Notes:
Sermon 102: Of Former Times
This sermon provides an interesting sample of Wesley as a ‘theologian of culture’, concerned with various correlations between the Christian world view and emergent current issues. One such issue had become popular and controversial by the 1780s: the idea of ‘progress’. Traditional philosophies of history (orthodox, Puritan, ‘primitivist’, ‘restorationist’, etc.) had premised some sort of ‘golden age of mankind’, long since decayed—or, alternatively, a pristine ‘apostolic age’ of authentic Christian faith and praxis, long since corrupted. As sophisticated a theologian as Robert South, in preaching from Eccles. 7:10,
Sermons (1823), No. XIV, Vol. V, pp. 233-49.
1st edn., 1576; Eng. trans, by Robert Ashley, 1594.
The emergence of ‘the idea of progress’ has been traced, credibly enough, by J. B. Bury in his essay under that title (1932), with typically scant interest in its theological aspects or development. But this was precisely where Wesley’s view of the problem found its focus. For example, he knew George Hakewill’s rambling but pioneering Apologie or Declaration of the Power and Providence of God in the Government of the World… (1627, 1630, 1635), with its argument to the effect that Christianity had made a decisive contribution to human progress over pagan times (cf. Bury’s grudging praise of Hakewill’s interest in social progress, p. 92). Closer to Wesley’s time there had been Bishop Thomas Sprat’s vision in his History of the Royal Society (1667) of the foreseeable ‘absolute perfection of the true philosophy [of nature]’. Wesley also knew Joseph Glanvill’s short essay, Plus Ultra, or the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge since 03:441the Days of Aristotle (1668), which had celebrated the unprecedented progress in useful knowledge generated by the new sciences. What interested Wesley most in Glanvill was the extension of the idea to the newly discovered ‘Transatlantic World’; this had been one of his recurring visions, too.
But the idea as a general conversation-piece had been popularized in France and England by two widely discussed works of Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle: Dialogues of the Dead,
1st edn. in French, 1683; Eng. trans, by John Hughes, 1708.
1st edn. in French, 1686; Eng. trans, by Mrs. Aphra Lehn; four edns. from 1688 to 1760.
The written sermon was produced in June 1787, in the midst of Wesley’s long stay in Ireland that year; it is dated ‘Dublin, June 27’, which would have been the day following Thomas Coke’s return from a missionary journey to America: ‘We were agreeably surprised with the arrival of Dr. Coke, who came from Philadelphia in nine-and-twenty days, and gave us a pleasing account of the work of God in America.’
JWJ, June 26, 1787.
Ecclesiastes 7:10
Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days mere better than these? For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.
11. It is not easy to discern any connection between this text and the context, between these words and either those that go before or those that follow after. It seems to be a detached, independent sentence, like very many in the Proverbs of Solomon. And like them, it contains a weighty truth, which deserves a serious consideration. Is not the purport of the question this? It is not wise to inquire into the cause of a supposition unless the supposition itself be not only true but clearly proved so to be. Therefore it is not wise to inquire into the cause of this supposition that ‘the former days were better than these’, because, common as it is, it was never yet proved, nor indeed ever can be.
22. Perhaps there are few suppositions which have passed more currently in the world than this, that the former days were better than these; and that in several respects. It is generally supposed that we now live in the dregs of time,
Cf. No. 52, The Reformation of Manners, II.1 and n.
In the following month Wesley would be reading ‘Mr. [Francis] Dobbs’s [Summary of] Universal History’, and giving it a mixed appraisal. Dobbs, an Irish politician, was also an ardent millenarian and some parts of his History (4 vols., 1787-88) left Wesley sceptical: ‘It gave me a clearer view of ancient times than ever I had before, but I still doubt of many famous incidents which have passed current for many ages. To instance in one: I cannot believe there was ever such a nation as the Amazons in the world. The whole affair of the Argonauts I judge to be equally fabulous…’ (JWJ, July 26, 1787).
33. Before we consider the truth of these suppositions, let us inquire into the rise of them. And as to the general supposition, that the world was once in a far more excellent state than it is, may we not easily believe that this arose (as did all the fabulous accounts of the golden age) from some confused traditions concerning our first parents and their paradisiacal state? To this refer many of the fragments of ancient writings which men of learning have gleaned up. Therefore we may allow that there is some truth in the supposition; seeing it is certain, the days which Adam and Eve spent in paradise were far better than any which have been spent by their descendants, or ever will be till Christ returns to reign upon earth.
44. But whence could that supposition arise that men were formerly of a larger stature than they are now? This has been a generally prevailing opinion, almost in all nations and in all ages. Hence near two thousand years ago the well-known line of Virgil,
“ Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus.Virgil, Aeneid, xii.900: the context is Turnus’s discovery of a landmark stone that not even a dozen men could lift, ‘men of such frames as earth produces now’.
Hence near a thousand years before him, Homer tells us of one of his heroes throwing a stone which hardly ten men could lift, οἷοι νῦν βροτοί—‘such as men are now’.
An exaggeration of the interval between Virgil and Homer; and notice that in the Iliad, v.304, the stone is such as ‘not two men could bear, such as mortals are now’. See also Wesley’s letter to his brother Charles, July 9, 1766.
Cf. Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, on ‘giants’, and his list of witnesses to them (Caesar, Tacitus, Florus, Saxo Grammaticus, et al.). Chambers’s main point is that giants are, and always have been, rarities and marvels; ‘antique examples’ may be matched by ‘modern examples’ (e.g., ‘porters and archers belonging to the emperor of China, fifteen foot high’, etc.).
Deut. 3:11.
1 Sam. 17:4.
Deut. 9:2.
Cf. William Derham, Physico-Theology (1716), pp. 291-92, where the evidence of the ancient pyramids, catacombs, monumental tombs, etc., is surveyed (from classical history and modern travel stories) and the conclusion drawn that ‘there is no decay in nature (though the question is as old as Homer); men of this age are of the same stature as they were near three thousand years ago….’ For example, the Emperor Augustus was five feet, seven inches, whereas Queen Elizabeth was five feet, nine inches. See also Samuel Clarke, A Mirrour or Looking-Glasse (1654), pp. 608-11 (a description of the Egyptian pyramids), ‘…whereby it appears that men’s bodies are now almost as big as they were three thousand years ago’. In his Survey, I.100 ff., Wesley reviews the same evidence and reasserts the same conclusion; e.g., p. 151: ‘Five feet and an half may be thought the ordinary height of man’—Wesley was five feet, three inches—and ‘seventy years the ordinary period of his life’—Wesley died at age eighty-seven. Cf. Joseph G. Wright, ‘Notes on Some Portraits of John Wesley’, WHS, III.189; see also No. 54, ‘On Eternity’, §8 and n.
55. But how then came this supposition to prevail so long and so generally in the world? I know not but it may be accounted
Both 1787 and 1788 read ‘recounted’, surely an unnoticed error.
Wesley had grown up with historic landmarks on every side; e.g., the Charterhouse School in London was in sight of Smithfield and close to St. Andrew’s, Holborn. He had entered the school on Jan. 28, 1714 (aged ten) and left it in June 1720, just before his seventeenth birthday.
66. But there is likewise a general supposition that the understanding of man and all his mental abilities were of a larger size in the ancient days than they are now; and that the ancient inhabitants of the earth had far greater talents than the present. Men of eminent learning have been of this mind, and have contended for it with the utmost vehemence. It is granted that many of the ancient writers, both philosophers, poets, and historians, will not easily be excelled, if equalled, by those of later ages. We may instance in Homer and Virgil as poets, Thucydides and Livy as historians. But this meantime is to be remarked concerning most of these writers—that each of them spent his whole life in composing and polishing one book. What wonder then if they were exquisitely finished, when so much labour was bestowed upon them! I doubt whether any man in Europe or in the world has taken so much pains in finishing any treatise. Otherwise it might possibly have equalled, if not excelled, any that went before.
Cf. R. W. Harris, Reason and Nature in Eighteenth Century Thought, pp. 237-38, citing Edward Young (‘the poet’) as having posed the same question with regard to the ancients, with a similar conclusion. John Dunton, editor of The Athenian Mercury, complained of his brother-in-law, Samuel Wesley, Sen., that ‘he usually wrote too fast to write well’; see Dunton’s Life and Errors (Westminster, J. Nichols, Son, and Bentley, 1818), I.164.
77. But that the generality of men were not one jot wiser in ancient times than they are at the present time we may easily gather from the most authentic records. One of the most ancient nations concerning whom we have any certain account is the Egyptian. And what conception can we have of their understanding and learning when we reflect upon the objects of their worship? These were not only the vilest of animals, as dogs and cats, but the leeks and onions
Cf. Isaac Hawkins Browne, ‘Of the Immortality of the Soul’, translated from the Latin by Richard Grey, in English Poems, IX.12 (London, 1754):
See also John Hutchinson, Works, IV (‘G’).262, for a reference to ‘Egyptian religion’; cf. Works, I (‘B’).93-96.
Altered in SOSO to ‘we lately had’; if Wesley was personally acquainted with Hutchinson, he left no other record of this fact.
Cf. Spearman and Bate, Editors’ Preface to Hutchinson’s Works, I.xi: ‘[Hutchinson]…offended sometimes with his tongue, spoke sometimes with more warmth than is strictly justifiable, and [often allowed] unguarded expressions to drop….’
88. ‘However, did not the people of former times greatly excel us in virtue?’ This is the point of greatest importance; the rest are but trifles in comparison of it. Now is it not universally allowed that every age grows worse and worse? Was it not observed by the old heathen poet, almost two thousand years ago,
Cf. Horace, Odes, III.vi.46-48, orig., ‘mox daturos’. Wesley’s ‘plain prose’ is a very free translation, less subtle than Horace’s intended satire.
That is, in plain prose: ‘The age of our parents was more vicious than that of our grandfathers. Our age is more vicious than that of our fathers. We are worse than our fathers were, and our children will be worse than us.’
99. It is certain, this has been the common cry from generation to generation. And if it is not true, whence should it arise? How can we account for it? Perhaps another remark of the same poet may help us to an answer. May it not be extracted from the general character which he gives of old men?
03:447Cf. Horace, Art of Poetry, ll. 173-74: ‘Hard to please, querulous, praising the times when they were boys, and censorious reprovers of those who are young now.’
Is it not the common practice of old men to praise the past and condemn the present time? And this may probably operate much farther than one would at first imagine. When those that have more experience than us—and therefore, we are apt to think, more wisdom—are almost continually harping upon this, the degeneracy of the world; [when] those who are accustomed from their infancy to hear how much better the world was formerly than it is now (and so it really seemed to them when they were young, and just come into the world, and when the cheerfulness of youth gave a pleasing air to all that was round about them), the idea of the world’s being worse and worse would naturally grow up with them. And so it will be till we, in our turn,
AM (1787), p. 571: ‘And so it would be till we, in our turn, grew peevish.’ In SOSO ‘would’ is changed to ‘will’, and although ‘grew’ remains, it seems clear that this should have been changed to ‘grow’.
1010. But let us endeavour, without prejudice or prepossession, to take a view of the whole affair. And upon cool and impartial consideration it will appear that the former days were not better than these; yea, on the contrary, that these are, in many respects, beyond comparison better than them. It will clearly appear that as the stature of men was nearly the same from the beginning of the world, so the understanding of men in similar circumstances has been much the same from the time of God’s bringing a flood upon the earth unto the present hour. We have no reason to believe that the uncivilized nations of Africa, America, or the South Sea Islands, had ever a better understanding, or were in a less barbarous state than they are now. Neither, on the other hand, have we any sufficient proof that the natural understanding of men in the most civilized countries, Babylon, Persia, Greece, or Italy, were stronger or more improved than those of the Germans, French, or English now alive. Nay, have we not reason to believe that by means of better instruments we have attained that knowledge of nature which few, if any, of the ancients ever 03:448attained? So that in this respect the advantage (and not a little one) is clearly on our side: and we ought to acknowledge, with deep thankfulness to the Giver of every good gift, that the former days were not to be compared to these wherein we live.
1111. But the principal inquiry still remains. Were not ‘the former days better than these’ with regard to virtue? Or to speak more properly, religion? This deserves a full consideration.
By religion I mean the love of God and man, filling the heart
Cf. No. 25, ‘Sermon on the Mount, V’, IV.13 and n.
Archbishop of Cambrai (1651-1715), a major figure in the development of mysticism in eighteenth-century France. Wesley had published some of his ‘Letters’ in the Christian Lib. (Vol. XXXVIII), and recommended his Télémaque for use in the Kingswood School. For other references to Fénelon, cf. Nos. 106, ‘ On Faith, Heb. 11:6’, II.3; and 123, ‘On Knowing Christ after the Flesh’, §14; see also Wesley’s letter to Ann Bolton, Sept. 27, 1777.
Thomas Ken (1637-1711), teacher, hymn writer, Bishop of Bath and Wells, famed for his piety and Christian courage. He denied Nell Gwyn’s access to Charles II, he defied James II’s order to read the royal ‘Declaration of Indulgence’ (1687), but he also declined to take the oath of allegiance to William of Orange (1689). He carried his shroud with him on his travels and, like John Donne before him, put it on whenever he fell ill. His morning and evening hymns may be more familiar than his name (e.g., ‘Praise God, from whom all blessings flow,’ etc.). Wesley included some of these hymns in A Collection of Psalms and Hymns (1738), and abridged Ken’s Exposition on the Church Catechism (1686) in the Christian Lib., Vol XXV.
William Bedell (1571-1642), a remarkable Bishop of Kilmore and Ardagh, revered even by the Irish. He was fortunate to have Gilbert Burnet for his biographer; his Life appeared in 1685, and Wesley had abridged it for Vol. XXVII of the Christian Lib. Later he used excerpts from the abridgement for AM, 1778-79.
1212. We need not extend our inquiry beyond the period when life and immortality were brought to light by the gospel.
See 2 Tim. 1:10.
But setting aside this short age of golden days, I must repeat the question: ‘Which of the former days were better than the present in every known part of the habitable world?’
03:4491313. Was the former part of this century better either in these islands or any part of the continent? I know no reason at all to affirm this. I believe every part of Europe was full as void of religion in the reign of Queen Anne as it is at this day. It is true, luxury increases to a high degree in every part of Europe. And so does the scandal of England, profaneness, in every part of the kingdom. But it is also true that the most infernal of all vices, cruelty, does as swiftly decrease. And such instances of it as in times past continually occurred are now very seldom heard of. Even in war that savage barbarity which was everywhere practised has been discontinued for many years.
1414. Was the last century more religious than this? In the former part of it there was much of the form of religion. And some undoubtedly experienced the power thereof.
See 2 Tim. 3:5.
See Lam. 4:1.
A reflection of Wesley’s bitter criticism of the Erastian corruptions of religion in the Restoration and also during ‘the Whig Supremacy’ (1714-60).
See No. 68, ‘The Wisdom of God’s Counsels’, §10 and n.; see also No. 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.9 and n.
Cf. Nos. 22, ‘Sermon on the Mount, II’, III.18 and n.; and 92, ‘On Zeal’, §1 and n.
1515. We may step back above a thousand years from this without finding any better time. No historian gives us the least intimation of any such till we come to the age of Constantine the Great. Of this period several writers have given us most magnificent 03:450accounts. Yea, one eminent author—no less a man than Dr. Newton,
Thomas Newton (1704-82); cf. No. 61, ‘The Mystery of Iniquity’, §27 and n.
Rev. 21:2. Cf. Eusebius’s ecstatic account of the dinner given by the Emperor Constantine for the bishops at Nicea: ‘One might have thought that a picture of Christ’s kingdom was thus shadowed forth…’; Life of Constantine, III.15 (NPNF, II, I.524).
1616. But I cannot in any wise subscribe to the bishop’s opinion in this matter. So far from it that I have been long convinced from the whole tenor of ancient history that this very event—Constantine’s calling himself a Christian, and pouring in that flood of wealth and power on the Christian church, the clergy in particular—was productive of more evil to the church than all the ten persecutions put together. From the time that power, riches, and honour of all kinds were heaped upon the Christians, vice of all kinds came in like a flood, both on the clergy and laity. From the time that the church and state, the kingdoms of Christ and of the world, were so strangely and unnaturally blended together, Christianity and heathenism were so thoroughly incorporated with each other that they will hardly ever be divided till Christ comes to reign upon earth.
Note Wesley’s ambivalence toward this assumption that the church is a corpus mixtum (a mixed society) and will always continue to be; cf. No. 104, ‘On Attending the Church Service’, §13 and n.
Cf. Rev. 9:11; 20:1; cf. also No. 32, ‘Sermon on the Mount, XII’, I.7 and n.
1717. ‘However, were not the days antecedent to this, those of the third century, better beyond all comparison than any that followed them?’ This has been almost universally believed. Few doubt but in the age before Constantine the Christian church was in its glory, worshipping God in the beauty of holiness. But was it so indeed? What says St. Cyprian, who lived in the midst of that century, a witness above all exception, and one that sealed the truth with his blood? What account does he give of what he saw with his own eyes, and heard with his own ears? Such a one as would almost make one imagine he was painting to the life, not the ancient church of Carthage, but the modern church of Rome. 03:451According to his account, such abominations even then prevailed over all orders of men that it was not strange God poured out his fury upon them in blood, by the grievous persecutions which followed.
Cf. above, No. 61, ‘The Mystery of Iniquity’, §25 and n.
1818. Yea, and before this, even in the first century, even in the apostolic age, what account does St. John give of several of the churches which he himself had planted in Asia? How little were those congregations better than many in Europe at this day? Nay, forty or fifty years before that, within thirty years of the descent of the Holy Ghost, were there not such abominations in the church of Corinth as were ‘not even named among the heathen’?
Cf. 1 Cor. 5:1 (Notes).
2 Thess. 2:7.
1919. To affirm this, therefore, as commonly as it is done, is not only contrary to truth, but is an instance of black ingratitude
Cf. John Dryden’s drama, The Spanish Fryar; Or the Double Discovery, Act I, sc. 1: ‘You brand us all with black ingratitude.’ Wesley read this in Sept. 1729.
SOSO, 1788, ‘of every denomination show such forbearance to each other?’ Cf. OED for ‘denomination’ as a new term in the eighteenth century.
An echo of the age-old history of religious persecutions and of the comparative triumph of toleration in late Georgian England; cf. Wilbur K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England; Attainment of the Theory and Accommodations in Thought and Institutions (1664-60) (Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1940). Wesley ignores the fact, however, that the Test and Corporation Acts against Dissenters still had the force of law; he also seems to have repressed his memories of the ‘Lord Gordon (anti-Catholic) riots’ of 1778, and his complicity in them.
2020. If it be said, ‘Why, this is the fruit of the general infidelity, 03:452the Deism which has overspread all Europe,’ I answer, Whatever be the cause, we have reason greatly to rejoice in the effect. And if the all-wise God has brought so great and universal a good out of this dreadful evil, so much the more should we magnify his astonishing power, wisdom, and goodness herein. Indeed, so far as we can judge, this was the most direct way whereby nominal Christians could be prepared, first, for tolerating, and, afterwards, for receiving, real Christianity. While the governors were themselves unacquainted with it, nothing but this could induce them to suffer it. O the depth both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
Rom. 11:33.
An interesting recognition of the positive effects of the principle of the separation of church and state. Wesley connects it here with Deism; it was also a belated triumph of one of the central ecclesial principles of the ‘Radical Reformation’; cf. G. H. Williams, The Radical Reformation.
2121. But above all this, while luxury and profaneness have been increasing on the one hand, on the other benevolence and compassion toward all the forms of human woe have increased in a manner not known before, from the earliest ages of the world. In proof of this we see more hospitals, infirmaries, and other places of public charity have been erected, at least in and near London, within this century, than in five hundred years before.
Cf. George Rudi, Hanoverian London, 1714-1808, pp. 84-86, for a list of hospitals and infirmaries that were newly built or extensively rebuilt in the eighteenth century. See also No. 99, The Reward of Righteousness, for Wesley’s testimony to the sense of philanthropy in the latter half of the century.
2222. I cannot forbear mentioning one instance more of the goodness of God to us in the present age. He has lifted up a standard in our islands both against luxury, profaneness, and vice of every kind. He caused near fifty years ago as it were a grain of mustard seed to be sown near London, and it has now grown and put forth great branches, reaching from sea to sea. Two or three 03:453poor people met together in order to help each other to be real Christians. They increased to hundreds, to thousands, to myriads, still pursuing their one point, real religion, the love of God and man ruling all their tempers, and words, and actions.
Another instance of Wesley’s effortless triumphalism with regard to the historic import of the Methodist Revival. Cf. Nos. 63, ‘The General Spread of the Gospel’, §18; 81, ‘In What Sense we are to Leave the World’, §19; 104, ‘On Attending the Church Service’, §17; 107, ‘On God’s Vineyard’, I.5; 112, On Laying the Foundation of the New Chapel, §4, II.11; and 122, ‘Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity’, §8. See also Wesley’s letters to John Fletcher Jan. 15, 1787; to Mrs. Woodhouse July 30, 1773; to a clergyman, June 18, 1787; and to James Barry, Sept. 26, 1787; and ‘A Plain Account of the Kingswood School’, in AM (1781), IV.381-84, 432-35, 486-93; ‘Thoughts Upon a Late Phenomenon’, §§7-10, in AM (1789), XII.46-49; and A Farther Appeal, Pt. III, I.4, 7 (11:274-76 in this edn.). For Wesley’s Anglican triumphalism, see Nos. 38, ‘A Caution against Bigotry’, II.4; and 33, ‘Sermon on the Mount, XIII’, III.1.
2323. Shall we now say, ‘The former days were better than these’? God forbid we should be so unwise and so unthankful. Nay, rather let us praise him all the day long; for he hath dealt bountifully with us. No ‘former time’ since the apostles left the earth has been ‘better than the present’. None has been comparable to it in several respects. We are not born out of due time,
1 Cor. 15:8.
See Ps. 110:3; 2 Cor. 6:2; Col. 1:11.
Eph. 4:24.
Cf. Rev. 22:20.
Dublin, June 27, 1787
Place and date as in AM.
How to Cite This Entry
Bibliography:
, “.” In , edited by . , 2024. Entry published February 25, 2024. https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon102.About this Entry
Entry Title: Sermon 102: Of Former Times