At the third day’s session, the Conference debated points of church

government. The question was asked, “Is episcopal, presbyterian, or

independent church government most agreeable to reason?” The answer

given was, that each is a development of the other. A preacher

preaches, and forms an _independent_ congregation; he then forms

another and another in the immediate vicinity of the first; this

obliges him to appoint _deacons_, who look on the first pastor as

their common father; and as these congregations increase, and as their

_deacons_ grow in years and grace, they need other subordinate deacons,

or helpers; in respect of whom they are called _presbyters_, or elders;

as their father in the Lord may be called the _bishop_, or overseer of

them all. To say the least, this solution is ingenious.

With reference to Wesley’s assistants, fourteen in number, it was

resolved, that they had nothing to do but to save souls; and that, in

prosecuting this, they should, besides preaching every morning and

every night, spend from six o’clock till twelve every day in reading,

writing, and prayer; from twelve to five in visiting; and from five to

six in private communion with God.

It was also determined what books should constitute the libraries for

Wesley’s own use, at London, Bristol, and Newcastle,—namely, eleven on

divinity; four on physic; two on natural philosophy; one (Whiston) on

astronomy; one (the Universal) on history; two (Spenser and Milton) in

poetry; sixteen in Latin; twelve in Greek; and one (Buxtorf’s Bible) in

Hebrew.

While Wesley was thus conferring with his lay itinerants, he was,

unconsciously, corresponding with a man, who soon became the highest

dignitary in the Established Church.

Thomas Secker was six years the senior of Wesley. His father was a

Dissenter, and he himself was designed for the Dissenting ministry.

Scruples of conscience prevented this, and young Secker resolved to

qualify himself for the practice of physic. At Leyden, he took the

degree of M.D.; but, on returning to England, in 1721, he entered

himself a gentleman commoner at Exeter College, Oxford; and, in the

year following, was ordained a deacon of the Church of England. In

1724, he became rector of the valuable living of Houghton-le-spring;

and, in 1725, married Bishop Benson’s sister. In 1733, he obtained the

rectory of St. James’s; and, the year after, was raised to the see of

Bristol. In 1737, he was translated to the diocese of Oxford; and, in

1758, was advanced to the primacy.

In the month of May, 1745, this distinguished man commenced a long,

temperate, and able correspondence with Wesley, under the _alias_ of

John Smith. The correspondence was continued for nearly three years,

and was first published by Mr. Moore, in his Life of Wesley, in 1825.

Space forbids even an epitome of these able letters. They are full of

interest, intelligence, and piety; and do honour to the head and heart

of both the archbishop and the clerical itinerant.

The only thing which remains, before leaving the year 1745, is to

notice Wesley’s publications. His answer to Church; his Dialogues

on Antinomianism; and his Short View of the Difference between the

Moravians and himself, have been already mentioned. The rest were

partly original, and partly abridgments from the works of others.

1. “Thoughts concerning the present Revival of Religion in New England.

By Jonathan Edwards. Abridged by John Wesley.” 12mo, 124 pages. This

deeply interesting work was first published at Boston, in America, in a

volume of more than two hundred pages, and has been referred to already

in a previous chapter of the present book.

2. “An Extract of Mr. Richard Baxter’s Aphorisms on Justification.”

12mo, 36 pages. The pamphlet is divided into forty-five propositions,

and, like all Baxter’s works, is full of Scripture truth, and well

worth reading.

3. “Hymns on the Lord’s Supper; by John and Charles Wesley. With a

preface concerning the Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice. Extracted

from Dr. Brevint. By John Wesley.” 12mo, 166 pages. The hymns are

a hundred and sixty-six in number, and are distinguished by great

variety of thought and language. Several of the best are published

in the Methodist Hymn-book. An extract from Brevint, which, by

publishing, Wesley made his own, will help to explain his meaning in

the objectionable phraseology he employed in his letter to Westley Hall.

“The Lord’s supper was chiefly ordained for a sacrament:—1. To

_represent_ the sufferings of Christ which are _past_, whereof

it is a _memorial_. 2. To _convey_ the first fruits of these

sufferings, in _present graces_, whereof it is a _means_. 3.

To _assure_ us of _glory to come_, whereof it is an infallible

_pledge_.”

“The sacrifice, which by a _real_ oblation was not to

be offered more than once, is, by a devout and thankful

commemoration, to be offered up every day. The _sacrifice_ in

itself can never be repeated. Nevertheless, this sacrament,

by our remembrance, becomes a _kind of sacrifice_, whereby we

present before God the Father that precious oblation of His

Son once offered. To _men_, the holy communion is a _sacred

table_, where God’s minister is ordered to represent, from God

his Master, the passion of His dear Son, as still fresh, and

still powerful for their eternal salvation. And to _God_, it

is an _altar_, whereon men mystically present to Him the same

sacrifice, as still bleeding and sueing for mercy.”

The remainder of Wesley’s publications, in 1745, were original: namely:—

1. “An Earnest Persuasive to keep the Sabbath holy.” Four pages, 12mo.

This was afterwards reprinted as “A Word to a Sabbath-breaker.”

Sabbath breaking, in the days of Wesley, was one of the crying sins

of England. “How many are they,” he wrote, “in every city, as well as

in this, who profane the sabbath with a high hand! How many in this,

that openly defy God and the king, that break the laws, both Divine and

human, by working at their trade, delivering their goods, receiving

their pay, or following their ordinary business, in one branch or

another, and ‘wiping their mouths and saying, I do no evil!’ How many

buy and sell on the day of the Lord, even in the open streets of this

city? How many open, or (with some modesty) half open their shops?

even when they have not the pretence of perishable goods; without any

pretence at all: money is their god, and gain their godliness. What

also are all these droves in the skirts of the town, that well-nigh

cover the face of the earth? till they drop one after another into the

numerous receptacles prepared for them in every corner. They drink

in iniquity like water. A whole army joins together, and, with one

consent, in the face of the sun, runs upon the thick bosses of God’s

buckler.”[579]

This, written in 1745, is too true a picture of the state of things

at the present day. Wesley regarded national depravity as turning

chiefly on the two hinges of sabbath profanation, and the neglect of

the education of children. Till some way was found of stopping these

great inlets of wickedness, he had no hope of a general reformation.

“The religious observance of the sabbath,” he writes, “is the best

preservative of virtue and religion, and the neglect and profanation

of it is the greatest inlet to vice and wickedness.”[580] Holding such

views, no wonder that he published the pointed, pithy tract to which we

are now adverting.

2. “Swear not at all, saith the Lord God of Heaven and Earth.” Four

pages, 12mo. This also was reprinted as “A Word to a Swearer.” Like

all Wesley’s tracts, it is a model well worthy of imitation. Profane

swearing was another of the senseless, stupid, shameless sins of the

period in which Wesley lived. In another of his publications, issued in

1745, he asks: “In what city or town, in what market or exchange, in

what street or place of public resort, is not the name of God taken in

vain, day by day? From the noble to the peasant, who fails to call upon

God in this, if in no other way? Whither can you turn, where can you

go, without hearing some praying to God for damnation, either on his

neighbour or himself? cursing those, without either fear or remorse,

whom Christ hath bought to inherit a blessing!”[581]

3. “A Word in Season; or, Advice to an Englishman.” Twelve pages, 12mo.

This was published at the beginning of the rebellion, and shows what

would be the dreadful results if the Pretender should become king of

England by conquest. Popery would be established, and property would

be confiscated. “Who can doubt,” he asks, “but one who should conquer

England, by the assistance of France, would copy after the French rules

of government?” He continues:—

“How dreadful then is the condition wherein we stand! On

the very brink of utter destruction! But why are we thus?

I am afraid the answer is too plain, to every considerate

man. Because of our sins; because we have well-nigh filled

up the measure of our iniquities. For what wickedness is

there under heaven, which is not found among us at this day?

Not to insist on sabbath breaking, thefts, cheating, fraud,

extortion, violence, oppression, lying, robberies, sodomies

and murders, which with a thousand unnamed villainies are

common to us and our neighbour Christians of Holland, France,

and Germany,—what a plentiful harvest we have of wickedness

almost peculiar to ourselves! For who can _vie with us_ in the

direction of courts of _justice_? In the management of public

_charities_? Or in the _accomplished_, barefaced wickedness,

which so abounds in our _prisons_, and _fleets_, and _armies_?

Who in _Europe_ can compare with the _sloth_, _laziness_,

_luxury_, and _effeminacy_ of the _English gentry_? Or with the

_drunkenness_, and stupid, senseless _cursing_ and _swearing_,

which are daily seen and heard in our streets? Add to all

these that open and professed _Deism_ and _rejection_ of the

gospel,—that _public_, _avowed_ apostasy from the Christian

faith, which reigns among the rich and great, and hath spread

from _them_ to _all_ ranks and orders of men, and made us a

people fitted for the _destroyer of the gentiles_.”

This, under the circumstances then existing, was bold writing; but

Wesley was a bold man, and never shunned what he conceived to be his

duty because it was difficult and dangerous.

4. “A Word to a Drunkard.” Four pages, 12mo. The following are the

opening sentences:—

“Are _you_ a man? God made you a _man_; but you make yourself a

_beast_. Wherein does a _man_ differ from a _beast_? Is it not

chiefly in _reason and understanding_? But you throw away what

_reason_ you have. You strip yourself of your _understanding_.

You do all you can to make yourself a mere _beast_; not a

fool, not a madman only; but a _swine_, a poor filthy swine.

Go and wallow with them in the mire! Go, drink on, till thy

nakedness be uncovered, and shameful spewing be on thy glory!

O how honourable is a _beast_ of God’s making, compared to one

who makes himself a _beast_! But that is not all. You make

yourself a _devil_. You stir up all the devilish tempers that

are in you, and gain others which perhaps were not in you. You

cause the fire of anger, or malice, or lust to burn seven times

hotter than before.”

5. It was also about this period, that Wesley wrote and published his

small tract (12mo, four pages), entitled, “A Word to an Unhappy Woman.”

6. “Advice to the People called Methodists.” Twelve pages, 12mo. The

advices are five in number:—1. To consider, with deep and frequent

attention, the peculiar circumstances in which they stood; for their

name, their principles, and their strictness of life were _new_.

They were _newly united_ together,—a poor, low, and insignificant

people,—most even of their teachers being quite unlearned men. 2. Not

to imagine that they could avoid giving offence. 3. To consider deeply

with themselves, is the God whom we serve able to deliver us? 4. To be

true to their principles. 5. Not to talk much of what they suffered.

7. Wesley’s last and most important publication was, “A Farther Appeal

to men of Reason and Religion.” 12mo, 106 pages.

First of all, he gives a summary of the doctrines he teaches. He then

proceeds to meet the objection, that justification by faith alone is

not a scriptural doctrine, nor the doctrine of the Church of England.

He next replies to the accusations of the Bishop of London, in his

pamphlet, entitled, “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of

the Methodists,” which had been sent to every clergyman in the London

diocese. Whitefield had already published an answer to this episcopal

production, in two letters, addressed “to the right reverend the

Bishop of London, and the other right reverend the bishops concerned

in the publication thereof;” and now Wesley undertakes the same

formidable task,—David against Goliath,—an outcast priest against a

whole bench of bishops. Wesley dissects the prelate’s pamphlet, and,

with a master’s brevity, refutes it bit by bit. He then replies to a

similar production, which has been already noticed, “The Notions of the

Methodists Disproved;” and after that proceeds to answer the “charge,”

lately published by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, Dr.

Smalbroke, a man of some ability, but not over skilled in logic,

who, in one of his best productions, “A Vindication of our Saviour’s

Miracles,” showed his weakness by calculating the precise number of

devils in the herd of Gadarenish swine. Wesley writes:—

“I conceive, not only, that your lordship has _proved_ nothing

hitherto; but that, strictly speaking, you have not _attempted

to prove_ anything, having _taken for granted_ whatever came

in your way. What is become of your demonstration? Leave

it to the carmen and porters, its just proprietors; to the

zealous apple-women, that cry after me in the street, ‘This is

he that rails at the _Whole Dutyful_ of man.’ But let every

one that pretends to learning or reason be ashamed to mention

it any more. O my lord, whom have you represented as rank,

dreaming enthusiasts? as either deluded or designing men?

Not only Bishop Pearson, a man hitherto accounted both sound

in heart, and of good understanding; but likewise Archbishop

Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, Bishop Latimer, Bishop Hooper; and all

the venerable compilers of our liturgy and homilies: all the

members of both the houses of convocation, by whom they were

revised and approved: yea, King Edward, and all his lords and

commons together, by whose authority they were established!

And, with these _modern enthusiasts_, Origen, Chrysostom, and

Athanasius are comprehended in the same censure.”

Wesley’s object in this important treatise may be gathered from its

concluding paragraph:—

“I have now answered most of the current objections,

particularly such as have appeared of weight to religious or

reasonable men. I have endeavoured to show, first, that the

_doctrines_ I teach are no other than the great truths of the

gospel. Secondly, that though I teach them not as I _would_,

but as I _can_, yet it is in a _manner_ not contrary to law.

And thirdly, that the _effects_ of thus preaching the gospel

have not been such as was weakly or wickedly reported,—these

reports being mere artifices of the devil, to hinder the work

of God.”

Up to the present, most of Wesley’s publications were small and cheap;

but they had an immense circulation, and not only paid expenses, but

left a profit. In a sermon, written in the year 1780, he naively

remarks: “Two-and-forty years ago, having a desire to furnish poor

people with cheaper, shorter, and plainer books, than any I had seen,

I wrote many small tracts, generally a penny apiece; and afterwards

several larger. Some of these had such a sale as I never thought of;

and, by this means, I unawares became rich. But I never desired or

endeavoured after it. And now that it is come upon me unawares, I lay

up no treasures upon earth; I lay up nothing at all. I cannot help

leaving my books behind me whenever God calls me hence; but, in every

other respect, my own hands will be my executors.”[582]

1746.

[Sidenote: 1746 Age 43]

Whitefield and his wife spent the whole of the year 1746 in America. “I

love,” said he, “to range in the American woods, and sometimes think

I shall never return to England any more.”[583] Writing to Wesley, in

October, he remarks:—

“The regard I have always had for you and your brother,

is still as great as ever; and I trust we shall give this

and future ages an example of true Christian love abiding,

notwithstanding difference in judgment. Why our Lord has

permitted us to differ as to some points of doctrine, will

be discovered at the last day. I have had the pleasure of

reading the continuance of your Appeal; and pray, that God

would prosper every labour of your pen and lip. I find that

antinomianism has been springing up in many places. I bless

God, you have made a stand against it. If you ask, how it is

with me, I answer, happy in Jesus, the Lord my righteousness.

If you ask, what I am doing,—ranging and hunting in the

American woods after poor sinners. If you ask, with what

success,—my labours were never more acceptable; and the door,

for fifteen hundred miles together, is quite open for preaching

the everlasting gospel. In Maryland and Virginia, people fly

to hear the word like doves to the windows. Congregations are

large, and the work is going on, just as it began and went on

in England. Notwithstanding the declining state of Georgia, the

orphan house is in a better situation than ever; and, in a year

or two, I trust it will support itself. Several of the great

and rich favour the Redeemer’s cause, and many of my professed

enemies are made to be at peace with me. O reverend and dear,

and very dear sir, be pleased to continue to pray for me, your

most affectionate, though unworthy, younger brother and servant

in Jesus Christ,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[584]

Charles Wesley spent more than four months in London and its vicinity;

about six in Bristol, in Cornwall, and in the west of England; and

the last weeks of the year in a tour to Yorkshire and Newcastle. Like

a flaming seraph, his soul glowed with sacred love and music; and no

toil, danger, or persecution was too great to be encountered for

his Saviour. In Cornwall, it was rumoured, that he had brought the

Pretender with him; and the famous Mr. Eustick came with a warrant to

apprehend him: but, as usual, at the last moment, Eustick’s courage

failed him. At Shoreham, as soon as he commenced the service, the wild

rabble “began roaring, stamping, blaspheming, ringing the bells, and

turning the church into a bear garden.” At Hexham, while preaching in a

cockpit, Squire Roberts did his utmost to raise a mob; and two butlers,

in the employ of two magistrates, brought their cocks, and set them

fighting. In the midst of all, Charles was jubilant, and expressed the

gratitude of his heart in the following thanksgiving:—

“All thanks be to God,

Who scatters abroad,

Throughout every place,

By the least of His servants, His savour of grace:

Who the victory gave,

The praise let Him have,

For the work He hath done;

All honour and glory to Jesus alone!”[585]

Equal zeal and heroism characterized Wesley’s helpers. At Nottingham,

the mob surrounded the meeting-house, and threatened to pull it down.

John Nelson was seized by the constable for creating the riot, and was

taken to an alderman, the crowd following him with curses and huzzas.

The alderman asked his name, and said: “I wonder you cannot stay at

home; you see the mob won’t suffer you to preach in Nottingham.” John

replied, that he was not aware that Nottingham was governed by a mob,

most towns being governed by the magistrates; and then proceeded “to

set life and death before him.” “Don’t preach here,” said the alderman;

while the constable began to be uneasy, and asked how he was to dispose

of his prisoner. “Take him to your house,” quoth the alderman. The

constable desired to be excused; and, at length, was directed to

conduct Nelson back to the place from which he had brought him, and to

be careful he was not injured. “So,” says honest John, “he brought me

to our brethren again; and left us to give thanks to God for all His

mercies.”

Wesley began the year 1746 by preaching in London at four o’clock in

the morning, a thing not often done by his successors.

On January 20, he set out for Bristol, and on the road read a book

which greatly moulded his future character and course. Lord King was

the son of a grocer at Exeter, and the nephew of the celebrated Locke,

who left him half his library. At the age of twenty-two, in 1691, he

published, “An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and

Worship of the Primitive Church, that flourished three hundred years

after Christ; faithfully collected out of the extant writings of those

ages.” King was a rigid Dissenter; and the chief object of his learned

work was to prepare the way for that comprehension of the Dissenters

within the pale of the Established Church, which the Revolution of 1688

was supposed likely to accomplish. After this, he rose to be Lord High

Chancellor of England, and died in 1734, leaving behind him a character

of great virtue and humanity, and of steady attachment to civil and

religious liberty.

The above book by Lord King was Wesley’s companion on his way to

Bristol; and, after reading it, he wrote: “In spite of the vehement

prejudice of my education, I was ready to believe that this was a fair

and impartial draught; but, if so, it would follow, that bishops and

presbyters are essentially of one order, and that, originally, every

Christian congregation was a church independent of all others.”

Thus, notwithstanding his strong affection for the Church of England,

we find Wesley, almost at the commencement of his Methodist career,

entertaining doubts respecting its ecclesiastical polity. The recorded

decisions of the Conference of 1745 plainly show, that he regarded his

preachers as deacons, and presbyters, and thought himself a scriptural

bishop. Lord King’s researches served to confirm these sentiments. In

the minutes of the conference held a year after this (1747), we find

the following questions and answers:—

“_Q._ Does a church in the New Testament always mean a single

congregation?

“_A._ We believe it does. We do not recollect any instance to

the contrary.

“_Q._ What instance or ground is there then in the New

Testament for a _national_ church?

“_A._ We know none at all. We apprehend it to be a merely

political institution.

“_Q._ Are the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons

plainly described in the New Testament?

“_A._ We think they are; and believe they generally obtained in

the churches of the apostolic age.

“_Q._ But are you assured, that God designed the same plan

should obtain in all churches, throughout all ages?

“_A._ We are not assured of this; because we do not know that

it is asserted in Holy Writ.

“_Q._ If this plan were essential to a Christian church, what

must become of all the foreign reformed churches?

“_A._ It would follow, that they are no parts of the church of

Christ! A consequence full of shocking absurdity.

“_Q._ In what age was the Divine right of episcopacy first

asserted in England?

“_A._ About the middle of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Till then

all the bishops and clergy in England continually allowed, and

joined in, the ministrations of those who were not episcopally

ordained.

“_Q._ Must there not be numberless accidental varieties in the

government of various churches?

“_A._ There must, in the nature of things. For, as God

variously dispenses His gifts of nature, providence, and grace,

both the offices themselves and the officers in each ought to

be varied from time to time.

“_Q._ Why is it, that there is no determinate plan of church

government appointed in Scripture?

“_A._ Without doubt, because the wisdom of God had a regard to

this necessary variety.

“_Q._ Was there any thought of uniformity in the government of

all churches, until the time of Constantine?

“_A._ It is certain there was not; and would not have been

then, had men consulted the word of God only.”[586]

This is an important extract. Wesley loved the Church of England; but

who will say, that the views of Wesley were now identical with those

of the high church bigots of either past or present days! Their views

had been his; but he now renounced them. Lord King, the Dissenter, had

converted him. His principles, respecting ecclesiastical polity, were

changed. After this, we have no more nonsense concerning apostolical

succession. Indeed, in reference to this, Wesley wrote (in 1761): “I

never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall.”[587]

It is not too much to say, that, from the time of reading the book

of Lord King, Wesley’s principles of ecclesiastical polity were

substantially the same as those of Dissenters. He still preferred

the Church of England, not because he thought it the only church,

but because, upon the whole, he thought it the best. In the above

extract, we have the principles deliberately adopted, which laid the

groundwork of his future proceedings. As a presbyter, in other words

a bishop, he employed preachers, and set them apart to the sacred

office. It is true, that it was not until nearly forty years after

this, that he began to use the imposition of hands; but that was a

mere _circumstance_, not the _essence_ of ministerial ordination. Mr.

Watson properly observes: “It has been generally supposed, that Mr.

Wesley did not consider his appointment of preachers as an _ordination_

to the ministry; but only as an irregular employment of laymen in the

spiritual office of merely expounding the Scriptures in a case of moral

necessity. This is not correct. They were not appointed to expound or

preach merely, but were solemnly set apart to the pastoral office; nor

were they regarded by him as _laymen_, except when in common parlance

they were distinguished from the clergy of the Church.”[588] His usual

mode of _setting apart or ordaining_ to the ministry consisted of

a most rigid examination of the ministerial candidate on the three

points—Has he grace? Has he gifts? Has he fruit? preceded by fasting

and prayer; and followed by official and authoritative appointment

to ministerial work. For the present, the form of laying on of hands

was not employed; but it was thought of, and was discussed. Hence the

following extract from the minutes of the conference held in 1746:—

“_Q._ Why do we not use more form and solemnity in receiving a

new labourer?

“_A._ We purposely decline it—(1) Because, there is something

of stateliness in it. (2) Because, we would not make haste. We

desire barely to follow Providence, as it gradually opens.”

It is granted that, for Wesley, after this, to fight so tenaciously for

the Church of England was inconsistent, but we take him as we find him.

Facts are facts; and we shall not attempt to blink them. Having founded

churches, or societies as he persisted in calling them, he proceeded to

provide and to _ordain_,—yes, to _ordain_ for them ministers. He was

a clergyman of the episcopal Church of England, with the views of a

Dissenter, and, acting accordingly, there was, of course, in his future

proceedings, much that was incongruous and perplexing.

Wesley left London for Bristol, on January 20. Two days afterwards,

he attended, in the latter city, a conference of the Calvinistic

Methodists, at which there were present Howel Harris and eleven of

his preachers, and Wesley and four of his. Wesley seems to have been

president; at all events, his name stands first. The following are the

minutes:—

“After prayer it was inquired:—(1) How we may remove any

hindrances of brotherly love which have occurred. (2) How we

may prevent any arising hereafter. It was feared that, in

consequence of Mr. Wesley’s preaching in Neath, there would be

a separation in the society. He answered, ‘I do not design to

erect a society at Neath, or any town in Wales, where there is

a society already, but to do all that in me lieth to prevent

any such separation.’

“We all agreed that, if we occasionally preached among each

other’s people, we should endeavour to strengthen and not to

weaken each other’s hands, and prevent any separation in the

several societies; and that a brother from Wesley’s society

should go with Harris to Plymouth and the west, to heal the

breach there made, and to insist on a spirit of love and its

fruits among the people. Agreed, that we should, on each side,

be careful to defend each other’s characters.”[589]

This is beautiful, and sets an example worthy of being emulated by the

Methodist Conferences of the present day. It was but five or six years

since the Methodist schism had happened; and yet, under the magnanimous

management of Wesley and Howel Harris, here we find the two parties

met, not to fight, but to love each other. Differences are kept up

and perpetuated, not by greatness and goodness, but by despicable

ignorance and selfish meanness. Why should Ephraim envy Judah, and

Judah vex Ephraim? The two are brothers; and, as brethren, it would be

a goodly and pleasant sight to see them _dwelling together_ in unity.

Wesley spent a month in Bristol and the neighbourhood; during which

period his brother Charles opened a chapel at Wapping;[590] and Wesley

himself received the following cautionary letter from a new clerical

acquaintance, and, ever afterwards, most confidential and trustworthy

friend. Vincent Perronet was now vicar of Shoreham, in the county of

Kent. A year and a half before, Wesley and Perronet had been brought

together by their mutual friend, the Rev. Henry Piers. Wesley writes:

“I hope to have cause of blessing God for ever for the acquaintance

begun this day.” The hope was realised. Wesley had no more faithful

friend than Vincent Perronet, who now wrote as follows:—

_“February 7, 1746._

“MY DEAR FRIEND,—I make no apology for this trouble, because

I know that you will think it needs none. God hath raised you

up to propagate His spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men;

therefore, be careful how you frustrate this great design of

God. But will you not do this, if you injure your health? Or

can you labour in the vineyard of Christ, when your strength is

gone? Deny yourself, my dear friend, so far as is consistent

with your constant labour; but be cautious lest your self

denials should rob God or His children of what you have

undertaken for the service of both. Remember, that, if you

weaken your body by over mortifications, you render yourself so

far incapable of promoting the honour of the former, and the

happiness of the latter; and yet I know that each of these is

dearer to you than life itself. Let the Holy Spirit’s advice,

out of the mouth of a mortified apostle, to the abstemious

Timothy, be constantly before you.

“I am, with great sincerity, my dear brother in Christ, your

most affectionate

VINCENT PERRONET.”[591]

At this period, advice like this, in Wesley’s case, was not unneeded.

On February 17, when days were short and weather far from favourable,

he set out, on horseback, from Bristol to Newcastle, a distance of

between three and four hundred miles. The journey occupied ten weary

days. Brooks were swollen, and, in some places, the roads were

impassable, obliging the itinerant to go round about through fields.

At Aldridge Heath, in Staffordshire, the rain turned into snow, which

the northerly wind drove against him, and by which he was soon crusted

over from head to foot. At Leeds, the mob followed him, and pelted him

with whatever came to hand. Several of the missiles struck him, some on

the face, but none seriously hurt him. At Skircoat Green, he preached

to a congregation of Quakers; and at Keighley, found the snow so deep,

that he was obliged to abandon his intention of travelling through the

dales. He arrived at Newcastle on February 26.

Here he found general sickness. Two thousand of the soldiers,

belonging to the encampment on the town moor, were already dead, and

the fever was still sweeping others away in troops. In Newcastle and

its neighbourhood, he spent the next eighteen days, preaching, on one

occasion, at Placey, out of doors, in the midst of a “vehement storm,”

which, however, the preacher and his “congregation regarded not.”

While he was here, a letter was published in the _London Magazine_,

addressed “to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, in relation to some false

facts affirmed by him in his Farther Appeal.” A passage was quoted

in reference to the clergy putting no difference between the holy

and profane at the sacramental table; and it was declared, that the

quotation “contains almost as many falsehoods as it does lines.” Wesley

is further accused of “gross misrepresentations and uncharitable

reflections”; of being “base, unjust, and senseless”; of “crowding a

heap of untruths into a little room”; of being animated by “a blind and

rash zeal, and glad to catch at every pretence of making God the patron

and favourer of his cause.”

A production so bitterly scurrilous scarcely deserved an answer; but,

as Wesley was slightly in error, he, like an honest man, frankly

confessed it. The following is his reply, published in the same

periodical.

“_June 18, 1746._

“SIR,—I delayed answering your letter of March 18, till I could

be fully informed of the facts in question.

“I said in the Farther Appeal, page 48, ‘Who dares repel one

of the greatest men in his parish from the Lord’s table, even

though he openly deny the Lord that bought him? Mr. Stonehouse

did this once; but what was the event? The gentleman brought an

action against him. And who was able and willing to espouse his

cause? He alone who took it into His own hands; and, before the

day when it should have been tried here, caused the plaintiff

to answer at a higher bar.’

“You (1) blame me for supposing that gentleman to be one who

openly denied the Lord that bought him; I mean, openly denied

the supreme Godhead of Christ. If he did not, I retract the

charge.

“You say (2) that gentleman brought no action, nor commenced

any suit against Mr. Stonehouse. Upon stricter inquiry, I find

he did not; it was another gentleman, Mr. C—p—r.

“You (3) observe, it was not the death of the plaintiff which

stopped the action; but before it proceeded to a trial, Mr.

Stonehouse thought fit to request it as a favour, that the

action might be stopped, promising not to do the like any more.

Mr. Stonehouse himself gives a different account; but whether

his or yours be the more just, is not material, since the

substance of what you observe is true, namely, ‘That it was not

the plaintiff’s death which stopped the action.’

“You add, ‘I would willingly hope, that you did not

deliberately design to impose upon the world.’ I did not; and

do, therefore, acknowledge the truth in as public a manner as

I am able, being willing, as far as in me lies, to make amends

for whatever injury I have done.

“I am, sir, yours,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

In the same month of March, another letter, of a different complexion,

was published in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_. The writer begins by

showing, that the years 48 and 88, in the last two centuries, at least,

if not longer, had been noted for great changes and revolutions. Thus,

in 1548, the Reformation was first completely established in England;

and, in 1588, the famous pretended invincible Spanish Armada made its

futile attempt to destroy the Protestantism of Great Britain. In 1648,

King Charles was condemned to death, and the gravest changes followed;

and, in 1688, occurred the flight of the last of the Stuart kings, and

the English Revolution.

The writer then proceeds to ask, whether there is not something

remarkable “in the revival of the Moravians very nearly about the same

time with the rise of the Methodists in England; and of a sect of the

same kind in Scotland, by the field preaching of Erskine and others;

and of exactly the same in Wales by the preaching of Howel Harris; and

of something of the same nature in France, where the principal preacher

concerned had been executed by the royal will and pleasure. Is there

not,” the writer continues, “something very surprising in all these

peoples’ rising about the same time, and preaching, all of them, the

same doctrines, and yet all of them, and all their several intentions

of so doing, being previously unknown to each other?”

The above coincidence was more than curious, and the author of the

letter suggests, that such facts and others, which he mentions, may

be “the dawning of some important religious change, or, at least, of

something very extraordinary, which the sacred womb of providence is

big with.”

At the same time as the above, Wesley was engaged in an important

correspondence of another kind. Dr. Doddridge was exactly a year older

than his illustrious Methodist contemporary, was the pastor of a

Dissenting congregation at Northampton, and the principal of an academy

for the education of candidates for the Dissenting ministry. Up to the

present, Wesley had chiefly lived within the state-church enclosure;

but now, having become a convert to the principles of Lord King, he

overstepped the enchanted circle, and thought it no disgrace to commune

and mingle with Dissenters. Methodist preachers were multiplying. Few

of them had had the advantages of education and of reading. Their

knowledge, generally speaking, was confined to the first principles

of religion. These were the only subjects on which they either did,

or were able to converse. Of necessity, their preaching was solely on

the fundamental points of experimental and practical religion; and

hence, their unequalled success in awakening and converting sinners.

Preachers of education and diversified knowledge would, perhaps, not

have excluded these; but they would, to a large extent, have regaled

their hearers with other truths, which, though of great interest, were

insignificant in point of importance when compared with the few great

and grand cardinal doctrines which formed the staple of all the sermons

of Wesley’s first itinerants. The effect of this unadorned preaching

of the greatest of all verities was surprising. Under these untutored

discourses, people found themselves emerging out of thick darkness

into light, which St. Peter aptly describes as “_marvellous_.”

These were glorious results, and almost make one wish, that among

the cultivated and captivating preachers of the present day, who can

discourse most eloquently upon any subject, from Eve’s figleaves up

to Aaron’s wardrobe, or from the architecture of Noah’s ark down to

the whale that swallowed Jonah, there were a sprinkling of men whose

preaching powers, like those of Wesley’s first helpers, were confined

to an incessant utterance, in burning though somewhat boorish words,

of the glorious old truths now-a-days too much neglected,—Repentance

toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, followed by the fruits

of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. If sinners are to

be converted, these are the doctrines which _must_ be preached. Other

doctrines and truths may be interesting, useful, and instructive; these

are absolutely _saving_ and _essential_.

Wesley was devoutly thankful for his uneducated but soul saving

preachers. Still, he saw that, as the Methodists increased in

knowledge, the preachers must keep pace with them. Without this,

though they might still be as successful as ever in converting

ignorant and rude sinners, they would be in danger of being neglected

and even despised by those who, in consequence of conversion, had

been greatly raised, in both an intellectual and social sense, above

their neighbours. In short, Wesley felt convinced that his preachers

must not only preach but read; and being persuaded, as a sort of

clerical Dissenter, that good things might be found even in Dissenting

Nazareths, he wrote to the most distinguished of all Dissenters

then existing, to make inquiry. Six months before, he had called on

Doddridge and had addressed his students; now, at Newcastle, in March,

1746, he addressed to him a letter, the nature of which may be gathered

from Doddridge’s answer.

“_March 15, 1746._

“I am grieved and ashamed, that any hurry, public or private,

should have prevented my answering your obliging letter from

Newcastle; especially as it has a face of disrespect, where I

ought to express the very reverse, if I would do justice either

to you, or my own heart. But you have been used to forgive

greater injuries. I have unwillingly a guardianship affair

on hand, on account of which, I must beg your patience for a

little longer, as to the list of books you desire me to send

you. I presume the list you desire is chiefly theological.

Perhaps my desire of making it too particular has hindered me

from setting about it. But, if God permit, you shall be sure to

have it in a few weeks.

“Let me know how you do, what your success is, and what your

apprehensions are. I fear we must have some hot flame to melt

us. Remember in your prayers,

“Reverend and dear sir,

“Your affectionate brother and servant,

“P. DODDRIDGE.”[592]

Three months later, Doddridge’s promise was fulfilled, in a long

letter, almost a little pamphlet, dated Northampton, June 18, 1746. He

writes—

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—I set myself down, as well as I can,

to discharge my promise, and fulfil your request, in giving my

thoughts on that little collection of books, which you seem

desirous to make for some of your young preachers.”

Then follow his recommendations, which we give in brief:—

_Logic_—Carmichael, and Dr. Watts.

_Metaphysics_—De Urce, Dr. Watts, and Le Clerc.

_Ethics_—Puffendorf, and Hutcheson.

_Jewish Antiquities_—Lewis, Reland, Calmet, and Prideaux.

_Civil History_—Puffendorf, Turselme, and Lampe.

_Natural Philosophy_—Rowning, Ray, Cotton Mather, and Derham.

_Astronomy_—Watts, Jennings, and Wells.

_Natural and Revealed Religion_—Carmichael, Synge, Clarke,

Gibson, Doddridge, Jefferies, Bullock, Conybeare, Leland, and

Chandler.

He next proceeds to the chief subject, practical divinity, which

he thinks “ought to employ the greatest part of the care of every

preacher,” and adds:—

“I will not presume, sir, to mention to you the divines of the

Established Church; but as I may reasonably conclude, that the

Puritans and the divines of the separation are less known to

you, you will pardon me, if I mention a few of them, and of the

chief pieces.”

Then he gives the names of Bolton, Hall, Reynolds, Sibbes, Ward,

Jackson, Owen, Goodwin, Baxter, Bates, Flavel, Taylor, and Howe. He

continues:—

“In recommending the writings of the Dissenters of the present

age, I would be more sparing; yet permit me to mention Evans,

Wright, Watts, Henry, Boyce, Bennett, Jennings, and Grosvenor.

And here, dear sir, I thought to have concluded my letter; but

it occurs to my mind, that I have said nothing of commentators.

I have recommended to my pupils Beza, Erasmus, Castellio,

Heinsius, Patrick, Lowth, Locke, Pierce, Benson, Ainsworth,

Hammond, Grotius, Brennius, Wells, Calvin, Poole, Le Clerc, and

Cradock. I might mention several considerable writers, that

illustrate Scripture, though not direct commentators, such as

Witsius, Saurin, Mede, Hallet, Edwards, Le Crene, Wolsius,

Raphelius, Vitringa, Boss, Elsner, and Lardner. But as the

critical study of Scripture is not so much intended in your

plan, perhaps you will think, I have gone a little out of the

way in mentioning so many upon this head.

“I am afraid I have by this time thoroughly wearied you. It

only remains, that I most cordially recommend you and your

labours to the continued presence and blessing of God, and

subscribe myself, reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate

brother, and faithful humble servant,

“P. DODDRIDGE.”[593]

We return to Wesley. Accompanied by two of his preachers, John Downes,

and William Shepherd, he started from Newcastle for the south, on the

17th of March. When they had ridden between forty and fifty miles,

Downes was so ill that he was unable to proceed farther; and Wesley’s

horse was so lame, that it could scarcely walk. Wesley writes:—“By

riding thus seven miles, I was thoroughly tired, and my head ached more

than it had done for months. I then thought, ‘cannot God heal either

man or beast, by any means, or without any?’ Immediately, my weariness

and headache ceased, and my horse’s lameness in the same instant. Nor

did he halt any more either that day or the next. I here aver a naked

fact; let every man account for it as he sees good.”

Coming to Nottingham, he says: “I had long doubted what it was which

hindered the work of God here. But, upon inquiry, the case was plain.

So many of the society were either triflers or disorderly walkers, that

the blessing of God could not rest upon them; so I made short work,

cutting off all such at a stroke, and leaving only a little handful,

who, as far as can be judged, were really in earnest to save their

souls.”

At Wednesbury and Birmingham, the antinomian teachers had laboured

hard to corrupt the Methodists. One came to Wesley at Birmingham, and

the following colloquy ensued:—

_Wesley._ “Do you believe you have nothing to do with the law

of God?”

_Antinomian._ “I have not: I am not under the law; I live by

faith.”

_W._ “Have you, as living by faith, a right to everything in

the world?”

_A._ “I have: all is mine, since Christ is mine.”

_W._ “May you then take anything you will anywhere—suppose out

of a shop, without the consent or knowledge of the owner?”

_A._ “I may, if I want it; for it is mine: only I will not give

offence.”

_W._ “Have you also a right to all the women in the world?”

_A._ “Yes, if they consent.”

_W._ “And is not that a sin?”

_A._ “Yes, to him that thinks it is a sin; but not to those

whose hearts are free.”

Horrible! No wonder, that Wesley wrote tracts against antinomian

teachers; and no wonder he adds, “Surely these are the firstborn

children of Satan!”

Wesley reached Bristol on March 27; and, eleven days afterwards, laid

“the first stone of the new house at Kingswood;” preaching, on the

occasion, from the words, “For brass I will bring gold,” etc. (Isaiah

lx. 17–22.)

He then hurried up to London, where in company with his friend, the

Rev. H. Piers, he visited a man who called himself a prophet. Wesley

says: “We were with him about an hour. But I could not at all think,

that he was sent of God: 1. Because he appeared to be full of himself,

vain, heady, and opinionated. 2. Because he spoke with extreme

bitterness, both of the king, and of all the bishops, and all the

clergy. 3. Because he aimed at talking Latin, but could not.”

Having spent three weeks in London, Wesley, on the 4th of May, again

set out for Bristol; but on the 17th was back to London. Here his

first business was to settle the chapels in Bristol, Kingswood, and

Newcastle, upon seven trustees, reserving only to himself and his

brother, as he says, the liberty of preaching and lodging there.

This, however, was scarcely correct, so far at least as Newcastle was

concerned, and as the following synopsis of the trust deed will show.

The seven trustees, for the Orphan House there, were Henry Jackson,

weaver, and William Mackford, corndealer, both of Newcastle; John

Nelson, mason, of Birstal; John Haughton, weaver, of Chinley End;

Thomas Richards, late of Trinity College, Oxford; Jonathan Reeves,

baker, late of Bristol; and Henry Thornton, gentleman, of Grays Inn,

London. The trusts were:—1. That Wesley and his brother should have

the free use of the premises, and likewise any person or persons whom

they might nominate or appoint during their lifetime. 2. That, after

the death of the two Wesleys, the trustees should monthly or oftener

nominate and appoint one or more fit person or persons to preach in the

said house, in the same manner, as near as may be, as God’s holy word

was preached at present. 3. That a school should be taught on the said

premises, consisting of forty poor children, to be selected by Wesley

and his brother during their respective lives, and, after their death,

by the trustees. 4. That when, by any cause, the trustees were reduced

to three, they should fill up the vacancies, and make the number seven.

5. That, during their lifetime, the two Wesleys should have the sole

appointment and removal of the masters and mistresses of the school.

6. That every preacher or minister, appointed to the Orphan House,

should, as long as the appointment lasted, preach in the said house

every morning and every evening, as had been usual and customary to be

done.[594]

Southey has fallen into an error as to the settlement of chapels.

He writes:—“Whenever a chapel was built, care was taken, that the

property should be vested, not in trustees, but in Mr. Wesley and

the Conference.” This is incorrect. From the first, the property of

Methodist chapels was always vested in trustees. It is true, that

Wesley reserved to himself the right of preaching in such chapels, and

of appointing others to preach therein; but, as Mr. Watson observes,

neither he nor the Conference had any more “property in the best

secured chapels, than in the poet laureate’s butt of sack.” Wesley

was glad to divest himself of such property, and to put it into the

hands of others. A year afterwards, he writes: 1747, March 19—“I

considered, ‘what would I do now, if I was sure I had but two days

to live?’ All outward things are settled to my wish; the houses at

Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle are safe; the deeds, whereby they

are conveyed to the trustees, took place on the 5th instant; my will

is made; what have I more to do, but to commend my soul to my merciful

and faithful Creator?”

Having made arrangements in London for the settlement of his chapels,

Wesley turned his attention to another subject, upon which opinions

will differ. The number of members in the London society, on the

12th of April, 1746, was 1939, and the amount of their quarterly

contributions £113 9_s._,[595] upon an average, fourteen pence per

member. Considering the high price of money, and that nearly the whole

of the London Methodists were extremely poor, the amount subscribed

was highly creditable. Wesley, however, needed more than this, not for

himself but others, and propounded a somewhat novel plan for raising it.

Tea was a costly luxury. It was first imported into England about the

year 1660, when an act of parliament was passed, imposing a duty of

eightpence on every gallon of the infusion sold in coffee houses. In

1664, the East India Company bought two pounds two ounces as a royal

present to his majesty King Charles II. It continued to be sold in

London for sixty shillings per pound till the year 1707; and, though

considerably cheaper in 1746, it was still a dear indulgence. Wesley

also believed its use to be injurious.

He tells us that, when he first went to Oxford, with an exceeding good

constitution, and being otherwise in health, he was somewhat surprised

at certain symptoms of a paralytic disorder. His hand shook, especially

after breakfast; but he soon observed that, if for two or three days he

intermitted drinking tea, the shaking ceased. Upon inquiry, he found

tea had the same effect on others, and particularly on persons whose

nerves were weak. This led him to lessen the quantity he took, and to

drink it weaker; but still, for above six and twenty years, he was more

or less subject to the same disorder.

In July, 1746, he began to observe, that abundance of the people of

London were similarly affected, some of them having their nerves

unstrung, and their bodily strength decayed. He asked them if they

were hard drinkers; they replied, “No, indeed, we drink scarce anything

but a little tea, morning and night.” He says:

“I immediately remembered my own case, and easily gathered,

from many concurring circumstances, that it was the same case

with them. I considered, ‘what an advantage would it be to

these poor enfeebled people, if they would leave off what

so manifestly impairs their health, and thereby hurts their

business also! If they used English herbs instead of tea, they

might, hereby, not only lessen their pain, but in some degree

their poverty. How much might be saved in so numerous a body as

the Methodists, even in this single article of expense! And how

greatly is all that can possibly be saved, in every article,

wanted daily by those who have not even food convenient for

them! Some of the Methodists had not food to sustain nature;

some were destitute of necessary clothing; and some had not

where to lay their heads. The little weekly contributions were

barely sufficient to relieve the sick.’ I reflected ‘what

might be done, if ten thousand, or one thousand, or only five

hundred, would save all they could in this single instance,

and put their savings into the poor-box weekly, to feed the

hungry, and to clothe the naked!’ I thought further: ‘many

tell me to my face, I can persuade this people to anything. I

will make a fair trial. If I can persuade any number, many who

are now weak or sick will be restored to health and strength;

many will pay those debts which others, perhaps equally poor,

can but ill afford to lose; many will be less straitened in

their own families; many, by helping their neighbour, will lay

up for themselves treasures in heaven.’ Immediately it struck

me, ‘but example must go before precept; therefore, I must

not plead an exemption for myself, from a daily practice of

twenty-seven years: I must begin.’ I did so; the three first

days my head ached, more or less, all day long, and I was

half asleep from morning to night. The third day, my memory

failed, almost entirely. In the evening, I sought my remedy in

prayer; and next morning my headache was gone, and my memory

as strong as ever. And I have found no inconvenience, but a

sensible benefit, in several respects, from that day to this.

My paralytic complaints are all gone; my hand is as steady now

(1748) as it was at fifteen; and so considerable a difference

do I find in my expense, that, in only those four families at

London, Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle, I save upwards of

fifty pounds a year.”

Having set the example, Wesley recommended the same abstinence to a few

of his preachers; and, a week later, to about a hundred of his people

whom he believed to be strong in faith; all of whom, with two or three

exceptions, resolved, by the grace of God, to make the trial without

delay. In a short time, he proposed it to the whole society. Objections

rose in abundance. Some said, “Tea is not unwholesome at all.” To

these, he replied that many eminent physicians had declared it was; and

that, if frequently used by those of weak nerves, it is no other than

a slow poison. Others said, “Tea is not unwholesome to me: why then

should I leave it off?” Wesley answered, “To give an example to those

to whom it is undeniably prejudicial, and to have the more wherewith

to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked.” Others said, “It helps my

health; nothing else will agree with me.” To such, Wesley’s caustic

reply was, “I suppose your body is much of the same kind with that

of your great grandmother; and do you think nothing else agreed with

her, or with any of her progenitors? What poor, puling, sickly things,

must all the English then have been, till within these hundred years!

Besides, if, in fact, nothing else will agree with you,—if tea has

already weakened your stomach, and impaired your digestion to such a

degree, it has hurt you more than you are aware. You have need to abhor

it as deadly poison, and to renounce it from this very hour.”[596]

What was the result of Wesley’s attempt to form a _tea_-total society?

We can hardly tell; except that he himself abstained from tea for the

next twelve years, until Dr. Fothergill ordered him to resume its

use.[597] Charles Wesley began to abstain, but how long his abstinence

lasted we are not informed. About a hundred of the London Methodists

followed the example of their leader; and, besides these, a large

number of others began to be _temperate_, and to use less than they had

previously.[598]

This was, to say the least, an amusing episode in Wesley’s laborious

life. All must give him credit for the best and most benevolent

intentions; and it is right to add, that, ten days after his proposal

was submitted to the London society, he had collected among his friends

thirty pounds for “a lending stock,” and that this was soon made up to

fifty, by means of which, before the year was ended, above two hundred

and fifty destitute persons had received acceptable relief.

On July 20, Wesley set out for Bristol, where he spent the next

fortnight. While here he paid a visit to Oakhill, near Shepton Mallet,

where “the good curate” hired a drunken mob to make disturbance.

As soon as Wesley began preaching, the “drunken champions” began

“screaming out a psalm”; but Wesley says, “our singing quickly

swallowed up theirs. Soon after, their orator named a text, and

preached a sermon; his attendants meantime being busy in throwing

stones and dirt” at Wesley’s congregation.

On August 10, Wesley went to Wales. He preached in Builth churchyard

to nearly all the inhabitants that the town contained. At Maesmennys,

Lanzufried, and Wenvo, he preached in the parish churches; and at

Cardiff in the castle yard. At Neath, he found twelve young men whom,

he says, he almost envied. They lived together in one house, and gave

away whatever they earned above the necessaries of life. Most of them

were predestinarians, but so little bigoted to their opinions, that

they would not suffer a predestinarian to preach among them, unless

he would avoid controversy. Here Wesley preached in the open street,

a gentleman and a drunken fiddler doing their best to interrupt his

service; but, none joining them, they were soon ashamed, and the

gentleman slunk away on one side, and the fiddler on the other. At

Margam, he had to have a Welsh interpreter; and at Leominster (to which

he went during his tour), he began preaching on a tombstone, on the

south side of the parish church, but was not allowed to finish. The

mob “roared on every side”; the bells were set a ringing; and then

the organ began to play amain. Wesley’s voice was drowned, and hence

he thought it advisable to remove to the corn market, where he had

a “quiet time,” and “showed what that sect is, which is ‘everywhere

spoken against.’”

Returning to Bristol, he started, on September 1, for Cornwall. At

St. Just, he found the liveliest society in the county, and yet a few

of the members he was “obliged to reprove for negligence in meeting,

which,” says he, “is always the forerunner of greater evils.” At

Sithney, he preached by moonlight; and, at Gwennap, to an “immense

multitude,” a funeral sermon for Thomas Hitchins, from, “To me to live

is Christ, and to die is gain.”

Having spent a fortnight among the Cornish Methodists, he set out,

on the 16th of September, for London, his brother meeting him at

Uxbridge, and becoming his escort to the capital.[599]

After a week in London, he paid a visit to his friend Perronet,

preaching, on the way, at Sevenoaks, “to a large, wild company,” one of

whom cursed him bitterly. At Shoreham, he preached twice in Perronet’s

church; but says, “the congregation seemed to understand just nothing

of the matter.” The rest of the year was spent in the metropolis.

It has been already stated, that Wesley, for conscience sake, was now

an abstainer from tea. Before the year expired, he went a step further.

He writes: December 29—“I resumed my vegetable diet (which I had now

discontinued for several years), and found it of use both to my soul

and body; but, after two years, a violent flux, which seized me in

Ireland, obliged me to return to the use of animal food.”

Whatever may be thought about the wisdom of a man, of such active

habits, adopting such an abstemious, anchorite sort of diet, there can

be no question about the fact, that his motives were of the highest

and purest kind. He gave up tea, that he might benefit the poor; and,

contemporaneously with his resumption of a vegetable diet, he commenced

an institution, which, to say the least, was not then so popular and so

common as it is at present. He writes: “I mentioned my design of giving

physic to the poor. In three weeks about three hundred came.” Such is

the entry in his Journal.

He had already provided a fund for relieving the necessities of the

poor by furnishing them with food and clothing; but something more

was requisite. Many of them were sick; their sufferings stirred his

sympathy; and yet he knew not how to help them. “At length,” he says,

“I thought of a kind of desperate expedient: ‘I will prepare and give

them physic myself.’ For six or seven and twenty years, I had made

anatomy and physic the diversion of my leisure hours; though I never

properly studied them, unless for a few months when I was going to

America, where I imagined I might be of some service to those who had

no regular physician among them. I applied to it again. I took into my

assistance an apothecary, and an experienced surgeon; resolving, at the

same time, not to go out of my depth, but to leave all difficult and

complicated cases to such physicians as the patients should choose. I

gave notice of this to the society; and, in five months, medicines were

occasionally given to above five hundred persons. Several of these I

never saw before; for I did not regard whether they were of the society

or not. In that time, seventy-one of these, regularly taking their

medicines, and following the regimen prescribed (which three in four

would not do), were entirely cured of distempers long thought to be

incurable. The whole expense of medicines, during this time, was nearly

forty pounds.”[600]

This was a bold step, and exposed Wesley to animadversion. He was not

a legally qualified medical practitioner, and there were not wanting

those who were ready to brand him as a quack. His defence was, that the

poor were neglected; that physicians were often useless; and that his

own gratuitous treatment was successful. In a letter, published in the

_Bath Journal_, in 1749, he writes: “I do not know that any one patient

yet has died under my hands. If any person does, let him declare it,

with the time and circumstances.”[601] And, in another letter addressed

to Archbishop Secker, in 1747, four months after his dispensary was

opened, he remarks:—

“For more than twenty years, I have had numberless proofs,

that regular physicians do exceeding little good. From a deep

conviction of this, I have believed it my duty, within these

four months last past, to prescribe such medicines to six or

seven hundred of the poor as I knew were proper for their

several disorders. Within six weeks, nine in ten of them, who

had taken these medicines, were remarkably altered for the

better; and many were cured of disorders under which they had

laboured for ten, twenty, forty years. Now, ought I to have let

one of these poor wretches perish, because I was not a regular

physician? to have said, ‘I know what will cure you; but I am

not of the college; you must send for Dr. Mead’? Before Dr.

Mead had come in his chariot, the man might have been in his

coffin. And when the doctor was come, where was his fee? What!

he cannot live upon nothing! So, instead of an orderly cure,

the patient dies; and God requires his blood at my hands.”[602]

It was difficult to answer this, and Wesley was not the man to be

browbeaten from the path of duty by envious and angry members of the

healing profession. Indeed, his success was such, that, within two

months after opening his dispensary at the Foundery in London, he

instituted a second in Bristol, and writing to his friend and patron,

Mr. Ebenezer Blackwell, says, “Our number of patients increases

in Bristol daily. We have now upwards of two hundred. Many have

already desired to return thanks, having found a considerable change

for the better already. But we are at a great loss for medicines;

several of those we should choose being not to be had at any price in

Bristol.”[603]

There are only two other matters, belonging to the year 1746,

which require attention; namely, Wesley’s conference, and Wesley’s

publications.

The conference commenced in Bristol on the 12th of May, and lasted four

days.[604] Four clergymen were present—the two Wesleys, and Messrs.

Hodges and Taylor. Besides these, there were four itinerants, Messrs.

Reeves, Maxfield, Westall, and Willis; and also Thomas Glascot, of

whom we know nothing. As at former conferences, so at this, doctrines

were reviewed, and carefully guarded against error and abuse; and,

after this, points of discipline were discussed and settled. It was

agreed, that “the properest persons to be present,” at the annual

conferences, were—1. The preachers. 2. The most earnest and most

sensible of the bandleaders living in the town where the conference

was held. 3. Any pious and judicious stranger who might be visiting

the place. It was thought, that it might be useful to read one or

more of Wesley’s tracts at each conference, were it only to correct

errors, or to explain obscurities. Wesley’s helpers were defined to

be “extraordinary messengers, designed of God to provoke the others

to jealousy.” It was resolved, that those who believed themselves to

be called of God to preach should be strictly examined on the three

points, Have they grace, gifts, and fruit? and that those in whom

these three marks undeniably concurred should be allowed to have such

a call. It was thought that, at present, they were not preaching the

atonement so much as they did at first; and that the sermons which were

attended with the greatest blessing, were—“1. Such as were most close,

convincing, particular. 2. Such as had most of Christ, the Priest, the

Atonement. 3. Such as urged the heinousness of men’s living in contempt

or ignorance of Him.” It was determined, that a sufficient call of

Providence to a new place was an invitation from some worthy person,

and a probability of doing more good by going thither, than by staying

longer where they were. New members were to be admitted into the bands

and societies only once a quarter, their names having been previously

read at meetings of the existing members; and, at the same time, had to

be read the names of those excluded from the society. Directions were

given to guard against formality in public singing. Efforts were to be

employed to induce the people to attend the church; and, as an example

to the Bristol Methodists, it was agreed, that the Bristol preachers

should go to St. James’s church every Wednesday and Friday. The country

was divided into seven circuits, namely—1. London, including Brentford,

Egham, Windsor, Wycombe, and the three counties of Surrey, Kent, and

Essex. 2. Bristol, including the isle of Portland, and the counties

of Somerset, Wilts, Oxford, and Gloucester. 3. Cornwall. 4. Evesham,

embracing Shrewsbury, Leominster, Hereford, and all the places from

Stroud to Wednesbury. 5. Yorkshire, to which was to be attached the

six counties of Cheshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire,

Rutlandshire, and Lincolnshire. 6. Newcastle. 7. Wales. The present

assistants were Reeves, Bennet, Haughton, Nelson, Wheatley, Trembath,

Westall, Richards, Downes, Meyrick, Maxfield, and Walker. And to these,

perhaps, would be added, Jones, Larwood, and Cownley. Copies of the

minutes of the conferences were to be given only to those who were or

might have been present; but they were to be read to the stewards and

leaders of bands, the Sunday and Thursday following each conference.

Such is a synopsis of the proceedings of the conference of 1746.

Notwithstanding Wesley’s almost incessant travelling and preaching,

he still found time to write. Two of his publications, in 1746, were

partly his own, but principally his brother’s.

First: “Hymns for those that seek, and those that have, Redemption in

the Blood of Jesus Christ.” 12mo, 68 pages. Twenty-eight of these hymns

are inserted in the Wesleyan Hymn-Book, and are among the finest that

the book contains. One of them, evidently written by Wesley himself,

begins with the line, “How happy is the pilgrim’s lot;” and though two

or three of the verses are not suitable for a mixed congregation to

sing, the whole is strikingly descriptive of Wesley’s own condition and

experience. He had no wife, and no children, and had just transferred

his chapels to trustees, and, hence, could sing what many in Methodist

congregations cannot.

“I have no babes to hold me here;

But children more securely dear

For mine I humbly claim;

Better than daughters or than sons,

Temples Divine of living stones,

Inscribed with Jesu’s name.

No foot of land do I possess,

No cottage in this wilderness

A poor, wayfaring man,

I lodge awhile in tents below;

Or gladly wander to and fro,

Till I my Canaan gain.

I have no sharer of my heart,

To rob my Saviour of a part,

And desecrate the whole;

Only betrothed to Christ am I,

And wait His coming from the sky,

To wed my happy soul.

Nothing on earth I call my own,

A stranger, to the world unknown,

I all their goods despise;

I trample on their whole delight,

And seek a country out of sight,

A country in the skies.”

Second. The other joint publication was, “Hymns of Petition and

Thanksgiving for the Promise of the Father.” By John and Charles

Wesley. 12mo, 36 pages. These were thirty-two in number, and were

specially intended for use at Whitsuntide. Several of the best of them

are in the Methodist Hymn-Book.[605]

Wesley’s other publications were the following:—

1. “A Word of Advice to Saints and Sinners.” 12mo, 12 pages.

2. “Lessons for Children. Part I.” 12mo, 76 pages; with a vignette on

the title-page of an angel on clouds, with a scroll in one hand, and

a trumpet in the other. The lessons are fifty-four in number, and are

almost entirely taken from the five books of Moses. Prefixed is an

address “to all parents and schoolmasters,” in which Wesley says:—

“I have endeavoured in the following lessons to select the

plainest and most useful portions of Scripture; such as

children may the most easily understand, and such as it most

concerns them to know. These are set down in the same order,

and generally in the same words, wherein they are delivered

by the Spirit of God. Where an expression is less easy to

be understood, I have subjoined a word or two by way of

explication. I cannot but earnestly entreat you, to take good

heed, how you teach these deep things of God. Beware of that

common, but accursed way, of making children parrots, instead

of Christians. Regard not _how much_, but to how good purpose

they read. Turn each sentence every way, propose it in every

light, and question them continually on every point.”

3. In the month of March, the Rev. Thomas Church, vicar of Battersea,

published another two shilling pamphlet, entitled, “Some further

Remarks on Mr. Wesley’s last Journal;”[606] and, in July,[607] Wesley

issued, “The Principles of a Methodist farther explained; occasioned

by the Reverend Mr. Church’s second letter to Mr. Wesley; in a second

letter to that gentleman.” 12mo, 79 pages. First of all, Wesley

takes up the case of the Moravians; and then explains his views of

justification, and of the faith and repentance preceding it. Next he

vindicates himself against the charge of violating the discipline of

the Church of England, and of his being an enthusiast. He declares his

belief, that, in points of importance, when the reasons brought on each

side appear to be of equal weight, it is right to decide the question

by casting lots; that there are still such persons as demoniacs, and

will be such as long as Satan is the god of this world; and that there

is nothing either in the Old Testament or the New which teaches, that

“miracles were to be confined within the limits of the apostolic or

the Cyprianic age, or, that God hath in any way precluded Himself from

working miracles, in any kind or degree, in any age to the end of

time.” The pamphlet must be read to be appreciated. It is _multum in

parvo_.

In November, Wesley, for the first time, published a _volume_ of

sermons, price, in sheets, half-a-crown.[608] The title was, “Sermons

on Several Occasions;” and the book is the first of the _four volumes

of sermons_, which, with the Notes on the New Testament, were

afterwards constituted the perpetual standard of Methodist theology.

These are so widely and so well known that further description is

unneeded. The preface, however, deserves notice. It states that the

sermons contain the substance of what Wesley had been preaching during

the last eight years; and, that there was no point of doctrine, on

which he had been accustomed to speak in public, which was not here,

incidentally, if not professedly, laid before the reader. Wesley adds:—

“Nothing here appears in an elaborate, elegant, or oratorical

dress. If it had been my desire or design to write thus,

my leisure would not permit. But, in truth, I, at present,

designed nothing less; for I now write, as I generally speak,

_ad populum_. I design plain truth for plain people; therefore,

of set purpose, I abstain from all nice and philosophical

speculations; from all perplexed and intricate reasonings; and,

as far as possible, from even the show of learning, unless

in sometimes citing the original Scripture. I have thought,

I am a creature of a day. I am a spirit come from God, and

returning to God. I want to know one thing,—the way to heaven.

God Himself has condescended to teach me the way. He hath

written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price,

give me the book of God! I have it; here is knowledge enough

for me. Let me be _homo unius libri_. Here then I am, far from

the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In

His presence, I read His book; for this end, to find the way

to heaven. Is there a doubt concerning the meaning of what

I read? I lift up my heart to the Father of lights, and ask

Him to let me know His will. I then search after and consider

parallel passages of Scripture. I meditate thereon with all the

attention and earnestness of which my mind is capable. If any

doubt still remains, I consult those who are experienced in the

things of God; and then the writings whereby, being dead, they

yet speak. And what I thus learn, that I teach.”

This is very beautiful. Wesley was no copyist. He owed his theology

to no class of theologians, either ancient or modern,—Moravian or

otherwise. Peter Bohler and others might suggest truths like the grand

old doctrine of salvation by faith only; but before adopting them

Wesley went to the only pure fount of theology existing, and deduced

his creed, not from Bohler’s notions, but from the book of God. His

belief was thus founded upon a rock, and he felt it so. He declares,

that his mind is open to conviction; but, at the same time, he was

conscious that he had, not only human, but Divine authority for what he

taught. Let all divinity students copy his example.

Wesley’s last publication, in 1746, was Parts II. and III. of his

“Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.” 12mo, 139 pages. In

some respects, this was one of the severest works that Wesley ever

committed to the press. With terrible power, he depicts the wickedness

of the nation,—forgetfulness of God and neglect of His holy ordinances,

swearing, perjury, sabbath breaking, drunkenness, lasciviousness,

speaking evil of dignities, and robbery. Attorneys are lashed as

being, in some instances, less honest than pickpockets; and the way in

which they whipped money out of their clients’ purses is so described,

that an unjust lawyer by whom Wesley himself had been victimised sent

him back half the amount he had extorted from him. The guardians of

public charities are charged with sacrilege. Lying was one of the

fashions of the day; and language was swollen with compliment. Pride

was rampant; and even cobblers, in London, thought themselves wiser

than secretaries of state, and coffee house disputers abler divines

than archbishops. Prisons were schools of vice, out of which prisoners

emerged fitted for any kind or degree of villainy, perfectly brutal and

devilish, thoroughly furnished for every evil word and work. In the

army, profanity was fearful. In the navy, almost every man-of-war was

a floating hell. The clergy were not free from the taint of lewdness

and drunkenness, from covetousness and idleness, from neglecting the

poor and flattering the rich. Presbyterians, in many instances, kept

a conscience void of offence, but they had among them drunkards,

gluttons, dishonest dealers, and extortioners. Baptists were far from

being faultless. Quakers affected great sanctity and simplicity, and

yet many of their women wore gold upon their very feet, and their men

might be seen with glittering canes and snuff-boxes, even in their

solemn assemblies; their female members were too strict to lay out

a shilling in a necklace, but not too strict to lay out fourscore

guineas in a repeating watch; in one kind of apron or handkerchief they

durst not expend twenty shillings, but in another sort would, expend

twenty pounds; they declined to touch a coloured ribbon, but would

cover themselves from head to foot in costly silk. Papists, Jews, and

infidels are castigated with equal severity; and with them the second

part of the Appeal concludes.

The third Part commences with an account of the present revival of

religion, and of the brutal persecutions with which it had been

assailed. Then objections are answered. Wesley states, that he has

seven thousand persons in his societies, whose souls he could not

neglect without endangering his own salvation. He shows the difference

between other reformations of the church, and that with which he and

his contemporaries were identified, and concludes thus:—

“The difference is wide between our case and the case of any

of those above mentioned. They _avowedly separated_ from the

church; we utterly _disavow_ any such design. They severely,

and almost continually, inveighed against the _doctrines_ and

_discipline_ of the church they left; we approve both the

_doctrines_ and _discipline_ of our church, and inveigh only

against _ungodliness_ and _unrighteousness_. They spent great

part of their time and strength in contending about externals

and circumstantials; we agree with you in both; so that

having no room to spend any time in such contentions, we have

one desire of spending and being spent, in promoting plain,

_practical religion_.”

It is impossible, in a brief summary like this, to give an adequate

idea of these “Appeals,” the best defence of Methodism extant. They are

among the most elaborate of Wesley’s productions; giving a melancholy

view of the low state of religion and of public morals, when he and

his brother Methodists entered upon their extraordinary career of

ministerial labour; and containing a triumphant vindication of their

doctrines and proceedings. They all are pervaded with a spirit of great

seriousness, and display a mind deeply affected by the sins and follies

of mankind.

1747.

[Sidenote: 1747 Age 44]

For a moment, let us look at Whitefield, who spent the year 1747 in

America. Wesley had written him on the subject of union; to which he

replied on the 11th of September, as follows:—

“DEAR AND REVEREND SIR,—Not long ago I received your kind

letter, dated in February last. My heart is really for an

outward, as well as an inward union. Nothing shall be wanting

on my part to bring it about; but I cannot see how it can

possibly be effected, till we all think and speak the same

things. I rejoice to hear that you and your brother are more

moderate with respect to _sinless perfection_. Time and

experience, I believe, will convince you that, attaining such

a state in this life, is not the doctrine of the everlasting

gospel. As for _universal redemption_, if we omit on each side

the talking for or against reprobation, which we may fairly

do, and agree, as we already do, in giving an universal offer

to all poor sinners that will come and taste of the water of

life, I think we may manage very well. But it is difficult to

determine such matters at a distance. Some time next year, I

hope to see you face to face. I hope ere long to be delivered

from my outward embarrassments. I long to owe no man anything

but love. This is a debt, reverend sir, I shall never be able

to discharge to you, or your brother. Jesus will pay you all.

For His sake, I love and honour you very much, and rejoice as

much in your success as in my own. I cannot agree with you in

some principles, but that need not hinder love. What have you

done with the Moravian Brethren? Their affairs are in confusion

here. I think their foundation is too narrow for their

superstructure. I believe, in their plan, there are many plants

that our heavenly Father hath not planted. The Lord bless what

is right, and rectify what is wrong in them, in us, and in all.

O for heaven! where we shall mistake, judge, and grieve one

another no more. Continue to pray for us, and assure yourself,

that you are always remembered by, reverend and very dear sir,

your most affectionate, though unworthy younger brother and

willing servant for Christ’s sake,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[609]

So much for Whitefield. What about his English coadjutors? Howel Harris

writes:—

“Wales is like the garden of the Lord; many are awakened, and

fresh doors are opened. All the ministers and exhorters go

on heartily, and the presence and power of the Lord are still

more manifest. Hasten thy winged motion, oh glorious day! when

I shall see Paul and Barnabas, Luther and Calvin, and all the

saints, joining in one song, and not so much as remembering

that they ever differed. I have lately, at their own request,

discoursed three or four times before several gentlemen,

ladies of fashion, some magistrates, counsellors, attorneys,

and doctors in divinity, and they behaved well. I have been

all round South Wales, travelling often twenty, and sometimes

thirty miles a day, and preaching twice, besides settling and

conferring with the societies everywhere. I am about to begin a

round through North Wales, where I expect to be sent home, or

at least imprisoned. For ten days, my life will be in continual

danger.”

Joseph Williams, of Kidderminster, relates, that he had recently

been on a preaching tour in Wales, and in Yorkshire. At Haworth, he

had taken a bed at the house of Grimshaw, with whom he held sweet

fellowship, from six o’clock at night till two o’clock next morning.

Grimshaw’s church was always crowded, and hundreds were not able to

get in at all. People flocked to hear him from all the neighbouring

towns, and as many as a hundred strangers were accustomed, on a Sunday,

to dine at the village inn. The surrounding clergy were caballing to

get him suspended; and, if they succeeded, he was resolved to become

at once an itinerant preacher. The landlord, at Colne, told Williams

that Grimshaw had preached in that town “damnation beyond all sense and

reason,” his sermon lasting two long hours; and that, “every week, and

almost every day, he preached in barns and private houses, and was a

great encourager of conventicles.”

Thomas Adams says, he had been preaching in a barn at Gosport, and

that in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth the good work was prospering.

In Wilts, he had seen religion reviving. In Gloucestershire, his

labours had been blessed, and the meetings of the societies had been a

pentecost. When at Bristol there had been “a brave shaking among the

dry bones.”

James Relly (who afterwards founded a sect called “Rellyan

Universalists,”) observes, that at Bristol he had examined the whole

society once a week, but the place had been “a furnace” to him. At

Bath, he had “particular freedom.” In Gloucestershire, he had been

preaching every day, and thrice on Sundays; and had found the people

“honest, simple, and hungering after the bread of life.” At Wednesbury,

he found his heart enlarged every time he preached. At Birmingham, he

had formed a society of twenty members, and had left them with great

regret. At Bromsgrove, he had preached in an Independent chapel, to a

congregation of “simple, loving souls.” At Tewkesbury, a furious mob

assaulted him, swore, cursed, laughed, pricked the congregation with

pins, threw handfuls of snuff among them, and brickbats and dirt; and

broke the windows of the house; but, in the midst of all, he continued

preaching for an hour.

John Relly was witnessing “many inroads made in Satan’s kingdom,” and

he seldom preached without seeing conversions.

Herbert Jenkins had been preaching in Scotland, and conversing with the

clergy, many of whom he pronounces to be “good men, and very powerful

preachers.” In Edinburgh, he had found nearly twenty societies,

including one composed of soldiers, who had fought at the battle of

Culloden. In the park, he had had a congregation of many thousands.

“At Glasgow,” says the _Scots Magazine_, “he was complimented with the

freedom of the city, and was entertained by the magistrates and by the

presbytery. He made no public collections as Whitefield did, and his

behaviour altogether was inoffensive and becoming.”

John Edwards had made a tour through the midland counties, where “King

Jesus was getting Himself the victory.” He writes:—“Oh what times and

seasons we have had; souls fired with the love of God, and following

the word from place to place, horse and foot, like men engaged in a

war, determined to take the city by force of arms.” At Haverfordwest

and in Wales, multitudes flocked to hear him.

Certain members of the Tabernacle society, in London, relate that the

place was generally full; and a gentleman at Plymouth writes, that “the

work goes on very comfortably there.”[610]

These hints will suggest to the reader an idea of the work that was

being done by the preachers who propagated Whitefield’s doctrines.

All the letters, filling more than a hundred pages of the “Christian

History,” breathe the most ardent piety, and are full of gratitude,

hope, and exultation.

Charles Wesley spent the first two months of 1747 in a journey from

Newcastle to Bristol. The next six months he made London and Bristol

the centre of his operations. The last four months of the year were

employed in Ireland.

Wesley himself was travelling almost incessantly, and we must now try

to follow him.

On January 11 he left London for Bristol. Reaching Devizes, he found

the town in the greatest uproar. Swelling words, oaths, curses, and

threatenings were abundant. Mr. Innys, the curate, who knew of Wesley’s

coming, had spent the day in visiting from house to house, to stir up

the people against him. He had also published an advertisement, in

the most public places in the town, of “An obnubilative, pantomime

entertainment, to be exhibited at Mr. Clark’s,” in whose house

Wesley had to preach. For the present, however, the high purpose of

the zealous curate was not realised. At the appointed hour, Wesley

commenced preaching. The well instigated mob were listeners, but they

were all dumb dogs, and attention sat on every face.

Sixteen days afterwards, Wesley returned to this clerical preserve,

where he again found, that great efforts had been used to raise a

rabble, but, he writes, “it was lost labour; all that could be mustered

were a few straggling soldiers, and forty or fifty boys.”

Wesley told his brother, “there was no such thing as raising a mob at

Devizes”; but Charles soon found it to be otherwise. Coming within a

month after, on February 24, a crowd awaited him, headed by “the chief

gentleman of the town,” while Mr. Innys, the energetic curate, stood

with them in the street, jumping for very joy. The reverend persecutor

had been more successful in organising ruffians to do his dirty work,

in the case of Charles, than he had been in the case of Wesley himself.

He had declared in the pulpit, as well as from house to house, that he

had heard Charles preach blasphemy before the university, and tell his

congregation, “If you don’t receive the Holy Ghost while I breathe upon

you, you will all be damned.” He had secured the services of two of

the chief men in the borough, Messrs. Sutton and Willy, both of them

Dissenters. The poor parson was so supremely happy, that he began to

dance. The church bells were rung backwards. Mrs. Philip’s house was

ransacked; the windows were smashed, and the shutters of the shop torn

down; the door was blocked up with a wagon; and lights were kindled to

prevent the preacher’s escaping. The mob then proceeded to the inn,

and seized the horses of Charles Wesley and his friend Meriton, and,

some hours afterwards, the poor animals were found in a pond, up to the

neck in water. A water engine was played into the house where Charles

was staying; the rooms were flooded; and the goods were spoiled.

The leader of the small society was thrown into a pool, and, almost

miraculously, escaped an untimely death. The son of the mayor had been

converted, and, instead of running away to sea, had joined the society.

His father was a coward, and had left the town, when he ought to have

remained in it; but his mother sent her maid, begging Charles Wesley

to disguise himself in a woman’s clothes, and endeavour to escape. At

length, the constable came, beseeching him to leave the town; and poor

Mr. Sutton and Mr. Willy began to fear the mob, which they and their

clerical friend Innys had been the means of raising, was becoming more

violent than might be safe. In the midst of this, Charles Wesley and

Mr. Meriton took the opportunity to get away; and, after escaping a

most murderous attack from a couple of bulldogs, not less savage than

the bloodthirsty villains which hounded them on, the two martyr like

ministers began singing the hymn commencing, “Worship, and thanks, and

blessing;” and thus, in a tone of triumph, made their way to Bath and

Bristol.[611]

Strangely enough, Wesley was accustomed to choose the worst season

of the year for his most trying journey. Why? We cannot tell. Having

finished his visitation of the London classes, he set out, on the

16th of February, for Newcastle. A north wind blew so hard and keen,

that, when he and his companions got to Hatfield, they could scarcely

use either their hands or feet. In making their way to Baldock, they

encountered a storm of snow and hail, which drove so vehemently in

their faces, that sight was useless, and breathing almost impossible.

Next day, they had the greatest difficulty in keeping their horses on

their feet. The wind rose higher and higher, till it threatened to

overturn both man and beast. A storm of rain and hail drove through

their coats, great and small, boots, and everything; and, freezing as

it fell, their eyebrows were hung with icicles. On Stamford Heath, the

snow was lying in mountain drifts, which sometimes well-nigh swallowed

up both horses and riders; but, about sunset, they came, cold and

weary, to Brigg-Casterton. On the 18th, they were told, so much snow

had fallen in the night, that travelling was impracticable. Wesley

replied, “At least, we can walk twenty miles a day, with our horses

in our hands”; and off he set. The north-east wind was piercing; the

main road was impassable; Wesley was distracted with the toothache;

but, at five in the afternoon, they arrived at Newark. Next day, they

came to Epworth, where they rested the three days following; with

the exception, that, on Sunday Wesley preached twice in the humble

meeting-house, and once, after the evening prayers, at Epworth cross,

to most of the adult population of the town.

The next three days were spent in an excursion to Grimsby and back

again to Epworth. Charles Wesley had been at the former town seven

weeks before, when the meeting-house was invaded by a mob of wild

creatures, almost naked, who ran about the place, attacking all they

met. Several caught at the preacher to drag him down, and one struck

at him. At length, they fell to fighting and beating each other, till,

in a few minutes, they literally drove themselves out of the very

room from which they meant to drive the poor Methodists; and one of

the ringleaders, armed with a great club, swore he would conduct the

minister to his lodgings, and forthwith led him through the drunken

rioters to brother Blow’s.[612]

On this occasion, when Wesley himself came, “a young gentleman and

his companions” drowned Wesley’s voice, till a poor woman took up the

cause, and, by keenly and wittily reciting a few passages of the young

spark’s life, turned the laugh of his companions upon him, and obliged

him to skulk away discomfited. Next day, he came to ask Wesley’s

pardon, and thus, for some years, Methodist persecution at Grimsby

ceased. At Tetney, Wesley found the most remarkable society in England,

with Micah Elmoor for its leader. The members were all poor, and yet

each gave from eightpence to two shillings weekly,—certainly a large

amount, considering the rate of agricultural wages and the worth of

money. The members of the London society were not averaging more than

about a penny per week. Wesley was surprised at the difference, and

asked, “How is this?” To which Micah Elmoor replied, “All of us, who

are single persons, have agreed together, to give both ourselves and

all we have to God; and, by this means, we are able, from time to time,

to entertain all the strangers that come to Tetney; who often have no

food to eat, nor any friend to give them lodging.”

On February 26, Wesley left Epworth, and proceeded northwards,

preaching, on his way, at Sykehouse, Acomb, Thirsk, and Osmotherley. At

the last mentioned place, where he had already found a friend in the

popish priest, the clergyman of the parish allowed him to preach twice

in the parish church. “The bitterest gainsayers,” says Wesley, “seemed

now to be melted into love. All were convinced we are no papists. How

wisely does God order all things in their season!”

On the 2nd of March, he reached Newcastle. At this period, Grace Murray

had charge of the Orphan House family. More than once, she had been

an inmate; but she and sister Jackson, like rival queens in the same

establishment, were unable to agree, and, at least twice, Wesley had

had the unenviable task of reconciling two gossiping women, whose

religion made them proud and garrulous, rather than of “a meek and

quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Grace’s

first husband was drowned in 1742, upon which she removed from London

to Newcastle, where she was appointed leader of several classes. Within

six months of her husband’s death, she became the sweetheart of John

Brydon, and it was commonly supposed they were about to marry, but, in

the long run, Grace declined the honour of John’s alliance. At the end

of 1745, she was made Orphan House keeper, and retained the office at

the time of Wesley’s visit, in 1747.[613] Unfortunately, we shall have

to recur to sister Murray at a subsequent period.

Another inmate was Jeannie Keith, belonging to a respectable family of

the Keiths in Scotland. Being persecuted on account of her religious

principles, she fled to England, and took shelter in Wesley’s Orphan

House, where she went by the cognomen of “Holy Mary.” She was

afterwards married to James Bowmaker, a master builder at Alnwick,

who erected the first Methodist chapel in that town, and was the

grandfather of the Rev. James Everett. She had two children, and died

about the year 1752. It has generally been supposed, that Jeannie

Keith fell from grace, this opinion being founded upon an expression

in one of Wesley’s letters, written a year or two previous to her

death;[614] but the inference is hardly legitimate, and the thing

itself is incorrect. The writer is possessed of authentic manuscripts,

showing, that though Jeannie returned to the presbyterian religion, she

continued faithful to her great Master to the very last. A year only

before her death, she was diligently distributing the works of John and

Charles Wesley among her friends and relatives, including Lord and Lady

Saltoun; and the greatest crime that I can find alleged against her, is

that of rejoining the church of her childhood. An extract from one of

Jeannie’s letters to Wesley, in 1747, may be useful.

“I bless God, that ever He brought me into this house. It is

like a little heaven to me. There is not only such love, but

such freedom among us, as I could not have believed would have

been so soon. I have never seen a thing, that I thought amiss

in any of the family, neither do they seem to think anything

wrong in me. I am as much entangled with the great ones of the

world as ever; and if they are not with me, I am with them. I

have great reasonings, whether to shake off all acquaintance

with them or not. I am surprised how they bear the plainness

of speech that I use; for with tears do I tell them the danger

that their souls are in. Oh! forget not your weak child,

“JEANNIE KEITH.”[615]

In another letter, dated November 1, 1748, and addressed to Wesley, she

writes:—

“I think we never had a more blessed time in this house, since

it was a house. I know of nothing amiss betwixt sister Murray

and me; but we cannot be as one soul; for, you know, she must

have a little pre-eminence. I am exceeding willing that she

should; and so we live in great peace, and, I believe, in love.

I am still unwilling to take anything from anybody. I work out

of choice, having never yet learned how long a woman can be

idle and innocent. I do not murmur because I have not worldly

goods, or a little skin-deep beauty; but I am happy, because,

as long as God lives, I shall enjoy Him; so long as there is

a heaven, I shall possess it. If this thought cannot make me

happy, without anything else, I deserve to be miserable.

“Your affectionate and loving child,

“JEANNIE KEITH.”[616]

How many more refugee sisters there were in the Orphan House, we are

not informed; but we learn from the manuscript already quoted, that,

about this period, Christopher Hopper, Benjamin Wheatley, Edward

Dunstan, and Eleazer Webster, all of them either already or about to

become itinerants, were, more or less, Orphan House residents; and

it is probable, that these were some of the young men referred to in

the extracts following. The Orphan House was, at once, a place of

worship, a school for orphans, a refuge for the injured and oppressed,

the northern home of Wesley, and the “theological institution” of his

preachers. Wesley writes:—

“March 2.—I rode to Newcastle. I found all in the house of

the same spirit; pouring out their souls to God many times in

a day together, and breathing nothing but love and brotherly

kindness.”

“March 4.—This week I read over, with some young men, a

compendium of rhetoric, and a system of ethics. I see not, why

a man of tolerable understanding may not learn in six months

more of solid philosophy than is commonly learned at Oxford in

four (perhaps seven) years.”

The old Orphan House was thus the first institution in which young

Methodist preachers received instructions for the efficient discharge

of their ministerial duties. Here Wesley himself studied. During this

very visit, he read “The Exhortations of Ephraem Syrus,” whose picture

of a broken and contrite heart had never been excelled since the days

of David,—and “The History of the Puritans;” after which he wrote:—“I

stand in amaze: first, at the execrable spirit of persecution which

drove those venerable men out of the Church, and with which Queen

Elizabeth’s clergy were as deeply tinctured as ever Queen Mary’s were;

secondly, at the weakness of those holy confessors, many of whom spent

so much of their time and strength in disputing about surplices and

hoods, or kneeling at the Lord’s supper.”

It is a curious fact, that, though only little more than four years had

elapsed since the society at Newcastle was founded by Charles Wesley,

it was now reduced from above eight hundred members to four hundred.

Wesley, however, considered, according to the old proverb, that “the

half was more than the whole”; but if this were true, the whole must

have been a motley mass.

Having spent seven weeks at Newcastle and in the neighbourhood, Wesley

set out, on Easter Monday, April 20, for London. In the evening, he

reached Osmotherley, where, after having ridden, at least, sixty miles,

and preached twice, he mounted a tombstone, and concluded the day by

a sermon from “The Lord is risen indeed.” Here John Nelson met him,

having just escaped from the hands of his murderous persecutors in the

vicinity of York.

Proceeding to Thirsk, Wesley found the town full of holiday folks,

drinking, cursing, swearing, and cockfighting. Making his way to

Leeds and other towns in the west riding of Yorkshire, he visited the

Moravian settlement at Fulneck, which was now approaching completion.

“It stands,” says he, “on the side of a hill, commanding all the vale

beneath, and the opposite hill. The front is exceeding grand, though

plain, being faced with fine, smooth, white stone. The Germans suppose

it will cost about three thousand pounds; it is well if it be not

nearer ten. But that is no concern to the English Brethren; for they

are told, and believe, that all the money will come from beyond the

sea.” We shall find, in a subsequent chapter, that Wesley’s doubts

respecting the “ways and means” were not unfounded.

At Keighley, Wesley ascertained that the small society of ten had

increased tenfold. He visited Grimshaw, and preached in Haworth

church. At Halifax, he addressed “a civil, senseless congregation,”

and baptized a Quaker. Meeting with William Darney, who, besides

converting Grimshaw, had been the means of forming a number of

societies among the mountains of Lancashire and Yorkshire, Wesley,

at his request, set out to visit those infant churches, at Roughlee,

Widdap, Stonesey Gate, and other places. While preaching one morning

at five o’clock, near New Church, in Rossendale, one of his hearers

was a young man, then in his twentieth year, who afterwards rose to a

high position,—John Butterworth, for more than fifty years the pastor

of a Baptist church, the author of a valuable concordance to the Holy

Scriptures, and the father of the late Joseph Butterworth, Esq., who

was long a distinguished Methodist in the metropolis, and a member of

the House of Commons.

From Rossendale, Wesley proceeded to Manchester, where, on the 7th of

May, he preached at Salford cross. Within the last few months, a few

young men had formed themselves into a society, had rented a room,

and written a letter desiring the Wesleys to own them as brethren.

The “room” was a small apartment in a house built upon a rock on the

bank of the Irwell, on the north side of Blackfriars Bridge, at the

bottom of a large yard, known by the name of the “Rose and Crown

yard,” and which was filled with wood built, thatched cottages. The

house, containing the “preaching room” was three storeys high. The

ground floor was a joiner’s shop; the rooms in the middle story were

the residence of a newly married couple; the garret was the “room,”

and was itself also the home of a poor woman, who there plied her

spinning wheel, while her husband, in the same apartment, flung the

shuttle. Christopher Hopper, at one of the Manchester conferences,

referred to this little meeting-house, and said: “In 1749, I preached

in an old garret, that overhung the river, in the neighbourhood of

the old bridge. The coals were in one corner of the room, the looms

in another, and I was in danger of breaking my neck in getting up to

it. The congregation consisted of not more than from twenty to thirty

persons.”[617] Such was the cradle of Manchester Methodism, in 1747.

Wesley says, “their house would not contain a tenth part of the

people,”—and hence he went to Salford cross.

While at Manchester, Wesley made his first visit to Boothbank. Here

resided John and Alice Crosse. Alice had been a rude, uncultivated

creature, but had a dash of the heroine in her constitution. “John

Crosse,” said she, “wilt thou go to heaven with me? If not, I am

determined not to go to hell with thee.” Her decision was firm and

final, and honest John soon joined her in her journey to the better

land. They now gladly received the servants of God into their dwelling,

a pulpit was fixed in their largest room, a society was formed, and

Alice was made leader. Her endeavours to be useful were indefatigable.

Common beggars were intercepted, warned of their sin and danger, prayed

with, and then relieved. Gentlemen, who came a-hunting, were run after,

and told, in the plainest terms, the consequences of their sinful

doings. On her husband being made a constable, (she having far more

courage than himself) he would send her to the constables’ meetings,

to defend the despised and persecuted Methodists. When disappointed of

a preacher, Alice herself would occupy the pulpit, and, with faithful

energy, declare the truth as it is in Jesus. Though marked with

rusticity, she was, in decision and majesty, a Deborah.[618] “She was,”

says John Pawson, “one of the most zealous, active, spiritually minded

women I ever knew.” She died in 1774, aged sixty-five. Her house, for

generations, was the happy home of Methodist itinerants. Up to a few

years ago, a bootjack, made by John Nelson, at one of his visits,

was carefully preserved by her descendants living in the same farm

dwelling; and on the panes of glass in the window of what was known as

“the prophet’s chamber,” were not a few inscriptions written by the

brave hearted evangelists, who there found a warm welcome. Boothbank

was the loving centre where the first Methodists of Lancashire and

Cheshire used to meet, for friendly counsel, and the old farmhouse

was licensed for preaching before any Methodist chapel was built in

Manchester. Five years after this first visit by Wesley, the first

Cheshire quarterly meeting was held in the humble dwelling of John

and Alice Crosse, when Chester sent, by Jonathan Pritchard, the sum

of twelve shillings; Bolton, by George Eskrick, eight shillings and

twopence; Manchester, by Richard Barlow, two pounds three shillings and

fivepence; while Boothbank itself contributed the not insignificant

sum of ten shillings and elevenpence.[619] Wesley’s description of the

Boothbank congregation, at his first visit, is brief but beautiful,—“a

quiet and loving people.”

Leaving Boothbank, he proceeded to Mr. Anderton’s, near Northwich.

Here he preached, prayed, and talked for more than two hours, his

rustic congregation being intermixed with “several of the gay and

rich.” Many long years elapsed, however, before Methodist preaching

was established in the town itself, and here, as elsewhere, Methodism

met with brutal persecution. On one occasion, the preacher was pulled

down the street by the hair of his head.[620] On another, John Morris

narrowly escaped being thrown over the bridge into the river.[621]

The mob, encouraged by two young gents of the names of Barrow and

Jeffreys, rejoiced not only in throwing stones, mud, and rotten eggs,

but in dragging the Methodist itinerants into a quagmire, which divided

the townships of Northwich and Witton. One of the first Methodists

here was Isaac Barnes, a seedsman, who was often rolled in the foul

river, and in other respects made to suffer; but his sister once used

a device by which the biters were bitten. While the mob were shouting,

swearing, and throwing stones at the front of her brother’s house, she

quietly heated the poker, and then, letting it cool till its redness

was removed, she rushed into the street, and pretended to strike the

assembled scamps. One seized the poker, but instantly let it go.

Others, in quick succession, did the same; and, in a little while,

the amazon was victorious; by their own act, in seizing the heated

poker, most of the assailants were in burning agony; and the valorous

mob were surprised and scattered. Moses Dale was another of the first

Northwich Methodists,—a poor and plain, but earnest and honest man,—a

class-leader and local preacher, who was once carried round the town

on a butcher’s block, and then set down in the market place, where the

crowd with cow horns blew into his ears till he was almost deafened.

Moses was a man of small ability, but a son of thunder. Once a year,

he made a preaching tour through Derbyshire and Shropshire, and, on

one occasion, preached in the vicarage at Madeley, with his hands on

Fletcher’s shoulders. “Moses,” said some young swells in a chemist’s

shop, “is it true that you know your sins forgiven?” “I am forbidden

to tell you,” quietly replied Moses. “Who forbids you, Moses?” “Jesus

Christ,” said Moses; “look at Matthew vii. 6.” “Surely, Moses, you

don’t compare us to swine?” “No,” quoth Moses, “but the Bible does, and

I have no occasion.” Poor Moses died in 1788.

From Northwich, Wesley went to Congleton, and Macclesfield, and

Sheffield, and Leeds; and then, turning round, he hurried, by way of

Nottingham and Birmingham, to London, which he reached on the 21st of

May.

For the last eight years, Wesley had been shut out of the London

churches; but now, to one of them, he was again admitted. The Rev.

Richard Thomas Bateman, a man of high birth and great natural

endowments, was rector of St. Bartholomew’s the Great, in Smithfield,

and also held a living in Wales, where he had been converted under

the powerful ministry of the Rev. Howel Davies.[622] Being converted

himself, he, at once, with great fervour, began to pray and preach for

the conversion of others.

As soon as Wesley got back to London, Mr. Bateman offered him his

pulpit, and the offer was accepted. The church was crowded to excess.

The churchwardens complained to Bishop Gibson, saying, “My lord, Mr.

Bateman, our rector, invites Mr. Wesley very frequently to preach in

his church.” The bishop replied, “What would you have me do? I have no

right to hinder him. Mr. Wesley is a clergyman, regularly ordained, and

under no ecclesiastical censure;”[623] and so the matter ended.

From the first, the financial affairs of the London society had been

entrusted to stewards. Hitherto, they had been sixteen in number,

but Wesley now reduced them to seven, to whom he gave a series of

instructions how to regulate their behaviour. They were to hold

meetings every Tuesday and Thursday morning. Every meeting was to

begin and end with prayer. Once a month, their accounts were to be

transcribed into the ledger. Each, in turn, was to be chairman for a

month. Nothing was to be done without the consent of the minister. They

were to be deeply serious. Only one was to speak at once, and he only

just loud enough to make himself heard. They were to avoid all clamour

and contention. If they could not relieve the poor who came, they were

not to grieve them. They were to give them soft words, if nothing else;

and to make them glad to come, even though they had to go away empty. A

steward breaking any of these rules, after being thrice admonished by

the chairman, was to be deposed from office.

It may be asked whence the stewards obtained their funds. The answer

is, that, for more than forty years, all the money collected in the

London classes was put into the hands of these officials, and was

distributed in relieving the necessities of the poor. Not a shilling

seems to have been spent upon the preachers’ salaries.[624]

Visiting the sick, and the opening of the dispensary, have been already

noticed. But, besides these, there were connected with the old Foundery

other expensive and valuable institutions. Two small houses were taken

and fitted up for the reception of needy and deserving widows, for the

support of whom the collections at the sacraments and the contributions

of the bands were given. In 1748, Wesley writes: “In this (commonly

called the poor-house) we have now nine widows, one blind woman, two

poor children, and two upper servants, a maid and a man. I might add,

four or five preachers; for I myself, as well as the other preachers

who are in town, diet with the poor, on the same food, and at the same

table; and we rejoice herein, as a comfortable earnest of our eating

bread together in our Father’s kingdom.”[625]

Then there was a school with two masters, and about sixty children,

a few of whom paid for their tuition, but the greater part, being

extremely poor, were taught and even clothed gratuitously. The rules

were characteristic, but some of them exceedingly absurd. No child

was to be admitted under the age of six. All the children were to

be present every morning at the five o’clock preaching. The school

hours were from six to twelve, and from one to five. No holidays were

granted. No child was to speak in school, but to the masters; and any

child who was absent two days in one week, without leave, was to be

excluded. The education consisted of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Two stewards were appointed to receive subscriptions and to pay

expenses; and also to pray with and exhort the children twice a week;

and to meet the parents every Wednesday morning, and give them counsels

how to train their children when at home.[626]

Then there was a lending society. Observing that people often needed

small sums of money, but knew not where to borrow them, Wesley went

from one end of London to the other, and, in a few days, begged £50.

This was lodged in the hands of stewards, who attended every Tuesday

morning for the purpose of lending to those who wanted any small

amount, not exceeding twenty shillings, on condition that the loan

should be repaid within three months. Wesley writes: “It is almost

incredible, but, with this inconsiderable sum, two hundred and fifty

have been assisted within the year 1747. Will not God put it into the

heart of some lover of mankind to increase this little stock? If this

is not lending unto the Lord, what is?”[627]

The stock was increased. At the commencement of 1748, Wesley made

a public collection for the same object, and by this and by other

means the capital was raised, in 1767, to £120,[628] after which

the maximum loan was altered from one pound to five.[629] Hundreds

of the honest poor were greatly assisted by this benevolent device;

and, among others, the well known Lackington, who about the year 1774

was penniless, but who, by the help of Wesley’s fund, began a book

business, which grew to such immense dimensions, that, eighteen years

afterwards, its annual sales were more than a hundred thousand volumes,

from which Lackington, the quondam cobbler, realised the noble income

of £5000 a year.

Such were the benevolent institutions connected with the Foundery in

1747. Wesley was often accused of making himself rich. In reply to

this, in 1748, he sarcastically remarks:—“Some have supposed my revenue

was no greater than that of the Bishop of London. Others have computed,

that I receive £800 a year from Yorkshire only. If so, it cannot

be so little as £10,000 a year which I receive out of all England!

Accordingly, the rector of Redruth extends the calculation pretty

considerably. ‘Let me see,’ said he; ‘two millions of Methodists, and

each of these paying twopence a week.’ If so, I must have £860,000,

with some odd shillings and pence, a year! A tolerable competence! But

be it more or less, it is nothing at all to me. All that is contributed

or collected, in every place, is both received and expended by others;

nor have I so much as the ‘beholding thereof with my eyes.’ And so it

will be, till I turn Turk or pagan. For I look upon all this revenue,

be it what it may, as sacred to God and the poor; out of which, if

I want anything, I am relieved, even as another poor man. So were

originally all ecclesiastical revenues, as every man of learning knows;

and the bishops and priests used them only as such. If any use them

otherwise now, God help them!”[630]