Chapter XXVIII: Part II (13)

Amid the most terrible alarms, Wesley continued preaching in Newcastle, and visiting the country societies round about. On October 8 he wrote the following characteristic letter to General Husk:—

“A surly man came to me this evening, as he said, from you. He
would not deign to come upstairs to me, nor so much as into the
house; but stood in the yard till I came, and then obliged me
to go with him into the street, where he said, ‘You must pull
down the battlements of your house, or to-morrow the general
will pull them down for you.’

“Sir, to me this is nothing. But I humbly conceive it would
not be proper for this man, whoever he is, to behave in such a
manner to any other of his majesty’s subjects, at so critical a
time as this.

“I am ready, if it may be for his majesty’s service, to pull
not only the battlements, but the house down; or to give up any
part of it, or the whole, into your excellency’s hands.”

Besides the troops already mentioned, the town had been reinforced by the entrance of six hundred Dutch soldiers, belonging to the regiment of General de la Rocque; and gentlemen volunteers had become expert in military exercise, especially the company with red and pink cockades. All persons residing outside the walls were ordered to take their ladders to the town’s yard, and their firearms to the mayor; and no person was to fire a gun at night under pain of imprisonment. Two hundred cannon were planted on the town walls; and the water gates on the quay side were all built up with gun holes in them.[575]

Wesley, supposing the danger was over for the present, started off, on October 9, on a short tour to Epworth, leaving John Trembath to supply his place. At Ferrybridge he was conducted to General Wentworth, who read all the letters he had about him. At Doncaster, where he slept, or rather wished to sleep, he was surrounded by drunken, cursing, swearing soldiers. At Epworth, he had, for once, the satisfaction of hearing Mr. Romley preach “an earnest, affectionate sermon”; while he himself strongly exhorted the society to “fear God, and honour the king.” He then returned to Newcastle, by way of Sheffield, Birstal, Leeds, and Osmotherley, arriving on October 22, after an absence of thirteen days.

Within a week, the right honourable Fieldmarshal Wade, and Prince Maurice of Nassau, arrived with about nine thousand Dutch and English soldiers, which, when added to General St. George’s dragoons, General Sinclair’s Royal Scots, and other troops, made about fifteen thousand men, all encamped upon Newcastle moor.[576] With such an influx, no wonder that wickedness abounded. Wesley was horrified, and on October 26 sent to Mr. Ridley, the mayor, the following letter:—

“SIR,—The fear of God, the love of my country, and the regard I
have for his majesty King George, constrain me to write a few
plain words to one who is no stranger to these principles of
action.

“My soul has been pained day by day, even in walking the
streets of Newcastle, at the senseless, shameless wickedness,
the ignorant profaneness, of the poor men to whom our lives
are entrusted. The continual cursing and swearing, the wanton
blasphemy of the soldiers in general, must needs be a torture
to the sober ear, whether of a Christian or an honest infidel.
Can any that either fear God, or love their neighbour, hear
this without concern? especially if they consider the interest
of our country, as well as of these unhappy men themselves.
For can it be expected, that God should be on their side who
are daily affronting Him to His face? And if God be not on
their side, how little will either their number, or courage, or
strength avail?

“Is there no man that careth for these souls? Doubtless there
are some who ought so to do. But many of these, if I am rightly
informed, receive large pay, and do just nothing.

“I would to God it were in my power, in any degree, to supply
their lack of service. I am ready to do what in me lies, to
call these poor sinners to repentance, once or twice a day
(while I remain in these parts), at any hour, or at any place.
And I desire no pay at all for doing this; unless what my Lord
shall give at His appearing.

“If it be objected (from our heathenish poet), ‘this conscience
will make cowards of us all,’ I answer, let us judge by matter
of fact. Let either friends or enemies speak. Did those who
feared God behave as cowards at Fontenoy? Did John Haime, the
dragoon, betray any cowardice, before or after his horse sunk
under him? Or did William Clements, when he received the first
ball in his left, and the second in his right arm? Or John
Evans, when the cannon ball took off both his legs? Did he not
call all about him, as long as he could speak, to praise and
fear God, and honour the king? as one who feared nothing, but
lest his last breath should be spent in vain.

“If it were objected, that I should only fill their heads with
peculiar whims and notions; that might easily be known. Only
let the officers hear with their own ears; and they may judge
whether I do not preach the plain principles of manly, rational
religion.

“Having myself no knowledge of the general, I took the liberty
to make this offer to you. I have no interest herein; but I
should rejoice to serve, as I am able, my king and country. If
it be judged, that this will be of no real service, let the
proposal die, and be forgotten. But I beg you, sir, to believe,
that I have the same glorious cause, for which you have shown
so becoming a zeal, earnestly at heart; and that therefore, I
am, with warm respect, sir,—

Your most obedient servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”

The mayor sent a message, to the effect that he would communicate the proposal to the general. We are not told whether the general gave his consent or not; but, five days afterwards, we find Wesley, in the midst of this huge encampment, preaching from, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters!” “None,” says he, “attempted to make the least disturbance, from the beginning to the end. Yet I could not reach their hearts. The words of a scholar did not affect them, like those of a dragoon or a grenadier.”

In such circumstances, Wesley honestly acknowledges, that a layman, like John Haime, the brave dragoon, would have been more effective than himself. This, however, did not discourage him. The day following, he preached to the troops again. On this occasion, a lieutenant endeavoured to raise disturbance; but, when Wesley had finished, tried to make amends, by telling the soldiers that all that had been said was very good.

The next day, Saturday, November 2, his text was, “The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise might be given to them that believe;” and he now began to see some fruit of his labour. On the Sunday, the camp was again his cathedral. Abundance of people flocked together, horse and foot, rich and poor, to whom he declared, “There is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” He had long laid aside the German tongue, but, seeing a number of Germans standing disconsolate at the skirts of the congregation, he also addressed them, the poor troopers drinking in every word.

This terminated his labours in the camp on Newcastle moor. The next day he set out for London, and spoiled the Guy Fawkes holiday in Leeds, by informing the magistrates that he had met several expresses, sent to countermand the march of the army into Scotland; and that the rebels had passed the Tweed, and were marching southward. The hurry in the streets was quashed; bonfires were abandoned; and guns, squibs, and crackers were no longer the playthings of the uproarious crowd. Wesley proceeded on his journey, finding watchmen standing, with great solemnity, at the end of almost every village through which he passed. On entering Wednesbury, after it was dark, he was bogged in a quagmire; the people came with candles; and, getting out, and leaving them to disengage his horse, he hastened to Francis Ward’s, and, bedaubed with mire, at once commenced preaching. On the 13th of November he arrived safe in London, where he spent the rest of the year, in preaching, and finishing his “Farther Appeal.” He gave away some thousands of tracts among the common people; and his example was immediately copied by others. The lord mayor ordered a large quantity of papers, dissuading from cursing and swearing, to be printed, and distributed to the trainbands; and on December 18, “An Earnest Exhortation to Repentance” was given at all the church doors in London, to every person who came out, and a copy left at the house of every householder who happened to be absent. “I doubt not,” says Wesley, “but God gave a blessing therewith.”

Wesley’s old friend and brother-in-law, Westley Hall, was already a waverer; and, at the end of 1745, wrote a long letter, urging the two Wesleys to renounce the Church of England. Wesley’s reply is too long for insertion here; but it contains, besides other facts, some startling high church principles, which are well worth noting. He writes:—

“We believe it would not be right for us to administer either
baptism or the Lord’s supper, unless we had a commission so to
do from those bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession
from the apostles.”

“We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian church
(whether dependent on the bishop of Rome or not), an outward
priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice
offered therein, by men authorised to act as ambassadors of
Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.”

“We believe that the threefold order of ministers is not only
authorised by its apostolical institution, but also by the
written word.”

We must take Wesley as we find him; but is it not surprising to see him still tenaciously clinging, even in phraseology, to the doctrine of apostolical succession, and the offering of an _outward sacrifice_ in the church, by an outward priesthood? He proceeds:—

“We allow, that many of the laws, customs, and practices of the
ecclesiastical courts are really indefensible; but we no more
look upon these filthy abuses, which adhere to our Church, as
part of the building, than we look upon any filth which may
adhere to the walls of Westminster Abbey as a part of that
structure.”

“We will obey all the laws of that Church (such as we allow
the rubrics to be, but not the customs of the ecclesiastical
courts), so far as we can with a safe conscience; and, with the
same restriction, we will obey the bishops, as executors of
those laws; but their bare will, distinct from those laws, we
do not profess to obey at all.”

“Field preaching is contrary to no law which we profess to
obey; nor are we clear, that the allowing lay preachers
is contrary to any such law. But if it is, this is one of
the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a safe
conscience.”

We have here a key to much in Wesley’s remarkable career. His doctrine of apostolical succession was a figment. His language concerning Church of England _priests_ still offering an _outward sacrifice_ savoured of the popish doctrine which all true Protestants reject, though, as will shortly be shown, the view he held was different from what his words express. His belief in the “threefold order of ministers” was changed a few weeks afterwards. Field preaching and the employment of lay preachers had much to do with making Methodism; and, without a continuance of these, Methodism will not maintain its power and its position.

Wesley’s conference, in 1745, commenced at Bristol, on the 1st of August, and was continued for five days following. Besides the two Wesleys, there was but one clergyman, Mr. Hodges, present. There were six itinerants: Thomas Richards, Samuel Larwood, Thomas Meyrick, Richard Moss, John Slocomb, and Herbert Jenkins; and also one gentleman, who was not a preacher at all, Marmaduke Gwynne, afterwards the father-in-law of Wesley’s brother Charles.

At the opening of the conference a principle was adopted, which ought to be practised in all similar assemblies, namely, that every one might speak freely whatever was in his heart, and that no one should be checked, either by word or look, even though what he was saying was entirely wrong.[577] In an assembly of equals, met for purposes of deliberation and counsel, free speech like this is indispensable to satisfactory results.

During the first day of conference, the doctrine of justification was reviewed; and it was agreed, that, while faith in Christ is the sole condition of justification, repentance, that is, conviction of sin, must go before faith, and (supposing there be opportunity for them) fruits, or works meet for repentance, also.

On the second day, the Conference discussed the doctrines of assurance, of works done before justification, and of obedience. It was agreed neither to discourage nor encourage dreams, though it was admitted, that, by such means, saving faith is often given. On the subject of sanctification, it was laid down, that inward sanctification begins in the moment we are justified; that, from that time, the believer gradually dies to sin, and grows in grace; and that the seed of all sin remains in him, till he is sanctified throughout, in spirit, soul, and body. This entire sanctification is not ordinarily given till a little before death; but we ought to expect it sooner; for, though the generality of believers are not sanctified till near death, and though few of those to whom St. Paul wrote his epistles were so at the time he wrote, and though he himself was not sanctified at the time of writing his former epistles, this does not prove that we may not be sanctified to-day. It was further agreed, that sanctification should scarcely be preached at all to those who were not pressing forward; and when it was, it should always be by way of promise,—by drawing, rather than by driving. And, further, it was determined, that the _general_ means which God has ordained for our receiving His sanctifying grace are keeping all His commandments, denying ourselves, and taking up our cross daily; and, that the _particular_ are prayer, searching the Scriptures, communicating, and fasting.

The Methodist reader will find something here hardly in harmony with the decisions of the previous Conference, and with Wesley’s subsequent teaching. Twenty years after this, in answer to the question, “What shall we do, that this work of God may be wrought in us?” Wesley said:—

“In this, as in all other instances, ‘by grace we are saved
through faith,’ Sanctification too is ‘not of works, lest
any man should boast,’ ‘It is the gift of God,’ and is to be
received by plain, simple faith. Suppose you are now labouring
to abstain from all appearance of evil, zealous of good works,
and walking diligently and carefully in all the ordinances
of God; there is then only one point remaining: the voice of
God to your soul is, ‘Believe, and be saved,’ First, believe
that God has _promised_ to save you from all sin, and to fill
you with all holiness. Secondly, believe that He is _able_
thus to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through
Him. Thirdly, believe that He is _willing_ as well as able.
Fourthly, believe that He is not only able, but willing to do
it _now_! Not when you come to die, not at any distant time,
not to-morrow, but to-day. He will then enable you to believe,
_it is done_, according to His word; and then ‘patience shall
have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire,
wanting nothing.’”[578]

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.”