The life and times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., founder of the Methodists. Vol. 3 (of 3) (part 2 of 4)

The life and times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., founder of the Methodists. Vol. 3 (of 3) (part 2 of 4)

No sooner was the conference in London ended, than Wesley set out, on Sunday afternoon, August 11, for Cornwall. On his return, he spent, as usual, about a month at Bristol and in its vicinity. He began what, he says, he had long intended, visiting the Bristol society from house to house, setting apart at least two hours a day for that purpose. He preached in the church at Midsomer Norton, the rector making one of his congregation. Here an incident occurred which was characteristic of the man, and is worth relating. Wesley was entertained at the house of Mr. Bush, a local preacher, who kept a boarding school. While there, two of the boys quarrelled, and cuffed and kicked each other most vigorously. Mrs. Bush brought the pugilists to Wesley. He talked to them, and repeated the lines:

“Birds in their little nests agree, And ’tis a shameful sight, When children of one family Fall out, and chide, and fight.”

“You must be reconciled,” said he; “go and shake hands with each other.” They did so. “Now,” he continued, “put your arms round each other’s neck, and kiss each other.” This was also done. “Now,” said he, “come to me”; and, taking two pieces of bread and butter, he folded them together, and desired each to take a part. “Now,” he added, “you have broken bread together.” He then put his hands upon their heads, and blessed them. The two tigers were turned into loving lambs; they never forgot the old man’s blessing; and one of them became a magistrate in Berks, and related the occurrence with intense interest in after days.[278]

Having returned to London, Wesley set out, on November 13, accompanied by his invalid friend, Fletcher, to Norwich. He says: “I took coach at twelve, slept till six, and then spent the time very agreeably in conversation, singing, and reading. I read Mr. Bolt’s account of the affairs in the East Indies. What a scene is here opened! What consummate villains, what devils incarnate, were the managers there! What utter strangers to justice, mercy, and truth; to every sentiment of humanity! I believe no heathen history contains a parallel. I remember none in all the annals of antiquity; not even the divine Cato, or the virtuous Brutus, plundered the provinces committed to their charge with such merciless cruelty as the English have plundered the desolated provinces of Hindostan.”

The two friends returned to London on November 21; and, a few days later, Wesley started on his accustomed visitation to Bedfordshire, etc.; and, on the way, read the poetical works of Gray, whom he pencils as “sharp, sensible, and ingenious; but proud, morose, envious, passionate, and resentful.”

After this, he made a tour through Kent; and then writes: “December 31--We concluded the year with solemn praise to God, for continuing His great work in our land. It has never been intermitted one year, or one month, since the year 1738; in which my brother and I began to preach that strange doctrine of salvation by faith.”

The Calvinistic controversy was now in its last agonies; but, on the part of the elect, was as acrimonious as ever. Some one published a twopenny pamphlet, entitled, “A necessary Alarm and most earnest Caveto against Tabernacle Principles and Tabernacle Connections; containing the substance of an extraordinary Harangue and Exhortation, delivered at Penzance, in August, 1774; on an extraordinary occasion. By J. W., Master of very extraordinary Arts.” In this infamous burlesque, Wesley is treated with as much ridicule as the anonymous author could command; and Toplady, in reviewing it, in his Gospel Magazine, of course commends it, as “a delicate satire on Wesley,” and hopes that “the cream of tartar, so ably administered by the anonymous physician, will prove a sweetener of the patient’s crudities, and conduce to carry off some portion of his self sufficiency.” Wesley, however, had been so “severely peppered and salted of late years,” that the considerate editor of the Gospel Magazine benevolently intimates that he shall, on that account, refrain from adding to the pepper and salt seasonings, which “must often have made Wesley smart and wince like an eel dispossessed of its skin.”[279]

This was bad enough; but there were other things even worse. Wesley’s wife, (originally a not too respectable servant girl,) stole a number of Wesley’s letters, and interpolated words, and misinterpreted spiritual expressions, so as to make the letters bear a bad construction. She read them to an elect party of Calvinists, and agreed to send them to the Morning Post for publication. Two masked assassins, who assumed the not inappropriate names of Scorpion and Snapdragon, furiously assailed him, in the London newspaper, professing to ground their charges against him upon his own private papers, which the woman, who was legally his wife, had put into their hands. A more infamous episode does not occur in Wesley’s history. The charges were cruel insinuations, founded upon interpolated letters, stolen by a faithless woman, who, in order to defame a husband of whom she was utterly unworthy, not only committed theft but forgery, and then put herself into the hands of a set of holy Calvinists, who employed her perfidy and meanness in injuring the man whom, at the altar of the Most High God, she had sworn to love, honour, and obey. This is strong language; but the writer, knowing more than he chooses to make public, uses it with deliberate design. Charles Wesley, finding the use that was being made of his brother’s papers, was in the utmost consternation, and went off in haste, wishing him to postpone a journey, and to stay in town to defend himself against his enemies. Wesley was as calm as his loving and faithful brother was excited. “I shall never forget,” said Miss Wesley, “the manner in which my father accosted my mother on his return home. ‘My brother,’ said he, ‘is indeed an extraordinary man. I placed before him the importance of the character of a minister; and the evil consequences which might result from his indifference to it; and urged him, by every relative and public motive, to answer for himself, and stop the publication. His reply was, ‘Brother, when I devoted to God my ease, my time, my life, did I except my reputation? No, Tell Sally I will take her to Canterbury to-morrow.’”[280]

On the Arminian side of the controversy, the chief, if not the only, publication issued in 1776, was Fletcher’s masterly “Answer to the Rev. Mr. Toplady’s ‘Vindication of the Decrees,’ etc.” 12mo, 128 pages. Never was a bravo shaved with so sharp a razor, and by so adept a hand.

Except “An Extract of the Life of Madame Guion,” 12mo, 230 pages, Wesley’s only publications, in 1776, were the two political tracts following. 1. “Some Observations on Liberty, occasioned by a late Tract”: 12mo, 36 pages. And, 2. “A Seasonable Address to the more Serious Part of the Inhabitants of Great Britain, respecting the Unhappy Contest between us and our American Brethren; with an occasional Word interspersed to those of a different complexion”: 12mo, 18 pages.

The former was an answer to Dr. Price, a Unitarian minister far more famed for politics than for preaching, who had recently published his “Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America.” This was considered the ablest work, in exposition of the injurious policy pursued by England toward America, that had yet been issued. Within less than two years, eight editions were printed; and, in testimony of their approbation of it, the common council of London presented to the author the freedom of the city in a golden box. Thus, in fighting with Dr. Price, Wesley was far from fighting with a shadow.

Both of Wesley’s tracts display, not only his wonted ability, but his profound loyalty to the government of King George, his benevolence of heart, and his intense interest in the fratricidal war which was then raging. A more loyal subject than Wesley, England never had; perhaps, indeed, his loving loyalty sometimes made him somewhat blind to the faultiness of ruling powers. No man was more obedient to law; and no man more cheerfully paid his taxes. The last mentioned might not amount to much; but they were never tendered with a niggard’s hand. Some imagined that he, the bishop of 40,000 Methodists, was sure to have an enormous income, and a silver chest well stocked with plate; and that, therefore, his assessments ought to be higher than they were. So, for instance, thought the commissioners of his majesty’s excise, in 1776. Hence the following circular:

“REVEREND SIR,--As the commissioners cannot doubt but you have plate for which you have hitherto neglected to make entry, they have directed me to inform you, that they expect you forthwith to make due entry of all your plate, such entry to bear date from the commencement of the plate duty, or from such time as you have owned, used, had, or kept any quantity of silver plate, chargeable by the act of parliament; as, in default hereof, the board will be obliged to signify your refusal to their lordships. An immediate answer is desired.”

Think of John Wesley, always on the wing, having a hoard of silver plate to adorn his sumptuous table when feasting his Epicurean coadjutors and his dinner loving friends. The idea was almost too silly to be ridiculous. Wesley seems to have thought it so; and his answer (with which we close the present year) was as follows.

“SIR,--I have two silver teaspoons at London, and two at Bristol. This is all the plate which I have at present; and I shall not buy any more, while so many round me want bread.

“I am, sir, your most humble servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

FOOTNOTES:

[255] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 290.

[256] Manuscript letter.

[257] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 290.

[258] Methodist Magazine, 1824, p. 568.

[259] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., pp. 395-397.

[260] Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 522.

[261] Methodist Magazine, 1830, p. 310.

[262] Ibid. 1803, p. 289.

[263] Ibid. 1847, p. 102.

[264] Ibid. 1816, p. 446.

[265] City Road society book.

[266] Methodist Magazine, 1823, p. 202.

[267] Ibid. 1827, p. 430.

[268] Methodist Magazine, 1832, p. 466.

[269] Ibid. 1837, p. 399.

[270] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 134.

[271] It is a disgraceful fact that Charles Wesley was buried, not at the expense of the London circuit, but by private subscription. Nineteen London Methodists subscribed £10 13_s._ 6_d._, and William Marriott made up the deficiency of £3 3_s._ The pages in the old society book, on which this account is written, were wafered together by four large wafers, doubtless for the purpose of hiding the shame of the old Methodists of 1788.

[272] The following was written to Robert Dall, one of Wesley’s itinerants.

“BANFF, January 1, 1777.

“DEAR FATHER IN THE LORD,--The society has been stationary ever since you left us. We are often neglected. Lately we had only one visit in eight weeks. Mr. Wesley was here on the 20th of May last, and preached on the Parade from 2 Corinthians viii. 9. He supped at Lord Banff’s, and next night at Admiral Gordon’s lady’s house, with a great number of great ones; and, at their request, he preached in the English chapel to an elegant and crowded congregation. We are, etc., WILLIAM AND ISABEL MCPHERSON.” (Manuscript letter.)

[273] Manuscript.

[274] Taylor’s manuscript journals.

[275] John Crook’s original copy.

[276] Manuscript letter.

[277] Methodist Magazine, 1808, p. 103.

[278] Methodist Magazine, 1842, p. 136.

[279] Gospel Magazine, 1776, p. 475.

[280] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 283.

1777. Age 74

Wesley was always full of work. He began the year 1777 with a course of lectures on the book of Ecclesiastes, and says: “I never before had so clear a sight either of the meaning or the beauties of it; neither did I imagine, that the several parts of it were, in so exquisite a manner, connected together; all tending to prove that grand truth, that there is no happiness out of God.”

He also spent an hour every morning with his London preachers, Messrs. Jaco, Hindmarsh, Murlin, Pilmoor, Atlay, Bradford, and Olivers, in instructing them as he used to instruct his Oxford pupils, and in promoting their piety.

He likewise begun visiting the society, many of whom he found in the deepest poverty, and writes: “O why do not all the rich that fear God constantly visit the poor? Can they spend part of their spare time better? Certainly not: so they will find in that day, when ‘every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.’”

To his surprise, he once more preached in a London church--Allhallows; and says: “I found great liberty of spirit; and the congregation seemed to be much affected. How is this? Do I yet please men? Is the offence of the cross ceased? It seems, after being scandalous near fifty years, I am at length growing into an honourable man.”

At the beginning of the month of February, he hurried off to Bristol, to quiet some of the society, who were in danger of becoming disaffected towards government; and preached from, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers.” Finding that there had been repeated attempts to fire the city, he preached again, taking as his text, “Is there any evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?” He also wrote and published, “A Calm Address to the Inhabitants of England”: 12mo, 23 pages. He states, that a year and a half ago, from fifty to a hundred thousand copies of his “Calm Address to the American Colonies” had been dispersed, and the effect had exceeded his most sanguine hopes. This encouraged him now to address “the inhabitants of Old England.” He then gives an account of the rise and progress of the American rebellion, tracing it back as far as the year 1737. He proceeds to state that, after bawling for liberty, no liberty was left in the confederate provinces of America; the liberty of the press, religious liberty, and civil liberty were nonentities. The lords of the congress were as absolute as the emperor of Morocco; whereas, in England, the fullest liberty was enjoyed, “both as to religion, life, body, and goods.” He tells the Methodists that, though many, who go under that name, hate the king and all his ministers, only less than they hate an Arminian, he would no more continue in fellowship with those that were connected with him, if they did this, than he would continue in fellowship “with whoremongers, or sabbath breakers, or thieves, or drunkards, or common swearers.”

The whole tract is written in his most pungent style; and, whatever may be thought of the wisdom of Wesley’s politics, all must admire his devoted loyalty. Of course, like his “Calm Address to the American Colonies,” it stirred a nest of hornets. Almost immediately, there was published, in the Gospel Magazine, a poem reviling him in unmeasured terms. He is represented as “spitting venom, spite, and rage”; “Father Johnny” is accused of telling “barefaced lies,” and is thus admonished in the last two lines:

“O think of this, thou grey haired sinner, Ere Satan pick thy bones for dinner.”

Wesley returned to London on February 8, and, a week later, fulfilled a painful duty. For more than twenty years, Dr. Dodd had been one of the most popular preachers in the metropolis. When at the zenith of his fame, he, in 1774, sent an anonymous letter to Lady Apsley, offering £3000 if she would prevail with her husband, the lord chancellor, to appoint him to the valuable rectory of St. George’s, Hanover Square, which was then vacant. The writer was detected, and, as a consequence, was struck out of the list of royal chaplains, was assailed with bitter invectives by the press, and was severely ridiculed by Foote, in a farce, entitled “The Cozeners.” Withdrawing from England, where he had now become an object of contempt, he, for a time, found an asylum at Geneva, with his former pupil, Lord Chesterfield. On his return to this country, he became editor of a newspaper, and then a bankrupt. In 1776, he visited France, and, with little regard to decency, appeared in a phaeton at the races on the plains of Sablons, dressed in all the foppery of the country in which he then resided. Strange to say, he was still popular, as a preacher, at the Magdalen, in London, where he delivered his last discourse on February 2, 1777, from the ominous text: “And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest; but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind; and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life.”

Only two days afterwards, he forged the name of Lord Chesterfield to a bond for £4200, on the security of which he obtained a considerable loan. Detection speedily ensued; and, before the month was ended, he was arrested, tried at the Old Bailey, and was convicted. The crime was forgery; the penalty was death. For four months, the unhappy culprit was kept in prison. His friends were indefatigable, in their endeavours, to obtain a commutation of his punishment. Even the city of London, in its corporate capacity, earnestly solicited that his sentence might not be carried into effect. Dr. Johnson, with his weighty pen, tried to arouse popular feeling in his favour, alleging that petitions for clemency had been signed by above thirty thousand people, and that justice might reasonably be satisfied with his imprisonment, infamy, exile, penury, and ruin. All was of no avail; and on June 26 the great preacher died a felon’s death by the hands of the common hangman.

In the days of his prosperity, Dodd had been in the ranks of Wesley’s enemies; and, more than once, had reviled him, his people, and his creed; and, yet, strange to tell, no sooner was he incarcerated for his crime, than he sent for Wesley to visit him. The latter writes: “1777, February 15--At the third message, I took up my cross, and went to see Dr. Dodd, in the Compter. I was greatly surprised. He seemed, though deeply affected, yet thoroughly resigned to the will of God. Mrs. Dodd, likewise, behaved with the utmost propriety. I doubt not, God will bring good out of this evil.” “February 18--I visited him again, and found him still in a desirable state of mind; calmly giving himself up to whatsoever God should determine concerning him.”

Both Wesley and his brother had always evinced an almost unequalled interest in the welfare of imprisoned convicts; but, remembering past treatment from this popular, but now incarcerated, preacher, and also remembering the terrible scandal which he had brought upon Christ’s religion, no wonder that Wesley felt it a cross to visit him. Wesley, however, was not the man to shun a duty because it happened to be painful; and there can be no doubt that, if his itinerant engagements had not taken him away from London, the gloom of the convict’s cell would often have been relieved, during the next four months, by Wesley’s presence.

Wesley had never even seen Dr. Dodd, either in public or in private, until he saw him in Wood Street compter, a few days before his removal to Newgate to take his trial. “Sir,” said the prisoner, “I have long desired to see you; but I little thought, that our first interview would be in such a place as this.” “We conversed,” says Wesley, “about an hour; he spoke of nothing but his soul, and appeared to regard nothing in comparison of it.” At the second interview, Wesley spent half an hour with the poor wretched man. “Sir,” said he, “do not you find it difficult to preserve your recollection, amidst all these lawyers and witnesses?” Dodd answered: “It is difficult; but I have one sure hold: ‘Lord, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’” The third visit was after his sentence had been passed. Wesley writes: “He conversed about an hour; but had not one word about any but spiritual things. I found his mind still quiet and composed; sorrowing, but not without hope.” Two days before the execution, Wesley went again. “Sir,” said he, “I think you do not ask enough, or expect enough, from God your Saviour. The present blessing, you may expect from Him, is to be filled with all joy, as well as peace in believing.” “O sir,” replied the doctor, “it is not for such a sinner as I am to expect any joy in this world. The utmost I can desire is peace; and, through the mercy of God, that I have.” Wesley adds: “We then spent a little time in prayer, and I solemnly commended him to God. He was exactly in such a temper as I wished. He never, at any time, expressed the least murmuring or resentment at any one; but entirely and calmly gave himself up to the will of God. Such a prisoner I scarce ever saw before; much less, such a condemned malefactor.”

This was Wesley’s last interview. Two days later, the once famous Dr. Dodd was hanged, Wesley expressing the firm belief, that angels took him from the gallows to the paradise of God.[281]

Perhaps more space has been devoted to Dr. Dodd than some may think fitting; but, remembering the positions occupied respectively by Dodd and Wesley,--the one the most popular and fashionable preacher that London had, and the other an outcast clergyman, who, for eight-and-thirty years, had been reviled in every form that malice and ingenuity could devise,--it was no slight fact, that, as soon as Dodd was face to face with death, the man he sent for was, not one of his old associates, lay or clerical, but the man who had been, and still was, the butt of national persecution, and whom he himself in the days of his prosperity had treated disrespectfully. Dr. Dodd, when he most needed them, had more faith in Wesley’s counsels and Wesley’s prayers than he had in the counsels and prayers of those whom he had been accustomed to call his friends. His confidence was not misplaced. Wesley did his best; Wesley’s brother poured forth the feelings of his heart in “A Prayer for Dr. Dodd under Condemnation”; and Miss Bosanquet wrote to the poor prisoner not a few of her Christian letters. The result was, Dodd, on the very day of Wesley’s final visit, thus addressed his lady correspondent: “My dear Friend,--On Friday morning I am to be made immortal! I die with a heart truly contrite, and broken under a sense of its great and manifold offences, but comforted and sustained by a firm faith in the pardoning love of Jesus Christ.”[282]

On the 10th of March, Wesley left London on a seventeen days’ preaching tour to Bristol and back again. This was the year for his pastoral visitation in the north; but, he writes, “I cannot be long absent” from London, “while the new chapel is building.” In fact, Wesley became so interested in his great building scheme, that he was tempted to turn architect himself. “It seems,” says he in a letter to Miss Ball, of Wycombe, dated March 13, 1777, “it seems, the time is come, that you are to have a more commodious preaching house at High Wycombe. I will give you a plan of the building myself; and employ whom you please to build.”[283] After all, the Methodists at Wycombe might have had a worse architect than Wesley.

Ten days were spent in London, and, it being Easter time, Wesley writes: “During the octave, I administered the Lord’s supper every morning, after the example of the primitive church.” On Sunday, April 6, he set out on his northern journey, making collections, as he went, for his London chapel. When he had got only as far as Lancashire, he was obliged to return to London to lay the foundation stone on April 21. A week later, he took coach for Newcastle upon Tyne. Here he spent four days, and then again turned his face southward; and, preaching all the way, reached the metropolis on the 17th of May.

Having met the building committee, which was his chief business in London, and having, with his brother, visited Dr. Dodd, he, a third time, started north on Sunday, May 25. He now hurried on to Whitehaven, and paid his first visit to the Isle of Man, where he spent the first three days in the month of June, and says: “A more loving, simple hearted people than this I never saw; and no wonder; for they have but six papists, and no Dissenters, in the island.”

Here he met with the Rev. E. and Mrs. Smyth, the former a clergyman from Ireland, and the latter a young wife of twenty-two. Mr. Smyth had been ejected from his curacy for preaching the doctrines of the Methodists, and especially for daring to reprove “the great man of the parish” for living the life of an adulterer. Expelled from the Established Church, he began to preach wherever he had a chance, and became more extensively useful than ever. Though the nephew of an archbishop, his home was a thatched cabin, and his trials not a few. Hearing that Wesley was about to visit the Isle of Man, Mr. Smyth and his wife came to meet him. Wesley received them with his customary kindness, and, during their stay, met with a misadventure, which is worth relating. He writes: “I set out for Douglas in the one-horse chaise, Mrs. Smyth riding with me. In about an hour, in spite of all I could do, the headstrong horse ran the wheel against a large stone: the chaise overset in a moment; but we fell so gently on the smooth grass, that neither of us was hurt at all.”

Such is Wesley’s account; Mrs. Smyth’s reflects on Wesley’s charioteering capabilities. “He told me,” she writes, “when we got into the carriage, that he could drive a chaise forty years ago; but, poor dear man! his hand seemed out of practice, as I thought we should be overturned several times. At last, one of the wheels being mounted on one side of a ditch, we were both pitched out on a green plain, as the Lord in mercy ordered it; for had we been overset in some parts of the road, it is more than probable we should have been killed on the spot. I found no bad effects from the fall at the time; but the next morning I was scarce able to stir, and felt so sore and bruised that I thought it likely I should lay my bones in the churchyard at Douglas.”[284]

We shall meet with Mr. and Mrs. Smyth again; suffice it to add, that, immediately after preaching at Douglas, Wesley set sail for England; and, a few days after, his newly acquired friends went back to Ireland, while he himself went on his way to London. In his progress, he, for the first time, preached at Settle, where Methodism had recently been introduced by John Read, a poor clogger, and where one of the first members was Edward Slater, who became Wesley’s coachman.[285]

Wesley proceeded to Otley, where Miss Ritchie, apparently, was dying; to Bradford, where William Brammah, one of Wesley’s weakest preachers, had been amazingly useful; to Birstal and Huddersfield, where thousands upon thousands assembled to hear him; and to Colne, where, as soon as he entered the pulpit, the left hand gallery of the chapel fell, with nearly two hundred persons in it.

William Sagar, a young man not then in business for himself, had been the principal promoter of this erection, and had made himself responsible for the payment of the cost. When the walls were half way up, the workmen became clamorous for their wages; and Mr. Sagar unfortunately was without funds; but, two or three days afterwards, a gentleman, unsolicited, offered to lend him the money needed. One trouble was got over, but another was yet to come. When the ill fated chapel was ready for the roof, a gale of wind blew down the western gable, and shook the entire edifice to its foundations. And now, to crown the whole, through the malevolence of a carpenter who had purposely cut the timbers too short, down fell the left hand gallery; and, though no lives were lost, yet not a few of the people had their limbs broken, and were otherwise severely injured.[286]

It was at this period that Colne was made the head of what Thomas Taylor called “a snug circuit”; though the circuit embraced the entire region constituting the Todmorden, Bacup, Haslingden, Blackburn, Burnley, Preston, Garstang, Lancaster, Clitheroe, and Padiham circuits of the present day. Taylor was the assistant of the circuit before it was made so snug, and was Wesley’s companion at the time of the Colne catastrophe. In his voluminous unpublished diary, he tells us, that at Otley, Wesley not only preached, but made a collection for his London chapel; at Bingley, he preached in the parish church; at Keighley, after preaching, Wesley stood on one side of the path and Taylor on the other, and, with their hats in their hands, collected upwards of £7 for the new chapel in City Road; at Colne, Taylor was with Wesley in the pulpit when the gallery fell. He writes: “Oh, what a scene ensued. The dismal shrieks of those whose limbs were broken, or who were otherwise injured, and the cries of the women for their children, were terrible. Happily no lives were lost, and much less damage done than might have been expected. As soon as the confusion was abated, Mr. Wesley preached out of doors; but the catastrophe prevented many from hearing.”[287]

Wesley proceeded to Derby, where, strangely enough, another accident occurred, which might have been as serious as that at Colne. An hour before the congregation assembled in the chapel, part of the roof fell in; the people, however, rushed to hear, despite the doubtful state of the flimsy edifice; and, among others permanently benefited by Wesley’s ministry, was Catherine Spencer, who, for sixty-four years, adorned her religious profession by “a meek and quiet spirit,” and who died at the age of eighty-six, in 1843.[288]

Wesley got back to London on June 21, and, a week later, wrote: “June 28--I have now completed my seventy-fourth year, and, by the peculiar favour of God, I find my health and strength, and all my faculties of body and mind, just the same as they were at four-and-twenty.”

A man, on his birthday, frequently reviews the past, sifts the present, and reflects upon the future. At this period Wesley wrote as follows to his legal friend, Walter Churchey, of Brecon, the birthplace of Thomas Coke.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--At present, I am very safe; for I am a good many pounds, if not scores of pounds, worse than nothing. In my will, I bequeath no money but what may happen to be in my pocket when I die.

“Dr. Coke promises fair, and gives us reason to hope, that he will, bring forth, not only blossoms, but fruit. He has hitherto behaved exceeding well, and seems to be aware of his grand enemy--applause. He will likewise be in danger from offence. If you are acquainted with him, a friendly letter might be of use, and would be taken kindly. He now stands on slippery ground, and is in need of every help.

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[289]

Having spent nine days in London, Wesley set out, on June 30, on a preaching tour which occupied the whole of the ensuing month. Proceeding by way of Buckingham, he visited Oxford, Witney, Stroud, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Worcester, Malvern; and then passed through Wales to Bristol, which he reached on July 28.

Here, on August 5, he opened his annual conference, and writes:

“As the report had been spread far and wide, I now particularly inquired of every assistant, ‘Have you reason to believe, from your own observation, that the Methodists are a fallen people? Is there a decay or an increase in the work of God where you have been? Are the societies in general more dead, or more alive to God, than they were some years ago?’ The almost universal answer was: ‘If we must know them by their fruits, there is no decay in the work of God among the people in general. The societies are not dead to God: they are as much alive as they have been for many years. And we look on this report as a mere device of Satan, to make our hands hang down.’

“‘But how can this question be decided?’ You can judge no further than you see. You cannot judge of one part by another; and none but myself has an opportunity of seeing the Methodists throughout the three kingdoms.

“But to come to a short issue. In most places, the Methodists are still a poor, despised people, labouring under reproach, and many inconveniences; therefore, wherever the power of God is not, they decrease. By this then, you may form a sure judgment. Do the Methodists in general decrease in number? Then they decrease in grace; they are a fallen, or, at least, a falling people. But they do not decrease in number; they continually increase; therefore, they are not a fallen people.”

These are weighty words. They show Wesley’s deep anxiety to maintain the genuine character of the work in which he was engaged; and the test which he instituted was, unquestionably, under existing circumstances, logical and conclusive.

The principal propagator of the report, that the Methodists were a fallen people, was John Hilton, who, for thirteen years, had been an itinerant preacher. Dr. Stevens calls him “an honest but weak headed man.” This is scarcely correct. Leaving his honesty an open question, John Hilton, judged by his publications, was far from being “weak headed.” Wesley says: “He told us he must withdraw from our connexion. Some would have reasoned with him, but it was lost labour; so we let him go in peace.” Hilton was no sooner gone, than he turned author, and, in 1778, besides an octavo pamphlet of 32 pages, entitled, “The Deplorable State of Man,” he issued “Reasons for Quitting the Methodist Society; being a Defence of Barclay’s Apology;” 8vo, 66 pages. Dated, “Melksham, 3rd month, 28th day, 1778.” He tells his readers, that, “a year ago, Barclay’s Apology converted him to the principles of the quakers;” and a broadbrimmed quaker John Hilton henceforwards was. Both his pamphlets are written in a plain, good, nervous style, and show, that, in point of education and mental power, he was much superior to the mass of Wesley’s itinerants.[290] Hilton was not without talent; but like most who think themselves more religious than their neighbours, he was sour and censorious. “What I have lamented in him, for some years,” wrote Wesley, in a letter, dated October 22, 1777, “is an aptness to condemn and despise his brethren. There is no failing more infectious than this; and it is much if you did not catch a little of it from him; otherwise you would hardly say, ‘the body of Methodists are degenerated.’ You cannot possibly judge whether they are or not. Perhaps you converse with one or two hundred of them. Now allowing two thirds of these to be degenerated, can you infer the same concerning thirty or forty thousand? Yet this I will allow, two thirds of those who are grown rich are greatly degenerated. They do not, will not, save all they can, in order to give all they can; and, without doing this, they cannot grow in grace, nay, they constantly grieve the Holy Spirit of God.”[291]

Thomas Taylor was at the conference of 1777, and tells us that, on the conference Sunday, the morning service, in the Broadmead chapel, lasted from half-past nine till nearly one o’clock; that, at five in the afternoon, Wesley preached to a large and serious crowd out of doors, and afterwards, in a full society meeting, “expatiated upon the rules, and said many useful things.” He preached again in the evening of the first day of conference, but not longer than twenty minutes. On August 7, Taylor writes: “that great and good man Mr. Fletcher came into conference. My eyes flowed with tears at the sight of him. He spoke to us in a very respectful manner, and took a solemn farewell. Dear, good man! I never saw so many tears shed in all my life.”[292]

Fletcher had sought health at Stoke Newington; but was now the guest of Mr. Ireland, of Bristol. Benson, his fellow sufferer in the Trevecca troubles, writes: “We have had an edifying conference. Mr. Fletcher’s visits have been attended with a blessing. His appearance, his exhortations, and his prayers, broke most of our hearts, and filled us with shame and self abasement for our little improvement.”[293]

This was a memorable scene. Fletcher, emaciated, feeble, and ghostlike, entered the conference leaning on the arm of his host, Mr. Ireland. In an instant, the whole assembly stood up, and Wesley advanced to meet his almost seraphic friend. The apparently dying man began to address the brave itinerants, and, before he had uttered a dozen sentences, one and all were bathed in tears. Wesley, fearing that Fletcher was speaking too much, abruptly knelt at his side and began to pray. Down fell the whole of Wesley’s preachers, and joined in the devotion of their great leader. The burden of Wesley’s supplication was, that his friend might be spared to labour a little longer; and this petition was urged with such fervency and faith, that, at last, Wesley closed by exclaiming with a confidence and an emphasis which seemed to thrill every heart: “He shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord.”[294]

The event verified Wesley’s words; for though the pilgrim was already walking on the margin of the river of death, and had heaven’s own sunshine shining on him, it was not until eight years after that he passed the gates of the celestial city.

At the conference of 1776, it was reported, that there were 3148 Methodists in America; in the minutes of 1777, America is not mentioned. Still, American Methodism was not dead. “I have just received two letters from New York,” writes Wesley on January 11, 1777. “They inform me, that all the Methodists there are firm for the government, and, on that account, persecuted by the rebels, only not to the death; that the preachers are still threatened, but not stopped; and, that the work of God increases much in Maryland and Virginia.”[295]

The war was raging with terrific violence; and some of the preachers, as Mr. Rodda, were not so wise, politically speaking, as seemed desirable: but, despite all this, Methodism actually spread and prospered. Thomas Rankin, George Shadford, and others thought of fleeing from the field of conflict; and it was only by Asbury’s solicitation, that they were induced to stay awhile longer. The baptists too became a hindrance. “Like ghosts,” says Asbury, “they haunt us from place to place.” Wesley’s political tracts also were a serious stumbling block.[296] A Methodist backslider enlisted three hundred men for the British army, was arrested, and hanged as a rebel against the government of his country.[297] Even peaceful, prudent, and loyal Francis Asbury was fined £5 for preaching at Nathan Perrig’s; and, in October 1777, Rankin and Rodda returned to England, and Shadford soon after, leaving poor, persecuted, but faithful Asbury the only one of Wesley’s itinerants that now remained at the post of duty, and preaching peace to the people by Jesus Christ.

And here let us pause to say, that a grander specimen of a Christian apostle than Francis Asbury the world has never had. Much as we revere the memory of Wesley, we regard Asbury with an almost equal veneration. Among the self denying, laborious, Christian ministers of the past eighteen hundred years, we believe, that Francis Asbury has no superiors, and but few that can be considered equals. And yet, how little does the church catholic, indeed, how little does the Methodist section of it, know concerning this great and grand, because good, old man!

The son of peasant parents, Asbury began to preach in Staffordshire, while yet a boy seventeen years of age; and, in 1771, came to Bristol to embark for America, without a single penny in his pocket. His first text in America was in perfect harmony with the forty-five years he spent in wandering through its woods and prairies: “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” As early as 1776, he made it a rule, besides travelling and preaching, to read a hundred pages daily, and to spend three hours out of every twenty-four in private prayer. Cabins of the most miserable description were, in thousands of instances, his happy homes; and often, when his horse cast a shoe in the wide wilderness, in the absence of a blacksmith’s shop, this grand old bishop of the American Methodists would make a piece of a bull’s hide, bound about his horse’s foot, serve in the place of iron. His daily rides were often from thirty to fifty miles, over mountains and swamps, through bridgeless rivers and pathless woods, his horse frequently weary and lame, and he himself wet, cold, and hungry. For forty-five years, when steamboats, stage coaches, railways, and almost roads, were utterly unknown, Asbury made a tour of the American states, travelling never less than five thousand, and often more than six thousand, miles a year, and this generally on horseback; climbing mountains; creeping down declivities; winding along valleys, whose only inhabitants were birds, wild beasts, and Indians; crossing extended prairies without a companion and without a guide; fording foaming rivers; and wading through the most dangerous swamps, where one false step might have engulfed him in a boggy grave. Usually, he preached at least once every week day, and thrice every Sunday; delivering, during his ministry in America, more than twenty thousand sermons. His custom was to pray with every family on whom he called in his wide journeyings; and if, as sometimes happened, he spent more days than one in some hospitable dwelling, he was wont to have household prayer as often as there were household meals, and to allow no visitor to come or go, without asking, on his knees, that God would bless him. Besides an unknown number of camp meetings and quarterly meetings, this venerable man attended and presided over seven conferences, widely separate, every year; and, during the same space of time, wrote to his preachers and his friends, upon an average, about a thousand letters. For this enormous service, his episcopal salary was sixty-four dollars yearly and his travelling expenses. Early educational advantages he had none. Most of his life was spent on horseback, in extemporised pulpits, or in log cabins crowded with talking men and noisy women, bawling children, and barking dogs,--cabins which he was obliged to make his offices and studies, and where, with benumbed fingers, frozen ink, impracticable pens, and rumpled paper, he had to write his sermons, his journals, and his letters. Not unfrequently did he, like others, suffer from the malaria of a new, uncultivated country; and had headaches, toothaches, chills, fevers, and sore throats, for his travelling companions. And yet, despite all this, Francis Asbury was by no means an unlettered man. He became proficient in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; read the Scriptures in the tongues in which they were originally written; was acquainted with several branches of polite literature; kept abreast with the history of his times; and, although not an orator, was a dignified, eloquent, and impressive preacher. Thin, tall, and remarkably clean and neat,--in a plain drab frock coat, waistcoat, and breeches, a neat stock, and a broad brimmed, low crowned hat,--this first and greatest Methodist American bishop rode on horseback till he could ride no longer; and then might be seen often hopping on crutches, and helped in and out of his light spring wagon as he still pursued his wide episcopal wanderings. Thus lived Francis Asbury, until, in 1816, at the age of threescore years and ten, he died, and was followed to his grave in Baltimore by about twenty-five thousand of his friends. Before his death, he solemnly enjoined that no life of him should be published; and that injunction, to the present, has been substantially observed; but, if the reader wishes to see his monument, we invite him to step within the living walls of the present Methodist Episcopal Church of America, and there, while surveying the grand edifice of spiritual order and beauty, we ask him, as the inquirer in St. Paul’s cathedral is asked, to “Look around!”

This was the only one of Wesley’s English itinerants left in America in 1777; but, though forsaken by his English colleagues, he was not alone. At this very time, there were fifteen widely spread circuits; thirty-four itinerant preachers, who had been raised up by Providence on the spot; and not fewer than 6968 full and accredited members of society. In other words, though it was only eight years since Wesley’s conference had sent out Boardman and Pilmoor, there were already more than one sixth as many Methodists in America as there were, at the end of thirty-eight years, throughout the whole of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.[298]

To return to Wesley. After the Bristol conference, he spent a week in London, during which he drew up proposals for the Arminian Magazine, and met the committee appointed to superintend the building of the new chapel, which was now ready for the roof.

He then, on August 18, hurried off to Cornwall; and then to Ireland, where, at Dublin, John Hampson and Samuel Bradburn had expelled thirty-four members of society, who were so dissatisfied with this act of imprudent zeal, that Wesley was obliged to go and give the contending parties a two days’ hearing. On Saturday, October 18, he got back to London.

The week after, he spent in Oxfordshire. At High Wycombe he meant to preach, “but good Mr. James had procured a drummer to beat his drum at the window of the chapel,” and thus, instead of preaching, Wesley could only pray and sing by turns, during the time allotted for the service.

The next week was occupied in a preaching tour in Northamptonshire; and the fortnight afterwards in meeting the classes in and around London.

On November 17, he went on a flying visit to Norfolk; and, on the 23rd, preached in Lewisham church for the benefit of the Humane Society, which had been established only three years before, by Dr. Cogan and Dr. Hawes. Here, of course, he was the welcome guest of his old friend, Mr. Blackwell; and, during his visit, he dined with the celebrated Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, whose brother had married into Mr. Blackwell’s family. “His whole behaviour,” writes Wesley, “was worthy of a Christian bishop; easy, affable, and courteous; and, yet, all his conversation spoke the dignity which was suitable to his character.” There is one incident, however, which Wesley, in his modesty, has not related. On proceeding to dinner, the bishop refused to sit above Wesley at the table, saying with considerable emotion, “Mr. Wesley, may I be found at your feet in another world!” Wesley objected to take the seat of precedence, when the learned prelate obviated the difficulty, by requesting, as a favour, that Wesley would sit above him, because his hearing was defective, and he desired not to lose a sentence of Wesley’s conversation.[299]

The remaining five weeks of the year 1777 were spent, partly in the three counties of Bedford, Huntingdon, and Hertford; partly at Bath, where he laid the foundation stone of a new chapel; and partly in London, where he parted with Fletcher on his way to Switzerland. He says: “We concluded the old year, and began the new, with prayer and thanksgiving. Four or five of the local preachers assisted me. I was agreeably surprised; their manner of praying being so artless and unlaboured, and yet rational and scriptural, both as to sense and expression.”

Such was Wesley’s watchnight service at the expiration of 1777; no preaching, no exhortatory platitudes, but simply prayer and thanksgiving, offered by himself and a selection of his London local preachers. Wesley’s successors have not improved on this.

It was during this memorable year, that a society was instituted, which was ultimately superseded by benevolent societies that yet exist. Six friends in London met, at each other’s house in rotation, every Sunday afternoon, for the purpose of singing and prayer only. They were soon entreated to visit the surrounding sick, and, finding many of them in deep poverty, began to relieve their wants. To do this, they found it desirable to provide a fund, by contributing themselves, and asking contributions of their friends; and shortly a society was formed, sometimes called “The Willow Walk Society, near Moorfields”; but more generally and properly, “The united Society for Visiting and Relieving the Sick.” A few years later, the “Strangers’ Friend Society” was started. John Gardner, a retired soldier, in his London visits, met a man in a miserable garret, dying of fistula. He lay on the floor, covered only with a sack, without shirt, cap, or sheet. The old soldier felt, as every one must feel, that to visit such cases, without relieving them, was not worthy of a Christian; and, returning home, he got fifteen of his Methodist friends to join in a penny a week subscription for such a purpose. His classleader, jealous of his class-pence moneys, instead of helping, opposed the scheme. Gardner, with a soldier’s pluck, was not to be silenced by a subordinate, but wrote at once to Wesley.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--A few of us are subscribing a penny a week each, which is to be carried on the sabbath by one of ourselves, who read and pray with the afflicted, who, according to the rules enclosed, must be poor strangers, having no parish, or friend at hand to help them. Our benevolent plan is opposed by my classleader; therefore, we are constrained to seek your approbation before we proceed. We are very poor, and our whole stock is not yet twenty shillings: will thank you, therefore, for any assistance you may please to afford your very humble servant,

“JOHN GARDNER.”

Wesley was the last man to stifle a project like this; and, hence, his answer “to Mr. John Gardner, No. 14, in Long Lane, Smithfield,” was as follows.

“HIGHBURY PLACE, December 21, 1785.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I like the design and rules of your society, and hope you will do good to many. I will subscribe threepence a week, and will give a guinea in advance, if any one will call on me on Saturday morning.

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

The scheme was now fairly launched; “Strangers’ Friend societies” sprung up in Bristol and other places; Wesley drew up their rules in 1790; and wrote thus in his journal: “Sunday, March 14--In the morning, I met the strangers’ society, instituted wholly for the relief, not of our society, but for poor, sick, friendless strangers. I do not know, that I ever heard or read of such an institution till within a few years ago. So this also is one of the fruits of Methodism.”[300]

Such then was the origin of the present “Strangers’ Friend Society,” which, until lately, was patronised by royalty, and which employed, in 1868, three hundred and fifty-two voluntary, unpaid agents in its work of Christian benevolence; these good Samaritans, during the same year, paying 32,460 visits, relieving 6577 cases of distress, and, besides blankets, flannels, and cast off garments, distributing £1926 14_s._ in ameliorating the miseries of “the destitute sick poor, without distinction of sect or country, at their own habitations.”

Considering Wesley’s wide wanderings, his daily preaching, his supervision of societies, and his multifarious correspondence, to say nothing of his publication of tracts and books, the reader wonders how an old man managed to keep the thousand wheels of his vast machinery in motion; and, yet, in the midst of what to others would have been an unceasing and worrying bustle, he was almost as tranquil as a hermit. The following extract from a letter, dated December 10, 1777, is racy and unique.

“You do not understand my manner of life. Though I am always in haste, I am never in a hurry; because I never undertake any more work than I can go through with perfect calmness of spirit. It is true, I travel four or five thousand miles in a year; but I generally travel alone in my carriage, and, consequently, am as retired ten hours in a day as if I was in a wilderness. On other days, I never spend less than three hours, frequently ten or twelve in the day, alone. So there are few persons in the kingdom who spend so many hours secluded from all company. Yet I find time to visit the sick and the poor; and I must do it, if I believe the Bible, if I believe these are the marks whereby the Shepherd of Israel will know and judge His sheep at the great day. Therefore, when there are time and opportunity for it, who can doubt, but this is a matter of absolute duty? When I was at Oxford, and lived almost like a hermit, I saw not how any busy man could be saved. I scarce thought it possible for a man to retain the Christian spirit, amidst the noise and bustle of the world. God taught me better by my own experience. I had ten times more business in America (that is, at intervals) than ever I had in my life; but it was no hindrance to silence of spirit.”[301]

Wesley’s incessant labours were not the only thing likely to perturb a human spirit. As usual, he was still the subject of acrimonious persecution. In his sermon at the laying of the foundation stone of the chapel in City Road, he gave a history of the rise and progress of Methodism, in which he stated, that Whitefield, by conversing with Dissenters, contracted strong prejudices against the Church, and that this led him to separate himself from Wesley and his brother. He also noticed the secession of Ingham from the Church; and the setting up of the college at Trevecca, which was really a school for training Dissenting ministers. His object, in all this, was to show that, though large numbers of reputed Methodists had left the Church, he and his societies still remained faithful, and were not deserving of the taunt of having formed a distinct party. “We do not,” says he, “we will not, form any separate sect, but, from principle, remain, what we always have been, true members of the Church of England.”

Whether Wesley was strictly correct in this will admit of doubt; but, unquestionably, he believed it to be the truth; and, as might be expected, it aroused the anger of his quondam friends. Rowland Hill worked himself into a rage, and published, in 1777, an octavo pamphlet of 40 pages, with the title, “Imposture Detected, and the Dead Vindicated; in a Letter to a Friend: containing some gentle Strictures on the false and libellous Harangue, lately delivered by Mr. John Wesley, upon his laying the first stone of his new Dissenting meeting-house, near the City Road.” Wesley’s sermon is designated “a wretched harangue, from which the blessed name of Jesus is almost totally excluded.” Mr. Hill remarks: “by only erasing about half-a-dozen lines from the whole, I might defy the shrewdest of his readers to discover whether the lying apostle of the Foundery be a Jew, a papist, a pagan, or a Turk.” He speaks of “the late ever memorable Mr. Whitefield being scratched out of his grave, by the claws of a designing wolf,” meaning, of course, Wesley. He brands Wesley as “a libeller,” “a dealer in stolen wares,” and “as being as unprincipled as a rook, and as silly as a jackdaw, first pilfering his neighbour’s plumage, and then going proudly forth, displaying his borrowed tail to the eyes of a laughing world.” Hill continues: “persons that are toad eaters to Mr. John Wesley stand in need of very wide throats, and that which he wishes them to swallow is enough to choke an elephant.” “He is for ever going about, raising Dissenting congregations, and building Dissenting meeting-houses the kingdom over.” “Venom distils from his graceless pen.” “Mr. Whitefield is blackened by the venomous quill of this grey headed enemy to all righteousness.” “Wesley is a crafty slanderer, an unfeeling reviler, a liar of the most gigantic magnitude, a Solomon in a cassock, a wretch, a disappointed Orlando Furioso, a miscreant apostate, whose perfection consists in his perfect hatred of all goodness and good men.” “You cannot love the Church,” continues this meek and elegant evangelist, “unless you go to Wesley’s meeting-house; nor be a friend to the established bishops, priests, and deacons, unless you admire Wesley’s ragged legion of preaching barbers, cobblers, tinkers, scavengers, draymen, and chimney sweepers.”

Has the reader had enough from the “gentle strictures” of this young divine, not yet thirty-two years of age? Let him turn to the Gospel Magazine. In reviewing Wesley’s sermon at City Road, the Gospel editor describes Wesley’s Methodism as a “jumble of heresies, truly and properly called Wesleyism”; and nothing “uttered by Satan himself can be more impudent and more glaringly untrue” than when Wesley calls it “the old religion of the Bible, of the primitive church, and of the Church of England.” For him to say, that Lady Huntingdon “labours to form independent congregations, is as gross a falsehood as was ever coined at the Foundery itself. Mr. Wesley’s apostasy from the Church is a chief reason why her ladyship has justly discarded him; and her disavowal of him, of his Dissenting principles, and of his sectarian conduct, is the true reason, why he has the insolence to spit his venom against one of the most respectable characters that ever existed.” “With a baseness hardly to be paralleled, Mr. Wesley rakes into the ashes of a man, whose name will descend with lustre to the latest posterity; while that of the Foundery wolf will moulder with his pilfered writings, or only be remembered with contempt and execration. O Wesley, Wesley, hide thy diminutive head! nor let the most pestilent Dissenter in the kingdom arraign the spotless memory of a Churchman, whose fervour and steadiness of attachment to his ecclesiastical mother have scarcely been equalled in the present age, and never exceeded in any. The truth is, Mr. Whitefield was too much a Churchman for Mr. Wesley’s fanaticism to digest. O ye deluded followers of this horrid man, God open your eyes, and pluck your feet out of the net! lest ye sink into the threefold ditch of antichristian error, of foul antinomianism, and of eternal misery at last.”[302]

This was tolerably strong; but it was not enough. The same periodical, in its review of Rowland Hill’s polite pamphlet, begins thus: “Hob in the well again; or pope John once more in the suds! Seldom has literary punishment been administered with greater keenness and spirit, than in this pamphlet; and, surely, never was a punishment administered on a juster occasion, nor to a more deserving delinquent. When you take Old Nick by the nose, it must be with a pair of red hot tongs.” The red hot reviewer reiterates the slander, that Charles Wesley offered the Greek bishop, Erasmus, forty guineas, upon condition that he would give his brother episcopal ordination; and continues: “Mr. Wesley’s vile ingratitude to the name and memory of Mr. Whitefield deserves the abhorrence and execration of all good men.” Wesley is “an unfeeling and unprincipled slanderer, a vile traducer,” and, in fact, guilty of “an extreme of malignity and baseness, for which language has no name.”[303]

Such scurrility as this, heaped upon an old man, seventy-four years of age, who had spent his long life in unparalleled labours to honour God, and to benefit his fellow men, is almost incredible. But even this was not the worst that the immaculate Gospel Magazine provided for its readers. In the same number, from which the above abuse is extracted, there is a long poem, entitled, “The Serpent and the Fox; or, an interview between old Nick and old John”; which strongly reminds us of a series of most infamous rhymed effusions which will have to be noticed in the ensuing year, and in which Wesley is always represented as a fox. The poem now published was not only foul, but, in the highest degree, profane. It would be a crime to reproduce it. Suffice it to say, that, as if to aggravate its infernal features, it immediately follows a really beautiful hymn of six stanzas “To God the Holy Ghost.” As a contrast, and to furnish a specimen of the medley often found in this Calvinistic periodical, we furnish the reader with the last verse of the thoroughly good hymn, and the first verse of the thoroughly bad poem. Addressing the Divine Spirit, John Stocker writes:

“Thou my dross and sin consume; Let Thy inward kingdom come; All my prayer and praise suggest; Dwell and reign within my breast.”

We shrink from the task of so closely annexing to such a stanza, the first, and by far the least objectionable, lines of the ribald poem of “The Serpent and the Fox”; but historical fidelity compels us.

“There’s a Fox who resideth hard by, The most perfect, and holy, and sly, That e’er turned a coat, or could pilfer and lie; As this reverend Reynard, one day, Sat thinking what game next to play, Old Nick came a seasonable visit to pay.”

Then follows a conversation, in which Wesley proposes to burn the Calvinists in Smithfield, as Bonner once burnt the protestants, and the devil promises, that, while Wesley shall be exalted “with state” to heaven’s “third storey,” all the Whitefields and Hills shall be “turned back from the gate.”

Quantum sufficit! of Rowland Hill, both in prose and verse. What had Wesley to say to all this? In his journal he writes: “1777, June 26--I read the truly wonderful performance of Mr. Rowland Hill. I stood amazed! Compared to him, Mr. Toplady himself is a very civil, fair spoken gentleman! June 27--I wrote an answer to it; ‘not rendering railing for railing’ (I have not so learned Christ); but ‘speaking the truth in love.’”

Wesley’s reply was a penny tract of 12 pages, 12mo, with the title, “An Answer to Mr. Rowland Hill’s Tract, entitled, ‘Imposture Detected.’” He begins as follows: “In the tract just published by Mr. Rowland Hill, there are several assertions which are not true. And the whole pamphlet is wrote in an unchristian and ungentlemanly manner. I shall first set down the assertions in order, and then proceed to the manner.” This is the strongest language Wesley uses. Indeed, he writes as though Hill’s pamphlet amused him rather than otherwise. Some of his friends, however, were not so lenient. Thomas Olivers rushed to the rescue, with his characteristic fire, and unmercifully put into the hands of the public a sixpenny “Rod for the Reviler”; and Matthew Goodenough, a mechanic, of Bishopsgate Street, published “A Letter to Mr. Rowland Hill,” 12mo, 21 pages, in which he tells “the reviler” that he had used a vindictive style of which a chimney sweep might properly be ashamed; and, from his malign spirit and rude manner of attacking Mr. Wesley, he might be mistaken for the chief of Billingsgate. Hill, as a preacher, is taunted with ranting, and roaring, and squealing, and bawling, and twisting, and twirling himself about like a merryandrew; and is told that, though “a Pelagian Methodist stinks,” it was a comfort that the name of Rowland Hill was “an odoriferous perfume, a charming nosegay, diffusing its fragrance wherever it appears, and sweetly and effectually extinguishing the fœtid exhalations of Pelagian ordure!”

Not only in the Welsh cobbler, but in the Bishopsgate mechanic, Rowland met with an Oliver; but, like a beaten bull dog, was not satisfied. He at once issued another octavo pamphlet of 45 pages, entitled, “A Full Answer to the Rev. J. Wesley’s Remarks,” etc., in which he humbly apologises for using too strong language in his former pamphlet; and yet, with a strange inconsistency, commits the same fault in this. Wesley is again accused of “pompous falsehood,” “barefaced untruth,” “ungodly craft,” “of calumniating the living, and traducing the dead.” “For full thirty years, Wesley had been travelling towards Trent, and was now got to his journey’s end”; while Fletcher--poor Fletcher, apparently dying of consumption--had “published, at the end of his third volume, a most horrible manifesto, in language almost blasphemous, and had forged my brother’s name” (Sir Richard Hill), “and mine, at the conclusion of it.”

But here we must leave this doughty warrior, to whom the very name of Wesley was what a scarlet cloak is to an infuriated bull. Some will object to the reviving of these disgraceful reminiscences. Our reiterated answer is, that, without them, it is impossible for the reader rightly to estimate the character of Wesley. If they reflect dishonour on Rowland Hill, we cannot help it. Rowland Hill was a public man, and, like all other public men, he must be content to pay a public penalty for his public crimes. Unfortunately, this is not the last we shall hear of him.

Besides those already mentioned, Wesley published, in 1777--

1. The sermon he preached, on April 21, at the laying of the foundation stone of City Road chapel. 12mo, 47 pages.

2. An Extract from his Journal, from September 2, 1770, to September 12, 1773. 12mo, 119 pages.

3. “A Short Account of the Death of Elizabeth Hindmarsh,” a native of Alnwick, “who died September 6, 1777, in the twenty-first year of her age.” 12mo, 12 pages.

4. “Thoughts upon God’s Sovereignty.” 12mo, 11 pages.

5. “A Sermon, preached November 23, 1777, in Lewisham Church, before the Humane Society.” 12mo, 24 pages.

FOOTNOTES:

[281] Methodist Magazine, 1783, p. 358.

[282] Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 311.

[283] Memoir of Ball, p. 137.

[284] Life of Mrs. Smyth, p. 33.

[285] Bardsley’s manuscript letters.

[286] Manuscript memoir of Mr. Sagar.

[287] Taylor’s manuscript diary.

[288] Methodist Magazine, 1844, p. 70.

[289] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 406.

[290] Mr. Moore says: “this good man was possessed of eminent ministerial gifts, but he fell into the mystic delusion. He then became high minded and censorious; and Mr. Charles Wesley, in his hours of depression, used too much to listen to him. The quakers were jealous of him, and kept him silent a long time, to his great mortification. But it was the very thing he needed, it was good medicine to heal his sickness. In one of his last conversations with me, he said: ‘I would not have thy people to think of changing; they may be disappointed,’ He was then in a sweet and humble spirit, very different from that in which he left us.” (Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., pp. 273, 274.)

[291] Methodist Magazine, 1807, p. 328.

[292] Taylor’s manuscript diary.

[293] Treffry’s Life of Benson.

[294] “Anecdotes of the Wesleys,” p. 272.

[295] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 398.

[296] Asbury’s Journal, vol. i., p. 177.

[297] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 440.

[298] Minutes of Methodist Conferences in America, 1795.

[299] Jackson’s “Centenary of Methodism,” p. 201.

[300] See Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 661.

[301] Methodist Magazine, 1799, p. 564.

[302] Gospel Magazine, 1777, p. 182.

[303] Ibid. p. 337.

1778. Age 75

Never in his life was Wesley the subject of a more infamous press persecution than in 1778.

First of all, there was a pamphlet published, in which Thomas Maxfield was pitiably preeminent. This mendacious publication asserted that, when Whitefield went to America, in 1741, he handed over to the two Wesleys thirty thousand people, whose hearts the Wesleys so turned against him, that, when he returned to England, not three hundred would come to hear him. It further alleged, that “vile contentions” followed, in which the Wesleys “raked the filthiest ashes, to find some black story against their fellow preachers;” and that what had been published, on both sides, by the friends of Whitefield and Wesley, within the last six years, was a disgrace to all concerned.

Wesley replied to this, in “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Maxfield, occasioned by a late Publication”: 8vo, 11 pages. He states, with perfect truth, that, at the time referred to, there were not five thousand Methodists in the world; that his own societies contained not more than fourteen or fifteen hundred members, and Whitefield’s not so many. He declares that, so far from receiving thirty thousand people from Whitefield in solemn trust, the latter never delivered up to him one thousand, nor one hundred. He admits, that division followed; but affirms that Whitefield himself occasioned it. Whitefield first published a treatise against him by name; but he made no reply to it. Wesley asserts that Whitefield constantly preached against him and his brother, both in Moorfields, and in other public places. Even in the very Foundery, while Charles Wesley sat beside him, he preached the absolute decrees, in the most peremptory and offensive manner; but, instead of returning railing for railing, they always and everywhere spoke of him in respectful terms. And then, with respect to the publications of the last six years, Wesley states that, though the two Hills, and Toplady, had poured upon him, in great abundance, bitterness and wrath, yea, low, base, and virulent invective, he himself had published only three tracts during the entire controversy, and in none of them had he spoken one bitter, passionate, or disrespectful word. “Where,” he asks, “have I, in one single sentence, returned them railing for railing? I have not so learned Christ. I dare not rail, either at them or you. I return not cursing but blessing. That the God of love may bless them and you, is the prayer of your injured, yet still affectionate brother, JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley’s letter was worthy of himself. True, his statements, respecting his old friend Whitefield, are scarcely to Whitefield’s honour; but it must be borne in mind, that they are not opinions, but facts; and facts not volunteered, but extorted by the falsehoods of Maxfield and those with whom Maxfield now associated.

Wesley replied to Maxfield; but the publications which must be next noticed were properly treated with the silent contempt they merited. We reluctantly advert to these vile productions; and yet, for the reason already repeatedly assigned, we must. Our notices shall be brief: first, for want of space; and secondly, because we can hardly make quotations without fouling our pages. The publications were seven in number, all, except one, printed by a man of the name of Bew, in Paternoster Row, on the best of paper, and in the best of type.

1. “The Gospel Shop. A comedy in five acts: with a new prologue and epilogue, intended for public representation, but suppressed at the particular desire of some eminent divines. By R. Hill, Esq., of Cambridge.” 8vo, 88 pages. The chief dramatis personæ are Dr. Scapegoat, Parson Prolix, Mr. Rackett, and Simon Sycophant; and an idea of the whole of this infamous production may be obtained from two lines taken from the motto on the title page.

“Beware! these dire illusions! strange to tell, A gospel shop’s the very spawn of hell!”

2. “The Saints: a satire.” 4to, 30 pages; with a frontispiece made up of two scrolls, labelled respectively, “Inspiration,” and “Election,” a bottle inscribed with the word “Gin,” and a satyr’s head inscribed “Perfection.” A Methodist is described as a mixture of ignorance and folly, piety and hypocrisy. The whole tribe are “downright scoundrels,” “religious mountebanks,” “wretches who make a trade of religion,” and “show an uncommon concern for the next world, only to raise their fortunes with greater security in this.” Two lines must suffice as a specimen, and, for the sake of decency, two of the words must be given in a skeletonised form. Of Wesley it is said, he

“Makes piety a b----d to aid his work, Outlies Sam Johnson, and o--twh----s a Turk.”[304]

3. “Perfection; a poetical epistle, calmly addressed to the greatest hypocrite in England.” 4to, price two shillings. Of course, Wesley was the hypocrite; and the work is ornamented with an emblematical frontispiece in accordance with its foul and calumnious falsehoods.

4. “The Temple of Imposture. A poem by the author of ‘The Saints,’ ‘Perfection,’ etc.” 4to, 35 pages. This, like all the others, has a characteristic frontispiece, in which Wesley is represented as a huge serpent, labelled “The subtlest beast of the field.” The serpent forms a circle, inside of which, among other things, there are four books respectively inscribed, “Koran,” “Bedlam’s Hymns,” “Druid Hymns,” and “Ignat. Loyola Monita Secreta”; also a gridiron, called “Mahommed’s Gridiron”; a sword, inscribed “A Calm Address”; a bottle, with a burning candle in its neck, and labelled “Gin”; and two scrolls, one with the words “Old Light at Mecca,” and the other, “New Light in Moorfields.” The professed object of the work is to show, that, in tyranny, lust, avarice, persecution, and imposture, Wesley is a successor of Mahommed; and, in a bad sense, an improved edition of Ignatius Loyola. Wesley is accused of long seeking to be made a bishop. “Of all impostors since the flood,” he is denounced as the very worst; while his preachers are “mechanic missionaries,--bawling, crafty, illiterate wretches, sent out by their priestly masters, to sow seeds of false doctrine and fanaticism, which spring up, throughout the country, in plentiful crops of idleness, beggary, madness, and sometimes suicide.”

5. “The Lovefeast. A poem by the author of the ‘Saints: a satire,’ etc.” 4to, 47 pages. Here the frontispiece is a sort of chapel scene, in which Wesley, as a fox, dressed in canonicals, is having a mitre placed upon his head by the goddess Murcia, while a parson behind waves his wig and shouts “Hurrah,” and another hurries away with an air of disappointment and disgust. Wesley’s Foundery is described as “a spiritual slop shop,” where he equips his “preaching lubbers” with all the necessary paraphernalia for playing their several parts; while the preachers themselves are designated “the worst of scum,” “smugglers of Scripture phrases,” “learning’s sworn foes,” “Jack Cade’s apostles,” and “mere conduit pipes of rhapsody and cant.” The following are the last lines of the piece, and are used concerning Wesley himself.

“Feasts he may institute, raise holy piles, Degrade his God to win a monarch’s smiles; Permit corruption his false heart to taint, Live by imposture, and yet die a saint; But never while this hand can hold a pen, Shall he escape the scorn of honest men. Nor North, nor Mansfield shall the wizard save, But ridicule shall scourge him to the grave-- There let him rot, (so Becket did before,) Proud as a pope, and faithless as a wh--re.”

6. “Sketches for Tabernacle Frames.” 4to, 36 pages. In this, the frontispiece consists of Wesley, again represented as a fox in canonicals, with the crosier of a mock bishop behind him, and round about a library of books, which he is supposed to sell, the shelves being labelled “Primitive Physic,” “Political Pamphlets,” and “Prayers, Sermons, and Hymns.” Before him kneels a mechanic, with an ass’s head, holding, in one hand, a bottle inscribed with the words “Primitive Physic,” and, in the other, a pamphlet called “A Calm Address,” while the poor asinine wretch himself is having his mouth opened by Wesley, who is about to indulge in the agreeable recreation of extracting his teeth. At the top of the picture are two portraits, one of James II., indicative of Wesley being a Jacobite; and the other of Lucy Cooper, indicating him to be something worse. The poem is dedicated to the “Rev. Mr. Evans, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Hawes, in acknowledgment of their services to the public.” After describing Wesley by such epithets as “a nostrum monger,” “a preacher, pamphleteer, and quack,” than whom “few can whistle off rank nonsense better,” the work concludes with the two lines following:

“His odious name should stink beyond the grave, And truth proclaim him a recorded knave.”

The reader has had more than enough of these dunghill rakings; but, in order to be saved from the hateful task of returning to this series of abominable poems, we add another published in the year following.

7. “Fanatical Conversion, or Methodism Displayed. Illustrated and verified from J. Wesley’s fanatical journals.” 1779: 4to, 55 pages. In two different copies we find two different frontispieces. One is an ass, on its hind legs, preaching. The other is much more elaborate, and is too obscene to be fully described. Leaving out the parts referred to, Wesley, as a clerical fox, is represented as preaching in a barn, his right hand in the coat pocket of a man called “Old Cloaths,” and his left taking a penny from a boy, a tapster, who has just been broaching a hogshead of “Culvert’s Gin.” One man approaches the preacher, with a cudgel, crying, “Give me my money!” Another, in the form of a donkey, is making a most hideous noise, and is called “Brother Bray.” A third is vomiting a black monster, and represented as saying, “He’s gone, he’s gone!” A fourth is standing on his head, and shouting, “Sure I am in heaven.” Two others are hurling a squib at Wesley’s head, and flourishing a scroll, “For the benefit of Trick upon Trick, or Methodism Displayed.” At Wesley’s feet is the favourite bottle, labelled “Primitive Physic”; and in the centre is, what may be taken as the artist’s name, “Rowland Hill, 1778.” The following four lines, selected almost hap-hazard, are a very moderate specimen of all the rest. Of course, they are spoken concerning Wesley.

“Reynard, you’re right! Heaven loves such pious frauds; Hence, half your saints unmasked are who--s and b--ds: Nay, mock apostles are but little less Than devils lurking in fanatic dress.”

We gladly leave these disgusting publications. Like dishonoured children, they are without an acknowledged father. Who was their infamous author? We neither know, nor care to know; but there are three facts concerning them which must be noticed. First, in almost the whole of them there is a most virulent attack on Wesley’s “Calm Address to the American Colonies.” Secondly, though irreligious to a supreme degree, they are levelled, not against religion in general, but against that particular form of it espoused by Wesley. Thirdly, throughout, the Calvinists are either passed sub silentio, or with words of commendation; and, in footnotes and other places, Rowland Hill is evidently in the writer’s good graces. We have read hundreds of tracts and pamphlets published against Wesley; but nothing which, for profanity, pollution, and violent abuse, equals these. They display talent; but talent prostituted to the most infernal purposes. In style, they resemble,--shall we say it? the style of one of Wesley’s most calumnious Calvinian opposers; but we charitably, though feebly, hope, that no man professing, much less teaching, the Christian religion, had to do with their production.

What had Wesley done to merit all this? Nothing, absolutely nothing. He was an old man whose life had been spent in one great act of Christian beneficence. These wretched poems, issued in the best style of the art of printing, by J. Bew, of Paternoster Row, were the foul sputterings of a muse, not naturally ignoble, but envious of Wesley’s majestic goodness, and animated with a feeling almost as malignant as the heart of Apollyon. So far from answering them, Wesley never even condescended to mention them, in any journal or letter yet made public.

Before we trace Wesley’s wanderings in 1778, there are two or three other facts which must be noticed. On Tuesday, August 11, 1778, in the thirty-eighth year of his age, occurred the death of the Rev. Augustus Toplady. In more respects than one, this was a memorable event to Wesley and his friends. In the death of Toplady, Wesley lost one of his bitterest opponents; and Calvinism lost its ablest champion.

Soon after, the report was circulated, that Wesley had stated, to some of his friends, that Toplady died in despair and uttering blasphemy. Sir Richard Hill rushed into print, by sending an anonymous letter to the General Advertiser, requesting Wesley either to deny the accusation, or to produce his authority, otherwise his character would suffer, “for having vented a most gross, malicious falsehood.” Not content with this, he published a pamphlet, in the form of a “Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,” in which, as usual, he made use of the most intemperate language, telling Wesley that, unless he cleared himself from the charge alleged against him, he would be branded “as the raiser and fabricator of a most nefarious report,” and would be guilty of a sin little less “than the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost.” The whole of this mare’s nest was simply this: Mr. Gawkrodger, of Bridlington, told Sir Richard Hill, that Mr. Thomas Robinson told him, that Wesley told him, that Toplady “died in black despair and blasphemy.” If Sir Richard Hill had courteously asked for an explanation, Wesley, like a gentleman and a Christian, would have given one; but, having demanded it in the most offensive terms, telling him that he had been “vilifying the ashes and traducing the memory” of Toplady; and that “his grand design in all his publications, whether sermons, journals, appeals, preservatives, or Arminian magazines, was that of trumpeting forth his own praises”; and that he was “a man of cunning and subtlety, and artifices, and foul aspersions, and quibbles, and evasions,”[305]--we say, that Sir Richard Hill having used such terms as these, in the very letters in which he requested the explanation, deserved, not an answer, but, the silent contempt with which Wesley wisely treated him.

In 1778, England was in great excitement. Panic was general; and the country was thought to be on the brink of ruin. It was this state of things which led Wesley to publish the two political pamphlets following:

First, “A Serious Address to the People of England, with regard to the state of the nation:” 12mo, 28 pages; the object of which was to show, that England, notwithstanding the war, was in prosperity. Its cattle and vegetable productions were undiminished. Its inhabitants had increased a million within the last twenty years; and, during the same period, hundreds of thousands of acres of unprofitable land had been put under tillage. England might have lost eight hundred of its ships since the beginning of the war; but it had also taken more than it had lost. The trade with Ireland had prodigiously increased; and, comparatively speaking, the national debt was not so great as in 1759. “Friends and countrymen!” writes Wesley, “let none deceive you with vain words! Let none, by subtle reasonings, or by artful, elaborate harangues, persuade you out of your senses. Let no sweet tongued orator, by his smooth periods, steal away your understanding; no thundering talker fill you with vain fears, of evils that have no being. You are encompassed with liberty, peace, and plenty. Know the public, as well as private, blessings which you enjoy; and be thankful to God and man.”

The second, and shorter tract, was published, with the title, “A Compassionate Address to the Inhabitants of Ireland”: 12mo, 12 pages. Wesley laughs to scorn the report, that General Washington had an army of 65,000 men; and says, that “the French will as soon swallow up the sea,” as swallow up old England; that the Spanish have not yet forgotten Havannah; and that the Portuguese were “not such arrant fools” as to join in a confederacy with England’s enemies.

These were odd topics for Wesley to take up; but the war excitement was now at its highest point. Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh raised regiments at their own expense. The Whig opposition considered this to be highly reprehensible, and accused Lord North and the other members of the government with employing soldiers without consent of parliament, and of entertaining designs dangerous to the liberties of the country. Fox moved, in the House of Commons, that no more troops should be sent out of the kingdom; alleging that a war with France and Spain was imminent; and that the navy was inefficient, and the militia contemptible. Burke, in a speech of three hours and a half duration,--said to be the greatest triumph of eloquence within the memory of man,--endeavoured to weaken the hands of government, by dwelling on the ferocities and horrors committed by their savage auxiliaries in America, the red Indians. Lord George Gordon, who was not yet quite so mad as he became a year or two later, expressed his earnest wish, that Lord North “would call off his butchers from America, retire with all the rest of his majesty’s evil advisers, and turn from his wickedness and live.” John Wilkes, the ex-lord mayor of London, who had not yet attained to the post of city chamberlain, but who was engaged in constant manœuvres to escape out of the purgatory of duns, or to draw more money from the purses of private friends, was as lavish with his sarcasms, ribaldry, and drollery as ever, and told the minister, that nothing but a cessation of hostilities would save General Howe from the fate of Burgoyne. France was exerting itself to the utmost, to induce, not only Spain, but also Austria, Prussia, Russia, and the other despotisms, to become the allies and protectors of the young and free republic. The king and his ministers were involved in the greatest difficulties; and John Wesley, like a loyal man, at the head of forty thousand Methodists, felt it to be a duty to assist them as he best could, not only in private and in the pulpit, but also with his pen.

Having spent the first two months of 1778 in London and its vicinity, Wesley started, at the commencement of March, for Ireland, where he employed his time and energies till towards the end of July following; but there was nothing in the tour so unusually remarkable as to demand attention. The days of mob persecution were over; and everywhere Wesley was received with respect, and, in many places, with affection. At Tullamore, where he preached in the riding-house, the commanding officer ordered all the soldiers to be present, and attended himself, with the rest of the officers. At Cork, two companies of volunteers were present in the chapel, while Wesley preached; the side gallery being filled with the men in scarlet, and the front with the men in blue. In one instance, this old evangelist actually, we had almost said cruelly, drove a pair of horses sixty-eight miles in a single day. In another instance, coming to a slough near Sligo, a sturdy Irishman took Wesley over on his shoulders; and others took his chaise. At Dublin, his little conference of twenty preachers debated the duty of leaving the Established Church; “but, after a full discussion of the point,” says Wesley, “we all remained firm in our judgment,--that it is not our duty to leave the Church, wherein God has blessed us, and does bless us still.”

This discussion was brought about principally by the Rev. Edward Smyth, already mentioned as a clergyman who had been expelled from his curacy for his fidelity to the truth. At present, he was in connection with the Methodists; and was now eager to persuade Wesley and his preachers to separate from the Church; but without effect. Myles, in his Chronological History, says, that the minute adopted was the following:

“Is it not our duty to separate from the Church, considering the wickedness both of the clergy and the people? Answer. We conceive not. 1. Because both the priests and the people were full as wicked in the Jewish church, and yet God never commanded the holy Israelites to separate from them. 2. Neither did our Lord command His disciples to separate from them; He rather commanded the contrary. 3. Hence, it is clear, that could not be the meaning of St. Paul’s words, ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate.’”

This was an important action. Twenty years before, Wesley had wavered in his attachment to the Church; now and henceforth, in language at least, he was more decided. This is a question which will repeatedly present itself in succeeding years.

On July 19, Wesley left Dublin to attend his English conference in Leeds, preaching on his way at Liverpool, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Halifax, Bradford, and Birstal, at which last mentioned place his congregation was supposed to number twelve or fourteen thousand persons.

Wesley’s notice of the Leeds conference is brief. He writes:

“1778. Tuesday, August 4.--Our conference began: so large a number of preachers never met at a conference before. I preached morning and evening, till Thursday night; then my voice began to fail; so I desired two of our preachers to supply my place the next day. On Saturday the conference ended.”

Mr. Benson writes:

“Our conference is just ended, the best I was ever at. Mr. Wesley has been in a sweet spirit, has preached some excellent sermons, has had extraordinary congregations, and has dealt closely and plainly with the preachers, setting two aside for misdemeanours.”[306]

Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks:

“August 5.--To-day, we permitted all sorts to come into the conference, so that we had a large company. The forenoon was occupied in speaking upon preaching houses. In the afternoon, the sending of missionaries to Africa was considered. The call seems doubtful. Afterwards, the committee met, and we were an hour and a half in speaking what might have been done in five minutes. We are vastly tedious, and have many long speeches to little purpose.”

“August 6.--This day has been employed chiefly in stationing the preachers.

“August 7.--We were engaged in conference till after one o’clock; and then the sacrament began, at which, I think, two thousand were present.”

Three things are noticeable here. 1. Others, beside itinerant preachers, were admitted to Wesley’s conference in 1778. 2. Long and tedious conferential speeches are not a novelty; but were inflicted upon impatient and unwilling listeners in former days as they are sometimes inflicted now. 3. The conference had an immense sacrament such as Methodist conferences and Methodist congregations now never witness.

Stationing preachers was then a difficulty as it is at present, one of the four days being chiefly occupied with this. Some modern Methodists seem to think, that Wesley, in this, acted as he pleased; but that is hardly true. The people then, to say nothing about the preachers, liked to have a voice in their appointments; and then, as now, not unfrequently made worse selections than others would have made for them. In the spring of the present year, Wesley significantly wrote, while at Bristol: “March 9--On this and the following days I visited the society, and found a good increase. This year, I myself (which I have seldom done) chose the preachers for Bristol; and these were plain men, and likely to do more good than had been done in one year, for these twenty years.”

It is a curious fact, that, as this was the first conference in whose minutes the name of Thomas Coke appeared, so also it was a conference remarkable for its discussion of the great question of Christian missions, to which Coke, soon after, devoted his unwearied life. The mission to Africa has been mentioned. Mr. Benson writes:

“The proposal was made in consequence of two young princes from Calabar, in Guinea, who desired that missionaries might be sent to instruct them in the English language, and the great principles of Christianity. These young princes had been cruelly torn away from their own country, and sold as slaves in America, where they remained upwards of seven years. An English master of a ship, to whom they told their story, pitied them, and advised them to run away from their master, which they did, and were brought by him to England. Their case was examined, and brought before Lord Mansfield; and they were set at liberty. They made some stay at Bristol, and were instructed by some of our people, but especially by Miss Johnson. After they had returned to their own country, at their request, two persons, who were Germans, but members of our society at Bristol, were sent out to Guinea; but they both died either before, or soon after, they landed on that coast. The young princes sent over petitions for others to go. Two good young men offered themselves for the difficult and dangerous service. But, after the matter was seriously considered, it was concluded that the time had not arrived for sending missionaries to Africa.”[307]

One of the strangers, who were present at the conference of 1778, was Thomas Thompson, Esq., afterwards member of parliament for the town of Hull, and who, at the first missionary meeting, held at Leeds, stated that the discussion respecting this African mission lasted several hours, and was marked by deep piety, sound sense, and powerful eloquence. Mr. Thompson continued: “The deepest impression, however, seemed to be made, on the minds of all persons present, by the short speech of a young man, who appeared to be far gone in a consumption, but who promptly offered himself as a missionary, and, in unaffected language, declared his readiness to go to Africa, or to any other part of the world, to which it might please God and his brethren to send him.”[308]

Who was this young man? Though not absolutely certain, we believe it was Duncan McAllum. At all events, the following information, hitherto unpublished, will be acceptable. The two African princes escaped from slavery, about the year 1775, after the breaking out of the American rebellion. One of them was baptized at Bristol; and the other was seriously disposed. The two Germans, who went out, were brothers of the name of Syndrum, and were treated by the uncle of the princes with all possible attention. When the intelligence of their death arrived in England, Dr. Coke addressed a circular to all the young itinerant preachers in the connexion, asking for volunteers for this African mission, and stating that they would be supported by a legacy of £500, left, for that purpose, by Miss Johnson, of Bristol.[309] Duncan McAllum was now in the third year of his itinerancy, and was stationed at Dundee. With a brave heart, he offered his services, even before the conference; but, without assigning reasons, Wesley declined accepting them. Hence the following hitherto unpublished letter.

“DUBLIN, July 14, 1778.

“DEAR DUNCAN,--I would have you change once in two months, and will help you as to the expenses. Dwell in the land, and be doing good, and surely thou shalt be fed. You have nothing to do at present in Africa. Convert the heathen in Scotland.

“I am, dear Duncan, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

So the matter ended. Help for Africa was deferred; but it is a blessed fact that Africans were being saved. The successful efforts of Mr. Gilbert in Antigua have been already noticed; and it is a remarkable coincidence, that, in this very year, when Coke first found a place in the conference minutes, and when, for the first time, missions to the heathen were discussed at the conference sittings, John Baxter, a Methodist shipwright at Chatham, felt himself constrained to leave his friends, and to embark for Antigua, principally, as he himself expresses it, that he “might have an opportunity of speaking for God.” He landed on April 2, and, a fortnight after, wrote to Wesley, telling him that the work, begun by the late Mr. Gilbert, still remained. He says: “The black people have been kept together by two black women, who have continued praying and meeting with those who attended every night. I preached to about thirty on Saturday night. On Sunday morning, to the same number; and, in the afternoon, to about four or five hundred. The old standers desire I would let you know that you have had many children in Antigua whom you never saw. I hope, sir, we shall have an interest in your prayers. Dear sir, give me your advice. Provisions are very scarce; but I have all things richly to enjoy; as I have four shillings a day, besides the king’s provisions. I am going to have a house built for me, with as much ground as is needful. I think God has sent me here for good to the poor souls, who are glad to hear, but unable to maintain, a preacher.”[310]

Little more remains to be said respecting the conference of 1778, except that it was resolved “to receive no more married preachers, because,” says Wesley, “we cannot keep them”;[311] and, further, that two most characteristic minutes were adopted in reference to preachers who were nervous. It was asked:

“Why do so many of our preachers fall into nervous disorders?

“Answer. Because they do not sufficiently observe Dr. Cadogan’s rules--to avoid indolence and intemperance.

“They do indeed use exercise; but many of them do not use enough,--not near so much as they did before they were preachers. And sometimes they sit still a whole day. This can never consist with health.

“They are not intemperate in the vulgar sense; they are neither drunkards nor gluttons; but they take more food than nature requires, particularly in the evening.

“What advice would you give to those that are nervous?

“Answer. Advice is made for them that will take it; but who are they? one in ten, or twenty?

“Then I advise: (1) Touch no dram, tea, tobacco, or snuff; (2) eat very light, if any, supper; (3) breakfast on nettle or orange peel tea; (4) lie down before ten, rise before six; (5) every day use as much exercise as you can bear; or (6) murder yourself by inches.”

Wesley acted upon his own advice. Whatever might be said of others, he was not the man to be made nervous for want of exercise. Many Methodist preachers claim and enjoy a holiday after conference. With Wesley it was otherwise. The conference of 1778 closed on Saturday, August 8; the next day, Wesley preached to a congregation of some thousands in the market place at Dewsbury. He then hurried off to London; and thence to Cornwall, where he preached, in Gwennap amphitheatre, it was believed, to four-and-twenty thousand people. During this lengthened journey, he made the following curious entry in his journal.

“September 1--I went to Tiverton. I was musing here on what I heard a good man say long since: ‘Once in seven years I burn all my sermons; for it is a shame if I cannot write better sermons now than I could seven years ago.’ Whatever others can do, I really cannot. I cannot write a better sermon on the Good Steward, than I did seven years ago; I cannot write a better on the Great Assize, than I did twenty years ago; I cannot write a better on the Use of Money, than I did near thirty years ago; nay, I know not that I can write a better on the Circumcision of the Heart, than I did five-and-forty years ago. Perhaps, indeed, I may have read five or six hundred books more than I had then, and may know a little more history, or natural philosophy, than I did; but I am not sensible that this has made any essential addition to my knowledge in divinity. Forty years ago, I knew and preached every Christian doctrine which I preach now.”

Let the reader ponder this entry for a threefold purpose. (1) To form an estimate of the extent of Wesley’s reading. (2) To ascertain which sermons Wesley thought his best. (3) To find an answer to the charge that Wesley changed his doctrines.

Wesley, on his return from Cornwall, arrived on September 4 in Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which he spent the ensuing month.

The remainder of the year was occupied in London, and in his usual tours through the counties of Buckingham, Oxford, Bedford, Northampton, Hertford, and Kent; and it may be mentioned, as an evidence that the Church of England began at last to appreciate its ejected minister, that, during this interval, he preached, by request, to crowded congregations, in not fewer than four of the London churches.

It was at this time, also, that he opened, as already noticed, the new chapel in City Road. On the day of opening, he wrote as follows to Mrs. Penelope Cousins.

“LONDON, November 1, 1778.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--It is just as it should be. I have formerly said ‘I wonder how Mr. Whitefield can go on! For he has honour, and comparatively, no dishonour. And this is test for human frailty too severe.’ Now I have not that insupportable burden. I have honour enough in all reason; but it is properly balanced with dishonour. I have good report, and (what is absolutely necessary) evil report too. To-day I am to open our new chapel. Hence also will arise both honour and dishonour. Yet a little while, and all these things, that seem considerable now, will pass away like a dream.

“I am, my dear Penny, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[312]

The opening of City Road chapel rendered it necessary, that Wesley should have clerical coadjutors; and he now received a letter from one who, in after years, rendered faithful and valuable service. The Rev. James Creighton was born in Ireland, in 1739; and, for fourteen years, had been an ordained clergyman; but it was only within the last two years that he had found peace with God, through faith in Jesus Christ, and that principally by reading the works of Wesley. He now began to preach in a barn, about four miles from his parish church; and, then, when the barn was no longer available, in a chapel which was erected for him, and in which he officiated for some time, though the windows were unglazed, and the mudden floor was such that his feet often sunk two inches deep during the performance of service. His parish was sixteen miles in length, and most of it mountainous and boggy; but he frequently walked, as well as rode, through all parts of it, in all kinds of weather.[313] While here, he wrote the following to Wesley.

“BELTERBELT, October 26, 1778.

“MY DEAR SIR,--I stand much in need of a judicious friend. I am quite alone; there are none of the Methodists near me; nor are there any yet thoroughly awakened within my cure. The fault, I must own, is mine. I have not been zealous enough; yet, this has not proceeded from the fear of man; but I wished not to act precipitately, and to raise the prejudices of the clergy as little as possible. I meant well; but I see I have acted wrong. Had I been persecuted, I should have been much bolder; but the people are so civil to me, that it has, in a great measure, proved my ruin. I have had such a sense of my ignorance and inability, that I have been frequently tempted to think, I ought to refrain entirely from preaching. But, again, I thought I might, perhaps, be of some use here, where the people are ready to listen to me, yet are not willing to hear a Methodist. Could I once open a door here for the Methodist preachers, I should willingly go to any part of the globe that God should call me to. Were I near you, I should be too happy to fill the place of your assistant. Though we must lament the want of discipline in our Church, and though I admire the economy of the Methodists, yet I entirely agree with you, that they ought not to leave the Church. So long as they mingle with the members of it, they may be the means of converting them; but, if they separate, they will thereby stop the ears and eyes of thousands. These were my sentiments long before I heard that they were yours. I never was bigoted to opinions, and hope I never shall.

“I remain, dear sir, your very humble servant, and affectionate brother,

“JAMES CREIGHTON.”[314]

The discipline of the Church of England was a thing over which Wesley and his friends had no control. With the discipline of the Methodists it was otherwise. Hence, the following characteristic letter, hitherto unpublished, addressed to one of his itinerants, at Brecon, Mr. William Church, an ancestor of the Rev. Henry L. Church, who possesses the original.

“WALLINGFORD, October 13, 1778.

“DEAR BILLY,--The soul and the body make a man; the Spirit and discipline make a Christian. Let John Watson and you agree together, and be exact in this wherever you go. Insist upon the observance of all the society rules, by all the members of society; and on the observance of all (even the least) of the band rules, by all that meet in band. I give, for instance, no band tickets to any woman, who wears either ruffles or a high crowned cap. If any will not lay aside these, rather than lose that blessed means of improvement, she is not worthy of it.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Another unpublished letter, of the same kind, addressed to Samuel Bradburn, will be welcome.

“LONDON, October 17, 1778.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I think you judge exactly right. You are called to obey me, as a son in the gospel. But who can prove, that you are so called to obey any other person? What I require (according to the twelfth rule of a helper) of John Hampson and you, is, that each of you, in his turn, spend four weeks, and no more, first at Cork, and then at Bandon. When, therefore, you have been at Bandon, I desire you to return straight to Cork. And, if John Hampson will not then go to Bandon, I will order one that will. Pray show this letter to Mr. Mackrie, whom I beg to assist you in this matter. Pass smoothly over the perverseness of those you have to do with, and go straight forward. It is abundantly sufficient, that you have the testimony of a good conscience towards God.

“I am, dear Sammy, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Reference is made, in Mr. Creighton’s letter, to the subject of the Methodists leaving the Established Church; and it has been already seen, that this was a matter earnestly debated, at the Dublin conference, during the present year. The following letter, sent to Miss Bishop, is of great importance, and, though long, must have insertion.

“LONDON, October 18, 1778.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--The original Methodists were all of the Church of England; and the more awakened they were, the more zealously they adhered to it, in every point, both of doctrine and discipline. Hence, we inserted in the very first rules of our society, ‘they that leave the Church leave us.’ And this we did, not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience. We believed it unlawful to separate from the Church, unless sinful terms of communion were imposed. Just as did Mr. Philip Henry, and most of those holy men that were contemporary with him.

“‘But the ministers of it do not preach the gospel.’ Neither do some of the independent or anabaptist ministers. Calvinism is not the gospel: nay, it is further from it, than most of the sermons I hear at the church. These are very frequently unevangelical, but they are not anti-evangelical. Few of the Methodists are now in danger of imbibing error from the Church ministers; but they are in great danger of imbibing the grand error, Calvinism, from some of the Dissenting ministers. Perhaps thousands have done it already; most of whom have drawn back to perdition. I see more instances of this than any one else can do; and, on this ground also, exhort all who would keep to the Methodists, and from Calvinism, to go to the church, and not to the meeting.

“But to speak freely: I myself find more life in the Church prayers, than in any formal extemporary prayers of Dissenters. Nay, I find more profit in sermons on either good tempers, or good works, than in what are vulgarly called gospel sermons. The term has now become a mere cant word: I wish none of our society would use it. It has no determinate meaning. Let but a pert, self sufficient animal, that has neither sense nor grace, bawl out something about Christ, or His blood, or justification by faith, and his hearers cry out, ‘What a fine gospel sermon!’ Surely the Methodists have not so learned Christ! We know no gospel without salvation from sin. There is a Romish error which many protestants swallow unawares. It is an avowed doctrine of the Romish church, that the ‘pure intention of the minister is essential to the validity of the sacraments.’ If so, we ought not to attend the ministrations of an unholy man. But in flat opposition to this, our Church teaches, in the twenty-eighth article, that ‘the unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the validity of the sacraments.’ Although, therefore, there are many disagreeable circumstances, yet, I advise all our friends to keep to the Church. God has surely raised us up for the Church chiefly, that a little leaven may leaven the whole lump. I wish you would seriously consider that little tract, ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England.’ These reasons were never yet answered; I believe, they never will.

“I am, my dear sister, yours very affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[315]

Whatever may be thought of the validity of Wesley’s reasons, there can be no question, that, in theory at least, he was still firmly attached to the Established Church. His enemies, not without reason, stigmatised him as a Dissenter; he persisted, that he himself and the Methodists were not Dissenters. Who is possessed of competent authority to decide the doubt?

Before passing to Wesley’s publications, there is another matter which deserves attention. One of the questions proposed at the conference of 1778 was,--“Is it not advisable for us to visit all the jails we can?” The answer was,--“By all means. There cannot be a greater charity.” From the first, this was a duty to which Wesley and his brother had devoted themselves to the utmost of their power; and so also had many of their preachers and followers, especially Silas Told, a man who richly deserves a passing notice.

Mr. Told was the son of a physician at Bristol, where he was born in 1711. At the age of fourteen, he was bound apprentice as a sailor; and, for eleven years, lived a life of adventurous romance. In 1740, Charles Casper Greaves, a young bricklayer, introduced him to the Methodists. In 1744, Silas, at Wesley’s request, became the master of the Foundery school, and received a salary of £26 a year. At the same time, he began to visit the London prisons, and to preach to debtors and malefactors. There was not a prison in the metropolis, nor scarcely a workhouse within twelve miles round it, where Silas Told was not a frequent and welcome visitor. The scenes he witnessed were horrible; but for these the reader must turn to Told’s autobiography. Suffice it to add, that Silas Told was preeminently, in London, the prison philanthropist, the real, though unrecognised chaplain of all its wretched prisoners. For more than thirty years, no man was better known, or more welcome in the jails of the metropolis, than he. All sorts of criminals, papists and protestants, clung to him in their anguish, for counsel and consolation. Notwithstanding opposition at the first, he persisted in his enterprise, till even turnkeys, sheriffs, and hangmen, as well as prisoners, were wont to weep while listening to his exhortations and his prayers. Silas Told continued his great good work, till he tottered under the weight of nearly threescore years and ten, when he peacefully expired in December 1778. It was befitting that Wesley himself should inter such at Methodist. He writes: “1778, Sunday, December 30--I buried what was mortal of honest Silas Told. For many years, he attended the malefactors in Newgate, without fee or reward; and I suppose no man for this hundred years has been so successful in that melancholy office. God had given him peculiar talents for it; and he had amazing success therein. The greatest part of those whom he attended died in peace, and many of them in the triumph of faith.”

Several of Wesley’s publications in 1778 have been already mentioned; only two still require notice.

The first was “Some Account of the late Work of God in North America, in a Sermon on Ezekiel i. 16.” 12mo, 23 pages. It was almost a misnomer to designate this a sermon; but it was vastly popular, and, before the year was out, reached a second edition. It is really a brief historical statement of American affairs from 1736 to 1778. Wesley begins with the colonisation of Georgia, passes on to the wonderful revival of religion in New England, and speaks of the amazingly successful labours of Whitefield, but affirms that, for want of forming his converts into societies, the far greater part of them became backsliders. He then traces the war to its origin, and concludes by foretelling, not the independency of the rebellious colonists, which he says would be “a heavy curse,” but a restoration of civil and Christian liberty. It is dangerous to turn prophet: in one respect, Wesley’s vaticination was soon falsified.

On August 14, 1777, Wesley wrote: “I drew up proposals for the Arminian Magazine.” We are not aware that these “Proposals” have ever been reissued, just as Wesley published them; and, as an original copy now lies before us, we insert the document verbatim.

“Proposals for printing, by Subscription, the ARMINIAN MAGAZINE; _consisting of Extracts, and Original Treatises on Universal Redemption._

“CONDITIONS.

“1. A number, containing 80 pages, in octavo, printed on fine paper, and with a new type, will be delivered monthly to each subscriber, at the price of one shilling.

“2. It will be so printed, as to bind up in volumes, twelve numbers in a volume.

“3. This work will contain no news, no politics, no personal invectives, nothing offensive either to religion, decency, good nature, or good manners.

“4. The first number will be delivered on January 1, 1778, and continued the first day of every month.

“5. Subscriptions are taken in at the Foundery, London; the New Room, Bristol; and by the booksellers in town and country.

“To the Reader.

“1. Amidst the multitude of magazines which now swarm in the world, there was one, a few years ago, termed The Christian Magazine, which was of great use to mankind, and did honour to the publishers. But it was soon discontinued, to the regret of many serious and sensible persons. In the room of it, started up a miscreated phantom, called The Spiritual Magazine; and, not long after, its twin sister, oddly called The Gospel Magazine. Both of these are intended to show, that God is not loving to every man, that His mercy is not over all His works; and, consequently, that Christ did not die for all, but for one in ten, for the elect only.

“2. This comfortable doctrine, the sum of which, proposed in plain English, is, God before the foundation of the world absolutely and irrevocably decreed, that ‘some men shall be saved, do what they will, and the rest be damned, do what they can,’ has, by these tracts, been spread throughout the land, with the utmost diligence. And these champions of it have, from the beginning, proceeded in a manner worthy of their cause. They have paid no more regard to good nature, decency, or good manners, than to reason or truth. All these they set utterly at defiance. Without any deviation from their plan, they have defended their dear decrees, with arguments worthy of Bedlam, and with language worthy of Billingsgate.

“3. In the Arminian Magazine a very different opinion will be defended, in a very different manner. We maintain, that God willeth all men to be saved, by speaking the truth in love; by arguments and illustrations drawn, partly from Scripture, partly from reason; proposed in as inoffensive a manner as the nature of the thing will permit. Not that we expect those on the other side of the question will use us as we use them. Yet, we hope, nothing will move us to return evil for evil; or, however provoked, to render railing for railing.

“4. Our design is, to publish some of the most remarkable tracts on the universal love of God, and His willingness to save all men from all sin, which have been wrote in this and the last century. Some of these are now grown very scarce; some have not appeared in English before. To these will be added original pieces, wrote either directly upon this subject, or on those which are equally opposed by the patrons of particular redemption. We are not yet determined, whether to insert any poetry or not; but we faithfully promise not to insert any doggrel. If any verses are inserted, they shall be such as will not shock either the understanding or the taste of the serious reader.

“5. We know nothing more proper to introduce a work of this kind than a sketch of the life and death of Arminius; a person, with whom those, who mention his name with the utmost indignity, are commonly quite unacquainted, of whom they know no more than of Hermes Trismegistus.”

This, though lengthy, is too scarce and too curious a document to withhold from the Methodist community; moreover, it was the commencement of a magazine, now, we believe, the oldest religious periodical in the world; a magazine which has flourished, without interruption, for ninety successive years; and has been read by myriads in all quarters of the globe.

It has been said, that Mr. Walter Churchey, of Brecon, was the first to suggest to Wesley the publication of this periodical;[316] Wesley himself says, that he had been desired to publish a magazine for near forty years before he complied with the request.[317] Of course, Wesley is the best authority; still there can be no doubt, that Mr. Churchey was one of his advisers. The following letter furnishes evidence of this.

“LONDON, October 18, 1777.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--We agree, that no politics shall have a place in the Arminian Magazine. But poetry will; only my brother and I are the judges what pieces shall be admitted. It may be, some will think us too nice in our choice; but that we cannot help. As to a review of religious books, it might be well; but I have two objections. (1) I scruple my own sufficiency for the work. (2) I would not, at any price, be bound to read over all the present religious productions of the press.

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[318]

The first number of the magazine appeared on the 1st of January, 1778; on the cover of which Wesley said:

“I am content this magazine should stand or fall by its own intrinsic value. If it is a compound of falsehood, ribaldry, and nonsense, let it sink into oblivion. If it contains only the words of truth and soberness, then let it meet with a favourable reception. It will easily be observed, that it contains fewer articles than any other magazine. This is not by accident, but design. I have frequently been disgusted by the many bits and scraps of various kinds, which make up a great part of most publications of this nature. Before one has well entered upon any subject, it is at an end, and referred to the next number; a mere trick to decoy the reader to buy another and another number. On the contrary, I shall endeavour to begin and conclude as many things as possible in each number: and, with regard to taking the numbers that follow, let every reader use his own discretion.”

Space forbids any lengthened outline of the contents of the first volume. There are lives of Arminius, Luther, Bernard Gilpin, Bishop Bedell, Peter Jaco, and John Atlay. There are half-a-dozen articles on the Calvinian controversy, some of them, (rather in contradiction of Wesley’s announcement,) running through several numbers. There are fifty-nine letters; and nearly the same number of poetic pieces. There are three portraits, one of Wesley himself, one of Peter Jaco, and the third of John Atlay. At the end of the copy now before us, is a four paged letter, dated Londonderry, June 5, 1778, answering objections against the five numbers already issued. One objection was, there was not enough for money. The reply was: “I write for those who judge of books, not by the quantity, but by the quality of them. I spare both my reader’s time and my own, by couching my sense in as few words as I can. Those who prefer the dealers in many words may find them on every side.” A second objection was, that there was not variety enough. Wesley answered: “Here is all the variety I promised. I promised the bulk of the magazine should treat of universal redemption. Do you blame me for not rambling from my subject? It is not my manner, I do not aim at it.” A third objection was, “there is not variety in the historical part.” “What do you mean?” says Wesley. “Would you have me insert bits and scraps of history; or give, in each number, part of the life of one man, and part of that of another? I never proposed this: I think it far better to select a few of the best lives I know, and to go entirely through one before I enter upon another.” Another objection was: “you have no pictures or other decorations or embellishments which other magazines have.” Wesley answers: “It is true. But I will tell you what I have: such paper as no magazine in England was ever printed upon before. Consider! this one single article costs more than all their fine embellishments put together.”

In concluding this notice of the first volume of the Arminian Magazine, the following letter will be welcome. It was addressed to Thomas Taylor, and is here copied from the original.

“LONDON, January 15, 1778.

“DEAR TOMMY,--As to preaching, you ought not to preach against that unscriptural, blasphemous, mischievous doctrine constantly; no, nor very frequently. But you ought, now and then, to bear a full, strong, express testimony against it; otherwise you are a sinner against God, and the people, and your own soul. I have done this too seldom: scarce once in fifty sermons. I ought to do it once in fifteen or so.

“As to writing or publishing, the deadly poison has, for many years, been spread through England, chiefly by means of those pestilent declamations, The Gospel, and The Spiritual Magazine. Whatever is designed for an antidote to this poison must be spread in the same manner. Thousands have been thereby poisoned already, and are now twice dead. To guard those who are not poisoned yet, (not to get money,) I fight them at their own weapons. I oppose magazine to magazine, though of a totally different kind. But, it seems, you know nothing at all of the matter. You do not appear to have read the Proposals.[319] This magazine not only contains no railing, but (properly speaking) no controversy. It proves one point: ‘God willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ It goes straight forward, taking notice of no opponents, but invariably pursuing the one point. And this is the only way to preserve the Methodists, and to make the Calvinists quiet. Meantime, both the letters and the lives, which will make a considerable part of every number, contain the marrow of experimental and practical religion; so that nothing of the kind has appeared before. Therefore, a magazine of this kind is a new thing in the land; and those, who formerly spoke against the magazine, may, with a good grace, recommend this as being quite another thing, and published on other motives. I do not desire any Calvinist to read it. I publish it not to convince, but to preserve. I know, by long experience, they will never bend, but when the war is carried into their own quarters. This I will do, as long as God spares my life; and, in love, and in meekness of wisdom. This is the way, and the only way, to establish lasting peace.

“But is it not odd that a Methodist, a preacher, an assistant, should be the only one who sees my brother, and me, and the bulk of the preachers, and the body of the people, to be wrong? Tommy, distrust yourself. Do not lean too much to your own understanding. It is possible they may be right, and you wrong. You do not at all understand this affair. We are well rid of those turbulent men. With love to Nancy,

“Your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

We only add, that, nearly to the end of Wesley’s life, Thomas Olivers was a sort of sub-editor, and corrector of the press; but corrected so incorrectly, that, in August, 1789, Wesley writes: “I chose a new person to prepare the Arminian Magazine; being obliged, however unwillingly, to drop Mr. Olivers, for only these two reasons: 1. The errata are unsufferable; I have borne them for these twelve years, but can bear them no longer. 2. Several pieces are inserted without my knowledge, both in prose and verse. I must try whether these things cannot be amended for the short residue of my life.”

FOOTNOTES:

[304] The words in the original are given in full.

[305] See memoirs of Toplady, prefixed to his works, 1857 edit.

[306] Christian Miscellany, 1849, p. 84.

[307] Memoirs of Benson, by Macdonald, p. 75.

[308] Methodist Magazine, 1814, p. 508.

[309] Manuscript.

[310] Methodist Magazine, 1788, p. 383.

[311] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 296.

[312] Christian Miscellany, 1850, p. 54.

[313] Methodist Magazine, 1785.

[314] Methodist Magazine, 1788, p. 608.

[315] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 33.

[316] Methodist Magazine, 1823, p. 134.

[317] Wesley’s Works, vol. iv., p. 107.

[318] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 407.

[319] Taylor was opposed to the magazine. In his unpublished diary, he writes: “1777. December 14--I wrote a long letter to Mr. Wesley concerning the Arminian Magazine, which I am persuaded will do hurt, and no good.”

1779. Age 76

The year 1779 was one of national alarm. The remarkable trials of Admiral Keppel and Sir Hugh Palliser occasioned fierce debates in parliament. Lord North and his colleagues were accused of being intermeddling, shortsighted, and incapable. American agents were busy with Irish malcontents; and armed associations, not the most loyal, were formed in Dublin and throughout the country. The Spanish ambassador quitted London, after delivering to the secretary of state a hostile manifesto. The ministry proposed, that the militia should be doubled. Press warrants were issued in all directions, and press gangs actively employed in increasing the navy. France was jubilant. England rang with reports of invasion, and of new Spanish armadas, more terrible than that sent against Queen Elizabeth. Gibraltar was threatened; and so was Jersey. Paul Jones, at the head of a squadron manned by French and Americans, and desperadoes from various other countries, menaced the whole of the eastern coast of England, from Flamborough Head to the Frith of the Tay. Lord North’s parliamentary majorities were dwindling. George III. had no decisive victories to report. It was asserted that the American war had already added sixty-three millions to the national debt; and Charles Fox declared that treachery, and not ignorance, must have prevailed in the national councils to reduce the country to its present miserable condition. England throughout was in a panic.

In this emergency, as in all others, Wesley was among the foremost to evince his loyalty. On February 8, he wrote: “Finding many serious persons were much discouraged by prophets of evil, confidently foretelling very heavy calamities which were coming upon our nation, I endeavoured to lift up their hands, by opening and applying Psalm xliii. 5, 6.” Two days later was the national fast, when he preached on Abraham interceding for the city of Sodom. To quiet the panic at Newcastle, he took for his text, “The Lord sitteth above the waterfloods; the Lord reigneth a king for ever.” In a letter to Bradburn, he says:

“It is the judgment of many, that, since the time of the Invincible Armada, Great Britain and Ireland were never in such danger from foreign enemies as they are at this day. Humanly speaking, we are not able to contend with them, either by sea or land. They are watching over us as a leopard over his prey, just ready to spring upon us. They are mighty and rage horribly; but the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier; and now is the time, at this awful crisis, for the inhabitants of the land to learn righteousness. I make no doubt, but you improve the important opportunity, and lift up your voice like a trumpet. Who knoweth but God may be entreated of us, as He was for Nineveh? Our brethren, in various parts of England, have set apart an hour in a week for prayer (namely, from eight till nine on Sunday evening), in behalf of our king and country. Should not the same be done in Ireland too? particularly at Cork and Bandon? Those who have not opportunity of meeting, at the time, may pray part of the hour in private. Meantime, there is a text for you: ‘I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.’”[320]

Besides this weekly prayer-meeting by the English Methodists, a Methodist fast was observed in connection with the annual conference. Thomas Taylor writes: “July 30--This day was observed as a fast on account of public affairs. We met in the morning at five; and, after the sermon, we continued in prayer till nine o’clock. At one, we met again, and received the sacrament. In the evening, we kept a watchnight, and I gave an exhortation. But the people do not stay at watchnights in London, as they do in the country.”[321]

A few days later, we find Wesley holding a noonday prayer-meeting, at Haverfordwest, to intercede for the king and country. At Bristol, he preached on David’s prayer, “Lord, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness”; and, in October, wrote again to Samuel Bradburn as follows.

“LONDON, October 10, 1779.

“DEAR SAMMY,--The alarm has been general in England as well as Ireland; particularly in the maritime parts. But it has done abundantly more good than harm to the work of God. The children of God have been greatly stirred up, and have been more instant in prayer. And many men of the world have been greatly awakened, and continue so to this day. Most of those who have the fullest intercourse with God believe our enemies will never be permitted to land in England. And, indeed, God has already given abundant proof of His hearing prayer: first, in their not landing at Plymouth, where they stayed gaping and staring for eight-and-forty hours, while they might with all ease have destroyed both the dock and the town; secondly, in the malignant fever which has broken out in their fleet, and already destroyed several thousands of men.”[322]

Infidelity will sneer at this; but religion, recognising a ruling Providence, will reverentially bow its head. The crisis was terrible. Sixty-eight French and Spanish ships of the line, and many frigates and smaller vessels, all commanded by D’Orvilliers, appeared off Plymouth. The British fleet did not exceed thirty-eight sail of the line, and was absent at sea, under the command of Admiral Hardy. Where was the difficulty of seizing Plymouth? Wesley writes: “They might have entered it with perfect ease. The wind was fair; there was no fleet to oppose them; there was scarce any garrison, and the few men that were there had no wadding at all, and but two rounds of powder; and only two of the cannon were mounted.” And yet the combined fleet, nearly twice the size of Hardy’s, contented itself with a pompous parade in front of the unprotected town. No wonder that Wesley, with grateful exultation, preached from texts like the one he took at Newcastle: “The Lord sitteth above the waterfloods; the Lord reigneth a king for ever.”

Before we track Wesley’s wanderings in 1779, there is another matter which deserves mention. On the 30th of May, 1778, Voltaire died in Paris, in the eighty-fifth year of his age. His death was what the death of an arch infidel might be expected to be. The subjoined anecdote respecting it has long been widely published, but, perhaps, never so nearly traced to its source as now. Wesley had been informed that one of the chaplains of George III. was about to publish Voltaire’s pernicious works in a collected form; and, in a fit of godly indignation, he wrote the following unpublished letter.

“January 4, 1779.

“SIR,--In September last, a gentleman, near Bristol, showed me a letter, which he had received from the Rev. Mr. Fletcher, at Paris. I desired him to give a transcript of one part of it, which he immediately did. It was as follows:

“‘Mr. Voltaire sent for Monsieur Tronclils, first physician to the Duke of Orleans, (one of his converts to infidelity,) and said to him, “Sir, I desire you will save my life. I will give you half my fortune, if you will lengthen out my days only six months. If not, I shall go to the devil, and carry you with me.”’

“This is the man to whom a crowned head pays such a violent compliment! Nay, this is the man whose works are now publishing by a divine of our own Church; yea, a chaplain to his majesty. Pity but the king should know it. If the publisher of that poor wretch’s works writes a panegyric upon him or them, I shall think it my duty to show the real value of those writings.

“I am, sir, your humble servant,

J. WESLEY.”

No man was a more determined opponent of evil than Wesley was; and, at the same time, no man was a more faithful friend. The following is illustrative of this. The Methodists know something, and might be told a great deal more, respecting William Shent, the Methodist barber of the town of Leeds. Poor William was now in not undeserved embarrassment; his friends forsook him; but not so Wesley. Hence the following, hitherto unpublished, letter to the Methodist society in Keighley.

“LONDON, January 11, 1779.

“I HAVE a few questions, which I desire may be proposed to the society at Keighley.

“Who was the occasion of the Methodist preachers first setting foot in Leeds? William Shent.

“Who received John Nelson into his house at his first coming thither? William Shent.

“Who was it that invited me, and received me when I came? William Shent.

“Who was it that stood by me while I preached in the street with stones flying on every side? William Shent.

“Who was it that bore the storm of persecution for the whole town, and stemmed it at the peril of his life? William Shent.

“Whose word did God bless for many years in an eminent manner? William Shent’s.

“By whom were many children now in paradise begotten in the Lord, and many now alive? William Shent.

“Who is he that is ready now to be broken up, and turned into the street? William Shent.

“And does nobody care for this? William Shent fell into sin, and was publicly expelled the society; but must he be also starved? Must he with his grey hairs and all his children be without a place to lay his head? Can you suffer this? Oh, tell it not in Gath! Where is gratitude? Where is compassion? Where is Christianity? Where is humanity? Where is concern for the cause of God? Who is a wise man among you? Who is concerned for the gospel? Who has put on bowels of mercy? Let him arise and exert himself in this matter. You here all arise as one man, and roll away the reproach. Let us set him on his feet once more. It may save both him and his family. But what we do, let it be done quickly.

“I am, dear brethren, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

It is hardly necessary to track the steps of Wesley throughout the whole of a journey which occupied the next five months. He opened the new chapel at Bath, of which more must be said shortly. On Friday, March 19, he preached in Bengeworth church at noon; and, at six, in the church at Pebworth. At West Bromwich, during a terrific storm of wind and hail, he addressed a congregation in the open air. At Madeley, he preached in the new chapel, built by his friend Fletcher, in Madeley Wood. He opened a new chapel at Davyhulme, Manchester. He also paid his first visit to Oldham, where he says: “I had such a congregation as I have not seen since I was in the Cornish amphitheatre. And all, beside a few giddy children, were seriously attentive.”

This was a great improvement in the manners of the Oldham people. When Matthew Mayer commenced preaching here in 1763, he asked a man to allow him to stand before his door. “No,” replied the Lancashire savage; and then he swore that, if Mayer attempted to gather a congregation there, he would cleave his skull. Having removed to the door of Jonathan Mabbot’s, in George Street, Mayer mounted a stool; but he had no sooner sung and prayed, than the mob, led on by churchwardens and constables, surrounded him. “By what authority do you come hither?” asked the Oldham functionaries. “By what authority do you ask me?” replied Mr. Mayer. “Pull him down, pull him down!” cried the mob; and then one of the constables upset the preacher’s stool; and the zealous guardians of the Church shouted, “We want none of your preaching here.” On the Sunday following, while Mayer was preaching, the mob amused themselves by thrusting pins into the legs and arms of serious hearers; and, on the Sunday after that, a brute was hired for threepence halfpenny to strip himself stark naked, and rush into the midst of Mayer’s congregation. On another occasion, John Murlin was dragged from his horseblock pulpit, and was thrown into a dungeon; and, on another, James Hall was honoured with the presence not only of the constables, churchwardens, and Oldham mob, but also of a huntsman and his hounds. The churchwardens raved; the constables brandished their official staves; the mob bawled; the dogs barked; and the huntsman blew his horn with such vehemence that Mr. Hall found it impossible to preach, but, for an hour and a half, continued to sing and pray.[323]

Leaving Oldham, Wesley proceeded to Northwich and other places in Cheshire; then to Warrington, Liverpool, Bolton, Rochdale, Bacup, and Padiham. He writes: “April 13--At one o’clock, I preached in the shell of the house at Padiham, where there is at length a prospect of peace, after abundance of disturbance, caused by one who neither fears God nor reverences man.”

The chapel referred to, in this extract, was erected in the midst of the most determined opposition. What was built during the day was frequently demolished during the night; and it became necessary to appoint nocturnal watchers to guard the premises. At length, the building was completed, and had, in the front wall, a stone with a sun dial, serving for a clock, and round about it an inscription, which, to future generations, was a memento of bygone troubles: “They thrust sore at me that I might fall; but the Lord hath helped me, and taken part against them that hated me.”

From Padiham, Wesley went to Todmorden, Heptonstall, Ewood, and Halifax. He writes: “April 15--I went to Halifax, where a little thing had lately occasioned great disturbance. An angel blowing a trumpet was placed on the sounding board over the pulpit. Many were vehemently against this; others as vehemently for it: but a total end was soon put to the contest, for the angel vanished away.”

“Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” Several of the Halifax Methodists, thinking that the sounding board would be improved by some sort of ornament, opened a subscription for that purpose, and, a fortnight before Wesley’s visit, procured the celestial trumpeter which Wesley mentions. John Murlin, one of the preachers, determined not to preach under the angel’s expanded wings. Discussion sprung up, in the midst of which Wesley came. The leaders were summoned; a hot discussion followed; and the votes, for and against the angel, were equal. Just at this juncture, John Hatton, of Lightcliffe, entered, and gave a vote for the angel’s removal. Immediately, the carved image was taken down; John Murlin hewed it in pieces; and, before midnight, it was burnt in the chapel yard. Great was the consternation of these simple Methodists, when, at the five o’clock preaching, next morning, they found their pet angel had vanished. Quarrelling ensued; and several influential members, in angelic indignation, left the society which had destroyed the angelic ornament, and, in some instances, remained to the end of life unconnected with any church whatever.[324]

Proceeding to Haworth, Wesley preached, in the morning, in the church; but, in the afternoon, “thousands upon thousands being gathered together,” he was obliged to take his stand in the churchyard. The next day,--Monday, April 19,--he preached in the church at Bingley; and then went to Otley. “On April 24,” Thomas Taylor writes, “I met Mr. Wesley at Cross Hall, and found the old apostle as hearty and lively as ever. The conversation at table was such as became our religious profession. There were present two pious clergymen, two of my brethren, and several serious women. On Sunday, April 25, I went with Mr. Wesley to Birstal church, after which he preached to, I think, the largest congregation I have ever seen in any place.”[325]

At Huddersfield, Wesley found a great revival of the work of God, sometimes “sixteen, eighteen, yea, twenty,” being converted in a day. At Leeds, Dr. Kershaw, the vicar, desired him to assist at the sacrament. Ten clergymen were present, and seven or eight hundred communicants. At Darlington, he found some of the liveliest Methodists in the north of England. He preached in the market place, and all behaved well, except a party of the Queen’s Dragoons. At Barnard Castle, the Durham militia were assembled,--the handsomest body of soldiers he had ever seen, except in Ireland; and all, officers and soldiers, came to hear him, and were a pattern to the whole congregation.

He now made his way to Newcastle, and thence to Scotland, where he travelled as far north as Inverness. He writes: “June 8--I reached Inverness, but found a new face of things there. Good Mr. Mackenzie had been, for some years, removed to Abraham’s bosom. Mr. Fraser, his colleague, a pious man, of the old stamp, was likewise gone to rest. The three present ministers are of another kind; so that I have no more place in the kirk; and the wind and rain would not permit me to preach on the green. However, our house was large, though gloomy enough. Being now informed, (which I did not suspect before,) that the town was uncommonly given to drunkenness, I used the utmost plainness of speech; and I believe not without effect. I then spent some time with the society, increased from twelve to between fifty and sixty;[326] many of these knew in whom they had believed; so that all the pains which have been taken to stop the work of God here have hitherto been in vain.”

A month later, Wesley wrote the following hitherto unpublished letter to Mr. McAllum.

“EPWORTH, July 10, 1779.

“DEAR DUNCAN,--This is the circumstance which puzzles the case: who can preach in Erse but you? Cannot you then think of any preacher, whom you love, and who is a zealous, active man? Inverness should by all means be a circuit by itself, including as many towns as you please, north and south. I wish you would think of it, and send me the plan to London.

“Did not sister Anderson receive my letter? I wonder she did not answer. Joseph Moore utterly denies he ever offered her marriage. I desired her to tell me the very words he spoke or wrote.

“I am, dear Duncan, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY. “To Mr. Duncan McAllum, at Mr. John Watson’s, slater, Inverness.”

Wesley spent nearly a month in his evangelistic tour through Scotland. Everywhere he was received with great respect and affection; and he speaks of many “times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” He was introduced to several persons of distinction, and, among others, to gossiping James Boswell, who writes: “Though I differed from Mr. John Wesley in some points, I admired his various talents, and loved his pious zeal. At my request, therefore, Dr. Johnson gave me a letter of introduction to him.

“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.

“May 3, 1779.

“SIR,--Mr. Boswell, a gentleman, who has been long known to me, is desirous of being known to you, and has asked this recommendation, which I give him with great willingness, because I think it very much to be wished that worthy and religious men should be acquainted with each other.

“I am, sir, your most humble servant,

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

Boswell adds, that he presented the letter to Wesley at Edinburgh, “and was very politely received.”[327]

Wesley, in returning, reached Newcastle on June 22, and would fain have rested in a place to which he was tenderly attached. He writes: “Wednesday, June 23--I rested here. Lovely place, and lovely company! But I believe there is another world; therefore I must ‘arise and go hence.’” Accordingly, next morning, he set out for Stockton upon Tees, and preached all the way along the east coast of England till he came to Great Grimsby. “Here,” he says, “I found a little trial. In this, and many other parts of the kingdom, those striplings, who call themselves Lady Huntingdon’s preachers, have greatly hindered the work of God. They have neither sense, courage, nor grace, to go and beat up the devil’s quarters, in any place where Christ has not been named; but, wherever we have entered as by storm, and gathered a few souls, often at the peril of our lives, they creep in, and, by doubtful disputations, set every one’s sword against his brother. One of these has just crept into Grimsby, and is striving to divide the poor little flock; but I hope his labour will be in vain, and they will still hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Having visited the societies in Lincolnshire, Wesley proceeded to Doncaster and Sheffield, and thence, by way of Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Hinckley, and Coventry, to London, which he reached on July 23.

Wesley had not preached at Hinckley since the year 1744. What led him to visit the town now? We learn, from the unpublished autobiography of Thomas Dixon, who, at this time, was stationed in the Leicestershire circuit, that, just before the conference of 1779, he attempted to introduce Methodism into Hinckley, and not without success. According to custom, he took his stand in the street, and began to sing. The night was wet, and his congregation was not only small, but seemed so apprehensive of the Methodist apparition, that, while they listened to him, they also kept at a safe distance from him. He preached again next morning to a congregation somewhat larger, and then set out for Tamworth. This was his first and his last visit; but a class was formed just after,[328] which, in 1780, contributed nearly a pound per quarter for the support of the work of God;[329] and, from that time to this, Methodism has had a place in Hinckley.

Then as it respects Coventry, this was the first sermon Wesley delivered here. He says: “July 21--When I came to Coventry, I found notice had been given for my preaching in the park; but the heavy rain prevented. I sent to the mayor, desiring the use of the town hall. He refused; but, the same day, gave the use of it to a dancing master. I then went to the women’s market. Many soon gathered together, and listened with all seriousness. I preached there again the next morning, and again in the evening.”

As already stated, from Coventry Wesley went to London. The entry in his journal recording the journey is worthy of quotation. “I took coach for London. I was nobly attended: behind the coach were ten convicted felons, loudly blaspheming, and rattling their chains; by my side sat a man with a loaded blunderbuss, and another upon the coach.”

Before proceeding to notice the conference, of 1779, two other matters demand attention.

Thomas Maxfield seceded from Wesley in 1763; took away with him about two hundred members of Wesley’s society; and became the minister of a separate and independent congregation.[330] For some reason, he now wished to return to Wesley’s connexion; but to this Wesley and his brother objected. Hence the following letters, by Charles Wesley, the first addressed to Vincent Perronet, the second to Wesley himself.

“LONDON, April 20, 1779.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--My brother and I agreed not to receive Mr. Maxfield again, as a fellow labourer, till he acknowledged his fault. Ought we not to wait for some word, of his being sensible of his ingratitude? Ought we to trust him, and the people to his care, without it? I have not the least spark of resentment towards Mr. Maxfield; but to deliver up our charge to him, unconvinced, is to betray them.

“My brother’s interest with the bishop is great, (I believe,) but my son Samuel’s is greater. Sam and the bishop are, Ego et rex meus.

“Your very affectionate and ever obliged servant,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[331]

“LONDON, April 23, 1779.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I still love Thomas Maxfield. I see some advantages to us, as well as to him, from his return to us, provided he is first convinced. Receive him unconvinced, and you will have to put him away again, when perhaps it will scarce be in your power. One more trial, if you please, we will make upon him, in a conference between us three. Possibly we may gain our brother.

“I shall be happy to hear you have saved poor William Shent. Hopper and others will, I know, draw in their horns while you are talking with them, and be perhaps convinced for a short time. Give them back their first love, and their first poverty, and they will not even wish to reign without us. Peter Jaco, John Atlay, and John Pawson, might, I hope, be set right by a friendly conference with us. They then would strengthen their brethren, or recover them.

“Your defect of mistrust needs my excess to guard it. You cannot be taken by storm, but may by surprise. We seem designed for each other. If we could and would be more together, it might be better for both. That I shall go first, I cannot doubt. The extraordinary strength, continued to you, is a promise of your longer continuance. My strength and my work are very near their end.

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[332]

The above letter refers to another matter besides that of the return of Thomas Maxfield. Charles Wesley was still jealous of the preachers aspiring after power, and especially of Christopher Hopper and his friends. He seems to have thought, that John Atlay, who was now the book steward in London, and John Pawson, who was the London assistant, and Peter Jaco, who was a London supernumerary, “might be set right by a friendly conference”; but of the other London preachers, including Thomas Rankin and Thomas Coke, he was in doubt. He properly enough gives himself credit for an excess of caution; but, perhaps wrongly, thinks his brother had not enough of it.

This was another important crisis in the history of the two Wesleys. It was only a few months before, that City Road chapel had been opened. Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, John Richardson, and John Abraham, were its officiating clergymen; but John Pawson, Thomas Rankin, Thomas Tennant, and Peter Jaco, were itinerant preachers, appointed by the conference of 1778, to the London circuit, of which the chapel in City Road was now a part. What was the result? Jealousies sprung up, indirectly referred to in the above letter, but mentioned in greater detail in another letter to be presently inserted. Before, however, that letter is introduced, perhaps the following extracts from John Pawson’s unpublished manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead will be acceptable, and will cast light on Wesley’s difficulties. Mr. Pawson writes:

“I was perhaps as well acquainted with the two brothers as any man now living. That Mr. Charles Wesley was of a very suspicious temper is certainly true; and that Mr. John Wesley had far more charity, in judging of persons in general, (except the rich and great,) than his brother had, is equally true. But that he was so apt to be taken in with appearances is not true. He was well able to form a judgment of particular persons, and was as seldom mistaken as his brother. I once heard him pleasantly say: ‘My brother suspects everybody, and he is continually imposed upon; but I suspect nobody, and I am never imposed upon.’ It is well known that Mr. Charles Wesley was much prejudiced in favour of the clergy, through the whole course of his life, and that it was nothing but hard necessity that obliged him, in any degree, to continue the lay preachers. He must have been blind indeed not to have seen, that God had given to many of them, at least, very considerable ministerial gifts, and that He attended their labours with great success; but I am well persuaded, that, could he have found a sufficient number of clergymen to have carried on the work of God, he would soon have disowned all the lay preachers. He was glad of their assistance when he did not choose to preach himself; and, accordingly, on a Sunday evening, he would always have a lay preacher appointed as well as himself, lest a shower of rain, or an agreeable visit, should prevent his attending. At a conference held in Bristol many years ago, about a dozen clergymen attended for the purpose of convincing us, that we ought not to preach in any parish that was favoured with a gospel minister. Mr. Charles Wesley took part with them, and said, ‘If I was stationed in any particular parish, you should not preach there.’ Mr. John Hampson replied, ‘I would preach there, and never ask your leave; and I should think I had as good a right for doing so, as you had,’ Mr. Charles answered in great anger, ‘You are a grievous wolf: you will tear the flock when my brother and myself are dead, unless God give you repentance.’ Mr. Charles was inclined to find out and magnify any supposed fault in the lay preachers; but his brother treated them with respect, and exercised a fatherly care over them. I am persuaded that, from the creation of the world, there never existed a body of men who looked up to any single person with a more profound degree of reverence than the preachers did to Mr. Wesley; and I am bold to say, that never did any man, no, not St. Paul himself, possess so high a degree of power over so large a body of men as was possessed by him. He used his power, however, for the edification of the people, and abused it as little perhaps as any one man ever did. When any difficulty occurred in governing the preachers, it soon vanished. The oldest, the very best, and those of them that had the greatest influence, were ever ready to unite with him, and to assist him to the utmost of their power. The truth is, if the preachers were in any danger at all, it was of calling Mr. Wesley ‘Rabbi,’ and implicitly obeying him in whatsoever he thought proper to command.

“Dr. Whitehead informs his readers, that a party existed among the preachers, who wished for a total separation from the Established Church, and for the Methodists to be formed into an independent body; and represents Dr. Coke as being at the head of that party. I am well assured, that this is incorrect. The preachers only wished, that the people, who had grown weary of seeking the living among the dead, and of asking bread of those who they well knew had only a stone to give them, might be indulged with the lively ordinances of God; and some of the people thought it very unjust, not to say cruel, that their ministers did not grant them the privilege of worshipping God at those particular times of the Lord’s day, when both body and mind were best prepared for so doing. It is true, that a party existed, both among the preachers and people, who were inclined to believe, that those whom God had called to preach might lawfully administer the sacraments; as they were not able to perceive that it required a greater degree of wisdom and piety to qualify a person to baptize a child than to preach the word of God. They likewise had scruples whether it was right to wish those ministers God speed, by attending their ministry, whom, they felt convinced, God had never sent. But, at the same time, the preachers knew, that there never was among themselves a sufficient number of acceptable men to supply all the Methodist congregations; and that, if there had been, and if an entire separation from the Church had taken place, the Methodists were too poor to support such a multitude of ministers. Common prudence, therefore, prevented them from wishing for that which they knew could not be accomplished.”

These are important statements, coming from a man of Mr. Pawson’s ministerial standing, and who was one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers during the last twenty-nine years of Wesley’s life. They could be easily extended; but, perhaps, enough has been said, to show that the feeling, between Charles Wesley and the preachers, was not of the most friendly kind; and this will prepare the reader for the following letter, which Charles, at this period, addressed to his brother.

“LONDON, June 16, 1779.

“DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. B. has been lately with the committee, and was there informed, that our preachers (the three principal[333]) have written to the country preachers heavy complaints of their ill usage by the clergy here; not, I should suppose, by quiet John Richardson,--not by passive Dr. Coke, for he, they say, is gone to Bristol, that he may not be a witness of their cruel persecution. The persecuting clergy, therefore, are neither more nor less than your own brother Charles, and the whole ground of their complaint against me is, ‘my serving the chapel on Sunday afternoon, as well as in the morning.’

“But this is no new grievance; for I constantly preached Sunday morning and afternoon at Bristol. If they could exclude me here, they would not long permit me there.

“My reasons for preaching at the new chapel twice every Sunday are: 1. Because, after you, I have the best right. 2. Because I have so short a time to preach anywhere. 3. Because I am fully persuaded I can do more good there than in any other place. They, I know, are of a different judgment, and make no secret of it, declaring everywhere, ‘that the work is stopping; the society scattering; and the congregation at the new chapel dwindled away and quite dead.’

“I thank God, the chapel is well filled. Last Sunday I preached twice, never with greater, and seldom with equal, effect. After sermon, Mr. Rankin followed me to the vestry to assure me, ‘he had never spoken disrespectfully of us, and that he was a great friend to the Church.’ At the same time, a gentlewoman came, filled with faith and love by the word just spoken. I turned aside to let Mr. Rankin examine her. She said that, a month ago, she was brought up out of the pit of despair, under my word. He repeated his inquiries, and she her answers, to his satisfaction shall I say, or dissatisfaction? I would hope the former. You will inquire when here (only not of the preachers), and judge for yourself whether my persevering ministry at the chapel has done good or hurt.

“I think the preachers wrong, and in the greatest danger through pride; but I have, and will have, no quarrel with them. Mr. Kemp proposed to carry me to meet you on the last day’s journey, or I should not have thought of it. I do not want to have the first word. Let them have the first and last. I do not want to interfere in that government of yours, or to appear at all at the congress. A word of yours might turn the scale, and send me directly to Bristol.

“It is just come into my mind, ‘The lay preachers affect to believe I act as a clergyman in opposition to them.’ To me, it seems that I act as I do, in goodwill to them, as well as to the people. If there was no man above them, what would become of them? How would they tear one another in pieces! Convince them, if you can, that they want a clergyman over them, to keep them and the flock together. Convince them, that it is impossible I should stand in their way long, for I cannot (should I live to the winter) serve the new chapel Sundays and holydays in all weathers. Persuade each of them to be the least, not the greatest; and then all will be right again. You have no alternative but to conquer that spirit, or to be conquered by it. Can you think, I envy you your pre-eminence? If God continues my strength, I shall take the best care of the chapel till you return. Then I shall deliver up my charge to you, and you alone.

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[334]

This peevish epistle, published in Wesley’s own Arminian Magazine, will not add to the fair fame of Methodism’s great hymnist. It was an unworthy production of a pen which wrote hundreds, in fact, thousands, of sweet songs of praise. John Pawson--good, but gossiping,--and Thomas Rankin--honest to the heart’s inmost core, but somewhat obstinate and overbearing,--were far from perfect; but was it just in Charles Wesley to write to his brother respecting them in the querulous tone in which he did? Charles Wesley says, the City Road chapel was well filled; Pawson says, in the manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, that “the congregation fell off exceedingly; and that the society was brought into great disorder.” Charles Wesley was a scholar, and, as a sacred poet, was without a peer; but we incline to think, that John Pawson and Thomas Rankin were more popular and powerful preachers than either he or any other of his City Road clerical colleagues; and it is not surprising, that the people wished to hear them on Sundays as well as week days; and that the itinerants themselves,--one of whom was the appointed superintendent of the London circuit, and the other of whom had been Wesley’s chosen superintendent of the whole of the Methodist societies in America,--should think they had quite as much right as Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, John Richardson, or John Abraham, to preach to Sunday congregations in City Road. The truth is, though, in years past, Charles Wesley’s ministry had been exceedingly attractive and powerful, it was now, what shall we say? John Pawson writes: “When he was favoured with freedom of mind, which was but seldom, then his preaching was truly profitable; but, in general, it was exceedingly dry and lifeless.” His sons Charles and Samuel,--the former twenty-one years of age, and the latter thirteen,--were, by their musical genius, creating a sensation in the highest circles of London society; and, for several years, conducted in their father’s house a series of domestic subscription concerts, of twelve nights’ continuance, in each season. Their father thoroughly approved of this. “I am clear,” says he, “without a doubt, that my sons’ concert is after the will and order of Providence.” Wesley appends to this a note: “I am clear of another mind.”[335] Without staying to settle the dispute, there can be no doubt that, by these concerts, Charles Wesley was brought into the society of a large number of the rich and great. The simple minded London Methodists were staggered at one of their great leaders having such musical performances in his house, and at his mingling with persons, who, though highly genteel, were not religious. Many began to regard him with suspicion; his preaching popularity was waning; Pawson says, “he was like Samson shorn of his strength”; his health also was failing; like most men of high poetic genius, he was subject to melancholy moods: put all these things together, and the petulancy and suspicion of Charles Wesley’s letter to his brother will not excite surprise.

This then was the state of things awaiting the venerable Wesley, on his return to London, after a laborious preaching tour of five months’ duration. By an almost superhuman effort, he had built and opened his new chapel in City Road; but things, instead of being more prosperous than ever, were in a state of disastrous commotion. In this, the first year after the chapel was opened, there was a decrease of one hundred and twenty-three members in the London circuit, though that circuit had now an unprecedented staff of ordained clergymen, and four of the best itinerants in Wesley’s connexion. Ordinary men would have been discouraged and at their wits’ end; but not so the man who was born, not to be conquered by difficulties, but to conquer them.

Wesley’s conference of 1779 was commenced on August 3; and it was now ascertained, that nineteen other circuits besides London had a decrease of members. Wesley asked, How can we account for this? The reasons assigned were:--1. Partly the neglect of outdoor preaching, and of trying new places. 2. Partly prejudice against the king, and speaking evil of dignities. 3. But chiefly the increase of worldly mindedness, and conformity to the world. It was also resolved, that no one speaking evil of those in authority, or prophesying evil to the nation, should be a Methodist preacher. Itinerants were reproved for hastening home to their wives after preaching; and were told, they ought never to do this till they had met the society. To revive the work in Scotland, the preachers were directed to preach in the open air as much as possible; to try every town and village; and to visit every member of society at home.

As soon as the conference was ended, Wesley set out, with his brother and his family, for Wales, where he spent a fortnight in preaching to large and deeply affected congregations.

He then proceeded to the west of England. At Exeter, he writes: “I preached in a convenient room, lately a school; I suppose formerly a chapel. It is both neat and solemn, and is believed to contain four or five hundred people.”

This was the meeting-house concerning which Wesley wrote to Samuel Wells, the assistant of the Tiverton circuit, as follows.

“LONDON, January 28, 1779.

“DEAR SAMMY,--According to the act of toleration--1. You are required to certify to the registrar of the bishop’s court, or the justices, the place of your meeting for Divine worship. This is all you have to do. You ask nothing at all of the bishop or justices.

“2. The registrar, or clerk of the court, is required to register the same, and to give a certificate thereof to such persons as shall demand the same; for which there shall be no greater fee or reward taken than sixpence.

“I advise you to go once more to the sessions, and say, ‘Gentlemen, we have had advice from London; we desire nothing at all of you; but we demand of your clerk to register this place, and to give us a certificate thereof; or to answer the refusal at his peril.’

“Answer no questions to the justices, or lawyers, but with a bow, and with repeating the words, ‘Our business is only with your clerk; we demand of him what the act requires him to do.’

“If you judge proper, you may show this to any of the justices. What I have written, I am ready to defend.

“You have led the justices into the mistake, by your manner of addressing them. Beware of this for the time to come. You have nothing to ask of them.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[336]

On September 4, Wesley returned to Bristol, where he spent a month in visiting the surrounding societies. He then made his way to London, preaching at Devizes, Winchester, and Portsmouth. On leaving London, he slept, for the last time, in the old Foundery. He now, for the first time slept in the house, in which he afterwards died, in City Road.

On October 11, he began his preaching tour to Northamptonshire; a week later to Sussex; and a week later still to Norfolk. He then commenced his annual examination of the London society, and writes: “I did not find such an increase as I expected. Nay, there was a considerable decrease, plainly owing to a senseless jealousy that had crept in between our preachers.”

This doubtless refers to the quarrel already mentioned. Unfortunately, the strife was now extended to Bath. The assistant appointed at the late conference to the Bristol circuit (of which Bath was part), was Alexander M‘Nab, a native of Perthshire, in North Britain, and now in the thirty-fourth year of his age. For thirteen years, he had been an itinerant preacher, and had laboured, with considerable success, in the three kingdoms.[337] Wesley, writing to Lady Maxwell in 1771, said: “Mr. M‘Nab is a sound and good preacher; but too warm, and impatient of contradiction.”[338] Thomas Rutherford, one of his colleagues, writes: “I was particularly attached to him. He was a most amiable, sensible man, and an excellent preacher. He had the most copious flow of natural, simple oratory, of any man I ever heard. There was an ease, beauty, sweetness, and harmony in his style and language, that was at once both striking and pleasing. The Rev. Dr. Webster once said, ‘I have heard Mr. Walker, Mr. Fordyce, Dr. Blair, etc.; but Mr. M‘Nab is a greater orator than any of them.’”[339] At the conference of 1777, M‘Nab was appointed to Edinburgh; but found the chapel in such a ruinous condition, that he spent £500 in repairing it. For this amount he was personally responsible; and, in order to extricate himself, was requested, by the following conference, to visit the English societies for the purpose of asking assistance.[340] While on this begging excursion, he wrote a letter to Robert Dall, which is inserted here to show the spirit of the man, and that he wished for peace, notwithstanding that he was soon involved in war.

“BRADFORD, April 24, 1779.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope persons and things are better at Glasgow then when you went there. I was grieved to hear of the disunion of the preachers, and that it had hurt the people; but trust God sent you to Glasgow as a cure for their wounds. In every place, I find the prosperity of the work, under God, depends, in a great measure, upon the piety, zeal, and prudence of the preachers. Persons of that character God will honour, to build up His church; and I need not tell you, we have need of faith in doing and suffering the Divine will; for, without that, we have not the necessary qualification to render us either holy, happy, or useful. In my present employ, I find both pleasure and pain; but, hitherto, God has been with me, and I believe will never leave me. Wishing you every blessing, I am your truly affectionate brother,

“ALEX. M‘NAB.”[341]

Such was one of the chief actors in the scene at Bath. Another was the Rev. Edward Smyth, who has been already mentioned, and who had brought his wife to Bath for the benefit of her health. Wesley writes: “God having greatly blessed the labours of Mr. Smyth in the north of Ireland, I desired him to preach every Sunday evening in our chapel, while he remained in Bath. But, as soon as I was gone, Mr. M‘Nab vehemently opposed this; affirming it was the common cause of all the lay preachers; that they were appointed by the conference, not by me; and would not suffer the clergy to ride over their heads, Mr. Smyth in particular, of whom he said all manner of evil. Others warmly defended him. Hence the society was torn in pieces, and thrown into the utmost confusion.”

Such was the dispute. What was the result? On November 22, Wesley and his brother set out from London to settle the disturbance. The Bath society was assembled. Wesley says: “I read to them a paper, which I wrote, near twenty years ago, on a like occasion. Herein I observed, that ‘the rules of our preachers were fixed by me, before any conference existed,’ particularly the twelfth: ‘Above all, you are to preach when and where I appoint.’ By obstinately opposing which rule, Mr. M‘Nab has made all this uproar. In the morning, at a meeting of the preachers, I informed Mr. M‘Nab, that, as he did not agree to our fundamental rule, I could not receive him as one of our preachers, till he was of another mind. Wednesday, November 24, I read the same paper to the society at Bristol, as I found the flame had spread thither also. A few at Bath separated from us on this account; but the rest were thoroughly satisfied.”

Such is the entry in Wesley’s journal; but eight months after this, he writes: “Mr. M‘Nab quarrelling with Mr. Smyth threw wildfire among the people at Bath, and occasioned anger, jealousies, judging each other, backbiting, and tale bearing without end; and, in spite of all the pains which have been taken, the wound is not healed to this day.”

Wesley throws all the blame upon M‘Nab; but it may fairly be doubted whether this was just. There can be no question concerning Wesley’s abstract right to appoint to his chapels whom he pleased; but the manner in which the right was exercised is not an improper subject for doubt and discussion. Wesley pleads what he did twenty years before; but, even allowing that his action then was right, it remains to be proved, that the same action, under altered circumstances, was prudent now. During that interval, the number of Methodists and Methodist preachers had more than doubled. Besides, now that the number of itinerant preachers was more than a hundred and sixty; and that many of them were men of great genius and talent, as well as piety; and that all had a right to take part in the deliberations of the annual conference, which really made the appointments for the ensuing year, Wesley’s claim to have the sole and exclusive power, asserted in the document read to the Bath society, is a claim which can hardly be admitted.[342] There is a forgetfulness of existing facts, and therefore a fallaciousness, in the following letter, written on this subject a few weeks after the Bath disturbances occurred.

“January, 1780.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You seem not to have well considered the Rules of a Helper, or the rise of Methodism. It pleased God, by me, to awaken, first my brother, and then a few others; who severally desired of me, as a favour, that I would direct them in all things. After my return from Georgia, many were both awakened and converted to God. One, and another, and another of these desired to join with me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a few plain rules (observe there was no conference in being!), and permitted them to join me on these conditions. Whoever, therefore, violates these conditions, particularly that of being directed by me in the work, does, ipso facto, disjoin himself from me. This brother M‘Nab has done (but he cannot see that he has done amiss): and he would have it a common cause; that is, he would have all the preachers do the same. He thinks ‘they have a right so to do.’ So they have. They have a right to disjoin themselves from me whenever they please. But they cannot, in the nature of the thing, join with me any longer than they are directed by me. And what, if fifty of the preachers disjoined themselves! What should I lose thereby? Only a great deal of labour and care, which I do not seek; but endure, because no one else either can or will.

“You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a conference. For above six years after my return to England, there was no such thing. I then desired some of my preachers to meet me, in order to advise, not control, me. And you may observe, they had no power at all, but what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation, and gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken from their head. But as long as I remain with them, the fundamental rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As long as any preacher joins with me, he is to be directed by me in his work. Do not you see then, that brother M‘Nab, whatever his intentions might be, acted as wrong as wrong could be? and that the representing of this as the common cause of the preachers was the way to common destruction, the way to turn their heads, and to set them in arms? It was a blow at the very root of Methodism. I could not, therefore, do less than I did; it was the very least that could be done, for fear that evil should spread.

“I do not willingly speak of these things at all; but I do it now out of necessity; because I perceive the mind of you, and some others, is a little hurt by not seeing them in a true light.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[343]

This was Wesley’s defence of the boldest act of discipline he had ever exercised; but we still doubt its wisdom and sufficiency. All he says about the preachers placing themselves under his direction, and about the first conferences, is strictly true; but Methodist matters now were widely different from what they were when Methodist conferences were first begun. With all due deference to Wesley, Methodism now was not wholly the work of Wesley, nor was it entirely dependent on him. At this very time, there was, among the preachers, a ministerial phalanx, who had a right to be something more than mere advisers,-- servants in the gospel, sometimes taken into the counsels of their chief, but wholly at his disposal. There were Olivers, Pawson, Rankin, Murlin, Story, Whatcoat, Valton, Benson, Hanby, Manners, Taylor, Mather, Hopper, Vasey, Thompson, Pilmoor, Rhodes, Bradburn, Boardman, the two Hampsons, Barber, Rutherford, Moore, Myles, and others, whose names will always be memorable in Methodistic history. Considering the talents, the preaching power, the untiring labours, and the marvellous success of these distinguished men, was it wise, and was it fair, for Wesley to insist upon his retention of the absolute authority that he justly exercised when Methodism was first commenced? Remembering the paltry pittance they received for their important and unceasing toil, was it just, that, in a great religious movement, now spread throughout the three kingdoms, and to which they themselves had greatly contributed, they should be employed as mere workmen, without the least right to take a part in the arrangement of their respective spheres of labour, and without a particle of authority, except what was implied in their advices, in the general legislation of a body now numbering more than forty thousand people? Was it surprising, that Wesley’s expulsion of M‘Nab, for claiming a pulpit to which he had been appointed at the conference, but into which Wesley desired to introduce an expelled Irish clergyman, should create dissatisfaction and incipient rebellion?

There can be no doubt, that this was one of the most dangerous ordeals through which Methodism passed in the lifetime of its founder. It was hardly a fair statement of the case, when Wesley said, that all that he would lose, by fifty of his preachers leaving him, would be “a great deal of labour and care.” If such an event had happened, Methodism would have been split into fragments, and, as a system, would have ceased to exist; and Wesley, seeing the demolition of such a work, would have been a sorrowful man for the remainder of his life. The crisis, in 1779, was most momentous. It was really the first time that Wesley’s supreme and absolute power was professedly and openly resisted. The whole question hinges on the point, were the appointments to chapels and to circuits made by Wesley and his conference of preachers conjointly? or were they made by Wesley himself alone? Wesley argues, that the power of appointment rested solely with himself. We can only answer, that this was an unreasonable and dangerous power to wield. Under the circumstances, Wesley could not claim it, without ignoring the reasonable claims of a large body of the most remarkable men that England has ever had; and he could not exercise it without serious danger to himself and to his system.

Alexander M‘Nab, though comparatively young, was not an ordinary man. Testimonies concerning his character, eloquence, and preaching power, have been already given. Mr. Smyth was doubtless both sensible and pious; but we greatly question whether he was as popular and powerful a preacher as the North Briton. No charge of unsound doctrine, or of immorality, or of incompetency, or of inattention to discipline, was made against M‘Nab. He was faithfully and successfully doing the work to which he had been appointed. He was popular with the people. But because he refused, at Wesley’s bidding, to allow an Irish stranger, not at all his superior, but, probably, his inferior in pulpit ability, to take his place, Wesley, at once, by his own ipse dixit, expelled him from his connexion of preachers. However painful to do it, we are bound to maintain that this was an injustice. The act might be technically right; but it was an almost popish assumption of autocratic authority, and a most perilous--it might have been disastrous--exercise of disciplinary power. It is true that no absolute rebellion followed,--a fact showing the simple minded piety of the Methodist preachers and people, and the marvellous influence of Wesley over them, and their almost unparalleled respect for his character and labours; but there were great commotions and serious misgivings; and, if concessions had not been made, there might have been open resistance, and a consequent wreck of Methodist success and hope.

Here, however, another question occurs. Was Wesley to be solely or principally blamed for this imprudent exercise of power? We have no wish to shield him from censure, when censure is merited; but if others were to blame as well as he, or if others were even more blamable than he, it is only fair to his memory and name, that the facts should be published.

Charles Wesley’s quarrel with the London preachers has been already mentioned. It occurred a few months only previous to the affair at Bath. There is no denying it, that Charles was violently opposed to lay preachers, and was unreasonably jealous of their intriguing to obtain co-ordinate power with his brother, and of their intention to use such power in effecting a separation of Methodism from the Established Church. On Good Friday, 1779, he wrote to his brother: “The preachers do not love the Church of England. When we are gone, a separation is inevitable. Do you not wish to keep as many good people in the Church as you can? Something might be done now to save the remainder, if you had resolution, and would stand by me as firmly as I will by you. Consider what you are bound to do as a clergyman; and what you do, do quickly.”[344]

It was in such a frame of mind, that Charles Wesley heard of M‘Nab’s resisting the authority of his brother at Bath. Mr. Pawson, who says he was perfectly acquainted with the affair, tells us, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, that Charles Wesley “took fire at once, and highly resented Mr. M‘Nab’s behaviour. He prevailed upon his brother, after much strife and contention, to exclude Mr. M‘Nab from the connexion; and, upon this condition, he promised to attend him to Bath. Accordingly the two brothers, accompanied by Dr. Coke and the Rev. Mr. Collins, went to Bath with all possible secrecy, and the sentence was pronounced upon poor Mr. M‘Nab agreeably to Mr. Charles Wesley’s wish. By this means, the Bath society was divided. Many of the people loved Mr. M‘Nab, and thought it wrong that he should be condemned unheard. The society at Bristol also was thrown into great confusion; and, had it not been for the exertions of Dr. Coke, would have been divided like that at Bath. On the Sunday evening after Mr. Wesley’s return to London, he brought the matter before the London society, and certainly degraded the preachers, and laid them low even in the dust at his feet. When he was gone from London, Mr. Charles, after the sacrament at the new chapel, prayed for his brother in the following words: ‘Lord, preserve him from his rebellious sons. Though they curse him, do Thou bless him. Though they wish his death, do Thou prolong his life. Lord, stand between the living and the dead, and let not the curse of pride destroy them.’”

This was strange language to use, in prayer, and after a solemn sacrament; but it was not dissimilar to the language of a “Hymn for the Rev. John Wesley,” which Charles composed, and which was “sung by the society in Bristol, on Sunday, December 5, 1779,” only a fortnight after M‘Nab’s expulsion.

“Jesus, Thy hated servant own, And send the glorious Spirit down, In answer to our prayers; While others curse, and wish him dead, Do Thou Thy choicest blessings shed, And crown his hoary hairs.”--etc., etc.[345]

Pawson was the superintendent of the London circuit, and felt it his duty to write to Charles Wesley, and remonstrate with him for using such language, at such a time, and in such a place. An interview followed; and Pawson adds: “We came to an explanation, and he was in high good humour; but I have reason to believe, he never forgave me. He made his brother believe, that Mr. M‘Nab was only the tool of a violent party among the preachers, among whom there was a very powerful combination against his authority; and that, at the next conference, they would show themselves.” Pawson adds: “There was not a single grain of truth in this. Not one preacher in the whole connexion was concerned in the business, save those who were stationed in the Bristol circuit. It is true, that the preachers in general thought that Mr. M‘Nab was cruelly used; and so they do to this day.”

Not to return to the subject, it may be added, that Dr. Whitehead states that, as the conference of 1780 drew near, Wesley “was evidently intimidated,” and wrote to his brother requesting him to attend the conference. Charles answered as follows:

“My reasons against accepting your invitation to the conference are: (1) I can do no good; (2) I can prevent no evil; (3) I am afraid of being a partaker of other men’s sins, or of countenancing them by my presence; (4) I am afraid of myself; you know I cannot command my temper, and you have not courage to stand by me. I cannot trust your resolution; unless you act with a vigour that is not in you, conclamatum est, our affairs are past hope.

“I am not sure, they will not prevail upon you to ordain them. You claim the power, and only say, ‘It is not probable you shall ever exercise it.’ Probability on one side implies probability on the other; and I want better security. So I am to stand by, and see the ruin of our cause! You know how far you may depend on me; let me know how far I may depend on you, and on our preachers. In the Bath affair, you acted with vigour for the first time; but you could not hold out. Unmindful of your power and your infirmity, you yielded to the rebel, instead of his yielding to you. You should not have employed him again till he had owned his fault. This quite overturned my confidence in you, which I should never have told you, had I not been compelled. If you think my advice can be of any use to you, I will attend you to Bristol, and be always within call.”[346]

Poor Wesley! Wishful to repair a wrong, he had become reconciled to Mr. M‘Nab, principally by the mediation of Mr. Pawson and the preachers in London;[347] but, by this, he had offended his brother, by whom he had been goaded to the rash act at Bath.

At the conference of 1780, M‘Nab was restored to his place among his brethren, and was appointed to Sheffield. Charles Wesley was present, and, of course, was exceedingly dissatisfied. About a fortnight after, he wrote the following letter to his brother.

“I did not hope, by my presence at the conference, to do any good, or prevent any evil. So I told you in London. Yet I accepted your invitation, only because you desired it. And as I came merely to please you, I resolved not to contradict your will in anything. Your will, I perceived, was to receive Mr. M‘Nab, unhumbled, unconvinced, into your confidence, and into your bosom. He came uninvited, and openly accused your curate for obeying your orders: you suffered it; and did not give Mr. M‘Nab the gentlest reproof for disobeying them, and drawing others into his rebellion; and endeavouring to engage all the preachers in it; making an actual separation at Bath, and still keeping up his separate society. My judgment was, never to receive Mr. M‘Nab as a preacher till he acknowledged his fault. But I submitted and attended in silence. It was much easier for me to say nothing, than to speak neither more nor less than you would approve. I was sometimes strongly tempted to speak; but, if I had opened my mouth, I should have spoiled all. Your design, I believed, was to keep all quiet. I allow you your merit. ‘Tu maximus ille, es unus qui nobis CEDENDO restituis rem.’ By a very few words, I could have provoked your preachers to lay aside the mask; but that was the very thing you guarded against; and, I suppose, the reason for which you desired my presence was that I might be some sort of check to the independents. Still, I think it better for the people, that they (the preachers) should show themselves before your death than after it. You think otherwise; and I submit. ‘Satis, jam satis spectata in te amicitia est mea;’ and I am perfectly satisfied with my own insignificancy. I have but one thing to do. The Lord make me ready for it!”[348]

This was an angry letter of a baffled man. It was grumbling in private what ought to have been said in public, or not to have been said at all. The insinuation respecting the preachers was unfounded and unworthy. The desire that M‘Nab should acknowledge his fault was unjust, for M‘Nab was really the aggrieved party. Charles Wesley would have driven the preachers into rebellion; his brother, as ready to repair an injury as he was anxious to avoid committing one, restored unanimity and confidence. “There was nothing at the conference,” writes John Pawson, “but peace, harmony, and love.”

We only add, that Mr. M‘Nab’s subsequent appointments were honourable both to Wesley and himself. In 1780, he was sent to Sheffield; in 1781 to Manchester; and in 1782 to Newcastle. He then retired, “and resided for several years at Sheffield, where he was the pastor of a small congregation, who highly esteemed him; and there he finished his course about the year 1797.”[349]

Mr. Smyth went back to Ireland; but, in 1782, became one of Wesley’s London curates, with a salary of sixty guineas yearly.[350] In 1786, he was appointed minister of Bethesda chapel, Dublin;[351] where he rent the Methodist society, and took with him above a hundred persons, amongst whom were the richer members of the Dublin Methodists.[352] He then removed to Manchester, where he officiated as curate of St. Clement’s and St. Luke’s churches. He was the author of several publications, the chief of which were:--“The Fall and Recovery of Man. A Poem.” 1777: 12mo, 71 pages. “James Poulson further Detected.” 1778: 12mo, 58 pages. “Twelve Sermons on the most important Subjects.” 1778: 12mo, 254 pages. “St. Paul against Calvin.” 1809: 12mo, 115 pages. And “A Confutation of Calvinism.” 1810: 12mo, 391 pages.

Much space has been occupied with the disturbances at Bath; but, considering the importance of the point at issue, the facts connected with it were too important to be omitted.

The year 1779, like most previous ones, was a year of trouble. Besides the anxiety and vexation arising out of Mr. M‘Nab’s affair, Wesley was still annoyed with virulent attacks from his Calvinist opponents. His old friend, John Macgowan, published “The Foundry Budget Opened; or, the Arcanum of Wesleyanism Disclosed.” The animus of Macgowan’s pamphlet may be inferred from his motto on the title page:

“A man so various, that he seemed to be Not one, but all mankind’s epitome; Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong; Was everything by starts, but nothing long.”

He tells his readers, that “for craft and cunning sophistry, he will match the Rev. Mr. John Wesley against any man that ever stained paper with pollution”; and throughout speaks of him in the most contemptuous terms.

Of course, this was too savoury a production to pass unnoticed by the Gospel Magazine. Wesley is accused, in the review of it, with using “absurd, unscriptural jargon and contradictions”; and with “robbing Father, Son, and Spirit, of their glory as a covenant God; and exalting the sinful, proud nature of fallen man; and militating against the whole tenor of Scripture, and of reformed Christianity, as professed by all protestant churches.”

Another hostile publication was “Methodism and Popery dissected and compared; and the Doctrines of both proved to be derived from a Papal Origin.” Besides attacking Whitefield, Rowland Hill, and others, the anonymous author of this scurrilous pamphlet learnedly remarks, that “it would be less difficult to paint Proteus, in all his fabled shapes, under one distinct figure, than to describe Wesley”; whom he is pleased to honour with epithets like the following: “a living monument of apostolic frenzy”; “Jesuit”; “rank Catholic;” “actor”; and “anabaptist.”

This was far from being pleasant; but Wesley was used to it; and his character was too well established to need defence from such slanderous attacks. It may be doubted whether he took the trouble to read a tithe of the malignant diatribes launched against him.

While on the subject of books, it is due to Methodism to notice an interesting fact not generally known. The first Bible society, founded in Great Britain, and perhaps in the world, was established in 1779, and was the work of Methodists. George Cussons and John Davies, after leaving the leaders’ meeting in West Street chapel, entered into conversation, and, when near Soho Square, formed a resolution to endeavour to raise a fund for supplying soldiers with pocket Bibles. They and a dozen of their friends united themselves into a society for promoting this object. Their meetings were held once a month in the house of Mr. Dobson, of Oxford Street. John Thornton, Esq., of Clapham, became a generous subscriber. The first parcel of Bibles was sent from the vestry of Wesley’s West Street chapel; and the first sermon on behalf of the society was preached in the same chapel, by the Rev. Mr. Collins, from the appropriate words, “And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.”[353] Thus arose “The Naval and Military Bible Society,”--twenty-five years before the formation of “The British and Foreign Bible Society” in 1804,--a society still in active operation, and we believe the oldest association for the circulation of the word of God, that now exists.

Wesley still employed the press, as well as pulpit, in defending and spreading truth. John Atlay was his book steward, of whose conscientiousness he had a high opinion. Hence the following unpublished letter, sent to Bradburn.

“EDINBURGH, June 19, 1779.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I suppose John Atlay has paid the money. He is cautious to an extreme. I hear what angry men say or write; but I do not often regard it. Lemonade will cure any disorder of the bowels, (whether it be with or without purging,) in a day or two. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and down. They seldom are in vain. Honest Andrew Dunlop[354] writes me word that the book money is stolen. Pray desire him to take care that the knave does not steal his teeth.

“I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley published, in 1779, the seventeenth extract from his journal, extending from September 13, 1773, to January 2, 1776; 12mo, 82 pages.

Popery was beginning to be troublesome; for parliament, in the previous year, had passed a bill removing from the English and Irish papists the penalties and disabilities imposed upon them by the famous act, “for the further preventing the growth of popery,” enacted in 1699. Wesley had been called a papist times without number; but now, in a time of danger, he proved himself one of popery’s most trenchant opponents. His pamphlet, now issued, with the title, “Popery Calmly Considered,” 12mo, 25 pages, was one of the most timely and valuable productions of his pen. Scores of such pamphlets have been given to the public; but not one superior to Wesley’s. He writes: “In the following tract, I propose, first, to lay down and examine the chief doctrines of the Church of Rome: secondly, to show the natural tendency of a few of those doctrines; and that with all the plainness and all the calmness I can.” “Mr. J. Russell,” observes Charles Wesley, in a letter dated April 23, 1779, “tells me, some of the bitterest Calvinists are reconciled to you for the tract on popery. It should be spread immediately through the three kingdoms.”[355] We shall meet with popery again; but, meantime, we wish the Methodist book committee and conference would do, at present, what Charles Wesley wished to be done ninety years ago. However urgent the case was in 1779, the necessity now is ninety times greater than it was then; and John Wesley’s successors will be recreant to his protestant principles unless they do their duty as he did his.

It only remains, before concluding the present chapter, to notice Wesley’s Arminian Magazine. This, like the volume for 1778, was, to a large extent, controversial, Wesley believing that “there never was more need, in the memory of man, of opposing the Horrible Decree, than at this day; for thousands, in every part of England, were still halting between two opinions, and were exceedingly perplexed on this account.” Among other pieces, intended to refute the Calvinian theory, he republished his own “Predestination Calmly Considered,” which he first printed in 1752. There are interesting lives of Bishop Bedell, Archbishop Usher, and Dr. Donne, the last mentioned by Wesley’s own pen, though never included in his collected works. There are short accounts of ten of his itinerant preachers, accompanied by their respective portraits, many of which he pronounces “really striking.” There are ninety-three letters, most of which, says he, “are closely practical and experimental.” There are about seventy poetical pieces, one of which, “Henry and Emma, a Dialogue,” fills more than fourteen pages; a sort of love story, to which objections were not unreasonably raised. Wesley acknowledged that it was “not strictly religious”; but maintains that there was “nothing in it contrary to religion, nothing that can offend the chastest ears”; that it was “one of the finest poems in the English tongue, both for sentiment and language”; and that those who could “read it without tears must have a stupid and unfeeling heart.” All this might be true; but, with all due deference to Wesley, there can hardly be two opinions, that it was out of its proper place when inserted in the Arminian Magazine.

FOOTNOTES:

[320] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 117.

[321] Manuscript diary.

[322] Manuscript letter.

[323] Manuscripts.

[324] “History of Methodism in Halifax.”

[325] Manuscript diary.

[326] How is it that there are not more Methodists in Inverness now than there were ninety years ago, in the days of good old Duncan McAllum?

[327] Boswell’s Life of Johnson.

[328] Methodist Magazine, 1823, p. 777.

[329] Ibid. 1856, p. 234.

[330] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

[331] Methodist Magazine, 1826, p. 244.

[332] Ibid. 1789, p. 388.

[333] These were Pawson, Rankin, and Jaco. The committee consisted of gentlemen appointed to manage the business of City Road chapel.--(Pawson’s manuscript.)

[334] Methodist Magazine, 1789, p. 441.

[335] Methodist Magazine, 1789, p. 387.

[336] Methodist Magazine, 1825, p. 456.

[337] Methodist Magazine, 1779, p. 240.

[338] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 70.

[339] Rutherford’s Life, p. 94.

[340] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

[341] Manuscript letter.

[342] Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks: “1780, January 14--I learned, that Mr. M‘Nab is excluded the connexion; but I cannot learn, that he has merited such treatment. A man who has been a credit to our cause, whose moral character is unblamable, and whose abilities are considerable, is expelled for his integrity and uprightness. Being very uneasy on account of the expulsion, I wrote Mr. Wesley respecting it.”

[343] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 132.

[344] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 372.

[345] Christian Miscellany, 1849, p. 57; and “Wesley Poetry,” vol. viii., p. 415.

[346] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 379.

[347] Pawson’s manuscript.

[348] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 380.

[349] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

[350] Manuscript.

[351] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 202.

[352] Life of John Valton, p. 100.

[353] Methodist Magazine, 1823, p. 737.

[354] The assistant of the Limerick circuit.

[355] Methodist Magazine, 1789, p. 387.

1780. Age 77

The year 1780 will always be marked in English history. The nation was steeped in guilt and misery. War was raging on almost every side. Trade was paralysed; and taxes intolerable. Popery had been established in Canada; and, by the repealing of the statutes of the 11th and 12th of King William III., had received great encouragement in England. The Protestant Association sprung into existence; and the Gordon riots followed. The details of these events are full of profound interest and instruction; but our limited space prevents enlargement. Suffice it to say, that, in this serious crisis, Wesley took an active interest. He writes: “1780. January 18--Receiving more and more accounts of the increase of popery, I believed it my duty to write a letter concerning it, which was afterwards inserted in the public papers. Many were grievously offended; but I cannot help it; I must follow my own conscience.”

The following was Wesley’s unanswerable, though obnoxious letter.

“A Letter to the Printer of the Public Advertiser, occasioned by the late Act, passed in favour of Popery.

“CITY ROAD, January 21, 1780.

“SIR,--Some time ago, a pamphlet was sent me, entitled ‘An Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great Britain.’ A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hands, which pronounces ‘its style contemptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious.’ On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of that tract by a few plain arguments.

“With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let there be as ‘boundless a freedom in religion,’ as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius’s creed to be true; suppose the council of Trent to have been infallible: yet, I insist upon it, that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

“I prove this by a plain argument; let him answer it that can. That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus. It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a public council, that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics.’ This has been openly avowed by the council of Constance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, it is plain that the members of that church can give no reasonable security, to any government, of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government, protestant, Mahommedan, or pagan.

“You may say, ‘Nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance.’ True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ sweeps them all away as a spider’s web. So that still, no governors that are not Roman Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.

“Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the pope can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but all Roman Catholics acknowledge this; therefore, they can give no security for their allegiance.

“The power of granting pardons for all sins, past, present, and to come, is, and has been, for many centuries, one branch of his spiritual power.

“But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no security for their allegiance; since they believe the pope can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins whatsoever.

“The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is another branch of the spiritual power of the pope. And all who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the pope can give no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths and promises are none; they are light as air; a dispensation makes them all null and void.

“Nay, not only the pope, but even a priest has power to pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason.

“Setting then religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, no government ought to tolerate men, who cannot give any security to that government for their allegiance and peaceable behaviour. But this no Romanist can do, not only while he holds that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ but so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution or the spiritual power of the pope.

“‘But the late act,’ you say, ‘does not either tolerate or encourage Roman Catholics.’ I appeal to matter of fact. Do not the Romanists themselves understand it as a toleration? You know they do. And does it not already (let alone what it may do by-and-by) encourage them to preach openly, to build chapels (at Bath and elsewhere), to raise seminaries, and to make numerous converts day by day, to their intolerant, persecuting principles? I can point out, if need be, several of the persons. And they are increasing daily.

“But ‘nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended from them.’ I am not certain of that. Some time since, a Romish priest came to one I knew; and, after talking with her largely, broke out, ‘You are no heretic! You have the experience of a real Christian!’ ‘And would you,’ she asked, ‘burn me alive?’ He said, ‘God forbid! unless it were for the good of the church!’

“Now what security could she have had for her life, if it had depended on that man? The good of the church would have burst all the ties of truth, justice, and mercy. Especially when seconded by the absolution of a priest, or, if need were, a papal pardon.

“If any please to answer this, and to set his name, I shall probably reply; but the productions of anonymous writers I do not promise to take any notice of.

“I am, sir, your humble servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley’s arguments are irrefutable; and terrible is England’s danger, at the present day, because such arguments, instead of being answered, have been dexterously, but disastrously, ignored by England’s statesmen. Wesley’s letter will probably be treated, by many, as they would treat an old almanack, out of date; but, on February 17, 1780, it evoked the unanimous thanks of the Protestant Association; and, in the same month, was published in the pages of Wesley’s bitterest antagonist,--the Gospel Magazine,--with an editorial note, that it had “been almost universally approved of,” and that it was a “production of real merit.”

Wesley’s letter was too damaging to the disloyalty and preposterous assumptions of popery, to pass unnoticed. His chief antagonist was the Rev. Arthur O’Leary, the son of peasant parents, and now a popish priest, in the fiftieth year of his age.

O’Leary’s remarks on Wesley’s letter made an octavo pamphlet of 101 pages. The friar tells the Methodist, that the temperature of Ireland’s climate and the quality of its soil had cleansed the veins of its papists “from the sour and acid blood of the Scythians and Saxons.” He writes:

“We are tender hearted, we are good natured, we have feelings. We shed tears on the urns of the dead; deplore the loss of hecatombs of victims slaughtered on the gloomy altars of religious bigotry; cry in seeing the ruins of cities over which fanaticism has displayed the funeral torch; and sincerely pity the blind zeal of our Scotch and English neighbours, whose constant character is to pity none, for erecting the banners of persecution, at a time when the inquisition is abolished in Spain and Milan, and the protestant gentry are caressed at Rome, and live unmolested in the luxuriant plains of France and Italy. We are too wise to quarrel about religion. The Roman Catholics sing their psalms in Latin, with a few inflections of the voice. Our protestant neighbours sing the same psalms in English, on a larger scale of musical notes. We never quarrel with our honest and worthy neighbours, the quakers, for not singing at all; nor shall we ever quarrel with Mr. Wesley for raising his voice to heaven, and warbling forth his canticles on whatever tune he pleases. We like social harmony; and, in civil music, hate discordance. Thus, when we go to the shambles, we never inquire into the butcher’s religion, but into the quality of his meat. We care not whether the ox was fed in the pope’s territories, or on the mountains of Scotland; provided the joint be good; for, though there be many heresies in old books, we discover neither heresy nor superstition in beef and claret. We divide them cheerfully with one another; and, though of different religions, we sit over the bowl with as much cordiality as if we were at a lovefeast.”

O’Leary’s quaint jocularity and rounded periods are amusing; but they furnish not the slightest answer to Wesley’s allegations. On March 23, Wesley replied to O’Leary, in a letter addressed to the editors of the Freeman’s Journal, and from which the following is extracted.

“Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are no more an answer to my letter, than to the Bull Unigenitus. His manner of writing is easy and pleasant; but might it not as well be more serious? The subject we are treating of is not a light one; it moves me to tears, rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country; yea, for the children that are yet unborn. I would not have the Roman Catholics persecuted at all. I would only have them hindered from doing hurt: I would not put it in their power to cut the throats of their quiet neighbours.”[356]

O’Leary published a “Rejoinder to Mr. Wesley’s Reply,” in which he was less jocular, but not more logical. Of Wesley’s three reasons why it is not safe to tolerate papists, two were left untouched, and one was played with and evaded. Such a controversialist scarcely deserved an answer; and, yet, Wesley supplemented his second letter by a third, dated Chester, March 31, 1780. After recapitulating his three reasons, Wesley writes:

“Nine parts in ten of Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are quite wide of the mark. Not that they are wide of his mark, which is to introduce a plausible panegyric upon the Roman Catholics, mixed with keen invectives against the protestants, whether true or false it matters not. All this is admirably well calculated to inspire the reader with aversion to these heretics, and to bring them back to the holy, harmless, much injured Church of Rome! Close arguing he does not attempt; but he vapours, and skips to and fro, and rambles to all points of the compass, in a very lively and entertaining manner.”

Wesley thus concludes his long letter:

“What security for my life can any man give me, till he utterly renounces the council of Constance? What security can any Romanist give a protestant, till this doctrine is publicly abjured? If Mr. O’Leary has anything more to plead for this council, I shall follow him step by step. But let him keep his word, and ‘give a serious answer to a serious charge.’ ‘Drollery may come in when we are talking of roasting fowls’; but not when we talk of ‘roasting men.’

“Would I then wish the Roman Catholics to be persecuted? I never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor the thought: it is foreign to all I have preached and wrote for these fifty years. But I would wish the Romanists in England (I had no others in view) to be treated still with the same lenity that they have been these sixty years; to be allowed both civil and religious liberty, but not permitted to undermine ours. I wish them to stand just as they did before the late act was passed: not to be persecuted or hurt themselves; but gently restrained from hurting their neighbours.

“I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[357]

Here the controversy ended.[358] O’Leary was baffled; and, to this day, the arguments in Wesley’s letter of January 21, 1780, remain unanswered. Seven years afterwards; when at Cork, Wesley wrote: “A gentleman invited me to breakfast, with my old antagonist, Father O’Leary. I was not at all displeased at being disappointed. He is not the stiff, queer man that I expected; but of an easy, genteel carriage, and seems not to be wanting either in sense or learning.”

It was during this controversy, and while Wesley was in the north of Ireland, that the fearful riots occurred, which are so unfortunately associated with the name of Lord George Gordon, and which were the cause of that nobleman’s incarceration (rightly or wrongly) in the Tower of London. Here Wesley, after repeated invitations, visited him, and writes: “1780, December 19--I spent an hour with Lord George Gordon, at his apartment in the Tower. Our conversation turned upon popery and religion. He seemed to be well acquainted with the Bible; and had abundance of other books, enough to furnish a study. I was agreeably surprised to find he did not complain of any person or thing; and cannot but hope his confinement will take a right turn, and prove a lasting blessing to him.”

We return to more congenial matters. Wesley spent the first two months of 1780 in London and its vicinity. On February 28, he started on his journey to the north. Among other places, he now, for the first time, preached at Delph. He writes: “April 7--I went to Delph, a little village upon the mountains, where a remarkable work of God is just broke out. I was just set down, when the minister sent me word, I was welcome to preach in his church. On hearing this, many people walked thither immediately, near a mile from the town; but, in ten minutes, he sent me word his mind was changed. We knew not then what to do, till the trustees of the independent meeting offered us the use of their house. It was quickly filled, and truly God bore witness to His word.”

The minister of the parish church was the Rev. Mr. Heginbotham, who had engaged Mr. Stones as his curate. Mr. Stones was a sportsman, fond of his dog and gun. On one occasion, a rough Yorkshireman told him, it would be better if he minded his study more and his gun less. The curate took the hint; his dogs and his guns were given up; he became a thorough Christian; his ministry was greatly blessed; an extensive religious awakening followed; meetings for prayer were convened in private houses; and not a few were scripturally converted. Opposition soon ensued, on the ground that the poor, by spending so much time in prayer, would neglect their work, and become chargeable to the parish. The curate was dismissed; the young converts applied to Joseph Benson, then at Manchester, for help; Methodist preaching was commenced; a room in Millgate hired; and a flourishing society was formed.[359] The case was named to Wesley; and, a fortnight before his visit, he signed the following legal looking document, which to a Methodist antiquarian will be welcome.

“Whereas for about twelve months last past, the people called Methodists have preached in a room at Delph, in Saddleworth, in the county of York,--the travelling preachers coming there regularly every fortnight from Manchester, besides local preachers occasionally on Sundays. And Whereas the last summer such crowds attended, that the room could not contain them, the society also increasing very fast, and a great likelihood of much good being done in the place,--It is, therefore, thought necessary that a preaching house be erected at Delph aforesaid, twelve yards long and eight wide. The expense of such a building, according to the plan laid down, will be vastly more than the society will be able to raise amongst themselves. They have, therefore, requested our consent to go amongst our societies, to ask the charitable contributions of such of our friends as would willingly encourage such an undertaking. This is, therefore, to certify that we approve of the measure, and recommend the same to our Christian friends everywhere, hoping they will readily and cheerfully contribute to the same.

“JOHN WESLEY.[360] “MANCHESTER, March 25, 1780.”

This formalised certificate smacks of the office of Joseph Mellor, the Methodist attorney of the town of Delph; and Wesley must have been hard pressed for time when, instead of writing a statement of the case himself, he put his hand to such legal magniloquence. Suffice it to add, the chapel was built, with not more than £100 of debt resting upon the premises.[361]

It was during this northern tour, that Wesley, for the first time, was denied the use of the church at Haworth. He writes: “Sunday, April 23--Mr. Richardson being unwilling that I should preach any more in Haworth church, Providence opened another; I preached in Bingley church, both morning and afternoon. This is considerably larger than the other.”

It was either on this, or some future occasion, when Wesley was preaching in Bingley church, that a rich man in the congregation, who seemed to think that his wealth was a licence to practise bad manners, sneered at the preacher and at his sentiments. Wesley paused, and fixing his keen eye on the Dives sitting in the seat of the scornful, said: “I heed your sneers no more than I heed the fluttering of a butterfly; but I know what good breeding is as well as any gentleman in the land.”

It was now that Wesley preached his first sermon in Blackburn. He writes: “April 27--I preached in Todmorden church with great enlargement of heart. In the afternoon we went on to Blackburn. It seemed the whole town was moved; and the question was where to put the congregation. We could not stand abroad because of the sun; so as many as could squeezed into the preaching house. All the chief men of the town were there.” Mr. Banning was Wesley’s host at Blackburn; and, on one occasion, took his venerable guest to see a neighbouring chapel which was in the course of being built. “Mr. Banning,” said Wesley, “I have a favour to ask. Let there be no pews in the body of this chapel, except one for the leading singers. Be sure to make accommodation for the poor. They are God’s building materials in the erecting of His church. The rich make good scaffolding, but bad materials.”[362] Weighty words! One of Methodism’s evil omens, at the present day, is a disregard of the advice which Wesley gave, namely, that, in building chapels, the Methodists should never fail to provide ample accommodation for the poor.

It was a sign of Wesley’s growing popularity, that, though, forty years before, he had been indignantly expelled from the pulpits of the Established Church, he was now invited, in all parts of the country, by rectors, vicars, curates, and others, to favour them with his services. At Pateley Bridge, in 1752, Thomas Lee, the old itinerant, and his Methodist companions, were subjected to treatment the most barbarous; and, on applying to the Dean of Ripon for protection, were met with a churchman’s scorn rather than a magistrate’s just dealing. Now it was otherwise. Wesley writes: “1780, May 1--At Pateley Bridge, the vicar offered me the use of his church. Though it was more than twice as large as our preaching house, it was not near large enough to contain the congregation. How vast is the increase of the work of God! particularly in the most rugged and uncultivated places. How does He ‘send the springs’ of grace also ‘into the valleys, that run among the hills!’”

Leaving Pateley, Wesley, for the first time, visited Ripon. He writes: “May 2--We came to Ripon, and observed a remarkable turn of providence: the great hindrance of the work of God in this place has suddenly disappeared; and the poor people, being delivered from their fear, gladly flock together, and hear His word. The new preaching house was quickly more than filled.”

Four years previous to this, Thomas Dixon was one of the Ripon preachers, and, in his unpublished autobiography, wrote: “Upon our going to Ripon, we preached in a small room up a flight of stairs, and even this we were to leave at Martinmas. But, just at this time, Mr. T. Dowson, who had suffered much for the gospel’s sake, bought the premises where an old barn and stable stood. He immediately pulled down the barn, and built a decent chapel and a dwelling house upon the site, and, with such expedition, that we were able to get into the shell of the new chapel by the time we had to leave the upstairs room. By this means, God gave the poor persecuted Methodists, in Ripon, a degree of rest they had never known before, and the work, from that time, gradually grew.”

On leaving Ripon, Wesley proceeded “through a delightful country to the immense ruins of Garvaix Abbey,” and thence across the “horrid, dreary, enormous mountains” to Penrith, another place where he now, for the first time, preached. He writes: “May 5--In the evening, a large room, designed for an assembly, was procured for me at Penrith; but several of the poor people were struck with panic, for fear the room should fall. Finding there was no remedy, I went down into the court below, and preached in great peace to a multitude of well behaved people.”

On May 11, Wesley reached Newcastle, and thence proceeded to Scotland. On his return southwards, we find him preaching at Durham, Darlington, Northallerton, Boroughbridge, and York. Making his way through Lincolnshire, he came to Newark, where, twenty years before, the mob had burnt the Methodist pulpit in the market place; and had not only pelted the preacher, Thomas Lee, with all sorts of missiles, and dragged him to the river Trent, where they ducked and dabbled him without mercy, but, to complete the whole, a painter came with his pot and brush, and bedaubed him most ludicrously. Wesley writes: “1780, June 12--Our friends at Newark were divided as to the place where I should preach. At length, they found a convenient place, covered on three sides, and on the fourth open to the street. It contained two or three thousand people well, who appeared to hear as for life. Only one big man, exceeding drunk, was very noisy and turbulent, till his wife (fortissima Tyndaridarum!) seized him by the collar, gave him two or three hearty boxes on the ear, and dragged him away like a calf. But, at length, he got out of her hands, crept in among the people, and stood as quiet as a lamb.”

On June 13, Wesley wrote: “I accepted of an invitation from a gentleman at Lincoln, in which I had not set my foot for upwards of fifty years. At six in the evening, I preached in the castle yard to a large and attentive congregation. They were all as quiet as if I had been at Bristol. Will God have a people here also?” For seven years after this, there was not a Methodist in Lincoln.

After an interval of many years, Wesley preached again at Boston, where, in 1757, Alexander Mather, the first Methodist preacher there, had his face plastered with mire taken from the kennels of the streets, and his head laid open with a stone.

Wesley spent his birthday in Sheffield, and wrote: “June 28--I can hardly think I am entered this day into the seventy-eighth year of my age. By the blessing of God, I am just the same as when I entered the twenty-eighth. This hath God wrought, chiefly by my constant exercise, my rising early, and preaching morning and evening.”

The next day, he preached his first and last sermon at Worksop. He says: “I was desired to preach at Worksop; but when I came, they had not fixed on any place. At length, they chose a lamentable one, full of dirt and dust, but without the least shelter from the scorching sun. This few could bear; so we had only a small company of as stupid people as I ever saw.”

After this, Wesley made his way to London, where he spent a week; and, then, he and his brother set out for Bristol, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He writes: “August 1--Our conference began. We have been always, hitherto, straitened for time. It was now resolved, ‘For the future, we will allow nine or ten days for each conference; that everything, relative to the carrying on of the work of God, may be maturely considered.’”

The conference, in this instance, lasted from August 1 to August 9, inclusive. Its main business was a revision of the minutes of conferences already held. Several alterations were made, some of the chief being the following. It was no longer to be a rule, that Methodists were to endeavour to preach most where Wesley and his brother clergymen were allowed to preach in parish churches. Classmeetings were to be made more lively and profitable, by removing improper leaders; and care was to be taken, that those appointed were not only men of sound judgment, but truly pious. If a preacher could secure twenty hearers at five o’clock in the morning, he was to preach; if not so many, he was to sing and pray. “Observe,” says Wesley to his preachers, “it is not your business to preach so many times, and to take care of this or that society; but to save as many souls as you can, to bring as many sinners as you possibly can to repentance, and, with all your power, to build them up in that holiness without which they cannot see the Lord. And remember! a Methodist preacher is to mind every point, great and small, in the Methodist discipline! Therefore, you will need all the sense you have, and to have all your wits about you.” It was agreed, that the neglect of fasting was sufficient to account for their feebleness and faintness of spirit. They were continually grieving the Holy Spirit of God, by the habitual neglect of a plain duty. “Let you and I,” says Wesley, “every Friday (beginning on the next), avow this duty throughout the nation, by touching no tea, coffee, or chocolate, in the morning, but, (if we want it,) half-a-pint of milk or water gruel. Let us dine on potatoes, and, (if we need it,) eat three or four ounces of flesh in the evening. At other times, let us eat no flesh suppers. These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders.” The rule was rescinded, that no preacher ought to print anything without Wesley’s approbation. The preachers were to join as one man in putting an end to the indecency of the people talking in the preaching houses, before and after service. Complaints having been made, that sluts had spoiled preachers’ houses, Wesley writes: “Let none, that has spoiled one, ever live in another. But what a shame is this! A preacher’s wife should be a pattern of cleanliness, in her person, clothes, and habitation. Let nothing slatternly be seen about her; no rags, no dirt, no litter. And she should be a pattern of industry; always at work, either for herself, her husband, or the poor. I am not willing that any should live in the Orphan House at Newcastle, or any preaching house, who does not conform to this rule.” Complaints were also made, that people crowded into the preachers’ houses as into coffee shops, without invitation; and it was ruled, that no person should, in future, come into a preacher’s house, unless he wanted to ask a question.

Some of these may appear to be minute matters; but they are not without interest as indicative of the defects of Methodists in the days of Wesley.

There is reason to believe, though the fact is not recorded in the minutes, that the Church question was again discussed at the conference of 1780. Hence the following letter, written to Miss Bosanquet.

“BRISTOL, August 5, 1780.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--I snatch time from the conference to write two or three lines. I am glad you have begun a prayer-meeting at Hunslet, and doubt not it will be productive of much good. Hitherto, we have had a blessed conference. The case of the Church we shall fully consider by-and-by; and, I believe, we shall agree that none who leave the Church shall remain with us.

“I am, my dear sister, yours most affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[363]

Charles Wesley was present, and was far from satisfied. He purposed to attend no more of these annual synods, and wrote as follows:

“Why should I longer, Lord, contend, My last important moments spend In buffeting the air? In warning those who will not see, But rest in blind security, And rush into the snare?

Prophet of ills, why should I live, Or, by my sad forebodings, grieve Whom I can serve no more? I only can their loss bewail, Till life’s exhausted sorrows fail, And the last pang is o’er.”[364]

Poor Charles, alarmed lest the Methodists should leave the Church, retired from the conference to weep and die; John to rejoice and work.

Conference statistics have not been given annually; but the following figures will show the progress made during the decade of years ending at the conference of 1780.

+----------+-----------+------------+----------+-------------+ | | Circuits. | Itinerant | Members. | Kingswood | | | | Preachers. | | Collection. | | +-----------+------------+----------+-------------+ | 1770 | 50 | 123 | 29,406 | £218 4 5 | | 1780 | 64 | 171 | 43,830 | £402 1 9 | | +-----------+------------+----------+-------------+ | Increase | 14 | 48 | 14,424 | £183 17 4 | +----------+-----------+------------+----------+-------------+

To these numbers, however, must be added the Methodists in the West Indies, and also 20 circuits, 42 itinerant preachers, and 8504 members of society in America.[365]

The American conference met at Baltimore on April 24, and agreed to continue in close communion with the Church, and to permit “the friendly clergy” to preach and administer the sacraments in Methodist chapels. Hitherto, neither Asbury, nor any other of the preachers in America, had administered these Christian ordinances to the Methodist people; and, as the number of members was now rapidly increasing, this was becoming a momentous question. The want in England had been met, to some extent, by Wesley and his brother and their clerical assistants; but, in America, the Methodists had no ordained clergyman to render service like this. Besides, there the Methodists were very differently situated from what Methodists were in England. In this country, wherever there was a Methodist society there was a parish church, at which, if they chose, Methodists might attend on sacramental occasions. In America it was otherwise. Clergymen were few; and parish churches far distant from each other; and, in many instances, where Methodist societies had been formed, no church existed. The case was becoming serious. Were these thousands of American Methodists to be left without sacraments? Or were unordained Methodist preachers to administer sacraments? Or was an effort to be made, to send a clergyman of the Church of England to supply this lack of sacred service? Or was Wesley himself to assume episcopal functions, and, by ordination, turn his preachers into priests? These were serious difficulties to be surmounted. To deprive eight thousand converted people of the most sacred ordinances of the church, would have been a sin against the church’s Head. To allow unordained preachers to administer baptism and the Lord’s supper was a thing for which Wesley himself was not prepared; though who can question, that a man like Francis Asbury, whom God had so signally honoured, had as much right to do this as the most renowned priest or prelate in existence? An alternative remained, namely, either to send the American Methodists an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; or that Wesley should take upon himself the office of ordainer, and thus qualify his own itinerants for what was conceived to be a higher function than that of preaching the infinitely great and everlasting truths of Christ’s glorious gospel.

Was Wesley prepared for such a step as this? Fortunately, this is a point on which we are not left to speculate. In a letter to his brother, dated June 8, 1780, he writes: “Read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon,’ or any impartial history of the ancient church, and I believe you will think as I do. I verily believe, I have as good a right to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper. But I see abundance of reasons why I should not use that right, unless I was turned out of the Church. At present, we are just in our place.”[366]

As yet, Wesley, for “abundance of reasons,” hesitated to ordain his preachers; and, hence, the only remaining expedient was to endeavour to secure an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; and this he attempted. The following letter was addressed to Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, two months after the date of his letter to his brother Charles. The reader will perceive, that it was written the day after the close of the Bristol conference. It ought to be premised that, previous to this, Wesley had applied to the bishop for a clerical helper, and had met with a refusal.

“August 10, 1780.

“MY LORD,--Some time since, I received your lordship’s favour, for which I return your lordship my sincere thanks. These persons did not apply to the Society,” [for Propagating Christian Knowledge in Foreign Parts,] “because they had nothing to ask of them. They wanted no salary for their minister: they were themselves able and willing to maintain him. They, therefore, applied, by me, to your lordship, as members of the Church of England, and desirous so to continue, begging the favour of your lordship, after your lordship had examined him, to ordain a pious man who might officiate as their minister.

“But your lordship observes, ‘There are three ministers in that country already.’ True, my lord: but what are three, to watch over all the souls in that extensive country? Will your lordship permit me to speak freely? I dare not do otherwise. I am on the verge of the grave, and know not the hour when I shall drop into it. Suppose there were threescore of those missionaries in the country, could I in conscience recommend these souls to their care? Do they take any care of their own souls? If they do, (I speak it with concern,) I fear they are almost the only missionaries in America that do. My lord, I do not speak rashly: I have been in America; and so have several with whom I have lately conversed. And both I and they know, what manner of men the greater part of these are. They are men who have neither the power of religion, nor the form; men that lay no claim to piety, nor even decency.

“Give me leave, my lord, to speak more freely still: perhaps it is the last time I shall trouble your lordship. I know your lordship’s abilities and extensive learning: I believe, what is far more, that your lordship fears God. I have heard, that your lordship is unfashionably diligent in examining the candidates for holy orders; yea, that your lordship is generally at the pains of examining them yourself. Examining them! in what respects? Why whether they understand a little Latin and Greek; and can answer a few trite questions in the science of divinity! Alas, how little does this avail! Does your lordship examine, whether they serve Christ or Belial? Whether they love God or the world? Whether they ever had any serious thoughts about heaven or hell? Whether they have any real desire to save their own souls, or the souls of others? If not, what have they to do with holy orders? and what will become of the souls committed to their care?

“My lord, I do by no means despise learning: I know the value of it too well. But what is this, particularly in a Christian minister, compared to piety? What is it in a man that has no religion? ‘As a jewel in a swine’s snout.’

“Some time since, I recommended to your lordship a plain man, whom I had known above twenty years, as a person of deep, genuine piety, and of unblamable conversation. But he neither understood Greek nor Latin; and he affirmed, in so many words, that ‘he believed it was his duty to preach, whether he was ordained or no.’ I believe so too. What became of him since, I know not. But I suppose he received presbyterian ordination; and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think any ordination better than none.

“I do not know, that Mr. Hoskins had any favour to ask of the Society. He asked the favour of your lordship to ordain him, that he might minister to a little flock in America. But your lordship did not see good to ordain him: but your lordship did see good to ordain, and send to America, other persons, who knew something of Greek and Latin; but knew no more of saving souls, than of catching whales.

“In this respect, also, I mourn for poor America; for the sheep scattered up and down therein. Part of them have no shepherds at all, particularly in the northern colonies; and the case of the rest is little better, for their own shepherds pity them not. They cannot, for they have no pity on themselves, they take no thought or care about their own souls.

“Wishing your lordship every blessing from the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, I remain, my lord, your lordship’s dutiful son and servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[367]

Did his lordship ever receive, from any other “dutiful son and servant,” a letter like this? We doubt it. Wesley was foiled in his attempt to obtain episcopal ordination for an American Methodist preacher: no wonder, that, soon after, he administered ordination himself.

Before proceeding with Wesley’s history, the insertion of a selection of his letters, belonging to this period, may be acceptable.

It is a terrible thing to write a dangerous book. When Joseph Benson was a young man, he read Dr. Watts’s “Glory of Christ as God-man,” and became a convert to his doctrine of the pre-existence of our Lord’s human soul. Speaking his mind too freely upon this unscriptural dogma, Benson was suspected to be an Arian, and was represented as such, by Dr. Coke, all over the kingdom.[368] At the conference of 1780, Coke accused him of holding the Arian heresy; the matter was sifted; Benson was acquitted; and Coke offered to ask his pardon. Still, Benson, for years afterwards, held Dr. Watts’s dangerous speculation; and it was not until he undertook the revision of Fletcher’s manuscripts, that he laid aside the expression, “pre-existent soul of Christ;” “an expression,” says he, “which neither reason, nor Scripture, nor antiquity, will warrant our using.”[369]

Dr. Watts’s pernicious book, and also the Gordon riots, (at this time raging,) are referred to in the following extract from a letter to Charles Wesley.

“June 8, 1780.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I would not read over Dr. Watts’s tract for a hundred pounds. You may read it, and welcome. I will not, dare not, move those subtle, metaphysical controversies. Arianism is not in question; it is Eutychianism or Nestorianism. But what are they? What neither I nor any one else understands. But they are what tore the eastern and western churches asunder.

“It is well I accepted none of Lord George’s invitations. If the government suffers this tamely, I know not what they will not suffer.

“Mr. Collins is not under my direction; nor am I at all accountable for any steps he takes. He is not in connection with the Methodists. He only helps us now and then. I will suffer no disputing at the conference.

“Undoubtedly many of the patriots seriously intend to overturn the government; but the hook is in their nose.

“Peace be with you all!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[370]

The Mr. Collins, mentioned in the above extract, was Brian Bury Collins, of the university of Cambridge, who, without ever receiving a regular appointment, continued to assist Wesley, in various parts of the kingdom, until Wesley’s death in 1791. A number of his manuscript letters, all written in 1779 and 1780, now lie before us, from which we learn, that he regarded himself as having “an unlimited preaching commission”; and that one of his great objects was to unite Wesley’s and Whitefield’s followers. “I could freely die,” says he, “to see the Tabernacles and Foundery reconciled.” He began the year 1779 in the north of England, where he sometimes preached five or six times a day. He then removed to London, Bristol, and the west, where his health failed. In May, 1780, he was among his relatives at Linwood, and wrote: “I am not yet recovered from my late illness, though I am much better than I have been. My relations here receive me with more cordiality than I expected. I find the Divine presence in the churches where I preach; but what the Lord designs to do with me I cannot tell. Lately, I have thought of spending a few weeks at Cambridge. I have also had fresh desires of being in full orders.” In pursuance of this, Mr. Collins went to St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, in July 1780, he took his master of arts degree. By advice of the two Wesleys, he sought ordination; and the dowager Lady Townsend gave him a recommendatory letter to the Bishop of Chester, requesting that the rite might be administered in private; but the bishop, having heard of his irregular preaching, hesitated until he had time to confer with his brother bishops. Ordination was ultimately obtained; Collins married, and, for a time, was assistant to David Simpson, at Macclesfield; after this, he again became a rover, and preached in Wesley’s and Lady Huntingdon’s chapels, and wherever else he had a chance. He writes: “I wish to do good unto all. I do not love one and dislike another. I can unite with all who are united to Jesus. I care not for names in the least.”[371]

These glimpses of a man whom Wesley, to the end of life, repeatedly mentions in his journals, will not be unwelcome. Of his subsequent career we know nothing; except that its close was not as bright as its beginning. A son of his lies interred in the burial ground of the new chapel in City Road.[372]

One of the legislative acts of the conference of 1780 was to enforce the old rule, that, in Methodist meeting-houses, the men and women should sit apart. In galleries, where they had always sat together, they might do so still; but in all new erected galleries, and in the seats below, the old rule was to be rigidly observed. “If,” said Wesley, “I come into any new house, and see the men and women together, I will immediately go out. I hereby give public notice of this. Pray let it be observed.”[373]

This sounds strangely at the present day; but, for some reason, it was with Wesley a matter of importance. Hence also the following unpublished letter to the leaders at Sheffield.

“BRISTOL, September 4, 1780.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Let the persons, who purpose to subvert the Methodist plan, by mixing men and women together in your chapel, consider the consequence of so doing. First, I will never set foot in it more. Secondly, I will forbid any collection to be made for it in any of our societies.

“I am, my dear brethren, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Two more letters, now for the first time given to the public, will be welcome. They were addressed to Samuel Bradburn, who had been three years in Ireland, and was now to remove to Keighley.

“NEAR BRISTOL, September 16, 1780.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I wanted to have Betsy” [Mrs. Bradburn] “a little nearer me. And I wanted her to be acquainted with her twin soul, Miss Ritchie, the fellow to whom I scarce know in England. But I do not like your crossing the sea till your children are a little stronger. If there was stormy weather, it might endanger their lives. Therefore, it is better you should stay in Ireland a little longer. Athlone circuit will suit you well; and John Bredin may be at Keighley in your place.

“Now read over the minutes concerning the office of an assistant, and exert yourself as to every branch of it. I fear the late assistant neglected many articles; dispersing the books in particular.

“My love to Betsy. Let her love Molly Pennington for my sake.

“I am, etc., J. WESLEY.”

“LONDON, October 28, 1780.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I am glad you are safe landed at Keighley. You will find there

‘... a port of ease From the rough rage of stormy seas.’

“There are many amiable and gracious souls in Cork; but there are few in the whole kingdom of Ireland to be named, (either for depth of sense or grace,) with many, very many persons in Yorkshire, particularly the west riding. Go to Betsy Ritchie, at Otley, and then point me out such a young woman as she in Ireland.

“I think lemonade would cure any child of the flux.

“Now be exact in every branch of discipline; and you will soon find what a people you are among.

“I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

The following letter, kindly supplied by the Rev. Thomas W. Smith, and now for the first time published, was addressed “To Mr. Valton, at the preaching house, in Manchester.” Oldham Street chapel was now in course of erection, and was opened by Wesley seven months afterwards.

“BRISTOL, October 1, 1780.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I expected the state of Manchester circuit to be just such as you have found it. But the power of the Lord is able to heal them. I fear S. Mayers was left unemployed, because she loved perfection. If you find a few more of the same spirit, I believe you will find them employment. The accommodations everywhere will mend, if the preachers lovingly exert themselves. I am glad you take some pains for the new chapel. Our brother Brocklehurst will do anything that is reasonable.

“In one thing only, you and I do not agree; but, perhaps, we shall when we have prayed over it: I mean, the giving me an extract of your life. I cannot see the weight of your reasons against it. ‘Some are superficial.’ What then? All are not; brother Mather’s and Haime’s in particular. Add one to these; a more weighty one, if you can. You know what to omit, and what to insert. I really think you owe it (in spite of shame and natural timidity) to God and me and your brethren. Pray for light in this matter.

“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

The next, though short, is not devoid of interest. For the first time, it was published in the Watchman newspaper, as recently as October 12, 1870; and was written on the same day as the foregoing one.

“BRISTOL, October 1, 1780.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Joseph Bradford has been at the gate of death; but is now so far recovered, that he thinks to set out to-morrow morning, with me and his wife, for London.

“Mr. Brackenbury likewise seems to be better, with regard to his bodily health; but he is married! And I shall not be much disappointed if he soon takes leave of the Methodists.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

The following, which has not before been published, is kindly furnished by Charles Reed, Esq., M.P.

“LONDON, November 3, 1780.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Disorderly walkers are better excluded than retained; and I am well satisfied you will exclude no others. I am glad you have made a beginning at Trowbridge. If it be possible, say not one offensive word. But you must declare the plain, genuine gospel; and, sooner or later, God will give you His blessing.

“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

Another, equally characteristic, was sent to Zechariah Yewdall, stationed in “Glamorganshire” circuit, which extended (from Llanelly in Wales to Calvert in Gloucestershire) above a hundred miles, and was traversed regularly every month. Mr. Yewdall was now in the second year of his itinerancy, and, at Monmouth, had met with brutal treatment.[374] The letter also refers to the principle involved in Mr. M‘Nab’s affair.

“LONDON, December 3, 1780.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You mistake one thing. It is I, not the conference, (according to the twelfth rule,) that station the preachers; but I do it at the time of the conference, that I may have the advice of my brethren. But I have no thought of removing you from the Glamorganshire circuit; you are just in your right place. But you say, ‘Many of the people are asleep.’ They are; and you are sent to awaken them out of sleep. ‘But they are dead.’ True; and you are sent to raise the dead. Good will be done at Monmouth[375] and Neath in particular. Where no good can be done, I would leave the old, and try new places. But you have need to be all alive yourselves, if you would impart life to others. And this cannot be without much self denial.

“I am, dear Zachary, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[376]

After the conference at Bristol was concluded, Wesley set out for Cornwall. Some time before this, Sir Harry Trelawney, a student of Christ Church, Oxford, had become a zealous revivalist, and had begun to preach at West Looe, where, in 1777, he became the pastor of a congregation of his own raising, and which worshipped in a meetinghouse fitted up at his own expense. The novelty of the proceeding, and the rank of the preacher, created great excitement. Sir Harry, the descendant of one of the seven bishops who were committed to the Tower in the reign of James II., was made the hero of a witty book, written by a clergyman of the Church of England, and entitled, “The Spiritual Quixote; or the History of Geoffry Wildgoose, Esq.” 3 vols., 12mo: 1773. The preaching baronet vindicated his nonconformity in “A Letter addressed to the Rev. Thomas Alcock, Vicar of Runcorn.” For a time, the Rev. John Clayton was his assistant, but, in 1778, removed to the Weigh House congregation, in London. Soon after, Sir Harry returned to Oxford; procured ordination in the national establishment; was made a country rector in the west of England; whilst his chapel at West Looe was ignominiously changed into a house for converting barley into malt. He died in 1834.

It was about the time of Wesley’s visit to Cornwall, that he wrote the subjoined letter. Sir Harry had been a Calvinist, and had been patronised by the Countess of Huntingdon’s connexion; but, having renounced his Calvinian tenets, he was now regarded with disfavour. Some communication had passed between him and Wesley on the subject; Wesley knew his danger; and wrote to him as follows.

“For a long time, I have had a desire to see you, but could not find an opportunity. Indeed, I had reason to believe my company would not be agreeable; as you were intimate with those who think they do God service by painting me in the most frightful colours. It gives me much satisfaction to find, that you have escaped out of the hands of those warm men. It is not at all surprising, that they should speak a little unkindly of you too in their turn. It gave me no small satisfaction to learn from your own lips the falsehood of their allegation. I believed it false before, but could not affirm it so positively as I can do now.

“Indeed, it would not have been without precedent, if from one extreme you had run into another. This was the case with that great man, Dr. Taylor. For some years, he was an earnest Calvinist; but, afterwards, judging he could not go far enough from that melancholy system, he ran, not only into Arianism, but into the very dregs of Socinianism.

“You have need to be thankful on another account likewise; that is, that your prejudices against the Church of England are removing. Having had an opportunity of seeing several of the churches abroad, and having deeply considered the several sorts of Dissenters at home, I am fully convinced, that our own Church, with all her blemishes, is nearer the scriptural plan than any other in Europe.

“I sincerely wish you may retain your former zeal for God; only, that it may be a zeal according to knowledge. But there certainly will be a danger of your sinking into a careless, lukewarm state, without any zeal or spirit at all. As you were surfeited with an irrational, unscriptural religion, you may easily slide into no religion at all; or into a dead form, that will never make you happy either in this world, or in that which is to come.

“Wishing every spiritual blessing, both to Lady Trelawney and you,

“I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[377]

Wesley, at the end of August, returned to Bristol, and here he spent the month of September. He then set out for London, which he reached on October 7. A week later he made a tour to Tunbridge Wells, and other towns in Kent. After this, we find him, as usual, visiting the societies in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire. The last month of the year was chiefly employed in London. He read to the society, and explained, the Large Minutes of conference, recently published; and wrote: “I desire to do all things openly and above board. I would have all the world, and especially all of our society, see not only the steps we take, but the reasons why we take them.” He visited Lord George Gordon in the Tower. He went with some of his friends to the British Museum. He wrote his well known sermon on “This is the true God and eternal life,” fully establishing the doctrine which Joseph Benson, at the conference, had been accused of denying--the Divinity of Christ.[378] He likewise wrote his “Thoughts upon Jacob Behmen,” allowing the Teuton to be a good man, but charging him with propounding “a crude, indigested philosophy, supported neither by Scripture, nor reason, nor anything but his own ipse dixit;” and with using “language that was never used since the world began, queerness itself, mere dog Latin.” “None,” says Wesley, “can understand it without much pains, perhaps not without reading him thrice over. I would not read him thrice over on any consideration. (1) Because it would be enough to crack any man’s brain to brood so long over such unintelligible nonsense; and (2) because such a waste of time might provoke God to give me up to a strong delusion to believe a lie.”[379]

Wesley concludes the year with the following entry in his journal. “Sunday, December 31--We renewed our covenant with God. We had the largest company that I ever remember; perhaps two hundred more than we had last year. And we had the greatest blessing. Several received either a sense of the pardoning love of God, or power to love Him with all their heart.”

Happy, happy old man! “I do not remember,” said he, only nine days before the year 1780 was ended, “I do not remember to have felt lowness of spirits for one quarter of an hour since I was born.”[380]

It only remains to notice Wesley’s publications in 1780; and this shall be done as briefly as possible. His letters on popery, his revised minutes of the conferences, and his Thoughts upon Behmen, have been already mentioned. Besides these, there were--

1. “Directions for Renewing our Covenant with God.” 12mo, 23 pages.

2. “Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion.” 12mo, 96 pages.

3. “The History of Henry, Earl Moreland.” Abridged. 2 vols., 12mo.

It has been already stated, that this was a novel, written by Mr. Brooke, and originally published, in five vols., in 1766, with the title, “The Fool of Quality.” Dr. Adam Clarke once stated, that Mr. Brooke’s nephew declared to him, that, “with the exception of a few touches of colouring, everything in the book was founded in fact--even the very incidents were facts.”[381] This might be so; but still the colouring made the work a fiction; and that an old evangelist, like Wesley, bordering on fourscore years of age, should revise, abridge, publish, and circulate a novel, has always been a perplexity to a certain section of Wesley’s admirers. John Easton, one of his itinerants, belonged to these. After John had very freely condemned the conduct of his great leader, Wesley proposed to him the following interrogations in reference to three of the personages in this remarkable book.

Wesley.--“Did you read Vindex, John?”

Easton.--“Yes, sir.”

W.--“Did you laugh, John?”

E.--“No, sir.”

W.--“Did you read Damon and Pythias, John?”

E.--“Yes, sir.”

W.--“Did you cry, John?”

E.--“No, sir.”

W., lifting up his eyes, and clasping his hands, exclaimed: “O earth--earth--earth!”[382]

Whatever may be thought and said on the general subject of novels and novel reading, all must admit, that “Henry, Earl Moreland,” is one of the most unexceptionable ever published. Wesley writes:

“I recommend it as the most excellent in its kind, that I have seen, either in the English or any other language. The lowest excellence therein is the style, which is not only pure in the highest degree, not only clear and proper, every word being used in its true genuine meaning, but frequently beautiful and elegant, and, where there is room for it, truly sublime. But what is of far greater value is the admirable sense, which is conveyed herein: as it sets forth in full view most of the important truths, which are revealed in the oracles of God. And these are not only well illustrated, but also proved in an easy, natural manner: so that the thinking reader is taught, without any trouble, the most essential doctrines of religion.

“But the greatest excellence of all in this treatise is, that it continually strikes at the heart. It perpetually aims at inspiring and increasing every right affection. And it does this, not by dry, dull, tedious precepts, but by the liveliest examples that can be conceived: by setting before your eyes one of the most beautiful pictures, that was ever drawn in the world. The strokes of this are so delicately fine, the touches so easy, natural, and affecting, that I know not who can survey it with tearless eyes, unless he has a heart of stone. I recommend it, therefore, to all those who are already, or desire to be, lovers of God and man.”

The whole of this is strictly accurate; and if this is not enough to justify Wesley in the eyes of faultfinders, like earthy John Easton, the task of doing so must be abandoned as a hopeless one. Besides, it may be added, that, if Wesley sinned, his successors copied his example; for, twenty-two years after Wesley’s death, the conference book-room published a fourth edition of the novel which Wesley first published in 1780.

4. “A Collection of Hymns for the use of the People called Methodists.” 12mo, 520 pages.

Up to this period, the hymns and the books used in Methodist congregations had been endlessly varying; now Wesley issued a book which, with slight alterations, has been used from that time to this; and prefixed the preface which has been read by millions; and from which, therefore, we must content ourselves with quoting only the concluding hint, which is far more needed now than even when first published.

“Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them; for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours: either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men.”

5. Wesley’s only other publication, in 1780, was his Arminian Magazine, 8vo, 683 pages.[383] The work contains Goodwin’s Paraphrase on Romans ix.; an extract from Bird’s “Fate and Destiny, inconsistent with Christianity;” lives of Armelle Nicolas and Gregory Lopes; short accounts of Thomas Lee, Alexander Mather, John Haime, Thomas Mitchell, Thomas Taylor, Thomas Hanson, Thomas Hanby, and John Mason. There are about fifty valuable letters; and about seventy poetic pieces. Also Wesley’s “Thought on Necessity,” and “Thoughts upon Taste.”

To enlarge concerning these is superfluous. The volume was quite equal to the former ones; though Wesley confesses, that the portraits were not yet such as he desired; and declares, that he will have better, or none at all.

FOOTNOTES:

[356] Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 295.

[357] Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 352.

[358] As a specimen of popish jesuitry, it may be added, that O’Leary’s Remarks upon Wesley’s Letter were first printed in six successive numbers of the Freeman’s Journal; but were afterwards reprinted in London with the following title, “Mr. O’Leary’s Remarks on the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Letter in Defence of the Protestant Associations in England, to which are prefixed Mr. Wesley’s Letters.” This was a popish deception, intended, no doubt, to cast upon Wesley the odium incurred by the Protestant Association during the Gordon riots. The truth is: (1) Wesley had not written more than a few lines in defence of the appeal of that Association. (2) His two replies to O’Leary, published in the Freeman’s Journal, were suppressed in O’Leary’s pamphlet. (3) A spurious letter was inserted, and palmed on the public as genuine, which Wesley declared was not his, and one which he had never seen before O’Leary printed it.--(Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 295.)

[359] Methodist Magazine, 1853, p. 785.

[360] Manuscript.

[361] Methodist Magazine, 1853, p. 786.

[362] Banning’s Memoirs (private circulation).

[363] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 379.

[364] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 327.

[365] Minutes of Methodist Conferences in America.

[366] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 137.

[367] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 392.

[368] Dr. Coke, a young man of thirty-three, displayed, at this period, a fussy officiousness, which scarcely redounded to his honour. He wrote to Bradburn, to the effect, that he suspected that he also was an Arian; though it was only four years before, that Thomas Taylor, at the London conference, had blamed Bradburn for “preaching too much on the Divinity of Christ, and for being too warm against the Arians.” (“Memoirs of Bradburn,” p. 225.) In an unpublished letter, addressed to Bradburn, and dated October, 1779, Wesley asks: “Is there any truth in the report that John Hampson has converted you to Arianism?”

[369] Benson’s Life, by Macdonald, p. 108.

[370] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 137.

[371] Manuscript letters.

[372] Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 117.

[373] Minutes, 1780.

[374] Methodist Magazine, 1795, p. 268.

[375] Wesley’s words were verified. At Monmouth Mr. Yewdall was mobbed by a bellowing rabble; but the society increased one third.

[376] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 10.

[377] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 395.

[378] Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 189.

[379] Wesley’s Works, vol. ix., p. 491.

[380] Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 185.

[381] Everett’s Life of Clarke.

[382] Ibid.

[383] I am not quite sure of this. In 1780, a 12mo tract of 12 pages was published with the following title:--“Jesus, altogether Lovely: or, a Letter to some of the Single Women of the Methodist Society. London: Printed by R. Hawes; and sold at the New Chapel, in the City Road; and at the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Preaching Houses, in town and country. 1780.” The letter is dated, “Hoxton, March 10, 1763.” It enforces chastity, poverty, and obedience; and is written in a style strongly resembling Wesley’s.

1781. Age 78

Wesley purposed to visit Ireland in 1781, but was prevented doing so; and, hence, the months he was accustomed to spend in that island were spent in an irregular itinerancy through England and Wales. He now entered on the seventy-ninth year of his age; and, to obtain something like a correct idea of his amazing energy and toil, it may be useful to trace his footsteps more minutely than we have been wont to do during the last few years.

He writes: “January 1, 1781--We began, as usual, the service at four” (in the morning) “praising Him who, maugre all our enemies, had brought us safe to the beginning of another year.”

At this period, his nephews, Charles and Samuel Wesley, were attracting great attention by their musical performances. They had won the friendship of the great musical composers, Dr. Boyce, Dr. Nares, and Dr. Burney. Lords Le Despencer, Barrington, Aylesford, Dudley, and others, were enraptured with them. The Earl of Mornington, for some years, breakfasted weekly with them. Dr. Howard, the distinguished organist, declared concerning Samuel, that he seemed to have “dropped down from heaven.” Charles was introduced to George III., with whom he became a great favourite. The result of this unparalleled popularity was the institution, in Wesley’s brother’s house, of the series of select concerts, already referred to, which were continued for several years, the regular subscribers varying in number from thirty to fifty, though eighty persons were often present; including not a few of the English nobility, besides the Bishop of London, and the Danish and Saxon ambassadors. On January 25, Wesley was there, and wrote: “I spent an agreeable hour at a concert of my nephews. But I was a little out of my element among lords and ladies. I love plain music and plain company best.”

It was during this brief sojourn in London, in the beginning of 1781, that Wesley wrote his stinging sermon on “Little children, keep yourselves from idols”;[384] and his able discourse on, “For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” In the former he terribly belabours the man of business, who retires from the activities of town to the laziness of country life, where his only employment is altering, enlarging, rebuilding, or decorating the old mansion house he has purchased, and improving the stables, outhouses, and grounds, without ever thinking of the God of heaven any more than he thinks of the king of France. In the latter sermon, he strikes a heavy blow at the heresy of Dr. Watts, which Benson, at the conference of 1780, had been accused of embracing. He writes:

“I cannot at all believe the ingenious dream of Dr. Watts, concerning the glorious humanity of Christ, which he supposes to have existed before the world began, and to have been endued with, I know not what, astonishing powers. Nay, I look upon this to be an exceeding dangerous, yea, mischievous hypothesis; as it quite excludes the force of very many Scriptures, which have been hitherto thought to prove the Godhead of the Son. And, I am afraid, it was the grand means of turning that great man aside from the faith once delivered to the saints; that is, if he was turned aside, if that beautiful soliloquy be genuine, which is printed among his posthumous works, wherein he so earnestly beseeches the Son of God not to be displeased, because he cannot believe Him to be coequal and coeternal with the Father.”

Both these sermons enriched the Arminian Magazine for 1781. In fact, it is to the establishment of that periodical, that we are indebted for many of the most elaborated sermons that Wesley ever published. Besides the two above mentioned, Wesley, during the year 1781, wrote at least three others. His sermon on “Zeal” is a remarkable production, and was not inappropriate to the circumstances of a period when so much excitement existed concerning popery. He says:

“Fervour for opinion is not Christian zeal. How innumerable are the mischiefs which this species of false zeal has occasioned in the Christian world! How many of the excellent of the earth have been cut off, by zealots, for the senseless opinion of transubstantiation! Fervour for indifferent things is not Christian zeal. How warmly did Bishop Ridley, and Bishop Hooper, and other great men of that age, dispute about the sacerdotal vestments! How eager was the contention, for almost a hundred years, for and against wearing a surplice! Oh, shame to man! I would as soon have disputed about a straw, or a barleycorn!”[385]

Another of his homilies, written in 1781,[386] was his able discourse on the province of reason in matters of religion; and another was his unique sermon on “The Brute Creation,” in which he unhesitatingly propounds the doctrine, not only that the brute creation will live again, but likewise, that, when restored, they will possess a far higher state of being than they possess at present; in fact, that they will then be made what beasts, birds, insects, and fishes were when first created.[387] This may seem a wild theory for an octogenarian to advance; but it deserves more attention, on that account, than if it had been an imaginative rocket let off by a stripling in his teens.

While on the subject of sermons, it may be added, that it was now Wesley published, in his Arminian Magazine, his remarkable discourse on the “Danger of Riches,”--the first of a series on that subject, which he continued to issue to the end of life, and in which wealthy Methodists and others are lashed with terrific power. “I do not remember,” says he, “that in threescore years I have heard one sermon preached on this subject. And what author, within the same term, has declared it from the press? I do not know one. I have seen two or three who just touch upon it; but none that treat of it professedly. I have myself frequently touched upon it in preaching, and twice in what I have published to the world: once in explaining our Lord’s sermon on the mount, and once in the discourse on the mammon of unrighteousness. But I have never yet either published or preached any sermon expressly upon the subject. It is high time I should; that I should at length speak as strongly and explicitly as I can, in order to leave a full and clear testimony behind me, whenever it pleases God to call me hence.”

One extract from this striking sermon must suffice.

“O ye Methodists, hear the word of the Lord! I have a message from God to all men; but to you above all. For above forty years, I have been a servant to you and to your fathers. And I have not been as a reed shaken by the wind; I have not varied in my testimony. I have testified to you the very same thing, from the first day even until now. But who hath believed our report? I fear not many rich. I fear there is need to apply to some of you those terrible words of the apostle: ‘Go to now, ye rich men! Weep and howl for the miseries which shall come upon you. Your gold and silver is cankered, and the rust of them shall witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire.’ Certainly it will, unless you both save all you can, and give all you can. But who of you hath considered this, since you first heard the will of the Lord concerning it? Who is now determined to consider and practise it? By the grace of God, begin to-day!

“O ye lovers of money, hear the word of the Lord! Suppose ye, that money, though multiplied as the sand of the sea, can give you happiness? Then you are given up to a strong delusion, to believe a lie--a palpable lie, confuted daily by a thousand experiments. Open your eyes. Look all around you! Are the richest men the happiest? Have those the largest share of content, who have the largest possessions? Is not the very reverse true? Is it not a common observation, that the richest of men are, in general, the most discontented, the most miserable? Had not the far greater part of them more content, when they had less money? Look into your own breasts. If you are increased in goods, are you proportionably increased in happiness? You have more substance; but have you more content? You know the contrary. You know that, in seeking happiness from riches, you are only striving to drink out of empty cups. And let them be painted and gilded ever so finely, they are empty still.”

Before we recur to Wesley’s journal, an unpublished letter may be acceptable.

The preachers now labouring in the Sheffield circuit were James Rogers, Alexander M‘Nab, and Samuel Bardsley. Mr. Rogers writes: “One of my fellow labourers did not lovingly draw in the same yoke, and soon after left the connexion. The uneasiness occasioned in the society by his disaffection, for some months, threatened us with disagreeable consequences; and our enemies expected a considerable division among us; but ‘He that sitteth above the waterfloods’ found means to prevent it. So that instead of losing in our number, we found, at the end of the year, an increase of ninety-seven members.”

Of course, this refers to Alexander M‘Nab, who had rebelled against Wesley’s authority in 1779. Samuel Bardsley was a man of peace, and, moreover, one of the most laborious preachers Wesley had. Besides his pulpit labours, he had rendered great service to the Sheffield society, by a preaching excursion, undertaken for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions for their chapel. His collecting book is before us, with a list of the collections he made, and the donations he obtained, in a tour extending from Sheffield to York, thence to Hull, and thence, along the east coast, to Newcastle on Tyne. Altogether, he gathered the sum of £89 15_s._ 11_d._; and, in doing this, made thirty-one public collections, amounting, in the aggregate, to £30 15_s._ 6¾_d._, and begged the balance of £59 0_s._ 4¼_d._, of considerably more than three hundred different subscribers, including in this number the inhabitants of not fewer than forty-four towns and villages, whose munificent donations are lumped together. When Bardsley had completed his tour, Wesley wrote him as follows.

“NEAR LONDON, February 10, 1781.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I did not doubt but you would agree with the people of Sheffield. They are a loving and affectionate people. I am glad you were so successful in your labour of love for them. That assistance was very seasonable.

“That misunderstanding, which was troublesome for a season, may now be buried for ever. I am perfectly well satisfied, both of the honesty and affection, both of brother Woodcroft and brother Birks. So Satan’s devices are brought to nought.

“I doubt not but James Rogers and you recommend our books in every place, and the magazines in particular, which will be a testimony for me, when I am no more seen.

“I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[388]

On the 12th of February, Wesley set out on a week’s excursion to Norfolk and back again to London, preaching at least ten sermons on the way;[389] and, in wintry weather, travelling more than two hundred miles.

Having spent a few more days in London, he then started, on Sunday, March 4, (as he thought,) for Ireland, but spent a fortnight in the vicinity of Bath and Bristol. Leaving Bristol on March 19, eleven days were occupied in reaching Manchester, during which he preached more than twenty sermons, some of them in the open air.

On March 30, he opened the chapel in Oldham Street, Manchester. He writes: “Friday, March 30--I opened the new chapel at Manchester, about the size of that in London. The whole congregation behaved with the utmost seriousness. I trust much good will be done in this place. Sunday, April 1--I began reading prayers at ten o’clock. Our country friends flocked in from all sides. At the communion was such a sight as I am persuaded was never seen in Manchester before: eleven or twelve hundred communicants at once; and all of them fearing God.”

Thus began the history of a building, which, next to the chapel in City Road, is the most interesting Methodist edifice in existence. First of all, the Manchester Methodists had been located in a miserable room on or near the present site of Bateman’s Buildings. Removing thence, in 1750, they worshipped for thirty years in their first chapel, which, up to a recent period, was a warehouse in Birchin Lane.[390] Among the first members, in that old chapel, were: Mary Bromley, for seventy years a Methodist, who died happy in God, at the age of eighty-nine, in 1826:--Mrs. Leech, an upright follower of Christ, who expired in the full assurance of a blessed immortality in 1770:--John Morris, whose autobiography, in the Arminian Magazine for 1795, will be found to be full of more than romantic interest:--Mr. Fildes, who, in the same year in which Raikes began his work at Gloucester, opened a Sunday-school in a Manchester cellar, a second in a garret, and a third in the first room in Manchester built expressly for Sunday-school purposes, a room erected at Mr. Fildes’ own expense, behind his own dwelling house, in the neighbourhood of London Road:[391]--Adam Oldham, a feltmaker, one of the first trustees of Birchin Lane chapel,[392] who lived in a house on the site which the Albion Hotel now occupies, for many years a useful Methodist,[393] but afterwards a rich backslider, to whom Oldham Street owes its name:--Richard Barlow, who, for sixty-five years, rose at half-past four in summer, and at five in winter:--Mr. Brierley, a member of Peter Kenworthy’s class, the leading singer in Oldham Street chapel, and afterwards a magistrate:--John Moseley, a poor hatter in Millgate, the grandfather of Sir Oswald Moseley, from whom Moseley Street derived its name:--and Mrs. Bennett, a relative of John Moseley’s, and the first female classleader in Manchester.[394] We wish we had space for details respecting these old Manchester Methodist worthies, who deserve far more honourable record than they have yet received.

From Manchester, Wesley went to Bolton, where he writes: “The society here are true, original Methodists. They are not conformed to the world, either in its maxims, its spirit, or its fashions; but are simple followers of the Lamb; consequently they increase both in grace and number.”

This was a high compliment to pay to George Escrick and his friends. Their old chapel in New Acres had been converted into cottages; and, in 1776, they had built another in Ridgway Gates, though not without a united and great effort. The Rev. Mr. Fowles, a clergyman, had the management of a sandbed from which they had to obtain their sand; and hearing of their intentions, he announced, that, after the expiration of five days, the sand would be charged half-a-crown a load. This, to the poor Methodists, was a serious matter; but George Escrick was a man of too much energy to be easily defeated. Accordingly, he, at once, requested all the Methodists, young and old, strong and feeble, active and otherwise, to repair with him to the sandpit, and to dig and convey away all the sand they needed. To a man, they obeyed George’s injunction, and, in a single day, got as much as their intended chapel was likely to require. Michael Fenwick was then their preacher, and kept running over the half-a-mile distance, between the site of the new chapel and the clerical sandbed, encouraging the people in their task, and, at one time, wanting to sing the hymn beginning with “Before Jehovah’s awful throne”; but blunt George Escrick, the weaver, imperatively stopped his spiritual superior, telling him to take a spade in his hand, for there was a time for all things, and this was a time to dig.

In this old Ridgway Gates chapel, William Grime used to conduct a band meeting every Sunday morning at four o’clock; and, beneath it, Parson Greenwood, one of the circuit preachers, whose only home was two neighbouring attics, used to keep his victuals.[395] The head of the circuit was Liverpool, and the following were the munificent sums contributed quarterly, by the several societies, in 1776, when the chapel was completed. Liverpool, £5 8_s._ 9_d._; Bolton, £7 14_s._ 7_d._; Preston, 11_s._; Wigan, £1 10_s._; Meols, 11_s._; Top of Coal Pits, 17_s._; Edgeworth, 10_s._ 6_d._; Moulden Water, 7_s._; Shackerley, 10_s._; Aspul Moor, 7_s._; Chowbent, 10_s._ 6_d._; Warrington, £1 1_s._; Northwich, £1 1_s._; Budworth, 12_s._ 3_d._; Little Leigh, £1 9_s._ 6_d._; and Lamberhead Green, 7_s._ 6_d._ Such was Liverpool circuit in 1776; and, out of these Methodist contributions, three Methodist preachers and their families had to be supported. No wonder that the cupboard, beneath the pulpit of the old chapel, was big enough to serve Parson Greenwood for a pantry.

From Bolton, Wesley went to Wigan, and preached a funeral sermon for Betty Brown, one of the first members of Wigan society, “beloved of God, the delight of His children, a dread to wicked men, and a torment to devils.”

Leaving Wigan, Wesley proceeded to Chester, and thence to Alpraham, where he did for “good old sister Cawley, a mother in Israel, and a pattern of all good works,” what he had done for Betty Brown. Arriving at Warrington, he says: “I put a stop to a bad custom, which was creeping in here: a few men, who had fine voices, sang a psalm which no one knew, in a tune fit for an opera, wherein three, four, or five persons sung different words at the same time! What an insult upon common sense! What a burlesque upon public worship! No custom can excuse such a mixture of profaneness and absurdity.”

Desiring to reach Ireland as soon as possible, Wesley embarked at Liverpool, on the 12th of April; but, on getting out to sea, was overtaken with a storm; and, in an hour, was so affected as he had not been for forty years before. For two days, he was unable to swallow anything solid larger than a pea, and was bruised and sore from head to foot, and ill able to turn himself in bed. The sea grew rougher; the horses of Wesley and his companions became turbulent; and the hatches were closed. Water, three feet in depth, was in the hold; the ship refused to obey the helm, and was furiously driving on lee shore. Wesley says: “I called our brethren, Floyd, Snowden, and Bradford, to prayers; and we found free access to the throne of grace. Soon after, we got, I know not how, into Holyhead harbour, after being sufficiently buffeted by the winds and waves for two days and two nights. The more I considered, the more I was convinced, it was not the will of God I should go to Ireland at this time. So we went into the stage coach without delay, and the next evening came to Chester.”

Baffled in his purpose to visit Ireland, Wesley set out on a preaching tour to Whitchurch, Shrewsbury, Brecon, Broseley, Worcester, Brecknock, Carmarthen, Pembroke, Haverfordwest, Tracoon, Newport, Narberth, Llanelly, Swansea, Neath, Bridgend, Cowbridge, Cardiff, and Monmouth. On the 16th of May, he got back to Worcester, having completed the circuit in a month, and preached about thirty times.

He now proceeded to Kidderminster, Salop, Whitchurch, Nantwich, Northwich, and, on May 18, arrived in Manchester, having preached each night and morning.

At Manchester, he writes: “I preached a funeral sermon for Mary Charlton, an Israelite indeed. From the hour that she first knew the pardoning love of God, she never lost sight of it for a moment. Eleven years ago, she believed that God had cleansed her from all sin; and she showed, that she had not believed in vain, by her holy and unblamable conversation.”

Molly Charlton was the sweetheart of good old Samuel Bardsley, the only one he ever had. They wished to marry; but the difficulty of providing for married preachers was so great, that Wesley and Pawson interfered, and the nuptial engagement was broken off. In four quarto manuscript volumes, containing Bardsley’s diary, and in Pawson’s letter concerning this business, and likewise the letter of poor disappointed Molly (all in the writer’s possession), there are some racy facts, and traits of personal character, which may be given to the public at some future time.

Leaving Manchester on May 21, Wesley made his way to Warrington, Chowbent, Bolton, Kabb, Blackburn, and Preston.

In reference to the last mentioned place, he writes: “May 24--I went on to Preston, where the old prejudice seems to be quite forgotten. The little society has fitted up a large and convenient room, where I preached to a candid audience. Every one seemed to be considerably affected.”

Who was the founder of this little society? Twelve years previous to Wesley’s visit, John Wood, one of the first Methodists at Padiham, attended Preston sessions, to obtain a licence to preach. Having granted it, one of the magistrates, a clergyman, seeing a number of rude and noisy people outside the sessions house, said to John, perhaps with more sarcasm than sincerity: “There, go and reform that crowd!” John bowed, thanked his worship for his licence, left the court, entered the crowd in full authority, and preached in peace.[396] Six years after this, in 1775, Samuel Bradburn formed the first Methodist class in Preston;[397] and now, in 1781, Martha Thompson, Roger Crane, William Bramwell, of immortal memory, and a few others, had hired an old calendering house, in Lord Street, for a place of meeting, and had fairly begun a work in proud Preston, which, despite the popery of the place, has grown into one of the most prosperous societies in the kingdom.

Wesley next proceeded to the Isle of Man, where he spent eight days, “visited the island round, east, south, north, and west”; preached, at least, a dozen times; and, in a population of thirty thousand, found above two thousand Methodists, with a score of “stout, well looking” local preachers, not surpassed in England. “I was thoroughly convinced,” says he, “that we have no such circuit as this, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland. It is shut up from the world; and, having little trade, is visited by scarce any strangers. Here are no papists, no Dissenters of any kind, no Calvinists, no disputers. Here is no opposition, either from the governor, from the bishop, or from the bulk of the clergy. One or two of them did oppose for a time; but they seem now to understand better. So that we have now rather too little than too much reproach. The natives are a plain, artless, simple people; unpolished, that is, unpolluted; few of them are rich or genteel; the far greater part, moderately poor. The local preachers are men of faith and love, knit together in one mind and one judgment. They speak either Manx or English, and follow a regular plan, which the assistant gives them monthly.”

On leaving the Isle of Man, Wesley proceeded to Newcastle, preaching, on the way, at Cockermouth, Ballantyne, and Carlisle.

Can it be that this flying evangelist was an old man of nearly eighty? No wonder that he sometimes sang--

“Oh that without one lingering groan I may the welcome word receive, My body with my charge lay down, And cease at once to work and live!”

Without work, Wesley could not live. The following unpublished letter, written at this period, is strongly characteristic of the man. It was addressed to Samuel Bradburn, at Keighley.

“June 16, 1781.

“DEAR SAMMY,--We have no supernumerary preachers, except John Furz, who is so from old age. If John Oliver lives till the conference, and desires it, I suppose he may be upon the same footing. The more exercise he uses, winter or summer, the more health he will have. I can face the north wind at seventy-seven better than I could at seven-and-twenty. But if you moan over him, you will kill him outright. A word in your ear. I am but half pleased with Christopher Hopper’s proceedings.[398] I do not admire fair weather preachers. You must stop local preachers who are loaded with debt. There are few healthier places in England than Keighley. Neither Dublin nor Cork is to compare with it. But have a care! or you will kill Betsy! Do not constrain God to take her away!

“I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley spent eight days at Newcastle, and in its vicinity, and preached, at least, ten or a dozen times. He then visited his societies between there and York. At Thirsk, in a letter to his brother, Wesley wrote:

“THIRSK, June 27, 1781.

“DEAR BROTHER,--This is the last day of my seventy-eighth year; and (such is the power of God) I feel as if it were my twenty-eighth. Next Saturday, I expect to be at Epworth; the second, at Boston; the third, at Sheffield. I take the opportunity of a broken year, to visit those parts of Lincolnshire, which I have not seen before, but once, these twenty years.

“From several, I have lately heard, that God has blessed your preaching. See your calling! ‘Cease at once to work and live!’ Peace be with all your spirits!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[399]

Two days after this, Wesley arrived at Epworth, and wrote: “I have now preached thrice a day for seven days following; but it is just the same as if it had been but one.” Twelve days were spent in Lincolnshire, during which he preached more than a score of sermons. Among other places, Grantham was favoured with his ministry. He writes: “July 9--I preached at Grantham, in the open air, for no house would contain the congregation; and none made the least disturbance.”

At the village of Welby, the Rev. W. Dodwell was minister; and, in his church, Wesley preached twice on the day before he preached at Grantham. Mr. Dodwell was the pastor of Welby parish for nearly half a century, and died in 1824, when he presented, by deed of gift, £10,000 to the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and an equal sum to the British and Foreign Bible Society.[400] He was present at Wesley’s conference of preachers in 1782.[401]

After visiting many other societies in Lincolnshire during the next ten days, Wesley, on July 23, “passed into Yorkshire,” and preached at Yeadon, Bradford, Halifax, Greetland, Huddersfield, Longwood House, Mirfield, Daw Green, Birstal, Tadcaster, York, Malton, Scarborough, Beverley, Hull, and Pocklington; and, at the beginning of August, arrived in Leeds, for the purpose of holding his annual conference; but, before giving an account of its proceedings, two letters to two ladies, both written on the same day, will be acceptable. The first was to his niece, Miss Sarah Wesley, then a young lady about twenty--afterwards a personal friend of a large and distinguished literary circle, including Mrs. Hannah More, Miss Porter, Miss Aikin, Miss Edgeworth, Mrs. Barbauld, and others,--and who died in 1828, at the age of sixty-eight, some of her last words being, “I have peace, but not joy.”[402]

“NEAR LEEDS, July 17, 1781.

“MY DEAR SALLY,--Without an endeavour to please God, and to give up our own will, we never shall attain His favour. But till we have attained it, till we have the Spirit of adoption, we cannot actually give up our own wills to Him. Shall I tell you freely what I judge to be the grand hindrance to your attaining it? Yea, to your attaining more health both of body and mind than you have ever had, or, at least, for a long season? I believe it is, what very few people are aware of, intemperance in sleep. All are intemperate in sleep, who sleep more than nature requires; and how much it does require is easily known. There is, indeed, no universal rule,--none that will suit all constitutions. But, after all the observations and experience I have been able to make for upwards of fifty years, I am fully persuaded that men, in general, need between six and seven hours’ sleep in twenty-four; and women, in general, a little more,--namely between seven and eight.

“But what ill consequences are there in lying longer in bed,--suppose nine hours in four-and-twenty?

“1. It hurts the body. Whether you sleep or no, (and, indeed, it commonly prevents sound sleep,) it, as it were, soddens and parboils the flesh, and sows the seeds of numerous disorders; of all nervous diseases in particular, as weakness, faintness, lowness of spirits, nervous headaches, and consequent weakness of sight.

“2. It hurts the mind; it weakens the understanding; it blunts the imagination; it weakens the memory; it dulls all the nobler affections. It takes off the edge of the soul, impairs its vigour and firmness, and infuses a wrong softness, quite inconsistent with the character of a good soldier of Jesus Christ. It grieves the Holy Spirit of God, and prevents, or, at least, lessens, those blessed influences which tend to make you, not almost, but altogether, a Christian.

“I advise you, therefore, from this day forward, not trusting in yourself, but in Him that raiseth the dead, to take exactly so much sleep as nature requires. If you need between seven and eight hours, then, in the name of God, begin this very night, in spite of all temptation to the contrary. Lie down at ten o’clock, and rise between five and six, whether you sleep or no. If your head aches in the day, bear it. In a week you will sleep sound. If you can take this advice, you may receive more from,

“My dear Sally, yours most affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[403]

The other letter was addressed to Miss Bishop, who became a Methodist about the year 1767, and who, from that time, had been one of Wesley’s correspondents. Many of his most spiritual letters were written to this Christian lady, who, though poor, was a gentlewoman. For some years, she had kept a school in Bath or its neighbourhood; but, in 1777, had been seized with spitting of blood, and had been thrown upon the kindness of her friends in Bristol.[404] Recently, however, she had commenced another school at Keynsham, which, said Wesley, “is worthy to be called a Christian school;”[405] though, it would seem, some of the Bristol people wished to make it more fashionable than Wesley liked.

“NEAR LEEDS, July 17, 1781.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--If I live to meet the society in Bristol again, I shall kill or cure the fault of those unwise and unkind parents, who make their children finer than themselves. I shall make their ears tingle. As to you, I advise you, first, to be a Bible Christian yourself, inwardly and outwardly. Be not a hair’s breadth more conformable to the fashions of the world than you were when I saw you last. Then, train up your children in the selfsame way. Say to them, with all mildness and firmness, ‘Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ.’ Whoever is pleased or displeased, keep to this; to Christian, primitive simplicity. Perhaps you will at first lose some scholars thereby; but regard it not: God will provide you more. And be assured, nothing shall be wanting that is in the power of,

“My dear sister, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[406]

Two or three other letters may be given here. The first is copied from the original now before us, and, we believe, has not before been published.

“NEAR LEEDS, July 25, 1781.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--As long as you give yourself up to God without reserve, you may be assured He will give you His blessing. Indeed, you have already received a thousand blessings; but the greatest of all is yet behind,--Christ in a sinless heart, reigning the Lord of every motion there. It is good for you to hold fast what you have attained, and to be continually aspiring after this. And you will never find more life in your own soul than while you are earnestly exhorting others to go on to perfection. Many will blame you for doing it; but regard not that. Go on, through honour and dishonour. This one thing I do, is your motto; I will save my own soul and them that hear me.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

Wesley had told his niece, that, if she took his advice with respect to sleep, she might hear from him again. It seems, the advice was adopted; hence the following letter, written seven weeks after the former one.

“BRISTOL, September 4, 1781.

“MY DEAR SALLY,--It is certain the Author of our nature designed that we should not destroy, but regulate, our desire for knowledge. What course you may take in order to this, I will now briefly point out.

“1. You want to know God, in order to enjoy Him in time and eternity.

“2. All you want to know of Him is contained in one book, the Bible. And all that you learn is to be referred to this, either directly or remotely.

“3. Would it not be well, then, to spend, at least, an hour a day in reading and meditating on the Bible? reading, every morning and evening, a portion of the Old and New Testament, with the Explanatory Notes?

“4. Might you not read two or three hours in the morning, and one or two in the afternoon? When you are tired of severer studies, you may relax your mind by history or poetry.

“5. The first thing you should understand a little of is grammar. You may read first Kingswood English Grammar, and then Bishop Lowth’s Introduction.

“6. You should acquire, if you have not already, some knowledge of arithmetic. Dilworth’s Arithmetic would suffice.

“7. For geography, I think you need only read over Randal’s or Guthrie’s Geographical Grammar.

“8. Watts’ Logic is not a very good one; but I believe you cannot find a better.

“9. In natural philosophy, you have all that you need to know in the ‘Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation.’ But you may add the Glasgow abridgment of Mr. Hutchinson’s works.

“10. With any, or all, of the foregoing studies, you may intermix that of history. You may begin with Rollin’s Ancient History; and afterwards read, in order, the Concise History of the Church, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, the Concise History of England, Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion, Neal’s History of the Puritans, his History of New England, and Robertson’s History of America.

“11. In metaphysics, you may read Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, and Malebranche’s Search after Truth.

“12. For poetry, you may read Spenser’s Fairy Queen, and select parts of Shakspeare, Fairfax, or Hoole; Godfrey of Bouillon, Paradise Lost, the Night Thoughts, and Young’s Moral and Sacred Poems.

“13. You may begin and end with divinity; in which I will only add, to the books mentioned before, Bishop Pearson on the Creed, and the Christian Library. By this course of study, you may gain all the knowledge which any reasonable Christian needs. But remember, before all, in all, and above all, your great point is, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.

“I am, my dear Sally, your affectionate uncle,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[407]

Though Miss Wesley was now in her twenty-first year, and had yet to begin Kingswood English Grammar, still, assuming that henceforward she acted upon the advice of her venerable uncle, it is not surprising, that she ultimately became the well informed woman which her father’s biographer says she was. Her brother Charles was three years older than herself; her brother Samuel six years younger. The brothers were musical prodigies; their uncle took a deep interest in their welfare; and wrote to Charles, on August 4, and September 8, 1781, as follows.

“MY DEAR CHARLES,--There is a debt of love, which I should have paid before now; but I must not delay it any longer. I have long observed you with a curious eye; not as a musician, but as an immortal spirit, that is come forth from God the Father of spirits, and is returning to Him in a few moments. But have you well considered this? Methinks, if you had, it would be ever uppermost in your thoughts. For what trifles, in comparison of this, are all the shining baubles in the world! God has favoured you with many advantages. You have health, strength, and a thousand outward blessings. And why should you not have all inward blessings, which God hath purchased for those that love Him? You are good humoured, mild, and harmless; but, unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of God! You are now, as it were, on the crisis of your fate; just launching into life, and ready to fix your choice, whether you will have God or the world for your happiness. You cannot avoid being very frequently among elegant men and women, that are without God in the world; but, as your business, rather than your choice, calls you into the fire, I trust that you will not be burnt; seeing He, whom you desire to serve, is able to deliver you, even out of the burning fiery furnace.

“I am, dear Charles, your very affectionate uncle,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[408]

Charles Wesley, junior, who had been already introduced to the court of George III., lived to become the organist of George IV., and the musical preceptor of the long lamented Princess Charlotte. He never married; but resided, first with his widowed mother, and then with his sister Sarah,--was a man of deep devotional feeling, an attendant at Methodist chapels, a lover of Methodist preachers, and died, in 1834, humming Handel’s music, and was buried in the same grave as his father and mother in Marylebone churchyard. Poor Samuel was seduced into the popish church before he arrived at the age of twenty; and, thereby, brought the grey hairs of his father with sorrow to the grave. He composed a high mass for the use of the chapel of Pope Pius VI., and received that pontiff’s thanks.[409] Like many others, he found it an easy step from popery to infidelity, and wrote: “In this life, my only consolation is in the belief of fatalism, which, although a gloomy asylum, is as bright as I can bear, till convinced of that truth which a launch into the great gulf only can demonstrate.” He survived his brother Charles and his sister Sarah; in his last days became a penitent; died in 1837; and was buried in the sepulchre of his parents.[410]

The conference of 1781 was a memorable gathering. It was preceded, on Sunday, August 5, by a service in the parish church, at Leeds, such as was probably never witnessed within its walls, either before or since. Wesley preached; eighteen clergymen, inclusive of himself, Coke, and Fletcher, were present; and, at the Lord’s supper, there were about eleven hundred communicants, the ordinance being administered by Wesley and ten other ministers.[411]

Connexional affairs created anxiety. Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks: “I feel much concern respecting several things; but how to have them remedied I cannot tell. Many things are exceedingly wrong; but whom to trust to attempt amendment I know not. I sometimes think, the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.”

Wesley writes: “August 6--I desired Mr. Fletcher, Dr. Coke, and four more of our brethren, to meet every evening, that we might consult together on any difficulty that occurred. On August 7, our conference began, at which were present about seventy preachers, whom I had severally invited to come and assist me with their advice, in carrying on the great work of God.”

The burden of so many preachers being present was found to be greater than the Leeds society could conveniently bear; and it was agreed that every preacher should pay the expenses of his horse keep during the conference sittings. There were more preachers’ wives in the connexion than there were houses to lodge them, or money to find them maintenance; and it was resolved, that no more married preachers should be admitted, except in cases of necessity.[412] Some of the preachers had printed, both in verse and prose, without Wesley’s consent or correction. Among others, James Kershaw had recently issued a quarto sized book, of 134 pages, entitled, “The Methodist; attempted in Plain Metre.” It was thought, that these productions had brought a reproach upon the Methodists, and had hindered the spreading of more profitable books; and it was determined that, in future, no preacher should print anything till it had been corrected by Wesley, and that the profits thereof should go into the common stock. Wesley’s Notes on the Old Testament had now been published sixteen years, and yet the edition had not been sold. To get rid of the remaining copies, it was directed that they should be sold at half price.

A number of Methodists at Baildon, in Yorkshire, had written to Wesley, stating that, in accordance with his instructions, they attended the services of their parish church; but their minister preached what they considered to be “dangerously false doctrine,” inasmuch as he publicly declared, that men “must not hope to be perfected in love, on this side eternity”; and this had made them doubt whether they ought to hear him. Wesley laid their letter before the conference, and, as the difficulty applied to many others besides the Methodists at Baildon, he invited a friendly and free discussion. It was unanimously agreed: (1) That it was highly expedient, that all the Methodists, who had been bred therein, should attend the service of the church as often as possible. But that, (2) If the minister began either to preach the absolute decrees, or to rail at, and ridicule Christian perfection, they should quietly go out of the church; yet attend it again the next opportunity.” Wesley adds: “I have, since that time, revolved this matter over and over in my mind; and the more I consider it, the more I am convinced, this was the best answer that could be given. Only, I must earnestly caution our friends not to be critical; not to make a man an offender for a word; no, nor for a few sentences, which any who believe the decrees may drop without design.”[413] “It is a delicate and important point, on which I cannot lay down any general rule. All I can say, at present, is, if it does not hurt you, hear them; if it does, refrain. Be determined by your own conscience.”[414]

But this was not all that occurred, on the Church question, at the conference of 1781. One of the principal Methodists, in Leeds, was William Hey, now in the forty-fifth year of his age, a medical man of great repute, an intimate friend and correspondent of Dr. Priestley, and who had been a Methodist for seven-and-twenty years. Mr. Hey intimated to Wesley his desire to address the conference, and to offer some suggestions and advice; declaring, at the same time, that, if his proposals were rejected, he could no longer remain a member of the Methodist society. By Wesley’s permission he began to read a paper, to the effect, that Dissenting ideas had been, for many years, gradually growing among the Methodists. In proof of this, he held that the Methodists preached in places already supplied with pious ministers; that meetings in some instances were held in church hours; that the intervals of church service were so filled up with public and private assemblies, that there was no time for suitable refreshment, nor opportunity for instructing families; that many of the largest societies rarely went to church, and some never carried their children there; and that church ministers, who formed societies for private instruction, were looked upon with an envious eye. Such were the complaints which Mr. Hey intended to lay before the conference; but, as he proceeded, the marks of disapprobation were such that Wesley interposed, and said: “As there is much other business before us, brother Hey must defer reading the remainder of his paper to another time.”

Brother Hey forthwith left the society; a few months later he was elected alderman; and, more than once, filled the office of chief magistrate in the town of Leeds. Of his ability and piety there can be no question; but Wesley was not prepared to allow him to be the dictator of the Methodists.[415]

No sooner was the conference over than the venerable Wesley again set out on his gospel wanderings. He preached at Sheffield, and then, taking coach with Dr. Coke, travelled day and night till he arrived in London. Two days were spent in the metropolis, and then off he set, on Sunday night, August 19, by coach to Cornwall. We need not follow him. Suffice it to say, that, in eight days, he preached in Cornwall, at least, thirteen sermons, five of them in the open air, and one in Gwennap Pit, to a congregation computed at more than twenty thousand people.

On September 6, he got back to Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which, according to his custom, he spent a month. While here, he wrote the following characteristic letter to Mr. Elijah Bush, a young schoolmaster at Midsomer Norton, who wished to marry a lady to whom his father and mother objected.

“COLEFORD, September 11, 1781.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I was much concerned yesterday, when I heard you were likely to marry a woman against the consent of your parents. I have never, in an observation of fifty years, known such a marriage attended with a blessing. I know not how it should be, since it is flatly contrary to the fifth commandment. I told my own mother, pressing me to marry, ‘I dare not allow you a positive voice herein; I dare not marry a person because you bid me. But I must allow you a negative voice: I will marry no person if you forbid. I know it would be a sin against God.’ Take care what you do. Mr. S. is not a proper judge: he hopes to separate you from the Methodists; and I expect, if you take this step, that will be the end.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[416]

Mr. Bush acted upon Wesley’s advice; became the leader of the Midsomer Norton society, and a local preacher; and died a faithful Methodist in 1845.[417]

There are other unhappy marriages besides those contrary to the fifth commandment. Wesley’s was one. For thirty years, he paid a fearful penalty for his rash act in 1751; but now his matrimonial misery ended. Leaving Bristol on October 7, and preaching on his way at Devizes, Sarum, Winchester, and in the Isle of Wight, he arrived in London on October 12, and, under the same date, wrote in his journal: “I was informed my wife died on Monday.” (October 8.) “This evening she was buried, though I was not informed of it till a day or two after.”

Mourning for such a wife would have been hypocrisy. Three days after, on October 15, the widower set out to visit his societies in Oxfordshire. On a similar errand, he went off to Norfolk. On November 5, he began meeting the London classes, and says: “I found a considerable increase in the society. This I impute chiefly to a small company of young persons, who have kept a prayer-meeting at five every morning.” He then set out on his tours through Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Sussex, and Kent, and concluded the year in London.

The war still raged; English disasters were multiplied; the ministry was tottering, and soon after fell; with which fall the conflict in America concluded. It was at this period, that a rumour gained credence, that the administration intended to propose the embodying of the militia, and their being exercised on Sundays. Wesley was an ardent friend of the ministry of Lord North; and, of course, a staunch defender of the sanctity of the sabbath. Accordingly, towards the close of 1781, he addressed the following letter to a nobleman, then high in office.

“MY LORD,--If I wrong your lordship, I am sorry for it; but I really believe your lordship fears God: and I hope your lordship has no unfavourable opinion of the Christian revelation. This encourages me to trouble your lordship with a few lines, which otherwise I should not take upon me to do.

“Above thirty years ago, a motion was made in parliament for raising and embodying the militia, and for exercising them, to save time, on Sunday. When the motion was like to pass, an old gentleman stood up and said: ‘Mr. Speaker, I have one objection to this: I believe an old book, called the Bible,’ The members looked at one another, and the motion was dropped.

“Must not all others, who believe the Bible, have the very same objection? And from what I have seen, I cannot but think, these are still three fourths of the nation. Now, setting religion out of the question, is it expedient to give such a shock to so many millions of people at once? And certainly it would shock them extremely; it would wound them in a very tender part. For would not they, would not all England, would not all Europe, consider this as a virtual repeal of the Bible? And would not all serious persons say, ‘We have little religion in the land now; but, by this step, we shall have less still. For wherever this pretty show is to be seen, the people will flock together; and will lounge away so much time before and after it, that the churches will be emptier than they are at present!’

“My lord, I am concerned for this on a double account. First, because I have personal obligations to your lordship, and would fain, even for this reason, recommend your lordship to the love and esteem of all over whom I have any influence. Secondly, because I now reverence your lordship for your office sake, and believe it to be my bounden duty to do all, that is in my little power, to advance your lordship’s influence and reputation.

“Will your lordship permit me to add a word in my old fashioned way? I pray Him, that has all power in heaven and earth, to prosper all your endeavours for the public good; and am, my lord, your lordship’s willing servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[418]

For some reason, no such bill was introduced into parliament. A few months later, Lord North and his colleagues tendered to the king their resignation, and peace negotiations were commenced.

Before concluding the present year, it only remains to notice Wesley’s publications in 1781.

1. “An Extract of a Letter to the Right Honourable Lord Viscount H----e, on his Naval Conduct in the American War.” 12mo, 27 pages.

2. “A Concise Ecclesiastical History, from the Birth of Christ to the Beginning of the present Century. In four volumes.” 12mo. The proposals for printing this work by subscription are now before us; from which it appears, that the price of the four volumes, to subscribers, was ten shillings, and that booksellers, subscribing for six copies, should have a seventh gratis. The book, in fact, is Wesley’s abridgment of Mosheim, to which is added, “A Short History of the People called Methodists,” filling 112 printed pages, and dated “London, November 16, 1781.”

3. The Arminian Magazine. 8vo, 688 pages. In his preface, Wesley says: “I dare not fill up any publication of mine with bits and scraps, to humour any one living. It is true, I am not fond of verbose writers, neither of very long treatises. I conceive, the size of a book is not always the measure of the writer’s understanding. Nay, I believe, if angels were to write books, we should have very few folios. But, neither am I fond of tracts, that begin and end before they have cleared up anything.”

Besides six original sermons, the principal article, in the magazine of 1781 is Wesley’s own translation of Castellio’s Dialogues on Predestination. There is a long and interesting account of Kingswood school. Wesley writes:--“I love the very sight of Oxford; but my prejudice in its favour is considerably abated: I do not admire it as I once did; and, whether I did or not, I am now constrained to make a virtue of necessity.” He then refers to the expulsion, and exclusion of students, because of their being Methodists; and continues: “I am much obliged to Dr. Nowell and others, for not holding me longer in suspense, but dealing so frankly and openly. And, blessed be God! I can do all the business, which I have in hand, without them. Honour or preferment I do not want, any more than a feather in my cap; and I trust, most of those who are educated at our school are, and will be, of the same mind. As to the knowledge of the tongues, and of arts and sciences, with whatever is termed academical learning, if those who have a tolerable capacity for them do not advance more at Kingswood in three years, than the generality of students at Oxford and Cambridge do in seven, I will bear the blame for ever.” He then meets the objection, that young men could not have at Kingswood the advantages they would have at the university, from professors, tutors, public exercises, and company. He maintains, that it would be no loss to the universities if all their professorships were abolished. Some of the tutors, he admits, were worthy of all honour, but many were utterly unqualified for the work they had undertaken. As to the public exercises, he himself had never “found them any other than useless interruptions of useful studies.” As to company, he writes: “It is most true, that the moment a young man sets his foot either in Oxford or Cambridge, he is surrounded with company of all kinds, except that which will do him good; with loungers and triflers of every sort; with men who no more concern themselves with learning than with religion. Company, therefore, is usually so far from being an advantage to those who enter at either university, that it is the grand nuisance, as well as disgrace, of both; the pit that swallows unwary youths by thousands. I bless God! we have no such choice of company at Kingswood; nor ever will, till my head is laid. There is no trifler, no lounger, no drone there; much less any drunkard, sabbath breaker, or common swearer. Whoever accounts this a disadvantage may find a remedy at any college in Oxford or Cambridge.”

FOOTNOTES:

[384] Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 303.

[385] Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 522.

[386] Ibid. p. 636.

[387] Ibid. 1782, p. 69.

[388] Original manuscript letter.

[389] Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 8.

[390] Methodist Magazine, 1851, p. 556.

[391] Ibid, 1860, p. 379.

[392] Manuscript.

[393] Methodist Magazine, 1782, p. 331.

[394] Manuscript.

[395] Manuscript.

[396] Manuscript.

[397] Bradburn’s Memoirs, p. 47.

[398] Then at Colne, in the thirty-fourth year of his itinerancy.

[399] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 138.

[400] “History of Methodism in Grantham.”

[401] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 475.

[402] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley; and _Methodist Magazine_, 1828, p. 719.

[403] Methodist Magazine, 1844, p. 288.

[404] Manuscript letter by Miss March.

[405] Wesley’s Works, vol. iv., p. 207.

[406] Methodist Magazine, 1807, p. 471; and Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.

[407] Methodist Magazine, 1846, p. 452.

[408] Ibid. 1844, p. 562.

[409] Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 316.

[410] Wesley Banner, 1851.

[411] Methodist Magazine, 1829, p. 528.

[412] The following letter was written to Duncan Wright, assistant in Yarm circuit, a few months later.

“LONDON, November 24, 1781.

“DEAR DUNCAN,--Surely you and I may speak freely to each other; for we love one another. If George Holder goes out, either you must keep his mother, or she must go to the workhouse. You must not give an exhortation to the bands, but encourage them to speak. I would be much obliged to you if you would (1) accept the key of the book room, and immediately take the books into your own care; (2) clip the wings of the local preachers, stewards, and leaders, changing them as need requires; (3) fix bands where they are wanting; (4) if James Bogie is willing to remain single, let him travel; (5) do not receive the blind man hastily, let him be thoroughly tried first; (6) be of good courage, and conquer everything. I am, dear Duncan, etc., JOHN WESLEY.”--(Watchman, Jan. 8, 1868.)

[413] Methodist Magazine, 1782, p. 153.

[414] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 232.

[415] Life of Hey.

[416] Methodist Magazine, 1848, p. 1055.

[417] Ibid.

[418] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 400.

1782. Age 79

As usual, Wesley spent the first two months of the new year in London. The most notable occurrence, during this period, was the institution of a tract society,--the first that was ever formed. The Religious Tract Society was originated in 1799; Wesley’s, seventeen years previous to this. We have before us an original document printed in 1783, entitled, “A Plan of the Society, instituted in January, 1782, to distribute Religious Tracts among the Poor.” The rules are three. “1. Every member must subscribe half-a-guinea, a guinea, or more, annually. 2. A proportionable quota of tracts shall be delivered yearly to each subscriber, according to his subscription, and, as nearly as possible, at prime cost, and carriage paid. 3. Every subscriber shall have a right to choose his own tracts, if he please; otherwise, he will receive a proportionable variety of the whole.” After this follows a list of thirty tracts already printed, all of them either written or published by Wesley. Then there is subjoined the following: “An Extract of the Original Proposals.”

“I cannot but earnestly recommend this to all those who desire to see true scriptural Christianity spread throughout these nations. Men wholly unawakened will not take pains to read the Bible. They have no relish for it. But a small tract may engage their attention for half-an-hour; and may, by the blessing of God, prepare them for going forward.

“JOHN WESLEY. “LONDON, January 25, 1782.”

Though Wesley’s tract society does not now exist, in the form in which it was instituted in 1782, it is a fact worth noting, that, in 1867, Wesley’s book room, in City Road, sold not fewer than one million five hundred and seventy thousand tracts, all printed and published by itself;[419] and that the number of its distinct and separate tract publications, in 1871, is not less than 1250.

We have said, the Methodist Tract Society was the first that was ever formed. It is true that, in 1699, “The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” was founded; and, in 1750, “The Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge among the Poor”; but, strictly speaking, neither of these was a tract society. In this respect, as in others, Wesley was a pioneer. As early as 1745, he speaks of “giving away some thousands of little tracts among the common people”; and long before 1782, had written, and published, besides a large number of separate and short sermons, at least scores of penny publications. And yet Mr. Jones, the corresponding secretary of the Religious Tract Society, in his jubilee volume of 700 pages, while professing to trace the origin of tract distribution, entirely omits the name of Wesley, who saw the value and the power of a tract more than fifty years before the Religious Tract Society had a name. Was this intentional? We trust not.

On Sunday, the 3rd of March, Wesley took coach for Bristol, where he spent the next fortnight. He then started off on his long northern journey. On his way, he called at Madeley, where “both Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher complained, that, after all the pains they had taken, they could not prevail on the people to join in society, no, nor even to meet in class.” What the vicar and his new wife (Miss Bosanquet) failed to do, Wesley accomplished. He preached two rousing sermons; and “then desired those, who were willing to join together for Christian fellowship, to call upon him and Mr. Fletcher after service. Ninety-four persons did so: about as many men as women.” Wesley adds: “We explained to them the nature of a Christian society, and they willingly joined therein.”

Wesley then proceeded to Congleton, where “the Calvinists were striving to make havoc of the flock”; and to Macclesfield, where he spent Good Friday and Easter Sunday. On the former day, he preached twice, in the Rev. David Simpson’s church; and, with his assistance, administered the sacrament to about thirteen hundred persons; on the latter day, he also preached twice in the same edifice; again administered to eight hundred communicants; and, in the evening, preached in the Methodist chapel, and held a lovefeast at which sixteen or eighteen persons professed to live in the enjoyment of the blessing of perfect love. “About forty,” says Hester Ann Rogers, in the unpublished portion of her diary, “made a noble confession.” Among these were herself, George Bradock, Joseph Roe, John Booby, T. Ridgway, Joseph Norberry, Billy Sharpley, S. Bradshaw, and John Goostry; the last of whom Wesley ordered to stand on the form, that the people might hear him. “Mr. Wesley,” continues Mrs. Rogers, “kept the lovefeast two hours, a thing which I never knew him do before; but his soul was filled with thankfulness, for so many witnesses of redeeming love and full salvation.”

It would be tedious to mention all the places Wesley visited. Suffice it to say, that, at Ashton under Lyne, he preached in the new chapel, which had the following inscription over the door: “Can any good come out of Nazareth? Come and see!” At Oldham, “a whole troop of boys and girls would not be contented till he shook each by the hand.” At St. Helen’s, he preached in the house of Joseph Harris, who had removed from Kingswood, “to take care of the copper works.” At Wigan, he “saw an uncommon sight,--the preaching house filled, yea, crowded.” At Epworth, there had been a marvellous revival. At Thorne, fifty had found peace with God within two months. At Edinburgh, he was the guest of Lady Maxwell, and visited her school of forty poor children, many of whom were without shoes; but not a girl, in rags, was without her ruffles. At Kelso, he fell, head foremost, down the stairs of Dr. Douglas’s house, but mercifully escaped without serious injury.[420] At York, he entered into his eightieth year, and wrote: “Blessed be God! my time is not labour and sorrow. I find no more pain or bodily infirmities than at five-and-twenty. This I still impute--(1) To the power of God, fitting me for what He calls me to. (2) To my still travelling four or five thousand miles a year. (3) To my sleeping, night or day, whenever I want it. (4) To my rising at a set hour. (5) To my constant preaching, particularly in the morning.”

Wesley reached London, after an absence of more than four months, on July 20. Here he held his conference. He writes: “Friday, August 2, we observed as a day of fasting and prayer for a blessing on the ensuing conference; and I believe God clothed His word with power in an uncommon manner throughout the week; so that, were it only on this account, the preachers who came from all parts found their labour was not in vain.”

Among other questions debated at this conference, was the sabbath. Methodists, in some instances, visited barbers’ shops on Sundays; and, in others, practised military exercises, as volunteers, or were spectators of such exercises. This led the conference to enact, that no members of society should have their hair dressed on Sundays; and that, as far as possible, those barbers should be patronised who observed the sabbath’s sanctity. It was further determined, that any Methodist, who practised military exercises on the sabbath, as a volunteer, should be expelled; and that any one who, after proper admonition, continued a spectator of such sabbath drills should undergo the same penalty. Though not absolutely forbidden, preachers were recommended not to powder their hair, nor to wear artificial curls. The weekly and quarterly contributions having been shamefully neglected in many of the societies, the assistants and leaders were to remind the people of the original rule, that “every member contributes one penny weekly, (unless he is in extreme poverty,) and one shilling quarterly.” Wesley adds: “Money lovers are the pest of every Christian society. They have been the main cause of destroying every revival of religion. They will destroy us, if we do not put them away. A man not worth a shilling enters our society. Yet he freely gives a penny a week. Five years after, he is worth scores of pounds; he gives a penny a week still. I must think this man covetous, unless he assures me he bestows his charity some other way. For every one is covetous, whose beneficence does not increase in the same proportion as his substance.”

The most troublesome subject of discussion was the case of the Birstal chapel. It was asked, “What can be done with regard to the preaching house at Birstal?” Answer. “If the trustees still refuse to settle it on the Methodist plan: 1. Let a plain statement of the case be drawn up. 2. Let a collection be made throughout all England, in order to purchase ground, and to build another preaching house as near the present as may be.”

This was an important matter, on account of its involving one of Methodism’s fundamental principles, namely, that the conference alone shall have the power of appointing preachers to preach in Methodist chapels. This was the first time that the question was fairly raised. It was seen, that the issue, either way, would be most momentous. It affected not Birstal merely, but the whole Methodist connexion; and not the present only, but the future. Great excitement was created. The controversy, among other great results, led to the drawing up and enrolment of Methodism’s Magna Charta, Wesley’s deed of declaration, in 1784. Altogether, this was one of the most important events in Wesley’s history; and, hence, a detailed account of it will not be inappropriate.

The original chapel at Birstal was erected, under the auspices of John Nelson, about the year 1751. By the deed of settlement, the right of occupying the pulpit was given, first, to the two Wesleys in succession, and then to Grimshaw of Haworth; but, after the decease of these three ministers, the trustees were to elect their own preachers monthly; and all such preachers, so long as they continued in this office, were to preach in the chapel twice every Sunday, every Christmas day, New Year’s day, and Good Friday, and also every Thursday night, as had been, up to 1751, “usual and customary to be done.”

Such was the substance of the obnoxious clause; which hitherto, however, had created no difficulty.

In 1782, it was found necessary, either to enlarge the old chapel, or to build a new one in its place. Contributions were given for this purpose; but were not sufficient. It was ascertained, that the sum of £350 additional would be required, and that eight of the intended trustees would have to advance the money. To give them security, a deed of transfer was prepared, in which John and Charles Wesley, for the considerations therein mentioned, sold to certain specified trustees the old premises, with the following agreements in reference to the enlarged, or the new chapel, which was to be provided to meet the growing necessities of the Birstal Methodists. 1. The trustees advancing the £350 were to have, as their security, “the rents and profits to arise from the hearers’ pews and seats.” 2. The new or enlarged chapel was to be occupied, during their lifetime, by John and Charles Wesley, or by those whom they might from time to time appoint. 3. After their death, the appointment of preachers, to preach in the said chapel, was to be made by the trustees, and by “such members of the Methodist society as had been classleaders for three years, within the circumjacent villages of Birstal, Great Gomersal, Little Gomersal, Birkenshaw, Adwalton, Drighlington, Batley, Carlinghow, and Heckmondwike; or by the major part of such trustees and classleaders.” Provided always, that the said preachers preach no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes upon the Old and New Testament; that they preach in the said chapel twice every Sunday, and at least one evening every week; and that they hold the said premises and exercise the function of a preacher only during the goodwill and pleasure of the major part of the aforesaid trustees and classleaders. After this, followed a number of provisoes in reference to pew rents, etc. (1) The rents were to be applied in keeping the premises in repair. (2) In paying interest upon the debt of £350, at 5 per cent. per annum. (3) In maintaining the preacher for the time being, for which purpose, however, not more than £10 a year should be appropriated, until after the whole of the £350 had been repaid; when, after deducting for repairs and lasting improvements, the whole of the clear rents and profits arising from the pews and seats should be given “for and towards the maintenance and support of the preachers or pastors for the time being of the said society at Birstal.” It was further provided, that the appointment and removal of chapel stewards should be vested in the preachers, trustees, and classleaders aforesaid, or the major part of them, notice of their meetings for such purpose, however, having to be publicly read to the congregation on three successive Sunday evenings immediately preceding. Certain rooms also in a dwelling house, on the premises, were to be at the use of the stewards and leaders, for the purpose of transacting business and meeting classes.

The above is an abstract of all the important points in the new trust deed of 1782. That deed had attached to it the following signatures.

John Aspinall, Joseph Bennett, James Blackburn, John Tempest, Jonathan Brearley, Benjamin Mallinson, Anthony Williamson, Nathaniel Harrison, John White, Joseph Nelson, William Booth, John Wesley, Joseph Charlesworth, Charles Gunson, John Armitage, Joseph Lee, Thomas Crowther, William Tempest, Isaac Smith, William Chadwick.

Wesley’s signature was witnessed by Thomas Briscoe and Alexander Mather. The deed was dated May 14, 1782, and was enrolled on the 11th of October following. It may be added, that, of the above signers, Aspinall, Bennett, Blackburn, Tempest, Brierley, Williamson, Harrison, White, Nelson, and Booth were old trustees; Mallinson, Charlesworth, Gunson, Armitage, Lee, Crowther, W. Tempest, Smith, and Chadwick were the new trustees.

The deed of 1782 was widely different from that of 1751, and, as the vice chancellor ruled in 1854, so far as it purported to vary the trusts of the latter deed, it was void and of no effect;[421] but it still contained the obnoxious clause, giving power to other parties than Wesley’s conference, to appoint the preachers. Wesley says, in a letter to his brother, dated May 28, 1782:

“The trustees brought to me the deed, at Daw Green, which they read over, and desired me to sign. We disputed upon it about an hour. I then gave them a positive answer, that I would not sign it; and, leaving them abruptly, went up into my room. At night, a little before I went to bed, they came again, got round and worried me down. But, I think, they cannot worry you. May you not very properly write to Mr. Valton? ‘If the trustees will settle the Birstal house on the Methodist plan, I will sign their deed with all my heart; but, if they build a house for a presbyterian meeting-house, I will not, dare not, have anything to do with it.’”[422]

Wesley committed a mistake; but, be it borne in mind, that he was now an old man of nearly eighty, and that Alexander Mather, and Thomas Briscoe, the superintendents of the Leeds and Birstal circuits, were participators in his folly.

In an unpublished letter to Samuel Bradburn, then stationed at Bradford, Wesley wrote:

“LONDON, November 9, 1782.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I abhor the thought of giving to twenty men the power to place or displace the preacher in their congregations. How would he then dare to speak an unpleasing truth? And, if he did, what would become of him? This must never be the case, while I live, among the Methodists. And Birstal is a leading case, the first of an avowed violation of our plan. Therefore, the point must be carried for the Methodist preachers now or never; and I alone can carry it, which I will, God being my helper. You are not a match for the silver tongue, nor brother Hopper. But do not, to please any of your new friends forsake

“Your true old friend,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Charles Wesley acted upon his brother’s advice. He entered into correspondence with the Birstal reformers. In answer to their objection, that “the present trustees could not legally transfer any of their power to the conference,” he asks: “Then how can they transfer any of their power to the leaders?” He continues:

“You add,--‘As long as the conference appoints preachers with candid impartiality, we doubt not their appointments will be acquiesced in by the trustees and classleaders.’ But, according to this deed, the conference has no more business than the parliament to appoint preachers at all. To touch on one more point. From the beginning of Methodism till now, the assistants appointed the stewards in all societies; but this deed gives the trustees and leaders this power; which they think is ‘necessary to ensure the repayment of the £350 to be advanced for the building.’ Necessary! Not at all. How many thousand pounds, advanced for buildings, have been paid within these forty years, though all the stewards in England, Scotland, and Ireland, have been hitherto appointed by my brother or the assistants! You conclude your letter with a very just observation: ‘the civil and religious rights of mankind have seldom been promoted by the assemblies of ecclesiastics of any denomination; and they never will be, unless they are composed of men devoted to God, and dead to all the allurements of ease, and avarice, and ambition.’ This is undoubtedly true; and this, we humbly hope, is the real character of most (at least) of those persons that meet in our assemblies. We hope, likewise, that ‘their consultations will always be moderated by some wise and truly religious man’; otherwise, that God will sweep away the very name of Methodist from the earth. Upon the whole, I cannot, I dare not sign that deed. I can have nothing to do with it. If the house should, nevertheless, be built, and settled upon that plan, I apprehend the consequence would be this: 1. No Methodist preacher would ever preach in it. If any did, the whole body would disclaim him. 2. My brother would immediately set a subscription on foot for buying ground and building another house. The trustees then might do what they pleased with theirs.”[423]

This letter was written a week before the conference of 1782 was opened; and was a reply to one written by James Carr, the trustees’ attorney, who, soon afterwards, addressed the following unpublished letter to Mr. Charlesworth.

“MY GOOD FRIEND,--Having an insuperable aversion to recite my own simple performances, I here enclose a correct copy of my letter to Mr. Charles Wesley.

“I know, that you and the other framers of the present trust deed, were actuated by the purest, most equitable, and disinterested motives; and, therefore, in my address to Mr. Wesley, I held myself bound, by every tie of justice, to explain and enforce the grounds and reasons of your conduct, with all the energy in my power. I hope, I have no immodest opinion of my poor abilities, when I assert, that the reasons, by me alleged, for modifying the deed, in the manner described, cannot be fairly answered or refuted, by Mr. Mather, or Mr. C. Wesley. Ingenuity may perplex, wit may ridicule, sophistry may misinterpret, or prejudice may dislike a deed framed contrary to received systems or opinions. But when it is calmly considered, that the poor, beneficent founders of the preaching house had an undoubted right to settle it in what manner they thought meet; that it would be impious, as well as illegal, to abrogate their constitution; that you could only modify and improve it in a way consistent with their manifest intention; that the honour of religion required you to make a legal and effectual provision for payment of a just debt;--when these things, I say, are calmly considered, candour must admit, every preacher of righteousness must acknowledge, that the present trust deed is modelled with that rectitude and propriety, which become Christian men.

“As nothing can discourage me when I am engaged in a righteous cause, I mean to write again to Mr. Charles Wesley; and, therefore, if I have omitted, in my former address, any topics or arguments which occur to you or friends, I wish you would specify them in writing; though I shall certainly now speak to him more in a professional style than in a religious one.

“Yours most sincerely,

“JAMES CARR.”

In the mean time, the new chapel was built, and Dr. Coke took up the matter. The following also is a letter now for the first time published. It was addressed to Mr. Charlesworth.

“BRISTOL, October 18, 1782.

“SIR,--There is but one argument, which you have used, which appears to me to have any force in it against the many uncontrovertible arguments, which I have urged on the other side. It is this: is it not unjust, that the persons who have advanced money on the building, which has been lately erected, should lose that money, when they advanced it upon the word of Mr. Wesley, and would not have advanced it on any other ground? In answer to this, I observe, that, as I am in this business the servant of the conference, and have invested in me a discretionary power to act as I see occasion, I will, therefore, remove this objection as far as justice, equity, and my trust, will admit me to go. For this purpose, I promise and engage, that the interest of the money, which has been lent on the lately erected building, shall be regularly paid, either out of the profits of that building, or out of the profits of the building which is to be erected, or out of the profits of both of them together, so long as the two Messrs. Wesley live; and, after their decease, as long as the lately erected building is at the disposal of the Methodist conference, and no longer. Provided, that either of the chapels, or both of them together, produce an income sufficient to pay the aforesaid interest, after paying for the necessary repairs, and the £10 paid to the support of the preachers, be deducted. Provided, also, that the debt itself which has been already incurred, remain upon the lately erected edifice, and upon that alone,--I promise and engage, that the aforesaid interest shall be paid to the creditors annually in preference to every other payment, except the said necessary repairs, and £10 towards the support of the preachers.

“I am, sir, your humble servant in the gospel,

“THOMAS COKE.”

Shortly after, Dr. Coke published a 12mo tract of 12 pages, entitled, “An Address to the inhabitants of Birstal, and the adjacent villages.” He relates how the attorney of the trustees obtained Wesley’s signature to the deed. He states, that Charles Wesley had not signed, and, he believed, never would. The “amazing deed” had been discussed at the late conference, and had created just alarm; and he (Dr. Coke) had been delegated to carry into execution the minute that was passed; but, upon application to the trustees, he had “found the greatest part of them determined to hold fast their unlimited and most dangerous power.” He answers the objection, “Would it not be equally dangerous to invest this power in the conference?” by saying, “No: for the plan of settlement, adopted by the conference, ties them down to the principles of religion at present held by the Methodists.” He relates, that he had proposed to the trustees to submit the matter to the arbitration of the attorney general, or some other eminent counsellor; and had engaged that, if the opinion thus obtained was the same as that of the trustees and Mr. Carr, “Birstal preaching house should be considered an exempt case, and the trustees should be suffered quietly to retain all the power which they had at present”; with the understanding, on the other hand, that, if the legal opinion of the arbitrator was, “that the surviving trustees, with the consent of the original proprietor, and all the parties concerned, could resettle the house on the Methodist plan, they would resettle it accordingly.” He had also added, at another meeting, that, in such a case, he would give a bond of five or six hundred pounds, that the trustees, who had advanced the £350, should not only have their interest, but their principal paid them, in instalments of £50 per annum; and, further, that he would engage, that all subscribers to the recently erected building, “who signified their desire of having their money returned, should have it returned to them within two years.” The trustees, however, “obstinately refused to comply with this.”

Coke continues:

“Afterwards, another plan of reconciliation was proposed, by one of themselves, to which we all consented, namely, that all the trustees should bind themselves by a deed, that if they, or the major part of them, should agree, after the demise of the Messrs. Wesley, to choose an independent teacher, they should be obliged to signify, this their intention, by three years’ notice to the conference, or to the moderator of the conference for the time being; with a provision, that, if the preachers were ever to desist from meeting in regular conference, as they did at present, or to deviate from the grand Methodist plan on which they at present act, then the full power should immediately devolve upon the trustees, and they might, without any previous notice whatever, choose an independent teacher.”

Such was the unanimous agreement. A rough draft of the intended deed was made, and (horresco referens!) was brought, by the attorney of the trustees, to Dr. Coke on the Sunday following. On reading it, Coke found a few words inserted, which upset the whole. It read: “If the said trustees and leaders, or the major part of them, shall at any time, in their judgment, think that the said conference deviates from the grand Methodist plan, then,” etc., “thus constituting themselves judges in their own cause.” Dr. Coke objected to this; and they seemed willing to give it up; but “desired that another meeting might be held on the following Sunday! at which all the leaders might be present, that their consent might also be procured.” The conference representative agreed to this; Sunday came; and the trustees and leaders “would not move a single step.”

Such had been the negotiations, and such was the state of affairs, when Dr. Coke published his pamphlet in November, 1782. He makes an appeal “to the congregation, and to the society,” and concludes with the following prayer: “O Thou Lover of concord and Prince of peace, keep these little ones under Thy fostering wing. Preserve them from the silken tongued sycophant, the sly deceiver, who seeks his own, and not the things of Jesus Christ. Hide them for a little moment in the chambers of Thy love, till this and every indignation be overpast. Keep them close to the bleeding side of Jesus, and close to the affectionate hearts of their faithful pastors for ever.”

What more was done? Two months after this, on January 3, 1783, Wesley issued a folio circular, entitled, “The Case of the Birstal House.”[424] This all can read for themselves in Wesley’s collected works (vol. xiii., p. 260). Suffice it to say, that the reasons assigned by Wesley, why neither the Birstal, nor any other Methodist chapel, should be settled according to the Birstal deed, were: (1) It would put an end to itinerant preaching, for when the trustees got a preacher whom they liked, they would keep him. (2) It would put a bridle in the preacher’s mouth; for how would he dare to speak the full and the whole truth, when he was liable to lose his bread? (3) “The power of the trustees was greater than that of any nobleman; yea, or of the king himself. Where he is patron, he can put in a preacher, but he cannot put him out.” He concludes: “No Methodist trustees, if I can help it, shall, after my death, any more than while I live, have the power of placing and displacing the preachers.”

So the thing went on. A case was submitted to Mr. John Maddocks, barrister, for his opinion, as to the possibility of legally making such an alteration in trust deeds, as was desired in the Birstal case. His opinion, dated “Lincoln’s Inn, July 24, 1783,” is before us, and is to the effect, that such an alteration might be made. On the 5th of September following, Wesley met the nineteen trustees, and offered to allow the same clause to be inserted in a new deed as was inserted in the deed of the chapel in City Road, namely, “In case the doctrine or practice of any preacher should, in the opinion of the major part of the trustees, be not conformable to Mr. Wesley’s Sermons and Notes on the New Testament, on representing this, another preacher shall be sent within three months.” Five of the trustees were willing to accept of this; the rest refused.

In an unpublished letter, written by Dr. Coke, and addressed to Mr. Benson, only ten days after this interview, there are some other particulars given. Wesley first told the trustees, he wished their chapel to be settled according to the Methodist plan contained in the minutes of conference. He then offered to allow the clause to be inserted which has just been mentioned; adding, “this was never allowed to any trustees before, and never shall again while I live.” He further offered to relieve the trustees of their £350 debt, promising to give £100 himself, and saying, “This I do, because I love you, and for old acquaintance sake.” And he further promised to make them a present of the piece of ground which Dr. Coke had purchased for the site of another chapel. The names of the five consenting trustees were, Nathaniel Harrison, Anthony Williamson, John Aspinall, Joseph Bennett, and James Blackburn.[425]

The dissentient trustees took time to think. On September 25, 1783, Christopher Hopper wrote to one of them, Mr. Charlesworth, in a somewhat ambiguous style, as follows.

“MY VERY DEAR JOSEPH,--It gives me pleasure to hear that you were so well satisfied with Mr. Wesley’s temper and conduct; and I am glad to hear you behaved so well. Solemn conference! Great expectations! Grand overture! But alas! no decision! Mortifying indeed! I still wish we never had given you any trouble, but patiently waited the event. But, if you are determined to stand your ground after this meeting, I cannot tell what the consequence will be. Great grace be on you all!

“C. HOPPER.”[426]

Reflection often brings wisdom. On the 13th of January, 1784, Mr. Charlesworth wrote to Wesley, saying, that his offer would now be accepted. He says, with a Yorkshire keenness, which smacks of avarice--

“We cannot but acknowledge your goodness in promising the land, and the money towards paying our debt, which will be two very convenient articles at this place, as we are in great want of both.

“I am, reverend and dear sir, for and on behalf of the trustees,

“Yours very affectionately,

“JOSEPH CHARLESWORTH.”[427]

The result was, a new deed was made, giving the conference power to appoint preachers; and this serious hubbub, pro tem., subsided. We shall soon have to recur to the same subject; and this apparently long and tedious digression may serve as an introduction to what will have to be said hereafter. The controversy was the first battle fought for restricting, or rather for setting aside, an ecclesiastical power, which has grown to be the greatest exercised by any church throughout the whole of the Christian world; and perhaps, on this ground, the writer will be pardoned for trespassing on the reader’s patience; and especially as many of the incidents are now for the first time published.[428]

We return to Wesley. Of course, the dispute at Birstal led to much unpleasantness; but Wesley was firm in maintaining discipline. Hence the following, addressed to Mr. Valton, then one of the Birstal preachers.

“June 18, 1782.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot allow J---- S---- to be any longer a leader; and, if he will lead the class, whether I will or no, I require you to put him out of our society. If twenty of his class will leave the society too, they must. The first loss is the best. Better forty members should be lost, than our discipline be lost. They are no Methodists, that will bear no restraints. Explain this at large to the society.

“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[429]

Wesley’s clerical friends were now regularly and constantly increasing. He had, to some extent, outlived their brotherly persecution. They began to appreciate his motives and his services; and, so far from hooting and hissing him, began to greet him, to court his company, and to ask his counsel. Among others of this description may be mentioned the Rev. Thomas Davenport, who was now in his sixtieth year, but had only recently found peace with God, and that principally through Wesley’s help.[430] Wesley wrote to him as follows.

“BRISTOL, August 14, 1782.

“DEAR SIR,--It would have given me a good deal of satisfaction to have had a little conversation with you. But I do not stay long in one place. I have no resting place on earth:

‘A poor wayfaring man, I dwell in tents below, Or gladly wander to and fro, Till I my Canaan gain.’

“You would have been very welcome at our conference. Mr. Pugh and Mr. Dodwell[431] were present at it; and, I believe, are more determined than ever to spend their whole strength in saving their own souls, and them that hear them.

“I believe, that one of our preachers, who are stationed in the Leicester circuit, will call upon you at Alexton; and I make no doubt but some of the seed which you have been long sowing will then grow up. No one should wish or pray for persecution. On the contrary, we are to avoid it, to the uttermost of our power. ‘When they persecute you in one city, flee unto another.’ Yet, when it does come, notwithstanding all our care to avoid it, God will extract good out of evil.

“To-morrow I am to set out for Cornwall. In about three weeks, I expect to be here again. In the beginning of October, I generally move towards London; in the neighbourhood of which I usually spend the winter.

“I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[432]

The day after this letter was written, Wesley set out westwards. On reaching Exeter, where his old antagonist, Bishop Lavington, once resided, he met with a most friendly welcome; and, by invitation, dined on the Sunday, with the bishop, in his palace, five other clergymen and four of the aldermen of Exeter being present besides himself. Arriving at Plymouth, Wesley preached in the Square, and, while doing so, a regiment of soldiers, with military music, marched into it. No sooner, however, did the commanding officer perceive the preacher, than he stopped the music, and drew up his men to listen. “They were all still as night;” says Wesley, “nor did any of them stir, till I had pronounced the blessing.”

In Cornwall, he found an old clerical friend at the point of death, the Rev. Mr. Thompson, rector of St. Gennis. It was now thirty-seven years since Wesley first preached in Mr. Thompson’s church, and, throughout the whole of that period, they had been faithful friends. The dying rector wished once more to see his old acquaintance. Wesley, borrowing the best horse he could find, and riding as fast as he was able, says: “I found Mr. Thompson just alive, but quite sensible. He had many doubts concerning his final state, and rather feared, than desired, to die; so that my whole business was to comfort him, and to increase and confirm his confidence in God. He desired me to administer the Lord’s supper, which I willingly did; and I left him much happier than I found him, calmly waiting till his change should come.”

While riding to see his friend, Mr. Thompson, Wesley was accosted by an old acquaintance of another sort. He writes: “On the way, I met with a white headed old man, who caught me by the hand, and said, ‘Sir, do you not know me?’ I answered, ‘No.’ He said, ‘My father, my father! I am poor John Trembath.’ I desired him to speak to me in the evening at Launceston; which he did. He was, for some time, reduced to extreme poverty, so as to hedge and ditch for bread; but, in his distress, he cried unto God, who sent him an answer of peace. He, likewise, enabled him to cure a gentleman that was desperately ill, and afterwards several others; so that he grew into reputation, and gained a competent livelihood. ‘And now,’ said he, ‘I want for nothing: I am happier than ever I was in my life.’”

Who was John Trembath? One of Wesley’s first itinerants, who commenced his ministry in 1743, and, for several years, laboured with diligence under Wesley’s direction,[433]--a man of great eloquence and zeal,[434]--a burning and shining light, and a workman who, at one time, according to Wesley, had no need to be ashamed,[435]--a preacher not deep, and yet so popular as to be almost idolised by the people;[436] but who, alas! for the last twenty years, had sunk into an extreme of sin, and shame, and misery. Naturally vain, the applauses of the people spoiled him. He became bouncing, and boastful, and not always truthful. He married, gave up reading, turned to farming, and kept company with men who had just wit enough to “talk of bullocks,” and to “smoke, drink, and flatter him.” He became a sportsman, and was suspected of smuggling.[437] His career was almost a romance. But now, to use Wesley’s language, “John Trembath was alive again.”[438] A month after the strange interview above related, Trembath wrote to Wesley: “Though God has forgiven me, yet I cannot forgive myself for the precious time I have wasted, the years I have lost, and the glorious harvest I have neglected.”[439] Poor Trembath died of paralysis, at Cork, about the year 1793.[440]

Such were the old friends whom Wesley met in Cornwall. Getting back to Bristol, on September 6, he found a new one, young, but warm hearted, honest, and faithful. Adam Clarke, just emerging out of his teens, had arrived from Ireland. He had travelled from Birmingham to Bristol upon a penny loaf and a halfpennyworth of apples; and had just three halfpence left when he got to Kingswood school. He met with a reception from Simpson, the head master, as frigid as cold heartedness could make it. Simpson’s stupid, imperious wife made bad things worse, by suspecting that the young Irishman might be afflicted with the itch, and by making him rub himself from head to foot with Jackson’s ointment. This “infernal unguent,” as Adam calls it, made him smell worse than a polecat. His only sustenance was bread and milk; and not enough of that. For more than three weeks, no one performed any kind act for him. As for Mrs. Simpson, he feared her as he feared the devil. At length, Wesley arrived from Cornwall; Clarke was introduced; Wesley laid his hands upon his head, and spent a few minutes in beseeching God to bless him; and then gave him his commission to proceed to Wiltshire as a Methodist preacher. Fifty years after this, Adam Clarke died in London,--an old itinerant preacher, without a spot on the fair escutcheon of his character,--one of the most extensively learned scholars of the age,--a voluminous author,--the friend of philosophers and princes,--and a man intensely beloved by nearly all who knew him.

Wesley left Bristol for London on October 7, and, on his way, preached at Newport in the Isle of Wight. He writes: “This place seems now ripe for the gospel, opposition is at an end.”

At, Newport the first Methodist preaching place was a room in Node Hill; and the opposition, referred to by Wesley, consisted of the beating of drums, tin kettles, and bells; the throwing of rotten eggs, sticks, and stones; sparrows let loose in the room for the purpose of putting out the lights; and covering the chimney top and fastening the door, in order to stifle the imprisoned worshippers. It was at Newport, that Robert Wallbridge heard Wesley preach; was converted; became a Methodist; and a Methodist local preacher. Elizabeth Wallbridge, his sister, was now a light haired, ruddy faced, and merry hearted girl, of twelve years old. Of scholastic learning she had but a slender share; and had to earn her bread as a household servant. She had a high flow of spirits, vanity, and ready wit, and was inordinately fond of dress. Elizabeth was converted under the ministry of James Crabb, a Methodist preacher, became a Methodist herself, and continued such to the end of life. Her father joined the church presided over by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman, who published an account of him, in a well written tract, a short time before he set sail on his mission to the South Sea islands. Elizabeth’s brother Robert, for more than forty years, was a Methodist local preacher, and died at Newport in 1837. Elizabeth herself died, at the age of thirty-one, in the year 1801; the Rev. Legh Richmond visited her in her last moments; and afterwards wrote her life, with the title of “The Dairyman’s Daughter,” omitting to state, however, that his heroine was a Methodist. Millions of copies of that publication have been circulated; it has been translated into, at least, thirty languages; and, thirty years ago, it had been the means of the conversion of three hundred and fifty persons.[441]

Wesley reached London on October 11. Here, and in eight or nine of the southern counties of England, he spent, according to his custom, the remainder of the year.

His publications, in 1782, were few in number.

1. An Extract from his Journal, from January 1, 1776, to August 5, 1779. 12mo, 112 pages.

2. “Alleine’s Alarm to the Unconverted.” 12mo, 107 pages.

3. “An Estimate of the Manners of the present Times.” 12mo, 23 pages.

This was an exceedingly characteristic piece. With terrible severity, he lashes the vices of the age; the slothfulness of people of fashion; the increase of luxury, both in meat, drink, dress, and furniture; and lewdness of every kind. He writes: “A total ignorance of God is almost universal among us. The exceptions are exceeding few, whether among the learned or unlearned. High and low, cobblers, tinkers, hackney coachmen, men and maid servants, soldiers, sailors, tradesmen of all ranks, lawyers, physicians, gentlemen, lords, are as ignorant of the Creator of the world as Mahommedans or pagans.”

4. The Arminian Magazine. 8vo, 680 pages. Here we have an engraving of the new chapel in City Road, with portraits of George Story, etc. About forty pages are filled with a continuation of Wesley’s translation of the Dialogues of Castellio on Election and Free Will. There are long extracts from Wesley’s “Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation”; and from Dr. Watts’s Treatise on the Passions. Remarks upon Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding make a part of every number. Memoirs and happy deaths are more numerous than ever. There are sixty letters, and as many poems. There are six original sermons by Wesley himself. One, on “Redeeming the Time,” is a vigorous enforcement of the principles propounded in his letter to his niece in 1781.[442] Another is a remarkable homily on “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”; and another, equally striking, is on God’s six days’ work. Then there is his magnificent sermon on, “Not as the transgression, so is the free gift.” And, lastly, there is his terrific discourse on the Punishments of Hell. If the Arminian Magazine had done nothing more than give birth to sermons like these, it would have rendered incalculable service to the cause of Christ.

In addition to the above, the magazine contains several original articles, by Wesley’s pen, of great interest and importance. In one, on Persecuting Papists, he says: “I set out in early life with an utter abhorrence of persecution in every form, and a full conviction, that every man has a right to worship God, according to his own conscience. I would not hurt a hair of the head of Romanists. Meantime, I would not put it into their power to hurt me, or any other persons whom they believe to be heretics. I would neither kill, nor be killed. I wish them well; but I dare not trust them.” In another article there is an onslaught on the “Divinity and Philosophy of the highly illuminated Jacob Behmen”; concluding thus: “May we not pronounce, with the utmost certainty, of one who thus distorts, mangles, and murders the word of God, That the light which is in him is darkness; that he is illuminated from beneath, rather than from above; and that he ought to be styled Demonosopher, rather than Theosopher?”

This was savage; and Wesley’s old friend, Mr. Harry Brooke, of Dublin, wrote him a letter of earnest remonstrance; to which Wesley replied as follows.

“April 21, 1783.

“DEAR HARRY,--Your letter gave me pleasure and pain. It gave me pleasure, because it was written in a mild and loving spirit; but it gave me pain, because I found I had pained you, whom I so tenderly love and esteem. But I shall do it no more. I sincerely thank you for your kind reproof. It is a precious balm, and will, I trust, in the hands of the Great Physician, be the means of healing my sickness. I am so sensible of your real friendship herein, that I cannot write without tears. The words you mention were too strong. They will no more fall from my mouth.

“I am, dear Harry, affectionately yours,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[443]

This may serve as an erratum, belonging to the Arminian Magazine of 1782.

FOOTNOTES:

[419] Methodist Recorder, Aug. 16, 1867.

[420] It was doubtless at this time that he had a youthful hearer, who afterwards became the renowned Sir Walter Scott. In a letter to Southey, dated Abbotsford, April 4, 1819, Scott writes: “When I was about twelve years old, I heard Wesley preach more than once, standing on a chair, in Kelso churchyard. He was a most venerable figure, but his sermons were vastly too colloquial for the taste of Saunders. He told many excellent stories. One I remember, which he said had happened to him at Edinburgh. ‘A drunken dragoon,’ said Wesley, ‘was commencing an assertion in military fashion, G----d eternally d----n me, just as I was passing. I touched the poor man on the shoulder, and when he turned round fiercely, said calmly, You mean, God bless you.’ In the mode of telling the story, he failed not to make us sensible how much this patriarchal appearance, and mild yet bold rebuke, overawed the soldier, who touched his hat, thanked him, and, I think, came to chapel that evening.”--(“Memoirs of Sir Walter Scott,” by J. G. Lockhart, Esq.)

[421] Methodist Magazine, 1854, p. 184.

[422] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 138.

[423] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 140.

[424] The copy before us is addressed “To Mr. Thompson, at the Methodist chapel, Hull,” and is signed by Wesley in his own handwriting.

[425] Coke’s manuscript letter.

[426] Manuscript letter.

[427] Ibid.

[428] For the manuscripts that have been used, I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Clapham, of Birstal.

[429] Methodist Magazine, 1824, p. 307.

[430] Ibid. 1790, pp. 106, 163.

[431] Both clergymen.

[432] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 475.

[433] Myles’s History.

[434] Methodist Magazine, 1826, p. 794.

[435] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 309.

[436] Methodist Magazine, 1782, p. 468.

[437] Ibid. 1798, p. 492; and 1780, p. 448.

[438] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 13.

[439] Methodist Magazine, 1790, p. 557.

[440] Everett’s “Methodism in Sheffield.”

[441] Dyson’s “History of Methodism in the Isle of Wight.”

[442] In 1783, this sermon was reprinted, in a separate form, without Wesley’s knowledge, by a gentleman of Cambridge, in 12mo.

[443] Walton’s “Memorial of W. Law,” p. 91; and Brooke’s Life, p. 194.

1783. Age 80

One of the first entries in Wesley’s journal, in 1783, is the following. “Friday, January 10--I paid one more visit to Mr. Perronet, now in his ninetieth year. I do not know so venerable a man. His understanding is little, if at all, impaired; and his heart seems to be all love. A little longer, I hope, he will remain here, to be a blessing to all that see and hear him.” This is beautiful, after an unbroken friendship of about forty years.

Another entry, equally deserving of being noted, was as follows: “Sunday, January 19--I preached in St. Thomas’s church in the afternoon, and at St. Swithin’s in the evening. The tide is now turned; so that I have more invitations to preach in churches than I can accept of.” What a contrast between 1783 and 1739!

Wesley was an unendowed clergyman; but was not unsupported. The funds, raised for his purposes, were large; but his own appropriation from them, not equal to the poor parson’s, who was “passing rich on £40 a year.” In reference to the London annual audit, he writes: “Friday, February 21--At our yearly meeting for that purpose, we examined our yearly accounts, and found the money received, (just answering the expense,) was upwards of £3000 a year. But that is nothing to me: what I receive of it, yearly, is neither more nor less than £30.”

Wesley was an old man; but he was still an outdoor preacher: for five-and-forty years he had been branded as a schismatic and a Dissenter; but he was still an ardent Churchman. Hence the following, addressed to Joseph Taylor, one of his itinerant preachers.

“LONDON, January 16, 1783.

“DEAR JOSEPH,--I am glad to hear so good an account of Marazion. You must endeavour to hire a larger room at Truro. We shall not build any more in haste. I often preach abroad, in winter as well as summer.

“In my journals, in the magazine, in every possible way, I have advised the Methodists to keep to the Church. They that do this most prosper best in their souls; I have observed it long. If ever the Methodists in general were to leave the Church, I must leave them.

“I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[444]

An extract from another letter may be inserted here, showing that, rightly or wrongly, the Methodist preachers of the present day have departed from one of the principles of their founder. Ministerial classes are now almost general. Hear what Wesley had to say, on this subject, to John Cricket, then stationed, with Henry Moore, at Londonderry.

“LONDON, February 10, 1783.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You must immediately resume the form at least of a Methodist society. I positively forbid you, or any preacher, to be a leader; rather put the most insignificant person in each class to be the leader of it. And try if you cannot persuade three men, if no more, and three women, to meet in band.

“Hope to the end! You shall see better days! The plainer you speak, the more good you will do. Derry will bear plain dealing. I am just as well as I was forty years ago.

“I am, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[445]

The hale old man soon found himself in a different plight. On March 2, he set off for Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which he spent the next twelve days, preaching and meeting classes. He then became seriously unwell; but, for two days longer, continued preaching, when he was obliged to take his bed. He had a deep tearing cough; was weak and heavy, and in a fever. He had fixed the next morning for commencing his journey to Ireland, and had sent notice to Stroud, and various other places, of the days wherein he purposed to visit them. Fortunately, the Rev. Brian Collins was at hand, and undertook to supply his appointments as far as Worcester. Accordingly, Mr. Collins, in the morning of March 17, set out to preach at Stroud; but Wesley, finding himself better, in the afternoon, imprudently set out after him, and actually gave a short exhortation to the Stroud society. For the next three days, he was dangerously ill. The whole nervous system was violently agitated. His cough was most distressing. He was seized with cramp. He was bereft of strength, “scarce able to move, and much less to think.” Before leaving Bristol, he wrote the following unpublished letter to Miss Hester Ann Roe, afterwards Mrs. Rogers.

“BRISTOL, March 16, 1783.

“MY DEAR HETTY,--It has frequently been on my mind of late, that my pilgrimage is nearly at an end; and one of our sisters here told us this morning a particular dream which she had two months ago. She dreamt, that the time of conference was come, and that she was in a church expecting me to enter; when she saw a coffin brought in, followed by Dr. Coke and Mr. Fletcher, and then by all our preachers walking two and two. A fortnight ago, she dreamt the same dream again. Such a burying I have ordered in my will, absolutely forbidding either hearse or coach.

“I intended to have written a good deal more. For a few days, I have had just such a fever as I had in Ireland a few years ago. But all is well. I am in no pain; but the wheel of life seems scarcely able to move. Yet, I made a shift to preach this morning to a crowded audience, and hope to say something to them this afternoon. I love that word, ‘And Ishmael died in the presence of all his brethren.’

“I am, in life or death, my dear sister, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[446]

What was the result? The news of Wesley’s being dangerously ill flew far and wide. A number of the preachers met together to pray for a further prolongation of his life; and, from that time, he rapidly recovered.[447] For three days he lay at Stroud, in great danger. On the morning of the fourth day, he wrote: “A violent fit of the cramp carried the fever quite away; and, perceiving this, I took chaise without delay, and reached Worcester in the afternoon. Here I overtook Mr. Collins, who had supplied all my appointments, with a remarkable blessing to the people; and, the next morning, I gave a short exhortation, and then went on to Birmingham.” At Birmingham, he was electrified, and “ventured to preach three quarters of an hour.” He then made his way to Hinckley, where, for three days, he preached morning and evening, “to a serious and well behaved people.” He then visited other societies on his way to Holyhead, and reached Dublin on April 13.

For three weeks, he was the guest of Mr. Henry Brooke, and was employed in healing serious divisions in the Dublin society.[448] Four days were spent in holding a conference with his Irish preachers, at which, he says, “all was peace and love.” “I wish,” he writes, “all our English preachers were of the same spirit with the Irish, among whom is no jarring string. I never saw such simplicity and teachableness run through a body of preachers before.”[449] This was a high compliment paid to Thomas Rutherford, Andrew Blair, Zechariah Yewdall, Richard Boardman, Thomas Barber, Henry Moore, John Cricket, John Crook, and their twenty-six colleagues in Christian enterprise and labour.

Wesley embarked for England on the 8th of May, and, after preaching at Warrington, Liverpool, Wigan, Bolton, and other places, reached Manchester nine days afterwards. Here he had an enormous sacramental service, at which thirteen or fourteen hundred communicants were present: “such a sight,” says he, “as, I believe, was never seen in Manchester before.” “I believe,” he adds, “there is no place but London where we have so many souls so deeply devoted to God.”

Leaving Manchester, he proceeded to Macclesfield, where a week never passed “in which some were not justified, and some renewed in love.” He preached, for the first time, at Buxton, where John Knowles and his wife were almost the only Methodists, and frequently rode on horseback to Stockport, a distance of sixteen miles, to hear the Methodist preachers.[450] Here he married a couple of his friends, and preached in the parish church. He arrived in London on May 31.

On June 11, accompanied by Messrs. Brackenbury, Broadbent, and Whitfield, he set out for Holland. For more than forty years, Wesley had been incessantly at work forming Methodist societies. Up to the present, he had never indulged in the luxury of a ministerial holiday; and we are not sure, that his trip to Holland should be regarded in such a light as that. Still, there was a difference between this journey and others. In other instances, his object was to institute Methodist societies, or to strengthen those already formed; in this instance, that was no part of the object at which he aimed. He went, says Mr. Moore, “partly for relaxation, and partly to indulge and enlarge his catholic spirit, by forming an acquaintance with the truly pious in foreign nations.” The fact is, one of his own local preachers, whom he highly esteemed, Mr. William Ferguson, had removed to Holland, and, by his earnest piety, had attracted the attention of the public generally, including many of the principal inhabitants and persons in authority. He spoke much of Wesley and of the Methodists, and distributed Wesley’s sermons among his friends. The result was a general wish to see the veteran evangelist, and to hear him for themselves. One difficulty, however, was in the way. Wesley was acquainted, to a greater or less extent, with the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the English, French, German, and Spanish languages; but he knew nought of Dutch. This objection was surmounted by Mr. Ferguson’s son, Jonathan, offering to act as his interpreter.[451] Accordingly, off Wesley went, accompanied by the three preachers above mentioned.

His visit was eminently pleasant. Ministers of religion welcomed him; and persons of high rank showed him honour. At Rotterdam, he preached twice, in the episcopal church, to large congregations, and says: “Were it only for this, I am glad I came to Holland.” At the Hague, in the house of a lady of the first quality, he met a dozen ladies and two military gentlemen, expounded the first three verses of the thirteenth of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and prayed, Captain M---- interpreting sentence by sentence. Wesley writes: “I believe, this hour was well employed.” He held a sort of service in the passenger boat between Haarlem and Amsterdam. That is, he and his friends began to sing a hymn; the people listened; Wesley talked; Ferguson interpreted; “and all our hearts,” says Wesley, “were strangely knit together, so that, when we came to Amsterdam, they dismissed us with abundance of blessings.”

At Utrecht, Wesley wrote: “June 28--I have this day lived fourscore years; and, by the mercy of God, my eyes are not waxed dim, and what little strength of body or mind I had thirty years since, just the same I have now. God grant I may never live to be useless! rather may I

‘My body with my charge lay down, And cease at once to work and live!’”

On the same day, he made a short excursion. Hence, the following extract from the diary of the Moravian congregation at Zeyst:

“1783, June 28.--We kept the children’s prayer day. The Rev. John Wesley, the well known Methodist minister, arrived here in the afternoon, with several other ministers. After visiting his old friend, Brother Anton, he paid a hurried visit to the brethren’s house, and sisters’ house; and then attended a children’s lovefeast, at three o’clock; on which occasion, as it happened to be his eightieth birthday, the children sang a few benedictory verses for him; the congregation closing the service by singing ‘The grace of our Lord be with us all!’ At 4.30 p.m. he and his companions returned to Utrecht, where he had preached the day before.”

Wesley spent altogether seventeen days in Holland, and was delighted with his visit. He writes: “I can by no means regret either the trouble or expense, which attended this little journey. It opened me a way into, as it were, a new world; where the land, the buildings, the people, the customs, were all such as I had never seen before. But as those with whom I conversed were of the same spirit with my friends in England, I was as much at home in Utrecht and Amsterdam, as in Bristol and London.” “There is a blessed work at the Hague, and many other of the principal cities; and, in their simplicity of spirit, and plainness of dress, the believers vie with the old English Methodists. In affection, they are not inferior to any. It was with the utmost difficulty we could break from them.”[452] “Two of our sisters, when we left the Hague, came twelve miles with us on the way; and one of our brethren, of Amsterdam, came to take leave of us to Utrecht, above thirty miles. I believe, if my life be prolonged, I shall pay them a visit at least every other year. Had I had a little more time, I would have visited our brethren in Friesland, and Westphalia likewise; for a glorious work of God is lately broken out in both these provinces.”[453]

Wesley got back to London on July 4. Ten days later, he set off to his conference at Bristol. “I expect,” says he, “a good deal of difficulty at this conference, and shall stand in need of the prayers of you and your friends.”[454] His apprehension was realised; hence the following entry in his journal: “July 29--Our conference began, at which we considered two important points: first, the case of Birstal house; and, secondly, the state of Kingswood school. With regard to the former, our brethren earnestly desired, that I would go to Birstal myself, believing this would be the most effectual way of bringing the trustees to reason. With regard to the latter, we all agreed, that either the school should cease, or the rules of it be particularly observed: particularly, that the children should never play, and that a master should be always present with them.”

We need not recur to the first of these points, except to add, that the Birstal chapel case, no doubt, led to the adoption of the following resolutions:

“Question 21. What houses are to be built this year?

“Answer. None that are not already begun.

“Q. 22. Has not the needless multiplying of preaching houses been a great evil?

“A. So it appears.

“Q. 23. How may this be prevented?

“A. By permitting none for the future to beg for any house, except in the circuit where it stands.

“Q. 24. What can be done to get all our preaching houses settled on the conference plan?

“A. Let Dr. Coke visit the societies throughout England, as far as is necessary for the accomplishment of this end; and let the respective assistants give him all the support in their power.”

Such was the commission given to Dr. Coke, a weary and worrying one.

Kingswood school, however, was as great a bore as Birstal chapel. It had now existed for five-and-thirty years; it had been to Wesley a source of almost ceaseless trouble, and was now in a worse state than ever. Nevertheless, it was a far famed institution; and, besides the sons of itinerant preachers, it had, at this very time, parlour boarders from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the West Indies. None of the scholars however, were remarkable for piety or learning; and the young gentlemen, just mentioned, had spoiled the discipline of the school. Thomas Simpson, M.A., was head master; Mrs. Simpson housekeeper; Cornelius Bayley was English teacher, with a salary of £12 per annum and his board; Vincent de Boudry was occasional French teacher; and C. R. Bond a sort of half boarder, and assistant to Bayley.[455]

“My design in building the house at Kingswood,” says Wesley, “was to have therein a Christian family; every member whereof, (children excepted,) should be alive to God, and a pattern of all holiness. Here it was that I proposed to educate a few children, according to the accuracy of the Christian model. And almost as soon as we began, God gave us a token for good, four of the children receiving a clear sense of pardon. But, at present, the school does not, in any wise, answer the design of its institution, either with regard to religion or learning. The children are not religious: they have not the power, and hardly the form of religion. Neither do they improve in learning better than at other schools; no, nor yet so well. Insomuch, that some of our friends have been obliged to remove their children to other schools. And no wonder that they improve so little either in religion or learning; for the rules of the school are not observed at all. All in the house ought to rise, take their three meals, and go to bed at a fixed hour. But they do not. The children ought never to be alone, but always in the presence of a master. This is totally neglected; in consequence of which, they run up and down the wood, and mix, yea, fight with the colliers’ children. They ought never to play: but they do, every day; yea, in the school. Three maids are sufficient; now there are four; and but one, at most, truly pious.

“How may these evils be remedied, and the school reduced to its original plan? It must be mended or ended: for no school is better than the present school. Can any be a master, that does not rise at five, observe all the rules, and see that others observe them? There should be three masters, and an usher, chiefly to be with the children out of school. The head master should have nothing to do with temporal things.”[456]

This was a dark picture; doubtless the result of bad management. Easy, good tempered Mr. Simpson was a scholar; his wife, the real governor, was an ogress. A woman that rubbed Adam Clarke with the “infernal unguent” to cure him of an imaginary itch; thrust him into a solitary room, with a wretched old bedstead, and left him there without book or fire; and from whom Adam, when he heard her voice, was disposed to run in the utmost fright, was not the woman to manage Kingswood school. “She was probably very clever,” says Clarke; “all stood in awe of her; for my own part, I feared her more than I feared Satan himself. The school was the worst I had ever seen, though the teachers were men of adequate learning. It was perfectly disorganised; and, in several respects, each did what was right in his own eyes. There was no efficient plan pursued; they mocked at religion; and trampled under foot all the laws. The little children of the preachers suffered great indignities; and, it is to be feared, their treatment there gave many of them a rooted enmity against religion for life. The parlour boarders had every kind of respect paid to them, and the others were shamefully neglected. Scarcely any care was taken either of their bodies or souls.”

Poor Kingswood! Could all this be strictly accurate? Probably it was; for the following, given as a fact, prepares the mind for almost anything in the form of stupidity, and ignorant confusion. “At the table,” writes Adam Clarke, “every person when he drank was obliged to run the following gauntlet. He must drink the health of Mr. Simpson, Mrs. Simpson, Miss Simpson, Mr. Bayley, Mr. De Boudry, all the foreign gentlemen, then all the parlour boarders, down one side of the long table, and up the other, one by one, and all the visitors who might happen to be there: after which it was lawful for him to drink his glass of beer.”[457]

Wesley was quite right. No school at all was better than such a school as this. It was high time to mend it or end it. In his magazine, for the very month in which the conference of 1783 was held, Wesley published an article, by his own pen, entitled, “A Thought on the Manner of Educating Children,” in which he strongly maintains, that all education ought to be religious; but adds, probably with the state of Kingswood in his eye,--“Even religious masters may still be mistaken with regard to the manner of instilling religion into children. They may not have the spirit of government, to which some even good men are utter strangers. They may habitually lean to this or that extreme, of remissness or of severity. And if they either give children too much of their own will, or needlessly and churlishly restrain them; if they either use no punishment at all, or more than is necessary, the leaning either to one extreme or the other may frustrate all their endeavours. In the latter case, it will not be strange, if religion stink in the nostrils of those that were so educated. They will naturally look on it as an austere, melancholy thing; and, if they think it necessary to salvation, they will esteem it a necessary evil, and so put it off as long as possible.”

Wesley was not the man to hesitate in changing his officials when change was necessary. Mr. Simpson was dismissed; Thomas McGeary, A.M., a young man of twenty-two, took his place.[458] Cornelius Bayley had previously made up his mind to leave, in order to enter the ministry of the Established Church;[459] and Thomas Welch, an assistant in a school at Coventry, applied to be appointed his successor. Wesley wrote to him as follows.

“BRISTOL, August 15, 1783.

“DEAR THOMAS,--You seem to be the man I want. As to salary, you will have £30 a year; board, etc., will be thirty more. But do not come for money. (1) Do not come at all, unless purely to raise a Christian school. (2) Anybody behaving ill, I will turn away immediately. (3) I expect you to be in the school eight hours a day. (4) In all things, I expect you should be circumspect. But you will judge better by considering the printed rules. The sooner you come the better.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[460]

Mr. Welch was a young man of twenty-three. Two years before, he had become a Methodist. The Coventry society, then extremely feeble, was loath to lose him; and some of its members succeeded in persuading him to remain where he was. He wrote to Wesley to this effect; and Wesley answered: “You use me very ill. I have turned away three masters on your account. The person, who gives you this advice, is wanting either in common sense or common honesty.”[461] Mr. Welch became a valuable local preacher, and lived and died a Methodist. Thomas Jones took the place that he declined, and, for three years, retained it, when he was ordained a clergyman of the Church of England.

This was Wesley’s last complaint of Kingswood. Twelve months afterwards, the school and family were visited with a gracious outpouring of God’s good Spirit. In 1786, he says: “I found the school in excellent order.” “It is now one of the pleasantest spots in England. I found all things just according to my desire; the rules being well observed, and the whole behaviour of the children showing, that they were now managed with the wisdom that cometh from above.” In 1787, he expressed himself to the same effect, as, in fact, he did to the end of life. The last entry in his journal, in reference to this memorable place,--a child, always with him a pet, though often troublesome,--was this: “1789, September 11--I went over to Kingswood: sweet recess! where everything is now just as I wish. But

‘Man was not born in shades to lie!’

Let us work now; we shall rest by-and-by. I spent some time with the children; all of whom behaved well: several are much awakened, and a few rejoicing in the favour of God.”

We must now bid a final adieu to dear old Kingswood school, the sacred scene of so many Methodistic memories, and turn to other matters connected with the conference of 1783.

The number of members was reported to be 45,955; but all these were Methodists within the limits of the United Kingdom. No account was taken of the 13,740 Methodists in America. No mention was made of Antigua, where nearly 2000 persons had joined John Baxter’s society; and where, in this very year, the first Methodist chapel in the torrid zone was completed.[462]

Nova Scotia also is not noticed; though it had been the scene of a most blessed work, and William Black had written to Wesley, urgently asking him to send them preachers. The following were Wesley’s answers.

“LONDON, February 26, 1783.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I did indeed very strongly expostulate with the Bishop of London, concerning his refusing to ordain a pious man, without learning, while he ordained others that, to my knowledge, had no piety, and but a moderate share of learning.

“Our next conference will begin in July; and I have great hopes, we shall then be able to send you assistance. One of our preachers informs me, he is willing to go to any part of Africa or America. He does not regard danger or toil; nor, indeed, does he count his life dear unto himself, so that he may testify the gospel of the grace of God, and win sinners to Christ. But I cannot advise any person to go alone. Our Lord sent His disciples two and two. And I do not despair of finding another young man, as much devoted to God as he.

“Of Calvinism, mysticism, and antinomianism, have a care; for they are the bane of true religion; and one or other of them has been the grand hindrance of the work of God, wherever it has broke out.

“I am, my dear brother, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[463]

The second letter to William Black was as follows.

“LONDON, July 13, 1783.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is a rule with me, to answer all the letters which I receive. If, therefore, you have not received an answer to every letter which you have written, it must be, either that your letter or my answer has been intercepted.

“I do not wonder at all, that, after that great and extraordinary work of God, there should be a remarkable decay. So we have found it in almost all places. A swift increase is generally followed by a decrease equally swift. All we can do to prevent it, is continually to exhort all who have tasted that the Lord is gracious, to remember our Lord’s words, ‘Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation.’

“The school at Kingswood is exceeding full; nevertheless there shall be room for you. And it is very probable, if you should live to return to Halifax, you may carry one or more preachers with you. I hope you will live as brethren, and have a free and open intercourse with each other.

“I am, my dear brother, affectionately yours,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[464]

Such was the wish of William Black; and such was Wesley’s intention; but it was not until 1785, that Nova Scotia appeared in the minutes of conference as a Methodist circuit. “The harvest truly was great; but the labourers were few.” And yet all that offered were not accepted.

At the conference of 1783, there was present a young Welshman, of middle stature, thin and delicate, with a somewhat elongated face, an eye of genius, and a capacious forehead, who offered himself as an itinerant preacher, but whom Wesley and his brethren, from the delicacy of his health and the feebleness of his voice, thought not equal to the arduous labours of the itinerant office. He had been converted under the preaching of Samuel Bardsley, and, soon after his offer was declined by Wesley, was ordained by Bishop Horsley, and became vicar of Llanbister. The vicarage had a parlour, with a slab stone floor, an open chimney, and a hearth on which burnt a fire of wood and turf. It had a kitchen, and two upper rooms of the same humble character. For many a long year this was the home of the Rev. David Lloyd, “a philosopher, a poet, and a divine,” says Dr. Dixon, “who seemed to enjoy, with unmixed contentment, the inheritance given him by Providence.” For fifty years, his wife was a Methodist, and his parsonage a Methodist preachers’ home. Besides poetical works of considerable merit, the good vicar became the author of a large octavo volume of very valuable essays, entitled “Horæ Theologicæ.”[465] Mr. Lloyd was a perfect enthusiast on the missionary question, and gave a subscription of £10 a year to the Methodist and Church missionary societies respectively; presented each with a donation of £500; and left the residue of his property, after other demands had been satisfied, to be equally divided between these two institutions. He also built a Methodist chapel on his estate, and secured it to the connexion by deed. Thus, as a diligent clergyman of the Church of England, and the friend and host of Methodist preachers, lived and died the good vicar of Llanbister,--a candidate rejected by the conference of 1783.[466]

In the midst of this conference, Wesley was again seized with an alarming illness. Dr. Drummond attended him twice a day. His friends thought, that his end was come; and he himself apprehended that the cramp would probably reach his stomach, and occasion sudden death. “I have been reflecting on my past life”, said he to his faithful nurse, Joseph Bradford; “I have been wandering up and down between fifty and sixty years, endeavouring, in my poor way, to do a little good to my fellow creatures; and, now, it is probable that there are but a few steps between me and death; and what have I to trust to for salvation? I can see nothing which I have done or suffered, that will bear looking at. I have no other plea than this:

‘I the chief of sinners am, But Jesus died for me.’”[467]

For eighteen days, Wesley hung between life and death, when, finding himself somewhat better, and “being,” as he says, “unwilling to be idle,” he spent an hour with the Bristol penitents. The day following, he preached twice, and, the day after that, on Monday, August 25, set out again on his much loved gospel ramblings. Death itself, to Wesley, was more desirable than life without work.

Preaching on his way at Gloucester, Worcester, and Birmingham, he came, on August 29, to Stafford, where he writes: “I preached, for the first time, to a large and deeply attentive congregation. It is now the day of small things here; but the grain of mustard seed may grow up into a great tree.”

Four years before this, Dr. Coke was passing through Stafford, and, while dining at the inn, sent the bellman round to announce to the inhabitants that he would preach in the market place. Jeremiah Brettell, his companion, took a table from the hostelry; the doctor mounted; the people came; all listened with deep attention; and some expressed a wish for the visit to be repeated. Soon after, a little society was formed,[468] which, in 1784, consisted of sixteen members, Henry Robinson being leader.[469]

From Stafford, Wesley made his way to Macclesfield, where he preached twice in the Rev. David Simpson’s church, and had a sacramental service, at which seven hundred communicants were present.

He was now proceeding to Birstal, to effect the settlement with the Birstal chapel trustees, as already related. The journey occupied sixteen days; the distance was five or six hundred miles; according to his wont, he preached all the way there and back; and yet, the old man, who a month before had been on the very verge of death, returned to Bristol on the 13th of September, almost as vigorous as ever.

An unpublished letter, belonging to this period, may be welcome here. It was addressed to John Atlay, his book steward.

“LEEDS, September 3, 1783.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--The schoolmasters for Kingswood are fixed, and expected there every day. Mr. Simpson’s sister is the housekeeper, who is come hither in her way to Bristol. Let no man or woman go to West Street chapel without my appointment. It is a matter of deep concern. The building or not building, at Birstal, does not depend upon me, but the trustees. J. Fenwick is to correct the press chiefly, in the absence of Dr. Coke, and to transcribe tracts for me. And he may receive his little salary, at least, till I return to London.

“I am, with love to sister Atlay, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley remained in the neighbourhood of Bristol till October 6, and employed the interval, not only in preaching, but in begging money to relieve the distresses of the destitute, and in visiting the poor recipients at their own houses. “I was surprised,” says he, “to find no murmuring spirits among them, but many that were truly happy in God; and all of them appeared to be exceeding thankful for the scanty relief which they received.”

No wonder, that such a man was popular; and no wonder, that his presence was a loadstone drawing the poor around him. Sometimes, however, their absence would have been more welcome than their company. A month after this, Wesley was at Norwich, and, when leaving, had a whole host of poverty stricken people about his carriage. His purse was low, containing only what was necessary to take him back to London; and the clamour of the mendicant crowd, for once, disturbed his temper. Somewhat sharply he said: “I have nothing for you. Do you suppose I can support the poor in every place?” At the moment, he was entering his carriage; his foot slipped; and he fell upon the ground. Feeling as though God Himself had rebuked him for his hasty words, he turned to Joseph Bradford, and, with subdued emphasis, remarked: “It is all right, Joseph; it is all right; it is only what I deserved; for if I had no other good to give, I ought, at least, to have given them good words.”[470]

The concluding months of the year were employed, as usual, partly in London, and partly in the surrounding counties.

Considering Wesley’s advanced age, his labours are without parallel. Here we have,--not a man of Herculean frame, big, brawny, and heavy, fed on the daintiest diet, and stimulated with the costliest wines,--but a man small in stature, his weight eight stones and ten pounds (exactly the same as it was fourteen years before), his age eighty, without indulgences, feeding, for eight months in every year, chiefly at the tables of the poor, sleeping on all sorts of beds and in all sorts of rooms, without a wife, without a child, really without a home; and yet a man always cheerful, always happy, always hard at work, flying with all the sprightliness of youth throughout the three kingdoms, preaching twice every day, indoors and out of doors, in churches, chapels, cottages, and sheds, and everywhere superintending the complex and growing interests of the numerous societies which had sprung into buoyant being through the labours of himself and his godly helpers. The man was a marvel, such as the world sees only now and then. Once show him the path of duty, and with a dauntless step he trod it. Nothing frightened him; nothing could allure from the post assigned to him by Providence. However arduous the work, and however great the privations and the dangers, if his Master bid him go, he went, trusting in his Master’s power for defence and help. “My brother Charles,” he once remarked, “amid the difficulties of our early ministry, used to say: ‘If the Lord would give me wings, I would fly.’ I used to answer, ‘If the Lord bid me fly, I would trust Him for the wings.’”[471]

One of the last acts of this youthful octogenarian, in 1783, was to pay a pastoral visit to another of the most remarkable men of that period,--Dr. Samuel Johnson, who was now suffering his last illness, and died twelve months afterwards.

Wesley’s publications, in 1783, were the following.

1. “The Spirit of Prayer.” 24 pages, 12mo.

2. “Baxter’s Call to the Unconverted.” 76 pages, 12mo.

3. “The Important Question. A Sermon. By John Wesley.” 23 pages, 12mo.

Besides these, Wesley also published many new editions of former tracts, for the use of his recently instituted tract society, most of these reissues having upon the title page, “This tract is not to be sold, but given away.”

His principal publication, however, was his Arminian Magazine, and this was as vigorously conducted as before. Again, we have half-a-dozen original sermons, by Wesley himself, all of them remarkable, and among the most able that he ever published. These include his two discourses on good and fallen angels; in which he propounds the doctrine, that good angels minister to our happiness, by assisting us in our searches after truth, by preserving us in danger, by dreams, etc.: and that all evil angels are united under one common head; and are often the authors of accidents, diseases, fires, storms, and earthquakes. Then there is his elaborate sermon on “The Mystery of Iniquity,” in which he expresses the opinion, that the “greatest blow that genuine Christianity ever received was when Constantine the Great called himself a Christian, and poured in a flood of riches, honours, and power upon the Christians, more especially upon the clergy.” Next we have his curious homily on the Spread of Christianity, where he hazards the conjecture that truth will be transmitted from this nation to that, until at last it reaches the South Sea islands. And, finally, there are his characteristic sermons on Family Religion, and on Training Children. As usual, every number of the magazine has an article on the Calvinian controversy. Biographical accounts are still numerous. Extracts from his own Natural Philosophy, and from Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, form a part of each of the twelve numbers; as do also Benson’s letters in reply to Madan’s treatise on polygamy; likewise extracts from Dr. Hilldrop’s able “Thoughts on the Brute Creation,” professedly to prove a theory which Wesley liked, the ultimate restoration of the brute creation; and a series of profoundly thoughtful articles on “The True Original of the Soul.” Nine numbers have extracts from Baxter’s “Certainty of the World of Spirits, fully evinced by unquestionable Histories of Apparitions and Witchcrafts.” There are forty-five letters; forty-one poems; and a number of portraits, including those of John Hampson and William Thom, both of whom left the Methodist connexion. There are also long continued extracts from Bryant’s Analysis of Ancient Mythology, which Wesley pronounces to be “one of the most remarkable books, in its kind, which has been published for centuries.” And, finally, there are Wesley’s “Thoughts on the Writings of Baron Swedenborg.” The baron, a little before he died, presented Wesley with his last and largest theological work, the “True Christian Religion”; but he failed to make a convert of him. Wesley believed him to be insane, and traced his insanity to a fever, which he had in London, when “he ran into the street stark naked, proclaimed himself the Messiah, and rolled himself in the mire.” He was a “fine genius,--majestic though in ruins.”

FOOTNOTES:

[444] The Wesleyan, Sept. 9, 1846.

[445] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiv., p. 343.

[446] Manuscript letter.

[447] Mrs. Rogers’ Life, p. 473.

[448] Life of Brooke, p. 100.

[449] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 141.

[450] Methodist Magazine, 1851, p. 313.

[451] The Fergusons, father and son, were notable persons. Mr. Ferguson, sen., was a well known local preacher for upwards of sixty years; Jonathan, his son, was a friend, and sometimes the travelling companion, of John Howard the philanthropist. He was a hearty Methodist, a happy Christian, and, at the age of eighty, died a triumphant death, at Islington, in 1844.--(Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 292.)

[452] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 358.

[453] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 60.

[454] Ibid. p. 60.

[455] Simpson was a man of learning and piety, but too easy for his situation. On leaving Kingswood, he wished to become an itinerant preacher, but set up a school at Keynsham, where his son ultimately was made vicar. Bayley was a good Hebrew scholar, became a doctor of divinity, had a church, St. James’s, built for him in Manchester, and was highly respected for his piety, usefulness, and high church principles. De Boudry began a school on Kingsdown, Bristol, and long bore the character of a pious, steady, honest man. Bond was affectionate, but not talented, and aspired to become a clergyman. Such is the testimony of Adam Clarke; and it is only fair to give it as a counterpoise to the discreditable state of the Kingswood school committed to their care.

[456] Minutes of Conference, 1783.

[457] “Life of Adam Clarke,” in three vols., 1833, vol. i., pp. 153-168.

[458] Methodist Magazine, 1788, p. 1.

[459] Manuscript letter.

[460] Methodist Magazine, 1817, p. 324.

[461] Methodist Magazine, 1817, p. 324.

[462] Coke’s Life, by Drew, p. 167.

[463] Black’s Memoirs, p. 99.

[464] Black’s Memoirs, p. 109.

[465] Methodist Magazine, 1816, p. 832.

[466] Methodist Magazine, 1863, sixpenny edition, p. 1.

[467] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 389.

[468] Methodist Magazine, 1830, p. 657.

[469] The names were: Henry Robinson, Mary Robinson, Charles Machin, John Smith, Ann Stockdale, William Holding, Sarah Holding, John Rowland, Sarah Jervis, Thomas Smith, Elizabeth Smith, John Ward, Ann Ward, John Kelsall, Thomas Elley, and William Freepound.--(Burslem old circuit book.)

[470] Everett’s Life of Clarke.

[471] Methodist Magazine, 1825, p. 390.

1784. Age 81

Dr. Whitehead calls the year 1784 “the grand climacteric year of Methodism, because of the changes which now took place in the form of its original constitution. Not,” says he, “that these changes destroyed at once the original constitution of Methodism; but the seeds of its corruption and final dissolution were this year solemnly planted, and have since been carefully watered and nursed by a powerful party among the preachers.”[472] The doctor was an able man; but he can scarcely be called a prophet. Of course, he refers to Wesley’s deed of declaration, and Wesley’s ordination of bishops for America; both of which must have due attention, before we conclude the present year.

Wesley himself, according to his own correspondence, seemed to grow younger as he grew older. In a letter to “the Rev. Walter Sellon, at Ledsham, near Ferrybridge, Yorkshire,” and dated, “London, January 10, 1784,” he writes:

“On the 28th of last June, I finished my eightieth year. When I was young, I had weak eyes, trembling hands, and abundance of infirmities. But, by the blessing of God, I have outlived them all. I have no infirmities now, but what I judge to be inseparable from flesh and blood. This hath God wrought. I am afraid you want the grand medicine which I use,--exercise and change of air.”[473]

On the same day, he wrote another letter, now also, like the former, for the first time published. Methodism had recently been introduced, by a company of soldiers, into the Channel islands; and Mr. Robert Carr Brackenbury, with his servant, Alexander Kilham, had gone to promote its interests. The letter was addressed, “Robert Carr Brackenbury, Esq., in St. Heliers, Isle of Jersey.”

“LONDON, January 10, 1784.

“DEAR SIR,--While those poor sheep were scattered abroad, without any shepherd, and without any connection with each other, it is no wonder that they were cold and dead. I am glad you have gathered a few of them together, and, surely, if prayer be made concerning it, God will provide you with a convenient place to meet in. Perhaps an application to the gentlemen, who have hired the ballroom, might not be without success.

“’Tis pity but you had the ‘Earnest Appeal’ to present to the governor, as well as the minister. I trust both you and our newly connected brethren will overcome evil with good. We can easily print the rules here, and send them down with some other books. ’Tis good that every one should know our whole plan. We do not want any man to go on blindfold. Peace be with your spirit!

“I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend,

“J. WESLEY.”

The first two months of 1784 were chiefly spent in London, with the exception of a flying visit to Colchester, and another to Nottingham; Wesley’s errand to the last mentioned place being to “preach a charity sermon for the general hospital.” He had a grand covenant service in City Road chapel, attended by upwards of eighteen hundred people. He took counsel with the London preachers, as to the desirability of the Methodists sending missionaries to India. He read “Orlando Furioso,” and says, “Ariosto had, doubtless, an uncommon genius, and subsequent poets have been greatly indebted to him; yet, it is hard to say, which was the most out of his senses, the hero or the poet. He has not the least regard even to probability; his marvellous transcends all conception. Who, that is not himself out of his senses, would compare Ariosto with Tasso?”

On the 1st of March, the venerable Wesley,--as agile as a boy, above fourscore years of age, and yet reading the Italian poet with all the zest of a youth still at school,--set out on a seven months’ journey, first to Bristol, then to Scotland, then to Leeds, then through Wales to the west of England, and then to London, which he reached on October 9. With a hasty step, we must try to follow him.

Wesley, as opportunity permitted, “intermeddled with all wisdom,” and, to the end of life, showed, that a man is never too old to learn. At Bradford, in Wiltshire, he says: “I was convinced of two vulgar errors; the one, that nightingales will not live in cages; the other, that they only sing a month or two in the year. Samuel Rayner has now three nightingales in cages; and they sing almost all day long, from November to August.”

At Stroud, he wrote: “Here, to my surprise, I found the morning preaching was given up, as also in the neighbouring places. If this be the case while I am alive, what must it be when I am gone? Give up this, and Methodism too will degenerate into a mere sect, only distinguished by some opinions and modes of worship.”

Wesley considered, that preaching at five o’clock in the morning was the healthiest exercise in the world; and probably he was not far from being right. But besides this, these early matutinal services had now, for five-and-forty years, been one of the things which made the Methodists “a peculiar people,” as well as “zealous of good works.” No other church or community, in England, had a service like this. It was a religious ordinance which Wesley dearly loved. In thousands of instances, he and his friends had proved the words, “Those that seek Me early shall find Me.” No wonder then, that he evinced alarm when he found the Methodists giving up the morning services. Three weeks after he was at backslidden Stroud, he came to Chester, and expressed himself in the strongest terms on this subject. He writes:

“I was surprised, when I came to Chester, to find that there also morning preaching was quite left off, for this worthy reason: ‘Because the people will not come, or, at least, not in the winter.’ If so, the Methodists are a fallen people. Here is proof. They have ‘lost their first love’; and they never will or can recover it, till they ‘do the first works.’ As soon as I set foot in Georgia, I began preaching at five in the morning; and every communicant, that is, every serious person in the town, constantly attended throughout the year; I mean, came every morning, winter and summer, unless in the case of sickness. They did so till I left the province. In the year 1738, when God began His great work in England, I began preaching at the same hour, winter and summer, and never wanted a congregation. If they will not attend now, they have lost their zeal; and then, it cannot be denied, they are a fallen people. And, in the meantime, we are labouring to secure the preaching houses to the next generation! In the name of God, let us, if possible, secure the present generation from drawing back to perdition! Let all the preachers, that are still alive to God, join together as one man, fast and pray, lift up their voice as a trumpet, be instant, in season, out of season, to convince them that are fallen; and exhort them instantly to ‘repent, and do the first works’: this in particular,--rising in the morning, without which neither their souls nor bodies can long remain in health.”

Perhaps this was looking at the thing too seriously. That early morning service is highly profitable cannot reasonably be called in question; but, that it should begin at the hour of five may fairly be disputed. Early risers are persons to be envied; they breathe the purest air, listen to the sweetest songs, and have promptings to worship God that the sluggard never feels.

At Tewkesbury, Wesley had to correct the “impropriety of standing at prayer, and sitting while singing praise.” At Worcester, he “preached, to a crowded audience, in St. Andrew’s church.” At Madeley, he preached twice in the parish church, revised the vicar’s letters to Dr. Priestley, and declared, that there was hardly another man in England, so fit to encounter the great Socinian philosopher as his friend from the mountains of Switzerland. At Stafford, he preached, to “a small company, in a deplorable hole, formerly a stable.” At Lane End, near Newcastle under Lyne, in the face of one of the most piercing winds of the month of March, he preached, by moonlight, in the open air, the congregation being four times larger than the chapel could contain. At Burslem, also, for the same reason, he was obliged to abandon the chapel for the field. At Manchester, on Easter Sunday, he had “near a thousand communicants”; Thomas Taylor says, twelve hundred.[474]

Thus he employed himself all the way to Whitehaven, where he “had all the church ministers” to hear him, “and most of the gentry in the town”; and, to his evident surprise, “they all behaved with as much decency as if they had been colliers.” At Edinburgh, he writes: “I am amazed at this people. Use the most cutting words, and apply them in the most pointed manner, still they hear, but feel no more than the seats they sit upon.” Throughout Scotland, morning preaching and prayer-meetings had almost vanished. “At Aberdeen,” he writes, “I talked largely with the preachers, and showed them the hurt it did both to them and the people, for any one preacher to stay six or eight weeks together in one place. Neither can he find matter for preaching every morning and evening, nor will the people come to hear him. Hence, he grows cold by lying in bed, and so do the people. Whereas, if he never stays more than a fortnight together in one place, he may find matter enough, and the people will gladly hear him. The preachers immediately drew up such a plan for this circuit, which they determined to pursue.”

From Aberdeen, Wesley went, by invitation, to Lady Banff’s at Old Meldrum, where he preached twice; and thence to Keith, where he had a congregation to his heart’s content, all the people poor, and “not a silk coat among them.” At Forres, he was the guest of Sir Lodowick Grant. In making his way to Inverness, by the mistake of his coachman, he had to trudge, through heavy rain, twelve miles and a half on foot, but says, he “was no more tired” than when he first set out. At Elgin, he preached in the church, and significantly remarks: “I do not despair of good being done even here, provided the preachers be ‘sons of thunder.’” At Newburgh, he found “the liveliest society in the kingdom.” At Melval House, “the grand and beautiful seat of Lord Leven,” he was hospitably entertained by the countess and her family, and, at their desire, preached from, “It is appointed unto men once to die.” Here, also, he wrote his “Thoughts on Nervous Disorders.” His next halting place was at Lady Maxwell’s, “who appeared to be clearly saved from sin, although exceedingly depressed by the tottering tenement of clay.”

After thus visiting most of the important towns in Scotland, Wesley reached Newcastle, where, on Whitsunday, he preached thrice to large congregations. A week later, he again set out, on his unwearied mission; and, at Stockton, “found an uncommon work of God among the children,” upwards of sixty of whom, from the age of “six to fourteen, were under serious impressions, and earnestly desirous to save their souls.” He writes: “As soon as I came down from the desk, I was enclosed by a body of children; all of whom sunk down upon their knees: so I kneeled down myself, and began praying for them.” Beautiful picture this, well worth painting! No wonder that he adds: “abundance of people ran back into the house. The fire kindled, and ran from heart to heart, till few, if any, were unaffected. Is not this a new thing in the earth? God begins His work in children. Thus it has been also in Cornwall, Manchester, and Epworth. Thus the flame spreads to those of riper years; till at length they all know Him, and praise Him from the least unto the greatest.”

Having visited the “dales,” Darlington, Northallerton, Thirsk, Osmotherley, and other places, he made his way to Whitby, where he wrote: “The society here may be a pattern to all in England. They despise all ornaments but good works, together with a meek and quiet spirit. I did not see a ruffle, no, nor a fashionable cap among them; though many of them are in easy circumstances. About forty had a clear witness of being saved from inbred sin; and seemed to walk in the full light of God’s countenance.”

At Scarborough, Wesley attended church, and was regaled with one of the bitterest sermons he ever heard. “So,” says he, “all I have done, to persuade the people to attend the church, is overturned at once! And all who preach thus will drive the Methodists from the church, in spite of all that I can do.” Two years after this, in a letter to his brother, he wrote: “The last time I was at Scarborough, I earnestly exhorted our people to go to church; and I went myself. But the wretched minister preached such a sermon, that I could not in conscience advise them to hear him any more.”[475]

From Scarborough, Wesley proceeded along the east coast to Hull; thence to Pocklington and York; and thence to Epworth, where he spent his birthday, and preached in the market place of the town, whose church, for nine-and-thirty years, had been blessed with the able and faithful ministry of his honoured father. He writes: “June 28--To-day I entered on my eighty-second year, and found myself just as strong to labour, and as fit for any exercise of body or mind, as I was forty years ago. I do not impute this to second causes, but to the sovereign Lord of all. It is He who bids the sun of life stand still, so long as it pleaseth Him. I am as strong at eighty-one, as I was at twenty-one; but abundantly more healthy, being a stranger to the headache, toothache, and other bodily disorders which attended me in my youth. We can only say, ‘The Lord reigneth!’ While we live, let us live to Him!”

Having spent a week in visiting the Lincolnshire societies, Wesley proceeded to various towns in the west riding of Yorkshire; and thence, for the first time, to Burnley. He writes: “Burnley had been tried for many years, but without effect. Now, high and low, rich and poor, flocked together from all quarters; and all were eager to hear, except one man, who was the town crier. He began to bawl amain, till his wife ran to him, and literally stopped his noise; she seized him with one hand, and clapped the other upon his mouth, so that he could not get out one word. God then began a work, which, I am persuaded, will not soon come to an end.” Wesley’s words were verified.

Thomas Dixon, who was appointed to the Colne circuit in 1784, remarks, in his unpublished diary: “The work of God at Burnley was very young; but many, during this year, were converted. The great men of the place were angry, and agreed to banish the Methodist preachers from the town. The proprietor of the preaching house sent us notice to quit the premises; and the rest of the gentlemen pledged themselves not to let us have another. But about a month before the expiration of the notice, the Lord converted a man, who had a house of his own, which he opened to the preachers; and now we had a better preaching place than we had before. Soon after a chapel was erected.” One of the first members was John Eagin, who, for fifty years, maintained an unspotted character; and died, in 1836, saying, “I am happy.”[476]

Leaving Burnley, Wesley went to Otley, where, marvellous to relate! he had a two days’ rest. He then, on July 18, preached twice in Bingley church, a great part of his congregation being obliged to stand outside. He writes: “Before service, I stepped into the Sunday-school, which contains two hundred and forty children, taught every Sunday by several masters, and superintended by the curate. So many children, in one parish, are restrained from open sin, and taught a little good manners, at least, as well as to read the Bible. I find these schools springing up wherever I go. Perhaps God may have a deeper end therein, than men are aware of. Who knows but some of these schools may become nurseries for Christians?”

This is Wesley’s first notice of Sunday-schools. Though such schools had long existed in a few isolated cases, it was not until now that they attracted public attention. Miss Ball’s Methodist Sunday-school at High Wycombe has been already mentioned; and it has also been stated, that Miss Cooke, a Methodist young lady (afterwards the wife of Samuel Bradburn), was the first to suggest to Robert Raikes the idea of instituting a Sunday-school at Gloucester. Raikes commenced that school about the year 1783. At all events, his account of it was dated Gloucester, June 5, 1784, and was published in the January number of Wesley’s Arminian Magazine, for 1785, with the title, “An Account of the Sunday Charity Schools, lately begun in various parts of England.” Wesley was one of the first to catch and patronise the Sunday-school idea. At Bingley, he visited the school before preaching in the church, and gave to Sunday-schools one of their happiest designations, “nurseries for Christians.” Similar institutions had been begun in Leeds, where Wesley was about to hold his conference. The town was already divided into seven divisions; and had twenty-six schools, containing above two thousand scholars, taught by forty-five masters. Each school commenced at one o’clock in the afternoon, the children being taught reading, writing, and religion. At three, they were taken to their respective churches; then conducted back to school, where a portion of some useful book was read, a psalm sung, and the whole concluded with a form of prayer, composed and printed for that purpose. Boys and girls were kept separate. There were four “inquisitors,” persons whose office it was to spend Sunday afternoon in visiting the twenty-six schools, to ascertain who were absent, and then in seeking the absentees at their homes or in the public streets. The masters were mostly pious men, and were paid from one to two shillings a Sunday for their services, according to their respective qualifications. Each had a written list of his scholars’ names, which he was required to call over, every Sunday, at half-past one, and half-past five. Five clergymen visited the schools, and gave addresses; and the expenses of the first year, ending in July 1784, were about £234.

Such were the Sunday-schools at Leeds when Wesley, for the first time, visited one in the neighbouring town of Bingley. Manchester also had taken up Raikes’ Methodist idea; and, on the 1st of August, 1784, Wesley’s old friend, the Rev. Cornelius Bayley, D.D., who for ten years had been one of the masters of Kingswood school, but was now an ordained clergyman in this important city, published an “Address to the Public on Sunday-Schools,” in which he gave an account of the schools at Leeds, and urged the men of Manchester to copy so excellent an example. Bayley’s address produced a powerful effect; the magistrates patronised his scheme; and the result was, that Cornelius Bayley, D.D., the quondam Methodist, and master of Wesley’s Kingswood school, became one of the chief, though not only, instruments of establishing Sunday-schools in Manchester and its neighbourhood.[477]

After visiting some of the intermediate towns and villages, Wesley arrived at Leeds, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He writes:

“July 25, Sunday--I preached to several thousands at Birstal, and to, at least, as many at Leeds. July 27, Tuesday--Our conference began; at which four of our brethren, after long debate (in which Mr. Fletcher took much pains) acknowledged their fault, and all that was past was forgotten. July 29, Thursday--Being the public thanksgiving day, as there was not room for us in the old church, I read prayers, as well as preached, at our room. Having five clergymen to assist me, we administered the Lord’s supper, as was supposed, to sixteen or seventeen hundred persons. August 1, Sunday--We were fifteen clergymen at the old church. August 3, Tuesday--Our conference concluded in much love, to the great disappointment of all.”

Such are Wesley’s brief notices of this momentous conference. Some additional incidents must be added. The war of American independence was now ended, and the day of public thanksgiving had reference to that event. In the morning, at five, Thomas Hanby preached from, “My grace is sufficient for thee.” Wesley’s text, previous to the almost unparalleled sacramental service, was 1 Corinthians xiii. 1-4. The five clergymen who assisted him were Messrs. Coke, Fletcher, Dillon, Bayley, and Simpson. In the afternoon, the business of the conference was resumed; and, at night, Wesley preached again, taking as his text, “This is the first and great commandment.” Altogether, Wesley preached not fewer than eight times during this important session, besides regulating the ticklish and difficult business that had to be transacted.[478]

The “long debate,” which Wesley mentions, had reference to the deed of declaration, which must now have the best attention that space permits us to give it.

At an early period of his history, Wesley published a model deed for the settlement of chapels, to the effect, that the trustees, for the time being, should permit Wesley himself and such other persons as he might, from time to time, appoint, to have the free use of such premises, to preach therein God’s holy word. In case of his death, the same right was secured to his brother; and providing that his brother’s decease occurred before that of William Grimshaw, the same prerogatives were to belong to the last mentioned. After the death of the three clergymen, the chapels were to be held, in trust, for the sole use of such persons as might be appointed at the yearly conference of the people called Methodists, provided, that the said persons preached no other doctrines than those contained in Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament, and in his four volumes of sermons.[479]

Thus the matter stood in 1784. According to Myles’ Chronological History, there were, at this time, in the United Kingdom, three hundred and fifty-nine Methodist chapels; and it may be fairly presumed, that most of these were settled substantially according to the provisions of the deed above mentioned.

Here it may be asked, what necessity was there for a further deed? The answer is, that, as yet, there was no legal definition of what was meant by the term “conference of the people called Methodists.” To supply this defect, Wesley, on the 28th of February, 1784, executed his famous deed of declaration, which, a few days afterwards, was enrolled in the high court of chancery. To use the language of the deed itself, its object was “to explain the words, ‘yearly conference of the people called Methodists,’ and to declare what persons are members of the said conference, and how the succession and identity thereof is to be continued.”

The document proceeds to state, that the said conference had always consisted of Methodist preachers whom Wesley had annually invited to meet him for the following purposes: namely, to advise with him for the promotion of the gospel of Christ; to appoint the said preachers, and other preachers and exhorters in connection with him, to the use and enjoyment of chapels conveyed upon trust as aforesaid; to expel unworthy preachers; and to admit others on probation.

The deed then gives the names and addresses of one hundred preachers, who are now declared to be the members of the said conference; and proceeds to state (1) That they and their successors, for the time being for ever, shall assemble once a year. (2) That the act of the majority shall be the act of the whole. (3) That their first business, when they assemble, shall be to fill up vacancies. (4) That no act of the conference assembled shall be valid unless forty of its members are present. (5) That the duration of the yearly conference shall not be less than five days, nor more than three weeks. (6) That, immediately after filling up vacancies, they shall choose a president and secretary of their assembly out of themselves. (7) That any member of the conference, absenting himself from the yearly assembly thereof for two years successively, without the consent or dispensation of the conference, and who is not present on the first day of the third yearly assembly thereof, shall forthwith cease to be a member, as though he were naturally dead. (8) That the conference shall and may expel any member thereof, or any person admitted into connection therewith, for any cause which to the conference may seem fit or necessary. (9) That they may admit into connection with them any person, of whom they approve, to be preachers of God’s holy word, under the care and direction of the conference. (10) That no person shall be elected a member of the conference, who has not been admitted into connection with the conference, as a preacher, for twelve months. (11) That the conference shall not appoint any person to the use of a chapel or chapels, who is not either a member of the conference, or admitted into connection with the same, or upon trial; and that no person shall be appointed for more than three years successively, except ordained ministers of the Church of England. (12) That the conference may appoint the place of holding the yearly assembly thereof, at any other town, or city, than London, Bristol, or Leeds. (13) That the conference may, when it shall seem expedient, send any of its members as delegates to Ireland, or other parts out of the kingdom of Great Britain, to act on its behalf, and with all the powers of the conference itself. (14) That all resolutions and acts whatsoever of the conference shall be written in the journals of the conference, and be signed by the president and secretary thereof for the time being. (15) That whenever the conference shall be reduced under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced for three years successively; or whenever the members thereof shall decline or neglect to meet together annually during the space of three years, the conference of the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and all its powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease. (16) That nothing in this deed shall extinguish or lessen the life estate of the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, in any of the chapels in which they now have, or may have, any estate or interest, power or authority whatsoever.

Such was Wesley’s deed of declaration,--a deed recognised in the trust deeds of all the chapels that Methodism builds; and, hence, a deed investing a hundred Methodist preachers with the unexampled power of determining, irrespective of trustees, societies, and congregations, who shall be the officiating ministers in the thousands of chapels occupied by Methodist societies at home and abroad, throughout the United Kingdom and throughout the world. We repeat, this is an unexampled power; and the ministers, invested with it, ought to feel, that they have a corresponding responsibility to God and to His church. High is the honour; the responsibility is fearful. If Methodism should ever fail in its duty, or fall to pieces, they, above all men else, must bear the blame.

We purposely refrain from raising the vexed question about the kind of church government, involved in this great settlement; and proceed to notice the history of the deed of declaration, up to the time of its being signed on February 28, 1784.

Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, states that, from the year 1750, all Methodist chapels were settled according to the provisions of the model deed that has been already mentioned; but several of the “wisest and best preachers” were not satisfied, and, from time to time, brought up the matter at the yearly conferences, and earnestly urged Wesley to do something more to preserve the chapels for the purpose which the original builders intended. Wesley replied, that the trust deed in itself was quite sufficient; that it had been drawn up by three of the most eminent counsellors in London; and that, even supposing there might be some defect in it, no one would be so mad as to go to law with an entire body of people like the Methodists. Such reasoning failed to satisfy the preachers, especially Messrs. Hampson and Oddie, both of whom, says Pawson, “were men of remarkably deep understanding and sound judgment.” At length, Wesley began to yield to the pressure that was brought upon him; and various schemes were propounded to accomplish the purpose upon which men like Hampson and Oddie had set their hearts. One was to consolidate all the chapels in the connexion into a general trust, the trustees to be chosen out of all the large societies throughout the three kingdoms. Another was to have all the chapel deeds brought to London, and deposited in a strong box, to be provided for the purpose; and, in execution of this project, many were actually sent, and some were thereby lost. All this occurred previous to Dr. Coke’s uniting himself with Wesley; and, from Pawson’s testimony, we now turn to that of Coke.

In his “Address to the Methodist Society in Great Britain and Ireland, on the Settlement of Preaching Houses,” Coke relates that, at the conference of 1782, the preachers seemed to be universally alarmed at the danger arising from the want of a legal definition of what was meant by the term, “the conference of the people called Methodists”; and unanimously wished some method to be taken to remove a danger which appeared to them to be pregnant with evils of the first magnitude. In consequence of this, Coke took the opinion of Mr. Maddox, one of the first counsel of the day, and ascertained, that the law would not recognise the conference, without some further definition; and, consequently, that there was nothing to preserve the Methodist connexion from being shivered into a thousand fragments after Wesley’s death. To prevent this, Mr. Maddox advised, that Wesley should execute a deed, specifying the persons by name who composed the conference, together with the mode of succession for its perpetuity. Dr. Coke read Mr. Maddox’s opinion to the conference of 1783; and the whole conference expressed their wish that such a deed should be drawn up and executed. Coke immediately set to work, and, with the assistance of Mr. Clulow, a solicitor, and Mr. Maddox, the barrister, a draft of the deed was carefully prepared, and submitted to Wesley for his approval. Coke’s opinion was, that every preacher, in full connexion, should have his name inserted; and that admission into full connexion should, in the future, be looked upon as admission into membership with the conference. Wesley demurred to this, and determined to limit the number of members to one hundred, and, without any advice from Coke, made his own selections. In this form, the deed was executed; and Coke sent copies of it to all the assistants of circuits throughout the United Kingdom.[480]

We believe that this is, substantially, all that can be said respecting the origin of what has been termed Methodism’s Magna Charta.

What was the result? There were, at the conference of 1783, one hundred and ninety-two preachers appointed to sixty-nine circuits, throughout the three kingdoms. We have no hesitancy in saying, that we think it would have been wise to have inserted the names of the whole of these in the deed of declaration, with the exception of twenty-two, who were still on trial, and not admitted into full connexion. All seemed to have an equal right to this; and, thereby, all would have been satisfied. Instead of this, Wesley proceeded to the invidious task of selecting a hundred, and rejecting ninety-two. It was a perilous experiment; and the peril was augmented by the mode in which the experiment was made. For instance, sixteen were elected who had travelled less than four years; whereas among the rejected were the following.

Thomas Lee travelled 36 years. John Atlay ” 21 ” Joseph Thompson ” 25 ” John Poole ” 25 ” William Ashman ” 19 ” Jonathan Hern ” 15 ” William Eels ” 12 ” Thomas Mitchell ” 36 ” Joseph Pilmoor ” 19 ”

Besides, where was the fairness of choosing and refusing the following preachers, who, at the time, were colleagues in the same circuit?

_Names of _Years Names of Rejected. Years Chosen. standing. standing. Joshua Keighley 3 William Horner 13 Joseph Cole 3 Simon Day 17 Jonathan Cousins 3 Robert Empringham 21 William Green 3 John Hampson, sen. 31 Joseph Taylor 6 John Wittam 16 William Hoskins 1 John Watson 12 William Myles 6 ⎧ John Hampson, jun. 6 ⎩ George Snowden 14 William Simpson 4 Thomas Johnson 31 James Wray 2 Thomas Wride 15 Henry Foster 3 George Mowat 13

Wesley doubtless had a right to make any selection that he liked; but those who were not selected had an equal right to grumble; and we are not surprised that, sooner or later, not fewer than nearly thirty of the rejected withdrew from the connexion altogether.

John Pawson writes:

“Mr. Wesley, designedly or otherwise, left out the names of several of the old and respectable preachers; and these good men were exceedingly grieved and not without reason. Many of the trustees also were alarmed, thinking that we wished to make the chapels our own property; but nothing of the kind was ever contemplated. The one design of the deed, to my certain knowledge, was to prevent any preacher, who might be inclined to settle, from taking possession of any of our chapels. The preachers, whose names were inserted in the deed, so far from being desirous to be distinguished above their brethren, very cheerfully complied with Mr. Wesley’s desire, and gave up every privilege granted to them in the deed, except that of electing their own president and secretary, which appears to me to be a matter of little consequence.”[481]

There can be no question, that the deed of declaration occasioned great excitement. John Hampson, jun., says:

“Every itinerant had always considered himself as a member of conference; and, hence, when the ninety-one, who were to be excluded, saw the deed, it was with astonishment and indignation. The injustice of the thing stared them in the face; and they found that, in consenting to such a deed, they had consented, that all the affairs of the connexion should be lodged in the hundred mentioned in the declaration; that they should be the lords and rulers of the rest; and should have it in their power to turn any other preacher out of the conference, and tell him he had no business there. The exclusion itself was both an iniquitous and a mortifying measure. But the partiality of it rendered it still more oppressive. Some of the oldest and ablest preachers, in the connexion, were excluded. Many of the selected members were not only deficient in abilities, but some of them, at the time of their insertion in the deed, were only upon trial; while the chief qualifications of others were ignorance, fanaticism, and ductility. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder if the persons excluded thought themselves aggrieved. They were really so, and they made no scruple to declare their sentiments. They sent circular letters, inviting all the preachers to canvass the business at the ensuing conference; and a large number assembled. Many of them were as averse to the deed, as those who had so decidedly opposed it, and had repeatedly execrated the measure, both by letter and in conversation; but they had not the courage to avow their sentiments in conference. Mr. Wesley made a speech, and invited all who were of his mind to stand up. They all rose to a man. The five were found guilty, and it was unanimously determined, that they should either make concessions or be dismissed. Urged by the entreaties of Mr. Fletcher, and anxious for the restoration of peace, the preachers in the opposition apologised to Mr. Wesley, for printing the circular letter, without having first appealed to conference.”[482]

Such, in substance, and omitting acrid comments, is the account given by John Hampson, jun.; and there can be little doubt that, in the main, it is quite correct. The printed circular he mentions was issued by his father, and was entitled, “An Appeal to the Reverend John and Charles Wesley; to all the preachers who act in connection with them; and to every member of their respective societies in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America.”[483] Another circular was drawn up by James Oddie, in the form of a petition to Wesley and the legalised conference, to the effect, that the preachers, whose names had been inserted in the deed, would sign an agreement that, at the death of Wesley, they would refrain from taking any advantage of their position, but would invite the excluded to their first conference, and would treat them, in all respects, as equals. This was first suggested by Robert Oastler, of Thirsk; and was widely circulated, and received with favour;[484] and, perhaps, it was this that evoked the following letter, which was written on April 7, 1785, and entrusted to Joseph Bradford, to deliver to the conference, at their first meeting after the writer’s death.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Some of our travelling preachers have expressed a fear, that, after my decease, you would exclude them, either from preaching in connection with you, or from some other privileges which they now enjoy. I know no other way to prevent any such inconvenience, than to leave these my last words with you.

“I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you never avail yourselves of the deed of declaration, to assume any superiority over your brethren; but let all things go on, among those itinerants who choose to remain together, exactly in the same manner as when I was with you, so far as circumstances will permit.

“In particular, I beseech you, if you ever loved me, and if you now love God and your brethren, to have no respect of persons in stationing the preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood school, in disposing of the yearly contribution and the preachers’ fund, or any other of the public money; but do all things with a single eye, as I have done from the beginning. Go on thus, doing all things without prejudice or partiality, and God will be with you even to the end.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[485]

This was a serious crisis in the history of Methodism. Fortunately, it passed over without any other immediate consequences than the retirement of the five principal opponents to the deed of declaration, namely, the two Hampsons, Joseph Pilmoor, William Eels, and John Atlay. Considerable excitement, however, existed; and, in the spring of 1785, Wesley found it desirable to write his “Thoughts upon some late Occurrences.” He gives the history of the origin of his conferences; and states that the term conference meant not so much conversation, as the persons that conferred, that it had become necessary to define the term, and that, at the conference of 1783, he had been requested to fix the determinate meaning of the word. He accordingly took counsel’s opinion how to act, and was advised to execute a deed of declaration. At first, he thought of naming only ten or twelve; but, on second thoughts, he believed there would be more safety in a greater number of counsellors, and, therefore, named a hundred; as many as, he judged, could meet without too great expense, and without leaving any circuit without preachers while the conference assembled. He adds:

“In naming these preachers, as I had no adviser, so I had no respect of persons; but I simply set down those that, according to the best of my judgment, were most proper. But I am not infallible. I might mistake, and think better of some than they deserved. However, I did my best; if I did wrong, it was not the error of my will, but of my judgment.

“This was the rise, and this the nature, of that famous deed of declaration,--that vile, wicked deed, concerning which you have heard such an outcry! And now, can any one tell me how to mend it, or how it could have been made better? ‘O yes. You might have inserted two hundred, as well as one hundred, preachers.’ No; for then the expense of meeting would have been double, and all the circuits would have been without preachers. ‘But you might have named other preachers instead of these.’ True, if I had thought as well of them as they did of themselves. But I did not: therefore, I could do no otherwise than I did, without sinning against God and my own conscience.

“‘But what need was there for any deed at all?’ There was the utmost need of it; without some authentic deed fixing the meaning of the term, the moment I died, the conference had been nothing. Therefore, any of the proprietors of the land on which our preaching houses were built might have seized them for their own use; and there would have been none to hinder them; for the conference would have been nobody, a mere empty name.

“You see then, in all the pains I have taken about this absolutely necessary deed, I have been labouring, not for myself (I have no interest therein), but for the whole body of Methodists; in order to fix them upon such a foundation as is likely to stand as long as the sun and moon endure. That is, if they continue to walk by faith, and to show forth their faith by their works; otherwise, I pray God to root out the memorial of them from the earth.

“JOHN WESLEY.[486] “PLYMOUTH DOCK, March 3, 1785.”

We have done. All the facts, within our knowledge, have been given. The reader must form his own opinion. Comment would be easy; but we purposely refrain; only adding, that, by Wesley’s famous deed of declaration, the Methodist conference became a legally incorporated institution; and that, without this, the Methodist itinerancy must have ceased, and Methodism itself have been broken up into congregational churches.

We must now advert to another matter, which, if not of equal, was of great importance, namely, the episcopal organisation of the Methodist societies in America. This has been the subject of bewildering controversy for more than eighty years. Wesley and Coke have been bitterly assailed, and as warmly defended. We will narrate the facts as simply and briefly as we can.

During the American war, which was now ended, the American Methodists had multiplied with marvellous rapidity. In 1774, they numbered 2073; in 1784, they were 14,988; showing an increase of 12,915. They had 46 circuits, and 83 itinerant, besides some hundreds of local, preachers.[487] All these, so far as the sacraments were concerned, were as sheep without shepherds. Some of the clergymen of the Church of England had taken military commissions in the army; others were destitute of both piety and sense; and nearly all opposed and persecuted the Methodists to the utmost of their power. Bishop White testified, that “the Church of England was becoming more and more unpopular,--with some, because it was not considered as promoting piety,--and with others, because they thought the provision for it a useless burden on the community.” At the termination of the revolutionary struggle, says Dr. Hawks, himself a clergyman, “a large number of the churches in Virginia were destroyed or irreparably injured; twenty-three of her ninety-five parishes were extinct or forsaken; and of the remaining seventy-two, thirty-four were destitute of ministerial services; while of her ninety-eight clergymen, only twenty-eight remained.” The Rev. Mr. Jarratt, another clergyman of the Church of England, stated, that “most of the clergy preached what was little better than deism,” and were bitter revilers and persecutors of those who preached the truth.[488]

Under these circumstances, the Methodists demanded of their preachers the administration of the sacraments. Many of the societies had been months, some of them years, without these sacred ordinances. Five years before this, in 1779, the preachers in the south proceeded to ordain themselves by the hands of three of their senior members, unwilling that their people should longer be denied the Lord’s supper, and their children and probationary members the rite of baptism. Asbury was greatly annoyed at this, and, a year afterwards, with difficulty succeeded in persuading them to suspend the administration of the sacraments till further advice could be received from Wesley.[489] Asbury wrote to Wesley, telling him of the greatness of the work, and of the division that had taken place in Virginia, on account of the people’s uneasiness respecting the sacraments. Thousands of their children were unbaptized, and the members of the societies, in general, had not partaken of the Lord’s supper for many years.[490] “Dear sir,” says he, on March 20, 1784, “we are greatly in need of help. A minister, and such preachers as you can fully recommend, will be very acceptable. Without your recommendation, we shall receive none. But nothing is so pleasing to me, sir, as the thought of seeing you here; which is the ardent desire of thousands more in America.”[491]

Wesley’s going was impossible. He had tried (as we have already seen) to induce Bishop Lowth to ordain a minister, and had failed. What else remained? He thought of Dr. Coke, who replied as follows.

“NEAR DUBLIN, April 17, 1784.

“HONOURED AND VERY DEAR SIR,--I intended to trouble you no more about my going to America; but your observations incline me to address you again on the subject.

“If some one, in whom you could place the fullest confidence, and whom you think likely to have sufficient influence and prudence and delicacy of conduct for the purpose, were to go over and return, you would then have a source of sufficient information to determine on any points or propositions. I may be destitute of the last mentioned essential qualification (to the former I lay claim without reserve); otherwise my taking such a voyage might be expedient.

“By this means, you might have fuller information concerning the state of the country and the societies than epistolary correspondence can give you; and there might be a cement of union, remaining after your death, between the societies and preachers of the two countries. If the awful event of your decease should happen before my removal to the world of spirits, it is almost certain, that I should have business enough, of indispensable importance, on my hands in these kingdoms.

“I am, dear sir, your most dutiful and most affectionate son,

“THOMAS COKE.”[492]

This is a curiously expressed letter; but if it means anything, it means, that if Wesley would be good enough to think and say, that Coke had “sufficient influence, and prudence, and delicacy of conduct,” he was willing to become Wesley’s envoy to the American Methodists.

Here the matter rested, until the assembling of the conference at Leeds. Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, relates, that ordination was first proposed by Wesley himself in his select committee of consultation. Pawson was a member, and was present. He writes: “The preachers were astonished when this was mentioned, and, to a man, opposed it. But I plainly saw that it would be done, as Mr. Wesley’s mind appeared to be quite made up.”

Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey were appointed to America; and, six days after the conference concluded, Coke wrote to Wesley as follows.

“August 9, 1784.

“HONOURED AND DEAR SIR,--The more maturely I consider the subject, the more expedient it appears to me, that the power of ordaining others should be received by me from you, by the imposition of your hands; and that you should lay hands on brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for the following reasons: (1) It seems to me the most scriptural way, and most agreeable to the practice of the primitive churches. (2) I may want all the influence, in America, which you can throw into my scale. Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he would not receive any person, deputed by you, with any part of the superintendency of the work invested in him; or words which evidently implied so much. I do not find the least degree of prejudice in my mind against Mr. Asbury; on the contrary, I find a very great love and esteem; and am determined not to stir a finger without his consent, unless necessity obliges me; but rather to be at his feet in all things. But, as the journey is long, and you cannot spare me often, it is well to provide against all events; and I am satisfied that an authority, formally received from you, will be fully admitted; and that my exercising the office of ordination, without that formal authority, may be disputed, and perhaps, on other accounts, opposed. I think you have tried me too often to doubt, whether I will, in any degree, use the power you are pleased to invest me with, farther than I believe absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work.

“In respect of my brethren Whatcoat and Vasey, it is very uncertain whether any of the clergy, mentioned by brother Rankin, except Mr. Jarratt, will stir a step with me in the work; and it is by no means certain, that even he will choose to join me in ordaining; and propriety and universal practice make it expedient, that I should have two presbyters with me in this work. In short, it appears to me, that everything should be prepared, and everything proper be done, that can possibly be done, on this side the water. You can do all this in Mr. C----n’s house, in your chamber; and afterwards, (according to Mr. Fletcher’s advice,) give us letters testimonial of the different offices with which you have been pleased to invest us. For the purpose of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and Vasey, I can bring Mr. Creighton down with me, by which you will have two presbyters with you.

“In respect to brother Rankin’s argument, that you will escape a great deal of odium by omitting this, it is nothing. Either it will be known, or not known. If not known, then no odium will arise; but if known, you will be obliged to acknowledge, that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under the weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head of them. I shall entreat you to ponder these things.

“Your most dutiful, THOMAS COKE.”[493]

Would it not seem from this, that Wesley had no idea of ordaining any one himself; but, that he intended Coke, who, as a presbyter of the same church, had coequal power, to go out to America for that purpose? There can be no question, that there is force in Dr. Whitehead’s critique, that “Dr. Coke had the same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that Mr. Wesley had to ordain Dr. Coke.” Wesley, we think, never intended doing this; but, at Coke’s request, he acquiesced.

Of his power to ordain others, Wesley had no doubt. Nearly forty years before this, he had been convinced, by Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church, “that bishops and presbyters are of one order.” In 1756, he wrote: “I still believe the episcopal form of church government, to agree with the practice and writings of the apostles; but, that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of, ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon.’ I think he has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor His apostles prescribe any particular form of church government; and that the plea of Divine right, for diocesan episcopacy, was never heard of in the primitive church.”[494] Again, in 1761, in a letter to a friend, he repeated, that Stillingfleet had fully convinced him, that to believe that none but episcopal ordination was valid “was an entire mistake.”[495] And again, in 1780, he shocked the high church bigotry of his brother, by declaring, “I verily believe I have as good a right to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper.”[496]

His right to ordain, then, was no new assumption of Wesley, adopted in his old age, or in his imbecility, as some of his critics have alleged. It was a firm conviction of forty years’ standing.

Besides, there was another fact, which might have some influence with him, but which none of his biographers have noticed. The Methodists, under the care of the Countess of Huntingdon, stood in the same relation to the Church of England that the Methodists under Wesley did. They varied, not dissented, from the Church. Recently, however, there had been a formal and avowed secession. Many of Lady Huntingdon’s chapels were supplied by ordained clergymen, and, among others, a large building in Spafields, previously known as the Pantheon. This edifice stood in the parish of Clerkenwell, of which the Rev. William Sellon was minister. Mr. Sellon claimed the right of appointing ministers and clerks to the Spafields chapel; also the right of himself to officiate within its walls as often as he liked. He further demanded the sum of £40 a year, in consideration of his permitting two of the Countess’s preachers to occupy the said chapel; also all the sacramental collections; and four collections yearly, for the benefit of the children of the charity school of Clerkenwell parish; and, finally, that, for the due performance of these demands, the proprietors should sign a bond for £1000.

Of course, the proprietors refused to comply with such demands. Mr. Sellon then instituted a suit in the consistorial court of the Bishop of London, and cited the Revs. Messrs. Jones and Taylor, the officiating clergymen, and both of them ordained, to answer for their irregularity in preaching in a place not episcopally consecrated, and for carrying on Divine worship there, contrary to the wish of the minister of the parish. Verdicts were obtained against them. The question was then removed to the ecclesiastical courts; and was again decided against the ministers of the countess, and in favour of Mr. Sellon, who obtained the name of Sanballat.

This was a momentous matter. Hitherto, Romaine, Venn, and others had preached for the countess; but now, as ordained clergymen, in danger of prosecution, they had to withdraw their services; and some of the most important chapels were left without supplies. The crisis was serious. The countess took counsel with her friends; and, at length, it was determined, that Messrs. Wills and Taylor should formally secede from the Church of England, and should take upon themselves to ordain others: both of them had received episcopal ordination themselves, both were scholars and able preachers, and Mr. Wills had married Miss Wheeler, the countess’s niece. Accordingly, these two ministers issued an address to the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, stating that, because they could not, as clergymen of the Established Church, continue preaching to their present congregations, without “knowingly and wilfully opposing the Church’s laws,” they had resolved to secede peaceably, and to put themselves under the protection of the Toleration Act.

Here then was a formal Methodist secession from the Established Church. But more than this: on March 9, 1783, these two seceding clergymen began to do what Wesley did eighteen months afterwards,--they held their first ordination. This was in Spafields chapel. The service commenced at 9 a.m., and lasted about seven hours. The names of the six young men, then set apart to the Christian ministry, were Thomas Jones, Samuel Beaufoy, Thomas Cannon, John Johnson, William Green, and Joel Abraham Knight. During the service, Mr. Wills addressed the congregation, and assigned his reasons for believing that he had the right to ordain, namely, that presbyters and bishops were the same order, and that, as he and Mr. Taylor had been ordained presbyters, they had really been ordained bishops, and had as much right to ordain others as any bishop in the land.[497]

Wesley was acquainted with all this, though he never mentions it. For aught he knew, an action might be commenced against himself and the other clergymen preaching in City Road, West Street, and elsewhere, similar to that which had been successfully prosecuted against the Countess of Huntingdon’s preachers at Spafields. It was time to look about. He held exactly the same views respecting presbyters and bishops that had been publicly avowed by Messrs. Wills and Taylor; and now, in September 1784, reduced them to practice by proceeding to Bristol, and there ordaining Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey.

Passing by the ordinations of Whatcoat and Vasey, which involve no difficulty except Wesley’s churchmanship, the ordination of Coke is a perplexing puzzle. Coke had been already ordained a deacon and a priest of the Church of England; and, hence, his ministerial status was the same as Wesley’s. What further ordination was needed? Wesley intended none; but Coke wished it.

Wesley was the founder and father of the Methodists. There were 15,000 in America whom he had never seen. In no sense were these members of the Church of England; for, at the termination of the war, no state church was recognised. What were they? Not presbyterians, not Dissenters, not quakers, not anything, except simple Methodists. They were without sacraments. They wished to have them. As Christians, they had a right to them. But who was to administer? Common sense would have said, the men by whose preaching they had been converted; but here priestly prejudice stepped in, and forbad men, whom God had called to preach, to administer the sacraments, until episcopal or presbyterian hands had been put upon them. Things were brought into a dead lock. The question was, are the Methodist preachers in America to administer the sacraments without ordination? Or shall Wesley or some one else go from England to give them ordination? Wesley, a man of action, decided to send Coke, and Coke consented; but, before starting, he wished to have an additional ordination himself. What was that ordination to be? The only one possible was this. Wesley was the venerable father of the 15,000 Methodists in America. He was not able to visit them himself; but sends them Dr. Coke. The doctor pretends, that it is more than possible, that some of the American preachers and societies will refuse to acknowledge his authority. To remove this objection, Wesley, at Bristol, in a private room, holds a religious service, puts his hands upon the head of Coke, and, (to use his own words,) sets him apart as a superintendent of the work in America, and gives him a written testimonial to that effect. This was all that Wesley did, and all that Wesley meant; but we greatly doubt whether it was all that the departing envoy wished.

With the highest respect for Dr. Coke, and his general excellences, it is no detraction to assert, that he was dangerously ambitious, and that the height of his ambition was a desire to be a bishop. Some years after this, Coke, unknown to Wesley and Asbury, addressed a confidential letter to Dr. White, bishop of the protestant episcopal church of Pennsylvania, which, if it meant anything, meant that he would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the English Church, on condition that he himself was ordained to be their bishop. In 1794, he secretly summoned a meeting, at Lichfield, of the most influential of the English preachers, and passed a resolution, that the conference should appoint an order of bishops, to ordain deacons and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member of the prelatical brotherhood. And again, it is a well known fact, that, within twelve months of his lamented death, he wrote to the Earl of Liverpool, stating that he was willing to return most fully into the bosom of the Established Church, on condition, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, and the government, would appoint him their bishop in India. These are unpleasant facts; which we would rather have consigned to oblivion, had they not been necessary to vindicate Wesley from the huge inconsistency of ordaining a coequal presbyter to be a bishop. Wesley meant the ceremony to be a mere formality likely to recommend his delegate to the favour of the Methodists in America: Coke, in his ambition, wished, and intended it to be considered as, an ordination to a bishopric. This will be clear as we proceed farther. The following are the “letters testimonial,” which Coke asked to have.

“To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth greeting.

“Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, according to the usage of the same Church; and whereas there does not appear to be any other way of supplying them with ministers:

“Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be providentially called, at this time, to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry in America. And, therefore, under the protection of almighty God, and with a single eye to His glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers,[498]) Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[499]

“BRISTOL, September 10, 1784.

“To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America.

“BY a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces of North America are totally disjoined from the mother country, and erected into independent states. The English government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the congress, partly by the provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these states desire my advice, and, in compliance with their desire, I have drawn up a little sketch.

“Lord King’s account of the primitive church convinced me, many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years, I have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused; not only for peace sake, but because I was determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the national church to which I belonged.

“But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are bishops, who have a legal jurisdiction; in America there are none, neither any parish minister; so that, for some hundreds of miles together, there is none either to baptize, or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man’s rights, by appointing and sending labourers into the harvest.

“I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper. And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of the Church of England, (I think the best constituted national church in the world,) which I advise all the travelling preachers to use on the Lord’s day, in all the congregations, reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to administer the supper of the Lord, on every Lord’s day.

“If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present, I cannot see any better method than that I have taken.

“It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object: (1) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain one, but could not prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If they would ordain them now, they would expect to govern them; and how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our American brethren are now totally disentangled, both from the state and the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty, simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church. And we judge it best, that they should stand fast in that liberty, wherewith God has so strangely set them free.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[500]

“These are the steps,” says Wesley in another place, “which, not of choice, but necessity, I have slowly and deliberately taken. If any one is pleased to call this separating from the Church, he may. But the law of England does not call it so; nor can any one properly be said so to do, unless, out of conscience, he refuses to join in the service, and partake of the sacraments administered therein.”[501]

Eight days after the date of the above letter, Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey set sail for America, where they arrived on November 3. A conference of nearly sixty preachers met in Baltimore on December 24. Three days later, Coke ordained Asbury; and the two then ordained a number of elders and deacons. Coke preached a sermon, which was published, with the title, “The Substance of a Sermon preached at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, before the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 27th of December, 1784, at the Ordination of the Rev. Francis Asbury to the office of Superintendent. By Thomas Coke, LL.D., Superintendent of the said Church. Published at the desire of the Conference.” 12mo, 22 pages.

The title is worth observing. Coke and Asbury are superintendents; the Methodist church is episcopal,--a church governed by bishops. The sermon begins with an onslaught on the Church of England in America. “The churches had, in general, been filled with the parasites and bottle companions of the rich and great. The humble and importunate entreaties, of the oppressed flocks, were contemned and despised. The drunkard, the fornicator, and the extortioner, triumphed over bleeding Zion, because they were faithful abettors of the ruling powers. But these intolerable fetters were now struck off; and the antichristian union, which before subsisted between church and state, was broken asunder.” Coke then proceeds to answer the question, “What right have you to exercise the episcopal office?” “To me,” says he, “the most manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to raise up, in America and Europe, a numerous society, well known by the name of Methodists. The whole body have invariably esteemed this man as their chief pastor, under Christ; and we are fully persuaded, he has a right to ordain. Besides, we have every qualification for an episcopal church, which that of Alexandria possessed for two hundred years; our bishops, or superintendents (as we rather call them), having been elected by the suffrages of the whole body of our ministers through the continent, assembled in general conference.”

This is scarcely conclusive reasoning, but it shows that, from the very first, Coke assumed, what Wesley never gave him, the title of a bishop. Five years later, in May, 1789, Coke and Asbury presented an address to Washington, the president of the United States, beginning with the words, “We, the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church”;[502] and at the conference of the same year the first question asked was: “Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist church in Europe and America? Answer. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succession.”[503]

This grandiloquent parade of office must not be ascribed to Wesley. He never sanctioned it; he positively condemned it. Besides, even allowing that Coke and Asbury had a right to designate themselves bishops of the Methodist churches in America, what was their authority for pronouncing Wesley the bishop of the Methodist church in Europe? They had none. It was an unwarrantable liberty taken with the name of a venerable man, who had censured the use of such an appellation, and whose humility and modesty Coke would have been none the worse for copying. As it was, Wesley was held up to ridicule, and made to suffer, on account of the episcopal ambition of his friends.

We have no fault to find with the American Methodists being called the Methodist Episcopal Church. They have the fullest right to such a designation if they choose to use it; but it was a name which Wesley never used; and to censure him for ordaining bishops is to censure him for what he never did. He ordained a superintendent; but he never thought to call him bishop. Hence the following to Asbury.

“LONDON, September 20, 1788.

“... There is indeed a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists; I am, under God, the father of the whole family. Therefore, I naturally care for you all in a manner no other person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide, were it not for me,--were it not that I not only permit him to collect, but also support him in so doing.

“But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid, both the doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little; you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school; you a college! nay, and call it after your own names![504] O, beware; do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and ‘Christ be all in all!’

“One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me bishop! For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end to this! Let the presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better.

“Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart. And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[505]

Coke, in his letter, dated August 9, 1784, mentions the “odium” which Wesley was likely to incur by the ordinations which he himself was soliciting; and, with a want of chivalry not to be commended, requests Wesley to acknowledge that the deed was all his own, otherwise Coke would “sink under the weight of his enemies, with Charles Wesley at the head of them.” The apprehension was not unfounded. Charles Wesley knew nothing of the ordinations in Bristol till they were over; but, of course, it was impossible to keep them secret; and great was the excitement which the revelation created. One of the preachers wrote:

“Ordination among Methodists! Amazing indeed! Surely it never began in the midst of a multitude of counsellors; and, I greatly fear, the Son of Man was not secretary of state, or not present, when the business was brought on and carried. Who is the father of this monster, so long dreaded by the father of his people, and by most of his sons? Whoever he be, time will prove him to be a felon to Methodism, and discover his assassinating knife sticking fast in the vitals of its body. Years to come will speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary of our religious madness for gowns and bands.”

Another wrote: “I wish they had been asleep when they began this business of ordination: it is neither episcopal nor presbyterian; but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistencies.”[506]

On April 28, 1785, Charles Wesley addressed a long letter to Dr. Chandler, an episcopal clergyman, who was about to embark for America, from which the following is an extract.

“I never lost my dread of separation, or ceased to guard our societies against it. I frequently told them: ‘I am your servant as long as you remain in the Church of England; but no longer. Should you forsake her, you would renounce me.’

“Some of the lay preachers very early discovered an inclination to separate, which induced my brother to print his ‘Reasons against Separation.’ As often as it appeared, we beat down the schismatical spirit. If any one did leave the Church, at the same time he left our society. For near fifty years, we kept the sheep in the fold; and, having filled the number of our days, only waited to depart in peace.

“After our having continued friends for above seventy years, and fellow labourers for above fifty, can anything but death part us? I can scarcely yet believe it, that, in his eighty-second year, my brother, my old, intimate friend and companion, should have assumed the episcopal character, ordained elders, consecrated a bishop, and sent him to ordain our lay preachers in America! I was then in Bristol, at his elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention. How was he surprised into so rash an action? He certainly persuaded himself that it was right.

“Lord Mansfield told me last year, that ordination was separation. This my brother does not and will not see; or that he has renounced the principles and practice of his whole life; that he has acted contrary to all his declarations, protestations, and writings; robbed his friends of their boasting; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long as it shall be remembered!

“Thus our partnership here is dissolved, but not our friendship. I have taken him for better for worse, till death do us part; or, rather, reunite us in love inseparable. I have lived on earth a little too long, who have lived to see this evil day. But I shall very soon be taken from it, in stedfast faith, that the Lord will maintain His own cause, and carry on His own work, and fulfil His promise to His church, ‘Lo, I am with you always, even to the end!’

“What will become of these poor sheep in the wilderness, the American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a separation from the Church of England, which their preachers and they no more intended than the Methodists here! Had they had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real bishop in America, consecrated by three Scotch bishops, who have their consecration from the English bishops, and are acknowledged by them as the same with themselves. There is, therefore, not the least difference betwixt the members of Bishop Seabury’s[507] church, and the members of the Church of England. He told me he looked upon the Methodists in America as sound members of the Church, and was ready to ordain any of their preachers whom he should find duly qualified. His ordination would be indeed genuine, valid, and episcopal. But what are your poor Methodists now? Only a new sect of presbyterians. And, after my brother’s death, which is now so near, what will be their end? They will lose all their influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain janglings; they will settle again upon their lees; and, like other sects of Dissenters, come to nothing.”[508]

Charles Wesley hints, that his brother was “surprised into the rash act” of ordaining. Perhaps he was; but did he afterwards regret it? In answering this question, we must use materials which properly belong to succeeding years.[509]

It is a fact, which cannot be denied, that, while Wesley himself was, to some extent, welcomed in Scotland, by the ministers of the kirk, the Methodists, in many instances, were substantially in the same position as the Methodists in America. There were, indeed, clergymen of the English Church in Scotland; but several of them absolutely refused to admit the Methodists to the sacraments, except on the condition that they would renounce all future connection with the Methodist ministry and discipline.[510] There was, therefore, the same necessity to ordain for the one country as for the other. Accordingly, Wesley, in his journal, writes: “1785: August 1--Having, with a few select friends, weighed the matter thoroughly, I yielded to their judgment, and set apart three of our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland.” A year afterwards, at the conference of 1786, he ordained Joshua Keighley and Charles Atmore, for Scotland; William Warrener, for Antigua; and William Hammet, for Newfoundland. A year later, five others were ordained; in 1788, when Wesley was in Scotland, John Barber and Joseph Cownley received ordination at his hands; and, at the ensuing conference, seven others, including Alexander Mather, who was ordained to the office, not only of deacon and elder, but of superintendent. On Ash Wednesday in 1789, Wesley ordained Henry Moore and Thomas Rankin; and this, we believe, completes the list of those upon whom Wesley laid his hands. All these ordinations were in private; and many of them at four o’clock in the morning. Some of the favoured ones were intended for Scotland; some for foreign missions; and a few, as Mather, Moore, and Rankin, were employed in England. In most instances, probably in all, they were ordained deacons on one day; and, on the day following, received the ordination of elders, Wesley giving to each letters testimonial.[511] Wesley justified his ordinations for Scotland thus.

“After Dr. Coke’s return from America, many of our friends begged I would consider the case of Scotland, where we had been labouring for many years, and had seen so little fruit of our labours. Multitudes, indeed, have set out well, but they were soon turned out of the way; chiefly by their ministers either disputing against the truth, or refusing to admit them to the Lord’s supper, yea, or to baptize their children, unless they would promise to have no fellowship with the Methodists. Many, who did so, soon lost all they had gained, and became more the children of hell than before. To prevent this, I, at length, consented to take the same step with regard to Scotland, which I had done with regard to America. But this is not a separation from the Church at all. Not from the Church of Scotland, for we were never connected therewith, any further than we are now: nor from the Church of England; for this is not concerned in the steps which are taken in Scotland. Whatever then is done in America, or Scotland, is no separation from the Church of England. I have no thought of this; I have many objections against it. It is a totally different case. ‘But for all this, is it not possible there may be such a separation after you are dead?’ Undoubtedly it is. But what I said at our first conference above forty years ago, I say still: ‘I dare not omit doing what good I can while I live, for fear of evils that may follow when I am dead.’”[512]

There is some force in this, so far as it regards Scotland. The Scotch Methodists never professed themselves to be members of the Church of England; in fact, they regarded that church almost with as much abhorrence as they cherished towards the Church of Rome. Hence the following extract from one of Pawson’s unpublished letters, dated “Edinburgh, October 8, 1785.”

“Dr. Coke intends to be with us on Sunday, the 23rd instant, when we are to have the sacrament again; but Mr. Wesley is against us having it in the Scotch form, and I am well satisfied our new plan will answer no end at all in Scotland, but will prove a hindrance to the work of God. The people generally hate the very name of Prayer-Book, and everything belonging to it, as they have always been taught to believe it a limb of antichrist, and very little better than the popish mass-book. Popery, prelacy, and all such things, they hold in the greatest detestation. They would soon tell us: ‘I dunna ken what you mean by these unca inventions. We belong to the gude old kirk of Scotland, and will not join with the whore of Babylon at all.’”

In reference to the English ordinations, Mr. Pawson writes:

“Mr. Wesley knew the state of the societies in England required such measures to be taken, or many of the people would leave the connexion; and had the preachers, after his death, only acted upon his plan, and quietly granted the people, who desired the sacraments, that privilege, no division would have taken place.[513] He foresaw, that the Methodists would soon become a distinct body. He was deeply prejudiced against presbyterian, and as much in favour of episcopal, government. In order, therefore, to preserve all that is valuable in the Church of England among the Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather and Dr. Coke, bishops. These he undoubtedly designed should ordain others. Mr. Mather told us so at the Manchester conference, in 1791.[514] I believe, Mr. Wesley’s first thought of ordaining arose out of the bishop of London refusing to ordain a preacher for America; but that he originally intended to ordain preachers for England is what I never could believe; and, with respect to Scotland, he often declared to me, and in the congregation at Edinburgh, that he was over persuaded to it. And, a few months before his death, he was so annoyed with Dr. Coke’s conduct, in persuading the people to depart from the original plan, that he threatened, in a letter, to have no more to do with him, unless he desisted from such a course of procedure.”[515]

We give this as we find it; and now turn to a deeply interesting correspondence between Wesley and his brother. Within a fortnight after the ordination of Pawson, Hanby, and Taylor, at the conference of 1785, and in which Wesley, Coke, and Creighton took part,[516] Charles Wesley wrote to his brother as follows.

“BRISTOL, August 14, 1785.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I have been reading over again your ‘Reasons against a Separation,’ printed in 1758, and your Works; and entreat you, in the name of God, and for Christ’s sake, to read them again yourself, with previous prayer, and stop, and proceed no farther, till you receive an answer to your inquiry, ‘Lord, what wouldst Thou have me to do?’

“Every word of your eleven pages deserves the deepest consideration; not to mention my testimony and hymns. Only the seventh I could wish you to read,--a prophecy which I pray God may never come to pass.

“Near thirty years, since then, you have stood against the importunate solicitations of your preachers, who have scarcely at last prevailed. I was your natural ally, and faithful friend; and, while you continued faithful to yourself, we two could chase a thousand.

“But when once you began ordaining in America, I knew, and you knew, that your preachers here would never rest till you ordained them. You told me, they would separate by-and-by. The doctor tells us the same. His Methodist episcopal church in Baltimore was intended to beget a Methodist episcopal church here. You know he comes, armed with your authority, to make us all Dissenters. One of your sons assured me, that not a preacher in London would refuse orders from the doctor.

“Alas! what trouble are you preparing for yourself, as well as for me, and for your oldest, truest, and best friends! Before you have quite broken down the bridge, stop, and consider! If your sons have no regard for you, have some regard for yourself. Go to your grave in peace; at least, suffer me to go first, before this ruin is under your hand. So much, I think, you owe to my father, to my brother, and to me, as to stay till I am taken from the evil. I am on the brink of the grave. Do not push me in, or embitter my last moments. Let us not leave an indelible blot on our memory; but let us leave behind us the name and character of honest men.

“This letter is a debt to our parents, and to our brother, as well as to you, and to

“Your faithful friend,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[517]

Five days afterwards, Wesley replied as follows. The line of poetry was his brother’s.

“PLYMOUTH, August 19, 1785.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with all simplicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with me, well; if not, we can, as Mr. Whitefield used to say, agree to disagree.

“For these forty years, I have been in doubt concerning that question, What obedience is due to

‘Heathenish priests and mitred infidels’?

“I have, from time to time, proposed my doubts to the most pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But they gave me no satisfaction. Rather, they seemed to be puzzled as well as me.

“Obedience I always paid to the bishops, in obedience to the laws of the land. But I cannot see, that I am under any obligation to obey them further than those laws require.

“It is in obedience to these laws, that I have never exercised in England the power which, I believe, God has given me. I firmly believe, I am a scriptural επισκοπος, as much as any man in England, or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove. But this does in no wise interfere with my remaining in the Church of England, from which I have no more desire to separate than I had fifty years ago. I still attend all the ordinances of the Church, at all opportunities; and I constantly and earnestly advise all that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. Smyth pressed us to separate from the Church, he meant, ‘Go to church no more.’ And this was what I meant twenty-seven years ago, when I persuaded our brethren not to separate from the Church.

“But here another question occurs: ‘What is the Church of England?’ It is not all the people of England. Papists and Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of England, except papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a glorious church indeed! No; according to our twentieth article, a particular church is ‘a congregation of faithful people among whom the word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered.’ Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a church. What then, according to this definition, is the Church of England? Does it mean all the believers in England (except the papists and Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly administered among them? I fear, this does not come up to your idea of the Church of England. Well, what more do you include in the phrase? ‘Why, all the believers that adhere to the doctrine and discipline established by the convocation under Queen Elizabeth.’ Nay, that discipline is well-nigh vanished away; and the doctrine both you and I adhere to.

“All these ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church,’ in this sense, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted at? I no more separate from it now than I did in 1758. I submit still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to ‘mitred infidels,’ I do, indeed, vary from them in some points of doctrine, and in some points of discipline (by preaching abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming societies); but not a hair’s breadth farther than I believe to be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high day of my blood is over. If you will go on hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I might have done better. However, with or without help, I creep on; and as I have been hitherto, so I trust I shall always be,

“Your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[518]

To this letter Charles Wesley returned the following reply.

“MARYLEBONE, September 8, 1785.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with the same simplicity. There is no danger of our quarrelling; for the second blow makes the quarrel; and you are the last man upon earth whom I would wish to quarrel with.

“That juvenile line of mine,

‘Heathenish priests, and mitred infidels,’

I disown, renounce, and with shame recant. I never knew of more than one ‘mitred infidel,’ and for him I took Mr. Law’s word.

“I do not understand what obedience to the bishops you dread. They have let us alone, and left us to act just as we pleased, for these fifty years. At present, some of them are quite friendly toward us, particularly toward you. The churches are all open to you; and never could there be less pretence for a separation.

“That you are a scriptural επισκοπος, or overseer, I do not dispute. And so is every minister who has the cure of souls. Neither need we dispute whether the uninterrupted succession be fabulous, as you believe; or real, as I believe; or whether Lord King be right or wrong.

“Your definition of the Church of England is the same in prose with mine in verse. By the way, read over my ‘Epistle,’ to oblige me, and tell me you have read it, and likewise your own ‘Reasons.’

“You write, ‘all these reasons against a separation from the Church, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted at? I no more separate from it than I did in the year 1758; I submit still to its bishops; I do indeed vary from them in some points of discipline; (by preaching abroad, for instance, praying extempore, and by forming societies’); (might you not add, and by ordaining?). ‘I still walk by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years; I do nothing rashly.’

“If I could prove your actual separation, I would not; neither wish to see it proved by any other. But do you not allow, that the doctor has separated? Do you not know and approve of his avowed design and resolution to get all the Methodists of the three kingdoms into a distinct, compact body? Have you seen his ordination sermon? Is the high day of his blood over? Does he do nothing rashly? Have you not made yourself the author of all his actions? I need not remind you, qui facit per alium facit per se.

“I must not leave unanswered your surprising question, ‘What then are you frighted at?’ At the doctor’s rashness, and your supporting him in his ambitious pursuits; at an approaching schism, as causeless and unprovoked as the American rebellion; at your own eternal disgrace, and all those frightful evils which your ‘Reasons’ describe.

“‘If you will go on hand in hand with me, do.’ I do go, or rather creep on, in the old way in which we set out together, and trust to continue in it, till I finish my course.

“‘Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I might have done better.’ When you took that fatal step at Bristol, I kept as close to you as close could be; for I was all the time at your elbow. You might certainly have done better, if you had taken me into your counsel.

“I thank you for your intention to remain my friend; herein my heart is as your heart; whom God hath joined let not man put asunder. We have taken each other for better for worse, till death do us--part? No; but unite eternally. Therefore, in the love which never faileth, I am your affectionate friend and brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[519]

Five days later, Wesley replied.

“September 13, 1785.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I see no use of you and me disputing together; for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say, I separate from the Church; I say, I do not. Then let it stand.

“Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England than you do; and I find few exceptions to it.

“I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from covetousness. He has done nothing rashly, that I know; but he has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him of it. To publish, as his present thoughts, what he had before retracted, was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and will save as many souls as I can while I live, without being careful about what may possibly be when I die.

“I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London. You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly weaken your own.

“I am, etc., “JOHN WESLEY.”[520]

Wesley failed to grapple with his brother’s question; or rather he declined. Charles’s point evidently was the same as Lord Mansfield’s,--“ordination was separation.” No doubt this was strictly accurate. Wesley was too keen sighted not to see it; but he was too much a churchman to acknowledge it. He felt himself unable to reply to his brother’s argument; and, therefore, really did not attempt to reply at all.

Two brief letters more, and then we quit the subject of ordination. Six days after the date of the above, Charles Wesley replied as follows.

“LONDON, September 19, 1785.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I did not say, you separate from the Church; but I did say, ‘If I could prove it, I would not.’

“That ‘sad truth’ is not a new truth; you saw it when you expressed in your ‘Reasons’ such tenderness of love for the unconverted clergy.

“Of your second Thomas Walsh we had better talk than write.

“How ‘confound their intellects’? how ‘weaken your hands’? I know nothing which I do to prevent the possible separation, but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to pray for the Church of England, and for you, while my breath remains in me!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[521]

Again:

“BRISTOL, July 27, 1786.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot rest, living or dying, unless I deal as faithfully with you as I am persuaded you would deal with me, if you were in my place, and I in yours.

“I believe you have been too hasty in ordaining. I believe God left you to yourself in that matter, as He left Hezekiah, to show you the secret pride which was in your heart. I believe Lord Mansfield’s decisive words to me, ‘ordination is separation.’

“Thus I have discharged my duty to God and His church, and approved myself your faithful friend and affectionate brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[522]

This is a long, and, we fear, a wearisome account of what, abstractedly considered, was a trivial thing. John Wesley’s preachers, being called of God, were as much ministers of Christ, and as much entitled to administer the sacraments of the church, without the imposition of his hands as with it. We raise no objection to the formality; we think it right, and, because of its solemnity, likely to be useful; but to contend that the thing itself is necessary, would be to condemn all the grand old Methodist preachers, who flourished from the year 1795, when their administration of sacraments was authorised by the Methodist conference, to the year 1836, when, for the first time, ordination by imposition of hands was solemnly enacted, and declared to be a “standing rule and usage in future years.”

This, however, is not the point in question. The right or wrong, of ordaining, is left to others to discuss. There can be no doubt that, as a minister of Christ, Wesley had as much right to ordain as any bishop, priest, or presbytery in existence; but he had no right to this as a clergyman of the Church of England; and, by acting as he did, he became, what he was unwilling to acknowledge, a Dissenter, a separatist from that church. Such was the opinion of Lord Mansfield; and such was the argument of Wesley’s brother. Wesley refused to acknowledge this; but, feeling the impossibility of the thing, he declined to attempt refuting it. With great inconsistency, he still persisted in calling himself a member of the Church of England;[523] and, as will be seen, to the day of his death, told the Methodists that if they left the Church they would leave him. All things considered, this was not surprising; but it was absurd. Great allowance must be made for Wesley; but to reconcile Wesley’s practice and profession, in this matter, during the last seven years of his eventful life, is simply impossible.

Much space has been occupied with these recitals; but, remembering that no event, in Wesley’s history, has occasioned more controversy than his act of ordaining preachers, it became a duty to give all the facts concerning it within our knowledge.

We now return to the conference of 1784. As soon as its sessions ended, Wesley again set out on his evangelistic ramblings; and, two days afterwards, came to Shrewsbury, and preached a funeral sermon “in memory of good John Appleton.” John was a currier, and became a Methodist under circumstances somewhat peculiar, and which are worth relating.

While at Bristol, he happened to go into a church, where the minister preached a violent sermon, which he had already delivered in two other churches, against “the upstart Methodists.” Shortly after, he had to preach again in the church of St. Nicholas, but, while announcing his text, was suddenly seized with a rattling in his throat, fell backward against the pulpit door, rolled down the steps, was carried home, and died. Mr. Appleton was present, and was so greatly shocked with this event, that, when he returned to Shrewsbury, he took a house, in which he fitted up a room for religious service, and began to preach himself. In 1781, at his own expense, he built the Methodists a chapel, which Wesley opened. A more devoted Christian it would be difficult to find than good John Appleton. His labour, as a working currier, was hard; but, for many years, besides preaching every Sunday, he preached twice a week on the week days, and had full and attentive congregations. He died in the full triumph of faith on the 1st of May, 1784.[524]

From Shrewsbury, Wesley made his way, through Wales, to Bristol, which he reached on August 29, and where, a few days afterwards, he ordained Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey. The next month was spent in incessant preaching in the surrounding neighbourhood.

Here we pause to insert two of his remarkable letters: the first to Miss Bishop, the mistress of a boarding school; the second to the Right Hon. William Pitt, now in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and prime minister of England.

“HAVERFORDWEST, August 18, 1784.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--It seems God Himself has already decided the question concerning dancing. He has shown His approbation of your conduct, by sending these children to you again. If dancing be not evil in itself, yet, it leads young women to numberless evils. And the hazard of these, on the one side, seems far to overbalance the little inconveniences, on the other. Therefore, thus much may certainly be said, you have chosen the more excellent way.

“I would recommend very few novels to young persons, for fear they should be desirous of more. Mr. Brooke wrote one more, beside the ‘Earl of Moreland,’ ‘The History of the Human Heart.’ I think, it is well worth reading, though it is not equal to his former production. The want of novels may be more than supplied by well chosen history: such as ‘The Concise History of England,’ ‘The Concise History of the Church,’ Rollin’s Ancient History, Hooke’s Roman History (the only impartial one extant), and a few more. For the elder and more sensible children, Malebranche’s ‘Search after Truth’ is an excellent French book. Perhaps, you might add Locke’s ‘Essay on the Human Understanding,’ with the remarks upon it in the Arminian Magazine. I had forgotten that beautiful book, ‘The Travels of Cyrus,’ whether in French or English.

“I always am your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[525]

The letter to Pitt was one such as prime ministers seldom get.

“BATH, September 6, 1784.

“SIR,--Your former goodness, shown to Mr. Ellison,[526] emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice an old friend, Lieutenant Webb.[527]

“On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North, his lordship was pleased to order him £100 a year. But as it has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in this, or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favour.

“Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by hinting a few things, which have been long upon my mind? If those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be forgiven and forgotten.

“New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money be produced by the old ones? For instance:

“1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know some towns which pay regularly seven or five pence. Nay, I know one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no help for this?

“2. As to the window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a hundred windows in his house, and he told me he paid for twenty.

“3. The same gentleman told me: ‘We have above one hundred men servants in this town, but not above ten are paid for.’

“4. I firmly believe, that, in Cornwall alone, the king is defrauded of half a million yearly in customs. What does this amount to in all Great Britain? Surely not so little as five millions.

“5. Servants of distillers inform me, that their masters do not pay for a fortieth part of what they distil. And this duty last year, (if I am rightly informed,) amounted only to £20,000. But have not the spirits distilled this year cost 20,000 lives of his majesty’s liege subjects? Is not then the blood of these men vilely bartered for £20,000? not to say anything of the enormous wickedness, which has been occasioned thereby; and not to suppose that these poor wretches have any souls! But, (to consider money alone,) is the king a gainer, or an immense loser? To say nothing of many millions of quarters of corn destroyed, which, if exported, would have added more than £20,000 to the revenue, be it considered, ‘Dead men pay no taxes,’ So that, by the death of 20,000 persons yearly, (and this computation is far under the mark,) the revenue loses far more than it gains.

“But I may urge another consideration to you. You are a man. You have not lost human feelings. You do not love to drink human blood. You are a son of Lord Chatham. Nay, if I mistake not, you are a Christian. Dare you then sustain a sinking nation? Is the God whom you serve able to deliver from ten thousand enemies? I believe He is. Nay, and you believe it. O, may you fear nothing but displeasing Him!

“May I add a word on another head? How would your benevolent heart rejoice, if a stop could be put to that scandal of the English nation, suicide!

“The present laws against it avail nothing; for every such murderer is brought in non compos. If he was a poor man, the jurors forswear themselves from pity. If he was rich, they hope to be well paid for it. So no ignominy pursues either the living or the dead, and self murder increases daily. But what help?

“I conceive this horrid crime might be totally prevented, and that without doing the least hurt to either the living or the dead. Do you not remember, sir, how the rage for self murder among the Spartan matrons was stopped at once? Would it not have the same effect in England, if an act of parliament were passed, repealing all other acts and appointing that every self murderer should be hanged in chains?

“Suppose your influence could prevent suicide by this means, you would do more service to your country than any prime minister has done these hundred years. Your name would be precious to all true Englishmen as long as England continued a nation. And, what is infinitely more, a greater Monarch than King George would say to you, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’ I earnestly commit you to His care, and am, sir, your willing servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[528]

Methodism was established not only in America, but also in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, though neither of these countries found a place in the conference minutes till 1785. William Black, now a young man of twenty-four, had begun to pray and preach, and had witnessed the conversion of hundreds. Societies had been formed; and quarterly meetings held; and, for three years, Black had devoted himself wholly to the work of the ministry, without being formally recognised as one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers. He had encountered no ordinary difficulties in the prosecution of his work. The Rev. Henry Alline, a Calvinist preacher, had divided his societies, by sowing the seeds of antinomian error; and Methodist meetings had been illegally disturbed, and broken up, by English soldiers: but, in the midst of all, young Black courageously persevered. He applied to Wesley for assistance; and he himself expressed a wish to come to Kingswood school to fit himself more fully for the Christian ministry. During the year 1784, Wesley addressed to him the two following letters.

“INVERNESS, May 11, 1784.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you have given a little assistance to our brethren at Halifax, and along the coast. There is no charity under heaven to be compared to this,--the bringing light to the poor heathens, that are called Christians, but, nevertheless, still sit in darkness and the shadow of death. I am in great hopes, that some of the emigrants, from New York, are really alive to God. And, if so, they will every way be a valuable acquisition to the province where their lot is now cast.

“There is no part of Calvinism or antinomianism which is not fully answered in some part of our writings; particularly in the ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.’ I have no more to do with answering books. It will be sufficient if you recommend, to Mr. Alline’s friends, some of the tracts that are already written. As to himself, I fear he is wiser in his own eyes than seven men that can render a reason.

“The work of God goes on with a steady pace in various parts of England. But, still, the love of many will wax cold, while many others are continually added to supply their place. In the west of England, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire, God still mightily makes bare His arm. He convinces many, justifies many, and many are perfected in love.

“My great advice to those who are united together, is, Let brotherly love continue! See that ye fall not out by the way! Hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[529]

“LONDON, October 15, 1784.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--A letter of yours, some time ago, gave me hopes of meeting you in England; as you seemed desirous of spending some time here, to improve yourself in learning. But, as you have now entered into a different state, I do not expect we shall meet in this world. But you have a large field of action where you are, without wandering into Europe. Your present parish is wide enough, namely, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I do not advise you to go any farther. In the United States, there are abundance of preacher. They can spare four preachers to you, better than you can spare one to them. If I am rightly informed, they have already sent you one or two; and they may afford you one or two more, if it please God to give a prosperous voyage to Dr. Coke and his fellow labourers. Does there not want a closer and more direct connection between you of the north, and the societies under Francis Asbury? Is it not more advisable, that you should have a constant correspondence with each other, and act by united counsels? Perhaps it is for want of this, that so many have drawn back. I want a more particular account of the societies in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I am not at all glad of Mr. Scurr’s intention to remove from Nova Scotia to the south. That is going from a place, where he is much wanted, to a place where he is not wanted. I think, if he got £10,000 thereby, it would be but a poor bargain; that is, upon the supposition, which you and I make, that souls are of more value than gold. Peace be with all your spirits!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[530]

Wesley returned to London on October 9, and, nine days afterwards, set out on his usual visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. He then went off to Norfolk; and spent the rest of the year in London, and the surrounding counties. He had a long interview with Pascal Paoli, the great Corsican general. He visited convicts, under sentence of death, in Newgate, preached the condemned criminals’ sermon, forty-seven of these unhappy creatures being present, all in chains, and most of them in tears. Burglars broke into his house, in City Road. He met with Simeon, who had been with Fletcher at Madeley, and, for fifty-three years afterwards, was rector of Trinity church, Cambridge. Jottings like these might be multiplied; Wesley’s life was full of them. We conclude with an unpublished letter to Henry Moore, who was now at Dublin.

“LONDON, November 4, 1784.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you spoke freely to Mr. Collins. He is a good man, but not very adviseable. If he should declare open war in England, he will do little or no harm. Mr. Smyth will not be fond of him, if he preaches at Plunkett Street.[531] There will not soon be a coalition between Arminianism and Calvinism. This we found even in Holland.

“If James Rogers and you keep to the Church still, a few, I doubt not, will follow your example. We made just allowance enough for leaving the Church at the last conference.

“I am, with kind love to Nancy, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Besides “The Sunday Service of the Methodists in America,” and a tract or two, Wesley published nothing, in 1784, except his Arminian Magazine. This was as racy and rich as ever. “The Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked” was continued from the previous volume, and run through the whole of this. Like its predecessors, it contained six original sermons by Wesley himself. In that on Dissipation, he expresses the startling opinion: “There is not, on the face of the earth, another nation so perfectly dissipated and ungodly as England; not only so totally without God in the world, but so openly setting Him at defiance. There never was an age, that we read of in history, since Julius Cæsar, since Noah, since Adam, wherein dissipation and ungodliness did so generally prevail, both among high and low, rich and poor.” In the sermon on Patience, he gives an interesting account of the way in which he was led to embrace the doctrine of Christian perfection; and observes that, in 1762, there were 652 members of the London society, who professed to have attained to this state of grace. That on the text, “We know in part,” is a marvellous production, such as none but a man like Wesley could have written. In the sermon on the “Wisdom and Knowledge of God,” as displayed in the history of the church, after giving one of his most interesting accounts of the rise of Methodism, he does not hide the fact, that many of the Methodist preachers and people had not been faithful. Speaking of the first preachers, he says, they “were young, poor, ignorant men, without experience, learning, or art; but simple of heart, devoted to God, full of faith and zeal, seeking no honour, no profit, no pleasure, no ease, but merely to save souls; fearing neither want, pain, persecution, nor whatever man could do unto them: yea, not counting their lives dear unto them, so they might finish their course with joy.” But in process of time, “several of the preachers increased in other knowledge; but not proportionably in the knowledge of God. They grew less simple, less alive to God, and less devoted to Him. They were less zealous for God, and consequently less active, less diligent in His service. Some of them begun to desire the praise of men, and not the praise of God only; some, to be weary of a wandering life, and to seek ease and quietness. Some began to fear the faces of men; to be ashamed of their calling; to be unwilling to deny themselves, to take up their cross daily, and endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Wherever these preachers laboured, there was not much fruit of their labours. Their word was not, as formerly, clothed with power; it carried with it no demonstration of the Spirit!” Weighty words these! especially as coming from an old man of more than eighty, one of the keenest observers of facts, himself the founder of Methodism, now nearly at the close of his remarkable career. And equally pungent are his remarks respecting the people. Referring to the causes of Methodist backslidings, he writes: “But of all the temptations, none so struck at the whole work of God, as the deceitfulness of riches; a thousand melancholy proofs of which I have seen, within these last fifty years. I have not known threescore rich persons, perhaps not half the number, during threescore years, who, as far as I can judge, were not less holy than they would have been, had they been poor. By riches, I mean not thousands of pounds; but any more than will procure the conveniences of life.” “Having gained and saved all you can, give all you can: else your money will eat your flesh as fire, and will sink you to the nethermost hell! O beware of laying up treasures upon earth! Is it not treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath? Lord! I have warned them: but if they will not be warned, what can I do more? I can only give them up unto their own hearts’ lusts, and let them follow their own imaginations! By not taking this warning, it is certain many of the Methodists are already fallen. Many are falling at this very time. And there is great reason to apprehend, that many more will fall, most of whom will rise no more!” If Wesley found it necessary to say this in 1784, what would he have said in 1871?

In the sermons, on Obedience to Parents, and Companionship with the Wicked, the reader will find most valuable advices, such as none but a long experienced casuist like Wesley has wisdom and confidence enough to give.

Further description of the Magazine, for 1784, is scarcely needed. The letters and the poetry are quite equal to those in the former volumes; the biographies are rich in Christian experience; the anecdotes quaint and instructive. Extracts from his “Natural Philosophy” are given in every number, and also from Bryant’s Ancient Mythology. Benson’s Letters on Polygamy run through the whole. The supernatural disturbances at Epworth parsonage are related; and, as if in anticipation of his own death, Wesley tells his readers, that, not “to lessen the honour of the house of God, or infect it with unwholesome vapours, he has left orders to bury his remains, not in the new chapel in City Road, but in the burying ground adjoining it;” and then, to show that “epitaphs ought to be prepared by persons who have some knowledge of grammatical and typographical accuracy; and not be left to illiterate relations, parish clerks, or stonemasons, to the great scandal of the nation in general, and of religion in particular,” he gives the following, taken from a tombstone in Arbroath churchyard.

“Here lyis Alexand Peter, present Town Treasurer of Arbroth, who died ---- day January 1630.

“Such a Treasurer was not since, nor yet before, For common works, calsais, brigs, and schoir-- Of all others he did excel; He deviced our skoel, and he hung our bell.”

FOOTNOTES:

[472] Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 404.

[473] Manuscript letter.

[474] Manuscript diary.

[475] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 144.

[476] Methodist Magazine, 1836, p. 397.

[477] On Sunday, September 18, 1870, the London Road Methodist Sunday-school, Manchester, removed from their somewhat dingy premises to a new and more commodious building, erected in Grosvenor Street East, and adjoining the Wesleyan chapel there. A card commemorative of the event was presented to each person joining in the day’s proceedings, with the following inscription: “London Road Wesleyan Sunday School, founded in 1785, by John Lancaster, and first conducted by him in a cellar at the corner of Travis Street. It was soon after removed to a room in Worsley Street, built specially for its accommodation, and there carried on until November 10, 1811, when it took possession of the then new schools, situated behind Borough Buildings, and there continued until this day, when it was again removed to the recently erected building adjoining the Grosvenor Street chapel, in commemoration of which event this card is presented to ----. Manchester, September 18, 1870.”

[478] Methodist Magazine, 1845, pp. 12, 13.

[479] Minutes of Conference, vol. i., p. 41.

[480] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 37.

[481] Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

[482] Hampson’s Life of Wesley.

[483] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 523.

[484] Manuscript.

[485] Myles’ History, p. 201.

[486] Methodist Magazine, 1785, p. 269.

[487] American minutes.

[488] Bangs’ “Original Church of Christ,” p. 114.

[489] Stevens’ History of Methodism, vol. ii., p. 212.

[490] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 326.

[491] Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 682.

[492] Manuscript letter.

[493] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 417.

[494] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 200.

[495] Ibid. p. 223.

[496] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 137.

[497] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon;” and “Authentic Narrative of Primary Ordination in Spafields Chapel, 1784.”

[498] The Rev. James Creighton was present; but Charles Wesley was not, though he was in Bristol at the time.--(Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 389.)

[499] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 66.

[500] Methodist Magazine, 1785, p. 602.

[501] Ibid. 1786, p. 677.

[502] Coke’s Life, by Etheridge.

[503] American minutes.

[504] Cokesbury college, twice burned down.

[505] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 70.

[506] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 419.

[507] Dr. Samuel Seabury was a missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. After the ratification of the treaty of peace, the American episcopal church felt it necessary, not to remain dependent on the good offices of a prelate residing in England, but to have bishops of its own. Accordingly, the clergy in Connecticut assembled in a voluntary convention, and elected Seabury. The election was easily accomplished; the consecration was more difficult. Seabury came to England, asking of the archbishops of the English Church a boon which, for a hundred and fifty years, had been asked in vain, namely, that episcopalians in America might have ordained bishops of their own. At the time, the see of Canterbury was vacant; and the archbishop of York was unable to take measures for the consecration of an American citizen, without the authority of parliament. A long delay was unavoidable, and, under the circumstances, Seabury proceeded to Scotland, where he applied for consecration to the bishops of the Scottish episcopal church. His application was granted, and he was solemnly ordained at Aberdeen, on November 14, 1784, by the bishops of Aberdeen, Ross, and Moray.--(Caswall’s American Church, p. 124.) This will explain the meaning of C. Wesley’s letter; but is it surprising that, amid all these changes, difficulties, and confusions, Wesley took upon himself to ordain deacons and presbyters for the abandoned Methodists of America?

[508] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 392.

[509] The Rev. James Creighton, in his reply to Bradburn’s pamphlet in 1793, affirms that Wesley repented, with tears, that he had ordained any of his preachers. He states, that he expressed his sorrow for this at the conference of 1789, and occasionally afterwards till his death. Creighton adds: “About six weeks before he died, he said, ‘The preachers are now too powerful for me.’” This must pass for as much as it is worth; James Creighton was a clergyman.

[510] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 382.

[511] Manuscripts; also Methodist Magazine, 1867, p. 622.

[512] Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 678.

[513] Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

[514] Manuscript letter.

[515] Manuscript letter.

[516] Pawson’s manuscript.

[517] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 394.

[518] Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 50.

[519] C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 398.

[520] Ibid.

[521] C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii, p. 398.

[522] Methodist Magazine, 1867, p. 625.

[523] Let us suppose John Hampson, not only to have formed societies, different from the Methodist societies, but also to have ordained local preachers to administer to them the sacraments; and let us suppose further, that, despite this, John Hampson still persisted in calling himself a Methodist: and we have a case analogous to that of Wesley. Under such circumstances, would Wesley have admitted Hampson’s claim to continued membership among the Methodists? We trow not; and yet this is exactly the sort of claim which he himself makes in reference to the Church of England.

[524] Methodist Magazine, 1790, p. 636.

[525] Methodist Magazine, 1807, p. 472; and Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.

[526] Wesley’s nephew, an excise officer (Clarke’s “Wesley Family,” vol. ii., p. 273).

[527] Commonly called Captain Webb.

[528] Methodist Magazine, 1850, p. 161.

[529] Black’s Memoirs, p. 112.

[530] Black’s Memoirs, p. 126.

[531] The Rev. Edward Smyth was about to become minister of Bethesda chapel, Dublin. The Rev. Brian Collins seems to have been in Dublin at the same time.

1785. Age 82

Wesley began the year 1785, by spending five days in walking through London, often ankle deep in sludge and melting snow, to beg £200, which he employed in purchasing clothing for the poor. He visited the destitute in their own houses, “to see with his own eyes what their wants were, and how they might be effectually relieved.” Besides preaching in his own chapels, he preached in Spitalfields, St. Ethelburga’s, and Stepney churches. As usual, he met the London classes, from which he received, as ticket money, £48 7_s._, out of which he was paid his quarter’s salary, £15.[532] His activity was unabated and marvellous.

He wrote as follows, to Mr. Stretton, in Newfoundland.

“LONDON, February 25, 1785.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--If that deadly enemy of true religion, popery, is breaking in upon you, there is indeed no time to be lost; for it is far easier to prevent the plague than to stop it. Last autumn Dr. Coke sailed from England, and is now visiting the flock in the midland provinces of America, and setting them on the New Testament plan, to which they all willingly and joyfully conform. I trust, they will no more want such pastors, as are after God’s own heart. After he has gone through these parts, he intends to see the brethren in Nova Scotia, probably attended with one or two able preachers, who will be willing to abide there. A day or two ago, I wrote and desired him to call upon our brethren also in Newfoundland, and leave a preacher there likewise. About food and raiment we take no thought; our heavenly Father knoweth that we need these things, and He will provide; only let us be faithful and diligent in feeding His flock. Your preacher will be ordained. You shall want no assistance that is in the power of your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[533]

At the previous conference, Wesley had appointed William Moore to Plymouth. Moore was an itinerant of ten years’ standing, and was dissatisfied with Wesley’s deed of declaration; and, instead of serving Wesley, as he had done formerly, he dissevered the connection. He hired a room, drew away about forty of the Plymouth Methodists, and formed a society of his own. He issued “An Appeal to the Inhabitants of the Town of Saltash,” 8vo, 8 pages; telling the people, that he preached none other doctrines than those contained in the articles, homilies, and prayers of the Church of England; that he coveted no man’s silver, gold, or apparel; and that he was actuated only by a sincere desire to serve them. Moore was evidently a man of education, courage, and Christian zeal; and might have occupied a superior position among his brethren. But Wesley’s seeming partiality, in the constitution of his conference, led to Moore’s secession; and here, at Plymouth, he had become a somewhat formidable rival. Wesley was summoned, and, in a most bitter frost, off he went, on February 28, to put wrong things right. Here he spent six days, and left the society “confirmed in the truth more than ever.”

Leaving Plymouth, Wesley came to Bristol, where he employed a fortnight in visiting and preaching to neighbouring societies.

On March 21, he started off to Ireland, preaching all the way to Liverpool, and, notwithstanding frost and snow, and bitter cold, frequently in the open air. He arrived at Dublin on April 11, and found “two such preachers,” James Rogers and Andrew Blair, “with two such wives as he knew not where to find again.”

Having spent a week in Dublin, he set out for the provinces. He often preached in churches, and not unfrequently in the open air. Everywhere, with one or two exceptions, the people welcomed him; congregations were large, and societies, in general, were lively. Two months were occupied in this employment. His labours were almost incredible. All over Ireland he went, preaching every day, and often twice or thrice a day, not only in Methodist meeting-houses, but in churches, presbyterian chapels, in factories, in bowling greens, in assembly rooms, in courthouses, in barns, in “sloping meadows,” in “shady orchards,” in groves and avenues, in linen halls, in churchyards and streets, everywhere, where he had a chance. We know, with certainty, that, minute as are the details of Wesley’s journals, he, by no means, mentions every sermon that he delivered, and every society that he visited; and yet, in this two months’ Irish provincial tour, he records the names of not fewer than between fifty and sixty towns, in which he preached, collectively, about fourscore discourses.

At Prosperous, he found a town built within the last five years, by Captain Brooke, who employed two thousand people in the manufacturing of cotton; a Methodist society of fifty members had been formed; and Wesley preached to two crowded congregations. On his way to Cork, he was met by about thirty horsemen, who escorted him to the city, where he met a society of about four hundred members, considerably more than there are at the present time. At Kinsale, “all behaved well, but a few officers.” He adds: “the poor in Ireland, in general, are well behaved; all the ill breeding is among well dressed people.” At Limerick, he assisted at a service, in the cathedral, which lasted from eleven o’clock till three. At Killchrist, he was the guest of Colonel Pearse; but says, “the house being full of genteel company, I was out of my element; there being no room to talk upon the only subject which deserves the attention of a rational creature.” At Ballinrobe, he visited the charter school, the children of which were ragged and dirty. “The schoolroom was not much bigger than a small closet:” three beds had to serve for fifteen boys, and five for nineteen girls; and five farthings a day were allowed the master for the sustenance of each of the hunger bitten pupils. Wesley was so disgusted with the thing, that he reported the case to the commissioners for charter schools in Dublin.

On June 18, he got back to Dublin, where he spent his birthday, on the 28th, and wrote: “By the good providence of God, I finished the eighty-second year of my age. Is anything too hard for God? It is now eleven years since I have felt any such thing as weariness: many times I speak till my voice fails, and I can speak no longer; frequently I walk till my strength fails, and I can walk no farther; yet, even then, I feel no sensation of weariness, but am perfectly easy from head to foot. I dare not impute this to natural causes; it is the will of God.”

Having held the Irish conference he set sail for England, on July 10, leaving, says he, “the work of God increasing in every part of the kingdom, more than it has done for many years.” “Here is a set of excellent young preachers; nine in ten of them are much devoted to God. I think, number for number, they exceed their fellow labourers in England.”[534]

The following letter refers to the same subject, and is too interesting to be omitted. It was addressed to Miss Ritchie.

“DUBLIN, June 26, 1785.

“MY DEAR BETSY,--Our Lord has indeed poured out abundance of blessings, almost in every part of this kingdom. I have now gone through every province, and visited all the chief societies, and I have found far the greater part of them increasing both in number and strength. Many are convinced of sin; many justified; and not a few perfected in love. One means of which is, that several of our young preachers, of whom we made little account, appear to be, contrary to all expectation, men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost; and they are pushing out, to the right hand and the left; and, wherever they go, God prospers their labours. I know not whether Thomas Walsh will not revive in two, if not three, of them.

“Many years, ago I was saying: ‘I cannot imagine how Mr. Whitefield can keep his soul alive, as he is not now going through honour and dishonour, evil report and good report; having nothing but honour and good report attending him wherever he goes.’ It is now my own case; I am just in the condition now that he was then in. I am become, I know not how, an honourable man. The scandal of the cross is ceased; and all the kingdom, rich and poor, papists and protestants, behave with courtesy, nay, and seeming good will! It seems as if I had well-nigh finished my course, and our Lord was giving me an honourable discharge.

“Peace be with your spirit! Adieu!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[535]

A letter, from Wesley to Mr. Stretton, has been already given, announcing that preachers were about to be sent to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. This was already done; and Freeborn Garretson and James Cromwell were labouring, in the former country, with great success. Wesley, while in Ireland, wrote to Garretson as follows.

“DUBLIN, June 16, 1785.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad brother Cromwell and you have undertaken that ‘labour of love’ of visiting Nova Scotia; and doubt not but you act in full concert with the little handful, who were almost alone till you came. It will be the wisest way to make all those who desire to join together, thoroughly acquainted with the whole Methodist plan; and to accustom them, from the very beginning, to the accurate observance of all our rules. Let none of them rest in being half Christians. Whatever they do, let them do it with their might; and it will be well, as soon as any of them find peace with God, to exhort them to ‘go on to perfection.’ The more explicitly and strongly you press all believers to aspire after full sanctification, as attainable now by simple faith, the more the whole work of God will prosper.

“I do not expect any great matters from the bishop. I doubt his eye is not single; and if it be not, he will do little good to you, or any one else. It may be a comfort to you, that you have no need of him. You want nothing which he can give.

“You do not know the state of the English Methodists; they do not roll in money, like many of the American Methodists. It is with the utmost difficulty, that we can raise five or six hundred pounds a year to supply our contingent expenses; so that it is entirely impracticable to raise £500 among them to build houses in America. It is true, they might do much; but it is a sad observation, they that have most money have usually least grace.

“The peace of God be with all your spirits! I am your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[536]

Thus was Methodism spreading. We find it firmly planted throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Its members in America were counted by thousands. It had its societies in the West Indies. It had taken root in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. And, besides all this, it was beginning to exert indirectly a benign influence on other lands, where, since then, religion has been extensively revived. The Methodist mission to Sweden, begun by Joseph Rayner Stephens, in 1826, was facilitated by Methodist feeling, imbibed from Wesley, in 1785. Hence the following letter, from an aged clergyman of the established church of Sweden, written in 1827, and addressed to Mr. Stephens.

“It affected my heart to see, in the newspapers of Stockholm, that an adherent to the famous and venerable Mr. J. Wesley had established a chapel, for Divine service, in our metropolis. Mr. Wesley was an old acquaintance of mine when I resided in England in the years 1784-86. He was more; he was my dear friend, and with him I agreed in his Christian principles and opinions. I was exceedingly pleased with him, and with his religion of love, joy, and peace. I very often waited on him at his house; and I was several times in company with him in the circle of his friends, where I went to prayer with them. I learned of him, to be a father to the people that might be entrusted to me. I shall never forget the amiable Mr. Wesley. He was so good as to give me a remembrance of him, by a present of one of his writings, called ‘An Appeal,’ etc., in which he wrote these lines, ‘Domino N. S. S. dono dedit Johannes Wesley, circ. Kal. Augusti, 1785.’ He gave me also several other of his Christian pamphlets. I am far advanced in age; towards seventy-six years old: but, if the almighty God grant me life and health, perhaps I may make a tour to Stockholm next summer, when I have done with my catechumens; and then I shall certainly wait upon you, and make one of your auditory.[537]

While Wesley was forming new friendships, old ones were being severed by death. It was in 1785, that he thus lost two of the most valuable and valued friends that he ever had,--Vincent Perronet, and John Fletcher, the vicars of Shoreham and Madeley. The former was in the ninety-second year of his age, and died, while Wesley was in Ireland, on the 9th of May. Charles Wesley buried him, and preached his funeral sermon. For the last twenty years, he had enjoyed such a degree of fellowship with God as rarely falls to the lot of man in the present world. He lived chiefly in his library; but, when he mingled with his friends, was always cheerful. His favourite study was the fulfilment of prophecy, and the second coming and visible reign of Christ on earth.[538]

While Perronet was the oldest, Fletcher was the most valuable friend that Wesley had. No man had rendered, to Methodism and its founder, the service that the vicar of Madeley had. Compared with the vicar of Shoreham, he was young; but his life was fraught with incalculable blessings to the church of Christ. Only four years before his death, he had married Miss Bosanquet, who, for thirty years, revered his memory, and remained his widow, till the two were reunited in a better world than this. As we have already seen, he was present at Wesley’s last conference, in Leeds; and it was chiefly by his almost angelic interposition and services, that the results of that conference were not much more disastrous than they were. His wife was with him, and writes: “O how deeply was he affected concerning the welfare of his brethren! When any little disputes arose among them, his inmost soul groaned beneath the burden; and, by two or three in the morning, I was sure to hear him breathing out prayer for the peace and prosperity of Zion. When I observed to him, I was afraid it would hurt his health, and wished him to sleep more, he would answer, ‘O Polly, the cause of God lies near my heart!’”[539]

Twelve months afterwards, this seraphic man expired, some of his last words being: “O Polly, my dear Polly, God is love! Shout! shout aloud! I want a gust of praise to go to the ends of the earth!” He died August 14, 1785, having, on the previous sabbath, read prayers, preached, and administered the Lord’s supper, in his parish church. Wesley, at the time, was in the west of England, and unable either to see him, or to attend his funeral; but, as soon as possible, he published a sermon in memory of him, taking the same text as his brother Charles had taken at the death of Perronet: “Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright; for the end of that man is peace.” Wesley writes:

“I was intimately acquainted with him for above thirty years; I conversed with him morning, noon, and night, without the least reserve, during a journey of many hundred miles; and, in all that time, I never heard him speak one improper word, nor saw him do an improper action. Many exemplary men have I known, holy in heart and life, within fourscore years; but one equal to him I have not known, one so inwardly and outwardly devoted to God. So unblamable a character, in every respect, I have not found either in Europe or America; and I scarce expect to find such another on this side of eternity.”

Wesley arrived in London, from Ireland, on July 14; and, on the following Sunday, preached, morning and evening, on the education of children. The next morning, at five o’clock, he met the children of the congregation at City Road, the morning chapel being full of juveniles, and many standing in the larger chapel. The service was unique. When, either before or since, was there such a congregation at such an hour?

Wesley writes: “July 26, Tuesday--Our conference began; at which about seventy preachers were present, whom I had invited by name. One consequence of this was, that we had no contention or altercation at all; but everything proposed was calmly considered, and determined as we judged would be most for the glory of God.” The deed of declaration was again discussed; and seventy preachers present signed documents, that they approved of it. Eight preachers left the connexion, including William Moore and the two Hampsons. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Antigua, for the first time, appeared in the list of circuits. It was declared, that it was improper to sell books, to employ hairdressers, or to talk of worldly things, on Sundays; and that it was entirely wrong to send Methodist children to dancing schools, and for dancing masters to be admitted into Methodist boarding schools.

The conference was closed on August 3, and, five days afterwards, Wesley set out for Cornwall;[540] and on September 3 got back to Bristol, where he wrote: “Sunday, September 4--Finding a report had been spread abroad, that I was going to leave the Church, to satisfy those that were grieved concerning it, I openly declared in the evening, that I had no more thought of separating from the Church than I had forty years ago.”

Here, and in the neighbourhood, he spent a month. On October 3, he returned to London; and, the next day, set out for Hertfordshire. A week later, he was off to Oxfordshire; and the week after that, to Norfolk. He writes: “October 22--I returned to Norwich; and, in the evening, spoke home to an uncommonly large congregation; telling them, ‘Of all the people I have seen in the kingdom, for between forty and fifty years, you have been the most fickle, and yet the most stubborn.’ However, our labour has not been lost, for many have died in peace; and God is able to say to the residue of these dry bones, ‘Live!’”

Querulous and quarrelsome Thomas Wride was, at this time, the assistant in Norwich circuit, and, from a large mass of his manuscripts in the author’s possession, the following facts are gleaned. A monument to the memory of Mr. Turner had been erected in the chapel, on which were chiselled certain “doggrel verses,” with which Wride was greatly dissatisfied. He had told the society, on September 4, what they might expect from him, in reference to meeting in class, showing tickets, etc.; and says “the terror of his countenance had awed them, and several had owned that they were afraid of him.” He had received a quantity of sermons for sale, and, among others, Dr. Coke’s sermon, preached in Baltimore, at the ordination of Asbury; which, he says, he is reluctant to put into circulation. He writes: “It amounts to a formal separation from the Church of England, and, in the end, will tear up Methodism by the roots. Whatever may be said of America, I cannot think it right, for us here, to declare ourselves independent of the Church of England, while we enjoy the privileges we have always done. I dread the consequence; for, if we are independents, hardly any will come to us, but such as choose to change their religion; whereas, those to whom the Methodists have been mainly useful had no religion to change.” Wride was also dissatisfied with his colleagues; for J. McKersey would sing a hymn between the first prayer and the sermon; and James McByron would permit the congregations to sing anthems. McKersey also refused to preach at five in the mornings; for though, as he said, he could rise soon enough, he was not able to preach till he had had his breakfast; and, in consequence, Wride had advised him to take his breakfast to bed with him. Wride acknowledges, that the Methodists at Norwich had not been used to morning preaching. The rich would not attend; and, as the poor did not begin to work till eight o’clock, and could not afford to burn a fire, they were reluctant to rise so early. Hence, when he himself had preached, his congregation consisted only of his wife and two others. Mr. McKersey, further, had neglected the select band; and had declared he would “rather go twelve miles than meet the children.” Wride multiplies complaints against the leading singers, and against the leaders, Messrs. Booty, Best, James and George Hay, Kilburn, Senior, Flegg, and Johnson; and declares that a preacher, sent to Norwich circuit, ought to combine in himself the qualities of “the lion, the lamb, the dove, the serpent, and the ox.”

Poor Wride! The contention continued, and, early in 1786, Wesley had to remove him to another post of duty; but, before doing so, he addressed to him the following letters, which have not before been published.

“LONDON, November 8, 1785.

“DEAR TOMMY,--James Byron is an amiable young man; at present full of faith and love. If possible, guard him from those that will be inclined to love him too well. Then he will be as useful a fellow labourer as you can desire. And set him a pattern in all things.

“I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

“LONDON, November 17, 1785.

“DEAR TOMMY,--Deal plainly, and yet tenderly with James Byron, and he will be a very useful labourer. But none can be a Methodist preacher, unless he is both able and willing to preach in the morning; which is the most healthy exercise in the world. I desire, that none of our preachers would sing oftener than twice at one service. We need nothing to fill up our hour.

“In every place, where there is a sufficient number of believers, do all you can to prevail upon them to meet in band. Be mild; be serious; and you will conquer all things.

“I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

“LONDON, December 14, 1785.

“DEAR TOMMY,--Have patience with the young men, and they will mend upon your hands. But remember! soft and fair goes far. For twenty years and upwards, we had good morning congregations at Norwich; but they might begin at six till Ladyday. I desire brother Byron to try what he can do: better days will come.

“I pray, let the doggrel hymn be no more sung in our chapel. If they do not soon come to their senses at Norwich, I will remove you to Colchester. Be mild! Be serious!

“I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Tommy Wride was not the only preacher that gave Wesley trouble. For twelve years, Michael Moorhouse had been one of his itinerants, and had had his share of persecution. In 1778, while preaching in the marketplace at Melton Mowbray, he was pulled down by a ruthless mob, and, with three other peaceable men, dragged to the Black Hole, where means were used to impress him for the army.[541] Moorhouse now was discontented, and, in 1785, published a broadsheet of sixteen columns, in small type, entitled “An Appeal to Honest Men,” and full of petty grievances, particularly with regard to the influence of John Crook and Wesley, and respecting his own appointments to inferior circuits. At the conference of 1786, he left the work; and then embodied the wailings of his Appeal in an octavo volume of 128 pages, with the title, “Defence of Mr. Michael Moorhouse, written by himself.” He bitterly complains of Wesley for suffering some of the wives of his preachers to dine on potatoes and buttermilk, while others were pampered with good cheer; and for allowing their husbands to wear great coats, and to use umbrellas on a rainy day. The Monthly Review, in noticing poor Moorhouse’s notable production, quietly remarks: “The labourer is certainly worthy of his hire, but, in adjusting the hire to the labourer, a good deal must depend on the workman’s skill; and, if we are to judge of Master Michael Moorhouse’s preaching abilities, from his illiterate and silly performance, we do not see how his master could have afforded him higher wages: perhaps he might fare better, if he were to return to his lawful occupation.”

These were among the petty annoyances of Wesley’s busy life. He had, in all conscience, enough to do without these; but, in his position, such vexations were inevitable.

Returning from Norfolk, Wesley spent the rest of the year in London, and in preaching tours through Northamptonshire and Kent.

Before proceeding to notice his publications, it is right to say that, at this time, an important pamphlet of twelve pages was issued with the following title: “Free Thoughts concerning a Separation of the People called Methodists from the Church of England, addressed to the Preachers in the Methodist Connexion, by a Layman of the Methodist society.” The pamphlet may be taken as an echo of the opinions then prevalent, and a brief account of it may be useful.

The writer states, that the arguments, used in favour of separation, are, not that the government, service, and doctrine of the Church are unscriptural, but, that the clergy are not converted men; that Methodism loses many of its members through the sacraments not being administered; that the Church of England is a fallen church; that the time is fully come when the Methodists ought to be an independent body; that the good effects of separation are already seen in the continent of America; and that separation will probably take place at Mr. Wesley’s death.

Having endeavoured to refute these arguments, the author proceeds to give his reasons against separation: namely (1) many of the Methodists are zealous for the Church of England, and would be offended; (2) separation implies ordination, which would be a bone of contention, an apple of discord, among the preachers, as to who should be ordainers; (3) these “gownsmen or ordainers would have the government of the body more and more devolved upon them, and, instead of being itinerants, would become resident in one place, the itinerant plan thereby becoming gradually weakened, or continued only by raw lads on trial.”

The arguments, pro and con, are given as we find them; and merely to show the grounds taken by the opposing parties in 1785.

Excepting Fletcher’s funeral sermon, 8vo, 32 pages, Wesley’s publications were only four in number.

1. “A Pocket Hymn Book for the use of Christians of all Denominations.” 24mo, 208 pages.

2. “An Extract from the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 9, 1779, to August 20, 1782.” 12mo, 92 pages.

3. “A Call to the Unconverted. By R. Baxter.” 12mo, 76 pages.

4. The Arminian Magazine. 8vo, 668 pages.

The Arminian Magazine contains extracts from Dr. Whitby’s Discourses on the Five Points, and from Maundrell’s Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem. There are biographical accounts of William McCormick, Martha Rogers, Nancy Bissaker, James Creighton, Ann Roylands, John Pritchard, and many others. There are more than thirty letters, and as many poetic pieces. There is Wesley’s sermon on his favourite text, 1 Corinthians xiii. 1-3. Also his sermon on perfection, in which his most matured views, on this momentous subject, are stated with his wonted lucidity. The sermon on Hebrews xiii. 17 is remarkable. The point he endeavours to establish is, that, “It is the duty of every private Christian to obey his spiritual pastor, by either doing or leaving undone anything of an indifferent nature; anything that is in no way determined in the word of God.” In applying the principle to himself and the Methodists, he asks: “Do you take my advice with regard to dress? I published that advice above thirty years ago; I have repeated it a thousand times since. I have advised you to lay aside all needless ornaments: to avoid all needless expense: to be patterns of plainness to all that are round about you. Have you taken this advice? Are you all exemplarily plain in your apparel? as plain as quakers or Moravians? If not, you declare hereby to all the world, that you will not obey them that are over you in the Lord.” Wesley’s doctrine may be disputed; but the practical use to which he puts it deserves attention. There are three more of his original sermons--on John i. 47; Philippians ii. 12, 13; and Revelation xxi. 5--which are well worth reading.

FOOTNOTES:

[532] City Road society book.

[533] Methodist Magazine, 1824, p. 307.

[534] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 143.

[535] Ibid. vol. xiii., p. 61.

[536] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 66.

[537] Methodist Magazine, 1828, p. 46.

[538] Ibid. 1799, p. 161.

[539] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 334

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us