The belief was expressed, that the design of God in raising up

the preachers, called Methodists, was to reform the nation, more

particularly the Church; and to spread scriptural holiness through

the land. It was decided that, wherever they preached, they ought to

endeavour to form societies, because where societies were not formed,

the preacher would not be able to give proper instructions to them

that were convinced of sin; nor the people to watch over one another

in love, bear one another’s burdens, and build up each other in faith

and holiness. It was stated, that the Methodists were divided into

four sections; namely, the united societies, the bands, the select

societies, and the penitents. The united societies, who were the most

numerous, consisted of awakened persons. The bands were selected from

these, and consisted of those who were supposed to have remission of

sins. The select societies were taken from the bands, and were composed

of those who seemed to walk in the light of God’s countenance. The

penitents were those who, for the present, were fallen from grace.

After this, the rules of the united societies, and of the bands, were

read. The rules of the select societies were the same as those of the

bands, with three additions:—1. That nothing spoken in their meetings

be spoken again. 2. That every member submit to his minister in all

indifferent things. 3. That, till they could have all things common,

every member should bring, once a week, all he could spare toward a

common stock. The penitents were left without rules.

It was agreed, that lay assistants were allowable only in cases of

necessity. They were to expound every morning and evening; to meet the

united societies, the bands, the select societies, and the penitents,

once a week; to visit the classes once a quarter; to hear and decide

all differences; to put the disorderly back on trial, and to receive on

trial for the bands or society; to see that the stewards, the leaders,

schoolmasters, and housekeepers faithfully discharged their several

offices; and to meet the leaders and the stewards weekly, and to

examine their accounts. They were to be serious; to converse sparingly

and cautiously with women; to take no step towards marriage without

first acquainting Wesley or his brother clergymen; and to do nothing

as a _gentleman_, for they had no more to do with this character than

with that of a dancing master. They were to be ashamed of nothing but

sin; not of fetching wood, or drawing water; not of cleaning their own

shoes, or their neighbour’s. They were to take no money of any one, and

were to contract no debts without Wesley’s knowledge; they were not to

mend the rules, but keep them; to employ their time as Wesley directed,

and to keep journals, as well for Wesley’s satisfaction as for profit

to themselves.[532]

It was decided, that they should preach most, where those of them

who were clergymen could preach in a church; where they could get

the greatest number of quiet and willing hearers; and where they had

most success. It was agreed, that field preaching had been used too

sparingly; that every alternate meeting of the society, in every place,

should be strictly private; and that at the other meeting strangers

might be admitted with caution, but not the same person above twice or

thrice. To improve the usefulness of classleaders, it was resolved that

each leader should be diligently examined, concerning his method of

meeting a class; that all of them should converse with the preachers,

as frequently and as freely as possible; that they should attend the

leaders’ meeting every week, bringing notes of all sick persons in

their classes; and that none should speak in the leaders’ meeting

but the preacher or the steward, unless in answer to a question. The

members were to be more closely examined, at the general visitation

of the classes; the married men and married women, and the single

men and single women were to be met apart once a quarter; and all

the members were to be visited at their own houses, at times fixed

for such a purpose. Tickets were to be given to none, till they were

recommended by a leader with whom they had met three months on trial;

and new members were to be admitted into the society only on the

Sunday following the quarterly visitation, their names being read on

the Sunday night previous. It was agreed, also that it was lawful for

Methodists to bear arms; and that they might use the law as defendants,

and perhaps in some cases as plaintiffs.[533]

Other regulations were adopted, either at this or ensuing conferences,

as follows: preachers were to meet the children in every place, and

give them suitable exhortations; they were to preach expressly and

strongly against sabbath breaking, dram drinking, evil speaking,

unprofitable conversation, lightness, gaiety, or expensiveness of

apparel, and contracting debts without sufficient care to discharge

them; they were to recommend to every society, frequently and

earnestly, the books that Wesley published, as preferable to any other;

they were to use their best endeavours to extirpate smuggling, and also

bribery at elections; they were to speak to any that desired it, every

day after the morning and evening preaching. As often as possible,

they were to rise at four o’clock; to spend two or three minutes

every hour in earnest prayer; to observe strictly the morning and

evening hour of retirement; to rarely employ above an hour at a time

in conversation; to use all the means of grace; to keep watchnights

once a month; to take a regular catalogue of the societies once a

year; to speak freely to each other, and never to part without prayer.

They were never to preach more than twice a day, unless on Sundays or

extraordinary occasions; to begin and end the service precisely at the

time appointed; to always suit their subject to their congregations;

to choose the plainest texts possible, and to beware of allegorizing

and rambling from their texts. They were to avoid everything awkward or

affected, either in phrase, gesture, or pronunciation; to sing no hymns

of their own composing; to choose hymns proper for the congregation;

not to sing more than five or six verses at a time, and to suit the

tune to the nature of the hymns. After preaching, they were recommended

to take lemonade, candied orange peel, or a little soft, warm ale; and

to avoid late suppers, and egg and wine, as downright poison.[534]

Here we find six clergymen and four lay preachers, not elaborating

an ecclesiastical structure, but carefully considering the greatest

truths of the Christian religion, and investigating the duties of its

preachers. Six days were spent in this important work. They desired

nothing, said Wesley, but to save their own souls and those that heard

them. Their doctrines, so simple and encouraging, were not the popular

theology of the age; but they were in the Scriptures, and what every

sinner needed. They little thought, that they were constructing a

platform which would survive their times, and originating a long series

of annual conferences which would become one of the most important

institutions in the world; a central power, conveying religious

benefits to every quarter of the globe, and serving as a model for

framing other similar institutions both at home and abroad. The

doctrines agreed upon are still the staple doctrines of the Methodist

communities, and the elements of Methodist discipline may be found in

the minutes of this the first Methodist conference.

Leaving Wesley’s first conference, we pass to his last sermon before

the university of Oxford.

The day appointed for the sermon was Friday, August 24, the anniversary

of St. Bartholomew, and occurred in Oxford race week. The duty came to

Wesley by rotation; and had he declined it, he must have paid three

guineas for a substitute. We have three accounts of this celebrated

sermon. From Charles Wesley we learn, that he and Mr. Piers and Mr.

Meriton were present at its delivery; that the audience was a large

one, and much increased by the racers; that the congregation gave the

utmost attention; that some of the heads of colleges stood during the

whole service, and fixed their eyes upon the preacher; and that, after

the sermon, the little band of four Methodist clergymen walked away in

form, none daring to join them.[535]

Wesley’s own account is as follows:—

“I preached, I suppose the last time, at St. Mary’s. Be it

so. I am now clear of the blood of these men. I have fully

delivered my own soul. The beadle came to me afterwards, and

told me the vice-chancellor had sent him for my notes. I sent

them without delay, not without admiring the wise providence of

God. Perhaps few men of note would have given a sermon of mine

the reading, if I had put it into their hands; but, by this

means, it came to be read, probably more than once, by every

man of eminence in the university.”[536]

“I am well pleased that the sermon was preached on the very

day on which, in the last century, near two thousand burning

and shining lights were put out at one stroke. Yet what a wide

difference is there between their case and mine! They were

turned out of house and home, and all that they had; whereas I

am only hindered from preaching, without any other loss; and

that in a kind of honourable manner; it being determined that,

when my next turn to preach came, they would pay another person

to preach for me; and so they did, twice or thrice, even to the

time that I resigned my fellowship.”[537]

The third account is by the celebrated Dr. Kennicott, who was, at this

period, in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and an undergraduate of

Wadham College. He had no sympathy with the Methodists, and yet he

appears to have been deeply impressed with Wesley’s sermon. He writes:—

“All that are masters of arts, and on the foundation of any

college, are set down in a roll, as they take their degree;

and, in that order, preach before the university, or pay three

guineas for a preacher in their stead; and as no clergyman can

avoid his turn, so the university can refuse none; otherwise

Mr. Wesley would not have preached. He came to Oxford some

time before, and preached frequently every day in courts,

public houses, and elsewhere. On Friday morning, having held

forth twice in private, at five and at eight, he came to St.

Mary’s at ten o’clock. There were present the vice-chancellor,

the proctors, most of the heads of houses, a vast number of

gownsmen, and a multitude of private people, with many of

Wesley’s own people, both brethren and sisters. He is neither

tall nor fat; for the latter would ill become a Methodist. His

black hair, quite smooth, and parted very exactly, added to

a peculiar composure in his countenance, showed him to be an

uncommon man. His prayer was soft, short, and conformable to

the rules of the university. His text was Acts iv. 31. He spoke

it very slowly, and with an agreeable emphasis.” [Here follows

a description of the sermon.] “When he came to what he called

his plain, practical conclusion, he fired his address with so

much zeal and unbounded satire as quite spoiled what otherwise

might have been turned to great advantage; for, as I liked

some, so I disliked other parts of his discourse extremely. I

liked some of his freedom, such as calling the generality of

young gownsmen ‘a generation of triflers,’ and many other just

invectives. But, considering how many shining lights are here,

that are the glory of the Christian cause, his sacred censure

was much too flaming and strong, and his charity much too weak

in not making large allowances. But, so far from allowances,

he concluded, with a lifted up eye, in this most solemn form,

‘It is time for Thee, Lord, to lay to Thine hand;’ words full

of such presumption and seeming imprecation, that they gave

an universal shock. This, and the assertion that Oxford was

not a Christian city, and this country not a Christian nation,

were the most offensive parts of the sermon, except when he

accused the whole body (and confessed himself to be one of the

number) of the sin of perjury; and for this reason, because,

upon becoming members of a college, every person takes an oath

to observe the statutes of the university, and no one observes

them in all things. Had these things been omitted, and his

censures moderated, I think his discourse, as to style, and

delivery, would have been uncommonly pleasing to others as well

as to myself. He is allowed to be a man of great parts, and

that by the excellent Dean of Christ Church (Dr. Conybeare);

for the day he preached, the dean generously said of him, ‘John

Wesley will always be thought a man of sound sense, though

an enthusiast.’ However, the vice-chancellor sent for the

sermon, and I hear the heads of colleges intend to show their

resentment.”[538]

This obnoxious sermon was published a few weeks after it was preached,

and was advertised in the October magazines, price sixpence.[539]

Another edition was issued in the same year, at Newcastle on Tyne,

12mo, eighteen pages.

In a preface to the reader, Wesley says, that he never intended to

print the latter part of the sermon; but “the false and scurrilous

accounts of it which had been published, almost in every corner of

the nation, now constrained him to publish the whole, just as it was

preached, that men of reason might judge for themselves.”

The sermon has three divisions, and considers Christianity under three

distinct aspects—(1) As beginning to exist in individuals. (2) As

spreading from one to another. (3) As covering the earth. Of these

nothing need be said. That which gave offence was the “plain, practical

application,” which is quite one third of the entire discourse. The

following extracts will show what it was that gave the offence which

Oxford authorities never pardoned; and also the fidelity and Christian

courage of the preacher in uttering such sentiments before such a

congregation.

“I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, if ye do

account _me_ a madman or a fool, yet _as a fool bear with me_.

It is utterly needful, that some one should use great plainness

of speech towards you. It is more especially needful at _this_

time; for who knoweth but it is the _last_? And who will use

this plainness, if I do not? Therefore I, even I, will speak.

And I adjure you, by the living God, that ye steel not your

hearts against receiving a blessing at _my_ hands.

“Let me ask you then, in tender love, and in the spirit of

meekness, Is this city a _Christian_ city? Is _Christianity,

scriptural Christianity_, found here? Are we, considered as a

community of men, so filled with the Holy Ghost as to enjoy in

our hearts, and show forth in our lives, the genuine fruits of

that Spirit? Are all the magistrates, all heads and governors

of colleges and halls, and their respective societies, (not to

speak of the inhabitants of the town,) of one heart and soul?

Is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts? Are our tempers

the same that were in Christ? And are our lives agreeable

thereto?

“In the fear, and in the presence of the great God, before

whom both you and I shall shortly appear, I pray you that are

in authority over us, whom I reverence for your office sake,

to consider, Are you filled with the Holy Ghost? Are ye lively

portraitures of Him whom ye are appointed to represent among

men? Ye magistrates and rulers, are all the thoughts of your

hearts, all your tempers and desires, suitable to your high

calling? Are all your words like unto those which come out of

the mouth of God? Is there in all your actions dignity and love?

“Ye venerable men, who are more especially called to form the

tender minds of youth, are you filled with the Holy Ghost? with

all those fruits of the Spirit, which your important office so

indispensably requires? Do you continually remind those under

your care, that the one rational end of all our studies is

to know, love, and serve the only true God, and Jesus Christ

whom He hath sent? Do you inculcate upon them, day by day,

that without love all learning is but splendid ignorance,

pompous folly, vexation of spirit? Has all you teach an actual

tendency to the love of God, and of all mankind for His sake?

Do you put forth all your strength in the vast work you have

undertaken—using every talent which God hath lent you, and that

to the uttermost of your power?

“What example is set them” [the youth] “by us who enjoy

the beneficence of our forefathers,—by fellows, students,

scholars,—more especially those who are of some rank and

eminence? Do ye, brethren, abound in the fruits of the

Spirit,—in lowliness of mind, in self denial and mortification,

in seriousness and composure of spirit, in patience, meekness,

sobriety, temperance, and in unwearied, restless endeavours

to do good, in every kind, unto all men? Is this the general

character of fellows of colleges? I fear it is not. Rather,

have not pride and haughtiness of spirit, impatience and

peevishness, sloth and indolence, gluttony and sensuality, and

even a proverbial uselessness, been objected to us, _perhaps_

not always by our enemies, nor _wholly_ without ground?

“Many of us are more immediately consecrated to God, called

to minister in holy things. Are we then patterns to the rest,

in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in

purity? From what motives did we enter upon this office? Was it

with a single eye to serve God? Have we clearly determined to

give ourselves wholly to it? Do we forsake and set aside, as

much as in us lies, all worldly cares and studies? Are we apt

to teach? Are we taught of God, that we may be able to teach

others also? What are the seals of our apostleship? Who, that

were dead in trespasses and sins, have been quickened by our

word? Have we a burning zeal to save souls from death; so that,

for their sake, we often forget even to eat our bread?

“Once more, What shall we say concerning the youth of this

place? Have _you_ either the form or the power of _Christian_

godliness? Are you humble, teachable, advisable? or stubborn,

self willed, heady, and high-minded? Are you obedient to your

superiors as to parents? Or do you despise those to whom you

owe the tenderest reverence? Are you diligent in pursuing your

studies with all your strength, crowding as much work into

every day as it can contain? Rather, do you not waste day after

day, either in reading what has no tendency to Christianity, or

in gaming, or in—you know not what? Do you, out of principle,

take care to owe no man anything? Do you remember the sabbath

day to keep it holy? Do you know how to possess your bodies

in sanctification and in honour? Are not drunkenness and

uncleanness found among you? Yea, are there not of you, who

glory in their shame? Do not many of you take the name of God

in vain, perhaps habitually, without either remorse or fear?

Yea, are there not a multitude of you that are forsworn? Be

not surprised, brethren; before God and this congregation, I

own myself to have been of that number; solemnly swearing to

_observe all those customs_, which I then knew nothing of; and

_those statutes_, which I did not so much as read over, either

then or for some years after. What is perjury, if this is not?

“May it not be one of the consequences of this, that so many

of you are a generation of triflers? triflers with God, with

one another, and with your own souls? How few of you spend,

from one week to another, a single hour in private prayer?

How few have any thought of God in the general tenour of your

conversation? Can you bear, unless now and then, in a church,

any talk of the Holy Ghost? Would you not take it for granted,

if one began such a conversation, that it was either hypocrisy

or enthusiasm? In the name of the Lord God almighty, I ask,

What religion are you of? Even the talk of _Christianity_ ye

cannot, will not bear. O my brethren! What a Christian city is

this? It is time for Thee, Lord, to lay to Thine hand.

“For indeed, what probability, what possibility is there,

that Christianity, scriptural Christianity, should be again

the religion of this place? that all orders of men among us

should speak and live as men filled with the Holy Ghost? By

whom should this Christianity be restored? By those of you

that are in authority? Are you desirous it should be restored?

And do ye not count your fortune, liberty, life, dear unto

yourselves, so ye may be instrumental in restoring it? But

suppose ye have this desire, who hath any power proportioned

to the effect? Perhaps some of you have made a few faint

attempts, but with how small success? Shall Christianity then

be restored by young, unknown, inconsiderable men? I know not

whether ye yourselves would suffer it. Would not some of you

cry out, ‘Young man, in so doing thou reproachest us’? But

there is no danger of your being put to the proof; so hath

iniquity overspread us like a flood. Whom then shall God send?

The famine, the pestilence, or the sword, the last messengers

of God to a guilty land? The armies of the Romish aliens, to

reform us into our first love? Nay, rather, let us fall into

Thy hand, O Lord, and let us not fall into the hand of man!”

This is not only the substance, but nearly the whole of the “plain,

practical application,” that created so much offence. Who can find

fault with it? Rather, who will not commend the bold preacher,

who, in such yearning accents, gave utterance to truths of the

highest consequence, but which perhaps no one but himself, in such a

congregation, durst have uttered? Would to God that pulpits had more

of this courageous, pitying fidelity, at the present day! Is it not a

fact, that preaching now-a-days consists so much of polite and pious

platitudes, that, so far from saving souls, it is almost powerless? The

age is too refined to tolerate preachers of the stamp of Luther, Knox,

and Wesley. The words of the prophets are, in this pretentiously polite

period of the church’s history, well worth pondering: “They have healed

the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace;

when there is no peace.” “This is a rebellious people, lying children,

children that will not hear the law of the Lord; which say to the

seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things;

speak unto us smooth things; prophesy deceits.”

It was Wesley’s fidelity, far more than the novelty of his doctrines

and proceedings, that brought upon him the persecutions he encountered.

Of these, he and the Methodists had already had their share; but the

vials of the people’s wrath were far from being emptied. The outrages

in Staffordshire and other places have been already mentioned. “In

Cornwall,” says Wesley, “the war against the Methodists was carried

on with far more vigour than that against the Spaniards.” “At St.

Ives,” writes Henry Millard, “the word of God runs and is glorified;

but the devil rages horribly.” At Camborne, Thomas Westall was pulled

down while preaching in Mr. Harris’s house; was carried to Penzance,

where Dr. Borlase wrote a “mittimus” committing him to the house of

correction at Bodmin as a vagrant; and here he was kept till the next

quarter sessions, when the justices, then assembled, knowing a little

more of the laws of God and man than Dr. Borlase and his Penzance

_confrères_, declared his commitment to be illegal, and set him at

liberty. “For what pay,” asks Wesley, justly proud of his preachers,

“could we procure men to do this service,—to be always ready to go

to prison or to death?” Dr. Borlase was a man of unquestioned sense

and learning; but he was a bigot of the purest water. On his asking

Jonathan Reeves to point him out a man who had been the better for

hearing the Methodists, Jonathan pointed to John Daniel, then before

him. “Get along,” cried the doctor. “Get along; you are a parcel of

mad, crazy headed fellows;” and taking them by the shoulders, he thrust

them to the doors. After this, we find him issuing warrants for the

apprehension of Methodists; sending Thomas Maxfield to be a soldier;

and signing a warrant for the arrest of Wesley himself; yet all this

was not sufficient to prevent Wesley rendering to the Cornish bigot his

due share of literary praise. “I looked over,” writes Wesley, in 1757,

“Dr. Borlase’s Antiquities of Cornwall. He is a fine writer, and quite

master of his subject. He has distinguished, with amazing accuracy, the

ancient Saxon monuments from the more ancient Roman, and from those of

the Druids, the most ancient of all.”[540] The doctor died in 1772.

Dr. Borlase was not alone; for his brother clergymen raged against

the Methodists without measure, and, in their sermons, retailed the

grossest lies concerning them. A poor woman complained to the mayor of

St. Ives of some one throwing a huge stone into her house, which fell

on a pillow within a few inches of her suckling child. His worship

damned her, and said she might go about her business. One of the clergy

told Jonathan Reeves, he wished the Bible were in Latin only, so that

none of the common people could read it.[541] The mob at St. Ives

saluted Wesley with stones and dirt; and pulled down the meeting-house,

“for joy that Admiral Matthews had beat the Spaniards.” It was a

gratifying fact, however, that, notwithstanding the fierceness of the

Cornish persecution, not more than three or four of the Methodists

turned cowardly deserters, while the rest, instead of being shaken,

were confirmed in their principles by the violence of their enemies.

The press was still vigorously employed. An anonymous pamphlet,

entitled “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain

Sect usually designated by the name of Methodists,” 4to, pages 24, was

written by Dr. Gibson, and obtained considerable approval from his

brother bishops.[542] In this prelatical publication, the Methodists

are charged with setting government at defiance, by appointing public

places of religious worship, and by preaching in the open air, without

taking the prescribed oaths, and subscribing the declaration against

Popery. They broke the rules of the church of which they professed

themselves members, by going to other than their own parish churches to

receive the sacrament. Their doctrines and practices were a dis-service

to religion—1. Because they set the standard of religion so high,

that some were led to disregard religion altogether. 2. Because they

carried the doctrine of justification by faith alone to such a height,

as not to allow that the observance of moral duties is a condition of

being justified. 3. Because a due attendance on the public offices of

religion answered the purposes of devotion better than the “sudden

agonies, roarings, screamings, tremblings, ravings, and madness of

the Methodists.” 4. Because their exalted strains of religion led to

spiritual pride, and to contempt of their superiors. In short, the

irregular practices of the Methodists were of the like nature as those

which had so great a share in bringing in the religious confusions of

the last century.

Whitefield replied to this pamphlet in two small quarto tracts, of

fourteen and twenty-four pages respectively. This evoked “A Serious

and Expostulatory Letter,” by the Rev. Thomas Church, M.A., vicar of

Battersea, and prebendary of St. Paul’s;[543] and also another letter,

of fifty pages, “by a Gentleman of Pembroke College, Oxford.” In the

latter production, the Methodists are censured for “suffering their

heated imaginations to mount to such an exalted pitch, that it hurries

them out of their senses, evaporates the religious spirit, and leaves

nothing but sensuality in the heated machine.” Whitefield’s answer

to “Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists” is

politely said to be “stuffed with the coaxing and wheedling of the

_woman_, the daring of the _rebel_, the pertness of the _coxcomb_,

the evasions of the _jesuit_, and the bitterness of the _bigot_.”

It is unblushingly affirmed, that the Methodists “can curse, rail,

and _berogue_ their antagonists, though in Scripture language, so

as hardly to be exceeded by any pope, or _spiritual bully_, that

ever yet appeared in Christendom.” They are a “rag-tag mob,” using

“lascivious and blasphemously languishing expressions when they talk

of the Redeemer’s love.” “They cant and blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and

appeal to starts and sallies of flesh and blood for the inspiration of

the Holy One.” They are “a set of creatures of the lowest rank, most

of them illiterate, and of desperate fortunes; cursing, reviling, and

showing their teeth at every one that does not approve of their frenzy

and extravagance.” Whitefield was “crafty and malicious enough to be

suspected of any wicked enterprise,—a person of wicked principles,

travelling over all counties, to establish newfangled societies”; and

he and his friends were “heads and spiritual directors of hot-brained

cobblers, all big with venom against the clergy of the Established

Church.” The author “trembles and shudders,” lest the Methodists should

be “betrayed, by their feelings and stretchings, into a bed of eternal

fire and brimstone, appointed for the reception of the lewd, the

concupiscent, and the blasphemous.”

These are fair specimens of the foul foamings of this valiant defender

of Church and state.

Another pamphlet, published in 1744, was “A Charge against Enthusiasm,”

delivered, in several parts of his diocese, by the Bishop of Lichfield;

and the object of which was to prove that “the indwelling and inward

witnessing of the Spirit in believers’ hearts, as also praying and

preaching by the Spirit, are all the _extraordinary gifts_ and

operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical and

primitive times, and that, consequently, all pretensions to such

favours in these last days are vain and enthusiastical.”

Another, published at a shilling, was “Remarks on Mr. J. Wesley’s last

Journal, by Thomas Church, A.M.,”[544] the prebendary of St. Paul’s

already mentioned. Mr. Church sums up his charges against Wesley thus:

“It is impossible for you to put an entire stop to the enormities of

the Moravians, while you still (1) too much commend these men; (2) hold

principles in common with them, from which these enormities naturally

follow; and, (3) maintain other errors more than theirs, and are

guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree.” Mr. Church’s “Remarks,”

however, will have to be noticed in the next chapter.

In addition to all this foam and fury against the Methodists, must

be mentioned an equally vile attack of another kind. At the Brecon

assizes, held in the month of August, the grand jury deemed it their

duty to make a presentment to the presiding judge to the following

effect: “that the Methodists held illegal meetings,” and that

their “preachers pretended to expound the Scriptures by virtue of

inspiration”; that, by this means, “they collected together great

numbers of disorderly persons, very much endangering the peace of

our sovereign lord the king; and that, unless their proceedings were

timely suppressed, they might endanger the peace of the kingdom in

general.” At all events, “the pretended preachers, or teachers, at

their irregular meetings, by their enthusiastic doctrines, very much

confounded and disordered the minds of his majesty’s good subjects”;

and this, “in time, might lead to the overthrowing of our good

government, both in Church and state.” Finally, the judge is requested,

if the authority of the present court was not sufficient for the

purpose, to apply to some superior authority, in order to put an end to

the “villainous scheme” of “such dangerous assemblies.”[545]

Thus had Methodism to make its way through the opposition of vulgar

mobs, fiery priests, lampooning pamphleteers, unjust magistrates, and

grand juries. Gamaliel’s advice was set aside: “Refrain from these men,

and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will

come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply

ye be found even to fight against God.”

Wesley’s longest journey, in 1744, was from London to Cornwall, thence

to Newcastle, and thence to London. Nearly three months were spent

upon this evangelistic tour: many hundreds of miles were traversed,

not by rail, or even in stage coaches, but on horseback, over the most

miserable roads, the rider sometimes battered with rain and hail for

hours together, and at others plunging through drifts of snow enough

to engulf both man and beast. About a hundred sermons were preached:

some, at Gwennap and at St. Stithian, to thousands upon thousands of

attentive hearers; some in public houses; some on village greens; and a

few in parish churches.

One of the churches Wesley was permitted to occupy was at Laneast, in

Cornwall, of which Mr. Bennett was the aged clergyman. Another was at

Landau, in Wales. “Such a church,” says Wesley, “I never saw before.

There was not a glass window belonging to it; but only boards, with

holes bored here and there, through which a dim light glimmered. Yet

even here the light of God’s countenance has shone on many hearts.” In

the former of these churches a strange scene was witnessed in the month

of August. Charles Wesley was preaching “against harmless diversions,”

having three clergymen, Messrs. Meriton, Thompson, and Bennett, among

his auditors. “By harmless diversions,” exclaimed the preacher, “I

was kept asleep in the devils arms, secure in a state of damnation,

for eighteen years.” No sooner were the words uttered than Meriton

added aloud, “And I for twenty-five!” “And I,” cried Thompson, “for

thirty-five!” “And I,” said Bennett, the venerable minister of the

church, “and I for above seventy.”

Strange and stirring incidents came across Wesley’s path. In his

father’s church, at Epworth, he heard Mr. Romley preach two of the

bitterest and falsest sermons he ever listened to. On proceeding to

Syke House, some of his friends met him and said a drunken mob was

awaiting his arrival, who would press all the men in the congregation

for soldiers. Others declared, the mob was just about to fire the

meeting-house, or pull it to the ground. Wesley calmly answered,

“Our only way is to make the best use of it while standing;” and,

accordingly, he entered it at once, and expounded the tenth chapter

of Matthew. At Durham, he met John Nelson and Thomas Beard, at that

time with their regiment, and took them to his inn, and said, “Brother

Nelson, lose no time; speak and spare not, for God has work for you to

do in every place where your lot is cast; and when you have fulfilled

His good pleasure, He will burst your bonds asunder, and we shall

rejoice together.”[546] At Chinley, in Derbyshire, lived a poor widow,

of the name of Godhard, with a family of four small children. At her

request, Wesley made Chinley a resting place, and preached. Finding the

widow’s house too small, he stood upon a chair near to a miller’s dam.

The miller, enraged at Wesley and his congregation daring to worship

in such proximity to his premises, let off the water for the purpose

of drowning Wesley’s voice. The effort was a failure; truth triumphed;

Chinley became a Methodist preaching place; and, in order to provide

the preachers when they called with a cup of tea, the poor widow and

her children set apart the whole of every Friday night for winding

bobbins, depositing the earnings, as a sacred treasure, in an old pint

mug, and never touching them except to meet the necessities of Wesley’s

itinerants when paying their gospel visits.[547]

Already Wesley’s lay preachers had become a considerable host. In

different parts of the kingdom there were, at least, forty of these

devoted evangelists.[548] Some of them, as John Brown, of Newcastle,

David Taylor, John Downes, John Nelson, William Shepherd, John

Slocomb, Thomas Westall, Thomas Beard, John Haime, Thomas Richards,

John Bennet, and Thomas Maxfield, have been already mentioned. Besides

these, there were—John Haughton, originally a weaver, who, whilst

the mob, in the city of Cork, were burning Wesley in effigy, threw

up the window and began to preach to the people in the street; and

who, afterwards, obtained episcopal ordination and settled in the

sister country;—Jonathan Reeves, who was with Wesley when he laid the

first stone of the Orphan House at Newcastle, and who, after passing

through a great amount of persecution, became an ordained minister

of the Church of England, preached in London, and died in 1778,

testifying that all his hope was in Christ Jesus;—Enoch Williams,

pious, deeply devoted to his work, faithful and successful, and brought

to an untimely grave in 1744;—Thomas Williams, extremely popular as

a preacher; but haughty, revengeful, headstrong, and unmanageable; a

great favourite among the London young ladies; but a maligner of the

two Wesleys; expelled in 1744, but taken back on declaring, before

many witnesses, that the slanders he had propagated against Wesley

and his brother were grossly false; the man who introduced Methodism

into Ireland in 1747, but who was again expelled from the Methodist

society in 1755; and then, through the Countess of Huntingdon, obtained

episcopal ordination, and for several years acted as a clergyman in the

neighbourhood of High Wycombe;—Thomas Meyrick, a native of Cornwall,

educated for the law, a poet, but expelled from the Methodist connexion

in 1750, after which he became a clergyman of the Established Church,

and died, we fear, a drunkard, at Halifax, in 1770;—John Trembath,

one of Wesley’s most courageous preachers, though somewhat vain and

stubborn; then a farmer and a fibber; and, for a long series of years,

an impoverished vagabond, who died about 1794;—Alexander Coates, a

poor Scotch “laddie,” fond of books, who could speak in Gaelic, read

with fluency in Dutch and Danish, and had some acquaintance with

Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; the honoured instrument in the conversion

of Mr. Crosse, the well known Bradford vicar; one of the best of

men, and a most useful preacher, who died, at Newcastle, in 1765,

in perfect peace;—William Darney, another Scotchman, honest, bold,

impetuous, a rhymer, and painfully eccentric, but who was used by

Providence in converting Grimshaw, and who prided himself upon never

“_dabbing_ people with untempered mortar”;—Nicholas Gilbert, a man

of deep piety, and of great simplicity, possessed of considerable

talents, and pronounced by Wesley “an excellent preacher”;—Samuel

Larwood, who in 1754 became a Dissenting minister in the borough of

Southwark;—James Jones, one of the first fruits of Wesley’s ministry in

Staffordshire, as bold as a lion, and who built, at his own expense,

the first Methodist chapel at Tipton Green;—Joseph Jones, who left

the itinerancy in 1760, became a farmer in the county of Somerset,

and acted as a local preacher to the end of life;—Herbert Jenkins,

who afterwards became one of Whitefield’s preachers, and laboured in

the Tabernacle connexion;—John Maddern, a man of genuine piety, and a

lively, zealous preacher;—Henry Millard, who, after narrowly escaping

a violent death at the hands of a Cornish mob, fell a victim to an

attack of small pox, in 1746;—William Prior, of whom Charles Wesley, in

a manuscript letter now before us, dated 1755, writes: “William Prior

is ordained, without learning, interest, or aught but Providence to

recommend him”;—Robert Swindells, a man of great benevolence, who was

never heard to speak an unkind word of any one, had no enemy, and died

full of days, riches, and honour in 1783;—James Wheatley, of Norwich

notoriety, where he was often dragged by the hair of his head through

the streets of the city, built a large chapel, and became immensely

popular, but who ultimately died, beneath a cloud, in Bristol;—Francis

Walker, a native of Tewkesbury, pious, honest, and upright, his talents

small, but his preaching lively, zealous, and useful, an instrument

of great good to souls wherever he went, and who settled in the city

of Gloucester, where he died in peace. And to all these must be added

William Biggs, Thomas Crouch, John Hall, Thomas Hardwick, Francis

Scott, David Tratham, Thomas Willes, and William Holmes.

Little more remains to be related concerning the year 1744. The

Newcastle society was increasingly earnest, there hardly being a

trifler left. The society at Bristol was not so perfect as it should

have been, many of the members crying out, “Faith, faith! Believe,

believe!” but making little account of the fruits of faith, either of

holiness or good works. The London society was poor, but generous. At

a single collection, in the month of February, they contributed nearly

fifty pounds to relieve the destitute around them, and which Wesley at

once laid out in buying clothes for those whom he knew to be diligent

and yet in want. A month later, they made a second collection of

about thirty pounds. A month later still, a third collection of about

six-and-twenty pounds; and to these three collections were added ninety

pounds more in the shape of private subscriptions; making altogether

£196 raised by the poor London Methodists, and employed in providing

clothing for three hundred and sixty persons.

Already some of Wesley’s people began to profess Christian perfection;

but he was extremely cautious in receiving their testimony. At the end

of the year, he writes:—

“I was with two persons who believe they are saved from all

sin. Be it so, or not, why should we not rejoice in the work

of God, so far as it is unquestionably wrought in them? For

instance, I ask John C——, ‘Do you always pray? Do you rejoice

in God every moment? Do you in everything give thanks? In loss?

In pain? In sickness, weariness, disappointments? Do you desire

nothing? Do you fear nothing? Do you feel the love of God

continually in your heart? Have you a witness in whatever you

speak or do, that it is pleasing to God?’ If he can solemnly

and deliberately answer in the affirmative, why do I not

rejoice and praise God on his behalf? Perhaps, because I have

an exceeding complex idea of sanctification, or a sanctified

man. And so, for fear he should not have attained all I include

in that idea, I cannot rejoice in what he has attained.”

This is significant language. Wesley preached the doctrine; but he was

slow to believe those who professed to experience it; and it is a fact

more remarkable, that, so far as there is evidence to show, Wesley

never, to the day of his death, professed as much as this himself.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of his followers did; perhaps he himself

was restrained from doing so, by a dislike to high profession, or by a

conscientious fear, that he hardly reached the standard above set up.

The thing occasioned him great anxiety. A short time before his death,

he wrote as follows:—

“Four or five and forty years ago, I had no distinct views of

what the apostle meant by exhorting us to ‘leave the principles

of the doctrine of Christ, and go on to perfection;’ but two

or three persons in London, whom I knew to be truly sincere,

desired to give me an account of their experience. It appeared

exceeding strange, being different from any that I had heard

before. The next year, two or three more persons at Bristol,

and two or three at Kingswood, coming to me severally, gave

me exactly the same account of their experience. A few years

after, I desired all those in London who made the same

profession, to come to me all together at the Foundery, that

I might be thoroughly satisfied. I desired that man of God,

Thomas Walsh, to give us the meeting there. When we met, first

one of us, and then another, asked them the most searching

questions we could devise. They answered every one without

hesitation, and with the utmost simplicity, so that we were

fully persuaded, they did not deceive themselves. In the years

1759 to 1762 their numbers multiplied exceedingly, not only in

London and Bristol, but in various parts of Ireland as well as

England. Not trusting to the testimony of others, I carefully

examined most of these myself; and, in London alone, I found

652 members of our society who were exceeding clear in their

experience, and of whose testimony I could see no reason to

doubt. I believe no year has passed since that time, wherein

God has not wrought the same work in many others; and every one

of these (without a single exception) has declared, that his

deliverance from sin was _instantaneous_; that the change was

wrought in a moment. Had half of these, or one third, or one

in twenty, declared it was _gradually_ wrought in _them_, I

should have believed this, with regard to _them_, and thought

that _some_ were gradually sanctified and some instantaneously.

But as I have not found, in so long a space of time, a single

person speaking thus, I cannot but believe, that sanctification

is commonly, if not always, an _instantaneous_ work.”[549]

This is a subject of vast importance, and will often recur in future

pages. Meanwhile, all will give Wesley credit for the utmost sincerity,

though some may doubt whether human experience is, in itself,

sufficient to settle and decide Christian doctrine.

Wesley’s pen was, if possible, more busily employed than ever; not so

much in composing original productions, as in abridging and revising

the works of others. During the year 1744, he published the following:—

1. The sermon preached before the Oxford university on August 24.

2. An Extract from his Journal, from November 1, 1739, to September

3, 1741. With prefatory Letter to the Moravian Church, dated June 24,

1744; and two hymns annexed, on “The Means of Grace,” and “The Bloody

Issue,” both having reference to the Moravian controversy.

3. The Rules of the Band Societies. These, as we have already seen,

were read at the conference held in June. During the year, they were

published in the form following:—“The Nature, Design, and General Rules

of the United Societies, in London, Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle

upon Tyne. The fourth edition. To which are subjoined the Rules of

the Band Societies. London: printed by William Strahan. 1744.” 12mo,

twelve pages. The _Rules_ of the band societies were the same as those

which Wesley had drawn up for the Moravian bands, in 1738. The band

society members were composed, as previously stated, of persons who

professed to have obtained the forgiveness of sins. They were middle

class Methodists; that is, in a more advanced state than the members of

the “United Societies,” but not so advanced as the “Select Societies.”

The questions to be proposed to every one before he was admitted were

to the following effect:—1. Have you forgiveness of sins? 2. Peace with

God? 3. The witness of the Spirit? 4. Is the love of God shed abroad

in your heart? 5. Has no sin dominion over you? 6. Do you desire to be

told of your faults? 7. Do you desire we should tell you whatsoever we

think, fear, or hear concerning you? 8. Is it your desire and design,

on this and all other occasions, to speak everything that is in your

heart, without exception, without disguise, and without reserve?

The propriety of such questions will be doubted, and especially of

other five which had to be proposed at every meeting, and which have

been given in a previous chapter. (See page 210.) It would have been

no loss to Methodism or to the religious world, if these queries,

first drawn up by Wesley on Christmas day, 1738, had been allowed to

slumber in the shades of Moravian oblivion. At present, they are never

used; and though, in the first instance, they might be adapted to the

Moravian brotherhood, they are far too inquisitorial for Methodists.

The bands had to meet once a week; and were bound to observe the

following “Directions”:—

I. To abstain from evil, especially buying or selling on the sabbath;

tasting spirituous liquors; pawning; backbiting; wearing needless

ornaments, as rings, earrings, necklaces, lace, and ruffles; and taking

snuff or tobacco.

II. To maintain good works,—especially almsgiving; reproving sin;

together with diligence, frugality, and self denial.

III. To use all the ordinances of God; especially service at church,

and sacrament once a week; likewise every public meeting of the bands;

the ministry of the word every morning; private prayer every day;

reading the Scriptures at every vacant hour; and observing all Fridays

in the year as days of fasting or abstinence.

4. Another of Wesley’s publications, in 1744, was “Modern Christianity

exemplified at Wednesbury, and other adjacent places in Staffordshire.”

12mo, twenty-eight pages. The substance of this pamphlet has been

already given in the account of the Staffordshire riots; but the prayer

at the end of it is too remarkable to be passed without notice. The

following is an extract:—

“Lo, I come, if this soul and body may be useful to anything,

to do Thy will, O God. If it please Thee to use the power

Thou hast over dust and ashes, here they are to suffer Thy

good pleasure. If Thou pleasest to visit me either with pain

or dishonour, I will humble myself under it, and, through Thy

grace, be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Hereafter no man can take away anything from me, no life, no

honour, no estate; since I am ready to lay them down, as soon

as I perceive Thou requirest them at my hands. Nevertheless,

O Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from me; but if

not, Thy will be done.”

What was the spirit of the ancient martyrs if this was not?

5. A fifth publication, “Hymns for Times of Trouble and Persecution”

(12mo, forty-seven pages), was issued in the names of “John and Charles

Wesley” unitedly. It contains thirteen hymns for times of trouble;

sixteen for times of persecution; and four to be sung in a tumult.

The remainder of Wesley’s publications, during the present year, were

collections or abridgments of the works of other authors, namely:—

1. “A Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems from the most celebrated

English authors.” Three volumes, 1024 pages, in 12mo. The work is

dedicated to “the right honourable the Countess of Huntingdon.” Wesley

truly observes, that there is nothing in the collection “contrary to

virtue; nothing that can in any way offend the chastest ear, or give

pain to the tenderest heart. Whatever is really essential to the most

sublime divinity, as well as the purest and most refined morality,

will be found therein. The most just and important sentiments are here

represented with all the ornaments both of wit and language, and in the

clearest, fullest, strongest light.”

“There is,” writes Mr. Marriott,[550] “a circumstance little known

regarding this ‘Collection.’ A few months after the publication

of these volumes, Dodsley (the publisher) called upon Wesley for

reparation of a piracy, which the latter had unwittingly committed, and

for which he agreed to pay him £50.” This was done on February 8, 1745,

by payment of a £20 bank note, and a cheque for £30, payable in three

months.

2. “A Brief Account of the occasion, process, and issue of a late

Trial at the Assize held at Gloucester, 3rd March, 1743. Between some

of the people called Methodists, Plaintiffs, and certain Persons of

Minchinhampton, in the said county, Defendants. Extracted from Mr.

Whitefield’s Letter. By John Wesley.” Twelve pages, 12mo.

This was a sort of companion tract to “Modern Christianity at

Wednesbury.” Appended is “a prayer for his majesty King George,” in ten

verses of four lines each, which, in a somewhat altered form, is now

the 465th hymn in the Methodist Hymn-Book.

3. “A Collection of Prayers for Families.” 12mo, 24 pages.

Wesley considered family religion as indispensable to the preservation

and extension of the work of God. Some of the first Methodists

neglected it; and, as a consequence, their children shook off all

religion and abandoned themselves to wickedness.[551] “Family

religion,” said Wesley, twenty years after this, “is the grand

desideratum among the Methodists.”[552]

To promote this, Wesley published his “Prayers for Families,” in 1744.

The prayers are only fourteen in number; that is, a prayer for every

morning and every evening during a single week; but anything more

devout, scriptural, appropriate, and religiously rich it would be

difficult to conceive.

4. “The Case of John Nelson, written by himself. Published by John

Wesley.” 12mo, 36 pages.

5. “An Extract of Count Zinzendorf’s Discourses on the Redemption of

Man by the Death of Christ.” 12mo, 78 pages.

These loosely worded “Discourses,” sixteen in number, were first

published in 1740, in 12mo, two hundred and two pages. They were

all founded upon Luther’s explanation of the second article of the

Apostles’ creed; “I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord.”

6. “A Serious Call to a Holy Life. Extracted from a late author.”

12mo, 230 pages. This was an abridgment of the well known work of

William Law, and was printed by John Gooding, of Newcastle upon Tyne.

It consists of nineteen chapters, dwelling on Christian devotion;

the duties of all orders and ranks of men and women, of all ages, to

practise it; the happiness arising from doing so; and recommendations

in reference to it.

It is impossible to give the reader, by any brief description here, an

adequate idea of this powerful and pungent book. He must read it for

himself. When will the young people of the present day, imbibing the

froth of sensational writing, learn that books, like wine, are none the

worse for being old?

7. “The Life of God in the Soul of Man; or, the Nature and Excellency

of the Christian Religion.” 12mo, forty-eight pages.

This was an extract from an excellent treatise, written by the Rev.

Henry Scougal, a Scottish minister, who died at the early age of

twenty-eight, in the year 1678. The book breathes the sublimest piety;

and, in style, is pure and elegant.

8. “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. Extracted

from Mr. Edwards, minister of Northampton, in New England.” 12mo, 48

pages.

By publishing this calm, pointed, argumentative treatise, Wesley made

its sentiments his own; and, from it, the reader may easily infer what

were Wesley’s opinions respecting the religious revival with which he

and his contemporaries were connected. (See page 218.) The following is

a synopsis of the answers to objections.

It is no sign, that a work is not Divine, because it is carried on

in a way unusual and extraordinary. The Spirit is sovereign in His

operations. We ought not to limit God where He has not limited Himself.

Neither is a work to be judged by any effects on the bodies of men;

such as tears, trembling, groans, loud outcries, agonies, or faintings;

for there is reason to believe, that great outpourings of the Spirit,

both in the prophetic and apostolic ages, were not wholly without

these extraordinary effects. The same is true respecting religious

commotion among the people, for this is the natural result of such

a work. Further, though many of the converts may be guilty of great

imprudences and irregularities, neither is this a sign that the work

is not the work of God; for, in a mixed multitude of wise and unwise,

young and old, all under powerful impressions, no wonder that some

should behave themselves imprudently. It was thus in the apostolic

churches, and this is not unlikely to continue while weakness is one

of the elements of human nature. There may be errors in judgment, and

some delusions of Satan intermixed with the revival; but that is not

conclusive evidence, that the work in general is not the work of the

Holy Ghost. Some may fall away into scandalous practices; but, if we

look into church history, we shall find no instance of a great revival

of religion but what has been attended with such relapses. The work

may have been promoted by ministers strongly preaching the terrors of

the law; but what of that? If there really be a hell of dreadful and

never ending torments, ought not those exposed to it to be earnestly

warned of their fearful danger? For ministers to preach of hell, and

warn sinners to avoid it in a cold, careless, hesitating manner, is to

contradict themselves, and to defeat their own purposes. The manner in

which the thing is said is, in such a case, more effectual than the

words employed. It may be unreasonable to think of frightening a man to

heaven; but it is not unreasonable to endeavour to frighten him away

from hell.

Such, in substance, were the sentiments to which Wesley affixed his

_imprimatur_ in 1744,—sentiments still worth pondering, because always

true.

Great revivals may be, often are, and perhaps must be, attended with

circumstances which enlightened and sober minded Christians dislike;

but rather than be without revivals, where is the man who loves Christ

and the souls of sinners, who would not gladly crucify his own dislikes?

Twelve months after this, in the year 1745, Wesley, appealing to men

of reason and religion, who were in doubt, whether the revival then

vouchsafed was the work of God, observed:—“You have all the proof

of this you can reasonably expect or desire. That, in many places,

abundance of notorious sinners are totally reformed, is declared

by a thousand eye and ear witnesses both of their present and past

behaviour. What would you have more? What pretence can you have for

doubting any longer? Do you delay fixing your judgment till you see a

work of God, without any stumbling block attending it? That never was

yet, nor ever will. ‘It must needs be that offences will come.’ And

scarce ever was there such a work of God before, with so few as have

attended this.”[553]

1745.

[Sidenote: 1745 Age 42]

Whitefield, during the whole of the year 1745, was in America. Charles

Wesley spent about thirty-eight weeks in London; and about fourteen in

Bristol, Wales, and the west of England. Wesley himself was nearly five

months in London and its vicinity; about a month in Bristol and the

neighbourhood; two months were spent in a tour to Cornwall; and four

months in two journeys to Newcastle and the north of England.

Persecution somewhat abated, especially in the form of printed attacks

and scandals; not because Methodism was less hated, but because the

attention of the country was turned to the dangers arising from the

invasion of the popish Pretender.

In Cornwall, however, Thomas Maxfield was seized for a soldier, and

was put into the dungeon at Penzance. Edward Greenfield, of St. Just,

a tanner, with a wife and seven children, was arrested under a warrant

signed by Dr. Borlase. Wesley asked what objection there was to this

peaceable and inoffensive man. The answer was, “The man is well enough

in other things; but the gentlemen cannot bear his impudence. Why,

sir, he says he knows his sins are forgiven.” This Cornish persecution

was principally promoted by men like Borlase and Eustick. The latter

came with a warrant for Wesley’s arrest; but sneaked away from its

execution, like a blustering poltroon. While Wesley was preaching at

Gwennap, two men, raging like maniacs, rode into the midst of the

congregation, and began to lay hold upon the people. In the midst of

the disturbance, Wesley and his friends commenced singing; when Mr. B.

lost his patience, and bawled to his attendants, “Seize him, seize him.

I say, seize the preacher for his majesty’s service.” The attendants

not moving, he cursed them with the greatest bitterness, leaped off his

horse, caught hold of Wesley’s cassock, crying, “I take you to serve

his majesty.” Wesley walked with him for three quarters of a mile,

when the courage of the bumptious bravo failed him, and he was glad

to let the poor parson go. The day after this ignoble capture, Wesley

was at Falmouth, where the rabble surrounded the house in which he was

lodging, and roared, “Bring out the Canorum! Where is the Canorum?” (an

unmeaning word which the Cornish generally used instead of Methodist.)

They then forced open the outer door, and setting their shoulders to

the inner one, cried out, “Avast, lads, avast!” Away went all the

hinges; Wesley stepped into the midst of the privateering mob, and

asked one after another, “To which of you have I done any wrong? To

you? Or you? Or you?” All seemed speechless, until, thus questioning

his furious assailants, Wesley found himself in the open street, where

he cried to the assembled crowd, “Neighbours, countrymen! Do you desire

to hear me speak?” “Yes, yes,” they answered vehemently; “he shall

speak, he shall; no one shall hinder him!” Meanwhile, Mr. Thomas, the

clergyman, and some other gentlemen came up; Wesley was rescued; his

horse was sent before him to Penryn; he was despatched by water; and

an item of nine shillings and some odd pence appeared in the parochial

accounts “for driving the Methodists out of the parish.”[554]

Wesley’s troubles, however, were not ended. His enemies ran along the

shore to receive him at his landing. Wesley there confronted them, and,

speaking to their leader, said, “I wish you a good night;” to which

the wretch replied, “I wish you were in hell,” and then turned away

with his companions. Wesley mounted his horse, and hurried forward to

Tolcarn, where he had to preach the same evening. On the way, five

well dressed horsemen were awaiting him, with a special warrant, from

the Helstone magistrates, for his arrest. He rode into the midst of

them, and announced who he was. A friendly clergyman, Mr. Collins, of

Redruth, accidentally came by, and told the gentlemen that he had known

Wesley at the Oxford university. Conversation followed, and Wesley was

allowed to proceed upon his journey; one of those who had come out for

his arrest telling him, that the reason of all this annoyance was,

that all the gentlemen round about affirmed, that, for a long time, he

had been in France and Spain; was now sent to England by the Pretender,

and was raising societies to join him at his coming.

In the midst of all this, Wesley courageously rode to and fro,

preaching from, “Love your enemies;” “Watch and pray;” and, “All that

will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” At Tolcarn,

while he was preaching, the mob assembled, and suddenly pushed him

from the high wall on which he was standing. At Trevonan, just after

he had begun his sermon, the constable and others came, and read the

proclamation against riots. At Stithians, the churchwardens seized one

of his hearers, and pressed him for a soldier.

Whilst these outrages were being perpetrated in Cornwall, Richard Moss

was arrested at Epworth for preaching; but was delivered through the

interference of Mr. Maw, in whose house he prayed and sang hymns till

midnight; and then left for Robert Taylor’s, at Burnham, where he and

the Epworth Methodists continued praying and praising God, till about

four o’clock in the morning. At Betley, near Nantwich, a gentleman

threatened to hire a mob to pull down the Methodist meeting-house,

and to send all the Methodists for soldiers. At Bristol, a Methodist

backslider declared he would “make affidavit that he had seen Wesley

administer extreme unction to a woman, and give her a wafer, and say

that was her passport to heaven.”[555] At Woodley, in Cheshire, John

Bennet and three other Methodists were pressed for soldiers, most of

the press gang being Dissenters. The reverend Mr. Henry Wickham, one

of the magistrates for the west riding of Yorkshire, issued a warrant

to the constable of Keighley, “to convey the body of Jonathan Reeves

to his majesty’s gaol and castle of York;” the only crime of which

Jonathan was guilty being that of calling sinners to repentance;

though the reverend magistrate chose to describe him as “a spy among

us, and a dangerous man to the person and government of his majesty

King George.”[556] In Exeter, says _The London Evening Post_, for May

16, 1745, the Methodists had a meeting-house behind the Guildhall;

and, on May 6, the mob gathered at the door, and pelted those who

entered with potatoes, mud, and dung. On coming out, the congregation

were all beaten, without exception; many were trampled under foot;

many fled without their hats and wigs; and some without coats, or

with half of them torn to tatters. Some of the women were lamed, and

others stripped naked, and rolled most indecently in the kennel,

their faces being besmeared with lampblack, flour, and dirt. This

disgraceful mob consisted of some thousands of cowardly blackguards,

and the disturbance was continued till midnight. The same newspaper, in

its number issued on May 25, relates, with a sneer, that a Methodist

vagrant had been apprehended at Frome; that he was a person of “very

ill fame,” and was committed to prison; but another of the same sect,

“a Scotchman, a travelling apostle,” had succeeded him, and was meeting

with surprising success. He had already wrought several miracles, one

of which was making a deaf old woman hear angels playing on celestial

harps in the upper regions; and another was that of converting his

own oatmeal into cake, and transforming his water into wine. He also

cured distempers of the body as well as of the mind; though he often

killed the one with his drugs, to save the other with his doctrine. The

_Westminster Journal_ for June 8, 1745, narrates that a noted Methodist

preacher, named Tolly, had been pressed for a soldier in Staffordshire,

and had appeared before the magistrates, attended by many of his

“deluded followers of both sexes, who pretended he was a learned and

holy man; and yet, it appeared that he was only a journeyman joiner,

and had done great mischief among the colliers.” The poor luckless

joiner was, therefore, coupled to a sturdy tinker, and sent off to

Stafford jail. He had already been pressed once before, and the

Methodists had subscribed £40 to obtain his freedom, and were intending

to repeat the kindness; but the impeccable editor of the _Westminster

Journal_ hopes that the magistrates will be proof against golden

bribes; for “such wretches” as Tolly “are incendiaries in a nation,”

and greatly to be dreaded.

These were the chief acts of violence committed against the Methodists

in 1745. As already stated, the press was still employed, though it

was not so bitter as it had been previously. Newspapers and magazines

found that news about the Pretender’s invasion was more taking with the

public than elaborated diatribes against Wesley and his friends. During

the year, however, there was published, by a clergyman unknown to fame,

an octavo pamphlet of eighty pages, with the title:—“An Apology for

the Clergy, in a Letter to a Gentleman of Fortune and great Reading,

lately turned Methodist and Hermit; wherein is shown the weakness of

those Objections, which Separatists in general pretend first induced

them to leave the Established Church, and to look out for better guides

somewhere else. By J. Maud, M.A., vicar of St. Neots, in the county of

Huntingdon.” Mr. Maud alleges, that there is a powerful confederacy

against the Church,—“a mixed multitude of Socinians, Presbyterians,

Independents, Quakers, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Meer Moralists,

Jesuits, Free Thinkers, and Methodists, and an infinite tribe of

nameless sects, all hallooed on by the vicar of Jesus Christ and his

creatures, to tear Christians to pieces, and to make sport for infidels

and atheists.” The pamphlet is a spirited defence of the clergy, whom

the “Methodist and Hermit” had libelled, and an attempt to show, that

it was no trivial matter to be a faultless minister of Christ in an age

when it was considered “a rude affront to any polite audience to tell

men of their faults, or so much as to mention these harsh and dreadful

sounding words, hell, damnation, devil, without a canting paraphrase,

or a formal apology.”

A second pamphlet, published in 1745, was, “The Question, Whether it be

right to turn Methodist, considered in a Dialogue between two members

of the Church of England.” 8vo, 79 pages. The Methodists are branded as

“unskilful teachers, doing great mischief to the peace of the Church,

and to the souls of poor, ignorant people; by raising vain janglings

about regeneration; by resolving all religion into instantaneous faith,

and faith itself into impulses and mere animal sensations; by setting

aside all necessity for repentance; and by casting off _all_ works,

as unnecessary to salvation.” The pamphlet is ably written; but is

extremely false.

Another attack on Methodism was one published in the _Craftsman_, of

June 22, and copied in the _London Magazine_ and other periodicals of

the period. It was, in fact, an onslaught upon the government of the

day, entitled “Ministerial Methodism, or Methodists in Politics;” but,

in castigating ministers of state, it grossly calumniates ministers

of Christ. The Methodists are an “unaccountable strange sect, whose

religion is founded on madness and folly.” They “hold, that there is no

justification by good works, but by faith and grace only; and hereby

banish that Divine part of our constitution, reason; and cut off the

most essential recommendation to heaven, virtue.” By this “depraved

doctrine” of “weak and, perhaps, designing teachers, misguided souls

are dangerously led astray.” The “men are far gone in their mad

principles of religion, suspend the hand of industry, become inactive,

and leave all to Providence, without exercising either their heads or

hands.”

The article, though neatly written, was supremely silly: Wesley, at

the urgent request of his friends, answered it;[557] but the thing was

far more contemptible than some other attacks which had been allowed;

properly enough, to pass unnoticed.

Another anti-Methodist publication, issued in 1745, was entitled, “An

Earnest and Affectionate Address to the People called Methodists.”

12mo, 47 pages. This was published by the Society for Promoting

Christian Knowledge, and was distributed gratuitously.[558] Its author,

an old antagonist, was the Rev. Dr. Stebbing.[559] Two editions

were exhausted in 1745, and a third sent out in 1746. It allows the

Methodists to be honest and well meaning; but they are “greatly imposed

upon,” and “ignorantly serve the designs of enthusiasm, and give

credit to the most extravagant and groundless pretences.” The writer

proceeds, with considerable ability, to examine the Methodist doctrines

of regeneration, justification by faith alone, and the operations of

the Holy Spirit; and concludes by saying that, though the Methodist

teachers at first were only distinguished by “a peculiar strictness

and regularity, and a decent observance of the rules of the Church,

it was not long that they kept within these bounds. Being admired

and followed, they became vain and conceited, and proceeded to open

censures and contempt of their brethren. They grew loud and furious in

their accusations and railings. They made most presumptuous pretences

to Divine communications and directions;” and, when “their errors

were pointed out, by some of the highest and most considerable of the

clergy, with all possible meekness and temper, their answers were saucy

and petulant. Fresh bitterness arose; more arrogant boasting; and more

uncharitable revilings. They seized a pulpit or two without leave; and,

in defiance of the law, exercised their ministry in fields and commons,

and other unlicensed places. They set aside and altered the liturgy at

their pleasure, and made use of extempore effusions of their own in the

public worship of God.”

Such were some of the allegations brought against Wesley and his

friends at the instance of the Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge.

Another pamphlet, published in the same year, was “A Serious Address

to Lay-Methodists to beware of the false pretences of their Teachers.

With an Appendix containing an account of the fatal and bloody effects

of enthusiasm, in the case of the family of the Dutartres in South

Carolina, which was attended with the murder of two persons, and the

execution of four for those murders. By a Sincere Protestant.” 8vo, 29

pages.

This was a frothy composition, asserting that “the Methodist preachers

are wandering lights, gadding about with canting assurances, and

leading people into bogs of delusion.” Its author was Dr. Zachary

Grey, already mentioned (page 325) as the author of “The Quakers and

Methodists compared.”[560]

Besides all these attacks, Wesley had to endure much Moravian

annoyance. At the commencement of the year, desiring to see once more

his old friend Gambold, he called at James Hutton’s, and there met

Mr. Simpson, “extremely gay, easy, and unconcerned;” “a new creature

indeed! but not in the gospel sense.” Mr. Simpson, unhappily, was

a specimen of others. The Moravians meant well; but they held and

preached the grand old doctrine of salvation by _faith only_, so

unguardedly that, as a matter of course, the rank weed of antinomianism

sprung out of the soil of Christian truth. Antinomianism, according

to Wesley, was now a torrent; not only in London but out of it. At

Bristol, Wesley writes, “the Antinomians had taken true pains to

seduce those who were showing their faith by their works; but they

reaped little fruit of their bad labour; for, upon the most diligent

inquiry, I could not find that seven persons out of seven hundred

had been turned out of the old Bible way.” Whitefield, writing from

America, remarks: “Antinomianism, I find, begins to show its head,

and stalk abroad. May the glorious Redeemer cause it to hide its head

again; and prevent His children’s spirits being embittered against

each other.”[561] In August, James Hutton, by order of Zinzendorf,

published, in the _Daily Advertiser_, an advertisement, declaring that

the Moravians had no connection with the two Wesleys; and subjoining

one of the count’s prophecies, that Wesley and his brother would “soon

run their heads against the wall.” To this Wesley simply said: “We

will not, if we can help it.” Dissensions also had sprung up among the

Unitas Fratrum themselves. Richard Viney had denounced Zinzendorf’s

“more than papal domination;” and large numbers of the Yorkshire

Moravians had sympathised with him. Zinzendorf was furious, and, in

February 1744, wrote from Germany as follows:—

“I hereby declare, that I will have nothing more to do with

those English Brethren, who have been mixed up in Viney’s

rebellion. I disapprove of the absolution that is given to

such Corah spirits. I laugh at the English national self

righteousness in matters relating to our salvation. I desire

to be erased from the list of English labourers, and not to be

named among them, until all accomplices in the late revolt make

an acknowledgment in writing of their having been deceived by

Satan.

“The well-known little fool and poor sinner,

“LUDWIG.”[562]

This was pitiful tomfoolery; the raging of a lilliputian and

disappointed pope.

During the year, a 12mo pamphlet, of forty-one pages, was published,

with the title, “Extracts of Letters relating to Methodists and

Moravians. By a Layman;” in which the Moravians are censured—1. For

laying aside the use of their intellectual faculties in _religious

matters_. 2. For refusing to take oaths before a magistrate. 3. For

declining to take up arms in defence of their country, at the command

of the civil power. And, 4. For their praying to and praising so

constantly the Son of God, and so very seldom the Father. This was

supposed to be written by Sir John Thorold; but as it makes no attack

upon Wesley and his immediate followers it need not be farther noticed.

Another, and more important publication, was the following:—“Remarks on

the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s last Journal, wherein he gives an account

of the tenets and proceedings of the Moravians, especially those in

England, and of the divisions and perplexities of the Methodists:

showing, by the concessions of Mr. Wesley himself, the many errors

relating to faith and practice, which have already arisen among these

deluded people; and, in a particular manner, explaining the very fatal

tendency of denying good works to be conditions of our justification.

In a letter to that gentleman. By Thomas Church, A.M., vicar of

Battersea, and prebendary of St. Paul’s.” 8vo, 76 pages.

The pamphlet is calmly and ably written, and thus concludes: “The

consequences of Methodism, which have hitherto appeared, are bad enough

to induce you to leave it. It has introduced many disorders—Enthusiasm,

Antinomianism, Calvinism, a neglect and contempt of God’s ordinances

and almost all other duties, a great increase of our sects and

divisions, and, in fine, presumption and despair in greater abundance

than they were known before.”

The letter is dated, November 3, 1744, and has the following

postscript:—“If you think proper to return any answer, I hope you will

attentively consider the points objected to you, and not put me off

with such a slight, superficial, declamatory thing as Mr. Whitefield,

without any regard to his own character or the importance of the

subject, published last year under the title of an answer to my letter

to him; in which he did not vouchsafe to consider any one argument I

had urged against him, and which no serious man could think deserved

any notice.”

The “Remarks” deserved an answer. Wesley acknowledged, in after years,

that Church “wrote as a gentleman.”[563] “Mr. Church,” said he, in

1777, “was another kind of opponent than Mr. Rowland Hill; a gentleman,

a scholar, and a Christian; and as such he both spoke and wrote.”[564]

Accordingly, first of all, Mr. Webb published a letter in vindication

of Wesley’s Journal, in reply to Mr. Church;[565] and then Wesley

himself issued a 12mo pamphlet of forty-six pages, entitled, “An Answer

to the Rev. Mr. Church’s Remarks on the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s last

Journal.”

Wesley thus begins:—“Reverend sir,—My first desire and prayer to God

is, that I may live peaceably with all men: my next, that if I must

dispute at all, it may be with a man of understanding. Thus far, I

rejoice on the present occasion. I rejoice also, that I have confidence

of your sincerity, of your real desire to promote the glory of God, by

peace and goodwill among men. I am likewise thankful to God for your

calm manner of writing (a few paragraphs excepted); and yet more for

this,—that such an opponent should, by writing in such a manner, give

me an opportunity of explaining myself on those very heads whereon I

wanted an occasion so to do.”

He then proceeds to say, that he wholly disapproved of the doctrines,

“that there are no degrees in faith; that, in order to attain faith, we

must abstain from all the ordinances of God; that a believer does not

grow in holiness; and that he is not obliged to keep the commandments

of God;” but, at the same time, he remarks, that he had already

cleared the _Moravian church_ from the charge of holding the first of

these doctrines; that, with respect to the ordinances of God, their

practice was better than their principle; and that he never knew a

Moravian, except Molther, who affirmed that a believer does not grow in

holiness. “Still,” he adds, “I am afraid their whole church is tainted

with quietism, universal salvation, and antinomian opinions.” “As a

church, they exalted themselves above measure, and despised others.

He had scarce heard one Moravian brother own his church to be wrong

in anything. Many of them he had heard speak of it, as if it were

infallible; and some of them had set it up as the judge of all the

earth, of all persons as well as doctrines. Some had said, there was no

true church but theirs, and that there were no true Christians out of

it. These were exceeding great mistakes; yet in as great mistakes holy

men had both lived and died;—Thomas à Kempis, for instance, and Francis

Sales.” He condemns them for “despising and decrying self denial; for

their extending Christian liberty beyond all warrant of holy writ; for

their want of zeal for good works; and, above all, for their using

guile;” but he wishes not to condemn all for the sake of some, and

expresses the belief that, next to some thousands in the Church of

England, that is mainly the Methodists, the Moravians, with whom he had

formed acquaintance, were, upon the whole, the best Christians in the

world. They had much evil among them, but more good. They were the most

self inconsistent people now existing; and yet he could not help but

speak of them with tender affection, were it only for the benefits he

had received from them; and, if the stumbling blocks above mentioned

were put away, he should desire union with them above all things under

heaven.

After this, Wesley gives his latest thoughts upon justification by

faith alone, as published in his “Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and

Religion,” which will be noticed hereafter.

In reply to Church’s assertion, that Wesley was guilty of enthusiasm to

the highest degree, Wesley remarks, that he is no more like Church’s

picture of an enthusiast than he is like a centaur. He made the word

of God the rule of all his actions, and no more followed any secret

impulse instead thereof, than he followed Mahommed or Confucius. He

rested not on ecstasies at all, for he never felt them; but judged of

his spiritual estate by the improvement of his heart and the tenour

of his life conjointly. He desired neither his dreams nor his waking

thoughts to be at all regarded, unless just so far as they agreed with

the oracles of God.

Before leaving the Moravians, reference must be made to another

pamphlet, issued in 1745. “A Short View of the Difference between the

Moravian Brethren lately in England and the Rev. Mr. John and Charles

Wesley. Extracted chiefly from a late Journal. London: printed by W.

Strahan. Sold at the Foundery, etc. 1745.” 12mo, 24 pages. The pamphlet

is dated, May 20, 1745, and is signed by both the Wesleys. Appended

are six hymns bearing on the subject. The differences are contained

in ten propositions; but having been referred to so frequently in the

preceding pages, it is scarcely necessary to repeat them here. Suffice

it to say, that the publication of these “Differences” was probably

owing to the publication of Church’s remarks on Wesley’s Journal; and,

that it was one, if not the main, reason of Zinzendorf and Hutton

publishing, in the _Daily Advertiser_, that the Moravians had now no

connection with the Wesleys. Wesley, in his pamphlet, uses language

more than ordinarily strong. He pronounces several of the Moravian

dogmas “utterly false.” He declares, that Zinzendorf’s definition

of faith, namely, the historical knowledge that Christ has been a

man and suffered death for us, “is a proposition directly subversive

of the whole of the Christian revelation;” and that his doctrine,

that “a believer is not holy _in himself_, but in Christ only,” is

“a palpable self contradiction, and senseless jargon.” Zinzendorf’s

temper was touchy, and it is not surprising, that he resented Wesley’s

plain speaking, and commanded Hutton to publish the advertisement just

mentioned.

The controversy still continued; and, during 1745, two other tracts

were published by Wesley. (1) “A Dialogue between an Antinomian and his

friend.” 12mo, 12 pages. (2) “A Second Dialogue between an Antinomian

and his friend.” 12mo, 12 pages.

In both these tracts, the monstrousness of the Moravian and other

errors is mercilessly exposed and censured. “All that is really

uncommon in your doctrine,” says Wesley to his antinomian friend, “is

a heap of broad absurdities, in most of which you grossly contradict

yourselves, as well as Scripture and common sense. In the meantime, you

boast and vapour, as if _ye were the men, and wisdom should die with

you_. I pray God to humble you, and prove you, and show you what is in

your heart!”

This was partly written in answer to a Dialogue that had been

published by William Cudworth, who was, for some years, a follower of

Whitefield, and then became minister of an Independent congregation,

in Margaret Street, London, and died in 1763.[566] The biographer of

the Countess of Huntingdon states, that Cudworth “died in the comforts

of the doctrines of grace, leaving behind him a character for eminent

holiness and integrity.”[567] Wesley’s description of the man is widely

different; but, if Wesley ever felt the least bitterness towards any

of his opponents, it was towards Cudworth. He describes him as an

Antinomian; an absolute, avowed enemy to the law of God, which he never

preached, or professed to preach, but termed all legalists who did.

With him, preaching the law was an abomination. He would preach Christ,

as he called it, but without one word either of holiness or good

works.[568]

Mr. Cudworth will again cross our path. Suffice it to say here, that,

between him and Wesley, no love was lost. Affection for him was at

zero; and he abhorred Wesley “as much as he did the pope, and ten times

more than he did the devil.”[569]

As already stated, Wesley made, during 1745, two journeys to Newcastle

and the north of England.

The first of these was commenced on the 18th of February, and lasted

to the 11th of May. Richard Moss was his companion, and not a few were

the adventures with which they met. Locomotion was rendered extremely

difficult in consequence of snow. In some places, a thaw, succeeded by

a frost, had made the ground like glass; and often they were obliged to

walk, it being impossible to ride, their horses frequently falling,

even while they were leading them. At Gateshead Fell, the whole country

appeared a great pathless waste of white; and, but for an honest man

who became their guide, they knew not how to reach Newcastle. Wesley

writes:—“Many a rough journey have I had before, but one like this I

never had; between wind, and hail, and rain, and ice, and snow, and

driving sleet, and piercing cold: but it is past; these days will

return no more, and are therefore as though they had never been.”

This rough journey of two hundred and eighty miles was performed on

horseback, in six days, at the rate of nearly fifty miles a day.

The besetting sin of the Newcastle Methodists was the being offended

with each other; and Wesley’s first work was to reconcile wrangling

neighbours. On the second Sunday after his arrival, a brutal bully,

who had been accustomed to abuse the Orphan House family, and to throw

stones at them, assaulted Wesley in Pilgrim Street, and cursed and

pushed him. The next day the following characteristic note was sent:—

“ROBERT YOUNG,—I expect to see you between this and Friday,

and to hear from you, that you are sensible of your fault;

otherwise, in pity to your soul, I shall be obliged to inform

the magistrates of your assaulting me yesterday in the street.

“I am, your real friend,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Robert Young immediately came, and meekly begged pardon, and promised

to amend his ways.

On the 11th of March, Wesley wrote a long letter to a friend, giving

an account of the way in which the Methodist societies had sprung into

existence, and then stating succinctly the present position of himself

and his coadjutors. They were willing to make any concession, which

their conscience would permit, in order to heal the breach between

the clergy and themselves; but they could not desist from preaching

the doctrine of inward and present salvation, as attainable by faith

alone; nor could they promise not to preach in private houses, or

in the open air; for, as things were now circumstanced, this would

amount to a promise not to preach at all. They could not, with a safe

conscience, dissolve their societies, for they apprehended that many

souls would be lost thereby; neither could they advise the members one

by one, their number rendering this impossible. They could not suffer

those who walked disorderly still to mingle with the rest, because

evil communications corrupt good manners; nor could they discharge the

leaders, because it was through the leaders that disorderly walkers

were detected. While they were resolved to behave with reverence

towards the bishops of the Church, and with tenderness both to the

character and persons of the inferior clergy, they desired not to be

admitted to their pulpits, if they believed them to be preachers of

false doctrine, or had the least scruple of conscience concerning this;

but, at the same time, they desired that those clergymen who believed

their doctrines to be true, and had no scruple at all in the matter,

should not be either publicly or privately discouraged from inviting

them to preach in their churches. If any one thought them heretics or

schismatics, and deemed it his duty to preach or print against them,

be it so; they had not the least objection; but, before doing so, they

desired that he would calmly consider both sides of the question,

and not condemn them unheard. If they were guilty of either Popery,

sedition, or immorality, they desired no favour; but they also desired,

that senseless tales concerning them should not be credited without

proof. They desired not any preferment, favour, or recommendation,

from authorities either in Church or state; but they asked—1. That, if

anything material were laid to their charge, they might be permitted to

answer for themselves. 2. That the clergy and magistrates would hinder

their dependants from stirring up the rabble against them. And, 3.

That they would effectually suppress, and thoroughly discountenance,

all riots and popular insurrections, which evidently strike at the

foundation of all government, whether of Church or state.

Such was Wesley’s position in 1745. Though the document was not

published in his Journal for eight years afterwards, it was, in fact, a

manifesto defining his relations to Church and state, and the course of

action he felt it his duty to pursue; and, viewed in such a light, it

is of great importance.

During his stay at Newcastle, Wesley received and entertained a

strange visitor in his Orphan House. This was none other than a popish

priest. Twelve months before, a royal proclamation had been published,

ordering the laws against papists to be enforced, and commanding all

such religionists to depart from the cities of London and Westminster;

and likewise forbidding them to leave their country homes, in any

direction, for more than five miles’ distance. This proclamation was

occasioned by the preparations that were being made by the young

Pretender to invade Great Britain. Papists, and especially papistical

priests, were regarded, by the general public, with suspicion and

abhorrence. This was natural. Their disloyalty to the house of Hanover

was a well known fact; and their intrigues, in favour of the Stuart

family, were now culminating in the approaching invasion on behalf of

the eldest son of James II. Under such circumstances, it was a bold, we

think an imprudent, act for Wesley to make a priest of the Church of

Rome his guest. Still the visit led to results which, to the writer at

least, are interesting.

The priest’s name was Adams, or Watson Adams. His home was at

Osmotherley (the author’s native place), a village of about a thousand

inhabitants, sixty miles south of Newcastle. The place had been famous

as a papistical settlement, and was still resorted to by not a few

adherents of that religion. The writer’s grandmother, for a long series

of years, walked, every Sunday morning, over a bleak, roadless moor,

full of bogs and pitfalls, a distance of at least twelve miles there

and back, for the purpose of attending, in Osmotherley chapel, the

reading of a few Latin prayers, not a word of which had she scholarship

enough to understand. Here had been an important convent of Franciscan

friars, the chapel of which was still standing. In the immediate

neighbourhood were the ruins of another popish edifice, known by the

name of “the Lady’s chapel”; and, within a mile, were the beautiful and

extensive remains of Mount Grace, a Carthusian priory, founded in 1396.

Wesley’s account of the priest’s visit is as follows:—

“March 28.—A gentleman called at our house, and said, that

he lived at Osmotherley, in Yorkshire; and had heard so many

strange accounts of the Methodists, that he could not rest

till he came to inquire for himself. I told him he was welcome

to stay as long as he pleased, if he could live on our Lenten

fare. He made no difficulty of this, and willingly stayed till

the Monday sennight following; when he returned home, fully

satisfied with his journey.”

The odd acquaintance thus begun was perpetuated. A week after this

(on Easter Monday), Wesley began the day by preaching, at half-past

four o’clock, to a large congregation, including “many of the rich

and honourable.” He then set out for London, and, at eight o’clock,

preached in the open air, to “a large and quiet congregation,” at

Chester-le-street. Starting again, he reached Northallerton in the

evening, and made the inn his preaching place. The priest, Adams, and

some of his neighbours, including Elizabeth Tyerman, a Quakeress,

formed part of his congregation. The priest wished Wesley to come

and preach in his house at Osmotherley. The invitation was at once

accepted; Wesley mounted; and, travelling up hill and down hill, seven

miles more, reached the village a little before ten at night; having

ridden during the day, over execrable roads, a distance of at least

sixty miles, and preached thrice. Of course, at this season of the

year, it had long been dark; and, in a village so sequestered, most of

the inhabitants had retired to rest; but the priest and his friends

went round the place, and, arousing the people, succeeded, in about

an hour, in collecting a congregation in the chapel which formerly

belonged to the Franciscan friars. Wesley preached to them, and, after

midnight, went to bed, feeling, as he expressed it, “no weariness at

all.” At five in the morning, he preached again, on Romans iii. 22,

a sermon, in a popish chapel, on the great anti-popish doctrine of

justification by faith alone, part of the congregation having sat up

all night for fear they should not awake in sufficient time to hear

him. Many of them either were or had been papists, and one who was

present was the Quakeress already mentioned. After the sermon, this

unbaptized woman, abruptly addressing Wesley, asked, “Dost thou think

water baptism an ordinance of Christ?” Wesley replied, “What saith

Peter? ‘Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who

have received the Holy Ghost even as we?’” Wesley adds: “I spoke but

little more, before she cried out, ‘’Tis right! ’tis right! I will be

baptized.’ And so she was, the same hour.“[570]

On reaching Leeds, a week afterwards, Wesley wrote, as follows, to his

brother Charles.

“LEEDS, _April 23, 1745_.

“DEAR BROTHER,—It was time for me to give them the ground

at Newcastle, and to fly for my life. I grew more and more

honourable every day: the rich and great flocking to us

together, so that many times the room would not hold them.

Iniquity, for the present, hath stopped her mouth; and it is

almost fashionable to speak well of us. In all appearance, if

I had stayed a month longer, the mayor and aldermen would have

been with us.”

He then proceeds to give an account of his journey to Northallerton,

where he found “a noble people, who received the word with all

readiness of mind”; and of his setting out for Osmotherley, where he

says: “I preached in a large chapel which belonged, a few years since,

to a convent of Franciscan friars. I found I was got into the very

centre of all the papists in the north of England. ‘_Commessatorem haud

satis commodum._’ This also hath God wrought.”[571]

Thus began Methodism in Osmotherley, Wesley preaching the first

sermon, in a popish chapel, at eleven o’clock at night, having been

brought to the place by a popish priest and a Quaker woman. A society

was formed soon after, the original class papers and society book

of which, for 1750, and onwards, are still in existence. Four years

afterwards, a chapel was erected, which still stands, and which, up to

the year 1865, for the long period of one hundred and eleven years,

was uninterruptedly occupied as a Methodist place of worship, being,

with one exception (Coleford, in Somersetshire), the oldest Methodist

chapel in the world, continuously used as such. In it, the writer was

converted, and painfully he regrets that, in the present mania for new

chapels, the society, without the least necessity, were barbarous

enough to quit it for a more modern structure, not a whit more

adapted to their church necessities, and, of course, destitute of the

unequalled memories belonging to the ugly, but venerable pile, now, we

fear, left to rats and ruin.

Osmotherley, nestled beneath moorland mountains, was one of Wesley’s

favourite haunts. Though seven miles from the direct road between

London and Newcastle, and a place difficult to reach, he paid at least

sixteen visits to the place to which he was so strangely introduced.

Nor did he forget or neglect his old friend, the popish priest. His

house, on some occasions, was Wesley’s home. When he visited him, in

1776, he found him “just quivering over the grave”; and, at his visit

a year later, he writes:—“I found my old friend was just dead, after

living a recluse life near fifty years. From one that attended him, I

learned that the sting of death was gone, and he calmly delivered up

his soul to God.”

Leaving a place, for lingering too long at which the writer craves

forbearance, we must follow Wesley in his evangelistic wanderings. He

made his way to Sykehouse, to Epworth, and to Grimsby, at which last

mentioned town he preached to a “stupidly rude and noisy congregation,

encouraged thereto by a drunken alehouse keeper.” At Epworth, he

preached at the market cross, having most of the adults in the town

to hear him. He went to his father’s church, and there heard his old

acquaintance, John Romley, preach a sermon which, “from beginning to

end, was a railing accusation.” He returned to Leeds, Armley, Birstal,

and Bradford.

Leaving the west riding, he made a tour in Lancashire, Cheshire, and

Derbyshire, and then came round to Sheffield, where he preached on the

floor of the Methodist meeting-house, “which the good Protestant mob

had just pulled down,” to the largest and one of the quietest Sheffield

congregations he had ever seen. He then made his way to Nottingham,

Wednesbury, and Birmingham, at the last of which places “stones and

dirt were flying from every side, almost without intermission, for near

an hour.” On Saturday, May 11, he got to London, from which he had been

absent about twelve weeks. Here he found things in an unsatisfactory

state. There were more than two thousand members, above two thirds

of whom were women.[572] “The sower of tares had not been idle. Many

were shaken; and some, who once seemed pillars, were moved from their

steadfastness.” Numbers were “hugely in love” with what Wesley calls,

“that solemn trifle, Robert Barclay’s Apology.” This he and his brother

read over with them. “Their eyes were opened; they saw Barclay’s

nakedness, and were ashamed.”

Having employed a month in London, Wesley set out for Cornwall, where

he spent the next five weeks. The persecutions he encountered have

been related at the commencement of the present chapter. Suffice it to

remark here, that, during this Cornish tour, he did what he was rarely

permitted to do elsewhere; he preached in not fewer than four churches,

with the consent, or at the request, of their respective ministers. An

odd event also happened to him at St. Just, where, as he himself was

about to begin to preach, a kind of gentlewoman took his place, and

“scolded, screamed, spit, and stamped, wrung her hands and distorted

her face,” most violently. She had been bred a papist, and had been

rejoiced to hear that Wesley was one; but, being now undeceived and

disappointed, her anger was quite equal to what her joy had been. Like

a true philosopher, Wesley let the vociferous lady have all the talking

to herself, and “took no notice of her at all, good or bad.” Wesley

returned to London on August 16.

Terrible was the national excitement which now existed. A few weeks

before, Charles Edward Stuart had embarked from Brittany, with about

fifty of his Scotch and Irish adherents, and had set up his standard in

Scotland, emblazoned with the motto, “_Tandem triumphans_.” On the 4th

of September, he proclaimed his father in the town of Perth; within a

fortnight, he entered Edinburgh; and, a few days afterwards, fought the

royal troops at Preston Pans, and was victorious. Under the pretentious

title of “regent of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, France, and

Ireland,” he marched his increasing forces to Carlisle, Lancaster,

Manchester, and Derby; and was then driven back to Scotland, where, on

April 16, 1746, was fought the decisive battle of Culloden. These brief

remarks will help to illustrate Wesley’s Journal.

Five days after the proclamation of the Pretender, namely, on September

9, Wesley set out from London to Newcastle. On his way he called upon

Doddridge, the great Dissenter, and addressed his students. His purpose

was to go round by Epworth; but, “hearing of more and more commotions

in the north,” he hastened to Newcastle. At Leeds, the mob pelted him

and his society with dirt and stones, and were “ready to knock out

all their brains for joy that the Duke of Tuscany was emperor.” At

Osmotherley, he took occasion to visit the Carthusian priory, already

mentioned; and, after describing the walls, cells, and gardens,

expressed a sentiment which, however just, was at that time far from

being popular:—“Who knows but some of the poor superstitious monks,

who once served God here according to the light they had, may meet us,

by-and-by, in that house of God, ‘not made with hands, eternal, in the

heavens’?” On September 18, he reached Newcastle, in, what he calls, an

“acceptable time.”

News had just arrived that the Pretender had entered Edinburgh. The

inhabitants were in the utmost consternation. Wesley at once commenced

preaching, selecting as his text, “Who can tell, if God will return,

and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, that we perish not?”

The _Newcastle Courant_, for September 14 to September 21, is before

us, containing an account of an association of his majesty’s Protestant

subjects in Ireland, pledging their faith and honour, that they will,

at the hazard of their lives and fortunes, oppose the abominable and

unnatural rebellion now carried on in favour of the popish Pretender.

There is also an address to the king by seven hundred and thirty of

the merchants of London, and from the lord provost, magistrates, and

council of Edinburgh, to the same effect.

The following loyal, if not finished, lines are published:—

“Rouse, Britons, rouse, before it be too late,

Join heart and hand, or slavery is your fate;

Remember how your fathers bravely stood,

And neither spared their treasure, nor their blood,

Preserved your liberties, and Church, and state;

Your sons cry out, _Remember eighty-eight_.”

The day after Wesley’s arrival, Mr. Ridley, the mayor, summoned all

the householders of Newcastle to meet him at the town hall, and to

sign an agreement, to the effect that they would hazard their goods

and lives, in defending the town against the common enemy. He ordered

the townsmen to be under arms, and to mount guard in turns. Pilgrim

Street gate, just outside of which was Wesley’s Orphan House, was

walled up; and Wesley and his society spent the day in fasting and in

prayer. The agreement submitted by the mayor, and which was signed by

eight hundred and thirteen inhabitants of the town, was, that they “do

voluntarily oblige themselves to appear in person, or to provide daily,

or when required, an able man to act in concert with his majesty’s

forces in the town, for the defence thereof, against all his majesty’s

enemies.”[573] As Wesley did not accompany the householders to meet the

mayor, he wrote to him the following letter:—

“_To the Worshipful the Mayor of Newcastle._

“SIR,—My not waiting upon you at the town hall was not owing to

any want of respect. I reverence you for your office’ sake; and

much more for your zeal in the execution of it. I would to God,

every magistrate in the land would copy after such an example!

Much less was it owing to any disaffection to his majesty King

George. But I knew not how far it might be either necessary or

proper for me to appear on such an occasion. I have no fortune

at Newcastle: I have only the bread I eat, and the use of a

little room for a few weeks in the year.

“All I can do for his majesty, whom I honour and love,—I think

not less than I did my own father,—is this: I cry unto God,

day by day, in public and in private, to put all his enemies

to confusion: and I exhort all that hear me to do the same;

and, in their several stations, to exert themselves as loyal

subjects; who, so long as they fear God, cannot but honour the

king.

“Permit me, sir, to add a few words more, out of the fulness of

my heart. I am persuaded you fear God, and have a deep sense

that His kingdom ruleth over all. Unto whom then (I may ask

you), should we flee for succour, but unto Him whom, by our

sins, we have justly displeased? O, sir, is it not possible to

give any check to these overflowings of ungodliness? to the

open, flagrant wickedness, the drunkenness and profaneness,

which so abound, even in our streets? I just take leave to

suggest this. May the God whom you serve direct you in this,

and all things! This is the daily prayer of, sir,

“Your obedient servant, for Christ’s sake,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

This was written on September 21, on which day arrived the news of

General Cope’s disastrous defeat at Preston Pans. Newcastle was seized

with panic. Many of the opulent of the inhabitants fled with the utmost

precipitation, taking their most valuable effects with them. Wesley

writes:—

“September 22.—The walls are mounted with cannon, and all

things prepared for sustaining an assault. Our poor neighbours,

on either hand, are busy in removing their goods. And most of

the best houses in our street are left without either furniture

or inhabitants. Those within the walls are almost equally busy

in carrying away their money and their goods; and more and more

of the gentry every hour ride southward as fast as they can. At

eight, I preached at Gateshead, in a broad part of the street,

near the popish chapel, on the wisdom of God in governing the

world.”

Meanwhile, part of the Northumberland militia entered the town, namely,

about four hundred horse, and above two hundred foot,[574] all well

armed, and headed by the county gentlemen. Still the alarms continued,

and the storm seemed nearer every day. “Many,” says Wesley, “wondered

we would still stay without the walls; others told us, we must remove

quickly; for if the cannon began to play from the top of the gates,

they would beat all the house about our ears. This made me look how

the cannon on the gates were planted; and I could not but adore the

providence of God, for it was obvious—(1) they were all planted in such

a manner, that no shot could touch our house; (2) the cannon on Newgate

so secured us on one side, and those upon Pilgrim Street gate on the

other, that none could come near our house, either way, without being

torn in pieces.”

Amid the most terrible alarms, Wesley continued preaching in Newcastle,

and visiting the country societies round about. On October 8 he wrote

the following characteristic letter to General Husk:—

“A surly man came to me this evening, as he said, from you. He

would not deign to come upstairs to me, nor so much as into the

house; but stood in the yard till I came, and then obliged me

to go with him into the street, where he said, ‘You must pull

down the battlements of your house, or to-morrow the general

will pull them down for you.’

“Sir, to me this is nothing. But I humbly conceive it would

not be proper for this man, whoever he is, to behave in such a

manner to any other of his majesty’s subjects, at so critical a

time as this.

“I am ready, if it may be for his majesty’s service, to pull

not only the battlements, but the house down; or to give up any

part of it, or the whole, into your excellency’s hands.”

Besides the troops already mentioned, the town had been reinforced by

the entrance of six hundred Dutch soldiers, belonging to the regiment

of General de la Rocque; and gentlemen volunteers had become expert in

military exercise, especially the company with red and pink cockades.

All persons residing outside the walls were ordered to take their

ladders to the town’s yard, and their firearms to the mayor; and no

person was to fire a gun at night under pain of imprisonment. Two

hundred cannon were planted on the town walls; and the water gates on

the quay side were all built up with gun holes in them.[575]

Wesley, supposing the danger was over for the present, started off, on

October 9, on a short tour to Epworth, leaving John Trembath to supply

his place. At Ferrybridge he was conducted to General Wentworth, who

read all the letters he had about him. At Doncaster, where he slept, or

rather wished to sleep, he was surrounded by drunken, cursing, swearing

soldiers. At Epworth, he had, for once, the satisfaction of hearing

Mr. Romley preach “an earnest, affectionate sermon”; while he himself

strongly exhorted the society to “fear God, and honour the king.” He

then returned to Newcastle, by way of Sheffield, Birstal, Leeds, and

Osmotherley, arriving on October 22, after an absence of thirteen days.

Within a week, the right honourable Fieldmarshal Wade, and Prince

Maurice of Nassau, arrived with about nine thousand Dutch and English

soldiers, which, when added to General St. George’s dragoons, General

Sinclair’s Royal Scots, and other troops, made about fifteen thousand

men, all encamped upon Newcastle moor.[576] With such an influx, no

wonder that wickedness abounded. Wesley was horrified, and on October

26 sent to Mr. Ridley, the mayor, the following letter:—

“SIR,—The fear of God, the love of my country, and the regard I

have for his majesty King George, constrain me to write a few

plain words to one who is no stranger to these principles of

action.

“My soul has been pained day by day, even in walking the

streets of Newcastle, at the senseless, shameless wickedness,

the ignorant profaneness, of the poor men to whom our lives

are entrusted. The continual cursing and swearing, the wanton

blasphemy of the soldiers in general, must needs be a torture

to the sober ear, whether of a Christian or an honest infidel.

Can any that either fear God, or love their neighbour, hear

this without concern? especially if they consider the interest

of our country, as well as of these unhappy men themselves.

For can it be expected, that God should be on their side who

are daily affronting Him to His face? And if God be not on

their side, how little will either their number, or courage, or

strength avail?

“Is there no man that careth for these souls? Doubtless there

are some who ought so to do. But many of these, if I am rightly

informed, receive large pay, and do just nothing.

“I would to God it were in my power, in any degree, to supply

their lack of service. I am ready to do what in me lies, to

call these poor sinners to repentance, once or twice a day

(while I remain in these parts), at any hour, or at any place.

And I desire no pay at all for doing this; unless what my Lord

shall give at His appearing.

“If it be objected (from our heathenish poet), ‘this conscience

will make cowards of us all,’ I answer, let us judge by matter

of fact. Let either friends or enemies speak. Did those who

feared God behave as cowards at Fontenoy? Did John Haime, the

dragoon, betray any cowardice, before or after his horse sunk

under him? Or did William Clements, when he received the first

ball in his left, and the second in his right arm? Or John

Evans, when the cannon ball took off both his legs? Did he not

call all about him, as long as he could speak, to praise and

fear God, and honour the king? as one who feared nothing, but

lest his last breath should be spent in vain.

“If it were objected, that I should only fill their heads with

peculiar whims and notions; that might easily be known. Only

let the officers hear with their own ears; and they may judge

whether I do not preach the plain principles of manly, rational

religion.

“Having myself no knowledge of the general, I took the liberty

to make this offer to you. I have no interest herein; but I

should rejoice to serve, as I am able, my king and country. If

it be judged, that this will be of no real service, let the

proposal die, and be forgotten. But I beg you, sir, to believe,

that I have the same glorious cause, for which you have shown

so becoming a zeal, earnestly at heart; and that therefore, I

am, with warm respect, sir,—

Your most obedient servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

The mayor sent a message, to the effect that he would communicate the

proposal to the general. We are not told whether the general gave his

consent or not; but, five days afterwards, we find Wesley, in the midst

of this huge encampment, preaching from, “Ho, every one that thirsteth,

come ye to the waters!” “None,” says he, “attempted to make the least

disturbance, from the beginning to the end. Yet I could not reach their

hearts. The words of a scholar did not affect them, like those of a

dragoon or a grenadier.”

In such circumstances, Wesley honestly acknowledges, that a layman,

like John Haime, the brave dragoon, would have been more effective than

himself. This, however, did not discourage him. The day following,

he preached to the troops again. On this occasion, a lieutenant

endeavoured to raise disturbance; but, when Wesley had finished, tried

to make amends, by telling the soldiers that all that had been said was

very good.

The next day, Saturday, November 2, his text was, “The Scripture hath

concluded all under sin, that the promise might be given to them that

believe;” and he now began to see some fruit of his labour. On the

Sunday, the camp was again his cathedral. Abundance of people flocked

together, horse and foot, rich and poor, to whom he declared, “There

is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of

God.” He had long laid aside the German tongue, but, seeing a number

of Germans standing disconsolate at the skirts of the congregation, he

also addressed them, the poor troopers drinking in every word.

This terminated his labours in the camp on Newcastle moor. The next

day he set out for London, and spoiled the Guy Fawkes holiday in

Leeds, by informing the magistrates that he had met several expresses,

sent to countermand the march of the army into Scotland; and that

the rebels had passed the Tweed, and were marching southward. The

hurry in the streets was quashed; bonfires were abandoned; and guns,

squibs, and crackers were no longer the playthings of the uproarious

crowd. Wesley proceeded on his journey, finding watchmen standing,

with great solemnity, at the end of almost every village through which

he passed. On entering Wednesbury, after it was dark, he was bogged

in a quagmire; the people came with candles; and, getting out, and

leaving them to disengage his horse, he hastened to Francis Ward’s,

and, bedaubed with mire, at once commenced preaching. On the 13th of

November he arrived safe in London, where he spent the rest of the

year, in preaching, and finishing his “Farther Appeal.” He gave away

some thousands of tracts among the common people; and his example was

immediately copied by others. The lord mayor ordered a large quantity

of papers, dissuading from cursing and swearing, to be printed,

and distributed to the trainbands; and on December 18, “An Earnest

Exhortation to Repentance” was given at all the church doors in London,

to every person who came out, and a copy left at the house of every

householder who happened to be absent. “I doubt not,” says Wesley, “but

God gave a blessing therewith.”

Wesley’s old friend and brother-in-law, Westley Hall, was already a

waverer; and, at the end of 1745, wrote a long letter, urging the

two Wesleys to renounce the Church of England. Wesley’s reply is too

long for insertion here; but it contains, besides other facts, some

startling high church principles, which are well worth noting. He

writes:—

“We believe it would not be right for us to administer either

baptism or the Lord’s supper, unless we had a commission so to

do from those bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession

from the apostles.”

“We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian church

(whether dependent on the bishop of Rome or not), an outward

priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice

offered therein, by men authorised to act as ambassadors of

Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.”

“We believe that the threefold order of ministers is not only

authorised by its apostolical institution, but also by the

written word.”

We must take Wesley as we find him; but is it not surprising to see him

still tenaciously clinging, even in phraseology, to the doctrine of

apostolical succession, and the offering of an _outward sacrifice_ in

the church, by an outward priesthood? He proceeds:—

“We allow, that many of the laws, customs, and practices of the

ecclesiastical courts are really indefensible; but we no more

look upon these filthy abuses, which adhere to our Church, as

part of the building, than we look upon any filth which may

adhere to the walls of Westminster Abbey as a part of that

structure.”

“We will obey all the laws of that Church (such as we allow

the rubrics to be, but not the customs of the ecclesiastical

courts), so far as we can with a safe conscience; and, with the

same restriction, we will obey the bishops, as executors of

those laws; but their bare will, distinct from those laws, we

do not profess to obey at all.”

“Field preaching is contrary to no law which we profess to

obey; nor are we clear, that the allowing lay preachers

is contrary to any such law. But if it is, this is one of

the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe

conscience.”

We have here a key to much in Wesley’s remarkable career. His doctrine

of apostolical succession was a figment. His language concerning Church

of England _priests_ still offering an _outward sacrifice_ savoured

of the popish doctrine which all true Protestants reject, though, as

will shortly be shown, the view he held was different from what his

words express. His belief in the “threefold order of ministers” was

changed a few weeks afterwards. Field preaching and the employment of

lay preachers had much to do with making Methodism; and, without a

continuance of these, Methodism will not maintain its power and its

position.

Wesley’s conference, in 1745, commenced at Bristol, on the 1st of

August, and was continued for five days following. Besides the two

Wesleys, there was but one clergyman, Mr. Hodges, present. There were

six itinerants: Thomas Richards, Samuel Larwood, Thomas Meyrick,

Richard Moss, John Slocomb, and Herbert Jenkins; and also one

gentleman, who was not a preacher at all, Marmaduke Gwynne, afterwards

the father-in-law of Wesley’s brother Charles.

At the opening of the conference a principle was adopted, which ought

to be practised in all similar assemblies, namely, that every one

might speak freely whatever was in his heart, and that no one should

be checked, either by word or look, even though what he was saying was

entirely wrong.[577] In an assembly of equals, met for purposes of

deliberation and counsel, free speech like this is indispensable to

satisfactory results.

During the first day of conference, the doctrine of justification was

reviewed; and it was agreed, that, while faith in Christ is the sole

condition of justification, repentance, that is, conviction of sin,

must go before faith, and (supposing there be opportunity for them)

fruits, or works meet for repentance, also.

On the second day, the Conference discussed the doctrines of assurance,

of works done before justification, and of obedience. It was agreed

neither to discourage nor encourage dreams, though it was admitted,

that, by such means, saving faith is often given. On the subject of

sanctification, it was laid down, that inward sanctification begins

in the moment we are justified; that, from that time, the believer

gradually dies to sin, and grows in grace; and that the seed of all

sin remains in him, till he is sanctified throughout, in spirit, soul,

and body. This entire sanctification is not ordinarily given till a

little before death; but we ought to expect it sooner; for, though

the generality of believers are not sanctified till near death, and

though few of those to whom St. Paul wrote his epistles were so at the

time he wrote, and though he himself was not sanctified at the time of

writing his former epistles, this does not prove that we may not be

sanctified to-day. It was further agreed, that sanctification should

scarcely be preached at all to those who were not pressing forward; and

when it was, it should always be by way of promise,—by drawing, rather

than by driving. And, further, it was determined, that the _general_

means which God has ordained for our receiving His sanctifying grace

are keeping all His commandments, denying ourselves, and taking up

our cross daily; and, that the _particular_ are prayer, searching the

Scriptures, communicating, and fasting.

The Methodist reader will find something here hardly in harmony with

the decisions of the previous Conference, and with Wesley’s subsequent

teaching. Twenty years after this, in answer to the question, “What

shall we do, that this work of God may be wrought in us?” Wesley said:—

“In this, as in all other instances, ‘by grace we are saved

through faith,’ Sanctification too is ‘not of works, lest

any man should boast,’ ‘It is the gift of God,’ and is to be

received by plain, simple faith. Suppose you are now labouring

to abstain from all appearance of evil, zealous of good works,

and walking diligently and carefully in all the ordinances

of God; there is then only one point remaining: the voice of

God to your soul is, ‘Believe, and be saved,’ First, believe

that God has _promised_ to save you from all sin, and to fill

you with all holiness. Secondly, believe that He is _able_

thus to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through

Him. Thirdly, believe that He is _willing_ as well as able.

Fourthly, believe that He is not only able, but willing to do

it _now_! Not when you come to die, not at any distant time,

not to-morrow, but to-day. He will then enable you to believe,

_it is done_, according to His word; and then ‘patience shall

have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire,

wanting nothing.’”[578]