EPWORTH AND CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES—1696–1699.
Mr Wesley removed to Epworth sometime during the year 1696 or 1697. This
point is clearly settled by the inscription on his tombstone, which
states that he died April 25, 1735, and that he had been Rector of
Epworth thirty-nine years.
Epworth, in the county of Lincoln, is a small straggling market town, of
about two thousand inhabitants. It is situated in what is called the
Isle of Axholme, a low-lying district, ten miles long and four broad,
surrounded by the three rivers, Trent, Don, and Idle. The island
contains thirty-seven thousand eight hundred acres of land, and is
divided into the seven parishes of Epworth, Althorpe, Belton, Crowle,
Haxey, Luddington, and Owston, with their respective hamlets attached.
Until within a short time before Mr Wesley’s removal to Epworth, the
whole of this district was little better than a swamp; but, at a great
expense, it had recently been drained, and it is now exceedingly rich
and fertile. Epworth stands in the centre of the island, and on the side
of a small sloping hill. The view from the churchyard is extensive,
terminating on the north with the Yorkshire wolds, and on the south with
Gringley-on-the-Hill; on the east with the town of Kirton, and on the
west with the spire of the church of Laughton-en-le-Morthen.
Epworth church is dedicated to Saint Andrew, and consists of a nave, of
aisles, of a chancel, and a tower. The parsonage, first occupied by Mr
Wesley, is thus described in a document dated 1607:—“It consists of five
baies, built all of timber and plaster, and covered with straw thatche,
the whole building being contrived into three stories, and disposed in
seven chiefe rooms—a kitchinge, a hall, a parlour, a butterie, and three
large upper rooms, and some others of common use; and also a little
garden empailed betwine the stone-wall and the south, on the south.”
There was also “one barn of six baies, built all of timber and clay
walls, and covered with straw thatche; with outshotts about it, and free
house therebye.” There was likewise, “one dovecoate of timber and
plaister covered with straw thatche;” and, finally, there was “one
hemp-kiln, that hath been usealeie occupied for the parsonage ground,
and joyning upon the south.” The entire site of the parsonage and its
adjuncts covered about three acres.[106] Here Samuel Wesley lived for
about nine and thirty years. Let us trace his history.
-----
Footnote 106:
Stonehouse’s _History of Axholme_.
-----
Very shortly after his removal to Epworth, his daughter Mehetabel was
born. Henry Moore and Adam Clarke say, she was her mother’s tenth or
eleventh child; but that is an evident mistake, for Mehetabel was born
in 1697, which was only the eighth year after her mother’s
marriage.[107] The whole of the Wesley family were gifted with poetic
genius, but Mehetabel perhaps shone the brightest, Samuel and Charles
not excepted. From her childhood, she was gay and sprightly, full of
mirth, good humour, and keen wit. At the early age of eight years, she
had made such proficiency in learning, that she could read the Greek
Testament. When about twenty-seven years of age, she was prevented
marrying a man whom her father called “an unprincipled lawyer;” and, in
the height of her vexation, made the rash vow, either never to marry
another, or to take the first that might offer. Shortly after, she had
an offer of marriage from a man named Wright, a journeyman plumber and
glazier. Her father, fearing that she might still marry the man who had
jilted her, urged her to marry Wright. She unhappily did so, and found
her husband to be utterly unsuited to her in all respects. Her uncle
Matthew gave her a small marriage portion, and, with this, Wright set up
business for himself. He then began to associate with low dissolute
companions, spent his evenings from home, became a drunkard; and, by
ill-treatment, broke the heart of his wife. In a most exquisite poetical
address to her husband, she speaks of her “heart-breaking sighs and
fruitless tears;” often does she spend “half the lonely night” in
waiting for her absent husband, and then, on his coming home from his
carousals, “curbs her sighs, conceals her cares,” dashes away her tears;
and, to please him, puts on a cheerful “smile.” But despite all her
attention and her tenderness, he still runs to “obscure and unclean
retreats,” and associates with drunken blackguards, who, as a great
achievement, grin at “obscene jests and witless oaths.” She then
concludes her poem with the threat, that if this effort to regain his
affection fails, she will abandon patience, and give herself up to rage
and grief, until death restores to Wright his liberty, and gives him the
opportunity “to laugh when Hetty is no more.”[108]
-----
Footnote 107:
_See_ Clarke’s _Wesley Family_. Note, vol. ii. p. 136.
Footnote 108:
Moore’s _Life of Wesley_, vol. i., p. 75.
-----
Her husband carried on his business of plumbing and glazing in Frith
Street, Soho, London. They had several children, all of whom died young.
On the death of one of her infants in 1728, she wrote the following
beautifully pathetic, but sad and saddening poem:—
“Tender softness! infant mild!
Perfect, sweetest, loveliest child!
Transient lustre! beauteous clay!
Smiling wonder of a day!
Ere the last convulsive start,
Rend thy unresisting heart;
Ere the long-enduring swoon
Weigh thy precious eye-lids down;
Ah, regard a mother’s moan;
Anguish deeper than thy own!
“Fairest eyes, whose dawning light,
Late with rapture bless’d my sight;
Ere your orbs extinguish’d be,
Bend their trembling beams on me!
Drooping sweetness! verdant flower!
Blooming, with’ring in an hour!
Ere thy gentle breast sustains
Latest, fiercest, mortal pains,
Hear a suppliant! let me be
Partner in thy destiny!
That whene’er the fatal cloud
Must thy radiant temples shroud;
When deadly damps (impending now)
Shall hover round thy destined brow
Diffusing may their influence be,
And with the _blossom_ blast the _tree_!”[109]
-----
Footnote 109:
_Arminian Magazine_, 1778, p. 718.
-----
These almost inimitable lines were sent to the Rev. John Wesley by
Mehetabel’s wretched husband, and were accompanied by the following
letter, which is given here, as a contrast to his wife’s poem, and to
show how the two were utterly unsuited for each other:—
“DEAR BRO,—This comes to Let you know that my wife is brought to bed
and is in a hopefull way of Doing well but the Dear child Died—the
Third day after it was born—which has been of great concerne to me and
my wife She Joynes With me in Love to your Selfe and Bro. Charles
“From your loveing Bro. to Comnd
“WM. WRIGHT.
“_P.S._—Ive sen you sum verses that my wife maid of Dear Lamb Let me
hear from one or both of you as soon as you think Conveniant.”
Dr Adam Clarke observes, that Wright’s letter is, like the ancient
Hebrew, _without points_.
We cannot resist the temptation to give another poetic extract, as
illustrative of Mehetabel Wesley’s fine genius. It is selected from a
poem, entitled, “A Farewell to the World,” and refers to past days of
happiness spent in the company of her sister Mary. After speaking of
their visits to the poor and sick, she writes:—
“Wan, meagre forms, torn from impending death,
Exulting, blest us with reviving breath—
The shivering wretch we clothed, the mourner cheer’d,
And sickness ceased to groan when we appear’d—
Unask’d, our care assists with tender art
Their bodies, nor neglects the immortal part.
Sometimes in shades, unpierced by Cynthia’s beam,
Whose lustre glimmer’d on the dimpled stream,
We wander’d innocent through sylvan scenes,
Or tripp’d like fairies o’er the level greens—
From fragrant herbage deck’d with pearly dews,
And flowerets of a thousand different hues,
By wafting gales the mingling odours fly,
And round our heads in whispering breezes sigh-
Whole nature seems to heighten and improve
The holier hours of innocence and love.
“Nor close the blissful scene, exhausted muse,
The latest blissful scene that thou shalt choose;
Satiate with life, what joys for me remain,
Save one dear wish, to balance every pain,—
To bow my head, with grief and toil opprest,
Till borne by angel-bands to everlasting rest!”
This remarkable woman, in after years, found peace with God. Charles
Wesley speaks of her as “a gracious, tender, trembling soul; a bruised
reed, which the Lord will not break; still harassed with ‘darkness,
doubts, and fears,’ but against hope believing in hope.” This was a few
days before she died, in the year 1750.[110] John Wesley says, that for
some years before her death she was “a witness of that rest which
remains even here for the people of God.”[111][112] Mr Kirk justly
remarks, that a careful analysis of Mehetabel’s mental powers, a full
estimate of her highly poetic genius, and a complete collection of her
poems, would form a volume of no ordinary interest and value.
-----
Footnote 110:
_See_ C. Wesley’s _Journal_.
Footnote 111:
_Arminian Magazine_, 1778, p. 235.
Footnote 112:
As a specimen of Mehetabel’s wit, we subjoin the following riddle
respecting a pen, published in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1734,
and subscribed by her usual signature in that periodical,
“_Sylvius_:”—
“A RIDDLE.
“I am an implement that’s common,
Much occupied by man and woman;
Not very thick, nor very long,
Yet tolerably stiff and strong.
If inches twelve may give content,
That measures much about my stent.
Sometimes I’m only used for pleasure,
And then I’m jaded out of measure;
If a young, vigorous bard employs me,
Egad, e’en to the stumps he tries me;
A parson to get one in ten
In private plies me now and then;
The lawyer, and the doctor too,
For fees will wear me black and blue.
I have a dribbling at the nose,
Which leaves a stain where’er it goes,
And yet the fairest nymph will use me,
The queen herself will not refuse me.
I’m used by numbers of all arts,
Who would be reckon’d men of parts;
And none esteems a lady polish’d
Who has not often me demolish’d;
And let me tell you, by the by,
A minute’s labour drains me dry;
I’m now exhausted, so have done;
Now who, or what I am make known.”
-----
But to return to the parents of this gifted woman:—Very soon after their
settlement at Epworth, Susannah Wesley was bereaved, by death, of her
sister Dunton. Her father died just before the removal to Epworth; her
sister just after. This double bereavement was a most painful trial.
Elizabeth Dunton, like her sister Susannah Wesley, was a remarkable
woman. From her childhood she was pious. She was so thoroughly
acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, that, if any text was quoted, she
could at once tell the book, chapter, and verse where it might be found.
For nearly twenty years, she kept a diary, and wrote so copiously, that
her experiences and meditations, if printed, would have filled a folio.
“She was a lover of solitude; and Sabbaths, sermons, and sacraments were
the best refreshments she met with in her way to glory. Her mind was
always full of charity towards those who might differ from her in
matters of opinion. She loved the image of Christ wherever it was
formed. In her last sickness, which lasted about seven months, she never
uttered a repining word; and throughout the whole there was no doubt
upon her spirit as to her future happiness. Among her last utterances
were the following:—‘Heaven will make amends for all; it is but a little
while before I shall be happy. I have good ground to hope that when I
die, through Christ, I shall be blessed. It is a solemn thing to die.
Oh, this eternity! There is no time for preparing for heaven like youth.
I look back with joy on some of the early years that I sweetly spent in
my father’s house. Oh, what a mercy it is to be dedicated to God
betimes!’”[113]
-----
Footnote 113:
_See_ Dunton’s _Life and Errors_.
-----
At her own desire, she was buried in Bunhill Fields. Her funeral sermon
was preached by the Rev. Timothy Rogers, M.A., and was published in a
volume of nearly three hundred pages.[114]
-----
Footnote 114:
Timothy Rogers was a Nonconformist preacher; a good man, to whom
Samuel Wesley, in a subsequent letter, acknowledges himself greatly
indebted. Besides his voluminous funeral sermon for Mrs Dunton, he
published a book, entitled, “Fall not out by the Way; or, A Persuasion
to a Friendly Correspondence between the Conformists and
Nonconformists.” Judging from the funeral sermon now before us, he was
a man of great vivacity, wit, and mental vigour. He was also imbued
with a thoroughly catholic and Christian spirit. “The way to agreement
of all parties,” he writes, “is not to bring men to be of one opinion,
but to be of one mind; which we may be, not by thinking the same
things, but by thinking well one of another, endeavouring to preserve
charity as carefully as to preserve truth. Carnal zeal may put us on
disputing, but true zeal will put us upon prayer. For my part, I had
rather be a quiet ploughman than a fiery philosopher.”
-----
The following is Dunton’s description of her before their
marriage:—“Tall; of good aspect; hair of light chestnut colour; dark
eyes; mouth small and sweet; air somewhat melancholy, but agreeable;
neck long and graceful; complexion fair; piety scarce paralleled, and
wit solid. She is sweetly modest, and has all kinds of virtues. She is
an agreeable acquaintance, a trusty friend, and is mistress of all the
graces that make a perfect woman.”
In another place he writes concerning her:—“For the fifteen years we
lived together there never passed an angry look. Her sympathies with me,
in all the distresses of my life, make her virtues shine with the
greater lustre. Like the glow-worm, that emblem of true friendship, she
shined to me, even in the dark. My head no sooner ached, but her heart
felt it. To requite her love I would have stripped myself to my very
skin; yea, mortgaged my very flesh to have served her. Indeed all our
distresses of body and mind were so equally divided, that all hers were
mine, and all mine were hers.”
Dunton desired Samuel Wesley to write an epitaph for his departed wife.
Wesley complied with the request, and with the epitaph sent the
following significant epistle:—
“EPWORTH, _July 24, 1697_.
“DEAR BROTHER,—It has been neither unkindness to you, with whom I have
traded and been justly used for many years, nor unthankfulness to Mr
Rogers, (for I shall own my obligations to that good man while I
live,) which has made me so long neglect answering your several
letters; but the hurry of a remove,[115] and my extraordinary
business, being obliged to preach the visitation sermon at
Gainsborough, at the bishop’s coming hither, which is but just over.
Besides, I would fain have sent you an elegy as well as an epitaph,
but cannot get one to my mind, and therefore you must be content with
half your desire; and if you please to accept this epitaph, it is at
your service. I hope it will come before you need another
epithalamium.—I am, your obliged friend and brother,
“S. WESLEY.”[116]
-----
Footnote 115:
This indicates that Samuel Wesley did not remove to Epworth until the
spring, or early summer of 1697.
Footnote 116:
Dunton’s _Life and Errors_.
-----
The epitaph was as follows, and is engraved on Mrs Dunton’s tomb:—
“TEARS TO THE MEMORY OF MRS ELIZABETH DUNTON, WHO DEPARTED THIS LIFE,
_May 28, 1697_—
“Sacred urn! with whom we trust
This dear pile of sacred dust;
Know thy charge, and safely guard,
Till Death’s brazen gate’s unbarr’d;
Till the Angel bids it rise,
And removes to Paradise.
A wife obliging, tender, wise;
A friend to comfort and advise;
Virtue, mild as Zephyr’s breath;
Piety, which smiled in death:
Such a wife and such a friend
All lament, and all commend.
Most, with eating cares, opprest,
He who knew and loved her best;
Who her loyal heart did share,
He who reign’d unrivall’d there,
And no truce to sighs will give,
Till he die with her to live.
Or, if more we would comprize,
Here interr’d _Eliza_ lies.”
This epitaph was written within two months after Mrs Dunton’s death.
Dunton was professing unutterable distress on account of his wife’s
decease, and Wesley, in his epitaph, represents him as resolved to heave
his agonizing sighs until death should re-unite them in a more blissful
world than this; and yet, in the midst of all this pretended
blubberment, Dunton was sweethearting another lady, and, before the year
was out, actually made her his second wife. It is more than probable
that Samuel Wesley had some knowledge of this unseemly haste to contract
another matrimonial alliance, when, in the foregoing letter, he
expressed the hope that the epitaph for Dunton’s dead wife would come to
hand before he needed an epithalamium for his second one.
Wesley and Dunton had been warm and faithful friends for, at least, the
last fifteen years; but, from this period, their friendship seems to
have entirely ceased, and, ever after, Dunton speaks of his old friend
with unmistakable animosity. “Now my purse is empty,” snarls Dunton,
“nobody knows me. There is the rector of Epworth, that got his bread by
the Maggots I published. He has quite forgotten me.” Again—“My old
friend, Mr Samuel Wesley, was educated upon charity in a private
academy, if we may take his own word for it in his late pamphlet, which
was designedly written to expose and overthrow those academies. One
would have thought that, either gratitude or his own reputation among
his relations and best friends, might have kept him silent, though when
a man is resolved to do himself a mischief, who can help it. Mr Wesley
had an early inclination to poetry, but he usually wrote too fast to
write well. Two hundred couplets a day are too many by two-thirds to be
well furnished with all the beauties and graces of that art. He wrote
very much for me, both in verse and prose, though I shall not name over
the titles, because I am as unwilling to see my name at the bottom of
them, as Mr Wesley would be to subscribe his own. Mr Wesley had read
much, and is well skilled in the languages; he is generous and
good-humoured, and caresses his friends with a great deal of passion so
long as their circumstances are anything in order, and then he _drops_
them. I challenge the rector of Epworth (for he is not yet ‘My Lord,’
nor ‘His Grace,’) to prove that I injure him in his character. I could
be very _maggoty_ in the character of this _conforming Dissenter_; but,
except he further provokes me, I bid him farewell till we meet in
heaven, and there I hope we shall renew our friendship; for, human
frailties excepted, I believe Sam. Wesley a pious man. I shall only add,
that giving this true character of Parson Wesley, is all the
satisfaction I ever desire for his _dropping_ an old friend. I shall
leave him to struggle through life, and to make the best of it; but,
alas!
‘He loves too much the Heliconian strand,
Whose stream’s ungarnish’d with the golden sand.’
I do not speak this out of prejudice to Mr Wesley; (for to forgive a
slight is so easy to me, it is scarce a virtue,) but this _rhyming_
circumstance of Mr Wesley is what I learn from the poem called, ‘The
Reformation of Manners,’[117] where are these words:—
‘Wesley, with pen and poverty beset,
And Blackmore, versed in physic as in wit;
Though this of Jesus—that of Job may sing,
One bawdy play will twice their profits bring.
And, had not both caress’d the flatter’d crown,
This had no knighthood seen, nor that no gown.’”[118]
-----
Footnote 117:
Written by Defoe.
Footnote 118:
Dunton’s _Life and Errors_.
-----
All this is despicable growling. Dunton accuses Wesley that he had
ceased to be his friend, or, to use his own word, which twice over he
has italicised, because he had _dropped_ him. But what of that? Had
Wesley not had cause to drop him? Was it nothing that this man, who for
fifteen years had been blessed, in the sister of Susannah Wesley, with
one of the best wives that ever lived, began to sweetheart another
within two months after she was dead, though all the while he was
indulging in noisy grief for his irreparable loss, and was urging Wesley
to write both an epitaph and an elegy, for the devoted and exalted woman
whose place at his hearth and in his bed he was labouring to fill up
with another? Was it surprising that Samuel Wesley should resent this
insult to the memory of his wife’s sister, and that he should _drop_ the
friendship of a man who was making himself such a fool? Wesley was no
longer Dunton’s _friend_; but there is no evidence that he became
Dunton’s _enemy_. On the contrary, when Dunton was crushed with
financial embarrassments, Mr Wesley was not only _a_ creditor, but _the
chief_ creditor, and wrote to Dunton assuring him that he should do
nothing to his prejudice.[119] Dunton himself confesses this; and yet,
with consummate and most ungrateful impudence, not only whines about
Wesley’s _dropped_ friendship, but malignantly endeavours to injure
Wesley’s fair character.
-----
Footnote 119:
Dunton’s _Life and Errors_.
-----
Dunton, in the foregoing extract, insinuates that Wesley had written
articles (we presume in the _Athenian Gazette_) which were discreditable
both to him and to his publisher; but, in the absence of something more
than insinuation, and taking into account the general character of
Wesley’s acknowledged writings, it is not unfair to say that Dunton’s
inuendo is as baseless as it is base.
Dunton intimates that Wesley had sought to be made a bishop, and had
cast a longing eye on even the dignity of an archbishop. The same thing
has been broadly uttered in a life of Defoe, recently written by William
Chadwick. This pungent and scurrilous author says:—“Wesley made his way
by flattering royalty; he could write either prose or poetry, and
dedicate his work to the queen for the time being, and then ask for a
living as the reward of his services. The rectory of Epworth was one
produce of his pen, Queen Mary being the patron. The neighbouring living
of Wroot he obtained for bedaubing with poetic flattery the Duke of
Marlborough, after his victory of Blenheim; and his traducing of the
Dissenters in the eventful year of 1703, was intended, through the royal
patronage, to send this time-serving flatterer into the Archbishopric of
Canterbury, upon the back of that unprincipled miscreant, Dr
Sacheverell.”[120]
-----
Footnote 120:
Chadwick’s _Life of Defoe_, p. 214.
-----
The man that wrote this is as unprincipled as he says Sacheverell was.
His assertions are a tissue of falsehoods, in support of which he
adduces no evidence whatever. Samuel Wesley would have done no dishonour
to a bishop’s bench, but we fearlessly deny that there is any proof
existing, except such as is found in mean insinuations, like those of
John Dunton, that Samuel Wesley ever even “desired a bishop’s office,
much less that he wrote his books for the purpose of obtaining it.” The
whole thing is an unfounded and slanderous accusation, more disgraceful
to the accusers than it is injurious to the accused. Chadwick, no doubt,
founds his imputations against Wesley upon casual remarks made by men
like Dunton; but when Dunton and others fail to adduce proof, it is only
fair to doubt their correctness, inasmuch as they are obviously animated
by a malevolence which never scruples to utter falsehoods that are
likely to blacken the character of the man it hates.
So far as can be ascertained, the first thing Mr Wesley published, after
his removal to Epworth, was a “Sermon preached before the Society for
the Reformation of Manners.” This sermon was delivered, first, at St
James’s Church, Westminster, Feb. 13, 1698, about twelve months after
the settlement at Epworth, and was afterwards repeated at St Bride’s.
The text is, “Who will rise up for me against evildoers? or who will
stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” (Psalm xciv. 16;) and
it is a curious fact that, sixty-five years after, John Wesley preached
before the same society, from the same text, in West Street Chapel,
Seven Dials.[121]
-----
Footnote 121:
Wesley’s _Works_, vol. vi., p. 140.
-----
The Society for the Reformation of Manners was first instituted about
the year 1677, which was just before Samuel Wesley became a student in
the Stepney Academy. At that time Dr Anthony Horneck was at the height
of his useful popularity. Horneck was educated first at Heidelberg,
under the celebrated Spurzheim, and afterwards at Queen’s College,
Oxford. After exercising his ministry in Oxford, and at Doulton, in
Devonshire, he, in 1671, became preacher at the Savoy in London. At the
Revolution he was honoured with the appointment of chaplain to King
William and Queen Mary, and in 1693 became prebendary of Westminster. He
died in 1696. He was a man of extensive learning; particularly
conversant with the Oriental languages, ecclesiastical history,
controversial theology, and casuistry, and was the author of several
pious and learned works. Dunton says “he was a man of so great
usefulness that none saw him without reverence, or heard him without
wonder.”
Another popular and useful preacher, belonging to the same period, was
Mr Smithies, who was curate of Cripplegate for thirty years, and
preached the morning lecture at St Michael’s, Cornhill, where he was so
well beloved that he sought no other preferment. The eccentric writer
last quoted says, “His faithful and excellent preaching commanded the
attention of men, and his constancy in it procured their love. He was a
most humble and hearty Christian, and his practical books were in great
esteem.”
A third distinguished man must here be mentioned—William Beveridge. At
the university, Beveridge so much excelled in the learned languages,
that, at the age of eighteen, he wrote a Syriac grammar, and a treatise
on the excellency and use of the Oriental tongues. Three years after, in
1661, he became vicar of Ealing, in Middlesex, and subsequently he was
appointed Rector of St Peter’s, Cornhill, Prebend of St Paul’s, &c. In
1691, the see of Bath and Wells was offered him, but he declined
accepting it. In 1704, he became Bishop of St Asaph; and, in this
elevated station, prosecuted with great zeal and diligence every
practicable measure for advancing the interests of religion. He died in
1708, and left the greatest part of his estate to the societies for
propagating the gospel, and for promoting Christian knowledge. Beveridge
was a voluminous author; and, as a preacher, was so successful,
especially at St Peter’s, Cornhill, that he was denominated “the great
reviver and restorer of primitive piety.”
The earnest preaching of these three godly ministers was the means of
converting a considerable number of young men who applied to them for
religious counsel. Beveridge, Horneck, and Smithies advised them “to
meet together once a week, and to apply themselves to good discourse and
things wherein they might edify one another.” They acted upon this
advice, and, at every meeting, made a collection for the poor. By means
of the fund thus provided, numbers of poor families were relieved, and
some were put into a way of trade; sundry prisoners were set at liberty
by the payment of their debts, several orphans were maintained, and a
few poor scholars received assistance at the university.[122]
-----
Footnote 122:
Bishop Burnet states that there had formerly been societies of this
description both among the Puritans and Dissenters; but the societies
which now sprung up belonged to the Established Church. He adds, they
were chiefly conducted by Dr Beveridge and Dr Horneck. Some disliked
them, and were afraid they might give birth to new factions; but wiser
and better men thought it was not fit to check a spirit of devotion at
such a time. After the Revolution, these societies became more
numerous; and, by means of their collections, maintained clergymen to
read prayers at so many places, and at so many different hours, that
devout persons might avail themselves of the privilege of joining in
sacred worship at every hour of the day. There were constant
sacraments in many churches every Sabbath; and there were greater
numbers present at both prayers and sacraments than had been observed
in the memory of man. The societies began to inform the magistrates of
swearers, drunkards, Sabbath-breakers, and adulterers; and, because of
this, they were called Societies of Reformation. Some of the
magistrates encouraged them, but others treated them roughly. Some of
the societies set themselves to raise charity schools; others printed
books, and distributed them over the nation; and were, therefore,
called societies for propagating Christian knowledge. In many places
of the nation the clergy met together to confer about matters of
religion and learning. And, last of all, a corporation was created by
King William for propagating the Gospel among infidels, and for
settling schools in our plantations.—_Burnet’s History of his own
Time_, 1st edition, vol. ii. p. 318.
-----
These converted young men soon found the benefit of their weekly
conferences with each other. Each person related his religious
experience to the rest, and thus they became the means of building
themselves up in the faith of Christ. The reader will at once perceive
that John Wesley’s United Societies of Methodists, with their weekly
class meetings, instituted sixty-two years afterwards, were almost, if
not altogether, an exact revival of these weekly meetings, begun in
1677.
For the better management of their charitable fund, two stewards were
elected in 1678. The meetings were continued until the accession of
James II. in 1685. At this period, all private meetings began to be
regarded with suspicion, and the result was, that some of the members of
these pre-Methodist societies ceased to attend such weekly assemblies
for Christian fellowship; others became lukewarm in religious matters;
and some became extravagant and vain. A few, however, continued
faithful, and resolved to exert themselves to the utmost in maintaining
and increasing the purity and power of religion in themselves and
others. At their own expense, they set up public prayers, every evening
at eight o’clock, at St Clement Danes, where there was always a full
congregation. They also instituted, in the same church, an evening
monthly lecture, which was preached by the most eminent divines in
London. All this excited attention. The Papists, then in power, regarded
these young Christians with hatred and anxiety, and exercised their
malignant cunning to ensnare them. Just at this juncture, and probably
for political reasons, the name of “Society” was exchanged for that of
“Club;” and instead of the weekly meetings being held, as heretofore, in
the house of a friend, who might be endangered by such assemblies, they
were held in quiet taverns, where the members could have a room
appropriated to themselves, and where, under the pretext of a small
expenditure in tavern refreshments, they could safely recite their
religious experience, and confer on plans of religious usefulness.
On the accession of William and Mary to the throne, in 1689, religious
secrecy was no longer needed, and the societies now began to extend the
sphere of their operations. At first their chief object, in their weekly
meetings, was to afford to each other mutual assistance in their
Christian life; but, now, they enacted a rule that every member should
endeavour to add to the society at least one other member. This led to
an amazing increase of their numbers, and the result was that similar
societies were multiplied in all parts of London.[123] This led some
ill-affected persons to report to the bishop of the diocese that these
societies were engendering religious pride, and would issue in a church
schism. A vindication was sent to the bishop, stating that the only
object the members had, was to quicken each other’s affections towards
spiritual things, and to assist each other to live in all respects as
Christians. The bishop was satisfied, and said, “God forbid that I
should be against such excellent designs!”
-----
Footnote 123:
For most of these facts, and for many that follow, the writer is
indebted to “An Account of the Rise and Progress of the Religious
Societies in the City of London, &c., and of their endeavours for
Reformation of Manners,” by Josiah Woodward, D.D. The sixth edition.
London, 1744.
-----
The charge against the societies of intending to create a schism was
most unfounded; for so far was it from their purpose to form a sect,
that they carefully guarded against the possibility of this, by their
strict attendance at the monthly sacrament, by the use of many of the
church prayers in their private meetings, by their setting up public
prayers in many of the city churches, and by their humble deference to
their respective ministers, without whose approbation no rule, prayer,
or practice was allowed among them.
It is also noteworthy that great care was exercised in admitting persons
to membership among them. It was required that those who were desirous
of joining the society should furnish a testimony of their sense of
spiritual things, and of their sincere intention to live a religious
life; and this testimony was often presented in writing.
At length, these associated societies of converted people took another
step, and resolved to exert themselves to check the public and
scandalous sins which were so rampant in the capital. At first, they
scarcely knew how to act; but, just at the time when the resolution was
adopted, four or five gentlemen of the Church of England, well
acquainted with the law, formed a similar resolution, and determined to
do all they could, by legal authority, to chastise and suppress the
impudent vices and impieties so prevalent among their fellow-citizens.
The first step taken was to make an abstract of all the penal laws
against vice and profanity, and to draw up prudential rules for the
legal conviction of offenders. The next was to obtain, through
Tillotson, in 1691, a letter from Queen Mary, requiring magistrates to
act in such matters, and to enforce the laws. The Lord Mayor, the
aldermen, and other magistrates of London consented; and now copies of
the abstract of penal laws, of the prudential rules that had been drawn
up, of the queen’s letter, and of the magistrates’ answer, were sent all
over the kingdom; and blank warrants were deposited in divers places of
the capital for the convenience of informers.
The _Athenian Oracle_, (vol. iii., p. 30,) tells us that the good and
great men of the age prosecuted the affair with unheard-of vigour; and
many persons of quality met together to concert measures to help forward
this crusade against the profanities of the city. A petty sessions was
held once a-week in Bloomsbury Court-house and Hick’s Hall for the
conviction of offenders; and another was about to be set up in
Westminster.[124] Fit persons were appointed to districts all over the
city and suburbs, to take informations and fill up warrants. The queen
commanded military officers to put down wickedness and disorders among
soldiers. To lessen and prevent debauchery, the time for holding
Bartholomew Fair was to be diminished, &c.
-----
Footnote 124:
This article was written about 1691, and probably by Samuel Wesley.
-----
All this created great excitement. A lawyer, in a coffee-house, publicly
declared that the whole thing was a trick of the magistrates for the
purpose of getting fees, and that he would give them £2000 for their
emoluments during a single year. This, says the _Athenian Oracle_, was a
scandalous untruth, for already one hundred and forty warrants had been
granted for which not one farthing had been charged for fees; and things
were being so well managed, that, though it was likely that ten thousand
warrants would be granted during the next twelve months, it would not be
in the power of the officers levying the penalties to make the least
profit by their legal prosecutions.
This royal, and almost national movement, could not have been more
opportune. The religious societies had resolved to make an attempt to
suppress and to punish vice, but scarce knew how to act; just at this
juncture the steps were taken above recited, and now the way was open.
Accordingly, the societies met together and prepared for action, by
adopting the five following rules, which, in the prosecution of their
work, were to be religiously observed:—
1. Christian poverty of spirit, to be cultivated by a deep sense of
their own impurity and imperfection.
2. A disinterested mind, wholly renouncing all carnal ends.
3. Habitual prayer to God, with a courageous and unwearied pursuit of
such things as are agreeable to His will, and subservient to His glory.
4. Unfeigned charity towards all men, especially to their souls.
5. Quiet resignation to the Providence of God in all events.
The societies now began their work, having really become the Society for
the Reformation of Manners. One section of the members were appointed to
act in London, and another section to act in Westminster. Prompt
information was given to the magistrates of all the debaucheries and
profanities they witnessed; and not a few were the reproaches and
threats they met with from evil-doers.
Very soon these converted people, belonging to the religious societies,
were joined by an association of housekeepers in the Tower Hamlets, who,
for their own protection, had banded themselves together to put an end
to the thieving and lewdness that abounded in that neighbourhood.[125]
The results were—several Sunday markets were abolished; some hundreds of
brothels were shut up; music halls, which had degenerated into nurseries
of licentiousness, were closed; multitudes of swearers,
Sabbath-breakers, and drunkards, were legally convicted; and above two
thousand prostitutes, night-walkers, and keepers of houses of ill-fame,
were sentenced by the magistrates as the law directed; many of them
being punished by fines, others by imprisonment, others by a suppression
of their licences, and not a few by being publicly whipped at the cart’s
tail.
-----
Footnote 125:
We have before us a pamphlet with the following title:—“Proposals for
a National Reformation of Manners, Humbly Offered to the Consideration
of our Magistrates and Clergy. Published by the Society for
Reformation. London: Printed for John Dunton, 1694.” In the preface it
is stated, that “Atheism and profaneness never got such an ascendancy
as at this day. A thick gloominess hath overspread our horizon, and
our light looks like the evening of the world.” After dwelling on the
sins of the nation, it is recommended—1. “That there be a solemn fast,
without any appearance of ornament among us, from the highest to the
lowest.” 2. “That care be taken to establish justice and judgment unto
the poor and needy, the destitute, and the oppressed.” 3. “That there
be a yearly allowance for defraying the necessary expenses of carrying
on this work of Reformation of Manners.” 4. “That the King and Queen
be supplicated to suppress play-houses.” 5. “That great care be taken
to put a difference between the clean and unclean in the visible
Church, and not to admit all sorts of loose professors to the Holy
Communion.”
-----
These were bold steps to take, but they were not unneeded. Daniel Defoe,
writing at that period, has drawn a terrific picture of the age. The
following are lines taken at random from his poems. There are others far
too vivid to be reprinted:—
“K——’s a Dissenter, and severe of life,
Instructs his household and _corrects_ his wife;
Lectures and sermons he attends by day,
But yet comes home at night too drunk to pray.
“The country Justice may disturb the peace;
The clergy drink and whore; the gospel cease;
The doctors cavil, and the priests contend,
And Convocation quarrels see no end.
“Superior lewdness crowns thy magistrates,
And vice, grown gray, usurps thy reverend seats;
Eternal blasphemies and oaths abound,
And bribes among thy senators are found.”
Woodward tells us that, in the music halls, it was not unusual for
persons of both sexes to dance together in shameless nakedness; and
that, within a brief period, there had been above twenty murders
committed in these licentious concert rooms.
Samuel Wesley’s description of the morals of the city and of the nation
is appalling. In the sermon which he preached before the Society for the
Reformation of Manners, in 1698, he writes:—“Our infamous theatres seem
to have done more mischief to the faith and morals of the nation than
Hobbes himself. With as much reason may we exclaim against our plays and
interludes as did the old zealous fathers against the pagan spectacles,
and as justly rank these, as they did the others, among those pomps and
vanities which our baptism obliges us to renounce and to abhor. What
communion hath the temple of God with idols?—with those abominable
mysteries of iniquity, which outdo the old Fescenina of the heathen, the
lewd orgies of Bacchus, and the impious feasts of Isis and Priapus? I
know not how any person can profitably, or indeed decently, present
themselves here before God’s holy oracle, who frequent those schools of
vice, and mysteries of profaneness and lewdness, to unlearn _there_ what
they are taught _here_ out of God’s Holy Word. It is true the stage
pretends to reform manners; but let them tell us how many converts to
virtue and religion they have made during the last thirty or forty
years. We can give numerous and sad instances to the contrary. A brave
and virtuous nation has been too generally depraved and corrupted, and
nothing has more highly conduced to this than these insufferable and
abominable representations at theatres. If oaths; if blasphemy; if
perpetual profanation of the glorious name of God and of our blessed
Redeemer; if making a scoff and a laugh of His Holy Word and
institutions; if filthiness and foolish talking, and profane or immodest
jesting; if representing, excusing, and recommending the vices of
mankind; if teaching the people to think virtue ridiculous, and religion
fit for none but old people, fools, and lunatics; if contempt of
superiors; if false notions of honour; if lewdness, and pride, and
revenge, and even murder;—if these are the lessons which are daily
taught in the public play-houses, to the disgrace of our age, corruption
of our morals, and scandal of our nation, then we may fairly ask, Are
these fit places for the education of our youth, and the diversion of
those of riper years? or, indeed, are they fit places to be _tolerated_
under a Christian government?”[126]
-----
Footnote 126:
_Meth. Mag._, 1814, p. 729.
-----
Mr Wesley continues:—“Alas! what reason has every one, who has any real
concern for God and for his country, to cry out with the father of old,
‘To what dregs of time are we reserved!’ Men may almost print or speak
what blasphemies they please with impunity, and even with triumph. Too
many of the subordinate magistrates will not act, nor the people
generally assist them in the punishment of evil-doers. It is reckoned a
part of good breeding, or at least an argument of wit and spirit, to
ridicule all that is sacred, and to profane the glorious and fearful
name of God; and it is regarded as the rudest and the most clownish
thing in the world to reprove, to detect, and punish such offenders,
though by the most legal, prudent, and advisable methods.”
The Society for the Reformation of Manners was of great service, but it
was not perfect. Defoe, in his “Poor Man’s Plea,” alleges that the laws
against vicious practices were cobweb laws, which caught small flies,
but which the great ones broke through. The Lord Mayor whipt about the
poor beggars and a few bad women, and sent them to the House of
Correction; and some alehouse-keepers and vintners were fined for
drawing drink on Sundays; but the man, with a gold ring and gay clothes,
might reel through the open streets, and no one noticed it. The
lewdness, profaneness, and immorality of the gentry, which was the main
cause of the general debauchery of the kingdom, were not at all touched
by the laws as now executed.
These are distressing pictures; and it is not surprising that the
converted people, joined together in the religious societies instituted
about 1677, should set themselves the task of suppressing such
impieties, and thus give birth, about the year 1691, to the Society for
the Reformation of Manners. To some extent, the two Societies were one,
and yet they were distinct and separate. The religious societies were
instituted principally to promote religion among themselves; the
Reformation Society to suppress public vice in others. The religious
societies were altogether composed of members of the Church of England;
the Reformation Society was composed of members of the Church of
England, and of other churches as well.[127]
-----
Footnote 127:
Calamy says: “The foundation of the Society for Reformation of Manners
was laid in 1692; and the Dissenters were, from the first, as ready to
encourage and assist in it as any.”—CALAMY’S _Life and Times_.
-----
After the Society for the Reformation of Manners had existed about forty
years, most of its original members were dead, and it became defunct,
and, from about 1730 to 1757, no such society existed. At that time, and
perhaps as the result of the Methodist societies being instituted in
1739, the old Society for Reformation of Manners was revived. The
approbation of the Lord Mayor of London and of the Court of Aldermen was
obtained; and thousands of books of instruction were printed, and were
sent to constables and parish officers to remind them of their duty. In
the beginning of 1758, the laws against immorality were again enforced,
and the streets and fields swept of their notorious offenders. In five
years, about ten thousand persons were brought to justice, principally
for gambling, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, lewdness, and selling obscene
prints.[128] Who will deny that John Wesley had much to do with the
revival of this society, as his father, Samuel Wesley, had to do with
its early institution.[129] The society, at the first, arose out of the
religious societies then existing; and we are strongly of opinion that
the revival of the society, after it had become defunct, arose out of
the Methodist societies of 1739, and which bore an almost exact
resemblance to the religious societies of 1677. At all events, we find
John Wesley thoroughly identifying himself with the revived Reformation
Society of 1757. In 1763, he preached before the Society in West Street
Chapel, Seven Dials, taking, as already stated, the very text that his
father took sixty-five years before.[130] In 1764, he proposed to the
London Leaders Meeting that they should have a congregational collection
to assist to liquidate the heavy debt of the Society for the Reformation
of Manners, though, at the very time, his own society debt in London was
about £900.[131] And, in 1766, he dined with W. Welsh, the father of the
revived Society, and most feelingly laments that it has a second time
ceased to exist. The immediate cause of this, was an action instituted
against the society, in the King’s Bench, which issued in a verdict with
£300 damages. This verdict was obtained by the false swearing of a
wretch whom the society afterwards convicted of wilful perjury. Still
the death-blow to the Society was struck, and John Wesley writes: “They
could never recover the expense of that suit. Lord, how long shall the
ungodly triumph?”[132]
-----
Footnote 128:
_See_ Wesley’s _Works_, vol. vi. p. 145.
Footnote 129:
The person who was the principal means of resuscitating the Society
for the Reformation of Manners was W. Welsh; but John Wesley was a
personal friend of W. Welsh, and probably gave him counsel and
encouragement.—_See_ Wesley’s _Journal_, February 2, 1766.
Footnote 130:
Wesley’s _Works_, vol. vi. p. 140.
Footnote 131:
Wesley’s _Journal_, Nov. 4, 1764.
Footnote 132:
Wesley’s _Works_, vol. iii. p. 230, and vol. vi. p. 157.
-----
Such, then, was the origin, the object, and the history of the society
before which Samuel Wesley preached, in St James’s Church, Westminster,
in 1698. He was still a young man, and the circumstance of him being
selected to preach, shows the high estimation in which he was already
held. The sermon is long, able, and earnest. “Daring and open
wickedness,” he writes, “is high treason against the Majesty of heaven;
and are not all His liege subjects under the deepest obligations to
oppose it? Who has courage, and constancy, and bravery, equal to so
glorious an undertaking? Blessed be God! we have now the encouragement
of superiors. The sword of justice no longer lies rusting and idle, but
is drawn and furbished for the battle, and glitters against the enemies
of God and of our country. Shall a wretched mortal, a worm of the same
dust with ourselves, presume to affront my Father, my Patron, my Friend,
my Benefactor, my Saviour, and shall I want courage, or honesty to
oppose him, to detect him, and to bring him to that shame and punishment
he so highly merits? Whom are we afraid of, that we forget the Lord our
Maker? Let all the potsherds of the earth fall down together, and humble
themselves before the King, the Lord of hosts, and let Him alone be
exalted, whose glory is above the heavens, and who shakes the earth at
His displeasure. Let us often read the lives of martyrs. Here were
Christians indeed,—who trampled the world, subdued the flesh, and
conquered the devil, following the great Captain of their salvation, as
He himself led the way, with crimson banners, and garments rolled in
blood; and shall we pretend to follow them, as they did Him, and yet be
afraid of a few hard words or frowns from mistaken or evil men? Oh pity!
pity! poor sinners, and pray to God to pity them, who want the sense and
grace to pity themselves; but show your pity to them, not by a cruel
fondness, but by a kind and wholesome severity. Why should we suffer
them to tumble over a fatal precipice, for fear of disturbing or
disobliging them, by pulling them back with some haste and violence? Go
on, then, in the name of God. Remember the eyes of God, men, and angels,
are upon you. Be sober, be vigilant. Forbid none from casting out
devils, because he follows not with _you_. Be careful and humble, and
all earth and hell can never hurt you. Be willing, be thankful to be
accounted the filth and offscouring of the world; the disturbers of the
public peace, by those who themselves notoriously break it. Think much
of heaven—forget not death. Be constant at sacraments, and in prayer,
public, domestic, and private. Neglect not to sing the high praises of
God. Remember the poor, especially God’s poor. Pity the afflicted,
especially our dear brethren who now ‘suffer for the Word of God and the
testimony of Jesus.’ Oh the peace, the joy, the triumph, the exultation
of mind which a good man possesses, when he reflects on any sufferings
he undergoes for the cause of God, and for the cause of despised
religion and virtue! He bids the world do its worst, for he has a
reserve beyond it,—and knows who will receive him into everlasting
habitations, and say unto him ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,
enter thou into the joy of thy Lord!’”
We have thus attempted to give an outline of the history of the Society
for the Reformation of Manners; and extracts from Samuel Wesley’s
sermon, preached before it in 1698; but, before the chapter closes, a
few words must be added in reference to the religious societies out of
which the other society arose.
The religious societies, begun in 1677, continued to exist until after
John Wesley had instituted his Methodist societies. Wesley’s first
society was formed at Oxford in 1729, and consisted of himself, his
brother Charles, Mr Morgan, and Mr Kirkham, who spent some evenings
every week, in unitedly reading the Greek Testament.[133] The second was
formed at Savannah in 1736, where he met a select few in his own house
after evening prayers, and read and conversed with them, and concluded
the meetings with a psalm.[134] On his return to England, we find him
attending the meetings of the old religious societies which were still
existing. On Sunday, April 26, 1738, he “went to a _society_ in Oxford,
where, as his manner then was at _all societies_, after using a collect
or two and the Lord’s prayer, he expounded a chapter in the New
Testament, and concluded with three or four more collects and a
psalm.”[135] In September of the same year, we find him attending and
taking part in _society_ meetings in Bear Yard, in Aldersgate Street,
and in Gutter Lane, London.[136] On the 15th of November following, he
expounded at three _societies_ in Bristol.[137] In April 1739, in
Bristol, he began “expounding our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount to a little
_society_, which was accustomed to meet once or twice a week in Nicholas
Street;”[138] and later on, in the same month, and in the same city,
while “at a little _society_ in the Back Lane, the floor of the room
gave way, and fell down with a great noise.”[139] In June 1739, he “went
to a _society_ at Wapping, where many began to call upon God with strong
cries and tears.”[140] On September 9th, he “went to a _society_ at
Fetter Lane, and exhorted them to love one another;”[141] and two or
three weeks afterwards “went as _usual_ to the _society_ at St James’s;”
and also to a _society_ at Deptford.[142] In April, 1740, we find him at
“a little _society_ at Islington, which had stood untainted from the
beginning;”[143] and in the month of May following, he met with the
“members of a religious _society_ at Newcastle-on-Tyne, which had
subsisted for many years, had a fine library, and to whom their steward
read a sermon every Sunday.”[144]
-----
Footnote 133:
Wesley’s _Works_, vol. viii. p. 334.
Footnote 134:
Wesley’s _Works_, vol. i. p. 40.
Footnote 135:
_Ibid._, Vol. i. p. 84.
Footnote 136:
_Ibid._, p. 149.
Footnote 137:
_Ibid._, p. 153.
Footnote 138:
_Ibid._, p. 174.
Footnote 139:
_Ibid._, p. 176.
Footnote 140:
_Ibid._, p. 192.
Footnote 141:
_Ibid._, p. 211.
Footnote 142:
_Ibid._, p. 214.
Footnote 143:
_Ibid._, p. 254.
Footnote 144:
_Ibid._, p. 351.
-----
All this affords ample proof that the old religious societies, begun in
1677, still existed; and there cannot be a doubt that it was a knowledge
of their usefulness that led John Wesley to institute his united
societies in 1739. He tells us that, about that time, persons who had
been awakened to a sense of their sin and danger, by the preaching of
himself and his brother Charles, came to them for religious counsel and
consolation. He writes:—“We advised them: ‘Strengthen you one
another—talk together as often as you can, and pray earnestly with and
for one another, that you may endure to the end, and be saved.’ They
replied, ‘But we want you likewise to talk with us.’ So I told them, ‘If
you will all of you come together every Thursday evening, I will gladly
spend some time with you in prayer, and give you the best advice I can.’
Thus,” he adds, “arose what was afterwards called _a society_; a very
innocent name, and very common in London, for any number of people
associating themselves together. They united themselves in order to pray
together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one
another in love, that they might help each other to work out their
salvation.”[145] A few days after this society was formed, some of the
members expressed a determination to make a quarterly subscription to
assist Wesley to pay for the lease of the Foundry, and a steward was
appointed to receive the money;[146] and very soon after that, the
society was divided into smaller companies called “classes,” consisting
of about twelve persons each, and one of whom was styled “the
leader.”[147]
-----
Footnote 145:
Wesley’s _Works_, vol. viii. p. 240.
Footnote 146:
_Ibid._, p. 299.
Footnote 147:
_Ibid._, p. 259.
-----
Such is John Wesley’s own account of the rise of his “United Societies.”
In all this, we see an exact repetition of what was done by Beveridge,
Horneck, and Smithies sixty-two years before. The religious societies
instituted by them were the pioneers of the Methodist societies, and
prepared their way. Their origin and number indicate the existence of a
large amount of experimental and earnest piety, even in the midst of
abounding wickedness. They were immensely useful, and were the means of
conferring great benefits both upon the members themselves and upon
others. They were instrumental in beginning and establishing about one
hundred schools in London and its suburbs, in which thousands of poor
children were taught gratuitously, and were carefully educated in good
manners. Their rules required, that every member should be a member of
the Church of England; that the members should meet together once a week
to encourage each other in practical holiness; that all controversial
and political discussions should be avoided at their meetings; that
every member should give a weekly contribution towards the public stock
for pious and charitable uses; that every one absenting himself from
four meetings in succession, without just cause, should be looked upon
as disaffected to the society; that none should be admitted as new
members without due notice, and without inquiry concerning their
religious purposes and manner of life; and that all the members should
pray many times every day, receive the Lord’s Supper at least once a
month, keep a monthly fast, and pray for the whole society in their
private devotions.
We have seen John Wesley’s connexion with these societies. What about
his father? Was he acquainted with them, and did he give them his
approbation and sympathy? Happily these are questions which can be
answered. “A Letter concerning the Religious Societies,” was published
by Samuel Wesley in 1699. After giving a description of the societies,
Mr Wesley proceeds to argue that, so far from being any injury to the
Church of England, they would greatly promote its interests. He
expresses a wish that such societies might be formed in all considerable
towns, and even in populous villages. He writes—“There are a great many
parishes in this kingdom which consist of several thousands of souls.
Now what one man, or two, or three, is sufficient for such a multitude?
Those who have but one or two thousand will find their cares heavy
enough, especially now they have neither the catechists of the ancients
to assist them, nor those clerks which are mentioned in the rubric.” He
then goes on to state, that, in such cases, the religious societies
would be of immense service. Acting under the authority and direction of
the clergy, “they would be as so many churchwardens, or overseers, or
almost deacons under them; caring for the sick and poor, giving an
account of the spiritual estate of themselves and others, persuading
parents to catechise their children and to fit them for confirmation,
and discoursing with those who have left the church to bring them back
to it. This assistance would conduce as much to the health of the
minister’s body, by easing him of many a weary step and fruitless
journey, as it would conduce to the satisfaction of his mind, in the
visible success of his labours. Such societies, so far from injuring the
Church, would be so many new bulwarks against its enemies, and would
give it daily more strength, and beauty, and reputation.”
He then proceeds to show that the institution of such societies was not
a novelty; that the Church of Rome was indebted for most of the progress
that it had made in recent times to the several societies it had
nourished in its bosom; and that the Marquis de Renty in France had
formed, as early as 1640, many societies of devout persons, who, in
their weekly meetings, consulted about the relief of the poor, engaged
in united prayer, sang psalms, read books of devotion, and discoursed
together of their own spiritual concerns.
Wesley then argues that such societies are really necessary, on the
ground, that, without them, the members of the Church have no
opportunity for that “delightful employment of all good Christians,”
pious conversation. He concludes thus:—“The design of these societies is
not to gather churches out of churches, to foment new schisms and
divisions, and to make heathens of all the rest of their Christian
brethren; but to promote, in a regular manner, that which is the end of
every Christian, the glory of God, included in the welfare and salvation
of themselves and their neighbours. It cannot be denied that there may
and will be some persons in these societies of more heat than light, of
more zeal than judgment; but where was ever any body of men without some
such characters? But since the very rules of their institution do
strictly oblige them to the practice of humility and charity, and to
avoid censoriousness and spiritual pride, the common rocks of those who
make a more than ordinary profession of religion, I see not what human
prudence can provide any farther in this matter.”
These extracts are important, inasmuch as they afford ample evidence
that Samuel Wesley (the High Churchman, as Mr Watson and others
erroneously call him) was as much in favour of Christian fellowship,
such as Methodists now hold in classes, as was the founder of the
Methodists himself; and they also further prove that, when John Wesley
employed lay agents to assist himself and his brother, and to promote
the glory of God in the salvation of men, he did nothing more than what
had been earnestly advocated and recommended by his father nearly half a
century before. In employing lay-agents, John Wesley was a-head of his
age; but he only did what his father had urged to be done in 1699, and
what the Church of England itself, at this present moment, is wishing to
have accomplished—viz., the employment of a Sub-Diaconate to co-operate
with the regular ministry.