Chapter XXIX: Part II (14)

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.”