We have already seen that, by an enormous effort, in the month of
August, Wesley hurried from Bristol to London to visit his afflicted
wife. On his return he wrote her as follows.
“MY LOVE,--I can make allowance for faintness, and weakness, and
pain. I remember when it was my own case, at this very place, and
when you spared no pains in nursing and waiting upon me, till
it pleased God to make you the chief instrument in restoring my
strength. I am glad you have the advice of a skilful physician; but
you must not be surprised or discouraged if you do not recover your
strength so soon as one might wish, especially at this time of the
year. What is chiefly to be desired is, that God may sanctify all His
dispensations to you, and that all may be the means of your being
more entirely devoted to Him, whose favour is better than strength,
or health, or life itself.
“I am, dear Molly, your ever affectionate husband,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
No sooner was Wesley’s wife convalescent, than, instead of waiting to
welcome him to his home in London, she, in one of her insane piques,
took her departure to Newcastle. The following letter to his brother
refers to this, and also to his preparing an edition of Young’s “Night
Thoughts,” and to other matters.
“LONDON, _December 17, 1768_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I thank you for your reproof. There is reason in what
you say. If there was not evil, there was the appearance of evil.
“Matters have not been well carried on at Liverpool; but ‘what cannot
be cured must be endured.’
“Why, you simpleton, you are cutting me out a month’s work. Nay, but
I have no leisure nor inclination to write a book. I intend only: (1)
to leave out what I most dislike; (2) to mark what I most approve of;
(3) to prefix a short preface. And I shall run the hazard of printing
it at Bristol. There you yourself can read the proof sheets.
“You do well with regard to my sister Emily. What farther is wanting
I will supply. I hear nothing from our friend at Newcastle. I am now
a mere fellow of a college again. Adieu!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[40]
Wesley was still troubled on account of the chapel debts. Nearly £6000
had been contributed; but there was still a debt of £7728 upon the
chapels in the United Kingdom undefrayed.[41] This gave rise to the
following letter.
“LONDON, _December, 1768_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Last year, Mr. H---- was much persuaded that, by
means of the yearly subscription, our whole debt of above £11,000
would be paid within two years. Many of our brethren were more
sanguine still. They were persuaded that, by generously exerting
themselves, and giving a large sum at once, it would be paid in one
year. I did not expect this; but I would not contradict, because I
would not discourage them. The event was as I foresaw. By the noble
effort which many of our brethren made, most of the pressing debts
are already discharged, amounting in the whole to near £7000. But
a debt of about £7000 remains upon us still. What can be done with
regard to this? I will tell you what occurs to my mind. Many of our
brethren chose to subscribe yearly ten, five, three, two guineas, or
less. I doubt not but these will cheerfully pay the residue of their
subscription, and perhaps some of them will add a little thereto,
as they see the great occasion there is for it. A few delayed
subscribing, because they wanted to see the event; supposing the
design to be impracticable, and that ‘nothing good would come out
of it,’ As it now appears that great good has come out of it, that
many burdens are already removed, I cannot but earnestly exhort all
these now to set their shoulders to the work. Now, at least, let them
exert themselves, for my sake, for the gospel’s sake, and for the
sake of their still afflicted brethren, who groan under a load which
they cannot well bear, and yet cannot remove without our assistance.
Several generously contributed at once, in hope of paying the whole
debt. Of them nothing more can be required, but their prayers that
others may be as openhearted as themselves. Nevertheless, if of their
own free goodwill they see good to add a little to their former
benefactions--this, as well as the former, is lent unto the Lord, and
what they lay out shall be paid them again. Ought I not to add, that
there were some of our brethren who did not answer my expectation? I
knew they were able to assist largely; and I flattered myself they
were not less willing than able, as they owed me their own souls
also, and this was the first favour of the kind which I had requested
of them. Let me be excused from saying any more of what is past. Let
them now drop all excuses and objections, and show they love me and
their brethren, and the work of God, not in word only, but in deed
and in truth. Let me have joy over you, my brethren, in particular.
You have a measure of this world’s goods, and you see your brother
hath need. I have need of your help, inasmuch as the burdens of my
brethren are my own. Do not pass by on the other side; but come and
help as God has enabled you. Do all you can to lighten the labour,
and strengthen the hands, of your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[42]
Wesley was a great reader, as well as a great writer; and, during the
year 1768, his journal is enriched with an unusual number of his
critical remarks. A few may be given as specimens of others.
“January 11.--This week I spent my scraps of time in reading Mr.
Wodrow’s ‘History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland.’ It
would transcend belief, but that the vouchers are too authentic
to admit of any exception. O what a blessed governor was that
goodnatured man, so called, King Charles the Second! Bloody Queen
Mary was a lamb, a mere dove, in comparison of him!”
“April 29.--I read over an extremely sensible book, but one that
surprised me much: ‘An Inquiry into the Proofs of the Charges
commonly advanced against Mary Queen of Scotland.’ By means of
original papers, the author has made it clear: (1) That she was
altogether innocent of the murder of Lord Darnley, and no way privy
to it. (2) That she married Lord Bothwell (then near seventy years
old, herself but four-and-twenty), from the pressing instance of
the nobility in a body, who, at the same time, assured her he
was innocent of the king’s murder. (3) That Murray, Morton, and
Lethington, themselves contrived that murder, in order to charge it
upon her; as well as forged those vile letters and sonnets which they
palmed upon the world for hers. ‘But how then can we account for the
quite contrary story, which has been almost universally received?’
Most easily. It was penned and published in French, English, and
Latin, (by Queen Elizabeth’s order,) by George Buchanan, who was
secretary to Lord Murray and in Queen Elizabeth’s pay; so he was sure
to throw dirt enough. Nor was she at liberty to answer for herself.
‘But what then was Queen Elizabeth?’ As just and merciful as Nero,
and as good a Christian as Mahomet.”
“May 20.--I went on reading that fine book, Bishop Butler’s
‘Analogy.’ But I doubt it is too hard for most of those for whom
it is chiefly intended. Freethinkers, so called, are seldom close
thinkers. They will not be at the pains of reading such a book as
this. One that would profit them must dilute his sense, or they will
neither swallow nor digest it.”
“November 19.--I read Dr. Nowell’s answer to Mr. Hill, concerning the
expulsion of the students at Oxford. He has said all that could be
said for that stretch of power; and he says quite enough, to clear
the Church of England from the charge of predestination: a doctrine
which he proves to be utterly inconsistent with the Common Prayer,
the Communion Service, the Office of Baptism, the articles, the
homilies, and the other writings of those that compiled them.”
The last extract refers to a matter too nearly allied to Methodism to
be passed without further notice.
“On the 12th of March, 1768, six students belonging to Edmund hall,
Oxford, were expelled the university, for holding Methodistical
tenets, and taking upon them to pray, read or expound the Scriptures,
and sing hymns in private houses. The principal of the hall, Dr.
Dixon, defended their doctrines from the thirty-nine articles of the
Established Church, and spoke in the highest terms of their piety and
the exemplariness of their lives; but sentence was pronounced against
them. Dr. Nowell, one of the heads of houses present, observed, that
as these six gentlemen were expelled for having too much religion, it
would be very proper to inquire into the conduct of some who had too
little.”[43]
The expelled students were Benjamin Kay, Thomas Jones, Thomas Grove,
Erasmus Middleton, Joseph Shipman, and James Mathews. The junta
of expellers were Drs. Durell, Randolph, Fothergill, Nowell, and
Atterbury.[44] The charges brought against the young culprits were:
1. That they had held or frequented illicit conventicles, where some
of them, though not in orders, had preached and prayed extempore,
particularly in the house of a staymaker, a woman who herself
officiated and taught. 2. That some of them had been bred up to the
lowest trades and occupations, for one had been a weaver and kept a
taphouse, a second had been a barber, a third a draper; and further
all were wholly illiterate, and incapable of performing the statutable
exercises of the university; and were maintained at the charge of
persons suspected of enthusiasm. 3. That they were attached to the
sect called Methodists, and held their doctrines, namely, “that faith
without works is sufficient for salvation; that there is no necessity
for good works; that the immediate impulse of the Spirit is to be
waited for; that once a child of God always a child of God; and the
like.” 4. That one of them, before his entrance into the university,
had preached, and, in defiance of his father’s authority, had connected
himself with the Methodists. 5. That some of them had behaved very
irreverently and disrespectfully to their tutor, and had industriously
sought to cavil with and to vex him.[45]
It is right to add, that none of these young men had been connected
with Wesley. Mr. Jones, the barber, had, for some time resided,
with the Rev. John Newton, and, under his instruction, had made
considerable progress in the Greek and Hebrew languages. Mr. Kay was of
a respectable family, and an excellent scholar, and had an exhibition
paid by the Ironmongers’ Company. Mr. Mathews had been instructed
by Fletcher of Madeley. Mr. Middleton had been under the tutelage of
the Rev. Thomas Haweis. Of Mr. Grove and Mr. Shipman we know nothing,
except that the latter, after his expulsion, was admitted to the
college of the Countess of Huntingdon, at Trevecca.
This act of Oxford tyranny, as might be expected, created great
commotion; and numbers of tracts and pamphlets, _pro_ and _con_,
were published. Among others, Whitefield rushed into the battle,
in a “Letter to the Rev. Dr. Durell,” 8vo, 50 pages, and defended
the expelled with great vigour and effect; as also did Dr. Horne,
afterwards bishop of Norwich. Macgowan published his “Shaver,” in
which he shaved the collegiate rulers with no gentle hand, and, in the
process, must have made them smart. Sir Richard Hill, a young man of
thirty-six, who for some time past had been using his utmost endeavours
to improve Oxford morality, issued his “Pietas Oxoniensis,” 8vo, 85
pages, in which he belaboured the junta with unsparing severity.
Several replies were written in justification of the Oxford bull; and,
after an immense expenditure of time, and not a little display of
angry temper, this execrable act of the Oxford authorities was allowed
to repose in silence. It is a fact, however, far too serious to be
forgotten, that while Oxford university, in past days, has tolerated in
its students the most notorious wickedness, and while, at the present
day, it tolerates German scepticism and Romish heresy, it once, in one
of its paroxysms of pious zeal, ignominiously expelled six young men,
whose only crimes were, that some of them had been ignobly bred, and
all had sung, and prayed, and read the Scriptures in private houses.
The Countess of Huntingdon was accused of maintaining some or all of
these young students at the Oxford university; and perhaps there was a
modicum of truth in this. Be that as it may, she soon made her young
preachers independent of Oxford help. Trevecca House, in the parish of
Talgarth, in Wales, was an ancient structure, supposed to have been
erected about the year 1176. This building the countess opened as a
college, five months after the expulsions just mentioned,--on the 24th
of August, 1768, the anniversary of her ladyship’s birthday. Whitefield
preached at the opening; Fletcher was made the president; and, for
a few months, Mr. Easterbrook the head master; when Joseph Benson
was appointed his successor. Of course, Fletcher was not expected to
relinquish his charge at Madeley; but he was to attend the college
at Trevecca as often as he conveniently could; to give advice, with
regard to the appointment of masters, and the admission or exclusion
of students; to oversee their studies and conduct; to assist their
piety; and to judge of their qualifications for the ministry.[46] As
is well known, both Fletcher and Benson soon retired, because of the
doctrinal differences that sprang up; but Trevecca was still used as
a seminary for the training of Calvinistic ministers, till 1792, when
the institution was removed to Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire. Wesley from
the beginning was in doubt of it, though, perhaps, without reason.
In a letter to his brother, dated “May 19, 1768,” he writes: “I am
glad Mr. Fletcher has been with you. But if the tutor fails, what
will become of our college at Trevecca? Did you ever see anything
more queer than their plan of institution? Pray who penned it, man or
woman? I am afraid the visitor too will fail.”[47] Was there a tinge of
jealousy in this? We know not. Troubles, it is true, soon sprung up;
but the countess made Trevecca her principal place of residence; and
within its walls were trained a noble band of earnest, laborious, and
useful ministers. The old building is now the residence of a Celtic
farmer.[48] _O tempora! O mores!_
Excepting the hubbub arising out of the Oxford expulsions, there was
not much, in 1768, that was antagonistic to the Methodist movement.
A small, paltry pamphlet was published, with the title, “Enthusiasm
Reprehended. Three Letters to Mr. John Wesley. With Strictures on his
Character, the Reception he met with at Perth, and his Conduct on that
occasion.” A 12mo volume, of 212 pages, was also issued, entitled
“Sermons to Asses”; and was dedicated to Whitefield, Wesley, Romaine,
and Madan. Besides these, an eighteenpenny poem was published, entitled
“The Hypocrite: a comedy;” in which the writer tries to turn Cibber’s
satire on disloyalty into a castigation of enthusiasm.
Wesley’s publications also were fewer than usual, and hardly any of
them original. The following belong to this period.
1. “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Rutherforth.” This has been already
noticed in a previous chapter.
2. “A Caution to False Prophets: a Sermon on Matthew vii. 15-20.
Particularly recommended to the people called Methodists.” 12mo, 12
pages. In this sermon, Wesley discusses a point which he confesses
had puzzled him for many years, namely, whether it is right to hear
a minister who is either immoral, or who preaches false doctrine. He
still hesitates to pronounce an opinion, and recommends those who were
in doubt to “wait upon God in prayer, and then act according to the
best light they had.”
3. “Instructions for Members of Religious Societies. Translated from
the French.” Under the date of February 26, 1768, Wesley writes: “I
translated from the French one of the most useful tracts I ever saw,
for those who desire to be ‘fervent in spirit.’ How little does God
regard men’s opinions! What a multitude of wrong opinions are embraced
by all the members of the Church of Rome! Yet how highly favoured have
many of them been!”
4. “An Extract from the Rev. Mr. Law’s Later Works.” Two vols., 12mo,
251 and 204 pages. About a quarter of a century before this, Wesley
had published an extract from Law’s “Christian Perfection”; an extract
from his “Serious Call”; and an extract from his “Serious Answer to
Dr. Trapp.” He now published similar extracts from Law’s answer to
“Christianity as old as Creation,” his “Spirit of Prayer,” his “Spirit
of Love,” his “Letters,” and his “Address to the Clergy.”
5. “An Extract of the Life of the late Rev. David Brainerd.” 12mo, 274
pages. Just at the time when Methodism was extending its mission to
America and Newfoundland, Wesley issued his life of one of the most
devoted missionaries that ever lived: a young man who died before he
arrived at the age of thirty; but whose piety, for depth and fervour,
has seldom been excelled; and whose four years’ mission among the
Delaware and other Indians, from 1743 to 1747, would warm the heart and
improve the character of all candidates for missionary work.
Besides the above, another publication belongs to the year 1768,--“Free
Thoughts on the Present State of Public Affairs,” 12mo, 47 pages.
This, strictly speaking, was Wesley’s first political pamphlet. At
the general election of 1768, John Wilkes, at the time an outlaw, was
returned to parliament by the county of Middlesex; and, shortly after,
was arrested and committed to the King’s Bench prison. For nearly a
fortnight, crowds collected outside the prison walls, and soldiers were
sent to protect the place. A riot followed; the soldiers fired; six of
the rioters were killed, and fourteen badly wounded; and the exploit
got the name of the “Massacre of St. George’s Fields.” For months,
Wilkes’s business occupied the attention of court and cabinet; when
the wretched demagogue was sentenced to pay a fine of £1000, to be
imprisoned for two-and-twenty months, and afterwards to find security
for good behaviour for seven years. While in prison, he was at the
zenith of his fame; subscriptions were opened for the payment of his
debts; and his likenesses were so multiplied, that portraits of him
squinted from the signboards of half the public houses in the kingdom.
It was in the midst of such a state of things, that Wesley wrote
the pamphlet already mentioned. He admits that, though “cobblers,
tinkers, porters, and hackney coachmen” think themselves wise enough
“to instruct both the king and his council,” he himself is “not so
deeply learned. Politics were beyond his province; but he would use the
privilege of an Englishman to speak his naked thoughts.” “I have,” he
writes, “no bias, one way or the other. I have no interest depending.
I want no man’s favour, having no hopes, no fears, from any man.”
He then proceeds to defend the character of the king; and maintains
that, as an outlaw, Wilkes was incapacitated to take a seat in the
House of Commons. “Encumbered with no religion, and disappointed in
his application for place and power, Wilkes had set up for patriot,
vehemently inveighed against evil counsellors and grievances, and was
paid in French _louis d’or_ for his agitative services.” Wesley then
expresses the opinion that, “supposing things to take their natural
course, they must go from bad to worse; the land will become a field of
blood; and many thousands of poor Englishmen will sheathe their swords
in each other’s bowels, for the diversion of their good neighbours.
Then, either a commonwealth will ensue, or else a second Cromwell. One
must be; but it cannot be determined which,--King Wilkes, or King Mob.”