[384] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 303.
[385] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 522.
[386] Ibid. p. 636.
[387] Ibid. 1782, p. 69.
[388] Original manuscript letter.
[389] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 8.
[390] _Methodist Magazine_, 1851, p. 556.
[391] Ibid, 1860, p. 379.
[392] Manuscript.
[393] _Methodist Magazine_, 1782, p. 331.
[394] Manuscript.
[395] Manuscript.
[396] Manuscript.
[397] Bradburn’s Memoirs, p. 47.
[398] Then at Colne, in the thirty-fourth year of his
itinerancy.
[399] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 138.
[400] “History of Methodism in Grantham.”
[401] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 475.
[402] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley; and _Methodist
Magazine_, 1828, p. 719.
[403] _Methodist Magazine_, 1844, p. 288.
[404] Manuscript letter by Miss March.
[405] Wesley’s Works, vol. iv., p. 207.
[406] _Methodist Magazine_, 1807, p. 471; and Wesley’s
Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.
[407] _Methodist Magazine_, 1846, p. 452.
[408] Ibid. 1844, p. 562.
[409] Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 316.
[410] _Wesley Banner_, 1851.
[411] _Methodist Magazine_, 1829, p. 528.
[412] The following letter was written to Duncan Wright,
assistant in Yarm circuit, a few months later.
“LONDON, _November 24, 1781_.
“DEAR DUNCAN,--Surely you and I may speak freely
to each other; for we love one another. If George
Holder goes out, either you must keep his mother,
or she must go to the workhouse. You must not give
an exhortation to the bands, but encourage them
to speak. I would be much obliged to you if you
would (1) accept the key of the book room, and
immediately take the books into your own care; (2)
clip the wings of the local preachers, stewards,
and leaders, changing them as need requires; (3)
fix bands where they are wanting; (4) if James
Bogie is willing to remain single, let him travel;
(5) do not receive the blind man hastily, let him
be thoroughly tried first; (6) be of good courage,
and conquer everything. I am, dear Duncan, etc.,
JOHN WESLEY.”--(_Watchman_, Jan. 8, 1868.)
[413] _Methodist Magazine_, 1782, p. 153.
[414] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 232.
[415] Life of Hey.
[416] _Methodist Magazine_, 1848, p. 1055.
[417] Ibid.
[418] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 400.
1782.
Age 79
As usual, Wesley spent the first two months of the new year in London.
The most notable occurrence, during this period, was the institution
of a tract society,--the first that was ever formed. The Religious
Tract Society was originated in 1799; Wesley’s, seventeen years
previous to this. We have before us an original document printed in
1783, entitled, “A Plan of the Society, instituted in January, 1782,
to distribute Religious Tracts among the Poor.” The rules are three.
“1. Every member must subscribe half-a-guinea, a guinea, or more,
annually. 2. A proportionable quota of tracts shall be delivered
yearly to each subscriber, according to his subscription, and, as
nearly as possible, at prime cost, and carriage paid. 3. Every
subscriber shall have a right to choose his own tracts, if he please;
otherwise, he will receive a proportionable variety of the whole.”
After this follows a list of thirty tracts already printed, all of
them either written or published by Wesley. Then there is subjoined
the following: “An Extract of the Original Proposals.”
“I cannot but earnestly recommend this to all those who desire
to see true scriptural Christianity spread throughout these
nations. Men wholly unawakened will not take pains to read the
Bible. They have no relish for it. But a small tract may engage
their attention for half-an-hour; and may, by the blessing of
God, prepare them for going forward.
“JOHN WESLEY.
“LONDON, _January 25, 1782_.”
Though Wesley’s tract society does not now exist, in the form in which
it was instituted in 1782, it is a fact worth noting, that, in 1867,
Wesley’s book room, in City Road, sold not fewer than one million five
hundred and seventy thousand tracts, all printed and published by
itself;[419] and that the number of its distinct and separate tract
publications, in 1871, is not less than 1250.
We have said, the Methodist Tract Society was the first that was ever
formed. It is true that, in 1699, “The Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge” was founded; and, in 1750, “The Society for Promoting
Religious Knowledge among the Poor”; but, strictly speaking, neither
of these was a tract society. In this respect, as in others, Wesley
was a pioneer. As early as 1745, he speaks of “giving away some
thousands of little tracts among the common people”; and long before
1782, had written, and published, besides a large number of separate
and short sermons, at least scores of penny publications. And yet Mr.
Jones, the corresponding secretary of the Religious Tract Society, in
his jubilee volume of 700 pages, while professing to trace the origin
of tract distribution, entirely omits the name of Wesley, who saw the
value and the power of a tract more than fifty years before the
Religious Tract Society had a name. Was this intentional? We trust
not.
On Sunday, the 3rd of March, Wesley took coach for Bristol, where he
spent the next fortnight. He then started off on his long northern
journey. On his way, he called at Madeley, where “both Mr. and Mrs.
Fletcher complained, that, after all the pains they had taken, they
could not prevail on the people to join in society, no, nor even to
meet in class.” What the vicar and his new wife (Miss Bosanquet)
failed to do, Wesley accomplished. He preached two rousing sermons;
and “then desired those, who were willing to join together for
Christian fellowship, to call upon him and Mr. Fletcher after service.
Ninety-four persons did so: about as many men as women.” Wesley adds:
“We explained to them the nature of a Christian society, and they
willingly joined therein.”
Wesley then proceeded to Congleton, where “the Calvinists were
striving to make havoc of the flock”; and to Macclesfield, where he
spent Good Friday and Easter Sunday. On the former day, he preached
twice, in the Rev. David Simpson’s church; and, with his assistance,
administered the sacrament to about thirteen hundred persons; on the
latter day, he also preached twice in the same edifice; again
administered to eight hundred communicants; and, in the evening,
preached in the Methodist chapel, and held a lovefeast at which
sixteen or eighteen persons professed to live in the enjoyment of the
blessing of perfect love. “About forty,” says Hester Ann Rogers, in
the unpublished portion of her diary, “made a noble confession.” Among
these were herself, George Bradock, Joseph Roe, John Booby, T.
Ridgway, Joseph Norberry, Billy Sharpley, S. Bradshaw, and John
Goostry; the last of whom Wesley ordered to stand on the form, that
the people might hear him. “Mr. Wesley,” continues Mrs. Rogers, “kept
the lovefeast two hours, a thing which I never knew him do before; but
his soul was filled with thankfulness, for so many witnesses of
redeeming love and full salvation.”
It would be tedious to mention all the places Wesley visited. Suffice
it to say, that, at Ashton under Lyne, he preached in the new chapel,
which had the following inscription over the door: “Can any good come
out of Nazareth? Come and see!” At Oldham, “a whole troop of boys and
girls would not be contented till he shook each by the hand.” At St.
Helen’s, he preached in the house of Joseph Harris, who had removed
from Kingswood, “to take care of the copper works.” At Wigan, he “saw
an uncommon sight,--the preaching house filled, yea, crowded.” At
Epworth, there had been a marvellous revival. At Thorne, fifty had
found peace with God within two months. At Edinburgh, he was the guest
of Lady Maxwell, and visited her school of forty poor children, many
of whom were without shoes; but not a girl, in rags, was without her
ruffles. At Kelso, he fell, head foremost, down the stairs of Dr.
Douglas’s house, but mercifully escaped without serious injury.[420]
At York, he entered into his eightieth year, and wrote: “Blessed be
God! my time is not labour and sorrow. I find no more pain or bodily
infirmities than at five-and-twenty. This I still impute--(1) To the
power of God, fitting me for what He calls me to. (2) To my still
travelling four or five thousand miles a year. (3) To my sleeping,
night or day, whenever I want it. (4) To my rising at a set hour. (5)
To my constant preaching, particularly in the morning.”
Wesley reached London, after an absence of more than four months, on
July 20. Here he held his conference. He writes: “Friday, August 2, we
observed as a day of fasting and prayer for a blessing on the ensuing
conference; and I believe God clothed His word with power in an
uncommon manner throughout the week; so that, were it only on this
account, the preachers who came from all parts found their labour was
not in vain.”
Among other questions debated at this conference, was the sabbath.
Methodists, in some instances, visited barbers’ shops on Sundays; and,
in others, practised military exercises, as volunteers, or were
spectators of such exercises. This led the conference to enact, that
no members of society should have their hair dressed on Sundays; and
that, as far as possible, those barbers should be patronised who
observed the sabbath’s sanctity. It was further determined, that any
Methodist, who practised military exercises on the sabbath, as a
volunteer, should be expelled; and that any one who, after proper
admonition, continued a spectator of such sabbath drills should
undergo the same penalty. Though not absolutely forbidden, preachers
were recommended not to powder their hair, nor to wear artificial
curls. The weekly and quarterly contributions having been shamefully
neglected in many of the societies, the assistants and leaders were to
remind the people of the original rule, that “every member contributes
one penny weekly, (unless he is in extreme poverty,) and one shilling
quarterly.” Wesley adds: “_Money lovers_ are the pest of every
Christian society. They have been the main cause of destroying every
revival of religion. They will destroy _us_, if we do not put them
away. A man not worth a shilling enters our society. Yet he freely
gives a penny a week. Five years after, he is worth scores of pounds;
he gives a penny a week still. I must think this man covetous, unless
he assures me he bestows his charity some other way. For every one is
covetous, whose beneficence does not increase in the same proportion
as his substance.”
The most troublesome subject of discussion was the case of the Birstal
chapel. It was asked, “What can be done with regard to the preaching
house at Birstal?” Answer. “If the trustees still refuse to settle it
on the Methodist plan: 1. Let a plain statement of the case be drawn
up. 2. Let a collection be made throughout all England, in order to
purchase ground, and to build another preaching house as near the
present as may be.”
This was an important matter, on account of its involving one of
Methodism’s fundamental principles, namely, that the conference
_alone_ shall have the power of appointing preachers to preach in
Methodist chapels. This was the first time that the question was
fairly raised. It was seen, that the issue, either way, would be most
momentous. It affected not Birstal merely, but the whole Methodist
connexion; and not the present only, but the future. Great excitement
was created. The controversy, among other great results, led to the
drawing up and enrolment of Methodism’s Magna Charta, Wesley’s deed of
declaration, in 1784. Altogether, this was one of the most important
events in Wesley’s history; and, hence, a detailed account of it will
not be inappropriate.
The original chapel at Birstal was erected, under the auspices of John
Nelson, about the year 1751. By the deed of settlement, the right of
occupying the pulpit was given, first, to the two Wesleys in
succession, and then to Grimshaw of Haworth; but, after the decease of
these three ministers, the trustees were to elect their own preachers
monthly; and all such preachers, so long as they continued in this
office, were to preach in the chapel twice every Sunday, every
Christmas day, New Year’s day, and Good Friday, and also every
Thursday night, as had been, up to 1751, “usual and customary to be
done.”
Such was the substance of the obnoxious clause; which hitherto,
however, had created no difficulty.
In 1782, it was found necessary, either to enlarge the old chapel, or
to build a new one in its place. Contributions were given for this
purpose; but were not sufficient. It was ascertained, that the sum of
£350 additional would be required, and that eight of the intended
trustees would have to advance the money. To give them security, a
deed of transfer was prepared, in which John and Charles Wesley, for
the considerations therein mentioned, sold to certain specified
trustees the old premises, with the following agreements in reference
to the enlarged, or the new chapel, which was to be provided to meet
the growing necessities of the Birstal Methodists. 1. The trustees
advancing the £350 were to have, as their security, “the rents and
profits to arise from the hearers’ pews and seats.” 2. The new or
enlarged chapel was to be occupied, during their lifetime, by John and
Charles Wesley, or by those whom they might from time to time appoint.
3. After their death, the appointment of preachers, to preach in the
said chapel, was to be made by the trustees, and by “such members of
the Methodist society as had been classleaders for three years, within
the circumjacent villages of Birstal, Great Gomersal, Little Gomersal,
Birkenshaw, Adwalton, Drighlington, Batley, Carlinghow, and
Heckmondwike; or by the major part of such trustees and classleaders.”
Provided always, that the said preachers preach no other doctrine than
is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes upon the Old and New Testament;
that they preach in the said chapel twice every Sunday, and at least
one evening every week; and that they hold the said premises and
exercise the function of a preacher only during the goodwill and
pleasure of the major part of the aforesaid trustees and classleaders.
After this, followed a number of provisoes in reference to pew rents,
etc. (1) The rents were to be applied in keeping the premises in
repair. (2) In paying interest upon the debt of £350, at 5 per cent.
per annum. (3) In maintaining the preacher for the time being, for
which purpose, however, not more than £10 a year should be
appropriated, until after the whole of the £350 had been repaid; when,
after deducting for repairs and lasting improvements, the whole of the
clear rents and profits arising from the pews and seats should be
given “for and towards the maintenance and support of the preachers or
pastors for the time being of the said society at Birstal.” It was
further provided, that the appointment and removal of chapel stewards
should be vested in the preachers, trustees, and classleaders
aforesaid, or the major part of them, notice of their meetings for
such purpose, however, having to be publicly read to the congregation
on three successive Sunday evenings immediately preceding. Certain
rooms also in a dwelling house, on the premises, were to be at the use
of the stewards and leaders, for the purpose of transacting business
and meeting classes.
The above is an abstract of all the important points in the new trust
deed of 1782. That deed had attached to it the following signatures.
John Aspinall,
Joseph Bennett,
James Blackburn,
John Tempest,
Jonathan Brearley,
Benjamin Mallinson,
Anthony Williamson,
Nathaniel Harrison,
John White,
Joseph Nelson,
William Booth,
John Wesley,
Joseph Charlesworth,
Charles Gunson,
John Armitage,
Joseph Lee,
Thomas Crowther,
William Tempest,
Isaac Smith,
William Chadwick.
Wesley’s signature was witnessed by Thomas Briscoe and Alexander
Mather. The deed was dated May 14, 1782, and was enrolled on the 11th
of October following. It may be added, that, of the above signers,
Aspinall, Bennett, Blackburn, Tempest, Brierley, Williamson, Harrison,
White, Nelson, and Booth were old trustees; Mallinson, Charlesworth,
Gunson, Armitage, Lee, Crowther, W. Tempest, Smith, and Chadwick were
the new trustees.
The deed of 1782 was widely different from that of 1751, and, as the
vice chancellor ruled in 1854, so far as it purported to vary the
trusts of the latter deed, it was void and of no effect;[421] but it
still contained the obnoxious clause, giving power to other parties
than Wesley’s conference, to appoint the preachers. Wesley says, in a
letter to his brother, dated May 28, 1782:
“The trustees brought to me the deed, at Daw Green, which they
read over, and desired me to sign. We disputed upon it about an
hour. I then gave them a positive answer, that I would not sign
it; and, leaving them abruptly, went up into my room. At night,
a little before I went to bed, they came again, got round and
worried me down. But, I think, they cannot worry you. May you
not very properly write to Mr. Valton? ‘If the trustees will
settle the Birstal house on the Methodist plan, I will sign
their deed with all my heart; but, if they build a house for a
presbyterian meeting-house, I will not, dare not, have anything
to do with it.’”[422]
Wesley committed a mistake; but, be it borne in mind, that he was now
an old man of nearly eighty, and that Alexander Mather, and Thomas
Briscoe, the superintendents of the Leeds and Birstal circuits, were
participators in his folly.
In an unpublished letter to Samuel Bradburn, then stationed at
Bradford, Wesley wrote:
“LONDON, _November 9, 1782_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--I abhor the thought of giving to twenty men the
power to place or displace the preacher in their congregations.
How would he then dare to speak an unpleasing truth? And, if he
did, what would become of him? This must never be the case,
while I live, among the Methodists. And Birstal is a leading
case, the first of an avowed violation of our plan. Therefore,
the point must be carried for the Methodist preachers now or
never; and I alone can carry it, which I will, God being my
helper. You are not a match for the silver tongue, nor brother
Hopper. But do not, to please any of your new friends forsake
“Your true old friend,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Charles Wesley acted upon his brother’s advice. He entered into
correspondence with the Birstal reformers. In answer to their
objection, that “the present trustees _could not_ legally transfer any
of their power _to the conference_,” he asks: “Then how can they
transfer any of their power to the leaders?” He continues:
“You add,--‘As long as the conference appoints preachers with
candid impartiality, we doubt not their appointments will be
acquiesced in by the trustees and classleaders.’ But, according
to this deed, the conference has no more business than the
parliament to appoint preachers at all. To touch on one more
point. From the beginning of Methodism till now, the assistants
appointed the stewards in all societies; but this deed gives
the trustees and leaders this power; which they think is
‘_necessary_ to ensure the repayment of the £350 to be advanced
for the building.’ _Necessary!_ Not at all. How many thousand
pounds, advanced for buildings, have been paid within these
forty years, though all the stewards in England, Scotland, and
Ireland, have been hitherto appointed by my brother or the
assistants! You conclude your letter with a very just
observation: ‘the civil and religious rights of mankind have
seldom been promoted by the assemblies of ecclesiastics of any
denomination; and they never will be, unless they are composed
of men devoted to God, and dead to all the allurements of ease,
and avarice, and ambition.’ This is undoubtedly true; and this,
we humbly hope, is the real character of most (at least) of
those persons that meet in our assemblies. We hope, likewise,
that ‘their consultations will always be moderated by some wise
and truly religious man’; otherwise, that God will sweep away
the very name of Methodist from the earth. Upon the whole, I
cannot, I dare not sign that deed. I can have nothing to do
with it. If the house should, nevertheless, be built, and
settled upon that plan, I apprehend the consequence would be
this: 1. No Methodist preacher would ever preach in it. If any
did, the whole body would disclaim him. 2. My brother would
immediately set a subscription on foot for buying ground and
building another house. The trustees then might do what they
pleased with theirs.”[423]
This letter was written a week before the conference of 1782 was
opened; and was a reply to one written by James Carr, the trustees’
attorney, who, soon afterwards, addressed the following unpublished
letter to Mr. Charlesworth.
“MY GOOD FRIEND,--Having an insuperable aversion to _recite_ my
own simple performances, I here enclose a correct copy of my
letter to Mr. Charles Wesley.
“I know, that you and the other framers of the present trust
deed, were actuated by the _purest_, most _equitable_, and
_disinterested_ motives; and, therefore, in my address to Mr.
Wesley, I held myself bound, by every tie of justice, to
explain and enforce the _grounds_ and _reasons_ of your
conduct, with all the energy in my power. I hope, I have no
immodest opinion of my poor abilities, when I assert, that the
_reasons_, by me alleged, for modifying the deed, in the manner
described, cannot be fairly answered or refuted, by Mr. Mather,
or Mr. C. Wesley. Ingenuity may perplex, wit may ridicule,
sophistry may misinterpret, or prejudice may dislike a deed
framed contrary to _received systems_ or _opinions_. But when
it is calmly considered, that the poor, beneficent founders of
the preaching house had an undoubted right to settle it in what
manner they thought meet; that it would be _impious_, as well
as _illegal_, to abrogate their constitution; that you could
only modify and improve it in a way consistent with their
manifest intention; that the honour of religion required you to
make a legal and effectual provision for payment of a just
debt;--when these things, I say, are calmly considered, candour
must admit, every preacher of righteousness must acknowledge,
that the present trust deed is modelled with that rectitude and
propriety, which become Christian men.
“As nothing can discourage me when I am engaged in a righteous
cause, I mean to write again to Mr. Charles Wesley; and,
therefore, if I have omitted, in my former address, any topics
or arguments which occur to you or friends, I wish you would
specify them in _writing_; though I shall certainly now speak
to him more in a _professional_ style than in a religious one.
“Yours most sincerely,
“JAMES CARR.”
In the mean time, the new chapel was built, and Dr. Coke took up the
matter. The following also is a letter now for the first time
published. It was addressed to Mr. Charlesworth.
“BRISTOL, _October 18, 1782_.
“SIR,--There is but one argument, which you have used, which
appears to me to have any force in it against the many
uncontrovertible arguments, which I have urged on the other
side. It is this: is it not unjust, that the persons who have
advanced money on the building, which has been lately erected,
should lose that money, when they advanced it upon the word of
Mr. Wesley, and would not have advanced it on any other ground?
In answer to this, I observe, that, as I am in this business
the servant of the conference, and have invested in me a
discretionary power to act as I see occasion, I will,
therefore, remove this objection as far as justice, equity, and
my trust, will admit me to go. For this purpose, I promise and
engage, that the interest of the money, which has been lent on
the lately erected building, shall be regularly paid, either
out of the profits of that building, or out of the profits of
the building which is to be erected, or out of the profits of
both of them together, so long as the two Messrs. Wesley live;
and, after their decease, as long as the lately erected
building is at the disposal of the Methodist conference, and no
longer. Provided, that either of the chapels, or both of them
together, produce an income sufficient to pay the aforesaid
interest, after paying for the necessary repairs, and the £10
paid to the support of the preachers, be deducted. Provided,
also, that the debt _itself_ which has been already incurred,
remain upon the lately erected edifice, and upon that alone,--I
promise and engage, that the aforesaid interest shall be paid
to the creditors annually in preference to every other payment,
except the said necessary repairs, and £10 towards the support
of the preachers.
“I am, sir, your humble servant in the gospel,
“THOMAS COKE.”
Shortly after, Dr. Coke published a 12mo tract of 12 pages, entitled,
“An Address to the inhabitants of Birstal, and the adjacent villages.”
He relates how the attorney of the trustees obtained Wesley’s
signature to the deed. He states, that Charles Wesley had not signed,
and, he believed, never would. The “_amazing deed_” had been discussed
at the late conference, and had created just alarm; and he (Dr. Coke)
had been delegated to carry into execution the minute that was passed;
but, upon application to the trustees, he had “found the greatest part
of them determined to hold fast their unlimited and most dangerous
power.” He answers the objection, “Would it not be equally dangerous
to invest this power in the conference?” by saying, “No: for the plan
of settlement, adopted by the conference, ties them down to the
principles of religion at present held by the Methodists.” He relates,
that he had proposed to the trustees to submit the matter to the
arbitration of the attorney general, or some other eminent counsellor;
and had engaged that, if the opinion thus obtained was the same as
that of the trustees and Mr. Carr, “Birstal preaching house should be
considered an exempt case, and the trustees should be suffered quietly
to retain all the power which they had at present”; with the
understanding, on the other hand, that, if the legal opinion of the
arbitrator was, “that the surviving trustees, with the consent of the
original proprietor, and all the parties concerned, could resettle the
house on the Methodist plan, they would resettle it accordingly.” He
had also added, at another meeting, that, in such a case, he would
give a bond of five or six hundred pounds, that the trustees, who had
advanced the £350, should not only have their interest, but their
_principal_ paid them, in instalments of £50 per annum; and, further,
that he would engage, that all subscribers to the recently erected
building, “who signified their desire of having their money returned,
should have it returned to them within two years.” The trustees,
however, “obstinately refused to comply with this.”
Coke continues:
“Afterwards, another plan of reconciliation was proposed, by
one of themselves, to which we all consented, namely, that all
the trustees should bind themselves by a deed, that if they, or
the major part of them, should agree, after the demise of the
Messrs. Wesley, to choose an independent teacher, they should
be obliged to signify, this their intention, by three years’
notice to the conference, or to the moderator of the conference
for the time being; with a provision, that, if the preachers
were ever to desist from meeting in regular conference, as they
did at present, or to deviate from the grand Methodist plan on
which they at present act, then the full power should
immediately devolve upon the trustees, and they might, without
any previous notice whatever, choose an independent teacher.”
Such was the unanimous agreement. A rough draft of the intended deed
was made, and (_horresco referens!_) was brought, by the attorney of
the trustees, to Dr. Coke on the _Sunday_ following. On reading it,
Coke found a few words inserted, which upset the whole. It read: “If
the said trustees and leaders, or the major part of them, shall at any
time, _in their judgment, think_ that the said conference deviates
from the grand Methodist plan, then,” etc., “thus constituting
themselves judges in their own cause.” Dr. Coke objected to this; and
they seemed willing to give it up; but “desired that another meeting
might be held on the following Sunday! at which all the leaders might
be present, that their consent might also be procured.” The conference
representative agreed to this; Sunday came; and the trustees and
leaders “would not move a single step.”
Such had been the negotiations, and such was the state of affairs,
when Dr. Coke published his pamphlet in November, 1782. He makes an
appeal “to the congregation, and to the society,” and concludes with
the following prayer: “O Thou Lover of concord and Prince of peace,
keep these little ones under Thy fostering wing. Preserve them from
the silken tongued sycophant, the sly deceiver, who seeks his own, and
not the things of Jesus Christ. Hide them for a little moment in the
chambers of Thy love, till this and every indignation be overpast.
Keep them close to the bleeding side of Jesus, and close to the
affectionate hearts of their faithful pastors for ever.”
What more was done? Two months after this, on January 3, 1783, Wesley
issued a folio circular, entitled, “The Case of the Birstal
House.”[424] This all can read for themselves in Wesley’s collected
works (vol. xiii., p. 260). Suffice it to say, that the reasons
assigned by Wesley, why neither the Birstal, nor any other Methodist
chapel, should be settled according to the Birstal deed, were: (1) It
would put an end to itinerant preaching, for when the trustees got a
preacher whom they liked, they would keep him. (2) It would put a
bridle in the preacher’s mouth; for how would he dare to speak the
full and the whole truth, when he was liable to lose his bread? (3)
“The power of the trustees was greater than that of any nobleman; yea,
or of the king himself. Where he is patron, he can _put in_ a
preacher, but he cannot _put him out_.” He concludes: “No Methodist
trustees, if I can help it, shall, after my death, any more than while
I live, have the power of _placing_ and _displacing_ the preachers.”
So the thing went on. A case was submitted to Mr. John Maddocks,
barrister, for his opinion, as to the possibility of legally making
such an alteration in trust deeds, as was desired in the Birstal case.
His opinion, dated “Lincoln’s Inn, July 24, 1783,” is before us, and
is to the effect, that such an alteration might be made. On the 5th of
September following, Wesley met the nineteen trustees, and offered to
allow the same clause to be inserted in a new deed as was inserted in
the deed of the chapel in City Road, namely, “In case the doctrine or
practice of any preacher should, in the opinion of the major part of
the trustees, be not conformable to Mr. Wesley’s Sermons and Notes on
the New Testament, on representing this, another preacher shall be
sent within three months.” Five of the trustees were willing to accept
of this; the rest refused.
In an unpublished letter, written by Dr. Coke, and addressed to Mr.
Benson, only ten days after this interview, there are some other
particulars given. Wesley first told the trustees, he wished their
chapel to be settled according to the Methodist plan contained in the
minutes of conference. He then offered to allow the clause to be
inserted which has just been mentioned; adding, “this was never
allowed to any trustees before, and never shall again while I live.”
He further offered to relieve the trustees of their £350 debt,
promising to give £100 himself, and saying, “This I do, because I love
you, and for old acquaintance sake.” And he further promised to make
them a present of the piece of ground which Dr. Coke had purchased for
the site of another chapel. The names of the five consenting trustees
were, Nathaniel Harrison, Anthony Williamson, John Aspinall, Joseph
Bennett, and James Blackburn.[425]
The dissentient trustees took time to think. On September 25, 1783,
Christopher Hopper wrote to one of them, Mr. Charlesworth, in a
somewhat ambiguous style, as follows.
“MY VERY DEAR JOSEPH,--It gives me pleasure to hear that you
were so well satisfied with Mr. Wesley’s temper and conduct;
and I am glad to hear you behaved so well. Solemn conference!
Great expectations! Grand overture! But alas! no decision!
Mortifying indeed! I still wish we never had given you any
trouble, but patiently waited the event. But, if you are
determined to stand your ground after this meeting, I cannot
tell what the consequence will be. Great grace be on you all!
“C. HOPPER.”[426]
Reflection often brings wisdom. On the 13th of January, 1784, Mr.
Charlesworth wrote to Wesley, saying, that his offer would now be
accepted. He says, with a Yorkshire keenness, which smacks of
avarice--
“We cannot but acknowledge your goodness in promising the land,
and the money towards paying our debt, which will be two very
convenient articles at this place, as we are in great want of
both.
“I am, reverend and dear sir, for and on behalf of the
trustees,
“Yours very affectionately,
“JOSEPH CHARLESWORTH.”[427]
The result was, a new deed was made, giving the conference power to
appoint preachers; and this serious hubbub, _pro tem._, subsided. We
shall soon have to recur to the same subject; and this apparently long
and tedious digression may serve as an introduction to what will have
to be said hereafter. The controversy was the first battle fought for
restricting, or rather for setting aside, an ecclesiastical power,
which has grown to be the greatest exercised by any church throughout
the whole of the Christian world; and perhaps, on this ground, the
writer will be pardoned for trespassing on the reader’s patience; and
especially as many of the incidents are now for the first time
published.[428]
We return to Wesley. Of course, the dispute at Birstal led to much
unpleasantness; but Wesley was firm in maintaining discipline. Hence
the following, addressed to Mr. Valton, then one of the Birstal
preachers.
“_June 18, 1782._
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot allow J---- S---- to be any longer
a leader; and, if he will lead the class, whether I will or no,
I require you to put him out of our society. If twenty of his
class will leave the society too, they must. The first loss is
the best. Better forty members should be lost, than our
discipline be lost. _They are no Methodists, that will bear no
restraints._ Explain this at large to the society.
“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[429]
Wesley’s clerical friends were now regularly and constantly
increasing. He had, to some extent, outlived their _brotherly_
persecution. They began to appreciate his motives and his services;
and, so far from hooting and hissing him, began to greet him, to court
his company, and to ask his counsel. Among others of this description
may be mentioned the Rev. Thomas Davenport, who was now in his
sixtieth year, but had only recently found peace with God, and that
principally through Wesley’s help.[430] Wesley wrote to him as
follows.
“BRISTOL, _August 14, 1782_.
“DEAR SIR,--It would have given me a good deal of satisfaction
to have had a little conversation with you. But I do not stay
long in one place. I have no resting place on earth:
‘A poor wayfaring man,
I dwell in tents below,
Or gladly wander to and fro,
Till I my Canaan gain.’
“You would have been very welcome at our conference. Mr. Pugh
and Mr. Dodwell[431] were present at it; and, I believe, are
more determined than ever to spend their whole strength in
saving their own souls, and them that hear them.
“I believe, that one of our preachers, who are stationed in the
Leicester circuit, will call upon you at Alexton; and I make no
doubt but some of the seed which you have been long sowing will
then grow up. No one should wish or pray for persecution. On
the contrary, we are to avoid it, to the uttermost of our
power. ‘When they persecute you in one city, flee unto
another.’ Yet, when it does come, notwithstanding all our care
to avoid it, God will extract good out of evil.
“To-morrow I am to set out for Cornwall. In about three weeks,
I expect to be here again. In the beginning of October, I
generally move towards London; in the neighbourhood of which I
usually spend the winter.
“I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[432]
The day after this letter was written, Wesley set out westwards. On
reaching Exeter, where his old antagonist, Bishop Lavington, once
resided, he met with a most friendly welcome; and, by invitation,
dined on the Sunday, with the bishop, in his palace, five other
clergymen and four of the aldermen of Exeter being present besides
himself. Arriving at Plymouth, Wesley preached in the Square, and,
while doing so, a regiment of soldiers, with military music, marched
into it. No sooner, however, did the commanding officer perceive the
preacher, than he stopped the music, and drew up his men to listen.
“They were all still as night;” says Wesley, “nor did any of them
stir, till I had pronounced the blessing.”
In Cornwall, he found an old clerical friend at the point of death,
the Rev. Mr. Thompson, rector of St. Gennis. It was now thirty-seven
years since Wesley first preached in Mr. Thompson’s church, and,
throughout the whole of that period, they had been faithful friends.
The dying rector wished once more to see his old acquaintance. Wesley,
borrowing the best horse he could find, and riding as fast as he was
able, says: “I found Mr. Thompson just alive, but quite sensible. He
had many doubts concerning his final state, and rather feared, than
desired, to die; so that my whole business was to comfort him, and to
increase and confirm his confidence in God. He desired me to
administer the Lord’s supper, which I willingly did; and I left him
much happier than I found him, calmly waiting till his change should
come.”
While riding to see his friend, Mr. Thompson, Wesley was accosted by
an old acquaintance of another sort. He writes: “On the way, I met
with a white headed old man, who caught me by the hand, and said,
‘Sir, do you not know me?’ I answered, ‘No.’ He said, ‘My father, my
father! I am poor John Trembath.’ I desired him to speak to me in the
evening at Launceston; which he did. He was, for some time, reduced to
extreme poverty, so as to hedge and ditch for bread; but, in his
distress, he cried unto God, who sent him an answer of peace. He,
likewise, enabled him to cure a gentleman that was desperately ill,
and afterwards several others; so that he grew into reputation, and
gained a competent livelihood. ‘And now,’ said he, ‘I want for
nothing: I am happier than ever I was in my life.’”
Who was John Trembath? One of Wesley’s first itinerants, who commenced
his ministry in 1743, and, for several years, laboured with diligence
under Wesley’s direction,[433]--a man of great eloquence and
zeal,[434]--a burning and shining light, and a workman who, at one
time, according to Wesley, had no need to be ashamed,[435]--a preacher
not deep, and yet so popular as to be almost idolised by the
people;[436] but who, alas! for the last twenty years, had sunk into
an extreme of sin, and shame, and misery. Naturally vain, the
applauses of the people spoiled him. He became bouncing, and boastful,
and not always truthful. He married, gave up reading, turned to
farming, and kept company with men who had just wit enough to “talk of
bullocks,” and to “smoke, drink, and flatter him.” He became a
sportsman, and was suspected of smuggling.[437] His career was almost
a romance. But now, to use Wesley’s language, “John Trembath was alive
again.”[438] A month after the strange interview above related,
Trembath wrote to Wesley: “Though God has forgiven me, yet I cannot
forgive myself for the precious time I have wasted, the years I have
lost, and the glorious harvest I have neglected.”[439] Poor Trembath
died of paralysis, at Cork, about the year 1793.[440]
Such were the old friends whom Wesley met in Cornwall. Getting back to
Bristol, on September 6, he found a new one, young, but warm hearted,
honest, and faithful. Adam Clarke, just emerging out of his teens, had
arrived from Ireland. He had travelled from Birmingham to Bristol upon
a penny loaf and a halfpennyworth of apples; and had just three
halfpence left when he got to Kingswood school. He met with a
reception from Simpson, the head master, as frigid as cold heartedness
could make it. Simpson’s stupid, imperious wife made bad things worse,
by suspecting that the young Irishman might be afflicted with the
itch, and by making him rub himself from head to foot with Jackson’s
ointment. This “infernal unguent,” as Adam calls it, made him smell
worse than a polecat. His only sustenance was bread and milk; and not
enough of that. For more than three weeks, no one performed any kind
act for him. As for Mrs. Simpson, he feared her as he feared the
devil. At length, Wesley arrived from Cornwall; Clarke was introduced;
Wesley laid his hands upon his head, and spent a few minutes in
beseeching God to bless him; and then gave him his commission to
proceed to Wiltshire as a Methodist preacher. Fifty years after this,
Adam Clarke died in London,--an old itinerant preacher, without a spot
on the fair escutcheon of his character,--one of the most extensively
learned scholars of the age,--a voluminous author,--the friend of
philosophers and princes,--and a man intensely beloved by nearly all
who knew him.
Wesley left Bristol for London on October 7, and, on his way, preached
at Newport in the Isle of Wight. He writes: “This place seems now ripe
for the gospel, opposition is at an end.”
At, Newport the first Methodist preaching place was a room in Node
Hill; and the opposition, referred to by Wesley, consisted of the
beating of drums, tin kettles, and bells; the throwing of rotten eggs,
sticks, and stones; sparrows let loose in the room for the purpose of
putting out the lights; and covering the chimney top and fastening the
door, in order to stifle the imprisoned worshippers. It was at
Newport, that Robert Wallbridge heard Wesley preach; was converted;
became a Methodist; and a Methodist local preacher. Elizabeth
Wallbridge, his sister, was now a light haired, ruddy faced, and merry
hearted girl, of twelve years old. Of scholastic learning she had but
a slender share; and had to earn her bread as a household servant. She
had a high flow of spirits, vanity, and ready wit, and was
inordinately fond of dress. Elizabeth was converted under the ministry
of James Crabb, a Methodist preacher, became a Methodist herself, and
continued such to the end of life. Her father joined the church
presided over by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman, who published an account of
him, in a well written tract, a short time before he set sail on his
mission to the South Sea islands. Elizabeth’s brother Robert, for more
than forty years, was a Methodist local preacher, and died at Newport
in 1837. Elizabeth herself died, at the age of thirty-one, in the year
1801; the Rev. Legh Richmond visited her in her last moments; and
afterwards wrote her life, with the title of “The Dairyman’s
Daughter,” omitting to state, however, that his heroine was a
Methodist. Millions of copies of that publication have been
circulated; it has been translated into, at least, thirty languages;
and, thirty years ago, it had been the means of the conversion of
three hundred and fifty persons.[441]
Wesley reached London on October 11. Here, and in eight or nine of the
southern counties of England, he spent, according to his custom, the
remainder of the year.
His publications, in 1782, were few in number.
1. An Extract from his Journal, from January 1, 1776, to August 5,
1779. 12mo, 112 pages.