Dental Hygienists Guide to Nutritional

Care 5th Edition Stegeman Test Bank

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/dental-hygienists-guide-to-nutritional-care-5th-editi
on-stegeman-test-bank/
Dental Hygienists Guide to Nutritional Care 5th Edition Stegeman Test Bank

Chapter 01: Overview of Healthy Eating Habits

Stegeman: The Dental Hygienist’s Guide to Nutritional Care, 5th Edition

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. Each is true regarding designations for professionals in the field of nutrition, except one.
Which is the exception?
a. A nutritionist usually works in a public health setting.
b. A registered dietitian (RD) must pass a national registration examination.
c. An RD who works in public health can call herself a registered dietitian nutritionist
(RDN).
d. A dietetic technician, registered (DTR) works under supervision of a registered
nurse.
ANS: D
A dietetic technician, registered (DTR) normally works under the supervision of a
registered dietitian. Like the registered dietitian, the DTR must pass a national registration
examination and receive continuing education. Although the DTR can complete a 4-year
curriculum, there also is a 2-year option. Regarding the distinction between the registered
dietitian and the nutritionist, all registered dietitians are nutritionists, but not all
nutritionists are registered dietitians.

DIF: Comprehension REF: p. 2 OBJ: 1

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

2. Nutrition is the process by which living things use food to obtain nutrients for energy,
growth and development. Energy is the measure of heat equivalent to 1000 cal needed to
do work.
a. Both statements are true.
b. Both statements are false.
c. The first statement is true; the second is false.
d. The first statement is false; the second is true.
ANS: C
The first statement is true; the second is false. The process by which living things use food
to obtain nutrients for energy is nutrition. Energy is the ability or power to do work,
whereas a kilocalorie (kcal) is a measure of heat equivalent to 1000 cal. The second
statement confuses energy with the definition of a kilocalorie.

DIF: Comprehension REF: p. 2 OBJ: 2

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

3. Increase in consumption of which of the following has the greatest effect on an increase in
body weight?
a. Carbohydrate intake
b. Protein intake
c. Fat intake
d. Kilocalorie intake
ANS: D

Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters

 There is little evidence that any individual calorie food group (carbohydrate, protein, and
fat) has a unique effect on body weight. Kilocalories are the key factor to controlling body
weight—not the proportions of fat, carbohydrates, and protein, but balancing caloric intake
with energy expenditure.

DIF: Recall REF: pp. 8-9 OBJ: 6

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

4. Each is true regarding weight maintenance, except one. Which is the exception?
a. 1600 to 2400 kcal are recommended for adult women.
b. 2000 to 3000 kcal are recommended for adult men.
c. Kilocalories from alcohol do not count because they are expended rapidly.
d. A patient needing 2000 kcal/day should limit saturated fat intake to 20 g or less.
ANS: C
Like energy-producing nutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, and fats), kilocalories from
alcohol must be balanced with energy expenditure. In short, kilocalories from alcohol
contribute to weight gain in the same manner as any other substance consumed.

DIF: Comprehension REF: p. 14 OBJ: 7

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

5. Dietary guidelines recommend lowering caloric requirements for older adults because
metabolic rate increases with age.
a. Both the statement and the reason are correct and related.
b. Both the statement and the reason are correct but are not related.
c. The statement is correct, but the reason is not correct.
d. The statement is not correct, but the reason is correct.
e. Neither the statement nor the reason is correct.
ANS: C
The statement is correct, but the reason is not correct. Metabolic rate decreases, not
increases, with age. For this reason, the caloric requirements are lowered. Failure to lower
the caloric intake without an accompanying increase in expenditure of energy will result in
weight gain. For older individuals, this can be very serious because joint and cardiac
function can be further stressed.

DIF: Comprehension REF: p. 9 OBJ: 6

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

6. A kilocalorie is the heat equivalent of how many calories?

a. 10
b. 100
c. 1000
d. 10000
ANS: C
1000 cal are equivalent to 1 kilocalorie (kcal).

DIF: Recall REF: p. 3 OBJ: 2

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition
 7. Each nutrient provides energy, except one. Which is the exception?
a. Proteins
b. Carbohydrates
c. Fats
d. Vitamins
e. Alcohol
ANS: D
Vitamins do not provide energy, nor do minerals. Although proteins, carbohydrates, fats,
and alcohol provide energy, the body cannot use energy from the energy-containing
components of food without adequate amounts of vitamins and minerals.

DIF: Recall REF: p. 3 OBJ: 2

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

8. Increasing the variety of foods often causes nutrient excesses and toxicities. A dietary
change to eliminate or increase intake of one specific food or nutrient usually alters the
intake of other nutrients.
a. Both statements are true.
b. Both statements are false.
c. The first statement is true; the second is false.
d. The first statement is false; the second is true.
ANS: D
The first statement is false; the second is true. Increasing the variety of foods is
recommended to reduce the probability of developing isolated nutrient deficiencies,
nutrient excesses, and toxicities resulting from nonnutritive components or contaminants
in any particular food. For example, because red meats are an excellent source of iron and
zinc, decreasing cholesterol intake by limiting these meats can reduce dietary iron and zinc
intake.

DIF: Comprehension REF: p. 3 OBJ: 2

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

9. Precursors are substances from which an active substance is formed. Nonessential

nutrients cannot be synthesized from other substances.
a. Both statements are true.
b. Both statements are false.
c. The first statement is true; the second is false.
d. The first statement is false; the second is true.
ANS: C
The first statement is true; the second is false. Nonessential nutrients can be used by the
body; they either are not required or can be synthesized from dietary precursors. Carotene
is a precursor to vitamin A. It is found in fruits and vegetables and is converted to an
active form of vitamin A by the liver.

DIF: Recall REF: p. 3 OBJ: 2

TOP: NBDHE, 3.0 Biochemistry and Nutrition

10. Which nutrient is the most important?

a. Protein
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
need, then, have these of the strongest warnings, lest they be entangled
therein, and perish!”
On October 1, he returned to London, and says: “I found our house in
ruins, great part of it being taken down, in order to a thorough repair. But
as much remained as I wanted; six foot square suffices me by day or by
night.” He adds: “All this week, I endeavoured to confirm those who had
been shaken, as to the important doctrine of Christian perfection, either
by its wild defenders, or wise opposers, who much availed themselves of
that wildness.”
He then made a three weeks’ tour to Norwich, where he read the rules
of the society, adding: “Those who are resolved to keep these rules may
continue with us, and those only.” He told them he would immediately
put a stop to Methodist preaching in the time of Church service; and
wound up by saying: “For many years I have had more trouble with this
society, than with half the societies of England put together. With God’s
help, I will try you one year longer; and I hope you will bring forth better
fruit.”
On October 29, Wesley returned to London, where he continued the
remainder of the year. He visited the classes, and found that, since
February, one hundred and seventy-five persons had left the society, one
hundred and six of whom were Thomas Maxfield’s friends. All his
leisure hours he employed in reading over, with the London preachers,
the publications of himself and his brother; considering the objections
that had been made against them; and correcting whatever they judged
wrong either in matter or expression.
Hitherto Wesley had consorted but little with Dissenting ministers. He
had visited Doddridge, and had been in friendly communication with
Gillies and a few of the presbyterians of North Britain; but that was well-
nigh all. With a heart big enough to embrace all men, without distinction
of nation, sect, or colour, he had, hitherto, intentionally or otherwise,
been as exemplary an observer of the etiquette of episcopal caste as
almost any high church ritualist could wish. In December, 1763, he
added to his friends the presbyterian minister of Staplehurst, in Kent. A
few months before, the Rev. Jacob Chapman, the minister alluded to,
wrote to Wesley, saying: “I am a minister of the presbyterian
denomination; but my Master has enabled me to love real Christians of
all denominations. I have reason to bless God for my acquaintance with
the Methodists; they have been great blessings to me and my dear wife.
The Lord has inclined us to receive the preachers most freely and
joyfully.”[552] Mr. Chapman was not an episcopalian; but he was a
Christian, and, on December 7, Wesley went to visit him. He writes: “Mr.
Chapman, who loves all that love Christ, received us gladly. At six, the
congregation, gathered from many miles round, seemed just ripe for the
gospel; so that, contrary to my custom in a new place, I spoke merely of
‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”
Immediately after Wesley’s return to London, Mr. Chapman wrote him
as follows.
“S , December 10, 1763.
“R S ,—You shall be always most heartily
welcome to the best part of my house, for the sake of the Lord
Jesus Christ, whose you are, and whom you serve. Whatever
preachers you send, we shall joyfully receive, be their
opinions what they may. I would like those best, who are most
like Christ. I very greatly approve of the rules of the society,
and very fervently love you; and I trust never to let a day pass
without praying for you. I make no doubt, the lay preachers
are sent by our Lord as extraordinary messengers; and that
His design is, that they should go about calling poor sinners
to repent and believe the gospel, and consequently that they
are not to settle anywhere. This is a very difficult office. The
Lord strengthen them for the arduous undertaking.”[553]
The friendship, thus begun, was long continued. Mr. Chapman’s house
and chapel were open to the Methodist preachers. He himself became a
member of the Methodist society, and was as docile and humble as
though he had been one of the most illiterate among the people. His
stipend was £80 per annum; he lived on £20, and gave away the rest in
charity. He almost, if not entirely, used a vegetarian diet, and principally
for the purpose of being able to relieve the necessities of his poorer
brethren. He survived Wesley; and when visited by Robert Miller, about
the year 1790, gave him the heartiest welcome, saying: “I have
entertained the preachers for seven-and-twenty years, and hope they will
never forsake me while I live.” Mr. Miller adds: “Mr. Chapman was one
of the best men I ever knew”;[554] and good old John Reynolds testified:
“Of all the men of God, with whom I have had the happiness to be
acquainted, in a life of more than threescore years, I have never known
one who appeared to possess so much of the mind of Christ as Mr.
Chapman.”[555]
The world is full of changes. Man’s circle of acquaintance alters in
character, though not materially in size. New friends spring up on earth;
but old friends are removed to heaven. Thus it was with Wesley. In 1763,
he became acquainted with Mr. Chapman; in the same year, he was
bereaved of Dr. Byrom.
Byrom was the son of a linen draper, and born at Kersal, near
Manchester, in 1691. After being educated in his native town, and at the
Merchant Taylors’ school in London, he was, at the age of sixteen,
admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge. In 1714, he was
elected fellow of his college, and, in the same year, became a contributor
to Addison’s Spectator. Two years later, he resigned his college
preferment, and went to Montpelier, to study physic. On his return to
England, he assumed the office of teacher of shorthand writing, of which
he was preeminently a master. On the death of his brother, he came into
possession of the family estate, at Kersal, and gave himself up to the
enjoyment of domestic and social felicity. He was a profound admirer of
the great English mystic, William Law; but was also a man of unaffected
piety. At a time when much obloquy was attached to the name of
Methodist, he was not ashamed of being known as the particular friend
of Wesley. He died September 28, 1763.[556] His only son died ten years
afterwards.[557]
In many respects, Byrom was a remarkable man. In stature, he was
one of the tallest men in England; so that, in the course of fifty years, he
appears to have met only two others taller than himself.[558] In
stenography, he was the greatest proficient then existing. The extent,
variety, and accuracy of his literary studies were amazing, as is shown by
his manuscripts still extant. There seems hardly to have been any
language, of which the literature was of any value, which he did not
master; and his writing of Hebrew, Arabic, etc., was such as the engraver
might vainly attempt to imitate.[559] His poetry, quaint but pungent, is too
well known to need description. As a specimen of it, and of his politics,
the following is far from being bad:

“God bless the King, and bless the Faiths Defender;

God bless—no harm in blessing—the Pretender;
But who Pretender is, and who is King,
 Why, bless us all, that’s quite another thing.”[560]

Wesley inserted not a few of his poems in the old Arminian

magazines; and writes: “It cannot be denied, that he was a man of
uncommon genius, a man of the finest and strongest understanding; and,
yet, very few even of his countrymen and contemporaries have so much
as heard his name.”[561] “He has all the wit and humour of Dr. Swift,
together with much more learning, and, above all, a serious vein of piety.
A few things, in the second volume of his poems, are taken from Jacob
Behmen; to whom I object, not only, that he is obscure, and not only, that
his whole hypothesis is wholly unsupported either by Scripture or
reason; but also, because the ingenious madman over and over
contradicts Christian experience, reason, Scripture, and himself. But
setting these things aside, we have” [in Dr. Byrom’s poems,] “some of
the finest sentiments that ever appeared in the English tongue; some of
the noblest truths, expressed with the utmost energy, and the strongest
colours of poetry.”[562]
One or two other matters, belonging to this period of Wesley’s history,
must be mentioned.
The increase of Methodism was one of Wesley’s difficulties, as well as
his great encouragement. His societies, especially the larger ones,
naturally wished to receive the sacrament in their own chapels: but as
Wesley had no clerical helper, entirely devoted to the work, except his
brother; and as he himself was almost always itinerating, it was
physically impossible to meet the demands of London, Bristol, and other
places. Neither of the Wesleys was prepared to allow the unordained
preachers to administer, and they themselves were utterly unable to
attend to the reasonable claims of all that wanted them. Hence the
difficulty. This was partly met, when Thomas Maxfield received
ordination from an Irish bishop. For several years, Maxfield was
stationed in London, to read the liturgy and to administer the sacrament
in Wesley’s absence. But now Maxfield had left him, and his
embarrassment was greater than ever. One of his principal helpers was
John Jones, a man of considerable learning, of good abilities, and of deep
piety, and who, for seventeen years, had faithfully acted the part of an
itinerant preacher. Just at this juncture, Erasmus, a bishop of the Greek
church, visited London; and, as it was impossible to obtain ordination,
for the Methodist preachers, from the bishops of the English Church, it
occurred to Wesley, that it might be expedient to apply to Erasmus to
ordain Mr. Jones. Previous, however, to doing this, Wesley felt it
necessary to satisfy himself, that Erasmus really was a bishop. By his
direction, Jones wrote to the patriarch of Smyrna on the subject; and
received an answer, stating that Erasmus was bishop of Arcadia in Crete.
To this was added the testimony of several gentlemen who had met the
eastern prelate in Turkey. Wesley says, “he had abundant
unexceptionable credentials as to his episcopal character.”[563] Being
fully satisfied of this, Wesley requested him to set apart Mr. Jones, to
assist him in administering the sacrament to his societies. Erasmus did
so; and, if the matter had ended here, the thing would hardly have
deserved further notice.
No sooner was it known, however, that one of the itinerants had been
ordained, than several others applied to the good tempered bishop for the
same episcopal favour. The following appeared in Lloyd’s Evening Post,
for December 7, 1764.
“To the article in the papers relating to three tradesmen
being ordained by a Greek bishop, another may be added, a
master baker. And two celebrated Methodist preachers made
also an application to the same bishop, to consecrate one or
both of them bishops; but the Greek told them, it was contrary
to the rule of his church for one bishop to make another: yet,
notwithstanding all he said, they very unwillingly took a
denial.”
Whether this was strictly true, we can hardly tell; but certain it is, that
John Jones, Samson Staniforth, Thomas Bryant, and others were
ordained. The result was, Charles Wesley took huge offence; and, shortly
after, Mr. Jones was obliged to leave the connexion; Samson Staniforth
had to refrain from exercising his priestly functions; and Thomas Bryant
put on a gown, and made a rent in the Methodist society of Sheffield.[564]
The unpleasantness did not end even here. In 1771, Augustus Toplady,
one of Wesley’s bitterest opponents, published “A Letter to the Rev. Mr.
John Wesley,” in which he revived the thing. With his unenviable
scurrility, he called Erasmus “a foreign mendicant”; and said: “to this
day, the Greek church in Amsterdam believes him to be an impostor.” He
also supplied a certificate, written in Greek, of which the following is a
translation.
 “Our measure from the grace, gift, and power of the All-
holy and Life-giving Spirit, given by our Saviour Jesus Christ
to His Divine and holy apostles, to ordain subdeacons and
deacons; and also, to advance to the dignity of a priest; of this
grace which hath descended to our humility, I have ordained
subdeacon and deacon, at Snowfields chapel, on the 19th day
of November, 1764, and at Wells Street chapel on the 24th of
the same month, priest the reverend: Mr. W. C.[565] according
to the rules of the holy apostles, and of our faith. Moreover, I
have given to him power to minister and teach, in all the
world, the gospel of Jesus Christ, no one forbidding him in
the church of God. Wherefore, for that very purpose, I have
made this present letter of recommendation from our humility,
and have given it to the ordained Mr. W. C. for his certificate
and security.
“Given and written at London, in Britain, November 24,
1764.
“E , Bishop of Arcadia.”

Toplady proceeds to ask Wesley four insinuating questions.

“1. Did you get him to ordain several of your lay preachers
according to the Greek ritual? 2. Did not these preachers both
dress and officiate as clergymen of the Church of England, in
consequence of that ordination; and under your own sanction
and approbation? Nay, did you not repeatedly declare, that
their ordination was, to all intents and purposes, as valid as
your own? 3. Did you not strongly press this supposed Greek
bishop to consecrate you a bishop, that you might be invested
with a power of ordaining what ministers you pleased, to
officiate in your societies as clergymen? And did he not
refuse to consecrate you, alleging this for his reason,—That,
according to the canons of the Greek church, more than one
bishop must be present to assist at the consecration of a new
one? 4. In all this, did you not palpably violate the oath of
supremacy, which you have repeatedly taken? part of which
runs thus: ‘I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any
 jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm,’”
How much truth was there in all this? It will be seen, that the
pretended certificate was signed only a fortnight before the statement,
already quoted, appeared in Lloyd’s Evening Post. Both the chapels
mentioned were Wesley’s chapels. Alexander Mather, who had been six
years in the itinerancy, was a baker before he entered it, and had a
considerable amount of innocent ambition. Wesley was in great difficulty
arising from the want of ordained preachers to administer the
sacraments; and, though he had long held the theory of Lord King, that,
according to New Testament teaching, every presbyter was, in reality, a
bishop; and therefore, that he himself, being a presbyter, was also a
bishop, and as fully authorised to ordain others as any bishop in the
world; yet, for prudential reasons, this was an authority which, at
present, he was not prepared to exercise: and, hence, it would not have
been surprising if he had made the application to Erasmus which it is
surmised he did.
All this gives considerable plausibility to the half affirmative queries
of Augustus Toplady. On the other hand, however, we have the absolute
declaration of Wesley himself, that Erasmus never rejected any overture
that he made to him;[566] and, if this were so, it follows that, either
Erasmus did actually ordain him a bishop (which no one ventures to
assert); or, that Toplady’s insinuation is calumniously untrue. To this,
also, must be added, the testimony of Thomas Olivers, who with
Wesley’s consent,[567] if not at his request, replied to Toplady’s attack;
namely, that though Wesley did get Erasmus to ordain John Jones, and
though John Jones did dress as a clergyman of the Church of England,
and did assist Wesley in administering the Lord’s supper in the
Methodist societies, yet Wesley had authorised him (Olivers) to give the
most positive and unqualified denial to the insinuation, that he had asked
Erasmus to ordain himself to the high office of a bishop. “But,”
continues Olivers, “suppose he had, where would have been the blame?
Mr. Wesley is connected with a number of persons who have given every
proof, which the nature of the thing allows, that they have an inward call
to preach the gospel. Both he and they would be glad if they had an
outward call too. But no bishop in England will give it them. What
wonder then, if he was to endeavour to procure it by any other innocent
means?”[568]
 This was written in 1771, only six or seven years after the alleged
events took place. Which is likeliest to be true—the bitter insinuation of
a malignant opponent like Toplady; or the positive assertion of Wesley
himself, and the authorised declaration of Wesley’s friend Olivers? Here
the matter must be left. Though somewhat tedious, it is also important, as
tending to show, that the growth of Methodism was one of Wesley’s
greatest difficulties, and rendered it absolutely imperative—either that he
should make the Methodists Dissenters; or, that he should procure
episcopal ordination for his preachers; or, that he should do something
else, which he tried to do in 1764, and which will have to be noticed in
the year following.
Wesley’s life was a continued warfare. In 1763, there was published,
“A Caution against Religious Delusion: a sermon preached at the
visitation of the Archdeacon of Ely, in the church of St. Michael,
Cambridge, on Thursday, May 19, 1763. By William Backhouse, M.A.,
fellow of Christ’s college, and vicar of Meldreth.” 8vo, 20 pages. Of
course, this was another attack on Methodism. Methodist preachers are
“modern pretenders to supernatural informations”; they are “hurried
away with the exorbitancies of ungoverned piety”; they are “enthusiastic
preachers, who are mindful enough of one part of St. Paul’s injunction to
Timothy, ‘to give attendance to exhortation, and to doctrine,’ but alas! if
they really would, they could not give heed to the first and fundamental
part of it—reading.”
Another onslaught was made by a greater Church dignitary than Mr.
Backhouse. Dr. Thomas Rutherforth was a fellow of the Royal Society,
archdeacon of Essex, regius professor of divinity at Cambridge, and an
author of repute; though Warburton says of him: “If he knows no more of
theology than, he does of morals, he is the meanest pedant of the age.” In
1763, Rutherforth published “Four Charges to the Clergy of the
Archdeaconry of Essex”; in which he took the liberty to tell his readers,
that though “the Methodists pretend to be the genuine sons of the Church
of England, they adopt the language and opinions of the conventicle; for
they maintain, that every believer, provided he has the gift of utterance,
is qualified to preach, and that human learning is rather an impediment
than otherwise.” His pamphlet of ninety-five pages, octavo, is dull and
dreary, though upon the whole, respectful. Five years afterwards, Wesley
wrote an answer to it, from which the following are extracts. Rutherforth
charges Wesley with maintaining contradictions. Wesley replies:—
 “If all my sentiments were compared together, from the
year 1725 to 1768, there would be truth in the charge; for,
during the latter part of this period, I have relinquished
several of my former sentiments. During these last thirty
years, I may also have varied in some of my sentiments and
expressions without observing it. I will not undertake to
defend all the expressions which I have occasionally used
during this time, but must desire men of candour to make
allowance for those

‘Quas aut incuria fudit,

Aut humana parum cavit natura.’

It is not strange if, among these inaccurate expressions,

there are some seeming contradictions, especially
considering, I was answering so many different objectors,
frequently attacking me at once. Nevertheless, I believe there
will be found few, if any, real contradictions in what I have
published for near thirty years.”
Again, Dr. Rutherforth had objected to the Methodists, on the ground
of their doctrine of assurance. Wesley’s reply to this is well worth
pondering.
“I believe a few, but very few, Christians have an assurance
from God of everlasting salvation; and that is the thing which
the apostle terms full assurance of hope.
“I believe more have such an assurance of being now in the
favour of God as excludes all doubt and fear; and this, if I do
not mistake, the apostle means by the full assurance of faith.
“I believe a consciousness of being in the favour of God,
(which I do not term full assurance, since it is frequently
weakened, nay, perhaps interrupted, by returns of doubt or
fear,) is the common privilege of Christians, fearing God and
working righteousness. Yet I do not affirm there are no
exceptions to this general rule but, I believe, this is usually
owing either to disorder of body, or to ignorance of the gospel
promises. Therefore, I have not, for many years, thought a
consciousness of acceptance to be essential to justifying faith.
 “After I have thus explained myself once for all, I hope all
reasonable men will be satisfied; and whoever will dispute
with me on this head must do it for disputing’s sake.”
Rutherforth’s main accusation, however, is that the Methodists teach,
that “Christianity rejects the aid of human learning.” To this Wesley
replies: “Mr. Berridge thinks it does; but I am not accountable for him,
from whom, in this, I totally differ.” In proof of this he appeals to his
“deliberate thoughts on human learning” in his “Serious Address to the
Clergy”; to his establishment of Kingswood school; and to the fact that,
though his preachers did not profess to know the languages and
philosophy, yet some of them understood both one and the other better
than great part of his pupils at the university did. He continues:
“What I believe concerning learning is this: that it is highly
expedient for a guide of souls, but not absolutely necessary.
What I believe to be absolutely necessary is, a faith
unfeigned, the love of God and our neighbour, a burning zeal
for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, with a heart and life
wholly devoted to God. These I judge to be necessary in the
highest degree; and next to these a competent knowledge of
Scripture, a sound understanding, a tolerable utterance, and a
willingness to be as the filth and offscouring of the
world.”[569]
Noble words are these of Wesley. Let all Methodist quarterly and
district meetings and conferences act upon them.
The most furious attack on Wesley, in 1763, was by Warburton, bishop
of Gloucester, in an octavo volume of 259 pages, first published in 1762,
and entitled, “The Doctrine of Grace: or, The Office and Operations of
the Holy Spirit vindicated from the Insults of Infidelity, and the Abuses
of Fanaticism.” Warburton allows, that Wesley is “an extraordinary
man”; but finds fault with him for having “laid claim to almost every
apostolic gift and grace in as full a measure as they were possessed of
old.” In earnest raillery, and trenchant language, the Gloucester prelate
professes to establish this, by citations from Wesley’s Journals. To
attempt a summary of his episcopal scoldings is impracticable; indeed, it
would be of little use. It is a curious fact, that Warburton sent the
manuscript to Wesley before the work was printed, with a request to
notice its errors. Wesley says: “the manuscript abounded with quotations
from poets, philosophers, etc., both in Greek and Latin. After correcting
the false readings, improper glosses, and other errors, I returned it.”[570]
This incident helps to explain a sentence in one of Wesley’s letters to his
brother, dated “January 5, 1762”: “I was a little surprised to find Bishop
Warburton so entirely unacquainted with the New Testament; and,
notwithstanding all his parade of learning, I believe he is no critic in
Greek.”[571]
Wesley lost no time in replying to Warburton’s attack. This he did, in
“A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
Occasioned by his tract on the office and operations of the Holy Spirit.
London: 1763.” 12mo, 144 pages. The character and substance of
Wesley’s answer may be inferred from its concluding paragraphs.
“I have now finished what I had to say, either concerning
myself, or on the operations of the Holy Spirit. In doing this, I
have used great plainness of speech, and yet, I hope, without
rudeness. If anything of that kind has slipped from me, I am
ready to retract it. I desire, on the one hand, to accept no
man’s person; and yet, on the other, to give honour to whom
honour is due.
“If your lordship should think it worth your while to spend
any more words upon me, may I presume to request one thing
of your lordship,—to be more serious? It cannot injure your
lordship’s character, or your cause.”
Warburton’s book was principally an attack on Wesley and Conyers
Middleton; but as the title page, at least, referred to the “office and
operations of the Holy Spirit,” others, beside Wesley, deemed it their
duty to call the jaunty bishop to account for his errors and omissions.
Whitefield, though scarcely alluded to by Warburton, sent forth a
pamphlet of twenty-four pages, in which he charges the bishop with
having, “in effect, robbed the church of its promised Comforter; and,
thereby, left us without any supernatural influence or Divine operations
whatsoever.” The Rev. John Andrews, LL.B., of St. Mary hall, Oxford,
published a book of 224 pages to correct his lordship’s notions; and soon
after was dismissed from a small Church benefice the prelate had
previously bestowed upon him. John Payne also, once a bookseller, but
afterwards accountant of the Bank of England, issued a volume of five
hundred pages, accusing the bishop of unfairness to Mr. Law. Dr.
Thomas Leland, a fellow of Trinity college, Dublin, the most admired
preacher of that city, and whose classical learning Dr. Johnson
considered to be unrivalled, gave to the world his “Dissertation on the
Principles of Human Eloquence,” in which he refuted the arguments
used by Warburton in reference to the style and composition of the New
Testament. Thus the irate bishop got into a nest of hornets. Wesley
considered, that he himself had so “untwisted the bishops arguments,”
that to put them together again was a thing impossible.[572] Andrews so
stung his lordship, that he was soon dismissed from his benefice. And
Leland so vanquished his antagonist, that, instead of the bishop
defending his own, Dr. Hurd, in a tone of sarcasm and contempt, thought
proper to answer on behalf of his episcopal master, and, three years
afterwards, was made archdeacon of his master’s diocese. Samuel
Charndler, also, of Newington, appeared as the bishop’s champion, in
“An Answer to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Letter to William, Lord
Bishop of Gloucester.” 8vo, 22 pages. With no slight degree of egotism,
he tells his readers, that his “remarks are not the fruits of idle conceit, or
mere conjecture, not party suggestions, or newfangled notions, but a
plain series of well considered thoughts.” He informs Wesley, that
Methodist “doctrine has filled Bedlam and the several madhouses in
England with shoals of patients”; that he had “occasioned many and
great violations of the peace”; and that he is “well skilled in the
rudiments of deceit.” Poor Samuel Charndler, by the side of Bishop
Warburton, was a Lilliputian playing antics in the presence of a
Patagonian giant.
The other publications of Wesley, in 1763, were as follows.
1. “Letters wrote by Jane Cooper, to which is prefixed some account
of her Life and Death.” 12mo, 41 pages. Jane Cooper was born in
Norfolk, in 1738; and, in the twentieth year of her age, came to London
as a domestic servant; was converted; and joined the Methodists. Four
years afterwards she died of smallpox, and Wesley buried her. She was
evidently one of Wesley’s pattern saints, and professed to live in the
enjoyment of Christian holiness. Indeed, her experience forms a part of
Wesley’s “Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” Considering her social
position, her letters are remarkable productions. “All here,” says Wesley,
“is strong, sterling sense, strictly agreeable to sound reason. Here are no
extravagant flights, no mystic reveries, no unscriptural enthusiasm. The
sentiments are all just and noble; the result of a fine natural
understanding, cultivated by conversation, thinking, reading, and true
Christian experience.” The last words of this servant maid were: “My
Jesus is all in all to me; glory be to Him through time and eternity.”
Wesley calls her “a pattern of all holiness, and of the wisdom which is
from above.”
2. “Farther Thoughts upon Christian Perfection.” 12mo, 39 pages.
This has been already noticed.
3. As also the following: “A Sermon preached before the Society for
the Reformation of Manners; on Sunday, January 30, 1763. At the chapel
in West Street, Seven Dials.” 8vo, 31 pages. At the end of it, the names
of five gentlemen are given, who would receive subscriptions to the
funds of the society, on behalf of which it was delivered.
4. The substance also of another pamphlet has been already given:
“Minutes of several Conversations between the Rev. Mr. John and
Charles Wesley, and others.” 12mo, 30 pages.
5. The “Sermon on Sin in Believers” was written March 28, 1763. Its
object is to refute the doctrine of Zinzendorf, that all true believers are
entirely sanctified. The sermon is one of Wesley’s ablest homilies; and,
doubtless, had its origin in the excitement arising out of the subject of
Christian perfection. “I wrote it,” says he, “in order to remove a mistake
which some were labouring to propagate,—that there is no sin in any that
are justified.”
6. “An Extract from Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost,’ with Notes.” 18mo, 320
pages. Wesley’s object, in this publication, may be gathered from his
preface. “This inimitable work, amidst all its beauties, is unintelligible to
abundance of readers: the immense learning, which Milton has
everywhere crowded together, making it quite obscure to persons of a
common education. This difficulty I have endeavoured to remove in the
following extract: first, by omitting those lines which I despaired of
explaining to the unlearned; and secondly, by adding short and easy
notes. To those passages, which I apprehend to be peculiarly excellent,
either with regard to sentiment or expression, I have prefixed a star; and
these, I believe, it would be worth while to read over and over, or even to
commit to memory.”[573]
7. “A Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation; or, a Compendium of
Natural Philosophy.” 2 vols., 12mo. This work was begun as early as the
year 1758;[574] and was published by subscription. In a circular to his
assistants, Wesley said: “Spare no pains to procure subscriptions for the
Philosophy. It will be the most complete thing of its kind in the English
tongue.”[575] A second edition, in three volumes, was issued in 1770; a
third, in five volumes, in 1777. In the London Magazine, for 1774, a long
letter, signed “Philosophaster,” was addressed to Wesley, criticising some
of his statements. In his reply,[576] Wesley, in some points, acknowledges
himself to be in error; but not in others; and then concludes: “Permit me,
sir, to give you one piece of advice. Be not so positive; especially with
regard to things which are neither easy nor necessary to be determined. I
ground this advice on my own experience. When I was young, I was sure
of everything. In a few years, having been mistaken a thousand times, I
was not half so sure of most things as before. At present, I am hardly
sure of anything, but what God has revealed to man.”
 1764.
1764
Age 61 C HARLES Wesley, in feeble health, seems to have spent the
year 1764 in London and in Bristol. Whitefield was in
America, and so much an invalid, that he could only preach
about thrice a week. Though distant, he affectionately remembered his
old friend Wesley. Hence the following.
“P , September 25, 1764.
“R S ,—Your kind letter, dated in
January last, through the negligence of those that received the
parcel, did not reach me till within these few days. I have
been mercifully carried through the summer’s heat; and, had
strength permitted, I might have preached to thousands and
thousands thrice a day. Zealous ministers are not so rare in
this new world as in other parts. Here is room for a hundred
itinerants. Fain would I end my life in rambling after those
that have rambled away from Jesus Christ. I am persuaded
you are likeminded. I wish you and all your dear fellow
labourers much prosperity. I do not repent being a poor,
despised, cast out, and now almost worn out itinerant. I would
do it again, if I had my choice. If you and all yours would join
in praying over a poor, worthless, but willing pilgrim, it
would be a very great act of charity, he being, though less
than the least of all,
“Reverend and very dear sir, ever
yours in Jesus,
“G W .”[577]

Whitefield was away from England; but even that was not enough to
save him from the malignant attacks of his English enemies. At the very
commencement of the year, the half insane watchmaker, mentioned in a
previous chapter, published another of his shilling pamphlets, with the
fantastic title: “Remarks upon the Life, Character, and Behaviour of the
Rev. George Whitefield, as written by himself, from the time of his birth
to the time he departed from his Tabernacle; demonstrating, by
astronomical calculation, that his ascension, meridian, and declination
were necessarily actuated by planetary influence, and that his doctrine
was not Divine mission, but from a mere fatality evident, as daily seen in
the sad catastrophe of his unhappy, gloomy, and misguided followers.
The whole being a choice new year’s gift for Methodists, and one of the
most valuable prizes that ever was drawn since Methodism has been in
being. By John Harman, astronomer.” Well might the Monthly Review
remark: “Harman styles himself ‘regulator of enthusiasts,’ and
‘astronomer’; we look upon him as a comical genius, who has contrived
to plague the Methodists and their great leader, in the style of an
almanack maker, and with all the antiquated jargon of astrology.”[578]
During the month of January, Wesley, besides preaching in London
and its immediate vicinity, visited Dorking, High-Wycombe, Oxford, and
Witney.
Within three miles of the last mentioned town, at South Leigh, Wesley
preached his first sermon, in the year 1725; but, oddly enough, this was
the first time that he preached at Witney itself.[579]
Wesley writes: “This is such a people as I have not seen; so
remarkably diligent in business, and, at the same time, of so quiet a
spirit, and so calm and civil in their behaviour.”
Near to Witney, at Blandford Park, resided Mr. Bolton and his
unmarried sister, whose house, for many years, was one of Wesley’s
much loved haunts. Miss Bolton was one of Wesley’s favourite
correspondents, and Mr. Bolton one of his best local preachers. On one
occasion, when the two friends were snugly seated in Mr. Bolton’s
parlour, and Wesley, as usual, was employed with his book and pen, the
Witney host, wishful to draw his guest into conversation, began
remarking how much pleasanter it was to live in the country than in
town; “All is silent,” said he, “all retired, and no distracting noises of the
busy multitude intrude themselves.” “True, Neddy,” replied Wesley with
his usual quickness, “but noisy thoughts may.” The hint sufficed, and
Neddy subsided into silence.
On February 2, Wesley reopened the old Foundery, in London, which
had been closed, for several weeks, in order to be repaired and otherwise
improved. “It is now,” says he, “not only firm and safe, but clean and
decent, and capable of receiving several hundreds more.”
 On February 6, he opened the new chapel at Wapping. Ten days later,
he writes: “I once more took a serious walk through the tombs in
Westminster Abbey. What heaps of unmeaning stone and marble! But
there was one tomb which showed common sense; that beautiful figure
of Mr. Nightingale, endeavouring to screen his lovely wife from death.
Here, indeed, the marble seems to speak, and the statues appear only not
alive.”
It is well known, that the Rev. Martin Madan, minister at the Lock
hospital, and his curate, the Rev. Thomas Haweis, were both most
passionately fond of music, and themselves composers.[580] Once a year,
their chapel was turned into a concert room for the performance of
oratorios; and, on two occasions at least, Wesley was a listener. He
writes: “1764, February 29.—I heard ‘Judith,’ an oratorio, performed at
the Lock. Some parts of it were exceeding fine; but there are two things
in all modern pieces of music, which I could never reconcile to common
sense. One is, singing the same words ten times over; the other, singing
different words by different persons, at one and the same time. And this,
in the most solemn addresses to God, whether by way of prayer or
thanksgiving. This can never be defended by all the musicians in Europe,
till reason is quite out of date.”
He was present again the year following, when “Ruth” was the
oratorio performed, and observed: “The sense was admirable throughout;
and much of the poetry not contemptible. This, joined with exquisite
music, might possibly make an impression even upon rich and
honourable sinners.”
Some will wonder at Wesley attending the performance of oratorios;
but why so? Fault may properly be found with Martin Madan for using a
place of worship for such performances; but Martin Madan was merely
copying the example of his superiors, who, even then, once a year, gave
the use of their cathedrals to the choirs of Gloucester, Hereford, and
Worcester, for the same musical purposes. Indeed, some of the early
Methodists adopted the same doubtful usage. We have before us more
than one of Handel’s oratorios, specially printed, for performance in
Oldham Street chapel, Manchester, only two or three years after
Wesley’s death. All this was dubious; indeed, we venture to designate it
desecration. A Christian sanctuary is a place far too sacred to be used as
a place of intellectual entertainment, even though, as in the case of
Martin Madan, the pleasure be of the most refined and exalted character;
but, excepting the fact that a place of worship was turned into a concert
hall, who can reasonably find fault with Wesley attending the
performance of the oratorios in question? Music was a passion in the
Wesley family; and no one felt it stronger than the subject of this
memoir. His brother’s sons, Charles and Samuel, were young Mozarts;
and his own taste was exquisitely beautiful and pure. The music sung by
the first Methodists was music of his own selecting; and, in after years,
even he himself marvelled that, without studying the science, his
selections had been so classical, and so much in harmony with the
severest taste of the greatest masters. In 1768, he wrote: “I was much
surprised in reading an ‘Essay on Music,’ written by one who is a
thorough master of the subject, to find, that the music of the ancients was
as simple as that of the Methodists; that their music wholly consisted of
melody, or the arrangement of single notes; that what is now called
harmony, singing in parts, the whole of counterpoints and fugues, is quite
novel, being never known in the world till the popedom of Leo X.”
On the 12th of March, Wesley commenced his long northern journey,
which occupied nearly the next five months. At Stroud, he writes: “How
many years were we beating the air in this place! one wrong headed man
pulling down all we could build up; but, since he is gone, the word of
God takes root, and the society increases both in number and strength.”
At Birmingham, Wesley preached in the chapel which had formerly
been a playhouse, and remarks: “Happy would it be, if all the playhouses
in the kingdom were converted to so good an use. After service, the mob
gathered, and threw dirt and stones at people going out.”
At Dudley, “formerly a den of lions, but now quiet as Bristol, they had
just finished their preaching house, which was thoroughly filled.” Mr.
Southall and his family were a part of the first society; in his house
meetings for prayer were held; and more than once were his window’s
smashed, and the congregation cursed with the most bitter oaths and
curses.[581]
At Wednesbury, Wesley had the largest congregation he had seen since
he left London. The riots here, when Methodism was first introduced,
have been already noticed. Suffice it to add further, that a quaker was the
means of quelling them. This “Friend” happening to ride through the
town, the mob swore he was a preacher, pulled him from his horse,
dragged him to a coalpit, and threatened to throw him in. The man of
peace availed himself of law, and prosecuted his assailants at the assizes;
and, from that time, the tumults of the town subsided.[582]
 At Walsall, notwithstanding the inclemency of the season, he had to
preach out of doors, at seven o’clock in the morning, the chapel not
being able to contain the people. Remembering past scenes, well might
Wesley say, “How is Walsall changed! Now has God either tamed the
wild beasts, or chained them up!”
On March 26, Wesley paid his first visit to Ashby-de-la-Zouch. The
chapel and the chapel yard both were filled; “and I saw,” says Wesley,
“but one trifler among them all, which, I understood, was an attorney.
Poor man! if men live what I preach, the hope of his gain is lost.”
On leaving Ashby, Wesley went to Derby, and attempted to preach in
the market-place, but he no sooner announced his text than the mob
raised such a noise, that he found it impossible to make himself heard;
and, hence, he quietly retired to the house of Mr. Dobinson, “an
innumerable retinue” following after and throwing stones.
At Sheffield, Wesley found about sixty who professed to be entirely
sanctified. He writes: “I could not learn, that any among them walk
unworthy of their profession. Many watch over them for evil; but they
‘overcome evil with good.’ I found nothing of self conceit, stubbornness,
impatience of contradiction, or London enthusiasm, among them.”
From Sheffield, he proceeded to Rotherham, Doncaster, Epworth, and
Grimsby. At Rotherham, he preached at the opening of a new chapel, a
donkey, who had walked up to the door, being, as he relates, apparently
one of his most attentive auditors. At Doncaster, a society had recently
been formed, which met in the house of Betty Riley, and had Thomas
Naylor as its leader. The rabble were rude and often violent; but truth
was mighty, and its triumphs great. On one occasion, in 1765, while
Jeremiah Cocker of Sheffield was preaching, a bull was driven up to
him; but the preacher quietly laid his hands upon its horns, and continued
his discourse. Still, for many years, Methodism in Doncaster was a
feeble thing, and even as late as 1793, when it had sixty members, it
raised only £1 5s. per quarter for the support of the work of God, or
about a farthing and a half per member weekly. In reference to Grimsby,
Wesley writes: “Grimsby, once the most dead, is now the most lively
place in all the country. Here has been a large and swift increase both of
the society and hearers, so that the house, though galleries are added, is
still too small. The mayor and all the gentry of the town were present;
and so was our Lord, in an uncommon manner. Some dropped down as
dead; but, after a while, rejoiced with joy unspeakable. One was carried
away in violent fits. I went to her after the service. She was strongly
convulsed from head to foot, and shrieked out in a dreadful manner. The
unclean spirit did tear her indeed: but his reign was not long. In the
morning both her soul and body were healed, and she acknowledged
both the justice and mercy of God.”
This is a curious entry, which the reader is left to ponder.
Proceeding to Gainsborough, Wesley no sooner began to preach in Sir
Nevil Hickman’s hall than a cock began crowing above his head. The
noisy rival, however, was speedily dislodged, and the service was carried
on in peace. Wesley then went to Hull, and Beverley, at the latter of
which places, the original hive of the Methodist congregations was the
house of a shoemaker, where “the Culamite preachers,” as the itinerants
were called, were often literally besieged by furious rabbles, and became
“a hissing” to the people.
Wesley spent nearly a week at York; after which he proceeded to
Helmsley, where he found his friend, the Rev. Dr. Conyers, greatly
changed. The Calvinists had prejudiced him against the Arminians, and,
notwithstanding the warmth of his friendship twelve months before, he
was now suspicious, cold, and distant. The itinerant then wended his way
to Scarborough, Robin Hood’s Bay, Whitby, Guisborough, Stokesley,
Hutton, Potto, Yarm, Stockton, Darlington, Barnard Castle, and
Newcastle on Tyne. He also paid a visit to Weardale, a beautiful valley,
above twenty miles long, with only five places of religious worship, to
which however was now added a Methodist chapel, built at High House
in 1760.[583]
After a three weeks’ stay at Newcastle and in its neighbourhood,
Wesley set out for Scotland, preaching at Morpeth, Alnwick, and
Berwick on his way. Nearly a month was spent in North Britain. At
Edinburgh, he attended the sessions of the General Assembly; and, when
he preached on Calton Hill, many, of the ministers were there to hear
him. With some hesitation, he joined, at the West Kirk, in the celebration
of the Lord’s supper. He visited Dundee, Brechin, Aberdeen, Old
Meldrum, Banff, Inverness, Nairn, and other places. In several instances,
he preached in the parish kirks; and remarks: “There is seldom fear of
wanting a congregation in Scotland. But the misfortune is, they know
everything; so they learn nothing.” Two months afterwards, he wrote the
following, hitherto unpublished, letter to Lady Maxwell, then a young
Scotch widow of twenty-two.