Chapter XIV: Part 14

Space forbids any lengthened outline of the contents of the first volume. There are lives of Arminius, Luther, Bernard Gilpin, Bishop Bedell, Peter Jaco, and John Atlay. There are half-a-dozen articles on the Calvinian controversy, some of them, (rather in contradiction of Wesley’s announcement,) running through several numbers. There are fifty-nine letters; and nearly the same number of poetic pieces. There are three portraits, one of Wesley himself, one of Peter Jaco, and the third of John Atlay. At the end of the copy now before us, is a four paged letter, dated Londonderry, June 5, 1778, answering objections against the five numbers already issued. One objection was, there was not enough for money. The reply was: “I write for those who judge of books, not by the quantity, but by the quality of them. I spare both my reader’s time and my own, by couching my sense in as few words as I can. Those who prefer the dealers in many words may find them on every side.” A second objection was, that there was not variety enough. Wesley answered: “Here is all the variety I promised. I promised the bulk of the magazine should treat of universal redemption. Do you blame me for not rambling from my subject? It is not my manner, I do not aim at it.” A third objection was, “there is not variety in the historical part.” “What do you mean?” says Wesley. “Would you have me insert bits and scraps of history; or give, in each number, part of the life of one man, and part of that of another? I never proposed this: I think it far better to select a few of the best lives I know, and to go entirely through one before I enter upon another.” Another objection was: “you have no pictures or other decorations or embellishments which other magazines have.” Wesley answers: “It is true. But I will tell you what I have: such paper as no magazine in England was ever printed upon before. Consider! this one single article costs more than all their fine embellishments put together.”

In concluding this notice of the first volume of the _Arminian Magazine_, the following letter will be welcome. It was addressed to Thomas Taylor, and is here copied from the original.

“LONDON, _January 15, 1778_.

“DEAR TOMMY,--As to preaching, you ought not to preach against
that unscriptural, blasphemous, mischievous doctrine
constantly; no, nor very frequently. But you ought, now and
then, to bear a full, strong, express testimony against it;
otherwise you are a sinner against God, and the people, and
your own soul. I have done this too seldom: scarce once in
fifty sermons. I ought to do it once in fifteen or so.

“As to writing or publishing, the deadly poison has, for many
years, been spread through England, chiefly by means of those
pestilent declamations, _The Gospel_, and _The Spiritual_
Magazine. Whatever is designed for an antidote to this poison
must be spread in the same manner. Thousands have been thereby
poisoned already, and are now twice dead. To guard those who
are not poisoned yet, (not to get money,) I fight them at
their own weapons. I oppose magazine to magazine, though of a
totally different kind. But, it seems, you know nothing at all
of the matter. You do not appear to have read the
Proposals.[319] This magazine not only contains no railing,
but (properly speaking) no controversy. It proves one point:
‘God willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge
of the truth.’ It goes straight forward, taking notice of no
opponents, but invariably pursuing the one point. And this is
the only way to preserve the Methodists, and to make the
Calvinists quiet. Meantime, both the letters and the lives,
which will make a considerable part of every number, contain
the marrow of experimental and practical religion; so that
nothing of the kind has appeared before. Therefore, a magazine
of this kind is a new thing in the land; and those, who
formerly spoke against the magazine, may, with a good grace,
recommend this as being quite another thing, and published on
other motives. I do not desire any Calvinist to read it. I
publish it not to convince, but to preserve. I know, by long
experience, they will never bend, but when the war is carried
into their own quarters. This I will do, as long as God spares
my life; and, in love, and in meekness of wisdom. This is the
way, and the only way, to establish lasting peace.

“But is it not odd that a Methodist, a preacher, an assistant,
should be the only one who sees my brother, and me, and the
bulk of the preachers, and the body of the people, to be
wrong? Tommy, distrust yourself. Do not lean too much to your
own understanding. It is possible they may be right, and you
wrong. You do not at all understand this affair. We are well
rid of those turbulent men. With love to Nancy,

“Your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

We only add, that, nearly to the end of Wesley’s life, Thomas Olivers was a sort of sub-editor, and corrector of the press; but corrected so incorrectly, that, in August, 1789, Wesley writes: “I chose a new person to prepare the _Arminian Magazine_; being obliged, however unwillingly, to drop Mr. Olivers, for only these two reasons: 1. The errata are unsufferable; I have borne them for these twelve years, but can bear them no longer. 2. Several pieces are inserted without my knowledge, both in prose and verse. I must try whether these things cannot be amended for the short residue of my life.”

FOOTNOTES:

[304] The words in the original are given in full.

[305] See memoirs of Toplady, prefixed to his works, 1857
edit.

[306] _Christian Miscellany_, 1849, p. 84.

[307] Memoirs of Benson, by Macdonald, p. 75.

[308] _Methodist Magazine_, 1814, p. 508.

[309] Manuscript.

[310] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 383.

[311] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 296.

[312] _Christian Miscellany_, 1850, p. 54.

[313] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785.

[314] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 608.

[315] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 33.

[316] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 134.

[317] Wesley’s Works, vol. iv., p. 107.

[318] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 407.

[319] Taylor was opposed to the magazine. In his
unpublished diary, he writes: “1777. December 14--I
wrote a long letter to Mr. Wesley concerning the
_Arminian Magazine_, which I am persuaded will do
hurt, and no good.”

1779.
Age 76

The year 1779 was one of national alarm. The remarkable trials of Admiral Keppel and Sir Hugh Palliser occasioned fierce debates in parliament. Lord North and his colleagues were accused of being intermeddling, shortsighted, and incapable. American agents were busy with Irish malcontents; and armed associations, not the most loyal, were formed in Dublin and throughout the country. The Spanish ambassador quitted London, after delivering to the secretary of state a hostile manifesto. The ministry proposed, that the militia should be doubled. Press warrants were issued in all directions, and press gangs actively employed in increasing the navy. France was jubilant. England rang with reports of invasion, and of new Spanish armadas, more terrible than that sent against Queen Elizabeth. Gibraltar was threatened; and so was Jersey. Paul Jones, at the head of a squadron manned by French and Americans, and desperadoes from various other countries, menaced the whole of the eastern coast of England, from Flamborough Head to the Frith of the Tay. Lord North’s parliamentary majorities were dwindling. George III. had no decisive victories to report. It was asserted that the American war had already added sixty-three millions to the national debt; and Charles Fox declared that treachery, and not ignorance, must have prevailed in the national councils to reduce the country to its present miserable condition. England throughout was in a panic.

In this emergency, as in all others, Wesley was among the foremost to evince his loyalty. On February 8, he wrote: “Finding many serious persons were much discouraged by prophets of evil, confidently foretelling very heavy calamities which were coming upon our nation, I endeavoured to lift up their hands, by opening and applying Psalm xliii. 5, 6.” Two days later was the national fast, when he preached on Abraham interceding for the city of Sodom. To quiet the panic at Newcastle, he took for his text, “The Lord sitteth above the waterfloods; the Lord reigneth a king for ever.” In a letter to Bradburn, he says:

“It is the judgment of many, that, since the time of the
Invincible Armada, Great Britain and Ireland were never in such
danger from foreign enemies as they are at this day. Humanly
speaking, we are not able to contend with them, either by sea
or land. They are watching over us as a leopard over his prey,
just ready to spring upon us. They are mighty and rage
horribly; but the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier; and
now is the time, at this awful crisis, for the inhabitants of
the land to learn righteousness. I make no doubt, but you
improve the important opportunity, and lift up your voice like
a trumpet. Who knoweth but God may be entreated of _us_, as He
was for Nineveh? Our brethren, in various parts of England,
have set apart an hour in a week for prayer (namely, from eight
till nine on Sunday evening), in behalf of our king and
country. Should not the same be done in Ireland too?
particularly at Cork and Bandon? Those who have not opportunity
of meeting, at the time, may pray part of the hour in private.
Meantime, there is a text for _you_: ‘I will not destroy it for
_ten’s_ sake.’”[320]

Besides this weekly prayer-meeting by the English Methodists, a Methodist fast was observed in connection with the annual conference. Thomas Taylor writes: “July 30--This day was observed as a fast on account of public affairs. We met in the morning at five; and, after the sermon, we continued in prayer till nine o’clock. At one, we met again, and received the sacrament. In the evening, we kept a watchnight, and I gave an exhortation. But the people do not stay at watchnights in London, as they do in the country.”[321]

A few days later, we find Wesley holding a noonday prayer-meeting, at Haverfordwest, to intercede for the king and country. At Bristol, he preached on David’s prayer, “Lord, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness”; and, in October, wrote again to Samuel Bradburn as follows.

“LONDON, _October 10, 1779_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--The alarm has been general in England as well as
Ireland; particularly in the maritime parts. But it has done
abundantly more good than harm to the work of God. The children
of God have been greatly stirred up, and have been more instant
in prayer. And many men of the world have been greatly
awakened, and continue so to this day. Most of those who have
the fullest intercourse with God believe our enemies will never
be permitted to land in England. And, indeed, God has already
given abundant proof of His hearing prayer: first, in their not
landing at Plymouth, where they stayed gaping and staring for
eight-and-forty hours, while they might with all ease have
destroyed both the dock and the town; secondly, in the
malignant fever which has broken out in their fleet, and
already destroyed several thousands of men.”[322]

Infidelity will sneer at this; but religion, recognising a ruling Providence, will reverentially bow its head. The crisis was terrible. Sixty-eight French and Spanish ships of the line, and many frigates and smaller vessels, all commanded by D’Orvilliers, appeared off Plymouth. The British fleet did not exceed thirty-eight sail of the line, and was absent at sea, under the command of Admiral Hardy. Where was the difficulty of seizing Plymouth? Wesley writes: “They might have entered it with perfect ease. The wind was fair; there was no fleet to oppose them; there was scarce any garrison, and the few men that were there had no wadding at all, and but two rounds of powder; and only two of the cannon were mounted.” And yet the combined fleet, nearly twice the size of Hardy’s, contented itself with a pompous parade in front of the unprotected town. No wonder that Wesley, with grateful exultation, preached from texts like the one he took at Newcastle: “The Lord sitteth above the waterfloods; the Lord reigneth a king for ever.”

Before we track Wesley’s wanderings in 1779, there is another matter which deserves mention. On the 30th of May, 1778, Voltaire died in Paris, in the eighty-fifth year of his age. His death was what the death of an arch infidel might be expected to be. The subjoined anecdote respecting it has long been widely published, but, perhaps, never so nearly traced to its source as now. Wesley had been informed that one of the chaplains of George III. was about to publish Voltaire’s pernicious works in a collected form; and, in a fit of godly indignation, he wrote the following unpublished letter.

“_January 4, 1779._

“SIR,--In September last, a gentleman, near Bristol, showed me
a letter, which he had received from the Rev. Mr. Fletcher, at
Paris. I desired him to give a transcript of one part of it,
which he immediately did. It was as follows:

“‘Mr. Voltaire sent for Monsieur Tronclils, first physician to
the Duke of Orleans, (one of his converts to infidelity,) and
said to him, “Sir, I desire you will save my life. I will give
you half my fortune, if you will lengthen out my days only six
months. If not, I shall go to the devil, and carry you with
me.”’

“This is the man to whom a crowned head pays such a violent
compliment! Nay, this is the man whose works are now publishing
by a divine of our own Church; yea, a chaplain to his majesty.
Pity but the king should know it. If the publisher of that poor
wretch’s works writes a panegyric upon him or them, I shall
think it my duty to show the real value of those writings.

“I am, sir, your humble servant,

J. WESLEY.”

No man was a more determined opponent of evil than Wesley was; and, at the same time, no man was a more faithful friend. The following is illustrative of this. The Methodists know something, and might be told a great deal more, respecting William Shent, the Methodist barber of the town of Leeds. Poor William was now in not undeserved embarrassment; his friends forsook him; but not so Wesley. Hence the following, hitherto unpublished, letter to the Methodist society in Keighley.

“LONDON, _January 11, 1779_.

“I HAVE a few questions, which I desire may be proposed to the
society at Keighley.

“Who was the occasion of the Methodist preachers first setting
foot in Leeds? William Shent.

“Who received John Nelson into his house at his first coming
thither? William Shent.

“Who was it that invited me, and received me when I came?
William Shent.

“Who was it that stood by me while I preached in the street
with stones flying on every side? William Shent.

“Who was it that bore the storm of persecution for the whole
town, and stemmed it at the peril of his life? William Shent.

“Whose word did God bless for many years in an eminent manner?
William Shent’s.

“By whom were many children now in paradise begotten in the
Lord, and many now alive? William Shent.

“Who is he that is ready now to be broken up, and turned into
the street? William Shent.

“And does nobody care for this? William Shent fell into sin,
and was publicly expelled the society; but must he be also
starved? Must he with his grey hairs and all his children be
without a place to lay his head? Can you suffer this? Oh, tell
it not in Gath! Where is gratitude? Where is compassion? Where
is Christianity? Where is humanity? Where is concern for the
cause of God? Who is a wise man among you? Who is concerned for
the gospel? Who has put on bowels of mercy? Let him arise and
exert himself in this matter. You here all arise as one man,
and roll away the reproach. Let us set him on his feet once
more. It may save both him and his family. But what we do, let
it be done quickly.

“I am, dear brethren, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

It is hardly necessary to track the steps of Wesley throughout the whole of a journey which occupied the next five months. He opened the new chapel at Bath, of which more must be said shortly. On Friday, March 19, he preached in Bengeworth church at noon; and, at six, in the church at Pebworth. At West Bromwich, during a terrific storm of wind and hail, he addressed a congregation in the open air. At Madeley, he preached in the new chapel, built by his friend Fletcher, in Madeley Wood. He opened a new chapel at Davyhulme, Manchester. He also paid his first visit to Oldham, where he says: “I had such a congregation as I have not seen since I was in the Cornish amphitheatre. And all, beside a few giddy children, were seriously attentive.”

This was a great improvement in the manners of the Oldham people. When Matthew Mayer commenced preaching here in 1763, he asked a man to allow him to stand before his door. “No,” replied the Lancashire savage; and then he swore that, if Mayer attempted to gather a congregation there, he would cleave his skull. Having removed to the door of Jonathan Mabbot’s, in George Street, Mayer mounted a stool; but he had no sooner sung and prayed, than the mob, led on by churchwardens and constables, surrounded him. “By what authority do you come hither?” asked the Oldham functionaries. “By what authority do you ask me?” replied Mr. Mayer. “Pull him down, pull him down!” cried the mob; and then one of the constables upset the preacher’s stool; and the zealous guardians of the Church shouted, “We want none of your preaching here.” On the Sunday following, while Mayer was preaching, the mob amused themselves by thrusting pins into the legs and arms of serious hearers; and, on the Sunday after that, a brute was hired for threepence halfpenny to strip himself stark naked, and rush into the midst of Mayer’s congregation. On another occasion, John Murlin was dragged from his horseblock pulpit, and was thrown into a dungeon; and, on another, James Hall was honoured with the presence not only of the constables, churchwardens, and Oldham mob, but also of a huntsman and his hounds. The churchwardens raved; the constables brandished their official staves; the mob bawled; the dogs barked; and the huntsman blew his horn with such vehemence that Mr. Hall found it impossible to preach, but, for an hour and a half, continued to sing and pray.[323]

Leaving Oldham, Wesley proceeded to Northwich and other places in Cheshire; then to Warrington, Liverpool, Bolton, Rochdale, Bacup, and Padiham. He writes: “April 13--At one o’clock, I preached in the shell of the house at Padiham, where there is at length a prospect of peace, after abundance of disturbance, caused by one who neither fears God nor reverences man.”

The chapel referred to, in this extract, was erected in the midst of the most determined opposition. What was built during the day was frequently demolished during the night; and it became necessary to appoint nocturnal watchers to guard the premises. At length, the building was completed, and had, in the front wall, a stone with a sun dial, serving for a clock, and round about it an inscription, which, to future generations, was a memento of bygone troubles: “They thrust sore at me that I might fall; but the Lord hath helped me, and taken part against them that hated me.”

From Padiham, Wesley went to Todmorden, Heptonstall, Ewood, and Halifax. He writes: “April 15--I went to Halifax, where a little thing had lately occasioned great disturbance. An angel blowing a trumpet was placed on the sounding board over the pulpit. Many were vehemently against this; others as vehemently for it: but a total end was soon put to the contest, for the angel vanished away.”

“Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” Several of the Halifax Methodists, thinking that the sounding board would be improved by some sort of ornament, opened a subscription for that purpose, and, a fortnight before Wesley’s visit, procured the celestial trumpeter which Wesley mentions. John Murlin, one of the preachers, determined not to preach under the angel’s expanded wings. Discussion sprung up, in the midst of which Wesley came. The leaders were summoned; a hot discussion followed; and the votes, for and against the angel, were equal. Just at this juncture, John Hatton, of Lightcliffe, entered, and gave a vote for the angel’s removal. Immediately, the carved image was taken down; John Murlin hewed it in pieces; and, before midnight, it was burnt in the chapel yard. Great was the consternation of these simple Methodists, when, at the five o’clock preaching, next morning, they found their pet angel had vanished. Quarrelling ensued; and several influential members, in angelic indignation, left the society which had destroyed the angelic ornament, and, in some instances, remained to the end of life unconnected with any church whatever.[324]

Proceeding to Haworth, Wesley preached, in the morning, in the church; but, in the afternoon, “thousands upon thousands being gathered together,” he was obliged to take his stand in the churchyard. The next day,--Monday, April 19,--he preached in the church at Bingley; and then went to Otley. “On April 24,” Thomas Taylor writes, “I met Mr. Wesley at Cross Hall, and found the old apostle as hearty and lively as ever. The conversation at table was such as became our religious profession. There were present two pious clergymen, two of my brethren, and several serious women. On Sunday, April 25, I went with Mr. Wesley to Birstal church, after which he preached to, I think, the largest congregation I have ever seen in any place.”[325]

At Huddersfield, Wesley found a great revival of the work of God, sometimes “sixteen, eighteen, yea, twenty,” being converted in a day. At Leeds, Dr. Kershaw, the vicar, desired him to assist at the sacrament. Ten clergymen were present, and seven or eight hundred communicants. At Darlington, he found some of the liveliest Methodists in the north of England. He preached in the market place, and all behaved well, except a party of the Queen’s Dragoons. At Barnard Castle, the Durham militia were assembled,--the handsomest body of soldiers he had ever seen, except in Ireland; and all, officers and soldiers, came to hear him, and were a pattern to the whole congregation.

He now made his way to Newcastle, and thence to Scotland, where he travelled as far north as Inverness. He writes: “June 8--I reached Inverness, but found a new face of things there. Good Mr. Mackenzie had been, for some years, removed to Abraham’s bosom. Mr. Fraser, his colleague, a pious man, of the old stamp, was likewise gone to rest. The three present ministers are of another kind; so that I have no more place in the kirk; and the wind and rain would not permit me to preach on the green. However, our house was large, though gloomy enough. Being now informed, (which I did not suspect before,) that the town was uncommonly given to drunkenness, I used the utmost plainness of speech; and I believe not without effect. I then spent some time with the society, increased from twelve to between fifty and sixty;[326] many of these knew in whom they had believed; so that all the pains which have been taken to stop the work of God here have hitherto been in vain.”

A month later, Wesley wrote the following hitherto unpublished letter to Mr. McAllum.

“EPWORTH, _July 10, 1779_.

“DEAR DUNCAN,--This is the circumstance which puzzles the case:
who can preach in Erse but you? Cannot you then think of any
preacher, whom you love, and who is a zealous, active man?
Inverness should by all means be a circuit by itself, including
as many towns as you please, north and south. I wish you would
think of it, and send me the plan to London.

“Did not sister Anderson receive my letter? I wonder she did
not answer. Joseph Moore utterly denies he ever offered her
marriage. I desired her to tell me the very words he spoke or
wrote.

“I am, dear Duncan, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.
“To Mr. Duncan McAllum,
at Mr. John Watson’s, slater, Inverness.”

Wesley spent nearly a month in his evangelistic tour through Scotland. Everywhere he was received with great respect and affection; and he speaks of many “times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” He was introduced to several persons of distinction, and, among others, to gossiping James Boswell, who writes: “Though I differed from Mr. John Wesley in some points, I admired his various talents, and loved his pious zeal. At my request, therefore, Dr. Johnson gave me a letter of introduction to him.

“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.

“_May 3, 1779._

“SIR,--Mr. Boswell, a gentleman, who has been long known to me,
is desirous of being known to you, and has asked this
recommendation, which I give him with great willingness,
because I think it very much to be wished that worthy and
religious men should be acquainted with each other.

“I am, sir, your most humble servant,

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

Boswell adds, that he presented the letter to Wesley at Edinburgh, “and was very politely received.”[327]

Wesley, in returning, reached Newcastle on June 22, and would fain have rested in a place to which he was tenderly attached. He writes: “Wednesday, June 23--I rested here. Lovely place, and lovely company! But I believe there is another world; therefore I must ‘arise and go hence.’” Accordingly, next morning, he set out for Stockton upon Tees, and preached all the way along the east coast of England till he came to Great Grimsby. “Here,” he says, “I found a little trial. In this, and many other parts of the kingdom, those striplings, who call themselves Lady Huntingdon’s preachers, have greatly hindered the work of God. They have neither sense, courage, nor grace, to go and beat up the devil’s quarters, in any place where Christ has not been named; but, wherever we have entered as by storm, and gathered a few souls, often at the peril of our lives, they creep in, and, by doubtful disputations, set every one’s sword against his brother. One of these has just crept into Grimsby, and is striving to divide the poor little flock; but I hope his labour will be in vain, and they will still hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Having visited the societies in Lincolnshire, Wesley proceeded to Doncaster and Sheffield, and thence, by way of Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Hinckley, and Coventry, to London, which he reached on July 23.

Wesley had not preached at Hinckley since the year 1744. What led him to visit the town now? We learn, from the unpublished autobiography of Thomas Dixon, who, at this time, was stationed in the Leicestershire circuit, that, just before the conference of 1779, he attempted to introduce Methodism into Hinckley, and not without success. According to custom, he took his stand in the street, and began to sing. The night was wet, and his congregation was not only small, but seemed so apprehensive of the Methodist apparition, that, while they listened to him, they also kept at a safe distance from him. He preached again next morning to a congregation somewhat larger, and then set out for Tamworth. This was his first and his last visit; but a class was formed just after,[328] which, in 1780, contributed nearly a pound per quarter for the support of the work of God;[329] and, from that time to this, Methodism has had a place in Hinckley.

Then as it respects Coventry, this was the first sermon Wesley delivered here. He says: “July 21--When I came to Coventry, I found notice had been given for my preaching in the park; but the heavy rain prevented. I sent to the mayor, desiring the use of the town hall. He refused; but, the same day, gave the use of it to a dancing master. I then went to the women’s market. Many soon gathered together, and listened with all seriousness. I preached there again the next morning, and again in the evening.”

As already stated, from Coventry Wesley went to London. The entry in his journal recording the journey is worthy of quotation. “I took coach for London. I was nobly attended: behind the coach were ten convicted felons, loudly blaspheming, and rattling their chains; by my side sat a man with a loaded blunderbuss, and another upon the coach.”

Before proceeding to notice the conference, of 1779, two other matters demand attention.

Thomas Maxfield seceded from Wesley in 1763; took away with him about two hundred members of Wesley’s society; and became the minister of a separate and independent congregation.[330] For some reason, he now wished to return to Wesley’s connexion; but to this Wesley and his brother objected. Hence the following letters, by Charles Wesley, the first addressed to Vincent Perronet, the second to Wesley himself.

“LONDON, _April 20, 1779_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--My brother and I agreed not to receive
Mr. Maxfield again, as a fellow labourer, till he acknowledged
his fault. Ought we not to wait for some word, of his being
sensible of his ingratitude? Ought we to trust him, and the
people to his care, without it? I have not the least spark of
resentment towards Mr. Maxfield; but to deliver up our charge
to him, unconvinced, is to betray them.

“My brother’s interest with the bishop is great, (I believe,)
but my son Samuel’s is greater. Sam and the bishop are, _Ego et
rex meus_.

“Your very affectionate and ever obliged servant,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[331]

“LONDON, _April 23, 1779_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I still love Thomas Maxfield. I see some
advantages to us, as well as to him, from his return to us,
_provided_ he is first convinced. Receive him _unconvinced_,
and you will have to put him away again, when perhaps it will
scarce be in your power. One more trial, if you please, we will
make upon him, in a conference between us three. Possibly we
may gain our brother.

“I shall be happy to hear you have saved poor William Shent.
Hopper and others will, I know, draw in their horns while you
are talking with them, and be perhaps convinced for a short
time. Give them back their first love, and their first poverty,
and they will not even wish to reign without us. Peter Jaco,
John Atlay, and John Pawson, might, I hope, be set right by a
friendly conference with us. They then would strengthen their
brethren, or recover them.

“Your defect of mistrust needs my excess to guard it. You
cannot be taken by storm, but may by surprise. We seem designed
for each other. If we could and would be more together, it
might be better for both. That I shall go first, I cannot
doubt. The extraordinary strength, continued to you, is a
promise of your longer continuance. My strength and my work are
very near their end.

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[332]

The above letter refers to another matter besides that of the return of Thomas Maxfield. Charles Wesley was still jealous of the preachers aspiring after power, and especially of Christopher Hopper and his friends. He seems to have thought, that John Atlay, who was now the book steward in London, and John Pawson, who was the London assistant, and Peter Jaco, who was a London supernumerary, “might be set right by a friendly conference”; but of the other London preachers, including Thomas Rankin and Thomas Coke, he was in doubt. He properly enough gives himself credit for an excess of caution; but, perhaps wrongly, thinks his brother had not enough of it.

This was another important crisis in the history of the two Wesleys. It was only a few months before, that City Road chapel had been opened. Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, John Richardson, and John Abraham, were its officiating clergymen; but John Pawson, Thomas Rankin, Thomas Tennant, and Peter Jaco, were itinerant preachers, appointed by the conference of 1778, to the London circuit, of which the chapel in City Road was now a part. What was the result? Jealousies sprung up, indirectly referred to in the above letter, but mentioned in greater detail in another letter to be presently inserted. Before, however, that letter is introduced, perhaps the following extracts from John Pawson’s unpublished manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead will be acceptable, and will cast light on Wesley’s difficulties. Mr. Pawson writes:

“I was perhaps as well acquainted with the two brothers as any
man now living. That Mr. Charles Wesley was of a very
suspicious temper is certainly true; and that Mr. John Wesley
had far more charity, in judging of persons in general, (except
the rich and great,) than his brother had, is equally true. But
that he was so apt to be taken in with appearances is not true.
He was well able to form a judgment of particular persons, and
was as seldom mistaken as his brother. I once heard him
pleasantly say: ‘My brother suspects everybody, and he is
continually imposed upon; but I suspect nobody, and I am never
imposed upon.’ It is well known that Mr. Charles Wesley was
much prejudiced in favour of the clergy, through the whole
course of his life, and that it was nothing but hard necessity
that obliged him, in any degree, to continue the lay preachers.
He must have been blind indeed not to have seen, that God had
given to many of them, at least, very considerable ministerial
gifts, and that He attended their labours with great success;
but I am well persuaded, that, could he have found a sufficient
number of clergymen to have carried on the work of God, he
would soon have disowned all the lay preachers. He was glad of
their assistance when he did not choose to preach himself; and,
accordingly, on a Sunday evening, he would always have a lay
preacher appointed as well as himself, lest a shower of rain,
or an agreeable visit, should prevent his attending. At a
conference held in Bristol many years ago, about a dozen
clergymen attended for the purpose of convincing us, that we
ought not to preach in any parish that was favoured with a
gospel minister. Mr. Charles Wesley took part with them, and
said, ‘If I was stationed in any particular parish, you should
not preach there.’ Mr. John Hampson replied, ‘I would preach
there, and never ask your leave; and I should think I had as
good a right for doing so, as you had,’ Mr. Charles answered in
great anger, ‘You are a grievous wolf: you will tear the flock
when my brother and myself are dead, unless God give you
repentance.’ Mr. Charles was inclined to find out and magnify
any supposed fault in the lay preachers; but his brother
treated them with respect, and exercised a fatherly care over
them. I am persuaded that, from the creation of the world,
there never existed a body of men who looked up to any single
person with a more profound degree of reverence than the
preachers did to Mr. Wesley; and I am bold to say, that never
did any man, no, not St. Paul himself, possess so high a degree
of power over so large a body of men as was possessed by him.
He used his power, however, for the edification of the people,
and abused it as little perhaps as any one man ever did. When
any difficulty occurred in governing the preachers, it soon
vanished. The oldest, the very best, and those of them that had
the greatest influence, were ever ready to unite with him, and
to assist him to the utmost of their power. The truth is, if
the preachers were in any danger at all, it was of calling Mr.
Wesley ‘Rabbi,’ and implicitly obeying him in whatsoever he
thought proper to command.

“Dr. Whitehead informs his readers, that a party existed among
the preachers, who wished for a total separation from the
Established Church, and for the Methodists to be formed into an
independent body; and represents Dr. Coke as being at the head
of that party. I am well assured, that this is incorrect. The
preachers only wished, that the people, who had grown weary of
seeking the living among the dead, and of asking bread of those
who they well knew had only a stone to give them, might be
indulged with the lively ordinances of God; and some of the
people thought it very unjust, not to say cruel, that their
ministers did not grant them the privilege of worshipping God
at those particular times of the Lord’s day, when both body and
mind were best prepared for so doing. It is true, that a party
existed, both among the preachers and people, who were inclined
to believe, that those whom God had called to preach might
lawfully administer the sacraments; as they were not able to
perceive that it required a greater degree of wisdom and piety
to qualify a person to baptize a child than to preach the word
of God. They likewise had scruples whether it was right to wish
those ministers God speed, by attending their ministry, whom,
they felt convinced, God had never sent. But, at the same time,
the preachers knew, that there never was among themselves a
sufficient number of acceptable men to supply all the Methodist
congregations; and that, if there had been, and if an entire
separation from the Church had taken place, the Methodists were
too poor to support such a multitude of ministers. Common
prudence, therefore, prevented them from wishing for that which
they knew could not be accomplished.”

These are important statements, coming from a man of Mr. Pawson’s ministerial standing, and who was one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers during the last twenty-nine years of Wesley’s life. They could be easily extended; but, perhaps, enough has been said, to show that the feeling, between Charles Wesley and the preachers, was not of the most friendly kind; and this will prepare the reader for the following letter, which Charles, at this period, addressed to his brother.

“LONDON, _June 16, 1779_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. B. has been lately with the committee, and
was there informed, that our preachers (the three
principal[333]) have written to the country preachers heavy
complaints of their ill usage by the clergy here; not, I should
suppose, by quiet John Richardson,--not by passive Dr. Coke,
for he, they say, is gone to Bristol, that he may not be a
witness of their cruel persecution. The persecuting clergy,
therefore, are neither more nor less than your own brother
Charles, and the whole ground of their complaint against me is,
‘my serving the chapel on Sunday afternoon, as well as in the
morning.’

“But this is no new grievance; for I constantly preached Sunday
morning and afternoon at Bristol. If they could exclude me
here, they would not long permit me there.

“My reasons for preaching at the new chapel twice every Sunday
are: 1. Because, after you, I have the best right. 2. Because I
have so short a time to preach anywhere. 3. Because I am fully
persuaded I can do more good there than in any other place.
They, I know, are of a different judgment, and make no secret
of it, declaring everywhere, ‘that the work is stopping; the
society scattering; and the congregation at the new chapel
dwindled away and quite dead.’

“I thank God, the chapel is well filled. Last Sunday I preached
twice, never with greater, and seldom with equal, effect. After
sermon, Mr. Rankin followed me to the vestry to assure me, ‘he
had never spoken disrespectfully of us, and that he was a great
friend to the Church.’ At the same time, a gentlewoman came,
filled with faith and love by the word just spoken. I turned
aside to let Mr. Rankin examine her. She said that, a month
ago, she was brought up out of the pit of despair, under my
word. He repeated his inquiries, and she her answers, to his
satisfaction shall I say, or dissatisfaction? I would hope the
former. You will inquire when here (only not of the preachers),
and judge for yourself whether my persevering ministry at the
chapel has done good or hurt.

“I think the preachers wrong, and in the greatest danger
through pride; but I have, and will have, no quarrel with them.
Mr. Kemp proposed to carry me to meet you on the last day’s
journey, or I should not have thought of it. I do not want to
have the first word. Let them have the first and last. I do not
want to interfere in that government of yours, or to appear at
all at the congress. A word of yours might turn the scale, and
send me directly to Bristol.

“It is just come into my mind, ‘The lay preachers affect to
believe I act as a clergyman in opposition to them.’ To me, it
seems that I act as I do, in goodwill to them, as well as to
the people. If there was no man above them, what would become
of them? How would they tear one another in pieces! Convince
them, if you can, that they want a clergyman over them, to keep
them and the flock together. Convince them, that it is
impossible I should stand in their way long, for I cannot
(should I live to the winter) serve the new chapel Sundays and
holydays in all weathers. Persuade each of them to be the
least, not the greatest; and then all will be right again. You
have no alternative but to conquer that spirit, or to be
conquered by it. Can you think, I envy you your pre-eminence?
If God continues my strength, I shall take the best care of the
chapel till you return. Then I shall deliver up my charge to
you, and you alone.

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[334]

This peevish epistle, published in Wesley’s own _Arminian Magazine_, will not add to the fair fame of Methodism’s great hymnist. It was an unworthy production of a pen which wrote hundreds, in fact, thousands, of sweet songs of praise. John Pawson--good, but gossiping,--and Thomas Rankin--honest to the heart’s inmost core, but somewhat obstinate and overbearing,--were far from perfect; but was it just in Charles Wesley to write to his brother respecting them in the querulous tone in which he did? Charles Wesley says, the City Road chapel was well filled; Pawson says, in the manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, that “the congregation fell off exceedingly; and that the society was brought into great disorder.” Charles Wesley was a scholar, and, as a sacred poet, was without a peer; but we incline to think, that John Pawson and Thomas Rankin were more popular and powerful preachers than either he or any other of his City Road clerical colleagues; and it is not surprising, that the people wished to hear them on Sundays as well as week days; and that the itinerants themselves,--one of whom was the appointed superintendent of the London circuit, and the other of whom had been Wesley’s chosen superintendent of the whole of the Methodist societies in America,--should think they had quite as much right as Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, John Richardson, or John Abraham, to preach to Sunday congregations in City Road. The truth is, though, in years past, Charles Wesley’s ministry had been exceedingly attractive and powerful, it was now, what shall we say? John Pawson writes: “When he was favoured with freedom of mind, which was but seldom, then his preaching was truly profitable; but, in general, it was exceedingly dry and lifeless.” His sons Charles and Samuel,--the former twenty-one years of age, and the latter thirteen,--were, by their musical genius, creating a sensation in the highest circles of London society; and, for several years, conducted in their father’s house a series of domestic subscription concerts, of twelve nights’ continuance, in each season. Their father thoroughly approved of this. “I am clear,” says he, “without a doubt, that my sons’ concert is after the will and order of Providence.” Wesley appends to this a note: “I am clear of another mind.”[335] Without staying to settle the dispute, there can be no doubt that, by these concerts, Charles Wesley was brought into the society of a large number of the rich and great. The simple minded London Methodists were staggered at one of their great leaders having such musical performances in his house, and at his mingling with persons, who, though highly genteel, were not religious. Many began to regard him with suspicion; his preaching popularity was waning; Pawson says, “he was like Samson shorn of his strength”; his health also was failing; like most men of high poetic genius, he was subject to melancholy moods: put all these things together, and the petulancy and suspicion of Charles Wesley’s letter to his brother will not excite surprise.

This then was the state of things awaiting the venerable Wesley, on his return to London, after a laborious preaching tour of five months’ duration. By an almost superhuman effort, he had built and opened his new chapel in City Road; but things, instead of being more prosperous than ever, were in a state of disastrous commotion. In this, the first year after the chapel was opened, there was a decrease of one hundred and twenty-three members in the London circuit, though that circuit had now an unprecedented staff of ordained clergymen, and four of the best itinerants in Wesley’s connexion. Ordinary men would have been discouraged and at their wits’ end; but not so the man who was born, not to be conquered by difficulties, but to conquer them.

Wesley’s conference of 1779 was commenced on August 3; and it was now ascertained, that nineteen other circuits besides London had a decrease of members. Wesley asked, How can we account for this? The reasons assigned were:--1. Partly the neglect of outdoor preaching, and of trying new places. 2. Partly prejudice against the king, and speaking evil of dignities. 3. But chiefly the increase of worldly mindedness, and conformity to the world. It was also resolved, that no one speaking evil of those in authority, or prophesying evil to the nation, should be a Methodist preacher. Itinerants were reproved for hastening home to their wives after preaching; and were told, they ought never to do this till they had met the society. To revive the work in Scotland, the preachers were directed to preach in the open air as much as possible; to try every town and village; and to visit every member of society at home.

As soon as the conference was ended, Wesley set out, with his brother and his family, for Wales, where he spent a fortnight in preaching to large and deeply affected congregations.

He then proceeded to the west of England. At Exeter, he writes: “I preached in a convenient room, lately a school; I suppose formerly a chapel. It is both neat and solemn, and is believed to contain four or five hundred people.”

This was the meeting-house concerning which Wesley wrote to Samuel Wells, the assistant of the Tiverton circuit, as follows.

“LONDON, _January 28, 1779_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--According to the act of toleration--1. You are
_required_ to _certify_ to the registrar of the bishop’s court,
or the justices, the place of your meeting for Divine worship.
This is all you have to do. You ask nothing at all of the
bishop or justices.

“2. The registrar, or clerk of the court, is _required_ to
register the same, and to give a certificate thereof to such
persons as shall _demand_ the same; for which there shall be no
greater fee or reward taken than sixpence.

“I advise you to go once more to the sessions, and say,
‘Gentlemen, we have had advice from London; we desire nothing
at all of _you_; but we _demand_ of your clerk to register this
place, and to give us a certificate thereof; or to answer the
refusal at his peril.’

“Answer no questions to the justices, or lawyers, but with a
bow, and with repeating the words, ‘Our business is only with
your clerk; we _demand_ of him what the act requires him to
do.’

“If you judge proper, you may show this to any of the justices.
What I have written, I am ready to defend.

“You have led the justices into the mistake, by your _manner_
of addressing them. Beware of this for the time to come. You
have nothing to ask of _them_.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[336]

On September 4, Wesley returned to Bristol, where he spent a month in visiting the surrounding societies. He then made his way to London, preaching at Devizes, Winchester, and Portsmouth. On leaving London, he slept, for the last time, in the old Foundery. He now, for the first time slept in the house, in which he afterwards died, in City Road.

On October 11, he began his preaching tour to Northamptonshire; a week later to Sussex; and a week later still to Norfolk. He then commenced his annual examination of the London society, and writes: “I did not find such an increase as I expected. Nay, there was a considerable decrease, plainly owing to a senseless jealousy that had crept in between our preachers.”

This doubtless refers to the quarrel already mentioned. Unfortunately, the strife was now extended to Bath. The assistant appointed at the late conference to the Bristol circuit (of which Bath was part), was Alexander M‘Nab, a native of Perthshire, in North Britain, and now in the thirty-fourth year of his age. For thirteen years, he had been an itinerant preacher, and had laboured, with considerable success, in the three kingdoms.[337] Wesley, writing to Lady Maxwell in 1771, said: “Mr. M‘Nab is a sound and good preacher; but too warm, and impatient of contradiction.”[338] Thomas Rutherford, one of his colleagues, writes: “I was particularly attached to him. He was a most amiable, sensible man, and an excellent preacher. He had the most copious flow of natural, simple oratory, of any man I ever heard. There was an ease, beauty, sweetness, and harmony in his style and language, that was at once both striking and pleasing. The Rev. Dr. Webster once said, ‘I have heard Mr. Walker, Mr. Fordyce, Dr. Blair, etc.; but Mr. M‘Nab is a greater orator than any of them.’”[339] At the conference of 1777, M‘Nab was appointed to Edinburgh; but found the chapel in such a ruinous condition, that he spent £500 in repairing it. For this amount he was personally responsible; and, in order to extricate himself, was requested, by the following conference, to visit the English societies for the purpose of asking assistance.[340] While on this begging excursion, he wrote a letter to Robert Dall, which is inserted here to show the spirit of the man, and that he wished for peace, notwithstanding that he was soon involved in war.

“BRADFORD, _April 24, 1779_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I hope persons and things are better at
Glasgow then when you went there. I was grieved to hear of the
disunion of the preachers, and that it had hurt the people; but
trust God sent you to Glasgow as a cure for their wounds. In
every place, I find the prosperity of the work, under God,
depends, in a great measure, upon the piety, zeal, and prudence
of the preachers. Persons of that character God will honour, to
build up His church; and I need not tell you, we have need of
faith in doing and suffering the Divine will; for, without
that, we have not the necessary qualification to render us
either holy, happy, or useful. In my present employ, I find
both pleasure and pain; but, hitherto, God has been with me,
and I believe will never leave me. Wishing you every blessing,
I am your truly affectionate brother,

“ALEX. M‘NAB.”[341]

Such was one of the chief actors in the scene at Bath. Another was the Rev. Edward Smyth, who has been already mentioned, and who had brought his wife to Bath for the benefit of her health. Wesley writes: “God having greatly blessed the labours of Mr. Smyth in the north of Ireland, I desired him to preach every Sunday evening in our chapel, while he remained in Bath. But, as soon as I was gone, Mr. M‘Nab vehemently opposed this; affirming it was the common cause of all the lay preachers; that they were appointed by the conference, not by me; and would not suffer the clergy to ride over their heads, Mr. Smyth in particular, of whom he said all manner of evil. Others warmly defended him. Hence the society was torn in pieces, and thrown into the utmost confusion.”