[89]. “The Portrait of St. Paul.”

[90]. Jonathan Crowther, President of the Methodist Conference in 1819, relates, in his unpublished autobiography, the following anecdote: “Mrs. Fletcher told me that one Sunday, after the forenoon service, Mr. Preston, a gentleman farmer near Madeley, very grossly insulted Mr. Fletcher in the churchyard, and evinced great enmity against his faithful ministry. In his sermon in the afternoon, Mr. Fletcher said, he had a powerful impression that before the next Sabbath God would give a signal mark of His displeasure against the enemies of His cause and truth. The week was drawing to a close; nothing remarkable had happened; but on Saturday night, Mr. Preston, when returning home from market in a state of intoxication, fell from his horse and died on the spot.”

[91]. Wesley’s “Life of Fletcher.”

CHAPTER V.
THREE QUIET, SUCCESSFUL YEARS.
1762–1765.

IN the autumn of 1762 Methodism in London was in perilous confusion. Two years before, Wesley had appointed Thomas Maxfield, one of his first preachers, to meet a select band, who professed to be entirely sanctified. Some of the members of this band soon had dreams, visions and impressions, as they thought, from God; and Maxfield, instead of repressing their whimsies, encouraged them, so that their vagaries were soon regarded as proofs of the highest state of grace. Some of the preachers rebuked these visionaries. This excited resentment, and they refused to hear their rebukers preach. They became the avowed followers of Maxfield, who told them they were not to be taught by man, and especially by those who had less grace than themselves. George Bell, converted in 1758, and sanctified in 1761, joined them, and became wilder than the wildest of them. The result was, when Wesley returned to London in October, 1762, he found the Society there in a disgraceful uproar, and the followers of Maxfield and Bell formed into a sort of detached connexion.[[92]] They called themselves “the witnesses.” Wesley and his brother were in great distress. The latter wrote to Fletcher, and received the following reply:—

“Madeley, September 20, 1762.

“‘Crede quod habes, et habes,’ is not very different from those words of Christ, ‘What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.’ The humble reason of the believer, and the irrational presumption of the enthusiast, draw this doctrine to the right hand or the left; but to split the hair—here lies the difficulty. I have told you that I am no party man; I am neither for nor against the witness for Christian perfection without examination. I complain of those who deceive themselves; I honour those who do honour to their profession; and I wish we could find out the right way of reconciling the most profound humility with the most lively hopes of grace. I think you insist on the one and Maxfield on the other; and I believe you both sincere in your views. God bless you both; and if either of you goes too far, may the Lord bring him back!”[[93]]

“Madeley, November 22, 1762.

“Brother Ley[[94]] arrived here yesterday, and confirms the melancholy news of many of our brethren overshooting sober and steady Christianity in London. I feel a great deal for you and the Church in these critical circumstances. Oh that I could stand in the gap! Oh that I could, by sacrificing myself, shut this immense abyss of enthusiasm which opens its mouth among us!