Search

Chapter 7 explores anti-dogmatist attacks on Methodism. To Latitudinarians and heterodox ‘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.

John Wesley and George Whitefield are remembered as founders of Methodism, one of the most influential movements in the history of modern Christianity. Characterized by open-air and itinerant preaching, eighteenth-century Methodism was a divisive phenomenon, which attracted a torrent of printed opposition, especially from Anglican clergymen. Yet most of these opponents have been virtually forgotten. Anti-Methodism and Theological Controversy in Eighteenth-Century England is the first large-scale examination of the theological ideas of early anti-Methodist authors. By illuminating a very different perspective on Methodism, Simon Lewis provides a fundamental reappraisal of the eighteenth-century Church of England and its doctrinal priorities. For anti-Methodist authors, attacking Wesley and Whitefield was part of a wider defence of ‘true religion’, which demonstrates the theological vitality of the much-derided Georgian Church. This book, therefore, places Methodism firmly in its contemporary theological context, as part of the Church of England’s continuing struggle to define itself theologically.

By showing that discussions of deism featured prominently in the printed attacks on Wesley and Whitefield, Chapter 5 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’. 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. 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.

The Introduction summarizes the aims and methodologies of the book. It discusses the ways in which historians have approached not only anti-Methodism in eighteenth-century England but also the theology of the Georgian Church of England. The Introduction proceeds to state how this study enhances the existing secondary literature on these two interconnected subjects, while also justifying the book’s chronological scope. It also illuminates the complexity of defining the terms ‘evangelicalism’ and ‘Methodism’, the latter of which conjured up different images for different people in eighteenth-century England. The Introduction closes by providing a summary of each chapter.

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 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.

Attitudes to miracles was one 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.

This chapter stresses the importance of history. Far from viewing Methodism as an innovative movement, anti-Methodist authors associated John Wesley and George Whitefield’s ministries with the past. There was, however, no single conception of the past which united the theologically diverse range of authors who attacked Methodism. Thus, there was no homogeneous definition of ‘Methodism’ on which opponents could agree. This disparity was a product of the fierce contests over the doctrinal makeup of the eighteenth-century Church of England. For orthodox divines, attacking Methodism formed merely part of a wider defence of ‘true religion’—an agenda that also underpinned their attacks on deism and Dissent. As has been shown throughout this book, the various doctrinal concerns about Methodism—such as antinomianism and schism—should not be viewed in isolation from the various socio-political objections that were posed to Wesley and Whitefield. Nevertheless, these evangelical leaders shared many of their orthodox opponents’ doctrinal priorities, thus illuminating the theological vitality of the Georgian Church.

Chapter 3 further highlights the convergence of sociological and theological ideas by exploring responses to Methodist asceticism. It shows that Wesley’s 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.

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, dissemination, 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 riotous behaviour. Such perceptions illuminate the convergence of socio-political and doctrinal concerns about Methodism—a point which is stressed throughout the book.

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. 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.