words of truth and soberness; neither are any of those, either
in England or here, who have hitherto attempted to follow
me. I am and must be an example to my flock; not indeed in
my prudential rules, but, in some measure, in my spirit and
life and conversation. Yet all of them are, in your sense of
the word, unlearned, and most of them of low understanding;
and still not one of them has been, as yet, in any case of
conscience which was not solved. As to the nice distinctions
you speak of, it is you, my friend, who are lost in them.
We have no need of nice distinctions; for I exhort all, and
dispute with none. I feed my brethren in Christ, as He giveth
me power, with the pure, unmixed milk of the word; and those
who are as little children receive it, not as the word of man,
but as the word of God.”[183]
These are important letters, as tending to refute the commonly received
opinion, that, at this period of his history, Wesley was morose, sour,
gloomy, and in fact thought that cheerfulness was inconsistent with
religion. His views and some of his practices might seem to many to be
peculiar; but he was a cheerful and happy man, even amid the vigils,
fastings, and solitudes of Georgia. Some of his views were novel, but
they were not incompatible with happiness. He writes: “When I first
landed at Savannah, a gentlewoman said, ‘I assure you, sir, you will
see as _well dressed_ a congregation on Sunday as most you have seen
in London.’ I did so; and soon after I took occasion to expound those
scriptures which relate to dress; and all the time that I afterward
ministered at Savannah, I saw neither gold in the church, nor costly
apparel, but the congregation in general was almost constantly clothed
in plain clean linen or woollen.”[184] This wears an aspect of
anchorite severity, but still Wesley and his plain-robed followers were
happy.
In April, 1737, Wesley began to learn the Spanish language, in order to
converse with his Jewish parishioners. Easter being in the same month,
he “had every day in this great and holy week a sermon and the holy
communion.” Finding that a clergyman in Carolina had been marrying some
of his (Wesley’s) parishioners, without either banns or licence, he set
out for Charlestown to put a stop to such proceedings. Mr. Garden, the
Bishop of London’s commissary, assured him he would take care no such
irregularity should be committed for the future. At Garden’s request,
Wesley preached a sermon on, “whatsoever is born of God overcometh the
world”; which led a man of education and character to object—“Why if
this be Christianity, a Christian must have more courage than Alexander
the Great.”
Returning to Savannah, in the month of May, Wesley found one of his
congregation, who had been exemplarily religious, turned a deist; and
expressed the opinion that bad a religion as Popery is, no religion is
worse; and that a baptized infidel is twofold worse than even a bigoted
papist. This was only one of Wesley’s trials. A wicked woman, whom he
had offended, decoyed him into her house, threw him down, and, with her
scissors, cut off from one side of his head the whole of those long
locks of auburn hair, which he had been accustomed to keep in the most
perfect order. After this, he preached at Savannah with his hair long
on one side and short on the other, those sitting on the side which
had been cut observing, “What a cropped head of hair the young parson
has.”[185]
At Whitsuntide, four of his scholars, after being instructed daily
for several weeks, were admitted to the Lord’s table, and many of the
other children evinced a remarkable seriousness in their behaviour
and conversation. This was doubtless a cause of great joy both to
Wesley and his friend Delamotte, each of whom taught a school, and,
like all schoolmasters, met with discouragements. A part of the boys
in Delamotte’s school wore stockings and shoes, and the others not.
The former ridiculed the latter. Delamotte tried to put a stop to this
uncourteous banter, but told Wesley he had failed. Wesley replied, “I
think I can cure it. If you will take charge of my school next week I
will take charge of yours, and will try.” The exchange was made, and on
Monday morning Wesley went into school barefoot. The children seemed
surprised, but without any reference to past jeerings Wesley kept them
at their work. Before the week was ended, the shoeless ones began to
gather courage; and some of the others, seeing their minister and
master come without shoes and stockings, began to copy his example,
and thus the evil was effectually cured.”[186]
In the early summer of 1737, Whitefield wrote to Wesley, telling him
of his success in England. A young country lad had brought him a peck
of apples seven miles upon his back, as a token of gratitude for the
benefit he had derived from Whitefield’s ministry, and had such a sense
of the Divine presence that he walked, for the most part, with his hat
off his head. God was also moving on the hearts of some young ladies.
Whitefield continues:—
“The devil, I find, has a particular spite against weekly
communion; but I am in hope we shall have the sacrament
administered every Sunday at the cathedral. It would have been
mentioned to the bishop ere now, but Oxford friends advised to
defer it till next summer.
“But now I have mentioned the bishop: alas! how should I
tremble to tell you how I have been continually disturbed with
thoughts, that I, a worm taken from a common public-house,
should, ere I die, be one myself. Your earnest prayers, surely,
will not be wanting for me, that I may not split on that most
dangerous of all rocks—worldly ambition. Parsonages, I believe,
are providing for me; but I trust Satan will never catch me by
pluralities, or induce me to take upon me anything inconsistent
with the duty of a disciple of Jesus Christ. I hope our friends
all continue steadfast and zealous at Oxford. My love to the
young merchant, whose example I hope we shall all be enabled
to follow, if God requires our assistance in Georgia. O may
you go on and prosper, and, in the strength of God, make the
devil’s kingdom shake about his ears! I received benefit by
your father’s ‘Advice to a Young Clergyman.’”[187]
Whitefield’s dream about being made a bishop is amusing; and yet
Providence and grace made him greater than a bishop.
Wesley still felt intensely anxious respecting the heathen. In July he
met a Frenchman, who had lived several months among the Chicasaws, and
wrote to Dr. Humphreys as follows:—[188]
“Concerning the conversion of the heathen, where is the seed
sown, the _sanguis martyrum_? Do we hear of any who have sealed
the faith with their blood in all this vast continent? Or do
we read of any church flourishing in any age or nation without
this seed first sown there? Give me leave, sir, to speak my
thoughts freely. When God shall put it into the hearts of some
of His servants, whom He hath already delivered from earthly
hopes and fears, to join hand in hand in this labour of love;
when out of these He shall have chosen one or more, to magnify
Him in the sight of the heathen by dying, not with a stoical
or Indian indifference, but blessing and praying for their
murderers, and praising God in the midst of flame with joy
unspeakable and full of glory, then the rest, waxing bold by
their sufferings, shall go forth in the name of the Lord God,
and by the power of His might cast down every high thing that
exalteth itself against the faith of Christ. Then shall ye see
Satan, the grand ruler of this New World, as lightning fall
from heaven!”
Oh for missionaries like these! Wesley’s notions are right. Men going
merely because others send them, or men going merely to obtain a
livelihood, are not the men to convert the inhabitants of lands like
Africa, India, Japan, and China. To make an impression there, men must
be animated with the martyrs’ spirit. Church history, including the
history of missions, affords abundant proof of this. Mere duty-doing
ministers are bad enough in England, but they are vastly worse when
among the heathen. Money spent upon them there is worse than wasted;
for their cold perfunctory labours produce, upon the whole, a bad
effect instead of good. The greatest boon the church could now receive
from the hands of God would be a multiplication of ministers and
missionaries like those which Wesley was sighing for in Georgia.
From Wesley’s private manuscript journal, we learn that in July, by
going from house to house, he took a census of his parishioners, and
computed that there were in Savannah 518 inhabitants, of whom 149
were under sixteen years of age. Frederica was without a minister,
though three hundred acres of land had been granted by the trustees
for a church establishment in that unhappy town.[189] Other places
with scanty populations were equally destitute. New Ebenezer had the
Moravians; and Darien had Mr. M’Leod, a serious, resolute, and pious
Presbyterian: but this seems to have been all the ministerial agency
existing in Georgia. Hence the following letter, addressed by Wesley to
his friends at Oxford:—
“SAVANNAH, _September 8, 1737_.
“... Long since, I begun to visit my parishioners in order,
from house to house; but I could not go on two days longer. The
sick were increasing so fast as to require all the time I had
to spare—from one to five in the afternoon. Nor is even that
enough to see them all, as I would do, daily. In Frederica and
all the smaller settlements here are above five hundred sheep
almost without a shepherd. What a single man can do is neither
seen nor felt. Where are ye who are very zealous for the Lord
of hosts? Who will rise up with me against the wicked? Whose
spirit is moved within him to prepare himself for publishing
glad tidings to those on whom the Sun of Righteousness never
yet arose? Do you ask what you shall have? Why, all you desire:
food to eat, raiment to put on, a place where to lay your head,
and a crown of life that fadeth not away! Do you seek means
of building up yourselves in the knowledge and love of God? I
know of no place under heaven where there are more than in this
place. Does your heart burn within you to turn many others to
righteousness? Behold, the whole land, thousands of thousands
are before you! I will resign to any of you all or any part of
my charge. Choose what seemeth good in your own eyes. There are
within these walls children of all ages and dispositions. Who
will bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,
till they are meet to be preachers of righteousness? Here are
adults from the farthest parts of Europe, and Asia, and the
inmost kingdoms of Africa; add to these the known and unknown
nations of this vast continent, and you will indeed have a
great multitude which no man can number.”[190]
While Wesley was thus longing for help, events were transpiring, by
which he himself within three months was driven out of Georgia, and
obliged to return to England. This was the closing scene in Wesley’s
missionary life, and though a painful one it must not be shirked. All
the facts in the writer’s possession shall be given, and the reader
shall have materials to form his own opinion. The chief actors in the
scene, besides Wesley himself, were Sophia Christiana Hopkey, Thomas
Causton, and William Williamson.
Causton was one of the first company of emigrants, and landed in
Georgia with Oglethorpe, in February, 1733. He was a man of no
substance, and his character was not as good as it might have been.
In fact, he left England in disgrace, having practised a fraud upon
the public revenue. He was naturally proud, covetous, cunning,
and deceitful. By his clever rascality he wriggled himself into
Oglethorpe’s favour, and, on the arrival of the few emigrant gaol-birds
in the Savannah river, was appointed a sort of dictator of the infant
settlement, and had charge of the stores which the trustees sent over
for the use of the colonists. We have already seen that, even when
Wesley left for England at the end of the year 1737, the inhabitants of
Savannah were not more than 518 in number, of whom only 369 were adult
males and females. This was no large kingdom; but Thomas Causton was
a large man, because he was at the head of it. Indeed, the molehill
empire seems to have magnified itself to the utmost extent possible, by
the introduction of law, the establishment of courts, the appointment
of officers, the election of juries, and the adoption of everything
else within its power which was likely to make it a pompous minikin
miniature of the great system of government at home. Causton was “chief
magistrate,” and of course a “chief” had subordinates under him. There
was a recorder, also a bailiff. There were constables, and tithingmen,
and other great functionaries, all armed with solemn authority to
rule, govern, and keep in order, first themselves, and then about five
hundred men, women, and children, including John Wesley the Oxford
priest, and Charles Delamotte the merchant master of almost a ragged
school.
“The ocean is in tempest tossed,
To waft a feather and to drown a fly.”
Of all the great powers, however, in this log-built village of five
hundred souls, Thomas Causton, in his own estimation, and in fact, was
greatest. The other Tom Thumb magistrates were ciphers in his august
presence. Sometimes, indeed, he would ask their opinion in public on
the state matters of the great city of Savannah; but it was principally
to have the pleasure of uttering an opinion of his own, directly
opposite to theirs. Juries he threatened without the least compunction,
and especially when their verdicts disagreed with his inclinations.
As his power increased, so did his pride, haughtiness, and cruelty.
The court in which this fraudulent refugee—we beg his pardon, this
“chief magistrate”—expounded law and dispensed justice, was guarded
by eight freeholders, with an officer to direct their movements, all
armed with guns and bayonets. Seated, in such high dignity, and so far
above his fellows, upon the judicial bench, it was beneath his office
to sit uncovered; and hence he almost invariably wore his hat, even
when administering an oath. Should any foolish wight be bold enough
to oppose, in the least degree, his arbitrary proceedings, the “chief
magistrate” at once threatened the impudent recusant with the stocks,
the whipping-post, and a lodging in the log-house prison. Even his
fellow officials were treated with scant respect. In December, 1734,
the trustees sent a Mr. Gordon from England, to act as magistrate;
but Causton, not liking a compeer, refused him provisions from the
store, and he was obliged to leave. Indeed, Causton, who had sufficient
cleverness to induce Oglethorpe, despite his roguery in England, to
make him magistrate in Savannah, seems to have used the same worldly
cunning in allowing none to be his subordinates except those whom he
could, with the utmost ease, twist to his own purposes. Mr. Bailiff
Parker, mentioned in Wesley’s journal, had nothing to support himself
and his large family, except what he earned by his daily labour as a
sawyer. He was a man of no education, and was an absolute slave to
liquor. Another bailiff was a man of the name of Daru, nearly seventy
years old, and crazed in both body and mind; and another was R.
Gilbert, who could neither read nor write. Causton’s despotic career
was of short duration. The same grand jury which found, under Causton’s
guidance, ten bills against Wesley, immediately proceeded to examine
the official doings of their own illustrious “chief magistrate;” and
found charges against him, to the effect that he had grossly abused
his power as keeper of the public stores, and that he had hindered
people settling on the lands that the trustees had allotted them. These
and other charges, dated September 1, 1737, were sent to England; and
the result was—Causton, in October, 1738, was turned out of all his
offices, and the store was sold to pay the trustees’ debts; Causton’s
certified accounts were refused by the trustees as incorrect; William
Williamson was made recorder, and Henry Parker (the drunken uneducated
sawyer above mentioned) was made first magistrate; and, finally,
Causton, the great man who prosecuted Wesley, and drove him from
Georgia, settled down at Oxstead, three miles from Savannah; and there,
we hope, he lived a more honest life than he had done in England.[191]
Sophia Christiana Hopkey was the niece of Thomas Causton’s wife.
William Williamson, who became her husband, was a young adventurer, who
arrived in Georgia a short time after Wesley did.[192] And now, with
these explanations, let us look at the miserable business, which, in a
life of Wesley, cannot be omitted.
Wesley landed in Georgia on February 5, 1736, and seems at once to have
become acquainted with Miss Hopkey. Oglethorpe, Charles Wesley, Ingham,
and fifty other settlers set out immediately for Frederica. The young
lady went with them; and, on March 22, Wesley wrote to his brother
concerning her as follows: “I conjure you, spare no time, no address
or pains, to learn the true cause of the former distress of my friend.
I much doubt you are in the right. God forbid that she should again,
in like manner, miss the mark. Watch over her; keep her as much as
possible. Write to me, how I ought to write to her.”[193]
Miss Hopkey was a young lady of good sense, and elegant in person
and manners. She was introduced to Wesley as a sincere inquirer
after salvation, and soon took every possible opportunity of being
in his company, and requested him to assist her in studying French.
Oglethorpe also did his best to help on a courtship. Meanwhile, Wesley
was seized with fever, which confined him for nearly a week; and the
young lady (who would hardly allow Delamotte to do anything for his
friend) attended him night and day. She even consulted Oglethorpe what
kind of female dress Wesley liked the best, and therefore came always
dressed in white, neatly and simply elegant. Young Delamotte began
to be suspicious, and asked Wesley if he meant to marry Miss Hopkey.
Delamotte’s question puzzled Wesley, but, perceiving that Delamotte was
prejudiced against the lady, he waived an answer. The next step taken
was to consult David Nitschmann, the Moravian bishop. Nitschmann’s
answer was: “Marriage is not unlawful; but whether it is now expedient
for you, and whether this lady is a proper wife for you, ought to
be maturely weighed.” Wesley’s perplexity was increased, and he now
resolved to submit the matter to the elders of the Moravian church.
When he entered the house where they were met together, he found
Delamotte in the midst of them. On naming his business, Nitschmann
said: “We have considered your case; will you abide by our decision?”
After some hesitation, Wesley replied, “I will.” “Then,” said
Nitschmann, “we advise you to proceed no further in the matter!” Wesley
answered, “The will of the Lord be done!” “From this time,” says Henry
Moore, “he avoided everything that tended to continue the intimacy with
Miss Hopkey, and behaved with the greatest caution towards her.”[194]
The whole of this is painfully ludicrous. Mr. Moore, in a manuscript
letter before us, says that he had the account from Wesley’s own lips,
and that he is not aware that it was ever given to any one except
himself. He adds that Dr. Coke knew nothing of it, and that Wesley
refrained from publishing the whole of the affair in his printed
journal, _chiefly_ through tenderness to General Oglethorpe. It might
be so; but we greatly doubt the correctness of Moore’s assertion,
that, from the time Wesley consulted the Moravian elders, he “avoided
everything that tended to continue the intimacy.” Wesley was in love,
and, like all lovers, he did, not wicked, but foolish things. Let us
look at some other facts.
At this period, the summer of 1736, Wesley’s method of preaching, and
his manner of life, excited great attention in the small settlement
of Savannah; and there were not a few who charged him with making the
people idle by summoning them so frequently to public prayers. His more
than ordinary friendship with Miss Hopkey was also a subject of common
conversation.[195] He was looked upon as a Roman Catholic—(1) Because
he rigidly excluded all Dissenters from the holy communion, until they
first gave up their faith and principles, and, like Richard Turner
and his sons, submitted to be rebaptized by him; (2) Because Roman
Catholics were received by him as saints; (3) Because he endeavoured
to establish and enforce confession, penance, and mortification;
mixed wine with water at the sacrament; and appointed deaconesses in
accordance with what he called the Apostolic Constitutions.[196] He
was, in point of fact, a Puseyite, a hundred years before Dr. Pusey
flourished.
Miss Hopkey was put under his ghostly care. She was one of his early
morning congregation, and constantly went to his lodgings, in order
to be further instructed.[197] He fell in love with her; and there
can be little doubt that he made proposals to marry her, and, if his
own inclinations had been carried out, the marriage would have been
completed.[198] The following extracts are taken from his unpublished
journal.
1736. October 16.—Frederica. “Poor Miss Sophy was scarce the
shadow of what she was when I left her. I endeavoured to
convince her of it, but in vain. And to put it effectually out
of my power to do so, she was resolved to return to England
immediately. I tried to divert her from her fatal resolution
of going to England, and, after several fruitless attempts,
I at length prevailed. Nor was it long before she more than
recovered the ground she had lost.”
“October 25.—I took boat for Savannah with Miss Sophy.”
“In the beginning of December, I advised Miss Sophy to sup
earlier, and not immediately before she went to bed. She did
so, and on this little circumstance what an inconceivable train
of consequences depend. Not only—
‘All the colour of my remaining life’
for her; but perhaps all my happiness too, in time and in
eternity.”
“February 5, 1737.—One of the most remarkable dispensations of
Providence towards me began to show itself this day. For many
days after, I could not at all judge which way the scale would
turn; nor was it fully determined till March 4th, on which day
God commanded me to pull out my right eye; and, by His grace,
I determined to do so: but, being slack in the execution, on
Saturday, March 12th, God being very merciful to me, my friend
performed what I could not.”
What is the meaning of this? Two other extracts from the same journal
will show.
“March 7.—I walked with Mr. Causton to his country lot, and
plainly felt that, had God given me such a retirement with the
companion I desired, I should have forgot the work for which I
was born, and have set up my rest in this world.”
“March 8.—Miss Sophy engaged herself to Mr. Williamson, a
person not remarkable for handsomeness, neither for greatness,
neither for wit, or knowledge, or sense, and least of all for
religion; and on Saturday, March 12th” [four days after!] “they
were married at Purrysburg,—this being the day which completed
the year from my first speaking to her. What Thou doest, O God,
I know not now, but I shall know hereafter.”
Such is Wesley’s own statement. The disappointment was a most painful
blow. Forty-nine years after, he wrote, in reference to this event, “I
remember when I read these words in the church at Savannah, ‘Son of
man, behold, I take from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke,’
I was pierced through as with a sword, and could not utter a word more.
But our comfort is, He that made the heart can heal the heart.”[199] He
also wrote to his brother Samuel at the time, who replied, “I am sorry
you are disappointed in the match, because you are very unlikely to
find another.”[200]
With this evidence before us, it is difficult to give credence to Henry
Moore’s assertion, “that Wesley never allowed himself to _determine_
on a marriage with Miss Hopkey.”[201] But in addition to all this,
there is the testimony of the young lady herself, contained in her
affidavit, given to the Savannah court, and which Wesley inserts in
the private journal already mentioned. In that document she avers that
she was committed to the care of Mr. John Wesley, the missionary, by
her relatives; that he proposed marriage to her; and that he further
proposed that, as she might not like his present wandering way of life,
he would settle in Savannah. She adds that, about three days before
she married Williamson, she was visited by Wesley, who urged her to
tell him whether she had not been overpersuaded or forced to agree to
marry Williamson by her friends, and whether such a marriage might not
still be prevented. He also added that, if there was anything in his
way of life (by which she understood him to mean fastings and other
mortifications), which she disliked, he would make all these things
easy to her, in case she would consent to marry him.
Such is the substance of Sophy’s statement. How is it possible, in
the face of all this, to believe Henry Moore’s statement, that there
was no intimacy between Wesley and Miss Hopkey, from the time that he
consulted the Moravian elders?
We grudge the space that has been devoted to this subject; but perhaps
the following reasons will be accepted by the reader, as an apology for
the tax upon his patience.
1. The matter, though trivial in itself, has been made important by
the conflicting statements of the biographers. Mr. Moore says Wesley
never came to the determination to marry her. Dr. Whitehead says he did
intend to marry her. Southey agrees with Whitehead; Mr. Watson presumes
that Mr. Moore is a better authority than Dr. Whitehead; Mr. Jackson
seems to think the same. We have given all the facts within our reach,
and leave the reader to form his own opinion.
2. Though the courtship of young people is an ordinary, commonplace
sort of thing, inconceivably great events were dependent upon the
result of this. John Wesley was thirty-three years old, and was
perfectly justified in seeking to obtain a wife; neither is there
anything to be found fault with in his intercourse with Miss Hopkey,
unless it was his silly simplicity in asking the opinion, if not
consent, of the Moravians. The young lady, also, was beautiful, and
accomplished, and, to all human appearance, pious. Her uncle was a
respectable rascal; but that was no fault of hers. We know nothing to
her prejudice before she became a wife, except that it might have been
more decorously prudent if she had allowed Delamotte to nurse Wesley
in his fever instead of doing it, day and night, herself; and that
there was certainly an impetuous haste, not to be commended, in her
marrying Mr. Williamson only four days after he first proposed to her.
Excepting this, the friendship, courtship, or whatever else the reader
likes to call it, between Wesley and his “poor Sophy” seems to have
been sincere, pure, honourable, and, in the opinion of Oglethorpe, who
was not ill qualified to judge, desirable. But, supposing the courtship
had ended in marriage, is it likely that we should ever have heard of
Wesley at Bristol, Kingswood, Kennington Common, and Moorfields? Is
it likely that there would ever have been any “United Societies of
the People called Methodists”? Should we have ever heard of either the
Methodism of the past or present? Perhaps an equally great work might
have been witnessed; but the great Head of the church must have wrought
it by other agencies and means; for had John Wesley married Sophia
Christiana Hopkey, the probability is that, instead of returning to
England and beginning the greatest religious revival of modern times,
he would have settled in Georgia, and, like another Xavier, have spent
a most spiritual and devoted life in converting Indian and other kinds
of heathen. The results of such a life might have been glorious. Who
can tell what might have been its influence upon the civilisation and
perpetuation of the nobly formed aboriginal inhabitants of the vast
American continent? Would America, in the decline of the nineteenth
century, have been inhabited by European strangers, or by educated,
civilised, hardworking, prosperous descendants of the wild Indians
of the woods? These are useless questions, because questions none of
us can answer; but the mere suggestion of such points will serve to
show that Wesley’s courtship in Georgia was pregnant with infinite
momentousness. “The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the
multitude of isles be glad: clouds and darkness are round about Him;
righteousness and judgment are the habitation of His throne” (Ps.
xcvii. 1, 2).
3. Then a third reason, for dwelling at so great a length on Wesley’s
courtship, is, that the courtship was very improperly mixed up with the
subsequent troubles which led to his almost forceful departure from
the Georgian colony. But this brings us to the remainder of Wesley’s
Georgian history, which shall now be given as succinctly as possible.
We have already seen that Wesley was an extreme ritualist. He himself,
nearly a dozen years subsequent to his flight from Georgia, gives us a
specimen of his high church bigotry and intolerance. Having inserted in
his journal a beautiful letter written to him by John Martin Bolzius,
he, under the date of September, 1749, remarks: “What a truly Christian
piety and simplicity breathe in these lines! And yet this very man,
when I was at Savannah, did I refuse to admit to the Lord’s table,
because he was not baptized; that is, not baptized by a minister who
had been episcopally ordained. Can any one carry high church zeal
higher than this? How well have I been since beaten with mine own
staff!”[202]
Wesley still paid pastoral attentions to Mrs. Williamson as one of his
parishioners. Her not too accomplished husband took umbrage at this,
and, eight days after her marriage, forbade her attending his place
of worship, or ever to speak to him again.[203] Notwithstanding this
interdict, however, we find her on the 3rd of July at a sacramental
service, at the conclusion of which Wesley mentioned certain things
which he thought reprovable in her behaviour. This made her extremely
angry, and, three days later, Causton, accompanied by the bailiff
and the recorder, came to demand an explanation. Wesley gave his
visitors to understand that, in the execution of his office, and
acting without respect of persons, he might find it necessary to repel
one of Causton’s family from the holy communion. He further told the
“chief magistrate” what the people of Savannah were saying against
his magisterial proceedings.[204] All this made the coming storm more
threatening.
Some weeks elapsed; and then, on August 7, five months after her
marriage, Wesley refused to allow Mrs. Williamson to join in the
Lord’s supper. The next day, Mr. Recorder issued a warrant for the
apprehension of “John Wesley, clerk,” and commanding the constables
and tithingmen to bring him before one of the bailiffs of Savannah,
to answer the complaint of William Williamson for defaming his wife,
and refusing to administer to her the sacrament of the Lord’s supper,
in a public congregation, without cause; “by which the said William
Williamson was damaged one thousand pounds sterling.”
Wesley was arrested and brought before Mr. Bailiff Parker and Mr.
Recorder Christie. His answer to the charge was, “that the giving or
refusing the Lord’s supper being a matter purely ecclesiastical, he
could not acknowledge their power to interrogate him concerning it.”
The bailiff told him he must appear at the next Savannah court; and
Williamson demanded bail for his appearance, but the officials ruled
that Wesley’s word was in itself sufficient.
Two days later, Causton called on Wesley, and demanded that he should
send to Mrs. Williamson, in writing, “the reasons for repelling her
before the whole congregation.” Wesley complied, and wrote as follows:—
“_To Mrs. Sophia Williamson._
“At Mr. Causton’s request, I write once more. The rules whereby
I proceed are these:—
“‘So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion shall
signify their names to the curate, at least some time the day
before.’ This you did not do.
“‘And if any of these have done any wrong to his neighbours, by
word or deed, so that the congregation be thereby offended, the
curate shall advertise him, that in anywise he presume not to
come to the Lord’s table until he hath openly declared himself
to have truly repented.’
“If you offer yourself at the Lord’s table on Sunday, I will
advertise you (as I have done more than once) wherein you have
done wrong. And when you have openly declared yourself to have
truly repented, I will administer to you the mysteries of God.
“_August 11, 1737._
“JOHN WESLEY.”
On receiving this, Causton began to read, to as many of the people
as he could collect together, extracts from the letters which Wesley
had written to himself or to his niece, from the beginning of their
acquaintance, adding comments of his own, to Wesley’s disadvantage.
Others of Causton’s family were assiduous in their endeavours to
convince their neighbours that Wesley had repelled Mrs. Williamson from
the communion because she had refused to marry him. In the midst of
all this Wesley writes: “I sat still at home, and, I thank God, easy,
having committed my cause to Him, and remembering His word, ‘Blessed is
the man that endureth temptation; for when he is tried he shall receive
the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love
Him.”[205]
Meanwhile, Causton desired Mr. Burnside, the trustees’ secretary, to
sign a certificate to the effect that Mrs. Williamson had been for
ten months past as constant a communicant as any other, and that she
had been of unblamable behaviour. Mr. Burnside said he could not sign
it with a safe conscience, knowing it to be false. Upon which Causton
severely reproached him, and discharged him from his employment.
However, a number of names were procured to the certificate, though,
Wesley adds, the first part of it was shamefully untrue, for Mrs.
Williamson had omitted communicating nine times in three months; in
other words, had only communicated once a month instead of once a
week.[206]
The Savannah court was to sit on August 22, a fortnight after
Wesley’s arrest; and Causton employed his utmost power, and art, and
application, in prejudicing the persons who were to form the grand
jury. His table was free to the whole of them. Whatever they desired
from the public stores was delivered to them. Old misunderstandings
were forgotten, and nothing was too much to be done or promised for men
who, a week before, were unable, from such a source, to procure even a
crust of bread.
Six days previous to the opening of the court, Wesley, at the request
of several of his communicants, read a short statement of the case,
after the evening prayers, in the open congregation.[207]
At length the great day of trial, in this Lilliputian kingdom, came.
The grand jury consisted of forty-four of the illustrious inhabitants,
about a fifth part of the adult male population of Savannah. One was
a Frenchman, ignorant of the English language; one a papist; one a
professed infidel; three were Baptists; sixteen or seventeen others
were Dissenters; and of the rest, several had personal quarrels against
Wesley, and had openly vowed revenge.
Causton gave a long and earnest charge to the jury, “to beware of
spiritual tyranny, and to oppose the new, illegal authority which was
usurped over their consciences.” Mrs. Williamson’s affidavit was read,
the substance of which has been already given, with the exception that,
after her marriage, Wesley took every opportunity to force upon her
his private discourse, and terrified her by telling her that her soul
would be in danger, if she did not spend her time, and converse with
him, in the same manner, as she did before her marriage.[208]
Causton then delivered to the grand jury a paper, entitled “A List of
Grievances,” pretending to show that the Rev. John Wesley “deviates
from the principles and regulations of the Established Church in many
particulars inconsistent with the happiness and prosperity of this
colony,” as:—
“1. By inverting the order and method of the liturgy.
“2. By altering such passages as he thinks proper in the
version of the psalms, publicly authorised to be sung in the
church.
“3. By introducing into the church, and service at the altar,
compositions of psalms and hymns not inspected or authorised by
any proper judicature.
“4. By introducing novelties, such as dipping infants, etc., in
the sacrament of baptism, and refusing to baptize the children
of such as will not submit to his innovations.
“5. By restricting the benefits of the Lord’s supper to a
small number of persons, and refusing it to all others who
will not conform to a grievous set of penances, confessions,
mortifications, and constant attendance at early and late hours
of prayer, very inconsistent with the labours and employment of
this colony.
“6. By administering the sacrament of the Lord’s supper to
boys ignorant and unqualified; and that notwithstanding of
their parents and nearest friends remonstrating against it, and
accusing them of disobedience and other crimes.
“7. By refusing to administer the holy sacrament to well
disposed and well living persons, unless they should submit to
confessions and penances for crimes, which they utterly refuse,
and whereof no evidence is offered.
“8. By venting sundry uncharitable expressions of all who
differ from him; and not pronouncing the benediction in church,
until all the hearers, except his own communicants, are
withdrawn.
“9. By teaching wives and servants that they ought absolutely
to follow the course of mortifications, fastings, and diets,
and two sets of prayers prescribed by him; without any regard
to the interests of their private families, or the commands of
their respective husbands and masters.
“10. By refusing the Office of the Dead to such as did not
communicate with him, or by leaving out such parts of the
service as he thought proper.
“11. By searching into and meddling with the affairs of private
families, by means of servants and spies employed by him for
the purpose, whereby the peace both of public and private life
is much endangered.
“12. By calling himself ‘ordinary,’ and thereby claiming
a jurisdiction which is not due to him, and whereby we
should be precluded from access to redress by any superior
jurisdiction.”[209]
How did the grand jury deal with these charges?
First of all, Mrs. Williamson was called, but acknowledged, in the
course of her examination, that she had no objection to Wesley’s
behaviour previous to her marriage. After her, Mr. and Mrs. Causton
were examined; the former confessing that, if Wesley had asked his
consent to marry his niece, he would not have refused it.[210] Ten
other witnesses were put into the box, and several of Wesley’s letters
to Mrs. Williamson were read.[211]
Some days were spent in sifting the business; and then, on September 1,
a majority of the jurymen agreed to the following indictments:—
1. That, after the 12th of March last, the said John Wesley did several
times privately force his conversation to Sophia Christiana Williamson,
contrary to the express desire and command of her husband; and did
likewise write and privately convey papers to her, thereby occasioning
much uneasiness between her and her husband.
2. That, on the 7th of August last, he refused the sacrament of the
Lord’s supper to Sophia Christiana Williamson, without any apparent
reason, much to the disquiet of her mind, and to the great disgrace and
hurt of her character.
3. That he hath not, since his arrival in Savannah, emitted any public
declaration of his adherence to the principles and regulations of the
Church of England.
4. That, for many months past, he has divided on the Lord’s day the
order of morning prayer, appointed to be used in the Church of England,
by only reading the said morning prayer and the litany at five or six
o’clock, and wholly omitting the same between the hours of nine and
eleven o’clock, the customary time of public morning prayer.
5. That, about the month of April, 1736, he refused to baptize,
otherwise than by dipping, the child of Henry Parker, unless the said
Henry Parker and his wife would certify that the child was weak and
not able to bear dipping; and added to his refusal, that, unless the
said parents would consent to have it dipped, it might die a heathen.
6. That, notwithstanding he administered the sacrament of the Lord’s
supper to William Gough, about the month of March, 1736, he did, within
a month after, refuse the sacrament to the said William Gough, saying
that he had heard that William Gough was a Dissenter.
7. That in June, 1736, he refused reading the Office of the Dead over
the body of Nathaniel Polhill, only because Nathaniel Polhill was not
of his opinion; by means of which refusal the said Nathaniel Polhill
was interred without the appointed Office for the Burial of the Dead.
8. That, on or about the 10th of August, 1737, he, in the presence of
Thomas Causton, presumptuously called himself “Ordinary of Savannah,”
assuming thereby an authority which did not belong to him.
9. That in Whitsun-week last he refused William Aglionby to stand
godfather to the child of Henry Marley, giving no other reason than
that the said William Aglionby had not been at the communion table with
him.
10. That, about the month of July last, he baptized the child of Thomas
Jones, having only one godfather and godmother, notwithstanding that
Jacob Matthews did offer to stand godfather.[212]
Such were the findings of the majority of the grand jury. The minority
of twelve, including three constables and six tithingmen, drew up and
signed a document, and transmitted it “to the honourable the trustees
for Georgia,” to the following effect:—
1. That they were thoroughly persuaded that the charges against Mr.
Wesley were an artifice of Mr. Causton’s, designed rather to blacken
the character of Mr. Wesley than to free the colony from religious
tyranny, as he had alleged.
2. That it did not appear that Mr. Wesley had either spoken in private
or written to Mrs. Williamson since the day of her marriage, except one
letter, which he wrote on the 5th of July, at the request of her uncle,
as a pastor, to exhort and reprove her.
3. That, though he did refuse the sacrament to Mrs. Williamson on the
7th of August last, he did not assume to himself any authority contrary
to law, for every person intending to communicate was bound to signify
his name to the curate, at least some time the day before; which
Mrs. Williamson did not do; although Mr. Wesley had often, in full
congregation, declared he did insist on a compliance with that rubric,
and had before repelled divers persons for non-compliance therewith.
4. That, though he had not in Savannah emitted any public declaration
of his adherence to the principles and regulations of the Church of
England, he had done this, in a stronger manner than by a formal
declaration, by explaining and defending the three creeds, the
thirty-nine articles, the whole Book of Common Prayer, and the
homilies; besides a formal declaration is not required, but from those
who have received institution and induction.
5. That though he had divided, on the Lord’s day, the order of morning
prayer, this was not contrary to any law in being.
6. That his refusal to baptize Henry Parker’s child, otherwise than by
dipping, was justified by the rubric.
7. That, though he had refused the sacrament to William Gough, the said
William Gough (one of the twelve jurors who signed the document sent
to the trustees) publicly declared that the refusal was no grievance
to him, because Mr. Wesley had given him reasons with which he was
satisfied.
8. That, in reference to the alleged refusal to read the burial service
over the body of Nathaniel Polhill, they had good reason to believe
that Mr. Wesley was at Frederica, or on his return thence, when Polhill
was interred; besides Polhill was an anabaptist, and desired, in his
lifetime, that he might not be buried with the office of the Church of
England.
9. That they were in doubt about the indictment concerning Wesley
calling himself “Ordinary of Savannah,” not well knowing the meaning of
the word.
10. That, though Mr. Wesley refused to allow William Aglionby to stand
godfather to the child of Henry Marley, and Jacob Matthews to stand
godfather to the child of Thomas Jones, he was sufficiently justified
by the canons of the Church, because neither Aglionby nor Matthews had
certified Mr. Wesley that they had ever received the holy communion.
Such were the findings of his foes and of his friends: the only
difference, as to fact, between the majority of thirty-two and the
minority of twelve, is that which relates to Mrs. Williamson and
Nathaniel Polhill. The minority declare that it is not true that Mr.
Wesley did _several times_ privately force his conversation to Sophia
Williamson after her marriage; and that they have good reason to
believe that it is not true that he refused to read the burial service
over Nathaniel Polhill, because, at the time of the burial, he was
absent from Savannah. All the other alleged facts are admitted, but are
also justified. How did Wesley meet the indictments?
On September 2, the day after they were presented and were read to
the people, he appeared in court, and spoke to this effect:—“As to
nine of the ten indictments against me, I know this court can take no
cognisance of them, they being matters of an ecclesiastical nature.
But that concerning my speaking and writing to Mrs. Williamson is of a
secular nature; and this, therefore, I desire may be tried here where
the facts complained of were committed.”[213]
In this Wesley was unquestionably right. His conduct as a priest of the
Church of England might be, as it doubtless was, arrogant, foolish,
offensive, intolerant; but the petty magisterial court at Savannah had
no more right to try him for his high church practices than an Old
Bailey judge and jury have to try the half-fledged papistical rectors,
curates, and incumbents, who are playing such fantastic tricks in the
Protestant churches of old England at the present day. They had a right
to try him on the matter mentioned by himself, inasmuch as it was
alleged that Mrs. Williamson had been injured in her character, and, on
that account, her husband demanded damages to the extent of £1000.
Wesley was prepared to answer this indictment, and moved for an
immediate hearing; but the court evaded his request, and postponed the
hearing to its next sitting. From September 1, when the indictments
were first presented, to the end of November, when Wesley made known
his intention to return to England, he seems to have attended not
fewer than seven different sittings of the court, asking to be tried
on the charge affecting the character of Mrs. Williamson; but all to
no purpose. The fact is, Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, after having stabbed
him, were about to set sail to England,[214] and their contemplated
absence was made a pretext for not proceeding with the trial. There
can be little doubt that the whole affair was as the twelve jurors
believed, a device of Thomas Causton, to gratify his spite, and, by
annoyances, to drive Wesley from the colony.
Six days after the majority of the grand jury presented their
indictments, Mr. Dixon, chaplain to a company of soldiers at Frederica,
called on Wesley, and informed him that the magistrates of Savannah
had given him authority to perform ecclesiastical offices in the
town; and that he should begin to do so the day following, by reading
prayers, preaching, and administering the Lord’s supper. Accordingly,
on September 8, the bell was rung, and Mr. Dixon read prayers and
preached, in Wesley’s church, to Mr. Causton, Mr. and Mrs. Williamson,
and about half-a-score other persons. He announced that he had intended
to administer the holy communion, but some of his communicants were
indisposed. He would, however, read prayers and preach every Thursday,
and would administer baptism to as many children as might be brought
for that purpose. This was _ipso facto_ a setting aside of Wesley; or,
at all events, it was an arbitrary appointment of another clergyman to
fill his place.
On the Sunday following, September 11, Wesley preached from, “It must
needs be that offences come;” and then proceeded to read a paper which
he had read before, on the day he began his ministry at Savannah, and
in which he had apprised his congregation:—1. That he must admonish
every one of them, not only in public, but from house to house. 2. That
he could admit none to the holy communion without previous notice. 3.
That he should divide the morning service in compliance with the first
design of the Church. 4. That he should obey the rubric by dipping in
baptism all children who were well able to endure it. 5. That he should
admit none who were not communicants to be sureties in baptism. 6. That
though, in general, he had all the authority which was entrusted to
any one within the province, yet he was only a servant of the Church of
England,—not a judge, and therefore obliged to keep the regulations of
that Church in all things.[215]
On succeeding Sundays, he read to the congregations the homilies, and
then began reading Dr. Rogers’s eight sermons, as an antidote against
the poison of infidelity. Up to the present, he had no intention of
leaving the colony. Indeed, as lately as the 7th of June last, he had
written to his sister Keziah, and had made her an offer to come and
live with him at Savannah;[216] but, as soon as it was known that
Williamson and his wife were about to start for England, Delamotte
urged that Wesley ought to go as well, in order to prevent, or remove,
the misrepresentations which they were likely to make. This was on
September 9;[217] and, a month later, Wesley took counsel with his
friends on the same subject. They were unanimously of opinion “that he
ought to go, but not yet;” and accordingly he abandoned his purpose for
the present.
Meanwhile, he commenced three kinds of services which he had not before
attempted. He offered to read prayers, and to expound the Scriptures,
in French, every Saturday afternoon, to the French families settled
at Highgate, five miles from Savannah, which offer was thankfully
accepted. The French at Savannah heard of this, and requested he would
do the same for them, with which request he willingly complied. He also
began to read prayers and expound in German, once a week, to the German
villagers of Hampstead.
His Sunday labour, during the few weeks that he yet remained in
Savannah, was as follows:—1. English prayers from five o’clock to
half-past six. 2. Italian prayers at nine. 3. A sermon and the holy
communion, for the English, from half-past ten to about half-past
twelve. 4. The service for the French at one, including prayers,
psalms, and Scripture exposition. 5. The catechizing of the children at
two. 6. The third English service at three. 7. After this, a meeting in
his own house for reading, prayer, and praise. 8. At six, the Moravian
service began, which he was glad to attend, not to teach, but learn.
Thus things proceeded until November 22, when Causton sent for Wesley
and showed him an affidavit, sworn on September 15, to the effect that
he had called Causton a liar and a villain; but, with characteristic
duplicity, said he had not sent _this_ affidavit to the trustees,—a
statement, which, in fact, was both true and false, for although he
had not sent _this_ affidavit he had sent a _copy_ of it. Causton
bitterly added, that the last court held in Savannah had reprimanded
him as “an enemy to and a hinderer of the public peace.” “Both,” says
an eye-witness, “displayed warmth of temper; but Causton was most
vehement. They parted with mutual civilities.”[218]
This caused Wesley to again consult his friends about the propriety of
his leaving the colony. He saw that at present there was no possibility
of instructing the Indians; neither had he as yet found or heard of any
Indians who had the least desire of being instructed. Thus the great
reason of his leaving England was not realised. Then, as to Savannah,
he had never engaged himself, either by word or letter, to stay there a
day longer than he should judge convenient. And, further, he now saw a
probability of doing more service to the unhappy colonists by going to
England, than he could do by remaining in Georgia; for there he could,
without fear or favour, report to the trustees the state in which the
colony was placed. All his friends agreed with him; and accordingly,
next morning, he called on Causton, and told him he “designed to set
out for England immediately, and placarded an advertisement in the
great square” of the unbuilt town to the same effect.
Savannah was in great excitement. Causton had his partisans, and so had
Wesley his. Scandal was plentiful. Wesley’s congregations dwindled, and
were now extremely thin. Mr. Stephens, the secretary of the trustees at
Savannah, relates[219] that, in November, he heard Wesley preach on “Is
it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?” from which he discoursed
largely on the duties of magistrates, and on the obedience which was
due to them; setting forth how far it was consistent with Christian
liberty for people to insist upon their rights, when they found
themselves oppressed by inferior magistrates exercising a discretionary
authority which exceeded their commission. Stephens adds, that the
congregation was very poor, and that he found that the magistrates
and many of the principal inhabitants had of late wholly absented
themselves from church.
On November 20, Wesley preached from the text, “Jesus wept.” Stephens
writes: “He showed himself a good casuist; but his metaphysical
discourse would have been better adapted to a learned audience than
such a poor thin congregation as his, who stood in need of plain
doctrine.”
On November 27, he preached from Acts xx. 26, 27. Stephens, who was
present, says: “He enforced the practice of all Christian duties most
pathetically, which he was well qualified to do. Some people imagined,
from the choice of the text, that he meant it as a sort of farewell
sermon; but it did not appear so from any particular expressions
employed.”
No sooner was it known that Wesley meant to embark for England, than
Williamson issued an advertisement that he had brought an action
against him for £1000 damages; and that if any one assisted his escape
from the colony, he would prosecute such accomplice with the utmost
rigour of the law.[220] The magistrates also sent for Wesley, and told
him he must not leave the province till he had answered the indictments
against him. Wesley replied that he had already attended seven sessions
of the court to answer them, and had not been permitted. They then
requested him to sign a kind of bond, engaging him, under a penalty of
£50, to appear at their court when he should be required; and added
that Mr. Williamson also demanded that he should give bail to answer
his action. Wesley replied that he would give neither any bond, nor any
bail at all; and so he left them. In the afternoon of the same day they
published an order requiring all the officers and sentinels to prevent
his leaving the province, and forbidding any person to assist him in
doing so.
He was now a prisoner at large, and the same evening, after public
prayers, he set out in a boat for Purrysburg, distant about twenty
miles, and thus left Savannah and Georgia for ever.[221]
Arriving at Purrysburg early in the morning of December 3, Wesley
and the four men who had assisted in his escape, and had rowed him
to Purrysburg, set out on foot to Port Royal. Tramping their way
through trackless forests, they came to a large swamp, around which
they wandered for three weary hours. Then they had to force their way
through an almost impassable thicket. They had now been trudging from
an hour before sunrise in the morning till nearly sunset at night, and
had not tasted food, except a gingerbread cake, which Wesley happened
to have in his pocket. They were faint and weary, and no wonder.
Thrusting a stick into the ground, and finding its end moist, two of
them set to work digging with their hands, and, at about three feet
depth, obtained water. They thanked God, drank, and were refreshed. The
month was December, and the night cold; but there was no complaining;
and, having commended themselves to God, they lay down on the ground,
close together, and Wesley, at least, slept till near six in the
morning.
The next day was Sunday; but the bewildered fugitives started again,
and after three more days of weary wandering reached Port Royal.
Delamotte joined them on Thursday, December 8, when, taking a boat,
they all set sail for Charlestown. This was no comfortable steamer,
but a small watercraft, without covering, and impelled by oars. Four
days were spent in making the passage, the winds were contrary, and
their provisions short; but, cold and hungry, they arrived in safety on
Tuesday, December 13.[222]
Wesley and Delamotte, with the exception of a few brief days, had not
been parted for the last six-and-twenty months: but on December 22
the former set sail for England; the latter, for a season, was left
behind. One of Wesley’s fellow passengers was a young gentleman, who
had been one of his parishioners at Savannah; and another was Eleanor
Hayes, who became one of the first Methodists in London, and of whom an
interesting notice may be found in the _Methodist Magazine_ for 1867.
It was impossible for Wesley to live an idle life. During the voyage,
he began instructing two negro lads and the cabin-boy in the principles
of the Christian religion. On Sundays, at least, he had morning and
evening prayers. He finished his abridgment of De Renty’s Life; and he
read and explained to a poor Frenchman a chapter in the New Testament
every morning. When in mid-ocean they encountered a terrific storm,
which gave Wesley an opportunity of speaking faithfully to all on board
about their eternal interests. On February 1 they landed at Deal, the
day after George Whitefield had set sail for the very settlement which
Wesley had been obliged to leave.
During the passage Wesley had ample time for self-examination, and
wrote as follows:—
“By the most infallible of proofs, inward feeling, I am
convinced—
“1. Of unbelief; having no such faith in Christ as will prevent
my heart being troubled.
“2. Of pride, throughout my life past; inasmuch as I thought I
had what I find I have not.
“3. Of gross irrecollection; inasmuch as in a storm I cry to
God every moment, in a calm not.
“4. Of levity and luxuriancy of spirit; appearing by my
speaking words not tending to edify, but most by my manner of
speaking of my enemies.”
He adds:—
“I went to America to convert the Indians; but oh, who shall
convert me? I have a fair summer religion. I can talk well;
but let death look me in the face, and my spirit is troubled.
I think, verily, if the gospel be true, I am safe: for I not
only have given, and do give, all my goods to feed the poor;
and not only give my body to be burned, drowned, or whatever
God shall appoint for me; but I follow after charity, if haply
I may attain it. I now believe the gospel is true. I show my
faith by my works,—by staking my all upon it. I would do so
again and again, a thousand times, if the choice were still to
make. Whoever sees me sees I would be a Christian. But in a
storm, I think, ‘What if the gospel be not true? Then thou art
of all men most foolish. For what hast thou given thy goods,
thy ease, thy friends, thy reputation, thy country, thy life?
For what art thou wandering over the face of the earth—a dream!
a cunningly devised fable?’ Oh, who will deliver me from this
fear of death? A wise man advised me some time since, ‘Be still
and go on.’ Perhaps this is best, to look upon it as my cross.”
After landing in England, he penned another remarkable paper, which
has often been cited without a quotation of the notes he appended in
after years.[223] He asserts that when he went to America, to convert
the Indians, he was not himself converted; but in the appended note he
adds, “I am not sure of this.” Neither are we. By his conscientious
severity in comparing himself with the standard of a perfect Christian,
as contained in the New Testament, and by his imperfect and mystified
views of the scriptural plan of salvation, he might deprive himself of
the filial confidence and joy belonging to a child of God; but we dare
not affirm that he was a child of wrath because he was without the joy.
On the same principle, thousands of us would be children one day, but
not the next. Wesley’s assertion was too strong; in after life he felt
it so; and those who quote it ought, in all fairness, to add what he
himself appended.
In another part of the same document he says of himself: “Alienated as
I am from the life of God, I am a child of wrath, an heir of hell.” But
the note he attached to this, in subsequent years, is, “I believe not”;
and if not a child of wrath, then in his opinion, and after mature
reflection, he had a right to think himself a child of grace and an
heir of heaven.
Another of his notes is: “I had even then the faith of a servant,
though not that of a son;” and that the reader may know what
interpretation to put upon such words, we give the following extract
from one of Wesley’s own sermons:—
“But what is the faith which is properly saving? It is such a
Divine conviction of God, and the things of God, as, even in
its infant state, enables every one that possesses it to fear
God and work righteousness. And whosoever, in every nation,
believes thus far, is accepted of Him. He actually is, at that
very moment, in a state of acceptance. But he is at present
only a _servant_ of God, not properly a _son_. Meanwhile let
it be well observed that the wrath of God no longer abideth
on him. Nearly fifty years ago, when the preachers, commonly
called Methodists, began to preach that grand scriptural
doctrine, salvation by faith, they were not sufficiently
apprised of the difference between a servant and a child of
God. In consequence of this, they were apt to make sad the
hearts of those whom God had not made sad. For they frequently
asked those who feared God, ‘Do you know that your sins are
forgiven?’ And upon their answering ‘No,’ immediately replied,
‘Then you are a child of the devil.’ No; that does not follow.
It might have been said (and it is all that can be said with
propriety), ‘Hitherto you are only a _servant_, you are not a
_child_ of God. You have already great reason to praise God
that He has called you to His honourable service. Fear not,
continue crying unto Him, and you shall see greater things than
these!’ And, indeed, unless the servants of God halt by the
way, they will receive the adoption of sons. They will receive
the _faith_ of the children of God, by His _revealing_ His only
begotten Son in their hearts. Thus, the faith of a child is,
properly and directly, a Divine conviction, whereby every child
of God is enabled to testify, ‘The life that I now live I live
by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for
me.’ And whosoever hath this, the Spirit of God witnesseth with
his spirit, that he is a child of God. This then it is, that
properly constitutes the difference between a servant of God
and a child of God.”[224]
Let those who have been accustomed to cite Wesley’s hasty and
incautious condemnation of himself, on his return from Georgia, read it
again in the light of his own appended notes, and in the light of this
extract from a sermon written by himself nearly fifty years afterwards;
and they will then have a more correct idea of Wesley’s religious state
at Oxford and in America, and will also be better fitted to understand
what is meant by what is called his conversion on the 24th of May,
1738. This matter, however, must be resumed in its proper place.
Wesley, in Georgia, was accepted of God through Christ; but, to cite
his own words at the conclusion of his own condemnatory document, he
wanted “a sure trust and confidence in God, that, through the merits of
Christ, his sins were forgiven.” “I want,” says he, “that faith which
none can have without knowing that he hath it.”
Wesley, according to his own explanation, had long been in a _saved_
state (though he knew it not); but he was far from being perfect,
either in spirit or behaviour. No man could be more sincere or earnest;
but it is hoped that few ministers of equal learning, wisdom, and
sanctity make greater blunders than were made by him at Savannah. There
can be little doubt that he had ecclesiastical authority for most,
if not all, his priestly practices; and so have the half papistical
priests and ritualists of the present day. But as England now is right
in resisting the introduction of rites and ceremonies, fasts and
feasts, confessions and penances, absolutions and interdicts, savouring
more of the man of sin than of the word of God,—so Savannah then was
right in resisting similar innovations attempted to be introduced by
the extremely high church priest, fresh from the society of the Oxford
Methodists. If we are right in denouncing _ritualism_ now, Savannah
was right in denouncing _ritualism_ then. If the thing is offensive
and obnoxious here, it was equally offensive and obnoxious there;
and if no other end had been answered by Wesley’s mission to America
than knocking out of him his high church nonsense, the good effected
would have been an ample compensation for two dangerous voyages of six
thousand miles, and for all the discomforts of living two-and-twenty
months, in a log-built hut, among almost homeless emigrants, who had
taken with them to the swamps and woods of Georgia more covetousness
than courtesy, more rudeness than rank, more quarrelsomeness than
quietude, and more conceit than common sense.
Wesley has been blamed for repelling Mrs. Williamson from the
communion; and if he had nothing more to allege against her than the
offence that, since her marriage, she had come to sacrament once a
month only, instead of once a week, he deserves to be blamed. It was a
rash proceeding, utterly unwarranted; and both she and her husband did
right in resisting it. So far we agree with Wesley’s censors; but we
cannot agree with them in saying that the great, if not only, reason
of his repelling her was revenge arising out of her refusal to marry
him. There is not a particle of evidence in proof of that. Five months
had elapsed since her marriage; and, again and again, during that
interval, he had administered to her the holy communion. The repulse
was, on his part, a strictly conscientious, not a revengeful act; but
though conscientious, it was, to say the least, mistaken, and deserves
censure instead of praise. Mr. Moore says that, about three months
after Mrs. Williamson’s marriage, Wesley saw things in her conduct
which induced him to bless God for his deliverance in not marrying her,
and that these things were noted in his private journal never printed.
We have not the slightest wish to defend the lady where she deserves
censure: but fairness compels us to say that we have seen the private
journal; but neither in it, nor elsewhere, have we met with anything
charged against her more serious than what has been already mentioned
in the present far too lengthy chapter. Dissimulation is the strongest
word Wesley has used concerning her; and this is used in reference to
something which happened three months after she was married, and of
which no explanation is given.[225] Miss Hopkey, like Wesley himself,
was not so good as she might have been; but that is not a sufficient
reason why Wesley’s biographers should insinuate, if not assert, that
she was worse than she really was.
Wesley’s mission to America seemed a failure! But was it so? When
Whitefield arrived, he wrote: “The good Mr. John Wesley has done in
America is inexpressible. His name is very precious among the people;
and he has laid a foundation that I hope neither men nor devils will
ever be able to shake. Oh that I may follow him as he has followed
Christ.”[226]
Wesley himself observes:—
“Many reasons I have to bless God for my having been carried
to America, contrary to all my preceding resolutions. Hereby,
I trust, He hath in some measure ‘_humbled me and proved me,
and shown me what was in my heart_.’ Hereby, I have been taught
to ‘_beware of men_.’ Hereby, God has given me to know many of
His servants, particularly those of the church of Herrnhuth.
Hereby, my passage is open to the writings of holy men, in
the German, Spanish, and Italian tongues. All in Georgia have
heard the word of God, and some have believed and begun to
run well. A few steps have been taken towards publishing the
glad tidings both to the African and American heathens. Many
children have learned how they ought to serve God, and to be
useful to their neighbour. And those whom it most concerns have
an opportunity of knowing the state of their infant colony,
and laying a firmer foundation of peace and happiness to many
generations.”[227]
These are no mean results to be realised in about two
years,—self-knowledge, caution, acquaintance with the church that was
to help him to clearer views of the plan of salvation, the acquisition
of three European languages, the unprecedented fact of preaching Christ
to _all_ the widely scattered inhabitants of an English colony, steps
taken to evangelise negroes and Indians, many children religiously
educated, and the way prepared for promoting the prosperity of Georgia
to the end of time!