Jaith which purifieth the heart and overcometh the world. But I cannot allow that justifying faith is such an assurance, or necessarily connected therewith, because if justifying faith necessarily implies such an explicit assurance of pardon, then every one who has it not, and every one so long as he has it not, is under the wrath and under the curse of God. But this is a supposition contrary to Scripture, as well as to experience." 13 This matured view of the question he enter Cained during the rest of his life, but he always taught the blessing of assurance as the privilege and right of every true believer.

The doctrine of entire Sanctification was unreservedly asserted, but with several important cautions against its imprudent treatment either in the pulpit or in personal life. To the question, suppose one had attained to this, would you advise him to speak of it? it was replied: "Not to them who know not God; it would only provoke them to contradict and blaspheme: nor to any without some particular reason, without some particular good in view; and then they should have an especial care to avoid all appearance of boasting, and to speak more loudly and convincingly by their lives than they can do by their tongues." It was asked, "Does not the harshly preaching perfection tend to bring believers into a kind of bondage or slavish fear? · It does. Therefore we should always place it in the most amiable light, so that it may excite only hope, joy, and desire." It was further asserted that “we may continue in the joy of faith even till we are made perfect. Since holy grief does not quench this joy, and since even while we are under the cross, while we deeply partake of the sufferings of Christ, we may rejoice with joy unspeakable." These cautions were pushed even further. It was insisted that to "teach believers to be continually poring upon their inbred sin, is the ready way to make them forget that they were purged from their former sins. We find by experience it is so, or to make them undervalue and account it a little thing. Whereas,

18 Myles's Chron. Hist. of Methodism p. 54.

VOL. I.-21

indeed, (though there are still greater gifts behind,) this is inexpressibly great and glorious."

14

Of the discussions on ecclesiastical questions we have no traces in the current Minutes, but in the "Disciplinary Minutes" are evidences of important progress. The term church is asserted to mean in the New Testament “a single congregation." 15 A "national church" is pronounced "a merely political institution." It is conceded that the "three orders" of deacons, presbyters, and elders, obtained early in the Church, but are not enjoined in Holy Scripture; that unformity of Church government did not exist till the age of Constantine, and was not taught by the sacred writers, for the reason that variety in ecclesiastical administration was necessary for the varied circumstances of different ages and countries. We have also positive proof that Wesley had abandoned his belief in the divine right of Episcopacy. He declares in these Minutes that it was not asserted in England till about the middle of Queen Elizabeth's reign; and that till then all bishops and clergy in England continually allowed and joined in the ministrations of those who were not episcopally ordained. The arguments of the "Irenicum" and "The Primitive Church" had now evidently prevailed with him, and not these so much, perhaps, as the providential arguments afforded by the increasing exigencies of his great work, and by his growing catholicity. He still, however, repels the charge of schism. "You profess," continue these Minutes, "to obey both the rules and the gov ernors of the Church, yet in many instances you do not obey them. How is this consistent? It is entirely consistent. We act at all times on one plain uniform principle. We will obey the rules and governors of the Church when

14 By a singular error in the Bound Minutes (Minutes of the Methodist Conferences from the first, etc., London, 1812) the report on Sanctification is numbered as pertaining to the next Conference, held in 1748. There are no Minutes whatever of that Conference except in the recently discovered "Disciplinary Minutes." See Smith's Hist., II, 3. Myles 1 Chron. Hist.) gives it correctly.

15 Smith's History of Methodism, II, 3.

ever we can consistently with our duty to God. Whenever we cannot, we quietly obey God rather than man. But why do you say you are thrust out of the churches? Has not every minister a right to dispose of his own church? He ought to have, but in fact he has not. A minister desires that I should preach in his church, but the bishop for bids him. That bishop then injures him, and thrusts me out of the Church." Still thus denied the churches, they resolved to limit less than ever their field-preaching; reasons were discussed for extending it, and after recording some sixty assistants as in the work, besides coadjutors among the regular clergy, they dispersed to exemplify these convic– tions in the length and breadth of the land.

On the second of June, 1748, the fifth Conference was held in the Tower-street Chapel, London. 16 John Wesley, Charles Wesley, William Felton, Charles Manning, Thomas Maxfield, John Jones, Thomas Meyrick, John Trembath, Edward Perronet, son of the vicar of Shoreham, Jonathan Reeves, Richard Thomas Bateman, John Green, William Tucker, Howell Harris, Samuel Larwood, James Jones, and William Shent were present. No theological question was examined, as the time was mostly employed in discussing the interests of Kingswood School. Nine circuits were reported: London with ten towns or counties, Bristol with thirteen, Cornwall with nine, Ireland with four, Wales with four, Shropshire with seven, Cheshire with five, Yorkshire with nine, and Newcastle with ten.

The Minutes of this session afford one, and but one, very important indication of the progress of Wesley's opinions respecting the distinct mission of Methodism. Taken in connection with his improved views on ecclesiastical questions, it has not a little significance. At a previous Conference it was resolved, as has been shown, to preach without forming new societies, especially in the larger communities.

16 As the Octavo Minutes contain no records of this session, we are indebted for them exclusively to the "Disciplinary Minutes." Smith's Hist., etc., II, 3.

It was hoped that the Methodists might be thus kept in closer sympathy with the Established Church, and that tendencies to secession might be prevented. It was a concession to the many devout men who approved the opinions and usefulness of Wesley and his fellow-laborers, but who recoiled at the prospect of a Methodist sect, which, by its separation from the national Church, could not fail to carry with it the sympathy of a large proportion of the common people, and might in the future shake the very foundations of the Establishment. This policy was now abandoned. It had been tried, and was found to be pernicious. The clergy generally continued their hostility to Methodism. They neglected, and in many cases maltreated the thousands of converts which it sent to their communion altars, and proffered to their pastoral care. "We have preached," say the Minutes, “for more than a year, without forming societies, in a large tract of land from Newcastle to Berwick-on-Tweed, and almost all the seed has fallen upon the wayside; there is scarce any fruit of it remaining." Among the inconveniences arising from this course, it was affirmed that, first, the preacher could not give proper exhortations and instructions to those who were convinced of sin, unless he had opportunities of meeting them apart from the mixed, unawakened multitude; second, they could not watch over one another in love unless thus united together; third, nor could the believers build up one another, or bear one another's burdens. Wesley still, however, clung to the Church, though it was dif ficult for him, with even such concessions, to prevent many of his people from resenting, by open dissent, its stately and obstinate disdain of their laborious lay preachers, as well as of the Methodistic clergy, who were unimpeachably orthodox, and the most useful ministers of the realm.17

17 At a later date, Wesley, in alluding to the arguments of Methodists who advocated open dissent, says: "I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these arguments to my own satisfaction. As yet we have not taken one step further than we were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this that we have preached abroad, prayed extempore, formed societies, and permitted preachers who were not exis

The Conference adjourned, counseling "a closer union of the assistants with each other."

About eighteen months later, November 16, 1749, it assembled again in London.18 A measure was now suggested which would have tended to consolidate the societies, and sever them, practically, still more from the Established Church. It was proposed that the society in London should be considered the mother church; that every assistant in country circuits should send reports to the stewards of the London circuit, who should arrange a regular correspondence with all the provincial societies. With this scheme was to be combined an annual collection throughout the land for the relief of necessitous societies. Wesley was at first greatly pleased with the plan. "Being thus united," he said, "in one body, of which Christ Jesus is head, neither the world nor the devil will be able to separate us in time or in eternity." Its possible tendency toward a separation from the Established Church was probably his reason for not ef fectively adopting it. He proposed, however, to try it by appointing one of his "Helpers" on each circuit to take charge of its societies, giving him exclusively thereafter the title of “Assistant," a term which had hitherto been applied, interchangeably with "Helper," to all his lay preachers. Nine such were designated to the circuits, which still contin

copally ordained. And were we pressed on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty rather wholly to separate from the Church than to give up any one of these points; therefore, if we cannot stop a separation without stopping lay preachers, the case is clear, we cannot stop it at all." Letter to Rev. Mr. Walker, September 24, 1755. Arminian Magazine, 1779.

18 The Octavo Minutes cannot be relied on for a distinct report of the proceedings of this session, for many of the proceedings attributed to this year belong to other sessions. They are a compendium of the Minutes from 1748 to 1763, placed together for convenience, but without discrimination. For the real Minutes of 1749 we are indebted to a manuscript report appended to the recently-discovered "Disciplinary Minutes." (Smith's Hist. of Meth., II, 3.) As the Minutes were not usually printed, written copies alone were presented to new members of the Conference at their admission on probation. (Watson's Wesley, chap. 2) This important manuscript is doubtless one of those copies.

.