[281] _Methodist Magazine_, 1783, p. 358.
[282] Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 311.
[283] Memoir of Ball, p. 137.
[284] Life of Mrs. Smyth, p. 33.
[285] Bardsley’s manuscript letters.
[286] Manuscript memoir of Mr. Sagar.
[287] Taylor’s manuscript diary.
[288] _Methodist Magazine_, 1844, p. 70.
[289] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 406.
[290] Mr. Moore says: “this good man was possessed of
eminent ministerial gifts, but he fell into the
mystic delusion. He then became high minded and
censorious; and Mr. Charles Wesley, in his hours
of depression, used too much to listen to him. The
quakers were jealous of him, and kept him silent a
long time, to his great mortification. But it was the
very thing he needed, it was good medicine to heal
his sickness. In one of his last conversations with
me, he said: ‘I would not have thy people to think of
changing; they may be disappointed,’ He was then in a
sweet and humble spirit, very different from that in
which he left us.” (Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii.,
pp. 273, 274.)
[291] _Methodist Magazine_, 1807, p. 328.
[292] Taylor’s manuscript diary.
[293] Treffry’s Life of Benson.
[294] “Anecdotes of the Wesleys,” p. 272.
[295] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 398.
[296] Asbury’s Journal, vol. i., p. 177.
[297] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 440.
[298] Minutes of Methodist Conferences in America, 1795.
[299] Jackson’s “Centenary of Methodism,” p. 201.
[300] See _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 661.
[301] _Methodist Magazine_, 1799, p. 564.
[302] _Gospel Magazine_, 1777, p. 182.
[303] Ibid. p. 337.
1778.
Age 75
Never in his life was Wesley the subject of a more infamous press
persecution than in 1778.
First of all, there was a pamphlet published, in which Thomas Maxfield
was pitiably preeminent. This mendacious publication asserted that,
when Whitefield went to America, in 1741, he handed over to the two
Wesleys thirty thousand people, whose hearts the Wesleys so turned
against him, that, when he returned to England, not three hundred
would come to hear him. It further alleged, that “vile contentions”
followed, in which the Wesleys “raked the filthiest ashes, to find some
black story against their fellow preachers;” and that what had been
published, on both sides, by the friends of Whitefield and Wesley,
within the last six years, was a disgrace to all concerned.
Wesley replied to this, in “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Maxfield,
occasioned by a late Publication”: 8vo, 11 pages. He states, with
perfect truth, that, at the time referred to, there were not five
thousand Methodists in the world; that his own societies contained
not more than fourteen or fifteen hundred members, and Whitefield’s
not so many. He declares that, so far from receiving thirty thousand
people from Whitefield in solemn trust, the latter never delivered
up to him one thousand, nor one hundred. He admits, that division
followed; but affirms that Whitefield himself occasioned it. Whitefield
first published a treatise against him by name; but he made no reply
to it. Wesley asserts that Whitefield constantly preached against
him and his brother, both in Moorfields, and in other public places.
Even in the very Foundery, while Charles Wesley sat beside him, he
preached the absolute decrees, in the most peremptory and offensive
manner; but, instead of returning railing for railing, they always and
everywhere spoke of him in respectful terms. And then, with respect
to the publications of the last six years, Wesley states that, though
the two Hills, and Toplady, had poured upon him, in great abundance,
bitterness and wrath, yea, low, base, and virulent invective, he
himself had published only three tracts during the entire controversy,
and in none of them had he spoken one bitter, passionate, or
disrespectful word. “Where,” he asks, “have I, in one single sentence,
returned them railing for railing? I have not so learned Christ. I dare
not rail, either at them or you. I return not cursing but blessing.
That the God of love may bless them and you, is the prayer of your
injured, yet still affectionate brother, JOHN WESLEY.”
Wesley’s letter was worthy of himself. True, his statements, respecting
his old friend Whitefield, are scarcely to Whitefield’s honour; but it
must be borne in mind, that they are not opinions, but facts; and facts
not volunteered, but extorted by the falsehoods of Maxfield and those
with whom Maxfield now associated.
Wesley replied to Maxfield; but the publications which must be next
noticed were properly treated with the silent contempt they merited.
We reluctantly advert to these vile productions; and yet, for the
reason already repeatedly assigned, we must. Our notices shall be
brief: first, for want of space; and secondly, because we can hardly
make quotations without fouling our pages. The publications were seven
in number, all, except one, printed by a man of the name of Bew, in
Paternoster Row, on the best of paper, and in the best of type.
1. “The Gospel Shop. A comedy in five acts: with a new prologue and
epilogue, intended for public representation, but suppressed at
the particular desire of some eminent divines. By R. Hill, Esq.,
of Cambridge.” 8vo, 88 pages. The chief _dramatis personæ_ are Dr.
Scapegoat, Parson Prolix, Mr. Rackett, and Simon Sycophant; and an idea
of the whole of this infamous production may be obtained from two lines
taken from the motto on the title page.
“Beware! these dire illusions! strange to tell,
A gospel shop’s the very spawn of hell!”
2. “The Saints: a satire.” 4to, 30 pages; with a frontispiece made up
of two scrolls, labelled respectively, “Inspiration,” and “Election,”
a bottle inscribed with the word “Gin,” and a satyr’s head inscribed
“Perfection.” A Methodist is described as a mixture of ignorance and
folly, piety and hypocrisy. The whole tribe are “downright scoundrels,”
“religious mountebanks,” “wretches who make a trade of religion,” and
“show an uncommon concern for the next world, only to raise their
fortunes with greater security in this.” Two lines must suffice as a
specimen, and, for the sake of decency, two of the words must be given
in a skeletonised form. Of Wesley it is said, he
“Makes piety a b----d to aid his work,
Outlies Sam Johnson, and o--twh----s a Turk.”[304]
3. “Perfection; a poetical epistle, calmly addressed to the greatest
hypocrite in England.” 4to, price two shillings. Of course, Wesley
was the hypocrite; and the work is ornamented with an emblematical
frontispiece in accordance with its foul and calumnious falsehoods.
4. “The Temple of Imposture. A poem by the author of ‘The Saints,’
‘Perfection,’ etc.” 4to, 35 pages. This, like all the others, has a
characteristic frontispiece, in which Wesley is represented as a huge
serpent, labelled “The subtlest beast of the field.” The serpent forms
a circle, inside of which, among other things, there are four books
respectively inscribed, “Koran,” “Bedlam’s Hymns,” “Druid Hymns,” and
“Ignat. Loyola Monita Secreta”; also a gridiron, called “Mahommed’s
Gridiron”; a sword, inscribed “A Calm Address”; a bottle, with a
burning candle in its neck, and labelled “Gin”; and two scrolls,
one with the words “Old Light at Mecca,” and the other, “New Light
in Moorfields.” The professed object of the work is to show, that,
in tyranny, lust, avarice, persecution, and imposture, Wesley is
a successor of Mahommed; and, in a bad sense, an improved edition
of Ignatius Loyola. Wesley is accused of long seeking to be made a
bishop. “Of all impostors since the flood,” he is denounced as the
very worst; while his preachers are “mechanic missionaries,--bawling,
crafty, illiterate wretches, sent out by their priestly masters, to sow
seeds of false doctrine and fanaticism, which spring up, throughout
the country, in plentiful crops of idleness, beggary, madness, and
sometimes suicide.”
5. “The Lovefeast. A poem by the author of the ‘Saints: a satire,’
etc.” 4to, 47 pages. Here the frontispiece is a sort of chapel scene,
in which Wesley, as a fox, dressed in canonicals, is having a mitre
placed upon his head by the goddess Murcia, while a parson behind waves
his wig and shouts “Hurrah,” and another hurries away with an air
of disappointment and disgust. Wesley’s Foundery is described as “a
spiritual slop shop,” where he equips his “preaching lubbers” with all
the necessary paraphernalia for playing their several parts; while the
preachers themselves are designated “the worst of scum,” “smugglers of
Scripture phrases,” “learning’s sworn foes,” “Jack Cade’s apostles,”
and “mere conduit pipes of rhapsody and cant.” The following are the
last lines of the piece, and are used concerning Wesley himself.
“_Feasts_ he may institute, raise _holy_ piles,
Degrade his _God_ to win a _monarch’s_ smiles;
Permit _corruption_ his _false heart_ to taint,
Live by _imposture_, and yet die a _saint_;
But never while this hand can hold a pen,
Shall he escape the _scorn of honest men_.
Nor North, nor Mansfield shall the _wizard_ save,
But _ridicule_ shall scourge him to the _grave_--
There let him _rot_, (so Becket did before,)
_Proud_ as a _pope_, and faithless as a wh--re.”
6. “Sketches for Tabernacle Frames.” 4to, 36 pages. In this, the
frontispiece consists of Wesley, again represented as a fox in
canonicals, with the crosier of a mock bishop behind him, and round
about a library of books, which he is supposed to sell, the shelves
being labelled “Primitive Physic,” “Political Pamphlets,” and “Prayers,
Sermons, and Hymns.” Before him kneels a mechanic, with an ass’s head,
holding, in one hand, a bottle inscribed with the words “Primitive
Physic,” and, in the other, a pamphlet called “A Calm Address,” while
the poor asinine wretch himself is having his mouth opened by Wesley,
who is about to indulge in the agreeable recreation of extracting his
teeth. At the top of the picture are two portraits, one of James II.,
indicative of Wesley being a Jacobite; and the other of Lucy Cooper,
indicating him to be something worse. The poem is dedicated to the
“Rev. Mr. Evans, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Hawes, in acknowledgment of their
services to the public.” After describing Wesley by such epithets as “a
nostrum monger,” “a preacher, pamphleteer, and quack,” than whom “few
can whistle off rank nonsense better,” the work concludes with the two
lines following:
“His odious name should stink beyond the grave,
And truth proclaim him a recorded knave.”
The reader has had more than enough of these dunghill rakings; but, in
order to be saved from the hateful task of returning to this series of
abominable poems, we add another published in the year following.
7. “Fanatical Conversion, or Methodism Displayed. Illustrated and
verified from J. Wesley’s fanatical journals.” 1779: 4to, 55 pages. In
two different copies we find two different frontispieces. One is an
ass, on its hind legs, preaching. The other is much more elaborate,
and is too obscene to be fully described. Leaving out the parts
referred to, Wesley, as a clerical fox, is represented as preaching
in a barn, his right hand in the coat pocket of a man called “Old
Cloaths,” and his left taking a penny from a boy, a tapster, who has
just been broaching a hogshead of “Culvert’s Gin.” One man approaches
the preacher, with a cudgel, crying, “Give me my money!” Another, in
the form of a donkey, is making a most hideous noise, and is called
“Brother Bray.” A third is vomiting a black monster, and represented
as saying, “He’s gone, he’s gone!” A fourth is standing on his head,
and shouting, “Sure I am in heaven.” Two others are hurling a squib
at Wesley’s head, and flourishing a scroll, “For the benefit of Trick
upon Trick, or Methodism Displayed.” At Wesley’s feet is the favourite
bottle, labelled “Primitive Physic”; and in the centre is, what may be
taken as the artist’s name, “Rowland Hill, 1778.” The following four
lines, selected almost hap-hazard, are a very moderate specimen of all
the rest. Of course, they are spoken concerning Wesley.
“Reynard, you’re right! Heaven loves such pious frauds;
Hence, half your saints _unmasked_ are who--s and b--ds:
Nay, _mock apostles_ are but little less
Than devils lurking in _fanatic_ dress.”
We gladly leave these disgusting publications. Like dishonoured
children, they are without an acknowledged father. Who was their
infamous author? We neither know, nor care to know; but there are
three facts concerning them which must be noticed. First, in almost
the whole of them there is a most virulent attack on Wesley’s “Calm
Address to the American Colonies.” Secondly, though irreligious to a
supreme degree, they are levelled, not against religion in general,
but against that particular form of it espoused by Wesley. Thirdly,
throughout, the Calvinists are either passed _sub silentio_, or with
words of commendation; and, in footnotes and other places, Rowland
Hill is evidently in the writer’s good graces. We have read hundreds
of tracts and pamphlets published against Wesley; but nothing which,
for profanity, pollution, and violent abuse, equals these. They display
talent; but talent prostituted to the most infernal purposes. In style,
they resemble,--shall we say it? the style of one of Wesley’s most
calumnious Calvinian opposers; but we charitably, though feebly, hope,
that no man professing, much less teaching, the Christian religion, had
to do with their production.
What had Wesley done to merit all this? Nothing, absolutely nothing. He
was an old man whose life had been spent in one great act of Christian
beneficence. These wretched poems, issued in the best style of the art
of printing, by J. Bew, of Paternoster Row, were the foul sputterings
of a muse, not naturally ignoble, but envious of Wesley’s majestic
goodness, and animated with a feeling almost as malignant as the heart
of Apollyon. So far from answering them, Wesley never even condescended
to mention them, in any journal or letter yet made public.
Before we trace Wesley’s wanderings in 1778, there are two or three
other facts which must be noticed. On Tuesday, August 11, 1778, in the
thirty-eighth year of his age, occurred the death of the Rev. Augustus
Toplady. In more respects than one, this was a memorable event to
Wesley and his friends. In the death of Toplady, Wesley lost one of his
bitterest opponents; and Calvinism lost its ablest champion.
Soon after, the report was circulated, that Wesley had stated, to some
of his friends, that Toplady died in despair and uttering blasphemy.
Sir Richard Hill rushed into print, by sending an anonymous letter
to the _General Advertiser_, requesting Wesley either to deny the
accusation, or to produce his authority, otherwise his character would
suffer, “for having vented a most gross, malicious falsehood.” Not
content with this, he published a pamphlet, in the form of a “Letter
to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,” in which, as usual, he made use of the
most intemperate language, telling Wesley that, unless he cleared
himself from the charge alleged against him, he would be branded “as
the raiser and fabricator of a most nefarious report,” and would be
guilty of a sin little less “than the unpardonable sin against the Holy
Ghost.” The whole of this mare’s nest was simply this: Mr. Gawkrodger,
of Bridlington, _told_ Sir Richard Hill, that Mr. Thomas Robinson
_told_ him, that Wesley _told_ him, that Toplady “died in black despair
and blasphemy.” If Sir Richard Hill had _courteously_ asked for an
explanation, Wesley, like a gentleman and a Christian, would have given
one; but, having demanded it in the most offensive terms, telling him
that he had been “vilifying the ashes and traducing the memory” of
Toplady; and that “his grand design in all his publications, whether
sermons, journals, appeals, preservatives, or Arminian magazines,
was that of trumpeting forth his own praises”; and that he was “a
man of cunning and subtlety, and artifices, and foul aspersions, and
quibbles, and evasions,”[305]--we say, that Sir Richard Hill having
used such terms as these, in the very letters in which he requested the
explanation, deserved, not an answer, but, the silent contempt with
which Wesley wisely treated him.
In 1778, England was in great excitement. Panic was general; and the
country was thought to be on the brink of ruin. It was this state
of things which led Wesley to publish the two political pamphlets
following:
First, “A Serious Address to the People of England, with regard to
the state of the nation:” 12mo, 28 pages; the object of which was to
show, that England, notwithstanding the war, was in prosperity. Its
cattle and vegetable productions were undiminished. Its inhabitants
had increased a million within the last twenty years; and, during
the same period, hundreds of thousands of acres of unprofitable land
had been put under tillage. England might have lost eight hundred of
its ships since the beginning of the war; but it had also taken more
than it had lost. The trade with Ireland had prodigiously increased;
and, _comparatively speaking_, the national debt was not so great as
in 1759. “Friends and countrymen!” writes Wesley, “let none deceive
you with vain words! Let none, by subtle reasonings, or by artful,
elaborate harangues, persuade you out of your senses. Let no sweet
tongued orator, by his smooth periods, steal away your understanding;
no thundering talker fill you with vain fears, of evils that have no
being. You are encompassed with liberty, peace, and plenty. Know the
public, as well as private, blessings which you enjoy; and be thankful
to God and man.”
The second, and shorter tract, was published, with the title, “A
Compassionate Address to the Inhabitants of Ireland”: 12mo, 12 pages.
Wesley laughs to scorn the report, that General Washington had an
army of 65,000 men; and says, that “the French will as soon swallow
up the sea,” as swallow up old England; that the Spanish have not yet
forgotten Havannah; and that the Portuguese were “not such arrant
fools” as to join in a confederacy with England’s enemies.
These were odd topics for Wesley to take up; but the war excitement
was now at its highest point. Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and
Edinburgh raised regiments at their own expense. The Whig opposition
considered this to be highly reprehensible, and accused Lord North and
the other members of the government with employing soldiers without
consent of parliament, and of entertaining designs dangerous to the
liberties of the country. Fox moved, in the House of Commons, that no
more troops should be sent out of the kingdom; alleging that a war
with France and Spain was imminent; and that the navy was inefficient,
and the militia contemptible. Burke, in a speech of three hours and a
half duration,--said to be the greatest triumph of eloquence within
the memory of man,--endeavoured to weaken the hands of government,
by dwelling on the ferocities and horrors committed by their savage
auxiliaries in America, the red Indians. Lord George Gordon, who was
not yet quite so mad as he became a year or two later, expressed
his earnest wish, that Lord North “would call off his butchers from
America, retire with all the rest of his majesty’s evil advisers, and
turn from his wickedness and live.” John Wilkes, the ex-lord mayor of
London, who had not yet attained to the post of city chamberlain, but
who was engaged in constant manœuvres to escape out of the purgatory
of duns, or to draw more money from the purses of private friends, was
as lavish with his sarcasms, ribaldry, and drollery as ever, and told
the minister, that nothing but a cessation of hostilities would save
General Howe from the fate of Burgoyne. France was exerting itself
to the utmost, to induce, not only Spain, but also Austria, Prussia,
Russia, and the other despotisms, to become the allies and protectors
of the young and free republic. The king and his ministers were
involved in the greatest difficulties; and John Wesley, like a loyal
man, at the head of forty thousand Methodists, felt it to be a duty to
assist them as he best could, not only in private and in the pulpit,
but also with his pen.
Having spent the first two months of 1778 in London and its vicinity,
Wesley started, at the commencement of March, for Ireland, where he
employed his time and energies till towards the end of July following;
but there was nothing in the tour so _unusually_ remarkable as to
demand attention. The days of mob persecution were over; and everywhere
Wesley was received with respect, and, in many places, with affection.
At Tullamore, where he preached in the riding-house, the commanding
officer ordered all the soldiers to be present, and attended himself,
with the rest of the officers. At Cork, two companies of volunteers
were present in the chapel, while Wesley preached; the side gallery
being filled with the men in scarlet, and the front with the men in
blue. In one instance, this old evangelist actually, we had almost said
cruelly, drove a pair of horses sixty-eight miles in a single day. In
another instance, coming to a slough near Sligo, a sturdy Irishman took
Wesley over on his shoulders; and others took his chaise. At Dublin,
his little conference of twenty preachers debated the duty of leaving
the Established Church; “but, after a full discussion of the point,”
says Wesley, “we all remained firm in our judgment,--that it is not our
duty to leave the Church, wherein God has blessed us, and does bless us
still.”
This discussion was brought about principally by the Rev. Edward Smyth,
already mentioned as a clergyman who had been expelled from his curacy
for his fidelity to the truth. At present, he was in connection with
the Methodists; and was now eager to persuade Wesley and his preachers
to separate from the Church; but without effect. Myles, in his
Chronological History, says, that the minute adopted was the following:
“Is it not our duty to separate from the Church, considering
the wickedness both of the clergy and the people? Answer. We
conceive not. 1. Because both the priests and the people were
full as wicked in the Jewish church, and yet God never
commanded the holy Israelites to separate from them. 2. Neither
did our Lord command His disciples to separate from them; He
rather commanded the contrary. 3. Hence, it is clear, _that_
could not be the meaning of St. Paul’s words, ‘Come out from
among them, and be ye separate.’”
This was an important action. Twenty years before, Wesley had wavered
in his attachment to the Church; now and henceforth, in language at
least, he was more decided. This is a question which will repeatedly
present itself in succeeding years.
On July 19, Wesley left Dublin to attend his English conference in
Leeds, preaching on his way at Liverpool, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale,
Halifax, Bradford, and Birstal, at which last mentioned place his
congregation was supposed to number twelve or fourteen thousand persons.
Wesley’s notice of the Leeds conference is brief. He writes:
“1778. Tuesday, August 4.--Our conference began: so large a
number of preachers never met at a conference before. I
preached morning and evening, till Thursday night; then my
voice began to fail; so I desired two of our preachers to
supply my place the next day. On Saturday the conference
ended.”
Mr. Benson writes:
“Our conference is just ended, the best I was ever at. Mr.
Wesley has been in a sweet spirit, has preached some excellent
sermons, has had extraordinary congregations, and has dealt
closely and plainly with the preachers, setting two aside for
misdemeanours.”[306]
Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks:
“August 5.--To-day, we permitted all sorts to come into the
conference, so that we had a large company. The forenoon was
occupied in speaking upon preaching houses. In the afternoon,
the sending of missionaries to Africa was considered. The call
seems doubtful. Afterwards, the committee met, and we were an
hour and a half in speaking what might have been done in five
minutes. We are vastly tedious, and have many long speeches to
little purpose.”
“August 6.--This day has been employed chiefly in stationing
the preachers.
“August 7.--We were engaged in conference till after one
o’clock; and then the sacrament began, at which, I think, two
thousand were present.”
Three things are noticeable here. 1. Others, beside itinerant
preachers, were admitted to Wesley’s conference in 1778. 2. Long and
tedious conferential speeches are not a novelty; but were inflicted
upon impatient and unwilling listeners in former days as they are
sometimes inflicted now. 3. The conference had an immense sacrament
such as Methodist conferences and Methodist congregations now never
witness.
Stationing preachers was then a difficulty as it is at present, one of
the four days being chiefly occupied with this. Some modern Methodists
seem to think, that Wesley, in this, acted as he pleased; but that
is hardly true. The people then, to say nothing about the preachers,
liked to have a voice in their appointments; and then, as now, not
unfrequently made worse selections than others would have made for
them. In the spring of the present year, Wesley significantly wrote,
while at Bristol: “March 9--On this and the following days I visited
the society, and found a good increase. This year, I myself (_which
I have seldom done_) chose the preachers for Bristol; and these were
_plain_ men, and likely to do more good than had been done in one year,
for these twenty years.”
It is a curious fact, that, as this was the first conference in whose
minutes the name of Thomas Coke appeared, so also it was a conference
remarkable for its discussion of the great question of Christian
missions, to which Coke, soon after, devoted his unwearied life. The
mission to Africa has been mentioned. Mr. Benson writes:
“The proposal was made in consequence of two young princes from
Calabar, in Guinea, who desired that missionaries might be sent
to instruct them in the English language, and the great
principles of Christianity. These young princes had been
cruelly torn away from their own country, and sold as slaves in
America, where they remained upwards of seven years. An English
master of a ship, to whom they told their story, pitied them,
and advised them to run away from their master, which they did,
and were brought by him to England. Their case was examined,
and brought before Lord Mansfield; and they were set at
liberty. They made some stay at Bristol, and were instructed by
some of our people, but especially by Miss Johnson. After they
had returned to their own country, at their request, two
persons, who were Germans, but members of our society at
Bristol, were sent out to Guinea; but they both died either
before, or soon after, they landed on that coast. The young
princes sent over petitions for others to go. Two good young
men offered themselves for the difficult and dangerous service.
But, after the matter was seriously considered, it was
concluded that the time had not arrived for sending
missionaries to Africa.”[307]
One of the strangers, who were present at the conference of 1778, was
Thomas Thompson, Esq., afterwards member of parliament for the town
of Hull, and who, at the first missionary meeting, held at Leeds,
stated that the discussion respecting this African mission lasted
several hours, and was marked by deep piety, sound sense, and powerful
eloquence. Mr. Thompson continued: “The deepest impression, however,
seemed to be made, on the minds of all persons present, by the short
speech of a young man, who appeared to be far gone in a consumption,
but who promptly offered himself as a missionary, and, in unaffected
language, declared his readiness to go to Africa, or to any other part
of the world, to which it might please God and his brethren to send
him.”[308]
Who was this young man? Though not absolutely certain, we believe it
was Duncan McAllum. At all events, the following information, hitherto
unpublished, will be acceptable. The two African princes escaped from
slavery, about the year 1775, after the breaking out of the American
rebellion. One of them was baptized at Bristol; and the other was
seriously disposed. The two Germans, who went out, were brothers of
the name of Syndrum, and were treated by the uncle of the princes with
all possible attention. When the intelligence of their death arrived
in England, Dr. Coke addressed a circular to all the young itinerant
preachers in the connexion, asking for volunteers for this African
mission, and stating that they would be supported by a legacy of £500,
left, for that purpose, by Miss Johnson, of Bristol.[309] Duncan
McAllum was now in the third year of his itinerancy, and was stationed
at Dundee. With a brave heart, he offered his services, even before the
conference; but, without assigning reasons, Wesley declined accepting
them. Hence the following hitherto unpublished letter.
“DUBLIN, _July 14, 1778_.
“DEAR DUNCAN,--I would have you change once in two months, and
will help you as to the expenses. Dwell in the land, and be
doing good, and surely thou shalt be fed. You have nothing to
do at present in Africa. Convert the heathen in Scotland.
“I am, dear Duncan, yours affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
So the matter ended. Help for Africa was deferred; but it is a blessed
fact that Africans were being saved. The successful efforts of Mr.
Gilbert in Antigua have been already noticed; and it is a remarkable
coincidence, that, in this very year, when Coke first found a place
in the conference minutes, and when, for the first time, missions to
the heathen were discussed at the conference sittings, John Baxter,
a Methodist shipwright at Chatham, felt himself constrained to leave
his friends, and to embark for Antigua, principally, as he himself
expresses it, that he “might have an opportunity of speaking for God.”
He landed on April 2, and, a fortnight after, wrote to Wesley, telling
him that the work, begun by the late Mr. Gilbert, still remained. He
says: “The black people have been kept together by two black women, who
have continued praying and meeting with those who attended every night.
I preached to about thirty on Saturday night. On Sunday morning, to
the same number; and, in the afternoon, to about four or five hundred.
The old standers desire I would let you know that you have had many
children in Antigua whom you never saw. I hope, sir, we shall have an
interest in your prayers. Dear sir, give me your advice. Provisions
are very scarce; but I have all things richly to enjoy; as I have four
shillings a day, besides the king’s provisions. I am going to have a
house built for me, with as much ground as is needful. I think God has
sent me here for good to the poor souls, who are glad to hear, but
unable to maintain, a preacher.”[310]
Little more remains to be said respecting the conference of 1778,
except that it was resolved “to receive no more married preachers,
because,” says Wesley, “we cannot keep them”;[311] and, further, that
two most characteristic minutes were adopted in reference to preachers
who were nervous. It was asked:
“Why do so many of our preachers fall into nervous disorders?
“Answer. Because they do not sufficiently observe Dr. Cadogan’s
rules--to avoid indolence and intemperance.
“They do indeed use exercise; but many of them do not use
enough,--not near so much as they did before they were
preachers. And sometimes they sit still a whole day. This can
never consist with health.
“They are not intemperate in the vulgar sense; they are neither
drunkards nor gluttons; but they take more food than nature
requires, particularly in the evening.
“What advice would you give to those that are _nervous_?
“Answer. Advice is made for them that will take it; but who are
they? one in ten, or twenty?
“Then I advise: (1) Touch no dram, tea, tobacco, or snuff; (2)
eat very light, if any, supper; (3) breakfast on nettle or
orange peel tea; (4) lie down before ten, rise before six; (5)
every day use as much exercise as you can bear; or (6) murder
yourself by inches.”
Wesley acted upon his own advice. Whatever might be said of others, he
was not the man to be made nervous for want of exercise. Many Methodist
preachers claim and enjoy a holiday after conference. With Wesley it
was otherwise. The conference of 1778 closed on Saturday, August 8;
the next day, Wesley preached to a congregation of some thousands
in the market place at Dewsbury. He then hurried off to London; and
thence to Cornwall, where he preached, in Gwennap amphitheatre, it was
believed, to four-and-twenty thousand people. During this lengthened
journey, he made the following curious entry in his journal.
“September 1--I went to Tiverton. I was musing here on what I
heard a good man say long since: ‘Once in seven years I burn
all my sermons; for it is a shame if I cannot write better
sermons now than I could seven years ago.’ Whatever others can
do, I really cannot. I cannot write a better sermon on the Good
Steward, than I did seven years ago; I cannot write a better on
the Great Assize, than I did twenty years ago; I cannot write a
better on the Use of Money, than I did near thirty years ago;
nay, I know not that I can write a better on the Circumcision
of the Heart, than I did five-and-forty years ago. Perhaps,
indeed, I may have read five or six hundred books more than I
had then, and may know a little more history, or natural
philosophy, than I did; but I am not sensible that this has
made any essential addition to my knowledge in divinity. Forty
years ago, I knew and preached every Christian doctrine which I
preach now.”
Let the reader ponder this entry for a threefold purpose. (1) To form
an estimate of the extent of Wesley’s reading. (2) To ascertain which
sermons Wesley thought his best. (3) To find an answer to the charge
that Wesley changed his doctrines.
Wesley, on his return from Cornwall, arrived on September 4 in Bristol,
in the neighbourhood of which he spent the ensuing month.
The remainder of the year was occupied in London, and in his usual
tours through the counties of Buckingham, Oxford, Bedford, Northampton,
Hertford, and Kent; and it may be mentioned, as an evidence that the
Church of England began at last to appreciate its ejected minister,
that, during this interval, he preached, by request, to crowded
congregations, in not fewer than four of the London churches.
It was at this time, also, that he opened, as already noticed, the new
chapel in City Road. On the day of opening, he wrote as follows to Mrs.
Penelope Cousins.
“LONDON, _November 1, 1778_.
“MY DEAR SISTER,--It is just as it should be. I have formerly
said ‘I wonder how Mr. Whitefield can go on! For he has honour,
and comparatively, no dishonour. And this is test for human
frailty too severe.’ Now I have not that insupportable burden.
I have honour enough in all reason; but it is properly balanced
with dishonour. I have good report, and (what is absolutely
necessary) evil report too. To-day I am to open our new chapel.
Hence also will arise both honour and dishonour. Yet a little
while, and all these things, that seem considerable now, will
pass away like a dream.
“I am, my dear Penny, yours affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[312]
The opening of City Road chapel rendered it necessary, that Wesley
should have clerical coadjutors; and he now received a letter from one
who, in after years, rendered faithful and valuable service. The Rev.
James Creighton was born in Ireland, in 1739; and, for fourteen years,
had been an ordained clergyman; but it was only within the last two
years that he had found peace with God, through faith in Jesus Christ,
and that principally by reading the works of Wesley. He now began to
preach in a barn, about four miles from his parish church; and, then,
when the barn was no longer available, in a chapel which was erected
for him, and in which he officiated for some time, though the windows
were unglazed, and the mudden floor was such that his feet often sunk
two inches deep during the performance of service. His parish was
sixteen miles in length, and most of it mountainous and boggy; but he
frequently walked, as well as rode, through all parts of it, in all
kinds of weather.[313] While here, he wrote the following to Wesley.
“BELTERBELT, _October 26, 1778_.
“MY DEAR SIR,--I stand much in need of a judicious friend. I am
quite alone; there are none of the Methodists near me; nor are
there any yet thoroughly awakened within my cure. The fault, I
must own, is mine. I have not been zealous enough; yet, this
has not proceeded from the fear of man; but I wished not to act
precipitately, and to raise the prejudices of the clergy as
little as possible. I meant well; but I see I have acted wrong.
Had I been persecuted, I should have been much bolder; but the
people are so civil to me, that it has, in a great measure,
proved my ruin. I have had such a sense of my ignorance and
inability, that I have been frequently tempted to think, I
ought to refrain entirely from preaching. But, again, I thought
I might, perhaps, be of some use here, where the people are
ready to listen to me, yet are not willing to hear a Methodist.
Could I once open a door here for the Methodist preachers, I
should willingly go to any part of the globe that God should
call me to. Were I near you, I should be too happy to fill the
place of your assistant. Though we must lament the want of
discipline in our Church, and though I admire the economy of
the Methodists, yet I entirely agree with you, that they ought
not to leave the Church. So long as they mingle with the
members of it, they may be the means of converting them; but,
if they separate, they will thereby stop the ears and eyes of
thousands. These were my sentiments long before I heard that
they were yours. I never was bigoted to opinions, and hope I
never shall.
“I remain, dear sir, your very humble servant, and affectionate
brother,
“JAMES CREIGHTON.”[314]
The discipline of the Church of England was a thing over which Wesley
and his friends had no control. With the discipline of the Methodists
it was otherwise. Hence, the following characteristic letter, hitherto
unpublished, addressed to one of his itinerants, at Brecon, Mr. William
Church, an ancestor of the Rev. Henry L. Church, who possesses the
original.
“WALLINGFORD, _October 13, 1778_.
“DEAR BILLY,--The soul and the body make a man; the Spirit and
discipline make a Christian. Let John Watson and you agree
together, and be exact in this wherever you go. Insist upon the
observance of all the society rules, by all the members of
society; and on the observance of all (even the least) of the
band rules, by all that meet in band. I give, for instance, no
band tickets to any woman, who wears either ruffles or a high
crowned cap. If any will not lay aside these, rather than lose
that blessed means of improvement, she is not worthy of it.
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Another unpublished letter, of the same kind, addressed to Samuel
Bradburn, will be welcome.
“LONDON, _October 17, 1778_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--I think you judge exactly right. You are called
to obey _me_, as a son in the gospel. But who can prove, that
you are so called to obey any other person? What I require
(according to the twelfth rule of a helper) of John Hampson and
you, is, that each of you, in his turn, spend four weeks, and
no more, first at Cork, and then at Bandon. When, therefore,
you have been at Bandon, I desire you to return straight to
Cork. And, if John Hampson will not then go to Bandon, I will
order one that will. Pray show this letter to Mr. Mackrie, whom
I beg to assist you in this matter. Pass smoothly over the
perverseness of those you have to do with, and go straight
forward. It is abundantly sufficient, that you have the
testimony of a good conscience towards God.
“I am, dear Sammy, yours affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Reference is made, in Mr. Creighton’s letter, to the subject of the
Methodists leaving the Established Church; and it has been already
seen, that this was a matter earnestly debated, at the Dublin
conference, during the present year. The following letter, sent to Miss
Bishop, is of great importance, and, though long, must have insertion.
“LONDON, _October 18, 1778_.
“MY DEAR SISTER,--The original Methodists were all of the
Church of England; and the more awakened they were, the more
zealously they adhered to it, in every point, both of doctrine
and discipline. Hence, we inserted in the very first rules of
our society, ‘they that leave the Church leave us.’ And this we
did, not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience. We
believed it unlawful to separate from the Church, unless sinful
terms of communion were imposed. Just as did Mr. Philip Henry,
and most of those holy men that were contemporary with him.
“‘But the ministers of it do not preach the gospel.’ Neither do
some of the independent or anabaptist ministers. Calvinism is
not the gospel: nay, it is further from it, than most of the
sermons I hear at the church. These are very frequently
unevangelical, but they are not anti-evangelical. Few of the
Methodists are now in danger of imbibing error from the Church
ministers; but they are in great danger of imbibing the grand
error, Calvinism, from some of the Dissenting ministers.
Perhaps thousands have done it already; most of whom have drawn
back to perdition. I see more instances of this than any one
else can do; and, on this ground also, exhort all who would
keep to the Methodists, and from Calvinism, to go to the
church, and not to the meeting.
“But to speak freely: I myself find more life in the Church
prayers, than in any formal extemporary prayers of Dissenters.
Nay, I find more profit in sermons on either good tempers, or
good works, than in what are vulgarly called gospel sermons.
The term has now become a mere cant word: I wish none of our
society would use it. It has no determinate meaning. Let but a
pert, self sufficient animal, that has neither sense nor grace,
bawl out something about Christ, or His blood, or justification
by faith, and his hearers cry out, ‘What a fine gospel sermon!’
Surely the Methodists have not so learned Christ! We know no
gospel without salvation from sin. There is a Romish error
which many protestants swallow unawares. It is an avowed
doctrine of the Romish church, that the ‘pure intention of the
minister is essential to the validity of the sacraments.’ If
so, we ought not to attend the ministrations of an unholy man.
But in flat opposition to this, our Church teaches, in the
twenty-eighth article, that ‘the unworthiness of the minister
does not hinder the validity of the sacraments.’ Although,
therefore, there are many disagreeable circumstances, yet, I
advise all our friends to keep to the Church. God has surely
raised us up for the Church chiefly, that a little leaven may
leaven the whole lump. I wish you would seriously consider that
little tract, ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church of
England.’ These reasons were never yet answered; I believe,
they never will.
“I am, my dear sister, yours very affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[315]
Whatever may be thought of the validity of Wesley’s reasons, there can
be no question, that, in theory at least, he was still firmly attached
to the Established Church. His enemies, not without reason, stigmatised
him as a Dissenter; he persisted, that he himself and the Methodists
were not Dissenters. Who is possessed of competent authority to decide
the doubt?
Before passing to Wesley’s publications, there is another matter which
deserves attention. One of the questions proposed at the conference of
1778 was,--“Is it not advisable for us to visit all the jails we can?”
The answer was,--“By all means. There cannot be a greater charity.”
From the first, this was a duty to which Wesley and his brother had
devoted themselves to the utmost of their power; and so also had many
of their preachers and followers, especially Silas Told, a man who
richly deserves a passing notice.
Mr. Told was the son of a physician at Bristol, where he was born in
1711. At the age of fourteen, he was bound apprentice as a sailor; and,
for eleven years, lived a life of adventurous romance. In 1740, Charles
Casper Greaves, a young bricklayer, introduced him to the Methodists.
In 1744, Silas, at Wesley’s request, became the master of the Foundery
school, and received a salary of £26 a year. At the same time, he began
to visit the London prisons, and to preach to debtors and malefactors.
There was not a prison in the metropolis, nor scarcely a workhouse
within twelve miles round it, where Silas Told was not a frequent and
welcome visitor. The scenes he witnessed were horrible; but for these
the reader must turn to Told’s autobiography. Suffice it to add, that
Silas Told was preeminently, in London, the prison philanthropist, the
real, though unrecognised chaplain of all its wretched prisoners.
For more than thirty years, no man was better known, or more welcome
in the jails of the metropolis, than he. All sorts of criminals,
papists and protestants, clung to him in their anguish, for counsel
and consolation. Notwithstanding opposition at the first, he persisted
in his enterprise, till even turnkeys, sheriffs, and hangmen, as well
as prisoners, were wont to weep while listening to his exhortations
and his prayers. Silas Told continued his great good work, till he
tottered under the weight of nearly threescore years and ten, when
he peacefully expired in December 1778. It was befitting that Wesley
himself should inter such at Methodist. He writes: “1778, Sunday,
December 30--I buried what was mortal of honest Silas Told. For many
years, he attended the malefactors in Newgate, without fee or reward;
and I suppose no man for this hundred years has been so successful in
that melancholy office. God had given him peculiar talents for it; and
he had amazing success therein. The greatest part of those whom he
attended died in peace, and many of them in the triumph of faith.”
Several of Wesley’s publications in 1778 have been already mentioned;
only two still require notice.
The first was “Some Account of the late Work of God in North America,
in a Sermon on Ezekiel i. 16.” 12mo, 23 pages. It was almost a misnomer
to designate this a sermon; but it was vastly popular, and, before the
year was out, reached a second edition. It is really a brief historical
statement of American affairs from 1736 to 1778. Wesley begins with
the colonisation of Georgia, passes on to the wonderful revival of
religion in New England, and speaks of the amazingly successful labours
of Whitefield, but affirms that, for want of forming his converts into
societies, the far greater part of them became backsliders. He then
traces the war to its origin, and concludes by foretelling, not the
_independency_ of the rebellious colonists, which he says would be “a
heavy curse,” but a restoration of civil and Christian liberty. It is
dangerous to turn prophet: in one respect, Wesley’s vaticination was
soon falsified.
On August 14, 1777, Wesley wrote: “I drew up proposals for the
_Arminian Magazine_.” We are not aware that these “Proposals” have
ever been reissued, just as Wesley published them; and, as an original
copy now lies before us, we insert the document _verbatim_.
“_Proposals for printing, by Subscription, the_ ARMINIAN
MAGAZINE; _consisting of Extracts, and Original Treatises
on Universal Redemption._
“CONDITIONS.
“1. A number, containing 80 pages, in octavo, printed on fine
paper, and with a new type, will be delivered monthly to each
subscriber, at the price of one shilling.
“2. It will be so printed, as to bind up in volumes, twelve
numbers in a volume.
“3. This work will contain no news, no politics, no personal
invectives, nothing offensive either to religion, decency,
good nature, or good manners.
“4. The first number will be delivered on January 1, 1778, and
continued the first day of every month.
“5. Subscriptions are taken in at the Foundery, London; the
New Room, Bristol; and by the booksellers in town and country.
“_To the Reader._
“1. Amidst the multitude of magazines which now swarm in the
world, there was one, a few years ago, termed _The Christian
Magazine_, which was of great use to mankind, and did honour
to the publishers. But it was soon discontinued, to the regret
of many serious and sensible persons. In the room of it,
started up a miscreated phantom, called _The Spiritual
Magazine_; and, not long after, its twin sister, oddly called
_The Gospel Magazine_. Both of these are intended to show,
that God is not _loving to every man_, that _His mercy is_ not
_over all His works_; and, consequently, that Christ _did_ not
_die for all_, but for one in ten, for the elect only.
“2. This comfortable doctrine, the sum of which, proposed in
plain English, is, God before the foundation of the world
absolutely and irrevocably decreed, that ‘some men shall be
saved, do what they will, and the rest be damned, do what they
can,’ has, by these tracts, been spread throughout the land,
with the utmost diligence. And these champions of it have,
from the beginning, proceeded in a manner worthy of their
cause. They have paid no more regard to good nature, decency,
or good manners, than to reason or truth. All these they set
utterly at defiance. Without any deviation from their plan,
they have defended their dear decrees, with arguments worthy
of Bedlam, and with language worthy of Billingsgate.
“3. In the _Arminian Magazine_ a very different opinion will
be defended, in a very different manner. We maintain, that God
_willeth all men to be saved_, by _speaking the truth in
love_; by arguments and illustrations drawn, partly from
Scripture, partly from reason; proposed in as inoffensive a
manner as the nature of the thing will permit. Not that we
expect those on the other side of the question will use _us_
as we use _them_. Yet, we hope, nothing will move us to return
evil for evil; or, however provoked, to render railing for
railing.
“4. Our design is, to publish some of the most remarkable
tracts on the universal love of God, and His willingness to
save _all men_ from _all sin_, which have been wrote in this
and the last century. Some of these are now grown very scarce;
some have not appeared in _English_ before. To these will be
added original pieces, wrote either directly upon this
subject, or on those which are equally opposed by the patrons
of _particular redemption_. We are not yet determined, whether
to insert any poetry or not; but we faithfully promise not to
insert any _doggrel_. If any verses are inserted, they shall
be such as will not shock either the understanding or the
taste of the serious reader.
“5. We know nothing more proper to introduce a work of this
kind than a sketch of the life and death of _Arminius_; a
person, with whom those, who mention his name with the utmost
indignity, are commonly quite unacquainted, of whom they know
no more than of _Hermes Trismegistus_.”
This, though lengthy, is too scarce and too curious a document
to withhold from the Methodist community; moreover, it was the
commencement of a magazine, now, we believe, the oldest religious
periodical in the world; a magazine which has flourished, without
interruption, for ninety successive years; and has been read by myriads
in all quarters of the globe.
It has been said, that Mr. Walter Churchey, of Brecon, was the first
to suggest to Wesley the publication of this periodical;[316] Wesley
himself says, that he had been desired to publish a magazine for near
forty years before he complied with the request.[317] Of course, Wesley
is the best authority; still there can be no doubt, that Mr. Churchey
was one of his advisers. The following letter furnishes evidence of
this.
“LONDON, _October 18, 1777_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--We agree, that no politics shall have a
place in the _Arminian Magazine_. But poetry will; only my
brother and I are the judges what pieces shall be admitted. It
may be, some will think us too nice in our choice; but that we
cannot help. As to a review of religious books, it might be
well; but I have two objections. (1) I scruple my own
sufficiency for the work. (2) I would not, at any price, be
bound to read over all the present religious productions of
the press.
“I am your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[318]
The first number of the magazine appeared on the 1st of January, 1778;
on the cover of which Wesley said:
“I am content this magazine should stand or fall by its own
intrinsic value. If it is a compound of falsehood, ribaldry,
and nonsense, let it sink into oblivion. If it contains only
the words of truth and soberness, then let it meet with a
favourable reception. It will easily be observed, that it
contains fewer articles than any other magazine. This is not by
accident, but design. I have frequently been disgusted by the
many bits and scraps of various kinds, which make up a great
part of most publications of this nature. Before one has well
entered upon any subject, it is at an end, and referred to the
next number; a mere trick to decoy the reader to buy another
and another number. On the contrary, I shall endeavour to begin
and conclude as many things as possible in each number: and,
with regard to taking the numbers that follow, let every reader
use his own discretion.”
Space forbids any lengthened outline of the contents of the first
volume. There are lives of Arminius, Luther, Bernard Gilpin, Bishop
Bedell, Peter Jaco, and John Atlay. There are half-a-dozen articles
on the Calvinian controversy, some of them, (rather in contradiction
of Wesley’s announcement,) running through several numbers. There are
fifty-nine letters; and nearly the same number of poetic pieces. There
are three portraits, one of Wesley himself, one of Peter Jaco, and the
third of John Atlay. At the end of the copy now before us, is a four
paged letter, dated Londonderry, June 5, 1778, answering objections
against the five numbers already issued. One objection was, there was
not enough for money. The reply was: “I write for those who judge of
books, not by the quantity, but by the quality of them. I spare both
my reader’s time and my own, by couching my sense in as few words as
I can. Those who prefer the dealers in many words may find them on
every side.” A second objection was, that there was not variety enough.
Wesley answered: “Here is all the variety I promised. I promised the
bulk of the magazine should treat of universal redemption. Do you blame
me for not rambling from my subject? It is not my manner, I do not aim
at it.” A third objection was, “there is not variety in the historical
part.” “What do you mean?” says Wesley. “Would you have me insert bits
and scraps of history; or give, in each number, part of the life of
one man, and part of that of another? I never proposed this: I think it
far better to select a few of the best lives I know, and to go entirely
through one before I enter upon another.” Another objection was: “you
have no pictures or other decorations or embellishments which other
magazines have.” Wesley answers: “It is true. But I will tell you what
I have: such paper as no magazine in England was ever printed upon
before. Consider! this one single article costs more than all their
fine embellishments put together.”
In concluding this notice of the first volume of the _Arminian
Magazine_, the following letter will be welcome. It was addressed to
Thomas Taylor, and is here copied from the original.
“LONDON, _January 15, 1778_.
“DEAR TOMMY,--As to preaching, you ought not to preach against
that unscriptural, blasphemous, mischievous doctrine
constantly; no, nor very frequently. But you ought, now and
then, to bear a full, strong, express testimony against it;
otherwise you are a sinner against God, and the people, and
your own soul. I have done this too seldom: scarce once in
fifty sermons. I ought to do it once in fifteen or so.
“As to writing or publishing, the deadly poison has, for many
years, been spread through England, chiefly by means of those
pestilent declamations, _The Gospel_, and _The Spiritual_
Magazine. Whatever is designed for an antidote to this poison
must be spread in the same manner. Thousands have been thereby
poisoned already, and are now twice dead. To guard those who
are not poisoned yet, (not to get money,) I fight them at
their own weapons. I oppose magazine to magazine, though of a
totally different kind. But, it seems, you know nothing at all
of the matter. You do not appear to have read the
Proposals.[319] This magazine not only contains no railing,
but (properly speaking) no controversy. It proves one point:
‘God willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge
of the truth.’ It goes straight forward, taking notice of no
opponents, but invariably pursuing the one point. And this is
the only way to preserve the Methodists, and to make the
Calvinists quiet. Meantime, both the letters and the lives,
which will make a considerable part of every number, contain
the marrow of experimental and practical religion; so that
nothing of the kind has appeared before. Therefore, a magazine
of this kind is a new thing in the land; and those, who
formerly spoke against the magazine, may, with a good grace,
recommend this as being quite another thing, and published on
other motives. I do not desire any Calvinist to read it. I
publish it not to convince, but to preserve. I know, by long
experience, they will never bend, but when the war is carried
into their own quarters. This I will do, as long as God spares
my life; and, in love, and in meekness of wisdom. This is the
way, and the only way, to establish lasting peace.
“But is it not odd that a Methodist, a preacher, an assistant,
should be the only one who sees my brother, and me, and the
bulk of the preachers, and the body of the people, to be
wrong? Tommy, distrust yourself. Do not lean too much to your
own understanding. It is possible they may be right, and you
wrong. You do not at all understand this affair. We are well
rid of those turbulent men. With love to Nancy,
“Your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
We only add, that, nearly to the end of Wesley’s life, Thomas Olivers
was a sort of sub-editor, and corrector of the press; but corrected
so incorrectly, that, in August, 1789, Wesley writes: “I chose a new
person to prepare the _Arminian Magazine_; being obliged, however
unwillingly, to drop Mr. Olivers, for only these two reasons: 1. The
errata are unsufferable; I have borne them for these twelve years, but
can bear them no longer. 2. Several pieces are inserted without my
knowledge, both in prose and verse. I must try whether these things
cannot be amended for the short residue of my life.”