[564] Percival was one of the itinerant preachers at
Newcastle on Tyne.
[565] _Methodist Magazine_, 1834, p. 674.
[566] Bardsley’s colleagues in Colne circuit.
[567] Manuscript letter in British Museum.
[568] Dr. Harmer had recently published vols. iii. and
iv. of his “Observations on various Passages of
Scripture.”
[569] Black’s Memoirs, p. 185.
[570] Memoirs of Burgess.
[571] Life of Henry Moore, p. 271.
[572] Ibid. p. 272.
[573] Manuscript journal.
[574] In his “Short Hymns on Select Passages of the Holy
Scriptures,” published in 1762, Charles Wesley wrote,
concerning the poor itinerants:
“Raised from the people’s lowest lees,
Guard, Lord, Thy preaching witnesses,
Nor let their pride the honour claim
Of sealing covenants in Thy name:
Rather than suffer them to dare
Usurp the priestly character,
Save from the arrogant offence,
And snatch them uncorrupted hence.”
(Hymn on Numbers xvi. 10.) “Wesley Poetry,” vol. ix.,
p. 79.
[575] Manuscript letter.
[576] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 486. It is only fair
to add that all was not sunshine in America. At
the conference of 1784, the American preachers had
recorded a declaration that, “during the life of
Mr. Wesley they were ready to obey his commands in
matters belonging to church government”; but, in
1787, and thenceforward, this declaration was omitted
from their printed minutes. Why? Because Wesley,
without consulting them, had changed the time and
place of holding their conference, and had appointed
Richard Whatcoat to be co-superintendent with Francis
Asbury.--(Etheridge’s Life of Coke, p. 173.) Dr. Coke
was present, and, in a letter printed four years
afterwards, pronounced this an “excommunication”
of Wesley, and declared that, in his opinion, it
hastened Wesley’s death; for, “from the time he was
informed of it, he began to hang down his head, and
to think he had lived long enough.”--(“Impartial
Statement of the known Inconsistencies of Rev. Dr.
Coke.” By William Hammet: 1792.) We gravely doubt the
correctness of Dr. Coke’s opinion.
[577] _Wesley Banner_, 1850, p. 114.
[578] _Methodist Magazine_, 1846, p. 562.
[579] Ibid.
[580] Ibid. p. 563.
[581] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 286. The Rev.
David Simpson, also, is said to have commenced
Sunday-schools, in Macclesfield, as early as the year
1778.--(_Evangelical Magazine_, 1842, p. 84.)
[582] _Methodist Magazine_, 1805, p. 1.
[583] Manuscript letter.
[584] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 490.
[585] Smith’s History of Methodism.
[586] Drew’s Life of Coke.
[587] Reynolds’s “Anecdotes of Wesley,” p. 25.
[588] Life of Clarke, vol. i., p. 259.
[589] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 80.
[590] Black’s Memoirs, p. 200.
[591] Crowther’s manuscript autobiography.
[592] Ibid.
[593] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 6.
[594] _Wesleyan Times_, Sept. 28, 1868.
[595] Clarkson’s “Abolition of the Slave Trade,” vol. i.,
p. 447.
[596] _Methodist Magazine_, 1827, p. 391.
[597] Entwisle’s Memoir, p. 36.
[598] _Wesleyan Times_, June 19, 1849.
[599] “Wesley the Worthy,” by Dr. Dobbin, p. 91.
[600] Large Minutes, 1770.
[601] Henry Moore says this letter was written in the
autumn of 1790; and that, when the lawyer, at the
head of the persecution, boasted that he would drive
Methodism out of Somersetshire, Wesley quietly
remarked, “Yes, when he can drive God out of
it.”--(Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 383.)
[602] This letter is without date. Henry Moore says it was
written about 1790. (Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 383.)
[603] Atmore’s “History of Persecution,” p. 420.
[604] The infirmary was built in 1781, on land partly
given by the Duke of Newcastle, and partly by the
corporation. During the first thirty years of its
existence, it afforded assistance to 33,926 persons.
[605] Its republication would enrich the pages of the
_Methodist Magazine_ of the present day. One
conjecture is, that, after the resurrection,
“our eyes may unite in themselves the qualities
of microscopes and telescopes, and accommodate
themselves exactly to all distances.”
1788.
Age 85
Wesley had published, in the ten volumes of his _Arminian Magazine_
already issued, forty-two original sermons by himself; and he now
ascertained, that a clergyman, in the west of England, intended to
reprint them in a separate form. Wesley had been frequently solicited
to do this himself; but had as often answered, “I leave this for my
executors.” Now, to prevent piracy, he determined to be his own
republisher; and issued these invaluable discourses, with a few
others, in four volumes, 12mo; to which he prefixed a preface, from
which the following characteristic extract is taken.
“Is there need to apologise to sensible persons for the
plainness of my style? A gentleman, whom I much love and
respect, lately informed me, with much tenderness and courtesy,
that men of candour made great allowance for the decay of my
faculties; and did not expect me to write now, either with
regard to sentiment or language, as I did thirty or forty years
ago. Perhaps they are decayed; though I am not conscious of it.
But is not this a fit occasion to explain myself concerning the
style which I use from choice, not necessity? I _could_ even
now write as floridly and rhetorically as even the admired Dr.
B----; but I dare not; because I seek the honour that cometh
from God only. What is the praise of man to _me_, that have one
foot in the grave, and am stepping into the land whence I shall
not return? Therefore, I dare no more write in a _fine style_
than wear a fine coat. But were it otherwise, had I time to
spare, I should still write just as I do. I should purposely
decline, what many admire, a highly ornamental style. I cannot
admire French oratory; I despise it from my heart. Let those
that please be in raptures at the pretty, elegant sentences of
Massillon or Bourdaloue; but give me the plain nervous style of
Dr. South, Dr. Bates, or Mr. John Howe; and, for elegance, show
me any French writer who exceeds Dean Young, or Mr. Seed. Let
who will admire the French frippery, I am still for plain sound
English.
“I think a preacher or writer of sermons has lost his way, when
he imitates any of the French orators; even the most famous of
them; even Massillon or Bourdaloue. Only let his language be
plain, proper, and clear; and it is enough. God Himself has
told us how to speak, both as to the matter and manner: ‘If any
man speak’ in the name of God, ‘let him speak as the oracles of
God’; and if he would imitate any part of these above the rest,
let it be the First Epistle of St. John. This is the style, the
most excellent style, for every gospel preacher. And let him
aim at no more ornament than he finds in that sentence, which
is the sum of the whole gospel, ‘We love Him, because He first
loved us.’”
Wesley’s journal for the first two months of 1788 is lost; but
existing letters show, that the time was spent in London. The
following have not hitherto been published; and, though brief, refer
to two subjects of the highest interest,--Sunday-schools and cottage
prayer-meetings. The first was addressed to Duncan Wright, who was now
at Bolton; the second to William Simpson, at Stockton upon Tees.
“LONDON, _January 9, 1788_.
“DEAR DUNCAN,--You send me a comfortable account of the work of
God in your circuit. I cannot doubt but a blessing redounds to
you all for the sake of the poor children. I verily think,
these Sunday-schools are one of the noblest specimens of
charity, which have been set on foot in England since the time
of William the Conqueror.
“If Michael Fenwick has a mind to go to Dumfries and assist
Robert Dall, you may give him three guineas, which he must
husband well. He may write to me from thence.
“I am, dear Duncan, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
“LONDON, _January 18, 1788_.
“DEAR BILLY,--You did exceeding well to enlarge the number of
prayer-meetings, and to fix them in serious courts. I do not
know that any means of grace whatever has been more owned of
God than this.
“It is not now, but at the time of conference, that children
are received into Kingswood school.
“I am glad sister Moor has not forgotten me. I hope sister
Middleton also thinks of me sometimes. You are welcome to the
four volumes of sermons.
“I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Charles Wesley was now dying. Long, loving, and faithful had been the
friendship between the two brothers. Their opinions had often
differed; but their affection had never failed. Their most serious
difference had been on the subject of separation from the Church of
England, ordinations, and the administration of the sacraments; but,
even on these matters, Charles, while writing strongly, never wrote
unbrotherly. His last letter, in our possession, on these disputed
topics, is as follows.
“_April 9, 1787._
“DEAR BROTHER,--I served West Street chapel on Friday and
Sunday. Next Saturday, I propose to sleep in your bed. Stand to
your own proposal: ‘Let us agree to differ.’ I leave America
and Scotland to your latest thoughts and recognitions; only
observing now, that you are exactly right. Keep your authority
while you live; and, after your death, _detur digniori_, or
rather, _dignioribus_. You cannot settle the succession: you
cannot divine how God will settle it. Have the people of ----
given you leave to die, E. A. P. J.?[606]
“I am, etc.,
“C. WESLEY.”[607]
It would almost seem from this, that Charles was disposed to abandon
his objections to the ordinations for America and Scotland; but, be
that as it may, we have here some of his last thoughts respecting the
Methodists. He evidently believed that, after his brother’s death,
they would exist as a separated people, and he wished them to be
governed by those of themselves who were worthiest.
Wesley loved his brother, and on February 18, 1788, addressed to him
the following laconic note.
“DEAR BROTHER,--You must go out every day, or die. Do not die
to save charges. You certainly need not want anything as long
as I live.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[608]
Ten days after this, Wesley left London, for his long northern
journey, saying: “If I see it again, well; if not, I pray God to raise
up others, that will be more faithful and more successful in His work!
I find, by an increase of years, (1) Less activity; I walk slower,
particularly up hill: (2) My memory is not so quick: (3) I cannot read
so well by candlelight. But, I bless God, that all my other powers of
body and mind remain just what they were.”
A month later, Wesley’s brother had entered into rest. They had
parted, not to meet again till they met in heaven. Wesley, however,
thought that his brother might recover. Hence the following, written
on March 2.
“DEAR BROTHER,--Many inquire after you, and express much
affection, and desire of seeing you. In good time! You are
first suffering the will of God. Afterwards, He has a little
more for you to do: that is, provided you now take up your
cross, (for that it frequently must be,) and go out, at least,
an hour in a day. I would not blame you, if it were two or
three. Never mind expense. I can make that up. You shall not
die to save charges. Peace be with all your spirits!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[609]
Three days later he wrote again.
“_March 5, 1788._
“DEAR BROTHER,--I hope you keep to your rule, of going out
every day, although it may sometimes be a cross. Keep to this
but one month, and I am persuaded you will be as well as you
were at this time twelve-month. Adieu!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[610]
Here, with one exception, epistolary correspondence between the two
brothers ceased. Charles was too feeble to continue it, and his
daughter became his substitute. In reply to one of her letters, Wesley
wrote as follows.
“BRISTOL, _March 7, 1788_.
“MY DEAR SALLY,--When my appetite was entirely gone, so that
all I could take at dinner was a roasted turnip, it was
restored in a few days, by riding out daily, after taking ten
drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water. It is highly
probable, this would have the same effect in my brother’s case.
But, in the mean time, I wish he would see Dr. Whitehead. I am
persuaded there is not such another physician in England;
although, to confound human wisdom, he does not know how to
cure his own wife.
“He must lie in bed as little as possible in the daytime;
otherwise it will hinder his sleeping at night.
“Now, Sally, tell your brothers from me, that their tenderly
respectful behaviour to their father, (even to asking his
pardon, if in anything they have offended him,) will be the
best cordial for him under heaven. I know not but they may save
his life thereby. To know nothing will be wanting, on your
part, gives great satisfaction to, my dear Sally,
“Yours very affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[611]
To Samuel Bradburn, now stationed in London, Wesley addressed the
following hitherto unpublished letter.
“BRISTOL, _March 13, 1788_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--With regard to my brother, I advise you: (1)
Whether he will or no, (at least, if not done already,) carry
Dr. Whitehead to him. (2) If he cannot go out, and yet must
have exercise or die, persuade him to use ---- twice or thrice
a day, and procure one for him. (3) I earnestly advise him to
be electrified; not shocked, but only filled with electric
fire. (4) Inquire if he has made his will, though I think it
scarcely possible he should have delayed it.
“The tunes, which brother Rhodes left with you, should be
immediately printed in the cheap form. Kind love to Sophy.
“I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,
“J. WESLEY.”
Four days later, Wesley wrote his last letter to his brother.
“BRISTOL, _March 17, 1788_.
“DEAR BROTHER,--I am just setting out on my northern journey,
but must snatch time to write two or three lines. I stand and
admire the wise and gracious dispensations of Divine
providence! Never was there before so loud a call to all that
are under your roof. If they have not hitherto sufficiently
regarded either you, or the God of their fathers, what is more
calculated to convince them, than to see you so long hovering
upon the borders of the grave? And, I verily believe, if they
receive the admonition, God will raise you up again. I know you
have the sentence of death in yourself: so had I more than
twelve years ago. I know nature is utterly exhausted: but is
not nature subject to His word? I do not depend upon
physicians, but upon Him that raiseth the dead. Only let your
whole family stir themselves up, and be instant in prayer; then
I have only to say to each, ‘If thou canst believe, thou shalt
see the glory of God!’ Be strong in the Lord, and in the power
of His might. Adieu!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[612]
Another letter must be inserted, written three days after the above,
to his niece, Miss Wesley.
“WORCESTER, _March 20, 1788_.
“MY DEAR SALLY,--Mr. Whitefield had, for a considerable time,
thrown up all the food he took. I advised him to slit a large
onion across the grain, and bind it warm on the pit of his
stomach. He vomited no more. Pray apply this to my brother’s
stomach, the next time he eats.
“One in Yorkshire, who was dying for want of food, as she threw
up all she took, was saved by the following means: Boil crusts
of white bread to the consistence of a jelly; add a few drops
of lemon juice, and a little loaf sugar; take a spoonful once
or twice an hour. By all means, let him try this.
“If neither of these avail, (which I think will not be the
case,) remember the lady at Paris, who lived several weeks
without swallowing a grain, by applying thin slices of beef to
the stomach.
“But, above all, let prayer be made continually; and, probably,
he will be stronger after this illness than he has been these
ten years. Is anything too hard for God? On Sunday I am to be
at Birmingham; on Sunday sennight, at Madeley. My dear Sally,
adieu!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[613]
Nine days after this, on March 29, Charles Wesley died. It is a
curious incident, that Wesley, at the time, was preaching in
Shropshire, and (as was afterwards ascertained) he and his
congregation, at the very moment of his brother’s exit, were singing:
“Come let us join our friends above,
That have obtained the prize,
And, on the eagle wings of love,
To joys celestial rise:
Let all the saints terrestrial sing,
With those to glory gone;
For all the servants of our King,
In earth and heaven, are one.
One family we dwell in Him,
One church, above, beneath,
Though now divided by the stream,
The narrow stream, of death:
One army of the living God,
To His command we bow;
Part of His host have crossed the flood,
And part are crossing _now_.”[614]
Samuel Bradburn, the assistant in the City Road circuit, immediately
dispatched a letter to Wesley, informing him of his brother’s death;
but, in consequence of its being misdirected, it failed to reach him
till April 4, the day before the burial. Wesley was at Macclesfield,
and to get to London in time for the funeral was impossible. Hence the
following letter to the bereaved widow.
“MACCLESFIELD, _April 4, 1788_.
“DEAR SISTER,--Half an hour ago, I received a letter from Mr.
Bradburn, informing me of my brother’s death. For eleven or
twelve days before, I had not one line concerning him. The last
I had was from Charles, which I delayed to answer, expecting
every day to receive some further information. We have only now
to learn that great lesson, ‘The Lord gave, and the Lord hath
taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!’ If it had been
necessary, in order to serve either him or you, I should not
have thought much of coming up to London. Indeed, to serve you,
or your dear family, in anything that is in my power, will
always be a pleasure to, dear sister, your affectionate friend
and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[615]
Wesley had no disposition to tell the deep sorrows of his heart; but
that he severely felt the departure of his brother, there can be no
question. A fortnight afterwards, when at Bolton, he attempted to give
out, as his second hymn, the one beginning with the words, “Come, O
Thou Traveller unknown”; but when he came to the lines,--
“My company before is gone,
And I am left alone with Thee,”--
the bereaved old man sunk beneath emotion which was uncontrollable,
burst into a flood of tears, sat down in the pulpit, and hid his face
with his hands. The crowded congregation well knew the cause of his
speechless excitement; singing ceased; and the chapel became a Bochim.
At length, Wesley recovered himself, rose again, and went through a
service which was never forgotten by those who were present at
it.[616]
Wesley intended to write his brother’s life, and began to collect
materials for it; but his other engagements were too numerous to admit
of the fulfilment of his purpose. The following is the obituary
published in the conference minutes.
“Mr. CHARLES WESLEY, who, after spending fourscore years with
much sorrow and pain, quietly retired into Abraham’s bosom. He
had no disease; but, after a gradual decay of some months,
‘The weary wheels of life stood still at last.’
His least praise was his talent for poetry; although Dr. Watts
did not scruple to say, that that single poem, ‘Wrestling
Jacob,’ was worth all the verses he himself had written.”
This is not the place, nor indeed have we room for it, to write a
critique on the life and character of this remarkable man. It would be
easy to give the opinions of those who knew him,--Whitehead, Moore,
Coke, Bradburn, Clarke, and Pawson,--some in favour, and others to the
contrary. Suffice it to say, that, had he done nothing more than
furnish the Methodists, and the church of Christ generally, with his
incomparable hymns, in which so many millions have devoutly worshipped
the God of heaven, he would have rendered service to the cause of
truth and piety which no language can adequately describe. His “hymns,
and psalms, and spiritual songs,” for a hundred and thirty years, have
been the metrical liturgy of the people called Methodists, and to them
countless multitudes have been indebted for not a few of their richest
blessings.
True to his high church principles, Charles Wesley, instead of
selecting the burial ground of his brother’s chapel in City Road,
desired to be interred in the consecrated churchyard of St.
Marylebone. This, to Wesley, was a painful disappointment. “It is a
pity,” said he, in a letter to the Rev. Peard Dickenson, “but the
remains of my brother had been deposited with mine. Certainly that
ground is holy as any in England; and it contains a large quantity of
‘bonny dead.’”[617] So deeply did he feel this, that, seven weeks
after his brother’s funeral, he wrote an article, at Dumfries, on the
consecration of churches and burial grounds, which he published in his
magazine; and in which, after showing, that there is no law of
England, or of the English Church, enjoining such a practice, he
remarks:
“Neither is it enjoined by the law of God. Where do we find one
word, in the New Testament, enjoining any such thing? Neither
do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the
church. It seems to have entered, and gradually spread itself,
with the other innovations and superstitions of the Church of
Rome. For this reason, I never wished that any bishop should
consecrate any chapel or burial ground of mine. Indeed, I
should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded the
thing is wrong in itself, being not authorised either by any
law of God, or by any law of the land. In consequence of which,
I conceive, that either the clerk or the sexton may as well
consecrate the church, or the churchyard, as the bishop. With
regard to the latter, I know not who could answer that plain
question: You say, ‘This is _consecrated ground_, so many feet
_broad_, and so many _long_’; but pray how _deep_ is it? ‘Deep!
what does that signify?’ Oh, a great deal! for if my grave be
dug too _deep_, I may happen to get out of the _consecrated
ground_! And who can tell, what unhappy consequences may follow
from this! I take the whole of this practice to be a mere relic
of Romish superstition. And I wonder, that any sensible
protestant should think it right to countenance it; much more
that any reasonable man should plead for the necessity of it!
Surely it is high time now, that we should be guided, not by
custom, but by Scripture and reason.”[618]
This was a heavy blow at his brother’s prejudice. Wesley himself
resolved to be buried in the ground connected with the chapel in the
City Road, and he wished his brother to be buried with him. To this
Charles objected, because the ground had not been _consecrated by a
bishop_! The objection was foolish; and the burial, in another place,
occasioned considerable gossip. John Pawson, in a letter dated April
28, 1788, remarks: “Charles Wesley would not be buried at the new
chapel, because it was not consecrated; nor by any of our ministers,
but by one of his own choosing. He sent for the parson of the parish
where he lived, and said: ‘Sir, whatever the world may have thought of
me, I have lived, and I die, in the communion of the Church of
England, and I will be buried in the yard of my parish church.’”[619]
Wesley well knew that remarks like these were current; and he owed it
to his people to publish his thoughts on a subject, which, however
insignificant in itself, was not unlikely to be a gossiping gangrene
in his societies.
Wesley’s affection for his brother was evinced in the continued
kindness exercised towards his brother’s family. According to his own
account book, he gave to them, in this the year of their bereavement,
at least, two hundred guineas. He also assured his brother’s widow
that, as long as he lived, he would help her to the utmost of his
power. The two following letters may fitly draw the curtain on Charles
Wesley’s death and burial.
“_July 25, 1788._
“MY DEAR SISTER,--You know well what a regard I had for Miss
Gwynne, before she was Mrs. Wesley. And it has not ceased from
that time till now. I am persuaded it never will. Therefore, I
will speak without reserve just what comes into my mind. I have
sometimes thought you are a little like me. My wife used to
tell me, ‘My dear, you are too generous. You don’t know the
value of money.’ I could not wholly deny the charge. Possibly,
you may sometimes lean to the same extreme. I know you are of a
generous spirit. You have an open heart, and an open hand. But
may it not sometimes be too open, more so than your
circumstances will allow? Is it not an instance of Christian,
as well as worldly, prudence, to cut our coat according to our
cloth? If your circumstances are a little narrower, should you
not contract your expenses too? I need but just give you this
hint, which I doubt not you will take kindly from, my dear
Sally,
“Your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[620]
“_December 21, 1788._
“MY DEAR SISTER,--It is undoubtedly true, that some silly
people, (whether in the society or not I cannot tell,) have
frequently talked in that manner, both of my brother and me.
They have said, that we were well paid for our labours. And,
indeed, so we were, but not by man. Yet, this is no more than
we were to expect, especially from busybodies in other men’s
matters. And it is no more possible to restrain their tongues,
than it is to bind up the wind. But it is sufficient for us,
that our own conscience condemned us not; and that our record
is with the Most High.
“What has concerned me more than this idle slander is a trial
of another kind. I supposed, when John Atlay left me, that he
had left me one or two hundred pounds beforehand. On the
contrary, I am one or two hundred pounds behindhand, and shall
not recover myself till after Christmas. Some of the first
moneys I receive, I shall set apart for you; and in everything
that is in my power, you may depend upon the willing assistance
of,
“Dear Sally, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[621]
We must now return to Wesley’s journal. On the last day in February,
he left London, for Bath and Bristol. The mayor of Bristol invited him
to preach in the civic church, which invitation he accepted. His
worship and most of the aldermen were present; and Wesley, fearing no
man’s frown, and courting no man’s favour, took for his text the
fearful narrative of the rich man and Lazarus; and then dined, with
the rich men, at the rich man’s table, in the mansion house. The most
remarkable incident, however, occurred in his own chapel on Thursday
evening, the 6th of March. At that time, one of the great questions of
the day was the subject of slavery; and Wesley had announced his
intention to preach on it. The chapel, in consequence, was densely
crowded, with both rich and poor. Wesley selected as his text, “God
shall enlarge Japheth: and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and
Canaan shall be his servant.” The rest we give in the words of Wesley
himself. He writes:
“About the middle of the discourse, while there was on every
side attention still as night, a vehement noise arose, none
could tell why, and shot like lightning through the
congregation. The terror and confusion were inexpressible. You
might have imagined it was a city taken by storm. The people
rushed upon each other with the utmost violence; the benches
were broken in pieces; and nine tenths of the congregation
appeared to be struck with the same panic. In about six
minutes, the storm ceased, almost as suddenly as it rose; and,
all being calm, I went on without the least interruption. It
was the strangest incident of the kind I ever remember; and, I
believe, none can account for it, without supposing some
præternatural influence. Satan fought, lest his kingdom should
be delivered up. We set the next day apart as a day of fasting
and prayer, that God would remember those poor outcasts of
men,” [the slaves,] “and make a way for them to escape, and
break their chains asunder.”
The sceptic will sneer at Wesley’s solution; but, before he does so,
he ought himself to supply a better. Opinions respecting this
mysterious commotion will be different; but all parties will unite in
admiring Wesley’s sympathy with the suffering slave. Wesley was the
first Englishman who appointed a fast day to pray that slavery might
cease.
On the 17th of March, Wesley set out on his journey to the north.
Everywhere he had enormous congregations; and frequently was obliged,
in wintry weather, to preach in the open air. Mrs. Fletcher, at
Madeley, wrote: “I could not but discern a great change in him. His
soul seems far more sunk into God, and such an unction attends his
word, that each sermon was indeed spirit and life.”[622]
Exactly eight weeks were occupied in reaching the Scottish border;
and, during this interval, Wesley preached more than eighty sermons,
in fifty-seven different towns and villages. In seven instances, all
in Yorkshire, he preached in churches. The crowds were greater than
ever; and, almost in every place he visited, he found the work of God
progressing.
On the 13th of May, Wesley visited Dumfries, where he had stationed
Robert Dall, at the conference of 1787. Dumfries was without a chapel,
and without a society; but Mr. Dall had just the sort of energy which
such a place required; and Wesley knew it. The following letters to
his home missionary have not before been published.
“LONDON, _December 1, 1787_.
“DEAR ROBERT,--You have reason to praise God, who has prospered
you, and given you to see the fruit of your labours. Our all
dispensing God has called us to preach the plain gospel. I am
glad your hands are strengthened in corresponding with the
brethren. I will desire any to change with you when you see it
best, and, if I live till spring, please God, I will visit you
at Dumfries.
“I am, with love to sister Dall, your affectionate friend and
brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
“LONDON, _February 11, 1788_.
“DEAR ROBERT,--I allow you to build at Dumfries, providing any
one will lend a hundred guineas on interest
“I hope to see you, God willing, in May,
“I am, etc.,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Robert Dall was one of Wesley’s favourites, and so was his Christian
wife, to whom, said Wesley, in another unpublished letter now before
us, “God has given both sense and grace.” This godly couple set all
their energies to work; and, by begging of their friends in all parts
of the United Kingdom, succeeded, in three months, in building the
unique chapel which Wesley describes below. The effort was regarded as
gigantic; and Wesley’s visit was a sort of triumphant top stone to the
whole affair. “Such,” writes Mrs. Gordon Playdell to Mr. Dall, “such
was the general prejudice against Mr. Wesley, that I really feared his
coming would end your hopeful prosperity; but God has disappointed all
my fears, and outdone all my hopes. The popularity, which met him
here, was marvellous. The turn in his favour was such as none but God
could have brought about. You have been all along respected, and the
esteem for you grows more and more. Your pious, unwearied attentions
to the poor criminals have increased the general regard for you, and
your sermons in the jail been much approved.”[623] “Mr. Wesley,” wrote
Charles Atmore, “was much pleased with Dumfries and you. He has given
you a place in his journal, and what you have done at Dumfries will be
a memorial of you to all generations.”
We could quote a large number of other letters relative to the same
subject; but the above is a sufficient preface to the following racy
extract from Wesley’s journal.
“May 13--To-day, we went through lovely roads to Dumfries.
Robert Dall soon found me out. He has behaved exceeding well,
and done much good here: but he is a bold man; he has begun
building a preaching house, larger than any in Scotland, except
those in Glasgow and Edinburgh! In the evening, I preached
abroad in a convenient street, on one side of the town. Rich
and poor attended from every quarter, of whatever denomination;
and every one seemed to hear for life. Surely the Scots are the
best hearers in Europe! At five, next morning, I was importuned
to preach in the preaching house; but such an one I never saw
before. It had no windows at all: so that, although the sun
shone bright, we could see nothing without candles.”
Wesley’s next halting place was Glasgow. It had been widely reported,
by some of the Scottish ministers, that he was about to publish a new
edition of the Bible, and to leave out part of the Epistle to the
Romans, St. John’s Apocalypse, and other portions of the inspired
writings;[624] but, notwithstanding this, says Charles Atmore, in the
letter before quoted, “he was far better received in Glasgow than
ever.”
Here he spent three days; preached six sermons; gave an account
concerning the rise and progress of Methodism; and ordained John
Barber.[625]
Speaking of the Glasgow chapel, Wesley writes: “It will contain about
as many as the chapel at Bath. But oh the difference! It has the
pulpit on one side; and has exactly the look of a presbyterian
meeting-house. It is the very sister of our house at Brentford.
Perhaps an omen of what will be when I am gone.”
In his address on Methodism, which was delivered to the congregation,
he remarked:
“There is no other religious society under heaven, which
requires nothing of men in order to their admission into it,
but a desire to save their souls. Look all around you, you
cannot be admitted into the church, or society of the
presbyterians, anabaptists, quakers, or any others, unless you
hold the same opinions with them, and adhere to the same mode
of worship. The Methodists alone do not insist on your holding
this or that opinion; but they think and let think. Neither do
they impose any particular mode of worship; but you may
continue to worship in your former manner, be it what it may.
Now, I do not know any other religious society, either ancient
or modern, wherein such liberty of conscience is now allowed,
or has been allowed, since the age of the apostles. Here is our
glorying; and a glorying peculiar to us. What society shares it
with us?”
From Glasgow, Wesley went to Edinburgh, where he wrote: “I still find
a frankness and openness in the people of Edinburgh, which I find in
few other parts of the kingdom. I spent two days among them with much
satisfaction; and I was not at all disappointed, in finding no such
increase, either in the congregation or the society, as many expected
from their leaving the kirk.”
Wesley here recognises the Edinburgh Methodists as a _separated_
people, in other words, a _church_; but adroitly intimates, that the
result was not equal to what many of his friends had ventured to
expect. How stands the case? In 1766, when the numbers were first
given, Edinburgh circuit had 165 members of society, who, in the next
four years, dwindled to 62. Then the circuit rallied, and, in four
years more, the numbers rose to 287. In the next quadrennial period,
we find them reduced to 161. In 1785, when the ordinations for
Scotland took place, Edinburgh had 134 Methodists; now, in 1788, it
had 330; which, however, at Wesley’s death in 1791, were reduced to
205. These are curious statistics; and help to cast light on Wesley’s
meaning.
On May 25, Wesley reached Newcastle, which, for the next fortnight,
was the centre of his labours. Two incidents, in connection with this
visit, are worth recording.
Three years before, John Hampson, jun., greatly offended, had
relinquished the itinerancy, and was now a clergyman at Sunderland.
Strangely enough, Hampson invited Wesley to occupy his pulpit, and
Wesley willingly accepted the invitation. The church was crowded both
morning and afternoon.
The other incident occurred at Stanhope, famed “for nothing but a very
uncommon degree of wickedness.” The preaching place was an upper room,
and the congregation large. Presently, the main beam, that supported
the room, gave way, and a frightful hubbub followed. “One man,” says
Wesley, “leaped out of the window; the rest quietly went out; and
nothing was hurt except a poor dog beneath the window. I then preached
in the open air, to twice or thrice as many as the room would have
contained, who were all attention.” This, which might have been a
serious catastrophe, happened at five o’clock on a summer’s morning.
On the 9th of June, Wesley left Newcastle for the south. Reaching
Darlington, he writes:
“Margaret Barlow came to me; and I asked her abundance of
questions. I was soon convinced, that she was not only sincere,
but deep in grace; and, therefore, incapable of deceit. I was
convinced likewise, that she had frequent intercourse with a
spirit that appeared to her in the form of an angel. I know not
how to judge of the rest. Her account was:--‘For above a year,
I have seen this angel, whose face is exceeding beautiful: her
raiment white as snow, and glistering like silver; her voice
unspeakably soft and musical. She tells me many things before
they come to pass. She foretold I should be ill at such a time,
in such a manner, and well at such an hour; and it was so
exactly. She has said, such a person shall die at such a time;
and he did so. Above two months ago, she told me your brother
was dead; (I did not know you had a brother;) and that he was
in heaven. And some time since, she told me, you will die in
less than a year. But what she has most earnestly and
frequently told me, is, that God will, in a short time, be
avenged on obstinate sinners, and will destroy them with fire
from heaven.’”
Wesley adds:
“Whether this will be so or no, I cannot tell; but when we were
alone there was a wonderful power in her words; and, as the
Indian said to David Brainerd, ‘They did good to my heart.’ It
is above a year since this girl was visited in this manner,
being then between fourteen and fifteen years old. But she was
then quite a womanish girl, and of unblamable behaviour.
Suppose that which appeared to her was really an angel; yet
from the face, the voice, and the apparel, she might easily
mistake him for a female; and this mistake is of little
consequence. Much good has already resulted from this odd
event; and is likely to ensue; provided those who believe, and
those who disbelieve, her report, have but patience with each
other.”
Marvellous! Who was Margaret Barlow? The answer involves an episode in
Methodistic history.
In the conference minutes for 1778, John Blades is reported as one of
Wesley’s itinerant preachers on trial; but, beyond this, he is never
mentioned. Blades was a native of Northumberland, a weakminded
fanatic, totally unfit for the itinerant work. Perhaps, for this
reason, he was not appointed to a circuit. For some years, however, he
acted, in the capacity of a local preacher, in the north of England.
He then began to preach consummate nonsense respecting the privileges
of believers, and, with such success that, when he left the Methodists
in 1784, he was enabled to form separate societies in a large number
of places in the county of Durham, and in the north of Yorkshire.
Among his followers, who were called _Bladonians_,[626] was Ralph
Hodgson, a miller at West Auckland, in whose house Margaret Barlow was
a servant. We have before us a long unpublished letter, written by
this dusty enthusiast, only a fortnight before Wesley’s interview with
his servant girl at Darlington. It is addressed to “Mr. Richard Steel,
Tanner, Wolsingham. With all possible speed”: and is dated, May 27,
1788. Hodgson tells his friend Steel that an angel from the Lord had
appeared to him, and stated that the “wicked were about to be
destroyed from off the face of the earth.” He also urges Steel to join
with him in making this angelic revelation as widely known as
possible.
It is a curious fact that Hodgson waited upon Wesley at Newcastle, for
the purpose of converting him to his opinions; and that he accompanied
his clairvoyant servant, Margaret Barlow, to meet Wesley at the house
of Thomas Pickering, at Darlington. He also wrote a long letter, dated
“West Auckland, October 26, 1788,” to the Rev. Mr. Agutter, St. Mary
Magdalen college, Oxford, in which he informed that gentleman that
Margaret Barlow had been his servant about two years; that she had
attended the services of the Methodists; that an angel had appeared to
her in the form of a female, and with a lustre brighter than the light
of a thousand candles; that the angel had come to her in the daytime
as well as night; and had made known to her the state of many who were
dead, as well as many who were still alive; but that the principal
matter, which the angel had revealed, was the exact day when the
wicked would be destroyed. Margaret also had been much disturbed by
the appearance of two evil spirits, both clad in black, and wearing
horns; but the recital of her visions had produced effects great and
blessed.
What was the result of all this religious raving? Margaret, at length,
announced the exact day when the destruction of the wicked was to be
accomplished. Intense excitement followed. Some sold their clothing
and property, and distributed the proceeds among the poor; and others
exulted at the thought of the possessions of the wicked being
distributed among themselves. The day came, numbers having sat up all
night to watch its dawning. Portentous signs appeared. The heavens
gathered blackness, lightnings flashed, and thunders roared. At
Barnardcastle it was the day of the weekly market. The people were
frantic, some with hope, and some with fear. Cries were heard, “It is
coming! It is coming!” The business of the market was suspended; and
consternation was general. At length, the clouds were scattered, the
heavens brightened, the day passed over, and all things continued as
they were. The bubble burst; Blades, Hodgson, his wife, and Margaret
Barlow were discredited, and fled across the Atlantic; where most, if
not all of them, joined the shakers, whose principles and morals, to
say the least, were capable of great improvement.
The reader will excuse this lengthened digression concerning a mad
miller and his servant maid. We have purposely omitted the numerous
stories, of a similar description, which Wesley has inserted in his
journal and magazine; but one instance seemed necessary, to illustrate
what was unquestionably a feature in Wesley’s character,--excessive
credulity in receiving doubtful proofs of the existence and nearness
of an unseen world of spirits. We are not inclined to say hard things
concerning this. It was a weakness, but not a sin. Besides, though
some of the stories, referred to, were ridiculously foolish, it would
be rashness to deny that some of the others were strictly and
startlingly true. And further, we honestly declare that, in an age
like this, when the general tendency is to scepticism rather than to
credulity, we should hail, as no bad omen, the appearance of a
disposition, like that of Wesley, to cherish, not denounce, any and
every evidence of another and future state of being.
On leaving Darlington, Wesley proceeded to Whitby, where he was
advertised to open a new chapel; but, as often happens now, when the
day arrived, the building was far from being ready. For want of
stairs, the people had to be admitted to the gallery through one of
the back windows near the pulpit; and, for want of a gallery front, a
number of stalwart Yorkshiremen squatted themselves all round the
gallery ledge, their backs protecting the people behind them, and
their feet dangling over the heads of those below.[627] Wesley writes:
“June 13, Friday.--At eight, I preached to a lovely
congregation at Stokesley; and, at eleven, in Guisborough, to
one far larger. In the evening, I preached at Whitby, in the
new house, thoroughly filled above and below. The unfinished
galleries, having as yet no fronts, were frightful to look
upon. It is the most curious house we have in England. You go
up to it by about forty steps; and have then before you a lofty
front, I judge, near fifty feet high, and fifty-four feet
broad.”
Wesley spent the next two days in Whitby, preaching twice on Saturday,
and thrice on Sunday, and finishing up with a Yorkshire lovefeast.
From the “_plain people at Whitby_,” Wesley went to the Scarborough
_elegants_; and thence to Bridlington, Malton, Beverley, and Hull. In
the last mentioned town, Joseph Benson and the Methodists had recently
erected George Yard chapel, an edifice of which Benson was immensely
proud, and whose account of its opening services, six months before,
drew from Wesley the following laconic letter.
“DEAR JOSEPH,--I greatly rejoice in the erection of your new
preaching house; and in the tokens of the Divine presence with
which you and the people were favoured at the opening; but if
it be at all equal to the new chapel in London, I will engage
to eat it.
“I am, yours affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[628]
Wesley’s new chapel in City Road was his _beau ideal_, and great was
his jealousy of all pretentious competitors; but still he was obliged
to acknowledge, that even George Yard chapel, Hull, was “well built,
and elegantly finished; handsome, but not gaudy.”
During his stay in Hull, he preached twice in the high church, by the
invitation of the vicar, Mr. Clark; and thrice in Benson’s pet chapel.
Notwithstanding his three heavy services on the previous day, Wesley,
an old man, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, set out on June 23,
and not only travelled all the way from Hull to York, but, preached
four sermons in four different towns and villages.
At York a happy reconciliation was brought about. Wesley had been
greatly annoyed with Robert Spence for publishing the “York Hymn
Book”; and Robert had been so grieved by Wesley’s strictures as to be
strongly tempted to leave the Methodists. Wesley and the grand old
Methodist at York, however, were not the men to harbour malice; and,
by appointment, the offending bookseller breakfasted with Wesley, _at
three o’clock_ in the morning, and all past differences were consigned
to the shades of charitable oblivion.[629]
A three o’clock breakfast! And yet, this, with Wesley, was not at all
unusual. His energy, diligence, and punctuality were marvellous.
Addressing his coachman, at this early breakfast in the city of York,
he said, “Have the carriage at the door at four. I do not mean a
quarter or five minutes past, but four.” The man knew what his master
meant; and, as the minster clock struck four, Wesley had shaken hands
with Robert Spence, and was entering his chaise.[630] Railways, since
then, have helped to make some men punctual; but Wesley was perfect in
this human excellence long before railway engines began to whistle.
Wesley made his way to Epworth, where he spent his birthday. He
writes:
“June 28.--I this day enter on my eighty-fifth year[631]: and
what cause have I to praise God, as for a thousand spiritual
blessings, so, for bodily blessings also! How little have I
suffered yet by ‘the rush of numerous years!’ It is true, I am
not so agile as I was in times past. I do not run or walk so
fast as I did; my sight is a little decayed; my left eye is
grown dim, and hardly serves me to read; I have daily some pain
in the ball of my right eye, as also in my right temple,
(occasioned by a blow received some months since,) and in my
right shoulder and arm, which I impute partly to a sprain, and
partly to the rheumatism. I find, likewise, some decay in my
memory, with regard to names and things lately past; but not at
all with regard to what I have read or heard twenty, forty, or
sixty years ago; neither do I find any decay in my hearing,
smell, taste, or appetite; (though I want but a third part of
the food I did once;) nor do I feel any such thing as
weariness, either in travelling or preaching; and I am not
conscious of any decay in writing sermons; which I do as
readily, and I believe, as correctly, as ever.
“To what cause can I impute this, that I am as I am? First,
doubtless, to the power of God, fitting me for the work to
which I am called, as long as He pleases to continue me
therein; and, next, subordinately to this, to the prayers of
His children.
“May we not impute it, as inferior means, (1) To my constant
exercise and change of air? (2) To my never having lost a
night’s sleep, sick or well, at land or at sea, since I was
born? (3) To my having sleep at command; so that, whenever I
feel myself almost worn out, I call it, and it comes, day or
night? (4) To my having constantly, for above sixty years,
risen at four in the morning? (5) To my constant preaching at
five in the morning, for above fifty years? (6) To my having
had so little pain in my life; and so little sorrow, or anxious
care?
“Even now, though I find pain daily in my eye, or temple, or
arm; yet it is never violent, and seldom lasts many minutes at
a time. Whether or not this is sent to give me warning, that I
am shortly to quit this tabernacle, I do not know; but be it
one way or the other, I have only to say,
‘My remnant of days
I spend to His praise,
Who died the whole world to redeem:
Be they many or few,
My days are His due,
And they all are devoted to Him.’”
Wesley’s two texts on this memorable birthday were appropriate. Here,
eighty-five years before, he had been born, in the Epworth parsonage;
and now, in the morning, he preached from, “So teach us to number our
days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”; and, in the evening,
from, “Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of
in the prophets; behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; for I
work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe,
though a man declare it unto you.”
This may be a fitting place to insert a selection from Wesley’s
letters, written in the previous six months.
The first was addressed to William Black, one of his missionaries in
Nova Scotia. Black had related to Wesley the cases of certain
demoniacs, and particularly one which he himself had seen. When Black
approached, it was with the utmost difficulty that four men could hold
the poor wretch, and prevent him doing the missionary serious injury.
Black immediately fell upon his knees, and began to pray. In an
instant, the frenzy of the man subsided; and the lips, that a few
moments before had uttered blasphemy, began to syllable the praises of
the great Redeemer. Wesley’s letter is as follows.
“GLOUCESTER, _March 19, 1788_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad to find you are still going on in
the glorious work to which you are called. We have need to make
haste therein; to use all diligence. For the work is great; the
day is short; and lonely is the night wherein no man can work.
“It is well that Satan is constrained to show himself so
plainly in the case of those poor demoniacs. Thereby, he
weakens his own kingdom, and excites us to assault him more
zealously. In the beginning of the work in England and Ireland,
we had many cases of the kind. But he now chooses to assault us
by subtlety more than by strength.
“I wish you would do all you possibly can to keep our brethren
in peace with each other. Your pains will not be lost on poor
John McGeary. There is much good in him. Indeed, he is
naturally of a bold, forward temper; but I hope his zeal is now
according to knowledge.
“Praying that you may increase with all the increase of God, I
am your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[632]
The next is brief, but interesting. Agnes Collinson was now a
remarkable child, twelve years old. Six years afterwards, she became
the wife of Mr. Joseph Bulmer; and lived to be the authoress of
“Messiah’s Kingdom,” in twelve books, 486 pages, and of the beautiful
hymn, which is so often sung at the laying of the foundation stones of
Methodist chapels, “Thou who hast in Zion laid,” etc.
Mrs. Bulmer was born a poet, and, at the death of Charles Wesley,
wrote an elegy, which was sent to the surviving brother, and evoked
the following characteristic letter.
“MY DEAR MAIDEN,--Beware of pride; beware of flattery; suffer
none to commend you to your face; remember, one good temper is
of more value, in the sight of God, than a thousand good
verses. All you want is to have the mind that was in Christ,
and to walk as Christ walked.
“I am, etc.,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[633]
The following is now for the first time published. William Simpson, to
whom it was addressed, was assistant in the Yarm circuit.
“NEAR COLNE, _April 26, 1788_.
“DEAR BILLY,--You did well to expel those who marry ungodly
persons,--a real evil, which we never can tolerate. You should
speak to every believer singly concerning meeting in band.
There were always some in Yarm circuit, though not many. No
circuit ever did, or ever will flourish, unless there are bands
in the large societies. It is a good sign, that so many of our
preachers are willing to contribute to those necessary
expenses. They used to be much straitened in their bowels,
whenever money was wanted. You have now good encouragement to
remain another year in the circuit. But you know two preachers
do not remain in the same circuit more than one year.
“I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Dr. Coke was an innovator. Finding that many of the Dublin Methodists
were in the habit of attending Dissenting chapels on the sabbath, he,
in order to prevent this, directed that, on three Sundays out of four,
there should be service in Whitefriar Street chapel in church hours;
and that, on the fourth, the Methodists should be recommended to
attend St. Patrick’s church, and receive the sacrament.[634] Henry
Moore was the assistant in the Dublin circuit; was nearly as old a man
as Coke; and, as a preacher, his superior. Coke’s assumption to act as
Wesley’s vicar gave great offence, and the new arrangement had to be
abandoned.[635] The following letters refer to this Dublin fracas, and
are not without interest, as evincing Wesley’s persistent adherence to
the Established Church. The first three were addressed to Moore; the
fourth to Coke.
“LEEDS, _May 6, 1788_.
“DEAR HENRY,--The doctor is too warm. He ought to have had more
regard to so respectable a body of men as applied to him. I am
a Church of England man; and, as I said fifty years ago, so I
say still, in the Church I will live and die, unless I am
thrust out. We must have no more service at Whitefriars in the
church hours. Leave all contention before it be meddled with.
Follow after peace.
“I am, etc.,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[636]
“WHITEHAVEN, _May 11, 1788_.
“DEAR HENRY,--Still, the more I reflect, the more I am
convinced, that the Methodists ought not to leave the Church. I
judge, that to lose a thousand, yea, ten thousand, of our
people, would be a less evil than this. ‘But many had much
comfort in this.’ So they would in any _new thing_. I believe
Satan himself would give them comfort herein; for he knows what
the end would be. Our glory has hitherto been not to be a
separate body:
‘Hoc Ithacus velit.’
“But whatever Mr. Smyth does, I am for the old way. I advise
you to abide in it, till you find another _new event_,
although, indeed, you may expect it every day; namely, the
removal of your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[637]
“GLASGOW, _May 12, 1788_.
“DEAR HENRY,--I allow two points: 1. That, while Dr. Coke is in
Dublin, he may have service at eleven o’clock as before. 2.
That, on condition that our brethren will attend St. Patrick’s
one Sunday in four, you may read prayers the other three in the
room. When Dr. Coke returns from Dublin, he should immediately
send me word who is proper to succeed you there. I shall be
glad, if I can, to have Nancy and you at Bristol next year. It
is not unlikely, I may finish my course there; and, if so, I
should love to have her to close my eyes. My brother said, I
should follow him within the year. But, be that as it may, by
God’s help, I will live to-day.
“I am, etc.,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[638]
“GLASGOW, _May 16, 1788_.
“DEAR SIR,--I came hither this morning. There is a fair opening
at Dumfries, and a prospect of much good. I like your proposal
concerning Joseph Cownley,[639] and will talk with him about it
if I live to see Newcastle.
“As I said before, so I say still, I cannot, I dare not, leave
the Church, for the reasons we all agreed to thirty years ago
in the conference at Leeds. Thus far only I could go. On
condition, that our people would receive the Lord’s supper once
a month either at St. Patrick’s, or their own parish church
(the reasonableness of which should be strongly and largely
explained),--on this condition, I would allow Henry Moore to
read the morning service at Whitefriars on the other Sundays.
“I wonder at the imprudence of Mr. Edward Smyth, to say nothing
of his unkindness. You did well in changing the stewards at
Waterford.
“I am, dear sir, yours most affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[640]
The following, hitherto unpublished, letter was addressed to Thomas
Taylor, then stationed at Manchester, and refers to a gigantic evil
which still exists.
“NEAR NEWCASTLE, _June 7, 1788_.
“DEAR TOMMY,--I have no time to spend on controversy about the
Church, unless I had leisure to write a folio.
“It is no wonder, that every one should be ruined who concerns
himself with that execrable bill trade. In London, I expel
every one out of our society who has anything to do with it.
Whoever endorses a bill, (that is, promises to pay,) for more
than he is worth, is either a fool or a knave.
“I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
When Wesley was at Bradford, in the month of May, he preached in the
parish church, and, in the course of his sermon, quoted the opinion of
Bengelius, that the millennial reign of Christ would begin in the year
1836. Some one present circulated this as the opinion of Wesley
himself; and, as the opinion of such a man was regarded of high
importance, the rumoured prophecy ran throughout the kingdom, and more
than one of Wesley’s friends wrote to ask if what was said was true.
The following is Wesley’s reply to Christopher Hopper.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I said nothing, less or more, in Bradford
church, concerning the end of the world, neither concerning my
own opinion, but what follows:--That Bengelius had given it as
his opinion, not that the world would then end, but, that the
millennial reign of Christ would begin in the year 1836. I have
no opinion at all upon the head; I can determine nothing about
it. These calculations are far above, out of my sight. I have
only one thing to do,--to save my soul, and those that hear me.
“I am, yours affectionately,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[641]
We left Wesley celebrating his eighty-sixth birthday, in his
birthplace, Epworth. Here he preached four or five sermons, held a
lovefeast, and attended sacred service in his father’s church. He
writes:
“Mr. Gibson read the prayers with seriousness, and preached a
plain, useful sermon; but I was sorry to see scarce twenty
communicants, half of whom came on my account. I was informed,
likewise, that scarce fifty persons used to attend the Sunday
service. What can be done to remedy this sore evil? I fain
would prevent the members here from leaving the Church; but I
cannot do it. As Mr. Gibson is not a pious man, but rather an
enemy to piety, who frequently preaches against the truth, and
those that hold and love it, I cannot, with all my influence,
persuade them either to hear him, or to attend the sacrament
administered by him. If I cannot carry this point even while I
live, who then can do it when I die? And the case of Epworth is
the case of every church, where the minister neither loves nor
preaches the gospel; the Methodists will not attend his
administrations. What then is to be done?”
This is amusing. Here we find Wesley acknowledging, that, in the very
place where his father had been rector for nearly forty years, the
Methodists had, _ipso facto_, separated from the Church, and that he,
with all his influence, had not sufficient power to hinder it.
During the next fortnight, Wesley preached, on an average, twice a
day, until his arrival in London, on July 15. The following letters
belong to this period. The first was addressed to Mr. John Mann, one
of his missionaries in Nova Scotia.
“_June 30, 1788._
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am greatly concerned for the prosperity of
the work of God in Nova Scotia. It seems some way to lie nearer
my heart than even that in the United States; many of our
brethren there are, we may hope, strong in the Lord, and in the
power of His might; but I look upon those in the northern
provinces to be younger, and tender children, and consequently
to stand in need of our utmost care. I hope all of you, that
watch over them, are exactly of one mind, and of one judgment;
that you take care always to speak the same things, and to
watch over one another in love.
“Mr. Wray is a workman that need not be ashamed. I am glad to
hear of his safe arrival. Although he has not much
learning,[642] he has, what is far better, uprightness of
heart, and devotedness to God. I doubt not but he and you will
be one, and go on your way hand in hand. Whatever opposers you
meet with, Calvinists, papists, antinomians, or any other, have
a particular care, that they do not take up too much either of
your thoughts or time. You have better work; keep to your one
point, Christ dying for us, and living in us; so will you
fulfil the joy of,
“My dear brethren, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[643]
The following was addressed to Samuel Bradburn, and, up to the
present, has not been published.
“EPWORTH, _July 6, 1788_.
“DEAR SAMMY,--To-morrow evening, I hope to be at Doncaster; on
Wednesday, at Sheffield; and to-morrow sennight, at London,
bringing my daughter with me. That evening I should not object
to preaching at West Street. On Tuesday morning, I would
breakfast in Chesterfield Street, if my sister will be ready at
eight o’clock. Then I must hide myself till Sunday; when I will
preach at one or the other chapel for Kingswood. Peace be with
you and yours!
“I am, dear Sammy, etc.,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
The next, addressed to Mr. Jasper Winscomb, is also now for the first
time printed.
“LONDON, _July 16, 1788_.
“DEAR JASPER,--If all our society at Portsmouth, or elsewhere,
separate from the Church, I cannot help it. But, I will not.
Therefore, I can in no wise consent to the having service in
church hours. _You_ used to love the Church; then keep to it,
and exhort all our people to do the same. If it be true, that
brother Hayter is used to talk against the other preachers, as
well as against Thomas Warwick, brother Hayter and I shall not
agree. Of dividing circuits we may speak at the conference.
“I am, dear Jasper, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
The following also has not before been published. It was addressed to
“Mr. Churchey, attorney at law, near the Hay, Brecon”; and refers to
certain poetical productions which Mr. Churchey wished to print.
“NEAR LONDON, _July 22, 1788_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you spoke to Mr. Cowper.[644] What
pity it is that such talents as his should be employed in so
useless a manner!
“Mr. Bradburn delivered your papers to me a few days ago; but
this is so busy a time, that I had not leisure to go through
them till to-day. _In the Translation of the Art of Printing,
there are many very good lines_; but there are some that want a
good deal of filing; and many that are obscure. The sense is so
much clouded, that it is not easy to be understood. For many
years, I have not had any booksellers but Mr. Atlay and my
assistants. _Some of the shorter copies are good sense and good
poetry._
“My dear brother has left a translation of the Book of Psalms,
and verses enough to make, at least, six volumes in duodecimo.
I could but ill spare him, now I am myself so far declined into
the vale of years. But it is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth
Him good. Our time is now short. Let my dear sister Churchey,
and you, and I make the best of it.
“I am your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
A week after the above letter was written, Wesley opened his
conference, which continued its sittings till August 6. Besides
presiding, he preached every evening, and on the conference Sunday
twice. The last day was kept as a solemn fast,--prayer-meetings being
held at five, nine, and one, and the day concluded with a watchnight.
No wonder, that the old Methodist preachers returned from conferences,
to their respective circuits, like flames of fire. Wesley writes:
“One of the most important points considered at this conference
was that of leaving the Church. The sum of a long conversation
was: (1) that, in a course of fifty years, we had neither
premeditatedly nor willingly varied from it in one article
either of doctrine or discipline; (2) that we were not yet
conscious of varying from it in any point of doctrine; (3) that
we have, in a course of years, out of necessity, not of choice,
slowly and warily varied in some points of discipline, by
preaching in the fields, by extemporary prayer, by employing
lay preachers, by forming and regulating societies, and by
holding yearly conferences. But we did none of these things
till we were convinced we could no longer omit them, but at the
peril of our souls.”
This was correct so far as it went; but Wesley ought to have added,
the ordaining of preachers, the licensing of chapels; and, further,
that in this selfsame year he had published a 12mo volume of 430
pages, entitled, “The Sunday Service of the Methodists; with other
Occasional Services”; in reality, an altered edition of the
Prayer-Book of the Church of England, attached to which was a
“Collection of Psalms and Hymns for the Lord’s Day,” composed by
himself and his brother. Wesley, in his preface, says:
“Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, [The
Prayer-Book,] except in the following instances:
“1. Most of the holy days (so called) are omitted, as, at
present, answering no valuable end.
“2. The service of the Lord’s day, the length of which has
often been complained of, is considerably shortened.
“3. Some sentences, in the offices of baptism, and for the
burial of the dead, are omitted. And,
“4. Many psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as
being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian
congregation.”
Throughout his book, Wesley uses the word “minister,” instead of the
objectionable word “priest.” The half popish canticle in the morning
prayer, “Benedicite, omnia opera,” is left out. In the communion
service, the word “elder” is used instead of “priest”; and, in the
public baptism of infants, Wesley dispenses with signing the child
with the sign of the cross, and leaves out the sentence, in the
thanksgiving, that “it hath pleased God to regenerate this infant with
His Holy Spirit.” The “order of confirmation” is omitted, and no
reference is made to godfathers and godmothers. The “order for the
visitation of the sick” is totally expunged, and of course the popish
absolution, “by His (Christ’s) authority committed to me, I absolve
thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” In lieu of the three forms for ordaining
deacons, priests, and bishops, Wesley gives three for “ordaining
_superintendents_, _elders_, and _deacons_.” Wesley takes equal
liberty with the articles of religion. Some are entirely omitted;
others are abridged, or variously altered.
We find no fault with all this. Upon the whole, we regard Wesley’s
expurgations as emendations.[645] His prayer-book is purged from
popish and Calvinian errors; and, in that respect, is superior to the
prayer-book of the Church of England. This, however, is not the point
in question; but rather, whether, after Wesley had done all this, he
could be fairly and honestly considered a member and minister of the
Established Church. The Rev. G. Nott, in his Bampton lecture,
delivered eleven years after Wesley’s death, elaborately argued this
matter, and returned a negative reply; and, we confess, it seems
impossible to refute his general conclusion, namely, that both “Wesley
and Whitefield are to be regarded as separatists from the Church of
England.”[646] To the day of his death, Wesley protested against this;
but his warmest friends must admit that, though both were undeniably
sincere, yet, in this respect, profession and practice were at
variance.
Three years before this, he had ordained Joseph Taylor, who, ever
since, had preached in gown and bands, and administered the sacraments
in Scotland. Joseph was now appointed to Nottingham circuit; and, of
course, as an ordained minister, dreamed that he was the same in
England as he had been in Scotland. But not so. Wesley, who, three
years before, had _frocked_ his itinerant for the people across the
Tweed, now _unfrocked_ him for the people bordering on the Trent.
Hence the following.
“LONDON, _November 16, 1788_.
“DEAR JOSEPH,--I take knowledge of your spirit, and believe it
is your desire to do all things right. Our friends in Newark
should not have forgotten, that we have determined over and
over ‘not to leave the Church.’ Before they had given you that
foolish advice, they should have consulted me. I desire you
would not wear the surplice, nor administer the Lord’s supper,
any more.
“I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[647]
Such was the frequent clashing between practice and profession. The
prayer-book, above mentioned, had been put into the hands of the
Methodists; and yet, because of its alterations and abridgments, it
was of no use in services conducted in the Church of England. For what
then was it intended? The following extract, from the minutes of
conference in 1788, supplies an answer.
“_Q. 21._ What further directions may be given concerning the
prayers of the Church of England?
“_A._ The assistants shall have a discretionary power to read
the Prayer-Book in the preaching houses on Sunday mornings,
where they think it expedient, if the generality of the society
acquiesce with it; on condition that Divine service never be
performed in the church hours on the Sundays when the sacrament
is administered in the parish church where the preaching house
is situated; and that the people be strenuously exhorted to
attend the sacrament in the parish church on those Sundays.”
This may be vaguely worded; but there can be no mistake about its
meaning. By Wesley’s authority, and that of his conference, assistants
everywhere were permitted to do what Dr. Coke had authorised to be
done in Dublin, namely, that, on certain conditions, there should be
Divine service in Methodist chapels in the same hours as Divine
service was performed in the parish churches adjoining them. If this
was not separation, what was it?
There were two other points discussed at the conference of 1788, of
great importance. Many of the preachers were shamefully left without
adequate support, and were actually obliged, either to starve from
hunger, or to go from house to house to obtain their meals. Wesley was
annoyed, perhaps indignant; and, to remedy this glaring evil, the
assistants were directed to enforce, that every member, who could
afford it, should contribute, in the classmeetings, a penny per week,
and a shilling per quarter, at the quarterly visitation, for the
maintenance of the preachers appointed to watch over them. And, in
addition, Wesley issued the following address.
“_To our Societies in England and Ireland._
“FIFTY years ago, and for several years following, all our
preachers were single men, when, in process of time, a few of
them married. Those with whom they laboured maintained both
them and their wives, there being then no settled allowance
either for the one or the other. But above thirty years ago, it
was found most convenient to fix a stated allowance for
both,[648] and this was found by the circuits where they were
stationed; till one year some of the circuits complained of
poverty. Dr. Coke and I supplied what was wanting. The next
year, the number of wives increasing, three or four of them
were supplied out of the contingent fund. This was a bad
precedent, for more and more wives were thrown upon this fund,
till it was likely to be swallowed up thereby.[649] We could
think of no way to prevent this, but to consider the state of
our societies in England and Ireland, and to beg the members of
each circuit to give us that assistance which they can easily
do without hurting their families.
“Within these fifty years, the substance of the Methodists is
increased in proportion to their numbers. Therefore, if you are
not straitened in your own bowels, this will be no grievance,
but you will cheerfully give food and raiment to those who give
up all their time, and strength, and labour to your service.
“LONDON, _August 2, 1788_.
“JOHN WESLEY.”
No wonder that, in his later years, Wesley so often wrote and spoke of
the corrupting influence of the riches of rich Methodists!
The other affair, which demanded the attention of Wesley’s conference,
in 1788, was equally unpleasant. Six years before, as we have already
seen, the trustees, at Birstal, claimed the power of appointing
preachers to their chapel. This was followed by the deed of
declaration in 1784. At the very time this deed was being signed, the
same subject was revived at Dewsbury, a town contiguous to Birstal.
Here it had been proposed to build a new chapel. Mr. Valton, the
assistant, refused to move in the matter, unless it was agreed that
the chapel should be settled according to the conference plan. Mr.
Heald and some others wished to obtain from Wesley certain
concessions, and wrote to John Atlay, the book steward, to secure
them. Atlay replied as follows.
“LONDON, _February 23, 1784_.
“MY DEAR SIR,--I have, this morning, been with Mr. Wesley, and
have laid your letter before him.[650] He is not only willing,
but _desires_, it be inserted in your deed, that, if ever the
conference, or the preacher appointed by conference, refuse or
neglect to provide a preacher for your chapel for three or four
Sundays, then the trustees shall have it in their own power to
call one whom they please, and the power of nomination shall be
theirs in future.
“If any preacher, appointed to serve your chapel, should be
proved guilty of immorality, the trustees shall have a power to
reject him; and, if the conference does not send another to
fill up his place, you shall have a power to call one to do it.
“JOHN ATLAY.”
On the receipt of this letter, Valton solicited subscriptions, and
preached at the laying of the foundation stone.[651]
Five days after the date of the above letter, the deed of declaration
was executed; and, among other names omitted, in the constitution of
the legal conference, were those of John Atlay and William Eels, the
first of whom had been a preacher one-and-twenty years, and the second
twelve. This, by no means, increased Atlay’s loyalty. In an
unpublished letter, dated September 17, 1785, he writes: “Mr. Hampson
is well provided for. I have begun to do a little business for myself
as coal merchant; and have reason to think it will do well for me. I
have not left the book room, nor do I intend it _at present_. I have
my trials; but the disagreeable things I have met with, in our
connexion, have really raised my heart to God.”
In another, bearing date, April 18, 1786, he says: “You smile at my
commencing coal merchant. There was a time when I could have trusted
to my good old friend” (Wesley) “for everything that I wanted, or was
likely to want; but late occurrences have given me a check; and, I
really think, the thing is right in the sight of the Lord.” He then
proceeds to state that he had lately been attending the ministry of
Mr. Latrobe, the Moravian minister, and that he increasingly admired
him every time he heard him.
These extracts may help to throw some light on Atlay’s subsequent
conduct.
Meanwhile, Dewsbury chapel was completed, and a draft of the trust
deed was sent, by Parson Greenwood, to Manchester conference, in 1787,
for perusal. This was handed officially to Alexander Mather, who
strongly objected to its provisions; and complained that the trustees
had not inserted a clause, to the effect, “that no preacher should be
sent away till he was tried, and found guilty, before his peers, or
the neighbouring assistant preachers.” The trustees refused to yield,
thus, in reality, making themselves, as Dr. Coke put it, “accusers,
jury, judges, and executioners.”[652] Wesley had appointed Parson
Greenwood and William Percival to the Dewsbury circuit; but, on
October 23, he instructed them to abandon the chapel and to leave the
trustees to provide for themselves to their hearts’ content.
Mr. Mather, at the time, was in the Sheffield circuit, and obtained
Wesley’s consent to become mediator between the contending parties.
Accordingly he went, and proposed to the trustees that they should
have power: (1) To mortgage the premises for the debt unpaid. (2) To
let the seats at any price they liked. (3) To appoint their own
stewards, and dispose of their own income. He further proposed, that
no assistant should expel a trustee from the society but by the
consent of the majority of his co-trustees. All this was palatable;
but what followed was otherwise. Mather, of course, had no objection
to a preacher being dismissed for immorality, as was proposed in
Atlay’s letter; but he wished to institute a court in which the
accused might have a fair and impartial trial; and, hence, requested
that a clause might be inserted in the trust deed, providing that
three of the nearest assistants should be judges; that, if they found
the charges proved, they should join with the trustees in requesting
Wesley, or the president of the conference for the time being, to
remove the guilty preacher, and to send another in his place; that, if
this was not done within a specified time, the trustees should do it
themselves; and that, if the conference next ensuing did not send
another preacher, then the election of preachers was to remain with
the trustees, and the power of conference, to appoint preachers to
Dewsbury chapel, to be forfeited for ever. This the trustees
stubbornly rejected; and the further consideration of the matter was
postponed till February 5, 1788. At this second interview, it was
proposed by Mr. Mather, that an appeal should be made to the
subscribers to decide whether the clauses he had named should be
inserted in the deed; and that their decision should be final. This
also was refused; and now, when all further negotiation seemed
impossible, Mather, by Wesley’s request, informed the seatholders,
“that they were not to pay any more rent till the matter was settled
between him and the trustees.”
Thus the affair was left till the conference of 1788; when a committee
met on the subject. John Atlay was present, and remarked, that if he
were to go down to Dewsbury he would soon settle matters with the
trustees. Mather objected to Atlay’s suggestion, and said: “Mr. Atlay,
it is reported, that you have promised the trustees, that, if Mr.
Wesley withdraws the preachers from Dewsbury, you will yourself go and
serve them. I ask you then, before God and these brethren, have you
made _any_ such promise, or have you not?” Atlay reluctantly
acknowledged, that he had; and, further, that he had also advised the
Methodists at Malton not to settle their chapel on the conference
plan. Next morning Wesley wrote as follows.
“_To the Trustees of Dewsbury._
“LONDON, _July 30, 1788_.
“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--The question between us is, ‘By whom shall
the preachers sent, from time to time, to Dewsbury be judged?’
You say, ‘By the trustees.’ I say, ‘By their peers--the
preachers met in conference.’ You say, ‘Give up this, and we
will receive them.’ I say, ‘I cannot, I dare not, give up
this.’ Therefore, if you will not receive them on these terms,
you renounce connection with your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
As the trustees still held out, the conference decided that another
deputation, consisting of Mather, Pawson, Thompson, Greenwood, and
Percival, should meet at Dewsbury on August 14. The deputies asked,
“Have you executed a trust deed?” The trustees answered, “Yes.” “Can
we see it?” “No.” “Will you add to it a clause such as Mr. Wesley
wishes?” “No.” Such, in substance, were the proceedings of the
meeting. The result was, as before stated, the preachers, who had been
appointed at Dewsbury, were at once removed; the chapel was abandoned;
and the preachers in the Birstal circuit once more commenced Methodism
at Dewsbury, by preaching in the open streets.[653]
Five days after the date of the Dewsbury meeting, John Atlay, who, as
we have seen, had joined to Wesley’s book stewardship the business of
a coal merchant, and had also been toying with the Dewsbury trustees,
wrote as follows to Wesley.
“LONDON, _August 19, 1788_.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I was in hopes matters at Dewsbury
would have been made up; but, by a letter yesterday, I am
informed that their preachers are removed from them, and their
place declared vacant; in consequence of which, the trustees
have most solemnly called me to come amongst them. They plead
my promise; and I cannot go back from it. With me a promise is
sacred, though it should be ever so much to my hurt; and, as to
temporals, it must hurt me much. But I regard not that, if
there is a prospect that I shall be much more useful there than
I ever have been, or can be, in London. But it gives me more
pain than I can express, when I tell you that, in order to go
there, I must quit the book room. The longest that I can stay
in it will be till the 25th of September; and, by that time,
you will be able to get one for my place. I think the fittest
man in the world for it is Joseph Bradford. If he should be
appointed, he may come directly, and stay with us till we go;
and, by that time, I could teach him more than he can learn in
three months without me; but these things I leave to your
superior judgment.
“I have only now to request a few things of you. Do not be
angry with me for leaving you, after having spent fifteen of
the best years of my life in serving you, with more care, fear,
labour, and pain, than all the years of my life have produced.
Do not blame me for going to a people you have left; they are
the Lord’s redeemed ones, and some of them living members of
His body. Do not disown me, nor forbid my preaching in any of
your places; but give me leave, where and when it is agreeable
to the preachers, to preach in your houses. But if this request
cannot be complied with, then drop me silently; and let me be
of too little consequence to say anything about me from the
pulpit or press. I beg you will write by return of post; and do
not write unkindly to your faithful servant and friend,
“JOHN ATLAY.”[654]
Was this the whine of a mercenary man? or was it the genuine effusion
of a loving and honest heart? The reader must answer for himself;
remembering, however, that the Dewsbury chapel had been built, not by
the money of the trustees, but by the subscriptions of the Methodists;
that three years previous to this, Atlay had entertained the thought
of ultimately leaving Wesley’s stewardship, and, with an eye to that,
had begun the business of selling coals; and, further, that, since
then, he had unquestionably encouraged the Dewsbury trustees in their
rebellion, by promising to become their preacher, when Wesley withdrew
his. What was Wesley’s answer to his double dealing friend?
“PEMBROKE, _August 23, 1788_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--If you are persuaded, that such a promise
(which is the whole and sole cause of the breach at Dewsbury)
is binding, you must follow your persuasion. You will have
blame enough from other persons; my hand shall not be upon you.
If I can do you good, I will; but shall certainly do you no
harm. George Whitfield is the person I choose to succeed you. I
wish you would teach him as much as you can without delay.
“I am, with kind love to sister Atlay, your affectionate
brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Thus did Wesley dispose of his book steward’s mischievous promise; his
pert nomination of Joseph Bradford as his successor; and his
whimpering prayer that Wesley would not punish him for his naughty
tricks.
It is hardly necessary to insert the whole of the correspondence.
Suffice it to say, that Wesley requested Atlay, before he left, to
employ “one or two proper persons to take an inventory of all the
books in the shop and under the chapel,” so that George Whitfield
might know what was put into his care. Atlay’s reply to this was the
following.
“LONDON, _September 20, 1788_.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--We have almost this moment finished
our job of taking the stock; and, as near as we can tell, your
stock is this day worth £13,751 18_s._ 5_d._, according to the
prices fixed in the catalogue. However, you may be sure it is
not less than that. Most of these are saleable things. You will
be sure to find sale for them, if you live; and, if not, they
will be of equal value to those to whom you leave them.
“I am, etc.,
“JOHN ATLAY.”
Atlay went to Dewsbury on September 24, and took possession of the
chapel built with the money of Methodists. We have before us a number
of Mr. Pawson’s letters, written at this period, and in reference to
the Dewsbury unpleasantness. Pawson went, and preached to the
discontented Methodists; and spent two days in endeavouring to put
them right; but without effect. Mr. Mather was “highly offended” on
account of this; and Mr. Atlay wrote to Pawson “a thundering letter.”
Under date of September 16, 1788, Pawson says:
“You see the blessedness of striving to make peace. The
assistants of the neighbouring circuits are to preach in the
streets at Dewsbury, in their turns. This is pain and grief to
me. To preach in opposition, Methodists against Methodists, is
painful beyond expression. I believe all might have been
prevented by loving, prudent preachers. We have had a few
unworthy men among us, who have been a great burden to us and
to the people; but we do not lay them aside. Therefore, the
people will oblige us to do it, by making deeds like that at
Dewsbury. Some of our preachers do not live near to God, and do
not endeavour, by reading and prayer, to render themselves
acceptable to the people. But now it seems as though the people
would make them look about them a little.”
From other unpublished letters, we learn that Atlay and Eels[655] had
large congregations; that they had taken with them the whole of the
Dewsbury society, except a good man and his wife, of the name of
Drake; and that one of the trustees soon became a bankrupt, and was
said to have squandered a considerable amount of Atlay’s money.
Difficulties speedily ensued; hence the following, extracted from a
letter dated
“BIRSTAL, _December 18, 1789_.
“... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels cannot supply the places they have
at present. They want another preacher, but cannot get one.
They have tried to get Mr. Holmes, who left us last conference,
but he is engaged to Sheerness, as the society there is
divided. Besides, I understand, they are all for the Church,
and utterly against separation, ordination, etc. The devil can
no longer set the men of the world against us; but he is trying
a much more effectual way, setting the people and preachers one
against another.
“JOHN PAWSON.”[656]
Thus did Mr. Atlay really set up an _imperium in imperio_. He called
himself a Methodist; and yet was setting Methodism’s founder at
defiance. Not content with taking possession of the Dewsbury circuit,
he went to Shields, and there, and in Newcastle, and other places,
founded separate societies. At length, he and his friend Eels
quarrelled. Hence the following.
“BIRSTAL, _May 17, 1791_.
“... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels have differed and parted. Mr. Atlay
is gone to London, and whether he will return to Dewsbury is
quite uncertain. I believe very few desire or expect it. He has
treated Mr. Eels in a very unkind and unbrotherly manner ever
since he came to Dewsbury, and Mr. Eels was determined to bear
it no longer. The trustees had a meeting, and determined that
Mr. Eels should stay; and be, in every respect, equal to Mr.
Atlay. They are greatly displeased with Mr. Atlay’s conduct, as
well as with his doctrines. He has got deep into Mr.
Manners’[657] opinions, and says that he has believed them
these twenty years. Mr. Eels is very friendly, and I believe
most sincerely wishes a reconciliation, and I hope will
endeavour to bring it about.
“JOHN PAWSON.”[658]
William Eels died within two years after this. In the meantime, the
Dewsbury trustees began to entertain “shocking opinions” of their
friend Atlay; and in September, 1792, sent for Pawson to effect a
reunion.[659]
We need not pursue the subject farther. Here we have the rise, the
progress, and collapse of the Atlayite rebellion. We could give a
number of Atlay’s letters, showing that, in 1789, he coquetted with
Alexander McNab, and tried to secure the co-operation of James Oddie.
But the traitorous book steward has already occupied more space than
his worth deserves. We only add, that, to all his other faults, he
added that of circulating the most infamous reports reflecting on
Wesley’s moral character;[660] which extorted from Wesley the
following characteristic “Word to whom it may Concern,” inserted in
his _Magazine_ for 1790, just after the appearance of Atlay’s pamphlet
on the subject.
“IN August, 1788, Mr. Atlay wrote me word, ‘I must look out for
another servant, for he would go to Dewsbury on September 25.’
So far was I from ‘bidding him go,’ that I knew nothing of it
till that hour. But I then told him, ‘Go and serve them’:
seeing I found he would serve me no longer.
“He sent me word that I had in London £13,751 18_s._ 5_d._,
stock in books. Desiring to know exactly, I employed two
booksellers to take an account of my stock. The account they
brought in, October 31, 1788, was:
‘Value of stock, errors excepted, £4827 10_s._ 3½_d._
‘John Parsons,
Thomas Scollick.’
“Why did John Atlay so wonderfully overrate my stock? Certainly
to do me honour in the eyes of the world.
“I never approved of his going to Dewsbury; but I submitted to
what I could not help.
“With respect to Dewsbury House, there never was any dispute
about the _property of preaching houses_, that was an artful
misrepresentation; but merely the _appointing of preachers_ in
them.
“If John Atlay has a mind to throw any more dirt upon me, I do
not know I shall take any pains to wipe it off. I have but a
few days to live; and I wish to spend those in peace.
“LONDON, _Feb. 25, 1790_. “JOHN WESLEY.”
These are long, perhaps tedious, statements; but they are not without
interest, as helping to illustrate the life and character of Wesley.
His career was a long continued scene of trouble. Mobs assailed him
first; then parsons and pamphleteers; then his friends, the
Calvinists; and, last of all, his vexations were chiefly those
occasioned by some of his own faithless followers.
Not to return to Dewsbury, it may be added here, that, at the
conference of 1789, the preachers subscribed £206 towards the erection
of a new chapel; and Wesley issued two circulars, stating the case to
the Methodists in general, and asking their assistance. After
mentioning that the former chapel had been built by the contributions
of the people, (the trustees themselves not giving a quarter of what
it cost,) he continues:
“Observe, here is no dispute about the right of houses at all.
I have no right to any preaching house in England. What I claim
is, a right of stationing the preachers. This these trustees
have robbed me of in the present instance. Therefore, only one
of these two ways can be taken; either to sue for this house,
or to build another: we prefer the latter, being the most
friendly way.
“I beg, therefore, my brethren, for the love of God; for the
love of me, your old and well-nigh worn out servant; for the
love of ancient Methodism, which, if itinerancy is interrupted,
will speedily come to nothing; for the love of justice, mercy,
and truth, which are all so grievously violated by the
detention of this house; that you will set your shoulders to
the necessary work. Be not straitened in your own bowels. We
have never had such a cause before. Let not then unkind,
unjust, fraudulent men, have cause to rejoice in their bad
labour. This is a common cause. Exert yourselves to the utmost.
I have subscribed £50. So has Dr. Coke. The preachers have done
all they could. O let them that have much give plenteously!
Perhaps, this is the last labour of love I may have occasion to
recommend to you; let it then stand as one more monument of
your real gratitude to, my dear brethren, your old,
affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[661]
We now return to the conference of 1788. These were not the only
things to try Wesley’s patience. An effort was made to set aside the
itinerant plan in Scotland,--a plan to which, as already shown, Wesley
attached the utmost importance. This evoked the following letter to
Lady Maxwell.
“LONDON, _August 8, 1788_.
“MY DEAR LADY,--It is certain, many persons, both in Scotland
and England, would be well pleased to have the same preachers
always. But we cannot forsake the plan of acting, which we have
followed from the beginning. For fifty years, God has been
pleased to bless the itinerant plan; the last year most of all;
it must not be altered, till I am removed; and, I hope, it will
remain till our Lord comes to reign upon earth.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[662]
To the same effect was another, written three months later, and
addressed to Jasper Winscomb.
“LONDON, _November 8, 1788_.
“DEAR JASPER,--William Cashman advised you like a heathen. Mr.
Valton _deserves_ pay, as well as you do. But he does not want
it, and, therefore, scorns to take it, knowing the poverty of
the land.
“I am glad to hear so good an account of the Isle of Wight. The
work of God will flourish, there, if it be steadily pursued.
“No preacher ought to stay either at Portsmouth, or Sarum, or
any other place, a whole week together. That is not the
Methodist plan at all. It is a novel abuse.
“I am, dear Jasper, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[663]
On the 10th of August, Wesley set out for Wales and the west of
England; generally preaching twice a day, and on the Sundays thrice,
and everywhere to crowded congregations.
On the 28th of September, he returned to London, and, two days after,
went off to Norfolk. The remainder of the year was employed, as usual,
in the metropolis and the surrounding counties.
These were not pleasure trips; but made in wintry weather, in frost
and snow; the veteran of eighty-five preaching almost daily, both
night and morning, and attending to a thousand things which demanded
his attention.[664] He writes.
“December 10, and the following days, I corrected my brother’s
posthumous poems; being short psalms, and hymns on the four
gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. They make five volumes
in quarto, containing eighteen or nineteen hundred pages. Many
of them are little, if any, inferior to his former poems,
having the same justness and strength of thought, with the same
beauty of expression; yea, the same keenness of wit on proper
occasions, as bright and piercing as ever. Some are bad; some
mean; some most excellently good. They give the true sense of
Scripture, always in good English, generally in good verse;
many of them are equal to most, if not to any, he ever wrote;
but some still savour of that poisonous mysticism, with which
we were both not a little tainted before we went to America.
This gave a gloomy cast, first to his mind, and then to many of
his verses; this made him frequently describe religion as a
melancholy thing; this so often sounded in his ears, ‘To the
desert!’ and strongly persuaded in favour of solitude.”
What had Wesley to say respecting himself? He writes.
“About this time” [December 15] “I was reflecting on the gentle
steps whereby age steals upon us. Take only one instance. Four
years ago, my sight was as good as it was at five-and-twenty. I
then began to observe, that I did not see things quite so clear
with my left eye as with my right; all objects appeared a
little browner to that eye. I began next to find a little
difficulty in reading a small print by candlelight. A year
after, I found it in reading such a print by daylight. In the
winter of 1786, I could not well read our four shilling
hymn-book, unless with a large candle; the next year, I could
not read letters, if wrote with a small or bad hand. Last
winter, a pearl appeared on my left eye, the sight of which
grew exceeding dim. The right eye seems unaltered; only I am a
great deal nearer sighted than ever I was. Thus are ‘those that
look out at the windows darkened’; one of the marks of old age.
But, I bless God, ‘the grasshopper is’ not ‘a burden.’ I am
still capable of travelling, and my memory is much the same as
it ever was; and so, I think, is my understanding.”
Thus did Wesley take stock of himself.
On Christmas day, he preached at four o’clock in the morning, in City
Road, again at eleven, and in West Street in the evening. On the last
Sunday in the year, he had an exceedingly large congregation in
Allhallows church, Lombard Street; and, concerning this, there is an
anecdote worth relating. The sermon was for the benefit of forty-eight
poor children belonging to St. Ethelburga society. “Sir,” said Wesley
to his attendant while putting on his gown, “it is above fifty years
since I first preached in this church; I remember it from a particular
circumstance. I came without a sermon; and, going up the pulpit
stairs, I hesitated, and returned into the vestry, under much mental
confusion and agitation. A woman, who stood by, noticed my concern,
and said, ‘Pray, sir, what is the matter?’ I replied, ‘I have not
brought a sermon with me.’ Putting her hand on my shoulder, she said,
‘Is that all? Cannot you trust God for a sermon?’ This question had
such an effect upon me, that I ascended the pulpit, preached
extempore, with great freedom to myself, and acceptance to the people;
and have never since taken a written sermon into the pulpit.”[665] “A
word spoken in due season, how good is it!”
Wesley’s publications, in 1788, have all been noticed, except his
_Magazine_; and, concerning this, it is not needful to say much. There
are, as usual, six new sermons from the venerable editor’s own pen:
namely, On Reproving Sin; The Signs of the Times; Man; The Ministry of
Wicked Ministers; Conscience; and Faith.
Wesley concludes the first of these thus:
“I have now only a few words to add unto you, my brethren, who
are vulgarly called Methodists. I never heard or read of any
considerable revival of religion, which was not attended with a
spirit of reproving. I believe, it cannot be otherwise; for
what is faith unless it worketh by love? Thus it was in every
part of England, when the present revival of religion began
about fifty years ago. All the subjects of that revival,--all
the Methodists, in every place, were reprovers of outward sin.
And, indeed, so are all that, being justified by faith, have
peace with God through Jesus Christ. Such they are at first;
and if they use that precious gift, it will never be taken
away. Come, brethren! In the name of God, let us begin again!
Rich or poor, let us all arise as one man! And, in any wise,
let every man rebuke his neighbour, and not suffer sin upon
him!”
Wesley’s sermon, on attending the ministry of unconverted ministers,
would never have been written, had he not been pressed by the
objections of Methodists, and yet determined to prevent their leaving
the Established Church. Its arguments are specious, not sound. It
might puzzle the simple minded Methodists; but it would not convince
them they were wrong. It was a feeble attempt to get converted people
to sit under an unconverted ministry. We conclude with one extract.
“It has been loudly affirmed, that most of those persons now in
connection with _me_, who believe it their duty to call sinners
to repentance, having been taken immediately from low trades,
tailors, shoemakers, and the like, are a set of poor, stupid,
illiterate men, that scarce know their right hand from their
left; yet, I cannot but say, that I would sooner cut off my
right hand, than suffer one of them to speak a word in any of
our chapels, if I had not reasonable proof, that he had more
knowledge in the holy Scriptures, more knowledge of himself,
more knowledge of God and of the things of God, than nine in
ten of the clergymen I have conversed with, either at the
universities, or elsewhere. Undoubtedly, there are many
clergymen in these kingdoms, that are not only free from
outward sin, but men of eminent learning, and, what is
infinitely more, deeply acquainted with God. But, still, I am
constrained to confess, that the far greater part of those
ministers I have conversed with, for above half a century, have
not been holy men,--not devoted to God,--not deeply acquainted
either with God or themselves.”
Such was Wesley’s reluctant confession; and yet, to prevent what he
called a separation from the Established Church, he elaborately
persuades the Methodists, that they ought to receive the sacraments
from these men; instead of requiring them at the hands of the
converted artisans, who had preached so successfully, and who,
according to Wesley’s own confession, were, even in point of
_scriptural knowledge_, the superiors of the unconverted gentlemen,
trained in colleges, and made priests or deacons--not by Christ,--but
by bishops!