Chapter IV: Part 4

From Newbury, Wesley proceeded to Bristol, Gloucester, Birmingham, and Wednesbury. He then made his way, through Staffordshire and Cheshire, to Manchester, where he arrived at the end of March, and made the following characteristic entry in his journal: “In this journey, as well as in many others, I observed a mistake that almost universally prevails. Near thirty years ago, I was thinking, ‘How is it that no horse ever stumbles while I am reading?’ (History, poetry, and philosophy, I commonly read on horseback, having other employment at other times.) No account can possibly be given but this: because, then I throw the reins on his neck. I then set myself to observe; and I aver, that, in riding above a hundred thousand miles, I scarce ever remember any horse (except two that would fall head over heels any way), to fall, or make a considerable stumble, while I rode with a slack rein. To fancy, therefore, that a tight rein prevents stumbling is a capital blunder. I have repeated the trial more frequently than most men in the kingdom can do. A slack rein will prevent stumbling if anything will. But in some horses nothing can.”

From Manchester, Wesley proceeded to Liverpool, Whitehaven, and Carlisle, preaching there, and at intermediate places. He writes: “At Carlisle, it was the day of small things; the society consisting but of fifteen members.” Methodism had been founded in this border city by Robert Bell, an exciseman; and its place of worship was a shed for sheltering carts. At almost every meeting the mob attended; stones and brickbats were often thrown, and the Methodists hissed at and otherwise abused.[87]

Leaving Carlisle, Wesley made his way to Edinburgh, which he reached on April 20, and says: “I endeavoured to confirm those whom many had strove to turn out of the way. What pity is it, that the children of God should so zealously do the devil’s work! How is it, that they are still ignorant of Satan’s devices? Lord, what is man?” “The congregations were nearly as usual; but the society which, when I was here before, consisted of above one hundred and sixty members, was now shrunk to about fifty. Such is the fruit of a single preacher’s staying a whole year in one place, together with the labours of good Mr. Townshend!”

It was at this time that Wesley had his first interview with Lady Glenorchy.[88] She writes: “The Rev. Dr. Webster[89] and Mr. Wesley met at my house, and agreed on all doctrines on which they spoke, except those of God’s decrees, predestination, and the saints’ perseverance. I must, according to the light I now have, agree with Dr. Webster. Nevertheless, I hope Mr. Wesley is a child of God. He has been an instrument of saving souls; as such, I honour him, and will countenance his preachers. I have heard him preach thrice; and should have been better pleased had he preached more of Christ, and less of himself.”[90]

Lady Glenorchy had recently opened St. Mary’s chapel, in which service was performed by presbyterians, episcopalians, and Methodists; but her ladyship now wished to have a schoolmaster and a minister of her own; and, notwithstanding her disparaging remarks on Wesley, she employed him to obtain them for her. A few weeks later she wrote to him as follows.

“EDINBURGH, _May 29, 1770_.

“REVEREND SIR,--When I consider how much you have to do, and how
very precious your time is, I feel unwilling to give you the trouble
of reading a letter from me; yet I know not how to delay returning
you my best thanks for the pains you have taken to procure me a
Christian innkeeper and schoolmaster. And, though you have not as
yet been successful, I hope you may find some before you reach
London, who are willing to leave their native country and friends
for the sake of promoting the interest of Christ’s kingdom. If Mr.
Eggleston’s objections relate only to temporal things, perhaps it
may be in my power to remove them. I am exceedingly obliged to you,
dear and honoured sir, for your good advice; it is agreeable to that
small glimmering of light the Lord has been pleased to give me for
five years past. Let me entreat you to remember me at the throne
of grace. I am, reverend sir, with esteem and respect, your obliged
servant,

“WILLIELMA GLENORCHY.”[91]

Within a week after this, Wesley obtained her ladyship a schoolmaster; and, at the beginning of the year following, sent her a minister, the Rev. Richard De Courcy, who had been a Methodist in Ireland,[92] had been educated at Trinity college, Dublin, had obtained deacon’s orders, and had officiated as curate to Walter Shirley.[93] Lady Glenorchy writes: “Mr. De Courcy is quite the person Mr. Wesley represented him,--of a sweet disposition, and wishes only to preach Christ to poor sinners wherever he finds an open door.”[94] This was in February, 1771, and yet, within six months afterwards, on June 28, her ladyship writes again: “Before I left Edinburgh, I dismissed Mr. Wesley’s preachers from my chapel; first, because they deny the doctrines of imputed righteousness, election, and the saints’ perseverance; secondly, because I found none of our gospel ministers would preach in the chapel, if they continued to have the use of the pulpit; thirdly, because I found my own soul had been hurt by hearing them, and I judged that others might be hurt by them also.”[95]

Thus, after Wesley had served her ladyship to the utmost of his power, he and his preachers were ignominiously expelled from the sacred precincts of St. Mary’s, and her chapel was left in the sole possession of Mr. De Courcy and his Calvinistic friends. It is right to add that, notwithstanding her Calvinism, Lady Glenorchy maintained, to the end of life, a warm friendship with her Methodist friend, Lady Maxwell, whom, at her death, she appointed her sole executrix, and the principal manager of her chapels, both in England and across the border.[96]

To return to Wesley. From Edinburgh, he went to Perth, Dunkeld, and Inverness, at which last mentioned place Benjamin and William Chappel had been three months waiting for a vessel to return to London, and had employed the time in meeting the people every night to sing and pray together. Benjamin Chappel, who thus begun Methodism in Inverness, was a wheelwright, and, in after years, had the honour of being the first Methodist in Prince Edward’s Island.[97]

At Aberdeen, as at Inverness and Nairn, Wesley preached in the kirk. At Arbroath, the society, though of but nine months’ standing, was the largest in Scotland, with the exception of that at Aberdeen. At Dunbar he preached in the new chapel, “the cheerfulest in the kingdom”; and, on May 21, reached Newcastle on Tyne; but here we pause to insert a letter of considerable interest.

Within the last two years, Wesley had met at Bristol with a clergyman, who was one of the king of Sweden’s chaplains, but who had recently spent several years in Pennsylvania. This gentleman, Dr. Wrangel, had strongly requested that Wesley would send preachers to America, nearly twelve months before Boardman and Pilmoor were appointed; and, further, to show his friendly feeling towards Methodism he had preached in the Bristol chapel to a crowd of Methodists, and “gave,” says Wesley, “general satisfaction by the simplicity and life which accompanied his sound doctrine.” Dr. Wrangel had now returned to Sweden, and wrote the following to Wesley.

“STOCKHOLM, _May 5, 1770_.

“DEAR AND MUCH BELOVED BROTHER IN CHRIST JESUS,--I hope my heart
will ever be impressed with the warmest gratitude for the comfort I
enjoyed in your society. Though absent in body, I have often been
amongst you. When I left England, I arrived first at Gothenburg, and
lodged at the right reverend bishop, Dr. Lamberg’s, who was fellow
chaplain with me at court. I found him to be a great friend of yours.
He had heard you preach while on his travels in England. I sent him
your books, and he was well pleased with what he read, and desired me
to remember him to you.

“I have now been upwards of a year in Stockholm, and have officiated
as chaplain to the king, and at the same time preached in most of
the churches here, and I must say, with uncommon success. Whenever
I have preached the churches have been crowded. The king, on his
deathbed, made me a privy councillor. When I spoke to him of the way
of salvation, he received the word with gladness, and departed in
the Lord, to the great edification and comfort of the whole family.
His queen also, who is of English descent, is eminent in piety. This,
I hope, will be attended with good consequences in favour of religion.

“Last parliament session several clergymen, and amongst them four
bishops, agreed to my proposals concerning a society for propagating
practical religion. We intend, as soon as the plan is rightly fixed,
to enter into correspondence with several parts of the world; and we
expect the honour of your correspondence also.

“Providence is about to settle me in a station of great importance.
I am about to be named the almoner of his majesty. This office is of
importance to religion in general. Finally, my dear brother, let me
be included in all your prayers, and let me hear from you. I am, with
the greatest sincerity of affection, dear and reverend brother, your
most humble and affectionate brother and servant,

“C. M. WRANGEL.”[98]

Further correspondence followed, from which we learn that Dr. Wrangel himself, like Wesley, had been an open air preacher; but was now, not only the king of Sweden’s almoner, but “president of the consistory at court, and chaplain to all the royal orders.” He writes to Wesley in 1771: “Pray, dear sir, desire your society to intercede for me. I send you enclosed the letter of admission to our society. The rules, not yet being printed in English, we send in German. I sincerely thank you for the kind present of your sermons and books. I presented a copy of your sermon to the society, which was very acceptable. The society will have the life of Mr. Whitefield inserted in their Pastoral Collections, or account of the work of God abroad. I beg of you, sir, to remember me kindly to all your friends, not forgetting dear Kingswood. I have been greatly blessed in my labour amongst the great, and shall soon give a particular account of it.”[99]

Thus, as England had its Wesleys, America its Whitefield, and Wales its Howel Harris, Sweden also had its great reformer,--Dr. Wrangel, once a field preacher, but now a founder of a _quasi_ missionary society, and, as a faithful minister of Christ, bearing his testimony before kings and princes. Through Dr. Wrangel’s friendship with Wesley, Methodism had already, fifty-six years before its appointment of the Rev. Joseph Rayner Stephens to Stockholm, indirectly extended its influences to the Swedish capital, and had begun that wondrous work, which, fostered by the Rev. Dr. Scott, has issued in some of the most remarkable results recorded in mission history.

Wesley left Newcastle for London on the 11th of June, and, on his journey, preached for the most part thrice a day. At Whitby, one of his itinerants, of six years’ standing, “had set up for himself; his reasons for leaving the Methodists being--(1) that they went to church; (2) that they held perfection.” It is a remarkable fact, that sixty-five of the Whitby Methodists professed to be entirely sanctified. From Whitby, Wesley proceeded along the east coast to Robinhood’s Bay, Scarborough, Bridlington, and Hull.

From Hull, he made his way to Beverley, York, Tadcaster, Pateley, Otley, Yeadon, Heptonstall, Colne, Haworth, and Keighley. The Keighley, or Haworth, circuit, at this period, extended from Otley to Whitehaven, a distance of one hundred and twenty miles.[100] Yeadon has just been mentioned. Here James Rhodes began to hold Methodist prayer-meetings as early as 1747; and here his brother Joseph preached the first Methodist sermon in Yeadon, in the house of Judith Jackson. Here Thomas Mitchell, one of Wesley’s bravest itinerants, was trained; and here William Darney, while preaching, was attacked by a mob, led on by Reynolds, curate of Guiseley, had eggs thrown at his face, was dragged out of doors, and then stamped upon. Here Jonathan Maskew, by the same godless gang, had his clothes torn off his back, and, in a state of nakedness, was trailed over the rough stone pavement, till he was a mass of bruises. The bush burned, but it was not consumed. In 1766, the first chapel was erected; and now, in 1770, it had to be enlarged.

At the beginning of July, Wesley spent about a week at Leeds, and in the surrounding towns and villages. He visited the orphanage of Miss Bosanquet, who had removed to Cross Hall, Morley. Her friend Sarah Crosby, in a letter dated July 13, 1770, remarks: “Mr. Wesley left Leeds yesterday. I never heard him preach better, if so well. In every sermon he set forth ‘Christian perfection’ in the most beautiful light. Mr. Rankin, who travels with him, is a blessed man, and seems to fear no one’s face. I believe there has not been such a time at Leeds for many years.”[101]

From Leeds, Wesley proceeded to Doncaster, Epworth, Horncastle, Louth, and other places; and then, turning round, came back to Doncaster, and, from there, went to Rotherham, Sheffield, Derby, and Nottingham, preaching, not only there, but in many of the intervening villages and towns. He writes: “I preached at Bingham, and really admired the exquisite stupidity of the people. They gaped and stared, while I was speaking of death and judgment, as if they had never heard of such things before. And they were not helped by two surly, ill mannered clergymen, who seemed to be just as wise as themselves.”

In Loughborough market place, he preached to a congregation of some thousands, all of them still as night. This was his first sermon here; but, four years previous to this, some of his preachers had visited the town, and, among others, converted by their ministry, was Thomas Cook, who in humility, penitence, and self denial, was, even among the first Methodists, almost without an equal. For three months together, he would live on barley bread and water, often fasting, from even nourishment like that, for whole days together, and praying the whole night through. He invariably wore clothing of the coarsest material, and when urged to use an overcoat answered: “When you can assure me, that there is not a poor man destitute of _one_ coat, I may then perhaps wear _two_.” For ten years, he prayed for all with whom he happened to converse; and as he lived, so he died,--humble, holy, loving, and devout,--saying in answer to a question, and with his characteristic self abasement, “Oh no! no funeral sermon for _me_!”[102]

On Thursday, August 2, after a five months’ absence, Wesley got back to London; and, on August 7, met his conference; in reference to which, the following unpublished letter, addressed to Mr. Merryweather, at Yarm, is not without interest.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I have the credit of stationing the preachers;
but many of them go where they _will_ go, for all me. For instance,
I have marked down James Oddie and John Nelson for Yarm circuit the
ensuing year; yet, I am not certain that either of them will come.
They can give twenty reasons for going elsewhere. Mr. Murlin says, he
must be in London. ’Tis certain he has a mind to be there; therefore,
so it must be; for you know a man of fortune is master of his own
motions.

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

The difficulties of conference, in stationing preachers, are not novel.

There were now fifty Methodist circuits, one of which was America! There were a hundred and twenty itinerant preachers, and 29,406 members of society. Nearly £2,000 had been subscribed, during the year, towards defraying the chapel debts; and yet, in consequence of new erections, the aggregate debt was about the same. His chapels were becoming Wesley’s greatest burdens.[103] It was resolved, that, during the coming year, no new chapel should be built, nor any old one altered, unless the entire expenditure were raised; and a proposal was made to vest all the chapels in a general trust, consisting of persons chosen from among the Methodists throughout the kingdom. This would have been a disastrous mistake. Fortunately it was not adopted.

Kingswood school, as usual, was a trouble. It had been opened two-and-twenty years, and had had, during that period, eight classical masters, five of whom had obtained episcopal ordination, and now a sixth, Joseph Benson, had not only entered himself a graduate at Oxford, but had exchanged Kingswood for Trevecca. No wonder that Wesley, at the conference of 1770, asked, “How can we secure our masters?” The answer was, “Ask each, before he is received, Do you design to stay here? have you any thoughts of being ordained? have you any design to preach?” It is a fact worth noting, that, during the remainder of Wesley’s lifetime, there was only one more classical master who became an ordained clergyman, and that was Mr. Benson’s immediate successor, Isaac Twicross.[104]

Wesley found, that some of his preachers were still engaged in trade; and, hence, it was now agreed, that those who would not relinquish trading in cloth, hardware, pills, drops, and balsams, should be excluded from the brotherhood; but that, if any of them, like Thomas Hanby, John Oliver, and James Oddie, had a share in ships, there would be no objection to that.[105]

The conference of 1770, however, will always be memorable chiefly, if not entirely, for its doctrinal minutes. From the first, Whitefield, Howel Harris, and their friends, had been Calvinists; and so were many of the evangelical clergy, patronised by the Countess of Huntingdon, as Romaine, Newton, Venn, Berridge, Shirley, and others. At an early period of their history, the two Wesleys agreed, with the Methodist Calvinistic leaders, to avoid preaching on Calvinistic topics to the utmost extent possible. Charles Wesley afterwards endorsed the document with the words “Vain Agreement.” So indeed it was: in fact it could hardly be otherwise. Wesley, more than once, tried to meet his friends at a sort of halfway house; but the attempt was dangerous, it exposed Wesley to suspicion, and it issued in a failure. We have already seen that, in 1743, Wesley, for the purpose of terminating their disputes, made concessions to Whitefield, respecting unconditional election, irresistible grace, and final perseverance, which it was impossible to defend. Accordingly, at the conference held a few months afterwards, he honestly confessed, that he had “unawares leaned too much towards Calvinism;”[106] and proceeded to propound doctrines, which, in substance, were the same as those he now embodied in the theses of 1770. Twenty-six years had elapsed since then; but there was a striking resemblance between the two periods; and, substantially, the same cause for outspokenness. To say nothing more concerning Whitefield’s doctrines, it is important to bear in mind, that, in 1744, Moravianism, or rather Zinzendorfism, had turned the doctrine of justification by faith only into an antinomian channel; and now, in 1770, the same thing was practically being done by not a few who, at all events, were _called_ Methodists. Mr. Fletcher’s description of the antinomianism of the period is a frightful picture; and though not so applicable to the followers of Wesley as to those of the Countess of Huntingdon’s connexion, yet the former were not so free from the antinomian poison as they should have been. Hence the publication of Wesley’s theological theses; substantially the same as he had enunciated in 1744; but not so guardedly expressed. As they led to the longest and bitterest controversy in Wesley’s history, we subjoin them in their entirety.

“We said, in 1744, ‘We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.’
Wherein?

“1. With regard to _man’s faithfulness_. Our Lord himself taught us
to use the expression; and we ought never to be ashamed of it. We
ought steadily to assert, on His authority, that, if a man is not
‘faithful in the unrighteous mammon,’ God will not give _him the true
riches_.

“2. With regard to _working for life_. This also our Lord has
expressly commanded us: ‘Labour,’ εργαζεσθε, literally ‘Work’ ‘for
the meat that endureth to everlasting life.’ And, in fact, every
believer, till he comes to glory, works for as well as _from_ life.

“3. We have received it as a maxim, that ‘a man is to do nothing in
order to justification,’ Nothing can be more false. Whoever desires
to find favour with God should ‘cease from evil, and learn to do
well,’ Whoever repents should do ‘works meet for repentance,’ And if
this is not _in order_ to find favour, what does he do them for?

“Review the whole affair: 1. Who of us is _now_ accepted of God? He
that now believes in Christ with a loving and obedient heart.

“2. But who among those that never heard of Christ? He that feareth
God and worketh righteousness, according to the light he has.

“3. Is this the same with ‘he that is sincere’? Nearly, if not quite.

“4. Is not this ‘salvation by works’? Not by the _merit_ of works,
but by works as a _condition_.

“5. What have we been disputing about for these thirty years? I am
afraid, _about words_.

“6. As to _merit_ itself, of which we have been so dreadfully
afraid; we are rewarded ‘according to our works,’ yea, ‘because of
our works.’ How does this differ from, _for the sake of our works_?
And how differs this from _secundum merita operum_? as our works
_deserve_? Can you split this hair? I doubt I cannot.

“7. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn
from matter of fact. God does in fact justify those, who, by their
own confession, neither feared God nor wrought righteousness. Is
this an exception to the general rule? It is a doubt, God makes any
exception at all. But how are we sure, that the person in question
never did fear God and work righteousness? His own saying so is not
proof; for we know, how all that are convinced of sin undervalue
themselves in every respect.

“8. Does not talking of a justified or a sanctified _state_ tend to
mislead men? almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done
in one moment? Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleasing or
displeasing to God, ‘according to our works’;--according to the whole
of our inward tempers, and our outward behaviour.”

What was the result of these loosely worded propositions? The answer to this will extend over several years; but suffice it to say at present that the publication gave huge offence to the whole host of Calvinistic Methodists; and Lady Huntingdon declared, that whoever did not wholly disavow the theses should quit her college. Mr. Benson, her classical master, so far from disavowing, defended them, and hence sprung up a correspondence between Wesley and himself, from which the following are extracts.

“BRISTOL, _October 5, 1770_.

“DEAR JOSEPH,--I am glad you had the courage to speak your mind on
so critical an occasion. At all hazards, do so still; only with all
possible tenderness and respect. She is much devoted to God, and has
a thousand valuable and amiable qualities. There is no great fear
that I should be prejudiced against one whom I have intimately known
for these thirty years. And I know what is in man; therefore, I make
large allowance for human weaknesses. But what you say is exactly
the state of the case. They are ‘jealous of their authority.’ Truly,
there is no cause: _Longe mea discrepat illi et vox et ratio_. I
fear and shun, not desire, authority of any kind. Only when God
lays that burden upon me, I bear it, for His and the people’s sake.
‘Child,’ said my father to me when I was young, ‘you think to carry
everything by dint of argument; but you will find, by-and-by, how
very little is ever done in the world by clear reason.’ Very little
indeed! Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name
of reason. It is our part, by religion and reason, to counteract them
all we can. It is yours, in particular, to do all that in you lies to
soften the prejudices of those that are round about you, and to calm
the passions from which they spring. Blessed are the peacemakers!
Whatever I say, it will be all one. They will find fault, because
I say it. There is implicit envy at my power (so called), and a
jealousy rising therefrom. Hence prejudice in a thousand forms;
hence objections springing up like mushrooms. And while these causes
remain, they will spring up, whatever I can do or say. However, keep
thyself pure; and then there need be no strangeness between you and,
dear Joseph, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[107]

“LONDON, _November 30, 1770_.

“DEAR JOSEPH,--For several years, I have been convinced that I had
not done my duty with regard to that valuable woman; that I had not
told her what, I was thoroughly assured, no one else would dare to
do, and what I knew she would bear from no other person, but possibly
might bear from me. But, being unwilling to give her pain, I put it
off from time to time. At length, I did not dare to delay any longer,
lest death should call one of us hence. So I, at once, delivered
my own soul, by telling her all that was in my heart. It was my
business, my proper business, so to do; as none else either could or
would do it. Neither did I at all take too much upon me: I know the
office of a Christian minister. If she is not profited, it is her
own fault, not mine: I have done my duty, and I do not know there is
one charge in that letter which was either unjust, unimportant, or
aggravated; any more than that against the doggerel hymns, which are
equally an insult upon poetry and common sense.

“I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate brother,

JOHN WESLEY.”[108]

The above refers to a letter which Wesley had addressed to Lady Huntingdon; but which has never yet been published. Evidently it was faithful, and also unpalatable. It seems to have strengthened prejudices against him, instead of removing them. His position also was not improved by anti-Calvinian publications over which he had no control. Mr. William Mason, who had been one of Wesley’s classleaders, but had left him, and was now a magistrate of the county of Surrey, and resided at Rotherhithe Wall,[109] issued his “Axe laid to the Root of Antinomian Licentiousness; extracted from the works of Mr. Flavel.” 1770: 8vo, 36 pages. Another writer, signing himself “Academicus,” gave to the public a small octavo volume of 124 pages, entitled “The Church of England Vindicated from the Rigid Notions of Calvinism”; in which Sir Richard Hill is severely, perhaps abusively, flagellated for his virulent attack on Dr. Adams of Shrewsbury, and the Rev. William Romaine is charged with preaching a sermon which “shocked every serious and rational Christian that heard it.” All these incidents had to do with the lamentable anger and bitterness of the memorable Calvinian controversy which will soon demand attention.

The sessions of the conference of 1770 being ended, Wesley set out for Cornwall, where he spent the next three weeks. Returning to Bristol, he and his brother, at the beginning of October, agreed, at the request of the society, to administer to them the Lord’s supper every other Sunday; which arrangement, of course, rendered it necessary, that an ordained clergyman should reside at Bristol, or in its neighbourhood.

The rest of the year was occupied with his usual journeys to Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, and Kent. Poor Whitefield was dead; and Wesley, if the way was opened, was quite ready to take his place, by including America within the bounds of his vast Methodist circuit. Hence the following to Mrs. Marston, of Worcester.

“_December 14, 1770._

“MY DEAR SISTER,--If I live till spring, and should have a clear,
pressing call, I am as ready to embark for America, as for Ireland.
All places are alike to me: I am attached to none in particular.
Wherever the work of our Lord is to be carried on, _that_ is my place
for _to-day_. And we live only for to-day: it is not our part to take
thought for to-morrow.

“I am, dear Molly, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[110]

On Saturday, September 29, while on his way to Boston, in New England, Whitefield, at the importunity of the people, preached at Exeter, in the open air, a sermon nearly two hours long. At six o’clock next morning he was dead. A friend, addressing him just before he commenced his last sermon, said, “Sir, you are more fit to go to bed than to preach.” “True,” replied the dying evangelist; and then turning aside, he clasped his hands, and, looking up, said: “Lord Jesus, I am weary _in_ Thy work, but not _of_ Thy work.” Whitefield was buried, where he died, at Newburyport. Every mark of respect was shown to his remains. All the bells in the town tolled, and the ships in the harbour fired mourning guns, and hung their flags half-mast high. In Georgia, all the black cloth in the stores was bought up, and the church was hung with mourning; the governor and council met at the statehouse in habiliments of sorrow, and went in procession to hear a funeral sermon.

Whitefield intended to be interred in Tottenham Court chapel, and had told the congregation, that he should like the Wesley brothers to be interred beside him. “We will,” said he, “all lie together. You refuse them entrance here while living: they can do you no harm when they are dead.”[111] Whitefield’s wish was not realised; but, at length, Wesley was admitted to Whitefield’s pulpit.

The Rev. Mr. Joss announced in Tottenham Court chapel on November 11, that, on the sabbath following, Wesley would preach a sermon there on Whitefield’s death, as it had long ago been agreed between the two, that whichever survived the other should preach the deceased’s funeral discourse.[112] An immense multitude assembled. “It was,” says Wesley, “an awful season; all were as still as night.” On the same day, he preached again in Whitefield’s tabernacle in Moorfields. The hour appointed was half-past five; but the place was filled at three, and Wesley began at four. His text was the same at both places: “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!” Whitefield’s characteristics were described as consisting of “unparalleled zeal, indefatigable activity, tender heartedness to the afflicted, and charitableness toward the poor, the most generous friendship, nice and unblemished modesty, frankness and openness of conversation, unflinching courage, and steadiness in whatever he undertook for his Master’s sake.” Wesley then sketched the doctrines Whitefield preached, and concluded thus.

“These are the fundamental doctrines which he everywhere insisted
on; and may they not be summed up in two words,--the new birth, and
justification by faith? These let us insist upon with all boldness,
at all times, and in all places. Keep close to these good, old,
unfashionable doctrines, how many soever contradict and blaspheme.
Go on, my brethren, in the name of the Lord, and in the power of His
might. Let brother no more lift up sword against brother; rather put
ye on, as the elect of God, bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind,
brotherly kindness, gentleness, longsuffering, forbearing one another
in love. Let the time past suffice for strife, envy, contention;
for biting and devouring one another. O God, with Thee no word is
impossible! O that Thou wouldest cause the mantle of Thy prophet,
whom Thou hast taken up, now to fall on us that remain! Take away
from us all anger and wrath, and bitterness; all clamour and evil
speaking! Let Thy Spirit so rest upon us, that from this hour we may
be kind to each other, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as
God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven us!”

Well did such sentiments harmonise with the spirit and the life of Wesley’s old and faithful friend; and mournful is the fact, that they were so soon utterly ignored by the party of which Whitefield had been the chief. No sooner was Wesley’s sermon preached and published, than it was attacked, because he had omitted to mention the election and final perseverance of the saints. His doctrines of “the new birth and justification by faith” were a defective, precarious scheme, and abortive as to saving purposes; because, according to his tenets, a man may be justified by faith, and be born again, and yet never enjoy eternal life, unless he does more for himself, to make his salvation effectual, than has been done for him by the blood and righteousness of Christ.[113]

Whitefield bequeathed his orphan house estate in Georgia, with all its “buildings, lands, and negroes,” “to that elect lady, that mother in Israel, that mirror of true and undefiled religion, the Right Honourable Selina, Countess Dowager of Huntingdon.” His two chapels in London, with his books and furniture in the Tabernacle house, were left to his “worthy, trusty, tried friends, Messrs. Daniel West and Robert Keen.” Within the last three years, he had become possessed, by legacies, of about £1700, including £700 accruing to him at his wife’s decease; and this amount he bequeathed to a whole host of friends, the largest share falling to the Countess of Huntingdon; while, in an addendum to his will, he says: “I also leave a mourning ring to my honoured and dear friends and disinterested fellow labourers, the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, in token of my indissoluble union with them, in heart and Christian affection, notwithstanding our differences in judgment about some particular points of doctrine. Grace be with all them, of whatever denomination, that love our Lord Jesus, our common Lord, in sincerity.”[114]

Thus died one of the greatest Christian orators that ever lived,--a man who, though often heavily afflicted, preached, in four-and-thirty years, upwards of eighteen thousand sermons,[115] many of them in the open air, and often to enormous crowds, and in the teeth of brutal persecution.[116]

Space forbids enlargement; but, perhaps, two unpublished letters, belonging to this period, may be welcome. The first was addressed to Matthew Lowes, and the second to Miss Foard, who afterwards became Mrs. Thornton, of 86, Blackman Street, Southwark.

“LONDON, _October 13, 1770_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Health you shall have, if health be best; if not,
sickness will be a greater blessing. I am glad you have Dr. Wilson
near. A more skilful man, I suppose, is not in England. If you
should continue weak, (as I did from November to March,) good is the
will of the Lord. You are not a superannuated preacher: but you are a
supernumerary. I believe one of your boys is rejoicing in the love of
God.

“I am, with love to sister Lowes, dear Matthew, your affectionate
brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

“_December 29, 1770._

“MY DEAR SISTER,--When we had an opportunity of spending a day or two
together, you convinced me that you fear and love God, and desire
to enjoy all His promises. And I found you less prejudiced, than I
expected, against the doctrine of Christian perfection. I only want
you to experience this: to be ‘all faith, all gentleness, all love.’
Labour to be wise, and yet simple! To steer between the extremes
of neglecting to cultivate your understanding, which is right; and
_leaning_ to it, which is fatally wrong. And be free and open with,
my dear Nancy, your affectionate brother,

“J. WESLEY.”

Little more, in reference to 1770, remains to be related. To a great extent, mob violence was ended; but Wesley was still the target at which literary malice shot its shafts. The aid of the Muses was again invoked, and some unknown poetaster issued an octavo pamphlet of 39 pages, entitled, “The Perfections of God,--a standing Rule to try all Doctrines and Experience. A Poem humbly offered to the consideration of Mr. John Wesley and his followers.” This was evidently the production of one of his Calvinistic friends. Hence the following--

“Shall Wesley sow his hurtful tares,
And scatter round a thousand snares,
Telling how God from wrath may turn,
And love the soul He thought to burn,
And how again His mind may move,
To hate, where He has vowed to love,
How all mankind He fain would save,
Yet longs for what He cannot have,
Industrious thus to sound abroad
A disappointed, changing God?”

Again, in reference to the “Hymn on God’s Everlasting Love,” we have the following choice _morceau_.

“Blush Wesley, blush, be filled with shame,
Doom thy vile poem to the flame;
What tongue thy horrid crime can tell?
Put saints to sing the song of hell!
Haste hence to Rome, thy proper place;
Why should we share in thy disgrace?
We need no greater proof to see,
Thy blasphemies with hers agree.”

In addition to the above, there was published a sermon of 32 pages, 8vo, entitled “Methodistical Deceit: a Sermon preached in the parish church of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, by Haddon Smith, curate of the said church.”

It is right to say that Mr. Smith’s discourse is levelled against the Calvinistic Methodists, of whom, however, he unfortunately speaks as though they were all the Methodists that existed. Remembering the recent origin of the Methodist movement, and the unparalleled opposition it had been its lot to encounter, it is somewhat amusing to find the Bethnal Green curate describing the Methodists as “the _overbearing_ sect”; perhaps it was a _lapsus linguæ_; or perhaps the Rev. Mr. Smith began to see, that crushing the system with the iron heel of persecution only diffused its fragrance wider; and that, after all, Methodism, instead of dying, was every year more vigorous than ever. Mr. Smith was severely handled in a pamphlet of 40 pages, with the title, “Letters to the Rev. Mr. Haddon Smith, occasioned by his _Curious_ Sermon entitled Methodistical Deceit; by Philalethes.”

Wesley’s own publications, in 1770, were as follows.

1. “An Extract from Dr. Young’s Night Thoughts, on Life, Death, and Immortality.” 12mo, 241 pages. Wesley professed to have left out all the lines in Young, which he “apprehended to be either childish, or flat, or turgid, or obscure”; and appended brief explanations of the words and phrases, which he thought would be scarcely understood by unlearned readers.

2. “Minutes of several Conversations between the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley and others.” 8vo, 60 pages. This was a new and enlarged edition of the minutes published in 1763, embracing minutes of all the conferences held from that period to the year 1770.

3. “A Sermon on the Death of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield.” 8vo, 32 pages.

4. “Free Thoughts on the Present State of Public Affairs.” 8vo, 47 pages. This was published in the midst of the terrible national confusion, produced by the dissolute and unprincipled anarchist,--the infamous John Wilkes. The pamphlet has been already noticed in a previous chapter.[117]

5. It was Wesley’s purpose to leave Augustus Toplady in the hands of Walter Sellon. He did this, in one respect, but not in another. For instance, he published a small 12mo tract of eight pages, with the title, “What is an Arminian?” He writes: “To say, ‘this man is an Arminian,’ has the same effect on many hearers as to say, ‘this is a mad dog.’ It puts them into a fright at once; they run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.” He then proceeds to show, that the differences between an Arminian and a Calvinist may all be reduced to a single sentence,--the Calvinist believes that God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, and no others; that these cannot resist the saving grace that He imparts; and that they cannot finally fall from that grace, which they are not able to resist. An Arminian holds doctrines just the opposite of these. Wesley concludes his tract by advising both Arminian and Calvinist preachers never to use, either in public or private, the word “Calvinist,” or “Arminian,” as a term of reproach, seeing this was neither better nor worse than calling names,--a practice as inconsistent with good sense and good manners as it is with Christianity itself.

6. Besides this, Wesley issued another tract, entitled, “The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted. By the Rev. Mr. A.---- T----.” 12mo, 12 pages. This was a faithful abridgment of Toplady’s translation of Zanchius, without note or comment, except a short advertisement at the beginning, and a paragraph at the end, both of which we give verbatim.

“Advertisement.--It is granted, that the ensuing tract is, in good
measure, a translation. Nevertheless, considering the unparalleled
modesty and self diffidence of the young translator, and the
tenderness wherewith he treats his opponents, it may well pass for
an original.”

This was stinging; especially when compared with the concluding paragraph--

“The sum of all is this: One in twenty (suppose) of mankind are
elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved,
do what they will; the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.
Reader, believe this, or be damned. Witness my hand.

“A---- T----.”

This was the whole of Wesley’s offending. His tract, we again affirm, was an honest, faithful abridgment of Toplady’s pretended translation; but the truth is, by divesting the work of Toplady of its cloudy verbiage, the Calvinistic theory was presented in a form enough to horrify every man of reason and religion. What was the result? Wesley’s Abridgment was issued in the month of March, 1770. Poor Toplady seems to have become insane with anger; and, before the same month expired, had completed his answer, which was published forthwith, under the title of “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley: relative to his pretended Abridgment of Zanchius on Predestination.” 8vo, 30 pages. The most charitable excuse for this angry writer is, that he had, in a paroxysm of mortified vanity, lost his balance, and was now _non compos mentis_. Wesley had honestly abridged his work; and had written the two brief paragraphs already quoted. That was all: and, for this, the irate young man of thirty, who in former years had written to Wesley in terms of the most filial respect, now tells him that, “for more than thirty years past he has been endeavouring to palm on his credulous followers his pernicious doctrines, with all the sophistry of a jesuit, and the dictatorial authority of a pope.” Wesley is charged with acting “the ignoble part of a lurking, sly assassin.” He is exhorted to “renounce the low, serpentine cunning, which puts him on falsifying what he finds himself unable to refute; to dismiss those dirty subterfuges (the last resources of mean, malicious impotence), which degrade the man of parts into a lying sophister, and sink a divine into the level of an oyster woman.” Wesley is told, “that it once depended on the toss of a shilling whether he should be a Calvinist or an Arminian. Tails fell uppermost, and he resolved to be an universalist.” The elect Toplady continues: “possessed of more than serpentine elability, _you_ cast _your_ slough, not once a year, but, almost, once an hour. Hence, your innumerable _inconsistencies_, and flagrant _self contradictions_; the _jarring_ of your principles, and the _incoherence_ of your religious system. Somewhat like the necromantic soup in the tragedy of ‘Macbeth,’ your doctrines may be stirred into a chaotic jumble, but witchcraft itself would strive in vain to bring them into coalition.” The gentlemanly polemic then informs Wesley, that he shall not hold himself obliged to again enter the lists with him, if he “descends to his customary recourse of false quotations, despicable invective, and unsupported dogmatisms. An opponent,” continues this model of polite behaviour, “an opponent, who thinks to add weight to his arguments by scurrility and abuse, resembles the insane person who rolled himself in the mud, in order to make himself fine. I would no more enter into a formal controversy with such a scribbler, than I would contend, for the wall, with a chimney sweeper.”

Is it surprising that, after this, Calvinism was discussed at the conference of 1770; and that, just before it commenced its sittings, Wesley wrote the following unpublished letter to his friend, Mr. Merryweather, at Yarm?

“YORK, _June 24, 1770_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Augustus Toplady I know well; but I do not
fight with chimney sweepers. He is too dirty a writer for me to
meddle with; I should only foul my fingers. I read his title page,
and troubled myself no farther. I leave him to Mr. Sellon. He cannot
be in better hands.

“As long as you are seeking and expecting to love God with all your
heart, so long your soul will live.

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

FOOTNOTES:

[79] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 46.

[80] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 387.

[81] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 375.

[82] Ibid. p. 350.

[83] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 148.

[84] Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii.

[85] _Methodist Magazine_, 1784, p. 224.

[86] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 345.

[87] Thomas Dixon’s manuscript journal.

[88] “Life of Lady Glenorchy,” p. 155.

[89] One of the ministers of the Tolbooth church,--a man of
great abilities and of polished manners, but an avowed
Calvinist of the highest order.--(Lady Glenorchy’s
Life, p. 132.)

[90] “Life of Lady Glenorchy,” p. 156.

[91] _Methodist Magazine_, 1784, p. 279.

[92] “Life of Lady Glenorchy,” pp. 163, 226.

[93] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 157.

[94] Lady Glenorchy’s Life, p. 223.

[95] Ibid. p. 239.

[96] _Methodist Magazine_, 1816, p. 730.

[97] _Methodist Magazine_, 1851, p. 837.

[98] _Methodist Magazine_, 1784, p. 330.

[99] Ibid. 1784, p. 614.

[100] _Methodist Magazine_, 1814, p. 166.

[101] Manuscript.

[102] _Methodist Magazine_, 1807, p. 242.

[103] The following hitherto unpublished letter was
addressed to Matthew Lowes, and refers both to
circuit, and connexional chapel, debts.

“LONDON, _March 2, 1770_.
“DEAR MATTHEW,--The way you propose for clearing
the circuit is, I think, the very best which can be
devised. Only let your fellow labourers second _you
heartily_, and the thing will be done.

“Four or five circuits exerted themselves nobly.
Had all the rest done the same our burden would
have been quite removed. Well, _we_ will fight till
we die.
“I am, etc., J. WESLEY.”

[104] Myles’s History.

[105] This had become a matter of grave importance. Matthew
Lowes, one of Wesley’s most useful itinerants,
states, in his unpublished Autobiography, that though
the trading of the preachers, in cloth, groceries,
hardware, etc., was of considerable benefit to
themselves and their families, it was strongly
objected to by the people: (1) because it interfered
with the businesses of Methodists in the places
which the preachers visited; and (2) because it was
deemed inconsistent for a minister of the word of
God to be engaged in any kind of trade whatever.
Lowes’ trading was chiefly confined to the sale of
a valuable balsam, of which he himself was the sole
maker and vendor; and which, while of great use to
the afflicted, and a source of income to the poor
itinerant, did not in the least interfere with the
business of others; but even Lowes was obliged to
give up the itinerancy, when, for the sake of the
suffering, and, for the benefit of his numerous
family, he refused to give up his balsam. In 1771,
he was compelled to retire from the itinerant work,
partly for the reason just mentioned, and partly on
the ground of health, and, for about a quarter of
a century afterwards, acted as a local preacher at
Newcastle on Tyne, and supported himself, his wife,
and his children, chiefly by the sale of his useful
medicine. Three months after his retirement, Wesley
wrote to him the following, now for the first time
published.

“NORWICH, _November 10, 1771_.
“DEAR MATTHEW,--You should do all you can;
otherwise want of exercise will not lessen, but
increase your disorder. Certainly there is no
objection to your making balsam, while you are not
considered as a travelling preacher. I am, with
love to sister Lowes, your affectionate brother,
“J. WESLEY.”

[106] Minutes, 1744.

[107] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 385.

[108] Ibid. p. 387.

[109] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 364.

[110] _Methodist Magazine_, 1826, p. 752.

[111] J. Pawson’s manuscripts.

[112] _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, Nov. 16, 1770.

[113] _Gospel Magazine_, 1771, p. 39.

[114] _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, 1771, pp. 127, 139.

[115] _Gospel Magazine_, 1776, p. 443.

[116] Poor Whitefield was pelted even after he was dead.
In the _Annual Register_, for 1770, it is wickedly
stated, that his last visit to America was owing “to
an attachment to a woman, by whom he had a child
while his wife was living;” and it is added, that
“this child was the first infant ever entered into
his orphan house in Georgia”!

[117] Wesley’s “Free Thoughts” were sharply criticised by
an able writer, in 1771, in an octavo pamphlet of 58
pages, with the title of “A Letter to the Rev. Mr.
John Wesley; in answer to his late pamphlet, entitled
‘Free Thoughts on the Present State of Public
Affairs.’”

1771.
Age 68

The year 1771 was one of unceasing conflict. The first two months, as usual, were spent in London, during which Wesley’s wife, in one of her insane piques, and without assigning the slightest reason, unceremoniously left his house in London, and started for her own in Pilgrim Street, Newcastle. It was on this occasion that Wesley wrote the words so often quoted: “_Non eam reliqui; non dimisi; non revocabo_.”

On the 3rd of March, Wesley set out for Ireland, where he laboured for the next few months.

Affairs in Scotland were a source of increasing anxiety. Hence the following letter to Lady Maxwell, in reference to Alexander McNab, one of his itinerants, and the Rev. Richard De Courcy, who was about to become minister in Lady Glenorchy’s chapel, Edinburgh.

“LONDON, _January 24, 1771_.

“MY DEAR LADY,--Although Mr. McNab is quite clear as to justification
by faith, and is, in general, a sound and good preacher, yet, I
fear, he is not clear of blame in this. He is too warm and impatient
of contradiction, otherwise he must be lost to all common sense,
to preach against final perseverance in Scotland. From the first
hour that I entered the kingdom, it was a sacred rule with me
never to preach on any controverted point,--at least, _not in a
controversial way_. Any one may see that this is only to put a sword
into our enemies’ hands. It is the direct way to increase all their
prejudices, and to make all our labours fruitless.

“You will shortly have a trial of another kind. Mr. De Courcy
purposes to set out for Edinburgh in a few days. He was from a
child a member of our societies in the south of Ireland. There he
received remission of sins, and was, for some time, groaning for full
redemption. But when he came to Dublin the Philistines were upon
him, and soon prevailed over him. Quickly, he was convinced that
‘there is no perfection,’ and that ‘all things depend on _absolute
and unchangeable decrees_.’ At first, he was exceedingly warm upon
these heads; now, he is far more calm. His natural temper, I think,
is good; he is open, friendly, and generous. He has also a good
understanding, and is not unacquainted with learning, though not
deeply versed therein. He has no disagreeable person, a pleasing
address, and is a lively as well as sensible preacher. Now, when you
add to this that he is quite new, and very young, you may judge how
he will be admired and caressed. How will a raw, inexperienced youth
be able to encounter this? If there be not the greatest of miracles
to preserve him, will it not turn his brain? And may he not then do
far more hurt than either Mr. W---- or Mr. T---- did? Will he not
prevent your friend from going on to perfection? Nay, may he not
shake you also? At present, indeed, he is in an exceedingly loving
spirit. But will that continue long? There will be danger on the one
hand if it does; there will be danger on the other if it does not.

“It does not appear, that any great change has been wrought in our
neighbours by Mr. Whitefield’s death. He had fixed the prejudice
so deep, that even he himself was not able to remove it; yet, our
congregations have increased exceedingly, and the work of God
increases on every side. I am glad you use more exercise. It is good
for both body and soul. As soon as Mr. De Courcy is come, I shall
be glad to hear how the prospect opens. You will then need a larger
share of the wisdom from above; and I trust you will write with all
openness to, my dear lady, your ever affectionate servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[118]