No man was a more determined opponent of evil than Wesley was; and,
at the same time, no man was a more faithful friend. The following
is illustrative of this. The Methodists know something, and might
be told a great deal more, respecting William Shent, the Methodist
barber of the town of Leeds. Poor William was now in not undeserved
embarrassment; his friends forsook him; but not so Wesley. Hence the
following, hitherto unpublished, letter to the Methodist society in
Keighley.
“LONDON, _January 11, 1779_.
“I HAVE a few questions, which I desire may be proposed to the
society at Keighley.
“Who was the occasion of the Methodist preachers first setting
foot in Leeds? William Shent.
“Who received John Nelson into his house at his first coming
thither? William Shent.
“Who was it that invited me, and received me when I came?
William Shent.
“Who was it that stood by me while I preached in the street
with stones flying on every side? William Shent.
“Who was it that bore the storm of persecution for the whole
town, and stemmed it at the peril of his life? William Shent.
“Whose word did God bless for many years in an eminent manner?
William Shent’s.
“By whom were many children now in paradise begotten in the
Lord, and many now alive? William Shent.
“Who is he that is ready now to be broken up, and turned into
the street? William Shent.
“And does nobody care for this? William Shent fell into sin,
and was publicly expelled the society; but must he be also
starved? Must he with his grey hairs and all his children be
without a place to lay his head? Can you suffer this? Oh, tell
it not in Gath! Where is gratitude? Where is compassion? Where
is Christianity? Where is humanity? Where is concern for the
cause of God? Who is a wise man among you? Who is concerned for
the gospel? Who has put on bowels of mercy? Let him arise and
exert himself in this matter. You here all arise as one man,
and roll away the reproach. Let us set him on his feet once
more. It may save both him and his family. But what we do, let
it be done quickly.
“I am, dear brethren, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
It is hardly necessary to track the steps of Wesley throughout the
whole of a journey which occupied the next five months. He opened the
new chapel at Bath, of which more must be said shortly. On Friday,
March 19, he preached in Bengeworth church at noon; and, at six, in the
church at Pebworth. At West Bromwich, during a terrific storm of wind
and hail, he addressed a congregation in the open air. At Madeley, he
preached in the new chapel, built by his friend Fletcher, in Madeley
Wood. He opened a new chapel at Davyhulme, Manchester. He also paid his
first visit to Oldham, where he says: “I had such a congregation as I
have not seen since I was in the Cornish amphitheatre. And all, beside
a few giddy children, were seriously attentive.”
This was a great improvement in the manners of the Oldham people. When
Matthew Mayer commenced preaching here in 1763, he asked a man to allow
him to stand before his door. “No,” replied the Lancashire savage; and
then he swore that, if Mayer attempted to gather a congregation there,
he would cleave his skull. Having removed to the door of Jonathan
Mabbot’s, in George Street, Mayer mounted a stool; but he had no sooner
sung and prayed, than the mob, led on by churchwardens and constables,
surrounded him. “By what authority do you come hither?” asked the
Oldham functionaries. “By what authority do you ask me?” replied Mr.
Mayer. “Pull him down, pull him down!” cried the mob; and then one of
the constables upset the preacher’s stool; and the zealous guardians
of the Church shouted, “We want none of your preaching here.” On the
Sunday following, while Mayer was preaching, the mob amused themselves
by thrusting pins into the legs and arms of serious hearers; and, on
the Sunday after that, a brute was hired for threepence halfpenny
to strip himself stark naked, and rush into the midst of Mayer’s
congregation. On another occasion, John Murlin was dragged from his
horseblock pulpit, and was thrown into a dungeon; and, on another,
James Hall was honoured with the presence not only of the constables,
churchwardens, and Oldham mob, but also of a huntsman and his hounds.
The churchwardens raved; the constables brandished their official
staves; the mob bawled; the dogs barked; and the huntsman blew his horn
with such vehemence that Mr. Hall found it impossible to preach, but,
for an hour and a half, continued to sing and pray.[323]
Leaving Oldham, Wesley proceeded to Northwich and other places in
Cheshire; then to Warrington, Liverpool, Bolton, Rochdale, Bacup, and
Padiham. He writes: “April 13--At one o’clock, I preached in the shell
of the house at Padiham, where there is at length a prospect of peace,
after abundance of disturbance, caused by one who neither fears God nor
reverences man.”
The chapel referred to, in this extract, was erected in the midst
of the most determined opposition. What was built during the day
was frequently demolished during the night; and it became necessary
to appoint nocturnal watchers to guard the premises. At length, the
building was completed, and had, in the front wall, a stone with a sun
dial, serving for a clock, and round about it an inscription, which, to
future generations, was a memento of bygone troubles: “They thrust sore
at me that I might fall; but the Lord hath helped me, and taken part
against them that hated me.”
From Padiham, Wesley went to Todmorden, Heptonstall, Ewood, and
Halifax. He writes: “April 15--I went to Halifax, where a little thing
had lately occasioned great disturbance. An angel blowing a trumpet
was placed on the sounding board over the pulpit. Many were vehemently
against this; others as vehemently for it: but a total end was soon put
to the contest, for the angel vanished away.”
“Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” Several of the
Halifax Methodists, thinking that the sounding board would be improved
by some sort of ornament, opened a subscription for that purpose, and,
a fortnight before Wesley’s visit, procured the celestial trumpeter
which Wesley mentions. John Murlin, one of the preachers, determined
not to preach under the angel’s expanded wings. Discussion sprung up,
in the midst of which Wesley came. The leaders were summoned; a hot
discussion followed; and the votes, for and against the angel, were
equal. Just at this juncture, John Hatton, of Lightcliffe, entered,
and gave a vote for the angel’s removal. Immediately, the carved image
was taken down; John Murlin hewed it in pieces; and, before midnight,
it was burnt in the chapel yard. Great was the consternation of these
simple Methodists, when, at the five o’clock preaching, next morning,
they found their pet angel had vanished. Quarrelling ensued; and
several influential members, in angelic indignation, left the society
which had destroyed the angelic ornament, and, in some instances,
remained to the end of life unconnected with any church whatever.[324]
Proceeding to Haworth, Wesley preached, in the morning, in the church;
but, in the afternoon, “thousands upon thousands being gathered
together,” he was obliged to take his stand in the churchyard. The next
day,--Monday, April 19,--he preached in the church at Bingley; and then
went to Otley. “On April 24,” Thomas Taylor writes, “I met Mr. Wesley
at Cross Hall, and found the old apostle as hearty and lively as ever.
The conversation at table was such as became our religious profession.
There were present two pious clergymen, two of my brethren, and several
serious women. On Sunday, April 25, I went with Mr. Wesley to Birstal
church, after which he preached to, I think, the largest congregation I
have ever seen in any place.”[325]
At Huddersfield, Wesley found a great revival of the work of God,
sometimes “sixteen, eighteen, yea, twenty,” being converted in a day.
At Leeds, Dr. Kershaw, the vicar, desired him to assist at the
sacrament. Ten clergymen were present, and seven or eight hundred
communicants. At Darlington, he found some of the liveliest Methodists
in the north of England. He preached in the market place, and all
behaved well, except a party of the Queen’s Dragoons. At Barnard
Castle, the Durham militia were assembled,--the handsomest body of
soldiers he had ever seen, except in Ireland; and all, officers and
soldiers, came to hear him, and were a pattern to the whole
congregation.
He now made his way to Newcastle, and thence to Scotland, where he
travelled as far north as Inverness. He writes: “June 8--I reached
Inverness, but found a new face of things there. Good Mr. Mackenzie
had been, for some years, removed to Abraham’s bosom. Mr. Fraser, his
colleague, a pious man, of the old stamp, was likewise gone to rest.
The three present ministers are of another kind; so that I have no
more place in the kirk; and the wind and rain would not permit me to
preach on the green. However, our house was large, though gloomy
enough. Being now informed, (which I did not suspect before,) that the
town was uncommonly given to drunkenness, I used the utmost plainness
of speech; and I believe not without effect. I then spent some time
with the society, increased from twelve to between fifty and
sixty;[326] many of these knew in whom they had believed; so that all
the pains which have been taken to stop the work of God here have
hitherto been in vain.”
A month later, Wesley wrote the following hitherto unpublished letter
to Mr. McAllum.
“EPWORTH, _July 10, 1779_.
“DEAR DUNCAN,--This is the circumstance which puzzles the case:
who can preach in Erse but you? Cannot you then think of any
preacher, whom you love, and who is a zealous, active man?
Inverness should by all means be a circuit by itself, including
as many towns as you please, north and south. I wish you would
think of it, and send me the plan to London.
“Did not sister Anderson receive my letter? I wonder she did
not answer. Joseph Moore utterly denies he ever offered her
marriage. I desired her to tell me the very words he spoke or
wrote.
“I am, dear Duncan, yours affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.
“To Mr. Duncan McAllum,
at Mr. John Watson’s, slater, Inverness.”
Wesley spent nearly a month in his evangelistic tour through Scotland.
Everywhere he was received with great respect and affection; and he
speaks of many “times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” He
was introduced to several persons of distinction, and, among others, to
gossiping James Boswell, who writes: “Though I differed from Mr. John
Wesley in some points, I admired his various talents, and loved his
pious zeal. At my request, therefore, Dr. Johnson gave me a letter of
introduction to him.
“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.
“_May 3, 1779._
“SIR,--Mr. Boswell, a gentleman, who has been long known to me,
is desirous of being known to you, and has asked this
recommendation, which I give him with great willingness,
because I think it very much to be wished that worthy and
religious men should be acquainted with each other.
“I am, sir, your most humble servant,
“SAM. JOHNSON.”
Boswell adds, that he presented the letter to Wesley at Edinburgh, “and
was very politely received.”[327]
Wesley, in returning, reached Newcastle on June 22, and would fain
have rested in a place to which he was tenderly attached. He writes:
“Wednesday, June 23--I rested here. Lovely place, and lovely company!
But I believe there is another world; therefore I must ‘arise and
go hence.’” Accordingly, next morning, he set out for Stockton upon
Tees, and preached all the way along the east coast of England till
he came to Great Grimsby. “Here,” he says, “I found a little trial.
In this, and many other parts of the kingdom, those striplings, who
call themselves Lady Huntingdon’s preachers, have greatly hindered the
work of God. They have neither sense, courage, nor grace, to go and
beat up the devil’s quarters, in any place where Christ has not been
named; but, wherever we have entered as by storm, and gathered a few
souls, often at the peril of our lives, they creep in, and, by doubtful
disputations, set every one’s sword against his brother. One of these
has just crept into Grimsby, and is striving to divide the poor little
flock; but I hope his labour will be in vain, and they will still hold
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
Having visited the societies in Lincolnshire, Wesley proceeded to
Doncaster and Sheffield, and thence, by way of Derby, Nottingham,
Leicester, Hinckley, and Coventry, to London, which he reached on July
23.
Wesley had not preached at Hinckley since the year 1744. What led him
to visit the town now? We learn, from the unpublished autobiography of
Thomas Dixon, who, at this time, was stationed in the Leicestershire
circuit, that, just before the conference of 1779, he attempted to
introduce Methodism into Hinckley, and not without success. According
to custom, he took his stand in the street, and began to sing. The
night was wet, and his congregation was not only small, but seemed so
apprehensive of the Methodist apparition, that, while they listened
to him, they also kept at a safe distance from him. He preached again
next morning to a congregation somewhat larger, and then set out for
Tamworth. This was his first and his last visit; but a class was formed
just after,[328] which, in 1780, contributed nearly a pound per quarter
for the support of the work of God;[329] and, from that time to this,
Methodism has had a place in Hinckley.
Then as it respects Coventry, this was the first sermon Wesley
delivered here. He says: “July 21--When I came to Coventry, I found
notice had been given for my preaching in the park; but the heavy rain
prevented. I sent to the mayor, desiring the use of the town hall. He
refused; but, the same day, gave the use of it to a dancing master.
I then went to the women’s market. Many soon gathered together, and
listened with all seriousness. I preached there again the next morning,
and again in the evening.”
As already stated, from Coventry Wesley went to London. The entry in
his journal recording the journey is worthy of quotation. “I took coach
for London. I was nobly attended: behind the coach were ten convicted
felons, loudly blaspheming, and rattling their chains; by my side sat a
man with a loaded blunderbuss, and another upon the coach.”
Before proceeding to notice the conference, of 1779, two other matters
demand attention.
Thomas Maxfield seceded from Wesley in 1763; took away with him about
two hundred members of Wesley’s society; and became the minister of a
separate and independent congregation.[330] For some reason, he now
wished to return to Wesley’s connexion; but to this Wesley and his
brother objected. Hence the following letters, by Charles Wesley, the
first addressed to Vincent Perronet, the second to Wesley himself.
“LONDON, _April 20, 1779_.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--My brother and I agreed not to receive
Mr. Maxfield again, as a fellow labourer, till he acknowledged
his fault. Ought we not to wait for some word, of his being
sensible of his ingratitude? Ought we to trust him, and the
people to his care, without it? I have not the least spark of
resentment towards Mr. Maxfield; but to deliver up our charge
to him, unconvinced, is to betray them.
“My brother’s interest with the bishop is great, (I believe,)
but my son Samuel’s is greater. Sam and the bishop are, _Ego et
rex meus_.
“Your very affectionate and ever obliged servant,
“CHARLES WESLEY.”[331]
“LONDON, _April 23, 1779_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I still love Thomas Maxfield. I see some
advantages to us, as well as to him, from his return to us,
_provided_ he is first convinced. Receive him _unconvinced_,
and you will have to put him away again, when perhaps it will
scarce be in your power. One more trial, if you please, we will
make upon him, in a conference between us three. Possibly we
may gain our brother.
“I shall be happy to hear you have saved poor William Shent.
Hopper and others will, I know, draw in their horns while you
are talking with them, and be perhaps convinced for a short
time. Give them back their first love, and their first poverty,
and they will not even wish to reign without us. Peter Jaco,
John Atlay, and John Pawson, might, I hope, be set right by a
friendly conference with us. They then would strengthen their
brethren, or recover them.
“Your defect of mistrust needs my excess to guard it. You
cannot be taken by storm, but may by surprise. We seem designed
for each other. If we could and would be more together, it
might be better for both. That I shall go first, I cannot
doubt. The extraordinary strength, continued to you, is a
promise of your longer continuance. My strength and my work are
very near their end.
“CHARLES WESLEY.”[332]
The above letter refers to another matter besides that of the return
of Thomas Maxfield. Charles Wesley was still jealous of the preachers
aspiring after power, and especially of Christopher Hopper and his
friends. He seems to have thought, that John Atlay, who was now the
book steward in London, and John Pawson, who was the London assistant,
and Peter Jaco, who was a London supernumerary, “might be set right by
a friendly conference”; but of the other London preachers, including
Thomas Rankin and Thomas Coke, he was in doubt. He properly enough
gives himself credit for an excess of caution; but, perhaps wrongly,
thinks his brother had not enough of it.
This was another important crisis in the history of the two Wesleys. It
was only a few months before, that City Road chapel had been opened.
Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, John Richardson, and John Abraham, were
its officiating clergymen; but John Pawson, Thomas Rankin, Thomas
Tennant, and Peter Jaco, were itinerant preachers, appointed by the
conference of 1778, to the London circuit, of which the chapel in
City Road was now a part. What was the result? Jealousies sprung up,
indirectly referred to in the above letter, but mentioned in greater
detail in another letter to be presently inserted. Before, however,
that letter is introduced, perhaps the following extracts from John
Pawson’s unpublished manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead will be
acceptable, and will cast light on Wesley’s difficulties. Mr. Pawson
writes:
“I was perhaps as well acquainted with the two brothers as any
man now living. That Mr. Charles Wesley was of a very
suspicious temper is certainly true; and that Mr. John Wesley
had far more charity, in judging of persons in general, (except
the rich and great,) than his brother had, is equally true. But
that he was so apt to be taken in with appearances is not true.
He was well able to form a judgment of particular persons, and
was as seldom mistaken as his brother. I once heard him
pleasantly say: ‘My brother suspects everybody, and he is
continually imposed upon; but I suspect nobody, and I am never
imposed upon.’ It is well known that Mr. Charles Wesley was
much prejudiced in favour of the clergy, through the whole
course of his life, and that it was nothing but hard necessity
that obliged him, in any degree, to continue the lay preachers.
He must have been blind indeed not to have seen, that God had
given to many of them, at least, very considerable ministerial
gifts, and that He attended their labours with great success;
but I am well persuaded, that, could he have found a sufficient
number of clergymen to have carried on the work of God, he
would soon have disowned all the lay preachers. He was glad of
their assistance when he did not choose to preach himself; and,
accordingly, on a Sunday evening, he would always have a lay
preacher appointed as well as himself, lest a shower of rain,
or an agreeable visit, should prevent his attending. At a
conference held in Bristol many years ago, about a dozen
clergymen attended for the purpose of convincing us, that we
ought not to preach in any parish that was favoured with a
gospel minister. Mr. Charles Wesley took part with them, and
said, ‘If I was stationed in any particular parish, you should
not preach there.’ Mr. John Hampson replied, ‘I would preach
there, and never ask your leave; and I should think I had as
good a right for doing so, as you had,’ Mr. Charles answered in
great anger, ‘You are a grievous wolf: you will tear the flock
when my brother and myself are dead, unless God give you
repentance.’ Mr. Charles was inclined to find out and magnify
any supposed fault in the lay preachers; but his brother
treated them with respect, and exercised a fatherly care over
them. I am persuaded that, from the creation of the world,
there never existed a body of men who looked up to any single
person with a more profound degree of reverence than the
preachers did to Mr. Wesley; and I am bold to say, that never
did any man, no, not St. Paul himself, possess so high a degree
of power over so large a body of men as was possessed by him.
He used his power, however, for the edification of the people,
and abused it as little perhaps as any one man ever did. When
any difficulty occurred in governing the preachers, it soon
vanished. The oldest, the very best, and those of them that had
the greatest influence, were ever ready to unite with him, and
to assist him to the utmost of their power. The truth is, if
the preachers were in any danger at all, it was of calling Mr.
Wesley ‘Rabbi,’ and implicitly obeying him in whatsoever he
thought proper to command.
“Dr. Whitehead informs his readers, that a party existed among
the preachers, who wished for a total separation from the
Established Church, and for the Methodists to be formed into an
independent body; and represents Dr. Coke as being at the head
of that party. I am well assured, that this is incorrect. The
preachers only wished, that the people, who had grown weary of
seeking the living among the dead, and of asking bread of those
who they well knew had only a stone to give them, might be
indulged with the lively ordinances of God; and some of the
people thought it very unjust, not to say cruel, that their
ministers did not grant them the privilege of worshipping God
at those particular times of the Lord’s day, when both body and
mind were best prepared for so doing. It is true, that a party
existed, both among the preachers and people, who were inclined
to believe, that those whom God had called to preach might
lawfully administer the sacraments; as they were not able to
perceive that it required a greater degree of wisdom and piety
to qualify a person to baptize a child than to preach the word
of God. They likewise had scruples whether it was right to wish
those ministers God speed, by attending their ministry, whom,
they felt convinced, God had never sent. But, at the same time,
the preachers knew, that there never was among themselves a
sufficient number of acceptable men to supply all the Methodist
congregations; and that, if there had been, and if an entire
separation from the Church had taken place, the Methodists were
too poor to support such a multitude of ministers. Common
prudence, therefore, prevented them from wishing for that which
they knew could not be accomplished.”
These are important statements, coming from a man of Mr. Pawson’s
ministerial standing, and who was one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers
during the last twenty-nine years of Wesley’s life. They could be
easily extended; but, perhaps, enough has been said, to show that the
feeling, between Charles Wesley and the preachers, was not of the most
friendly kind; and this will prepare the reader for the following
letter, which Charles, at this period, addressed to his brother.
“LONDON, _June 16, 1779_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. B. has been lately with the committee, and
was there informed, that our preachers (the three
principal[333]) have written to the country preachers heavy
complaints of their ill usage by the clergy here; not, I should
suppose, by quiet John Richardson,--not by passive Dr. Coke,
for he, they say, is gone to Bristol, that he may not be a
witness of their cruel persecution. The persecuting clergy,
therefore, are neither more nor less than your own brother
Charles, and the whole ground of their complaint against me is,
‘my serving the chapel on Sunday afternoon, as well as in the
morning.’
“But this is no new grievance; for I constantly preached Sunday
morning and afternoon at Bristol. If they could exclude me
here, they would not long permit me there.
“My reasons for preaching at the new chapel twice every Sunday
are: 1. Because, after you, I have the best right. 2. Because I
have so short a time to preach anywhere. 3. Because I am fully
persuaded I can do more good there than in any other place.
They, I know, are of a different judgment, and make no secret
of it, declaring everywhere, ‘that the work is stopping; the
society scattering; and the congregation at the new chapel
dwindled away and quite dead.’
“I thank God, the chapel is well filled. Last Sunday I preached
twice, never with greater, and seldom with equal, effect. After
sermon, Mr. Rankin followed me to the vestry to assure me, ‘he
had never spoken disrespectfully of us, and that he was a great
friend to the Church.’ At the same time, a gentlewoman came,
filled with faith and love by the word just spoken. I turned
aside to let Mr. Rankin examine her. She said that, a month
ago, she was brought up out of the pit of despair, under my
word. He repeated his inquiries, and she her answers, to his
satisfaction shall I say, or dissatisfaction? I would hope the
former. You will inquire when here (only not of the preachers),
and judge for yourself whether my persevering ministry at the
chapel has done good or hurt.
“I think the preachers wrong, and in the greatest danger
through pride; but I have, and will have, no quarrel with them.
Mr. Kemp proposed to carry me to meet you on the last day’s
journey, or I should not have thought of it. I do not want to
have the first word. Let them have the first and last. I do not
want to interfere in that government of yours, or to appear at
all at the congress. A word of yours might turn the scale, and
send me directly to Bristol.
“It is just come into my mind, ‘The lay preachers affect to
believe I act as a clergyman in opposition to them.’ To me, it
seems that I act as I do, in goodwill to them, as well as to
the people. If there was no man above them, what would become
of them? How would they tear one another in pieces! Convince
them, if you can, that they want a clergyman over them, to keep
them and the flock together. Convince them, that it is
impossible I should stand in their way long, for I cannot
(should I live to the winter) serve the new chapel Sundays and
holydays in all weathers. Persuade each of them to be the
least, not the greatest; and then all will be right again. You
have no alternative but to conquer that spirit, or to be
conquered by it. Can you think, I envy you your pre-eminence?
If God continues my strength, I shall take the best care of the
chapel till you return. Then I shall deliver up my charge to
you, and you alone.
“CHARLES WESLEY.”[334]
This peevish epistle, published in Wesley’s own _Arminian Magazine_,
will not add to the fair fame of Methodism’s great hymnist. It was an
unworthy production of a pen which wrote hundreds, in fact, thousands,
of sweet songs of praise. John Pawson--good, but gossiping,--and Thomas
Rankin--honest to the heart’s inmost core, but somewhat obstinate and
overbearing,--were far from perfect; but was it just in Charles Wesley
to write to his brother respecting them in the querulous tone in which
he did? Charles Wesley says, the City Road chapel was well filled;
Pawson says, in the manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, that “the
congregation fell off exceedingly; and that the society was brought
into great disorder.” Charles Wesley was a scholar, and, as a sacred
poet, was without a peer; but we incline to think, that John Pawson
and Thomas Rankin were more popular and powerful preachers than either
he or any other of his City Road clerical colleagues; and it is not
surprising, that the people wished to hear them on Sundays as well as
week days; and that the itinerants themselves,--one of whom was the
appointed superintendent of the London circuit, and the other of whom
had been Wesley’s chosen superintendent of the whole of the Methodist
societies in America,--should think they had quite as much right as
Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, John Richardson, or John Abraham, to
preach to Sunday congregations in City Road. The truth is, though, in
years past, Charles Wesley’s ministry had been exceedingly attractive
and powerful, it was now, what shall we say? John Pawson writes: “When
he was favoured with freedom of mind, which was but seldom, then his
preaching was truly profitable; but, in general, it was exceedingly
dry and lifeless.” His sons Charles and Samuel,--the former twenty-one
years of age, and the latter thirteen,--were, by their musical genius,
creating a sensation in the highest circles of London society; and,
for several years, conducted in their father’s house a series of
domestic subscription concerts, of twelve nights’ continuance, in
each season. Their father thoroughly approved of this. “I am clear,”
says he, “without a doubt, that my sons’ concert is after the will
and order of Providence.” Wesley appends to this a note: “I am clear
of another mind.”[335] Without staying to settle the dispute, there
can be no doubt that, by these concerts, Charles Wesley was brought
into the society of a large number of the rich and great. The simple
minded London Methodists were staggered at one of their great leaders
having such musical performances in his house, and at his mingling with
persons, who, though highly genteel, were not religious. Many began
to regard him with suspicion; his preaching popularity was waning;
Pawson says, “he was like Samson shorn of his strength”; his health
also was failing; like most men of high poetic genius, he was subject
to melancholy moods: put all these things together, and the petulancy
and suspicion of Charles Wesley’s letter to his brother will not excite
surprise.
This then was the state of things awaiting the venerable Wesley, on his
return to London, after a laborious preaching tour of five months’
duration. By an almost superhuman effort, he had built and opened his
new chapel in City Road; but things, instead of being more prosperous
than ever, were in a state of disastrous commotion. In this, the first
year after the chapel was opened, there was a decrease of one hundred
and twenty-three members in the London circuit, though that circuit
had now an unprecedented staff of ordained clergymen, and four of the
best itinerants in Wesley’s connexion. Ordinary men would have been
discouraged and at their wits’ end; but not so the man who was born,
not to be conquered by difficulties, but to conquer them.
Wesley’s conference of 1779 was commenced on August 3; and it was now
ascertained, that nineteen other circuits besides London had a decrease
of members. Wesley asked, How can we account for this? The reasons
assigned were:--1. Partly the neglect of outdoor preaching, and of
trying new places. 2. Partly prejudice against the king, and speaking
evil of dignities. 3. But chiefly the increase of worldly mindedness,
and conformity to the world. It was also resolved, that no one speaking
evil of those in authority, or prophesying evil to the nation, should
be a Methodist preacher. Itinerants were reproved for hastening home
to their wives after preaching; and were told, they ought never to do
this till they had met the society. To revive the work in Scotland, the
preachers were directed to preach in the open air as much as possible;
to try every town and village; and to visit every member of society at
home.
As soon as the conference was ended, Wesley set out, with his brother
and his family, for Wales, where he spent a fortnight in preaching to
large and deeply affected congregations.
He then proceeded to the west of England. At Exeter, he writes: “I
preached in a convenient room, lately a school; I suppose formerly a
chapel. It is both neat and solemn, and is believed to contain four or
five hundred people.”
This was the meeting-house concerning which Wesley wrote to Samuel
Wells, the assistant of the Tiverton circuit, as follows.
“LONDON, _January 28, 1779_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--According to the act of toleration--1. You are
_required_ to _certify_ to the registrar of the bishop’s court,
or the justices, the place of your meeting for Divine worship.
This is all you have to do. You ask nothing at all of the
bishop or justices.
“2. The registrar, or clerk of the court, is _required_ to
register the same, and to give a certificate thereof to such
persons as shall _demand_ the same; for which there shall be no
greater fee or reward taken than sixpence.
“I advise you to go once more to the sessions, and say,
‘Gentlemen, we have had advice from London; we desire nothing
at all of _you_; but we _demand_ of your clerk to register this
place, and to give us a certificate thereof; or to answer the
refusal at his peril.’
“Answer no questions to the justices, or lawyers, but with a
bow, and with repeating the words, ‘Our business is only with
your clerk; we _demand_ of him what the act requires him to
do.’
“If you judge proper, you may show this to any of the justices.
What I have written, I am ready to defend.
“You have led the justices into the mistake, by your _manner_
of addressing them. Beware of this for the time to come. You
have nothing to ask of _them_.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[336]
On September 4, Wesley returned to Bristol, where he spent a month in
visiting the surrounding societies. He then made his way to London,
preaching at Devizes, Winchester, and Portsmouth. On leaving London, he
slept, for the last time, in the old Foundery. He now, for the first
time slept in the house, in which he afterwards died, in City Road.
On October 11, he began his preaching tour to Northamptonshire; a week
later to Sussex; and a week later still to Norfolk. He then commenced
his annual examination of the London society, and writes: “I did not
find such an increase as I expected. Nay, there was a considerable
decrease, plainly owing to a senseless jealousy that had crept in
between our preachers.”
This doubtless refers to the quarrel already mentioned. Unfortunately,
the strife was now extended to Bath. The assistant appointed at the
late conference to the Bristol circuit (of which Bath was part), was
Alexander M‘Nab, a native of Perthshire, in North Britain, and now in
the thirty-fourth year of his age. For thirteen years, he had been an
itinerant preacher, and had laboured, with considerable success, in
the three kingdoms.[337] Wesley, writing to Lady Maxwell in 1771, said:
“Mr. M‘Nab is a sound and good preacher; but too warm, and impatient
of contradiction.”[338] Thomas Rutherford, one of his colleagues,
writes: “I was particularly attached to him. He was a most amiable,
sensible man, and an excellent preacher. He had the most copious flow
of natural, simple oratory, of any man I ever heard. There was an ease,
beauty, sweetness, and harmony in his style and language, that was at
once both striking and pleasing. The Rev. Dr. Webster once said, ‘I
have heard Mr. Walker, Mr. Fordyce, Dr. Blair, etc.; but Mr. M‘Nab is
a greater orator than any of them.’”[339] At the conference of 1777,
M‘Nab was appointed to Edinburgh; but found the chapel in such a
ruinous condition, that he spent £500 in repairing it. For this amount
he was personally responsible; and, in order to extricate himself,
was requested, by the following conference, to visit the English
societies for the purpose of asking assistance.[340] While on this
begging excursion, he wrote a letter to Robert Dall, which is inserted
here to show the spirit of the man, and that he wished for peace,
notwithstanding that he was soon involved in war.
“BRADFORD, _April 24, 1779_.
“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope persons and things are better at
Glasgow then when you went there. I was grieved to hear of the
disunion of the preachers, and that it had hurt the people; but
trust God sent you to Glasgow as a cure for their wounds. In
every place, I find the prosperity of the work, under God,
depends, in a great measure, upon the piety, zeal, and prudence
of the preachers. Persons of that character God will honour, to
build up His church; and I need not tell you, we have need of
faith in doing and suffering the Divine will; for, without
that, we have not the necessary qualification to render us
either holy, happy, or useful. In my present employ, I find
both pleasure and pain; but, hitherto, God has been with me,
and I believe will never leave me. Wishing you every blessing,
I am your truly affectionate brother,
“ALEX. M‘NAB.”[341]
Such was one of the chief actors in the scene at Bath. Another was
the Rev. Edward Smyth, who has been already mentioned, and who had
brought his wife to Bath for the benefit of her health. Wesley writes:
“God having greatly blessed the labours of Mr. Smyth in the north of
Ireland, I desired him to preach every Sunday evening in our chapel,
while he remained in Bath. But, as soon as I was gone, Mr. M‘Nab
vehemently opposed this; affirming it was the common cause of all the
lay preachers; that they were appointed by the conference, not by me;
and would not suffer the clergy to ride over their heads, Mr. Smyth in
particular, of whom he said all manner of evil. Others warmly defended
him. Hence the society was torn in pieces, and thrown into the utmost
confusion.”
Such was the dispute. What was the result? On November 22, Wesley
and his brother set out from London to settle the disturbance. The
Bath society was assembled. Wesley says: “I read to them a paper,
which I wrote, near twenty years ago, on a like occasion. Herein I
observed, that ‘the rules of our preachers were fixed by me, before any
conference existed,’ particularly the twelfth: ‘Above all, you are to
preach when and where I appoint.’ By obstinately opposing which rule,
Mr. M‘Nab has made all this uproar. In the morning, at a meeting of
the preachers, I informed Mr. M‘Nab, that, as he did not agree to our
fundamental rule, I could not receive him as one of our preachers, till
he was of another mind. Wednesday, November 24, I read the same paper
to the society at Bristol, as I found the flame had spread thither
also. A few at Bath separated from us on this account; but the rest
were thoroughly satisfied.”
Such is the entry in Wesley’s journal; but eight months after this, he
writes: “Mr. M‘Nab quarrelling with Mr. Smyth threw wildfire among the
people at Bath, and occasioned anger, jealousies, judging each other,
backbiting, and tale bearing without end; and, in spite of all the
pains which have been taken, the wound is not healed to this day.”
Wesley throws all the blame upon M‘Nab; but it may fairly be doubted
whether this was just. There can be no question concerning Wesley’s
abstract right to appoint to his chapels whom he pleased; but the
manner in which the right was exercised is not an improper subject
for doubt and discussion. Wesley pleads what he did twenty years
before; but, even allowing that his action then was right, it remains
to be proved, that the same action, under altered circumstances,
was prudent now. During that interval, the number of Methodists and
Methodist preachers had more than doubled. Besides, now that the number
of itinerant preachers was more than a hundred and sixty; and that
many of them were men of great genius and talent, as well as piety;
and that all had a right to take part in the deliberations of the
annual conference, which really made the appointments for the ensuing
year, Wesley’s claim to have the sole and exclusive power, asserted
in the document read to the Bath society, is a claim which can hardly
be admitted.[342] There is a forgetfulness of existing facts, and
therefore a fallaciousness, in the following letter, written on this
subject a few weeks after the Bath disturbances occurred.
“_January, 1780._
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You seem not to have well considered the Rules of
a Helper, or the rise of Methodism. It pleased God, by me, to
awaken, first my brother, and then a few others; who severally
desired of me, as a favour, that I would direct them in all things.
After my return from Georgia, many were both awakened and converted
to God. One, and another, and another of these desired to join with
me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a few
plain rules (observe there was no conference in being!), and
permitted them to join me on these conditions. Whoever, therefore,
violates these conditions, particularly that of being directed by me
in the work, does, _ipso facto_, disjoin himself from me. This
brother M‘Nab has done (but he cannot see that he has done amiss):
and he would have it a common cause; that is, he would have all the
preachers do the same. He thinks ‘they have a right so to do.’ So
they have. They have a right to disjoin themselves from me whenever
they please. But they cannot, in the nature of the thing, join with
me any longer than they are directed by me. And what, if fifty of
the preachers disjoined themselves! What should I lose thereby? Only
a great deal of labour and care, which I do not seek; but endure,
because no one else either can or will.
“You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a conference. For
above six years after my return to England, there was no such thing.
I then desired some of my preachers to meet me, in order to advise,
not control, me. And you may observe, they had no power at all, but
what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which
God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation, and
gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken
from their head. But as long as I remain with them, the fundamental
rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As long as any preacher joins
with me, he is to be directed by me in his work. Do not you see
then, that brother M‘Nab, whatever his intentions might be, acted as
wrong as wrong could be? and that the representing of this as the
common cause of the preachers was the way to common destruction, the
way to turn their heads, and to set them in arms? It was a blow at
the very root of Methodism. I could not, therefore, do less than I
did; it was the very least that could be done, for fear that evil
should spread.
“I do not willingly speak of these things at all; but I do it now
out of necessity; because I perceive the mind of you, and some
others, is a little hurt by not seeing them in a true light.
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[343]
This was Wesley’s defence of the boldest act of discipline he had ever
exercised; but we still doubt its wisdom and sufficiency. All he says
about the preachers placing themselves under his direction, and about
the first conferences, is strictly true; but Methodist matters now
were widely different from what they were when Methodist conferences
were first begun. With all due deference to Wesley, Methodism now was
not wholly the work of Wesley, nor was it entirely dependent on him.
At this very time, there was, among the preachers, a ministerial
phalanx, who had a right to be something more than mere _advisers_,--
servants in the gospel, sometimes taken into the counsels of their
chief, but wholly at his disposal. There were Olivers, Pawson, Rankin,
Murlin, Story, Whatcoat, Valton, Benson, Hanby, Manners, Taylor,
Mather, Hopper, Vasey, Thompson, Pilmoor, Rhodes, Bradburn, Boardman,
the two Hampsons, Barber, Rutherford, Moore, Myles, and others, whose
names will always be memorable in Methodistic history. Considering the
talents, the preaching power, the untiring labours, and the marvellous
success of these distinguished men, was it wise, and was it fair, for
Wesley to insist upon his retention of the absolute authority that
he justly exercised when Methodism was first commenced? Remembering
the paltry pittance they received for their important and unceasing
toil, was it just, that, in a great religious movement, now spread
throughout the three kingdoms, and to which they themselves had greatly
contributed, they should be employed as mere _workmen_, without the
least right to take a part in the arrangement of their respective
spheres of labour, and without a particle of authority, except what
was implied in their advices, in the general legislation of a body now
numbering more than forty thousand people? Was it surprising, that
Wesley’s expulsion of M‘Nab, for claiming a pulpit to which he had
been appointed at the conference, but into which Wesley desired to
introduce an expelled Irish clergyman, should create dissatisfaction
and incipient rebellion?
There can be no doubt, that this was one of the most dangerous ordeals
through which Methodism passed in the lifetime of its founder. It was
hardly a fair statement of the case, when Wesley said, that all that
he would lose, by fifty of his preachers leaving him, would be “a
great deal of labour and care.” If such an event had happened,
Methodism would have been split into fragments, and, as a system,
would have ceased to exist; and Wesley, seeing the demolition of such
a work, would have been a sorrowful man for the remainder of his life.
The crisis, in 1779, was most momentous. It was really the first time
that Wesley’s supreme and absolute power was professedly and openly
resisted. The whole question hinges on the point, were the
appointments to chapels and to circuits made by Wesley and his
conference of preachers _conjointly_? or were they made by Wesley
himself _alone_? Wesley argues, that the power of appointment rested
solely with himself. We can only answer, that this was an unreasonable
and dangerous power to wield. Under the circumstances, Wesley could
not claim it, without ignoring the reasonable claims of a large body
of the most remarkable men that England has ever had; and he could not
exercise it without serious danger to himself and to his system.
Alexander M‘Nab, though comparatively young, was not an ordinary man.
Testimonies concerning his character, eloquence, and preaching power,
have been already given. Mr. Smyth was doubtless both sensible and
pious; but we greatly question whether he was as popular and powerful
a preacher as the North Briton. No charge of unsound doctrine, or of
immorality, or of incompetency, or of inattention to discipline, was
made against M‘Nab. He was faithfully and successfully doing the work
to which he had been appointed. He was popular with the people. But
because he refused, at Wesley’s bidding, to allow an Irish stranger,
not at all his superior, but, probably, his inferior in pulpit
ability, to take his place, Wesley, at once, by his own _ipse dixit_,
expelled him from his connexion of preachers. However painful to do
it, we are bound to maintain that this was an injustice. The act might
be technically right; but it was an almost popish assumption of
autocratic authority, and a most perilous--it might have been
disastrous--exercise of disciplinary power. It is true that no
absolute rebellion followed,--a fact showing the simple minded piety
of the Methodist preachers and people, and the marvellous influence of
Wesley over them, and their almost unparalleled respect for his
character and labours; but there were great commotions and serious
misgivings; and, if concessions had not been made, there might have
been open resistance, and a consequent wreck of Methodist success and
hope.
Here, however, another question occurs. Was Wesley to be solely or
principally blamed for this imprudent exercise of power? We have no
wish to shield him from censure, when censure is merited; but if
others were to blame as well as he, or if others were even more
blamable than he, it is only fair to his memory and name, that the
facts should be published.
Charles Wesley’s quarrel with the London preachers has been already
mentioned. It occurred a few months only previous to the affair at
Bath. There is no denying it, that Charles was violently opposed to
lay preachers, and was unreasonably jealous of their intriguing to
obtain co-ordinate power with his brother, and of their intention to
use such power in effecting a separation of Methodism from the
Established Church. On Good Friday, 1779, he wrote to his brother:
“The preachers do not love the Church of England. When we are gone, a
separation is inevitable. Do you not wish to keep as many good people
in the Church as you can? Something might be done now to save the
remainder, if you had resolution, and would stand by me as firmly as I
will by you. Consider what you are bound to do as a clergyman; and
what you do, do quickly.”[344]
It was in such a frame of mind, that Charles Wesley heard of M‘Nab’s
resisting the authority of his brother at Bath. Mr. Pawson, who says
he was perfectly acquainted with the affair, tells us, in his
manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, that Charles Wesley “took fire at
once, and highly resented Mr. M‘Nab’s behaviour. He prevailed upon his
brother, after much strife and contention, to exclude Mr. M‘Nab from
the connexion; and, upon this condition, he promised to attend him to
Bath. Accordingly the two brothers, accompanied by Dr. Coke and the
Rev. Mr. Collins, went to Bath with all possible secrecy, and the
sentence was pronounced upon poor Mr. M‘Nab agreeably to Mr. Charles
Wesley’s wish. By this means, the Bath society was divided. Many of
the people loved Mr. M‘Nab, and thought it wrong that he should be
condemned unheard. The society at Bristol also was thrown into great
confusion; and, had it not been for the exertions of Dr. Coke, would
have been divided like that at Bath. On the Sunday evening after Mr.
Wesley’s return to London, he brought the matter before the London
society, and certainly degraded the preachers, and laid them low even
in the dust at his feet. When he was gone from London, Mr. Charles,
after the sacrament at the new chapel, prayed for his brother in the
following words: ‘Lord, preserve him from his rebellious sons. Though
they curse him, do Thou bless him. Though they wish his death, do Thou
prolong his life. Lord, stand between the living and the dead, and let
not the curse of pride destroy them.’”
This was strange language to use, in prayer, and after a solemn
sacrament; but it was not dissimilar to the language of a “Hymn for
the Rev. John Wesley,” which Charles composed, and which was “sung by
the society in Bristol, on Sunday, December 5, 1779,” only a fortnight
after M‘Nab’s expulsion.
“Jesus, Thy hated servant own,
And send the glorious Spirit down,
In answer to our prayers;
While others curse, and wish him dead,
Do Thou Thy choicest blessings shed,
And crown his hoary hairs.”--etc., etc.[345]
Pawson was the superintendent of the London circuit, and felt it his
duty to write to Charles Wesley, and remonstrate with him for using
such language, at such a time, and in such a place. An interview
followed; and Pawson adds: “We came to an explanation, and he was in
high good humour; but I have reason to believe, he never forgave me.
He made his brother believe, that Mr. M‘Nab was only the tool of a
violent party among the preachers, among whom there was a very
powerful combination against his authority; and that, at the next
conference, they would show themselves.” Pawson adds: “There was not a
single grain of truth in this. Not one preacher in the whole connexion
was concerned in the business, save those who were stationed in the
Bristol circuit. It is true, that the preachers in general thought
that Mr. M‘Nab was cruelly used; and so they do to this day.”
Not to return to the subject, it may be added, that Dr. Whitehead
states that, as the conference of 1780 drew near, Wesley “was
evidently intimidated,” and wrote to his brother requesting him to
attend the conference. Charles answered as follows:
“My reasons against accepting your invitation to the conference
are: (1) I can do no good; (2) I can prevent no evil; (3) I am
afraid of being a partaker of other men’s sins, or of
countenancing them by my presence; (4) I am afraid of myself;
you know I cannot command my temper, and you have not courage
to stand by me. I cannot trust _your resolution_; unless you
act with a vigour that is not in you, _conclamatum est_, our
affairs are past hope.
“I am not sure, they will not prevail upon you to ordain them.
You claim the _power_, and only say, ‘It is not probable you
shall ever exercise it.’ Probability on one side implies
probability on the other; and I want better security. So I am
to stand by, and see the ruin of our cause! You know how far
you may depend on me; let me know how far I may depend on you,
and on our preachers. In the Bath affair, you acted with vigour
for the first time; but you could not hold out. Unmindful of
your power and your infirmity, you yielded to the rebel,
instead of his yielding to you. You should not have employed
him again till he had owned his fault. This quite overturned my
confidence in you, which I should never have told you, had I
not been compelled. If you think my advice can be of any use to
you, I will attend you to Bristol, and be always within
call.”[346]
Poor Wesley! Wishful to repair a wrong, he had become reconciled to
Mr. M‘Nab, principally by the mediation of Mr. Pawson and the
preachers in London;[347] but, by this, he had offended his brother,
by whom he had been goaded to the rash act at Bath.
At the conference of 1780, M‘Nab was restored to his place among his
brethren, and was appointed to Sheffield. Charles Wesley was present,
and, of course, was exceedingly dissatisfied. About a fortnight after,
he wrote the following letter to his brother.
“I did not hope, by my presence at the conference, to do any
good, or prevent any evil. So I told you in London. Yet I
accepted your invitation, only because you desired it. And as I
came merely to please you, I resolved not to contradict your
_will_ in anything. Your _will_, I perceived, was to receive
Mr. M‘Nab, unhumbled, unconvinced, into your confidence, and
into your bosom. He came uninvited, and openly accused your
curate for obeying your orders: you suffered it; and did not
give Mr. M‘Nab the gentlest reproof for disobeying them, and
drawing others into his rebellion; and endeavouring to engage
all the preachers in it; making an actual separation at Bath,
and still keeping up his separate society. My judgment was,
never to receive Mr. M‘Nab as a preacher _till he acknowledged
his fault_. But I submitted and attended in silence. It was
much easier for me to say nothing, than to speak neither more
nor less than you would approve. I was sometimes strongly
tempted to speak; but, if I had opened my mouth, I should have
spoiled all. Your design, I believed, was to keep all quiet. I
allow you your merit. ‘_Tu maximus ille, es unus qui nobis_
CEDENDO _restituis rem_.’ By a very few words, I could have
provoked your preachers to lay aside the mask; but that was the
very thing you guarded against; and, I suppose, the reason for
which you desired my presence was that I might be some sort of
check to the independents. Still, I think it better for the
people, that they (the preachers) should show themselves before
your death than after it. You think otherwise; and I submit.
‘_Satis, jam satis spectata in te amicitia est mea_;’ and I am
perfectly satisfied with my own insignificancy. I have but one
thing to do. The Lord make me ready for it!”[348]
This was an angry letter of a baffled man. It was grumbling in private
what ought to have been said in public, or not to have been said at
all. The insinuation respecting the preachers was unfounded and
unworthy. The desire that M‘Nab should acknowledge his fault was
unjust, for M‘Nab was really the aggrieved party. Charles Wesley would
have driven the preachers into rebellion; his brother, as ready to
repair an injury as he was anxious to avoid committing one, restored
unanimity and confidence. “There was nothing at the conference,”
writes John Pawson, “but peace, harmony, and love.”
We only add, that Mr. M‘Nab’s subsequent appointments were honourable
both to Wesley and himself. In 1780, he was sent to Sheffield; in 1781
to Manchester; and in 1782 to Newcastle. He then retired, “and resided
for several years at Sheffield, where he was the pastor of a small
congregation, who highly esteemed him; and there he finished his
course about the year 1797.”[349]
Mr. Smyth went back to Ireland; but, in 1782, became one of Wesley’s
London curates, with a salary of sixty guineas yearly.[350] In 1786,
he was appointed minister of Bethesda chapel, Dublin;[351] where he
rent the Methodist society, and took with him above a hundred persons,
amongst whom were the richer members of the Dublin Methodists.[352] He
then removed to Manchester, where he officiated as curate of St.
Clement’s and St. Luke’s churches. He was the author of several
publications, the chief of which were:--“The Fall and Recovery of Man.
A Poem.” 1777: 12mo, 71 pages. “James Poulson further Detected.” 1778:
12mo, 58 pages. “Twelve Sermons on the most important Subjects.” 1778:
12mo, 254 pages. “St. Paul against Calvin.” 1809: 12mo, 115 pages. And
“A Confutation of Calvinism.” 1810: 12mo, 391 pages.
Much space has been occupied with the disturbances at Bath; but,
considering the importance of the point at issue, the facts connected
with it were too important to be omitted.
The year 1779, like most previous ones, was a year of trouble. Besides
the anxiety and vexation arising out of Mr. M‘Nab’s affair, Wesley was
still annoyed with virulent attacks from his Calvinist opponents. His
old friend, John Macgowan, published “The Foundry Budget Opened; or,
the Arcanum of Wesleyanism Disclosed.” The animus of Macgowan’s
pamphlet may be inferred from his motto on the title page:
“A man so various, that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind’s epitome;
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong;
Was everything by starts, but nothing long.”
He tells his readers, that “for craft and cunning sophistry, he will
match the Rev. Mr. John Wesley against any man that ever stained paper
with pollution”; and throughout speaks of him in the most contemptuous
terms.
Of course, this was too savoury a production to pass unnoticed by the
_Gospel Magazine_. Wesley is accused, in the review of it, with using
“absurd, unscriptural jargon and contradictions”; and with “robbing
Father, Son, and Spirit, of their glory as a covenant God; and
exalting the sinful, proud nature of fallen man; and militating
against the whole tenor of Scripture, and of reformed Christianity, as
professed by all protestant churches.”
Another hostile publication was “Methodism and Popery dissected and
compared; and the Doctrines of both proved to be derived from a Papal
Origin.” Besides attacking Whitefield, Rowland Hill, and others, the
anonymous author of this scurrilous pamphlet learnedly remarks, that
“it would be less difficult to paint Proteus, in all his fabled
shapes, under one distinct figure, than to describe Wesley”; whom he
is pleased to honour with epithets like the following: “a living
monument of apostolic frenzy”; “Jesuit”; “rank Catholic;” “actor”; and
“anabaptist.”
This was far from being pleasant; but Wesley was used to it; and his
character was too well established to need defence from such
slanderous attacks. It may be doubted whether he took the trouble to
read a tithe of the malignant diatribes launched against him.
While on the subject of books, it is due to Methodism to notice an
interesting fact not generally known. The first Bible society, founded
in Great Britain, and perhaps in the world, was established in 1779,
and was the work of Methodists. George Cussons and John Davies, after
leaving the leaders’ meeting in West Street chapel, entered into
conversation, and, when near Soho Square, formed a resolution to
endeavour to raise a fund for supplying soldiers with pocket Bibles.
They and a dozen of their friends united themselves into a society for
promoting this object. Their meetings were held once a month in the
house of Mr. Dobson, of Oxford Street. John Thornton, Esq., of
Clapham, became a generous subscriber. The first parcel of Bibles was
sent from the vestry of Wesley’s West Street chapel; and the first
sermon on behalf of the society was preached in the same chapel, by
the Rev. Mr. Collins, from the appropriate words, “And the Philistines
were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said,
Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.”[353]
Thus arose “The Naval and Military Bible Society,”--twenty-five years
before the formation of “The British and Foreign Bible Society” in
1804,--a society still in active operation, and we believe the oldest
association for the circulation of the word of God, that now exists.
Wesley still employed the press, as well as pulpit, in defending and
spreading truth. John Atlay was his book steward, of whose
conscientiousness he had a high opinion. Hence the following
unpublished letter, sent to Bradburn.
“EDINBURGH, _June 19, 1779_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--I suppose John Atlay has paid the money. He is
cautious to an extreme. I _hear_ what angry men say or write;
but I do not often regard it. Lemonade will cure any disorder
of the bowels, (whether it be with or without purging,) in a
day or two. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and
down. They seldom are in vain. Honest Andrew Dunlop[354] writes
me word that the book money is stolen. Pray desire him to take
care that the knave does not steal his teeth.
“I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Wesley published, in 1779, the seventeenth extract from his journal,
extending from September 13, 1773, to January 2, 1776; 12mo, 82 pages.
Popery was beginning to be troublesome; for parliament, in the
previous year, had passed a bill removing from the English and Irish
papists the penalties and disabilities imposed upon them by the famous
act, “for the further preventing the growth of popery,” enacted in
1699. Wesley had been called a papist times without number; but now,
in a time of danger, he proved himself one of popery’s most trenchant
opponents. His pamphlet, now issued, with the title, “Popery Calmly
Considered,” 12mo, 25 pages, was one of the most timely and valuable
productions of his pen. Scores of such pamphlets have been given to
the public; but not one superior to Wesley’s. He writes: “In the
following tract, I propose, first, to lay down and examine the chief
doctrines of the Church of Rome: secondly, to show the natural
tendency of a few of those doctrines; and that with all the plainness
and all the calmness I can.” “Mr. J. Russell,” observes Charles
Wesley, in a letter dated April 23, 1779, “tells me, some of the
bitterest Calvinists are reconciled to you for the tract on popery. It
should be spread immediately through the three kingdoms.”[355] We
shall meet with popery again; but, meantime, we wish the Methodist
book committee and conference would do, at present, what Charles
Wesley wished to be done ninety years ago. However urgent the case was
in 1779, the necessity now is ninety times greater than it was then;
and John Wesley’s successors will be recreant to his protestant
principles unless they do their duty as he did his.
It only remains, before concluding the present chapter, to notice
Wesley’s _Arminian Magazine_. This, like the volume for 1778, was, to
a large extent, controversial, Wesley believing that “there never was
more need, in the memory of man, of opposing the _Horrible Decree_,
than at this day; for thousands, in every part of England, were still
halting between two opinions, and were exceedingly perplexed on this
account.” Among other pieces, intended to refute the Calvinian theory,
he republished his own “Predestination Calmly Considered,” which he
first printed in 1752. There are interesting lives of Bishop Bedell,
Archbishop Usher, and Dr. Donne, the last mentioned by Wesley’s own
pen, though never included in his collected works. There are short
accounts of ten of his itinerant preachers, accompanied by their
respective portraits, many of which he pronounces “really striking.”
There are ninety-three letters, most of which, says he, “are closely
practical and experimental.” There are about seventy poetical pieces,
one of which, “Henry and Emma, a Dialogue,” fills more than fourteen
pages; a sort of love story, to which objections were not unreasonably
raised. Wesley acknowledged that it was “not strictly religious”; but
maintains that there was “nothing in it contrary to religion, nothing
that can offend the chastest ears”; that it was “one of the finest
poems in the English tongue, both for sentiment and language”; and
that those who could “read it without tears must have a stupid and
unfeeling heart.” All this might be true; but, with all due deference
to Wesley, there can hardly be two opinions, that it was out of its
proper place when inserted in the _Arminian Magazine_.