“Answer. As to their employ, they may be supernumerary preachers,
or assistants, in those circuits wherein there is most need. As to
their subsistence,—(1) Let every travelling preacher contribute
ten shillings yearly. (2) Let this be lodged in the hands of three
stewards, approved of by the majority of the preachers. (3) Out of
this, let what is needful be allowed yearly; first for the old or
sickly preachers and their families; then for the widows and children
of those that are dead.”[548]
22. “If God should call you away, what would be the most probable
means of preventing the people from being scattered?
“Answer. Let all the assistants, for the time being, immediately go
up to London, and consult what steps are fittest to be taken. And God
will then make the way plain before them.”[549]
We have thus endeavoured, in as brief a form as possible, to embody all
the points, in the Minutes published in 1763, that are not contained in
the previous publication of 1753. Some of these are curious, and others
of the greatest consequence. Three connexional funds are sanctioned
and recommended. A trust deed for chapels is supplied. Continued union
with the Church of England is strongly urged. To say nothing of the
discipline prescribed for the preachers, and for the people, these were
matters of the utmost moment, and deserve more attention than we have
space to give them. Facts are furnished; the reader himself must ponder
them.
Before leaving the conference of 1763, it may be added, that its
sessions were held in the chapel at Spitalfields; and that Howel
Harris was present, and exhorted the preachers to have faith in God,
and whenever they met a man, in any of their journeyings, to speak to
him about his soul. “If I meet a poor man,” said he, “I give him a
halfpenny, if I have one; but I always remember that the man has a soul
as well as a body, and therefore I say something to him respecting his
salvation. And if I meet a rich man, why should I be afraid of him? For
aught I know, he may be worse than the beast he rides upon. Perhaps the
beast carries the devil upon its back.”[550]
The conference being ended, Wesley set out, on the 15th of August,
perhaps in company with Howel Harris, to the principality of Wales.
At all events, four days afterwards, he reached Trevecca, and wrote:
“Howel Harris’s house is one of the most elegant places which I have
seen in Wales. The little chapel, and all things round about it, are
finished in an uncommon taste; and the gardens, orchards, fishponds,
and mount adjoining, make the place a little paradise. He thanks God
for these things, and looks through them. About sixscore persons are
now in the family; all diligent, all constantly employed; all fearing
God and working righteousness.”
Wesley continues: “August 20.—We took horse at four in the morning,
and rode through one of the pleasantest countries in the world. I
will be bold to say, all England does not afford such a line of fifty
miles’ length, for fields, meadows, woods, brooks, and gently rising
mountains, fruitful to the very top.”
On completing his Welsh tour, Wesley wrote: “I was more convinced than
ever, that the preaching like an apostle, without joining together
those that are awakened, and training them up in the ways of God, is
only begetting children for the murderer. How much preaching has there
been for these twenty years all over Pembrokeshire! But no regular
societies, no discipline, no order or connection; and the consequence
is, that nine in ten of the once awakened are now faster asleep than
ever.”
These are weighty words, and well worth pondering by those, in modern
days, who advocate a revision of the laws respecting Methodists meeting
together in weekly class. Wesley spoke from experience; these are
theorists, who, in the absence of experience, will do well to hesitate
before they step.
During his journey in Wales, Wesley informed himself respecting a
Welsh extravagance, referred to in the following letter, published in
_Lloyd’s Evening Post_, for June 27, 1763.
“There is here” [at Lancroyes] “what some call a great reformation
in religion among the Methodists; but the case is really this. They
have a sort of rustic dance in their public worship, which they call
religious dancing, in imitation of David’s dancing before the ark.
Some of them strip off their clothes, crying out, Hosannah, etc.,
in imitation of those that attended our Saviour when He rode into
Jerusalem. They call this the glory of the latter day; and when any
person speaks to them of their extravagance, the answer they give
is, ‘You have the mark of the enemy in your forehead.’ Such are the
delusion and uncharitableness of this people.”
These Welsh jumpers are called Methodists; but they were Methodists
over whom Wesley had no control. He writes:
“1763, August 27.—Mr. Evans gave me an account, from his own
knowledge, of what has made a great noise in Wales. ‘It is common,
in the congregations attended by Mr. W. W., and one or two other
clergymen, after the preaching is over, for any one that has a mind,
to give out a verse of a hymn. This they sing over and over with
all their might, perhaps above thirty, yea, forty times. Meanwhile
the bodies of two or three, sometimes ten or twelve, are violently
agitated; and they leap up and down, in all manner of postures,
frequently for hours together.’ I think, there needs no great
penetration to understand this. They are honest, upright men, who
really feel the love of God in their hearts. But they have little
experience, either of the ways of God, or the devices of Satan. So he
serves himself in their simplicity, in order to wear them out, and to
bring a discredit on the work of God.”
Strangely enough this jumping in public worship found an advocate in
good William Williams, the Welsh hymnist, who wrote a pamphlet in
defence of it.[551] To the injury of religion it was perpetuated for
many years.
At the end of August, Wesley came to Bristol, in the neighbourhood
of which he remained a month, frequently preaching out of doors, and
expressing the opinion, that in no other way could the outcasts of
men be reached. He cautioned the Bristol Methodists, not to “love the
world, neither the things of the world”; and writes, in language and
tone which ought to be a warning to the Methodists of the present day:
“This will be their grand danger; as they are industrious and frugal,
they must needs increase in goods. This appears already; in London,
Bristol, and most other trading towns, those who are in business
have increased in substance sevenfold, some of them twenty, yea, an
hundredfold. What need, then, have these of the strongest warnings,
lest they be entangled therein, and perish!”
On October 1, he returned to London, and says: “I found our house
in ruins, great part of it being taken down, in order to a thorough
repair. But as much remained as I wanted; six foot square suffices me
by day or by night.” He adds: “All this week, I endeavoured to confirm
those who had been shaken, as to the important doctrine of Christian
perfection, either by its wild defenders, or wise opposers, who much
availed themselves of that wildness.”
He then made a three weeks’ tour to Norwich, where he read the rules of
the society, adding: “Those who are resolved to keep these rules may
continue with us, and those only.” He told them he would immediately
put a stop to Methodist preaching in the time of Church service; and
wound up by saying: “For many years I have had more trouble with this
society, than with half the societies of England put together. With
God’s help, I will try you one year longer; and I hope you will bring
forth better fruit.”
On October 29, Wesley returned to London, where he continued the
remainder of the year. He visited the classes, and found that, since
February, one hundred and seventy-five persons had left the society,
one hundred and six of whom were Thomas Maxfield’s friends. All his
leisure hours he employed in reading over, with the London preachers,
the publications of himself and his brother; considering the objections
that had been made against them; and correcting whatever they judged
wrong either in matter or expression.
Hitherto Wesley had consorted but little with Dissenting ministers.
He had visited Doddridge, and had been in friendly communication with
Gillies and a few of the presbyterians of North Britain; but that was
well-nigh all. With a heart big enough to embrace all men, without
distinction of nation, sect, or colour, he had, hitherto, intentionally
or otherwise, been as exemplary an observer of the etiquette of
episcopal caste as almost any high church ritualist could wish. In
December, 1763, he added to his friends the presbyterian minister of
Staplehurst, in Kent. A few months before, the Rev. Jacob Chapman, the
minister alluded to, wrote to Wesley, saying: “I am a minister of the
presbyterian denomination; but my Master has enabled me to love real
Christians of all denominations. I have reason to bless God for my
acquaintance with the Methodists; they have been great blessings to
me and my dear wife. The Lord has inclined us to receive the preachers
most freely and joyfully.”[552] Mr. Chapman was not an episcopalian;
but he was a Christian, and, on December 7, Wesley went to visit him.
He writes: “Mr. Chapman, who loves all that love Christ, received us
gladly. At six, the congregation, gathered from many miles round,
seemed just ripe for the gospel; so that, contrary to my custom in a
new place, I spoke merely of ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”
Immediately after Wesley’s return to London, Mr. Chapman wrote him as
follows.
“STAPLEHURST, _December 10, 1763_.
“REVEREND SIR,—You shall be always most heartily welcome to the
best part of my house, for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose
you are, and whom you serve. Whatever preachers you send, we shall
joyfully receive, be their opinions what they may. I would like those
best, who are most like Christ. I very greatly approve of the rules of
the society, and very fervently love you; and I trust never to let a
day pass without praying for you. I make no doubt, the lay preachers
are sent by our Lord as extraordinary messengers; and that His design
is, that they should _go about_ calling poor sinners to repent and
believe the gospel, and consequently that they are _not to settle_
anywhere. This is a very difficult office. The Lord strengthen them
for the arduous undertaking.”[553]
The friendship, thus begun, was long continued. Mr. Chapman’s house
and chapel were open to the Methodist preachers. He himself became
a member of the Methodist society, and was as docile and humble as
though he had been one of the most illiterate among the people. His
stipend was £80 per annum; he lived on £20, and gave away the rest
in charity. He almost, if not entirely, used a vegetarian diet, and
principally for the purpose of being able to relieve the necessities
of his poorer brethren. He survived Wesley; and when visited by Robert
Miller, about the year 1790, gave him the heartiest welcome, saying:
“I have entertained the preachers for seven-and-twenty years, and hope
they will never forsake me while I live.” Mr. Miller adds: “Mr. Chapman
was one of the best men I ever knew”;[554] and good old John Reynolds
testified: “Of all the men of God, with whom I have had the happiness
to be acquainted, in a life of more than threescore years, I have never
known one who appeared to possess so much of the mind of Christ as Mr.
Chapman.”[555]
The world is full of changes. Man’s circle of acquaintance alters in
character, though not materially in size. New friends spring up on
earth; but old friends are removed to heaven. Thus it was with Wesley.
In 1763, he became acquainted with Mr. Chapman; in the same year, he
was bereaved of Dr. Byrom.
Byrom was the son of a linen draper, and born at Kersal, near
Manchester, in 1691. After being educated in his native town, and
at the Merchant Taylors’ school in London, he was, at the age of
sixteen, admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge. In 1714,
he was elected fellow of his college, and, in the same year, became
a contributor to Addison’s _Spectator_. Two years later, he resigned
his college preferment, and went to Montpelier, to study physic. On
his return to England, he assumed the office of teacher of shorthand
writing, of which he was preeminently a master. On the death of his
brother, he came into possession of the family estate, at Kersal, and
gave himself up to the enjoyment of domestic and social felicity. He
was a profound admirer of the great English mystic, William Law; but
was also a man of unaffected piety. At a time when much obloquy was
attached to the name of Methodist, he was not ashamed of being known as
the particular friend of Wesley. He died September 28, 1763.[556] His
only son died ten years afterwards.[557]
In many respects, Byrom was a remarkable man. In stature, he was one
of the tallest men in England; so that, in the course of fifty years,
he appears to have met only two others taller than himself.[558] In
stenography, he was the greatest proficient then existing. The extent,
variety, and accuracy of his literary studies were amazing, as is shown
by his manuscripts still extant. There seems hardly to have been
any language, of which the literature was of any value, which he did
not master; and his writing of Hebrew, Arabic, etc., was such as the
engraver might vainly attempt to imitate.[559] His poetry, quaint but
pungent, is too well known to need description. As a specimen of it,
and of his politics, the following is far from being bad:
“God bless the King, and bless the Faiths Defender;
God bless—no harm in blessing—the Pretender;
But who Pretender is, and who is King,
Why, bless us all, that’s quite another thing.”[560]
Wesley inserted not a few of his poems in the old _Arminian_ magazines;
and writes: “It cannot be denied, that he was a man of uncommon genius,
a man of the finest and strongest understanding; and, yet, very few
even of his countrymen and contemporaries have so much as heard his
name.”[561] “He has all the wit and humour of Dr. Swift, together
with much more learning, and, above all, a serious vein of piety. A
few things, in the second volume of his poems, are taken from Jacob
Behmen; to whom I object, not only, that he is obscure, and not only,
that his whole hypothesis is wholly unsupported either by Scripture
or reason; but also, because the ingenious madman over and over
contradicts Christian experience, reason, Scripture, and himself. But
setting these things aside, we have” [in Dr. Byrom’s poems,] “some of
the finest sentiments that ever appeared in the English tongue; some of
the noblest truths, expressed with the utmost energy, and the strongest
colours of poetry.”[562]
One or two other matters, belonging to this period of Wesley’s history,
must be mentioned.
The increase of Methodism was one of Wesley’s difficulties, as well
as his great encouragement. His societies, especially the larger
ones, naturally wished to receive the sacrament in their own chapels:
but as Wesley had no clerical helper, entirely devoted to the work,
except his brother; and as he himself was almost always itinerating,
it was physically impossible to meet the demands of London, Bristol,
and other places. Neither of the Wesleys was prepared to allow the
unordained preachers to administer, and they themselves were utterly
unable to attend to the reasonable claims of all that wanted them.
Hence the difficulty. This was partly met, when Thomas Maxfield
received ordination from an Irish bishop. For several years, Maxfield
was stationed in London, to read the liturgy and to administer the
sacrament in Wesley’s absence. But now Maxfield had left him, and his
embarrassment was greater than ever. One of his principal helpers was
John Jones, a man of considerable learning, of good abilities, and
of deep piety, and who, for seventeen years, had faithfully acted
the part of an itinerant preacher. Just at this juncture, Erasmus, a
bishop of the Greek church, visited London; and, as it was impossible
to obtain ordination, for the Methodist preachers, from the bishops of
the English Church, it occurred to Wesley, that it might be expedient
to apply to Erasmus to ordain Mr. Jones. Previous, however, to doing
this, Wesley felt it necessary to satisfy himself, that Erasmus really
was a bishop. By his direction, Jones wrote to the patriarch of
Smyrna on the subject; and received an answer, stating that Erasmus
was bishop of Arcadia in Crete. To this was added the testimony of
several gentlemen who had met the eastern prelate in Turkey. Wesley
says, “he had abundant unexceptionable credentials as to his episcopal
character.”[563] Being fully satisfied of this, Wesley requested him to
set apart Mr. Jones, to assist him in administering the sacrament to
his societies. Erasmus did so; and, if the matter had ended here, the
thing would hardly have deserved further notice.
No sooner was it known, however, that one of the itinerants had been
ordained, than several others applied to the good tempered bishop for
the same episcopal favour. The following appeared in _Lloyd’s Evening
Post_, for December 7, 1764.
“To the article in the papers relating to three tradesmen being
ordained by a Greek bishop, another may be added, a master baker.
And two celebrated Methodist preachers made also an application to
the same bishop, to consecrate one or both of them bishops; but the
Greek told them, it was contrary to the rule of his church for _one_
bishop to make another: yet, notwithstanding all he said, they very
unwillingly took a denial.”
Whether this was strictly true, we can hardly tell; but certain it
is, that John Jones, Samson Staniforth, Thomas Bryant, and others
were ordained. The result was, Charles Wesley took huge offence; and,
shortly after, Mr. Jones was obliged to leave the connexion; Samson
Staniforth had to refrain from exercising his priestly functions; and
Thomas Bryant put on a gown, and made a rent in the Methodist society
of Sheffield.[564]
The unpleasantness did not end even here. In 1771, Augustus Toplady,
one of Wesley’s bitterest opponents, published “A Letter to the Rev.
Mr. John Wesley,” in which he revived the thing. With his unenviable
scurrility, he called Erasmus “a foreign mendicant”; and said: “to this
day, the Greek church in Amsterdam believes him to be an impostor.” He
also supplied a certificate, written in Greek, of which the following
is a translation.
“Our measure from the grace, gift, and power of the All-holy and
Life-giving Spirit, given by our Saviour Jesus Christ to His Divine
and holy apostles, to ordain subdeacons and deacons; and also, to
advance to the dignity of a priest; of this grace which hath descended
to our humility, I have ordained subdeacon and deacon, at Snowfields
chapel, on the 19th day of November, 1764, and at Wells Street chapel
on the 24th of the same month, priest the reverend: Mr. W. C.[565]
according to the rules of the holy apostles, and of our faith.
Moreover, I have given to him power to minister and teach, in all the
world, the gospel of Jesus Christ, no one forbidding him in the church
of God. Wherefore, for that very purpose, I have made this present
letter of recommendation from our humility, and have given it to the
ordained Mr. W. C. for his certificate and security.
“Given and written at London, in Britain, November 24, 1764.
“ERASMUS, Bishop of Arcadia.”
Toplady proceeds to ask Wesley four insinuating questions.
“1. Did you get him to ordain several of your lay preachers according
to the Greek ritual? 2. Did not these preachers both dress and
officiate as clergymen of the Church of England, in consequence of
that ordination; and under your own sanction and approbation? Nay, did
you not repeatedly declare, that their ordination was, to all intents
and purposes, as valid as your own? 3. Did you not strongly press
this supposed Greek bishop to consecrate you a bishop, that you might
be invested with a power of ordaining what ministers you pleased, to
officiate in your societies as clergymen? And did he not refuse to
consecrate you, alleging this for his reason,—That, according to the
canons of the Greek church, more than one bishop must be present to
assist at the consecration of a new one? 4. In all this, did you not
palpably violate the oath of supremacy, which you have repeatedly
taken? part of which runs thus: ‘I do declare, that no foreign
prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have,
any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm,’”
How much truth was there in all this? It will be seen, that the
pretended certificate was signed only a fortnight before the statement,
already quoted, appeared in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_. Both the chapels
mentioned were Wesley’s chapels. Alexander Mather, who had been six
years in the itinerancy, was a baker before he entered it, and had
a considerable amount of innocent ambition. Wesley was in great
difficulty arising from the want of ordained preachers to administer
the sacraments; and, though he had long held the theory of Lord King,
that, according to New Testament teaching, every presbyter was, in
reality, a bishop; and therefore, that he himself, being a presbyter,
was also a bishop, and as fully authorised to ordain others as any
bishop in the world; yet, for prudential reasons, this was an authority
which, at present, he was not prepared to exercise: and, hence, it
would not have been surprising if he had made the application to
Erasmus which it is surmised he did.
All this gives considerable plausibility to the half affirmative
queries of Augustus Toplady. On the other hand, however, we have the
absolute declaration of Wesley himself, that Erasmus never rejected any
overture that he made to him;[566] and, if this were so, it follows
that, either Erasmus did actually ordain him a bishop (which no one
ventures to assert); or, that Toplady’s insinuation is calumniously
untrue. To this, also, must be added, the testimony of Thomas Olivers,
who with Wesley’s consent,[567] if not at his request, replied to
Toplady’s attack; namely, that though Wesley did get Erasmus to
ordain John Jones, and though John Jones did dress as a clergyman of
the Church of England, and did assist Wesley in administering the
Lord’s supper in the Methodist societies, yet Wesley had authorised
him (Olivers) to give the most positive and unqualified denial to the
insinuation, that he had asked Erasmus to ordain himself to the high
office of a bishop. “But,” continues Olivers, “suppose he had, where
would have been the blame? Mr. Wesley is connected with a number of
persons who have given every proof, which the nature of the thing
allows, that they have an _inward call_ to preach the gospel. Both
he and they would be glad if they had _an outward_ call too. But no
bishop in _England_ will give it them. What wonder then, if he was to
endeavour to procure it by any other innocent means?”[568]
This was written in 1771, only six or seven years after the alleged
events took place. Which is likeliest to be true—the bitter insinuation
of a malignant opponent like Toplady; or the positive assertion of
Wesley himself, and the authorised declaration of Wesley’s friend
Olivers? Here the matter must be left. Though somewhat tedious, it
is also important, as tending to show, that the growth of Methodism
was one of Wesley’s greatest difficulties, and rendered it absolutely
imperative—either that he should make the Methodists Dissenters; or,
that he should procure episcopal ordination for his preachers; or, that
he should do something else, which he tried to do in 1764, and which
will have to be noticed in the year following.
Wesley’s life was a continued warfare. In 1763, there was published, “A
Caution against Religious Delusion: a sermon preached at the visitation
of the Archdeacon of Ely, in the church of St. Michael, Cambridge,
on Thursday, May 19, 1763. By William Backhouse, M.A., fellow of
Christ’s college, and vicar of Meldreth.” 8vo, 20 pages. Of course,
this was another attack on Methodism. Methodist preachers are “modern
pretenders to supernatural informations”; they are “hurried away
with the exorbitancies of ungoverned piety”; they are “enthusiastic
preachers, who are mindful enough of one part of St. Paul’s injunction
to Timothy, ‘to give attendance to _exhortation_, and to _doctrine_,’
but alas! if they really would, they could not give heed to the first
and fundamental part of it—_reading_.”
Another onslaught was made by a greater Church dignitary than Mr.
Backhouse. Dr. Thomas Rutherforth was a fellow of the Royal Society,
archdeacon of Essex, regius professor of divinity at Cambridge, and an
author of repute; though Warburton says of him: “If he knows no more
of theology than he does of morals, he is the meanest pedant of the
age.” In 1763, Rutherforth published “Four Charges to the Clergy of
the Archdeaconry of Essex”; in which he took the liberty to tell his
readers, that though “the Methodists pretend to be the genuine sons
of the Church of England, they adopt the language and opinions of the
conventicle; for they maintain, that every believer, provided he has
the gift of utterance, is qualified to preach, and that human learning
is rather an impediment than otherwise.” His pamphlet of ninety-five
pages, octavo, is dull and dreary, though upon the whole, respectful.
Five years afterwards, Wesley wrote an answer to it, from which the
following are extracts. Rutherforth charges Wesley with maintaining
contradictions. Wesley replies:—
“If all my sentiments were compared together, from the year 1725 to
1768, there would be truth in the charge; for, during the latter part
of this period, I have relinquished several of my former sentiments.
During these last thirty years, I may also have varied in some of my
sentiments and expressions without observing it. I will not undertake
to defend all the expressions which I have occasionally used during
this time, but must desire men of candour to make allowance for those
‘Quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura.’
It is not strange if, among these inaccurate expressions, there
are some seeming contradictions, especially considering, I was
answering so many different objectors, frequently attacking me at
once. Nevertheless, I believe there will be found few, if any, real
contradictions in what I have published for near thirty years.”
Again, Dr. Rutherforth had objected to the Methodists, on the ground
of their doctrine of assurance. Wesley’s reply to this is well worth
pondering.
“I believe a few, but very few, Christians have an assurance from God
of everlasting salvation; and that is the thing which the apostle
terms _full assurance of hope_.
“I believe more have such an assurance of being now in the favour of
God as excludes all doubt and fear; and this, if I do not mistake, the
apostle means by the _full assurance of faith_.
“I believe a consciousness of being in the favour of God, (which I
do not term _full assurance_, since it is frequently weakened, nay,
perhaps interrupted, by returns of doubt or fear,) is the common
privilege of Christians, fearing God and working righteousness. Yet
I do not affirm there are no exceptions to this general rule but,
I believe, this is usually owing either to disorder of body, or to
ignorance of the gospel promises. Therefore, I have not, for many
years, thought a consciousness of acceptance to be essential to
justifying faith.
“After I have thus explained myself once for all, I hope all
reasonable men will be satisfied; and whoever will dispute with me on
this head must do it for disputing’s sake.”
Rutherforth’s main accusation, however, is that the Methodists teach,
that “Christianity rejects the aid of human learning.” To this Wesley
replies: “Mr. Berridge thinks it does; but I am not accountable for
him, from whom, in this, I totally differ.” In proof of this he
appeals to his “deliberate thoughts on human learning” in his “Serious
Address to the Clergy”; to his establishment of Kingswood school; and
to the fact that, though his preachers did not profess to know the
languages and philosophy, yet some of them understood both one and the
other better than great part of his pupils at the university did. He
continues:
“What I believe concerning learning is this: that it is highly
expedient for a guide of souls, but not absolutely necessary. What I
believe to be absolutely necessary is, a faith unfeigned, the love
of God and our neighbour, a burning zeal for the advancement of
Christ’s kingdom, with a heart and life wholly devoted to God. These
I judge to be necessary in the highest degree; and next to these a
competent knowledge of Scripture, a sound understanding, a tolerable
utterance, and a willingness to be as the filth and offscouring of the
world.”[569]
Noble words are these of Wesley. Let all Methodist quarterly and
district meetings and conferences act upon them.
The most furious attack on Wesley, in 1763, was by Warburton, bishop of
Gloucester, in an octavo volume of 259 pages, first published in 1762,
and entitled, “The Doctrine of Grace: or, The Office and Operations
of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the Insults of Infidelity, and
the Abuses of Fanaticism.” Warburton allows, that Wesley is “an
extraordinary man”; but finds fault with him for having “laid claim
to almost every apostolic gift and grace in as full a measure as they
were possessed of old.” In earnest raillery, and trenchant language,
the Gloucester prelate professes to establish this, by citations from
Wesley’s Journals. To attempt a summary of his episcopal scoldings
is impracticable; indeed, it would be of little use. It is a curious
fact, that Warburton sent the manuscript to Wesley before the work
was printed, with a request to notice its errors. Wesley says: “the
manuscript abounded with quotations from poets, philosophers, etc.,
both in Greek and Latin. After correcting the false readings, improper
glosses, and other errors, I returned it.”[570] This incident helps to
explain a sentence in one of Wesley’s letters to his brother, dated
“January 5, 1762”: “I was a little surprised to find Bishop Warburton
so entirely unacquainted with the New Testament; and, notwithstanding
all his parade of learning, I believe he is no critic in Greek.”[571]
Wesley lost no time in replying to Warburton’s attack. This he did,
in “A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
Occasioned by his tract on the office and operations of the Holy
Spirit. London: 1763.” 12mo, 144 pages. The character and substance of
Wesley’s answer may be inferred from its concluding paragraphs.
“I have now finished what I had to say, either concerning myself, or
on the operations of the Holy Spirit. In doing this, I have used great
plainness of speech, and yet, I hope, without rudeness. If anything of
that kind has slipped from me, I am ready to retract it. I desire, on
the one hand, to _accept no man’s person_; and yet, on the other, to
give _honour to whom honour is due_.
“If your lordship should think it worth your while to spend any more
words upon me, may I presume to request one thing of your lordship,—to
be more _serious_? It cannot injure your lordship’s _character_, or
your _cause_.”
Warburton’s book was principally an attack on Wesley and Conyers
Middleton; but as the title page, at least, referred to the “office
and operations of the Holy Spirit,” others, beside Wesley, deemed it
their duty to call the jaunty bishop to account for his errors and
omissions. Whitefield, though scarcely alluded to by Warburton, sent
forth a pamphlet of twenty-four pages, in which he charges the bishop
with having, “in effect, robbed the church of its promised Comforter;
and, thereby, left us without any supernatural influence or Divine
operations whatsoever.” The Rev. John Andrews, LL.B., of St. Mary
hall, Oxford, published a book of 224 pages to correct his lordship’s
notions; and soon after was dismissed from a small Church benefice
the prelate had previously bestowed upon him. John Payne also, once a
bookseller, but afterwards accountant of the Bank of England, issued a
volume of five hundred pages, accusing the bishop of unfairness to Mr.
Law. Dr. Thomas Leland, a fellow of Trinity college, Dublin, the most
admired preacher of that city, and whose classical learning Dr. Johnson
considered to be unrivalled, gave to the world his “Dissertation on
the Principles of Human Eloquence,” in which he refuted the arguments
used by Warburton in reference to the style and composition of the New
Testament. Thus the irate bishop got into a nest of hornets. Wesley
considered, that he himself had so “_untwisted the bishops arguments_,”
that to put them together again was a thing impossible.[572] Andrews
so stung his lordship, that he was soon dismissed from his benefice.
And Leland so vanquished his antagonist, that, instead of the bishop
defending his own, Dr. Hurd, in a tone of sarcasm and contempt,
thought proper to answer on behalf of his episcopal master, and, three
years afterwards, was made archdeacon of his master’s diocese. Samuel
Charndler, also, of Newington, appeared as the bishop’s champion,
in “An Answer to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Letter to William, Lord
Bishop of Gloucester.” 8vo, 22 pages. With no slight degree of egotism,
he tells his readers, that his “remarks are not the fruits of idle
conceit, or mere conjecture, not party suggestions, or newfangled
notions, but a plain series of well considered thoughts.” He informs
Wesley, that Methodist “doctrine has filled Bedlam and the several
madhouses in England with shoals of patients”; that he had “occasioned
many and great violations of the peace”; and that he is “well skilled
in the rudiments of deceit.” Poor Samuel Charndler, by the side of
Bishop Warburton, was a Lilliputian playing antics in the presence of a
Patagonian giant.
The other publications of Wesley, in 1763, were as follows.
1. “Letters wrote by Jane Cooper, to which is prefixed some account of
her Life and Death.” 12mo, 41 pages. Jane Cooper was born in Norfolk,
in 1738; and, in the twentieth year of her age, came to London as
a domestic servant; was converted; and joined the Methodists. Four
years afterwards she died of smallpox, and Wesley buried her. She was
evidently one of Wesley’s pattern saints, and professed to live in
the enjoyment of Christian holiness. Indeed, her experience forms a
part of Wesley’s “Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” Considering
her social position, her letters are remarkable productions. “All
here,” says Wesley, “is strong, sterling sense, strictly agreeable to
sound reason. Here are no extravagant flights, no mystic reveries, no
unscriptural enthusiasm. The sentiments are all just and noble; the
result of a fine natural understanding, cultivated by conversation,
thinking, reading, and true Christian experience.” The last words of
this servant maid were: “My Jesus is all in all to me; glory be to
Him through time and eternity.” Wesley calls her “a pattern of all
holiness, and of the wisdom which is from above.”
2. “Farther Thoughts upon Christian Perfection.” 12mo, 39 pages. This
has been already noticed.
3. As also the following: “A Sermon preached before the Society for the
Reformation of Manners; on Sunday, January 30, 1763. At the chapel in
West Street, Seven Dials.” 8vo, 31 pages. At the end of it, the names
of five gentlemen are given, who would receive subscriptions to the
funds of the society, on behalf of which it was delivered.
4. The substance also of another pamphlet has been already given:
“Minutes of several Conversations between the Rev. Mr. John and Charles
Wesley, and others.” 12mo, 30 pages.
5. The “Sermon on Sin in Believers” was written March 28, 1763. Its
object is to refute the doctrine of Zinzendorf, that _all_ true
believers are _entirely_ sanctified. The sermon is one of Wesley’s
ablest homilies; and, doubtless, had its origin in the excitement
arising out of the subject of Christian perfection. “I wrote it,”
says he, “in order to remove a mistake which some were labouring to
propagate,—that there is no sin in any that are justified.”
6. “An Extract from Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost,’ with Notes.” 18mo,
320 pages. Wesley’s object, in this publication, may be gathered
from his preface. “This inimitable work, amidst all its beauties, is
unintelligible to abundance of readers: the immense learning, which
Milton has everywhere crowded together, making it quite obscure to
persons of a common education. This difficulty I have endeavoured to
remove in the following extract: first, by omitting those lines which I
despaired of explaining to the unlearned; and secondly, by adding short
and easy notes. To those passages, which I apprehend to be peculiarly
excellent, either with regard to sentiment or expression, I have
prefixed a star; and these, I believe, it would be worth while to read
over and over, or even to commit to memory.”[573]
7. “A Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation; or, a Compendium of
Natural Philosophy.” 2 vols., 12mo. This work was begun as early as the
year 1758;[574] and was published by subscription. In a circular to his
assistants, Wesley said: “Spare no pains to procure subscriptions for
the Philosophy. It will be the most complete thing of its kind in the
English tongue.”[575] A second edition, in three volumes, was issued in
1770; a third, in five volumes, in 1777. In the _London Magazine_, for
1774, a long letter, signed “Philosophaster,” was addressed to Wesley,
criticising some of his statements. In his reply,[576] Wesley, in some
points, acknowledges himself to be in error; but not in others; and
then concludes: “Permit me, sir, to give you one piece of advice. Be
not so _positive_; especially with regard to things which are neither
easy nor necessary to be determined. I ground this advice on my own
experience. When I was young, I was _sure_ of everything. In a few
years, having been mistaken a thousand times, I was not half so sure of
most things as before. At present, I am hardly sure of anything, but
what God has revealed to man.”
1764.
[Sidenote: 1764 Age 61]
Charles Wesley, in feeble health, seems to have spent the year 1764
in London and in Bristol. Whitefield was in America, and so much an
invalid, that he could only preach about thrice a week. Though distant,
he affectionately remembered his old friend Wesley. Hence the following.
“PHILADELPHIA, _September 25, 1764_.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—Your kind letter, dated in January last,
through the negligence of those that received the parcel, did not
reach me till within these few days. I have been mercifully carried
through the summer’s heat; and, had strength permitted, I might have
preached to thousands and thousands thrice a day. Zealous ministers
are not so rare in this new world as in other parts. Here is room
for a hundred itinerants. Fain would I end my life in rambling after
those that have rambled away from Jesus Christ. I am persuaded you
are likeminded. I wish you and all your dear fellow labourers much
prosperity. I do not repent being a poor, despised, cast out, and now
almost worn out itinerant. I would do it again, if I had my choice. If
you and all yours would join in praying over a poor, worthless, but
willing pilgrim, it would be a very great act of charity, he being,
though less than the least of all,
“Reverend and very dear sir, ever yours in Jesus,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[577]
Whitefield was away from England; but even that was not enough to save
him from the malignant attacks of his English enemies. At the very
commencement of the year, the half insane watchmaker, mentioned in a
previous chapter, published another of his shilling pamphlets, with the
fantastic title: “Remarks upon the Life, Character, and Behaviour of
the Rev. George Whitefield, as written by himself, from the time of his
birth to the time he departed from his Tabernacle; demonstrating, by
astronomical calculation, that his ascension, meridian, and declination
were necessarily actuated by planetary influence, and that his doctrine
was not Divine mission, but from a mere fatality evident, as daily
seen in the sad catastrophe of his unhappy, gloomy, and misguided
followers. The whole being a choice new year’s gift for Methodists,
and one of the most valuable prizes that ever was drawn since Methodism
has been in being. By John Harman, astronomer.” Well might the _Monthly
Review_ remark: “Harman styles himself ‘regulator of enthusiasts,’ and
‘astronomer’; we look upon him as a comical genius, who has contrived
to plague the Methodists and their great leader, in the style of an
almanack maker, and with all the antiquated jargon of astrology.”[578]
During the month of January, Wesley, besides preaching in London and
its immediate vicinity, visited Dorking, High-Wycombe, Oxford, and
Witney.
Within three miles of the last mentioned town, at South Leigh, Wesley
preached his first sermon, in the year 1725; but, oddly enough, this
was the first time that he preached at Witney itself.[579]
Wesley writes: “This is such a people as I have not seen; so remarkably
diligent in business, and, at the same time, of so quiet a spirit, and
so calm and civil in their behaviour.”
Near to Witney, at Blandford Park, resided Mr. Bolton and his unmarried
sister, whose house, for many years, was one of Wesley’s much loved
haunts. Miss Bolton was one of Wesley’s favourite correspondents, and
Mr. Bolton one of his best local preachers. On one occasion, when the
two friends were snugly seated in Mr. Bolton’s parlour, and Wesley, as
usual, was employed with his book and pen, the Witney host, wishful to
draw his guest into conversation, began remarking how much pleasanter
it was to live in the country than in town; “All is silent,” said he,
“all retired, and no distracting noises of the busy multitude intrude
themselves.” “True, Neddy,” replied Wesley with his usual quickness,
“but _noisy thoughts_ may.” The hint sufficed, and Neddy subsided into
silence.
On February 2, Wesley reopened the old Foundery, in London, which had
been closed, for several weeks, in order to be repaired and otherwise
improved. “It is now,” says he, “not only firm and safe, but clean and
decent, and capable of receiving several hundreds more.”
On February 6, he opened the new chapel at Wapping. Ten days later,
he writes: “I once more took a serious walk through the tombs in
Westminster Abbey. What heaps of unmeaning stone and marble! But there
was one tomb which showed common sense; that beautiful figure of Mr.
Nightingale, endeavouring to screen his lovely wife from death. Here,
indeed, the marble seems to speak, and the statues appear only not
alive.”
It is well known, that the Rev. Martin Madan, minister at the Lock
hospital, and his curate, the Rev. Thomas Haweis, were both most
passionately fond of music, and themselves composers.[580] Once a year,
their chapel was turned into a concert room for the performance of
oratorios; and, on two occasions at least, Wesley was a listener. He
writes: “1764, February 29.—I heard ‘Judith,’ an oratorio, performed
at the Lock. Some parts of it were exceeding fine; but there are two
things in all modern pieces of music, which I could never reconcile to
common sense. One is, singing the same words ten times over; the other,
singing different words by different persons, at one and the same time.
And this, in the most solemn addresses to God, whether by way of prayer
or thanksgiving. This can never be defended by all the musicians in
Europe, till reason is quite out of date.”
He was present again the year following, when “Ruth” was the oratorio
performed, and observed: “The sense was admirable throughout; and
much of the poetry not contemptible. This, joined with exquisite
music, might possibly make an impression even upon rich and honourable
sinners.”
Some will wonder at Wesley attending the performance of oratorios; but
why so? Fault may properly be found with Martin Madan for using a place
of worship for such performances; but Martin Madan was merely copying
the example of his superiors, who, even then, once a year, gave the
use of their cathedrals to the choirs of Gloucester, Hereford, and
Worcester, for the same musical purposes. Indeed, some of the early
Methodists adopted the same doubtful usage. We have before us more
than one of Handel’s oratorios, specially printed, for performance
in Oldham Street chapel, Manchester, only two or three years after
Wesley’s death. All this was dubious; indeed, we venture to designate
it desecration. A Christian sanctuary is a place far too sacred to
be used as a place of intellectual entertainment, even though, as in
the case of Martin Madan, the pleasure be of the most refined and
exalted character; but, excepting the fact that a place of worship was
turned into a concert hall, who can reasonably find fault with Wesley
attending the performance of the oratorios in question? Music was a
passion in the Wesley family; and no one felt it stronger than the
subject of this memoir. His brother’s sons, Charles and Samuel, were
young Mozarts; and his own taste was exquisitely beautiful and pure.
The music sung by the first Methodists was music of his own selecting;
and, in after years, even he himself marvelled that, without studying
the science, his selections had been so classical, and so much in
harmony with the severest taste of the greatest masters. In 1768, he
wrote: “I was much surprised in reading an ‘Essay on Music,’ written
by one who is a thorough master of the subject, to find, that the
music of the ancients was as simple as that of the Methodists; that
their music wholly consisted of melody, or the arrangement of single
notes; that what is now called harmony, singing in parts, the whole
of counterpoints and fugues, is quite novel, being never known in the
world till the popedom of Leo X.”
On the 12th of March, Wesley commenced his long northern journey,
which occupied nearly the next five months. At Stroud, he writes: “How
many years were we beating the air in this place! one wrong headed man
pulling down all we could build up; but, since he is gone, the word of
God takes root, and the society increases both in number and strength.”
At Birmingham, Wesley preached in the chapel which had formerly been a
playhouse, and remarks: “Happy would it be, if all the playhouses in
the kingdom were converted to so good an use. After service, the mob
gathered, and threw dirt and stones at people going out.”
At Dudley, “formerly a den of lions, but now quiet as Bristol, they had
just finished their preaching house, which was thoroughly filled.” Mr.
Southall and his family were a part of the first society; in his house
meetings for prayer were held; and more than once were his window’s
smashed, and the congregation cursed with the most bitter oaths and
curses.[581]
At Wednesbury, Wesley had the largest congregation he had seen since
he left London. The riots here, when Methodism was first introduced,
have been already noticed. Suffice it to add further, that a quaker was
the means of quelling them. This “Friend” happening to ride through
the town, the mob swore he was a preacher, pulled him from his horse,
dragged him to a coalpit, and threatened to throw him in. The man of
peace availed himself of law, and prosecuted his assailants at the
assizes; and, from that time, the tumults of the town subsided.[582]
At Walsall, notwithstanding the inclemency of the season, he had to
preach out of doors, at seven o’clock in the morning, the chapel not
being able to contain the people. Remembering past scenes, well might
Wesley say, “How is Walsall changed! Now has God either tamed the wild
beasts, or chained them up!”
On March 26, Wesley paid his first visit to Ashby-de-la-Zouch. The
chapel and the chapel yard both were filled; “and I saw,” says Wesley,
“but one trifler among them all, which, I understood, was an attorney.
Poor man! if men live what I preach, the hope of his gain is lost.”
On leaving Ashby, Wesley went to Derby, and attempted to preach in the
market-place, but he no sooner announced his text than the mob raised
such a noise, that he found it impossible to make himself heard; and,
hence, he quietly retired to the house of Mr. Dobinson, “an innumerable
retinue” following after and throwing stones.
At Sheffield, Wesley found about sixty who professed to be entirely
sanctified. He writes: “I could not learn, that any among them walk
unworthy of their profession. Many watch over them for evil; but
they ‘overcome evil with good.’ I found nothing of self conceit,
stubbornness, impatience of contradiction, or London enthusiasm, among
them.”
From Sheffield, he proceeded to Rotherham, Doncaster, Epworth, and
Grimsby. At Rotherham, he preached at the opening of a new chapel, a
donkey, who had walked up to the door, being, as he relates, apparently
one of his most attentive auditors. At Doncaster, a society had
recently been formed, which met in the house of Betty Riley, and had
Thomas Naylor as its leader. The rabble were rude and often violent;
but truth was mighty, and its triumphs great. On one occasion, in
1765, while Jeremiah Cocker of Sheffield was preaching, a bull was
driven up to him; but the preacher quietly laid his hands upon its
horns, and continued his discourse. Still, for many years, Methodism
in Doncaster was a feeble thing, and even as late as 1793, when it had
sixty members, it raised only £1 5_s._ per quarter for the support of
the work of God, or about a farthing and a half per member weekly. In
reference to Grimsby, Wesley writes: “Grimsby, once the most dead, is
now the most lively place in all the country. Here has been a large
and swift increase both of the society and hearers, so that the house,
though galleries are added, is still too small. The mayor and all the
gentry of the town were present; and so was our Lord, in an uncommon
manner. Some dropped down as dead; but, after a while, rejoiced with
joy unspeakable. One was carried away in violent fits. I went to her
after the service. She was strongly convulsed from head to foot, and
shrieked out in a dreadful manner. The unclean spirit did tear her
indeed: but his reign was not long. In the morning both her soul and
body were healed, and she acknowledged both the justice and mercy of
God.”
This is a curious entry, which the reader is left to ponder.
Proceeding to Gainsborough, Wesley no sooner began to preach in
Sir Nevil Hickman’s hall than a cock began crowing above his head.
The noisy rival, however, was speedily dislodged, and the service
was carried on in peace. Wesley then went to Hull, and Beverley,
at the latter of which places, the original hive of the Methodist
congregations was the house of a shoemaker, where “the Culamite
preachers,” as the itinerants were called, were often literally
besieged by furious rabbles, and became “a hissing” to the people.
Wesley spent nearly a week at York; after which he proceeded to
Helmsley, where he found his friend, the Rev. Dr. Conyers, greatly
changed. The Calvinists had prejudiced him against the Arminians,
and, notwithstanding the warmth of his friendship twelve months
before, he was now suspicious, cold, and distant. The itinerant then
wended his way to Scarborough, Robin Hood’s Bay, Whitby, Guisborough,
Stokesley, Hutton, Potto, Yarm, Stockton, Darlington, Barnard Castle,
and Newcastle on Tyne. He also paid a visit to Weardale, a beautiful
valley, above twenty miles long, with only five places of religious
worship, to which however was now added a Methodist chapel, built at
High House in 1760.[583]
After a three weeks’ stay at Newcastle and in its neighbourhood, Wesley
set out for Scotland, preaching at Morpeth, Alnwick, and Berwick on
his way. Nearly a month was spent in North Britain. At Edinburgh, he
attended the sessions of the General Assembly; and, when he preached
on Calton Hill, many, of the ministers were there to hear him. With
some hesitation, he joined, at the West Kirk, in the celebration of
the Lord’s supper. He visited Dundee, Brechin, Aberdeen, Old Meldrum,
Banff, Inverness, Nairn, and other places. In several instances, he
preached in the parish kirks; and remarks: “There is seldom fear of
wanting a congregation in Scotland. But the misfortune is, they know
everything; so they learn nothing.” Two months afterwards, he wrote the
following, hitherto unpublished, letter to Lady Maxwell, then a young
Scotch widow of twenty-two.
“LONDON, _August 17, 1764_.
“MY DEAR LADY,—Since I had the pleasure of yours, I have hardly
had an hour that I could call my own, otherwise I would not have
delayed writing so long, as I have a tender regard for you, and an
earnest desire, that you should be altogether a Christian. I cannot
be content with your being ever so harmless, or regular, in your
behaviour, or even exemplary in all externals. You have received the
fear of God already; but shall you stop here? God forbid! This is
only the beginning of wisdom. You are not to end there. Fear shall
ripen into love. You shall know (perhaps very soon) that love of God
which passeth knowledge. You shall witness the kingdom of God within
you, even righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. It is
no small instance of the goodness of God toward you, that you are
conscious of your want of living faith. And this goodness herein is
more remarkable, because almost all your neighbours would set you down
for a right good believer. O beware of these flatteries. Hold fast to
the convictions which God has given you. Faith,—living, conquering,
loving faith, is undoubtedly the thing you want; and of this you have
frequently a taste, to encourage you in pressing forward. Such is the
tender mercy of Him that loves you! Such His desire, that you should
receive all His precious promises! Do not think they are afar off. Do
not imagine you must stay long months, or years, before you receive
them. Do not put them off a day, an hour. Why not now? Why should you
not look up this instant, and see, as it were, Jesus Christ evidently
set forth, crucified before your eyes? O hear His voice, ‘Daughter, be
of good cheer! thy sins are forgiven thee!’ ‘Say not, in thy heart,
who shall go up into heaven, or who shall go down into the deep?’ No!
‘The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart.’ ‘Lord, I
believe! Help my unbelief!’ Joy in the Holy Ghost is a precious gift
of God; but, yet, tenderness of conscience is a still greater gift.
And all this is for you—just ready.
‘The speechless awe, that dares not move,
And all the silent heaven of love.’
“I am no great friend to solitary Christianity. Nevertheless, in so
peculiar a case as yours, I think an exception may be admitted. It
does seem most expedient for _you_, to retire from Edinburgh, at least
for a season, till God has increased your strength. For the company
of those who know not God, who are strangers to the religion of the
heart, especially if they are sensible, agreeable persons, might quite
damp the grace of God in your soul.
“You cannot oblige me more than by telling me all that is in your
heart. There is no danger of your tiring me. I do not often write so
long letters as this; but when I write to _you_, I am full of matter.
I seem to see you just before me,—a poor, feeble, helpless creature,
but just upon the point of salvation; upright of heart (in a measure),
full of real desires for God, and emerging into light. The Lord take
you whole! So prays, my dear lady, your affectionate servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Such was Wesley’s encouraging advice to this noble penitent. Soon
afterwards, Lady Maxwell became a member of the Methodist society, and
continued such until her death in 1810.
Returning to Newcastle, Wesley started, on June 21, for Whitehaven, of
whose society he writes: “What has continually hurt this poor people is
offence. I found the society now all in confusion, because a woman had
scolded with her neighbour, and another had stolen a twopenny loaf. The
want of field preaching, also, has been one cause of deadness here. I
do not find any great increase of the work of God without it. If ever
this is laid aside, I expect the whole work will gradually die away.”
On June 25, he came to Kendal, where “the people had been so harassed
by seceders, and disputers of every kind, that they were now dry and
dead as stones.” The next day he preached four times, and rode fifty
miles, without weariness. He then made his way to Otley, Guiseley,
Keighley, Bradford, Birstal, Leeds, Wakefield, Dewsbury, Halifax,
Huddersfield, and Manchester. For the last ten days, he had preached
three times every day, and many of the times, in the open air. He
then proceeded to Bolton, Wigan, Liverpool, Warrington, Chester,
Macclesfield, Congleton, Burslem, Madeley, and Shrewsbury. The
enumeration of these places will furnish an idea, not only of Wesley’s
labours, but of the chief towns where Methodism had been introduced.
From Shrewsbury, he went through Wales to Bristol. On the first day’s
journey, he and his companion were in the saddle from four o’clock
in the morning till eight at night, when they found they had missed
their way. They were told to ride in a certain direction; but their
path soon ended in a bog. Then an honest man mounted his horse, and
galloped before them, up hill and down, till he brought them into a
road, which, he said, led to Roesfair. They rode on, till another met
them, and said, “No; this is the way to Aberystwyth. If you would go
to Roesfair, you must turn back, and ride down to yonder bridge.” At
the bridge, the master of a little public house directed them to the
next village, where they inquired again, and were again set exactly
wrong. Having wandered an hour upon the mountains, “through rocks,
and bogs, and precipices,” they got back to the bridge, whence they
had been directed. It was now past ten o’clock, and they had been
riding and preaching for the last eighteen hours; but to obtain rest
was impracticable; for the public house was full of drunken, roaring
miners; and, besides that, there was but one bed in the roadside inn,
and neither grass, nor hay, nor corn for cattle. At length, they hired
one of the miners, who was “miserably drunk,” to walk with them to
Roesfair whither they were travelling. On his way, the man fell all his
length into a river, which partly restored his senses. Between eleven
and twelve they reached their destination; but, even here, provender
for their beasts of burden there was none; and, to make bad things
worse, the ostler and the miner, after the travellers were gone to
bed, mounted the jaded animals for a ride; and, next morning, the mule
of Wesley’s friend was found cut in several places, whilst Wesley’s
horse was bleeding from a wound, two inches deep, made, it seemed, by a
stroke with a pitchfork. Wesley got safe to Bristol on August 4.
Here we must pause, in his itinerancy, to notice other matters, which
occurred during his five months’ journey.
One is a letter referring to exercise on horseback, not inappropriate
to the adventure just related. The letter was addressed to his friend,
Mr. Ebenezer Blackwell, who had begun to drive his carriage.
“LIVERPOOL, _July 14, 1764_.
“DEAR SIR,—My brother informs me, that you have been so extremely ill,
that your life was hardly expected. I really am under apprehensions
lest that chariot should cost you your life. If, after having been
accustomed to ride on horseback for many years, you should now
exchange a horse for a carriage, it cannot be that you should have
good health. It is a vain thing to expect it. I judge of your case by
my own. I must be on horseback for life, if I would be healthy. Now
and then, indeed, if I could afford it, I should rest myself for fifty
miles in a chaise; but, without riding near as much as I do now, I
must never look for health.
“I am, dear sir,
“Your very affectionate servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[584]
Let the railway riding and carriage driving public of the present day
take a hint from this.
Another letter may be inserted here, which shows, that, in the
Methodist movement, Wesley was now without a counsellor. His brother,
to whom the letter was addressed, had retired into comparative
seclusion; and there was no one to occupy his place. The letter also
contains historical allusions of considerable importance.
“HADDINGTON, _May 25, 1764_.
“DEAR BROTHER,—Is there any reason why you and I should have no
further intercourse with each other? I know none; although possibly
there are persons in the world, who would not be sorry for it. I
hope you find peace and unity in the south, as we do in the north;
only the seceders and Mr. Sandeman’s friends are ready to eat us up.
And no wonder; for these, as well as deists and Socinians, I oppose
_ex professo_. But how do Thomas Maxfield and his friends go on?
quietly, or _gladiatorio animo_? And how are John Jones, Downes, and
Richardson? and my best friend, and yours?
“The frightful stories, written from London, had made all our
preachers in the north afraid even to mutter about perfection; and, of
course, the people, on all sides, were grown good Calvinists in that
point. It is what I foresaw from the beginning; that the devil would
strive, by Thomas Maxfield and company, to drive perfection out of the
kingdom.
“O let you and I hold fast whereunto we have attained; and let our yea
be yea, and our nay nay! I feel the want of some about me, that are
all faith and love. No man was more profitable to me than George Bell,
while he was simple of heart. O for heat and light united! My love to
Sally. Adieu!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[585]
The next matter to be mentioned was of paramount importance. The
desertion of Maxfield, the retirement of Wesley’s brother, and the
Greek ordination of John Jones have been already noticed. Just at
this juncture, Providence raised up the Rev. John Richardson, a young
Yorkshireman, who was episcopally ordained, had a curacy in Sussex,
and, in 1762, was made a happy witness of the power of Divine truth
under a sermon preached by Thomas Rankin. Within a year after this,
Richardson relinquished his curacy, joined the Methodists, and became
Wesley’s assistant in London. Still, Wesley, in the spring of 1764,
was in the greatest difficulty. He was bound to visit his country
societies; his brother declined to supply his place in London, and also
objected to John Jones taking any part in administering the sacraments
during Wesley’s absence. Things were in this position when Wesley wrote
to his brother as follows.
“LONDON, _March 1, 1764_.
“DEAR BROTHER,—You ‘have no thoughts of venturing to London before
May!’ Then I must indeed ‘do the best I can.’ So I must comply with
the advice of the stewards, as well as my own judgment, and insist
upon John Jones’s assisting me on Sunday. I have delayed all this time
purely out of tenderness to you. Adieu!
“JOHN WESLEY.”[586]
This was bringing the matter to an issue; and Charles Wesley must have
felt that, if John Jones, ordained by the dubious Erasmus, was really
employed in giving the sacrament to the London Methodists, he had
no one to blame except himself. Mr. Jones was so annoyed by Charles
Wesley’s opposition, that he left the Methodist connexion, procured
reordination from the Bishop of London, and was presented to the living
of Harwich.
A fortnight after writing thus to Charles, Wesley went to Bristol,
where his brother was residing. “Here,” he says, “I met several serious
clergymen. I have long desired, that there might be an open, avowed
union between all who preach those fundamental truths—original sin, and
justification by faith, producing inward and outward holiness; but all
my endeavours have been hitherto ineffectual. God’s time is not fully
come.“
Some further explanation of this is necessary. In the spring of
the present year, Wesley had a correspondence with the Countess of
Huntingdon, and with the Rev. Mr. Hart, of Bristol, respecting the
desirability of promoting union among gospel preachers. The following
letter has not been previously published; it was addressed to the
countess.
“NEWCASTLE, _May 16, 1764_.