answer, which plainly speaks a heart devoted to God, and longing
for the furtherance of His kingdom. I have likewise received an
exceeding friendly letter from Mr. Hart, testifying a great desire of
union among the preachers of the gospel; only he carries the point
considerably farther than I do, proposing a free debate concerning
our several opinions. Now this, I fear, we are not yet able to bear:
I fear it might occasion some sharpness of expression, if not of
spirit too, which might tear open the wounds before they are fully
closed. I am far from being assured, that I could bear it myself;
and perhaps others might be as weak as I. To me, therefore, it still
seems most expedient to avoid disputing of every kind: at least, for
a season, till we have tasted each other’s spirit, and confirmed our
love to each other. I own freely, I am sick of disputing: I am weary
to bear it; my whole soul cries out, ‘Peace! Peace!’ at least with the
children of God, that we may all unite our strength, to carry on the
war against the ‘rulers of the darkness of this world.’ Still I ask
but one thing, ‘Is thy _heart_ right, as my heart is with thine?’ If
it be, give me thine hand. Let us take ‘sweet counsel together, and
strengthen each other in the Lord.’
“And the advantage in the proposal I make is this: if it should be
(which God forbid!) that I should find none to join me therein, I
will, by God’s help, comply with it myself. None can hinder this;
and, I think, my brother will be likeminded, yea, and all who act in
connection with us.
“Probably it might contribute much to this end, if those of our
brethren who have opportunity would be at Bristol, on Thursday, the
9th of August. We might then spend a few hours in free conversation,
either apart from, or in conjunction with, the other preachers.
I apprehend, if your ladyship could then be near, it might be of
excellent service in confirming any kind and friendly disposition,
which our Lord might plant in the hearts of His servants. Surely if
this can be effectually done, we shall again see Satan, as lightning,
fall from heaven.
“I am, my dear lady, your ladyship’s most affectionate and obedient
servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Previous to this, on April 19, while at Scarborough, Wesley had drawn
up a letter, which he subsequently sent to about fifty clergymen,
bearing on the subject of Christian union. It is said[587] that this
letter had been submitted to Lord Dartmouth more than two years
previous to this; be that as it may, it was now forwarded to the
clergymen who were preaching the doctrines above mentioned. These
included Messrs. Perronet, Romaine, Newton, Shirley, Adam, Fletcher,
Baddiley, Roquet, Sellon, Venn, Richardson, Furley, Conyers, Berridge,
and Hicks, all of whom have been alluded to in previous pages of the
present history. Besides these, there were Mr. Colley, occasionally one
of Wesley’s assistants; Mr. Jesse, perpetual curate of West Bromwich;
Mr. Talbot, vicar of St. Giles’s, Reading; Mr. Stillingfleet, of
Shawbury; Mr. Andrews, vicar of Stinchcombe; Mr. Jane, vicar of Acton;
Mr. Hart, vicar of St. George’s, Bristol; Mr. Browne, vicar of Olney;
Mr. Burnett, vicar of Elland, Yorkshire; Mr. Bentley, curate of Dr.
Conyers; and Messrs. Downing, Riland, Johnson, Symes, and King, of whom
we know nothing.
After mentioning the above clergymen as agreeing in the three
essentials—(1) original sin; (2) justification by faith; and (3)
holiness of life—Wesley proceeds to state:
“I do not desire a union of opinions among these. They might agree or
disagree, touching absolute decrees on the one hand, and perfection on
the other. Not a union in expressions. These may still speak of the
imputed righteousness, and those of the merits of Christ. Not a union
with regard to outward order. Some may remain still quite regular,
some quite irregular; and some partly regular, and partly irregular.
But these things being as they are, as each is persuaded in his own
mind, is it not a most desirable thing that we should—
“1. Remove hindrances out of the way? Not judge one another, not
despise one another, not envy one another? Not be displeased at one
another’s gifts or success, even though greater than our own? Not wait
for one another’s halting, much less wish for it, or rejoice therein?
“Never speak disrespectfully, slightly, coldly, or unkindly of each
other; never repeat each other’s faults, mistakes, or infirmities,
much less listen for and gather them up; never say or do anything to
hinder each other’s usefulness, either directly or indirectly? Is it
not a most desirable thing that we should—
“2. Love as brethren? Think well of and honour one another? Wish all
good, all grace, all gifts, all success, yea, greater than our own,
to each other? Expect God will answer our wish, rejoice in every
appearance thereof, and praise Him for it? Readily believe good of
each other, as readily as we once believed evil?
“Speak respectfully, honourably, kindly of each other; defend each
other’s character; speak all the good we can of each other; recommend
one another where we have influence; each help the other on in his
work, and enlarge his influence by all the honest means he can?
“This is the union which I have long sought after; and is it not the
duty of every one of us so to do? Would it not be far better for
ourselves? a means of promoting both our holiness and happiness? Would
it not remove much guilt from those who have been faulty in any of
these instances? and much pain from those who have kept themselves
pure? Would it not be far better for the people, who suffer severely
from the clashings and contentions of their leaders, which seldom
fail to occasion many unprofitable, yea hurtful, disputes among them?
Would it not be better even for the poor blind world, robbing them of
their sport, ‘Oh, they cannot agree among themselves!’ Would it not be
better for the whole work of God, which would then deepen and widen on
every side?
“‘But it will never be; it is utterly impossible.’ Certainly it is
with men. Who imagines we can do this? that it can be effected by
any human power? All nature is against it; every infirmity, every
wrong temper and passion; love of honour and praise, of power, of
preeminence, anger, resentment, pride; long contracted habit and
prejudice lurking in ten thousand forms. The devil and all his angels
are against it. For if this takes place, how shall his kingdom stand?
All the world, all that know not God, are against it, though they may
seem to favour it for a season. Let us settle this in our hearts, that
we may be utterly cut off from all dependence on our own strength or
wisdom.
“But surely ‘with God all things are possible’; therefore ‘all things
are possible to him that believeth’; and this union is proposed only
to them that believe, that show their faith by their works.
“When Mr. C.” [Conyers?] “was objecting the impossibility of ever
effecting such a union, I went upstairs, and, after a little prayer,
opened Kempis on these words:—‘_Expecta Dominum: viriliter age: noli
diffidere: noli discedere: sed corpus et animam expose constanter pro
gloria Dei_.’
“I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”
Will it be believed that, though this superlatively Christian letter
was sent to about fifty _evangelical_ clergymen, only three of them
condescended to return an answer? This brotherly union was the chief
subject discussed at the conference, which commenced in Bristol on the
6th of August. In describing its proceedings Wesley writes: “The great
point I now laboured for was a good understanding with all our brethren
of the clergy, who are heartily engaged in propagating vital religion.”
A dozen of the clergymen, to whom Wesley’s circular had been sent,
attended the conference; but for what purpose? John Pawson, who was
present, says:
“In the year 1764, twelve of those gentlemen attended our conference
in Bristol, in order to prevail with Mr. Wesley to withdraw the
preachers from every parish where there was an awakened minister; and
Mr. Charles Wesley honestly told us, that if he was a settled minister
in any particular place, we should not preach there. To whom Mr.
Hampson replied, ‘I would preach there, and never ask your leave, and
should have as good a right to do so as you would have.’ Mr. Charles
Wesley’s answer was in a strain of high church eloquence indeed! but
I leave it. His prediction was never accomplished, nor ever can be.
However, these gentlemen failed in their attempt that time; Mr. Wesley
would not give up his societies to them.”[588]
With this glimpse of the finale of Wesley’s Christian proposal, we must
now rest satisfied. He did his duty; but only three, even of the best
clergy in the land, were prepared to cooperate with him.
It has been hinted, that Wesley’s circular was, in the first instance,
submitted to Lord Dartmouth, the great friend of the Countess of
Huntingdon, and the principal patron of the evangelical clergy of that
period. There can be little doubt that it was so; and that another
epistle on the same subject, dated “July 26, 1764,” was addressed to
the same nobleman. Without quoting that part of the letter which gives
the history of Wesley’s proposal for union, we merely furnish the
two concluding paragraphs, and chiefly because they are strikingly
characteristic of the writer’s almost rough fidelity and courage.
“If your lordship has heard any objections” [to the proposed union],
“I should be glad to know them. May I be permitted to ask, Have not
the objections you have heard made some impression upon your lordship?
Have they not occasioned, if I may speak freely, your lordship’s
standing aloof from me? Why do I ask? Indeed, not upon my own account.
‘_Quid mea? Ego in portu navigo._’ I can truly say, I neither fear nor
desire anything from your lordship: to speak a rough truth, I do not
desire any intercourse with any persons of quality in England. I mean,
for my own sake; they do me no good, and I fear I can do none to them.
If it be desired, I will readily leave all those to the care of my
fellow labourers; I will article with them so to do, rather than this
shall be any bone of contention.
“Were I not afraid of giving your lordship pain, I would speak yet
still further. Methinks, you desire I should; that is, to tell you
once for all, every thought that rises in my heart. I will then. At
present I do not want _you_, but I really think you want _me_. For
have you a person, in all England, who speaks to your lordship so
plain and downright as I do? who considers not the _peer_, but the
_man_? not the _earl_, but the _immortal spirit_? who rarely commends,
but often blames, and perhaps would do it oftener if you desired it?
who is jealous over you with a godly jealousy, lest you should be
less a Christian by being a nobleman, lest, after having made a fair
advance towards heaven, you should measure back your steps to earth
again? O my lord, is not such a person as this needful for you in the
highest degree? If you have any such, I have no more to say, but that
I pray God to bless him to your soul. If you have not, despise not the
assistance which it may please God to give you by, my lord,
“Your lordship’s ready servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[589]
We must now hastily trace Wesley’s footsteps during the remainder of
the year 1764.
The conference in Bristol being ended, he came to London on August
11. On the 18th he preached, for the first time, in the new chapel at
Snowsfields. On the 20th, he says: “I went to Canterbury, and opened
our new chapel there.[590] How is it, that many protestants, even in
England, do not know that no other consecration of church or chapel is
allowed, much less required, in England, than the performance of public
worship therein? This is the only consecration of any church in Great
Britain which is necessary, or even lawful. It is true, Archbishop Laud
composed a form of consecration; but it was never allowed, much less
established, in England. Let this be remembered by all who talk so idly
of preaching in unconsecrated places!”
On September 3, Wesley returned to Bristol, in the neighbourhood
of which he spent the next month, meeting classes and preaching.
On Saturday, October 6, he got back to London; preached the next
day thrice, and administered the Lord’s supper; and then, a little
before midnight, started, by coach, for Norwich, whose society he
pronounced the most changeable in all England. In 1759, when James
Wheatley’s tabernacle and congregation were taken, there were 760
Norwich Methodists; in two years, the 760 were reduced to 412; a year
afterwards they became 630; and now, two years later, they were only
174.
It was during this Norfolk visitation, that Wesley preached, for the
first time, at Lowestoft. He writes: “a wilder congregation I have
not seen; but the bridle was in their teeth. All attended, and a
considerable part seemed to understand something of what was spoken.”
On his return to London, Wesley called the leaders together, and
proposed a scheme for defraying the debts on the London chapels, now
about _£_900; and, in six days, by a personal canvas, he raised nearly
two thirds of that amount. “What was done,” says he, “was done with the
utmost cheerfulness. I remember but one exception; only one gentleman
squeezed out ten shillings as so many drops of blood.” Wesley also met
the London preachers, every morning, to read with them his “Compendium
of Natural Philosophy.” He employed his spare moments in writing;
and made short tours to Kent, Sussex, and Essex, for the purpose of
visiting his societies there. In this diversified employment, the year
was ended.
The amount of labour through which Wesley passed was almost incredible.
His preaching, his travelling, his society visitations, his writing and
publishing, were enough to have occupied half-a-dozen ordinary men; but
to all these must be added his correspondence, and his having to give
counsel to all sorts of people, and on all sorts of matters. Even this,
single and alone, was no trifle, as will be seen by what follows, and
which may be taken as fair specimens of things constantly occurring.
For a quarter of a century, Wesley and his brother had bestowed a large
amount of ministerial labour on the inhabitants of Bristol; and it was
undeniable, that their services had produced incalculable good. Under
such circumstances, there was no presumption in their occasionally
taking part in the public business of the city. This they did in 1764.
At that time, the Bristol Methodists were alarmed by a proposal to
build a new theatre. Charles Wesley and others thought it desirable to
send to the Bristol corporation a formal petition against the proposal.
Wesley himself thought, that he and his brother were sufficiently well
known in Bristol to render a formal petition needless; and that a
letter, written on behalf of the Bristol Methodists, would do quite as
well. Hence the following, addressed “to the mayor and corporation of
Bristol.”
“LONDON, _December 20, 1764_.
“GENTLEMEN,—Both my brother and I, and all who have any connection
with us, are extremely sensible of our obligations to you, for the
civility which you have shown us on all occasions; and we cannot but
feel ourselves deeply interested in whatever we apprehend, in any
degree, to concern your honour, or the general good and prosperity of
the city of Bristol. This occasions my giving you the present trouble,
which, whether it has any further effect or no, you will please to
receive as a testimony of the high regard which we shall ever retain
for you.
“The endeavours lately used to procure subscriptions for building a
new playhouse, in Bristol, have given us not a little concern; and
that on various accounts: not barely as most of the present stage
entertainments sap the foundation of all religion, as they naturally
tend to efface all traces of piety and seriousness out of the minds of
men; but as they are peculiarly hurtful to a trading city; giving a
wrong turn to youth especially, gay, trifling, and directly opposite
to the spirit of industry and close application to business; and as
drinking and debauchery of every kind are constant attendants on these
entertainments, with indolence, effeminacy, and idleness, which affect
trade in a high degree.
“It was on these very considerations, that the corporation of
Nottingham lately withstood all solicitations, and absolutely forbade
the building of a new theatre there; and I doubt not but thousands
will reap the benefit of their wise and generous resolution.
“It does not become me, gentlemen, to press anything upon you; but I
could not avoid saying thus much, both in behalf of myself and all my
friends. Wishing you the continuance and increase of every blessing,
“I remain, gentlemen, your obliged and obedient servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[591]
Before leaving Bristol, another of Wesley’s papers may be inserted
here, for, though without date, it seems to have been written about the
year 1764. It is, in point of fact, a pastoral address, and one of the
first that Methodism ever issued. The reader will perceive, that it
refers to bribery, smuggling, sacraments, books, class-meetings, and
connexional debts.
“_To the Societies at Bristol._
“MY DEAR BRETHREN,—I was much comforted among you when I was with
you last; finding my labour had not been in vain. Many of you I
found rejoicing in God your Saviour, walking in the light of His
countenance, and studying to have a conscience void of offence towards
God and man. In order to assist you therein, suffer me to remind you
of a few things, which, I think, are of no small concern, in order
to your retaining the life of faith, and the testimony of a good
conscience towards God.
“1. For God’s sake, for the honour of the gospel, for your country’s
sake, and for the sake of your own souls, beware of bribery. Before
you see me again, the trial will come at the general election for
members of parliament. On no account, take money, or money’s worth.
Keep yourselves pure. Give, not sell, your vote. Touch not the
accursed thing, lest it bring a blast upon you and your household.
“2. Have nothing to do with stolen goods. Neither sell nor buy
anything that has not paid the duty. No, not if you could have it at
half price. Defraud not the king, any more than your fellow subject.
Never think of being religious unless you are honest. What has a thief
to do with religion? Herein mind not men, but the word of God; and
whatever others do, keep yourselves pure.
“3. Lose no opportunity of receiving the sacrament. All who have
neglected this have suffered loss. Most of them are as dead as stones;
therefore be you constant herein, not only for example, but for the
sake of your own souls.
“4. To the public, constantly add the private means of grace,
particularly prayer and reading. Most of you have been greatly wanting
in this; and, without this, you can never grow in grace. You may as
well expect a child to grow without food, as a soul without private
prayer; and reading is an excellent help to this. I advise you to
read, in particular, constantly and carefully, the New Testament;
‘Lessons for Children,’ which are all the choicest parts of the
Old Testament, with short notes; ‘Instructions for Children,’ which
are a body of divinity for plain people; and that golden treatise,
‘The Christian Pattern’; the ‘Plain Account of the Methodists.’ No
Methodist ought to be without these, nor the ‘Primitive Physic,’ which
(if you have any regard for your bodies, or your children) ought to be
in every house. To all that can understand it, I recommend one book
more, ‘The Preservative against unsettled Notions’; a book which, by
the blessing of God, may help you from being tossed about with divers
winds of doctrines. Permit me to give you one advice more under this
head: do not encourage young raw men to exhort among you. It does
little good either to you or them. Rather, in every society, where
you have not an experienced preacher, let one of the leaders read
the Notes, or the Christian Library. By this the wisest among you
may profit much; a thousand times more than by listening to forward
youths, who neither speak English nor common sense.
“5. Let all of you, who have faith, meet in band, without excuse and
without delay. There has been a shameful neglect of this. Remove this
scandal. As soon as the assistant has fixed your band, make it a point
of conscience never to miss without an absolute necessity; and the
preacher’s meeting you all together one night out of two will be an
additional blessing.
“6. If you constantly meet your band, I make no doubt that you will
constantly meet your class; indeed, otherwise you are not of our
society. Whoever misses his class thrice together thereby excludes
himself; and the preacher that comes next ought to put out his name. I
wish you would consider this. Halt not between two. Meet the brethren,
or leave them. It is not honest to profess yourself of a society, and
not observe the rules of it. Be therefore consistent with yourself.
Never miss your class till you miss it for good and all. And when you
meet it, be merciful after your power; give as God enables you. If you
are not in pressing want, give something, and you will be no poorer
for it. Grudge not, fear not; lend unto the Lord, and He will surely
repay. If you earn but three shillings a week, and give a penny out of
it, you will never want. But I do not say this to you who have ten or
fifteen shillings a week, and give only a penny! To see this has often
grieved my spirit. I have been ashamed for you, if you have not been
ashamed for yourself. Why, by the same rule that you give a penny,
that poor man should give a peppercorn! O be ashamed before God and
man! Be not straitened in your own bowels. Give in proportion to your
substance. You can better afford a shilling than he a penny. This is
more to him than that to you. Open your eyes, your heart, your hand.
If this one rule was observed, throughout England, we should need no
other collection. It would soon form a stock sufficient to relieve all
that want, and to answer all occasions. Many of these occasions are
now exceeding pressing, and we are nowise able to answer them; so that
the cause of God suffers, and the children of God, and that without
remedy.
“7. This is, in great measure, owing to our not considering ourselves
(all the Methodists) as one body. Such undoubtedly they are throughout
Great Britain and Ireland; and, as such, they were considered at our
last conference. We then seriously considered the heavy burden which
now lies on our brethren in various parts. When we could hire no place
that could contain the congregation, they were constrained to build;
but hereby they were unavoidably involved in debt, some of them to
the amount of several hundred pounds. The assistants were desired to
lay this case before all our brethren in England, and to receive what
each of them were willing to give, either at that time, or at Easter,
or Midsummer. But the greater part of them thought no more about
it. Four or five of them did, and brought in all about £200 at our
last conference. This was divided among our societies who were most
distressed; and all the assistants were desired, when they visit the
classes at Christmas, to ask each particular person, poor or rich,
‘What will you give towards the relief of the brethren? Give either
now, or at Easter, or at Midsummer; it is all one.’ If this be done in
good earnest, I trust, in two or three years, all our societies may be
out of debt. And by this shall all men know whose disciples we are,
because we love one another.
“8. I mention but one thing more. Let all, who are able, constantly
attend the morning preaching. Whenever the Methodist preachers or
people leave off this, they will soon sink into nothing.
“I am, my dear brethren, your affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[592]
This was plain speaking,—a pastoral address which even the Methodist
conference of the present day would hardly have courage to imitate.
Another matter must have attention. Under the date of “December 1,
1764,” Wesley writes: “M. B—— gave me a further account of their
affairs at Leytonstone. It is exactly _Pietas Hallensis_ in miniature.
What it will be, does not yet appear.”
“M. B.” was Mary Bosanquet. Either she or Wesley published, in 1764,
a 12mo tract of twenty-three pages, with the title, “A Letter to the
Rev. Mr. John Wesley. By a Gentlewoman. London. Sold at the Foundery,
in Upper Moorfields.” The letter is dated “_Laton_-Stone, November
8, 1764,” and gives the reasons why Miss Bosanquet had fixed her
home at Leytonstone, and the nature of her employment there. She and
her friend Sarah Ryan had commenced meetings for reading and prayer;
then, they obtained the service of some of Wesley’s preachers; and
then two classes were formed. Then she took into her house a number
of destitute orphan children, and engaged a person to teach them. The
design was to fit them for good servants, and her endeavour was, “to
inure them to labour, early rising, and cleanliness.” Three of them,
who were eleven years of age, rose at four in the morning, and lighted
the fires. At five, the others were called. When the lesser children
were dressed, and had said their prayers, they went into the garden
from six till half-past six o’clock, the elder ones being employed in
making beds and cleaning rooms. At half-past six, they had household
prayer; at seven, breakfast, “two or three upon herb tea, the rest upon
milk porridge.” From eight to twelve, was spent in school; when, after
a few minutes devoted to the exercise of prayer, the pupils all came
to Miss Bosanquet, who read to them, and otherwise instructed them.
At one, they dined; at two, school duties were recommenced and were
continued until five. At six, they supped; and at seven went to bed.
No one was allowed to give them toys; and their recreation was, either
running in the garden for a quarter of an hour, or in watering the
plants and flowers.
To feed, clothe, and educate such a number of children involved a
greater expense than Miss Bosanquet had means to meet; and, hence, she
put up a box in the hall with the inscription,—“For the maintenance
of a few poor orphans, that they may be brought up in the fear of the
Lord”; and, in this way, she obtained assistance for her Methodist
orphanage. She was often in straits; sometimes her fund was reduced to
a single penny, and she had considerable bills to meet; but, as in the
case of the orphanage at Halle, and the present one at Bristol, help
always came when needed.
Such was Miss Bosanquet’s “_Pietas Hallensis_ in miniature.” Her tract
is a rich, religious curiosity, strongly reminding the reader of the
marvellous publications of Mr. Muller, and of August Herman Francke.
A list of the evangelical clergy of the country, to whom Wesley
addressed his circular on union, is given in a previous page;
but, remarkably enough, one name of considerable distinction is
omitted,—the name of the Rev. Thomas Hartley, M.A., rector of Winwick,
in Northamptonshire. Mr. Hartley was a friend of the Countess of
Huntingdon, and of the Shirley family. He was a man of learning;
and of strong, cultivated mind. He was an earnest, devout, energetic
Christian; an able, liberal, unbigoted minister; and an author whose
style is clear and forcible, and sometimes eloquent; and whose valuable
works are still well worth reading. Mr. Hartley, however, was a
millenarian and a mystic. In 1764, he published an octavo volume of 476
pages, entitled, “Paradise Restored: or, A Testimony to the Doctrine
of the blessed Millennium: with some Considerations on its approaching
Advent from the Signs of the Times. To which is added, A Short Defence
of the Mystical Writers, against a late Work, entitled, ‘The Doctrine
of Grace,’ etc.”
To begin with the last work first. There can be no question, that Mr.
Hartley was a most ardent admirer of Jacob Behmen, Dr. Henry More,
Madame Bourignon, and Mr. Law. In the last paragraph of his Defence,
he tells us that “Divine charity is the great compass by which the
mystics steer; it is their very polestar; nay, their latitude, and
longitude, and centre too: their employment and delight is love; their
hearts and every pulse beat love; it is the element of their life,
their _summum bonum_, and their _summum totum_. Perhaps the very angels
stretch not farther into the vast expanse of love than some of these
have done.” And then he proceeds to state that, in the exercise of this
charity, some of them “hope that Jesus Christ will, in some remote age
of eternity, by an omnipotent act of His love, reverse the sentence,
which strict justice has passed on fallen men and fallen angels; and
will give to them repentance, add to their repentance faith, and to
their faith charity; that so, blessed again with the renewal of the
Divine image, they may rise from their beds of penal, long enduring
fire, to join the heavenly host, in praises to the eternal King; no
longer peccable as before; but standing firm on the sure basis of never
ceasing, ever grateful love. Amen.”
The Defence was professedly a reply to Bishop Warburton; and hence,
though he says there are “many instances in Wesley’s numerous writings
of injudicious and wrong applications of Scripture,” yet they are all
used “seriously and in the fear of God.”
“Whatever be the errors and the faults of Wesley, he is an able
minister, has been abundant in labours, and has turned many to
righteousness; and therefore deserves honourable mention instead
of scurrilous treatment. Had Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley gone on
to build up, as they laid the foundation, their adversaries would
not have been able to stand before them; but here they failed, and
fell into divisions, fierce disputings, and errors in doctrine; and
their uncharitable censurings of others have brought more than double
upon themselves; and yet I lay not this to the charge of all the
Methodists. What cause had Mr. Wesley, among others, for that obloquy
he pours on these excellent men, the mystics, who teach the way to
Christian perfection on surer principles than he has yet done, and,
I believe, attained to higher degrees of it? What is most excellent
among the Methodists comes the nearest to what is laid down in their
spiritual writings; and had Mr. Wesley studied them more himself, and
brought his hearers acquainted with them, they might not have stopped
so short as, in general, they have done, but have grown up into a
higher stature of Christian life and Divine knowledge.”
Wesley read Mr. Hartley’s strictures. What was his reply?
“_March 27, 1764._
“DEAR SIR,—I thank you for your remarks on that bad performance of
the Bishop of Gloucester, which undoubtedly tears up, by the roots,
all real, internal religion. Yet, at the same time, I cannot but
bewail your vehement attachment to the mystic writers: with whom I
conversed much for several years, and whom I then admired, perhaps,
more than you do now. But I found, at length, an absolute necessity
of giving up either them or the Bible. So, after some time, I fixed
my choice, to which I hope to adhere to my life’s end. It is only
the extreme attachment to these, which can account for the following
words (in your Defence): ‘Mr. Wesley does, in several parts of his
Journals, lay down some marks of the new birth, not only doubtful,
but exceptionable; as particularly where persons appear agitated or
convulsed, under the ministry; which might be owing to other causes
rather than any regenerating work of God’s Spirit.’
“Is this true? In what _one_ part of my Journals do I lay down any
doubtful, much less exceptionable, marks of the new birth? In _no_
part do I lay down those agitations or convulsions as any mark of it
at all; nay, I _expressly declare_ the contrary, in those very words
which the bishop himself cites from my Journal. I declare, ‘these are
of a disputable nature; they may be from God; they may be from nature;
they may be from the devil.’ How is it, then, that you tell all the
world, ‘Mr. Wesley lays them down in his Journals, as marks of the new
birth’?
“Is it _kind_? Would it not have been far more kind, suppose I had
spoken wrong, to tell me of it in a _private_ manner? How much more
unkind was it, to accuse me, to all the world, of a fault which I
never committed!
“Is it _wise_ thus to put a sword into the hand of our common enemy?
Are we not both fighting the battle of our Lord, against the world,
as well as the flesh and the devil? And shall I furnish them with
weapons against _you_, or you against _me_? Fine diversion for the
children of the devil! And how much more would they be diverted, if
_I_ would furnish my quota of the entertainment, by falling upon _you_
in return! But I bewail the change in your spirit. You have not gained
_more_ lowliness or meekness since I knew you! Oh beware! You did not
use to _despise_ any one. This you have _gained_ from the authors
you admire. They do not express _anger_ towards their opponents, but
_contempt_, in the highest degree. And this, I am afraid, is far
more antichristian, more diabolical, than the other. The God of love
deliver you and me from this spirit, and fill us with the mind that
was in Christ! So prays, dear sir, your still affectionate brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[593]
Five years after this, Wesley published the thirteenth number of his
Journal, in which the following entry occurs.
“1764, February 5.—I began Mr. Hartley’s ingenious ‘Defence of the
Mystic Writers.’ But it does not satisfy me. I must still object—1. To
their sentiments. The chief of them do not appear to me to have any
conception of church communion. Again: they slight not only works of
piety, the ordinances of God, but even works of mercy; and yet most
of them, yea, all that I have seen, hold justification by works. In
general, they are ‘wise above what is written,’ indulging themselves
in many unscriptural speculations. I object—2. To their spirit. Most
of them are of a dark, shy, reserved, unsociable temper; and are apt
to despise all who differ from them, as carnal, unenlightened men.
I object—3. To their whole phraseology. It is both unscriptural,
and affectedly mysterious. I say, affectedly; for this does not
necessarily result from the nature of the thing spoken of. St. John
speaks as high and as deep things as Jacob Behmen. Why then does not
Jacob speak as plain as he?”
It has been already stated, that Mr. Hartley was, not only a mystic,
but a millenarian; and we feel it right to add, that his “Paradise
Restored,” making 356 pages, octavo, is, by far, the most sober,
sensible, scriptural, and learned work on the millennium that it has
been our lot to read. He professes to show “the great importance of
the doctrine of Christ’s glorious reign on earth with His saints”; and
maintains that “it was typified in many of the Levitical institutes;
was foretold and described in numberless places by the inspired
prophets; was made the subject of many precious promises in the
gospel; was delineated in the Revelation of St. John; and was received
as an apostolical doctrine by the primitive Christians, according to
the testimony of several of the ancient fathers,” as St. Barnabas, St.
Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius. He
further argues, that the doctrine received the sanction of the Council
of Nice, called by Constantine the Great, and composed of bishops
from all parts of the Christian world; and that it is embodied in the
Catechism of King Edward VI., which was revised by English bishops, and
published, by royal authority, in the last year of King Edward’s reign.
His arguments, to illustrate the importance of the doctrine, are, to
say the least, exceedingly ingenious and able, but far too elaborated
to be condensed in a work like this. His theory is substantially the
same as that of the millenarians of the present day; without, however,
many of the minute whimsies which foolish and fanatical people attach
to it. Having, as he thinks, established his doctrine, Mr. Hartley
proceeds to answer objections; and concludes with a chapter on “the
signs of the times.”
It is difficult, and almost impossible, in our limited space, to give
the chief points of Mr. Hartley’s millenarian creed; but the following
are some of them:—1. That Christ will come a second time, and will
set up a kingdom, and _visibly_ reign on the earth for a thousand
years. 2. That, during this reign, His saints will be raised and be
restored to the perfection of the first man, Adam; and earth all over
will be made a copy of the primeval paradise. 3. That, during this
millenarian theocracy, saints will flourish, and sinners be in absolute
subjection: hostility and discord will cease, and all things harmonize
in unity and peace. 4. That some of the saints will be crowned and
sit on thrones; some be set over ten cities, and some over five; some
will sit at table with Christ, and others serve; some follow Him
whithersoever He goes, and others come periodically to worship in His
presence. There are other topics on which Mr. Hartley claims the right
to hold a private opinion; but which he does not attempt decisively
to prove: such as—1. The duration of this holy empire. 2. Whether the
administration of it will be under the constant abiding presence of
our Lord’s visible humanity, or only occasional manifestations of it;
whilst the government for the most part may devolve upon apostles and
patriarchs, as His viceregents, under the immediate influences of His
Holy Spirit. 3. Whether the universal conflagration will be before or
after the millennial reign. 4. Whether the subjects of this kingdom
will consist only of the saints who are living at the time of Christ’s
second advent, and of some others, as martyrs, who will then be raised
from the dead; or whether there will not be a continued succession of
the redeemed ones raised, according to their order and time. 5. Whether
the account of Gog and Magog, spoken of in Revelation xx., may not be
understood to mean that, “as a great part of the world never heard of
Christ, and yet the gospel was to be preached in all the world, for a
witness to all nations,—so those, who have died in ignorance of the
Christian dispensation, will be raised to spend, in the uttermost parts
of the earth, another period of probation; they will have the gospel
preached to them by emissaries from the millenarian kingdom; many will
believe, be converted, and have their portion with the saved; but many
will be seduced by Satan, on his enlargement at the end of the thousand
years; will invade Christ’s glorious kingdom; and will be destroyed by
fire, as mentioned in the Revelation.”
These are a few of the salient points of Mr. Hartley’s learned and able
book. Why are they enumerated here? Because, in substance, they were
held by Wesley. Wesley read the book, and read it with approbation.
He writes to the author: “Your book on the millennium was lately put
into my hands. I cannot but thank you for your strong and seasonable
confirmation of that comfortable doctrine: of which I cannot entertain
the least doubt, as long as I believe the Bible.”[594]
With such a statement, in reference to such a book, there can be no
doubt, that Wesley, like his father before him, was a millenarian, a
believer in the second advent of Christ, to _reign_ on earth, visibly
and gloriously, for a thousand years.
This is a matter which none of Wesley’s biographers have noticed; and,
yet, the above is not the only evidence in support of it. In his letter
to Dr. Middleton, published in 1749, he refers to the millenarian creed
of Justin Martyr, namely, that, at Christ’s second coming, the martyrs
will be raised, and, for a thousand years, will reign, with Christ, in
Jerusalem, which will be then rebuilt, enlarged, and richly adorned,
according to the prophets (Isaiah lxv.); and that, at the end of the
thousand years, there will be a universal resurrection, in order to
the final judgment. These were the views of Justin Martyr;[595] views
which, Wesley says, Justin deduced from the prophets and the apostles,
and which were also adopted by the fathers of the second and third
centuries. In fact, “to say, that they believed this, was neither
more nor less than to say, they believed the Bible.”[596] There is
also a remarkable article in Wesley’s _Arminian Magazine_, for 1784
(page 154), on “The Renovation of all Things,”—in which it is argued,
that, according to prophetic promises, there will be a middle period
“between the present pollution, corruption, and degradation” of the
earth, “and that of a total, universal restoration of all things, in a
purely angelical, celestial, ethereal state;” and that, in this middle
period, “between these two extremes,” the earth will be restored to
its “paradisaical state,” and be “renewed in its primitive lustre and
beauty.”
These are facts in Wesley’s history with which the reader must deal as
he thinks proper. It is no part of our present plan, either to defend
or condemn Wesley’s doctrines; but simply and honestly to supply the
incidents of his wondrous history. There is no evidence to prove,
that Wesley held many of the wild whimsies of the millenarians of the
present age, or that he ever pretended to fix the date of Christ’s
second coming. “I have no opinion at all,” said he, “upon when the
millennial reign of Christ will begin; I can determine nothing at all
about it; these calculations are far above, out of my sight.”[597]
Still, Wesley was a believer in the certainty of such a reign; and so
was Fletcher, as we have already seen; and so was Wesley’s friend, the
vicar of Bexley, Mr. Piers;[598] and so seem to have been the writers
of some of the hymns in the Methodist hymn-book. The following are
quotations from the book, published by Wesley himself, in 1787.
“Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
Once for favoured sinners slain!
Thousand, thousand saints attending,
Swell the triumph of His train.
Hallelujah!
God _appears on earth to reign_.”
“O might we quickly find
The place for us designed!
See the long expected day
Of our full redemption _here_!
Let the shadows flee away;
Let the _new-made world appear_!
High on Thy great white throne,
O King of saints, _come down_!
In the _New Jerusalem_
Now triumphantly _descend_;
Let the final trump proclaim
Joys begun, which ne’er shall end.”
Was Wesley right in this, or was he wrong? This is a point which those
who are learned in theological disputes must be left to determine.
References may be made to his notes on Revelation xx.; and to his
sermons on “The Great Assize,” “The General Deliverance,” “The General
Spread of the Gospel,” and “The New Creation”; and, in some of them,
statements may be found scarcely harmonizing with the millenarian
theory; but these are matters which we leave to those who take a deeper
interest in the millenarian theory than ourselves. We have tried to
furnish facts, and must now pass to something else.
In 1764, as in former years, the press was not idle in its attacks
on Methodism. The following pamphlets belong to this period. 1. “A
Sovereign Remedy for the Cure of Hypocrisy, and Blind Zeal. By an
Enemy to Pious Fraud,”—a shilling production, which assailed the
Methodists with more fury than force. 2. “The Methodist Instructed: or
the absurdity and inconsistency of their principles demonstrated. In a
letter to the Brethren at Gravesend. By Philagathus Cantabrigiensis.”
3. “Enthusiasm Delineated: or, the absurd conduct of the Methodists
displayed. In a letter to the Rev. Messrs. Whitefield and Wesley. By a
Blacksmith.”
Besides these, there was also issued a small 12mo volume of 103 pages,
with the title, “A Conference, between a Mystic, an Hutchinsonian, a
Calvinist, a Methodist, and Others. Wherein the tenets of each are
examined and confuted. By William Dodd, M.A., prebend of Brecon, and
chaplain in ordinary to his majesty.” So far as Wesley is concerned,
the object of Dr. Dodd is to prove, that Wesley and the Methodists are
_real_ separatists from the Church of England. “They have broken loose
from all obedience to their ordinary; they have entirely leaped over
all parochial unity and communion; they have built and continually
preach in conventicles, under a licence, as Dissenters; they disuse the
liturgy of the Church of England; they preach in all places without
reserve; and, what is worst of all, and a source of innumerable evils,
they employ and send forth laymen, of the most unlettered sort, to
preach the gospel, without any authority from God or man. After all
this, to hear such men disclaiming separation has something in it so
double and offensive, as to raise the indignation of every serious
and reasonable Christian.” It is further alleged, by his majesty’s
chaplain, at that time one of the most popular preachers in London,
that “Wesley fights against everybody. Indeed, not only is his hand
against every man, and every man’s hand against him, but his own hand
is also against himself. His writings abundantly contradict themselves;
and it would be no hard matter to set _John_ against _Wesley_, and
_Wesley_ against _John_.”
Others, besides Dr. Dodd, took the liberty of accusing Wesley of self
contradiction. The reader will remember that, in 1755, the Rev. James
Hervey published his “Theron and Aspasio,” having previously sent
the first three dialogues to Wesley for his revision. In the year
following, after reading the entire work, Wesley wrote a long letter
to Hervey, giving, with his accustomed brevity, his criticisms on the
whole.[599] In 1758, he published this critique, in his “Preservative
against unsettled Notions in Religion.” Hervey was greatly mortified
and offended; and, at once, set to work, to reply to Wesley, and to
defend his “Theron and Aspasio.” In this instance, he submitted his
manuscript to Wesley’s old antagonist, the Rev. William Cudworth.
Hervey died on Christmas day, 1758,[600] almost before his work was
finished, and certainly before it had received its final revision.
Cudworth was extremely anxious to have it published, and wrote to the
dying man to that effect. Hervey’s answer, ten days before his death,
was the following.
“_December 15, 1758._
“DEAR MR. CUDWORTH,—I am so weak, I am scarcely able to write my name,
“JAMES HERVEY.”[601]
On the evening before he died, his brother asked him, “Whether he
would have the letters to Mr. Wesley published after his death?” He
answered, “By no means, because he had only transcribed about half of
them fair for the press; and because the corrections and alterations
of the latter part were mostly in a shorthand, entirely his own, and
which others would not be able to decipher. Therefore, as it is not a
finished piece, I desire you will think no more about it.”[602]
Notwithstanding this request, however, the work was published, it is
said surreptitiously, in 1764, and again, by Hervey’s brother, in 1765,
in a 12mo volume of 297 pages, with the title, “Eleven Letters from the
late Rev. Mr. Hervey, to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley; containing an Answer
to that Gentleman’s Remarks on ‘Theron and Aspasio.’ Published from the
author’s manuscript, left in the possession of his brother, W. Hervey.
With a preface, showing the reason of their being now printed.”
What was the result of this? Of course, Hervey’s letters are highly
Calvinistic; but they are not abusive. He hits hard; but he does it
fairly and respectfully. He contends, that many of the sentiments which
Wesley condemned in his critique on “Theron and Aspasio” are sentiments
which Wesley himself had openly avowed; and that others had been
greatly misunderstood by him. The most personal and offensive remarks
are the following.
“Your objections have rather the air of a caveat, than a confutation.
You seem to have forgotten, that propositions are not to be
established, with the same ease, as doubts are started; and therefore
have contented yourself with a brevity, which produces but little
conviction, and more than a little obscurity.”[603] “When you add
‘pleasing sound to James Wheatley! Thomas Williams! James Relly’! I
am quite ashamed of your meanness, and grieved at your uncharitable
rashness. How unworthy is such a procedure, either of the gentleman,
the Christian, or the man of sense!”[604] “Mr. Wesley, cased in his
own self sufficiency, esteemeth all the aforementioned evidences
as mere nothings. He totally disregards them. Reason, grammar,
precedents, are eclipsed by his bare negative; and vanish into an
insignificancy not worthy of notice.”[605]
These are the worst specimens we can find, and would probably have been
expunged, if Hervey had lived to send his letters to the press himself.
It was impossible for Wesley to allow the publication of Hervey’s
eleven letters to pass in silence. Accordingly, at the beginning of
1765, he printed “A Treatise on Justification, extracted from Mr. John
Goodwin; with a preface, wherein all that is material, in letters just
published under the name of the Rev. Mr. Hervey, is answered.” 12mo,
215 pages.
In his preface, Wesley states, that the reason why he printed
his letter to Hervey, in his “Preservative,” was, because he had
“frequently and strongly recommended” “Theron and Aspasio,” and
deemed it his duty to point out what he disapproved. When he heard,
that Hervey was about to answer him, he wrote requesting to see the
manuscript before it was published, remarking, that if he did not
return him privately a satisfactory answer within a year, he should
have his free consent “to publish it to all the world.” Wesley
continues:
“In this prefatory discourse, I do not intend to answer Mr. Hervey’s
book. Shall my hand be upon that saint of God? No; let him rest in
Abraham’s bosom. When my warfare is accomplished, may I rest with
him till the resurrection of the just! I purpose only to speak a
little on the personal accusations which are brought against me. The
chief of those are twelve:—1. That I assert things without proof. 2.
That I am self sufficient, positive, magisterial. 3. That I reason
loosely and wildly. 4. That I contradict myself. 5. That I do not
understand criticism and divinity. 6. That I have acted in a manner
unworthy a gentleman, a Christian, or a man of sense. 7. That I am
impudent. 8. That I deny justification by faith, and am an enemy to
the righteousness of Christ. 9. That I am an heretic, and my doctrine
is poisonous. 10. That I am an antinomian. 11. That I teach popish
doctrine. 12. That I am a knave, a dishonest man, one of no truth,
justice, or integrity.”
We are bound to say, that Wesley puts the accusations too broadly.
For instance, it is not fair to say that Hervey calls him _impudent_,
a _knave_ and a _dishonest man_. Hervey was too gentle to be capable
of using such appellatives; and it was not just for Wesley to put
them into Hervey’s mouth. Hervey had a high respect for Wesley, and
Wesley loved Hervey as a father loves a son. It was a mournful,
miserable occurrence when the two friends misunderstood each other.
It was a mistake for Wesley to write his critique on Hervey’s “Theron
and Aspasio,” in terms so laconic and apparently dogmatical; but, of
course, his time was too much occupied to write at greater length.
On the other hand, it was an equal mistake for Hervey to permit his
extreme sensitiveness to take such offence as to sink into a sort
of sulky silence, without seeking a friendly explanation. It was a
blunder for Wesley to publish his critique, in his “Preservative,” for
it was really no adequate reply to Hervey, but mere hints of what a
reply ought to be, the hints being couched in language which friends
might easily understand, but which enemies might easily misinterpret.
And then, finally, though Hervey’s eleven letters are ably written,
it was a great misfortune, that he himself did not live long enough
to give them a finishing revision; and it was an almost unpardonable
breach of trust, as well as a grave impertinence, for either his
brother, or William Cudworth, or both united, to revise what Hervey had
left unrevised, and then, contrary to his dying injunction, to commit
it to the public press.
The truth is, there can be little doubt, that William Cudworth was far
more anxious for the letters to be published than Hervey was; and it is
more than possible, that some of the most offensive expressions used
were not Hervey’s, but were interjected by Hervey’s too zealous friend.
Be that as it may, it is only fair to add, that Cudworth died in
1763,[606] and therefore about the time when the surreptitious edition
of the letters was published, if not actually before it. These facts
will help to explain Wesley’s closing paragraph.
“‘And is this thy voice, my son David?’ Is this thy tender, loving,
grateful spirit? No, ‘the hand of Joab is in all this!’ I acknowledge
the hand, the heart, of William Cudworth. I perceive it was not an
empty boast, which he uttered to Mr. Pearse at Bury, before my friend
went to paradise,—‘Mr. Hervey has given me full power to put out and
_put in_ what I please.’ But he too is gone hence; and he knows now
whether I am an honest man or no. It cannot be long, even in the
course of nature, before I shall follow them. I could wish till then
to be at peace with all men; but the will of the Lord be done! Peace
or war, ease or pain, life or death, is good, so I may but finish my
course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord
Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”
This was dated November 16, 1764; and well would it have been if the
matter had ended here; but, after this, Dr. Erskine rushed to the
rescue; and, to enlighten the darkness of the Scotch Methodists,
republished Hervey’s letters, with a venomous preface of his own. Then,
good old James Kershaw, one of Wesley’s itinerants, a man of no mean
mind, printed, also at Edinburgh, “An Earnest Appeal to the Public,
in an honest, amicable, and affectionate Reply” to Erskine’s preface.
Erskine again took up the cudgel, and published a “Defence” of his
preface,—a defence in which Wesley was more violently attacked than
ever. And then, to consummate the whole, in 1767, Walter Sellon let
off his anger in a shilling pamphlet, entitled “An Answer to ‘Aspasio
Vindicated, in Eleven Letters’: said to be wrote by the late Rev. Mr.
James Hervey.” To say nothing about the answer itself, which however
might have been more polite without being less powerful, Sellon’s
preface is a perfect tempest of wrathful indignation. Who can justify
the following furious effusion respecting Hervey? “Mr. Hervey was
deeply sunk into antinomianism; and had he lived much longer would, in
all probability, have done _much mischief_. Managed by W. Cudworth,
that _weak_ man drew his pen, dipped in _antinomian venom_, and wrote
with the _utmost bitterness_ against his friend, to whom he lay under
_various_ and _great_ obligations.”[607] Or the following, in reference
to Hervey’s brother, and the surreptitious edition of the letters?
“That edition was _planned_ in the _bottomless pit_, _inspired_ by the
_prince thereof_, and published by a _knave_. And you think it your
duty to _patronise_ all the _railing_, _scurrility_, _antinomianism_,
_blasphemy_, _lies_, and _lewdness_, contained in that book, and to
make your brother’s name _stink_ to the latest posterity! A _worthy
brother_, truly!”
Mr. Sellon meant to serve Wesley; but he mistook the right way of doing
it. The above is slang slander, not sober statement. Mr. Sellon was a
good man, and possessed of considerable mental power; but it would have
fulfilled his purpose better, if, before writing his preface to the
“Answer to Aspasio Vindicated,” he had gone back to Kingswood school,
and taken lessons in Christian courtesy.
The results of this wretched fracas were: 1. In Scotland, Wesley’s
doctrines were stigmatized and rejected as foul and dangerous heresies;
and the progress of Wesley’s Methodism was effectually retarded for
the next twenty years. And, 2. In England, the squabble culminated
in the memorable Calvinian controversy, which ostensibly sprung out
of the conference minutes of 1770, but which really originated in the
facts above recited. Fortunately, Wesley then had Fletcher, instead of
Sellon, for his champion; and, unfortunately for the Calvinistic party,
the only man at all competent to enter the lists with John Fletcher was
James Hervey, who, twelve years before, had been removed to that better
world where controversial strife does not exist.
Wesley had great faith in the power of books; and made it one of the
duties of his itinerants to promote the sale of his own publications.
Hence the following, addressed to Thomas Rankin.
“BRISTOL, _September 21, 1764_.
“DEAR TOMMY,—I sometimes wonder, that all our preachers are not
convinced of this: that it is of unspeakable use to spread our
practical tracts in every society. Billy Pennington, in one year, sold
more of these in Cornwall, than had been sold for seven years before.
So may you, if you take the same method. Carry one sort of books with
you the first time you go the round; another sort the second time;
and so on. Preach on the subject at each place; and after preaching,
encourage the congregation to buy and read the tract. Peace be with
your spirit!
“I am your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[608]
Hence again the following, in reference to the work already mentioned.
“LONDON, _November 2, 1764_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,—At the request of several of our preachers, I have
at length abridged Goodwin’s ‘Treatise on Justification.’ I trust it
will stop the mouths of gainsayers concerning imputed righteousness;
and teach them to speak as the oracles of God.
“I desire you to read the proposal and preface in every society within
your circuit; then enforce it, as you see best, both in public and
private conversation. Spare no pains. Exert yourself. See what you can
do. Give this proof of your love for the truth, for the people, and
for your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[609]
Wesley’s publications, in 1764, were fewer than usual.
1. “An Extract of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Journal, from June 17, 1758, to
May 5, 1760.” 12mo, 106 pages.
2. “A Short History of Methodism.” 12mo, 11 pages. He begins by
stating, that many of the accounts given of the Methodists were as
remote from truth as that given by a gentleman in Ireland, namely,
that “the Methodists are the people who place all religion in _wearing
long beards_.” He then proceeds to notice the rise of Methodism in
the Oxford university; the mission to Georgia; the separation of
Whitefield; then the separation from Whitefield of William Cudworth
and James Relly, both of them “properly antinomians, absolute, avowed
enemies to the law of God;” then the springing up of Venn, Romaine,
Madan, Berridge, and others; and then the schism of Bell and Maxfield.
He concludes:
“Those who remain with Mr. Wesley are mostly Church of England men.
They love her articles, her homilies, her liturgy, her discipline,
and unwillingly vary from it in any instance. All who preach among
them declare, ‘We are all by nature children of wrath. But by grace we
are saved through faith; saved both from the guilt and from the power
of sin.’ They endeavour to live according to what they preach, to be
plain _Bible Christians_. And they meet together, at convenient times,
to encourage one another therein. They tenderly love many that are
Calvinists, though they do not love their opinions. Yea, they love the
antinomians themselves; but it is with a love of compassion only. For
they hate their doctrines with a perfect hatred; they abhor them as
they do hell fire: being convinced nothing can so effectually destroy
all faith, all holiness, and all good works.”
Such was Wesley’s manifesto concerning the Methodists in 1764.
1765.
[Sidenote: 1765 Age 62]
Wesley began the year 1765 with a visit to High Wycombe and Witney. At
the former place resided Hannah Ball, now in the twenty-second year
of her age, and earnestly seeking salvation. For many years, Wycombe
had been occasionally visited by Methodist preachers. The first to
entertain them was Thomas Humphreys, who, on one occasion, manfully
stood by the side of Thomas Walsh, amid a shower of stones. At present,
Miss Ball was one of the chief members,—the young lady, who, in 1769,
commenced a Methodist Sunday-school, fourteen years before Raikes
begun his at Gloucester. Miss Ball became one of Wesley’s favourite
correspondents, and, in 1770, wrote: “The children meet twice a week,
every Sunday and Monday. They are a wild little company, but seem
willing to be instructed. I labour among them, earnestly desiring to
promote the interest of the church of Christ.”[610]
Returning to London, Wesley started off to Essex, and preached in the
churches at Ovington and Titbury. Coming back to the metropolis, he
read Mr. Romaine’s “Life of Faith,” and observes: “I thought nothing
could exceed Mr. Ingham’s book; but really this does; although they
differ not a hair’s breadth from each other, any more than from Mr.
Sandeman.” He employed his leisure hours in revising his letters and
papers, abundance of which he burnt.
On February 18, he made a hurried visit to Norwich, and says, he “spent
a few days there with more comfort than he had ever done before.”
On March 10, at nine in the morning, he preached in the old French
church, Grey Eagle Street, Spitalfields, and made a collection, in his
poor Methodist congregation, of £40, for the benefit of the weavers
out of work;[611] and, in the evening of the same day, the society
contributed £14 more for a few of its own distressed members.
The day after, he began a tour, which occupied the next two-and-thirty
weeks.
On his way to Bristol, his horse dropped down dead. At Stroud, he
preached in the new chapel. Towards the close of the sermon, a young
man fell to the ground, and vehemently prayed for mercy. After supper,
a young gentleman cried, “I am damned,” and sunk prostrate on the
floor. A second did so quickly after, and was much convulsed, and
yet quite sensible. Leaving Stroud, Wesley proceeded to Worcester,
Birmingham, Derby, and Sheffield.
At Manchester, Bolton, and Liverpool, he had overflowing congregations.
He wished to embark for Ireland; but, after a fortnight’s waiting, on
account of unfavourable winds, he set out, on April 11, for Kendal,
where Francis Gilbert resided, brother of Nathaniel Gilbert, Esq., of
Antigua. Here also was Miss Mary Gilbert, a girl fourteen years of age,
who had been sent by her father from Antigua to be educated, but who,
three years afterwards, triumphantly expired, leaving behind her the
beautiful journal which Wesley immediately published.
From Kendal, Wesley proceeded across the mountains, in the midst of a
rainy hurricane, to Barnard castle, where he examined those who, two or
three years before, had professed to be entirely sanctified. The result
was far from satisfactory. In London, about two thirds of the high
professors had lost their confidence; and he found the same proportion
in Barnard castle.
On April 22, Wesley set out for Scotland, where he says: “my coming
was quite seasonable, as those bad letters, published in the name of
Mr. Hervey, and reprinted here by Mr. John Erskine, had made a great
deal of noise.” After preaching at Dunbar, Edinburgh, Musselburgh, and
Glasgow, he made his way, in company with his itinerant, James Kershaw,
along the west coast of Scotland, till he reached Portpatrick, where
he and his horse got into an _open boat_, and crossed the Channel to
Donaghadee, in Ireland.
From May 2 to August 2, he was incessantly travelling, writing, and
preaching in the sister island. Coming to Londonderry, he knew no
one, nor where the preacher lodged; but while he stood musing how to
act, a gentleman, on horseback, asked his name, and took him home with
him. This was Alexander Knox, Esq., a member of the corporation and a
Christian, whose son for thirty years carried on a correspondence with
Bishop Jebb.
After Thomas Williams, the first Methodist itinerant in Ireland,
was discarded by Wesley, he visited Londonderry, became popular as
a preacher, formed a society, fell into sin, married, and then went
off, leaving his wife behind him. This was in 1764. Two of Williams’s
members wrote to Dublin for a preacher, and James Clough was sent.[612]
This was the preacher whom Wesley wanted, when he was met by Mr. Knox.
Wesley’s host took him to the church, and led him to a pew, where he
was placed next the mayor. He gave him hospitable entertainment for
a fortnight, and he and his wife became members of Wesley’s society;
and, though he ultimately left the Methodists, yet, as will be seen
hereafter, to the end of life, he retained the profoundest respect for
his friend.