Chapter XXIV: Part III (6)

“MY DEAR LADY,—I am much obliged to your ladyship for your encouraging answer, which plainly speaks a heart devoted to God, and longing for the furtherance of His kingdom. I have likewise received an exceeding friendly letter from Mr. Hart, testifying a great desire of union among the preachers of the gospel; only he carries the point considerably farther than I do, proposing a free debate concerning our several opinions. Now this, I fear, we are not yet able to bear: I fear it might occasion some sharpness of expression, if not of spirit too, which might tear open the wounds before they are fully closed. I am far from being assured, that I could bear it myself; and perhaps others might be as weak as I. To me, therefore, it still seems most expedient to avoid disputing of every kind: at least, for a season, till we have tasted each other’s spirit, and confirmed our love to each other. I own freely, I am sick of disputing: I am weary to bear it; my whole soul cries out, ‘Peace! Peace!’ at least with the children of God, that we may all unite our strength, to carry on the war against the ‘rulers of the darkness of this world.’ Still I ask but one thing, ‘Is thy _heart_ right, as my heart is with thine?’ If it be, give me thine hand. Let us take ‘sweet counsel together, and strengthen each other in the Lord.’

“And the advantage in the proposal I make is this: if it should be (which God forbid!) that I should find none to join me therein, I will, by God’s help, comply with it myself. None can hinder this; and, I think, my brother will be likeminded, yea, and all who act in connection with us.

“Probably it might contribute much to this end, if those of our brethren who have opportunity would be at Bristol, on Thursday, the 9th of August. We might then spend a few hours in free conversation, either apart from, or in conjunction with, the other preachers. I apprehend, if your ladyship could then be near, it might be of excellent service in confirming any kind and friendly disposition, which our Lord might plant in the hearts of His servants. Surely if this can be effectually done, we shall again see Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven.

“I am, my dear lady, your ladyship’s most affectionate and obedient servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Previous to this, on April 19, while at Scarborough, Wesley had drawn up a letter, which he subsequently sent to about fifty clergymen, bearing on the subject of Christian union. It is said[587] that this letter had been submitted to Lord Dartmouth more than two years previous to this; be that as it may, it was now forwarded to the clergymen who were preaching the doctrines above mentioned. These included Messrs. Perronet, Romaine, Newton, Shirley, Adam, Fletcher, Baddiley, Roquet, Sellon, Venn, Richardson, Furley, Conyers, Berridge, and Hicks, all of whom have been alluded to in previous pages of the present history. Besides these, there were Mr. Colley, occasionally one of Wesley’s assistants; Mr. Jesse, perpetual curate of West Bromwich; Mr. Talbot, vicar of St. Giles’s, Reading; Mr. Stillingfleet, of Shawbury; Mr. Andrews, vicar of Stinchcombe; Mr. Jane, vicar of Acton; Mr. Hart, vicar of St. George’s, Bristol; Mr. Browne, vicar of Olney; Mr. Burnett, vicar of Elland, Yorkshire; Mr. Bentley, curate of Dr. Conyers; and Messrs. Downing, Riland, Johnson, Symes, and King, of whom we know nothing.

After mentioning the above clergymen as agreeing in the three essentials—(1) original sin; (2) justification by faith; and (3) holiness of life—Wesley proceeds to state:

“I do not desire a union of opinions among these. They might agree or disagree, touching absolute decrees on the one hand, and perfection on the other. Not a union in expressions. These may still speak of the imputed righteousness, and those of the merits of Christ. Not a union with regard to outward order. Some may remain still quite regular, some quite irregular; and some partly regular, and partly irregular. But these things being as they are, as each is persuaded in his own mind, is it not a most desirable thing that we should—

“1. Remove hindrances out of the way? Not judge one another, not despise one another, not envy one another? Not be displeased at one another’s gifts or success, even though greater than our own? Not wait for one another’s halting, much less wish for it, or rejoice therein?

“Never speak disrespectfully, slightly, coldly, or unkindly of each other; never repeat each other’s faults, mistakes, or infirmities, much less listen for and gather them up; never say or do anything to hinder each other’s usefulness, either directly or indirectly? Is it not a most desirable thing that we should—

“2. Love as brethren? Think well of and honour one another? Wish all good, all grace, all gifts, all success, yea, greater than our own, to each other? Expect God will answer our wish, rejoice in every appearance thereof, and praise Him for it? Readily believe good of each other, as readily as we once believed evil?

“Speak respectfully, honourably, kindly of each other; defend each other’s character; speak all the good we can of each other; recommend one another where we have influence; each help the other on in his work, and enlarge his influence by all the honest means he can?

“This is the union which I have long sought after; and is it not the duty of every one of us so to do? Would it not be far better for ourselves? a means of promoting both our holiness and happiness? Would it not remove much guilt from those who have been faulty in any of these instances? and much pain from those who have kept themselves pure? Would it not be far better for the people, who suffer severely from the clashings and contentions of their leaders, which seldom fail to occasion many unprofitable, yea hurtful, disputes among them? Would it not be better even for the poor blind world, robbing them of their sport, ‘Oh, they cannot agree among themselves!’ Would it not be better for the whole work of God, which would then deepen and widen on every side?

“‘But it will never be; it is utterly impossible.’ Certainly it is with men. Who imagines we can do this? that it can be effected by any human power? All nature is against it; every infirmity, every wrong temper and passion; love of honour and praise, of power, of preeminence, anger, resentment, pride; long contracted habit and prejudice lurking in ten thousand forms. The devil and all his angels are against it. For if this takes place, how shall his kingdom stand? All the world, all that know not God, are against it, though they may seem to favour it for a season. Let us settle this in our hearts, that we may be utterly cut off from all dependence on our own strength or wisdom.

“But surely ‘with God all things are possible’; therefore ‘all things are possible to him that believeth’; and this union is proposed only to them that believe, that show their faith by their works.

“When Mr. C.” [Conyers?] “was objecting the impossibility of ever effecting such a union, I went upstairs, and, after a little prayer, opened Kempis on these words:—‘_Expecta Dominum: viriliter age: noli diffidere: noli discedere: sed corpus et animam expose constanter pro gloria Dei_.’

“I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Will it be believed that, though this superlatively Christian letter was sent to about fifty _evangelical_ clergymen, only three of them condescended to return an answer? This brotherly union was the chief subject discussed at the conference, which commenced in Bristol on the 6th of August. In describing its proceedings Wesley writes: “The great point I now laboured for was a good understanding with all our brethren of the clergy, who are heartily engaged in propagating vital religion.” A dozen of the clergymen, to whom Wesley’s circular had been sent, attended the conference; but for what purpose? John Pawson, who was present, says:

“In the year 1764, twelve of those gentlemen attended our conference in Bristol, in order to prevail with Mr. Wesley to withdraw the preachers from every parish where there was an awakened minister; and Mr. Charles Wesley honestly told us, that if he was a settled minister in any particular place, we should not preach there. To whom Mr. Hampson replied, ‘I would preach there, and never ask your leave, and should have as good a right to do so as you would have.’ Mr. Charles Wesley’s answer was in a strain of high church eloquence indeed! but I leave it. His prediction was never accomplished, nor ever can be. However, these gentlemen failed in their attempt that time; Mr. Wesley would not give up his societies to them.”[588]

With this glimpse of the finale of Wesley’s Christian proposal, we must now rest satisfied. He did his duty; but only three, even of the best clergy in the land, were prepared to cooperate with him.

It has been hinted, that Wesley’s circular was, in the first instance, submitted to Lord Dartmouth, the great friend of the Countess of Huntingdon, and the principal patron of the evangelical clergy of that period. There can be little doubt that it was so; and that another epistle on the same subject, dated “July 26, 1764,” was addressed to the same nobleman. Without quoting that part of the letter which gives the history of Wesley’s proposal for union, we merely furnish the two concluding paragraphs, and chiefly because they are strikingly characteristic of the writer’s almost rough fidelity and courage.

“If your lordship has heard any objections” [to the proposed union], “I should be glad to know them. May I be permitted to ask, Have not the objections you have heard made some impression upon your lordship? Have they not occasioned, if I may speak freely, your lordship’s standing aloof from me? Why do I ask? Indeed, not upon my own account. ‘_Quid mea? Ego in portu navigo._’ I can truly say, I neither fear nor desire anything from your lordship: to speak a rough truth, I do not desire any intercourse with any persons of quality in England. I mean, for my own sake; they do me no good, and I fear I can do none to them. If it be desired, I will readily leave all those to the care of my fellow labourers; I will article with them so to do, rather than this shall be any bone of contention.

“Were I not afraid of giving your lordship pain, I would speak yet still further. Methinks, you desire I should; that is, to tell you once for all, every thought that rises in my heart. I will then. At present I do not want _you_, but I really think you want _me_. For have you a person, in all England, who speaks to your lordship so plain and downright as I do? who considers not the _peer_, but the _man_? not the _earl_, but the _immortal spirit_? who rarely commends, but often blames, and perhaps would do it oftener if you desired it? who is jealous over you with a godly jealousy, lest you should be less a Christian by being a nobleman, lest, after having made a fair advance towards heaven, you should measure back your steps to earth again? O my lord, is not such a person as this needful for you in the highest degree? If you have any such, I have no more to say, but that I pray God to bless him to your soul. If you have not, despise not the assistance which it may please God to give you by, my lord,

“Your lordship’s ready servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[589]

We must now hastily trace Wesley’s footsteps during the remainder of the year 1764.

The conference in Bristol being ended, he came to London on August 11. On the 18th he preached, for the first time, in the new chapel at Snowsfields. On the 20th, he says: “I went to Canterbury, and opened our new chapel there.[590] How is it, that many protestants, even in England, do not know that no other consecration of church or chapel is allowed, much less required, in England, than the performance of public worship therein? This is the only consecration of any church in Great Britain which is necessary, or even lawful. It is true, Archbishop Laud composed a form of consecration; but it was never allowed, much less established, in England. Let this be remembered by all who talk so idly of preaching in unconsecrated places!”

On September 3, Wesley returned to Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which he spent the next month, meeting classes and preaching. On Saturday, October 6, he got back to London; preached the next day thrice, and administered the Lord’s supper; and then, a little before midnight, started, by coach, for Norwich, whose society he pronounced the most changeable in all England. In 1759, when James Wheatley’s tabernacle and congregation were taken, there were 760 Norwich Methodists; in two years, the 760 were reduced to 412; a year afterwards they became 630; and now, two years later, they were only 174.

It was during this Norfolk visitation, that Wesley preached, for the first time, at Lowestoft. He writes: “a wilder congregation I have not seen; but the bridle was in their teeth. All attended, and a considerable part seemed to understand something of what was spoken.”

On his return to London, Wesley called the leaders together, and proposed a scheme for defraying the debts on the London chapels, now about _£_900; and, in six days, by a personal canvas, he raised nearly two thirds of that amount. “What was done,” says he, “was done with the utmost cheerfulness. I remember but one exception; only one gentleman squeezed out ten shillings as so many drops of blood.” Wesley also met the London preachers, every morning, to read with them his “Compendium of Natural Philosophy.” He employed his spare moments in writing; and made short tours to Kent, Sussex, and Essex, for the purpose of visiting his societies there. In this diversified employment, the year was ended.

The amount of labour through which Wesley passed was almost incredible. His preaching, his travelling, his society visitations, his writing and publishing, were enough to have occupied half-a-dozen ordinary men; but to all these must be added his correspondence, and his having to give counsel to all sorts of people, and on all sorts of matters. Even this, single and alone, was no trifle, as will be seen by what follows, and which may be taken as fair specimens of things constantly occurring.

For a quarter of a century, Wesley and his brother had bestowed a large amount of ministerial labour on the inhabitants of Bristol; and it was undeniable, that their services had produced incalculable good. Under such circumstances, there was no presumption in their occasionally taking part in the public business of the city. This they did in 1764. At that time, the Bristol Methodists were alarmed by a proposal to build a new theatre. Charles Wesley and others thought it desirable to send to the Bristol corporation a formal petition against the proposal. Wesley himself thought, that he and his brother were sufficiently well known in Bristol to render a formal petition needless; and that a letter, written on behalf of the Bristol Methodists, would do quite as well. Hence the following, addressed “to the mayor and corporation of Bristol.”

“LONDON, _December 20, 1764_.

“GENTLEMEN,—Both my brother and I, and all who have any connection with us, are extremely sensible of our obligations to you, for the civility which you have shown us on all occasions; and we cannot but feel ourselves deeply interested in whatever we apprehend, in any degree, to concern your honour, or the general good and prosperity of the city of Bristol. This occasions my giving you the present trouble, which, whether it has any further effect or no, you will please to receive as a testimony of the high regard which we shall ever retain for you.

“The endeavours lately used to procure subscriptions for building a new playhouse, in Bristol, have given us not a little concern; and that on various accounts: not barely as most of the present stage entertainments sap the foundation of all religion, as they naturally tend to efface all traces of piety and seriousness out of the minds of men; but as they are peculiarly hurtful to a trading city; giving a wrong turn to youth especially, gay, trifling, and directly opposite to the spirit of industry and close application to business; and as drinking and debauchery of every kind are constant attendants on these entertainments, with indolence, effeminacy, and idleness, which affect trade in a high degree.

“It was on these very considerations, that the corporation of Nottingham lately withstood all solicitations, and absolutely forbade the building of a new theatre there; and I doubt not but thousands will reap the benefit of their wise and generous resolution.

“It does not become me, gentlemen, to press anything upon you; but I could not avoid saying thus much, both in behalf of myself and all my friends. Wishing you the continuance and increase of every blessing,

“I remain, gentlemen, your obliged and obedient servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[591]

Before leaving Bristol, another of Wesley’s papers may be inserted here, for, though without date, it seems to have been written about the year 1764. It is, in point of fact, a pastoral address, and one of the first that Methodism ever issued. The reader will perceive, that it refers to bribery, smuggling, sacraments, books, class-meetings, and connexional debts.

“_To the Societies at Bristol._

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,—I was much comforted among you when I was with you last; finding my labour had not been in vain. Many of you I found rejoicing in God your Saviour, walking in the light of His countenance, and studying to have a conscience void of offence towards God and man. In order to assist you therein, suffer me to remind you of a few things, which, I think, are of no small concern, in order to your retaining the life of faith, and the testimony of a good conscience towards God.

“1. For God’s sake, for the honour of the gospel, for your country’s sake, and for the sake of your own souls, beware of bribery. Before you see me again, the trial will come at the general election for members of parliament. On no account, take money, or money’s worth. Keep yourselves pure. Give, not sell, your vote. Touch not the accursed thing, lest it bring a blast upon you and your household.

“2. Have nothing to do with stolen goods. Neither sell nor buy anything that has not paid the duty. No, not if you could have it at half price. Defraud not the king, any more than your fellow subject. Never think of being religious unless you are honest. What has a thief to do with religion? Herein mind not men, but the word of God; and whatever others do, keep yourselves pure.

“3. Lose no opportunity of receiving the sacrament. All who have neglected this have suffered loss. Most of them are as dead as stones; therefore be you constant herein, not only for example, but for the sake of your own souls.

“4. To the public, constantly add the private means of grace, particularly prayer and reading. Most of you have been greatly wanting in this; and, without this, you can never grow in grace. You may as well expect a child to grow without food, as a soul without private prayer; and reading is an excellent help to this. I advise you to read, in particular, constantly and carefully, the New Testament; ‘Lessons for Children,’ which are all the choicest parts of the Old Testament, with short notes; ‘Instructions for Children,’ which are a body of divinity for plain people; and that golden treatise, ‘The Christian Pattern’; the ‘Plain Account of the Methodists.’ No Methodist ought to be without these, nor the ‘Primitive Physic,’ which (if you have any regard for your bodies, or your children) ought to be in every house. To all that can understand it, I recommend one book more, ‘The Preservative against unsettled Notions’; a book which, by the blessing of God, may help you from being tossed about with divers winds of doctrines. Permit me to give you one advice more under this head: do not encourage young raw men to exhort among you. It does little good either to you or them. Rather, in every society, where you have not an experienced preacher, let one of the leaders read the Notes, or the Christian Library. By this the wisest among you may profit much; a thousand times more than by listening to forward youths, who neither speak English nor common sense.

“5. Let all of you, who have faith, meet in band, without excuse and without delay. There has been a shameful neglect of this. Remove this scandal. As soon as the assistant has fixed your band, make it a point of conscience never to miss without an absolute necessity; and the preacher’s meeting you all together one night out of two will be an additional blessing.

“6. If you constantly meet your band, I make no doubt that you will constantly meet your class; indeed, otherwise you are not of our society. Whoever misses his class thrice together thereby excludes himself; and the preacher that comes next ought to put out his name. I wish you would consider this. Halt not between two. Meet the brethren, or leave them. It is not honest to profess yourself of a society, and not observe the rules of it. Be therefore consistent with yourself. Never miss your class till you miss it for good and all. And when you meet it, be merciful after your power; give as God enables you. If you are not in pressing want, give something, and you will be no poorer for it. Grudge not, fear not; lend unto the Lord, and He will surely repay. If you earn but three shillings a week, and give a penny out of it, you will never want. But I do not say this to you who have ten or fifteen shillings a week, and give only a penny! To see this has often grieved my spirit. I have been ashamed for you, if you have not been ashamed for yourself. Why, by the same rule that you give a penny, that poor man should give a peppercorn! O be ashamed before God and man! Be not straitened in your own bowels. Give in proportion to your substance. You can better afford a shilling than he a penny. This is more to him than that to you. Open your eyes, your heart, your hand. If this one rule was observed, throughout England, we should need no other collection. It would soon form a stock sufficient to relieve all that want, and to answer all occasions. Many of these occasions are now exceeding pressing, and we are nowise able to answer them; so that the cause of God suffers, and the children of God, and that without remedy.

“7. This is, in great measure, owing to our not considering ourselves (all the Methodists) as one body. Such undoubtedly they are throughout Great Britain and Ireland; and, as such, they were considered at our last conference. We then seriously considered the heavy burden which now lies on our brethren in various parts. When we could hire no place that could contain the congregation, they were constrained to build; but hereby they were unavoidably involved in debt, some of them to the amount of several hundred pounds. The assistants were desired to lay this case before all our brethren in England, and to receive what each of them were willing to give, either at that time, or at Easter, or Midsummer. But the greater part of them thought no more about it. Four or five of them did, and brought in all about £200 at our last conference. This was divided among our societies who were most distressed; and all the assistants were desired, when they visit the classes at Christmas, to ask each particular person, poor or rich, ‘What will you give towards the relief of the brethren? Give either now, or at Easter, or at Midsummer; it is all one.’ If this be done in good earnest, I trust, in two or three years, all our societies may be out of debt. And by this shall all men know whose disciples we are, because we love one another.

“8. I mention but one thing more. Let all, who are able, constantly attend the morning preaching. Whenever the Methodist preachers or people leave off this, they will soon sink into nothing.

“I am, my dear brethren, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[592]

This was plain speaking,—a pastoral address which even the Methodist conference of the present day would hardly have courage to imitate.

Another matter must have attention. Under the date of “December 1, 1764,” Wesley writes: “M. B—— gave me a further account of their affairs at Leytonstone. It is exactly _Pietas Hallensis_ in miniature. What it will be, does not yet appear.”

“M. B.” was Mary Bosanquet. Either she or Wesley published, in 1764, a 12mo tract of twenty-three pages, with the title, “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley. By a Gentlewoman. London. Sold at the Foundery, in Upper Moorfields.” The letter is dated “_Laton_-Stone, November 8, 1764,” and gives the reasons why Miss Bosanquet had fixed her home at Leytonstone, and the nature of her employment there. She and her friend Sarah Ryan had commenced meetings for reading and prayer; then, they obtained the service of some of Wesley’s preachers; and then two classes were formed. Then she took into her house a number of destitute orphan children, and engaged a person to teach them. The design was to fit them for good servants, and her endeavour was, “to inure them to labour, early rising, and cleanliness.” Three of them, who were eleven years of age, rose at four in the morning, and lighted the fires. At five, the others were called. When the lesser children were dressed, and had said their prayers, they went into the garden from six till half-past six o’clock, the elder ones being employed in making beds and cleaning rooms. At half-past six, they had household prayer; at seven, breakfast, “two or three upon herb tea, the rest upon milk porridge.” From eight to twelve, was spent in school; when, after a few minutes devoted to the exercise of prayer, the pupils all came to Miss Bosanquet, who read to them, and otherwise instructed them. At one, they dined; at two, school duties were recommenced and were continued until five. At six, they supped; and at seven went to bed. No one was allowed to give them toys; and their recreation was, either running in the garden for a quarter of an hour, or in watering the plants and flowers.

To feed, clothe, and educate such a number of children involved a greater expense than Miss Bosanquet had means to meet; and, hence, she put up a box in the hall with the inscription,—“For the maintenance of a few poor orphans, that they may be brought up in the fear of the Lord”; and, in this way, she obtained assistance for her Methodist orphanage. She was often in straits; sometimes her fund was reduced to a single penny, and she had considerable bills to meet; but, as in the case of the orphanage at Halle, and the present one at Bristol, help always came when needed.

Such was Miss Bosanquet’s “_Pietas Hallensis_ in miniature.” Her tract is a rich, religious curiosity, strongly reminding the reader of the marvellous publications of Mr. Muller, and of August Herman Francke.

A list of the evangelical clergy of the country, to whom Wesley addressed his circular on union, is given in a previous page; but, remarkably enough, one name of considerable distinction is omitted,—the name of the Rev. Thomas Hartley, M.A., rector of Winwick, in Northamptonshire. Mr. Hartley was a friend of the Countess of Huntingdon, and of the Shirley family. He was a man of learning; and of strong, cultivated mind. He was an earnest, devout, energetic Christian; an able, liberal, unbigoted minister; and an author whose style is clear and forcible, and sometimes eloquent; and whose valuable works are still well worth reading. Mr. Hartley, however, was a millenarian and a mystic. In 1764, he published an octavo volume of 476 pages, entitled, “Paradise Restored: or, A Testimony to the Doctrine of the blessed Millennium: with some Considerations on its approaching Advent from the Signs of the Times. To which is added, A Short Defence of the Mystical Writers, against a late Work, entitled, ‘The Doctrine of Grace,’ etc.”

To begin with the last work first. There can be no question, that Mr. Hartley was a most ardent admirer of Jacob Behmen, Dr. Henry More, Madame Bourignon, and Mr. Law. In the last paragraph of his Defence, he tells us that “Divine charity is the great compass by which the mystics steer; it is their very polestar; nay, their latitude, and longitude, and centre too: their employment and delight is love; their hearts and every pulse beat love; it is the element of their life, their _summum bonum_, and their _summum totum_. Perhaps the very angels stretch not farther into the vast expanse of love than some of these have done.” And then he proceeds to state that, in the exercise of this charity, some of them “hope that Jesus Christ will, in some remote age of eternity, by an omnipotent act of His love, reverse the sentence, which strict justice has passed on fallen men and fallen angels; and will give to them repentance, add to their repentance faith, and to their faith charity; that so, blessed again with the renewal of the Divine image, they may rise from their beds of penal, long enduring fire, to join the heavenly host, in praises to the eternal King; no longer peccable as before; but standing firm on the sure basis of never ceasing, ever grateful love. Amen.”

The Defence was professedly a reply to Bishop Warburton; and hence, though he says there are “many instances in Wesley’s numerous writings of injudicious and wrong applications of Scripture,” yet they are all used “seriously and in the fear of God.”

“Whatever be the errors and the faults of Wesley, he is an able minister, has been abundant in labours, and has turned many to righteousness; and therefore deserves honourable mention instead of scurrilous treatment. Had Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley gone on to build up, as they laid the foundation, their adversaries would not have been able to stand before them; but here they failed, and fell into divisions, fierce disputings, and errors in doctrine; and their uncharitable censurings of others have brought more than double upon themselves; and yet I lay not this to the charge of all the Methodists. What cause had Mr. Wesley, among others, for that obloquy he pours on these excellent men, the mystics, who teach the way to Christian perfection on surer principles than he has yet done, and, I believe, attained to higher degrees of it? What is most excellent among the Methodists comes the nearest to what is laid down in their spiritual writings; and had Mr. Wesley studied them more himself, and brought his hearers acquainted with them, they might not have stopped so short as, in general, they have done, but have grown up into a higher stature of Christian life and Divine knowledge.”

Wesley read Mr. Hartley’s strictures. What was his reply?

“_March 27, 1764._

“DEAR SIR,—I thank you for your remarks on that bad performance of the Bishop of Gloucester, which undoubtedly tears up, by the roots, all real, internal religion. Yet, at the same time, I cannot but bewail your vehement attachment to the mystic writers: with whom I conversed much for several years, and whom I then admired, perhaps, more than you do now. But I found, at length, an absolute necessity of giving up either them or the Bible. So, after some time, I fixed my choice, to which I hope to adhere to my life’s end. It is only the extreme attachment to these, which can account for the following words (in your Defence): ‘Mr. Wesley does, in several parts of his Journals, lay down some marks of the new birth, not only doubtful, but exceptionable; as particularly where persons appear agitated or convulsed, under the ministry; which might be owing to other causes rather than any regenerating work of God’s Spirit.’

“Is this true? In what _one_ part of my Journals do I lay down any doubtful, much less exceptionable, marks of the new birth? In _no_ part do I lay down those agitations or convulsions as any mark of it at all; nay, I _expressly declare_ the contrary, in those very words which the bishop himself cites from my Journal. I declare, ‘these are of a disputable nature; they may be from God; they may be from nature; they may be from the devil.’ How is it, then, that you tell all the world, ‘Mr. Wesley lays them down in his Journals, as marks of the new birth’?

“Is it _kind_? Would it not have been far more kind, suppose I had spoken wrong, to tell me of it in a _private_ manner? How much more unkind was it, to accuse me, to all the world, of a fault which I never committed!

“Is it _wise_ thus to put a sword into the hand of our common enemy? Are we not both fighting the battle of our Lord, against the world, as well as the flesh and the devil? And shall I furnish them with weapons against _you_, or you against _me_? Fine diversion for the children of the devil! And how much more would they be diverted, if _I_ would furnish my quota of the entertainment, by falling upon _you_ in return! But I bewail the change in your spirit. You have not gained _more_ lowliness or meekness since I knew you! Oh beware! You did not use to _despise_ any one. This you have _gained_ from the authors you admire. They do not express _anger_ towards their opponents, but _contempt_, in the highest degree. And this, I am afraid, is far more antichristian, more diabolical, than the other. The God of love deliver you and me from this spirit, and fill us with the mind that was in Christ! So prays, dear sir, your still affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[593]

Five years after this, Wesley published the thirteenth number of his Journal, in which the following entry occurs.

“1764, February 5.—I began Mr. Hartley’s ingenious ‘Defence of the Mystic Writers.’ But it does not satisfy me. I must still object—1. To their sentiments. The chief of them do not appear to me to have any conception of church communion. Again: they slight not only works of piety, the ordinances of God, but even works of mercy; and yet most of them, yea, all that I have seen, hold justification by works. In general, they are ‘wise above what is written,’ indulging themselves in many unscriptural speculations. I object—2. To their spirit. Most of them are of a dark, shy, reserved, unsociable temper; and are apt to despise all who differ from them, as carnal, unenlightened men. I object—3. To their whole phraseology. It is both unscriptural, and affectedly mysterious. I say, affectedly; for this does not necessarily result from the nature of the thing spoken of. St. John speaks as high and as deep things as Jacob Behmen. Why then does not Jacob speak as plain as he?”

It has been already stated, that Mr. Hartley was, not only a mystic, but a millenarian; and we feel it right to add, that his “Paradise Restored,” making 356 pages, octavo, is, by far, the most sober, sensible, scriptural, and learned work on the millennium that it has been our lot to read. He professes to show “the great importance of the doctrine of Christ’s glorious reign on earth with His saints”; and maintains that “it was typified in many of the Levitical institutes; was foretold and described in numberless places by the inspired prophets; was made the subject of many precious promises in the gospel; was delineated in the Revelation of St. John; and was received as an apostolical doctrine by the primitive Christians, according to the testimony of several of the ancient fathers,” as St. Barnabas, St. Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius. He further argues, that the doctrine received the sanction of the Council of Nice, called by Constantine the Great, and composed of bishops from all parts of the Christian world; and that it is embodied in the Catechism of King Edward VI., which was revised by English bishops, and published, by royal authority, in the last year of King Edward’s reign.

His arguments, to illustrate the importance of the doctrine, are, to say the least, exceedingly ingenious and able, but far too elaborated to be condensed in a work like this. His theory is substantially the same as that of the millenarians of the present day; without, however, many of the minute whimsies which foolish and fanatical people attach to it. Having, as he thinks, established his doctrine, Mr. Hartley proceeds to answer objections; and concludes with a chapter on “the signs of the times.”

It is difficult, and almost impossible, in our limited space, to give the chief points of Mr. Hartley’s millenarian creed; but the following are some of them:—1. That Christ will come a second time, and will set up a kingdom, and _visibly_ reign on the earth for a thousand years. 2. That, during this reign, His saints will be raised and be restored to the perfection of the first man, Adam; and earth all over will be made a copy of the primeval paradise. 3. That, during this millenarian theocracy, saints will flourish, and sinners be in absolute subjection: hostility and discord will cease, and all things harmonize in unity and peace. 4. That some of the saints will be crowned and sit on thrones; some be set over ten cities, and some over five; some will sit at table with Christ, and others serve; some follow Him whithersoever He goes, and others come periodically to worship in His presence. There are other topics on which Mr. Hartley claims the right to hold a private opinion; but which he does not attempt decisively to prove: such as—1. The duration of this holy empire. 2. Whether the administration of it will be under the constant abiding presence of our Lord’s visible humanity, or only occasional manifestations of it; whilst the government for the most part may devolve upon apostles and patriarchs, as His viceregents, under the immediate influences of His Holy Spirit. 3. Whether the universal conflagration will be before or after the millennial reign. 4. Whether the subjects of this kingdom will consist only of the saints who are living at the time of Christ’s second advent, and of some others, as martyrs, who will then be raised from the dead; or whether there will not be a continued succession of the redeemed ones raised, according to their order and time. 5. Whether the account of Gog and Magog, spoken of in Revelation xx., may not be understood to mean that, “as a great part of the world never heard of Christ, and yet the gospel was to be preached in all the world, for a witness to all nations,—so those, who have died in ignorance of the Christian dispensation, will be raised to spend, in the uttermost parts of the earth, another period of probation; they will have the gospel preached to them by emissaries from the millenarian kingdom; many will believe, be converted, and have their portion with the saved; but many will be seduced by Satan, on his enlargement at the end of the thousand years; will invade Christ’s glorious kingdom; and will be destroyed by fire, as mentioned in the Revelation.”

These are a few of the salient points of Mr. Hartley’s learned and able book. Why are they enumerated here? Because, in substance, they were held by Wesley. Wesley read the book, and read it with approbation. He writes to the author: “Your book on the millennium was lately put into my hands. I cannot but thank you for your strong and seasonable confirmation of that comfortable doctrine: of which I cannot entertain the least doubt, as long as I believe the Bible.”[594]

With such a statement, in reference to such a book, there can be no doubt, that Wesley, like his father before him, was a millenarian, a believer in the second advent of Christ, to _reign_ on earth, visibly and gloriously, for a thousand years.

This is a matter which none of Wesley’s biographers have noticed; and, yet, the above is not the only evidence in support of it. In his letter to Dr. Middleton, published in 1749, he refers to the millenarian creed of Justin Martyr, namely, that, at Christ’s second coming, the martyrs will be raised, and, for a thousand years, will reign, with Christ, in Jerusalem, which will be then rebuilt, enlarged, and richly adorned, according to the prophets (Isaiah lxv.); and that, at the end of the thousand years, there will be a universal resurrection, in order to the final judgment. These were the views of Justin Martyr;[595] views which, Wesley says, Justin deduced from the prophets and the apostles, and which were also adopted by the fathers of the second and third centuries. In fact, “to say, that they believed this, was neither more nor less than to say, they believed the Bible.”[596] There is also a remarkable article in Wesley’s _Arminian Magazine_, for 1784 (page 154), on “The Renovation of all Things,”—in which it is argued, that, according to prophetic promises, there will be a middle period “between the present pollution, corruption, and degradation” of the earth, “and that of a total, universal restoration of all things, in a purely angelical, celestial, ethereal state;” and that, in this middle period, “between these two extremes,” the earth will be restored to its “paradisaical state,” and be “renewed in its primitive lustre and beauty.”

These are facts in Wesley’s history with which the reader must deal as he thinks proper. It is no part of our present plan, either to defend or condemn Wesley’s doctrines; but simply and honestly to supply the incidents of his wondrous history. There is no evidence to prove, that Wesley held many of the wild whimsies of the millenarians of the present age, or that he ever pretended to fix the date of Christ’s second coming. “I have no opinion at all,” said he, “upon when the millennial reign of Christ will begin; I can determine nothing at all about it; these calculations are far above, out of my sight.”[597] Still, Wesley was a believer in the certainty of such a reign; and so was Fletcher, as we have already seen; and so was Wesley’s friend, the vicar of Bexley, Mr. Piers;[598] and so seem to have been the writers of some of the hymns in the Methodist hymn-book. The following are quotations from the book, published by Wesley himself, in 1787.

“Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
Once for favoured sinners slain!
Thousand, thousand saints attending,
Swell the triumph of His train.
Hallelujah!
God _appears on earth to reign_.”

“O might we quickly find
The place for us designed!
See the long expected day
Of our full redemption _here_!
Let the shadows flee away;
Let the _new-made world appear_!
High on Thy great white throne,
O King of saints, _come down_!
In the _New Jerusalem_
Now triumphantly _descend_;
Let the final trump proclaim
Joys begun, which ne’er shall end.”

Was Wesley right in this, or was he wrong? This is a point which those who are learned in theological disputes must be left to determine. References may be made to his notes on Revelation xx.; and to his sermons on “The Great Assize,” “The General Deliverance,” “The General Spread of the Gospel,” and “The New Creation”; and, in some of them, statements may be found scarcely harmonizing with the millenarian theory; but these are matters which we leave to those who take a deeper interest in the millenarian theory than ourselves. We have tried to furnish facts, and must now pass to something else.

In 1764, as in former years, the press was not idle in its attacks on Methodism. The following pamphlets belong to this period. 1. “A Sovereign Remedy for the Cure of Hypocrisy, and Blind Zeal. By an Enemy to Pious Fraud,”—a shilling production, which assailed the Methodists with more fury than force. 2. “The Methodist Instructed: or the absurdity and inconsistency of their principles demonstrated. In a letter to the Brethren at Gravesend. By Philagathus Cantabrigiensis.” 3. “Enthusiasm Delineated: or, the absurd conduct of the Methodists displayed. In a letter to the Rev. Messrs. Whitefield and Wesley. By a Blacksmith.”

Besides these, there was also issued a small 12mo volume of 103 pages, with the title, “A Conference, between a Mystic, an Hutchinsonian, a Calvinist, a Methodist, and Others. Wherein the tenets of each are examined and confuted. By William Dodd, M.A., prebend of Brecon, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty.” So far as Wesley is concerned, the object of Dr. Dodd is to prove, that Wesley and the Methodists are _real_ separatists from the Church of England. “They have broken loose from all obedience to their ordinary; they have entirely leaped over all parochial unity and communion; they have built and continually preach in conventicles, under a licence, as Dissenters; they disuse the liturgy of the Church of England; they preach in all places without reserve; and, what is worst of all, and a source of innumerable evils, they employ and send forth laymen, of the most unlettered sort, to preach the gospel, without any authority from God or man. After all this, to hear such men disclaiming separation has something in it so double and offensive, as to raise the indignation of every serious and reasonable Christian.” It is further alleged, by his majesty’s chaplain, at that time one of the most popular preachers in London, that “Wesley fights against everybody. Indeed, not only is his hand against every man, and every man’s hand against him, but his own hand is also against himself. His writings abundantly contradict themselves; and it would be no hard matter to set _John_ against _Wesley_, and _Wesley_ against _John_.”

Others, besides Dr. Dodd, took the liberty of accusing Wesley of self contradiction. The reader will remember that, in 1755, the Rev. James Hervey published his “Theron and Aspasio,” having previously sent the first three dialogues to Wesley for his revision. In the year following, after reading the entire work, Wesley wrote a long letter to Hervey, giving, with his accustomed brevity, his criticisms on the whole.[599] In 1758, he published this critique, in his “Preservative against unsettled Notions in Religion.” Hervey was greatly mortified and offended; and, at once, set to work, to reply to Wesley, and to defend his “Theron and Aspasio.” In this instance, he submitted his manuscript to Wesley’s old antagonist, the Rev. William Cudworth. Hervey died on Christmas day, 1758,[600] almost before his work was finished, and certainly before it had received its final revision. Cudworth was extremely anxious to have it published, and wrote to the dying man to that effect. Hervey’s answer, ten days before his death, was the following.

“_December 15, 1758._

“DEAR MR. CUDWORTH,—I am so weak, I am scarcely able to write my name,

“JAMES HERVEY.”[601]

On the evening before he died, his brother asked him, “Whether he would have the letters to Mr. Wesley published after his death?” He answered, “By no means, because he had only transcribed about half of them fair for the press; and because the corrections and alterations of the latter part were mostly in a shorthand, entirely his own, and which others would not be able to decipher. Therefore, as it is not a finished piece, I desire you will think no more about it.”[602]

Notwithstanding this request, however, the work was published, it is said surreptitiously, in 1764, and again, by Hervey’s brother, in 1765, in a 12mo volume of 297 pages, with the title, “Eleven Letters from the late Rev. Mr. Hervey, to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley; containing an Answer to that Gentleman’s Remarks on ‘Theron and Aspasio.’ Published from the author’s manuscript, left in the possession of his brother, W. Hervey. With a preface, showing the reason of their being now printed.”

What was the result of this? Of course, Hervey’s letters are highly Calvinistic; but they are not abusive. He hits hard; but he does it fairly and respectfully. He contends, that many of the sentiments which Wesley condemned in his critique on “Theron and Aspasio” are sentiments which Wesley himself had openly avowed; and that others had been greatly misunderstood by him. The most personal and offensive remarks are the following.

“Your objections have rather the air of a caveat, than a confutation. You seem to have forgotten, that propositions are not to be established, with the same ease, as doubts are started; and therefore have contented yourself with a brevity, which produces but little conviction, and more than a little obscurity.”[603] “When you add ‘pleasing sound to James Wheatley! Thomas Williams! James Relly’! I am quite ashamed of your meanness, and grieved at your uncharitable rashness. How unworthy is such a procedure, either of the gentleman, the Christian, or the man of sense!”[604] “Mr. Wesley, cased in his own self sufficiency, esteemeth all the aforementioned evidences as mere nothings. He totally disregards them. Reason, grammar, precedents, are eclipsed by his bare negative; and vanish into an insignificancy not worthy of notice.”[605]

These are the worst specimens we can find, and would probably have been expunged, if Hervey had lived to send his letters to the press himself.

It was impossible for Wesley to allow the publication of Hervey’s eleven letters to pass in silence. Accordingly, at the beginning of 1765, he printed “A Treatise on Justification, extracted from Mr. John Goodwin; with a preface, wherein all that is material, in letters just published under the name of the Rev. Mr. Hervey, is answered.” 12mo, 215 pages.

In his preface, Wesley states, that the reason why he printed his letter to Hervey, in his “Preservative,” was, because he had “frequently and strongly recommended” “Theron and Aspasio,” and deemed it his duty to point out what he disapproved. When he heard, that Hervey was about to answer him, he wrote requesting to see the manuscript before it was published, remarking, that if he did not return him privately a satisfactory answer within a year, he should have his free consent “to publish it to all the world.” Wesley continues:

“In this prefatory discourse, I do not intend to answer Mr. Hervey’s book. Shall my hand be upon that saint of God? No; let him rest in Abraham’s bosom. When my warfare is accomplished, may I rest with him till the resurrection of the just! I purpose only to speak a little on the personal accusations which are brought against me. The chief of those are twelve:—1. That I assert things without proof. 2. That I am self sufficient, positive, magisterial. 3. That I reason loosely and wildly. 4. That I contradict myself. 5. That I do not understand criticism and divinity. 6. That I have acted in a manner unworthy a gentleman, a Christian, or a man of sense. 7. That I am impudent. 8. That I deny justification by faith, and am an enemy to the righteousness of Christ. 9. That I am an heretic, and my doctrine is poisonous. 10. That I am an antinomian. 11. That I teach popish doctrine. 12. That I am a knave, a dishonest man, one of no truth, justice, or integrity.”