Chapter XVI: Part 16

On May 11, Wesley reached Newcastle, and thence proceeded to Scotland. On his return southwards, we find him preaching at Durham, Darlington, Northallerton, Boroughbridge, and York. Making his way through Lincolnshire, he came to Newark, where, twenty years before, the mob had burnt the Methodist pulpit in the market place; and had not only pelted the preacher, Thomas Lee, with all sorts of missiles, and dragged him to the river Trent, where they ducked and dabbled him without mercy, but, to complete the whole, a painter came with his pot and brush, and bedaubed him most ludicrously. Wesley writes: “1780, June 12--Our friends at Newark were divided as to the place where I should preach. At length, they found a convenient place, covered on three sides, and on the fourth open to the street. It contained two or three thousand people well, who appeared to hear as for life. Only one big man, exceeding drunk, was very noisy and turbulent, till his wife (_fortissima Tyndaridarum!_) seized him by the collar, gave him two or three hearty boxes on the ear, and dragged him away like a calf. But, at length, he got out of her hands, crept in among the people, and stood as quiet as a lamb.”

On June 13, Wesley wrote: “I accepted of an invitation from a gentleman at Lincoln, in which I had not set my foot for upwards of fifty years. At six in the evening, I preached in the castle yard to a large and attentive congregation. They were all as quiet as if I had been at Bristol. Will God have a people here also?” For seven years after this, there was not a Methodist in Lincoln.

After an interval of many years, Wesley preached again at Boston, where, in 1757, Alexander Mather, the first Methodist preacher there, had his face plastered with mire taken from the kennels of the streets, and his head laid open with a stone.

Wesley spent his birthday in Sheffield, and wrote: “June 28--I can hardly think I am entered this day into the seventy-eighth year of my age. By the blessing of God, I am just the same as when I entered the twenty-eighth. This hath God wrought, chiefly by my constant exercise, my rising early, and preaching morning and evening.”

The next day, he preached his first and last sermon at Worksop. He says: “I was desired to preach at Worksop; but when I came, they had not fixed on any place. At length, they chose a lamentable one, full of dirt and dust, but without the least shelter from the scorching sun. This few could bear; so we had only a small company of as stupid people as I ever saw.”

After this, Wesley made his way to London, where he spent a week; and, then, he and his brother set out for Bristol, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He writes: “August 1--Our conference began. We have been always, hitherto, straitened for time. It was now resolved, ‘For the future, we will allow nine or ten days for each conference; that everything, relative to the carrying on of the work of God, may be maturely considered.’”

The conference, in this instance, lasted from August 1 to August 9, inclusive. Its main business was a revision of the minutes of conferences already held. Several alterations were made, some of the chief being the following. It was no longer to be a rule, that Methodists were to endeavour to preach most where Wesley and his brother clergymen were allowed to preach in parish churches. Classmeetings were to be made more lively and profitable, by removing improper leaders; and care was to be taken, that those appointed were not only men of sound judgment, but truly pious. If a preacher could secure twenty hearers at five o’clock in the morning, he was to preach; if not so many, he was to sing and pray. “Observe,” says Wesley to his preachers, “it is not your business to preach so many times, and to take care of this or that society; but to save as many souls as you can, to bring as many sinners as you possibly can to repentance, and, with all your power, to build them up in that holiness without which they cannot see the Lord. And remember! a Methodist preacher is to mind every point, great and small, in the Methodist discipline! Therefore, you will need all the sense you have, and to have all your wits about you.” It was agreed, that the neglect of fasting was sufficient to account for their feebleness and faintness of spirit. They were continually grieving the Holy Spirit of God, by the habitual neglect of a plain duty. “Let you and I,” says Wesley, “every Friday (beginning on the next), avow this duty throughout the nation, by touching no tea, coffee, or chocolate, in the morning, but, (if we want it,) half-a-pint of milk or water gruel. Let us dine on potatoes, and, (if we need it,) eat three or four ounces of flesh in the evening. At other times, let us eat no flesh suppers. These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders.” The rule was rescinded, that no preacher ought to print anything without Wesley’s approbation. The preachers were to join as one man in putting an end to the indecency of the people talking in the preaching houses, before and after service. Complaints having been made, that sluts had spoiled preachers’ houses, Wesley writes: “Let none, that has spoiled one, ever live in another. But what a shame is this! A preacher’s wife should be a pattern of cleanliness, in her person, clothes, and habitation. Let nothing slatternly be seen about her; no rags, no dirt, no litter. And she should be a pattern of industry; always at work, either for herself, her husband, or the poor. I am not willing that any should live in the Orphan House at Newcastle, or any preaching house, who does not conform to this rule.” Complaints were also made, that people crowded into the preachers’ houses as into coffee shops, without invitation; and it was ruled, that no person should, in future, come into a preacher’s house, unless he wanted to ask a question.

Some of these may appear to be minute matters; but they are not without interest as indicative of the defects of Methodists in the days of Wesley.

There is reason to believe, though the fact is not recorded in the minutes, that the Church question was again discussed at the conference of 1780. Hence the following letter, written to Miss Bosanquet.

“BRISTOL, _August 5, 1780_.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--I snatch time from the conference to write
two or three lines. I am glad you have begun a prayer-meeting
at Hunslet, and doubt not it will be productive of much good.
Hitherto, we have had a blessed conference. The case of the
Church we shall fully consider by-and-by; and, I believe, we
shall agree that none who leave the Church shall remain with
us.

“I am, my dear sister, yours most affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[363]

Charles Wesley was present, and was far from satisfied. He purposed to attend no more of these annual synods, and wrote as follows:

“Why should I longer, Lord, contend,
My last important moments spend
In buffeting the air?
In warning those who will not see,
But rest in blind security,
And rush into the snare?

Prophet of ills, why should I live,
Or, by my sad forebodings, grieve
Whom I can serve no more?
I only can their loss bewail,
Till life’s exhausted sorrows fail,
And the last pang is o’er.”[364]

Poor Charles, alarmed lest the Methodists should leave the Church, retired from the conference to weep and die; John to rejoice and work.

Conference statistics have not been given annually; but the following figures will show the progress made during the decade of years ending at the conference of 1780.

+----------+-----------+------------+----------+-------------+
| | Circuits. | Itinerant | Members. | Kingswood |
| | | Preachers. | | Collection. |
| +-----------+------------+----------+-------------+
| 1770 | 50 | 123 | 29,406 | £218 4 5 |
| 1780 | 64 | 171 | 43,830 | £402 1 9 |
| +-----------+------------+----------+-------------+
| Increase | 14 | 48 | 14,424 | £183 17 4 |
+----------+-----------+------------+----------+-------------+

To these numbers, however, must be added the Methodists in the West Indies, and also 20 circuits, 42 itinerant preachers, and 8504 members of society in America.[365]

The American conference met at Baltimore on April 24, and agreed to continue in close communion with the Church, and to permit “the friendly clergy” to preach and administer the sacraments in Methodist chapels. Hitherto, neither Asbury, nor any other of the preachers in America, had administered these Christian ordinances to the Methodist people; and, as the number of members was now rapidly increasing, this was becoming a momentous question. The want in England had been met, to some extent, by Wesley and his brother and their clerical assistants; but, in America, the Methodists had no ordained clergyman to render service like this. Besides, there the Methodists were very differently situated from what Methodists were in England. In this country, wherever there was a Methodist society there was a parish church, at which, if they chose, Methodists might attend on sacramental occasions. In America it was otherwise. Clergymen were few; and parish churches far distant from each other; and, in many instances, where Methodist societies had been formed, no church existed. The case was becoming serious. Were these thousands of American Methodists to be left without sacraments? Or were unordained Methodist preachers to administer sacraments? Or was an effort to be made, to send a clergyman of the Church of England to supply this lack of sacred service? Or was Wesley himself to assume episcopal functions, and, by ordination, turn his preachers into priests? These were serious difficulties to be surmounted. To deprive eight thousand converted people of the most sacred ordinances of the church, would have been a sin against the church’s Head. To allow unordained preachers to administer baptism and the Lord’s supper was a thing for which Wesley himself was not prepared; though who can question, that a man like Francis Asbury, whom God had so signally honoured, had as much right to do this as the most renowned priest or prelate in existence? An alternative remained, namely, either to send the American Methodists an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; or that Wesley should take upon himself the office of ordainer, and thus qualify his own itinerants for what was conceived to be a higher function than that of preaching the infinitely great and everlasting truths of Christ’s glorious gospel.

Was Wesley prepared for such a step as this? Fortunately, this is a point on which we are not left to speculate. In a letter to his brother, dated June 8, 1780, he writes: “Read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon,’ or any impartial history of the ancient church, and I believe you will think as I do. I verily believe, I have as good a right to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper. But I see abundance of reasons why I should not use that right, unless I was turned out of the Church. At present, we are just in our place.”[366]

As yet, Wesley, for “abundance of reasons,” hesitated to ordain his preachers; and, hence, the only remaining expedient was to endeavour to secure an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; and this he attempted. The following letter was addressed to Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, two months after the date of his letter to his brother Charles. The reader will perceive, that it was written the day after the close of the Bristol conference. It ought to be premised that, previous to this, Wesley had applied to the bishop for a clerical helper, and had met with a refusal.

“_August 10, 1780._

“MY LORD,--Some time since, I received your lordship’s favour,
for which I return your lordship my sincere thanks. These
persons did not apply to the Society,” [for Propagating
Christian Knowledge in Foreign Parts,] “because they had
nothing to ask of them. They wanted no salary for their
minister: they were themselves able and willing to maintain
him. They, therefore, applied, by me, to your lordship, as
members of the Church of England, and desirous so to continue,
begging the favour of your lordship, after your lordship had
examined him, to ordain a pious man who might officiate as
their minister.

“But your lordship observes, ‘There are three ministers in that
country already.’ True, my lord: but what are three, to watch
over all the souls in that extensive country? Will your
lordship permit me to speak freely? I dare not do otherwise. I
am on the verge of the grave, and know not the hour when I
shall drop into it. Suppose there were threescore of those
missionaries in the country, could I in conscience recommend
these souls to their care? Do they take any care of their own
souls? If they do, (I speak it with concern,) I fear they are
almost the only missionaries in America that do. My lord, I do
not speak rashly: I have been in America; and so have several
with whom I have lately conversed. And both I and they know,
what manner of men the greater part of these are. They are men
who have neither the power of religion, nor the form; men that
lay no claim to piety, nor even decency.

“Give me leave, my lord, to speak more freely still: perhaps it
is the last time I shall trouble your lordship. I know your
lordship’s abilities and extensive learning: I believe, what is
far more, that your lordship fears God. I have heard, that your
lordship is unfashionably diligent in examining the candidates
for holy orders; yea, that your lordship is generally at the
pains of examining them _yourself_. Examining them! in what
respects? Why whether they understand a little _Latin_ and
_Greek_; and can answer a few trite questions in the science of
divinity! Alas, how little does this avail! Does your lordship
examine, whether they serve _Christ_ or _Belial_? Whether they
love God or the world? Whether they ever had any serious
thoughts about heaven or hell? Whether they have any real
desire to save their own souls, or the souls of others? If not,
what have they to do with holy orders? and what will become of
the souls committed to their care?

“My lord, I do by no means despise learning: I know the value
of it too well. But what is this, particularly in a Christian
minister, compared to piety? What is it in a man that has no
religion? ‘As a jewel in a swine’s snout.’

“Some time since, I recommended to your lordship a plain man,
whom I had known above twenty years, as a person of deep,
genuine piety, and of unblamable conversation. But he neither
understood Greek nor Latin; and he affirmed, in so many words,
that ‘he believed it was his duty to preach, whether he was
ordained or no.’ I believe so too. What became of him since, I
know not. But I suppose he received _presbyterian_ ordination;
and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think any ordination
better than none.

“I do not know, that Mr. Hoskins had any favour to ask of the
Society. He asked the favour of your lordship to ordain him,
that he might minister to a little flock in America. But your
lordship did not see good to ordain _him_: but your lordship
did see good to ordain, and send to America, other persons, who
knew something of Greek and Latin; but knew no more of saving
souls, than of catching whales.

“In this respect, also, I mourn for poor America; for the sheep
scattered up and down therein. Part of them have no shepherds
at all, particularly in the northern colonies; and the case of
the rest is little better, for their own shepherds pity them
not. They cannot, for they have no pity on themselves, they
take no thought or care about their own souls.

“Wishing your lordship every blessing from the great Shepherd
and Bishop of our souls, I remain, my lord, your lordship’s
dutiful son and servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[367]

Did his lordship ever receive, from any other “dutiful son and servant,” a letter like this? We doubt it. Wesley was foiled in his attempt to obtain _episcopal_ ordination for an American Methodist preacher: no wonder, that, soon after, he administered ordination himself.

Before proceeding with Wesley’s history, the insertion of a selection of his letters, belonging to this period, may be acceptable.

It is a terrible thing to write a dangerous book. When Joseph Benson was a young man, he read Dr. Watts’s “Glory of Christ as God-man,” and became a convert to his doctrine of the pre-existence of our Lord’s _human soul_. Speaking his mind too freely upon this unscriptural dogma, Benson was suspected to be an Arian, and was represented as such, by Dr. Coke, all over the kingdom.[368] At the conference of 1780, Coke accused him of holding the Arian heresy; the matter was sifted; Benson was acquitted; and Coke offered to ask his pardon. Still, Benson, for years afterwards, held Dr. Watts’s dangerous speculation; and it was not until he undertook the revision of Fletcher’s manuscripts, that he laid aside the expression, “_pre-existent soul of Christ_;” “an expression,” says he, “which neither reason, nor Scripture, nor antiquity, will warrant our using.”[369]

Dr. Watts’s pernicious book, and also the Gordon riots, (at this time raging,) are referred to in the following extract from a letter to Charles Wesley.

“_June 8, 1780._

“DEAR BROTHER,--I would not read over Dr. Watts’s tract for a
hundred pounds. You may read it, and welcome. I will not, dare
not, move those subtle, metaphysical controversies. Arianism is
not in question; it is Eutychianism or Nestorianism. But what
are they? What neither I nor any one else understands. But they
are what tore the eastern and western churches asunder.

“It is well I accepted none of Lord George’s invitations. If
the government suffers this tamely, I know not what they will
not suffer.

“Mr. Collins is not under my direction; nor am I at all
accountable for any steps he takes. He is not in connection
with the Methodists. He only helps us now and then. I will
suffer no disputing at the conference.

“Undoubtedly many of the patriots seriously intend to overturn
the government; but the hook is in their nose.

“Peace be with you all!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[370]

The Mr. Collins, mentioned in the above extract, was Brian Bury Collins, of the university of Cambridge, who, without ever receiving a regular appointment, continued to assist Wesley, in various parts of the kingdom, until Wesley’s death in 1791. A number of his manuscript letters, all written in 1779 and 1780, now lie before us, from which we learn, that he regarded himself as having “an unlimited preaching commission”; and that one of his great objects was to unite Wesley’s and Whitefield’s followers. “I could freely die,” says he, “to see the Tabernacles and Foundery reconciled.” He began the year 1779 in the north of England, where he sometimes preached five or six times a day. He then removed to London, Bristol, and the west, where his health failed. In May, 1780, he was among his relatives at Linwood, and wrote: “I am not yet recovered from my late illness, though I am much better than I have been. My relations here receive me with more cordiality than I expected. I find the Divine presence in the churches where I preach; but what the Lord designs to do with me I cannot tell. Lately, I have thought of spending a few weeks at Cambridge. I have also had fresh desires of being in full orders.” In pursuance of this, Mr. Collins went to St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, in July 1780, he took his master of arts degree. By advice of the two Wesleys, he sought ordination; and the dowager Lady Townsend gave him a recommendatory letter to the Bishop of Chester, requesting that the rite might be administered in private; but the bishop, having heard of his irregular preaching, hesitated until he had time to confer with his brother bishops. Ordination was ultimately obtained; Collins married, and, for a time, was assistant to David Simpson, at Macclesfield; after this, he again became a rover, and preached in Wesley’s and Lady Huntingdon’s chapels, and wherever else he had a chance. He writes: “I wish to do good unto all. I do not love one and dislike another. I can unite with all who are united to Jesus. I care not for names in the least.”[371]

These glimpses of a man whom Wesley, to the end of life, repeatedly mentions in his journals, will not be unwelcome. Of his subsequent career we know nothing; except that its close was not as bright as its beginning. A son of his lies interred in the burial ground of the new chapel in City Road.[372]

One of the legislative acts of the conference of 1780 was to enforce the old rule, that, in Methodist meeting-houses, the men and women should sit apart. In galleries, where they had always sat together, they might do so still; but in all new erected galleries, and in the seats below, the old rule was to be rigidly observed. “If,” said Wesley, “I come into any new house, and see the men and women together, I will immediately go out. I hereby give public notice of this. Pray let it be observed.”[373]

This sounds strangely at the present day; but, for some reason, it was with Wesley a matter of importance. Hence also the following unpublished letter to the leaders at Sheffield.

“BRISTOL, _September 4, 1780_.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Let the persons, who purpose to subvert the
Methodist plan, by mixing men and women together in your
chapel, consider the consequence of so doing. First, I will
never set foot in it more. Secondly, I will forbid any
collection to be made for it in any of our societies.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Two more letters, now for the first time given to the public, will be welcome. They were addressed to Samuel Bradburn, who had been three years in Ireland, and was now to remove to Keighley.

“NEAR BRISTOL, _September 16, 1780_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I wanted to have Betsy” [Mrs. Bradburn] “a little
nearer me. And I wanted her to be acquainted with her twin
soul, Miss Ritchie, the fellow to whom I scarce know in
England. But I do not like your crossing the sea till your
children are a little stronger. If there was stormy weather, it
might endanger their lives. Therefore, it is better you should
stay in Ireland a little longer. Athlone circuit will suit you
well; and John Bredin may be at Keighley in _your place_.

“Now read over the minutes concerning the office of an
assistant, and exert yourself as to every branch of it. I fear
the late assistant neglected many articles; dispersing the
books in particular.

“My love to Betsy. Let her love Molly Pennington for my sake.

“I am, etc., J. WESLEY.”

“LONDON, _October 28, 1780_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I am glad you are safe landed at Keighley. You
will find there

‘... a port of ease
From the rough rage of stormy seas.’

“There are many amiable and gracious souls in Cork; but there
are few in the whole kingdom of Ireland to be named, (either
for depth of sense or grace,) with many, very many persons in
Yorkshire, particularly the west riding. Go to Betsy Ritchie,
at Otley, and then point me out such a young woman as she in
Ireland.

“I think lemonade would cure any child of the flux.

“Now be exact in every branch of discipline; and you will soon
find what a people you are among.

“I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, your affectionate
friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

The following letter, kindly supplied by the Rev. Thomas W. Smith, and now for the first time published, was addressed “To Mr. Valton, at the preaching house, in Manchester.” Oldham Street chapel was now in course of erection, and was opened by Wesley seven months afterwards.

“BRISTOL, _October 1, 1780_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I expected the state of Manchester circuit
to be just such as you have found it. But the power of the Lord
is able to heal them. I fear S. Mayers was left unemployed,
because she loved perfection. If you find a few more of the
same spirit, I believe you will find them employment. The
accommodations everywhere will mend, if the preachers lovingly
exert themselves. I am glad you take some pains for the new
chapel. Our brother Brocklehurst will do anything that is
reasonable.

“In one thing only, you and I do not agree; but, perhaps, we
shall when we have prayed over it: I mean, the giving me an
extract of your life. I cannot see the weight of your reasons
against it. ‘Some are superficial.’ What then? All are not;
brother Mather’s and Haime’s in particular. Add one to these; a
more weighty one, if you can. You know what to omit, and what
to insert. I really think you owe it (in spite of shame and
natural timidity) to God and me and your brethren. Pray for
light in this matter.

“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

The next, though short, is not devoid of interest. For the first time, it was published in the _Watchman_ newspaper, as recently as October 12, 1870; and was written on the same day as the foregoing one.

“BRISTOL, _October 1, 1780_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Joseph Bradford has been at the gate of
death; but is now so far recovered, that he thinks to set out
to-morrow morning, with me and his wife, for London.

“Mr. Brackenbury likewise seems to be better, with regard to
his bodily health; but he is married! And I shall not be much
disappointed if he soon takes leave of the Methodists.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

The following, which has not before been published, is kindly furnished by Charles Reed, Esq., M.P.

“LONDON, _November 3, 1780_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Disorderly walkers are better excluded than
retained; and I am well satisfied you will exclude no others. I
am glad you have made a beginning at Trowbridge. If it be
possible, say not one offensive word. But you must declare the
plain, genuine gospel; and, sooner or later, God will give you
His blessing.

“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

Another, equally characteristic, was sent to Zechariah Yewdall, stationed in “Glamorganshire” circuit, which extended (from Llanelly in Wales to Calvert in Gloucestershire) above a hundred miles, and was traversed regularly every month. Mr. Yewdall was now in the second year of his itinerancy, and, at Monmouth, had met with brutal treatment.[374] The letter also refers to the principle involved in Mr. M‘Nab’s affair.

“LONDON, _December 3, 1780_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You mistake one thing. It is I, not the
conference, (according to the twelfth rule,) that station the
preachers; but I do it at the time of the conference, that I
may have the advice of my brethren. But I have no thought of
removing you from the Glamorganshire circuit; you are just in
your right place. But you say, ‘Many of the people are asleep.’
They are; and you are sent to awaken them out of sleep. ‘But
they are dead.’ True; and you are sent to raise the dead. Good
will be done at Monmouth[375] and Neath in particular. Where no
good can be done, I would leave the old, and try new places.
But you have need to be all alive yourselves, if you would
impart life to others. And this cannot be without much self
denial.

“I am, dear Zachary, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[376]

After the conference at Bristol was concluded, Wesley set out for Cornwall. Some time before this, Sir Harry Trelawney, a student of Christ Church, Oxford, had become a zealous revivalist, and had begun to preach at West Looe, where, in 1777, he became the pastor of a congregation of his own raising, and which worshipped in a meetinghouse fitted up at his own expense. The novelty of the proceeding, and the rank of the preacher, created great excitement. Sir Harry, the descendant of one of the seven bishops who were committed to the Tower in the reign of James II., was made the hero of a witty book, written by a clergyman of the Church of England, and entitled, “The Spiritual Quixote; or the History of Geoffry Wildgoose, Esq.” 3 vols., 12mo: 1773. The preaching baronet vindicated his nonconformity in “A Letter addressed to the Rev. Thomas Alcock, Vicar of Runcorn.” For a time, the Rev. John Clayton was his assistant, but, in 1778, removed to the Weigh House congregation, in London. Soon after, Sir Harry returned to Oxford; procured ordination in the national establishment; was made a country rector in the west of England; whilst his chapel at West Looe was ignominiously changed into a house for converting barley into malt. He died in 1834.

It was about the time of Wesley’s visit to Cornwall, that he wrote the subjoined letter. Sir Harry had been a Calvinist, and had been patronised by the Countess of Huntingdon’s connexion; but, having renounced his Calvinian tenets, he was now regarded with disfavour. Some communication had passed between him and Wesley on the subject; Wesley knew his danger; and wrote to him as follows.

“For a long time, I have had a desire to see you, but could not
find an opportunity. Indeed, I had reason to believe my company
would not be agreeable; as you were intimate with those who
think they do God service by painting me in the most frightful
colours. It gives me much satisfaction to find, that you have
escaped out of the hands of those warm men. It is not at all
surprising, that they should speak a little unkindly of you too
in their turn. It gave me no small satisfaction to learn from
your own lips the falsehood of their allegation. I believed it
false before, but could not affirm it so positively as I can do
now.

“Indeed, it would not have been without precedent, if from one
extreme you had run into another. This was the case with that
great man, Dr. Taylor. For some years, he was an earnest
Calvinist; but, afterwards, judging he could not go far enough
from that melancholy system, he ran, not only into Arianism,
but into the very dregs of Socinianism.

“You have need to be thankful on another account likewise; that
is, that your prejudices against the Church of England are
removing. Having had an opportunity of seeing several of the
churches abroad, and having deeply considered the several sorts
of Dissenters at home, I am fully convinced, that our own
Church, with all her blemishes, is nearer the scriptural plan
than any other in Europe.

“I sincerely wish you may retain your former zeal for God;
only, that it may be a zeal according to knowledge. But there
certainly will be a danger of your sinking into a careless,
lukewarm state, without any zeal or spirit at all. As you were
surfeited with an irrational, unscriptural religion, you may
easily slide into no religion at all; or into a dead form, that
will never make you happy either in this world, or in that
which is to come.

“Wishing every spiritual blessing, both to Lady Trelawney and
you,

“I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[377]

Wesley, at the end of August, returned to Bristol, and here he spent the month of September. He then set out for London, which he reached on October 7. A week later he made a tour to Tunbridge Wells, and other towns in Kent. After this, we find him, as usual, visiting the societies in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire. The last month of the year was chiefly employed in London. He read to the society, and explained, the Large Minutes of conference, recently published; and wrote: “I desire to do all things openly and above board. I would have all the world, and especially all of our society, see not only the steps we take, but the reasons why we take them.” He visited Lord George Gordon in the Tower. He went with some of his friends to the British Museum. He wrote his well known sermon on “This is the true God and eternal life,” fully establishing the doctrine which Joseph Benson, at the conference, had been accused of denying--the Divinity of Christ.[378] He likewise wrote his “Thoughts upon Jacob Behmen,” allowing the Teuton to be a good man, but charging him with propounding “a crude, indigested philosophy, supported neither by Scripture, nor reason, nor anything but his own _ipse dixit_;” and with using “language that was never used since the world began, queerness itself, mere dog Latin.” “None,” says Wesley, “can understand it without much pains, perhaps not without reading him thrice over. I would not read him thrice over on any consideration. (1) Because it would be enough to crack any man’s brain to brood so long over such unintelligible nonsense; and (2) because such a waste of time might provoke God to give me up to a strong delusion to believe a lie.”[379]

Wesley concludes the year with the following entry in his journal. “Sunday, December 31--We renewed our covenant with God. We had the largest company that I ever remember; perhaps two hundred more than we had last year. And we had the greatest blessing. Several received either a sense of the pardoning love of God, or power to love Him with all their heart.”

Happy, happy old man! “I do not remember,” said he, only nine days before the year 1780 was ended, “I do not remember to have felt lowness of spirits for one quarter of an hour since I was born.”[380]

It only remains to notice Wesley’s publications in 1780; and this shall be done as briefly as possible. His letters on popery, his revised minutes of the conferences, and his Thoughts upon Behmen, have been already mentioned. Besides these, there were--

1. “Directions for Renewing our Covenant with God.” 12mo, 23 pages.

2. “Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion.” 12mo, 96 pages.

3. “The History of Henry, Earl Moreland.” Abridged. 2 vols., 12mo.

It has been already stated, that this was a novel, written by Mr. Brooke, and originally published, in five vols., in 1766, with the title, “The Fool of Quality.” Dr. Adam Clarke once stated, that Mr. Brooke’s nephew declared to him, that, “with the exception of a few touches of colouring, everything in the book was founded in fact--even the very incidents were facts.”[381] This might be so; but still the colouring made the work a fiction; and that an old evangelist, like Wesley, bordering on fourscore years of age, should revise, abridge, publish, and circulate a novel, has always been a perplexity to a certain section of Wesley’s admirers. John Easton, one of his itinerants, belonged to these. After John had very freely condemned the conduct of his great leader, Wesley proposed to him the following interrogations in reference to three of the personages in this remarkable book.

_Wesley._--“Did you read Vindex, John?”

_Easton._--“Yes, sir.”

_W._--“Did you _laugh_, John?”

_E._--“No, sir.”

_W._--“Did you read Damon and Pythias, John?”

_E._--“Yes, sir.”

_W._--“Did you _cry_, John?”

_E._--“No, sir.”

_W._, lifting up his eyes, and clasping his hands, exclaimed:
“O earth--earth--earth!”[382]

Whatever may be thought and said on the general subject of novels and novel reading, all must admit, that “Henry, Earl Moreland,” is one of the most unexceptionable ever published. Wesley writes:

“I recommend it as the most excellent in its kind, that I have
seen, either in the English or any other language. The lowest
excellence therein is the style, which is not only pure in the
highest degree, not only clear and proper, every word being
used in its true genuine meaning, but frequently beautiful and
elegant, and, where there is room for it, truly sublime. But
what is of far greater value is the admirable sense, which is
conveyed herein: as it sets forth in full view most of the
important truths, which are revealed in the oracles of God. And
these are not only well illustrated, but also proved in an
easy, natural manner: so that the thinking reader is taught,
without any trouble, the most essential doctrines of religion.

“But the greatest excellence of all in this treatise is, that
it continually strikes at the heart. It perpetually aims at
inspiring and increasing every right affection. And it does
this, not by dry, dull, tedious precepts, but by the liveliest
examples that can be conceived: by setting before your eyes one
of the most beautiful pictures, that was ever drawn in the
world. The strokes of this are so delicately fine, the touches
so easy, natural, and affecting, that I know not who can survey
it with tearless eyes, unless he has a heart of stone. I
recommend it, therefore, to all those who are already, or
desire to be, lovers of God and man.”

The whole of this is strictly accurate; and if this is not enough to justify Wesley in the eyes of faultfinders, like _earthy_ John Easton, the task of doing so must be abandoned as a hopeless one. Besides, it may be added, that, if Wesley sinned, his successors copied his example; for, twenty-two years after Wesley’s death, the conference book-room published a fourth edition of the novel which Wesley first published in 1780.

4. “A Collection of Hymns for the use of the People called Methodists.” 12mo, 520 pages.

Up to this period, the hymns and the books used in Methodist congregations had been endlessly varying; now Wesley issued a book which, with slight alterations, has been used from that time to this; and prefixed the preface which has been read by millions; and from which, therefore, we must content ourselves with quoting only the concluding hint, which is far more needed now than even when first published.

“Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without
naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they
are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just
as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them;
for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend
either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them
one of these two favours: either to let them stand just as they
are, to take them for better for worse; or to add the true
reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page; that we
may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the
doggerel of other men.”

5. Wesley’s only other publication, in 1780, was his _Arminian Magazine_, 8vo, 683 pages.[383] The work contains Goodwin’s Paraphrase on Romans ix.; an extract from Bird’s “Fate and Destiny, inconsistent with Christianity;” lives of Armelle Nicolas and Gregory Lopes; short accounts of Thomas Lee, Alexander Mather, John Haime, Thomas Mitchell, Thomas Taylor, Thomas Hanson, Thomas Hanby, and John Mason. There are about fifty valuable letters; and about seventy poetic pieces. Also Wesley’s “Thought on Necessity,” and “Thoughts upon Taste.”

To enlarge concerning these is superfluous. The volume was quite equal to the former ones; though Wesley confesses, that the portraits were not yet such as he desired; and declares, that he will have better, or none at all.

FOOTNOTES:

[356] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 295.

[357] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 352.

[358] As a specimen of popish jesuitry, it may be added,
that O’Leary’s Remarks upon Wesley’s Letter were
first printed in six successive numbers of the
_Freeman’s Journal_; but were afterwards reprinted
in London with the following title, “Mr. O’Leary’s
Remarks on the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Letter in Defence
of the Protestant Associations in England, to which
are prefixed Mr. Wesley’s Letters.” This was a popish
deception, intended, no doubt, to cast upon Wesley
the odium incurred by the Protestant Association
during the Gordon riots. The truth is: (1) Wesley
had not written more than a few lines in defence of
the appeal of that Association. (2) His two replies
to O’Leary, published in the _Freeman’s Journal_,
were suppressed in O’Leary’s pamphlet. (3) A spurious
letter was inserted, and palmed on the public as
genuine, which Wesley declared was not his, and
one which he had never seen before O’Leary printed
it.--(_Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 295.)

[359] _Methodist Magazine_, 1853, p. 785.

[360] Manuscript.

[361] _Methodist Magazine_, 1853, p. 786.

[362] Banning’s Memoirs (private circulation).

[363] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 379.

[364] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 327.

[365] Minutes of Methodist Conferences in America.

[366] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 137.

[367] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 392.

[368] Dr. Coke, a young man of thirty-three, displayed, at
this period, a fussy officiousness, which scarcely
redounded to his honour. He wrote to Bradburn, to
the effect, that he suspected that he also was an
Arian; though it was only four years before, that
Thomas Taylor, at the London conference, had blamed
Bradburn for “preaching _too much_ on the Divinity of
Christ, and for being _too warm against the Arians_.”
(“Memoirs of Bradburn,” p. 225.) In an unpublished
letter, addressed to Bradburn, and dated October,
1779, Wesley asks: “Is there any truth in the report
that John Hampson has converted you to Arianism?”

[369] Benson’s Life, by Macdonald, p. 108.

[370] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 137.

[371] Manuscript letters.

[372] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 117.

[373] Minutes, 1780.

[374] _Methodist Magazine_, 1795, p. 268.

[375] Wesley’s words were verified. At Monmouth Mr. Yewdall
was mobbed by a bellowing rabble; but the society
increased one third.

[376] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 10.

[377] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 395.

[378] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 189.

[379] Wesley’s Works, vol. ix., p. 491.

[380] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 185.

[381] Everett’s Life of Clarke.

[382] Ibid.

[383] I am not quite sure of this. In 1780, a 12mo tract
of 12 pages was published with the following
title:--“Jesus, altogether Lovely: or, a Letter to
some of the Single Women of the Methodist Society.
London: Printed by R. Hawes; and sold at the New
Chapel, in the City Road; and at the Rev. Mr.
Wesley’s Preaching Houses, in town and country.
1780.” The letter is dated, “Hoxton, March 10, 1763.”
It enforces chastity, poverty, and obedience; and is
written in a style strongly resembling Wesley’s.

1781.
Age 78

Wesley purposed to visit Ireland in 1781, but was prevented doing so; and, hence, the months he was accustomed to spend in that island were spent in an irregular itinerancy through England and Wales. He now entered on the seventy-ninth year of his age; and, to obtain something like a correct idea of his amazing energy and toil, it may be useful to trace his footsteps more minutely than we have been wont to do during the last few years.

He writes: “January 1, 1781--We began, as usual, the service at four” (in the morning) “praising Him who, maugre all our enemies, had brought us safe to the beginning of another year.”

At this period, his nephews, Charles and Samuel Wesley, were attracting great attention by their musical performances. They had won the friendship of the great musical composers, Dr. Boyce, Dr. Nares, and Dr. Burney. Lords Le Despencer, Barrington, Aylesford, Dudley, and others, were enraptured with them. The Earl of Mornington, for some years, breakfasted weekly with them. Dr. Howard, the distinguished organist, declared concerning Samuel, that he seemed to have “dropped down from heaven.” Charles was introduced to George III., with whom he became a great favourite. The result of this unparalleled popularity was the institution, in Wesley’s brother’s house, of the series of select concerts, already referred to, which were continued for several years, the regular subscribers varying in number from thirty to fifty, though eighty persons were often present; including not a few of the English nobility, besides the Bishop of London, and the Danish and Saxon ambassadors. On January 25, Wesley was there, and wrote: “I spent an agreeable hour at a concert of my nephews. But I was a little out of my element among lords and ladies. I love plain music and plain company best.”

It was during this brief sojourn in London, in the beginning of 1781, that Wesley wrote his stinging sermon on “Little children, keep yourselves from idols”;[384] and his able discourse on, “For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” In the former he terribly belabours the man of business, who retires from the activities of town to the laziness of country life, where his only employment is altering, enlarging, rebuilding, or decorating the old mansion house he has purchased, and improving the stables, outhouses, and grounds, without ever thinking of the God of heaven any more than he thinks of the king of France. In the latter sermon, he strikes a heavy blow at the heresy of Dr. Watts, which Benson, at the conference of 1780, had been accused of embracing. He writes:

“I cannot at all believe the ingenious dream of Dr. Watts,
concerning the glorious humanity of Christ, which he supposes
to have existed before the world began, and to have been endued
with, I know not what, astonishing powers. Nay, I look upon
this to be an exceeding dangerous, yea, mischievous hypothesis;
as it quite excludes the force of very many Scriptures, which
have been hitherto thought to prove the Godhead of the Son.
And, I am afraid, it was the grand means of turning that great
man aside from the faith once delivered to the saints; that is,
if he was turned aside, if that beautiful soliloquy be genuine,
which is printed among his posthumous works, wherein he so
earnestly beseeches the Son of God not to be displeased,
because he cannot believe Him to be coequal and coeternal with
the Father.”

Both these sermons enriched the _Arminian Magazine_ for 1781. In fact, it is to the establishment of that periodical, that we are indebted for many of the most elaborated sermons that Wesley ever published. Besides the two above mentioned, Wesley, during the year 1781, wrote at least three others. His sermon on “Zeal” is a remarkable production, and was not inappropriate to the circumstances of a period when so much excitement existed concerning popery. He says:

“Fervour for _opinion_ is not Christian zeal. How innumerable
are the mischiefs which this species of false zeal has
occasioned in the Christian world! How many of the excellent of
the earth have been cut off, by zealots, for the senseless
opinion of transubstantiation! Fervour for _indifferent things_
is not Christian zeal. How warmly did Bishop Ridley, and Bishop
Hooper, and other great men of that age, dispute about the
_sacerdotal vestments_! How eager was the contention, for
almost a hundred years, for and against wearing a surplice! Oh,
shame to man! I would as soon have disputed about a straw, or a
barleycorn!”[385]

Another of his homilies, written in 1781,[386] was his able discourse on the province of reason in matters of religion; and another was his unique sermon on “The Brute Creation,” in which he unhesitatingly propounds the doctrine, not only that the brute creation will live again, but likewise, that, when restored, they will possess a far higher state of being than they possess at present; in fact, that they will then be made what beasts, birds, insects, and fishes were when first created.[387] This may seem a wild theory for an octogenarian to advance; but it deserves more attention, on that account, than if it had been an imaginative rocket let off by a stripling in his teens.

While on the subject of sermons, it may be added, that it was now Wesley published, in his _Arminian Magazine_, his remarkable discourse on the “Danger of Riches,”--the first of a series on that subject, which he continued to issue to the end of life, and in which wealthy Methodists and others are lashed with terrific power. “I do not remember,” says he, “that in threescore years I have heard one sermon preached on this subject. And what author, within the same term, has declared it from the press? I do not know one. I have seen two or three who just touch upon it; but none that treat of it professedly. I have myself frequently touched upon it in preaching, and twice in what I have published to the world: once in explaining our Lord’s sermon on the mount, and once in the discourse on the mammon of unrighteousness. But I have never yet either published or preached any sermon expressly upon the subject. It is high time I should; that I should at length speak as strongly and explicitly as I can, in order to leave a full and clear testimony behind me, whenever it pleases God to call me hence.”

One extract from this striking sermon must suffice.

“O ye Methodists, hear the word of the Lord! I have a message
from God to all men; but to _you_ above all. For above forty
years, I have been a servant to you and to your fathers. And I
have not been as a reed shaken by the wind; I have not varied
in my testimony. I have testified to you the very same thing,
from the first day even until now. But _who hath believed our
report_? I fear not many rich. I fear there is need to apply to
some of _you_ those terrible words of the apostle: ‘Go to now,
ye rich men! Weep and howl for the miseries which shall come
upon you. Your gold and silver is cankered, and the rust of
them shall witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it
were fire.’ Certainly it will, unless you both save all you
can, and give all you can. But who of you hath considered this,
since you first heard the will of the Lord concerning it? Who
is now determined to consider and practise it? By the grace of
God, begin to-day!

“O ye _lovers of money_, hear the word of the Lord! Suppose ye,
that money, though multiplied as the sand of the sea, can give
you happiness? Then you are _given up to a strong delusion, to
believe a lie_--a palpable lie, confuted daily by a thousand
experiments. Open your eyes. Look all around you! Are the
richest men the happiest? Have those the largest share of
content, who have the largest possessions? Is not the very
reverse true? Is it not a common observation, that the richest
of men are, in general, the most discontented, the most
miserable? Had not the far greater part of them more content,
when they had less money? Look into your own breasts. If you
are increased in goods, are you proportionably increased in
happiness? You have more substance; but have you more content?
You know the contrary. You know that, in seeking happiness from
riches, you are only striving to drink out of empty cups. And
let them be painted and gilded ever so finely, they are empty
still.”

Before we recur to Wesley’s journal, an unpublished letter may be acceptable.

The preachers now labouring in the Sheffield circuit were James Rogers, Alexander M‘Nab, and Samuel Bardsley. Mr. Rogers writes: “One of my fellow labourers did not lovingly draw in the same yoke, and soon after left the connexion. The uneasiness occasioned in the society by his disaffection, for some months, threatened us with disagreeable consequences; and our enemies expected a considerable division among us; but ‘He that sitteth above the waterfloods’ found means to prevent it. So that instead of losing in our number, we found, at the end of the year, an increase of ninety-seven members.”

Of course, this refers to Alexander M‘Nab, who had rebelled against Wesley’s authority in 1779. Samuel Bardsley was a man of peace, and, moreover, one of the most laborious preachers Wesley had. Besides his pulpit labours, he had rendered great service to the Sheffield society, by a preaching excursion, undertaken for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions for their chapel. His collecting book is before us, with a list of the collections he made, and the donations he obtained, in a tour extending from Sheffield to York, thence to Hull, and thence, along the east coast, to Newcastle on Tyne. Altogether, he gathered the sum of £89 15_s._ 11_d._; and, in doing this, made thirty-one public collections, amounting, in the aggregate, to £30 15_s._ 6¾_d._, and begged the balance of £59 0_s._ 4¼_d._, of considerably more than three hundred different subscribers, including in this number the inhabitants of not fewer than forty-four towns and villages, whose munificent donations are lumped together. When Bardsley had completed his tour, Wesley wrote him as follows.

“NEAR LONDON, _February 10, 1781_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I did not doubt but you would agree with the
people of Sheffield. They are a loving and affectionate people.
I am glad you were so successful in your labour of love for
them. That assistance was very seasonable.