Chapter XVIII: Part III (17)

In this Irish effusion, the Methodists are described as “a set of enthusiastic pharisees in practice, but perfect latitudinarians in principle; quite indifferent as to any form of church government, whether presbyterian, independent, or episcopal, and looking upon the latter in no other light than that of some human law or constitution, subject to be changed at pleasure.” In accordance with this, they had “acted in a barefaced defiance to the authority and jurisdiction of the bishops; and, without their consent, had formed societies or conventicles, under certain rules of discipline and government, of their own invention, appointing leaders, directors, and superintendents over them. They had set up a new ministry of their own, contrary to the ministry of the Church, committing the preaching of the word of reconciliation, and the exercise of the power of the keys, to mere laymen and mechanics; and, though they occasionally came to church and sacrament, yet they plainly enough insinuated to the world, that they only waited for a seasonable opportunity, and more able heads, to form a new church, and make a total separation.” Mr. Clark proceeds to show, that, in their principles, practices, and pretences, the Methodists are the counterpart of the Montanists, “enthusiastic sectaries who make the way to heaven much more narrow and difficult than either Jesus Christ or His apostles have made it; and requiring such degrees of perfection as are not in the power of human nature, in its present state of infirmity, to attain to; the natural consequence of which is, that such as find themselves unable to arrive at such perfection grow desperate, and give themselves over to all manner of licentiousness; and such as, through a heated and enthusiastic imagination, fancy that they either actually do or can attain to such perfection, are filled with all manner of spiritual pride, blasphemy, and arrogance.” Mr. Clark’s readers are exhorted “never to give ear to the vain and fantastical flights of crazy pated enthusiasts, schismatical, unauthorised, illegal lay preachers, whose discourses are stuffed with praises and panegyrics of their own righteousness and holiness.”

Wesley had recently published his sermon, entitled “Catholic Spirit,” in which he stated, that he once zealously maintained the opinion, that every one born in England ought to be a member of the Church of England, and, consequently, to worship God in the manner which that Church prescribes. This opinion he could maintain no longer. He believed his own mode of worship to be “truly primitive and apostolical”; but acknowledges that his “belief is no rule for another.” He believed the episcopal form of church government to be scriptural and apostolical; but, he adds, “if you think the presbyterian or independent is better, think so still, and act accordingly.” Wesley sent this celebrated sermon to Mr. Clark, and this led to the correspondence between Clark and Wesley, published in “Montanus Redivivus.”[393] Mr. Clark, in his first letter, informs Wesley that, when he preached his sermon on 1 John iv. 1, Mr. Langston, said to be one of Wesley’s lay preachers, was present; and, taking offence, wrote him an epistle, in which “the Spirit forgot to direct him to write common sense, orthography, or English”; and that he suspects Langston’s representations to Wesley had induced the latter to send him the sermon on “Catholic Spirit,” as “a genteel and tacit reproof, for making any inquiry into the religion and principles of the Methodists.” He states that Langston had publicly declared “himself to be as righteous and as free from sin as Jesus Christ; and that it was impossible for him to sin, because the Spirit of God dwelt bodily in him.” Mr. Clark further states, that he has read Wesley’s sermon, and asserts that Wesley’s “propositions and observations have no more foundation in the text, than in the first chapter of Genesis.” It is right to add, that Langston was not one of Wesley’s preachers, and that Wesley thought the man an enthusiast.

Another publication, belonging to the year 1760, must have a passing notice,—“Scriptural Remedies for Healing the unhappy Divisions in the Church of England, particularly of those People called the Methodists. By Edward Goldney, sen., gent., widower.” 8vo, 64 pages. The intention of the eccentric author was good; but that is the highest, indeed, the only, praise we can render him. He finds fault with the clergy, who only visit those of their parishioners who “give them a jugg of good smooth ale, or a mugg of strong October, a bottle of wine, or a bowl of punch”; and then, in his own way and style, argues that, if the clergy would only become what they ought to be, “both high and low, rich and poor would soon be cured of itching ears. Then cobblers and shoemakers, tinkers and braziers, blacksmiths and farriers, tailors and staymakers, barbers and periwig makers, carpenters and joiners, masons and bricklayers, bakers and butchers, farmers and cowkeepers, maltsters and brewers, combers and weavers, plumbers and glaziers, turners and cabinet makers, hedgers and ditchers, threshers and thatchers, colliers and carriers, carmen and scavengers, coopers and basket makers, would have no hearers.” With this enumeration of the trades and calling of the Methodist itinerants, we make our _congé_ to hairbrained Edward Goldney.

These were the principal anti-Methodistic pamphlets published in 1760; but, besides these, there was scrimmaging in newspapers and magazines, which deserves attention. An anonymous writer, in the _London Magazine_, attacked the Methodists, as “a restless, turbulent people, remarkable for nothing, but their abusive language and uncharitable sentiments”; and described Methodism as “a spurious mixture of enthusiasm and blasphemy, popery and quakerism”; and the teaching of its preachers as “gross, personal abuse; vague, incoherent reasoning; and loose, empty declamation.”[394] A writer, who signed his letter “Hermas,” replied to this stale balderdash; and rejoinder after rejoinder followed. Grave objection was raised to the name of Methodist, as a misnomer, because the Methodists were utterly without _method_.[395] A classleader was described as “an illiterate hog, a feeder of swine, presiding at the holy rites of confession, as spiritual pastor and father confessor.” “Old as I am,” wrote the nameless soothsayer, “I make not the least doubt but, with these eyes, I shall see, that this imaginary candle of the Lord, which the Methodists have set up, will soon dwindle into a snuff, and expire in a stink.”[396] In a base inuendo, he insinuated that some of the mysterious meetings of the Methodists were “in dark rooms, with naked figures, typical fires, and rattling chains.”[397]

In the same periodical,[398] Stephen Church proposed to Wesley twenty queries, in which he coarsely assailed him as “the first protestant pope; a cunning quaker in disguise, acting the second edition of Friend Barclay, and privately betraying the Church, as Judas did his Master, with a kiss.” Another correspondent, signing his letter “R.,” remarked: “the present troublers of our Israel are that heterogeneous mass, the Methodists; who, whatever they may pretend, are avowed enemies to the doctrine and discipline of our Church, and have faithfully copied the worst men in the worst times. If such men’s enthusiastical notions be the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, better it would be to be a Jew, a Turk, an infidel, than to be a Christian; for it is much better not to believe in Jesus Christ, than to believe such doctrines to be His, as are against common reason and common sense, and are repugnant to the first principles of truth and equity.”[399]

In _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ the same paper war was waged. “Philodemus” wished for “a court of judicature, to detect the cunning cant and hypocrisy of all pretenders to sanctity and devotion;” and depicted the Methodists in colours not the brightest. Wesley replied to him as follows.

“_November 17, 1760._

“SIR,—In your last paper, we had a letter, from a very angry gentleman, who _personates_ a clergyman, but is, I presume, a retainer to the theatre. He is very warm against the people vulgarly termed Methodists, ‘ridiculous impostors,’ ‘religious buffoons,’ as he styles them; ‘saint errants’ (a pretty and quaint phrase), full of ‘inconsiderateness, madness, melancholy, enthusiasm’; teaching ‘a knotty and unintelligible system of religion,’ yea ‘a contradictory or self contradicting,’ nay ‘a mere illusion,’ a ‘destructive scheme, and of pernicious consequence.’

“Methinks the gentleman has a little mistaken his character: he seems to have exchanged the sock for the buskin. But, be this as it may, general charges prove nothing; let us come to particulars. Here they are.”

Wesley then proceeds to answer the remarks of “Philodemus” concerning “the grace of assurance, good works,” etc., and continues:

“This is the sum of your correspondent’s charge, not one article of which can be proved. But whether it can or no, ‘we have made them,’ says he, ‘a theatrical scoff, and the common jest and scorn of every chorister in the street.’ It may be so; but whether you have done well herein, may still admit of a question. However, you cannot but wish, ‘we had some formal court of judicature erected to take cognisance of such matters.’ Nay, _cur optas quod habes_? Why do you wish for what you have already? The court is erected; the holy, devout playhouse is become the _house of mercy_; and does take cognisance ‘of all pretenders to sanctity, and happily furnishes us with a discerning spirit to distinguish between right and wrong.’ But I do not stand to their sentence; I appeal to Scripture and reason; and, by these alone, consent to be judged.

“I am, sir, your humble servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[400]

“Philodemus” pretended to answer Wesley’s letter, under another alias, “Somebody;” but was obliged to have recourse to blustering abuse, telling Wesley that “every serious protestant despises the enthusiastic madness of Methodism, and rejects him and his followers as members of that community”; and then politely adding, that “arguing with Methodists is like pounding fools in a mortar.”

In the next issue of _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, November 24, Wesley referred to this and other attacks as follows.

“_November 22, 1760._

“SIR,—Just as I had finished the letter published in your last Friday’s paper, four tracts came into my hands: one written, or procured to be written, by Mrs. Downes;[401] one by a clergyman in the county of Durham;[402] the third by a gentleman of Cambridge;[403] and the fourth by a member (I suppose, dignitary) of the Church of Rome.[404] How gladly would I leave all these to themselves, and let them say just what they please! as my day is far spent, and my taste for controversy is utterly lost and gone. But this would not be doing justice to the world, who might take silence for a proof of guilt. I shall therefore say a word concerning each.”

After doing this, he concludes thus:

“Is it possible any protestants, nay, protestant clergyman, should buy these tracts to give away? Is then the introducing popery the only way to overthrow Methodism? If they know this, and choose popery as the smaller evil of the two, they are consistent with themselves. But if they do not intend this, I wish them to consider more seriously what they do.

“I am, sir, your humble servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

The correspondence between Wesley and “Philodemus,” who changed his signature every time he wrote a new letter, was continued until Christmas. The anonymous slanderer accused Wesley of plundering the poor; and, in proof, referred to the meeting-houses he had built. Wesley replied:

“Don’t you know, sir, those houses are none of mine? I made them over to trustees long ago. I have food to eat, and raiment to put on; and I _will have no more_, till I turn Turk or pagan.

“I am, sir, in very good humour, your well wisher,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[405]

Wesley suspected “Philodemus” to be a friend of Foote’s; or, at all events, a patron of the theatre; but this the fighter in ambush positively denied, and said he was a constant attender at church, had read the Bible in four different languages, and was personally known to some of the best theologians in the nation. The man, however, lost his temper. His letters evinced considerable ability; but Wesley’s answers stung him to the quick. He was wounded, and could not avoid wincing. In his last lucubration, published December 10, he observed: “I shall not give myself the trouble to write to you any more, as it is only wasting paper to cavil with shuffling controvertists;” and then he finished by proposing to hold a personal discussion with Wesley, at which “a dignified clergyman of the Church of England should preside, and be the umpire of the debate.” On December 24, Wesley replied as follows.

“_For the Editor of ‘Lloyd’s Evening Post.’_

“To Mr. T. H., _alias_ E. L., etc., etc.

“What my good friend again? only a little disguised with a new name, and a few scraps of Latin? I hoped, indeed, you had been pretty well satisfied before; but, since you desire to hear a little further from me, I will add a few words, and endeavour to set our little controversy in a still clearer light.

“Last month you publicly attacked the people called Methodists, without either fear or wit. I considered each charge, and, I conceive, refuted it, to the satisfaction of all indifferent persons. You renewed the attack, not by _proving_ anything, but by _affirming_ the same things over and over. I replied, and, without taking notice of the dull, low scurrility, either of the first or second letter, confined myself to the merits of the case, and cleared away the dirt you had thrown.

“You now heap together ten paragraphs more, most of which require very little answer.”

After answering nine of them, Wesley continues:

“In the last, you give me a fair challenge to a ‘personal dispute.’ Not so: you have fallen upon me in public; and to the public I appeal. Let all men, not any single umpire, judge, whether I have not fully refuted your charge, and cleared the people called Methodists from the foul aspersions, which, without why or wherefore, you had thrown upon them. Let all of my countrymen judge, which of us have spoken the words of truth and soberness, and which has treated the other with a temper suitable to the gospel.

“If the general voice of mankind gives it against you, I hope you will be henceforth less flippant with your pen. I assure you, as little as you think of it, the Methodists are not such fools as you suppose. But their desire is to live peaceably with all men; and none desires this more than

“JOHN WESLEY.”[406]

Mob persecution was bad enough; but persecution like this was worse. No wonder that Wesley felt, that his “taste for controversy was utterly lost and gone.” His one object was to preach Christ and to save souls; but, despite himself, large portions of his time were most vexatiously occupied in defending himself and his societies from the malignant and unscrupulous attacks of his enemies. He was a match for the most trenchant of his foes; but preaching, not fighting, was the work to which he wished to devote his talents, his energies, and his life.

Besides this annoyance from the public press, Wesley had great anxiety from his own societies. The question of separation from the Established Church was still, among the Methodists, the great topic of the time. The agitation existed not in England only; but had spread to Ireland also. At Athlone, for instance, some of the Methodists went to church and sacrament; but others absolutely refused to go, because the minister was not a child of God, nor a preacher of sound doctrine. The Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley wrote to Wesley, in great alarm, concerning this, and, in conclusion, said: “I have hitherto learnt to consider the Methodists, not as any sect, but as the purer part of the Church of England; but, if any of them grow so wantonly fond of division as to form a schism, I foresee they will lose much of the gospel meekness, humility, and love; and a party zeal will take place, instead of a zeal according to knowledge.”[407]

In London, the same subject created great excitement. A week after Wesley left the metropolis for his tour to the north and to Ireland, Thomas Maxfield wrote to him as follows: “The affair of leaving the Church has hurt the minds of many, on both sides. I hope it will be fully settled at conference. I endeavour, as far as I can safely, to be on neither side.”[408]

The preachers at Norwich—Paul Greenwood, Thomas Mitchell, and John Murlin, without Wesley’s permission, or consulting any of their coadjutors, began to administer the sacrament to the somewhat mongrel society in that city. Charles Wesley was enraged, and, early in March, wrote to his brother thus.

“DEAR BROTHER,—We are come to the Rubicon. Shall we pass, or shall we not? In the fear of God, and in the name of Jesus Christ, let us ask, ‘Lord, what wouldest _Thou_ have us to do?’ The case stands thus. Three preachers, whom we thought we could have depended upon, have taken upon them to administer the sacrament, without any ordination, and without acquainting us, or even yourself, of it beforehand. Why may not all the preachers do the same, if each is judge of his own right to do it? And every one _is_ left to act as he pleases, if we take no notice of them that have so despised their brethren. That the rest will soon follow their example I believe; because (1) They think they may do it with impunity. (2) Because, a large majority imagine they have a right, as preachers, to administer the sacraments. So long ago as the conference at Leeds, I took down their names. (3) Because, they have betrayed an impatience to separate. The preachers in Cornwall, and others, wondered it had not been mentioned at our last conference. Jacob Rowell’s honesty I commend. Christopher Hopper, Joseph Cownley, John Hampson, and several more, are ripe for a separation. Even Mr. Crisp says, he would give the sacrament if you bade him. The young preachers, you know, are raw, unprincipled men, and entirely at the mercy of the old. You could persuade them to anything; and not you only, but Charles Perronet could do the same, or any of the preachers that have left us, or any of the three at Norwich. Upon the whole, I am fully persuaded, almost all our preachers are corrupted already. More and more will give the sacrament, and set up for themselves, even before we die; and all, except the few that get orders, will turn Dissenters before or after our death. You must wink very hard not to see all this. You have connived at it too, too long. But I now call upon you to consider with me what is to be done; first, to prevent a separation; secondly, to save the few uncorrupted preachers; thirdly, to make the best of those that are corrupted.”[409]

Charles Wesley’s terms were far too strong. To say that “almost all the preachers were _corrupted_,” because they wished to separate from a _corrupted_ church, and because they were desirous that their societies and congregations generally should have the same advantages which the Methodists in London and Bristol had,—namely, the Lord’s supper in their own chapels, and Divine service there on the forenoon of the sabbath day,—was to employ language either unmeaning, or unauthorised; either extravagantly foolish, or something worse. Charles Wesley’s temper was warm; his spirit was impetuous; and, had it not been for John’s more calm and sober action, his impulsiveness would, more than once, have shaken Methodism to its centre, if not absolutely have shivered it into a thousand atoms. No wonder, that while he speaks of the influence of his brother, and even of Charles Perronet, he makes no mention of his own. The truth is, by his extreme churchism, his influence among the preachers was almost _nil_; and, to the day of his death, he never recovered the position in which he stood when Methodism was first begun.

The action taken by the itinerant triumvirate at Norwich thoroughly alarmed him. On the 6th of March, he wrote to Nicholas Gilbert, one of the oldest preachers, saying:—

“You have heard of Paul Greenwood, John Murlin, and Thomas Mitchell’s presuming to give the sacrament at Norwich. They never acquainted their fellow labourers, no, not even my brother, of their design. They did it without any ordination, either by bishops or elders; upon the sole authority of a sixpenny licence: nay, all had not that. Do you think they acted right? If the other preachers follow their example, not only separation, but general confusion, must follow. My soul abhors the thought of separating from the Church of England. You and all the preachers know, if my brother should ever leave it, I should leave him, or rather he me. You would rather waive your right, if you had it (which I absolutely deny), of ordaining yourselves priests, than occasion so great an evil. You must become at last either Church ministers or Dissenting. Such as addict themselves thereto, God will make a way for their regular ordination in the Church. With these I desire to live and die. If you are of the number, I look upon you as my brother, my son, and owe you all I can do for you, as to soul, body, and estate. Now consider, and speak your mind. Will you take me for your father, brother, friend? or will you not?”[410]

What was this but an attempt to divide the Methodist itinerants, and to place himself at the head of one party, while his brother was left as the leader of the other?

A day later, he wrote to the same effect to John Johnson, an itinerant of five years’ standing, and added:—

“Things are come to a crisis. Every preacher must consider now what will become of him. My brother and I have almost finished our course. After our departure, you _must_ become either Dissenting or Church ministers. To which have _you_ addicted yourself? If to the meeting, let us part friends. If your conscience suffers you to accept of orders in the Church of England, I nothing doubt your admission. If you love the Church, you are nearer and dearer to me than all my natural relations. All I can do for you, as to soul, body, and estate, I ought and will do, the Lord being my helper.”[411]

Three weeks after, he wrote as follows to John Nelson.

“LONDON, _March 27, 1760_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,—I think you are no weathercock. What think you then of licensing yourself as a protestant Dissenter, and baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper, and all the while calling yourself a Church of England man? Is this honest? consistent? just? Yet this is the practice of several of our sons in the gospel, even of some whom I most loved, and most depended on. My brother suffers them. Will not all the rest follow their example? and will not general separation ensue? John, I love thee from my heart; yet rather than see thee a Dissenting minister, I wish to see thee smiling in thy coffin.”[412]

He had already written to Christopher Hopper, and Christopher had answered him. The following was a rejoinder.

“LONDON, _March 27, 1760_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,—You justly observe, it is not my way to hear one side only. You have not been suffered to speak; your complaints have been slighted; your reasons not attended to; your old worn out brethren left, to the parish. What must be your end? This question ought to be asked, considered, urged, insisted on, till it be answered to your full satisfaction.

“Here is a poor Methodist preacher, who has given up his business for the sake of preaching the gospel. Perhaps he has got a wife, and children, and nothing to keep them. By labouring like a horse, and travelling like a postboy, for ten or a dozen years, his strength is exhausted; yet he is able, and quite willing, to do what he can still. But how shall he get bread for his family? That Mr. Superintendent will look to.

“Well; be it so. But what will become of this old, faithful preacher, when my brother and I are dead. ‘He must turn Dissenting or Church minister.’ I grant it; there is no medium.

“‘But will you,’ you ask us, ‘now use all your interest to get him ordained?’ I answer for myself, yes; and will begin to-morrow; or never blame him for turning Dissenter. If any of you prefer the service of the Dissenters, I would let you depart in peace. If your heart is as my heart, and you dare venture in the same bottom, then am I your faithful servant for the residue of my days, and bound to do all I can for you, as to soul, body, and estate.”[413]

On the same day, he wrote the following to Grimshaw, of Haworth.

“LONDON, _March 27, 1760_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,—Our preaching houses are mostly licensed, and so are proper meeting-houses. Our preachers are mostly licensed, and so are Dissenting ministers. They took out their licences as protestant Dissenters. Three of our steadiest preachers give the sacrament at Norwich, with no other ordination or authority than a sixpenny licence. My brother approves of it. All the rest will most probably follow their example. What then must be the consequence? Not only separation, but general confusion, and the destruction of the work, so far as it depends upon the Methodists.

“My brother persuades himself, that none of the other preachers will do like those at Norwich; that they may all license themselves, and give the sacraments, yet continue true members of the Church of England; that no confusion or inconvenience will follow from these things; that we should let them do as they please till conference: where, I suppose, it must be put to the vote, whether they have not a right to administer the sacraments; and they themselves shall be the judges.

“I cannot get leave of my conscience, to do nothing in the meantime towards guarding our children against the approaching evil. They shall not be trepanned into a meeting-house, if I can hinder it. Every man ought to choose for himself. I am convinced things are come to a crisis. We must now resolve either to separate from the Church, or to continue in it the rest of our days.”[414]

On March 31, Grimshaw replied, stating:-

“This licensing the preachers, and preaching houses, is a matter that I never expected to have seen or heard of among the Methodists. If I had, I dare say I had never entered into connection with them. I am in connection, and desire to continue so: but how can I do it consistently with my relation to the Church of England? What encouragement was given to the preachers at the last conference to license themselves, God and you best know; but, since then, many of the preachers in these parts have got licensed at the quarter sessions. Several of the preaching houses and other houses also are licensed. The Methodists are no longer members of the Church of England. They are as real a body of Dissenters from her as the presbyterians, baptists, quakers, or any body of independents.

“I little thought, that your brother approved or connived at the preachers’ doings at Norwich. If it be so, ‘to your tents, O Israel!’ it is time for me to shift for myself; to disown all connection with the Methodists; to stay at home, and take care of my parish; or to preach abroad in such places as are unlicensed, and to such people as are in connection with us. I hereby, therefore, assure you, that I disclaim all further and future connection with the Methodists. I will quietly recede, without noise or tumult.

“As to licensing of preachers and places, I know no expedient to prevent it. The thing is gone too far. It is become inveterate. It has been gradually growing to this ever since erecting preaching houses was first encouraged in the land; and if you can stem the torrent, it will be only during your lives. As soon as you are dead, all the preachers will then do as many have already done. Dissenters the Methodists will all shortly be: it cannot, I am fully satisfied, be prevented.

“Nor is this spirit merely in the preachers. It is in the people also. There are so many inconveniences attend the people, that in most places they all plead strenuously for a settled ministry. They cannot, they say, in conscience, receive the sacraments as administered in our Church. They cannot attend preaching at eight, twelve, and four o’clock, on the Lord’s days, and go to church. They reason these things with the preachers, and urge upon them ordination and residence. They can object little against it; therefore they license. I believe the Methodists (preachers and members) have so much to say for their separation from our Church, as will not easily, in a conference or otherwise, be obviated.”[415]

There can be no doubt, that Charles Wesley and Grimshaw were technically right. The act of toleration, under which Methodist preachers, and Methodist meeting-houses, were licensed, was an act passed in the first year of the reign of William and Mary, and was intended, not for churchmen, but “for exempting their majesties’ protestant subjects _dissenting from the Church of England_, from the penalties of certain laws.” Before the licences could be granted, the oaths must be taken, and the persons taking them must declare themselves Dissenters.

What induced the Methodists and the Methodist preachers to take such a step as this? Was it because the persecuting spirit of magistrates and others began to put in force, at Rolvenden and other places, the old “conventicle act,” and the “five mile act,” passed in the reign of Charles II.? Or, was it because the Methodists and their preachers began to be impatient of their present anomalous position, and wished to avow themselves to be what they really were,—Dissenters from the Church of England? Or rather, was not the step they took, and which so alarmed Charles Wesley and his clerical friend Grimshaw, induced by both the reasons just mentioned? We think it was; indeed, there can be little doubt of it.

No wonder that Charles Wesley thought the crisis had arrived! From the beginning, the Methodists, if members of the Church of England at all, had been _irregulars_. Many of them, for various reasons, had long refused to go to church and sacrament; and now, by availing themselves of an act of parliament, they openly, in courts of law, avowed themselves to be Dissenters.

Charles, the high churchman, was wroth to the uttermost; John, the zealous evangelist, was calmly pursuing his great mission in Staffordshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire. The one was preaching, the other plotting: both equally sincere, and well intentioned; but one acting much more wisely than the other.

Charles Wesley’s private correspondence with the preachers was scarcely fair to his absent brother, and cannot be commended as honourable. John was the real, almost the only, leader of the Methodists; and to tamper with his preachers, by offering them episcopal ordination and family support, was not brotherly behaviour; neither was the offer one which was likely to be realised. True, he wrote as if he was authorised to say, that those itinerants who wished might certainly obtain orders in the Church of England. He was a friend of Lady Huntingdon’s; and, perhaps, her ladyship’s encouragement was his assumed authority; but who believes that Charles Wesley could have obtained, for any considerable number of the Methodist itinerants, ordination by bishops? His scheme was visionary, and ended in nothing. Joseph Cownley wrote to him as follows.

“There are several of my brethren, who have no thoughts of fleeing to the gown or cloak for succour, unless they could do it, and be Methodist preachers still. I can easily believe, that many, if not most, of those who shall survive you, will separate from the Church, except, as my friend Hopper says, you get them fastened where they are by prevailing on one or more of the bishops to ordain them. But then what bishop, either in England or Ireland, will ever do this? will ordain a Methodist preacher, to be a Methodist preacher? For my part, as poor and worthless a wretch as I am, I could not submit to it on the terms on which most of my brethren have hitherto got it.”

Cownley then adds a significant paragraph, showing that Charles Wesley’s influence among the Methodists was waning. “Give me leave now to press you to do what I think is your bounden duty: I mean, to visit the north this summer. We have excused you to the poor people, till we can do it no longer. If you refuse to come now, we can say neither more nor less about it, than, that you cannot, because you will not. If you could not preach at all, it would do them good only to see your face.”[416]

An extract from another letter, by Charles Wesley to his wife, may be added.

“SPITALFIELDS CHAPEL, _April 13, 1760_.

“Poor Mr. I’anson is in great trouble for our people. A persecuting justice has oppressed and spoiled them by the conventicle act. We have appealed. I am fully persuaded God has suffered this evil, to reprove our hypocrisy, and our mistrust of His protection.

“I met all the leaders, and read them my brother’s and Mr. Grimshaw’s letters. The latter put them in a flame. All cried out against the licensed preachers; many demanded, that they should be silenced immediately; many, that they should give up their licences; some protested against ever hearing them again. Silas Told and Isaac Waldron, as often as they opened their mouths, were put to silence by the people’s just complaints and unanswerable arguments. The lay preachers pleaded my brother’s authority. I took occasion from thence to moderate the others, to defend the preachers, and desired the leaders to have patience till we had had our conference; promising them to let them know all that should pass at it. They could trust me. I added, that I would not betray the cause of the Church, or deceive them; that I was resolved no one of them all should be ensnared into a meeting-house. If they chose to turn Dissenters, they should do it with their eyes open. My chief concern upon earth, I said, was the prosperity of the Church of England; my next, that of the Methodists; my third, that of the preachers: that, if their interests should ever come in competition, I would give up the preachers for the good of the Methodists, and the Methodists for the good of the whole body of the Church of England; that nothing could ever force me to leave the Methodists, but their leaving the Church. You cannot conceive what a spirit rose in all that heard me. They all cried out, that they would answer for ninety-nine out of a hundred in London, that they would live and die in the Church. My business was to pacify and keep them within bounds. I appointed another meeting on this day fortnight, and Friday seven-night as a fast for the Church.”[417]

This wonderful leaders’ meeting, strangely enough, was held on a Sunday. Unfortunately, no report of the discussions of the ensuing conference now exists; but this is certain, that the agitation of the Methodists was not smothered. In the month of December, the following puzzling queries were proposed to Charles Wesley, in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_.

“1. Are you not a sworn member and minister of the Church of England?

“2. Are you not bound, as such, to discountenance and prevent, as far as lies in you, every schism and division in the Church, or separation from it?

“3. Do not you countenance and support this by administering the sacrament at Kingswood, near Bristol, and other places in London, not licensed by the bishop, in time of Divine service at the parish churches?

“4. Is not the attending such meetings at such time an actual separation from the Church of England, according to the doctrine laid down in a small tract lately published by you?

“5. Are not such assemblies contrary to the laws of the land, when the places and the persons officiating are not licensed by the bishop of the diocese where such meetings are held, or at the quarter sessions of the peace?

“6. Is it honest to call yourself a member and minister of the Church of England, when it appears from your own confession you are not?

“7. Are you not bound to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake?

“8. Should you not, therefore, submit to the authority of the Church of England, or qualify yourself as the law enjoins?

“9. Is not your late incapacity to preach, and the distractions among you, a judicial stroke, for your gross disingenuity, and sin against God?

“I am yours, etc.,

“LOVE TRUTH.”

This was turning the tables upon the vehement churchman; and with this we, for the present, leave the question, whether, in 1760, the Methodists were Dissenters or were members of the Church of England.

Wesley was at this period too much occupied with other matters, to have time to devote to literary pursuits; and yet the year 1760 was not, even in this respect, altogether barren.

For instance, he published a 12mo pamphlet of 72 pages, entitled, “The Desideratum: or Electricity made plain and useful. By a Lover of Mankind, and of Common Sense.” In his preface, he states, that he has endeavoured to “comprise in his tract the sum of all that had hitherto been published on this curious and important subject.” Electricity he considered “the noblest medicine yet known.”

The only other publication which he issued, in 1760, was a 12mo volume of more than three hundred pages, with the title, “Sermons on Several Occasions. By John Wesley, M. A.” The title was imperfect, for in the same volume, and continuously paged, there are the following additional pieces: namely, “Advice to the Methodists, with regard to Dress,” 20 pages; “The Duties of Husbands and Wives,” 70 pages; “Thoughts on Christian Perfection,” 30 pages; and “Christian Instructions, Extracted from a late French Author,” 54 pages.

The sermons are seven in number. The first, on Original Sin; the second, on the New Birth; the third, on the Wilderness State; the fourth, on Heaviness through Temptations; the fifth, on Self Denial; the sixth, on the Cure of Evil Speaking; and the seventh, on the Use of Money.

The last mentioned sermon is pregnant with not a few of Wesley’s most strongly expressed sentiments. Concerning himself, he tells us that, from “a peculiar constitution of soul,” he is “convinced, by many experiments, that he could not study, to any degree of perfection, either mathematics, arithmetic, or algebra, without being a deist, if not an atheist; though others may study them all their lives without sustaining any inconvenience.”

On the payment of taxes, he remarks: “It is, at least, as sinful to defraud the king of his right, as to rob our fellow subjects; the king has full as much right to his customs as we have to our houses and apparel.”

“Drams, or spirituous liquors, are liquid fire,” and all who manufacture or sell them, except as medicine, “are poisoners general. They murder his majesty’s subjects by wholesale. They drive them to hell like sheep. The curse of God is in their gardens, their walks, their groves. Blood, blood is there: the foundation, the floor, the walls, the roof of their dwellings, are stained with blood.”

In the same sermon, he powerfully elaborates his three well known rules,—Gain all you can; Save all you can; Give all you can.

In his “Advice to the Methodists with regard to Dress,” he says: “I would not advise you to imitate the quakers, in those little particularities of dress, which can answer no possible end, but to distinguish them from all other people. To be singular, merely for singularity’s sake, is not the part of a Christian. But I advise you to imitate them, first, in the neatness, and secondly in the plainness, of their apparel.” He continues: “Wear no gold, no pearls or precious stones; use no curling of hair; buy no velvets, no silks, no fine linen; no superfluities, no _mere ornaments_, though ever so much in fashion. Wear nothing which is of a glaring colour, or which is, in any kind, gay, glistering, showy; nothing made in the very height of fashion; nothing apt to attract the eyes of bystanders. I do not advise women to wear rings, earrings, necklaces, lace, or ruffles. Neither do I advise men to wear coloured waistcoats, shining stockings, glittering or costly buckles or buttons, either on their coats or in their sleeves, any more than gay, fashionable, or expensive perukes. It is true these are little, very little things; therefore, they are not worth defending; therefore, give them up, let them drop, throw them away, without another word.” What will the fashionable followers of Wesley say to this? And yet Wesley enforces his advices, and answers objections, in a manner which, we suspect, the devotees of fashion will find it difficult to set aside.

“The Duties of Husbands and Wives” was a republication, in an abridged form, of Whateley’s “Directions for Married Persons,” published, in 1753, in Vol. XXII. of the “Christian Library.”

The “Thoughts on Christian Perfection” have been already noticed; and “Christian Instructions” contains nothing which deserves further mention.

A quarter of a century had elapsed since Wesley set sail for America. With what results? To say nothing of the success of the labours of Whitefield and his coadjutors, Methodism had been introduced into almost every county of England and Ireland; ninety itinerant preachers were acting under Wesley’s direction; also a much larger number of local preachers, leaders, and stewards; chapels had been built in London, Bristol, Kingswood, Newcastle on Tyne, Redruth, St. Just, St. Ives, Whitehaven, Gateshead, Sunderland, Teesdale, Colchester, Portsmouth, Whitchurch, Bacup, Bolton, Flixton, Liverpool, Epworth, Louth, Norwich, Kinley, Misterton, Coleford, Tipton, Wednesbury, Lakenheath, Salisbury, Bradford, Halifax, Hutton Rudby, Haworth, Leeds, Osmotherley, Stainland, Sheffield, York, Cardiff, Bandon, Cork, Dublin, Edinderry, Tullamore, Court Mattrass, Pallas, Castlebar, Waterford, and other places;[418] and to these sacred edifices must be added scores, probably hundreds, of private houses, schools, barns, and rooms, which were regularly used as preaching places. In addition to all this, the Wesley brothers, John and Charles, had published about a dozen volumes and about thirty tracts and pamphlets of hymns and poetry; while Wesley himself had issued nine numbers of his Journal, about one hundred and thirty separate sermons, tracts, and pamphlets, and nearly seventy volumes of books, including his “Notes on the New Testament,” his Sermons, and his “Christian Library.”

Can this be equalled, all things considered, in the same space of time, in the life of any one, in this or in any other age and nation of the world? We doubt it. Wesley began his career as a penniless priest; he was without patrons and without friends; magistrates threatened him; the clergy expelled him from their churches, and wrote numberless and furious pasquinades against him; newspapers and magazines reviled him; ballad singers, in foulest language, derided him; mobs assaulted, and, more than once, well-nigh murdered him; and not a few of his companions in toil forsook him and became his antagonists; and yet, despite all this, such were some of the results of the first five-and-twenty years of his unequalled public ministry.