Chapter III: Part 3

“MY DEAR LADY,--I have heard my mother say, ‘I have frequently been
as fully assured, that my father’s spirit was with me, as if I
had seen him with my eyes.’ But she did not explain herself any
further. I have myself many times found, on a sudden, so lively an
apprehension of a deceased friend, that I have sometimes turned
about to look; at the same time, I have felt an uncommon affection
for them. But I never had anything of this kind with regard to any
but those that died in faith. In dreams, I have had exceeding lively
conversations with them; and I doubt not but they were then very near.

“I am, my dear lady, your ever affectionate servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[52]

The next was addressed to Sarah Crosby, the female preacher.

“CHESTER, _March 18, 1769_.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--The westerly winds detain me here. When I am in
Ireland, you have only to direct to Dublin, and the letter will find
me.

“I advise you, as I did Grace Walton formerly--1. Pray in private or
public as much as you can. 2. Even in public, you may properly enough
intermix short exhortations with prayer; but keep as far from what
is called preaching as you can; therefore, never take a text; never
speak in a continued discourse, without some break, above four or
five minutes. Tell the people, ‘We shall have another prayermeeting
at such a time and place.’ If Hannah Harrison had followed these few
directions, she might have been as useful now as ever.

“As soon as you have time, write more particularly and
circumstantially; and let sister Bosanquet do the same. There is now
no hindrance in the way; nothing to hinder you speaking as freely as
you please to, dear Sally, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[53]

Trouble awaited Wesley in Dublin. James Morgan and Thomas Olivers had quarrelled,[54] and the society had suffered loss. Besides this, says Wesley, “I was summoned, by a poor creature who fed my horse three or four times while I was on board. For this service he demanded ten shillings. I gave him half-a-crown. When I informed the court of this, he was sharply reproved. Let all beware of these land sharks on our sea coasts!”

On the 3rd of April, Wesley left Dublin for the provinces. At Armagh, for the first time in his life, he preached in a stable. At Kinnard, he met an old acquaintance, Archdeacon C----e, and, at his request, opened a new church, which had just been built. At Londonderry, he had, what he calls, “a brilliant congregation,” but says: “Such a sight gives me no great pleasure; as I have very little hope of doing them good: only ‘with God all things are possible.’ In no other place in Ireland has more pains been taken by the most able of our preachers. And to how little purpose! Bands they have none: four-and-forty persons in society! The greater part of these heartless and cold. The audience in general dead as stones.” At Manorhamilton, “all behaved well,” says he, “but one young gentlewoman, who laughed almost incessantly. She knew there was nothing to laugh at; but she thought she laughed prettily.” At Cork, the society had been gradually decreasing for seven years, until now the number of members was reduced from 400 to 190. At Portarlington, the society once had a hundred and thirty members; now it had only twenty-four.

Fourteen weeks were spent in traversing all parts of Ireland. In some places, there was declension and great discouragement; in many, Wesley’s ministry was accompanied with amazing power; in none, did he meet with brutal persecution. Occasionally a giddy girl would laugh, or an empty headed man would sneer; but the days of sticks and stones were over. Wesley returned to Dublin on the 15th of July; met his Irish preachers in conference; and then, on July 24, embarked for England; having to open his English conference at Leeds on August 1. Before reviewing its proceedings, some further extracts must be given from his correspondence.

The first letter is remarkable. We have scarcely met with another like it. The fastidious may object to some of its expressions; but it must be remembered that, though Wesley always employed plainness of speech, he rarely employed coarseness. Besides, desperate cases require desperate remedies. In this instance, ordinary language, in all likelihood, would have been useless. The Irish Methodists were far from faultless; and Hugh Saunderson, to whom the letter was addressed, and who had just commenced his itinerancy in the Armagh circuit, was far from being a model of perfection. More than once had Wesley to remonstrate with him for his irregularities; and, in 1777, had to expel him. On one occasion, in 1774, Wesley himself was actually arrested on account of Saunderson’s peccant conduct. The charge was, that the man had robbed his wife “of £100 in money, and upwards of £30 in goods; and had, beside that, terrified her into madness; so that, through want of her help, and the loss of business,” the prosecutor, George Sutherland, “was damaged £500.” It was farther alleged, that Saunderson was one of Wesley’s preachers, and that the two, to evade Mrs. Saunderson’s pursuit, were preparing to fly the country. On such a pretext Wesley was actually arrested, and taken to the Edinburgh Tolbooth, where he had to wait till his friends gave bail for his appearance. This was done; the case was tried; and Mr. Sutherland, the prosecutor, was fined £1000. Of Saunderson’s guilt we know nothing; but, three years afterwards, Wesley expelled him from his connexion; and the man first set up at Edinburgh, and then divided the society at Exeter, where he “pitched his standard and declared open war.”[55] Such was the culprit to whom Wesley sent the letter following.

“_April 24, 1769._

“DEAR BROTHER,--I shall now tell you the things which have been more
or less upon my mind, ever since I have been in the north of Ireland.
If you forget them, you will be a sufferer, and so will the people;
if you observe them, it will be for the good of both.

“1. To begin with little things. If you regard your health, touch no
supper, but a little milk or water gruel. This will entirely, by the
blessing of God, secure you from nervous disorders; especially, if
you rise early every morning, whether you preach or no.

“2. Be steadily serious. There is no country upon earth where this is
more necessary than Ireland; as you generally are encompassed with
those who, with a little encouragement, would laugh or trifle from
morning to night.

“3. In every town, visit all you can from house to house. I say
all you can; for there will be some whom you cannot visit; and if
you examine, instruct, reprove, exhort, as need requires, you will
have no time hanging on your hands. It is by this means, that the
societies are increased wherever T. R. goes; he is preaching from
morning to night, warning every one, that he may present every one
perfect in Christ Jesus.

“4. But on this, and every other occasion, avoid all familiarity with
women. This is a deadly poison, both to _them_ and _you_. You cannot
be too wary in this respect. Therefore begin from this hour.

“5. The chief matter of your conversation, as well as your preaching,
should doubtless be the weightier matters of the law. Yet, there
are several comparatively little things, which you should earnestly
inculcate from time to time; for ‘he that despiseth small things
shall fall by little and little.’ Such are--

“(1) Be active, be diligent; avoid all laziness, sloth, indolence.
Fly from every degree, every appearance of it; else you will never be
more than half a Christian.

“(2) Be cleanly. In this let the Methodists take pattern by the
Quakers. Avoid all nastiness, dirt, slovenliness, both in your
person, clothes, house, all about you. Do not stink above ground.
This is a bad fruit of laziness. Use all diligence to be clean.

“(3) Whatever clothes you wear let them be whole: no rents, no
tatters, no rags. These are a scandal to either man or woman; being
another fruit of vile laziness. Mend your clothes, or I shall never
expect you to mend your lives. Let none ever see a ragged Methodist.

“(4) Clean yourselves of lice. These are a proof both of uncleanness
and laziness. Take pains in this. Do not cut off your hair, but clean
it, and keep it clean.

“(5) Cure yourselves and your family of the itch. A spoonful of
brimstone will cure you. To let this run from year to year, proves
both sloth and uncleanness. Away with it at once. Let not the north
be any longer a proverb of reproach to all the nation.

“(6) Use no tobacco unless prescribed by a physician. It is an
uncleanly and unwholesome self indulgence; and the more customary it
is, the more resolutely should you break off from every degree of
that vile custom.

“(7) Use no snuff unless prescribed by a physician. I suppose no
other nation in Europe is in such vile bondage to this silly, nasty,
dirty custom, as the Irish are; but let the Christians be in this
bondage no longer. Assert your liberty, and that all at once; nothing
will be done by degrees. But just now you may break loose, through
Christ strengthening you.

“(8) Touch no dram. It is liquid fire. It is a sure, though slow
poison. It saps the very springs of life. In Ireland, above all
countries in the world, I would sacredly abstain from this, because
the evil is so general. To this, and snuff, and smoky cabins, I
impute the blindness which is so exceeding common throughout the
nation.

“I might have inserted under the second article, what I particularly
desire, wherever you have preaching, namely, that there may be a
little house. Let this be got without delay. Wherever it is not, let
none expect to see me.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[56]

No apology is needed for the publication of this letter; for Wesley himself published it in his _Arminian Magazine_. Its picture of the Irish and of the Irish Methodists is far from being fragrant and pleasant; but it was doubtless true, and shows that Wesley was a great reformer in more respects than one. All the Irish Methodists, however, must not be included in the company above alluded to. The exceptions were not few, but many, and some of them distinguished. One of these was Mrs. Elizabeth Bennis, the first Methodist in Limerick, in 1749, a lady of respectability and intelligence, long the correspondent of Wesley, and who continued one of his devoted followers till her death in 1802.[57] The following letter was addressed to her during Wesley’s present visit to the sister island, and refers to an unfounded opinion which Wesley had now renounced.

“CORK, _May 30, 1769_.

“DEAR SISTER,--Some years since, I was inclined to think that none,
who had once enjoyed and then lost the pure love of God, must ever
look to enjoy it again till they were just stepping into eternity.
But experience has taught us better things. We have, at present,
numerous instances of those who have cast away that unspeakable
blessing, and now enjoy it in a larger measure than ever. And should
not this be your case? Because you are unworthy? So were they.
Because you have been an unfaithful steward? So had they been also;
yet, God healed them freely; and so He will you, only do not reason
against Him. Forget yourself. Worthy is the Lamb: you shall not die,
but live, live all the life of heaven on earth. You need nothing, in
order to this, but faith; and who gives this? He that standeth at the
door.

“Let there never more be any reserve between you and your truly
affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[58]

Wesley arrived in Leeds on Saturday, July 29, and on Sunday, the 30th, preached, for the Rev. Henry Crook, in Hunslet church, morning and afternoon. Mr. Crook was an old friend of the two Wesleys. As early as 1756, Charles Wesley preached in his church at Hunslet, and speaks of hundreds of communicants, most of whom had been awakened under Mr. Crook’s faithful ministry.[59]

The conference, at Leeds, opened on the 1st of August, and “a more loving one,” says Wesley, “we never had.” The _Intelligencer_ newspaper, of August 8, tells the public, that, “for a week past, Wesley had held a kind of visitation, but what they call a conference, with several hundreds of his preachers, from most parts of Great Britain and Ireland, where he settled their several routes for the succeeding year.” It further states, that “a large sum of money” was collected for the purpose of “sending missionaries to America.”[60]

This was the “tall talk” of a newspaper. “Wesley’s itinerant preachers” throughout the entire kingdom were only one hundred and eleven in number; and the “large sum” collected for sending missionaries to America was £70, of which £50 was to be appropriated to the payment of the debt on the chapel in New York.

Above two days of the time of the conference were spent in the arrangement of temporal matters,--a thing which annoyed Wesley, who therefore directed that, in future, as much of such business as possible should be done by the secretaries before the conference met.

The two topics of most interest were Methodist missions, and the perpetuation of the Methodist system after Wesley’s death.

It is a fact worth remembering, that already, for years past, Methodism had been planted in the West Indian islands, by means of Nathaniel Gilbert and his co-workers. Laurence Coughlan had recently taken it to Newfoundland; and a few soldiers had established it at Gibraltar, where there were thirty-two members, fifteen of whom were rejoicing in the consciousness of personal pardon.[61] They had preaching every night and every morning, their preachers being “Brother Morton,” Henry Ince, of the 2nd Regiment, and Henry Hall, of the Royal Scots; six classmeetings were held every week, and the work was prospering.[62] Lord Cornwallis, the commanding officer, issued a garrison order on June 9, 1769, as follows:--“Whereas divers soldiers and inhabitants assemble themselves every evening to prayer, it is the governor’s positive order, that no person whatever presume to molest them, nor go into their meeting to behave indecently there.”[63] Wesley was acquainted with this; but not a word is found in the conference minutes concerning it. The truth is, while Methodism was now really planted in the West Indies, Newfoundland, Gibraltar, and America, none needed help except America, and, hence, none else are mentioned.

Wesley, his brother, Ingham, and Whitefield had all been in America; and Whitefield was about to go again. The work was begun in Georgia by the Wesleys. At the same time, occurred the revival in New England, under Mr. Edwards and others. Whitefield came, and not only preached in both, but likewise all the way between, a distance of many hundred miles. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, were converted by his ministry; but, for want of organisation and discipline, the greater part of them had backslidden.[64] Such was the state of things in 1769.

Four years before this, a small number of Methodist emigrants from Ireland had landed in New York, one of them being Philip Embury. In 1766, another Methodist family followed, of the name of Heck. Mrs. Barbara Heck was distressed to find that her predecessors had greatly declined in godliness. At her request, Philip Embury began to preach; just at that juncture, Captain Webb, the barrackmaster at Albany, joined him; a chapel was built; a society formed; and help was asked from England.[65] Hence the thirteenth question at the conference of 1769: “We have a pressing call from our brethren at New York, who have built a preaching house, to come over and help them. Who is willing to go?” Answer: “Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor.” _Q._ “What can we do further in token of our brotherly love?” _A._ “Let us now make a collection among ourselves. This was immediately done; and, out of it, £50 were allotted towards the payment of their debt, and about £20 given to our brethren for their passage.”

It is doubtful, however, whether this was, as is generally supposed, the first collection which the Methodists made on behalf of their American mission. Six months before this, Wesley had permitted Robert Costerdine, who was then the assistant in the Sheffield circuit, to “_read publicly, on any Sunday_” he liked, the letter which had been received from New York, and to “receive what the hearers were willing to give.”[66] It is more than possible, that this was done; but, be that as it may, Boardman and Pilmoor set sail, and, after a nine weeks’ passage, entered upon their work: Pilmoor at Philadelphia, and Boardman at New York. At Philadelphia, they found Captain Webb and a society of about a hundred members, to whom, and to thousands more, Pilmoor commenced preaching from the grand stand erected on the racecourse. At New York, Boardman says, the chapel would contain about 1700 hearers; and that about a third part of the congregations got in, and the other two thirds were glad to hear without.[67]

Space forbids further details, except to add that, two years afterwards, the number of Methodists in America was reported in the minutes of conference as 316; and that even a thing so innocent as sending preachers to America was too important for the wicked to pass without a sneer. Hence, in a squib, the public were informed, that the following promotions in the Church were about to be declared: “Rev. G. Whitefield, Archbishop of Boston; Rev. W. Romaine, Bishop of New York; Rev. J. Wesley, Bishop of Pennsylvania; Rev. M. Madan, Bishop of the Carolinas; Rev. W. Shirley, Bishop of Virginia; and Rev. C. Wesley, Bishop of Nova Scotia.” It was added, that as his majesty would soon have the livings of these gentlemen at his disposal, he intended to provide for Dr. Dodd, and other court celebrities,[68] anxious to fill important places.

The other important matter brought before the conference of 1769 was the perpetuation of Methodism after Wesley’s death; and, on Friday, August 4, Wesley read the following paper.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--1. It has long been my desire, that all those
_ministers_ of our Church, who believe and preach salvation by faith,
might cordially agree between themselves, and not hinder but help one
another. After occasionally pressing this, in private conversation,
wherever I had opportunity, I wrote down my thoughts upon the head,
and sent them to each in a letter. Out of fifty or sixty, to whom I
wrote, only three vouchsafed me an answer. So I give this up. I can
do no more. They are a rope of sand, and such they will continue.

“2. But it is otherwise with the _travelling preachers_ in our
connexion. You are at present one body. You act in concert with each
other, and by united counsels. And now is the time to consider what
can be done, in order to continue this union. Indeed, as long as I
live, there will be no great difficulty. I am, under God, a centre
of union to all our travelling, as well as local preachers. They all
know me and my communication. They all love me for my works’ sake;
and, therefore, were it only out of regard to me, they will continue
connected with each other. But by what means may this connection be
preserved, when God removes me from you?

“3. I take it for granted, it cannot be preserved, by any means,
between those who have not a single eye. Those who aim at anything
but the glory of God, and the salvation of men; who desire or seek
any earthly thing, whether honour, profit, or ease, will not, cannot
continue in the connexion; it will not answer their design. Some of
them, perhaps a fourth of the whole number, will procure preferment
in the Church. Others will turn Independents, and get separate
congregations, like John Edwards and Charles Skelton. Lay your
accounts with this, and be not surprised if some, you do not suspect,
be of this number.

“4. But what method can be taken, to preserve a firm union between
those who choose to remain together? Perhaps you might take some
such steps as these. On notice of my death, let all the preachers,
in England and Ireland, repair to London within six weeks. Let them
seek God by solemn fasting and prayer. Let them draw up articles of
agreement, to be signed by those who choose to act in concert. Let
those be dismissed, who do not choose it, in the most friendly manner
possible. Let them choose by votes a _committee_ of three, five,
or seven, each of whom is to be _moderator_ in his turn. Let the
committee do what I do now; propose preachers to be tried, admitted,
or excluded; fix the place of each preacher for the ensuing year, and
the time of next conference.

“5. Can anything be done now, in order to lay a foundation for this
future union? Would it not be well, for any that are willing, to
sign some articles of agreement before God calls me hence? Suppose
something like these:--

“‘We, whose names are underwritten, being thoroughly convinced of
the necessity of a close union between those whom God is pleased to
use as instruments in this glorious work, in order to preserve this
union between ourselves, are resolved, God being our helper: (1) _To
devote ourselves entirely to God_; denying ourselves, taking up our
cross daily, steadily aiming at one thing, to save our own souls, and
them that hear us. (2) To preach the _old Methodist doctrines_, and
no other, contained in the minutes of the conferences. (3) To observe
and enforce the whole _Methodist discipline_, laid down in the said
minutes.’”

Such was Wesley’s propounded scheme. The preachers wisely requested Wesley to extract the most material part of the minutes, and to send a copy to each itinerant, to be seriously considered,--a request with which Wesley complied during the following year, by the publication of a pamphlet of sixty pages, entitled, “Minutes of several Conversations between the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley and others.”

This concluded the business of the conference; and “at the conclusion,” says Wesley, “all the preachers were melted down, while they were singing those lines for me,--

‘Thou, who so long hast saved me here,
A little longer save;
Till freed from sin, and freed from fear,
I sink into a grave:
Till glad I lay my body down,
Thy servant’s steps attend;
And O! my life of mercies crown
With a triumphant end.’”[69]

This was a beautiful finish to one of the most important conferences Wesley ever held. The next day, he again started on his itinerancy of mercy, and hastened to join in the anniversary services of the Countess of Huntingdon’s college at Trevecca. These services really extended from August 18 to August 24, though Wesley himself was there only on the two concluding days. The gathering was a glorious one. Fletcher, the president, was there, with his seraphic soul lighting up an almost unearthly face; Daniel Rowlands also, the rector of Llangeitto and chaplain to the Duke of Leinster; Howel Harris, one of the bravest veterans in the group; the Rev. Walter Shirley, from Ireland, and others; making eight clergymen altogether; to whom must be added the Countess of Huntingdon, the Countess of Buchan, Lady Anne Erskine, and several of their relatives and friends. There were a number of Welsh exhorters; and, of course, the students; and likewise an immense concourse of communicants and spectators. For seven days, there was preaching twice a day; the sacrament was repeatedly administered; a lovefeast was held; baskets of bread and meat were distributed in the courtyard among the country people; and the whole season was what Whitefield called a pentecost.[70] Wesley preached twice, gave an exhortation, and administered the Lord’s supper to the countess’s family, and so ended his service in connection with what he designates “the anniversary of her ladyship’s _school_.” This was his first and last visit.

At this time, Joseph Benson, now in the twenty-first year of his age, was classical master of Wesley’s school at Kingswood, and had, with Wesley’s sanction, entered himself at St. Edmund’s hall, Oxford, where he regularly kept his terms. But now an effort was made to obtain his services as head master at Trevecca. Wesley, for more reasons than one, was loth to lose him. Hence the letters following.

“CORK, _May 27, 1769_.

“DEAR JOSEPH,--You have now--what you never had before--a clear
providential call to Oxford. If you keep a single eye, and have
courage and steadiness, you may be an instrument of much good. But
you will tread on slippery ground; and the serious persons you
mention may do you more hurt than many others. When I was at Oxford,
I never was afraid of any but the almost Christians. If you give way
to them and their prudence a hair’s breadth, you will be removed from
the hope of the gospel. If you are not moved, if you tread in the
same steps which my brother and I did, you may be the means, under
God, of raising another set of real Bible Christians. How long the
world will suffer them is in God’s hand.

“With regard to Kingswood school, I have one string more; if that
breaks, I shall let it drop. I have borne the burden one-and-twenty
years; I have done what I could; now, let some one else do more.

“I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[71]

Again.

“LONDON, _December 26, 1769_.

“DEAR JOSEPH,--Every man of sense, who reads the rules of the
school, may easily conclude that a school so conducted by men of
piety and understanding will exceed any other school or academy
in Great Britain or Ireland. In this sentiment, you can never be
altered. And if it was not so conducted since you were there, why was
it not? You had power enough. You have all the power which I have.
You may do what you please.

“‘_Dirue et ædifica; muta quadrata rotundis_;’ and I will second you
to the uttermost.

“Trevecca is much more to ---- than Kingswood is to me. _I_ mixes
with everything. It is _my_ college, _my_ masters, _my_ students. I
do not speak so of this school. It is not mine, but the Lord’s. I
look for no more honour than money from it.

“I am glad you defer your journey; and am, dear Joseph, your
affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[72]

Wesley was evidently sore about Benson leaving him; but, a few weeks afterwards, the exchange was made; and then, after nine months of faithful service at Trevecca, the young head master was unceremoniously dismissed, because of his defending the doctrines of his friend Wesley.

From Trevecca, Wesley made his way to Bristol, which he reached on August 26; and, from there, set off to Cornwall, where he employed a week in visiting as many of his societies as he could in so short a period. On getting back to Bristol, he inquired into the state of Kingswood school, and writes: “The grievance now is the number of children. Instead of thirty, as I desired, we have near fifty; whereby our masters are burdened. And it is scarce possible to keep them in so exact order as we might do a smaller number. However, this still comes nearer a Christian school than any I know in the kingdom.”

The next month was spent in the neighbourhood of Bristol, and was not without adventures. At Bradford, he was surrounded by a noisy rabble; “and one,” says he, “called a gentleman, had filled his pocket with rotten eggs; but a young man smashed them all at once; and, in an instant, he was perfume all over, though it was not so sweet as balsam.”

At Salisbury, the scene of so many of his sister Patty’s sorrows, Wesley writes: “I was as in a new world. The congregation was alive, and much more the society. How pleasing would it be, to be always with such! But this is not our calling.” Wesley had seen dark days here; but now the sun was shining. After the desolation caused by Westley Hall’s disgraceful conduct, the few remaining Methodists took possession of a shop in Greencroft Street, and then, in 1759, built themselves a chapel.[73] Barbara Hunt was one of their chief members,--a brave young woman, now thirty-three years old, but who lived long enough to be a Methodist threescore years and three, and died exclaiming, “O how glad should I be to clap my glad wings and tower away!”[74] Another was David Saunders, the hero of Mrs. Hannah More’s “Shepherd of Salisbury Plain.” “His coat,” says the fair authoress, perhaps mixing a little fiction with fact,--“his coat had been, in a long course of years, so often patched with different sorts of cloth, that it was now become hard to say which had been the original colour; his stockings were covered with darns of different coloured worsted, but had not a hole in them; his shirt, though nearly as coarse as the sails of a ship, was as white as the drifted snow; his open honest countenance bore strong marks of health and cheerfulness.” His good wife was cleanly, thrifty, and a hard worker; and a happier man than the “shepherd of Salisbury plain” did not exist. David Saunders was a shepherd in more respects than one. While he tended his sheep, he also, as a faithful classleader, watched over the souls committed to his care. He died in peace, in 1796, at the age of eighty.[75]

Wesley got back to London on October 14, but two days afterwards set out for Oxfordshire, and spent the week in preaching at Henley, Wallingford, Oxford, Witney, Broadmarston, and Wycombe. The last week in October he employed at Towcester, Northampton, Weedon, Bedford, and other intervening towns, preaching, during his five days’ tour, not fewer than seventeen times in widely distant places.

At the beginning of November he went to Norfolk; at the end, he visited his old friend Perronet, at Shoreham, and preached twice in his parish church. Even here, in the vicar’s kitchen, there was Methodist preaching every Friday night, and also a Methodist society, embracing Mr. Kingswood, Mr. Sharp, old Mrs. Lightfoot and her servant maid, poor dame Cacket, and bold, masculine minded Miss D. Perronet at the head of them.[76]

Except short tours to Kent and Sussex, the remainder of the year was employed in London, where he received letters from Boardman and Pilmoor in America, and which he read to the London society. He was importuned to visit America himself; and, though such a visit was utterly impracticable, yet he was far from hasty in declining it. Hence the following, addressed to his friend, the Rev. Walter Sellon.

“LONDON, _December 30, 1769_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is not yet determined whether I should go to
America or not. I have been importuned some time; but _nil sat firmi
video_. I must have a clear call before I am at liberty to leave
Europe.

“You should heat your milk, but never let it boil; boiling robs it of
the most nutritious particles. Do not make too much haste in dealing
with Elisha Coles; I am afraid the treatise will be too short. And
pray add a word to that lively coxcomb, Mr. Toplady, not only with
regard to Zanchius, but his slander on the Church of England. You
would do well to give a reading to both his tracts. He does certainly
believe himself to be the greatest genius in England. Pray take care,
or _natis sit pro suis virtutibus_.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[77]

Mr. Toplady’s two tracts, referred to in this epistle, were his (1) “Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of Arminianism, in a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nowell; occasioned by some passages in that gentleman’s answer to the Author of ‘Pietas Oxoniensis,’” 8vo, 136 pages: and (2) “The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted. Translated, in great measure, from the Latin of Jerom Zanchius, with some Account of his Life prefixed,” 8vo, 134 pages. Both these pamphlets were published in 1769.

All this, and a great deal more, really arose out of the expulsion of the Oxford students in 1768. Sir Richard Hill, in defending them, had warmly defended the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. Dr. Nowell, in his Answer, had clearly shown, that this was not the doctrine of the Church of England; and now impetuous Augustus Toplady hastened to the rescue, and administered two allopathic doses of Calvinism’s most drastic tincture, to cure the Church of Arminian disease and fever. Toplady’s style is trenchant; his doctrines are as near an approach to the doctrine of fate, as held by Plato, Seneca, and other heathen writers, as it is possible to conceive. A more impious piece, in the garb of piety, was never published than his Zanchius; while his “Church of England Vindicated” is rank with the most dogmatic and violent abuse of Dr. Nowell and the Arminian clergy. It would be easy, but not pleasant, to give extracts; and we can hardly recommend the reader to peruse the pamphlets for himself. Augustus Toplady, a stripling twenty-nine years of age, is a pope infallible; and all who hold opinions different to his are reprobate knaves, or fools.

Wesley was sick of controversial writing; and, besides, he had no time for it. Walter Sellon had leisure at his command, and had already this year published his able treatise, entitled, “The Doctrine of General Redemption considered,” 12mo, 178 pages. He was also now engaged in refuting a book hardly less horrible than the Zanchius of Augustus Toplady, namely, “A Practical Discourse of God’s Sovereignty,” 12mo, 347 pages, by Elisha Coles, a clerk to the East India Company, who died in 1688. Sellon’s book was soon issued, with the title, “A Defence of God’s Sovereignty, against the impious and horrible Aspersions cast upon it by Elisha Coles, in his practical treatise on that subject.” In his preface, he tells his readers, he “did intend to have exposed the errors and blasphemy” of Toplady’s Zanchius, but when he “found it would enlarge his work too much, and especially when he understood that Toplady had vilely slandered the Church of England,” he chose “to make it the subject of another book, which the reader might expect unless it should be done by some abler hand.”[78]

Controversial war was now begun in earnest, and a severer battle was never fought. Sir Richard Hill, Augustus Toplady, and Walter Sellon were fairly in the lists, and others soon after followed.

In the midst of all this, Wesley was savagely attacked in two letters, published in the _Gospel Magazine_ for 1769, entitled, “Observations on Mr. J. Wesley’s view of ‘The Scripture Doctrines of Predestination, Election, and Reprobation.’” He is accused of “inexcusable vanity”; of “impertinent quibbling”; of “jesuitical sophistry”; of holding “a scheme unscriptural and dangerous, absurd and impious”; and of “finespun reasoning worse than nothing.” The author complacently tells his readers, in conclusion, that, though he had felt himself “very resentful,” yet being “called to imitate the lovely pattern of the lowly Jesus, he had answered Wesley not with asperity, but with the meekness of wisdom.”

Attacks upon Wesley were made from other quarters. It was a busy year with young Toplady; for, besides the books already noticed, he published a sixpenny pamphlet, with the title, “Many made Righteous by the Obedience of One. Two Sermons on Romans v. 19, preached at Bideford, in 1743, by the late Rev. James Hervey, with a Preface by Augustus Toplady.” Some one else issued another, entitled, “The Jesuit Detected,” in which the zealous advocate of Mr. Hervey arrays Wesley in the garb of the Babylonian woman, and then abuses him for looking so like her. Booth Brathwaite, unknown to fame, published another sixpennyworth, called “Methodism a Popish Idol; or, the Danger and Harmony of Enthusiasm and Separation.” Poor Booth, a bigot to church establishments, raves against sectaries with abundant zeal, little knowledge, and less charity. And to all these must be added, “The Pretences of Enthusiasts, considered and confuted: A Sermon preached before the university of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, June 26, 1768. By William Hawkins, M.A., Prebendary of Wells, late Poetry Professor, and Fellow of Pembroke College, in Oxford. Published by desire.” 8vo, 27 pages.

Wesley’s own publications in 1769 were not many.

1. “An Extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from October 20, 1762, to May 25, 1765.” 12mo, 124 pages.

2. “An Extract from the Journal of Elizabeth Harper.” 12mo, 47 pages.

3. “An Extract of Letters on Religious Subjects, by Mrs. Lefevre.” 12mo, 106 pages.

4. “The Witness of the Spirit. A Sermon on Romans viii. 16.” Dublin: 12mo, 16 pages. This important sermon was written at Newry, in 1767. Wesley declares that his sentiments on the witness of the Spirit were the same as they had been from the beginning. “The testimony of the Spirit,” says he, “is an inward impression on the soul of believers, whereby the Spirit of God directly testifies to their spirit, that they are the children of God.” Having established his doctrine, and answered the objections to it, he concludes with two pungent inferences: “1. Let none ever presume to rest in any supposed testimony of the Spirit, which is separate from the fruit of it. 2. Let none rest in any supposed fruit of the Spirit without the witness.”

5. “Advices with respect to Health. Extracted from a late Author.” 12mo, 218 pages. The late author was Dr. Tissot; the book itself shows Wesley’s intense anxiety to be of use to the bodies as well as souls of his fellow creatures. He strongly commends Tissot’s descriptions of diseases, the fewness and cheapness of his medicines, and his regimen; but protests against his fondness for bleeding, and for glysters; against his ointment for the itch, and his vehement recommendation of Peruvian bark.

FOOTNOTES:

[49] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 126.

[50] Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 387.

[51] _Methodist Magazine_, 1783, p. 273.

[52] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 321.

[53] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 331.

[54] Taylor’s “Redeeming Grace,” p. 49; and Wesley’s Works,
vol. iii., p. 350.

[55] Wesley’s Works, vol. iv., pp. 16, 173, 222.

[56] _Methodist Magazine_, 1784, p. 165.

[57] _Irish Evangelist_, May, 1862.

[58] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 362.

[59] C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 117.

[60] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 380.

[61] _Methodist Magazine_, 1784, p. 112.

[62] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 387.

[63] Rule’s “Memoir of a Mission to Gibraltar,” p. 5.

[64] Wesley’s Works, vol. vii., p. 392.

[65] About the same time, Thomas Bell, at Charlestown,
wrote as follows: “Mr. Wesley says, the first message
of the preachers is to the lost sheep of England. And
are there none in America? They have strayed from
England into the wild woods here, and they are running
wild after this world. They are drinking their wine
in bowls, and are jumping and dancing, and serving
the devil, in the groves and under the green trees.
And are not these lost sheep? And will none of the
preachers come here? Where is Mr. Brownfield? Where
is John Pawson? Where is Nicholas Manners? Are they
living, and will they not come?”--(“The Centenary of
Methodism,” published by the Primitive Methodists in
Ireland, in 1839, p. 189.)

[66] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 578.

[67] Ibid. 1783, p. 276; and 1784, p. 163.

[68] _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, May 26, 1769.

[69] _Methodist Magazine_, 1799, p. 253.

[70] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 99.

[71] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 383.

[72] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 384.

[73] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 52.

[74] Ibid. 1815, p. 46.

[75] “Methodism in Frome,” by Tuck, p. 42.

[76] Miss Perronet’s manuscript letters; and _Methodist
Magazine_, 1811, p. 234.

[77] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 42; and manuscript
letter.

[78] Sellon’s book was not published till 1770, and seems
to have been revised by Wesley, who also approved of
his dealing with Toplady in a separate pamphlet. Hence
the following, addressed to Sellon.

“LEWISHAM, _February 21, 1770_.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Do not make too much haste. Give
everything the last touch. It will be enough, if
the papers meet me at Manchester, before the end of
March. I believe it will be the best way to bestow
a distinct pamphlet on that exquisite coxcomb.
Surely wisdom will die with him! I believe we can
easily get his other tract, which it would be well
to sift to the very foundation, in order to stop
the mouth of that vain boaster. I am, etc., JOHN
WESLEY.”--(Manuscript letter.)

1770.
Age 67

Wesley began the year 1770 with a covenant service in London, at which eighteen hundred Methodists were present,--a sight worth seeing.

In his leisure moments, he employed himself in reading; and, as usual, makes racy remarks on men and books. Having finished Dr. Burnet’s “Theory of the Earth,” he writes: “He is doubtless one of the firstrate writers, both as to sense and style; his language is remarkably clear, unaffected, nervous, and elegant; and none can deny, that his theory is ingenious, and consistent with itself.” He read Rousseau upon education, and says: “But how was I disappointed! Sure a more consummate coxcomb never saw the sun! How amazingly full of himself! Whatever he speaks, he pronounces as an oracle. But many of his oracles are as palpably false as that ‘young children never love old people.’ But I object to his temper more than to his judgment: he is a mere misanthrope, a cynic all over. So indeed is his brother infidel, Voltaire; and well-nigh as great a coxcomb. But he hides both his doggedness and vanity a little better; whereas, here it stares us in the face continually. As to his book, it is whimsical to the last degree; grounded neither upon reason nor experience. The advices, which are good, are trite and common, only disguised under new expressions; and those which are new, which are really his own, are lighter than vanity itself. Such discoveries I always expect from those who are too wise to believe their Bibles.”

Baron Emanuel Swedenborg, after rendering great service to science, and thereby winning the esteem of Charles XII., and receiving the honour of being enrolled among the members of the academies of Upsal, Stockholm, and Petersburgh, came to London in 1743, attended the Moravian chapel in Fetter Lane, went mad,[79] and began to write and publish the visionary books, containing the creed of the Swedenborgians. Wesley writes: “I sat down to read and seriously consider some of the writings of Baron Swedenborg. I began with huge prejudice in his favour, knowing him to be a pious man, one of a strong understanding, of much learning, and one who thoroughly believed himself. But I could not hold out long. Any one of his visions puts his real character out of doubt. He is one of the most ingenious, lively, entertaining madmen, that ever set pen to paper. But his waking dreams are so wild, so far remote both from Scripture and common sense, that one might as easily swallow the stories of ‘Tom Thumb,’ or ‘Jack the Giant Killer.’” The baron died two years after this, and was buried in the Swedish church in Wellclose Square, London.

In the month of February, Wesley, for the last time, took part in a religious service, and administered the sacrament, in the mansion of the Countess of Huntingdon, in Portland Row. Thomas Maxfield was present, and though a few years before he had been one of the strongest sticklers in favour of the wild doctrines propounded by George Bell and other sanctified ones in London, he now, in Wesley’s own presence, spoke strongly against his doctrine of Christian perfection.[80] This might be gratifying to her ladyship and her Calvinistic friends; but it would have been in better taste for Maxfield, at least, to have maintained, on such a subject, a respectful silence. No doubt, foolish ideas had been circulated; but Wesley can hardly be held accountable for these. His own doctrines on the subject were based upon Scripture, and these he was ready to defend, and resolved to propagate. It is true, that his anticipations respecting the great work, which was professedly wrought in London and elsewhere, had not been realised. Even Miss Bosanquet had lost the blessing of Christian perfection;[81] and Wesley, in a letter dated March 15, 1770, confesses that, of those who professed to obtain it, hardly one in thirty retained it. “Many hundreds in London,” says he, “were made partakers of it, within sixteen or eighteen months; but I doubt whether twenty of them are now as holy and as happy as they were.”[82] This was a humiliating fact, and gave to Wesley’s opponents a great advantage; but, in itself, it was no disproof of Wesley’s doctrine; and can scarcely be considered a satisfactory excuse for Thomas Maxfield, of all men living, attacking his friend in the house of his Calvinistic foes.

Wesley’s friend Whitefield was in America, preaching with as much zest as ever; and, just at this juncture, Wesley addressed what proved to be his last letter to his old and always faithful coadjutor; but the letter contains not a single syllable respecting the slight which had been cast upon him by a man whom gratitude ought to have taught better manners.

“LEWISHAM, _February 21, 1770_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Keen informed me some time since of your
safe arrival in Carolina; of which, indeed, I could not doubt for
a moment, notwithstanding the idle report of your being cast away,
which was so current in London. I trust our Lord has more work for
you to do in Europe, as well as in America. And who knows but before
your return, to England, I may pay another visit to the new world? I
have been strongly solicited by several of our friends in New York
and Philadelphia. They urge many reasons, some of which appear to
be of considerable weight; and my age is no objection at all; for
I bless God my health is not barely as good, but abundantly better
in several respects, than when I was five-and-twenty. But there are
so many reasons on the other side, that, as yet, I can determine
nothing; so I must wait for further light. Here I am: let the Lord
do with me as seemeth Him good. For the present, I must beg of you
to supply my lack of service, by encouraging our preachers, as you
judge best (who are as yet comparatively young and inexperienced);
by giving them such advices as you think proper; and, above all, by
exhorting them, not only to love one another, but, if it be possible,
as much as lies in them, to live peaceably with all men.

“Some time ago, since you went hence, I heard a circumstance, which
gave me a good deal of concern; namely, that the college or academy
in Georgia had swallowed up the orphan house. Shall I give my
judgment without being asked? Methinks, friendship requires I should.
Are there not then two points which come in view? a point of mercy,
and a point of justice? With respect to the former, may it not be
inquired, Can anything on earth be a greater charity than to bring
up orphans? What is a college or an academy compared to this? unless
you could have such a college as perhaps is not upon earth. I know
the value of learning, and am more in danger of prizing it too much
than too little; but, still, I cannot place the giving it to five
hundred students on a level with saving the bodies, if not the souls
too, of five hundred orphans. But let us pass from the point of mercy
to that of justice. You had land given, and collected money, for an
orphan house. Are you at liberty to apply this to any other purpose?
at least, while there are any orphans in Georgia left? I just touch
upon this, though it is an important point, and leave it to your own
consideration, whether part of it, at least, might not properly be
applied to carry on the original design? In speaking thus freely, on
so tender a subject, I have given you a fresh proof of the sincerity
with which I am your ever affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[83]

The college business above mentioned was simply this. Six years before, Whitefield had informed the council of Georgia, that he had already expended £12,000 upon his Orphan House; that he was now anxious to attach to it a college, to which the respectable inhabitants of Georgia, Virginia, and the West Indies might send their sons to be educated; that, in order to accomplish his purpose, he was prepared to lay out a considerable sum of money “_in purchasing a large number of negroes_” for the cultivation of the lands, and for the “future support of a president, professors, and tutors;” and that he now asked the council to grant him, in trust, for the purposes aforesaid, two thousand acres of land, on the north fork of Turtle River. The council yielded his request at once, and with the greatest pleasure. Whitefield then memorialised the king to grant a charter for the founding of the college, stating that, if this were done, he was “ready to give up his present trust, and make a free gift of all lands, negroes, goods, and chattels, which he now possessed in Georgia, for the support of the proposed institution, to be called by the name of Bethesda college, in Georgia.” A long official correspondence followed. The government were not unwilling to grant a charter, but they insisted that the president of the college should be a minister of the Church of England, and that there should be a daily use of the Church liturgy. These were conditions which Whitefield respectfully declined; and hence the charter asked for was refused. The result was, Whitefield added to his Georgian orphan house a public academy, by the erection of two additional wings, one hundred and fifty feet each in length; and, a month before Wesley wrote his letter, opened the new building, by preaching before his excellency the governor, and before the Georgian council and assembly, from, “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundations of this house, His hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you; for who hath despised the day of small things?” Thus Whitefield left behind him, in America, a complex orphanage and college, for the support of which he had obtained grants of land to the extent of 3800 acres, and had bought seventy-five male and female negroes for the purpose of cultivating his extensive farm, and making it productive.[84]

We have already seen that Wesley was not only urged, but was more than willing, to visit his newly instituted societies in America. Pilmoor was working hard at New York, and Boardman at Philadelphia; a number of negroes had been converted; the work was growing; and the young evangelists--Boardman of seven, and Pilmoor of five years’ standing--wished for advice and help.[85] Wesley had nearly arrived at the age of threescore years and ten; but, if his way had opened, he would have bounded off across the Atlantic with as little anxiety as he was accustomed to trot to the hospitable Perronet home at Shoreham. The obstacles however were insurmountable. There was no one, during his absence, to take his place as superintendent general of the societies in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland; and to this must be added the strong objections of the people to let him go. “If I go to America,” said he, “I must do a thing which I hate as bad as I hate the devil.” “What is that?” asked his friend. “I must keep a _secret_,” he answered; meaning, that he must conceal his purpose, otherwise his societies would interfere, and effectually prevent his going.[86]

On the 5th of March, Wesley set out on his journey to the north, which occupied the next five months. Coming to Newbury, he writes: “I had been much importuned to preach here. But where? The Dissenters would not permit me to preach in their meetinghouse. Some were then desirous to hire the old playhouse; but the good mayor would not suffer it to be so profaned! So I made use of a workshop,--a large, commodious place. But it would, by no means, contain the congregation. All that could hear behaved well.”