[320] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 117.
[321] Manuscript diary.
[322] Manuscript letter.
[323] Manuscripts.
[324] “History of Methodism in Halifax.”
[325] Manuscript diary.
[326] How is it that there are not more Methodists in
Inverness now than there were ninety years ago, in
the days of good old Duncan McAllum?
[327] Boswell’s Life of Johnson.
[328] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 777.
[329] Ibid. 1856, p. 234.
[330] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”
[331] _Methodist Magazine_, 1826, p. 244.
[332] Ibid. 1789, p. 388.
[333] These were Pawson, Rankin, and Jaco. The committee
consisted of gentlemen appointed to manage the
business of City Road chapel.--(Pawson’s manuscript.)
[334] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 441.
[335] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 387.
[336] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 456.
[337] _Methodist Magazine_, 1779, p. 240.
[338] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 70.
[339] Rutherford’s Life, p. 94.
[340] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”
[341] Manuscript letter.
[342] Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks:
“1780, January 14--I learned, that Mr. M‘Nab is
excluded the connexion; but I cannot learn, that
he has merited such treatment. A man who has been
a credit to our cause, whose moral character is
unblamable, and whose abilities are considerable, is
expelled for his integrity and uprightness. Being
very uneasy on account of the expulsion, I wrote Mr.
Wesley respecting it.”
[343] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 132.
[344] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 372.
[345] _Christian Miscellany_, 1849, p. 57; and “Wesley
Poetry,” vol. viii., p. 415.
[346] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 379.
[347] Pawson’s manuscript.
[348] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 380.
[349] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”
[350] Manuscript.
[351] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 202.
[352] Life of John Valton, p. 100.
[353] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 737.
[354] The assistant of the Limerick circuit.
[355] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 387.
1780.
Age 77
The year 1780 will always be marked in English history. The nation was
steeped in guilt and misery. War was raging on almost every side.
Trade was paralysed; and taxes intolerable. Popery had been
established in Canada; and, by the repealing of the statutes of the
11th and 12th of King William III., had received great encouragement
in England. The Protestant Association sprung into existence; and the
Gordon riots followed. The details of these events are full of
profound interest and instruction; but our limited space prevents
enlargement. Suffice it to say, that, in this serious crisis, Wesley
took an active interest. He writes: “1780. January 18--Receiving more
and more accounts of the increase of popery, I believed it my duty to
write a letter concerning it, which was afterwards inserted in the
public papers. Many were grievously offended; but I cannot help it; I
must follow my own conscience.”
The following was Wesley’s unanswerable, though obnoxious letter.
“A Letter to the Printer of the _Public Advertiser_, occasioned
by the late Act, passed in favour of Popery.
“CITY ROAD, _January 21, 1780_.
“SIR,--Some time ago, a pamphlet was sent me, entitled ‘An
Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great
Britain.’ A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put
into my hands, which pronounces ‘its style contemptible, its
reasoning futile, and its object malicious.’ On the contrary, I
think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the
reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or
design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind
and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy
constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of
that tract by a few plain arguments.
“With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for
his religious principles. Let there be as ‘boundless a freedom
in religion,’ as any man can conceive. But this does not touch
the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of
the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable,
and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether
the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or
the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your
commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in
religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius’s creed to be true;
suppose the council of Trent to have been infallible: yet, I
insist upon it, that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought
to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion.
“I prove this by a plain argument; let him answer it that can.
That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his
allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus. It is a Roman
Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a
public council, that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics.’
This has been openly avowed by the council of Constance; but it
never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or
disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as
long as it is so, it is plain that the members of that church
can give no reasonable security, to any government, of their
allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore, they ought not to
be tolerated by any government, protestant, Mahommedan, or
pagan.
“You may say, ‘Nay, but they will take an _oath_ of
allegiance.’ True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, ‘no faith
is to be kept with heretics,’ sweeps them all away as a
spider’s web. So that still, no governors that are not Roman
Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.
“Again, those who acknowledge the _spiritual power_ of the pope
can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but
all Roman Catholics acknowledge this; therefore, they can give
no security for their allegiance.
“The power of granting _pardons_ for all sins, past, present,
and to come, is, and has been, for many centuries, one branch
of his _spiritual power_.
“But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can
give no security for their allegiance; since they believe the
pope can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins
whatsoever.
“The power of _dispensing_ with any promise, oath, or vow, is
another branch of the _spiritual power_ of the pope. And all
who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But
whoever acknowledges the _dispensing power_ of the pope can
give no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths
and promises are none; they are light as air; a dispensation
makes them all null and void.
“Nay, not only the pope, but even a _priest_ has _power_ to
pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of
Rome. But they that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any
security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no
security at all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and
high treason.
“Setting then religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles
of reason, no government ought to tolerate men, who cannot give
any security to that government for their allegiance and
peaceable behaviour. But this no Romanist can do, not only
while he holds that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ but
so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution or the
_spiritual power_ of the pope.
“‘But the late act,’ you say, ‘does not either _tolerate_ or
_encourage_ Roman Catholics.’ I appeal to matter of fact. Do
not the Romanists themselves understand it as a toleration? You
know they do. And does it not already (let alone what it _may_
do by-and-by) _encourage_ them to preach openly, to build
chapels (at Bath and elsewhere), to raise seminaries, and to
make numerous converts day by day, to their intolerant,
persecuting principles? I can point out, if need be, several of
the persons. And they are increasing daily.
“But ‘nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended
from them.’ I am not certain of that. Some time since, a Romish
priest came to one I knew; and, after talking with her largely,
broke out, ‘You are no heretic! You have the experience of a
real Christian!’ ‘And would you,’ she asked, ‘burn me alive?’
He said, ‘God forbid! unless it were for the good of the
church!’
“Now what security could she have had for her life, if it had
depended on that man? The _good of the church_ would have burst
all the ties of truth, justice, and mercy. Especially when
seconded by the absolution of a priest, or, if need were, a
papal pardon.
“If any please to answer this, and to set his name, I shall
probably reply; but the productions of anonymous writers I do
not promise to take any notice of.
“I am, sir, your humble servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Wesley’s arguments are irrefutable; and terrible is England’s danger,
at the present day, because such arguments, instead of being answered,
have been dexterously, but disastrously, ignored by England’s
statesmen. Wesley’s letter will probably be treated, by many, as they
would treat an old almanack, out of date; but, on February 17, 1780,
it evoked the unanimous thanks of the Protestant Association; and, in
the same month, was published in the pages of Wesley’s bitterest
antagonist,--the _Gospel Magazine_,--with an editorial note, that it
had “been almost universally approved of,” and that it was a
“production of real merit.”
Wesley’s letter was too damaging to the disloyalty and preposterous
assumptions of popery, to pass unnoticed. His chief antagonist was the
Rev. Arthur O’Leary, the son of peasant parents, and now a popish
priest, in the fiftieth year of his age.
O’Leary’s remarks on Wesley’s letter made an octavo pamphlet of 101
pages. The friar tells the Methodist, that the temperature of
Ireland’s climate and the quality of its soil had cleansed the veins
of its papists “from the _sour_ and _acid_ blood of the Scythians and
Saxons.” He writes:
“We are tender hearted, we are good natured, we have feelings.
We shed tears on the urns of the dead; deplore the loss of
hecatombs of victims slaughtered on the gloomy altars of
religious bigotry; cry in seeing the ruins of cities over which
fanaticism has displayed the funeral torch; and sincerely pity
the blind zeal of our Scotch and English neighbours, whose
constant character is to pity none, for erecting the banners of
persecution, at a time when the inquisition is abolished in
Spain and Milan, and the protestant gentry are caressed at
Rome, and live unmolested in the luxuriant plains of France and
Italy. We are too wise to quarrel about religion. The Roman
Catholics sing their psalms in Latin, with a few inflections of
the voice. Our protestant neighbours sing the same psalms in
English, on a larger scale of musical notes. We never quarrel
with our honest and worthy neighbours, the quakers, for not
singing at all; nor shall we ever quarrel with Mr. Wesley for
_raising his voice to heaven_, and warbling forth his canticles
on whatever tune he pleases. We like _social harmony_; and, in
_civil_ music, hate _discordance_. Thus, when we go to the
shambles, we never inquire into the butcher’s religion, but
into the quality of his meat. We care not whether the ox was
fed in the pope’s territories, or on the mountains of Scotland;
provided the joint be good; for, though there be many
_heresies_ in old books, we discover neither _heresy_ nor
_superstition_ in beef and claret. We divide them cheerfully
with one another; and, though of different religions, we sit
over the bowl with as much cordiality as if we were at a
_lovefeast_.”
O’Leary’s quaint jocularity and rounded periods are amusing; but they
furnish not the slightest answer to Wesley’s allegations. On March 23,
Wesley replied to O’Leary, in a letter addressed to the editors of the
_Freeman’s Journal_, and from which the following is extracted.
“Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are no more an answer to my letter, than
to the Bull _Unigenitus_. His manner of writing is easy and
pleasant; but might it not as well be more serious? The subject
we are treating of is not a light one; it moves me to tears,
rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country;
yea, for the children that are yet unborn. I would not have the
Roman Catholics persecuted at all. I would only have them
hindered from doing hurt: I would not put it in their power to
cut the throats of their quiet neighbours.”[356]
O’Leary published a “Rejoinder to Mr. Wesley’s Reply,” in which he was
less jocular, but not more logical. Of Wesley’s three reasons why it
is not safe to tolerate papists, two were left untouched, and one was
played with and evaded. Such a controversialist scarcely deserved an
answer; and, yet, Wesley supplemented his second letter by a third,
dated Chester, March 31, 1780. After recapitulating his three reasons,
Wesley writes:
“Nine parts in ten of Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are quite wide of
the mark. Not that they are wide of _his_ mark, which is to
introduce a plausible panegyric upon the Roman Catholics, mixed
with keen invectives against the protestants, whether true or
false it matters not. All this is admirably well calculated to
inspire the reader with aversion to these heretics, and to
bring them back to the holy, harmless, much injured Church of
Rome! Close arguing he does not attempt; but he vapours, and
skips to and fro, and rambles to all points of the compass, in
a very lively and entertaining manner.”
Wesley thus concludes his long letter:
“What security for my life can any man give me, till he utterly
renounces the council of Constance? What security can any
Romanist give a protestant, till this doctrine is publicly
abjured? If Mr. O’Leary has anything more to plead for this
council, I shall follow him step by step. But let him keep his
word, and ‘give a serious answer to a serious charge.’
‘Drollery may come in when we are talking of roasting fowls’;
but not when we talk of ‘roasting men.’
“Would I then wish the Roman Catholics to be persecuted? I
never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor the thought: it is
foreign to all I have preached and wrote for these fifty years.
But I would wish the Romanists in _England_ (I had no others in
view) to be treated still with the same lenity that they have
been these sixty years; to be allowed both civil and religious
liberty, but not permitted to undermine ours. I wish them to
stand just as they did before the late act was passed: not to
be persecuted or hurt themselves; but gently restrained from
hurting their neighbours.
“I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[357]
Here the controversy ended.[358] O’Leary was baffled; and, to this
day, the arguments in Wesley’s letter of January 21, 1780, remain
unanswered. Seven years afterwards; when at Cork, Wesley wrote: “A
gentleman invited me to breakfast, with my old antagonist, Father
O’Leary. I was not at all displeased at being disappointed. He is not
the stiff, queer man that I expected; but of an easy, genteel
carriage, and seems not to be wanting either in sense or learning.”
It was during this controversy, and while Wesley was in the north of
Ireland, that the fearful riots occurred, which are so unfortunately
associated with the name of Lord George Gordon, and which were the
cause of that nobleman’s incarceration (rightly or wrongly) in the
Tower of London. Here Wesley, after repeated invitations, visited him,
and writes: “1780, December 19--I spent an hour with Lord George
Gordon, at his apartment in the Tower. Our conversation turned upon
popery and religion. He seemed to be well acquainted with the Bible;
and had abundance of other books, enough to furnish a study. I was
agreeably surprised to find he did not complain of any person or
thing; and cannot but hope his confinement will take a right turn, and
prove a lasting blessing to him.”
We return to more congenial matters. Wesley spent the first two months
of 1780 in London and its vicinity. On February 28, he started on his
journey to the north. Among other places, he now, for the first time,
preached at Delph. He writes: “April 7--I went to Delph, a little
village upon the mountains, where a remarkable work of God is just
broke out. I was just set down, when the minister sent me word, I was
welcome to preach in his church. On hearing this, many people walked
thither immediately, near a mile from the town; but, in ten minutes,
he sent me word his mind was changed. We knew not then what to do,
till the trustees of the independent meeting offered us the use of
their house. It was quickly filled, and truly God bore witness to His
word.”
The minister of the parish church was the Rev. Mr. Heginbotham, who
had engaged Mr. Stones as his curate. Mr. Stones was a sportsman, fond
of his dog and gun. On one occasion, a rough Yorkshireman told him, it
would be better if he minded his study more and his gun less. The
curate took the hint; his dogs and his guns were given up; he became a
thorough Christian; his ministry was greatly blessed; an extensive
religious awakening followed; meetings for prayer were convened in
private houses; and not a few were scripturally converted. Opposition
soon ensued, on the ground that the poor, by spending so much time in
prayer, would neglect their work, and become chargeable to the parish.
The curate was dismissed; the young converts applied to Joseph Benson,
then at Manchester, for help; Methodist preaching was commenced; a
room in Millgate hired; and a flourishing society was formed.[359] The
case was named to Wesley; and, a fortnight before his visit, he signed
the following legal looking document, which to a Methodist antiquarian
will be welcome.
“_Whereas_ for about twelve months last past, the people called
Methodists have preached in a room at Delph, in Saddleworth, in
the county of York,--the travelling preachers coming there
regularly every fortnight from Manchester, besides local
preachers occasionally on Sundays. And _Whereas_ the last
summer such crowds attended, that the room could not contain
them, the society also increasing very fast, and a great
likelihood of much good being done in the place,--It is,
therefore, thought necessary that a preaching house be erected
at Delph aforesaid, twelve yards long and eight wide. The
expense of such a building, according to the plan laid down,
will be vastly more than the society will be able to raise
amongst themselves. They have, therefore, requested our consent
to go amongst our societies, to ask the charitable
contributions of such of our friends as would willingly
encourage such an undertaking. This is, therefore, to certify
that we approve of the measure, and recommend the same to our
Christian friends everywhere, hoping they will readily and
cheerfully contribute to the same.
“JOHN WESLEY.[360]
“MANCHESTER, _March 25, 1780_.”
This formalised certificate smacks of the office of Joseph Mellor, the
Methodist attorney of the town of Delph; and Wesley must have been
hard pressed for time when, instead of writing a statement of the case
himself, he put his hand to such legal magniloquence. Suffice it to
add, the chapel was built, with not more than £100 of debt resting
upon the premises.[361]
It was during this northern tour, that Wesley, for the first time, was
denied the use of the church at Haworth. He writes: “Sunday, April
23--Mr. Richardson being unwilling that I should preach any more in
Haworth church, Providence opened another; I preached in Bingley
church, both morning and afternoon. This is considerably larger than
the other.”
It was either on this, or some future occasion, when Wesley was
preaching in Bingley church, that a rich man in the congregation, who
seemed to think that his wealth was a licence to practise bad manners,
sneered at the preacher and at his sentiments. Wesley paused, and
fixing his keen eye on the Dives sitting in the seat of the scornful,
said: “I heed your sneers no more than I heed the fluttering of a
butterfly; but I know what good breeding is as well as any gentleman
in the land.”
It was now that Wesley preached his first sermon in Blackburn. He
writes: “April 27--I preached in Todmorden church with great
enlargement of heart. In the afternoon we went on to Blackburn. It
seemed the whole town was moved; and the question was where to put the
congregation. We could not stand abroad because of the sun; so as many
as could squeezed into the preaching house. All the chief men of the
town were there.” Mr. Banning was Wesley’s host at Blackburn; and, on
one occasion, took his venerable guest to see a neighbouring chapel
which was in the course of being built. “Mr. Banning,” said Wesley, “I
have a favour to ask. Let there be no pews in the body of this chapel,
except one for the leading singers. Be sure to make accommodation for
the poor. _They_ are God’s building _materials_ in the erecting of His
church. The rich make good _scaffolding_, but bad _materials_.”[362]
Weighty words! One of Methodism’s evil omens, at the present day, is a
disregard of the advice which Wesley gave, namely, that, in building
chapels, the Methodists should never fail to provide ample
accommodation for the poor.
It was a sign of Wesley’s growing popularity, that, though, forty
years before, he had been indignantly expelled from the pulpits of the
Established Church, he was now invited, in all parts of the country,
by rectors, vicars, curates, and others, to favour them with his
services. At Pateley Bridge, in 1752, Thomas Lee, the old itinerant,
and his Methodist companions, were subjected to treatment the most
barbarous; and, on applying to the Dean of Ripon for protection, were
met with a churchman’s scorn rather than a magistrate’s just dealing.
Now it was otherwise. Wesley writes: “1780, May 1--At Pateley Bridge,
the vicar offered me the use of his church. Though it was more than
twice as large as our preaching house, it was not near large enough to
contain the congregation. How vast is the increase of the work of God!
particularly in the most rugged and uncultivated places. How does He
‘send the springs’ of grace also ‘into the valleys, that run among the
hills!’”
Leaving Pateley, Wesley, for the first time, visited Ripon. He writes:
“May 2--We came to Ripon, and observed a remarkable turn of
providence: the great hindrance of the work of God in this place has
suddenly disappeared; and the poor people, being delivered from their
fear, gladly flock together, and hear His word. The new preaching
house was quickly more than filled.”
Four years previous to this, Thomas Dixon was one of the Ripon
preachers, and, in his unpublished autobiography, wrote: “Upon our
going to Ripon, we preached in a small room up a flight of stairs, and
even this we were to leave at Martinmas. But, just at this time, Mr.
T. Dowson, who had suffered much for the gospel’s sake, bought the
premises where an old barn and stable stood. He immediately pulled
down the barn, and built a decent chapel and a dwelling house upon the
site, and, with such expedition, that we were able to get into the
shell of the new chapel by the time we had to leave the upstairs room.
By this means, God gave the poor persecuted Methodists, in Ripon, a
degree of rest they had never known before, and the work, from that
time, gradually grew.”
On leaving Ripon, Wesley proceeded “through a delightful country to
the immense ruins of Garvaix Abbey,” and thence across the “horrid,
dreary, enormous mountains” to Penrith, another place where he now,
for the first time, preached. He writes: “May 5--In the evening, a
large room, designed for an assembly, was procured for me at Penrith;
but several of the poor people were struck with panic, for fear the
room should fall. Finding there was no remedy, I went down into the
court below, and preached in great peace to a multitude of well
behaved people.”
On May 11, Wesley reached Newcastle, and thence proceeded to Scotland.
On his return southwards, we find him preaching at Durham, Darlington,
Northallerton, Boroughbridge, and York. Making his way through
Lincolnshire, he came to Newark, where, twenty years before, the mob
had burnt the Methodist pulpit in the market place; and had not only
pelted the preacher, Thomas Lee, with all sorts of missiles, and
dragged him to the river Trent, where they ducked and dabbled him
without mercy, but, to complete the whole, a painter came with his pot
and brush, and bedaubed him most ludicrously. Wesley writes: “1780,
June 12--Our friends at Newark were divided as to the place where I
should preach. At length, they found a convenient place, covered on
three sides, and on the fourth open to the street. It contained two or
three thousand people well, who appeared to hear as for life. Only one
big man, exceeding drunk, was very noisy and turbulent, till his wife
(_fortissima Tyndaridarum!_) seized him by the collar, gave him two or
three hearty boxes on the ear, and dragged him away like a calf. But,
at length, he got out of her hands, crept in among the people, and
stood as quiet as a lamb.”
On June 13, Wesley wrote: “I accepted of an invitation from a
gentleman at Lincoln, in which I had not set my foot for upwards of
fifty years. At six in the evening, I preached in the castle yard to a
large and attentive congregation. They were all as quiet as if I had
been at Bristol. Will God have a people here also?” For seven years
after this, there was not a Methodist in Lincoln.
After an interval of many years, Wesley preached again at Boston,
where, in 1757, Alexander Mather, the first Methodist preacher there,
had his face plastered with mire taken from the kennels of the
streets, and his head laid open with a stone.
Wesley spent his birthday in Sheffield, and wrote: “June 28--I can
hardly think I am entered this day into the seventy-eighth year of my
age. By the blessing of God, I am just the same as when I entered the
twenty-eighth. This hath God wrought, chiefly by my constant exercise,
my rising early, and preaching morning and evening.”
The next day, he preached his first and last sermon at Worksop. He
says: “I was desired to preach at Worksop; but when I came, they had
not fixed on any place. At length, they chose a lamentable one, full
of dirt and dust, but without the least shelter from the scorching
sun. This few could bear; so we had only a small company of as stupid
people as I ever saw.”
After this, Wesley made his way to London, where he spent a week; and,
then, he and his brother set out for Bristol, for the purpose of
holding his annual conference. He writes: “August 1--Our conference
began. We have been always, hitherto, straitened for time. It was now
resolved, ‘For the future, we will allow nine or ten days for each
conference; that everything, relative to the carrying on of the work
of God, may be maturely considered.’”
The conference, in this instance, lasted from August 1 to August 9,
inclusive. Its main business was a revision of the minutes of
conferences already held. Several alterations were made, some of the
chief being the following. It was no longer to be a rule, that
Methodists were to endeavour to preach most where Wesley and his
brother clergymen were allowed to preach in parish churches.
Classmeetings were to be made more lively and profitable, by removing
improper leaders; and care was to be taken, that those appointed were
not only men of sound judgment, but truly pious. If a preacher could
secure twenty hearers at five o’clock in the morning, he was to
preach; if not so many, he was to sing and pray. “Observe,” says
Wesley to his preachers, “it is not your business to preach so many
times, and to take care of this or that society; but to save as many
souls as you can, to bring as many sinners as you possibly can to
repentance, and, with all your power, to build them up in that
holiness without which they cannot see the Lord. And remember! a
Methodist preacher is to mind every point, great and small, in the
Methodist discipline! Therefore, you will need all the sense you have,
and to have all your wits about you.” It was agreed, that the neglect
of fasting was sufficient to account for their feebleness and
faintness of spirit. They were continually grieving the Holy Spirit of
God, by the habitual neglect of a plain duty. “Let you and I,” says
Wesley, “every Friday (beginning on the next), avow this duty
throughout the nation, by touching no tea, coffee, or chocolate, in
the morning, but, (if we want it,) half-a-pint of milk or water gruel.
Let us dine on potatoes, and, (if we need it,) eat three or four
ounces of flesh in the evening. At other times, let us eat no flesh
suppers. These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders.” The rule
was rescinded, that no preacher ought to print anything without
Wesley’s approbation. The preachers were to join as one man in putting
an end to the indecency of the people talking in the preaching houses,
before and after service. Complaints having been made, that sluts had
spoiled preachers’ houses, Wesley writes: “Let none, that has spoiled
one, ever live in another. But what a shame is this! A preacher’s wife
should be a pattern of cleanliness, in her person, clothes, and
habitation. Let nothing slatternly be seen about her; no rags, no
dirt, no litter. And she should be a pattern of industry; always at
work, either for herself, her husband, or the poor. I am not willing
that any should live in the Orphan House at Newcastle, or any
preaching house, who does not conform to this rule.” Complaints were
also made, that people crowded into the preachers’ houses as into
coffee shops, without invitation; and it was ruled, that no person
should, in future, come into a preacher’s house, unless he wanted to
ask a question.
Some of these may appear to be minute matters; but they are not
without interest as indicative of the defects of Methodists in the
days of Wesley.
There is reason to believe, though the fact is not recorded in the
minutes, that the Church question was again discussed at the
conference of 1780. Hence the following letter, written to Miss
Bosanquet.
“BRISTOL, _August 5, 1780_.
“MY DEAR SISTER,--I snatch time from the conference to write
two or three lines. I am glad you have begun a prayer-meeting
at Hunslet, and doubt not it will be productive of much good.
Hitherto, we have had a blessed conference. The case of the
Church we shall fully consider by-and-by; and, I believe, we
shall agree that none who leave the Church shall remain with
us.
“I am, my dear sister, yours most affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[363]
Charles Wesley was present, and was far from satisfied. He purposed to
attend no more of these annual synods, and wrote as follows:
“Why should I longer, Lord, contend,
My last important moments spend
In buffeting the air?
In warning those who will not see,
But rest in blind security,
And rush into the snare?
Prophet of ills, why should I live,
Or, by my sad forebodings, grieve
Whom I can serve no more?
I only can their loss bewail,
Till life’s exhausted sorrows fail,
And the last pang is o’er.”[364]
Poor Charles, alarmed lest the Methodists should leave the Church,
retired from the conference to weep and die; John to rejoice and work.
Conference statistics have not been given annually; but the following
figures will show the progress made during the decade of years ending
at the conference of 1780.
+----------+-----------+------------+----------+-------------+
| | Circuits. | Itinerant | Members. | Kingswood |
| | | Preachers. | | Collection. |
| +-----------+------------+----------+-------------+
| 1770 | 50 | 123 | 29,406 | £218 4 5 |
| 1780 | 64 | 171 | 43,830 | £402 1 9 |
| +-----------+------------+----------+-------------+
| Increase | 14 | 48 | 14,424 | £183 17 4 |
+----------+-----------+------------+----------+-------------+
To these numbers, however, must be added the Methodists in the West
Indies, and also 20 circuits, 42 itinerant preachers, and 8504 members
of society in America.[365]
The American conference met at Baltimore on April 24, and agreed to
continue in close communion with the Church, and to permit “the
friendly clergy” to preach and administer the sacraments in Methodist
chapels. Hitherto, neither Asbury, nor any other of the preachers in
America, had administered these Christian ordinances to the Methodist
people; and, as the number of members was now rapidly increasing, this
was becoming a momentous question. The want in England had been met,
to some extent, by Wesley and his brother and their clerical
assistants; but, in America, the Methodists had no ordained clergyman
to render service like this. Besides, there the Methodists were very
differently situated from what Methodists were in England. In this
country, wherever there was a Methodist society there was a parish
church, at which, if they chose, Methodists might attend on
sacramental occasions. In America it was otherwise. Clergymen were
few; and parish churches far distant from each other; and, in many
instances, where Methodist societies had been formed, no church
existed. The case was becoming serious. Were these thousands of
American Methodists to be left without sacraments? Or were unordained
Methodist preachers to administer sacraments? Or was an effort to be
made, to send a clergyman of the Church of England to supply this lack
of sacred service? Or was Wesley himself to assume episcopal
functions, and, by ordination, turn his preachers into priests? These
were serious difficulties to be surmounted. To deprive eight thousand
converted people of the most sacred ordinances of the church, would
have been a sin against the church’s Head. To allow unordained
preachers to administer baptism and the Lord’s supper was a thing for
which Wesley himself was not prepared; though who can question, that a
man like Francis Asbury, whom God had so signally honoured, had as
much right to do this as the most renowned priest or prelate in
existence? An alternative remained, namely, either to send the
American Methodists an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; or
that Wesley should take upon himself the office of ordainer, and thus
qualify his own itinerants for what was conceived to be a higher
function than that of preaching the infinitely great and everlasting
truths of Christ’s glorious gospel.
Was Wesley prepared for such a step as this? Fortunately, this is a
point on which we are not left to speculate. In a letter to his
brother, dated June 8, 1780, he writes: “Read Bishop Stillingfleet’s
‘Irenicon,’ or any impartial history of the ancient church, and I
believe you will think as I do. I verily believe, I have as good a
right to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper. But I see
abundance of reasons why I should not use that right, unless I was
turned out of the Church. At present, we are just in our place.”[366]
As yet, Wesley, for “abundance of reasons,” hesitated to ordain his
preachers; and, hence, the only remaining expedient was to endeavour
to secure an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; and this he
attempted. The following letter was addressed to Dr. Lowth, bishop of
London, two months after the date of his letter to his brother
Charles. The reader will perceive, that it was written the day after
the close of the Bristol conference. It ought to be premised that,
previous to this, Wesley had applied to the bishop for a clerical
helper, and had met with a refusal.
“_August 10, 1780._
“MY LORD,--Some time since, I received your lordship’s favour,
for which I return your lordship my sincere thanks. These
persons did not apply to the Society,” [for Propagating
Christian Knowledge in Foreign Parts,] “because they had
nothing to ask of them. They wanted no salary for their
minister: they were themselves able and willing to maintain
him. They, therefore, applied, by me, to your lordship, as
members of the Church of England, and desirous so to continue,
begging the favour of your lordship, after your lordship had
examined him, to ordain a pious man who might officiate as
their minister.
“But your lordship observes, ‘There are three ministers in that
country already.’ True, my lord: but what are three, to watch
over all the souls in that extensive country? Will your
lordship permit me to speak freely? I dare not do otherwise. I
am on the verge of the grave, and know not the hour when I
shall drop into it. Suppose there were threescore of those
missionaries in the country, could I in conscience recommend
these souls to their care? Do they take any care of their own
souls? If they do, (I speak it with concern,) I fear they are
almost the only missionaries in America that do. My lord, I do
not speak rashly: I have been in America; and so have several
with whom I have lately conversed. And both I and they know,
what manner of men the greater part of these are. They are men
who have neither the power of religion, nor the form; men that
lay no claim to piety, nor even decency.
“Give me leave, my lord, to speak more freely still: perhaps it
is the last time I shall trouble your lordship. I know your
lordship’s abilities and extensive learning: I believe, what is
far more, that your lordship fears God. I have heard, that your
lordship is unfashionably diligent in examining the candidates
for holy orders; yea, that your lordship is generally at the
pains of examining them _yourself_. Examining them! in what
respects? Why whether they understand a little _Latin_ and
_Greek_; and can answer a few trite questions in the science of
divinity! Alas, how little does this avail! Does your lordship
examine, whether they serve _Christ_ or _Belial_? Whether they
love God or the world? Whether they ever had any serious
thoughts about heaven or hell? Whether they have any real
desire to save their own souls, or the souls of others? If not,
what have they to do with holy orders? and what will become of
the souls committed to their care?
“My lord, I do by no means despise learning: I know the value
of it too well. But what is this, particularly in a Christian
minister, compared to piety? What is it in a man that has no
religion? ‘As a jewel in a swine’s snout.’
“Some time since, I recommended to your lordship a plain man,
whom I had known above twenty years, as a person of deep,
genuine piety, and of unblamable conversation. But he neither
understood Greek nor Latin; and he affirmed, in so many words,
that ‘he believed it was his duty to preach, whether he was
ordained or no.’ I believe so too. What became of him since, I
know not. But I suppose he received _presbyterian_ ordination;
and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think any ordination
better than none.
“I do not know, that Mr. Hoskins had any favour to ask of the
Society. He asked the favour of your lordship to ordain him,
that he might minister to a little flock in America. But your
lordship did not see good to ordain _him_: but your lordship
did see good to ordain, and send to America, other persons, who
knew something of Greek and Latin; but knew no more of saving
souls, than of catching whales.
“In this respect, also, I mourn for poor America; for the sheep
scattered up and down therein. Part of them have no shepherds
at all, particularly in the northern colonies; and the case of
the rest is little better, for their own shepherds pity them
not. They cannot, for they have no pity on themselves, they
take no thought or care about their own souls.
“Wishing your lordship every blessing from the great Shepherd
and Bishop of our souls, I remain, my lord, your lordship’s
dutiful son and servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[367]
Did his lordship ever receive, from any other “dutiful son and
servant,” a letter like this? We doubt it. Wesley was foiled in his
attempt to obtain _episcopal_ ordination for an American Methodist
preacher: no wonder, that, soon after, he administered ordination
himself.
Before proceeding with Wesley’s history, the insertion of a selection
of his letters, belonging to this period, may be acceptable.
It is a terrible thing to write a dangerous book. When Joseph Benson
was a young man, he read Dr. Watts’s “Glory of Christ as God-man,” and
became a convert to his doctrine of the pre-existence of our Lord’s
_human soul_. Speaking his mind too freely upon this unscriptural
dogma, Benson was suspected to be an Arian, and was represented as
such, by Dr. Coke, all over the kingdom.[368] At the conference of
1780, Coke accused him of holding the Arian heresy; the matter was
sifted; Benson was acquitted; and Coke offered to ask his pardon.
Still, Benson, for years afterwards, held Dr. Watts’s dangerous
speculation; and it was not until he undertook the revision of
Fletcher’s manuscripts, that he laid aside the expression,
“_pre-existent soul of Christ_;” “an expression,” says he, “which
neither reason, nor Scripture, nor antiquity, will warrant our
using.”[369]
Dr. Watts’s pernicious book, and also the Gordon riots, (at this time
raging,) are referred to in the following extract from a letter to
Charles Wesley.
“_June 8, 1780._
“DEAR BROTHER,--I would not read over Dr. Watts’s tract for a
hundred pounds. You may read it, and welcome. I will not, dare
not, move those subtle, metaphysical controversies. Arianism is
not in question; it is Eutychianism or Nestorianism. But what
are they? What neither I nor any one else understands. But they
are what tore the eastern and western churches asunder.
“It is well I accepted none of Lord George’s invitations. If
the government suffers this tamely, I know not what they will
not suffer.
“Mr. Collins is not under my direction; nor am I at all
accountable for any steps he takes. He is not in connection
with the Methodists. He only helps us now and then. I will
suffer no disputing at the conference.
“Undoubtedly many of the patriots seriously intend to overturn
the government; but the hook is in their nose.
“Peace be with you all!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[370]
The Mr. Collins, mentioned in the above extract, was Brian Bury
Collins, of the university of Cambridge, who, without ever receiving a
regular appointment, continued to assist Wesley, in various parts of
the kingdom, until Wesley’s death in 1791. A number of his manuscript
letters, all written in 1779 and 1780, now lie before us, from which
we learn, that he regarded himself as having “an unlimited preaching
commission”; and that one of his great objects was to unite Wesley’s
and Whitefield’s followers. “I could freely die,” says he, “to see the
Tabernacles and Foundery reconciled.” He began the year 1779 in the
north of England, where he sometimes preached five or six times a day.
He then removed to London, Bristol, and the west, where his health
failed. In May, 1780, he was among his relatives at Linwood, and
wrote: “I am not yet recovered from my late illness, though I am much
better than I have been. My relations here receive me with more
cordiality than I expected. I find the Divine presence in the churches
where I preach; but what the Lord designs to do with me I cannot tell.
Lately, I have thought of spending a few weeks at Cambridge. I have
also had fresh desires of being in full orders.” In pursuance of this,
Mr. Collins went to St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, in July
1780, he took his master of arts degree. By advice of the two Wesleys,
he sought ordination; and the dowager Lady Townsend gave him a
recommendatory letter to the Bishop of Chester, requesting that the
rite might be administered in private; but the bishop, having heard of
his irregular preaching, hesitated until he had time to confer with
his brother bishops. Ordination was ultimately obtained; Collins
married, and, for a time, was assistant to David Simpson, at
Macclesfield; after this, he again became a rover, and preached in
Wesley’s and Lady Huntingdon’s chapels, and wherever else he had a
chance. He writes: “I wish to do good unto all. I do not love one and
dislike another. I can unite with all who are united to Jesus. I care
not for names in the least.”[371]
These glimpses of a man whom Wesley, to the end of life, repeatedly
mentions in his journals, will not be unwelcome. Of his subsequent
career we know nothing; except that its close was not as bright as its
beginning. A son of his lies interred in the burial ground of the new
chapel in City Road.[372]
One of the legislative acts of the conference of 1780 was to enforce
the old rule, that, in Methodist meeting-houses, the men and women
should sit apart. In galleries, where they had always sat together,
they might do so still; but in all new erected galleries, and in the
seats below, the old rule was to be rigidly observed. “If,” said
Wesley, “I come into any new house, and see the men and women
together, I will immediately go out. I hereby give public notice of
this. Pray let it be observed.”[373]
This sounds strangely at the present day; but, for some reason, it was
with Wesley a matter of importance. Hence also the following
unpublished letter to the leaders at Sheffield.
“BRISTOL, _September 4, 1780_.
“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Let the persons, who purpose to subvert the
Methodist plan, by mixing men and women together in your
chapel, consider the consequence of so doing. First, I will
never set foot in it more. Secondly, I will forbid any
collection to be made for it in any of our societies.
“I am, my dear brethren, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Two more letters, now for the first time given to the public, will be
welcome. They were addressed to Samuel Bradburn, who had been three
years in Ireland, and was now to remove to Keighley.
“NEAR BRISTOL, _September 16, 1780_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--I wanted to have Betsy” [Mrs. Bradburn] “a little
nearer me. And I wanted her to be acquainted with her twin
soul, Miss Ritchie, the fellow to whom I scarce know in
England. But I do not like your crossing the sea till your
children are a little stronger. If there was stormy weather, it
might endanger their lives. Therefore, it is better you should
stay in Ireland a little longer. Athlone circuit will suit you
well; and John Bredin may be at Keighley in _your place_.
“Now read over the minutes concerning the office of an
assistant, and exert yourself as to every branch of it. I fear
the late assistant neglected many articles; dispersing the
books in particular.
“My love to Betsy. Let her love Molly Pennington for my sake.
“I am, etc., J. WESLEY.”
“LONDON, _October 28, 1780_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--I am glad you are safe landed at Keighley. You
will find there
‘... a port of ease
From the rough rage of stormy seas.’
“There are many amiable and gracious souls in Cork; but there
are few in the whole kingdom of Ireland to be named, (either
for depth of sense or grace,) with many, very many persons in
Yorkshire, particularly the west riding. Go to Betsy Ritchie,
at Otley, and then point me out such a young woman as she in
Ireland.
“I think lemonade would cure any child of the flux.
“Now be exact in every branch of discipline; and you will soon
find what a people you are among.
“I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, your affectionate
friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
The following letter, kindly supplied by the Rev. Thomas W. Smith, and
now for the first time published, was addressed “To Mr. Valton, at the
preaching house, in Manchester.” Oldham Street chapel was now in
course of erection, and was opened by Wesley seven months afterwards.
“BRISTOL, _October 1, 1780_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I expected the state of Manchester circuit
to be just such as you have found it. But the power of the Lord
is able to heal them. I fear S. Mayers was left unemployed,
because she loved perfection. If you find a few more of the
same spirit, I believe you will find them employment. The
accommodations everywhere will mend, if the preachers lovingly
exert themselves. I am glad you take some pains for the new
chapel. Our brother Brocklehurst will do anything that is
reasonable.
“In one thing only, you and I do not agree; but, perhaps, we
shall when we have prayed over it: I mean, the giving me an
extract of your life. I cannot see the weight of your reasons
against it. ‘Some are superficial.’ What then? All are not;
brother Mather’s and Haime’s in particular. Add one to these; a
more weighty one, if you can. You know what to omit, and what
to insert. I really think you owe it (in spite of shame and
natural timidity) to God and me and your brethren. Pray for
light in this matter.
“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,
“J. WESLEY.”
The next, though short, is not devoid of interest. For the first time,
it was published in the _Watchman_ newspaper, as recently as October
12, 1870; and was written on the same day as the foregoing one.
“BRISTOL, _October 1, 1780_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Joseph Bradford has been at the gate of
death; but is now so far recovered, that he thinks to set out
to-morrow morning, with me and his wife, for London.
“Mr. Brackenbury likewise seems to be better, with regard to
his bodily health; but he is married! And I shall not be much
disappointed if he soon takes leave of the Methodists.
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“J. WESLEY.”
The following, which has not before been published, is kindly
furnished by Charles Reed, Esq., M.P.
“LONDON, _November 3, 1780_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Disorderly walkers are better excluded than
retained; and I am well satisfied you will exclude no others. I
am glad you have made a beginning at Trowbridge. If it be
possible, say not one offensive word. But you must declare the
plain, genuine gospel; and, sooner or later, God will give you
His blessing.
“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,
“J. WESLEY.”
Another, equally characteristic, was sent to Zechariah Yewdall,
stationed in “Glamorganshire” circuit, which extended (from Llanelly
in Wales to Calvert in Gloucestershire) above a hundred miles, and was
traversed regularly every month. Mr. Yewdall was now in the second
year of his itinerancy, and, at Monmouth, had met with brutal
treatment.[374] The letter also refers to the principle involved in
Mr. M‘Nab’s affair.
“LONDON, _December 3, 1780_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You mistake one thing. It is I, not the
conference, (according to the twelfth rule,) that station the
preachers; but I do it at the time of the conference, that I
may have the advice of my brethren. But I have no thought of
removing you from the Glamorganshire circuit; you are just in
your right place. But you say, ‘Many of the people are asleep.’
They are; and you are sent to awaken them out of sleep. ‘But
they are dead.’ True; and you are sent to raise the dead. Good
will be done at Monmouth[375] and Neath in particular. Where no
good can be done, I would leave the old, and try new places.
But you have need to be all alive yourselves, if you would
impart life to others. And this cannot be without much self
denial.
“I am, dear Zachary, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[376]
After the conference at Bristol was concluded, Wesley set out for
Cornwall. Some time before this, Sir Harry Trelawney, a student of
Christ Church, Oxford, had become a zealous revivalist, and had begun
to preach at West Looe, where, in 1777, he became the pastor of a
congregation of his own raising, and which worshipped in a
meetinghouse fitted up at his own expense. The novelty of the
proceeding, and the rank of the preacher, created great excitement.
Sir Harry, the descendant of one of the seven bishops who were
committed to the Tower in the reign of James II., was made the hero of
a witty book, written by a clergyman of the Church of England, and
entitled, “The Spiritual Quixote; or the History of Geoffry Wildgoose,
Esq.” 3 vols., 12mo: 1773. The preaching baronet vindicated his
nonconformity in “A Letter addressed to the Rev. Thomas Alcock, Vicar
of Runcorn.” For a time, the Rev. John Clayton was his assistant, but,
in 1778, removed to the Weigh House congregation, in London. Soon
after, Sir Harry returned to Oxford; procured ordination in the
national establishment; was made a country rector in the west of
England; whilst his chapel at West Looe was ignominiously changed into
a house for converting barley into malt. He died in 1834.
It was about the time of Wesley’s visit to Cornwall, that he wrote the
subjoined letter. Sir Harry had been a Calvinist, and had been
patronised by the Countess of Huntingdon’s connexion; but, having
renounced his Calvinian tenets, he was now regarded with disfavour.
Some communication had passed between him and Wesley on the subject;
Wesley knew his danger; and wrote to him as follows.
“For a long time, I have had a desire to see you, but could not
find an opportunity. Indeed, I had reason to believe my company
would not be agreeable; as you were intimate with those who
think they do God service by painting me in the most frightful
colours. It gives me much satisfaction to find, that you have
escaped out of the hands of those warm men. It is not at all
surprising, that they should speak a little unkindly of you too
in their turn. It gave me no small satisfaction to learn from
your own lips the falsehood of their allegation. I believed it
false before, but could not affirm it so positively as I can do
now.
“Indeed, it would not have been without precedent, if from one
extreme you had run into another. This was the case with that
great man, Dr. Taylor. For some years, he was an earnest
Calvinist; but, afterwards, judging he could not go far enough
from that melancholy system, he ran, not only into Arianism,
but into the very dregs of Socinianism.
“You have need to be thankful on another account likewise; that
is, that your prejudices against the Church of England are
removing. Having had an opportunity of seeing several of the
churches abroad, and having deeply considered the several sorts
of Dissenters at home, I am fully convinced, that our own
Church, with all her blemishes, is nearer the scriptural plan
than any other in Europe.
“I sincerely wish you may retain your former zeal for God;
only, that it may be a zeal according to knowledge. But there
certainly will be a danger of your sinking into a careless,
lukewarm state, without any zeal or spirit at all. As you were
surfeited with an irrational, unscriptural religion, you may
easily slide into no religion at all; or into a dead form, that
will never make you happy either in this world, or in that
which is to come.
“Wishing every spiritual blessing, both to Lady Trelawney and
you,
“I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[377]
Wesley, at the end of August, returned to Bristol, and here he spent
the month of September. He then set out for London, which he reached
on October 7. A week later he made a tour to Tunbridge Wells, and
other towns in Kent. After this, we find him, as usual, visiting the
societies in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire. The last
month of the year was chiefly employed in London. He read to the
society, and explained, the Large Minutes of conference, recently
published; and wrote: “I desire to do all things openly and above
board. I would have all the world, and especially all of our society,
see not only the steps we take, but the reasons why we take them.” He
visited Lord George Gordon in the Tower. He went with some of his
friends to the British Museum. He wrote his well known sermon on “This
is the true God and eternal life,” fully establishing the doctrine
which Joseph Benson, at the conference, had been accused of
denying--the Divinity of Christ.[378] He likewise wrote his “Thoughts
upon Jacob Behmen,” allowing the Teuton to be a good man, but charging
him with propounding “a crude, indigested philosophy, supported
neither by Scripture, nor reason, nor anything but his own _ipse
dixit_;” and with using “language that was never used since the world
began, queerness itself, mere dog Latin.” “None,” says Wesley, “can
understand it without much pains, perhaps not without reading him
thrice over. I would not read him thrice over on any consideration.
(1) Because it would be enough to crack any man’s brain to brood so
long over such unintelligible nonsense; and (2) because such a waste
of time might provoke God to give me up to a strong delusion to
believe a lie.”[379]
Wesley concludes the year with the following entry in his journal.
“Sunday, December 31--We renewed our covenant with God. We had the
largest company that I ever remember; perhaps two hundred more than we
had last year. And we had the greatest blessing. Several received
either a sense of the pardoning love of God, or power to love Him with
all their heart.”
Happy, happy old man! “I do not remember,” said he, only nine days
before the year 1780 was ended, “I do not remember to have felt
lowness of spirits for one quarter of an hour since I was born.”[380]
It only remains to notice Wesley’s publications in 1780; and this
shall be done as briefly as possible. His letters on popery, his
revised minutes of the conferences, and his Thoughts upon Behmen, have
been already mentioned. Besides these, there were--