[444] _The Wesleyan_, Sept. 9, 1846.
[445] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiv., p. 343.
[446] Manuscript letter.
[447] Mrs. Rogers’ Life, p. 473.
[448] Life of Brooke, p. 100.
[449] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 141.
[450] _Methodist Magazine_, 1851, p. 313.
[451] The Fergusons, father and son, were notable persons.
Mr. Ferguson, sen., was a well known local preacher
for upwards of sixty years; Jonathan, his son, was
a friend, and sometimes the travelling companion,
of John Howard the philanthropist. He was a hearty
Methodist, a happy Christian, and, at the age of
eighty, died a triumphant death, at Islington, in
1844.--(_Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 292.)
[452] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 358.
[453] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 60.
[454] Ibid. p. 60.
[455] Simpson was a man of learning and piety, but too
easy for his situation. On leaving Kingswood, he
wished to become an itinerant preacher, but set up a
school at Keynsham, where his son ultimately was made
vicar. Bayley was a good Hebrew scholar, became a
doctor of divinity, had a church, St. James’s, built
for him in Manchester, and was highly respected for
his piety, usefulness, and high church principles.
De Boudry began a school on Kingsdown, Bristol, and
long bore the character of a pious, steady, honest
man. Bond was affectionate, but not talented, and
aspired to become a clergyman. Such is the testimony
of Adam Clarke; and it is only fair to give it as
a counterpoise to the discreditable state of the
Kingswood school committed to their care.
[456] Minutes of Conference, 1783.
[457] “Life of Adam Clarke,” in three vols., 1833, vol. i.,
pp. 153-168.
[458] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 1.
[459] Manuscript letter.
[460] _Methodist Magazine_, 1817, p. 324.
[461] _Methodist Magazine_, 1817, p. 324.
[462] Coke’s Life, by Drew, p. 167.
[463] Black’s Memoirs, p. 99.
[464] Black’s Memoirs, p. 109.
[465] _Methodist Magazine_, 1816, p. 832.
[466] _Methodist Magazine_, 1863, sixpenny edition, p. 1.
[467] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 389.
[468] _Methodist Magazine_, 1830, p. 657.
[469] The names were: Henry Robinson, Mary Robinson,
Charles Machin, John Smith, Ann Stockdale, William
Holding, Sarah Holding, John Rowland, Sarah Jervis,
Thomas Smith, Elizabeth Smith, John Ward, Ann
Ward, John Kelsall, Thomas Elley, and William
Freepound.--(Burslem old circuit book.)
[470] Everett’s Life of Clarke.
[471] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 390.
1784.
Age 81
Dr. Whitehead calls the year 1784 “the grand _climacteric_ year of
Methodism, because of the changes which now took place in the form of
its _original_ constitution. Not,” says he, “that these changes
destroyed at once the _original_ constitution of Methodism; but the
seeds of its corruption and final dissolution were this year solemnly
planted, and have since been carefully watered and nursed by a
powerful party among the preachers.”[472] The doctor was an able man;
but he can scarcely be called a prophet. Of course, he refers to
Wesley’s deed of declaration, and Wesley’s ordination of bishops for
America; both of which must have due attention, before we conclude the
present year.
Wesley himself, according to his own correspondence, seemed to grow
younger as he grew older. In a letter to “the Rev. Walter Sellon, at
Ledsham, near Ferrybridge, Yorkshire,” and dated, “London, January 10,
1784,” he writes:
“On the 28th of last June, I finished my eightieth year. When I
was young, I had weak eyes, trembling hands, and abundance of
infirmities. But, by the blessing of God, I have outlived them
all. I have no infirmities now, but what I judge to be
inseparable from flesh and blood. This hath God wrought. I am
afraid you want the grand medicine which I use,--exercise and
change of air.”[473]
On the same day, he wrote another letter, now also, like the former,
for the first time published. Methodism had recently been introduced,
by a company of soldiers, into the Channel islands; and Mr. Robert
Carr Brackenbury, with his servant, Alexander Kilham, had gone to
promote its interests. The letter was addressed, “Robert Carr
Brackenbury, Esq., in St. Heliers, Isle of Jersey.”
“LONDON, _January 10, 1784_.
“DEAR SIR,--While those poor sheep were scattered abroad,
without any shepherd, and without any connection with each
other, it is no wonder that they were cold and dead. I am glad
you have gathered a few of them together, and, surely, if
prayer be made concerning it, God will provide you with a
convenient place to meet in. Perhaps an application to the
gentlemen, who have hired the ballroom, might not be without
success.
“’Tis pity but you had the ‘Earnest Appeal’ to present to the
governor, as well as the minister. I trust both you and our
newly connected brethren will overcome evil with good. We can
easily print the rules here, and send them down with some other
books. ’Tis good that every one should know our whole plan. We
do not want any man to go on blindfold. Peace be with your
spirit!
“I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend,
“J. WESLEY.”
The first two months of 1784 were chiefly spent in London, with the
exception of a flying visit to Colchester, and another to Nottingham;
Wesley’s errand to the last mentioned place being to “preach a charity
sermon for the general hospital.” He had a grand covenant service in
City Road chapel, attended by upwards of eighteen hundred people. He
took counsel with the London preachers, as to the desirability of the
Methodists sending missionaries to India. He read “Orlando Furioso,”
and says, “Ariosto had, doubtless, an uncommon genius, and subsequent
poets have been greatly indebted to him; yet, it is hard to say, which
was the most out of his senses, the hero or the poet. He has not the
least regard even to probability; his marvellous transcends all
conception. Who, that is not himself out of his senses, would compare
Ariosto with Tasso?”
On the 1st of March, the venerable Wesley,--as agile as a boy, above
fourscore years of age, and yet reading the Italian poet with all the
zest of a youth still at school,--set out on a seven months’ journey,
first to Bristol, then to Scotland, then to Leeds, then through Wales
to the west of England, and then to London, which he reached on
October 9. With a hasty step, we must try to follow him.
Wesley, as opportunity permitted, “intermeddled with all wisdom,” and,
to the end of life, showed, that a man is never too old to learn. At
Bradford, in Wiltshire, he says: “I was convinced of two vulgar
errors; the one, that nightingales will not live in cages; the other,
that they only sing a month or two in the year. Samuel Rayner has now
three nightingales in cages; and they sing almost all day long, from
November to August.”
At Stroud, he wrote: “Here, to my surprise, I found the morning
preaching was given up, as also in the neighbouring places. If this be
the case while I am alive, what must it be when I am gone? Give up
this, and Methodism too will degenerate into a mere sect, only
distinguished by some opinions and modes of worship.”
Wesley considered, that preaching at five o’clock in the morning was
the healthiest exercise in the world; and probably he was not far from
being right. But besides this, these early matutinal services had now,
for five-and-forty years, been one of the things which made the
Methodists “a _peculiar_ people,” as well as “zealous of good works.”
No other church or community, in England, had a service like this. It
was a religious ordinance which Wesley dearly loved. In thousands of
instances, he and his friends had proved the words, “Those that seek
Me _early_ shall find Me.” No wonder then, that he evinced alarm when
he found the Methodists giving up the morning services. Three weeks
after he was at backslidden Stroud, he came to Chester, and expressed
himself in the strongest terms on this subject. He writes:
“I was surprised, when I came to Chester, to find that there
also morning preaching was quite left off, for this worthy
reason: ‘Because the people will not come, or, at least, not in
the winter.’ If so, the Methodists are a fallen people. Here is
proof. They have ‘lost their first love’; and they never will
or can recover it, till they ‘do the first works.’ As soon as I
set foot in Georgia, I began preaching at five in the morning;
and every communicant, that is, every serious person in the
town, constantly attended throughout the year; I mean, came
every morning, winter and summer, unless in the case of
sickness. They did so till I left the province. In the year
1738, when God began His great work in England, I began
preaching at the same hour, winter and summer, and never wanted
a congregation. If they will not attend now, they have lost
their zeal; and then, it cannot be denied, they are a fallen
people. And, in the meantime, we are labouring to secure the
preaching houses to the next generation! In the name of God,
let us, if possible, secure the present generation from drawing
back to perdition! Let all the preachers, that are still alive
to God, join together as one man, fast and pray, lift up their
voice as a trumpet, be instant, in season, out of season, to
convince them that are fallen; and exhort them instantly to
‘repent, and do the first works’: this in particular,--rising
in the morning, without which neither their souls nor bodies
can long remain in health.”
Perhaps this was looking at the thing too seriously. That early
morning service is highly profitable cannot reasonably be called in
question; but, that it should begin at the hour of five may fairly be
disputed. Early risers are persons to be envied; they breathe the
purest air, listen to the sweetest songs, and have promptings to
worship God that the sluggard never feels.
At Tewkesbury, Wesley had to correct the “impropriety of standing at
prayer, and sitting while singing praise.” At Worcester, he “preached,
to a crowded audience, in St. Andrew’s church.” At Madeley, he
preached twice in the parish church, revised the vicar’s letters to
Dr. Priestley, and declared, that there was hardly another man in
England, so fit to encounter the great Socinian philosopher as his
friend from the mountains of Switzerland. At Stafford, he preached, to
“a small company, in a deplorable hole, formerly a stable.” At Lane
End, near Newcastle under Lyne, in the face of one of the most
piercing winds of the month of March, he preached, by moonlight, in
the open air, the congregation being four times larger than the chapel
could contain. At Burslem, also, for the same reason, he was obliged
to abandon the chapel for the field. At Manchester, on Easter Sunday,
he had “near a thousand communicants”; Thomas Taylor says, twelve
hundred.[474]
Thus he employed himself all the way to Whitehaven, where he “had all
the church ministers” to hear him, “and most of the gentry in the
town”; and, to his evident surprise, “they all behaved with as much
decency as if they had been colliers.” At Edinburgh, he writes: “I am
amazed at this people. Use the most cutting words, and apply them in
the most pointed manner, still they _hear_, but _feel_ no more than
the seats they sit upon.” Throughout Scotland, morning preaching and
prayer-meetings had almost vanished. “At Aberdeen,” he writes, “I
talked largely with the preachers, and showed them the hurt it did
both to them and the people, for any one preacher to stay six or eight
weeks together in one place. Neither can he find matter for preaching
every morning and evening, nor will the people come to hear him.
Hence, he grows cold by lying in bed, and so do the people. Whereas,
if he never stays more than a fortnight together in one place, he may
find matter enough, and the people will gladly hear him. The preachers
immediately drew up such a plan for this circuit, which they
determined to pursue.”
From Aberdeen, Wesley went, by invitation, to Lady Banff’s at Old
Meldrum, where he preached twice; and thence to Keith, where he had a
congregation to his heart’s content, all the people poor, and “not a
silk coat among them.” At Forres, he was the guest of Sir Lodowick
Grant. In making his way to Inverness, by the mistake of his coachman,
he had to trudge, through heavy rain, twelve miles and a half on foot,
but says, he “was no more tired” than when he first set out. At Elgin,
he preached in the church, and significantly remarks: “I do not
despair of good being done even here, provided the preachers be ‘sons
of thunder.’” At Newburgh, he found “the liveliest society in the
kingdom.” At Melval House, “the grand and beautiful seat of Lord
Leven,” he was hospitably entertained by the countess and her family,
and, at their desire, preached from, “It is appointed unto men once to
die.” Here, also, he wrote his “Thoughts on Nervous Disorders.” His
next halting place was at Lady Maxwell’s, “who appeared to be clearly
saved from sin, although exceedingly depressed by the tottering
tenement of clay.”
After thus visiting most of the important towns in Scotland, Wesley
reached Newcastle, where, on Whitsunday, he preached thrice to large
congregations. A week later, he again set out, on his unwearied
mission; and, at Stockton, “found an uncommon work of God among the
children,” upwards of sixty of whom, from the age of “six to fourteen,
were under serious impressions, and earnestly desirous to save their
souls.” He writes: “As soon as I came down from the desk, I was
enclosed by a body of children; all of whom sunk down upon their
knees: so I kneeled down myself, and began praying for them.”
Beautiful picture this, well worth painting! No wonder that he adds:
“abundance of people ran back into the house. The fire kindled, and
ran from heart to heart, till few, if any, were unaffected. Is not
this a new thing in the earth? God begins His work in children. Thus
it has been also in Cornwall, Manchester, and Epworth. Thus the flame
spreads to those of riper years; till at length they all know Him, and
praise Him from the least unto the greatest.”
Having visited the “dales,” Darlington, Northallerton, Thirsk,
Osmotherley, and other places, he made his way to Whitby, where he
wrote: “The society here may be a pattern to all in England. They
despise all ornaments but good works, together with a meek and quiet
spirit. I did not see a ruffle, no, nor a fashionable cap among them;
though many of them are in easy circumstances. About forty had a clear
witness of being saved from inbred sin; and seemed to walk in the full
light of God’s countenance.”
At Scarborough, Wesley attended church, and was regaled with one of
the bitterest sermons he ever heard. “So,” says he, “all I have done,
to persuade the people to attend the church, is overturned at once!
And all who preach thus will drive the Methodists from the church, in
spite of all that I can do.” Two years after this, in a letter to his
brother, he wrote: “The last time I was at Scarborough, I earnestly
exhorted our people to go to church; and I went myself. But the
wretched minister preached such a sermon, that I could not in
conscience advise them to hear him any more.”[475]
From Scarborough, Wesley proceeded along the east coast to Hull;
thence to Pocklington and York; and thence to Epworth, where he spent
his birthday, and preached in the market place of the town, whose
church, for nine-and-thirty years, had been blessed with the able and
faithful ministry of his honoured father. He writes: “June 28--To-day
I entered on my eighty-second year, and found myself just as strong to
labour, and as fit for any exercise of body or mind, as I was forty
years ago. I do not impute this to second causes, but to the sovereign
Lord of all. It is He who bids the sun of life stand still, so long as
it pleaseth Him. I am as strong at eighty-one, as I was at twenty-one;
but abundantly more healthy, being a stranger to the headache,
toothache, and other bodily disorders which attended me in my youth.
We can only say, ‘The Lord reigneth!’ While we live, let us live to
Him!”
Having spent a week in visiting the Lincolnshire societies, Wesley
proceeded to various towns in the west riding of Yorkshire; and
thence, for the first time, to Burnley. He writes: “Burnley had been
tried for many years, but without effect. Now, high and low, rich and
poor, flocked together from all quarters; and all were eager to hear,
except one man, who was the town crier. He began to bawl amain, till
his wife ran to him, and literally stopped his noise; she seized him
with one hand, and clapped the other upon his mouth, so that he could
not get out one word. God then began a work, which, I am persuaded,
will not soon come to an end.” Wesley’s words were verified.
Thomas Dixon, who was appointed to the Colne circuit in 1784, remarks,
in his unpublished diary: “The work of God at Burnley was very young;
but many, during this year, were converted. The great men of the place
were angry, and agreed to banish the Methodist preachers from the
town. The proprietor of the preaching house sent us notice to quit the
premises; and the rest of the gentlemen pledged themselves not to let
us have another. But about a month before the expiration of the
notice, the Lord converted a man, who had a house of his own, which he
opened to the preachers; and now we had a better preaching place than
we had before. Soon after a chapel was erected.” One of the first
members was John Eagin, who, for fifty years, maintained an unspotted
character; and died, in 1836, saying, “I am happy.”[476]
Leaving Burnley, Wesley went to Otley, where, marvellous to relate! he
had a two days’ rest. He then, on July 18, preached twice in Bingley
church, a great part of his congregation being obliged to stand
outside. He writes: “Before service, I stepped into the Sunday-school,
which contains two hundred and forty children, taught every Sunday by
several masters, and superintended by the curate. So many children, in
one parish, are restrained from open sin, and taught a little good
manners, at least, as well as to read the Bible. I find these schools
springing up wherever I go. Perhaps God may have a deeper end therein,
than men are aware of. Who knows but some of these schools may become
nurseries for Christians?”
This is Wesley’s first notice of Sunday-schools. Though such schools
had long existed in a few isolated cases, it was not until now that
they attracted public attention. Miss Ball’s Methodist Sunday-school
at High Wycombe has been already mentioned; and it has also been
stated, that Miss Cooke, a Methodist young lady (afterwards the wife
of Samuel Bradburn), was the first to suggest to Robert Raikes the
idea of instituting a Sunday-school at Gloucester. Raikes commenced
that school about the year 1783. At all events, his account of it was
dated Gloucester, June 5, 1784, and was published in the January
number of Wesley’s _Arminian Magazine_, for 1785, with the title, “An
Account of the Sunday Charity Schools, lately begun in various parts
of England.” Wesley was one of the first to catch and patronise the
Sunday-school idea. At Bingley, he visited the school before preaching
in the church, and gave to Sunday-schools one of their happiest
designations, “nurseries for Christians.” Similar institutions had
been begun in Leeds, where Wesley was about to hold his conference.
The town was already divided into seven divisions; and had twenty-six
schools, containing above two thousand scholars, taught by forty-five
masters. Each school commenced at one o’clock in the afternoon, the
children being taught reading, writing, and religion. At three, they
were taken to their respective churches; then conducted back to
school, where a portion of some useful book was read, a psalm sung,
and the whole concluded with a form of prayer, composed and printed
for that purpose. Boys and girls were kept separate. There were four
“inquisitors,” persons whose office it was to spend Sunday afternoon
in visiting the twenty-six schools, to ascertain who were absent, and
then in seeking the absentees at their homes or in the public streets.
The masters were mostly pious men, and were paid from one to two
shillings a Sunday for their services, according to their respective
qualifications. Each had a written list of his scholars’ names, which
he was required to call over, every Sunday, at half-past one, and
half-past five. Five clergymen visited the schools, and gave
addresses; and the expenses of the first year, ending in July 1784,
were about £234.
Such were the Sunday-schools at Leeds when Wesley, for the first time,
visited one in the neighbouring town of Bingley. Manchester also had
taken up Raikes’ Methodist idea; and, on the 1st of August, 1784,
Wesley’s old friend, the Rev. Cornelius Bayley, D.D., who for ten
years had been one of the masters of Kingswood school, but was now an
ordained clergyman in this important city, published an “Address to
the Public on Sunday-Schools,” in which he gave an account of the
schools at Leeds, and urged the men of Manchester to copy so excellent
an example. Bayley’s address produced a powerful effect; the
magistrates patronised his scheme; and the result was, that Cornelius
Bayley, D.D., the quondam Methodist, and master of Wesley’s Kingswood
school, became one of the chief, though not only, instruments of
establishing Sunday-schools in Manchester and its neighbourhood.[477]
After visiting some of the intermediate towns and villages, Wesley
arrived at Leeds, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He
writes:
“July 25, Sunday--I preached to several thousands at Birstal,
and to, at least, as many at Leeds. July 27, Tuesday--Our
conference began; at which four of our brethren, after long
debate (in which Mr. Fletcher took much pains) acknowledged
their fault, and all that was past was forgotten. July 29,
Thursday--Being the public thanksgiving day, as there was not
room for us in the old church, I read prayers, as well as
preached, at our room. Having five clergymen to assist me, we
administered the Lord’s supper, as was supposed, to sixteen or
seventeen hundred persons. August 1, Sunday--We were fifteen
clergymen at the old church. August 3, Tuesday--Our conference
concluded in much love, to the great disappointment of all.”
Such are Wesley’s brief notices of this momentous conference. Some
additional incidents must be added. The war of American independence
was now ended, and the day of public thanksgiving had reference to
that event. In the morning, at five, Thomas Hanby preached from, “My
grace is sufficient for thee.” Wesley’s text, previous to the almost
unparalleled sacramental service, was 1 Corinthians xiii. 1-4. The
five clergymen who assisted him were Messrs. Coke, Fletcher, Dillon,
Bayley, and Simpson. In the afternoon, the business of the conference
was resumed; and, at night, Wesley preached again, taking as his text,
“This is the first and great commandment.” Altogether, Wesley preached
not fewer than eight times during this important session, besides
regulating the ticklish and difficult business that had to be
transacted.[478]
The “long debate,” which Wesley mentions, had reference to the deed of
declaration, which must now have the best attention that space permits
us to give it.
At an early period of his history, Wesley published a model deed for
the settlement of chapels, to the effect, that the trustees, for the
time being, should permit Wesley himself and such other persons as he
might, from time to time, appoint, to have the free use of such
premises, to preach therein God’s holy word. In case of his death, the
same right was secured to his brother; and providing that his
brother’s decease occurred before that of William Grimshaw, the same
prerogatives were to belong to the last mentioned. After the death of
the three clergymen, the chapels were to be held, in trust, for the
sole use of such persons as might be appointed at the yearly
conference of the people called Methodists, provided, that the said
persons preached no other doctrines than those contained in Wesley’s
Notes on the New Testament, and in his four volumes of sermons.[479]
Thus the matter stood in 1784. According to Myles’ Chronological
History, there were, at this time, in the United Kingdom, three
hundred and fifty-nine Methodist chapels; and it may be fairly
presumed, that most of these were settled substantially according to
the provisions of the deed above mentioned.
Here it may be asked, what necessity was there for a further deed? The
answer is, that, as yet, there was no legal definition of what was
meant by the term “_conference_ of the people called Methodists.” To
supply this defect, Wesley, on the 28th of February, 1784, executed
his famous deed of declaration, which, a few days afterwards, was
enrolled in the high court of chancery. To use the language of the
deed itself, its object was “to explain the words, ‘yearly conference
of the people called Methodists,’ and to declare what persons are
members of the said conference, and how the succession and identity
thereof is to be continued.”
The document proceeds to state, that the said conference had always
consisted of Methodist preachers whom Wesley had annually invited to
meet him for the following purposes: namely, to advise with him for
the promotion of the gospel of Christ; to appoint the said preachers,
and other preachers and exhorters in connection with him, to the use
and enjoyment of chapels conveyed upon trust as aforesaid; to expel
unworthy preachers; and to admit others on probation.
The deed then gives the names and addresses of one hundred preachers,
who are now declared to be the members of the said conference; and
proceeds to state (1) That they and their successors, for the time
being for ever, shall assemble once a year. (2) That the act of the
majority shall be the act of the whole. (3) That their first business,
when they assemble, shall be to fill up vacancies. (4) That no act of
the conference assembled shall be valid unless forty of its members
are present. (5) That the duration of the yearly conference shall not
be less than five days, nor more than three weeks. (6) That,
immediately after filling up vacancies, they shall choose a president
and secretary of their assembly out of themselves. (7) That any member
of the conference, absenting himself from the yearly assembly thereof
for two years successively, without the consent or dispensation of the
conference, and who is not present on the first day of the third
yearly assembly thereof, shall forthwith cease to be a member, as
though he were naturally dead. (8) That the conference shall and may
expel any member thereof, or any person admitted into connection
therewith, for any cause which to the conference may seem fit or
necessary. (9) That they may admit into connection with them any
person, of whom they approve, to be preachers of God’s holy word,
under the care and direction of the conference. (10) That no person
shall be elected a member of the conference, who has not been admitted
into connection with the conference, as a preacher, for twelve months.
(11) That the conference shall not appoint any person to the use of a
chapel or chapels, who is not either a member of the conference, or
admitted into connection with the same, or upon trial; and that no
person shall be appointed for more than three years successively,
except ordained ministers of the Church of England. (12) That the
conference may appoint the place of holding the yearly assembly
thereof, at any other town, or city, than London, Bristol, or Leeds.
(13) That the conference may, when it shall seem expedient, send any
of its members as delegates to Ireland, or other parts out of the
kingdom of Great Britain, to act on its behalf, and with all the
powers of the conference itself. (14) That all resolutions and acts
whatsoever of the conference shall be written in the journals of the
conference, and be signed by the president and secretary thereof for
the time being. (15) That whenever the conference shall be reduced
under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced for three
years successively; or whenever the members thereof shall decline or
neglect to meet together annually during the space of three years, the
conference of the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and
all its powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease. (16) That
nothing in this deed shall extinguish or lessen the life estate of the
said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, in any of the
chapels in which they now have, or may have, any estate or interest,
power or authority whatsoever.
Such was Wesley’s deed of declaration,--a deed recognised in the trust
deeds of all the chapels that Methodism builds; and, hence, a deed
investing a hundred Methodist preachers with the unexampled power of
determining, irrespective of trustees, societies, and congregations,
who shall be the officiating ministers in the thousands of chapels
occupied by Methodist societies at home and abroad, throughout the
United Kingdom and throughout the world. We repeat, this is an
unexampled power; and the ministers, invested with it, ought to feel,
that they have a corresponding responsibility to God and to His
church. High is the honour; the responsibility is fearful. If
Methodism should ever fail in its duty, or fall to pieces, they, above
all men else, must bear the blame.
We purposely refrain from raising the vexed question about the kind of
church government, involved in this great settlement; and proceed to
notice the history of the deed of declaration, up to the time of its
being signed on February 28, 1784.
Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, states that,
from the year 1750, all Methodist chapels were settled according to
the provisions of the model deed that has been already mentioned; but
several of the “wisest and best preachers” were not satisfied, and,
from time to time, brought up the matter at the yearly conferences,
and earnestly urged Wesley to do something more to preserve the
chapels for the purpose which the original builders intended. Wesley
replied, that the trust deed in itself was quite sufficient; that it
had been drawn up by three of the most eminent counsellors in London;
and that, even supposing there might be some defect in it, no one
would be so mad as to go to law with an entire body of people like the
Methodists. Such reasoning failed to satisfy the preachers, especially
Messrs. Hampson and Oddie, both of whom, says Pawson, “were men of
remarkably deep understanding and sound judgment.” At length, Wesley
began to yield to the pressure that was brought upon him; and various
schemes were propounded to accomplish the purpose upon which men like
Hampson and Oddie had set their hearts. One was to consolidate all the
chapels in the connexion into a general trust, the trustees to be
chosen out of all the large societies throughout the three kingdoms.
Another was to have all the chapel deeds brought to London, and
deposited in a strong box, to be provided for the purpose; and, in
execution of this project, many were actually sent, and some were
thereby lost. All this occurred previous to Dr. Coke’s uniting himself
with Wesley; and, from Pawson’s testimony, we now turn to that of
Coke.
In his “Address to the Methodist Society in Great Britain and Ireland,
on the Settlement of Preaching Houses,” Coke relates that, at the
conference of 1782, the preachers seemed to be universally alarmed at
the danger arising from the want of a legal definition of what was
meant by the term, “the conference of the people called Methodists”;
and unanimously wished some method to be taken to remove a danger
which appeared to them to be pregnant with evils of the first
magnitude. In consequence of this, Coke took the opinion of Mr.
Maddox, one of the first counsel of the day, and ascertained, that the
law would not recognise the conference, without some further
definition; and, consequently, that there was nothing to preserve the
Methodist connexion from being shivered into a thousand fragments
after Wesley’s death. To prevent this, Mr. Maddox advised, that Wesley
should execute a deed, specifying the persons by name who composed the
conference, together with the mode of succession for its perpetuity.
Dr. Coke read Mr. Maddox’s opinion to the conference of 1783; and the
whole conference expressed their wish that such a deed should be drawn
up and executed. Coke immediately set to work, and, with the
assistance of Mr. Clulow, a solicitor, and Mr. Maddox, the barrister,
a draft of the deed was carefully prepared, and submitted to Wesley
for his approval. Coke’s opinion was, that every preacher, in full
connexion, should have his name inserted; and that admission into full
connexion should, in the future, be looked upon as admission into
membership with the conference. Wesley demurred to this, and
determined to limit the number of members to one hundred, and, without
any advice from Coke, made his own selections. In this form, the deed
was executed; and Coke sent copies of it to all the assistants of
circuits throughout the United Kingdom.[480]
We believe that this is, substantially, all that can be said
respecting the origin of what has been termed Methodism’s Magna
Charta.
What was the result? There were, at the conference of 1783, one
hundred and ninety-two preachers appointed to sixty-nine circuits,
throughout the three kingdoms. We have no hesitancy in saying, that we
think it would have been wise to have inserted the names of the whole
of these in the deed of declaration, with the exception of twenty-two,
who were still on trial, and not admitted into full connexion. All
seemed to have an equal right to this; and, thereby, all would have
been satisfied. Instead of this, Wesley proceeded to the invidious
task of selecting a hundred, and rejecting ninety-two. It was a
perilous experiment; and the peril was augmented by the mode in which
the experiment was made. For instance, sixteen were elected who had
travelled less than four years; whereas among the rejected were the
following.
Thomas Lee travelled 36 years.
John Atlay ” 21 ”
Joseph Thompson ” 25 ”
John Poole ” 25 ”
William Ashman ” 19 ”
Jonathan Hern ” 15 ”
William Eels ” 12 ”
Thomas Mitchell ” 36 ”
Joseph Pilmoor ” 19 ”
Besides, where was the fairness of choosing and refusing the following
preachers, who, at the time, were colleagues in the same circuit?
_Names of _Years _Names of Rejected._ _Years
Chosen._ standing._ standing._
Joshua Keighley 3 William Horner 13
Joseph Cole 3 Simon Day 17
Jonathan Cousins 3 Robert Empringham 21
William Green 3 John Hampson, sen. 31
Joseph Taylor 6 John Wittam 16
William Hoskins 1 John Watson 12
William Myles 6 ⎧ John Hampson, jun. 6
⎩ George Snowden 14
William Simpson 4 Thomas Johnson 31
James Wray 2 Thomas Wride 15
Henry Foster 3 George Mowat 13
Wesley doubtless had a right to make any selection that he liked; but
those who were not selected had an equal right to grumble; and we are
not surprised that, sooner or later, not fewer than nearly thirty of
the rejected withdrew from the connexion altogether.
John Pawson writes:
“Mr. Wesley, designedly or otherwise, left out the names of
several of the old and respectable preachers; and these good
men were exceedingly grieved and not without reason. Many of
the trustees also were alarmed, thinking that we wished to make
the chapels our own property; but nothing of the kind was ever
contemplated. The one design of the deed, to my certain
knowledge, was to prevent any preacher, who might be inclined
to settle, from taking possession of any of our chapels. The
preachers, whose names were inserted in the deed, so far from
being desirous to be distinguished above their brethren, very
cheerfully complied with Mr. Wesley’s desire, and gave up every
privilege granted to them in the deed, except that of electing
their own president and secretary, which appears to me to be a
matter of little consequence.”[481]
There can be no question, that the deed of declaration occasioned
great excitement. John Hampson, jun., says:
“Every itinerant had always considered himself as a member of
conference; and, hence, when the ninety-one, who were to be
excluded, saw the deed, it was with astonishment and
indignation. The injustice of the thing stared them in the
face; and they found that, in consenting to such a deed, they
had consented, that all the affairs of the connexion should be
lodged in the hundred mentioned in the declaration; that they
should be the lords and rulers of the rest; and should have it
in their power to turn any other preacher out of the
conference, and tell him he had no business there. The
exclusion itself was both an iniquitous and a mortifying
measure. But the partiality of it rendered it still more
oppressive. Some of the oldest and ablest preachers, in the
connexion, were excluded. Many of the selected members were not
only deficient in abilities, but some of them, at the time of
their insertion in the deed, were only upon trial; while the
chief qualifications of others were ignorance, fanaticism, and
ductility. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder if the
persons excluded thought themselves aggrieved. They were really
so, and they made no scruple to declare their sentiments. They
sent circular letters, inviting all the preachers to canvass
the business at the ensuing conference; and a large number
assembled. Many of them were as averse to the deed, as those
who had so decidedly opposed it, and had repeatedly execrated
the measure, both by letter and in conversation; but they had
not the courage to avow their sentiments in conference. Mr.
Wesley made a speech, and invited all who were of his mind to
stand up. They all rose to a man. The five were found guilty,
and it was unanimously determined, that they should either make
concessions or be dismissed. Urged by the entreaties of Mr.
Fletcher, and anxious for the restoration of peace, the
preachers in the opposition apologised to Mr. Wesley, for
printing the circular letter, without having first appealed to
conference.”[482]
Such, in substance, and omitting acrid comments, is the account given
by John Hampson, jun.; and there can be little doubt that, in the
main, it is quite correct. The printed circular he mentions was issued
by his father, and was entitled, “An Appeal to the Reverend John and
Charles Wesley; to all the preachers who act in connection with them;
and to every member of their respective societies in England,
Scotland, Ireland, and America.”[483] Another circular was drawn up by
James Oddie, in the form of a petition to Wesley and the legalised
conference, to the effect, that the preachers, whose names had been
inserted in the deed, would sign an agreement that, at the death of
Wesley, they would refrain from taking any advantage of their
position, but would invite the excluded to their first conference, and
would treat them, in all respects, as equals. This was first suggested
by Robert Oastler, of Thirsk; and was widely circulated, and received
with favour;[484] and, perhaps, it was this that evoked the following
letter, which was written on April 7, 1785, and entrusted to Joseph
Bradford, to deliver to the conference, at their first meeting after
the writer’s death.
“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Some of our travelling preachers have
expressed a fear, that, after my decease, you would exclude
them, either from preaching in connection with you, or from
some other privileges which they now enjoy. I know no other way
to prevent any such inconvenience, than to leave these my last
words with you.
“I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you never avail
yourselves of the deed of declaration, to assume any
superiority over your brethren; but let all things go on, among
those itinerants who choose to remain together, exactly in the
same manner as when I was with you, so far as circumstances
will permit.
“In particular, I beseech you, if you ever loved me, and if you
now love God and your brethren, to have no respect of persons
in stationing the preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood
school, in disposing of the yearly contribution and the
preachers’ fund, or any other of the public money; but do all
things with a single eye, as I have done from the beginning. Go
on thus, doing all things without prejudice or partiality, and
God will be with you even to the end.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[485]
This was a serious crisis in the history of Methodism. Fortunately, it
passed over without any other immediate consequences than the
retirement of the five principal opponents to the deed of declaration,
namely, the two Hampsons, Joseph Pilmoor, William Eels, and John
Atlay. Considerable excitement, however, existed; and, in the spring
of 1785, Wesley found it desirable to write his “Thoughts upon some
late Occurrences.” He gives the history of the origin of his
conferences; and states that the term conference meant not so much
conversation, as the persons that conferred, that it had become
necessary to define the term, and that, at the conference of 1783, he
had been requested to fix the determinate meaning of the word. He
accordingly took counsel’s opinion how to act, and was advised to
execute a deed of declaration. At first, he thought of naming only ten
or twelve; but, on second thoughts, he believed there would be more
safety in a greater number of counsellors, and, therefore, named a
hundred; as many as, he judged, could meet without too great expense,
and without leaving any circuit without preachers while the conference
assembled. He adds:
“In naming these preachers, as I had no adviser, so I had no
respect of persons; but I simply set down those that, according
to the best of my judgment, were most proper. But I am not
infallible. I might mistake, and think better of some than they
deserved. However, I did my best; if I did wrong, it was not
the error of my will, but of my judgment.
“This was the rise, and this the nature, of that famous deed of
declaration,--that vile, wicked deed, concerning which you have
heard such an outcry! And now, can any one tell me how to mend
it, or how it could have been made better? ‘O yes. You might
have inserted two hundred, as well as one hundred, preachers.’
No; for then the expense of meeting would have been double, and
all the circuits would have been without preachers. ‘But you
might have named other preachers instead of these.’ True, if I
had thought as well of them as they did of themselves. But I
did not: therefore, I could do no otherwise than I did, without
sinning against God and my own conscience.
“‘But what need was there for any deed at all?’ There was the
utmost need of it; without some authentic deed fixing the
meaning of the term, the moment I died, the conference had been
nothing. Therefore, any of the proprietors of the land on which
our preaching houses were built might have seized them for
their own use; and there would have been none to hinder them;
for the conference would have been nobody, a mere empty name.
“You see then, in all the pains I have taken about this
absolutely necessary deed, I have been labouring, not for
myself (I have no interest therein), but for the whole body of
Methodists; in order to fix them upon such a foundation as is
likely to stand as long as the sun and moon endure. That is, if
they continue to walk by faith, and to show forth their faith
by their works; otherwise, I pray God to root out the memorial
of them from the earth.
“JOHN WESLEY.[486]
“PLYMOUTH DOCK, _March 3, 1785_.”
We have done. All the facts, within our knowledge, have been given.
The reader must form his own opinion. Comment would be easy; but we
purposely refrain; only adding, that, by Wesley’s famous deed of
declaration, the Methodist conference became a legally incorporated
institution; and that, without this, the Methodist itinerancy must
have ceased, and Methodism itself have been broken up into
congregational churches.
We must now advert to another matter, which, if not of equal, was of
great importance, namely, the episcopal organisation of the Methodist
societies in America. This has been the subject of bewildering
controversy for more than eighty years. Wesley and Coke have been
bitterly assailed, and as warmly defended. We will narrate the facts
as simply and briefly as we can.
During the American war, which was now ended, the American Methodists
had multiplied with marvellous rapidity. In 1774, they numbered 2073;
in 1784, they were 14,988; showing an increase of 12,915. They had 46
circuits, and 83 itinerant, besides some hundreds of local,
preachers.[487] All these, so far as the sacraments were concerned,
were as sheep without shepherds. Some of the clergymen of the Church
of England had taken military commissions in the army; others were
destitute of both piety and sense; and nearly all opposed and
persecuted the Methodists to the utmost of their power. Bishop White
testified, that “the Church of England was becoming more and more
unpopular,--with some, because it was not considered as promoting
piety,--and with others, because they thought the provision for it a
useless burden on the community.” At the termination of the
revolutionary struggle, says Dr. Hawks, himself a clergyman, “a large
number of the churches in Virginia were destroyed or irreparably
injured; twenty-three of her ninety-five parishes were extinct or
forsaken; and of the remaining seventy-two, thirty-four were destitute
of ministerial services; while of her ninety-eight clergymen, only
twenty-eight remained.” The Rev. Mr. Jarratt, another clergyman of the
Church of England, stated, that “most of the clergy preached what was
little better than deism,” and were bitter revilers and persecutors of
those who preached the truth.[488]
Under these circumstances, the Methodists demanded of their preachers
the administration of the sacraments. Many of the societies had been
months, some of them years, without these sacred ordinances. Five
years before this, in 1779, the preachers in the south proceeded to
ordain themselves by the hands of three of their senior members,
unwilling that their people should longer be denied the Lord’s supper,
and their children and probationary members the rite of baptism.
Asbury was greatly annoyed at this, and, a year afterwards, with
difficulty succeeded in persuading them to suspend the administration
of the sacraments till further advice could be received from
Wesley.[489] Asbury wrote to Wesley, telling him of the greatness of
the work, and of the division that had taken place in Virginia, on
account of the people’s uneasiness respecting the sacraments.
Thousands of their children were unbaptized, and the members of the
societies, in general, had not partaken of the Lord’s supper for many
years.[490] “Dear sir,” says he, on March 20, 1784, “we are greatly in
need of help. A minister, and such preachers as you can fully
recommend, will be very acceptable. Without your recommendation, we
shall receive none. But nothing is so pleasing to me, sir, as the
thought of seeing you here; which is the ardent desire of thousands
more in America.”[491]
Wesley’s going was impossible. He had tried (as we have already seen)
to induce Bishop Lowth to ordain a minister, and had failed. What else
remained? He thought of Dr. Coke, who replied as follows.
“NEAR DUBLIN, _April 17, 1784_.
“HONOURED AND VERY DEAR SIR,--I intended to trouble you no more
about my going to America; but your observations incline me to
address you again on the subject.
“If some one, in whom you could place the fullest confidence,
and whom you think likely to have sufficient influence and
prudence and delicacy of conduct for the purpose, were to go
over and return, you would then have a source of sufficient
information to determine on any points or propositions. I may
be destitute of the last mentioned essential qualification (to
the former I lay claim without reserve); otherwise my taking
such a voyage might be expedient.
“By this means, you might have fuller information concerning
the state of the country and the societies than epistolary
correspondence can give you; and there might be a cement of
union, remaining after your death, between the societies and
preachers of the two countries. If the awful event of your
decease should happen before my removal to the world of
spirits, it is almost certain, that I should have business
enough, of indispensable importance, on my hands in these
kingdoms.
“I am, dear sir, your most dutiful and most affectionate son,
“THOMAS COKE.”[492]
This is a curiously expressed letter; but if it means anything, it
means, that if Wesley would be good enough to think and say, that Coke
had “sufficient influence, and prudence, and delicacy of conduct,” he
was willing to become Wesley’s envoy to the American Methodists.
Here the matter rested, until the assembling of the conference at
Leeds. Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, relates,
that ordination was first proposed by Wesley himself in his select
committee of consultation. Pawson was a member, and was present. He
writes: “The preachers were astonished when this was mentioned, and,
to a man, opposed it. But I plainly saw that it would be done, as Mr.
Wesley’s mind appeared to be quite made up.”
Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey were appointed to America; and, six days
after the conference concluded, Coke wrote to Wesley as follows.
“_August 9, 1784._
“HONOURED AND DEAR SIR,--The more maturely I consider the
subject, the more expedient it appears to me, that the power of
ordaining others should be received by me from you, by the
imposition of your hands; and that you should lay hands on
brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for the following reasons:
(1) It seems to me the most scriptural way, and most agreeable
to the practice of the primitive churches. (2) I may want all
the influence, in America, which you can throw into my scale.
Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter from
Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he would not receive any
person, deputed by you, with any part of the superintendency of
the work invested in him; or words which evidently implied so
much. I do not find the least degree of prejudice in my mind
against Mr. Asbury; on the contrary, I find a very great love
and esteem; and am determined not to stir a finger without his
consent, unless necessity obliges me; but rather to be at his
feet in all things. But, as the journey is long, and you cannot
spare me often, it is well to provide against all events; and I
am satisfied that an authority, formally received from you,
will be fully admitted; and that my exercising the office of
ordination, without that formal authority, may be disputed, and
perhaps, on other accounts, opposed. I think you have tried me
too often to doubt, whether I will, in any degree, use the
power you are pleased to invest me with, farther than I believe
absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work.
“In respect of my brethren Whatcoat and Vasey, it is very
uncertain whether any of the clergy, mentioned by brother
Rankin, except Mr. Jarratt, will stir a step with me in the
work; and it is by no means certain, that even he will choose
to join me in ordaining; and propriety and universal practice
make it expedient, that I should have two presbyters with me in
this work. In short, it appears to me, that everything should
be prepared, and everything proper be done, that can possibly
be done, on this side the water. You can do all this in Mr.
C----n’s house, in your chamber; and afterwards, (according to
Mr. Fletcher’s advice,) give us letters testimonial of the
different offices with which you have been pleased to invest
us. For the purpose of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and
Vasey, I can bring Mr. Creighton down with me, by which you
will have two presbyters with you.
“In respect to brother Rankin’s argument, that you will escape
a great deal of odium by omitting this, it is nothing. Either
it will be known, or not known. If not known, then no odium
will arise; but if known, you will be obliged to acknowledge,
that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under
the weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head
of them. I shall entreat you to ponder these things.
“Your most dutiful, THOMAS COKE.”[493]
Would it not seem from this, that Wesley had no idea of ordaining any
one himself; but, that he intended Coke, who, as a presbyter of the
same church, had coequal power, to go out to America for that purpose?
There can be no question, that there is force in Dr. Whitehead’s
critique, that “Dr. Coke had the same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that
Mr. Wesley had to ordain Dr. Coke.” Wesley, we think, never intended
doing this; but, at Coke’s request, he acquiesced.
Of his power to ordain others, Wesley had no doubt. Nearly forty years
before this, he had been convinced, by Lord King’s Account of the
Primitive Church, “that bishops and presbyters are of one order.” In
1756, he wrote: “I still believe the episcopal form of church
government, to agree with the practice and writings of the apostles;
but, that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This
opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed
of, ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon.’ I think he
has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor His apostles
prescribe any particular form of church government; and that the plea
of Divine right, for diocesan episcopacy, was never heard of in the
primitive church.”[494] Again, in 1761, in a letter to a friend, he
repeated, that Stillingfleet had fully convinced him, that to believe
that none but episcopal ordination was valid “was an entire
mistake.”[495] And again, in 1780, he shocked the high church bigotry
of his brother, by declaring, “I verily believe I have as good a right
to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper.”[496]
His right to ordain, then, was no new assumption of Wesley, adopted in
his old age, or in his imbecility, as some of his critics have
alleged. It was a firm conviction of forty years’ standing.
Besides, there was another fact, which might have some influence with
him, but which none of his biographers have noticed. The Methodists,
under the care of the Countess of Huntingdon, stood in the same
relation to the Church of England that the Methodists under Wesley
did. They _varied_, not _dissented_, from the Church. Recently,
however, there had been a formal and avowed secession. Many of Lady
Huntingdon’s chapels were supplied by ordained clergymen, and, among
others, a large building in Spafields, previously known as the
Pantheon. This edifice stood in the parish of Clerkenwell, of which
the Rev. William Sellon was minister. Mr. Sellon claimed the right of
appointing ministers and clerks to the Spafields chapel; also the
right of himself to officiate within its walls as often as he liked.
He further demanded the sum of £40 a year, in consideration of his
permitting two of the Countess’s preachers to occupy the said chapel;
also all the sacramental collections; and four collections yearly, for
the benefit of the children of the charity school of Clerkenwell
parish; and, finally, that, for the due performance of these demands,
the proprietors should sign a bond for £1000.
Of course, the proprietors refused to comply with such demands. Mr.
Sellon then instituted a suit in the consistorial court of the Bishop
of London, and cited the Revs. Messrs. Jones and Taylor, the
officiating clergymen, and both of them ordained, to answer for their
irregularity in preaching in a place not episcopally consecrated, and
for carrying on Divine worship there, contrary to the wish of the
minister of the parish. Verdicts were obtained against them. The
question was then removed to the ecclesiastical courts; and was again
decided against the ministers of the countess, and in favour of Mr.
Sellon, who obtained the name of Sanballat.
This was a momentous matter. Hitherto, Romaine, Venn, and others had
preached for the countess; but now, as ordained clergymen, in danger
of prosecution, they had to withdraw their services; and some of the
most important chapels were left without supplies. The crisis was
serious. The countess took counsel with her friends; and, at length,
it was determined, that Messrs. Wills and Taylor should formally
secede from the Church of England, and should take upon themselves to
ordain others: both of them had received episcopal ordination
themselves, both were scholars and able preachers, and Mr. Wills had
married Miss Wheeler, the countess’s niece. Accordingly, these two
ministers issued an address to the archbishops and bishops of the
Church of England, stating that, because they could not, as clergymen
of the Established Church, continue preaching to their present
congregations, without “knowingly and wilfully opposing the Church’s
laws,” they had resolved to secede peaceably, and to put themselves
under the protection of the Toleration Act.
Here then was a formal Methodist secession from the Established
Church. But more than this: on March 9, 1783, these two seceding
clergymen began to do what Wesley did eighteen months afterwards,--they
held their first ordination. This was in Spafields chapel. The service
commenced at 9 a.m., and lasted about seven hours. The names of the
six young men, then set apart to the Christian ministry, were Thomas
Jones, Samuel Beaufoy, Thomas Cannon, John Johnson, William Green,
and Joel Abraham Knight. During the service, Mr. Wills addressed the
congregation, and assigned his reasons for believing that he had the
right to ordain, namely, that presbyters and bishops were the same
order, and that, as he and Mr. Taylor had been ordained presbyters,
they had really been ordained bishops, and had as much right to ordain
others as any bishop in the land.[497]
Wesley was acquainted with all this, though he never mentions it. For
aught he knew, an action might be commenced against himself and the
other clergymen preaching in City Road, West Street, and elsewhere,
similar to that which had been successfully prosecuted against the
Countess of Huntingdon’s preachers at Spafields. It was time to look
about. He held exactly the same views respecting presbyters and
bishops that had been publicly avowed by Messrs. Wills and Taylor; and
now, in September 1784, reduced them to practice by proceeding to
Bristol, and there ordaining Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey.
Passing by the ordinations of Whatcoat and Vasey, which involve no
difficulty except Wesley’s churchmanship, the ordination of Coke is a
perplexing puzzle. Coke had been already ordained a deacon and a
priest of the Church of England; and, hence, his ministerial status
was the same as Wesley’s. What further ordination was needed? Wesley
intended none; but Coke wished it.
Wesley was the founder and father of the Methodists. There were 15,000
in America whom he had never seen. In no sense were these members of
the Church of England; for, at the termination of the war, no state
church was recognised. What were they? Not presbyterians, not
Dissenters, not quakers, not anything, except simple Methodists. They
were without sacraments. They wished to have them. As Christians, they
had a right to them. But who was to administer? Common sense would
have said, the men by whose preaching they had been converted; but
here priestly prejudice stepped in, and forbad men, whom God had
called to preach, to administer the sacraments, until episcopal or
presbyterian hands had been put upon them. Things were brought into a
dead lock. The question was, are the Methodist preachers in America to
administer the sacraments without ordination? Or shall Wesley or some
one else go from England to give them ordination? Wesley, a man of
action, decided to send Coke, and Coke consented; but, before
starting, he wished to have an additional ordination himself. What was
that ordination to be? The only one possible was this. Wesley was the
venerable father of the 15,000 Methodists in America. He was not able
to visit them himself; but sends them Dr. Coke. The doctor pretends,
that it is more than possible, that some of the American preachers and
societies will refuse to acknowledge his authority. To remove this
objection, Wesley, at Bristol, in a private room, holds a religious
service, puts his hands upon the head of Coke, and, (to use his own
words,) sets him apart as a _superintendent_ of the work in America,
and gives him a written testimonial to that effect. This was all that
Wesley did, and all that Wesley meant; but we greatly doubt whether it
was all that the departing envoy wished.
With the highest respect for Dr. Coke, and his general excellences, it
is no detraction to assert, that he was dangerously ambitious, and
that the height of his ambition was a desire to be a bishop. Some
years after this, Coke, unknown to Wesley and Asbury, addressed a
confidential letter to Dr. White, bishop of the protestant episcopal
church of Pennsylvania, which, if it meant anything, meant that he
would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the English
Church, on condition that he himself was ordained to be their bishop.
In 1794, he secretly summoned a meeting, at Lichfield, of the most
influential of the English preachers, and passed a resolution, that
the conference should appoint an order of bishops, to ordain deacons
and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member of the
prelatical brotherhood. And again, it is a well known fact, that,
within twelve months of his lamented death, he wrote to the Earl of
Liverpool, stating that he was willing to return most fully into the
bosom of the Established Church, on condition, that his royal highness
the Prince Regent, and the government, would appoint him their bishop
in India. These are unpleasant facts; which we would rather have
consigned to oblivion, had they not been necessary to vindicate Wesley
from the huge inconsistency of ordaining a coequal presbyter to be a
bishop. Wesley meant the ceremony to be a mere formality likely to
recommend his delegate to the favour of the Methodists in America:
Coke, in his ambition, wished, and intended it to be considered as, an
ordination to a bishopric. This will be clear as we proceed farther.
The following are the “letters testimonial,” which Coke asked to have.
“To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late
Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of
England, sendeth greeting.
“Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North
America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere
to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are
greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the
sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, according to the
usage of the same Church; and whereas there does not appear to
be any other way of supplying them with ministers:
“Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be
providentially called, at this time, to set apart some persons
for the work of the ministry in America. And, therefore, under
the protection of almighty God, and with a single eye to His
glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the
imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by other
ordained ministers,[498]) Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a
presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I judge to
be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby
recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to
preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have
hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in
the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-four.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[499]
“BRISTOL, _September 10, 1784_.
“_To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America._
“BY a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces
of North America are totally disjoined from the mother country,
and erected into independent states. The English government has
no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any
more than over the states of Holland. A civil authority is
exercised over them, partly by the congress, partly by the
provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims
any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar
situation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these states
desire my advice, and, in compliance with their desire, I have
drawn up a little sketch.
“Lord King’s account of the primitive church convinced me, many
years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and
consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years, I
have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this
right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I
have still refused; not only for peace sake, but because I was
determined, as little as possible, to violate the established
order of the national church to which I belonged.
“But the case is widely different between England and North
America. Here there are bishops, who have a legal jurisdiction;
in America there are none, neither any parish minister; so
that, for some hundreds of miles together, there is none either
to baptize, or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here,
therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at
full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man’s
rights, by appointing and sending labourers into the harvest.
“I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury
to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America;
as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as elders
among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper.
And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of
the Church of England, (I think the best constituted national
church in the world,) which I advise all the travelling
preachers to use on the Lord’s day, in all the congregations,
reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying
extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to
administer the supper of the Lord, on every Lord’s day.
“If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way
of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I
will gladly embrace it. At present, I cannot see any better
method than that I have taken.
“It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to
ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object:
(1) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain one, but could not
prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of their
proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If they
would ordain them now, they would expect to govern them; and
how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our American
brethren are now totally disentangled, both from the state and
the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either
with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty, simply
to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church. And we judge
it best, that they should stand fast in that liberty, wherewith
God has so strangely set them free.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[500]
“These are the steps,” says Wesley in another place, “which, not of
choice, but necessity, I have slowly and deliberately taken. If any
one is pleased to call this _separating from the Church_, he may. But
the law of England does not call it so; nor can any one properly be
said so to do, unless, out of conscience, he refuses to join in the
service, and partake of the sacraments administered therein.”[501]
Eight days after the date of the above letter, Coke, Whatcoat, and
Vasey set sail for America, where they arrived on November 3. A
conference of nearly sixty preachers met in Baltimore on December 24.
Three days later, Coke ordained Asbury; and the two then ordained a
number of elders and deacons. Coke preached a sermon, which was
published, with the title, “The Substance of a Sermon preached at
Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, before the General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 27th of December, 1784, at the
Ordination of the Rev. Francis Asbury to the office of Superintendent.
By Thomas Coke, LL.D., Superintendent of the said Church. Published at
the desire of the Conference.” 12mo, 22 pages.
The title is worth observing. Coke and Asbury are _superintendents_;
the Methodist church is _episcopal_,--a church governed by _bishops_.
The sermon begins with an onslaught on the Church of England in
America. “The churches had, in general, been filled with the parasites
and bottle companions of the rich and great. The humble and
importunate entreaties, of the oppressed flocks, were contemned and
despised. The drunkard, the fornicator, and the extortioner, triumphed
over bleeding Zion, because they were faithful abettors of the ruling
powers. But these intolerable fetters were now struck off; and the
antichristian union, which before subsisted between church and state,
was broken asunder.” Coke then proceeds to answer the question, “What
right have you to exercise the episcopal office?” “To me,” says he,
“the most manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to
raise up, in America and Europe, a numerous society, well known by the
name of Methodists. The whole body have invariably esteemed _this man_
as their chief pastor, under Christ; and we are fully persuaded, he
has a right to ordain. Besides, we have every qualification for an
episcopal church, which that of Alexandria possessed for two hundred
years; our bishops, or superintendents (as we rather call them),
having been elected by the suffrages of the whole body of our
ministers through the continent, assembled in general conference.”
This is scarcely conclusive reasoning, but it shows that, from the
very first, Coke assumed, what Wesley never gave him, the title of a
bishop. Five years later, in May, 1789, Coke and Asbury presented an
address to Washington, the president of the United States, beginning
with the words, “We, the _bishops_ of the Methodist _Episcopal_
Church”;[502] and at the conference of the same year the first
question asked was: “Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal
office in the Methodist church in Europe and America? Answer. John
Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and
succession.”[503]
This grandiloquent parade of office must not be ascribed to Wesley. He
never sanctioned it; he positively condemned it. Besides, even
allowing that Coke and Asbury had a right to designate themselves
bishops of the Methodist churches in America, what was their authority
for pronouncing Wesley the bishop of the Methodist church in Europe?
They had none. It was an unwarrantable liberty taken with the name of
a venerable man, who had censured the use of such an appellation, and
whose humility and modesty Coke would have been none the worse for
copying. As it was, Wesley was held up to ridicule, and made to
suffer, on account of the episcopal ambition of his friends.
We have no fault to find with the American Methodists being called the
Methodist Episcopal Church. They have the fullest right to such a
designation if they choose to use it; but it was a name which Wesley
never used; and to censure him for ordaining bishops is to censure him
for what he never did. He ordained a _superintendent_; but he never
thought to call him _bishop_. Hence the following to Asbury.
“LONDON, _September 20, 1788_.
“... There is indeed a wide difference between the relation
wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I
stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the
American Methodists; I am, under God, the father of the whole
family. Therefore, I naturally care for you all in a manner no
other person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for
you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he
could not provide, were it not for me,--were it not that I not
only permit him to collect, but also support him in so doing.
“But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid, both
the doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little; you
study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school;
you a college! nay, and call it after your own names![504] O,
beware; do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and
‘Christ be all in all!’
“One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great
concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be
called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may
call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am
content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me bishop!
For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end
to this! Let the presbyterians do what they please, but let the
Methodists know their calling better.
“Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart.
And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how
sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[505]
Coke, in his letter, dated August 9, 1784, mentions the “odium” which
Wesley was likely to incur by the ordinations which he himself was
soliciting; and, with a want of chivalry not to be commended, requests
Wesley to acknowledge that the deed was all his own, otherwise Coke
would “sink under the weight of his enemies, with Charles Wesley at
the head of them.” The apprehension was not unfounded. Charles Wesley
knew nothing of the ordinations in Bristol till they were over; but,
of course, it was impossible to keep them secret; and great was the
excitement which the revelation created. One of the preachers wrote:
“Ordination among Methodists! Amazing indeed! Surely it never
began in the midst of a multitude of counsellors; and, I
greatly fear, the Son of Man was not secretary of state, or not
present, when the business was brought on and carried. Who is
the father of this _monster_, so long dreaded by the father of
his people, and by most of his sons? Whoever he be, time will
prove him to be a felon to Methodism, and discover his
assassinating knife sticking fast in the vitals of its body.
Years to come will speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary
of our religious madness for gowns and bands.”
Another wrote: “I wish they had been asleep when they began this
business of ordination: it is neither _episcopal_ nor _presbyterian_;
but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistencies.”[506]
On April 28, 1785, Charles Wesley addressed a long letter to Dr.
Chandler, an episcopal clergyman, who was about to embark for America,
from which the following is an extract.
“I never lost my dread of separation, or ceased to guard our
societies against it. I frequently told them: ‘I am your
servant as long as you remain in the Church of England; but no
longer. Should you forsake her, you would renounce me.’
“Some of the lay preachers very early discovered an inclination
to separate, which induced my brother to print his ‘Reasons
against Separation.’ As often as it appeared, we beat down the
schismatical spirit. If any one did leave the Church, at the
same time he left our society. For near fifty years, we kept
the sheep in the fold; and, having filled the number of our
days, only waited to depart in peace.
“After our having continued friends for above _seventy_ years,
and fellow labourers for above _fifty_, can anything but death
part us? I can scarcely yet believe it, that, in his
eighty-second year, my brother, my old, intimate friend and
companion, should have assumed the episcopal character,
ordained elders, consecrated a bishop, and sent him to ordain
our lay preachers in America! I was then in Bristol, at his
elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention.
How was he surprised into so rash an action? He certainly
persuaded himself that it was right.
“Lord Mansfield told me last year, that ordination was
separation. This my brother does not and will not see; or that
he has renounced the principles and practice of his whole life;
that he has acted contrary to all his declarations,
protestations, and writings; robbed his friends of their
boasting; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long as it
shall be remembered!
“Thus our partnership here is dissolved, but not our
friendship. I have taken him for better for worse, till death
do us part; or, rather, reunite us in love inseparable. I have
lived on earth a little too long, who have lived to see this
evil day. But I shall very soon be taken from it, in stedfast
faith, that the Lord will maintain His own cause, and carry on
His own work, and fulfil His promise to His church, ‘Lo, I am
with you always, even to the end!’
“What will become of these poor sheep in the wilderness, the
American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a
separation from the Church of England, which their preachers
and they no more intended than the Methodists here! Had they
had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real
bishop in America, consecrated by three Scotch bishops, who
have their consecration from the English bishops, and are
acknowledged by them as the same with themselves. There is,
therefore, not the least difference betwixt the members of
Bishop Seabury’s[507] church, and the members of the Church of
England. He told me he looked upon the Methodists in America as
sound members of the Church, and was ready to ordain any of
their preachers whom he should find duly qualified. His
ordination would be indeed genuine, valid, and episcopal. But
what are your poor Methodists now? Only a new sect of
presbyterians. And, after my brother’s death, which is now so
near, what will be their end? They will lose all their
influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain
janglings; they will settle again upon their lees; and, like
other sects of Dissenters, come to nothing.”[508]
Charles Wesley hints, that his brother was “_surprised_ into the rash
act” of ordaining. Perhaps he was; but did he afterwards regret it? In
answering this question, we must use materials which properly belong
to succeeding years.[509]
It is a fact, which cannot be denied, that, while Wesley himself was,
to some extent, welcomed in Scotland, by the ministers of the kirk,
the Methodists, in many instances, were substantially in the same
position as the Methodists in America. There were, indeed, clergymen
of the English Church in Scotland; but several of them absolutely
refused to admit the Methodists to the sacraments, except on the
condition that they would renounce all future connection with the
Methodist ministry and discipline.[510] There was, therefore, the same
necessity to ordain for the one country as for the other. Accordingly,
Wesley, in his journal, writes: “1785: August 1--Having, with a few
select friends, weighed the matter thoroughly, I yielded to their
judgment, and set apart three of our well tried preachers, John
Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland.” A
year afterwards, at the conference of 1786, he ordained Joshua
Keighley and Charles Atmore, for Scotland; William Warrener, for
Antigua; and William Hammet, for Newfoundland. A year later, five
others were ordained; in 1788, when Wesley was in Scotland, John
Barber and Joseph Cownley received ordination at his hands; and, at
the ensuing conference, seven others, including Alexander Mather, who
was ordained to the office, not only of deacon and elder, but of
_superintendent_. On Ash Wednesday in 1789, Wesley ordained Henry
Moore and Thomas Rankin; and this, we believe, completes the list of
those upon whom Wesley laid his hands. All these ordinations were in
private; and many of them at four o’clock in the morning. Some of the
favoured ones were intended for Scotland; some for foreign missions;
and a few, as Mather, Moore, and Rankin, were employed in England. In
most instances, probably in all, they were ordained deacons on one
day; and, on the day following, received the ordination of elders,
Wesley giving to each letters testimonial.[511] Wesley justified his
ordinations for Scotland thus.
“After Dr. Coke’s return from America, many of our friends
begged I would consider the case of Scotland, where we had been
labouring for many years, and had seen so little fruit of our
labours. Multitudes, indeed, have set out well, but they were
soon turned out of the way; chiefly by their ministers either
disputing against the truth, or refusing to admit them to the
Lord’s supper, yea, or to baptize their children, unless they
would promise to have no fellowship with the Methodists. Many,
who did so, soon lost all they had gained, and became more the
children of hell than before. To prevent this, I, at length,
consented to take the same step with regard to Scotland, which
I had done with regard to America. But this is not a separation
from the Church at all. Not from the Church of Scotland, for we
were never connected therewith, any further than we are now:
nor from the Church of England; for this is not concerned in
the steps which are taken in Scotland. Whatever then is done in
America, or Scotland, is no separation from the Church of
England. I have no thought of this; I have many objections
against it. It is a totally different case. ‘But for all this,
is it not possible there may be such a separation after you are
dead?’ Undoubtedly it is. But what I said at our first
conference above forty years ago, I say still: ‘I dare not omit
doing what good I can while I live, for fear of evils that may
follow when I am dead.’”[512]
There is some force in this, so far as it regards Scotland. The Scotch
Methodists never professed themselves to be members of the Church of
England; in fact, they regarded that church almost with as much
abhorrence as they cherished towards the Church of Rome. Hence the
following extract from one of Pawson’s unpublished letters, dated
“Edinburgh, October 8, 1785.”
“Dr. Coke intends to be with us on Sunday, the 23rd instant,
when we are to have the sacrament again; but Mr. Wesley is
against us having it in the Scotch form, and I am well
satisfied our new plan will answer no end at all in Scotland,
but will prove a hindrance to the work of God. The people
generally hate the very name of Prayer-Book, and everything
belonging to it, as they have always been taught to believe it
a limb of antichrist, and very little better than the popish
mass-book. Popery, prelacy, and all such things, they hold in
the greatest detestation. They would soon tell us: ‘I dunna ken
what you mean by these unca inventions. We belong to the gude
old kirk of Scotland, and will not join with the whore of
Babylon at all.’”
In reference to the English ordinations, Mr. Pawson writes:
“Mr. Wesley knew the state of the societies in England required
such measures to be taken, or many of the people would leave
the connexion; and had the preachers, after his death, only
acted upon his plan, and quietly granted the people, who
desired the sacraments, that privilege, no division would have
taken place.[513] He foresaw, that the Methodists would soon
become a distinct body. He was deeply prejudiced against
presbyterian, and as much in favour of episcopal, government.
In order, therefore, to preserve all that is valuable in the
Church of England among the Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather
and Dr. Coke, bishops. These he undoubtedly designed should
ordain others. Mr. Mather told us so at the Manchester
conference, in 1791.[514] I believe, Mr. Wesley’s first thought
of ordaining arose out of the bishop of London refusing to
ordain a preacher for America; but that he originally intended
to ordain preachers for England is what I never could believe;
and, with respect to Scotland, he often declared to me, and in
the congregation at Edinburgh, that he was over persuaded to
it. And, a few months before his death, he was so annoyed with
Dr. Coke’s conduct, in persuading the people to depart from the
original plan, that he threatened, in a letter, to have no more
to do with him, unless he desisted from such a course of
procedure.”[515]
We give this as we find it; and now turn to a deeply interesting
correspondence between Wesley and his brother. Within a fortnight
after the ordination of Pawson, Hanby, and Taylor, at the conference
of 1785, and in which Wesley, Coke, and Creighton took part,[516]
Charles Wesley wrote to his brother as follows.
“BRISTOL, _August 14, 1785_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I have been reading over again your ‘Reasons
against a Separation,’ printed in 1758, and your Works; and
entreat you, in the name of God, and for Christ’s sake, to read
them again yourself, with previous prayer, and stop, and
proceed no farther, till you receive an answer to your inquiry,
‘Lord, what wouldst _Thou_ have me to do?’
“Every word of your eleven pages deserves the deepest
consideration; not to mention my testimony and hymns. Only the
seventh I could wish you to read,--a prophecy which I pray God
may never come to pass.
“Near thirty years, since then, you have stood against the
importunate solicitations of your preachers, who have scarcely
at last prevailed. I was your natural ally, and faithful
friend; and, while you continued faithful to yourself, we two
could chase a thousand.
“But when once you began ordaining in America, I knew, and you
knew, that your preachers here would never rest till you
ordained them. You told me, they would separate by-and-by. The
doctor tells us the same. His Methodist episcopal church in
Baltimore was intended to beget a Methodist episcopal church
here. You know he comes, armed with your authority, to make us
all Dissenters. One of your sons assured me, that not a
preacher in London would refuse orders from the doctor.
“Alas! what trouble are you preparing for yourself, as well as
for me, and for your oldest, truest, and best friends! Before
you have quite broken down the bridge, stop, and consider! If
your sons have no regard for you, have some regard for
yourself. Go to your grave in peace; at least, suffer me to go
first, before this ruin is under your hand. So much, I think,
you owe to my father, to my brother, and to me, as to stay till
I am taken from the evil. I am on the brink of the grave. Do
not push me in, or embitter my last moments. Let us not leave
an indelible blot on our memory; but let us leave behind us the
name and character of honest men.
“This letter is a debt to our parents, and to our brother, as
well as to you, and to
“Your faithful friend,
“CHARLES WESLEY.”[517]
Five days afterwards, Wesley replied as follows. The line of poetry
was his brother’s.
“PLYMOUTH, _August 19, 1785_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with all
simplicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with
me, well; if not, we can, as Mr. Whitefield used to say, agree
to disagree.
“For these forty years, I have been in doubt concerning that
question, What obedience is due to
‘Heathenish priests and mitred infidels’?
“I have, from time to time, proposed my doubts to the most
pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But they gave me no
satisfaction. Rather, they seemed to be puzzled as well as me.
“Obedience I always paid to the bishops, in obedience to the
laws of the land. But I cannot see, that I am under any
obligation to obey them further than those laws require.
“It is in obedience to these laws, that I have never exercised
in England the power which, I believe, God has given me. I
firmly believe, I am a scriptural επισκοπος, as much as any man
in England, or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I
know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove. But this
does in no wise interfere with my remaining in the Church of
England, from which I have no more desire to separate than I had
fifty years ago. I still attend all the ordinances of the Church,
at all opportunities; and I constantly and earnestly advise all
that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. Smyth pressed us
to separate from the Church, he meant, ‘Go to church no more.’
And this was what I meant twenty-seven years ago, when I persuaded
our brethren not to separate from the Church.
“But here another question occurs: ‘What is the Church of
England?’ It is not all the people of England. Papists and
Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of
England, except papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a
glorious church indeed! No; according to our twentieth article,
a particular church is ‘a congregation of faithful people among
whom the word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly
administered.’ Here is a true logical definition, containing
both the essence and the properties of a church. What then,
according to this definition, is the Church of England? Does it
mean all the believers in England (except the papists and
Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly
administered among them? I fear, this does not come up to your
idea of the Church of England. Well, what more do you include
in the phrase? ‘Why, all the believers that adhere to the
doctrine and discipline established by the convocation under
Queen Elizabeth.’ Nay, that discipline is well-nigh vanished
away; and the doctrine both you and I adhere to.
“All these ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church,’ in
this sense, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted
at? I no more separate from it now than I did in 1758. I submit
still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to ‘mitred
infidels,’ I do, indeed, vary from them in some points of
doctrine, and in some points of discipline (by preaching
abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming
societies); but not a hair’s breadth farther than I believe to
be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same
rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do
nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high day of my
blood is over. If you will go on hand in hand with me, do. But
do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept
close to me, I might have done better. However, with or without
help, I creep on; and as I have been hitherto, so I trust I
shall always be,
“Your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[518]
To this letter Charles Wesley returned the following reply.
“MARYLEBONE, _September 8, 1785_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with the same
simplicity. There is no danger of our quarrelling; for the
second blow makes the quarrel; and you are the last man upon
earth whom I would wish to quarrel with.
“That juvenile line of mine,
‘Heathenish priests, and mitred infidels,’
I disown, renounce, and with shame recant. I never knew of more
than one ‘mitred infidel,’ and for him I took Mr. Law’s word.
“I do not understand what obedience to the bishops you dread.
They have let us alone, and left us to act just as we pleased,
for these fifty years. At present, some of them are quite
friendly toward us, particularly toward you. The churches are
all open to you; and never could there be less pretence for a
separation.
“That you are a scriptural επισκοπος, or overseer, I do not
dispute. And so is every minister who has the cure of souls.
Neither need we dispute whether the uninterrupted succession
be fabulous, as you believe; or real, as I believe; or whether
Lord King be right or wrong.
“Your definition of the Church of England is the same in prose
with mine in verse. By the way, read over my ‘Epistle,’ to
oblige me, and tell me you have read it, and likewise your own
‘Reasons.’
“You write, ‘all these reasons against a separation from the
Church, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted at? I
no more separate from it than I did in the year 1758; I submit
still to its bishops; I do indeed vary from them in some points
of discipline; (by preaching abroad, for instance, praying
extempore, and by forming societies’); (might you not add, and
by ordaining?). ‘I still walk by the same rule I have done for
between forty and fifty years; I do nothing rashly.’
“If I could prove your actual separation, I would not; neither
wish to see it proved by any other. But do you not allow, that
the doctor has separated? Do you not know and approve of his
avowed design and resolution to get all the Methodists of the
three kingdoms into a distinct, compact body? Have you seen his
ordination sermon? Is the high day of his blood over? Does he
do nothing rashly? Have you not made yourself the author of all
his actions? I need not remind you, _qui facit per alium facit
per se_.
“I must not leave unanswered your surprising question, ‘What
then are you frighted at?’ At the doctor’s rashness, and your
supporting him in his ambitious pursuits; at an approaching
schism, as causeless and unprovoked as the American rebellion;
at your own eternal disgrace, and all those frightful evils
which your ‘Reasons’ describe.
“‘If you will go on hand in hand with me, do.’ I do go, or
rather creep on, in the old way in which we set out together,
and trust to continue in it, till I finish my course.
“‘Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I might have done
better.’ When you took that fatal step at Bristol, I kept as
close to you as close could be; for I was all the time at your
elbow. You might certainly have done better, if you had taken
me into your counsel.
“I thank you for your intention to remain my friend; herein my
heart is as your heart; whom God hath joined let not man put
asunder. We have taken each other for better for worse, till
death do us--part? No; but unite eternally. Therefore, in the
love which never faileth, I am your affectionate friend and
brother,
“CHARLES WESLEY.”[519]
Five days later, Wesley replied.
“_September 13, 1785._
“DEAR BROTHER,--I see no use of you and me disputing together;
for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say, I
separate from the Church; I say, I do not. Then let it stand.
“Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England
than you do; and I find few exceptions to it.
“I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from
covetousness. He has done nothing rashly, that I know; but he
has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him
of it. To publish, as his present thoughts, what he had before
retracted, was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me
as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me
yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and
will save as many souls as I can while I live, without being
careful about what may _possibly be_ when I die.
“I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London.
You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly
weaken your own.
“I am, etc.,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[520]
Wesley failed to grapple with his brother’s question; or rather he
declined. Charles’s point evidently was the same as Lord
Mansfield’s,--“ordination was separation.” No doubt this was strictly
accurate. Wesley was too keen sighted not to see it; but he was too
much a churchman to acknowledge it. He felt himself unable to reply to
his brother’s argument; and, therefore, really did not attempt to
reply at all.
Two brief letters more, and then we quit the subject of ordination.
Six days after the date of the above, Charles Wesley replied as
follows.
“LONDON, _September 19, 1785_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I did not say, you separate from the Church;
but I did say, ‘If I could prove it, I would not.’
“That ‘sad truth’ is not a new truth; you saw it when you
expressed in your ‘Reasons’ such tenderness of love for the
unconverted clergy.
“Of your second Thomas Walsh we had better talk than write.
“How ‘confound their intellects’? how ‘weaken your hands’? I
know nothing which I do to prevent the _possible_ separation,
but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to
pray for the Church of England, and for you, while my breath
remains in me!
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“CHARLES WESLEY.”[521]
Again:
“BRISTOL, _July 27, 1786_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot rest, living or dying, unless I deal
as faithfully with you as I am persuaded you would deal with
me, if you were in my place, and I in yours.
“I believe you have been too hasty in ordaining. I believe God
left you to yourself in that matter, as He left Hezekiah, to
show you the secret pride which was in your heart. I believe
Lord Mansfield’s decisive words to me, ‘ordination is
separation.’
“Thus I have discharged my duty to God and His church, and
approved myself your faithful friend and affectionate brother,
“CHARLES WESLEY.”[522]
This is a long, and, we fear, a wearisome account of what,
abstractedly considered, was a trivial thing. John Wesley’s preachers,
being called of God, were as much ministers of Christ, and as much
entitled to administer the sacraments of the church, without the
imposition of his hands as with it. We raise no objection to the
formality; we think it right, and, because of its solemnity, likely to
be useful; but to contend that the thing itself is necessary, would be
to condemn all the grand old Methodist preachers, who flourished from
the year 1795, when their administration of sacraments was authorised
by the Methodist conference, to the year 1836, when, for the first
time, ordination by imposition of hands was solemnly enacted, and
declared to be a “standing rule and usage in future years.”
This, however, is not the point in question. The right or wrong, of
ordaining, is left to others to discuss. There can be no doubt that,
as a minister of Christ, Wesley had as much right to ordain as any
bishop, priest, or presbytery in existence; but he had no right to
this as a clergyman of the Church of England; and, by acting as he
did, he became, what he was unwilling to acknowledge, a Dissenter, a
separatist from that church. Such was the opinion of Lord Mansfield;
and such was the argument of Wesley’s brother. Wesley refused to
acknowledge this; but, feeling the impossibility of the thing, he
declined to attempt refuting it. With great inconsistency, he still
persisted in calling himself a member of the Church of England;[523]
and, as will be seen, to the day of his death, told the Methodists
that if they left the Church they would leave him. All things
considered, this was not surprising; but it was absurd. Great
allowance must be made for Wesley; but to reconcile Wesley’s practice
and profession, in this matter, during the last seven years of his
eventful life, is simply impossible.
Much space has been occupied with these recitals; but, remembering
that no event, in Wesley’s history, has occasioned more controversy
than his act of ordaining preachers, it became a duty to give all the
facts concerning it within our knowledge.
We now return to the conference of 1784. As soon as its sessions
ended, Wesley again set out on his evangelistic ramblings; and, two
days afterwards, came to Shrewsbury, and preached a funeral sermon “in
memory of good John Appleton.” John was a currier, and became a
Methodist under circumstances somewhat peculiar, and which are worth
relating.
While at Bristol, he happened to go into a church, where the minister
preached a violent sermon, which he had already delivered in two other
churches, against “the upstart Methodists.” Shortly after, he had to
preach again in the church of St. Nicholas, but, while announcing his
text, was suddenly seized with a rattling in his throat, fell backward
against the pulpit door, rolled down the steps, was carried home, and
died. Mr. Appleton was present, and was so greatly shocked with this
event, that, when he returned to Shrewsbury, he took a house, in which
he fitted up a room for religious service, and began to preach
himself. In 1781, at his own expense, he built the Methodists a
chapel, which Wesley opened. A more devoted Christian it would be
difficult to find than good John Appleton. His labour, as a working
currier, was hard; but, for many years, besides preaching every
Sunday, he preached twice a week on the week days, and had full and
attentive congregations. He died in the full triumph of faith on the
1st of May, 1784.[524]
From Shrewsbury, Wesley made his way, through Wales, to Bristol, which
he reached on August 29, and where, a few days afterwards, he ordained
Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey. The next month was spent in incessant
preaching in the surrounding neighbourhood.
Here we pause to insert two of his remarkable letters: the first to
Miss Bishop, the mistress of a boarding school; the second to the
Right Hon. William Pitt, now in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and
prime minister of England.
“HAVERFORDWEST, _August 18, 1784_.
“MY DEAR SISTER,--It seems God Himself has already decided the
question concerning dancing. He has shown His approbation of
your conduct, by sending these children to you again. If
dancing be not evil in itself, yet, it leads young women to
numberless evils. And the hazard of these, on the one side,
seems far to overbalance the little inconveniences, on the
other. Therefore, thus much may certainly be said, you have
chosen the more excellent way.
“I would recommend very few novels to young persons, for fear
they should be desirous of more. Mr. Brooke wrote one more,
beside the ‘Earl of Moreland,’ ‘The History of the Human
Heart.’ I think, it is well worth reading, though it is not
equal to his former production. The want of novels may be more
than supplied by well chosen history: such as ‘The Concise
History of England,’ ‘The Concise History of the Church,’
Rollin’s Ancient History, Hooke’s Roman History (the only
impartial one extant), and a few more. For the elder and more
sensible children, Malebranche’s ‘Search after Truth’ is an
excellent French book. Perhaps, you might add Locke’s ‘Essay on
the Human Understanding,’ with the remarks upon it in the
_Arminian Magazine_. I had forgotten that beautiful book, ‘The
Travels of Cyrus,’ whether in French or English.
“I always am your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[525]
The letter to Pitt was one such as prime ministers seldom get.
“BATH, _September 6, 1784_.
“SIR,--Your former goodness, shown to Mr. Ellison,[526]
emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice
an old friend, Lieutenant Webb.[527]
“On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North,
his lordship was pleased to order him £100 a year. But as it
has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself
and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in
this, or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favour.
“Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by
hinting a few things, which have been long upon my mind? If
those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be
forgiven and forgotten.
“New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money
be produced by the old ones? For instance:
“1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know
some towns which pay regularly seven or five pence. Nay, I know
one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no
help for this?
“2. As to the window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a
hundred windows in his house, and he told me he paid for
_twenty_.
“3. The same gentleman told me: ‘We have above one hundred men
servants in this town, but not above _ten_ are paid for.’
“4. I firmly believe, that, in Cornwall alone, the king is
defrauded of half a million yearly in customs. What does this
amount to in all Great Britain? Surely not so little as five
millions.
“5. Servants of distillers inform me, that their masters do not
pay for a fortieth part of what they distil. And this duty last
year, (if I am rightly informed,) amounted only to £20,000. But
have not the spirits distilled this year cost 20,000 lives of
his majesty’s liege subjects? Is not then the blood of these
men vilely bartered for £20,000? not to say anything of the
enormous wickedness, which has been occasioned thereby; and not
to suppose that these poor wretches have any souls! But, (to
consider money alone,) is the king a gainer, or an immense
loser? To say nothing of many millions of quarters of corn
destroyed, which, if exported, would have added more than
£20,000 to the revenue, be it considered, ‘Dead men pay no
taxes,’ So that, by the death of 20,000 persons yearly, (and
this computation is far under the mark,) the revenue loses far
more than it gains.
“But I may urge another consideration to you. You are a man.
You have not lost human feelings. You do not love to drink
human blood. You are a son of Lord Chatham. Nay, if I mistake
not, you are a Christian. Dare you then sustain a sinking
nation? Is the God whom you serve able to deliver from ten
thousand enemies? I believe He is. Nay, and you believe it. O,
may you fear nothing but displeasing Him!
“May I add a word on another head? How would your benevolent
heart rejoice, if a stop could be put to that scandal of the
English nation, suicide!
“The present laws against it avail nothing; for every such
_murderer_ is brought in _non compos_. If he was a poor man,
the jurors forswear themselves from pity. If he was rich, they
hope to be well paid for it. So no ignominy pursues either the
living or the dead, and self murder increases daily. But what
help?
“I conceive this horrid crime might be totally prevented, and
that without doing the least hurt to either the living or the
dead. Do you not remember, sir, how the rage for self murder
among the Spartan matrons was stopped at once? Would it not
have the same effect in England, if an act of parliament were
passed, repealing all other acts and appointing that every self
murderer should be hanged in chains?
“Suppose your influence could prevent suicide by this means,
you would do more service to your country than any prime
minister has done these hundred years. Your name would be
precious to all true Englishmen as long as England continued a
nation. And, what is infinitely more, a greater Monarch than
King George would say to you, ‘Well done, good and faithful
servant.’ I earnestly commit you to His care, and am, sir, your
willing servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[528]
Methodism was established not only in America, but also in Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland, though neither of these countries found a place in
the conference minutes till 1785. William Black, now a young man of
twenty-four, had begun to pray and preach, and had witnessed the
conversion of hundreds. Societies had been formed; and quarterly
meetings held; and, for three years, Black had devoted himself wholly
to the work of the ministry, without being formally recognised as one
of Wesley’s itinerant preachers. He had encountered no ordinary
difficulties in the prosecution of his work. The Rev. Henry Alline, a
Calvinist preacher, had divided his societies, by sowing the seeds of
antinomian error; and Methodist meetings had been illegally disturbed,
and broken up, by English soldiers: but, in the midst of all, young
Black courageously persevered. He applied to Wesley for assistance;
and he himself expressed a wish to come to Kingswood school to fit
himself more fully for the Christian ministry. During the year 1784,
Wesley addressed to him the two following letters.
“INVERNESS, _May 11, 1784_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you have given a little assistance
to our brethren at Halifax, and along the coast. There is no
charity under heaven to be compared to this,--the bringing
light to the poor heathens, that are called Christians, but,
nevertheless, still sit in darkness and the shadow of death. I
am in great hopes, that some of the emigrants, from New York,
are really alive to God. And, if so, they will every way be a
valuable acquisition to the province where their lot is now
cast.
“There is no part of Calvinism or antinomianism which is not
fully answered in some part of our writings; particularly in
the ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.’ I
have no more to do with answering books. It will be sufficient
if you recommend, to Mr. Alline’s friends, some of the tracts
that are already written. As to himself, I fear he is wiser in
his own eyes than seven men that can render a reason.
“The work of God goes on with a steady pace in various parts of
England. But, still, the love of many will wax cold, while many
others are continually added to supply their place. In the west
of England, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire, God still mightily
makes bare His arm. He convinces many, justifies many, and many
are perfected in love.
“My great advice to those who are united together, is, Let
brotherly love continue! See that ye fall not out by the way!
Hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! Bear ye one
another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ!
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[529]
“LONDON, _October 15, 1784_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--A letter of yours, some time ago, gave me
hopes of meeting you in England; as you seemed desirous of
spending some time here, to improve yourself in learning. But,
as you have now entered into a different state, I do not expect
we shall meet in this world. But you have a large field of
action where you are, without wandering into Europe. Your
present parish is wide enough, namely, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. I do not advise you to go any farther. In the
United States, there are abundance of preacher. They can spare
four preachers to you, better than you can spare one to them.
If I am rightly informed, they have already sent you one or
two; and they may afford you one or two more, if it please God
to give a prosperous voyage to Dr. Coke and his fellow
labourers. Does there not want a closer and more direct
connection between you of the north, and the societies under
Francis Asbury? Is it not more advisable, that you should have
a constant correspondence with each other, and act by united
counsels? Perhaps it is for want of this, that so many have
drawn back. I want a more particular account of the societies
in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I am not at all glad of Mr.
Scurr’s intention to remove from Nova Scotia to the south. That
is going from a place, where he is much wanted, to a place
where he is not wanted. I think, if he got £10,000 thereby, it
would be but a poor bargain; that is, upon the supposition,
which you and I make, that _souls_ are of more value than
_gold_. Peace be with all your spirits!
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[530]
Wesley returned to London on October 9, and, nine days afterwards, set
out on his usual visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. He then went
off to Norfolk; and spent the rest of the year in London, and the
surrounding counties. He had a long interview with Pascal Paoli, the
great Corsican general. He visited convicts, under sentence of death,
in Newgate, preached the condemned criminals’ sermon, forty-seven of
these unhappy creatures being present, all in chains, and most of them
in tears. Burglars broke into his house, in City Road. He met with
Simeon, who had been with Fletcher at Madeley, and, for fifty-three
years afterwards, was rector of Trinity church, Cambridge. Jottings
like these might be multiplied; Wesley’s life was full of them. We
conclude with an unpublished letter to Henry Moore, who was now at
Dublin.
“LONDON, _November 4, 1784_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you spoke freely to Mr. Collins.
He is a good man, but not very adviseable. If he should declare
open war in England, he will do little or no harm. Mr. Smyth
will not be fond of him, if he preaches at Plunkett
Street.[531] There will not soon be a coalition between
Arminianism and Calvinism. This we found even in Holland.
“If James Rogers and you keep to the Church still, a few, I
doubt not, will follow your example. We made just allowance
enough for leaving the Church at the last conference.
“I am, with kind love to Nancy, yours affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Besides “The Sunday Service of the Methodists in America,” and a tract
or two, Wesley published nothing, in 1784, except his _Arminian
Magazine_. This was as racy and rich as ever. “The Calvinist Cabinet
Unlocked” was continued from the previous volume, and run through the
whole of this. Like its predecessors, it contained six original
sermons by Wesley himself. In that on Dissipation, he expresses the
startling opinion: “There is not, on the face of the earth, another
nation so perfectly dissipated and ungodly as England; not only so
totally without God in the world, but so openly setting Him at
defiance. There never was an _age_, that we read of in history, since
Julius Cæsar, since Noah, since Adam, wherein dissipation and
ungodliness did so generally prevail, both among high and low, rich
and poor.” In the sermon on Patience, he gives an interesting account
of the way in which he was led to embrace the doctrine of Christian
perfection; and observes that, in 1762, there were 652 members of the
London society, who professed to have attained to this state of grace.
That on the text, “We know in part,” is a marvellous production, such
as none but a man like Wesley could have written. In the sermon on the
“Wisdom and Knowledge of God,” as displayed in the history of the
church, after giving one of his most interesting accounts of the rise
of Methodism, he does not hide the fact, that many of the Methodist
preachers and people had not been faithful. Speaking of the first
preachers, he says, they “were young, poor, ignorant men, without
experience, learning, or art; but simple of heart, devoted to God,
full of faith and zeal, seeking no honour, no profit, no pleasure, no
ease, but merely to save souls; fearing neither want, pain,
persecution, nor whatever man could do unto them: yea, not counting
their lives dear unto them, so they might finish their course with
joy.” But in process of time, “several of the preachers increased in
other knowledge; but not proportionably in the knowledge of God. They
grew less simple, less alive to God, and less devoted to Him. They
were less zealous for God, and consequently less active, less diligent
in His service. Some of them begun to desire the praise of men, and
not the praise of God only; some, to be weary of a wandering life, and
to seek ease and quietness. Some began to fear the faces of men; to be
ashamed of their calling; to be unwilling to deny themselves, to take
up their cross daily, and endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus
Christ. Wherever these preachers laboured, there was not much fruit of
their labours. Their word was not, as formerly, clothed with power; it
carried with it no demonstration of the Spirit!” Weighty words these!
especially as coming from an old man of more than eighty, one of the
keenest observers of facts, himself the founder of Methodism, now
nearly at the close of his remarkable career. And equally pungent are
his remarks respecting the people. Referring to the causes of
Methodist backslidings, he writes: “But of all the temptations, none
so struck at the whole work of God, as the deceitfulness of riches; a
thousand melancholy proofs of which I have seen, within these last
fifty years. I have not known threescore rich persons, perhaps not
half the number, during threescore years, who, as far as I can judge,
were not less holy than they would have been, had they been poor. By
riches, I mean not thousands of pounds; but any more than will procure
the conveniences of life.” “Having gained and saved all you can, give
all you can: else your money will eat your flesh as fire, and will
sink you to the nethermost hell! O beware of laying up treasures upon
earth! Is it not treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath? Lord! I
have warned them: but if they will not be warned, what can I do more?
I can only give them up unto their own hearts’ lusts, and let them
follow their own imaginations! By not taking this warning, it is
certain many of the Methodists are already fallen. Many are falling at
this very time. And there is great reason to apprehend, that many more
will fall, most of whom will rise no more!” If Wesley found it
necessary to say this in 1784, what would he have said in 1871?
In the sermons, on Obedience to Parents, and Companionship with the
Wicked, the reader will find most valuable advices, such as none but a
long experienced casuist like Wesley has wisdom and confidence enough
to give.
Further description of the _Magazine_, for 1784, is scarcely needed.
The letters and the poetry are quite equal to those in the former
volumes; the biographies are rich in Christian experience; the
anecdotes quaint and instructive. Extracts from his “Natural
Philosophy” are given in every number, and also from Bryant’s Ancient
Mythology. Benson’s Letters on Polygamy run through the whole. The
supernatural disturbances at Epworth parsonage are related; and, as if
in anticipation of his own death, Wesley tells his readers, that, not
“to lessen the honour of the house of God, or infect it with
unwholesome vapours, he has left orders to bury his remains, not in
the new chapel in City Road, but in the burying ground adjoining it;”
and then, to show that “epitaphs ought to be prepared by persons who
have some knowledge of grammatical and typographical accuracy; and not
be left to illiterate relations, parish clerks, or stonemasons, to the
great scandal of the nation in general, and of religion in
particular,” he gives the following, taken from a tombstone in
Arbroath churchyard.
“Here lyis Alexand Peter, _present_ Town Treasurer of Arbroth, who
died ---- day January 1630.
“Such a Treasurer was not since, nor yet before,
For common works, calsais, brigs, and schoir--
Of all others he did excel;
He deviced our skoel, and he hung our bell.”