[221] Boswell’s Life of Johnson.
[222] Ibid.
[223] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1797, p. 455.
[224] Olivers’ “Defence,” p. 19.
[225] Vol. for 1775, p. 561.
[226] Everett’s Life of Dr. A. Clarke.
[227] Asbury’s Journal.
[228] Words fearfully realised, first in America, next in
France, and then throughout all Europe.
[229] His “Calm Address.”
[230] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., pp. 302-308.
[231] Did Wesley mean this? That is, did he use it in any
sense except that which immediately follows?
[232] This may seem to clash with the tenor of Wesley’s
“Calm Address”; but the reader must recollect, that
it was not until after the date of this letter that
the “Calm Address” was written; and that Wesley’s
change of opinions did not occur until after the
Leeds conference of 1775. Wesley’s foresight,
throughout the whole of this fearful war, was most
remarkable.
[233] It is a remarkable fact, that this letter was written
within forty-eight hours before the disgraceful and
disastrous battle at Bunker Hill, where Wesley’s
warnings to the premier and colonial secretary of
England were too amply verified. With his itinerants
in America, Wesley knew quite as much of American
affairs as Lord North, and perhaps a little more.
[234] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 726; and
_Macmillan’s Magazine_ for December, 1870.
[235] These were not empty words, though Wesley was almost
perpetually in war. In an unpublished letter, to
Matthew Lowes, dated March 6, 1759, he writes: “What
would one not do, except sin, that brotherly love may
continue!”
[236] _Methodist Magazine_, 1854, p. 691.
[237] Life of Henry Moore.
[238] _Methodist Magazine_, 1827, p. 800.
[239] Ibid. 1834, p. 413.
[240] York society book.
[241] _Methodist Magazine_, 1787, p. 444.
[242] Ibid. 1787, p. 552.
[243] A curious 12mo tract, of four pages, was published,
with the following title: “Some Verses, occasioned
by the severe Illness, much feared Dissolution,
and almost miraculous Restoration, of the Rev. Mr.
John Wesley, at Lisburne, in Ireland, July 2, 1775.
London: printed for W. Kent, No. 116, High Holborn:
1775.” These verses were directed to be _sung_ “to
the tune of ‘Oliver’s.’”
[244] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 469.
[245] Ibid. vol. xiii., p. 359.
[246] The cure of his hydrocele.
[247] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 132.
[248] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 309.
[249] Ibid. p. 378.
[250] Manuscript letter by Thomas Hanby.
[251] _Methodist Magazine_, 1824, p. 568.
[252] Ibid. 1845, p. 1168.
[253] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 133.
[254] J. Pawson’s manuscript letter.
1776.
Age 73
Wesley’s first act, in 1776, was to join with eighteen hundred London
Methodists in renewing his covenant with God. His next was to go to
Bristol, partly to bury his brother-in-law, poor Westley Hall; and
partly to restrain some of the Bristol Methodists, who were in danger
of turning republicans.
The health of Fletcher of Madeley being seriously affected by a violent
cough, accompanied by spitting of blood, Wesley believed nothing was so
likely to restore his health as a long journey. “I therefore,” says he,
“proposed his taking a journey of some months with me, through various
parts of England and Scotland; telling him, ‘when you are tired, or
like it best, you may come into my carriage; but remember that riding
on horseback is the best of all exercises for you, so far as your
strength will permit.’”[255]
Wesley proposed not only this, but more than this, as is evident from
Fletcher’s answer, hitherto unpublished.
“MADELEY, _January 9, 1776_.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I received last night the favour of
yours from Bristol. My grand desire is to be just what the Lord
would have me be. I could, if you wanted a travelling
assistant, accompany you, as my little strength would admit, in
some of your excursions; but your recommending me to the
societies, as one who might succeed you, (should the Lord call
you hence before me,) is a step to which I could by no means
consent. It would make me take my horse and gallop away.
Besides, such a step would, at this juncture, be, I think,
peculiarly improper, and would cast upon my vindication of your
minutes such an odium as the Calvinists have endeavoured to
cast upon your ‘Address.’ It would make people suspect, that
what I have done for truth and conscience sake, I have done
with a view of being, what Mr. Toplady calls, ‘the bishop of
Moorfields.’ We ought to give as little hold to the evil
surmising and rash judgments of our opponents as may be. If,
nevertheless, Providence throws in your way a clergyman willing
to assist us, it would be well to fall in with that
circumstance.
“I sent to you in London, by the last post, a manuscript
entitled, ‘A Second Check to Civil Antinomianism,’ being an
extract from the ‘Homily against Rebellion,’ which I think
might be spread at this time to shame Mr. Roquet, and to calm
the people’s mind. Whether it is worth publishing you will see.
I suppose it will make a threepenny tract.
“What has made me glut our friends with my books is not my love
to such publications; but a desire to make an end of the
controversy. It is possible, however, that my design has
miscarried, and that I have disgusted, rather than convinced,
the people. I agree with you, sir, that now is the time to
pray,--both for ourselves and our king,--for the Church of
England and that part of it which is called the Methodists. I
cast my mite of supplication into the general treasure. The
Lord guide, support, and strengthen you more and more unto the
end!
“I am, reverend and dear sir, your affectionate son and servant
in the gospel,
“JOHN FLETCHER.”[256]
Fletcher had overtaxed nature. His day of activity was comparatively
over. True, he lived nine years longer; but, for two years, he lived
in retirement with his friends, Mr. Greenwood at Newington, and
Mr. Ireland of Bristol, with the exception of the time he spent in
travelling with Wesley in quest of health; and upwards of three years
more were spent in Switzerland; when, returning to England, he was
married, on November 12, 1781, to Miss Bosanquet, and died on August
14, 1785.
Wesley writes: “He looked upon my proposal as a call from Providence,
and willingly accepted it. He set out, (as I am accustomed to do,)
early in the spring of 1776, and travelled, by moderate journeys,
suited to his strength, which gradually increased, eleven or twelve
hundred miles. When we returned to London, in the latter end of the
year, he was considerably better. And, I verily believe, if he had
travelled with me, partly in the chaise and partly on horseback, only
a few months longer, he would quite have recovered his health. But
this those about him would not permit; so, being detained in London by
his kind, but injudicious, friends, while I pursued my journeys, his
spitting of blood, with all the other symptoms, returned, and rapidly
increased, till the physician pronounced him to be far advanced in
pulmonary consumption.”[257]
No doubt, Wesley wished to have Fletcher as his coadjutor and
successor; but Providence determined otherwise. Fletcher had a great
work to do, and did it; but it was not ordained that Fletcher should
take Wesley’s place.
It is a remarkable coincidence, that, in the very year when the health
of Fletcher failed, Wesley formed an acquaintance with Thomas Coke.
Born and educated at Brecon, Coke was now twenty-nine years of age. He
had taken his degrees at Oxford, had received episcopal ordination,
and, at present, was curate at South Petherton. Mr. Brown, a clergyman
near Taunton, lent him the sermons and journals of Wesley, and the
“Checks” of Fletcher. In the month of August, 1776, Wesley was Mr.
Brown’s guest at Kingston, and Coke went to see him. Wesley writes:
“1776, August 13--I preached at Taunton, and afterwards went with Mr.
Brown to Kingston. Here I found a clergyman, Dr. Coke, late a gentleman
commoner of Jesus college, Oxford, who came twenty miles on purpose
to meet me. I had much conversation with him; and a union then began,
which, I trust, shall never end.” The doctor expressed his doubts
respecting the propriety of confining himself to one congregation.
Wesley clasped his hands, and, in a manner peculiarly his own, said:
“Brother, go out, go out, and preach the gospel to all the world!”[258]
Coke rode back to Petherton pensive, and yet consoled. The tone of his
ministry was now more decided than ever. The parish was remodelled,
so to speak, into a circuit. On Sundays, after the second lesson, he
would read a paper of his appointments for the ensuing week, with the
place and time of service. His innovations, in preaching in cottages
and barns, took a sort of Methodistic form, by being systematically
arranged. The disgust of his opponents in the parish became intense;
and, to prevent his having the opportunity of preaching a farewell
sermon, his rector, without any previous notice, at the close of a
public service, and in the presence of a listening congregation,
abruptly announced that Coke was now dismissed. The die was cast. Coke
attended Wesley’s conference in Bristol, and, on August 19, 1777,
Wesley writes: “I went to Taunton with Dr. Coke, who, being dismissed
from his curacy, has bid adieu to his honourable name, and determined
to cast in his lot with us.” Henceforth, Thomas Coke was a Methodist
itinerant preacher, and became the great organiser of Methodist
missions in other lands.
When Wesley enacted rules, he meant them to be observed. Laxity in
the enforcement of discipline was to him a thing intolerable. He was
a thorough disciplinarian himself, and insisted that his preachers
should copy his example. Good as were the first Methodists, they were
not perfect. Then, as now, some were defective in their attendance at
the weekly class. In certain instances, as we have already seen, some
were guilty of the crime of smuggling. Others, in moderation, were
addicted to taking drams, and others opium; and it often happened that
the oldest societies were the worst offenders. In 1776, both London
and Newcastle were thus tainted; and Wesley was determined, with a
strong hand, to purge them. Hence the following extracts from letters,
addressed, at this period, to Joseph Benson, stationed at Newcastle.
“We must threaten no longer, but perform. In November last, I
told the London society, ‘Our rule is, to meet a class once a
week; not once in two or three. I now give you warning: I will
give tickets to none in February, but those that have done
this.’ I have stood to my word. Go you and do likewise,
wherever you visit the classes. Begin, if need be, at
Newcastle, and go on at Sunderland. Promises to meet are now
out of date. Those, that have not met seven times in the
quarter, exclude. Read their names in the society; and inform
them all, you will the next quarter exclude all that have not
met twelve times; that is, unless they were hindered by
distance, sickness, or by some unavoidable business. And I
pray, without fear or favour, remove the leaders, whether of
classes or bands, who do not watch over the souls committed to
their care ‘as those that must give account.’”
What would become of Methodist societies if these imperative directions
of Methodism’s founder were enforced now?
Benson had expelled a smuggler, and Wesley wrote:
“You did right in excluding from our society so notorious an
offender. You have now a providential call to stand in the gap
between the living and the dead. Fear nothing. Begin in the
name of God, and go through with it. If only six will promise
you to sin no more, leave only six in society. But my belief
is, a hundred and fifty are now clear of blame; and, if you are
steady, a hundred more will amend. You must, at all events,
tear up this evil by the roots. The ‘Word to a Smuggler’ should
be read and dispersed. And secure your fellow labourers, that
you may all speak one thing. Go on, for God is with you! Not
only the assistant, but every preacher, is concerned to see all
our rules observed. I desire brother Rhodes will give no
tickets, either to those who have not constantly met their
classes, or to any that do not solemnly promise to deal in
stolen goods no more. He and you together may put a stop to
this crying sin. If any leader oppose, you see your remedy; put
another in his place. Nay, if he does not join heart and hand;
for ‘he that gathereth not with you scattereth.’ The ‘Word to a
Smuggler’ is plain and home, and has done much good in Kent.
Taking opium is full as bad as taking drams. It equally hurts
the understanding, and is, if possible, more pernicious to the
health, than even rum or brandy. None should touch it, if they
have the least regard either for their souls or bodies.”[259]
The year 1776 was a period of great national distress; and, yet, it
was now that Wesley started his scheme for the erection of Methodism’s
cathedral, the chapel in City Road. Who will write a history of
London Methodism? or, which would be more popular, who will give the
Methodists a monograph of the memories of Wesley’s “new chapel” in
City Road? Much might be said of the episcopal chapel in West Street,
Seven Dials, of which Wesley obtained a lease, and which he opened on
the 29th of May, 1743, as a Methodist meeting-house, and which was
so occupied until 1798, when it was superseded by the purchase of
another episcopal chapel, which then stood on part of the site of the
present Methodist chapel in Great Queen Street.[260] Then there was the
venerable chapel in Spitalfields, erected by the French protestants,
and used by Wesley long before that in City Road was built, but which,
_horresco referens!_ has given place to the brewery of Truman, Hanbury
& Co.; and there is likewise its successor, also originally a French
protestant church, and still used for Methodist services, a chapel
which has recently had dark days of adversity, but which is rich in
religious memories, and has witnessed many a marvellous revival of the
work of God. There is Chelsea, whose first Methodist meeting place
was an upper room in the house of an elderly woman, Mrs. Day, who
resided in Royal Hospital Row; and its next, one of the dancing rooms
in the celebrated Ranelagh Gardens, for which a rent was paid of ten
guineas per annum; and in which Wesley preached only about two months
previous to his death, taking as his text words which his long life
had illustrated: “The king’s business requires haste.”[261] There is
Lambeth, where, in 1772, good old John Edwards opened his house for
preaching; and then converted an adjoining building into a decent
chapel; a man of vigorous mind, retentive memory, and fluent speech;
for almost forty years an effective local preacher, and who, while on a
preaching expedition, died at Irchester, in the county of Northampton,
in 1803.[262] In London East, there was the old chapel in Gravel Lane,
which, in 1811, was required for the London Docks; and its successor
in Back Road, required by the Black wall railway company.[263] There
was the schoolroom near Mill Pond Bridge, Rotherhithe, succeeded by the
purchased chapel in Albion Street.[264] There was Hoxton chapel, which
originally belonged to the Dissenters; and there were the venerable
meeting-houses at Wapping, Snowsfields, Peckham, and other places. All
these have a history well worth writing, to say nothing of the parent
of them all, the old pantile Foundery, Methodism’s honoured cradle; and
of which the Methodists retained possession, at least as late as the
year 1785, when they received for it, in the shape of rent, £14 per
year.[265]
Then how rich the mine of London Methodist biography! Confining
ourselves to Wesley’s days, there is--Mary Cheesebrook, originally
a kept mistress, converted in West Street chapel, never absent from
the Foundery preaching, though, to be in time, she often had to run
the distance, and who, every Saturday, after paying her little debts,
gave away all the money she had left, leaving the morrow to take
thought for the things of itself:--Mrs. Witham, a mother in Israel,
an eminent pattern of calm boldness for the truth, of simplicity
and godly sincerity, of unwearied constancy in attending all the
ordinances of God, of zeal for God and for all good works, and of
self denial in every kind:--Elizabeth Langdon, whose trials were
severe, and her death tranquil:--Hannah Lee, a model of industry,
meekness, and patience:--Mary Naylor, distinguished for her Christian
courage, and plainness of speech and of apparel:--Thomas Salmon, a
good and useful man:--Joseph Norbury, a faithful witness of Jesus
Christ:--William Hurd, a son of affliction, whose end was peace:--John
Matthews, who, for some months before his death, was wont to say, “I
have no more doubt of being in heaven, than if I was there already”;
and of whom Wesley writes: “A man of so faultless a behaviour I have
hardly ever been acquainted with. During twenty years, I do not
remember his doing or saying anything which I would wish to have been
unsaid or undone”:--Ann Wheeler, who, twenty-five years before her
death, while attending preaching in Moorfields, was struck in the
forehead with a stone, the mark of which her unborn daughter bore to
her dying day:--Rebecca Mills, always firm and unmoved, resting on
the Rock of ages, and in life and death uniformly praising the God
of her salvation:--Elizabeth Duchesne, for near forty years zealous
of good works, and who shortened her days by labouring for the poor
beyond her strength:--William Osgood, a good man, who began life
in poverty, but increased more and more till he was worth several
thousand pounds:--Michael Hayes, who lived above a hundred and four
years, mostly in vigorous health, and as he lived, so died, praising
God:--Mrs. Kiteley, a perfect pattern of true womanhood, a good wife,
a good parent, a good mistress, who, after many years of active
benevolence, redeemed a poor friendless youth from prison, took the
jail distemper, and died:--Heller Tanner, diligent, patient, loving
to every man, and zealous of good works:--Bilhah Aspernell, who, for
six-and-thirty years, without intermission, walked in the light of
God’s countenance, was always in pain, yet always rejoicing, and going
about doing good; who on Sunday evening met her class as usual, and
the next day sent for her old fellow traveller, Sarah Clay, and said
to her, “Sally, I am going.” “Where are you going?” She cheerfully
answered, “To my Jesus, to be sure!” and spoke no more:--Thomas Vokins,
a man of a sorrowful spirit, who always hung down his head like a
bulrush, but who died triumphing over pain and death, and rejoicing
with joy full of glory:--Mr. Bespham, many years master of a man of
war, whose faith was full of mercy and good fruits:--George Parsons,
a flame of fire wherever he went, losing no occasion of speaking or
working for God; so zealously, so humbly, so unreservedly devoted
to God, that few like him were left behind him:--Eleanor Lee, who
lived in the enjoyment of perfect love for sixteen years, and of whom
Wesley testified, “I never saw her do any action, little or great,
nor heard her speak any word, which I could reprove”:--Ann Thwayte,
a woman of faith and prayer, for whom Wesley preached a funeral
sermon:--Merchant West, a pattern of diligence in all things, spiritual
and temporal:--Charles Greenwood, a melancholy man, full of doubts
and fears, but who, two days before he died, was made so unspeakably
happy that he exclaimed, “God has revealed to me things which it is
impossible for man to utter”:--George Hufflet, for many years a burning
and shining light:--Ann Sharland, whose cancer in her breast caused
her continual pain, but who triumphed gloriously through Christ;--and
Robert Windsor, prudent, serious, diligent, full of mercy and good
fruits.
All these died during Wesley’s lifetime. The temptation to add to them
is great. We should like to tell of William Palmer, Wesley’s first
classleader in London; and of his son, who was blind from infancy, was
one of the first to form the Community, or body of workhouse visitors,
often made preaching excursions into different parts of the country,
with Wesley’s sanction, and died in 1822, after being sixty-two years
a Methodist.[266] Old Thomas Gibbs of Lambeth, also, deserves a place
in Methodism’s gallery,--a patriarch, who lived to the age of one
hundred and four years, eighty-three of which he had been a member of
Wesley’s society; and who, at his death, in 1827, was probably the
oldest Methodist in the world.[267] There is Isaac Andrews, one of
the original subscribers to City Road chapel, a man of unimpeachable
Christian character, a Methodist of sixty years’ standing, who died
at the age of eighty-two, in 1832.[268] There is Mrs. Maddan, whose
mother, Mrs. Varin, was the eighth person whom Wesley received into
church fellowship, when forming his infant society in Fetter Lane.
There are Mrs. Mortimer and Mrs. Bruce, of whom the Rev. Richard Watson
used to say, “they were the two finest specimens of primitive Methodism
that he knew;” the latter being the daughter of parents who were among
the eighteen persons who first joined Wesley in Christian fellowship,
in 1739.[269] We cannot find room for more.
For five-and-thirty years, Wesley and his friends had worshipped
in “the old Foundery.” Here hundreds, perhaps thousands, had been
converted; but, as the building was only held on lease, they were now
in danger of losing it. On October 19, 1775, Wesley, writing to his
brother, says: “on Friday I hope to be in London, and to talk with the
committee about building a new Foundery.”[270] A few months later, he
wrote again: “1776, March 1--As we cannot depend on having the Foundery
long, we met to consult about building a new chapel. Our petition to
the city for a piece of ground lies before their committee; but when we
shall get any further, I know not: so I determined to begin my circuit
as usual; but promised to return whenever I should receive notice that
our petition was granted.” Exactly five months after this, Wesley
started the first subscription, and, at three meetings, raised upwards
of £1000. In November following, building plans were agreed upon; in
April 1777, Wesley laid the foundation stone; and on Sunday, November
1, 1778, he opened his new sanctuary, by preaching, in the morning, on
part of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple; and in the
afternoon, on the hundred, forty and four thousand standing with the
Lamb on mount Zion. He writes: “It is perfectly neat, but not fine; and
contains far more people than the Foundery: I believe, together with
the morning chapel, as many as the Tabernacle.”
The chapel in City Road will always stand as a thanksgiving monument,
raised, not by the London Methodists merely, but by Methodists
throughout the three kingdoms. No sooner was it resolved to build, than
Wesley issued the following circular, an original copy of which now
lies before us.
“_October 18, 1776._
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--The society at _London_ have given
assistance to their brethren in various parts of England. They
have done this for upwards of thirty years: they have done it
cheerfully and liberally. The first year of the subscription
for the _general debt_, they subscribed above _nine hundred
pounds_; the next, above _three hundred_; and not much less
every one of the ensuing years.
“They now stand in need of assistance themselves. They are
under a necessity of building; as the _Foundery_, with all the
adjoining houses, is shortly to be pulled down. And the city of
London has granted ground to build on; but on condition of
covering it, and with large houses in front, which, together
with the new chapel, will, at a very moderate computation, cost
upwards of _six thousand pounds_. I must, therefore, beg the
assistance of all our brethren. _Now_ help the _parent_
society, which has helped others, for so many years, so
willingly and so largely. _Now_ help _me_, who account this as
a kindness done to myself; perhaps, the last of this sort which
I shall ask of you. Subscribe what you conveniently can, to be
paid either now, or at Christmas, or at Ladyday next.
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.
⎧ JOHN DUPLEX,
⎪ CHARLES GREENWOOD,
⎪ RICHARD KEMP,
“The Trustees are ⎨ SAMUEL CHANCELLOR,
⎪ CHARLES WHEELER,
⎪ WILLIAM COWLAND,
⎩ JOHN FOLGHAM.”
We are afraid to enter into details, respecting the New Chapel, in City
Road. John Pawson, who was appointed to the office of assistant in the
London circuit, within two years after the chapel was opened, tells us,
in an unpublished manuscript, that the plan proposed was to build an
elegant chapel, such as even the lord mayor might attend, without any
diminishing of his official dignity; and that it should be _wholly_
supplied by ordained clergymen of the Established Church on Sundays,
when the liturgy should be constantly read at both morning and evening
service; and this, for a considerable time after the chapel was opened,
was regularly done. No layman, so called,--that is, no itinerant
preacher not episcopally ordained, was allowed to officiate within
its walls, except on week days. Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, and
John Richardson were City Road’s only sabbatic priests: Pawson, Jaco,
Rankin, Tennent, Olivers, and others, though better preachers than
any of the trio, were not admitted; because their heads had not been
touched by a bishop’s fingers. Pawson says, that Richardson and Coke
disapproved of this arrangement; but Charles Wesley persisted, until
the congregations so fell off, and the society was thrown into such
confusion, that the trustees of the chapel met, and waited on Charles
Wesley with a request, that he would not preach so often at City
Road, but would go sometimes to West Street on Sundays, and allow the
itinerants to take his place on the hitherto forbidden ground. Charles
reluctantly submitted; but wrote to his brother, casting all the blame
upon the poor, tabooed itinerants, and stating that it was wholly owing
to their deep rooted prejudices against the clergy of the Established
Church, that these events had happened.
For many years, the men sat on one side the chapel, and the women on
the other; and, besides this, there was another usage, which would not
be popular at the present day: all the pews and seats were open. Large
numbers paid for seats; but no one was allowed to call a seat, or a
pew, his own. In 1788, the trustees endeavoured to make an alteration
in both the respects just mentioned; “thus overthrowing,” says
Wesley, “at one blow, the discipline which I have been establishing
for fifty years!” He continues, however: “we had another meeting of
the committee; who, after a calm and loving consultation, judged it
best--(1) that the men and women should sit separate still; and (2)
that none should claim any pew as his own, either in the new chapel, or
in West Street.”
The days of the old Foundery have long been ended; the “New Chapel”
in City Road still stands, and we trust will ever stand, by far the
most sacred and attractive edifice in the Methodistic world. Not
for a hundred pretentious gothic structures would Methodists of the
olden type give up this. Though its ceiling may be somewhat low, yet,
taken as a whole, its architecture, for neatness, and commodiousness,
and solidity, has been but rarely equalled, by the more pretentious
Methodist buildings of the present day. We are weary of gothic
gaudiness, sacrificing the interests of the church of God to the pride
of showy architects, and the mediæval whims of Methodists in danger of
relapsing into mediæval darkness. Let the present race of Methodists
have wisdom and modesty enough to build their chapels according to the
plan adopted by a man, in all respects, their superior--Methodism’s
founder. Hail to old City Road! When we think of the ministers who have
occupied its pulpit, of the families who have filled its pews, of the
dead resting in graves round about its walls, and of the interesting
events which make up its story,--we feel that of all the Methodist
meeting-houses in existence, gothic or otherwise, marble or mudden,
there is not one to equal this.
For many a long year, the chapel in City Road was the head of London
Methodism; and, though there are now more than twenty heads, all owe
a respectful obeisance to this. Its circuit plan, from June 17 to
September 23, 1792, eighteen inches broad and fifteen deep, is simply
headed, “A Plan for the Preachers in London;” the word Methodist, or
Methodism, not being printed in any part of it. The preaching places,
and hours of preaching, are as follows:--New Chapel, 9 a.m. and 5
p.m.; West Street, 9, 3 and 7; Spitalfields, 10 and 3; Wapping, 10
and 5; Snowsfields, 10 and 5; Lambeth, 6; Westminster, 5; Peckham, 3;
Rotherhithe, 10 and 5; Deptford, 7, 10, and 5; Chelsea, 6; Brentford,
10, 2, and 6; Dorking, 11, 2, and 5; Raynham, 10 and 5; Purfleet, 9 and
5; Woolwich, 2 and 6; Wandsworth, 6; Mitcham, 2 and 6; Croydon, 2 and
6; Bromley, 3; Barnet, 2 and 5; Poplar, 11 and 5; Bow, 5; Stratford,
11 and 5; Barking, 5; Leyton, 5; Grosvenor Market, 6; Ratcliff Cross,
2; Christ Church, 5; Clerkenwell, 6; Kentish Town, 6; and Seven Dials
without an hour. Such was London circuit at the time when Wesley died.
Interesting citations might be made from the old City Road society
book, extending from August 23, 1784, to July 9, 1800. We learn, that
sacramental collections were, upon an average, a little more than £3
each; and monthly collections, for “the furtherance of the gospel,”
about £6 10_s._ The sacrament was administered once a week; and what is
now known among the Methodists as a _quarterly_ collection was then
made once a month as just referred to. The entire circuit income, for
1786, was £862 16_s._ 5_d._, which included sacramental collections
and payments for graves, all of which were then appropriated to
circuit purposes. Strangely enough, there is no entry of class moneys
till 1788, from which time such entries were regularly made. Had the
practice of collecting pence weekly in the classes been superseded by
collections made at the weekly sacraments? This is not improbable; for,
from the time when class moneys are entered as a part of the circuit
income, the entries of sacramental collections, and collections for
the furtherance of the gospel, cease. For the year 1787, including all
sources of income, the average contribution per member per year was in
this great London circuit 3_s._ 10½_d._, or less than a shilling per
member per quarter. How far was this from the requirement of Wesley’s
rules? Who will say that the former days were better than these?
Besides, all that was contributed was not current coin; for in the same
year there is a charge deducted of not less than £10 14_s._ 9½_d._
for bad money given at collections.
Many are the curious items in the list of circuit payments and
allowances. The yearly salary paid to Wesley was £30; to his brother
£60; to Creighton, £61; to Dickenson, £50; to Coke, £30; while the
quarterage to the itinerants, and to their wives respectively, was £3
each. With a few more extracts we conclude this lengthened notice of
London Methodism, during the last seven years of Wesley’s life. “1784:
November 7, a new pail, half a crown; December 6, chain for dog, two
shillings. 1785: January 4, shaving the preachers, £2 10_s._ 6_d._;
February 18, “news pappers,” 13_s._; May 18, lamplighter, four weeks,
6_s._; August 8, Mr. Tennant, to pay his debts, and to send him to
Leeds, £9 9_s._; August 13, letters, four weeks, £2 15_s._ 8½_d._
August 19, for shaving the preachers at conference, £7 5_s._ 3_d._
1787: February 2, two trees for front of dwelling house, 3_s._ 6_d._;
December 17, for curtain over the altar, £5 1_s._ 9_d._ 1789: March 28,
paid expenses of a hogshead of cider, from Guernsey, a present to Mr.
Wesley, £1 9_s._; July 7, paid the man servant a quarter’s wages, £1
1_s._; December 29, paid Mr. Moore for cold bath, £1 1_s._ 1790: July
1, the hairdresser’s bill, £1 1_s._, for one quarter. 1791: February
22, paid the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s salary (the last he received) £15; April
20, paid for Rev. Mr. Wesley’s horses standing at livery after his
decease, £1 11_s._ 9_d._; December 3, paid Mr. Judd’s bill for hanging
the New Chapel with black superfine cloth, £41 16_s._”[271]
These may seem little things to introduce into a work like this; but
little things often indicate greater, and, sometimes, it is only by
knowing minute matters that men can form a correct opinion of a great
general system.
After this long, but we hope not uninteresting digression, we must
return to Wesley in 1776.
On Sunday evening, March 3, he set out from London to Bristol, and
thence to his societies in the north. The tour was not completed until
the 19th of July following, when he got back to London. Its incidents
were much the same as previous ones, except that he was permitted
to preach in a larger number of churches than usual,--namely, at
Pebworth, Chowbent, Heptonstall, Bingley, Haworth, Colne, and at Banff
in Scotland,[272] a proof that clerical prejudice was subsiding, and
that the poor branded outcast was beginning to be regarded with a
more favourable eye. The churches that he occupied in Yorkshire were
crowded. Thomas Taylor, at that time in the Haworth circuit, writes,
in his unpublished diary: “Saturday, April 27--Mr. Wesley preached at
Bradford, at 5 a.m. At 10½, to the surprise of many, he preached
in Bingley church, from Acts xxiv. 25. I never saw him weep while
preaching before now. He spoke awfully, and the congregation heard
attentively. The next day (Sunday) I heard him at Keighley in the
morning, and then at Haworth church. Afterwards, the sacrament was
administered, but in too great a hurry. Several hundreds communicated
in less than an hour. We then dined, in haste and confusion, and drove
off to Colne. I rode fast, and got thither before Mr. Wesley. The
street was filled with people waiting to welcome him; but, when about
two miles from Colne, his chaise broke down, which somewhat delayed
his coming. He mounted a horse, however, and so arrived in safety. The
crowd was so great that it was with difficulty we got into the church.
The sexton led us to the reading desk, and thereby I got a seat. Mr.
Wesley’s text was Revelation xx. 12. At the beginning he was rather
flat; but, at the end, he spake many awful things.”
Wesley’s journey to the north was always one continued panorama of
toil and travel, preaching and praying, conferring with his preachers
and visiting the sick. Hardly one in a thousand could have borne the
burden of its labours without bending; and yet Wesley, an old man, was
always, in the midst of gigantic toils, blithe and happy; and never
went northwards without making his large circuit larger. Besides other
places, he now, for the first, time, preached at Chesterfield. Three
years before, Jeremiah Cocker had gone from Sheffield, and stood on
a table, in the midst of the market place, and begun to preach. A
man, hired for the purpose, pulled him down. Jerry again mounted his
rostrum, and was again pulled down. A third time he ascended, and
a third time his assailant brought him to the ground. The old Adam
now began to stir in the athletic preacher, and, seizing the man, he
gave him a shake hardly gentle. “That is not the spirit of Christ,”
shouted the mob, which, all at once, had become pious. “I acknowledge
it,” said Jerry; and again he jumped upon his table, and finished his
discourse.[273]
Wesley opened the conference of 1776, in London, on August 6, and
concluded it three days afterwards. He writes: “In several conferences
we have had great love and unity; but in this there was, over and
above, such a general seriousness and solemnity of spirit as we
scarcely ever had before.” “Everything,” says Thomas Taylor, “was
conducted in great order. A very strict scrutiny was made into every
one’s character; and I am glad so few were found culpable.”[274]
The truth is, objections to the preachers had become so rife, that
Wesley felt it to be his duty to interfere. He writes: “It is objected,
that some of our preachers are utterly unqualified for the work, and
that others do it negligently, as if they imagined they had nothing
to do but to preach once or twice a day. In order to silence this
objection for ever, which has been repeated ten times over, the
preachers were examined at large, especially those concerning whom
there was the least doubt. The result was, that one was excluded
for inefficiency, and two for misbehaviour. And we were thoroughly
satisfied, that all the rest had both grace and gifts for the work
wherein they are engaged. I hope, therefore, we shall hear of this
objection no more.”
Even in 1776, as now, there were crabbed, cantankerous Methodists, to
whom discipline was a blessing. Those in Ireland refused to contribute
to the yearly collection, saying, it “was nothing to _them_; they
would only bear their own expenses.” This was worse than foolish; it
was disloyal and unjust. In their own fashion, they were willing to
feed and clothe the preachers sent to them; but they expected some
one else to pay their expenses for travelling, and for the sickness
of themselves and their families; or, perhaps, these Irish Methodists
had dreamt that itinerants travelled without expense, and, so far as
sickness was concerned and the need of medicine, were entirely exempted
from the dire effects of Adam’s curse. Wesley says, with honest
indignation: “These are properly _their_ expenses; nor will we pay any
part of them for the time to come, unless their yearly contribution
enable us so to do.” If the Irish stopped supplies on one side of the
channel, Wesley could stop supplies on the other side as well. This
probably was a dilemma which the simple Hibernians had not studied.
There was another unpleasantness at the conference of 1776. Circuit
stewards complained, that some of the preachers’ wives were sluts,
and spoiled their houses; and the preachers, on the other hand,
complained that their houses were hardly homes, for the people, without
ceremony, crowded into them as into coffee houses. Wesley dealt with
both complaints in his own laconic way; directing that no “known slut”
should have a house to spoil; and that no person, either on Sundays or
week days, should go into the preacher’s house except to ask a question.
The conference pronounced the opinion, that Calvinism had been the
grand hindrance of the work of God; and, hence, to stop its progress,
all the preachers were requested--(1) To read, with carefulness,
the tracts published by Wesley, Fletcher, and Sellon. (2) To preach
universal redemption frequently, explicitly, and lovingly. (3) Not
to imitate the Calvinist preachers in screaming, allegorising, and
boasting; but to visit as diligently as they did, to answer all
their objections, to advise the Methodists not to hear them, to pray
constantly and earnestly that God would stop the plague.
Was it wise to publish this? We doubt it; and so did Toplady, for he
immediately, without note or comment, republished it in his _Gospel
Magazine_, with the heading “Authentic Extract of what passed at a
certain Confabulation, held at London, August 6, 1776.”
The Isle of Man now began to attract attention. John Crook was the
son of a Lancashire physician, who squandered his own and his wife’s
fortunes, and then died a miserable and untimely death at sea. John
was put apprentice to learn a laborious trade, and then enlisted to
be a soldier; when he was sent to Limerick, where, at the age of
twenty-eight, he was converted, in the Methodist chapel, in the year
1770. Having purchased his discharge from the army, he returned to
Liverpool, where he became a classleader, and a local preacher. At the
beginning of 1775, he went, uncommissioned except by God Himself, to
the Isle of Man, and began to preach, and had the lieutenant governor,
and his lady, and all the family, and the chief people in Castletown,
to hear him. Numbers had been converted; and persecution had begun to
rage. On July 16, 1776, the following episcopal bull was issued.
“_To the several Rectors, Vicars, Chaplains, Curates, within
the Isle and Diocese of Man._
“REVEREND BRETHREN,--Whereas, we have been informed, that
several unordained, unauthorised, and unqualified persons from
other countries have presumed, for some time past, to preach
and teach publicly, and hold and maintain conventicles, and
have caused several weak persons to combine themselves together
in a new society, and have private meetings, assemblies, and
congregations, contrary to the doctrine, government, rites and
ceremonies of the Established Church, and the civil and
ecclesiastical laws of this island--
“We do, therefore, for the prevention of schism, and the
establishment of uniformity of religious worship, which so long
hitherto has subsisted among us, hereby desire and require each
and every one of you, to be vigilant and use your utmost
endeavours to dissuade your respective flocks from following,
or being led and misguided by, such incompetent teachers, and
to exhort, incite, and invite them devoutly to read the holy
Scripture, to attend reverently the blessed sacraments of their
parish church, and the ghostly advice of their own ministers,
by which they will be better and more comfortably instructed in
the meaning of grace and salvation, than by the crude and
pragmatical and inconsistent, if not profane and blasphemous,
extempore effusions of these pretenders to the true religion;
and, if afterwards they regard not the truth, but obstinately
persist in error, then to know and find out the names of such
persons, within your respective parishes and chapelries, as
attend the public instructions of the said disorderly and
unqualified teachers, or frequent the said conventicles,
meetings, assemblies, and congregations; and if, upon due
inquiry and certain information, you discover, or, consistently
with your own knowledge, know any licensed schoolmaster,
mistress, parish clerk, or any other person, who holds any
office or employment by licence from us or our predecessors,
that you signify and make known to us in writing the names,
within one month after the receipt hereof, as also unto our
reverend vicars general or any one of them, of the persons who
attend the instructions of the said teachers, or frequent the
said conventicles.
“And we, likewise, further desire and require each and every
one of you, in case any of the above mentioned unordained,
unauthorised, and unqualified teachers shall, at any time
hereafter, offer to partake of the holy communion in any of
your respective churches or chapels, that you repel him or them
so offering, and the minister so repelling them or any of them
to give an account of the same unto us within fourteen days, at
the farthest, as is directed in the rubric in that behalf.
“Given at Peeltown, July 16, 1776.
“R. SODOR AND MAN.
“P.S.--Let these be forwarded, in the usual manner, and the time
of receiving and forwarding be noted by each of you. You will
also take a copy thereof, and publish it, in English and Manx,
at the usual time, in your respective churches and chapels the
Sunday next after the receipt thereof.”[275]
Such was the _fulmen brutum_ discharged at the poor Methodists from the
episcopal battery of the Isle of Man. Twelve days later, John Crook
wrote as follows to a friend at Liverpool.
“CASTLETOWN, ISLE OF MAN, _July 28, 1776_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am now in hot war. The devil has stirred
up the Rev. Mr. Moor, of Douglas, and made a firebrand of him,
to set all the island on fire. This gentleman has set his
schoolboys to work, to write chosen texts of Scripture against
_false prophets, dreamers of dreams, running and not being
sent_, etc. He has also picked up a ballad, written, I fancy,
by the late Dr. Bowden, and has dispersed manuscript copies of
it, and of the texts, among the populace, and put them into a
most violent flame. The effect on us, as a society, is, we are
hooted at, slutched, and stoned, whenever we go to worship God.
Mr. Moor’s scholars, in particular, and the rabble of the town
in general, gather round our place of meeting, and first sing
the blasphemous ballad, and then proceed to throw dirt and
stones at the windows and door. As for myself, when I come out
they plentifully salute me with channel dirt, with which they
have often plastered me pretty well. When the scholars meet me
at mid day, they curse me most horribly, and throw at me chips,
hard pieces of mortar, potatoes, stones, or whatever comes to
hand. But if this were all, we might do well enough; but this
_brand_ has communicated the infectious blaze to the bishop,
who has issued a bull, dated, not Rome, but Peeltown, which was
published in the churches last sabbath. I have petitioned the
governor for liberty of conscience, but he and the bishop are
so unanimous, that, he says, he will not interfere in the case,
but wishes me to write a memorial setting forth my suit. I am
not willing to do this, but have given Mr. Wesley an account of
the matter, and hope he will direct me how to act.
“I am, your willing servant in the gospel,
“JOHN CROOK.”[276]
Wesley replied to Mr. Crook as follows.
“LONDON, _August 10, 1776_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--By all means, stay in the island till the
storm be ended: in your patience possess your soul. Beware of
despising your opponents! Beware of anger and resentment!
Return not evil for evil, or railing for railing. I advise you
to keep, with a few serious people, a day of fasting and
prayer. God has the hearts of all men in His hands. Neither Dr.
Moor, nor the bishop himself, is out of His reach. Be fervent
in prayer, that God would arise and maintain His own cause.
Assuredly, He will not suffer you to be tempted above what you
are able to bear. Violent methods of redress are not to be
used, till all other methods fail. I know pretty well the mind
of Lord Mansfield, and of one that is greater than he; but, if
I appealed to them, it would bring much expense and
inconvenience on Dr. Moor and others. I would not willingly do
this; I love my neighbour as myself. Possibly, they may think
better, and allow that liberty of conscience which belongs to
every partaker of human nature, and more especially to every
one of his majesty’s subjects in his British dominions. To live
peaceably with all men is the earnest desire of your
affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[277]
Three years after this, the Isle of Man was a flourishing Methodist
circuit, with 1051 members of society.
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.”