swiftly attacked by Wesley, who asked rhetorically whether placing ‘any Good Work’ before Justification was ‘as absurd as the supposing an Apple or any other Fruit to grow before the Tree?’ Wesley added that the Church’s authority weighed ‘more than even that of Bp. Bull, or that of any single Man whatever’. The ‘authority’ to which Wesley referred was the Books of Homilies and the Thirty-­Nine Articles. Article XI: Of the Justification of Man declared that righteousness resulted, not from ‘our own Works’, but from faith in Christ. This teaching, Wesley noted, stemmed from Homily V: Of Good Works, which was inspired by John Chrysostom (c.347–407). Chrysostom, along with other ‘antient Authors’— including Origen (c.184–c.253), Cyprian (c.200–58), and Augustine (354–430)— believed that the thief on the cross was ‘justified by Faith alone’.73 An earlier anti-­Methodist sermon by Arthur Bedford had similarly scrutinized the Fathers.74 Bedford did not deny that numerous Fathers, including Ambrose (c.340–97) and Basil of Caesarea (330–79), taught that anyone who believed in Christ was ‘saved without Works, by Faith only’. These ancient theologians had not, however, meant that a ‘justifying Faith’ was devoid of ‘true Repentance, Hope, Charity, Dread and the Fear of God’—all of which was displayed by the

recommended to Cambridge students by Daniel Waterland. See Waterland, Advice to a Young Student, pp. 24–5, 32. 72 G.  Horne, Works Wrought through Faith a Condition of Our Justification: A Sermon Preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, June 7. 1761 (Oxford, 1761), pp. 5, 22. 73 J.  Wesley, A Letter to the Rev. Mr Horne: Occasioned by His Late Sermon Preached before the University of Oxford (London, [1762]), pp. 8–9, 16–17. See Certayne Sermons, or Homelies Appoynted by the Kynges Maiestie, to bee declared and redde, by all Persons, Vicares, or Curates. Euery Sondaye in their Churches, where they haue cure (London, 1547), p. H3r–v. 74 The most extensive treatment of patristic scholarship in seventeenth-­ century England is Quantin, Church of England. For studies covering a slightly later period, see G. V. Bennett, ‘Patristic Tradition in Anglican Thought 1660–1900’, in G. Gassmann and V. Vajta (eds), Tradition in Luthertum und Anglikanismus (Gütersloh, 1972), pp. 63–85; E. Duffy, ‘Primitive Christianity Revived: Religious Renewal in Augustan England’, in D. Baker (ed.), SCH, Vol. 14: Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (Oxford, 1977), pp. 287–300; R. D. Cornwall, ‘The Search for the Primitive Church: The Use of Early Church Fathers in the High Church Anglican Tradition, 1680–1745’, AEH, 59 (1990), pp. 303–29; J. C. English, ‘The Duration of the Primitive Church: An Issue for Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Anglicans’, AEH, 73 (2004), pp. 35–52.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

52  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy thief on the cross. Rather than promoting solifidianism, Homily V taught that, ‘If he [thief] had lived, and not regarded Faith and the Works thereof, he would have lost his Salvation again.’ To Bedford, therefore, the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints was inconsistent with the teachings outlined in Homily V. Wesley, as an Arminian, would, of course, have agreed with Bedford on this issue. This altercation was not the first time that Bedford had conflated Calvinist and Arminian evangelicals. In an earlier work Bedford had charged Wesley with teaching the Reformed doctrine of assurance.75

Assurance In one of his earliest sermons, Whitefield declared that They who are regenerate and born again . . . are infallibly certain of being as happy, both here and hereafter as an All-­wise, All-­gracious, All-­powerful GOD can make them, methinks, every one that has but the least Concern for the Salvation of his immortal Soul, having such Promises, such an Hope, such an Eternity of Happiness set before him, should never cease watching, praying and striving, till he find a real, inward, saving Change wrought in his Heart.76

In other words, anyone who was uncertain of their salvation had yet to experience the new birth, and had, therefore, yet to be saved. The importance of possessing assurance of election was something that John Calvin had stressed in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). Calvin noted that, while Paul seemed to condemn ‘security’ in Romans 11:20, he was only condemning a ‘careless, carnal security, which is accompanied with pride, arrogance, and contempt of others’.77 One of the earliest English Protestants to reject this doctrine was William Barrett, chaplain of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. In 1595 Barrett preached a controversial sermon, denying that it was possible to obtain an assurance of salvation. Barrett’s sermon enraged the staunchly Calvinist senior dons, who accused him of teaching ‘the popish doctrine of doubtfulness of our salvation’.78 By the 1730s, however, the tables had turned. Those, such as Whitefield, who taught an assurance of salvation were now theological outliers in the Church of England. To display this doctrine as an innovation, totally alien to the Church, one author in the Weekly Miscellany quoted from an oft-­cited authority among Calvinist evangelicals: Ezekiel Hopkins. In his sermon on regeneration, the late Hopkins had 75 Bedford, Doctrine of Justification by Faith, pp. 67, 74. 76 Whitefield, Nature and Necessity of Our New Birth in Christ Jesus, pp. 27–8. 77 J.  Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. and trans. H.  Beveridge (Peabody, MA, 2008), p. 643. 78 N. Pettit, The Heart Renewed: Assurance of Salvation in New England Spiritual Life (Lewiston, NY, 2004), p. 21.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  53 stated ‘expressly’ that ‘some Christians never have any full Assurance at all’. ‘No Christian’, Hopkins added, possessed such an assurance ‘at all Times’.79 Contrary to the author’s belief, the quotation from Hopkins did not contradict Reformed orthodoxy. In fact, Calvin stressed that it was perfectly normal for the elect’s feelings of assurance to be dampened by periods of doubt and anxiety.80 Orthodox Anglicans were not the only authors who rejected the Reformed doctrine of assurance. For most of his ministry, Wesley, as an Arminian, taught that it was possible to fall from grace, meaning that Christians could only be assured of their present salvation. During the first half of 1738, however, Wesley imbibed Peter Böhler’s belief that saving faith provided full assurance and freedom from all sin, thereby removing all doubts and fears. These high expectations were not realized in the aftermath of Wesley’s Aldersgate conversion on 24 May 1738. Throughout the latter half of 1738, Wesley was plagued by self-­doubt, leading him to question his conversion.81 Wesley’s private disenchantment with Böhler’s teachings is evidenced by his response to one of the earliest anti-­ Methodist polemics, Arthur Bedford’s The Doctrine of Assurance (1738), which was based on a sermon preached at St Lawrence Jewry, London, on 13 August 1738. Throughout the Doctrine of Assurance Bedford sought to show that ‘a Man may be a true Christian’ without possessing ‘an Assurance of his Salvation’. Such an assurance was, according to Bedford, ‘given to very few’ and only to those ‘whom God calls forth either to extraordinary Services, or to extraordinary Sufferings’. Assurance had been given to the ‘Apostles’, who were ‘called to . . . convert the whole World from Superstition and Idolatry’. Furthermore, it had been necessary for the righteous to have such ‘Supernatural Assistance’ during ‘Times of Persecution, both among the primitive Christians, and in Queen Mary’s Days’. Yet, this special gift of assurance was rendered obsolete once Christians were ‘safe from any such Dangers’. That the godly were not freed from doubt and fear was, according to Bedford, evidenced throughout the Bible. From the Old Testament, Bedford highlighted David’s sense of having God’s ‘arrows’ stuck fast inside him (Psalm 38:2), and Hezekiah’s affliction, which led him to fear that he would ‘not see the Lord’ (Isaiah 38:11). From the New Testament, Bedford cited Paul’s description of faith as a journey of ‘meekness’, which entailed ‘long-­suffering’ and ‘forbearing one another in love’ (Ephesians 4:2). In this work Bedford referred neither to Wesley nor Whitefield, though he did single out ‘Moravia’ as one location where this ‘Doctrine of Assurance’ was propagated.82

79  Weekly Miscellany, 11 August 1739. For the passage, as it appears in Hopkins’s sermon, see Hopkins, ‘Sermon XI’, in Works of the Right Reverend and Learned Ezekiel Hopkins, p. 551. 80 Calvin, Institutes, 462. 81 Olson, Wesley and Aldersgate, ch. 4. 82 A. Bedford, The Doctrine of Assurance, or The Case of a Weak and Doubting Conscience: A Sermon Preached at St. Lawrence Jewry, in the City of London, on Sunday, August 13 1738 (London, 1738), pp. 4–5, 9–10, 12, 34.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

54  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Given that Whitefield—who had yet to encounter the London Moravians—was abroad for most of 1738, it is unlikely that he was Bedford’s target.83 Wesley, on the other hand, was at this time aligned—at least on the surface—with the London Moravians. He had also discussed assurance in some recent sermons preached in London.84 Clearly Wesley was the one under scrutiny here. Wesley’s private disenchantment with Böhler’s soteriology would have placed him in an awkward position. He could have printed a response to Bedford, denying that he taught such a doctrine of assurance. This manoeuvre would, however, have offended Böhler, whose soteriology had been described accurately by Bedford. Also, by responding publicly to a work in which he was not named, Wesley would only have associated himself with Bedford’s accusations even further. Ultimately, Wesley wrote to Bedford on 28 September 1738, informing him that, due to intelligence received, he knew that he was the target of the polemic and the sermon from which it stemmed. Wesley claimed that, when he spoke of ‘assurance’, he meant a ‘hope; or a conviction’ that ‘we have a measure of the true faith in Christ’, and that, ‘if we continue to watch and strive and pray’, it will lead to ‘sanctification’ in this life and ‘redemption’ in the next. Wesley’s rejection of doctrines such as ‘an assurance of salvation’ and ‘the impossibility of falling from grace’ was, he argued, shared by the Moravians. In fact, the doctrine of assurance described by Wesley would have been disagreeable to Böhler and his London associates, who described justification and sanctification as simultaneous events, which resulted in a full deliverance from sins, doubts, and fears.85 Evidently Wesley sought to distance himself from Böhler’s soteriology without offending him in the process. As shall be shown, Wesley’s initial failure to respond publicly to Bedford came back to haunt him.86 By 1739 Wesley was mostly reassured that intermittent doubt was normal among converts. One text which helped him to arrive at this conclusion was Jonathan Edwards’s Faithful Narrative, which described cases of melancholia among the Northampton converts. Nevertheless, the soteriology that Wesley proceeded to formulate was resolutely anti-­Calvinist and, therefore, disagreeable not only to Edwards, but also to Whitefield.87 In Free Grace Wesley argued that the Calvinist doctrine of assurance was dangerous because it destroyed Christians’ ‘Zeal for Good Works’.88 In response, Whitefield claimed that it was impossible for Arminians to possess a ‘full Assurance of Faith’ because they rejected the ‘Doctrine of Election’. Whitefield lamented that some, such as Wesley, ‘have an Assurance that they are in Christ to Day, but take no Thought for, or are not assured that they shall be in him to-­morrow, nay, to all Eternity’. He prayed that 83  Whitefield did not encounter the London Moravians until the evening of his return to England in early December 1738, when he attended a Fetter Lane meeting. See Whitefield, Journal 3, p. 1. 84 For an overview of Wesley’s friendship with the Moravians and its subsequent decline, see C. Podmore, The Moravian Church in England, 1728–1760 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 73–80. 85 Olson, Wesley and Aldersgate, p. 76. 86  Works, Letters I, pp. 562–4. 87 Olson, Wesley and Aldersgate, p. 80. 88 Wesley, Free Grace, pp. 15–16; Collins, Theology of John Wesley, pp. 129–37.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  55 Wesley and others who shared this view would be brought to a ‘Sense of his [Christ’s] eternal Love’.89 By 1740 Wesley was describing ‘degrees’ of assurance and justifying faith. Initially this process involved an ‘assurance of the Holy Spirit’, which, in Wesley’s case, occurred at Aldersgate. Once a person was assured of the Holy Spirit’s presence within them, they were then required to gain a ‘full assurance of faith’. This second assurance was obtained through ‘entire sanctification’, which Wesley sometimes described as ‘Christian perfection’. When Wesley spoke of ‘assurance’, he was, therefore, referring not to ‘an Assurance of what is Future’ but to an assurance ‘of what now is’. Christians could, according to Wesley, feel assured that they were walking in a path of righteousness, though they could never be certain that they would remain on this path for the rest of their lives.90 Clearly Wesley and Whitefield’s doctrines of ‘assurance’ differed radically. These theological distinctions were not, however, initially clear to some. An item in the 4 April 1741 issue of the Weekly Miscellany observed that Wesley had not ‘confuted’ Bedford’s sermon, thereby implying that he adhered to the Reformed doctrine of assurance, which the author described as one of the ‘Dregs of the Reformation’.91 In 1742 Wesley eventually broke his silence by publishing an account of a meeting on 6 October 1738 between him and Bedford. During this meeting, Wesley had apparently informed Bedford of the ‘Injury he had done both to God and his Brother [Charles Wesley], by preaching and printing that very weak Sermon on Assurance’. Wesley had also reiterated the point, made in his unpublished letter to Bedford, that the doctrine he preached—‘An Assurance of our Present Pardon’—differed from the doctrine against which Bedford had written.92 Despite—or, perhaps, because of—Wesley’s efforts to silence these accusations, authors continued to blur his and Whitefield’s doctrines of ‘assurance’. In 1750 Wesley expressed frustration that Bishop Lavington had charged him with teaching ‘an Assurance of Salvation’. Citing a couple of references to ‘assurance’ and ‘security’ in the annals of the Society of Jesus, the straw-­clutching Lavington had associated this doctrine, not with Calvinism, but with Jesuitism. In response, Wesley stated that, while Bedford’s ‘Ignorance’ was probably ‘involuntary’, he was sure that Lavington’s was entirely ‘voluntary’. It was clear from Lavington’s citations that he had consulted the volume of Wesley’s Journal which described his meeting with Bedford. To Wesley it was, therefore, inconceivable that ‘Mr. Bedford’s mistake’ had escaped Lavington’s attention.93 Wesley, however, was fighting a losing battle. In 1757 Theophilus Evans bemoaned the ‘presumptuous Doctrine of Assurance . . . and the Certainty of Salvation, (whereof the two 89 Whitefield, Letter from the Reverend Mr George Whitefield, to the Reverend Mr John Wesley, pp. 19–20. 90 Collins, Theology of John Wesley, pp. 129–37; Olson, Wesley and Aldersgate, p. 80. 91  Weekly Miscellany, 4 April 1741. 92 J. Wesley, An Extract of the Revd Mr John Wesley’s Journal, from August 12, 1738, to Nov. 1, 1739 (Bristol, 1742), p. 9. 93 Wesley, Letter to the Author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists, pp. 27–8; Lavington 1, pp. 43–5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

56  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Champions do make such a Rant in their Journals)’.94 Anglican clergymen were not the only authors who made such over-­generalizations. In her Essay on Schism Mary Hill described an assurance of salvation as a doctrine that united Methodists.95 The topic of assurance featured prominently in A Caveat against the Methodists (1760), written anonymously by Richard Challoner, a Roman Catholic bishop, who served as Vicar Apostolic of the London District from 1758 to his death in 1781. In 1737 the fiercely anti-­Catholic Bishop Gibson had reported Challoner’s clandestine activities to the Duke of Newcastle.96 Challoner’s Caveat, therefore, illuminates the politico-­ theological disparities among those who combated Methodism. As with many anti-­Methodist Anglicans, Challoner either ignored or was oblivious to the fact that there was no ‘doctrine of assurance’ that unified Methodists. Indeed, Challoner attacked ‘the Methodist’s presumptuous Confidence, in the Way of an absolute Assurance, of the Remission of his Sins, and of his Justification, and of his eternal Salvation’. Justifying faith did not, according to Challoner, incorporate a ‘confident Assurance (excluding all Manner of Doubt or Fear) of our being justified’. Rather, it consisted of a ‘firm Belief of all that God has any ways revealed, or promised’. Wesley would have agreed with Challoner in so far as he also believed that a person could not possess an assurance of their ultimate salvation. Such certainty, Challoner claimed, was not ‘Part of the Faith which was first delivered to the Saints’. Moreover, ‘it was never heard of in the Church of God, for fifteen hundred Years’. This statement suggests that Challoner sought to subtly attack the Reformation. Further evidence of such an agenda can be discerned from Challoner’s discussions of good works. Challoner condemned ‘their [the Methodists’] Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone’, which had been ‘anathematized at its first Appearance, by the undoubted Heirs of the Apostles’. It was, apparently, for this reason that the Methodists ‘could have no Commission’ from the ‘Pastors of the apostolic Churches’.97 Citing Matthew 25:31–46, Challoner outlined the terms of justification: The eternal Doom both of the Sheep and of the Goats, will be decided by their Works; particularly by the Works of Mercy and Charity: and the Kingdom of Heaven will be given, as a Reward, to those who have been diligent in good Works.98

Here Challoner was reiterating the Council of Trent’s affirmation that the formal cause (not condition) of justification was a sanctifying grace, incorporating works. 94 Evans, History of Modern Enthusiasm, p. 117. 95 Hill, Essay on Schism, pp. 4–6. 96 This 1737 letter from Gibson to Newcastle has been reproduced in an anonymous article, en­titled ‘The Dark Days of English Catholicism’, which appeared in the 16 July 1910 issue of The Tablet (pp. 8–9). For an unfinished draft of this letter, see Bodleian MS. Eng. c. 3190, fol. 122. 97 [R. Challoner], A Caveat against the Methodists (London, 1760), pp. 8, 26, 42. 98 [Challoner], A Caveat, p. 38.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  57 Presumably Challoner was describing all Protestants when he condemned ‘the Methodists, or any other new raised Sect, who have no Succession from . . . that original, never-­failing, one, holy, catholic and apostolical Society, founded by Christ’. Thus Challoner’s work illuminates the ways in which anti-­Methodism sometimes served alternative purposes—in this case, as a ‘Trojan Horse’ to attack Protestantism. His deception was not, however, lost on Wesley.99 In November 1760 Wesley was handed four anti-­Methodist tracts. He scru­tin­ ized each one in a letter, published in Lloyds Evening Post on 24 November 1760. Three of the tracts were written by Anglican authors. The other tract was, according to Wesley, by a ‘Dignitary’ of ‘the church of Rome’. He was, of course, referring to Challoner’s work. While Wesley was oblivious to its authorship, it was clear to him that ‘A Caveat against the Methodists’ was, ‘in reality, a Caveat against the Church of England; or rather against all the Churches in Europe who dissent from the Church of Rome’. Wesley was deeply disturbed that this work was being distributed alongside Anglican attacks on Methodism. What especially puzzled him was why any ‘Protestants, nay Protestant Clergymen’ wished to purchase and disseminate such a polemic. Wesley surmised that some of his Protestant opponents may have seen ‘introducing Popery’ as the ‘only way to overthrow’ Methodism, which they viewed as the larger ‘evil of the two’. Alternatively, it was possible that Challoner’s real agenda had escaped some Protestant readers. In the event of the latter, Wesley urged his Protestant adversaries to consider their actions ‘more seriously’.100 On 19 February 1761 Wesley wrote a more detailed response to Challoner, which appeared as two segments in the London Chronicle on 19 February and 28 February 1761. In this letter Wesley claimed to be ‘pleading’ not for the ‘Methodists only, but for the whole body of Protestants’. The ‘Reformed Church’ had never been ‘wanting’ of ‘divinely appointed’ and ‘assisted’ teachers. These teachers were the ‘proper successors’ of the ‘saints’ to whom Christ’s message was delivered originally. The ‘Church of Rome’, on the other hand, taught ‘unscriptural, novel corruptions’. Nor was it in ‘unity with itself ’. Rather, there were ‘numberless divisions’ among Catholics. Wesley proceeded to address several of Challoner’s doctrinal criticisms. For instance, he countered Challoner’s charge that the Fathers had ‘anathematized’ the doctrine of justification taught by Protestants. Glossing over his and Whitefield’s differing understandings of justification and works, Wesley attacked the ‘Prelates at the Council of Trent’, who had ‘anathematized the Apostle Paul’ with their alleged doctrine of works righteousness. Despite it featuring prominently in Challoner’s work, Wesley failed to address his adversary’s discussions of ‘assurance’. Thus Challoner’s insinuation that Methodists shared a homogeneous, Calvinistic doctrine of assurance remained

99 [Challoner], A Caveat, p. 5.

100  Lloyds Evening Post, 24–6 November 1760.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

58  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy undisputed. Such restraint stood in stark contrast to Wesley’s earlier rebuttal of the sentiments conveyed by Bedford and Lavington. Clearly, in the face of a Roman Catholic adversary, Wesley believed it was counterproductive to highlight divisions among Protestants.101 Exploring Wesley’s responses to Bedford, Lavington, and Challoner has highlighted the differing ways in which he addressed his critics, and how he manipulated these responses to suit the intended recipient. When Wesley addressed an Anglican opponent, he was happy to distance himself from the doctrines favoured by Moravians and Calvinist evangelicals. On the other hand, when Wesley addressed a Roman Catholic adversary, his top priority was to convey an image, albeit a false one, of Protestant unity.102 This strategy, of course, was nothing new. Rather, the façade of a united Protestant front was particularly prevalent during times of national crisis, such as the 1745 Jacobite rebellion. Indeed, when posed with a real Catholic adversary in the form of the Young Pretender, Anglican and Dissenting ministers preached anti-­Jacobite sermons that were rich in references to the Marian persecutions and the Spanish Armada, but downplayed inter-­ Protestant divisions.103 Linda Colley’s notion that a common Protestantism undergirded eighteenth-­century British ‘identity’ was only true in certain, usually very turbulent, circumstances.104

Conclusions The soteriological clashes between Methodists and their High Church opponents need to be viewed as the continuation of a longstanding dispute over definitions of ‘true’ Church of England doctrines, as outlined in the Books of Homilies and the Thirty-­Nine Articles. This dispute, which dated back to the Restoration, had initially been fought between ‘moralist’ Arminian divines, such as George Bull, and Reformed clergymen, such as John Edwards. These polemical skirmishes subsequently transcended denominational boundaries, engaging Calvinist Dissenters, such as Jonathan Warne, who cited Edwards to support his belief that most Anglican divines were doctrinal schismatics. It was through Warne’s writings that Whitefield was introduced to Edwards’s works. Whitefield’s reliance on 101  The letter is reproduced in its entirety in Works, Journal IV, pp. 303–8. 102 For Wesley’s relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, see D.  Butler, Methodists and Papists: John Wesley and the Catholic Church in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1995). Wesley’s clash with Challoner is explored in chapters 7 and 8. 103  See  J.  J.  Caudle, ‘The Defence of Georgian Britain: The Anti-­Jacobite Sermon, 1715–1746’, in Francis and Gibson, Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon, pp. 245–60. 104 See L. Colley, Britons Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, CT, 1992). Colin Haydon’s monograph on anti-­Catholicism in eighteenth-­century England adopts a more cautious approach, noting that charges of ‘popery’ were often utilized in disputes between Protestants. See C. Haydon, Anti-­Catholicism in Eighteenth-­Century England, c.1714–80: A Political and Social Study (Manchester, 1993).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Justification and Assurance  59 Edwards was evidenced particularly by his infamous attack on Tillotson, which was little more than a reiteration of Edwards’s earlier condemnation of the late archbishop. Conversely, anti-­Methodist High Churchmen combated Whitefield’s soteriology by citing Bull, whom they portrayed as the victor of a successful war against ‘solifidian’ remnants in the Restoration Church. Other seventeenth-­ century theologians, such as Henry Hammond, were the subject of a polemical tug of war between Methodists and their High Church opponents. Of course, Wesley, as an Arminian, shared several theological convictions with the latter group, most notably the belief that works were a necessary condition of one’s ul­tim­ate justification. However, because of his references to a doctrine of ‘assurance’, Wesley was often charged with teaching Calvinist doctrines. Those divines, such as Thomas Church, who recognized Wesley’s Arminian convictions sometimes viewed him as an unwitting promoter of Calvinism because he, like Whitefield, denied that sanctifying works were a condition of the new birth. Paradoxically, both Wesley and Whitefield were sometimes charged with placing too much emphasis on sanctification. The next chapter will discuss these attacks on Methodist perfectionism and explore the ways in which anti-­ Methodist divines tried to reconcile such grievances with their seemingly contradictory allegations of antinomianism.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

3

Perfectionism and Self-­Denial In the second edition of his History of Modern Enthusiasm (1757) Theophilus Evans described an incident which had occurred in New London, Connecticut, in 1743. Citing Chauncy’s Seasonable Thoughts, Evans described the activities of one of Whitefield’s ‘fiery Zealots’, James Davenport. Having ‘pretended to receive a Command from the Spirit to destroy every Ornament and bodily Dress that any one most delighted in’, Davenport ordered his followers to throw their finery onto an open fire. Intriguingly, Evans omitted the crudest (and most memorable) aspect of this story. According to both Chauncy’s work and a couple of Boston newspapers, Davenport had removed his own breeches, throwing them into the flames. An embarrassed follower reportedly retrieved the breeches, ordering Davenport to instantly put them back on.1 Here Evans was recounting an incident which, according to historians of the so-­called ‘Great Awakening’, exacerbated pre-­existing tensions between radical and moderate evangelicals, ultimately curtailing the progress of evangelicalism in New England.2 In the previous chapter it was shown that—because of their seemingly excessive emphasis on justification by faith and their apparent neglect of good works— Methodists were often accused of propagating antinomianism. Paradoxically, however, Methodists were also charged with teaching lessons in self-­denial which, to many Anglican divines, were both unrealistic and unnecessary. Evans’s reference to the Davenport incident was only one of many attacks on evangelical self-­denial. Indeed, more prominent evangelicals, such as Wesley and Whitefield, were often attacked for their self-­denial, which stemmed partly from the teachings of William Law. This chapter seeks to explain the perceived links between asceticism and antinomianism, while also showing that Wesley’s and Whitefield’s teachings of self-­denial differed little from the sentiments of some of their High Church opponents.

1 Evans, History of Modern Enthusiasm, p. 114. For colonial accounts of this incident, see C.  Chauncy, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (Boston, MA, 1743), pp. 220–3; Boston Weekly Post-­Boy, 28 March 1743; Boston Evening-­Post, 11 April 1743. 2 T. S. Kidd, The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (New Haven, CT, and London, 2007), pp. 153–5; H. S. Stout and P. Onuf, ‘James Davenport and the Great Awakening in New London’, Journal of American History, 70 (1983), pp. 556–78.

The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0004

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  61

Wesley’s ‘Holy Living’ Asceticism The probability that historians of Methodism have overstated the novelty of the Oxford ‘Holy Club’ can be discerned from Thomas Haywood’s unpublished 1722 biography of the mystical Non-­Juring physician Francis Lee (1661–1719). It was, according to Haywood, during Lee’s time as a student at St John’s College, Oxford, in the 1670s, that he often starved himself and practised self-­flagellation.3 As a member of the ‘Holy Club’ during the late 1720s and early 1730s, John Wesley practised a similarly rigorous regimen, involving regular prayer, fasting, and Bible study. The seemingly monastic regimen of the Oxford Methodists was motivated by their desire to restore the ‘primitive Christianity’ of the post-­apostolic Fathers. This primitivism was inspired by the patristic scholarship of William Cave (1637–1713) and the works of ‘holy living’ authors, such as Jeremy Taylor’s The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living (1650), Robert Nelson’s The Practice of True Devotion (1708), and William Beveridge’s Private Thoughts upon Religion (1709). Like Wesley, these theologians had immersed themselves in the writings of the Fathers.4 Although he was quick to condemn their adherence to ‘popish’ dogmas, Wesley’s early primitivism was also influenced by the mystical piety of the medieval monk Thomas à Kempis (1380–1471) and the French nobleman Gaston de Renty (1611–49). In 1741 Wesley published extracts from Jean Baptiste Saint-­ Jure’s La vie de Monsieur de Renty (1651), which included de Renty’s discussions of self-­denial and mortification.5 By around 1730 Wesley was also reading William Law’s ascetic teachings. In A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (1726) Law stressed that, when he referred to ‘perfection’, he was not describing a ‘State of Life’ which was ‘neither necessary, nor practicable by the Generality of Christians’.6 Indeed, Law firmly adhered to the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, meaning that he viewed sinless perfection as unattainable in this life. In fact, Law believed that it was this ‘Corruption of our Nature’ that made ‘Mortification, Self-­denial, and the Death of our Bodies necessary’.7 By ‘perfection’ Law meant a ‘holy and religious Conduct’ in ‘every State of Life’.8 In A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (1729) Law expanded on these teachings, stating that ‘all the sons of Adam’ needed to undergo 3  Thomas Haywood, ‘An Essay towards the Life of or Rather Some Account of the Late Learned and Pious Francis Lee, M.D.’ (1722), Gonville and Caius College Library, Cambridge, Add. MS 725/752, no foliation. 4 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, pp. 68–73; Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, pp. 39–40; Hammond, John Wesley in America, pp. 21–3. 5  See E. Duffy, ‘Wesley and the Counter-­Reformation’, in J. Garnett and C. Matthew (eds), Revival and Religion since 1700: Essays for John Walsh (London, 1993), pp. 1–19. 6 W. Law, A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (London, 1726), p. 1. 7 Law, Practical Treatise, p. 20. For a study of Law’s Augustinianism, and how it influenced Wesley’s theology, see J. W. Wright, ‘  “Use” and “Enjoy” in John Wesley: John Wesley’s Participation within the Augustinian Tradition’, WMS, 6 (2014), pp. 23–8. 8 Law, Practical Treatise, p. 2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

62  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy a ‘painful, sickly life, denying and mortifying their natural appetites, and crucifying the lusts of the flesh in order to have a share in the atonement of our Saviour’s death’. As with Henry Hammond and George Bull before him, Law diverged from Reformed soteriology by placing sanctification before justification. Yet the process of sanctification described by most contemporary Arminian divines fell short of the rigorous quest for ‘perfection’ taught by Law.9 To Law ‘perfection’ entailed the renunciation of one’s earthly possessions. Moreover, Law described the ‘peaceful, pleasurable Enjoyments of Riches’ as ‘a State of Life every where condemned by our Blessed Saviour’.10 To support this teaching, Law cited numerous biblical passages, including Jesus’s command to his disciples that they needed to ‘deny themselves and take up their Cross daily’ (Luke 9:23), and the synoptic Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’s encounter with a ‘rich young man’ (Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30). The latter story highlighted both the virtues of communitarianism and the evils of ‘Mammon’ because Jesus had instructed the young man—despite his rigid adherence to the ‘Commandments of God’—to sell all his possessions and give all his money to the poor.11 Furthermore, Law diverged from the Reformation’s condemnation of celibacy by arguing that abstinence carried spiritual benefits: You know, my children, the high perfection, and the great rewards of virginity; you know how it frees from worldly cares and troubles, and furnishes means and opportunities of higher advancements in a divine life; therefore love, and esteem, and honour virginity: bless God for all that glorious company of holy virgins, that from the beginning of Christianity have, in the several ages of the Church, renounced the cares and pleasures of matrimony, to be perpetual examples of solitude, contemplation, and prayer.12

Law was echoing Jeremy Taylor, who believed that celibacy provided a ‘huge advantage of [to] religion’ by enabling clergymen to live ‘a life of Angels’, and providing them with the ‘great opportunity for the retirements of devotion’.13 Of course, Wesley and his circle were not the only individuals who read Law’s works at Oxford. It was at Oxford that a young Samuel Johnson read Law’s A Serious Call in 1729. Initially the Pembroke College undergraduate had expected it to be ‘a dull book’, at which he would ‘laugh’. Yet Johnson found Law’s book to 9 W. Law, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life: Adapted to the State and Condition of All Orders of Christians (London, 1729), p. 473. 10 Law, Practical Treatise, p. 99. 11 Law, Practical Treatise, pp. 128, 161, 171. 12 Law, Serious Call, p. 365. 13 J. Taylor, The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living (London, 1650), p. 82. For more on asceticism and celibacy during the latter half of the seventeenth century, see S. Apetrei, ‘ “The Life of Angels”: Celibacy and Asceticism in Anglicanism 1660–c.1700’, RRR, 13 (2011), pp. 247–74. For a wider overview of post-­Reformation defences of celibacy, see B. W. Young, ‘The Anglican Origins of Newman’s Celibacy’, CH, 65 (1996), pp. 15–27.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  63 be an ‘overmatch’, causing him to start ‘thinking in earnest of religion’.14 In fact both Law’s A Serious Call and his Christian Perfection sold well. By 1734 both works had gone through three editions. These works were, of course, intended, at least partly, as attacks on Georgian consumerism. The popularity of Law’s ascetic works is significant because it suggests that eighteenth-­century society was not nearly as frivolous and extravagant as it has often been described by scholars.15 Moreover, John Wesley’s 1735 edition of Thomas à Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ (c.1418–c.1427) was published by the High Church bookseller Charles Rivington, who subsequently published several anti-­Methodist polemics. This early collaboration between Wesley and Rivington shows that, at least initially, there was nothing particularly controversial about the former’s asceticism. Nevertheless, some viewed the Oxford Methodists’ asceticism as extravagant and eccentric.16 On 9 December 1732 Fog’s Weekly Journal ran an item describing the Oxford Methodists as ‘Sons of Sorrow’, constantly in a state of ‘perpetual Melancholy’ because of their exclusion of ‘innocent Pleasures’. To them Oxford was simply a ‘Monastery’. The author hinted at the Methodists’ celibacy by noting that they ‘Blood let once a Fortnight, to keep down the carnal Man’, surmising that—‘if they knew how to make a proper Incision’—they would copy Origen’s self-­ mutilation.17 This item appeared shortly after the death of William Morgan, an associate of Wesley, whose self-­denial apparently drove him to starvation. In October 1732 Wesley had written a letter to Morgan’s father, denying that the young man’s death was exacerbated, if not caused, by his asceticism. That Wesley’s asceticism remained unchanged by Morgan’s death was evidenced by his sermon, ‘The Circumcision of the Heart’, preached at the University Church, St Mary’s, in January 1733. Many viewed this sermon—in which Wesley stressed the im­port­ ance of imitating Christ—as excessive, though it was approved by Euseby Isham, Rector of Lincoln College. Given that Oxford was, at this time, gripped by a widespread fear of deism, it is understandable that influential dons, such as Isham, were reluctant to curb Wesley’s seemingly eccentric excesses.18 Wesley’s asceticism was also defended in The Oxford Methodists (1733), which has traditionally been attributed to William Law, and, more recently, to the writer and printer Samuel Richardson (or one of his associates).19 The author praised the Methodists 14 J. Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D.: Including a Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, ed. J. W. Croker, 2 vols. (New York, 1833), I, p. 24. 15 For consumer culture in eighteenth-­ century England, see J.  Brewer, The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1997); M. Berg, Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth-­Century Britain (Oxford, 2005). 16  See Wesley, Christian’s Pattern. 17  Fog’s Weekly Journal, 9 December 1732. 18 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, pp. 68, 92; Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists, pp. 51–3. 19  J.  A.  Dussinger, ‘The Oxford Methodists (1733;1738): The Purloined Letter of John Wesley at Samuel Richardson’s Press’, in M. New and G. S. J. Reedy (eds), Theology and Literature in the Age of Johnson: Resisting Secularism (Newark, DE, 2012), pp. 27–48.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

64  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy for tackling those ‘Entertainments and Diversions’ that signified the ‘Depravity of the Age’. That this work went through at least three editions further shows that there was a receptive audience for attacks on Georgian consumerism and immorality.20 The perceived absence of sinful, European influences among the indigenous Americans fuelled Wesley’s mission to Georgia in 1735. However, as a result of the various barriers he encountered in the colony, Wesley became increasingly disenchanted with some of the primitivist ideals he had imbibed at Oxford.21 Upon his return to England in 1738, Wesley started questioning some of Law’s seemingly legalistic teachings, particularly his belief that self-­mortification was a necessary condition of receiving God’s grace.22 Instead, Wesley was drawn increasingly to the soteriology of Martin Luther, whose preface to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was described as triggering Wesley’s Aldersgate conversion. In a sermon, preached on 18 June 1738, Wesley praised Luther for reviving the doctrine of ‘salvation by faith’, which taught that all pre-­conversion works ‘merited nothing of God but Condemnation’.23 Yet, despite his very limited engagement with the writings of Jacobus Arminius, Wesley’s post-­Aldersgate teachings on sanctification were closer to those of Arminius than of Luther.24 Both Luther and Arminius believed that God’s grace acted independently of human effort. Neither, therefore, viewed sanctification as a condition of regeneration. Unlike Luther, however, Arminius believed that God provided fallen humanity with the gift of prevenient grace, enabling them to accept or reject his saving grace. To Arminius, faith was a precarious journey, in which justification and sanctification were interlinked. Faith was evidenced by sanctifying works of holiness. Those who abandoned their faith were, therefore, no longer capable of performing ‘good’ works, placing their salvation in jeopardy. Similarly, while it was to be expected that regenerates would continue to sin out of weakness, those who sinned out of malice also jeopardized their salvation.25 Luther, on the other hand, taught that salvation depended on ‘God alone’, and was ‘utterly beyond’ the ‘powers, counsels, efforts, will and works’ of humans.26

20  The Oxford Methodists: Being Some Account of a Society of Young Gentlemen in That City, So Denominated (London, 1733), pp. 8, 22. 21  See Hammond, John Wesley in America. 22  On 14 May 1738 Wesley wrote the first of several letters to Law, charging him with placing excessive emphasis on works, and neglecting the importance of possessing a saving faith. See Joling-­van der Sar, ‘Controversy between William Law and John Wesley’, pp. 448–52. 23 J. Wesley, A Sermon on Salvation by Faith (London, 1738), pp. 16, 22. 24 Collins, Theology of John Wesley, p. 163. See also H.  Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation (London, 1950). 25  K. D. Stanglin and T. H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York, 2012), p. 176. 26  Cited in M.  Barone, Luther’s Augustinian Theology of the Cross: The Augustinianism of Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation and the Origins of Modern Philosophy of Religion (Eugene, OR, 2017), p. 104n7.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  65 Shortly after his Aldersgate conversion, Wesley started criticizing Luther’s teachings on sanctification. Wesley’s anti-­Luther sentiments stemmed from the ‘stillness’ controversy within the Fetter Lane Society, a London Moravian group of which he was briefly a member. Introduced by Peter Böhler, and championed by Philipp Heinrich Molther, the doctrine of ‘stillness’ entailed a contemplative period, in which one waited for an assurance of salvation, while abstaining from church attendance, Communion, preaching, and good works. To Wesley ‘stillness’ was an antinomian doctrine, which neglected the vital ‘means of grace’ through which one encountered the Holy Spirit. Wesley’s opposition to ‘stillness’ triggered his departure from the society in July 1740.27 That Wesley associated the Moravians’ alleged antinomianism with Luther is clear from a journal entry, dated 4 April 1739, in which he described two separate meetings on the outskirts of Bristol between ‘three women’ and ‘four young men’. Both groups met to ‘confess their faults one to another, and pray one for another’. Wesley scoffed, ‘How dare any man deny this [meeting] to be . . . a means of grace, ordained by God?’ Such a denial, Wesley claimed, was reminiscent of Luther’s ‘solifidianism’, which equated ‘St. James’s Epistle’ to an ‘epistle of straw’.28 Many years later, in one of his last sermons, Wesley alleged that Luther was ‘ignorant of the doctrine of sanctification’.29 Wesley’s criticisms of Luther’s soteriology were, of course, overly simplistic. In fact Luther stressed the importance of sanctification as an effect of salvation. It was, according to Luther, the ‘indwelling of Christ’ that ‘redeems us from the bondage of Egypt (sin), makes us free, [and] gives us power to do good’.30 Luther, Arminius, and Wesley all differed from Law by denying that the atoning grace of God was preceded by sanctification. Yet, despite rebuking Law for his apparent neglect of the atonement, Wesley continued to espouse various ascetic teachings associated with him. In Christian Perfection (1741) Wesley argued that all regenerates needed to strive for ‘perfection’ if they were to remain on a path of righteousness. As with Law, Wesley stressed that he did not support a doctrine of sinless perfection. As a firm believer in the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, Wesley denied that it was possible for Christians to be freed from ignorance and temptation. Rather, by ‘perfection’ or ‘entire sanctification’ Wesley meant a state in which Christians no longer committed any outward or voluntary sins.31 Moreover, Wesley continued to share Law’s belief that celibacy provided spiritual 27 Podmore, Moravian Church in England, p. 60. 28  Works, Journal II, p. 47. 29  J. Wesley, ‘On God’s Vineyard: A Sermon on Isaiah V.5’, in J. Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, 8 vols. (London, 1788), VIII, p. 255. 30  Quoted from E. L. Towns, ‘Martin Luther on Sanctification’, Bibliotheca Sacra, 125 (1969), p. 118. 31 J. Wesley, Christian Perfection (London, 1741), pp. 12–14, 17. For Methodist perfectionism, see T. L. Smith, ‘George Whitefield and Wesleyan Perfectionism’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 19 (1984), pp. 63–85; I. Maddock, ‘George Whitefield: Christian Perfectionist?’, Reformed Theological Review, 74 (2015), pp. 147–61; D. McEwan, ‘ “I Am Yet Persuaded, You Do Greatly Err”: Whitefield, Wesley, and Christian Perfection’, in Maddock, Wesley and Whitefield?, pp. 87–104.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

66  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy benefits. In his Thoughts on Marriage and a Single Life (1743) Wesley commended Christians who kept ‘themselves pure in a single Life’, but stressed that he was no opponent of marriage, which was ‘agreeable to Holy Writ’.32 Finally, Wesley continued to display a hostile attitude towards wealth, which was reminiscent of Law’s communitarianism. In a sermon on the ‘use of money’ Wesley issued the following instruction: ‘having first gained all you can, and secondly saved all you can, then give all you can’.33 Throughout the post-­Aldersgate years of his ministry, Wesley’s asceticism was attacked by various Anglican authors. Initially such teachings tended to attract ridicule rather than serious criticism. In a letter to Thomas Birch, dated 16 September 1738, William Warburton described how Wesley and another travelling preacher had recently taken ‘up their lodging with a Clergyman of their acquaintance’. The ‘master of the house’ had discovered ‘their chamber-­pot full of blood’, and, ‘on asking the occasion, was told it was their method, when the blood grew rebellious, to draw it off, by breathing a vein in this manner’. Though there is much ambiguity here, it is plausible to assume that Warburton was referring to phlebotomy as a means of relieving lust.34 As Wesley’s popularity grew, some clergymen became increasingly concerned about his perfectionism. Despite stressing the contrary, Wesley was charged by the author of an item in the 4 April 1741 issue of the Weekly Miscellany with teaching the Pelagian doctrine of ‘sinless Perfection’, thus contravening Article IX (Of Original Sin).35 In a subsequent issue of this periodical, the same author alleged that Wesley’s ‘Notion of an absolute Perfection’ destroyed the ‘principal Parts of the Duty of Prayer’ because it was impossible to ‘confess our Sins, if we have no Sins to be confessed’. It was, therefore, also impossible for Wesley to ‘join with the Liturgy of the Church of England, without the greatest Hypocrisy in the World’ because adherence to the Prayer Book required recognition of ‘our Sins and Defects’.36 To Bishop Lavington Wesley’s perfectionism was reminiscent of the monasticism of Francis of Assisi (c.1181–1226), who had worn the ‘vilest’ clothes, and Ignatius Loyola (1491–1556), who ‘made the Women weep, tear their Hair’, and ‘throw away their vain Ornaments’.37 Lavington also lambasted Wesley for recommending ‘Popish Books’ on asceticism, such as ‘the Life of Mr. de Renty’. During the late 1730s, however, it

32 J. Wesley, Thoughts on Marriage and a Single Life, 2nd ed. (Bristol, 1743), pp. 2, 9. This work went through multiple editions. 33  J. Wesley, ‘The Use of Money: A Sermon on Luke xvi. 9’, in J. Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions (Bristol, 1760), p. 140. For more on Wesley’s Christian communitarianism, see Walsh, ‘John Wesley and the Community of Goods’. 34  Nichols and Nichols, Illustrations, II, pp. 94–6: Warburton to Birch, 16 September 1738. Gibson and Begiato also discuss this anecdote in Sex and the Church (pp. 150–1). 35  Weekly Miscellany, 4 April 1741. 36  Weekly Miscellany, 18 April 1741. 37  Lavington 1, p. 21.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  67 was Whitefield, not Wesley, whom anti-­Methodist authors often associated with self-­denial and perfectionism.38

Whitefield’s Self-­Denial In a 1739 sermon Whitefield attacked the ‘polite and fashionable Doctrine’ that ‘there is a Fitness in Man, and that God, seeing you a good Creature, bestows upon you his Grace’. Rather, grace was the ‘free Gift of God’, from which sanctification flowed. Any works performed before justification were nothing more than ‘filthy Rags’, as described in Isaiah 64:6. Thus Whitefield adhered to the Reformed doctrine of sanctification, which—as he often reminded Arminian divines—was consistent with Articles XII and XIII. It was because of such teachings that Whitefield was often charged with solifidianism. Paradoxically, however, Whitefield also urged his followers to adopt a strict regimen which—while not  as rigorous as that demanded by Wesley—was too severe for many contemporaries.39 Given the highly theatrical nature of his preaching, it is ironic that the theatre was one popular eighteenth-­ century indulgence to which Whitefield was opposed. As a child he had displayed a passion for performing. His original ambition had been to become an actor. That these views did not survive into adulthood is clear from his later claim: ‘when you see the players on the stage, you see the Devil’s children grinning at you’.40 Opposition to the theatre was only one aspect of Whitefield’s self-­denial. His Journal entry for 30 March 1739 described an open-­air sermon—preached strategically near a maypole—in which he warned the Kingswood colliers against ‘misspending their Time in revelling and dancing’.41 In an early sermon Whitefield alleged that many of his Anglican brethren were guilty of ‘frequenting Taverns’ and indulging in ‘Billiards, Bowls, and other unlawful Games’.42 Equally scathing was his 1740 attack on The Whole Duty of Man. Whitefield rejected Allestree’s implication that ‘Gaming’ was acceptable in the eyes of God if ‘the End of our doing it be meerly to recreate ourselves’. Whitefield proceeded to recall a recent encounter with a man whom he ‘reproved . . . for Gaming in the Christmas Holy-­Days’. The man, apparently, sought to justify his actions by claiming that ‘the Whole Duty of Man’ had instructed him that ‘he might do so’.43

38  Lavington 2, pp. 172–3. 39 G.  Whitefield, The Folly and Danger of Being Not Righteous Enough: A Sermon Preached at Kennington-­Common, Moorfields, and Blackheath (London, 1739), pp. 26–8. 40  Quoted from Stout, Divine Dramatist, p. 239. 41  Whitefield, Journal 3, p. 64. 42 Whitefield, Jesus Christ the Only Way to Salvation, p. 6. 43 Whitefield, Letter from the Rev. Mr Whitefield from Georgia, to a Friend in London, p. 10.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

68  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Whitefield’s depiction of The Whole Duty of Man was unfair. Far from facilitating self-­indulgence, the book echoed Puritan devotional literature by stressing discipline and self-­denial. It was, according to Allestree, essential for Christians to engage in ‘Fasting and Humiliation’, thereby ‘afflicting our souls’ and ‘humbling them deeply before God’. Rather than pursuing ‘sensual pleasure’ through drink and other luxuries, true believers gained the ultimate form of ‘enjoyment’ by ‘exercising that most Christian Grace of Charity’.44 Yet, while Puritan authors, such as William Perkins (1558–1602), advocated fasting and works, they denied that such rigorism brought people closer to Christ. Instead, such a regimen served as vital ‘preparation’ for conversion because it enabled people to recognize both their sinfulness and the uselessness of their own efforts. Allestree, on the other hand, denied that conversion was a prerequisite for a moral and godly life. As was shown in the previous chapter, such teachings were viewed by Whitefield as legalistic.45 The Whole Duty of Man was not the only seventeenth-­century authority which Whitefield identified as a source of sinful diversions. Quoting John Edwards, Whitefield attacked the late Tillotson for ‘blaming and chastising those Parents that strictly forbid their Children the use of Playing Cards or Games’.46 Compared with Edwards and Whitefield, Tillotson had favoured a relatively moderate approach to recreations, though it would be wrong to describe his attitudes as ‘lax’.47 Despite acknowledging that plays could potentially be ‘instructing and useful’, Tillotson had remained true to his Puritan roots by attacking the ‘prophaneness’ of theatres, which he deemed unfit for a ‘Christian Nation’.48 Similar anti-­stage sentiments were voiced by Non-­Jurors, such as Jeremy Collier and William Law.49 As with Wesley, Whitefield’s teachings of self-­denial were inspired, at least partly, by Law.50 44 [R. Allestree], The Whole Duty of Man, Laid Down in a Plain and Familiar Way, for the Use of All, but Especially the Meanest Reader (London, 1738), pp. 52, 359. 45 B.  Tipson, Inward Baptism: The Theological Origins of Evangelicalism (New York, 2020), pp. 129–31. 46 Whitefield, Three Letters, pp. 11–12. Tillotson’s exact words were: ‘I have likewise known some Parents that have strictly forbidden their Children the use of some sorts of Recreations and Games under the notion of heinous Sins, upon a mistake, that because there was in them a mixture of Fortune and Skill they were therefore unlawful; a Reason which I think hath no weight and force in it, though I do not deny but human Laws may for very prudent reasons either restrain or forbid the use of these Games.’ See J. Tillotson, ‘Sermon LIII: Of the Education of Children’, in The Works of the Most Reverend Dr John Tillotson, Late Archbishop of Canterbury: Containing Fifty-­Four Sermons and Discourses, on Several Occasions. Together with the Rule of Faith (London, 1696), p. 643. 47  In one sermon Tillotson condemned those who were ‘drudges and slaves’ to their ‘sensual pleasures and lusts’. See J. Tillotson, ‘Sermon CLVIII: Of Diligence in Our General and Particular Calling’, in Tillotson 2, p. 383. 48  J. Tillotson, ‘Sermon CLX: The Evil of Corrupt Communication’, in Tillotson 2, p. 399. 49  See J. Collier, A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage (London, 1698); W.  Law, The Absolute Unlawfulness of the Stage-­ Entertainment Fully Demonstrated (London, 1726). 50  In his 1740 spiritual autobiography Whitefield briefly recalled being impressed by Law’s Serious Call before entering Oxford in 1732. See Whitefield, Short Account of God’s Dealings, p. 25. Like Wesley, Whitefield became increasingly cautious of Law’s seemingly legalistic teachings, choosing to omit his

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  69 Law’s Christian Perfection was cited by Whitefield in The Nature and Necessity of Self-­Denial (1738). This publication was based on a sermon preached by Whitefield in October 1737, when he was still under the influence of the Oxford Methodists. Throughout this work Whitefield propagated an Augustinian denial of pleasure for pleasure’s sake, which was reminiscent of Law’s asceticism. Rather than seeking to please the self, all actions, including eating and drinking, needed to be done ‘to the Glory of God’. Whitefield denied that Christians should find ‘no Pleasure’ in their actions, adding that one found ‘Pleasantness’ in ‘Wisdom’s Ways’. However, he also stressed that ‘pleasing ourselves must not be the principal, but only the subordinate End of our Actions’. As with Law, Whitefield reflected on Jesus’s commands for his followers to ‘deny’ or ‘forsake all’ (Luke 9:23; 14:33). Unlike Law, however, Whitefield did not advance a communitarian exegesis of these passages, arguing instead that these texts should not be ‘taken in a literal Sense’. He noted that the rich would cease to be ‘serviceable to the Poor’ if they were obliged to sell all their possessions and donate all their money to charity. To Whitefield these passages simply meant that Christians were required to deny themselves the ‘pleasurable Indulgence and Self-­enjoyment of Riches’. Elsewhere Whitefield described ‘Self-­suffering’ and ‘Self-­renuntiation [sic]’ as ‘indispensable Means of recovering our Primitive Glory’. Whitefield’s emphasis on human effort was, of course, contrary to Calvinist doctrine, of which he subsequently became an ardent defender. Whitefield’s Calvinism was not, however, totally confirmed when he preached this early sermon. Another seemingly un-­Calvinist notion, advanced by Whitefield in this sermon, was that Christians would be ‘made perfectly whole’ if they renounced the world. His terminology resembled that of Wesley, whose doctrine of Christian perfection was subsequently opposed by Whitefield. It would, however, be misleading to describe Whitefield’s perfectionism as a ‘phase’ that simply passed once he firmly committed to Calvinism.51 In his later works Whitefield often claimed that all regenerates had achieved a degree of perfection. Like Wesley, he often urged his followers to strive for perfection by imitating the life of Jesus.52 In fact, many of Whitefield’s concerns about Wesleyan perfectionism stemmed from a false interpretation of Wesley’s def­in­ ition of ‘perfection’. Whitefield, along with some of his followers, erroneously

original endorsement of Law from a later edition of his spiritual autobiography, published in 1756. See Rivers, ‘William Law and Religious Revival’, p. 636. 51 G. Whitefield, The Nature and Necessity of Self-­Denial: A Sermon Preached at the Parish Church of St. Andrew, Holborn, on Sunday, October 9. 1737 (London, 1738), pp. 5, 7–8, 13, 16, 18. For the theological context of this sermon, see M. K. Olson, ‘Whitefield’s Conversion and Early Theological Formation’, in Life, Context, and Legacy, pp. 36–9. 52  In a sermon, preached during his voyage to Philadelphia in 1739, Whitefield described ‘That universal Love, which gives the whole Strength of the Heart to God, and make us love every Man as we love ourselves’ as the ‘utmost Perfection to which the most perfect Religion can raise us’. See G. Whitefield, A Letter from the Reverend Mr George Whitefield to the Religious Societies of England: Written in His Voyage to Philadelphia 1739 (Edinburgh, 1742), p. 24.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

70  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy believed that—like Quakers—Wesley viewed ‘sinless perfection’ as attainable in this life.53 Ironically Whitefield was sometimes forced to assert his rejection of sinless perfection. In a 1739 work, for example, he stated that Christians ‘can never be Righteous enough, much less perfectly Righteous’ because, ‘in this Life, Men cannot attain to the Perfection of the heavenly Father’. In this instance Whitefield was responding to Joseph Trapp.54

‘Righteous Over-­Much’? Joseph Trapp is most noted for his poetry, which earned him the appointment of first Professor of Poetry at Oxford in 1708. One of his early associates was Henry Sacheverell, with whom he shared a deep respect for the memory of the martyred King Charles I and an antipathy for Dissenters.55 As a ‘Hanoverian Tory’, however, Trapp was ‘more attracted by the political than by the theological aspect of High Churchmanship’, preventing him from endorsing the rigorous regimen espoused by Law.56 While Trapp lamented that theatres were often places of amusement, he still viewed the stage as a potential forum for ‘Lessons of Morality’, as evidenced by his 1704 tragedy, Abra-­Mule, or Love and Empire. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Trapp viewed the ascetic teachings conveyed in Whitefield’s Nature and Necessity of Self-­Denial as excessive.57 In 1739 Trapp preached a series of sermons across London and Westminster. Targeted primarily at Whitefield, these sermons focused on the theme of being ‘righteous over much’ (Ecclesiastes 7:16). In his Journal Whitefield claimed that, on 29 April 1739, he attended one of these sermons, and ‘heard Doctor Trapp preach most virulently against’ him.58

53  In a letter to Wesley, dated 25 September 1740, Whitefield stated the following: ‘I am sorry, Honoured Sir, to hear by many Letters, that you seem to own a sinless Perfection in this Life [is] attainable.’ This letter appeared in a polemic by William Fleetwood, a young gentleman, whom Kirkham claims was an apothecary (see Outside Looking In, p. 41). Like Whitefield, Fleetwood erroneously believed that Wesley taught sinless perfection. See W.  Fleetwood, The Perfectionists Examin’d, or Inherent Perfection in this Life, No Scripture Doctrine: To Which Is Affix’d, the Rev. Mr Whitefield’s Thoughts on this Subject, in a Letter to Mr Wesley (London, 1741), pp. 96–9, at p. 97. 54 G.  Whitefield, A Preservative against Unsettled Notions, and Want of Principles, in Regard to Righteousness and Christian Perfection (London, 1739), pp. 22, 29. In another sermon Whitefield described ‘Christian Perfection’ as something which ‘though begun on Earth, will be consummated only in Heaven’. See Discourses on the Following Subjects . . . To Which Is Added, Prayers on Several Occasions (London, 1739), p. 5. See also I. Maddock, Men of One Book: A Comparison of Two Methodist Preachers, John Wesley and George Whitefield (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 225–6. 55  R. Sharp, ‘Trapp, Joseph (1679–1747)’, ODNB. 56 J. H. Overton, William Law, Nonjuror and Mystic: A Sketch of His Life, Character, and Opinions (London, 1881), pp. 295–6. 57 J.  Trapp, Lectures on Poetry Read in the Schools of Natural Philosophy at Oxford (London, 1742), p. 300. 58  Whitefield, Journal 3, p. 89.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  71 On 5 June 1739 Trapp’s anti-­Whitefield sermons were published as The Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger of Being Righteous Over-­Much.59 Trapp commenced by denouncing Whitefield and his followers for their ‘immoderate, and mistaken Sanctity’, which had led them to ‘utterly reject all Enjoyment of worldly Pleasures, Honours, Riches, &c.’ Trapp alleged that, under Whitefield’s regime, the following restrictions applied: No Sort of Gayety or Expensiveness in Dress is permitted to any Persons whatsoever: No sort of Recreation or Diversion; nothing but an universal Mortification, and Self-­Denial: No Pleasure, but from Religion only; so that to taste an agreeable Fruit, or smell to a Rose must be unlawful: The bodily Appetites must not be in the least Degree gratify’d, any farther than is absolutely necessary to keep Body and Soul together, and Mankind in Being: No Allowances are to be made for melancholy Misfortunes; or human Infirmity: Grief must be cur’d only by Prayer; to divert it (as the World speaks) by worldly Amusements, is carnal and unchristian: No Books must be read, but Books of Piety: Even the noble Writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans are unfit to be perus’d by a Christian; who ought to renounce human Learning, and know nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucify’d.

This ‘extreme Folly and Weakness’ of ‘being righteous over-­much’ was contrary ‘both to sound Reason and true Religion’. Trapp identified William Law as the root cause of Whitefield’s ‘uncommanded Perfections’.60 He expanded on this argument in a later polemic, claiming that he had always viewed Law’s Christian Perfection as ‘one of the most Pernicious Books that has been publish’d in This Age’. Trapp attributed the rise of Methodism to Law’s book because the ‘Leaders of those Enthusiasts extol it to the Skies’.61 In fact Trapp had overstated the extent to which Whitefield was influenced by Law, whom the itinerant only cited once in his Nature and Necessity of Self-­Denial. As a result, Trapp erroneously associated some of Law’s teachings with Whitefield. For example, Trapp alleged that Whitefield supported Law’s communitarian exegesis of Jesus’s command to forsake all. ‘In the Days of Christ’, it was, Trapp noted, ‘almost impossible for a Man to adhere to Christ, without hazarding the Loss of his temporal Goods.’ In this context, therefore, ‘forsaking all’ probably meant ‘no more, than being ready to do so, whenever the Discharge of our Duty shall require it’. This problem was simply not something that Hanoverian Christians were likely

59 We know that this work was first published on 5 June 1739 from an advertisement which appeared in the London Daily Post on this date. 60 Trapp, Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger, pp. 4, 13–16. 61 J. Trapp, A Reply to Mr Law’s Earnest and Serious Answer (As it Is Called) to Dr Trapp’s Discourse of the Folly, Sin, and Danger of Being Righteous Over-­Much (London, 1741), pp. 6–7.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

72  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy to encounter.62 John Brownsword, a Sussex curate, similarly condemned Methodists for interpreting Jesus’s instruction to the rich young man as the ‘levelling Principle’ advanced by ‘Mr. Law in his Treatise of Christian Perfection’. Brownsword cited numerous examples of property ownership in the New Testament, including John, who ‘had his own House’ (John 19:27). Similarly, Barnabas ‘had an Estate of his own, which he sold afterwards indeed towards the support of the Christian Church . . . But not from the Obligation of any Christian Precept’ (Acts 4:36–7).63 Others focused on Whitefield’s contempt for recreational diversions. One anonymous ‘Presbyter’, who was mentioned in the previous chapter, branded Whitefield ‘an over-­scrupulous Zealot’ for attacking The Whole Duty of Man’s discussions of recreations. Rather than endorsing ‘idle Pastimes’, such as ‘Nine-­Pins, Skittles, Dice, Cards, and such-­like’, this devotional had merely sought to encourage ‘Moderation’ as a more pragmatic alternative to the seemingly joyless existence of seventeenth-­century Puritans.64 Samuel Weller similarly defended those diversions, such as ‘Horse-­races, Balls, and Assemblies’, deemed by Whitefield to be ‘lying Vanities, hellish Meetings, and the Devil’s strongest Holds’. Weller provided scriptural precedent for these activities, particularly dancing, which had trad­ ition­ al­ ly been condemned by continental Reformers and Anglo-­ American Puritans. After quoting ‘the Virgin should then rejoyce in the Dance, both young Men and old together’ (Jeremiah 31:13), Weller noted that, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the elder son heard ‘Music and Dancing’ as he ‘drew nigh to his Father’s House (Luke 15:25)’.65 Both passages were subsequently scrutinized by Vincent Perronet, the evangelical incumbent of Shoreham, Kent, in An Essay on Recreations (1745). To Perronet neither passage endorsed the ‘Modern’, sensual dancing witnessed at balls. Rather, these passages described the Hebrew ritual of dancing as an ‘Exercise of Devotion’.66 Dancing was not, however, the only rec­re­ ation­al activity for which clergymen cited scriptural precedent. In The Imposture of Methodism William Bowman described Jesus’s apparent conviviality, ­rhetorically asking Methodist preachers, ‘Did not our blessed Saviour come eating and drinking? Was he not a Guest at Weddings, Suppers, and Entertainments? Did

62 Trapp, Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger, pp. 19–20. 63 J. Brownsword, The Case of the Rich Young Man in the Gospel, Endeavoured to Be Set in a Clear Light, and the Levelling Principle of Selling All, and Giving it to the Poor, as Drawn from That Passage and Lately Advanced and Taught by Some, Proved to Be Ill Grounded: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St. Mary le Bow, London, on Sunday, September 16 1739 (London, 1739), pp. 11, 15. 64 Presbyter, Defence of the Author of the Whole Duty of Man, pp. 37–8. 65 [Weller], Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit, pp. 44, 47–9; Whitefield, Journal 4, pp. 30–1, 49. For an overview of Reformed/Puritan opposition to dancing, see chapters 2 and 3 in Wagner, Adversaries of Dance. 66 V. Perronet, An Essay on Recreations (London, 1745), pp. 16–19.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  73 he not work a Miracle in converting Water into Wine . . . to answer the innocent Ends of Cheerfulness and Mirth?’67 Clearly Methodism’s emphasis on self-­ denial concerned many Anglican divines. Such criticism highlights a couple of paradoxes. First, attacks on Methodist perfectionism seem to contradict the allegations of antinomianism which, as was shown in the previous chapter, were also levelled at Wesley and Whitefield because of their emphasis on justification by faith. Second, it seems strange that Methodists were attacked for their self-­denial, given especially that asceticism was certainly not a new phenomenon. To explain these apparent contra­dic­tions, it is necessary to explore the perceived links between asceticism and antinomianism.

The Perceived Dangers of Evangelical Self-­Denial Whitefield’s concerns about clerical luxuries were shared, albeit not always publicly, by other divines. In a letter to Zachary Grey, dated 16 March 1739, John Lewis, incumbent of Margate, Kent, complained that many clergymen treated their ‘cures’ with ‘sneer & neglect’ by hunting during the day and drinking at night.68 Many eighteenth-­ century Anglican divines echoed the teachings of Tillotson and The Whole Duty of Man by favouring a moderate approach to re­cre­ ations. One should not, however, overstate the extent to which the clergy endorsed such pursuits. Throughout this period numerous clergymen feared that their parishioners were ignoring the religious aspects of parish wakes and focusing instead on the revelries that accompanied them.69 In 1725 Henry Bourne, a Newcastle incumbent, lamented that these feasts of ‘Dedication’ had ‘degenerated into Drunkenness and Luxury’.70 In 1738 an Oxfordshire parson similarly condemned the ‘tumultuous manner’ in which his parishioners celebrated festivals.71 Several Anglican opponents of Methodism were known for their attacks on public immorality. In a 1717 sermon Edmund Gibson urged the laity to remain

67 W. Bowman, The Imposture of Methodism Display’d: In a Letter to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Dewsbury (London, 1740), p. 58. 68  BL Add. MS 5831, fol. 129: John Lewis to Zachary Grey, 16 March 1739. 69  Michael Snape notes that, ‘throughout England, community harmony was fostered by calendars of popular festivities, amongst which the annual parish feast (or wake) usually held pride of place. The wake was a traditional celebration originally held on the Sunday closest to the feast day of the saint to whom the parish church was dedicated, but by the eighteenth century parish wakes usually occurred at harvest time, when food and money were in plentiful supply.’ See Snape, ‘Anti-­Methodism in Eighteenth-­Century England’, p. 262. 70 H. Bourne, Antiquitates Vulgares, or The Antiquities of the Common People. Giving an Account of Several of Their Opinions and Ceremonies. With Proper Reflections upon Each of Them; Shewing Which May Be Retain’d, and Which Ought to Be Laid Aside (Newcastle, 1725), p. 228. 71  Quoted from W. M. Jacob, Lay People and Religion in the Early Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 2002), p. 69.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

74  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy ‘fixt and stedfast’ in their ‘respective callings’, leaving ‘no place, either for Intemperance, Luxury, and such other Excesses, as grievously defile both Body and Soul’.72 Several years later, in a sermon preached before the Society for the Reformation of Manners, Gibson condemned ‘profaneness and immorality, within these large and populous cities: where great Wealth and Luxury sow the seeds of Lust and Debauchery’. In this instance Gibson’s sentiments were directed particularly at those who attended masquerade balls.73 Another work by Gibson, entitled An Earnest Dissuasive from Intemperance in Meats and Drinks (1740), combatted drunkenness with scriptural ammunition. By 1750 this work had reached its eighth edition, further highlighting the popularity of theological attacks on immorality and consumerism. Finally, in 1746 Gibson sought the prosecution of several individuals in the Diocese of London, whom he suspected of coach racing on a Sunday.74 The staunchly anti-­Methodist Weekly Miscellany was equally hostile towards those who ‘abuse the Lord’s Day by Idleness, Gaming or Travelling’.75 High Churchmen and evangelicals sometimes cited the same sources when attacking recreations. For instance, both Arthur Bedford and Martin Madan, an Anglican evangelical clergyman, cited Tertullian’s De Spectaculis (c.197–c.202) in their assaults on theatres, which the former described as ‘Synagogues of Satan’.76 Also, Trapp’s relatively tolerant approach to recreations was condemned not only by Methodists, but also by the Countess of Hertford. In a letter to the Countess of Pomfret, written shortly after the publication of Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger, Lady Hertford declared the following: At first he [Whitefield] and some of his brethren seemed only to aim at restoring the practice of the primitive Christians as to daily sacraments, stated fasts, frequent prayers, relieving prisoners, visiting the sick, and giving alms to the poor: but, upon sound ministers refusing these men their pulpits, they have betaken themselves to preaching in the fields; and they have such crowds of followers that they have set in a flame all the clergy in the kingdom, who represent them as hypocrites and enthusiasts. As to the latter epithet, some passages in Mr. Whitefield’s latest journals seem to countenance the accusation; but I think their 72 E.  Gibson, A Sermon Preached in the Parish-­Church of Lambeth, on Sunday the 20th October, 1717 (London, 1717), p. 6. 73 E. Gibson, A Sermon Preached to the Societies for the Reformation of Manners: At St. Mary-­le-­ Bow, on Monday, January the 6th, 1723 (London, 1723), p. 15. 74 W.  Gibson, The Church of England, 1688–1832: Unity and Accord (London and New York, 2001), p. 128. 75  Weekly Miscellany, 1 March 1740. 76 A.  Bedford, A Sermon Preached in the Parish-­Church of St. Butolph’s Aldgate, in the City of London, on Sunday the Thirtieth Day of November, in the Year of Our Lord 1729. Occasioned by the Erecting of a Play-­House in the Neighbourhood (London, 1730), p. 8; [M. Madan], Christian and Critical Remarks on a Droll, or Interlude, called The Minor. Now Acting by a Company of Stage Players in the Hay-­Market; and Said to Be Acted by Authority. In Which the Blasphemy, Falshood, and Scurrility of that Piece is Properly Considered, Answered, and Exposed (London, 1760), p. 40.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  75 manner of living has not afforded any grounds to suspect them of hypocrisy. The Bishop of London, however, has thought it necessary to write a pastoral letter, to warn the people of his diocese against being led away by them; though at the same time he treats them personally with great tenderness and moderation. I cannot say Dr. Trapp has done the same in a sermon which he has published, entitled, ‘The great Folly and Danger of being Righteous over-­much’; a doctrine which does not seem absolutely necessary to be preached to the people of the present age.77

Evidently, Lady Hertford was not a follower of Whitefield. Nevertheless, she clearly disapproved of Trapp’s seemingly dangerous tactics, favouring Bishop Gibson’s relatively moderate approach instead. This passage, therefore, reinforces the point that one should not speak of ‘anti-­Methodist Anglicans’ as a theo­logic­ al­ly homogeneous group. Also, the fact that the countess displayed admiration and respect for Whitefield’s self-­denial is significant because it suggests that, taken alone, there was nothing particularly controversial about these teachings. Henry Piers, incumbent of Bexley, Kent, also disapproved of Trapp’s work, endorsing instead Law’s belief that ‘a constant Spirit of universal Self-­denial’ was ‘in­dis­pens­ ably necessary’ for clergymen.78 Helen Berry argues that, during the eighteenth century, most clergymen advocated ‘moderate frugality amid the rise of a market-­driven commercialisation’.79 One should certainly not dismiss the role played by popular consumption as a catalyst for attacks on Methodism. Indeed, Trapp’s Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger would have resonated among Georgian consumers who sought religious justification for their recreational activities, possibly explaining why this work sold so well. It would, however, be problematic to view this polemic, along with other attacks on Methodist perfectionism, as merely defences of Georgian consumerism. In Trapp’s case, this explanation fails to explain why he was so slow to attack Law’s ascetic teachings. While Trapp claimed that he had always viewed Law’s asceticism as excessive, it was not until Whitefield cited Law in his Nature and Necessity of Self-­Denial that Trapp chose to attack the Non-­Juror in print. In fact, with the exception of a 1728 work by the playwright William Duncombe, Law’s asceticism received virtually no printed criticism prior to Trapp’s 1739 attack.80 77  A. C. H. Seymour (ed.), The Life and Times of Selina Countess of Huntingdon, 2 vols. (London, 1839), I, p. 197. 78 H. Piers, A Sermon Preached (in Part) before the Right Worshipful the Dean of the Arches, and the Reverend the Clergy of the Deanery of Shoreham (London, 1742), p. 22. 79  H. Berry, ‘The Pleasures of Austerity’, JECS, 37 (2014), p. 268. 80 Duncombe’s work was entitled A Letter to Mr Law: Occasion’d by Reading His Treatise on Christian Perfection: With a Copy of Verses (London, 1728). Duncombe acknowledged Law’s ‘pious Designs’ and agreed with his condemnation of the bawdiness surrounding ‘the Stage’ (p. 5). Duncombe was, however, disturbed by Law’s apparent contempt for the ‘innocent Pleasures of Life’ (p. 6). As with Trapp, Duncombe also attacked Law’s teachings on wealth, arguing that Law’s literal interpretation of Jesus’s command to ‘sell all’ was lacking in ‘common Sense and Reason’ (p. 7). Such ‘wild Enthusiasm’

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

76  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Despite their seemingly eccentric behaviour, the Oxford Methodists had similarly failed to stir any serious controversy outside the cloistered confines of the university (the 1732 item in Fog’s Weekly Journal being another brief exception). So why, from the late 1730s onwards, were Wesley and Whitefield attacked for their self-­denial? Moreover, how did anti-­Methodist polemicists reconcile their attacks on evangelical self-­denial with their seemingly contradictory allegations of antinomianism? It must be remembered that, unlike Law and the Oxford Methodists, evangelicals were widely perceived to harbour an anticlerical agenda, evidenced by practices such as open-­air preaching. Some, such as Trapp, saw a direct link between asceticism, anticlericalism, and antinomianism. According to Trapp, those who were ‘Righteous over-­much in Practice’ often became ‘Righteous over-­much in Practice and Doctrine’ before eventually turning ‘Immoral and Profligate in Both’. More specifically, Christians who observed the ‘greatest Rigour, Strictness, and Severity’ often proceeded to reject the ‘Rules and Orders of an excellently constituted Church’, causing them to become ‘scandalously immoral’ and fall ‘into the greatest Excess of Riot’. Historic examples of this transition from holiness to immorality included the ‘Montanists of old’ and the ‘German Anabaptists’.81 A similar transition was described in the 10 February 1739 issue of the Weekly Miscellany. Initially the Methodists were, according to the author, ‘look’d upon’ as ‘well-­meaning zealous People, whom the irreligious Boldness of these wicked Times had driven somewhat too far into the contrary Extreme’. Rather than returning to ‘that proper Medium, where true Piety and Christian Prudence fixes its Centre’, they had started boasting of being in a state of ‘sinless Perfection’. With this ‘new Sect’ came ‘new Advances’, such as rejecting the liturgy in favour of ‘Extemporary Effusions’. Ultimately the Methodists had started preaching ‘Notions of Justification by Faith’, which were reminiscent of the ‘old Puritans before the Beginning of the Grand Rebellion’. These ‘same Methods’ were also ‘used by the Anabaptists in Germany, whose Beginnings were as innocent’ as those of the Methodists.82 This argument was echoed in a later issue of the Weekly Miscellany, which stated that the type of perfectionism endorsed by Methodists had previously caused many sixteenth-­century Anabaptists to believe that they needed neither ‘Pardon’ nor ‘Forgiveness’, ultimately causing ‘Rebellion’ and ‘Destruction’.83 Bishop Lavington similarly argued that the Methodists’ path from perfectionism to immorality mirrored the ‘Illuminati’ of sixteenth-­century Spain, who, as a result of their ‘stiff ’ attempts at ‘Perfection’, believed that they were ‘above the Exercise of moral Virtues’. This group had, in turn, encouraged various

(p. 19) was, apparently, characteristic of the ‘Church of Rome’ (p. 20), in which one found similar ‘Monastick Retirements’ (p. 25). 81 Trapp, Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger, pp. 53–4. 82  Weekly Miscellany, 10 February 1739. 83  Weekly Miscellany, 4 April 1741.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Perfectionism and Self-Denial  77 ‘unclean mixtures’, which they viewed ‘as no sins’.84 To these anti-­Methodist authors history had proven that perfectionism could evolve into anticlericalism and, finally, antinomianism, once individuals started to believe that their apparent freedom from sin entitled them to disregard both the rules of their church and, more importantly, the moral law.85 One anonymous opponent of Whitefield described a slightly different relationship between perfectionism and antinomianism. Citing Josiah Tucker’s account of his ‘private Conversation’ with Whitefield, the author observed that Whitefield had maintained a rigorous regimen before his arrival at Oxford. Indeed, Whitefield claimed to have ‘constantly attended the publick Service of the Church, received the Sacrament, gave Alms, Fasted frequently six and thirty Hours . . . in short, practised every moral and Christian Duty’. Despite apparently being viewed as a ‘Saint’ by many, Whitefield concluded that such rigorism fell short of ‘true Christianity’ after reading Scougal’s Life of God, which taught him ‘the Necessity of a new Birth’. The author scoffed at Whitefield’s implication that his ‘rigid and severe’ regimen was ‘not enough to denominate him a Christian’. Whitefield’s original, ‘outward Practice of Religion’ had been replaced by ‘old obsolete Notions’, which were ‘destructive to Civil Society’, such as ‘Justification by Faith only, without Works’. As Theodore Dwight Bozeman and David Como argue, the rise of antinomianism among seventeenth-­century Anglo-­American Puritans was very much a backlash against the seemingly legalistic excesses of Puritan ascetics. Clearly this anti-­Methodist author viewed Whitefield’s solifidianism as a backlash against his early perfectionism.86

Conclusions Controversy surrounding Methodist perfectionism often stemmed from a failure to understand an opponent’s views. Wesley was falsely accused of teaching sinless perfection by Whitefield, who, ironically, faced similar accusations from Joseph Trapp. Taken alone, there was nothing particularly radical or controversial about Wesley’s and Whitefield’s teachings of self-­denial. In fact, throughout the 1730s and 1740s there was clearly a market for clerical attacks on immorality and indulgences, suggesting that many members of the laity shared similar concerns. Many of the works condemning theatres and other recreations were written by 84  Lavington 2, p. 154. 85 D.  S.  Lovejoy, Religious Enthusiasm in the New World: Heresy to Revolution (Cambridge, MA, 1985), p. 36. 86  Sentiments of Archbishop Tillotson, pp. 6–12. For antinomianism among seventeenth-­century Anglo-­American Puritans, see T.  D.  Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638 (Chapel Hill, NC, 2004); D. R. Como, Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-­Civil-­War England (Stanford, CA, 2004).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

78  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy prominent divines, such as Edmund Gibson and Arthur Bedford, who also attacked Methodism. Whitefield’s attacks on the ‘pleasure-­taking’ clergy were, therefore, a gross over-­exaggeration.87 The similarities between Methodist and High Church teachings of self-­denial serve to reinforce the relatively recent his­ tori­og­raphy of the Georgian Church, which has questioned the extent to which this institution had declined—both morally and spiritually—by the time of the so-­called ‘evangelical revival’.88 Despite these similarities, Methodist perfectionism was attacked by numerous authors, who advanced theological defences of pleasures and recreations. This chapter has, therefore, reinforced the argument that, in eighteenth-­ century England, there was no clear dividing line between doctrinal and social controversies. Paradoxically, attacks on Methodist perfectionism were often compounded with charges of antinomianism, which was associated with licentiousness. Some authors, notably Trapp, explained this apparent contradiction by describing a direct path from asceticism to antinomianism. This pathway was allegedly confirmed by the actions of various historic sects, particularly sixteenth-­century Anabaptists, which were viewed as religious ‘enthusiasts’ by High Churchmen. But what was ‘enthusiasm’? This question will be explored in the next chapter.

87  Whitefield, Journal 3, p. 75. 88  See J. D. Walsh and S. Taylor, ‘The Church and Anglicanism in the “Long” Eighteenth Century’, in J. D. Walsh, C. Haydon, and S. Taylor (eds), The Church of England, c. 1689–c. 1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 1–64; M.  Smith, Religion in Industrial Society: Oldham and Saddleworth, 1740–1865 (Oxford, 1994); Gregory, Restoration, Reformation, and Reform; Gibson, Church of England, 1688–1832.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

4

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery Let an Enthusiast, in the Fever of his Imagination, vent the grossest Absurdities, yet some of the same Frame and Cast of Mind, in a Succession of Time, will foster them, and usher them afresh into the World as it were in a new Edition.1 These words were declared by Theophilus Evans in his History of Modern Enthusiasm. To Evans Methodism was merely a repackaging of earlier outbreaks of ‘enthusiasm’, spawned by the Reformation. The charge of ‘enthusiasm’ was the most common allegation posed to eighteenth-­century Methodists. But what was ‘enthusiasm’? Derived from the Greek term, enthusiasmos—meaning the ecstasy of the soul when communicating with the divine—charges of religious ‘enthusiasm’ dated back to the continental Reformation, when Anabaptists were described by Heinrich Bullinger as the ‘Enthusiastae’. In England ‘enthusiasm’ was discussed by several prominent philosophers throughout the tumultuous seventeenth century.2 In Enthusiasmus Triumphatus (1656) Henry More defined ‘enthusiasm’ as ‘a misconceit of being inspired’. Building on the foundations laid by Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), More described ‘enthusiasm’ as a ‘Hypochondriacal’ form of ‘melancholy’; a ‘naturall inebriation’, in which individuals were ‘intoxicated with vapours from the lowest region of their Body’, filling the mind with a ‘variety of imaginations’. Examples of alleged ‘enthusiasts’ ranged from the second-­century schismatic leader Montanus, to seventeenth-­century Protestant sectarians, such as Quakers, whom More branded ‘the most Melancholy Sect that ever was yet in the world’. In 1739 a heavily condensed version of Enthusiasmus Triumphatus was published as an anti-­Methodist polemic, entitled Enthusiasm Explained.3 1 Evans, History of Modern Enthusiasm, p. 149. 2 For discussions of ‘enthusiasm’ in early modern Europe and America, see Lovejoy, Religious Enthusiasm; M.  Heyd, Be Sober and Reasonable:  The Critique of Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden, 1995); D.  C.  Fouke, The Enthusiastical Concerns of Dr. Henry More: Religious Meaning and the Psychology of Delusion (Leiden, 1997); J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Enthusiasm: The Antiself of the Enlightenment’, HLQ, 60 (1997), pp. 7–28. 3 [H.  More], Enthusiasmus Triumphatus, or A Discourse of the Nature,  Causes,  Kinds, and Cure, of  Enthusiasme (London, 1656), pp. 2, 16–17, 21, 26, 39; [H.  More], Enthusiasm Explained, or A Discourse on the Nature, Kind and Cause of Enthusiasm, with Proper Rules to Preserve the Mind from Being Tainted with It (London, 1739). The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0005

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

80  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Another seventeenth-­ century philosopher who discussed ‘enthusiasm’ was John Locke. Despite his associations with John Owen and other Oxford Independents during the 1650s, Locke condemned the ‘enthusiasm’ exhibited by Interregnum sectarians, especially Quakers.4 In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) Locke stressed the importance of reason as a means of preventing ‘all the Extravagancy of Enthusiasm’ and discerning what was truly ‘divine Revelation’.5 He expanded on these observations in the fourth edition of the Essay (1700), which contained a new chapter, entitled ‘Of Enthusiasm’. Here Locke described the co-­dependent relationship between reason and revelation: Reason is natural Revelation, whereby the eternal Father of Light, and Fountain of all knowledge communicates to Mankind that portion of Truth, which he has laid within the reach of their natural Faculties: Revelation is natural Reason enlarged by a new set of Discoveries communicated by GOD immediately, which Reason vouches the Truth of, by the Testimony and Proofs it gives, that they come from GOD. So that he that takes away Reason, to make way for Revelation, puts out the Light of both.6

‘Enthusiasm’ was, however, a subjective term, which Methodists sometimes hurled back at their opponents. In The Nature of Enthusiasm (1755) Wesley concurred with the Lockean notion that ‘Religion is, the Spirit of a sound Mind, and consequently stands in direct Opposition to Madness of every Kind.’ Such ‘madness’, Wesley argued, was discernible to ‘every reasonable Christian’. Elsewhere Wesley addressed these ‘enthusiasts’ directly by declaring: ‘Ah poor Self-­deceivers! Christians ye are not. But ye are Enthusiasts in a high Degree.’ ‘Your whole life is Enthusiasm: as being all suitable to the Imagination, that you have received that Grace of God which you have not.’ To Wesley these ‘enthusiasts’ were a for­mid­ able foe because they had the ‘Majority’ on their side. Clearly he was charging his ‘orthodox’ Anglican opponents with delusional ‘enthusiasm’.7 By the eighteenth century some authors were advancing positive definitions of ‘enthusiasm’. Lord Shaftesbury, for instance, viewed ‘enthusiasm’ as an overpowering of the passions, which, if channelled with care, could cultivate sociability and artistry.8 John Byrom, a Manchester Jacobite and poet, argued that all humans exhibited a form 4 See J.  R.  Collins, In the Shadow of the Leviathan: John Locke and the Politics of Conscience (Cambridge, 2020), ch. 1. 5 J. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London, 1690), p. 340. 6 J. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 4th ed. (London, 1700), p. 423. 7  John Wesley, The Nature of Enthusiasm: A Sermon on Acts XXVI (London, 1755), pp. 13, 18. For more on Wesley’s discussions of ‘enthusiasm’, see I. Rivers, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660–1780, Vol. 1: Whichcote to Wesley (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 242–3. 8  J. E. Myers, ‘ “Supernatural Charity”: Astell, Shaftesbury and the Problem of Enthusiasm’, JECS, 37 (2014), pp. 299–314.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  81 of ‘enthusiasm’. Those who displayed ‘a right Enthusiasm’ sought to reach ‘that Godlike State and Condition, to which all Mankind were originally created’. Conversely, a ‘wrong’ form of ‘enthusiasm’ was exhibited by those who ‘hate Light’ and ‘retire into their Earthliness’.9 Equally subjective were the interlinked charges of ‘schism’ and ‘popery’. To many High Churchmen schism was not only a socio-­political rebellion, but also a sin against the ‘true’ apostolic Church of England. In a 1701 attack on Quakerism, Charles Leslie, a Non-­Juring divine, described the ‘Grievousness of the Sin of Schism, which is no less than a Tearing of Christ’s Body in Pieces’.10 Of course, anything that eroded the power of the Church was also a boon to the Papacy. Samuel Wesley equated schism with heresy and popery in his Advice to a Young Clergyman (1735), written for his curate at Epworth, Nathaniel Hoole, and published posthumously in October 1735 by his son, John.11 That John Wesley publicized his father’s ardently High Church doctrines is ironic, given that both he and Whitefield were charged subsequently with schism and ‘popery’ by numerous divines, who viewed their practices as subversive. In a 1745 anti-­Methodist polemic, John Maud, incumbent of St Neots, Huntingdonshire, urged all who separated from the Church to ‘consider seriously within themselves the Heinousness of Schism’—the characteristic ‘Sin’ of a ‘disguis’d Jesuit’.12 Both Wesley and Whitefield continually affirmed their loyalty to the Church. Wesley denied that neither he nor his followers were separatists, adding that the Church had gained communicants as a result of his ministry.13 Whitefield, as has been shown, viewed his Calvinism as a badge of conformity, arguing that Arminian divines had separated from the ‘true’ Reformation Church. Conflicting def­in­ itions of ‘enthusiasm’, ‘schism’, and ‘popery’, therefore, provided multiple litmus tests for what constituted ‘true religion’. By exploring the ways in which Methodists and their Anglican opponents grappled with these interlinked charges, this chapter locates these polemical exchanges within wider historical debates concerning the purpose, status, and meaning of the Reformation. As a natural first step, it is important to explore the conflicting ways in which anti-­ Methodists addressed the origins of the ultimate form of schism: ‘popery’.

9 J. Byrom, Enthusiasm; A Poetical Essay. In a Letter to a Friend in Town (London, 1752), p. vii. 10 C. Leslie, The Present State of Quakerism in England: Wherein is Shew’d, That the Greatest Part of the Quakers in England Are So Far Converted, as to Be Convinced (London, 1701), p. 8. 11 [S. Wesley], Advice to a Young Clergyman: In a Letter to Him (London, [1735]), p. 64; Gentleman’s Magazine, 5 (1735), p. 623. 12 J. Maud, An Apology for the Clergy, in a Letter to a Gentleman of Fortune, and Great Reading, Lately Turn’d Methodist and Hermit (Cambridge, 1745), pp. 42, 73. 13 Wesley, Farther Appeal, pp. 125–6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

82  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy

Pagano-­Papism One staunch opponent of both Methodism and ‘popery’ was Bishop Lavington. Like many anti-­Methodist authors, Lavington utilized history extensively. His historical discussions were decidedly Protestant in the sense that they focused almost entirely on either the pre-­Reformation era or the Counter Reformation. In the third volume of his Enthusiasm of Methodists (1751) Lavington compared Roman Catholic and Methodist ‘enthusiasm’ to the ancient ‘Heathen Mysteries, wherein the profound Secrets of Paganism were couched’. To Lavington the ‘most remarkable’ of these mystery religions was the Eleusinian mysteries, a two-­stage initiation, held annually to celebrate the cult of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis in ancient Greece, in which initiates were introduced to the ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ mysteries.14 Much ambiguity surrounds the nature of these initiations. In The Divine Legation of Moses (1738–41) William Warburton argued that the lesser mysteries propagated ‘the Doctrine of a future State’, and, therefore, taught the ‘Initiated’ that they ‘should be happier than all other Mortals in that State’. Successful initiates of the greater mysteries were taught that ‘Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the whole Rabble of licentious Deities, were indeed only dead Mortals’, who had been ‘subject, in Life, to the same Passions and Vices’ as themselves. Thus, the ultimate objective of the mysteries was ‘to remove the Errors of Polytheism’. The mysteries were, according to Warburton, ‘hidden and kept secret’ for ‘two Reasons’. For the lesser mysteries, such covertness was intended to stimulate ‘Man’s Curiosity’, thereby encouraging people to find out about the existence of a future state. The greater mysteries, on the other hand, depended on such secrecy because initiates were taught doctrines which were ‘not expedient for others to know’.15 In other words, the ‘polytheistic pantheon’—despite being ‘an illusion’— was ‘indispensable for the political order of the society’.16 Citing several ancient Greek scholars, including Herodotus and Plutarch, Warburton claimed that the Eleusinian mysteries originated from Egypt. ‘In Compliance to their Prejudices’, Moses had allowed the ‘Jewish People’ to maintain some of the ‘Egyptian Manners’ and ‘Superstitions’ of which they were ‘extremely fond’. The continuation of Egyptian rituals among the Jews was, according to Warburton, evidenced by Ezekiel’s reference to a ‘secret subterraneous Place’ 14 Lavington 3, pp. 306–8. For eighteenth-­century discussions of the Eleusinian mysteries, see A.  Ben-­Tov, ‘The Eleusinian Mysteries in the Age of Reason’, in M.  Mulsow and A.  Ben-­Tov (eds), Knowledge and Profanation: Transgressing the Boundaries of Religion in Premodern Scholarship (Leiden, 2019), pp. 197–227. 15  William Warburton, The Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated, On the Principles of a Religious Deist, from the Omission of the Doctrine of a Future State of Reward and Punishment in the Jewish Dispensation, 2 vols (London, 1738–41), I, pp. 138, 143–4, 148–9. 16  Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge, 1997), p. 101.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  83 in the Temple, which God instructed him to find by digging into a wall. God’s intention, apparently, was to expose Ezekiel to ‘what the Ancients of Israel do in the Dark’ (Ezekiel 8:7–12). Yet the doctrine of a future state—which had provided the ‘necessary Support of all Religion and Government’ in Egypt—was not taught by Moses. Warburton rejected the claim—advanced by Baruch Spinoza (1632–77)—that Moses’s failure to mention a future state rendered the Mosaic Law ungodly. Rather, Warburton viewed Moses’s silence on this topic as proof that the Israelites had witnessed Yahweh’s almighty power at first hand.17 While Warburton claimed to be combating deism, orthodox divines, such as Henry Stebbing, feared that the Divine Legation would only generate the op­pos­ite effect. Stebbing condemned the ‘Absurdity’ of Warburton’s thesis, which implied that Moses had deceived the Israelites into believing that there was no ‘hope of something better to come’. Such deception, Stebbing argued, would have prevented the Israelites from worshipping Yahweh with ‘more pure, and sincere, Affection’.18 Warburton’s relatively positive assessment of ancient paganism was fuelled, at least partly, by the resolutely negative discussions advanced by his friend Conyers Middleton. In his Letter from Rome (1729) Middleton had described ‘an uninterrupted Succession from the [pagan] Priests of Old to the Priests of New Rome’.19 In the second volume of the Divine Legation, published on 25 May 1741, Warburton dismissed ‘the many able Writers’ who ‘employed their Time and Learning’ in attempting to prove that Roman Catholics had ‘borrowed their Superstitions’ from ancient pagans. While Warburton did not name Middleton, one can assume that his sentiments were intended as an implicit attack on him.20 Several months later Middleton published the fourth edition of his Letter from Rome (1741), in which he claimed it was ‘strange’ to believe that ‘the Papists are as truly originals as the Pagans; and borrowed nothing at all in reality from their Heathen Ancestors’.21 Warburton took offence and distanced himself from Middleton, whom he attacked in a 1744 polemic. From this point onwards their friendship was severed.

17 Warburton, Divine Legation, I, p. 174; II, pp. 281, 292–3, 345–52. 18 H.  Stebbing, An Examination of Mr. Warburton’s Second Proposition, in His Projected Demonstration of the Divine Legation of Moses (London, 1744), pp. 132–3. 19  Conyers Middleton, A Letter from Rome, Shewing an Exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism, or The Religion of the Present Romans, Derived from That of Their Heathen Ancestors (London, 1729), p. 13. 20 Warburton, Divine Legation, II, p. 356. For the original advertisement, see Daily Gazetteer, 25 May 1741. 21  Conyers Middleton, A Letter from Rome, Shewing an Exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism, or The Religion of the Present Romans, Derived from That of Their Heathen Ancestors, 4th ed. (London, 1741), pp. 227–8. For the original advertisement, see General Evening Post, 10–12 September 1741.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

84  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy As with Middleton, Bishop Lavington disagreed with Warburton’s assessment of the Eleusinian mysteries.22 Indeed, Warburton’s belief that the ‘Evil’ of polytheism was ‘remedied by the Mysteries’ was attacked by Lavington, who claimed that these initiations had ‘promoted’ such ‘Evil’. Echoing Middleton, Lavington described the mysteries as an early form of ‘popish’ enthusiasm. The lesser mysteries, Lavington noted, involved a series of ‘Preparatory Ceremonies’, including ‘Fastings, Night-­watching, Confession to the President of the Mysteries’, and a ‘Variety of [ex]cruciating Lustrations’. Once a person was initiated into the greater mysteries, they ‘underwent more tremendous Rites’. More specifically, they were subjected to ‘strange Visions and Spectacles’, along with the ‘Howlings of Men, Women, and Children’, resulting in ‘the utmost Tortures, Despair and Madness’. To Lavington this seemingly horrific outpouring of emotions was reminiscent of the evangelical new birth—‘the Initiation of the Methodists’. Lavington highlighted an extract in Wesley’s journal, in which he described how he had ‘sweated’, ‘trembled’, and ‘fainted’ because of his new-­found relationship with Christ. Such ‘Madness’ was, to Lavington, reminiscent of Plutarch’s description of the ‘Despondency and Despair’ which accompanied the Eleusinian mysteries.23 Lavington compared Wesley’s regular ‘examination of what his Initiated had suffered’ to the ‘Mystagogue (Chief Priest of the Mysteries)’, who was responsible for ‘explaining the Mysteries, and all the Representations that passed in the Initiating Ceremony’. As was characteristic of the ‘Baudy Bishop’, Lavington introduced sexual imagery into these discussions by claiming that those initiated into the greater mysteries worshipped ‘the Male and Female Parts’. He expanded on this theme by including the testimony of Apuleius (c.124–c.170), who had been ordered to strip naked following his initiation. Such lewdness, Lavington argued, was reminiscent of an extract in Wesley’s journal, in which he described a female member of one of his societies, who often ‘exposed herself before all the Congregation’.24 Elsewhere Lavington noted that Julian the Apostate (331–63) had been initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. To Lavington the Methodists’ apparent desire to replace baptismal regeneration with the new birth resembled the actions of Julian, who had similarly ‘set up the New Birth of the Mysteries Platonic, against that of Baptism’.25 Discussions of Julian had long been a staple feature of attacks on heretical rulers. In the immediate aftermath of the Exclusion Crisis (1679–81), both Tory and Whig pamphleteers had compared Julian to 22  See William Warburton, Remarks on Several Occasional Reflections: In Answer to the Rev. Dr. Middleton, Dr. Pococke, the Master of the Charter House, Dr. Richard Grey, and Others (London, 1744). 23  Lavington 3, pp. 308–9, 320–1, 340; Wesley, Extract of the Revd. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 12, 1738, to Nov. 1, 1739, p. 19. 24  Lavington 3, pp. 323–4, 327–8, 330, 333; Wesley, Extract of the Revd. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 12, 1738, to Nov. 1, 1739, p. 64. The ‘Baudy Bishop’ nickname has been attributed to Lord Chesterfield. See Haydon, ‘Lavington, George’. 25  Lavington 3, p. 302.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  85 James, Duke of York.26 By comparing ‘popish’ Methodists to Julian, Lavington was, therefore, deploying a familiar form of anti-­Catholic rhetoric. Lavington’s discussions of paganism further illuminate the ways in which anti-­ Methodism overlapped with other theological controversies. Clearly Lavington was using his anti-­Methodist polemic as an opportunity to challenge Warburton’s relatively optimistic assessment of the Eleusinian mysteries. Rather than viewing the mysteries as an elite understanding of monotheism, Lavington defined these ancient rituals as simply ‘Pagan Methodism’—an early version of the lewd and ‘enthusiastic’ excesses found among Roman Catholics and Methodists.27 Lavington’s disagreement with Warburton—who subsequently attacked Wesley in his Doctrine of Grace (1762)—highlights not only the theological nuances among anti-­Methodist Anglicans, but also the many varieties of anti-­popery in the Georgian Church. If Lavington’s intention had been to anger Warburton, he seems to have failed. In a letter to his friend Richard Hurd, dated 5 July 1752, Warburton wrote the following: The Bishop of Exeter’s book against the Methodists is, I think, on the whole, composed well enough (though it be a bad copy of Stillingfleet’s famous book of the Fanaticism of the Church of Rome) to do the execution he intended. In pushing the Methodists, to make them like every thing that is bad, he compares their fanaticism to the ancient mysteries; but as the mysteries, if they had ever been good, were not, in the Bishop’s opinion, bad enough for this purpose, he therefore endeavours to shew, against me, that they were abominations even from the beginning. As this contradicts all antiquity so evidently, I thought it would be ridiculous in me to take any notice of him.28

There was some truth in Warburton’s claim that Lavington had merely reiterated much of Edward Stillingfleet’s Discourse Concerning the Idolatry Practised in the Church of  Rome (1671). As with Lavington, Stillingfleet had claimed that ‘the modern Church of Rome’ was similar ‘to Paganism in the practice of it’.29 Unlike Stillingfleet, however, Lavington was writing at a time when deistic attacks on 26  Tory divines (and future Non-­Jurors), such as George Hickes, argued that, since Julian’s heresy had not prevented him from being a fair ruler, there was no reason why a Roman Catholic should not ascend the throne. See [G. Hickes], Jovian, or An Answer to Julian the Apostate (London, 1683). On the other hand, Whig divines, such as Samuel Johnson, justified their resistance theory by describing Julian as a proto-­popish tyrant and highlighting instances when Christians defied his regime. See [S. Johnson], Julian the Apostate: Being a Short Account of His Life; The Sense of the Primitive Christians about His Succession and Their Behaviour towards Him. Together with a Comparison of Popery and Paganism (London, 1682). 27  Lavington 3, p. 338. 28 [W.  Warburton], Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate to One of His Friends, 2nd ed. (London, 1809), pp. 117–18. 29 E.  Stillingfleet, A Discourse Concerning the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome, and the Hazard of Salvation in the Communion of It, 2nd ed. (London, 1671), unpaginated preface.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

86  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy priestly religion were becoming increasingly common. Thus, by the early decades of the eighteenth century, many Anglican divines viewed pagano-­papism as a dangerous polemical weapon, which could potentially be used to portray the post-­apostolic Fathers—along with all subsequent Christians—as corrupted.30 It was not only Anglicans who viewed pagano-­papism as an open invitation to deism. Richard Challoner argued that, by conflating pagan and Roman Catholic miracle claims, Middleton was aiding his ‘Friends the Freethinkers’ because he was implying that Christianity—which appealed to miracles as its ‘first and chief Foundation’—was ‘no better grounded than Paganism’.31 Some of Middleton’s perceptive peers had long suspected that his Letter from Rome—despite its veneration of several post-­apostolic Fathers—was intended as a subtle attempt to reduce the Fathers to ‘popish’ pagans. This fear was ultimately confirmed in 1748, when Middleton reduced the Fathers to charlatans in his Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers.32 Lavington, on the other hand, was careful to praise the Fathers by citing instances when Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and John Chrysostom had condemned pagan mysteries.33 The extent to which one’s religious practices resembled those of the primitive church was another battle in which pro- and anti-­Methodist authors engaged.

Christian Antiquity Restoration England witnessed a ‘flowering’ of Patristic scholarship, enabling Anglican divines, such as William Cave, to find a ‘mirror image’ of themselves in the Fathers, who displayed ‘zealous’ piety, ‘unlimited’ charity, and a ‘patience’ which was ‘unconquerable under the biggest persecutions’.34 The quest to replicate ‘primitive Christianity’ undergirded numerous initiatives in the Restoration Church, ranging from architectural designs modelled on the Temple of Solomon to the formation of religious societies. Under the strict direction of a priest, lay members of these societies performed practical works of holiness, such as fasting

30 S.  J.  Barnett, Idol Temples and Crafty Priests: The Origins of Enlightenment Anticlericalism (Basingstoke and New York, 1999), pp. 60–1. 31 [R.  Challoner], A Plain Answer to Dr. Middleton’s Letter from Rome: In Which the Gross Misrepresentations Contained Therein Are Exposed and Set in a Just Light (London, 1741), p. 15. 32  H. Trevor-­Roper, ‘From Deism to History: Conyers Middleton’, in H. Trevor-­Roper, History and the Enlightenment, ed. J. Robertson (New Haven, CT, and London, 2010), pp. 79–80. Middleton was careful to add that his Letter from Rome was not intended as an attack on the Fathers, whom he commended on several occasions. For instance, he praised Justin Martyr for condemning the ‘Heathenish’ use of ‘Holy-­water’, and similarly lauded Tertullian’s attacks on ‘Idols’. See Middleton, Letter from Rome, 4th ed., pp. 139, 154. 33  Lavington 3, pp. 192, 248–9, 386. 34 Duffy, ‘Primitive Christianity’, p. 287; W.  Cave, Primitive Christianity, or The Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel, 2nd ed. (London, 1673), Sig A3r.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  87 and almsgiving.35 Patristic scholarship also played a fundamental role in Anglican defences of doctrinal orthodoxy, as evidenced particularly by George Bull’s Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (1685), which cleansed the anti-­Nicene Fathers of any traces of Arianism.36 Following the Glorious Revolution, the history of the primitive church became a politico-­theological battlefield, on which Non-­Jurors and conforming Anglicans advanced their own definitions of ‘true religion’. To Non-­Jurors, such as Henry Dodwell, the Williamite deprivation of Jacobite bishops contravened primitive precedent. The Non-­Jurors identified particularly with Cyprian, who defied the joint emperors Gallus and Volusianus (251–3) by upholding his faith in the expelled Pope Cornelius and refusing to recognize the authority of the antipope, Novatian. In response, conforming divines argued that Patristic precedent commanded obedience to William’s de facto bishops. In a 1691 work Humphrey Hody, fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, discussed the deposition of Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople in 403 by the Synod of the Oak. Citing a document in the Bodleian—which he attributed to the Greek historian Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos (c.1256–c.1335)—Hody claimed that Chrysostom had urged his supporters to ‘keep Communion with his Deposers’. Hody did not, however, deny that Chrysostom’s deposition was an ‘unjust’ act, fuelled by ‘envy and malignity’. Hody also recognized that, while Emperor Arcadius had hardly been ‘passive’ in this affair, it was the clergy and not the ‘Civil Power’ who controlled the Synod. This example, therefore, failed to justify the deprivation of Non-­Juring bishops by the civil magistrate.37 Later Whig divines, such as Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Bangor (1715–21), took the bolder step of simply discarding the Fathers in favour of an Erastian politico-­theology, based entirely on the Scriptures. In a controversial 1716 sermon Hoadly cited Solomon’s deposition of the high priest, Abiathar, as evidence that bishops answered to the civil magistrate (1 Kings 2:26). Hoadly’s Erastianism came under fierce attack from conforming Tories and Non-­Jurors, 35  For an overview of the Church of England’s quest for ‘primitive Christianity’ during the ‘long Reformation’, see D.  Manning, ‘ “That Is Best, Which Was First”: Christian Primitivism and the Reformation Church of England, 1548–1722’, RRR, 13 (2011), pp. 153–93; for ‘primitive’ Restoration Church architecture, see P.  Doll, ‘The Architectural Expression of Primitive Christianity: William Beveridge and the Temple of Solomon’, RRR, 13 (2011), pp. 275–306. For Restoration religious so­ci­ eties, see S.  T.  Kisker, Foundation for Revival: Anthony Horneck, the Religious Societies, and the Construction of an Anglican Pietism (Lanham, MD, 2008); B.  S.  Sirota, The Christian Monitors: The Church of England and the Age of Benevolence, 1680–1730 (New Haven, CT, 2014), ch. 1. 36  See Quantin, Church of England, pp. 344–9. 37  See H. Hody, The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New Bishops, or A Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, Shewing, That Although a Bishop Was Unjustly Deprived, Neither He Nor the Church Ever Made a Separation; If the Successor Was Not a Heretick (London, 1691), unpaginated preface; M.  Goldie, ‘The Nonjurors, Episcopacy, and the Origins of the Convocation Controversy’, in Eveline Cruickshanks (ed.), Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1759 (Edinburgh, 1982), pp. 15–35; J. A. I. Champion, The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and Its Enemies, 1660–1730 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 47–51; C.  Zwierlein, ‘Non-­Juror Patristic Studies and International Diplomacy: Cyprianic Exchange with the Greek Orthodox Church’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 27 (2020), pp. 473–92.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

88  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy including William Law, whose early influence on Wesley has already been explored.38 At Oxford Wesley also engaged with the Patristic scholarship of several ‘Usager’ Non-­Jurors, including Jeremy Collier and Thomas Deacon.39 In 1716 Collier and his stepson, Deacon, had petitioned for the restoration of four primitive ‘usages’, which featured in Archbishop Cranmer’s 1549 Prayer Book, but were omitted from the revised 1552 version. The most controversial of these usages was prayers for the dead, which many sixteenth-­century Reformers associated with the ‘popish’ doctrine of Purgatory. Without denying that the Patristic precedent for the usages was strong, numerous Non-­Juring divines, including Law, opposed any liturgical reform on the grounds that these practices were not mandated explicitly in the Scriptures. As a result of this dispute, the Non-­Juring communion was divided between Usager and non-­Usager factions until 1732, when a partial re­union was achieved.40 Wesley’s reverence for the usages was particularly prevalent during his mission to Georgia, where some colonists charged him with being a crypto-­ papist for introducing various ‘Innovations’ found in the Apostolic Constitutions (c.375), including ‘Mixing Wine with Water in the Sacrament’.41 Robert Nelson, a Nonjuring layman and Patristic scholar, was another early influence on Wesley’s sacramentalism. In his seminal work, A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Church of England (1704), Nelson provided an account of the relevant saint for each day of feasting or fasting prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. Nelson’s primitivism was also evidenced by his engagement with religious societies, particularly the SPCK, which sought to ‘purify’ society through education.42 Wesley’s societies were also fuelled by a primitivist quest to see practical piety in action. In 1749 Wesley praised his societies for replicating the ‘Primitive Church’ by ministering to the sick.43 In an early sermon Whitefield

38  See A. Starkie, The Church of England and the Bangorian Controversy, 1716–1721 (Woodbridge, 2007); W. Gibson, Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly, 1676–1761 (Cambridge, 2004), ch. 5. 39  For Wesley’s engagement with the Non-­Jurors at Oxford, see Hammond, John Wesley in America, ch. 1. For Deacon, see H.  Broxap, A Biography of Thomas Deacon: The Manchester Non-­Juror (Manchester, 1911). 40  The other three usages consisted of: the mixture of water and wine in the chalice; a prayer of oblation, which described the elements as sacrificial offerings to Christ; and, finally, a prayer of epi­ clesis, which invoked the Holy Spirit to descend on the elements. See H. Broxap, The Later Non-­Jurors (Cambridge, 1924), ch. 3; R. D. Cornwall, ‘The Later Nonjurors and the Theological Basis of the Usages Controversy’, Anglican Theological Review, 75 (1993), pp. 166–86; J. D. Smith, The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Later Nonjurors: A Revisionist View of the Eighteenth-­Century Usages Controversy (Cambridge, 2000); M.  M Davis, ‘ “Ask for the Old Paths”: Johnson and the Nonjurors’, in J.  C.  D.  Clark and H. Erskine-­Hill (eds), The Politics of Samuel Johnson (Basingstoke, 2012), pp. 112–67. 41  P. Tailfer, H. Anderson, D. Douglas, et al., A True and Historical Narrative of the Colony of Georgia in America, from the First Settlement Thereof until This Present Period (Charles-­Town, SC, 1741), p. 42. 42 Hammond, John Wesley in America, p. 63. For Nelson, see A. Cook, ‘Nelson, Robert (1656–1715)’, ODNB; B.  S.  Sirota, ‘Robert Nelson’s Festivals and Fasts and the Problem of the Sacred in Early Eighteenth-­Century England’, CH, 84 (2015), pp. 556–84. 43 J. Wesley, A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists: In a Letter to the Revd. Mr. Perronet, Vicar of Shoreham in Kent (Bristol, 1749), p. 27.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  89 similarly urged his followers to ‘build each other up in Christian Love and Fellowship’ because this was ‘what the Primitive Christians delighted in’.44 To their High Church opponents, however, Wesley and Whitefield were doing anything but replicating the primitive church. Rather, through their seemingly subversive attacks on the clergy, Methodists were merely reviving old heretical and schismatic groups with which the early church had contended. Discussions of early Christian schismatics were, therefore, a common feature of anti-­ Methodist polemic. There was, of course, nothing new about Protestant authorities deploying Patristic sources and arguments to combat dissidents. During the sixteenth century ‘magisterial Reformation’ Protestants had attacked anabaptism and other ‘new heresies’ by portraying them as ‘old heresies’, such as Gnosticism and Montanism.45 Gnosticism’s origins can be traced back to the first century. It was condemned by the apostles Paul, John, and Peter, along with various early church Fathers, including Tertullian and Justin Martyr. Melding Christianity with other Middle Eastern religions, the Gnostics believed that salvation resulted, not from faith, but from knowledge of the supreme divinity. There are, according to Gnostic cosmogony, two Gods. One God, who created the material universe, is evil. The other God, who created everything spiritual and heavenly, is good. As a means of rebelling against the ‘evil’, materialistic God, many Gnostics practised a rigorous form of asceticism. Others plunged into antinomianism because they believed that no good resulted from actions undertaken by their inherently sinful bodies. To Roger L’Estrange (1616–1704), a lay Tory polemicist, Restoration Dissenters resembled the ‘Gnostick Schismaticks’, who shared their ‘Principle of disobedience to Magistrates’.46 Charges of Gnosticism were subsequently levelled at Methodists. One item, published in the 30 May 1741 issue of the Weekly Miscellany, likened Wesley and Whitefield to the Gnostics, who had also ‘pretended to be led by the Spirit’. In what was probably intended as an allusion to Wesley’s endorsement of Christian communitarianism, the author noted that, under the Gnostics’ rule, ‘all Women were common’. As with the Methodists, the Gnostics had disguised their separatism by remaining ‘members of the Christian Church’ and frequenting ‘the publick Worship’. Some of their leaders had even been ‘ordained by the Apostles themselves’.47 Several years later John Downes, rector of St Michael Wood Street, London, condemned the Gnostics for claiming that their doctrines—despite their absence in ‘holy Writ’—were ‘implicitly revealed by Christ in his Parables, to as many as were acquainted with the mys­tic­al 44 Whitefield, Folly and Danger, p. 11. 45 J.  Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture: Religious Intolerance and Arguments for Religious Toleration in Early Modern and ‘Early Enlightenment’ Europe (Cambridge, 2006), p. 197. 46 R. L’Estrange, Remarks on the Growth and Progress of Non-­Conformity (London, 1682), pp. 42, 48. 47  Weekly Miscellany, 30 May 1741.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

90  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Sense of them’. This ‘extraordinary Light or Knowledge of the Gnostics’ had been ‘transferred to the Methodists’, who similarly boasted of being the ‘only Persons blessed with true Christian Science’.48 Another staple feature of High Church polemic was the charge of Montanism, a movement that arose in Phrygia, Asia Minor, during the middle of the second century under the leadership of Montanus, who, along with his prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, claimed to be in receipt of special divine revelation. In The History of Montanism (1709) Francis Lee likened Montanus’s ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘distemper’d Melancholy’ to that of the French Prophets, a millenarian group whose leaders had fled to London in 1706 to escape Louis XIV’s persecuting regime.49 Methodists faced similar comparisons. According to one author the Montanists had made ‘grand Pretences to Methodism’ with their ‘very strict and demure’ behaviour, such as forbidding marriage and commanding ‘Abstinence from certain Meats’.50 In a 1739 polemic the pseudonymous ‘Timothy Scrub’ called for Whitefield’s claims of divine inspiration to be subjected to a ‘publick Trial’, as previously deployed against ‘Montanus and his Followers’ by the ‘Bishops of Asia’. Clearly lamenting the Whigs’ suppression of Convocation in 1717, ‘Scrub’ facetiously added, ‘But I forget, a Convocation now is an Inquisition!’51 The most extensive comparison between Methodism and Montanism was advanced by James Clark, a Church of Ireland divine. In Montanus Redivivus (1760) Clark described Montanus as the ‘Arch-­Heretick, and Proto-­Patriarch of all Enthusiasts’. Like Wesley, Montanus convened ‘private Meetings and Conventicles’, in which his followers ‘exercised themselves’ with ‘Prophecying [sic]’, while performing ‘Acts of Mortification, Self-­denial, and Fasting’. Equally reminiscent of Methodism was Montanus’s ‘Denunciations of God’s Judgements upon the Church for her Lukewarmness’.52 Anti-­Methodist discussions of Christian antiquity also incorporated comparisons to Augustine’s schismatic adversaries: the Donatists. At the beginning of the fourth century, the Roman emperor, Diocletian, launched a brutal regime of persecution against North African Christians. Unwilling to endure martyrdom, many Christians outwardly worshipped the pantheon of Roman gods. Some 48 J.  Downes, Methodism Examined and Exposed, or The Clergy’s Duty of Guarding Their Flocks against False Teachers (London, 1759), p. 12. 49  [F.  Lee], ‘The History of Montanism’, in G.  Hickes, The Spirit of Enthusiasm Exorcised: In a Sermon Preach’d before the University of Oxford, &c., 4th ed. (London, 1709), p. 80. See also S. Searl-­ Chapin, ‘Francis Lee and the French Prophets: The History of Montanism [1709]’, in J. C. Laursen (ed.), Histories of Heresy in Early Modern Europe: For, against, and beyond Persecution and Toleration (Basingstoke and New York, 2002), pp. 33–49. 50  Weekly Miscellany, 30 May 1741. 51 T.  Scrub, A Letter to Robert Seagrave, M.A.  Occasioned by His Two Late Performances: One Entituled, an Answer to Dr. Trapp’s Four Sermons. The Other Called, Remarks on the Bishop of London’s Pastoral Letter (London, 1739), p. 37. 52 J.  Clark, Montanus Redivivus, or Montanism Revived, in the Principles and Discipline of the Methodists: (Commonly Called Swadlers) (Dublin, 1760), pp. 10–12.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  91 compliant Christians—known derogatively as ‘traditors’—betrayed their brethren to the Romans. Upon Diocletian’s abdication in 305, these persecutions abated. In 311 Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage by three bishops, including Felix, bishop of Aptunga, an alleged ‘traditor’. Seventy bishops declared that Felix’s apostasy rendered Caecilian’s consecration invalid. By the end of 311 these rigorists had elected their own ‘pure’ bishop of Carthage, Majorinus, who was subsequently replaced by Donatus Magnus (hence the name ‘Donatists’). Towards the end of the fourth century the Donatists encountered their most formidable op­pon­ent, Augustine of Hippo, who launched a vigorous—and ultimately ­victorious—campaign against them. Indeed, Augustine disseminated his belief, shared by most Catholic theologians, that a priest’s clerical status—not his overall character—rendered his celebration of the sacraments valid. Ultimately Augustine became convinced that there was only one effective remedy for the Donatist schism: civil coercion, as allegedly endorsed in the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15–24). Since the sixteenth century Donatism had often been used as a polemical weapon against Protestant dissidents in England. During the Elizabethan period ‘Brownist’ separatists were charged with Donatism by numerous divines, including Richard Alison and George Gifford.53 Following the ‘Great Ejection’ of 1662, Tory divines, such as Thomas Long and Samuel Parker, deployed the charge of Donatism, along with Augustine’s proposed methods of coercion, in their attacks on Restoration Dissenters.54 In a 1741 polemic Zachary Grey invoked similar charges of Donatism against Methodism. Like earlier anti-­separatist authors, Grey relied heavily on the works of Augustine and other contemporary anti-­ Donatist authors, such as Optatus. Unlike these earlier authors, however, Grey was writing at a time when Lockean ideas of toleration were favoured over Augustinian justifications for religious coercion. Nevertheless, Grey’s discussions of Donatism were reminiscent of those contained in earlier attacks on Protestant dissidents. Among Grey’s various criticisms of Donatism, he highlighted some alleged instances in which they combated Catholics by aligning with heretics, such as Constantius II, who ‘professed himself an Arian’. The Donatists had, according to Grey, also been ‘very liberal in their Thanks to Julian [the Apostate]’, who had attempted to ‘destroy Christianity’ during his reign (361–3) by ‘encouraging divisions’ and allowing ‘the Bishops of the Arian and Donatist Factions, to follow their different Opinions in God’s Worship’. As a means of thanking Julian, the Donatists had ‘pulled down those Crosses which had been erected in publick 53  J. Hoover, ‘ “They Bee Full Donatists”: The Rhetoric of Donatism in Early Separatist Polemics’, RRR, 15 (2013), p. 162. 54  See M.  Goldie, ‘The Theory of Religious Intolerance in Restoration England’, in O.  P.  Grell, J. I. Israel, and N. Tyacke (eds), From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England (Oxford, 1991), pp. 331–68.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

92  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Places, at the Cost and Charge of the Emperor Constantine; and set up Julian’s Image in their Place’. Here Grey was probably alluding to the common charge— which will be explored in the next chapter—that Methodists aided deists by attacking the established clergy. Some of Grey’s other allusions to Methodism were far less subtle. For instance, Grey noted that various ‘Sects’ had ‘sprung from that schismatical Monster [Donatism]’, including the Circumcellions, a group of ‘zealots’ who claimed to be ‘inspired by God to act and suffer extraordinary Things’. However, while the Donatists were ‘much divided amongst themselves’, they always ‘united their Forces whenever an Opportunity of aggrieving the Catholics offered itself ’. Grey observed that the Methodists were also ‘much divided amongst themselves’. He predicted that ‘this silly sect’ would eventually ‘crumble like the Donatists into [a] Variety of Sects, and receive different Denominations from their Leaders. Namely, the Wesleys, Whitefield, Ingham, De Lamotte, Rogers, Seward, and Howel Harris.’ Grey praised Augustine for his fundamental role in the Donatists’ downfall. Despite being a ‘great Enemy to Persecution’, Augustine endorsed anti-­Donatist laws when the city of Hippo risked becoming ‘almost entirely seduced by the Donatists’. Clearly Grey was arguing implicitly that magisterial coercion against schismatics sometimes served as a necessary means of maintaining peace and order.55 Grey closed with an appendix, in which he placed accounts of the Donatists’ alleged transgressions alongside accounts of Wesley and Whitefield behaving in a seemingly similar manner. Grey noted that the Donatists had ‘pretended to Visions of Angels’, and likened this to an account in Wesley’s journal of a sick ‘young Man’ who claimed that an angel had approached his bedside, warning him of his imminent death. Grey went on to cite another extract in Wesley’s journal, where the itinerant described a ‘noble Company of Women’ amongst his followers. This account, Grey argued, provided further evidence that Wesley was copying the Donatists, who had also ‘tampered with the weaker Sex’. Grey also observed that, like the Donatists, Whitefield often lambasted the established clergy by describing them as ‘Priests of Baal’ and ‘Wolves in Sheeps cloathing’. Finally, where the Donatists had ‘rejected the Liturgy made use of by the Catholics’, Whitefield had similarly admitted that he preferred his ‘own extempore Effusions to the Liturgy of the Church of England.’ Grey was, of course, aware that Wesley and Whitefield professed to be ‘Members of the established Church’. As far as Grey was concerned, however, the Methodists’ seemingly anticlerical actions, along 55 [Z.  Grey], A Short History of the Donatists: With an Appendix, in Which the Proud and Hypocritical Pharisee and Schismatical Donatist Are Compared with the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield and the Methodists (London, 1741), pp. 16–17, 23–4, 26–7. Charles Delamotte had accompanied Wesley on his Georgia mission. Delamotte went on to become very active within the Fetter Lane Society, and eventually settled in Hull, where he assisted Benjamin Ingham’s Yorkshire mission. He ultimately joined the Moravians. The identity of ‘Rogers’ remains unclear. Grey appears to have been unaware that William Seward had died during the previous year (1740) after being attacked by a mob in Hay-­on-­Wye.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  93 with their apparent sympathy for Dissenters, rendered them separatists in all but name.56 By invoking charges of Gnosticism, Montanism, and Donatism against the Methodists, High Churchmen, such as Grey, painted a picture of a ‘primitive’ Anglican Church, which stood in stark contrast to the heretical and schismatic actions of Wesley and Whitefield. There was, of course, nothing new about these polemical weapons. Rather, as has been shown, earlier Church of England authors had deployed similar polemical histories of the early church in their attacks on Protestant dissidents. These anti-­Methodist discussions of Christian antiquity, therefore, need to be viewed as part of a longstanding battle to assert the Church’s ‘primitive’ status in the face of schism. Conversely, Methodists advanced their own criteria for ‘primitive Christianity’, which they believed most contemporary Anglican divines failed to meet. By the mid-­eighteenth century this battle for primitive Christianity was far from over. An equally contentious issue, which featured prominently in pro- and anti-­Methodist polemics, was the way in which authors interpreted the medieval English church.

The Medieval Church To Gilbert Burnet and others who propagated the resolutely Protestant ethos of John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments (1563), the medieval period was a gloomy stage in English ecclesiastical history, characterized by various ‘popish’ practices, such as monasticism.57 High Church and Non-­Juring authors, on the other hand, tended not to believe that the Reformation had been necessitated by monasticism and other ancient practices. Rather, corruption in the English church was seen to have begun in the thirteenth century, when it was tainted by foreign influences in the form of Mendicant priests. Henry Wharton, a neo-­Laudian divine, advanced this patriotic assessment of the medieval English church in A Defence of Pluralities (1692) by comparing seventeenth-­century Puritan schismatics to earlier invasive Mendicants.58 Wharton’s attack on thirteenth-­century Mendicants subsequently served as anti-­Methodist ammunition for Zachary Grey, who cited him in his

56 [Grey], A Short History of the Donatists, pp. 34, 39–41, 44, 46, 48, 51–2. Grey quoted from the following texts to support his descriptions of the Methodists’ alleged transgressions: An Extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal from his Embarking for Georgia to his Return to London (Bristol, 1740), p. 16; Whitefield, Journal 3, pp. 7, 17, 42, 75; Whitefield, Journal 5, pp. 31–2, 34, 39, 43. 57  Burnet likened the monasteries to ‘Sodom’, in which ‘Monks and Friars’ were found ‘not only with whores’, but also with ‘Marryed Women’. See G.  Burnet, The History of the Reformation of the Church of England: The First Part. Of the Progress Made in It during the Reign of K. Henry the VIII (London, 1679), pp. 190–1. 58  See [H. Wharton], A Defence of Pluralities, or Holding Two Benefices with Cure of Souls, as Now Practiced in the Church of England (London, 1692), p. 9.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

94  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Short History of the Donatists.59 Bishop Lavington devoted much attention to medieval Mendicant priests and their apparent similarities to Methodists. That Lavington’s citations consisted almost entirely of Roman Catholic hagiographies is significant because it suggests that he—like many other eighteenth-­century authors—sought to portray his work as a non-­partisan piece of historical scholarship. Citing the works of Franciscan scholars, such as Bonaventure (1221–74) and Bartholomew of Pisa (d. 1401), Lavington noted that, like Wesley, St Francis of Assisi had ‘appointed Preachers for every Province; and sent them out to their respective Places . . . whether Clerics or Laymen, whoever of them had the Spirit of God’.60 Some of Lavington’s other sources, however, were considerably more hostile towards Mendicant priests. For instance, when likening Methodists to Franciscan priests in thirteenth-­century England, Lavington cited the chronicler Matthew Paris (c.1200–59). The Franciscans had, according to Paris, antagonized diocesan priests in the following ways: They procured from His Holiness the Pope the Privilege of Preaching, hearing Confessions, and enjoining Penances, in England; to the great Injury of the Parochial Ministers . . . The Itinerants flushed and exalted hereby, demanded to Preach and Confess everywhere, without Contradiction; and to be received as Angels of God: They saucily and impudently proclaimed the Established Clergy to be blind Leaders of the Blind . . . Hence Men and Women lost all due Respect for their Proper Pastors.61

Despite his apparent intention to portray Mendicants as a fringe group, which had corrupted the thirteenth-­century English church, Lavington paradoxically advanced similarly negative depictions of earlier English divines. For instance, he compared St Guthlac of Crowland (673–714) to Whitefield’s late publicist, William Seward, because both individuals claimed to have seen visions of Satan.62 Also, Lavington’s list of the ‘most nasty, ridiculous, crack-­brain’d, nay wicked Saints, Murtherers, Traytors and Rebels’ included Thomas Becket (1118–70), whom Foxe had similarly portrayed as a popish tyrant.63 Conversely, High Church and Non-­Juring historians, such as Jeremy Collier, praised Becket for opposing Henry II’s attempts to control the Church Courts.64 Ironically, Wesley shared many of Lavington’s gloomy assessments of the medieval English church. 59 [Grey], Short History of the Donatists, p. iv. 60  Lavington 2, p. 129. 61  Lavington 2, pp. 169–70. For Lavington’s utilization of Paris, see Chris Wilson, ‘The Medieval Church in Early Methodism and Anti-­Methodism’, in Clarke and Methuen, Church on Its Past, pp. 192–204. 62  Lavington 2, p. 70. 63  Lavington 3, p. 274. For Foxe’s depiction of Becket, see Phillpott, Reformation of England’s Past, pp. 155–9. 64  See J. Collier, An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, Chiefly of England: From the First Planting of Christianity, to the End of the Reign of King Charles the Second, 2 vols (London, 1708–14), I, p. 65.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  95 In his Concise History of England (1776) Wesley followed Lavington’s example by condemning Becket and his posthumous popularity.65 In fact, Wesley attempted to turn the tables on Lavington by using the ‘popish’ pre-­Reformation church as a stick with which to beat him. In one of his rejoinders Wesley suggested to Lavington that he could bolster his anti-­Methodist campaign by restoring de heretico comburendo, a 1401 law introduced primarily to tackle Lollardy.66 In his later works Wesley continued to display sympathy for pre-­Reformation ‘heretics’. In a 1757 publication he condemned the successive ‘Dukes of Savoy’ who had ‘shed the Blood of their loyal Subjects’, the Waldensians, an ascetic movement of Lyon, formed originally in the twelfth century.67 Of course, when posed with the question, ‘where was your church before Luther?’, Foxean Protestants often cited pre-­Reformation examples of individuals or groups who had defied the Papacy. That none of these so-­called ‘proto-­Protestants’ had ever referred to a doctrine of ‘justification by faith’ was beside the point. One alleged ‘proto-­Protestant’ was the Czech priest Jan Huss (c.1369–1415), who was burned at the stake for his opposition to the sale of indulgences. Another ‘proto-­ Protestant’, often cited by English Reformers, was the Oxford scholastic philosopher John Wycliffe (c.1330–84). A vocal opponent of the doctrines of purgatory and transubstantiation, Wycliffe had also attacked the sale of indulgences; condemned clerical abuses; and argued that immoral clergymen needed to be deprived of their temporalities by the lay powers.68 In his Acts and Monuments Foxe described Wycliffe as a ‘morning starre’ of the Reformation. It was, according to Foxe, because of ‘God’s providence’ that Wycliffe ‘sprang & rose up’.69 In the first volume of his History of the Reformation (1679) Gilbert Burnet similarly praised Wycliffe and the Lollards for their ‘ingenious words’.70 Low Church and

65  Lavington 3, p. 274. John Wesley, A Concise History of England, from the Earliest Times, to the Death of George II, 4 vols (London, [1776]), I, pp. 138–53. Wesley claimed that after Becket’s death the clergy attempted ‘to magnify his sanctity, to extol the merits of his martyrdom, and to hold him out as the fittest object of the veneration of the people’ (p. 152). Wesley was careful to add that Henry had not been responsible for Becket’s assassination (pp. 152–3). For more on Wesley’s discussions of the Becket controversy, see T. W. Smith, ‘Authority and Liberty: John Wesley’s View of Medieval England’, WMS, 7 (2015), pp. 17–18. For eighteenth-­century discussions of Becket, see chapter 8 in K. B. Slocum, The Cult of Thomas Becket: History and Historiography through Eight Centuries (Abingdon and New York, 2019). 66 Wesley, Second Letter to the Author of Enthusiasm of Methodists, p. ix. 67 J. Wesley, The Doctrine of Original Sin: According to Scripture, Reason, and Experience (Bristol, 1757), p. 51. 68  S. J. Barnett, ‘Where Was Your Church before Luther? Claims for the Antiquity of Protestantism Examined’, CH, 68 (1999), pp. 14–41; E.  Cameron, ‘Medieval Heretics as Protestant Martyrs’, in D. Wood (ed.), SCH, Vol. 30: Martyrs and Martyrologies (Oxford, 1993), pp. 185–207; A. Hudson and A. Kenny, ‘Wyclif [Wycliffe], John (d. 1384)’, ODNB. 69 J. Foxe, Actes and Monuments of These Latter and Perillous Dayes (London, 1563), pp. 85, 87. For an overview of the historiography of Wycliffe, see J. Crompton, ‘John Wyclif: A Study in Mythology’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, 42 (1966–7), pp. 6–34. 70 Burnet, History of the Reformation, p. 25.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

96  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Dissenting historians continued to venerate Wycliffe well into the eighteenth century.71 Conversely, Laudians and Non-­Jurors advanced a decidedly negative appraisal of the anticlerical Wycliffe. In 1659 Peter Heylyn, who had served as chaplain to Charles I, claimed that Wycliffe’s grievances with the clergy had been ‘so far from [the] truth, so contrary to peace and civil Order, so inconsistent with the Government of the Church of Christ, as [to] make them utterly unworthy to be look’d on as a part of the Gospel’.72 Following the Glorious Revolution, Wycliffe became the target of several Non-­Jurors, who associated his views with the Williamite deprivation of Non-­Juring bishops. Jeremy Collier, for instance, was disturbed by Wycliffe’s argument that ‘Temporal Lords’ should be empowered to discipline scandalous clergymen.73 Matthias Earbery, another Non-­ Juror, expanded on these discussions in The Pretended Reformers (1717), which was largely a translation of an earlier attack on various ‘proto-­reformers’ by the French Roman Catholic historian Antoine Varillas (1624–96). In the preface Earbery argued that, while ‘Temporal Lords’ could take away the ‘Goods of the Church’, it was impossible for them to do so without committing the kind of ‘Sacrilege’ witnessed by the clergy during ‘Henry VIII’s Reign’. Earbery’s anti-­Wycliffe sentiments were, of course, fuelled by the Bangorian controversy, in which William Law and various other Non-­Jurors also engaged. Indeed, Earbery was implicitly comparing Wycliffe’s anticlericalism to Bishop Hoadly’s Erastianism.74 In 1740 Earbery’s Pretended Reformers was republished, with several additions, as an anti-­Methodist polemic entitled Methodists Impostors. The anonymous author claimed to have ‘exposed’ various ‘impostors’, including ‘Wickliffe, Whitefield, Wesley, [George] Stonehouse, [Robert] Seagrave and [William] Seward’. Elsewhere the author condemned Whitefield’s belief that Christians were required to ‘suffer Persecution’. This notion had, apparently, been the ‘Cant of all the Apostates that ever infested the Christian Church’, including ‘Wickliffe and his Bare-­footed Gang of Lollards’. It is possible that Earbery—who died several

71  In 1720 John Lewis, the Whig incumbent of Margate, Kent, published a biography of the ‘great reformer’. See John Lewis, The History of the Life and Sufferings of the Reverend and Learned John Wickliffe, D.D. (London, 1720), p. vi. Daniel Neal subsequently praised Wycliffe by repeating Foxe’s ‘Morning-­Star of the Reformation’ epitaph. See D. Neal, The History of the Puritans or Protestant Non-­ Conformists, 4 vols (London, 1732–8), I, p. 3. 72 P.  Heylyn, Examen Historicum, or A Discovery and Examination of the Mistakes, Falsities and Defects in Some Modern Histories Occasioned by the Partiality and Inadvertencies of Their Severall Authours (London, 1659), p. 65. 73 Collier, Ecclesiastical History, I, p. 564. For Collier’s utilization of ecclesiastical history, and how it differed from Burnet’s approach, see Starkie, ‘Contested Histories’. See also T. Claydon, Europe and the Making of England, 1660–1760 (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 99–101. For the politico-­theology of the Non-­ Jurors, see chapter 4 in Cornwall, Visible and Apostolic. 74  Antoine Varillas, The Pretended Reformers, or The History of the Heresie of John Wickliffe, John Huss, and Jerom of Prague, ed. and trans. M. Earbery (London, 1717), pp. xiii–xix, xxiii.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  97 months after the publication of Methodists Impostors—was the author.75 If so, he was not the only Non-­Juror who drew parallels between Lollards and Methodists. In a letter, dated 11 May 1739, to her friend and fellow Non-­Juror Thomas Brett, Mrs Barbara Blackmore of London derogatively likened Wesley and his followers to the ‘Whicklifts [sic] and the Lollards’.76 Comparisons to Wycliffe were also deployed by pro-­Methodist polemicists. To the anonymous author of The Parallel Reformers (1740), Whitefield’s similarity to the ‘pious and Illustrious’ Wycliffe was something to be admired. Like Whitefield, Wycliffe had been a ‘man of good Natural abilities’ and ‘Astonishing Eloquence’. Parallel illustrations of Whitefield and Wycliffe formed the centrepiece of this pamphlet (see Figure 4.1). A lengthy tribute to both ‘Reformers’ followed these images. Citing Burnet, the author noted that ‘Wickliff & his followers’ were ‘like Mr. Whitefield and his followers’ in the sense that both parties ‘preached not only in Churches, but also in the open fields, Church yards and Markets without Liscence from the ordinary’. Whitefield was praised for his preaching against the doctrinal and moral ‘degeneracy’ of ‘modern Divines’. Wycliffe was similarly described as somebody who ‘exposed the absurd Doctrines, vicious lives and Insolent behaviour of the Clergy’.77 In another 1740 work Jonathan Warne similarly compared Whitefield’s ministry to the activities of ‘Wycliffe, John Hus, and Luther’, all of whom were ‘sent of God’. High Churchmen, on the other hand, associated both Whitefield and his followers with schismatic sixteenth-­century Anabaptists, who had defied Luther’s reforms.78

Histories of Protestant Schism and ‘Enthusiasm’ Between 18 October and 29 November 1740 the Weekly Miscellany featured a series of articles entitled ‘A History of the Anabaptists in Germany’. The purpose 75  Methodists Impostors, or Wickliffe, Whitefield, Wesley, Stonehouse, Seagrave and Seward, Detected and Exposed, 2nd ed. (London, 1740), p. 3. Earbery died on 3 October 1740. See John Findon, ‘Earbery, Matthias (1690–1740)’, ODNB. We know that Methodists Impostors was published in July 1740 from a ‘Register of Books’ for that month, which appeared in the Gentleman’s Magazine, 10 (1740), p. 360. 76  Bodleian MS. Eng. th. c. 34, fol. 445: Blackmore to Brett, 11 May 1739. 77  The Parallel Reformers, or The Renowned Wickliff and the Reverend Mr. Whitefield Compared: Shewing by Many Parallel Instances ye Great Resemblance between Those Pious Divines in Respect of Christian Zeal and Fortitude (London, [c.1740]). This work followed an anonymous New England publication in which Whitefield was compared favourably to Wycliffe. See Some Observations on the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, and His Opposers (Boston, MA, 1740). John Gillies also praised Wycliffe—along with other medieval ‘proto-­Protestants’—in his highly polemical history of Christianity. See J. Gillies, Historical Collections Relating to the Success of the Gospel, 2 vols (Glasgow, 1754), I, pp. 30–55. Wycliffe was not, however, venerated by all evangelicals. In the fourth volume of his History of the Church of Christ (London, 1794–1809), Joseph Milner, an Anglican evangelical minister, distanced the ‘scholastical’ Wycliffe from sixteenth-­century Reformers. See J. D. Walsh, ‘Joseph Milner’s Evangelical Church History’, JEH, 10 (1959), p. 180. 78 [J.  Warne], The Spirit of the Martyrs Revived in the Doctrines of the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, and the Judicious, and Faithful Methodists (London, 1740), p. 15.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

98  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy

Figure 4.1  The Parallel Reformers, or The Renowned Wickliff and the Reverend Mr. Whitefield Compared: Shewing by Many Parallel Instances ye Great Resemblance between Those Pious Divines in Respect of Christian Zeal and Fortitude (c.1740). Etching. © The Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, Oxford Brookes University.

of these articles was to show ‘how exactly the present Methodists’ were ‘hitherto like to the ancient Anabaptists’.79 Like Methodist preachers, Anabaptist leaders, such as Thomas Müntzer (c.1489–1525), had ‘boasted’ of ‘particular Illuminations’ derived from their ‘own Dreams and Fancies’. As with Wesley, the Anabaptists had also been opposed to wealth, and taught that ‘all Goods should be common’.80 The author proceeded to describe the tumultuous events of the Münster rebellion. During the siege, John Matthew, an Anabaptist ‘prophet’, had apparently ordered his followers to burn all their books, except for the Bible. Such actions, the author believed, served as a precursor to Whitefield’s condemnation of ‘Archbishop Tillotson’s Works, and The Whole Duty of Man’, both of which would have been burnt by Matthew had they ‘been then extant’.81 Discussing the rebellion’s defeat, the author displayed no sympathy for the Anabaptists’ ‘imaginary King’, John of Leiden (1509–36), whose execution marked the end of the ‘Farce, which is commonly call’d The Tragedy of Munster’.82 Before this ‘History’ drew to a close, 79  Weekly Miscellany, 29 November 1740. 81  Weekly Miscellany, 25 October 1740.

80  Weekly Miscellany, 18 October 1740. 82  Weekly Miscellany, 15 November 1740.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  99 r­ eaders were warned that, unless stopped, the Methodists would instigate similar ‘Seditions’ in England.83 According to an anonymous ‘Curate in the Country’, the ‘Spawn of Muncer’ swiftly ‘escaped to England’, where it ‘produced a fruitful Progeny of heretical and schismatical Opinions’. The curate was, of course, referring to Puritanism.84 Early anti-­Methodist literature was littered with references to Puritanism. An item by ‘Belinda’ in the 15 December 1739 issue of the Weekly Miscellany described Methodists as ‘modern Puritans’, who defied the ‘Laws of Church and State’.85 Another anonymous author evoked images of an impending Regicide by comparing Whitefield’s preaching to the ‘Language of our Reformers, in the late Rebellion’, when the ‘Monarchy found but little Mercy’.86 John Wilder, rector of St  Aldate’s, Oxford, similarly feared that the Methodists sought ‘Anarchy and Confusion: As it was effected once in the Last Century, when by a successful Rebellion begun . . . the Life of the Best of Kings, was barbarously taken away.’87 To one ‘Gentleman’ of Pembroke College, Oxford, Oliver Cromwell was ‘the Whitefield of the last Century’. Whitefield, according to the ‘Gentleman’, was ‘doing the same Disservice to true Religion’ as the ‘old Cut-­throat Saints’ had done under Cromwell.88 To the anonymous editor of Enthusiasm No Novelty (1739)—who was probably Zachary Grey—Whitefield’s spiritual pride was reminiscent of regicidal fanaticism. This publication was a compilation of prayers, written by George Swathe, the Puritan incumbent of Denham, Suffolk, during the early 1640s. Following the example of Elijah, on 11 May 1642 Swathe prayed for ‘speedy moderate Rain’, reassuring God that, in return for fulfilling this ‘Request’, he would record the event ‘for thy praise’. Elsewhere the editor included Swathe’s prayer for Charles I’s imminent ‘overthrow’.89 Sometimes charges of crypto-­Puritanism were fuelled by Methodist leaders’ apparent indifference to episcopacy. In his Catholick Spirit (1755) Wesley described episcopacy as ‘scriptural and apostolical’, but added that Christians should be free to follow their ‘own Persuasion’ on ‘smaller’ doctrinal points, such as church government. Predicting the charge of ‘Latitudinarianism’, Wesley 83  Weekly Miscellany, 29 November 1740. 84  Curate in the Country, Observations on the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Answer, pp. 36, 43. 85  Weekly Miscellany, 15 December 1739. 86  Mr. Whitfield’s Doctrines Considered and Confuted, and Some Consequences Deduced from Them Which Tend to Destroy the Essentials of the Christian Religion (Ipswich, 1741), p. 5. 87  John Wilder, The Trial of the Spirits, or A Caution against Enthusiasm or Religious Delusion, in a Sermon Preached before the University of Oxford, August 5th. 1739 (Oxford, 1739), p. 21. 88 J. B., A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, Occasion’d by His Pretended Answer to the First Part of the ‘Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists’ (London, 1744), pp. 22, 44. 89  Enthusiasm No Novelty, or The Spirit of the Methodists in the Year 1641 and 1642 (London, 1739), pp. 24–6. Grey included Swathe’s prayers in an appendix to The Schismatics Delineated from Authentic Vouchers (1739). On the title page Grey claimed that these prayers had never been printed before. Also, Enthusiasm No Novelty contained numerous references to Samuel Butler’s Hudibras (1663–78), of which Grey produced an edition in 1744. Finally, page 24 of Enthusiasm No Novelty cites Grey’s A Looking-­Glass for Schismaticks (London, 1725).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

100  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy denied that his ‘Catholick Spirit’ entailed ‘Indifference to all Opinions’.90 Wesley later claimed that his catholicity stemmed from his reading of Edward Stillingfleet’s Irenicum (1659). As was noted by James Clark, however, Wesley had neglected to mention that Stillingfleet’s views of episcopacy had changed following the Restoration.91 Whitefield, whose preaching engagements extended to New England Congregationalists and Scottish Presbyterians, was particularly keen to downplay denominational differences. Such ecumenism, inevitably, led some to question exactly where his loyalties lay. In Scotland Whitefield’s refusal to endorse the Associate Presbytery was depicted as an underhand endorsement of episcopacy by bitter Seceders.92 Conversely, a Non-­Juring ‘Layman’ associated Whitefield’s catholicity with schismatic Puritanism. The ‘Layman’ praised the ‘glorious and immortal Memory’ of Charles I, who was so ‘firmly attach’d to the Church of England’ that he chose to be ‘separated from his Wife and Children, driven from his House and Home, to lose his Crown and Kingdom, and even to lay down his Life’ rather than agree to ‘establish Presbyterianism, which was what the turbulent Spirit of that Age wanted’. The ‘Layman’ scoffed that, under Whitefield’s ‘Latitudinarian’ rule, the Church had ‘err’d . . . in canonizing him [Charles]’ because episcopacy was a ‘Non-­ Essential’ doctrine. Equally abhorrent to the ‘Layman’ was the Hanoverian establishment’s seemingly harsh treatment of Non-­Jurors, which he contrasted with James II’s ‘gracious and merciful’ toleration of Dissenters. Despite praising James while he was on the throne, these ‘double Dealing’ Dissenters had quickly shifted their allegiance to the de facto monarch, William III.93 This argument was only partially true. In fact, some Quakers—notably William Penn—had maintained Jacobite sympathies following the Revolution.94 The relationship between Quakers and Methodists did not correspond with what High Churchmen perceived it to be. Several Quakers claimed that Methodists placed too little emphasis on the power of the Holy Spirit. In a letter to the Wesley brothers, published in 1747, Thomas Burton, a Methodist-­turned-­ Quaker, alleged that his former brethren were too preoccupied with

90  John Wesley, Catholick Spirit: A Sermon on 2 Kings, X.15 (London, 1755), pp. 17–18. 91 Clark, Montanus Redivivus, pp. 37–8, 47–8. For Wesley’s engagement with Stillingfleet, see D. P. Morris-­Chapman, ‘High and Low? The Heritage of Anglican Latitudinarianism in the Thought of John Wesley’, JRHLC, 5.1 (2019), pp. 83–99. 92  For Scottish attacks on Whitefield’s catholicity, see K. B. E. Roxburgh, ‘George Whitefield and the Secession Movement’s Reaction to the Cambuslang Revival’, JRHLC, 1.2 (2015), pp. 3–15; Ian Clary, ‘ “A Catholic Spirit”: George Whitefield’s Dispute with the Erskines in Scotland’, in Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds), A New Divinity: Transatlantic Reformed Evangelical Debates during the Long Eighteenth Century (Gottingen, 2017), pp. 55–88. 93  A Layman, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield: Shewing the Fundamental Errors of Several of His Performances, and Proving, from His Own Works, That He Has Departed from the Principles of the Church of England in Particular, as Well as from the Church of Christ in General (London, [1749]), pp. 18, 53, 66. 94  See M. K. Geiter, ‘William Penn and Jacobitism: A Smoking Gun?’, HR, 73 (2000), pp. 213–18.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  101 ‘cross-­bearing’, ‘self-­denial, and ceremonial observations’. Such practices were ‘of man’s inventing’, rendering them ‘of no more service in the work of sanctification, than Roman hair-­clothes and penances’. Methodists were, therefore, in need of ‘a more spiritual dispensation’.95 In a letter to John Wesley, dated 3 June 1749, Joanna Hawkins, a Quaker of Sticklepath, Devon, similarly claimed that the itinerant had neglected God’s ‘inward and spiritual appearances’, turning instead to ‘the Letter for help and instruction’.96 Despite this opposition from Friends, it was often alleged by High Churchmen that the evangelical new birth was modelled on the Quaker belief in the Inner Light. In Quakero-­Methodism (1739) James Bate, rector of St Paul’s, Deptford, branded Richard Finch, an Arminian evangelical, as a ‘Quaker in Masquerade’ for stressing the importance of ‘regeneration’.97 An item in the 14 March 1741 issue of the Weekly Miscellany described Whitefield as a ‘Follower of the Quakers, especially as to the Doctrine of being led by the Spirit’.98 More explicit comparisons to Quakerism were drawn in The Quaker and Methodist Compared (1740) by Zachary Grey. The bulk of this work consisted of comparisons between the published journals of Whitefield and George Fox, both of whom provided seemingly arrogant descriptions of prophetic guidance in relatively trivial circumstances. Grey highlighted Whitefield’s Journal entry for 22 February 1738, which described his stay on a ship, docked in Gibraltar. Although Whitefield originally intended to remain ‘on Board to write Letters’, God showed him that this was ‘not his Will’, leading him to go ‘on Shore again’. Grey compared this extract to an entry in Fox’s journal, which described how he had been ‘lying in Bed at Bristol’ one day, only to be told by ‘the Word of the Lord’ that he needed to ‘go back to London’.99 Because of their apparent disloyalty to Church and State, Protestant ‘enthusiasts’ had long been associated with Roman Catholicism by Church of England

95 T. Burton, A Letter to the Methodist Preachers Belonging to the Foundery: Especially to John and Charles Wesley. Wrote for the Sake of Their Followers Who Are or May Be Dissatisfied with Their Ways of Worship, by a Person That Found Occasion to Withdraw from Their Society and Join with the People Called Quakers, 2nd ed. (London, 1748), in The Wesley Works Editorial Project: John Wesley’s In-­ Correspondence (1746–50), https://wesleyworks.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/jw-­in-­ correspondence-­1746–50.pdf [accessed 3 April 2020]. The first edition of this letter was published in 1747. 96  Quoted from J. G. Hayman, A History of the Methodist Revival of the Last Century, in Its Relations to North Devon: From the First Visit of the Wesleys to the Centenary Year in 1839, 2nd ed. (London, [1885]), pp. 158–9. 97 J. Bate, Quakero-­Methodism, or A Confutation of the First Principles of the Quakers and Methodists (London, 1739), p. 1. 98  Weekly Miscellany, 14 March 1740. 99 [Z. Grey], The Quaker and Methodist Compared, in an Abstract of George Fox’s Journal, with a Copy of his Last Will and Testament, and of the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s Journals (London, 1740), pp. 47, 73. For the extract, as it appeared in an early eighteenth-­century edition of Fox’s journal, see G. Fox, A Journal, or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, Christian Experiences and Labour of Love in the Work of the Ministry, of that Ancient, Eminent and Faithful Servant of Jesus Christ, George Fox, 2 vols (London, 1709), II, p. 104. For the extract in Whitefield’s journal, see Whitefield, Journal 1, p. 3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

102  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy authors. In his Anatomy of Melancholy Robert Burton claimed that both Puritans and Roman Catholics left their followers vulnerable to demonic intervention.100 Following the Restoration, the alleged collusion between Puritans and Catholics was discussed by numerous Anglican polemicists, including Roger L’Estrange, who condemned ‘Jesuited Puritans’ in a 1662 work.101 This label was also used by the clergyman and philosopher Meric Casaubon (1599–1671), who accused the Jesuits of teaching the Puritans how to inflict ‘horrors of a sad kind of desperation’ upon their followers, putting them in a ‘seeming possession of heaven’.102 The melding of anti-­popery and anti-­Puritanism was subsequently a prevalent feature of anti-­ Methodist polemic. One anti-­ Whitefield pamphlet, entitled Enthusiasm Display’d, or The Moor-­Fields Congregation (1739), contained the line ‘What was Peters once is Wh-­D now’. Here the author was referring to Hugh Peter (1598–1660), the New Model Army chaplain, who was executed for treason following the Restoration. This work also contained a cartoon of a bare-­legged Whitefield, surrounded by female admirers (see Figure 1.1). To the left of one admirer, who is labelled as ‘Hypocrisy’, there is a Rosary, which has fallen from Whitefield’s hand. The author, therefore, was displaying Whitefield not only as a seditious Puritan, but also as a papist. Early Quakers had also faced charges of ‘popery’. In The Snake in the Grass (1696) Charles Leslie claimed that the ‘enthusiasm’ of Quakers ‘came chiefly from the Church of Rome’.103 Leslie’s work became a fundamental source for Anglican opponents of Methodism, who similarly labelled evangelical preachers as crypto-­ papist schismatics.104 Equally popular among anti-­Methodist High Churchmen was a two-­volume work entitled Foxes and Firebrands (1680–2). Compiled against the backdrop of Titus Oates’s fabricated ‘popish plot’ to assassinate Charles II, the first instalment was co-­written by John Nalson, a Church of England Tory divine, 100 R. Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy (Oxford, 1621), p. 768. 101 R.  L’Estrange, A Memento: Directed to All Those That Truly Reverence the Memory of King Charles the Martyr; And as Passionately with the Honour, Safety, and Happinesse of his Royall Successour, Our Most Gracious Sovereign Charles the II. The First Part (London, 1662), p. 100. 102 M. Casaubon, Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things Divine and Spiritual (London, 1670), p. 151; M.  Casaubon, Generall Learning: A Seventeenth-­Century Treatise on the Formation of the General Scholar by Meric Casaubon, ed. Richard Serjeantson (Cambridge, 1999), p. 153. 103 C.  Leslie, The Snake in the Grass, or Satan Transform’d into an Angel of Light Discovering the Deep and Unsuspected Subtilty Which Is Couched under the Pretended Simplicity of Many of the Principal Leaders of Those People Call’d Quakers (London, 1696), pp. 18–19. For more on the relationship between anti-­popery and anti-­Quakerism during William III’s reign, see R. Clark, ‘ “The Gangreen of Quakerism”: An Anti-­Quaker Anglican Offensive in England after the Glorious Revolution’, Journal of Religious History, 11 (1981), pp. 404–29. 104  The second edition of The Snake in the Grass, published in 1697, included discussions of the alleged similarities between Quakers and the Flemish Catholic mystic Antoinette Bourignon (see 1697 edition, p. xxxiv). This section was reproduced in 1749 by an anonymous opponent of Methodism, who updated it by adding John Wesley to Leslie’s attack on Quakers and Bourignon. See An Answer to a Late Pamphlet Entitled ‘A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists’, Addressed to the Revd. Mr. Wesley (London, 1749), pp. 4–5. For other references to Leslie’s Snake in the Grass, see D. Waterland, Regeneration Stated and Explained According to Scripture and Antiquity in a Discourse on Tit. III. 4,5,6 (London, 1740), p. 40; Weekly Miscellany, 31 January 1741.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  103 and Robert Ware, an Irish Anglican layman. The latter wrote the second volume on his own. Both volumes contained numerous alleged instances from the ­sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in which Catholics had masqueraded as zealous Protestants.105 In his History of Modern Enthusiasm Evans praised Nalson and Ware’s ‘notable Book’ for having ‘proved beyond Contradiction’ that, since the Reformation, the ‘Jesuits in Disguise’ had assisted those ‘Zealots’ who laboured ‘hard to set up the Discipline according to the Plan and Model of Geneva’. To Evans the English Reformation had been completed during Elizabeth I’s reign, when the Church of England was secured by a ‘Princess of such consummate Wisdom’. Anyone who believed otherwise—such as Methodists and those involved in the ‘King’s Murder’—was simply a crypto-­ popish ‘Madman’, as described by Nalson and Ware.106 Zachary Grey similarly believed that the Church of England had been ‘reform’d and purg’d from the Dregs and Corruptions of Romish Superstition’ at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign.107 As with Evans, Grey utilized Nalson and Ware’s writings extensively. As a Cambridge divine, Grey had easy access to some of Nalson’s manuscripts which, from about 1730 onwards, were in the possession of Grey’s friend (and Nalson’s grandson), Philip Williams, fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge.108 Throughout the 1720s and 1730s Grey devoted much of his time to ‘correcting’ Dissenting historians. One way in which he sought to achieve this goal was by questioning the Protestant credentials of sixteenth- and seventeenth-­ century Puritans. In his response to James Peirce’s Vindication of the Dissenters (1717) Grey described the story of ‘Faithful Commin’, as told originally by Nalson and Ware. In 1567 Commin, a Dominican friar, had allegedly duped many people by posing as a ‘zealous Protestant’. After being exposed by the Elizabethan authorities, Commin apparently fled to the continent.109 Grey’s most formidable op­pon­ ent, however, was Daniel Neal. In 1733 Isaac Maddox published his response to the first volume of Neal’s History of the Puritans. Much of the research for this book had been undertaken by Grey, whose efforts were never acknowledged officially by Maddox. This apparent rebuff was something on which Grey’s friend William Webster commiserated him privately.110 Nevertheless, Grey’s efforts did not go unnoticed by influential divines. In a letter dated 9 September 1734 Bishop Gibson thanked Grey for his contribution.111 In a subsequent letter to Grey, dated 5 February 1735, Daniel Waterland 105  See D. MacCulloch, ‘Foxes, Firebrands, and Forgery: Robert Ware’s Pollution of Reformation History’, HJ, 54 (2011), pp. 307–46. 106 Evans, History of Modern Enthusiasm, pp. 10, 32. 107 [Grey], Serious Address, p. 6. 108  Ingram, ‘Representing and Misrepresenting’, pp. 209–10. 109 Z.  Grey, A Vindication of the Church of England, in Answer to Mr. Peirce’s Vindication of the Dissenters, 2 vols (London, 1720), I, pp. 32–3. 110  Ingram, ‘Representing and Misrepresenting’, p. 212. 111  BL Add. MS 5831, fol. 157: Gibson to Grey, 9 September 1734.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

104  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy expressed his fear that Neal was aiding the ‘papists’ by ‘lashing’ the established Church. Clearly Grey’s attacks on Dissent were both informed and fuelled by his correspondence with influential High Churchmen, some of whom, like him, subsequently attacked Methodism.112 Grey’s responses to the second (1736), third (1737), and fourth (1739) volumes of Neal’s History earned him further praise from his peers.113 In his response to volume 4, Grey cited the story of Henry Hammond’s encounter with a ‘pretended Quaker in a Red Coat’, as described in Ware’s second volume of Foxes and Firebrands. This ‘Quaker’ had attributed his fluent grasp of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to the Holy Spirit. However, when Hammond presented the ‘Quaker’ with a ‘Welsh Bible’, he refused to read it, claiming he had given Hammond enough evidence of his gifts. The ‘Quaker’ was subsequently arrested and, upon a search of his home, found to be in possession of some ‘seditious Popish Books’.114 As has been shown, Grey became a staunch opponent of Methodism, which he likened both to Donatism and Quakerism. The fact that Grey’s anti-­Dissenting and anti-­Methodist works should not be viewed in isolation from one another is illuminated particularly by his final anti-­Methodist publication, A Serious Address to Lay-­Methodists (1745). In this work Grey deployed both the Commin and Hammond anecdotes from Nalson and Ware. Presumably wishing to display his scholarship as non-­partisan, Grey also cited an extract from Richard Baxter’s Quakers Catechism (1655), in which the late Dissenter described a Franciscan called Coppinger, who had ‘spoke[n] in a Quaker’s-­Meeting at Bristol’ during the early 1650s. Grey hoped that these various anecdotes would encourage lay Methodists to question whether their leaders—who ‘inveigh so bitterly against the Church establish’d’—were, in fact, ‘Papists in disguise’. Thus Grey’s anti-­ Methodist literature needs to be viewed as a continuation of his earlier attacks on Dissent.115

Conclusions Both Methodists and their Anglican opponents were historically minded polemicists, whose impressions of each other were governed by their knowledge of the past. All these authors utilized the past as a means of appropriating their politico-­ theological agendas. Methodists interpreted their plight as a continuation of the Reformation which, they felt, had been left undone, and was being stifled by 112  BL Add. MS 5831, fol. 172: Waterland to Grey, 5 February 1735. 113  Grey’s response to Neal’s fourth volume earned him a commendation from Thomas Sherlock, bishop of Salisbury. See BL Add. MS 5831, fol. 159: Sherlock to Grey, 5 April 1739. 114  Zachary Grey, An Impartial Examination of the Fourth Volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans (London, 1739), p. 108. 115 [Grey], Serious Address, pp. 3–4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Histories of ‘Enthusiasm’, Schism, and Popery  105 ‘popish’, moralistic clergymen. Conversely, Tory High Churchmen, such as Evans and Grey, believed that Methodism represented the worst excesses of the Reformation, which had been completed during the sixteenth century. As with earlier Tory attacks on Dissenters, Methodists were often depicted as merely the latest in a long line of ‘enthusiastic’ schismatics, which could be traced back to the Donatists and other dissidents in the early church. To these authors, schism represented not only a political rebellion, but also a sin, which separated the offender from the ‘true’ apostolic Church. By exploring anti-­Methodist allegations of schism, this chapter has, therefore, further illuminated the ways in which theology underpinned socio-­political ideas in eighteenth-­century England. Ironically, despite their common belief that the Reformation was complete, anti-­Methodist Anglicans often thought like Reformation leaders in the sense that they attacked the Church of England’s ‘confessional competitors’ by pinpointing the origins of their alleged corruption in the primitive church.116 That the origins of this ‘popish’ corruption was such a contentious issue illuminates both the theological nuances among early anti-­Methodist authors and the multifaceted nature of eighteenth-­century anti-­popery. Lavington’s belief that Methodist and Roman Catholic ‘enthusiasm’ could be traced back to ancient paganism was not shared by William Warburton. In fact Lavington used his polemic as an opportunity to correct Warburton’s relatively optimistic assessment of the Eleusinian mysteries. Lavington’s discussions of ‘popish’ paganism, therefore, highlight the ways in which anti-­Methodism was informed by other doctrinal controversies. Another theological controversy in which many anti-­Methodist authors engaged was the perceived rise of deism. As will be shown in the next chapter, Methodism and deism were often described as interlinked threats.

116 Ingram, Reformation without End, p. 344.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

5

Deism and Melancholia As was shown in the previous chapter, Methodists often faced the charge of ‘enthusiasm’ from High Churchmen, who were reiterating earlier attacks on seventeenth-­century Puritans and Quakers. Allegations of ‘enthusiasm’ were also made by deists in their attacks on priestly religion. Scholars have described Methodism as a reaction to the perceived rise of deism. As John Walsh argues, ‘it can be no coincidence that the Evangelical Revival took off ’ around the same time that deism ‘reached a high-­water mark of popularity’.1 Eighteenth-­century Methodism has, therefore, been described as a ‘Counter-­Enlightenment’ movement, which was intent on stalling any progress towards the secular ‘modernity’ propagated by rationalists. In his classic survey of eighteenth-­century England, J.  H.  Plumb claimed that the ‘intellectual attitude of the day’ was ‘absolutely absent’ from early Methodism—a point he supported by referring to Wesley’s belief in witches and demonic possession.2 Jonathan Israel similarly argues that Wesley’s ‘fervent’ belief in the supernatural rendered him a ‘leading precursor of Counter-­Enlightenment in the transatlantic, English-­speaking world’.3 Some scholars have sought to bridge the traditional divide between eighteenth-­ century Methodism and the ‘Enlightenment’. For historians of Whitefield this has not been an easy task. Frank Lambert, for instance, concedes that Whitefield largely embodied the ‘Counter-­Enlightenment’ by launching controversial attacks on ‘Reasoners’, such as Tillotson and the professors at Harvard. Nevertheless, Lambert also stresses that, compared with ‘radical revivalists’, such as James Davenport, Whitefield’s theology was closer to that of evangelical ‘moderates’, such as Jonathan Edwards and Samuel Blair, both of whom appealed to reason and Scripture during discernment. Evidently, neither ‘Enlightenment’ nor ‘Counter-­Enlightenment’ are accurate categorizations for Whitefield’s teachings.4 Scholars of Wesley have found it considerably easier to reconcile some of his teachings with the ‘Enlightenment’. David Hempton describes Wesley’s Thoughts upon Slavery (1774) as a ‘spirited defence of natural rights’.5 Others have described the ways in which empiricism governed aspects of Wesley’s ministry. In her 1  Walsh, ‘ “Methodism” and the Origins of English-­Speaking Evangelicalism’, p. 23. 2 J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century, revised ed. (Harmondsworth, 1963), pp. 94–6. 3 J.  I.  Israel, Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750–1790 (Oxford, 2011), p. 43. 4  F. Lambert, ‘Whitefield and Enlightenment’, in Life, Context, and Legacy, pp. 64–81, at 70. 5 D. Hempton, Religion of the People: Methodism and Popular Religion, 1750–1900 (London, 1996), p. 80. See also Hempton’s more recent Methodism: Empire of the Spirit, pp. 41–2. The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0006

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  107 discussions of Methodist dreams Phyllis Mack illuminates Wesley’s belief that ‘the proof of a dream’s divinity’ could only be discerned from the ‘dreamer’s own reformed habits and change of heart’.6 Deborah Madden similarly argues that Wesley’s reliance on empiricism can be discerned from his medical self-­help book, Primitive Physick (1747), which stemmed from his own trial-­and-­error experimentations.7 Also, as has been noted by Henry Rack, Wesley was careful to ensure that accounts of ‘apparitions and witches’ were supported by ‘Lockeian empiricist arguments’.8 For instance, Wesley rejected discussions of ‘aerial and astral spirits’ advanced by Joseph Glanvill (1636–80), an Anglican divine and natural philosopher. Since such information was only accessible to ‘inhabitants’ of the ‘invisible world’, Glanvill’s ideas amounted to pure speculation and ‘stark nonsense’.9 Yet Rack still distances Wesley from some aspects of the so-­called ‘Enlightenment’. For example, he claims that, during Wesley’s lifetime, ‘Deism and evangelicalism really operated in different worlds.’10 Rack’s ‘different worlds’ assumption is prevalent throughout the secondary literature on religion (and irreligion) in eighteenth-­ century England. While scholars have devoted much attention both to Methodism and deism, it is unusual to see these two seemingly opposite extremes being scrutinized in the same work. Leslie Stephen’s The History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1876) is a rare example of a work that discusses both Methodism and deism at length. This work, however, largely ignored any connections between evangelical ‘enthusiasts’ and rational sceptics. The exception to this rule is Stephen’s brief reference to Wesley’s attack on Conyers Middleton. Unlike Stephen, however, more recent scholars have argued convincingly that Middleton’s beliefs should be described, not as ‘deism’, but as ‘anti-­dogmatic Protestantism’.11 It would, of course, be logical to assume that Wesley—a man who contested the 1735 Witchcraft Act and based his conversion on a sudden feeling—operated in a

6 Mack, Heart Religion, p. 226. 7  D. Madden, ‘Experience and the Common Interest of Mankind: The Enlightened Empiricism of John Wesley’s Primitive Physick’, JECS, 26 (2003), pp. 41–53; D. Madden, A Cheap, Safe and Natural Medicine: Religion, Medicine and Culture in John Wesley’s Primitive Physic (Amsterdam, NY, 2007). 8  For Rack’s discussions of Wesley’s empiricism, see Reasonable Enthusiast, pp. 383–8 (see pp. 387–8 for quotation); ‘A Man of Reason and Religion? John Wesley and the Enlightenment’, WMS, 1 (2009), pp. 2–17. 9  Works, Journal V, p. 178. 10 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, p. 174. 11 For Stephen’s discussions of Wesley and Middleton, see L.  Stephen, The History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (London, 1876), II, pp. 413–14. For three essays which question the traditional notion that Middleton was a deist, see J.  van den Berg, ‘Should Conyers Middleton (1683–1750), Principal Librarian in Cambridge, Be Regarded as a Deist?’, Notes and Queries, 56 (2009), pp. 255–7; R. G. Ingram, ‘ “The Weight of Historical Evidence”: Conyers Middleton and the Eighteenth-­Century Miracles Debate’, in Cornwall and Gibson, Religion, Politics and Dissent, pp. 85–109; B.  W.  Young, ‘Conyers Middleton: The Historical Consequences of Heterodoxy’, in S. Mortimer and J. Robertson (eds), The Intellectual Consequences of Religious Heterodoxy, 1600–1750 (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2012), pp. 235–65, at p. 248. Ingram also devotes four chapters to Middleton in Reformation without End (chs 6–9).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

108  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy different world from individuals, such as Thomas Chubb, who denied the m ­ ir­acles of Jesus. In fact, both deism and anti-­deism overlapped considerably with the early attacks on Wesley and Whitefield. Both Methodists and deists were charged with ‘enthusiasm’. Furthermore, discussions of deism featured prominently in attacks on Methodists, who were often perceived to be aiding the plight of freethinkers by eroding the authority of the Church of England. Conversely, freethinkers sometimes utilized the evangelical movement for their own polemical purposes. By exploring these deistic responses to Methodism, this chapter illuminates the prominence of deception and disguise in eighteenth-­century religious polemic. Indeed, the eighteenth century was an ‘age of disguise’, in which authors often ridiculed their opponents by posing as them.12 Most notably, in The Shortest Way with the Dissenters (1702), the Dissenting author Daniel Defoe posed as a tyrannical High Churchman, who advocates drastic methods of religious coercion, modelled on Moses’s command to the Levites to slay idolatrous Israelites (Exodus 32).13 As is shown in this chapter, freethinkers sometimes disguised themselves as religious ‘enthusiasts’ in their polemical attacks on priestly religion. On the other hand, anti-­Methodism provided Peter Annet with a Trojan Horse to attack priestly religion. To gain a greater sense of the ways in which Methodism and anti-­Methodism overlapped with discussions of deism, it is initially important to define ‘deism’.

Defining ‘Deism’ The term ‘deism’ did not denote any coherent or united movement. There was not ‘one deism, but several, all different, all mutually opposed, and even at daggers drawn with one another’.14 Where the third Earl of Shaftesbury viewed benevolence as an innate characteristic of human nature, Bernard Mandeville and Lord Bolingbroke advocated the Hobbesian notion that all are governed by self-­love. Similarly, where William Wollaston and Jacob Ilive believed in the immortality of the soul, others, such as Shaftesbury and Chubb, believed otherwise.15 To complicate matters further, out of all the individuals who are now commonly 12  M. E. Novak (ed.), English Literature in the Age of Disguise (London, 1977). 13 For this work, which caused Defoe to be arrested and imprisoned for seditious libel, see H.  D.  Weinbrot, Literature, Religion, and the Evolution of Culture, 1660–1780 (Baltimore, MD, 2013), ch. 2. 14 P.  Hazard, European Thought in the Eighteenth Century: From Montesquieu to Lessing (New Haven, CT, 1954), p. 393. 15 R.  Stromberg, Religious Liberalism in Eighteenth-­ Century England (Oxford, 1954), p. 66; M. J. McClymond and G. R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford, 2012), pp. 52–3. For Ilive’s theology, see J.  A.  Herrick, The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680–1750 (Columbia, SC, 1997), ch. 9.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  109 classified as ‘deists’, Peter Annet is the only person who is thought to have referred to himself as such (this self-­identification appeared in an anonymous polemic).16 In Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730), Matthew Tindal denied being a ‘deist’, but implicitly identified himself as a ‘Christian Deist’, who believed that the universal law of nature was complemented by Christ’s message.17 Some sceptical authors, such as Charles Blount and Anthony Collins, wrote about ‘deists’ and ‘deism’ in a detached, albeit fairly sympathetic, manner.18 In fact, ‘deism’ was often little more than a derogatory slur—‘one of the dirty words of the age’—used to convey fear rather than describe ‘specific traits of the accused’.19 Methodists often used the term loosely to describe theologians with whom they disagreed. For instance, Whitefield described Tillotson’s theology as ‘Deism refined’.20 Samuel Clarke, a Latitudinarian divine and biblical scholar, denied the existence of a ‘consistent Scheme of Deism’. This denial did not, however, prevent Clarke from defining ‘deists’ as those who followed the ‘Light of Nature alone; without believing any Divine Revelation’.21 Yet it is insufficient for historians to define ‘deism’ as a rejection of divine revelation. Deists were, of course, virtually unanimous in their rejection of ‘special revelations’, which defied the natural order. Deists did, however, embrace the concept of ‘divine revelation’, though what they understood by the phrase would have shocked most clergymen. Both Thomas Chubb and Thomas Morgan viewed reason as a divine gift, which enabled humans to observe God’s ‘orderly construction of the universe’. While these phrases were not in use during the eighteenth century, modern theologians have described this form of revelation as ‘general revelation’ or ‘natural revelation’. It would, therefore, be more accurate to define ‘deists’ as individuals who were guided by reason and nature, while rejecting priestly religion.22

16 [P. Annet], Deism Fairly Stated, and Fully Vindicated from the Gross Imputations and Groundless Calumnies of Modern Believers (London, 1746). 17 M. Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation, or The Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature (London, 1730), pp. 368, 371. 18  Blount claimed that ‘Deism is a good manuring of a man’s Conscience, yet certainly if sowed with Christianity it will produce the most profitable Crop’. See C.  Blount, The Oracles of Reason (London, 1693), p. 87. Collins attacked Anglican divines who ridiculed ‘Deists’ and ‘Scepticks’ in fictional dialogues with ‘Orthodox’ characters. Such tactics, to Collins, merely showed that one was unwilling to engage in serious debate. See A. Collins, A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1724), pp. xlviii–xlix. 19 J.  E.  Force, ‘Biblical Interpretation, Newton, and English Deism’, in R.  H.  Popkin and A.  Vanderjagt (eds), Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden, 1993), p. 282; W. Hudson, D. Lucci, and J. R. Wigelsworth, ‘Introduction: Atheism and Deism Revived’, in W. Hudson, D. Lucci, and J. R. Wigelsworth (eds), Atheism and Deism Revalued: Heterodox Religious Identities in Britain, 1650–1800 (Burlington, VT, 2014), p. 3. 20 Whitefield, Three Letters, p. 4. 21 S.  Clarke, A Discourse Concerning the Being and Attributes of God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation (London, 1706), pp. 37, 40. 22  J. R. Wigelsworth, ‘ “God always acts suitable to his character, as a wise and good being”: Thomas Chubb and Thomas Morgan on Miracles and Providence’, in Hudson, Lucci, and Wigelsworth, Atheism and Deism, p. 169.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

110  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Far from viewing deism as novel or revolutionary, patristically minded Anglicans simply saw it as the latest in a long line of heresies, dating back to those with which the primitive church had contended. When Tindal attempted to debunk the Genesis story by arguing that the serpent was ‘incapable of human Voice’, he was, according to Daniel Waterland, merely repeating the ‘mean Objection of the Apostate Julian’.23 In 1731 ‘Orator’ John Henley, a London priest, scoffed that—far from being ‘New and Wise’—deism was simply a ‘worn-­out Remnant’ of Pyrrhonism, an ancient sceptical philosophy, against which Augustine had written at length.24 While seventeenth- and eighteenth-­century divines did not view scepticism as a novel phenomenon, many sought new ex­plan­ations for its existence. During this period, there was, of course, no fine line demarcating ‘theological’ and ‘scientific’ explanations for thoughts and behaviours. The convergence of ‘science’ and ‘religion’ was prevalent in early discussions of ‘melancholia’, from which many believed scepticism originated.

Melancholia and Suicide One of the earliest examples of freethinkers being associated with melancholia can be found in Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy, which described ‘true religion’ as a state in which a person recognized that ‘the true God’ was ‘the way to heaven, [and] the mother of all vertues’. To Burton, such a state was physical as well as spiritual. Spiritually speaking, a person’s deviation from ‘true religion’ was due to diabolic action. Physiologically speaking, it was due to an abnormality known as ‘melancholia’, resulting from an imbalance of humours. Burton, therefore, viewed melancholia as a soul-­sickness, which caused despair, along with an inability to love and fear God in the correct measures. On the one extreme, melancholia was exhibited by those who viewed themselves as ‘more divine and sanctified then [sic] others’. This category included ‘all superstitious Idolators, Ethnickes, Mahometans, Jewes, Hereticks, Enthusiasts, Divinators, Prophets, Sectaries, and Schismaticks’. On the other extreme, melancholia could be found among ‘impious Epicures, Libertines, Atheists, Hypocrites, [and] Infidels’. In other words, those ‘carnall minded men, that attribute all to naturall causes’ and ‘acknowledge no supreame power’.25

23 D.  Waterland, Scripture Vindicated: In Answer to a Book Intituled, Christianity as Old as the Creation. Part I (London, 1730), p. 14. 24 J. Henley, Deism Defeated, and Christianity Defended, or The Evidence for Christianity Set in a New Light and Proved to Amount to Certainty (London, 1731), p. 7. 25 Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy, pp. 715–16, 773. For more on the perceived relationship between atheism and melancholy, see J. Hankins, ‘Monstrous Melancholy: Ficino and the Physiological Causes of Atheism’, in S. Clucas, P. Forshaw, and V. Rees (eds), Laus Platonici Philosophi: Marsilio Ficino and His Influence (Leiden, 2011), pp. 25–44.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  111 Thomas Woolston was one deist who faced allegations of madness. In 1729 Woolston was tried for blasphemy following the publication of a series of Discourses, in which he denied any literal interpretation of Jesus’s miracles.26 In his Pastoral Letter (1728) Bishop Gibson claimed that Woolston’s ‘infidelity’ stemmed from his ‘deprav’d mind’.27 Another author scoffed that, for the 1689 Toleration Act to be serviceable to Woolston, it would need to make ‘proper Accommodations for such as fall into your way of thinking in Moor-­fields’—the location of the lunatic asylum Bedlam.28 Some claimed that, because of their melancholia, freethinkers were more likely to commit suicide. In An Essay Concerning Self-­Murther (1700) John Adams, rector of St Alban, Wood Street (and future provost of King’s College, Cambridge), claimed that those who rejected ‘Revelation’ and were ‘misled’ by their ‘pompous Boasts of Reason’ often lost their ‘Health’ and ‘Good Conscience’, leading them ‘to seek for Ease in Self-­murther’.29 Adams’s argument may have been inspired by the 1693 suicide of Charles Blount, who was distraught that the law forbade him from marrying his late wife’s sister.30 Many years later the Church of Ireland divine George Berkeley described a similar relationship between freethought and suicide in his anti-­deist work Alciphron (1732). This work takes the form of a fictional dialogue between several characters, including a couple of freethinkers and a defender of Christianity (Crito). At one point Crito claims that ‘as the Minute Philosophy prevails, we daily see more examples of Suicide’.31 In his English Malady (1733) the Newtonian physicist George Cheyne also attributed the ‘late frequency and daily Encrease of wanton and uncommon Self-­murderers’ to the activities of ‘Infidels’ and their ‘Disciples’.32 Religious ‘enthusiasm’ was also widely perceived as a melancholic phe­nom­ enon. Anti-­Methodist publications often contained allusions to madness—the most notable example being the undated satirical cartoon Harlequin Methodist, in which Whitefield is depicted, dressed as the humble servant Harlequin, with 26 For Woolston, see J.  A.  Herrick, ‘The Rhetorical Career of Thomas Woolston: A Radical Challenges the Rules of Discourse’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78 (1992), pp. 296–316; W. Trapnell, Thomas Woolston: Deist and Madman? (Bristol, 1993); R.  D.  Lund, ‘Irony as Subversion: Thomas Woolston and the Crime of Wit’, in R. D. Lund (ed.), The Margins of Orthodoxy: Heterodox Writing and Cultural Response, 1660–1750 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 170–94; Herrick, Radical Rhetoric, ch. 4; J.  A.  Herrick, ‘Blasphemy in the Eighteenth Century: Contours of a Rhetorical Crime’, in Hudson, Lucci, and Wigelsworth, Atheism and Deism, pp. 104–8. 27 E.  Gibson, The Bishop of London’s Pastoral Letter to the People of His Diocese: Particularly, to Those of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster. Occasion’d by Some Late Writings in Favour of Infidelity (London, 1728), p. 8. 28 A. B., A Letter to Mr. Woolston, Occasion’d by His Late Defence of His Discourse, in Answer to the Bishops of St. David’s and London, &c. From a Deacon of the Church of England (London, 1729), p. 13. 29 J. Adams, An Essay Concerning Self-­Murther: Wherein Is Endeavour’d to Prove That It Is Unlawful According to Natural Principles (London, 1700), p. A3. 30  D. Pfanner, ‘Blount, Charles (1654–1693)’, ODNB. 31 G. Berkeley, Alciphron, or The Minute Philosopher. In Seven Dialogues. Containing an Apology for the Christian Religion, against Those Who Are Called Free-­thinkers, 2 vols (London, 1732), I, p. 117. 32 G. Cheyne, The English Malady, or A Treatise of Nervous Diseases of All Kinds, as Spleen, Vapours, Lowness of Spirits, Hypochondriacal, and Hysterical Distempers, &c. (London, 1733), p. iii.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

112  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Bedlam clearly visible in the background (see Figure 5.1). In 1745 Mary Hill ­similarly claimed that Methodists were ‘brain-­sick in the fond estimation of their own opinions’.33 Thus it was often alleged that, like deism, Methodism encouraged self-­harm and suicide. In a 1743 letter to his father in Scotland an anonymous ‘gentleman’ of New England claimed that some of Whitefield’s followers had ‘hanged themselves’, while others had ‘cut their own Throats’.34 An item in an August 1743 issue of the Norwich Gazette attributed the recent suicide of a mentally ill woman to a local Methodist preacher.35 Several years later The Universal Museum described a female Methodist convert of Newcastle who ‘cut off both her ears, her nose, both lips, both breasts, stabbed herself under the breast and cut her throat’. Remarkably, the woman survived the experience, which was caused by a ‘fit of religion’.36 Admittedly, evangelical leaders played their part in fuelling the common belief that religious ‘enthusiasm’ encouraged self-­harm. In 1737 London readers were exposed to Jonathan Edwards’s Faithful Narrative of the 1734–5 revival in Northampton, Massachusetts. In this work Edwards described how one member of his flock committed suicide because he was ‘exceedingly concern’d about the State of his Soul’.37 In the final part of his Enthusiasm of Methodists Bishop Lavington highlighted an entry from Wesley’s published Journal, in which one Methodist layman’s battles with Satan were described. Having sank ‘into the Depth of Despair’, the man had, apparently, been ‘tempted to Self-­murder, to hang, or drown himself ’.38 Rather than operating in different worlds, both deism and Methodism were widely perceived as root causes of melancholia and suicide. With this similarity in mind, it is much easier to understand why the two groups were often associated with each other by their clerical opponents. Linked to these allegations of madness were charges of ‘enthusiasm’. Of course, we have seen that attacks on evangelicals were littered with references to ‘enthusiasm’. More surprising, however, is the fact that discussions of ‘enthusiasm’ often featured in attacks on deism.

33 Hill, Essay on Schism, p. 20. 34 A. M., The State of Religion in New-­England: Since the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s Arrival There. In a Letter from a Gentleman in New-­England to His Friend in Glasgow (Glasgow, 1742), p. 85. 35 G.  Minois, History of Suicide: Voluntary Death in Western Culture, trans. L.  G.  Cochrane (Baltimore, MD, 1999), p. 219. 36  The Universal Museum, or Gentleman’s and Ladies Polite Magazine of History, Politicks and Literature for 1763, 2 vols (London, 1763), II, p. 556. 37 J. Edwards, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton, and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of New-­Hampshire in New-­England (London, 1737), p. 123. 38  Lavington 3, p. 8; J. Wesley, An Extract of the Revd. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, From Nov. 1, 1739. To September 3, 1741, 2nd ed. (Bristol, 1749), p. 24.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  113

Figure 5.1  Harlequin Methodist, to the Tune of ‘An Old Woman Cloathed in Grey’ (s.d.). Etching, 17.1 × 24.7 cm. © The Trustees of the British Museum.

The ‘Immediate Inspiration of God’ Deists often used the charge of ‘enthusiasm’ as a stick with which to beat all priestly religions, especially Christianity. In The History and Character of St. Paul

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

114  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy (c.1748) Peter Annet denied that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus had been the work of God. To Annet, Paul was either an ‘impostor’, who had fabricated his conversion, or an ‘enthusiast’ with an ‘overheated imagination’.39 Conversely, many clergymen described similarities between freethought and religious ‘enthusiasm’. To Henry More both Quakers and Hobbesian materialists—two seemingly disparate groups—shared two things: a common dependence on their imagination and a ‘common disregard for illuminated rationality’.40 In the second edition of Enthusiasmus Triumphatus (1662) More claimed that ‘Atheism and Enthusiasm’ exchanged ‘mutual supplies’. The atheist, on the one hand, possessed a ‘pretence to Wit and natural Reason’ which confirmed the enthusiast’s belief that reason was ‘no guide to God’. The enthusiast, on the other hand, interpreted the ‘careless ravings of his own tumultuous Phansy’ as ‘undeniable Principles of Divine knowledge’, thereby confirming the atheist’s suspicion that the ‘Notion of a God’ was simply a ‘troublesome fit of over-­curious Melancholy’.41 In a subsequent work, entitled Philosophiae Teutonicae Censura (1679), More addressed the mystical teachings of Jakob Boehme (1575–1624). More admired Boehme’s spirituality but feared that his ‘unreflective reliance on the imagination’ could easily be interpreted as a form of atheism.42 William Law—who, ironically, became a follower of Boehme’s teachings—described a similar relationship between ‘enthusiasm’ and irreligion in his response to Tindal, entitled The Case of Reason, or Natural Religion, Fairly and Fully Stated (1731). To Law, those who followed reason alone fell into the ‘grossest errors’. More specifically, Law believed that, when reason was unchecked by divine revelation, it paved the way for false religion and libertinism. It was, therefore, ‘reason that made Medea kill her children, that made Cato kill himself, that made pagans offer human sacrifices to idols . . . [and] made Mahomet pretend a revelation’. Human reason, Law argued, produced ‘enthusiasts’, such as Muhammad and the ‘fanatick’ Lodowicke Muggleton (1609–98). Both individuals had, of course, claimed to be guided by divine revelation, though Law rejected these claims. Clearly Law equated false revelation with corrupted human reason.43 Law’s argument contradicts the definition of ‘enthusiasm’ subsequently advanced by Samuel Johnson in the first edition of his Dictionary. To Johnson ‘enthusiasm’ meant a ‘vain belief of private revelation . . . founded neither on reason nor divine revelation’. Evidently Law differed from Johnson in the sense that he viewed ‘enthusiasm’ as a vain

39 [P. Annet], The History and Character of St. Paul, Examined: In a Letter to Theophilus, a Christian Friend (London, [c.1748]), p. 16. 40 Fouke, Enthusiastical Concerns of Dr. Henry More, p. 181. 41 H. More, Enthusiasmus Triumphatus, or A Brief Discourse of the Nature, Causes, Kinds, and Cure of Enthusiasm, 2nd ed. (London, 1662), pp. 1–2. 42 Fouke, Enthusiastical Concerns of Dr. Henry More, p. 181. 43 W. Law, The Case of Reason, or Natural Religion, Fairly and Fully Stated. In Answer to a Book, Entitul’d, Christianity as Old as the Creation (London, 1731), p. 159.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  115 belief of private revelation, founded on reason alone.44 Law, therefore, believed that religious ‘enthusiasts’, such as Muslims and Muggletonians, were on the same footing as those who rejected priestly religion, such as the ‘libertine’ John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester (1647–80). All these individuals and groups were, to Law, governed by one thing: selfish human reason.45 Daniel Waterland made similar associations between deists and religious ‘enthusiasts’ in his 1740 attack on the evangelical new birth, Regeneration Stated and Explained. The word ‘Inspiration’, Waterland noted, was abused by many, who used it to ‘boast . . . in an extravagant Way’ and portray ‘their own presumptions’ as the ‘Dictates of the Spirit’. To support this point, Waterland cited some anti-­ Quaker works by Thomas Bennet and Charles Leslie. As was shown in the previous chapter, allusions to Quakerism featured prominently in anti-­Methodist polemic. More surprising, however, was Waterland’s subsequent reference to several deistic texts, including The Infallibility of Humane Judgement (1719) by J. [William] Lyons, a freethinker, who had befriended Benjamin Franklin during the latter’s early stint in London. This work, which resulted in a period of imprisonment for Lyons, described human reason as a ‘Ray of the Divinity’. Waterland also cited his late adversary Tindal’s description of ‘intuitive Knowledge’ as a form of ‘divine Inspiration’—a ‘uniform Light, which shines in the Minds of all Men, and enables them to discern whatever they do discern’. This ‘Inspiration’, according to Tindal, came ‘immediately from God’ and could not be ‘acquir’d by any human Deduction’. Finally, Waterland cited an anonymous work, entitled A Demonstration of the Insufficiency Both of Reason and Revelation (1731), which instructed readers to discard both ‘Reason and Revelation’ in favour of the ‘IMMEDIATE INSPIRATION of GOD’. It is no coincidence that this work was published shortly after Tindal’s Christianity as Old as the Creation. At one point the author defended Tindal’s scepticism of ‘written Revelation’. Thus, by using illumination as a metaphor for human reason and intuitive knowledge, these deistic authors adopted a language that was reminiscent of Quakerism.46 The annotations in Waterland’s personal copy of Christianity as Old as the Creation show that he privately saw affinities between Quakerism and deism. In one margin Waterland noted that Tindal’s references to a ‘Light within’ were ‘most like Quakerism’. Elsewhere he observed that Tindal’s ‘reason’ amounted to nothing more than ‘Dreams’.47 Waterland, therefore, associated deists with religious 44 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755), s.v. ‘Enthusiasm’. 45 Law, Case of Reason, p. 159. 46 Waterland, Regeneration Stated and Explained, pp. 40–1; [J. Lyons], The Infallibility of Humane Judgment: Its Dignity and Excellency, 2nd ed. (London, 1721), p. 44; Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation, p. 182; A Demonstration of the Insufficiency Both of Reason and Revelation (London, 1731), pp. 20–1, 48. For more on Franklin’s friendship with Lyons, see J. A. L. Lemay, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 1: Journalist, 1706–1730 (Philadelphia, PA, 2006), pp. xii, 270–1, 274, 286–9. 47  Bodleian, 4° Rawl. 92: Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation [Waterland’s annotated copy], pp. 179, 292. I am grateful to Brian Young for this reference.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

116  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy ‘enthusiasts’ because both groups were free to call whatever they wished—be it Tindal’s intuitive knowledge on the one hand or Wesley’s ‘heart-­ warming’ Aldersgate experience on the other—‘immediate Inspiration’, setting them ‘loose from true Religion and sound Reason’ to follow their ‘own Devices’.48 Several years earlier John Henley had similarly condemned the anonymous author of A Demonstration of the Insufficiency Both of Reason and Revelation for exchanging the ‘External Word’ for a singular reliance on an ‘Internal Spirit’. Henley perceived this doctrine as agreeable both to religious ‘enthusiasts’ and deists. The author, therefore, was merely ‘an Infidel in a Quakers Coat; James Naylor translating Spinoza’.49 Adopting the language of religious ‘enthusiasts’ was a common rhet­ oric­al strategy among freethinkers, particularly those, such as Thomas Woolston, who enjoyed antagonizing churchmen. Posing as a Quaker called ‘Aristobulus’, Woolston claimed in a 1720 work that the Society of Friends was more consistent with the ‘Primitive and Apostolical Church’ than any ‘learned Men’ in the Church of England.50 More deceptive, however, was Christianity Not Founded on Argument (1741) by Henry Dodwell (the younger). On the surface, this work is a fideistic attack on the fallibility of human reason. Yet the extremity of Dodwell’s arguments make it difficult to believe that this piece was intended to be anything other than satirical. It was probably designed as a parody of Law’s Case of Reason, which had fallen short of discarding human reason entirely. It may also have been intended as a subtle attack on Methodism.51 Human reason, Dodwell argued, resulted in ‘carnal Wisdom’. It therefore needed to be ‘suppress’d’ by the civil magistrate to prevent the ‘hateful Animosities’ that arose from ‘that restless Spirit of Contradiction and Confusion’. There was, according to Dodwell, ‘no one Lesson that the holy Writings’ had ‘taken more Care to inculcate in the strongest Terms, than this of denying our Reason to give our Faith Scope’. While Christians received faith through the Holy Spirit, it was only by reflecting on the ‘innumerable Passages throughout the whole Scripture’ that they could discern ‘true’ faith. Elsewhere, however, Dodwell called for Christians to discard the ‘human Testimony’ of ‘ancient Miracles’, which provided them with a ‘very slender and insufficient Ground’ for faith. Instead, Christians needed to consult the Holy Spirit, through which God wrote ‘his Law in our Hearts’. Presumably such blatant contradiction was Dodwell’s intention.52

48 Waterland, Regeneration Stated and Explained, p. 41. 49 Henley, Deism Defeated, p. 35. 50 [T. Woolston], A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Bennet (London, 1720), p. 6. 51 Both James Herrick and Diego Lucci agree that Dodwell was probably parodying Law. See J. A. Herrick, ‘Dodwell, Henry (1706–1784)’, ODNB; D. Lucci, ‘Henry Dodwell the Younger’s Attack on Christianity’, in Hudson, Lucci, and Wigelsworth, Atheism and Deism, pp. 209–28. 52 [H. Dodwell], Christianity Not Founded on Argument, and the True Principle of Gospel-­Evidence Assigned: In a Letter to a Young Gentleman at Oxford (London, 1741), pp. 31, 56–7, 59–61, 84.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  117 Christianity Not Founded on Argument attracted numerous responses, most of which were hostile. John Wesley, for instance, claimed that its aim was to ‘render the whole of the Christian Institution, both odious and contemptible’.53 James Bate compared Dodwell’s method of disguise to Satan’s ability to ‘transform himself into an Angel of Light’.54 By this stage Bate had already attacked Methodism in print. The Dodwell controversy, therefore, shows that Methodists sometimes fought on the same side as their critics. Unlike Wesley, Robert Seagrave, an Anglican divine and Calvinist evangelical, took Dodwell’s work seriously. Seagrave concurred that ‘Human Reason’ was ‘corrupt’, but added that all Christians received ‘right Reason’ through the ‘Gift of Grace’.55 Dodwell’s deception was mirrored in an earlier, much cruder publication, in which an anonymous ‘Deist in London’ informed a ‘Friend in the Country’ of his recent experience of the new birth. The ‘Deist’ opened The True Character of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield (1739) with the following words: You well know we have for some time past been polite enough to become Deists, to make a Jest of Christianity, and to look upon Religion only as a political Scheme to keep Mankind in Awe. These Opinions open’d the Way for both of us to give an unbounded Liberty to our Passions; and to become finish’d Rakes. But now I look back with Horror upon Vice, and am perfectly convinc’d we have been travelling full Speed in the high Road to eternal Damnation.56

This ‘sudden Alteration’ was apparently prompted by the author’s attendance at one of Whitefield’s open-­ air services, where he experienced the new birth. Throughout this text the ‘Deist’ attempts to defend his new-­found role model, whom, he claims, has endured ‘all Manner of Evil . . . said against him’. The ‘Deist’ proceeds to echo Whitefield by attacking the established clergy for seeking ‘Pluralities’, wallowing in ‘Luxury’, and prostituting the ‘Holy Sacrament’ to known adulterers. Much of his rage is reserved for Joseph Trapp, who was Whitefield’s main antagonist at the time. Where Whitefield is depicted as somebody who ‘propagates the Tidings of Peace through Jesus Christ’, Trapp is described as a preacher of ‘political Sermons’, who ‘sows religious Discords, and keeps up Party-­divisions, occasion’d by our Great Grand-­fathers’.57 53 Wesley, Earnest Appeal, p. 17. 54 J. Bate, Infidelity Scourged, or Christianity Vindicated (London, 1746), p. 159. 55 R.  Seagrave, Christianity How Far It Is, and Is Not, Founded on Argument (London, 1743), pp. 10, 17–18. 56  The True Character of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, in a Letter from a Deist in London to His Friend in the Country (London, 1739), pp. 2–3. This work was published on 2 June 1739 (see the relevant issue of the London Daily Post and General Advertiser for the original advertisement). 57  The True Character of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, pp. 3–6, 11, 13–15. We know that Trapp’s Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger was first published on 5 June 1739 from an advertisement which appeared in the London Daily Post on this date.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

118  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Some scholars have taken this publication at face value, describing it as a pro-­ Whitefield text.58 Yet the final few pages reveal a bawdy tone, which would have been uncharacteristic of a genuine follower of Whitefield. For instance, the author lampoons a deistic rake whose high living has left him so poverty-­stricken that he has ‘scarce a Pair of Breeches to hide his Nakedness’. Elsewhere the reformed ‘Deist’ lists both his wife and a ‘Cynder-­Wench’ as two of the many female acquaintances of another rakish sceptic. Also, much of the author’s praise for Whitefield is worded sarcastically. As with Dodwell, the ‘Deist’ rejects human reason in an outright manner. In one section he argues that Whitefield’s ‘reasoning far exceeds that of many profess’d Orators’ because the ‘Holy Spirit of God has been his Instructor, which as far exceeds human Learning, as the Sun exceeds the most dark and horrible Caverns’. The ‘Deist’ subsequently argues that, while many biblical stories—such as the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’s birth in a stable—may appear ‘strange’ to ‘human Reason’, this is only because the Bible is beyond the comprehension of our ‘weak Capacities’. After advancing these seemingly simplistic explanations for Christianity’s validity, the author advises his friend that he has ‘no Excuse to remain any longer a Deist’. He then urges his friend to ‘sling’ himself ‘into the Arms of Jesus Christ; who is always ready to receive a true penitent Sinner’. Clearly the author’s intention was to parody Whitefield’s alleged fideism, while also attacking priestly religion—particularly the seemingly corrupt Church of England.59 Although the True Character of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield only went through one edition, there is evidence to suggest that it was read by at least one Anglican clergyman. In a response to Whitefield, dated 14 June 1739, Josiah Tucker defended both himself and his brethren against Whitefield’s charges of deism. Tucker scoffed that, if he was a deist, he would not be such a ‘strenuous Opposer of Mr. Whitefield’, whom the deists seemed ‘strongly inclin’d to favour’. To support his claim that the deists ‘foment[ed] the Division’ caused by Whitefield, Tucker advised his readers to ‘See some late Pamphlets from that Quarter’. While Tucker did not name any of these ‘late Pamphlets’, it is possible that The True Character of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield—which had appeared less than a fortnight earlier—was one of them. If so, Tucker was clearly aware that the ‘Deist in London’ was simply ridiculing the Methodists’ attempted crackdown on freethought.60 To their followers, of course, Wesley and Whitefield played an indispensable role in curtailing the rise of deism. In response to Lavington’s Enthusiasm of Methodists, one anonymous woman claimed that all who opposed the ‘present Revival of Religion’ 58 F.  Lambert, ‘Pedlar in Divinity’: George Whitefield and the Transatlantic Revivals, 1737–1770 (Princeton, NJ, 1994), p. 180; McInelly, Textual Warfare, p. 3; Brett C. McInelly, ‘Whitefield and His Critics’, in Life, Context, and Legacy, p. 152. 59  True Character of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, pp. 5, 10–11, 26–7, 29–30. 60  J.  Tucker, ‘A More Particular Reply by Mr. Tucker, the Author of the Queries’, in A Compleat Account of the Conduct of that Eminent Enthusiast Mr. Whitefield (London, 1739), pp. 36–7.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  119 aided deists.61 Conversely, numerous authors of various denominations shared Tucker’s belief that evangelical ‘enthusiasm’ complemented deism in one way or another.

‘Spiritual’ and ‘Sensual’ Enthusiasts In 1739 Joseph Trapp claimed that, despite their differences, ‘all the Enemies of the Christian Religion’ would ‘by the Devil’s Policy, and their own Inclinations, unite in one Body against the establish’d Church’. Methodist ‘Enthusiasts’, along with all the ‘Protestant Hereticks, Schismaticks’, ‘false Teachers . . . Free-­thinkers, Infidels, Deists, and Atheists’, were doing the work of the ‘Papists’. As was shown in the previous chapter, Trapp was neither the first nor the last author to accuse Protestant ‘enthusiasts’ of working for the Papacy. Yet his claim that freethinkers were also working alongside Whitefield in this papal alliance is more surprising. One would expect that, because of their regular condemnation of ‘priestcraft’, freethinkers were universally viewed as the antithesis of Roman Catholics.62 Nevertheless, orthodox divines had long argued that, like Protestant ‘enthusiasts’, deists merely voiced anti-­Catholic sentiments to disguise their true allegiance to Rome. In his personal copy of Christianity as Old as the Creation, Waterland observed that Tindal’s patriotic praise for the ‘blessed Revolution’ of 1688 contradicted his apparent desire to ‘disturb this happy settlement’ by inciting ‘confusions’. Waterland also feared that Tindal—who had previously ‘embraced’ Roman Catholicism—intended to ‘bring in popery again’.63 A 1733 item in the Weekly Miscellany similarly alleged that ‘the Papists actually encourage the Growth of Irreligion, to favour the Point of Infallibility’. Once people ‘tired’ of the ‘endless Mazes of Deism, and the infinite Uncertainty of Natural Religion’, they would reject the ‘Miseries of having no Religion’, embracing the ‘Infallibility’ of Roman Catholicism instead. Apparently, this was why ‘Jesuits’ often went ‘masqu’d under the Character of Deists’.64 Others, such as Joseph Glanvill, saw religious ‘enthusiasm’ as the root cause of scepticism: It will be enough to say, in an Age that hath so much and such sad experience of it, that Enthusiasm, (I.) By crying up the excesses, and diseases of Imagination for the greatest height of godliness. And (II.) By the disparagement of sober Reason,

61 M. B., Deism Genuine Anti-­Methodism, or The Present Increase of Deism Prov’d to Be the Natural and Judicial Consequence of Opposing and Ridiculing the Present Revival of Religion (London, 1751), p. 3. 62 Trapp, Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger, pp. 64–7. 63 Bodleian, 4° Rawl. 92: Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation [Waterland’s annotated copy], p. 139. 64  Weekly Miscellany, 5 May 1733.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

120  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy as an enemy to the Principles of Faith; I say, by these two ways it hath introduc’d a Religion that is Phantastical, and made way for all imaginable follies, and even Atheism it self.65

Similar discussions of ‘enthusiasm’ and its alleged relationship with irreligion were advanced subsequently by David Hume. While the sceptical Hume despised ‘enthusiasm’, he viewed it as a far less threatening phenomenon than ‘superstition’, which had ‘priestly power’ on its side. Although ‘fanatics’, such as the ‘Levellers’ in England and the ‘Covenanters in Scotland’, produced ‘cruel Desolation in human Society’, it usually took very ‘little Time’ for these groups to ‘exhaust themselves’. The absence of anybody ‘endow’d with sufficient Authority’ normally caused these ‘fanatical Sects’ to ‘sink into the greatest Remissness and Coolness in Sacred Matters’, leaving ‘the Air more calm and serene than before’. Some authors, therefore, viewed Methodist ‘enthusiasm’ as the root cause of irreligion.66 In 1749 deism’s alleged indebtedness to Methodism was satirized by the an­onym­ous author of a Dublin publication, entitled A Letter from the Deists, to the Chief Rulers amongst the Methodists. In this ‘letter’ the ‘Deists’ inform the Methodists that their different tactics complement each other well. Where the aim of the ‘Deists’ is to ‘strip’ religion of faith, the Methodists are keen to ‘rob Religion of Good Works’.67 Eighteenth-­century Anglicans on both sides of the Atlantic similarly predicted that Methodist ‘enthusiasm’ fuelled scepticism. Appended to James Bate’s Quakero-­Methodism was an ‘Address to the Free-­ Thinkers’, who were portrayed as ‘preparing triumph, on Account of these Differences and Dissentions among Christians’.68 In the wake of Whitefield’s 1739 visit to Philadelphia, Commissary Cummings informed Bishop Gibson that the ‘polite Freethinkers’ of the city ‘flocked about him [Whitefield], applauding his manner, well pleased with his reproaches thrown at random against the regular clergy’.69 Some years later Cummings’s concerns were echoed by Theophilus Evans, who stated the following: Enthusiasm very often ends in Atheism: Fiery Zealots, such as imagine themselves the peculiar Favourites of Heaven, when they begin to cool, grow remiss in Duties, and by Degrees abandon all Thoughts of Religion and plunge in all Manner of Vice and Immorality.70 65 J.  Glanvill, Philosophia Pia, or A Discourse of the Religious Temper and Tendencies of the Experimental Philosophy Which Is Profest by the Royal Society to Which Is Annext a Recommendation and Defence of Reason in the Affairs of Religion (London, 1671), pp. 56–7. 66  [D. Hume], ‘Essay XII: Of Superstition and Enthusiasm’, in [D. Hume] (ed.), Essays, Moral and Political (Edinburgh, 1741), pp. 144–5, 148. 67  A Letter from the Deists, to the Chief Rulers amongst the Methodists (Dublin, 1749), pp. 3–5, 8. 68 Bate, Quakero-­Methodism, p. 64. 69  LPL, FP VII, fols. 246–7: Cummings to Gibson, 17 November 1739. 70 Evans, History of Modern Enthusiasm, p. i.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  121 That these fears transcended denominational as well as geographical boundaries can be discerned from an anti-­evangelical work, published in 1743, by Nathaniel Appleton, the Congregationalist minister of the First Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Appleton described deism as something that ‘commonly rises up after any remarkable Turn of Enthusiasm’. Appleton feared that critics of Whitefield and Davenport would begin to doubt the events described in ‘CHRIST’S, and in the Apostles Days’, for which they would be able to find ‘mechanical’ (natural) explanations.71 In 1744 Caleb Fleming, an anti-­Trinitarian Independent minister of London, defined the Methodist as a ‘Spiritual Enthusiast’, who relied on ‘internal and extraordinary Illuminations’ for guidance. Moreover, Fleming claimed that ‘where it [enthusiasm] spreads, there is great Danger of the Spread of what is improperly called Deism’, which he described as a ‘Sort of Enthusiasm . . . a Sort of Madness, a Disorder of the Imagination’. The deist, therefore, was a ‘Sensual Enthusiast’, who claimed that ‘Sense must mark out the Extent of Evidence’. One of the ‘sensual’ enthusiasts to whom Fleming referred was Peter Annet. Only five years earlier Annet had published a work in which he attacked Methodism. But were the Methodists the real target of Annet’s rage?72

‘Seek and you shall find’ Born in Liverpool in 1693, Peter Annet worked for a time as a schoolmaster in London, where he delivered two lectures on 25 January and 1 February 1739 at Plaisterers Hall. These lectures were published as Judging for Ourselves, or Free-­ Thinking, the Great Duty of Religion (1739). This work, which was advertised as an attack on the ‘New Sect of Methodists, all Faith-­Mongers, and Bigots’, could easily be mistaken for a standard attack on Whitefield, whom Annet addressed personally in an appended poem. Throughout this polemic Annet condemned ‘enthusiasm’, which he described as an ‘Infection’ prevalent in society. In one section he attacked the Whitefieldian ‘Doctrines of Free Grace and the New Birth’. He also utilized the popular anti-­Whitefield charge of sexual deviance by claiming that the itinerant had the ability to make ‘some tender Matrons sigh and groan’.73 It is, therefore, easy to see why James Herrick has described Judging for Ourselves as an attack on ‘the religious bigotry of the revivalists’. Herrick’s description, however, ignores Annet’s wider agenda.74

71 N. Appleton, Faithful Ministers of Christ, the Salt of the Earth, and the Light of the World (Boston, MA, 1743), pp. 32–3. 72 [C. Fleming], A Fine Picture of Enthusiasm, Chiefly Drawn by Dr. John Scott, Formerly Rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields (London, 1744), pp. 29–30. 73 P. Annet, Judging for Ourselves, or Free-­thinking, the Great Duty of Religion (London, 1739), pp. iii, v, 8, 25. 74 Herrick, Radical Rhetoric, p. 126.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

122  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy In fact, attacking Whitefield was merely a smokescreen for Annet’s real ob­ject­ ive, which was to lambast priestly religion—particularly that espoused by the Church of England. Indeed, Annet believed that, for Christianity to be restored to its primitive and ‘natural’ state, it needed to discard its external institutions, laws, and rituals, and replace them with the only reliable guide for ‘truth’: God-­given reason. Like Tindal before him, Annet denied any intention to create a ‘new Religion’, claiming instead that he sought ‘to illustrate the old [religion] which was from the Beginning’. By the ‘old’ religion, Annet meant humanity in its primitive state, before it had been corrupted by ‘popery’. Such freedom of enquiry, Annet argued, was the duty of all ‘Protestants’. He was disappointed that those ‘sober Enquirers’ who shared his views were continually ‘call’d Deists, and rank’d in one Class with Atheists’. Alluding to Foxean martyrology, Annet lamented that the ‘Cause of Liberty’—for which ‘those Glorious Martyrs’ of ‘Queen Mary’s Reign’ had died—was not espoused by modern ‘Teachers’, who prevented ‘Articles of Faith’ from being ‘examined at the Bar of human Judgment’. Controversially, Annet had no objections to interrogating the ‘Truths’ contained in the Scriptures: Truth discovers itself to the diligent Inquisitor: Seek and you shall find. If the Scriptures are Truth, they will bear Examination; if they are not, let ’em go: But as they contain Truth, ’tis our Business to find it out, to search of what Nature it is, for what End it was given, and to what Benefits it tends.

Elsewhere Annet argued that there was ‘no Reason to suppose that God delights to puzzle the weak Capacities of his Creatures’ with ‘Incomprehensible Mysteries’. It was, therefore, out of ‘Cowardice or Idleness’ that the laity often allowed ‘Spiritual Traders’ to persuade them otherwise. In what was clearly intended as an attack on tithe payments, Annet condemned those who ‘monopolize the whole Market to themselves’ and ‘oblige Men to pay for what they do not want, nor use’. Such individuals often claimed to have ‘Truth’ on their side, branding all dissenters as ‘schismatical’ or ‘heretical’.75 Annet’s struggle for ‘true religion’ was rooted firmly in the past. By questioning all apparent forms of ‘priestcraft’—including an adherence to the Bible—he portrayed himself as a good ‘Protestant’, fulfilling a quest for ‘liberty’ sparked by the Reformation. Contrary to the Victorian stereotype of a theologically lethargic Georgian Church, Annet clearly did not perceive orthodox divines to be any more ‘rational’ than evangelicals. Despite advertising Judging for Ourselves as an anti-­Methodist tract, Annet’s real target was the Church of England as a whole. The reason why Annet adopted this façade is open to speculation. He may have sought to avoid a polemical confrontation with the clergy, believing that they

75 Annet, Judging for Ourselves, pp. 1–5, 9–10, 25.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Deism and Melancholia  123 would not risk being misrepresented as supporting Whitefield. Since this work marked Annet’s debut as an author, his seemingly cautious approach could be attributed to a lack of confidence. Annet may have feared that a more explicit assault on priestly religion would cause him—like Woolston before him—to fall foul of the Blasphemy Act (1697). Annet’s Trojan Horse strategy could explain why Judging for Ourselves failed to generate a single response. Alternatively, the clergy may simply have felt that the debut work of a layman was not worthy of a rebuttal. Annet’s later works were considerably more daring, generating fury from the clergy. In his next publication, The Resurrection of Jesus Considered: In Answer to the Tryal of the Witnesses (1743), he defended the late Woolston for questioning the reliability of the eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. Despite publishing this work anonymously, Annet was soon exposed as the author, resulting in his dismissal as a schoolmaster.76 In a subsequent work Annet referred to Whitefield—albeit in passing—as part of his wider condemnation of religious imposture. Evidently the Methodists no longer served a purpose to Annet, who, by this point, was known in the arena of theological controversy.77 Annet dedicated the remainder of his life to combating priestly religion and advocating the superiority of reason over revelation. In 1763 he was tried and ‘sentenced to one year’s hard labour, a month at Newgate, and to stand twice in the pillory with the label “Blasphemer” around his neck’. He died six years later.78

Conclusions Rather than operating in a different world from Methodism, both deism and anti-­ deism informed many of the early printed assaults on Wesley and Whitefield. This chapter has illuminated two ways in which deists utilized discussions of Methodism in their attacks on priestly religion. On the one hand, writing a sa­tir­ ic­al ‘defence’ of evangelicalism enabled deists to attack Anglican ‘priestcraft’, while subtly ridiculing the apparent fideism of Methodists. Peter Annet, on the other hand, used anti-­Methodism as a Trojan Horse to launch an attack on the Church of England’s ‘popish’ suppression of ‘true religion’. Paradoxically, however, numerous clergymen, of various denominations, saw affinities between evangelical ‘enthusiasm’ and deism. To patristically minded Anglicans, such as Daniel Waterland, both Methodists and deists were ‘enthusiasts’ because their respective forms of ‘inspiration’ were not scrutinized by reason, revelation, and antiquity. All

76 Herrick, Radical Rhetoric, p. 127. 77 [P. Annet], The Resurrection Reconsidered: Being an Answer to the Clearer and Others. By Way of Dialogue between the Considerer and His Friend (London, 1744), pp. 57–8, 70–1. 78 D. Nash, Blasphemy in the Christian World: A History (Oxford, 2007), p. 65.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

124  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy three tests were, according to Waterland, needed to discern ‘true religion’.79 Others feared that Methodist ‘enthusiasm’ plunged ‘reasonable’ Christians into melancholic deism. It is, therefore, clear from these discussions that retrospective categorizations such as ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Counter-­Enlightenment’ are unhelpful when describing clerical perceptions of Methodism and deism. The belief that evangelical ‘enthusiasm’ fuelled scepticism is something that will be explored further in the next chapter, which will discuss anti-­Methodism in the context of the eighteenth-­century miracles debate. 79 D. Waterland, The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Asserted, in Reply to Some Late Pamphlets (London, 1734), pp. 443–4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

6

Miracles and Demons As was shown in the previous chapter, one central characteristic of deism was a disbelief in miracles. For much of the eighteenth century, whether one was perceived to propagate ‘true religion’ depended, in part, on one’s views of miracles. In a 1701 work William Fleetwood, future bishop of St Asaph, defined a ‘miracle’ as an ‘extraordinary Operation of God, against the known Course, and settled Laws of Nature, appealing to the Senses’.1 Had miracles ceased? If so, when? Or, in fact, had miracles ever happened at all? These were the questions with which eighteenth-­ century theologians, both within and outside of the Church of England, grappled. None of these questions were, however, new. The notion that visible miracles had, at some point, ceased can be traced back to the teachings of Martin Luther, who sought to combat the alleged charlatanism of the Roman Catholic Church. In a 1535 sermon on Matthew 8 Luther drew a sharp distinction between miracles of the body and miracles of the soul. The former consisted of extraordinary cures, such as Jesus’s healing of a leper with the touch of his hand (vv. 2–4). The latter consisted of powerful displays of faith, such as that of the centurion, who believed that his sick servant would be healed by the word of Jesus (vv. 5–13). Miracles of the body had, according to Luther, been confined to the apostolic age, when they served as a crucial means of planting the Gospel. Once this objective was achieved, miracles consisted entirely of invisible, spiritual transformations. Numerous clergymen in the Reformation Church of England also believed that miracles had ceased. Unlike Luther, however, many of these divines refused to discard the testimonies of the post-­apostolic Fathers, arguing instead that miracles had continued until the year 600 at the latest.2 In the fifth book (1597) of his Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, Richard Hooker cited Irenaeus (c.130–c.202) to show that the ‘miraculous graces of the spirit continued after the Apostles times’. Citing Augustine’s De Vera Religione (c.391), Hooker also claimed that occasional miracles—visible to only a select few—had continued after Constantine’s conversion at the beginning of the fourth century, which marked the end of Christianity’s days as a marginalized sect.3 Hooker’s 1 W. Fleetwood, An Essay upon Miracles: In Two Discourses (London, 1701), p. 2. 2  D. P. Walker, ‘The Cessation of Miracles’, in I. Merkel and A. G. Debus (eds), Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe (Washington, D.C., 1988), pp. 111–12; P. M. Soergel, Miracles and the Protestant Imagination: The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany (New York, 2012), ch. 2. 3 R. Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie: The Fift Booke (London, 1597), p. 169. The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0007

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

126  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy views were partly shared by Samuel Harsnett, a stridently anti-­Calvinist clergyman (and future archbishop of York), who argued in a 1599 polemic that miracles had only continued for ‘some fewe ages after the Apostles’.4 Harsnett was writing in response to the recent conviction of John Darrell, a Puritan, who allegedly fabricated various exorcisms in St Mary’s Church, Nottingham, where he was curate. The established Church’s crackdown on Puritan exorcisms culminated in Canon LXXII (1604), which prohibited ministers from performing exorcisms without a licence from the diocesan bishop. Richard Bancroft’s original draft of this canon banned all exorcisms. The concession that exorcisms could be performed with episcopal permission was a last-­minute amendment, which may have been mandated by the ‘demonologist’, James I. In practice, however, such permission was almost never granted.5 Catholic Counter-­Reformers, such as Robert Bellarmine, sought to turn cessationism on its head by arguing that the apparent lack of miracles among Protestants stemmed from God’s disapproval of their schism.6 During the Interregnum, however, England witnessed a ‘revival’ of alleged miracles by ‘radical’ Protestant sectarians, such as Quakers, who claimed ‘apostolicity’ by announcing that ‘they could heal the sick and raise the dead’. The arrival of the mystical French Prophets ensured that such ‘extravagant miracle claims’ con­ tinued into the eighteenth century. The French Prophets’ cause suffered when they wrongly predicted that the late Thomas Emes, a millenarian and quack doctor, would be resurrected on 25 May 1708. Around twenty thousand onlookers apparently flocked to Bunhill Fields cemetery in London to witness Emes’s ‘resurrection’.7 The Emes affair, along with other failed miracles—such as Hugh Bryan’s near-­fatal attempt to copy Moses’s parting of the waves on a South Carolina river in 1742—served as vital ammunition for anti-­evangelical authors on both sides of the Atlantic.8 4 S.  Harsnett, A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel Bachelor of Artes (London, 1599), unpaginated preface. 5  See T. Freeman, ‘Demons, Deviance and Defiance: John Darrell and the Politics of Exorcism in Late Elizabethan England’, in P. Lake and M. Questier (eds), Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–1660 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 34–63; H. Bhogal, ‘Miracles, Cessationism, and Demonic Possession: The Darrell Controversy and the Parameters of Preternature in Early Modern English Demonology’, Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural, 4 (2015), pp. 152–80. 6  Walker, ‘Cessation of Miracles’, p. 118. 7 J. Shaw, Miracles in Enlightenment England (New Haven, CT, 2006), pp. 2, 19. Without denying that the French Prophets were embarrassed by the Emes affair, Lionel Laborie argues convincingly that this episode was not nearly as damaging to their cause as historians have traditionally claimed. See L.  Laborie, Enlightening Enthusiasm: Prophecy and Religious Experience in Early Eighteenth-­ Century England (Manchester, 2015). 8  One early critic of Methodism claimed that ‘the Resurrection of Dr. Emes’ was ‘foretold by the Mouths of all the [French] Prophets, at least half a Year before-­hand, in a manner rather more distinct and positive than any even of Mr. Whitefield’s Prophecies were deliver’d in’. See Weekly Miscellany, 13 June 1741. Theophilus Evans also cited the Emes story in his History of Enthusiasm (2nd edition, pp. 105–6). For more on Bryan, a South Carolina planter and ally of Whitefield, see H. H. Jackson, ‘Hugh Bryan and the Evangelical Movement in Colonial South Carolina’, WMQ, 43 (1986),

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  127 At the opposite end of the theological spectrum from Protestant ‘enthusiasts’ were freethinkers, such as Baruch Spinoza and David Hume, who denied that miracles had ever occurred. In Tractatus Theologico-­Politicus (1670) Spinoza declared that ‘no event can occur to contravene Nature, which preserves an eternal fixed and immutable order’.9 Many years later, Hume claimed in his essay ‘Of Miracles’ (1748) that such supernatural tales were found ‘chiefly’ among ‘ignorant and barbarous Nations’. While one sometimes encountered ‘civiliz’d People’ who believed in miracles, it was their ‘ignorant and barbarous Ancestors’ from whom they had ‘receiv’d’ these stories. Hume noted that religious leaders ‘with the best Intentions in the World’ had often falsified miracles ‘for the sake of promoting so holy a Cause’. Others, such as Alexander of Abonoteichus (c.105–c.170), had sought merely personal gain by inflicting their ‘Impostures’ upon an ‘extremely Ignorant and stupid’ people.10 In eighteenth-­century England the divide between these two extremes was, according to Jane Shaw, occupied by ‘middle way Anglicans’, who followed the example of Joseph Glanvill by arguing that new miracles were ‘plausible, but only with great evidence’. This ‘middle way’, apparently, became the ‘orthodox position’ in the established Church, though Shaw concedes that some clergymen ‘still held the view that miracles had ceased with biblical times’.11 Certainly some divines, such as Fleetwood, were open to the possibility of new miracles. It is, however, inaccurate to describe Fleetwood’s beliefs as the ‘orthodox’ Anglican position on miracles during this period.12 In fact Shaw underestimates the extent to which eighteenth-­century divines continued to subscribe to the post-­Constantinian cessation of miracles, a doctrine which High Churchmen often espoused in their attacks on Methodist ‘enthusiasm’. For instance, in Quakero-­Methodism, James Bate stated that, following the Crucifixion, miracles had continued for ‘about Three Hundred Years; or till the ten Persecutions were past, and the [Roman] Empire became Christian, and Christianity became a Civil Establishment’.13 High Churchmen did not have a monopoly on this doctrine of cessation. As will be shown, the ‘utterly idiosyncratic’ William Warburton, who was the bane of several prominent High Churchmen, also believed that miracles had continued until

pp. 594–614. News of the Bryan incident reached as far as Scotland. See A. M., State of Religion in New-­England, pp. 70–1. 9 S. Nadler, A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age (Princeton, NJ, 2011), pp. 91–2. 10  D.  Hume, ‘Essay X: Of Miracles’, in D.  Hume (ed.), Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding (London, 1748), pp. 185–8. 11 Shaw, Miracles in Enlightenment England, pp. 3–4, 143. 12 Fleetwood, Essay upon Miracles, pp. 13–14. For the relaxation of cessationism among late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-­ century Anglican divines, see A.  Walsham, ‘Miracles in ­Post-­Reformation England’, in K. Cooper and J. Gregory (eds), SCH, Vol. 41: Signs, Wonders, Miracles: Representations of Divine Power in the Life of the Church (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 304–6. 13 Bate, Quakero-­Methodism, pp. 24–5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

128  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy the end of the fourth century.14 Furthermore, by describing a single Anglican ‘middle way’, Shaw neglects the ferocity of the internal disputes between clergymen who were neither deists nor evangelicals. By exploring the differing ways in which clergymen responded to Methodist discussions of miracles, this chapter shows that there were, in fact, several different ‘middle way’ positions among contemporary Anglicans. Moreover, by arguing that these attacks on Wesley and Whitefield formed part of a much wider debate on miracles—which engaged deists, heterodox Anglicans, and High Churchmen—this chapter further integrates anti-­Methodist literature into the theological controversies of the mid-­eighteenth century. Crucially, by showing that Methodism’s emphasis on the supernatural was perceived to encourage scepticism, this section builds on the previous chapter’s discussions of the complex relationship between anti-­Methodism and anti-­deism. This chapter closes with an exploration of The Doctrine of Grace (1762), in which William Warburton attacked both Wesley and the late Conyers Middleton. While this work has gained some scholarly attention, historians have shied away from explaining what Warburton perceived the relationship between Wesley’s ‘enthusiasm’ and Middleton’s heterodoxy to be.15 As a natural first step, however, it is important to explore the moment at which Methodists pinpointed the beginning of their ‘miraculous’ journey: the new birth.

Methodism and Miracles On 12 May 1739 readers of the Weekly Miscellany were posed the following question: How shall we account for his [Whitefield] being able, without any Reason, to persuade himself of the Truth of his Divine Commission and Inspiration? It would be a Reflection upon the Honour of his College, the University, and the very worthy Prelate who ordained him, to suppose him . . . not to know that God never commissioned any Persons in an extraordinary Manner to reveal or execute his Will without granting some external Evidence of their being divinely appointed.

14  Ingram, ‘Weight of Historical Evidence’, pp. 90, 105. 15  See Madden, Cheap, Safe and Natural Medicine, pp. 91–2; J. W. Barbeau, ‘Enthusiasts, Rationalists and Pentecost’, in J. W. Barbeau and B. F. Jones (eds), Spirit of God: Christian Renewal in the Community of Faith (Downers Grove, IL, 2015), pp. 86–7; Ingram, Reformation without End, pp. 335–8.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  129 The author of this article conceded that neither Whitefield nor Wesley had ‘­pretended to a Power of working Miracles’ but predicted that it was ‘very likely’ that both preachers would ‘soon arrive to that Perfection of Enthusiasm’.16 In his Pastoral Letter (1739) Bishop Gibson similarly condemned Whitefield for his numerous accounts of being ‘guided in an extraordinary Manner, by immediate Impulses and Impressions of the Spirit of God’. Gibson cited various passages in Whitefield’s Journal that described ‘sudden and surprizing Effects as wrought by the Holy Ghost, in consequence of their [the Methodists’] preaching’. These extracts included an account of one young man in Whitefield’s congregation, who had experienced a ‘thorow Renovation’ in his heart. Gibson denied that accounts, such as this one, provided evidence of spiritual intervention. To Gibson, ‘extraordinary operations’ were ‘those, by which the Apostles and others . . . were enabled to work Miracles, and speak with Tongues, in Testimony that their Mission and Doctrin [sic] were from God’. While these ‘extraordinary’ occurrences had ‘long since ceased’, the ‘ordinary Gifts and Influences of the Spirit’— such as those operated through the sacraments—continued. Unlike the former, however, the latter were ‘of a more private Nature’ and were only ‘discernible’ by their ‘Fruits and Effects’.17 In his response to Gibson, Whitefield stressed that, since he ‘never did pretend to these extraordinary Operations of working Miracles, or speaking with Tongues’, he was ‘no Enthusiast’. Rather, he could ‘only lay Claim to the ordinary Gifts and Influences of the Spirit’. While Whitefield agreed that these ‘ordinary Gifts’ were not ‘discernible to others’, he disagreed with Gibson’s implication that such gifts were not ‘discernible to ourselves’. Instead, one was fully able to ‘discern these . . . Influences of the Spirit in himself, when there is no Opportunity of discovering them to others’.18 John Wesley had experienced such internal ‘Influences’ on 24 May 1738, when his attendance at a religious society meeting on Aldersgate Street, London, led to his ‘heart-­warming’ conversion.19 In A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (1745) Wesley noted that such transformative experiences were endorsed in Homily X (Book Two), which described the ‘Godly’ as those who ‘feel inwardly God’s Holy Spirit, inflaming their Hearts with Love’. Responding to the charge, often posed to him by his adversaries, that he was unable to ‘prove by Miracles’ that his spiritual ‘Credentials’ were genuine, Wesley echoed Whitefield by denying that he had the ability to ‘work Miracles’. Rather, Wesley believed that seemingly supernatural occurrences, such as his Aldersgate experience, needed to be backed up ‘in the ordinary Way’ by ‘Scripture and Reason; and, if need be, by 16  Weekly Miscellany, 12 May 1739. 17 Gibson, Pastoral Letter . . . Enthusiasm on the Other, pp. 19–20, 33; Whitefield, Journal 1, p. 23. 18 G.  Whitefield, The Rev. Mr. Whitefield’s Answer, to the Bishop of London’s Last Pastoral Letter (London, 1739), pp. 11–12. 19  For Wesley’s Aldersgate experience, see Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, ch. 4; Olson, Wesley and Aldersgate.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

130  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Antiquity’. Furthermore, while Wesley admitted to citing incidents that seemed to ‘go beyond the ordinary Course of Nature’, he added that it was impossible to conclude whether these occurrences were ‘supernatural’ or not.20 Wesley’s knowledge of the supernatural began at an early age. While he was away at Charterhouse between December 1716 and January 1717, his father’s rectory in Epworth, Lincolnshire, was reportedly haunted by a poltergeist, whom one of Wesley’s siblings nicknamed ‘Old Jeffery’.21 Many years later Wesley lamented that ‘most of the men of learning in Europe have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions, as mere old wives’ fables’. To Wesley such a rejection was tantamount to ‘giving up the Bible’.22 His sentiments were shared by the evangelical judge Sir James Erskine of Grange, who was one of the fiercest critics of the 1735 Witchcraft Act in Scotland.23 Such beliefs put evangelicals at odds with some—though, as Ian Bostridge has shown, not necessarily all—of the ‘educated level of society’, who were quick to attack their demonologies.24 In Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism (1762) William Hogarth depicted a scene of a crypto-­ Jesuit Anglican priest (possibly Whitefield), surrounded by witches and demons, preaching to a licentious congregation (see Figure 6.1). Elsewhere in this cartoon there are references to supernatural frauds, including Mary Toft, who, in 1726, claimed to have given birth to rabbits, and William Perry, a young boy, who, in 1620, was apparently convinced by a Roman Catholic priest to pretend that a demon was causing him to vomit nails.25 Evangelicals across the English-­speaking world often described the conversion experience as a victorious battle against Satan.26 In a letter to Charles Wesley, 20 Wesley, Farther Appeal, pp. 70, 122–3. 21 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, p. 59. See also D. Wright, The Epworth Phenomena, to Which Are Appended Certain Psychic Experiences Recorded by John Wesley in the Pages of His Journal (London, 1917); W. Gibson, Samuel Wesley and the Crisis of Tory Piety, 1685–1720 (Oxford, 2021), ch. 8. 22  Works, Journal V, p. 135. For Methodism and witchcraft, see O. Davies, ‘Methodism, the Clergy, and the Popular Belief in Witchcraft and Magic’, History, 82 (1997), pp. 252–65; O. Davies, ‘Wesley’s Invisible World: Witchcraft and the Temperature of Preternatural Belief ’, in R. Webster (ed.), Perfecting Perfection: Essays in Honour of Henry D. Rack (Cambridge, 2016), pp. 147–72; J. Fulton, ‘Methodism, Magic and Popular Supernatural Beliefs in Ireland, 1750–1850’, Bulletin of the Methodist Historical Society of Ireland, 24 (2019), pp. 41–65. 23  For Erskine’s views on witchcraft, see I. Bostridge, ‘Witchcraft Repealed’, in J. Barry, M. Hester, and G. Roberts (eds), Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 309–34; John Coffey, ‘Evangelical Revival in Enlightenment Britain: James Erskine of Grange and the Pietist Turn’, in A. Cross, P. Morden, and I. Randall (eds), Pathways and Patterns in History: Essays on Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Modern World in Honour of David Bebbington (London, 2015), pp. 187–214. 24 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, p. 431. For the alleged decline of supernatural beliefs among the clergy and the educated laity, see K.  Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (Harmondsworth, 1973); M. Hunter, The Decline of Magic: Britain in the Enlightenment (New Haven, CT, 2020). For a more cautious assessment of elite understandings of the supernatural, see I. Bostridge, Witchcraft and its Transformations, c. 1650–c.1750 (Oxford, 1997). For the persistence of popular beliefs in witches, see O. Davies, Witchcraft, Magic and Culture, 1736–1951 (Manchester, 1999). 25 The Perry anecdote also featured in an unpublished anti-­Methodist work by Zachary Grey. See Z. Grey, ‘The Jesuit in Disguise’, CUL, MS Add. 3308, fol. 44. 26  See Hindmarsh, Evangelical Conversion Narrative; K.  Minkema, ‘ “The Devil Will Roar in Me Anon”: The Possession of Martha Roberson, Boston, 1741’, in E. Reis (ed.), Spellbound: Women and

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  131

Figure 6.1  William Hogarth, Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism (1762). Etching, 37.1 × 32.4 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1932.

dated November 1741, Joseph Carter, a builder, praised God for preventing the ‘Devil of Devils’ from continuing to ‘Poison’ him.27 To some, descriptions of the evangelical new birth were reminiscent of exorcisms. An item in the 28 March 1741 issue of the Weekly Miscellany attacked John Wesley’s ‘Pretences to the casting out of Spirits from those, whom he declares to be possessed by them’. The

Witchcraft in America (Wilmington, DE, 1998), pp. 99–119; R. Atkinson, ‘Satan in the Pulpit: Popular Christianity During the Scottish Great Awakening, 1680–1750’, Journal of Social History, 47 (2013), pp. 344–70. 27  JRL, Methodist Archive, EMV/501/17, fol. 4: Joseph Carter to Charles Wesley, November 1741.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

132  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy ‘strange Fits’ attributed to Satan by Wesley were possibly ‘occasioned by a natural Distemper, or by violent Heats in a crowded Congregation, or by terrible Sentences of Damnation pronounced against them [congregants]’. Alternatively, it was possible that Wesley had simply persuaded ‘some of his Devotees to counterfeit strange Agitations and Convulsions’, enabling him to ‘have the Credit of the Cure in a miraculous manner’.28 On 23 May 1741 the Weekly Miscellany once again attacked Wesley and others who claimed to cause ‘the evil Spirit to go out of any Man, and the good Spirit to enter into him’. Such actions, the author noted, contravened Canon LXXII.29 These attacks did not prevent Wesley from publishing journal extracts describing his encounters with Satan. The 5 December 1738 entry in Wesley’s journal, published in 1742, described a visit to an Oxford workhouse, where he found one woman ‘screaming and tormenting herself continually’. The woman, according to Wesley, was ‘raving mad’ because she was ‘under the open Bondage of Satan’. Once he began to pray for her, however, she was ‘still’. A later entry described a visit to Bristol, where Wesley encountered another sick woman, whom he believed to be possessed by a ‘Preternatural Agent’. ‘ “She is not a Christian. She is mine” ’ were the words that Satan apparently spoke to Wesley via the afflicted woman. Shortly afterwards, the woman named two of her neighbours, claiming that their possession was imminent. Wesley quickly visited these two individuals, who experienced ‘violent Convulsions all over their Bodies’. After an intensive period of prayer, in which Wesley and his followers ‘pour’d out’ their ‘Souls before GOD’, both individuals were ‘healed’ in ‘Body and Soul’. Nevertheless, the original woman’s condition remained largely unchanged.30 Wesley subsequently claimed that, rather than ‘supposing these Recoveries Miraculous’, he had simply ‘set down the Facts just as they were’, passing ‘no Judgement upon them’. Yet Wesley clearly sought to portray these recoveries as healings, precipitated by his own prayers.31 These journal entries were attacked by Thomas Church. To gain a greater understanding of Church’s discussions of this topic, it is initially important to explore his prior engagement in controversies relating to the supernatural.

A ‘Preternatural Agent’? In 1737 Church published An Essay towards Vindicating the Literal Sense of the Demoniacks in the New Testament. This work was written in response to An Enquiry into the Meaning of Demoniacks in the New Testament (1737), in which 28  Weekly Miscellany, 28 March 1741. 29  Weekly Miscellany, 23 May 1741. 30 Wesley, Extract of the Revd. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 12, 1738, to Nov. 1, 1739, pp. 15, 93–6. 31 J.  Wesley, An Answer to the Rev. Mr. Church’s Remarks on the Reverend Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal (Bristol, 1745), p. 44.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  133 Arthur Ashley Sykes, a Latitudinarian divine of Essex, rejected the notion— advanced in the King James translation—that the demons described in the New Testament were Satan’s ‘Devils’. If the authors of the New Testament had meant to describe devils, they would, according to Sykes, have used the word ‘diabolos’. Instead, the original Greek text contained the word ‘daimon’, meaning the ‘Souls of departed Men’. Thus, when the evangelists referred to ‘demons’, they meant ghosts. Controversially Sykes believed that the demonic possessions described by the evangelists were really ‘Cases of Madness, or of Epilepsy’, and not ghosts as they had thought.32 Sykes was writing at a time of heightened tensions in the Church of England due to the perceived deist threat. In the first of his six Discourses (1727–9) Thomas Woolston had lambasted the literal interpretation of the Gadarene demoniac, as described in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 8:28–34; Mark 5:1–20; and Luke 8:26–39). Following his arrival in Gadara (according to Matthew) or Gerasa (according to Mark and Luke), Jesus encountered a man (or, according to Matthew, two men) who was possessed by demons. Previous attempts to secure him with chains had failed, meaning that he was able to live freely in a graveyard. Jesus exorcized him, transferring his demons onto a herd of swine, which drowned after charging to a nearby lake. To Woolston the evangelists’ accounts presented various problems. First, it made no sense that this ‘Madman’ had not been executed, given that he clearly posed much danger to his ‘Neighbours’. Second, Woolston erroneously believed that Gadara had been a Jewish land, in which one would not have found ‘any Herd of Swine’.33 Sykes, of course, distanced himself from Woolston’s heterodoxy by adding that none of his arguments brought Jesus’s miraculous healings into question. Rather, he believed that Jesus’s action had been to ‘pass’ the afflicted man’s ‘Madness’ onto the herd of swine.34 This argument, however, failed to convince Sykes’s critics, such as Thomas Church, who feared that Sykes’s ‘lax and figurative Interpretations’ would fuel the deistic line that no miraculous healing had occurred at all. Throughout his response to Sykes, Church stressed that the demonic possessions described in the New Testament were just that, and not the result of illnesses. The ‘Naturalists and Physicians’ of the time, Church noted, were ‘particularly engaged in searching into the Causes of Distempers’. They would, therefore, have noticed if 32 [A. A. Sykes], An Enquiry into the Meaning of Demoniacks in the New Testament (London, 1737), pp. 2, 79; H. C. E. Midelfort, ‘The Gadarene Demoniac in the English Enlightenment’, in E. Michelson, S. K. Taylor, and M. N. Venables (eds), A Linking of Heaven and Earth: Studies in Religious and Cultural History in Honor of Carlos M. N. Eire (Farnham, 2012), pp. 53–7. 33 T.  Woolston, A Discourse on the Miracles of Our Saviour, in View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates (London, 1727), pp. 31–2. According to Midelfort, ‘modern scholars point out that Gadara and Gerasa were both gentile cities, members of the Dekapolis, with much closer connections to Greco-­Roman than to Jewish culture. This would explain the presence of swine and swineherds there.’ See Midelfort, ‘Gadarene Demoniac’, p. 52n10. 34 [Sykes], Enquiry into the Meaning of Demoniacks, p. 53.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

134  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy these episodes were epileptic fits, and ‘rightly inform[ed] the World’. He conceded that the symptoms of ‘Madness’ and ‘real Possession’ may have resembled each other but added that the apostles were perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two categories. Church, like most orthodox divines, believed that ‘the Power of casting out Devils’ had gradually been rendered obsolete in the church following Constantine’s conversion, when the ‘Powers of the World became Christian’. He was, therefore, distressed by the apparent exorcisms described in Wesley’s published journal.35 ‘False miracles’ were, according to Church, dangerous because they ‘destroy our Belief of true ones’. As any ‘reasonable Person’ knew, the demonic possessions described by Wesley could be explained by several medical factors, including ‘Obstructions’ and ‘Irregularities of the Blood and Spirits’. Church, therefore, feared that Wesley’s ‘false’ accounts of exorcisms would cause ‘sober’ Christians to follow Sykes’s example, and attribute the New Testament demoniacs to mental and physical illnesses. Such a transition might, in turn, lead people to follow Woolston’s example, and question whether biblical miracles had occurred at all. Church’s discussions, therefore, enhance our understanding of the ways in which Methodist ‘enthusiasm’ was perceived to fuel scepticism and heterodoxy.36 Shortly after his skirmish with Wesley, Church engaged with Conyers Middleton’s Free Inquiry, which rejected the miracles described by the post-­apostolic Fathers. To Middleton these alleged miracles were Quite different from that, which we meet with in the New Testament. For in those days, the power of working miracles was committed to none but the Apostles, and to a few of the most eminent of the other disciples . . . but upon the pretended revival of the same powers in the following ages, we find the administration of them committed, not to those, who were instructed with the government of the Church; not to the successors of the Apostles, to the Bishops, the Martyrs, or the principal Champions of the Christian cause; but to boys, to women, and above all, to private and obscure laymen.37

Unlike Tindal and other deists, Middleton did not reject first-­century miracles explicitly. It is for this reason that one should view Middleton, not as a deist, but rather as a heterodox, ultra-­Protestant Anglican.38 Of course, some clergymen, such as Church, feared that Middleton’s contempt for post-­apostolic miracles

35 [T.  Church], An Essay towards Vindicating the Literal Sense of the Demoniacks in the New Testament (London, 1737), pp. 41–2, 99, 103, 116–17. 36 T. Church, Remarks on the Reverend Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal (London, 1745), pp. 68–9. 37 C. Middleton, A Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, Which Are Supposed to Have Subsisted in the Christian Church, from the Earliest Ages through Several Successive Centuries (London, 1749 [1748]), p. 24. 38  See Ingram, ‘Weight of Historical Evidence’; Young, ‘Conyers Middleton’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  135 would be ‘pushed farther’ by freethinkers, who sought to ridicule the miracles described in the New Testament.39 Henry Stebbing and George White were two other anti-­Methodist divines who attacked Middleton’s treatment of the Fathers.40 Rather than locating his attacks on Wesley and Middleton in disparate, unconnected silos, White viewed these engagements as part of one, interlinked debate concerning the cessation of miracles. In his Sermon against the Methodists (1748) White—a convert from Catholicism—compared Methodists to ‘Romanists’ because of their shared emphasis on ‘extraordinary Inspiration’. Such miraculous occurrences had, according to White, only been ‘necessary’ for the first ‘4000 [400] years’ of Christianity, when it had been ‘impossible’ to combat the ‘prejudices’ of the age ‘without putting Nature out of its proper Channel’. This view, White claimed, was the ‘general Opinion of Protestant Divines’. Methodists, of course, were not the only Protestants who failed to follow this ‘general’ belief. As White observed, Middleton had recently rejected ‘any Miracles after the Apostles Days’ in An Introductory Discourse to a Larger Work Concerning the Miraculous (1747). This work, to which White responded, was a precursor to Middleton’s Free Inquiry.41 One of the first responses to the Free Inquiry was written by Middleton’s former friend, William Warburton, who subsequently attacked Methodism at length. In Julian (1750) Warburton described how a ‘miraculous’ earthquake had foiled Julian the Apostate’s scheme ‘to rebuild the TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM’ in 363. It was, according to Warburton, after this extraordinary episode that mir­ acles ceased. On this occasion Warburton was joining forces with his old adversary, Stebbing, thereby highlighting the idiosyncratic nature of eighteenth-­century polemical divinity.42 Thus many divines opposed both Middleton and Wesley, further suggesting that Shaw’s description of a single Anglican ‘middle way’ is problematic. Church, White, and Warburton were, like Middleton, neither deists nor ‘enthusiasts’. Yet, the former three clergymen evidently disagreed with Middleton’s views of the Fathers. Clearly, they sought to pave their own ‘middle way’ between Middleton and Wesley by supporting both post-­apostolic miracles and cessationism. The existence of multiple eighteenth-­century Anglican ‘middle ways’ is evidenced further by the writings of Bishop Lavington, who—like Joseph Glanvill and William

39 T. Church, A Vindication of the Miraculous Powers, Which Subsisted in the Three First Centuries of the Christian Church (London, 1750), p. vii. 40 For their attacks on Middleton, see H.  Stebbing, Observations on a Book, Intituled, An Introductory Discourse to a Larger Work, &c. Containing an Answer to the Author’s Prejudices, That Miraculous Powers Were Not Continued to the Church after the Days of the Apostles (London, 1747); G.  White, Theological Remarks on the Reverend Dr. Middleton’s Late Introductory Discourse and Postscript (London, 1747). 41 White, Sermon Against the Methodists, pp. 14–15. For more on White’s background, see Snape, ‘Anti-­Methodism in Eighteenth-­Century England’, pp. 265–6. 42 W.  Warburton, Julian, or A Discourse Concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption, Which Defeated That Emperor’s Attempt to Rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem (London, 1750), p. 2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

136  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Fleetwood—remained open to the possibility of new miracles if no rational ex­plan­ation could be found. In the third volume of his Enthusiasm of Methodists Lavington largely followed Church’s example by attacking Wesley’s discussions of the supernatural. Nevertheless, Lavington conceded that Wesley’s description of a woman with extrasensory perception could not be explained by rational means, and noted that similar instances had been described in both Glanvill’s Saducismus Triumphatus (1681) and Cotton Mather’s Magnalia Christi Americana (1702).43 Evidently there was no position on miracles that unified anti-­ Methodist Anglicans. To complicate matters further, it sometimes appeared that Wesley was fighting on the same side as his critics.

The Middleton Debate In his journal entry for 2 January 1749 Wesley wrote the following: I had designed to set out with a friend for Rotterdam; but, being much pressed to answer Dr. Middleton’s book against the Fathers, I postponed my voyage, and spent almost twenty days in that unpleasing employment.44

The ‘book’ to which he referred was Middleton’s Free Inquiry, which had been published only a few weeks earlier.45 Wesley published his response to Middleton anonymously as A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Conyers Middleton (1749). In this work Wesley defended post-­apostolic miracles by addressing Middleton’s various charges. For example, he addressed Middleton’s claim that these alleged miracles had been ‘committed’ not to ‘bishops’ or ‘martyrs’ but to ‘boys’, ‘women’, and ‘obscure laymen’. Wesley scoffed that Middleton had decided to ‘talk in his sleep’— an insult he justified by noting that both Cyprian and Dionysius had been bishops of Carthage and Alexandria respectively, while Justin Martyr had obviously paid the ultimate sacrifice for his faith. Regarding the issue of why ‘boys’ and ‘women’ were endowed with these gifts, Wesley cited Joel 2:28: ‘I will pour out my Spirit, saith the Lord, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy.’ Finally, Wesley noted that Middleton had only cited ‘one ante-­Nicene writer’ (Origen) to support his claim that ‘obscure laymen’ were empowered with these miraculous gifts.46 43  Lavington 3, pp. 54–8. In his Journal entry for 28 October 1739, Wesley described a return visit to a woman of Kingswood, whose alleged battles with Satan had engaged him over the previous few days. Apparently, as Wesley embarked on his journey that day, the ‘Woman (then three Miles off) cried out, “Yonder comes Wesley, galloping as fast as he can.” ’ See Wesley, Extract of the Revd. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 12, 1738, to Nov. 1, 1739, p. 94. 44  Works, Journal III, p. 262. 45  For the initial publication advertisement, see General Evening Post, 13 December 1748. The publisher prematurely put 1749 as the publication year on the front page of the first edition. 46 [J. Wesley], A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Conyers Middleton (London, 1749), pp. 79–80.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  137 By attacking Middleton, Wesley appeared—at least on the surface—to be aiding several divines with whom he had previously fought. Several scholars have seen Wesley’s Letter as evidence of his enduring respect for the Fathers.47 Wesley’s decision to cancel a trip to Rotterdam to complete this work, coupled with the fact that he usually avoided theological controversy, certainly suggests that protecting the reputations of the Fathers was very important to him. Yet the final dozen pages of this lengthy work illuminate an additional message, which ­scholars have largely neglected. During these concluding remarks Wesley condemned the many ‘men of understanding’ who—despite their willingness to defend the ‘­traditional evidence of Christianity’—still neglected its ‘internal evidence’. By ‘internal evidence’ Wesley meant instances such as his own ‘heart-­warming’ conversion experience.48 These sentiments were, of course, intended as an attack on clergymen, such as Church, who defended apostolic and post-­apostolic miracles but dismissed modern accounts of special revelations. Orthodox divines had previously encountered this criticism from Thomas Chubb, who, theologically, was the antithesis of Wesley.49 Wesley continued his conclusion by taking a bolder step. He stated that it would be an ‘advantage to the Christian cause’ if most Anglican divines went ‘over to those whom they are now contending with’, thereby making the distinction between ‘real Deists and real Christians’ less blurred.50 One should not, therefore, view Wesley’s Letter as an example of him siding with his orthodox opponents. Rather, this publication enabled Wesley to assert his respect for the Fathers, while attacking some of his old adversaries in the process. Whether Middleton was aware that Wesley wrote the Letter remains unknown. Assuming he read it, Middleton would have known, from the final dozen pages, that the author was an ‘enthusiast’. Middleton’s Free Inquiry contained a reference—albeit a very brief one—to ‘modern Fanatics’, such as Methodists, Moravians, and French Prophets.51 Brian Young sees this fleeting reference as evidence that Middleton would not have considered a religious ‘enthusiast’ to be worthy of a response.52 While it could be argued that Middleton’s death the following year prevented him from

47  T. A. Campbell, ‘John Wesley and Conyers Middleton on Divine Intervention in History’, CH, 55 (1986), p. 44; J. W. Barbeau, ‘John Wesley and the Early Church: History, Antiquity, and the Spirit of God’, in G.  Kalantzis and A.  Tooley (eds), Evangelicals and the Early Church: Recovery, Reform, Renewal (Eugene, OR, 2012), pp. 65–7; Hammond, John Wesley in America, pp. 200–1. 48 [Wesley], Letter to the Reverend Dr. Conyers Middleton, pp. 224–5. 49  Chubb named Stebbing as one hypocritical clergyman who was willing to appeal to ‘reason and common sense’ when ‘waging warwith Mr. Whitefield’, but equally willing to dismiss these same rational tenets ‘when other, and perhaps contrary, purposes are to be served’. See T. Chubb, An Enquiry into the Ground and Foundation of Religion (London, 1740), p. 140. On 12 February 1739 Whitefield visited Salisbury, where he sought a ‘Conference’ with Chubb, only to find that he was not at home. Whitefield feared that, ‘like Simon Magus’, Chubb had ‘bewitched many about Salisbury with his false Doctrines’. See Whitefield, Journal 3, p. 26. 50 [Wesley], Letter to the Reverend Dr. Conyers Middleton, pp. 225–6. 51 Middleton, Free Inquiry, p. 197. 52  Young, ‘Conyers Middleton’, p. 259.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

138  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy writing such a reply, the fact that he managed to compose a joint response to Thomas Church and William Dodwell, another orthodox opponent, suggests that combating Wesley’s Letter did not feature highly on Middleton’s priority list, if at all.53 Notwithstanding the absence of a response from Middleton, Wesley’s Letter was attacked by John Kirkby, rector of Blackmanstone, Kent, who had briefly served as chaplain to the young Edward Gibbon before being dismissed for al­leged­ly failing to mention George II in his prayers during the 1745 rebellion.54 Clearly aware of his opponent’s identity, Kirkby lambasted the controversial closing remarks in Wesley’s Letter to Middleton. Throughout The Impostor Detected (1750), Kirkby portrayed Wesley as a ‘Chameleon’, who, along with his Methodist friends, was collaborating with the deists to form a ‘Force against Christianity’. Where the deist used rational means to portray the ‘Devil’ as ‘nothing but an empty Name, or mere Bugbear’, the Methodist reduced Christianity to ‘madness’ by ‘making his diabolical Illusions and Suggestions pass for the Operations of the Holy Ghost’. To the patristically minded Kirkby, Methodist meetings were no different from the ‘Heathen’ theatres condemned in Tertullian’s De Spectaculis. Kirkby advanced several justifications, of varying credibility, for linking Wesley with Middleton. For instance, he described Wesley as somebody who ‘agrees with Dr. Middleton in abusing’ the ‘primitive Fathers’. Here Kirkby was referring to Wesley’s concession that the Fathers were not above making occasional ‘mistakes’ and ‘ill-­drawn conclusions’. Wesley’s concession, however, does not seem particularly controversial when compared with Thomas Church’s similar admittance of the occasional ‘Error’ among the Fathers. Indeed, both Church and Wesley agreed that these errors should not obscure the ‘reverence’ owed to the Fathers.55 More convincing, however, was Kirkby’s dismissal of the numerous biblical citations in Wesley’s Letter. It was, Kirkby argued, common practice for ‘Enemies of Christianity’ to express themselves ‘in Scripture Terms’. As was noted in the previous chapter, it was certainly common for deists, such as Peter Annet, to cite the Scriptures at length.56 Wesley’s Letter was, of course, not the crypto-­deist work that Kirkby portrayed it to be. The Letter, nevertheless, contained an elem­ ent of disguise in the sense that, despite being advertised as simply an attack on Middleton, it was also intended as an attack on Wesley’s orthodox opponents. If Wesley’s intention had been to avoid a polemical confrontation, it clearly backfired. Kirkby was not the only divine who described a link between Middleton’s

53  Middleton’s response to Church and Dodwell was published posthumously as A Vindication of the Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers (London, 1751). 54  I. M. Tieken-­Boon van Ostade, ‘Kirkby, John (c.1705–1754)’, ODNB. 55 J.  Kirkby, The Impostor Detected, or The Counterfeit Saint Turn’d Inside Out (London, 1750), pp. 22, 40–1, 51, 54 (Kirkby identifies Wesley as the author on page 52); [Wesley], Letter to the Reverend Dr. Conyers Middleton, pp. 232–3; Church, Vindication of the Miraculous Powers, pp. 159–61. 56 Kirkby, Impostor Detected, p. 1.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  139 heterodoxy and Wesley’s ‘enthusiasm’. Indeed, Warburton subsequently attacked both Wesley and Middleton in The Doctrine of Grace. But what did Warburton perceive the relationship between these two seemingly disparate theo­ lo­ gians to be?

‘Old Latitudinarian Excesses’ Published in London on 11 November 1762, The Doctrine of Grace was advertised as a response to the ‘Insults of Infidelity’ and the ‘Abuses of Fanaticism’.57 The former topic was a reference to Middleton’s heterodoxy. Unsurprisingly, the latter topic concerned the Methodists, particularly Wesley. Although Warburton had previously ridiculed Methodism in some items of personal correspondence and in his unpublished ‘True Methodist’ manuscript, The Doctrine of Grace marked his first public attack on evangelicalism.58 In this publication Warburton attacked ‘false Prophets’, who ‘pretend only to some extraordinary measure of the Spirit’. Citing James 3:17, Warburton stressed that any ‘Spirit’ from ‘above is first pure; then peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy’. This criterion, Warburton noted, was formed of ‘ordinary graces which arise from the knowledge of, and obedience to, God’s Will as contained in sacred Scripture’. Thus, while Christians could ‘safely pronounce’ that someone ‘hath not the Spirit of God’, they were unable—based on this criterion alone—to conclude that a person was ‘endowed with any extra­or­ din­ary measure of the holy Spirit’. The ‘Reader’, therefore, needed to remember this guidance when discerning the ‘features of modern Fanaticism, especially as they are seen in the famed Leader of the Methodists, Mr. John Wesley’. Warburton followed Thomas Church’s example by citing examples of ‘exorcisms and spiritual ejectments’ in Wesley’s journal. For instance, he cited an extract in which Wesley described a society meeting in Baldwin Street, Bristol, on 17 April 1739. After preaching on Acts 4, Wesley apparently witnessed God’s hand being ‘stretched out to heal’ various members of the congregation, who had suddenly been ‘seized’ by Satan.59 In his response to Warburton, Wesley denied that ‘the miraculous powers of the church’ ceased ‘upon its perfect establishment’. In what was probably intended as a subtle jibe at Warburton, Wesley noted that, due to the prevalence of 57 W. Warburton, The Doctrine of Grace, or The Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit Vindicated from the Insults of Infidelity, and the Abuses of Fanaticism, 2 vols. (London, 1763 [1762]), I, title page; Gazetteer and London Daily Advertiser, 11 November 1762. 58  For Warburton’s earlier discussions of Methodism, see Nichols and Nichols, Illustrations, II, pp.  94–6; M.  L.  Snow, ‘Methodist Enthusiasm: Warburton Letters, 1738–1740’, MH, 10.3 (1972), pp. 30–47; Warburton, ‘True Methodist’; Ingram, Reformation without End, ch. 17. 59 Warburton, Doctrine of Grace, I, pp. 117–19, 123–4; Wesley, Extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 12, 1738, to Nov. 1, 1739, p. 40.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

140  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy ‘nominal Christianity’, the church had yet to be established ‘perfectly’. Wesley proceeded to attack the ‘commonly received supposition’, taught by Warburton and others, that ‘real, undoubted miracles, must bring all controversy to an end, and convince every gainsayer’. Likening Warburton to a Pharisee, Wesley observed that Jesus, despite his ‘real and undoubted miracles’, was ‘despised’ and ‘rejected’ by many. Echoing his earlier response to Church, Wesley denied Warburton’s allegation that the ‘gift of tongues’ was the only apostolic gift of which he had not boasted. In fact, he had not laid ‘claim to any miraculous gift’ in his journal entries. The apostolic gift of tongues was at the centre of Warburton’s attack on Middleton, which formed much of the first volume of the Doctrine of Grace.60 Indeed, Warburton’s attack on Middleton concerned his posthumously published ‘Essay on the Gift of Tongues’ (1752). Given that a decade had elapsed since the publication of Middleton’s ‘Essay’, one may wonder why Warburton was so slow to respond to it. Of course, Warburton had been engaged in battling heterodoxy for much of his ministry. As Hugh Trevor-­Roper argues convincingly, Warburton ‘saw in the deist controversy a means of self-­assertion and self-­ advancement’.61 It is, therefore, possible that Warburton—who was appointed dean of Bristol in 1757 and bishop of Gloucester in 1759—had sought preferment when he wrote his 1754–5 attacks on the recently deceased Lord Bolingbroke.62 The Doctrine of Grace can be seen as a continuation of Warburton’s public assault on heterodoxy, though it is unlikely that he sought preferment in this instance. It is, of course, possible that Warburton sought translation to a more prestigious and lucrative diocese (which, ultimately, never happened). Nevertheless, an attack on a ten-­year-­old publication by a deceased theologian would have caused little, if any, excitement within the established Church. Furthermore, Warburton had already attacked Middleton over a decade earlier in Julian. While it is impossible to ascertain Warburton’s motives for writing The Doctrine of Grace, it is plausible to assume that, by distancing himself from Middleton on the one hand and Wesley on the other, he sought to affirm his orthodoxy, while assuring his readers that he had not plunged into the opposite extreme of ‘enthusiasm’. As shall be seen, Warburton’s concluding remarks referred to the im­port­ ance of steering a ‘middle way’ between the two extremes occupied by Middleton and Wesley.63 Also, by launching a public assault on Methodist ‘enthusiasm’, it would have seemed that Warburton was siding with several orthodox divines whom he had previously angered—most notably Henry Stebbing, who was still

60 J. Wesley, A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester: Occasioned by His Tract, on the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit (London, 1763), pp. 10, 63–4, 71; Warburton, Doctrine of Grace, I, pp. 107, 131. 61  Trevor-­Roper, ‘From Deism to History’, p. 112. 62  See W. Warburton, A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy: In Four Letters to a Friend, 2 vols (London, 1754–5). 63 Warburton, Doctrine of Grace, II, p. 327.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  141 alive at the time of this work’s publication. Finally, and most importantly, it must be noted that Warburton’s consecration had been opposed by most, if not all, of the episcopal bench, who viewed him as theologically unsound and obnoxious. The Doctrine of Grace, therefore, provided Warburton with an opportunity to distance himself from the maverick polemicist that had characterized his early ministry.64 Middleton’s posthumous ‘Essay’ was decidedly more controversial than his Free Inquiry, which probably explains why he refrained from publishing it. In the Free Inquiry Middleton had left the New Testament well alone. In the ‘Essay’, however, he addressed the ‘gift of tongues’, which provided the apostles with ‘a faculty of speaking new and strange languages’. It therefore enabled them to ‘convince all those different nations, then residing in Jerusalem, that they were authorized and commissioned by a divine power, to preach the Gospel of Jesus’. The gift of tongues, Middleton argued, was not of a ‘stable or permanent nature’. Rather, it was ‘adapted to peculiar occasions, and then withdrawn again, as soon as it had served the particular purpose, for which it was bestowed’. Middleton was convinced that, had the apostles maintained this gift, their writings would have appeared in the eloquent ‘Platonic stile’. Instead, they wrote in a language that was ‘utterly rude and barbarous, and abounding with every fault, which can possibly deform a language’. This argument, Middleton added, could be found in the writings of Erasmus, who had similarly described the apostles’ language as ‘rough’, ‘unpolished’, and ‘sometimes even plainly . . . absurd’.65 Warburton, on the other hand, was adamant that the apostles were per­man­ ent­ly endowed with this gift. To support this point, he cited Paul’s statement from 1 Corinthians 14:18: ‘I thank God that I speak with tongues more than you all.’ To Warburton, Paul’s use of ‘the present time’ showed that the gift of tongues was ‘then in his possession’. Regarding the apostles’ apparent lack of eloquence, Warburton stated that it was ‘repugnant to reason and experience’ to believe that an ‘inspired knowledge of strange tongues’ included ‘all the native peculiarities’ and ‘elegancies’. Warburton feared that Middleton’s ‘new interpretation’—which made the gift of tongues ‘so transitory, and the power conferred by it so momentary’—reduced the apostles to ‘modern Fanatics’. To Warburton, Middleton’s ‘Essay’ presented two disparate dangers to the Church. On the one extreme, it encouraged Christians to doubt the validity of New Testament miracles. On the opposite extreme, it provided scriptural sanction for ‘enthusiasts’ to describe sudden, transient spiritual experiences. Warburton was, therefore, implying that Middleton’s heterodoxy fuelled Methodism. As was shown in the earlier

64  B. W. Young, ‘Warburton, William (1698–1779)’, ODNB. 65  C. Middleton, ‘An Essay on the Gift of Tongues’, in The Miscellaneous Works of the Late Reverend and Learned Conyers Middleton, D.D.  Principal Librarian of the University of Cambridge, 4 vols (London, 1752), II, p. 79, 82–3, 89–91.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

142  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy discussions of Caleb Fleming and Thomas Church, rational excesses were often described as the result of ‘enthusiastic’ excesses. Initially, it appears that Warburton was advancing the opposite argument. Warburton’s concluding remarks, however, show that he agreed with Fleming and Church on this point.66 In his conclusion Warburton outlined a ‘history of Fanaticism’. To Warburton the relationship between rationalism and ‘enthusiasm’ was a vicious cycle that revolved around two types of ‘extravagance’—one of the ‘Unbeliever’, the other of the ‘Fanatic’. When somebody attempted to counter one of these extravagancies, it sometimes resulted in them falling into the opposite extreme. Thus some were ‘drawn in to depreciate and to degrade human Reason, when their Adversaries had too extravagantly advanced it’. Others, however, ‘advanced it [reason] as extravagantly, when their Adversaries were in an humour to vilify and disgrace it’. Elsewhere Warburton lamented that ‘several Opposers of this late revived fanaticism’ had returned to ‘the old latitudinarian excesses’.67 Warburton was, of course, describing the Methodist movement when he referred to ‘fanaticism’. But to whom was he referring when he attacked ‘latitudinarian excesses’? A clue to this puzzle can be found in a 1742 letter to the dean of Winchester, Zachary Pearce, in which Warburton identified Middleton as among the ‘latitudinarian part of our Brethren’. Thus Warburton’s criticism of ‘latitudinarian excesses’ was probably intended, at least in part, as a reference to Middleton.68 As has been shown, Middleton displayed little interest in Methodism, to which he paid barely a curs­ ory glance in his Free Inquiry. Clearly there is little evidence to support Warburton’s claim that Methodist ‘enthusiasm’ triggered Middleton’s heterodoxy.

Conclusions Rather than viewing early anti-­Methodist literature in isolation, these attacks on Wesley and Whitefield must be explored in the much wider context of the eighteenth-­century miracles debate. The issue of cessationism was central to Anglican discussions of ‘true religion’, as evidenced by the Middleton controversy, in which several of Wesley’s opponents, including Thomas Church, George White, and William Warburton, engaged. Evidently these clergymen were attempting to pave a middle way between Wesley’s ‘enthusiasm’ and Middleton’s heterodoxy. The Middleton debate also serves to illuminate the differing ways in which the charge of ‘deism’ was deployed by Anglicans in their attacks against each other. Building on the previous chapter’s discussions of literary disguises, it

66 Warburton, Doctrine of Grace, I, pp. 16–17, 19–20, 59. 67 Warburton, Doctrine of Grace, II, pp. 315–16, 327. 68 Westminster Abbey Muniment Room and Library, Muniment 64787: Warburton to Pearce, December 1742.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Miracles and Demons  143 has been shown that Wesley deployed an element of deception in his Letter by bluntly informing Middleton’s orthodox opponents—Wesley’s apparent allies— that they belonged in the deist camp. To John Kirkby, however, these sentiments proved that Wesley was merely a deist disguised as an ‘enthusiast’. While neither Church nor Warburton accused Wesley of deism, they feared that his ‘enthusiastic’ accounts of new miracles fuelled rational excesses, thereby reducing the mystery of Christianity to outright madness. This chapter has, therefore, further illuminated the fallacy of viewing orthodox attacks on Methodism simply as rational onslaughts against mystery. In fact, it was the erosion of mystery that Wesley’s orthodox opponents sought to avoid. To Latitudinarians, however, the distinctions between Methodists and orthodox High Churchmen were blurred. Contrary to Warburton’s belief that ‘latitudinarian excesses’ were a reaction to Methodist ‘enthusiasm’, it was, in fact, Wesley and Whitefield’s ‘popish’ adherence to the Church’s unscriptural, ‘human impositions’ that angered anti-­dogmatists. These Latitudinarian attacks on Methodism will be explored in the final chapter.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

7

Anti-­Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’ In 1766 Francis Blackburne, archdeacon of Cleveland, expressed his desire to see the Church of England adopting the ‘original principles of the Reformation’. All Christians, according to Blackburne, needed the ‘liberty’ to ‘search the scriptures for the grounds of their religion’ without fear of diverging from doctrinal formularies, such as the Thirty-­ ­ Nine Articles.1 Blackburne’s anti-­ subscription ­campaign—which culminated in the failed Feathers Tavern Petition (1772) to Parliament—realized fears conveyed many years earlier by High Churchmen following the publication of Gilbert Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-­Nine Articles.2 Seeking to heal divisions between Protestants—both within and outside of the established Church—Burnet had displayed various sides of doctrinal debates stemming from differing interpretations of the Articles. Rather than seeking ‘doctrinal compromise’, Burnet wished to facilitate ‘mutual forbearance of diversity’ in a broad church. To many High Churchmen Burnet’s irenic approach was dangerous because it seemed to undermine various ‘orthodox’ doctrines prescribed in the Articles, especially the Holy Trinity. Where Article I mandated belief in the Trinity, Article VIII prescribed the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. The Nicene Creed, ratified by the First Council of Nicaea (325), affirmed the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. It was subsequently supported by the Athanasian Creed, which denied salvation to anti-­Trinitarians. Subscription to the Articles was, therefore, supposed to be synonymous with Trinitarianism. Some subscribers, however, failed to meet this expectation.3 In 1712 Samuel Clarke argued that the ‘Son (or second Person) is not Self-­ existent, but derives his Being or Essence, and All his Attributes, from the Father, as from the Supreme Cause’. Clarke’s argument, which he based on a ‘rational’ appeal to Scripture, rendered the Son subordinate to the Father. By implication, Trinitarianism was an unbiblical perversion, which had crept into the 1 [F. Blackburne], The Confessional, or A Full and Free Inquiry into the Right, Utility, Edification, and Success, of Establishing Systematical Confessions of Faith and Doctrine in Protestant Churches (London, 1766), p. 2. 2 See R.  B.  Barlow, ‘Anti-­Subscription and the Clerical Petition Movement in the Church of England, 1766–1772’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 30 (1961), pp. 35–49; G.  M.  Ditchfield, ‘The Subscription Issue in British Parliamentary Politics, 1772–79’, Parliamentary History, 7 (1988), pp. 45–80; M. Fitzpatrick, ‘Latitudinarianism at the Parting of the Ways: A Suggestion’, in Walsh, Haydon and Taylor, Church of England c. 1689–c. 1833, pp. 209–27; Young, Religion and Enlightenment, ch. 2. 3  See M.  Greig, ‘Heresy Hunt: Gilbert Burnet and the Convocation Controversy of 1701’, HJ, 37 (1994), pp. 569–92 (see p. 582 for quotations).

The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0008

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  145 post-­apostolic Church. Clarke’s anti-­Trinitarianism prevented him from aspiring beyond his living at St James’s, Westminster. Such a move would, of course, have necessitated a fresh subscription to the Articles, for which his integrity would have been compromised.4 Clarke’s anti-­Trinitarianism was condemned by orthodox divines, such as Daniel Waterland, who mined patristic sources to provide ‘full Proof that the Catholick Church did all along profess a Trinity of Consubstantial, Co-­eternal Persons, in Unity of Nature, Substance and Godhead’. Despite the best efforts of Waterland, Clarke’s views proved to be highly influential among Latitudinarians.5 One of Clarke’s most prominent followers was Robert Clayton, an Arian divine, who served as bishop of Clogher, Ireland, from 1745 until his death in 1758. Clayton’s final years were marked by controversy surrounding his Essay on Spirit (1751), which claimed that, doctrinally, the Articles were far too restrictive to attract Dissenters into the Anglican fold. Clayton lamented that those who proposed alterations to the Articles were usually branded either a ‘Schismatic, or [a] Heretic’—the same charges that sixteenth-­century Reformers had faced when they contested ‘Innovations’, such as the ‘Doctrine of Transubstantiation’.6 Blackburne’s calls for a ‘Reformation’ were, therefore, part of an ‘ultra-­Protestant’ fuse that had been burning for several decades. Both Wesley and Whitefield, along with their followers, often described their mission as a continuation of the Reformation. To Latitudinarians and Rational Dissenters, however, neither Arminian nor Calvinist Methodists exhibited the ‘true’ ethos of the Reformation. Rather, by maintaining a rigid adherence to unscriptural, ‘human impositions’, such as the Thirty-­Nine Articles, Methodists were nothing more than ‘popish’ dogmatists. By exploring these anti-­dogmatist attacks on Methodism, this chapter continues to illuminate the multifaceted nature of anti-­popery in eighteenth-­century England, while also highlighting the differing perceptions of Methodism’s role in the ‘long Reformation’. The seemingly ongoing status of the Reformation was something that featured prominently in debates over the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, as outlined in Article IX.7 4 S. Clarke, The Scripture-­Doctrine of the Trinity (London, 1712), p. 270; see also T. C. Pfizenmaier, The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675–1729): Context, Sources, and Controversy (Leiden, 1997). 5 D. Waterland, A Vindication of Christ’s Divinity: Being a Defense of Some Queries, Relating to Dr. Clarke’s Scheme of the H. Trinity, in Answer to a Clergyman in the Country (Cambridge, 1719), p. 457; R. T. Holtby, Daniel Waterland 1683–1740: A Study in Eighteenth-­Century Orthodoxy (Carlisle, 1966), ch. 2; Ingram, Reformation without End, ch. 3. 6 [R. Clayton], An Essay on Spirit, Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity Is Considered in the Light of Nature and Reason (London, 1751), pp. xviii, xlvi–xlvii. For Clayton’s heterodoxy, see A. R. Winnett, ‘An Irish Heretic Bishop: Robert Clayton of Clogher’, in D. Baker (ed.), SCH, Vol. 9: Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest (1972), pp. 311–21; C. D. A. Leighton, ‘The Enlightened Religion of Robert Clayton’, Studia Hibernica, 29 (1995–1997), pp. 157–84; N.  Aston, ‘The Limits of Latitudinarianism: English Reactions to Bishop Clayton’s An Essay on Spirit’, JEH, 49 (1998), pp. 407–33. 7  Article IX: Of Original or Birth-­Sin stated the following: ‘Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault or corruption of the nature of every

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

146  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy

Doctrines of Original Sin In one of his early sermons Whitefield described humanity’s ‘original Corruption’ as enough to ‘sink you into Hell’.8 John Wesley similarly viewed original sin as the ‘essential underpinning of Christianity’, as evidenced by his lengthy treatise The Doctrine of Original Sin (1757), which was a belated response to John Taylor’s The Scripture-­Doctrine of Original Sin Proposed to Free and Candid Examination (1740).9 Taylor, a Dissenting minister of Norwich, had reduced original sin to human mortality, which ‘entered into the World by Adam’s Sin’, and was ‘common to . . . all Men, good and bad, the righteous as well as the wicked’. To Taylor the notion ‘that Lust proceeds from Original Sin’ made no sense because it failed to explain the origin of the ‘Lust of our first Parents’. Taylor facetiously asked his readers if it was necessary to ‘feign an Original Sin, a prior Corruption of Nature’ to explain Eve’s lust. He was convinced that the ‘original Cause of Sin’ was ‘Man’s choosing to follow the Appetites of the Flesh’.10 Taylor’s sentiments were abhorrent to Wesley. By denying that ‘Man is by Nature foolish and sinful’, Taylor had implied that there was no need to be ‘renewed in Knowledge or Holiness’. To Wesley, Taylor’s beliefs were nothing more than ‘old Deism in a new Dress’ because they appeared to render Christianity obsolete.11 By ‘old Deism’ Wesley was probably referring to the anti-­Augustinian ‘neo-­ Stoic moral philosophy championed by Shaftesbury and Hutcheson’.12 Wesley’s teachings on original sin did not, however, go unquestioned. Indeed, original sin was a matter of contention in the Arminianism versus Calvinism debate between Wesley and Whitefield. In his response to Wesley’s Free Grace (1739) Whitefield described original sin as a Calvinistic doctrine, which could not be reconciled with Arminianism. To Whitefield it made no sense that Wesley saw ‘GOD’s Justice in imputing Adam’s Sin to his Posterity’, but refused to see any man, that naturally is engendred [sic] of the Offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from Original Righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the Flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit, and therefore in every Person born into the World it deserveth God’s Wrath and Damnation: And this Infection of Nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the Lust of the Flesh, called in Greek  φρονημα σαρκος, which some do expound the Wisdom, some Sensuality, some the Affection, some the Desire of the Flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And though there is no Condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, That Concupiscence and Lust hath of it self the nature of Sin.’ See Burnet, Exposition, p. 108. 8 G.  Whitefield, The Danger of Man Resulting from Sin, and His Remedy, by Christ Considered (London, 1740), p. 8. 9 Rivers, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment, I, p. 227. 10 J.  Taylor, The Scripture-­Doctrine of Original Sin Proposed to Free and Candid Examination (London, 1740), pp. 27, 127. For Taylor’s life and ministry, see G. T. Eddy, Dr Taylor of Norwich: Wesley’s Arch-­Heretic (Peterborough, 2003). 11 Wesley, Doctrine of Original Sin, pp. v–vi. For more on Wesley’s attack on Taylor, see H. B. McGonigle, Christianity or Deism? John Wesley’s Response to John Taylor’s Denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin (Derby, 2012). 12 J.  Robertson, The Case for Enlightenment: Scotland and Naples, 1680–1760 (Cambridge, 2005), p. 318.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  147 justice in the notion that God might ‘pass by’ those whom he had not predestined to be saved.13 For much of his life Wesley combated the misconception that, as an Arminian, he rejected original sin. Such defensiveness is evident from his later piece, The Question, What Is an Arminian? Answered (1770), which was published amid the Minutes Controversy.14 In this work Wesley accused his Calvinist critics of confusing ‘Arminians with Arians’. He was particularly keen to plead ‘Not guilty’ to the charge of denying ‘Original Sin’, which was ‘asserted’ by Arminius in ‘more strong, more clear and express terms’ than any ‘man that ever lived’, including Calvin himself.15 It would, however, be inaccurate to speak of a ‘Methodist’ doctrine of original sin because such a classification ignores the soteriological differences between Wesley and Whitefield. Indeed, Wesley adhered to a doctrine of original sin which was significantly more optimistic than the total depravity described by Whitefield and other Calvinist evangelicals. Both Wesley and Whitefield described grace as irresistible, though their meanings differed. To Whitefield irresistible grace meant God’s saving grace, which only applied to the elect. Wesley, on the other hand, spoke of an irresistible prevenient grace, which was universal. This grace, according to Wesley, enabled humans to follow Christ willingly. Evidently such a notion was incompatible with the total depravity described by Whitefield. Theoretically Wesley adhered to total depravity in the sense that he viewed humanity’s natural state as completely corrupt. In practice, however, he believed that prevenient grace prevented anybody from being born into this totally depraved state of nature. Importantly Wesley was careful to stress that prevenient grace was a gift from God, not an innate ‘natural conscience’ (he detested such a ‘vulgar’ title because of its Pelagian connotations).16 Methodists often complained that most Anglican divines had virtually rejected the doctrines to which they had subscribed in Article IX. On 9 July 1739 Whitefield responded to a recent letter from Bishop Benson, who had advised him to consult an enclosed copy of Stebbing’s Caution against Religious Delusion. Whitefield, unsurprisingly, did not thank Benson for this ‘gift’. Rather, he condemned Stebbing’s sermon for its failure to mention ‘a Word of Original Sin, or the dreadful Consequences of our Fall in Adam’. Whitefield was convinced that, ‘like other polite Preachers’, Stebbing was guilty of Pelagianism.17 Stebbing’s 13 Whitefield, Letter from the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, p. 23. 14  This dispute was sparked by the publication of the Minutes of the 1770 Methodist Conference, in which Wesley described good works as a condition of final justification. Calvinist evangelicals, such as Augustus Toplady, were quick to defend themselves against Wesley’s implied charge of antinomianism. See A. Coppedge, Shaping the Wesleyan Message: John Wesley in Theological Debate (Nappanee, IN, 2003), chs 10–13. 15 [J. Wesley], The Question, What Is an Arminian? Answered (London, 1770), pp. 4–5. 16 Collins, Theology of John Wesley, pp. 70–4; P.  R.  Meadows, ‘The Journey of Evangelism’, in W. J. Abraham and J. E. Kirby (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies (Oxford, 2009), p. 420. 17  Whitefield, Journal 4, pp. 17–19.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

148  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy work—along with Joseph Trapp’s ‘righteous over-­much’ sermons—sparked an anonymous pro-­Whitefield item in the August 1739 issue of the Gentleman’s Magazine. Stebbing and Trapp were, according to the author, representative of most Anglican clergymen, who had ‘departed from the Doctrines of the Reformation’. One such Reformation doctrine was ‘original Sin, and the Imputation of Adam’s Transgression to his Posterity’, which Georgian divines had allegedly ‘cast by with a Sneer, and reckon’d too grating to the Ears of a polite modern Auditory’.18 In the wake of Bishop Gibson’s 1739 Pastoral Letter, another anonymous author observed that Whitefield had a theological advantage over his clerical opponents because his ‘Scheme of the New Birth, or Regeneration’ was built on the ‘Calvinistical Doctrine of Original Sin’. The author noted that this doctrine formed the ninth of the Thirty-­Nine Articles, having originally been derived from the passage: ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Psalm 51:5). The author added that this doctrine had traditionally been central to the sacrament of baptism, which transferred infants from a ‘State of Nature into a State of Grace’, and delivered them from God’s ‘Wrath’.19 In his response to this piece Thomas Church agreed that the established Church still ‘held’ and ‘frequently mention’d’ original sin in its ‘Offices of Baptism’. However, Church strongly denied that this doctrine was a ‘peculiar Tenet of Calvinism’. Rather, it had been ‘held by the earliest Writers of the Church’, whose exegesis of Psalm 51:5 prefigured Calvin’s by well over a millennium. To support this point, Church cited Origen’s Contra Celsum (c.248), which seemed to prefigure the writings of Augustine by speaking of an inherent sinfulness, resulting from Adam’s fall. Clearly Church—despite being an ardent opponent of Methodism—shared Wesley and Whitefield’s adherence to the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.20 Daniel Waterland had similarly defended original sin in his response to Matthew Tindal’s deistic treatise, Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730). More specifically, Waterland questioned why Tindal seemed ‘offended, that God should cause Mankind to fall by the Folly of Adam, which infinite Wisdom could not but foresee’. To Waterland, Tindal’s treatment of Genesis was a ‘crude Censure’, because it implied that the ‘unsearchable Counsels, Works, and Ways of God’ should be judged by human standards. Waterland also contested Tindal’s suggestion that humanity shared affinities with prelapsarian Adam. Compared with the former, the latter had been ‘naturally less prone to Evil’ and ‘less subject to sinful Appetites’, even though Adam had obviously been ‘capable of sinning’ while he was in his prelapsarian state. One simply could not find such a degree of

18  Gentleman’s Magazine, 9 (1739), p. 415. 19  A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, Occasion’d by His Lordship’s Late Pastoral Letter, and the Revd Mr. Whitefield’s Answer (London, 1739), pp. 11–12. 20 Church, Explanation and Defense, pp. 29–30.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  149 ‘Perfection’ among Adam’s fallen ‘Posterity’.21 Defending original sin was also a priority for the anonymous author of an item in the 6 October 1739 issue of the Weekly Miscellany, which described this Augustinian doctrine as the ‘Foundation of the Christian Scheme’. Rather than being ‘involv’d in his [Adam’s] Guilt, as criminal Associates’, humans were ‘Heirs of his Corruption and Mortality’. This ‘unavoidable Pollution’ was ‘cleans’d by the immaculate Blood of Christ’, from which all ‘that obey the Gospel’ were rewarded with ‘eternal Bliss’.22 Nevertheless, the Augustinianism to which most High Churchmen adhered was a significantly watered-­down version of what Wesley and Whitefield believed. These differences are evidenced by the sentiments of James Bate, who combated Methodism but defended original sin. In a 1752 publication, which he expanded in 1766, Bate attacked a posthumous ‘Essay on the Allegorical and Literal Interpretation of the Creation and Fall of Man’ by Conyers Middleton. In this essay Middleton denied the Genesis account of creation, claiming that the Garden of Eden was an Egyptian invention, absorbed by Moses. Bate strongly rejected Middleton’s belief that the ‘story of the fall of man’ was a ‘moral fable or allegory’. Humans, according to Bate, entered this world as ‘Devils’ and ‘Brutes’ and were ‘fitted only for Misery’. Bate argued that anybody who doubted their ‘own corrupted Nature’ would quickly change their mind by ‘casting an Eye upon African or American Heathenism’. Yet Bate diverged from evangelicals in the sense that, like most contemporary High Churchmen, he adhered to an Arminian so­teri­ ology which placed sanctification before any initial justification. Thus Bate refused to believe that all pre-­justification works were corrupted by original sin. Echoing Bishop Bull, Bate claimed that such works—despite being ‘more or less imperfect’—formed an essential part of one’s initial sanctification.23 It is, therefore, clear that High Churchmen remained committed to an Augustinian conception of original sin, which—despite being less severe than the total depravity described by Calvinist evangelicals—considered humanity to be in a fallen and corrupted state. Despite their willingness to defend original sin against attacks from heterodox authors, Georgian divines were often accused of neglecting this Augustinian doctrine in their sermons. It is possible that clergymen simply viewed original sin as a widely accepted supposition, which required little explanation. Equally plaus­ ible is the possibility that divines avoided preaching about original sin because they feared that such a pessimistic topic would contradict their lessons in humanity’s potential for goodness. During the late 1730s—when anticlerical sentiments 21 Waterland, Scripture Vindicated, pp. 21–2. 22  Weekly Miscellany, 6 October 1739. 23 J. Bate, An Essay towards a Rationale of the Literal Doctrine of Original Sin (London, 1752), p. 52; J. Bate, A Rationale of the Literal Doctrine of Original Sin, or A Vindication of God’s Permitting the Fall of Adam, and the Subsequent Corruption of Our Human Nature (London, 1766), pp. 91–2; C. Middleton, ‘An Essay on the Allegorical and Literal Interpretation of the Creation and Fall of Man’, in Miscellaneous Works, II, pp. 123–34, at p. 131.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

150  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy were particularly rife—Dissenters at both ends of the theological spectrum used Article IX as a symbol of the established Church’s apparent hypocrisy regarding subscription to the Thirty-­Nine Articles.

A ‘Diversity of Passions and Humours’ In Jonathan Warne’s The Church of England Turn’d Dissenter at Last (1737), a Dissenter introduces the Church of England’s Reformed tradition to his neighbour, an Anglican layman, who is keen to hear what is meant by ‘Original Sin . . . the IXth Article of our Church’. The Dissenter instructs his neighbour by quoting from Archbishop Ussher and William Beveridge’s writings on the subject. The Anglican layman responds that this is more than he has ever ‘heard concerning Original Sin’ from his ‘Parsons’, who ‘seldom or never mention it’.24 Conversely, a 1739 work by an anonymous General Baptist, writing under the pseudonym ‘E.  B.’, attacked Whitefield and ‘the Methodists of the Church of England’ for their ‘zealous conformity’ to Article IX. Despite praising Methodists for maintaining their ‘convictions’—and not following the ‘generality’ of the ‘false swearing’ clergy—‘E. B.’ argued that ‘human Articles and Creeds’ contradicted the ‘Protestant’ ethos of the Reformation. While conceding that original sin had been ‘introduced into the Protestant Church’ by Luther and Calvin, ‘E.  B.’ noted that both Reformers had been ‘priests in the Church of Rome’ and, therefore, viewed it as a very ‘gainful’ doctrine. Indeed, the notion that baptism was required to ‘wash away the Pollution of Original Sin’ was a ‘Priestly Expedient’, designed to ‘allay the superstitious Fears of Men in behalf of their Children’, whose ‘Souls’, they believed, needed saving from ‘eternal Damnation’. The ‘truth’, however, had been proclaimed by ‘some glorious Confessors and Reformers’, who had restored the ‘primitive Practice of Baptizing by dipping’ during the sixteenth century. To ‘E. B.’ the Reformation was an ongoing process, which was being stifled by Whitefield and other ‘Orthodox Divines’, who maintained ‘the Traditions of Men’, and refused to embrace a ‘truer’, ‘more scriptural’, and ‘more rational System of Religion’.25 Many of the sentiments advanced by ‘E.  B.’ echoed earlier arguments by William Whiston, whose time as a Cambridge don had been cut short in 1710, when his openly Arian views led to his dismissal as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.26 In Primitive Infant-­Baptism Reviv’d (1712) Whiston described the full immersion believers’ baptism as a practice that predated infant baptism, having been fully endorsed in the Gospels. Later, when baptism started to be viewed

24 Warne, Church of England Turn’d Dissenter at Last, pp. 25–8. 25 E. B., Expostulatory Letter to the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, pp. 3–4, 7–8, 13–14, 31, 37. 26 For Whiston’s life and ministry, see J.  E.  Force, William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (Cambridge, 1985).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  151 as something ‘wholly for the Remission of Sins’, it was obvious that those who were only a ‘few Years or Months old’ had committed no ‘actual Sins’. As a result, ­people started to believe that infants ‘must have Original Sin to obtain that pardon’. Thus the ‘Doctrine of Original Sin . . . was plainly deriv’d from some Reasonings about the Baptism of Infants’. Whiston failed to see why ‘Original Sin, which was involuntary, should properly need Forgiveness’.27 He reiterated these points many years later in The Eternity of Hell Torments (1740), which attacked the ‘absurd’ notion that God would inflict his ‘wrath, and damnation’ on an unbaptized infant, who had yet to commit any ‘[actual, or wilful] sin’.28 Two months after the publication of The Eternity of Hell Torments, readers were introduced to an attack on the Methodists and William Law by Whiston’s nephew, Thomas Whiston, entitled The Important Doctrines of Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Regeneration (1740).29 Little is known about the younger Whiston’s life and ministry. From his obituary, which appeared in a July 1795 issue of the Gentleman’s Magazine, we know that Thomas Whiston was born in either 1712 or 1713. He was the son of William’s brother, Daniel Whiston, a graduate of Clare Hall, Cambridge, who was curate of Somersham, Huntingdonshire, for fifty-­two years. As with his friend and fellow anti-­Trinitarian Samuel Clarke, Daniel refused to renew his subscription to the Articles, thereby losing opportunities for clerical advancement. In Somersham Daniel was opposed by influential parishioner, Thomas Hammond. However, this ‘High Church squire’ was eventually backed into submission by the Duchess of Marlborough, whom Clarke had lobbied on behalf of Daniel Whiston.30 As with his father and uncle, Thomas Whiston matriculated at Cambridge, where he graduated BA from Trinity College in 1735. He was ordained deacon in 1736 and priest in 1738. In 1742 he was presented to the living of Orby, Lincolnshire, where he remained until his death in 1795. There is much ambiguity surrounding what Whiston was doing when he published his Important Doctrines in 1740. Although the title page named him as the author, it contained no further information relating to his occupation.31 While this work marked Whiston’s debut as an author, he also edited an autobiography by the Portuguese freethinker Uriel Acosta (c.1585–1640). On 4 March 1740 the General Evening Post ran a ‘This Day is publish’d’ advertisement for both works, which had been 27 W. Whiston, Primitive Infant-­Baptism Reviv’d, or An Account of the Doctrine and Practice of the Two First Centuries, Concerning the Baptism of Infants; in the Words of the Sacred and Primitive Writers Themselves (London, 1712), pp. 29–30. 28 W. Whiston, The Eternity of Hell Torments Considered, or A Collection of Texts of Scripture, and Testimonies of the Three First Centuries, Relating to Them (London, 1740), p. 63. 29  The original advertisement for The Eternity of Hell Torments appeared in the Daily Gazetteer on 4 January 1740. 30  Gentleman’s Magazine, 65 (1795), p. 617; R. F. Scott (ed.), Admissions to the College of St John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge, Vol. 3: July 1715–November 1767 (Cambridge, 1903), p. 714. 31  ‘Whiston, Thomas (CCEd Person ID 80010)’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

152  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy printed for ‘J. Whiston’ of ‘Boyle’s Head in Fleet-­street’, where they were each being sold at one shilling.32 The bookseller to whom the advertisement referred was William Whiston’s son (and Thomas’s cousin), John.33 In his Important Doctrines Thomas Whiston sought to restore the ethos of the Reformation by teaching the ‘Doctrines of Scripture alone’ and discarding any theological ‘inventions’ lacking ‘Foundation in Scripture’. As with his father and uncle, Whiston viewed the Trinity as one such ‘invention’, though his rejection of this doctrine consisted of a mockingly subtle statement, targeted at William Law. In his Grounds and Reasons of Christian Regeneration (1739) Law had claimed that ‘being created in the Image of God is to be understood [as] the Image of the Holy Trinity, “where Father, Son and Holy Ghost each brought forth their own Nature in a creaturely Manner”’. As a result of the Fall, this ‘Image of the holy Trinity was broken’, causing both the Son and the Holy Spirit that ‘proceeded from him’ to be severed from the soul. Nevertheless, in a ‘stupendous Mystery of Love’, the Son ‘united himself to our fallen Nature, to recover and restore to it all that it had lost’. Despite its corrupted state, humanity was endowed with a ‘Consciousness’ that demanded ‘all Kinds of Virtue’. Souls who followed this virtuous path would eventually be reunited with the ‘Son of God’, causing them to become a ‘perfect living Image of the holy Trinity’.34 Law’s mystical Trinitarianism stemmed from his newfound devotion to Boehme, whose ‘subtle influence can be traced in almost every part of Law’s writings after 1735’.35 As with Law, Boehme described the Trinity as the source of all creation. Humanity’s ‘desire’ to form itself in God’s ‘image and likeness’ was, according to Boehme, only achievable when the soul was ‘decisively willing’ to follow the Son.36 Thomas Whiston lambasted Law’s ‘Doctrine of the Trinity in the Soul’, which was ‘never thought of nor mentioned from our Lord’s Crucifixion, even to the present Time by any but himself [Law]’. Whiston stressed that he had no desire to ‘argue against the Doctrine of the Trinity’. Such a debate, he claimed, was beyond both his and Law’s ‘weak Apprehension’. Yet Whiston noted that it seemed ‘odd and uncommon, to make the Christian New Birth insist upon a Doctrine, that was never fully agreed upon in the Christian Church’. This short observation spoke volumes because it showed that Whiston did not acknowledge the authority of the Nicene Creed. To orthodox divines, such as George Bull, this creed signified 32  General Evening Post, 4 March 1740. 33  See Michael T. Davis, ‘Whiston, John (1711–1780)’, ODNB. 34 T.  Whiston, The Important Doctrines of Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Regeneration, Clearly Stated from Scripture and Reason: And Vindicated from the Misrepresentations of the Methodists. With Remarks on Mr Law’s Late Tract on the New-­Birth (London, 1740), pp. 2, 11; W. Law, The Grounds and Reasons of Christian Regeneration, or The New Birth: Offer’d to the Consideration of Christians and Deists (London, 1739), pp. 30–2. 35  S. Hobhouse, ‘The Book Which Introduced Jacob Boehme to William Law’, JTS, 37 (1936), p. 359. 36 F. Hartmann, The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme: The God-­Taught Philosopher (Boston, MA, 1891), pp. 148–50.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  153 the Nicene Fathers’ victory over the Arians during the First Council of Nicaea. In his seminal work, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, Bull stated that the doctrines ‘laid down’ by the Council had, ‘in substance’, been taught by all the ante-­Nicene Fathers dating back to the ‘age of the Apostles’. By denying that the Fathers had settled this dispute, Whiston was showing that he viewed the Trinity as an adiaphorous (indifferent) doctrine, which was not mandated by the Scriptures. Whiston also rejected Law’s ‘detestable’ implication that, before experiencing the ‘new birth’, the soul contained the images of the Father and the Devil ‘blended together’. As was evident throughout his Important Doctrines, Whiston rejected the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, as taught by Law, the Methodists, and the Church of England.37 To Whiston, enough punishment for Adam’s transgression could be found in the process of ‘Man’ being ‘chang’d into a mortal, corruptible, frail Being, liable to Pains, Accidents, and Diseases, and all the black Artillery of Death’. Whiston also noted the existence of a ‘great Diversity of Passions and Humours, and a greater natural Inclination in one to Evil than another’. While Whiston was cautious of attributing this disparity of sinfulness to a ‘physical Cause’, he believed this to be a far more plausible explanation than original sin. To Whiston it was a ‘Contradiction in Terms’ to view this ‘hellish Tincture in the Soul’ as something that ‘should be spread unequally among Mankind’. Thus he refused to view sin as something ‘inwardly rooted and grafted’ in one’s ‘Nature’. Such a notion was ‘destructive of human Liberty’ because it provided people with an excuse for their ‘Lusts and Passions’, rendering the concept of ‘voluntary’ or ‘actual Sin’ non-­ existent. Whiston’s apparent disregard for Article IX, along with the rest of the Thirty-­ Nine Articles, was evidenced by his complaint that the Methodists preached the ‘literal Sense of the Articles to their Audience’.38 Evidence of a subtle anti-­subscriptionist agenda can be further discerned from Whiston’s discussions of justification by faith. He observed that the solifidian doctrines advanced in Articles XI and XII contradicted the requirement, as outlined in Article VII (Of the Old Testament), for Christians to adhere to the moral law. A ‘satisfactory solution’, therefore, was needed. The ‘solution’ to which Whiston alluded was, of course, the abolition of subscription. Whiston proceeded to attack the Methodist doctrine of regeneration. Rather than experiencing a sudden ‘New-­Birth’ which resembled Wesley’s Aldersgate conversion, Christians only encountered one form of regeneration during their lifetime, and this was through ‘Baptism of Water’.39 The importance of baptismal regeneration was a central topic in one of the earliest anti-­Methodist publications—a 1738 sermon by 37 Whiston, Important Doctrines, pp. 11, 14; G.  Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae: A Defence of the Nicene Creed, out of the Extant Writings of the Catholick Doctors, Who Flourished during the Three First Centuries of the Christian Church (Oxford, 1851), pp. 12–13. 38 Whiston, Important Doctrines, pp. 5, 19–21. 39 Whiston, Important Doctrines, pp. 42, 53.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

154  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Tipping Silvester, a fellow of Whitefield’s alma mater, Pembroke College, Oxford.40 A couple of months before the publication of Whiston’s Important Doctrines, Daniel Waterland had published his anti-­Methodist tract, Regeneration Stated and Explained, in which he similarly stressed the importance of being ‘born of water and of the spirit’ (John 3:5). As ever, Waterland rooted his argument firmly in patristics. Citing Cyprian’s On the Baptism of Heretics, Waterland rejected the evangelical notion that Christians were ‘once born of Water, and once of the Spirit’. Rather, Christians only experienced one new birth—baptism, in which the ‘Spirit primarily’ and the ‘Water secondarily’ fused.41 Both Silvester and Waterland were, of course, describing regeneration through infant baptism, as stipulated in Article XXVII.42 Whiston, on the other hand, meant regeneration as signified by the baptism of an ‘adult person’.43 Such pro-­Baptist sentiments would have been particularly repugnant to Waterland, who had previously dismissed the validity of baptisms performed by Dissenting ministers.44 Thus, by rejecting the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, supporting believers’ baptism, and identifying contradictions between the various Articles, Whiston was attacking Anglican dogmatism, of which Methodists were, apparently, the most aggressive proponents. Whiston’s footnotes consisted almost entirely of biblical citations, thereby illuminating his adherence to sola scriptura. The source of his heterodoxy is, therefore, ambiguous. A denial of an inherent state of sinfulness was consistent with the teachings of Pelagius (354–420), though scholars are divided on whether he saw ‘any causality between Adam’s sin and his death’.45 Whiston’s views on this latter point may have stemmed from a reading of Chrysostom, who similarly defined original sin as universal mortality.46 It is, of course, likely that Whiston consulted his uncle, William, whose heterodox discussions of original sin and baptism have been discussed already. Another plaus­ ible source of inspiration was the crypto-­ Arian divine Daniel Whitby (1638–1726), who had rejected original sin in a 1711 piece, published originally

40 Silvester, Scripture Doctrine of Regeneration Stated. 41 Waterland, Regeneration Stated and Explained, pp. 3, 7, 27. For the original advertisement, see London Daily Post and General Advertiser, 1 January 1740. 42  Article XXVII: Of Baptism declares that ‘Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.’ See Burnet, Exposition, p. 299. 43 Whiston, Important Doctrines, p. 55. 44 Holtby, Daniel Waterland, pp. 118–22. 45 R. Dodaro, Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine (Cambridge, 2004), p. 88. 46 F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (Cambridge, 1903), pp. 325–6. Later exponents of this view included Jeremy Taylor and John Locke.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  155 in Latin, and subsequently translated into English by Henry Heywood, a General Baptist minister, in 1739.47 Upon its initial publication Whitby’s treatise was swiftly attacked by Jonathan Edwards (1629–1712), Principal of Jesus College, Oxford. Edwards opened what was to be his final work by quoting Article IX, along with Canon V, the latter of which condemned ‘Impugners’ of the Thirty-­Nine Articles.48 In his response to Edwards, Whitby claimed that original sin contradicted ‘the Liberty of the Will of Man to chuse the Good, and to refuse the Evil’. To Whitby, viewing sinfulness as a ‘Necessity’ merely freed ‘Men from all Fault’. Such sentiments clearly bore a striking resemblance to Thomas Whiston’s argument that original sin justified ­im­mor­al­ity.49 There is no doubt that Whitby’s writings influenced the anonymous Baptist author of a later anti-­Methodist work, entitled A Plain and Familiar Dialogue between a Steady and a Wavering Christian (1749). As was characteristic of anti-­dogmatists, the author of the Plain and Familiar Dialogue believed that the Reformation had not gone far enough in endorsing the principle of sola scriptura. The protagonist in this dialogue is the Steady (or ‘Primitive’) Christian, who is also a Baptist. His adversary is the Wavering Christian, a former Baptist, whose admiration for Whitefield has prompted his defection to the Church of England. The Wavering Christian praises ‘those glorious Reformers, Dr. Martin Luther, and that great Luminary, Mr. John Calvin’. Their teachings, the Wavering Christian argues, sparked the ‘Reformation here in England, in the Days of King Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth, as appears by the Articles of Religion, published by the Church then established’. This triumphalist description of the Reformation is rejected by the Steady Christian, who observes that the ‘most illustrious’ Reformers displayed the ‘Yoke of Popery’ by maintaining a ‘fiery, zealous, persecuting Spirit, in order to establish an Uniformity of true Religion’ and ‘bring dissenting Christians to a Belief and Profession of Orthodoxy’. This ‘popish’ regime was, apparently, evidenced by the burning of Michael Servetus at the ‘instigation of the famous Reformer, Mr. John Calvin’ in 1553. In most Protestant establishments—including the Church of England—‘unadulterated, original, genuine Christianity’ was hindered by ‘Confessions of Faith, Creeds, and Canons’ stemming, not from the Scriptures, but from ‘the Traditions of Men’. One such ‘tradition’, to which the Wavering Christian adheres, is the ‘Imputation of original Sin’. Citing Whitby, the Steady Christian observes that, according to 47 D.  Whitby, Tractatus de Imputatione Divina Peccati Adami Posteris ejus Universis in Reatum (London, 1711); D. Whitby, The Guilt of Adam’s Transgression Not Imputed to His Posterity. A Treatise Concerning Original Sin, ed. and trans. H. Heywood (London, 1739). 48 J.  Edwards, The Doctrine of Original Sin, as It Was Always Held in the Catholick Church, and Particularly in the Church of England, Asserted and Vindicated from the Exceptions and Cavils of the Reverend Dr. Daniel Whitby (Oxford, 1711), p. A2. 49 D. Whitby, A Full Answer to the Arguments of the Reverend Dr. Jonathan Edwards, for the Opinion of St. Austin Concerning the Imputation of the First Sin of Adam, for Guilt to All His Posterity (London, 1712), p. 27.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

156  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy Chrysostom, God is neither ‘accustom'd, nor willing to revenge the Sins of Parents upon their Children’. In stark contrast to his rejection of ori­gin­al sin, Whitby had espoused decidedly orthodox views of the afterlife.50

Heaven and Hell In A Paraphrase and Commentary upon All the Epistles of the New Testament (1700) Whitby defended the doctrine of eternal damnation, as taught in the Homilies.51 The ‘Endless Miseries or Torments of the Wicked’ were, according to Whitby, ‘consistent, both with the Justice, and the Goodness of God’. Scriptural support for this doctrine could be found in Paul’s description of the ‘flaming fire’ and ‘everlasting destruction’ awaiting those ‘who know not God’ and ‘obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9).52 In 1730 Waterland recommended Whitby’s treatise to Cambridge undergraduates as an alternative to a sermon preached by the late John Tillotson before Queen Mary in 1690.53 In this sermon Tillotson urged clergymen to continue preaching eternal damnation. Tillotson denied that God was ‘obliged to execute what he hath threatned [sic]’ but stressed that ‘eternal misery and punishment’ could await ‘wicked men in the other world’. He was careful to add that there was ‘no ground at all in Scripture’ to support the notion that a ‘time of terrible torment’ was followed by total ‘Annihilation’—a belief that had been propagated by the Socinian John Biddle (1615–62) and the Baptist Samuel Richardson (fl. 1646) amid the relatively lax surveillance of the Interregnum.54 Nevertheless, because it broached the possibility that hell torments were not eternal, Tillotson’s sermon was interpreted by his contemporary critics, such as George Hickes and John Edwards, as a subtle endorsement of annihilationism.55 Many years later John Wesley’s views of the afterlife stirred similar controversy. 50  Plain and Familiar Dialogue, pp. 6–13. 51  This doctrine is taught in the ‘Homily against Rebellion’. See The Second Tome of Homilees of Such Matters as Were Promised, and Intituled in the Former Part of Homilees (London, 1571), pp. 614–15. 52 D. Whitby, A Paraphrase and Commentary upon All the Epistles of the New Testament (London, 1700), pp. 386–7. 53 Waterland, Advice to a Young Student, pp. 24–5. 54 J. Tillotson, A Sermon Preach’d before the Queen at White-­Hall, March the 7th, 1689/90 (London, 1690), pp. 13, 15, 19; J. Biddle, A Twofold Catechism: The One Simply Called A Scripture Catechism; The Other A Brief Scripture Catechism for Children (London, 1654); S. Richardson, Of the Torments of Hell: The Foundation and Pillars Thereof Discovered, Searched, Shaken and Removed (London, 1658). Richardson’s polemic was republished in 1720 and subsequently translated into French by the atheist philosopher Baron d’Holbach. See L’enfer détruit ou examen raisonné du dogme de l’éternité des peines, Ouvrages traduits de L’Anglois (Londres, 1769). I am grateful to John Coffey for the latter reference. 55 See [G.  Hickes], Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson Occasioned by the Late Funeral Sermon of the Former upon the Later (London, 1695), p. 44; [C.  Leslie], The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson Considered in Examination of Some Sermons He Has Lately Published on Purpose to Clear Himself from That Imputation (Edinburgh, 1695), pp. 21–2; J.  Edwards, The Preacher: The Second Part (London, 1706), p. viii.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  157 Wesley’s belief in eternal damnation is confirmed in a sermon, published in 1789, which reflected on Mark 9:48, ‘Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched’. This passage, Wesley argued, described the ‘punishment of those who in spite of all the warnings of God, resolve to have their portion with the devil’. The ‘term of their torment’ was ‘Nothing but eternity’.56 Clearly Wesley was no annihilationist. Some, however, still doubted the orthodoxy of his eschatology. These suspicions stemmed from Wesley’s Collection of Forms of Prayer for Every Day in the Week (1733), which included several prayers for the dead, such as: ‘Forgive all who are mine Enemies, and so reconcile them to me and Thyself, that we all, together with those that now sleep in Thee, may awake to Life everlasting.’ That this prayer was taken from a 1740 edition of the Collection is significant because it shows that, after his Aldersgate experience, Wesley remained influenced by the writings of the Usager Non-­Jurors.57 As has been shown, Wesley was sometimes attacked by Non-­Jurors, who condemned his seemingly anticlerical and schismatic practices. Conversely, ardent Hanoverians, such as Bishop Lavington, were keen to highlight Wesley’s doctrinal links with the Non-­Jurors. Lavington alleged that, by praying for the dead, Wesley was propagating a practice which—apart from being the ‘Foundation of Purgatory’—was ‘one of the Favourite Manchester-­Doctrines of Mr. [Thomas] Deacon’. Wesley was, therefore, ‘leading Men certainly into Jacobitism, and prob­ ably into Popery’.58 In a published letter to Moore Booker, a Church of Ireland divine and ally of Wesley, an anonymous ‘Country-­Gentleman’ similarly charged Wesley with teaching ‘the profitable doctrine of Purgatory’.59 As with Jeremy Collier and Thomas Deacon, Wesley denied that his prayers were directed at ‘those who die in their Sins’. Rather, praying for the dead enabled Christians to share communion with the ‘faithful departed’. That Wesley was being charged with defending purgatory is ironic, given that evangelicalism was often characterized by ‘fire and brimstone’ preaching, especially during its early years.60 In a sermon, preached before his congregation at Northampton, Massachusetts, in April 1739, Jonathan Edwards stressed that ‘the eternal death which God threatens, is not annihilation, but an abiding, sensible punishment or misery’. 56 J. Wesley, The Eternity of Hell Torments: A Sermon on Mark IX. 48 (London, 1789), pp. 6, 19. 57 J. Wesley, A Collection of Forms of Prayer for Every Day in the Week, 5th ed. (London, 1740), pp. 12, 17, 36. See also E. T. Carrier, ‘Wesley’s Views on Prayers for the Dead’, PWHS, 1 (1898), pp. 123–5. 58  Lavington 2, pp. 166–7. 59  A Country-­Gentleman, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. M—re B—k-­r, Concerning the Methodists (Dublin, 1752), p. 33. 60 Wesley, Second Letter to the Author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists, p. 52. For Collier and Deacon’s defences of this practice, see J. Collier, Reasons for Restoring Some Prayers and Directions, as They Stand in the Communion-­Service of the First English Reform’d Liturgy, Compiled by the Bishops in the 2d and 3d Years of the Reign of King Edward VI (London, 1717), pp. 18–20; T. Deacon, The Doctrine of the Church of Rome Concerning Purgatory Proved to be Contrary to Catholick Tradition, and Inconsistent with the Necessary Duty of Praying for the Dead, as Practised in the Ancient Church (London, 1718), pp. xi–xii.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

158  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy This teaching, Edwards noted, contradicted the views of Tillotson, who had become ‘so great a figure among the new-­fashioned divines’.61 Whitefield also claimed that his equally chilling sermon, The Eternity of Hell Torments (1738), was ‘directly level’d against’ Tillotson’s 1690 sermon.62 Such hellfire and damnation, however, was not favoured by all. On 1 June 1739 an advertisement in the London Daily Post recommended a remedy for Whitefield’s ‘Sick-­Dreams’ in the form of a book, entitled Hell Torments Not Eternal.63 This book was an abridgement of a posthumous work by Tillotson’s protégé Thomas Burnet (1635–1715), entitled De Statu Mortuorum & Resurgentium (1720). Since the doctrine of eternal torment was ‘seen as necessary to good government’, it is unsurprising that Burnet had never intended to publicize his annihilationist views.64 The an­onym­ ous author of Methodists Impostors (1740) also attacked Whitefield by cham­pion­ ing ‘the learned Dr Burnet’s Arguments, proving from the Attributes of divine Mercy, that Hell Torments are not eternal’.65 Annihilationism was not the only doctrine advanced by those who rejected eternal damnation. An alternative, more optimistic doctrine was universal reconciliation, which taught that all would eventually be saved. The ‘first formal exposition’ of universalism appeared in the third-­century writings of Origen, who claimed that the ‘end and consummation of all things’ would be restored to the ‘beginning’ described in Genesis 1:1.66 During the seventeenth century universalism was espoused by various authors, including George Rust, bishop of Dromore (1667–70), Gerrard Winstanley (1609–76), founder of the Diggers, and the Cambridge Platonists Peter Sterry (1613–72) and Jeremiah White (1629–1707).67 In 1743 a universalist work by Pierre Cuppé, a French Augustinian priest, was translated into English and published in London. To the anonymous translator, Heaven Open to All Men served as an ‘Antidote’ to the ‘Enthusiastick Rhapsodies of Those who call Themselves Methodists’.68 61  J. Edwards, ‘Sermon XI: The Eternity of Hell Torments’, in J. Edwards Jr. (ed.), Sermons, on the Following Subjects: The Manner in Which Salvation Is to Be Sought . . . The Perpetuity & Change of the Sabbath (Hartford, CT, 1780), pp. 172, 189. 62 Whitefield, Three Letters, p. 3. 63  London Daily Post and General Advertiser, 1 June 1739. 64  See Philip C. Almond, Heaven and Hell in Enlightenment England (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 119–23, 160; D. P. Walker, The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-­Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (London, 1964), pp. 156–66; P.  C.  Davies, ‘The Debate on Eternal Punishment in Late Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-­Century English Literature’, Eighteenth-­Century Studies, 4 (1971), pp. 257–76. 65  Methodists Impostors, p. 24. 66 L. M. Blanchard, Will All Be Saved? An Assessment of Universalism in Western Theology (Milton Keynes, 2015), pp. 55–62. 67 G. Rust, A Letter of Resolution Concerning Origen and the Chief of His Opinions (London, 1661); G.  Winstanley, The Mysterie of God Concerning the Whole Creation, Mankinde (London, 1648); L. Hickman, ‘Love Is All and God Is Love: Universalism in Peter Sterry (1613–1672) and Jeremiah White (1630–1707)’, in G. MacDonald (ed.), All Shall Be Well: Explorations in Universal Salvation and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann (Eugene, OR, 2011), pp. 95–115. 68  Pierre Cuppé, Heaven Open to All Men, or A Theological Treatise, in Which, without Unsettling the Practice of Religion, Is Solidly Prov’d, by Scripture and Reason, That All Men Shall Be Saved, or, Made Finally Happy (London, 1743), p. v.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  159 Evidently several authors automatically associated hellfire preaching with Methodism, suggesting that, in the years preceding Wesley and Whitefield’s ministries, hell had become a neglected topic in Anglican sermons. This apparent neglect should not, however, be interpreted as a sign that Georgian divines had rejected eternal damnation. In 1755 John Maud defended this doctrine against objections from ‘lost and bewilder’d’ individuals, such as Thomas Burnet, whose annihilationism encouraged ‘all manner of beastly Pleasures’.69 James Bate advanced similar sentiments in response to Cuppé’s Heaven Open to All Men, which he borrowed from George Bryant, a parishioner. On 12 December 1748 Bate wrote a letter to Bryant, entitled ‘Heaven Impossible to be Open to all Men’, in which he condemned Cuppé’s ‘false Philosophy, dishonest Sophistry, and real or affected ignorance of the true sense of Scripture’. Bate stressed that ‘some men’ simply rendered ‘themselves incapable of Salvation’. Such defiance was an ‘evil that God himself cannot prevent without working . . . contradictions’. It was, apparently, for this reason that those beyond salvation were forced to endure the ‘very depth of Eternal Misery’. Despite Bate’s hopes, readers in England had not seen the last of universalist teachings, which were subsequently espoused by individuals linked to Methodism.70 In 1759 James Relly, a Welsh lay preacher and former follower of Whitefield, publicized his newfound universalism, which he based on his belief in humanity’s union with Christ. This controversial doctrine, Relly argued, was taught in numerous biblical passages, including 1 Corinthians 12:12, ‘For as the Body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one Body, being many, are one Body: so also is Christ.’ Both John Wesley and William Mason attacked Relly’s universalism, which they viewed as an open invitation to antinomianism.71 Amid the Relly controversy, William Law’s latter-­day universalism was exposed in a posthumous work, entitled An Humble, Earnest, and Affectionate Address to the Clergy (1761). To Law, hell was a rehabilitative tool, which ‘melted all Arrogance into Humility’. Upon ‘Judgement Day’, the ‘Misery’ endured by these souls would end, enabling them to embrace the ‘all-­working, all-­redeeming Love of God’.72 Law’s eventual rejection of eternal damnation probably stemmed from his growing admiration for Boehme, who had also been a universalist.73

69 J.  Maud, The Doctrine of Endless Torments, Freely and Impartially Debated, Inquiring What Credibility It Hath from History, Analogy, or Scripture, with a Discussion on the Origin of Evil (London, 1755), pp. 364, 424. 70  J. Bate, ‘Heaven Impossible to Be Open to All Men’, CUL, MS Add. 9363, fols. 1–2, 24. 71 J. Relly, Union, or A Treatise of the Consanguinity and Affinity between Christ and His Church (London, 1759), p. 11. For further information on Relly’s life and works, see W. K. Clymer, ‘Union with Christ: The Calvinist Universalism of James Relly (1722–1778)’, in MacDonald, All Shall Be Well, pp. 116–40. For Mason and Wesley’s attacks on Relly, see Lewis, ‘Devotion and Polemic’, pp. 396–9. 72 W. Law, An Humble, Earnest, and Affectionate Address to the Clergy (London, 1761), pp. 172–3. 73 Blanchard, Will All Be Saved?, p. 92.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

160  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy During the 1730s, however, Law’s eschatology differed little from that of Whitefield. This consistency is clear from Law’s Grounds and Reasons, in which he argued that it was ‘impossible’ for the soul to be ‘annihilated through the Goodness of God’. One simply could not be saved ‘without the Mediation of the Son of God . . . in the Soul’.74 Law’s argument was attacked by Thomas Whiston, who was ‘shock’d and amazed’ by the notion that ‘an All-­perfect Being’ with the power to ‘create any Being out of nothing’ did not also have the power to ‘reduce any Being . . . to it’s [sic] primitive Nullity’. To Whiston any denial of God’s power of ‘Annihilation’ entailed a denial of the Lord’s ‘Power to create’.75 Clearly Whiston sought to show his support for annihilationism, albeit in a relatively subtle manner. Rather than stating that the annihilation of damned souls did occur, Whiston was arguing that God could utilize his almighty powers to obliterate tormented souls if he so wished. Despite being Whitefield and Law’s main antagonist at the time, Joseph Trapp would have found Whiston’s sentiments equally repugnant. Trapp’s belief in eternal damnation can be discerned from one of his poems, in which he described hell as a ‘consummate, and eternal Woe’.76 Annihilationism was also discussed in Whiston’s annotated edition of Uriel Acosta’s autobiography, which appeared at the same time as his Important Doctrines. In one section of the former work Whiston reproduced a critical response to the sceptical Acosta by the Dutch Arminian theologian Philipp van Limborch (1633–1712). More specifically, Whiston highlighted a passage in Limborch’s ‘Defence of Christianity’, which stated that God will ‘proportion the Punishment to the Nature and Degree of the Crime’. This passage, Whiston claimed, showed that ‘Mr Limborch was against the absolute Eternity of Hell Torments’. Thus, in both of his 1740 publications, Whiston displayed annihilationism as entirely consistent with Christianity.77 Significantly these two works appeared only two months after The Eternity of Hell Torments, in which Whiston’s uncle, William, deployed scriptural support for annihilationism. One passage on which William Whiston reflected was Mark 14:21, ‘Woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed. Good were it for that man if he had never been born.’ This passage showed that the sins of the wicked ‘shall never be forgiven, even in the world, or age to come’. There was, therefore, only one logical outcome for them: ‘Utter destruction’ or ‘annihilation’.78 William Whiston’s work was de­cided­ly controversial and attracted critical responses from several Anglican divines, including Abraham Oakes, William Dodwell, and Matthew Horbery.79 Thomas 74 Law, Grounds and Reasons, p. 15. 75 Whiston, Important Doctrines, p. 17. 76 J.  Trapp, Thoughts upon the Four Last Things: Death; Judgment; Heaven; and Hell (London, 1749), p. 101. 77 [T. Whiston], The Remarkable Life of Uriel Acosta, an Eminent Freethinker (London, 1740), p. 61. 78 Whiston, Eternity of Hell Torments, p. 40. 79  See A.  Oakes, The Doctrine of Hell-­Torments Distinctly and Impartially Discussed. The Second Edition. To Which is Prefix’d, a Preface Inscribed to the Rev. William Whiston, M.A.  Concerning His Eternity of Hell-­Torments Considered (London, 1740); W. Dodwell, The Eternity of Future Punishment

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  161 Whiston’s anti-­Methodist tract should, therefore, be viewed as part of a wider offensive by Latitudinarians to reject ‘human’ dogmas, such as eternal damnation and original sin. Several months after the appearance of Whiston’s Important Doctrines, another clergyman attacked the Methodists for their seemingly ‘popish’ confidence in their own infallibility. Unlike the novice Whiston, however, this divine was a veteran of an earlier polemical engagement that had nearly cost him his ministry.

‘Orthodoxy’ and Infallibility On 11 September 1740 the London Evening Post included an advertisement for The Imposture of Methodism Display’d, an eighty-­four-­page polemic by William Bowman, the Cambridge-­ educated vicar of Dewsbury and Aldborough, Yorkshire. It is unlikely that Bowman’s name would have meant anything to most London readers—except, perhaps, to those who possessed long memories and a keen interest in theological controversies.80 Bowman’s one brief period in the limelight had come nearly a decade earlier, when he had preached a highly controversial sermon before the visiting archdeacon of York, Thomas Hayter, at the parish church in Wakefield on 25 June 1731. In this sermon Bowman expressed several ‘extreme Latitudinarian’ and ‘explicitly anti-­clerical’ views.81 For example, he compared Anglican ‘priestcraft’ to the religious practices of Muhammad, whom he described as an ‘Impostor’. Also, in a manner which would be echoed by Conyers Middleton, Bowman scathingly dismissed the testimony of the Fathers. Equally, if not more, controversial was Bowman’s attack on the established clergy, whom he described as ‘greedy Dogs that can never have enough’.82 Evidently these sentiments bore a striking resemblance to George Whitefield’s later condemnation of his ‘pleasure-­taking Brethren’ within the Church of England.83 As Stephen Taylor has noted, Bowman later recanted his controversial views by publishing a written apology in 1737. Taylor does not deny that Bowman’s desire for the Dewsbury living probably played a part in his decision to recant his views. Yet Taylor maintains that Bowman’s ‘recantation was genuine’. This argument ­centres primarily on Bowman’s 1740 anti-­Methodist work, which was sparked by the activities of Inghamite itinerants in West Yorkshire. Taylor argues that this Asserted and Vindicated: In Answer to Mr Whiston’s Late Treatise on That Subject (Oxford, 1743); M.  Horbery, An Enquiry into the Scripture-­ Doctrine Concerning the Duration of Future Punishment . . . Occasion’d by Some Late Writings, and Particularly Mr. Whiston’s Discourse of Hell-­ Torments (London, 1744). 80  London Evening Post, 11 September 1740. 81  Taylor, ‘Bowman Affair’, p. 36. 82 W.  Bowman, The Traditions of the Clergy Destructive of Religion: With an Enquiry into the Grounds and Reasons of Such Traditions. A Sermon Preach’d at the Visitation Held at Wakefield in Yorkshire June 25. 1731 (London, 1731), pp. 3–4. 83  Whitefield, Journal 3, p. 75.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

162  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy text contained ‘little . . . to distinguish it from other anti-­Methodist polemic at this time’. According to Taylor, Bowman’s later conformity to orthodoxy can be discerned from this text, in which he ‘quoted the primitive fathers with approval, defended the apostolic succession, and, most strikingly, came to the defence of his fellow parochial ministers’.84 Also, where Bowman had likened High Church ‘priestcraft’ to Muhammad in his 1731 sermon, his anti-­Methodist work followed the example of earlier Anglican attacks on religious ‘enthusiasm’ by comparing evangelicalism to the ‘lewd and sanguinary Religion of Mahomet’. The Methodists, Bowman claimed, ‘pretended to the same [divine] Authority’ as Muhammad, ‘that greatest and most artful Impostor’, who ‘took an Opportunity of promulging his Religion, in such a Time of general Ignorance among the People’. Bowman’s Islamophobic comments were derived from Humphrey Prideaux’s The True Nature of Imposture Fully Displayed in the Life of Mahomet (1697), which may also have inspired the strikingly similar title of his anti-­Methodist tract.85 Yet, where Prideaux had stressed the alleged similarities between Islam and Roman Catholicism, Bowman controversially praised the former religion by claiming that it was more tolerant than the latter. More specifically, Bowman argued the following: VARIOUS have been the Opinions of Mankind, in different Ages, and under different Dispensations, concerning the Means of obtaining Salvation. The Heathen Philosophers have laid it down as a Rule, that the Honour and Glory of God is better promoted by Variety and different Methods of Worship, than by Unity and Unanimity . . . Mahomet has declared in his Alcoran, that whatever Religion a Man is of, he is equally acceptable to God, if he sincerely and faithfully serves him.86

Bowman enthusiastically reported to his readers that Muhammad’s actions had been espoused by ‘several good-­natured and charitable Christians’, who refused to copy the ‘pretended Infallibility’ of the ‘Roman Catholics and Methodists’. Since Bowman failed to support this statement with a citation, one can only speculate who inspired his relatively positive depiction of Muhammad. Bowman’s apparent reluctance to cite his sources is unsurprising, given that positive discussions of Islamic toleration had been characteristic of heterodox philosophers, such as Henry Stubbe (1632–76) and Pierre Bayle (1647–1706). A similarly positive reference to Islam was advanced subsequently by the deistic William Hogarth in Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism, which featured a Muslim character

84  Taylor, ‘Bowman Affair’, pp. 48–9; B. Scott, ‘The Dewsbury Riots and the Revd Benjamin Ingham’, Thoresby Society Publications, 56 (1981), pp. 187–95. 85 Bowman, Imposture of Methodism Display’d, pp. 5, 12–13, 71. 86 Bowman, Imposture of Methodism Display’d, pp. 45–6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  163 peering through the church window, visibly amused by the scene of madness before him (see Figure 6.1).87 Clearly Bowman’s conformity to Anglican orthodoxy should not be overstated. His discussions of religious ‘sincerity’ were rem­in­ is­cent of the comprehensionist arguments advanced by Bishop Hoadly during the Bangorian controversy.88 Ironically Henry Stebbing had attacked Hoadly’s calls for comprehension by claiming that he might as well have ‘transcribed his doctrine from the Alcoran!’89 We have seen that Methodists similarly came under fire for their ‘catholic spirit’, which, according to High Churchmen, such as John Kirkby, rendered Christianity agreeable to ‘Jew, Turk or Gentile’.90 Nevertheless, Jews, along with ‘Deists, Papists, Arians, [and] Socinians’, were subsequently attacked by John Wesley in An Address to the Clergy (1756). All these ‘Sectaries’, Wesley argued, sought to ‘corrupt or canonize the Word of God’. Elsewhere Wesley condemned Anglican divines who were governed by desires of ‘Preferment’ and a ‘plentiful Income’. Such clergymen, he claimed, were ‘many Degrees beneath’ Simon Magus.91 Despite it clearly being targeted at Anglican divines, Wesley’s Address fuelled hostility from an unexpected quarter. Indeed, it was swiftly attacked by the Dissenting minister, Caleb Fleming, who had previously condemned Methodists for neglecting the ‘true Christianity’ of the ‘New Testament’ in favour of ‘human’ creeds and formularies.92 Writing as ‘One of that Clergy’ for which Wesley’s Address was seemingly intended, Fleming attacked Wesley’s ‘abundant confidence’ in his ‘own infallibility’. Fleming was especially curious to know why, under Wesley’s rule, anti-­ Trinitarians stood ‘chargeable with corrupting’ the ‘word of God’, whereas ‘Athanasians’ were apparently not ‘guilty’ of such an offence. Fleming was also incensed that Wesley had equated anti-­Trinitarians with ‘Deists and Papists’, the latter of whom were ‘nearly akin’ to ‘Athanasians’. In response to Wesley’s discussions of clerical luxury, Fleming described a ‘wide difference between the church of Christ in the apostolic age, and the Church of England’. By indulging in ‘tem­ por­al­ities; the emoluments of power, title and riches’, Anglican divines were ‘men of a quite different spirit and genius from the apostles’, who condemned ‘all 87 Bowman, Imposture of Methodism Display’d, p. 46. For heterodox discussions of Islam, see J.  R.  Jacob, Henry Stubbe, Radical Protestantism and the Early Enlightenment, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2002); J.  I.  Israel, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670–1752 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 630–9; H.  Garcia, Islam and the English Enlightenment, 1670–1840 (Baltimore, MD, 2012). 88  See G. Sanna, ‘“Uprightness of Heart”: The Doctrine of Religious Sincerity in Eighteenth Century Anglican Thought’, JRHLC, 4.1 (2018), pp. 100–23. 89 Henry Stebbing, An Appeal to the Word of God for the Terms of Christian Salvation, or A Discourse, Proving That Sincerity, Exclusive of the Method of Religion Which a Man Follows, Is Not Sufficient to Entitle Him to the Kingdom of Heaven (London, 1720), p. xv. 90 Kirkby, Impostor Detected, p. 21. 91 J. Wesley, An Address to the Clergy (London, 1756), pp. 18, 22–3. 92 [Fleming], Fine Picture of Enthusiasm, pp. 25–6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

164  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy pretensions to any sort of alliance with this world’. Rather than following Wesley’s example by ‘squinting towards Rome Papal’, those ‘worthy [of] the name of Protestants’ laboured in ‘the service of truth’ by recognizing the ‘importance of every christian’s forming a judgment for himself of the Gospel instruction’. After all, ‘human authority in matters of faith and worship’ was ‘foreign to the nature of religion’. Thus all Christians, regardless of their denomination, were, according to Fleming, capable of being ‘orthodox’ if they remained ‘virtuous and regular’ in their ‘temper and action’.93 Fleming’s willingness to use the term ‘orthodox’ in a non-­disparaging context was not shared by all anti-­ dogmatists. In The Confessional (1766) Francis Blackburne condemned his ‘irreproachably orthodox’ adversaries for branding him and other anti-­subscriptionists as ‘heretics’.94 Such dogmatism, Blackburne argued, was propagated by the Methodists, whom he facetiously ‘defended’ in a 1769 work. To Blackburne it was unfair that Methodists were often charged with being ‘new dissenters’ by their ‘orthodox’ Anglican opponents. In fact the Methodists were ‘equally orthodox, and equally sincere conformists as they who accuse them of heterodoxy and irregularity’. In what was clearly intended as a reference to Wesley and Whitefield’s differing interpretations of Article XVII, Blackburne scoffed that, ‘between them’, the Methodists had ‘brought a sufficient number of fluctuating interpretations, to convince any man of common sense and common honesty, of the inutility of subscription to our established forms’.95

Conclusions To Latitudinarians and Rational Dissenters, Methodists were ‘popish’ dogmatists, who supported ‘human’ doctrines, such as original sin, infant baptism, eternal damnation, and the Trinity. These same doctrines were defended by anti-­ Methodist High Churchmen, such as James Bate and Daniel Waterland, thereby illuminating the persistence of dogmatic theology in the Georgian Church. Clearly the doctrinal distinctions between Methodists and orthodox divines become somewhat blurred when compared with Blackburne and other anti-­ dogmatists. Some of the heterodox doctrines espoused by Latitudinarians— particularly annihilationism—were perceived by their critics to carry dangerous socio-­political implications. That Wesley and Whitefield attacked these doctrines shows that, socio-­politically, eighteenth-­century Methodism did not fit neatly into either the ‘conservative’ camp assigned by Halévy or the ‘radical’ camp 93 [C.  Fleming], A Letter to the Revd. Mr. John Wesley, Occasioned by His Address to the Clergy, February 6. 1756 (London, 1756), pp. 5, 13, 19–20. 94 [Blackburne], Confessional, p. 122. 95 [F.  Blackburne], Occasional Remarks upon Some Late Strictures on The Confessional: Part II (London, 1769), p. 123n. I am grateful to Grayson Ditchfield for this reference.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Anti-Dogmatism and ‘Orthodoxy’  165 assigned by Walsh and Hempton. To anti-­dogmatists Methodism was too close to the establishment. To orthodox High Churchmen it was not close enough. Where Methodists believed they were continuing the good work of the Reformation, others believed they were stifling its progress. This chapter has, therefore, shown that ‘Methodism’ meant different things to different people, while also illuminating the highly contested status, purpose, and meaning of the Reformation in eighteenth-­century England.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Epilogue and Conclusion This book ends with the death of George Whitefield in Newburyport, Massachusetts, on 30 September 1770. The fifty-­five-­year-­old evangelist had been in failing health for some time. An ecumenist even in death, Whitefield was interred in the crypt of Old South Presbyterian Church, Newburyport, where he had been scheduled to preach. Tributes poured in from both sides of the Atlantic.1 As Whitefield had wished, the memorial sermon in London was preached by his friend and theological rival, John Wesley, on 18 November 1770. Wesley praised Whitefield for spreading the Gospel across ‘so large a part of the habitable world’. Such fervent evangelism, Wesley claimed, was mirrored only by the apostles.2 Phillis Wheatley, an enslaved African and Calvinist evangelical of Boston, Massachusetts, published an Elegiac Poem (1770), in which she compared Whitefield’s death to the sun’s withdrawal of its ‘golden rays’.3 To Calvinist mourners in the Church of England Whitefield was, ultimately, a restorer of ‘true’ doctrines that had long been neglected. William Mason praised him for preaching ‘those solemn truths, which he had subscribed to, contained in the excellent art­ icles of our church’. Mason was saddened that these ‘great doctrines of the reformed churches’ were seldom mentioned in ‘polite’ circles.4 Whitefield’s mythical status was confirmed in September 1775, when some Patriot soldiers disturbed his remains, stealing his collar and wristbands in the hope that it would bring them victory on the battlefield.5 Their beliefs were not shared by John Wesley, whose Loyalism was confirmed in his Calm Address to Our American Colonies (1775). Much of the anti-­Methodist literature published in England during the mid-­1770s was by pro-­American Dissenters, such as Caleb

1  Schlenther, ‘Whitefield, George (1714–1770)’. 2 J.  Wesley, A Sermon on the Death of the Rev. Mr George Whitefield: Preached at the Chapel in Tottenham-­ Court-­ Road, and at the Tabernacle near Moorfields, on Sunday, November 18, 1770 (London, 1770), p. 22. 3 P.  Wheatley, An Elegiac Poem, on the Death of That Celebrated Divine, and Eminent Servant of Jesus Christ, the Reverend and Learned George Whitefield, Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon, &c. (Boston, MA, 1770), p. 7. 4 W.  Mason, The Best Improvement of the Much Lamented Death of That Eminent and Faithful Minister of the Gospel, the Revd Mr George Whitefield, Chaplain to the Countess of Huntingdon (London, 1770), pp. 7–9. 5  A. Atherstone, ‘Commemorating Whitefield in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, in Life, Context, and Legacy, p. 279. For Whitefield and the origins of the American Revolution, see J. D. Mahaffey, Preaching Politics: The Religious Rhetoric of George Whitefield and the Founding of a New Nation (Waco, TX, 2007); J. D. Mahaffey, The Accidental Revolutionary: George Whitefield and the Creation of America (Waco, TX, 2011); P. Y. Choi, George Whitefield: Evangelist for God and Empire (Grand Rapids, MI, 2018).

The Struggle for True Religion: Anti-­Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-­Century England. Simon Lewis, Oxford University Press. © Simon Lewis 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855756.003.0009

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Epilogue and Conclusion  167 Evans, who associated Wesley’s Loyalism with ‘popery’ and Jacobitism.6 Following the American Revolution Wesley saw fresh opportunities for evangelism in the New Republic. In 1784 he took the controversial step of ordaining two preachers for the newly formed Methodist Episcopal Church in America. They were to be joined by Thomas Coke, an Anglican priest, who was ordained ‘superintendent’ by Wesley. Wesley denied that these ordinations contravened the rules and regulations of the Church of England because each of these ministers was destined for America, where they would be ‘disentangled from the State’.7 Despite his increasingly maverick behaviour, the elderly Wesley remained loyal to the Church. In 1787—four years before his death—Wesley declared that ‘when the Methodists leave the Church of England, God will leave them’.8 In 1739 the playwright Thomas Cooke predicted that it was ‘almost impossible that the names of these men [Wesley and Whitefield] should be known many years hence’.9 In fact both men have been immortalized as radical evangelists, who founded Methodism, one of the most influential movements in the history of modern Christianity. They were driven by a desire for change, but only change within the Church of England. Despite their constant refusal to respect ecclesiastical protocols, neither preacher sought explicitly to form the rival denomination that Methodism became after their deaths. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy for historians of Methodism to forget that it was the past that undergirded Wesley and Whitefield’s visions of the future. They perceived their plight as part of an ongoing battle for ‘true religion’, which had been fought by sixteenth-­century Reformers, and could be traced back to primitive Christianity. To both themselves and their followers, Wesley and Whitefield were restorers rather than innovators. Hostile perceptions of Methodism were similarly underpinned by history. To their many opponents, there was nothing innovative or revolutionary about Wesley and Whitefield’s teachings. Rather, Methodism represented a regressive return to darker times. There was, however, no single conception of the past which united anti-­Methodist authors. To orthodox High Churchmen, who identified with the primitive church, Methodists were merely the latest in a long line of schismatic groups with which ‘true’ apostolic Christians had contended. Latitudinarians, on the other hand, perceived Methodism as a ‘popish’ dogmatic movement, which jeopardized the Reformation’s progress by zealously defending ‘human’ innovations, such as Trinitarianism and original sin. This book has, 6  See D. H. Kirkham, ‘John Wesley’s “Calm Address”: The Response of the Critics’, MH, 14 (1975), pp. 13–23; A. Raymond, ‘ “I fear God and honour the King”: John Wesley and the American Revolution’, CH, 45 (1976), pp. 316–28; G.  O’Brien, ‘John Wesley’s Rebuke to the Rebels of British America: Revisiting the Calm Address’, Methodist Review, 4 (2012), pp. 31–55. 7  J. C. English, ‘John Wesley, the Establishment of Religion and the Separation of Church and State’, JCS, 46 (2004), pp. 83–97, at p. 84. 8  J. Telford (ed.), The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M., 8 vols (London, 1931), VII, pp. 366–7. 9 Cooke, Mournful Nuptials, p. 71.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

168  Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy therefore, shown that there was no homogeneous definition of ‘Methodism’ on which opponents could agree. Since Methodism represented a hybrid of several religious traditions, including High Church Anglicanism and Puritanism, it was inevitable that evangelicals would be associated with multiple disparate extremes by their opponents. This disparity was a product of the fierce contests over the doctrinal makeup of the Georgian Church. Throughout this book, the early clashes between Methodists and anti-­Methodists have been explored in the context of the ‘long Reformation’, a continuing struggle in which the Church of England sought to define itself theo­logic­al­ly. Many early opponents of Methodism, including Arthur Bedford, Henry Stebbing, and Daniel Waterland, were noted for defending Anglican orthodoxy against perceived threats, such as anti-­Trinitarianism, deism, Dissent, and Roman Catholicism. These polemicists were, therefore, thinking about more than simply Wesley and Whitefield’s activities when they attacked Methodism. For these authors, attacking evangelicalism formed merely part of their wider defence of ‘true religion’. This point has been highlighted particularly in the discussions of deism and its perceived relationship with Methodism. Numerous divines feared that evangelicals fuelled scepticism of biblical mir­ acles by spreading ‘enthusiastic’ accounts of modern miracles, for which there were natural explanations. That these authors viewed Methodism as a threat to biblical Christianity contradicts the traditional stereotype that Georgian Anglicans were uninterested in dogmatic theology. In fact many of these authors shared Wesley and Whitefield’s fear that ‘mystery’ was being eroded by ‘rationalism’. As with Wesley, orthodox divines were quick to attack works by Henry Dodwell and Conyers Middleton, which were perceived to expose Christianity to ridicule. Similarly, the Methodists’ defences of original sin and eternal damnation were mirrored in works by their High Church opponents. Furthermore, Wesley and Whitefield’s teachings of self-­denial complemented the campaigns against pleasures and luxuries which were waged by Bedford and other anti-­Methodist divines. By showing that Methodists and orthodox divines shared numerous doctrinal priorities, this book has illuminated the theological vitality of the Georgian Church. There were, however, numerous doctrinal issues on which Methodists and orthodox divines disagreed vociferously. As has been shown throughout this study, these theological concerns about Methodism should not be viewed in isolation from the various socio-­political objections that were posed to Wesley and Whitefield. The popular charge of antinomianism, for instance, was associated with social and political turmoil, reminiscent of the 1640s. Similarly, to many High Churchmen Methodism was a schismatic movement in all but name because it encouraged various practices, including open-­air and itinerant preaching, which violated several statutes and canons. When these divines charged evangelicals with schism, they were not only describing a political act of rebellion,

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Epilogue and Conclusion  169 but also a sin, which isolated the guilty party from the ‘true’ apostolic Church. By blurring the distinctions between doctrinal and socio-­political concerns about Methodism, these chapters have elucidated the wider implications of theology in eighteenth-­century England. This book, therefore, constitutes a fundamental reappraisal of the relationship between thoughts and actions, thereby providing a model that can be applied to future studies of various denominations, locations, and periods.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography Primary Sources i) Manuscripts Bodleian Library, Oxford •   Thomas Brett Papers: MS. Eng. th. c. 34. •   Edmund Gibson Papers: MS. Eng. c. 3190. •   USPG Papers: B.7.2., B.9, B.10. •   4° Rawl. 92: Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation (London, 1730) [Daniel Waterland’s annotated copy].

British Library, Additional Manuscripts •   Miscellaneous: 5831, 6396.

Cambridge University Library •   MS Add. 9363—James Bate, Letter: ‘Heaven Impossible to be Open to all Men’. •   MS Add. 3308—Zachary Grey: Abstracts and Transcripts on Religious and Cambridge University Affairs.

Gonville and Caius College Library, Cambridge •   Add. MS 725/752—‘An Essay Towards the Life of or Rather Some Account of the Late Learned and Pious Francis Lee, M.D.’ (1722).

John Rylands Library, University of Manchester •   Early Methodist Volume. •   MS 253B—William Warburton, ‘The True Methodist, or Christian in Earnest’ (1755).

Lambeth Palace Library •   Fulham Papers: VII, X. •   Secker Papers: VIII.

Westminster Abbey Muniment Room and Library •   Muniment 64787.

ii) Periodicals Boston Evening-­Post Boston Weekly Post-­Boy Daily Advertiser Daily Gazetteer Fog’s Weekly Journal Gazetteer and London Daily Advertiser General Advertiser

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

172 Bibliography General Evening Post Gentleman’s Magazine Lloyds Evening Post London Daily Post and General Advertiser London Evening-­Post South Carolina Gazette The Universal Museum, or Gentleman’s and Ladies Polite Magazine of History, Politicks and Literature for 1763 Universal Spectator and Weekly Chronicle Weekly Miscellany

iii) Published Sources ‘An Abstract of the Charter, and of the Proceedings of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, from the 20th of February 1740–41, to the 19th of February 1741–42’, in H.  Stebbing, A Sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts: At Their Anniversary Meeting in the Parish Church of St. Mary-le-Bow, on Friday, February 19, 1741–2 (London, 1742), pp. 25–66. The Accomplished Methodist, or The Life of David Nefas, Esq. (London, 1739). Acts of the Associate Presbytery: Viz. I. Act Concerning the Doctrine of Grace . . . II. Act for Renewing the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Nations (Edinburgh, 1744). Adams, John, An Essay Concerning Self-Murther: Wherein Is Endeavour’d to Prove That It Is Unlawful According to Natural Principles (London, 1700). [Allestree, Richard], The Whole Duty of Man, Laid Down in a Plain and Familiar Way, for the Use of All, but Especially the Meanest Reader (London, 1738). The Amorous Humours and Audacious Adventures of One Whd. (London, 1739). Annet, Peter, Judging for Ourselves, or Free-Thinking, the Great Duty of Religion (London, 1739). [Annet, Peter], The Resurrection Reconsidered: Being an Answer to the Clearer and Others. By Way of Dialogue between the Considerer and His Friend (London, 1744). [Annet, Peter], Deism Fairly Stated, and Fully Vindicated from the Gross Imputations and Groundless Calumnies of Modern Believers (London, 1746). [Annet, Peter], The History and Character of St. Paul, Examined: In a Letter to Theophilus, a Christian Friend (London, [c.1748]). An Answer to a Late Pamphlet Entitled ‘A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists’, Addressed to the Revd. Mr. Wesley (London, 1749). Appleton, Nathaniel, Faithful Ministers of Christ, the Salt of the Earth, and the Light of the World (Boston, MA, 1743). B., A., A Letter to Mr. Woolston, Occasion’d by His Late Defence of His Discourse, in Answer to the Bishops of St. David’s and London, &c: From a Deacon of the Church of England (London, 1729). B., E., An Expostulatory Letter to the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, and the Rest of his Brethren, the Methodists of the Church of England, Wherein the Rites and Ceremonies of That Church Are Considered, and the Partiality of Those Gentlemen with Regard to the Practice of Them Condemn’d (London, 1739). B., J., A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, Occasion’d by His Pretended Answer to the First Part of the ‘Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists’ (London, 1744).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  173 B., M., Deism Genuine Anti-Methodism, or The Present Increase of Deism Prov’d to Be the Natural and Judicial Consequence of Opposing and Ridiculing the Present Revival of Religion (London, 1751). Barrow, Isaac, The Works of the Learned Isaac Barrow, D.D., Late Master of Trinity College in Cambridge, ed. John Tillotson, 2nd ed. 3 vols (London, 1700). Bate, James, Quakero-Methodism, or A Confutation of the First Principles of the Quakers and Methodists (London, 1739). Bate, James, Infidelity Scourged, or Christianity Vindicated (London, 1746). Bate, James, An Essay towards a Rationale of the Literal Doctrine of Original Sin (London, 1752). Bate, James, A Rationale of the Literal Doctrine of Original Sin, or A Vindication of God’s Permitting the Fall of Adam, and the Subsequent Corruption of Our Human Nature (London, 1766). Bedford, Arthur, A Sermon Preached in the Parish-Church of St. Butolph’s Aldgate, in the City of London, on Sunday the Thirtieth Day of November, in the Year of Our Lord 1729: Occasioned by the Erecting of a Play-House in the Neighbourhood (London, 1730). Bedford, Arthur, The Doctrine of Assurance, or The Case of a Weak and Doubting Conscience: A Sermon Preached at St. Lawrence Jewry, in the City of London, on Sunday, August 13 1738 (London, 1738). Bedford, Arthur, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Stated According to the Articles of the Church of England (London, 1741). Berkeley, George, Alciphron or The Minute Philosopher: In Seven Dialogues. Containing an Apology for the Christian Religion, against Those Who Are Called Free-Thinkers, 2 vols (London, 1732). Biddle, John, A Twofold Catechism: The One Simply Called A Scripture Catechism; The Other A Brief Scripture Catechism for Children (London, 1654). Birch, Thomas, The Life of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1752). [Bisset, John], A Letter to a Gentleman in Edinburgh, Containing Remarks upon a Late Apology for the Presbyterians in Scotland, Who Keep Communion in the Ordinances of the Gospel, with Mr. George Whitefield, a Priest of the Church of England (s.l., 1742). Blackburne, Francis, The Confessional, or A Full and Free Inquiry into the Right, Utility, Edification, and Success, of Establishing Systematical Confessions of Faith and Doctrine in Protestant Churches (London, 1766). Blackburne, Francis, Occasional Remarks upon Some Late Strictures on The Confessional. Part II (London, 1769). Blount, Charles, The Oracles of Reason (London, 1693). Boswell, James, The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D.: Including a Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, ed. J. W. Croker, 2 vols (New York, 1833). Bourne, Henry, Antiquitates Vulgares, or The Antiquities of the Common People: Giving an Account of Several of Their Opinions and Ceremonies. With Proper Reflections upon Each of Them; Shewing Which May Be Retain’d, and Which Ought to Be Laid Aside (Newcastle, 1725). Bowman, William, The Traditions of the Clergy Destructive of Religion: With an Enquiry into the Grounds and Reasons of Such Traditions. A Sermon Preach’d at the Visitation Held at Wakefield in Yorkshire June 25. 1731 (London, 1731). Bowman, William, The Imposture of Methodism Display’d: In a Letter to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Dewsbury (London, 1740).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

174 Bibliography Brownsword, John, The Case of the Rich Young Man in the Gospel, Endeavoured to Be Set in a Clear Light, and the Levelling Principle of Selling All, and Giving It to the Poor, as Drawn from That Passage and Lately Advanced and Taught by Some, Proved to Be Ill Grounded: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St. Mary le Bow, London, on Sunday, September 16 1739 (London, 1739). Bull, George, Harmonia Apostolica, or The Mutual Agreement of St. Paul and St. James, trans. T. Wilkinson (London, 1801). Bull, George, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae: A Defence of the Nicene Creed, out of the Extant Writings of the Catholick Doctors, Who Flourished during the Three First Centuries of the Christian Church (Oxford, 1851). Burnet, Gilbert, The History of the Reformation of the Church of England: The First Part. Of the Progress Made in It during the Reign of K. Henry the VIII (London, 1679). Burnet, Gilbert, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (London, 1699). Burton, Robert, The Anatomy of Melancholy (Oxford, 1621). Burton, Thomas, A Letter to the Methodist Preachers Belonging to the Foundery: Especially to John and Charles Wesley. Wrote for the Sake of Their Followers Who Are or May Be Dissatisfied with Their Ways of Worship, by a Person That Found Occasion to Withdraw from Their Society and Join with the People Called Quakers, 2nd ed. (London, 1748), in The Wesley Works Editorial Project: John Wesley’s In-Correspondence (1746–50), https:// wesleyworks.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/jw-in-correspondence-1746–50.pdf [accessed 3 April 2020]. Byrom, John, Enthusiasm: A Poetical Essay. In a Letter to a Friend in Town (London, 1752). Calvin, John, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. and trans. H. Beveridge (Peabody, MA, 2008). Casaubon, Meric, Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things Divine and Spiritual (London, 1670). Casaubon, Meric, Generall Learning: A Seventeenth-Century Treatise on the Formation of the General Scholar by Meric Casaubon, ed. Richard Serjeantson (Cambridge, 1999). Cave, William, Primitive Christianity, or The Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel, 2nd ed. (London, 1673). Cennick, John, An Account of a Late Riot at Exeter (London, 1745). Certayne Sermons, or Homelies Appoynted by the Kynges Maiestie, to Bee Declared and Redde, by All Persons, Vicares, or Curates. Euery Sondaye in Their Churches, Where They Haue Cure (London, 1547). [Challoner, Richard], A Plain Answer to Dr. Middleton’s Letter from Rome: In Which the Gross Misrepresentations Contained Therein Are Exposed and Set in a Just Light (London, 1741). [Challoner, Richard], A Caveat against the Methodists (London, 1760). Chauncy, Charles, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (Boston, MA, 1743). Cheyne, George, The English Malady, or A Treatise of Nervous Diseases of All Kinds, as Spleen, Vapours, Lowness of Spirits, Hypochondriacal, and Hysterical Distempers, &c. (London, 1733). Chillingworth, William, The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation (Oxford, 1638). Chubb, Thomas, An Enquiry into the Ground and Foundation of Religion (London, 1740). [Church, Thomas], An Essay towards Vindicating the Literal Sense of the Demoniacks in the New Testament (London, 1737).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  175 Church, Thomas, An Explanation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Church of England Concerning Regeneration, Works before Grace, and Some Other Points Relating Thereto (London, 1739). Church, Thomas, Remarks on the Reverend Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal (London, 1745). Church, Thomas, Some Farther Remarks on the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal, Together with a Few Considerations on His Farther Appeal: Shewing the Inconsistency of his Conduct and Sentiments, with the Constitution and Doctrine of the Church of England, and Explaining the Articles Relating to Justification (London, 1746). Church, Thomas, A Vindication of the Miraculous Powers, Which Subsisted in the Three First Centuries of the Christian Church (London, 1750). Clark, James, Montanus Redivivus, or Montanism Revived, in the Principles and Discipline of the Methodists (Commonly Called Swadlers) (Dublin, 1760). Clarke, Samuel, A Discourse Concerning the Being and Attributes of God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation (London, 1706). Clarke, Samuel, The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity (London, 1712). [Clayton, Robert], An Essay on Spirit, Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity Is Considered in the Light of Nature and Reason (London, 1751). Collier, Jeremy, A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage (London, 1698). Collier, Jeremy, An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, Chiefly of England: From the First Planting of Christianity, to the End of the Reign of King Charles the Second, 2 vols (London, 1708–14). Collier, Jeremy, Reasons for Restoring Some Prayers and Directions, as They Stand in the Communion-Service of the First English Reform’d Liturgy, Compiled by the Bishops in the 2d and 3d Years of the Reign of King Edward VI (London, 1717). [Collins, Anthony], A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1724). Cooke, Thomas, The Mournful Nuptials, or Love the Cure of All Woes: A Tragedy (London, 1739). Country-Gentleman, A, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. M—re B—k-r, Concerning the Methodists (Dublin, 1752). Cuppé, Pierre, Heaven Open to All Men, or A Theological Treatise, in Which, without Unsettling the Practice of Religion, Is Solidly Prov’d, by Scripture and Reason, That All Men Shall Be Saved, or Made Finally Happy (London, 1743). Curate in the Country, A, Observations on the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Answer to the Bishop of London’s Last Pastoral Letter (London, 1739). Curate of London, A, A Short Preservative against the Doctrines Reviv’d by Mr. Whitefield and His Adherents (London, 1739). Deacon, Thomas, The Doctrine of the Church of Rome Concerning Purgatory Proved to Be Contrary to Catholick Tradition, and Inconsistent with the Necessary Duty of Praying for the Dead, as Practised in the Ancient Church (London, 1718). A Demonstration of the Insufficiency Both of Reason and Revelation (London, 1731). D’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry, L’enfer détruit ou examen raisonné du dogme de l’éternité des peines, Ouvrages traduits de l’Anglois (Londres, 1769). Doctor Rock’s Speech to the Political Mob in Covent-Garden (London, 1743). [Dodwell, Henry], Christianity Not Founded on Argument, and the True Principle of GospelEvidence Assigned: In a Letter to a Young Gentleman at Oxford (London, 1741). Dodwell, William, The Eternity of Future Punishment Asserted and Vindicated: In Answer to Mr Whiston’s Late Treatise on That Subject (Oxford, 1743).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

176 Bibliography Downes, John, Methodism Examined and Exposed, or The Clergy’s Duty of Guarding Their Flocks against False Teachers (London, 1759). Dr. Codex’s Pastoral Letter Versified, by Way of Caution against Lukewarmness on One Hand and Enthusiasm on the Other (London, 1739). Dr. Hammond’s Exposition of Gal. vi.15 . . . and Bishop Hopkins’s Exposition of John iii.5 . . . To Be Compared with the Late Sermons of Dr. Stebbing and Dr. Skerrett on the Same Texts, 2nd ed. (London, 1739). Duncombe, William, A Letter to Mr. Law: Occasion’d by Reading His Treatise on Christian Perfection: With a Copy of Verses (London, 1739). Edwards, John, The Preacher: A Discourse Shewing What Are the Particular Offices and Employments of Those of That Character in the Church (London, 1705). Edwards, John, The Preacher: The Second Part (London, 1706). Edwards, John, The Doctrin of Faith and Justification Set in a True Light (London, 1708). Edwards, John, The Preacher: The Third Part (London, 1709). Edwards, John, The Arminian Doctrines Condemn’d by the Holy Scriptures, by Many of the Ancient Fathers, by the Church of England, and Even by the Suffrage of Right Reason (London, 1711). Edwards, John, The Doctrines Controverted between Papists and Protestants Particularly and Distinctly Consider’d: And Those Which Are Held by the Former Confuted (London, 1724). Edwards, John, Theologia Reformata, or Discourses on Those Graces and Duties Which Are Purely Evangelical, and Not Contained in the Moral Law: And on the Helps, Motives, and Advantages of Performing Them (London, 1726). Edwards, John, Remains of the Late Reverend and Learned John Edwards, D.D. (London, 1731). Edwards, Jonathan (Northampton, MA), A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton, and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of New-Hampshire in New-England (London, 1737). Edwards, Jonathan (Northampton, MA), Sermons, on the Following Subjects: The Manner in Which Salvation Is to Be Sought . . . The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath, ed. Jonathan Edwards Jr. (Hartford, CT, 1780). Edwards, Jonathan (Oxford), The Doctrine of Original Sin, as It Was Always Held in the Catholick Church, and Particularly in the Church of England, Asserted and Vindicated from the Exceptions and Cavils of the Reverend Dr. Daniel Whitby (Oxford, 1711). Enthusiasm Display’d, or The Moor-Fields Congregation (London, 1739). Enthusiasm No Novelty, or The Spirit of the Methodists in the Year 1641 and 1642 (London, 1739). Este, Thomas, Methodism Display’d: A Farce of One Act (Newcastle, 1743). Evans, Theophilus, The History of Modern Enthusiasm: From the Reformation to the Present Times, 2nd ed. (London, 1757). Fleetwood, William (Anglican clergyman), An Essay upon Miracles: In Two Discourses (London, 1701). Fleetwood, William (anti-Wesley author), The Perfectionists Examin’d, or Inherent Perfection in this Life, No Scripture Doctrine: To Which Is Affix’d, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield’s Thoughts on This Subject, in a Letter to Mr. Wesley (London, 1741). [Fleming, Caleb], A Fine Picture of Enthusiasm, Chiefly Drawn by Dr. John Scott, Formerly Rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields (London, 1744). [Fleming, Caleb], A Letter to the Revd. Mr. John Wesley, Occasioned by His Address to the Clergy, February 6. 1756 (London, 1756).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  177 Foote, Samuel, The Minor (London, 1760). Fox, George, A Journal, or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, Christian Experiences and Labour of Love in the Work of the Ministry, of That Ancient, Eminent and Faithful Servant of Jesus Christ, George Fox, 2 vols (London, 1709). Foxe, John, Actes and Monuments of These Latter and Perillous Dayes (London, 1563). Garden, Alexander, Six Letters to the Rev. George Whitefield, 2nd ed. (Boston, MA, 1740). Garden, Alexander, Take Heed How Ye Hear: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St. Philip Charles-Town, in South Carolina on Sunday the 13th of July, 1740 (Charles-Town, SC, 1741). Genuine and Secret Memoirs Relating to the Life and Adventures of That Arch Methodist, Mr. G. W—fi—d (Oxford, 1742). Gibson, Edmund, A Sermon Preached in the Parish-Church of Lambeth, on Sunday the 20th October, 1717 (London, 1717). Gibson, Edmund, A Sermon Preached to the Societies for the Reformation of Manners: At St. Mary-le-Bow, on Monday, January the 6th, 1723 (London, 1723). Gibson, Edmund, The Bishop of London’s Pastoral Letter to the People of His Diocese: Particularly, to Those of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster. Occasion’d by Some Late Writings in Favour of Infidelity (London, 1728). Gibson, Edmund, The Bishop of London’s Pastoral Letter to the People of his Diocese: Especially Those of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster: By Way of Caution, against Lukewarmness on the One Hand, and Enthusiasm on the Other (London, 1739). [Gibson, Edmund], Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect, Usually Distinguished by the Name of Methodists ([London], 1744). Gibson, Edmund, The Charge of the Right Reverend Father in God, Edmund, Lord Bishop of London, at the Visitation of his Diocese in the Years 1746 and 1747 (London, 1747). Gillies, John, Historical Collections Relating to the Success of the Gospel, 2 vols (Glasgow, 1754). Glanvill, Joseph, Philosophia Pia, or A Discourse of the Religious Temper and Tendencies of the Experimental Philosophy Which Is Profest by the Royal Society to Which Is Annext a Recommendation and Defence of Reason in the Affairs of Religion (London, 1671). [Graves, Richard], The Spiritual Quixote, or The Summer’s Ramble of Mr. Geoffry Wildgoose: A Comic Romance, 3 vols (London, 1773). Grey, Zachary, A Vindication of the Church of England, in Answer to Mr. Peirce’s Vindication of the Dissenters, 2 vols (London, 1720). Grey, Zachary, An Impartial Examination of the Fourth Volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans (London, 1739). [Grey, Zachary], The Quaker and Methodist Compared, in an Abstract of George Fox’s Journal, with a Copy of His Last Will and Testament, and of the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s Journals (London, 1740). [Grey, Zachary], A Short History of the Donatists: With an Appendix, in Which the Proud and Hypocritical Pharisee and Schismatical Donatist Are Compared with the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield and the Methodists (London, 1741). [Grey, Zachary], A Serious Address to Lay-Methodists (London, 1745). [Guthrie, James], The Ordinary of Newgate, His Account of the Behaviour, Confession, and Dying Words, of the Malefactors, Who Were Executed at Tyburn, on Wednesday the 13th of January, 1741–2 (London, 1741). Hallifax, Samuel, Saint Paul’s Doctrine of Justification by Faith Explained in Three Discourses before the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1760). Hammond, Henry, A Practicall Catechisme (Oxford, 1645).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

178 Bibliography Hammond, Henry, Sermons Preached by That Eminent Divine Henry Hammond, D.D. (London, 1675). Harlequin Methodist, to the Tune of ‘An Old Woman Cloathed in Grey’ ([London?], s.d.). Harsnett, Samuel, A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practises of John Darrel Bachelor of Artes (London, 1599). Henley, John, Deism Defeated, and Christianity Defended, or The Evidence for Christianity Set in a New Light and Proved to Amount to Certainty (London, 1731). Heylyn, Peter, Examen Historicum, or A Discovery and Examination of the Mistakes, Falsities and Defects in Some Modern Histories Occasioned by the Partiality and Inadvertencies of their Severall Authours (London, 1659). [Hickes, George], Jovian, or An Answer to Julian the Apostate (London, 1683). [Hickes, George], Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson Occasioned by the Late Funeral Sermon of the Former upon the Later (London, 1695). Hill, Mary, An Essay on Schism: With Several Discourses Contrary to the MethodistsDoctrine (Salisbury, 1745). Hody, Humphrey, The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New Bishops, or A Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, Shewing, That Although a Bishop Was Unjustly Deprived, Neither He Nor the Church Ever Made a Separation; If the Successor Was Not a Heretick (London, 1691). Hooker, Richard, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie: The Fift Booke (London, 1597). Hopkins, Ezekiel, The Works of the Right Reverend and Learned Ezekiel Hopkins, Late Lord Bishop of London-Derry in Ireland, Collected into One Volume (London, 1701). Horbery, Matthew, An Enquiry into the Scripture-Doctrine Concerning the Duration of Future Punishment . . . Occasion’d by Some Late Writings, and Particularly Mr. Whiston’s Discourse of Hell-Torments (London, 1744). Horne, George, Works Wrought through Faith a Condition of Our Justification: A Sermon Preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, June 7. 1761 (Oxford, 1761). Hume, David, Essays, Moral and Political (Edinburgh, 1741). Hume, David, Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding (London, 1748). [Hutchinson Francis], The Life of the Most Reverend Father in God John Tillotson, ArchBishop of Canterbury (London, 1717). [Johnson, Samuel] (Whig divine), Julian the Apostate: Being a Short Account of His Life; The Sense of the Primitive Christians about His Succession and Their Behaviour towards Him. Together with a Comparison of Popery and Paganism (London, 1682). Johnson, Samuel (lexicographer), A Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755). Kirkby, John, The Impostor Detected, or The Counterfeit Saint Turn’d inside Out (London, 1750). Land, Tristram, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, Designed to Correct His Mistaken Account of Regeneration, or The New Birth (London, 1739). Lavington, George, A Sermon Preach’d in the Abbey-Church at Bath, on Occasion of the Rebellion, October 13, 1745 (London, 1745). Lavington, George, A Sermon Preached before the House of Lords, in the Abbey Church of Westminster, on Friday, May 29, 1747 (London, 1747). [Lavington, George], The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d (London, 1749). [Lavington, George], The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared. Part II (London, 1749). [Lavington, George], The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared. Part III (London, 1751).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  179 Lavington, George, The Bishop of Exeter’s Answer to Mr. J.  Wesley’s Late Letter to His Lordship (London, 1752). Law, William, The Absolute Unlawfulness of the Stage-Entertainment Fully Demonstrated (London, 1726). Law, William, A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (London, 1726). Law, William, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life: Adapted to the State and Condition of All Orders of Christians (London, 1729). Law, William, The Case of Reason, or Natural Religion, Fairly and Fully Stated: In Answer to a Book, Entitul’d, Christianity as Old as the Creation (London, 1731). Law, William, The Grounds and Reasons of Christian Regeneration, or The New Birth: Offer’d to the Consideration of Christians and Deists (London, 1739). Law, William, An Earnest and Serious Answer to Dr. Trapp’s Discourse of the Folly, Sin, and Danger, of Being Righteous Over-Much (London, 1740). Law, William, An Humble, Earnest, and Affectionate Address to the Clergy (London, 1761). Layman, A, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, Shewing the Fundamental Errors of Several of His Performances, and Proving, from His Own Works, That He Has Departed from the Principles of the Church of England in Particular, as Well as from the Church of Christ in General (London, [1749]). [Lee, Francis], ‘The History of Montanism’, in George Hickes, The Spirit of Enthusiasm Exorcised: In a Sermon Preach’d before the University of Oxford, &c., 4th ed. (London, 1709), pp. 73–352. [Leslie, Charles], The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson Considered in Examination of Some Sermons He Has Lately Published on Purpose to Clear Himself from that Imputation (Edinburgh, 1695). Leslie, Charles, The Snake in the Grass, or Satan Transform’d into an Angel of Light Discovering the Deep and Unsuspected Subtilty Which Is Couched under the Pretended Simplicity of Many of the Principal Leaders of Those People Call’d Quakers (London, 1696). Leslie, Charles, The Present State of Quakerism in England: Wherein Is Shew’d, That the Greatest Part of the Quakers in England Are So Far Converted, as to Be Convinced (London, 1701). L’Estrange, Roger, A Memento: Directed to All Those That Truly Reverence the Memory of King Charles the Martyr: And as Passionately with the Honour, Safety, and Happinesse of his Royall Successour, Our Most Gracious Sovereign Charles the II. The First Part (London, 1662). L’Estrange, Roger, Remarks on the Growth and Progress of Non-Conformity (London, 1682). A Letter from the Deists, to the Chief Rulers amongst the Methodists (Dublin, 1749). A Letter to the Right Reverend the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England: Upon Mr. Whitefield’s Extraordinary Manner of Preaching the Gospel; His Criminal Presumption, and Enthusiastick Doctrine (London, 1739). A Letter to the Right Reverend Father in God George, Lord Bishop of Exeter, Occasioned by His Lordship’s Late Charge to the Clergy of his Diocese: In Defence of Those Principles of the Methodists, Objected to in His Lordship’s Charge (s.l., [1748]). A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London, Occasion’d by His Lordship’s Late Pastoral Letter, and the Revd Mr. Whitefield’s Answer (London, 1739). Lewis, John, The History of the Life and Sufferings of the Reverend and Learned John Wickliffe, D.D. (London, 1720). Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London, 1690). Locke, John, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures (London, 1695).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

180 Bibliography Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 4th ed. (London, 1700). [Lyons, J.], The Infallibility of Humane Judgment: Its Dignity and Excellency, 2nd ed. (London, 1721). M., A., The State of Religion in New-England: Since the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s Arrival There. In a Letter from a Gentleman in New-England to His Friend in Glasgow (Glasgow, 1742). [Madan, Martin], Christian and Critical Remarks on a Droll, or Interlude, Called The Minor: Now Acting by a Company of Stage Players in the Hay-Market; and Said to Be Acted by Authority. In which the Blasphemy, Falshood, and Scurrility of That Piece Is Properly Considered, Answered, and Exposed (London, 1760). Mason, William, Methodism Displayed, and Enthusiasm Detected: Intended as an Antidote Against, and a Preservative from the Delusive Principles and Unscriptural Doctrines of a Modern Set of Seducing Preachers, 4th ed. (London, 1759). Mason, William, The Best Improvement of the Much Lamented Death of That Eminent and Faithful Minister of the Gospel, the Revd. Mr. George Whitefield, Chaplain to the Countess of Huntingdon (London, 1770). Maud, John, An Apology for the Clergy, in a Letter to a Gentleman of Fortune and Great Reading Lately Turn’d Methodist and Hermit (Cambridge, 1745). Maud, John, The Doctrine of Endless Torments, Freely and Impartially Debated, Inquiring What Credibility It Hath from History, Analogy, or Scripture, with a Discussion on the Origin of Evil (London, 1755). The Methodists: An Humorous Burlesque Poem (London, 1739). Methodists Impostors, or Wickliffe, Whitefield, Wesley, Stonehouse, Seagrave and Seward, Detected and Exposed, 2nd ed. (London, 1740). Middleton, Conyers, A Letter from Rome, Shewing an Exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism, or The Religion of the Present Romans, Derived from That of Their Heathen Ancestors (London, 1729). Middleton, Conyers, A Letter from Rome, Shewing an Exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism, or The Religion of the Present Romans, Derived from That of Their Heathen Ancestors, 4th ed. (London, 1741). Middleton, Conyers, A Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, Which Are Supposed to Have Subsisted in the Christian Church, from the Earliest Ages through Several Successive Centuries (London, 1749 [1748]). Middleton, Conyers, A Vindication of the Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers (London, 1751). Middleton, Conyers, The Miscellaneous Works of the Late Reverend and Learned Conyers Middleton, D.D. Principal Librarian of the University of Cambridge, 4 vols (London, 1752). Mills, Benjamin, An Account of a Controversy between the Rev. Samuel Weller, L.L.B. Minister of Maidstone in Kent; and Benjamin Mills, a Dissenting Minister in the Same Town: Occasioned by a Reflection Cast upon the Dissenters in a Late Anonymous Pamphlet, Said to Be Written by Mr Weller, Intituled, The Trial of Mr Whitefield’s Spirit (London, 1741). The Mock-Preacher: A Satyrico-Comical-Allegorical Farce (London, 1739). A Modest Enquiry into the Bishop of Bangor’s Preservative against the Nonjurors: Humbly Offer’d to the Consideration of His Lordship (London, 1717). [More, Henry], Enthusiasmus Triumphatus, or A Discourse of the Nature, Causes, Kinds, and Cure of Enthusiasme (London, 1656). More, Henry, Enthusiasmus Triumphatus, or A Brief Discourse of the Nature, Causes, Kinds, and Cure of Enthusiasm, 2nd ed. (London, 1662).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  181 [More, Henry], Enthusiasm Explained, or A Discourse on the Nature, Kind and Cause of Enthusiasm, with Proper Rules to Preserve the Mind from Being Tainted with It (London, 1739). Mr. Whitfield’s Doctrines Considered and Confuted, and Some Consequences Deduced from Them Which Tend to Destroy the Essentials of the Christian Religion (Ipswich, 1741). Neal, Daniel, The History of the Puritans or Protestant Non-Conformists, 4 vols (London, 1732–8). Nelson, Gilbert, The Use of Human Reason in Religion: In Answer to the Methodists; the Doctrine of Free-Grace Being Explained in the Medium, According to the Church of England (London, 1741). Nichols, John, and Nichols, John  B. (eds), Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century, 8 vols (London, 1817–58). Oakes, Abraham, The Doctrine of Hell-Torments Distinctly and Impartially Discussed: The Second Edition. To Which Is Prefix’d, a Preface Inscribed to the Rev. William Whiston, M.A. Concerning His Eternity of Hell-Torments Considered (London, 1740). Owen, Charles, Plain-Dealing, or Separation without Schism, and Schism without Separation. Exemplify’d in the Case of Protestant-Dissenters and Church-Men (London, 1715). The Oxford Methodists: Being Some Account of a Society of Young Gentlemen in That City, So Denominated (London, 1733). The Parallel Reformers, or The Renowned Wickliff and the Reverend Mr. Whitefield Compared: Shewing by Many Parallel Instances ye Great Resemblance between Those Pious Divines in Respect of Christian Zeal and Fortitude (London, [c.1740]). Perronet, Vincent, An Essay on Recreations (London, 1745). Perry, William S. (ed.), Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial Church, 5 vols (Hartford, CT, 1873–8). Piers, Henry, A Sermon Preached (in Part) before the Right Worshipful the Dean of the Arches, and the Reverend the Clergy of the Deanery of Shoreham (London, 1742). A Plain and Familiar Dialogue between a Steady and a Wavering Christian, Occasioned by the Defection of the Latter from the Doctrines and Ordinances of the Gospel and Primitive Unadulterated Christianity (London, 1749). Presbyter of the Church of England, A, Defence of the Author of the Whole Duty of Man from the False Charges of Mr. Whitefield and the Methodists His Adherents (Reading, 1740). The Querists, or An Extract of Sundry Passages Taken out of Mr. Whitefield’s Printed Sermons, Journals and Letters: Together with, Some Scruples Propos’d in Proper Queries Raised on Each Remark (Boston, MA, 1740). The Question Whether It Be Right to Turn Methodist Considered in a Dialogue between Two Members of the Church of England (London, 1739). Relly, James, Union, or A Treatise of the Consanguinity and Affinity between Christ and His Church (London, 1759). Richardson, Samuel, Of the Torments of Hell: The Foundation and Pillars Thereof Discovered, Searched, Shaken and Removed (London, 1658). Rust, George, Letter of Resolution Concerning Origen and the Chief of His Opinions (London, 1661). Sacheverell, Henry, The Perils of False Brethren, Both in Church, and State: Set Forth in a Sermon Preach’d before the Right Honourable, the Lord-Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, at the Cathedral-Church of St. Paul on the 5th of November, 1709 (London, 1709).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

182 Bibliography Scrub, Timothy, A Letter to Robert Seagrave, M.A.  Occasioned by His Two Late Performances: One Entituled, An Answer to Dr. Trapp’s Four Sermons. The Other Called, Remarks on the Bishop of London’s Pastoral Letter (London, 1739). Seagrave, Robert, Christianity How Far It Is, and Is Not, Founded on Argument (London, 1743). The Second Tome of Homilees of Such Matters as Were Promised, and Intituled in the Former Part of Homilees (London, 1571). The Sentiments of Archbishop Tillotson and Sharp on Regeneration, and of Bishop Moor, Blackal, Bull, &c. on Justification by Faith Only, Recommended to the Perusal of the More Serious and Considerate Followers of Mr. Whitefield (London, s.d. [1739/1740]). Silvester, Tipping, The Scripture Doctrine of Regeneration Stated, and Shewn to Concur with the Baptismal Service of Our Church: A Sermon Preach’d before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, Feb. 26. 1737–8 (London, 1738). Skerret, Ralph, The Nature and Proper Evidence of Regeneration, or The New and Second Birth: Considered in a Sermon Preach’d in the Parish-Churches of East-Greenwich, in the County of Kent, upon Whit-Sunday; and St. Peter the Poor, London, on Trinity-Sunday, 1739 (London, 1739). Smalbroke, Richard, A Charge Delivered to the Reverend the Clergy in Several Parts of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry in a Triennial Visitation of the Same in 1741 (London, 1741). Smith, Joseph, Modest Review of the Lord Bishop of Bangor’s Answer to the Reverend Dr. Snape, or The Charge of Misrepresentation Impartially Consider’d (London, 1717). Snow, M.  Lawrence, ‘Methodist Enthusiasm: Warburton Letters, 1738–1740’, Methodist History, 10.3 (1972), pp. 30–47. Some Observations on the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, and His Opposers (Boston, MA, 1740). Some Papers Giving an Account of the Rise and Progress of Methodism at Wednesbury in Staffordshire, and Other Parishes Adjacent: As Likewise of the Late Riot in Those Parts (London, 1744). Stebbing, Henry, An Appeal to the Word of God for the Terms of Christian Salvation, or A Discourse, Proving That Sincerity, Exclusive of the Method of Religion Which a Man Follows, Is Not Sufficient to Entitle Him to the Kingdom of Heaven (London, 1720). Stebbing, Henry, A Caution against Religious Delusion: A Sermon on the New Birth, Occasioned by the Pretensions of the Methodists (London, 1739). Stebbing, Henry, An Examination of Mr. Warburton’s Second Proposition, in His Projected Demonstration of the Divine Legation of Moses (London, 1744). Stebbing, Henry, Observations on a Book, Intituled, An Introductory Discourse to a Larger Work, &c. Containing an Answer to the Author’s Prejudices, That Miraculous Powers Were Not Continued to the Church after the Days of the Apostles (London, 1747). Stenerson, Douglas C., ‘An Anglican Critique of the Early Phase of the Great Awakening in New England: A Letter by Timothy Cutler’, William and Mary Quarterly, 30 (1973), pp. 475–88. Stillingfleet, Edward, A Discourse Concerning the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome, and the Hazard of Salvation in the Communion of It, 2nd ed. (London, 1671). [Sykes, Arthur Ashley], An Enquiry into the Meaning of Demoniacks in the New Testament (London, 1737). Tailfer, Patrick, Anderson, Hugh, and Douglas, David, et al., A True and Historical Narrative of the Colony of Georgia in America, from the First Settlement Thereof until This Present Period (Charles-Town, SC, 1741). Taylor, Jeremy, The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living (London, 1650).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  183 Taylor, John, The Scripture-Doctrine of Original Sin Proposed to Free and Candid Examination (London, 1740). Tillotson, John, A Sermon Preach’d before the Queen at White-Hall, March the 7th, 1689/90 (London, 1690). Tillotson, John, The Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, Late Archbishop of Canterbury: Containing Fifty-Four Sermons and Discourses, on Several Occasions. Together with the Rule of Faith (London, 1696). Tillotson, John, The Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, 3rd ed., 2 vols (London, 1722). Tindal, Matthew, Christianity as Old as the Creation, or The Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature (London, 1730). Trapp, Joseph, The Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger of Being Righteous Over-Much (London, 1739). Trapp, Joseph, A Reply to Mr. Law’s Earnest and Serious Answer (as It Is Called) to Dr. Trapp’s Discourse of the Folly, Sin, and Danger of Being Righteous Over-Much (London, 1741). Trapp, Joseph, Lectures on Poetry Read in the Schools of Natural Philosophy at Oxford (London, 1742). Trapp, Joseph, Thoughts upon the Four Last Things: Death; Judgment; Heaven; and Hell (London, 1749). Trimmer, Sarah, Reflections upon the Education of Children in Charity Schools (London, 1792). The True Character of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, in a Letter from a Deist in London to His Friend in the Country (London, 1739). Tucker, Josiah, ‘A More Particular Reply by Mr. Tucker, the Author of the Queries’, in A Compleat Account of the Conduct of That Eminent Enthusiast Mr. Whitefield (London, 1739), pp. 31–8. Varillas, Antoine, The Pretended Reformers, or The History of the Heresie of John Wickliffe, John Huss, and Jerom of Prague, ed. and trans. Matthias Earbery (London, 1717). Warburton, William, The Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated, on the Principles of a Religious Deist, from the Omission of the Doctrine of a Future State of Reward and Punishment in the Jewish Dispensation, 2 vols (London, 1738–41). Warburton, William, Remarks on Several Occasional Reflections: In Answer to the Rev. Dr.  Middleton, Dr. Pococke, the Master of the Charter House, Dr. Richard Grey, and Others (London, 1744). Warburton, William, Julian, or A Discourse Concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption, Which Defeated That Emperor’s Attempt to Rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem (London, 1750). Warburton, William, A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy: In Four Letters to a Friend, 2 vols (London, 1754–5). Warburton, William, The Doctrine of Grace, or The Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit Vindicated from the Insults of Infidelity, and the Abuses of Fanaticism, 2 vols (London, 1763 [1762]). [Warburton, William], Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate to One of His Friends, 2nd ed. (London, 1809). [Warne, Jonathan], The Church of England Turn’d Dissenter at Last, or The Generality of Her Clergy Have Forsaken the Most Material Doctrines of the Common-Prayer (London, 1737). [Warne, Jonathan], The Spirit of the Martyrs Revived in the Doctrines of the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, and the Judicious, and Faithful Methodists (London, 1740).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

184 Bibliography Waterland, Daniel, A Vindication of Christ’s Divinity: Being a Defense of Some Queries, Relating to Dr. Clarke’s Scheme of the H. Trinity, in Answer to a Clergyman in the Country (Cambridge, 1719). Waterland, Daniel, Advice to a Young Student: With a Method of Study for the Four First Years (London, 1730). Waterland, Daniel, Scripture Vindicated: In Answer to a Book Intituled, Christianity as Old as the Creation. Part I (London, 1730). Waterland, Daniel, The Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Asserted, in Reply to Some Late Pamphlets (London, 1734). Waterland, Daniel, Regeneration Stated and Explained According to Scripture and Antiquity in a Discourse on Tit. III. 4,5,6 (London, 1740). Watts, Isaac, The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity: Or Father, Son, and Spirit, Three Persons and One God, Asserted and Prov’d, with Their Divine Rights and Honors Vindicated by Plain Evidence of Scripture, without the Aid or Incumbrance of Human Schemes (London, 1722). [Weller, Samuel], The Trial of Mr. Whitefield’s Spirit: In Some Remarks upon His Fourth Journal (London, 1740). Wesley, Charles, The Manuscript Journal of the Rev. Charles Wesley, M.A., ed. S. T. Kimbrough Jr. and Kenneth G. C. Newport, 2 vols (Nashville, TN, 2007). Wesley, John, The Christian’s Pattern, or A Treatise of the Imitation of Christ (London, 1735). Wesley, John, A Sermon Preached at St. Mary’s in Oxford, on Sunday, September 21, 1735 (London, 1735). Wesley, John, A Sermon on Salvation by Faith (London, 1738). Wesley, John, Free Grace: A Sermon Preach’d at Bristol (Bristol, 1739). Wesley, John, A Collection of Forms of Prayer for Every Day in the Week, 5th ed. (London, 1740). Wesley, John, An Extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal from his Embarking for Georgia to his Return to London (Bristol, 1740). Wesley, John, Christian Perfection (London, 1741). Wesley, John, An Extract of the Revd. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 12, 1738, to Nov. 1, 1739 (Bristol, 1742). Wesley, John, An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, 2nd ed. (Bristol, 1743). Wesley, John, Thoughts on Marriage and a Single Life, 2nd ed. (Bristol, 1743). Wesley, John, An Answer to the Rev. Mr. Church’s Remarks on the Reverend Mr. John Wesley’s Last Journal (Bristol, 1745). Wesley, John, A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (London, 1745). Wesley, John, A Christian Library: Consisting of Extracts from and Abridgments of the Choicest Pieces of Practical Divinity, Which Have Been Publish’d in the English Tongue, 50 vols (Bristol, 1749–55). Wesley, John, An Extract of the Revd. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from Nov. 1, 1739 to September 3, 1741, 2nd ed. (Bristol, 1749). [Wesley, John], A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Conyers Middleton (London, 1749). Wesley, John, A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists: In a Letter to the Revd. Mr. Perronet, Vicar of Shoreham in Kent (Bristol, 1749). Wesley, John, A Letter to the Author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d (London, 1750). Wesley, John, A Second Letter to the Author of the Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d (London, 1751). Wesley, John, Catholick Spirit: A Sermon on 2 Kings, X.15 (London, 1755).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  185 Wesley, John, The Nature of Enthusiasm: A Sermon on Acts XXVI (London, 1755). Wesley, John, An Address to the Clergy (London, 1756). Wesley, John, The Doctrine of Original Sin: According to Scripture, Reason, and Experience (Bristol 1757). Wesley, John, Sermons on Several Occasions (Bristol, 1760). Wesley, John, Letter to the Rev. Mr. Horne: Occasioned by His Late Sermon Preached before the University of Oxford (London, [1762]). Wesley, John, A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester: Occasioned by His Tract, on the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit (London, 1763). Wesley, John, ‘Mr Wesley’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. James Hervey, 15 October 1756’, in J.  Hervey, Aspasio Vindicated, and the Scripture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended, against the Objections and Animadversions of the Rev. Mr John Wesley (Edinburgh, 1764), pp. 16–39. Wesley, John, The Question, What Is an Arminian? Answered (London, 1770). Wesley, John, A Sermon on the Death of the Rev. Mr George Whitefield: Preached at the Chapel in Tottenham-Court-Road, and at the Tabernacle near Moorfields, on Sunday, November 18, 1770 (London, 1770). Wesley, John, A Concise History of England, from the Earliest Times, to the Death of George II, 4 vols (London, [1776]). Wesley, John, Sermons on Several Occasions, 8 vols (London, 1788). Wesley, John, The Eternity of Hell Torments: A Sermon on Mark IX. 48 (London, 1789). Wesley, John, The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. John Telford, 8 vols (London, 1931). Wesley, John, The Works of John Wesley (Bicentennial Edition), general ed. Frank Baker and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Oxford, 1975–83, and Nashville, TN, 1984–). Wesley, John, The Works of John Wesley (Bicentennial Edition), Vols 18–24: Journal and Diaries, I–VII, ed. William Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Nashville, TN, 1988–2003). Wesley, John, The Works of John Wesley (Bicentennial Edition), Vol. 25: Letters I, ed. Frank Baker (Oxford, 1980). [Wesley, Samuel], Advice to a Young Clergyman: In a Letter to Him (London, [1735]). [Wharton, Henry], A Defence of Pluralities, or Holding Two Benefices with Cure of Souls, as Now Practiced in the Church of England (London, 1692). Wheatley, Phillis, An Elegiac Poem, on the Death of That Celebrated Divine, and Eminent Servant of Jesus Christ, the Reverend and Learned George Whitefield, Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon, &c. (Boston, MA, 1770). Wheatly, Charles, St. John’s Test of Knowing Christ, and Being Born of Him: A Sermon Preached at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. October 14. 1739 (London, 1739). Whiston, Thomas, The Important Doctrines of Original Sin, Justification by Faith, and Regeneration, Clearly Stated from Scripture and Reason: And Vindicated from the Misrepresentations of the Methodists. With Remarks on Mr Law’s Late Tract on the NewBirth (London, 1740). Whiston, Thomas, The Remarkable Life of Uriel Acosta, an Eminent Freethinker (London, 1740). Whiston, William, Primitive Infant-Baptism Reviv’d, or An Account of the Doctrine and Practice of the Two First Centuries, Concerning the Baptism of Infants: In the Words of the Sacred and Primitive Writers Themselves (London, 1712). Whiston, William, The Eternity of Hell Torments Considered, or A Collection of Texts of Scripture, and Testimonies of the Three First Centuries, Relating to Them (London, 1740).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

186 Bibliography Whitby, Daniel, A Paraphrase and Commentary upon All the Epistles of the New Testament (London, 1700). Whitby, Daniel, Tractatus de Imputatione Divina Peccati Adami Posteris Ejus Universis in Reatum (London, 1711). Whitby, Daniel, A Full Answer to the Arguments of the Reverend Dr. Jonathan Edwards, for the Opinion of St. Austin Concerning the Imputation of the First Sin of Adam, for Guilt to All His Posterity (London, 1712). Whitby, Daniel, The Guilt of Adam’s Transgression Not Imputed to His Posterity: A Treatise Concerning Original Sin, ed. and trans. H. Heywood (London, 1739). White, George, Theological Remarks on the Reverend Dr. Middleton’s Late Introductory Discourse and Postscript (London, 1747). White, George, A Sermon against the Methodists, Preach’d at Colne and Marsden in the County of Lancaster to a Very Numerous Audience, at Colne, July 24 and at Marsden, August 7 1748 (Preston, 1748). Whitefield, George, The Benefits of an Early Piety: A Sermon Preach’d at Bow-Church, London, before the Religious Societies, at One of Their Quarterly Meetings, on Wednesday, September 28. 1737 (London, 1737). Whitefield, George, The Nature and Necessity of Our New Birth in Christ Jesus, in Order to Salvation: A Sermon Preached in the Church of St. Mary Radcliffe, in Bristol (London, 1737). Whitefield, George, A Journal of a Voyage from London to Savannah in Georgia (London, 1738). Whitefield, George, The Nature and Necessity of Self-Denial: A Sermon Preached at the Parish Church of St. Andrew, Holborn, on Sunday, October 9. 1737 (London, 1738). Whitefield, George, A Continuation of the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Journal, from His Arrival at London, to His Departure from Thence on His Way to Georgia (London, 1739). Whitefield, George, A Continuation of the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Journal, during the Time He Was Detained in England by the Embargo (London, 1739). Whitefield, George, Discourses on the Following Subjects . . . to Which Is Added, Prayers on Several Occasions (London, 1739). Whitefield, George, The Folly and Danger of Being Not Righteous Enough: A Sermon Preached at Kennington-Common, Moorfields, and Blackheath (London, 1739). Whitefield, George, Jesus Christ the Only Way to Salvation: A Sermon Preached on Kennington-Common (London, 1739). Whitefield, George, A Preservative against Unsettled Notions, and Want of Principles, in Regard to Righteousness and Christian Perfection (London, 1739). Whitefield, George, The Rev. Mr. Whitefield’s Answer, to the Bishop of London’s Last Pastoral Letter (London, 1739). Whitefield, George, A Continuation of the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Journal, from His Embarking after the Embargo, to His Arrival at Savannah in Georgia (London, 1740). Whitefield, George, The Danger of Man Resulting from Sin, and His Remedy, by Christ Considered (London, 1740). Whitefield, George, A Letter from the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, in Answer to His Sermon, Entituled Free Grace (Boston, MA, 1740). Whitefield, George, A Letter from the Rev. Mr. Whitefield from Georgia, to a Friend in London, Shewing the Fundamental Error of a Book, Entituled The Whole Duty of Man (Charles-Town, SC, 1740). Whitefield, George, A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, A. B. Late of Pembroke-College, Oxford: From His Infancy, to the Time of His Entring into Holy Orders (London, 1740).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  187 Whitefield, George, Three Letters from the Reverend Mr. G.  Whitefield (Philadelphia, PA, 1740). Whitefield, George, A Continuation of the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Journal, after His Arrival at Georgia, to a Few Days after His Second Return Thither from Philadelphia (London, 1741). Whitefield, George, A Continuation of the Reverend Mr. Whitefield’s Journal, from a Few Days after His Return to Georgia to His Arrival at Falmouth, on the 11th of March 1741 (London, 1741). Whitefield, George, A Letter from the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield to the Religious Societies of England: Written in His Voyage to Philadelphia 1739 (Edinburgh, 1742). Whitefield, George, An Answer to the First Part of an Anonymous Pamphlet, Entitled, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect Usually Distinguished by the Name of Methodists: In a Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of London, and the Other the Right Reverend the Bishops Concern’d in the Publication Thereof (Boston, MA, 1744). Whitefield, George, An Answer to the Second Part of an Anonymous Pamphlet, Entitled, Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a Certain Sect Usually Distinguished by the Name of Methodists: In a Second Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of London, and the Other the Right Reverend the Bishops Concern’d in the Publication Thereof (Boston, MA, 1744). Whitefield, George, Some Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitled, The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d: Wherein Several Mistakes in Some Parts of His Past Writings and Conduct Are Acknowledged, and His Present Sentiments Concerning the Methodists Explained (London, 1749). Whitefield, George, The Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, 6 vols (London, 1771–2). Wilder, John, The Trial of the Spirits, or A Caution against Enthusiasm or Religious Delusion, in a Sermon Preached before the University of Oxford, August 5th. 1739 (Oxford, 1739). Winstanley, Gerrard, The Mysterie of God Concerning the Whole Creation, Mankinde (London, 1648). Woolston, Thomas, A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Bennet (London, 1720). Woolston, Thomas, A Discourse on the Miracles of Our Saviour, in View of the Present Controversy between Infidels and Apostates (London, 1727).

Secondary Sources Allison, C. FitzSimons, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (London, 1966). Almond, Philip C., Heaven and Hell in Enlightenment England (Cambridge, 1994). Anderson, Misty  C., Imagining Methodism in Eighteenth-Century Britain: Enthusiasm, Belief and the Borders of the Self (Baltimore, MD, 2012). Apetrei, Sarah, Women, Feminism and Religion in Early Enlightenment England (Cambridge, 2010). Apetrei, Sarah, ‘ “The Life of Angels”: Celibacy and Asceticism in Anglicanism 1660–c.1700’, Reformation and Renaissance Review, 13 (2011), pp. 247–74. Assmann, Jan, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge, 1997). Aston, Nigel, ‘The Limits of Latitudinarianism: English Reactions to Bishop Clayton’s An Essay on Spirit’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 49 (1998), pp. 407–33.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

188 Bibliography Aston, Nigel, ‘John Wesley and the Social Elite of Georgian Britain’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 85.2–3 (2003), pp. 123–36. Atherstone, Andrew, ‘Commemorating Whitefield in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries’, in Geordan Hammond and David Ceri Jones (eds), George Whitefield: Life, Context, and Legacy (Oxford, 2016), pp. 278–99. Atkinson, Roark, ‘Satan in the Pulpit: Popular Christianity During the Scottish Great Awakening, 1680–1750’, Journal of Social History, 47 (2013), pp. 344–70. Atwood, Craig  D., Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem (University Park, PA, 2004). Baker, Frank, ‘Bishop Lavington and the Methodists’, Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 34 (1964), pp. 37–42. Baker, Frank, John Wesley and the Church of England, 2nd ed. (London, 2000). Barbeau, Jeffrey W., ‘John Wesley and the Early Church: History, Antiquity, and the Spirit of God’, in George Kalantzis and Andrew Tooley (eds), Evangelicals and the Early Church: Recovery, Reform, Renewal (Eugene, OR, 2012), pp. 52–76. Barbeau, Jeffrey  W., ‘Enthusiasts, Rationalists and Pentecost’, in Jeffrey  W.  Barbeau and Beth Felker Jones (eds), Spirit of God: Christian Renewal in the Community of Faith (Downers Grove, IL, 2015), pp. 74–91. Barlow, Richard B., ‘Anti-Subscription and the Clerical Petition Movement in the Church of England, 1766–1772’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 30 (1961), pp. 35–49. Barnett, S. J., Idol Temples and Crafty Priests: The Origins of Enlightenment Anticlericalism (Basingstoke and New York, 1999). Barnett, S.  J., ‘Where Was Your Church before Luther? Claims for the Antiquity of Protestantism Examined’, Church History, 68 (1999), pp. 14–41. Barone, Marco, Luther’s Augustinian Theology of the Cross: The Augustinianism of Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation and the Origins of Modern Philosophy of Religion (Eugene, OR, 2017). Bebbington, David W., Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London, 1989). Beckerlegge, Oliver A. (ed.), The Lavington Correspondence: Being the Letters to the Author of The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compar’d (Bunbury, 1980). Bennett, Gareth  V., ‘Patristic Tradition in Anglican Thought 1660–1900’, in Günther Gassmann and Vilmos Vajta (eds), Tradition in Luthertum und Anglikanismus (Gütersloh, 1972), pp. 63–85. Ben-Tov, Asaph, ‘The Eleusinian Mysteries in the Age of Reason’, in Martin Mulsow and Asaph Ben-Tov (eds), Knowledge and Profanation: Transgressing the Boundaries of Religion in Premodern Scholarship (Leiden, 2019), pp. 197–227. Berg, Maxine, Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2005). Berry, Helen, ‘The Pleasures of Austerity’, Journal of Eighteenth-Century Studies, 37 (2014), pp. 261–77. Bhogal, Harman, ‘Miracles, Cessationism, and Demonic Possession: The Darrell Controversy and the Parameters of Preternature in Early Modern English Demonology’, Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural, 4 (2015), pp. 152–80. Black, Jeremy, Charting the Past: The Historical Worlds of Eighteenth-Century England (Bloomington, IN, 2019). Blanchard, Laurence  M., Will All Be Saved? An Assessment of Universalism in Western Theology (Milton Keynes, 2015).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  189 Blankenship, Paul  F., ‘The Significance of John Wesley’s Abridgement of the Thirty-Nine Articles as Seen from His Deletions’, Methodist History, 2.3 (1964), pp. 35–47. Bogue, Carl W., Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace (Cherry Hill, NJ, 1975). Bostridge, Ian, ‘Witchcraft Repealed’, in Jonathan Barry, Marianne Hester, and Gareth Roberts (eds), Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Culture and Belief (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 309–34. Bostridge, Ian, Witchcraft and its Transformations, c. 1650–c.1750 (Oxford, 1997). Bozeman, Theodore Dwight, The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638 (Chapel Hill, NC, 2004). Bray, Gerald, ‘Canon Law and the Church of England’, in A.  Milton (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Vol. 1: Reformation and Identity, c.1520–1662 (Oxford, 2017), pp. 168–85. Brewer, John, The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1997). Brown, Earl K., Women of Mr. Wesley’s Methodism (New York and Toronto, 1983). Broxap, Henry, A Biography of Thomas Deacon: The Manchester Non-Juror (Manchester, 1911). Broxap, Henry, The Later Non-Jurors (Cambridge, 1924). Butler, David, Methodists and Papists: John Wesley and the Catholic Church in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1995). Cameron, Euan, ‘Medieval Heretics as Protestant Martyrs’, in Diana Wood (ed.), Studies in Church History, Vol. 30: Martyrs and Martyrologies (Oxford, 1993), pp. 185–207. Campbell, Ted A., ‘John Wesley and Conyers Middleton on Divine Intervention in History’, Church History, 55 (1986), pp. 39–49. Carrier, E.  Theodore, ‘Wesley’s Views on Prayers for the Dead’, Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 1 (1898), pp. 123–5. Caudle, James J., ‘The Defence of Georgian Britain: The Anti-Jacobite Sermon, 1715–1746’, in Keith  A.  Francis and William Gibson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon, 1689–1901 (Oxford, 2012), pp. 245–60. Chamberlain, Jeffrey  S., ‘Moralism, Justification, and the Controversy over Methodism’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 44 (1993), pp. 652–78. Champion, Justin  A.  I., The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and Its Enemies, 1660–1730 (Cambridge, 1992). Chilcote, Paul  W., ‘John Wesley as Revealed by the Journal of Hester Ann Rogers, July 1775–October 1784’, Methodist History, 20 (1982), pp. 111–23. Chilcote, Paul W., John Wesley and the Women Preachers of Early Methodism (Metuchen, NJ, 1991). Chilcote, Paul  W., She Offered Them Christ: The Legacy of Women Preachers in Early Methodism (Nashville, TN, 1993). Chilcote, Paul W., ‘Sanctification as Lived by Early Methodist Women’, Methodist History, 34 (1996), pp. 90–103. Chilcote, Paul  W., Her Own Story: Autobiographical Portraits of Early Methodist Women (Nashville, 2001). Chilcote, Paul W. (ed.), Early Methodist Spirituality: Selected Women’s Writings (Nashville, TN, 2007). Choi, Peter Y., George Whitefield: Evangelist for God and Empire (Grand Rapids, MI, 2018). Clark, J. C. D., English Society, 1660–1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics during the Ancien Régime, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2000).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

190 Bibliography Clark, Richard, ‘ “The Gangreen of Quakerism”: An Anti-Quaker Anglican Offensive in England after the Glorious Revolution’, Journal of Religious History, 11 (1981), pp. 404–29. Clary, Ian, ‘ “A Catholic Spirit”: George Whitefield’s Dispute with the Erskines in Scotland’, in Michael A.G. Haykin and Mark Jones (eds), A New Divinity: Transatlantic Reformed Evangelical Debates during the Long Eighteenth Century (Gottingen, 2017), pp. 55–88. Claydon, Tony, Europe and the Making of England, 1660–1760 (Cambridge, 2007). Clergy of the Church of England Database, https://theclergydatabase.org.uk/. Clymer, Wayne  K., ‘Union with Christ: The Calvinist Universalism of James Relly (1722–1778)’, in Gregory MacDonald (ed.), “All Shall Be Well”: Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann (Eugene, OR, 2011), pp. 116–40. Coffey, John, ‘Puritanism, Evangelicalism and the Evangelical Protestant Tradition’, in Michael A. G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart (eds), The Emergence of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities (Nottingham, 2008), pp. 252–77. Coffey, John, ‘Evangelical Revival in Enlightenment Britain: James Erskine of Grange and the Pietist Turn’, in Anthony Cross, Peter Morden, and Ian Randall (eds), Pathways and Patterns in History: Essays on Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Modern World in Honour of David Bebbington (London, 2015), pp. 187–214. Colley, Linda, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, CT, 1992). Collins, Jeffrey R., In the Shadow of the Leviathan: John Locke and the Politics of Conscience (Cambridge, 2020). Collins, Kenneth  J., The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville, TN, 2007). Como, David  R., Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-Civil-War England (Stanford, CA, 2004). Cook, Alan, ‘Nelson, Robert (1656–1715)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Coppedge, Allan, Shaping the Wesleyan Message: John Wesley in Theological Debate (Nappanee, IN, 2003). Cornwall, Robert  D., ‘The Search for the Primitive Church: The Use of Early Church Fathers in the High Church Anglican Tradition, 1680–1745’, Anglican and Episcopal History, 59 (1990), pp. 303–29. Cornwall, Robert  D., ‘The Later Nonjurors and the Theological Basis of the Usages Controversy’, Anglican Theological Review, 75 (1993), pp. 166–86. Cornwall, Robert D., Visible and Apostolic: The Constitution of the Church in High Church Anglican and Non-Juror Thought (Newark, DE, 1993). Cornwall, Robert D., ‘Politics and the Lay Baptism Controversy in England, 1708–1715’, in Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson (eds), Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832: Essays in Honour of James E. Bradley (Farnham, 2010), pp. 147–64. Crawford, Michael, Seasons of Grace: Colonial New England’s Revival Tradition in Its British Context (New York, 1991). Crompton, James, ‘John Wyclif: A Study in Mythology’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society, 42 (1966–67), pp. 6–34. Cupples, Cynthia  J., ‘Pious Ladies and Methodist Madams: Sex and Gender in AntiMethodist Writings of Eighteenth-Century England’, Critical Matrix, 5 (1990), pp. 30–60. Daggy, Robert E., ‘Education, Church, and State: Timothy Cutler and the Yale Apostasy of 1722’, Journal of Church and State, 13 (1971), pp. 43–67.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  191 ‘The Dark Days of English Catholicism. A Sidelight’, The Tablet, 16 July 1910, pp. 8–9. Davies, Owen, ‘Methodism, the Clergy, and the Popular Belief in Witchcraft and Magic’, History, 82 (1997), pp. 252–65. Davies, Owen, Witchcraft, Magic and Culture, 1736–1951 (Manchester, 1999). Davies, Owen, ‘Wesley’s Invisible World: Witchcraft and the Temperature of Preternatural Belief ’, in Robert Webster (ed.), Perfecting Perfection: Essays in Honour of Henry D. Rack (Cambridge, 2016), pp. 147–72. Davies, Paul C., ‘The Debate on Eternal Punishment in Late Seventeenth- and EighteenthCentury English Literature’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 4 (1971), pp. 257–76. Davis, Matthew M., ‘ “Ask for the Old Paths”: Johnson and the Nonjurors’, in J. C. D. Clark and Howard Erskine-Hill (eds), The Politics of Samuel Johnson (Basingstoke, 2012), pp. 112–67. Davis, Michael T., ‘Whiston, John (1711–1780)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Ditchfield, Grayson M., ‘The Subscription Issue in British Parliamentary Politics, 1772–79’, Parliamentary History, 7 (1988), pp. 45–80. Dodaro, Robert, Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Augustine (Cambridge, 2004). Doll, Peter, ‘The Idea of the Primitive Church in High Church Ecclesiology from Samuel Johnson to J. H. Hobart’, Anglican and Episcopal History, 65 (1996), pp. 6–43. Doll, Peter, ‘The Architectural Expression of Primitive Christianity: William Beveridge and the Temple of Solomon’, Reformation and Renaissance Review, 13 (2011), pp. 275–306. Duffy, Eamon, ‘Primitive Christianity Revived: Religious Renewal in Augustan England’, in Derek Baker (ed.), Studies in Church History, Vol. 14: Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (Oxford, 1977), pp. 287–300. Duffy, Eamon, ‘Wesley and the Counter-Reformation’, in Jane Garnett and Colin Matthew (eds), Revival and Religion since 1700: Essays for John Walsh (London, 1993), pp. 1–19. Dussinger, John  A., ‘The Oxford Methodists (1733; 1738): The Purloined Letter of John Wesley at Samuel Richardson’s Press’, in Melvyn New and Gerard  S.  J.  Reedy (eds), Theology and Literature in the Age of Johnson: Resisting Secularism (Newark, DE, 2012), pp. 27–48. Eddy, G. T., Dr Taylor of Norwich: Wesley’s Arch-Heretic (Peterborough, 2003). Emerson, Everett  H., ‘Calvin and Covenant Theology’, Church History, 25 (1956), pp. 136–44. Engel, Katherine Carté, Religion and Profit: Moravians in Early America (Philadelphia, PA, 2013). English, John  C., ‘The Duration of the Primitive Church: An Issue for Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Anglicans’, Anglican and Episcopal History, 73 (2004), pp. 35–52. English, John C., ‘John Wesley, the Establishment of Religion and the Separation of Church and State’, Journal of Church and State, 46 (2004), pp. 83–97. Field, Clive  D., ‘Anti-Methodist Publications of the Eighteenth Century: A Revised Bibliography’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 73 (1991), pp. 159–280. Field, Clive  D., ‘Anti-Methodist Publications of the Eighteenth Century: A Supplemental Bibliography’, Wesley and Methodist Studies, 6 (2014), 154–86. Fiering, Norman, ‘The First American Enlightenment: Tillotson, Leverett, and Philosophical Anglicanism’, The New England Quarterly, 54 (1981), pp. 307–44. Findon, John, ‘Earbery, Matthias (1690–1740)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

192 Bibliography Fitzpatrick, Martin, ‘Latitudinarianism at the Parting of the Ways: A Suggestion’, in John  D.  Walsh, Colin Haydon, and Stephen Taylor (eds), The Church of England, c. 1689–c. 1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 209–27. Fogleman, Aaron Spencer, Jesus is Female: Moravians and Radical Religion in Early America (Philadelphia, PA, 2007). Force, James E., William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (Cambridge, 1985). Force, James E., ‘Biblical Interpretation, Newton, and English Deism’, in Richard H. Popkin and Arjo Vanderjagt (eds), Scepticism and Irreligion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden, 1993), pp. 282–305. Forsaith, Peter S., Image, Identity and John Wesley: A Study in Portraiture (London, 2017). Fouke, Daniel C., The Enthusiastical Concerns of Dr. Henry More: Religious Meaning and the Psychology of Delusion (Leiden, 1997). Freeman, Thomas, ‘Demons, Deviance and Defiance: John Darrell and the Politics of Exorcism in Late Elizabethan England’, in Peter Lake and Michael Questier (eds), Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–1660 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 34–63. Fulton, John, ‘Methodism, Magic and Popular Supernatural Beliefs in Ireland, 1750–1850’, Bulletin of the Methodist Historical Society of Ireland, 24 (2019), pp. 41–65. Garcia, Humberto, Islam and the English Enlightenment, 1670–1840 (Baltimore, MD, 2012). Geiter, Mary  K., ‘William Penn and Jacobitism: A Smoking Gun?’, Historical Research, 73 (2000), pp. 213–18. Gerardi, Donald F. M., ‘Samuel Johnson and the Yale Apostasy of 1722: The Challenge of Anglican Sacramentalism to the New England Way’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 47 (1978), pp. 153–75. Gibson, William, The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord (London and New York, 2001). Gibson, William, Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly, 1676–1761 (Cambridge, 2004). Gibson, William, ‘The British Sermon 1689–1901’, in Keith A. Francis and William Gibson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon, 1689–1901 (Oxford, 2012), pp. 3–30. Gibson, William, ‘Whitefield and the Church of England’, in Geordan Hammond and David Ceri Jones (eds), George Whitefield: Life, Context, and Legacy (Oxford, 2016), pp. 46–63. Gibson, William, Samuel Wesley and the Crisis of Tory Piety, 1685–1720 (Oxford, 2021). Gibson, William, and Begiato, Joanne, Sex and the Church in the Long Eighteenth Century: Religion, Enlightenment and the Sexual Revolution (London, 2017). Gillespie, Michele, and Beachy, Robert (eds), Pious Pursuits: German Moravians in the Atlantic World (New York and Oxford, 2007). Glasson, Travis, Mastering Christianity: Missionary Anglicanism and Slavery in the Atlantic World (Oxford, 2012). Glen, Robert, ‘The Fate of John Wesley in English Satiric Prints’, in T.  Macquiban (ed.), Methodism in Its Cultural Milieu (Oxford, 1994), pp. 35–43. Goldie, Mark, ‘The Nonjurors, Episcopacy, and the Origins of the Convocation Controversy’, in Eveline Cruickshanks (ed.), Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1759 (Edinburgh, 1982), pp. 15–35. Goldie, Mark, ‘The Theory of Religious Intolerance in Restoration England’, in Ole P. Grell, Jonathan  I.  Israel, and Nicholas Tyacke (eds), From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England (Oxford, 1991), pp. 331–68. Green, Richard, Anti-Methodist Publications Issued during the Eighteenth Century: A Chronologically Arranged and Annotated Bibliography of All Known Books and Pamphlets

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  193 Written in Opposition to the Methodist Revival during the Life of Wesley; Together with an Account of Replies to Them, and of Some Other Publications (London, 1902). Gregory, Jeremy, Restoration, Reformation, and Reform, 1660–1828: Archbishops of Canterbury and their Diocese (Oxford, 2000). Gregory, Jeremy, ‘ “In the Church I Will Live and Die”: John Wesley, the Church of England, and Methodism’, in William Gibson and Robert G. Ingram (eds), Religious Identities in Britain, 1660–1832 (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 147–78. Gregory, Jeremy, ‘Transatlantic Anglicanism, c.1680–c.1770: Transplanting, Translating and Transforming the Church of England’, in Jeremy Gregory and Hugh McLeod (eds), Studies in Church History, Subsidia 14: International Religious Networks (Woodbridge, 2012), pp. 127–43. Greig, Michael, ‘Heresy Hunt: Gilbert Burnet and the Convocation Controversy of 1701’, Historical Journal, 37 (1994), pp. 569–92. Griesel, Jake, ‘John Edwards of Cambridge (1637–1716): A Reassessment of His Position within the Later Stuart Church of England’ (PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2019). Griffin, Edward  M., Old Brick: Charles Chauncy of Boston, 1705–1787 (Minneapolis, MN, 1980). Hammond, Geordan, John Wesley in America: Restoring Primitive Christianity (Oxford, 2014). Hampton, Stephen, Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford, 2008). Hankins, James, ‘Monstrous Melancholy: Ficino and the Physiological Causes of Atheism’, in Stephen Clucas, Peter Forshaw, and Valery Rees (eds), Laus Platonici Philosophi: Marsilio Ficino and His Influence (Leiden, 2011), pp. 25–44. Hartmann, Franz, The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme: The God-Taught Philosopher (Boston, MA, 1891). Haydon, Colin, Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth-Century England, c.1714–80: A Political and Social Study (Manchester, 1993). Haydon, Colin, ‘Lavington, George (1684–1762)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Haydon, Colin, ‘Bishop George Lavington of Exeter (1684–1762) and The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists, Compar’d’, Southern History, 37 (2015), pp. 60–85. Hayman, John Gould, A History of the Methodist Revival of the Last Century, in Its Relations to North Devon: From the First Visit of the Wesleys to the Centenary Year in 1839, 2nd ed. (London, [1885]). Hazard, Paul, European Thought in the Eighteenth Century: From Montesquieu to Lessing (New Haven, CT, 1954). Heitzenrater, Richard  P., Wesley and the People Called Methodists, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN, 2013). Hempton, David, ‘Methodism and the Law’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 70 (1988), pp. 93–107. Hempton, David, Religion of the People: Methodism and Popular Religion, 1750–1900 (London, 1996). Hempton, David, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit (New Haven, CT, and London, 2005). Hempton, David, and Walsh, John D., ‘E. P. Thompson and Methodism’, in Mark A. Noll (ed.), God and Mammon: Protestants, Money, and the Market, 1790–1860 (New York, 2001), pp. 99–120. Herrick, James A., ‘The Rhetorical Career of Thomas Woolston: A Radical Challenges the Rules of Discourse’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78 (1992), pp. 296–316.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

194 Bibliography Herrick, James A., The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680–1750 (Columbia, SC, 1997). Herrick, James A., ‘Dodwell, Henry (1706–1784)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Herrick, James A., ‘Blasphemy in the Eighteenth Century: Contours of a Rhetorical Crime’, in Wayne Hudson, Diego Lucci, and Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth (eds), Atheism and Deism Revalued: Heterodox Religious Identities in Britain, 1650–1800 (Burlington, VT, 2014), pp. 104–8. Heyd, Michael, Be Sober and Reasonable: The Critique of Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries (Leiden, 1995). Hickman, Louise, ‘Love Is All and God Is Love: Universalism in Peter Sterry (1613–1672) and Jeremiah White (1630–1707)’, in Gregory MacDonald (ed.), “All Shall Be Well”: Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann (Eugene, OR, 2011), pp. 95–115. Hindmarsh, D.  Bruce, The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Autobiography in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2007). Hobhouse, Stephen, ‘The Book Which Introduced Jacob Boehme to William Law’, Journal of Theological Studies, 37 (1936), pp. 350–68. Hoeveler, J.  David, Creating the American Mind: Intellect and Politics in the Colonial Colleges (Lanham, MD, 2002). Holmes, Geoffrey, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London, 1973). Holtby, Robert T., Daniel Waterland, 1683–1740: A Study in Eighteenth-Century Orthodoxy (Carlisle, 1966). Hood, Jared, ‘Federalist Brothers: The Shared Covenantal Substructure of Whitefield and Wesley’s Theology’, in Ian  J.  Maddock (ed.), Wesley and Whitefield? Wesley versus Whitefield? (Eugene, OR, 2018), pp. 105–23. Hoover, Jesse, ‘ “They Bee Full Donatists”: The Rhetoric of Donatism in Early Separatist Polemics’, Reformation & Renaissance Review, 15 (2013), pp. 154–76. Hudson, Anne, and Kenny, Anthony, ‘Wyclif [Wycliffe], John (d. 1384)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Hudson, Nicholas, Samuel Johnson and the Making of Modern England (Cambridge, 2003). Hudson, Wayne, Lucci, Diego, and Wigelsworth, Jeffrey  R., ‘Introduction: Atheism and Deism Revived’, in Wayne Hudson, Diego Lucci, and Jeffrey  R.  Wigelsworth (eds), Atheism and Deism Revalued: Heterodox Religious Identities in Britain, 1650–1800 (Burlington, VT, 2014), pp. 1–11. Hunter, Michael, The Decline of Magic: Britain in the Enlightenment (New Haven, CT, 2020). Ingram, Robert  G., ‘ “The Weight of Historical Evidence”: Conyers Middleton and the Eighteenth-Century Miracles Debate’, in Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson (eds), Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832: Essays in Honour of James  E.  Bradley (Farnham, 2010), pp. 85–109. Ingram, Robert  G., ‘Representing and Misrepresenting the History of Puritanism in Eighteenth-Century England’, in Peter D. Clarke and Charlotte Methuen (eds), Studies in Church History, Vol. 49: The Church on its Past (Woodbridge, 2013), pp. 205–18. Ingram, Robert  G., Reformation without End: Religion, Politics and the Past in PostRevolutionary England (Manchester, 2018). Isaac, Rhys, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740–1790 (New York, 1982). Israel, Jonathan I., Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670–1752 (Oxford, 2006).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  195 Israel, Jonathan I., Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750–1790 (Oxford, 2011). Jackson, Harvey  H., ‘Hugh Bryan and the Evangelical Movement in Colonial South Carolina’, William and Mary Quarterly, 43 (1986), pp. 594–614. Jacob, James R., Henry Stubbe, Radical Protestantism and the Early Enlightenment, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2002). Jacob, W. M., Lay People and Religion in the Early Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 2002). Jacob, W.  M., ‘John Wesley and the Church of England, 1736–40’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 85.2–3 (2003), pp. 57–71. Joling-van der Sar, Gerda  J., ‘The Controversy between William Law and John Wesley’, English Studies, 87 (2006), pp. 442–65. Jones, David Ceri, Schlenther, Boyd Stanley, and White, Eryn Mant, The Elect Methodists: Calvinistic Methodism in England and Wales, 1735–1811 (Cardiff, 2012). Kewes, Paulina, ‘History and Its Uses’, in Paulina Kewes (ed.), The Uses of History in Early Modern England (San Marino, CA, 2006), pp. 1–30. Kidd, Thomas  S., The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (New Haven, CT, and London, 2007). Kirkham, Donald  H., ‘John Wesley’s “Calm Address”: The Response of the Critics’, Methodist History, 14 (1975), pp. 13–23. Kirkham, Donald  H., Outside Looking In: Early Methodism as Viewed by Its Critics (Nashville, TN, 2019). Kisker, Scott Thomas, Foundation for Revival: Anthony Horneck, the Religious Societies, and the Construction of an Anglican Pietism (Lanham, MD, 2008). Koke, Andrew  M., ‘Communication in an Anglican Empire: Edmund Gibson and His Commissaries, 1723–1748’, Anglican and Episcopal History, 84 (2015), pp. 166–202. Krysmanski, Bernd  W., Hogarth’s ‘Enthusiasm Delineated’: Nachahmung als Kritik am Kennertum, Eine Werkanalyse, Zugleich ein Einblick in das sarkastisch-aufgeklärte Denken eines “Künstlerrebellen” im englischen 18. Jahrhundert, 2 vols (Hildesheim, 1996). Krysmanski, Bernd W., ‘We See a Ghost: Hogarth's Satire on Methodists and Connoisseurs’, Art Bulletin, 80 (1998), pp. 292–310. Laborie, Lionel, Enlightening Enthusiasm: Prophecy and Religious Experience in Early Eighteenth-Century England (Manchester, 2015). Lambert, Frank, “Pedlar in Divinity”: George Whitefield and the Transatlantic Revivals, 1737–1770 (Princeton, NJ, 1994). Lambert, Frank, Inventing the “Great Awakening” (Princeton, NJ, 1999). Lambert, Frank, ‘Whitefield and Enlightenment’, in Geordan Hammond and David Ceri Jones (eds), George Whitefield: Life, Context, and Legacy (Oxford, 2016), pp. 64–81. Lang, Amy Schrager, Prophetic Woman: Anne Hutchinson and the Problem of Dissent in the Literature of New England (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1987). Larsen, Timothy, ‘Defining and Locating Evangelicalism’, in Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 1–14. Leighton, C.  D.  A., ‘The Enlightened Religion of Robert Clayton’, Studia Hibernica, 29 (1995–7), pp. 157–84. Lemay, J. A. Leo, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 1: Journalist, 1706–1730 (Philadelphia, PA, 2006). Lenton, John, Norris, Clive M., and Ryan, Linda A., Women, Preachers, Methodists: Papers from Two Conferences Held in 2019, the 350th Anniversary of Susanna Wesley’s Birth (Oxford, 2020).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

196 Bibliography Lewis, Simon, ‘The Mock-Preacher (1739): More than Just an Anti-Methodist Play?’, Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 59 (2014), pp. 178–85. Lewis, Simon, ‘Devotion and Polemic in Eighteenth-Century England: William Mason and the Literature of Lay Evangelical Anglicanism’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 82 (2019), pp. 379–406. Lewis, Simon, ‘ “Five Pounds for a Swadler's Head”: The Cork Anti-Methodist Riots of 1749–50’, Historical Research, 94 (2021), pp. 51–72. Lewis, Simon, ‘ “The Faithful Remnant of the True Church of England”: Susanna Hopton and the Politico-Theology of the Nonjuring Schism’, Journal of Theological Studies (forthcoming). Lindström, Harald, Wesley and Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation (London, 1950). Loane, Edward, ‘Wesley, Whitefield, and the Church of England’, in Ian J. Maddock (ed.), Wesley and Whitefield? Wesley versus Whitefield? (Eugene, OR, 2018), pp. 62–86. Lovejoy, David S., Religious Enthusiasm in the New World: Heresy to Revolution (Cambridge, MA, 1985). Lucci, Diego, ‘Henry Dodwell the Younger’s Attack on Christianity’, in Wayne Hudson, Diego Lucci, and Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth (eds), Atheism and Deism Revalued: Heterodox Religious Identities in Britain, 1650–1800 (Burlington, VT, 2014), pp. 209–28. Lund, Roger  D., ‘Irony as Subversion: Thomas Woolston and the Crime of Wit’, in R. D. Lund (ed.), The Margins of Orthodoxy: Heterodox Writing and Cultural Response, 1660–1750 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 170–94. Lyles, Albert, Methodism Mocked: The Satiric Reaction to Methodism in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1960). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘Foxes, Firebrands, and Forgery: Robert Ware’s Pollution of Reformation History’, Historical Journal, 54 (2011), pp. 307–46. Mack, Phyllis, Heart Religion in the British Enlightenment: Gender and Emotion in Early Methodism (Cambridge, 2008). Madden, Deborah, ‘Experience and the Common Interest of Mankind: The Enlightened Empiricism of John Wesley's Primitive Physick’, Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies, 26 (2003), pp. 41–53. Madden, Deborah, A Cheap, Safe and Natural Medicine: Religion, Medicine and Culture in John Wesley’s Primitive Physic (Amsterdam, NY, 2007). Maddock, Ian J., Men of One Book: A Comparison of Two Methodist Preachers, John Wesley and George Whitefield (Cambridge, 2012). Maddock, Ian  J., ‘George Whitefield: Christian Perfectionist?’, Reformed Theological Review, 74 (2015), pp. 147–61. Mahaffey, Jerome Dean, Preaching Politics: The Religious Rhetoric of George Whitefield and the Founding of a New Nation (Waco, TX, 2007). Mahaffey, Jerome Dean, The Accidental Revolutionary: George Whitefield and the Creation of America (Waco, TX, 2011). Manning, David, ‘  “That Is Best, Which Was First”: Christian Primitivism and the Reformation Church of England, 1548–1722’, Reformation and Renaissance Review, 13 (2011), pp. 153–93. Marshall, John, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture: Religious Intolerance and Arguments for Religious Toleration in Early Modern and ‘Early Enlightenment’ Europe (Cambridge, 2006). McClymond, Michael  J., and McDermott, Gerald  R., The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford, 2012).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  197 McDowell, Paula, The Women of Grub Street: Press, Politics, and Gender in the London Literary Marketplace, 1678–1730 (Oxford, 1998). McEwan, David, ‘ “I Am Yet Persuaded, You Do Greatly Err”: Whitefield, Wesley, and Christian Perfection’, in Ian  J.  Maddock (ed.), Wesley and Whitefield? Wesley versus Whitefield? (Eugene, OR, 2018), pp. 87–104. McGiffert, Michael, ‘Henry Hammond and Covenant Theology’, Church History, 74 (2005), pp. 255–85. McGonigle, Herbert  B., Christianity or Deism? John Wesley’s Response to John Taylor’s Denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin (Derby, 2012). McGrath, Alister, ‘The Emergence of the Anglican Tradition on Justification 1600–1700’, Churchman, 98 (1984), pp. 28–43. McInelly, Brett C., ‘Mothers in Christ: Mary Fletcher and the Women of Early Methodism’, in Geordan Hammond and Peter  S.  Forsaith (eds), Religion, Gender, and Industry: Exploring Church and Methodism in a Local Setting (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 123–36. McInelly, Brett C., Textual Warfare and the Making of Methodism (Oxford, 2014). McInelly, Brett  C., ‘Whitefield and His Critics’, in Geordan Hammond and David Ceri Jones (eds), George Whitefield: Life, Context, and Legacy (Oxford, 2016), pp. 150–66. Meadows, Philip R., ‘The Journey of Evangelism’, in William J. Abraham and James E. Kirby (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies (Oxford, 2009), pp. 413–30. Midelfort, H.  C.  Erik, ‘The Gadarene Demoniac in the English Enlightenment’, in Emily Michelson, Scott  K.  Taylor, and Mary Noll Venables (eds), A Linking of Heaven and Earth: Studies in Religious and Cultural History in Honor of Carlos M. N. Eire (Farnham, 2012), pp. 49–66. Milton, Anthony, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: The Career and Writings of Peter Heylyn (Manchester, 2007). Minkema, Kenneth, ‘ “The Devil Will Roar in Me Anon”: The Possession of Martha Roberson, Boston, 1741’, in Elizabeth Reis (ed.), Spellbound: Women and Witchcraft in America (Wilmington, DE, 1998), pp. 99–119. Minois, Georges, History of Suicide: Voluntary Death in Western Culture, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Baltimore, MD, 1999). Morris-Chapman, Daniel P., ‘High and Low? The Heritage of Anglican Latitudinarianism in the Thought of John Wesley’, Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture, 5.1 (2019), pp. 83–99. Murrin, John  M., ‘Anglicizing an American Colony: The Transformation of Provincial Massachusetts’ (PhD Thesis, Yale University, 1966). Myers, Joanne  E., ‘  “Supernatural Charity”: Astell, Shaftesbury and the Problem of Enthusiasm’, Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies, 37 (2014), pp. 299–314. Nadler, Steven, A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age (Princeton, NJ, 2011). Nash, David, Blasphemy in the Christian World: A History (Oxford, 2007). Novak, Maximillian E. (ed.), English Literature in the Age of Disguise (London, 1977). Oakes, John  S., Conservative Revolutionaries: Transformation and Tradition in the Religious and Political Thought of Charles Chauncy and Jonathan Mayhew (Cambridge, 2017). O’Brien, Glen, ‘John Wesley’s Rebuke to the Rebels of British America: Revisiting the Calm Address’, Methodist Review, 4 (2012), pp. 31–55. O’Brien, Susan, ‘A Transatlantic Community of Saints: The Great Awakening and the First Evangelical Network, 1735–1755’, American Historical Review, 91 (1986), pp. 811–32.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

198 Bibliography Olson, Mark  K., ‘Whitefield’s Conversion and Early Theological Formation’, in Geordan Hammond and David Ceri Jones (eds), George Whitefield: Life, Context, and Legacy (Oxford, 2016), pp. 29–45. Olson, Mark K., Wesley and Aldersgate: Interpreting Conversion Narratives (Abingdon and New York, 2018). Overton, John Henry, William Law, Nonjuror and Mystic: A Sketch of His Life, Character, and Opinions (London, 1881). Packer, John W., The Transformation of Anglicanism, 1643–1660: With Special Reference to Henry Hammond (Manchester, 1969). Pattison, Mark, ‘Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688–1750’, in Henry Nettleship (ed.), Essays by the Late Mark Pattison: Sometime Rector of Lincoln College, 2 vols (Oxford, 1889), II, pp. 42–118. Pettit, Norman, The Heart Renewed: Assurance of Salvation in New England Spiritual Life (Lewiston, NY, 2004). Pfanner, Dario, ‘Blount, Charles (1654–1693)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Pfizenmaier, Thomas  C., The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675–1729): Context, Sources, and Controversy (Leiden, 1997). Phillpott, Matthew, The Reformation of England’s Past: John Foxe and the Revision of History in the Late Sixteenth Century (New York and Abingdon, 2018). Plumb, J. H., England in the Eighteenth Century, revised ed. (Harmondsworth, 1963). Pocock, J.  G.  A., ‘Enthusiasm: The Antiself of the Enlightenment’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 60 (1997), pp. 7–28. Podmore, Colin, The Moravian Church in England, 1728–1760 (Oxford, 1998). Preston, Joseph H., ‘English Ecclesiastical Historians and the Problem of Bias, 1559–1742’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 32 (1971), pp. 203–20. Quantin, Jean-Louis, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford, 2009). Rack, Henry  D., Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism (London, 1989). Rack, Henry  D., ‘A Man of Reason and Religion? John Wesley and the Enlightenment’, Wesley and Methodist Studies, 1 (2009), pp. 2–17. Raven, James, The Business of Books: Booksellers and the English Book Trade, 1450–1850 (New Haven, CT, and London, 2007). Raymond, Allan, ‘ “I fear God and honour the King”: John Wesley and the American Revolution’, Church History, 45 (1976), pp. 316–28. Rivers, Isabel, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660–1780, Vol. 1: Whichcote to Wesley (Cambridge, 1991). Rivers, Isabel, ‘William Law and Religious Revival: The Reception of A Serious Call’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 71 (2008), pp. 633–49. Rivers, Isabel, ‘Scougal’s The Life of God in the Soul of Man: The Fortunes of a Book, 1676–1830’, in Ruth Savage (ed.), Philosophy and Religion in Enlightenment Britain: New Case Studies (Oxford, 2012), pp. 29–55. Rivers, Isabel, Vanity Fair and the Celestial City: Dissenting, Methodist, and Evangelical Literary Culture in England, 1720–1800 (Oxford, 2018). Robertson, John, The Case for Enlightenment: Scotland and Naples, 1680–1760 (Cambridge, 2005). Roxburgh, Kenneth  B.  E., ‘George Whitefield and the Secession Movement’s Reaction to the Cambuslang Revival’, Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture, 1.2 (2015), pp. 3–15.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  199 Sanna, Guglielmo, ‘  “Uprightness of Heart”: The Doctrine of Religious Sincerity in Eighteenth Century Anglican Thought’, Journal of Religious History, Literature and Culture, 4.1 (2018), pp. 100–23. Schlenther, Boyd  S., ‘Whitefield, George (1714–1770)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2014). Schlenther, Boyd S., ‘Whitefield’s Personal Life and Character’, in Geordan Hammond and David Ceri Jones (eds), George Whitefield: Life, Context, and Legacy (Oxford, 2016), pp. 12–28. Scott, Beatrice, ‘The Dewsbury Riots and the Revd Benjamin Ingham’, Thoresby Society Publications, 56 (1981), pp. 187–95. Scott, Robert F. (ed.), Admissions to the College of St John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge, Vol. 3: July 1715–November 1767 (Cambridge, 1903). Searl-Chapin, Stacey, ‘Francis Lee and the French Prophets: The History of Montanism [1709]’, in John Christian Laursen (ed.), Histories of Heresy in Early Modern Europe: For, against, and beyond Persecution and Toleration (Basingstoke and New York, 2002), pp. 33–49. Seed, John, Dissenting Histories: Religious Division and the Politics of Memory in EighteenthCentury England (Edinburgh, 2008). Sell, Alan P. F., Christ and Controversy: The Person of Christ in Nonconformist Thought and Ecclesial Experience, 1600–2000 (Eugene, OR, 2011). Seymour, Aaron  C.  H., The Life and Times of Selina Countess of Huntingdon, 2 vols (London, 1839). Sharp, Richard, ‘Trapp, Joseph (1679–1747)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Sharp, Richard, ‘Aspects of High Churchmanship in Eighteenth-Century England: Charles Wheatly (1686–1742) and the Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer’, in Kevin L. Cope and Scott P. Gordon (eds), 1650–1850: Ideas Aesthetics and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era, Vol. 19 (New York, 2012), pp. 31–44. Shaw, Jane, Miracles in Enlightenment England (New Haven, CT, 2006). Sirota, Brent S., The Christian Monitors: The Church of England and the Age of Benevolence, 1680–1730 (New Haven, CT, 2014). Sirota, Brent S., ‘Robert Nelson’s Festivals and Fasts and the Problem of the Sacred in Early Eighteenth-Century England’, Church History, 84 (2015), pp. 556–84. Slocum, Kay Brainerd, The Cult of Thomas Becket: History and Historiography through Eight Centuries (Abingdon and New York, 2019). Smith, James David, The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Later Nonjurors: A Revisionist View of the Eighteenth-Century Usages Controversy (Cambridge, 2000). Smith, Lisa, The First Great Awakening in Colonial American Newspapers: A Shifting Story (Plymouth, 2012). Smith, Mark, Religion in Industrial Society: Oldham and Saddleworth, 1740–1865 (Oxford, 1994). Smith, Thomas  W., ‘Authority and Liberty: John Wesley’s View of Medieval England’, Wesley and Methodist Studies, 7 (2015), pp. 1–26. Smith, Timothy L., ‘George Whitefield and Wesleyan Perfectionism’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 19 (1984), pp. 63–85. Snape, Michael  F., ‘Anti-Methodism in Eighteenth-Century England: The Pendle Forest Riots of 1748’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 49 (1998), pp. 257–81. Soergel, Philip M., Miracles and the Protestant Imagination: The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany (New York, 2012). Spurr, John, ‘  “Latitudinarianism” and the Restoration Church’, Historical Journal, 31 (1988), pp. 61–82.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

200 Bibliography Spurr, John, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689 (New Haven, CT, 1991). Stanglin, Keith  D., and McCall, Thomas  H., Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York, 2012). Stanglin, Keith  D., and McCall, Thomas  H., After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology (New York, 2021). Starkie, Andrew, ‘Contested Histories of the English Church: Gilbert Burnet and Jeremy Collier’, in Paulina Kewes (ed.), The Uses of History in Early Modern England (San Marino, CA, 2006), pp. 329–45. Starkie, Andrew, The Church of England and the Bangorian Controversy, 1716–1721 (Woodbridge, 2007). Stephen, Leslie, The History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (London, 1876). Stevens, Ralph, Protestant Pluralism: The Reception of the Toleration Act, 1689–1720 (Woodbridge, 2018). Stout, Harry  S., The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI, 1991). Stout, Harry  S., and Onuf, Peter, ‘James Davenport and the Great Awakening in New London’, Journal of American History, 70 (1983), pp. 556–78. Stromberg, Roland, Religious Liberalism in Eighteenth-Century England (Oxford, 1954). Sykes, Norman, Edmund Gibson Bishop of London, 1669–1748: A Study in Politics and Religion in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1926). Taves, Ann, Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James (Princeton, NJ, 1999). Taylor, Stephen, ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the Church of England, and the Quakers Tithe Bill of 1736’, HJ, 28 (1985), pp. 51–77. Taylor, Stephen, ‘Gibson, Edmund (bap. 1669, d. 1748)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Taylor, Stephen, ‘The Bowman Affair: Latitudinarian Theology, Anti-Clericalism and the Limits of Orthodoxy in Early Hanoverian England’, in Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson (eds), Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832: Essays in Honour of James E. Bradley (Farnham, 2010), pp. 35–50. Tennant, Frederick  R., The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (Cambridge, 1903). Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic (Harmondsworth, 1973). Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1963). Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid  M., ‘Kirkby, John (c.1705–1754)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Tipson, Baird, Inward Baptism: The Theological Origins of Evangelicalism (New York, 2020). Towns, Elmer  L., ‘Martin Luther on Sanctification’, Bibliotheca Sacra, 125 (1969), pp. 115–22. Trapnell, William H., Thomas Woolston: Deist and Madman? (Bristol, 1993). Trevor-Roper, Hugh, ‘From Deism to History: Conyers Middleton’, in Hugh Trevor-Roper, History and the Enlightenment, ed. John Robertson (New Haven, CT, and London, 2010). Unwin, R. W., ‘Charity Schools and the Defence of Anglicanism: James Talbot, Rector of Spofforth 1700–1708’, Borthwick Papers, 65 (1984). Van den Berg, ‘Should Conyers Middleton (1683–1750), Principal Librarian in Cambridge, Be Regarded as a Deist?’, Notes and Queries, 56 (2009), pp. 255–7. Wagner, Ann, Adversaries of Dance: From the Puritans to the Present (Urbana and Chicago, IL, 1997).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

Bibliography  201 Walker, Daniel P., The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (London, 1964). Walker, Daniel P., ‘The Cessation of Miracles’, in Ingrid Merkel and Allen G. Debus (eds), Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe (Washington, D.C., 1988), pp. 111–24. Wallace, Dewey  D., Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation (New York, 2011). Walsh, John  D., ‘Joseph Milner’s Evangelical Church History’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 10 (1959), pp. 174–87. Walsh, John D., ‘Methodism and the Mob in the Eighteenth Century’, in G. J. Cuming and Derek Baker (eds), Studies in Church History, Vol. 8: Popular Belief and Practice (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 213–27. Walsh, John  D., ‘Élie Halévy and the Birth of Methodism’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 25 (1975), pp. 1–20. Walsh, John  D., ‘John Wesley and the Community of Goods’, in Keith Robbins (ed.), Studies in Church History, Subsidia 7: Protestant Evangelicalism: Britain, Ireland, Germany and America, c.1750–c.1950: Essays in Honour of W. R. Ward (Oxford, 1990), pp. 25–50. Walsh, John  D., ‘ “Methodism” and the Origins of English-Speaking Evangelicalism’, in Mark  A.  Noll, David  W.  Bebbington, and George  A.  Rawlyk (eds), Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles and Beyond, 1700–1990 (New York, 1994), pp. 19–37. Walsh, John  D., ‘The Thirty-Nine Articles and Anglican Identity in the Eighteenth Century’, in Christiane d’Haussy (ed.), Quand Religions et Confessions se Regardent (Paris, 1998), pp. 61–70. Walsh, John  D., ‘ “The Bane of Industry”? Popular Evangelicalism and Work in the Eighteenth Century’, in R. N. Swanson (ed.), Studies in Church History, Vol. 37: The Use and Abuse of Time in Church History (Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 223–41. Walsh, John  D., and Taylor, Stephen, ‘The Church and Anglicanism in the “Long” Eighteenth Century’, in John  D.  Walsh, Colin Haydon, and Stephen Taylor (eds), The Church of England, c. 1689–c. 1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 1–64. Walsham, Alexandra, ‘Miracles in Post-Reformation England’, in K. Cooper and J. Gregory (eds), Studies in Church History, Vol. 41: Signs, Wonders, Miracles: Representations of Divine Power in the Life of the Church (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 273–306. Ward, William Reginald, The Protestant Evangelical Awakening (Cambridge, 1992). Ward, William Reginald, Early Evangelicalism: A Global Intellectual History, 1670–1789 (Cambridge, 2006). Weinbrot, Howard  D., Literature, Religion, and the Evolution of Culture, 1660–1780 (Baltimore, MD, 2013). Wheeler, Rachel, To Live upon Hope: Mohicans and Missionaries in the Eighteenth-Century Northeast (Ithaca, NY, and London, 2008). White, Eryn  M., ‘Women, Work, and Worship in the Trefeca Family 1752–1773’, in Geordan Hammond and Peter  S.  Forsaith (eds), Religion, Gender, and Industry: Exploring Church and Methodism in a Local Setting (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 109–22. Wigelsworth, Jeffrey  R., ‘ “God always acts suitable to his character, as a wise and good being”: Thomas Chubb and Thomas Morgan on Miracles and Providence’, in Wayne Hudson, Diego Lucci, and Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth (eds), Atheism and Deism Revalued: Heterodox Religious Identities in Britain, 1650–1800 (Burlington, VT, 2014), pp. 157–72.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 02/11/21, SPi

202 Bibliography Wilson, Chris, ‘The Medieval Church in Early Methodism and Anti-Methodism’, in Peter  D.  Clarke and Charlotte Methuen (eds), Studies in Church History, Vol. 49: The Church on Its Past (Woodbridge, 2013), pp. 192–204. Winnett, A. R., ‘An Irish Heretic Bishop: Robert Clayton of Clogher’, in Derek Baker (ed.), Studies in Church History, Vol. 9: Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 311–21. Witzig, Fred E., Sanctifying Slavery and Politics in South Carolina: The Life of the Reverend Alexander Garden, 1685–1756 (Columbia, SC, 2018). Woolf, Daniel, ‘Historical Writing in Britain from the Late Middle Ages to the Eve of Enlightenment’, in José Rabasa, Masayuki Sato, Edoardo Tortarolo, and Daniel Woolf (eds), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, Vol. 3: 1400–1800 (Oxford, 2012), pp. 473–96. Wright, Dudley, The Epworth Phenomena, to Which Are Appended Certain Psychic Experiences Recorded by John Wesley in the Pages of His Journal (London, 1917). Wright, Gillian, ‘Manuscript, Print, and Politics in Anne Finch’s “Upon the Hurricane”’, Studies in Philology, 111 (2014), pp. 571–90. Wright, John  W., ‘ “Use” and “Enjoy” in John Wesley: John Wesley’s Participation within the Augustinian Tradition’, Wesley and Methodist Studies, 6 (2014), pp. 3–36. Young, Brian W., ‘The Anglican Origins of Newman’s Celibacy’, Church History, 65 (1996), pp. 15–27. Young, Brian  W., Religion and Enlightenment in Eighteenth-Century England: Theological Debate from Locke to Burke (Oxford, 1998). Young, Brian  W., ‘Stebbing, Henry  (bap. 1687, d. 1763)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Young, Brian  W., ‘Warburton, William (1698–1779)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Young, Brian  W., ‘Conyers Middleton: The Historical Consequences of Heterodoxy’, in Sarah Mortimer and John Robertson (eds), The Intellectual Consequences of Religious Heterodoxy, 1600–1750 (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2012), pp. 235–65. Young, Brian W., ‘Theology in the Church of England’, in Jeremy Gregory (ed.), The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Vol. 2: Establishment and Empire, 1662–1829 (Oxford, 2017), pp. 392–428. Zook, Melinda, ‘Religious Nonconformity and the Problem of Dissent in the Works of Aphra Behn and Mary Astell’, in William Kolbrener and Michal Michelson (eds), Mary Astell: Reason, Gender, Faith (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 99–113. Zwierlein, Cornel, ‘Non-Juror Patristic Studies and International Diplomacy: Cyprianic Exchange with the Greek Orthodox Church’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 27 (2020), pp. 473–92.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Abiathar (Jewish high priest)  87–8 Acosta, Uriel  151–2, 160–1 Adams, John  111 Afterlife  3, 56, 117, 150, 156–61, 164–5, 168 annihilationism  156–61, 164–5 prayers for the dead  88, 157 purgatory  88, 95–6, 157 universalism 158–9 Aldborough, Yorkshire  26–7, 161 Alexander of Abonoteichus  127 Alison, Richard  91 Alleine, Joseph  5, 49n.66 Allestree, Richard  37–8, 42–3, 67–8 Ambrose of Milan  51–2 American Revolution  166–7 Anabaptists  7–8, 76–9, 88–9, 97–9 Annet, Peter  8, 108–9, 113–14, 121–4, 138–9 Anticlericalism  7, 29, 76–7, 92–3, 96, 149–50, 157 Antinomianism  1–2, 7, 15, 33–5, 38, 42–3, 50–1, 58–60, 65, 73, 76–8, 89–90, 159, 168–9 Apostles’ Creed  144 Apostolic Constitutions 88 Apostolic succession, doctrine of  20–1, 161–2 Appleton, Nathaniel  121 Apuleius (philosopher)  84–5 Arcadius (Roman emperor)  87–8 Arianism  3–4, 86–7, 91–2, 145–7, 150–4, 163 See also Trinitarianism and anti-Trinitarianism Arminius, Jacobus  64–6, 146–7 Arminianism  3–5, 7, 13, 29–30, 36, 40–1, 43–4, 48–55, 58–9, 61–2, 67, 81, 101, 145–7, 149, 160–1 Asceticism and antinomianism  76–8 at Oxford University  61–4 practised by Anabaptists  76–7 practised by John Wesley  61–7 practised by Puritans  76–7 practised by Roman Catholics  61, 66–7 taught by William Law  61–3 Astell, Mary  20–1

Athanasian Creed  144 Atheism  110, 113–14, 119–20, 122 Augustine of Hippo  50–1, 90–2, 110, 125–6, 148 Austen, Stephen  28 Bancroft, Richard  19, 125–6 Bangorian controversy  29, 87–8, 96, 162–3 Baptism  9, 15, 38–9, 45–7, 49–50, 84–5, 148, 150–1, 153–4, 164–5 Baptists  3–4, 150, 153–6 Barlow, Thomas  38 Barnabas (disciple)  71–2 Barrett, William  52–3 Barrow, Isaac  38–9, 50–1 Bartholomew of Pisa  93–4 Basil of Caesarea  51–2 Bate, James attacks Henry Dodwell  117 on eternal damnation  159 on original sin  149, 164–5 Quakero–Methodism  101, 120, 127–8 Baxter, Richard  104 Bayle, Pierre  162–3 Bebbington Quadrilateral  3–4 Becket, Thomas  94–5 Bedford, Arthur Doctrine of Assurance  27, 53–8 Doctrine of Justification by Faith  29, 51–2 on theatres  73–4, 77–8, 168 Bellarmine, Robert  38–9, 126 Bell Inn, Gloucester  13–14 Bennet, Thomas  115 Benson, Martin  13–14, 147–8 Berkeley, George  111 Berridge, John  50 Bethlehem Hospital (Bedlam)  111–12 Beveridge, William  38, 40–1, 45, 49n.66, 61, 150 Biddle, John  156 Birch, Thomas  66–7 Blackburne, Francis  144–5, 164–5 Blackmore, Barbara  96–7 Blair, Samuel  106–7

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

204 Index Blasphemy Act (1697)  122–3 Blount, Charles  108–9, 111 Boehm, Anton Wilhelm  49n.66 Boehme, Jakob  113–14, 152, 159 Böhler, Peter  13, 53–4, 65 Bonaventure 93–4 Booker, Moore  157 Book of Common Prayer  37–8, 66–7, 88–9 Boston, Thomas  49n.66 Bourne, Henry  73 Bowman, William  26–7, 72–3, 161–3 Brett, Thomas  96–7 Bristol Baldwin Street  139 St Mary Radcliffe  13–14 Browne, Jemmett  26 Browne, Joseph  50–1 Brownists 91 Brownsword, John  71–2 Bryan, Hugh  126 Bryant, George  159 Bull, George Defensio Fidei Nicaenae  86–7, 152–3 Harmonia Apostolica  7, 38–9, 46–7, 49–51, 58–9, 61–2, 149 Bullinger, Heinrich  79 Bunyan, John  5 Burkitt, William  49n.66 Burnet, Gilbert and Henry Scougal  48 An Exposition of the Thirty–Nine Articles  36, 144 History of the Reformation  6, 93–7 Burnet, Thomas  157–9 Burton, Robert  79, 101–2, 110 Burton, Thomas  100–1 Byrom, John  80–1 Caecilian (bishop of Carthage)  90–1 Calvin, John  40–3, 52–3, 146–8, 150, 155–6 Calvinism  3–5, 7, 13, 20–1, 29–30, 36–7, 39–43, 45, 49–59, 69, 81, 117, 145–9, 166 Cambridge Platonists  8–9, 158 Cambridge University Clare Hall  151 Gonville and Caius College  52–3 King’s College  111 Magdalene College  37–8 St John’s College  103 Trinity College  151–2 Trinity Hall  50 Casaubon, Meric  101–2 Cato 114–15 Cave, William  61, 86–7

Cennick, John  23–4 Challoner, Richard  56–8, 85–6 Charles I  70–1, 96, 99–100 Charles II  102–3 Charleston, South Carolina  31–2 Charterhouse School, Surrey  130 Chauncy, Charles  33–4, 60 Cheyne, George  111 Chillingworth, William  8–9 Chrysostom, John  50–1, 85–8, 154–6 Chubb, Thomas  107–9, 137 Church of England Canons  1–2, 12, 18–19, 125–6, 130–2, 155, 168–9 Convocation  19, 90 on exorcisms  125–6 tithe payments  15n.21, 122 Church of Ireland  90, 111, 157 Church, Thomas defends Archbishop Tillotson  44 defends Bishop Bull  49–50 on miracles attacks Conyers Middleton  134–8, 142–3 attacks Arthur Ashley Sykes  132–4 rejects Wesley’s accounts of demoniacs  133–4, 137, 139–43 on original sin  148 on Scougal’s Life of God 48–9 on Wesley’s Arminianism  49–50, 58–9 Churchill, Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough  151 Circumcellions 91–2 Clark, James  90, 99–100 Clarke, John  28 Clarke, Samuel  109, 144–5, 151 Clayton, Robert  145 Coke, Thomas  166–7 Colgan, Thomas  31 Collier, Jeremy  68, 88, 94–6, 157 Collins, Anthony  108–9 Commin, Faithful  103–4 Congregationalists (New England)  30, 33, 99–100 See also Nathaniel Appleton; Charles Chauncy; James Davenport; Jonathan Edwards (Northampton, MA) Connecticut North Groton  31–2 Yale College  33 Constantine the Great  8, 91–2, 125–6, 133–4 Constantius II (Roman emperor)  91–2 Conventicles Act (1670)  18–19 Cooke, Thomas  167 Cooper, Thomas  29 Cork, Ireland  26–8

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Index  205 Cornelius (Pope, 251–3)  87–8 Council of Trent  56–8 Cranmer, Thomas  88 Cromwell, Oliver  99 Crosby, Sarah  19–20 Cummings, Archibald  31, 120 Cuppé, Pierre  158–9 Cutler, Timothy  31–4 Cyprian of Carthage  50–1, 87–8, 136, 153–4 Dancing  32, 67, 72–3 Darrell, John  125–6 Davenport, James  34, 60, 106–7, 121 David (King of Israel)  53 Deacon, Thomas  5, 88, 157 Defoe, Daniel  108 Deists and deism as crypto–papists  119 definition of  108–10 fuelled by ‘enthusiasm’  108, 118–21, 138–9, 168 posing as ‘enthusiasts’  115–19 evangelicalism as a response to  106, 118–19 and melancholia  110–11 on miracles  107–9, 111, 113–14, 125, 127, 133–4, 168 as a pejorative label  109, 118–19, 137–9, 142–3, 146–7 Delamotte, Charles  91–2 Demoniacs 132–4 Gadarene demoniac  133–4 Denham, Suffolk  99 Depden, Suffolk  11–12 Dewsbury, Yorkshire  26–7, 161–2 Diggers 158 Diocletian (Roman emperor)  90–1 Dionysius of Alexandria  20–1, 136 Dissenters baptism and rebaptism of  15, 153–4 Calvinist Dissenters  40–1, 48–9, 58–9, 97, 150 after the Glorious Revolution  100 and the law  19 Rational Dissenters  8–9, 145, 164–5 Restoration Dissenters  16, 89–91 and the Thirty-Nine Articles  145, 150 See also Baptists; Congregationalists (New England); Presbyterians; Quakers Dodwell, Henry (the elder)  87–8 Dodwell, Henry (the younger)  116–18, 168 Dodwell, William  137–8, 160–1 Donatists  90–3, 104–5 Dover, Delaware  32 Downes, John  89–90

Dreams, evangelical views of  106–7 Dummer, Jeremiah  33n.108 Duncombe, William  75–6 Dutartres family  34 Earbery, Matthias  96–7 Edward VI  155–6 Edwards, John  7, 39–43, 45, 49, 58–9, 68, 156 Edwards, Jonathan (Jesus College, Oxford)  155 Edwards, Jonathan (Northampton, MA)  32, 54–5, 106–7, 112, 157–8 Egyptian religion  82–3, 149 Eleusinian mysteries  82–6, 105 Elijah (prophet)  99 Elizabeth I  102–3, 155–6 Emes, Thomas  126 Enlightenment and Counter–Enlightenment  8, 106–8, 123–4 Enthusiasm, definition of  79–81, 114–15 Epworth, Lincolnshire  12, 81, 130 Erasmus 141 Erskine, Sir James  130 Erskine, Ralph  49n.66 Eusebius of Caesarea  6, 85–6 Evangelical, definition of  3–4 Evans, Caleb  166–7 Evans, Theophilus  34, 44, 55–6, 60, 79, 102–5, 120 Exclusion crisis  84–5 Exorcisms  125–6, 130–4, 139 Ezekiel (prophet)  82–3 Feathers Tavern Petition (1772)  144 Felix (bishop of Aptunga)  90–1 Fetter Lane Society  54n.83, 65, 92n.55 Finch, Anne  20–1 Finch, Richard  101 First Council of Nicaea (325)  144, 152–3 Fleet, Thomas  31–2 Fleetwood, William (Anglican clergyman)  125, 127–8, 135–6 Fleetwood, William (anti-Wesley author)  70n.53 Fleming, Caleb  121, 141–2, 163–4 Fletcher, John  36n.3 Fog’s Weekly Journal  63–4, 75–6 Fox, George  101 Foxe, John  6, 93–6 Franciscans  93–4, 104 Francis of Assisi  66–7, 93–4 Francke, August Hermann  5, 14 Franklin, Benjamin  41n.33, 115 French Prophets  90, 126, 137–8 Friendly Society, the  23 Fuller, Thomas  6

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

206 Index Gallus (Roman emperor)  87–8 Gambold, John  19–20 Garden, Alexander  31–2, 34, 42 George I  23–4 George II  23–4, 138 Georgia colony Bethesda orphanage  14 John and Charles Wesley’s mission to  12–13, 47–8, 64, 88 George Whitefield’s ministry in  14, 41 Gibbon, Edward  138 Gibson, Edmund his correspondence with clergymen in America  31–2, 120 his anti–Catholicism  56 Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani 18–19 congratulates Zachary Grey  103–4 attacks Methodism  11–12, 15–19, 21–2, 31, 37, 74–5, 77–8, 129, 148 on recreations  73–4 and Robert Walpole  15 and the Wesley brothers  15 attacks Thomas Woolston  111 Gifford, George  91 Gillies, John  97n.77 Gilliver, Lawton  28 Glanvill, Joseph  107–8, 119, 127–8, 135–6 Glorious Revolution  20–1, 87–8, 96, 119 Gnosticism  89–90, 93 Green, Thomas  33 Grey, Zachary and clerical luxuries  73 friendship with Timothy Cutler  33–4 attacks Dissenters  103–4 probable authorship of Enthusiasm No Novelty 99 The Quaker and Methodist Compared 101 A Serious Address to Lay-Methodists  34, 104 A Short History of the Donatists  33–4, 91–4 Grindal, Edmund  44 Guthlac of Crowland  94–5 Guthrie, James  47–8 Guyse, John  49n.66 Halévy, Élie  1–2, 164–5 Hall, Joseph  49n.66 Halle Orphanage  14 Hallifax, Samuel  50–1 Halyburton, Thomas  49n.66 Hammond, Henry  45–7, 49, 58–9, 61–2, 103–4 Hammond, Thomas  151 Harris, Howell  91–2 Harrison, George  26 Harsnett, Samuel  125–6

Hastings, Selina, Countess of Huntingdon  20–1, 45 Hawkins, Joanna  100–1 Hayter, Thomas  161 Haywood, Thomas  61 Henley, John  110, 115–16 Henry II  94–5 Henry VIII  96 Henry, Matthew  49n.66 Herodotus (Greek author)  82–3 Herrnhut 12 Hertford, Countess of  73–5 Hervey, James  36 Heylyn, Peter  6, 96 Heywood, Henry  154 Hezekiah (King of Judah)  53 Hickes, George  85n.26, 156 Hill, Mary  20–1, 55–6, 111–12 Hill, Rowland  45 Hoadly, Benjamin  29, 87–8, 96, 162–3 Hody, Humphrey  87–8 Hogarth, William  130, 162–3 Homilies  18–19, 37, 40–1, 50–2, 58–9, 129–30, 156 Hooker, Richard  125–6 Hoole, Nathaniel  81 Hopkey, Sophia  13 Hopkins, Ezekiel  45–6, 49n.66, 52–3 Hopton, Susanna  20–1 Horbery, Matthew  160–1 Horne, George  50–1 Houghton-le-Spring, County Durham  29–30 Howie, Alexander  44–5 Hume, David  120, 127 Hurd, Richard  85 Hurst, Nathaniel  19–20 Huss, Jan  95–7 Hutcheson, Francis  146–7 Hutchinson, Anne  33–4 Ignatius of Antioch  20–1 Ilive, Jacob  108–9 Ingham, Benjamin  26–7, 91–2 Inghamites 161–2 Irenaeus 125–6 Isham, Euseby  63–4 Islam  23, 41–2, 44, 110, 114–15, 161–3 Jacobitism  1–2, 5, 20–1, 58, 80–1, 87–8, 100, 138, 157, 166–7 See also Non-Jurors Jamaica, Long Island  31 James I  125–6 James II  84–5, 100 James, Elinor  20–1

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Index  207 James, Epistle of  38–9, 49–51, 65, 139 Jenks, Benjamin  49n.66 Jesuits  38–9, 55–6, 81, 101–3, 119, 130 John, the apostle  71–2, 89–90 John of Leiden  97–9 Johnson, Samuel (lexicographer)  62–3, 114–15 Johnson, Samuel (Whig divine)  85n.26 Johnson, Samuel (Yale ‘apostate’)  33n.108 Julian the Apostate  84–5, 91–2, 110, 135 Justin Martyr  86n.32, 89–90, 136 Kempis, Thomas à  61–3 Kirkby, John  138–9, 142–3, 163 Latitudinarianism definition of  8–9 attacked by Warburton  142–3 Wesley charged with  99–100 Whitefield charged with  100 Laurence, Roger  15n.22 Lavington, George The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared 26 on assurance  55–8 on medieval England  93–5 attacked by Methodists  26, 55–6, 94–5, 118–19, 157 on miracles  135–6 on paganism  82, 84–6, 105 on perfectionism  66–7, 76–7 popularity of  26 on prayers for the dead  157 sources 93–4 on suicide  112 on Wesley’s ‘popish’ books  66–7 his politics  23–4 his alleged visitation charge  23–6 Law, William on the afterlife  159–60 influenced by Jakob Boehme  113–14, 152, 159 his critics  71–2, 75–6, 151–3 on ‘enthusiasm’ and reason  113–16 attacks Bishop Hoadly  87–8, 96 influence on Methodists  5, 60–6, 68–9, 71–2 on perfection and celibacy  61–2, 70–1 popularity of his works  62–3, 75 attacks theatres  68 his Trinitarianism  152–3 engages in the usages controversy  88 Lay evangelists financial insecurity of  16–17 women preachers and exhorters  19–22 Lee, Francis  61, 90 Leslie, Charles  81, 102–3, 115

L’Estrange, Roger  89–90, 101–2 Levellers 120 Lewis, John  73, 96n.71 Limborch, Philipp van  160–1 Llangammarch, Brecknockshire  34 Locke, John  80–1, 154n.46 Lollardy 94–7 London Aldersgate Street  13, 129–30 Bunhill Fields cemetery  126 Foundery chapel  25 Newgate Prison  47–8, 123 Paternoster Row  29 Plaisterers Hall  121 St Alban, Wood Street  111 St Lawrence Jewry  53 St Martin-in-the-Fields  33 St Michael, Wood Street  89–90 St Paul’s, Deptford  101 Long, Thomas  91 Longman, Thomas  34 Louis XIV  90 Love feasts  21–2 Loyola, Ignatius  66–7 Luther, Martin  13, 64–6, 95–7, 125, 150, 155–6 Lutherans and Lutheranism  12 Lyons, J.  115 Madan, Martin  73–4 Maddox, Isaac  6, 103 Magus, Simon  137n.49, 163 Maidstone, Kent  18 Majendie, John James  23 Majorinus (Donatist leader)  90–1 Mandeville, Bernard  108–9 Mary I  53, 122 Mary II  156 Mason, John  49n.66 Mason, Samuel  41–3 Mason, William  4–5, 45, 159, 166 Massachusetts Boston Christ Church  31 Consumerism in  32 First Church  33–4 Braintree 31 First Church, Cambridge  121 Harvard College  32, 39n.23, 106–7 Old South Presbyterian Church, Newburyport 166 Northampton  32–3, 54–5, 112, 157–8 Mather, Cotton  135–6 Matthew, John  97–9 Maud, John  81, 159

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

208 Index Maximilla (Montanist)  90 Medea (Greek mythology)  114–15 Melancholia definition of  110 among deists  110–11 and ‘enthusiasm’  79, 90, 111–14 among evangelicals  54–5, 111–12 among the Oxford Methodists  63–4 Mendicants 93–5 Methodist, definition of  4–5, 12 Methodist Episcopal Church (USA)  166–7 Middleton, Conyers Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers 8, 85–6, 107–8, 134–9, 141–3, 161, 168 on the gift of tongues  128, 139–42 Letter from Rome 83–6 on original sin  149 Miller, Ebenezer  31 Mills, Benjamin  18 Milner, Joseph  97n.77 Minutes controversy  146–7 Miracles biblical  111, 113–14, 123, 125, 132–4, 139–42 cessation of  125–9, 133–8 definition of  125 post-apostolic 134–8 scepticism of  107–9, 111, 113–14, 125, 127, 133–4, 168 Mob attacks on Methodists  10, 23, 44–5 in Cork  27–8 in Exeter  23–4 in Lancashire  23 in Wednesbury  17 Molther, Philipp Heinrich  65 Montanus  79, 90 Montanists and Montanism  76, 88–90, 93 Moravians  4–5, 12–13, 19–20, 26–7, 34, 137–8 and John Wesley  53–4, 58, 65 and George Whitefield  54 More, Henry  8–9, 79, 113–14 Morgan, Thomas  109 Morgan, William  63–4 Moses  82–3, 108, 126, 149 Muggleton, Lodowicke  114–15 Muhammad, see Islam Müntzer, Thomas  97–9 Nalson, John  102–4 Naylor, James  115–16 Neal, Daniel  6, 96n.71, 103–4 Neill, Hugh  32 Nelson, Gilbert  29–30 Nelson, Robert  61, 88–9 New Model Army  101–2 Nicene Creed  144, 152–3

Non-Jurors  5, 61, 68, 75–6, 81, 87–8, 93–7, 100 usages controversy  88, 157 Novatian (antipope, 251–8)  87–8 Oakes, Abraham  160–1 Oakley, Suffolk  29–30 Oates, Titus  102–3 ‘Old Jeffery’  130 Optatus 91 Orby, Lincolnshire  151–2 Origen  50–1, 63–4, 85–6, 136, 148, 158 Original sin  3, 9, 45–6, 61–2, 65–7, 146–56, 160–1, 164–5, 167–8 Owen, Charles  40–1 Owen, John  80 Oxford St Aldate’s  99 St Mary’s  63–4 Oxford Methodists  4–5, 12–14, 26–7, 36, 61, 63–4, 69, 75–6 Oxford University Bodleian Library  87–8 Christ Church  12 Jesus College  155 Lincoln College  12, 63–4 Magdalen College  50–1 New College  23–4 Pembroke College  13–14, 62–3, 99, 153–4 St John’s College  61 Wadham College  87–8 Paris, Matthew  93–4 Parker, Samuel  91 Passive obedience, doctrine of  20–1 Paul, the apostle attacked by Peter Annet  113–14 on eternal punishment  156 on faith as a journey  53 on the gift of tongues  141–2 condemns Gnosticism  89–90 on justification and works  38–9, 42, 49–51, 57–8 Luther’s preface to his Epistle to the Romans  13, 64 on ‘security’ of salvation  52–3 Pearce, Zachary  142 Peirce, James  103 Pelagius 154 Pelagianism  66–7, 147–8 Pelham-Holles, Thomas, 1st Duke of Newcastle 56 Penn, William  100 Pennsylvania Oxford 44–5 Philadelphia  31, 44n.39, 69n.52, 120

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Index  209 Perkins, William  68 Perronet, Vincent  72–3 Perry, William  130 Perseverance of the saints, doctrine of  51–2 Peter, the apostle  89–90 Peter, Hugh  101–2 Piers, Henry  75 Plutarch (Greek philosopher)  82–4 Pomfret, Countess of  73–4 Potter, John  15–16 Presbyterians  40–1, 100, 166 Associate Presbytery (Scotland)  99–100 Covenanters (Scotland)  120 Moderates (Scotland)  30 ‘Querists’ polemic (Philadelphia)  44n.39 condemn Scougal’s Life of God 48–9 Prideaux, Humphrey  161–2 Primitive Christianity  2, 24–5, 53, 61, 74–5, 86–9, 93, 105, 110, 115–16, 167 Priscilla (Montanist)  90 Punderson, Ebenezer  31–2 Puritans  1–3, 5, 7–8, 32, 68, 72–3, 76–7, 93–4, 99–100, 106, 125–6, 167–8 as crypto–papists  101–4 Pyrrhonism 110 Quakers  69–70, 79–81, 100–1, 106, 113–16, 126 as crypto-papists  102–4 hostility to Methodism  100–1 Reeves, Jonathan  28n.83 Religious societies  15, 86–9 Relly, James  159 Renty, Gaston de  61, 66–7 Richardson, Samuel (seventeenth-century Baptist) 156 Richardson, Samuel (eighteenth-century author) 63–4 Rivington, Charles  29, 62–3 Robinson, Robert  3–4 Rust, George  158 Sacheverell, Henry  44, 70–1 Saint-Jure, Jean Baptiste  61 Salisbury, Wiltshire  20–3, 137n.49 Schism in the early church  88–93 as a sin  7–8, 81, 168–9 Scougal, Henry  47–9, 77 Seagrave, Robert  96–7, 117 Servetus, Michael  155–6 Seward, William  91–2, 94–7 Sexual predation, allegations of  10–11, 21–3, 121 Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of  80–1, 108–9, 146–7

Shepard, Thomas  49n.66 Shewell, Thomas  34 Silvester, Tipping  29, 153–4 Skerret, Ralph  17, 45–6 Smalbroke, Richard  11–12 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK)  18, 88–9 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG)  31–2, 44–5 Socinus, Faustus  39–40 Socinianism  156, 163 See also Trinitarianism and anti-Trinitarianism Solomon (King of Israel)  87–8 Somersham, Huntingdonshire  151 Spener, Philipp  5 Spinoza, Baruch  82–3, 115–16, 127 Stebbing, Henry  34–5, 137n.49, 168 A Caution against Religious Delusion 28–9, 31, 45–7, 147–8 attacks Benjamin Hoadly  162–3 attacks Conyers Middleton  134–5 attacks William Warburton  82–3, 140–1 Stephen, Leslie  107–8 Sterry, Peter  158 Sticklepath, Devon  100–1 Stillingfleet, Edward  85–6, 99–100 Stillness controversy  65 St John, Henry, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke  108–9, 140 St Mary’s, Nottingham  125–6 Stonehouse, George  96–7 Stonhouse, Sir James  25–6 Stubbe, Henry  162–3 Suicide 111–12 Swathe, George  99 Sykes, Arthur Ashley  132–4 Synod of the Oak (403)  87–8 Taylor, Jeremy  5, 61–2, 154n.46 Taylor, John  146–7 Temple of Solomon  86–7 Tennent, Gilbert  49n.66 Tertullian  73–4, 85–6, 86n.32, 89–90, 138 Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion  7–9, 37, 40–1, 49, 58–9, 144–5, 151, 154–6 Article I (Of Faith in the Holy Trinity)  144 Article VII (Of the Old Testament)  153–4 Article VIII (Of the Three Creeds)  144 Article IX (Of Original Sin)  66–7, 145, 147–51, 153, 155 Article XI (Of the Justification of Man)  38, 50–1, 153–4 Article XII (Of Good Works)  38, 67, 153–4 Article XIII (Of Works before Justification) 67

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

210 Index Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (cont.) Article XVII (Of Predestination and Election)  36, 164 Article XXVII (Of Baptism)  153–4 Article XXXI (Of the One Oblation of Christ Finished upon the Cross)  36 Tillotson, John defended by anti-Methodists  44–5, 97–9 friendship with Gilbert Burnet  48 attacked by John Edwards  39–40, 42, 58–9, 68, 156 on hell  156–8 popularity of  39–40 on recreations  68, 73 his soteriology  38–9, 49–51 John Wesley’s views of  42n.34 attacked by George Whitefield  23, 25–6, 41–2, 58–9, 68, 97–9, 106–7, 109, 157–8 Tindal, Matthew  108–10, 113–16, 119, 122, 134–5, 148–9 Toft, Mary  130 Toleration Act (1689)  18–19, 111 Toryism  11–12, 20–1, 23–4, 33, 44, 70–1, 84–5, 87–91, 102–5 Transubstantiation, doctrine of  95–6, 145 Trapp, Joseph  34–5 attacked by the ‘Deist in London’  117 on eternal damnation  160 attacks William Law  71–2, 75–6 The Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger of Being Righteous Over-Much  7, 21–2, 27–8, 70–8, 119, 147–8 as a playwright  70–1 his poetry  70–1, 160 and Henry Sacheverell  70–1 Trinitarianism and anti-Trinitarianism  2–4, 9, 11–12, 121, 144–5, 151–3, 163–5, 167–8 See also Arianism; Faustus Socinus; Unitarianism Tucker, Josiah  41–2, 47–8, 77, 118–19 Tully, Thomas  38 Twenty-Five Articles (Methodist Episcopal Church) 36n.3 Unitarianism 3–4 See also Trinitarianism and anti-Trinitarianism Ussher, James  40–1, 150 Varillas, Antoine  96 Victorian historiography of the Georgian Church  2–3, 77–8, 122–3 Volusianus (Roman emperor)  87–8 Wakefield, Yorkshire  161 Waldensians 95–6

Walpole, Sir Robert  15 Warburton, William letter to Thomas Birch  66–7 attacks Lord Bolingbroke  140 Doctrine of Grace  85, 128, 139–43 Julian  127–8, 135–6, 140, 142–3 on Latitudinarianism  142 on paganism  82–6, 105 ‘True Methodist’ manuscript  4–5 Ware, Robert  102–4 Warne, Jonathan  40–1, 58–9, 97, 150 Waterland, Daniel  164–5, 168 Advice to a Young Student  37–8, 156 congratulates Zachary Grey  103–4 on reason, revelation, and antiquity  123–4 Regeneration Stated and Explained 31, 115–16, 153–4 attacks Matthew Tindal  110, 115–16, 119, 148–9 on the Trinity  144–5 Watts, Isaac  3–4, 49n.66 Webster, William  11–12, 103 Weekly Miscellany  11–12, 22–3, 41, 47, 49, 52–3, 55, 66–7, 73–4, 76–7, 89–90, 97–9, 101, 119, 128, 130–2, 148–9 Weller, Samuel  18, 21–2, 31–2, 34–5, 48–9, 72–3 Wells, Edward  49 Wesley, Charles  12–13, 15–16, 19–20, 25, 47–8, 49n.66, 55, 130–2 Wesley, John his Aldersgate experience  3, 13, 53–5, 64–7, 115–16, 129–30, 137, 153–4, 157 on assurance  15, 53–8 on baptism  49–50 on Thomas Becket  94–5 on the canons  19 his catholicity  99–100 on celibacy  65–6 on Christian perfection  54–5, 65–6 interpreted as sinless perfection by his critics  66–7, 69–70 attacks Henry Dodwell  117 reads Jonathan Edwards  54–5 and the ‘Enlightenment’  106–8 on ‘enthusiasm’  80–1 his extemporary prayers  4–5, 15–16, 23 his Georgia mission  12–13, 47–8, 64, 88 and Bishop Gibson  15 on justification  13, 37, 49–52, 57–8 responds to Bishop Lavington  26, 55–6, 94–5, 157 and William Law  61–2, 64–6 his Loyalism  166–7 on Martin Luther  64–5 attacks Conyers Middleton  107–8, 136–9

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 01/11/21, SPi

Index  211 and the Moravians  13, 53–4, 65 his open–air and itinerant preaching  16–17 on original sin  146–8 at Oxford  4–5, 12, 61–4, 88 and Archbishop Potter  15 his prayers for the dead  157 on predestination and election  3–4, 36 on prevenient grace  147 Primitive Physick 106–7 his prison ministry  15, 47–8 on Scougal’s Life of God 47–8 and social elites  20–1 his societies  84–5, 88–9 on the supernatural  106–8, 130–2, 139–40 Thoughts upon Slavery 106–7 on Archbishop Tillotson  42n.34 and the usages controversy  88, 157 on wealth  65–6 and George Whitefield  36–7, 54–5, 69–70, 146–7, 166 and women preachers  19–20 Wesley, Samuel (the elder)  12, 81 Wesley, Samuel (the younger)  15–16 Wesley, Susanna  15–16 Westminster St James’s  144–5 St Margaret’s  23 Wharton, Henry  93–4 Wheatley, Phillis  166 Wheatly, Charles  48–9 Whiggism  15, 23–4, 39–40, 84–5, 87–8, 90 Whiston, Daniel  151 Whiston, John  151–2 Whiston, Thomas  151–5, 160–1 Whiston, William  150–2, 154, 160–1 Whitby, Daniel  154–6 White, George  16–17, 134–6, 142–3 White, Jeremiah  158 Whitefield, George on assurance  52–5 and Bishop Benson  13–14, 147–8 on the canons  19 his catholicity  99–100 his change in character  26n.73 his childhood  13–14, 67 on clerical luxuries  67, 77–8 his conversion  13–14 death of  166 on John Edwards’s works  40–2, 58–9, 68 on eternal damnation  157–8 his extemporary prayers  4–5, 15–16, 23, 92–3 and Bishop Gibson  15–16, 129

his ministry in Georgia  14, 41 and Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon  20–1, 45 his Journal  14–16, 41, 48–9, 67, 70–1, 74–5, 101, 129 on justification  13, 37 and Bishop Lavington  25–6 and William Law  68–9, 71–2 on original sin  146–8 and the Moravians  54 on the new birth  13–14, 129 his open-air and itinerant preaching  14, 16, 19, 23 at Oxford  13–14 and Archbishop Potter  15–16 on predestination and election  3–4, 13, 36, 42–3, 54–5, 146–7 on prophesy  14, 101, 128–9 on sanctification  67, 69–70 on self-denial  67, 69 on Scougal’s Life of God  47–9, 77 attacks Archbishop Tillotson  23, 25–6, 41–2, 58–9, 68, 97–9, 106–7, 109, 157–8 and John Wesley  36–7, 54–5, 69–70, 146–7, 166 attacks The Whole Duty of Man  42–5, 67, 72–3, 97–9 and women  21–2, 121 Whitefield, Thomas  13–14 The Whole Duty of Man defended by anti-Methodists  43–5, 72–3, 97–9 attacked by John Edwards  39–40 on pleasure  67–8, 72–3 popularity of  37–8, 46–7 attacked by George Whitefield  42–5, 67, 97–9 Wilder, John  99 William III  87–8, 100 Williams, Philip  103 Williamson, William  13 Wilmot, John, Earl of Rochester  114–15 Winstanley, Gerrard  158 Witches  106–8, 130 Witchcraft Act (1735)  107–8, 130 Wollaston, William  108–9 Woolston, Thomas  111, 115–16, 122–3, 133–4 Wright, Samuel  49n.66 Wycliffe, John  95–7 Xanthopoulos, Nicephorus Callistus  87–8 Zinzendorf, Count Nicolaus  12