church never could have retained the Methodists within her pale. As soon as the Society was formed, the first step of separation was taken. The polity of Methodism had a life separate from that of the church; and living bodies may be friendly, but cannot amalgamate.

The Methodist movement had now reached a point at which it became impossible to arrest it. In America, Wesley had already been compelled to ordain presbyters, and to institute bishops. There a church, distinct and independent, was established. In Scotland Wesley had been compelled to ordain preachers.* In England the same necessity drew near. The attempt to keep the Methodists ostensibly within the Church was fast breaking down. Those, who had joined the Connection from the side of Dissent, disliked the Church; and, rather than attend its ritual, they formed Independent congregations. Methodists, who had been originally members of the Church, followed their example. They refused to attend the services of clergymen whose lives and preaching they disapproved. John Wesley had from the first respected these scruples.† As early as 1760, when some Methodist preachers had yielded to the importunity of their flock, and had admininistered baptism and the Lord's Supper, John Wesley, though opposed to the practice, had given way.‡ In 1786, he formally permit

*C. Wesley's Life, ii.

† Ibid. ii. p. 187.

P.

401.

Ibid. ii. pp. 401-410.

ted service to be held in Methodist chapels during Church hours, in certain cases which were so numerous as to cover almost every possible scruple or objection.*

He justifies this by arguments which were soon adopted by the body. His grand argument was this :"The minister of the parish, wherein we dwell, neither loves, nor preaches the gospel. He walks in the way to hell himself, and teaches his flock to do the same. Can you advise them to attend his preaching? I cannot advise them to it ; —what then can they do on the Lord's day? Suppose no other Church be near, do you advise them to go to a Dissenting meeting, or to meet in their own preaching-house? Where this is really the case, I cannot blame them if they do. Although therefore I earnestly oppose the general separation of the Methodists from the Church, yet I cannot condemn such a partial separation in particular cases."

Again he says, in 1788;-"This kind of separation has already taken place, and will inevitably spread, though by slow degrees. Those ministers so called, who neither love nor preach the gospel, I dare not say, are sent of God. Where one of these is settled, many of the Methodists dare not attend his ministry;-so if there be no other Church in the neighbourhood, they go to Church no more. This is the case in a few places

When the minister is wicked. When he preaches Arianism, or doctrines as bad. When there are not churches enough in the town, or the Church is two or three miles off.

already, and it will be the case in more; and no one can justly blame me for this, neither is it contrary to any of my professions." Wesley had given a practical proof of his opinions two years before. "The last time I was at Scarborough," he says, in a letter to his brother, "I earnestly exhorted the people to go to Church, and I went myself,—but the wretched minister preached such a sermon, that I could not, in conscience, advise them to hear him any more.*

In 1789 John Wesley gave the last touch to the act of separation, by ordaining three of his lay-preachers to administer sacraments in England. Nor did he do this secretly, he avowed it, and gave the preachers under his hand a testimonial of their Ordination. And he justified this from the practice of the antient Church.

Charles Wesley was less bold, but not more consistent. He and Mr. Grimshaw were scandalized when the lay-preachers acted as clergymen, or received orders from a Presbyter. They enforced on the preacher the duty of abstaining from pastoral functions, and they urged the people to attend Church. But Charles Wesley avoided the society of worthless or faithless clergymen,— and had no scruple in preaching or administering sacraments, in places unconsecrated, in dioceses where he was himself unlicensed. Nor did he hesitate to mix with the liturgy extemporary prayer and oral exhortation. These

*Charles Wesley's Life, Vol. ii. pp. 410, 411.

+ Ibid. p. 413.

Ibid. pp. 131, 132, 152, 19.

1

were irregularities, but there were others more remarkable. Charles had done more than this at an early period of the movement. When John Wesley could say with truth that he had never administered sacraments out of the Church, Charles had already broken this ecclesiastical rule. One of the Bristol clergy had rejected from the Lord's Table himself and several of his earlier converts. Scandalized and grieved, Charles took the poor men to the school-house at Kingswood, and there administered to them the sacrament. So clear was it, that order could not hold him when the interest of his mission was touched. In Scotland the intolerance of Episcopacy had its natural effect in accelerating the irregularities of the Methodists. The Episcopal Clergy had refused the Methodists the sacrament, unless they would renounce Methodism. It was in order to meet this evil that Wesley ordained Lay-Preachers, and he did this for Scotland at the same time that he ordained them for the West Indies.

It was always with a fixed purpose that Wesley guided his varying tactics. He liked order, but he sought public reformation; and if order stood in the way, he trod it down without compunction.

Charles characterized his brother's policy, while comparing it with his own: his own maxim was, first the Church, then the Methodists; his brother's, first the Methodists, then the Church. John Wesley's view was

more correctly expressed by himself when, in answer to his brother's remonstrance, he took the step of consecrating Dr. Coke.

"I see no use of you and me disputing together. You will not, and cannot help me yourself; do not hinder those that can and will. I must and will save as many souls as I can, while I live, without being careful what may possibly be when I die."

But combined with these causes which led to separation from the Church, there were other reasons. Ordained clergymen, when they joined the Methodists, found a protection in their clerical character. The magistrate did not dare to arrest them as vagrants, or to impress them as soldiers; even the rabble had respect for their gowns; but the Lay-Preachers were unprotected. The Wesleys, anxious to avoid dissent, had forbad the preachers to take oaths, get a certificate, or ask a license for their meeting-houses. Yet, without these, they were exposed to fine and imprisonment. The question was soon brought to issue. Some magistrates refused to admit them to the benefit of the toleration-act, unless they would declare themselves Dissenters,* and avow that they scrupled to use the ordinances of the Church. And as they could not say this, in Lincolnshire the magistrates imposed heavy fines on them, while in other counties they prosecuted them.

Thus on all sides the pressure of events overpowered

* Southey, Vol. ii. pp. 535. C. Wesley's Life, ii. pp. 190-196.