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.

This book examines how Methodism and popular review criticism intersected with and informed each other in the eighteenth century. Methodism emerged at a time when the idea of a ‘public square’ was taking shape, a process facilitated by the periodical press. Perhaps more so than any previous religious movement, Methodism, and the publications associated with it, received greater scrutiny largely because of periodical literature and the emergence of popular review criticism. The book considers in particular how works addressing Methodism were discussed and critiqued in the era’s two leading literary periodicals – The Monthly Review and The Critical Review. Focusing on the period between 1749 and 1789, the study encompasses the formative years of popular review criticism and some of the more dramatic moments in the textual culture of early Methodism. The author illustrates some of the specific ways these review journals diverged in their critical approaches and sensibilities as well as their politics and religious opinions. The Monthly’s and the Critical’s responses to the Methodists’ own publishing efforts as well as the anti-Methodist critique are shown to be both multifaceted and complex. The book critically reflects on the pretended neutrality, reasonableness, and objectivity of reviewers, who at times found themselves negotiating between the desire to regulate literary tastes and the impulse to undermine the Methodist revival. It will be relevant to scholars of religion, history and literary studies with an interest in Methodism, print culture, and the eighteenth century.

This book examines eighteenth-century novels, with a focus on the skills that readers were expected to master in order to read these works. It analyses how such skills were shaped by the cultural and political climate of the time. Starting with a review of the debate on education that began in England in the eighteenth-century and the way it was influenced by philosophers such as John Locke, it then discusses the demands that novelists like Defoe, Fielding, Sterne, Godwin, Smollett and Richardson made concerning this subject. Various scientific, philosophical, religious and linguistic theories are used to examine the issues above: Chaos Theory, Wittgenstein’s idea of “logical space”, Grice’s cooperative principle, Aristotle’s poetics and de Molinos’ Quietism.

The relationship between English conformity and the Arminian tradition has long defied neat explanation. In Bisschop's Bench, Samuel D. Fornecker charts the incompatible theological agendas into which post-Restoration Arminian conformity proliferated and challenges the thesis that a monolithic Arminianism marched steadily from the post-Restoration period into the early Hanoverian. Fornecker examines the theological life of the English Church by paying particular attention to the Arminian conformists who accentuated Reformed divinity in an unprecedented display of disambiguation from the Dutch Arminian tradition and those who exercised authority from the Bishops' bench. By demonstrating the scope of intra-Arminian divergence and the negatively defined consensus that united traditionalist clergy otherwise at odds over grace and predestination, Bisschop's Bench provides an illuminating perspective on the Arminian tradition in the political, confessional, and educative contexts of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century England.

This book employs a global history approach to John Wesley’s (1703–1791) political and social tracts. It stresses the personal element in Wesley’s political thought, focusing on the twin themes of ‘liberty and loyalty’. Wesley’s political writings reflect on the impact of global conflicts on Britain and provide insight into the political responses of the broader religious world of the eighteenth century. They cover such topics as the nature and origin of political power, economy, taxes, trade, opposition to slavery and to smuggling, British rule in Ireland, relaxation of anti-Catholic Acts, and the American Revolution. Glen O’Brien argues that Wesley’s political foundations were less theological than they were social and personal. Political engagement was exercised as part of a social contract held together by a compact of trust. The book contributes to eighteenth-century religious history, and to Wesley Studies in particular, through a fresh engagement with primary sources and recent secondary literature in order to place Wesley’s writings in their global political context.

The eighteenth-century bishops of the Church of England and its sister communions had immense status and authority in both secular society and the Church. They fully merit fresh examination in the light of recent scholarship, and in this volume leading experts offer a comprehensive survey and assessment of all things episcopal between the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 and the early nineteenth-century. These were centuries when the Anglican Church enjoyed exclusive establishment privileges across the British Isles (apart from Scotland). The essays collected here consider the appointment and promotion of bishops, as well as their duties towards the monarch and in Parliament. All were expected to display administrative skills, some were scholarly, others were interested in the fine arts, most were married with families. All of these themes are discussed, and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and the American colonies receive specific examination.

The contributors to Situation Critical argue for the continued importance of critique to early American studies, pushing back against both reductivist neo-empiricism and so-called postcritique. Bringing together essays by a diverse group of historians and literary scholars, editors Max Cavitch and Brian Connolly demonstrate that critique is about acknowledging that we are never simply writing better or worse accounts of the past, but accounts of the present as well. The contributors examine topics ranging from the indeterminacy of knowledge and history to Black speculative writing and nineteenth-century epistemology, the role of the unconscious in settler colonialism, and early American writing about masturbation, repression, religion, and secularism and their respective influence on morality. The contributors also offer vital new interpretations of major lines of thought in the history of critique—especially those relating to Freud and Foucault—that will be valuable both for scholars of early American studies and for scholars of the humanities and interpretive social sciences more broadly. Contributors. Max Cavitch, Brian Connolly, Matthew Crow, John J. Garcia, Christopher Looby, Michael Meranze, Mark J. Miller, Justine S. Murison, Britt Rusert, Ana Schwartz, Joan W. Scott, Jordan Alexander Stein