Chapter IX: Part 9

“DEAR BROTHER,--Duty is all I consider. Trouble and reproach I value
not. And I am by no means clear, that I can, with a good conscience,
throw away what I think the providence of God has put into my hands.
Were it not for the chancery suit, I should not hesitate a moment.

“My complaint increases by slow degrees, much the same as before. It
seems, I am likely to need a surgeon every nine or ten weeks. Mr.
Hey, of Leeds, vehemently advises me, never to attempt what they call
a radical cure.

“I never said a word of ‘publishing it after my death.’[207] I
judged it my duty to publish it now; and I have as good a right to
believe one way as any man has to believe another. I was glad of
an opportunity of declaring myself on the head. I beg Hugh Bold to
let me think as well as himself; and to believe my judgment will go
as far as his. I have no doubt of the substance, both of Glanvil’s
and Cotton Mather’s narratives.[208] Therefore, in this point, you
that are otherwise minded, bear with me. _Veniam petimusque damusque
vicissim._ Remember, I am, upon full consideration, and seventy
years’ experience, just as obstinate in my opinion as you in yours.
Do not you think, the disturbances in my father’s house were a Cock
Lane story? Peace be with you and yours!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[209]

Such was Wesley’s reply to his brother’s remonstrance against the publication of his opinions on witchcraft and apparitions. The next letter, addressed to a lady in Ireland, refers to two important matters,--the Calvinian controversy, and Wesley’s method of dealing with contumacious Methodists.

“LEEDS, _May 2, 1774_.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--Until Mr. Hill and his associates puzzled the
cause, it was as plain as plain could be. The Methodists always
held, and have declared a thousand times, the death of Christ is the
meritorious cause of our salvation; that is, of pardon, holiness, and
glory: loving, obedient faith is the condition of glory. This Mr.
Fletcher has so illustrated and confirmed, as, I think, scarcely any
one has done before since the apostles.

“When Mr. W. wrote me a vehement letter concerning the abuse he had
received from the young men in Limerick, and his determination to put
them all out of society, if they did not acknowledge their fault, I
much wondered what could be the matter, and only wrote him word, ‘I
never put any out of our society for anything they say of me.’

“Your ever affectionate

“JOHN WESLEY.”[210]

The ensuing letters have relation to a book, an abridgment of which Wesley afterwards published, and concerning which some of his admirers have felt puzzled, and others pained. This is not the place for a disquisition on novels and novel reading; but it is a curious fact, that Wesley, the earnest and untiring evangelist, found time, not only to read a novel, but to print it.

Henry Brooke, Esq., an Irish barrister, was the son of an Irish rector; and, besides a number of plays and poems, in four volumes, 8vo, was the author of two novels, “The Fool of Quality,” and “Juliet Grenville.”[211] His nephew, Henry, was a devoted Methodist, a friend of Fletcher, and one of Wesley’s correspondents. “The Fool of Quality” was first published, in five vols., in 1766, and was thus criticised in the _Monthly Review_ of that period. “A performance enriched by genius, enlivened by fancy, bewildered with enthusiasm, and overrun with the visionary jargon of fanaticism. We wish the author would give us an abridgment, cleared from the sanctimonious rubbish by which its beauties are so much obscured. In its present state, it will be a favourite only with Behmenites, Herrnhutters, Methodists, Hutchinsonians, and some of the Roman Catholics.”

This was the book which Wesley read, and concerning which he wrote to Henry Brooke, the author’s nephew.

“HULL, _July 8, 1774_.

“DEAR HARRY,--When I read over, in Ireland, ‘The Fool of Quality,’ I
could not but observe the design of it, to promote the religion of
the heart, and that it was well calculated to answer that design;
the same thing I observed, a week or two ago, concerning ‘Juliet
Grenville.’ Yet, there seemed to me to be a few passages, both in
the one and the other, which might be altered for the better; I do
not mean, so much with regard to the sentiments, which are generally
very just, as with regard to the structure of the story, which seemed
here and there to be not quite clear. I had, at first, a thought of
writing to Mr. Brooke himself, but I did not know whether I might
take the liberty. Few authors will thank you, for imagining you are
able to correct their works. But, if he could bear it, and thinks
it would be of any use, I would give another reading to both these
works, and send him my thoughts without reserve, just as they occur.
I am, etc.,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[212]

The answer to this was as follows.

“DUBLIN, _August 6, 1774_.

“REVEREND SIR,--My uncle’s health is greatly impaired.[213] A kind of
vertigo continues not only to enfeeble his limbs, but to interrupt
his study and writing. However, I trust, as his outward man decays,
his inward man is renewed daily.

“He is deeply sensible of your very kind offer, and most cordially
embraces it. He has desired me to express the warmth of his gratitude
in the strongest terms, and says he most cheerfully yields the
volumes you mention, to your superior judgment, to prune, erase, and
alter as you please. He only wishes, they could have had your eye
before they appeared in public. But it is not yet too late. A second
edition will appear with great advantage, when they have undergone
so kind a revisal. But he is apprehensive, your time is so precious,
that it may be too great an intrusion upon it, unless made a work of
leisure and opportunity. Yet, as you have proffered it, he will not
give up the privilege; but hopes leisure may be found for so friendly
and generous a work.

“I am, reverend sir, your most affectionate friend and brother,

“H. BROOKE.”[214]

Perhaps there have been published as many portraits of Wesley as of any man that ever lived. The year 1774 was, in this respect, remarkable. At its commencement, Wesley writes: “I was desired by Mrs. Wright, of New York, to let her take my effigy in waxwork. She has that of Mr. Whitefield and many others; but none of them, I think, comes up to a well drawn picture.” Query, what has become of this waxwork effigy? Besides the waxwork figure, there were others. From the manuscript letters of Samuel Bardsley, we learn that, already, the potters of Staffordshire had printed his likeness on their crockery; and Mr. Voyes of Corbridge had had it engraved on the seals he sold.

These are little facts; but they indicate Wesley’s growing popularity. The people ask for the portraits of public men only. A man must be notorious before the masses wish to see him. Thus it was in the case of Wesley. For five-and-thirty years, he had been before the public. No man had been more bitterly persecuted by his enemies; and no man was more ardently beloved by his friends. His fame had spread throughout the three kingdoms; and all sorts of artists began to use him for their own advantage.

Wesley was not fond of sitting for his portrait, though this was often done. On one occasion, while dining with a friend, in the neighbourhood of Blackfriars, an eminent artist offered him ten guineas as a bribe, to induce him to allow a cast of his face to be taken. “No,” said Wesley, “keep your money, and urge me no further.” “Sir,” said the artist, “I will not detain you more than three minutes.” Wesley consented; the cast was taken; and so also was the money: but no sooner was Wesley out of doors, than he saw an agitated crowd, surrounding an auctioneer, who was about to sell, not only the furniture of a poor debtor, but the bed upon which he was actually dying. In an instant, Wesley rushed into the throng, seized the arm of the auctioneer, and cried, “What’s the debt?” “Ten guineas,” was the answer. “Take it,” said Wesley, “and let the poor man have his furniture again;” and, then turning to John Broadbent, who was with him, he quietly observed, “Brother Broadbent, I see why God sent me these ten guineas.”[215]

Methodism in America has been mentioned. The work there was now greatly growing. Twelve months before, Wesley had sent out one of his favourite preachers, Thomas Rankin, to act as a sort of generalissimo. Perhaps a wiser selection might have been made. At all events, Rankin’s honest hearted brusqueness sometimes gave offence. Boardman and Pilmoor, and Asbury, were all predecessors in point of time; but they and four other itinerants had now to recognise Rankin as their chief. In age and ministerial standing, they were nearly equal; but Rankin, by Wesley’s favour, had the preeminence. Asbury winced, but was too good a man to raise rebellion. He writes: “1774, May 25--Our conference began at Philadelphia. The overbearing spirit of a certain person had excited my fears. My judgment was stubbornly opposed for a while, and, at last, submitted to. But it is my duty to bear all things with a meek and patient spirit. Our conference was attended with great power, and all acquiesced in the future stations of the preachers. If I were not deeply conscious of the truth and goodness of the cause in which I am engaged, I should, by no means, stay here. Lord, what a world is this! yea, what a religious world!”[216]

Within two years, the entire band were scattered by the colonial rebellion, and apostolic Asbury was the only one remaining. Meanwhile, Rankin sent to Wesley an account of the first Methodist conference in America, and Wesley replied to him as follows.

“EPWORTH, _July 21, 1774_.

“DEAR TOMMY,--In yours of May the 30th, you give me an agreeable
account of your little conference in Philadelphia. I think G.
Shadford and you desire no novelties, but love good old Methodist
discipline and doctrine. I have been lately thinking a good deal on
one point, wherein, perhaps, we have all been wanting. We have not
made it a rule, as soon as ever persons were justified, to remind
them of going on to perfection. Whereas, this is the very time
preferable to all others. They have then the simplicity of little
children; and they are fervent in spirit, ready to cut off the right
hand, or to pluck out the right eye. But, if we once suffer this
fervour to subside, we shall find it hard enough to bring them again
to this point.

“I am, etc.,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[217]

Before passing from America, it is worth recording, that it was in the year 1774 that Methodism was introduced into another part of Newfoundland. In the month of March in that year, John Hoskins, a London Methodist, and his son, a lad of about sixteen years of age, embarked at Poole in Dorsetshire, and landed in Newfoundland five weeks afterwards. The intention of Hoskins was to work there till he had obtained money enough to take him to New England, where he wished to begin a school. He landed at Trinity penniless, and utterly unknown, and found himself in a “rocky, desolate country,” and surrounded by a “few, low, mean huts, built of wood.” He entered one to make inquiries as to how he might obtain subsistence; the good woman of the hut gave him some seal and bread to eat; and the minister of the place advised him to open a school at Old Perlican, where about fifty families resided. Away he went, a distance of one-and-twenty miles; the people received him gladly; and his school was opened. Here there was literally no religious worship whatever; but the schoolmaster began to read the Church prayers, and Wesley’s sermons; the people standing at a distance and looking at him as if he had been a monster. He then proceeded to give extempore exhortations; a few began to be serious; some helped him to sing; sixteen became penitent, and were formed into a class; and two or three soon found peace with God. Just at this juncture, Mr. Arthur Thomy, an Irish merchant, visited the place on business, and preached twice or thrice, confirming what Hoskins had said, and the society increased to forty members, and the _believers_ to eight.

Thus was Methodism begun at Old Perlican. It soon spread. Island Cove had a society of thirty, and was the first to build a chapel. At Harbourgrace and Carbonear, where Mr. Coughlan had laboured, Calvinism and antinomianism were rampant, and Methodism had dwindled to almost nothing. The movement at Old Perlican was a new beginning; and Hoskins, the schoolmaster, and Thomy, the Irish merchant, were the chief actors. Thomy often travelled as far as fifty miles to preach; and sometimes met with brutal treatment. The Irish were his bitterest enemies, and, on one occasion, came with their shillalahs to kill him. Hoskins, also, had his share of persecution. Once he was daubed all over with tar, and was further threatened to be stuck with feathers. The work, however, prospered; and, in 1785, _Newfoundland_ became one of the _circuits_ in Wesley’s minutes.

The conference, at Bristol, was opened on August 9. Wesley writes: “The conference, which begun and ended in love, fully employed me on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; and we observed Friday, 12th, as a day of fasting and prayer for the success of the gospel.”

Thomas Taylor, who was present, says: “August 9--Most of the day was taken up in temporal matters, which is dry business. August 10--This morning our characters were examined, and that closely. The afternoon was chiefly spent in taking in new preachers. In the evening, Mr. Wesley gave us but an indifferent sermon. August 11--We spent this day pretty profitably in considering some things of importance; especially how to prevent levity, idleness, and evil speaking. At night, Mr. Wesley gave us a profitable discourse on brotherly love.”[218]

Miss March, in an unpublished letter, dated August 23, 1774, observes:

“Our conference is now ended. I promised myself a jubilee, a
time of holy rejoicing, but found it rather a season of hurry
and dissipation. Mr. Wesley opened the conference with a plan of
great and necessary business. His preaching was chiefly to the
preachers,--of the searching, reproving kind. The preachers said
there was much concord amongst them, and one observed, Mr. Wesley
seemed to do all the business himself. Friday was the best time, and
the evening sermon, from Matthew vii. 24, was the prettiest and most
simple discourse I ever heard on that text. Mr. Wesley left us on
Monday for Wales. When he first came he looked worn down with care
and sorrow; but he left us well and lively.”

It was at this conference that Samuel Bradburn and James Rogers were admitted on trial; and that Joseph Pilmoor, for some reason, deserted Thomas Rankin in America, and desisted from travelling.

No sooner was the conference over, than Wesley again set out on his evangelistic travels. The next twelve days were spent in Wales. He returned to Bristol for the Sunday services on August 28; and, on the day following, started off to Cornwall. He came back to Bristol on September 9, and employed the next month in the city and its neighbourhood. Being the time of a parliamentary election, he met the Bristol society, and advised those of them who had votes:--“1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy. 2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against. 3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.”

Wesley came to London on October 15, and spent the remainder of the year in his usual winter journeys.

Norwich was again a trouble. He writes: “Never was a poor society so neglected as this has been for the year past. The morning preaching was at an end; the bands suffered all to fall in pieces; and no care at all taken of the classes, so that, whether they met or not, it was all one; going to church and sacrament were forgotten; and the people rambled hither and thither as they listed. I met the society, and told them plain, I was resolved to have a regular society or none. I then read the rules, and desired every one to consider whether he was willing to walk by these rules or no. Those, in particular, of meeting their class every week, unless hindered by distance or sickness; and being constant at church and sacrament. I desired those who were so minded to meet me the next night, and the rest to stay away. The next night we had far the greater part. I spoke to every leader, concerning every one under his care, and put out every person whom they could not recommend to me. After this was done, out of 204 members, 174 remained. And these points shall be carried, if only fifty remain in society.”

On his return to London, he visited Ely and St. Ives, and met with an adventure which was strange, even in his experience. Approaching Ely, Mr. Dancer met him with a chaise. For a mile and a half, the road was inundated. “How must foot people come to Ely?” he asked. “Why,” replied simple Mr. Dancer, “they must wade.” The farther he went, the more difficult and dangerous was the way. Between Ely and St. Ives, snow fell in great abundance, and, at considerable peril, Wesley’s borrowed chaise was piloted by Mr. Tubbs, who trudged along, at the horse’s head, and, up to his knees in mud and water, naively said, “We fen men don’t mind a little dirt.” For four miles, Wesley was dragged through this “slough of despond,” when further progress, for the vehicle, became impossible. He tried to proceed on horseback; but this also was soon impracticable, the whole district being one wide waste of water. “Here, therefore,” says he, “I procured a boat, full twice as large as a kneading trough. I was at one end, and a boy at the other, who paddled me safe to Erith; where Miss L---- waited for me with another chaise, which brought me safe to St. Ives.”

Wesley concluded the year’s itinerary thus: “December 25--During the twelve festival days, we had the Lord’s supper daily; a little emblem of the primitive church.”

Was this a lingering remnant of Wesley’s high churchism? What would be said of the Methodists of the present day, were they to imitate the example of their founder?

The Calvinian controversy still proceeded. The _Gospel Magazine_ told its readers, that Arminianism “is a system founded in ignorance, supported by pride, and will end in delusion.” The Hon. and Rev. W. B. Cadogan, a young man of twenty-three, and, though not yet ordained, already presented to the living of St. Giles, Reading, burned Wesley’s works in his kitchen, saying “he was determined to form his opinions from the Bible alone.”[219] The two Hills were silent, with the exception of Mr. Richard’s “Lash at Enthusiasm, in a Dialogue founded upon real Facts.” The principal Calvinistic work, published at this period, was Toplady’s “Historic Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England,” in two volumes, 8vo, with an Introduction, most lamentably virulent. The subject is repulsive; but, rightly to understand Wesley’s provocations and patience, it is necessary to give extracts from this scandalous production of a conceited but clever man, who acted as though the Almighty had elected him to revile his neighbours, without either sense or reason.

“Mr. John Wesley and Mr. Walter Sellon are a pair of insignificant adversaries, who have arraigned, tried, and condemned the Church of England. In general, they are so excessively scurrilous and abusive, that contending with them resembles fighting with chimney sweepers, or bathing in a mud pool.” “Mr. Walter Sellon is Mr. John Wesley’s retainer general and whitewasher in ordinary. Arminianism is their mutual Dulcinea del Toboso. High mounted on Pine’s Rosinante, forth sallies Mr. John from Wine Street, Bristol, brandishing his reed, and vowing vengeance against all, who will not fall down and worship the Dutch image which he has set up. With an almost equal plenitude of zeal and prowess, forth trots Mr. Walter from Ave Maria Lane, low mounted on Cabe’s halting dapple. The knight and the squire having met at the rendezvous appointed, the former prances foremost, and, with as much haste as his limping steed will permit, doth trusty Walter amble after his master.” Sellon is Wesley’s “understrapper”; the “junto are Parthians aiming their arrows at the sun; and wolves exhausting their strength by howling at the moon.” Sellon “dips his pen in the common sewer”; and Wesley “scatters firebrands.” “The world has long seen, that unmixed politeness can no more soften Mr. Wesley’s rugged rudeness, than the melody of David’s harp could lay the north wind.” Sellon was “a small body of Pelagian divinity, bound in calf, neither gilt nor lettered”; “the meanest, and most rancorous Arminian priest that ever disgraced a surplice.” “We would advise his Arminian holiness of Rome to cashier the image of St. Austin from serving any longer as a support to his easy chair; and to procure an effigy of Mr. Walter Sellon, to serve--not, indeed, upon due recollection, as a stay to his holiness’s throne--nor even as a prop to his footstool; but as a leg to a certain convenience (a _sella perforata_, though not the _sella porphyretica_), whereon, I presume, his holiness deigns, occasionally, to sit.” Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament are “a wretched bundle of plagiarisms”; and he himself “drives a larger traffic in blunders and blasphemies than any other blunder merchant this island has produced.”

Such are a few of the mild and merciful oracular utterances of the elect Augustus Toplady; who says he blamed himself “for handling Wesley too gently, and for only giving him the whip when he deserved a scorpion.”

Fletcher, during 1774, published:--(1) “The Fictitious and the Genuine Creed; being ‘A Creed for Arminians,’ composed by Richard Hill, Esq.; to which is opposed a Creed for those who believe that Christ tasted death for every man.” 12mo, 52 pages. (2) “Logica Genevensis continued; or, the first part of the Fifth Check to Antinomianism, containing an Answer to ‘The Finishing Stroke’ of Richard Hill, Esq.; in which some remarks upon Mr. Fulsome’s Antinomian Creed, published by the Rev. Mr. Berridge, are occasionally introduced.” 12mo, 48 pages. (3) “Logica Genevensis continued; or, the second part of the Fifth Check to Antinomianism, containing a Defence of ‘Jack o’ Lanthorn,’ and ‘The Paper Kite,’ _i. e._ sincere obedience; and of the ‘Cobweb,’ _i. e._ the evangelical law of liberty; and of the ‘Valiant Sergeant, J. F.,’ _i. e._ the conditionality of perseverance, attacked by the Rev. Mr. Berridge, in his book called ‘The Christian World Unmasked.’” 12mo, 44 pages. (4) “The First Part of an Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism.” 12mo, 264 pages. (5) “Zelotes and Honestus reconciled; or, an Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism continued: being the first part of the Scripture Scales to weigh the Gold of Gospel Truth. With a Preface containing some Strictures upon the Three Letters of Richard Hill, Esq., which have been lately published.” 12mo, 175 pages.

The whole of these publications, extending to nearly 600 pages, are full of the greatest truths, and, like all Fletcher’s writings, are entirely free from personal abuse, and are worthy of a gentleman, a scholar, and a Christian.

We can hardly say as much of another work, published in 1774: “A Scourge to Calumny, in two parts, inscribed to Richard Hill, Esq. Part the First, demonstrating the Absurdity of that Gentleman’s Farrago. Part the Second, containing a full Answer to all that is material in his Farrago Double Distilled. By Thomas Olivers.” 12mo, 168 pages. Richard Hill deserved all he got; but Fletcher would have hesitated before charging him, as is done by Olivers, “_with wilful untruth_.” At the same time, it is impossible not to have a feeling of admiration for the sturdy Welshman, when he says to the wealthy squire, who had rudely called him _Tom the cobbler_: “Permit me to tell you, sir, that _my name_ is as sacred to _me_, as _yours is to you_. If _you_ were the greatest peer of the realm, and _I_ the poorest peasant, the laws of God and of my country would authorise me to call you to an account, for every insult offered to my character, either as a fellow creature, or as an Englishman. You have no more authority, either from reason or religion, to call me _Tom_, than I have to call you _Dick_.”

Having hurled a lance in his own defence, he then proceeds to defend Wesley, telling Mr. Hill, that the man he had maligned was one who had published a hundred volumes, who travelled yearly about five thousand miles, preached yearly about a thousand sermons, visited as many sick beds as he preached sermons, and wrote twice as many letters; and who, though now between seventy and eighty years of age, “absolutely refused to abate, in the smallest degree, these mighty labours; but might be seen, at this very time, with his silver locks about his ears, and with a meagre, worn out, skeleton body, _smiling_ at storms and tempests, at such labours and fatigues, at such difficulties and dangers, as, I believe,” says Olivers, “would be absolutely intolerable to _you_, sir, in conjunction with any four of _your most flaming_ ministers.”

Wesley’s own publications, in 1774, were not many.

First of all, there was the fifteenth number of his Journal, already mentioned: 12mo, 112 pages. Then there was “An Extract from Dr. Cadogan’s Dissertations on the Gout, and all Chronic Diseases,” already referred to on page 111. 12mo, 49 pages. This was a bold stroke. Dr. Cadogan’s work had not been more than ten years published; it had been extremely popular, and had run through several editions; the doctor himself was now at the zenith of his fame, and did not die for three-and-twenty years afterwards; and, yet, Wesley takes upon himself, not to publish the work itself, but an extract from it, and to write a preface to it, in which he objects to the doctor’s wholesale condemnation of “smoked and salted meats, of pickles, of wine, and of flesh, thoroughly roasted or boiled.” Wesley says: “I recommend the book as the most masterly piece upon the subject, which has yet appeared in the English language.”

Another of Wesley’s publications was “Thoughts upon Necessity,” 12mo, 33 pages. This was one of his most thoughtful and able tracts. Its purport may be gathered from a sentence in his preface,--“I cannot believe the noblest creature in the visible world to be only a fine piece of clockwork.”

To the above must be added his “Thoughts on Slavery,” 8vo, 53 pages. It ought never to be forgotten, that John Wesley was one of the very first of England’s philanthropists to denounce the infamous evil of slavery. Statues, and other honours, declarative of a nation’s homage, have been justly awarded to Wilberforce; but Wesley’s record is on high; and the day has yet to come when the influence of his advanced views will be duly and gratefully recognised. Even some of Wesley’s friends were strangely blinded to a system that he boldly denounced as the “execrable sum of all villanies”; and Whitefield himself, only four years before, had died the possessor of a large number of human beings, who, in his will, were classed among his goods and chattels, and whom he unceremoniously bequeathed to “that elect lady, the Right Honourable Selina, Countess Dowager of Huntingdon.” Wesley’s pamphlet was no sooner issued than it brought upon him vindictive opposition, in a two shilling book, entitled “A Supplement to Mr. Wesley’s ‘Thoughts upon Slavery’”; in which the writer does his utmost to make the leader of the Methodists ridiculous. Wesley had counted the cost, and expected this. In America it was otherwise. There, at Philadelphia, Mr. Anthony Benezet republished Wesley’s tract at his own expense, and sent to him a friendly salutation, by William Dillwyn, “my old pupil,” says Benezet, “a valuable, religiously minded person, who is going a voyage to your country”;[220] and who, thirteen years afterwards, in 1787, became one of the founders of the Society for the Suppression of Slavery.

Wesley still continued the publication of his collected works; and, in 1774, seven additional volumes were issued, making the entire number thirty-two. The last seven, with the exception of three small tracts, consisted exclusively of his journals, coming down to September 1, 1770.

Perhaps there ought to be added another publication, which, though not printed by Wesley, was his production: “A Sermon preached at the opening of the new Meeting-house at Wakefield, on the 28th of April, 1774, by the Rev. John Wesley: taken down in shorthand, at the time of delivery, by Mr. Williamson, a teacher of that art, and published at the request of many of the hearers. Leeds: 1774. Sold by all Booksellers, price threepence.” 8vo, 12 pages. The text is 1 Corinthians i. 23, 24. The sermon, perhaps properly, has never been published in any edition of Wesley’s works. Though it contains nothing remarkable, it would enrich the _Methodist Magazine_, and would be gratefully welcomed by thousands of readers, who, without a reissue, will never see it.

FOOTNOTES:

[204] Manuscript letter.

[205] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 395.

[206] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 386.

[207] The following probably refers to the ghost stories,
in Wesley’s Journal, under date May 25, 1768. The
fifteenth number of his journal, containing these
accounts, was published in this same year, 1774.

[208] Glanvil, the author of “Some Considerations touching
the being of Witches and Witchcraft”; and Mather, the
author of “The Wonders of the Invisible World, or the
Trials of Witches.”

[209] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 131.

[210] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 373.

[211] Mr. Brooke was three years the junior of Wesley, and,
about the time when Methodism had its birth, was the
honoured friend of many of the most distinguished
personages in London society. Swift prophesied
wonders of him; Pope received him with open arms;
Pitt paid him marked attention; and the Prince of
Wales presented him with valuable tokens of his
friendship. The publication however of his tragedy,
“Gustavus Vasa,” offended the government, and he
retired to Ireland, and devoted his fine genius
wholly to the muses. He was a man of rare ability,
and an earnest Christian.

[212] Life of Mr. Henry Brooke, p. 90.

[213] He died in 1783, three years after Wesley published
his revised and abridged edition in two vols., 12mo.

[214] _Methodist Magazine_, 1787, p. 160.

[215] _Christian Miscellany_, 1846, p. 93.

[216] Asbury’s Journal, vol. i., p. 112.

[217] Palmer’s “Four Years in the Old World,” p. 260.

[218] Taylor’s manuscript journal.

[219] Memoirs of Cadogan, p. 37.

[220] _Methodist Magazine_, 1787, p. 44.

1775.
Age 72

According to his custom, Wesley spent the first two months of 1775 in London, and in short preaching excursions to Northamptonshire and other places.

The nation, at this period, was in a state of the highest excitement. On February 9, the two houses of parliament presented an address to King George III., stating that the British colonists in America had risen in rebellion, and begging his majesty to “take the most effectual measures to enforce obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature.” His majesty’s reply was affirmative; and parliament was requested to increase both the naval and military forces.

Wesley was not the man to be silent in great emergencies. He writes: “Sunday, January 29--Finding many were dejected by the threatening posture of public affairs, I strongly enforced our Lord’s words, ‘Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?’” Three weeks later, he preached at the Foundery, what the _Westminster Journal_ described as, “an awful sermon, on the horrid effects of a civil war”; observing “that, of all scourges from God, war was the most to be deprecated, because it often swept away all traces of religion, and even of humanity.” The text was Daniel iv. 27: “Let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.”

Both England and America were terribly excited; but space prevents our entering into details. Suffice it to say, that the alleged grievance of the American colonists was their being taxed, without their consent, by the English parliament. Dr. Johnson was known to be a great hater as well as a great genius. “Sir,” said he, concerning the miscellaneous and mongrel colonists across the Atlantic, “Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.” No wonder that the English government, already at their wits’ end, applied to Johnson to assist them with his powerful pen. He did so, by the publication, in 1775, of his famous pamphlet, entitled, “Taxation no Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress.”[221] No sooner was it issued, than, with or without leave, Wesley abridged it, and, without the least reference to its origin, published it as his own, in a quarto sheet of four pages, with the title, “A Calm Address to our American Colonies. By the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, M.A. Price one penny.”

This was an injudicious and unwarrantable act, except on the supposition that there was some secret understanding between him and Johnson; and even then the thing had too much the aspect of plagiarism to be wise. Johnson greatly reverenced Patty Hall, Wesley’s unfortunate sister, and always treated her as one of his confidential friends. For Wesley himself he also entertained great respect, and was only vexed that he was not able to secure more of his company. “John Wesley’s conversation,” said he, “is good, but he is never at leisure. He is always obliged to go at a certain hour. This is very disagreeable to a man who loves to fold his legs and have out his talk, as I do.”[222] There was unquestionably a friendship between the two; and it is possible that Wesley had Johnson’s consent to his publication of the abridgment of Johnson’s pamphlet. In a letter to Wesley, dated February 6, 1776, Johnson wrote: “I have thanks to return for the addition of your important suffrage to my argument on the American question. To have gained such a mind as yours may justly confirm me in my own opinion. What effect my paper has had upon the public I know not; but I have no reason to be discouraged. The lecturer was surely in the right who, though he saw his audience slinking away, refused to quit the chair while Plato stayed.”[223] This certainly gives some countenance to the supposition we have ventured to suggest. Still, there can be no doubt that Wesley fairly exposed himself to acrimonious attack by publishing the _brochure_ as his own.

Wesley was now one of the most conspicuous men in England; and, perhaps, no ecclesiastical personage of the realm swayed a wider influence over the masses, on questions involving religious interests. Hence, the publication of his “Calm Address” produced an unparalleled sensation; and this was the greater, because it was known that, up to this period, Wesley had sympathised with the colonists rather than otherwise. Indeed, he had declared five years before, in his “Free Thoughts on Public Affairs”: “I do not defend the measures which have been taken with regard to America; I doubt whether any man can defend them, either on the foot of law, equity, or prudence.” Of course, Wesley had a perfect right to change his opinions, which he says he did on reading Johnson’s “Taxation no Tyranny”; but when a public man like Wesley does that, he can hardly escape criticism of an unfriendly nature. The world dislikes changelings, and hesitates to trust them. Wesley, in the teeth of former sentiments, now made Johnson’s sentiments his own, contending not only that the English parliament had power to tax the American colonies, but also that it was a reasonable thing for the colonists to reimburse the mother country for some part of the large expense that had been incurred in defending the colonial rights, and that the whole of the present agitation was promoted by a few men in England, who were determined enemies to monarchy, and who wished to establish a republican form of government, which, of all others, was the most despotic. The result was, Wesley was at once pounced upon as a plagiarist and a renegade of the worst description. Countless pamphlets were published, only a few of which can be noticed here.

One of his principal antagonists was the Rev. Caleb Evans, then a baptist minister at Broadmead, Bristol, and in the thirty-seventh year of his age,--a man of good sense, a diligent student, a faithful pastor, and extensively useful; but a rampant advocate of what was called liberty, and, therefore, a well wisher to the republican rebellion across the Atlantic.

Evans’s first publication was “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, occasioned by his ‘Calm Address’”: 12mo, 24 pages. He taunts Wesley with having so suddenly changed his opinions; with having, at the late election, advised the Bristol Methodists to vote for the “_American candidate_”; and with having, at no remote period, recommended a book entitled, “An Argument in Defence of the exclusive right claimed by the Colonies to tax themselves.”

Wesley’s reply to this was the republication of his “Calm Address,” with a preface prefixed, in which he acknowledges that the “Address” was an extract “of the chief arguments from ‘Taxation no Tyranny,’” with “an application” of his own “to those whom it most concerned.” In a page and a half he answers Evans’s objections, and says that all “the arguments in his tract may be contained in a nutshell.”

Another attack on Wesley, which, before the year was out, reached a second edition, was “A Cool Reply to a Calm Address, lately published by Mr. John Wesley. By T. S.” 12mo, 33 pages. What this production lacked in argument it made up in scurrilous innuendo. Wesley is told that his “religious principles are a species of popery,” and that he is in quest of “a mitre”; though he “ought to sit in sackcloth and pour dust upon his head.”

Evans also, before the expiration of 1775, issued a new edition of his letter, 12mo, 32 pages, in the preface to which he waxes angry, in exposing what he calls “the shameful versatility and disingenuity of this artful man;” and does his utmost to fasten upon Wesley a deliberate falsehood, because Wesley had denied that he had ever seen the book which Evans had accused him of recommending, though both William Pine, his own printer, and the Rev. James Roquet, his friend, were both prepared to attest on oath that he had recommended the book to them.

Here then was a direct personal issue between them. Thomas Olivers, in his “Full Defence of the Rev. John Wesley,” 12mo, 24 pages, published in 1776, gives the explanation. Wesley’s denial was not owing to untruthfulness, but forgetfulness. “Mr. Wesley,” says Olivers, “is now an old man, and yet has such a variety and multiplicity of business as few men could manage, even in the prime of life. There are few weeks in which he does not travel two or three hundred miles; preach and exhort in public between twenty and thirty times, and often more; answer thirty or forty letters; speak with as many persons in private, concerning things of deep importance; and prepare, either in whole or in part, something for the press. Add to all this, that often, in that short space of time, a variety of tracts on different subjects pass through his hands, particularly as he travels, and that if any tract does not immediately relate to his office as a divine, though he may give it a cursory reading, yet he does not think it necessary to charge his memory with its contents: I say, when all these things are considered, no one will think it strange that his memory should often fail.”

This was a reasonable explanation of an awkward discrepancy; but Wesley, who was incapable of falsehood, hardly needed the defence of his ingenious friend Olivers. He had already written the following to Mr. Roquet himself.

“_November 12, 1775._

“DEAR JAMES,--I will now simply tell you the thing as it is. As I
was returning from the Leeds conference, one gave me the tract which
you refer to, part of which I read on my journey. The spirit of it
I observed to be admirably good; and I _then_ thought the arguments
conclusive. In consequence of which, I suppose, (though I do not
remember it,) I recommended it both to you and others; but I had so
entirely forgotten it, that even when it was brought to me the other
day, I could not recollect that I had seen it.

“I am, etc.,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[224]

Besides the pamphlets already mentioned, there were published, in 1775: “A Second Answer to Mr. John Wesley. By W. D.” 12mo, 22 pages. Also, “A Wolf in Sheep’s Cloathing; or an Old Jesuit Unmasked. Containing an account of the wonderful apparition of Father Petre’s Ghost, in the form of the Rev. John Wesley. By Patrick Bull, Esq.” 12mo, 24 pages: a vile production in which Wesley is branded as “a chaplain in ordinary to the Furies, or minister extraordinary to Bellona, goddess of war;” and is said to have “solicited to be made bishop of Quebec;” but who, for “the jacobitical doctrines contained in his ‘Calm Address,’ deserves to be presented, not with _lawn sleeves_, but with a _hempen neckcloth_; and, instead of a mitre, ought to have his head adorned with a white nightcap drawn over his eyes.”

Toplady was not likely to allow such an opportunity to pass without embracing it to vent his venom. Hence the publication of his 12mo tract of 24 pages, entitled, “An Old Fox Tarr’d and Feather’d”; with a fox’s head, in canonicals, for a frontispiece. The opening sentence is characteristic of the whole effusion. “Whereunto shall I liken Mr. John Wesley? and with what shall I compare him? I will liken him unto _a low and puny tadpole in divinity_, which proudly seeks to disembowel _a high and mighty whale in politics_.” He then proceeds to say, that, “both as to matter and expression Wesley’s ‘Calm Address’ is a bundle of Lilliputian shafts, picked and _stolen_ out of Dr. Johnson’s pincushion. If Mr. Wesley had the least spark of shame remaining, the simple detection of such enormous literary theft would be more terrible to his feelings than an English _pumping_ or an American _tarring and feathering_.”

Another pamphlet, issued in the same year, was “A Constitutional Answer to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s ‘Calm Address to the American Colonies’”: 12mo, 23 pages. The last sentence is as follows: “As I have formerly seen you, with pleasure, in the character of a _Christian minister_, doing some good in the moral world; so it is with regret I now see you in the character of a _court sycophant_, doing much more mischief in the political world; injuring, perhaps irreparably injuring, your _country_.”

“Americus,” also, in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_,[225] had his fling against the poor Methodist. One sentence from his polished quiver must suffice, as a specimen of others: “And now, Mr. Wesley, I take my leave of you. You have forgot the precept of your Master, that God and mammon cannot be served together. You have one eye upon a pension, and the other upon heaven,--one hand stretched out to the king, and the other raised up to God. I pray that the first may reward you, and the last forgive you!”

These extracts might be multiplied almost _ad infinitum_. We only add, that Fletcher, as well as Olivers, came to the defence of Wesley. The former published his “Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s ‘Calm Address’: in some Letters to Mr. Caleb Evans.” 12mo, 70 pages. This evoked from Evans an unworthy acrimonious “Reply,” 12mo, 103 pages, in which the angry baptist not only rakes up the whole story respecting Wesley, Roquet, and Pine, but finishes by telling the loving and accomplished Fletcher, that he is “the most verbose, and most unmeaning and unfair disputant, that ever took up the polemical gauntlet.”

Hampson and Whitehead censure Wesley for turning a politician. This is a point upon which opinions will differ. Certain it is, however, that the political part which Wesley took made him as many enemies as his caveat against Calvinism had done. Within three weeks, forty thousand copies of his “Calm Address” were printed and put into circulation; and excited so much anger among the English friends of the revolted colonists, that they would willingly have burnt both him and his Address together. To accuse him of mercenary motives was an unfounded, base, malignant fabrication. It is true, that the government were so pleased with his little tract that copies were ordered to be distributed at the doors of all the metropolitan churches; and it is said that one of the highest officers of state waited upon him, asking whether government could in any way be of service to either himself or his people. Wesley replied that he “looked for no favours, and only desired the continuance of civil and religious privileges.” The nobleman pressed the question, but again received the same answer. In retiring, he observed: “In all probability, sir, you have some charities which are dear to you; by accepting £50 from the privy purse, to appropriate as you may deem proper, you will give great pleasure to those for whom I act.” This was accepted; but “Mr. Wesley,” says Dr. Clarke, who related the story, “expressed himself to me as sorry that he had not requested to be made a royal missionary, and to have the privilege of preaching in every church.[226]”

This might be true; but, in conclusion, we must add to it Wesley’s own account, as published at the time, in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_.

“SIR,--I have been seriously asked,--From what motive did you publish
your ‘Calm Address to the American Colonies’?

“I seriously answer, Not to get money. Had that been my motive, I
should have swelled it into a shilling pamphlet, and have entered it
at Stationers’ Hall.

“Not to get preferment for myself, or my brother’s children. I am a
little too old to gape after it myself; and if my brother or I sought
it for them, we have only to show them to the world.

“Not to please any man living, high or low. I know mankind too well.
I know they that love you for political service, love you less than
their dinner; and they that hate you, hate you worse than the devil.

“Least of all, did I write with a view to inflame any; just the
contrary. I contributed my mite toward putting out the flame which
rages all over the land. This I have more opportunity of observing
than any other man in England. I see with pain to what a height this
already rises, in every part of the nation. And I see many pouring
oil into the flame, by crying out, ‘How unjustly, how cruelly, the
king is using the poor Americans; who are only contending for their
liberty, and for their legal privileges!’

“Now there is no possible way to put out this flame, or hinder its
rising higher and higher, but to show that the Americans are not
used either cruelly or unjustly; that they are not injured at all,
seeing they are not contending for liberty,--this they had even in
its full extent, both civil and religious; neither for any legal
privileges, for they enjoy all that their charters grant. But what
they contend for is the illegal privilege of being exempt from
parliamentary taxation,--a privilege this which no charter ever gave
to any American colony yet; which no charter can give, unless it
be confirmed both by king, lords, and commons; which, in fact, our
colonies never had; which they never claimed till the present reign;
and probably they would not have claimed it now, had they not been
incited thereto by letters from England.

“This being the real state of the question, without any colouring or
aggravation, what impartial man can either blame the king, or commend
the Americans?

“With this view, to quench the fire, by laying the blame where it was
due, the ‘Calm Address’ was written.

“As to reviewers, newswriters, _London Magazines_, and all that kind
of gentlemen, they behave just as I expected they would. And let them
lick up Mr. Toplady’s spittle still; a champion worthy of their cause.

“Sir, I am your humble servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Thus things proceeded. England was flooded with political pamphlets; the houses of parliament echoed with the sonorous periods of senatorial oratory; and the hill sides and river banks of America rang with sharp and dissonant peals of musketry. Blood had been shed at Lexington; and, at the bungling battle at Bunker Hill, the English had lost 1050 men, in killed and wounded. In the month of November, Wesley says: “I was desired to preach, in Bethnal Green church, a charity sermon for the widows and orphans of the soldiers that were killed in America. Knowing how many would seek occasion of offence, I wrote down my sermon.” The discourse was immediately published, with the title, “A Sermon preached at St. Matthew’s, Bethnal Green, on Sunday, November 12, 1775. By John Wesley, M.A. For the benefit of the widows and orphans of the soldiers who lately fell near Boston, in New England.” 8vo, 33 pages. Wesley speaks of the terrible distress from which the nation was suffering. Thousands were totally unemployed. He had seen not a few of them “standing in the streets, with pale looks, hollow eyes, and meagre limbs.” He says, he had “known families, who, a few years ago, lived in an easy, genteel manner,” driven to the necessity of repairing to the fields “to pick up the turnips which the cattle had left: and which they boiled, if they could get a few sticks for that purpose, or otherwise ate them raw.” Thousands had “screamed for liberty till they were utterly distracted, and their intellects quite confounded.” “In every town, men, who were once of a calm, mild, friendly temper, were now mad with party zeal, foaming with rage against their quiet neighbours, ready to tear out one another’s throats, and to plunge their swords into each other’s bowels.” He then proceeds to descant, in withering terms, on the sins of the nation,--money getting, lying, gluttony, idleness, and profanity. The sermon altogether, considering the time and circumstances of its delivery, was one of the boldest he ever preached; and, of course, added to the rage that his “Calm Address” had kindled. The _Gospel Magazine_, in reviewing it, remarks: “So many barrels of _tar_ have of late been lavished on Mr. Wesley, and so many bags of _feathers_ have been shaken over him, on account of his new political apostasy, that it might seem unmerciful in us, should we add to the _anointings_ and to the _powderings_, which he has already so plentifully, though not undeservedly, received. We shall therefore, from a principle of compassion, touch his sermon with the tenderer hand, and let the sermoniser himself very lightly off, the enormity of his demerits considered.” And then the tender reviewer, in his unmerited compassion, proceeds to describe “the sermon as being as dry as an old piece of leather that has been tanned five thousand times over”; and the preacher as “a tip-top _perfectionist_ in the art of lying.” All this revives a recollection of “The Old Fox tarred and feathered,”--and of its polite author, the Rev. Augustus Toplady, who had just now become the courteous editor of the misnamed _Gospel Magazine_.

At the conference of 1774, Wesley had 2204 members of society in America, and seven itinerant preachers, Messrs. Rankin, Asbury, Shadford, Williams, King, Dempster, and Rodda; and to direct these, in the midst of a great rebellion, required more than ordinary wisdom. A few extracts from his letters to Thomas Rankin will not be without interest.

“LONDON, _March 1, 1775_.

“DEAR TOMMY,--As soon as possible, you must come to a full and clear
explanation, both with brother Asbury, and with Jemmy Dempster. But I
advise brother Asbury to return to England the first opportunity.

“There is now a probability that God will hear prayer, and turn the
counsels of Ahithophel into foolishness. It is not unlikely that
peace will be reestablished between England and the colonies. But,
certainly, the present doubtful situation of affairs may be improved
to the benefit of many. They may be strongly incited now ‘to break
off their sins by repentance, if it may be a lengthening of their
tranquillity,’

“I add a line to all the preachers:--