path: root/76882-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76882 ***


    [Illustration: JOHN WESLEY, M.A.
                       AGED 85.
              From a Painting by Romney.
                   (see page 565.)
                Engraved by J. Cochran
             New York. Harper & Brothers.]




  THE

  LIFE AND TIMES

  OF THE

  REV. JOHN WESLEY, M.A.,

  Founder of the Methodists.

  BY THE

  REV. L. TYERMAN,

  AUTHOR OF “THE LIFE AND TIMES OF REV. S. WESLEY, M.A.,”
  (_Father of the Revds. J. and C. Wesley_).

  WITH AN APPENDIX BY ABEL STEVENS, LL.D.,

  AUTHOR OF “THE HISTORY OF METHODISM.”


  IN THREE VOLUMES.

  VOL. III.


  [Illustration: colophon]

  NEW YORK:
  HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,
  FRANKLIN SQUARE.

  1872.




                          GENERAL CONTENTS.

                              VOL. III.


                                1768.

                                                                  PAGE

Whitefield--Berridge--Countess of Buchan--Conversation--Original
Letter by Fletcher--Yearly Collection--Wesley’s first Visit to
Chatham--Methodist Jottings--Methodism in Congleton, etc.--
Wesley’s Credulity--Christian Perfection--Skirmishes before the
Battle--Wesley’s Will--Rev. Thomas Adam--Fletcher of Madeley--
Singing--Illness of Wesley’s Wife--Preaching and Trading--How
to revive Religion--Witness of the Spirit--Spitalfields Chapel--
Laurence Coughlan--Methodism at Taunton, Frome, and Oxford--Chapel
Debts--Remarks on Books--Expulsion of Oxford Students--College
at Trevecca--Wesley’s Publications--John Wilkes                   1-38


                                1769.

Political Excitement--Whitefield--Female Preaching--Wesley in
Ireland--Hugh Saunderson--Conference of 1769--Methodism in
America--Scheme to perpetuate Methodism--Anniversary of Trevecca
College--“Shepherd of Salisbury Plain”--Calvinian Controversy--
Wesley’s Publications                                            39-57


                                1770.

Remarks on Books--Christian Perfection--Whitefield’s College in
Georgia--Riding on Horseback--Lady Glenorchy--Methodism in
Sweden--Methodism at Yeadon and Loughborough--Conference
of 1770--Doctrinal Minutes--Calvinian Controversy--Death of
Whitefield--Original Letters--Wesley’s Publications--Toplady     58-83


                                1771.

Rev. Richard De Courcy--Sounds of coming Battle--Wesley and the
_Gospel Magazine_--Letter to Lady Huntingdon--Shirley’s Circular--
Original Letter by Fletcher--Calvinian Controversy--Methodist
Discipline--Female Preaching--Wesley’s Publications             84-113


                                1772.

Slavery--Methodism at Poplar--Correspondence with Mr. Sparrow--
Methodism at Leek and Nantwich--David Hume--Ministerial
Responsibility--Medical Examination--Revivals in Everton and
Weardale--Conference of 1772--Cornelius Winter--Ceaseless
Labours--National Distress and its Remedies--The Christian
Community--Calvinian Controversy--Wesley’s Publications        114-146


                                1773.

American Rebellion--Wesley’s proposed Successor--Methodism in
America and Antigua--Itinerancy--Chapel Debts--Wesley and his
Carriage--Wesley’s Book Property--Conference of 1773--Feast
and Fast Days--Communion of Saints--Calvinian Controversy--
Wesley’s Publications                                          147-162


                                1774.

Wesley’s Health--Rev. David Simpson--Methodism at Bury--Wesley
in Scotland--A Marvellous Escape--Ghosts and Witches--“The
Fool of Quality”--Wesley and an Artist--Methodism in America
and Newfoundland--Conference of 1774--Norwich Methodism--An
Adventure--Calvinian Controversy--Wesley’s Publications--
Slavery                                                        163-184


                                1775.

National Excitement--American War of Independence--Death of
Peter Bohler--Wesley dangerously Ill in Ireland--Congratulations--
Giving Advice--Conference of 1775--Calvinian Controversy--
William Pine--Wesley’s Publications                            185-211


                                1776.

Fletcher travelling with Wesley--Dr. Coke--Enforcing Discipline--
Methodism in London--City Road Chapel--Plan of London Circuit
in 1792--London Circuit Book--Methodism at Chesterfield--
Conference of 1776--Cantankerous Methodists--Methodism in
the Isle of Man--Quarrelling Schoolboys--Wesley’s Wife--
Wesley’s Publications--Wesley’s Loyalty                        212-235


                                1777.

American Rebellion--Dr. Dodd--City Road Chapel--Rev. Edward
Smyth--Catastrophe at Colne--“A Snug Circuit”--“Are the
Methodists a fallen People?”--John Hilton--Fletcher at the
Conference of 1777--Methodism in America--Francis Asbury--_Arminian
Magazine_--Bishop Lowth--“Strangers’ Friend Society”--Rowland
Hill attacks Wesley--_Gospel Magazine_--Calvinian Controversy--
Wesley’s Publications                                          236-260


                                1778.

Thomas Maxfield--Infamous Publications--Death of Toplady--
National Alarm--Separation from the Church--Conference of
1778--Stationing Preachers--Mission to Africa proposed--Duncan
McAllum--John Baxter embarks for Antigua--Opening of City
Road Chapel--Rev. James Creighton--Discipline--Dissenters--
Silas Told--Proposals for _Arminian Magazine_--Errata          261-285


                                1779.

National Alarm--Prayer and Fasting--Death of Voltaire--William
Shent in trouble--Methodism at Oldham and Padiham--The Angel
at Halifax--Methodism at Inverness--James Boswell--Methodism
at Hinckley and Coventry--Thomas Maxfield--Jealousies--Charles
Wesley and the London Preachers--Conference of 1779--Alexander
McNab and Rev. Edward Smyth at Bath--Wesley’s right to Rule--
Charles Wesley and McNab--Calvinian Controversy--“Naval and
Military Bible Society”--Wesley’s Publications--Popery         286-317


                                1780.

The Protestant Association--Wesley’s Letters on Popery--Rev.
Arthur O’Leary--Wesley visits Lord George Gordon--Methodism
at Delph--Wesley asks a Favour--Methodism at Pateley, Ripon,
Newark, etc.--Conference of 1780--Separation from the Church--
Methodism in America--Letter to Bishop Lowth--Heresy of Dr.
Watts--Rev. Brian Bury Collins--Original Letters--Oldham Street
Chapel, Manchester--Sir Harry Trelawney--Jacob Behmen--“The
Fool of Quality”--Wesley’s Publications                        318-344


                                1781.

Wesley’s Nephews, Charles and Samuel--Wesley writing Sermons--
Samuel Bardsley and Sheffield Chapel--Methodism at Manchester
and Bolton--Molly Charlton--Methodism at Preston--Fair weather
Preachers--Rev. William Dodwell--Sleep--Letters to Wesley’s
Niece--Wesley’s Nephews--Conference of 1781--William Hey--
Death of Wesley’s Wife--Letter to a Statesman--Wesley’s
Publications                                                   345-368


                                1782.

Methodist Tract Society--Lovefeast at Macclesfield--Sir Walter
Scott--Conference of 1782--Birstal Chapel Case--Rev. Thomas
Davenport--Rev. Mr. Thompson--John Trembath--Adam Clarke--“The
Dairyman’s Daughter”--Wesley’s Publications--Jacob Behmen      369-389


                                1783.

Preachers forbidden to be Classleaders--Wesley ill--Trip to
Holland--Kingswood School--William Black and Nova Scotia--A
Rejected Candidate--Methodism at Stafford--Wesley and the
Poor--Wesley’s Publications                                    390-407


                                1784.

A Seven Months’ Journey--Morning Preaching--Itinerancy--Children
at Stockton--Methodism at Burnley--Sunday Schools--Conference
of 1784--Deed of Declaration--Ordination of Preachers for
America--Two Clergymen become Dissenters--Ordination of
Preachers for Scotland, etc.--Letters on Wesley’s Ordinations--
Wesley a Dissenter--Methodism at Shrewsbury--Dancing--Letter
to Hon. William Pitt--Wesley’s Publications--First Race of
Methodist Preachers                                            408-457


                                1785.

William Moore--Wesley in Ireland--Spread of Methodism--Death
of Perronet and Fletcher--Conference of 1785--The oldest
Methodist now living--Thomas Wride and his Colleagues at
Norwich--Separation from the Church--Wesley’s Publications--
Dress                                                          458-470


                                1786.

Wesley on the Wing--Scotch Methodists a distinct Church--Methodism
at Barnsley--Wesley at Sheffield and Wentworth House--Methodism
at Ilkestone--Conference of 1786--Separation from the Church--
First Methodist Missionary Report--Proposed Missions to
India--Wesley’s “Studying Hours”--Dr. Leifchild--Wesley’s
Publications                                                   471-489


                                1787.

Separation from the Church--Begging for the Poor--Revival at
Burslem--Wesley in Ireland--A Methodist Shoemaker--Howard,
the Philanthropist--Conference of 1787--Separation from the
Church--Sir Robert Peel--Sunday Schools--Singing--A Coachload
of Methodist Preachers--Visit to the Channel Islands--Jonathan
Crowther--Antislavery Society--Joseph Entwisle and Richard
Reece--Simeon catechizing Wesley--Licensing Chapels and
Preachers--Separation from the Church--Wesley’s Popularity--
Wesley’s Publications--Dress--Diversions--Riches               490-520


                                1788.

Wesley on his Style--Sunday Schools--Prayer Meetings--Death of
Charles Wesley--Consecration of Burial Grounds--Incidents at
Bristol--Chapel at Dumfries--Methodist Membership--A Northern
Fanatic--An Early Breakfast--Demoniacs--A Young Poetess--Separation
from the Church--End of the World--Conference of 1788--Methodist
Prayer Book--Preachers stripped of their Gown and Bands--Dewsbury
Chapel Case--John Atlay and William Eels--Itinerancy--Wesley
without a Sermon--Wesley’s Publications                        521-564


                                1789.

Romney’s Portrait of Wesley--Anecdotes of Wesley--Commotion
at Dublin--Separation from the Church--Rebellions--Thomas
Hanby--An Irish Dinner Party--Walter Churchey--A Session of
Methodist “Elders”--Conference of 1789--A Conference Sermon--
Gwennap Pit--“The lovely Family at Balham”--Mount Pleasant Chapel,
Liverpool--Methodism at Bideford--Wesley’s Publications--
Wesley warning rich Methodists                                 565-596


                                1790.

French Revolution--A Five Months’ Journey--Rev. Joseph Easterbrook--
A Three Months’ Preaching Plan--Methodism at Stourport--Sunday
Schools--Death of a Mocker--A Backslider Healed--Adam Clarke--A
Yorkshire Cavalcade--Separation from the Church--Wesley’s
Benefactions--Wesley’s Last Will--Conference of 1790--Progress
of Methodism--Ruffled Shirts--A Dublin Revival--Christian
Perfection--Wesley’s last Out-door Sermon--A Shoemaker and a
Sheep Stealer--Henry Crabb Robinson--Crabbe, the Poet--A Large
Circuit--Wesley’s Publications--Separation from the Church--
Rich Methodists Warned--Wesley’s last Words to the Methodists  597-642


                                1791.

Letters--Female Preaching--Wesley’s last Letters--Wesley’s last
Week of Public Labour--Wesley’s last Letter--Wesley’s last
Song on Earth--Wesley’s Death--The Funeral--Proposed Monument
in Westminster Abbey--Wesley’s Personal Appearance, Scholarship,
Knowledge, Writings, Preaching, Companionship, Piety, and
Industry                                                       643-660




                          THE LIFE AND TIMES

                                  OF

                      THE REV. JOHN WESLEY, M.A.




                                1768.
                               Age 65


During the year 1768, Charles Wesley, with his brother’s full
concurrence, removed his family from Bristol to London, which
henceforth was his place of residence.[1] Whitefield spent the first half
of the year in the metropolis. In July, he set out for Scotland; but,
about a month after, returned to London to inter his wife, who died on
August 9. His health was somewhat feeble; but he continued to itinerate
and preach to the utmost of his power. His orphan house in America, and
Lady Huntingdon’s college at Trevecca, demanded his attention, and had
it. He and Wesley were still warm hearted friends; and yet there seems
to have been a shade of coldness come over them. Hence the following,
written when the year was closing.

                                  “TABERNACLE, _December 28, 1768_.

  “REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,--Pray have you or I committed the
  unpardonable sin, because we differ in particular cases, and act
  according to our consciences? I imagine the common salvation is not
  promoted by keeping at such a distance. Enemies rejoice. Halfway
  friends especially are pleased.

  “You will be glad to hear, that the time for completing the orphan
  house affair seems to be come. Do you know of a good, judicious,
  spiritual tutor? Will you, without delay, make the first present
  of your works to the library? I hope we shall have a nursery for
  true Christian ministers. I know you will say Amen. Yesterday I was
  fifty-four years old. God be merciful to me a sinner! Though you are
  older, I trust you will not get the start of me, by going to heaven,
  before, reverend and very dear sir, less than the least of all,

                                            “GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[2]

Another letter, of the same kind, was addressed to Wesley, on New
Year’s day, by his old friend at Everton.

                                       “EVERTON, _January 1, 1768_.

  “DEAR SIR,--I see no reason why we should keep at a distance, whilst
  we continue servants of the same Master, and especially when Lot’s
  herdsmen are so ready to lay their staves on our shoulders. Though my
  hand has been mute, my heart is kindly affected towards you. I trust
  we agree in essentials; and, therefore, should leave each other at
  rest with his circumstantials. I am weary of all disputes, and desire
  to know nothing but Jesus; to love Him, trust Him, and serve Him; to
  choose and find Him my only portion. I would have Him my meat, my
  drink, my clothing, my sun, my shield, my Lord, my God, my all. Amen.

  “When I saw you in town, I gave you an invitation to Everton; and
  I now repeat it, offering you very kindly the use of my house and
  church. The Lord accompany you in all your journeys! Kind love to
  your brother. Adieu!

                                               “JOHN BERRIDGE.”[3]

At the close of the year 1767, the Earl of Buchan died triumphing in
the faith of Christ. He had been in the habit of hearing Whitefield,
the Wesleys, and others, at Bath, and had felt their ministry a
blessing. His last words were, “Happy, happy, happy!” The inscription
upon his coffin run thus: “His life was honourable, his death blessed;
he sought earnestly peace with God,--he found it with unspeakable
joy, alone in the merits of Christ Jesus, witnessed by the Holy
Spirit to his soul.”[4] His countess dowager was a woman of deep
piety, of elegant taste, and of great genius. She was the mother
of a numerous family, and appointed Venn, Berridge, and Wesley her
domestic chaplains. This was done through the intervention of Lady
Huntingdon,[5] to whom Wesley addressed the following letter.

                                        “LONDON, _January 4, 1768_.

  “MY DEAR LADY,--I am obliged to your ladyship, and to Lady Buchan,
  for such a mark of your regard as I did not at all expect. I purpose
  to return her ladyship thanks by this post.

  “That remark is very striking, as well as just;--If it is the Holy
  Spirit that bears witness, then all speaking against that Witness
  is one species of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And when this
  is done by those who profess to honour Him, it must in a peculiar
  manner grieve that blessed Spirit. Yet, I have been surprised to
  observe how many, who affirm salvation by faith, have lately run
  into this; running full into Mr. Sandeman’s notion, that faith is
  merely an assent to the Bible; and not only undervaluing, but even
  ridiculing, the whole experience of the children of God. I rejoice,
  that your ladyship is still preserved from that spreading contagion,
  and also enabled plainly and openly to avow the plain, old, simple,
  unfashionable gospel.

  “Wishing your ladyship many happy years, I remain, my dear lady, your
  very affectionate servant,

                                                 “JOHN WESLEY.”[6]

A few months after this, Wesley went to Scotland, where the Countess of
Buchan resided, and there wrote, and probably preached, his remarkable
sermon, “The Good Steward,” in which, with great emphasis, he lays down
the doctrine, that we hold _in trust_ our souls, our bodies, our goods,
and all our other talents; and, for the _use_ of them, must render an
account at the judgment seat of Christ. This was dealing faithfully
with his noble patroness, as well as with others; for the sermon was
immediately published in 12mo, 24 pages, with the title, “The Good
Steward. A Sermon, by John Wesley, Chaplain to the Right Honourable the
Countess Dowager of Buchan.”

Wesley was not the man to be elated by being noticed by the rich, the
noble, and the great. He was thankful for their help; but far from
being proud of their approbation. Many of his most trusted friends
were poor and mean in reference to this world’s goods; but, at the
same time, were possessed of riches incomparably superior to all the
gold existing. The following letter, addressed to Fletcher of Madeley,
though a month or two out of its chronological order, refers to these
and to other matters.

                                     “BIRMINGHAM, _March 20, 1768_.

  “DEAR SIR,--Mr. Eastbrook told me yesterday, that you are sick of
  the conversation even of them who profess religion,--that you find
  it quite unprofitable, if not hurtful, to converse with them, three
  or four hours together, and are sometimes almost determined to shut
  yourself up, as the less evil of the two.

  “I do not wonder at it at all, especially considering with whom you
  have chiefly conversed for some time past, namely, the hearers of
  Mr. Madan, or Mr. Bourian, perhaps I might add, of Mr. Whitefield.
  The conversing with these I have rarely found to be profitable to my
  soul. Rather it has damped my desires; it has cooled my resolutions,
  and I have commonly left them with a dry, dissipated spirit.

  “And how can you expect it to be otherwise? For do we not naturally
  catch their spirit with whom we converse? And what spirit can we
  expect them to be of, considering the preaching they sit under? Some
  happy exceptions I allow; but, in general, do men gather grapes of
  thorns? Do they gather constant, universal self denial, the patience
  of hope, the labour of love, inward and outward self devotion,
  from the doctrine of absolute decrees, of irresistible grace, of
  infallible perseverance? Do they gather these fruits from antinomian
  doctrine? Or from any that borders upon it? Do they gather them from
  that _amorous way_ of praying to Christ? or that _luscious_ way of
  preaching His righteousness? I never found it so. On the contrary, I
  have found, that even the precious doctrine of salvation by faith has
  need to be guarded with the utmost care, or those who hear it will
  slight both inward and outward holiness.

  “I will go a step farther: I seldom find it profitable for _me_ to
  converse with any who are not athirst for perfection, and who are
  not big with earnest expectation of receiving it every moment. Now
  you find none of these among those we are speaking of; but many,
  on the contrary, who are in various ways, directly and indirectly,
  opposing the whole work of God,--that work, I mean, which God is
  carrying on, throughout this kingdom, by unlearned and plain men;
  in consequence of which His influence must, in some measure, be
  withdrawn from them. Again: you have, for some time, conversed a good
  deal with the genteel Methodists. Now it matters not a straw what
  doctrine they hear,--whether they frequent the Lock or West Street.
  They are, almost all, salt which has lost its savour, if ever they
  had any. They are thoroughly conformed to the maxims, the spirit, the
  fashions, and customs of the world. Certainly then, ‘_Nunquam ad eos
  homines ibis quin minor homo redibis_.’

  “But were these or those of ever so excellent a spirit, you conversed
  with them too long. One had need to be an angel, not a man, to
  converse three or four hours at once, to any purpose. In the latter
  part of such conversation, we shall doubtless lose all the profit we
  had gained before.

  “But have you not a remedy for all this in your hands? In order to
  have truly profitable conversation, may you not select persons clear
  both of Calvinism and antinomianism? not fond of that luscious way
  of talking, but standing in awe of Him they love; who are vigorously
  working out their salvation, and are athirst for full redemption,
  and every moment expecting it, if not already enjoying it? It is
  true, these will generally be poor and mean, seldom possessed of
  either riches or learning, unless there be now and then a _rara
  avis in terris_: a Miss March, or Betty Johnson. If you converse
  with these, humbly and simply, an hour at a time, with prayer before
  and prayer after, you will not complain of the unprofitableness of
  conversation, or find any need of turning hermit.

  “As to the conference, at Worcester, on lay preaching, do not you
  observe almost all the lay preachers--(1) Are connected with
  me? and--(2) Are maintainers of universal redemption? _Hinc illæ
  lacrymæ!_ These gentlemen do not love _me_, and do love particular
  redemption. If these laymen were connected with them, or if they were
  Calvinists, all would be well. Therefore, I should apprehend you will
  have two things to do:--1. Urge the argument, the strength of which
  I believe is in the Second Appeal, and, above all, in the Letter
  to a Clergyman. 2. Apply to the conscience, ‘You do not love Mr.
  Wesley enough: you love your opinions too much; otherwise this debate
  would never have arisen: for it is undeniable, these quacks cure
  whom we cannot cure, they save sinners all over the nation. God is
  with them, and works by them, and has done so for near these thirty
  years. Therefore, the opposing them is neither better nor worse than
  fighting against God.’

  “I am your ever affectionate brother,

                                                 “JOHN WESLEY.”[7]

One more letter may be introduced, before we turn to Wesley’s journal.
At the beginning of 1768, a third son was born to Charles Wesley, and
it was naturally the wish of such a father, that one of his three sons
might become a minister of Christ,--a wish, however, that was not
realised. Wesley alludes to this, and to the yearly collections and
other things, in the following to his brother, showing that Charles
either seldom attended conference, or, if he did attend, took little
interest in its financial matters.

                                       “LONDON, _January 15, 1768_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--Six or seven hundred pounds is brought to a
  conference: of which five hundred at least pays the debt.[8] Then
  extraordinary demands are answered. How much remains for law? I am
  now near £300 out of pocket, which I borrowed to pay Mr. Pardon.
  When I receive some more from Newcastle, I will send it to Bristol;
  probably very soon.

  “It is highly probable, one of the three will stand before the Lord.
  But, so far as I can learn, such a thing has scarce been for these
  thousand years, as a son, father, grandfather, _atavus_, _tritavus_,
  preaching the gospel, nay, and the genuine gospel, in a line. You
  know, Mr. White, sometime chairman of the Assembly of Divines, was my
  grandmother’s father.

  “Look upon our little ones at Kingswood as often as you can. A word
  from you will be a quickening to them. Oh how many talents are we
  entrusted with. We have need to gird up the loins of our mind, and
  run faster the small remainder of our race. ‘One thing!’--let us mind
  one thing only; and nothing great or small, but as it ministers to
  it! Peace be with you and yours! Adieu!

                                                  “JOHN WESLEY.”[9]

Wesley’s first journey from London, in 1768, was on the 18th of
February, to Chatham. Methodism of some sort had existed here for
a considerable time. As early as 1751, the _Gentleman’s Magazine_
relates, that a man and his wife at Chatham, both of them being
Methodists, had hanged themselves; and that, in order to prove the
man a lunatic, his friends produced, to the coroner’s jury, the New
Testament, on a roll of paper, which the man had written with his
blood.[10]

Wesley writes: “Thursday, February 18--Having been importunately
pressed thereto, I rode through a keen east wind to Chatham. About
six in the evening, I preached at the barracks, in what they call the
church. It is a large room, in which the chaplain reads prayers, and
preaches now and then. It was soon as hot as an oven, through the
multitude of people; some hundreds of whom were soldiers; and they were
‘all ear,’ as Mr. Boston says, scarcely allowing themselves to breathe.
Even between five and six the next morning, the room was warm enough.
I suppose upwards of two hundred soldiers were a part of the audience.
Many of these are already warring a good warfare.”

This was Wesley’s first visit to Chatham; but not his last. From the
beginning, he had loved soldiers, and, to the end, it was always a
pleasure to preach to them.

On March 6, he set out on his long northern journey, which occupied the
next five months. A few jottings respecting it may be acceptable.

At Gloucester, a “noisy and mischievous mob” had been “taken in
hand and tamed by an honest magistrate.” Cheltenham was “a quiet,
comfortable place,” despite the “rector and the anabaptist minister.”
At Worcester, the difficulty was, where to preach, no room being large
enough to contain the people, and it being too cold for them to stand
in the open air. At length, a friend offered the use of his barn,
which “was larger than many churches.” “Nothing,” says Wesley, “is
wanting here but a commodious house.” Such a house was built four years
afterwards,[11] and lasted till 1812, when good old James M‘Kee Byron
and the Worcester Methodists were mad enough to build another costing
upwards of £8000, the great bulk of which was left to be paid by their
successors.[12]

At Evesham, Wesley preached in the parish church; and was announced, by
the vicar, to do the same at Pebworth; but “the squire of the parish”
interposed an interdict, and therefore he preached in the open air.

At Birmingham, the tumults, of so many years’ continuance, were “now
wholly suppressed by a resolute magistrate.” Here Wesley met “with a
venerable monument of antiquity, George Bridgins, in the one hundred
and seventh year of his age, still able to walk to preaching, and
retaining his senses and understanding tolerably well.”

On Sunday, March 20, Wesley preached at West Bromwich, where a small
society of about twenty persons had been kept together by Francis
Asbury, a native of a neighbouring parish, but afterwards the Methodist
bishop of the United States.

Five years before, at Wolverhampton, the mob had levelled the Methodist
meeting-house to the ground, and four young fellows concerned in the
outrage had been sent to prison;[13] but now, says Wesley “all was
quiet: only those who could not get into the house made a little noise
for a time; and some hundreds attended me to my lodging; but it was
with no other intent than to stare.”

Wesley pronounces Newcastle under Lyme “one of the prettiest towns
in England.” Though it was extremely cold, the largeness of the
congregation constrained him to preach in the open air; “a more
attentive or better behaved congregation” he “scarce ever saw.” Sixteen
years later, Newcastle had a society of one hundred and nine members,
the leaders of whom were John Glynn, William Bayley, Robert Keeling,
and Thomas Bamfield.[14]

At Burslem, on March 25, he opened the new chapel; and, at Congleton,
had “an elegant, yet earnestly attentive congregation,” the behaviour
of the society having won the approbation of all the people in the
town, except “the curate, who still refused to give the sacrament to
any who would not promise to hear the Methodist preachers no more.”

For nine years past, the Methodists had been wont to meet in a room
provided by Dr. Troutbeck, behind his own residence; and here they had
been subjected to the same sort of outrages that most towns in the
kingdom thought it their duty to commit upon the Methodists. Drums
were beaten to disturb their services; dogs were let loose in their
congregations; and rotten eggs and filth were often hurled at them in
plentiful profusion; but, by their godly behaviour, they had outlived
all this, and now had a galleried chapel, capable of containing about
four hundred persons.

Wesley spent Sunday, March 27, at Macclesfield, where he preached to
“thousands upon thousands.” A few years before, George Pearson and
Elizabeth Clulow had opened a preaching house, which would hold forty
people, and which, to prevent ejectment, they secured to themselves
for forty years. “Ah, George!” said Mrs. Clulow, when they first went
into it, “we shall never be able to fill the place; why, it will hold
forty folk;” to which Mr. Pearson replied, “I’ll warrant you; hold up
your heart.” The result was as George predicted. In a month the room
was crammed, and a hole was cut through the chamber floor, so that
the preacher might, at the same time, address those above as well as
those below. Soon after this, Mr. Ryles gave ground and materials for a
chapel, on condition that Mrs. Clulow would pay the workmen their wages
for building it. This was done in 1764, and now, in 1768, Methodism in
Macclesfield was fairly started.[15]

From Macclesfield, Wesley proceeded to Stockport, Manchester, and
New Mills. He writes: “Wednesday, March 30--I rode to a little town
called New Mills, and preached in their large new chapel, which has a
casement in every window, three inches square! That is the custom of
the country!” This well ventilated chapel was built principally by Mr.
and Mrs. Beard, the parents of the wife of the late T. Holy, Esq., of
Sheffield.[16]

Coming to Liverpool, on April 6, Wesley says: “We had a huge
congregation at Liverpool; but some pretty, gay, fluttering things
did not behave with so much good manners as the mob at Wigan. The
congregations in general were quite well behaved, as well as large,
both morning and evening; and I found the society both more numerous
and more lively than ever it was before.”

One of these “huge congregations,” after a sermon by Wesley, on Sunday,
April 10, were munificent enough to make a collection amounting to £1
4_s._ 9_d._; and the society, which was more numerous and lively than
ever, aided by the general congregations, managed to contribute, in
their classes and at public collections, from September 1, 1768, to
January 16, 1769, the sum of £10 17_s._ 5_d._ for the support of the
work of God among them.[17] Such was Liverpool Methodism a hundred
years ago!

On April 19, Wesley arrived in Glasgow, and says: “We have few
societies in Scotland like this. The greater part of the members not
only have found peace with God, but continue to walk in the light
of His countenance. That wise and good man, Mr. Gillies, has been
of great service to them, encouraging them to abide in the grace of
God.” Three years before this, Thomas Taylor had been sent to Glasgow,
and, after travelling several hundreds of miles to his appointment,
had, as his first congregation, two bakers’ boys and two old women,
which congregation, however, kept increasing till it reached about two
hundred. Taylor tells us, that for want of means he never kept so many
fast days as he did in Glasgow; and, though he ultimately obtained a
preaching room, and formed a society, and engaged to pay a precentor
fourpence for each service at which he led off the psalms, he found it
so difficult to raise the money that he dismissed the psalms and the
psalm singer all together. He left behind him, however, a society of
seventy members.

One of these was Robert Mackie, who, for thirty years, acted as a
faithful classleader; and another was a poor old woman, concerning
whom John Pawson, in an unpublished letter, tells the following story.
Meeting in the street the minister of the kirk she had been accustomed
to attend, she was thus accosted: “Oh, Janet, where have ye been,
woman? I have no seen ye at the kirk for long.” “I go,” said Janet,
“among the Methodists.” “Among the Methodists!” quoth the minister;
“why what gude get ye there, woman?” “Glory to God!” replied Janet, “I
do get gude; for God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven me aw my sins!”
“Ah, Janet,” said the minister, “be not highminded, but fear; the
devil is a cunning adversary.” “I dunna care a button for the deevil,”
answered Janet, “I’ve gotten him under my feet. I ken the deevil can
do muckle deal, but there is ane thing he canna do.” “What is that,
Janet?” “He canna shed abroad the love of God in my heart; and I am
sure I’ve got it there!” “Weel, weel!” replied the good tempered man,
“if ye have got there, Janet, hold it fast, and never let it go!”

Wesley’s information was sometimes incorrect. From what he had heard,
he expected to find a numerous and lively society at Perth; but,
instead of that, he “found not above two believers, and scarce five
awakened persons in it.”

At Aberdeen, the society was knit together in peace and love, and the
congregations large and deeply attentive; but, among them, were “many
rude, stupid creatures, who knew as little of reason as of religion,”
and one of whom threw a potato at Wesley.

Having spent a month in Scotland, Wesley reached Berwick on the 18th
of May, and proceeded to Newcastle, in the neighbourhood of which he
employed the next ten days.

At Sunderland, he had an interview with Elizabeth Hobson, a young
woman of twenty-four years of age; and took down, from her own lips,
what he properly designates “one of the strangest accounts that he
ever read.” The substance of it is to illustrate her assertion, that,
from her childhood, when any of her neighbours died, she used to see
them, either just at the time of their decease, or a little previous.
He says: “The well known character of Elizabeth Hobson excludes all
suspicion of fraud, and the nature of the circumstances themselves
excludes the possibility of delusion. The reader may believe the
narrative if he pleases; or may disbelieve it, without any offence
to me. Meantime, let him not be offended if I believe it, till I see
better reason to the contrary.” After this follow Elizabeth Hobson’s
bewildering statements.

Wesley has been censured and ridiculed for this credulity. Southey
says, “he invalidated his own authority by listening to the most absurd
tales and recording them as authenticated facts.” Did Wesley deserve
this? The reader must not forget the undeniable, though mysterious,
supernatural noises in the Epworth rectory. He must also bear in mind,
that one of the most striking features in Wesley’s religious character
was his deep rooted, intense, powerful, and impelling conviction of
the dread realities of an unseen world. This great conviction took
possession of the man; he loved it, cherished it, tried to instil it
into all his helpers and all his people; and, without it, he would
never have undertaken the Herculean labour, and endured the almost
unparalleled opprobrium, that he did. Besides, his own justification of
himself is more easily sneered at than answered. He writes:--

  “With my latest breath, will I bear my testimony against giving up
  to infidels one great proof of the invisible world; I mean, that of
  witchcraft and apparitions, confirmed by the testimony of all ages.
  The English, in general, and, indeed, most of the men of learning
  in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions,
  as mere old wives’ fables. I am sorry for it; and I willingly take
  this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent
  compliment, which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do
  not believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge, these
  are at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such
  insolence spread throughout the nation, in direct opposition not only
  to the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in
  all ages and nations. They well know (whether Christians know it,
  or not) that the giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the
  Bible; and they know, on the other hand, that if but one account of
  the intercourse of men with separate spirits be admitted, their whole
  castle in the air--deism, atheism, materialism--falls to the ground.
  I know no reason, therefore, why we should suffer even this weapon to
  be wrested out of our hands. Indeed, there are numerous arguments
  besides this, which abundantly confute their vain imaginations.
  But we need not be hooted out of one; neither reason nor religion
  requires this. One of the capital objections to all these accounts
  is, ‘Did you ever see an apparition yourself?’ No, nor did I ever
  see a murder; yet I believe there is such a thing. The testimony of
  unexceptionable witnesses fully convinces me both of the one and the
  other.”[18]

At the same time, it is only fair to add that, though Wesley was a firm
believer in witches and apparitions, he was not the fanatic which some
had been before him; hence, in 1769, he writes: “I read Mr. Glanvill’s
‘Sadducismus Triumphatus;’ but some of his relations I cannot receive,
and much less his way of accounting for them. All his talk of ‘aerial
and astral spirits,’ I take to be stark nonsense. Indeed, supposing the
facts true, I wonder a man of sense should attempt to account for them
at all. For who can explain the things of the invisible world, but the
inhabitants of it?”

Before proceeding further in Wesley’s history, extracts from two or
three of his letters, belonging to this period, may be inserted here.

Separation from the Church, and the doctrine of Christian perfection,
were points still far from being settled. Hence the following to his
brother.

                                        “EDINBURGH, _May 14, 1768_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I am at my wits’ end with regard to two things--the
  Church, and Christian perfection. Unless both you and I stand in the
  gap in good earnest, the Methodists will drop them both. Talking will
  not avail. We must _do_, or be borne away. Will you set shoulder to
  shoulder? If so, think deeply upon the matter, and tell me what can
  be done. ‘_Age, vir esto! nervos intendas tuos._’ Peace be with you
  and yours! Adieu!

                                                 “JOHN WESLEY.”[19]

A month later, Wesley recurs to the same subject, and congratulates his
brother on the results of his removing to London.

                                                  “_June 14, 1768._

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I rejoice to hear, from various persons, so good
  an account of the work of God in London. You did not come thither
  without the Lord, and you find your labour is not in vain. I doubt
  not but you will see more and more fruit, while you converse chiefly
  with them that are athirst for God. I find a wonderful difference
  in myself when I am among these, and when I am among fashionable
  Methodists. On this account, the north of England suits me best,
  where so many are groaning after full redemption.

  “But what shall we do? I think it is high time, that you and I, at
  least, should come to a point. Shall we go on in asserting perfection
  against all the world? Or shall we quietly let it drop? We really
  must do one or the other; and, I apprehend, the sooner the better.
  What shall we jointly and explicitly maintain, and recommend to all
  our preachers, concerning the nature, the time (now or by-and-by),
  and the manner of it? instantaneous or not? I am weary of intestine
  war; of preachers quoting one of us against the other. At length, let
  us fix something for good and all, either the same as formerly, or
  different from it.--Ερρωσο.

                                                 “JOHN WESLEY.”[20]

Dr. Erskine’s attack on Wesley has been already mentioned (see Vol.
II., p. 530). During Wesley’s visit to Scotland, he sought an interview
with his opponent, and refers to their points of difference in the
following interesting letter to the Rev. Mr. Plendelieth, of Edinburgh.

                                                   “_May 23, 1768._

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--Some years ago, it was reported that I
  recommended the use of a crucifix, to a man under sentence of death.
  I traced this up to its author, Dr. Stennett, an anabaptist teacher.
  He was charged with it. He answered, ‘Why I saw a crucifix in his
  cell (a picture of Christ on the cross), and I knew Mr. Wesley used
  to visit him, so I _supposed_ he had brought it.’ This is the whole
  of the matter. Dr. Stennett himself I never saw; nor did I ever see
  such a picture in the cell; and I believe the whole tale is pure
  invention.

  “I had, for some time, given up the thought of an interview with
  Mr. Erskine, when I fell into the company of Dr. Oswald. He said,
  ‘Sir, you do not know Mr. Erskine. I know him perfectly well. Send
  and desire an hour’s conversation with him, and I am sure he will
  understand you better.’ I am glad I did send. I have done _my_ part,
  and am now entirely satisfied. I am likewise glad, that Mr. Erskine
  has spoken his mind. I will answer with all simplicity, in full
  confidence of satisfying _you_, and all impartial men.

  “He objects, (1) That I attack predestination as subversive of all
  religion, and yet suffer my followers, in _Scotland_, to remain in
  that opinion.

  “Much of this is true. I did attack predestination eight-and-twenty
  years ago; and I do not believe now any predestination which implies
  irrespective reprobation. But I do not believe, it is _necessarily
  subversive_ of all religion. I think hot disputes are much more so.
  Therefore, I never willingly dispute with any one about it; and I
  advise all my friends, not in Scotland only, but all over England
  and Ireland, to avoid all contention on the head, and let every man
  remain in his own opinion. Can any man of candour blame me for this?
  Is there anything _unfair_ or _disingenuous_ about it?

  “He objects, (2) That I ‘assert the attainment of sinless perfection
  by all that are born of God.’ I am sorry, that Mr. Erskine should
  affirm this again. I need give no other answer than I gave before,
  in the seventh page of the little tract I sent him two years ago.
  I do not maintain this. I do not believe it. I believe Christian
  perfection is not attained by any of the children of God, till they
  are what the apostle John terms _fathers_; and this I expressly
  declare in that sermon which Mr. Erskine so largely quotes.

  “He objects, (3) That I ‘deny the imputation of Christ’s active
  obedience.’ Since I believed justification by faith, which I have
  done upwards of thirty years, I have constantly maintained, that we
  are pardoned and accepted wholly for the sake of what Christ hath
  both _done and suffered_ for us. Two or three years ago, Mr. Madan’s
  sister showed him what she had wrote down of a sermon which I had
  preached on this subject. He entreated me to write down the whole and
  print it, saying, it would satisfy all my opponents. I was not so
  sanguine as to expect this: I understood mankind too well. However, I
  complied with his request; a few were satisfied; the rest continued
  just as they were before.

  “As long as Mr. Erskine continues in the mind expressed in his
  Theological Essays, there is no danger, that he and I should agree,
  any more than light and darkness. I love and reverence him; but not
  his doctrine. I dread every approach to antinomianism. I have seen
  the fruit of it, over the three kingdoms. I never said, that Mr.
  Erskine and I were agreed. I will make our disagreement as public as
  ever he pleases: only I must withal specify the particulars. If he
  _will_ fight with me, it must be on this ground; and then let him do
  what he will, and what he can.

  “Retaining a due sense of your friendly offices, and praying for a
  blessing on all your labours, I remain, reverend and dear sir, your
  affectionate brother and servant,

                                                “JOHN WESLEY.”[21]

These were mutterings before the storm,--skirmishes before the
battle,--a prelude to the great Calvinian controversy of 1770 and
onwards.

We abruptly turn to another matter. Wesley was a man who believed in
the importance of making preparations for dying, in more respects than
one. He writes on the last day of the year 1786: “From these words,
‘Set thy house in order,’ I strongly exhorted all who had not done
it already, to settle their temporal affairs without delay. It is a
strange madness which still possesses many, that are in other respects
men of understanding, who put this off from day to day, till death
comes in an hour when they looked not for it.”

Wesley acted upon his own advice. He was without money; but he had
books, etc.: and to prevent quarrels after he was dead, he made more
wills than one respecting their disposal. One executed in 1768 was, of
course, different from his last, executed in 1789; and, as something
more than a curiosity, we subjoin a verbatim copy, made from the
original in Wesley’s own handwriting.

  “In the name of God. Amen! I, John Wesley, Clerk, revoking all other,
  appoint this to be my last Will and Testament.

  “I bequeath to my brother Charles Wesley, (but in case of his demise
  to the School in Kingswood,) my Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French,
  and German books (except those, in any language, in the study at
  Kingswood School, which I bequeath to the said School; and those
  in my studies at Bristol, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Dublin, which I
  desire may remain there for the use of the Travelling Preachers); and
  all my gowns, cassocks, and bands. To James Morgan, I bequeath my
  watch; to my faithful Housekeeper, Ann Smith, Mrs. Lefevre’s ring;
  to Mr. Peter Jaco, my bureau at London; to him, to the Rev. William
  Ley, and to each Travelling Preacher, who has them not already, a set
  of my Sermons, Appeals, Journals, the Notes on the New Testament,
  and the book on Original Sin; to the Rev. Mr. James Roquet, all my
  manuscripts; to my dear friend, Mary Bosanquet, the set of my Works;
  to my dear daughter, Jane Smith, the ‘Christian Library,’ now in my
  study at London.

  “I bequeath all my Books, which are for sale, with the sole right of
  reprinting them, (after paying my brother’s Rent Charge upon them,)
  to Mr. Melchias Teulon, Hatter, Mr. John Horton, Silkdyer, and Mr.
  John Collinson, Hatter, in Trust, the one moiety for the keeping
  the Children of Travelling Preachers at the School (to be chosen by
  the Assistants at the Yearly Conference), the other moiety for the
  continual relief of the Poor of the United Society in London. Only I
  bequeath to Christiana Simpson, at Aberdeen, the Books which shall
  remain with her, at the time of my decease.

  “Lastly, I bequeath the residue of my Books and Goods to my wife,
  Mary Wesley. And I appoint the said Melchias Teulon, John Horton, and
  John Collinson, Executors of this my last Will and Testament.

  “Witness my hand and seal,[22] this 27th day of April, 1768,

                                                      “JOHN WESLEY.
  “Witnesses:
       “WILLIAM SMITH.
       “THOMAS SIMPSON.”

A man’s will is a document in which he generally makes mention of his
best beloved friends. On this ground, a few notes appended to Wesley’s
will of 1768 may be useful.

1. Wesley’s principal bequest, in 1768, was to Kingswood school, and to
the poor of the society in London. In 1789, this bequest was made to
“the general fund of the Methodist conference, in carrying on the work
of God by itinerant preachers.”

2. James Roquet was made the trustee of Wesley’s manuscripts in 1768;
but, having died during the interim, Dr. Coke, Dr. Whitehead, and Henry
Moore were appointed in 1789 to take his place.

3. In 1768, he bequeathed all his gowns, cassocks, and bands to his
brother; in 1789, to the clergymen preaching in City Road chapel,
London.

4. In 1768, James Morgan was to have his watch; but, in 1789, James
Morgan was dead, and Joseph Bradford got it.

5. In 1768, Mrs. Martha Hall had no bequest, for her bad husband was
then living; in 1789, he was dead, and hence her legacy of £40.

6. In 1768, there was a legacy for his wife; in 1789, his wife was in
her grave.

7. Wesley makes mention of his “dear daughter, Jane Smith.” This lady
was really his wife’s daughter, who was now married to Mr. William
Smith, of Newcastle upon Tyne, one of the witnesses.

8. James Roquet, to whom Wesley bequeathed his manuscripts, was the son
of a French Protestant refugee, was educated in the Merchant Taylors’
school in London, was converted under Whitefield’s ministry, graduated
at St. John’s college, Oxford, became master in Wesley’s school at
Kingswood, obtained episcopal ordination, and was now curate of St.
Werburgh, Bristol.

9. The Rev. William Ley, to whom Wesley bequeathed a set of his
publications, was, from the year 1760 to 1763, an itinerant preacher.
He was then episcopally ordained, and was now the curate of Lakenheath,
but likely to be dismissed by the vicar, to whom his Methodistic
preaching and procedure were offensive.[23]

10. Of one of the executors of Wesley’s will, John Collinson, we can
give no particulars.

11. The second, Mr. Teulon, was born at Bromley, in 1734; and was
sent to school at Nottingham. At fourteen, he was put apprentice to
his uncle, Mr. Wagner, of Pall Mall, hatter to King George II. He was
converted under the ministry of Romaine, joined the Methodists, and,
in 1761, married Miss Mecham, the daughter of one of the earliest
Methodists in London. For four years, he was Wesley’s London steward,
and was leader of a class. He was a man of some literary taste, and had
read most of the best English authors. He died in 1806, respected and
beloved by all who knew him.[24]

12. The third executor, John Horton, was a member of the common council
of London, sensible, well read, serious without gloom, cheerful without
levity, and polite without ceremony. The unhappy differences after
Wesley’s death induced him to leave the Methodists, and he went to
reside at Bristol.[25] He retained his warm attachment, however, to
“the _old ship_,” as he was accustomed to designate Wesley’s system;
again attended the Methodist preaching, and, only a few months before
his death, when his son was preparing for the university, declared to
Henry Moore, that he would “rather see his son a Methodist preacher,
than archbishop of Canterbury.” He died in peace about the year
1802.[26]

We left Wesley at Newcastle. On the 31st of May, he set out for
Weardale, Teesdale, and Swaledale, where he spent the next four days.
At Richmond, he preached in the market place, the Yorkshire militia
forming a considerable part of his congregation,--“a rude rabble rout,
without sense, decency, or good manners.” At Barnardcastle, the Durham
militia was a perfect contrast, officers and soldiers all behaving
well. Wesley’s visit to the “dales” circuit was a pleasant one. He
writes: “I have not found so deep and lively a work in any other part
of the kingdom as runs through the whole circuit, particularly in the
vales that wind between these horrid mountains.”

Returning to Newcastle, Wesley visited South Shields, and preached to
more than could hear him. Here the poor Methodists were often beaten,
rolled in the mud and in the snow, and sometimes narrowly escaped with
life: but, continuing faithful, God honoured them; a cockpit was turned
into a Methodist chapel,[27] and Methodism was firmly anchored.

On the 13th of June, Wesley left Newcastle for the south, and spent the
next six weeks in visiting his societies in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

The Rev. Thomas Adam, rector of Wintringham, one of the evangelical
clergymen of the period, has been already mentioned. Like some others,
this unquestionably pious man had become a determined opponent of the
Methodists, and hence the following letter, addressed to him by Wesley.

                                       “SWINFLEET, _July 19, 1768_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--One of Wintringham informed me yesterday,
  that you said no sensible and well meaning man could hear, and much
  less join, the Methodists; because they all _acted under a lie_,
  professing themselves members of the Church of England, while they
  licensed themselves as Dissenters. You are a little misinformed. The
  greater part of the Methodist preachers are not licensed at all; and
  several of them that are, are not licensed as Dissenters.

  “We are, in truth, so far from being enemies to the Church, rather
  bigots to it. I dare not, like Mr. Venn, leave the parish church
  where I am, to go to an Independent meeting. I dare not advise
  others to go thither, rather than to church. I advise all, over whom
  I have any influence, steadily to keep to the Church. Meantime, I
  advise them to see, that the kingdom of God is within them; that
  their hearts be full of love to God and man; and to look upon all,
  of whatever opinion, who are like minded, as their ‘brother, and
  sister, and mother.’ O sir! what art of men or devils is this,
  which makes you so studiously stand aloof from those who are thus
  minded? I cannot but say to you, as I did to Mr. Walker, ‘The
  Methodists do not want you; but you want them.’ You want the life,
  the spirit, the power, which they have; not of themselves, but by
  the free grace of God; else how could it be, that so good a man, and
  so good a preacher, should have so little fruit of his labour, his
  unwearied labour, for so many years? Have your parishioners the life
  of religion in their souls? Have they so much as the form of it?
  Are the people of Wintringham, in general, any better than those of
  Winterton, or Horton? Alas! sir, what is it that hinders your reaping
  the fruit of so much pains and so many prayers?

  “Is it not possible this may be the very thing, your setting
  yourself against those whom God owns, by the continual conviction
  and conversion of sinners? I fear, as long as you in anywise oppose
  these, your rod will not blossom, neither will you see the desire of
  your soul, in the prosperity of the souls committed to your charge.

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate brother,

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[28]

In his journey southwards, Wesley visited, for the second time, his
friend Fletcher, at Madeley,--a man, in many respects, the opposite of
Mr. Adam of Wintringham, and especially in his feelings towards the
Methodists. So far from shunning them, or being ashamed of them, he, as
far as possible, identified himself with them; and, at the very last
conference before he died, entreated Wesley to make Madeley a circuit
town, and to put John Fletcher down as a supernumerary preacher there.
He made his kitchen a Methodist chapel, in which Wesley’s itinerants
and his own curate regularly preached; while his study was the place in
which were penned the ablest defences of Wesley’s doctrines that were
ever committed to the public press.

From Madeley, Wesley went to Shrewsbury, where, as early as 1744,
there was a poor woman, who had been converted in London under the
preaching of the Methodists, and who now obtained a living, by mending
her neighbours’ stockings. While thus employed, at their respective
houses, she would relate to them her religious experience, read to them
a sermon, and then engage in prayer. By this means, she had already
formed a society of sixteen or eighteen persons; and the Rev. Job
Orton, the well known author, a native of Shrewsbury, and at this time
its presbyterian minister, declared that this poor stocking-mending
Methodist was not only of “an excellent and serious spirit,” but had
had more success in converting sinners than he had had by all his
preaching.[29]

Leaving Shrewsbury, Wesley rode right through Wales to Pembroke,
where he “read prayers, preached, and administered the sacrament to
a serious congregation at St. Daniels;” and so tried to remove some
misunderstandings among the Methodists, that he “left the people
full of good desires, and in tolerable good humour with each other.”
Here Methodism had been begun seven years before, when Thomas Taylor
traversed mountains, forded rivers, and plunged through bogs, with an
empty purse and an empty stomach, seeking to save sinners with a zeal
and a spirit of self denial worthy of the noblest missionary that ever
lived.[30]

At Neath, where the minister of the parish was just dead, the
churchwardens announced, that Wesley would preach in the parish church.
He did so, but says: “I was greatly disgusted at the manner of singing.
1. Twelve or fourteen persons kept it to themselves, and quite shut out
the congregation. 2. These repeated the same words, contrary to all
sense and reason, six, or eight, or ten times over. 3. According to the
shocking custom of modern music, different persons sung different words
at one and the same moment; an intolerable insult on common sense, and
utterly incompatible with any devotion.”

After more than five months of laborious travelling, Wesley came to
Bristol on Saturday the 13th of August, between eleven and twelve
o’clock at night. His conference had to open two days afterwards;
but the first news he heard was, that his wife was dangerously ill
in London. He had about forty-eight hours before he must meet his
preachers, twenty-four of which were sabbatical. The distance to London
and back again was two hundred and twenty-eight miles; the roads not
the best; and the mode of travelling a perfect contrast to what exists
at present. Wesley was an aged man, of more than sixty-five; for nearly
six months he had been travelling and preaching incessantly, and might
now fairly wish for a few hours’ rest. But no sooner did he hear of his
wife’s affliction, than, notwithstanding her unloving heart and life,
he started off to London, which, by travelling most of the sabbath day,
he reached at one o’clock on Monday morning; when, finding that the
fever was abated and the danger gone, he set out again within an hour,
and, by hard driving, arrived in Bristol on Monday afternoon. Next
morning he opened his annual conference, and closed it the following
Friday, exclaiming, “Oh! what can we do for more labourers? We can only
cry to the Lord of the harvest.”

One of the chief points discussed at the present conference was,
whether the itinerant preachers should be allowed to engage in trade.
This was a question at once delicate and difficult. In the first
place, many of them had wives and children, the provision for whose
maintenance was of the most slender kind. Secondly, the men were not
ordained, and had no clerical status whatever. So far there seemed
to be no difficulty. But, in the third place, though not ordained,
the preachers were regarded by Wesley as occupying, to all practical
intents and purposes, the same position as the regular ministers of
the Church of England; and, hence, he considered it as unseemly and as
improper for his itinerants to be engaged in trade as it would be for
the clergy of the Established Church. “God,” says he, “has called us to
supply their lack of service to the sheep that are without shepherds,
and to spend and be spent therein. Every travelling preacher solemnly
professes to have nothing else to do; and receives his little allowance
for this very end, that he may not need to do anything else,--that he
may not be entangled in the things of this life, but may give himself
wholly to these things.”

The result was, the few preachers who had resorted to some kind of
trade, for the purpose of eking out the insufficient maintenance for
their families were _advised_ to give up their business as soon as
possible, and especially _hawking drops_ (which their wives might sell
at home), for it had “a bad appearance, and did not suit the dignity of
their calling.”

The increase of members during the year was 430. Wesley was not
satisfied with this. Hence the question:

  “In many places the work of God seems to stand still. What can be
  done to revive and enlarge it?”

  “Answer--1. Much good has been done by the books which have been
  published; and more would be, if they were spread more effectually.

  “2. Let there be more field preaching; without this, the work of God
  will hardly increase in any place.

  “3. Let the preaching at five in the morning be constantly kept
  up, wherever you can have twenty hearers. This is the glory of the
  Methodists! Whenever this is dropped, they will dwindle away into
  nothing. Rising early is equally good for soul and body. It helps
  the nerves better than a thousand medicines; and, in particular,
  preserves the sight, and prevents lowness of spirits, more than can
  be well imagined.

  “4. As soon as there are four men or women believers in any place,
  put them into a _band_. In every place where there are bands, meet
  them constantly, and encourage them to speak without reserve.

  “5. Be conscientiously exact in the whole Methodist discipline.
  One part of our discipline has been generally neglected, namely,
  the changing of the stewards. This has been attended with many
  ill consequences; many stewards have been ready to ride over the
  preachers head. Let every assistant, at the next quarterly meeting,
  change one steward at least, in every society, if there be therein
  any other man that can keep an account.

  “6. Beware of _formality_ in singing, or it will creep in upon us
  unawares. Is it not creeping in already, by those complex tunes
  which it is scarce possible to sing with devotion? Such is, ‘Praise
  the Lord, ye blessed ones!’ Such the long quavering Hallelujah,
  annexed to the Morning Song tune, which I defy any man living to sing
  devoutly. The repeating the same word so often, especially while
  another repeats different words, shocks all common sense, brings in
  dead formality, and has no more of religion in it than a Lancashire
  hornpipe. Do not suffer the people to sing too slow. This naturally
  tends to formality, and is brought in by those who have very strong
  or very weak voices. Why should not the assistant see, that they be
  taught to sing in every large society?

  “7. Let a quarterly fast be observed in all our societies.

  “8. Which of us ‘fasts every Friday in the year’? Which of us fasts
  at all? Does not this show the present temper of our minds soft
  and unnerved? How then can we advance the work of God, though we
  may preach _loud_ and _long_ enough? Here is the root of the evil.
  Hence, the work of God droops; few are convinced, few justified, few
  of our brethren sanctified! Hence, more and more doubt if we are
  to be sanctified at all till death. That we may all speak the same
  thing, I ask once for all, ‘Shall we defend this perfection or give
  it up’? You all agree to defend it, meaning thereby, as we did from
  the beginning, salvation from all sin, by the love of God and our
  neighbour filling our heart. You are all agreed, we may be saved
  from all sin _before death_. The substance then is settled. But as
  to the circumstance, is the change instantaneous or gradual? It is
  both one and the other. But should we in preaching insist upon both
  one and the other? Certainly. But how far from entire sanctification
  are we still! The religion of the Methodists, in general, is not
  internal: at least, not deep, universal, uniform: but superficial,
  partial, uneven. And what pains do we take to make it otherwise? Do
  we visit from house to house, according to the plan laid down in
  the minutes? Only spend half the time in _this visiting_, which you
  spend in talking uselessly, and you will have time enough. Do this,
  particularly in confirming and building up believers. Then, and not
  till then, the work of the Lord will prosper in your hands. Unless,
  also, we can take care of the _rising generation_, the present
  revival of religion will be _res unius ætatis_, it will last only
  the age of a man. Spend an hour a week with the children, in every
  large town, whether you like it or not. Talk with them every time you
  see any at home. Pray in earnest for them. Diligently instruct and
  vehemently exhort all parents at their own houses. Read carefully
  the life of Mr. Brainerd. Let us be followers of him, as he was of
  Christ; in absolute self devotion, in total deadness to the world,
  and in fervent love to God and man. We want nothing but this. Then
  the world and the devil must fall under our feet. Lastly, let us keep
  to the Church. They that leave the Church leave the Methodists. The
  clergy cannot separate us from our brethren; the Dissenting ministers
  can and do. Therefore, carefully avoid whatever has a tendency to
  separate men from the Church. In particular, preaching at any hour
  which hinders them from going to it. Let every assistant look to
  this. Let all the servants in our preaching houses go to church on
  Sunday morning at least. Let every preacher likewise go always on
  Sunday morning, and, when he can, in the afternoon. God will bless
  those who go on week days too, as often as they have opportunity.”

Wesley’s means, then, to promote a revival of the work of God, were
a diffusion of Methodist literature, field and morning preaching,
the enforcement of Methodist discipline, good singing, quarterly
fasts, the preaching of the doctrine of Christian perfection, house
to house visitation, attention to the young, continued union with the
Established Church, and, above all and more than all, more inward and
outward religion among the preachers.

Before leaving the conference of 1768, we insert a letter, which, so
far as we are aware, has not before been published, except in the
“Methodist Pocket Book” for 1799. It was addressed to James Morgan, one
of Wesley’s itinerant preachers, well read, and popular, but who had
sunk into a state of nervousness, and had settled down in the city of
Dublin.

               “ST. JUST, NEAR THE LAND’S END, _September 3, 1768_.

  “DEAR JEMMY,--I have been thinking much of _you_; and why should I
  not tell you all I think, and all I fear, concerning you?

  “I think all that you said at the conference upon the subject of the
  late debates was right. And it amounted to no more than this: ‘the
  general rule is, they who are in the favour of God know they are so.
  But there may be some exceptions. Some may fear and love God, and yet
  not be clearly conscious of His favour; at least, they may not dare
  to affirm that their sins are forgiven.’ If you put the case thus,
  I think no man in his senses will be tempted to contradict you; for
  none can doubt, but whoever loves God is in the favour of God. But is
  not this a little misstating the case? I do not conceive the question
  turned here; but you said, or was imagined to say, ‘all penitents are
  in God’s favour’; or, ‘all who mourn after God are in the favour of
  God.’ And this was what many disliked; because they thought it was
  unscriptural and unsafe, as well as contrary to what _we_ had always
  taught. That this _is_ contrary to what _we_ had always taught, is
  certain; as all our hymns, as well as other writings, testify: so
  that (whether it be true or not), it is, without any question, a
  _new_ doctrine among the Methodists. We have always taught, that a
  _penitent mourned_, or was pained, on this very account, because
  he felt he was not in the favour of God, but had the wrath of God
  abiding on him. Hence we supposed the language of his heart to be,
  ‘Lost and undone for aid I cry’; and we believed he was really ‘lost
  and undone,’ till God did

     ‘Peace, righteousness, and joy impart,
      And speak Himself into his heart.’

  “And I still apprehend this to be the scriptural doctrine, confirmed,
  not by a few detached texts, but by the whole tenor of Scripture,
  and, more particularly, of the Epistle to the Romans. But if so, the
  contrary to it must be unsafe, for that general reason, because it
  is unscriptural; to which one may add the particular reason, that it
  naturally tends to lull mourners to sleep; to make them say, ‘Peace,
  peace’ to their souls, when there is no peace.

  “But it may be asked, ‘Will not this discourage mourners?’ Yes, it
  will discourage them from stopping where they are; it will discourage
  them from resting, before they have the witness in themselves, before
  Christ is revealed in them. But it will _encourage_ them to seek in
  the gospel way; to ask till they receive pardon and peace. And we are
  to encourage them, not by telling them they are in the favour of God,
  though they do not know it; (such a word as this we would never utter
  in a congregation, at the peril of our souls;) but by assuring them,
  ‘Every one that seeketh findeth, every one that asketh receiveth.’

  “I am afraid you have not been sufficiently wary in this; but
  have given occasion to them that sought occasion. But this is not
  all. I doubt you did not ‘see God’s hand in Shimei’s tongue.’
  ‘Unto you it _was given_ to suffer’ a little of what you extremely
  wanted,--obloquy and evil report. But you did not acknowledge either
  the gift or the Giver. You saw only T. Olivers, not God. O Jemmy, you
  do not know yourself. You cannot bear to be continually steeped in
  the esteem and praise of men. Therefore, I tremble at your stay at
  Dublin; it is the most dangerous place for _you_ under heaven! All I
  can say is, God _can_ preserve you in the fiery furnace, and I hope
  He will.

  “I am, dear Jemmy, yours affectionately,

                                                     “JOHN WESLEY.”

A letter has been already inserted in which Wesley congratulates his
brother on the reports he had received respecting the success of his
ministry in London. This was somewhat premature, for, in reality,
instead of there being an increase in the London circuit, there was
a decrease of seventy members; and there was a serious intention to
abandon the chapel in Spitalfields. Hence the following letter “to the
stewards of the Foundery.”

                                       “PEMBROKE, _August 6, 1768_.

  “MY DEAR BRETHREN,--The thing you mention is of no small concern,
  and ought not to be determined hastily. Indeed, it would be easy
  to answer, if we considered only how to save money; but we are to
  consider also how to save souls. Now, I doubt whether we should act
  wisely in this respect were we to give up the chapel in Spitalfields.
  We have no other preaching place in or near that populous quarter
  of the town; and a quarter which, upon one account, I prefer before
  almost any other; namely, that the people in general are more simple,
  and less confused by any other preachers. I think, therefore, it
  would not be well to give up this, if we could gain a thousand pounds
  thereby. I should look upon it as selling the souls of men for money;
  which God will give us in due time without this. That many who live
  near the Foundery would be glad of it I allow, because it would
  save them trouble. But neither can I put the saving of trouble in
  competition with the saving of souls.

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

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[31]

Poor Spitalfields! Noble Wesley! Let the fashionable Methodists of the
present generation ponder such sentiments as these, and hesitate before
they abandon their old chapels, because surrounded by none but the
abject and the poor, and because keeping them open involves expense and
trouble.

It is a remarkable fact, that almost in the very year in which
Methodism was founded in America, it was instituted in Newfoundland.
For nine years, Laurence Coughlan was one of Wesley’s itinerants. In
1764, he was ordained by Erasmus, the Greek bishop, and was put away
from the Methodist connexion. In 1766,[32] he was reordained by the
Bishop of London, and was sent to Newfoundland by the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. It is true, he went as a
clergyman of the Church of England, but he took his Methodism with him,
and established classes, in which the present Methodism of Newfoundland
had its origin. In a letter to Wesley, he writes:

  “I am, and do confess myself, a Methodist. The name I love, and hope
  I ever shall. The plan which you first taught me, as to doctrine and
  discipline, I have followed. We have the sacrament once a month, and
  have about two hundred communicants. This is more than all the other
  missionaries in the land have: nor do I know of any who attend our
  sacrament, who have not the fear of God; and some are happy in His
  love. There are some also whose mouths the Lord hath opened to give a
  word of exhortation; and I hope He will raise up many more.”

It would be a pleasant task to trace the steps of Mr. Coughlan in
Newfoundland; but suffice it to remark that he returned to England, and
shortly after, while conversing with Wesley in his study, was seized
with paralysis, and suddenly removed to his rest in heaven.[33]

Coughlan was one of those in London, who professed to receive the
blessing of Christian perfection; but, like many others, imbibed
fantastic notions respecting it. Soon after the conference of 1768,
Wesley wrote to him as follows.

  “DEAR LAURENCE,--By a various train of providences you have been led
  to the very place where God intended you should be; and you have
  reason to praise Him, that He has not suffered your labour there to
  be in vain. In a short time, how little will it signify, whether we
  had lived in the Summer Islands, or beneath

                  ‘The rage of Arctos and eternal frost!’

  “How soon will this dream of life be at an end! And when we are once
  landed in eternity, it will be all one, whether we spent our time on
  earth in a palace, or had not where to lay our head.

  “You never learned, either from my conversation, or preaching, or
  writings, that ‘holiness consisted in a glow of joy.’ I constantly
  told you quite the contrary: I told you it was the love of God and
  our neighbour; the image of God stamped on the heart; the life of
  God in the soul of man; the mind that was in Christ, enabling us to
  walk as Christ also walked. If Mr. Maxfield, or you, took it to be
  anything else, it was your own fault, not mine; and, whenever you
  waked out of that dream, you ought not to have laid the blame of it
  upon me. Perhaps you thought you had received what you had not. But
  pray do not measure all men by yourself; do not imagine you are the
  universal standard. If you deceived yourself, you should not infer
  that all others do. Many think they are justified, and are not; but
  we cannot infer, that none are justified. So neither, if many think
  they are ‘perfected in love,’ and are not, will it follow that none
  are so. Blessed be God, though we set a hundred enthusiasts aside,
  we are still ‘encompassed with a cloud of witnesses,’ who have
  testified, and do testify, in life and in death, that perfection
  which I have taught these forty years! This perfection cannot be a
  delusion, unless the Bible be a delusion too; I mean, loving God
  with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves. I pin down all
  its opposers to this definition of it. No evasion! No shifting the
  question! Where is the delusion of this? Either you received this
  love, or you did not. If you did, dare you call it a delusion? If
  you received anything else, it does not at all affect the question.
  O Laurence, if sister Coughlan and you ever did enjoy this, humble
  yourselves before God for casting it away; if you did not, God grant
  you may!

                            “Yours, etc.,

                                                 “JOHN WESLEY.”[34]

Wesley had been incessantly travelling for nearly the last six months;
but no sooner were the sessions of the Bristol conference ended, than
he started off to Cornwall, where he spent the interval between August
26 and September 18. On his way, he preached to a serious congregation
at Taunton, and asks, “Shall we have fruit here also?” Wesley might
well ask this. For many a long year, he had been accustomed to preach
at Taunton, and had been received either with stupid indifference or
active contempt. As early as 1744, he attempted to preach in the yard
of the Three Cups inn; but had no sooner named his text, than the mayor
came, in all his full blown dignity, and ordered the proclamation to be
read, and silenced the preacher.[35] Almost a quarter of a century had
elapsed since then; and now there was a small society, of which one of
the members was Thomas Dingle, who for sixty-three years was a chief
supporter of the Taunton society, and one of its brightest ornaments.

Wesley’s labours in Cornwall were Herculean. Though now in the
sixty-sixth year of his age, for eight days together he preached,
“mostly in the open air, three or four times a day,” and says, “I
hardly felt any weariness, first or last.” He was also not without
adventures. At Polperro, his bedroom was filled with pilchards and
conger eels, which made him glad to accept the offer of another. At
Plymouth, on his return, a “silly man talked without ceasing” during
the sermon, till Wesley desired the people “to open to the right and
left, and let him look his garrulous disturber fairly in the face,”
upon which the noisy prater “pulled off his hat, and quietly went
away.” Between Charlton and Lympsham, the rivers were so swollen, that
Wesley’s horse had to swim, and Wesley himself had to be taken to his
lodgings on an “honest man’s shoulders.”

Reaching Bristol on September 24, Wesley spent the next few days in
visiting the neighbouring towns and villages. At Frome, he found the
liveliest society that there was in the Wiltshire circuit: a fact which
greatly surprised him, because the town was made up of a strange medley
“of men of all opinions,--anabaptists, quakers, presbyterians, Arians,
antinomians, Moravians, and what not.” He adds: “if any hold to the
truth, in the midst of all these, surely the power must be of God.”

The Frome Methodists, however, were not untrained recruits, but veteran
soldiers, who had stood the brunt of many a furious and fiery fight.
Twenty-two years before this, Methodism had been started in their town,
by a poor Bristol pedlar, who dealt in rags and small ware, singing to
the people Wesley’s hymns. Since then, a vagabond barber--a tool in the
hands of the parish priest--had dragged two Methodist women to prison.
Mrs. Seagram had been fined £20 for permitting her house to be used as
a preaching place; and, not being able to pay the fine, had had all her
stock in trade and her household goods sold by public auction, while
she and her two fatherless children were turned penniless out of doors.
In one instance, the mob rushed into the preaching room, seized the
benches, and made a bonfire of them. Methodism in Frome had outlived
all this; and, despite the sectarianism of the town, it was destined
still to live and prosper.

On October 24, Wesley set out for London, and employed the first week
in November in a preaching tour through the three counties of Hertford,
Bedford, and Northampton. At Hertford, a chapel had been built by Mr.
Andrews, who afterwards, in 1777, gave to Wesley’s new chapel in City
Road the pulpit which has been used in Methodism’s cathedral from that
time to this.[36]

The second week in November was spent in a similar visitation of the
societies in Oxfordshire. He writes: “I was desired to preach at
Oxford. The room was throughly filled, and not with curious, but deeply
serious hearers. Many of these desired, that our travelling preachers
would take them in their turn; with which I willingly complied.” Oxford
had been Methodism’s cradle, but the infant had long been absent.
Henceforth, Methodism was one of Oxford’s institutions; though, for
long, long years, it was a thing of feebleness and of small dimensions.
The “Oxfordshire” circuit extended over the greater part of Berkshire,
Wiltshire, and Buckinghamshire; and, even as late as 1787, there were
throughout the circuit only four Methodist chapels, namely, at Oxford,
Wycombe, Wallingford, and Witney. At Aylesbury, the Methodists preached
in the baptists’ chapel; at Newbury, in an ironfounder’s shop; and at
all the other places, in private houses. The small chapel in Oxford
was in New-Inn-Hall Lane;[37] and the Oxford home of the two unmarried
preachers, Joseph Entwisle and Richard Reece, was a garret in the house
of a journeyman shoemaker, for which the society paid sixpence a week
as rent; and which had to serve them as dining room, sitting room,
bedroom, and study,[38] all in one.

The third week in November was occupied in meeting the London classes;
and the fourth in a tour in Kent. The rest of the year was chiefly
spent in town.

Wesley was fervent, but not fanatical; he loved earnestness in
religious worship, but not disorder. Hence the following letter to Mr.
Merryweather, of Yarm.

                                    “LEWISHAM, _December 10, 1768_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--The matter is short: all things in Divine worship
  must ‘be done decently and in order.’ Two must never pray at the
  same time, nor one interrupt another. Either Alice Brammah must take
  advice, or the society must be warned to keep away from her. These
  are the very things which were the beginning of poor George Bell’s
  fall.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                                JOHN WESLEY.”[39]

We have already seen that, by an enormous effort, in the month of
August, Wesley hurried from Bristol to London to visit his afflicted
wife. On his return he wrote her as follows.

  “MY LOVE,--I can make allowance for faintness, and weakness, and
  pain. I remember when it was my own case, at this very place, and
  when you spared no pains in nursing and waiting upon me, till
  it pleased God to make you the chief instrument in restoring my
  strength. I am glad you have the advice of a skilful physician; but
  you must not be surprised or discouraged if you do not recover your
  strength so soon as one might wish, especially at this time of the
  year. What is chiefly to be desired is, that God may sanctify all His
  dispensations to you, and that all may be the means of your being
  more entirely devoted to Him, whose favour is better than strength,
  or health, or life itself.

  “I am, dear Molly, your ever affectionate husband,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

No sooner was Wesley’s wife convalescent, than, instead of waiting to
welcome him to his home in London, she, in one of her insane piques,
took her departure to Newcastle. The following letter to his brother
refers to this, and also to his preparing an edition of Young’s “Night
Thoughts,” and to other matters.

                                      “LONDON, _December 17, 1768_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I thank you for your reproof. There is reason in what
  you say. If there was not evil, there was the appearance of evil.

  “Matters have not been well carried on at Liverpool; but ‘what cannot
  be cured must be endured.’

  “Why, you simpleton, you are cutting me out a month’s work. Nay, but
  I have no leisure nor inclination to write a book. I intend only: (1)
  to leave out what I most dislike; (2) to mark what I most approve of;
  (3) to prefix a short preface. And I shall run the hazard of printing
  it at Bristol. There you yourself can read the proof sheets.

  “You do well with regard to my sister Emily. What farther is wanting
  I will supply. I hear nothing from our friend at Newcastle. I am now
  a mere fellow of a college again. Adieu!

                                                 “JOHN WESLEY.”[40]

Wesley was still troubled on account of the chapel debts. Nearly £6000
had been contributed; but there was still a debt of £7728 upon the
chapels in the United Kingdom undefrayed.[41] This gave rise to the
following letter.

                                         “LONDON, _December, 1768_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Last year, Mr. H---- was much persuaded that, by
  means of the yearly subscription, our whole debt of above £11,000
  would be paid within two years. Many of our brethren were more
  sanguine still. They were persuaded that, by generously exerting
  themselves, and giving a large sum at once, it would be paid in one
  year. I did not expect this; but I would not contradict, because I
  would not discourage them. The event was as I foresaw. By the noble
  effort which many of our brethren made, most of the pressing debts
  are already discharged, amounting in the whole to near £7000. But
  a debt of about £7000 remains upon us still. What can be done with
  regard to this? I will tell you what occurs to my mind. Many of our
  brethren chose to subscribe yearly ten, five, three, two guineas, or
  less. I doubt not but these will cheerfully pay the residue of their
  subscription, and perhaps some of them will add a little thereto,
  as they see the great occasion there is for it. A few delayed
  subscribing, because they wanted to see the event; supposing the
  design to be impracticable, and that ‘nothing good would come out
  of it,’ As it now appears that great good has come out of it, that
  many burdens are already removed, I cannot but earnestly exhort all
  these now to set their shoulders to the work. Now, at least, let them
  exert themselves, for my sake, for the gospel’s sake, and for the
  sake of their still afflicted brethren, who groan under a load which
  they cannot well bear, and yet cannot remove without our assistance.
  Several generously contributed at once, in hope of paying the whole
  debt. Of them nothing more can be required, but their prayers that
  others may be as openhearted as themselves. Nevertheless, if of their
  own free goodwill they see good to add a little to their former
  benefactions--this, as well as the former, is lent unto the Lord, and
  what they lay out shall be paid them again. Ought I not to add, that
  there were some of our brethren who did not answer my expectation? I
  knew they were able to assist largely; and I flattered myself they
  were not less willing than able, as they owed me their own souls
  also, and this was the first favour of the kind which I had requested
  of them. Let me be excused from saying any more of what is past. Let
  them now drop all excuses and objections, and show they love me and
  their brethren, and the work of God, not in word only, but in deed
  and in truth. Let me have joy over you, my brethren, in particular.
  You have a measure of this world’s goods, and you see your brother
  hath need. I have need of your help, inasmuch as the burdens of my
  brethren are my own. Do not pass by on the other side; but come and
  help as God has enabled you. Do all you can to lighten the labour,
  and strengthen the hands, of your affectionate brother,

                                                 “JOHN WESLEY.”[42]

Wesley was a great reader, as well as a great writer; and, during the
year 1768, his journal is enriched with an unusual number of his
critical remarks. A few may be given as specimens of others.

  “January 11.--This week I spent my scraps of time in reading Mr.
  Wodrow’s ‘History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland.’ It
  would transcend belief, but that the vouchers are too authentic
  to admit of any exception. O what a blessed governor was that
  goodnatured man, so called, King Charles the Second! Bloody Queen
  Mary was a lamb, a mere dove, in comparison of him!”

  “April 29.--I read over an extremely sensible book, but one that
  surprised me much: ‘An Inquiry into the Proofs of the Charges
  commonly advanced against Mary Queen of Scotland.’ By means of
  original papers, the author has made it clear: (1) That she was
  altogether innocent of the murder of Lord Darnley, and no way privy
  to it. (2) That she married Lord Bothwell (then near seventy years
  old, herself but four-and-twenty), from the pressing instance of
  the nobility in a body, who, at the same time, assured her he
  was innocent of the king’s murder. (3) That Murray, Morton, and
  Lethington, themselves contrived that murder, in order to charge it
  upon her; as well as forged those vile letters and sonnets which they
  palmed upon the world for hers. ‘But how then can we account for the
  quite contrary story, which has been almost universally received?’
  Most easily. It was penned and published in French, English, and
  Latin, (by Queen Elizabeth’s order,) by George Buchanan, who was
  secretary to Lord Murray and in Queen Elizabeth’s pay; so he was sure
  to throw dirt enough. Nor was she at liberty to answer for herself.
  ‘But what then was Queen Elizabeth?’ As just and merciful as Nero,
  and as good a Christian as Mahomet.”

  “May 20.--I went on reading that fine book, Bishop Butler’s
  ‘Analogy.’ But I doubt it is too hard for most of those for whom
  it is chiefly intended. Freethinkers, so called, are seldom close
  thinkers. They will not be at the pains of reading such a book as
  this. One that would profit them must dilute his sense, or they will
  neither swallow nor digest it.”

  “November 19.--I read Dr. Nowell’s answer to Mr. Hill, concerning the
  expulsion of the students at Oxford. He has said all that could be
  said for that stretch of power; and he says quite enough, to clear
  the Church of England from the charge of predestination: a doctrine
  which he proves to be utterly inconsistent with the Common Prayer,
  the Communion Service, the Office of Baptism, the articles, the
  homilies, and the other writings of those that compiled them.”

The last extract refers to a matter too nearly allied to Methodism to
be passed without further notice.

  “On the 12th of March, 1768, six students belonging to Edmund hall,
  Oxford, were expelled the university, for holding Methodistical
  tenets, and taking upon them to pray, read or expound the Scriptures,
  and sing hymns in private houses. The principal of the hall, Dr.
  Dixon, defended their doctrines from the thirty-nine articles of the
  Established Church, and spoke in the highest terms of their piety and
  the exemplariness of their lives; but sentence was pronounced against
  them. Dr. Nowell, one of the heads of houses present, observed, that
  as these six gentlemen were expelled for having too much religion, it
  would be very proper to inquire into the conduct of some who had too
  little.”[43]

The expelled students were Benjamin Kay, Thomas Jones, Thomas Grove,
Erasmus Middleton, Joseph Shipman, and James Mathews. The junta
of expellers were Drs. Durell, Randolph, Fothergill, Nowell, and
Atterbury.[44] The charges brought against the young culprits were:
1. That they had held or frequented illicit conventicles, where some
of them, though not in orders, had preached and prayed extempore,
particularly in the house of a staymaker, a woman who herself
officiated and taught. 2. That some of them had been bred up to the
lowest trades and occupations, for one had been a weaver and kept a
taphouse, a second had been a barber, a third a draper; and further
all were wholly illiterate, and incapable of performing the statutable
exercises of the university; and were maintained at the charge of
persons suspected of enthusiasm. 3. That they were attached to the
sect called Methodists, and held their doctrines, namely, “that faith
without works is sufficient for salvation; that there is no necessity
for good works; that the immediate impulse of the Spirit is to be
waited for; that once a child of God always a child of God; and the
like.” 4. That one of them, before his entrance into the university,
had preached, and, in defiance of his father’s authority, had connected
himself with the Methodists. 5. That some of them had behaved very
irreverently and disrespectfully to their tutor, and had industriously
sought to cavil with and to vex him.[45]

It is right to add, that none of these young men had been connected
with Wesley. Mr. Jones, the barber, had, for some time resided,
with the Rev. John Newton, and, under his instruction, had made
considerable progress in the Greek and Hebrew languages. Mr. Kay was of
a respectable family, and an excellent scholar, and had an exhibition
paid by the Ironmongers’ Company. Mr. Mathews had been instructed
by Fletcher of Madeley. Mr. Middleton had been under the tutelage of
the Rev. Thomas Haweis. Of Mr. Grove and Mr. Shipman we know nothing,
except that the latter, after his expulsion, was admitted to the
college of the Countess of Huntingdon, at Trevecca.

This act of Oxford tyranny, as might be expected, created great
commotion; and numbers of tracts and pamphlets, _pro_ and _con_,
were published. Among others, Whitefield rushed into the battle,
in a “Letter to the Rev. Dr. Durell,” 8vo, 50 pages, and defended
the expelled with great vigour and effect; as also did Dr. Horne,
afterwards bishop of Norwich. Macgowan published his “Shaver,” in
which he shaved the collegiate rulers with no gentle hand, and, in the
process, must have made them smart. Sir Richard Hill, a young man of
thirty-six, who for some time past had been using his utmost endeavours
to improve Oxford morality, issued his “Pietas Oxoniensis,” 8vo, 85
pages, in which he belaboured the junta with unsparing severity.
Several replies were written in justification of the Oxford bull; and,
after an immense expenditure of time, and not a little display of
angry temper, this execrable act of the Oxford authorities was allowed
to repose in silence. It is a fact, however, far too serious to be
forgotten, that while Oxford university, in past days, has tolerated in
its students the most notorious wickedness, and while, at the present
day, it tolerates German scepticism and Romish heresy, it once, in one
of its paroxysms of pious zeal, ignominiously expelled six young men,
whose only crimes were, that some of them had been ignobly bred, and
all had sung, and prayed, and read the Scriptures in private houses.

The Countess of Huntingdon was accused of maintaining some or all of
these young students at the Oxford university; and perhaps there was a
modicum of truth in this. Be that as it may, she soon made her young
preachers independent of Oxford help. Trevecca House, in the parish of
Talgarth, in Wales, was an ancient structure, supposed to have been
erected about the year 1176. This building the countess opened as a
college, five months after the expulsions just mentioned,--on the 24th
of August, 1768, the anniversary of her ladyship’s birthday. Whitefield
preached at the opening; Fletcher was made the president; and, for
a few months, Mr. Easterbrook the head master; when Joseph Benson
was appointed his successor. Of course, Fletcher was not expected to
relinquish his charge at Madeley; but he was to attend the college
at Trevecca as often as he conveniently could; to give advice, with
regard to the appointment of masters, and the admission or exclusion
of students; to oversee their studies and conduct; to assist their
piety; and to judge of their qualifications for the ministry.[46] As
is well known, both Fletcher and Benson soon retired, because of the
doctrinal differences that sprang up; but Trevecca was still used as
a seminary for the training of Calvinistic ministers, till 1792, when
the institution was removed to Cheshunt, in Hertfordshire. Wesley from
the beginning was in doubt of it, though, perhaps, without reason.
In a letter to his brother, dated “May 19, 1768,” he writes: “I am
glad Mr. Fletcher has been with you. But if the tutor fails, what
will become of our college at Trevecca? Did you ever see anything
more queer than their plan of institution? Pray who penned it, man or
woman? I am afraid the visitor too will fail.”[47] Was there a tinge of
jealousy in this? We know not. Troubles, it is true, soon sprung up;
but the countess made Trevecca her principal place of residence; and
within its walls were trained a noble band of earnest, laborious, and
useful ministers. The old building is now the residence of a Celtic
farmer.[48] _O tempora! O mores!_

Excepting the hubbub arising out of the Oxford expulsions, there was
not much, in 1768, that was antagonistic to the Methodist movement.
A small, paltry pamphlet was published, with the title, “Enthusiasm
Reprehended. Three Letters to Mr. John Wesley. With Strictures on his
Character, the Reception he met with at Perth, and his Conduct on that
occasion.” A 12mo volume, of 212 pages, was also issued, entitled
“Sermons to Asses”; and was dedicated to Whitefield, Wesley, Romaine,
and Madan. Besides these, an eighteenpenny poem was published, entitled
“The Hypocrite: a comedy;” in which the writer tries to turn Cibber’s
satire on disloyalty into a castigation of enthusiasm.

Wesley’s publications also were fewer than usual, and hardly any of
them original. The following belong to this period.

1. “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Rutherforth.” This has been already
noticed in a previous chapter.

2. “A Caution to False Prophets: a Sermon on Matthew vii. 15-20.
Particularly recommended to the people called Methodists.” 12mo, 12
pages. In this sermon, Wesley discusses a point which he confesses
had puzzled him for many years, namely, whether it is right to hear
a minister who is either immoral, or who preaches false doctrine. He
still hesitates to pronounce an opinion, and recommends those who were
in doubt to “wait upon God in prayer, and then act according to the
best light they had.”

3. “Instructions for Members of Religious Societies. Translated from
the French.” Under the date of February 26, 1768, Wesley writes: “I
translated from the French one of the most useful tracts I ever saw,
for those who desire to be ‘fervent in spirit.’ How little does God
regard men’s opinions! What a multitude of wrong opinions are embraced
by all the members of the Church of Rome! Yet how highly favoured have
many of them been!”

4. “An Extract from the Rev. Mr. Law’s Later Works.” Two vols., 12mo,
251 and 204 pages. About a quarter of a century before this, Wesley
had published an extract from Law’s “Christian Perfection”; an extract
from his “Serious Call”; and an extract from his “Serious Answer to
Dr. Trapp.” He now published similar extracts from Law’s answer to
“Christianity as old as Creation,” his “Spirit of Prayer,” his “Spirit
of Love,” his “Letters,” and his “Address to the Clergy.”

5. “An Extract of the Life of the late Rev. David Brainerd.” 12mo, 274
pages. Just at the time when Methodism was extending its mission to
America and Newfoundland, Wesley issued his life of one of the most
devoted missionaries that ever lived: a young man who died before he
arrived at the age of thirty; but whose piety, for depth and fervour,
has seldom been excelled; and whose four years’ mission among the
Delaware and other Indians, from 1743 to 1747, would warm the heart and
improve the character of all candidates for missionary work.

Besides the above, another publication belongs to the year 1768,--“Free
Thoughts on the Present State of Public Affairs,” 12mo, 47 pages.
This, strictly speaking, was Wesley’s first political pamphlet. At
the general election of 1768, John Wilkes, at the time an outlaw, was
returned to parliament by the county of Middlesex; and, shortly after,
was arrested and committed to the King’s Bench prison. For nearly a
fortnight, crowds collected outside the prison walls, and soldiers were
sent to protect the place. A riot followed; the soldiers fired; six of
the rioters were killed, and fourteen badly wounded; and the exploit
got the name of the “Massacre of St. George’s Fields.” For months,
Wilkes’s business occupied the attention of court and cabinet; when
the wretched demagogue was sentenced to pay a fine of £1000, to be
imprisoned for two-and-twenty months, and afterwards to find security
for good behaviour for seven years. While in prison, he was at the
zenith of his fame; subscriptions were opened for the payment of his
debts; and his likenesses were so multiplied, that portraits of him
squinted from the signboards of half the public houses in the kingdom.

It was in the midst of such a state of things, that Wesley wrote
the pamphlet already mentioned. He admits that, though “cobblers,
tinkers, porters, and hackney coachmen” think themselves wise enough
“to instruct both the king and his council,” he himself is “not so
deeply learned. Politics were beyond his province; but he would use the
privilege of an Englishman to speak his naked thoughts.” “I have,” he
writes, “no bias, one way or the other. I have no interest depending.
I want no man’s favour, having no hopes, no fears, from any man.”
He then proceeds to defend the character of the king; and maintains
that, as an outlaw, Wilkes was incapacitated to take a seat in the
House of Commons. “Encumbered with no religion, and disappointed in
his application for place and power, Wilkes had set up for patriot,
vehemently inveighed against evil counsellors and grievances, and was
paid in French _louis d’or_ for his agitative services.” Wesley then
expresses the opinion that, “supposing things to take their natural
course, they must go from bad to worse; the land will become a field of
blood; and many thousands of poor Englishmen will sheathe their swords
in each other’s bowels, for the diversion of their good neighbours.
Then, either a commonwealth will ensue, or else a second Cromwell. One
must be; but it cannot be determined which,--King Wilkes, or King Mob.”


FOOTNOTES:

      [1] C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 242.

      [2] _Methodist Magazine_, 1783, p. 684.

      [3] _Methodist Magazine_, 1857, p. 616.

      [4] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p.
          17.

      [5] Ibid. vol. ii., p. 427.

      [6] _Methodist Magazine_, 1857, p. 693.

      [7] Manuscript letter.

      [8] The meaning of this is, that, at least, £500 of what
          the Methodists have always technically designated “The
          Yearly Collection,” was, at this period, employed in
          paying chapel debts. Except that for Kingswood school,
          this was the only connexional collection that Wesley
          had; and he strongly insisted that _every_ Methodist
          should render it support. In an _unpublished_ letter,
          addressed to Matthew Lowes, and dated March 11, 1762,
          Wesley writes: “In the enclosed papers, (which you
          may read in every society, just before you meet the
          classes,) you will see the design of the general yearly
          collection, to which _every_ Methodist in England is to
          contribute something. If there is any who cannot give a
          halfpenny a year, another will give it for him.”

      [9] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 126.

     [10] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1751, p. 179.

     [11] Myles’s History.

     [12] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 122; and 1829, p. 585.

     [13] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1763, p. 463.

     [14] Burslem old circuit book.

     [15] Manuscript.

     [16] _Methodist Magazine_, 1812, p. 534; and 1843, p. 89.

     [17] Liverpool old society book.

     [18] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiv., p. 276.

     [19] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 126.

     [20] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 126. All this confusion
          arose chiefly out of the half insane ravings of Bell
          and his friends in 1762. In a long, unpublished
          letter, dated September 29, 1764, Wesley writes: “I
          never staggered at all at the reveries of George
          Bell. I saw instantly, at the beginning and from the
          beginning, what was right and what was wrong; but I
          saw withal, ‘I have many things to speak, but you
          cannot bear them now.’ Hence, many imagined I was
          _imposed_ upon; and applauded themselves in their
          greater perspicacity; as they do at this day. ‘But if
          you knew it,’ says his friend to Gregory Lopez, ‘why
          did you not tell me?’ I answer with him, ‘I do not
          speak all I know, but what I judge needful.’ Still,
          I am persuaded, there is no state under heaven from
          which it is not possible to fall.”

     [21] _Methodist Magazine_, 1783, p. 681.

     [22] Wesley’s seal is a dove, having in its mouth an olive
          branch, and surrounded with the words “Nuncia Pacis.”

     [23] _Methodist Magazine_, 1805, p. 277.

     [24] Ibid. 1808, p. 297.

     [25] _Theological Magazine_, 1802, p. 39.

     [26] _Methodist Magazine_, 1803, p. 215.

     [27] _Methodist Magazine_, 1813, p. 441.

     [28] Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 320.

     [29] _Methodist Magazine_, 1815, p. 459.

     [30] Taylor’s “Redeeming Grace.”

     [31] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 359.

     [32] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 491.

     [33] Atmore’s “Memorial”; and _Methodist Magazine_, 1851,
          p. 869.

     [34] Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 324.

     [35] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1744, p. 51.

     [36] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 454.

     [37] _Wesleyan Times_, June 19, 1849.

     [38] Entwisle’s Memoir, p. 31.

     [39] _Methodist Magazine_, 1826, p. 464.

     [40] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 127.

     [41] Minutes of Conference.

     [42] A manuscript circular, signed by Wesley himself.

     [43] _London Magazine_, 1768, p. 125.

     [44] Philip’s Life of Whitefield, p. 492.

     [45] _London Magazine_, 1768, p. 214.

     [46] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 281.

     [47] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 126.

     [48] “Life and Times of Howel Harris,” p. 246.




                                1769.
                               Age 66


Terrible was the political excitement at the commencement of 1769. It
was now, that the first of the celebrated letters of “Junius” appeared
in the columns of the _Public Advertiser_. These withering invectives
became, to a great extent, the political textbook of the nation. For
years past, Ireland also had been turbulent, split into factions,
and overrun by hordes of Levellers and Whiteboys, Oakboys and Hearts
of Steel, all bound together by secret oaths, and a detestation of
paying tithes. The kingdom was full of wicked wits and scoffers; and
jokes, repartees, _bonmots_, and sarcasms, none of them distinguished
for their loyalty, began to spice a large number of the newspapers,
periodicals, and pamphlets of the period. Never was Methodism more
greatly needed than now.

Whitefield’s work in England was nearly ended. He and Wesley were still
united in bonds of ardent friendship. The latter writes: “January 9,
1769--I spent a comfortable and profitable hour with Mr. Whitefield,
in calling to mind the former times, and the manner wherein God
prepared us for a work which it had not then entered into our hearts to
conceive.” On the day following, Wesley preached in the house of the
Countess of Huntingdon, in Portland Row, and Whitefield administered
the sacrament.[49] And seven weeks later, Wesley wrote again: “February
27--I had one more agreeable conversation with my old friend and
fellow labourer, George Whitefield. His soul appeared to be vigorous
still, but his body was sinking apace; and, unless God interposes with
His mighty hand, he must soon finish his labours.” For six months
more, Whitefield rambled over England, preaching three or four times
every week, and exclaiming, as though his youthful zest was unabated,
“Field preaching, field preaching for ever.”[50] At the beginning
of September, he embarked for Georgia, and addressed to Wesley the
following farewell letter.

               “THE DOWNS, ON BOARD THE _Friendship_, Captain Ball,
                                          _September 12, 1769_.

  “REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,--What hath God wrought _for_ us, _in_
  us, _by_ us! I sailed out of these Downs almost thirty-three years
  ago! Oh the height, the depth, the length, the breadth of Thy love,
  O God! Surely it passeth knowledge. Help, help, O heavenly Father,
  to adore what we cannot fully comprehend! I am glad to hear, that
  you had such a pentecost season at the college; one would hope, that
  these are earnests of good things to come, and that our Lord will not
  yet remove His candlestick from among us. Duty is ours. Future things
  belong to Him, who always did, and always will order all things well.

     ‘Leave to His sovereign sway,
        To choose and to command;
      So shall we wondering own His way,
        How wise, how strong His hand.’

  “Mutual Christian love will not permit you, and those in connection
  with you, to forget a willing pilgrim, going now across the Atlantic
  for the thirteenth time. At present, I am kept from staggering;
  being fully persuaded, that the voyage will be for the Redeemer’s
  glory, and the welfare of precious and immortal souls. Oh to be kept
  from flagging in the latter stages of our road! _Ipse, Deo volente,
  sequar, etsi non passibus æquis._ Cordial love and respect await
  your brother, and all that are so kind as to inquire after, and be
  concerned for,

              “Reverend and very dear sir,
                        “Less than the least of all,

                                         “GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[51]

Thus the old friends parted, not to meet again, till they met in
heaven. Twelve months afterwards, the great orator was dead.

Wesley spent the month of January in meeting the London classes, and
in a visit to Sheerness and Chatham. In February, he made a tour to
Norfolk; and, on the 6th of March, set out for Ireland, and arrived in
Dublin on the 22nd. Here we pause, to insert two of his letters to two
of his female correspondents. The first was addressed to Lady Maxwell,
and refers to a subject of some interest, though one on which opinions
will differ.

                                        “LONDON, _March 3, 1769_.

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

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

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[52]

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

                                      “CHESTER, _March 18, 1769_.

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

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

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

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[53]

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

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

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

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

                                               “_April 24, 1769._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[56]

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

                                           “CORK, _May 30, 1769_.

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

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

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[58]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                           “CORK, _May 27, 1769_.

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

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

  “I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate brother,

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[71]

Again.

                                    “LONDON, _December 26, 1769_.

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

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

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

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

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[72]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                    “LONDON, _December 30, 1769_.

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

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

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[77]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wesley’s own publications in 1769 were not many.

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

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

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

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

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


FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     [57] _Irish Evangelist_, May, 1862.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     [74] Ibid. 1815, p. 46.

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

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

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

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

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




                                 1770.
                                Age 67


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

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

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

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

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

                                  “LEWISHAM, _February 21, 1770_.

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

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

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.”[83]

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

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

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

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]

It was Wesley who obtained Mr. De Courcy’s services for Lady Glenorchy.
He knew the man, and thought highly of him, but also saw his danger;
and hence the warning to Lady Maxwell. It would be a pleasant task to
sketch the subsequent career of this devoted Irishman; but, at present,
we must confine ourselves to Edinburgh. De Courcy set out for the
northern metropolis, as Wesley had said he would; and, immediately on
his arrival at Newcastle, addressed to Wesley the following.

                                             “_February 9, 1771._

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--Yesterday evening, after a very tedious
  journey, the Lord brought me safe to Newcastle. When I reflect on the
  fatigue and dangers which attend travelling, I should be astonished
  above measure that you have so indefatigably persevered in all the
  labours of an itinerant life for so many years, were I not well
  assured that you have been supernaturally assisted in body and mind
  for that extensive work to which God has eminently chosen you.

  “I write this in Mr. McNab’s chamber, with whom, and Mr. Hanby,
  I find great fellowship of spirit. I have accepted your kind
  invitation, and purpose taking up my abode with them till Monday,
  when I set out for Edinburgh. I would stay longer with your dear
  people here, but that I find Lady Glenorchy is particularly anxious
  for my speedy arrival in Edinburgh. As my situation there will
  expose me to diversified trials, do dear sir, pray that I may be kept

     ‘Humble, teachable, and mild,
      Patient as a little child,’

  “I remain, reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate, but
  unworthy brother,
                                        “RICHARD DE COURCY.”[119]

A few days after De Courcy’s arrival, Wesley wrote a second time to
Lady Maxwell, as follows.

                                            “_February 26, 1771._

  “MY DEAR LADY,--I cannot but think the chief reason of the little
  good done by our preachers in Edinburgh is the opposition which has
  been made by the ministers of Edinburgh, as well as by the false
  brethren from England. These steeled the hearts of the people against
  all the good impressions which might otherwise have been made; so
  that the same preachers, by whom God has constantly wrought, not only
  in various parts of England, but likewise in the northern parts of
  Scotland, were in Edinburgh only not useless. They felt a damp upon
  their spirits; they had not their usual liberty of speech; and the
  word they spoke seemed to rebound upon them, and not to sink into the
  hearts of the hearers. At my first coming, I usually find something
  of this myself; but the second or third time of preaching, it is gone.

  “I think it will not be easy for any one to show us, either, that
  Christ did not die for all, or, that He is not willing as well as
  able to cleanse from all sin, even in the present world. If your
  steady adherence to these great truths be termed bigotry, yet you
  have no need to be ashamed. You are reproached for Christ’s sake, and
  the spirit of glory and of Christ shall rest upon you. Perhaps our
  Lord may use you to soften some of the harsh spirits, and to preserve
  Lady Glenorchy, or Mr. De Courcy, from being hurt by them.

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

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[120]

From these letters, it is painfully apparent that the Calvinistic
controversy was not confined to England. Edinburgh rang with discordant
notes; and, in five months after Mr. De Courcy’s coming, Lady Glenorchy
dismissed Wesley’s preachers from her chapel, assigning, as her reason,
that they were not Calvinists.[121]

South of the Tweed there were sounds of the coming battle; hence the
following extract from a letter to Miss Bishop.

                                            “_February 16, 1771._

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--... Legality, with most that use that term, really
  means tenderness of conscience. There is no propriety in the word, if
  one would take it for seeking justification by works. Considering,
  therefore, how hard it is to fix the meaning of that odd term, and
  how dreadfully it has been abused, I think it highly advisable for
  all the Methodists to lay it quite aside.

  “If Mr. Shirley could find any other doctrine, which he thought was
  peculiarly mine, he would be as angry at it as he is at Christian
  perfection. But it is all well: we are to go forward, whoever goes
  back or turns aside. Perhaps we may see a new accomplishment of
  Solomon’s words, ‘He that reproveth a man shall afterward find more
  favour than he who flattereth with his tongue.’ But, be that as it
  may, I have done my duty: I could no otherwise have delivered my own
  soul; and no offence at all would have been given thereby, had not
  pride stifled both religion and generosity. But my letter[122] is
  now out of date: it is mentioned no more; there is a more plausible
  occasion found, namely, those eight terrible propositions which
  conclude the minutes of our conference. At the instance of some who
  were sadly frightened thereby, I have revised them over and over; I
  have considered them in every point of view; and truly, the more I
  consider them, the more I like them. The more fully I am convinced,
  not only that they are true,--agreeable both to Scripture and sound
  experience,--but, that they contain truths of the deepest importance,
  and such as ought to be continually inculcated by those who would be
  pure from the blood of all men.

  “Your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[123]

Benson had been dismissed from Trevecca, in the month of January, for
defending Wesley’s minutes; and now Fletcher, the president of the
college, informed the Countess of Huntingdon, that, if all Arminians
were to be expelled, he must be expelled. This was a serious matter.
Fletcher, at Trevecca, had been, according to Benson, “almost an angel
in human flesh.” “Prayer, praise, love, and zeal were the element
in which he lived. His one employment was to call, entreat, and
urge others to ascend with him to the glorious Source of being and
blessedness. He had leisure comparatively for nothing else. Languages,
arts, sciences, grammar, rhetoric, logic, even divinity itself, were
all laid aside, when he appeared in the schoolroom among the students.
His full heart would not suffer him to be silent; and the students
were readier to hearken to him than to attend to Sallust, Virgil, or
Cicero. Soon, they were all in tears; and then he would say, ‘As many
of you as are athirst for the fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my
room.’” Away they trooped after him, and would continue praying, one
after another, for hours together, till they could bear to kneel no
longer; Fletcher, in the midst, so filled with the love of God, that,
more than once, he cried, “O my God, withhold Thy hand, or the vessel
will burst!”[124] Such a man in such a place was invaluable; but he was
not the man to truckle in the presence of arbitrary power. Hence the
following to Wesley.

                                   “MADELEY, _February 20, 1771_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I fear we are going, or are already gone,
  from our plan of catholicism at the college. Mr. Benson’s affair
  has made me tell my mind to our Deborah, about bigotry, partiality,
  prejudice, and everything that seemed to me contrary to the Christian
  spirit in some late transactions. The answer was, that if one half
  of the things objected to by me was true, there would be room for
  the cruelty of my charges; but facts and words have been grossly
  misrepresented. Therefore, my mouth is shut so far.

  “This, however, I have insisted, and do insist, upon, if every
  Arminian must quit the college, I am discharged for one; for I cannot
  give up the possibility of the salvation of all any more than I can
  give up the truth and love of God.

  “Secondly, I will be no party man, nor give up my connections with
  any that fear God, much less with Mr. Wesley, who shall be always
  welcome to my pulpit, and I make no doubt will welcome me to his.

  “Thirdly, nobody shall prevent my following after an entire
  devotedness of heart to God, by baiting my Christian hopes and
  privileges under the name of perfection.

  “To this, I have received no particular answer; but, as I set out for
  the college to-day, I may get one _viva voce_.

  “Though no letter writer, I am and shall always remain, reverend and
  dear sir, your ready though unprofitable servant,

                                            “JOHN FLETCHER.”[125]

The result of Fletcher’s visit to the college is given in the subjoined
extracts from letters sent to Benson.

                                               “_March 22, 1771._

  “On my arrival at the college, I found all very quiet, I fear,
  through the enemy’s keeping his goods in peace. While I preached, I
  found myself as much shackled as ever I was in my life; and, after
  private prayer, I concluded I was not in my place. The same day I
  resigned my office to my lady, and on Wednesday to the students and
  the Lord. Last Friday I left them all in peace, the servant, but no
  more the president, of the college.”[126]

  “Mr. Shirley has sent my lady a copy of part of the minutes of
  the last conference, namely, of the year 1770. They were called
  _horrible_ and _abominable_. My lady told me, _she must turn against
  them; and that whoever did not fully disavow them must quit the
  college_. She accordingly ordered the master and all the students to
  write their sentiments upon them without reserve. I did so; explained
  them according to Mr. Wesley’s sentiments; and approved the doctrine,
  though not cautiously worded. I concluded by observing, that, as
  after such a step on my part, and such a declaration on my lady’s,
  I could no longer, as an honest man, stay in the college, I took my
  leave of it; wishing my lady might find a minister to preside over it
  less insufficient than

                                            “JOHN FLETCHER.”[127]

So much respecting Trevecca. Returning to Wesley, we find him defending
himself in the following long letter, published in _Lloyd’s Evening
Post_ for March 1, 1771.

                                            “_February 26, 1771._

  “SIR,--The editor of a monthly publication, pompously called _The
  Gospel Magazine_, has violently fallen upon one and another, who
  did not knowingly give him any provocation. And whereas, in other
  magazines, the accused has liberty to answer for himself, it is not
  so here. This gentleman will publish only the charge; but not the
  defence. What can a person, thus injuriously treated, do? To publish
  pamphlets, on every head, would not answer the end, for the answer
  would not come into near so many hands as the objection. Is there
  then a better way than to appeal to candid men, in one of the public
  papers, by which means the antidote will operate both as widely and
  as speedily as the poison? This method, therefore, I take at last,
  after delaying as long as I could with innocence.

  “In that magazine for last month, there is a warm attack upon my
  sermon on the death of Mr. Whitefield. The first charge is against
  the text, ‘Let me die the death of the righteous.’ ‘How improper,’
  says Mr. R.,[128] ‘to apply the words of a mad prophet to so holy a
  man as Mr. Whitefield.’

  “Improper! See how doctors differ! I conceive nothing can possibly be
  more proper. If Mr. R. did indeed tell his congregation, some of whom
  disliked his attacking my poor text before, ‘Let who will be vexed,
  I do not care; I will not justify Balaam while I live’; yet, others
  imagine nothing would be more suitable than for Balaam junior to use
  the words of his forefather; especially, as he did not apply them to
  Mr. Whitefield, but to himself. Surely a poor reprobate may, without
  offence, _wish_ to die like one of the elect! And I dare say, every
  one understood me to mean this, the moment he heard the text. If not,
  the very hymn I sung showed to whom I applied the words--

     ‘Oh that, without a lingering groan,
        I might the welcome word receive!
      My body with my charge lay down,
        And cease at once to work and live!’

  “But the main attack is on the sermon itself; in which I am charged
  with asserting a gross falsehood, in the face of God and the
  congregation, and that knowing it to be such, namely, that ‘the grand
  fundamental doctrines which Mr. Whitefield everywhere preached, were
  those of the new birth and justification by faith.’ No, says Mr. R.,
  not at all: the grand fundamental doctrines, which he everywhere
  preached, were the everlasting covenant between the Father and the
  Son, and absolute predestination flowing therefrom.

  “I join issue on this head. Whether the doctrines of the eternal
  covenant, and of absolute predestination, are the grand fundamental
  doctrines of Christianity, or not, I affirm again--(1) that Mr.
  Whitefield did not everywhere preach these; (2) that he did
  everywhere preach the new birth, and justification by faith.

  “1. He did not everywhere preach the eternal covenant, and absolute
  predestination. In all the times I myself heard him preach, I never
  heard him utter a sentence either on one or the other. Yea, all the
  times he preached in West Street chapel, and in our other chapels
  throughout England, he did not preach these doctrines at all, no, not
  in a single paragraph; which, by the bye, is a demonstration that he
  did not think them the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

  “2. Both in West Street chapel, and all our other chapels throughout
  England, he did preach the necessity of the new birth, and
  justification by faith, as clearly as he has done in his two volumes
  of printed sermons. Therefore, all that I have asserted is true, and
  provable by ten thousand witnesses.

  “Nay, says Mr. R., ‘Mr. Whitefield everywhere insisted on other
  fundamental doctrines, from the foundation of which the new birth
  and justification by faith take their rise, and with which they
  are inseparably connected. These are the everlasting covenant,
  which was entered into by the Holy Trinity, and God the Father’s
  everlasting, unchangeable election of sinners’ (in virtue of which
  a fiftieth part of mankind shall be saved, do what they will; and
  the other forty-nine parts shall be damned, do what they can).
  ‘These doctrines are not of a less essential nature than either
  regeneration or justification. No, by no means; they are to the full
  equally essential to the glory of God. Yea, there is an inseparable
  connection between them. This is _a most essential, a most
  fundamental point_.’ (_Magazine_, p. 41.)

  “If so, then every one who does not hold it must perish
  everlastingly. If, as you here assert, he cannot be justified, then
  he cannot be saved. If, as you say, he cannot be born again, _he
  cannot see the kingdom of God_.

  “After asserting this, can Mr. R. ever take the name of _catholic
  love_ into his mouth? Is not this the very opposite to it? the height
  and depth of _bigotry_? Does this spirit do honour to his opinion?
  Can we conceive anything more horrid? Is it not enough to make a
  person of humanity shudder? Yea, to make his blood run cold?

  “I do not here enter into the merits of the cause. I need not. It is
  done to my hands. The whole doctrine of predestination is thoroughly
  discussed in those three tracts lately printed: ‘An Answer to the
  Eleven Letters commonly ascribed to Mr. Hervey’; ‘Arguments against
  General Redemption Considered’; and ‘An Answer to Elisha Coles.’ Till
  these are seriously and solidly refuted, I have no more to say on
  that head. But I must aver, that the excluding all from salvation who
  do not believe the horrible decree is a most shocking insult on all
  mankind, on common sense, and common humanity.

                             “I am, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Of course, this was too pungent to pass without notice. Accordingly,
in the _Gospel Magazine_ for the month following, there appeared an
incisive review of Sellon’s Answer to Elisha Coles, which is described
as “a mite of reprobate silver, cast into the _Foundery_, and coming
out thence, with the impress of that pride, self righteousness, and
self sufficiency, natural to men in their fallen, unrenewed state.”
Sellon is accused of “trifling effrontery,” and is said “to have
sunk far below the gentleman, and to have lost all appearance of the
Christian”; and is further designated “the Cardinal Bellarmine of the
day; the obsequious servant and faithful labourer to his holiness.”

In a subsequent number of the same periodical, published in the month
of May, Wesley’s minutes are attacked; the writer, “A Real Protestant,”
indignantly asking, “Are not these the very doctrines of popery, yea,
of popery unmasked? Is it not awful that 29,406 souls, who are in Mr.
Wesley’s societies, should be so dreadfully seduced from the protestant
doctrines, and deluded into a belief of the doctrines of the mother of
harlots, the whore of Babylon, the Church of Rome?”

Thus the bitter controversy proceeded. Comment would be easy; but
we prefer to let the chief actors speak; and, not to interrupt this
painful scene, proceed to give other letters bearing upon the subject,
so that the reader may have before him as full a view of the spirit and
behaviour of both parties as it is possible to furnish.

While on his way to Ireland, Wesley wrote the following to Fletcher.

  “I always did, for between these thirty and forty years, clearly
  assert the total fall of man, and his utter inability to do any
  good of himself; the absolute necessity of the grace and Spirit
  of God to raise even a good thought or desire in our hearts; the
  Lord’s rewarding no work, and accepting of none, but so far as they
  proceed from His preventing, convincing, and converting grace through
  the Beloved; the blood and righteousness of Christ being the sole
  meritorious cause of our salvation. Who is there in England, that
  has asserted these things more strongly and steadily than I have
  done?”[129]

The next letter, addressed to Lady Huntingdon, was occasioned by one
which her ladyship had sent to Wesley’s brother on the subject of his
minutes,[130] and was dated “Bath, June 8, 1771.” The countess brands
the minutes as “popery unmasked”; and declares that “all ought to be
deemed papists who do not disown them.” She thus concludes: “as you
have no part in this matter, I find it difficult to blame your brother
to you; while as an honest man I must pity you, as you must suffer
equal disgrace, and universal distrust, from the supposed union with
him.” Charles Wesley endorsed this unworthy letter with the words:
“Lady Huntingdon’s last; unanswered by John Wesley’s brother.”[131]

Charles Wesley doubtless communicated the contents to his brother, who
was now in Ireland; in fact, her ladyship requested him to do this: and
hence the following.

                                                “_June 19, 1771._

  “MY DEAR LADY,--Many years since, I saw that ‘without holiness no
  man shall see the Lord.’ I began following after it, and inciting
  all with whom I had any intercourse to do the same. Ten years after,
  God gave me a clearer view than I had before of the way how to
  attain this, namely, by faith in the Son of God; and, immediately,
  I declared to all, ‘We are saved from sin, we are made holy, by
  faith.’ This I testified in private, in public, in print; and God
  confirmed it by a thousand witnesses. I have continued to declare
  this, for above thirty years; and God has continued to confirm the
  word of His grace. But, during this time, well-nigh all the religious
  world have set themselves in array against me, and, among the rest,
  many of my own children, following the example of one of my eldest
  sons, Mr. Whitefield. Their general cry has been, ‘He is unsound in
  the faith; he preaches another gospel!’ I answer, Whether it be the
  same which they preach or not, it is the same which I have preached
  for above thirty years. This may easily appear from what I have
  published during that whole term. I instance only in three sermons;
  that on ‘Salvation by Faith,’ printed in the year 1738; that on ‘The
  Lord our Righteousness,’ printed a few years since; and that on Mr.
  Whitefield’s funeral, printed only some months ago.

  “But it is said, ‘Oh but you printed ten lines in August last, which
  contradict all your other writings.’ Be not so sure of this. It is
  probable, at least, that I understand my own meaning as well as
  you do; and that meaning I have yet again declared in the sermon
  last referred to. By that, interpret those ten lines, and you will
  understand them better; although I should think that any one might
  see, even without this help, that the lines in question do not refer
  to the condition of obtaining, but of continuing in the favour of
  God. But whether the sentiment contained in these lines be right or
  wrong, and whether it be well or ill expressed, the gospel which I
  now preach God does still confirm by new witnesses in every place;
  perhaps never so much in this kingdom as within these last three
  months. Now, I argue from glaring, undeniable fact: God cannot bear
  witness to a lie; the gospel, therefore, which He confirms must be
  true in substance. There may be opinions maintained at the same
  time which are not exactly true; and who can be secure from these?
  Perhaps, I thought myself so once. When I was much younger than I am
  now, I thought myself almost infallible; but, I bless God, I know
  myself better now.

  “To be short. Such as I am, I love you well. You have one of the
  first places in my esteem and affection; and you once had some regard
  for me. But it cannot continue if it depends upon my seeing with
  your eyes, or on my being in no mistake. What if I was in as many as
  Mr. Law himself? If you were, I should love you still, provided your
  heart was still right with God. My dear friend, you seem not to have
  well learned yet the meaning of those words, which I desire to have
  continually written upon my heart, ‘Whosoever doth the will of My
  Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and
  mother.’

  “I am, my dear lady, your affectionate

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[132]

Contemporaneously with the above letter, the Rev. Walter Shirley and
Lady Huntingdon sent the following circular to Wesley, as well as to a
large number of their Calvinian friends.

  “SIR,--Whereas Mr. Wesley’s conference is to be held at Bristol, on
  Tuesday, the 6th of August next, it is proposed, by Lady Huntingdon,
  and many other Christian friends, (real protestants,) to have a
  meeting at Bristol at the same time, of such principal persons, both
  clergy and laity, who disapprove of the underwritten minutes[133];
  and as the same are thought injurious to the very _fundamental_[134]
  principles of Christianity, it is further proposed, that they go in
  a body to the said conference, and insist upon a formal recantation
  of the said minutes; and, in case of a refusal, that they sign and
  publish their protest against them. Your presence, sir, on this
  occasion is particularly requested; but, if it should not suit your
  convenience to be there, it is desired that you will transmit your
  sentiments on the subject to such person as you think proper to
  produce them. It is submitted to you, whether it would not be right,
  in the opposition to be made to such a _dreadful heresy_,[134] to
  recommend it to as many of your Christian friends, as well of the
  Dissenters as of the Established Church, as you can prevail on to be
  there, the cause being of so public a nature.

  “I am, sir, your obedient servant,

                                                 “WALTER SHIRLEY.

  “P.S.--Your answer is desired, directed to the Countess of
  Huntingdon; or the Rev. Mr. Shirley; or John Lloyd, Esq., in Bath;
  or Mr. James Ireland, merchant, Bristol; or to Thomas Powis, Esq.,
  at Berwick, near Shrewsbury; or to Richard Hill, Esq., at Hawkstone,
  near Whitchurch, Shropshire. Lodgings will be provided. Inquire at
  Mr. Ireland’s, Bristol.”

A fine confederacy of elected saints, armed with self invested papal
power to _insist_ upon the recantation of poor Wesley and his heretical
preachers!

The modest and self diffident countess and her executive chaplain
apologise for this high handed interference on the ground that they
“were warmly interested in the revival of _spiritual_ religion and
the doctrines of the _Reformation_;” that they “apprehended that the
doctrines contained in the minutes had the most fatal tendency; and,
in the strongest and most explicit terms, maintained _salvation by
works_”; and that Wesley was not an ordinary personage, but stood “at
the head of near thirty thousand people,--a veteran in the cause of the
gospel,--one of the chiefs in the late reformation.”[135]

One would have thought that, at least, the last mentioned reason would
have led them to adopt a less offensive and more respectful method
of correcting his “dreadful heresy,” than that of marching upon him
and his conference _en masse_; and imperiously _insisting_ upon his
recantation. Surely, it would not have been too great a condescension
for them and their friends, first of all, to have respectfully
solicited of such “a veteran and chief” an explanation of what he
meant; and, if they still found him to be in error, to ask for an
opportunity to reason the matter with him and to set him right. But,
no; this was far too troublesome for the elect of God, who, of course,
were right, and all others wrong; and, hence, the only action, which
would not impinge upon their sacred dignity, was to march, in solemn
phalanx, to the assembly of Wesley and his poor itinerants, and there
“_insist upon a formal recantation_”; and then, in case the heretics
should refuse to yield, and because the valiant defenders of the truth
were without power to imprison, to banish, or to burn, it was piously
proposed that, for want of something more effectual, they should
content themselves with a _public protest_ against the pestilential
minutes.

One of Shirley’s circulars was handed to Fletcher, the ex-president
of Trevecca, who wrote to Wesley the following letter, hitherto
unpublished.

                                       “MADELEY, _June 24, 1771_.

  “DEAR SIR,--When I left Wales, where I had stood in the gap for
  peace, I thought my poor endeavours were not altogether vain. Lady
  Huntingdon said she would write civilly to you, and desire you to
  explain yourself about your minutes. I suppose you have not heard
  from her, for she wrote me word since that she believed she must not
  meddle in the affair. At least, that is what I made of her letter.
  Upon receiving yours from Chester, I cut off that part of it where
  you expressed your belief of what is eminently called by us the
  doctrine of free grace; and sent it to the college, with a desire it
  might be sent to Lady Huntingdon. She has returned it to me, with a
  letter, in which she expresses the greatest disapprobation of it.
  The purport of her letter is, to charge you with tergiversation, and
  me with being the dupe of your impositions. She has also wrote in
  stronger terms to her college.

  “Things, I hoped, would have remained there; but how am I surprised
  and grieved to see zeal borrowing the horn of discord, and sounding
  an alarm throughout the religious world against you. Mr. Hutton
  called upon me last night, and showed me a printed circular, which
  I suppose is, or will be, sent to the serious clergy and laity
  throughout the land. I have received none, as I have lost, I suppose,
  my reputation of being a ‘_real protestant_,’ by what I wrote upon
  your minutes in Wales.

  “This is an exact copy of the printed letter.

              [Here follows Shirley’s circular as above.]

  “I think it my duty, dear sir, to give you the earliest intelligence
  of this bold onset, and to assure you that upon the evangelical
  principles, mentioned in your last letter to me, I, for one, shall be
  glad to stand by you and your doctrine to the last, hoping that you
  will gladly remove stumbling blocks out of the way of the weak, and
  alter such expressions as may create prejudice in the hearts of those
  who are inclined to admit it.

  “I write to Mr. Shirley to expostulate with him, and to request
  him to call in his circular letter. He is the last man that should
  attack you. His sermons contain propositions much more heretical and
  anti-Calvinistical than your minutes. If my letters have not the
  desired effect, I shall probably, if you approve of them and correct
  them, make them public for your justification.

  “I find Mr. Ireland is to write to make you _tamely recant_ without
  measuring swords, or breaking a pike with our _real protestants_. I
  wrote to him also.

  “I am, dear sir, your unworthy servant in the gospel,

                                                  “JOHN FLETCHER.
  “To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, at his Preaching
            House in Dublin, Ireland.”

There was chivalry in this,--the real, genuine chivalry of a noble mind
and generous heart. The Swiss mountaineer was not the man to see a
friend _bullied_ without rushing to his rescue.

Wesley was not without sympathy. A few days later, his faithful
friend, Vincent Perronet, the vicar of Shoreham, who was also of Swiss
extraction, wrote to him as follows.

                                       “SHOREHAM, _July 9, 1771_.

  “MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I am truly concerned, that so laborious a
  servant of Christ should be attacked in so violent a manner. Insulted
  by some, without the least decency, or regard to common decorum; and
  threatened by others with a synodical sentence.

  “Had I been honoured with an invitation from a great personage, for
  whom I have a very high esteem, I should have told her ladyship,
  that I have no greater veneration for synods than the most excellent
  Bishop Nazianzen had formerly, whose great learning and Christian
  virtues could not screen him from the usual violence of those
  assemblies, and who therefore desired to see no more of them.

  “However, with regard to the _merit_ of good works, I should frankly
  have declared my abhorrence of the very sound of the word; since I
  could not conceive how an unprofitable servant could merit anything
  from a holy God. But then, on the other hand, I should have added,
  that whoever should speak contemptuously of the diligent exercise
  of good works, as if they derogated from the honour of Christ, I
  should tell such a divine, that, whether he found his divinity either
  in Luther, or Calvin, or the Synod of Dort, it was no divinity of
  the gospel of Christ; since Christ came to purify unto Himself a
  peculiar people, zealous of good works. And as the Holy Spirit has
  assured us, over and over, that ‘we shall be judged according to our
  works,’ it is, therefore, no wonder that St. Paul should pray that
  his converts might be ‘established in every good word and work.’
  Besides, I might have observed that the zealot who decries good works
  was acting a most ridiculous part with regard to faith; for if his
  faith did not bring forth good works, his faith was good for nothing.

  “However, though such good works were the fruits of faith, and
  consequently the fruit of the Spirit of Christ, and, for that reason,
  must be acceptable to God, yet, I must have added, so far as they
  were our works, so far they wanted the blood of Christ to wash
  away their defilements, and to atone for their deficiencies; and,
  therefore, even our best works can have no merit in them.

  “I should, then, have remonstrated to that worthy lady to the
  following purpose,--that if one, who had laboured in the vineyard, I
  believed, full as much as any person since the days of the apostles,
  was not thought worthy of the mantle of love, for any mistake he
  might have made, yet surely he had a right to expect, that notice
  would have been given him to explain his meaning, before his judge
  pronounced sentence. This is a privilege granted to every supposed
  criminal in our courts of law, and where this is denied that court is
  no better than a court of inquisition.

  “But now, my dear brother, what effect such a letter might have had,
  I pretend not to say. It would, at the least, have testified to that
  friendship, which I have constantly had for you these twenty-five
  years. May God direct us both, and may our worst enemies be all
  brought to Him! You have my leave to make what use you please of this
  long letter.

  “I am, my very dear brother, yours most affectionately,

                                         “VINCENT PERRONET.”[136]

Just at this juncture, Wesley drew up and printed, at Dublin,
under date “July 10, 1771,” a clear and logical exposition of the
doctrines set forth in the minutes, which he doubtless circulated
among his preachers and friends. At the top of the first page of one
of the copies, he requested Miss Bishop, of Bath, not to “show it
before conference,” adding, “if the Calvinists do not, or will not
understand me, I understand myself; and I do not contradict anything
I have written these thirty years. Poor Mr. Shirley’s triumph will be
short.”[137]

Wesley’s views were the same as Perronet’s. What were Charles Wesley’s,
and what part was taken by him in this momentous controversy? The
biographer of the Countess of Huntingdon would have his readers to
believe, that Charles disapproved of his brother’s letter to her
ladyship; that he would reprove him for it; and, that he preferred
peace above all things.[138] It might be so; we have no means of
gainsaying it. It is doubtful whether he attended the conference in
Bristol; in fact, almost certain that he did not. Hence the following,
addressed to him only three days before the commencement of its
sittings.

                                    “KINGSWOOD, _August 3, 1771_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I will not throw away Thomas Rankin on the people
  of London. He shall go where they know the value of him.

  “We cannot put out what we never put in. I do not use the word
  ‘merit.’ I never did, neither do I now, contend for the use
  of it. But I ask you, or any other, a plain question: and do
  not cry, Murder; but give me an answer. What is the difference
  between ‘_mereri_,’ and ‘to deserve’? or between ‘deserving,’ and
  ‘_meritum_’? I say still, I cannot tell. Can you? Can Mr. Shirley,
  or any man living? In asking this question, I neither plead for
  merit, nor against it. I have nothing to do with it. I have declared
  a thousand times, there is no goodness in man till he is justified;
  no merit, either before or after; that is, taking the word in its
  proper sense: for in a loose sense ‘meritorious’ means no more than
  ‘rewardable.’

  “As to reprobation, seeing they have drawn the sword, I throw away
  the scabbard. I send you a specimen. Let fifteen hundred of them be
  printed as soon as you please.[139]

  “Nothing was ever yet expended out of the yearly collection, without
  being immediately set down by the secretary. I never took a shilling
  from that fund yet.

  “What you advise with regard to our behaviour toward our opposers
  exactly agrees with my sentiments. I am full of business, as you may
  suppose. So adieu!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[140]

On the evening before Wesley’s conference assembled, two letters were
put into his hand, one written by Lady Huntingdon, the other by the
Rev. Walter Shirley. The purport of her ladyship’s letter was, that,
having learned that the proposed method of visiting his conference
appeared to him and to his friends “as an arbitrary way of proceeding,
she and her allies wished to inform him, that they intended no personal
disrespect, but a degree of zeal against the principles established in
the minutes, which were repugnant to the whole plan of man’s salvation
under the new covenant of grace, and also to the clear meaning of the
Established Church, as well as to all other protestant churches, to
whose foundations the highest honour and respect are due.”[141]

Shirley’s letter apologises for that part of his circular which seemed
to assume, that he and his friends had a “civil right to go in a
body to Wesley’s conference, and insist on a formal recantation of
the minutes.” All he meant was, to send Wesley a “respectful message
importing their design, and requesting him to appoint a day and hour
for the conference to receive them.” The reason why he had inserted
“the offensive expression, ‘insist upon a formal recantation,’” (for
which he now apologised,) was, because “it was supposed by some, that,
instead of giving satisfaction on the points in question, such a forced
construction would be put on the meaning of the minutes, as might
elude the intended opposition, and yet leave the doctrines therein
contained entire and unrepealed.” Shirley concludes by stating, that
the doctrines of the minutes appear to him “evidently subversive of the
_fundamentals_ of Christianity.”[142]

Remembering that Wesley was not under the slightest obligation to
either the Countess of Huntingdon, Mr. Shirley, or any of their
Calvinistic friends, he might, without any want of courtesy,
have treated with contempt a letter casting upon him the slur of
trickishness, and have declined to see its author; but, instead of
that, he appointed Thursday, August 8, for the momentous interview.
Accordingly, on that day, Shirley, and two other ministers of the
Countess of Huntingdon’s chapels, together with Messrs. Lloyd, Ireland,
and Winter, and two students (!) from Trevecca college, went to
Wesley’s conference. Shirley’s circular, summoning a synod, had been
sent to all his sympathisers, clerical and laical, throughout the
three kingdoms; and the result was a grand convocation of less than
half a score, and even these included two laics belonging to Bath and
Bristol, and at least two young men, still merely preparing for the
ministry. The thing was a ridiculous failure; but not even on that
account did Wesley refuse to see the self elected deputies. First of
all, Wesley engaged in prayer. Then Shirley desired to know if the
letters of himself and Lady Huntingdon had been read to the conference.
Being answered in the negative, he asked leave to read them, which was
granted. A lengthened conversation followed; and then Shirley produced
a written declaration which he wished the conference to sign. Wesley
read it, and made some alterations, which Shirley says were “not very
material,” and then he and fifty-three of his preachers appended to it
their signatures.[143] The declaration thus signed was as follows:--

  “Whereas the doctrinal points in the Minutes of a Conference, held in
  London, August 7, 1770, have been understood to favour Justification
  by Works: now the Rev. John Wesley, and others assembled in
  Conference, do declare, that we had no such meaning; and that we
  abhor the doctrine of Justification by Works as a most perilous and
  abominable doctrine; and as the said Minutes are not sufficiently
  guarded in the way they are expressed, we hereby solemnly declare,
  in the sight of God, that we have no trust or confidence but in the
  alone merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for Justification
  or Salvation either in life, death or the day of judgment; and
  though no one is a real Christian believer, (and consequently
  cannot be saved) who doth not good works, where there is time and
  opportunity, yet our works have no part in meriting or purchasing our
  salvation[144] from first to last, either in whole or in part.”

After the declaration had been agreed to, Shirley was requested “to
make some public acknowledgment, that he had mistaken the meaning of
the minutes.” Shirley hesitated, but at last consented, and wrote a
certificate to that effect.

In the meantime, Wesley had received from Fletcher the manuscript copy
of his “Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Last Minutes: occasioned
by a circular, printed letter, inviting principal persons, both clergy
and laity, as well of the Dissenters as of the Established Church, who
disapprove of those Minutes, to oppose them in a body, as a dreadful
heresy: in Five Letters to the Hon. and Rev. Author of the circular
letter.”

Wesley at once gave the manuscript to William Pine to print and
publish. Shirley, hearing of this, waited upon Wesley the day after
he and his friends had been to conference, and requested that the
manuscript should not be printed, urging as their reason, that Fletcher
himself wished for this, “if matters should end peaceably.” Wesley,
however, persisted, and the work was published without delay, in a 12mo
pamphlet of 98 pages. Whilst the manuscript was being printed, Wesley
took the opportunity to reply to the letter of Lady Huntingdon, which
had been put into his hands the night before his conference commenced.
Nine days had elapsed since then, and now Wesley, on August 14,
addresses her ladyship in the following unflinching terms, his letter
also showing that the publication of Fletcher’s “Vindication” was no
after thought, but was proceeding even while the conference was sitting.

  “MY DEAR LADY,--The principles established in the minutes I apprehend
  to be no way contrary to that great truth, justification by faith,
  or that consistent plan of doctrine, which was once delivered to the
  saints. I believe whoever calmly considers Mr. Fletcher’s Letters
  will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, that ‘zeal against
  those principles’ is no less than zeal against the truth, and against
  the _honour_ of our Lord. The preservation of _His_ honour appears so
  sacred to me, and has done for above these forty years, that I have
  counted, and do count, all things loss in comparison of it. But till
  Mr. Fletcher’s Letters are answered, I must think everything spoken
  against these _minutes_ is totally destructive of _His honour_, and
  a palpable affront to Him; both as our Prophet and Priest, but more
  especially as the King of His people. Those Letters, therefore,
  which could not be suppressed without betraying the honour of our
  Lord, largely prove that the _minutes_ lay no other foundation than
  that which is laid in Scripture, and which I have been laying, and
  teaching others to lay, for between thirty and forty years. Indeed,
  it would be amazing that God should at this day prosper my labours
  as much if not more than ever, by convincing as well as converting
  sinners, if I was establishing another foundation, repugnant to the
  whole plan of man’s ‘salvation under the covenant of grace, as well
  as the clear meaning of our _Established_ Church, and all other
  _protestant_ churches.’ This is a charge indeed! But I plead not
  guilty: and till it is proved upon me, I must subscribe myself, my
  dear lady, your ladyship’s affectionate but much injured servant,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[145]

Wesley had told his brother, that as “they had drawn the sword,” he
himself should “throw away the scabbard,” and now this was done.
Shirley found the tables turned, and, instead of attacking others, had
to defend himself; and hence, in September, he issued his “Narrative
of the Principal Circumstances relative to the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s late
Conference, held in Bristol, August 6, 1771.” 8vo, 24 pages.

Space prohibits any lengthened outline of Fletcher’s “Vindication.”
He gives (1) a general view of Wesley’s doctrine; (2) an account of
the commendable design of his minutes; (3) a vindication of their
propositions. It is in this production, that he furnishes his fearful
description of the antinomianism which was then so prevalent, and which
really rendered some utterance on the subject of good works a solemn
necessity. He also makes extracts from Shirley’s published sermons,
teaching the very doctrines which Wesley’s minutes teach; to which
quotations Shirley’s reply was, that “they were wrote many years ago
when he had more zeal than light,” and that he had “frequently wished
that they were burnt.”[146]

Fletcher concludes thus:--

  “O sir, have we not fightings enough without, to employ all our time
  and strength? Must we also declare war and promote fightings within?
  Must we catch at every opportunity to stab one another? What can be
  more cutting to an old minister of Christ than to be traduced as a
  dreadful heretic, in printed letters sent to the best men of the
  land, through all England and Scotland, and signed by a person of
  your rank and piety? While he is gone to a neighbouring kingdom,
  to preach Jesus Christ, to have his friends prejudiced, his foes
  elevated, and the fruit of his extensive ministry at the point of
  being blasted? Of the two greatest and most useful ministers I ever
  knew, one is no more. The other, after amazing labours, flies still,
  with unwearied diligence, through the three kingdoms, calling sinners
  to repentance. Though oppressed with the weight of near seventy
  years, and the cares of near thirty thousand souls, he shames still,
  by his unabated zeal and immense labours, all the young ministers in
  England, perhaps in Christendom. He has generally blown the gospel
  trumpet, and rode twenty miles, before most of the professors, who
  despise his labours, have left their downy pillows. As he begins the
  day, the week, the year, so he concludes them, still intent upon
  extensive services for the glory of the Redeemer, and the good of
  souls. And shall we lightly lift up our pens, our tongues, our hands
  against him? No; let them rather forget their cunning. If we _will_
  quarrel, can we find nobody to fall out with, but the minister upon
  whom God puts the greatest honour?”

Shirley’s “Narrative” was published in September, in which he
gives great prominence to one of Fletcher’s letters requesting his
“Vindication” to be suppressed. He furnishes an extract from one
addressed to Mr. Ireland, dated August 15, to the following effect: “I
feel for poor dear Mr. Shirley, whom I have, (considering the present
circumstances,) treated too severely in my vindication of the minutes.
My dear sir, what must be done? I am ready to defray, by selling to my
last shirt, the expense of the printing of my Vindication, and suppress
it.”

This was characteristic of Fletcher’s large heartedness; but the
extract from his letter was a garbled one, and rendered it necessary
that he should again enter the field of battle, and defend himself
as well as others. This was done at once, and, before the year was
ended, another production of his facile pen was published, namely, “A
Second Check to Antinomianism: occasioned by a late narrative, in three
letters, to the Hon. and Rev. Author. By the Vindicator of the Rev. Mr.
Wesley’s Minutes.” 12mo, 109 pages.

He tells Shirley, that, though it was perfectly true that he had
written to Mr. Ireland, requesting his letters to be suppressed,
he had also stated to the same gentleman, that “the minutes _must_
be vindicated,--that Mr. Wesley owed this to the Church, to the
‘real protestants,’ to all his societies, and to his own aspersed
character.” He states: “I was going to preach when I had the news of
your happy accommodation, and was no sooner out of church, than I
wrote to beg my Vindication might not appear in the dress in which I
had put it. I did not then, nor do I yet, repent having written upon
the minutes; but, as matters are now, I am very sorry I did not write
in a general manner, without taking notice of the circular letter,
and mentioning your dear name.”[147] He adds, that when he gave the
manuscript to Wesley, he begged him to correct it, and to expunge
whatever might be “unkind or too sharp.” Wesley had assured him, that
“he _had_ expunged every tart expression”; and, if so, (for Fletcher
had not yet seen it in a printed form,) he was “_reconciled_ to its
publication.” Fletcher further adds, that he had just received a
letter (September 11, 1771) from Bristol, stating that when Thomas
Olivers, who was now acting as Wesley’s editor, heard of Fletcher’s
wish to suppress his “Vindication,” he had already announced to the
Bristol congregation, that the work was in the press, and would soon be
ready. “Besides,” continues Fletcher, in reference to Thomas Olivers
being the only preacher who refused to sign the declaration at the
conference,--“Besides, Mr. Olivers would have pleaded, with smartness,
that he never approved of a patched up peace,--that he bore his
testimony against it at the time it was made,--had a personal right to
produce _my_ arguments, since both parties refused to hear _his_ at the
conference.”

These facts are of great consequence, inasmuch as Shirley magnifies
Wesley’s publication of Fletcher’s Vindication into a heinous fault;
and others after him have endeavoured to brand Wesley’s character, not
only for perpetuating the war, but for publishing Fletcher’s manuscript
contrary to Fletcher’s wish. This is utterly unjust. The war was begun,
not by Wesley, but by the Calvinists; and surely the attacked was not
presumptuous, or wanton, in endeavouring to defend himself. It is
true, that, in doing that, he uses the sword of his friend Fletcher;
but what of that? The sword was given him to use, on July 27, when on
his return from Ireland; and, though Fletcher subsequently hesitated
as to the propriety of the step he had taken, it was not until the
sword was brandished, by Fletcher’s manuscript being committed to the
press and actually announced for sale. Besides, Fletcher’s hesitancy
had reference, not to the thing done, but to the manner of its being
done. A vindication he considered to be imperatively required: but
he was afraid that his own was too personal. Shirley was aggrieved,
because he pretends to have thought that the signing of the declaration
would have ended the matter; but Shirley conveniently forgets: (1)
that he himself had blackened Wesley’s character throughout the three
kingdoms; (2) that Wesley and his preachers had conceded nothing
to their adversaries, except that the minutes of 1770 were “not
sufficiently guarded in the way in which they are expressed”; (3) that,
as Fletcher abundantly demonstrates, there was a terrible necessity
for an enforcement of the doctrine of the minutes at this momentous
period, both the pulpits and pews of churches being infected with the
deadly antinomianism of the late Dr. Crisp; and (4) that, after all,
the doctrine of the minutes was only one part of the controversy which
the Calvinists had raised, and that there were other attacks on Wesley,
made by men like Augustus Toplady, and the editor of the _Gospel
Magazine_, which it was impossible, and, in fact, would have been
criminally disastrous, to have passed without rebuke.

That Fletcher did not regret the publishing of his Vindication is
evident from the alacrity he showed in the preparation and publishing
of his “Second Check;” the chief object of which was to establish “the
doctrine of justification by works in the day of judgment”; and to
reprove Walter Shirley for insinuating, in his “Narrative,” that this
was a doctrine which Wesley and his fifty-three itinerant preachers had
given up.

Shirley retired from the field of battle; but others took up the
gauntlet. The _Gospel Magazine_, faithful to its character, was
as furious as ever. In its August number, it published a review
of the “Church of England vindicated from the Charge of Absolute
Predestination,” declaring that Wesley was its author’s “dictator and
employer.” The work is pronounced “a composition of low scurrility
and illiberal abuse.” The writer is charged with having “horribly
blasphemed, and daringly given the lie to the God of truth, by
asserting that any justified soul may at last perish in hell.”
“Arminianism is a hodgepodge of human systems, made up of grace and
works, so blended together as to destroy the true meaning of both.”

In the same number was published Cleon’s poem on “Wesley’s apostasy
from the genuine faith of the gospel, an awful proof that evil men and
seducers wax worse and worse.” One verse must serve as a specimen.
After describing the doctrine of Wesley’s minutes, Cleon writes:

   “In vain for worse may Wesley search the globe,
    A viper hatched beneath the harlot’s robe;
    Rome, in her glory, has no greater boast,
    Than Wesley aims--to all conviction lost.”

In the September number, “Simplex, from the neighbourhood of the
Foundery,” expresses his astonishment, that Shirley and his friends
should have been satisfied with the declaration, signed at conference,
inasmuch as “it denies not one tittle clearly asserted in the minutes.”
Wesley is credited with possessing “the unfathomable policy of a
dubious divine.” He is a “fox,” who “has had sagacity enough to elude
his hunters;” and “evidently shows that he never meant to recant what
he had declared in the minutes, when he signed the declaration.”

In a subsequent number, “Simplex” reappears, and tells his readers that
he is “sorry to see the name of a Christian minister prefixed to such
foul and futile productions as those of Mr. Sellon. Mr. Fletcher’s pen
is more cleanly, but every whit as unfair. He is like a madman flinging
abroad firebrands, arrows, and death, amongst those who differ from
him. Master Thomas Olivers has shocked common decency in his letter
to Mr. Toplady. And Mr. Wesley must be more explicit than he has been
accustomed to be, before he can give a satisfactory answer to Simplex’s
querulous epistle.” These are moderate specimens of the tone and
language of the _Gospel Magazine_.

Another brace of antagonists must be mentioned, Richard and Rowland
Hill, the sons of Sir Rowland Hill, the former born in 1732, and the
latter in 1745. Richard had been educated at Westminster, and had spent
four or five years at Magdalen college, Oxford. Rowland had been sent
to Eton, and then to Cambridge university. Both the brothers had turned
preachers, though, as yet, neither of them had been ordained. They were
young, proud, and irascible; and, with greater zeal than prudence,
entered into the Calvinian conflict.

Richard Hill published[148] a sixpenny pamphlet, 8vo, of 31 pages,
entitled “A Conversation between Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr.
Madan, and Father Walsh, superior of a convent of English Benedictine
monks at Paris, held at the said convent, July 13, 1771, relative
to some doctrinal Minutes, advanced by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley and
others, at a conference in London, August 7, 1770. To which are added
some Remarks by the Editor; as also Mr. Wesley’s own Declaration
concerning his Minutes, versified by another Hand.” A prodigiously
long title of a supremely silly tract, whose object is to show that
Wesley’s doctrine was a great deal worse than popery; in fact, that
“popery is about midway between protestantism and Mr. J. Wesley.” We
content ourselves with Sir Richard’s poetical version of Wesley’s
declaration:

   “Whereas, the religion and fate of three nations
    Depend on the importance of our conversations;
    And as some objections are thrown in our way,
    Our words have been construed to mean what they say;
    Be’t known from henceforth, to each friend and each brother,
    Whene’er we _say_ one thing, we _mean_ quite _another_.”

Sir Richard was not content with this. He issued a penny 12mo tract of
12 pages, with the title, “An Answer to some capital Errors contained
in the Minutes,” etc., which finishes by reproducing the doggerel
calumny just given, as though it were far too precious to be entombed
in the more costly pamphlet with which he had enriched the Christian
church.

His third publication,--by far the best,--was an octavo pamphlet of 40
pages, entitled, “Five Letters to the Reverend Mr. Fletcher, relative
to his Vindication of the Minutes of the Reverend Mr. John Wesley.”
Apart from its theology, of which we say nothing, this was worthy of a
scholar, a Christian, and a gentleman. The spirit of the piece is most
loving, and the style unexceptionable.

The publications, on the other side, in addition to those of Fletcher,
were three in number.

First, Wesley’s tract of 12 pages, entitled, “The Consequence Proved”;
without either the author’s or the printer’s name. Its object is to
substantiate his former assertion, that the gist of Toplady’s Zanchius
is to teach that “one in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected, and
nineteen in twenty are reprobate: that the elect shall be saved, do
what they will; and the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.”
Wesley says: “I have not leisure to consider the matter at large. I
can only make a few strictures, and leave the young man (Toplady)
to be farther corrected by one that is full his match, Mr. Thomas
Olivers.”[149]

To be handed over to Thomas Olivers was one of the bitterest pills that
Toplady had to swallow. Olivers was a man of great intellectual power;
but he had the misfortune to commence life as a Welsh mechanic of not
the highest order. He was left an orphan when only four years old, and
had now attained the age of forty-six. His publication, 12mo, 60 pages,
was entitled, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Toplady, occasioned by his
late Letter to the Reverend Mr. Wesley.” In invective and tart rebuke,
Toplady met a match in the intrepid and fiery Welshman who, on behalf
of Wesley, undertook to fight the furious predestinarian with the not
too respectable weapons of his own choosing. It certainly is difficult
to decide which is the more proficient in the use of strong language.
It was a fisticuff encounter between a pugilistic pair, whose thumping
blows may be considered of equal force.

The third publication, alluded to above, was “The Church of England
Vindicated from the Charge of Predestination, as it is stated and
asserted by the Translator of Jerome Zanchius, in his Letter to the
Rev. Dr. Nowell; together with some Animadversions on his Translation
of Zanchius, his Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, and his Sermon
on 1 Timothy i. 10.” 12mo, 129 pages. The author was the redoubtable
Walter Sellon, who, for outspokenness, was only second to Toplady and
Olivers themselves. At the same time, however, Sellon’s book evinces
great ability and research, and thoroughly demolishes the unfounded
theories of an opponent, whose pen was guided by bigotry rather than by
Christian discretion. The castigation was severe, but it was merited.
The lash of a scorpion whip is far from pleasant; but the man who uses
it has no reason to complain of another using it in self defence.
Toplady had a right to wince and writhe; but, under the circumstances,
he had no right to foam, as, in succeeding chapters, we shall find he
did.

Here, for the present, we shall leave this embittered conflict, and
trace the steps of the illustrious man whose high position seemed to
engender the envy which led to the attack upon him; but who, excepting
a short skirmish now and then, pursued his high and holy mission with
as much serenity as if the conflict had not existed.

He landed in Ireland on March 24, and re-embarked for England on July
22nd following.

At Dublin, the society had been jangling for years, and, as a
consequence, had suffered loss. Though not expressly stated, it is
clear that the cause of their quarreling was a dispute respecting the
authority of the preachers and of the leaders respectively. Wesley, as
the fountain of Methodistic law, now laid it down that classleaders
had no authority to restrain the assistant, if they thought he acted
improperly; but might mildly speak to him, and then refer the matter
to Wesley to be decided. They had no “authority to hinder a person
from preaching, or to displace a particular leader, or to expel a
particular member, or to regulate the temporal and spiritual affairs
of the society, or to make any public collection, or to receive the
yearly subscription.” All this was the work of the assistant, with
one exception, namely, that the temporal affairs of the society
were regulated by the society steward. The power of a classleader
simply consisted in authority to meet his class, to receive their
contributions, and to visit his sick members; and the power of all
classleaders united was “authority to show their classpapers to the
assistant, and to deliver the money they had received to the stewards,
and to bring in the names of the sick.”

Rightly or wrongly, such was Methodist discipline in 1771. “In the
Methodist discipline,” writes Wesley, “the wheels regularly stand
thus: the assistant, the preachers, the stewards, the leaders, the
people. But here the leaders, who are the lowest wheel but one, were
quite got out of their place. They were got at the top of all, above
the stewards, the preachers, yea, and above the assistant himself. To
this chiefly, I impute the gradual decay of the work of God in Dublin.”
“Nothing,” says he, at Londonderry, where two years before he had
organised a band of singers, which through the preacher’s neglect was
now dispersed, “Nothing will stand in the Methodist plan unless the
preacher has his heart and his hand in it. Every preacher, therefore,
should consider it is not his business to mind this or that thing only,
but everything.”

More than three months of Wesley’s time were spent, not in Dublin, but
in itinerating the Irish provinces. In many instances, he was gladdened
with the prosperity of the work of God; in others, as Dublin, Athlone,
Tullamore, Waterford, Cork, and Augher, the aspect of things was far
from promising.

While on this lengthened journey, Wesley made the following entry in
his journal: “1771. June 28--This day I entered the sixty-ninth year of
my age. I am still a wonder to myself. My voice and strength are the
same as at nine-and-twenty. This also hath God wrought.”

Wesley remained in Ireland until he was obliged to leave in order to
meet his conference at Bristol. Much space has been already occupied
with an account of its important proceedings; but it may be added that,
notwithstanding the Calvinian disturbances, there was reported an
increase of 1934 members. Among others, Joseph Benson was received on
trial as an itinerant preacher; and Francis Asbury and Richard Wright
were sent as a reinforcement to America. Nearly £1700 were contributed
to extinguish the chapel debts; and, to accomplish the thing at once,
it was recommended that, upon an average, every Methodist, in the
three kingdoms, should give, for one year, a penny a week. “If this is
done,” says Wesley, “it will both pay our whole debt, and supply all
contingencies.”

No sooner was the conference over than Wesley set out for Wales, where
he laboured nearly the next three weeks. One of the Sundays was spent
in Pembroke, where he preached in two of the churches. He writes: “Many
of the congregation were gay, genteel people; so I spake on the first
elements of the gospel. But I was still out of their depth. Oh how hard
it is to be shallow enough for a polite audience!”

Returning to Bristol on August 31, he employed the next month in
visiting the societies surrounding that city. Twelve months before, he
had rejoiced over an apparently great religious revival in Kingswood
school; but now, says he, “it is gone! It is lost! It is vanished away!
There is scarce any trace of it remaining! Then we must begin again;
and, in due time, we shall reap if we faint not.”

Just at this period, Dr. William Cadogan’s book on the gout and all
chronic diseases was attracting great attention. Dr. Johnson called
it “a good book in general, but a foolish one in particulars.” Wesley
read the book, and agrees with Cadogan, that “very few of the chronic
distempers are properly hereditary; and that most of them spring either
from indolence, or intemperance, or irregular passions. But,” he adds,
and here he comes in conflict with modern teetotallers, “but why should
Dr. Cadogan condemn wine _toto genere_, which is one of the noblest
cordials in nature? Yet stranger, why should he condemn bread? Great
whims belong to great men!”

After an absence of seven months, Wesley got back to London on
Saturday, October 5; and, on the Monday following, set out on his usual
tour through the counties of Bedford and Northampton. This occupied a
week, as did a similar visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. For many
years, Wesley was accustomed to spend the last two or three months in
each year in weekly journeys from London as a pastoral centre. The
Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire journey was one; the Oxfordshire
another; Chatham and Sheerness a third; Staplehurst, Rye, Winchelsea,
and other places a fourth; and Norfolk a fifth, which generally
occupied a longer time.

Wesley concludes the year with this entry: “December 30--At my
brother’s request, I sat again for my picture. This melancholy
employment always reminds me of that natural reflection,--

   ‘Behold, what frailty we in man may see!
    His shadow is less given to change than he.’”

Little more remains to be related respecting the year 1771, except the
points following.

It is a curious fact, that, in the year when Fletcher began to render
Wesley important service by the publication of his “Checks,” Fletcher’s
future wife, Miss Bosanquet, applied to Wesley for advice on the
subject of female preaching. Our space prevents the possibility of
discussing such a topic at the length which it deserves; but Wesley’s
letter, hitherto unpublished, will be acceptable, as showing that,
however much importance he was disposed to attach to church order, he
was not the man to make all things bend to it.

                                          “LONDONDERRY, _June 13, 1771_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--I think the strength of the cause rests there,--on
  your having an _extraordinary_ call. So, I am persuaded, has every
  one of our lay preachers; otherwise, I could not countenance his
  preaching at all. It is plain to me, that the whole work of God
  termed Methodism is an extraordinary dispensation of His providence.
  Therefore, I do not wonder if several things occur therein, which do
  not fall under the ordinary rules of discipline. St. Paul’s ordinary
  rule was, ‘I permit not a woman to speak in the congregation.’ Yet,
  in extraordinary cases, he made a few exceptions; at Corinth in
  particular.

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

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[150]

In 1771, Wesley began a revision and republication of all the works
which he had published during the last five-and-thirty years, with the
exception of his Notes on the Old and New Testament, his “Christian
Library,” his “Natural Philosophy,” and his books for Kingswood school.
It was during this year that he issued a careful reprint of the four
volumes of sermons published in 1746, 48, 50, and 60, with the addition
of ten sermons, most of which had been published separately.

Besides these, he published five 12mo volumes of his collected works,
embracing the sermons just mentioned; and making together about 1800
printed pages, in which he not only corrected the errors of the press,
but his own mistakes, and did, what has not been done in any subsequent
edition of his works,--placed an asterisk before the passages and
paragraphs which he judged were most worthy of the reader’s notice.

He likewise published the fourteenth “Extract” from his journal,
extending from May 27, 1765, to May 5, 1768. 12mo, 128 pages.[151]

His only other publications were his “Consequence Proved,” and his
“Defence” of his minutes, already mentioned; and finally, “A Letter
to the Reverend Mr. Fleury,” of Waterford, in Ireland. Mr. Fleury was
a young parson, who, both in 1769, and now again in 1771, had taken
the opportunity of Wesley’s visits to Waterford to preach against him.
Wesley writes: “1771, May 28--At eleven, and again in the afternoon,
I went to the cathedral, where a young gentleman most valiantly
encountered the ‘grievous wolves,’ as he termed the Methodists. I
never heard a man strike more wide of the mark. However, the shallow
discourse did good; for it sent abundance of people, rich and poor,
to hear and judge for themselves.” The “young gentleman’s” two
sermons, which were published, were made up of the stale objections
and invectives that had been used, by his superiors and seniors, times
without number. Wesley’s letter is a characteristic reply to them.


FOOTNOTES:

     [118] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 72.

     [119] _Methodist Magazine_, 1784, p. 388.

     [120] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 22.

     [121] Ibid.

     [122] Doubtless his letter to Lady Huntingdon.

     [123] _Methodist Magazine_, 1805, p. 279.

     [124] Wesley’s Life of Fletcher.

     [125] Manuscript letter.

     [126] Benson’s Life, by Treffry.

     [127] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 285.

     [128] Probably Mr. Romaine.

     [129] Fletcher’s Vindication, 1st Edit., p. 21.

     [130] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
           p. 240.

     [131] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 256.

     [132] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 563.

     [133] The minutes of the conference of 1770.

     [134] The _italic_ words are emphasized in the original.

     [135] Shirley’s “Narrative,” p. 5.

     [136] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 253.

     [137] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 394.

     [138] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
           p. 237.

     [139] This was probably “The Consequence Proved,” to be
           noticed shortly.

     [140] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 127.

     [141] Shirley’s “Narrative,” p. 8.

     [142] Ibid. p. 10.

     [143] Charles Wesley’s name is not in the list: a further
           proof that, strangely enough, he was not at this most
           important conference.

     [144] This is the word in Shirley’s “Narrative”; but in
           the _Gospel Magazine_ for August, 1771, the word
           “justification” is used instead; and there can be
           little doubt, that this was the reading of the
           original declaration. The difference at first seems
           slight, but, in reality, it is of great importance,
           as the readers of Fletcher’s “Checks” will easily
           perceive.

     [145] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 349.

     [146] Shirley’s “Narrative.”

     [147] “Second Check,” 1st Edit., p. 40.

     [148] See Sir Richard Hill’s Life, p. 191.

     [149] There was also published, at this period, a smartly
           written rebuke of Toplady, and a defence of Wesley,
           entitled, “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Augustus Toplady,
           written in great part by himself, relative to part of
           his printed Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.” 8vo,
           21 pages.

     [150] Manuscript letter.

     [151] As a curiosity, and as tending to show that, in this
           season of excitement, all men were not Wesley’s
           enemies, we give an extract from a review of this
           section of Wesley’s Journal, published in _Lloyd’s
           Evening Post_, for January 20, 1772:--“In this
           interval, between May 27, 1765, and May 5, 1768,
           this zealous and truly laborious missionary of the
           Methodists, who seems to consider the three kingdoms
           as his parochial cure, twice traverses the greater
           part of Ireland and Scotland, from Londonderry
           to Cork, from Aberdeen to Dumfries, visiting and
           confirming the churches, besides making a progress,
           chiefly on horseback (in many places more than
           once), through great part of Wales, and almost
           all the counties in England, from Newcastle to
           Southampton, from Dover to Penzance. Those who expect
           to find in this Journal only the peculiar tenets of
           Methodism will be agreeably disappointed, as they
           are intermixed with such occasional reflections on
           men and manners, on polite literature, and even on
           polite places, as prove that the writer is endued
           with a taste well cultivated both by reading and
           observation; and above all with such a benevolence
           and sweetness of temper, such an enlarged, liberal,
           and truly protestant way of thinking towards those
           who differ from him, as clearly show that _his
           heart_, at least, is right, and justly entitle him to
           that candour and forbearance, which, for the honour
           of our common religion, we are glad to find he now
           generally receives.”




                                1772.
                               Age 69


Wesley’s first journey from London, in 1772, was on the 16th of
January, when he came to Luton, and preached in the parish church. The
friendly clergyman, who gave him this permission, was the Rev. Mr.
Copleston, whose son afterwards became a Methodist local preacher, and
was driven from Luton by the iron hand of persecution, and then, after
preaching for a while at St. Albans, introduced Methodism into Leighton
Buzzard, where he died, in 1835, at the age of seventy, having been an
earnest Methodist more than fifty years.[152]

In a visit to Dorking, Wesley read Sterne’s “Sentimental Journey,”
and writes, “_Sentimental!_ What is that? It is not English; he might
as well say _continental_. It is not sense. It conveys no determinate
idea; yet one fool makes many, and this nonsensical word (who would
believe it?) is become a fashionable one! However, the book agrees full
well with the title; for one is as queer as the other. For oddity,
uncouthness, and unlikeness to all the world beside, I suppose the
writer is without a rival.” This was a bold criticism on Laurence
Sterne, and his recently published book, which was now immensely
popular. On his return from Dorking, on February 12, Wesley writes:
“I read a very different book, published by an honest quaker, on that
execrable sum of all villanies, commonly called the slave trade. I read
of nothing like it in the heathen world, whether ancient or modern;
and it infinitely exceeds, in every instance of barbarity, whatever
Christian slaves suffer in Mahommedan countries.”

This is a remarkable utterance. It was in this very year that Granville
Sharpe, the first of the English antislavery advocates, began to take
up the subject; and it was not until fifteen years after this, that the
“Society for the Suppression of the Slave Trade” was founded, of which,
besides Sharpe, two of the chief members were Thomas Clarkson, a young
graduate of Cambridge, and William Wilberforce, who was then M.P. for
the county of York. The book which Wesley read was probably written
by Anthony Benezet, a French protestant, who, after being educated in
England, became a quaker in Philadelphia; and, in 1762, published the
work which first attracted the attention of this country[153] to the
inhuman traffic, which Wesley so justly designates “that execrable
sum of all villanies.” Let it be noted that, besides all his other
honours, John Wesley, the poor, persecuted Methodist, was one of the
first advocates on behalf of the enthralled African that England had,
and that, sixty years before slavery was abolished in the dominions of
Great Britain, he denounced the thing in the strongest terms it was
possible to employ.

Before we accompany Wesley on his long northern tour, three other
facts, belonging to this period, may be briefly mentioned.

Ten years ago, Thomas Maxfield had dishonourably forsaken his old
friend, and had set up a rival church in the neighbourhood of
Moorfields. For some reason, he now seemed to desire a reunion. Wesley
was not the man to repel an overture even from one whose behaviour had
been ungrateful and treacherous. He met Maxfield; but writes: “He only
_seemed_ to desire a reunion; for when we explained upon the head, I
found he meant just nothing.”

Wesley was now close upon the age of threescore years and ten. His life
had been a scene of unparalleled activity; and, though still possessed
of amazing vigour, he had not the energy he had been wont to have.
His friends in London saw this; and hence the following entry in his
journal. “1772. Feb. 21.--I met several of my friends, who had begun a
subscription to prevent my riding on horseback, which I cannot do quite
so well, since a hurt which I got some months ago. If they continue it,
well; if not, I shall have strength according to my need.”

Wesley’s last act before leaving London was to open a new chapel
at Poplar. He writes: “1772. Feb. 28--I opened the new preaching
house in Poplar: one might say, consecrated it; for the English law
(notwithstanding the vulgar error) does not require, nay, does not
allow, any other consecration of churches than by performing public
service therein.”

Up to this period, the preaching at Poplar had been in private
dwellings, and in the workhouse, the mistress of which was a Methodist.
Now a wooden building was erected in High Street, which was long
called, out of derision, “the pantile shop.” One of the first members
was Benjamin King, who previous to this attended Gravel Lane chapel,
Wapping, one of the oldest Methodist meeting-houses in London, but
which was long since demolished for the making of the London Docks.
For many a year, Methodism at Poplar had a struggle for existence,
and often was Wesley importuned to give up the preaching there; but
his constant answer was, “Does the old woman” (Mrs. Clippendale)
“who sits in the corner of the long pew, still attend?” “O yes,” was
the reply; “she never misses.” “Then for her sake keep going,” was
Wesley’s rejoinder. The venerable woman, who was thus the means of
perpetuating Methodist preaching at Poplar, was a native of Swalwell,
near Newcastle, and, at twelve years of age, received her first society
ticket, in 1745, from the hands of Wesley. Four years later, she
came to London, and continued a faithful Methodist for above seventy
years.[154]

Strangely enough, it was now currently reported that Wesley was about
to leave England for America. The following refers to this.

                                       “NEW YORK, _April 1, 1772_.

  “REVEREND SIR,--By a letter from Mr. Lloyd, of London, we are
  informed that you incline to visit America. Mr. Whitefield’s
  preaching was of unspeakable use to many; but he preached mostly in
  the seaport towns, and the most populous parts of the provinces,
  where the gospel was known, though not preached in power. In the back
  parts, which are now grown populous, the inhabitants are still in
  a state of deplorable ignorance. If some zealous and able teachers
  would engage heartily in the work of their conversion, how soon
  might rivers spring forth in the desert, and these owls and dragons
  of the wilderness give honour to God. No doubt, many in England and
  elsewhere, who abound in wealth, would contribute towards erecting
  schools to teach the children, and also towards the support of
  preachers, if such an undertaking was properly set on foot. But who
  is qualified for this work? I know none except yourself.

  “But, dear sir, what concerns me more than all is the unhappy
  condition of our negroes, who are kept in worse than Egyptian
  bondage. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, and all the
  superfluities we possess, are the produce of their labours; and what
  do they receive in return? Nothing equivalent; on the contrary, we
  keep from them the key of knowledge; so that their bodies and souls
  perish together in our service! If, therefore, you are not too
  advanced in years, I say to you, in the name of God, come over and
  help us; in doing which you will greatly oblige many thousands, and,
  among the rest, your friend and brother,

                                           “JONATHAN BRYAN.”[155]

Did Wesley seriously think of this? We are not sure; but the following
characteristic letter to Walter Sellon will be read with interest.

                                             “_February 1, 1772._

  “DEAR WALTER,--You do not understand your information right. Observe,
  ‘I am going to America to turn bishop.’ You are to understand it _in
  sensu composito_. I am not to be a bishop till I am in America. While
  I am in Europe, therefore, you have nothing to fear. But as soon as
  ever you hear of my being landed in Philadelphia, it will be time for
  your apprehensions to revive. It is true, some of our preachers would
  not have me stay, so long; but I keep my old rule, _Festina lente_.

  “I am, dear Walter, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[156]

Previous to his leaving London, Wesley commenced a long correspondence,
which extended over the next two years, with Samuel Sparrow, Esq.,
a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Sheffield, who had published a
volume, entitled “Family Prayers and Moral Essays,” a copy of which
was presented to Wesley by the author. The writer has before him the
correspondence that ensued; and perhaps the following extracts, from
some of Wesley’s letters, will be acceptable.

  “To the questions which you propose I answer: (1) I think that if
  a hundred, or a hundred thousand, sincere, honest, humble, modest,
  self diffident men were, with attention and care, to read the New
  Testament, uninfluenced by any but the Holy Spirit, nine in ten of
  them, at least, if not every one, would discover that the Son of God
  was ‘adorable,’ and one God with the Father; and would be immediately
  led to ‘honour Him even as they honoured the Father.’

  “(2) Give a fair, impartial reading to that account of mankind in
  their present state, which is contained in the book on original sin.
  It is no play of imagination, but plain, clear fact. We see it with
  our eyes, and hear it with our ears daily. Heathens, Turks, Jews,
  Christians of every nation, are such men as are there described. Such
  are the tempers, such the manners, of lords, gentlemen, clergymen
  in England, as well as of tradesmen and the low vulgar. No man in
  his senses can deny it: and none can account for it, but upon the
  supposition of original sin.

  “On Scripture and common sense I build all my principles; and just so
  far as it agrees with these, I regard human authority.

  “There is too ‘just ground for charging the preachers both at
  Blackfriars church, the chapel at the Lock,[157] and the Tabernacle,
  with grievous want of charity; for most of them flatly maintain, ‘all
  who do not believe as they believe, are in a state of damnation;’
  all who do not believe the absolute decree of election, which
  necessarily infers absolute reprobation. My brother and I set out on
  two principles: (1) None go to heaven without holiness of heart and
  life; (2) Whoever follows after this, whatever his opinions be, is my
  brother; and we have not swerved a hair’s breadth from either the one
  or the other to this day.”

On the 1st of March Wesley set out on his northern visitation, and did
not return to London until seven months afterwards. It was now that
he preached his first sermon in the town of Leek, where Thomas Hanby,
eighteen years before, had formed a society at the peril of his life.
“Kill him, kill him,” bawled the mob, as they pelted him with showers
of stones; but the young evangelist, then only in the twenty-first year
of his age, mercifully escaped; and the rabble, headed by a lawyer, had
to content themselves with merely burning him in effigy.[158]

Wesley writes: “March 27, 1772.--While I was dining at Leek, some
gentlemen of the town sent to desire I would give them a sermon. As it
seemed to be a providential call, I did not think it right to refuse. A
large congregation quickly ran together, and were deeply attentive.”

A society had recently been gathered at Nantwich, of which Mr. Salmon,
an eccentric Christian gentleman, and some of his sisters, were
members; and hence Nantwich was now added to the places which Wesley
had to visit. This was probably the Mr. Salmon who was to have gone
with the Wesleys to Georgia, but who was forcibly detained in his
Cheshire home by his father and mother, who were distracted at the
thought of their son leaving them. Joseph Whittingham Salmon had a
good heart, but muddy head. Soon after this, he began to preach,[159]
and, at the death of his wife, in 1785, published a long rigmarole
funeral sermon, 8vo, 39 pages, which he preached in Barker Street
chapel, Nantwich, and which is strongly spiced with the mystical
delusion into which he had fallen. It is scarcely too much to say, that
the weak mind of this well meaning man henceforth lost its balance, and
that mystic pride and _cacoethes scribendi_ were the chief features
that distinguished the close of a lengthened but lustreless life. His
wife, however, and several of the Misses Salmon were intelligent and
earnest Methodists, and were among the earliest friends of Hester Ann
Roe, afterwards Mrs. Rogers.[160]

There was another gentleman of note, near Nantwich, Sir Thomas
Broughton, of Doddington Hall, who had a chapel in his park, and who,
though not a Methodist, himself read or preached to the congregation
the whole of Wesley’s sermons from first to last.[161] Salmon tells
us, that this “reverend baronet,” as he calls him, at the death of his
lady, called together his eleven children and his thirty servants, at
eleven o’clock at night, and then, as they stood round the corpse, amid
midnight silence and the dim radiance of lighted tapers, engaged in
prayer, previous to the interment, the whole forming a scene not easily
forgotten.

These were Methodism’s auxiliaries in the town of Nantwich; but, for
long years, it had to struggle with adversity, its members worshipping
in an old hired baptist chapel until the year 1808, when, chiefly
through the help of Mr. Withinshaw, a new chapel was erected, and
Nantwich was made a circuit town.[162]

On the 5th of April, Wesley reached Bolton and Manchester. In reference
to the former town he writes: “How wonderfully has God wrought in
this place! John Bennet, some years ago, reduced this society from
sevenscore to twelve; and they are now risen to a hundred and seventy.”
At Manchester, Wesley “drank tea at Am. O.;” probably Adam Oldham’s,
and remarks: “But how was I shocked! The children that used to cling
about me, and drink in every word, had been at a boarding school. There
they had unlearned all religion, and even seriousness; and had learned
pride, vanity, affectation, and whatever could guard them against the
knowledge and love of God. Methodist parents, who would send your girls
headlong to hell, send them to a fashionable boarding school!”

Proceeding by way of Whitehaven and Carlisle, Wesley came to Glasgow
on April 18, and, a week later, arrived at Perth, where he was the
provost’s guest, and received an honour which fell to him only once
again in his long lifetime. He shall tell his own story.

  “1772. April 28, Tuesday. We walked through the Duke of Athol’s
  gardens, in which was one thing I never saw before,--a summerhouse in
  the middle of a greenhouse, by means of which one might, in the depth
  of winter, enjoy the warmth of May, and sit surrounded with greens
  and flowers on every side.

  “In the evening I preached once more at Perth, to a large and serious
  congregation. Afterwards they did me an honour I never thought
  of,--presented me with the freedom of the city. The diploma ran
  thus:--

  “‘_Magistratuum illustris ordo et honorandus senatorum cætus inclytæ
  civitatis Perthensis, in debiti amoris et affectuum tesseram erga
  Johannem Wesley, immunitatibus præfatæ civitatis, societatis etiam
  et fraternitatis ædilitiæ privilegiis donarunt. Aprilis die 28, anno
  Sal. 1772._’

  “I question whether any diploma from the city of London be more
  pompous, or expressed in better Latin.”

Eight days afterwards, the magistrates of Arbroath conferred on Wesley
a similar mark of their respect.

While in this part of Scotland, Wesley read two Scotch authors, upon
whom his criticisms are too racy to be omitted. He writes:

  “In my way to Perth, I read over the first volume of Dr. Robertson’s
  ‘History of Charles the Fifth.’ I know not when I have been so
  disappointed. It might as well be called the History of Alexander
  the Great. Here is a quarto volume of eight or ten shillings’ price,
  containing dry verbose dissertations on feudal government, the
  substance of all which might be comprised in half a sheet of paper!
  But ‘Charles the Fifth!’ Where is Charles the Fifth?

            ‘Leave off thy reflections, and give us thy tale!’”

  “May 5. I read over, in my journey to Arbroath, Dr. Beattie’s
  ingenious ‘Inquiry after Truth.’ He is a writer quite equal to his
  subject, and far above the match of all the minute philosophers,
  David Hume in particular, the most insolent despiser of truth and
  virtue that ever appeared in the world. And, yet, it seems some
  complain of this doctor’s using him with too great severity! I cannot
  understand how that can be, unless he treated him with rudeness
  (which he does not), since he is an avowed enemy to God and man, and
  to all that is sacred and valuable on earth.”

On the 9th of May, Wesley reached Edinburgh, where his state of health
was made the subject of an important medical examination. It has
been already stated that, before he left London, his friends there,
perceiving signs of age and debility, had contributed to provide him
a carriage in which to pursue his extensive and laborious journeys.
Since then, in less than ten weeks, he had travelled, in his chaise
and on horseback, from London to Bristol, and thence to Birmingham,
Nottingham, Macclesfield, Chester, Liverpool, Manchester, Whitehaven,
Carlisle, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, preaching there, and at
a great number of intervening towns and villages, sometimes as many
as four sermons in a day. He had had to encounter winter storms, to
wade mid-leg deep in snow, and to travel roads so execrably bad, that
sometimes he was literally bogged. Not unfrequently he preached in the
midst of piercing winds in the open air; and yet, there is not a single
entry in his journal indicative of failing health. Never, in his life,
was he more intent upon the prosecution of his great work than now.
Writing to his brother from Congleton, and again from Perth, he says:

  “I find almost all our preachers, in every circuit, have done with
  Christian perfection. They say, they believe it; but they never
  preach it, or not once in a quarter. What is to be done? Shall we
  let it drop, or make a point of it? Oh what a thing it is to have
  _curam animarum_! You and I are called to this; to save souls from
  death; to watch over them as those that must give account! If our
  office implied no more than preaching a few times in a week, I could
  play with it; so might you. But how small a part of our duty (yours
  as well as mine) is this! God says to you, as well as me, ‘Do all
  thou canst, be it more or less, to save the souls for whom My Son has
  died.’ Let this voice be ever sounding in our ears; then shall we
  give up our account with joy. _Eia age, rumpe moras!_ I am ashamed of
  my indolence and inactivity. Your business, as well as mine, is to
  save souls. When we took priests’ orders we undertook to make it our
  one business. I think every day lost, which is not (mainly at least)
  employed in this thing. _Sum totus in illo._

  “I am glad you are to be at Bristol soon. To whom shall I leave my
  letters and papers? I am quite at a loss. I think Mr. Fletcher is the
  best that occurs now. Adieu!”[163]

Wesley was too busy to think of being ill. He was not alarmed; but his
friends were. Hence, the following addressed to Charles Wesley.

                                    “SHOREHAM, _April 18, 1772_.

  “MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I doubt not, but we both join in constant
  petitions, at the throne of grace, for the life and health of our
  dear absent friend, thy brother. By all accounts, his valuable health
  is in a precarious state; and unless God provides (as I doubt not but
  He will), for His people, they will have abundant reason to mourn.
  May God give thee a double portion of His Spirit, that thou mayest
  stand in the gap, and prevent the flock being led by any who have not
  true gospel light in the head, and great integrity in the heart! My
  love to thy dear brother; the same attends thee and my dear sister,
  and all thy family. The Divine blessing be with all of us!

                     “Thine, most affectionately,

                                         “VINCENT PERRONET.”[164]

Probably it was the request of his friends, rather than his own
anxiety, which induced Wesley, at Edinburgh, to submit to a medical
examination.

At this period, Dr. James Hamilton was a young man of about
two-and-thirty, and was practising medicine in his native town of
Dunbar, where he also had joined the Methodists. Afterwards he removed
to Leeds, and then to London, where he was elected physician to the
London Dispensary, and rose to eminence in the medical profession. He
died in Finsbury Square, April 21, 1827, at the age of eighty-seven,
having been a Methodist upwards of sixty years, and nearly as long a
highly acceptable and useful local preacher.

Dr. Alexander Monro was a few years older. Such was his ability, that,
at the age of twenty-two, he was appointed professor of anatomy and
surgery to the University of Edinburgh; and is said, by the excellence
of his lectures, to have materially assisted in raising it to the
highest celebrity as a school of medicine.

Dr. James Gregory was now a young man in his twentieth year; but, two
years later, was appointed professor of the theory of physic, and rose
to such eminence in his profession as to draw pupils from all parts of
the world.

These were the three physicians who attended Wesley. He writes: “May
18--Dr. Hamilton brought with him Dr. Monro and Dr. Gregory. They
satisfied me what my disorder was; and told me there was but one method
of cure. Perhaps but one natural one; but I think God has more than one
method of healing either the soul or the body.”

Wesley’s disease was hydrocele.[165] A few months later, he writes: “I
am almost a disabled soldier. I am forbid to ride, and am obliged to
travel mostly in a carriage.”[166]

That Wesley’s health was seriously affected there cannot be doubt.
_Lloyd’s Evening Post_, for June 15, remarks: “By accounts from
Scotland, we learn that the Rev. Mr. Wesley has had a dangerous fit
of illness, in which he was attended by three of the most eminent of
the faculty there, who gave him over; but some younger gentlemen in
practice have been luckily assistant to him, and they have now hopes
that he may continue his ministry many years longer.”

Wesley doubtless was amused with this. During his ten days’ stay in
Edinburgh, he preached at least about half-a-dozen times; and, on the
very day when the medical men met, he opened a new chapel at Leith, and
two days later started for Newcastle, preaching on his way at Dunbar,
Alnwick, and Morpeth.

Reaching Newcastle on May 25, he spent the remainder of the week in the
town and neighbourhood, preaching, on the Sunday, three times out of
doors, to immense and attentive congregations.

The first four days in the month of June were occupied with what he
calls “a little tour through the dales”; and, in this brief period,
besides travelling scores of miles over “the horrid mountains,” and
examining societies, he preached at least eight sermons. He writes:
“from the top of an enormous mountain we had a view of Weardale. It is
a lovely prospect. The green, gently rising meadows and fields, on both
sides of the little river, clear as crystal, were sprinkled over with
innumerable little houses; three in four of which, if not nine in ten,
are sprung up since the Methodists came hither. Since that time, the
beasts are turned into men, and the wilderness into a fruitful field.”

Six months before this, Weardale had been blessed with a remarkable
religious revival, the penitent prayer-meetings often continuing
till ten or eleven o’clock at night, and sometimes till four in the
morning. On one occasion, four young men, seeking pardon, remained
on their knees for five hours together. Among others who found mercy
was an old woman, who, twenty-three years before, was the first in
Weardale to receive the Methodists into her house. Sometimes as many as
half-a-dozen “lay on the ground together, roaring for the disquietude
of their hearts.” Chiefly through the instrumentality of Jane Salkeld,
a schoolmistress, thirty children were converted, including Phœbe
Featherstone, Hannah Watson, and others whom Wesley mentions.

Not only does Wesley give, at great length, the details of this
revival; but he compares it with that at Everton thirteen years before.
His remarks are worth quoting.

  “It resembled the work at Everton in many respects, but not in all.

  “It resembled that work--(1) In its unexpected beginning; no such
  work had ever been seen before either at Everton or in Weardale. (2)
  In the swiftness of its progress, I mean in the persons affected;
  many of whom were in one day, or even two or three hours, both
  convinced of sin (without any previous awakening), and converted
  to God. (3) In the number of persons both convinced and converted,
  which was greater in a few months than it had been in Weardale from
  the first preaching there, or in Everton for a century. (4) In the
  outward symptoms which have attended it: in both, the sudden and
  violent emotions of mind affected the whole bodily frame; insomuch
  that many trembled exceedingly, many fell to the ground, many were
  violently convulsed, and many seemed to be in the agonies of death.
  (5) In most of the instruments whom God employed: these were plain,
  artless men, simple of heart, but without any remarkable gifts;
  men who, almost literally, knew ‘nothing save Jesus Christ and Him
  crucified.’

  “In these respects, the work of God in Weardale nearly resembled
  that at Everton; but, in other respects, they were widely different.
  For--(1) That was the first work of God, of the kind, which had ever
  been in those parts in the memory of man; this was only a revival of
  a work, which had continued for many years. Now these circumstances
  are common at the dawn of a work, but afterwards very uncommon. I do
  not remember to have seen the like anywhere in the three kingdoms,
  unless at the beginning of a work. (2) Although the former work was
  swift, the latter was far swifter. In general, persons were both
  awakened and justified in a far shorter time. (3) A far greater
  number were converted to God in Weardale than about Everton, although
  the number of hearers about Everton was abundantly greater than in
  Weardale. (4) Although the outward symptoms were the same, yet in
  Weardale there were none of the dreams, visions, and revelations
  which abounded at Everton; and which, though at first they
  undoubtedly were from God, yet were afterwards fatally counterfeited
  by the devil. (5) There was a great difference in the instruments
  whom God employed. Not one of those in or near Everton had any
  experience in the guiding of souls. None of them were more than
  ‘babes in Christ,’ if any of them so much. Whereas, in Weardale, not
  only the three preachers were, I believe, renewed in love, but most
  of the leaders were deeply experienced in the work of God. Hence, (6)
  we may easily account for the grand difference, namely, that the one
  work was so shallow, and the other so deep. Many children here have
  had far deeper experience, and more constant fellowship with God,
  than the oldest man or woman at Everton which I have seen or heard
  of.”

Such were Wesley’s moralisings on the Weardale revival, in 1772, in
which less than a hundred people were converted, and concerning which
he says: “upon the whole, we may affirm, such a work of God as this has
not been seen before in the three kingdoms.” If this was so, who will
say that the former times were better than these? How many thousands of
aged Methodists can easily call to mind far more remarkable revivals of
the work of God than even that in Weardale! And, further, how was it
that, at Wesley’s visit two years after, the results of this revival
were almost reduced to nothing, except that, in consequence of the
backslidings, “the preachers were discouraged; and jealousies, heart
burnings, and evil surmisings, were multiplied more and more”?

Wesley returned from Weardale to Newcastle on the 5th of June, and
here, and in the immediate neighbourhood, he spent the next ten days.
In the Newcastle society, there were fewer members than he had found
two years before. “This,” says he, “I can impute to nothing but the
want of visiting from house to house; without which the people will
hardly increase, either in number or grace.” This was a sharp thrust
at some of the most distinguished preachers of the day, namely, Peter
Jaco, Joseph Cownley, Thomas Hanby, Matthew Lowes, Thomas Tennant,
William Thompson, and Thomas Simpson, all of them appointed to
Newcastle at this period.

On June 15, Wesley left Newcastle, and spent the next week in preaching
at Durham, Stockton, Yarm, Thirsk, Osmotherley, Hutton Rudby,
Stokesley, Castleton, Whitby, Robinhood’s Bay, and Scarborough. This
was pretty well, for a man afflicted as Wesley was, and at the age of
seventy.

Eighteen months before this, his termagant wife had abruptly left
him, and gone to her house at Newcastle. Now that his health was so
endangered, she was returning with him, whether to his comfort or
otherwise we are not informed; but, at all events, she had in Wesley’s
chaise the undeserved luxury of a summer’s ride through the most
beautiful scenes of Yorkshire.[167]

From Scarborough he proceeded to Bridlington, Driffield, Beverley,
Hull, York, Tadcaster, Pateley Bridge, Otley, Heptonstall, Keighley,
Haworth, Bingley, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Morley, Birstal,
Doncaster, Sheffield, Epworth, Brigg, Horncastle, Louth, Grimsby,
Pontefract, Horbury, Wakefield, and other places, preaching at all of
them, until, on August 2, he got to Leeds, for the purpose of holding
his annual conference. This was enormous labour for any man, and
especially for an old man, suffering from a severe and painful malady.
To all this must be added, cottage accommodation, hard beds, and often
hard living; and, though brutal persecution had considerably abated,
Wesley was not entirely exempt from this; for, at Halifax, on July
8, a ruffian struck him most violently on the face, when, with tears
starting from his eyes, the venerable saint acted upon the precept of
his Master: “Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him
the other also”; a display of heroic meekness which cowed the brutal
coward, and made him slink away into the ignoble crowd.[168] Yet, in
the midst of all this, there is not a single syllable, in his journal,
concerning either persecution, hardship, debility, or disease.

He writes: “On Tuesday, August 4, our conference began. Generally,
during the time of conference, as I was talking from morning to night,
I had used to desire one of our brethren to preach in the morning; but,
having many things to say, I resolved, with God’s help, to preach
mornings as well as evenings. And I found no difference at all; I was
no more tired than with my usual labour; that is, no more than if I had
been sitting still in my study from morning to night.”

One of Wesley’s sermons, preached to an immense congregation, in a
field behind the chapel, was from Isaiah lxvi. 8, 9: “Who hath heard
such a thing?” etc.; in which he dwelt upon the great work which God
had wrought among the Methodists, discoursing on its rapidity, depth,
extensiveness, and its growing character. “It was,” says good old
Thomas Rutherford, “marrow and fatness to my soul.”[169]

Wesley, in needful cases, was a brave defender of his preachers. The
following, addressed to Mr. Alexander Clark, of Dublin, and written at
this period, will be read with interest.

                                   “SHEFFIELD, _August 10, 1772_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Now the hurry of conference is over, I get a
  little time to write. When I chose you to be steward in Dublin, you
  both loved and esteemed your preachers; but I find you have now drunk
  in the whole spirit of Pat. Geoghegan. O beware! You are exceedingly
  deceived. By this time, I should be some judge of man; and if I am,
  all England and Ireland cannot afford such a body of men, number for
  number, for sense and true experience, both of men and things, as
  the body of Methodist preachers. Our leaders in London, Bristol, and
  Dublin are by no means weak men. I would not be ashamed to compare
  them with a like number of tradesmen in every part of the three
  kingdoms. But I assure you, they are no more than children compared
  to the preachers in conference, as you would be thoroughly convinced,
  could you but have the opportunity of spending one day among them.
  Mr. Jaco will make a fair trial whether he can supply Dublin alone;
  if he cannot, he shall have another to help, for he must not kill
  himself to save charges. But I dare not stint him to £20 a year. He
  will waste nothing; but he must want nothing. You will make his stay
  among you, in every respect, as comfortable as you can.

  “I am your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[170]

No sooner was the conference ended, than Wesley again started on his
itinerancy of mercy. On his way to Burslem, his chaise broke down; but,
notwithstanding his disease, rather than disappoint the people, he
mounted a horse and rode two-and-twenty miles, arriving just in time
for preaching.

On reaching Trevecca, on August 14, he met his old friend, Howel
Harris, who, while almost all others of his class had imbibed the
most bitter feelings, still remained faithful. “I have borne,” said
the honest Welshman, “with these pert, ignorant young men, vulgarly
called students, till I cannot, in conscience, bear any longer. They
preach barefaced reprobation, and so broad antinomianism, that I
have been constrained to oppose them to the face, even in the public
congregation.” This was no great compliment to the students of the
Countess of Huntingdon, especially as coming from a Calvinist. Wesley,
almost as an apology, adds to this: “It is no wonder that they should
preach thus. What better can be expected from raw lads, of little
understanding, little learning, and no experience?”

It is pleasing to add, that Howel Harris was not the only one of
Whitefield’s friends who still stood true to Wesley, though differing
from his views. Hence the following, addressed to him by Cornelius
Winter.

                                      “BRECON, _August 10, 1772_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--Do you ask what I have been about? I answer,
  preaching Christ wherever a door has been opened to me. Sometimes I
  have cast a handful of seed on your ground; and should it ever come
  to a harvest you are welcome to it: it will become Jesus’s property
  at last. What melancholy consequences from late productions! They
  forbid me to be any longer an idle hearer or a careless reader. I
  have been obliged, from conscience, to make a stand against dear Mr.
  Fletcher’s groundless arguments and most bitter invectives.[171] Many
  things, he has said, are a proper antidote applied wrong, and to
  improper objects, and thereby become poison, whereas they might have
  been a healing medicine. But I must say no more on this subject; I am
  writing to one who will give it little attention.

  “Dr. Owen’s ‘Death of Death’ has been my favourite study of late;
  and, in consequence of embracing the doctrine therein contained, I
  must agree to disagree with Mr. Fletcher’s thoughts, and dear Mr.
  Wesley’s _friendly pen_. Excuse my frank acknowledgments, and give
  me leave to differ and love. God bless you to your latest period,
  and make your last days your best! So prays, reverend and dear sir,
  yours most respectfully and affectionately, in our dear Lord Jesus,

                                         “CORNELIUS WINTER.”[172]

From Trevecca, Wesley proceeded to Bristol, and here, and in the
neighbourhood, he employed the next seven weeks. In Bristol itself,
he “visited the whole society from house to house, taking them from
west to east.” He not unfrequently preached in the open air, and
strikingly remarks: “to this day field preaching is a cross to me; but
I know my commission, and see no other way of preaching the gospel to
every creature.” The children at Kingswood, and at Miss Owen’s school
at Publow, were almost all converted. He writes: “I suppose such a
visitation of children has not been known in England these hundred
years!”[173] “Publow is now what Leytonstone was once. Here is a family
indeed. Such mistresses, and such a company of children, as I believe
all England cannot parallel!”

Leaving Bristol on October 5, and preaching on his way at Shaftesbury,
Salisbury, Winchester, and Portsmouth, he came to London on October
10. He had been seven months from home, if indeed he had a home! and
yet, after spending only one day in London, he again set out on his
usual preaching tour in the counties of Bedford and Northampton.
Returning to London, where he spent another day, he started on his
visitation in Oxfordshire. Returning again to London, and again
spending a single day, he went off, on October 26, to Norfolk, where he
employed a fortnight. Except making a journey into Kent, and another to
Hertfordshire, the remainder of the year was passed in the metropolis.

Here he again began expounding, chiefly in the mornings, “that
compendium of all the Holy Scriptures, the first epistle of St. John.”
Now, for the first time in his life, he saw the chapel at Snowsfields
full. He opened a new chapel at Dorking, and another in the parish of
Bromley. He visited the sick Methodists in London, and “was surprised
that they were so few.” And on December 31 he wrote: “Being greatly
embarrassed by the necessities of the poor, we spread all our wants
before God in solemn prayer; believing that He would sooner ‘make
windows in heaven’ than suffer His truth to fail.”

This reference to the poor requires further notice. The long continued
war, a succession of inferior harvests, and other unfavourable events,
had raised the price of provisions to such an extent, that the distress
of the nation had become alarming. In the month of November, the
court of common council of London agreed to petition parliament to
open the ports of the kingdom for the free importation of all kinds
of grain; and one of the members proposed that, in order to prevent
the unnecessary consumption of flour, the making of starch should be
prohibited. Long letters on the starved condition of the country were
published in the newspapers and magazines. Some of them entered into
elaborate calculations, showing that, in London only, during the six
winter months, twenty thousand sheep and two thousand oxen were used
in making soup for taverns, and the tables of the great. When the king
opened parliament, on November 26, he referred in his speech to the
dearness of corn, and recommended “my lords and gentlemen” to consider
a scheme “for alleviating the distresses of the poor.” This was done,
and bills were passed, which substantially permitted the importation of
foreign grown grain duty free.

In the midst of all this, Wesley was far from being an indifferent
spectator; and, among the many letters which appeared in the
periodicals of the day, one written by himself was not the least
important. This letter, published, either by himself or others, in
_Lloyd’s Evening Post_, for December 21, and in the _Leeds Mercury_ for
December 29, and in other newspapers and magazines, is altogether too
curious and characteristic to be omitted or abridged. It is as follows.

             “_To the Editor of ‘Lloyd’s Evening Post._’

  “SIR,--Many excellent things have been lately published concerning
  the _present scarcity of provisions_. And many causes have been
  assigned for it; but is not something wanting in most of those
  publications? One writer assigns one cause, another one or two more,
  and strongly insists upon them. But who has assigned all the causes
  that manifestly concur to produce this melancholy effect? at the same
  time pointing out, how each particular cause affects the price of
  each particular sort of provision?

  “I would willingly offer to candid and benevolent men a few hints on
  this important subject, proposing a few questions, and adding to each
  what seems to be the plain and direct answer.

  “I. 1. I ask first, Why are thousands of people starving, perishing
  for want, in every part of England? The fact I know: I have seen
  it with my eyes, in every corner of the land. I have known those
  who could only afford to eat a little coarse food every other
  day. I have known one picking up stinking sprats from a dunghill,
  and carrying them home for herself and her children. I have known
  another gathering the bones which the dogs had left in the streets,
  and making broth of them, to prolong a wretched life. Such is the
  case, at this day, of multitudes of people, in a land flowing, as it
  were, with milk and honey; abounding with all the necessaries, the
  conveniences, the superfluities of life!

  “Now why is this? Why have all these nothing to eat? Because they
  have nothing to do. They have no meat, because they have no work.

  “2. But why have they no work? Why are so many thousand people in
  London, in Bristol, in Norwich, in every county from one end of
  England to the other, utterly destitute of employment?

  “Because the persons who used to employ them cannot afford to do it
  any longer. Many, who employed fifty men, now scarce employ ten.
  Those, who employed twenty, now employ one, or none at all. They
  cannot, as they have no vent for their goods; food now bearing so
  high a price, that the generality of people are hardly able to buy
  anything else.

  “3. But to descend from generals to particulars. Why is breadcorn
  so dear? Because such immense quantities of it are continually
  consumed by _distilling_. Indeed, an eminent distiller, near London,
  hearing this, warmly replied: ‘Nay, my partner and I generally distil
  _but a thousand quarters_ of corn a week.’ Perhaps so. Suppose
  five-and-twenty distillers, in and near the town, consume each only
  the same quantity. Here are five-and-twenty thousand quarters a
  week, that is, above twelve hundred and fifty thousand quarters a
  year, consumed in and about London! Add the distillers throughout
  England, and have we not reason to believe that half of the wheat
  produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless
  a way as throwing it into the sea; but by converting it into deadly
  poison--poison that naturally destroys, not only the strength and
  life, but also the morals of our countrymen!

  “‘Well, but this brings in a large revenue to the king.’ Is this an
  equivalent for the lives of his subjects? Would his majesty sell a
  hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred
  thousand pounds? Surely no. Will he then sell them for that sum,
  to be butchered by their own countrymen?--‘But otherwise the swine
  for the navy cannot be fed.’ Not unless they are fed with human
  flesh? not unless they are fatted with human blood? O tell it not in
  Constantinople, that the English raise the royal revenue by selling
  the blood and flesh of their countrymen!

  “4. But why are oats so dear? Because there are four times the
  horses kept (to speak within compass), for coaches and chaises in
  particular, than were some years ago. Unless, therefore, four times
  the oats grew now as grew then, they cannot be at the same price. If
  only twice as much is produced, (which perhaps is near the truth,)
  the price will naturally be double to what it was.

  “As the dearness of grain of one kind will always raise the price of
  another, so whatever causes the dearness of wheat and oats must raise
  the price of barley too. To account therefore for the dearness of
  this, we need only remember what has been observed above, although
  some particular causes may concur in producing the same effect.

  “5. Why are beef and mutton so dear? Because most of the considerable
  farmers, particularly in the northern counties, who used to breed
  large numbers of sheep or horned cattle, and frequently both, no
  longer trouble themselves with either sheep, or cows, or oxen; as
  they can turn their land to far better account, by breeding horses
  alone. Such is the demand, not only for coach and chaise horses,
  which are bought and destroyed in incredible numbers; but much
  more for bred horses, which are yearly exported by hundreds, yea
  thousands, to France.

  “6. But why are pork, poultry, and eggs so dear? Because of the
  monopolising of farms, as mischievous a monopoly as was ever yet
  introduced into these kingdoms. The land which was formerly divided
  among ten or twenty little farmers, and enabled them comfortably to
  provide for their families, is now generally engrossed by one great
  farmer. One man farms an estate of a thousand a year, which formerly
  maintained ten or twenty. Every one of these little farmers kept a
  few swine, with some quantity of poultry; and, having little money,
  was glad to send his bacon, or pork, or fowls and eggs, to market
  continually. Hence, the markets were plentifully served, and plenty
  created cheapness; but, at present, the great, the gentlemen farmers,
  are above attending to these little things. They breed no poultry
  or swine, unless for their own use; consequently they send none to
  market. Hence, it is not strange, if two or three of these living
  near a market town occasion such a scarcity of these things, by
  preventing the former supply, that the price of them will be double
  or treble to what it was before. Hence, (to instance in a small
  article,) in the same town where, within my memory, eggs were sold
  eight or ten a penny, they are now sold six or eight a groat.

  Another cause why beef, mutton, pork, and all kind of victuals are so
  dear, is _luxury_. What can stand against this? Will it not waste and
  destroy all that nature and art can produce? If a person of quality
  will boil down three dozen of neat’s tongues, to make two or three
  quarts of soup (and so proportionably in other things), what wonder
  if provisions fail? Only look into the kitchens of the great, the
  nobility, and gentry, almost without exception (considering withal
  that the toe of the peasant treads upon the heel of the courtier),
  and when you have observed the amazing waste which is made there, you
  will no longer wonder at the scarcity, and consequently dearness, of
  the things which they use so much art to destroy.

  “7. But why is land so dear? Because, on all these accounts,
  gentlemen cannot live as they have been accustomed to do, without
  increasing their income, which most of them cannot do but by raising
  their rents. The farmer, paying a higher rent for his land, must have
  a higher price for the produce of it. This again tends to raise the
  price of land. And so the wheel runs round.

  “8. But why is it, that not only provisions and land, but well-nigh
  everything else is so dear? Because of the enormous taxes which are
  laid on almost everything that can be named. Not only abundant taxes
  are raised from earth, and fire, and water; but, in England, the
  ingenious statesmen have found a way to tax the very light! Only
  one element remains, and surely some man of honour will, ere long,
  contrive to tax this also. For how long shall the saucy air blow in
  the face of a gentleman, nay, a lord, without paying for it?

  “9. But why are the taxes so high? Because of the national debt.
  They must be, while this continues. I have heard that the national
  expense, in the time of peace, was, sixty years ago, three millions
  a year. Now the bare interest of the public debt amounts to above
  four millions. To raise which, with the other expenses of government,
  those taxes are absolutely necessary.

  “II. Here is the evil. But where is the remedy? Perhaps it exceeds
  all the wisdom of man to tell. But it may not be amiss to offer a few
  hints, even on this delicate subject.

  “1. What remedy is there for this sore evil? Many thousand poor
  people are starving. Find them work, and you will find them meat.
  They will then earn and eat their own bread.

  “2. But how shall their masters give them work, without ruining
  themselves? Procure vent for it, and it will not hurt their masters
  to give them as much work as they can do; and this will be done by
  sinking the price of provisions; for then people will have money to
  buy other things too.

  “3. But how can the price of _wheat_ be reduced? By prohibiting for
  ever that bane of health, that destroyer of strength, of life; and
  of virtue, _distilling_. Perhaps this alone will answer the whole
  design. If anything more be needful, may not all starch be made of
  rice, and the importation of this, as well as of wheat, be encouraged?

  “4. How can the price of _oats_ be reduced? By reducing the number
  of horses. And may not this be effectually done--(1) by laying a tax
  of ten pounds on every horse exported to France; (2) by laying an
  additional tax on gentlemen’s carriages. Not so much for every wheel,
  (barefaced, shameless partiality!) but ten pounds yearly for every
  horse. And these two taxes alone would nearly supply as much as is
  now given for leave to poison his majesty’s liege subjects.

  “5. How can the price of _beef_ and _mutton_ be reduced? By
  increasing the breed of sheep and horned cattle. And this would be
  increased sevenfold, if the price of horses was reduced; which it
  surely would be half in half, by the method above mentioned.

  “6. How can the price of _pork_ and _poultry_ be reduced? First, by
  letting no farms of above a hundred pounds a year. Secondly, by
  repressing luxury, either by example, by laws, or both.

  “7. How may the price of _land_ be reduced? By all the methods above
  named, all which tend to lessen the expense of housekeeping; but
  especially the last, restraining luxury, which is the grand source of
  poverty.

  “8. How may the _taxes_ be reduced? By discharging half the national
  debt, and so saving at least two millions a year.

  “How this can be done the wisdom of the great council of the land can
  best determine.

  “I am, sir, your humble servant,

                                                    “JOHN WESLEY.
  “DOVER, _December 9, 1772_.”

This was not the only thing that Wesley and the Methodists did, to
contribute to the happiness of the starving poor. It was now that
there was organised a band of pious Methodists, who made it their duty
and their pleasure to visit the inmates of London workhouses, and, by
prayer, and reading, and exhortation, to lead them to Him who is alone
the great Comforter. That organisation has uninterruptedly existed down
to the present time; and though, for the last twenty years, it has
ceased to be a purely Methodist society, its chief workers bear the
Methodistic name.[174] From the ninety-fifth annual report of what is
now called “The Christian Community,” we learn that this society was
“established under the patronage of the Rev. John Wesley, in 1772;” and
that its agents, all labouring gratuitously, are regularly visiting
the workhouses of Shoreditch, St. Luke’s, Clerkenwell, St. George’s in
the East, and Bethnal Green, in eighty-eight halls and wards of which
they hold religious services every week; and that, besides this, they
have three services weekly in Cambridge Heath female refuge; visit
between twenty and thirty low lodging houses, in Spitalfields, every
Sunday night; and, during the year, hold about 463 services in the
open air, deliver nearly 1400 addresses,[175] and distribute almost a
quarter of a million of religious tracts. Not fewer than 124 visitors
and exhorters are employed, nearly the whole of whom have appointments
every week.

Into such a society has been developed the small band of godly
Methodists, sent forth by Wesley, in 1772, to visit London paupers and
London vagabonds. Its work is little known, and its agents scarcely
recognised; but here, in the very heart of London, are 124 home
missionaries, toiling to convert the lowest of the low to the faith of
Christ, receiving not a farthing for their services, and carrying on
their extensive machinery of tract distribution, tent preaching, and a
circulating library, at the small expense of about £200 a year. Success
to this unpretending and almost unknown society. May the God of heaven
prosper it, in its great work, more and more! “It is a shame,” wrote
Wesley to Joseph Benson, on December 11, 1772, “It is a shame for any
Methodist preacher to confine himself to one place. We are debtors to
all the world. We are called to warn every one, to exhort every one, if
by any means we may save some. I love prayer-meetings, and wish they
were set up in every corner of the town.”[176]

Such is a bird’s eye view of the work done, in 1772, by an old man,
acutely suffering from the disease already mentioned. Writing to his
brother in November, and again in December, Wesley says:

  “I have just made my tour through Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire,
  Northamptonshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex; but Kent, Sussex, and
  Hertfordshire still remain to be visited; only the visitation of the
  London classes, a fortnight’s work, must come between.

  “If we only join faith and works in all our preaching, we shall not
  fail of a blessing. But of all preaching, what is usually called
  gospel preaching is the most useless, if not the most mischievous:
  a dull, yea, or lively harangue on the sufferings of Christ, or
  salvation by faith, without strongly inculcating holiness. I see,
  more and more, that this naturally tends to drive holiness out of the
  world.”

  “I have scarce had a day yet” (December 15) “in London, except
  Sundays, and the time of visiting the classes. Dr. Ford has never
  come near me. I am afraid, _evasit_, _erupit_. I have wrote to Mr.
  Fletcher to-day. As Mr. Hill is to fall upon me next, Mr. Fletcher
  will have a little time to breathe; and probably a little more while
  Mr. Hill is digesting my reply; for whom I think we shall, between
  us, find work for some time.

  “You will not set shoulder to shoulder, or you could say something
  about the Church. Two are better than one. If we live till August,
  stand by me, and we will put the matter home.

  “I often cry out, _Vitæ me redde priori_! Let me be again an Oxford
  Methodist. I am often in doubt whether it would not be best for me to
  resume all my Oxford rules, great and small. I did then walk closely
  with God, and redeem the time. But what have I been doing these
  thirty years? My love to all. Adieu!--JOHN WESLEY.”[177]

The concluding sentences of these extracts sound strangely. Did
afflicted Wesley, amid the London fog of a dark December day, really
think, that the last thirty years had been comparatively wasted, and
that he was more pious when almost a cloistered monk within the walls
of Oxford, than he was now, a veteran evangelist, flying through the
three kingdoms, and preaching the gospel of God his Saviour? His
medical adviser came not near him; Sir Richard Hill was wantonly
assailing him; his brother, except as a localised pastor in London and
in Bristol, was of no use to him; his wife,--bah! Is it surprising,
that even Wesley had seasons of depression; and that, like others, he
was sometimes “in heaviness through manifold temptations”?

But it is time to turn to the Calvinian controversy, which we left
raging in 1771. Wesley rarely mentions it, either in his journal or in
his letters, and yet it continued with undiminished fury.

Fletcher, of Madeley, again entered the field of battle, by publishing
“A Third Check to Antinomianism,” in a letter to Sir Richard Hill,
12mo, 114 pages. This was not only a defence of Wesley, but a
triumphant answer to the “Five Letters” of the baronet, and is written
in a style exceedingly beautiful and Christian. Before the year was
out, it reached a second edition.

Fletcher’s other publication, in 1772, was “Logica Genevensis; or, a
Fourth Check to Antinomianism: in which St. James’s pure religion is
defended against the charges, and established upon the concessions,
of Mr. Richard and Mr. Rowland Hill. In a Series of Letters to those
Gentlemen.” 12mo, 237 pages.[178]

It is no part of our present plan to give even the briefest analysis
of these masterly productions. Suffice it to say, that, for sound
scriptural argument, able exposition, lively imagination, elegance of
style, polished irony, and Christian temper, they have no superiors.
The two brothers, notwithstanding their goodness, their learning, their
genius, and their pluck, were but pigmies in the grasp of a Goliath.

Rowland Hill, a young man of twenty-seven, had experienced the
mortification of being refused ordination by not fewer than six
bishops, and was a roving evangelist, preaching with great success in
Whitefield’s London Tabernacle, in Bristol, Bath, and all over the west
of England. At the commencement of the controversy, Berridge wrote to
him thus: “The late contest at Bristol seems to turn upon this hinge,
whether it shall be _Pope John_ or _Pope Joan_. My dear friend, keep
out of all controversy, and wage no war but with the devil.”[179]
Unfortunately for himself, the young preacher did not follow the
counsel of the vicar of Everton, but, in 1772, issued an octavo
pamphlet of 71 pages, entitled “Friendly Remarks occasioned by the
Spirit and Doctrines contained in the Rev. Mr. Fletcher’s Vindication,
and more particularly in his Second Check to Antinomianism, to which is
added a Postscript, occasioned by his Third Check.” The production is
what might be expected from YOUNG Rowland Hill. Fletcher is accused of
using “tartness of style,” “banter,” “contempt,” “numberless sneers,
taunts, and sarcasms;” “infernal terms of darkness,” “bravado,”
“slander,” “high flown metaphors,” “frothy declamation,” “odious
appellations,” “glaring inconsistencies,” “palpable mistakes.” He says,
“Wesley has been a proverb for his contradictions for above thirty
years.” The “Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love,” “formerly sent forth
from the Foundery,” are stigmatised as “certain godly lampoons of
famous memory.” This was pretty strong to come from a stripling not yet
ordained.

His brother also was not a laggard. Without loss of time, he published
an octavo volume of 151 pages, with the following gigantic title:
“A Review of all the Doctrines taught by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley;
containing a full and particular Answer to a Book entitled ‘A Second
Check to Antinomianism.’ In six Letters to the Author of that Book;
wherein the Doctrines of a twofold Justification, Free Will, Man’s
Merit, Sinless Perfection, Finished Salvation, and Real Antinomianism
are particularly discussed, and the Puritan Divines vindicated from
the Charges brought against them of holding Mr. Wesley’s Doctrines. To
which is added, a Farrago of Hot and Cold Medicines. By the Rev. Mr.
John Wesley, Author of the ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in
Religion.’ Extracted from his own Publications.”

Richard Hill’s scurrility is quite equal to his brother’s. He writes:
“O my dear sir, I never could have supposed that sneer, banter, and
sarcasm, yea, notorious falsehoods, calumny, and gross perversions,
would have appeared under the sanction of your venerable name.” He
tells Fletcher that he “dips his pen in gall,” and “maintains his cause
by artful insinuations.” “In your first letter,” says he, “I really
cannot find many lines together free from gross misrepresentations and
perversions, and hardly one single paragraph exempt from cutting sneers
and low sarcasms.” “Your pages,” he adds, “are as totally void of solid
Scripture argument as they are replete with calumny, gross perversions
and equivocations.” Wesley is treated with the same bitterness as
Fletcher. “His opinions” are said to be “a mixture of Pelagianism,
semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, popery, mysticism, and quakerism.” Such
quotations might be multiplied _ad nauseam_; but the reader has had
enough. Suffice it to add, that, before the year 1772 was ended, the
public was blessed with “a second, corrected and enlarged edition” of
this loving effusion of the Salopian baronet.

Besides all this, Sir Richard published, in 1772, another octavo
pamphlet of 16 pages, with the title, “Some Remarks on a Pamphlet
entitled A Third Check to Antinomianism,” a production brief, but, like
the rest, far too rancorous. Scurrility is almost a sure sign of feeble
arguments and a defenceless cause.

The two Hills were not Wesley’s only antagonists. Toplady issued his
“More Work for Mr. John Wesley; or, a Vindication of the Decrees
and Providence of God from the Defamations of a late printed paper,
entitled ‘The Consequence Proved.’” 8vo, 104 pages: 1772.[180]

In his advertisement, Toplady tells his readers, that he bears not the
least ill will to Wesley; and that his manuscript had lain by him for
several weeks, “merely with a view of striking out, from time to time,
whatever might savour of undue asperity and intemperate warmth.” The
following extracts will show how far Toplady succeeded in his pious and
loving wish.

“Mr. Wesley has as much of the _insidious_ in his composition,
as he has of the _acid_; and it would be difficult to say which
predominates.” “He is for adding the lion to the fox. He wishes not
only to wheedle, but to _thunder_ the Church out of her Calvinism. He
is, like Mahommed, for propagating his religion by the sword. Peals of
anathemas are issued, and torrents of the lowest calumny are thrown
out, against all who abide by the thirty-nine articles. Pope John’s
authority may have some weight with such men as Messrs. Walter Sellon,
Haddon Smith, and Thomas Olivers; but not an inch beyond the purlieus
of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition will his dictatorship
extend.” “His mode of phraseology is as pregnant with craft as his
conduct is destitute of honour. He first _hatches_ blasphemy, and then
_fathers_ it on others.” “His forehead must be _petrified_, and quite
impervious to a blush.” “He sits down, and deliberately _writes_ a
known, wilful, palpable lie to the public.” “He is a pitiful nibbler
at the file he cannot bite.” “Thomas Olivers, a _journeyman shoemaker_,
retained by Mr. Wesley as a lay preacher at the rate of £10 per annum,
is his bully in chief. _In chief_, did I say? I had forgot the Rev. Mr.
Walter Sellon; prunella claims precedency of leather; _Thomas_ is only
_second_ in commission. Mr. Wesley skulks for shelter under a cobbler’s
apron.” “Has Tom, the shoemaker, more _learning_, or more _integrity_,
than John the priest?” “Without the least heat or emotion, I plainly
say, Mr. Wesley _lies_.”[181]

The following is part of Mr. Toplady’s concluding paragraph.

  “One word to Mr. Wesley himself, and I have done. Time, sir, has
  already whitened your locks; and the hour must shortly come, which
  will transmit you to the tribunal of that God, on whose sovereignty a
  great part of your life has been one continued assault. At that bar
  _I_ too must hold up _my_ hand. Omniscience only can tell, _which_
  of us shall first appear before the Judge of all. I shortly _may_,
  you shortly _must_. The part you have been permitted to act in the
  religious world will, sooner or later, sit heavy on your mind. Depend
  upon it, a period will arrive when the Father’s _electing_ mercy and
  the Messiah’s adorable _righteousness_, will appear in _your_ eyes,
  even in yours, to be the only safe anchorage for a dying sinner. I
  mean, unless you are actually given over to final obduration; which,
  I trust, you are not; and to which, I most ardently beseech God, you
  never may.”

Poor young Augustus Toplady, now thirty-one years of age, after doing
his utmost to purge his pamphlet from offensive expressions, thus, by
the electing grace of God, speaks of a man approaching seventy. Little
did he think, that within seven years he himself would stand before
that bar with which he threatened Wesley; and that the hoary headed
man, who he thought might be “given over to final obduration,” would be
his survivor nearly thirteen years.

Besides all this public annoyance, Wesley and Fletcher had sent to
them anonymous letters of the vilest description. Two may suffice as
specimens. Both have Birmingham post mark, and both were addressed to
Fletcher. Both are in the same handwriting; the orthography of one is
correct, but of the other _purposely_ otherwise. In the first are ink
sketches of Wesley and Fletcher in two pulpits, and pelting each other
with Bibles. In the other, Wesley is represented as being hanged, and
Fletcher is shooting him after he is dead. Take an extract from the
first, which, though bad enough, is not the worst that it contains.

  “I HAVE sent you a short poem upon parson Wesley.

     ‘There wos a man, Hold Wesley by name,
      I rother think yo’ll bee thee same,
      From every porsun he gets tuppence a week--
      I wish hee was hear, and I’d give him a kick.
      He open’d a meeting Inn this town,
      And all the benchees dyd fall doun,
      I was in the meeting at the same tyme,
      But O I cannot find a rheime.
      You preach’d a Charrity sermun wonce,
      And sat in the pulpit like old Punch.’”

What had Wesley done to deserve all this? Literally nothing, except
publishing the brief and imperfect minutes of a conversation he had
with his itinerant preachers in 1770, on the subject of Calvinism; and,
further, three small tracts, one an abridgment of Toplady’s Zanchius;
another an answer to the question, “What is an Arminian?” and the
third, “The Consequence Proved.” This was absolutely the sum total of
his offence so far as the public was concerned. The minutes fill little
more than an octavo page, and contain not the slightest reflection upon
any one under heaven. The description of an Arminian occupies only
eight pages 12mo, and merely states, in the most temperate terms, the
difference between the Arminian and Calvinistic creeds. From first to
last, the name of no living man is mentioned, except the name of Wesley
himself. The abridgment of Toplady’s Zanchius fills only twelve pages
12mo, and is honestly and fairly made. The only thing in it, that can,
with any degree of fairness, be considered personal, is the summing up
of the principles of Zanchius, which occupy half-a-dozen lines, and to
which Wesley appended the words, characteristic enough of the young
predestinarian whose translation he was abridging, “Reader, believe
this, or be damned. Witness my hand, A---- T----.” Then, in reference
to the third tract, “The Consequence Proved,” the printed matter fills
just eight pages 12mo, and there is absolutely nothing in it but what
is fair argument, except that Wesley calls Toplady “a young, bold man,”
and says he will leave him “to be farther corrected by one that is
full his match, Mr. Thomas Olivers.” This is all, literally all; the
first and last; the substance and the details of Wesley’s offending.
The two Hills, one of them not yet forty, and the other not yet thirty
years of age, are never mentioned, or in the least alluded to, in any
of Wesley’s publications just named. And yet, because an old man, who,
for more than thirty years, had been incessantly traversing the three
kingdoms to preach the gospel of God his Saviour, happens to express,
in the most temperate language, an opinion contrary to the Calvinian
creed, he becomes the butt of the disgraceful abuse, specimens of
which have been given in the previous pages. For many a long year,
Wesley was lampooned in newspapers and magazines, and in tracts and
pamphlets written by two different classes of literary men--Samuel
Foote, the comedian, the representative of one, and George Lavington,
the merryandrew bishop, the representative of the other: but now these
were silent; and, in their stead, we have another set of opponents,
far more angry than the former ones, animated by a spirit quite as
bitter, and using opprobrious epithets almost more offensive; men
believing themselves to be among God’s elect, called, and converted;
loud religious professors, and adepts in the art of railing; profound
admirers of the dead Whitefield, but perfect haters of Whitefield’s
surviving friend, Wesley. In turn, Wesley had encountered mobs and men
of letters, drunken parsons, furious papists, honest infidels, and
others; but, of all his enemies, his last were his bitterest and worst,
Calvinistic Christians!!

Some will blame the writer for furnishing modern readers with specimens
of the foul mouthed language used, respecting Wesley, by some of the
most flaming professors of Christ’s religion a hundred years ago. His
answer is, the task is far from pleasant; but without a knowledge of
Wesley’s unmerited and unparalleled persecutions, who can have a just
conception of Wesley’s character? The result of such exposures, it
is true, is not only to enhance the fame of Wesley, but to blot the
history of his opponents. This no one regrets more deeply than the
present writer; but he cannot help it. Besides, it is a fact, which
cannot be denied, that there are some sins which, even though repented
of, and pardoned, are, in the present world, always punished. A man
rails, and God forgives him; but even forgiveness cannot prevent his
railing injuring his character. Injured fame, in such a case, is a
penalty unavoidable, reasonable, and right.

We have furnished specimens of the foolish and disgraceful ravings of
Richard and Rowland Hill. What was Wesley’s reply? There is a quiet
irony in one of the entries in his journal, which is worth quoting:
“1772. July. 11--I was presented with Mr. Hill’s Review, a curiosity
in its kind. But it has nothing to do either with good nature or good
manners; for he is writing to an Arminian. I almost wonder at his
passionate desire to measure swords with me. This is the third time
he has fallen upon me without fear or wit. _Tandem extorquebis ut
vapules._”

Accordingly, Wesley prepared and published “Some Remarks on Mr. Hill’s
‘Review of all the Doctrines taught by Mr. John Wesley.’” This is the
tartest of Wesley’s publications, and not without reason. He writes:

  “Mr. Fletcher imagined that his opponents would have received his
  words in the same spirit wherein they were spoken; but they turn them
  all into poison. He not only loses his sweet words, but they are
  turned into bitterness, are interpreted as mere sneer and sarcasm! A
  good lesson for me! I had designed to have transcribed Mr. Fletcher’s
  character of Mr. Hill,[182] and to have added a little thereto, in
  hope of softening his spirit; but I see it is in vain; as well might
  one hope to soften

                    ‘Inexorable Pluto, king of shades!’

  “Since he is capable of putting such a construction, even upon Mr.
  Fletcher’s gentleness and mildness, what will he not ascribe to me? I
  have done, therefore, with humbling myself to these men,--to Mr. Hill
  and his associates; I have humbled myself to them for these thirty
  years, but will do it no more. I have done with attempting to soften
  their spirits; it is all lost labour. Upon men of an ingenuous temper
  I have been able to fix an obligation. Bishop Gibson, Dr. Church, and
  even Dr. Taylor, were obliged to me for not pushing my advantage. But
  it is not so with these; whatever mercy you show, you are to expect
  no mercy from them. ‘Mercy,’ did I say? Alas! I expect no justice; no
  more than I have found already. As they have wrested and distorted my
  words from the beginning, so I expect they will do to the end. Mr.
  Hill’s performance is a specimen. Such mercy, such justice, I am to
  expect! For forty or fifty years, I have been a little acquainted
  with controversial writers; some of the Romish persuasion, some of
  our own Church, some Dissenters of various denominations; and I have
  found many among them as angry as he; but one so bitter I have not
  found. As a writer, his name is Wormwood.”

This was unsheathing the sword, and casting away the scabbard.

Wesley proceeds, in most trenchant style, to defend himself against
Hill’s grand objection, self inconsistency. Our space renders it
impossible to give an outline of Wesley’s answers to the charges,
so recklessly brought against him. The following is a part of his
conclusion:

  “I now look back on a train of incidents that have occurred for many
  months last past, and adore a wise and gracious Providence, ordering
  all things well! When the circular letter was first dispersed
  throughout Great Britain and Ireland, I did not conceive the immense
  good which God was about to bring out of that evil. But no sooner did
  Mr. Fletcher’s first Letters appear than the scene began to open; and
  the design of Providence opened more and more, when Mr. Shirley’s
  Narrative, and Mr. Hill’s Letters, constrained him to write his
  Second and Third Checks to Antinomianism. It was then indisputably
  clear, that neither my brother nor I had borne a sufficient testimony
  to the truth. For many years, from a well meant, but ill judged,
  tenderness, we had suffered the reprobation preachers (vulgarly
  called ‘gospel preachers’) to spread their poison, almost without
  opposition. But, at length, they have awakened us out of sleep: Mr.
  Hill has answered for all his brethren, roundly declaring, that ‘any
  agreement with election doubters is a covenant with death.’ It is
  well: we are now forewarned and forearmed. We look for neither peace
  nor truce with any who do not openly and expressly renounce this
  diabolical sentiment. But since God is on our side, we will not fear
  what man can do unto us. We never before saw our way clear, to do any
  more than act on the defensive. But since the circular letter has
  sounded the alarm, has called forth all their hosts to war; and since
  Mr. Hill has answered the call, drawing the sword, and throwing away
  the scabbard; what remains, but to own the hand of God, and make a
  virtue of necessity? I will no more desire any Arminian, so called,
  to remain only on the defensive. Rather chase the fiend, reprobation,
  to his own hell, and every doctrine connected with it. Let none pity
  or spare one limb of either speculative or practical antinomianism,
  or of any doctrine that naturally tends thereto; only remembering
  that, however we are treated by men, who have a dispensation from
  the vulgar rules of justice and mercy, we are not to fight them at
  their own weapons, to return railing for railing. Those who plead the
  cause of the God of love are to imitate Him they serve; and, however
  provoked, to use no other weapons than those of truth and love, of
  Scripture and reason.”

Thus did Wesley accept the challenge; and it is not hazarding too much
to make the assertion, that Fletcher’s almost inimitable polemical
productions, and Wesley’s own sermons, together with his _Arminian
Magazine_, started six years afterwards, did what Wesley wished, namely
drove the fiendish doctrine of reprobation to its “own hell,” and gave
a blow to the Calvinian theory, which has been felt from that time to
this.

Wesley’s other publications, in 1772, were the following.

1. A revised and enlarged edition of the minutes of his conferences.

2. The issue of eleven volumes of his revised and collected works,
making a little more than 3900 printed 12mo pages.

3. Two political tracts: one entitled, “Thoughts upon Liberty”; the
other, “Thoughts concerning the Origin of Power.” The disturbed state
of the nation, at this period, has been already sketched. Junius and
John Wilkes were the arch agitators of the day, and well-nigh drove
the nation into rebellion. Hampson states that, when the Letters of
Junius appeared, Wesley offered his services to the government, and
proposed to answer them, saying, “I will show the difference between
rhetoric and logic.”[183] We have no means of either substantiating
or contradicting this; but Wesley’s “Thoughts upon Liberty” fully
show that Wilkes, the demagogue, was no favourite of his, and that
King George had no truer or more loyal subject than the leader of the
Methodists.

In his second tract, Wesley combats the theory, that the people of a
nation are the “origin of power.” He shows that, if this were true,
every man, woman, and child ought to possess the electoral franchise,
and to be allowed to take a part in constituting parliaments and
governmental cabinets. He taunts, with withering sarcasm, the advocates
of such a theory, on the ground, that they themselves resist the
facts their theory implies, because they allowed none to vote except
freeholders of forty shillings yearly value, and not even them unless
they had arrived at the age of twenty one. “Worse and worse,” he
writes: “after depriving half the human species of their natural rights
for want of a beard; after depriving myriads more for want of a stiff
beard, for not having lived one-and-twenty years; you rob others of
their birthright for want of money! Yet not altogether on this account
either; for here is an Englishman who has money enough to buy the
estates of fifty freeholders, and yet he must not be numbered among the
people because he has not two or three acres of land.”

Having shown the absurdities which, as he thinks, the theory involves,
he then concludes: “Common sense brings us back to the grand truth,
‘There is no power but of God.’”

Wesley’s tract is little known; but the radical politicians of the
present age would be none the worse for studying the principles to
which it summarily adverts.[184]


FOOTNOTES:

     [152] _Methodist Magazine_, 1835, p. 804.

     [153] “Encyclopædia Britannica,” article “Slavery.”

     [154] Manuscript; and _Methodist Magazine_, 1835, p. 494.

     [155] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 167.

     [156] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 43.

     [157] Messrs. Romaine and Madan.

     [158] _Methodist Magazine_, 1780, p. 546.

     [159] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 217.

     [160] Mrs. Rogers’ manuscript journal.

     [161] Manuscript.

     [162] _Methodist Magazine_, 1842, p. 728.

     [163] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 129.

     [164] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 169.

     [165] Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 449.

     [166] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 369.

     [167] “Memoir of Mrs. Mortimer,” p. 37; and Wesley’s Works,
           vol. iii., p. 449.

     [168] “Methodism in Halifax,” p. 121.

     [169] _Methodist Magazine_, 1808, p. 482.

     [170] _Irish Evangelist_, April, 1864.

     [171] Wesley justly appends a note to this: “Let the
           unbiased reader judge, whether Mr. Fletcher has made
           use of groundless arguments or bitter invectives.”

     [172] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 336.

     [173] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 357.

     [174] Mr. George Mackie has the credit of founding this
           society. He died in 1821, after being a member
           of the Methodist society more than fifty years,
           and a zealous and respected local preacher for
           forty.--(_Methodist Magazine_, 1821, p. 939.) The
           rules of the Christian Community, published in
           1811, required, that, “in order to admission, every
           candidate must have been a member of the late Rev.
           John Wesley’s society twelve months; a man of strict
           piety and irreproachable character; and having a gift
           for prayer and exhortation.”

     [175] The number of services held, indoors and out, during
           the year 1867, was 6558, and the number of addresses
           given 7524.

     [176] Wesley’s Works, vol. vii., p. 390.

     [177] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., pp. 130, 131.

     [178] Toplady writes, November 27, 1772: “I am informed,
           that inveterate troubler in Israel, Mr. John Wesley,
           has lately published a fourth squib against Mr. Hill.
           What a mercy it is, that the enemies of the gospel,
           amidst all their plenitude of malice, have little
           skill and less power! Mr. Wesley, considered as a
           reasoner, is one of the most contemptible writers
           that ever set pen to paper!” (Toplady’s Posthumous
           Works, 8vo, 1780, p. 330.)

     [179] Rowland Hill’s Life, p. 428.

     [180] Besides the above, there were also published, at this
           period, the two following pamphlets, by Jonathan
           Warne, of Southwark: “Arminianism, the Back Door to
           Popery:” price one shilling. And “The Downfall of
           Arminianism; or Arminians tried and cast, before the
           Right Honourable the Lord Chief Justice Truth, for
           holding and propagating false opinions concerning the
           five following points, viz.: (1) Absolute election;
           (2) Particular redemption; (3) The efficacy of God’s
           grace in conversion; (4) The impotency of man’s will
           in conversion; (5) The final perseverance of the
           regenerate.” 8vo, 145 pages.

     [181] The _italic_ words are emphasized in the original.

     [182] Sir Richard Hill did not obtain his title till the
           death of his father, in 1783.

     [183] Life of Wesley, vol. iii., p. 160.

     [184] To understand some of the allusions, in these two
           political tracts, it is necessary to remember that,
           in 1772, a petition was presented to parliament,
           signed by about 250 of the clergy, and a considerable
           number of the members of the professions of civil law
           and physic, praying to be relieved from the necessity
           of subscribing to the thirty-nine articles of the
           Established Church; and that a bill was passed, in
           the House of Commons, annulling that part of the Act
           of Toleration which authorised the infliction of
           heavy penalties upon the ministers, schoolmasters,
           and private tutors of Dissenters, unless they
           subscribed to all the _doctrinal_ parts of the
           thirty-nine articles. The bill passed the Commons
           triumphantly; the Lords, by a _large majority_,
           rejected it!




                                1773.
                               Age 70

The year 1773 will always be memorable in English annals. It was now
that the embryo rebellion in the American colonies broke out into overt
acts. Insults were offered to the British flag; a British ship of war
was boarded and burnt; and the cargoes of tea, which Lord North had
allowed to be exported from England, duty free, were seized by rioters
and sham Indians, and were discharged into the ocean with the utmost
jubilation. Endless debates took place in the English parliament; and
fearful fights were fought on the coasts, and in the wilds and prairies
of America. George Washington was made commander in chief; and “The
Congress of the Thirteen United Colonies” was organised. For long
years, the one great absorbing care of the British parliament was the
war in the western world.

Wesley’s health was still seriously affected; and, hence, he spent his
leisure hours, in the beginning of 1773, in examining his letters and
other manuscripts, so as to determine what he should leave behind him.
He writes: “I made an end of revising my letters; and could not but
make one remark,--that, for above these forty years, of all the friends
who were once the most closely united, and afterwards separated from
me, every one had separated himself! He left me, not I him. And from
both mine and their own letters, the steps whereby they did this are
clear and undeniable.”

We have already seen, that Wesley thought of making Fletcher of
Madeley his literary executor; but he now did more than this. Hence
the following letter, sent to Fletcher in January 1773, and written at
Shoreham, doubtless at the venerable Perronet’s, with whom Wesley had
gone to take counsel.

  “DEAR SIR,--What an amazing work has God wrought in these kingdoms,
  in less than forty years! And it not only continues, but increases,
  throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland; nay, it has lately spread
  into New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina. But
  the wise men of the world say, ‘When Mr. Wesley drops, then all this
  is at an end!’ And so surely it will, unless, before God calls him
  hence, one is found to stand in his place. For Ουκ αγαθον
  πολυκοιρανια. Εις κοιρανος εστω. I see, more and more, unless there
  be one προεστως, the work can never be carried on. The body
  of the preachers are not united; nor will any part of them submit to
  the rest; so that, either there must be one to preside over all, or
  the work will indeed come to an end.

  “But who is sufficient for these things? qualified to preside both
  over the preachers and people? He must be a man of faith and love,
  and one that has a single eye to the advancement of the kingdom of
  God. He must have a clear understanding; a knowledge of men and
  things, particularly of the Methodist doctrine and discipline; a
  ready utterance; diligence and activity, with a tolerable share
  of health. There must be added to these, favour with the people,
  with the Methodists in general. For unless God turn their eyes and
  their hearts toward him, he will be quite incapable of the work.
  He must, likewise, have some degree of learning; because there are
  many adversaries, learned as well as unlearned, whose mouths must be
  stopped. But this cannot be done, unless he be able to meet them on
  their own ground.

  “But has God provided one so qualified? Who is he? _Thou art the
  man!_ God has given you a measure of loving faith; and a single eye
  to His glory. He has given you some knowledge of men and things;
  particularly of the whole plan of Methodism. You are blessed with
  some health, activity, and diligence; together with a degree of
  learning. And to all these He has lately added, by a way none could
  have foreseen, favour both with the preachers and the whole people.
  Come out, then, in the name of God! Come to the help of the Lord
  against the mighty! Come while I am alive and capable of labour!
  Come, while I am able, God assisting, to build you up in faith,
  to ripen your gifts, and to introduce you to the people! _Nil
  tanti._ What possible employment can you have, which is of so great
  importance?

  “But you will naturally say, ‘I am not equal to the task; I have
  neither grace nor gifts for such an employment.’ You say true; it is
  certain you have not. And who has? But do you not know _Him_ who is
  able to give them? Perhaps not at once, but rather day by day; as
  each is, so shall your strength be.

  “‘But this implies,’ you may say, ‘a thousand crosses, such as I feel
  I am not able to bear.’ You are not able to bear them _now_; and they
  are not _now_ come. Whenever they do come, will _He_ not send them
  in due number, weight and measure? And will they not all be for your
  profit, that you may be a partaker of His holiness?

  “Without conferring, therefore, with flesh and blood, come and
  strengthen the hands, comfort the heart, and share the labour of your
  affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[185]

This was a momentous proposal. Why was it not made to Wesley’s brother?
We cannot tell; but the following is Fletcher’s answer.

                                    “MADELEY, _February 6, 1773_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I hope the Lord, who has so wonderfully
  stood by you hitherto, will preserve you to see many of your sheep,
  and me among the rest, enter into rest. Should Providence call you
  _first_, I shall do my best, by the Lord’s assistance, to help
  _your brother_ to gather the wreck, and keep together those who are
  not absolutely bent upon throwing away the Methodist doctrine or
  discipline. Every little help will then be necessary; and, I hope, I
  shall not be backward to throw in my mite.

  “In the meantime, you stand sometimes in need of an assistant to
  serve tables, and occasionally to fill up a gap. Providence visibly
  appointed me to that office many years ago; and, though it no
  less evidently called me here, yet I have not been without doubt,
  especially for some years past, whether it would not be expedient
  that I should resume my place as your deacon; not with any view of
  presiding over the Methodists after you, (God knows!) but to save
  you a little in your old age, and be in the way of receiving, and
  perhaps of doing, more good. I have sometimes considered how shameful
  it was that no clergyman should join you, to keep in the Church the
  work which the Lord had enabled you to carry on therein; and, as
  the little estate I have in my native country is sufficient for my
  maintenance, I have thought I would, one day or other, offer you and
  the Methodists my _free_ services.

  “While my love of retirement, and my dread of appearing upon a
  higher stage than that I stand upon here, made me linger, I was
  providentially called to do something in Lady Huntingdon’s plan; but,
  being shut out there, it appears to me, I am again called to my first
  work.

  “Nevertheless, I would not leave this place, without a _fuller_
  persuasion that the time is quite come. Not that God uses me much
  _now_ among my parishioners, but because I have not sufficiently
  cleared my conscience from the blood of all men, especially with
  regard to ferreting out the poor, and expostulating with the rich,
  who make it their business to fly from me. In the meantime, it shall
  be my employment to beg the Lord to give me light, and make me
  willing to go anywhere or nowhere, to be anything or nothing.

  “I have laid my pen aside for some time; nevertheless, I resumed it
  last week, at your brother’s request, to go on with my treatise on
  Christian perfection. I have made some alterations in the sheets you
  have seen, and hope to have a few more ready for your correction,
  against the time you come this way. How deep is the subject! What
  need have I of the Spirit, to search the deep things of God! Help me
  by your prayers, till you can help me by word of mouth.

  “I am, reverend and dear sir, your willing, though unprofitable,
  servant in the gospel,

                                            “JOHN FLETCHER.”[186]

At the beginning of July, Wesley had an interview with Fletcher at
Madeley, and, on reaching London, sent him the following hitherto
unpublished letter.

                                      “LEWISHAM, _July 21, 1773_.

  “DEAR SIR,--It was a great satisfaction to me, that I had the
  opportunity, which I so long desired, of spending a little time
  with you. And I really think it would answer many gracious designs
  of Providence were we to spend a little more time together. It
  might be of great advantage both to ourselves and the people, who
  may otherwise soon be as sheep without a shepherd. You say indeed,
  ‘whenever it pleases God to call me away, you will do all you can to
  help them.’ But will it not then be too late? You may then expect
  grievous wolves to break in on every side; and many to arise from
  among themselves, speaking perverse things. Both the one and the
  other stand in awe of me, and do not care to encounter me; so that
  I am able, whether they will or no, to deliver the flock into your
  hands. But no one else is. And it seems, this is the very time when
  it may be done with the least difficulty. Just now the minds of the
  people in general are, on account of the Checks, greatly prejudiced
  in your favour. Should we not discern the providential time? Should
  we stay till the impression is worn away? Just now, we have an
  opportunity of breaking the ice, of making a little trial. Mr.
  Richardson is desirous of making an exchange with you, and spending
  two or three weeks at Madeley. This might be done either now, or in
  October, when I hope to return from Bristol. And till something of
  this kind is done, you will not have that στοργη for the people
  which alone can make your labour light in spending and being spent
  for them. Methinks ’tis pity we should lose any time; for what a
  vapour is life!

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                    JOHN WESLEY.”

So the matter ended, though Wesley was far from satisfied. He writes:
“I can never believe it was the will of God, that such a burning and
shining light should be hid under a bushel. No; instead of being
confined to a country village, it ought to have shone in every corner
of our land. He was full as much called to sound an alarm through all
the nation as Mr. Whitefield himself; nay, abundantly more so; seeing
he was far better qualified for that important work. He had a far more
striking person; equal good breeding; an equally winning address;
together with a richer flow of fancy; a stronger understanding; a far
greater treasure of learning, both in languages, philosophy, philology,
and divinity; and, above all, a more deep and constant communion with
the Father, and with the Son Jesus Christ.”[187]

No wonder that Wesley was anxious for a suitable successor to take his
place. The work of which, in the hand of God, he was the principal
supporter, had not only spread throughout the three kingdoms, but
was rapidly extending beyond the Atlantic. Already he had four of
his itinerants in America; and, aged and feeble in health though
he was, he still entertained the thought of visiting that distant
continent.[188] Among others, the Rev. Mr. Jarratt wrote him, from
Virginia, telling him that they had ninety-five parishes in the colony,
all, excepting one, supplied with clergymen, but that ninety-three out
of the ninety-four ministers appeared to be without “the power and
spirit of vital religion.” He thanks him for sending his preachers to
America, two of whom, Messrs. Pilmoor and Williams, were now labouring
in Virginia; but asks, “What can two or three preachers do in such an
extended country as this? Cannot you do something more for us? Cannot
you send us a minister of the Church of England, to be stationed in
the vacant parish? I wish you could see how matters are among us. This
would serve instead of a thousand arguments, to induce you to exert
yourself in this affair.”[189]

Even this was not all. During the year, Francis Gilbert wrote to him
from Antigua, telling him that “almost the whole island seemed to
be stirred up to seek the Lord.” There were large congregations and
constant preaching in his brother’s house; and they had, at St. John’s,
a society of twenty whites and forty blacks. “Here,” says Mr. Gilbert,
“is work enough for three preachers; as almost the entire island seems
ripe for the gospel; yet, I cannot desire you to send them yet, seeing
the people are not at present able to bear the expenses; for the fire,
the hurricane, and the severe droughts have, I suppose, ruined two
thirds of the inhabitants.”[190]

Affairs in Scotland were scarcely to Wesley’s mind. Writing to John
Bredin, at Aberdeen, he says:

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Observe and enforce all our rules exactly as
  if you were in England, or Ireland. By foolish complaisance our
  preachers, in Scotland, have often done harm. Be all a Methodist; and
  strongly insist on _full salvation_ to be received _now_ by simple
  _faith_.

  “I am yours affectionately,

                                              JOHN WESLEY.”[191]

Joseph Benson had been urged to go to America; but Wesley deemed it
desirable to send him across the Tweed to put things right in the
northern part of the kingdom. “God,” says he, “has made practical
divinity necessary, and the devil controversial. Sometimes we must
write and preach controversially; but the less the better. I think we
have few, if any, of our travelling preachers, that love controversy;
but there will always be men whose mouth it is necessary to stop;
antinomians and Calvinists in particular. By our long silence, we have
done much hurt, both to them and the cause of God. The more you preach
abroad, the better; keep to the plain, old Methodist doctrine, laid
down in the minutes of the conference. At Trevecca, you were a little
warped from this; but it was a right hand error. You will be buried
in Scotland, if you sell your mare and sit still. Keep her, and ride
continually. Sit not still, at the peril of your soul and body! Billy
Thompson never satisfied me on this head, not in the least degree. I
say still, we will have travelling preachers in Scotland, or none. Our
preachers shall either travel there, as in England, or else stay in
England.”[192]

Such were some of the difficulties which this veteran evangelist had to
meet. No wonder that he wished for help.

Chapel debts, also, still pressed heavily upon him. Hence the following
to Mr. Hopper.

                                             “_February 6, 1773._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I agreed last year, though contrary to my
  judgment, that we would have no more weekly subscriptions. I
  purposed, likewise, in my own mind, to concern myself with the debt
  no more. But, upon reflection, it seemed to me, there was one way
  still, namely, not to apply to the poor at all, (though I would not
  reject any that offered,) but to take the burden on myself, and try
  my personal interest with the rich. I began at London, where about
  £500 are subscribed. Afterwards, I wrote to many in the country.
  Liverpool circuit has subscribed about £100; Bradford circuit £130.
  It must be now or never. I do not know that I shall concern myself
  with this matter any more. Till now we never had a rational prospect
  of clearing the whole debt in one year. Now it may be done. It
  certainly will, if our brethren, in other circuits, do as these above
  mentioned have done. What I desire of you is to second the letters
  I have wrote, encouraging each man of property in your circuit to
  exert himself; at least, to send me an answer: this, you know, is
  but common civility. Now do what you can; and show that you, my old
  friend, are not the last and least in love towards your affectionate
  friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[193]

It is now time to trace Wesley’s wanderings in 1773.

On Sunday evening, March 7, he set out from London to Ireland, taking,
for the first time, his carriage with him, which, however, he was
deprived of the opportunity of using. He writes: “March 30--I was a
little surprised to find the commissioners of the customs would not
permit my chaise to be landed, because, they said, the captain of a
packet boat had no right to bring over goods. Poor pretence! However, I
was more obliged to them than I then knew; for had it come on shore, it
would have been utterly spoiled.”

The result was, that Wesley had to hire a chaise instead of riding in
his own; a vehicle which at Ballibac ferry went overboard, and, with
difficulty, was recovered; and which, on another occasion, it took five
hours to drag less than a dozen miles; which, in a third instance, was
disabled by the breaking of the hinder axletree; and which, more than
once, was in danger of being dashed to pieces by furious mobs.

Everywhere his congregations were large. In many instances, he had
whole troops of soldiers to hear him; and nowhere did he meet with any
serious disturbance, except at Waterford, where the papists created a
riot, in which heavy blows were given; and at Enniskillen, where a mob
again and again fell upon the unfortunate carriage, cut it with stones
in several places, smashed its windows, and well-nigh covered it with
sludge.

Three months were spent in itinerating the sister kingdom. Scores
of towns and villages, between Dublin and Galway, Belfast and Cork,
were favoured with his ministry; and diversified were the incidents
with which he met. At Eyrecourt, the crowd gave him a loud huzza as
he passed into the market place to preach. At Clare, for want of
other accommodation, he was glad to accept a bed in the soldiers’
barracks. At Castlebar, on finding the “Charter school a picture of
slothfulness, nastiness, and desolation; and all the children, not
only dirty, but with their stockings hanging about their heels, and
in a most disreputable plight, he reported the facts to the trustees
at Dublin, with the hope of effecting a reformation.” At Limerick,
William Myles, a youth in the seventeenth year of his age, was one of
Wesley’s hearers, began to meet in class, and, five years afterwards,
became an itinerant preacher.[194] At Armagh, he wrote his invaluable
sermon “On Predestination,” preached it at Londonderry, and, at the
request of several of the clergy, published it.[195] At Armagh, also,
he heard what he had not heard for fifty years,--an anthem in a church.
At Lisburn, all his spare time was taken up by poor patients, who came
to him for physic. He writes: “What has fashion to do with physic? Why,
in Ireland almost as much as with headdress. Blisters, for anything or
nothing, were all the fashion when I was in Ireland last. Now the grand
fashionable medicine, for twenty diseases, is mercury sublimate! Why is
it not a halter, or a pistol? They would cure a little more speedily.”

On the 5th of July, Wesley started for England, having to hold his
annual conference in London. He says: “About eleven we crossed Dublin
bar, and were at Hoylake the next afternoon. This was the first night
I ever lay awake in my life, though I was at ease in body and mind. I
believe few can say this: in seventy years I never lost one night’s
sleep.”

Wesley reached the metropolis on the 17th of July; and, on the 21st,
made the following entry in his journal: “We had our quarterly meeting
at London; at which I was surprised to find, that our income does not
yet meet our expense. We were again near £200 bad. My private account I
find still worse. I have laboured as much as many writers; and all my
labour has gained me, in seventy years, a debt of five or six hundred
pounds.”

There is some obscurity in this, as will appear from the following
correspondence.


           “To Messrs. THOMAS BALL and ALEXANDER MATHER.

                             “LEWISHAM, _February 27, 1772_.[196]

  “THE thing which I desire you to do is this, to see that an exact
  account be kept of all the books in Great Britain and Ireland,
  printed and sold on my account. You comprehend how many particulars
  are contained under this general. To do this accurately will require
  much thought. But you will bear that burden for God’s sake, and for
  the sake of your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”


                               (Reply.)

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I beg to lay before you Mr. Mather’s
  account, sent me by letter of the 18th past, of the gross value of
  your books, taken in February and March, 1773; viz.:--

                                        £   _s._ _d._
           “In London, etc.           3754   4    0
            Bristol                   4253   4    8
            Country                   2716   1    8
            Cash                       183   2    1
            Debts                       23   2    1
                                     --------------
                                     10929  15    4
            Stock in February, 1772   8833   0    7
                                     --------------
                                     £2096  14    9
                                     --------------

  “Supposed to be owing in March last to printers, binders, etc., £500.

  “I am, reverend sir, your most obedient and dutiful servant,

                                                    “THOMAS BALL.

  “Examined 21st September, 1773:--THOMAS MARRIOTT,
                                   RICHARD KEMP.”[197]

According to the above statement, Wesley was in debt to printers and
binders to the amount of £500; but, at the same time, he was possessed
of books whose gross value was nearly £11,000. How to reconcile the
discrepancy we hardly know. The facts are furnished as we find them.
One thing is certain, there was something wrong. Some have supposed
that Wesley’s wife had, by means of false keys, obtained access to the
book steward’s cash, and helped herself;[198] but of that there is no
conclusive proof; and it is certainly neither generous nor just to
assert the thing without proving it. All that we know further is, that
poor Samuel Franks, the book steward, a man of great uprightness and
earnest piety,[199] but naturally of a sensitive disposition, within
a fortnight, fell into a fit of insanity, and hanged himself.[200]
Without mentioning this, Wesley writes: “October 6--The rest of the
week I made what inquiry I could into the state of my accounts. Some
confusion had arisen from the sudden death of my bookkeeper; but it was
less than might have been expected.”

Here we must leave the matter. On the supposition that Wesley
considered his stock of books not his own, but merely held in trust
for the general good, it was quite correct, that, as the result of his
literary labours, he was in debt to the amount, as he himself says, “of
five or six hundred pounds.” In one respect, he was the possessor of a
large amount of property; in another, he was actually in debt.

Wesley’s conference began in London on August 3. He writes: “August
3--Our conference began. I preached mornings as well as evenings; and
it was all one. I found myself just as strong as if I had preached but
once a day.” Good old simple hearted Samuel Bardsley, then an itinerant
of five years’ standing, writes, in a manuscript letter now before us:
“I never was at a more comfortable conference. We had a deal of love
among us. Dear Mr. Wesley laboured hard. I had the pleasure of hearing
him preach twelve times. He said, he had not preached so much at a
conference these twenty years, and never was more assisted.”

It was now that Joseph Bradford was received on trial; and that Thomas
Olivers was appointed to be Wesley’s travelling companion; honest
Bradford taking the place of Olivers a year afterwards, and retaining
it for the next eight years. Wesley’s effort to extinguish the chapel
debts had resulted in a subscription amounting to £2237. Forty-seven
preachers were present, and, “in order to lay a foundation for future
union,” signed the following agreement.

  “WE whose names are underwritten, being thoroughly convinced of the
  necessity of a close union between those whom God is pleased to use
  as instruments in this glorious work, in order to preserve this union
  between ourselves, are resolved, God being our helper,--

  “I. To devote ourselves entirely to God: denying ourselves, taking up
  our cross daily, steadily aiming at one thing, to save our own souls,
  and them that hear us.

  “II. To preach the old Methodist doctrines, and no other, contained
  in the minutes of the conferences.

  “III. To observe and enforce the whole Methodist discipline, laid
  down in the said minutes.”

Wesley had failed in obtaining the consent of Fletcher to be his
successor; and, hence, the drawing up and signing of this conferential
compact.

On the first Sunday night, after the conference concluded, Wesley set
out, by coach, on his accustomed tour to Cornwall, which occupied the
next three weeks.

In returning, he spent a month at Bristol, and among the societies
round about. On October 6, he started in his chaise, at two o’clock
in the morning, and, in the evening, arrived in London; thus, in one
winter’s day, driving in his own conveyance a distance of one hundred
and fourteen miles. The rest of October, except the Sundays, was spent
in what he calls his “little tours,” through the five counties of
Bedford, Northampton, Oxford, Buckingham, and Kent.

Ten days, in November, were spent in Norfolk; then he met the London
classes; and afterwards went off to Sussex, and then to Kent. The last
entry in his year’s itinerary is: “London: December 25, and on the
following days, we had many happy opportunities of celebrating the
solemn feast days, according to the design of their institution. We
concluded the year with a fast day, closed with a solemn watchnight.”
Thus, in observing feast and fast days, ended the year 1773. One of
these, of course, was Christmas day, another St. Stephen’s, a third
St. John’s, and a fourth the Innocents’ day. To some it may seem
strange, that Wesley, the Methodist, should observe such festivals as
these; but, in such matters, Wesley was still the Churchman. Besides,
throughout life, it was one of his most sacred delights to think, not
only of the living, but likewise of the dead. On the 12th of June, in
this very year of 1773, he wrote a letter, an extract from which is
worth preserving.

  “It has, in all ages, been allowed, that the communion of saints
  extends to those in paradise, as well as those on earth, as they are
  all one body, united under one Head; and

     ‘Can death’s interposing tide
      Spirits one in Christ divide?’

  “But it is difficult to say, either what kind, or what degree of
  union, may be between them. It is not improbable, their fellowship
  with us is far more sensible than ours with them. Suppose any of
  them are present, they are hid from our eyes, but we are not hid
  from their sight. They, no doubt, clearly discern all our words and
  actions, if not all our thoughts too. For it is hard to think these
  walls of flesh and blood can intercept the view of an angelic being.
  But we have, in general, only a faint and indistinct perception of
  their presence, unless in some peculiar instances, where it may
  answer some gracious ends of Divine Providence. Then it may please
  God to permit, that they should be perceptible, either by some of our
  outward senses, or by an internal sense, for which human language has
  not a name. But I suppose this is not a common blessing. I have known
  but few instances of it. To keep up constant and close communion with
  God is the most likely mean to obtain this also.”[201]

Up to the present, nothing has been said concerning the progress, in
1773, of the Calvinian controversy. Fletcher’s pen was not idle, but
the only works he published were: first, “An Appeal to Matter of Fact
and Common Sense; or, a Rational Demonstration of Man’s Corrupt and
Lost Estate,” 12mo, 296 pages; and, secondly, “A Dreadful Phenomenon
Described and Improved, being a Particular Account of the Earthquake at
Madeley, on May 27, 1773:” 12mo, 104 pages. Neither of these, however,
had any immediate bearing on the matters in dispute.

On the other side, good old Berridge, of Everton, brought out his
“Christian World Unmasked”; which, if full of faults, is, at all
events, free from dulness; a book, like its author, often odd,
sometimes coarse, but always pious; full of genius, and full of
goodness; seasoned with Calvinism’s highest flavour, but entirely free
from the personal scurrility so characteristic of others.

Toplady sent nothing to the press; but his private letters were as
full of bitterness as ever. “I am told,” he writes, “that Mr. Fletcher
has it in contemplation to make an attack on me. He is welcome. I am
ready for him. Tenderness has no effect on Mr. Wesley and his pretended
_family of love_. For my own part, I shall never attempt to hew such
millstones with a feather. They must be served as nettles; press them
close, and they cannot sting. Cobbler _Tom_ laments publicly, from his
preaching tub (misnamed a pulpit), that such an antinomian as myself
should have such crowded auditories, while the preachers of the _pure
gospel_ (by which he means _free will_, _merit_, and _perfection_)
are so thinly attended. The envy, malice, and fury of Wesley’s party
are inconceivable. But, as violently as they hate _me_, I dare not,
I cannot hate _them_ in return. I have not so learned Christ. Your
idea of Mr. John Wesley and his associates exactly tallies with mine.
Abstracted from all warmth, and from all prejudice, I believe him to
be the most rancorous hater of the gospel system that ever appeared in
England. I except not Pelagius himself. The latter had some remains of
modesty, and preserved some appearances of decency; but the former has
outlived all pretentions to both.”[202]

Could this impulsive reviler be actually sincere, when he said he durst
not, and could not, hate Wesley and his party?

Toplady, so far as printing was concerned, was silent; but Richard Hill
begun the year as vigorously as ever, by publishing his “Finishing
Stroke; containing some Strictures on the Rev. Mr. Fletcher’s pamphlet,
entitled, ‘Logica Genevensis, or a Fourth Check to Antinomianism:’”
8vo, 57 pages. This characteristic piece is dated January 2, 1773.
The author confesses, that he had formed a resolution to be silent;
but “Logica Genevensis” was too provoking to be passed in silence.
This, however, was to be the real “finishing stroke.” Sir Richard
writes: “the unfair quotations you have made, and the shocking
misrepresentations and calumnies you have been guilty of, will, for the
future, prevent me from looking into any of your books, if you should
write a thousand volumes. So here the controversy must end; at least,
it shall end for me.”

Poor Sir Richard! Such was his resolve; and yet, almost before the
printer’s ink was dry, his godly impetuosity sent forth another
octavo pamphlet, of the same size as the former one, entitled “Logica
Wesleiensis; or the Farrago Double Distilled. With an heroic Poem
in Praise of Mr. John Wesley:” 63 pages. Hill, as usual, is angry
and vindictive. He tells his readers, that he had never seen Wesley
“above four or five times in his life; once in the pulpit at West
Street chapel; once at a friend’s house; and once or twice at his own
lodgings in Vine Street.” He writes: “I find it just as easy to catch
an eel by the tail, as to lay hold of Mr. Wesley for one single moment.
Oh, what quirks, quibbles, and evasions does this gentleman descend to,
in order to shift off his own inconsistencies!” As a specimen of the
writer’s “heroic poem,” we give the following.

   “A choice _Preservative_ I have,
      The like was never known;
    With potions, juleps, drops, and pukes,
      Peculiarly my own.

    Help _Cobbler_ Tom, and thou Swiss friend,
      To lay John Calvin’s ghost;
    For what with _cynics_, _bigots_, _bears_,
      I fear the day is lost.

    We three shall incantations raise,
      With _thunderings_, lightnings, hail;
    And if the hobgoblin won’t avaunt,
      I’ll bring my comet’s tail.”

Sir Richard was not content with this. During the year, he published
another octavo pamphlet, of 30 pages, with the wordy title, “Three
Letters written by Richard Hill, Esq., to the Rev. J. Fletcher, vicar
of Madeley, setting forth Mr. Hill’s Reasons for declining any further
Controversy relative to Mr. Wesley’s Principles.”

He states, that he has heard that Fletcher “wishes to have done with
controversy;” and upon the strength of this, he has written to his
London bookseller to stop the sale of his own publications. He begs
pardon for “whatever may have savoured too much of his own spirit”;
and says, restraint should be put upon several of Wesley’s preachers,
“particularly upon one Perronet, of whose superlatively abusive and
insolent little piece Charles Wesley had testified his abhorrence from
the pulpit.” He wishes Wesley to be made acquainted with the action he
has taken, and says: “If I stop the sale of my books, I hope that of
the Four Checks will be stopped also.” He adds, that his mother’s death
had recently taken place; and then, at the end of his pamphlet, gives
“a proposed title” to Fletcher’s works, and also “A Creed for Arminians
and Perfectionists”; the latter signed by “J. F., J. W., and W. S.”

Such is the substance of the three letters, which, in the first
instance, were sent to Fletcher privately, and were not intended for
publication. By some means, however, the fact of the letters having
been written became bruited abroad, and certain hasty logicians deduced
the unauthorised inference, that Sir Richard had recanted his Calvinian
doctrines. This was too bitter a pill to be swallowed; and, hence,
the writer, who was weary of the war, gave his private letters to the
public, and attached to them a preface which had better not been penned.

For instance, he speaks of Thomas Olivers as “a journeyman cordwainer,
who had written a pamphlet against him, which, though in itself
_black of the grain_, was afterwards _lacquered up_, _new soled_,
and _heel tapped_ by his master, before it was exposed to sale.” He
adds: “I shall not take the least notice of him, or read a line of his
composition, any more than, if I was travelling, I would stop to lash,
or even order my footman to lash, every impertinent little quadruped in
a village, that should come out and bark at me; but would willingly let
the contemptible animal have the satisfaction of thinking he had driven
me out of sight.”

He then proceeds to accuse Fletcher of “misrepresenting facts,”
and of using “artifices, false glosses, pious frauds, declamation,
chicanery, and evasion, to throw dust into the eyes of his readers;”
and concludes, by saying, that though he cannot read any more of the
productions of Fletcher’s pen, and, therefore, cannot write replies
to them, yet, notwithstanding all in his letters to the contrary, he
shall still keep on sale his “Paris Conversation”; his “Five Letters”;
his “Review of Wesley’s Doctrines”; his “Logica Wesleiensis”; and his
“Finishing Stroke.”

Such was the position of Sir Richard Hill in 1773. He wished for peace.
Why? Because he was vanquished.

What action did Wesley take? On the 1st of April was published, “Some
Remarks on Mr. Hill’s Farrago Double Distilled. By John Wesley.”[203]
12mo, 44 pages.

Wesley’s “Remarks” are characterised by his wonted keenness, courtesy,
wit, and brevity. In conclusion, he writes:

  “I beg leave, in my turn, to give you a few advices. 1. Be calm. Do
  not venture into the field again till you are master of your temper.
  2. Be good natured. Passion is not commendable; but ill nature still
  less. 3. Be courteous. Show good manners, as well as good nature, to
  your opponent, of whatever kind. 4. Be merciful. When you have gained
  an advantage over your opponent, do not press it to the uttermost.
  Remember the honest quaker’s advice to his friend a few years ago:
  ‘Art thou not content to lay John Wesley upon his back, but thou
  wilt tread his guts out?’ 5. In writing, do not consider yourself as
  a man of fortune, or take any liberty with others on that account.
  Men of sense simply consider what is written; not whether the writer
  be a lord or a cobbler. 6. Lastly, Remember, ‘for every idle word
  men shall speak, they shall give an account in the day of judgment.’
  Remember, ‘by thy words shalt thou be justified; or by thy words
  shalt thou be condemned.’”

Wesley’s other publications, in 1773, were nine 12mo volumes of his
collected works, making together 3439 pages. In these were included
five small works, now first published: namely,--1. “An Extract of Two
Discourses on the Conflagration and Renovation of the World: written by
James Knight, D.D., late Vicar of St. Sepulchre, London;” in which, by
the way, a theory is propounded antagonistic to the millenarian theory,
which Wesley countenanced some years before. 2. “An Extract from a
Treatise concerning Religious Affections: by the late Rev. Jonathan
Edwards.” 3. “A Short Account of John Dillon.” 4. “Instructions for
Members of Religious Societies.” 5. “Christian Reflections. Translated
from the French.” These “Reflections” are three hundred and thirty-six
in number. We give one as a specimen of the rest. “The three greatest
punishments which God can inflict on sinners, in this world, are: 1. To
let loose their own desires upon them. 2. To let them succeed in all
they wish for. And, 3. To suffer them to continue many years in the
quiet enjoyment thereof.”

Besides the above, Wesley also published “A Short Roman History.” 12mo,
155 pages.


FOOTNOTES:

     [185] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 355.

     [186] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 259.

     [187] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 288.

     [188] Asbury’s Journal, vol. i., p. 72.

     [189] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 397.

     [190] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 567.

     [191] _Wesleyan Times_, May 13, 1861.

     [192] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., pp. 391, 392.

     [193] Wesley’s Works, vol xii., p. 291.

     [194] _Methodist Magazine_, 1831, p. 290.

     [195] Ibid. 1782, pp. 505, 565.

     [196] Query: ought not this to be 1773?

     [197] _Methodist Magazine_, 1842, p. 1013.

     [198] Manuscript.

     [199] _Methodist Magazine_, 1842, p. 1012.

     [200] Manuscript.

     [201] _Methodist Magazine_, 1805, p. 520.

     [202] Toplady’s Posthumous Works, 1780, pp. 343-346.

     [203] _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, April 2, 1773.




                                1774.
                               Age 71

References have been made to the state of Wesley’s health. His labours
had been undiminished, and yet many of his friends had been anxious and
alarmed. John Pawson, in an unpublished letter, dated Bristol, October
14, 1773, remarks: “Mr. Wesley has been with us for some time. He
seems to be declining very fast; and I think there is great reason to
fear that he will not be with us long.” There was sufficient cause for
solicitude. Wesley’s pain, during the last three years, must have been
acute; and it is perfectly marvellous how he managed, without a murmur,
and without abatement, to do the whole of his accustomed work. At the
beginning of 1774, the matter reached its crisis. He writes:

  “January 4--Three or four years ago, a stumbling horse threw me
  forward on the pommel of the saddle. I felt a good deal of pain; but
  it soon went off, and I thought of it no more. Some months after, I
  observed _testiculum alterum altero duplo majorem esse_. I consulted
  a physician; he told me it was a common case, and did not imply any
  disease at all. In May twelvemonth, it was grown near as large as
  a hen’s egg. Being then at Edinburgh, Dr. Hamilton insisted on my
  having the advice of Drs. Gregory and Munro. They immediately saw
  it was a hydrocele, and advised me, as soon as I came to London,
  to aim at a radical cure, which they judged might be effected in
  about sixteen days. When I came to London, I consulted Mr. Wathen.
  He advised me--(1) Not to think of a radical cure, which could not
  be hoped for, without my lying in one posture fifteen or sixteen
  days; and he did not know whether this might not give a wound to my
  constitution, which I should never recover. (2) To do nothing while I
  continued easy. And this advice I was determined to take. Last month,
  the swelling was often painful. So on this day Mr. Wathen performed
  the operation, and drew off something more than half a pint of a
  thin, yellow, transparent water. With this came out, to his no small
  surprise, a pearl of the size of a small shot; which he supposed
  might be one cause of the disorder, by occasioning a conflux of
  humours to the part.”

Such is Wesley’s own simple statement. The disease was unquestionably
a serious one; and, yet, it is a surprising fact, that, only a week
after the surgical operation, he was again in harness, and as actively
employed as ever. Hence the following: “Tuesday, January 11--I began,
at the east end of the town, to visit the society from house to house.
I know no branch of the pastoral office which is of greater importance
than this. But it is so grievous to flesh and blood, that I can prevail
on few, even of our preachers, to undertake it.”

Wesley’s zeal for the extension of his Saviour’s kingdom would hardly
let him rest when rest was requisite. His long life was an unbroken
scene of gigantic action. He worked as though nothing could be done
without his working; and yet no man more practically acknowledged, that
all his work, without God’s blessing, would amount to nothing. Hence,
not only his own ceaseless prayers for the help and co-operation of
his great Master, but also his appointment of fast days to be observed
by the thousands of his followers. Many of these are mentioned in his
journals, but many were observed without being mentioned. One of these
occurred at the time of which we are now writing. “Yesterday,” says
Samuel Bardsley, on January 25, 1774, “yesterday I got a letter from
Mr. Wesley, informing me that the 28th instant is to be observed as
a day of fasting and prayer for the prosperity of the gospel.”[204]
Numbers of such days were appointed. No wonder Wesley prospered.

The first two months of 1774 were chiefly spent in London; and, on
March 6, Wesley set out on his northern visitation, which, as usual,
occupied his time till the conference was held in August. This journey
has been so often traversed, that we shall no longer follow Wesley step
by step; but merely advert to its chief incidents.

At Wolverhampton he was met by his friend Fletcher, of Madeley, and
says: “March 22--At five in the morning I explained that important
truth, that God trieth us every moment, weighs all our thoughts, words,
and actions, and is pleased or displeased with us, according to our
works. I see more and more clearly, that there is a great gulf fixed
between us and all those, who, by denying this, sap the very foundation
both of inward and outward holiness.”

When he had travelled as far as Congleton, he received intelligence
which compelled him to retrace his steps, and go back to Bristol.
The entry in the journal of this old man of more than seventy is a
curiosity. “Wednesday, March 30--I went on to Congleton, where I
received letters, informing me that my presence was necessary at
Bristol. So, about one, I took chaise, and reached Bristol about half
an hour after one the next day. Having done my business in about
two hours, on Friday in the afternoon I reached Congleton again,
about a hundred and forty miles from Bristol, no more tired (blessed
be God!) than when I left it.” This is marvellous. Here we have a
septuagenarian, in feeble health, travelling, not by railway, nor
yet by coach, but in his own private chaise, in a wintry month, and
on roads not macadamised, a distance of two hundred and eighty miles
in about eight-and-forty hours, and then quietly sitting down and,
without bombast, but with profound gratitude, recording the fact in
the language above given. Can biography furnish a parallel to this? We
doubt it.

On Easter day, April 3, Wesley writes: “I went on to Macclesfield, and
came just in time (so is the scene changed here) to walk to the old
church, with the mayor and the two ministers.”

Here we pause, to notice a man, who afterwards, not only distinguished
himself by his pen and ministerial labours, but became one of Wesley’s
sincerest and warmest friends.

One of the “two ministers,” referred to in this extract, was David
Simpson, now a young man of twenty-eight. Born at Ingleby Arncliffe,
in Yorkshire, and educated at Northallerton, and at Scorton, he, in
1766, entered St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he became acquainted
with Rowland Hill, and a select society of devout collegians, and
was converted. On leaving college, he was ordained, and accepted the
curacy of Ramsden in Essex. He then removed to Buckingham, where, by
his extempore preaching of justification by faith, and the nature
and necessity of the new birth, he provoked alike the hostility of
the surrounding clergy and the sneers of unconverted laics. About
the year 1772, he accepted the invitation of Charles Roe, Esq., to
his residence at Macclesfield, and soon became curate of what Wesley
calls “the old church,” but which, at that period, was the only church
that Macclesfield possessed. Here he married Miss Waldy, of Yarm, a
young lady of distinguished excellence and piety, who died within six
months after Wesley’s visit, leaving to her young husband the care
of an infant daughter. Mr. Simpson’s faithful ministry was as much
disliked at Macclesfield as it had been at Buckingham. Complaints of
his Methodism were made to his diocesan, and twice he was suspended
for preaching doctrines, to which, as a clergyman of the Church of
England, he had solemnly subscribed. Expelled from the pulpit of the
church, he began to preach in the adjacent towns and villages. Just at
this juncture, the prime curacy of the church became vacant, and, the
nomination being an appendage to the office of the mayor for the time
being, Mr. Gould made him the offer, and had the pleasure of seeing it
accepted. To prevent Simpson’s induction, a petition, with seventeen
articles of accusation, was transmitted to the bishop of Chester, all
of which might be reduced to one, namely, that he was a Methodist.
In reply, he says, in a letter to his lordship: “This is true. My
method is to preach the great truths of the gospel, in as plain, and
earnest, and affectionate a manner as I am able. Some, hereby, have
become seriously concerned about their salvation. The change is soon
discovered; they meet with one or another, who invite them to attend
the meetings of the Methodists, by which their number” (the Methodists)
“is increased to a considerable degree. This is the truth. I own the
fact. I confess myself unequal to the difficulty. What would your
lordship advise?” Such was the conflict. Before it came to an issue,
Mr. Roe, at his own expense, erected a church, of which Mr. Simpson
became incumbent in 1775, relinquishing, at the same time, the curacy
which had been a bone of contention. Here he continued to exercise his
successful ministry until 1799, when he peacefully expired.

Among many others, who were benefited by Simpson’s preaching, was a
young female, eighteen years of age, who, on the very day of Wesley’s
visit, above recorded, found peace with God, at Simpson’s sacramental
service, and afterwards became the Hester Ann Rogers, whose journals
and letters have been read by myriads.

On leaving Macclesfield, Wesley proceeded to Manchester and other
places. At Bury, Methodism had been cradled in a storm. On some
occasions, the people were besmeared with the most offensive filth; and
on others were disturbed in their devotions by a huntsman blowing the
hunter’s horn. Again and again the vicar frustrated their attempts to
erect a chapel; but, at length, land at Pitts o’ th’ Moor was bought;
the poor Methodists dug the clay and burnt the bricks; some worked by
day, and others watched by night; and now, in 1774, the building was
completed, and, on the 15th of April, Wesley preached in it.

Leaving Lancashire for Yorkshire, Wesley had, for him, the unusual
honour of preaching on April 17 and 18, in three different churches, at
Halifax, Huddersfield, and Heptonstall; and, on the Sunday following,
he occupied the same position in the church at Haworth. A few days
later, we find him in Scotland, preaching “to a people, the greatest
part of whom,” says he, “hear much, know everything, and feel nothing.”
Here, he tells us, he heard sermons, which unfortunately are too common
at the present day,--sermons full of truth, “but no more likely to
awaken souls than an Italian opera;” and, hence, he himself began to
thunder about death, and judgment, and eternity. At Glasgow, Methodist
matters were not at all to his satisfaction. “How is it,” he asks,
“that there is no increase in the society here? It is exceeding easy
to answer. One preacher stays here two or three months at a time,
preaching on Sunday mornings, and three or four evenings in a week. Can
a Methodist preacher preserve either bodily health, or spiritual life,
with this exercise? And if he is but half alive, what will the people
be?”

At Greenock, he found the same fault; and, at Edinburgh, writes: “Here,
likewise, the morning preaching had been given up; consequently the
people were few, dead, and cold. Things must be remedied, or we must
quit the ground.”

Wesley attended a Scotch funeral, with which he was disgusted. “O what
a difference,” says he, “is there between the English and Scotch method
of burial! The English does honour to human nature; and even to the
poor remains, that were once the temple of the Holy Ghost! But when I
see in Scotland a coffin put into the earth, and covered up without
a word, it reminds me of what was spoken of Jehoiakim, ‘He shall be
buried with the burial of an ass!’”

At Perth, he says, the generality of the people were so wise, that
they needed no more knowledge, and so good, that they needed no more
religion; and, hence, he gave them three thundering sermons, two of
them on hell and the day of judgment.

Wesley’s great difficulty in Scotland was the objection to itinerancy.
“I have written,” says he, in a letter dated October 16, 1774, “to Dr.
Hamilton, that Edinburgh and Dunbar must be supplied by one preacher.
While I live, itinerant preachers shall be itinerants: I mean, if they
choose to remain in connection with me. The society at Greenock are
entirely at their own disposal: they may either have a preacher between
them and Glasgow, or none at all. But more than one between them they
cannot have. I have too much regard both for the bodies and souls of
our preachers, to let them be confined to one place any more. I have
weighed the matter, and will serve the Scots as we do the English, or
leave them.”[205]

The above was addressed to Joseph Benson, at this time stationed in
Scotland, and who has left a memento of Wesley’s visit which is worth
quoting. “I was,” says he, “constantly with him for a week. I had an
opportunity of examining narrowly his spirit and conduct; and, I assure
you, I am more than ever persuaded, he is a _none such_. I know not
his fellow, first, for abilities, natural and acquired; and, secondly,
for his incomparable diligence in the application of those abilities
to the best of employments. His lively fancy, tenacious memory, clear
understanding, ready elocution, manly courage, indefatigable industry,
really amaze me. I admire, but wish in vain to imitate, his diligent
improvement of every moment of time; his wonderful exactness even in
little things; the order and regularity wherewith he does and treats
everything he takes in hand; together with his quick dispatch of
business, and calm, cheerful serenity of soul. I ought not to omit to
mention, what is very manifest to all who know him, his resolution,
which no shocks of opposition can shake; his patience, which no length
of trials can weary; his zeal for the glory of God and the good of man,
which no waters of persecution or tribulation have yet been able to
quench. Happy man! Long hast thou borne the burden and heat of the day,
amidst the insults of foes, and the base treachery of seeming friends;
but thou shalt rest from thy labours, and thy works shall follow
thee!”[206]

On the 10th of June, Wesley reached Newcastle, and, on the day after,
set out for Wolsingham and the dales. Returning to Newcastle, he and
his wife’s daughter, and two grandchildren, had a marvellous escape
from danger and death, in which Wesley believed that angels, both good
and bad, took part. The narrative cannot be given in fewer or better
words than in his own. We merely premise, that Horsley is a village
a few miles west of Newcastle; and that Mr. Smith had married Mrs.
Wesley’s daughter. Wesley writes:

  “Monday, June 20--About nine, I set out for Horsley, with Mr. Hopper
  and Mr. Smith. I took Mrs. Smith, and her two little girls, in the
  chaise with me. About two miles from the town, just on the brow of
  the hill, on a sudden both the horses set out, without any visible
  cause, and flew down the hill, like an arrow. In a minute, John fell
  off the coach box. The horses then went on full speed, sometimes to
  the edge of the ditch on the right, sometimes on the left. A cart
  came up against them; they avoided it as exactly as if the man had
  been on the box. A narrow bridge was at the foot of the hill. They
  went directly over the middle of it. They ran up the next hill with
  the same speed; many persons meeting us, but getting out of the
  way. Near the top of the hill was a gate, which led into a farmer’s
  yard. It stood open. They turned short, and run through it, without
  touching the gate on one side, or the post on the other. I thought,
  ‘The gate which is on the other side of the yard, and is shut, will
  stop them’; but they rushed through it, as if it had been a cobweb,
  and galloped on through the cornfield. The little girls cried out,
  ‘Grandpapa, save us!’ I told them, ‘Nothing will hurt you: do not be
  afraid’; feeling no more fear or care than if I had been sitting in
  my study. The horses ran on, till they came to the edge of a steep
  precipice. Just then Mr. Smith, who could not overtake us before,
  galloped in between. They stopped in a moment. Had they gone on ever
  so little, he and we must have gone down together!”

This was one of the narrowest escapes from death that Wesley ever had;
and his remarks upon it are worth adding.

  “I am persuaded, that both evil and good angels had a large share
  in this transaction: how large we do not know now; but we shall
  know hereafter. I think some of the most remarkable circumstances
  were: (1) Both the horses, which were tame and quiet as could be,
  starting out in a moment, just at the top of the hill, and running
  down full speed. (2) The coachman’s being thrown on his head with
  such violence, and yet not hurt at all. (3) The chaise running
  again and again to the edge of each ditch, and yet not into it.
  (4) The avoiding the cart. (5) The keeping just the middle of the
  bridge. (6) The turning short through the first gate, in a manner
  that no coachman in England could have turned them, when in full
  gallop. (7) The going through the second gate as if it had been but
  smoke, without slackening their pace at all. This would have been
  impossible, had not the end of the chariot pole struck exactly on the
  centre of the gate; whence the whole, by the sudden impetuous shock,
  was broke into small pieces. Lastly, that Mr. Smith struck in just
  then: in a minute more we had been down the precipice. ‘Let those
  give thanks whom the Lord hath redeemed, and delivered from the hand
  of the enemy!’”

Newcastle was one of Wesley’s favourite haunts. However cruelly his
wife treated him, her daughter and her son in law, Mr. and Mrs.
Smith, always seem to have shown him kindness; and, hence, he always
appeared to quit Newcastle with reluctance. He writes: “June 27--I
took my leave of this lovely place and people.” The next day was his
birthday, which he celebrated as follows: “This being the first day of
my seventy-second year, I was considering, How is this, that I find
just the same strength as I did thirty years ago? that my sight is
considerably better now, and my nerves firmer, than they were then?
that I have none of the infirmities of old age, and have lost several
I had in my youth? The grand cause is, the good pleasure of God, who
doeth whatsoever pleaseth Him. The chief means are: (1) My constantly
rising at four, for about fifty years. (2) My generally preaching at
five in the morning; one of the most healthy exercises in the world.
(3) My never travelling less, by sea or land, than four thousand five
hundred miles a year.”

Some will smile at this; but those who think, will hardly doubt, that
the three things mentioned, so far from injuring health and shortening
life, were among the likeliest of all likely things to be the means of
preserving the one, and extending the other.

It is scarcely necessary to follow Wesley, in his wanderings through
Durham, through the three ridings of the county of York, and through
Lincolnshire; and then right away through Madeley, Worcester, and
Cheltenham, to Bristol, where he arrived on August 6. The reader can
easily find all this in his journal; we here prefer to give a few
extracts from his letters.

Reference has just been made to Wesley’s vigour. We incline to think
that, on his birthday, in the bright month of June, he was sometimes
more jubilant than facts warranted. At all events, the following
extract from a letter to his brother, written within two months before
his birthday came, is scarcely in harmony with what was written then.

                                      “WHITEHAVEN, _May 6, 1774_.

  “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:--

    “_My Dear Brethren_,--You were never in your lives in so critical
    a situation as you are at this time. It is your part to be
    peacemakers; to be loving and tender to all; but to addict
    yourselves to no party. In spite of all solicitations, of rough or
    smooth words, say not one word against one or the other side. Keep
    yourselves pure: do all you can to help and soften all; but beware
    how you adopt another’s jar. See that you act in full union with
    each other; this is of the utmost consequence. Not only let there
    be no bitterness or anger, but no shyness or coldness, between you.
    Mark all those who would set one of you against the other. Some
    such will never be wanting. But give them no countenance; rather
    ferret them out, and drag them into open day. The conduct of T.
    Rankin has been suitable to the Methodist plan. I hope all of you
    tread in his steps. Let your eye be single. Be in peace with each
    other, and the God of peace will be with you.”

Under the same date, Charles Wesley wrote to Rankin as follows.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--As to public affairs, I wish you to be like-minded
  with me. I am of neither side, and yet of both; on the side of New
  England, and of Old. Private Christians are excused, exempted,
  privileged, to take no part in civil troubles. We love all, and pray
  for all, with a sincere and impartial love. Faults there may be on
  both sides; but such as neither you nor I can remedy: therefore, let
  us, and all our children, give ourselves unto prayer, and so stand
  still and see the salvation of God.”

The war was not the only thing that gave Wesley trouble. Thomas
Rankin and Francis Asbury were not able to agree; and Miss Gilbert
had actually written to Asbury, stating that Mr. Gilbert was about
to leave Antigua; and wishing him to come, and to take charge of
the three hundred Methodists in that island. Asbury was inclined to
accept of this invitation; but was deterred by his want of ordination,
and therefore, as he thought, want of authority to administer the
sacraments of the Christian church. Wesley wished him to return to
England. What a disaster, if he had![227] These facts will cast light
on the following letters.

                                “PORTARLINGTON, _April 21, 1775_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--Brother Asbury has sent me a few lines, and I thank him
  for them. But I do not advise him to go to Antigua. Let him come home
  without delay. If one or two stout, healthy young men would willingly
  offer themselves to that service, I should have no objection; but
  none should go, unless he was fully persuaded in his own mind. I
  am afraid, you will soon find a day of trial: the clouds are black
  both over England and America. It is well if this summer passes
  over without some showers of blood. And if the storm once begins in
  America, it will soon spread to Great Britain.

  “I am, dear Tommy, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

                                     “BALLINROBE, _May 19, 1775_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--I doubt not but brother Asbury and you will part
  friends; I hope I shall see him at the conference. He is quite an
  upright man. I apprehend he will go through his work more cheerfully
  when he is a little distance from me.

  “We must speak the plain truth, wherever we are, whether men will
  hear, or whether they will forbear. And among our societies we must
  enforce our rules, with all mildness and steadiness.

  “Never was there a time, when it was more necessary for all that
  fear God, both in England and in America, to wrestle with God in
  mighty prayer. In all the other judgments of God, the inhabitants of
  the earth learn righteousness; but wherever war breaks out, God is
  forgotten, if He be not set at open defiance. What a glorious work
  of God was at Cambuslang and Kilsyth, from 1740 to 1744! But the war
  that followed tore it all up by the roots, and left scarce any trace
  of it behind; insomuch that, when I diligently inquired a few years
  after, I could not find one that retained the life of God!”

                                      “CLARMAIN, _June 13, 1775_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--I am afraid our correspondence, for the time to come,
  will be more uncertain than ever, since the sword is drawn; and it
  is well if they have not, on both sides, thrown away the scabbard.
  What will the end of these things be, either in Europe or America?
  It seems, huge confusion and distress, such as neither we nor our
  fathers had known![228] But it is enough, if all issues in glory
  to God, and peace and goodwill among men. Never had America such a
  call to repentance; for, unless general reformation prevent general
  destruction, what a scene will soon be opened! Ruin and desolation
  must soon overspread the land; and fair houses be turned into ruinous
  heaps. But what are those strange phenomena which you speak of? Send
  me an account of just so much as you can depend on. Should you not
  appoint in America, as we do in England and Ireland, one or more
  general days of fasting and prayer?”

                                    “NEAR LEEDS, _July 28, 1775_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--I rejoice to hear that the work of our Lord still
  prospers in your hands. If the temple is built even in troublous
  times, it is not by the power of man. I rejoice too over honest
  Francis Asbury, and hope he will no more enter into temptation. I
  know no reason why you should not print the names of the American
  preachers. You may print an edition of the ‘Christian Pattern,’ and
  apply the profits of it to the payment of the debt. The societies
  should pay the passage of the preachers. But you must not imagine,
  that any more of them will come to America till these troubles are at
  an end.

  “Certainly, this is the point which we should insist upon, in season
  and out of season. The universal corruption of all orders and degrees
  of men loudly calls for the vengeance of God; and, inasmuch as all
  other nations are equally corrupt, it seems God will punish us by
  one another. What can prevent this, but a universal, or, at least, a
  general repentance?”

                                      “LONDON, _August 13, 1775_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--I am not sorry that brother Asbury stays with you
  another year. In that time, it will be seen what God will do with
  North America; and you will easily judge whether our preachers are
  called to remain any longer therein. If they are, God will make their
  way plain, and give them favour even with the men that delight in
  war. The clouds do indeed gather more and more; and it seems a heavy
  storm will follow; certainly it will, unless the prayers of the
  faithful obtain a longer reprieve.”

                                     “LONDON, _October 20, 1775_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--I am glad you are going into North Carolina; and why
  not into South Carolina too? I apprehend, those provinces would bear
  much fruit, as most parts of them are fresh, unbroken ground. And as
  the people are further removed from the din of war, they may be more
  susceptible of the gospel of peace.

  “A paper was sent to me lately, occasioned by the troubles in
  America; but it would not do good. It is abundantly too tart; and
  nothing of that kind will be of service now. All parties are already
  too much sharpened against each other; we must pour water, not oil,
  into the flame. I had written a little tract[229] upon the subject
  before I knew the American ports were shut up. I think there is not
  one sharp word therein; I did not design there should. However, many
  are excessively angry; and would willingly burn me and it together.
  Indeed it is provoking; I suppose above forty thousand of them have
  been printed in three weeks, and still the demand for them is as
  great as ever.

  “I am entirely of your mind. I am persuaded, love and tender measures
  will do far more than violence. And if I should have an interview
  with a great man, which seems to be not unlikely, I will tell him so,
  without any circumlocution.

  “I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                “JOHN WESLEY.”[230]

The “great man” referred to was probably Lord North, the prime minister
of the English cabinet, to whom, and to the Earl of Dartmouth, Wesley
had, four months before, addressed most important letters, in which
he strongly endeavoured to convince the government of the exceedingly
critical condition of public matters. No man in the kingdom had
suffered more from the violation of English law than Wesley had; and
yet now, in England’s extremity, no man evinced a more loyal spirit
than was evinced by him. Indeed, his loyalty became, in the eyes of his
enemies, a crime, and brought him, not reward, but ruffianly reproach.
An extract from the letters to the two ministers of state may fitly,
for the present, close these American reminiscences.

                                        “ARMAGH, _June 15, 1775_.

  “MY LORD,--Whether my writing do any good or no, it need do no harm;
  for it rests with your lordship whether any eye but your own shall
  see it.

  “I do not enter upon the question, whether the Americans are in
  the right or in the wrong. Here all my prejudices are against
  the Americans; for I am a high churchman,[231] the son of a high
  churchman, bred up, from my childhood, in the highest notions of
  passive obedience and non-resistance; and yet, in spite of all my
  long rooted prejudices, I cannot avoid thinking, if I think at all,
  that an oppressed people asked for nothing more than their legal
  rights, and that in the most modest and inoffensive manner that the
  nature of the thing would allow.[232] But waiving all considerations
  of right and wrong, I ask, is it common sense to use force towards
  the Americans? These men will not be frightened; and it seems, they
  will not be conquered so easily as was at first imagined. They will
  probably dispute every inch of ground; and, if they die, die sword
  in hand. Indeed, some of our valiant officers say, ‘Two thousand
  men will clear America of these rebels.’ No, nor twenty thousand,
  be they rebels or not, nor perhaps treble that number. They are as
  strong men as you; they are as valiant as you, if not abundantly
  more valiant, for they are one and all enthusiasts,--enthusiasts for
  liberty. They are calm, deliberate enthusiasts; and we know how this
  principle ‘breathes into softer souls stern love of war, and thirst
  of vengeance, and contempt of death.’ We know men, animated with this
  spirit, will leap into a fire, or rush into a cannon’s mouth.

  “‘But they have no experience in war.’ And how much more have our
  troops? Very few of them ever saw a battle. ‘But they have no
  discipline.’ That is an entire mistake. Already they have near as
  much as our army, and they will learn more of it every day; so that,
  in a short time, if the fatal occasion continue, they will understand
  it as well as their assailants.[233] ‘But they are divided amongst
  themselves.’ No, my lord, they are terribly united; not in the
  province of New England only, but down as low as the Jerseys and
  Pennsylvania. The bulk of the people are so united, that to speak a
  word in favour of the present English measures would almost endanger
  a man’s life. Those who informed me of this are no sycophants; they
  say nothing to curry favour; they have nothing to gain or lose by me.
  But they speak with sorrow of heart what they have seen with their
  own eyes, and heard with their own ears.

  “These men think, one and all, be it right or wrong, that they are
  contending _pro aris et focis_; for their wives, children, and
  liberty. What an advantage have they herein over many that fight
  only for pay! none of whom care a straw for the cause wherein they
  are engaged; most of whom strongly disapprove of it. Have they not
  another considerable advantage? Is there occasion to recruit troops?
  Their supplies are at hand, and all round about them. Ours are three
  thousand miles off. Are we then able to conquer the Americans,
  suppose they are left to themselves, suppose all our neighbours
  should stand stock still, and leave us and them to fight it out? But
  we are not sure of this. Nor are we sure that all our neighbours will
  stand stock still. I doubt they have not promised it; and, if they
  had, could we rely upon those promises? ‘Yet, it is not probable
  they will send ships or men to America.’ Is there not a shorter way?
  Do they not know where England and Ireland lie? And have they not
  troops, as well as ships, in readiness? All Europe is well apprised
  of this; only the English know nothing of the matter! What if they
  find means to land but two thousand men? Where are the troops in
  England or Ireland to oppose them? Why, cutting the throats of their
  brethren in America! Poor England, in the meantime!

  “‘But we have our militia--our valiant, disciplined militia. These
  will effectually oppose them.’ Give me leave, my lord, to relate a
  little circumstance, of which I was informed by a clergyman who knew
  the fact. In 1716, a large body of militia were marching towards
  Preston against the rebels. In a wood, which they were passing by, a
  boy happened to discharge his fowling piece. The soldiers gave up all
  for lost, and, by common consent, threw down their arms, and ran for
  life. So much dependence is to be placed on our valorous militia.

  “But, my lord, this is not all. We have thousands of enemies, perhaps
  more dangerous than French or Spaniards. As I travel four or five
  thousand miles every year, I have an opportunity of conversing
  freely with more persons of every denomination than any one else in
  the three kingdoms. I cannot but know the general disposition of
  the people,--English, Scots, and Irish; and I know a large majority
  of them are exasperated almost to madness. Exactly so they were
  throughout England and Scotland about the year 1640, and, in a great
  measure, by the same means; by inflammatory papers, which were
  spread, as they are now, with the utmost diligence, in every corner
  of the land. Hereby the bulk of the population were effectually cured
  of all love and reverence for the king. So that, first despising,
  then hating him, they were just ripe for open rebellion. And, I
  assure your lordship, so they are now. They want nothing but a leader.

  “Two circumstances more are deserving to be considered: the one, that
  there was, at that time, a decay of general trade almost throughout
  the kingdom; the other, there was a common dearness of provisions.
  The case is the same, in both respects, at this day. So that, even
  now, there are multitudes of people that, having nothing to do, and
  nothing to eat, are ready for the first bidder; and that, without
  inquiring into the merits of the case, would flock to any that would
  give them bread.

  “Upon the whole, I am really sometimes afraid that this evil is
  from the Lord. When I consider the astonishing luxury of the rich,
  and the shocking impiety of rich and poor, I doubt whether general
  dissoluteness of manners does not demand a general visitation.
  Perhaps the decree is already gone forth from the Governor of the
  world. Perhaps even now:

     ‘As he that buys, surveys a ground,
      So the destroying angel measures it around.
      Calm he surveys the perishing nation;
      Ruin behind him stalks, and empty desolation.’

  “But we Englishmen are too wise to acknowledge that God has anything
  to do in the world! Otherwise should we not seek Him by fasting and
  prayer, before He lets the lifted thunder drop? O my lord, if your
  lordship can do anything, let it not be wanting! For God’s sake, for
  the sake of the king, of the nation, of your lovely family, remember
  Rehoboam! Remember Philip the Second! Remember King Charles the First!

  “I am, with true regard, my lord, your lordship’s obedient servant,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[234]

Whatever may be thought of the principle advocated in Wesley’s “Calm
Address to the American Colonies,” namely, that taxation without
representation is no tyranny, there can be no doubt that his letters
to the premier and to the colonial secretary are full of warnings and
foresight which were terribly fulfilled; and, for fidelity, fulness,
terseness, in short, for _multum in parvo_, were perhaps without a
parallel in the correspondence of these ministers of state.

Much space has been occupied with these American affairs. If an apology
were needed, the reader might be courteously reminded (1) that John
Wesley’s “Calm Address” threw, not Methodism only, but the nation,
into a fever of excitement, and, directly and indirectly, gave birth
to scores of pamphlets on the same subject; (2) that the American
rebellion is one of the greatest events in English history; and (3)
that, in consequence of the great majority of the clergy of the English
Church fleeing from the colonies, when the colonies most needed them,
Methodism, under the sagacious management of the apostolic Asbury, took
the place which had hitherto been occupied by Anglican episcopacy;
and, henceforth, literally became the predominant religion of what is
likely to be the greatest and most prosperous country in the world.

We must now return to Wesley in a more private capacity.

The reader has long lost sight of Peter Bohler. In 1739, after the
conversion of the two Wesleys, Bohler went to Georgia, and his life,
since then, had been spent in unwearied Christian work, partly in
America and partly in Europe. His labours now were nearly ended;
and, on April 27, 1775, he peacefully expired, in London, at the age
of sixty-three. For years past, correspondence seems to have ceased
between Wesley and his early Moravian friend. Within three months of
Bohler’s death, it was renewed. Wesley wrote to him on the 5th of
February, and Bohler, in a beautifully Christian letter, responded. A
few days later, Wesley wrote again, as follows.

                                            “_February 18, 1775._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--When I say, ‘I hope I shall never be constrained
  to speak otherwise of them’ (the Moravians), I do not mean, that I
  have any expectation this will ever happen. Probably it never will.
  I never did speak but when I believed it was my duty so to do. And,
  if they would calmly consider what I have spoken from March 10,
  1736, and were open to conviction, they might be such Christians as
  are hardly in the world besides. I have not lost sight of you yet.
  Indeed, I cannot, if you are ‘a city set upon a hill.’

  “Perhaps no one living is a greater lover of peace, or has laboured
  more for it, than I; particularly, among the children of God.[235]
  I set out, near fifty years ago, with this principle, ‘Whosoever
  doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother,
  and sister, and mother.’ But there is no one living that has been
  more abused for his pains, even to this day. But it is all well. By
  the grace of God, I shall go on, following peace with all men, and
  loving your Brethren beyond any body of men upon earth, except the
  Methodists.

  “Wishing you every gospel blessing, I remain your very affectionate
  brother,
                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[236]

Thus ended Wesley’s intercourse with Bohler, till it was renewed in
heaven.

Eleven days after the above was written, Wesley left London for
Ireland, proceeding, as usual, by way of Bristol and the midland
counties. Nothing remarkable occurred in his journey to Liverpool.
Of course, he was preaching continually, and, winter though it was,
sometimes out of doors. While doing so, at Newcastle under Lyne, “a
buffoon,” he says, “laboured to interrupt him; but, as he was bawling,
with his mouth wide open, some arch boys gave him such a mouthful of
dirt as quite satisfied him.”

At Dublin, at the request of “the good old dean,” he assisted in
administering the Lord’s supper in St. Patrick’s. At Maryborough,
he complied with the wish of the clergyman, and preached in the
parish church. The Methodist chapel at Waterford he describes as “a
foul, horrid, miserable hole.” For the first time, he preached at
Clones, using, as his church, an old Danish fort. Here Methodism had
been introduced about the year 1768. The papists were furious, and
magistrates refused to interfere; but, just when the place was about to
be given up, a military pensioner, an old presbyterian, took his stand
in the centre of the market, and, shouldering his musket, declared that
he would shoot the first man that attempted to disturb the preacher.
The rioters were frightened; and the rough old soldier mounted guard
every sabbath afternoon, until opposition ceased.[237]

At Londonderry, Wesley accepted the bishop’s invitation to dinner;
the prelate remarking, “I know you do not love our hours, and will
therefore order dinner to be on the table between two and three
o’clock.” “We had,” says Wesley, “a piece of boiled beef, and an
English pudding. This is true good breeding.”

At Castle Caulfield, writes Wesley, with the utmost _sang froid_, “the
rain came plentifully, through the thatch, into my lodging room; but I
found no present inconvenience, and was not careful for the morrow.”

Six days afterwards, Wesley was seized with illness, which nearly
proved fatal; but for three days more, though in a burning fever, he
continued travelling and preaching almost as usual. He had now reached
the town of Lurgan, where, four years previously, a society had been
formed, one of the first members being Isaac Bullock, an old soldier,
who had been at the capture of several islands in the West Indies,
and was one of sixty, called “the forlorn hope,” who, in 1762, first
entered the breach at the storming of Havannah, only six of the sixty
escaping with their lives. The house of this sturdy veteran was the
preaching place of the Lurgan Methodists.[238] Here Wesley was obliged
to succumb to fever. He sent for a physician, who told him he must
rest. Wesley replied, he could not, as he “had appointed to preach
at several places, and must preach as long as he could speak.” The
doctor gave him medicine, and off he went to Tanderagee, and then to
a gentleman’s seat, three miles beyond Lisburn, where nature sank,
and the conquered evangelist was compelled to take his bed. Strength,
memory, and mind entirely failed. For three days, he lay more dead than
alive. His tongue was black and swollen. He was violently convulsed.
For some time his pulse was not discernible. Hope was almost gone;
when Joseph Bradford, his travelling companion, came with a cup, and
said, “Sir, you must take this.” Wesley writes: “I thought, ‘I will,
if I can swallow, to please him; for it will do me neither harm nor
good.’ Immediately it set me a vomiting; my heart began to beat, and my
pulse to play again; and, from that hour, the extremity of the symptoms
abated.” Six days afterwards, to the astonishment of his friends, and,
as he says, “trusting in God,” he set out for Dublin, where, within a
week, he was preaching as usual.

This was a memorable epoch, even in Wesley’s eventful life. The house
in which he lay so dangerously ill was the hospitable dwelling of Mr.
Gayer, of Derryaghey,[239] a devoted Methodist of great respectability,
who had built a chapel in the village, and, for the accommodation
of the preachers, a room, which went by the name of “the prophet’s
chamber.” His daughter, afterwards Mrs. Wolfenden, was now a converted
girl, sixteen years of age, and, with her mother, was Wesley’s nurse.
Great anxiety was felt for Wesley’s life, and, while a few select
friends were praying that, as in the case of Hezekiah, God would add
to his days fifteen years, Mrs. Gayer suddenly rose from her knees, and
cried, “The prayer is granted!” Marvellously enough, Wesley’s recovery
immediately commenced, and he survived, from June 1775 to March 1791, a
period of just fifteen years, and a few months over.

But even this was not all the wonder. Alexander Mather, at the time,
was at Sheerness, in Kent, where he read, in the newspapers, that
Wesley was actually dead. Mather says, he was not able to give credence
to this; and, before he went to preach, he opened his Bible on the
words, “Behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years” (Isa. xxxviii.
5); and away he went to the chapel, and began to pray that the promise,
made to Hezekiah, might be fulfilled in the case of Wesley.[240] These
are striking facts. We give them as we find them. The sceptic will
sneer; but the Christian will exercise an unfaltering faith in the
glorious text, which, in the history of the church, has been confirmed
in instances without number: “The effectual fervent prayer of a
righteous man availeth much.”

The news of Wesley’s dangerous illness created the utmost consternation
among his friends. The following is a letter, hitherto unpublished,
addressed by Charles Wesley to Joseph Bradford, Wesley’s faithful
companion.

                                       “BRISTOL, _June 29, 1775_.

  “DEAR JOSEPH,--Be of good cheer. The Lord liveth, and all live to
  Him. Your last is just arrived, and has cut off all hope of my
  brother’s recovery. If he could hold out till now, that is, ten
  days longer, he might recover; but I dare not allow myself to hope
  it, till I hear from you again. The people here, and in London, and
  every place, are swallowed up in sorrow. But sorrow and death will
  soon be swallowed up in life everlasting. You will be careful of my
  brother’s papers, etc., till you see his executors. God shall reward
  your fidelity and love. I seem scarce separated from him whom I shall
  so very soon overtake. We were united in our lives, and in our death
  not divided. Brethren, pray a very little longer for your loving
  servant--CHARLES WESLEY.

                                             “_Thursday Evening._

  “Yours of the 20th, I have this moment received. It only confirms
  my fears. My brother, soon after you wrote, in all probability,
  entered into the joy of his Lord. Yet write again, and send me the
  particulars. I have not, and never more shall have, strength for such
  a journey. The Lord prepare us for a speedy removal to our heavenly
  country!

                                                “CHARLES WESLEY.”

The tidings of Wesley’s recovery produced corresponding joy. His old
friend and former itinerant, now the Rev. Dr. John Jones, of Harwich,
wrote to him as follows.

                                       “HARWICH, _July 29, 1775_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I cannot express what I felt when I was
  informed that you were both senseless and speechless. It was like
  life from the dead when I heard you were out of danger and able to
  sit up. It gave me some hope, that God has not yet given up these
  sinful nations, and that He will strive with us a little longer. Time
  was when you would have taken my advice, at least, in some things.
  Let me entreat, let me beseech you, to preach less frequently,
  and that only at the principal places. You must be satisfied with
  directing others, and doing less yourself. You yourself do not know
  of how great importance your life is. Far be it from me to desire you
  not to travel; I only beg you not to go beyond your strength.

                                               “JOHN JONES.”[241]

Another friend, in London, wrote the following.

                                         “LONDON, _July 8, 1775_.

  “REVEREND SIR,--God, who comforteth those who are cast down, hath
  comforted us by graciously restoring you to us again. The prayer of
  faith has saved the sick. The voice of joy and gladness is now found
  in the dwellings of the righteous; where eight days past there were
  mourning, lamentation, and woe. Every social repast was embittered,
  and we literally mingled our drink with our tears. Could you, from
  the bed of sickness, have cast your eyes on the congregation, the
  first sabbath in the month, and beheld distress in every face, keen
  anguish in every heart, your generous soul would have been willing
  to have tarried awhile, absent from your Lord, to return to comfort
  those mourners in Sion. The tidings of your recovery was received
  with melting gratitude and joyous tears. O sir, what a week of
  suspense and anguish! You will not surely blame us, that our prayers
  helped to detain you in the vale below. Forgive your weeping friends
  if they have brought you back from the skies: surely, in the end, you
  will be amply recompensed! O yes! being longer employed in the work
  of faith, and labour of love, your crown will be the brighter.”[242]

These are specimens of the loving congratulations of Wesley’s
friends.[243] His illness was sharp, though short. The only lasting
effect was, it stripped him, at all events for months afterwards, of
his beautiful head of hair.[244]

Having spent three weeks in Dublin, and regained his strength, he, on
July 23, embarked for England, having in the morning of that day again
assisted in administering the Lord’s supper in St. Patrick’s cathedral.
Landing at Parkgate, he proceeded to Leeds to meet his conference,
preaching, as he travelled, with as much zest as ever; except that he
spent a day or two at Miss Bosanquet’s, making conference preparations.
Notwithstanding the warnings and entreaties of his friends, his labours
were unabated. Referring to his illness and recovery, he wrote, in
1781: “From this time” (1775) “I have, by the grace of God, gone on in
the same track, travelling between four and five thousand miles a year,
and, once in two years, going through Great Britain and Ireland; which,
by the blessing of God, I am as well able to do now as I was twenty or
thirty years ago. About a hundred and thirty of my fellow labourers
are continually employed in the same thing. We all aim at one point,
not at profit, any more than at ease, or pleasure, or the praise of
men; but to spread true religion through London, Dublin, Edinburgh,
and, as we are able, through the three kingdoms. This is our point. We
leave every man to enjoy his own opinion, and to use his own mode of
worship, desiring only, that the love of God and his neighbour be the
ruling principle in his heart, and show itself in his life by a uniform
practice of justice, mercy, and truth. And, accordingly, we give the
right hand of fellowship to every lover of God and man, whatever his
opinion or mode of worship be, of which he is to give an account to God
only.”[245]

Dr. Jones’s advice to Wesley was lost labour. Wesley’s life was a
perpetual motion. Work seemed to be essential to its continuance.
There are but few who can sincerely sing the lines, which he, from his
inmost heart, sang so often:

   “Oh that, without a lingering groan,
      I may the welcome word receive,
    My body with my charge lay down,
      And cease _at once to work and live_!”

Wesley, however, could give advice, though it was not always that he
took it. The following extract from a letter to his brother, written
at this period, contains an example of this, besides referring to his
publishing affairs and the movements of his miserable wife.

                                    “LONDONDERRY, _June 2, 1775_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I thought it strange, that poor Samuel Franks should
  leave me £900 in debt. But it is stranger still, that John Atlay
  should have paid £1600 out of nine; and that I am £160 in debt
  notwithstanding!

  “Mr. Walthen’s method of radical cure I shall hardly try.[246] I am
  very easy, and that is enough.

  “Has my friend taken a house at Bristol? Is Noah with her? What are
  they doing?

  “Preach as much as you can, and no more than you can. You never will
  be much stronger till you add change of air to exercise; riding
  two or three hundred miles point blank forward. Now you have an
  opportunity. Meet me at Leeds with honest John Murlin. When you are
  tired you may change places with him. You would return a stout,
  healthy man.

  “Peace be with you and yours! Adieu!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[247]

Another instance of advice giving is too racy to be omitted. The letter
was addressed to John King, one of his preachers in America.

                                    “NEAR LEEDS, _July 28, 1775_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Always take advice or reproof as a favour: it is
  the surest mark of love.

  “I advised you once, and you took it as an affront; nevertheless I
  will do it once more.

  “Scream no more, at the peril of your soul. God now warns you by me,
  whom He has set over you. Speak as earnestly as you can; but do not
  scream. Speak with all your heart; but with a moderate voice. It was
  said of our Lord, ‘He shall not _cry_’: the word properly means, He
  shall not _scream_. Herein, be a follower of me, as I am of Christ.
  I often speak loud, often vehemently; but I never scream; I never
  strain myself. I dare not: I know it would be a sin against God and
  my own soul. Perhaps one reason why that good man, Thomas Walsh, yea,
  and John Manners too, were in such grievous darkness before they
  died, was, because they shortened their own lives.

  “O John, pray for an advisable and teachable temper! By nature you
  are very far from it: you are stubborn and headstrong. Your last
  letter was written in a very wrong spirit. If you cannot take advice
  from others, surely you might take it from your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[248]

The above characteristic letter was written at Miss Bosanquet’s,
Cross Hall, Morley, where Wesley had arranged to have if possible, a
few days’ retirement, before he met his conference, at Leeds. In a
letter to that lady, dated May 29, 1775, and therefore previous to his
illness, he writes: “The last day of June, I hope to be in Dublin, and
the end of July in England. If I have a ready passage, probably I may
have an opportunity of hiding myself a day or two with you; but I do
not desire any of the preachers to come to me till I send for them. If
they do, I shall run away; I will not be in a crowd.”[249]

One or two days’ retirement was not much for an old man to wish; but
it was more than he could get. The preachers would not be prevented
seeing him; and who can blame them? If the magnet attracts the needle,
the magnet has no right to censure the needle for yielding to its own
attractive influence. An extract from an unpublished letter, written,
at this period, by simple hearted, loving Samuel Bardsley, will
illustrate what we mean. “I never was at a better conference. The Lord
was with us of a truth. Had you seen us, and our dear, aged father and
friend in the midst of us, and beheld the freedom and harmony there
were among us, you would have blessed God on our behalf. We seemed to
be determined to live and preach the gospel more than ever. On the
Thursday before the conference began, Mr. Oliver and I had the pleasure
of drinking tea and supping with dear Mr. Wesley, at Miss Bosanquet’s,
where we stopped all night. We were there when he arrived from Ireland,
and I need not tell you with what joy and thankfulness we received the
man of God, and especially as he appeared with his usual cheerfulness,
and as well as we had seen him for some years. I had the pleasure of
being with him alone, and desired him not to send me far from home. If
he had proposed Worcester to me, I would have gone; but, as he did not,
I thought it best to leave it to him where to send me; so he fixed me
in this circuit (Haworth), which I shall love, if I have health, and
live near to God.”

The conference at Leeds opened on August 1, and concluded, its sittings
two days afterwards. It was the largest that had assembled for many
years, and was unexampled for its free discussion.[250] Wesley writes:
“Having received several letters, intimating that many of the preachers
were utterly unqualified for the work, having neither grace nor gifts
sufficient for it, I determined to examine the weighty charge with all
possible exactness. In order to this, I read those letters to all the
conference; and begged, that every one would freely propose and enforce
whatever objection he had to any one. The objections proposed were
considered at large; in two or three difficult cases, committees were
appointed for that purpose. In consequence of this, we were all fully
convinced, that the charge advanced was without foundation; that God
has really sent those labourers into His vineyard, and has qualified
them for the work; and we were all more closely united together than we
had been for many years.”

The very day after the conference concluded, Wesley again set out on
his blessed wanderings, and preached at Bradford and Great Horton. He
then took coach to London; spent five days there; and then went off to
Wales, Bristol, and Cornwall; and got back to London on October 6. The
remainder of the year was spent, partly in the metropolis, and partly
in his usual tours through Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire,
Buckinghamshire, Norfolk, Kent, and Surrey.

The nation was too much excited, in 1775, to take much interest in
the Calvinian controversy; which, however, still proceeded. Fletcher
published “The Second Part of the Scripture Scales”: 12mo, 237 pages.
Also, “The Last Check 1775 to Antinomianism. A Polemical Essay on
the Twin Doctrines of Christian Imperfection and a Death Purgatory.”
12mo, 327 pages. Toplady, likewise, issued “The Scheme of Christian and
Philosophical Necessity Asserted; in opposition to Mr. John Wesley’s
Tract on that Subject.”

As usual, Toplady excelled in abusiveness. He tells his readers, that
the chief ingredients in Wesley’s tract are “an equal portion of gross
heathenism, Pelagianism, Mahometism, popery, Manicheanism, ranterism,
and antinomianism, culled, dried, and pulverized, _secundum artem_;
and, above all, mingled with as much palpable atheism as could be
possibly scraped together.” Wesley is taunted as a “poor gentleman, who
is necessarily an universal meddler; and, as necessarily, an universal
miscarrier.” “He paddles in metaphysics, knows a little, presumes a
great deal, and so jumps to conclusions.” His “Thoughts on Necessity”
are “as crude and dark as chaos.”

This scurrility was a thing to which Wesley had been long accustomed.
It was cast upon him by writers of all descriptions. In this same
year, 1775, an octavo pamphlet of 35 pages was published, with the
title, “A Letter to a Friend on the Subject of Methodism;” in which
the anonymous writer, among a multitude of other calumnies, declares
that the tendency of Wesley’s system is “to fill parishes with whores,
rogues, and bastards”; and defines Methodist preaching as “a ridiculous
effusion, delivered with an enthusiastic air, a distorted countenance,
a whining, snivelling accent, and a soporific, nasal twang.” Wesley had
too much of a gentleman’s self respect to even notice vulgarities like
these; and yet they were far from being pleasant, and tend to show that
Methodism struggled into its mighty manhood amid the incessant peltings
of every kind of pitiless persecution. The storm, during Wesley’s
lifetime, from one quarter or another, was perpetual; but, powerless to
destroy, it simply made the roots of the tree strike deeper.

Two of Wesley’s publications, in 1775, have been already noticed. The
others were:

1. “A Sermon on 1 John v. 7.” Dublin: 12mo, 31 pages.

2. “The Important Question. A Sermon, preached in Taunton, on September
12, 1775. Published at the Request of many of the Hearers, for the
Benefit of a Public Charity.” 12mo, 33 pages. This sermon was delivered
in the presbyterian chapel, and was made the means of converting Mrs.
Stone, in whose house Dr. Coke, shortly after, met Wesley’s preachers,
to confer with them about his religious scruples; and where he preached
his first sermon outside the precincts of a parish church.[251]

3. “A Concise History of England, from the earliest times to the death
of George II.” 12mo, 4 vols. Price, to subscribers, half a guinea.
Wesley says, his “volumes contain the substance of the English history,
extracted chiefly from Dr. Goldsmith, Rapin, and Smollett; only with
various corrections and additions.” Wesley made a profit of £200 by
this publication; but gave it all away the week he got it.[252]

For many years, William Pine of Bristol had been Wesley’s chief printer
and publisher, and had recently brought out a revised edition of
Wesley’s collected works, in thirty-two 12mo volumes. Henceforth, the
connection ceased. Pine became a red hot partisan of the rebellious
colonists. Wesley disliked this, and wrote as follows to his brother
Charles.

                                         “LEEDS, _July 31, 1775_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I must not delay answering your important question,
  ‘What can be done with William Pine?’ If he still, after my earnest
  warning, ‘every week publishes barefaced treason,’ I beg you would
  once more warn him, in my name and in your own; and if he slights or
  forgets this warning, then give him his choice, either to leave us
  quietly, or to be publicly disowned. At such a time as this, when our
  foreign enemies are hovering over us, and our own nation is all in a
  ferment, it is particularly improper to say one word which tends to
  inflame the minds of the people.”[253]

Thus Wesley’s loyalty to King George severed his connection with
William Pine, the weekly publisher of the once popular _Felix Farley’s
Journal_. Mr. Pine died in 1803.[254]


FOOTNOTES:

     [221] Boswell’s Life of Johnson.

     [222] Ibid.

     [223] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1797, p. 455.

     [224] Olivers’ “Defence,” p. 19.

     [225] Vol. for 1775, p. 561.

     [226] Everett’s Life of Dr. A. Clarke.

     [227] Asbury’s Journal.

     [228] Words fearfully realised, first in America, next in
           France, and then throughout all Europe.

     [229] His “Calm Address.”

     [230] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., pp. 302-308.

     [231] Did Wesley mean this? That is, did he use it in any
           sense except that which immediately follows?

     [232] This may seem to clash with the tenor of Wesley’s
           “Calm Address”; but the reader must recollect, that
           it was not until after the date of this letter that
           the “Calm Address” was written; and that Wesley’s
           change of opinions did not occur until after the
           Leeds conference of 1775. Wesley’s foresight,
           throughout the whole of this fearful war, was most
           remarkable.

     [233] It is a remarkable fact, that this letter was written
           within forty-eight hours before the disgraceful and
           disastrous battle at Bunker Hill, where Wesley’s
           warnings to the premier and colonial secretary of
           England were too amply verified. With his itinerants
           in America, Wesley knew quite as much of American
           affairs as Lord North, and perhaps a little more.

     [234] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 726; and
           _Macmillan’s Magazine_ for December, 1870.

     [235] These were not empty words, though Wesley was almost
           perpetually in war. In an unpublished letter, to
           Matthew Lowes, dated March 6, 1759, he writes: “What
           would one not do, except sin, that brotherly love may
           continue!”

     [236] _Methodist Magazine_, 1854, p. 691.

     [237] Life of Henry Moore.

     [238] _Methodist Magazine_, 1827, p. 800.

     [239] Ibid. 1834, p. 413.

     [240] York society book.

     [241] _Methodist Magazine_, 1787, p. 444.

     [242] Ibid. 1787, p. 552.

     [243] A curious 12mo tract, of four pages, was published,
           with the following title: “Some Verses, occasioned
           by the severe Illness, much feared Dissolution,
           and almost miraculous Restoration, of the Rev. Mr.
           John Wesley, at Lisburne, in Ireland, July 2, 1775.
           London: printed for W. Kent, No. 116, High Holborn:
           1775.” These verses were directed to be _sung_ “to
           the tune of ‘Oliver’s.’”

     [244] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 469.

     [245] Ibid. vol. xiii., p. 359.

     [246] The cure of his hydrocele.

     [247] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 132.

     [248] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 309.

     [249] Ibid. p. 378.

     [250] Manuscript letter by Thomas Hanby.

     [251] _Methodist Magazine_, 1824, p. 568.

     [252] Ibid. 1845, p. 1168.

     [253] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 133.

     [254] J. Pawson’s manuscript letter.




                                 1776.
                                Age 73

Wesley’s first act, in 1776, was to join with eighteen hundred London
Methodists in renewing his covenant with God. His next was to go to
Bristol, partly to bury his brother-in-law, poor Westley Hall; and
partly to restrain some of the Bristol Methodists, who were in danger
of turning republicans.

The health of Fletcher of Madeley being seriously affected by a violent
cough, accompanied by spitting of blood, Wesley believed nothing was so
likely to restore his health as a long journey. “I therefore,” says he,
“proposed his taking a journey of some months with me, through various
parts of England and Scotland; telling him, ‘when you are tired, or
like it best, you may come into my carriage; but remember that riding
on horseback is the best of all exercises for you, so far as your
strength will permit.’”[255]

Wesley proposed not only this, but more than this, as is evident from
Fletcher’s answer, hitherto unpublished.

                                     “MADELEY, _January 9, 1776_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I received last night the favour of
  yours from Bristol. My grand desire is to be just what the Lord
  would have me be. I could, if you wanted a travelling
  assistant, accompany you, as my little strength would admit, in
  some of your excursions; but your recommending me to the
  societies, as one who might succeed you, (should the Lord call
  you hence before me,) is a step to which I could by no means
  consent. It would make me take my horse and gallop away.
  Besides, such a step would, at this juncture, be, I think,
  peculiarly improper, and would cast upon my vindication of your
  minutes such an odium as the Calvinists have endeavoured to
  cast upon your ‘Address.’ It would make people suspect, that
  what I have done for truth and conscience sake, I have done
  with a view of being, what Mr. Toplady calls, ‘the bishop of
  Moorfields.’ We ought to give as little hold to the evil
  surmising and rash judgments of our opponents as may be. If,
  nevertheless, Providence throws in your way a clergyman willing
  to assist us, it would be well to fall in with that
  circumstance.

  “I sent to you in London, by the last post, a manuscript
  entitled, ‘A Second Check to Civil Antinomianism,’ being an
  extract from the ‘Homily against Rebellion,’ which I think
  might be spread at this time to shame Mr. Roquet, and to calm
  the people’s mind. Whether it is worth publishing you will see.
  I suppose it will make a threepenny tract.

  “What has made me glut our friends with my books is not my love
  to such publications; but a desire to make an end of the
  controversy. It is possible, however, that my design has
  miscarried, and that I have disgusted, rather than convinced,
  the people. I agree with you, sir, that now is the time to
  pray,--both for ourselves and our king,--for the Church of
  England and that part of it which is called the Methodists. I
  cast my mite of supplication into the general treasure. The
  Lord guide, support, and strengthen you more and more unto the
  end!

  “I am, reverend and dear sir, your affectionate son and servant
  in the gospel,

                                            “JOHN FLETCHER.”[256]

Fletcher had overtaxed nature. His day of activity was comparatively
over. True, he lived nine years longer; but, for two years, he lived
in retirement with his friends, Mr. Greenwood at Newington, and
Mr. Ireland of Bristol, with the exception of the time he spent in
travelling with Wesley in quest of health; and upwards of three years
more were spent in Switzerland; when, returning to England, he was
married, on November 12, 1781, to Miss Bosanquet, and died on August
14, 1785.

Wesley writes: “He looked upon my proposal as a call from Providence,
and willingly accepted it. He set out, (as I am accustomed to do,)
early in the spring of 1776, and travelled, by moderate journeys,
suited to his strength, which gradually increased, eleven or twelve
hundred miles. When we returned to London, in the latter end of the
year, he was considerably better. And, I verily believe, if he had
travelled with me, partly in the chaise and partly on horseback, only
a few months longer, he would quite have recovered his health. But
this those about him would not permit; so, being detained in London by
his kind, but injudicious, friends, while I pursued my journeys, his
spitting of blood, with all the other symptoms, returned, and rapidly
increased, till the physician pronounced him to be far advanced in
pulmonary consumption.”[257]

No doubt, Wesley wished to have Fletcher as his coadjutor and
successor; but Providence determined otherwise. Fletcher had a great
work to do, and did it; but it was not ordained that Fletcher should
take Wesley’s place.

It is a remarkable coincidence, that, in the very year when the health
of Fletcher failed, Wesley formed an acquaintance with Thomas Coke.
Born and educated at Brecon, Coke was now twenty-nine years of age. He
had taken his degrees at Oxford, had received episcopal ordination,
and, at present, was curate at South Petherton. Mr. Brown, a clergyman
near Taunton, lent him the sermons and journals of Wesley, and the
“Checks” of Fletcher. In the month of August, 1776, Wesley was Mr.
Brown’s guest at Kingston, and Coke went to see him. Wesley writes:
“1776, August 13--I preached at Taunton, and afterwards went with Mr.
Brown to Kingston. Here I found a clergyman, Dr. Coke, late a gentleman
commoner of Jesus college, Oxford, who came twenty miles on purpose
to meet me. I had much conversation with him; and a union then began,
which, I trust, shall never end.” The doctor expressed his doubts
respecting the propriety of confining himself to one congregation.
Wesley clasped his hands, and, in a manner peculiarly his own, said:
“Brother, go out, go out, and preach the gospel to all the world!”[258]
Coke rode back to Petherton pensive, and yet consoled. The tone of his
ministry was now more decided than ever. The parish was remodelled,
so to speak, into a circuit. On Sundays, after the second lesson, he
would read a paper of his appointments for the ensuing week, with the
place and time of service. His innovations, in preaching in cottages
and barns, took a sort of Methodistic form, by being systematically
arranged. The disgust of his opponents in the parish became intense;
and, to prevent his having the opportunity of preaching a farewell
sermon, his rector, without any previous notice, at the close of a
public service, and in the presence of a listening congregation,
abruptly announced that Coke was now dismissed. The die was cast. Coke
attended Wesley’s conference in Bristol, and, on August 19, 1777,
Wesley writes: “I went to Taunton with Dr. Coke, who, being dismissed
from his curacy, has bid adieu to his honourable name, and determined
to cast in his lot with us.” Henceforth, Thomas Coke was a Methodist
itinerant preacher, and became the great organiser of Methodist
missions in other lands.

When Wesley enacted rules, he meant them to be observed. Laxity in
the enforcement of discipline was to him a thing intolerable. He was
a thorough disciplinarian himself, and insisted that his preachers
should copy his example. Good as were the first Methodists, they were
not perfect. Then, as now, some were defective in their attendance at
the weekly class. In certain instances, as we have already seen, some
were guilty of the crime of smuggling. Others, in moderation, were
addicted to taking drams, and others opium; and it often happened that
the oldest societies were the worst offenders. In 1776, both London
and Newcastle were thus tainted; and Wesley was determined, with a
strong hand, to purge them. Hence the following extracts from letters,
addressed, at this period, to Joseph Benson, stationed at Newcastle.

  “We must threaten no longer, but perform. In November last, I
  told the London society, ‘Our rule is, to meet a class once a
  week; not once in two or three. I now give you warning: I will
  give tickets to none in February, but those that have done
  this.’ I have stood to my word. Go you and do likewise,
  wherever you visit the classes. Begin, if need be, at
  Newcastle, and go on at Sunderland. Promises to meet are now
  out of date. Those, that have not met seven times in the
  quarter, exclude. Read their names in the society; and inform
  them all, you will the next quarter exclude all that have not
  met twelve times; that is, unless they were hindered by
  distance, sickness, or by some unavoidable business. And I
  pray, without fear or favour, remove the leaders, whether of
  classes or bands, who do not watch over the souls committed to
  their care ‘as those that must give account.’”

What would become of Methodist societies if these imperative directions
of Methodism’s founder were enforced now?

Benson had expelled a smuggler, and Wesley wrote:

  “You did right in excluding from our society so notorious an
  offender. You have now a providential call to stand in the gap
  between the living and the dead. Fear nothing. Begin in the
  name of God, and go through with it. If only six will promise
  you to sin no more, leave only six in society. But my belief
  is, a hundred and fifty are now clear of blame; and, if you are
  steady, a hundred more will amend. You must, at all events,
  tear up this evil by the roots. The ‘Word to a Smuggler’ should
  be read and dispersed. And secure your fellow labourers, that
  you may all speak one thing. Go on, for God is with you! Not
  only the assistant, but every preacher, is concerned to see all
  our rules observed. I desire brother Rhodes will give no
  tickets, either to those who have not constantly met their
  classes, or to any that do not solemnly promise to deal in
  stolen goods no more. He and you together may put a stop to
  this crying sin. If any leader oppose, you see your remedy; put
  another in his place. Nay, if he does not join heart and hand;
  for ‘he that gathereth not with you scattereth.’ The ‘Word to a
  Smuggler’ is plain and home, and has done much good in Kent.
  Taking opium is full as bad as taking drams. It equally hurts
  the understanding, and is, if possible, more pernicious to the
  health, than even rum or brandy. None should touch it, if they
  have the least regard either for their souls or bodies.”[259]

The year 1776 was a period of great national distress; and, yet, it
was now that Wesley started his scheme for the erection of Methodism’s
cathedral, the chapel in City Road. Who will write a history of
London Methodism? or, which would be more popular, who will give the
Methodists a monograph of the memories of Wesley’s “new chapel” in
City Road? Much might be said of the episcopal chapel in West Street,
Seven Dials, of which Wesley obtained a lease, and which he opened on
the 29th of May, 1743, as a Methodist meeting-house, and which was
so occupied until 1798, when it was superseded by the purchase of
another episcopal chapel, which then stood on part of the site of the
present Methodist chapel in Great Queen Street.[260] Then there was the
venerable chapel in Spitalfields, erected by the French protestants,
and used by Wesley long before that in City Road was built, but which,
_horresco referens!_ has given place to the brewery of Truman, Hanbury
& Co.; and there is likewise its successor, also originally a French
protestant church, and still used for Methodist services, a chapel
which has recently had dark days of adversity, but which is rich in
religious memories, and has witnessed many a marvellous revival of the
work of God. There is Chelsea, whose first Methodist meeting place
was an upper room in the house of an elderly woman, Mrs. Day, who
resided in Royal Hospital Row; and its next, one of the dancing rooms
in the celebrated Ranelagh Gardens, for which a rent was paid of ten
guineas per annum; and in which Wesley preached only about two months
previous to his death, taking as his text words which his long life
had illustrated: “The king’s business requires haste.”[261] There is
Lambeth, where, in 1772, good old John Edwards opened his house for
preaching; and then converted an adjoining building into a decent
chapel; a man of vigorous mind, retentive memory, and fluent speech;
for almost forty years an effective local preacher, and who, while on a
preaching expedition, died at Irchester, in the county of Northampton,
in 1803.[262] In London East, there was the old chapel in Gravel Lane,
which, in 1811, was required for the London Docks; and its successor
in Back Road, required by the Black wall railway company.[263] There
was the schoolroom near Mill Pond Bridge, Rotherhithe, succeeded by the
purchased chapel in Albion Street.[264] There was Hoxton chapel, which
originally belonged to the Dissenters; and there were the venerable
meeting-houses at Wapping, Snowsfields, Peckham, and other places. All
these have a history well worth writing, to say nothing of the parent
of them all, the old pantile Foundery, Methodism’s honoured cradle; and
of which the Methodists retained possession, at least as late as the
year 1785, when they received for it, in the shape of rent, £14 per
year.[265]

Then how rich the mine of London Methodist biography! Confining
ourselves to Wesley’s days, there is--Mary Cheesebrook, originally
a kept mistress, converted in West Street chapel, never absent from
the Foundery preaching, though, to be in time, she often had to run
the distance, and who, every Saturday, after paying her little debts,
gave away all the money she had left, leaving the morrow to take
thought for the things of itself:--Mrs. Witham, a mother in Israel,
an eminent pattern of calm boldness for the truth, of simplicity
and godly sincerity, of unwearied constancy in attending all the
ordinances of God, of zeal for God and for all good works, and of
self denial in every kind:--Elizabeth Langdon, whose trials were
severe, and her death tranquil:--Hannah Lee, a model of industry,
meekness, and patience:--Mary Naylor, distinguished for her Christian
courage, and plainness of speech and of apparel:--Thomas Salmon, a
good and useful man:--Joseph Norbury, a faithful witness of Jesus
Christ:--William Hurd, a son of affliction, whose end was peace:--John
Matthews, who, for some months before his death, was wont to say, “I
have no more doubt of being in heaven, than if I was there already”;
and of whom Wesley writes: “A man of so faultless a behaviour I have
hardly ever been acquainted with. During twenty years, I do not
remember his doing or saying anything which I would wish to have been
unsaid or undone”:--Ann Wheeler, who, twenty-five years before her
death, while attending preaching in Moorfields, was struck in the
forehead with a stone, the mark of which her unborn daughter bore to
her dying day:--Rebecca Mills, always firm and unmoved, resting on
the Rock of ages, and in life and death uniformly praising the God
of her salvation:--Elizabeth Duchesne, for near forty years zealous
of good works, and who shortened her days by labouring for the poor
beyond her strength:--William Osgood, a good man, who began life
in poverty, but increased more and more till he was worth several
thousand pounds:--Michael Hayes, who lived above a hundred and four
years, mostly in vigorous health, and as he lived, so died, praising
God:--Mrs. Kiteley, a perfect pattern of true womanhood, a good wife,
a good parent, a good mistress, who, after many years of active
benevolence, redeemed a poor friendless youth from prison, took the
jail distemper, and died:--Heller Tanner, diligent, patient, loving
to every man, and zealous of good works:--Bilhah Aspernell, who, for
six-and-thirty years, without intermission, walked in the light of
God’s countenance, was always in pain, yet always rejoicing, and going
about doing good; who on Sunday evening met her class as usual, and
the next day sent for her old fellow traveller, Sarah Clay, and said
to her, “Sally, I am going.” “Where are you going?” She cheerfully
answered, “To my Jesus, to be sure!” and spoke no more:--Thomas Vokins,
a man of a sorrowful spirit, who always hung down his head like a
bulrush, but who died triumphing over pain and death, and rejoicing
with joy full of glory:--Mr. Bespham, many years master of a man of
war, whose faith was full of mercy and good fruits:--George Parsons,
a flame of fire wherever he went, losing no occasion of speaking or
working for God; so zealously, so humbly, so unreservedly devoted
to God, that few like him were left behind him:--Eleanor Lee, who
lived in the enjoyment of perfect love for sixteen years, and of whom
Wesley testified, “I never saw her do any action, little or great,
nor heard her speak any word, which I could reprove”:--Ann Thwayte,
a woman of faith and prayer, for whom Wesley preached a funeral
sermon:--Merchant West, a pattern of diligence in all things, spiritual
and temporal:--Charles Greenwood, a melancholy man, full of doubts
and fears, but who, two days before he died, was made so unspeakably
happy that he exclaimed, “God has revealed to me things which it is
impossible for man to utter”:--George Hufflet, for many years a burning
and shining light:--Ann Sharland, whose cancer in her breast caused
her continual pain, but who triumphed gloriously through Christ;--and
Robert Windsor, prudent, serious, diligent, full of mercy and good
fruits.

All these died during Wesley’s lifetime. The temptation to add to them
is great. We should like to tell of William Palmer, Wesley’s first
classleader in London; and of his son, who was blind from infancy, was
one of the first to form the Community, or body of workhouse visitors,
often made preaching excursions into different parts of the country,
with Wesley’s sanction, and died in 1822, after being sixty-two years
a Methodist.[266] Old Thomas Gibbs of Lambeth, also, deserves a place
in Methodism’s gallery,--a patriarch, who lived to the age of one
hundred and four years, eighty-three of which he had been a member of
Wesley’s society; and who, at his death, in 1827, was probably the
oldest Methodist in the world.[267] There is Isaac Andrews, one of
the original subscribers to City Road chapel, a man of unimpeachable
Christian character, a Methodist of sixty years’ standing, who died
at the age of eighty-two, in 1832.[268] There is Mrs. Maddan, whose
mother, Mrs. Varin, was the eighth person whom Wesley received into
church fellowship, when forming his infant society in Fetter Lane.
There are Mrs. Mortimer and Mrs. Bruce, of whom the Rev. Richard Watson
used to say, “they were the two finest specimens of primitive Methodism
that he knew;” the latter being the daughter of parents who were among
the eighteen persons who first joined Wesley in Christian fellowship,
in 1739.[269] We cannot find room for more.

For five-and-thirty years, Wesley and his friends had worshipped
in “the old Foundery.” Here hundreds, perhaps thousands, had been
converted; but, as the building was only held on lease, they were now
in danger of losing it. On October 19, 1775, Wesley, writing to his
brother, says: “on Friday I hope to be in London, and to talk with the
committee about building a new Foundery.”[270] A few months later, he
wrote again: “1776, March 1--As we cannot depend on having the Foundery
long, we met to consult about building a new chapel. Our petition to
the city for a piece of ground lies before their committee; but when we
shall get any further, I know not: so I determined to begin my circuit
as usual; but promised to return whenever I should receive notice that
our petition was granted.” Exactly five months after this, Wesley
started the first subscription, and, at three meetings, raised upwards
of £1000. In November following, building plans were agreed upon; in
April 1777, Wesley laid the foundation stone; and on Sunday, November
1, 1778, he opened his new sanctuary, by preaching, in the morning, on
part of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple; and in the
afternoon, on the hundred, forty and four thousand standing with the
Lamb on mount Zion. He writes: “It is perfectly neat, but not fine; and
contains far more people than the Foundery: I believe, together with
the morning chapel, as many as the Tabernacle.”

The chapel in City Road will always stand as a thanksgiving monument,
raised, not by the London Methodists merely, but by Methodists
throughout the three kingdoms. No sooner was it resolved to build, than
Wesley issued the following circular, an original copy of which now
lies before us.

                                             “_October 18, 1776._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--The society at _London_ have given
  assistance to their brethren in various parts of England. They
  have done this for upwards of thirty years: they have done it
  cheerfully and liberally. The first year of the subscription
  for the _general debt_, they subscribed above _nine hundred
  pounds_; the next, above _three hundred_; and not much less
  every one of the ensuing years.

  “They now stand in need of assistance themselves. They are
  under a necessity of building; as the _Foundery_, with all the
  adjoining houses, is shortly to be pulled down. And the city of
  London has granted ground to build on; but on condition of
  covering it, and with large houses in front, which, together
  with the new chapel, will, at a very moderate computation, cost
  upwards of _six thousand pounds_. I must, therefore, beg the
  assistance of all our brethren. _Now_ help the _parent_
  society, which has helped others, for so many years, so
  willingly and so largely. _Now_ help _me_, who account this as
  a kindness done to myself; perhaps, the last of this sort which
  I shall ask of you. Subscribe what you conveniently can, to be
  paid either now, or at Christmas, or at Ladyday next.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                                    “JOHN WESLEY.

                           ⎧ JOHN DUPLEX,
                           ⎪ CHARLES GREENWOOD,
                           ⎪ RICHARD KEMP,
        “The Trustees are  ⎨ SAMUEL CHANCELLOR,
                           ⎪ CHARLES WHEELER,
                           ⎪ WILLIAM COWLAND,
                           ⎩ JOHN FOLGHAM.”

We are afraid to enter into details, respecting the New Chapel, in City
Road. John Pawson, who was appointed to the office of assistant in the
London circuit, within two years after the chapel was opened, tells us,
in an unpublished manuscript, that the plan proposed was to build an
elegant chapel, such as even the lord mayor might attend, without any
diminishing of his official dignity; and that it should be _wholly_
supplied by ordained clergymen of the Established Church on Sundays,
when the liturgy should be constantly read at both morning and evening
service; and this, for a considerable time after the chapel was opened,
was regularly done. No layman, so called,--that is, no itinerant
preacher not episcopally ordained, was allowed to officiate within
its walls, except on week days. Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, and
John Richardson were City Road’s only sabbatic priests: Pawson, Jaco,
Rankin, Tennent, Olivers, and others, though better preachers than
any of the trio, were not admitted; because their heads had not been
touched by a bishop’s fingers. Pawson says, that Richardson and Coke
disapproved of this arrangement; but Charles Wesley persisted, until
the congregations so fell off, and the society was thrown into such
confusion, that the trustees of the chapel met, and waited on Charles
Wesley with a request, that he would not preach so often at City
Road, but would go sometimes to West Street on Sundays, and allow the
itinerants to take his place on the hitherto forbidden ground. Charles
reluctantly submitted; but wrote to his brother, casting all the blame
upon the poor, tabooed itinerants, and stating that it was wholly owing
to their deep rooted prejudices against the clergy of the Established
Church, that these events had happened.

For many years, the men sat on one side the chapel, and the women on
the other; and, besides this, there was another usage, which would not
be popular at the present day: all the pews and seats were open. Large
numbers paid for seats; but no one was allowed to call a seat, or a
pew, his own. In 1788, the trustees endeavoured to make an alteration
in both the respects just mentioned; “thus overthrowing,” says
Wesley, “at one blow, the discipline which I have been establishing
for fifty years!” He continues, however: “we had another meeting of
the committee; who, after a calm and loving consultation, judged it
best--(1) that the men and women should sit separate still; and (2)
that none should claim any pew as his own, either in the new chapel, or
in West Street.”

The days of the old Foundery have long been ended; the “New Chapel”
in City Road still stands, and we trust will ever stand, by far the
most sacred and attractive edifice in the Methodistic world. Not
for a hundred pretentious gothic structures would Methodists of the
olden type give up this. Though its ceiling may be somewhat low, yet,
taken as a whole, its architecture, for neatness, and commodiousness,
and solidity, has been but rarely equalled, by the more pretentious
Methodist buildings of the present day. We are weary of gothic
gaudiness, sacrificing the interests of the church of God to the pride
of showy architects, and the mediæval whims of Methodists in danger of
relapsing into mediæval darkness. Let the present race of Methodists
have wisdom and modesty enough to build their chapels according to the
plan adopted by a man, in all respects, their superior--Methodism’s
founder. Hail to old City Road! When we think of the ministers who have
occupied its pulpit, of the families who have filled its pews, of the
dead resting in graves round about its walls, and of the interesting
events which make up its story,--we feel that of all the Methodist
meeting-houses in existence, gothic or otherwise, marble or mudden,
there is not one to equal this.

For many a long year, the chapel in City Road was the head of London
Methodism; and, though there are now more than twenty heads, all owe
a respectful obeisance to this. Its circuit plan, from June 17 to
September 23, 1792, eighteen inches broad and fifteen deep, is simply
headed, “A Plan for the Preachers in London;” the word Methodist, or
Methodism, not being printed in any part of it. The preaching places,
and hours of preaching, are as follows:--New Chapel, 9 a.m. and 5
p.m.; West Street, 9, 3 and 7; Spitalfields, 10 and 3; Wapping, 10
and 5; Snowsfields, 10 and 5; Lambeth, 6; Westminster, 5; Peckham, 3;
Rotherhithe, 10 and 5; Deptford, 7, 10, and 5; Chelsea, 6; Brentford,
10, 2, and 6; Dorking, 11, 2, and 5; Raynham, 10 and 5; Purfleet, 9 and
5; Woolwich, 2 and 6; Wandsworth, 6; Mitcham, 2 and 6; Croydon, 2 and
6; Bromley, 3; Barnet, 2 and 5; Poplar, 11 and 5; Bow, 5; Stratford,
11 and 5; Barking, 5; Leyton, 5; Grosvenor Market, 6; Ratcliff Cross,
2; Christ Church, 5; Clerkenwell, 6; Kentish Town, 6; and Seven Dials
without an hour. Such was London circuit at the time when Wesley died.

Interesting citations might be made from the old City Road society
book, extending from August 23, 1784, to July 9, 1800. We learn, that
sacramental collections were, upon an average, a little more than £3
each; and monthly collections, for “the furtherance of the gospel,”
about £6 10_s._ The sacrament was administered once a week; and what is
now known among the Methodists as a _quarterly_ collection was then
made once a month as just referred to. The entire circuit income, for
1786, was £862 16_s._ 5_d._, which included sacramental collections
and payments for graves, all of which were then appropriated to
circuit purposes. Strangely enough, there is no entry of class moneys
till 1788, from which time such entries were regularly made. Had the
practice of collecting pence weekly in the classes been superseded by
collections made at the weekly sacraments? This is not improbable; for,
from the time when class moneys are entered as a part of the circuit
income, the entries of sacramental collections, and collections for
the furtherance of the gospel, cease. For the year 1787, including all
sources of income, the average contribution per member per year was in
this great London circuit 3_s._ 10½_d._, or less than a shilling per
member per quarter. How far was this from the requirement of Wesley’s
rules? Who will say that the former days were better than these?
Besides, all that was contributed was not current coin; for in the same
year there is a charge deducted of not less than £10 14_s._ 9½_d._
for bad money given at collections.

Many are the curious items in the list of circuit payments and
allowances. The yearly salary paid to Wesley was £30; to his brother
£60; to Creighton, £61; to Dickenson, £50; to Coke, £30; while the
quarterage to the itinerants, and to their wives respectively, was £3
each. With a few more extracts we conclude this lengthened notice of
London Methodism, during the last seven years of Wesley’s life. “1784:
November 7, a new pail, half a crown; December 6, chain for dog, two
shillings. 1785: January 4, shaving the preachers, £2 10_s._ 6_d._;
February 18, “news pappers,” 13_s._; May 18, lamplighter, four weeks,
6_s._; August 8, Mr. Tennant, to pay his debts, and to send him to
Leeds, £9 9_s._; August 13, letters, four weeks, £2 15_s._ 8½_d._
August 19, for shaving the preachers at conference, £7 5_s._ 3_d._
1787: February 2, two trees for front of dwelling house, 3_s._ 6_d._;
December 17, for curtain over the altar, £5 1_s._ 9_d._ 1789: March 28,
paid expenses of a hogshead of cider, from Guernsey, a present to Mr.
Wesley, £1 9_s._; July 7, paid the man servant a quarter’s wages, £1
1_s._; December 29, paid Mr. Moore for cold bath, £1 1_s._ 1790: July
1, the hairdresser’s bill, £1 1_s._, for one quarter. 1791: February
22, paid the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s salary (the last he received) £15; April
20, paid for Rev. Mr. Wesley’s horses standing at livery after his
decease, £1 11_s._ 9_d._; December 3, paid Mr. Judd’s bill for hanging
the New Chapel with black superfine cloth, £41 16_s._”[271]

These may seem little things to introduce into a work like this; but
little things often indicate greater, and, sometimes, it is only by
knowing minute matters that men can form a correct opinion of a great
general system.

After this long, but we hope not uninteresting digression, we must
return to Wesley in 1776.

On Sunday evening, March 3, he set out from London to Bristol, and
thence to his societies in the north. The tour was not completed until
the 19th of July following, when he got back to London. Its incidents
were much the same as previous ones, except that he was permitted
to preach in a larger number of churches than usual,--namely, at
Pebworth, Chowbent, Heptonstall, Bingley, Haworth, Colne, and at Banff
in Scotland,[272] a proof that clerical prejudice was subsiding, and
that the poor branded outcast was beginning to be regarded with a
more favourable eye. The churches that he occupied in Yorkshire were
crowded. Thomas Taylor, at that time in the Haworth circuit, writes,
in his unpublished diary: “Saturday, April 27--Mr. Wesley preached at
Bradford, at 5 a.m. At 10½, to the surprise of many, he preached
in Bingley church, from Acts xxiv. 25. I never saw him weep while
preaching before now. He spoke awfully, and the congregation heard
attentively. The next day (Sunday) I heard him at Keighley in the
morning, and then at Haworth church. Afterwards, the sacrament was
administered, but in too great a hurry. Several hundreds communicated
in less than an hour. We then dined, in haste and confusion, and drove
off to Colne. I rode fast, and got thither before Mr. Wesley. The
street was filled with people waiting to welcome him; but, when about
two miles from Colne, his chaise broke down, which somewhat delayed
his coming. He mounted a horse, however, and so arrived in safety. The
crowd was so great that it was with difficulty we got into the church.
The sexton led us to the reading desk, and thereby I got a seat. Mr.
Wesley’s text was Revelation xx. 12. At the beginning he was rather
flat; but, at the end, he spake many awful things.”

Wesley’s journey to the north was always one continued panorama of
toil and travel, preaching and praying, conferring with his preachers
and visiting the sick. Hardly one in a thousand could have borne the
burden of its labours without bending; and yet Wesley, an old man, was
always, in the midst of gigantic toils, blithe and happy; and never
went northwards without making his large circuit larger. Besides other
places, he now, for the first, time, preached at Chesterfield. Three
years before, Jeremiah Cocker had gone from Sheffield, and stood on
a table, in the midst of the market place, and begun to preach. A
man, hired for the purpose, pulled him down. Jerry again mounted his
rostrum, and was again pulled down. A third time he ascended, and
a third time his assailant brought him to the ground. The old Adam
now began to stir in the athletic preacher, and, seizing the man, he
gave him a shake hardly gentle. “That is not the spirit of Christ,”
shouted the mob, which, all at once, had become pious. “I acknowledge
it,” said Jerry; and again he jumped upon his table, and finished his
discourse.[273]

Wesley opened the conference of 1776, in London, on August 6, and
concluded it three days afterwards. He writes: “In several conferences
we have had great love and unity; but in this there was, over and
above, such a general seriousness and solemnity of spirit as we
scarcely ever had before.” “Everything,” says Thomas Taylor, “was
conducted in great order. A very strict scrutiny was made into every
one’s character; and I am glad so few were found culpable.”[274]

The truth is, objections to the preachers had become so rife, that
Wesley felt it to be his duty to interfere. He writes: “It is objected,
that some of our preachers are utterly unqualified for the work, and
that others do it negligently, as if they imagined they had nothing
to do but to preach once or twice a day. In order to silence this
objection for ever, which has been repeated ten times over, the
preachers were examined at large, especially those concerning whom
there was the least doubt. The result was, that one was excluded
for inefficiency, and two for misbehaviour. And we were thoroughly
satisfied, that all the rest had both grace and gifts for the work
wherein they are engaged. I hope, therefore, we shall hear of this
objection no more.”

Even in 1776, as now, there were crabbed, cantankerous Methodists, to
whom discipline was a blessing. Those in Ireland refused to contribute
to the yearly collection, saying, it “was nothing to _them_; they
would only bear their own expenses.” This was worse than foolish; it
was disloyal and unjust. In their own fashion, they were willing to
feed and clothe the preachers sent to them; but they expected some
one else to pay their expenses for travelling, and for the sickness
of themselves and their families; or, perhaps, these Irish Methodists
had dreamt that itinerants travelled without expense, and, so far as
sickness was concerned and the need of medicine, were entirely exempted
from the dire effects of Adam’s curse. Wesley says, with honest
indignation: “These are properly _their_ expenses; nor will we pay any
part of them for the time to come, unless their yearly contribution
enable us so to do.” If the Irish stopped supplies on one side of the
channel, Wesley could stop supplies on the other side as well. This
probably was a dilemma which the simple Hibernians had not studied.

There was another unpleasantness at the conference of 1776. Circuit
stewards complained, that some of the preachers’ wives were sluts,
and spoiled their houses; and the preachers, on the other hand,
complained that their houses were hardly homes, for the people, without
ceremony, crowded into them as into coffee houses. Wesley dealt with
both complaints in his own laconic way; directing that no “known slut”
should have a house to spoil; and that no person, either on Sundays or
week days, should go into the preacher’s house except to ask a question.

The conference pronounced the opinion, that Calvinism had been the
grand hindrance of the work of God; and, hence, to stop its progress,
all the preachers were requested--(1) To read, with carefulness,
the tracts published by Wesley, Fletcher, and Sellon. (2) To preach
universal redemption frequently, explicitly, and lovingly. (3) Not
to imitate the Calvinist preachers in screaming, allegorising, and
boasting; but to visit as diligently as they did, to answer all
their objections, to advise the Methodists not to hear them, to pray
constantly and earnestly that God would stop the plague.

Was it wise to publish this? We doubt it; and so did Toplady, for he
immediately, without note or comment, republished it in his _Gospel
Magazine_, with the heading “Authentic Extract of what passed at a
certain Confabulation, held at London, August 6, 1776.”

The Isle of Man now began to attract attention. John Crook was the
son of a Lancashire physician, who squandered his own and his wife’s
fortunes, and then died a miserable and untimely death at sea. John
was put apprentice to learn a laborious trade, and then enlisted to
be a soldier; when he was sent to Limerick, where, at the age of
twenty-eight, he was converted, in the Methodist chapel, in the year
1770. Having purchased his discharge from the army, he returned to
Liverpool, where he became a classleader, and a local preacher. At the
beginning of 1775, he went, uncommissioned except by God Himself, to
the Isle of Man, and began to preach, and had the lieutenant governor,
and his lady, and all the family, and the chief people in Castletown,
to hear him. Numbers had been converted; and persecution had begun to
rage. On July 16, 1776, the following episcopal bull was issued.

  “_To the several Rectors, Vicars, Chaplains, Curates, within
  the Isle and Diocese of Man._

  “REVEREND BRETHREN,--Whereas, we have been informed, that
  several unordained, unauthorised, and unqualified persons from
  other countries have presumed, for some time past, to preach
  and teach publicly, and hold and maintain conventicles, and
  have caused several weak persons to combine themselves together
  in a new society, and have private meetings, assemblies, and
  congregations, contrary to the doctrine, government, rites and
  ceremonies of the Established Church, and the civil and
  ecclesiastical laws of this island--

  “We do, therefore, for the prevention of schism, and the
  establishment of uniformity of religious worship, which so long
  hitherto has subsisted among us, hereby desire and require each
  and every one of you, to be vigilant and use your utmost
  endeavours to dissuade your respective flocks from following,
  or being led and misguided by, such incompetent teachers, and
  to exhort, incite, and invite them devoutly to read the holy
  Scripture, to attend reverently the blessed sacraments of their
  parish church, and the ghostly advice of their own ministers,
  by which they will be better and more comfortably instructed in
  the meaning of grace and salvation, than by the crude and
  pragmatical and inconsistent, if not profane and blasphemous,
  extempore effusions of these pretenders to the true religion;
  and, if afterwards they regard not the truth, but obstinately
  persist in error, then to know and find out the names of such
  persons, within your respective parishes and chapelries, as
  attend the public instructions of the said disorderly and
  unqualified teachers, or frequent the said conventicles,
  meetings, assemblies, and congregations; and if, upon due
  inquiry and certain information, you discover, or, consistently
  with your own knowledge, know any licensed schoolmaster,
  mistress, parish clerk, or any other person, who holds any
  office or employment by licence from us or our predecessors,
  that you signify and make known to us in writing the names,
  within one month after the receipt hereof, as also unto our
  reverend vicars general or any one of them, of the persons who
  attend the instructions of the said teachers, or frequent the
  said conventicles.

  “And we, likewise, further desire and require each and every
  one of you, in case any of the above mentioned unordained,
  unauthorised, and unqualified teachers shall, at any time
  hereafter, offer to partake of the holy communion in any of
  your respective churches or chapels, that you repel him or them
  so offering, and the minister so repelling them or any of them
  to give an account of the same unto us within fourteen days, at
  the farthest, as is directed in the rubric in that behalf.

  “Given at Peeltown, July 16, 1776.

                                               “R. SODOR AND MAN.

  “P.S.--Let these be forwarded, in the usual manner, and the time
  of receiving and forwarding be noted by each of you. You will
  also take a copy thereof, and publish it, in English and Manx,
  at the usual time, in your respective churches and chapels the
  Sunday next after the receipt thereof.”[275]

Such was the _fulmen brutum_ discharged at the poor Methodists from the
episcopal battery of the Isle of Man. Twelve days later, John Crook
wrote as follows to a friend at Liverpool.

                       “CASTLETOWN, ISLE OF MAN, _July 28, 1776_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am now in hot war. The devil has stirred
  up the Rev. Mr. Moor, of Douglas, and made a firebrand of him,
  to set all the island on fire. This gentleman has set his
  schoolboys to work, to write chosen texts of Scripture against
  _false prophets, dreamers of dreams, running and not being
  sent_, etc. He has also picked up a ballad, written, I fancy,
  by the late Dr. Bowden, and has dispersed manuscript copies of
  it, and of the texts, among the populace, and put them into a
  most violent flame. The effect on us, as a society, is, we are
  hooted at, slutched, and stoned, whenever we go to worship God.
  Mr. Moor’s scholars, in particular, and the rabble of the town
  in general, gather round our place of meeting, and first sing
  the blasphemous ballad, and then proceed to throw dirt and
  stones at the windows and door. As for myself, when I come out
  they plentifully salute me with channel dirt, with which they
  have often plastered me pretty well. When the scholars meet me
  at mid day, they curse me most horribly, and throw at me chips,
  hard pieces of mortar, potatoes, stones, or whatever comes to
  hand. But if this were all, we might do well enough; but this
  _brand_ has communicated the infectious blaze to the bishop,
  who has issued a bull, dated, not Rome, but Peeltown, which was
  published in the churches last sabbath. I have petitioned the
  governor for liberty of conscience, but he and the bishop are
  so unanimous, that, he says, he will not interfere in the case,
  but wishes me to write a memorial setting forth my suit. I am
  not willing to do this, but have given Mr. Wesley an account of
  the matter, and hope he will direct me how to act.

  “I am, your willing servant in the gospel,

                                               “JOHN CROOK.”[276]

Wesley replied to Mr. Crook as follows.

                                      “LONDON, _August 10, 1776_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--By all means, stay in the island till the
  storm be ended: in your patience possess your soul. Beware of
  despising your opponents! Beware of anger and resentment!
  Return not evil for evil, or railing for railing. I advise you
  to keep, with a few serious people, a day of fasting and
  prayer. God has the hearts of all men in His hands. Neither Dr.
  Moor, nor the bishop himself, is out of His reach. Be fervent
  in prayer, that God would arise and maintain His own cause.
  Assuredly, He will not suffer you to be tempted above what you
  are able to bear. Violent methods of redress are not to be
  used, till all other methods fail. I know pretty well the mind
  of Lord Mansfield, and of one that is greater than he; but, if
  I appealed to them, it would bring much expense and
  inconvenience on Dr. Moor and others. I would not willingly do
  this; I love my neighbour as myself. Possibly, they may think
  better, and allow that liberty of conscience which belongs to
  every partaker of human nature, and more especially to every
  one of his majesty’s subjects in his British dominions. To live
  peaceably with all men is the earnest desire of your
  affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[277]

Three years after this, the Isle of Man was a flourishing Methodist
circuit, with 1051 members of society.

No sooner was the conference in London ended, than Wesley set out, on
Sunday afternoon, August 11, for Cornwall. On his return, he spent, as
usual, about a month at Bristol and in its vicinity. He began what, he
says, he had long intended, visiting the Bristol society from house
to house, setting apart at least two hours a day for that purpose. He
preached in the church at Midsomer Norton, the rector making one of his
congregation. Here an incident occurred which was characteristic of the
man, and is worth relating. Wesley was entertained at the house of Mr.
Bush, a local preacher, who kept a boarding school. While there, two of
the boys quarrelled, and cuffed and kicked each other most vigorously.
Mrs. Bush brought the pugilists to Wesley. He talked to them, and
repeated the lines:

              “Birds in their little nests agree,
                 And ’tis a shameful sight,
               When children of one family
                 Fall out, and chide, and fight.”

“You must be reconciled,” said he; “go and shake hands with each
other.” They did so. “Now,” he continued, “put your arms round each
other’s neck, and kiss each other.” This was also done. “Now,” said he,
“come to me”; and, taking two pieces of bread and butter, he folded
them together, and desired each to take a part. “Now,” he added,
“you have broken bread together.” He then put his hands upon their
heads, and blessed them. The two tigers were turned into loving lambs;
they never forgot the old man’s blessing; and one of them became a
magistrate in Berks, and related the occurrence with intense interest
in after days.[278]

Having returned to London, Wesley set out, on November 13, accompanied
by his invalid friend, Fletcher, to Norwich. He says: “I took coach
at twelve, slept till six, and then spent the time very agreeably
in conversation, singing, and reading. I read Mr. Bolt’s account of
the affairs in the East Indies. What a scene is here opened! What
consummate villains, what devils incarnate, were the managers there!
What utter strangers to justice, mercy, and truth; to every sentiment
of humanity! I believe no heathen history contains a parallel. I
remember none in all the annals of antiquity; not even the divine Cato,
or the virtuous Brutus, plundered the provinces committed to their
charge with such merciless cruelty as the English have plundered the
desolated provinces of Hindostan.”

The two friends returned to London on November 21; and, a few days
later, Wesley started on his accustomed visitation to Bedfordshire,
etc.; and, on the way, read the poetical works of Gray, whom he pencils
as “sharp, sensible, and ingenious; but proud, morose, envious,
passionate, and resentful.”

After this, he made a tour through Kent; and then writes: “December
31--We concluded the year with solemn praise to God, for continuing His
great work in our land. It has never been intermitted one year, or one
month, since the year 1738; in which my brother and I began to preach
that strange doctrine of salvation by faith.”

The Calvinistic controversy was now in its last agonies; but, on the
part of the elect, was as acrimonious as ever. Some one published a
twopenny pamphlet, entitled, “A necessary Alarm and most earnest Caveto
against Tabernacle Principles and Tabernacle Connections; containing
the substance of an extraordinary Harangue and Exhortation, delivered
at Penzance, in August, 1774; on an extraordinary occasion. By J.
W., Master of very extraordinary Arts.” In this infamous burlesque,
Wesley is treated with as much ridicule as the anonymous author could
command; and Toplady, in reviewing it, in his _Gospel Magazine_, of
course commends it, as “a delicate satire on Wesley,” and hopes that
“the cream of tartar, so ably administered by the anonymous physician,
will prove a sweetener of the patient’s crudities, and conduce to carry
off some portion of his self sufficiency.” Wesley, however, had been
so “severely peppered and salted of late years,” that the considerate
editor of the _Gospel Magazine_ benevolently intimates that he shall,
on that account, refrain from adding to the pepper and salt seasonings,
which “must often have made Wesley smart and wince like an eel
dispossessed of its skin.”[279]

This was bad enough; but there were other things even worse.
Wesley’s wife, (originally a not too respectable servant girl,)
stole a number of Wesley’s letters, and interpolated words, and
misinterpreted spiritual expressions, so as to make the letters bear
a bad construction. She read them to an elect party of Calvinists,
and agreed to send them to the _Morning Post_ for publication. Two
masked assassins, who assumed the not inappropriate names of _Scorpion_
and _Snapdragon_, furiously assailed him, in the London newspaper,
professing to ground their charges against him upon his own private
papers, which the woman, who was legally his wife, had put into their
hands. A more infamous episode does not occur in Wesley’s history. The
charges were cruel insinuations, founded upon interpolated letters,
stolen by a faithless woman, who, in order to defame a husband of
whom she was utterly unworthy, not only committed theft but forgery,
and then put herself into the hands of a set of holy Calvinists, who
employed her perfidy and meanness in injuring the man whom, at the
altar of the Most High God, she had sworn to love, honour, and obey.
This is strong language; but the writer, knowing more than he chooses
to make public, uses it with deliberate design. Charles Wesley, finding
the use that was being made of his brother’s papers, was in the
utmost consternation, and went off in haste, wishing him to postpone
a journey, and to stay in town to defend himself against his enemies.
Wesley was as calm as his loving and faithful brother was excited. “I
shall never forget,” said Miss Wesley, “the manner in which my father
accosted my mother on his return home. ‘My brother,’ said he, ‘is
indeed an extraordinary man. I placed before him the importance of
the character of a minister; and the evil consequences which might
result from his indifference to it; and urged him, by every relative
and public motive, to answer for himself, and stop the publication.
His reply was, ‘_Brother, when I devoted to God my ease, my time, my
life, did I except my reputation? No, Tell Sally I will take her to
Canterbury to-morrow._’”[280]

On the Arminian side of the controversy, the chief, if not the only,
publication issued in 1776, was Fletcher’s masterly “Answer to the Rev.
Mr. Toplady’s ‘Vindication of the Decrees,’ etc.” 12mo, 128 pages.
Never was a bravo shaved with so sharp a razor, and by so adept a hand.

Except “An Extract of the Life of Madame Guion,” 12mo, 230 pages,
Wesley’s only publications, in 1776, were the two political tracts
following. 1. “Some Observations on Liberty, occasioned by a late
Tract”: 12mo, 36 pages. And, 2. “A Seasonable Address to the more
Serious Part of the Inhabitants of Great Britain, respecting the
Unhappy Contest between us and our American Brethren; with an
occasional Word interspersed to those of a different complexion”: 12mo,
18 pages.

The former was an answer to Dr. Price, a Unitarian minister far more
famed for politics than for preaching, who had recently published
his “Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of
Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America.” This
was considered the ablest work, in exposition of the injurious policy
pursued by England toward America, that had yet been issued. Within
less than two years, eight editions were printed; and, in testimony of
their approbation of it, the common council of London presented to the
author the freedom of the city in a golden box. Thus, in fighting with
Dr. Price, Wesley was far from fighting with a shadow.

Both of Wesley’s tracts display, not only his wonted ability, but his
profound loyalty to the government of King George, his benevolence of
heart, and his intense interest in the fratricidal war which was then
raging. A more loyal subject than Wesley, England never had; perhaps,
indeed, his loving loyalty sometimes made him somewhat blind to the
faultiness of ruling powers. No man was more obedient to law; and no
man more cheerfully paid his taxes. The last mentioned might not amount
to much; but they were never tendered with a niggard’s hand. Some
imagined that he, the bishop of 40,000 Methodists, was sure to have an
enormous income, and a silver chest well stocked with plate; and that,
therefore, his assessments ought to be higher than they were. So, for
instance, thought the commissioners of his majesty’s excise, in 1776.
Hence the following circular:

  “REVEREND SIR,--As the commissioners cannot doubt but you have
  plate for which you have hitherto neglected to make entry, they
  have directed me to inform you, that they expect you forthwith
  to make due entry of all your plate, such entry to bear date
  from the commencement of the plate duty, or from such time as
  you have owned, used, had, or kept any quantity of silver
  plate, chargeable by the act of parliament; as, in default
  hereof, the board will be obliged to signify your refusal to
  their lordships. An immediate answer is desired.”

Think of John Wesley, always on the wing, having a hoard of silver
plate to adorn his sumptuous table when feasting his Epicurean
coadjutors and his dinner loving friends. The idea was almost too silly
to be ridiculous. Wesley seems to have thought it so; and his answer
(with which we close the present year) was as follows.

  “SIR,--I have _two_ silver teaspoons at _London_, and _two_ at
  _Bristol_. This is all the plate which I have at present; and I
  shall not buy any more, while so many round me want bread.

  “I am, sir, your most humble servant,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”


FOOTNOTES:

     [255] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 290.

     [256] Manuscript letter.

     [257] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 290.

     [258] _Methodist Magazine_, 1824, p. 568.

     [259] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., pp. 395-397.

     [260] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 522.

     [261] _Methodist Magazine_, 1830, p. 310.

     [262] Ibid. 1803, p. 289.

     [263] Ibid. 1847, p. 102.

     [264] Ibid. 1816, p. 446.

     [265] City Road society book.

     [266] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 202.

     [267] Ibid. 1827, p. 430.

     [268] _Methodist Magazine_, 1832, p. 466.

     [269] Ibid. 1837, p. 399.

     [270] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 134.

     [271] It is a disgraceful fact that Charles Wesley was
           buried, not at the expense of the London circuit, but
           by private subscription. Nineteen London Methodists
           subscribed £10 13_s._ 6_d._, and William Marriott
           made up the deficiency of £3 3_s._ The pages in the
           old society book, on which this account is written,
           were wafered together by four large wafers, doubtless
           for the purpose of hiding the shame of the old
           Methodists of 1788.

     [272] The following was written to Robert Dall, one of
           Wesley’s itinerants.

                                  “BANFF, _January 1, 1777_.

             “DEAR FATHER IN THE LORD,--The society has been
             stationary ever since you left us. We are often
             neglected. Lately we had only one visit in eight
             weeks. Mr. Wesley was here on the 20th of May last,
             and preached on the Parade from 2 Corinthians viii.
             9. He supped at Lord Banff’s, and next night at
             Admiral Gordon’s lady’s house, with a great number
             of great ones; and, at their request, he preached
             in the English chapel to an elegant and crowded
             congregation. We are, etc., WILLIAM AND ISABEL
             MCPHERSON.” (Manuscript letter.)


     [273] Manuscript.

     [274] Taylor’s manuscript journals.

     [275] John Crook’s original copy.

     [276] Manuscript letter.

     [277] _Methodist Magazine_, 1808, p. 103.

     [278] _Methodist Magazine_, 1842, p. 136.

     [279] _Gospel Magazine_, 1776, p. 475.

     [280] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 283.




                                1777.
                               Age 74


Wesley was always full of work. He began the year 1777 with a course of
lectures on the book of Ecclesiastes, and says: “I never before had so
clear a sight either of the meaning or the beauties of it; neither did
I imagine, that the several parts of it were, in so exquisite a manner,
connected together; all tending to prove that grand truth, that there
is no happiness out of God.”

He also spent an hour every morning with his London preachers, Messrs.
Jaco, Hindmarsh, Murlin, Pilmoor, Atlay, Bradford, and Olivers, in
instructing them as he used to instruct his Oxford pupils, and in
promoting their piety.

He likewise begun visiting the society, many of whom he found in the
deepest poverty, and writes: “O why do not all the rich that fear God
constantly visit the poor? Can they spend part of their spare time
better? Certainly not: so they will find in that day, when ‘every man
shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.’”

To his surprise, he once more preached in a London church--Allhallows;
and says: “I found great liberty of spirit; and the congregation seemed
to be much affected. How is this? Do I yet please men? Is the offence
of the cross ceased? It seems, after being scandalous near fifty years,
I am at length growing into an honourable man.”

At the beginning of the month of February, he hurried off to Bristol,
to quiet some of the society, who were in danger of becoming
disaffected towards government; and preached from, “Put them in mind
to be subject to principalities and powers.” Finding that there had
been repeated attempts to fire the city, he preached again, taking as
his text, “Is there any evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done
it?” He also wrote and published, “A Calm Address to the Inhabitants
of England”: 12mo, 23 pages. He states, that a year and a half ago,
from fifty to a hundred thousand copies of his “Calm Address to the
American Colonies” had been dispersed, and the effect had exceeded
his most sanguine hopes. This encouraged him now to address “the
inhabitants of _Old England_.” He then gives an account of the rise and
progress of the American rebellion, tracing it back as far as the year
1737. He proceeds to state that, after bawling for liberty, no liberty
was left in the confederate provinces of America; the liberty of the
press, religious liberty, and civil liberty were nonentities. The lords
of the congress were as absolute as the emperor of Morocco; whereas, in
England, the fullest liberty was enjoyed, “both as to religion, life,
body, and goods.” He tells the Methodists that, though many, who go
under that name, hate the king and all his ministers, only less than
they hate an Arminian, he would no more continue in fellowship with
those that were connected with him, if they did this, than he would
continue in fellowship “with whoremongers, or sabbath breakers, or
thieves, or drunkards, or common swearers.”

The whole tract is written in his most pungent style; and, whatever
may be thought of the wisdom of Wesley’s politics, all must admire his
devoted loyalty. Of course, like his “Calm Address to the American
Colonies,” it stirred a nest of hornets. Almost immediately, there was
published, in the _Gospel Magazine_, a poem reviling him in unmeasured
terms. He is represented as “spitting venom, spite, and rage”; “Father
Johnny” is accused of telling “barefaced lies,” and is thus admonished
in the last two lines:

              “O think of this, thou grey haired sinner,
               Ere Satan pick thy bones for dinner.”

Wesley returned to London on February 8, and, a week later, fulfilled
a painful duty. For more than twenty years, Dr. Dodd had been one of
the most popular preachers in the metropolis. When at the zenith of his
fame, he, in 1774, sent an anonymous letter to Lady Apsley, offering
£3000 if she would prevail with her husband, the lord chancellor, to
appoint him to the valuable rectory of St. George’s, Hanover Square,
which was then vacant. The writer was detected, and, as a consequence,
was struck out of the list of royal chaplains, was assailed with bitter
invectives by the press, and was severely ridiculed by Foote, in a
farce, entitled “The Cozeners.” Withdrawing from England, where he
had now become an object of contempt, he, for a time, found an asylum
at Geneva, with his former pupil, Lord Chesterfield. On his return to
this country, he became editor of a newspaper, and then a bankrupt. In
1776, he visited France, and, with little regard to decency, appeared
in a phaeton at the races on the plains of Sablons, dressed in all the
foppery of the country in which he then resided. Strange to say, he
was still popular, as a preacher, at the Magdalen, in London, where
he delivered his last discourse on February 2, 1777, from the ominous
text: “And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall
the sole of thy foot have rest; but the Lord shall give thee there a
trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind; and thy life
shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and
shalt have none assurance of thy life.”

Only two days afterwards, he forged the name of Lord Chesterfield to
a bond for £4200, on the security of which he obtained a considerable
loan. Detection speedily ensued; and, before the month was ended, he
was arrested, tried at the Old Bailey, and was convicted. The crime
was forgery; the penalty was death. For four months, the unhappy
culprit was kept in prison. His friends were indefatigable, in their
endeavours, to obtain a commutation of his punishment. Even the city
of London, in its corporate capacity, earnestly solicited that his
sentence might not be carried into effect. Dr. Johnson, with his
weighty pen, tried to arouse popular feeling in his favour, alleging
that petitions for clemency had been signed by above thirty thousand
people, and that justice might reasonably be satisfied with his
imprisonment, infamy, exile, penury, and ruin. All was of no avail; and
on June 26 the great preacher died a felon’s death by the hands of the
common hangman.

In the days of his prosperity, Dodd had been in the ranks of Wesley’s
enemies; and, more than once, had reviled him, his people, and his
creed; and, yet, strange to tell, no sooner was he incarcerated for his
crime, than he sent for Wesley to visit him. The latter writes: “1777,
February 15--At the third message, I took up my cross, and went to see
Dr. Dodd, in the Compter. I was greatly surprised. He seemed, though
deeply affected, yet thoroughly resigned to the will of God. Mrs. Dodd,
likewise, behaved with the utmost propriety. I doubt not, God will
bring good out of this evil.” “February 18--I visited him again, and
found him still in a desirable state of mind; calmly giving himself up
to whatsoever God should determine concerning him.”

Both Wesley and his brother had always evinced an almost unequalled
interest in the welfare of imprisoned convicts; but, remembering past
treatment from this popular, but now incarcerated, preacher, and also
remembering the terrible scandal which he had brought upon Christ’s
religion, no wonder that Wesley felt it a _cross_ to visit him. Wesley,
however, was not the man to shun a duty because it happened to be
painful; and there can be no doubt that, if his itinerant engagements
had not taken him away from London, the gloom of the convict’s cell
would often have been relieved, during the next four months, by
Wesley’s presence.

Wesley had never even seen Dr. Dodd, either in public or in private,
until he saw him in Wood Street compter, a few days before his removal
to Newgate to take his trial. “Sir,” said the prisoner, “I have long
desired to see you; but I little thought, that our first interview
would be in such a place as this.” “We conversed,” says Wesley, “about
an hour; he spoke of nothing but his soul, and appeared to regard
nothing in comparison of it.” At the second interview, Wesley spent
half an hour with the poor wretched man. “Sir,” said he, “do not you
find it difficult to preserve your recollection, amidst all these
lawyers and witnesses?” Dodd answered: “It is difficult; but I have one
sure hold: ‘Lord, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.’” The third visit
was after his sentence had been passed. Wesley writes: “He conversed
about an hour; but had not one word about any but spiritual things. I
found his mind still quiet and composed; sorrowing, but not without
hope.” Two days before the execution, Wesley went again. “Sir,” said
he, “I think you do not ask enough, or expect enough, from God your
Saviour. The _present_ blessing, you may expect from Him, is to be
filled with all joy, as well as peace in believing.” “O sir,” replied
the doctor, “it is not for such a sinner as I am to expect any joy in
this world. The utmost I can desire is peace; and, through the mercy of
God, that I have.” Wesley adds: “We then spent a little time in prayer,
and I solemnly commended him to God. He was exactly in such a temper
as I wished. He never, at any time, expressed the least murmuring or
resentment at any one; but entirely and calmly gave himself up to the
will of God. Such a prisoner I scarce ever saw before; much less, such
a condemned malefactor.”

This was Wesley’s last interview. Two days later, the once famous Dr.
Dodd was hanged, Wesley expressing the firm belief, that angels took
him from the gallows to the paradise of God.[281]

Perhaps more space has been devoted to Dr. Dodd than some may think
fitting; but, remembering the positions occupied respectively by
Dodd and Wesley,--the one the most popular and fashionable preacher
that London had, and the other an outcast clergyman, who, for
eight-and-thirty years, had been reviled in every form that malice
and ingenuity could devise,--it was no slight fact, that, as soon as
Dodd was face to face with death, the man he sent for was, not one of
his old associates, lay or clerical, but the man who had been, and
still was, the butt of national persecution, and whom he himself in
the days of his prosperity had treated disrespectfully. Dr. Dodd, when
he most needed them, had more faith in Wesley’s counsels and Wesley’s
prayers than he had in the counsels and prayers of those whom he had
been accustomed to call his friends. His confidence was not misplaced.
Wesley did his best; Wesley’s brother poured forth the feelings of his
heart in “A Prayer for Dr. Dodd under Condemnation”; and Miss Bosanquet
wrote to the poor prisoner not a few of her Christian letters. The
result was, Dodd, on the very day of Wesley’s final visit, thus
addressed his lady correspondent: “My dear Friend,--On Friday morning I
am to be made immortal! I die with a heart truly contrite, and broken
under a sense of its great and manifold offences, but comforted and
sustained by a firm faith in the pardoning love of Jesus Christ.”[282]

On the 10th of March, Wesley left London on a seventeen days’ preaching
tour to Bristol and back again. This was the year for his pastoral
visitation in the north; but, he writes, “I cannot be long absent” from
London, “while the new chapel is building.” In fact, Wesley became so
interested in his great building scheme, that he was tempted to turn
architect himself. “It seems,” says he in a letter to Miss Ball, of
Wycombe, dated March 13, 1777, “it seems, the time is come, that you
are to have a more commodious preaching house at High Wycombe. I will
give you a plan of the building myself; and employ whom you please to
build.”[283] After all, the Methodists at Wycombe might have had a
worse architect than Wesley.

Ten days were spent in London, and, it being Easter time, Wesley
writes: “During the octave, I administered the Lord’s supper every
morning, after the example of the primitive church.” On Sunday, April
6, he set out on his northern journey, making collections, as he went,
for his London chapel. When he had got only as far as Lancashire, he
was obliged to return to London to lay the foundation stone on April
21. A week later, he took coach for Newcastle upon Tyne. Here he spent
four days, and then again turned his face southward; and, preaching all
the way, reached the metropolis on the 17th of May.

Having met the building committee, which was his chief business in
London, and having, with his brother, visited Dr. Dodd, he, a third
time, started north on Sunday, May 25. He now hurried on to Whitehaven,
and paid his first visit to the Isle of Man, where he spent the first
three days in the month of June, and says: “A more loving, simple
hearted people than this I never saw; and no wonder; for they have but
six papists, and no Dissenters, in the island.”

Here he met with the Rev. E. and Mrs. Smyth, the former a clergyman
from Ireland, and the latter a young wife of twenty-two. Mr. Smyth
had been ejected from his curacy for preaching the doctrines of the
Methodists, and especially for daring to reprove “the great man of
the parish” for living the life of an adulterer. Expelled from the
Established Church, he began to preach wherever he had a chance, and
became more extensively useful than ever. Though the nephew of an
archbishop, his home was a thatched cabin, and his trials not a few.
Hearing that Wesley was about to visit the Isle of Man, Mr. Smyth and
his wife came to meet him. Wesley received them with his customary
kindness, and, during their stay, met with a misadventure, which is
worth relating. He writes: “I set out for Douglas in the one-horse
chaise, Mrs. Smyth riding with me. In about an hour, in spite of all I
could do, the headstrong horse ran the wheel against a large stone: the
chaise overset in a moment; but we fell so gently on the smooth grass,
that neither of us was hurt at all.”

Such is Wesley’s account; Mrs. Smyth’s reflects on Wesley’s
charioteering capabilities. “He told me,” she writes, “when we got into
the carriage, that he could drive a chaise forty years ago; but, poor
dear man! his hand seemed out of practice, as I thought we should be
overturned several times. At last, one of the wheels being mounted on
one side of a ditch, we were both pitched out on a green plain, as the
Lord in mercy ordered it; for had we been overset in some parts of the
road, it is more than probable we should have been killed on the spot. I
found no bad effects from the fall at the time; but the next morning I
was scarce able to stir, and felt so sore and bruised that I thought it
likely I should lay my bones in the churchyard at Douglas.”[284]

We shall meet with Mr. and Mrs. Smyth again; suffice it to add, that,
immediately after preaching at Douglas, Wesley set sail for England;
and, a few days after, his newly acquired friends went back to Ireland,
while he himself went on his way to London. In his progress, he, for
the first time, preached at Settle, where Methodism had recently been
introduced by John Read, a poor clogger, and where one of the first
members was Edward Slater, who became Wesley’s coachman.[285]

Wesley proceeded to Otley, where Miss Ritchie, apparently, was dying;
to Bradford, where William Brammah, one of Wesley’s weakest preachers,
had been amazingly useful; to Birstal and Huddersfield, where thousands
upon thousands assembled to hear him; and to Colne, where, as soon as
he entered the pulpit, the left hand gallery of the chapel fell, with
nearly two hundred persons in it.

William Sagar, a young man not then in business for himself, had
been the principal promoter of this erection, and had made himself
responsible for the payment of the cost. When the walls were half
way up, the workmen became clamorous for their wages; and Mr. Sagar
unfortunately was without funds; but, two or three days afterwards,
a gentleman, unsolicited, offered to lend him the money needed. One
trouble was got over, but another was yet to come. When the ill fated
chapel was ready for the roof, a gale of wind blew down the western
gable, and shook the entire edifice to its foundations. And now,
to crown the whole, through the malevolence of a carpenter who had
purposely cut the timbers too short, down fell the left hand gallery;
and, though no lives were lost, yet not a few of the people had their
limbs broken, and were otherwise severely injured.[286]

It was at this period that Colne was made the head of what Thomas
Taylor called “a snug circuit”; though the circuit embraced the entire
region constituting the Todmorden, Bacup, Haslingden, Blackburn,
Burnley, Preston, Garstang, Lancaster, Clitheroe, and Padiham circuits
of the present day. Taylor was the assistant of the circuit before it
was made so _snug_, and was Wesley’s companion at the time of the Colne
catastrophe. In his voluminous unpublished diary, he tells us, that at
Otley, Wesley not only preached, but made a collection for his London
chapel; at Bingley, he preached in the parish church; at Keighley,
after preaching, Wesley stood on one side of the path and Taylor on the
other, and, with their hats in their hands, collected upwards of £7 for
the new chapel in City Road; at Colne, Taylor was with Wesley in the
pulpit when the gallery fell. He writes: “Oh, what a scene ensued. The
dismal shrieks of those whose limbs were broken, or who were otherwise
injured, and the cries of the women for their children, were terrible.
Happily no lives were lost, and much less damage done than might have
been expected. As soon as the confusion was abated, Mr. Wesley preached
out of doors; but the catastrophe prevented many from hearing.”[287]

Wesley proceeded to Derby, where, strangely enough, another accident
occurred, which might have been as serious as that at Colne. An hour
before the congregation assembled in the chapel, part of the roof fell
in; the people, however, rushed to hear, despite the doubtful state of
the flimsy edifice; and, among others permanently benefited by Wesley’s
ministry, was Catherine Spencer, who, for sixty-four years, adorned her
religious profession by “a meek and quiet spirit,” and who died at the
age of eighty-six, in 1843.[288]

Wesley got back to London on June 21, and, a week later, wrote: “June
28--I have now completed my seventy-fourth year, and, by the peculiar
favour of God, I find my health and strength, and all my faculties of
body and mind, just the same as they were at four-and-twenty.”

A man, on his birthday, frequently reviews the past, sifts the present,
and reflects upon the future. At this period Wesley wrote as follows to
his legal friend, Walter Churchey, of Brecon, the birthplace of Thomas
Coke.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--At present, I am very safe; for I am a good
  many pounds, if not scores of pounds, worse than nothing. In my
  will, I bequeath no money but what may happen to be in my
  pocket when I die.

  “Dr. Coke promises fair, and gives us reason to hope, that he
  will, bring forth, not only blossoms, but fruit. He has
  hitherto behaved exceeding well, and seems to be aware of his
  grand enemy--applause. He will likewise be in danger from
  offence. If you are acquainted with him, a friendly letter
  might be of use, and would be taken kindly. He now stands on
  slippery ground, and is in need of every help.

  “I am your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[289]

Having spent nine days in London, Wesley set out, on June 30, on
a preaching tour which occupied the whole of the ensuing month.
Proceeding by way of Buckingham, he visited Oxford, Witney, Stroud,
Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Worcester, Malvern; and then passed through
Wales to Bristol, which he reached on July 28.

Here, on August 5, he opened his annual conference, and writes:

  “As the report had been spread far and wide, I now particularly
  inquired of every assistant, ‘Have you reason to believe, from
  your own observation, that the Methodists are a fallen people?
  Is there a decay or an increase in the work of God where you
  have been? Are the societies in general more dead, or more
  alive to God, than they were some years ago?’ The almost
  universal answer was: ‘If we must know them by their fruits,
  there is no decay in the work of God among the people in
  general. The societies are not dead to God: they are as much
  alive as they have been for many years. And we look on this
  report as a mere device of Satan, to make our hands hang down.’

  “‘But how can this question be decided?’ You can judge no
  further than you see. You cannot judge of one part by another;
  and none but myself has an opportunity of seeing the Methodists
  throughout the three kingdoms.

  “But to come to a short issue. In most places, the Methodists
  are still a poor, despised people, labouring under reproach,
  and many inconveniences; therefore, wherever the power of God
  is not, they decrease. By this then, you may form a sure
  judgment. Do the Methodists in general decrease in number? Then
  they decrease in grace; they are a fallen, or, at least, a
  falling people. But they do not decrease in number; they
  continually increase; therefore, they are not a fallen people.”

These are weighty words. They show Wesley’s deep anxiety to maintain
the genuine character of the work in which he was engaged; and the test
which he instituted was, unquestionably, under existing circumstances,
logical and conclusive.

The principal propagator of the report, that the Methodists were a
fallen people, was John Hilton, who, for thirteen years, had been an
itinerant preacher. Dr. Stevens calls him “an honest but weak headed
man.” This is scarcely correct. Leaving his honesty an open question,
John Hilton, judged by his publications, was far from being “weak
headed.” Wesley says: “He told us he must withdraw from our connexion.
Some would have reasoned with him, but it was lost labour; so we let
him go in peace.” Hilton was no sooner gone, than he turned author,
and, in 1778, besides an octavo pamphlet of 32 pages, entitled, “The
Deplorable State of Man,” he issued “Reasons for Quitting the Methodist
Society; being a Defence of Barclay’s Apology;” 8vo, 66 pages. Dated,
“Melksham, 3rd month, 28th day, 1778.” He tells his readers, that, “a
year ago, Barclay’s Apology converted him to the principles of the
quakers;” and a broadbrimmed quaker John Hilton henceforwards was. Both
his pamphlets are written in a plain, good, nervous style, and show,
that, in point of education and mental power, he was much superior
to the mass of Wesley’s itinerants.[290] Hilton was not without
talent; but like most who think themselves more religious than their
neighbours, he was sour and censorious. “What I have lamented in him,
for some years,” wrote Wesley, in a letter, dated October 22, 1777, “is
an aptness to condemn and despise his brethren. There is no failing
more infectious than this; and it is much if you did not catch a little
of it from him; otherwise you would hardly say, ‘the body of Methodists
are degenerated.’ You cannot possibly judge whether they are or not.
Perhaps you converse with one or two hundred of them. Now allowing two
thirds of these to be degenerated, can you infer the same concerning
thirty or forty thousand? Yet this I will allow, two thirds of those
who are grown rich are greatly degenerated. They do not, will not,
save all they can, in order to give all they can; and, without doing
this, they _cannot grow in grace_, nay, they constantly grieve the Holy
Spirit of God.”[291]

Thomas Taylor was at the conference of 1777, and tells us that, on the
conference Sunday, the morning service, in the Broadmead chapel, lasted
from half-past nine till nearly one o’clock; that, at five in the
afternoon, Wesley preached to a large and serious crowd out of doors,
and afterwards, in a full society meeting, “expatiated upon the rules,
and said many useful things.” He preached again in the evening of the
first day of conference, but not longer than twenty minutes. On August
7, Taylor writes: “that great and good man Mr. Fletcher came into
conference. My eyes flowed with tears at the sight of him. He spoke to
us in a very respectful manner, and took a solemn farewell. Dear, good
man! I never saw so many tears shed in all my life.”[292]

Fletcher had sought health at Stoke Newington; but was now the guest of
Mr. Ireland, of Bristol. Benson, his fellow sufferer in the Trevecca
troubles, writes: “We have had an edifying conference. Mr. Fletcher’s
visits have been attended with a blessing. His appearance, his
exhortations, and his prayers, broke most of our hearts, and filled us
with shame and self abasement for our little improvement.”[293]

This was a memorable scene. Fletcher, emaciated, feeble, and ghostlike,
entered the conference leaning on the arm of his host, Mr. Ireland. In
an instant, the whole assembly stood up, and Wesley advanced to meet
his almost seraphic friend. The apparently dying man began to address
the brave itinerants, and, before he had uttered a dozen sentences,
one and all were bathed in tears. Wesley, fearing that Fletcher was
speaking too much, abruptly knelt at his side and began to pray. Down
fell the whole of Wesley’s preachers, and joined in the devotion of
their great leader. The burden of Wesley’s supplication was, that his
friend might be spared to labour a little longer; and this petition
was urged with such fervency and faith, that, at last, Wesley closed
by exclaiming with a confidence and an emphasis which seemed to thrill
every heart: “He shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the
Lord.”[294]

The event verified Wesley’s words; for though the pilgrim was already
walking on the margin of the river of death, and had heaven’s own
sunshine shining on him, it was not until eight years after that he
passed the gates of the celestial city.

At the conference of 1776, it was reported, that there were 3148
Methodists in America; in the minutes of 1777, America is not
mentioned. Still, American Methodism was not dead. “I have just
received two letters from New York,” writes Wesley on January 11,
1777. “They inform me, that all the Methodists there are firm for the
government, and, on that account, persecuted by the rebels, only not to
the death; that the preachers are still threatened, but not stopped;
and, that the work of God increases much in Maryland and Virginia.”[295]

The war was raging with terrific violence; and some of the preachers,
as Mr. Rodda, were not so wise, politically speaking, as seemed
desirable: but, despite all this, Methodism actually spread and
prospered. Thomas Rankin, George Shadford, and others thought of
fleeing from the field of conflict; and it was only by Asbury’s
solicitation, that they were induced to stay awhile longer. The
baptists too became a hindrance. “Like ghosts,” says Asbury, “they
haunt us from place to place.” Wesley’s political tracts also were a
serious stumbling block.[296] A Methodist backslider enlisted three
hundred men for the British army, was arrested, and hanged as a rebel
against the government of his country.[297] Even peaceful, prudent, and
loyal Francis Asbury was fined £5 for preaching at Nathan Perrig’s;
and, in October 1777, Rankin and Rodda returned to England, and
Shadford soon after, leaving poor, persecuted, but faithful Asbury the
only one of Wesley’s itinerants that now remained at the post of duty,
and preaching peace to the people by Jesus Christ.

And here let us pause to say, that a grander specimen of a Christian
apostle than Francis Asbury the world has never had. Much as we
revere the memory of Wesley, we regard Asbury with an almost equal
veneration. Among the self denying, laborious, Christian ministers of
the past eighteen hundred years, we believe, that Francis Asbury has
no superiors, and but few that can be considered equals. And yet, how
little does the church catholic, indeed, how little does the Methodist
section of it, know concerning this great and grand, because good, old
man!

The son of peasant parents, Asbury began to preach in Staffordshire,
while yet a boy seventeen years of age; and, in 1771, came to Bristol
to embark for America, without a single penny in his pocket. His first
text in America was in perfect harmony with the forty-five years he
spent in wandering through its woods and prairies: “I determined not
to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” As
early as 1776, he made it a rule, besides travelling and preaching,
to read a hundred pages daily, and to spend three hours out of every
twenty-four in private prayer. Cabins of the most miserable description
were, in thousands of instances, his happy homes; and often, when
his horse cast a shoe in the wide wilderness, in the absence of a
blacksmith’s shop, this grand old bishop of the American Methodists
would make a piece of a bull’s hide, bound about his horse’s foot,
serve in the place of iron. His daily rides were often from thirty to
fifty miles, over mountains and swamps, through bridgeless rivers and
pathless woods, his horse frequently weary and lame, and he himself
wet, cold, and hungry. For forty-five years, when steamboats, stage
coaches, railways, and almost roads, were utterly unknown, Asbury
made a tour of the American states, travelling never less than five
thousand, and often more than six thousand, miles a year, and this
generally on horseback; climbing mountains; creeping down declivities;
winding along valleys, whose only inhabitants were birds, wild beasts,
and Indians; crossing extended prairies without a companion and without
a guide; fording foaming rivers; and wading through the most dangerous
swamps, where one false step might have engulfed him in a boggy grave.
Usually, he preached at least once every week day, and thrice every
Sunday; delivering, during his ministry in America, more than twenty
thousand sermons. His custom was to pray with every family on whom
he called in his wide journeyings; and if, as sometimes happened, he
spent more days than one in some hospitable dwelling, he was wont to
have household prayer as often as there were household meals, and to
allow no visitor to come or go, without asking, on his knees, that
God would bless him. Besides an unknown number of camp meetings and
quarterly meetings, this venerable man attended and presided over
seven conferences, widely separate, every year; and, during the
same space of time, wrote to his preachers and his friends, upon an
average, about a thousand letters. For this enormous service, his
episcopal salary was sixty-four dollars yearly and his travelling
expenses. Early educational advantages he had none. Most of his life
was spent on horseback, in extemporised pulpits, or in log cabins
crowded with talking men and noisy women, bawling children, and barking
dogs,--cabins which he was obliged to make his offices and studies,
and where, with benumbed fingers, frozen ink, impracticable pens, and
rumpled paper, he had to write his sermons, his journals, and his
letters. Not unfrequently did he, like others, suffer from the malaria
of a new, uncultivated country; and had headaches, toothaches, chills,
fevers, and sore throats, for his travelling companions. And yet,
despite all this, Francis Asbury was by no means an unlettered man. He
became proficient in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; read the Scriptures in
the tongues in which they were originally written; was acquainted with
several branches of polite literature; kept abreast with the history
of his times; and, although not an orator, was a dignified, eloquent,
and impressive preacher. Thin, tall, and remarkably clean and neat,--in
a plain drab frock coat, waistcoat, and breeches, a neat stock, and
a broad brimmed, low crowned hat,--this first and greatest Methodist
American bishop rode on horseback till he could ride no longer; and
then might be seen often hopping on crutches, and helped in and out
of his light spring wagon as he still pursued his wide episcopal
wanderings. Thus lived Francis Asbury, until, in 1816, at the age of
threescore years and ten, he died, and was followed to his grave in
Baltimore by about twenty-five thousand of his friends. Before his
death, he solemnly enjoined that no life of him should be published;
and that injunction, to the present, has been substantially observed;
but, if the reader wishes to see his monument, we invite him to step
within the living walls of the present Methodist Episcopal Church of
America, and there, while surveying the grand edifice of spiritual
order and beauty, we ask him, as the inquirer in St. Paul’s cathedral
is asked, to “Look around!”

This was the only one of Wesley’s English itinerants left in America
in 1777; but, though forsaken by his English colleagues, he was not
alone. At this very time, there were fifteen widely spread circuits;
thirty-four itinerant preachers, who had been raised up by Providence
on the spot; and not fewer than 6968 full and accredited members of
society. In other words, though it was only eight years since Wesley’s
conference had sent out Boardman and Pilmoor, there were already more
than one sixth as many Methodists in America as there were, at the
end of thirty-eight years, throughout the whole of England, Ireland,
Scotland, and Wales.[298]

To return to Wesley. After the Bristol conference, he spent a week in
London, during which he drew up proposals for the _Arminian Magazine_,
and met the committee appointed to superintend the building of the new
chapel, which was now ready for the roof.

He then, on August 18, hurried off to Cornwall; and then to Ireland,
where, at Dublin, John Hampson and Samuel Bradburn had expelled
thirty-four members of society, who were so dissatisfied with this
act of imprudent zeal, that Wesley was obliged to go and give the
contending parties a two days’ hearing. On Saturday, October 18, he got
back to London.

The week after, he spent in Oxfordshire. At High Wycombe he meant to
preach, “but good Mr. James had procured a drummer to beat his drum at
the window of the chapel,” and thus, instead of preaching, Wesley could
only pray and sing by turns, during the time allotted for the service.

The next week was occupied in a preaching tour in Northamptonshire; and
the fortnight afterwards in meeting the classes in and around London.

On November 17, he went on a flying visit to Norfolk; and, on the 23rd,
preached in Lewisham church for the benefit of the Humane Society,
which had been established only three years before, by Dr. Cogan and
Dr. Hawes. Here, of course, he was the welcome guest of his old friend,
Mr. Blackwell; and, during his visit, he dined with the celebrated
Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, whose brother had married into Mr.
Blackwell’s family. “His whole behaviour,” writes Wesley, “was worthy
of a Christian bishop; easy, affable, and courteous; and, yet, all his
conversation spoke the dignity which was suitable to his character.”
There is one incident, however, which Wesley, in his modesty, has not
related. On proceeding to dinner, the bishop refused to sit above
Wesley at the table, saying with considerable emotion, “Mr. Wesley, may
I be found at your feet in another world!” Wesley objected to take the
seat of precedence, when the learned prelate obviated the difficulty,
by requesting, as a favour, that Wesley would sit above him, because
his hearing was defective, and he desired not to lose a sentence of
Wesley’s conversation.[299]

The remaining five weeks of the year 1777 were spent, partly in the
three counties of Bedford, Huntingdon, and Hertford; partly at Bath,
where he laid the foundation stone of a new chapel; and partly in
London, where he parted with Fletcher on his way to Switzerland. He
says: “We concluded the old year, and began the new, with prayer and
thanksgiving. Four or five of the local preachers assisted me. I was
agreeably surprised; their manner of praying being so artless and
unlaboured, and yet rational and scriptural, both as to sense and
expression.”

Such was Wesley’s watchnight service at the expiration of 1777;
no preaching, no exhortatory platitudes, but simply prayer and
thanksgiving, offered by himself and a selection of his London local
preachers. Wesley’s successors have not improved on this.

It was during this memorable year, that a society was instituted, which
was ultimately superseded by benevolent societies that yet exist.
Six friends in London met, at each other’s house in rotation, every
Sunday afternoon, for the purpose of singing and prayer only. They
were soon entreated to visit the surrounding sick, and, finding many
of them in deep poverty, began to relieve their wants. To do this,
they found it desirable to provide a fund, by contributing themselves,
and asking contributions of their friends; and shortly a society was
formed, sometimes called “The Willow Walk Society, near Moorfields”;
but more generally and properly, “The united Society for Visiting
and Relieving the Sick.” A few years later, the “Strangers’ Friend
Society” was started. John Gardner, a retired soldier, in his London
visits, met a man in a miserable garret, dying of fistula. He lay on
the floor, covered only with a sack, without shirt, cap, or sheet. The
old soldier felt, as every one must feel, that to visit such cases,
without relieving them, was not worthy of a Christian; and, returning
home, he got fifteen of his Methodist friends to join in a penny a
week subscription for such a purpose. His classleader, jealous of his
class-pence moneys, instead of helping, opposed the scheme. Gardner,
with a soldier’s pluck, was not to be silenced by a subordinate, but
wrote at once to Wesley.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--A few of us are subscribing a penny a
  week each, which is to be carried on the sabbath by one of
  ourselves, who read and pray with the afflicted, who, according
  to the rules enclosed, must be poor strangers, having no
  parish, or friend at hand to help them. Our benevolent plan is
  opposed by my classleader; therefore, we are constrained to
  seek your approbation before we proceed. We are very poor, and
  our whole stock is not yet twenty shillings: will thank you,
  therefore, for any assistance you may please to afford your
  very humble servant,

                                                  “JOHN GARDNER.”

Wesley was the last man to stifle a project like this; and, hence, his
answer “to Mr. John Gardner, No. 14, in Long Lane, Smithfield,” was as
follows.

                            “HIGHBURY PLACE, _December 21, 1785_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I like the design and rules of your society,
  and hope you will do good to many. I will subscribe threepence
  a week, and will give a guinea in advance, if any one will call
  on me on Saturday morning.

  “I am your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The scheme was now fairly launched; “Strangers’ Friend societies”
sprung up in Bristol and other places; Wesley drew up their rules in
1790; and wrote thus in his journal: “Sunday, March 14--In the
morning, I met the strangers’ society, instituted wholly for the
relief, not of our society, but for poor, sick, friendless strangers.
I do not know, that I ever heard or read of such an institution till
within a few years ago. So this also is one of the fruits of
Methodism.”[300]

Such then was the origin of the present “Strangers’ Friend Society,”
which, until lately, was patronised by royalty, and which employed, in
1868, three hundred and fifty-two voluntary, unpaid agents in its work
of Christian benevolence; these good Samaritans, during the same year,
paying 32,460 visits, relieving 6577 cases of distress, and, besides
blankets, flannels, and cast off garments, distributing £1926 14_s._ in
ameliorating the miseries of “the destitute sick poor, without
distinction of sect or country, at their own habitations.”

Considering Wesley’s wide wanderings, his daily preaching, his
supervision of societies, and his multifarious correspondence, to say
nothing of his publication of tracts and books, the reader wonders how
an old man managed to keep the thousand wheels of his vast machinery
in motion; and, yet, in the midst of what to others would have been an
unceasing and worrying bustle, he was almost as tranquil as a hermit.
The following extract from a letter, dated December 10, 1777, is racy
and unique.

  “You do not understand my manner of life. Though I am always in
  haste, I am never in a hurry; because I never undertake any
  more work than I can go through with perfect calmness of
  spirit. It is true, I travel four or five thousand miles in a
  year; but I generally travel alone in my carriage, and,
  consequently, am as retired ten hours in a day as if I was in a
  wilderness. On other days, I never spend less than three hours,
  frequently ten or twelve in the day, alone. So there are few
  persons in the kingdom who spend so many hours secluded from
  all company. Yet I find time to visit the sick and the poor;
  and I must do it, if I believe the Bible, if I believe these
  are the marks whereby the Shepherd of Israel will know and
  judge His sheep at the great day. Therefore, when there are
  time and opportunity for it, who can doubt, but this is a
  matter of absolute duty? When I was at Oxford, and lived almost
  like a hermit, I saw not how any busy man could be saved. I
  scarce thought it possible for a man to retain the Christian
  spirit, amidst the noise and bustle of the world. God taught me
  better by my own experience. I had ten times more business in
  America (that is, at intervals) than ever I had in my life; but
  it was no hindrance to silence of spirit.”[301]

Wesley’s incessant labours were not the only thing likely to perturb
a human spirit. As usual, he was still the subject of acrimonious
persecution. In his sermon at the laying of the foundation stone of
the chapel in City Road, he gave a history of the rise and progress
of Methodism, in which he stated, that Whitefield, by conversing with
Dissenters, contracted strong prejudices against the Church, and that
this led him to separate himself from Wesley and his brother. He also
noticed the secession of Ingham from the Church; and the setting up
of the college at Trevecca, which was really a school for training
Dissenting ministers. His object, in all this, was to show that, though
large numbers of reputed Methodists had left the Church, he and his
societies still remained faithful, and were not deserving of the taunt
of having formed a distinct party. “We do not,” says he, “we will not,
form any separate sect, but, from principle, remain, what we always
have been, true members of the Church of England.”

Whether Wesley was strictly correct in this will admit of doubt;
but, unquestionably, he believed it to be the truth; and, as might
be expected, it aroused the anger of his quondam friends. Rowland
Hill worked himself into a rage, and published, in 1777, an octavo
pamphlet of 40 pages, with the title, “Imposture Detected, and the
Dead Vindicated; in a Letter to a Friend: containing some gentle
Strictures on the false and libellous Harangue, lately delivered
by Mr. John Wesley, upon his laying the first stone of his new
Dissenting meeting-house, near the City Road.” Wesley’s sermon is
designated “a wretched harangue, from which the blessed name of Jesus
is almost totally excluded.” Mr. Hill remarks: “by only erasing about
half-a-dozen lines from the whole, I might defy the shrewdest of his
readers to discover whether the _lying apostle_ of the Foundery be
a Jew, a papist, a pagan, or a Turk.” He speaks of “the late ever
memorable Mr. Whitefield being scratched out of his grave, by the claws
of a designing wolf,” meaning, of course, Wesley. He brands Wesley as
“a libeller,” “a dealer in stolen wares,” and “as being as unprincipled
as a rook, and as silly as a jackdaw, first pilfering his neighbour’s
plumage, and then going proudly forth, displaying his borrowed tail
to the eyes of a laughing world.” Hill continues: “persons that are
toad eaters to Mr. John Wesley stand in need of very wide throats, and
that which he wishes them to swallow is enough to choke an elephant.”
“He is for ever going about, raising Dissenting congregations, and
building Dissenting meeting-houses the kingdom over.” “Venom distils
from his graceless pen.” “Mr. Whitefield is blackened by the venomous
quill of this grey headed enemy to all righteousness.” “Wesley is a
crafty slanderer, an unfeeling reviler, a liar of the most gigantic
magnitude, a Solomon in a cassock, a wretch, a disappointed Orlando
Furioso, a miscreant apostate, whose perfection consists in his perfect
hatred of all goodness and good men.” “You cannot love the Church,”
continues this meek and elegant evangelist, “unless you go to Wesley’s
meeting-house; nor be a friend to the established bishops, priests, and
deacons, unless you admire Wesley’s ragged legion of preaching barbers,
cobblers, tinkers, scavengers, draymen, and chimney sweepers.”

Has the reader had enough from the “gentle strictures” of this young
divine, not yet thirty-two years of age? Let him turn to the _Gospel
Magazine_. In reviewing Wesley’s sermon at City Road, the _Gospel_
editor describes Wesley’s Methodism as a “jumble of heresies, truly
and properly called Wesleyism”; and nothing “uttered by Satan himself
can be more _impudent_ and more glaringly untrue” than when Wesley
calls it “the old religion of the Bible, of the primitive church,
and of the Church of England.” For him to say, that Lady Huntingdon
“labours to form independent congregations, is as gross a falsehood
as was ever coined at the Foundery itself. Mr. Wesley’s apostasy from
the Church is a chief reason why her ladyship has justly discarded
him; and her disavowal of him, of his Dissenting principles, and of
his sectarian conduct, is the true reason, why he has the insolence
to spit his venom against one of the most respectable characters that
ever existed.” “With a baseness hardly to be paralleled, Mr. Wesley
rakes into the ashes of a man, whose name will descend with lustre to
the latest posterity; while that of the Foundery wolf will moulder
with his pilfered writings, or only be remembered with contempt and
execration. O Wesley, Wesley, hide thy diminutive head! nor let the
most pestilent _Dissenter_ in the kingdom arraign the spotless memory
of a _Churchman_, whose fervour and steadiness of attachment to his
ecclesiastical mother have scarcely been equalled in the present
age, and never exceeded in any. The truth is, Mr. Whitefield was _too
much_ a Churchman for Mr. Wesley’s fanaticism to digest. O ye deluded
followers of this horrid man, God open your eyes, and pluck your feet
out of the net! lest ye sink into the threefold ditch of antichristian
error, of foul antinomianism, and of eternal misery at last.”[302]

This was tolerably strong; but it was not enough. The same periodical,
in its review of Rowland Hill’s polite pamphlet, begins thus: “Hob in
the well again; or pope John once more in the suds! Seldom has literary
punishment been administered with greater keenness and spirit, than
in this pamphlet; and, surely, never was a punishment administered on
a juster occasion, nor to a more deserving delinquent. When you take
Old Nick by the nose, it must be with a pair of red hot tongs.” The
red hot reviewer reiterates the slander, that Charles Wesley offered
the Greek bishop, Erasmus, forty guineas, upon condition that he would
give his brother episcopal ordination; and continues: “Mr. Wesley’s
vile ingratitude to the name and memory of Mr. Whitefield deserves the
abhorrence and execration of all good men.” Wesley is “an unfeeling and
unprincipled slanderer, a vile traducer,” and, in fact, guilty of “an
extreme of malignity and baseness, for which language has no name.”[303]

Such scurrility as this, heaped upon an old man, seventy-four years
of age, who had spent his long life in unparalleled labours to honour
God, and to benefit his fellow men, is almost incredible. But even
this was not the worst that the immaculate _Gospel Magazine_ provided
for its readers. In the same number, from which the above abuse is
extracted, there is a long poem, entitled, “The Serpent and the Fox;
or, an interview between old Nick and old John”; which strongly reminds
us of a series of most infamous rhymed effusions which will have to be
noticed in the ensuing year, and in which Wesley is always represented
as a fox. The poem now published was not only foul, but, in the highest
degree, profane. It would be a crime to reproduce it. Suffice it to
say, that, as if to aggravate its infernal features, it immediately
follows a really beautiful hymn of six stanzas “To God the Holy Ghost.”
As a contrast, and to furnish a specimen of the medley often found in
this Calvinistic periodical, we furnish the reader with the last verse
of the thoroughly good hymn, and the first verse of the thoroughly bad
poem. Addressing the Divine Spirit, John Stocker writes:

              “Thou my dross and sin consume;
               Let Thy inward kingdom come;
               All my prayer and praise suggest;
               Dwell and reign within my breast.”

We shrink from the task of so closely annexing to such a stanza, the
first, and by far the least objectionable, lines of the ribald poem of
“The Serpent and the Fox”; but historical fidelity compels us.

              “There’s a Fox who resideth hard by,
               The most perfect, and holy, and sly,
               That e’er turned a coat, or could pilfer and lie;
               As this reverend Reynard, one day,
               Sat thinking what game next to play,
               Old Nick came a seasonable visit to pay.”

Then follows a conversation, in which Wesley proposes to burn the
Calvinists in Smithfield, as Bonner once burnt the protestants, and the
devil promises, that, while Wesley shall be exalted “with state” to
heaven’s “third storey,” all the Whitefields and Hills shall be “turned
back from the gate.”

_Quantum sufficit!_ of Rowland Hill, both in prose and verse. What
had Wesley to say to all this? In his journal he writes: “1777, June
26--I read the truly wonderful performance of Mr. Rowland Hill. I stood
amazed! Compared to him, Mr. Toplady himself is a very civil, fair
spoken gentleman! June 27--I wrote an answer to it; ‘not rendering
railing for railing’ (I have not so learned Christ); but ‘speaking the
truth in love.’”

Wesley’s reply was a penny tract of 12 pages, 12mo, with the title, “An
Answer to Mr. Rowland Hill’s Tract, entitled, ‘Imposture Detected.’” He
begins as follows: “In the tract just published by Mr. Rowland Hill,
there are several _assertions_ which are _not true_. And the whole
pamphlet is wrote in an _unchristian_ and _ungentlemanly manner_. I
shall first set down the _assertions_ in order, and then proceed to
the _manner_.” This is the strongest language Wesley uses. Indeed, he
writes as though Hill’s pamphlet amused him rather than otherwise. Some
of his friends, however, were not so lenient. Thomas Olivers rushed to
the rescue, with his characteristic fire, and unmercifully put into
the hands of the public a sixpenny “Rod for the Reviler”; and Matthew
Goodenough, a mechanic, of Bishopsgate Street, published “A Letter to
Mr. Rowland Hill,” 12mo, 21 pages, in which he tells “the reviler” that
he had used a vindictive style of which a chimney sweep might properly
be ashamed; and, from his malign spirit and rude manner of attacking
Mr. Wesley, he might be mistaken for the chief of Billingsgate. Hill,
as a preacher, is taunted with ranting, and roaring, and squealing, and
bawling, and twisting, and twirling himself about like a merryandrew;
and is told that, though “a Pelagian Methodist stinks,” it was a
comfort that the name of Rowland Hill was “an odoriferous perfume, a
charming nosegay, diffusing its fragrance wherever it appears, and
sweetly and effectually extinguishing the fœtid exhalations of Pelagian
ordure!”

Not only in the Welsh cobbler, but in the Bishopsgate mechanic, Rowland
met with an Oliver; but, like a beaten bull dog, was not satisfied.
He at once issued another octavo pamphlet of 45 pages, entitled, “A
Full Answer to the Rev. J. Wesley’s Remarks,” etc., in which he humbly
apologises for using too strong language in his former pamphlet; and
yet, with a strange inconsistency, commits the same fault in this.
Wesley is again accused of “pompous falsehood,” “barefaced untruth,”
“ungodly craft,” “of calumniating the living, and traducing the
dead.” “For full thirty years, Wesley had been travelling towards
_Trent_, and was now got to his journey’s end”; while Fletcher--poor
Fletcher, apparently dying of consumption--had “published, at the end
of his third volume, a most horrible manifesto, in language almost
blasphemous, and had forged my brother’s name” (Sir Richard Hill), “and
mine, at the conclusion of it.”

But here we must leave this doughty warrior, to whom the very name
of Wesley was what a scarlet cloak is to an infuriated bull. Some
will object to the reviving of these disgraceful reminiscences. Our
reiterated answer is, that, without them, it is impossible for the
reader rightly to estimate the character of Wesley. If they reflect
dishonour on Rowland Hill, we cannot help it. Rowland Hill was a public
man, and, like all other public men, he must be content to pay a public
penalty for his public crimes. Unfortunately, this is not the last we
shall hear of him.

Besides those already mentioned, Wesley published, in 1777--

1. The sermon he preached, on April 21, at the laying of the foundation
stone of City Road chapel. 12mo, 47 pages.

2. An Extract from his Journal, from September 2, 1770, to September
12, 1773. 12mo, 119 pages.

3. “A Short Account of the Death of Elizabeth Hindmarsh,” a native of
Alnwick, “who died September 6, 1777, in the twenty-first year of her
age.” 12mo, 12 pages.

4. “Thoughts upon God’s Sovereignty.” 12mo, 11 pages.

5. “A Sermon, preached November 23, 1777, in Lewisham Church, before
the Humane Society.” 12mo, 24 pages.


FOOTNOTES:

     [281] _Methodist Magazine_, 1783, p. 358.

     [282] Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 311.

     [283] Memoir of Ball, p. 137.

     [284] Life of Mrs. Smyth, p. 33.

     [285] Bardsley’s manuscript letters.

     [286] Manuscript memoir of Mr. Sagar.

     [287] Taylor’s manuscript diary.

     [288] _Methodist Magazine_, 1844, p. 70.

     [289] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 406.

     [290] Mr. Moore says: “this good man was possessed of
           eminent ministerial gifts, but he fell into the
           mystic delusion. He then became high minded and
           censorious; and Mr. Charles Wesley, in his hours
           of depression, used too much to listen to him. The
           quakers were jealous of him, and kept him silent a
           long time, to his great mortification. But it was the
           very thing he needed, it was good medicine to heal
           his sickness. In one of his last conversations with
           me, he said: ‘I would not have thy people to think of
           changing; they may be disappointed,’ He was then in a
           sweet and humble spirit, very different from that in
           which he left us.” (Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii.,
           pp. 273, 274.)

     [291] _Methodist Magazine_, 1807, p. 328.

     [292] Taylor’s manuscript diary.

     [293] Treffry’s Life of Benson.

     [294] “Anecdotes of the Wesleys,” p. 272.

     [295] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 398.

     [296] Asbury’s Journal, vol. i., p. 177.

     [297] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 440.

     [298] Minutes of Methodist Conferences in America, 1795.

     [299] Jackson’s “Centenary of Methodism,” p. 201.

     [300] See _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 661.

     [301] _Methodist Magazine_, 1799, p. 564.

     [302] _Gospel Magazine_, 1777, p. 182.

     [303] Ibid. p. 337.




                                1778.
                               Age 75


Never in his life was Wesley the subject of a more infamous press
persecution than in 1778.

First of all, there was a pamphlet published, in which Thomas Maxfield
was pitiably preeminent. This mendacious publication asserted that,
when Whitefield went to America, in 1741, he handed over to the two
Wesleys thirty thousand people, whose hearts the Wesleys so turned
against him, that, when he returned to England, not three hundred
would come to hear him. It further alleged, that “vile contentions”
followed, in which the Wesleys “raked the filthiest ashes, to find some
black story against their fellow preachers;” and that what had been
published, on both sides, by the friends of Whitefield and Wesley,
within the last six years, was a disgrace to all concerned.

Wesley replied to this, in “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Maxfield,
occasioned by a late Publication”: 8vo, 11 pages. He states, with
perfect truth, that, at the time referred to, there were not five
thousand Methodists in the world; that his own societies contained
not more than fourteen or fifteen hundred members, and Whitefield’s
not so many. He declares that, so far from receiving thirty thousand
people from Whitefield in solemn trust, the latter never delivered
up to him one thousand, nor one hundred. He admits, that division
followed; but affirms that Whitefield himself occasioned it. Whitefield
first published a treatise against him by name; but he made no reply
to it. Wesley asserts that Whitefield constantly preached against
him and his brother, both in Moorfields, and in other public places.
Even in the very Foundery, while Charles Wesley sat beside him, he
preached the absolute decrees, in the most peremptory and offensive
manner; but, instead of returning railing for railing, they always and
everywhere spoke of him in respectful terms. And then, with respect
to the publications of the last six years, Wesley states that, though
the two Hills, and Toplady, had poured upon him, in great abundance,
bitterness and wrath, yea, low, base, and virulent invective, he
himself had published only three tracts during the entire controversy,
and in none of them had he spoken one bitter, passionate, or
disrespectful word. “Where,” he asks, “have I, in one single sentence,
returned them railing for railing? I have not so learned Christ. I dare
not rail, either at them or you. I return not cursing but blessing.
That the God of love may bless them and you, is the prayer of your
injured, yet still affectionate brother, JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley’s letter was worthy of himself. True, his statements, respecting
his old friend Whitefield, are scarcely to Whitefield’s honour; but it
must be borne in mind, that they are not opinions, but facts; and facts
not volunteered, but extorted by the falsehoods of Maxfield and those
with whom Maxfield now associated.

Wesley replied to Maxfield; but the publications which must be next
noticed were properly treated with the silent contempt they merited.
We reluctantly advert to these vile productions; and yet, for the
reason already repeatedly assigned, we must. Our notices shall be
brief: first, for want of space; and secondly, because we can hardly
make quotations without fouling our pages. The publications were seven
in number, all, except one, printed by a man of the name of Bew, in
Paternoster Row, on the best of paper, and in the best of type.

1. “The Gospel Shop. A comedy in five acts: with a new prologue and
epilogue, intended for public representation, but suppressed at
the particular desire of some eminent divines. By R. Hill, Esq.,
of Cambridge.” 8vo, 88 pages. The chief _dramatis personæ_ are Dr.
Scapegoat, Parson Prolix, Mr. Rackett, and Simon Sycophant; and an idea
of the whole of this infamous production may be obtained from two lines
taken from the motto on the title page.

              “Beware! these dire illusions! strange to tell,
               A gospel shop’s the very spawn of hell!”

2. “The Saints: a satire.” 4to, 30 pages; with a frontispiece made up
of two scrolls, labelled respectively, “Inspiration,” and “Election,”
a bottle inscribed with the word “Gin,” and a satyr’s head inscribed
“Perfection.” A Methodist is described as a mixture of ignorance and
folly, piety and hypocrisy. The whole tribe are “downright scoundrels,”
“religious mountebanks,” “wretches who make a trade of religion,” and
“show an uncommon concern for the next world, only to raise their
fortunes with greater security in this.” Two lines must suffice as a
specimen, and, for the sake of decency, two of the words must be given
in a skeletonised form. Of Wesley it is said, he

              “Makes piety a b----d to aid his work,
               Outlies Sam Johnson, and o--twh----s a Turk.”[304]

3. “Perfection; a poetical epistle, calmly addressed to the greatest
hypocrite in England.” 4to, price two shillings. Of course, Wesley
was the hypocrite; and the work is ornamented with an emblematical
frontispiece in accordance with its foul and calumnious falsehoods.

4. “The Temple of Imposture. A poem by the author of ‘The Saints,’
‘Perfection,’ etc.” 4to, 35 pages. This, like all the others, has a
characteristic frontispiece, in which Wesley is represented as a huge
serpent, labelled “The subtlest beast of the field.” The serpent forms
a circle, inside of which, among other things, there are four books
respectively inscribed, “Koran,” “Bedlam’s Hymns,” “Druid Hymns,” and
“Ignat. Loyola Monita Secreta”; also a gridiron, called “Mahommed’s
Gridiron”; a sword, inscribed “A Calm Address”; a bottle, with a
burning candle in its neck, and labelled “Gin”; and two scrolls,
one with the words “Old Light at Mecca,” and the other, “New Light
in Moorfields.” The professed object of the work is to show, that,
in tyranny, lust, avarice, persecution, and imposture, Wesley is
a successor of Mahommed; and, in a bad sense, an improved edition
of Ignatius Loyola. Wesley is accused of long seeking to be made a
bishop. “Of all impostors since the flood,” he is denounced as the
very worst; while his preachers are “mechanic missionaries,--bawling,
crafty, illiterate wretches, sent out by their priestly masters, to sow
seeds of false doctrine and fanaticism, which spring up, throughout
the country, in plentiful crops of idleness, beggary, madness, and
sometimes suicide.”

5. “The Lovefeast. A poem by the author of the ‘Saints: a satire,’
etc.” 4to, 47 pages. Here the frontispiece is a sort of chapel scene,
in which Wesley, as a fox, dressed in canonicals, is having a mitre
placed upon his head by the goddess Murcia, while a parson behind waves
his wig and shouts “Hurrah,” and another hurries away with an air
of disappointment and disgust. Wesley’s Foundery is described as “a
spiritual slop shop,” where he equips his “preaching lubbers” with all
the necessary paraphernalia for playing their several parts; while the
preachers themselves are designated “the worst of scum,” “smugglers of
Scripture phrases,” “learning’s sworn foes,” “Jack Cade’s apostles,”
and “mere conduit pipes of rhapsody and cant.” The following are the
last lines of the piece, and are used concerning Wesley himself.

         “_Feasts_ he may institute, raise _holy_ piles,
          Degrade his _God_ to win a _monarch’s_ smiles;
          Permit _corruption_ his _false heart_ to taint,
          Live by _imposture_, and yet die a _saint_;
          But never while this hand can hold a pen,
          Shall he escape the _scorn of honest men_.
          Nor North, nor Mansfield shall the _wizard_ save,
          But _ridicule_ shall scourge him to the _grave_--
          There let him _rot_, (so Becket did before,)
          _Proud_ as a _pope_, and faithless as a wh--re.”

6. “Sketches for Tabernacle Frames.” 4to, 36 pages. In this, the
frontispiece consists of Wesley, again represented as a fox in
canonicals, with the crosier of a mock bishop behind him, and round
about a library of books, which he is supposed to sell, the shelves
being labelled “Primitive Physic,” “Political Pamphlets,” and “Prayers,
Sermons, and Hymns.” Before him kneels a mechanic, with an ass’s head,
holding, in one hand, a bottle inscribed with the words “Primitive
Physic,” and, in the other, a pamphlet called “A Calm Address,” while
the poor asinine wretch himself is having his mouth opened by Wesley,
who is about to indulge in the agreeable recreation of extracting his
teeth. At the top of the picture are two portraits, one of James II.,
indicative of Wesley being a Jacobite; and the other of Lucy Cooper,
indicating him to be something worse. The poem is dedicated to the
“Rev. Mr. Evans, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Hawes, in acknowledgment of their
services to the public.” After describing Wesley by such epithets as “a
nostrum monger,” “a preacher, pamphleteer, and quack,” than whom “few
can whistle off rank nonsense better,” the work concludes with the two
lines following:

              “His odious name should stink beyond the grave,
               And truth proclaim him a recorded knave.”

The reader has had more than enough of these dunghill rakings; but, in
order to be saved from the hateful task of returning to this series of
abominable poems, we add another published in the year following.

7. “Fanatical Conversion, or Methodism Displayed. Illustrated and
verified from J. Wesley’s fanatical journals.” 1779: 4to, 55 pages. In
two different copies we find two different frontispieces. One is an
ass, on its hind legs, preaching. The other is much more elaborate,
and is too obscene to be fully described. Leaving out the parts
referred to, Wesley, as a clerical fox, is represented as preaching
in a barn, his right hand in the coat pocket of a man called “Old
Cloaths,” and his left taking a penny from a boy, a tapster, who has
just been broaching a hogshead of “Culvert’s Gin.” One man approaches
the preacher, with a cudgel, crying, “Give me my money!” Another, in
the form of a donkey, is making a most hideous noise, and is called
“Brother Bray.” A third is vomiting a black monster, and represented
as saying, “He’s gone, he’s gone!” A fourth is standing on his head,
and shouting, “Sure I am in heaven.” Two others are hurling a squib
at Wesley’s head, and flourishing a scroll, “For the benefit of Trick
upon Trick, or Methodism Displayed.” At Wesley’s feet is the favourite
bottle, labelled “Primitive Physic”; and in the centre is, what may be
taken as the artist’s name, “Rowland Hill, 1778.” The following four
lines, selected almost hap-hazard, are a very moderate specimen of all
the rest. Of course, they are spoken concerning Wesley.

         “Reynard, you’re right! Heaven loves such pious frauds;
          Hence, half your saints _unmasked_ are who--s and b--ds:
          Nay, _mock apostles_ are but little less
          Than devils lurking in _fanatic_ dress.”

We gladly leave these disgusting publications. Like dishonoured
children, they are without an acknowledged father. Who was their
infamous author? We neither know, nor care to know; but there are
three facts concerning them which must be noticed. First, in almost
the whole of them there is a most virulent attack on Wesley’s “Calm
Address to the American Colonies.” Secondly, though irreligious to a
supreme degree, they are levelled, not against religion in general,
but against that particular form of it espoused by Wesley. Thirdly,
throughout, the Calvinists are either passed _sub silentio_, or with
words of commendation; and, in footnotes and other places, Rowland
Hill is evidently in the writer’s good graces. We have read hundreds
of tracts and pamphlets published against Wesley; but nothing which,
for profanity, pollution, and violent abuse, equals these. They display
talent; but talent prostituted to the most infernal purposes. In style,
they resemble,--shall we say it? the style of one of Wesley’s most
calumnious Calvinian opposers; but we charitably, though feebly, hope,
that no man professing, much less teaching, the Christian religion, had
to do with their production.

What had Wesley done to merit all this? Nothing, absolutely nothing. He
was an old man whose life had been spent in one great act of Christian
beneficence. These wretched poems, issued in the best style of the art
of printing, by J. Bew, of Paternoster Row, were the foul sputterings
of a muse, not naturally ignoble, but envious of Wesley’s majestic
goodness, and animated with a feeling almost as malignant as the heart
of Apollyon. So far from answering them, Wesley never even condescended
to mention them, in any journal or letter yet made public.

Before we trace Wesley’s wanderings in 1778, there are two or three
other facts which must be noticed. On Tuesday, August 11, 1778, in the
thirty-eighth year of his age, occurred the death of the Rev. Augustus
Toplady. In more respects than one, this was a memorable event to
Wesley and his friends. In the death of Toplady, Wesley lost one of his
bitterest opponents; and Calvinism lost its ablest champion.

Soon after, the report was circulated, that Wesley had stated, to some
of his friends, that Toplady died in despair and uttering blasphemy.
Sir Richard Hill rushed into print, by sending an anonymous letter
to the _General Advertiser_, requesting Wesley either to deny the
accusation, or to produce his authority, otherwise his character would
suffer, “for having vented a most gross, malicious falsehood.” Not
content with this, he published a pamphlet, in the form of a “Letter
to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,” in which, as usual, he made use of the
most intemperate language, telling Wesley that, unless he cleared
himself from the charge alleged against him, he would be branded “as
the raiser and fabricator of a most nefarious report,” and would be
guilty of a sin little less “than the unpardonable sin against the Holy
Ghost.” The whole of this mare’s nest was simply this: Mr. Gawkrodger,
of Bridlington, _told_ Sir Richard Hill, that Mr. Thomas Robinson
_told_ him, that Wesley _told_ him, that Toplady “died in black despair
and blasphemy.” If Sir Richard Hill had _courteously_ asked for an
explanation, Wesley, like a gentleman and a Christian, would have given
one; but, having demanded it in the most offensive terms, telling him
that he had been “vilifying the ashes and traducing the memory” of
Toplady; and that “his grand design in all his publications, whether
sermons, journals, appeals, preservatives, or Arminian magazines,
was that of trumpeting forth his own praises”; and that he was “a
man of cunning and subtlety, and artifices, and foul aspersions, and
quibbles, and evasions,”[305]--we say, that Sir Richard Hill having
used such terms as these, in the very letters in which he requested the
explanation, deserved, not an answer, but, the silent contempt with
which Wesley wisely treated him.

In 1778, England was in great excitement. Panic was general; and the
country was thought to be on the brink of ruin. It was this state
of things which led Wesley to publish the two political pamphlets
following:

First, “A Serious Address to the People of England, with regard to
the state of the nation:” 12mo, 28 pages; the object of which was to
show, that England, notwithstanding the war, was in prosperity. Its
cattle and vegetable productions were undiminished. Its inhabitants
had increased a million within the last twenty years; and, during
the same period, hundreds of thousands of acres of unprofitable land
had been put under tillage. England might have lost eight hundred of
its ships since the beginning of the war; but it had also taken more
than it had lost. The trade with Ireland had prodigiously increased;
and, _comparatively speaking_, the national debt was not so great as
in 1759. “Friends and countrymen!” writes Wesley, “let none deceive
you with vain words! Let none, by subtle reasonings, or by artful,
elaborate harangues, persuade you out of your senses. Let no sweet
tongued orator, by his smooth periods, steal away your understanding;
no thundering talker fill you with vain fears, of evils that have no
being. You are encompassed with liberty, peace, and plenty. Know the
public, as well as private, blessings which you enjoy; and be thankful
to God and man.”

The second, and shorter tract, was published, with the title, “A
Compassionate Address to the Inhabitants of Ireland”: 12mo, 12 pages.
Wesley laughs to scorn the report, that General Washington had an
army of 65,000 men; and says, that “the French will as soon swallow
up the sea,” as swallow up old England; that the Spanish have not yet
forgotten Havannah; and that the Portuguese were “not such arrant
fools” as to join in a confederacy with England’s enemies.

These were odd topics for Wesley to take up; but the war excitement
was now at its highest point. Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and
Edinburgh raised regiments at their own expense. The Whig opposition
considered this to be highly reprehensible, and accused Lord North and
the other members of the government with employing soldiers without
consent of parliament, and of entertaining designs dangerous to the
liberties of the country. Fox moved, in the House of Commons, that no
more troops should be sent out of the kingdom; alleging that a war
with France and Spain was imminent; and that the navy was inefficient,
and the militia contemptible. Burke, in a speech of three hours and a
half duration,--said to be the greatest triumph of eloquence within
the memory of man,--endeavoured to weaken the hands of government,
by dwelling on the ferocities and horrors committed by their savage
auxiliaries in America, the red Indians. Lord George Gordon, who was
not yet quite so mad as he became a year or two later, expressed
his earnest wish, that Lord North “would call off his butchers from
America, retire with all the rest of his majesty’s evil advisers, and
turn from his wickedness and live.” John Wilkes, the ex-lord mayor of
London, who had not yet attained to the post of city chamberlain, but
who was engaged in constant manœuvres to escape out of the purgatory
of duns, or to draw more money from the purses of private friends, was
as lavish with his sarcasms, ribaldry, and drollery as ever, and told
the minister, that nothing but a cessation of hostilities would save
General Howe from the fate of Burgoyne. France was exerting itself
to the utmost, to induce, not only Spain, but also Austria, Prussia,
Russia, and the other despotisms, to become the allies and protectors
of the young and free republic. The king and his ministers were
involved in the greatest difficulties; and John Wesley, like a loyal
man, at the head of forty thousand Methodists, felt it to be a duty to
assist them as he best could, not only in private and in the pulpit,
but also with his pen.

Having spent the first two months of 1778 in London and its vicinity,
Wesley started, at the commencement of March, for Ireland, where he
employed his time and energies till towards the end of July following;
but there was nothing in the tour so _unusually_ remarkable as to
demand attention. The days of mob persecution were over; and everywhere
Wesley was received with respect, and, in many places, with affection.
At Tullamore, where he preached in the riding-house, the commanding
officer ordered all the soldiers to be present, and attended himself,
with the rest of the officers. At Cork, two companies of volunteers
were present in the chapel, while Wesley preached; the side gallery
being filled with the men in scarlet, and the front with the men in
blue. In one instance, this old evangelist actually, we had almost said
cruelly, drove a pair of horses sixty-eight miles in a single day. In
another instance, coming to a slough near Sligo, a sturdy Irishman took
Wesley over on his shoulders; and others took his chaise. At Dublin,
his little conference of twenty preachers debated the duty of leaving
the Established Church; “but, after a full discussion of the point,”
says Wesley, “we all remained firm in our judgment,--that it is not our
duty to leave the Church, wherein God has blessed us, and does bless us
still.”

This discussion was brought about principally by the Rev. Edward Smyth,
already mentioned as a clergyman who had been expelled from his curacy
for his fidelity to the truth. At present, he was in connection with
the Methodists; and was now eager to persuade Wesley and his preachers
to separate from the Church; but without effect. Myles, in his
Chronological History, says, that the minute adopted was the following:

  “Is it not our duty to separate from the Church, considering
  the wickedness both of the clergy and the people? Answer. We
  conceive not. 1. Because both the priests and the people were
  full as wicked in the Jewish church, and yet God never
  commanded the holy Israelites to separate from them. 2. Neither
  did our Lord command His disciples to separate from them; He
  rather commanded the contrary. 3. Hence, it is clear, _that_
  could not be the meaning of St. Paul’s words, ‘Come out from
  among them, and be ye separate.’”

This was an important action. Twenty years before, Wesley had wavered
in his attachment to the Church; now and henceforth, in language at
least, he was more decided. This is a question which will repeatedly
present itself in succeeding years.

On July 19, Wesley left Dublin to attend his English conference in
Leeds, preaching on his way at Liverpool, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale,
Halifax, Bradford, and Birstal, at which last mentioned place his
congregation was supposed to number twelve or fourteen thousand persons.

Wesley’s notice of the Leeds conference is brief. He writes:

  “1778. Tuesday, August 4.--Our conference began: so large a
  number of preachers never met at a conference before. I
  preached morning and evening, till Thursday night; then my
  voice began to fail; so I desired two of our preachers to
  supply my place the next day. On Saturday the conference
  ended.”

Mr. Benson writes:

  “Our conference is just ended, the best I was ever at. Mr.
  Wesley has been in a sweet spirit, has preached some excellent
  sermons, has had extraordinary congregations, and has dealt
  closely and plainly with the preachers, setting two aside for
  misdemeanours.”[306]

Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks:

  “August 5.--To-day, we permitted all sorts to come into the
  conference, so that we had a large company. The forenoon was
  occupied in speaking upon preaching houses. In the afternoon,
  the sending of missionaries to Africa was considered. The call
  seems doubtful. Afterwards, the committee met, and we were an
  hour and a half in speaking what might have been done in five
  minutes. We are vastly tedious, and have many long speeches to
  little purpose.”

  “August 6.--This day has been employed chiefly in stationing
  the preachers.

  “August 7.--We were engaged in conference till after one
  o’clock; and then the sacrament began, at which, I think, two
  thousand were present.”

Three things are noticeable here. 1. Others, beside itinerant
preachers, were admitted to Wesley’s conference in 1778. 2. Long and
tedious conferential speeches are not a novelty; but were inflicted
upon impatient and unwilling listeners in former days as they are
sometimes inflicted now. 3. The conference had an immense sacrament
such as Methodist conferences and Methodist congregations now never
witness.

Stationing preachers was then a difficulty as it is at present, one of
the four days being chiefly occupied with this. Some modern Methodists
seem to think, that Wesley, in this, acted as he pleased; but that
is hardly true. The people then, to say nothing about the preachers,
liked to have a voice in their appointments; and then, as now, not
unfrequently made worse selections than others would have made for
them. In the spring of the present year, Wesley significantly wrote,
while at Bristol: “March 9--On this and the following days I visited
the society, and found a good increase. This year, I myself (_which
I have seldom done_) chose the preachers for Bristol; and these were
_plain_ men, and likely to do more good than had been done in one year,
for these twenty years.”

It is a curious fact, that, as this was the first conference in whose
minutes the name of Thomas Coke appeared, so also it was a conference
remarkable for its discussion of the great question of Christian
missions, to which Coke, soon after, devoted his unwearied life. The
mission to Africa has been mentioned. Mr. Benson writes:

  “The proposal was made in consequence of two young princes from
  Calabar, in Guinea, who desired that missionaries might be sent
  to instruct them in the English language, and the great
  principles of Christianity. These young princes had been
  cruelly torn away from their own country, and sold as slaves in
  America, where they remained upwards of seven years. An English
  master of a ship, to whom they told their story, pitied them,
  and advised them to run away from their master, which they did,
  and were brought by him to England. Their case was examined,
  and brought before Lord Mansfield; and they were set at
  liberty. They made some stay at Bristol, and were instructed by
  some of our people, but especially by Miss Johnson. After they
  had returned to their own country, at their request, two
  persons, who were Germans, but members of our society at
  Bristol, were sent out to Guinea; but they both died either
  before, or soon after, they landed on that coast. The young
  princes sent over petitions for others to go. Two good young
  men offered themselves for the difficult and dangerous service.
  But, after the matter was seriously considered, it was
  concluded that the time had not arrived for sending
  missionaries to Africa.”[307]

One of the strangers, who were present at the conference of 1778, was
Thomas Thompson, Esq., afterwards member of parliament for the town
of Hull, and who, at the first missionary meeting, held at Leeds,
stated that the discussion respecting this African mission lasted
several hours, and was marked by deep piety, sound sense, and powerful
eloquence. Mr. Thompson continued: “The deepest impression, however,
seemed to be made, on the minds of all persons present, by the short
speech of a young man, who appeared to be far gone in a consumption,
but who promptly offered himself as a missionary, and, in unaffected
language, declared his readiness to go to Africa, or to any other part
of the world, to which it might please God and his brethren to send
him.”[308]

Who was this young man? Though not absolutely certain, we believe it
was Duncan McAllum. At all events, the following information, hitherto
unpublished, will be acceptable. The two African princes escaped from
slavery, about the year 1775, after the breaking out of the American
rebellion. One of them was baptized at Bristol; and the other was
seriously disposed. The two Germans, who went out, were brothers of
the name of Syndrum, and were treated by the uncle of the princes with
all possible attention. When the intelligence of their death arrived
in England, Dr. Coke addressed a circular to all the young itinerant
preachers in the connexion, asking for volunteers for this African
mission, and stating that they would be supported by a legacy of £500,
left, for that purpose, by Miss Johnson, of Bristol.[309] Duncan
McAllum was now in the third year of his itinerancy, and was stationed
at Dundee. With a brave heart, he offered his services, even before the
conference; but, without assigning reasons, Wesley declined accepting
them. Hence the following hitherto unpublished letter.

                                        “DUBLIN, _July 14, 1778_.

  “DEAR DUNCAN,--I would have you change once in two months, and
  will help you as to the expenses. Dwell in the land, and be
  doing good, and surely thou shalt be fed. You have nothing to
  do at present in Africa. Convert the heathen in Scotland.

  “I am, dear Duncan, yours affectionately,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

So the matter ended. Help for Africa was deferred; but it is a blessed
fact that Africans were being saved. The successful efforts of Mr.
Gilbert in Antigua have been already noticed; and it is a remarkable
coincidence, that, in this very year, when Coke first found a place
in the conference minutes, and when, for the first time, missions to
the heathen were discussed at the conference sittings, John Baxter,
a Methodist shipwright at Chatham, felt himself constrained to leave
his friends, and to embark for Antigua, principally, as he himself
expresses it, that he “might have an opportunity of speaking for God.”
He landed on April 2, and, a fortnight after, wrote to Wesley, telling
him that the work, begun by the late Mr. Gilbert, still remained. He
says: “The black people have been kept together by two black women, who
have continued praying and meeting with those who attended every night.
I preached to about thirty on Saturday night. On Sunday morning, to
the same number; and, in the afternoon, to about four or five hundred.
The old standers desire I would let you know that you have had many
children in Antigua whom you never saw. I hope, sir, we shall have an
interest in your prayers. Dear sir, give me your advice. Provisions
are very scarce; but I have all things richly to enjoy; as I have four
shillings a day, besides the king’s provisions. I am going to have a
house built for me, with as much ground as is needful. I think God has
sent me here for good to the poor souls, who are glad to hear, but
unable to maintain, a preacher.”[310]

Little more remains to be said respecting the conference of 1778,
except that it was resolved “to receive no more married preachers,
because,” says Wesley, “we cannot keep them”;[311] and, further, that
two most characteristic minutes were adopted in reference to preachers
who were nervous. It was asked:

  “Why do so many of our preachers fall into nervous disorders?

  “Answer. Because they do not sufficiently observe Dr. Cadogan’s
  rules--to avoid indolence and intemperance.

  “They do indeed use exercise; but many of them do not use
  enough,--not near so much as they did before they were
  preachers. And sometimes they sit still a whole day. This can
  never consist with health.

  “They are not intemperate in the vulgar sense; they are neither
  drunkards nor gluttons; but they take more food than nature
  requires, particularly in the evening.

  “What advice would you give to those that are _nervous_?

  “Answer. Advice is made for them that will take it; but who are
  they? one in ten, or twenty?

  “Then I advise: (1) Touch no dram, tea, tobacco, or snuff; (2)
  eat very light, if any, supper; (3) breakfast on nettle or
  orange peel tea; (4) lie down before ten, rise before six; (5)
  every day use as much exercise as you can bear; or (6) murder
  yourself by inches.”

Wesley acted upon his own advice. Whatever might be said of others, he
was not the man to be made nervous for want of exercise. Many Methodist
preachers claim and enjoy a holiday after conference. With Wesley it
was otherwise. The conference of 1778 closed on Saturday, August 8;
the next day, Wesley preached to a congregation of some thousands
in the market place at Dewsbury. He then hurried off to London; and
thence to Cornwall, where he preached, in Gwennap amphitheatre, it was
believed, to four-and-twenty thousand people. During this lengthened
journey, he made the following curious entry in his journal.

  “September 1--I went to Tiverton. I was musing here on what I
  heard a good man say long since: ‘Once in seven years I burn
  all my sermons; for it is a shame if I cannot write better
  sermons now than I could seven years ago.’ Whatever others can
  do, I really cannot. I cannot write a better sermon on the Good
  Steward, than I did seven years ago; I cannot write a better on
  the Great Assize, than I did twenty years ago; I cannot write a
  better on the Use of Money, than I did near thirty years ago;
  nay, I know not that I can write a better on the Circumcision
  of the Heart, than I did five-and-forty years ago. Perhaps,
  indeed, I may have read five or six hundred books more than I
  had then, and may know a little more history, or natural
  philosophy, than I did; but I am not sensible that this has
  made any essential addition to my knowledge in divinity. Forty
  years ago, I knew and preached every Christian doctrine which I
  preach now.”

Let the reader ponder this entry for a threefold purpose. (1) To form
an estimate of the extent of Wesley’s reading. (2) To ascertain which
sermons Wesley thought his best. (3) To find an answer to the charge
that Wesley changed his doctrines.

Wesley, on his return from Cornwall, arrived on September 4 in Bristol,
in the neighbourhood of which he spent the ensuing month.

The remainder of the year was occupied in London, and in his usual
tours through the counties of Buckingham, Oxford, Bedford, Northampton,
Hertford, and Kent; and it may be mentioned, as an evidence that the
Church of England began at last to appreciate its ejected minister,
that, during this interval, he preached, by request, to crowded
congregations, in not fewer than four of the London churches.

It was at this time, also, that he opened, as already noticed, the new
chapel in City Road. On the day of opening, he wrote as follows to Mrs.
Penelope Cousins.

                                     “LONDON, _November 1, 1778_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--It is just as it should be. I have formerly
  said ‘I wonder how Mr. Whitefield can go on! For he has honour,
  and comparatively, no dishonour. And this is test for human
  frailty too severe.’ Now I have not that insupportable burden.
  I have honour enough in all reason; but it is properly balanced
  with dishonour. I have good report, and (what is absolutely
  necessary) evil report too. To-day I am to open our new chapel.
  Hence also will arise both honour and dishonour. Yet a little
  while, and all these things, that seem considerable now, will
  pass away like a dream.

  “I am, my dear Penny, yours affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[312]

The opening of City Road chapel rendered it necessary, that Wesley
should have clerical coadjutors; and he now received a letter from one
who, in after years, rendered faithful and valuable service. The Rev.
James Creighton was born in Ireland, in 1739; and, for fourteen years,
had been an ordained clergyman; but it was only within the last two
years that he had found peace with God, through faith in Jesus Christ,
and that principally by reading the works of Wesley. He now began to
preach in a barn, about four miles from his parish church; and, then,
when the barn was no longer available, in a chapel which was erected
for him, and in which he officiated for some time, though the windows
were unglazed, and the mudden floor was such that his feet often sunk
two inches deep during the performance of service. His parish was
sixteen miles in length, and most of it mountainous and boggy; but he
frequently walked, as well as rode, through all parts of it, in all
kinds of weather.[313] While here, he wrote the following to Wesley.

                                 “BELTERBELT, _October 26, 1778_.

  “MY DEAR SIR,--I stand much in need of a judicious friend. I am
  quite alone; there are none of the Methodists near me; nor are
  there any yet thoroughly awakened within my cure. The fault, I
  must own, is mine. I have not been zealous enough; yet, this
  has not proceeded from the fear of man; but I wished not to act
  precipitately, and to raise the prejudices of the clergy as
  little as possible. I meant well; but I see I have acted wrong.
  Had I been persecuted, I should have been much bolder; but the
  people are so civil to me, that it has, in a great measure,
  proved my ruin. I have had such a sense of my ignorance and
  inability, that I have been frequently tempted to think, I
  ought to refrain entirely from preaching. But, again, I thought
  I might, perhaps, be of some use here, where the people are
  ready to listen to me, yet are not willing to hear a Methodist.
  Could I once open a door here for the Methodist preachers, I
  should willingly go to any part of the globe that God should
  call me to. Were I near you, I should be too happy to fill the
  place of your assistant. Though we must lament the want of
  discipline in our Church, and though I admire the economy of
  the Methodists, yet I entirely agree with you, that they ought
  not to leave the Church. So long as they mingle with the
  members of it, they may be the means of converting them; but,
  if they separate, they will thereby stop the ears and eyes of
  thousands. These were my sentiments long before I heard that
  they were yours. I never was bigoted to opinions, and hope I
  never shall.

  “I remain, dear sir, your very humble servant, and affectionate
  brother,

                                          “JAMES CREIGHTON.”[314]

The discipline of the Church of England was a thing over which Wesley
and his friends had no control. With the discipline of the Methodists
it was otherwise. Hence, the following characteristic letter, hitherto
unpublished, addressed to one of his itinerants, at Brecon, Mr. William
Church, an ancestor of the Rev. Henry L. Church, who possesses the
original.

                                “WALLINGFORD, _October 13, 1778_.

  “DEAR BILLY,--The soul and the body make a man; the Spirit and
  discipline make a Christian. Let John Watson and you agree
  together, and be exact in this wherever you go. Insist upon the
  observance of all the society rules, by all the members of
  society; and on the observance of all (even the least) of the
  band rules, by all that meet in band. I give, for instance, no
  band tickets to any woman, who wears either ruffles or a high
  crowned cap. If any will not lay aside these, rather than lose
  that blessed means of improvement, she is not worthy of it.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Another unpublished letter, of the same kind, addressed to Samuel
Bradburn, will be welcome.

                                     “LONDON, _October 17, 1778_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--I think you judge exactly right. You are called
  to obey _me_, as a son in the gospel. But who can prove, that
  you are so called to obey any other person? What I require
  (according to the twelfth rule of a helper) of John Hampson and
  you, is, that each of you, in his turn, spend four weeks, and
  no more, first at Cork, and then at Bandon. When, therefore,
  you have been at Bandon, I desire you to return straight to
  Cork. And, if John Hampson will not then go to Bandon, I will
  order one that will. Pray show this letter to Mr. Mackrie, whom
  I beg to assist you in this matter. Pass smoothly over the
  perverseness of those you have to do with, and go straight
  forward. It is abundantly sufficient, that you have the
  testimony of a good conscience towards God.

  “I am, dear Sammy, yours affectionately,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Reference is made, in Mr. Creighton’s letter, to the subject of the
Methodists leaving the Established Church; and it has been already
seen, that this was a matter earnestly debated, at the Dublin
conference, during the present year. The following letter, sent to Miss
Bishop, is of great importance, and, though long, must have insertion.

                                     “LONDON, _October 18, 1778_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--The original Methodists were all of the
  Church of England; and the more awakened they were, the more
  zealously they adhered to it, in every point, both of doctrine
  and discipline. Hence, we inserted in the very first rules of
  our society, ‘they that leave the Church leave us.’ And this we
  did, not as a point of prudence, but a point of conscience. We
  believed it unlawful to separate from the Church, unless sinful
  terms of communion were imposed. Just as did Mr. Philip Henry,
  and most of those holy men that were contemporary with him.

  “‘But the ministers of it do not preach the gospel.’ Neither do
  some of the independent or anabaptist ministers. Calvinism is
  not the gospel: nay, it is further from it, than most of the
  sermons I hear at the church. These are very frequently
  unevangelical, but they are not anti-evangelical. Few of the
  Methodists are now in danger of imbibing error from the Church
  ministers; but they are in great danger of imbibing the grand
  error, Calvinism, from some of the Dissenting ministers.
  Perhaps thousands have done it already; most of whom have drawn
  back to perdition. I see more instances of this than any one
  else can do; and, on this ground also, exhort all who would
  keep to the Methodists, and from Calvinism, to go to the
  church, and not to the meeting.

  “But to speak freely: I myself find more life in the Church
  prayers, than in any formal extemporary prayers of Dissenters.
  Nay, I find more profit in sermons on either good tempers, or
  good works, than in what are vulgarly called gospel sermons.
  The term has now become a mere cant word: I wish none of our
  society would use it. It has no determinate meaning. Let but a
  pert, self sufficient animal, that has neither sense nor grace,
  bawl out something about Christ, or His blood, or justification
  by faith, and his hearers cry out, ‘What a fine gospel sermon!’
  Surely the Methodists have not so learned Christ! We know no
  gospel without salvation from sin. There is a Romish error
  which many protestants swallow unawares. It is an avowed
  doctrine of the Romish church, that the ‘pure intention of the
  minister is essential to the validity of the sacraments.’ If
  so, we ought not to attend the ministrations of an unholy man.
  But in flat opposition to this, our Church teaches, in the
  twenty-eighth article, that ‘the unworthiness of the minister
  does not hinder the validity of the sacraments.’ Although,
  therefore, there are many disagreeable circumstances, yet, I
  advise all our friends to keep to the Church. God has surely
  raised us up for the Church chiefly, that a little leaven may
  leaven the whole lump. I wish you would seriously consider that
  little tract, ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church of
  England.’ These reasons were never yet answered; I believe,
  they never will.

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

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[315]

Whatever may be thought of the validity of Wesley’s reasons, there can
be no question, that, in theory at least, he was still firmly attached
to the Established Church. His enemies, not without reason, stigmatised
him as a Dissenter; he persisted, that he himself and the Methodists
were not Dissenters. Who is possessed of competent authority to decide
the doubt?

Before passing to Wesley’s publications, there is another matter which
deserves attention. One of the questions proposed at the conference of
1778 was,--“Is it not advisable for us to visit all the jails we can?”
The answer was,--“By all means. There cannot be a greater charity.”
From the first, this was a duty to which Wesley and his brother had
devoted themselves to the utmost of their power; and so also had many
of their preachers and followers, especially Silas Told, a man who
richly deserves a passing notice.

Mr. Told was the son of a physician at Bristol, where he was born in
1711. At the age of fourteen, he was bound apprentice as a sailor; and,
for eleven years, lived a life of adventurous romance. In 1740, Charles
Casper Greaves, a young bricklayer, introduced him to the Methodists.
In 1744, Silas, at Wesley’s request, became the master of the Foundery
school, and received a salary of £26 a year. At the same time, he began
to visit the London prisons, and to preach to debtors and malefactors.
There was not a prison in the metropolis, nor scarcely a workhouse
within twelve miles round it, where Silas Told was not a frequent and
welcome visitor. The scenes he witnessed were horrible; but for these
the reader must turn to Told’s autobiography. Suffice it to add, that
Silas Told was preeminently, in London, the prison philanthropist, the
real, though unrecognised chaplain of all its wretched prisoners.
For more than thirty years, no man was better known, or more welcome
in the jails of the metropolis, than he. All sorts of criminals,
papists and protestants, clung to him in their anguish, for counsel
and consolation. Notwithstanding opposition at the first, he persisted
in his enterprise, till even turnkeys, sheriffs, and hangmen, as well
as prisoners, were wont to weep while listening to his exhortations
and his prayers. Silas Told continued his great good work, till he
tottered under the weight of nearly threescore years and ten, when
he peacefully expired in December 1778. It was befitting that Wesley
himself should inter such at Methodist. He writes: “1778, Sunday,
December 30--I buried what was mortal of honest Silas Told. For many
years, he attended the malefactors in Newgate, without fee or reward;
and I suppose no man for this hundred years has been so successful in
that melancholy office. God had given him peculiar talents for it; and
he had amazing success therein. The greatest part of those whom he
attended died in peace, and many of them in the triumph of faith.”

Several of Wesley’s publications in 1778 have been already mentioned;
only two still require notice.

The first was “Some Account of the late Work of God in North America,
in a Sermon on Ezekiel i. 16.” 12mo, 23 pages. It was almost a misnomer
to designate this a sermon; but it was vastly popular, and, before the
year was out, reached a second edition. It is really a brief historical
statement of American affairs from 1736 to 1778. Wesley begins with
the colonisation of Georgia, passes on to the wonderful revival of
religion in New England, and speaks of the amazingly successful labours
of Whitefield, but affirms that, for want of forming his converts into
societies, the far greater part of them became backsliders. He then
traces the war to its origin, and concludes by foretelling, not the
_independency_ of the rebellious colonists, which he says would be “a
heavy curse,” but a restoration of civil and Christian liberty. It is
dangerous to turn prophet: in one respect, Wesley’s vaticination was
soon falsified.

On August 14, 1777, Wesley wrote: “I drew up proposals for the
_Arminian Magazine_.” We are not aware that these “Proposals” have
ever been reissued, just as Wesley published them; and, as an original
copy now lies before us, we insert the document _verbatim_.

   “_Proposals for printing, by Subscription, the_ ARMINIAN
      MAGAZINE; _consisting of Extracts, and Original Treatises
      on Universal Redemption._

                             “CONDITIONS.

   “1. A number, containing 80 pages, in octavo, printed on fine
   paper, and with a new type, will be delivered monthly to each
   subscriber, at the price of one shilling.

   “2. It will be so printed, as to bind up in volumes, twelve
   numbers in a volume.

   “3. This work will contain no news, no politics, no personal
   invectives, nothing offensive either to religion, decency,
   good nature, or good manners.

   “4. The first number will be delivered on January 1, 1778, and
   continued the first day of every month.

   “5. Subscriptions are taken in at the Foundery, London; the
   New Room, Bristol; and by the booksellers in town and country.

                          “_To the Reader._

   “1. Amidst the multitude of magazines which now swarm in the
   world, there was one, a few years ago, termed _The Christian
   Magazine_, which was of great use to mankind, and did honour
   to the publishers. But it was soon discontinued, to the regret
   of many serious and sensible persons. In the room of it,
   started up a miscreated phantom, called _The Spiritual
   Magazine_; and, not long after, its twin sister, oddly called
   _The Gospel Magazine_. Both of these are intended to show,
   that God is not _loving to every man_, that _His mercy is_ not
   _over all His works_; and, consequently, that Christ _did_ not
   _die for all_, but for one in ten, for the elect only.

   “2. This comfortable doctrine, the sum of which, proposed in
   plain English, is, God before the foundation of the world
   absolutely and irrevocably decreed, that ‘some men shall be
   saved, do what they will, and the rest be damned, do what they
   can,’ has, by these tracts, been spread throughout the land,
   with the utmost diligence. And these champions of it have,
   from the beginning, proceeded in a manner worthy of their
   cause. They have paid no more regard to good nature, decency,
   or good manners, than to reason or truth. All these they set
   utterly at defiance. Without any deviation from their plan,
   they have defended their dear decrees, with arguments worthy
   of Bedlam, and with language worthy of Billingsgate.

   “3. In the _Arminian Magazine_ a very different opinion will
   be defended, in a very different manner. We maintain, that God
   _willeth all men to be saved_, by _speaking the truth in
   love_; by arguments and illustrations drawn, partly from
   Scripture, partly from reason; proposed in as inoffensive a
   manner as the nature of the thing will permit. Not that we
   expect those on the other side of the question will use _us_
   as we use _them_. Yet, we hope, nothing will move us to return
   evil for evil; or, however provoked, to render railing for
   railing.

   “4. Our design is, to publish some of the most remarkable
   tracts on the universal love of God, and His willingness to
   save _all men_ from _all sin_, which have been wrote in this
   and the last century. Some of these are now grown very scarce;
   some have not appeared in _English_ before. To these will be
   added original pieces, wrote either directly upon this
   subject, or on those which are equally opposed by the patrons
   of _particular redemption_. We are not yet determined, whether
   to insert any poetry or not; but we faithfully promise not to
   insert any _doggrel_. If any verses are inserted, they shall
   be such as will not shock either the understanding or the
   taste of the serious reader.

  “5. We know nothing more proper to introduce a work of this
  kind than a sketch of the life and death of _Arminius_; a
  person, with whom those, who mention his name with the utmost
  indignity, are commonly quite unacquainted, of whom they know
  no more than of _Hermes Trismegistus_.”

This, though lengthy, is too scarce and too curious a document
to withhold from the Methodist community; moreover, it was the
commencement of a magazine, now, we believe, the oldest religious
periodical in the world; a magazine which has flourished, without
interruption, for ninety successive years; and has been read by myriads
in all quarters of the globe.

It has been said, that Mr. Walter Churchey, of Brecon, was the first
to suggest to Wesley the publication of this periodical;[316] Wesley
himself says, that he had been desired to publish a magazine for near
forty years before he complied with the request.[317] Of course, Wesley
is the best authority; still there can be no doubt, that Mr. Churchey
was one of his advisers. The following letter furnishes evidence of
this.

                                     “LONDON, _October 18, 1777_.

   “MY DEAR BROTHER,--We agree, that no politics shall have a
   place in the _Arminian Magazine_. But poetry will; only my
   brother and I are the judges what pieces shall be admitted. It
   may be, some will think us too nice in our choice; but that we
   cannot help. As to a review of religious books, it might be
   well; but I have two objections. (1) I scruple my own
   sufficiency for the work. (2) I would not, at any price, be
   bound to read over all the present religious productions of
   the press.

   “I am your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[318]

The first number of the magazine appeared on the 1st of January, 1778;
on the cover of which Wesley said:

  “I am content this magazine should stand or fall by its own
  intrinsic value. If it is a compound of falsehood, ribaldry,
  and nonsense, let it sink into oblivion. If it contains only
  the words of truth and soberness, then let it meet with a
  favourable reception. It will easily be observed, that it
  contains fewer articles than any other magazine. This is not by
  accident, but design. I have frequently been disgusted by the
  many bits and scraps of various kinds, which make up a great
  part of most publications of this nature. Before one has well
  entered upon any subject, it is at an end, and referred to the
  next number; a mere trick to decoy the reader to buy another
  and another number. On the contrary, I shall endeavour to begin
  and conclude as many things as possible in each number: and,
  with regard to taking the numbers that follow, let every reader
  use his own discretion.”

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

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

                                     “LONDON, _January 15, 1778_.

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

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

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

   “Your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

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


FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

     [309] Manuscript.

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

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

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

     [313] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785.

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

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

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

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

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

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




                                1779.
                               Age 76

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

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

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

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

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

                                     “LONDON, _October 10, 1779_.

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

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

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

                                              “_January 4, 1779._

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

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

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

  “I am, sir, your humble servant,

                                                      J. WESLEY.”

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

                                     “LONDON, _January 11, 1779_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  “I am, dear brethren, your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                       “EPWORTH, _July 10, 1779_.

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

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

  “I am, dear Duncan, yours affectionately,

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

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

  “To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.

                                                  “_May 3, 1779._

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

  “I am, sir, your most humble servant,

                                                  “SAM. JOHNSON.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                       “LONDON, _April 20, 1779_.

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

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

  “Your very affectionate and ever obliged servant,

                                           “CHARLES WESLEY.”[331]

                                       “LONDON, _April 23, 1779_.

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

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

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

                                           “CHARLES WESLEY.”[332]

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

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

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

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

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

                                        “LONDON, _June 16, 1779_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                           “CHARLES WESLEY.”[334]

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                     “LONDON, _January 28, 1779_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[336]

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

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

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

                                     “BRADFORD, _April 24, 1779_.

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

                                              “ALEX. M‘NAB.”[341]

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

Such was the dispute. What was the result? On November 22, Wesley
and his brother set out from London to settle the disturbance. The
Bath society was assembled. Wesley says: “I read to them a paper,
which I wrote, near twenty years ago, on a like occasion. Herein I
observed, that ‘the rules of our preachers were fixed by me, before any
conference existed,’ particularly the twelfth: ‘Above all, you are to
preach when and where I appoint.’ By obstinately opposing which rule,
Mr. M‘Nab has made all this uproar. In the morning, at a meeting of
the preachers, I informed Mr. M‘Nab, that, as he did not agree to our
fundamental rule, I could not receive him as one of our preachers, till
he was of another mind. Wednesday, November 24, I read the same paper
to the society at Bristol, as I found the flame had spread thither
also. A few at Bath separated from us on this account; but the rest
were thoroughly satisfied.”

Such is the entry in Wesley’s journal; but eight months after this, he
writes: “Mr. M‘Nab quarrelling with Mr. Smyth threw wildfire among the
people at Bath, and occasioned anger, jealousies, judging each other,
backbiting, and tale bearing without end; and, in spite of all the
pains which have been taken, the wound is not healed to this day.”

Wesley throws all the blame upon M‘Nab; but it may fairly be doubted
whether this was just. There can be no question concerning Wesley’s
abstract right to appoint to his chapels whom he pleased; but the
manner in which the right was exercised is not an improper subject
for doubt and discussion. Wesley pleads what he did twenty years
before; but, even allowing that his action then was right, it remains
to be proved, that the same action, under altered circumstances,
was prudent now. During that interval, the number of Methodists and
Methodist preachers had more than doubled. Besides, now that the number
of itinerant preachers was more than a hundred and sixty; and that
many of them were men of great genius and talent, as well as piety;
and that all had a right to take part in the deliberations of the
annual conference, which really made the appointments for the ensuing
year, Wesley’s claim to have the sole and exclusive power, asserted
in the document read to the Bath society, is a claim which can hardly
be admitted.[342] There is a forgetfulness of existing facts, and
therefore a fallaciousness, in the following letter, written on this
subject a few weeks after the Bath disturbances occurred.

                                                “_January, 1780._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You seem not to have well considered the Rules of
  a Helper, or the rise of Methodism. It pleased God, by me, to
  awaken, first my brother, and then a few others; who severally
  desired of me, as a favour, that I would direct them in all things.
  After my return from Georgia, many were both awakened and converted
  to God. One, and another, and another of these desired to join with
  me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a few
  plain rules (observe there was no conference in being!), and
  permitted them to join me on these conditions. Whoever, therefore,
  violates these conditions, particularly that of being directed by me
  in the work, does, _ipso facto_, disjoin himself from me. This
  brother M‘Nab has done (but he cannot see that he has done amiss):
  and he would have it a common cause; that is, he would have all the
  preachers do the same. He thinks ‘they have a right so to do.’ So
  they have. They have a right to disjoin themselves from me whenever
  they please. But they cannot, in the nature of the thing, join with
  me any longer than they are directed by me. And what, if fifty of
  the preachers disjoined themselves! What should I lose thereby? Only
  a great deal of labour and care, which I do not seek; but endure,
  because no one else either can or will.

  “You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a conference. For
  above six years after my return to England, there was no such thing.
  I then desired some of my preachers to meet me, in order to advise,
  not control, me. And you may observe, they had no power at all, but
  what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which
  God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation, and
  gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken
  from their head. But as long as I remain with them, the fundamental
  rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As long as any preacher joins
  with me, he is to be directed by me in his work. Do not you see
  then, that brother M‘Nab, whatever his intentions might be, acted as
  wrong as wrong could be? and that the representing of this as the
  common cause of the preachers was the way to common destruction, the
  way to turn their heads, and to set them in arms? It was a blow at
  the very root of Methodism. I could not, therefore, do less than I
  did; it was the very least that could be done, for fear that evil
  should spread.

  “I do not willingly speak of these things at all; but I do it now
  out of necessity; because I perceive the mind of you, and some
  others, is a little hurt by not seeing them in a true light.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[343]

This was Wesley’s defence of the boldest act of discipline he had ever
exercised; but we still doubt its wisdom and sufficiency. All he says
about the preachers placing themselves under his direction, and about
the first conferences, is strictly true; but Methodist matters now
were widely different from what they were when Methodist conferences
were first begun. With all due deference to Wesley, Methodism now was
not wholly the work of Wesley, nor was it entirely dependent on him.
At this very time, there was, among the preachers, a ministerial
phalanx, who had a right to be something more than mere _advisers_,--
servants in the gospel, sometimes taken into the counsels of their
chief, but wholly at his disposal. There were Olivers, Pawson, Rankin,
Murlin, Story, Whatcoat, Valton, Benson, Hanby, Manners, Taylor,
Mather, Hopper, Vasey, Thompson, Pilmoor, Rhodes, Bradburn, Boardman,
the two Hampsons, Barber, Rutherford, Moore, Myles, and others, whose
names will always be memorable in Methodistic history. Considering the
talents, the preaching power, the untiring labours, and the marvellous
success of these distinguished men, was it wise, and was it fair, for
Wesley to insist upon his retention of the absolute authority that
he justly exercised when Methodism was first commenced? Remembering
the paltry pittance they received for their important and unceasing
toil, was it just, that, in a great religious movement, now spread
throughout the three kingdoms, and to which they themselves had greatly
contributed, they should be employed as mere _workmen_, without the
least right to take a part in the arrangement of their respective
spheres of labour, and without a particle of authority, except what
was implied in their advices, in the general legislation of a body now
numbering more than forty thousand people? Was it surprising, that
Wesley’s expulsion of M‘Nab, for claiming a pulpit to which he had
been appointed at the conference, but into which Wesley desired to
introduce an expelled Irish clergyman, should create dissatisfaction
and incipient rebellion?

There can be no doubt, that this was one of the most dangerous ordeals
through which Methodism passed in the lifetime of its founder. It was
hardly a fair statement of the case, when Wesley said, that all that
he would lose, by fifty of his preachers leaving him, would be “a
great deal of labour and care.” If such an event had happened,
Methodism would have been split into fragments, and, as a system,
would have ceased to exist; and Wesley, seeing the demolition of such
a work, would have been a sorrowful man for the remainder of his life.
The crisis, in 1779, was most momentous. It was really the first time
that Wesley’s supreme and absolute power was professedly and openly
resisted. The whole question hinges on the point, were the
appointments to chapels and to circuits made by Wesley and his
conference of preachers _conjointly_? or were they made by Wesley
himself _alone_? Wesley argues, that the power of appointment rested
solely with himself. We can only answer, that this was an unreasonable
and dangerous power to wield. Under the circumstances, Wesley could
not claim it, without ignoring the reasonable claims of a large body
of the most remarkable men that England has ever had; and he could not
exercise it without serious danger to himself and to his system.

Alexander M‘Nab, though comparatively young, was not an ordinary man.
Testimonies concerning his character, eloquence, and preaching power,
have been already given. Mr. Smyth was doubtless both sensible and
pious; but we greatly question whether he was as popular and powerful
a preacher as the North Briton. No charge of unsound doctrine, or of
immorality, or of incompetency, or of inattention to discipline, was
made against M‘Nab. He was faithfully and successfully doing the work
to which he had been appointed. He was popular with the people. But
because he refused, at Wesley’s bidding, to allow an Irish stranger,
not at all his superior, but, probably, his inferior in pulpit
ability, to take his place, Wesley, at once, by his own _ipse dixit_,
expelled him from his connexion of preachers. However painful to do
it, we are bound to maintain that this was an injustice. The act might
be technically right; but it was an almost popish assumption of
autocratic authority, and a most perilous--it might have been
disastrous--exercise of disciplinary power. It is true that no
absolute rebellion followed,--a fact showing the simple minded piety
of the Methodist preachers and people, and the marvellous influence of
Wesley over them, and their almost unparalleled respect for his
character and labours; but there were great commotions and serious
misgivings; and, if concessions had not been made, there might have
been open resistance, and a consequent wreck of Methodist success and
hope.

Here, however, another question occurs. Was Wesley to be solely or
principally blamed for this imprudent exercise of power? We have no
wish to shield him from censure, when censure is merited; but if
others were to blame as well as he, or if others were even more
blamable than he, it is only fair to his memory and name, that the
facts should be published.

Charles Wesley’s quarrel with the London preachers has been already
mentioned. It occurred a few months only previous to the affair at
Bath. There is no denying it, that Charles was violently opposed to
lay preachers, and was unreasonably jealous of their intriguing to
obtain co-ordinate power with his brother, and of their intention to
use such power in effecting a separation of Methodism from the
Established Church. On Good Friday, 1779, he wrote to his brother:
“The preachers do not love the Church of England. When we are gone, a
separation is inevitable. Do you not wish to keep as many good people
in the Church as you can? Something might be done now to save the
remainder, if you had resolution, and would stand by me as firmly as I
will by you. Consider what you are bound to do as a clergyman; and
what you do, do quickly.”[344]

It was in such a frame of mind, that Charles Wesley heard of M‘Nab’s
resisting the authority of his brother at Bath. Mr. Pawson, who says
he was perfectly acquainted with the affair, tells us, in his
manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, that Charles Wesley “took fire at
once, and highly resented Mr. M‘Nab’s behaviour. He prevailed upon his
brother, after much strife and contention, to exclude Mr. M‘Nab from
the connexion; and, upon this condition, he promised to attend him to
Bath. Accordingly the two brothers, accompanied by Dr. Coke and the
Rev. Mr. Collins, went to Bath with all possible secrecy, and the
sentence was pronounced upon poor Mr. M‘Nab agreeably to Mr. Charles
Wesley’s wish. By this means, the Bath society was divided. Many of
the people loved Mr. M‘Nab, and thought it wrong that he should be
condemned unheard. The society at Bristol also was thrown into great
confusion; and, had it not been for the exertions of Dr. Coke, would
have been divided like that at Bath. On the Sunday evening after Mr.
Wesley’s return to London, he brought the matter before the London
society, and certainly degraded the preachers, and laid them low even
in the dust at his feet. When he was gone from London, Mr. Charles,
after the sacrament at the new chapel, prayed for his brother in the
following words: ‘Lord, preserve him from his rebellious sons. Though
they curse him, do Thou bless him. Though they wish his death, do Thou
prolong his life. Lord, stand between the living and the dead, and let
not the curse of pride destroy them.’”

This was strange language to use, in prayer, and after a solemn
sacrament; but it was not dissimilar to the language of a “Hymn for
the Rev. John Wesley,” which Charles composed, and which was “sung by
the society in Bristol, on Sunday, December 5, 1779,” only a fortnight
after M‘Nab’s expulsion.

              “Jesus, Thy hated servant own,
               And send the glorious Spirit down,
                 In answer to our prayers;
               While others curse, and wish him dead,
               Do Thou Thy choicest blessings shed,
                 And crown his hoary hairs.”--etc., etc.[345]

Pawson was the superintendent of the London circuit, and felt it his
duty to write to Charles Wesley, and remonstrate with him for using
such language, at such a time, and in such a place. An interview
followed; and Pawson adds: “We came to an explanation, and he was in
high good humour; but I have reason to believe, he never forgave me.
He made his brother believe, that Mr. M‘Nab was only the tool of a
violent party among the preachers, among whom there was a very
powerful combination against his authority; and that, at the next
conference, they would show themselves.” Pawson adds: “There was not a
single grain of truth in this. Not one preacher in the whole connexion
was concerned in the business, save those who were stationed in the
Bristol circuit. It is true, that the preachers in general thought
that Mr. M‘Nab was cruelly used; and so they do to this day.”

Not to return to the subject, it may be added, that Dr. Whitehead
states that, as the conference of 1780 drew near, Wesley “was
evidently intimidated,” and wrote to his brother requesting him to
attend the conference. Charles answered as follows:

  “My reasons against accepting your invitation to the conference
  are: (1) I can do no good; (2) I can prevent no evil; (3) I am
  afraid of being a partaker of other men’s sins, or of
  countenancing them by my presence; (4) I am afraid of myself;
  you know I cannot command my temper, and you have not courage
  to stand by me. I cannot trust _your resolution_; unless you
  act with a vigour that is not in you, _conclamatum est_, our
  affairs are past hope.

  “I am not sure, they will not prevail upon you to ordain them.
  You claim the _power_, and only say, ‘It is not probable you
  shall ever exercise it.’ Probability on one side implies
  probability on the other; and I want better security. So I am
  to stand by, and see the ruin of our cause! You know how far
  you may depend on me; let me know how far I may depend on you,
  and on our preachers. In the Bath affair, you acted with vigour
  for the first time; but you could not hold out. Unmindful of
  your power and your infirmity, you yielded to the rebel,
  instead of his yielding to you. You should not have employed
  him again till he had owned his fault. This quite overturned my
  confidence in you, which I should never have told you, had I
  not been compelled. If you think my advice can be of any use to
  you, I will attend you to Bristol, and be always within
  call.”[346]

Poor Wesley! Wishful to repair a wrong, he had become reconciled to
Mr. M‘Nab, principally by the mediation of Mr. Pawson and the
preachers in London;[347] but, by this, he had offended his brother,
by whom he had been goaded to the rash act at Bath.

At the conference of 1780, M‘Nab was restored to his place among his
brethren, and was appointed to Sheffield. Charles Wesley was present,
and, of course, was exceedingly dissatisfied. About a fortnight after,
he wrote the following letter to his brother.

  “I did not hope, by my presence at the conference, to do any
  good, or prevent any evil. So I told you in London. Yet I
  accepted your invitation, only because you desired it. And as I
  came merely to please you, I resolved not to contradict your
  _will_ in anything. Your _will_, I perceived, was to receive
  Mr. M‘Nab, unhumbled, unconvinced, into your confidence, and
  into your bosom. He came uninvited, and openly accused your
  curate for obeying your orders: you suffered it; and did not
  give Mr. M‘Nab the gentlest reproof for disobeying them, and
  drawing others into his rebellion; and endeavouring to engage
  all the preachers in it; making an actual separation at Bath,
  and still keeping up his separate society. My judgment was,
  never to receive Mr. M‘Nab as a preacher _till he acknowledged
  his fault_. But I submitted and attended in silence. It was
  much easier for me to say nothing, than to speak neither more
  nor less than you would approve. I was sometimes strongly
  tempted to speak; but, if I had opened my mouth, I should have
  spoiled all. Your design, I believed, was to keep all quiet. I
  allow you your merit. ‘_Tu maximus ille, es unus qui nobis_
  CEDENDO _restituis rem_.’ By a very few words, I could have
  provoked your preachers to lay aside the mask; but that was the
  very thing you guarded against; and, I suppose, the reason for
  which you desired my presence was that I might be some sort of
  check to the independents. Still, I think it better for the
  people, that they (the preachers) should show themselves before
  your death than after it. You think otherwise; and I submit.
  ‘_Satis, jam satis spectata in te amicitia est mea_;’ and I am
  perfectly satisfied with my own insignificancy. I have but one
  thing to do. The Lord make me ready for it!”[348]

This was an angry letter of a baffled man. It was grumbling in private
what ought to have been said in public, or not to have been said at
all. The insinuation respecting the preachers was unfounded and
unworthy. The desire that M‘Nab should acknowledge his fault was
unjust, for M‘Nab was really the aggrieved party. Charles Wesley would
have driven the preachers into rebellion; his brother, as ready to
repair an injury as he was anxious to avoid committing one, restored
unanimity and confidence. “There was nothing at the conference,”
writes John Pawson, “but peace, harmony, and love.”

We only add, that Mr. M‘Nab’s subsequent appointments were honourable
both to Wesley and himself. In 1780, he was sent to Sheffield; in 1781
to Manchester; and in 1782 to Newcastle. He then retired, “and resided
for several years at Sheffield, where he was the pastor of a small
congregation, who highly esteemed him; and there he finished his
course about the year 1797.”[349]

Mr. Smyth went back to Ireland; but, in 1782, became one of Wesley’s
London curates, with a salary of sixty guineas yearly.[350] In 1786,
he was appointed minister of Bethesda chapel, Dublin;[351] where he
rent the Methodist society, and took with him above a hundred persons,
amongst whom were the richer members of the Dublin Methodists.[352] He
then removed to Manchester, where he officiated as curate of St.
Clement’s and St. Luke’s churches. He was the author of several
publications, the chief of which were:--“The Fall and Recovery of Man.
A Poem.” 1777: 12mo, 71 pages. “James Poulson further Detected.” 1778:
12mo, 58 pages. “Twelve Sermons on the most important Subjects.” 1778:
12mo, 254 pages. “St. Paul against Calvin.” 1809: 12mo, 115 pages. And
“A Confutation of Calvinism.” 1810: 12mo, 391 pages.

Much space has been occupied with the disturbances at Bath; but,
considering the importance of the point at issue, the facts connected
with it were too important to be omitted.

The year 1779, like most previous ones, was a year of trouble. Besides
the anxiety and vexation arising out of Mr. M‘Nab’s affair, Wesley was
still annoyed with virulent attacks from his Calvinist opponents. His
old friend, John Macgowan, published “The Foundry Budget Opened; or,
the Arcanum of Wesleyanism Disclosed.” The animus of Macgowan’s
pamphlet may be inferred from his motto on the title page:

              “A man so various, that he seemed to be
               Not one, but all mankind’s epitome;
               Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong;
               Was everything by starts, but nothing long.”

He tells his readers, that “for craft and cunning sophistry, he will
match the Rev. Mr. John Wesley against any man that ever stained paper
with pollution”; and throughout speaks of him in the most contemptuous
terms.

Of course, this was too savoury a production to pass unnoticed by the
_Gospel Magazine_. Wesley is accused, in the review of it, with using
“absurd, unscriptural jargon and contradictions”; and with “robbing
Father, Son, and Spirit, of their glory as a covenant God; and
exalting the sinful, proud nature of fallen man; and militating
against the whole tenor of Scripture, and of reformed Christianity, as
professed by all protestant churches.”

Another hostile publication was “Methodism and Popery dissected and
compared; and the Doctrines of both proved to be derived from a Papal
Origin.” Besides attacking Whitefield, Rowland Hill, and others, the
anonymous author of this scurrilous pamphlet learnedly remarks, that
“it would be less difficult to paint Proteus, in all his fabled
shapes, under one distinct figure, than to describe Wesley”; whom he
is pleased to honour with epithets like the following: “a living
monument of apostolic frenzy”; “Jesuit”; “rank Catholic;” “actor”; and
“anabaptist.”

This was far from being pleasant; but Wesley was used to it; and his
character was too well established to need defence from such
slanderous attacks. It may be doubted whether he took the trouble to
read a tithe of the malignant diatribes launched against him.

While on the subject of books, it is due to Methodism to notice an
interesting fact not generally known. The first Bible society, founded
in Great Britain, and perhaps in the world, was established in 1779,
and was the work of Methodists. George Cussons and John Davies, after
leaving the leaders’ meeting in West Street chapel, entered into
conversation, and, when near Soho Square, formed a resolution to
endeavour to raise a fund for supplying soldiers with pocket Bibles.
They and a dozen of their friends united themselves into a society for
promoting this object. Their meetings were held once a month in the
house of Mr. Dobson, of Oxford Street. John Thornton, Esq., of
Clapham, became a generous subscriber. The first parcel of Bibles was
sent from the vestry of Wesley’s West Street chapel; and the first
sermon on behalf of the society was preached in the same chapel, by
the Rev. Mr. Collins, from the appropriate words, “And the Philistines
were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said,
Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.”[353]
Thus arose “The Naval and Military Bible Society,”--twenty-five years
before the formation of “The British and Foreign Bible Society” in
1804,--a society still in active operation, and we believe the oldest
association for the circulation of the word of God, that now exists.

Wesley still employed the press, as well as pulpit, in defending and
spreading truth. John Atlay was his book steward, of whose
conscientiousness he had a high opinion. Hence the following
unpublished letter, sent to Bradburn.

                                     “EDINBURGH, _June 19, 1779_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--I suppose John Atlay has paid the money. He is
  cautious to an extreme. I _hear_ what angry men say or write;
  but I do not often regard it. Lemonade will cure any disorder
  of the bowels, (whether it be with or without purging,) in a
  day or two. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and
  down. They seldom are in vain. Honest Andrew Dunlop[354] writes
  me word that the book money is stolen. Pray desire him to take
  care that the knave does not steal his teeth.

  “I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley published, in 1779, the seventeenth extract from his journal,
extending from September 13, 1773, to January 2, 1776; 12mo, 82 pages.

Popery was beginning to be troublesome; for parliament, in the
previous year, had passed a bill removing from the English and Irish
papists the penalties and disabilities imposed upon them by the famous
act, “for the further preventing the growth of popery,” enacted in
1699. Wesley had been called a papist times without number; but now,
in a time of danger, he proved himself one of popery’s most trenchant
opponents. His pamphlet, now issued, with the title, “Popery Calmly
Considered,” 12mo, 25 pages, was one of the most timely and valuable
productions of his pen. Scores of such pamphlets have been given to
the public; but not one superior to Wesley’s. He writes: “In the
following tract, I propose, first, to lay down and examine the chief
doctrines of the Church of Rome: secondly, to show the natural
tendency of a few of those doctrines; and that with all the plainness
and all the calmness I can.” “Mr. J. Russell,” observes Charles
Wesley, in a letter dated April 23, 1779, “tells me, some of the
bitterest Calvinists are reconciled to you for the tract on popery. It
should be spread immediately through the three kingdoms.”[355] We
shall meet with popery again; but, meantime, we wish the Methodist
book committee and conference would do, at present, what Charles
Wesley wished to be done ninety years ago. However urgent the case was
in 1779, the necessity now is ninety times greater than it was then;
and John Wesley’s successors will be recreant to his protestant
principles unless they do their duty as he did his.

It only remains, before concluding the present chapter, to notice
Wesley’s _Arminian Magazine_. This, like the volume for 1778, was, to
a large extent, controversial, Wesley believing that “there never was
more need, in the memory of man, of opposing the _Horrible Decree_,
than at this day; for thousands, in every part of England, were still
halting between two opinions, and were exceedingly perplexed on this
account.” Among other pieces, intended to refute the Calvinian theory,
he republished his own “Predestination Calmly Considered,” which he
first printed in 1752. There are interesting lives of Bishop Bedell,
Archbishop Usher, and Dr. Donne, the last mentioned by Wesley’s own
pen, though never included in his collected works. There are short
accounts of ten of his itinerant preachers, accompanied by their
respective portraits, many of which he pronounces “really striking.”
There are ninety-three letters, most of which, says he, “are closely
practical and experimental.” There are about seventy poetical pieces,
one of which, “Henry and Emma, a Dialogue,” fills more than fourteen
pages; a sort of love story, to which objections were not unreasonably
raised. Wesley acknowledged that it was “not strictly religious”; but
maintains that there was “nothing in it contrary to religion, nothing
that can offend the chastest ears”; that it was “one of the finest
poems in the English tongue, both for sentiment and language”; and
that those who could “read it without tears must have a stupid and
unfeeling heart.” All this might be true; but, with all due deference
to Wesley, there can hardly be two opinions, that it was out of its
proper place when inserted in the _Arminian Magazine_.


FOOTNOTES:

     [320] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 117.

     [321] Manuscript diary.

     [322] Manuscript letter.

     [323] Manuscripts.

     [324] “History of Methodism in Halifax.”

     [325] Manuscript diary.

     [326] How is it that there are not more Methodists in
           Inverness now than there were ninety years ago, in
           the days of good old Duncan McAllum?

     [327] Boswell’s Life of Johnson.

     [328] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 777.

     [329] Ibid. 1856, p. 234.

     [330] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

     [331] _Methodist Magazine_, 1826, p. 244.

     [332] Ibid. 1789, p. 388.

     [333] These were Pawson, Rankin, and Jaco. The committee
           consisted of gentlemen appointed to manage the
           business of City Road chapel.--(Pawson’s manuscript.)

     [334] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 441.

     [335] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 387.

     [336] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 456.

     [337] _Methodist Magazine_, 1779, p. 240.

     [338] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 70.

     [339] Rutherford’s Life, p. 94.

     [340] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

     [341] Manuscript letter.

     [342] Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks:
           “1780, January 14--I learned, that Mr. M‘Nab is
           excluded the connexion; but I cannot learn, that
           he has merited such treatment. A man who has been
           a credit to our cause, whose moral character is
           unblamable, and whose abilities are considerable, is
           expelled for his integrity and uprightness. Being
           very uneasy on account of the expulsion, I wrote Mr.
           Wesley respecting it.”

     [343] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 132.

     [344] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 372.

     [345] _Christian Miscellany_, 1849, p. 57; and “Wesley
           Poetry,” vol. viii., p. 415.

     [346] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 379.

     [347] Pawson’s manuscript.

     [348] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 380.

     [349] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

     [350] Manuscript.

     [351] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 202.

     [352] Life of John Valton, p. 100.

     [353] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 737.

     [354] The assistant of the Limerick circuit.

     [355] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 387.




                                1780.
                               Age 77


The year 1780 will always be marked in English history. The nation was
steeped in guilt and misery. War was raging on almost every side.
Trade was paralysed; and taxes intolerable. Popery had been
established in Canada; and, by the repealing of the statutes of the
11th and 12th of King William III., had received great encouragement
in England. The Protestant Association sprung into existence; and the
Gordon riots followed. The details of these events are full of
profound interest and instruction; but our limited space prevents
enlargement. Suffice it to say, that, in this serious crisis, Wesley
took an active interest. He writes: “1780. January 18--Receiving more
and more accounts of the increase of popery, I believed it my duty to
write a letter concerning it, which was afterwards inserted in the
public papers. Many were grievously offended; but I cannot help it; I
must follow my own conscience.”

The following was Wesley’s unanswerable, though obnoxious letter.

     “A Letter to the Printer of the _Public Advertiser_, occasioned
             by the late Act, passed in favour of Popery.

                                  “CITY ROAD, _January 21, 1780_.

  “SIR,--Some time ago, a pamphlet was sent me, entitled ‘An
  Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great
  Britain.’ A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put
  into my hands, which pronounces ‘its style contemptible, its
  reasoning futile, and its object malicious.’ On the contrary, I
  think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the
  reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or
  design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind
  and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy
  constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of
  that tract by a few plain arguments.

  “With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for
  his religious principles. Let there be as ‘boundless a freedom
  in religion,’ as any man can conceive. But this does not touch
  the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of
  the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable,
  and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether
  the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or
  the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your
  commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in
  religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius’s creed to be true;
  suppose the council of Trent to have been infallible: yet, I
  insist upon it, that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought
  to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

  “I prove this by a plain argument; let him answer it that can.
  That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his
  allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus. It is a Roman
  Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a
  public council, that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics.’
  This has been openly avowed by the council of Constance; but it
  never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or
  disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as
  long as it is so, it is plain that the members of that church
  can give no reasonable security, to any government, of their
  allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore, they ought not to
  be tolerated by any government, protestant, Mahommedan, or
  pagan.

  “You may say, ‘Nay, but they will take an _oath_ of
  allegiance.’ True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, ‘no faith
  is to be kept with heretics,’ sweeps them all away as a
  spider’s web. So that still, no governors that are not Roman
  Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.

  “Again, those who acknowledge the _spiritual power_ of the pope
  can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but
  all Roman Catholics acknowledge this; therefore, they can give
  no security for their allegiance.

  “The power of granting _pardons_ for all sins, past, present,
  and to come, is, and has been, for many centuries, one branch
  of his _spiritual power_.

  “But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can
  give no security for their allegiance; since they believe the
  pope can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins
  whatsoever.

  “The power of _dispensing_ with any promise, oath, or vow, is
  another branch of the _spiritual power_ of the pope. And all
  who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But
  whoever acknowledges the _dispensing power_ of the pope can
  give no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths
  and promises are none; they are light as air; a dispensation
  makes them all null and void.

  “Nay, not only the pope, but even a _priest_ has _power_ to
  pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of
  Rome. But they that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any
  security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no
  security at all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and
  high treason.

  “Setting then religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles
  of reason, no government ought to tolerate men, who cannot give
  any security to that government for their allegiance and
  peaceable behaviour. But this no Romanist can do, not only
  while he holds that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ but
  so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution or the
  _spiritual power_ of the pope.

  “‘But the late act,’ you say, ‘does not either _tolerate_ or
  _encourage_ Roman Catholics.’ I appeal to matter of fact. Do
  not the Romanists themselves understand it as a toleration? You
  know they do. And does it not already (let alone what it _may_
  do by-and-by) _encourage_ them to preach openly, to build
  chapels (at Bath and elsewhere), to raise seminaries, and to
  make numerous converts day by day, to their intolerant,
  persecuting principles? I can point out, if need be, several of
  the persons. And they are increasing daily.

  “But ‘nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended
  from them.’ I am not certain of that. Some time since, a Romish
  priest came to one I knew; and, after talking with her largely,
  broke out, ‘You are no heretic! You have the experience of a
  real Christian!’ ‘And would you,’ she asked, ‘burn me alive?’
  He said, ‘God forbid! unless it were for the good of the
  church!’

  “Now what security could she have had for her life, if it had
  depended on that man? The _good of the church_ would have burst
  all the ties of truth, justice, and mercy. Especially when
  seconded by the absolution of a priest, or, if need were, a
  papal pardon.

  “If any please to answer this, and to set his name, I shall
  probably reply; but the productions of anonymous writers I do
  not promise to take any notice of.

  “I am, sir, your humble servant,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley’s arguments are irrefutable; and terrible is England’s danger,
at the present day, because such arguments, instead of being answered,
have been dexterously, but disastrously, ignored by England’s
statesmen. Wesley’s letter will probably be treated, by many, as they
would treat an old almanack, out of date; but, on February 17, 1780,
it evoked the unanimous thanks of the Protestant Association; and, in
the same month, was published in the pages of Wesley’s bitterest
antagonist,--the _Gospel Magazine_,--with an editorial note, that it
had “been almost universally approved of,” and that it was a
“production of real merit.”

Wesley’s letter was too damaging to the disloyalty and preposterous
assumptions of popery, to pass unnoticed. His chief antagonist was the
Rev. Arthur O’Leary, the son of peasant parents, and now a popish
priest, in the fiftieth year of his age.

O’Leary’s remarks on Wesley’s letter made an octavo pamphlet of 101
pages. The friar tells the Methodist, that the temperature of
Ireland’s climate and the quality of its soil had cleansed the veins
of its papists “from the _sour_ and _acid_ blood of the Scythians and
Saxons.” He writes:

  “We are tender hearted, we are good natured, we have feelings.
  We shed tears on the urns of the dead; deplore the loss of
  hecatombs of victims slaughtered on the gloomy altars of
  religious bigotry; cry in seeing the ruins of cities over which
  fanaticism has displayed the funeral torch; and sincerely pity
  the blind zeal of our Scotch and English neighbours, whose
  constant character is to pity none, for erecting the banners of
  persecution, at a time when the inquisition is abolished in
  Spain and Milan, and the protestant gentry are caressed at
  Rome, and live unmolested in the luxuriant plains of France and
  Italy. We are too wise to quarrel about religion. The Roman
  Catholics sing their psalms in Latin, with a few inflections of
  the voice. Our protestant neighbours sing the same psalms in
  English, on a larger scale of musical notes. We never quarrel
  with our honest and worthy neighbours, the quakers, for not
  singing at all; nor shall we ever quarrel with Mr. Wesley for
  _raising his voice to heaven_, and warbling forth his canticles
  on whatever tune he pleases. We like _social harmony_; and, in
  _civil_ music, hate _discordance_. Thus, when we go to the
  shambles, we never inquire into the butcher’s religion, but
  into the quality of his meat. We care not whether the ox was
  fed in the pope’s territories, or on the mountains of Scotland;
  provided the joint be good; for, though there be many
  _heresies_ in old books, we discover neither _heresy_ nor
  _superstition_ in beef and claret. We divide them cheerfully
  with one another; and, though of different religions, we sit
  over the bowl with as much cordiality as if we were at a
  _lovefeast_.”

O’Leary’s quaint jocularity and rounded periods are amusing; but they
furnish not the slightest answer to Wesley’s allegations. On March 23,
Wesley replied to O’Leary, in a letter addressed to the editors of the
_Freeman’s Journal_, and from which the following is extracted.

  “Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are no more an answer to my letter, than
  to the Bull _Unigenitus_. His manner of writing is easy and
  pleasant; but might it not as well be more serious? The subject
  we are treating of is not a light one; it moves me to tears,
  rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country;
  yea, for the children that are yet unborn. I would not have the
  Roman Catholics persecuted at all. I would only have them
  hindered from doing hurt: I would not put it in their power to
  cut the throats of their quiet neighbours.”[356]

O’Leary published a “Rejoinder to Mr. Wesley’s Reply,” in which he was
less jocular, but not more logical. Of Wesley’s three reasons why it
is not safe to tolerate papists, two were left untouched, and one was
played with and evaded. Such a controversialist scarcely deserved an
answer; and, yet, Wesley supplemented his second letter by a third,
dated Chester, March 31, 1780. After recapitulating his three reasons,
Wesley writes:

  “Nine parts in ten of Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are quite wide of
  the mark. Not that they are wide of _his_ mark, which is to
  introduce a plausible panegyric upon the Roman Catholics, mixed
  with keen invectives against the protestants, whether true or
  false it matters not. All this is admirably well calculated to
  inspire the reader with aversion to these heretics, and to
  bring them back to the holy, harmless, much injured Church of
  Rome! Close arguing he does not attempt; but he vapours, and
  skips to and fro, and rambles to all points of the compass, in
  a very lively and entertaining manner.”

Wesley thus concludes his long letter:

  “What security for my life can any man give me, till he utterly
  renounces the council of Constance? What security can any
  Romanist give a protestant, till this doctrine is publicly
  abjured? If Mr. O’Leary has anything more to plead for this
  council, I shall follow him step by step. But let him keep his
  word, and ‘give a serious answer to a serious charge.’
  ‘Drollery may come in when we are talking of roasting fowls’;
  but not when we talk of ‘roasting men.’

  “Would I then wish the Roman Catholics to be persecuted? I
  never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor the thought: it is
  foreign to all I have preached and wrote for these fifty years.
  But I would wish the Romanists in _England_ (I had no others in
  view) to be treated still with the same lenity that they have
  been these sixty years; to be allowed both civil and religious
  liberty, but not permitted to undermine ours. I wish them to
  stand just as they did before the late act was passed: not to
  be persecuted or hurt themselves; but gently restrained from
  hurting their neighbours.

  “I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[357]

Here the controversy ended.[358] O’Leary was baffled; and, to this
day, the arguments in Wesley’s letter of January 21, 1780, remain
unanswered. Seven years afterwards; when at Cork, Wesley wrote: “A
gentleman invited me to breakfast, with my old antagonist, Father
O’Leary. I was not at all displeased at being disappointed. He is not
the stiff, queer man that I expected; but of an easy, genteel
carriage, and seems not to be wanting either in sense or learning.”

It was during this controversy, and while Wesley was in the north of
Ireland, that the fearful riots occurred, which are so unfortunately
associated with the name of Lord George Gordon, and which were the
cause of that nobleman’s incarceration (rightly or wrongly) in the
Tower of London. Here Wesley, after repeated invitations, visited him,
and writes: “1780, December 19--I spent an hour with Lord George
Gordon, at his apartment in the Tower. Our conversation turned upon
popery and religion. He seemed to be well acquainted with the Bible;
and had abundance of other books, enough to furnish a study. I was
agreeably surprised to find he did not complain of any person or
thing; and cannot but hope his confinement will take a right turn, and
prove a lasting blessing to him.”

We return to more congenial matters. Wesley spent the first two months
of 1780 in London and its vicinity. On February 28, he started on his
journey to the north. Among other places, he now, for the first time,
preached at Delph. He writes: “April 7--I went to Delph, a little
village upon the mountains, where a remarkable work of God is just
broke out. I was just set down, when the minister sent me word, I was
welcome to preach in his church. On hearing this, many people walked
thither immediately, near a mile from the town; but, in ten minutes,
he sent me word his mind was changed. We knew not then what to do,
till the trustees of the independent meeting offered us the use of
their house. It was quickly filled, and truly God bore witness to His
word.”

The minister of the parish church was the Rev. Mr. Heginbotham, who
had engaged Mr. Stones as his curate. Mr. Stones was a sportsman, fond
of his dog and gun. On one occasion, a rough Yorkshireman told him, it
would be better if he minded his study more and his gun less. The
curate took the hint; his dogs and his guns were given up; he became a
thorough Christian; his ministry was greatly blessed; an extensive
religious awakening followed; meetings for prayer were convened in
private houses; and not a few were scripturally converted. Opposition
soon ensued, on the ground that the poor, by spending so much time in
prayer, would neglect their work, and become chargeable to the parish.
The curate was dismissed; the young converts applied to Joseph Benson,
then at Manchester, for help; Methodist preaching was commenced; a
room in Millgate hired; and a flourishing society was formed.[359] The
case was named to Wesley; and, a fortnight before his visit, he signed
the following legal looking document, which to a Methodist antiquarian
will be welcome.

  “_Whereas_ for about twelve months last past, the people called
  Methodists have preached in a room at Delph, in Saddleworth, in
  the county of York,--the travelling preachers coming there
  regularly every fortnight from Manchester, besides local
  preachers occasionally on Sundays. And _Whereas_ the last
  summer such crowds attended, that the room could not contain
  them, the society also increasing very fast, and a great
  likelihood of much good being done in the place,--It is,
  therefore, thought necessary that a preaching house be erected
  at Delph aforesaid, twelve yards long and eight wide. The
  expense of such a building, according to the plan laid down,
  will be vastly more than the society will be able to raise
  amongst themselves. They have, therefore, requested our consent
  to go amongst our societies, to ask the charitable
  contributions of such of our friends as would willingly
  encourage such an undertaking. This is, therefore, to certify
  that we approve of the measure, and recommend the same to our
  Christian friends everywhere, hoping they will readily and
  cheerfully contribute to the same.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.[360]
  “MANCHESTER, _March 25, 1780_.”

This formalised certificate smacks of the office of Joseph Mellor, the
Methodist attorney of the town of Delph; and Wesley must have been
hard pressed for time when, instead of writing a statement of the case
himself, he put his hand to such legal magniloquence. Suffice it to
add, the chapel was built, with not more than £100 of debt resting
upon the premises.[361]

It was during this northern tour, that Wesley, for the first time, was
denied the use of the church at Haworth. He writes: “Sunday, April
23--Mr. Richardson being unwilling that I should preach any more in
Haworth church, Providence opened another; I preached in Bingley
church, both morning and afternoon. This is considerably larger than
the other.”

It was either on this, or some future occasion, when Wesley was
preaching in Bingley church, that a rich man in the congregation, who
seemed to think that his wealth was a licence to practise bad manners,
sneered at the preacher and at his sentiments. Wesley paused, and
fixing his keen eye on the Dives sitting in the seat of the scornful,
said: “I heed your sneers no more than I heed the fluttering of a
butterfly; but I know what good breeding is as well as any gentleman
in the land.”

It was now that Wesley preached his first sermon in Blackburn. He
writes: “April 27--I preached in Todmorden church with great
enlargement of heart. In the afternoon we went on to Blackburn. It
seemed the whole town was moved; and the question was where to put the
congregation. We could not stand abroad because of the sun; so as many
as could squeezed into the preaching house. All the chief men of the
town were there.” Mr. Banning was Wesley’s host at Blackburn; and, on
one occasion, took his venerable guest to see a neighbouring chapel
which was in the course of being built. “Mr. Banning,” said Wesley, “I
have a favour to ask. Let there be no pews in the body of this chapel,
except one for the leading singers. Be sure to make accommodation for
the poor. _They_ are God’s building _materials_ in the erecting of His
church. The rich make good _scaffolding_, but bad _materials_.”[362]
Weighty words! One of Methodism’s evil omens, at the present day, is a
disregard of the advice which Wesley gave, namely, that, in building
chapels, the Methodists should never fail to provide ample
accommodation for the poor.

It was a sign of Wesley’s growing popularity, that, though, forty
years before, he had been indignantly expelled from the pulpits of the
Established Church, he was now invited, in all parts of the country,
by rectors, vicars, curates, and others, to favour them with his
services. At Pateley Bridge, in 1752, Thomas Lee, the old itinerant,
and his Methodist companions, were subjected to treatment the most
barbarous; and, on applying to the Dean of Ripon for protection, were
met with a churchman’s scorn rather than a magistrate’s just dealing.
Now it was otherwise. Wesley writes: “1780, May 1--At Pateley Bridge,
the vicar offered me the use of his church. Though it was more than
twice as large as our preaching house, it was not near large enough to
contain the congregation. How vast is the increase of the work of God!
particularly in the most rugged and uncultivated places. How does He
‘send the springs’ of grace also ‘into the valleys, that run among the
hills!’”

Leaving Pateley, Wesley, for the first time, visited Ripon. He writes:
“May 2--We came to Ripon, and observed a remarkable turn of
providence: the great hindrance of the work of God in this place has
suddenly disappeared; and the poor people, being delivered from their
fear, gladly flock together, and hear His word. The new preaching
house was quickly more than filled.”

Four years previous to this, Thomas Dixon was one of the Ripon
preachers, and, in his unpublished autobiography, wrote: “Upon our
going to Ripon, we preached in a small room up a flight of stairs, and
even this we were to leave at Martinmas. But, just at this time, Mr.
T. Dowson, who had suffered much for the gospel’s sake, bought the
premises where an old barn and stable stood. He immediately pulled
down the barn, and built a decent chapel and a dwelling house upon the
site, and, with such expedition, that we were able to get into the
shell of the new chapel by the time we had to leave the upstairs room.
By this means, God gave the poor persecuted Methodists, in Ripon, a
degree of rest they had never known before, and the work, from that
time, gradually grew.”

On leaving Ripon, Wesley proceeded “through a delightful country to
the immense ruins of Garvaix Abbey,” and thence across the “horrid,
dreary, enormous mountains” to Penrith, another place where he now,
for the first time, preached. He writes: “May 5--In the evening, a
large room, designed for an assembly, was procured for me at Penrith;
but several of the poor people were struck with panic, for fear the
room should fall. Finding there was no remedy, I went down into the
court below, and preached in great peace to a multitude of well
behaved people.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                      “BRISTOL, _August 5, 1780_.

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

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

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[363]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                              “_August 10, 1780._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[367]

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

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

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

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

                                                 “_June 8, 1780._

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

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

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

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

  “Peace be with you all!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[370]

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

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

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

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

                                   “BRISTOL, _September 4, 1780_.

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

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

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

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

                             “NEAR BRISTOL, _September 16, 1780_.

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

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

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

                                         “I am, etc., J. WESLEY.”

                                     “LONDON, _October 28, 1780_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

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

                                     “BRISTOL, _October 1, 1780_.

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

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

  “I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

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

                                     “BRISTOL, _October 1, 1780_.

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

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

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

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

                                     “LONDON, _November 3, 1780_.

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

  “I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

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

                                     “LONDON, _December 3, 1780_.

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

  “I am, dear Zachary, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[376]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[377]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  _Easton._--“Yes, sir.”

  _W._--“Did you _laugh_, John?”

  _E._--“No, sir.”

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

  _E._--“Yes, sir.”

  _W._--“Did you _cry_, John?”

  _E._--“No, sir.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

     [360] Manuscript.

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

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

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

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

     [365] Minutes of Methodist Conferences in America.

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

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

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

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

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

     [371] Manuscript letters.

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

     [373] Minutes, 1780.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     [381] Everett’s Life of Clarke.

     [382] Ibid.

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




                                1781.
                               Age 78


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One extract from this striking sermon must suffice.

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

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

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

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

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

                               “NEAR LONDON, _February 10, 1781_.

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

  “That misunderstanding, which was troublesome for a season, may
  now be buried for ever. I am perfectly well satisfied, both of
  the honesty and affection, both of brother Woodcroft and
  brother Birks. So Satan’s devices are brought to nought.

  “I doubt not but James Rogers and you recommend our books in
  every place, and the magazines in particular, which will be a
  testimony for me, when I am no more seen.

  “I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[388]

On the 12th of February, Wesley set out on a week’s excursion to
Norfolk and back again to London, preaching at least ten sermons on
the way;[389] and, in wintry weather, travelling more than two hundred
miles.

Having spent a few more days in London, he then started, on Sunday,
March 4, (as he thought,) for Ireland, but spent a fortnight in the
vicinity of Bath and Bristol. Leaving Bristol on March 19, eleven days
were occupied in reaching Manchester, during which he preached more
than twenty sermons, some of them in the open air.

On March 30, he opened the chapel in Oldham Street, Manchester. He
writes: “Friday, March 30--I opened the new chapel at Manchester,
about the size of that in London. The whole congregation behaved with
the utmost seriousness. I trust much good will be done in this place.
Sunday, April 1--I began reading prayers at ten o’clock. Our country
friends flocked in from all sides. At the communion was such a sight
as I am persuaded was never seen in Manchester before: eleven or
twelve hundred communicants at once; and all of them fearing God.”

Thus began the history of a building, which, next to the chapel in
City Road, is the most interesting Methodist edifice in existence.
First of all, the Manchester Methodists had been located in a
miserable room on or near the present site of Bateman’s Buildings.
Removing thence, in 1750, they worshipped for thirty years in their
first chapel, which, up to a recent period, was a warehouse in Birchin
Lane.[390] Among the first members, in that old chapel, were: Mary
Bromley, for seventy years a Methodist, who died happy in God, at the
age of eighty-nine, in 1826:--Mrs. Leech, an upright follower of
Christ, who expired in the full assurance of a blessed immortality in
1770:--John Morris, whose autobiography, in the _Arminian Magazine_
for 1795, will be found to be full of more than romantic
interest:--Mr. Fildes, who, in the same year in which Raikes began his
work at Gloucester, opened a Sunday-school in a Manchester cellar, a
second in a garret, and a third in the first room in Manchester built
expressly for Sunday-school purposes, a room erected at Mr. Fildes’
own expense, behind his own dwelling house, in the neighbourhood of
London Road:[391]--Adam Oldham, a feltmaker, one of the first trustees
of Birchin Lane chapel,[392] who lived in a house on the site which
the Albion Hotel now occupies, for many years a useful Methodist,[393]
but afterwards a rich backslider, to whom Oldham Street owes its
name:--Richard Barlow, who, for sixty-five years, rose at half-past
four in summer, and at five in winter:--Mr. Brierley, a member of
Peter Kenworthy’s class, the leading singer in Oldham Street chapel,
and afterwards a magistrate:--John Moseley, a poor hatter in Millgate,
the grandfather of Sir Oswald Moseley, from whom Moseley Street
derived its name:--and Mrs. Bennett, a relative of John Moseley’s, and
the first female classleader in Manchester.[394] We wish we had space
for details respecting these old Manchester Methodist worthies, who
deserve far more honourable record than they have yet received.

From Manchester, Wesley went to Bolton, where he writes: “The society
here are true, original Methodists. They are not conformed to the
world, either in its maxims, its spirit, or its fashions; but are
simple followers of the Lamb; consequently they increase both in grace
and number.”

This was a high compliment to pay to George Escrick and his friends.
Their old chapel in New Acres had been converted into cottages; and,
in 1776, they had built another in Ridgway Gates, though not without a
united and great effort. The Rev. Mr. Fowles, a clergyman, had the
management of a sandbed from which they had to obtain their sand; and
hearing of their intentions, he announced, that, after the expiration
of five days, the sand would be charged half-a-crown a load. This, to
the poor Methodists, was a serious matter; but George Escrick was a
man of too much energy to be easily defeated. Accordingly, he, at
once, requested all the Methodists, young and old, strong and feeble,
active and otherwise, to repair with him to the sandpit, and to dig
and convey away all the sand they needed. To a man, they obeyed
George’s injunction, and, in a single day, got as much as their
intended chapel was likely to require. Michael Fenwick was then their
preacher, and kept running over the half-a-mile distance, between the
site of the new chapel and the clerical sandbed, encouraging the
people in their task, and, at one time, wanting to sing the hymn
beginning with “Before Jehovah’s awful throne”; but blunt George
Escrick, the weaver, imperatively stopped his spiritual superior,
telling him to take a spade in his hand, for there was a time for all
things, and this was a time to dig.

In this old Ridgway Gates chapel, William Grime used to conduct a band
meeting every Sunday morning at four o’clock; and, beneath it, Parson
Greenwood, one of the circuit preachers, whose only home was two
neighbouring attics, used to keep his victuals.[395] The head of the
circuit was Liverpool, and the following were the munificent sums
contributed quarterly, by the several societies, in 1776, when the
chapel was completed. Liverpool, £5 8_s._ 9_d._; Bolton, £7 14_s._
7_d._; Preston, 11_s._; Wigan, £1 10_s._; Meols, 11_s._; Top of Coal
Pits, 17_s._; Edgeworth, 10_s._ 6_d._; Moulden Water, 7_s._;
Shackerley, 10_s._; Aspul Moor, 7_s._; Chowbent, 10_s._ 6_d._;
Warrington, £1 1_s._; Northwich, £1 1_s._; Budworth, 12_s._ 3_d._;
Little Leigh, £1 9_s._ 6_d._; and Lamberhead Green, 7_s._ 6_d._ Such
was Liverpool circuit in 1776; and, out of these Methodist
contributions, three Methodist preachers and their families had to be
supported. No wonder that the cupboard, beneath the pulpit of the old
chapel, was big enough to serve Parson Greenwood for a pantry.

From Bolton, Wesley went to Wigan, and preached a funeral sermon for
Betty Brown, one of the first members of Wigan society, “beloved of
God, the delight of His children, a dread to wicked men, and a torment
to devils.”

Leaving Wigan, Wesley proceeded to Chester, and thence to Alpraham,
where he did for “good old sister Cawley, a mother in Israel, and a
pattern of all good works,” what he had done for Betty Brown. Arriving
at Warrington, he says: “I put a stop to a bad custom, which was
creeping in here: a few men, who had fine voices, sang a psalm which
no one knew, in a tune fit for an opera, wherein three, four, or five
persons sung different words at the same time! What an insult upon
common sense! What a burlesque upon public worship! No custom can
excuse such a mixture of profaneness and absurdity.”

Desiring to reach Ireland as soon as possible, Wesley embarked at
Liverpool, on the 12th of April; but, on getting out to sea, was
overtaken with a storm; and, in an hour, was so affected as he had not
been for forty years before. For two days, he was unable to swallow
anything solid larger than a pea, and was bruised and sore from head
to foot, and ill able to turn himself in bed. The sea grew rougher;
the horses of Wesley and his companions became turbulent; and the
hatches were closed. Water, three feet in depth, was in the hold; the
ship refused to obey the helm, and was furiously driving on lee shore.
Wesley says: “I called our brethren, Floyd, Snowden, and Bradford, to
prayers; and we found free access to the throne of grace. Soon after,
we got, I know not how, into Holyhead harbour, after being
sufficiently buffeted by the winds and waves for two days and two
nights. The more I considered, the more I was convinced, it was not
the will of God I should go to Ireland at this time. So we went into
the stage coach without delay, and the next evening came to Chester.”

Baffled in his purpose to visit Ireland, Wesley set out on a preaching
tour to Whitchurch, Shrewsbury, Brecon, Broseley, Worcester,
Brecknock, Carmarthen, Pembroke, Haverfordwest, Tracoon, Newport,
Narberth, Llanelly, Swansea, Neath, Bridgend, Cowbridge, Cardiff, and
Monmouth. On the 16th of May, he got back to Worcester, having
completed the circuit in a month, and preached about thirty times.

He now proceeded to Kidderminster, Salop, Whitchurch, Nantwich,
Northwich, and, on May 18, arrived in Manchester, having preached each
night and morning.

At Manchester, he writes: “I preached a funeral sermon for Mary
Charlton, an Israelite indeed. From the hour that she first knew the
pardoning love of God, she never lost sight of it for a moment. Eleven
years ago, she believed that God had cleansed her from all sin; and
she showed, that she had not believed in vain, by her holy and
unblamable conversation.”

Molly Charlton was the sweetheart of good old Samuel Bardsley, the
only one he ever had. They wished to marry; but the difficulty of
providing for married preachers was so great, that Wesley and Pawson
interfered, and the nuptial engagement was broken off. In four quarto
manuscript volumes, containing Bardsley’s diary, and in Pawson’s
letter concerning this business, and likewise the letter of poor
disappointed Molly (all in the writer’s possession), there are some
racy facts, and traits of personal character, which may be given to
the public at some future time.

Leaving Manchester on May 21, Wesley made his way to Warrington,
Chowbent, Bolton, Kabb, Blackburn, and Preston.

In reference to the last mentioned place, he writes: “May 24--I went
on to Preston, where the old prejudice seems to be quite forgotten.
The little society has fitted up a large and convenient room, where I
preached to a candid audience. Every one seemed to be considerably
affected.”

Who was the founder of this little society? Twelve years previous to
Wesley’s visit, John Wood, one of the first Methodists at Padiham,
attended Preston sessions, to obtain a licence to preach. Having
granted it, one of the magistrates, a clergyman, seeing a number of
rude and noisy people outside the sessions house, said to John,
perhaps with more sarcasm than sincerity: “There, go and reform that
crowd!” John bowed, thanked his worship for his licence, left the
court, entered the crowd in full authority, and preached in
peace.[396] Six years after this, in 1775, Samuel Bradburn formed the
first Methodist class in Preston;[397] and now, in 1781, Martha
Thompson, Roger Crane, William Bramwell, of immortal memory, and a few
others, had hired an old calendering house, in Lord Street, for a
place of meeting, and had fairly begun a work in proud Preston, which,
despite the popery of the place, has grown into one of the most
prosperous societies in the kingdom.

Wesley next proceeded to the Isle of Man, where he spent eight days,
“visited the island round, east, south, north, and west”; preached, at
least, a dozen times; and, in a population of thirty thousand, found
above two thousand Methodists, with a score of “stout, well looking”
local preachers, not surpassed in England. “I was thoroughly
convinced,” says he, “that we have no such circuit as this, either in
England, Scotland, or Ireland. It is shut up from the world; and,
having little trade, is visited by scarce any strangers. Here are no
papists, no Dissenters of any kind, no Calvinists, no disputers. Here
is no opposition, either from the governor, from the bishop, or from
the bulk of the clergy. One or two of them did oppose for a time; but
they seem now to understand better. So that we have now rather too
little than too much reproach. The natives are a plain, artless,
simple people; unpolished, that is, unpolluted; few of them are rich
or genteel; the far greater part, moderately poor. The local preachers
are men of faith and love, knit together in one mind and one judgment.
They speak either Manx or English, and follow a regular plan, which
the assistant gives them monthly.”

On leaving the Isle of Man, Wesley proceeded to Newcastle, preaching,
on the way, at Cockermouth, Ballantyne, and Carlisle.

Can it be that this flying evangelist was an old man of nearly eighty?
No wonder that he sometimes sang--

              “Oh that without one lingering groan
                 I may the welcome word receive,
               My body with my charge lay down,
                 And cease at once to work and live!”

Without work, Wesley could not live. The following unpublished letter,
written at this period, is strongly characteristic of the man. It was
addressed to Samuel Bradburn, at Keighley.

                                                “_June 16, 1781._

  “DEAR SAMMY,--We have no supernumerary preachers, except John
  Furz, who is so from old age. If John Oliver lives till the
  conference, and desires it, I suppose he may be upon the same
  footing. The more exercise he uses, winter or summer, the more
  health he will have. I can face the north wind at seventy-seven
  better than I could at seven-and-twenty. But if you _moan over
  him_, you will kill him outright. A word in your ear. I am but
  half pleased with Christopher Hopper’s proceedings.[398] I do
  not admire _fair weather preachers_. You must stop local
  preachers who are loaded with debt. There are few healthier
  places in England than Keighley. Neither Dublin nor Cork is to
  compare with it. But have a care! or you will kill Betsy! Do
  not constrain God to take her away!

  “I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley spent eight days at Newcastle, and in its vicinity, and
preached, at least, ten or a dozen times. He then visited his
societies between there and York. At Thirsk, in a letter to his
brother, Wesley wrote:

                                        “THIRSK, _June 27, 1781_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--This is the last day of my seventy-eighth year;
  and (such is the power of God) I feel as if it were my
  twenty-eighth. Next Saturday, I expect to be at Epworth; the
  second, at Boston; the third, at Sheffield. I take the
  opportunity of a broken year, to visit those parts of
  Lincolnshire, which I have not seen before, but once, these
  twenty years.

  “From several, I have lately heard, that God has blessed your
  preaching. See your calling! ‘Cease at once to work and live!’
  Peace be with all your spirits!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[399]

Two days after this, Wesley arrived at Epworth, and wrote: “I have now
preached thrice a day for seven days following; but it is just the
same as if it had been but one.” Twelve days were spent in
Lincolnshire, during which he preached more than a score of sermons.
Among other places, Grantham was favoured with his ministry. He
writes: “July 9--I preached at Grantham, in the open air, for no house
would contain the congregation; and none made the least disturbance.”

At the village of Welby, the Rev. W. Dodwell was minister; and, in his
church, Wesley preached twice on the day before he preached at
Grantham. Mr. Dodwell was the pastor of Welby parish for nearly half a
century, and died in 1824, when he presented, by deed of gift, £10,000
to the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and an equal sum to the British
and Foreign Bible Society.[400] He was present at Wesley’s conference
of preachers in 1782.[401]

After visiting many other societies in Lincolnshire during the next
ten days, Wesley, on July 23, “passed into Yorkshire,” and preached at
Yeadon, Bradford, Halifax, Greetland, Huddersfield, Longwood House,
Mirfield, Daw Green, Birstal, Tadcaster, York, Malton, Scarborough,
Beverley, Hull, and Pocklington; and, at the beginning of August,
arrived in Leeds, for the purpose of holding his annual conference;
but, before giving an account of its proceedings, two letters to two
ladies, both written on the same day, will be acceptable. The first
was to his niece, Miss Sarah Wesley, then a young lady about
twenty--afterwards a personal friend of a large and distinguished
literary circle, including Mrs. Hannah More, Miss Porter, Miss Aikin,
Miss Edgeworth, Mrs. Barbauld, and others,--and who died in 1828, at
the age of sixty-eight, some of her last words being, “I have peace,
but not joy.”[402]

                                    “NEAR LEEDS, _July 17, 1781_.

  “MY DEAR SALLY,--Without an _endeavour_ to please God, and to
  give up our own will, we never shall attain His favour. But
  till we have attained it, till we have the Spirit of adoption,
  we cannot actually give up our own wills to Him. Shall I tell
  you freely what I judge to be the grand hindrance to your
  attaining it? Yea, to your attaining more health both of body
  and mind than you have ever had, or, at least, for a long
  season? I believe it is, what very few people are aware of,
  intemperance in sleep. All are intemperate in sleep, who sleep
  more than nature requires; and how much it does require is
  easily known. There is, indeed, no universal rule,--none that
  will suit all constitutions. But, after all the observations
  and experience I have been able to make for upwards of fifty
  years, I am fully persuaded that men, in general, need between
  six and seven hours’ sleep in twenty-four; and women, in
  general, a little more,--namely between seven and eight.

  “But what ill consequences are there in lying longer in
  bed,--suppose nine hours in four-and-twenty?

  “1. It hurts the body. Whether you sleep or no, (and, indeed,
  it commonly prevents sound sleep,) it, as it were, soddens and
  parboils the flesh, and sows the seeds of numerous disorders;
  of all nervous diseases in particular, as weakness, faintness,
  lowness of spirits, nervous headaches, and consequent weakness
  of sight.

  “2. It hurts the mind; it weakens the understanding; it blunts
  the imagination; it weakens the memory; it dulls all the nobler
  affections. It takes off the edge of the soul, impairs its
  vigour and firmness, and infuses a wrong softness, quite
  inconsistent with the character of a good soldier of Jesus
  Christ. It grieves the Holy Spirit of God, and prevents, or, at
  least, lessens, those blessed influences which tend to make
  you, not almost, but altogether, a Christian.

  “I advise you, therefore, from this day forward, not trusting
  in yourself, but in Him that raiseth the dead, to take exactly
  so much sleep as nature requires. If you need between seven and
  eight hours, then, in the name of God, begin this very night,
  in spite of all temptation to the contrary. Lie down at ten
  o’clock, and rise between five and six, whether you sleep or
  no. If your head aches in the day, bear it. In a week you will
  sleep sound. If you can take this advice, you may receive more
  from,

  “My dear Sally, yours most affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[403]

The other letter was addressed to Miss Bishop, who became a Methodist
about the year 1767, and who, from that time, had been one of Wesley’s
correspondents. Many of his most spiritual letters were written to
this Christian lady, who, though poor, was a gentlewoman. For some
years, she had kept a school in Bath or its neighbourhood; but, in
1777, had been seized with spitting of blood, and had been thrown upon
the kindness of her friends in Bristol.[404] Recently, however, she
had commenced another school at Keynsham, which, said Wesley, “is
worthy to be called a Christian school;”[405] though, it would seem,
some of the Bristol people wished to make it more fashionable than
Wesley liked.

                                    “NEAR LEEDS, _July 17, 1781_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--If I live to meet the society in Bristol
  again, I shall kill or cure the fault of those unwise and
  unkind parents, who make their children finer than themselves.
  I shall make their ears tingle. As to you, I advise you, first,
  to be a Bible Christian yourself, inwardly and outwardly. Be
  not a hair’s breadth more conformable to the fashions of the
  world than you were when I saw you last. Then, train up your
  children in the selfsame way. Say to them, with all mildness
  and firmness, ‘Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ.’
  Whoever is pleased or displeased, keep to this; to _Christian,
  primitive simplicity_. Perhaps you will at first lose some
  scholars thereby; but regard it not: God will provide you more.
  And be assured, nothing shall be wanting that is in the power
  of,

  “My dear sister, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                             “JOHN WESLEY.”[406]

Two or three other letters may be given here. The first is copied from
the original now before us, and, we believe, has not before been
published.

                                    “NEAR LEEDS, _July 25, 1781_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--As long as you give yourself up to God
  without reserve, you may be assured He will give you His
  blessing. Indeed, you have already received a thousand
  blessings; but the greatest of all is yet behind,--Christ in a
  sinless heart, reigning the Lord of every motion there. It is
  good for you to hold fast what you have attained, and to be
  continually aspiring after this. And you will never find more
  life in your own soul than while you are earnestly exhorting
  others to go on to perfection. Many will blame you for doing
  it; but regard not that. Go on, through honour and dishonour.
  _This one thing I do_, is your motto; I will save my own soul
  and them that hear me.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

Wesley had told his niece, that, if she took his advice with respect
to sleep, she might hear from him again. It seems, the advice was
adopted; hence the following letter, written seven weeks after the
former one.

                                   “BRISTOL, _September 4, 1781_.

  “MY DEAR SALLY,--It is certain the Author of our nature
  designed that we should not destroy, but regulate, our desire
  for knowledge. What course you may take in order to this, I
  will now briefly point out.

  “1. You want to know God, in order to enjoy Him in time and
  eternity.

  “2. All you want to know of Him is contained in one book, the
  Bible. And all that you learn is to be referred to this, either
  directly or remotely.

  “3. Would it not be well, then, to spend, at least, an hour a
  day in reading and meditating on the Bible? reading, every
  morning and evening, a portion of the Old and New Testament,
  with the Explanatory Notes?

  “4. Might you not read two or three hours in the morning, and
  one or two in the afternoon? When you are tired of severer
  studies, you may relax your mind by history or poetry.

  “5. The first thing you should understand a little of is
  grammar. You may read first Kingswood English Grammar, and then
  Bishop Lowth’s Introduction.

  “6. You should acquire, if you have not already, some knowledge
  of arithmetic. Dilworth’s Arithmetic would suffice.

  “7. For geography, I think you need only read over Randal’s or
  Guthrie’s Geographical Grammar.

  “8. Watts’ Logic is not a very good one; but I believe you
  cannot find a better.

  “9. In natural philosophy, you have all that you need to know
  in the ‘Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation.’ But you may
  add the Glasgow abridgment of Mr. Hutchinson’s works.

  “10. With any, or all, of the foregoing studies, you may
  intermix that of history. You may begin with Rollin’s Ancient
  History; and afterwards read, in order, the Concise History of
  the Church, Burnet’s History of the Reformation, the Concise
  History of England, Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion,
  Neal’s History of the Puritans, his History of New England, and
  Robertson’s History of America.

  “11. In metaphysics, you may read Locke’s Essay on the Human
  Understanding, and Malebranche’s Search after Truth.

  “12. For poetry, you may read Spenser’s Fairy Queen, and select
  parts of Shakspeare, Fairfax, or Hoole; Godfrey of Bouillon,
  Paradise Lost, the Night Thoughts, and Young’s Moral and Sacred
  Poems.

  “13. You may begin and end with divinity; in which I will only
  add, to the books mentioned before, Bishop Pearson on the
  Creed, and the Christian Library. By this course of study, you
  may gain all the knowledge which any reasonable Christian
  needs. But remember, before all, in all, and above all, your
  great point is, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ
  whom He hath sent.

  “I am, my dear Sally, your affectionate uncle,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[407]

Though Miss Wesley was now in her twenty-first year, and had yet to
begin Kingswood English Grammar, still, assuming that henceforward she
acted upon the advice of her venerable uncle, it is not surprising,
that she ultimately became the well informed woman which her father’s
biographer says she was. Her brother Charles was three years older
than herself; her brother Samuel six years younger. The brothers were
musical prodigies; their uncle took a deep interest in their welfare;
and wrote to Charles, on August 4, and September 8, 1781, as follows.

  “MY DEAR CHARLES,--There is a debt of love, which I should have
  paid before now; but I must not delay it any longer. I have
  long observed you with a curious eye; not as a musician, but as
  an immortal spirit, that is come forth from God the Father of
  spirits, and is returning to Him in a few moments. But have you
  well considered this? Methinks, if you had, it would be ever
  uppermost in your thoughts. For what trifles, in comparison of
  this, are all the shining baubles in the world! God has
  favoured you with many advantages. You have health, strength,
  and a thousand outward blessings. And why should you not have
  all inward blessings, which God hath purchased for those that
  love Him? You are good humoured, mild, and harmless; but,
  unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of God!
  You are now, as it were, on the crisis of your fate; just
  launching into life, and ready to fix your choice, whether you
  will have God or the world for your happiness. You cannot avoid
  being very frequently among elegant men and women, that are
  without God in the world; but, as your _business_, rather than
  your _choice_, calls you into the fire, I trust that you will
  not be burnt; seeing He, whom you desire to serve, is able to
  deliver you, even out of the burning fiery furnace.

 “I am, dear Charles, your very affectionate uncle,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[408]

Charles Wesley, junior, who had been already introduced to the court
of George III., lived to become the organist of George IV., and the
musical preceptor of the long lamented Princess Charlotte. He never
married; but resided, first with his widowed mother, and then with his
sister Sarah,--was a man of deep devotional feeling, an attendant at
Methodist chapels, a lover of Methodist preachers, and died, in 1834,
humming Handel’s music, and was buried in the same grave as his father
and mother in Marylebone churchyard. Poor Samuel was seduced into the
popish church before he arrived at the age of twenty; and, thereby,
brought the grey hairs of his father with sorrow to the grave. He
composed a high mass for the use of the chapel of Pope Pius VI., and
received that pontiff’s thanks.[409] Like many others, he found it an
easy step from popery to infidelity, and wrote: “In this life, my only
consolation is in the belief of fatalism, which, although a gloomy
asylum, is as bright as I can bear, till convinced of that truth which
a launch into the great gulf only can demonstrate.” He survived his
brother Charles and his sister Sarah; in his last days became a
penitent; died in 1837; and was buried in the sepulchre of his
parents.[410]

The conference of 1781 was a memorable gathering. It was preceded, on
Sunday, August 5, by a service in the parish church, at Leeds, such as
was probably never witnessed within its walls, either before or since.
Wesley preached; eighteen clergymen, inclusive of himself, Coke, and
Fletcher, were present; and, at the Lord’s supper, there were about
eleven hundred communicants, the ordinance being administered by
Wesley and ten other ministers.[411]

Connexional affairs created anxiety. Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript
diary, remarks: “I feel much concern respecting several things; but
how to have them remedied I cannot tell. Many things are exceedingly
wrong; but whom to trust to attempt amendment I know not. I sometimes
think, the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.”

Wesley writes: “August 6--I desired Mr. Fletcher, Dr. Coke, and four
more of our brethren, to meet every evening, that we might consult
together on any difficulty that occurred. On August 7, our conference
began, at which were present about seventy preachers, whom I had
severally invited to come and assist me with their advice, in carrying
on the great work of God.”

The burden of so many preachers being present was found to be greater
than the Leeds society could conveniently bear; and it was agreed that
every preacher should pay the expenses of his horse keep during the
conference sittings. There were more preachers’ wives in the connexion
than there were houses to lodge them, or money to find them
maintenance; and it was resolved, that no more married preachers
should be admitted, except in cases of necessity.[412] Some of the
preachers had printed, both in verse and prose, without Wesley’s
consent or correction. Among others, James Kershaw had recently issued
a quarto sized book, of 134 pages, entitled, “The Methodist; attempted
in Plain Metre.” It was thought, that these productions had brought a
reproach upon the Methodists, and had hindered the spreading of more
profitable books; and it was determined that, in future, no preacher
should print anything till it had been corrected by Wesley, and that
the profits thereof should go into the common stock. Wesley’s Notes on
the Old Testament had now been published sixteen years, and yet the
edition had not been sold. To get rid of the remaining copies, it was
directed that they should be sold at half price.

A number of Methodists at Baildon, in Yorkshire, had written to
Wesley, stating that, in accordance with his instructions, they
attended the services of their parish church; but their minister
preached what they considered to be “dangerously false doctrine,”
inasmuch as he publicly declared, that men “must not hope to be
perfected in love, on this side eternity”; and this had made them
doubt whether they ought to hear him. Wesley laid their letter before
the conference, and, as the difficulty applied to many others besides
the Methodists at Baildon, he invited a friendly and free discussion.
It was unanimously agreed: (1) That it was highly expedient, that all
the Methodists, who had been bred therein, should attend the service
of the church as often as possible. But that, (2) If the minister
began either to preach the absolute decrees, or to rail at, and
ridicule Christian perfection, they should quietly go out of the
church; yet attend it again the next opportunity.” Wesley adds: “I
have, since that time, revolved this matter over and over in my mind;
and the more I consider it, the more I am convinced, this was the best
answer that could be given. Only, I must earnestly caution our friends
not to be critical; not to make a man an offender for a word; no, nor
for a few sentences, which any who believe the decrees may drop
without design.”[413] “It is a delicate and important point, on which
I cannot lay down any general rule. All I can say, at present, is, if
it does not hurt you, hear them; if it does, refrain. Be determined by
your own conscience.”[414]

But this was not all that occurred, on the Church question, at the
conference of 1781. One of the principal Methodists, in Leeds, was
William Hey, now in the forty-fifth year of his age, a medical man of
great repute, an intimate friend and correspondent of Dr. Priestley,
and who had been a Methodist for seven-and-twenty years. Mr. Hey
intimated to Wesley his desire to address the conference, and to offer
some suggestions and advice; declaring, at the same time, that, if his
proposals were rejected, he could no longer remain a member of the
Methodist society. By Wesley’s permission he began to read a paper, to
the effect, that Dissenting ideas had been, for many years, gradually
growing among the Methodists. In proof of this, he held that the
Methodists preached in places already supplied with pious ministers;
that meetings in some instances were held in church hours; that the
intervals of church service were so filled up with public and private
assemblies, that there was no time for suitable refreshment, nor
opportunity for instructing families; that many of the largest
societies rarely went to church, and some never carried their children
there; and that church ministers, who formed societies for private
instruction, were looked upon with an envious eye. Such were the
complaints which Mr. Hey intended to lay before the conference; but,
as he proceeded, the marks of disapprobation were such that Wesley
interposed, and said: “As there is much other business before us,
brother Hey must defer reading the remainder of his paper to another
time.”

Brother Hey forthwith left the society; a few months later he was
elected alderman; and, more than once, filled the office of chief
magistrate in the town of Leeds. Of his ability and piety there can be
no question; but Wesley was not prepared to allow him to be the
dictator of the Methodists.[415]

No sooner was the conference over than the venerable Wesley again set
out on his gospel wanderings. He preached at Sheffield, and then,
taking coach with Dr. Coke, travelled day and night till he arrived in
London. Two days were spent in the metropolis, and then off he set, on
Sunday night, August 19, by coach to Cornwall. We need not follow him.
Suffice it to say, that, in eight days, he preached in Cornwall, at
least, thirteen sermons, five of them in the open air, and one in
Gwennap Pit, to a congregation computed at more than twenty thousand
people.

On September 6, he got back to Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which,
according to his custom, he spent a month. While here, he wrote the
following characteristic letter to Mr. Elijah Bush, a young
schoolmaster at Midsomer Norton, who wished to marry a lady to whom
his father and mother objected.

                                 “COLEFORD, _September 11, 1781_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I was much concerned yesterday, when I heard
  you were likely to marry a woman against the consent of your
  parents. I have never, in an observation of fifty years, known
  such a marriage attended with a blessing. I know not how it
  should be, since it is flatly contrary to the fifth
  commandment. I told my own mother, pressing me to marry, ‘I
  dare not allow you a positive voice herein; I dare not marry a
  person because you bid me. But I must allow you a negative
  voice: I will marry no person if you forbid. I know it would be
  a sin against God.’ Take care what you do. Mr. S. is not a
  proper judge: he hopes to separate you from the Methodists; and
  I expect, if you take this step, that will be the end.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[416]

Mr. Bush acted upon Wesley’s advice; became the leader of the Midsomer
Norton society, and a local preacher; and died a faithful Methodist in
1845.[417]

There are other unhappy marriages besides those contrary to the fifth
commandment. Wesley’s was one. For thirty years, he paid a fearful
penalty for his rash act in 1751; but now his matrimonial misery
ended. Leaving Bristol on October 7, and preaching on his way at
Devizes, Sarum, Winchester, and in the Isle of Wight, he arrived in
London on October 12, and, under the same date, wrote in his journal:
“I was informed my wife died on Monday.” (October 8.) “This evening
she was buried, though I was not informed of it till a day or two
after.”

Mourning for such a wife would have been hypocrisy. Three days after,
on October 15, the widower set out to visit his societies in
Oxfordshire. On a similar errand, he went off to Norfolk. On November
5, he began meeting the London classes, and says: “I found a
considerable increase in the society. This I impute chiefly to a small
company of young persons, who have kept a prayer-meeting at five every
morning.” He then set out on his tours through Northamptonshire,
Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Sussex, and Kent, and concluded the
year in London.

The war still raged; English disasters were multiplied; the ministry
was tottering, and soon after fell; with which fall the conflict in
America concluded. It was at this period, that a rumour gained
credence, that the administration intended to propose the embodying of
the militia, and their being exercised on Sundays. Wesley was an
ardent friend of the ministry of Lord North; and, of course, a staunch
defender of the sanctity of the sabbath. Accordingly, towards the
close of 1781, he addressed the following letter to a nobleman, then
high in office.

  “MY LORD,--If I wrong your lordship, I am sorry for it; but I
  really believe your lordship fears God: and I hope your
  lordship has no unfavourable opinion of the Christian
  revelation. This encourages me to trouble your lordship with a
  few lines, which otherwise I should not take upon me to do.

  “Above thirty years ago, a motion was made in parliament for
  raising and embodying the militia, and for exercising them, to
  save time, on Sunday. When the motion was like to pass, an old
  gentleman stood up and said: ‘Mr. Speaker, I have one objection
  to this: I believe an old book, called the Bible,’ The members
  looked at one another, and the motion was dropped.

  “Must not all others, who believe the Bible, have the very same
  objection? And from what I have seen, I cannot but think, these
  are still three fourths of the nation. Now, setting religion
  out of the question, is it expedient to give such a shock to so
  many millions of people at once? And certainly it would shock
  them extremely; it would wound them in a very tender part. For
  would not they, would not all England, would not all Europe,
  consider this as a virtual repeal of the Bible? And would not
  all serious persons say, ‘We have little religion in the land
  now; but, by this step, we shall have less still. For wherever
  this pretty show is to be seen, the people will flock together;
  and will lounge away so much time before and after it, that the
  churches will be emptier than they are at present!’

  “My lord, I am concerned for this on a double account. First,
  because I have personal obligations to your lordship, and would
  fain, even for this reason, recommend your lordship to the love
  and esteem of all over whom I have any influence. Secondly,
  because I now reverence your lordship for your office sake, and
  believe it to be my bounden duty to do all, that is in my
  little power, to advance your lordship’s influence and
  reputation.

  “Will your lordship permit me to add a word in my old fashioned
  way? I pray Him, that has all power in heaven and earth, to
  prosper all your endeavours for the public good; and am, my
  lord, your lordship’s willing servant,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[418]

For some reason, no such bill was introduced into parliament. A few
months later, Lord North and his colleagues tendered to the king their
resignation, and peace negotiations were commenced.

Before concluding the present year, it only remains to notice Wesley’s
publications in 1781.

1. “An Extract of a Letter to the Right Honourable Lord Viscount
H----e, on his Naval Conduct in the American War.” 12mo, 27 pages.

2. “A Concise Ecclesiastical History, from the Birth of Christ to the
Beginning of the present Century. In four volumes.” 12mo. The
proposals for printing this work by subscription are now before us;
from which it appears, that the price of the four volumes, to
subscribers, was ten shillings, and that booksellers, subscribing for
six copies, should have a seventh gratis. The book, in fact, is
Wesley’s abridgment of Mosheim, to which is added, “A Short History of
the People called Methodists,” filling 112 printed pages, and dated
“London, November 16, 1781.”

3. The _Arminian Magazine_. 8vo, 688 pages. In his preface, Wesley
says: “I dare not fill up any publication of mine with bits and
scraps, to humour any one living. It is true, I am not fond of verbose
writers, neither of very long treatises. I conceive, the size of a
book is not always the measure of the writer’s understanding. Nay, I
believe, if angels were to write books, we should have very few
folios. But, neither am I fond of tracts, that begin and end before
they have cleared up anything.”

Besides six original sermons, the principal article, in the magazine
of 1781 is Wesley’s own translation of Castellio’s Dialogues on
Predestination. There is a long and interesting account of Kingswood
school. Wesley writes:--“I love the very sight of Oxford; but my
prejudice in its favour is considerably abated: I do not admire it as
I once did; and, whether I did or not, I am now constrained to make a
virtue of necessity.” He then refers to the expulsion, and exclusion
of students, because of their being Methodists; and continues: “I am
much obliged to Dr. Nowell and others, for not holding me longer in
suspense, but dealing so frankly and openly. And, blessed be God! I
can do all the business, which I have in hand, without them. Honour or
preferment I do not want, any more than a feather in my cap; and I
trust, most of those who are educated at our school are, and will be,
of the same mind. As to the knowledge of the tongues, and of arts and
sciences, with whatever is termed academical learning, if those who
have a tolerable capacity for them do not advance more at Kingswood in
three years, than the generality of students at Oxford and Cambridge
do in seven, I will bear the blame for ever.” He then meets the
objection, that young men could not have at Kingswood the advantages
they would have at the university, from professors, tutors, public
exercises, and company. He maintains, that it would be no loss to the
universities if all their professorships were abolished. Some of the
tutors, he admits, were worthy of all honour, but many were utterly
unqualified for the work they had undertaken. As to the public
exercises, he himself had never “found them any other than useless
interruptions of useful studies.” As to company, he writes: “It is
most true, that the moment a young man sets his foot either in Oxford
or Cambridge, he is surrounded with company of all kinds, except that
which will do him good; with loungers and triflers of every sort; with
men who no more concern themselves with learning than with religion.
Company, therefore, is usually so far from being an advantage to those
who enter at either university, that it is the grand nuisance, as well
as disgrace, of both; the pit that swallows unwary youths by
thousands. I bless God! we have no such _choice of company at
Kingswood_; nor ever will, till my head is laid. There is no trifler,
no lounger, no drone there; much less any drunkard, sabbath breaker,
or common swearer. Whoever accounts this a disadvantage may find a
remedy at any college in Oxford or Cambridge.”


FOOTNOTES:

     [384] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 303.

     [385] _Methodist Magazine_, 1781, p. 522.

     [386] Ibid. p. 636.

     [387] Ibid. 1782, p. 69.

     [388] Original manuscript letter.

     [389] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 8.

     [390] _Methodist Magazine_, 1851, p. 556.

     [391] Ibid, 1860, p. 379.

     [392] Manuscript.

     [393] _Methodist Magazine_, 1782, p. 331.

     [394] Manuscript.

     [395] Manuscript.

     [396] Manuscript.

     [397] Bradburn’s Memoirs, p. 47.

     [398] Then at Colne, in the thirty-fourth year of his
           itinerancy.

     [399] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 138.

     [400] “History of Methodism in Grantham.”

     [401] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 475.

     [402] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley; and _Methodist
           Magazine_, 1828, p. 719.

     [403] _Methodist Magazine_, 1844, p. 288.

     [404] Manuscript letter by Miss March.

     [405] Wesley’s Works, vol. iv., p. 207.

     [406] _Methodist Magazine_, 1807, p. 471; and Wesley’s
           Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.

     [407] _Methodist Magazine_, 1846, p. 452.

     [408] Ibid. 1844, p. 562.

     [409] Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 316.

     [410] _Wesley Banner_, 1851.

     [411] _Methodist Magazine_, 1829, p. 528.

     [412] The following letter was written to Duncan Wright,
           assistant in Yarm circuit, a few months later.

                                    “LONDON, _November 24, 1781_.

             “DEAR DUNCAN,--Surely you and I may speak freely
             to each other; for we love one another. If George
             Holder goes out, either you must keep his mother,
             or she must go to the workhouse. You must not give
             an exhortation to the bands, but encourage them
             to speak. I would be much obliged to you if you
             would (1) accept the key of the book room, and
             immediately take the books into your own care; (2)
             clip the wings of the local preachers, stewards,
             and leaders, changing them as need requires; (3)
             fix bands where they are wanting; (4) if James
             Bogie is willing to remain single, let him travel;
             (5) do not receive the blind man hastily, let him
             be thoroughly tried first; (6) be of good courage,
             and conquer everything. I am, dear Duncan, etc.,
             JOHN WESLEY.”--(_Watchman_, Jan. 8, 1868.)

     [413] _Methodist Magazine_, 1782, p. 153.

     [414] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 232.

     [415] Life of Hey.

     [416] _Methodist Magazine_, 1848, p. 1055.

     [417] Ibid.

     [418] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 400.




                                1782.
                               Age 79


As usual, Wesley spent the first two months of the new year in London.
The most notable occurrence, during this period, was the institution
of a tract society,--the first that was ever formed. The Religious
Tract Society was originated in 1799; Wesley’s, seventeen years
previous to this. We have before us an original document printed in
1783, entitled, “A Plan of the Society, instituted in January, 1782,
to distribute Religious Tracts among the Poor.” The rules are three.
“1. Every member must subscribe half-a-guinea, a guinea, or more,
annually. 2. A proportionable quota of tracts shall be delivered
yearly to each subscriber, according to his subscription, and, as
nearly as possible, at prime cost, and carriage paid. 3. Every
subscriber shall have a right to choose his own tracts, if he please;
otherwise, he will receive a proportionable variety of the whole.”
After this follows a list of thirty tracts already printed, all of
them either written or published by Wesley. Then there is subjoined
the following: “An Extract of the Original Proposals.”

  “I cannot but earnestly recommend this to all those who desire
  to see true scriptural Christianity spread throughout these
  nations. Men wholly unawakened will not take pains to read the
  Bible. They have no relish for it. But a small tract may engage
  their attention for half-an-hour; and may, by the blessing of
  God, prepare them for going forward.

                                                    “JOHN WESLEY.
  “LONDON, _January 25, 1782_.”

Though Wesley’s tract society does not now exist, in the form in which
it was instituted in 1782, it is a fact worth noting, that, in 1867,
Wesley’s book room, in City Road, sold not fewer than one million five
hundred and seventy thousand tracts, all printed and published by
itself;[419] and that the number of its distinct and separate tract
publications, in 1871, is not less than 1250.

We have said, the Methodist Tract Society was the first that was ever
formed. It is true that, in 1699, “The Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge” was founded; and, in 1750, “The Society for Promoting
Religious Knowledge among the Poor”; but, strictly speaking, neither
of these was a tract society. In this respect, as in others, Wesley
was a pioneer. As early as 1745, he speaks of “giving away some
thousands of little tracts among the common people”; and long before
1782, had written, and published, besides a large number of separate
and short sermons, at least scores of penny publications. And yet Mr.
Jones, the corresponding secretary of the Religious Tract Society, in
his jubilee volume of 700 pages, while professing to trace the origin
of tract distribution, entirely omits the name of Wesley, who saw the
value and the power of a tract more than fifty years before the
Religious Tract Society had a name. Was this intentional? We trust
not.

On Sunday, the 3rd of March, Wesley took coach for Bristol, where he
spent the next fortnight. He then started off on his long northern
journey. On his way, he called at Madeley, where “both Mr. and Mrs.
Fletcher complained, that, after all the pains they had taken, they
could not prevail on the people to join in society, no, nor even to
meet in class.” What the vicar and his new wife (Miss Bosanquet)
failed to do, Wesley accomplished. He preached two rousing sermons;
and “then desired those, who were willing to join together for
Christian fellowship, to call upon him and Mr. Fletcher after service.
Ninety-four persons did so: about as many men as women.” Wesley adds:
“We explained to them the nature of a Christian society, and they
willingly joined therein.”

Wesley then proceeded to Congleton, where “the Calvinists were
striving to make havoc of the flock”; and to Macclesfield, where he
spent Good Friday and Easter Sunday. On the former day, he preached
twice, in the Rev. David Simpson’s church; and, with his assistance,
administered the sacrament to about thirteen hundred persons; on the
latter day, he also preached twice in the same edifice; again
administered to eight hundred communicants; and, in the evening,
preached in the Methodist chapel, and held a lovefeast at which
sixteen or eighteen persons professed to live in the enjoyment of the
blessing of perfect love. “About forty,” says Hester Ann Rogers, in
the unpublished portion of her diary, “made a noble confession.” Among
these were herself, George Bradock, Joseph Roe, John Booby, T.
Ridgway, Joseph Norberry, Billy Sharpley, S. Bradshaw, and John
Goostry; the last of whom Wesley ordered to stand on the form, that
the people might hear him. “Mr. Wesley,” continues Mrs. Rogers, “kept
the lovefeast two hours, a thing which I never knew him do before; but
his soul was filled with thankfulness, for so many witnesses of
redeeming love and full salvation.”

It would be tedious to mention all the places Wesley visited. Suffice
it to say, that, at Ashton under Lyne, he preached in the new chapel,
which had the following inscription over the door: “Can any good come
out of Nazareth? Come and see!” At Oldham, “a whole troop of boys and
girls would not be contented till he shook each by the hand.” At St.
Helen’s, he preached in the house of Joseph Harris, who had removed
from Kingswood, “to take care of the copper works.” At Wigan, he “saw
an uncommon sight,--the preaching house filled, yea, crowded.” At
Epworth, there had been a marvellous revival. At Thorne, fifty had
found peace with God within two months. At Edinburgh, he was the guest
of Lady Maxwell, and visited her school of forty poor children, many
of whom were without shoes; but not a girl, in rags, was without her
ruffles. At Kelso, he fell, head foremost, down the stairs of Dr.
Douglas’s house, but mercifully escaped without serious injury.[420]
At York, he entered into his eightieth year, and wrote: “Blessed be
God! my time is not labour and sorrow. I find no more pain or bodily
infirmities than at five-and-twenty. This I still impute--(1) To the
power of God, fitting me for what He calls me to. (2) To my still
travelling four or five thousand miles a year. (3) To my sleeping,
night or day, whenever I want it. (4) To my rising at a set hour. (5)
To my constant preaching, particularly in the morning.”

Wesley reached London, after an absence of more than four months, on
July 20. Here he held his conference. He writes: “Friday, August 2, we
observed as a day of fasting and prayer for a blessing on the ensuing
conference; and I believe God clothed His word with power in an
uncommon manner throughout the week; so that, were it only on this
account, the preachers who came from all parts found their labour was
not in vain.”

Among other questions debated at this conference, was the sabbath.
Methodists, in some instances, visited barbers’ shops on Sundays; and,
in others, practised military exercises, as volunteers, or were
spectators of such exercises. This led the conference to enact, that
no members of society should have their hair dressed on Sundays; and
that, as far as possible, those barbers should be patronised who
observed the sabbath’s sanctity. It was further determined, that any
Methodist, who practised military exercises on the sabbath, as a
volunteer, should be expelled; and that any one who, after proper
admonition, continued a spectator of such sabbath drills should
undergo the same penalty. Though not absolutely forbidden, preachers
were recommended not to powder their hair, nor to wear artificial
curls. The weekly and quarterly contributions having been shamefully
neglected in many of the societies, the assistants and leaders were to
remind the people of the original rule, that “every member contributes
one penny weekly, (unless he is in extreme poverty,) and one shilling
quarterly.” Wesley adds: “_Money lovers_ are the pest of every
Christian society. They have been the main cause of destroying every
revival of religion. They will destroy _us_, if we do not put them
away. A man not worth a shilling enters our society. Yet he freely
gives a penny a week. Five years after, he is worth scores of pounds;
he gives a penny a week still. I must think this man covetous, unless
he assures me he bestows his charity some other way. For every one is
covetous, whose beneficence does not increase in the same proportion
as his substance.”

The most troublesome subject of discussion was the case of the Birstal
chapel. It was asked, “What can be done with regard to the preaching
house at Birstal?” Answer. “If the trustees still refuse to settle it
on the Methodist plan: 1. Let a plain statement of the case be drawn
up. 2. Let a collection be made throughout all England, in order to
purchase ground, and to build another preaching house as near the
present as may be.”

This was an important matter, on account of its involving one of
Methodism’s fundamental principles, namely, that the conference
_alone_ shall have the power of appointing preachers to preach in
Methodist chapels. This was the first time that the question was
fairly raised. It was seen, that the issue, either way, would be most
momentous. It affected not Birstal merely, but the whole Methodist
connexion; and not the present only, but the future. Great excitement
was created. The controversy, among other great results, led to the
drawing up and enrolment of Methodism’s Magna Charta, Wesley’s deed of
declaration, in 1784. Altogether, this was one of the most important
events in Wesley’s history; and, hence, a detailed account of it will
not be inappropriate.

The original chapel at Birstal was erected, under the auspices of John
Nelson, about the year 1751. By the deed of settlement, the right of
occupying the pulpit was given, first, to the two Wesleys in
succession, and then to Grimshaw of Haworth; but, after the decease of
these three ministers, the trustees were to elect their own preachers
monthly; and all such preachers, so long as they continued in this
office, were to preach in the chapel twice every Sunday, every
Christmas day, New Year’s day, and Good Friday, and also every
Thursday night, as had been, up to 1751, “usual and customary to be
done.”

Such was the substance of the obnoxious clause; which hitherto,
however, had created no difficulty.

In 1782, it was found necessary, either to enlarge the old chapel, or
to build a new one in its place. Contributions were given for this
purpose; but were not sufficient. It was ascertained, that the sum of
£350 additional would be required, and that eight of the intended
trustees would have to advance the money. To give them security, a
deed of transfer was prepared, in which John and Charles Wesley, for
the considerations therein mentioned, sold to certain specified
trustees the old premises, with the following agreements in reference
to the enlarged, or the new chapel, which was to be provided to meet
the growing necessities of the Birstal Methodists. 1. The trustees
advancing the £350 were to have, as their security, “the rents and
profits to arise from the hearers’ pews and seats.” 2. The new or
enlarged chapel was to be occupied, during their lifetime, by John and
Charles Wesley, or by those whom they might from time to time appoint.
3. After their death, the appointment of preachers, to preach in the
said chapel, was to be made by the trustees, and by “such members of
the Methodist society as had been classleaders for three years, within
the circumjacent villages of Birstal, Great Gomersal, Little Gomersal,
Birkenshaw, Adwalton, Drighlington, Batley, Carlinghow, and
Heckmondwike; or by the major part of such trustees and classleaders.”
Provided always, that the said preachers preach no other doctrine than
is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes upon the Old and New Testament;
that they preach in the said chapel twice every Sunday, and at least
one evening every week; and that they hold the said premises and
exercise the function of a preacher only during the goodwill and
pleasure of the major part of the aforesaid trustees and classleaders.
After this, followed a number of provisoes in reference to pew rents,
etc. (1) The rents were to be applied in keeping the premises in
repair. (2) In paying interest upon the debt of £350, at 5 per cent.
per annum. (3) In maintaining the preacher for the time being, for
which purpose, however, not more than £10 a year should be
appropriated, until after the whole of the £350 had been repaid; when,
after deducting for repairs and lasting improvements, the whole of the
clear rents and profits arising from the pews and seats should be
given “for and towards the maintenance and support of the preachers or
pastors for the time being of the said society at Birstal.” It was
further provided, that the appointment and removal of chapel stewards
should be vested in the preachers, trustees, and classleaders
aforesaid, or the major part of them, notice of their meetings for
such purpose, however, having to be publicly read to the congregation
on three successive Sunday evenings immediately preceding. Certain
rooms also in a dwelling house, on the premises, were to be at the use
of the stewards and leaders, for the purpose of transacting business
and meeting classes.

The above is an abstract of all the important points in the new trust
deed of 1782. That deed had attached to it the following signatures.

             John Aspinall,
             Joseph Bennett,
             James Blackburn,
             John Tempest,
             Jonathan Brearley,
             Benjamin Mallinson,
             Anthony Williamson,
             Nathaniel Harrison,
             John White,
             Joseph Nelson,
             William Booth,
             John Wesley,
             Joseph Charlesworth,
             Charles Gunson,
             John Armitage,
             Joseph Lee,
             Thomas Crowther,
             William Tempest,
             Isaac Smith,
             William Chadwick.

Wesley’s signature was witnessed by Thomas Briscoe and Alexander
Mather. The deed was dated May 14, 1782, and was enrolled on the 11th
of October following. It may be added, that, of the above signers,
Aspinall, Bennett, Blackburn, Tempest, Brierley, Williamson, Harrison,
White, Nelson, and Booth were old trustees; Mallinson, Charlesworth,
Gunson, Armitage, Lee, Crowther, W. Tempest, Smith, and Chadwick were
the new trustees.

The deed of 1782 was widely different from that of 1751, and, as the
vice chancellor ruled in 1854, so far as it purported to vary the
trusts of the latter deed, it was void and of no effect;[421] but it
still contained the obnoxious clause, giving power to other parties
than Wesley’s conference, to appoint the preachers. Wesley says, in a
letter to his brother, dated May 28, 1782:

  “The trustees brought to me the deed, at Daw Green, which they
  read over, and desired me to sign. We disputed upon it about an
  hour. I then gave them a positive answer, that I would not sign
  it; and, leaving them abruptly, went up into my room. At night,
  a little before I went to bed, they came again, got round and
  worried me down. But, I think, they cannot worry you. May you
  not very properly write to Mr. Valton? ‘If the trustees will
  settle the Birstal house on the Methodist plan, I will sign
  their deed with all my heart; but, if they build a house for a
  presbyterian meeting-house, I will not, dare not, have anything
  to do with it.’”[422]

Wesley committed a mistake; but, be it borne in mind, that he was now
an old man of nearly eighty, and that Alexander Mather, and Thomas
Briscoe, the superintendents of the Leeds and Birstal circuits, were
participators in his folly.

In an unpublished letter to Samuel Bradburn, then stationed at
Bradford, Wesley wrote:

                                     “LONDON, _November 9, 1782_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--I abhor the thought of giving to twenty men the
  power to place or displace the preacher in their congregations.
  How would he then dare to speak an unpleasing truth? And, if he
  did, what would become of him? This must never be the case,
  while I live, among the Methodists. And Birstal is a leading
  case, the first of an avowed violation of our plan. Therefore,
  the point must be carried for the Methodist preachers now or
  never; and I alone can carry it, which I will, God being my
  helper. You are not a match for the silver tongue, nor brother
  Hopper. But do not, to please any of your new friends forsake

  “Your true old friend,

                                                  “JOHN WESLEY.”

Charles Wesley acted upon his brother’s advice. He entered into
correspondence with the Birstal reformers. In answer to their
objection, that “the present trustees _could not_ legally transfer any
of their power _to the conference_,” he asks: “Then how can they
transfer any of their power to the leaders?” He continues:

  “You add,--‘As long as the conference appoints preachers with
  candid impartiality, we doubt not their appointments will be
  acquiesced in by the trustees and classleaders.’ But, according
  to this deed, the conference has no more business than the
  parliament to appoint preachers at all. To touch on one more
  point. From the beginning of Methodism till now, the assistants
  appointed the stewards in all societies; but this deed gives
  the trustees and leaders this power; which they think is
  ‘_necessary_ to ensure the repayment of the £350 to be advanced
  for the building.’ _Necessary!_ Not at all. How many thousand
  pounds, advanced for buildings, have been paid within these
  forty years, though all the stewards in England, Scotland, and
  Ireland, have been hitherto appointed by my brother or the
  assistants! You conclude your letter with a very just
  observation: ‘the civil and religious rights of mankind have
  seldom been promoted by the assemblies of ecclesiastics of any
  denomination; and they never will be, unless they are composed
  of men devoted to God, and dead to all the allurements of ease,
  and avarice, and ambition.’ This is undoubtedly true; and this,
  we humbly hope, is the real character of most (at least) of
  those persons that meet in our assemblies. We hope, likewise,
  that ‘their consultations will always be moderated by some wise
  and truly religious man’; otherwise, that God will sweep away
  the very name of Methodist from the earth. Upon the whole, I
  cannot, I dare not sign that deed. I can have nothing to do
  with it. If the house should, nevertheless, be built, and
  settled upon that plan, I apprehend the consequence would be
  this: 1. No Methodist preacher would ever preach in it. If any
  did, the whole body would disclaim him. 2. My brother would
  immediately set a subscription on foot for buying ground and
  building another house. The trustees then might do what they
  pleased with theirs.”[423]

This letter was written a week before the conference of 1782 was
opened; and was a reply to one written by James Carr, the trustees’
attorney, who, soon afterwards, addressed the following unpublished
letter to Mr. Charlesworth.

  “MY GOOD FRIEND,--Having an insuperable aversion to _recite_ my
  own simple performances, I here enclose a correct copy of my
  letter to Mr. Charles Wesley.

  “I know, that you and the other framers of the present trust
  deed, were actuated by the _purest_, most _equitable_, and
  _disinterested_ motives; and, therefore, in my address to Mr.
  Wesley, I held myself bound, by every tie of justice, to
  explain and enforce the _grounds_ and _reasons_ of your
  conduct, with all the energy in my power. I hope, I have no
  immodest opinion of my poor abilities, when I assert, that the
  _reasons_, by me alleged, for modifying the deed, in the manner
  described, cannot be fairly answered or refuted, by Mr. Mather,
  or Mr. C. Wesley. Ingenuity may perplex, wit may ridicule,
  sophistry may misinterpret, or prejudice may dislike a deed
  framed contrary to _received systems_ or _opinions_. But when
  it is calmly considered, that the poor, beneficent founders of
  the preaching house had an undoubted right to settle it in what
  manner they thought meet; that it would be _impious_, as well
  as _illegal_, to abrogate their constitution; that you could
  only modify and improve it in a way consistent with their
  manifest intention; that the honour of religion required you to
  make a legal and effectual provision for payment of a just
  debt;--when these things, I say, are calmly considered, candour
  must admit, every preacher of righteousness must acknowledge,
  that the present trust deed is modelled with that rectitude and
  propriety, which become Christian men.

  “As nothing can discourage me when I am engaged in a righteous
  cause, I mean to write again to Mr. Charles Wesley; and,
  therefore, if I have omitted, in my former address, any topics
  or arguments which occur to you or friends, I wish you would
  specify them in _writing_; though I shall certainly now speak
  to him more in a _professional_ style than in a religious one.

  “Yours most sincerely,

                                                    “JAMES CARR.”

In the mean time, the new chapel was built, and Dr. Coke took up the
matter. The following also is a letter now for the first time
published. It was addressed to Mr. Charlesworth.

                                    “BRISTOL, _October 18, 1782_.

  “SIR,--There is but one argument, which you have used, which
  appears to me to have any force in it against the many
  uncontrovertible arguments, which I have urged on the other
  side. It is this: is it not unjust, that the persons who have
  advanced money on the building, which has been lately erected,
  should lose that money, when they advanced it upon the word of
  Mr. Wesley, and would not have advanced it on any other ground?
  In answer to this, I observe, that, as I am in this business
  the servant of the conference, and have invested in me a
  discretionary power to act as I see occasion, I will,
  therefore, remove this objection as far as justice, equity, and
  my trust, will admit me to go. For this purpose, I promise and
  engage, that the interest of the money, which has been lent on
  the lately erected building, shall be regularly paid, either
  out of the profits of that building, or out of the profits of
  the building which is to be erected, or out of the profits of
  both of them together, so long as the two Messrs. Wesley live;
  and, after their decease, as long as the lately erected
  building is at the disposal of the Methodist conference, and no
  longer. Provided, that either of the chapels, or both of them
  together, produce an income sufficient to pay the aforesaid
  interest, after paying for the necessary repairs, and the £10
  paid to the support of the preachers, be deducted. Provided,
  also, that the debt _itself_ which has been already incurred,
  remain upon the lately erected edifice, and upon that alone,--I
  promise and engage, that the aforesaid interest shall be paid
  to the creditors annually in preference to every other payment,
  except the said necessary repairs, and £10 towards the support
  of the preachers.

  “I am, sir, your humble servant in the gospel,

                                                   “THOMAS COKE.”

Shortly after, Dr. Coke published a 12mo tract of 12 pages, entitled,
“An Address to the inhabitants of Birstal, and the adjacent villages.”
He relates how the attorney of the trustees obtained Wesley’s
signature to the deed. He states, that Charles Wesley had not signed,
and, he believed, never would. The “_amazing deed_” had been discussed
at the late conference, and had created just alarm; and he (Dr. Coke)
had been delegated to carry into execution the minute that was passed;
but, upon application to the trustees, he had “found the greatest part
of them determined to hold fast their unlimited and most dangerous
power.” He answers the objection, “Would it not be equally dangerous
to invest this power in the conference?” by saying, “No: for the plan
of settlement, adopted by the conference, ties them down to the
principles of religion at present held by the Methodists.” He relates,
that he had proposed to the trustees to submit the matter to the
arbitration of the attorney general, or some other eminent counsellor;
and had engaged that, if the opinion thus obtained was the same as
that of the trustees and Mr. Carr, “Birstal preaching house should be
considered an exempt case, and the trustees should be suffered quietly
to retain all the power which they had at present”; with the
understanding, on the other hand, that, if the legal opinion of the
arbitrator was, “that the surviving trustees, with the consent of the
original proprietor, and all the parties concerned, could resettle the
house on the Methodist plan, they would resettle it accordingly.” He
had also added, at another meeting, that, in such a case, he would
give a bond of five or six hundred pounds, that the trustees, who had
advanced the £350, should not only have their interest, but their
_principal_ paid them, in instalments of £50 per annum; and, further,
that he would engage, that all subscribers to the recently erected
building, “who signified their desire of having their money returned,
should have it returned to them within two years.” The trustees,
however, “obstinately refused to comply with this.”

Coke continues:

  “Afterwards, another plan of reconciliation was proposed, by
  one of themselves, to which we all consented, namely, that all
  the trustees should bind themselves by a deed, that if they, or
  the major part of them, should agree, after the demise of the
  Messrs. Wesley, to choose an independent teacher, they should
  be obliged to signify, this their intention, by three years’
  notice to the conference, or to the moderator of the conference
  for the time being; with a provision, that, if the preachers
  were ever to desist from meeting in regular conference, as they
  did at present, or to deviate from the grand Methodist plan on
  which they at present act, then the full power should
  immediately devolve upon the trustees, and they might, without
  any previous notice whatever, choose an independent teacher.”

Such was the unanimous agreement. A rough draft of the intended deed
was made, and (_horresco referens!_) was brought, by the attorney of
the trustees, to Dr. Coke on the _Sunday_ following. On reading it,
Coke found a few words inserted, which upset the whole. It read: “If
the said trustees and leaders, or the major part of them, shall at any
time, _in their judgment, think_ that the said conference deviates
from the grand Methodist plan, then,” etc., “thus constituting
themselves judges in their own cause.” Dr. Coke objected to this; and
they seemed willing to give it up; but “desired that another meeting
might be held on the following Sunday! at which all the leaders might
be present, that their consent might also be procured.” The conference
representative agreed to this; Sunday came; and the trustees and
leaders “would not move a single step.”

Such had been the negotiations, and such was the state of affairs,
when Dr. Coke published his pamphlet in November, 1782. He makes an
appeal “to the congregation, and to the society,” and concludes with
the following prayer: “O Thou Lover of concord and Prince of peace,
keep these little ones under Thy fostering wing. Preserve them from
the silken tongued sycophant, the sly deceiver, who seeks his own, and
not the things of Jesus Christ. Hide them for a little moment in the
chambers of Thy love, till this and every indignation be overpast.
Keep them close to the bleeding side of Jesus, and close to the
affectionate hearts of their faithful pastors for ever.”

What more was done? Two months after this, on January 3, 1783, Wesley
issued a folio circular, entitled, “The Case of the Birstal
House.”[424] This all can read for themselves in Wesley’s collected
works (vol. xiii., p. 260). Suffice it to say, that the reasons
assigned by Wesley, why neither the Birstal, nor any other Methodist
chapel, should be settled according to the Birstal deed, were: (1) It
would put an end to itinerant preaching, for when the trustees got a
preacher whom they liked, they would keep him. (2) It would put a
bridle in the preacher’s mouth; for how would he dare to speak the
full and the whole truth, when he was liable to lose his bread? (3)
“The power of the trustees was greater than that of any nobleman; yea,
or of the king himself. Where he is patron, he can _put in_ a
preacher, but he cannot _put him out_.” He concludes: “No Methodist
trustees, if I can help it, shall, after my death, any more than while
I live, have the power of _placing_ and _displacing_ the preachers.”

So the thing went on. A case was submitted to Mr. John Maddocks,
barrister, for his opinion, as to the possibility of legally making
such an alteration in trust deeds, as was desired in the Birstal case.
His opinion, dated “Lincoln’s Inn, July 24, 1783,” is before us, and
is to the effect, that such an alteration might be made. On the 5th of
September following, Wesley met the nineteen trustees, and offered to
allow the same clause to be inserted in a new deed as was inserted in
the deed of the chapel in City Road, namely, “In case the doctrine or
practice of any preacher should, in the opinion of the major part of
the trustees, be not conformable to Mr. Wesley’s Sermons and Notes on
the New Testament, on representing this, another preacher shall be
sent within three months.” Five of the trustees were willing to accept
of this; the rest refused.

In an unpublished letter, written by Dr. Coke, and addressed to Mr.
Benson, only ten days after this interview, there are some other
particulars given. Wesley first told the trustees, he wished their
chapel to be settled according to the Methodist plan contained in the
minutes of conference. He then offered to allow the clause to be
inserted which has just been mentioned; adding, “this was never
allowed to any trustees before, and never shall again while I live.”
He further offered to relieve the trustees of their £350 debt,
promising to give £100 himself, and saying, “This I do, because I love
you, and for old acquaintance sake.” And he further promised to make
them a present of the piece of ground which Dr. Coke had purchased for
the site of another chapel. The names of the five consenting trustees
were, Nathaniel Harrison, Anthony Williamson, John Aspinall, Joseph
Bennett, and James Blackburn.[425]

The dissentient trustees took time to think. On September 25, 1783,
Christopher Hopper wrote to one of them, Mr. Charlesworth, in a
somewhat ambiguous style, as follows.

  “MY VERY DEAR JOSEPH,--It gives me pleasure to hear that you
  were so well satisfied with Mr. Wesley’s temper and conduct;
  and I am glad to hear you behaved so well. Solemn conference!
  Great expectations! Grand overture! But alas! no decision!
  Mortifying indeed! I still wish we never had given you any
  trouble, but patiently waited the event. But, if you are
  determined to stand your ground after this meeting, I cannot
  tell what the consequence will be. Great grace be on you all!

                                                “C. HOPPER.”[426]

Reflection often brings wisdom. On the 13th of January, 1784, Mr.
Charlesworth wrote to Wesley, saying, that his offer would now be
accepted. He says, with a Yorkshire keenness, which smacks of
avarice--

  “We cannot but acknowledge your goodness in promising the land,
  and the money towards paying our debt, which will be two very
  convenient articles at this place, as we are in great want of
  both.

  “I am, reverend and dear sir, for and on behalf of the
  trustees,

  “Yours very affectionately,

                                      “JOSEPH CHARLESWORTH.”[427]

The result was, a new deed was made, giving the conference power to
appoint preachers; and this serious hubbub, _pro tem._, subsided. We
shall soon have to recur to the same subject; and this apparently long
and tedious digression may serve as an introduction to what will have
to be said hereafter. The controversy was the first battle fought for
restricting, or rather for setting aside, an ecclesiastical power,
which has grown to be the greatest exercised by any church throughout
the whole of the Christian world; and perhaps, on this ground, the
writer will be pardoned for trespassing on the reader’s patience; and
especially as many of the incidents are now for the first time
published.[428]

We return to Wesley. Of course, the dispute at Birstal led to much
unpleasantness; but Wesley was firm in maintaining discipline. Hence
the following, addressed to Mr. Valton, then one of the Birstal
preachers.

                                                “_June 18, 1782._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot allow J---- S---- to be any longer
  a leader; and, if he will lead the class, whether I will or no,
  I require you to put him out of our society. If twenty of his
  class will leave the society too, they must. The first loss is
  the best. Better forty members should be lost, than our
  discipline be lost. _They are no Methodists, that will bear no
  restraints._ Explain this at large to the society.

  “I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[429]

Wesley’s clerical friends were now regularly and constantly
increasing. He had, to some extent, outlived their _brotherly_
persecution. They began to appreciate his motives and his services;
and, so far from hooting and hissing him, began to greet him, to court
his company, and to ask his counsel. Among others of this description
may be mentioned the Rev. Thomas Davenport, who was now in his
sixtieth year, but had only recently found peace with God, and that
principally through Wesley’s help.[430] Wesley wrote to him as
follows.

                                     “BRISTOL, _August 14, 1782_.

  “DEAR SIR,--It would have given me a good deal of satisfaction
  to have had a little conversation with you. But I do not stay
  long in one place. I have no resting place on earth:

                ‘A poor wayfaring man,
                   I dwell in tents below,
                 Or gladly wander to and fro,
                   Till I my Canaan gain.’

  “You would have been very welcome at our conference. Mr. Pugh
  and Mr. Dodwell[431] were present at it; and, I believe, are
  more determined than ever to spend their whole strength in
  saving their own souls, and them that hear them.

  “I believe, that one of our preachers, who are stationed in the
  Leicester circuit, will call upon you at Alexton; and I make no
  doubt but some of the seed which you have been long sowing will
  then grow up. No one should wish or pray for persecution. On
  the contrary, we are to avoid it, to the uttermost of our
  power. ‘When they persecute you in one city, flee unto
  another.’ Yet, when it does come, notwithstanding all our care
  to avoid it, God will extract good out of evil.

  “To-morrow I am to set out for Cornwall. In about three weeks,
  I expect to be here again. In the beginning of October, I
  generally move towards London; in the neighbourhood of which I
  usually spend the winter.

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[432]

The day after this letter was written, Wesley set out westwards. On
reaching Exeter, where his old antagonist, Bishop Lavington, once
resided, he met with a most friendly welcome; and, by invitation,
dined on the Sunday, with the bishop, in his palace, five other
clergymen and four of the aldermen of Exeter being present besides
himself. Arriving at Plymouth, Wesley preached in the Square, and,
while doing so, a regiment of soldiers, with military music, marched
into it. No sooner, however, did the commanding officer perceive the
preacher, than he stopped the music, and drew up his men to listen.
“They were all still as night;” says Wesley, “nor did any of them
stir, till I had pronounced the blessing.”

In Cornwall, he found an old clerical friend at the point of death,
the Rev. Mr. Thompson, rector of St. Gennis. It was now thirty-seven
years since Wesley first preached in Mr. Thompson’s church, and,
throughout the whole of that period, they had been faithful friends.
The dying rector wished once more to see his old acquaintance. Wesley,
borrowing the best horse he could find, and riding as fast as he was
able, says: “I found Mr. Thompson just alive, but quite sensible. He
had many doubts concerning his final state, and rather feared, than
desired, to die; so that my whole business was to comfort him, and to
increase and confirm his confidence in God. He desired me to
administer the Lord’s supper, which I willingly did; and I left him
much happier than I found him, calmly waiting till his change should
come.”

While riding to see his friend, Mr. Thompson, Wesley was accosted by
an old acquaintance of another sort. He writes: “On the way, I met
with a white headed old man, who caught me by the hand, and said,
‘Sir, do you not know me?’ I answered, ‘No.’ He said, ‘My father, my
father! I am poor John Trembath.’ I desired him to speak to me in the
evening at Launceston; which he did. He was, for some time, reduced to
extreme poverty, so as to hedge and ditch for bread; but, in his
distress, he cried unto God, who sent him an answer of peace. He,
likewise, enabled him to cure a gentleman that was desperately ill,
and afterwards several others; so that he grew into reputation, and
gained a competent livelihood. ‘And now,’ said he, ‘I want for
nothing: I am happier than ever I was in my life.’”

Who was John Trembath? One of Wesley’s first itinerants, who commenced
his ministry in 1743, and, for several years, laboured with diligence
under Wesley’s direction,[433]--a man of great eloquence and
zeal,[434]--a burning and shining light, and a workman who, at one
time, according to Wesley, had no need to be ashamed,[435]--a preacher
not deep, and yet so popular as to be almost idolised by the
people;[436] but who, alas! for the last twenty years, had sunk into
an extreme of sin, and shame, and misery. Naturally vain, the
applauses of the people spoiled him. He became bouncing, and boastful,
and not always truthful. He married, gave up reading, turned to
farming, and kept company with men who had just wit enough to “talk of
bullocks,” and to “smoke, drink, and flatter him.” He became a
sportsman, and was suspected of smuggling.[437] His career was almost
a romance. But now, to use Wesley’s language, “John Trembath was alive
again.”[438] A month after the strange interview above related,
Trembath wrote to Wesley: “Though God has forgiven me, yet I cannot
forgive myself for the precious time I have wasted, the years I have
lost, and the glorious harvest I have neglected.”[439] Poor Trembath
died of paralysis, at Cork, about the year 1793.[440]

Such were the old friends whom Wesley met in Cornwall. Getting back to
Bristol, on September 6, he found a new one, young, but warm hearted,
honest, and faithful. Adam Clarke, just emerging out of his teens, had
arrived from Ireland. He had travelled from Birmingham to Bristol upon
a penny loaf and a halfpennyworth of apples; and had just three
halfpence left when he got to Kingswood school. He met with a
reception from Simpson, the head master, as frigid as cold heartedness
could make it. Simpson’s stupid, imperious wife made bad things worse,
by suspecting that the young Irishman might be afflicted with the
itch, and by making him rub himself from head to foot with Jackson’s
ointment. This “infernal unguent,” as Adam calls it, made him smell
worse than a polecat. His only sustenance was bread and milk; and not
enough of that. For more than three weeks, no one performed any kind
act for him. As for Mrs. Simpson, he feared her as he feared the
devil. At length, Wesley arrived from Cornwall; Clarke was introduced;
Wesley laid his hands upon his head, and spent a few minutes in
beseeching God to bless him; and then gave him his commission to
proceed to Wiltshire as a Methodist preacher. Fifty years after this,
Adam Clarke died in London,--an old itinerant preacher, without a spot
on the fair escutcheon of his character,--one of the most extensively
learned scholars of the age,--a voluminous author,--the friend of
philosophers and princes,--and a man intensely beloved by nearly all
who knew him.

Wesley left Bristol for London on October 7, and, on his way, preached
at Newport in the Isle of Wight. He writes: “This place seems now ripe
for the gospel, opposition is at an end.”

At, Newport the first Methodist preaching place was a room in Node
Hill; and the opposition, referred to by Wesley, consisted of the
beating of drums, tin kettles, and bells; the throwing of rotten eggs,
sticks, and stones; sparrows let loose in the room for the purpose of
putting out the lights; and covering the chimney top and fastening the
door, in order to stifle the imprisoned worshippers. It was at
Newport, that Robert Wallbridge heard Wesley preach; was converted;
became a Methodist; and a Methodist local preacher. Elizabeth
Wallbridge, his sister, was now a light haired, ruddy faced, and merry
hearted girl, of twelve years old. Of scholastic learning she had but
a slender share; and had to earn her bread as a household servant. She
had a high flow of spirits, vanity, and ready wit, and was
inordinately fond of dress. Elizabeth was converted under the ministry
of James Crabb, a Methodist preacher, became a Methodist herself, and
continued such to the end of life. Her father joined the church
presided over by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman, who published an account of
him, in a well written tract, a short time before he set sail on his
mission to the South Sea islands. Elizabeth’s brother Robert, for more
than forty years, was a Methodist local preacher, and died at Newport
in 1837. Elizabeth herself died, at the age of thirty-one, in the year
1801; the Rev. Legh Richmond visited her in her last moments; and
afterwards wrote her life, with the title of “The Dairyman’s
Daughter,” omitting to state, however, that his heroine was a
Methodist. Millions of copies of that publication have been
circulated; it has been translated into, at least, thirty languages;
and, thirty years ago, it had been the means of the conversion of
three hundred and fifty persons.[441]

Wesley reached London on October 11. Here, and in eight or nine of the
southern counties of England, he spent, according to his custom, the
remainder of the year.

His publications, in 1782, were few in number.

1. An Extract from his Journal, from January 1, 1776, to August 5,
1779. 12mo, 112 pages.

2. “Alleine’s Alarm to the Unconverted.” 12mo, 107 pages.

3. “An Estimate of the Manners of the present Times.” 12mo, 23 pages.

This was an exceedingly characteristic piece. With terrible severity,
he lashes the vices of the age; the slothfulness of people of fashion;
the increase of luxury, both in meat, drink, dress, and furniture; and
lewdness of every kind. He writes: “A total ignorance of God is almost
universal among us. The exceptions are exceeding few, whether among
the learned or unlearned. High and low, cobblers, tinkers, hackney
coachmen, men and maid servants, soldiers, sailors, tradesmen of all
ranks, lawyers, physicians, gentlemen, lords, are as ignorant of the
Creator of the world as Mahommedans or pagans.”

4. The _Arminian Magazine_. 8vo, 680 pages. Here we have an engraving
of the new chapel in City Road, with portraits of George Story, etc.
About forty pages are filled with a continuation of Wesley’s
translation of the Dialogues of Castellio on Election and Free Will.
There are long extracts from Wesley’s “Survey of the Wisdom of God in
Creation”; and from Dr. Watts’s Treatise on the Passions. Remarks upon
Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding make a part of every number.
Memoirs and happy deaths are more numerous than ever. There are sixty
letters, and as many poems. There are six original sermons by Wesley
himself. One, on “Redeeming the Time,” is a vigorous enforcement of
the principles propounded in his letter to his niece in 1781.[442]
Another is a remarkable homily on “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return”; and another, equally striking, is on God’s six days’
work. Then there is his magnificent sermon on, “Not as the
transgression, so is the free gift.” And, lastly, there is his
terrific discourse on the Punishments of Hell. If the _Arminian
Magazine_ had done nothing more than give birth to sermons like these,
it would have rendered incalculable service to the cause of Christ.

In addition to the above, the magazine contains several original
articles, by Wesley’s pen, of great interest and importance. In one,
on Persecuting Papists, he says: “I set out in early life with an
utter abhorrence of persecution in every form, and a full conviction,
that every man has a right to worship God, according to his own
conscience. I would not hurt a hair of the head of Romanists.
Meantime, I would not put it into their power to hurt me, or any other
persons whom they believe to be heretics. I would neither kill, nor be
killed. I wish them well; but I dare not trust them.” In another
article there is an onslaught on the “Divinity and Philosophy of the
highly illuminated Jacob Behmen”; concluding thus: “May we not
pronounce, with the utmost certainty, of one who thus distorts,
mangles, and murders the word of God, That the light which is in him
is darkness; that he is _illuminated_ from beneath, rather than from
above; and that he ought to be styled _Demonosopher_, rather than
_Theosopher_?”

This was savage; and Wesley’s old friend, Mr. Harry Brooke, of Dublin,
wrote him a letter of earnest remonstrance; to which Wesley replied as
follows.

                                               “_April 21, 1783._

  “DEAR HARRY,--Your letter gave me pleasure and pain. It gave me
  pleasure, because it was written in a mild and loving spirit;
  but it gave me pain, because I found I had pained you, whom I
  so tenderly love and esteem. But I shall do it no more. I
  sincerely thank you for your kind reproof. It is a precious
  balm, and will, I trust, in the hands of the Great Physician,
  be the means of healing my sickness. I am so sensible of your
  real friendship herein, that I cannot write without tears. The
  words you mention were too strong. They will no more fall from
  my mouth.

  “I am, dear Harry, affectionately yours,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[443]

This may serve as an _erratum_, belonging to the _Arminian Magazine_
of 1782.


FOOTNOTES:

     [419] _Methodist Recorder_, Aug. 16, 1867.

     [420] It was doubtless at this time that he had a youthful
           hearer, who afterwards became the renowned Sir Walter
           Scott. In a letter to Southey, dated Abbotsford,
           April 4, 1819, Scott writes: “When I was about twelve
           years old, I heard Wesley preach more than once,
           standing on a chair, in Kelso churchyard. He was a
           most venerable figure, but his sermons were vastly
           too colloquial for the taste of Saunders. He told
           many excellent stories. One I remember, which he
           said had happened to him at Edinburgh. ‘A drunken
           dragoon,’ said Wesley, ‘was commencing an assertion
           in military fashion, G----d eternally d----n me,
           just as I was passing. I touched the poor man on the
           shoulder, and when he turned round fiercely, said
           calmly, You mean, _God bless you_.’ In the mode of
           telling the story, he failed not to make us sensible
           how much this patriarchal appearance, and mild yet
           bold rebuke, overawed the soldier, who touched his
           hat, thanked him, and, I think, came to chapel that
           evening.”--(“Memoirs of Sir Walter Scott,” by J. G.
           Lockhart, Esq.)

     [421] _Methodist Magazine_, 1854, p. 184.

     [422] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 138.

     [423] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 140.

     [424] The copy before us is addressed “To Mr. Thompson, at
           the Methodist chapel, Hull,” and is signed by Wesley
           in his own handwriting.

     [425] Coke’s manuscript letter.

     [426] Manuscript letter.

     [427] Ibid.

     [428] For the manuscripts that have been used, I am
           indebted to the kindness of Mr. Clapham, of Birstal.

     [429] _Methodist Magazine_, 1824, p. 307.

     [430] Ibid. 1790, pp. 106, 163.

     [431] Both clergymen.

     [432] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 475.

     [433] Myles’s History.

     [434] _Methodist Magazine_, 1826, p. 794.

     [435] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 309.

     [436] _Methodist Magazine_, 1782, p. 468.

     [437] Ibid. 1798, p. 492; and 1780, p. 448.

     [438] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 13.

     [439] _Methodist Magazine_, 1790, p. 557.

     [440] Everett’s “Methodism in Sheffield.”

     [441] Dyson’s “History of Methodism in the Isle of Wight.”

     [442] In 1783, this sermon was reprinted, in a separate
           form, without Wesley’s knowledge, by a gentleman of
           Cambridge, in 12mo.

     [443] Walton’s “Memorial of W. Law,” p. 91; and Brooke’s
           Life, p. 194.




                                1783.
                               Age 80


One of the first entries in Wesley’s journal, in 1783, is the
following. “Friday, January 10--I paid one more visit to Mr. Perronet,
now in his ninetieth year. I do not know so venerable a man. His
understanding is little, if at all, impaired; and his heart seems to
be all love. A little longer, I hope, he will remain here, to be a
blessing to all that see and hear him.” This is beautiful, after an
unbroken friendship of about forty years.

Another entry, equally deserving of being noted, was as follows:
“Sunday, January 19--I preached in St. Thomas’s church in the
afternoon, and at St. Swithin’s in the evening. The tide is now
turned; so that I have more invitations to preach in churches than I
can accept of.” What a contrast between 1783 and 1739!

Wesley was an unendowed clergyman; but was not unsupported. The funds,
raised for his purposes, were large; but his own appropriation from
them, not equal to the poor parson’s, who was “passing rich on £40 a
year.” In reference to the London annual audit, he writes: “Friday,
February 21--At our yearly meeting for that purpose, we examined our
yearly accounts, and found the money received, (just answering the
expense,) was upwards of £3000 a year. But that is nothing to me: what
I receive of it, yearly, is neither more nor less than £30.”

Wesley was an old man; but he was still an outdoor preacher: for
five-and-forty years he had been branded as a schismatic and a
Dissenter; but he was still an ardent Churchman. Hence the following,
addressed to Joseph Taylor, one of his itinerant preachers.

                                     “LONDON, _January 16, 1783_.

  “DEAR JOSEPH,--I am glad to hear so good an account of
  Marazion. You must endeavour to hire a larger room at Truro. We
  shall not build any more in haste. I often preach abroad, in
  winter as well as summer.

  “In my journals, in the magazine, in every possible way, I have
  advised the Methodists to keep to the Church. They that do this
  most prosper best in their souls; I have observed it long. If
  ever the Methodists in general were to leave the Church, I must
  leave them.

  “I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[444]

An extract from another letter may be inserted here, showing that,
rightly or wrongly, the Methodist preachers of the present day have
departed from one of the principles of their founder. Ministerial
classes are now almost general. Hear what Wesley had to say, on this
subject, to John Cricket, then stationed, with Henry Moore, at
Londonderry.

                                    “LONDON, _February 10, 1783_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You must immediately resume the form at
  least of a Methodist society. I positively forbid you, or any
  preacher, to be a leader; rather put the most insignificant
  person in each class to be the leader of it. And try if you
  cannot persuade three men, if no more, and three women, to meet
  in band.

  “Hope to the end! You shall see better days! The plainer you
  speak, the more good you will do. Derry will bear plain
  dealing. I am just as well as I was forty years ago.

  “I am, yours affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[445]

The hale old man soon found himself in a different plight. On March 2,
he set off for Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which he spent the
next twelve days, preaching and meeting classes. He then became
seriously unwell; but, for two days longer, continued preaching, when
he was obliged to take his bed. He had a deep tearing cough; was weak
and heavy, and in a fever. He had fixed the next morning for
commencing his journey to Ireland, and had sent notice to Stroud, and
various other places, of the days wherein he purposed to visit them.
Fortunately, the Rev. Brian Collins was at hand, and undertook to
supply his appointments as far as Worcester. Accordingly, Mr. Collins,
in the morning of March 17, set out to preach at Stroud; but Wesley,
finding himself better, in the afternoon, imprudently set out after
him, and actually gave a short exhortation to the Stroud society. For
the next three days, he was dangerously ill. The whole nervous system
was violently agitated. His cough was most distressing. He was seized
with cramp. He was bereft of strength, “scarce able to move, and much
less to think.” Before leaving Bristol, he wrote the following
unpublished letter to Miss Hester Ann Roe, afterwards Mrs. Rogers.

                                      “BRISTOL, _March 16, 1783_.

  “MY DEAR HETTY,--It has frequently been on my mind of late,
  that my pilgrimage is nearly at an end; and one of our sisters
  here told us this morning a particular dream which she had two
  months ago. She dreamt, that the time of conference was come,
  and that she was in a church expecting me to enter; when she
  saw a coffin brought in, followed by Dr. Coke and Mr. Fletcher,
  and then by all our preachers walking two and two. A fortnight
  ago, she dreamt the same dream again. Such a burying I have
  ordered in my will, absolutely forbidding either hearse or
  coach.

  “I intended to have written a good deal more. For a few days, I
  have had just such a fever as I had in Ireland a few years ago.
  But all is well. I am in no pain; but the wheel of life seems
  scarcely able to move. Yet, I made a shift to preach this
  morning to a crowded audience, and hope to say something to
  them this afternoon. I love that word, ‘And Ishmael died in the
  presence of all his brethren.’

  “I am, in life or death, my dear sister, yours affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[446]

What was the result? The news of Wesley’s being dangerously ill flew
far and wide. A number of the preachers met together to pray for a
further prolongation of his life; and, from that time, he rapidly
recovered.[447] For three days he lay at Stroud, in great danger. On
the morning of the fourth day, he wrote: “A violent fit of the cramp
carried the fever quite away; and, perceiving this, I took chaise
without delay, and reached Worcester in the afternoon. Here I overtook
Mr. Collins, who had supplied all my appointments, with a remarkable
blessing to the people; and, the next morning, I gave a short
exhortation, and then went on to Birmingham.” At Birmingham, he was
electrified, and “ventured to preach three quarters of an hour.” He
then made his way to Hinckley, where, for three days, he preached
morning and evening, “to a serious and well behaved people.” He then
visited other societies on his way to Holyhead, and reached Dublin on
April 13.

For three weeks, he was the guest of Mr. Henry Brooke, and was
employed in healing serious divisions in the Dublin society.[448] Four
days were spent in holding a conference with his Irish preachers, at
which, he says, “all was peace and love.” “I wish,” he writes, “all
our English preachers were of the same spirit with the Irish, among
whom is no jarring string. I never saw such simplicity and
teachableness run through a body of preachers before.”[449] This was a
high compliment paid to Thomas Rutherford, Andrew Blair, Zechariah
Yewdall, Richard Boardman, Thomas Barber, Henry Moore, John Cricket,
John Crook, and their twenty-six colleagues in Christian enterprise
and labour.

Wesley embarked for England on the 8th of May, and, after preaching at
Warrington, Liverpool, Wigan, Bolton, and other places, reached
Manchester nine days afterwards. Here he had an enormous sacramental
service, at which thirteen or fourteen hundred communicants were
present: “such a sight,” says he, “as, I believe, was never seen in
Manchester before.” “I believe,” he adds, “there is no place but
London where we have so many souls so deeply devoted to God.”

Leaving Manchester, he proceeded to Macclesfield, where a week never
passed “in which some were not justified, and some renewed in love.”
He preached, for the first time, at Buxton, where John Knowles and his
wife were almost the only Methodists, and frequently rode on horseback
to Stockport, a distance of sixteen miles, to hear the Methodist
preachers.[450] Here he married a couple of his friends, and preached
in the parish church. He arrived in London on May 31.

On June 11, accompanied by Messrs. Brackenbury, Broadbent, and
Whitfield, he set out for Holland. For more than forty years, Wesley
had been incessantly at work forming Methodist societies. Up to the
present, he had never indulged in the luxury of a ministerial holiday;
and we are not sure, that his trip to Holland should be regarded in
such a light as that. Still, there was a difference between this
journey and others. In other instances, his object was to institute
Methodist societies, or to strengthen those already formed; in this
instance, that was no part of the object at which he aimed. He went,
says Mr. Moore, “partly for relaxation, and partly to indulge and
enlarge his catholic spirit, by forming an acquaintance with the truly
pious in foreign nations.” The fact is, one of his own local
preachers, whom he highly esteemed, Mr. William Ferguson, had removed
to Holland, and, by his earnest piety, had attracted the attention of
the public generally, including many of the principal inhabitants and
persons in authority. He spoke much of Wesley and of the Methodists,
and distributed Wesley’s sermons among his friends. The result was a
general wish to see the veteran evangelist, and to hear him for
themselves. One difficulty, however, was in the way. Wesley was
acquainted, to a greater or less extent, with the Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin, the English, French, German, and Spanish languages; but he knew
nought of Dutch. This objection was surmounted by Mr. Ferguson’s son,
Jonathan, offering to act as his interpreter.[451] Accordingly, off
Wesley went, accompanied by the three preachers above mentioned.

His visit was eminently pleasant. Ministers of religion welcomed him;
and persons of high rank showed him honour. At Rotterdam, he preached
twice, in the episcopal church, to large congregations, and says:
“Were it only for this, I am glad I came to Holland.” At the Hague, in
the house of a lady of the first quality, he met a dozen ladies and
two military gentlemen, expounded the first three verses of the
thirteenth of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and prayed,
Captain M---- interpreting sentence by sentence. Wesley writes: “I
believe, this hour was well employed.” He held a sort of service in
the passenger boat between Haarlem and Amsterdam. That is, he and his
friends began to sing a hymn; the people listened; Wesley talked;
Ferguson interpreted; “and all our hearts,” says Wesley, “were
strangely knit together, so that, when we came to Amsterdam, they
dismissed us with abundance of blessings.”

At Utrecht, Wesley wrote: “June 28--I have this day lived fourscore
years; and, by the mercy of God, my eyes are not waxed dim, and what
little strength of body or mind I had thirty years since, just the
same I have now. God grant I may never live to be useless! rather may I

               ‘My body with my charge lay down,
                 And cease at once to work and live!’”

On the same day, he made a short excursion. Hence, the following
extract from the diary of the Moravian congregation at Zeyst:

  “1783, June 28.--We kept the children’s prayer day. The Rev.
  John Wesley, the well known Methodist minister, arrived here in
  the afternoon, with several other ministers. After visiting his
  old friend, Brother Anton, he paid a hurried visit to the
  brethren’s house, and sisters’ house; and then attended a
  children’s lovefeast, at three o’clock; on which occasion, as
  it happened to be his eightieth birthday, the children sang a
  few benedictory verses for him; the congregation closing the
  service by singing ‘The grace of our Lord be with us all!’ At
  4.30 p.m. he and his companions returned to Utrecht, where he
  had preached the day before.”

Wesley spent altogether seventeen days in Holland, and was delighted
with his visit. He writes: “I can by no means regret either the
trouble or expense, which attended this little journey. It opened me a
way into, as it were, a new world; where the land, the buildings, the
people, the customs, were all such as I had never seen before. But as
those with whom I conversed were of the same spirit with my friends in
England, I was as much at home in Utrecht and Amsterdam, as in Bristol
and London.” “There is a blessed work at the Hague, and many other of
the principal cities; and, in their simplicity of spirit, and
plainness of dress, the believers vie with the old English Methodists.
In affection, they are not inferior to any. It was with the utmost
difficulty we could break from them.”[452] “Two of our sisters, when
we left the Hague, came twelve miles with us on the way; and one of
our brethren, of Amsterdam, came to take leave of us to Utrecht, above
thirty miles. I believe, if my life be prolonged, I shall pay them a
visit at least every other year. Had I had a little more time, I would
have visited our brethren in Friesland, and Westphalia likewise; for a
glorious work of God is lately broken out in both these provinces.”[453]

Wesley got back to London on July 4. Ten days later, he set off to his
conference at Bristol. “I expect,” says he, “a good deal of difficulty
at this conference, and shall stand in need of the prayers of you and
your friends.”[454] His apprehension was realised; hence the following
entry in his journal: “July 29--Our conference began, at which we
considered two important points: first, the case of Birstal house;
and, secondly, the state of Kingswood school. With regard to the
former, our brethren earnestly desired, that I would go to Birstal
myself, believing this would be the most effectual way of bringing the
trustees to reason. With regard to the latter, we all agreed, that
either the school should cease, or the rules of it be particularly
observed: particularly, that the children should never play, and that
a master should be always present with them.”

We need not recur to the first of these points, except to add, that
the Birstal chapel case, no doubt, led to the adoption of the
following resolutions:

  “_Question 21._ What houses are to be built this year?

  “_Answer._ None that are not already begun.

  “_Q. 22._ Has not the needless multiplying of preaching houses
  been a great evil?

  “_A._ So it appears.

  “_Q. 23._ How may this be prevented?

  “_A._ By permitting none for the future to beg for any house,
  except in the circuit where it stands.

  “_Q. 24._ What can be done to get all our preaching houses
  settled on the conference plan?

  “_A._ Let Dr. Coke visit the societies throughout England, as
  far as is necessary for the accomplishment of this end; and let
  the respective assistants give him all the support in their
  power.”

Such was the commission given to Dr. Coke, a weary and worrying one.

Kingswood school, however, was as great a bore as Birstal chapel. It
had now existed for five-and-thirty years; it had been to Wesley a
source of almost ceaseless trouble, and was now in a worse state than
ever. Nevertheless, it was a far famed institution; and, besides the
sons of itinerant preachers, it had, at this very time, _parlour
boarders_ from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the West Indies. None of
the scholars however, were remarkable for piety or learning; and the
_young gentlemen_, just mentioned, had spoiled the discipline of the
school. Thomas Simpson, M.A., was head master; Mrs. Simpson
housekeeper; Cornelius Bayley was English teacher, with a salary of
£12 per annum and his board; Vincent de Boudry was occasional French
teacher; and C. R. Bond a sort of half boarder, and assistant to
Bayley.[455]

  “My design in building the house at Kingswood,” says Wesley,
  “was to have therein a Christian family; every member whereof,
  (children excepted,) should be alive to God, and a pattern of
  all holiness. Here it was that I proposed to educate a few
  children, according to the accuracy of the Christian model. And
  almost as soon as we began, God gave us a token for good, four
  of the children receiving a clear sense of pardon. But, at
  present, the school does not, in any wise, answer the design of
  its institution, either with regard to religion or learning.
  The children are not religious: they have not the power, and
  hardly the form of religion. Neither do they improve in
  learning better than at other schools; no, nor yet so well.
  Insomuch, that some of our friends have been obliged to remove
  their children to other schools. And no wonder that they
  improve so little either in religion or learning; for the rules
  of the school are not observed at all. All in the house ought
  to rise, take their three meals, and go to bed at a fixed hour.
  But they do not. The children ought never to be alone, but
  always in the presence of a master. This is totally neglected;
  in consequence of which, they run up and down the wood, and
  mix, yea, fight with the colliers’ children. They ought never
  to play: but they do, every day; yea, in the school. Three
  maids are sufficient; now there are four; and but one, at most,
  truly pious.

  “How may these evils be remedied, and the school reduced to its
  original plan? It must be mended or ended: for no school is
  better than the present school. Can any be a master, that does
  not rise at five, observe _all_ the rules, and see that others
  observe them? There should be three masters, and an usher,
  chiefly to be with the children out of school. The head master
  should have nothing to do with temporal things.”[456]

This was a dark picture; doubtless the result of bad management. Easy,
good tempered Mr. Simpson was a scholar; his wife, the real governor,
was an ogress. A woman that rubbed Adam Clarke with the “infernal
unguent” to cure him of an imaginary itch; thrust him into a solitary
room, with a wretched old bedstead, and left him there without book or
fire; and from whom Adam, when he heard her voice, was disposed to run
in the utmost fright, was not the woman to manage Kingswood school.
“She was probably very clever,” says Clarke; “all stood in awe of her;
for my own part, I feared her more than I feared Satan himself. The
school was the worst I had ever seen, though the teachers were men of
adequate learning. It was perfectly _disorganised_; and, in several
respects, each did what was right in his own eyes. There was no
efficient plan pursued; they mocked at religion; and trampled under
foot all the laws. The little children of the preachers suffered great
indignities; and, it is to be feared, their treatment there gave many
of them a rooted enmity against religion for life. The parlour
boarders had every kind of respect paid to them, and the others were
shamefully neglected. Scarcely any care was taken either of their
bodies or souls.”

Poor Kingswood! Could all this be strictly accurate? Probably it was;
for the following, given as a fact, prepares the mind for almost
anything in the form of stupidity, and ignorant confusion. “At the
table,” writes Adam Clarke, “every person when he drank was obliged to
run the following gauntlet. He must drink the health of Mr. Simpson,
Mrs. Simpson, Miss Simpson, Mr. Bayley, Mr. De Boudry, all the foreign
gentlemen, then all the parlour boarders, down one side of the long
table, and up the other, one by one, and all the _visitors_ who might
happen to be there: after which it was lawful for him to drink his
glass of beer.”[457]

Wesley was quite right. No school at all was better than such a school
as this. It was high time to mend it or end it. In his magazine, for
the very month in which the conference of 1783 was held, Wesley
published an article, by his own pen, entitled, “A Thought on the
Manner of Educating Children,” in which he strongly maintains, that
all education ought to be religious; but adds, probably with the state
of Kingswood in his eye,--“Even religious masters may still be
mistaken with regard to the manner of instilling religion into
children. They may not have the spirit of government, to which some
even good men are utter strangers. They may habitually lean to this or
that extreme, of remissness or of severity. And if they either give
children too much of their own will, or needlessly and churlishly
restrain them; if they either use no punishment at all, or more than
is necessary, the leaning either to one extreme or the other may
frustrate all their endeavours. In the latter case, it will not be
strange, if religion stink in the nostrils of those that were so
educated. They will naturally look on it as an austere, melancholy
thing; and, if they think it necessary to salvation, they will esteem
it a necessary evil, and so put it off as long as possible.”

Wesley was not the man to hesitate in changing his officials when
change was necessary. Mr. Simpson was dismissed; Thomas McGeary, A.M.,
a young man of twenty-two, took his place.[458] Cornelius Bayley had
previously made up his mind to leave, in order to enter the ministry
of the Established Church;[459] and Thomas Welch, an assistant in a
school at Coventry, applied to be appointed his successor. Wesley
wrote to him as follows.

                                     “BRISTOL, _August 15, 1783_.

  “DEAR THOMAS,--You seem to be the man I want. As to salary, you
  will have £30 a year; board, etc., will be thirty more. But do
  not come _for money_. (1) Do not come at all, unless purely to
  raise a Christian school. (2) Anybody behaving ill, I will turn
  away immediately. (3) I expect you to be in the school eight
  hours a day. (4) In all things, I expect you should be
  circumspect. But you will judge better by considering the
  printed rules. The sooner you come the better.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[460]

Mr. Welch was a young man of twenty-three. Two years before, he had
become a Methodist. The Coventry society, then extremely feeble, was
loath to lose him; and some of its members succeeded in persuading him
to remain where he was. He wrote to Wesley to this effect; and Wesley
answered: “You use me very ill. I have turned away three masters on
your account. The person, who gives you this advice, is wanting either
in common sense or common honesty.”[461] Mr. Welch became a valuable
local preacher, and lived and died a Methodist. Thomas Jones took the
place that he declined, and, for three years, retained it, when he was
ordained a clergyman of the Church of England.

This was Wesley’s last complaint of Kingswood. Twelve months
afterwards, the school and family were visited with a gracious
outpouring of God’s good Spirit. In 1786, he says: “I found the school
in excellent order.” “It is now one of the pleasantest spots in
England. I found all things just according to my desire; the rules
being well observed, and the whole behaviour of the children showing,
that they were now managed with the wisdom that cometh from above.” In
1787, he expressed himself to the same effect, as, in fact, he did to
the end of life. The last entry in his journal, in reference to this
memorable place,--a child, always with him a pet, though often
troublesome,--was this: “1789, September 11--I went over to Kingswood:
sweet recess! where everything is now just as I wish. But

             ‘Man was not born in shades to lie!’

Let us work now; we shall rest by-and-by. I spent some time with the
children; all of whom behaved well: several are much awakened, and a
few rejoicing in the favour of God.”

We must now bid a final adieu to dear old Kingswood school, the sacred
scene of so many Methodistic memories, and turn to other matters
connected with the conference of 1783.

The number of members was reported to be 45,955; but all these were
Methodists within the limits of the United Kingdom. No account was
taken of the 13,740 Methodists in America. No mention was made of
Antigua, where nearly 2000 persons had joined John Baxter’s society;
and where, in this very year, the first Methodist chapel in the torrid
zone was completed.[462]

Nova Scotia also is not noticed; though it had been the scene of a
most blessed work, and William Black had written to Wesley, urgently
asking him to send them preachers. The following were Wesley’s
answers.

                                    “LONDON, _February 26, 1783_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I did indeed very strongly expostulate with
  the Bishop of London, concerning his refusing to ordain a pious
  man, without learning, while he ordained others that, to my
  knowledge, had no piety, and but a moderate share of learning.

  “Our next conference will begin in July; and I have great
  hopes, we shall then be able to send you assistance. One of our
  preachers informs me, he is willing to go to any part of Africa
  or America. He does not regard danger or toil; nor, indeed,
  does he count his life dear unto himself, so that he may
  testify the gospel of the grace of God, and win sinners to
  Christ. But I cannot advise any person to go alone. Our Lord
  sent His disciples two and two. And I do not despair of finding
  another young man, as much devoted to God as he.

  “Of Calvinism, mysticism, and antinomianism, have a care; for
  they are the bane of true religion; and one or other of them
  has been the grand hindrance of the work of God, wherever it
  has broke out.

  “I am, my dear brother, yours affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[463]

The second letter to William Black was as follows.

                                        “LONDON, _July 13, 1783_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is a rule with me, to answer all the
  letters which I receive. If, therefore, you have not received
  an answer to every letter which you have written, it must be,
  either that your letter or my answer has been intercepted.

  “I do not wonder at all, that, after that great and
  extraordinary work of God, there should be a remarkable decay.
  So we have found it in almost all places. A swift increase is
  generally followed by a decrease equally swift. All we can do
  to prevent it, is continually to exhort all who have tasted
  that the Lord is gracious, to remember our Lord’s words, ‘Watch
  and pray that ye enter not into temptation.’

  “The school at Kingswood is exceeding full; nevertheless there
  shall be room for you. And it is very probable, if you should
  live to return to Halifax, you may carry one or more preachers
  with you. I hope you will live as brethren, and have a free and
  open intercourse with each other.

  “I am, my dear brother, affectionately yours,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[464]

Such was the wish of William Black; and such was Wesley’s intention;
but it was not until 1785, that Nova Scotia appeared in the minutes of
conference as a Methodist circuit. “The harvest truly was great; but
the labourers were few.” And yet all that offered were not accepted.

At the conference of 1783, there was present a young Welshman, of
middle stature, thin and delicate, with a somewhat elongated face, an
eye of genius, and a capacious forehead, who offered himself as an
itinerant preacher, but whom Wesley and his brethren, from the
delicacy of his health and the feebleness of his voice, thought not
equal to the arduous labours of the itinerant office. He had been
converted under the preaching of Samuel Bardsley, and, soon after his
offer was declined by Wesley, was ordained by Bishop Horsley, and
became vicar of Llanbister. The vicarage had a parlour, with a slab
stone floor, an open chimney, and a hearth on which burnt a fire of
wood and turf. It had a kitchen, and two upper rooms of the same
humble character. For many a long year this was the home of the Rev.
David Lloyd, “a philosopher, a poet, and a divine,” says Dr. Dixon,
“who seemed to enjoy, with unmixed contentment, the inheritance given
him by Providence.” For fifty years, his wife was a Methodist, and his
parsonage a Methodist preachers’ home. Besides poetical works of
considerable merit, the good vicar became the author of a large octavo
volume of very valuable essays, entitled “Horæ Theologicæ.”[465] Mr.
Lloyd was a perfect enthusiast on the missionary question, and gave a
subscription of £10 a year to the Methodist and Church missionary
societies respectively; presented each with a donation of £500; and
left the residue of his property, after other demands had been
satisfied, to be equally divided between these two institutions. He
also built a Methodist chapel on his estate, and secured it to the
connexion by deed. Thus, as a diligent clergyman of the Church of
England, and the friend and host of Methodist preachers, lived and
died the good vicar of Llanbister,--a candidate rejected by the
conference of 1783.[466]

In the midst of this conference, Wesley was again seized with an
alarming illness. Dr. Drummond attended him twice a day. His friends
thought, that his end was come; and he himself apprehended that the
cramp would probably reach his stomach, and occasion sudden death. “I
have been reflecting on my past life”, said he to his faithful nurse,
Joseph Bradford; “I have been wandering up and down between fifty and
sixty years, endeavouring, in my poor way, to do a little good to my
fellow creatures; and, now, it is probable that there are but a few
steps between me and death; and what have I to trust to for salvation?
I can see nothing which I have done or suffered, that will bear
looking at. I have no other plea than this:

              ‘I the chief of sinners am,
                 But Jesus died for me.’”[467]

For eighteen days, Wesley hung between life and death, when, finding
himself somewhat better, and “being,” as he says, “unwilling to be
idle,” he spent an hour with the Bristol penitents. The day following,
he preached twice, and, the day after that, on Monday, August 25, set
out again on his much loved gospel ramblings. Death itself, to Wesley,
was more desirable than life without work.

Preaching on his way at Gloucester, Worcester, and Birmingham, he
came, on August 29, to Stafford, where he writes: “I preached, for the
first time, to a large and deeply attentive congregation. It is now
the day of small things here; but the grain of mustard seed may grow
up into a great tree.”

Four years before this, Dr. Coke was passing through Stafford, and,
while dining at the inn, sent the bellman round to announce to the
inhabitants that he would preach in the market place. Jeremiah
Brettell, his companion, took a table from the hostelry; the doctor
mounted; the people came; all listened with deep attention; and some
expressed a wish for the visit to be repeated. Soon after, a little
society was formed,[468] which, in 1784, consisted of sixteen members,
Henry Robinson being leader.[469]

From Stafford, Wesley made his way to Macclesfield, where he preached
twice in the Rev. David Simpson’s church, and had a sacramental
service, at which seven hundred communicants were present.

He was now proceeding to Birstal, to effect the settlement with the
Birstal chapel trustees, as already related. The journey occupied
sixteen days; the distance was five or six hundred miles; according to
his wont, he preached all the way there and back; and yet, the old
man, who a month before had been on the very verge of death, returned
to Bristol on the 13th of September, almost as vigorous as ever.

An unpublished letter, belonging to this period, may be welcome here.
It was addressed to John Atlay, his book steward.

                                     “LEEDS, _September 3, 1783_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--The schoolmasters for Kingswood are fixed,
  and expected there every day. Mr. Simpson’s sister is the
  housekeeper, who is come hither in her way to Bristol. Let no
  man or woman go to West Street chapel without my appointment.
  It is a matter of deep concern. The building or not building,
  at Birstal, does not depend upon me, but the trustees. J.
  Fenwick is to correct the press chiefly, in the absence of Dr.
  Coke, and to transcribe tracts for me. And he may receive his
  little salary, at least, till I return to London.

  “I am, with love to sister Atlay, your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley remained in the neighbourhood of Bristol till October 6, and
employed the interval, not only in preaching, but in begging money to
relieve the distresses of the destitute, and in visiting the poor
recipients at their own houses. “I was surprised,” says he, “to find
no murmuring spirits among them, but many that were truly happy in
God; and all of them appeared to be exceeding thankful for the scanty
relief which they received.”

No wonder, that such a man was popular; and no wonder, that his
presence was a loadstone drawing the poor around him. Sometimes,
however, their absence would have been more welcome than their
company. A month after this, Wesley was at Norwich, and, when leaving,
had a whole host of poverty stricken people about his carriage. His
purse was low, containing only what was necessary to take him back to
London; and the clamour of the mendicant crowd, for once, disturbed
his temper. Somewhat sharply he said: “I have nothing for you. Do you
suppose I can support the poor in every place?” At the moment, he was
entering his carriage; his foot slipped; and he fell upon the ground.
Feeling as though God Himself had rebuked him for his hasty words, he
turned to Joseph Bradford, and, with subdued emphasis, remarked: “It
is all right, Joseph; it is all right; it is only what I deserved; for
if I had no _other_ good to give, I ought, at least, to have given
them good words.”[470]

The concluding months of the year were employed, as usual, partly in
London, and partly in the surrounding counties.

Considering Wesley’s advanced age, his labours are without parallel.
Here we have,--not a man of Herculean frame, big, brawny, and heavy,
fed on the daintiest diet, and stimulated with the costliest
wines,--but a man small in stature, his weight eight stones and ten
pounds (exactly the same as it was fourteen years before), his age
eighty, without indulgences, feeding, for eight months in every year,
chiefly at the tables of the poor, sleeping on all sorts of beds and
in all sorts of rooms, without a wife, without a child, really without
a home; and yet a man always cheerful, always happy, always hard at
work, flying with all the sprightliness of youth throughout the three
kingdoms, preaching twice every day, indoors and out of doors, in
churches, chapels, cottages, and sheds, and everywhere superintending
the complex and growing interests of the numerous societies which had
sprung into buoyant being through the labours of himself and his godly
helpers. The man was a marvel, such as the world sees only now and
then. Once show him the path of duty, and with a dauntless step he
trod it. Nothing frightened him; nothing could allure from the post
assigned to him by Providence. However arduous the work, and however
great the privations and the dangers, if his Master bid him go, he
went, trusting in his Master’s power for defence and help. “My brother
Charles,” he once remarked, “amid the difficulties of our early
ministry, used to say: ‘If the Lord would give me wings, I would fly.’
I used to answer, ‘If the Lord bid me fly, I would trust Him for the
wings.’”[471]

One of the last acts of this youthful octogenarian, in 1783, was to
pay a pastoral visit to another of the most remarkable men of that
period,--Dr. Samuel Johnson, who was now suffering his last illness,
and died twelve months afterwards.

Wesley’s publications, in 1783, were the following.

1. “The Spirit of Prayer.” 24 pages, 12mo.

2. “Baxter’s Call to the Unconverted.” 76 pages, 12mo.

3. “The Important Question. A Sermon. By John Wesley.” 23 pages, 12mo.

Besides these, Wesley also published many new editions of former
tracts, for the use of his recently instituted tract society, most of
these reissues having upon the title page, “This tract is not to be
sold, but given away.”

His principal publication, however, was his _Arminian Magazine_, and
this was as vigorously conducted as before. Again, we have
half-a-dozen original sermons, by Wesley himself, all of them
remarkable, and among the most able that he ever published. These
include his two discourses on good and fallen angels; in which he
propounds the doctrine, that good angels minister to our happiness, by
assisting us in our searches after truth, by preserving us in danger,
by dreams, etc.: and that all evil angels are united under one common
head; and are often the authors of accidents, diseases, fires, storms,
and earthquakes. Then there is his elaborate sermon on “The Mystery of
Iniquity,” in which he expresses the opinion, that the “greatest blow
that genuine Christianity ever received was when Constantine the Great
called himself a Christian, and poured in a flood of riches, honours,
and power upon the Christians, more especially upon the clergy.” Next
we have his curious homily on the Spread of Christianity, where he
hazards the conjecture that truth will be transmitted from this nation
to that, until at last it reaches the South Sea islands. And, finally,
there are his characteristic sermons on Family Religion, and on
Training Children. As usual, every number of the magazine has an
article on the Calvinian controversy. Biographical accounts are still
numerous. Extracts from his own Natural Philosophy, and from Locke’s
Essay on the Human Understanding, form a part of each of the twelve
numbers; as do also Benson’s letters in reply to Madan’s treatise on
polygamy; likewise extracts from Dr. Hilldrop’s able “Thoughts on the
Brute Creation,” professedly to prove a theory which Wesley liked, the
ultimate restoration of the brute creation; and a series of profoundly
thoughtful articles on “The True Original of the Soul.” Nine numbers
have extracts from Baxter’s “Certainty of the World of Spirits, fully
evinced by unquestionable Histories of Apparitions and Witchcrafts.”
There are forty-five letters; forty-one poems; and a number of
portraits, including those of John Hampson and William Thom, both of
whom left the Methodist connexion. There are also long continued
extracts from Bryant’s Analysis of Ancient Mythology, which Wesley
pronounces to be “one of the most remarkable books, in its kind, which
has been published for centuries.” And, finally, there are Wesley’s
“Thoughts on the Writings of Baron Swedenborg.” The baron, a little
before he died, presented Wesley with his last and largest theological
work, the “True Christian Religion”; but he failed to make a convert
of him. Wesley believed him to be insane, and traced his insanity to a
fever, which he had in London, when “he ran into the street stark
naked, proclaimed himself the Messiah, and rolled himself in the
mire.” He was a “fine genius,--majestic though in ruins.”


FOOTNOTES:

     [444] _The Wesleyan_, Sept. 9, 1846.

     [445] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiv., p. 343.

     [446] Manuscript letter.

     [447] Mrs. Rogers’ Life, p. 473.

     [448] Life of Brooke, p. 100.

     [449] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 141.

     [450] _Methodist Magazine_, 1851, p. 313.

     [451] The Fergusons, father and son, were notable persons.
           Mr. Ferguson, sen., was a well known local preacher
           for upwards of sixty years; Jonathan, his son, was
           a friend, and sometimes the travelling companion,
           of John Howard the philanthropist. He was a hearty
           Methodist, a happy Christian, and, at the age of
           eighty, died a triumphant death, at Islington, in
           1844.--(_Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 292.)

     [452] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 358.

     [453] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 60.

     [454] Ibid. p. 60.

     [455] Simpson was a man of learning and piety, but too
           easy for his situation. On leaving Kingswood, he
           wished to become an itinerant preacher, but set up a
           school at Keynsham, where his son ultimately was made
           vicar. Bayley was a good Hebrew scholar, became a
           doctor of divinity, had a church, St. James’s, built
           for him in Manchester, and was highly respected for
           his piety, usefulness, and high church principles.
           De Boudry began a school on Kingsdown, Bristol, and
           long bore the character of a pious, steady, honest
           man. Bond was affectionate, but not talented, and
           aspired to become a clergyman. Such is the testimony
           of Adam Clarke; and it is only fair to give it as
           a counterpoise to the discreditable state of the
           Kingswood school committed to their care.

     [456] Minutes of Conference, 1783.

     [457] “Life of Adam Clarke,” in three vols., 1833, vol. i.,
           pp. 153-168.

     [458] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 1.

     [459] Manuscript letter.

     [460] _Methodist Magazine_, 1817, p. 324.

     [461] _Methodist Magazine_, 1817, p. 324.

     [462] Coke’s Life, by Drew, p. 167.

     [463] Black’s Memoirs, p. 99.

     [464] Black’s Memoirs, p. 109.

     [465] _Methodist Magazine_, 1816, p. 832.

     [466] _Methodist Magazine_, 1863, sixpenny edition, p. 1.

     [467] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 389.

     [468] _Methodist Magazine_, 1830, p. 657.

     [469] The names were: Henry Robinson, Mary Robinson,
           Charles Machin, John Smith, Ann Stockdale, William
           Holding, Sarah Holding, John Rowland, Sarah Jervis,
           Thomas Smith, Elizabeth Smith, John Ward, Ann
           Ward, John Kelsall, Thomas Elley, and William
           Freepound.--(Burslem old circuit book.)

     [470] Everett’s Life of Clarke.

     [471] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 390.




                                1784.
                               Age 81


Dr. Whitehead calls the year 1784 “the grand _climacteric_ year of
Methodism, because of the changes which now took place in the form of
its _original_ constitution. Not,” says he, “that these changes
destroyed at once the _original_ constitution of Methodism; but the
seeds of its corruption and final dissolution were this year solemnly
planted, and have since been carefully watered and nursed by a
powerful party among the preachers.”[472] The doctor was an able man;
but he can scarcely be called a prophet. Of course, he refers to
Wesley’s deed of declaration, and Wesley’s ordination of bishops for
America; both of which must have due attention, before we conclude the
present year.

Wesley himself, according to his own correspondence, seemed to grow
younger as he grew older. In a letter to “the Rev. Walter Sellon, at
Ledsham, near Ferrybridge, Yorkshire,” and dated, “London, January 10,
1784,” he writes:

  “On the 28th of last June, I finished my eightieth year. When I
  was young, I had weak eyes, trembling hands, and abundance of
  infirmities. But, by the blessing of God, I have outlived them
  all. I have no infirmities now, but what I judge to be
  inseparable from flesh and blood. This hath God wrought. I am
  afraid you want the grand medicine which I use,--exercise and
  change of air.”[473]

On the same day, he wrote another letter, now also, like the former,
for the first time published. Methodism had recently been introduced,
by a company of soldiers, into the Channel islands; and Mr. Robert
Carr Brackenbury, with his servant, Alexander Kilham, had gone to
promote its interests. The letter was addressed, “Robert Carr
Brackenbury, Esq., in St. Heliers, Isle of Jersey.”

                                     “LONDON, _January 10, 1784_.

  “DEAR SIR,--While those poor sheep were scattered abroad,
  without any shepherd, and without any connection with each
  other, it is no wonder that they were cold and dead. I am glad
  you have gathered a few of them together, and, surely, if
  prayer be made concerning it, God will provide you with a
  convenient place to meet in. Perhaps an application to the
  gentlemen, who have hired the ballroom, might not be without
  success.

  “’Tis pity but you had the ‘Earnest Appeal’ to present to the
  governor, as well as the minister. I trust both you and our
  newly connected brethren will overcome evil with good. We can
  easily print the rules here, and send them down with some other
  books. ’Tis good that every one should know our whole plan. We
  do not want any man to go on blindfold. Peace be with your
  spirit!

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

The first two months of 1784 were chiefly spent in London, with the
exception of a flying visit to Colchester, and another to Nottingham;
Wesley’s errand to the last mentioned place being to “preach a charity
sermon for the general hospital.” He had a grand covenant service in
City Road chapel, attended by upwards of eighteen hundred people. He
took counsel with the London preachers, as to the desirability of the
Methodists sending missionaries to India. He read “Orlando Furioso,”
and says, “Ariosto had, doubtless, an uncommon genius, and subsequent
poets have been greatly indebted to him; yet, it is hard to say, which
was the most out of his senses, the hero or the poet. He has not the
least regard even to probability; his marvellous transcends all
conception. Who, that is not himself out of his senses, would compare
Ariosto with Tasso?”

On the 1st of March, the venerable Wesley,--as agile as a boy, above
fourscore years of age, and yet reading the Italian poet with all the
zest of a youth still at school,--set out on a seven months’ journey,
first to Bristol, then to Scotland, then to Leeds, then through Wales
to the west of England, and then to London, which he reached on
October 9. With a hasty step, we must try to follow him.

Wesley, as opportunity permitted, “intermeddled with all wisdom,” and,
to the end of life, showed, that a man is never too old to learn. At
Bradford, in Wiltshire, he says: “I was convinced of two vulgar
errors; the one, that nightingales will not live in cages; the other,
that they only sing a month or two in the year. Samuel Rayner has now
three nightingales in cages; and they sing almost all day long, from
November to August.”

At Stroud, he wrote: “Here, to my surprise, I found the morning
preaching was given up, as also in the neighbouring places. If this be
the case while I am alive, what must it be when I am gone? Give up
this, and Methodism too will degenerate into a mere sect, only
distinguished by some opinions and modes of worship.”

Wesley considered, that preaching at five o’clock in the morning was
the healthiest exercise in the world; and probably he was not far from
being right. But besides this, these early matutinal services had now,
for five-and-forty years, been one of the things which made the
Methodists “a _peculiar_ people,” as well as “zealous of good works.”
No other church or community, in England, had a service like this. It
was a religious ordinance which Wesley dearly loved. In thousands of
instances, he and his friends had proved the words, “Those that seek
Me _early_ shall find Me.” No wonder then, that he evinced alarm when
he found the Methodists giving up the morning services. Three weeks
after he was at backslidden Stroud, he came to Chester, and expressed
himself in the strongest terms on this subject. He writes:

  “I was surprised, when I came to Chester, to find that there
  also morning preaching was quite left off, for this worthy
  reason: ‘Because the people will not come, or, at least, not in
  the winter.’ If so, the Methodists are a fallen people. Here is
  proof. They have ‘lost their first love’; and they never will
  or can recover it, till they ‘do the first works.’ As soon as I
  set foot in Georgia, I began preaching at five in the morning;
  and every communicant, that is, every serious person in the
  town, constantly attended throughout the year; I mean, came
  every morning, winter and summer, unless in the case of
  sickness. They did so till I left the province. In the year
  1738, when God began His great work in England, I began
  preaching at the same hour, winter and summer, and never wanted
  a congregation. If they will not attend now, they have lost
  their zeal; and then, it cannot be denied, they are a fallen
  people. And, in the meantime, we are labouring to secure the
  preaching houses to the next generation! In the name of God,
  let us, if possible, secure the present generation from drawing
  back to perdition! Let all the preachers, that are still alive
  to God, join together as one man, fast and pray, lift up their
  voice as a trumpet, be instant, in season, out of season, to
  convince them that are fallen; and exhort them instantly to
  ‘repent, and do the first works’: this in particular,--rising
  in the morning, without which neither their souls nor bodies
  can long remain in health.”

Perhaps this was looking at the thing too seriously. That early
morning service is highly profitable cannot reasonably be called in
question; but, that it should begin at the hour of five may fairly be
disputed. Early risers are persons to be envied; they breathe the
purest air, listen to the sweetest songs, and have promptings to
worship God that the sluggard never feels.

At Tewkesbury, Wesley had to correct the “impropriety of standing at
prayer, and sitting while singing praise.” At Worcester, he “preached,
to a crowded audience, in St. Andrew’s church.” At Madeley, he
preached twice in the parish church, revised the vicar’s letters to
Dr. Priestley, and declared, that there was hardly another man in
England, so fit to encounter the great Socinian philosopher as his
friend from the mountains of Switzerland. At Stafford, he preached, to
“a small company, in a deplorable hole, formerly a stable.” At Lane
End, near Newcastle under Lyne, in the face of one of the most
piercing winds of the month of March, he preached, by moonlight, in
the open air, the congregation being four times larger than the chapel
could contain. At Burslem, also, for the same reason, he was obliged
to abandon the chapel for the field. At Manchester, on Easter Sunday,
he had “near a thousand communicants”; Thomas Taylor says, twelve
hundred.[474]

Thus he employed himself all the way to Whitehaven, where he “had all
the church ministers” to hear him, “and most of the gentry in the
town”; and, to his evident surprise, “they all behaved with as much
decency as if they had been colliers.” At Edinburgh, he writes: “I am
amazed at this people. Use the most cutting words, and apply them in
the most pointed manner, still they _hear_, but _feel_ no more than
the seats they sit upon.” Throughout Scotland, morning preaching and
prayer-meetings had almost vanished. “At Aberdeen,” he writes, “I
talked largely with the preachers, and showed them the hurt it did
both to them and the people, for any one preacher to stay six or eight
weeks together in one place. Neither can he find matter for preaching
every morning and evening, nor will the people come to hear him.
Hence, he grows cold by lying in bed, and so do the people. Whereas,
if he never stays more than a fortnight together in one place, he may
find matter enough, and the people will gladly hear him. The preachers
immediately drew up such a plan for this circuit, which they
determined to pursue.”

From Aberdeen, Wesley went, by invitation, to Lady Banff’s at Old
Meldrum, where he preached twice; and thence to Keith, where he had a
congregation to his heart’s content, all the people poor, and “not a
silk coat among them.” At Forres, he was the guest of Sir Lodowick
Grant. In making his way to Inverness, by the mistake of his coachman,
he had to trudge, through heavy rain, twelve miles and a half on foot,
but says, he “was no more tired” than when he first set out. At Elgin,
he preached in the church, and significantly remarks: “I do not
despair of good being done even here, provided the preachers be ‘sons
of thunder.’” At Newburgh, he found “the liveliest society in the
kingdom.” At Melval House, “the grand and beautiful seat of Lord
Leven,” he was hospitably entertained by the countess and her family,
and, at their desire, preached from, “It is appointed unto men once to
die.” Here, also, he wrote his “Thoughts on Nervous Disorders.” His
next halting place was at Lady Maxwell’s, “who appeared to be clearly
saved from sin, although exceedingly depressed by the tottering
tenement of clay.”

After thus visiting most of the important towns in Scotland, Wesley
reached Newcastle, where, on Whitsunday, he preached thrice to large
congregations. A week later, he again set out, on his unwearied
mission; and, at Stockton, “found an uncommon work of God among the
children,” upwards of sixty of whom, from the age of “six to fourteen,
were under serious impressions, and earnestly desirous to save their
souls.” He writes: “As soon as I came down from the desk, I was
enclosed by a body of children; all of whom sunk down upon their
knees: so I kneeled down myself, and began praying for them.”
Beautiful picture this, well worth painting! No wonder that he adds:
“abundance of people ran back into the house. The fire kindled, and
ran from heart to heart, till few, if any, were unaffected. Is not
this a new thing in the earth? God begins His work in children. Thus
it has been also in Cornwall, Manchester, and Epworth. Thus the flame
spreads to those of riper years; till at length they all know Him, and
praise Him from the least unto the greatest.”

Having visited the “dales,” Darlington, Northallerton, Thirsk,
Osmotherley, and other places, he made his way to Whitby, where he
wrote: “The society here may be a pattern to all in England. They
despise all ornaments but good works, together with a meek and quiet
spirit. I did not see a ruffle, no, nor a fashionable cap among them;
though many of them are in easy circumstances. About forty had a clear
witness of being saved from inbred sin; and seemed to walk in the full
light of God’s countenance.”

At Scarborough, Wesley attended church, and was regaled with one of
the bitterest sermons he ever heard. “So,” says he, “all I have done,
to persuade the people to attend the church, is overturned at once!
And all who preach thus will drive the Methodists from the church, in
spite of all that I can do.” Two years after this, in a letter to his
brother, he wrote: “The last time I was at Scarborough, I earnestly
exhorted our people to go to church; and I went myself. But the
wretched minister preached such a sermon, that I could not in
conscience advise them to hear him any more.”[475]

From Scarborough, Wesley proceeded along the east coast to Hull;
thence to Pocklington and York; and thence to Epworth, where he spent
his birthday, and preached in the market place of the town, whose
church, for nine-and-thirty years, had been blessed with the able and
faithful ministry of his honoured father. He writes: “June 28--To-day
I entered on my eighty-second year, and found myself just as strong to
labour, and as fit for any exercise of body or mind, as I was forty
years ago. I do not impute this to second causes, but to the sovereign
Lord of all. It is He who bids the sun of life stand still, so long as
it pleaseth Him. I am as strong at eighty-one, as I was at twenty-one;
but abundantly more healthy, being a stranger to the headache,
toothache, and other bodily disorders which attended me in my youth.
We can only say, ‘The Lord reigneth!’ While we live, let us live to
Him!”

Having spent a week in visiting the Lincolnshire societies, Wesley
proceeded to various towns in the west riding of Yorkshire; and
thence, for the first time, to Burnley. He writes: “Burnley had been
tried for many years, but without effect. Now, high and low, rich and
poor, flocked together from all quarters; and all were eager to hear,
except one man, who was the town crier. He began to bawl amain, till
his wife ran to him, and literally stopped his noise; she seized him
with one hand, and clapped the other upon his mouth, so that he could
not get out one word. God then began a work, which, I am persuaded,
will not soon come to an end.” Wesley’s words were verified.

Thomas Dixon, who was appointed to the Colne circuit in 1784, remarks,
in his unpublished diary: “The work of God at Burnley was very young;
but many, during this year, were converted. The great men of the place
were angry, and agreed to banish the Methodist preachers from the
town. The proprietor of the preaching house sent us notice to quit the
premises; and the rest of the gentlemen pledged themselves not to let
us have another. But about a month before the expiration of the
notice, the Lord converted a man, who had a house of his own, which he
opened to the preachers; and now we had a better preaching place than
we had before. Soon after a chapel was erected.” One of the first
members was John Eagin, who, for fifty years, maintained an unspotted
character; and died, in 1836, saying, “I am happy.”[476]

Leaving Burnley, Wesley went to Otley, where, marvellous to relate! he
had a two days’ rest. He then, on July 18, preached twice in Bingley
church, a great part of his congregation being obliged to stand
outside. He writes: “Before service, I stepped into the Sunday-school,
which contains two hundred and forty children, taught every Sunday by
several masters, and superintended by the curate. So many children, in
one parish, are restrained from open sin, and taught a little good
manners, at least, as well as to read the Bible. I find these schools
springing up wherever I go. Perhaps God may have a deeper end therein,
than men are aware of. Who knows but some of these schools may become
nurseries for Christians?”

This is Wesley’s first notice of Sunday-schools. Though such schools
had long existed in a few isolated cases, it was not until now that
they attracted public attention. Miss Ball’s Methodist Sunday-school
at High Wycombe has been already mentioned; and it has also been
stated, that Miss Cooke, a Methodist young lady (afterwards the wife
of Samuel Bradburn), was the first to suggest to Robert Raikes the
idea of instituting a Sunday-school at Gloucester. Raikes commenced
that school about the year 1783. At all events, his account of it was
dated Gloucester, June 5, 1784, and was published in the January
number of Wesley’s _Arminian Magazine_, for 1785, with the title, “An
Account of the Sunday Charity Schools, lately begun in various parts
of England.” Wesley was one of the first to catch and patronise the
Sunday-school idea. At Bingley, he visited the school before preaching
in the church, and gave to Sunday-schools one of their happiest
designations, “nurseries for Christians.” Similar institutions had
been begun in Leeds, where Wesley was about to hold his conference.
The town was already divided into seven divisions; and had twenty-six
schools, containing above two thousand scholars, taught by forty-five
masters. Each school commenced at one o’clock in the afternoon, the
children being taught reading, writing, and religion. At three, they
were taken to their respective churches; then conducted back to
school, where a portion of some useful book was read, a psalm sung,
and the whole concluded with a form of prayer, composed and printed
for that purpose. Boys and girls were kept separate. There were four
“inquisitors,” persons whose office it was to spend Sunday afternoon
in visiting the twenty-six schools, to ascertain who were absent, and
then in seeking the absentees at their homes or in the public streets.
The masters were mostly pious men, and were paid from one to two
shillings a Sunday for their services, according to their respective
qualifications. Each had a written list of his scholars’ names, which
he was required to call over, every Sunday, at half-past one, and
half-past five. Five clergymen visited the schools, and gave
addresses; and the expenses of the first year, ending in July 1784,
were about £234.

Such were the Sunday-schools at Leeds when Wesley, for the first time,
visited one in the neighbouring town of Bingley. Manchester also had
taken up Raikes’ Methodist idea; and, on the 1st of August, 1784,
Wesley’s old friend, the Rev. Cornelius Bayley, D.D., who for ten
years had been one of the masters of Kingswood school, but was now an
ordained clergyman in this important city, published an “Address to
the Public on Sunday-Schools,” in which he gave an account of the
schools at Leeds, and urged the men of Manchester to copy so excellent
an example. Bayley’s address produced a powerful effect; the
magistrates patronised his scheme; and the result was, that Cornelius
Bayley, D.D., the quondam Methodist, and master of Wesley’s Kingswood
school, became one of the chief, though not only, instruments of
establishing Sunday-schools in Manchester and its neighbourhood.[477]

After visiting some of the intermediate towns and villages, Wesley
arrived at Leeds, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He
writes:

  “July 25, Sunday--I preached to several thousands at Birstal,
  and to, at least, as many at Leeds. July 27, Tuesday--Our
  conference began; at which four of our brethren, after long
  debate (in which Mr. Fletcher took much pains) acknowledged
  their fault, and all that was past was forgotten. July 29,
  Thursday--Being the public thanksgiving day, as there was not
  room for us in the old church, I read prayers, as well as
  preached, at our room. Having five clergymen to assist me, we
  administered the Lord’s supper, as was supposed, to sixteen or
  seventeen hundred persons. August 1, Sunday--We were fifteen
  clergymen at the old church. August 3, Tuesday--Our conference
  concluded in much love, to the great disappointment of all.”

Such are Wesley’s brief notices of this momentous conference. Some
additional incidents must be added. The war of American independence
was now ended, and the day of public thanksgiving had reference to
that event. In the morning, at five, Thomas Hanby preached from, “My
grace is sufficient for thee.” Wesley’s text, previous to the almost
unparalleled sacramental service, was 1 Corinthians xiii. 1-4. The
five clergymen who assisted him were Messrs. Coke, Fletcher, Dillon,
Bayley, and Simpson. In the afternoon, the business of the conference
was resumed; and, at night, Wesley preached again, taking as his text,
“This is the first and great commandment.” Altogether, Wesley preached
not fewer than eight times during this important session, besides
regulating the ticklish and difficult business that had to be
transacted.[478]

The “long debate,” which Wesley mentions, had reference to the deed of
declaration, which must now have the best attention that space permits
us to give it.

At an early period of his history, Wesley published a model deed for
the settlement of chapels, to the effect, that the trustees, for the
time being, should permit Wesley himself and such other persons as he
might, from time to time, appoint, to have the free use of such
premises, to preach therein God’s holy word. In case of his death, the
same right was secured to his brother; and providing that his
brother’s decease occurred before that of William Grimshaw, the same
prerogatives were to belong to the last mentioned. After the death of
the three clergymen, the chapels were to be held, in trust, for the
sole use of such persons as might be appointed at the yearly
conference of the people called Methodists, provided, that the said
persons preached no other doctrines than those contained in Wesley’s
Notes on the New Testament, and in his four volumes of sermons.[479]

Thus the matter stood in 1784. According to Myles’ Chronological
History, there were, at this time, in the United Kingdom, three
hundred and fifty-nine Methodist chapels; and it may be fairly
presumed, that most of these were settled substantially according to
the provisions of the deed above mentioned.

Here it may be asked, what necessity was there for a further deed? The
answer is, that, as yet, there was no legal definition of what was
meant by the term “_conference_ of the people called Methodists.” To
supply this defect, Wesley, on the 28th of February, 1784, executed
his famous deed of declaration, which, a few days afterwards, was
enrolled in the high court of chancery. To use the language of the
deed itself, its object was “to explain the words, ‘yearly conference
of the people called Methodists,’ and to declare what persons are
members of the said conference, and how the succession and identity
thereof is to be continued.”

The document proceeds to state, that the said conference had always
consisted of Methodist preachers whom Wesley had annually invited to
meet him for the following purposes: namely, to advise with him for
the promotion of the gospel of Christ; to appoint the said preachers,
and other preachers and exhorters in connection with him, to the use
and enjoyment of chapels conveyed upon trust as aforesaid; to expel
unworthy preachers; and to admit others on probation.

The deed then gives the names and addresses of one hundred preachers,
who are now declared to be the members of the said conference; and
proceeds to state (1) That they and their successors, for the time
being for ever, shall assemble once a year. (2) That the act of the
majority shall be the act of the whole. (3) That their first business,
when they assemble, shall be to fill up vacancies. (4) That no act of
the conference assembled shall be valid unless forty of its members
are present. (5) That the duration of the yearly conference shall not
be less than five days, nor more than three weeks. (6) That,
immediately after filling up vacancies, they shall choose a president
and secretary of their assembly out of themselves. (7) That any member
of the conference, absenting himself from the yearly assembly thereof
for two years successively, without the consent or dispensation of the
conference, and who is not present on the first day of the third
yearly assembly thereof, shall forthwith cease to be a member, as
though he were naturally dead. (8) That the conference shall and may
expel any member thereof, or any person admitted into connection
therewith, for any cause which to the conference may seem fit or
necessary. (9) That they may admit into connection with them any
person, of whom they approve, to be preachers of God’s holy word,
under the care and direction of the conference. (10) That no person
shall be elected a member of the conference, who has not been admitted
into connection with the conference, as a preacher, for twelve months.
(11) That the conference shall not appoint any person to the use of a
chapel or chapels, who is not either a member of the conference, or
admitted into connection with the same, or upon trial; and that no
person shall be appointed for more than three years successively,
except ordained ministers of the Church of England. (12) That the
conference may appoint the place of holding the yearly assembly
thereof, at any other town, or city, than London, Bristol, or Leeds.
(13) That the conference may, when it shall seem expedient, send any
of its members as delegates to Ireland, or other parts out of the
kingdom of Great Britain, to act on its behalf, and with all the
powers of the conference itself. (14) That all resolutions and acts
whatsoever of the conference shall be written in the journals of the
conference, and be signed by the president and secretary thereof for
the time being. (15) That whenever the conference shall be reduced
under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced for three
years successively; or whenever the members thereof shall decline or
neglect to meet together annually during the space of three years, the
conference of the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and
all its powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease. (16) That
nothing in this deed shall extinguish or lessen the life estate of the
said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, in any of the
chapels in which they now have, or may have, any estate or interest,
power or authority whatsoever.

Such was Wesley’s deed of declaration,--a deed recognised in the trust
deeds of all the chapels that Methodism builds; and, hence, a deed
investing a hundred Methodist preachers with the unexampled power of
determining, irrespective of trustees, societies, and congregations,
who shall be the officiating ministers in the thousands of chapels
occupied by Methodist societies at home and abroad, throughout the
United Kingdom and throughout the world. We repeat, this is an
unexampled power; and the ministers, invested with it, ought to feel,
that they have a corresponding responsibility to God and to His
church. High is the honour; the responsibility is fearful. If
Methodism should ever fail in its duty, or fall to pieces, they, above
all men else, must bear the blame.

We purposely refrain from raising the vexed question about the kind of
church government, involved in this great settlement; and proceed to
notice the history of the deed of declaration, up to the time of its
being signed on February 28, 1784.

Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, states that,
from the year 1750, all Methodist chapels were settled according to
the provisions of the model deed that has been already mentioned; but
several of the “wisest and best preachers” were not satisfied, and,
from time to time, brought up the matter at the yearly conferences,
and earnestly urged Wesley to do something more to preserve the
chapels for the purpose which the original builders intended. Wesley
replied, that the trust deed in itself was quite sufficient; that it
had been drawn up by three of the most eminent counsellors in London;
and that, even supposing there might be some defect in it, no one
would be so mad as to go to law with an entire body of people like the
Methodists. Such reasoning failed to satisfy the preachers, especially
Messrs. Hampson and Oddie, both of whom, says Pawson, “were men of
remarkably deep understanding and sound judgment.” At length, Wesley
began to yield to the pressure that was brought upon him; and various
schemes were propounded to accomplish the purpose upon which men like
Hampson and Oddie had set their hearts. One was to consolidate all the
chapels in the connexion into a general trust, the trustees to be
chosen out of all the large societies throughout the three kingdoms.
Another was to have all the chapel deeds brought to London, and
deposited in a strong box, to be provided for the purpose; and, in
execution of this project, many were actually sent, and some were
thereby lost. All this occurred previous to Dr. Coke’s uniting himself
with Wesley; and, from Pawson’s testimony, we now turn to that of
Coke.

In his “Address to the Methodist Society in Great Britain and Ireland,
on the Settlement of Preaching Houses,” Coke relates that, at the
conference of 1782, the preachers seemed to be universally alarmed at
the danger arising from the want of a legal definition of what was
meant by the term, “the conference of the people called Methodists”;
and unanimously wished some method to be taken to remove a danger
which appeared to them to be pregnant with evils of the first
magnitude. In consequence of this, Coke took the opinion of Mr.
Maddox, one of the first counsel of the day, and ascertained, that the
law would not recognise the conference, without some further
definition; and, consequently, that there was nothing to preserve the
Methodist connexion from being shivered into a thousand fragments
after Wesley’s death. To prevent this, Mr. Maddox advised, that Wesley
should execute a deed, specifying the persons by name who composed the
conference, together with the mode of succession for its perpetuity.
Dr. Coke read Mr. Maddox’s opinion to the conference of 1783; and the
whole conference expressed their wish that such a deed should be drawn
up and executed. Coke immediately set to work, and, with the
assistance of Mr. Clulow, a solicitor, and Mr. Maddox, the barrister,
a draft of the deed was carefully prepared, and submitted to Wesley
for his approval. Coke’s opinion was, that every preacher, in full
connexion, should have his name inserted; and that admission into full
connexion should, in the future, be looked upon as admission into
membership with the conference. Wesley demurred to this, and
determined to limit the number of members to one hundred, and, without
any advice from Coke, made his own selections. In this form, the deed
was executed; and Coke sent copies of it to all the assistants of
circuits throughout the United Kingdom.[480]

We believe that this is, substantially, all that can be said
respecting the origin of what has been termed Methodism’s Magna
Charta.

What was the result? There were, at the conference of 1783, one
hundred and ninety-two preachers appointed to sixty-nine circuits,
throughout the three kingdoms. We have no hesitancy in saying, that we
think it would have been wise to have inserted the names of the whole
of these in the deed of declaration, with the exception of twenty-two,
who were still on trial, and not admitted into full connexion. All
seemed to have an equal right to this; and, thereby, all would have
been satisfied. Instead of this, Wesley proceeded to the invidious
task of selecting a hundred, and rejecting ninety-two. It was a
perilous experiment; and the peril was augmented by the mode in which
the experiment was made. For instance, sixteen were elected who had
travelled less than four years; whereas among the rejected were the
following.

        Thomas Lee      travelled 36 years.
        John Atlay          ”     21   ”
        Joseph Thompson     ”     25   ”
        John Poole          ”     25   ”
        William Ashman      ”     19   ”
        Jonathan Hern       ”     15   ”
        William Eels        ”     12   ”
        Thomas Mitchell     ”     36   ”
        Joseph Pilmoor      ”     19   ”

Besides, where was the fairness of choosing and refusing the following
preachers, who, at the time, were colleagues in the same circuit?

  _Names of           _Years       _Names of Rejected._     _Years
    Chosen._         standing._                            standing._
  Joshua Keighley        3          William Horner              13
  Joseph Cole            3          Simon Day                   17
  Jonathan Cousins       3          Robert Empringham           21
  William Green          3          John Hampson, sen.          31
  Joseph Taylor          6          John Wittam                 16
  William Hoskins        1          John Watson                 12
  William Myles          6        ⎧ John Hampson, jun.           6
                                  ⎩ George Snowden              14
  William Simpson        4          Thomas Johnson              31
  James Wray             2          Thomas Wride                15
  Henry Foster           3          George Mowat                13

Wesley doubtless had a right to make any selection that he liked; but
those who were not selected had an equal right to grumble; and we are
not surprised that, sooner or later, not fewer than nearly thirty of
the rejected withdrew from the connexion altogether.

John Pawson writes:

  “Mr. Wesley, designedly or otherwise, left out the names of
  several of the old and respectable preachers; and these good
  men were exceedingly grieved and not without reason. Many of
  the trustees also were alarmed, thinking that we wished to make
  the chapels our own property; but nothing of the kind was ever
  contemplated. The one design of the deed, to my certain
  knowledge, was to prevent any preacher, who might be inclined
  to settle, from taking possession of any of our chapels. The
  preachers, whose names were inserted in the deed, so far from
  being desirous to be distinguished above their brethren, very
  cheerfully complied with Mr. Wesley’s desire, and gave up every
  privilege granted to them in the deed, except that of electing
  their own president and secretary, which appears to me to be a
  matter of little consequence.”[481]

There can be no question, that the deed of declaration occasioned
great excitement. John Hampson, jun., says:

  “Every itinerant had always considered himself as a member of
  conference; and, hence, when the ninety-one, who were to be
  excluded, saw the deed, it was with astonishment and
  indignation. The injustice of the thing stared them in the
  face; and they found that, in consenting to such a deed, they
  had consented, that all the affairs of the connexion should be
  lodged in the hundred mentioned in the declaration; that they
  should be the lords and rulers of the rest; and should have it
  in their power to turn any other preacher out of the
  conference, and tell him he had no business there. The
  exclusion itself was both an iniquitous and a mortifying
  measure. But the partiality of it rendered it still more
  oppressive. Some of the oldest and ablest preachers, in the
  connexion, were excluded. Many of the selected members were not
  only deficient in abilities, but some of them, at the time of
  their insertion in the deed, were only upon trial; while the
  chief qualifications of others were ignorance, fanaticism, and
  ductility. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder if the
  persons excluded thought themselves aggrieved. They were really
  so, and they made no scruple to declare their sentiments. They
  sent circular letters, inviting all the preachers to canvass
  the business at the ensuing conference; and a large number
  assembled. Many of them were as averse to the deed, as those
  who had so decidedly opposed it, and had repeatedly execrated
  the measure, both by letter and in conversation; but they had
  not the courage to avow their sentiments in conference. Mr.
  Wesley made a speech, and invited all who were of his mind to
  stand up. They all rose to a man. The five were found guilty,
  and it was unanimously determined, that they should either make
  concessions or be dismissed. Urged by the entreaties of Mr.
  Fletcher, and anxious for the restoration of peace, the
  preachers in the opposition apologised to Mr. Wesley, for
  printing the circular letter, without having first appealed to
  conference.”[482]

Such, in substance, and omitting acrid comments, is the account given
by John Hampson, jun.; and there can be little doubt that, in the
main, it is quite correct. The printed circular he mentions was issued
by his father, and was entitled, “An Appeal to the Reverend John and
Charles Wesley; to all the preachers who act in connection with them;
and to every member of their respective societies in England,
Scotland, Ireland, and America.”[483] Another circular was drawn up by
James Oddie, in the form of a petition to Wesley and the legalised
conference, to the effect, that the preachers, whose names had been
inserted in the deed, would sign an agreement that, at the death of
Wesley, they would refrain from taking any advantage of their
position, but would invite the excluded to their first conference, and
would treat them, in all respects, as equals. This was first suggested
by Robert Oastler, of Thirsk; and was widely circulated, and received
with favour;[484] and, perhaps, it was this that evoked the following
letter, which was written on April 7, 1785, and entrusted to Joseph
Bradford, to deliver to the conference, at their first meeting after
the writer’s death.

  “MY DEAR BRETHREN,--Some of our travelling preachers have
  expressed a fear, that, after my decease, you would exclude
  them, either from preaching in connection with you, or from
  some other privileges which they now enjoy. I know no other way
  to prevent any such inconvenience, than to leave these my last
  words with you.

  “I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you never avail
  yourselves of the deed of declaration, to assume any
  superiority over your brethren; but let all things go on, among
  those itinerants who choose to remain together, exactly in the
  same manner as when I was with you, so far as circumstances
  will permit.

  “In particular, I beseech you, if you ever loved me, and if you
  now love God and your brethren, to have no respect of persons
  in stationing the preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood
  school, in disposing of the yearly contribution and the
  preachers’ fund, or any other of the public money; but do all
  things with a single eye, as I have done from the beginning. Go
  on thus, doing all things without prejudice or partiality, and
  God will be with you even to the end.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[485]

This was a serious crisis in the history of Methodism. Fortunately, it
passed over without any other immediate consequences than the
retirement of the five principal opponents to the deed of declaration,
namely, the two Hampsons, Joseph Pilmoor, William Eels, and John
Atlay. Considerable excitement, however, existed; and, in the spring
of 1785, Wesley found it desirable to write his “Thoughts upon some
late Occurrences.” He gives the history of the origin of his
conferences; and states that the term conference meant not so much
conversation, as the persons that conferred, that it had become
necessary to define the term, and that, at the conference of 1783, he
had been requested to fix the determinate meaning of the word. He
accordingly took counsel’s opinion how to act, and was advised to
execute a deed of declaration. At first, he thought of naming only ten
or twelve; but, on second thoughts, he believed there would be more
safety in a greater number of counsellors, and, therefore, named a
hundred; as many as, he judged, could meet without too great expense,
and without leaving any circuit without preachers while the conference
assembled. He adds:

  “In naming these preachers, as I had no adviser, so I had no
  respect of persons; but I simply set down those that, according
  to the best of my judgment, were most proper. But I am not
  infallible. I might mistake, and think better of some than they
  deserved. However, I did my best; if I did wrong, it was not
  the error of my will, but of my judgment.

  “This was the rise, and this the nature, of that famous deed of
  declaration,--that vile, wicked deed, concerning which you have
  heard such an outcry! And now, can any one tell me how to mend
  it, or how it could have been made better? ‘O yes. You might
  have inserted two hundred, as well as one hundred, preachers.’
  No; for then the expense of meeting would have been double, and
  all the circuits would have been without preachers. ‘But you
  might have named other preachers instead of these.’ True, if I
  had thought as well of them as they did of themselves. But I
  did not: therefore, I could do no otherwise than I did, without
  sinning against God and my own conscience.

  “‘But what need was there for any deed at all?’ There was the
  utmost need of it; without some authentic deed fixing the
  meaning of the term, the moment I died, the conference had been
  nothing. Therefore, any of the proprietors of the land on which
  our preaching houses were built might have seized them for
  their own use; and there would have been none to hinder them;
  for the conference would have been nobody, a mere empty name.

  “You see then, in all the pains I have taken about this
  absolutely necessary deed, I have been labouring, not for
  myself (I have no interest therein), but for the whole body of
  Methodists; in order to fix them upon such a foundation as is
  likely to stand as long as the sun and moon endure. That is, if
  they continue to walk by faith, and to show forth their faith
  by their works; otherwise, I pray God to root out the memorial
  of them from the earth.

                                               “JOHN WESLEY.[486]
  “PLYMOUTH DOCK, _March 3, 1785_.”

We have done. All the facts, within our knowledge, have been given.
The reader must form his own opinion. Comment would be easy; but we
purposely refrain; only adding, that, by Wesley’s famous deed of
declaration, the Methodist conference became a legally incorporated
institution; and that, without this, the Methodist itinerancy must
have ceased, and Methodism itself have been broken up into
congregational churches.

We must now advert to another matter, which, if not of equal, was of
great importance, namely, the episcopal organisation of the Methodist
societies in America. This has been the subject of bewildering
controversy for more than eighty years. Wesley and Coke have been
bitterly assailed, and as warmly defended. We will narrate the facts
as simply and briefly as we can.

During the American war, which was now ended, the American Methodists
had multiplied with marvellous rapidity. In 1774, they numbered 2073;
in 1784, they were 14,988; showing an increase of 12,915. They had 46
circuits, and 83 itinerant, besides some hundreds of local,
preachers.[487] All these, so far as the sacraments were concerned,
were as sheep without shepherds. Some of the clergymen of the Church
of England had taken military commissions in the army; others were
destitute of both piety and sense; and nearly all opposed and
persecuted the Methodists to the utmost of their power. Bishop White
testified, that “the Church of England was becoming more and more
unpopular,--with some, because it was not considered as promoting
piety,--and with others, because they thought the provision for it a
useless burden on the community.” At the termination of the
revolutionary struggle, says Dr. Hawks, himself a clergyman, “a large
number of the churches in Virginia were destroyed or irreparably
injured; twenty-three of her ninety-five parishes were extinct or
forsaken; and of the remaining seventy-two, thirty-four were destitute
of ministerial services; while of her ninety-eight clergymen, only
twenty-eight remained.” The Rev. Mr. Jarratt, another clergyman of the
Church of England, stated, that “most of the clergy preached what was
little better than deism,” and were bitter revilers and persecutors of
those who preached the truth.[488]

Under these circumstances, the Methodists demanded of their preachers
the administration of the sacraments. Many of the societies had been
months, some of them years, without these sacred ordinances. Five
years before this, in 1779, the preachers in the south proceeded to
ordain themselves by the hands of three of their senior members,
unwilling that their people should longer be denied the Lord’s supper,
and their children and probationary members the rite of baptism.
Asbury was greatly annoyed at this, and, a year afterwards, with
difficulty succeeded in persuading them to suspend the administration
of the sacraments till further advice could be received from
Wesley.[489] Asbury wrote to Wesley, telling him of the greatness of
the work, and of the division that had taken place in Virginia, on
account of the people’s uneasiness respecting the sacraments.
Thousands of their children were unbaptized, and the members of the
societies, in general, had not partaken of the Lord’s supper for many
years.[490] “Dear sir,” says he, on March 20, 1784, “we are greatly in
need of help. A minister, and such preachers as you can fully
recommend, will be very acceptable. Without your recommendation, we
shall receive none. But nothing is so pleasing to me, sir, as the
thought of seeing you here; which is the ardent desire of thousands
more in America.”[491]

Wesley’s going was impossible. He had tried (as we have already seen)
to induce Bishop Lowth to ordain a minister, and had failed. What else
remained? He thought of Dr. Coke, who replied as follows.

                                  “NEAR DUBLIN, _April 17, 1784_.

  “HONOURED AND VERY DEAR SIR,--I intended to trouble you no more
  about my going to America; but your observations incline me to
  address you again on the subject.

  “If some one, in whom you could place the fullest confidence,
  and whom you think likely to have sufficient influence and
  prudence and delicacy of conduct for the purpose, were to go
  over and return, you would then have a source of sufficient
  information to determine on any points or propositions. I may
  be destitute of the last mentioned essential qualification (to
  the former I lay claim without reserve); otherwise my taking
  such a voyage might be expedient.

  “By this means, you might have fuller information concerning
  the state of the country and the societies than epistolary
  correspondence can give you; and there might be a cement of
  union, remaining after your death, between the societies and
  preachers of the two countries. If the awful event of your
  decease should happen before my removal to the world of
  spirits, it is almost certain, that I should have business
  enough, of indispensable importance, on my hands in these
  kingdoms.

  “I am, dear sir, your most dutiful and most affectionate son,

                                              “THOMAS COKE.”[492]

This is a curiously expressed letter; but if it means anything, it
means, that if Wesley would be good enough to think and say, that Coke
had “sufficient influence, and prudence, and delicacy of conduct,” he
was willing to become Wesley’s envoy to the American Methodists.

Here the matter rested, until the assembling of the conference at
Leeds. Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, relates,
that ordination was first proposed by Wesley himself in his select
committee of consultation. Pawson was a member, and was present. He
writes: “The preachers were astonished when this was mentioned, and,
to a man, opposed it. But I plainly saw that it would be done, as Mr.
Wesley’s mind appeared to be quite made up.”

Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey were appointed to America; and, six days
after the conference concluded, Coke wrote to Wesley as follows.

                                               “_August 9, 1784._

  “HONOURED AND DEAR SIR,--The more maturely I consider the
  subject, the more expedient it appears to me, that the power of
  ordaining others should be received by me from you, by the
  imposition of your hands; and that you should lay hands on
  brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for the following reasons:
  (1) It seems to me the most scriptural way, and most agreeable
  to the practice of the primitive churches. (2) I may want all
  the influence, in America, which you can throw into my scale.
  Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter from
  Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he would not receive any
  person, deputed by you, with any part of the superintendency of
  the work invested in him; or words which evidently implied so
  much. I do not find the least degree of prejudice in my mind
  against Mr. Asbury; on the contrary, I find a very great love
  and esteem; and am determined not to stir a finger without his
  consent, unless necessity obliges me; but rather to be at his
  feet in all things. But, as the journey is long, and you cannot
  spare me often, it is well to provide against all events; and I
  am satisfied that an authority, formally received from you,
  will be fully admitted; and that my exercising the office of
  ordination, without that formal authority, may be disputed, and
  perhaps, on other accounts, opposed. I think you have tried me
  too often to doubt, whether I will, in any degree, use the
  power you are pleased to invest me with, farther than I believe
  absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work.

  “In respect of my brethren Whatcoat and Vasey, it is very
  uncertain whether any of the clergy, mentioned by brother
  Rankin, except Mr. Jarratt, will stir a step with me in the
  work; and it is by no means certain, that even he will choose
  to join me in ordaining; and propriety and universal practice
  make it expedient, that I should have two presbyters with me in
  this work. In short, it appears to me, that everything should
  be prepared, and everything proper be done, that can possibly
  be done, on this side the water. You can do all this in Mr.
  C----n’s house, in your chamber; and afterwards, (according to
  Mr. Fletcher’s advice,) give us letters testimonial of the
  different offices with which you have been pleased to invest
  us. For the purpose of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and
  Vasey, I can bring Mr. Creighton down with me, by which you
  will have two presbyters with you.

  “In respect to brother Rankin’s argument, that you will escape
  a great deal of odium by omitting this, it is nothing. Either
  it will be known, or not known. If not known, then no odium
  will arise; but if known, you will be obliged to acknowledge,
  that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under
  the weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head
  of them. I shall entreat you to ponder these things.

                           “Your most dutiful, THOMAS COKE.”[493]

Would it not seem from this, that Wesley had no idea of ordaining any
one himself; but, that he intended Coke, who, as a presbyter of the
same church, had coequal power, to go out to America for that purpose?
There can be no question, that there is force in Dr. Whitehead’s
critique, that “Dr. Coke had the same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that
Mr. Wesley had to ordain Dr. Coke.” Wesley, we think, never intended
doing this; but, at Coke’s request, he acquiesced.

Of his power to ordain others, Wesley had no doubt. Nearly forty years
before this, he had been convinced, by Lord King’s Account of the
Primitive Church, “that bishops and presbyters are of one order.” In
1756, he wrote: “I still believe the episcopal form of church
government, to agree with the practice and writings of the apostles;
but, that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This
opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed
of, ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon.’ I think he
has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor His apostles
prescribe any particular form of church government; and that the plea
of Divine right, for diocesan episcopacy, was never heard of in the
primitive church.”[494] Again, in 1761, in a letter to a friend, he
repeated, that Stillingfleet had fully convinced him, that to believe
that none but episcopal ordination was valid “was an entire
mistake.”[495] And again, in 1780, he shocked the high church bigotry
of his brother, by declaring, “I verily believe I have as good a right
to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper.”[496]

His right to ordain, then, was no new assumption of Wesley, adopted in
his old age, or in his imbecility, as some of his critics have
alleged. It was a firm conviction of forty years’ standing.

Besides, there was another fact, which might have some influence with
him, but which none of his biographers have noticed. The Methodists,
under the care of the Countess of Huntingdon, stood in the same
relation to the Church of England that the Methodists under Wesley
did. They _varied_, not _dissented_, from the Church. Recently,
however, there had been a formal and avowed secession. Many of Lady
Huntingdon’s chapels were supplied by ordained clergymen, and, among
others, a large building in Spafields, previously known as the
Pantheon. This edifice stood in the parish of Clerkenwell, of which
the Rev. William Sellon was minister. Mr. Sellon claimed the right of
appointing ministers and clerks to the Spafields chapel; also the
right of himself to officiate within its walls as often as he liked.
He further demanded the sum of £40 a year, in consideration of his
permitting two of the Countess’s preachers to occupy the said chapel;
also all the sacramental collections; and four collections yearly, for
the benefit of the children of the charity school of Clerkenwell
parish; and, finally, that, for the due performance of these demands,
the proprietors should sign a bond for £1000.

Of course, the proprietors refused to comply with such demands. Mr.
Sellon then instituted a suit in the consistorial court of the Bishop
of London, and cited the Revs. Messrs. Jones and Taylor, the
officiating clergymen, and both of them ordained, to answer for their
irregularity in preaching in a place not episcopally consecrated, and
for carrying on Divine worship there, contrary to the wish of the
minister of the parish. Verdicts were obtained against them. The
question was then removed to the ecclesiastical courts; and was again
decided against the ministers of the countess, and in favour of Mr.
Sellon, who obtained the name of Sanballat.

This was a momentous matter. Hitherto, Romaine, Venn, and others had
preached for the countess; but now, as ordained clergymen, in danger
of prosecution, they had to withdraw their services; and some of the
most important chapels were left without supplies. The crisis was
serious. The countess took counsel with her friends; and, at length,
it was determined, that Messrs. Wills and Taylor should formally
secede from the Church of England, and should take upon themselves to
ordain others: both of them had received episcopal ordination
themselves, both were scholars and able preachers, and Mr. Wills had
married Miss Wheeler, the countess’s niece. Accordingly, these two
ministers issued an address to the archbishops and bishops of the
Church of England, stating that, because they could not, as clergymen
of the Established Church, continue preaching to their present
congregations, without “knowingly and wilfully opposing the Church’s
laws,” they had resolved to secede peaceably, and to put themselves
under the protection of the Toleration Act.

Here then was a formal Methodist secession from the Established
Church. But more than this: on March 9, 1783, these two seceding
clergymen began to do what Wesley did eighteen months afterwards,--they
held their first ordination. This was in Spafields chapel. The service
commenced at 9 a.m., and lasted about seven hours. The names of the
six young men, then set apart to the Christian ministry, were Thomas
Jones, Samuel Beaufoy, Thomas Cannon, John Johnson, William Green,
and Joel Abraham Knight. During the service, Mr. Wills addressed the
congregation, and assigned his reasons for believing that he had the
right to ordain, namely, that presbyters and bishops were the same
order, and that, as he and Mr. Taylor had been ordained presbyters,
they had really been ordained bishops, and had as much right to ordain
others as any bishop in the land.[497]

Wesley was acquainted with all this, though he never mentions it. For
aught he knew, an action might be commenced against himself and the
other clergymen preaching in City Road, West Street, and elsewhere,
similar to that which had been successfully prosecuted against the
Countess of Huntingdon’s preachers at Spafields. It was time to look
about. He held exactly the same views respecting presbyters and
bishops that had been publicly avowed by Messrs. Wills and Taylor; and
now, in September 1784, reduced them to practice by proceeding to
Bristol, and there ordaining Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey.

Passing by the ordinations of Whatcoat and Vasey, which involve no
difficulty except Wesley’s churchmanship, the ordination of Coke is a
perplexing puzzle. Coke had been already ordained a deacon and a
priest of the Church of England; and, hence, his ministerial status
was the same as Wesley’s. What further ordination was needed? Wesley
intended none; but Coke wished it.

Wesley was the founder and father of the Methodists. There were 15,000
in America whom he had never seen. In no sense were these members of
the Church of England; for, at the termination of the war, no state
church was recognised. What were they? Not presbyterians, not
Dissenters, not quakers, not anything, except simple Methodists. They
were without sacraments. They wished to have them. As Christians, they
had a right to them. But who was to administer? Common sense would
have said, the men by whose preaching they had been converted; but
here priestly prejudice stepped in, and forbad men, whom God had
called to preach, to administer the sacraments, until episcopal or
presbyterian hands had been put upon them. Things were brought into a
dead lock. The question was, are the Methodist preachers in America to
administer the sacraments without ordination? Or shall Wesley or some
one else go from England to give them ordination? Wesley, a man of
action, decided to send Coke, and Coke consented; but, before
starting, he wished to have an additional ordination himself. What was
that ordination to be? The only one possible was this. Wesley was the
venerable father of the 15,000 Methodists in America. He was not able
to visit them himself; but sends them Dr. Coke. The doctor pretends,
that it is more than possible, that some of the American preachers and
societies will refuse to acknowledge his authority. To remove this
objection, Wesley, at Bristol, in a private room, holds a religious
service, puts his hands upon the head of Coke, and, (to use his own
words,) sets him apart as a _superintendent_ of the work in America,
and gives him a written testimonial to that effect. This was all that
Wesley did, and all that Wesley meant; but we greatly doubt whether it
was all that the departing envoy wished.

With the highest respect for Dr. Coke, and his general excellences, it
is no detraction to assert, that he was dangerously ambitious, and
that the height of his ambition was a desire to be a bishop. Some
years after this, Coke, unknown to Wesley and Asbury, addressed a
confidential letter to Dr. White, bishop of the protestant episcopal
church of Pennsylvania, which, if it meant anything, meant that he
would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the English
Church, on condition that he himself was ordained to be their bishop.
In 1794, he secretly summoned a meeting, at Lichfield, of the most
influential of the English preachers, and passed a resolution, that
the conference should appoint an order of bishops, to ordain deacons
and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member of the
prelatical brotherhood. And again, it is a well known fact, that,
within twelve months of his lamented death, he wrote to the Earl of
Liverpool, stating that he was willing to return most fully into the
bosom of the Established Church, on condition, that his royal highness
the Prince Regent, and the government, would appoint him their bishop
in India. These are unpleasant facts; which we would rather have
consigned to oblivion, had they not been necessary to vindicate Wesley
from the huge inconsistency of ordaining a coequal presbyter to be a
bishop. Wesley meant the ceremony to be a mere formality likely to
recommend his delegate to the favour of the Methodists in America:
Coke, in his ambition, wished, and intended it to be considered as, an
ordination to a bishopric. This will be clear as we proceed farther.
The following are the “letters testimonial,” which Coke asked to have.

  “To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late
  Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of
  England, sendeth greeting.

  “Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North
  America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere
  to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are
  greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the
  sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, according to the
  usage of the same Church; and whereas there does not appear to
  be any other way of supplying them with ministers:

  “Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be
  providentially called, at this time, to set apart some persons
  for the work of the ministry in America. And, therefore, under
  the protection of almighty God, and with a single eye to His
  glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the
  imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by other
  ordained ministers,[498]) Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a
  presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I judge to
  be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby
  recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to
  preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have
  hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in
  the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
  eighty-four.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[499]

                                  “BRISTOL, _September 10, 1784_.

  “_To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America._

  “BY a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces
  of North America are totally disjoined from the mother country,
  and erected into independent states. The English government has
  no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any
  more than over the states of Holland. A civil authority is
  exercised over them, partly by the congress, partly by the
  provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims
  any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar
  situation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these states
  desire my advice, and, in compliance with their desire, I have
  drawn up a little sketch.

  “Lord King’s account of the primitive church convinced me, many
  years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and
  consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years, I
  have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this
  right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I
  have still refused; not only for peace sake, but because I was
  determined, as little as possible, to violate the established
  order of the national church to which I belonged.

  “But the case is widely different between England and North
  America. Here there are bishops, who have a legal jurisdiction;
  in America there are none, neither any parish minister; so
  that, for some hundreds of miles together, there is none either
  to baptize, or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here,
  therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at
  full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man’s
  rights, by appointing and sending labourers into the harvest.

  “I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury
  to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America;
  as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as elders
  among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper.
  And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of
  the Church of England, (I think the best constituted national
  church in the world,) which I advise all the travelling
  preachers to use on the Lord’s day, in all the congregations,
  reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying
  extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to
  administer the supper of the Lord, on every Lord’s day.

  “If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way
  of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I
  will gladly embrace it. At present, I cannot see any better
  method than that I have taken.

  “It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to
  ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object:
  (1) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain one, but could not
  prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of their
  proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If they
  would ordain them now, they would expect to govern them; and
  how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our American
  brethren are now totally disentangled, both from the state and
  the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either
  with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty, simply
  to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church. And we judge
  it best, that they should stand fast in that liberty, wherewith
  God has so strangely set them free.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[500]

“These are the steps,” says Wesley in another place, “which, not of
choice, but necessity, I have slowly and deliberately taken. If any
one is pleased to call this _separating from the Church_, he may. But
the law of England does not call it so; nor can any one properly be
said so to do, unless, out of conscience, he refuses to join in the
service, and partake of the sacraments administered therein.”[501]

Eight days after the date of the above letter, Coke, Whatcoat, and
Vasey set sail for America, where they arrived on November 3. A
conference of nearly sixty preachers met in Baltimore on December 24.
Three days later, Coke ordained Asbury; and the two then ordained a
number of elders and deacons. Coke preached a sermon, which was
published, with the title, “The Substance of a Sermon preached at
Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, before the General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 27th of December, 1784, at the
Ordination of the Rev. Francis Asbury to the office of Superintendent.
By Thomas Coke, LL.D., Superintendent of the said Church. Published at
the desire of the Conference.” 12mo, 22 pages.

The title is worth observing. Coke and Asbury are _superintendents_;
the Methodist church is _episcopal_,--a church governed by _bishops_.
The sermon begins with an onslaught on the Church of England in
America. “The churches had, in general, been filled with the parasites
and bottle companions of the rich and great. The humble and
importunate entreaties, of the oppressed flocks, were contemned and
despised. The drunkard, the fornicator, and the extortioner, triumphed
over bleeding Zion, because they were faithful abettors of the ruling
powers. But these intolerable fetters were now struck off; and the
antichristian union, which before subsisted between church and state,
was broken asunder.” Coke then proceeds to answer the question, “What
right have you to exercise the episcopal office?” “To me,” says he,
“the most manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to
raise up, in America and Europe, a numerous society, well known by the
name of Methodists. The whole body have invariably esteemed _this man_
as their chief pastor, under Christ; and we are fully persuaded, he
has a right to ordain. Besides, we have every qualification for an
episcopal church, which that of Alexandria possessed for two hundred
years; our bishops, or superintendents (as we rather call them),
having been elected by the suffrages of the whole body of our
ministers through the continent, assembled in general conference.”

This is scarcely conclusive reasoning, but it shows that, from the
very first, Coke assumed, what Wesley never gave him, the title of a
bishop. Five years later, in May, 1789, Coke and Asbury presented an
address to Washington, the president of the United States, beginning
with the words, “We, the _bishops_ of the Methodist _Episcopal_
Church”;[502] and at the conference of the same year the first
question asked was: “Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal
office in the Methodist church in Europe and America? Answer. John
Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and
succession.”[503]

This grandiloquent parade of office must not be ascribed to Wesley. He
never sanctioned it; he positively condemned it. Besides, even
allowing that Coke and Asbury had a right to designate themselves
bishops of the Methodist churches in America, what was their authority
for pronouncing Wesley the bishop of the Methodist church in Europe?
They had none. It was an unwarrantable liberty taken with the name of
a venerable man, who had censured the use of such an appellation, and
whose humility and modesty Coke would have been none the worse for
copying. As it was, Wesley was held up to ridicule, and made to
suffer, on account of the episcopal ambition of his friends.

We have no fault to find with the American Methodists being called the
Methodist Episcopal Church. They have the fullest right to such a
designation if they choose to use it; but it was a name which Wesley
never used; and to censure him for ordaining bishops is to censure him
for what he never did. He ordained a _superintendent_; but he never
thought to call him _bishop_. Hence the following to Asbury.

                                   “LONDON, _September 20, 1788_.

  “... There is indeed a wide difference between the relation
  wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I
  stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the
  American Methodists; I am, under God, the father of the whole
  family. Therefore, I naturally care for you all in a manner no
  other person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for
  you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he
  could not provide, were it not for me,--were it not that I not
  only permit him to collect, but also support him in so doing.

  “But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid, both
  the doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little; you
  study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school;
  you a college! nay, and call it after your own names![504] O,
  beware; do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and
  ‘Christ be all in all!’

  “One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great
  concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be
  called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may
  call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am
  content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me bishop!
  For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end
  to this! Let the presbyterians do what they please, but let the
  Methodists know their calling better.

  “Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart.
  And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how
  sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[505]

Coke, in his letter, dated August 9, 1784, mentions the “odium” which
Wesley was likely to incur by the ordinations which he himself was
soliciting; and, with a want of chivalry not to be commended, requests
Wesley to acknowledge that the deed was all his own, otherwise Coke
would “sink under the weight of his enemies, with Charles Wesley at
the head of them.” The apprehension was not unfounded. Charles Wesley
knew nothing of the ordinations in Bristol till they were over; but,
of course, it was impossible to keep them secret; and great was the
excitement which the revelation created. One of the preachers wrote:

  “Ordination among Methodists! Amazing indeed! Surely it never
  began in the midst of a multitude of counsellors; and, I
  greatly fear, the Son of Man was not secretary of state, or not
  present, when the business was brought on and carried. Who is
  the father of this _monster_, so long dreaded by the father of
  his people, and by most of his sons? Whoever he be, time will
  prove him to be a felon to Methodism, and discover his
  assassinating knife sticking fast in the vitals of its body.
  Years to come will speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary
  of our religious madness for gowns and bands.”

Another wrote: “I wish they had been asleep when they began this
business of ordination: it is neither _episcopal_ nor _presbyterian_;
but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistencies.”[506]

On April 28, 1785, Charles Wesley addressed a long letter to Dr.
Chandler, an episcopal clergyman, who was about to embark for America,
from which the following is an extract.

  “I never lost my dread of separation, or ceased to guard our
  societies against it. I frequently told them: ‘I am your
  servant as long as you remain in the Church of England; but no
  longer. Should you forsake her, you would renounce me.’

  “Some of the lay preachers very early discovered an inclination
  to separate, which induced my brother to print his ‘Reasons
  against Separation.’ As often as it appeared, we beat down the
  schismatical spirit. If any one did leave the Church, at the
  same time he left our society. For near fifty years, we kept
  the sheep in the fold; and, having filled the number of our
  days, only waited to depart in peace.

  “After our having continued friends for above _seventy_ years,
  and fellow labourers for above _fifty_, can anything but death
  part us? I can scarcely yet believe it, that, in his
  eighty-second year, my brother, my old, intimate friend and
  companion, should have assumed the episcopal character,
  ordained elders, consecrated a bishop, and sent him to ordain
  our lay preachers in America! I was then in Bristol, at his
  elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention.
  How was he surprised into so rash an action? He certainly
  persuaded himself that it was right.

  “Lord Mansfield told me last year, that ordination was
  separation. This my brother does not and will not see; or that
  he has renounced the principles and practice of his whole life;
  that he has acted contrary to all his declarations,
  protestations, and writings; robbed his friends of their
  boasting; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long as it
  shall be remembered!

  “Thus our partnership here is dissolved, but not our
  friendship. I have taken him for better for worse, till death
  do us part; or, rather, reunite us in love inseparable. I have
  lived on earth a little too long, who have lived to see this
  evil day. But I shall very soon be taken from it, in stedfast
  faith, that the Lord will maintain His own cause, and carry on
  His own work, and fulfil His promise to His church, ‘Lo, I am
  with you always, even to the end!’

  “What will become of these poor sheep in the wilderness, the
  American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a
  separation from the Church of England, which their preachers
  and they no more intended than the Methodists here! Had they
  had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real
  bishop in America, consecrated by three Scotch bishops, who
  have their consecration from the English bishops, and are
  acknowledged by them as the same with themselves. There is,
  therefore, not the least difference betwixt the members of
  Bishop Seabury’s[507] church, and the members of the Church of
  England. He told me he looked upon the Methodists in America as
  sound members of the Church, and was ready to ordain any of
  their preachers whom he should find duly qualified. His
  ordination would be indeed genuine, valid, and episcopal. But
  what are your poor Methodists now? Only a new sect of
  presbyterians. And, after my brother’s death, which is now so
  near, what will be their end? They will lose all their
  influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain
  janglings; they will settle again upon their lees; and, like
  other sects of Dissenters, come to nothing.”[508]

Charles Wesley hints, that his brother was “_surprised_ into the rash
act” of ordaining. Perhaps he was; but did he afterwards regret it? In
answering this question, we must use materials which properly belong
to succeeding years.[509]

It is a fact, which cannot be denied, that, while Wesley himself was,
to some extent, welcomed in Scotland, by the ministers of the kirk,
the Methodists, in many instances, were substantially in the same
position as the Methodists in America. There were, indeed, clergymen
of the English Church in Scotland; but several of them absolutely
refused to admit the Methodists to the sacraments, except on the
condition that they would renounce all future connection with the
Methodist ministry and discipline.[510] There was, therefore, the same
necessity to ordain for the one country as for the other. Accordingly,
Wesley, in his journal, writes: “1785: August 1--Having, with a few
select friends, weighed the matter thoroughly, I yielded to their
judgment, and set apart three of our well tried preachers, John
Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland.” A
year afterwards, at the conference of 1786, he ordained Joshua
Keighley and Charles Atmore, for Scotland; William Warrener, for
Antigua; and William Hammet, for Newfoundland. A year later, five
others were ordained; in 1788, when Wesley was in Scotland, John
Barber and Joseph Cownley received ordination at his hands; and, at
the ensuing conference, seven others, including Alexander Mather, who
was ordained to the office, not only of deacon and elder, but of
_superintendent_. On Ash Wednesday in 1789, Wesley ordained Henry
Moore and Thomas Rankin; and this, we believe, completes the list of
those upon whom Wesley laid his hands. All these ordinations were in
private; and many of them at four o’clock in the morning. Some of the
favoured ones were intended for Scotland; some for foreign missions;
and a few, as Mather, Moore, and Rankin, were employed in England. In
most instances, probably in all, they were ordained deacons on one
day; and, on the day following, received the ordination of elders,
Wesley giving to each letters testimonial.[511] Wesley justified his
ordinations for Scotland thus.

  “After Dr. Coke’s return from America, many of our friends
  begged I would consider the case of Scotland, where we had been
  labouring for many years, and had seen so little fruit of our
  labours. Multitudes, indeed, have set out well, but they were
  soon turned out of the way; chiefly by their ministers either
  disputing against the truth, or refusing to admit them to the
  Lord’s supper, yea, or to baptize their children, unless they
  would promise to have no fellowship with the Methodists. Many,
  who did so, soon lost all they had gained, and became more the
  children of hell than before. To prevent this, I, at length,
  consented to take the same step with regard to Scotland, which
  I had done with regard to America. But this is not a separation
  from the Church at all. Not from the Church of Scotland, for we
  were never connected therewith, any further than we are now:
  nor from the Church of England; for this is not concerned in
  the steps which are taken in Scotland. Whatever then is done in
  America, or Scotland, is no separation from the Church of
  England. I have no thought of this; I have many objections
  against it. It is a totally different case. ‘But for all this,
  is it not possible there may be such a separation after you are
  dead?’ Undoubtedly it is. But what I said at our first
  conference above forty years ago, I say still: ‘I dare not omit
  doing what good I can while I live, for fear of evils that may
  follow when I am dead.’”[512]

There is some force in this, so far as it regards Scotland. The Scotch
Methodists never professed themselves to be members of the Church of
England; in fact, they regarded that church almost with as much
abhorrence as they cherished towards the Church of Rome. Hence the
following extract from one of Pawson’s unpublished letters, dated
“Edinburgh, October 8, 1785.”

  “Dr. Coke intends to be with us on Sunday, the 23rd instant,
  when we are to have the sacrament again; but Mr. Wesley is
  against us having it in the Scotch form, and I am well
  satisfied our new plan will answer no end at all in Scotland,
  but will prove a hindrance to the work of God. The people
  generally hate the very name of Prayer-Book, and everything
  belonging to it, as they have always been taught to believe it
  a limb of antichrist, and very little better than the popish
  mass-book. Popery, prelacy, and all such things, they hold in
  the greatest detestation. They would soon tell us: ‘I dunna ken
  what you mean by these unca inventions. We belong to the gude
  old kirk of Scotland, and will not join with the whore of
  Babylon at all.’”

In reference to the English ordinations, Mr. Pawson writes:

  “Mr. Wesley knew the state of the societies in England required
  such measures to be taken, or many of the people would leave
  the connexion; and had the preachers, after his death, only
  acted upon his plan, and quietly granted the people, who
  desired the sacraments, that privilege, no division would have
  taken place.[513] He foresaw, that the Methodists would soon
  become a distinct body. He was deeply prejudiced against
  presbyterian, and as much in favour of episcopal, government.
  In order, therefore, to preserve all that is valuable in the
  Church of England among the Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather
  and Dr. Coke, bishops. These he undoubtedly designed should
  ordain others. Mr. Mather told us so at the Manchester
  conference, in 1791.[514] I believe, Mr. Wesley’s first thought
  of ordaining arose out of the bishop of London refusing to
  ordain a preacher for America; but that he originally intended
  to ordain preachers for England is what I never could believe;
  and, with respect to Scotland, he often declared to me, and in
  the congregation at Edinburgh, that he was over persuaded to
  it. And, a few months before his death, he was so annoyed with
  Dr. Coke’s conduct, in persuading the people to depart from the
  original plan, that he threatened, in a letter, to have no more
  to do with him, unless he desisted from such a course of
  procedure.”[515]

We give this as we find it; and now turn to a deeply interesting
correspondence between Wesley and his brother. Within a fortnight
after the ordination of Pawson, Hanby, and Taylor, at the conference
of 1785, and in which Wesley, Coke, and Creighton took part,[516]
Charles Wesley wrote to his brother as follows.

                                     “BRISTOL, _August 14, 1785_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I have been reading over again your ‘Reasons
  against a Separation,’ printed in 1758, and your Works; and
  entreat you, in the name of God, and for Christ’s sake, to read
  them again yourself, with previous prayer, and stop, and
  proceed no farther, till you receive an answer to your inquiry,
  ‘Lord, what wouldst _Thou_ have me to do?’

  “Every word of your eleven pages deserves the deepest
  consideration; not to mention my testimony and hymns. Only the
  seventh I could wish you to read,--a prophecy which I pray God
  may never come to pass.

  “Near thirty years, since then, you have stood against the
  importunate solicitations of your preachers, who have scarcely
  at last prevailed. I was your natural ally, and faithful
  friend; and, while you continued faithful to yourself, we two
  could chase a thousand.

  “But when once you began ordaining in America, I knew, and you
  knew, that your preachers here would never rest till you
  ordained them. You told me, they would separate by-and-by. The
  doctor tells us the same. His Methodist episcopal church in
  Baltimore was intended to beget a Methodist episcopal church
  here. You know he comes, armed with your authority, to make us
  all Dissenters. One of your sons assured me, that not a
  preacher in London would refuse orders from the doctor.

  “Alas! what trouble are you preparing for yourself, as well as
  for me, and for your oldest, truest, and best friends! Before
  you have quite broken down the bridge, stop, and consider! If
  your sons have no regard for you, have some regard for
  yourself. Go to your grave in peace; at least, suffer me to go
  first, before this ruin is under your hand. So much, I think,
  you owe to my father, to my brother, and to me, as to stay till
  I am taken from the evil. I am on the brink of the grave. Do
  not push me in, or embitter my last moments. Let us not leave
  an indelible blot on our memory; but let us leave behind us the
  name and character of honest men.

  “This letter is a debt to our parents, and to our brother, as
  well as to you, and to

  “Your faithful friend,

                                           “CHARLES WESLEY.”[517]

Five days afterwards, Wesley replied as follows. The line of poetry
was his brother’s.

                                    “PLYMOUTH, _August 19, 1785_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with all
  simplicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with
  me, well; if not, we can, as Mr. Whitefield used to say, agree
  to disagree.

  “For these forty years, I have been in doubt concerning that
  question, What obedience is due to

            ‘Heathenish priests and mitred infidels’?

  “I have, from time to time, proposed my doubts to the most
  pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But they gave me no
  satisfaction. Rather, they seemed to be puzzled as well as me.

  “Obedience I always paid to the bishops, in obedience to the
  laws of the land. But I cannot see, that I am under any
  obligation to obey them further than those laws require.

  “It is in obedience to these laws, that I have never exercised
  in England the power which, I believe, God has given me. I
  firmly believe, I am a scriptural επισκοπος, as much as any man
  in England, or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I
  know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove. But this
  does in no wise interfere with my remaining in the Church of
  England, from which I have no more desire to separate than I had
  fifty years ago. I still attend all the ordinances of the Church,
  at all opportunities; and I constantly and earnestly advise all
  that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. Smyth pressed us
  to separate from the Church, he meant, ‘Go to church no more.’
  And this was what I meant twenty-seven years ago, when I persuaded
  our brethren not to separate from the Church.

  “But here another question occurs: ‘What is the Church of
  England?’ It is not all the people of England. Papists and
  Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of
  England, except papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a
  glorious church indeed! No; according to our twentieth article,
  a particular church is ‘a congregation of faithful people among
  whom the word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly
  administered.’ Here is a true logical definition, containing
  both the essence and the properties of a church. What then,
  according to this definition, is the Church of England? Does it
  mean all the believers in England (except the papists and
  Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly
  administered among them? I fear, this does not come up to your
  idea of the Church of England. Well, what more do you include
  in the phrase? ‘Why, all the believers that adhere to the
  doctrine and discipline established by the convocation under
  Queen Elizabeth.’ Nay, that discipline is well-nigh vanished
  away; and the doctrine both you and I adhere to.

  “All these ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church,’ in
  this sense, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted
  at? I no more separate from it now than I did in 1758. I submit
  still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to ‘mitred
  infidels,’ I do, indeed, vary from them in some points of
  doctrine, and in some points of discipline (by preaching
  abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming
  societies); but not a hair’s breadth farther than I believe to
  be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same
  rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do
  nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high day of my
  blood is over. If you will go on hand in hand with me, do. But
  do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept
  close to me, I might have done better. However, with or without
  help, I creep on; and as I have been hitherto, so I trust I
  shall always be,

  “Your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[518]

To this letter Charles Wesley returned the following reply.

                                “MARYLEBONE, _September 8, 1785_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with the same
  simplicity. There is no danger of our quarrelling; for the
  second blow makes the quarrel; and you are the last man upon
  earth whom I would wish to quarrel with.

  “That juvenile line of mine,

              ‘Heathenish priests, and mitred infidels,’

  I disown, renounce, and with shame recant. I never knew of more
  than one ‘mitred infidel,’ and for him I took Mr. Law’s word.

  “I do not understand what obedience to the bishops you dread.
  They have let us alone, and left us to act just as we pleased,
  for these fifty years. At present, some of them are quite
  friendly toward us, particularly toward you. The churches are
  all open to you; and never could there be less pretence for a
  separation.

  “That you are a scriptural επισκοπος, or overseer, I do not
  dispute. And so is every minister who has the cure of souls.
  Neither need we dispute whether the uninterrupted succession
  be fabulous, as you believe; or real, as I believe; or whether
  Lord King be right or wrong.

  “Your definition of the Church of England is the same in prose
  with mine in verse. By the way, read over my ‘Epistle,’ to
  oblige me, and tell me you have read it, and likewise your own
  ‘Reasons.’

  “You write, ‘all these reasons against a separation from the
  Church, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted at? I
  no more separate from it than I did in the year 1758; I submit
  still to its bishops; I do indeed vary from them in some points
  of discipline; (by preaching abroad, for instance, praying
  extempore, and by forming societies’); (might you not add, and
  by ordaining?). ‘I still walk by the same rule I have done for
  between forty and fifty years; I do nothing rashly.’

  “If I could prove your actual separation, I would not; neither
  wish to see it proved by any other. But do you not allow, that
  the doctor has separated? Do you not know and approve of his
  avowed design and resolution to get all the Methodists of the
  three kingdoms into a distinct, compact body? Have you seen his
  ordination sermon? Is the high day of his blood over? Does he
  do nothing rashly? Have you not made yourself the author of all
  his actions? I need not remind you, _qui facit per alium facit
  per se_.

  “I must not leave unanswered your surprising question, ‘What
  then are you frighted at?’ At the doctor’s rashness, and your
  supporting him in his ambitious pursuits; at an approaching
  schism, as causeless and unprovoked as the American rebellion;
  at your own eternal disgrace, and all those frightful evils
  which your ‘Reasons’ describe.

  “‘If you will go on hand in hand with me, do.’ I do go, or
  rather creep on, in the old way in which we set out together,
  and trust to continue in it, till I finish my course.

  “‘Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I might have done
  better.’ When you took that fatal step at Bristol, I kept as
  close to you as close could be; for I was all the time at your
  elbow. You might certainly have done better, if you had taken
  me into your counsel.

  “I thank you for your intention to remain my friend; herein my
  heart is as your heart; whom God hath joined let not man put
  asunder. We have taken each other for better for worse, till
  death do us--part? No; but unite eternally. Therefore, in the
  love which never faileth, I am your affectionate friend and
  brother,

                                           “CHARLES WESLEY.”[519]

Five days later, Wesley replied.

                                           “_September 13, 1785._

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I see no use of you and me disputing together;
  for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say, I
  separate from the Church; I say, I do not. Then let it stand.

  “Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England
  than you do; and I find few exceptions to it.

  “I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from
  covetousness. He has done nothing rashly, that I know; but he
  has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him
  of it. To publish, as his present thoughts, what he had before
  retracted, was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me
  as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me
  yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and
  will save as many souls as I can while I live, without being
  careful about what may _possibly be_ when I die.

  “I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London.
  You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly
  weaken your own.

                             “I am, etc.,
                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[520]

Wesley failed to grapple with his brother’s question; or rather he
declined. Charles’s point evidently was the same as Lord
Mansfield’s,--“ordination was separation.” No doubt this was strictly
accurate. Wesley was too keen sighted not to see it; but he was too
much a churchman to acknowledge it. He felt himself unable to reply to
his brother’s argument; and, therefore, really did not attempt to
reply at all.

Two brief letters more, and then we quit the subject of ordination.
Six days after the date of the above, Charles Wesley replied as
follows.

                                   “LONDON, _September 19, 1785_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I did not say, you separate from the Church;
  but I did say, ‘If I could prove it, I would not.’

  “That ‘sad truth’ is not a new truth; you saw it when you
  expressed in your ‘Reasons’ such tenderness of love for the
  unconverted clergy.

  “Of your second Thomas Walsh we had better talk than write.

  “How ‘confound their intellects’? how ‘weaken your hands’? I
  know nothing which I do to prevent the _possible_ separation,
  but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to
  pray for the Church of England, and for you, while my breath
  remains in me!

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                           “CHARLES WESLEY.”[521]

Again:

                                       “BRISTOL, _July 27, 1786_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot rest, living or dying, unless I deal
  as faithfully with you as I am persuaded you would deal with
  me, if you were in my place, and I in yours.

  “I believe you have been too hasty in ordaining. I believe God
  left you to yourself in that matter, as He left Hezekiah, to
  show you the secret pride which was in your heart. I believe
  Lord Mansfield’s decisive words to me, ‘ordination is
  separation.’

  “Thus I have discharged my duty to God and His church, and
  approved myself your faithful friend and affectionate brother,

                                           “CHARLES WESLEY.”[522]

This is a long, and, we fear, a wearisome account of what,
abstractedly considered, was a trivial thing. John Wesley’s preachers,
being called of God, were as much ministers of Christ, and as much
entitled to administer the sacraments of the church, without the
imposition of his hands as with it. We raise no objection to the
formality; we think it right, and, because of its solemnity, likely to
be useful; but to contend that the thing itself is necessary, would be
to condemn all the grand old Methodist preachers, who flourished from
the year 1795, when their administration of sacraments was authorised
by the Methodist conference, to the year 1836, when, for the first
time, ordination by imposition of hands was solemnly enacted, and
declared to be a “standing rule and usage in future years.”

This, however, is not the point in question. The right or wrong, of
ordaining, is left to others to discuss. There can be no doubt that,
as a minister of Christ, Wesley had as much right to ordain as any
bishop, priest, or presbytery in existence; but he had no right to
this as a clergyman of the Church of England; and, by acting as he
did, he became, what he was unwilling to acknowledge, a Dissenter, a
separatist from that church. Such was the opinion of Lord Mansfield;
and such was the argument of Wesley’s brother. Wesley refused to
acknowledge this; but, feeling the impossibility of the thing, he
declined to attempt refuting it. With great inconsistency, he still
persisted in calling himself a member of the Church of England;[523]
and, as will be seen, to the day of his death, told the Methodists
that if they left the Church they would leave him. All things
considered, this was not surprising; but it was absurd. Great
allowance must be made for Wesley; but to reconcile Wesley’s practice
and profession, in this matter, during the last seven years of his
eventful life, is simply impossible.

Much space has been occupied with these recitals; but, remembering
that no event, in Wesley’s history, has occasioned more controversy
than his act of ordaining preachers, it became a duty to give all the
facts concerning it within our knowledge.

We now return to the conference of 1784. As soon as its sessions
ended, Wesley again set out on his evangelistic ramblings; and, two
days afterwards, came to Shrewsbury, and preached a funeral sermon “in
memory of good John Appleton.” John was a currier, and became a
Methodist under circumstances somewhat peculiar, and which are worth
relating.

While at Bristol, he happened to go into a church, where the minister
preached a violent sermon, which he had already delivered in two other
churches, against “the upstart Methodists.” Shortly after, he had to
preach again in the church of St. Nicholas, but, while announcing his
text, was suddenly seized with a rattling in his throat, fell backward
against the pulpit door, rolled down the steps, was carried home, and
died. Mr. Appleton was present, and was so greatly shocked with this
event, that, when he returned to Shrewsbury, he took a house, in which
he fitted up a room for religious service, and began to preach
himself. In 1781, at his own expense, he built the Methodists a
chapel, which Wesley opened. A more devoted Christian it would be
difficult to find than good John Appleton. His labour, as a working
currier, was hard; but, for many years, besides preaching every
Sunday, he preached twice a week on the week days, and had full and
attentive congregations. He died in the full triumph of faith on the
1st of May, 1784.[524]

From Shrewsbury, Wesley made his way, through Wales, to Bristol, which
he reached on August 29, and where, a few days afterwards, he ordained
Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey. The next month was spent in incessant
preaching in the surrounding neighbourhood.

Here we pause to insert two of his remarkable letters: the first to
Miss Bishop, the mistress of a boarding school; the second to the
Right Hon. William Pitt, now in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and
prime minister of England.

                               “HAVERFORDWEST, _August 18, 1784_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--It seems God Himself has already decided the
  question concerning dancing. He has shown His approbation of
  your conduct, by sending these children to you again. If
  dancing be not evil in itself, yet, it leads young women to
  numberless evils. And the hazard of these, on the one side,
  seems far to overbalance the little inconveniences, on the
  other. Therefore, thus much may certainly be said, you have
  chosen the more excellent way.

  “I would recommend very few novels to young persons, for fear
  they should be desirous of more. Mr. Brooke wrote one more,
  beside the ‘Earl of Moreland,’ ‘The History of the Human
  Heart.’ I think, it is well worth reading, though it is not
  equal to his former production. The want of novels may be more
  than supplied by well chosen history: such as ‘The Concise
  History of England,’ ‘The Concise History of the Church,’
  Rollin’s Ancient History, Hooke’s Roman History (the only
  impartial one extant), and a few more. For the elder and more
  sensible children, Malebranche’s ‘Search after Truth’ is an
  excellent French book. Perhaps, you might add Locke’s ‘Essay on
  the Human Understanding,’ with the remarks upon it in the
  _Arminian Magazine_. I had forgotten that beautiful book, ‘The
  Travels of Cyrus,’ whether in French or English.

  “I always am your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[525]

The letter to Pitt was one such as prime ministers seldom get.

                                      “BATH, _September 6, 1784_.

  “SIR,--Your former goodness, shown to Mr. Ellison,[526]
  emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice
  an old friend, Lieutenant Webb.[527]

  “On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North,
  his lordship was pleased to order him £100 a year. But as it
  has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself
  and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in
  this, or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favour.

  “Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by
  hinting a few things, which have been long upon my mind? If
  those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be
  forgiven and forgotten.

  “New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money
  be produced by the old ones? For instance:

  “1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know
  some towns which pay regularly seven or five pence. Nay, I know
  one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no
  help for this?

  “2. As to the window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a
  hundred windows in his house, and he told me he paid for
  _twenty_.

  “3. The same gentleman told me: ‘We have above one hundred men
  servants in this town, but not above _ten_ are paid for.’

  “4. I firmly believe, that, in Cornwall alone, the king is
  defrauded of half a million yearly in customs. What does this
  amount to in all Great Britain? Surely not so little as five
  millions.

  “5. Servants of distillers inform me, that their masters do not
  pay for a fortieth part of what they distil. And this duty last
  year, (if I am rightly informed,) amounted only to £20,000. But
  have not the spirits distilled this year cost 20,000 lives of
  his majesty’s liege subjects? Is not then the blood of these
  men vilely bartered for £20,000? not to say anything of the
  enormous wickedness, which has been occasioned thereby; and not
  to suppose that these poor wretches have any souls! But, (to
  consider money alone,) is the king a gainer, or an immense
  loser? To say nothing of many millions of quarters of corn
  destroyed, which, if exported, would have added more than
  £20,000 to the revenue, be it considered, ‘Dead men pay no
  taxes,’ So that, by the death of 20,000 persons yearly, (and
  this computation is far under the mark,) the revenue loses far
  more than it gains.

  “But I may urge another consideration to you. You are a man.
  You have not lost human feelings. You do not love to drink
  human blood. You are a son of Lord Chatham. Nay, if I mistake
  not, you are a Christian. Dare you then sustain a sinking
  nation? Is the God whom you serve able to deliver from ten
  thousand enemies? I believe He is. Nay, and you believe it. O,
  may you fear nothing but displeasing Him!

  “May I add a word on another head? How would your benevolent
  heart rejoice, if a stop could be put to that scandal of the
  English nation, suicide!

  “The present laws against it avail nothing; for every such
  _murderer_ is brought in _non compos_. If he was a poor man,
  the jurors forswear themselves from pity. If he was rich, they
  hope to be well paid for it. So no ignominy pursues either the
  living or the dead, and self murder increases daily. But what
  help?

  “I conceive this horrid crime might be totally prevented, and
  that without doing the least hurt to either the living or the
  dead. Do you not remember, sir, how the rage for self murder
  among the Spartan matrons was stopped at once? Would it not
  have the same effect in England, if an act of parliament were
  passed, repealing all other acts and appointing that every self
  murderer should be hanged in chains?

  “Suppose your influence could prevent suicide by this means,
  you would do more service to your country than any prime
  minister has done these hundred years. Your name would be
  precious to all true Englishmen as long as England continued a
  nation. And, what is infinitely more, a greater Monarch than
  King George would say to you, ‘Well done, good and faithful
  servant.’ I earnestly commit you to His care, and am, sir, your
  willing servant,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[528]

Methodism was established not only in America, but also in Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland, though neither of these countries found a place in
the conference minutes till 1785. William Black, now a young man of
twenty-four, had begun to pray and preach, and had witnessed the
conversion of hundreds. Societies had been formed; and quarterly
meetings held; and, for three years, Black had devoted himself wholly
to the work of the ministry, without being formally recognised as one
of Wesley’s itinerant preachers. He had encountered no ordinary
difficulties in the prosecution of his work. The Rev. Henry Alline, a
Calvinist preacher, had divided his societies, by sowing the seeds of
antinomian error; and Methodist meetings had been illegally disturbed,
and broken up, by English soldiers: but, in the midst of all, young
Black courageously persevered. He applied to Wesley for assistance;
and he himself expressed a wish to come to Kingswood school to fit
himself more fully for the Christian ministry. During the year 1784,
Wesley addressed to him the two following letters.

                                      “INVERNESS, _May 11, 1784_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you have given a little assistance
  to our brethren at Halifax, and along the coast. There is no
  charity under heaven to be compared to this,--the bringing
  light to the poor heathens, that are called Christians, but,
  nevertheless, still sit in darkness and the shadow of death. I
  am in great hopes, that some of the emigrants, from New York,
  are really alive to God. And, if so, they will every way be a
  valuable acquisition to the province where their lot is now
  cast.

  “There is no part of Calvinism or antinomianism which is not
  fully answered in some part of our writings; particularly in
  the ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.’ I
  have no more to do with answering books. It will be sufficient
  if you recommend, to Mr. Alline’s friends, some of the tracts
  that are already written. As to himself, I fear he is wiser in
  his own eyes than seven men that can render a reason.

  “The work of God goes on with a steady pace in various parts of
  England. But, still, the love of many will wax cold, while many
  others are continually added to supply their place. In the west
  of England, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire, God still mightily
  makes bare His arm. He convinces many, justifies many, and many
  are perfected in love.

  “My great advice to those who are united together, is, Let
  brotherly love continue! See that ye fall not out by the way!
  Hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! Bear ye one
  another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ!

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[529]

                                     “LONDON, _October 15, 1784_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--A letter of yours, some time ago, gave me
  hopes of meeting you in England; as you seemed desirous of
  spending some time here, to improve yourself in learning. But,
  as you have now entered into a different state, I do not expect
  we shall meet in this world. But you have a large field of
  action where you are, without wandering into Europe. Your
  present parish is wide enough, namely, Nova Scotia and
  Newfoundland. I do not advise you to go any farther. In the
  United States, there are abundance of preacher. They can spare
  four preachers to you, better than you can spare one to them.
  If I am rightly informed, they have already sent you one or
  two; and they may afford you one or two more, if it please God
  to give a prosperous voyage to Dr. Coke and his fellow
  labourers. Does there not want a closer and more direct
  connection between you of the north, and the societies under
  Francis Asbury? Is it not more advisable, that you should have
  a constant correspondence with each other, and act by united
  counsels? Perhaps it is for want of this, that so many have
  drawn back. I want a more particular account of the societies
  in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I am not at all glad of Mr.
  Scurr’s intention to remove from Nova Scotia to the south. That
  is going from a place, where he is much wanted, to a place
  where he is not wanted. I think, if he got £10,000 thereby, it
  would be but a poor bargain; that is, upon the supposition,
  which you and I make, that _souls_ are of more value than
  _gold_. Peace be with all your spirits!

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[530]

Wesley returned to London on October 9, and, nine days afterwards, set
out on his usual visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. He then went
off to Norfolk; and spent the rest of the year in London, and the
surrounding counties. He had a long interview with Pascal Paoli, the
great Corsican general. He visited convicts, under sentence of death,
in Newgate, preached the condemned criminals’ sermon, forty-seven of
these unhappy creatures being present, all in chains, and most of them
in tears. Burglars broke into his house, in City Road. He met with
Simeon, who had been with Fletcher at Madeley, and, for fifty-three
years afterwards, was rector of Trinity church, Cambridge. Jottings
like these might be multiplied; Wesley’s life was full of them. We
conclude with an unpublished letter to Henry Moore, who was now at
Dublin.

                                     “LONDON, _November 4, 1784_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you spoke freely to Mr. Collins.
  He is a good man, but not very adviseable. If he should declare
  open war in England, he will do little or no harm. Mr. Smyth
  will not be fond of him, if he preaches at Plunkett
  Street.[531] There will not soon be a coalition between
  Arminianism and Calvinism. This we found even in Holland.

  “If James Rogers and you keep to the Church still, a few, I
  doubt not, will follow your example. We made just allowance
  enough for leaving the Church at the last conference.

  “I am, with kind love to Nancy, yours affectionately,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Besides “The Sunday Service of the Methodists in America,” and a tract
or two, Wesley published nothing, in 1784, except his _Arminian
Magazine_. This was as racy and rich as ever. “The Calvinist Cabinet
Unlocked” was continued from the previous volume, and run through the
whole of this. Like its predecessors, it contained six original
sermons by Wesley himself. In that on Dissipation, he expresses the
startling opinion: “There is not, on the face of the earth, another
nation so perfectly dissipated and ungodly as England; not only so
totally without God in the world, but so openly setting Him at
defiance. There never was an _age_, that we read of in history, since
Julius Cæsar, since Noah, since Adam, wherein dissipation and
ungodliness did so generally prevail, both among high and low, rich
and poor.” In the sermon on Patience, he gives an interesting account
of the way in which he was led to embrace the doctrine of Christian
perfection; and observes that, in 1762, there were 652 members of the
London society, who professed to have attained to this state of grace.
That on the text, “We know in part,” is a marvellous production, such
as none but a man like Wesley could have written. In the sermon on the
“Wisdom and Knowledge of God,” as displayed in the history of the
church, after giving one of his most interesting accounts of the rise
of Methodism, he does not hide the fact, that many of the Methodist
preachers and people had not been faithful. Speaking of the first
preachers, he says, they “were young, poor, ignorant men, without
experience, learning, or art; but simple of heart, devoted to God,
full of faith and zeal, seeking no honour, no profit, no pleasure, no
ease, but merely to save souls; fearing neither want, pain,
persecution, nor whatever man could do unto them: yea, not counting
their lives dear unto them, so they might finish their course with
joy.” But in process of time, “several of the preachers increased in
other knowledge; but not proportionably in the knowledge of God. They
grew less simple, less alive to God, and less devoted to Him. They
were less zealous for God, and consequently less active, less diligent
in His service. Some of them begun to desire the praise of men, and
not the praise of God only; some, to be weary of a wandering life, and
to seek ease and quietness. Some began to fear the faces of men; to be
ashamed of their calling; to be unwilling to deny themselves, to take
up their cross daily, and endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus
Christ. Wherever these preachers laboured, there was not much fruit of
their labours. Their word was not, as formerly, clothed with power; it
carried with it no demonstration of the Spirit!” Weighty words these!
especially as coming from an old man of more than eighty, one of the
keenest observers of facts, himself the founder of Methodism, now
nearly at the close of his remarkable career. And equally pungent are
his remarks respecting the people. Referring to the causes of
Methodist backslidings, he writes: “But of all the temptations, none
so struck at the whole work of God, as the deceitfulness of riches; a
thousand melancholy proofs of which I have seen, within these last
fifty years. I have not known threescore rich persons, perhaps not
half the number, during threescore years, who, as far as I can judge,
were not less holy than they would have been, had they been poor. By
riches, I mean not thousands of pounds; but any more than will procure
the conveniences of life.” “Having gained and saved all you can, give
all you can: else your money will eat your flesh as fire, and will
sink you to the nethermost hell! O beware of laying up treasures upon
earth! Is it not treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath? Lord! I
have warned them: but if they will not be warned, what can I do more?
I can only give them up unto their own hearts’ lusts, and let them
follow their own imaginations! By not taking this warning, it is
certain many of the Methodists are already fallen. Many are falling at
this very time. And there is great reason to apprehend, that many more
will fall, most of whom will rise no more!” If Wesley found it
necessary to say this in 1784, what would he have said in 1871?

In the sermons, on Obedience to Parents, and Companionship with the
Wicked, the reader will find most valuable advices, such as none but a
long experienced casuist like Wesley has wisdom and confidence enough
to give.

Further description of the _Magazine_, for 1784, is scarcely needed.
The letters and the poetry are quite equal to those in the former
volumes; the biographies are rich in Christian experience; the
anecdotes quaint and instructive. Extracts from his “Natural
Philosophy” are given in every number, and also from Bryant’s Ancient
Mythology. Benson’s Letters on Polygamy run through the whole. The
supernatural disturbances at Epworth parsonage are related; and, as if
in anticipation of his own death, Wesley tells his readers, that, not
“to lessen the honour of the house of God, or infect it with
unwholesome vapours, he has left orders to bury his remains, not in
the new chapel in City Road, but in the burying ground adjoining it;”
and then, to show that “epitaphs ought to be prepared by persons who
have some knowledge of grammatical and typographical accuracy; and not
be left to illiterate relations, parish clerks, or stonemasons, to the
great scandal of the nation in general, and of religion in
particular,” he gives the following, taken from a tombstone in
Arbroath churchyard.

“Here lyis Alexand Peter, _present_ Town Treasurer of Arbroth, who
died ---- day January 1630.

          “Such a Treasurer was not since, nor yet before,
           For common works, calsais, brigs, and schoir--
           Of all others he did excel;
           He deviced our skoel, and he hung our bell.”


FOOTNOTES:

     [472] Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 404.

     [473] Manuscript letter.

     [474] Manuscript diary.

     [475] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 144.

     [476] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 397.

     [477] On Sunday, September 18, 1870, the London Road
           Methodist Sunday-school, Manchester, removed from
           their somewhat dingy premises to a new and more
           commodious building, erected in Grosvenor Street
           East, and adjoining the Wesleyan chapel there. A
           card commemorative of the event was presented to
           each person joining in the day’s proceedings, with
           the following inscription: “London Road Wesleyan
           Sunday School, founded in 1785, by John Lancaster,
           and first conducted by him in a cellar at the corner
           of Travis Street. It was soon after removed to a
           room in Worsley Street, built specially for its
           accommodation, and there carried on until November
           10, 1811, when it took possession of the then new
           schools, situated behind Borough Buildings, and there
           continued until this day, when it was again removed
           to the recently erected building adjoining the
           Grosvenor Street chapel, in commemoration of which
           event this card is presented to ----. Manchester,
           September 18, 1870.”

     [478] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, pp. 12, 13.

     [479] Minutes of Conference, vol. i., p. 41.

     [480] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 37.

     [481] Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

     [482] Hampson’s Life of Wesley.

     [483] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 523.

     [484] Manuscript.

     [485] Myles’ History, p. 201.

     [486] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 269.

     [487] American minutes.

     [488] Bangs’ “Original Church of Christ,” p. 114.

     [489] Stevens’ History of Methodism, vol. ii., p. 212.

     [490] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 326.

     [491] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 682.

     [492] Manuscript letter.

     [493] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 417.

     [494] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 200.

     [495] Ibid. p. 223.

     [496] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 137.

     [497] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon;” and “Authentic
           Narrative of Primary Ordination in Spafields Chapel,
           1784.”

     [498] The Rev. James Creighton was present; but Charles
           Wesley was not, though he was in Bristol at the
           time.--(Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p.
           389.)

     [499] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 66.

     [500] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 602.

     [501] Ibid. 1786, p. 677.

     [502] Coke’s Life, by Etheridge.

     [503] American minutes.

     [504] Cokesbury college, twice burned down.

     [505] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 70.

     [506] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 419.

     [507] Dr. Samuel Seabury was a missionary of the Society
           for the Propagation of the Gospel. After the
           ratification of the treaty of peace, the American
           episcopal church felt it necessary, not to remain
           dependent on the good offices of a prelate residing
           in England, but to have bishops of its own.
           Accordingly, the clergy in Connecticut assembled in
           a voluntary convention, and elected Seabury. The
           election was easily accomplished; the _consecration_
           was more difficult. Seabury came to England, asking
           of the archbishops of the English Church a boon
           which, for a hundred and fifty years, had been asked
           in vain, namely, that episcopalians in America might
           have ordained bishops of their own. At the time, the
           see of Canterbury was vacant; and the archbishop of
           York was unable to take measures for the consecration
           of an American citizen, without the authority of
           parliament. A long delay was unavoidable, and, under
           the circumstances, Seabury proceeded to Scotland,
           where he applied for consecration to the bishops of
           the Scottish episcopal church. His application was
           granted, and he was solemnly ordained at Aberdeen,
           on November 14, 1784, by the bishops of Aberdeen,
           Ross, and Moray.--(Caswall’s American Church, p.
           124.) This will explain the meaning of C. Wesley’s
           letter; but is it surprising that, amid all these
           changes, difficulties, and confusions, Wesley took
           upon himself to ordain deacons and presbyters for the
           abandoned Methodists of America?

     [508] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 392.

     [509] The Rev. James Creighton, in his reply to Bradburn’s
           pamphlet in 1793, affirms that Wesley repented, with
           tears, that he had ordained any of his preachers. He
           states, that he expressed his sorrow for this at the
           conference of 1789, and occasionally afterwards till
           his death. Creighton adds: “About six weeks before he
           died, he said, ‘The preachers are now too powerful
           for me.’” This must pass for as much as it is worth;
           James Creighton was a clergyman.

     [510] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 382.

     [511] Manuscripts; also _Methodist Magazine_, 1867, p. 622.

     [512] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 678.

     [513] Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

     [514] Manuscript letter.

     [515] Manuscript letter.

     [516] Pawson’s manuscript.

     [517] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 394.

     [518] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 50.

     [519] C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 398.

     [520] Ibid.

     [521] C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii, p. 398.

     [522] _Methodist Magazine_, 1867, p. 625.

     [523] Let us suppose John Hampson, not only to have formed
           societies, different from the Methodist societies,
           but also to have ordained local preachers to
           administer to them the sacraments; and let us suppose
           further, that, despite this, John Hampson still
           persisted in calling himself a Methodist: and we
           have a case analogous to that of Wesley. Under such
           circumstances, would Wesley have admitted Hampson’s
           claim to continued membership among the Methodists?
           We trow not; and yet this is exactly the sort of
           claim which he himself makes in reference to the
           Church of England.

     [524] _Methodist Magazine_, 1790, p. 636.

     [525] _Methodist Magazine_, 1807, p. 472; and Wesley’s
           Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.

     [526] Wesley’s nephew, an excise officer (Clarke’s “Wesley
           Family,” vol. ii., p. 273).

     [527] Commonly called Captain Webb.

     [528] _Methodist Magazine_, 1850, p. 161.

     [529] Black’s Memoirs, p. 112.

     [530] Black’s Memoirs, p. 126.

     [531] The Rev. Edward Smyth was about to become minister of
           Bethesda chapel, Dublin. The Rev. Brian Collins seems
           to have been in Dublin at the same time.




                                1785.
                               Age 82


Wesley began the year 1785, by spending five days in walking through
London, often ankle deep in sludge and melting snow, to beg £200,
which he employed in purchasing clothing for the poor. He visited the
destitute in their own houses, “to see with his own eyes what their
wants were, and how they might be effectually relieved.” Besides
preaching in his own chapels, he preached in Spitalfields, St.
Ethelburga’s, and Stepney churches. As usual, he met the London
classes, from which he received, as ticket money, £48 7_s._, out of
which he was paid his quarter’s salary, £15.[532] His activity was
unabated and marvellous.

He wrote as follows, to Mr. Stretton, in Newfoundland.

                                    “LONDON, _February 25, 1785_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--If that deadly enemy of true religion,
  popery, is breaking in upon you, there is indeed no time to be
  lost; for it is far easier to prevent the plague than to stop
  it. Last autumn Dr. Coke sailed from England, and is now
  visiting the flock in the midland provinces of America, and
  setting them on the New Testament plan, to which they all
  willingly and joyfully conform. I trust, they will no more want
  such pastors, as are after God’s own heart. After he has gone
  through these parts, he intends to see the brethren in Nova
  Scotia, probably attended with one or two able preachers, who
  will be willing to abide there. A day or two ago, I wrote and
  desired him to call upon our brethren also in Newfoundland, and
  leave a preacher there likewise. About food and raiment we take
  no thought; our heavenly Father knoweth that we need these
  things, and He will provide; only let us be faithful and
  diligent in feeding His flock. Your preacher will be ordained.
  You shall want no assistance that is in the power of your
  affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[533]

At the previous conference, Wesley had appointed William Moore to
Plymouth. Moore was an itinerant of ten years’ standing, and was
dissatisfied with Wesley’s deed of declaration; and, instead of
serving Wesley, as he had done formerly, he dissevered the connection.
He hired a room, drew away about forty of the Plymouth Methodists, and
formed a society of his own. He issued “An Appeal to the Inhabitants
of the Town of Saltash,” 8vo, 8 pages; telling the people, that he
preached none other doctrines than those contained in the articles,
homilies, and prayers of the Church of England; that he coveted no
man’s silver, gold, or apparel; and that he was actuated only by a
sincere desire to serve them. Moore was evidently a man of education,
courage, and Christian zeal; and might have occupied a superior
position among his brethren. But Wesley’s seeming partiality, in the
constitution of his conference, led to Moore’s secession; and here, at
Plymouth, he had become a somewhat formidable rival. Wesley was
summoned, and, in a most bitter frost, off he went, on February 28, to
put wrong things right. Here he spent six days, and left the society
“confirmed in the truth more than ever.”

Leaving Plymouth, Wesley came to Bristol, where he employed a
fortnight in visiting and preaching to neighbouring societies.

On March 21, he started off to Ireland, preaching all the way to
Liverpool, and, notwithstanding frost and snow, and bitter cold,
frequently in the open air. He arrived at Dublin on April 11, and
found “two such preachers,” James Rogers and Andrew Blair, “with two
such wives as he knew not where to find again.”

Having spent a week in Dublin, he set out for the provinces. He often
preached in churches, and not unfrequently in the open air.
Everywhere, with one or two exceptions, the people welcomed him;
congregations were large, and societies, in general, were lively. Two
months were occupied in this employment. His labours were almost
incredible. All over Ireland he went, preaching every day, and often
twice or thrice a day, not only in Methodist meeting-houses, but in
churches, presbyterian chapels, in factories, in bowling greens, in
assembly rooms, in courthouses, in barns, in “sloping meadows,” in
“shady orchards,” in groves and avenues, in linen halls, in
churchyards and streets, everywhere, where he had a chance. We know,
with certainty, that, minute as are the details of Wesley’s journals,
he, by no means, mentions every sermon that he delivered, and every
society that he visited; and yet, in this two months’ Irish provincial
tour, he records the names of not fewer than between fifty and sixty
towns, in which he preached, collectively, about fourscore discourses.

At Prosperous, he found a town built within the last five years, by
Captain Brooke, who employed two thousand people in the manufacturing
of cotton; a Methodist society of fifty members had been formed; and
Wesley preached to two crowded congregations. On his way to Cork, he
was met by about thirty horsemen, who escorted him to the city, where
he met a society of about four hundred members, considerably more than
there are at the present time. At Kinsale, “all behaved well, but a
few officers.” He adds: “the poor in Ireland, in general, are well
behaved; all the ill breeding is among well dressed people.” At
Limerick, he assisted at a service, in the cathedral, which lasted
from eleven o’clock till three. At Killchrist, he was the guest of
Colonel Pearse; but says, “the house being full of genteel company, I
was out of my element; there being no room to talk upon the only
subject which deserves the attention of a rational creature.” At
Ballinrobe, he visited the charter school, the children of which were
ragged and dirty. “The schoolroom was not much bigger than a small
closet:” three beds had to serve for fifteen boys, and five for
nineteen girls; and five farthings a day were allowed the master for
the sustenance of each of the hunger bitten pupils. Wesley was so
disgusted with the thing, that he reported the case to the
commissioners for charter schools in Dublin.

On June 18, he got back to Dublin, where he spent his birthday, on the
28th, and wrote: “By the good providence of God, I finished the
eighty-second year of my age. Is anything too hard for God? It is now
eleven years since I have felt any such thing as weariness: many times
I speak till my voice fails, and I can speak no longer; frequently I
walk till my strength fails, and I can walk no farther; yet, even
then, I feel no sensation of weariness, but am perfectly easy from
head to foot. I dare not impute this to natural causes; it is the will
of God.”

Having held the Irish conference he set sail for England, on July 10,
leaving, says he, “the work of God increasing in every part of the
kingdom, more than it has done for many years.” “Here is a set of
excellent young preachers; nine in ten of them are much devoted to
God. I think, number for number, they exceed their fellow labourers in
England.”[534]

The following letter refers to the same subject, and is too
interesting to be omitted. It was addressed to Miss Ritchie.

                                        “DUBLIN, _June 26, 1785_.

  “MY DEAR BETSY,--Our Lord has indeed poured out abundance of
  blessings, almost in every part of this kingdom. I have now
  gone through every province, and visited all the chief
  societies, and I have found far the greater part of them
  increasing both in number and strength. Many are convinced of
  sin; many justified; and not a few perfected in love. One means
  of which is, that several of our young preachers, of whom we
  made little account, appear to be, contrary to all expectation,
  men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost; and they are pushing
  out, to the right hand and the left; and, wherever they go, God
  prospers their labours. I know not whether Thomas Walsh will
  not revive in two, if not three, of them.

  “Many years, ago I was saying: ‘I cannot imagine how Mr.
  Whitefield can keep his soul alive, as he is not now going
  through honour and dishonour, evil report and good report;
  having nothing but honour and good report attending him
  wherever he goes.’ It is now my own case; I am just in the
  condition now that he was then in. I am become, I know not how,
  an honourable man. The scandal of the cross is ceased; and all
  the kingdom, rich and poor, papists and protestants, behave
  with courtesy, nay, and seeming good will! It seems as if I had
  well-nigh finished my course, and our Lord was giving me an
  honourable discharge.

  “Peace be with your spirit! Adieu!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[535]

A letter, from Wesley to Mr. Stretton, has been already given,
announcing that preachers were about to be sent to Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. This was already done; and Freeborn Garretson and James
Cromwell were labouring, in the former country, with great success.
Wesley, while in Ireland, wrote to Garretson as follows.

                                        “DUBLIN, _June 16, 1785_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad brother Cromwell and you have
  undertaken that ‘labour of love’ of visiting Nova Scotia; and
  doubt not but you act in full concert with the little handful,
  who were almost alone till you came. It will be the wisest way
  to make all those who desire to join together, thoroughly
  acquainted with the whole Methodist plan; and to accustom them,
  from the very beginning, to the accurate observance of all our
  rules. Let none of them rest in being half Christians. Whatever
  they do, let them do it with their might; and it will be well,
  as soon as any of them find peace with God, to exhort them to
  ‘go on to perfection.’ The more explicitly and strongly you
  press all believers to aspire after full sanctification, as
  attainable now by simple faith, the more the whole work of God
  will prosper.

  “I do not expect any great matters from the bishop. I doubt his
  eye is not single; and if it be not, he will do little good to
  you, or any one else. It may be a comfort to you, that you have
  no need of him. You want nothing which he can give.

  “You do not know the state of the English Methodists; they do
  not roll in money, like many of the American Methodists. It is
  with the utmost difficulty, that we can raise five or six
  hundred pounds a year to supply our contingent expenses; so
  that it is entirely impracticable to raise £500 among them to
  build houses in America. It is true, they might do much; but it
  is a sad observation, they that have most money have usually
  least grace.

  “The peace of God be with all your spirits! I am your
  affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[536]

Thus was Methodism spreading. We find it firmly planted throughout the
whole of the United Kingdom. Its members in America were counted by
thousands. It had its societies in the West Indies. It had taken root
in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. And, besides all this, it was
beginning to exert indirectly a benign influence on other lands,
where, since then, religion has been extensively revived. The
Methodist mission to Sweden, begun by Joseph Rayner Stephens, in 1826,
was facilitated by Methodist feeling, imbibed from Wesley, in 1785.
Hence the following letter, from an aged clergyman of the established
church of Sweden, written in 1827, and addressed to Mr. Stephens.

  “It affected my heart to see, in the newspapers of Stockholm,
  that an adherent to the famous and venerable Mr. J. Wesley had
  established a chapel, for Divine service, in our metropolis.
  Mr. Wesley was an old acquaintance of mine when I resided in
  England in the years 1784-86. He was more; he was my dear
  friend, and with him I agreed in his Christian principles and
  opinions. I was exceedingly pleased with him, and with his
  religion of love, joy, and peace. I very often waited on him at
  his house; and I was several times in company with him in the
  circle of his friends, where I went to prayer with them. I
  learned of him, to be a father to the people that might be
  entrusted to me. I shall never forget the amiable Mr. Wesley.
  He was so good as to give me a remembrance of him, by a present
  of one of his writings, called ‘An Appeal,’ etc., in which he
  wrote these lines, ‘_Domino N. S. S. dono dedit Johannes
  Wesley, circ. Kal. Augusti, 1785_.’ He gave me also several
  other of his Christian pamphlets. I am far advanced in age;
  towards seventy-six years old: but, if the almighty God grant
  me life and health, perhaps I may make a tour to Stockholm next
  summer, when I have done with my catechumens; and then I shall
  certainly wait upon you, and make one of your auditory.[537]

While Wesley was forming new friendships, old ones were being severed
by death. It was in 1785, that he thus lost two of the most valuable
and valued friends that he ever had,--Vincent Perronet, and John
Fletcher, the vicars of Shoreham and Madeley. The former was in the
ninety-second year of his age, and died, while Wesley was in Ireland,
on the 9th of May. Charles Wesley buried him, and preached his funeral
sermon. For the last twenty years, he had enjoyed such a degree of
fellowship with God as rarely falls to the lot of man in the present
world. He lived chiefly in his library; but, when he mingled with his
friends, was always cheerful. His favourite study was the fulfilment
of prophecy, and the second coming and visible reign of Christ on
earth.[538]

While Perronet was the oldest, Fletcher was the most valuable friend
that Wesley had. No man had rendered, to Methodism and its founder,
the service that the vicar of Madeley had. Compared with the vicar of
Shoreham, he was young; but his life was fraught with incalculable
blessings to the church of Christ. Only four years before his death,
he had married Miss Bosanquet, who, for thirty years, revered his
memory, and remained his widow, till the two were reunited in a better
world than this. As we have already seen, he was present at Wesley’s
last conference, in Leeds; and it was chiefly by his almost angelic
interposition and services, that the results of that conference were
not much more disastrous than they were. His wife was with him, and
writes: “O how deeply was he affected concerning the welfare of his
brethren! When any little disputes arose among them, his inmost soul
groaned beneath the burden; and, by two or three in the morning, I was
sure to hear him breathing out prayer for the peace and prosperity of
Zion. When I observed to him, I was afraid it would hurt his health,
and wished him to sleep more, he would answer, ‘O Polly, the cause of
God lies near my heart!’”[539]

Twelve months afterwards, this seraphic man expired, some of his last
words being: “O Polly, my dear Polly, _God is love_! Shout! shout
aloud! I want a gust of praise to go to the ends of the earth!” He
died August 14, 1785, having, on the previous sabbath, read prayers,
preached, and administered the Lord’s supper, in his parish church.
Wesley, at the time, was in the west of England, and unable either to
see him, or to attend his funeral; but, as soon as possible, he
published a sermon in memory of him, taking the same text as his
brother Charles had taken at the death of Perronet: “Mark the perfect
man, and behold the upright; for the end of that man is peace.” Wesley
writes:

  “I was intimately acquainted with him for above thirty years; I
  conversed with him morning, noon, and night, without the least
  reserve, during a journey of many hundred miles; and, in all
  that time, I never heard him speak one improper word, nor saw
  him do an improper action. Many exemplary men have I known,
  holy in heart and life, within fourscore years; but one equal
  to him I have not known, one so inwardly and outwardly devoted
  to God. So unblamable a character, in every respect, I have not
  found either in Europe or America; and I scarce expect to find
  such another on this side of eternity.”

Wesley arrived in London, from Ireland, on July 14; and, on the
following Sunday, preached, morning and evening, on the education of
children. The next morning, at five o’clock, he met the children of
the congregation at City Road, the morning chapel being full of
juveniles, and many standing in the larger chapel. The service was
unique. When, either before or since, was there such a congregation at
such an hour?

Wesley writes: “July 26, Tuesday--Our conference began; at which about
seventy preachers were present, whom I had invited by name. One
consequence of this was, that we had no contention or altercation at
all; but everything proposed was calmly considered, and determined as
we judged would be most for the glory of God.” The deed of declaration
was again discussed; and seventy preachers present signed documents,
that they approved of it. Eight preachers left the connexion,
including William Moore and the two Hampsons. Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, and Antigua, for the first time, appeared in the list of
circuits. It was declared, that it was improper to sell books, to
employ hairdressers, or to talk of worldly things, on Sundays; and
that it was entirely wrong to send Methodist children to dancing
schools, and for dancing masters to be admitted into Methodist
boarding schools.

The conference was closed on August 3, and, five days afterwards,
Wesley set out for Cornwall;[540] and on September 3 got back to
Bristol, where he wrote: “Sunday, September 4--Finding a report had
been spread abroad, that I was going to leave the Church, to satisfy
those that were grieved concerning it, I openly declared in the
evening, that I had no more thought of separating from the Church than
I had forty years ago.”

Here, and in the neighbourhood, he spent a month. On October 3, he
returned to London; and, the next day, set out for Hertfordshire. A
week later, he was off to Oxfordshire; and the week after that, to
Norfolk. He writes: “October 22--I returned to Norwich; and, in the
evening, spoke home to an uncommonly large congregation; telling them,
‘Of all the people I have seen in the kingdom, for between forty and
fifty years, you have been the most fickle, and yet the most
stubborn.’ However, our labour has not been lost, for many have died
in peace; and God is able to say to the residue of these dry bones,
‘Live!’”

Querulous and quarrelsome Thomas Wride was, at this time, the
assistant in Norwich circuit, and, from a large mass of his
manuscripts in the author’s possession, the following facts are
gleaned. A monument to the memory of Mr. Turner had been erected in
the chapel, on which were chiselled certain “doggrel verses,” with
which Wride was greatly dissatisfied. He had told the society, on
September 4, what they might expect from him, in reference to meeting
in class, showing tickets, etc.; and says “the terror of his
countenance had awed them, and several had owned that they were afraid
of him.” He had received a quantity of sermons for sale, and, among
others, Dr. Coke’s sermon, preached in Baltimore, at the ordination of
Asbury; which, he says, he is reluctant to put into circulation. He
writes: “It amounts to a formal separation from the Church of England,
and, in the end, will tear up Methodism by the roots. Whatever may be
said of America, I cannot think it right, for us here, to declare
ourselves independent of the Church of England, while we enjoy the
privileges we have always done. I dread the consequence; for, if we
are independents, hardly any will come to us, but such as choose to
change their religion; whereas, those to whom the Methodists have been
mainly useful had no religion to change.” Wride was also dissatisfied
with his colleagues; for J. McKersey would sing a hymn between the
first prayer and the sermon; and James McByron would permit the
congregations to sing anthems. McKersey also refused to preach at five
in the mornings; for though, as he said, he could rise soon enough, he
was not able to preach till he had had his breakfast; and, in
consequence, Wride had advised him to take his breakfast to bed with
him. Wride acknowledges, that the Methodists at Norwich had not been
used to morning preaching. The rich would not attend; and, as the poor
did not begin to work till eight o’clock, and could not afford to burn
a fire, they were reluctant to rise so early. Hence, when he himself
had preached, his congregation consisted only of his wife and two
others. Mr. McKersey, further, had neglected the select band; and had
declared he would “rather go twelve miles than meet the children.”
Wride multiplies complaints against the leading singers, and against
the leaders, Messrs. Booty, Best, James and George Hay, Kilburn,
Senior, Flegg, and Johnson; and declares that a preacher, sent to
Norwich circuit, ought to combine in himself the qualities of “the
lion, the lamb, the dove, the serpent, and the ox.”

Poor Wride! The contention continued, and, early in 1786, Wesley had
to remove him to another post of duty; but, before doing so, he
addressed to him the following letters, which have not before been
published.

                                     “LONDON, _November 8, 1785_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--James Byron is an amiable young man; at present
  full of faith and love. If possible, guard him from those that
  will be inclined to love him too well. Then he will be as
  useful a fellow labourer as you can desire. And set him a
  pattern in all things.

  “I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

                                    “LONDON, _November 17, 1785_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--Deal plainly, and yet tenderly with James Byron,
  and he will be a very useful labourer. But none can be a
  Methodist preacher, unless he is both able and willing to
  preach in the morning; which is the most healthy exercise in
  the world. I desire, that none of our preachers would sing
  oftener than twice at one service. We need nothing to fill up
  our hour.

  “In every place, where there is a sufficient number of
  believers, do all you can to prevail upon them to meet in band.
  Be mild; be serious; and you will conquer all things.

  “I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

                                    “LONDON, _December 14, 1785_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--Have patience with the young men, and they will
  mend upon your hands. But remember! soft and fair goes far. For
  twenty years and upwards, we had good morning congregations at
  Norwich; but they might begin at six till Ladyday. I desire
  brother Byron to try what he can do: better days will come.

  “I pray, let the doggrel hymn be no more sung in our chapel. If
  they do not soon come to their senses at Norwich, I will remove
  you to Colchester. Be mild! Be serious!

  “I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Tommy Wride was not the only preacher that gave Wesley trouble. For
twelve years, Michael Moorhouse had been one of his itinerants, and
had had his share of persecution. In 1778, while preaching in the
marketplace at Melton Mowbray, he was pulled down by a ruthless mob,
and, with three other peaceable men, dragged to the Black Hole, where
means were used to impress him for the army.[541] Moorhouse now was
discontented, and, in 1785, published a broadsheet of sixteen columns,
in small type, entitled “An Appeal to Honest Men,” and full of petty
grievances, particularly with regard to the influence of John Crook
and Wesley, and respecting his own appointments to inferior circuits.
At the conference of 1786, he left the work; and then embodied the
wailings of his Appeal in an octavo volume of 128 pages, with the
title, “Defence of Mr. Michael Moorhouse, written by himself.” He
bitterly complains of Wesley for suffering some of the wives of his
preachers to dine on potatoes and buttermilk, while others were
pampered with good cheer; and for allowing their husbands to wear
great coats, and to use umbrellas on a rainy day. The _Monthly
Review_, in noticing poor Moorhouse’s notable production, quietly
remarks: “The labourer is certainly worthy of his hire, but, in
adjusting the hire to the labourer, a good deal must depend on the
workman’s skill; and, if we are to judge of Master Michael Moorhouse’s
preaching abilities, from his illiterate and silly performance, we do
not see how his master could have afforded him higher wages: perhaps
he might fare better, if he were to return to his lawful occupation.”

These were among the petty annoyances of Wesley’s busy life. He had,
in all conscience, enough to do without these; but, in his position,
such vexations were inevitable.

Returning from Norfolk, Wesley spent the rest of the year in London,
and in preaching tours through Northamptonshire and Kent.

Before proceeding to notice his publications, it is right to say that,
at this time, an important pamphlet of twelve pages was issued with
the following title: “Free Thoughts concerning a Separation of the
People called Methodists from the Church of England, addressed to the
Preachers in the Methodist Connexion, by a Layman of the Methodist
society.” The pamphlet may be taken as an echo of the opinions then
prevalent, and a brief account of it may be useful.

The writer states, that the arguments, used in favour of separation,
are, not that the government, service, and doctrine of the Church are
unscriptural, but, that the clergy are not converted men; that
Methodism loses many of its members through the sacraments not being
administered; that the Church of England is a fallen church; that the
time is fully come when the Methodists ought to be an independent
body; that the good effects of separation are already seen in the
continent of America; and that separation will probably take place at
Mr. Wesley’s death.

Having endeavoured to refute these arguments, the author proceeds to
give his reasons against separation: namely (1) many of the Methodists
are zealous for the Church of England, and would be offended; (2)
separation implies ordination, which would be a bone of contention, an
apple of discord, among the preachers, as to who should be ordainers;
(3) these “gownsmen or ordainers would have the government of the body
more and more devolved upon them, and, instead of being itinerants,
would become resident in one place, the itinerant plan thereby
becoming gradually weakened, or continued only by _raw lads_ on
trial.”

The arguments, _pro_ and _con_, are given as we find them; and merely
to show the grounds taken by the opposing parties in 1785.

Excepting Fletcher’s funeral sermon, 8vo, 32 pages, Wesley’s
publications were only four in number.

1. “A Pocket Hymn Book for the use of Christians of all Denominations.”
24mo, 208 pages.

2. “An Extract from the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from August 9,
1779, to August 20, 1782.” 12mo, 92 pages.

3. “A Call to the Unconverted. By R. Baxter.” 12mo, 76 pages.

4. The _Arminian Magazine_. 8vo, 668 pages.

The _Arminian Magazine_ contains extracts from Dr. Whitby’s Discourses
on the Five Points, and from Maundrell’s Journey from Aleppo to
Jerusalem. There are biographical accounts of William McCormick,
Martha Rogers, Nancy Bissaker, James Creighton, Ann Roylands, John
Pritchard, and many others. There are more than thirty letters, and as
many poetic pieces. There is Wesley’s sermon on his favourite text, 1
Corinthians xiii. 1-3. Also his sermon on perfection, in which his
most matured views, on this momentous subject, are stated with his
wonted lucidity. The sermon on Hebrews xiii. 17 is remarkable. The
point he endeavours to establish is, that, “It is the _duty_ of every
private Christian to obey his spiritual pastor, by either doing or
leaving undone anything of an indifferent nature; anything that is in
no way determined in the word of God.” In applying the principle to
himself and the Methodists, he asks: “Do you take my advice with
regard to dress? I published that advice above thirty years ago; I
have repeated it a thousand times since. I have advised you to lay
aside all needless ornaments: to avoid all needless expense: to be
patterns of plainness to all that are round about you. Have you taken
this advice? Are you all exemplarily plain in your apparel? as plain
as quakers or Moravians? If not, you declare hereby to all the world,
that you will not obey them that are over you in the Lord.” Wesley’s
doctrine may be disputed; but the practical use to which he puts it
deserves attention. There are three more of his original sermons--on
John i. 47; Philippians ii. 12, 13; and Revelation xxi. 5--which are
well worth reading.


FOOTNOTES:

     [532] City Road society book.

     [533] _Methodist Magazine_, 1824, p. 307.

     [534] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 143.

     [535] Ibid. vol. xiii., p. 61.

     [536] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 66.

     [537] _Methodist Magazine_, 1828, p. 46.

     [538] Ibid. 1799, p. 161.

     [539] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 334

     [540] Among other places, Wesley preached at St. Austell,
           where his host had a little girl, twelve years
           of age, who had recently been admitted into the
           Methodist society by Adam Clarke. That little girl
           is now Mrs. Shaw, aged ninety-eight, and well
           remembers Wesley taking her, more than once, in
           his carriage for a drive, and showing her other
           marks of affectionate attention. Mrs. Shaw--happy,
           intelligent, and full of faith,--is a mother in
           Israel, and probably the oldest Methodist now living.
           The writer has in his possession, in Mrs. Shaw’s
           own handwriting, a beautiful hymn of five stanzas,
           composed by her, in the month of May, 1869.

     [541] Thomas Dixon’s manuscript autobiography.




                                1786.
                               Age 83


Wesley spent the first two months of 1786 in London. He went to the
House of Lords at the opening of parliament, and heard King George
III. read the royal speech. He writes: “How agreeably was I surprised.
He pronounced every word with exact propriety. I much doubt whether
there be any other king in Europe, that is so just and natural a
speaker.”

Wesley had a remarkable season at City Road. While preaching, the
power of God came down; the preacher broke out in prayer; and the
congregation burst into a loud and general cry.

Of his own religious feelings he wrote:

  “February 24, 1786.--I do not remember to have heard or read
  anything like my own experience. Almost ever since I can
  remember, I have been led on in a peculiar way. I go on in an
  even line, being very little raised at one time, of depressed
  at another. Count Zinzendorf observes, there are three
  different ways wherein it pleases God to lead His people. Some
  are guided, almost in every instance, by apposite texts of
  Scripture. Others see a clear and plain reason for everything
  they are to do. And, yet, others are led not so much by
  Scripture and reason as by particular impressions. I am very
  rarely led by impressions, but generally by reason and by
  Scripture. I see abundantly more than I feel. I want to feel
  more love and zeal for God.”[542]

On February 26, Wesley set out, in a snowstorm, on a journey which
occupied more than the next four months. His first halt was at
Newbury, where he had “a large and serious congregation;” but where,
he says, he passed such a night as he had not passed for forty years,
his lodging room being as cold as the outward air. He writes: “I could
not sleep at all till three in the morning. I rose at four, and set
out at five.”

The next fortnight was spent at Bristol and in its vicinity. On
Sunday, March 5, he went through an amount of labour which would have
appalled most men half his age. “I read prayers,” says he, “and
preached, and administered the sacrament to about five hundred
communicants. At three, I preached in Temple church; at five in the
New Room.”

Eight days later, he started off to Scotland, when the roads were
blocked up with snow, and the weather intensely cold. More than a week
was spent at Birmingham: during which he had another sacramental
service, as large as that at Bristol; and preached at Madeley a
funeral sermon for the sainted Fletcher, taking as his text Revelation
xiv. 1-7.[543] At Lane End, after it was dark, and in a piercingly
cold wind, he says: “I was constrained to preach abroad; and none of
us seemed to regard the weather, for God warmed our hearts.” At
Burslem, in the same inclement season, the congregation was such, that
the venerable preacher was obliged again to take his stand in the open
air. After preaching at Congleton, Macclesfield, and other places, he
came to Chapel-en-le-Frith, where a large number had been converted,
but who needed discipline. He writes: “Frequently three or four, yea,
ten or twelve, pray aloud all together. Some of them, perhaps many,
scream all together as loud as they possibly can. Some use improper,
yea, indecent, expressions in prayer. Several drop down as dead, and
are as stiff as a corpse; but, in a while, they start up, and cry,
‘Glory! Glory!’ perhaps twenty times together. Just so do the French
prophets, and very lately the jumpers, in Wales, bring the real work
into contempt. Yet, whenever we reprove them, it should be in the most
mild and gentle manner possible.”

At Bolton, he had, in his congregation, five hundred and fifty
children, all scholars in the Methodist Sunday-school; and it was
either now, or soon after, that he preached to them a sermon, from
Psalm xxxiv. 11, in which he engaged to use no word of more than two
syllables, and literally fulfilled his pledge.[544]

His congregations throughout Lancashire, and the west riding of
Yorkshire, were enormous, often compelling him to preach out of doors.
His popularity was greater than ever. Churches were offered for his
use; and accepted, at Haworth, Bingley, Heptonstall, Todmorden,
Horsforth, and York. Persecution had ceased; and everywhere the
Christian veteran was greeted with the welcomes of admiring and loving
crowds.

Leaving York on the 8th of May, Wesley, for the first time, visited
the town of Easingwold, where was a class of seventeen members, the
leader of which was John Barber;[545] and where a chapel had been
built, costing £140, only half of which was paid.[546] To open this
was the object of Wesley’s visit.

He then proceeded to Scotland, where the Methodists were now really a
distinct and separated church; for not only had Hanby, Pawson, and
others been ordained, and invested with gown and bands, but sacraments
were administered; and, while society tickets admitted to society
meetings and the lovefeasts, circular metal tokens seemed to become
the badge of church membership, having on one side the letters “M.
C.,” and on the other the words, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” The
tokens admitted the owners to the table of the Lord.

On the 1st of June, Wesley laid the foundation stone of a new chapel
at Alnwick; and, on the following Sunday, preached three times out of
doors, to vast congregations, at Gateshead and Newcastle.

On the 5th of June, he set out southwards. Pursuing his usual route,
he came to Hull, a fortnight afterwards, and, at the vicar’s
invitation, preached twice to immense crowds “in one of the largest
parish churches in England.” The next day, he rode seventy-six miles,
and preached at Malton, Pocklington, and Swinfleet. “Sufficient,” says
he, “for this day was the labour thereof; but still I was no more
tired than when I rose in the morning.” Can such a fact as this be
paralleled? The day after, he preached at Crowle, and Epworth; and the
next day after that, at Scotter, Brigg, and Grimsby. At Louth, for the
first time, he saw the people “affected.” At Gainsborough, his old
friend, Sir Nevil Hickman, was dead; but he made the yard of his house
his preaching place. On Saturday and Sunday, June 24 and 25, he
preached at New Inn, Newark, Retford, Misterton, Overthorpe, and
Epworth, six times, at six different towns, in two days, the preacher
himself eighty-three years of age!

He writes: “1786, June 30--I turned aside to Barnsley, formerly famous
for all manner of wickedness. They were then ready to tear any
Methodist preacher to pieces. Now not a dog wagged his tongue. I
preached near the market place to a large congregation; and, I
believe, the word sunk into many hearts; they seemed to drink in every
word. Surely God will have a people in this place.”

Wesley might well speak of the brutal wickedness of Barnsley. Three
years before, a man resolved to murder Henry Longden, ran up to him
while preaching, aimed a blow which would probably have been fatal,
but Longden leaped aside, and providentially escaped.[547] On another
occasion, Jeremiah Cocker, while preaching in the market place, was
pulled down, dragged through the streets, and pelted with rotten eggs,
one of which had a dead gosling in it. Cocker applied to the vicar of
Sheffield for protection; the rioters were committed for trial at the
Rotherham sessions; but were acquitted, on the ground that, though the
preacher was licensed to preach, the spot he chose was not licensed as
a preaching place! Here John Barber, a few months before Wesley’s
visit, was saluted with a shower of stones, was seriously hurt, and
was rescued by a friendly quaker, who lived in “Barnsley Folly.” At
another time, a mob, of some hundreds, assembled with cows’ horns,
drums, and other noisy instruments, and most effectually prevented the
preacher being heard. Mr. Raynor, a currier, having lent his house for
preaching, the Barnsley roughs made a bonfire at the door, compelled
the congregation to seek egress by some other way, and pelted them
most mercilessly with filth of the foulest kind. Such are specimens of
the treatment received by the poor Methodists in Barnsley, between the
years 1780 and 1786. The society was small, not numbering a dozen
members; and they had no preaching room, except Raynor’s house, till
about 1792, when Alexander Mather secured a small chamber over a
weaver’s shop in Church Street.[548]

From Barnsley, Wesley went to Sheffield, where he selected as his
text, “It is high time to awake out of sleep”; and an anonymous hearer
sent him a letter, saying, that he could remember nothing that he
said, except that “rising early was good for the nerves!” Here he
spent several days, held the quarterly meeting and a lovefeast,
administered the sacrament to six or seven hundred persons, visited
Wentworth House, baptized Joseph Benson’s infant daughter,[549] and
was Mr. Holy’s guest. After preaching, crowds were wont to follow him
to his hospitable lodging; the streets were lined, and the windows of
the houses thronged with eager but respectful gazers, Wesley all the
while emptying his pockets in scattering gifts among the poor. A vast
concourse of people assembled on the green, at the front of Mr. Holy’s
house; Wesley walked into the midst of them, knelt down, and asked God
to bless them. The place became a Bochim; the crowd wept and literally
wailed at the thought of losing him; he prayed again; and then darted
into Mr. Holy’s dwelling, and hid himself.[550] What a contrast to the
reception given to his brother in 1743!

His visit to Wentworth House has been mentioned. It is a curious fact,
but attentive readers of Wesley’s journal will easily perceive, that,
as Wesley grew older, he took far more interest in visiting scenes of
beauty and historic buildings than he did in the earlier parts of his
illustrious career. How to account for this, we know not; but so it
was.

Tradition says, that Wesley was accompanied by Mr. Birks, of Thorpe,
and that, when they were leaving, Mr. Birks asked Mr. Hall, the
steward, if it would be agreeable for Mr. Wesley to pray with the
family before he left. Permission was courteously given; the household
were summoned; and Wentworth House was none the worse for the prayer
which the arch Methodist offered beneath its roof.

From Sheffield, Wesley proceeded, by way of Belper and Derby, to
Ilkestone. This was his first and last visit to the last mentioned
town, and the circumstances connected with it are worth relating. For
many years, the only Methodist in Ilkestone had been a poor old woman.
The preachers preached, but, apparently, without effect. At length,
the old woman died, and John Crook resolved to preach a funeral
sermon. A large congregation assembled at the front of a public house.
Mr. Crook stood upon a stone used by travellers for mounting horses.
The sermon was worthy of the Methodist apostle of the Isle of Man;
and, at its close, the preacher received a message from the vicar of
the parish, requesting him to wait upon him next morning. John went,
and was received with kindness. “Sir,” said the clergyman, “I heard
you preach last night with pleasure; in what college were you
educated?” “I never attended college,” was the answer. “Sir,” rejoined
the vicar, “I have heard many of the heads of our universities preach,
but I never heard a defence of our establishment equal to yours. You
are welcome to my pulpit next Sunday.” Crook replied, that he was not
ordained; and proposed that, instead of preaching _within_ the church,
he should preach at the church’s door. The proposal was accepted; the
vicar published from the pulpit the intended service; the itinerant
selected as his text, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved; he that believeth not shall be damned;” under that sermon, the
priest was deeply convinced of sin, and next Sunday told his
congregation, that he was an earnest seeker of salvation; he learnt
that Crook was one of Wesley’s preachers, and sent to Wesley an
invitation;[551] and here, on Thursday July 6, we find him. He writes:
“Though the church is large, it was sufficiently crowded. The vicar
read prayers with great earnestness and propriety; I preached; and the
people seemed all ear. Surely good will be done in this place; though
it is strongly opposed both by the Calvinists and Socinians.”

Good was done. Among Wesley’s hearers was a joiner, Richard Birch.
Wesley’s discourse reached his heart. He was converted; and, finding
that there was in the town a class of four Methodists, he became the
fifth; and, before the year expired, he and his friends built a
chapel.

Wesley arrived in London, after an absence of nearly twenty weeks, on
July 13. Four days were spent in town, and then he started off again
to Bristol, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He
writes:

  “July 25, Tuesday--Our conference began: about eighty preachers
  attended. We met every day at six and nine in the morning, and
  at two in the afternoon. On Tuesday, and on Wednesday morning,
  the characters of the preachers were considered. On Thursday,
  in the afternoon, we permitted any of the society to be
  present; and weighed what was said about separating from the
  Church; but we all determined to continue therein, without one
  dissenting voice; and I doubt not but this determination will
  stand, at least, till I am removed into a better world. The
  conference concluded on Tuesday morning, August 1. Great had
  been the expectations of many, that we should have had warm
  debates; but, by the mercy of God, we had none at all;
  everything was transacted with great calmness; and we parted,
  as we met, in peace and love.”

Separation from the Church was again the great question of the day.
From the above extract, taken from his journal, it is evident, that
Wesley was more than apprehensive that such a separation would occur
subsequent to his decease; but it is equally evident, that he was glad
to have it postponed till then. In an unpublished letter to Thomas
Taylor, dated February 21, 1786, he writes: “The wise bishop Gibson
once said, ‘Why cannot these gentlemen leave the Church? Then they
could do no more harm.’ Read ‘no more good,’ and it would have been a
truth. I believe, if we had then left the Church, we should not have
done a tenth of the good which we have done. But I do not insist upon
this head. I go calmly and quietly on my way, doing what I conceive to
be the will of God. I do not, will not, concern myself with what will
be done when I am dead. I take no thought about that. If I did, I
should probably shut myself up at Kingswood or Newcastle, and leave
you all to yourselves.”

“I love the Church,” said Wesley to his brother, in letters written
during the spring of 1786, “as sincerely as ever I did; and I tell our
societies everywhere, ‘The Methodists will not leave the Church, at
least while I live.’” “Eight or ten preachers, it is probable (but I
have not met with one yet), will say something about leaving the
Church, before the conference. It is not improbable many will be
driven out of it where there are Calvinist ministers.”

Such were Wesley’s wishes, and such were his apprehensions. Wesley
expected eight or ten of his preachers to bring the business before
conference. This was done by Dr. Coke, who had returned from his
_episcopal_ tour in the United States. Mr. Pawson writes:

  “Dr. Coke thought, that our public services in the large towns
  ought to be held in church hours, and was freely speaking in
  the conference upon that subject, and urging its necessity from
  the fact that nearly all the converted clergymen in the kingdom
  were Calvinists. Upon hearing this, Mr. Charles Wesley, with a
  very loud voice, and in great anger, cried out, ‘No,’ which was
  the only word he uttered during the whole of the conference
  sittings. Mr. Mather, however, got up and confirmed what Dr.
  Coke had said, which we all knew to be a truth.”[552]

This debate seems to have issued in the adoption of a document, which
Wesley drew up three days before the conference met.

  “In what cases do we allow of service in church hours? I
  answer:

  “1. When the minister is a notoriously wicked man.

  “2. When he preaches Arian, or any equally pernicious doctrine.

  “3. When there are not churches in the town sufficient to
  contain half the people.

  “4. Where there is no church at all within two or three miles.

  “We advise every one, who preaches in the church hours, to read
  the psalms and lessons, with part of the church prayers;
  because, we apprehend, this will endear the church service to
  our brethren, who probably would be prejudiced against it, if
  they heard none but extemporary prayer.”

Considering the character of not a few of the ministers of the Church
of England in 1786; remembering the number of pulpits from which were
preached Arianism, and especially Calvinism, both of which the
Methodists considered “_pernicious doctrines_”; and, further, bearing
in mind, the scanty provision made by the Established Church for the
great populations, these concessions, in reference to having Methodist
services in church hours, were really much more extensive than, at
first sight, appears.

This was the last conference at which Charles Wesley was present. At
its conclusion, he preached from his favourite text, “I will bring the
third part through the fire;” and told the congregation, that, after
the death of himself and his brother, there would be a split among the
Methodists, and not more than a third part of the preachers and of the
people would remain faithful to the Established Church. Upon these,
however, God would pour out His Spirit more abundantly than ever, and
His work would prosper in their hands. “This,” said he, “was the case
with the Moravians when Count Zinzendorf died. So it was when Mr.
Whitefield was removed; and thus it will be with the Methodists.”[553]

Before the conference was concluded, Charles Wesley wrote as follows
to the Rev. Mr. Latrobe, Moravian minister in London:

  “My brother, and I, and the preachers were unanimous for
  continuing in the old ship. The preachers of a Dissenting
  spirit will probably, after our death, set up for themselves,
  and draw away disciples after them. An old baptist minister,
  forty years ago, told me, he looked on the Methodists as a
  seminary for the Dissenters. My desire and design, from the
  beginning to this day, is, to leave them in the lap of their
  mother. The bishops might, if they pleased, save the largest
  and soundest part of them back into the Church; perhaps to
  leaven the whole lump, as Archbishop Potter said to me. _But I
  fear, betwixt you and me, their lordships care for none of
  these things._ The great evil, which I have dreaded for near
  fifty years, is a schism.”[554]

Other matters were debated at the conference of 1786. The old rules
respecting the windows, doors, and pews of chapels were to be strictly
observed and kept; and no assistant was to allow collections for a new
chapel, “till every step had been taken to secure it, on the
conference plan, by a trust deed, a bond, or sufficient articles of
agreement.” And Wesley concluded by giving the following advices to
the preachers. (1) To re-establish morning preaching, in all large
towns, at least; and to exert themselves in restoring the bands, and
the select societies. (2) Always to conclude the service in about an
hour. (3) Never to scream. (4) Never to lean upon, or beat the Bible.
(5) Wherever they preached, to meet the society. (6) Not to go home at
nights, except in cases of the utmost necessity. (7) Never to preach
funeral sermons, but for eminently holy persons, to preach none for
hire, and to beware of panegyric, particularly in London. (8) To hold
more lovefeasts. (9) To introduce no new tunes; to see that none sing
too slow, and that the women sing their parts; and to exhort all to
sing, and all to stand at singing, as well as to kneel at prayers.
(10) To let none repeat the last line, unless the preacher does. And,
(11) To inform the leaders, that every assistant is to change both the
stewards and the leaders when he sees good; and that no leader has
power to put any person either into or out of the society.

Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Antigua were now Methodist circuits,
and had, unitedly, nine itinerant preachers, and 2179 members of
society. These were Methodist missions, though not designated such.
And here let it be remarked, that the Methodist Missionary Society was
really founded in 1784. Where is the proof of this?

The following is an exact copy of a printed document, kindly lent by
the Rev. G. Mather, and addressed, by Dr. Coke, to “The Rev. Mr.
Fletcher, at Madeley, near Shiffnal, Cheshire.”

  “A Plan of the Society for the Establishment of Missions among
  the Heathen.

  “1. Every person who subscribes two guineas yearly, or more, is
  to be admitted a member of the society.

  “2. A general meeting of the subscribers shall be held annually
  on the last Tuesday in January.

  “3. The first general meeting shall be held on the last Tuesday
  in January 1784, at No. 11, in West Street, near the Seven
  Dials, London, at three o’clock in the afternoon.

  “4. At every general meeting, a committee of seven, or more,
  shall be chosen, by the majority of the subscribers, to
  transact the business of the society for the ensuing year.

  “5. The general meeting shall receive and examine the accounts
  of the committee, for the preceding year, of all sums paid to
  the use of the society, of the purposes to which the whole or
  any part thereof shall have been applied, and also the report
  of all they have done, and the advices they have received.

  “6. The committee, or the majority of them, shall have power:
  First, to call in the sums subscribed, or any part thereof, and
  to receive all collections, legacies, or other voluntary
  contributions. Secondly, to agree with any they shall approve,
  who may offer to go abroad, either as missionaries, or in any
  civil employment. Thirdly, to procure the best instruction that
  can be obtained for such persons, in the language of the
  country for which they are intended, before they go abroad.
  Fourthly, to provide for their expenses, in going and
  continuing abroad, and for their return home, after such time,
  and under such circumstances, as may be thought most expedient.
  Fifthly, to print the Scriptures, or so much thereof as the
  funds of the society may admit, for the use of any heathen
  country. And, sixthly, to do every other act which to them may
  appear necessary, so far as the common stock of the society
  will allow, for carrying the design of the society into
  execution.

  “7. The committee shall keep an account of the subscribers’
  names, and all sums received for the use of the society,
  together with such extracts of the entries of their
  proceedings, and advices, as may show those who are concerned
  all that has been done both at home and abroad; which statement
  shall be signed by at least three of the committee.

  “8. The committee, for the new year, shall send a copy of the
  report for the past year, to all the members of the society,
  who were not present at the preceding general meeting, and
  (free of postage) to every clergyman, minister, or other
  person, from whom any collection, legacy, or other benefaction
  shall have been received within the time concerning which the
  report is made.

  “9. The committee, if they see it necessary, shall have power
  to choose a secretary.

  “10. The committee shall, at no time, have any claim on the
  members of the society, for any sum which may exceed the common
  stock of the society.

  “N.B. Those who subscribe before the first general meeting, and
  to whom it may not be convenient to attend, are desired to
  favour the general meeting, by letter according to the above
  direction, with any important remarks which may occur to them
  on the business, that the subscribers present may be assisted,
  as far as possible, in settling the rules of the society to the
  satisfaction of all concerned.

  “We have been already favoured with the names of the following
  subscribers, viz.

                                               £   _s._ _d._
        Dr. Coke                               2    2    0
        Rev. Mr. Simpson, Macclesfield         2    2    0
        Rev. Mr. Bickerstaff, of Leicester     2    2    0
        Mr. Rose, of Dorking                   2    2    0
        Mr. Horton, of London                  2    2    0
        Mr. Ryley,     „  „                    2    2    0
        Mr. Riddsdale, „  „                    2    2    0
        Mr. Jay,       „  „                    2    2    0
        Mr. Dewey,     „  „                    2    2    0
        Mr. Mandell, of Bath                   2    2    0
        Mr. Jaques, of Wallingford             2    2    0
        Mr. Butting, of High Wycombe           2    2    0
        Mr. John Clark, of Newport,
          in the Isle of Wight                 2    2    0
        Miss Eliza Johnson, of Bristol         2    2    0
        Mr. Barton, of Isle of Wight           2    2    0
        Mr. Henry Brooke, of Dublin            2    2    0
        Master and Miss Blashford, of Dublin   4    4    0
        Mrs. Kirkover, of Dublin               2    2    0
        Mr. Smith, Russia merchant, of London  5    5    0
        Mr. D’Olier, of Dublin                 2    2    0
        Mrs. Smyth,  „    „                    2    2    0
        The Rev. Mr. Fletcher, of Madeley      2    2    0
        Miss Salmon                            2    2    0
        Mr. Houlton, of London,
          an occasional subscriber            10   10    0
        Mrs. King, of Dublin                   2    2    0
                                             -------------
                                             £66    3    0
                                             -------------

                “_To all the real lovers of mankind._

  “The present institution is so agreeable to the finest feelings
  of piety and benevolence, that little need be added for its
  recommendation. The candid of every denomination, (even those
  who are entirely unconnected with the Methodists, and are
  determined to be so,) will acknowledge the amazing change which
  our preaching has wrought upon the ignorant and uncivilised, at
  least, throughout these nations; and they will admit, that the
  spirit of a missionary must be of the most zealous, most
  devoted, and self denying kind; nor is anything more required
  to constitute a missionary for the heathen nations, than good
  sense, integrity, great piety, and amazing zeal. Men,
  possessing all these qualifications in a high degree, we have
  among us; and we doubt not but some of these will accept of the
  arduous undertaking, not counting their lives dear, if they may
  but promote the kingdom of Christ, and the present and eternal
  welfare of their fellow creatures; and we trust nothing shall
  be wanting, as far as time, strength, and abilities will admit,
  to give the fullest and highest satisfaction to the promoters
  of the plan, on the part of your devoted servants,

                                                  “THOMAS COKE,
                                                  “THOMAS PARKER.

  “Those who are willing to promote the institution are desired
  to send their names, places of abode, and sums subscribed, to
  the Rev. Dr. Coke, in London, or Thomas Parker, Esq., barrister
  at law, in York.”

Such was the first Methodist _missionary_ report ever published. On
the third page of the folio sheet, from which the above is taken, is
the following in manuscript.

                               “NEAR PLYMOUTH, _January 6, 1784_.

  “MY VERY DEAR SIR,--Lest Mr. Parker should neglect to send you
  one of our plans for the establishment of foreign missions, I
  take the liberty of doing it. Ten subscribers more, of two
  guineas per annum, have favoured me with their names. If _you_
  can get a few subscribers more, we shall be obliged to you.

  “We have now a very wonderful outpouring of the Spirit in the
  west of Cornwall. I have been obliged to make a winter campaign
  of it, and preach here and there out of doors.

  “I beg my affectionate respects to Mrs. Fletcher, and entreat
  you to pray for your most affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “THOMAS COKE.”

A few months after the above report was sent to Fletcher, Coke set
sail to America, and returned only in time to attend the English
conference of 1785. Henceforward, Christian missions absorbed his time
and energies.

It is a well known fact, that Warren Hastings was the first governor
general of India; and that, in 1786, his celebrated trial was
commenced, and was protracted for nearly eight years, during which one
hundred and forty days were spent in its prosecution. Space forbids
further remarks concerning this great event; but the excitement
created in England by the affairs of India had, doubtless, something
to do with the following correspondence between Dr. Coke and a
gentleman in that country. Coke had written to him as early as 1784,
respecting the establishment of missions in India, and now his
correspondent replied. He sympathises with Coke’s proposal, but
foresees the arduous character of the undertaking. He writes: “The
leading features in the character of the Mahommedans are pride and
cruelty, treachery and love of power; and those of the Hindoos, abject
servility, cunning, lying, dishonesty, and excessive love of money.”
“Humanly speaking, the probabilities of converting either the Hindoos
or Mahommedans appear to be very small.” Reasons are assigned for
this, showing the writer to be a well informed and accomplished man.
He proceeds to say: “The difficulties are great; greater it may be, in
some respects, than were those of the first preachers among the freer
and more polished people of the Roman empire. Nevertheless, the same
Divine power that then made a few obscure, and, for the most part,
unlearned men, triumph over the united resistance of the spiritual,
secular, and carnal powers of this world, remains unchanged.”

Coke answered this long and able letter, on January 25, 1786, and
said:

  “At present, our openings in America, and the pressing
  invitations we have lately received from Nova Scotia, the West
  Indies, and the States, call for all the help we can possibly
  afford our brethren in that quarter of the world. The high
  esteem which the government has for Mr. Wesley, I am well
  persuaded, would procure for us the assistance which you think
  to be necessary; but Mr. Wesley himself seems to have a doubt
  whether that would be the most excellent way. In Great Britain,
  Ireland, and America, we have gone on what appears, at first
  sight at least, to be a more evangelical plan. Our missionaries
  have not at all concerned themselves with applications to the
  civil power. They have been exact in their submission to all
  its laws, and laid themselves out in the most extensive manner
  for God. It appears very expedient, that our missionaries
  should visit the settlements of the Danish missionaries in
  India, and take every step they can to improve themselves in
  the language of the people. Mr. Wesley is of opinion that not
  less than half-a-dozen should be at first sent on such a
  mission; and, as soon as the present extraordinary calls from
  America are answered, I trust we shall be able to turn our
  thoughts to Bengal.”[555]

For want of means, India had to be abandoned; but, in the month of
March, Coke issued “An Address to the Pious and Benevolent, proposing
an annual subscription for the support of Missionaries in the
Highlands and adjacent Islands of Scotland, the isles of Jersey,
Guernsey, and Newfoundland, the West Indies, and the provinces of Nova
Scotia and Quebec;” to which was prefixed the following letter by
Wesley.

                                      “BRISTOL, _March 12, 1786_.

  “DEAR SIR,--I greatly approve of your proposal, for raising a
  subscription, in order to send missionaries to the highlands of
  Scotland, the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, the Leeward
  Islands, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. It is not easy
  to conceive the extreme want there is, in all these places, of
  men that will not count their lives dear unto themselves, so
  they may testify the gospel of the grace of God.

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[556]

Coke commenced his Address as follows.

  “_Dearly beloved in the Lord_,--Some time past, I took the
  liberty of addressing you, in behalf of a mission intended to
  be established in the British dominions in Asia; and many of
  you very generously entered into that important plan. We have
  not, indeed, lost sight of it at present; on the contrary, we
  have lately received a letter of encouragement from a principal
  gentleman in the province of Bengal. But the providence of God
  has lately opened to us so many doors nearer home, that Mr.
  Wesley thinks it imprudent to hazard, at present, the lives of
  any of our preachers, by sending them to so great a distance,
  and amidst so many uncertainties and difficulties; when so
  large a field of action is afforded us in countries to which we
  have so much easier admittance, and where the success, through
  the blessing of God, is more or less certain.”

He then explains the openings in the places already mentioned. The
address is dated March 13, 1786.[557]

In this way, Methodist missions were fairly started; and, on September
24, 1786, Coke set sail, with Messrs. Hammet, Warrener, and Clarke;
Warrener being intended for Antigua; and Clarke and Hammet for
Newfoundland.[558]

Messrs. Garretson and Black were already labouring in Nova Scotia,
and, to them, Wesley addressed the following letters.

                                   “LONDON, _September 30, 1786_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I trust, before this comes to hand, you and
  Dr. Coke will have met. I can exceedingly ill spare him from
  England, as I have no clergyman capable of supplying his lack
  of service; but I was convinced he was more wanted in America
  than in Europe. I was far off from London when he set sail.
  Most of those in England, who have riches, love money, even the
  Methodists; at least, those who are called so. The poor are the
  Christians. I am quite out of conceit with almost all those who
  have this world’s goods. Let us take care to lay up treasure in
  heaven.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[559]

                                            “_November 30, 1786._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have good reason to be thankful to God
  that He lets you see the fruit of your labours. Whenever any
  are awakened, you do well to join them together immediately.
  But I do not advise you to go on too fast. It is not expedient
  to break up more ground than you can keep; to preach at any
  more places than you, or your brethren, can constantly attend.
  To preach once in a place, and no more, very seldom does any
  good; it only alarms the devil and his children, and makes them
  more upon their guard against a first assault.

  “Wherever there is any church service, I do not approve of any
  appointment the same hour; because I love the Church of
  England, and would assist, not oppose, it all I can. How do the
  inhabitants of Shelburne, Halifax, and other parts of the
  province, go on as to temporal things? Have they trade? Have
  they sufficiency of food, and the other necessaries of life?
  And do they increase or decrease in numbers? It seems there is
  a scarcity of some things,--of good ink, for yours is so pale
  that many of your words are not legible.

  “As I take it for granted, that you have had several
  conversations with Dr. Coke, I doubt not you proposed all your
  difficulties to him, and received full satisfaction concerning
  them. Probably, we shall send a little help for your building,
  if we live till conference. Observe the rules for building laid
  down in the minutes. I am afraid of another American
  revolution....

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[560]

Both the above were addressed to Garretson; the following was sent to
Black.

                                    “LONDON, _November 26, 1786_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is indeed a matter of joy, that our Lord
  is still carrying on His work throughout Great Britain and
  Ireland. In the time of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, there were
  several gracious showers in New England; but there were large
  intermissions between one and another: whereas, with us there
  has been no intermission at all for seven-and-forty years, but
  the work of God has been continually increasing.

  “The same thing, I am in hopes, you will now see in America
  likewise. See that you expect it, and that you seek it in His
  appointed ways, namely, with fasting and unintermitted prayer.
  And take care that you be not at all discouraged, though you
  should not always have an immediate answer. You know

               ‘His manner and His times are best.’

  Therefore pray always! Pray, and faint not. I commend you all
  to our Great Shepherd; and am your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[561]

Wesley’s correspondence is so vast, that selection is difficult; but
two or three other letters, written in 1786, may be given here. The
first was sent to Mr. Lawrence Frost, of Liverpool, with a request
that it might be handed to the mayor, and has not been previously
published. One of Wesley’s preachers had been interrupted while
preaching to a large multitude, near the old Fishstones, and Wesley
wrote to the chief magistrate as follows.

                    “_To the Mayor of Liverpool._

                                    “BRISTOL, _July 29, 1786_.

  “SIR,--Some preachers, in connection with me, have thought it
  their duty to call sinners to repentance even in the open air.
  If they have violated any law thereby, let them suffer the
  penalty of that law. But, if not, whoever molests them on that
  account will be called to answer it in his majesty’s court of
  King’s Bench. I have had a suit already in that court, with a
  magistrate (Heap), and, if I am forced to it, am ready to
  commence another.

  “I am, sir, your obedient servant,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The letter was effectual. Ever afterwards, the constables were civil,
and wisely let the Methodists alone.

William Simpson was one of Wesley’s itinerants, and, at this time, was
assistant in the Thirsk circuit, where he had to contend with troubles
somewhat different to those at Liverpool, but for which Wesley
prescribed as sharp a remedy. In the month of November, he wrote him
as follows.

  “The Sunday preaching may continue at Jervas for the present. I
  suppose the society at Jervas is as large as that at
  Northallerton; and this is a point which is much to be
  considered.

  “You must needs expel out of the society at Knaresborough those
  that _will_ be contentious. When you have to do with those
  stubborn spirits, it is absolutely necessary, either to mend
  them or end them: and ten persons of a quiet temper are better
  than thirty contentious ones. Undoubtedly some of the eloquent
  men will be sending me heavy complaints. It is well, therefore,
  that you spoke first.

  “I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[562]

We must now return to Wesley’s journal. A week after the conclusion of
the Bristol conference, he set sail for Holland, accompanied by
Messrs. Broadbent and Brackenbury. There he mingled with many
Christian friends; gave many Scripture expositions in private houses;
saw many scenes of beauty; and employed all his leisure hours in
writing. On September 5, he returned to London, where he spent two
days in preaching and answering letters; and then set off to Bristol,
where he continued till September 26, when he got back to London, and
naively wrote: “I now applied myself in earnest to the writing of Mr.
Fletcher’s life, having procured the best materials I could. To this I
dedicated all the time I could spare, till November, from five in the
morning till eight at night. These are my studying hours; I cannot
write longer in a day without hurting my eyes.” We should think not!
Fifteen hours a day of unintermitting labour in the case of a man
eighty-three years of age! “Once or twice,” he wrote on December 12,
“Once or twice, I have been a little out of order this autumn; but it
was only for a day or two at a time. In general, my health has been
better for these last ten years, than it ever was for ten years
together since I was born. Ever since that good fever, which I had in
the north of Ireland, I have had, as it were, a new constitution. All
my pains and aches have forsaken me, and I am a stranger even to
weariness of any kind. This is the Lord’s doing, and it may well be
marvellous in all our eyes.”[563]

At the beginning of October, he went on a preaching excursion to
Chatham and Sheerness. Then he set off to Norfolk; and, on his way
back to town, preached Mrs. Shewell’s funeral sermon at Barnet. At
this period, the father of the late Rev. Dr. Leifchild was the chief
Methodist in Barnet, and the doctor himself a little boy. “Upon
arriving,” wrote this distinguished minister, “he drove to my father’s
house; and, when the door of his carriage was opened, he came out
arrayed in his canonicals. Childlike, I ran to lay hold of him, but my
father pulled me back; upon which, extending his hand, he said:
‘Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of
such is the kingdom of heaven.’”

The next five weeks were spent in London, partly in preaching, partly
in meeting classes, and partly in writing Fletcher’s Life. The only
holiday he took was a trip to Hampton Court, which he pronounced
“the finest palace the king of England had”; but even this was
scarcely a holiday, for he preached at Wandsworth on his way back to
town. He had a brush with the Deptford Methodists, who urgently
requested to be allowed to have service in the Methodist chapel at the
same time as there was service in the church. “It is easy to see,” he
writes, “that this would be a formal separation from the Church. We
fixed both our morning and evening service, all over England, at such
hours as not to interfere with the Church; with this very
design,--that those of the Church, if they chose it, might attend both
the one and the other. But to fix it at the same hour is obliging them
to separate either from the Church or us; and this I judge to be, not
only inexpedient, but totally unlawful for me to do.” This style of
reasoning can only be harmonized with the enactments of the previous
conference, on the supposition that the Church minister at Deptford
was not such as Wesley then described.

Wesley concluded the year by preaching from, “Set thy house in order,”
and, among other things, strongly exhorted the people to make their
wills.

Except the Life of Fletcher, 12mo, 227 pages, Wesley seems to have
published nothing, in 1786, but his _Arminian Magazine_, 8vo, 688
pages.

The volume bears the same character as previous ones. There are again
six original sermons by Wesley: the Church; Divine Providence; Schism;
Friendship with the World; Visiting the Sick; and the Eternity of God.
The sermon on the Church was a sermon for the times; and, remembering
the agitation among the Methodists on the subject of separation, an
extract here will not be out of place.

  “The catholic, or universal, church is all the persons in the
  universe, whom God hath so called out of the world, as to be
  one body, united by one Spirit, having one faith, one hope, one
  baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and
  through all, and in them all. That part of this great body, of
  the universal church, which inhabits any one kingdom or nation,
  we may properly term a _national_ church, as the Church of
  France, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland. A
  smaller part, of the universal church, are the Christians that
  inhabit any city or town, as the church of Ephesus. Two or
  three Christian brethren united together are a church in the
  narrowest sense. Such was the church in the house of Philemon,
  and that in the house of Nymphas. A particular church may,
  therefore, consist of any number of members, whether two or
  three, or two or three millions. But still, whether they be
  larger or smaller, the same idea is to be preserved. They are
  one body, and have one Spirit, one Lord, one hope, one faith,
  one baptism, one God and Father of all.”

One more extract, from the _Magazine_ for 1786, must suffice.
Addressing those afflicted with lowness of spirits, Wesley writes:

  “1. Sacredly abstain from all spirituous liquors. Touch them
  not, on any pretence whatever. To others they may sometimes be
  of use; but to nervous persons they are deadly poison.

  “2. If you drink any, drink but little tea, and none at all
  without eating, or without sugar and cream.

  “3. Every day of your life, take, at least, an hour’s exercise,
  between breakfast and dinner.

  “4. Take no more food than nature requires. Dine upon one
  thing, except pudding or pie. Eat no flesh at supper; but
  something light and easy of digestion.

  “5. Sleep early, and rise early. Unless you are ill, never lie
  in bed much above seven hours. Then you will never lie awake;
  your flesh will be firm, and your spirits lively.

  “6. Above all, beware of anger! beware of worldly sorrow!
  beware of the fear that hath torment! beware of foolish and
  hurtful desires! beware of inordinate affection!”


FOOTNOTES:

     [542] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 62.

     [543] Mrs. Mortimer’s Life.

     [544] Banning’s Memoirs.

     [545] Manuscript.

     [546] Manuscript letter by Mather.

     [547] Longden’s Life.

     [548] Manuscripts.

     [549] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 166.

     [550] Manuscript.

     [551] Memoirs of Rev. H. Taft, M.D., p. 6.

     [552] Unpublished manuscript.

     [553] Pawson’s manuscripts.

     [554] Life of C. Wesley, by Jackson, vol ii., p. 402.

     [555] _Methodist Magazine_, 1792, p. 333.

     [556] Ibid. 1840, p. 574.

     [557] Ibid. p. 577.

     [558] Coke’s Life.

     [559] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 67.

     [560] Ibid.

     [561] Memoirs of Black, p. 158.

     [562] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., pp. 86, 87.

     [563] Ibid. vol. xiii., p. 92.




                                1787.
                               Age 84

Wesley writes:

  “1787. Monday, January 1--We began the service at four in the
  morning, to an unusually large congregation. We had another
  comfortable opportunity at the new chapel at the usual hour,
  and a third in the evening at West Street.”

  “January 2--I went to Deptford; but it seemed, I was got into a
  den of lions. Most of the leading men of the society were mad
  for separating from the Church. I endeavoured to reason with
  them, but in vain: they had neither sense nor even good manners
  left. At length, after meeting the whole society, I told them:
  ‘If you are resolved, you may have your service in church
  hours; but, remember, from that time, you will see my face no
  more.’ This struck deep; and, from that hour, I have heard no
  more of separating from the Church.”

Considering the steps that Wesley had already taken, this is somewhat
amusing; as are also the two following letters, written soon after,
the first to William Percival,[564] and the second to Samuel Bardsley.

                                    “LONDON, _February 17, 1787_.

  “DEAR BILLY,--You cannot be too watchful against evil speaking,
  or too zealous for the poor Church of England. I commend sister
  Percival for having her child baptized there, and for returning
  public thanks. By all means, go to church as often as you can,
  and exhort all the Methodists so to do. They that are enemies
  to the Church are enemies to _me_. I am a friend to it, and
  ever was. By our reading prayers, we prevent our people
  contracting an hatred for forms of prayer; which would
  naturally be the case, if we always prayed extempore.

  “I am, dear Billy, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[565]

                                   “BIRMINGHAM, _March 25, 1787_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--Brother Jackson should advise brother
  Ridall,[566] not to please the devil by preaching himself to
  death. I still think, when the Methodists leave the Church of
  England, God will leave them. Every year more and more of the
  clergy are convinced of the truth, and grow well affected
  towards us. It would be contrary to all common sense, as well
  as to good conscience, to make a separation now.

  “I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[567]

Before proceeding with Wesley’s history, we insert another letter
belonging to this period. It is now for the first time published, and
refers to John Hutchinson, the founder of Hutchinsonianism.

                                     “LONDON, _February 4, 1787_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--I think Mr. Hutchinson was a man of strong
  understanding, but greatly obscured by uncommon pride and
  sourness of temper. He was the twin soul of Dr. Bentley. Many
  of his remarks I exceedingly approve of. That upon the sin of
  Uzzah is highly probable. His writings to me are far more
  agreeable than those of Dr. Harmer;[568] an exceeding pretty
  writer, who seems to propose Dr. Blair for his pattern. Both
  the one and the other are quite too elegant for me. Give me
  plain, strong Dr. Horne. Your letters (as well as your
  conversation) are always agreeable to, my dear sister,

  “Your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

Wesley was always ready for all kinds of useful work,--reading,
writing, preaching, praying, and begging for the poor. Towards the
close of his career, especially, he seems to have commenced almost
every year by an effort to relieve the miseries of his destitute
fellow creatures. Accordingly, at the opening of 1787, five days were
spent in traversing the streets of London to obtain subscriptions for
this purpose. About two hundred members of his own London society were
in great distress; and he hoped to provide for them and for others, at
least, food and clothing. He writes: “I was much disappointed. Six or
seven, indeed, of our brethren, gave £10 apiece. If forty or fifty had
done this, I could have carried my design into execution. However,
much good was done with £200, and many sorrowful hearts made glad.”

Seven years previous to this, Wesley had preached his first sermon at
Newark upon Trent. He was now invited to open a new chapel there; and
took coach, for that purpose, on February 9, travelled all night, and
arrived next day. On Sunday morning, February 11, at nine o’clock, he
preached in the “lightsome, cheerful building”; and again at half-past
five in the afternoon; when the mayor and several aldermen of the town
were present.

This was a kind of service which now frequently fell to Wesley’s lot.
On Sunday, February 25, after preaching twice in London, he took the
mail coach, and, by travelling all night, arrived at Exeter in about
four-and-twenty hours. He then hurried off to Plymouth, and opened a
new chapel there. On Sunday morning, March 4, he conducted a service,
which lasted from half-past nine to nearly one o’clock; and, in the
evening, the throng was such, that, in order to reach the pulpit, he
was literally lifted over the people’s heads. At five o’clock next
morning, the chapel was again crowded; and, at six, he departed by
coach, “leaving,” says he, “such a flame behind us as was never
kindled here before.”

Notwithstanding the heavy services of the previous day, he travelled
all the way to Exeter in a continuous rain, and again preached “to as
many as could possibly squeeze” into the chapel; and says, “I know
not, that I ever saw such an impression made on the people of Exeter
before.”

After this, he proceeded to Bristol, where “the work of God had much
increased, especially among the young men,” but where, out of sixteen
hundred members, only five, or ten, or, at the most, a dozen hearers
formed the five o’clock morning congregations. Wesley says, he
strongly warned them of their indolence; and, during his stay, the
congregations were increased to three hundred; but even this was
small, considering the prestige of the place, and the fame of the
unequalled minister.

Wesley now was suffering considerable anxiety respecting Dr. Coke,
who, with his three missionaries, had set sail, five months before,
for Newfoundland, but who, unknown to Wesley, had been drifted to the
West Indies. Hence the following, addressed to William Black.

                                    “LONDON, _February 20, 1787_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--After various unfortunate hindrances and
  delays, Dr. Coke embarked on board a small brig, in the middle
  of October, and was, by furious winds, twice beat back into the
  harbour. They set sail a third time, with a crazy, shattered
  vessel, on the 18th of October. We have not heard anything
  either from him or of him since. I hope you have heard of him
  in America.

  “You have great reason to be thankful to God for the progress
  of His work in Nova Scotia. This is far from being the case in
  Newfoundland, where poor John McGeary appears to be utterly
  discouraged; not only through want of success, but through want
  of the conveniences, yea, necessaries of life. Truly, if I
  could have supposed, that those who made me fair promises would
  have suffered a preacher to want bread, I should have sent him
  into other parts, where he would have wanted nothing.

  “I hear very different accounts of the state of your provinces.
  Is there plenty or scarcity in Nova Scotia, and New England?
  How does it fare with Halifax and Shelburne, in particular? Do
  the buildings and people increase or decrease? Public accounts
  I cannot at all depend upon; but upon _your_ word I can depend.
  Peace be with all your spirits!

  “I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[569]

On March 19, Wesley left Bristol for Ireland, preaching on the way at
Stroud, Cirencester, Gloucester, and numerous other places. At
Birmingham, he administered the sacrament to seven or eight hundred
communicants. At Wolverhampton, he opened a new chapel. At Burslem, he
held one of the most remarkable lovefeasts he had ever witnessed; for
here there had been “such an outpouring of the Spirit as had not been
in any other part of the kingdom; particularly in the meetings for
prayer. Fifteen or twenty had been justified in a day; some of them
the most notorious, abandoned sinners, in all the country.” He
“appointed to preach at five in the morning of March 30, but, soon
after four, he was saluted by a concert of music, both vocal and
instrumental, making the air ring, with a hymn to the tune of Judas
Maccabeus. It was,” says he, “a good prelude; so I began almost half
an hour before five; yet the house was crowded both above and below.”

He writes: “Saturday, March 31--I went on to Macclesfield, and found a
people still alive to God, in spite of swiftly increasing riches. If
they continue so, it will be the only instance I have known, in above
half a century. I warned them in the strongest terms I could, and
believe some of them had ears to hear.”

He arrived in Dublin on Good Friday, April 6. On Easter Sunday he
preached in Bethesda chapel, of which his friend, the Rev. Edward
Smyth, was chaplain. He writes: “Mr. Smyth read prayers, and gave out
the hymns, which were sung by fifteen or twenty fine singers; the rest
of the congregation listening with much attention, and as much
devotion, as they would have done to an opera. But is this Christian
worship? Or ought it ever to be suffered in a Christian church? It was
thought we had between seven and eight hundred communicants.”

At this period, the Dublin society, with the exception of that in
London, was the largest in the world, containing upwards of eleven
hundred members, being more than there were in the whole of the five
Dublin _circuits_ in 1870!

Having spent ten days in Dublin, he set out for the provinces. It
would be, substantially, a reiteration of former narratives, to follow
him in his wanderings. He met with no persecution; but, on the
contrary, with the warmest welcomes. Almost everywhere the work of God
was prospering; and the people vied with each other to show him
kindness. He writes: “May 29--The old murderer is restrained from
hurting me; but it seems he has power over my horses. One of them I
was obliged to leave in Dublin, and afterwards another, having bought
two to supply their places; the third soon got an ugly swelling in his
shoulders, so that we doubted whether we could go on; and a boy at
Clones, riding, I suppose galloping, the fourth over stones, the horse
fell and nearly lamed himself.” Perhaps Wesley blamed the devil when
he ought to have blamed his own long journeys.

It was in one of these Irish tours that, preaching at a certain place
in the afternoon, and being expected, in the evening, at a town
several miles distant, he desired his chaise to be ready at the close
of the service, so that he might start at once. As he left the chapel,
the people, as usual, crowded about him, to shake hands with him;
among others, a Methodist shoemaker pressed forward, and put into his
hand a brown paper parcel, saying with manifest emotion: “Sir, this
may be of use to you in your journey.” Wesley thanked him, put the
parcel into his pocket, and away he went. After travelling some
distance, his curiosity prompted him to examine the nature of
Crispin’s present, which he found to be an awl and a strong waxed
thread. The road was rugged and lonely; and after a sudden jerk, the
horses stopped. “What’s the matter?” asked Wesley. “Matter enough!”
replied the coachman; “one of the traces is broken, and we can’t go
on.” Wesley bethought him of his awl and thread; they were at once
produced; the trace was mended; and so, by the poor shoemaker’s gift,
the congregation was saved from being disappointed of their preacher,
and Wesley from a tiresome detention in a houseless neighbourhood.[570]

Wesley got back to Dublin on the 21st of June, having preached
considerably more than a hundred times during his ten weeks’ tour. A
week later, on his birthday, June 28, he wrote: “I had the pleasure of
a conversation with Mr. Howard, I think one of the greatest men in
Europe. Nothing, but the mighty power of God, can enable him to go
through his difficult and dangerous employments.”

The great philanthropist was as much pleased with Wesley, as Wesley
was with him. “I was encouraged by him,” said he to Alexander Knox,
Esq., “to go on vigorously with my own designs. I saw in him how much
a single man might achieve by zeal and perseverance; and I thought,
why may not I do as much in my way, as Mr. Wesley has done in his, if
I am only as assiduous and persevering? and I determined I would
pursue my work with more alacrity than ever.”[571]

Howard, in early life, had heard Wesley preach, in Bedfordshire, and
was deeply impressed with his discourse. In 1789, he called at
Wesley’s house, in London, to present him with his latest publication,
“An Account of the Principal Lazarettos in Europe,” in quarto; but
Wesley was not at home. “Present,” said he, “my respects and love to
Mr. Wesley; tell him, I had hoped to have seen him once more: perhaps,
we may meet again in this world, but, if not, we shall meet I trust in
a better.”[572] And away he went on his mission of mercy to Russia,
where he fell an honoured victim to his benevolence, on January 20,
1790.

Having held his Irish conference, Wesley preached his farewell sermon,
in Dublin, on the 11th of July; and arriving in England on the 12th,
he proceeded to Manchester, in the neighbourhood of which he continued
until August 6. Here he held his English conference, though, in his
journal, he never mentions it. The preachers were specially invited;
but, on what principle the invitations were given, it is difficult to
state. Thomas Taylor was assistant at Leeds, within fifty miles of
Manchester, and moreover was one of the hundred mentioned in Wesley’s
deed of declaration; but he was also in favour of the Methodists
having the sacraments from the hands of their own preachers; in other
words, he was in favour of separation from the Established Church;
and, perhaps, this was one of the reasons why he was not invited to
the conference at Manchester. At all events, he writes:

  “Mr. Wesley has sent his special summons to each preacher whom
  he wishes to attend conference, and has expressly forbidden any
  one else to go. I am unbidden, and think I am ill used. After
  labouring, with some degree of success, for more than
  twenty-four years, and without a crime having ever been alleged
  against, me, I am debarred of a privilege granted to others who
  were converted under me, and whom I took into society. This is
  a flagrant injustice. Besides, I am a member of the legal
  conference. I’ll venture to go, let consequences be what they
  may. If I am thrown overboard, I will swim as well as I can,
  believing the Lord will take me up.”

Mr. Taylor’s complaint was not without reason. He went; but says, he
had little satisfaction, for much of the time was spent in trying to
supersede the hymn-book published by Robert Spence.[573]

The original edition of the minutes of the Manchester conference is
now before us, 12mo, 20 pages; but there is not a single syllable on
what was the great question of the day, separation from the Church.
And yet this was a question again and again introduced. Two years
before, Wesley had ordained Pawson for Scotland, and, ever since, had
addressed him as “reverend,” Pawson wearing gown and bands, and
administering the sacraments to the Scottish Methodists. Now that
Pawson was brought back to England, he had to doff his canonicals, and
had his letters from Wesley inscribed with “Mr.,” instead of “Rev.” He
loudly remonstrated; but got no redress; and at length, like a good
Christian, more anxious to save souls than to wear sacerdotal robes,
submitted to obey orders which were strangely inconsistent with
Wesley’s ordaining acts, and went on his way rejoicing. Pawson writes
as follows, to his bosom friend, Charles Atmore.

                                      “THORNER, _August 8, 1787_.

  “MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--Our conference ended on last Saturday.
  There were many preachers, and abundance of people, I think
  more than I ever saw at any conference before. Almost the whole
  time was taken up with temporal affairs. Mr. Wesley was in
  great haste, as he and Dr. Coke were going to Guernsey and
  Jersey. There has been a general revival of the work of God.
  Mr. Wesley seems more determined to abide in the Church than
  ever. He talked about it again and again, in the public
  conference, in the society, etc.; and in such a hot, fiery
  spirit, as I did not like to see. He talked of fighting with a
  flail, and of putting all out of society who do not go to
  church. _We_ are to be just what we were before we came to
  Scotland,--no sacraments, no gowns, no nothing at all of any
  kind whatsoever. With much entreaty, I got him to ordain Mr.
  McAllum and Suter. Two more were ordained, one for the West
  Indies, and one for Nova Scotia.

  “Charles Wesley, the Sunday before the conference opened,
  spoke, to the society in London, to this effect: ‘I told you,
  forty years ago, that, from among yourselves, grievous wolves
  would arise, who would rend and tear the flock. You now see my
  words fulfilled. These self created bishops, and self made
  priests, are the very men. But I charge you all, in the
  presence of God, never receive the sacrament from any of
  them.’[574] So you see, he has discharged the people from
  receiving the sacrament of his own brother; for who but he is
  the _self created bishop_? O cursed prejudice! O furious
  bigotry! How does the fire from hell burn in that poor
  miserable man’s breast!

  “Perhaps, if I live till next conference, I may petition to
  return to Scotland, as there seems to be no prospect of doing
  anything, but just in the old way, while Mr. Wesley lives.
  Solomon says, there is no new thing under the sun; but here we
  see something, which, I believe, was never seen in the
  Christian church before,--that men, approved of God and their
  brethren, and that for many years, should be regularly
  ordained, and act in the capacity of ministers, and yet should
  be deposed from that office by one single man, and that without
  any crime committed, great or small, real or pretended. Even
  the pope himself never acted such a part as this. What an
  astonishing degree of power does our aged father and friend
  exercise! However, I am satisfied, and have nothing but love in
  my heart toward the good old man. But really it will not bear
  the light at all. Most affectionately yours,

                                              “JOHN PAWSON.”[575]

This was pretty strong to come from a man like Pawson; but it
furnishes a glimpse of the proceedings of the conference of 1787,
concerning which so little has been written, and shows the awkward
position into which Wesley had put himself by his ordinations of men
from whom he now withdrew the authority that he had previously given.

Never, however, had Methodism been so prosperous as now. The increase
of members, in the United Kingdom, during the present year, was nearly
four thousand; and in America, 6849. Letters, dated August, 1787,
contain most marvellous intelligence. It was computed that, in
Brunswick county, Virginia, not fewer than seven thousand persons were
under deep conviction of their sin and danger; and as many as fifty in
a day were savingly converted. At a recent quarterly meeting, six
thousand were assembled, and hundreds were crying for mercy, including
some of the principal inhabitants of the land, and not a few who had
been persecutors.[576]

The Manchester conference concluded on Saturday, August 4, and, on the
following day, besides meeting the select society, Wesley preached
twice, and, with the assistance of his brother clergymen, administered
the sacrament to twelve or thirteen hundred communicants. There are
two other incidents, in connection with this conference, too
interesting to be omitted.

At this period, the grandfather of the present Sir Robert Peel was
thirty-seven years of age, and one of the most successful men in
Lancashire. The leisure of his youthful days had been spent in reading
and study, and, before he attained to his majority, a great portion of
his time had been devoted to the improvement of machinery. At the age
of twenty-three, he embarked in the cotton trade, and, by his industry
and perseverance, had already become a man of wealth, though his
riches fell immensely short of the two millions which, it is said, he
left behind him at his death in 1830. Wesley writes: “1787, July 27--I
was invited to breakfast at Bury, by Mr. Peel, a calico printer; who,
a few years ago, began with £500, and is now supposed to have gained
£50,000. Oh, what a miracle if he lose not his soul!” The invitation
was accepted, and, long after this, when the calico printer had become
a baronet, and had entered parliament, Wesley’s visit was one of the
pleasing reminiscences of his remarkable career. To the end of life,
he cherished a warm affection for the Methodists. “My lads,” said he,
when some of his Methodist workmen applied to him for the site of
Tamworth chapel,[577] “My lads, do not build your chapel too large,
for people like to go to a little chapel well filled better than to a
larger one comparatively empty. I often go to your chapels in
Manchester, Liverpool, and London, and have no wish to find myself
alone in a large pew, and pointed at as Sir Robert Peel. I have left
most of my works in Lancashire under the management of Methodists, and
they serve me excellently well. When I resided there, I asked Mr.
Wesley, at one of his conferences, to come and breakfast with me; and
he agreed, on condition that he might bring some of his children with
him. Of course, I consented, and he came accompanied by six-and-thirty
of his itinerant preachers.” This was a curious episode in the history
both of Wesley and the founder of the distinguished family that bears
his name.

No man in the nation took a greater interest in the institution of
Sunday-schools than Wesley. “I am glad,” said he, to Richard Rodda, in
a letter dated January 17, 1787, “I am glad you have taken in hand
that blessed work of setting up Sunday-schools in Chester. It seems,
these will be one great means of reviving religion throughout the
nation. I wonder Satan has not sent out some able champion against
them.”[578]

It was three years since Raikes had first called attention to the
importance of Sunday-schools in the _Gloucester Journal_; and already
these “nurseries for Christians” had begun to dot and to adorn the
country. That at Chester altogether originated with the Chester
Methodists, though the rules were submitted to the bishop of the
diocese, and had his entire approval. It contained nearly seven
hundred children, who were taken to church once every Sunday. “We had
no intention,” said Richard Rodda, “as some persons represented, to
make disciples to Methodism, but to train them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord, that they might become useful members of civil
and religious society.”[579]

Some idea may be formed of the popularity of this new institution of
the Christian church, from the fact that, in 1785, a Sunday-school
society was formed, which, within two years, was the means of
establishing more than two hundred schools; and that it was
calculated, in 1787, that the number of children then taught in
Sunday-schools exceeded two hundred thousand.[580]

As already stated, more than once, there were a few which existed long
before Raikes’ school at Gloucester,--as, for instance, Miss Hannah
Ball’s, at Wycombe, founded in 1769. There was also another at Little
Lever, the birthplace of Oliver Heywood, four miles from Bolton, in
Lancashire. Here James Hey resided, a poor man who obtained a living
by winding bobbins for weavers. About the year 1775, James got the use
of a room in a cottage, to which, twice every Sunday, he summoned the
boys and girls of the neighbourhood, to teach them reading, his
substitute for a bell being an old brass mortar and pestle. Mr. Adam
Crompton, the paper manufacturer, sent him a supply of books; three
branch establishments were formed; subscriptions were given; and a
shilling per Sunday paid to each teacher for his Sunday services.[581]

In June 1785, a Methodist school was started in the old Ridgway Gates
chapel, Bolton, chiefly through the instrumentality of George Eskrick,
who was its principal manager as long as he lived. One of the scholars
present, the first Sunday, was Peter Haslam, eleven years of age,
afterwards a most devout and useful itinerant preacher,[582]--the
first fruits of others who, in the same institution, received their
first trainings for the Christian ministry. In the course of a few
years, the number of scholars, attending the Bolton Sunday-school, was
2,000; and the _average_ number, for the first thirty years of its
existence, was 1800.[583] Children came to it, several miles, from all
the country round about. Reading and writing were taught. Each class
was spoken to separately every Sunday on religious subjects. The
masters were devoted to their work, and all gave their services
gratuitously. The change in the manners and morals of the children was
marvellous; and about a hundred of them sang like seraphs.[584] No
wonder, that such a school attracted the attention of Wesley. Hence,
on the very day when he and six-and-thirty of his itinerants
breakfasted with the father of the Peels, he wrote:

  “From Mr. Peel’s we went to Bolton. Here are eight hundred poor
  children, taught in our Sunday-schools, by about eighty
  masters, who receive no pay but what they are to receive from
  their Great Master. About a hundred of them, part boys and part
  girls, are taught to sing; and they sang so true, that, all
  singing together, there seemed to be but one voice. The house
  was throughly filled, while I explained and applied the first
  commandment. What is all morality or religion without this? A
  mere castle in the air. In the evening, many of the children
  still hovering round the house, I desired forty or fifty to
  come in and sing, ‘Vital spark of heavenly flame.’ Although
  some of them were silent, not being able to sing for tears, yet
  the harmony was such as I believe could not be equalled in the
  king’s chapel.”

This was not bounce, nor was it the random garrulity of an aged man.
Nine months afterwards, Wesley came again, and wrote:

  “This I must avow, there is not such another set of singers in
  any of the Methodist congregations in the three kingdoms as
  there is at Bolton. There cannot be; for we have near a hundred
  such trebles,--boys and girls, selected out of our
  Sunday-schools, and accurately taught--as are not to be found
  together in any chapel, cathedral, or music room within the
  four seas. Besides, the spirit with which they all sing, and
  the beauty of many of them, so suits the melody, that I defy
  any to exceed it; except the singing of angels in our Father’s
  house.”

Good singing is a good thing, and, like most other good things, is far
from being common. Had this been the only result of Bolton
Sunday-school, the school would have existed to good purpose. But hear
Wesley’s description, written “Sunday, April 20, 1788,” and let
Methodist Sunday-school teachers now conscientiously and diligently
endeavour to make their establishments resemble that at Bolton then.

  “At eight, and at one, the house was throughly filled. About
  three, I met between 900 and a thousand of the children
  belonging to our Sunday-schools. I never saw such a sight
  before. They were all exactly clean, as well as plain, in their
  apparel. All were serious and well behaved. Many, both boys and
  girls, had as beautiful faces as, I believe, England or Europe
  can afford. When they all sung together, and none of them out
  of tune, the melody was beyond that of any theatre; and, what
  is the best of all, many of them truly fear God, and some
  rejoice in His salvation. These are a pattern to all the town.
  Their usual diversion is to visit the poor that are sick,
  (sometimes six, or eight, or ten together,) to exhort, comfort,
  and pray with them. Frequently ten or more of them get together
  to sing and pray by themselves; sometimes thirty or forty; and
  are so earnestly engaged, alternately singing, praying, and
  crying, that they know not how to part.”

We have already stated that, the day after Wesley closed his
conference at Manchester, he preached twice, and, assisted by others,
administered the Lord’s supper to twelve or thirteen hundred persons.
The next day, August 6, he secured the whole of the coach, that ran
between Manchester and Birmingham, for himself and his friends. Six
packed themselves within, and eight arranged themselves without, and
off they all set at midnight; but even the presence of fourteen
Methodist preachers was not an insurance against accident. No doubt,
many a hymn was sung as they whisked away through beautiful Cheshire
scenery, the stars shining approvingly, and the fields all round
wrapped in solemn silence; but, a little before three in the morning,
when approaching Congleton, the coach broke down beneath its unwonted
burden, and had to be abandoned for another. In about an hour, number
two was crippled like number one; while one of the horses was so
knocked up as to be scarcely able to go at all. This Methodist
monopoly of the Birmingham stage coach issued, not in a moonlight
pleasure trip, but in a series of disasters which men so pious and so
good had not expected. The distance was not great; but nineteen hours
were spent in getting over it. The party arrived at Birmingham at 7
p.m.; Wesley found a congregation waiting; he stepped out of the coach
into the chapel, and began preaching without delay. “And such,” says
he, “was the goodness of God, that I found no more weariness when I
had done than if I had rested all the day.”

This was marvellous, in the case of an old man, above eighty; but,
notwithstanding this, he was off again, before five o’clock next
morning; travelled nearly eleven hours; and, at night, preached in the
new chapel at Gloucester. But even this was not all. The morning
after, he set out again at two o’clock, travelled till half-past four
in the afternoon, and preached at Salisbury in the evening. Next
morning at four, he took chaise to Southampton, where, on August 9 and
10, he preached thrice.

Here the Methodists worshipped in an auction room; and then in a loft,
used by a bricklayer in stowing away his scaffolding, and which
acquired imperishable fame as the spiritual birthplace of Elizabeth
Wallbridge, the “Dairyman’s Daughter.”[585]

Wesley, accompanied by Dr. Coke and Joseph Bradford, was now on his
way to the Channel islands; where Methodism had been introduced as
early as the year 1783, by certain Methodist soldiers, who wrote to
England for a preacher. Robert Carr Brackenbury, a gentleman of
fortune, rented a house in the town of St. Heliers, Jersey; and he and
his attendant, Alexander Kilham, preached throughout the island, amid
violent persecution, but with great success.[586] At the conference of
1786, Adam Clarke was sent; and now there were, in the three islands
of Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney, Methodist societies containing
three hundred members.

On Saturday, August 11, Wesley and his friends started from
Southampton for Guernsey, but, before the day was ended, had to put
into Yarmouth harbour, in the Isle of Wight, where they were detained
till Monday, but improved their detention by preaching four times in
the market house. On Monday the storm had abated, and they again set
out; but, in the afternoon, were glad to seek shelter at Swanage,
where Wesley found a small society, and preached in the presbyterian
chapel. Again they went on board, and hoped to reach Guernsey on
Tuesday afternoon; but the storm obliged them to steer for the isle of
Alderney, in the bay of which they narrowly escaped being dashed to
pieces. Having slept in a five bedded room, and preached upon the
beach, they again set sail for Guernsey, where they at last arrived,
and were warmly welcomed by Mr. De Jersey. Here five days were spent,
during which Wesley preached seven sermons, and dined at the
governor’s.

On Monday, August 20, they landed in Jersey, where they were detained
by storms and hurricanes till the 28th. During the eight days, Wesley
preached a dozen sermons, Mr. Brackenbury acting as his interpreter.

On the 28th, he returned to Guernsey, where, by stress of weather, he
was obliged to stay till September 6, but still employed himself as
actively as ever. He then sailed for Penzance, in Cornwall, and
arrived in safety.

Wesley’s labours in the Channel islands were greatly blessed; but his
voyages were adventurous, and, more than once, extremely dangerous.
They were also rich in religious incidents. On one occasion, two of
the sailors, who were aloft, swore most dreadfully; and, greatly to
the surprise of his companions, Wesley seemed not to notice them. At
length, the sailors still swearing, Wesley looked up to them, and
said: “Swear louder, and then perhaps God Almighty will hear you.” The
ironical reproof stopped the blasphemy.[587]

Another incident is worth relating. Wesley writes in his journal:
“September 6--We went on board with a fair, moderate wind; but we had
just entered the ship when the wind died away. We cried to God for
help; and it presently sprung up, exactly fair, and did not cease till
it brought us into Penzance bay.” This is all; but Adam Clarke, who
was present, gives further details. Wesley was reading in the cabin;
but, hearing the noise and bustle occasioned by putting about the
vessel, to stand on her different tacks, he looked out of the cabin
door, and asked what was matter. Being told, he quietly remarked,
“Then let us go to prayer.” Coke, Bradford, and Clarke having prayed,
Wesley began: “Almighty and everlasting God, Thou hast sway
everywhere, and all things serve the purposes of Thy will: Thou
holdest the winds in Thy hands, and sittest upon the waterfloods, and
reignest a King for ever: command these winds and these waves that
they obey _Thee_; and take us speedily and safely to the haven whither
we would be!” The power of his petition was felt by all: he rose from
his knees, made no remark, and resumed his reading. Clarke went on
deck, and, to his surprise, found the vessel standing her right
course, with a steady breeze, which brought them safe to
Cornwall.[588]

Wesley was more than satisfied with his trip to these lovely islands.
“Here,” says he, “is an open door: high and low, rich and poor,
receive the word gladly; so that I could not regret being detained by
contrary winds several days longer than we intended.”[589]

Wesley’s landing in Cornwall was unexpected, but not unwelcome. He
writes: “We appeared to our friends here as men risen from the dead.
Great was their rejoicing over us; and great was the power of God in
the midst of the congregation.” On Saturday, September 8, he preached
twice, out of doors, to large congregations; and, the day following,
thrice, besides meeting a society in a chapel “exactly round, and
composed wholly of brazen slags, which,” says Wesley, “I suppose will
last as long as the earth.”

On September 14, he got to Bristol, where he spent the next three
weeks. First of all, “with the assistance of two of his friends, he
had to answer _abundance of letters_,” the accumulation of the last
five weeks. Then, he had to visit the “country societies” round about,
and, among others, that at Castle Carey, where the mob had thrown the
first preacher, that visited the place, into a horse pond. On October
8, he returned to London, where he employed the next few days “in
answering letters, and preparing matter for the magazine.” One or two
of the letters, belonging to this period, may be inserted here.

The first was addressed to William Black, in Nova Scotia, who was
considerably troubled with a recent importation from Scotland, in the
form of a presbyterian minister, who was more a Socinian than a
Calvinist.

                                “NEAR BATH, _September 26, 1787_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have great reason to praise God for the
  great things that He hath done, and to expect still greater
  things than these. Your grand difficulty, now, will be to guard
  your flock against that accomplished seducer. When you
  mentioned a person came from Scotland, I took it for granted
  that he was a Calvinist. But I find it is not so well; for I
  take a Socinian to be far worse than even a predestinarian.
  Nevertheless, I advise you and all our preachers, never oppose
  him openly. Doing thus would only give the unawakened world an
  advantage against you all. I advise you farther, never speak
  severely, much less contemptuously, of him in any mixed
  company. You must use no weapons in opposing him, but only
  those of truth and love. Your wisdom is: (1) Strongly to
  inculcate the doctrines which he denies; but without taking any
  notice of him, or seeming to know that any one does deny them.
  (2) To advise all our brethren (but not in public) never to
  hear him, at the peril of their souls. And (3) narrowly to
  inquire whether any one is staggered, and to set such an one
  right as soon as possible. Thus, by the blessing of God, even
  those that are lame will not be turned out of the way. Peace be
  with your spirit!

  “I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[590]

The next has not before been published. Jonathan Crowther and Duncan
McAllum had been appointed to succeed Edward Burbeck and Joshua
Keighley, in Scotland. On arriving, they found the former “dying of
fever in a _lousy_ bed”; and the latter already dead and buried. Their
journey had been adventurous and dangerous; their circuit (Inverness)
was large; and their allowances next to nothing; for Crowther received
only fifty shillings for the whole year’s labour; and forty of these
he spent in removing to Dunbar. He wrote to Wesley: “No man is fit for
Inverness circuit, unless his flesh be brass, his bones iron, and his
heart harder than a stoic’s.” After giving an account of the death of
Burbeck and Keighley, he adds: “I too shall probably be sacrificed in
this miserable corner; and, if I were doing good, I should be content
(if I had them) to sacrifice seven lives every year; but to live in
misery, and to die in banishment, for next to nothing, is afflicting
indeed.”[591]

Poor Crowther was downhearted, and no wonder. Wesley’s reply was
characteristic.

                                “NEAR BATH, _September 25, 1787_.

  “DEAR JONATHAN,--The sum of the matter is, you want money; and
  money you shall have, if I can beg, borrow, or anything but
  steal. I say, therefore, ‘Dwell in the land, and be doing good,
  and, verily, thou shalt be fed.’ I should be sorry for the
  death of Mr. Burbeck, but that I know God does all things well;
  and, if His work prospers in your hands, this will make your
  labours light. Our preachers now find, in the north of
  Scotland, what they formerly found all over England; yet they
  went on; and when I had only blackberries to eat in Cornwall,
  still God gave me strength sufficient for my work. I am, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

  “P.S.--To Mr. Atlay:

  Pay to Jonathan Crowther, or his order, Five Guineas.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[592]

The next two letters refer to a case of discipline in the Channel
islands, in which Wesley displayed greater liberality than some of his
itinerants. The first was written to Robert Carr Brackenbury, the
second to Adam Clarke.

                                     “LONDON, _October 20, 1787_.

  “DEAR SIR,--Mr. ---- is undoubtedly a good young man; and has a
  tolerably good understanding. But he thinks it better than it
  is; and, in consequence, is apt to put himself in your or my
  place. For these fifty years, if any one said, ‘If you do not
  put such an one out of society, I will go out of it’; I have
  said, ‘Pray go; I, not you, are to judge who shall stay.’ I,
  therefore, greatly approve of your purpose, to give Mr. W---- a
  full hearing in the presence of all the preachers. I have often
  repented of judging too severely; but very seldom of being too
  merciful. As the point is undoubtedly of very great importance,
  it deserved serious consideration; and I am glad you took the
  pains to consider it, and discussed it so admirably well,
  according to Scripture and sound reason.

  “I ever am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[593]

                                     “LONDON, _December 8, 1787_.

  “... Brother de Queteville and you do not mind what I say. I do
  not wonder at him, (he does not know me,) but I do at you. His
  natural temper is stern; yours is not. Therefore, I expect you
  to regard me, whether he does or no. We have no such custom
  among our societies, nor ever had, as for a man to acknowledge
  his fault before a whole society. There shall be no such custom
  while I live. If he acknowledge it before the preachers it is
  enough.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[594]

In the month of May of the present year, there was instituted, in
London, a society for the suppression of the slave trade, of which the
chief members were Granville Sharp, William Dillwyn, Thomas Clarkson,
and William Wilberforce. In this, as in other great beneficent
movements, Wesley was one of the pioneers. Thirteen years previously,
he had published his “Thoughts upon Slavery”; and, at the commencement
of the present year, had inserted a long letter, on the same subject,
in his _Arminian Magazine_. The formation of an antislavery society
was to him a joy; and he, at once, wrote to the committee, expressing
his satisfaction. He desired to warn them, that they must expect great
difficulties and great opposition; for those interested in the system
of slavery were a powerful body, and would employ hireling writers,
who would have neither justice nor mercy. As for himself, he would do
all he could to promote the object of their institution. He would
reprint a new and large edition of his “Thoughts on Slavery,” and
circulate it among his friends in England and Ireland, to whom he
would add a few words in favour of their design. He then concluded in
these words: “I commend you to Him, who is able to carry you through
all opposition, and support you under all discouragements.”

On the 30th of October, 1787, he sent a second letter, which was read
to the society, and in which he said, that he had now read the
publications which the committee had sent him, and that he took, if
possible, a still deeper interest in their cause. He exhorted them to
more than ordinary diligence and perseverance; to be prepared for
opposition; to be cautious about the manner of procuring information
and evidence, that no stain might fall upon their character; and to
take care that the question should be argued as well upon the
consideration of interest as of humanity and justice, the former of
which he feared would have more weight than the latter.[595]

Wesley fulfilled his promise to render help. Hence the following to
Mr. Thomas Funnell, Lewes, Sussex.

                                            “_November 24, 1787._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Whatever assistance I can give those
  generous men, who join to oppose that execrable trade, I
  certainly shall give. I have printed a large edition of the
  ‘Thoughts on Slavery,’ and dispersed them to every part of
  England. But there will be vehement opposition made, both by
  slave merchants and slave holders; and they are mighty men: but
  our comfort is, He that dwelleth on high is mightier.

  “I am, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[596]

Thus began a struggle, which lasted six-and-forty years, and
terminated in the Emancipation Act, which took effect on August 1,
1834. Wesley died four years after the fight commenced; Wilberforce
just as the victory was being won, for he expired while the
resolutions, preparatory to the bill, were being passed in the House
of Commons.

The last three months of the year 1787 were spent in London, and in
the usual journeys through the surrounding counties. On October 15, he
began what he calls his “little tour through Oxfordshire,” and
preached twice a day, besides travelling. At this time, Joseph
Entwisle and Richard Reece were in the “Oxfordshire” circuit. The
former, a young man of twenty, while riding with Wesley, had the
misfortune to have a horse whose pace was swifter than its steps were
sure. The nag fell with suddenness, the young preacher made a
summersault over the head of the prostrate animal, and alighted on his
feet unhurt. “Well done!” cried Wesley, delighted with the agility of
his youthful friend, and, no doubt, remembering many of his own
marvellous escapes,--“Well done, Joseph! I could not have done better
than that myself.”[597]

Richard Reece also used to relate an anecdote respecting Wesley’s
visit to this, his first circuit, in 1787. Wesley was accompanied by
Thomas Rankin, and the two came to Oxford, where Wesley had to preach
in the chapel in New Inn Hall Lane. The front gallery was filled with
gownsmen, who, whatever other accomplishments they had acquired, still
lacked the politeness of gentlemen, for, as soon as Wesley began to
read his text, the beardless boys, in gowns and college caps, began to
cheer. Up jumped Rankin, his Scotch blood boiling, and, with
stentorian voice, cried: “In the name of God, gentlemen, what can ye
mean, to interrupt and insult a servant of the Lord, about to preach
salvation?” Wesley, more used to such behaviour than his impetuous
friend, calmly said, “Sit down, Tommy, sit down”; and then quietly
proceeded with his discourse.[598]

In his excursion through Kent, Wesley preached both morning and
evening, every day. In Hertfordshire, he met Simeon from Cambridge.

“Sir,” said young Simeon, “Sir, I understand you are called an
Arminian; now I am sometimes called a Calvinist, and therefore, I
suppose, we are to draw daggers. But, before I begin to combat, with
your permission, I will ask you a few questions, not from impertinent
curiosity, but for real instruction. Pray sir, do you feel yourself a
depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of
turning to God, if God had not put it into your heart?”

“Yes,” said the veteran, “I do indeed.”

“And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by
anything that you can do; and look for salvation solely through the
blood and righteousness of Christ?”

“Yes, solely through Christ.”

“But, sir, supposing you were _first_ saved by Christ, are you not
somehow or other to save yourself afterwards, by your good works?”

“No; I must be saved by Christ, from first to last.”

“Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are
you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?”

“No.”

“What, then? are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God,
as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?”

“Yes, altogether.”

“And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God, to preserve you
unto His heavenly kingdom?”

“Yes, I have no hope but in Him.”

“Then, sir, with your leave, I will put up my dagger again: for this
is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification, my final
perseverance. It is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it;
and, therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and
phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially
unite in those things wherein we agree.”[599]

Such was the catechetical examination instituted by a young parson of
twenty-eight, and submitted to by an old man of eighty-four.

In November, Wesley took another step, which virtually involved a
separation from the Church of England. Seventeen years before, in
warning his preachers against such a separation, he had not only
directed them and the people to attend the services and sacraments of
the Church, but to guard against calling preachers “ministers,” and
their places of worship “meeting-houses.” “Do not,” said he, “license
them as such: the proper form of a petition to the judge or justice
is, ‘A. B. desires to have his house in C-- licensed for public
worship.’” He continued: “Do not license yourself till you are
constrained; and then not as a Dissenter, but a Methodist. It is time
enough when you are prosecuted, to take the oaths. And by so doing you
are licensed.”[600]

Hitherto, Wesley had been opposed to licensing, except in cases of
necessity, simply on the ground that this savoured of separation from
the Established Church. Now he writes:

  “1787, November 3--I had a long conversation with Mr. Clulow,”
  [his legal adviser,] “on that execrable act called the
  Conventicle Act. After consulting the Act of Toleration, with
  that of the fourteenth of Queen Anne, we were both clearly
  convinced, that it was the safest way to license _all_ our
  chapels, and _all_ our travelling preachers, not as Dissenters,
  but simply ‘preachers of the gospel’; and that no justice, or
  bench of justices, has any authority to refuse licensing either
  the house or the preachers.”

The “execrable Conventicle Act” was levelled against Dissenters from
the Church of England; the Act of Toleration was passed for the relief
of such Dissenters; and Wesley, by availing himself of the provisions
of that act, _ipso facto_, conceded the point that the Methodists were
Dissenters.

He still, however, persisted in asserting that the Methodists were
members of the Church of England; and this involved both him and them
in further difficulties. In some instances, the magistrates remarked:
“You profess yourselves to be members of the Church of England;
therefore, your licences are worthless; nor can you, as members of the
Church, receive any benefit from the Act of Toleration.” This was a
subtle distinction; and Wesley saw that the Methodists must either
profess themselves Dissenters, or be subjected to an indefinite amount
of trouble. He was unwilling to alter their relation to the
Established Church; and yet he wished them to be saved from this
embarrassment. Hence the following, addressed to a member of
parliament.[601]

  “DEAR SIR,--Last month, a few poor people met together in
  Somersetshire, to pray, and to praise God, in a friend’s house;
  there was no preaching at all. Two neighbouring justices fined
  the man of the house £20. I suppose, he was not worth twenty
  shillings. Upon this, his household goods were distrained, and
  sold to pay the fine. He appealed to the quarter sessions; but
  all the justices averred, ‘The Methodists could have no relief
  from the Act of Toleration, because they went to church; and
  that, so long as they did so, the Conventicle Act should be
  executed upon them.’

  “Last Sunday, when one of our preachers was beginning to speak
  to a quiet congregation, a neighbouring justice sent a
  constable to seize him, though he was licensed; and would not
  release him till he had paid £20, telling him his licence was
  good for nothing, ‘because he was a Churchman.’

  “Now, sir, what can the Methodists do? They are liable to be
  ruined by the Conventicle Act, and they have no relief from the
  Act of Toleration! If this is not oppression, what is? Where
  then is English liberty? the liberty of Christians, yea, of
  every rational creature? who, as such, has a right to worship
  God according to his own conscience. But, waiving the question
  of right and wrong, what prudence is there in oppressing such a
  body of loyal subjects? If these good magistrates could drive
  them, not only out of Somersetshire, but out of England, who
  would be gainers thereby? Not his majesty, whom we honour and
  love; not his ministers, whom we love and serve for his sake.
  Do they wish to throw away so many thousand friends, who are
  now bound to them by stronger ties than that of interest? If
  you will speak a word to Mr. Pitt on that head, you will oblige
  yours, etc.

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

About the same time, Wesley wrote as follows to a bishop.[602]

  “MY LORD,--I am a dying man, having already one foot in the
  grave. Humanly speaking, I cannot long creep upon the earth,
  being now nearer ninety than eighty years of age. But I cannot
  die in peace, before I have discharged this office of Christian
  love to your lordship. I write without ceremony, as neither
  hoping nor fearing anything from your lordship, or any man
  living. And I ask, in the name and presence of Him, to whom
  both you and I are shortly to give an account, why do you
  trouble those that are quiet in the land; those that fear God
  and work righteousness? Does your lordship know what the
  Methodists are? That many thousands of them are zealous members
  of the Church of England; and strongly attached, not only to
  his majesty, but to his present ministry? Why should your
  lordship, setting religion out of the question, throw away such
  a body of respectable friends? Is it for their religious
  sentiments? Alas, my lord, is this a time to persecute any man
  for conscience sake? I beseech you, my lord, do as you would be
  done to. You are a man of sense; you are a man of learning;
  nay, I verily believe, (what is of infinitely more value,) you
  are a man of piety. Then think, and let think. I pray God to
  bless you with the choicest of His blessings.

  “I am, my lord, etc.,

                                            “JOHN WESLEY.”[603]

Is it surprising, that the Methodists wished to separate from the
Church of England, and that Wesley was led, in fact driven, to take
the dissenting steps he did? And yet, to the very last, we find him
still adhering to the church of his early choice. Already the
Methodists had begun to have service in church hours; but this was far
from having his warm approval. Only two days after his consultation
with Mr. Clulow, he went to Dorking, where he wrote:

  “The congregation was, as usual, large and serious. But there
  is no increase in the society. So that we have profited nothing
  by having our service in the church hours, which some imagined
  would have done wonders. I do not know that it has done more
  good anywhere in England; in Scotland I believe it has.”

If possible, Wesley was more popular than ever. He writes:

  “November 4--The congregation at the new chapel” [City Road]
  “was far larger than usual; and the number of communicants was
  so great, that I was obliged _to consecrate thrice_.” “November
  9--A friend offering to bear my expenses, I set out to
  Nottingham, where I preached a charity sermon for the
  infirmary, which was the design of my coming. This is not a
  county infirmary, but is open to all England; yea, to all the
  world; and everything about it is so neat, so convenient, and
  so well ordered, that I have seen none like it in the three
  kingdoms.”[604] “November 25--I preached two charity sermons at
  West Street, in behalf of our poor children.” “December
  16--After preaching at Spitalfields, I hastened to St. John’s,
  Clerkenwell, and preached a charity sermon for the Finsbury
  dispensary; as I would gladly countenance every institution of
  the kind.”

All this was extra work; for Wesley’s chief employment, at the end of
every year, was preaching to the London Methodists, and meeting the
London classes. Strange to say, the latter was to Wesley an irksome
task. Hence he writes:

  “1787, November 19--I began the _unpleasing work_ of visiting
  the classes. I still continue to do this in London and Bristol,
  as well as in Cork and Dublin. With the other societies, their
  respective assistants supply my lack of service.”

There were also other things, far from pleasant, requiring his
attention. A Laodicean spirit had crept in among the London
Methodists, and, in strong terms, he had to warn them of their sin and
danger. They were also £300 in debt, and he found it necessary to
devise means to make the income equal to the expenditure. His
preachers also, and his household, vexed him. He writes:

  “1787. Sunday, December 9--I went down at half-hour past five,
  but found no preacher in the chapel, though we had three or
  four in the house; so I preached myself. Afterwards, inquiring
  why none of my family attended the morning preaching, they said
  it was because they sat up too late. I resolved to put a stop
  to this; and, therefore, ordered, that (1) every one under my
  roof should go to bed at nine; that (2) every one might attend
  the morning preaching; and so they have done ever since.”

Amid all this labour and annoyance, it is amusing to find this
venerable man, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, visiting what then
answered to the Madame Tussaud’s exhibition of 1871, and evincing a
curiosity and a keenness of observation not often equalled by the
visitors of the present time. Hence the following.

  “December 10--I was desired to see the celebrated waxwork at
  the museum in Spring Gardens. It exhibits most of the crowned
  heads in Europe, and shows their characters in their
  countenance. Sense and majesty appear in the king of Spain;
  dulness and sottishness in the king of France; infernal
  subtlety in the late king of Prussia; (as well as in the
  skeleton Voltaire;) calmness and humanity in the emperor, and
  king of Portugal; exquisite stupidity in the prince of Orange;
  and amazing coarseness, with everything that is unamiable, in
  czarina.

With the exception of contributing to the _Arminian Magazine_,
Wesley’s literary life was ended. He revised former publications, as,
for instance, his Notes on the New Testament; and he occasionally
published an extract from some other author; but all the _original_
productions of his mind and pen were now published in the magazine.
During this present year, he committed to the press a new pocket
hymn-book, 24mo, 240 pages; but the work was _compiled_, not
_written_, and was intended as a substitute for the volume issued in
1785. He also published “Conjectures concerning the Nature of Future
Happiness. Translated from the French of Monsieur Bonnet, of Geneva:”
12mo, 12 pages,--a remarkable tract, little known, but full of
thought.[605] The following is Wesley’s address “To the Reader.”
“Dublin, April 7, 1787. I am happy in communicating to men of sense in
this kingdom, and at a very low price, one of the most sensible tracts
I ever read.--JOHN WESLEY.”

The magazine, as usual, contains six original sermons by Wesley,
several of them among the most able and interesting that he ever
wrote. That on Temptation is marked by great discrimination and
beauty. The one on Dress fearlessly denounces what was then, and still
is, a fearfully prevailing evil. Having laid down the principles, that
“slovenliness is no part of religion”; and that “there may undoubtedly
be a moderate difference of apparel, between persons of different
stations”; he proceeds to show, that the natural effects of “adorning
ourselves with gold, or pearls, or costly array,” are pride, vanity,
anger, and lust; and concludes with one of his most withering
addresses to the Methodists then living, and which the Methodists of
the present day would do well to ponder.

  “Have not many of you grown finer as fast as you have grown
  richer? As you increased in substance, have you not increased
  in dress? Witness the profusion of ribbons, gauze, or linen
  about your heads! What have you profited then by bearing the
  reproach of Christ? by being called Methodists? Are you not as
  fashionably dressed as others of your rank that are no
  Methodists? Do you ask, ‘But may we not as well buy fashionable
  things as unfashionable?’ I answer, Not if they give you a
  bold, immodest look, as those huge hats, bonnets, headdresses
  do. And not, if they cost more. ‘But I can _afford_ it.’ Oh,
  lay aside for ever that idle nonsensical word! No Christian can
  _afford_ to waste any part of the substance which God has
  entrusted him with. How can it be, that, after so many
  warnings, you persist in the same folly? Is it not hence? There
  are among you some that neither profit themselves by all they
  hear, nor are willing that others should; and these, if any of
  you are almost persuaded to dress as Christians, reason, and
  rally, and laugh you out of it. O ye pretty triflers, I entreat
  you not to do the devil’s work any longer. Whatever ye do
  yourselves, do not harden the hearts of others. And you, that
  are of a better mind, avoid these tempters with all possible
  care. You answer, universal custom is against me. Not only the
  profane, but the religious world, run violently the other way.
  Look into, I do not say the theatres, but the churches, nay,
  and the meetings of every denomination (except a few old
  fashioned quakers, or the people called Moravians); look into
  the congregations, in London or elsewhere, of those that are
  styled gospel ministers; look into Northampton chapel, yea,
  into the Tabernacle, or the chapel in Tottenham Court Road;
  nay, look into the chapel in West Street, or that in the City
  Road; look at the very people that sit under the pulpit, or by
  the side of it,--and are not _those that can afford it_ (I can
  hardly refrain from doing them the honour of naming their
  names) as richly, as fashionably adorned, as those of the same
  rank in other places? This is a melancholy truth. I am ashamed
  of it; but I know not how to help it. I call heaven and earth
  to witness this day, that it is not my fault. The trumpet has
  not _given an uncertain sound_, for near fifty years last past.
  O God! Thou knowest I have borne a clear and faithful
  testimony. In print, in preaching, in meeting the society, I
  have not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God. I am,
  therefore, clear of the blood of those that will not hear. It
  lies upon their own heads. And, yet, I warn you once more, in
  the name, and in the presence of God, that the number of those
  that rebel against God is no excuse for their rebellion. He
  hath expressly told us, _Thou shalt not follow the multitude to
  do evil_. I conjure you, all who have any regard for me, show
  me, before I go hence, that I have not laboured, even in this
  respect, in vain, for near half a century. Let me see, before I
  die, a Methodist congregation full as plainly dressed as a
  quaker congregation. Only be more consistent with yourselves.
  Let your dress be _cheap_ as well as plain; otherwise, you do
  but trifle with God and me, and your own souls. I pray, let
  there be no costly silks among you, how grave soever they may
  be. Let there be no _quaker linen_, proverbially so called, for
  their exquisite fineness; no Brussels lace; no elephantine hats
  or bonnets, those scandals of female modesty. Be all of a
  piece, dressed, from head to foot, as persons _professing
  godliness_; professing to do everything small and great, with
  the single view of pleasing God.”

Wesley’s sermon on the Lord’s Supper was written in 1732, and has been
already noticed. To the sentiments then avowed, he still adhered.

That on the More Excellent Way is characteristic of himself; and
re-enforces his views on early rising, on the manner of transacting
business, on food, conversation, amusements, and money. One or two
extracts may be given.

  “Diversions are of various kinds. Some are almost peculiar to
  men, as the sports of the field,--hunting, shooting, fishing.
  Others are indifferently used by persons of both sexes,--as
  races, masquerades, plays, assemblies, balls, cards, dancing
  and music; to which may be added, the reading of plays, novels,
  romances, newspapers, and fashionable poetry. Some diversions,
  which were formerly in great request, are now fallen into
  disrepute. The nobility and gentry, (in England at least,) seem
  totally to disregard the once fashionable diversion of hawking;
  and the vulgar themselves are no longer diverted by men hacking
  and hewing each other in pieces at broad sword. The noble game
  of quarter staff, likewise, is now exercised by very few. Yea,
  cudgelling has lost its humour, even in Wales itself. Bear
  baiting is now very seldom seen, and bull baiting not very
  often. And it seems cock fighting would totally cease in
  England, were it not for two or three right honourable patrons.
  It is not needful to say anything more of these foul ‘remains
  of Gothic barbarity,’ than that they are a reproach, not only
  to all religion, but even to human nature. One would not pass
  so severe a censure on the sports of the field. Let those, who
  have nothing better to do, still run foxes and hares out of
  breath. Neither need much be said about horse races, till some
  man of sense will undertake to defend them. It seems a great
  deal more may be said in defence of seeing a serious tragedy. I
  could not do it with a clear conscience, at least, not in an
  English theatre, the sink of all profaneness and debauchery;
  but possibly others can. I cannot say quite so much for balls,
  or assemblies; which are more reputable than masquerades, but
  must be allowed, by all impartial persons, to have exactly the
  same tendency. So undoubtedly have all public dancings. Of
  playing at cards, I say the same as seeing of plays. I could
  not do it with a clear conscience. But I am not obliged to pass
  any sentence on those that are otherwise minded. I leave them
  to their own Master; to Him let them stand or fall.

  “But supposing these, as well as the reading of plays, novels,
  newspapers, and the like, to be quite _innocent diversions_,
  yet are there not more excellent ways of diverting themselves,
  for those that love or fear God? Would men of fortune divert
  themselves in the open air? They may do it, by cultivating and
  improving their lands, by planting their grounds, by laying
  out, carrying on, and perfecting their gardens and orchards. At
  other times, they may visit and converse with the most serious
  and sensible of their neighbours; or they may visit the sick,
  the poor, the widows, and fatherless in their afflictions. Do
  they desire to divert themselves in the house? They may read
  useful history, pious and elegant poetry, or several branches
  of natural philosophy. If you have time, you may divert
  yourselves by music, and perhaps by philosophical experiments.
  But, above all, when you have once learned the use of prayer,
  you will find, that this will fill every space of life, be
  interfused with all your employments, and, wherever you are,
  whatever you do, embrace you on every side. Then you will be
  able to say boldly:

                ‘With me no melancholy void,
                 No moment lingers unemployed,
                   Or unimproved below;
                 My weariness of life is gone,
                 Who live to serve my God alone,
                   And only Jesus know.’”

On the subject of money, Wesley’s “More Excellent Way,” to the worldly
minded, is equally startling, but one which he himself, for fifty
years, invariably adopted.

  “If you have a family, seriously consider, before God, how much
  each member of it wants, in order to have what is needful for
  life and godliness. And, in general, do not allow them less,
  nor much more than you allow yourself. This being done, fix
  your purpose, to gain no more. I charge you, in the name of
  God, do not increase your substance! As it comes daily or
  yearly, so let it go: otherwise you _lay up treasures upon
  earth_; and this our Lord as flatly forbids, as murder and
  adultery. By doing it, therefore, you would _treasure up to
  yourselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of
  the righteous judgment of God_. But suppose it were not
  forbidden, how can you, on principles of reason, spend your
  money in a way, which God may _possibly forgive_, instead of
  spending it in a manner which He will _certainly reward_? You
  will have no reward in heaven, for what you _lay up_: you will,
  for what you _lay out_. Every pound you put into the earthly
  bank is sunk; it brings no interest above. But every pound you
  give to the poor is put into the bank of heaven; and it will
  bring glorious interest; yea, and such as will be accumulating
  to all eternity.”

This was plain speaking; but who will undertake to gainsay it?

The sermon on Christian Courtesy is full of the wisdom of an aged, and
widely experienced, saint; while that on Former Times Better than
These is equally remarkable, and well worth reading.

The _Arminian Magazine_ for 1787 is enriched, as usual, with letters,
poetry, biography, apparition anecdotes, and choice extracts from
other writers; but, besides these, there are a few other productions
from Wesley’s pen, as his able article “On Allegorical Writings in
general, and especially the Parables of our Lord”; and his weighty
“Thoughts upon Methodism.” We can only afford space for an extract
from the latter. He writes:

  “I am not afraid, that the people called Methodists should ever
  cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid,
  lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of
  religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the
  case, unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and
  discipline with which they first set out.”

After describing the rise of Methodism, he proceeds:

  “From this short sketch of Methodism, any man of understanding
  may easily discern, that it is only plain, scriptural religion,
  guarded by a few prudential regulations. The essence of it is
  holiness of heart and life; the circumstantials all point to
  this. And as long as they are joined together in the people
  called Methodists, no weapon formed against them shall prosper.
  But, if even the circumstantial parts are despised, the
  essential will soon be lost. And if ever the essential parts
  should evaporate, what remains will be dung and dross.

  “It nearly concerns us to see how the case stands with us at
  present. I fear, wherever riches have increased (exceeding few
  are the exceptions) the essence of religion, the mind that was
  in Christ, has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I
  do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any
  revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must
  necessarily produce both industry and frugality; and these
  cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will
  pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.

  “How then is it possible that Methodism, that is, the religion
  of the heart, though it flourishes now as a green bay tree,
  should continue in this state? For the Methodists in every
  place grow diligent and frugal; consequently, they increase in
  goods. Hence, they proportionably increase in pride, in the
  desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of
  life. So, although the form of religion remains, the spirit is
  swiftly vanishing away.

  “Is there no way to prevent this? this continual declension of
  pure religion? We ought not to forbid people to be diligent and
  frugal; we _must_ exhort all Christians, to gain all they can,
  and to save all they can: that is, in effect, to grow rich!
  What way then, I ask again, can we take, that our money may not
  sink us to the nethermost hell? There is one way, and there is
  no other under heaven. If those who _gain all they can_, and
  _save all they can_, will likewise _give all they can_, then
  the more they gain, the more they will grow in grace, and the
  more treasure they will lay up in heaven.”

Wesley knew not how to flatter. However painful to himself or to
others, when he deemed it needful, he never tried to conceal his
thoughts. The above was not likely to win him the applause of
prosperous and rich Methodists; but that to him was a matter of
indifference. His great anxiety was to perpetuate _Methodism_,--not
merely _Methodists_.


FOOTNOTES:

     [564] Percival was one of the itinerant preachers at
           Newcastle on Tyne.

     [565] _Methodist Magazine_, 1834, p. 674.

     [566] Bardsley’s colleagues in Colne circuit.

     [567] Manuscript letter in British Museum.

     [568] Dr. Harmer had recently published vols. iii. and
           iv. of his “Observations on various Passages of
           Scripture.”

     [569] Black’s Memoirs, p. 185.

     [570] Memoirs of Burgess.

     [571] Life of Henry Moore, p. 271.

     [572] Ibid. p. 272.

     [573] Manuscript journal.

     [574] In his “Short Hymns on Select Passages of the Holy
           Scriptures,” published in 1762, Charles Wesley wrote,
           concerning the poor itinerants:

              “Raised from the people’s lowest lees,
               Guard, Lord, Thy preaching witnesses,
               Nor let their pride the honour claim
               Of sealing covenants in Thy name:
               Rather than suffer them to dare
               Usurp the priestly character,
               Save from the arrogant offence,
               And snatch them uncorrupted hence.”

           (Hymn on Numbers xvi. 10.) “Wesley Poetry,” vol. ix.,
           p. 79.

     [575] Manuscript letter.

     [576] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 486. It is only fair
           to add that all was not sunshine in America. At
           the conference of 1784, the American preachers had
           recorded a declaration that, “during the life of
           Mr. Wesley they were ready to obey his commands in
           matters belonging to church government”; but, in
           1787, and thenceforward, this declaration was omitted
           from their printed minutes. Why? Because Wesley,
           without consulting them, had changed the time and
           place of holding their conference, and had appointed
           Richard Whatcoat to be co-superintendent with Francis
           Asbury.--(Etheridge’s Life of Coke, p. 173.) Dr. Coke
           was present, and, in a letter printed four years
           afterwards, pronounced this an “excommunication”
           of Wesley, and declared that, in his opinion, it
           hastened Wesley’s death; for, “from the time he was
           informed of it, he began to hang down his head, and
           to think he had lived long enough.”--(“Impartial
           Statement of the known Inconsistencies of Rev. Dr.
           Coke.” By William Hammet: 1792.) We gravely doubt the
           correctness of Dr. Coke’s opinion.

     [577] _Wesley Banner_, 1850, p. 114.

     [578] _Methodist Magazine_, 1846, p. 562.

     [579] Ibid.

     [580] Ibid. p. 563.

     [581] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 286. The Rev.
           David Simpson, also, is said to have commenced
           Sunday-schools, in Macclesfield, as early as the year
           1778.--(_Evangelical Magazine_, 1842, p. 84.)

     [582] _Methodist Magazine_, 1805, p. 1.

     [583] Manuscript letter.

     [584] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 490.

     [585] Smith’s History of Methodism.

     [586] Drew’s Life of Coke.

     [587] Reynolds’s “Anecdotes of Wesley,” p. 25.

     [588] Life of Clarke, vol. i., p. 259.

     [589] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 80.

     [590] Black’s Memoirs, p. 200.

     [591] Crowther’s manuscript autobiography.

     [592] Ibid.

     [593] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 6.

     [594] _Wesleyan Times_, Sept. 28, 1868.

     [595] Clarkson’s “Abolition of the Slave Trade,” vol. i.,
           p. 447.

     [596] _Methodist Magazine_, 1827, p. 391.

     [597] Entwisle’s Memoir, p. 36.

     [598] _Wesleyan Times_, June 19, 1849.

     [599] “Wesley the Worthy,” by Dr. Dobbin, p. 91.

     [600] Large Minutes, 1770.

     [601] Henry Moore says this letter was written in the
           autumn of 1790; and that, when the lawyer, at the
           head of the persecution, boasted that he would drive
           Methodism out of Somersetshire, Wesley quietly
           remarked, “Yes, when he can drive God out of
           it.”--(Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 383.)

     [602] This letter is without date. Henry Moore says it was
           written about 1790. (Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 383.)

     [603] Atmore’s “History of Persecution,” p. 420.

     [604] The infirmary was built in 1781, on land partly
           given by the Duke of Newcastle, and partly by the
           corporation. During the first thirty years of its
           existence, it afforded assistance to 33,926 persons.

     [605] Its republication would enrich the pages of the
           _Methodist Magazine_ of the present day. One
           conjecture is, that, after the resurrection,
           “our eyes may unite in themselves the qualities
           of microscopes and telescopes, and accommodate
           themselves exactly to all distances.”




                                1788.
                               Age 85


Wesley had published, in the ten volumes of his _Arminian Magazine_
already issued, forty-two original sermons by himself; and he now
ascertained, that a clergyman, in the west of England, intended to
reprint them in a separate form. Wesley had been frequently solicited
to do this himself; but had as often answered, “I leave this for my
executors.” Now, to prevent piracy, he determined to be his own
republisher; and issued these invaluable discourses, with a few
others, in four volumes, 12mo; to which he prefixed a preface, from
which the following characteristic extract is taken.

  “Is there need to apologise to sensible persons for the
  plainness of my style? A gentleman, whom I much love and
  respect, lately informed me, with much tenderness and courtesy,
  that men of candour made great allowance for the decay of my
  faculties; and did not expect me to write now, either with
  regard to sentiment or language, as I did thirty or forty years
  ago. Perhaps they are decayed; though I am not conscious of it.
  But is not this a fit occasion to explain myself concerning the
  style which I use from choice, not necessity? I _could_ even
  now write as floridly and rhetorically as even the admired Dr.
  B----; but I dare not; because I seek the honour that cometh
  from God only. What is the praise of man to _me_, that have one
  foot in the grave, and am stepping into the land whence I shall
  not return? Therefore, I dare no more write in a _fine style_
  than wear a fine coat. But were it otherwise, had I time to
  spare, I should still write just as I do. I should purposely
  decline, what many admire, a highly ornamental style. I cannot
  admire French oratory; I despise it from my heart. Let those
  that please be in raptures at the pretty, elegant sentences of
  Massillon or Bourdaloue; but give me the plain nervous style of
  Dr. South, Dr. Bates, or Mr. John Howe; and, for elegance, show
  me any French writer who exceeds Dean Young, or Mr. Seed. Let
  who will admire the French frippery, I am still for plain sound
  English.

  “I think a preacher or writer of sermons has lost his way, when
  he imitates any of the French orators; even the most famous of
  them; even Massillon or Bourdaloue. Only let his language be
  plain, proper, and clear; and it is enough. God Himself has
  told us how to speak, both as to the matter and manner: ‘If any
  man speak’ in the name of God, ‘let him speak as the oracles of
  God’; and if he would imitate any part of these above the rest,
  let it be the First Epistle of St. John. This is the style, the
  most excellent style, for every gospel preacher. And let him
  aim at no more ornament than he finds in that sentence, which
  is the sum of the whole gospel, ‘We love Him, because He first
  loved us.’”


Wesley’s journal for the first two months of 1788 is lost; but
existing letters show, that the time was spent in London. The
following have not hitherto been published; and, though brief, refer
to two subjects of the highest interest,--Sunday-schools and cottage
prayer-meetings. The first was addressed to Duncan Wright, who was now
at Bolton; the second to William Simpson, at Stockton upon Tees.

                                      “LONDON, _January 9, 1788_.

  “DEAR DUNCAN,--You send me a comfortable account of the work of
  God in your circuit. I cannot doubt but a blessing redounds to
  you all for the sake of the poor children. I verily think,
  these Sunday-schools are one of the noblest specimens of
  charity, which have been set on foot in England since the time
  of William the Conqueror.

  “If Michael Fenwick has a mind to go to Dumfries and assist
  Robert Dall, you may give him three guineas, which he must
  husband well. He may write to me from thence.

  “I am, dear Duncan, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

                                     “LONDON, _January 18, 1788_.

  “DEAR BILLY,--You did exceeding well to enlarge the number of
  prayer-meetings, and to fix them in serious courts. I do not
  know that any means of grace whatever has been more owned of
  God than this.

  “It is not now, but at the time of conference, that children
  are received into Kingswood school.

  “I am glad sister Moor has not forgotten me. I hope sister
  Middleton also thinks of me sometimes. You are welcome to the
  four volumes of sermons.

  “I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Charles Wesley was now dying. Long, loving, and faithful had been the
friendship between the two brothers. Their opinions had often
differed; but their affection had never failed. Their most serious
difference had been on the subject of separation from the Church of
England, ordinations, and the administration of the sacraments; but,
even on these matters, Charles, while writing strongly, never wrote
unbrotherly. His last letter, in our possession, on these disputed
topics, is as follows.

                                                “_April 9, 1787._

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I served West Street chapel on Friday and
  Sunday. Next Saturday, I propose to sleep in your bed. Stand to
  your own proposal: ‘Let us agree to differ.’ I leave America
  and Scotland to your latest thoughts and recognitions; only
  observing now, that you are exactly right. Keep your authority
  while you live; and, after your death, _detur digniori_, or
  rather, _dignioribus_. You cannot settle the succession: you
  cannot divine how God will settle it. Have the people of ----
  given you leave to die, E. A. P. J.?[606]

                             “I am, etc.,
                                                “C. WESLEY.”[607]

It would almost seem from this, that Charles was disposed to abandon
his objections to the ordinations for America and Scotland; but, be
that as it may, we have here some of his last thoughts respecting the
Methodists. He evidently believed that, after his brother’s death,
they would exist as a separated people, and he wished them to be
governed by those of themselves who were worthiest.

Wesley loved his brother, and on February 18, 1788, addressed to him
the following laconic note.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--You must go out every day, or die. Do not die
  to save charges. You certainly need not want anything as long
  as I live.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[608]

Ten days after this, Wesley left London, for his long northern
journey, saying: “If I see it again, well; if not, I pray God to raise
up others, that will be more faithful and more successful in His work!
I find, by an increase of years, (1) Less activity; I walk slower,
particularly up hill: (2) My memory is not so quick: (3) I cannot read
so well by candlelight. But, I bless God, that all my other powers of
body and mind remain just what they were.”

A month later, Wesley’s brother had entered into rest. They had
parted, not to meet again till they met in heaven. Wesley, however,
thought that his brother might recover. Hence the following, written
on March 2.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--Many inquire after you, and express much
  affection, and desire of seeing you. In good time! You are
  first suffering the will of God. Afterwards, He has a little
  more for you to do: that is, provided you now take up your
  cross, (for that it frequently must be,) and go out, at least,
  an hour in a day. I would not blame you, if it were two or
  three. Never mind expense. I can make that up. You shall not
  die to save charges. Peace be with all your spirits!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[609]

Three days later he wrote again.

                                                “_March 5, 1788._

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I hope you keep to your rule, of going out
  every day, although it may sometimes be a cross. Keep to this
  but one month, and I am persuaded you will be as well as you
  were at this time twelve-month. Adieu!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[610]

Here, with one exception, epistolary correspondence between the two
brothers ceased. Charles was too feeble to continue it, and his
daughter became his substitute. In reply to one of her letters, Wesley
wrote as follows.

                                       “BRISTOL, _March 7, 1788_.

  “MY DEAR SALLY,--When my appetite was entirely gone, so that
  all I could take at dinner was a roasted turnip, it was
  restored in a few days, by riding out daily, after taking ten
  drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water. It is highly
  probable, this would have the same effect in my brother’s case.
  But, in the mean time, I wish he would see Dr. Whitehead. I am
  persuaded there is not such another physician in England;
  although, to confound human wisdom, he does not know how to
  cure his own wife.

  “He must lie in bed as little as possible in the daytime;
  otherwise it will hinder his sleeping at night.

  “Now, Sally, tell your brothers from me, that their tenderly
  respectful behaviour to their father, (even to asking his
  pardon, if in anything they have offended him,) will be the
  best cordial for him under heaven. I know not but they may save
  his life thereby. To know nothing will be wanting, on your
  part, gives great satisfaction to, my dear Sally,

  “Yours very affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[611]

To Samuel Bradburn, now stationed in London, Wesley addressed the
following hitherto unpublished letter.

                                      “BRISTOL, _March 13, 1788_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--With regard to my brother, I advise you: (1)
  Whether he will or no, (at least, if not done already,) carry
  Dr. Whitehead to him. (2) If he cannot go out, and yet must
  have exercise or die, persuade him to use ---- twice or thrice
  a day, and procure one for him. (3) I earnestly advise him to
  be electrified; not shocked, but only filled with electric
  fire. (4) Inquire if he has made his will, though I think it
  scarcely possible he should have delayed it.

  “The tunes, which brother Rhodes left with you, should be
  immediately printed in the cheap form. Kind love to Sophy.

  “I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

Four days later, Wesley wrote his last letter to his brother.

                                      “BRISTOL, _March 17, 1788_.

  “DEAR BROTHER,--I am just setting out on my northern journey,
  but must snatch time to write two or three lines. I stand and
  admire the wise and gracious dispensations of Divine
  providence! Never was there before so loud a call to all that
  are under your roof. If they have not hitherto sufficiently
  regarded either you, or the God of their fathers, what is more
  calculated to convince them, than to see you so long hovering
  upon the borders of the grave? And, I verily believe, if they
  receive the admonition, God will raise you up again. I know you
  have the sentence of death in yourself: so had I more than
  twelve years ago. I know nature is utterly exhausted: but is
  not nature subject to His word? I do not depend upon
  physicians, but upon Him that raiseth the dead. Only let your
  whole family stir themselves up, and be instant in prayer; then
  I have only to say to each, ‘If thou canst believe, thou shalt
  see the glory of God!’ Be strong in the Lord, and in the power
  of His might. Adieu!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[612]

Another letter must be inserted, written three days after the above,
to his niece, Miss Wesley.

                                    “WORCESTER, _March 20, 1788_.

  “MY DEAR SALLY,--Mr. Whitefield had, for a considerable time,
  thrown up all the food he took. I advised him to slit a large
  onion across the grain, and bind it warm on the pit of his
  stomach. He vomited no more. Pray apply this to my brother’s
  stomach, the next time he eats.

  “One in Yorkshire, who was dying for want of food, as she threw
  up all she took, was saved by the following means: Boil crusts
  of white bread to the consistence of a jelly; add a few drops
  of lemon juice, and a little loaf sugar; take a spoonful once
  or twice an hour. By all means, let him try this.

  “If neither of these avail, (which I think will not be the
  case,) remember the lady at Paris, who lived several weeks
  without swallowing a grain, by applying thin slices of beef to
  the stomach.

  “But, above all, let prayer be made continually; and, probably,
  he will be stronger after this illness than he has been these
  ten years. Is anything too hard for God? On Sunday I am to be
  at Birmingham; on Sunday sennight, at Madeley. My dear Sally,
  adieu!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[613]

Nine days after this, on March 29, Charles Wesley died. It is a
curious incident, that Wesley, at the time, was preaching in
Shropshire, and (as was afterwards ascertained) he and his
congregation, at the very moment of his brother’s exit, were singing:

              “Come let us join our friends above,
                 That have obtained the prize,
               And, on the eagle wings of love,
                 To joys celestial rise:
               Let all the saints terrestrial sing,
                 With those to glory gone;
               For all the servants of our King,
                 In earth and heaven, are one.

               One family we dwell in Him,
                 One church, above, beneath,
               Though now divided by the stream,
                 The narrow stream, of death:
               One army of the living God,
                 To His command we bow;
               Part of His host have crossed the flood,
                 And part are crossing _now_.”[614]

Samuel Bradburn, the assistant in the City Road circuit, immediately
dispatched a letter to Wesley, informing him of his brother’s death;
but, in consequence of its being misdirected, it failed to reach him
till April 4, the day before the burial. Wesley was at Macclesfield,
and to get to London in time for the funeral was impossible. Hence the
following letter to the bereaved widow.

                                  “MACCLESFIELD, _April 4, 1788_.

  “DEAR SISTER,--Half an hour ago, I received a letter from Mr.
  Bradburn, informing me of my brother’s death. For eleven or
  twelve days before, I had not one line concerning him. The last
  I had was from Charles, which I delayed to answer, expecting
  every day to receive some further information. We have only now
  to learn that great lesson, ‘The Lord gave, and the Lord hath
  taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!’ If it had been
  necessary, in order to serve either him or you, I should not
  have thought much of coming up to London. Indeed, to serve you,
  or your dear family, in anything that is in my power, will
  always be a pleasure to, dear sister, your affectionate friend
  and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[615]

Wesley had no disposition to tell the deep sorrows of his heart; but
that he severely felt the departure of his brother, there can be no
question. A fortnight afterwards, when at Bolton, he attempted to give
out, as his second hymn, the one beginning with the words, “Come, O
Thou Traveller unknown”; but when he came to the lines,--

              “My company before is gone,
               And I am left alone with Thee,”--

the bereaved old man sunk beneath emotion which was uncontrollable,
burst into a flood of tears, sat down in the pulpit, and hid his face
with his hands. The crowded congregation well knew the cause of his
speechless excitement; singing ceased; and the chapel became a Bochim.
At length, Wesley recovered himself, rose again, and went through a
service which was never forgotten by those who were present at
it.[616]

Wesley intended to write his brother’s life, and began to collect
materials for it; but his other engagements were too numerous to admit
of the fulfilment of his purpose. The following is the obituary
published in the conference minutes.

  “Mr. CHARLES WESLEY, who, after spending fourscore years with
  much sorrow and pain, quietly retired into Abraham’s bosom. He
  had no disease; but, after a gradual decay of some months,

           ‘The weary wheels of life stood still at last.’

  His least praise was his talent for poetry; although Dr. Watts
  did not scruple to say, that that single poem, ‘Wrestling
  Jacob,’ was worth all the verses he himself had written.”

This is not the place, nor indeed have we room for it, to write a
critique on the life and character of this remarkable man. It would be
easy to give the opinions of those who knew him,--Whitehead, Moore,
Coke, Bradburn, Clarke, and Pawson,--some in favour, and others to the
contrary. Suffice it to say, that, had he done nothing more than
furnish the Methodists, and the church of Christ generally, with his
incomparable hymns, in which so many millions have devoutly worshipped
the God of heaven, he would have rendered service to the cause of
truth and piety which no language can adequately describe. His “hymns,
and psalms, and spiritual songs,” for a hundred and thirty years, have
been the metrical liturgy of the people called Methodists, and to them
countless multitudes have been indebted for not a few of their richest
blessings.

True to his high church principles, Charles Wesley, instead of
selecting the burial ground of his brother’s chapel in City Road,
desired to be interred in the consecrated churchyard of St.
Marylebone. This, to Wesley, was a painful disappointment. “It is a
pity,” said he, in a letter to the Rev. Peard Dickenson, “but the
remains of my brother had been deposited with mine. Certainly that
ground is holy as any in England; and it contains a large quantity of
‘bonny dead.’”[617] So deeply did he feel this, that, seven weeks
after his brother’s funeral, he wrote an article, at Dumfries, on the
consecration of churches and burial grounds, which he published in his
magazine; and in which, after showing, that there is no law of
England, or of the English Church, enjoining such a practice, he
remarks:

  “Neither is it enjoined by the law of God. Where do we find one
  word, in the New Testament, enjoining any such thing? Neither
  do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the
  church. It seems to have entered, and gradually spread itself,
  with the other innovations and superstitions of the Church of
  Rome. For this reason, I never wished that any bishop should
  consecrate any chapel or burial ground of mine. Indeed, I
  should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded the
  thing is wrong in itself, being not authorised either by any
  law of God, or by any law of the land. In consequence of which,
  I conceive, that either the clerk or the sexton may as well
  consecrate the church, or the churchyard, as the bishop. With
  regard to the latter, I know not who could answer that plain
  question: You say, ‘This is _consecrated ground_, so many feet
  _broad_, and so many _long_’; but pray how _deep_ is it? ‘Deep!
  what does that signify?’ Oh, a great deal! for if my grave be
  dug too _deep_, I may happen to get out of the _consecrated
  ground_! And who can tell, what unhappy consequences may follow
  from this! I take the whole of this practice to be a mere relic
  of Romish superstition. And I wonder, that any sensible
  protestant should think it right to countenance it; much more
  that any reasonable man should plead for the necessity of it!
  Surely it is high time now, that we should be guided, not by
  custom, but by Scripture and reason.”[618]

This was a heavy blow at his brother’s prejudice. Wesley himself
resolved to be buried in the ground connected with the chapel in the
City Road, and he wished his brother to be buried with him. To this
Charles objected, because the ground had not been _consecrated by a
bishop_! The objection was foolish; and the burial, in another place,
occasioned considerable gossip. John Pawson, in a letter dated April
28, 1788, remarks: “Charles Wesley would not be buried at the new
chapel, because it was not consecrated; nor by any of our ministers,
but by one of his own choosing. He sent for the parson of the parish
where he lived, and said: ‘Sir, whatever the world may have thought of
me, I have lived, and I die, in the communion of the Church of
England, and I will be buried in the yard of my parish church.’”[619]
Wesley well knew that remarks like these were current; and he owed it
to his people to publish his thoughts on a subject, which, however
insignificant in itself, was not unlikely to be a gossiping gangrene
in his societies.

Wesley’s affection for his brother was evinced in the continued
kindness exercised towards his brother’s family. According to his own
account book, he gave to them, in this the year of their bereavement,
at least, two hundred guineas. He also assured his brother’s widow
that, as long as he lived, he would help her to the utmost of his
power. The two following letters may fitly draw the curtain on Charles
Wesley’s death and burial.

                                                “_July 25, 1788._

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--You know well what a regard I had for Miss
  Gwynne, before she was Mrs. Wesley. And it has not ceased from
  that time till now. I am persuaded it never will. Therefore, I
  will speak without reserve just what comes into my mind. I have
  sometimes thought you are a little like me. My wife used to
  tell me, ‘My dear, you are too generous. You don’t know the
  value of money.’ I could not wholly deny the charge. Possibly,
  you may sometimes lean to the same extreme. I know you are of a
  generous spirit. You have an open heart, and an open hand. But
  may it not sometimes be too open, more so than your
  circumstances will allow? Is it not an instance of Christian,
  as well as worldly, prudence, to cut our coat according to our
  cloth? If your circumstances are a little narrower, should you
  not contract your expenses too? I need but just give you this
  hint, which I doubt not you will take kindly from, my dear
  Sally,

  “Your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[620]

                                            “_December 21, 1788._

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--It is undoubtedly true, that some silly
  people, (whether in the society or not I cannot tell,) have
  frequently talked in that manner, both of my brother and me.
  They have said, that we were well paid for our labours. And,
  indeed, so we were, but not by man. Yet, this is no more than
  we were to expect, especially from busybodies in other men’s
  matters. And it is no more possible to restrain their tongues,
  than it is to bind up the wind. But it is sufficient for us,
  that our own conscience condemned us not; and that our record
  is with the Most High.

  “What has concerned me more than this idle slander is a trial
  of another kind. I supposed, when John Atlay left me, that he
  had left me one or two hundred pounds beforehand. On the
  contrary, I am one or two hundred pounds behindhand, and shall
  not recover myself till after Christmas. Some of the first
  moneys I receive, I shall set apart for you; and in everything
  that is in my power, you may depend upon the willing assistance
  of,

  “Dear Sally, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[621]

We must now return to Wesley’s journal. On the last day in February,
he left London, for Bath and Bristol. The mayor of Bristol invited him
to preach in the civic church, which invitation he accepted. His
worship and most of the aldermen were present; and Wesley, fearing no
man’s frown, and courting no man’s favour, took for his text the
fearful narrative of the rich man and Lazarus; and then dined, with
the rich men, at the rich man’s table, in the mansion house. The most
remarkable incident, however, occurred in his own chapel on Thursday
evening, the 6th of March. At that time, one of the great questions of
the day was the subject of slavery; and Wesley had announced his
intention to preach on it. The chapel, in consequence, was densely
crowded, with both rich and poor. Wesley selected as his text, “God
shall enlarge Japheth: and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and
Canaan shall be his servant.” The rest we give in the words of Wesley
himself. He writes:

  “About the middle of the discourse, while there was on every
  side attention still as night, a vehement noise arose, none
  could tell why, and shot like lightning through the
  congregation. The terror and confusion were inexpressible. You
  might have imagined it was a city taken by storm. The people
  rushed upon each other with the utmost violence; the benches
  were broken in pieces; and nine tenths of the congregation
  appeared to be struck with the same panic. In about six
  minutes, the storm ceased, almost as suddenly as it rose; and,
  all being calm, I went on without the least interruption. It
  was the strangest incident of the kind I ever remember; and, I
  believe, none can account for it, without supposing some
  præternatural influence. Satan fought, lest his kingdom should
  be delivered up. We set the next day apart as a day of fasting
  and prayer, that God would remember those poor outcasts of
  men,” [the slaves,] “and make a way for them to escape, and
  break their chains asunder.”

The sceptic will sneer at Wesley’s solution; but, before he does so,
he ought himself to supply a better. Opinions respecting this
mysterious commotion will be different; but all parties will unite in
admiring Wesley’s sympathy with the suffering slave. Wesley was the
first Englishman who appointed a fast day to pray that slavery might
cease.

On the 17th of March, Wesley set out on his journey to the north.
Everywhere he had enormous congregations; and frequently was obliged,
in wintry weather, to preach in the open air. Mrs. Fletcher, at
Madeley, wrote: “I could not but discern a great change in him. His
soul seems far more sunk into God, and such an unction attends his
word, that each sermon was indeed spirit and life.”[622]

Exactly eight weeks were occupied in reaching the Scottish border;
and, during this interval, Wesley preached more than eighty sermons,
in fifty-seven different towns and villages. In seven instances, all
in Yorkshire, he preached in churches. The crowds were greater than
ever; and, almost in every place he visited, he found the work of God
progressing.

On the 13th of May, Wesley visited Dumfries, where he had stationed
Robert Dall, at the conference of 1787. Dumfries was without a chapel,
and without a society; but Mr. Dall had just the sort of energy which
such a place required; and Wesley knew it. The following letters to
his home missionary have not before been published.

                                     “LONDON, _December 1, 1787_.

  “DEAR ROBERT,--You have reason to praise God, who has prospered
  you, and given you to see the fruit of your labours. Our all
  dispensing God has called us to preach the plain gospel. I am
  glad your hands are strengthened in corresponding with the
  brethren. I will desire any to change with you when you see it
  best, and, if I live till spring, please God, I will visit you
  at Dumfries.

  “I am, with love to sister Dall, your affectionate friend and
  brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

                                    “LONDON, _February 11, 1788_.

  “DEAR ROBERT,--I allow you to build at Dumfries, providing any
  one will lend a hundred guineas on interest

  “I hope to see you, God willing, in May,

                             “I am, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Robert Dall was one of Wesley’s favourites, and so was his Christian
wife, to whom, said Wesley, in another unpublished letter now before
us, “God has given both sense and grace.” This godly couple set all
their energies to work; and, by begging of their friends in all parts
of the United Kingdom, succeeded, in three months, in building the
unique chapel which Wesley describes below. The effort was regarded as
gigantic; and Wesley’s visit was a sort of triumphant top stone to the
whole affair. “Such,” writes Mrs. Gordon Playdell to Mr. Dall, “such
was the general prejudice against Mr. Wesley, that I really feared his
coming would end your hopeful prosperity; but God has disappointed all
my fears, and outdone all my hopes. The popularity, which met him
here, was marvellous. The turn in his favour was such as none but God
could have brought about. You have been all along respected, and the
esteem for you grows more and more. Your pious, unwearied attentions
to the poor criminals have increased the general regard for you, and
your sermons in the jail been much approved.”[623] “Mr. Wesley,” wrote
Charles Atmore, “was much pleased with Dumfries and you. He has given
you a place in his journal, and what you have done at Dumfries will be
a memorial of you to all generations.”

We could quote a large number of other letters relative to the same
subject; but the above is a sufficient preface to the following racy
extract from Wesley’s journal.

  “May 13--To-day, we went through lovely roads to Dumfries.
  Robert Dall soon found me out. He has behaved exceeding well,
  and done much good here: but he is a bold man; he has begun
  building a preaching house, larger than any in Scotland, except
  those in Glasgow and Edinburgh! In the evening, I preached
  abroad in a convenient street, on one side of the town. Rich
  and poor attended from every quarter, of whatever denomination;
  and every one seemed to hear for life. Surely the Scots are the
  best hearers in Europe! At five, next morning, I was importuned
  to preach in the preaching house; but such an one I never saw
  before. It had no windows at all: so that, although the sun
  shone bright, we could see nothing without candles.”

Wesley’s next halting place was Glasgow. It had been widely reported,
by some of the Scottish ministers, that he was about to publish a new
edition of the Bible, and to leave out part of the Epistle to the
Romans, St. John’s Apocalypse, and other portions of the inspired
writings;[624] but, notwithstanding this, says Charles Atmore, in the
letter before quoted, “he was far better received in Glasgow than
ever.”

Here he spent three days; preached six sermons; gave an account
concerning the rise and progress of Methodism; and ordained John
Barber.[625]

Speaking of the Glasgow chapel, Wesley writes: “It will contain about
as many as the chapel at Bath. But oh the difference! It has the
pulpit on one side; and has exactly the look of a presbyterian
meeting-house. It is the very sister of our house at Brentford.
Perhaps an omen of what will be when I am gone.”

In his address on Methodism, which was delivered to the congregation,
he remarked:

  “There is no other religious society under heaven, which
  requires nothing of men in order to their admission into it,
  but a desire to save their souls. Look all around you, you
  cannot be admitted into the church, or society of the
  presbyterians, anabaptists, quakers, or any others, unless you
  hold the same opinions with them, and adhere to the same mode
  of worship. The Methodists alone do not insist on your holding
  this or that opinion; but they think and let think. Neither do
  they impose any particular mode of worship; but you may
  continue to worship in your former manner, be it what it may.
  Now, I do not know any other religious society, either ancient
  or modern, wherein such liberty of conscience is now allowed,
  or has been allowed, since the age of the apostles. Here is our
  glorying; and a glorying peculiar to us. What society shares it
  with us?”

From Glasgow, Wesley went to Edinburgh, where he wrote: “I still find
a frankness and openness in the people of Edinburgh, which I find in
few other parts of the kingdom. I spent two days among them with much
satisfaction; and I was not at all disappointed, in finding no such
increase, either in the congregation or the society, as many expected
from their leaving the kirk.”

Wesley here recognises the Edinburgh Methodists as a _separated_
people, in other words, a _church_; but adroitly intimates, that the
result was not equal to what many of his friends had ventured to
expect. How stands the case? In 1766, when the numbers were first
given, Edinburgh circuit had 165 members of society, who, in the next
four years, dwindled to 62. Then the circuit rallied, and, in four
years more, the numbers rose to 287. In the next quadrennial period,
we find them reduced to 161. In 1785, when the ordinations for
Scotland took place, Edinburgh had 134 Methodists; now, in 1788, it
had 330; which, however, at Wesley’s death in 1791, were reduced to
205. These are curious statistics; and help to cast light on Wesley’s
meaning.

On May 25, Wesley reached Newcastle, which, for the next fortnight,
was the centre of his labours. Two incidents, in connection with this
visit, are worth recording.

Three years before, John Hampson, jun., greatly offended, had
relinquished the itinerancy, and was now a clergyman at Sunderland.
Strangely enough, Hampson invited Wesley to occupy his pulpit, and
Wesley willingly accepted the invitation. The church was crowded both
morning and afternoon.

The other incident occurred at Stanhope, famed “for nothing but a very
uncommon degree of wickedness.” The preaching place was an upper room,
and the congregation large. Presently, the main beam, that supported
the room, gave way, and a frightful hubbub followed. “One man,” says
Wesley, “leaped out of the window; the rest quietly went out; and
nothing was hurt except a poor dog beneath the window. I then preached
in the open air, to twice or thrice as many as the room would have
contained, who were all attention.” This, which might have been a
serious catastrophe, happened at five o’clock on a summer’s morning.

On the 9th of June, Wesley left Newcastle for the south. Reaching
Darlington, he writes:

  “Margaret Barlow came to me; and I asked her abundance of
  questions. I was soon convinced, that she was not only sincere,
  but deep in grace; and, therefore, incapable of deceit. I was
  convinced likewise, that she had frequent intercourse with a
  spirit that appeared to her in the form of an angel. I know not
  how to judge of the rest. Her account was:--‘For above a year,
  I have seen this angel, whose face is exceeding beautiful: her
  raiment white as snow, and glistering like silver; her voice
  unspeakably soft and musical. She tells me many things before
  they come to pass. She foretold I should be ill at such a time,
  in such a manner, and well at such an hour; and it was so
  exactly. She has said, such a person shall die at such a time;
  and he did so. Above two months ago, she told me your brother
  was dead; (I did not know you had a brother;) and that he was
  in heaven. And some time since, she told me, you will die in
  less than a year. But what she has most earnestly and
  frequently told me, is, that God will, in a short time, be
  avenged on obstinate sinners, and will destroy them with fire
  from heaven.’”

Wesley adds:

  “Whether this will be so or no, I cannot tell; but when we were
  alone there was a wonderful power in her words; and, as the
  Indian said to David Brainerd, ‘They did good to my heart.’ It
  is above a year since this girl was visited in this manner,
  being then between fourteen and fifteen years old. But she was
  then quite a womanish girl, and of unblamable behaviour.
  Suppose that which appeared to her was really an angel; yet
  from the face, the voice, and the apparel, she might easily
  mistake him for a female; and this mistake is of little
  consequence. Much good has already resulted from this odd
  event; and is likely to ensue; provided those who believe, and
  those who disbelieve, her report, have but patience with each
  other.”

Marvellous! Who was Margaret Barlow? The answer involves an episode in
Methodistic history.

In the conference minutes for 1778, John Blades is reported as one of
Wesley’s itinerant preachers on trial; but, beyond this, he is never
mentioned. Blades was a native of Northumberland, a weakminded
fanatic, totally unfit for the itinerant work. Perhaps, for this
reason, he was not appointed to a circuit. For some years, however, he
acted, in the capacity of a local preacher, in the north of England.
He then began to preach consummate nonsense respecting the privileges
of believers, and, with such success that, when he left the Methodists
in 1784, he was enabled to form separate societies in a large number
of places in the county of Durham, and in the north of Yorkshire.
Among his followers, who were called _Bladonians_,[626] was Ralph
Hodgson, a miller at West Auckland, in whose house Margaret Barlow was
a servant. We have before us a long unpublished letter, written by
this dusty enthusiast, only a fortnight before Wesley’s interview with
his servant girl at Darlington. It is addressed to “Mr. Richard Steel,
Tanner, Wolsingham. With all possible speed”: and is dated, May 27,
1788. Hodgson tells his friend Steel that an angel from the Lord had
appeared to him, and stated that the “wicked were about to be
destroyed from off the face of the earth.” He also urges Steel to join
with him in making this angelic revelation as widely known as
possible.

It is a curious fact that Hodgson waited upon Wesley at Newcastle, for
the purpose of converting him to his opinions; and that he accompanied
his clairvoyant servant, Margaret Barlow, to meet Wesley at the house
of Thomas Pickering, at Darlington. He also wrote a long letter, dated
“West Auckland, October 26, 1788,” to the Rev. Mr. Agutter, St. Mary
Magdalen college, Oxford, in which he informed that gentleman that
Margaret Barlow had been his servant about two years; that she had
attended the services of the Methodists; that an angel had appeared to
her in the form of a female, and with a lustre brighter than the light
of a thousand candles; that the angel had come to her in the daytime
as well as night; and had made known to her the state of many who were
dead, as well as many who were still alive; but that the principal
matter, which the angel had revealed, was the exact day when the
wicked would be destroyed. Margaret also had been much disturbed by
the appearance of two evil spirits, both clad in black, and wearing
horns; but the recital of her visions had produced effects great and
blessed.

What was the result of all this religious raving? Margaret, at length,
announced the exact day when the destruction of the wicked was to be
accomplished. Intense excitement followed. Some sold their clothing
and property, and distributed the proceeds among the poor; and others
exulted at the thought of the possessions of the wicked being
distributed among themselves. The day came, numbers having sat up all
night to watch its dawning. Portentous signs appeared. The heavens
gathered blackness, lightnings flashed, and thunders roared. At
Barnardcastle it was the day of the weekly market. The people were
frantic, some with hope, and some with fear. Cries were heard, “It is
coming! It is coming!” The business of the market was suspended; and
consternation was general. At length, the clouds were scattered, the
heavens brightened, the day passed over, and all things continued as
they were. The bubble burst; Blades, Hodgson, his wife, and Margaret
Barlow were discredited, and fled across the Atlantic; where most, if
not all of them, joined the shakers, whose principles and morals, to
say the least, were capable of great improvement.

The reader will excuse this lengthened digression concerning a mad
miller and his servant maid. We have purposely omitted the numerous
stories, of a similar description, which Wesley has inserted in his
journal and magazine; but one instance seemed necessary, to illustrate
what was unquestionably a feature in Wesley’s character,--excessive
credulity in receiving doubtful proofs of the existence and nearness
of an unseen world of spirits. We are not inclined to say hard things
concerning this. It was a weakness, but not a sin. Besides, though
some of the stories, referred to, were ridiculously foolish, it would
be rashness to deny that some of the others were strictly and
startlingly true. And further, we honestly declare that, in an age
like this, when the general tendency is to scepticism rather than to
credulity, we should hail, as no bad omen, the appearance of a
disposition, like that of Wesley, to cherish, not denounce, any and
every evidence of another and future state of being.

On leaving Darlington, Wesley proceeded to Whitby, where he was
advertised to open a new chapel; but, as often happens now, when the
day arrived, the building was far from being ready. For want of
stairs, the people had to be admitted to the gallery through one of
the back windows near the pulpit; and, for want of a gallery front, a
number of stalwart Yorkshiremen squatted themselves all round the
gallery ledge, their backs protecting the people behind them, and
their feet dangling over the heads of those below.[627] Wesley writes:

  “June 13, Friday.--At eight, I preached to a lovely
  congregation at Stokesley; and, at eleven, in Guisborough, to
  one far larger. In the evening, I preached at Whitby, in the
  new house, thoroughly filled above and below. The unfinished
  galleries, having as yet no fronts, were frightful to look
  upon. It is the most curious house we have in England. You go
  up to it by about forty steps; and have then before you a lofty
  front, I judge, near fifty feet high, and fifty-four feet
  broad.”

Wesley spent the next two days in Whitby, preaching twice on Saturday,
and thrice on Sunday, and finishing up with a Yorkshire lovefeast.

From the “_plain people at Whitby_,” Wesley went to the Scarborough
_elegants_; and thence to Bridlington, Malton, Beverley, and Hull. In
the last mentioned town, Joseph Benson and the Methodists had recently
erected George Yard chapel, an edifice of which Benson was immensely
proud, and whose account of its opening services, six months before,
drew from Wesley the following laconic letter.

  “DEAR JOSEPH,--I greatly rejoice in the erection of your new
  preaching house; and in the tokens of the Divine presence with
  which you and the people were favoured at the opening; but if
  it be at all equal to the new chapel in London, I will engage
  to eat it.

  “I am, yours affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[628]

Wesley’s new chapel in City Road was his _beau ideal_, and great was
his jealousy of all pretentious competitors; but still he was obliged
to acknowledge, that even George Yard chapel, Hull, was “well built,
and elegantly finished; handsome, but not gaudy.”

During his stay in Hull, he preached twice in the high church, by the
invitation of the vicar, Mr. Clark; and thrice in Benson’s pet chapel.

Notwithstanding his three heavy services on the previous day, Wesley,
an old man, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, set out on June 23,
and not only travelled all the way from Hull to York, but, preached
four sermons in four different towns and villages.

At York a happy reconciliation was brought about. Wesley had been
greatly annoyed with Robert Spence for publishing the “York Hymn
Book”; and Robert had been so grieved by Wesley’s strictures as to be
strongly tempted to leave the Methodists. Wesley and the grand old
Methodist at York, however, were not the men to harbour malice; and,
by appointment, the offending bookseller breakfasted with Wesley, _at
three o’clock_ in the morning, and all past differences were consigned
to the shades of charitable oblivion.[629]

A three o’clock breakfast! And yet, this, with Wesley, was not at all
unusual. His energy, diligence, and punctuality were marvellous.
Addressing his coachman, at this early breakfast in the city of York,
he said, “Have the carriage at the door at four. I do not mean a
quarter or five minutes past, but four.” The man knew what his master
meant; and, as the minster clock struck four, Wesley had shaken hands
with Robert Spence, and was entering his chaise.[630] Railways, since
then, have helped to make some men punctual; but Wesley was perfect in
this human excellence long before railway engines began to whistle.

Wesley made his way to Epworth, where he spent his birthday. He
writes:

  “June 28.--I this day enter on my eighty-fifth year[631]: and
  what cause have I to praise God, as for a thousand spiritual
  blessings, so, for bodily blessings also! How little have I
  suffered yet by ‘the rush of numerous years!’ It is true, I am
  not so agile as I was in times past. I do not run or walk so
  fast as I did; my sight is a little decayed; my left eye is
  grown dim, and hardly serves me to read; I have daily some pain
  in the ball of my right eye, as also in my right temple,
  (occasioned by a blow received some months since,) and in my
  right shoulder and arm, which I impute partly to a sprain, and
  partly to the rheumatism. I find, likewise, some decay in my
  memory, with regard to names and things lately past; but not at
  all with regard to what I have read or heard twenty, forty, or
  sixty years ago; neither do I find any decay in my hearing,
  smell, taste, or appetite; (though I want but a third part of
  the food I did once;) nor do I feel any such thing as
  weariness, either in travelling or preaching; and I am not
  conscious of any decay in writing sermons; which I do as
  readily, and I believe, as correctly, as ever.

  “To what cause can I impute this, that I am as I am? First,
  doubtless, to the power of God, fitting me for the work to
  which I am called, as long as He pleases to continue me
  therein; and, next, subordinately to this, to the prayers of
  His children.

  “May we not impute it, as inferior means, (1) To my constant
  exercise and change of air? (2) To my never having lost a
  night’s sleep, sick or well, at land or at sea, since I was
  born? (3) To my having sleep at command; so that, whenever I
  feel myself almost worn out, I call it, and it comes, day or
  night? (4) To my having constantly, for above sixty years,
  risen at four in the morning? (5) To my constant preaching at
  five in the morning, for above fifty years? (6) To my having
  had so little pain in my life; and so little sorrow, or anxious
  care?

  “Even now, though I find pain daily in my eye, or temple, or
  arm; yet it is never violent, and seldom lasts many minutes at
  a time. Whether or not this is sent to give me warning, that I
  am shortly to quit this tabernacle, I do not know; but be it
  one way or the other, I have only to say,

                    ‘My remnant of days
                     I spend to His praise,
                 Who died the whole world to redeem:
                     Be they many or few,
                     My days are His due,
                 And they all are devoted to Him.’”

Wesley’s two texts on this memorable birthday were appropriate. Here,
eighty-five years before, he had been born, in the Epworth parsonage;
and now, in the morning, he preached from, “So teach us to number our
days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”; and, in the evening,
from, “Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of
in the prophets; behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; for I
work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe,
though a man declare it unto you.”

This may be a fitting place to insert a selection from Wesley’s
letters, written in the previous six months.

The first was addressed to William Black, one of his missionaries in
Nova Scotia. Black had related to Wesley the cases of certain
demoniacs, and particularly one which he himself had seen. When Black
approached, it was with the utmost difficulty that four men could hold
the poor wretch, and prevent him doing the missionary serious injury.
Black immediately fell upon his knees, and began to pray. In an
instant, the frenzy of the man subsided; and the lips, that a few
moments before had uttered blasphemy, began to syllable the praises of
the great Redeemer. Wesley’s letter is as follows.

                                   “GLOUCESTER, _March 19, 1788_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad to find you are still going on in
  the glorious work to which you are called. We have need to make
  haste therein; to use all diligence. For the work is great; the
  day is short; and lonely is the night wherein no man can work.

  “It is well that Satan is constrained to show himself so
  plainly in the case of those poor demoniacs. Thereby, he
  weakens his own kingdom, and excites us to assault him more
  zealously. In the beginning of the work in England and Ireland,
  we had many cases of the kind. But he now chooses to assault us
  by subtlety more than by strength.

  “I wish you would do all you possibly can to keep our brethren
  in peace with each other. Your pains will not be lost on poor
  John McGeary. There is much good in him. Indeed, he is
  naturally of a bold, forward temper; but I hope his zeal is now
  according to knowledge.

  “Praying that you may increase with all the increase of God, I
  am your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[632]

The next is brief, but interesting. Agnes Collinson was now a
remarkable child, twelve years old. Six years afterwards, she became
the wife of Mr. Joseph Bulmer; and lived to be the authoress of
“Messiah’s Kingdom,” in twelve books, 486 pages, and of the beautiful
hymn, which is so often sung at the laying of the foundation stones of
Methodist chapels, “Thou who hast in Zion laid,” etc.

Mrs. Bulmer was born a poet, and, at the death of Charles Wesley,
wrote an elegy, which was sent to the surviving brother, and evoked
the following characteristic letter.

  “MY DEAR MAIDEN,--Beware of pride; beware of flattery; suffer
  none to commend you to your face; remember, one good temper is
  of more value, in the sight of God, than a thousand good
  verses. All you want is to have the mind that was in Christ,
  and to walk as Christ walked.

                             “I am, etc.,
                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[633]

The following is now for the first time published. William Simpson, to
whom it was addressed, was assistant in the Yarm circuit.

                                   “NEAR COLNE, _April 26, 1788_.

  “DEAR BILLY,--You did well to expel those who marry ungodly
  persons,--a real evil, which we never can tolerate. You should
  speak to every believer singly concerning meeting in band.
  There were always some in Yarm circuit, though not many. No
  circuit ever did, or ever will flourish, unless there are bands
  in the large societies. It is a good sign, that so many of our
  preachers are willing to contribute to those necessary
  expenses. They used to be much straitened in their bowels,
  whenever money was wanted. You have now good encouragement to
  remain another year in the circuit. But you know two preachers
  do not remain in the same circuit more than one year.

  “I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Dr. Coke was an innovator. Finding that many of the Dublin Methodists
were in the habit of attending Dissenting chapels on the sabbath, he,
in order to prevent this, directed that, on three Sundays out of four,
there should be service in Whitefriar Street chapel in church hours;
and that, on the fourth, the Methodists should be recommended to
attend St. Patrick’s church, and receive the sacrament.[634] Henry
Moore was the assistant in the Dublin circuit; was nearly as old a man
as Coke; and, as a preacher, his superior. Coke’s assumption to act as
Wesley’s vicar gave great offence, and the new arrangement had to be
abandoned.[635] The following letters refer to this Dublin fracas, and
are not without interest, as evincing Wesley’s persistent adherence to
the Established Church. The first three were addressed to Moore; the
fourth to Coke.

                                           “LEEDS, _May 6, 1788_.

  “DEAR HENRY,--The doctor is too warm. He ought to have had more
  regard to so respectable a body of men as applied to him. I am
  a Church of England man; and, as I said fifty years ago, so I
  say still, in the Church I will live and die, unless I am
  thrust out. We must have no more service at Whitefriars in the
  church hours. Leave all contention before it be meddled with.
  Follow after peace.

                             “I am, etc.,
                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[636]

                                     “WHITEHAVEN, _May 11, 1788_.

  “DEAR HENRY,--Still, the more I reflect, the more I am
  convinced, that the Methodists ought not to leave the Church. I
  judge, that to lose a thousand, yea, ten thousand, of our
  people, would be a less evil than this. ‘But many had much
  comfort in this.’ So they would in any _new thing_. I believe
  Satan himself would give them comfort herein; for he knows what
  the end would be. Our glory has hitherto been not to be a
  separate body:

                         ‘Hoc Ithacus velit.’

  “But whatever Mr. Smyth does, I am for the old way. I advise
  you to abide in it, till you find another _new event_,
  although, indeed, you may expect it every day; namely, the
  removal of your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[637]

                                        “GLASGOW, _May 12, 1788_.

  “DEAR HENRY,--I allow two points: 1. That, while Dr. Coke is in
  Dublin, he may have service at eleven o’clock as before. 2.
  That, on condition that our brethren will attend St. Patrick’s
  one Sunday in four, you may read prayers the other three in the
  room. When Dr. Coke returns from Dublin, he should immediately
  send me word who is proper to succeed you there. I shall be
  glad, if I can, to have Nancy and you at Bristol next year. It
  is not unlikely, I may finish my course there; and, if so, I
  should love to have her to close my eyes. My brother said, I
  should follow him within the year. But, be that as it may, by
  God’s help, I will live to-day.

                             “I am, etc.,
                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[638]

                                        “GLASGOW, _May 16, 1788_.

  “DEAR SIR,--I came hither this morning. There is a fair opening
  at Dumfries, and a prospect of much good. I like your proposal
  concerning Joseph Cownley,[639] and will talk with him about it
  if I live to see Newcastle.

  “As I said before, so I say still, I cannot, I dare not, leave
  the Church, for the reasons we all agreed to thirty years ago
  in the conference at Leeds. Thus far only I could go. On
  condition, that our people would receive the Lord’s supper once
  a month either at St. Patrick’s, or their own parish church
  (the reasonableness of which should be strongly and largely
  explained),--on this condition, I would allow Henry Moore to
  read the morning service at Whitefriars on the other Sundays.

  “I wonder at the imprudence of Mr. Edward Smyth, to say nothing
  of his unkindness. You did well in changing the stewards at
  Waterford.

  “I am, dear sir, yours most affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[640]

The following, hitherto unpublished, letter was addressed to Thomas
Taylor, then stationed at Manchester, and refers to a gigantic evil
which still exists.

                                 “NEAR NEWCASTLE, _June 7, 1788_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--I have no time to spend on controversy about the
  Church, unless I had leisure to write a folio.

  “It is no wonder, that every one should be ruined who concerns
  himself with that execrable bill trade. In London, I expel
  every one out of our society who has anything to do with it.
  Whoever endorses a bill, (that is, promises to pay,) for more
  than he is worth, is either a fool or a knave.

  “I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

When Wesley was at Bradford, in the month of May, he preached in the
parish church, and, in the course of his sermon, quoted the opinion of
Bengelius, that the millennial reign of Christ would begin in the year
1836. Some one present circulated this as the opinion of Wesley
himself; and, as the opinion of such a man was regarded of high
importance, the rumoured prophecy ran throughout the kingdom, and more
than one of Wesley’s friends wrote to ask if what was said was true.
The following is Wesley’s reply to Christopher Hopper.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I said nothing, less or more, in Bradford
  church, concerning the end of the world, neither concerning my
  own opinion, but what follows:--That Bengelius had given it as
  his opinion, not that the world would then end, but, that the
  millennial reign of Christ would begin in the year 1836. I have
  no opinion at all upon the head; I can determine nothing about
  it. These calculations are far above, out of my sight. I have
  only one thing to do,--to save my soul, and those that hear me.

  “I am, yours affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[641]

We left Wesley celebrating his eighty-sixth birthday, in his
birthplace, Epworth. Here he preached four or five sermons, held a
lovefeast, and attended sacred service in his father’s church. He
writes:

  “Mr. Gibson read the prayers with seriousness, and preached a
  plain, useful sermon; but I was sorry to see scarce twenty
  communicants, half of whom came on my account. I was informed,
  likewise, that scarce fifty persons used to attend the Sunday
  service. What can be done to remedy this sore evil? I fain
  would prevent the members here from leaving the Church; but I
  cannot do it. As Mr. Gibson is not a pious man, but rather an
  enemy to piety, who frequently preaches against the truth, and
  those that hold and love it, I cannot, with all my influence,
  persuade them either to hear him, or to attend the sacrament
  administered by him. If I cannot carry this point even while I
  live, who then can do it when I die? And the case of Epworth is
  the case of every church, where the minister neither loves nor
  preaches the gospel; the Methodists will not attend his
  administrations. What then is to be done?”

This is amusing. Here we find Wesley acknowledging, that, in the very
place where his father had been rector for nearly forty years, the
Methodists had, _ipso facto_, separated from the Church, and that he,
with all his influence, had not sufficient power to hinder it.

During the next fortnight, Wesley preached, on an average, twice a
day, until his arrival in London, on July 15. The following letters
belong to this period. The first was addressed to Mr. John Mann, one
of his missionaries in Nova Scotia.

                                                “_June 30, 1788._

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am greatly concerned for the prosperity of
  the work of God in Nova Scotia. It seems some way to lie nearer
  my heart than even that in the United States; many of our
  brethren there are, we may hope, strong in the Lord, and in the
  power of His might; but I look upon those in the northern
  provinces to be younger, and tender children, and consequently
  to stand in need of our utmost care. I hope all of you, that
  watch over them, are exactly of one mind, and of one judgment;
  that you take care always to speak the same things, and to
  watch over one another in love.

  “Mr. Wray is a workman that need not be ashamed. I am glad to
  hear of his safe arrival. Although he has not much
  learning,[642] he has, what is far better, uprightness of
  heart, and devotedness to God. I doubt not but he and you will
  be one, and go on your way hand in hand. Whatever opposers you
  meet with, Calvinists, papists, antinomians, or any other, have
  a particular care, that they do not take up too much either of
  your thoughts or time. You have better work; keep to your one
  point, Christ dying for us, and living in us; so will you
  fulfil the joy of,

  “My dear brethren, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[643]

The following was addressed to Samuel Bradburn, and, up to the
present, has not been published.

                                        “EPWORTH, _July 6, 1788_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--To-morrow evening, I hope to be at Doncaster; on
  Wednesday, at Sheffield; and to-morrow sennight, at London,
  bringing my daughter with me. That evening I should not object
  to preaching at West Street. On Tuesday morning, I would
  breakfast in Chesterfield Street, if my sister will be ready at
  eight o’clock. Then I must hide myself till Sunday; when I will
  preach at one or the other chapel for Kingswood. Peace be with
  you and yours!

  “I am, dear Sammy, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The next, addressed to Mr. Jasper Winscomb, is also now for the first
time printed.

                                        “LONDON, _July 16, 1788_.

  “DEAR JASPER,--If all our society at Portsmouth, or elsewhere,
  separate from the Church, I cannot help it. But, I will not.
  Therefore, I can in no wise consent to the having service in
  church hours. _You_ used to love the Church; then keep to it,
  and exhort all our people to do the same. If it be true, that
  brother Hayter is used to talk against the other preachers, as
  well as against Thomas Warwick, brother Hayter and I shall not
  agree. Of dividing circuits we may speak at the conference.

  “I am, dear Jasper, your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The following also has not before been published. It was addressed to
“Mr. Churchey, attorney at law, near the Hay, Brecon”; and refers to
certain poetical productions which Mr. Churchey wished to print.

                                   “NEAR LONDON, _July 22, 1788_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you spoke to Mr. Cowper.[644] What
  pity it is that such talents as his should be employed in so
  useless a manner!

  “Mr. Bradburn delivered your papers to me a few days ago; but
  this is so busy a time, that I had not leisure to go through
  them till to-day. _In the Translation of the Art of Printing,
  there are many very good lines_; but there are some that want a
  good deal of filing; and many that are obscure. The sense is so
  much clouded, that it is not easy to be understood. For many
  years, I have not had any booksellers but Mr. Atlay and my
  assistants. _Some of the shorter copies are good sense and good
  poetry._

  “My dear brother has left a translation of the Book of Psalms,
  and verses enough to make, at least, six volumes in duodecimo.
  I could but ill spare him, now I am myself so far declined into
  the vale of years. But it is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth
  Him good. Our time is now short. Let my dear sister Churchey,
  and you, and I make the best of it.

  “I am your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

A week after the above letter was written, Wesley opened his
conference, which continued its sittings till August 6. Besides
presiding, he preached every evening, and on the conference Sunday
twice. The last day was kept as a solemn fast,--prayer-meetings being
held at five, nine, and one, and the day concluded with a watchnight.
No wonder, that the old Methodist preachers returned from conferences,
to their respective circuits, like flames of fire. Wesley writes:

  “One of the most important points considered at this conference
  was that of leaving the Church. The sum of a long conversation
  was: (1) that, in a course of fifty years, we had neither
  premeditatedly nor willingly varied from it in one article
  either of doctrine or discipline; (2) that we were not yet
  conscious of varying from it in any point of doctrine; (3) that
  we have, in a course of years, out of necessity, not of choice,
  slowly and warily varied in some points of discipline, by
  preaching in the fields, by extemporary prayer, by employing
  lay preachers, by forming and regulating societies, and by
  holding yearly conferences. But we did none of these things
  till we were convinced we could no longer omit them, but at the
  peril of our souls.”

This was correct so far as it went; but Wesley ought to have added,
the ordaining of preachers, the licensing of chapels; and, further,
that in this selfsame year he had published a 12mo volume of 430
pages, entitled, “The Sunday Service of the Methodists; with other
Occasional Services”; in reality, an altered edition of the
Prayer-Book of the Church of England, attached to which was a
“Collection of Psalms and Hymns for the Lord’s Day,” composed by
himself and his brother. Wesley, in his preface, says:

  “Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, [The
  Prayer-Book,] except in the following instances:

  “1. Most of the holy days (so called) are omitted, as, at
  present, answering no valuable end.

  “2. The service of the Lord’s day, the length of which has
  often been complained of, is considerably shortened.

  “3. Some sentences, in the offices of baptism, and for the
  burial of the dead, are omitted. And,

  “4. Many psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as
  being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian
  congregation.”

Throughout his book, Wesley uses the word “minister,” instead of the
objectionable word “priest.” The half popish canticle in the morning
prayer, “Benedicite, omnia opera,” is left out. In the communion
service, the word “elder” is used instead of “priest”; and, in the
public baptism of infants, Wesley dispenses with signing the child
with the sign of the cross, and leaves out the sentence, in the
thanksgiving, that “it hath pleased God to regenerate this infant with
His Holy Spirit.” The “order of confirmation” is omitted, and no
reference is made to godfathers and godmothers. The “order for the
visitation of the sick” is totally expunged, and of course the popish
absolution, “by His (Christ’s) authority committed to me, I absolve
thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” In lieu of the three forms for ordaining
deacons, priests, and bishops, Wesley gives three for “ordaining
_superintendents_, _elders_, and _deacons_.” Wesley takes equal
liberty with the articles of religion. Some are entirely omitted;
others are abridged, or variously altered.

We find no fault with all this. Upon the whole, we regard Wesley’s
expurgations as emendations.[645] His prayer-book is purged from
popish and Calvinian errors; and, in that respect, is superior to the
prayer-book of the Church of England. This, however, is not the point
in question; but rather, whether, after Wesley had done all this, he
could be fairly and honestly considered a member and minister of the
Established Church. The Rev. G. Nott, in his Bampton lecture,
delivered eleven years after Wesley’s death, elaborately argued this
matter, and returned a negative reply; and, we confess, it seems
impossible to refute his general conclusion, namely, that both “Wesley
and Whitefield are to be regarded as separatists from the Church of
England.”[646] To the day of his death, Wesley protested against this;
but his warmest friends must admit that, though both were undeniably
sincere, yet, in this respect, profession and practice were at
variance.

Three years before this, he had ordained Joseph Taylor, who, ever
since, had preached in gown and bands, and administered the sacraments
in Scotland. Joseph was now appointed to Nottingham circuit; and, of
course, as an ordained minister, dreamed that he was the same in
England as he had been in Scotland. But not so. Wesley, who, three
years before, had _frocked_ his itinerant for the people across the
Tweed, now _unfrocked_ him for the people bordering on the Trent.
Hence the following.

                                    “LONDON, _November 16, 1788_.

  “DEAR JOSEPH,--I take knowledge of your spirit, and believe it
  is your desire to do all things right. Our friends in Newark
  should not have forgotten, that we have determined over and
  over ‘not to leave the Church.’ Before they had given you that
  foolish advice, they should have consulted me. I desire you
  would not wear the surplice, nor administer the Lord’s supper,
  any more.

  “I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[647]

Such was the frequent clashing between practice and profession. The
prayer-book, above mentioned, had been put into the hands of the
Methodists; and yet, because of its alterations and abridgments, it
was of no use in services conducted in the Church of England. For what
then was it intended? The following extract, from the minutes of
conference in 1788, supplies an answer.

  “_Q. 21._ What further directions may be given concerning the
  prayers of the Church of England?

  “_A._ The assistants shall have a discretionary power to read
  the Prayer-Book in the preaching houses on Sunday mornings,
  where they think it expedient, if the generality of the society
  acquiesce with it; on condition that Divine service never be
  performed in the church hours on the Sundays when the sacrament
  is administered in the parish church where the preaching house
  is situated; and that the people be strenuously exhorted to
  attend the sacrament in the parish church on those Sundays.”

This may be vaguely worded; but there can be no mistake about its
meaning. By Wesley’s authority, and that of his conference, assistants
everywhere were permitted to do what Dr. Coke had authorised to be
done in Dublin, namely, that, on certain conditions, there should be
Divine service in Methodist chapels in the same hours as Divine
service was performed in the parish churches adjoining them. If this
was not separation, what was it?

There were two other points discussed at the conference of 1788, of
great importance. Many of the preachers were shamefully left without
adequate support, and were actually obliged, either to starve from
hunger, or to go from house to house to obtain their meals. Wesley was
annoyed, perhaps indignant; and, to remedy this glaring evil, the
assistants were directed to enforce, that every member, who could
afford it, should contribute, in the classmeetings, a penny per week,
and a shilling per quarter, at the quarterly visitation, for the
maintenance of the preachers appointed to watch over them. And, in
addition, Wesley issued the following address.

             “_To our Societies in England and Ireland._

  “FIFTY years ago, and for several years following, all our
  preachers were single men, when, in process of time, a few of
  them married. Those with whom they laboured maintained both
  them and their wives, there being then no settled allowance
  either for the one or the other. But above thirty years ago, it
  was found most convenient to fix a stated allowance for
  both,[648] and this was found by the circuits where they were
  stationed; till one year some of the circuits complained of
  poverty. Dr. Coke and I supplied what was wanting. The next
  year, the number of wives increasing, three or four of them
  were supplied out of the contingent fund. This was a bad
  precedent, for more and more wives were thrown upon this fund,
  till it was likely to be swallowed up thereby.[649] We could
  think of no way to prevent this, but to consider the state of
  our societies in England and Ireland, and to beg the members of
  each circuit to give us that assistance which they can easily
  do without hurting their families.

  “Within these fifty years, the substance of the Methodists is
  increased in proportion to their numbers. Therefore, if you are
  not straitened in your own bowels, this will be no grievance,
  but you will cheerfully give food and raiment to those who give
  up all their time, and strength, and labour to your service.

    “LONDON, _August 2, 1788_.

                                                  “JOHN WESLEY.”

No wonder that, in his later years, Wesley so often wrote and spoke of
the corrupting influence of the riches of rich Methodists!

The other affair, which demanded the attention of Wesley’s conference,
in 1788, was equally unpleasant. Six years before, as we have already
seen, the trustees, at Birstal, claimed the power of appointing
preachers to their chapel. This was followed by the deed of
declaration in 1784. At the very time this deed was being signed, the
same subject was revived at Dewsbury, a town contiguous to Birstal.

Here it had been proposed to build a new chapel. Mr. Valton, the
assistant, refused to move in the matter, unless it was agreed that
the chapel should be settled according to the conference plan. Mr.
Heald and some others wished to obtain from Wesley certain
concessions, and wrote to John Atlay, the book steward, to secure
them. Atlay replied as follows.

                                    “LONDON, _February 23, 1784_.

  “MY DEAR SIR,--I have, this morning, been with Mr. Wesley, and
  have laid your letter before him.[650] He is not only willing,
  but _desires_, it be inserted in your deed, that, if ever the
  conference, or the preacher appointed by conference, refuse or
  neglect to provide a preacher for your chapel for three or four
  Sundays, then the trustees shall have it in their own power to
  call one whom they please, and the power of nomination shall be
  theirs in future.

  “If any preacher, appointed to serve your chapel, should be
  proved guilty of immorality, the trustees shall have a power to
  reject him; and, if the conference does not send another to
  fill up his place, you shall have a power to call one to do it.

                                                    “JOHN ATLAY.”

On the receipt of this letter, Valton solicited subscriptions, and
preached at the laying of the foundation stone.[651]

Five days after the date of the above letter, the deed of declaration
was executed; and, among other names omitted, in the constitution of
the legal conference, were those of John Atlay and William Eels, the
first of whom had been a preacher one-and-twenty years, and the second
twelve. This, by no means, increased Atlay’s loyalty. In an
unpublished letter, dated September 17, 1785, he writes: “Mr. Hampson
is well provided for. I have begun to do a little business for myself
as coal merchant; and have reason to think it will do well for me. I
have not left the book room, nor do I intend it _at present_. I have
my trials; but the disagreeable things I have met with, in our
connexion, have really raised my heart to God.”

In another, bearing date, April 18, 1786, he says: “You smile at my
commencing coal merchant. There was a time when I could have trusted
to my good old friend” (Wesley) “for everything that I wanted, or was
likely to want; but late occurrences have given me a check; and, I
really think, the thing is right in the sight of the Lord.” He then
proceeds to state that he had lately been attending the ministry of
Mr. Latrobe, the Moravian minister, and that he increasingly admired
him every time he heard him.

These extracts may help to throw some light on Atlay’s subsequent
conduct.

Meanwhile, Dewsbury chapel was completed, and a draft of the trust
deed was sent, by Parson Greenwood, to Manchester conference, in 1787,
for perusal. This was handed officially to Alexander Mather, who
strongly objected to its provisions; and complained that the trustees
had not inserted a clause, to the effect, “that no preacher should be
sent away till he was tried, and found guilty, before his peers, or
the neighbouring assistant preachers.” The trustees refused to yield,
thus, in reality, making themselves, as Dr. Coke put it, “accusers,
jury, judges, and executioners.”[652] Wesley had appointed Parson
Greenwood and William Percival to the Dewsbury circuit; but, on
October 23, he instructed them to abandon the chapel and to leave the
trustees to provide for themselves to their hearts’ content.

Mr. Mather, at the time, was in the Sheffield circuit, and obtained
Wesley’s consent to become mediator between the contending parties.
Accordingly he went, and proposed to the trustees that they should
have power: (1) To mortgage the premises for the debt unpaid. (2) To
let the seats at any price they liked. (3) To appoint their own
stewards, and dispose of their own income. He further proposed, that
no assistant should expel a trustee from the society but by the
consent of the majority of his co-trustees. All this was palatable;
but what followed was otherwise. Mather, of course, had no objection
to a preacher being dismissed for immorality, as was proposed in
Atlay’s letter; but he wished to institute a court in which the
accused might have a fair and impartial trial; and, hence, requested
that a clause might be inserted in the trust deed, providing that
three of the nearest assistants should be judges; that, if they found
the charges proved, they should join with the trustees in requesting
Wesley, or the president of the conference for the time being, to
remove the guilty preacher, and to send another in his place; that, if
this was not done within a specified time, the trustees should do it
themselves; and that, if the conference next ensuing did not send
another preacher, then the election of preachers was to remain with
the trustees, and the power of conference, to appoint preachers to
Dewsbury chapel, to be forfeited for ever. This the trustees
stubbornly rejected; and the further consideration of the matter was
postponed till February 5, 1788. At this second interview, it was
proposed by Mr. Mather, that an appeal should be made to the
subscribers to decide whether the clauses he had named should be
inserted in the deed; and that their decision should be final. This
also was refused; and now, when all further negotiation seemed
impossible, Mather, by Wesley’s request, informed the seatholders,
“that they were not to pay any more rent till the matter was settled
between him and the trustees.”

Thus the affair was left till the conference of 1788; when a committee
met on the subject. John Atlay was present, and remarked, that if he
were to go down to Dewsbury he would soon settle matters with the
trustees. Mather objected to Atlay’s suggestion, and said: “Mr. Atlay,
it is reported, that you have promised the trustees, that, if Mr.
Wesley withdraws the preachers from Dewsbury, you will yourself go and
serve them. I ask you then, before God and these brethren, have you
made _any_ such promise, or have you not?” Atlay reluctantly
acknowledged, that he had; and, further, that he had also advised the
Methodists at Malton not to settle their chapel on the conference
plan. Next morning Wesley wrote as follows.

                   “_To the Trustees of Dewsbury._

                                        “LONDON, _July 30, 1788_.

  “MY DEAR BRETHREN,--The question between us is, ‘By whom shall
  the preachers sent, from time to time, to Dewsbury be judged?’
  You say, ‘By the trustees.’ I say, ‘By their peers--the
  preachers met in conference.’ You say, ‘Give up this, and we
  will receive them.’ I say, ‘I cannot, I dare not, give up
  this.’ Therefore, if you will not receive them on these terms,
  you renounce connection with your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

As the trustees still held out, the conference decided that another
deputation, consisting of Mather, Pawson, Thompson, Greenwood, and
Percival, should meet at Dewsbury on August 14. The deputies asked,
“Have you executed a trust deed?” The trustees answered, “Yes.” “Can
we see it?” “No.” “Will you add to it a clause such as Mr. Wesley
wishes?” “No.” Such, in substance, were the proceedings of the
meeting. The result was, as before stated, the preachers, who had been
appointed at Dewsbury, were at once removed; the chapel was abandoned;
and the preachers in the Birstal circuit once more commenced Methodism
at Dewsbury, by preaching in the open streets.[653]

Five days after the date of the Dewsbury meeting, John Atlay, who, as
we have seen, had joined to Wesley’s book stewardship the business of
a coal merchant, and had also been toying with the Dewsbury trustees,
wrote as follows to Wesley.

                                      “LONDON, _August 19, 1788_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I was in hopes matters at Dewsbury
  would have been made up; but, by a letter yesterday, I am
  informed that their preachers are removed from them, and their
  place declared vacant; in consequence of which, the trustees
  have most solemnly called me to come amongst them. They plead
  my promise; and I cannot go back from it. With me a promise is
  sacred, though it should be ever so much to my hurt; and, as to
  temporals, it must hurt me much. But I regard not that, if
  there is a prospect that I shall be much more useful there than
  I ever have been, or can be, in London. But it gives me more
  pain than I can express, when I tell you that, in order to go
  there, I must quit the book room. The longest that I can stay
  in it will be till the 25th of September; and, by that time,
  you will be able to get one for my place. I think the fittest
  man in the world for it is Joseph Bradford. If he should be
  appointed, he may come directly, and stay with us till we go;
  and, by that time, I could teach him more than he can learn in
  three months without me; but these things I leave to your
  superior judgment.

  “I have only now to request a few things of you. Do not be
  angry with me for leaving you, after having spent fifteen of
  the best years of my life in serving you, with more care, fear,
  labour, and pain, than all the years of my life have produced.
  Do not blame me for going to a people you have left; they are
  the Lord’s redeemed ones, and some of them living members of
  His body. Do not disown me, nor forbid my preaching in any of
  your places; but give me leave, where and when it is agreeable
  to the preachers, to preach in your houses. But if this request
  cannot be complied with, then drop me silently; and let me be
  of too little consequence to say anything about me from the
  pulpit or press. I beg you will write by return of post; and do
  not write unkindly to your faithful servant and friend,

                                               “JOHN ATLAY.”[654]

Was this the whine of a mercenary man? or was it the genuine effusion
of a loving and honest heart? The reader must answer for himself;
remembering, however, that the Dewsbury chapel had been built, not by
the money of the trustees, but by the subscriptions of the Methodists;
that three years previous to this, Atlay had entertained the thought
of ultimately leaving Wesley’s stewardship, and, with an eye to that,
had begun the business of selling coals; and, further, that, since
then, he had unquestionably encouraged the Dewsbury trustees in their
rebellion, by promising to become their preacher, when Wesley withdrew
his. What was Wesley’s answer to his double dealing friend?

                                    “PEMBROKE, _August 23, 1788_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--If you are persuaded, that such a promise
  (which is the whole and sole cause of the breach at Dewsbury)
  is binding, you must follow your persuasion. You will have
  blame enough from other persons; my hand shall not be upon you.
  If I can do you good, I will; but shall certainly do you no
  harm. George Whitfield is the person I choose to succeed you. I
  wish you would teach him as much as you can without delay.

  “I am, with kind love to sister Atlay, your affectionate
  brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Thus did Wesley dispose of his book steward’s mischievous promise; his
pert nomination of Joseph Bradford as his successor; and his
whimpering prayer that Wesley would not punish him for his naughty
tricks.

It is hardly necessary to insert the whole of the correspondence.
Suffice it to say, that Wesley requested Atlay, before he left, to
employ “one or two proper persons to take an inventory of all the
books in the shop and under the chapel,” so that George Whitfield
might know what was put into his care. Atlay’s reply to this was the
following.


                                   “LONDON, _September 20, 1788_.

  “REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--We have almost this moment finished
  our job of taking the stock; and, as near as we can tell, your
  stock is this day worth £13,751 18_s._ 5_d._, according to the
  prices fixed in the catalogue. However, you may be sure it is
  not less than that. Most of these are saleable things. You will
  be sure to find sale for them, if you live; and, if not, they
  will be of equal value to those to whom you leave them.

                             “I am, etc.,

                                                    “JOHN ATLAY.”

Atlay went to Dewsbury on September 24, and took possession of the
chapel built with the money of Methodists. We have before us a number
of Mr. Pawson’s letters, written at this period, and in reference to
the Dewsbury unpleasantness. Pawson went, and preached to the
discontented Methodists; and spent two days in endeavouring to put
them right; but without effect. Mr. Mather was “highly offended” on
account of this; and Mr. Atlay wrote to Pawson “a thundering letter.”
Under date of September 16, 1788, Pawson says:

  “You see the blessedness of striving to make peace. The
  assistants of the neighbouring circuits are to preach in the
  streets at Dewsbury, in their turns. This is pain and grief to
  me. To preach in opposition, Methodists against Methodists, is
  painful beyond expression. I believe all might have been
  prevented by loving, prudent preachers. We have had a few
  unworthy men among us, who have been a great burden to us and
  to the people; but we do not lay them aside. Therefore, the
  people will oblige us to do it, by making deeds like that at
  Dewsbury. Some of our preachers do not live near to God, and do
  not endeavour, by reading and prayer, to render themselves
  acceptable to the people. But now it seems as though the people
  would make them look about them a little.”

From other unpublished letters, we learn that Atlay and Eels[655] had
large congregations; that they had taken with them the whole of the
Dewsbury society, except a good man and his wife, of the name of
Drake; and that one of the trustees soon became a bankrupt, and was
said to have squandered a considerable amount of Atlay’s money.
Difficulties speedily ensued; hence the following, extracted from a
letter dated

                                   “BIRSTAL, _December 18, 1789_.

  “... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels cannot supply the places they have
  at present. They want another preacher, but cannot get one.
  They have tried to get Mr. Holmes, who left us last conference,
  but he is engaged to Sheerness, as the society there is
  divided. Besides, I understand, they are all for the Church,
  and utterly against separation, ordination, etc. The devil can
  no longer set the men of the world against us; but he is trying
  a much more effectual way, setting the people and preachers one
  against another.

                                              “JOHN PAWSON.”[656]

Thus did Mr. Atlay really set up an _imperium in imperio_. He called
himself a Methodist; and yet was setting Methodism’s founder at
defiance. Not content with taking possession of the Dewsbury circuit,
he went to Shields, and there, and in Newcastle, and other places,
founded separate societies. At length, he and his friend Eels
quarrelled. Hence the following.

                                        “BIRSTAL, _May 17, 1791_.

  “... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels have differed and parted. Mr. Atlay
  is gone to London, and whether he will return to Dewsbury is
  quite uncertain. I believe very few desire or expect it. He has
  treated Mr. Eels in a very unkind and unbrotherly manner ever
  since he came to Dewsbury, and Mr. Eels was determined to bear
  it no longer. The trustees had a meeting, and determined that
  Mr. Eels should stay; and be, in every respect, equal to Mr.
  Atlay. They are greatly displeased with Mr. Atlay’s conduct, as
  well as with his doctrines. He has got deep into Mr.
  Manners’[657] opinions, and says that he has believed them
  these twenty years. Mr. Eels is very friendly, and I believe
  most sincerely wishes a reconciliation, and I hope will
  endeavour to bring it about.

                                              “JOHN PAWSON.”[658]

William Eels died within two years after this. In the meantime, the
Dewsbury trustees began to entertain “shocking opinions” of their
friend Atlay; and in September, 1792, sent for Pawson to effect a
reunion.[659]

We need not pursue the subject farther. Here we have the rise, the
progress, and collapse of the Atlayite rebellion. We could give a
number of Atlay’s letters, showing that, in 1789, he coquetted with
Alexander McNab, and tried to secure the co-operation of James Oddie.
But the traitorous book steward has already occupied more space than
his worth deserves. We only add, that, to all his other faults, he
added that of circulating the most infamous reports reflecting on
Wesley’s moral character;[660] which extorted from Wesley the
following characteristic “Word to whom it may Concern,” inserted in
his _Magazine_ for 1790, just after the appearance of Atlay’s pamphlet
on the subject.

  “IN August, 1788, Mr. Atlay wrote me word, ‘I must look out for
  another servant, for he would go to Dewsbury on September 25.’
  So far was I from ‘bidding him go,’ that I knew nothing of it
  till that hour. But I then told him, ‘Go and serve them’:
  seeing I found he would serve me no longer.

  “He sent me word that I had in London £13,751 18_s._ 5_d._,
  stock in books. Desiring to know exactly, I employed two
  booksellers to take an account of my stock. The account they
  brought in, October 31, 1788, was:

      ‘Value of stock, errors excepted, £4827 10_s._ 3½_d._

                                               ‘John Parsons,
                                                Thomas Scollick.’

  “Why did John Atlay so wonderfully overrate my stock? Certainly
  to do me honour in the eyes of the world.

  “I never approved of his going to Dewsbury; but I submitted to
  what I could not help.

  “With respect to Dewsbury House, there never was any dispute
  about the _property of preaching houses_, that was an artful
  misrepresentation; but merely the _appointing of preachers_ in
  them.

  “If John Atlay has a mind to throw any more dirt upon me, I do
  not know I shall take any pains to wipe it off. I have but a
  few days to live; and I wish to spend those in peace.

     “LONDON, _Feb. 25, 1790_.                     “JOHN WESLEY.”

These are long, perhaps tedious, statements; but they are not without
interest, as helping to illustrate the life and character of Wesley.
His career was a long continued scene of trouble. Mobs assailed him
first; then parsons and pamphleteers; then his friends, the
Calvinists; and, last of all, his vexations were chiefly those
occasioned by some of his own faithless followers.

Not to return to Dewsbury, it may be added here, that, at the
conference of 1789, the preachers subscribed £206 towards the erection
of a new chapel; and Wesley issued two circulars, stating the case to
the Methodists in general, and asking their assistance. After
mentioning that the former chapel had been built by the contributions
of the people, (the trustees themselves not giving a quarter of what
it cost,) he continues:

  “Observe, here is no dispute about the right of houses at all.
  I have no right to any preaching house in England. What I claim
  is, a right of stationing the preachers. This these trustees
  have robbed me of in the present instance. Therefore, only one
  of these two ways can be taken; either to sue for this house,
  or to build another: we prefer the latter, being the most
  friendly way.

  “I beg, therefore, my brethren, for the love of God; for the
  love of me, your old and well-nigh worn out servant; for the
  love of ancient Methodism, which, if itinerancy is interrupted,
  will speedily come to nothing; for the love of justice, mercy,
  and truth, which are all so grievously violated by the
  detention of this house; that you will set your shoulders to
  the necessary work. Be not straitened in your own bowels. We
  have never had such a cause before. Let not then unkind,
  unjust, fraudulent men, have cause to rejoice in their bad
  labour. This is a common cause. Exert yourselves to the utmost.
  I have subscribed £50. So has Dr. Coke. The preachers have done
  all they could. O let them that have much give plenteously!
  Perhaps, this is the last labour of love I may have occasion to
  recommend to you; let it then stand as one more monument of
  your real gratitude to, my dear brethren, your old,
  affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[661]

We now return to the conference of 1788. These were not the only
things to try Wesley’s patience. An effort was made to set aside the
itinerant plan in Scotland,--a plan to which, as already shown, Wesley
attached the utmost importance. This evoked the following letter to
Lady Maxwell.

                                       “LONDON, _August 8, 1788_.

  “MY DEAR LADY,--It is certain, many persons, both in Scotland
  and England, would be well pleased to have the same preachers
  always. But we cannot forsake the plan of acting, which we have
  followed from the beginning. For fifty years, God has been
  pleased to bless the itinerant plan; the last year most of all;
  it must not be altered, till I am removed; and, I hope, it will
  remain till our Lord comes to reign upon earth.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[662]

To the same effect was another, written three months later, and
addressed to Jasper Winscomb.

                                     “LONDON, _November 8, 1788_.

  “DEAR JASPER,--William Cashman advised you like a heathen. Mr.
  Valton _deserves_ pay, as well as you do. But he does not want
  it, and, therefore, scorns to take it, knowing the poverty of
  the land.

  “I am glad to hear so good an account of the Isle of Wight. The
  work of God will flourish, there, if it be steadily pursued.

  “No preacher ought to stay either at Portsmouth, or Sarum, or
  any other place, a whole week together. That is not the
  Methodist plan at all. It is a novel abuse.

  “I am, dear Jasper, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[663]

On the 10th of August, Wesley set out for Wales and the west of
England; generally preaching twice a day, and on the Sundays thrice,
and everywhere to crowded congregations.

On the 28th of September, he returned to London, and, two days after,
went off to Norfolk. The remainder of the year was employed, as usual,
in the metropolis and the surrounding counties.

These were not pleasure trips; but made in wintry weather, in frost
and snow; the veteran of eighty-five preaching almost daily, both
night and morning, and attending to a thousand things which demanded
his attention.[664] He writes.

  “December 10, and the following days, I corrected my brother’s
  posthumous poems; being short psalms, and hymns on the four
  gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. They make five volumes
  in quarto, containing eighteen or nineteen hundred pages. Many
  of them are little, if any, inferior to his former poems,
  having the same justness and strength of thought, with the same
  beauty of expression; yea, the same keenness of wit on proper
  occasions, as bright and piercing as ever. Some are bad; some
  mean; some most excellently good. They give the true sense of
  Scripture, always in good English, generally in good verse;
  many of them are equal to most, if not to any, he ever wrote;
  but some still savour of that poisonous mysticism, with which
  we were both not a little tainted before we went to America.
  This gave a gloomy cast, first to his mind, and then to many of
  his verses; this made him frequently describe religion as a
  melancholy thing; this so often sounded in his ears, ‘To the
  desert!’ and strongly persuaded in favour of solitude.”

What had Wesley to say respecting himself? He writes.

  “About this time” [December 15] “I was reflecting on the gentle
  steps whereby age steals upon us. Take only one instance. Four
  years ago, my sight was as good as it was at five-and-twenty. I
  then began to observe, that I did not see things quite so clear
  with my left eye as with my right; all objects appeared a
  little browner to that eye. I began next to find a little
  difficulty in reading a small print by candlelight. A year
  after, I found it in reading such a print by daylight. In the
  winter of 1786, I could not well read our four shilling
  hymn-book, unless with a large candle; the next year, I could
  not read letters, if wrote with a small or bad hand. Last
  winter, a pearl appeared on my left eye, the sight of which
  grew exceeding dim. The right eye seems unaltered; only I am a
  great deal nearer sighted than ever I was. Thus are ‘those that
  look out at the windows darkened’; one of the marks of old age.
  But, I bless God, ‘the grasshopper is’ not ‘a burden.’ I am
  still capable of travelling, and my memory is much the same as
  it ever was; and so, I think, is my understanding.”

Thus did Wesley take stock of himself.

On Christmas day, he preached at four o’clock in the morning, in City
Road, again at eleven, and in West Street in the evening. On the last
Sunday in the year, he had an exceedingly large congregation in
Allhallows church, Lombard Street; and, concerning this, there is an
anecdote worth relating. The sermon was for the benefit of forty-eight
poor children belonging to St. Ethelburga society. “Sir,” said Wesley
to his attendant while putting on his gown, “it is above fifty years
since I first preached in this church; I remember it from a particular
circumstance. I came without a sermon; and, going up the pulpit
stairs, I hesitated, and returned into the vestry, under much mental
confusion and agitation. A woman, who stood by, noticed my concern,
and said, ‘Pray, sir, what is the matter?’ I replied, ‘I have not
brought a sermon with me.’ Putting her hand on my shoulder, she said,
‘Is that all? Cannot you trust God for a sermon?’ This question had
such an effect upon me, that I ascended the pulpit, preached
extempore, with great freedom to myself, and acceptance to the people;
and have never since taken a written sermon into the pulpit.”[665] “A
word spoken in due season, how good is it!”

Wesley’s publications, in 1788, have all been noticed, except his
_Magazine_; and, concerning this, it is not needful to say much. There
are, as usual, six new sermons from the venerable editor’s own pen:
namely, On Reproving Sin; The Signs of the Times; Man; The Ministry of
Wicked Ministers; Conscience; and Faith.

Wesley concludes the first of these thus:

  “I have now only a few words to add unto you, my brethren, who
  are vulgarly called Methodists. I never heard or read of any
  considerable revival of religion, which was not attended with a
  spirit of reproving. I believe, it cannot be otherwise; for
  what is faith unless it worketh by love? Thus it was in every
  part of England, when the present revival of religion began
  about fifty years ago. All the subjects of that revival,--all
  the Methodists, in every place, were reprovers of outward sin.
  And, indeed, so are all that, being justified by faith, have
  peace with God through Jesus Christ. Such they are at first;
  and if they use that precious gift, it will never be taken
  away. Come, brethren! In the name of God, let us begin again!
  Rich or poor, let us all arise as one man! And, in any wise,
  let every man rebuke his neighbour, and not suffer sin upon
  him!”

Wesley’s sermon, on attending the ministry of unconverted ministers,
would never have been written, had he not been pressed by the
objections of Methodists, and yet determined to prevent their leaving
the Established Church. Its arguments are specious, not sound. It
might puzzle the simple minded Methodists; but it would not convince
them they were wrong. It was a feeble attempt to get converted people
to sit under an unconverted ministry. We conclude with one extract.

  “It has been loudly affirmed, that most of those persons now in
  connection with _me_, who believe it their duty to call sinners
  to repentance, having been taken immediately from low trades,
  tailors, shoemakers, and the like, are a set of poor, stupid,
  illiterate men, that scarce know their right hand from their
  left; yet, I cannot but say, that I would sooner cut off my
  right hand, than suffer one of them to speak a word in any of
  our chapels, if I had not reasonable proof, that he had more
  knowledge in the holy Scriptures, more knowledge of himself,
  more knowledge of God and of the things of God, than nine in
  ten of the clergymen I have conversed with, either at the
  universities, or elsewhere. Undoubtedly, there are many
  clergymen in these kingdoms, that are not only free from
  outward sin, but men of eminent learning, and, what is
  infinitely more, deeply acquainted with God. But, still, I am
  constrained to confess, that the far greater part of those
  ministers I have conversed with, for above half a century, have
  not been holy men,--not devoted to God,--not deeply acquainted
  either with God or themselves.”

Such was Wesley’s reluctant confession; and yet, to prevent what he
called a separation from the Established Church, he elaborately
persuades the Methodists, that they ought to receive the sacraments
from these men; instead of requiring them at the hands of the
converted artisans, who had preached so successfully, and who,
according to Wesley’s own confession, were, even in point of
_scriptural knowledge_, the superiors of the unconverted gentlemen,
trained in colleges, and made priests or deacons--not by Christ,--but
by bishops!


FOOTNOTES:

     [606] Four letters, standing for _Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ
           Presbyter Johannes_: “John, presbyter of the Church
           of England.” Wesley, in early life, sometimes used
           this signature in writing to his brother.

     [607] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 359.

     [608] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 437.

     [609] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 438.

     [610] Ibid. p. 438.

     [611] Ibid. p. 439.

     [612] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 440.

     [613] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 441.

     [614] “The Allens of Shiney Row,” p. 59.

     [615] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 442.

     [616] _Methodist Recorder_, Dec. 5, 1861.

     [617] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 445.

     [618] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 543.

     [619] Manuscript letter.

     [620] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 449.

     [621] Ibid.

     [622] Mrs. Fletcher’s Life, p. 251.

     [623] Manuscript letter.

     [624] J. Pawson’s manuscript letter.

     [625] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 111.

     [626] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 553.

     [627] Memoir of Mrs. Knaggs.

     [628] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 492.

     [629] Memoirs of Spence, p. 26.

     [630] Ibid.

     [631] It ought to have been _eighty-sixth_.

     [632] Black’s Memoirs, p. 219.

     [633] Bulmer’s Memoir, p. 4.

     [634] Smith’s “Methodism in Ireland.”

     [635] Ibid.

     [636] Manuscript letters in Mission House.

     [637] Ibid.

     [638] Ibid.

     [639] A proposal to ordain him. See _Methodist Magazine_,
           1845, p. 112.

     [640] Manuscript letters in Mission House.

     [641] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 298.

     [642] James Wray was a member of Wesley’s legalised
           conference. After travelling six years in English
           circuits, he now went, as an ordained missionary
           superintendent to Nova Scotia. It is a curious fact
           that the Nova Scotians objected to him, not only on
           the ground of his want of learning, but because he
           was _an Englishman_! On hearing of this, Wesley, in
           an unpublished letter, wrote: “O American gratitude!
           Lord, I appeal to Thee!”

     [643] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiv., p. 343.

     [644] Cowper had recently published “The Task,” and was
           now employed in his translation of Homer. In another
           letter, Wesley says: “I think Mr. Cowper has done as
           much as is possible to be done with his lamentable
           story. I can only wish he had a better subject.”

     [645] Except in the case of the psalms, where about thirty
           are discarded, and about sixty mutilated. The
           propriety of this may be fairly doubted.

     [646] See Nott’s Bampton Lecture, 1802.

     [647] _The Wesleyan_, Nov. 4, 1846.

     [648] As a curious specimen of the way in which things were
           managed in the early days of Methodism, the following
           extracts are given from “The Dales” circuit book,
           whose accounts extend from 1765 to 1791.

                                                        _s._ _d._
           “1765. Dec. 7. Thomas Rankin. Two meals, and
                  horse one night                        1    0
            1766. March 29. John Ellis. Six meals, and
                  horse three nights, shirt washed, and
                  pennyworth of paper                    2   10
              ”   Sept. 28. Jeremiah Robertshaw. Twelve
                  meals, and horse four nights, and
                  shirt washing                          5    3”

           The reader can calculate how many meals a day were
           allowed to these godly men, and how much per meal.
           Besides these allowances for _board_, each preacher
           was entitled to receive, as _quarterage_, for himself
           £3; and, for his wife, if he had one, £2 10_s._

     [649] The contingent fund, raised by the yearly collection
           in the classes, was originally intended to defray
           law expenses, and to pay, or reduce, chapel debts.
           In this year, 1788, the income of the fund was £1203
           7_s._ 1_d._, out of which was paid for law expenses,
           £37 4_s._ 2_d._; for chapels, £106 15_s._ 0_d._;
           and for the deficiencies of the preachers and their
           families, £433 18_s._ 1_d._ It was high time for
           Wesley to take action; though his effort to correct
           the evil was without effect.

     [650] In a 12mo pamphlet, published in 1788, and entitled,
           “A Reply to what the Rev. Dr. Coke is pleased to
           call ‘The State of the Dewsbury House,’ being a
           Vindication of the Conduct of the Trustees of that
           House,”--it is stated, that the questions proposed
           to Wesley by Mr. Heald were: (1) “If the conference
           should neglect to supply the house with preachers,
           would it be understood to remain the property of the
           conference, or would the trustees have a power to
           provide for themselves? (2) If any preacher, sent
           them, should be found guilty of immorality, would
           the trustees have a power of rejecting him?” It
           further states, that the trustees had, in Wesley’s
           own handwriting, a paragraph to the effect that
           “the _assistants and leaders_ were to be the proper
           judges” of a preacher charged with immorality.
           This certainly clashes with Wesley’s letter, given
           hereafter, and dated July 30, 1788.

     [651] “The State of Dewsbury House.” By Dr. Coke.

     [652] By the kindness of Mr. Robinson, of Dewsbury, we have
           before us a copy of the original trust deed, from
           which we learn that, if, after a vacancy, Wesley or
           the conference refused or neglected, for the space
           of forty days, to appoint a preacher; or if the
           preacher appointed should “not conduct or conform
           himself to the satisfaction of the trustees or, the
           major part of them, it should be lawful for the said
           trustees, or such major part, not only to displace
           such preacher, (after giving him one month’s previous
           notice thereof in writing,) but also to appoint such
           other preacher as they should deem more proper, and
           better qualified to benefit the society.” The deed is
           dated January 31, 1788, and the names and occupations
           of the trustees are as follows.

             John Heald, maltster.
             John Robinson, weaver.
             Joseph Gill, clothier.
             John Beaumont, cordwainer.
             John Lancaster, currier.
             John Howgate, sen., clothier.
             John Howgate, jun., clothier.
             Bartholmew Archer, clothier.
             William Walker, clothier.
             John Thorns, clothier.
             Isaac Wilman, clothier.
             Abraham Thomas, clothier.
             Timothy Parker, clothier.
             John Hirst, clothier.
             Joseph Bennett, farmer.
             Thomas Bromley, clothier.
             Benjamin Whitaker, farmer.

     [653] Mather’s “State of Dewsbury House.”

     [654] “Letters by Rev. J. Wesley and Mr. John Atlay.” 1790.

     [655] By some strange oversight, William Eels, at
           the conference of 1788, was left without an
           appointment; and, at the time of Atlay’s arrival
           there, was actually at Dewsbury, endeavouring to
           make peace. Hearing of this, and mistaking Eels’
           motive, Mr. Mather impetuously took steps to
           prevent his preaching in other Methodist pulpits.
           “This was the only cause of his uniting with John
           Atlay.”--(Pawson’s manuscripts.)

     [656] Unpublished letter.

     [657] Nicholas Manners was one of Wesley’s itinerant
           preachers from 1759 to 1784. He was an able man. His
           heresy, in substance, was, that, in consequence of
           the work and death of Christ, all men are born in the
           same state as that in which Adam stood previous to
           his fall.

     [658] Unpublished letter.

     [659] Pawson’s manuscript letters.

     [660] We have, in manuscript, his most malignant slander,
           but prefer withholding it. No wonder John Atlay
           wrote, in a letter to Mr. Merryweather, of Yarm, in
           1785, “You know I never mount high in profession of
           grace.”

     [661] _Methodist Magazine_, 1790, p. 103.

     [662] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 328.

     [663] _Methodist Magazine_, 1859, p. 247.

     [664] Among other places, he preached at Sevenoaks, and
           is said to have used these words: “When a sinner is
           awakened, the baptists begin to trouble him about
           outward forms, and modes of worship, and that of
           baptism. They had better cut his throat,” etc.
           Whether the exact words were used we have no means
           of knowing; but a warm controversy sprung out of the
           affair. Mr. William Kingsford issued “A Vindication
           of the Baptists from the Criminality of a Charge
           exhibited against them by the Rev. Mr. Wesley.”
           This was answered by T. C., supposed by Kingsford
           to be the Rev. Mr. Coleman. (Query Thomas Coke?)
           And this was replied to by Kingsford in a shilling
           pamphlet, bearing the title, “Three Letters to the
           Rev. Mr. Wesley, containing remarks on a Piece lately
           published, with his approbation, and Three Challenges
           to all the Methodists in the Kingdom.” The whole
           thing was “much ado about nothing.”

     [665] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 105.




                                1789.
                               Age 86


Wesley wrote:

  “January 1, 1789--If this is to be the last year of my life,
  according to some of those prophecies, I hope it will be the
  best. I am not careful about it, but heartily receive the
  advice of the angel in Milton,--

           ‘How well is thine; how long, permit to Heaven.’

  “January 5--I once more sat for my picture. Mr. Romney is a
  painter indeed. He struck off an exact likeness at once; and
  did more in an hour than Sir Joshua did in ten.[666]

  “January 9--I left no money to anyone in my will, because I had
  none. But now, considering that, whenever I am removed, money
  will soon arise by sale of books, I added a few legacies by a
  codicil, to be paid as soon as may be. But I would fain do a
  little good while I live; for who can tell what will come after
  him?”

  “January 11--I again warned the congregation, as strongly as I
  could, against conformity to the world. But who will take the
  warning? If hardly one in ten, yet is my record with the Most
  High.”

  “January 20--I retired in order to finish my year’s accounts.
  If possible, I must be a better economist; for, instead of
  having anything beforehand, I am now considerably in debt; but
  this I do not like. I would fain settle even my accounts before
  I die.”

It was at this period that the following unpublished letter was
written. Duncan McAllum had been ordained by Wesley in 1787, and the
reader will observe that, instead of addressing him as he addressed
his preachers in general, he gives him the title of “reverend.”

                                     “LONDON, _January 20, 1789_.

  “DEAR DUNCAN,--By all means choose trustees without delay; and
  let them be such as belong to the circuit; only such as you can
  depend upon, both for judgment and honesty. I think it is by
  prayer that you must alter the purpose of the Earl of
  Findlater. I am not at all surprised at the behaviour of John
  Atlay. In a year or two, he will find whether he has changed
  for the better. He was the first occasion of the division at
  Dewsbury, by sending word to the trustees, that, if the
  conference would not supply them with preachers, he would come
  himself, and settle among them.

  “I am, with love to sister McAllum, your affectionate friend
  and brother,

                                                    “JOHN WESLEY.

  “To the Rev. Mr. McAllum, Inverness.”

Four days later, he wrote as follows to Freeborn Garretson, in
America.

                                     “LONDON, _January 24, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--It signifies but little where we are, so we
  are but fully employed for our good Master. Whether you went,
  therefore, to the east, it is all one, so you were labouring to
  promote His work. You are following the order of His
  providence, wherever it appeared, as a holy man expressed it,
  in a kind of holy disordered order. But there is one
  expression, that occurs twice or thrice in yours, which gives
  me some concern: you speak of finding freedom to do this or
  that. This is a word much liable to be abused. If I have plain
  Scripture, or plain reason, for doing a thing,--well. These are
  my rules, and my only rules. I regard not whether I had freedom
  or no. This is an unscriptural expression, and a very
  fallacious rule. I wish to be in every point, great and small,
  a scriptural, rational Christian.

  “I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[667]

At the end of January, Wesley went to open new chapels at Rye and
Winchelsea. Returning to London, the month of February was spent in
preaching, in writing, in meeting classes and the local preachers, and
in ordaining Henry Moore and Thomas Rankin, the last of his preachers
upon whom he laid his hands.[668]

The following anecdotes, related in the Life of Moore, belong to the
present year, and are strikingly characteristic of Wesley and his
friends.

One of the leading men, in the London circuit, (though not a member,)
had been in the habit of receiving the sacrament from the hands of
Wesley and his brother clergymen, but had fallen into sin. Henry Moore
waited upon him for an explanation of his conduct, and, not being
satisfied, told him he should be obliged to refuse him a note of
admission to the Lord’s supper. The gentleman was annoyed, and went to
one of Wesley’s clergy, whom he persuaded to apply to Wesley on his
behalf. Entering the vestry while Wesley was writing the note, Moore
with his honest sternness accosted him: “Sir, do you mean to give a
note of admission to Mr. ----?” “Yes, Henry,” replied Wesley, “I have
reason to believe the report of his conduct is a mistake.” “I have
fully examined it,” answered Moore, “and I find it no mistake; and, if
you give him a note, I shall not take the sacrament myself.” Wesley,
in reply, observed, “I would take the sacrament if the devil himself
were there.” “So would I,” said Moore, “but not if you gave him a note
of admission.” The Irishman came off with flying colours; for Wesley
put the note into the fire, and left the erring one to think and to
repent.

Mrs. Hall was Wesley’s only surviving sister, and was an inmate of his
house, but not a Methodist. One day, the two called on Henry Moore.
“Brother,” said Mrs. Hall, “I should like to attend the religious
meetings of your people. Have I your leave?” “O yes,” said he, “you
may go to them.” “Then,” rejoined this friend of the great Dr.
Johnson, “having your permission, I shall not ask that of any one
else.” “Yes, you must;” replied her brother, remembering that Moore
was circuit assistant, “when I am not here, you must ask leave of
Henry Moore.”

In these days, it was customary for the itinerant and local preachers
to take breakfast together, on Sunday mornings, at City Road. On one
occasion, when Wesley was present, a young man rose and found fault
with one of his seniors. The Scotch blood of Thomas Rankin was roused,
and he sharply rebuked the juvenile for his impertinence; but, in
turn, was as sharply rebuked himself. Wesley instantly replied: “I
will thank the youngest man among you to tell me of any fault you see
in me; in doing so, I shall consider him as my best friend.” This was
quite enough to silence Rankin.

“Henry Moore,” said Wesley, “you are a witness that what John Atlay
said, when he left us, is untrue. He said, ‘Mr. Wesley could never
bear a man who contradicted him.’ Now no man in England has
contradicted me as much as you have done; and yet, Henry, I love you
still. You are right.”

Hundreds of such anecdotes might be given: these must serve as
specimens.

On Sunday, the 1st of March, after preaching to two crowded
congregations, in City Road, Wesley and three of his preachers took
coach for Bath; and “spent,” says he, “a comfortable night, partly in
sound sleep, and partly in singing praise to God.” Such, after a hard
day, at seven o’clock in a winter’s night, was the start of an old man
of eighty-six, on a five months’ preaching tour!

At Bath and Bristol, he spent a fortnight, in preaching and meeting
classes, and then set out for Ireland. On the way, he preached at
Stroud, Gloucester, and Tewkesbury. At Birmingham, he opened a new
chapel, and remarks: “Saturday, March 21--I had a day of rest, only
preaching morning and evening.” The passage from Holyhead, instead of
occupying four hours, as at present, occupied thirty-six, and, during
it, the venerable voyager was a serious sufferer. “I do not remember,”
he writes, “that I was ever so sick at sea before; but this was little
to the cramp which held most of the night with little intermission.”
He arrived at Dublin quay at eight on Sunday morning, and,
notwithstanding the illness from which he had suffered, went direct to
Dublin chapel, and “preached on the sickness and recovery of King
Hezekiah and King George,” and afterwards administered the sacrament
to about five hundred people.

At this sacramental service, he employed his assistant, William Myles,
in giving the cup to the communicants; an act which occasioned huge
offence, for William Myles was not ordained. In the week following, a
long paragraph appeared in the _Dublin Evening Post_, setting forth,
that “the _Church was in danger!_ and calling upon the archbishop to
use his authority; for a Mr. William Myles, a layman, had assisted Mr.
Wesley in administering the Lord’s supper; the greatest innovation
that had been witnessed for the last fifty years!” “This brought on,”
says Mr. Myles, “a newspaper controversy, which continued for three
months. My name was bandied about to some purpose; but I endeavoured
in patience to possess my soul. At the expiration of the three months,
the subscribers desired the printer to put no more Methodist nonsense
into his paper; and he had the good sense to listen to the requisition
of his customers, which happily terminated this exquisitely silly
controversy.”[669]

On Wesley’s arrival at Dublin, he had, to use his own expression,
“letter upon letter,” concerning the alteration in the Sunday service,
which had been introduced by Dr. Coke; and, hence, he addressed the
following.

                   “_To certain Persons in Dublin._

                    “WHITEFRIAR STREET, DUBLIN, _March 31, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BRETHREN,--I much approve of the manner and spirit
  wherein you write concerning these tender points. I explained
  myself upon them, in some measure, on Sunday: I will do it more
  fully now.

  “At present, I have nothing to do with Dr. Coke: but I answer
  for myself. I do not separate from the Church, nor have any
  intention so to do. Neither do they, that meet on Sunday noon,
  separate from the Church, any more than they did before: nay,
  less; for they attend the church and sacrament oftener now than
  they did two years ago.

  “‘But this occasions much strife.’ True; but they make the
  strife who do not attend the service. Let them quietly either
  come or stay away, and there will be no strife at all.

  “‘But those that attend say, those that do not are fallen from
  grace.’ No, they do not give them a bad word; but they surely
  will fall from grace, if they do not let them alone who follow
  their own consciences.

  “But you ‘fear this will make way for a total separation from
  the Church.’ You have no ground for this fear. There can be no
  such separation while I live. Leave to God what may come after.

  “But, to speak plainly, do not you separate from the Church?
  Yea, much more than those you blame? Pray, how often have you
  been at church since Christmas? Twelve times in twelve weeks?
  And how long have you been so fond of the Church? Are you fond
  of it at all? Do not you go oftener to a Dissenting meeting
  than either to St. Patrick’s, or your parish church?

  “My dear brethren, you and I have but a short time to stay
  together. ‘My race of glory is run, and race of shame; and I
  shall shortly be with those that rest.’ Therefore, as one that
  loves you well, and has loved you long, I advise you, in the
  presence and in the fear of God: (1) Either quietly attend the
  Sunday service, or quietly refrain from it; then there will be
  no strife at all. Now you make the strife of which you
  complain. (2) Make not this a pretence for being weary of well
  doing. Do not, for so poor a reason, withdraw your subscription
  from the school or the preachers. What a miserable revenge
  would this be! Never let it be said, that my friend A----
  K----, that brother D----, or B----, were capable of this. From
  this hour, let this idle strife be buried in eternal oblivion.
  Talk not of it any more. If it be possible, think not of it any
  more. Rather think, ‘the Judge standeth at the door;’ let us
  prepare to meet our God!

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[670]

Such was Wesley’s attempt to defend the Dublin Methodist service in
church hours; or rather, such was his attack on those who were opposed
to it. No doubt his accusations were founded upon facts; but this was
hardly an answer to the argument of objectors, that having service in
church hours was, _ipso facto_, separation from the Church. He tells
us, that one consequence of Dr. Coke’s new arrangement was, that three
times more Methodists now went to St. Patrick’s, on the first Sunday
in every month, than had done for ten or twenty years before; and
that, on the first Sunday of April, when he went himself, many of them
went with him; the number of communicants being about five hundred,
or, in other words, more communicants, on that single Sunday, than St.
Patrick’s used to have the whole year round, before the Methodists
were known in Ireland. The arrangement, says Wesley, that the
Methodists in Dublin should have service in church hours, “on
condition that they would attend St. Patrick’s every first Sunday in
the month, was made, not to prepare for, but to prevent, a separation
from the Church.” There can be no question, that this was Wesley’s
wish; but it may be doubted whether it was Dr. Coke’s intention.

During this Dublin fracas, Wesley sent, at least, one letter to the
public papers. The following is an extract.

             “_To the Printer of the ‘Dublin Chronicle.’_

                                    “LONDONDERRY, _June 2, 1789_.

  “SIR,--As soon as I was gone from Dublin, the _Observer_ came
  forth, only with his face covered. Afterwards, he came out,
  under another name, and made a silly defence for me, that he
  might have the honour of answering it. His words are smoother
  than oil, and flow (who can doubt it?) from mere love both to
  me and the people.

  “But what does this smooth, candid writer endeavour to prove,
  with all the softness and good humour imaginable? Only this
  point, (to explain it in plain English,) that I am a double
  tongued knave, an old crafty hypocrite, who have used religion
  merely for a cloak, and have worn a mask for these fifty years,
  saying one thing and meaning another. A bold charge this, only
  it happens that matter of fact contradicts it from beginning to
  end.”

Wesley then proceeds to give an outline of his history from his youth
to the time when he took the French churches in West Street, Seven
Dials, and in Spitalfields, and he and his brother began to preach in
them in church hours; and states that the two archbishops of
Canterbury, Potter and Secker, and the two bishops of London, Gibson
and Lowth, never blamed them for this, or thought or called it
separation from the Church; only, on one occasion, Archbishop Potter
said: “These gentlemen are irregular; but they have done good, and I
pray God to bless them.” Wesley continues:

  “It may be observed that, all this time, if my brother or I
  were ill, I desired one of our other preachers, though not
  ordained, to preach in either of the chapels, after reading
  part of the Church prayers. This both my brother and I judged
  would endear the Church prayers to them, whereas, if they were
  used wholly to extemporary prayer, they would naturally
  contract a kind of contempt, if not aversion, to forms of
  prayer; so careful were we, from the beginning, to prevent
  their leaving the Church.

  “When the Rev. Mr. Edward Smyth came to live in Dublin, he
  earnestly advised me to leave the Church; meaning thereby, (as
  all sensible men do,) to renounce all connection with it, to
  attend the services of it no more, and to advise all our
  societies to take the same steps. I judged this to be a matter
  of great importance, and would, therefore, do nothing hastily;
  but referred it to the body of preachers, then met in
  conference. We had several meetings, in which he proposed all
  his reasons for it at large. They were severally considered,
  and answered, and we all determined not to leave the Church.

  “A year ago, Dr. Coke began officiating at our chapel in
  Dublin. This was no more than had been done in London for
  between forty and fifty years. Some persons immediately began
  to cry out, ‘This is leaving the Church, which Mr. Wesley has
  continually declared he would never do.’ And I declare so
  still. But I appeal to all the world, I appeal to common sense,
  I appeal to the _Observer_ himself, could I mean hereby, ‘I
  will not have service in church hours’? No; but I denied, and
  do deny still, that this is leaving the Church, either in the
  sense of Bishop Gibson, or of Mr. Smyth at the Dublin
  conference. Yet, by this outcry, many well meaning people were
  frighted well-nigh out of their senses.

  “‘But see the consequence of having Sunday service here! See
  the confusion this occasioned!’ Some time since, while a
  popular preacher was preaching at Leeds, one cried out, ‘Fire!
  Fire!’ The people took fright, some leaped over the gallery,
  and several legs and arms were broken. But upon whom were these
  consequences to be charged? Not on the preacher, but on him
  that made the outcry. Apply this to the present case. I have
  kindled no more fire in Dublin than I did in London. It is the
  _Observer_ and a few other mischief makers, who fright the
  people out of their senses; and they must answer to God for the
  consequence.

  “This is my answer to them that trouble me, and will not let my
  grey hairs go down to the grave in peace. I am not a man of
  duplicity; I am not an old hypocrite, a double tongued knave.
  More than forty years, I have frequented Ireland. I have wished
  to do some good here. I now tell a plain tale, that ‘the good
  that is in me may not be evil spoken of.’ I have no temporal
  end to serve. I seek not the honour that cometh of men. It is
  not for pleasure, that, at this time of life, I travel three or
  four thousand miles a year. It is not for gain.

                ‘No foot of land do I possess,
                 No cottage in this wilderness;
                   A poor wayfaring man,
                 I lodge awhile in tents below,
                 Or gladly wander to and fro,
                   Till I my Canaan gain.’

                                                    “JOHN WESLEY.

  “P.S. At the desire of a friend, I add a few words in answer to
  one or two other objections.

  “First. When I said, ‘I believe I am a scriptural bishop,’ I
  spoke on Lord King’s supposition, that bishops and presbyters
  are essentially one order.

  “Secondly. I did desire Mr. Myles to assist me in delivering
  the cup. Now, be this right or wrong, how does it prove the
  point now in question, that I leave the Church? I ask (2) What
  law of the Church forbids this? And (3) What law of the
  primitive church? Did not the priest in the primitive church
  send both the bread and wine to the sick by whom he pleased,
  though not ordained at all?

  “Thirdly. The _Observer_ affirms, ‘To say you will not leave
  the church, meaning thereby all true believers in England, is
  trifling.’ Certainly; but I do not mean so when I say, ‘I will
  not leave the Church.’ I mean, unless I see more reason for it
  than I ever yet saw, I will not leave the Church of England as
  by law established, while the breath of God is in my
  nostrils.”[671]

Such was Wesley’s manifesto in 1789; in reality, a defence of a thing
he had often condemned,--Methodist service in church hours.

While Wesley was thus attacked in the public press, he met with the
greatest respect and attention from several persons of distinguished
rank in Dublin and its environs; the Earl of Moira among the number.
“They seemed,” says Mr. Myles, “to think it a blessing to have him
beneath their roof.”[672] Many of them flocked to hear him, on Good
Friday, when he preached, morning and evening, in the elegant chapel
of his old clerical dissenting friend, the Rev. Edward Smyth. Neither
grand people, however, nor grand chapels, were at all prized by
Wesley, except as they furnished opportunities of Christian
usefulness. “At both times on Good Friday,” says he, “we had a
brilliant congregation, among whom were honourable and right
honourable persons; but I felt they were all given into my hands; for
God was in the midst. What a mercy it is, what a marvellous
condescension in God, to provide such places as Bethesda, and Lady
Huntingdon’s chapels, for these delicate hearers, who could not bear
sound doctrine if it were not set off with these _pretty trifles_!”

Dublin was not the only place which, at this time, gave Wesley
trouble. The Dewsbury circuit was entirely wrested by his traitorous
book steward; and now, the same rebellion against giving Wesley, and
(after his death) Wesley’s conference, the sole power to appoint
preachers, was showing itself at Shields. Hence the following,
addressed to the three itinerant preachers stationed in the Newcastle
circuit.

                                       “DUBLIN, _April 11, 1789_.

  “I _require_ you three, Peter Mill, Joseph Thompson, and John
  Stamp, without consulting or regarding any person whatever, to
  require a positive answer of Edward Coats, within three weeks
  after the receipt of this, ‘Will you, or will you not, settle
  the house at Milburn Place, North Shields, on the Methodist
  plan?’ If he will not do it within another week, I farther
  require that none of you preach in that house, unless you will
  renounce all connection with your affectionate brother,

                                                    “JOHN WESLEY.

  “I am at a point. I will be trifled with no longer.”[673]

Was this more hasty than wise? John Pawson seemed to think so. The
following is taken from one of his unpublished letters, to Charles
Atmore, dated “Leeds, May 9, 1789.”

  “What a pity it is that Mr. Wesley will pursue these violent
  measures! If he goes thus, there will be divisions upon
  divisions among us. Mr. Hanby informs me, that, at North and
  South Shields, and at Alnwick, they refuse to settle their
  houses upon the conference plan; and, at Newcastle, they have
  been talking of building a chapel for the Rev. Mr. Collins, and
  of inviting some of the best preachers to settle among them,
  and make a circuit by themselves. I suppose Mr. Sagar would
  tell you, they had strange commotions among them when he was
  there.”

But even this was not all. In 1785, Wesley ordained John Pawson and
Thomas Hanby for Scotland; where, for two years, they had administered
the sacraments, and had preached in gown and bands. In 1787, as
already stated, he brought them back to England, commanded them to
doff their canonicals, and, being in England, to discontinue their
sacramental services. This, to Pawson, was exceedingly annoying; but
he hardly had the pluck of Hanby in resisting it. Hanby and Joseph
Taylor, (who had also been ordained, and was in the same dubious
position,) were now stationed in the Nottingham circuit; and many of
the Methodists, aware of their ordination, naturally wished them to
administer to them the Christian ordinances; but this Wesley
imperiously prohibited. Taylor yielded; Hanby persisted. The following
extracts, from two of his unprinted letters, will be read with
interest. The first was addressed to James Oddie; the second to
Richard Rodda.

                                       “GRANTHAM, _May 21, 1789_.

  “MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I have been in deep waters on account
  of my administering the Lord’s supper, which I think it my duty
  to do, especially to those who, for conscience sake, cannot go
  to church. Mr. Wesley ordered me to desist. I told him, if I
  did, I should sin, because I was persuaded it was my duty. Then
  he instructed the London clergy and preachers to take me in
  hand. I have received their letter, and have replied, that I
  must still do as I have done; and that, if Mr. Wesley has given
  me up into their hands, they must act according to their own
  judgment; for what I was now doing was from a Divine conviction
  of my duty. Thus the matter rests. For some time, I have
  expected another preacher to take my place; but, as he has not
  come, perhaps, they will refer the matter to conference. Mr.
  Wesley has ordered Joseph Taylor, (who opposes me all he can,)
  to remove the leaders who have promoted the sacraments; if he
  does so, I expect there will be a division.

  “See, my brother, my situation. I am much afraid of myself,
  lest I should defile my conscience by yielding to the
  importunity of the preachers. I am of all others the most
  improper person to make a stand in defence of Christ’s precious
  and most neglected ordinance. However, hitherto, through
  infinite mercy, I have been firm and immovable; and our
  solemnities are much owned of God; and I have much employment
  in the sacred service. I meet with great opposition from the
  high church bigots; but yet there are many, who will stand by
  me, let the consequence be what it will.

  “Let me hear from you soon; and advise your very affectionate
  friend and brother,

                                                  “THOMAS HANBY.”

                                       “PLUMTREE, _June 4, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR FRIEND,--O yes! my sin is not to be forgiven unless I
  repent, which I cannot do. That is too late, because I cannot
  seek it with tears. Mr. Wesley has declared, that he will
  exclude the preachers who administer the Lord’s supper in
  England. For some time, I have expected to be unshipped; but
  whether hands are scarce, or I am to be permitted to finish my
  voyage, which will be the last week in July, I cannot tell.

  “I came under no such obligations to Mr. Wesley, not to
  administer in England. If this prohibition had been laid upon
  me, I hope I should have refused his offer of _nothing_. I am
  in the fire, but, like the salamander, I live there. I am up to
  the chin in deep waters; but not drowned. Mr. Mather sent me a
  threatening bull; Mr. Wesley a second; and, to complete the
  work, the clergy in London, Mr. Rankin and Mr. Moore, joined
  their artillery. The last in command is my colleague, Joseph
  Taylor, who opposes me with the utmost warmth. You will readily
  conclude, ‘Poor Hanby will be overpowered by numbers.’ True;
  but I still keep the field, for all that, and mean to die
  there. I am single handed, for my brethren, who promised to
  support me, have deserted to the strongest party, not an
  unusual case. I grant, that those who are called to preach have
  an equal right to administer; but do not talk of ‘depreciating
  ordination.’ Mr. Wesley did that, seven years ago, when he
  published in the newspapers those who had presumed to be
  ordained by the Greek bishop. I expect, he will depreciate me,
  though he himself ordained me, and commanded me to administer
  the ordinances in the church of God.

  “When the great opposition against the sacraments was formed,
  Mr. Taylor had administered once; and I had promised to do so
  in two other places; and when my engagements were fulfilled, I
  proposed to desist from proceeding further, (as he had done,)
  for I saw there was no withstanding so formidable a body.
  However, I was brought into deep distress of mind, by the
  earnest request of the people, who had not communicated for
  years, and who would not communicate with drinking, whoring,
  swearing, and fighting parsons. The Lord let me see that His
  ordinance was become obsolete, and that it was an unreasonable
  stretch of power, in any human creature, to say, ‘If you will
  not communicate with these wicked men, you shall not
  communicate at all.’ This appeared to me as an abrogation of
  Christ’s commanded ordinance, for which no one, either man or
  angel, had authority. I saw it was my duty to stand forth in
  defence of this ordinance, and to suffer for it; for suffer I
  am sure to do. Mr. Wesley, for many years, has treated me
  contemptuously, putting me beneath the weakest and most
  suspicious characters, (viz. Briscoe and Fenwick,) and,
  therefore, I expect no favour in that quarter.

  “I begin to look out for some poor cottage, to which I may
  retire, and wait the opening of Providence. ‘_Vox populi vox
  Dei_,’ is my motto; and, whatever others may say or think of
  me, I have no other motive but the principle of Divine love. I
  can promise my sect neither riches nor honour, by my opposition
  to the conference; but quite the reverse. To be expelled the
  connexion, after thirty-five years of uninterrupted labour, is,
  to me, a very painful thought; but I see I must suffer it; and
  shall only take away with me this motto, ‘Driven from Methodism
  for defending the injured, and nearly abrogated and obsolete,
  ordinance of Christ.’ Farewell, Mr. Wesley! Farewell, Mr.
  Rodda! Farewell, conference!

  “I have written Mr. Wesley my reasons for acting in opposition
  to his will, and my reasons why I must still act as I do; but
  he has given me no answer. Well, I am nothing. I only want to
  be the servant of God; and I see I must be His servant in His
  own way. If we may judge of the propriety of our action, by His
  sacred presence, I can assure you the tokens of that presence
  are wonderfully manifested in our assemblies.

  “Many of the people in this circuit intend to apply again for
  the ordinance; and, perhaps, their petition will be treated
  with the same contempt as their last was at Manchester.

  “I am your very affectionate, and much obliged friend and
  brother,

                                                  “THOMAS HANBY.”

This was a painful state of things; Dewsbury, Shields, Nottingham, and
Dublin, in rebellion; and now Thomas Hanby, ordained by Wesley, and
one of his best preachers, in danger of expulsion, for doing what he
deemed to be his duty. Fortunately, this unbending minister was saved;
and became the elected president of the fourth conference that was
held after Wesley’s death. On Christmas day, in 1796, he preached
thrice in Nottingham, and met four or five classes for the renewal of
their quarterly tickets. This was his last labour of love. Four days
afterwards, he died, saying: “I am departing; but I have fought a good
fight.”[674]

Wesley left Dublin, on his preaching tour through the Irish provinces,
on the 13th of April, and returned on the 19th of June. In this nine
weeks’ journey he preached about a hundred sermons, in more than sixty
different towns and villages, at least a dozen times in the open air,
half-a-dozen times in churches, and once in a place which, he says,
was “large, but not elegant--a cow house.”

During a part of the time, he was seriously unwell, being attacked
with a complaint which was new to him, diabetes. He wrote to London
for the advice of Dr. Whitehead, and, though the disease abated under
the doctor’s treatment, he suffered from it, more or less, to the time
of his decease.[675]

“I was delighted,” says Mr. Alexander Knox, “to find his cheerfulness
in no respect abated. It was too obvious that his bodily frame was
sinking; but his spirit was as alert as ever; and he was little less
the life of the company he happened to be in, than he had been
three-and-twenty years before, when I first knew him. Such unclouded
sunshine of the breast, in the deepest winter of age, and on the felt
verge of eternity, bespoke a mind whose recollections were as
unsullied as its present sensations were serene.”

In illustration of Mr. Knox’s testimony, an anecdote may be added. At
this time, Mr. (afterwards the Rev.) Joseph Burgess was quartermaster
of a regiment of soldiers in Sligo barracks, and had the honour of
entertaining Wesley as his guest. A large party of friends were
assembled to meet the venerable visitor at dinner; and, while the meal
was in progress, he suddenly laid down his knife and fork, clasped his
hands, and lifted up his eyes, as in the attitude of praise and
prayer. In an instant, feasting was suspended, and all the guests were
silent. Wesley then gave out, and sang with great animation,

                            “And can we forget,
                             In tasting our meat,
                 The angelical food which ere long we shall eat;
                             When enrolled with the blest,
                             In glory we rest,
                 And for ever sit down at the heavenly feast?”

The happy old man, so near to the gates of heaven, then quietly
resumed his knife and fork; and all felt that this beautiful
spontaneous episode, in the midst of an Irish dinner, had done them
good.[676]

Wesley spent three weeks more in Dublin and its vicinity. He visited
the classes, which contained above a thousand members, after he had
excluded about a hundred. He also held his Irish conference, at which,
of the sixty preachers then employed in the sister island, between
forty and fifty were present. He writes:


  “I found such a body of men as I hardly believed could have
  been found together in Ireland; men of so sound experience, so
  deep piety, and so strong understanding. I am convinced, they
  are no way inferior to the English conference, except it be in
  number. I never saw such a number of preachers before, so
  unanimous in all points, particularly as to leaving the Church,
  which none of them had the least thought of. It is no wonder,
  that there has been this year so large an increase of the
  society.”

On the conference Sunday, Wesley and his preachers, and a large number
of the Dublin Methodists, attended the service in St. Patrick’s. “The
dean,” says he, “preached a serious, useful sermon; and we had such a
company of communicants as, I suppose, had scarce been seen there
together, for above a hundred years.”

On his birthday he wrote:

  “June 28.--This day I enter on my eighty-sixth year.[677] I now
  find, I grow old: (1) My sight is decayed; so that I cannot
  read a small print, unless in a strong light. (2) My strength
  is decayed; so that I walk much slower than I did some years
  since. (3) My memory of names, whether of persons or places, is
  decayed; till I stop a little to recollect them. What I should
  be afraid of, is, if I took thought for the morrow, that my
  body should weigh down my mind; and create either stubbornness,
  by the decrease of my understanding, or peevishness, by the
  increase of bodily infirmities: but Thou shalt answer for me, O
  Lord my God.”

At length, on July 12, Wesley bid adieu to the shores of Ireland, for
ever. It was a touching scene. Multitudes followed him to the ship.
Before he went on board, he read a hymn; and the crowd, as far as
emotion would let them, joined the sainted patriarch in singing. He
then dropped upon his knees, and asked God to bless them, their
families, the Church, and Ireland. Shaking of hands followed; many
wept most profusely; and not a few fell on the old man’s neck and
kissed him. He stepped on deck; the vessel moved; and then, with his
hands still lifted up in prayer, the winds of heaven wafted him from
an island which he dearly loved; and the warm hearted Irish Methodists
“saw his face no more.”[678]

Before proceeding with Wesley’s history, another selection from his
letters may be welcome. The first was addressed to a man who deserves
a passing notice.

Walter Churchey was an enthusiastic Welshman; a lawyer with a large
family and a slender purse; a good, earnest, conceited old Methodist,
who, unfortunately for his wife and children, had more delight in
writing poetry than he had employment in preparing briefs. He was one
of Wesley’s correspondents as early as 1771;[679] exchanged letters
with Wesley’s brother Charles; was an acquaintance of the saintly
Fletcher; and an intimate friend of Joseph Benson and Dr. Coke. He
claimed the honour, which belonged to others, of having first
suggested to Wesley the publishing of his _Arminian Magazine_;[680]
and, in a manuscript letter before us, states that he it was who
originated the scheme for reducing what he calls “the national debt”
of Methodism in the year 1800. He was a good man, though perhaps
flighty, very diligent but very poor, a warm admirer of Methodist
doctrine, but withal a millenarian, who wrote, in the letter just
mentioned: “I have lost my friend, Wesley; but I shall see him again,
perhaps _soon_, even upon _earth_, where the _sufferers_ for Christ
are to rise to reign in His spiritual kingdom on earth a thousand
years. I grow daily a greater _Brotherite_.”[681]

In 1786, Churchey wished to enrich the world with his poetical
productions; and, among others, consulted Wesley and the poet Cowper.
The latter, in reply, remarked: “I find your versification smooth,
your language correct and forcible, and especially in your translation
of the Art of Printing. But you ask me, would I advise you to publish?
I would advise every man to publish, whose subjects are well chosen,
whose sentiments are just, and who can afford to be a loser, if that
should happen, by his publication.”[682]

Thus encouraged, the sanguine Welshman set to work; Wesley helped him
in obtaining subscribers; the poems were published; the reviewers were
revilers; and poor Churchey was poorer than ever.

The following letters, among others, were addressed to this worthy,
but needy man. The first and second have not before been published.

                                    “LONDON, _February 11, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--On Monday, March 2, I hope to be in Bath or
  Bristol, and then we may talk about the number of copies. I
  have been much more concerned than you, for these sixty years,
  in printing books, both with and without subscription; and I
  still think, with all our skill and industry, we shall be hard
  set to procure three hundred subscribers. Perhaps three hundred
  may _promise_; but we must never imagine that _all_ who promise
  will perform. But of this we may talk more, when we meet at
  Bristol.

  “I suppose every one that loves King George loves Mr. Pitt.
  Peace be with all your spirits!

  “I am your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

                                         “CLONES, _May 25, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am afraid of delay. I doubt, I shall not
  be able to be as good as our word, although, in the last
  proposals, I have protracted the time of delivery till the 1st
  of August. As you are not a stripling, I wonder you have not
  yet learnt the difference between _promise_ and _performance_.
  I allow, at least, five-and-twenty per cent; and, from this
  conviction, I say to each of my subscribers (what, indeed,
  _you_ cannot say so decently to _yours_), ‘Sir, down with your
  money.’

  “I know Dr. Ogilvie well. He is a lovely man and an excellent
  poet. I commend you for inoculating the children. I believe the
  hand of God is in our present work: therefore, it must prosper.
  Indeed, I love sister Churchey, and am your affectionate friend
  and brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The following, besides referring to Churchey’s poems, is possessed of
interest as containing an allusion to the prayer-book published in
1788; and also Wesley’s final testimony concerning the great
philanthropist, John Howard, who died seven months afterwards.

                                        “DUBLIN, _June 20, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Michael ---- is an original. He tells lies
  innumerable, many of them plausible enough. But many talk full
  as plausibly as he; and they that can believe him, may.

  “I do not doubt, but some part of your verse, as well as prose,
  will reach the hearts of some of the rich.

  “Dr. Coke made two or three little alterations in the
  prayer-book without my knowledge. I took particular care
  throughout, to alter nothing merely for altering’s sake. In
  religion, I am for as few innovations as possible; I love the
  old wine best. And if it were only on this account, I prefer
  ‘_which_’ before ‘_who_ art in heaven.’

  “Mr. Howard is really an extraordinary man. God has raised him
  up to be a blessing to many nations. I do not doubt, but there
  has been something more than natural in his preservation
  hitherto, and should not wonder if the providence of God should
  hereafter be still more conspicuous in his favour.

  “About three weeks hence, I expect to embark for England. Peace
  be with you and yours!

  “I am your affectionate brother,

                                                “JOHN WESLEY.”[683]

While in Ireland, Wesley was troubled with the affairs of Scotland.
Two years before this, John Pawson, eager to exercise his newly
acquired episcopal or presbyterian power,--whichever the reader has a
mind to call it,--began, in Glasgow, a species of Methodism, which was
not Wesley’s, but his own. He ordained seven elders, who were to meet
weekly, and to have the supervision of the temporal and spiritual
affairs of the Glasgow Methodists. In a book, Pawson wrote the rules,
which were to regulate their conduct. Among others, one regulation
was, that no person should be admitted into the society, or be
expelled from it, but by a majority of these ordained elders; for,
though the itinerant preacher might preside at their meetings, he was
not allowed to vote. No doubt, honest but simple Pawson expected good
and great results. The elders, however, like Pawson, had no notion of
being invested with ecclesiastical office without using it; and,
hence, all sorts of paltry cases were got up, apparently for the
purpose of enabling the newly fledged elders to show their skill in
settling them. One must suffice, as a specimen. Thomas Tassey, the
most vigilant and active of the official seven, alleged that Peggy
---- had become a lodger with Peggy ----, and had committed theft; and
that, as the time for the administration of the sacrament was
approaching, the charge against Peggy ---- ought to be judicially
examined. Accordingly, a sessions was appointed. The elders, the
accuser, the accused, and the witnesses were present. Beside these,
there were also the two circuit preachers, Jonathan Crowther and
Joseph Cownley, whom Crowther justly designates “two poor ciphers,”
seeing, though they might preside, they had no power to vote. The
charge was, that when Peggy ---- went to lodge with Peggy ----, the
latter Peggy bought half an ounce of tea, and a farthing’s worth of
oil; that these household provisions did not last so long as usual;
and that the probability was, that the property of Peggy ---- had, to
some extent, been feloniously appropriated by her lodger, Peggy ----.
The affair was so serious, and withal so solemnly conducted, that it
became needful to adjourn. At the second sessions, Crowther (who,
though not allowed to vote, had a right to examine witnesses), asked
the Peggy whose property was in question, how often she had made
herself tea out of the half ounce, part of which had been stolen.
Peggy dolorously answered, “Only seven times.” She was then examined
respecting her farthing’s worth of oil; and it was ascertained, that,
though it had not lasted as long as usual, she had been using a _new_
feather in applying it; and it was thought that the _new_ feather
might have absorbed the quantity which Peggy, the lodger, was accused
of stealing.

So the matter ended. Jonathan Crowther was disgusted, and told
Pawson’s ordained elders, that their discipline resembled the wisdom
of Solomon, for it took cognisance of everything, from the hyssop on
the wall to the cedars of mount Lebanon. The system had been
instituted by Pawson, one of Wesley’s confidential friends, and a
preacher of seventeen years’ standing. Crowther was young and
inexperienced, only in the fifth year of his itinerant life; but he
was gifted with common sense, and saw that, if this ordained machinery
was continued, Methodism must be ruined. Wesley had been in Scotland
twelve months before; but, strangely enough, appears to have been kept
in ignorance of the new court at Glasgow. At all events, Jonathan
Crowther now wrote to him; and received the following decisive answer.

                                           “CORK, _May 10, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--‘Sessions’! ‘elders’! We Methodists have no
  such custom, neither any of the churches of God that are under
  our care. I require _you_, Jonathan Crowther, immediately to
  dissolve that session (so called) at Glasgow. Discharge them
  from meeting any more. And if they will leave the society, let
  them leave it. We acknowledge only preachers, stewards, and
  leaders among us, over which the assistant in each circuit
  presides. You ought to have kept to the Methodist plan from the
  beginning. Who had my authority to vary from it? If the people
  of Glasgow, or any other place, are weary of us, we will leave
  them to themselves. But we are willing to be still their
  servants, for Christ’s sake, according to our own discipline,
  but no other.

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[684]

Before accompanying Wesley on his way back to England, we insert
another letter, which is abridged in Wesley’s collected works. Adam
Clarke was in the isle of Jersey; but Wesley wished him to remove to
Dublin, on account of the disturbed state of the society in that city.
His old friend, the Rev. Edward Smyth, was now one of his bitter
enemies. Hence the following.

                                   “NEAR DUBLIN, _June 25, 1789_.

  “DEAR ADAM,--You send me good news with regard to the islands.
  Who can hurt us, if God is on our side? Trials may come, but
  they are all good. I have not been so tried for many years.
  Every week and almost every day, I am bespattered in the public
  papers, either by Mr. Smyth, or by Mr. Mann, his curate.
  Smooth, but bitter as wormwood, are their words; and five or
  six of our richest members have left the society, because (they
  say) ‘I have left the Church.’ Many are in tears on account of
  it; and many are terribly frightened, and crying out, ‘Oh! what
  will the end be?’ What will it be? Why, ‘Glory to God in the
  highest, peace on earth, and goodwill among men.’

  “But, meantime, what is to be done? What will be the most
  effectual means to stem this furious torrent? I have just
  visited the classes, and find still in the society upwards of a
  thousand members; and, among these, many as deep Christians as
  any I have met with in Europe. But who is able to watch over
  them, that they may not be moved from their steadfastness? I
  know none more proper than Adam Clarke and his wife. Indeed, it
  may seem hard for them to go into a strange land again. Well,
  you may come to me at Leeds, at the latter end of next month;
  and if you can show me any that are more proper, I will send
  them in your stead.[685] That God may be glorified, is all that
  is desired by, dear Adam,

  “Your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[686]

It has been already stated, that Wesley embarked for England on July
12. William Myles was with him, and says: “We had a pleasant passage;
Mr. Wesley preached, and we sang hymns most of the way.”[687] The
passage lasted about six-and-thirty hours.

After holding services at Chester and Northwich, Wesley made his way
to Manchester, where he and Coke administered the sacrament to about
twelve hundred communicants. At Dewsbury, where John Atlay had taken
both the Methodists and their chapel, Wesley preached out of doors, in
a drenching rain. He then proceeded to Leeds for the purpose of
holding his annual conference; and, on the day before it began its
sessions, preached from what would be a good conference text at the
present time: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called.”

As usual, Wesley, besides conducting the business of the conference,
preached every day during its sittings; and his texts throughout were
equally well timed, namely: “Train up a child in the way he should go;
and when he is old he will not depart from it.” “We through the Spirit
wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” “Woe unto the world
because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe
to that man by whom the offence cometh.” “To the weak became I as
weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men,
that I might by all means save some.” “Well, Master, Thou hast said
the truth; for there is one God; and there is none other but He.” “I
have a message from God unto thee.” “If any man speak, let him speak
as the oracles of God.”[688] Here was a word in season for every one.
Rare was the treat to attend a conference like this. On the conference
Sunday, Wesley seems to have devolved the preaching upon others; but
the day was not an idle one. He writes: “with the assistance of three
other clergymen, I administered the sacrament to fifteen or sixteen
hundred persons.” When and where are such sacramental services held at
present?

What may be called the _conference sermon_ was preached by a local
preacher, perhaps the only instance of the kind in Methodism’s
history. James Hamilton, M.D., was the preacher; his text, “Trust ye
not in lying words, saying, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these.” His sermon was printed, and
was sold “at the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s preaching houses in town and
country,” with the following title: “A Sermon preached at Leeds, July
29, 1789, before the Methodist Preachers, assembled in Conference, and
a large body of the people in connection with them; and now published
at the request of many of the Hearers.”

This also was a sermon for the times, and evidently had Wesley’s
approbation. Its gist may be gathered from a few brief extracts.

After dwelling on the functions of the priests and scribes of the
Jewish church, the preacher said:

  “But as all external religion is of no use, any farther than as
  it advances the spiritual kingdom of Christ in the soul; and as
  the Jews too often lost sight of this, resting in their types
  and ceremonies, God called a race of men, named prophets, who
  had nothing to do with the priesthood; men full of the Holy
  Ghost; and sent them to declare that all external religion is
  nothing worth, when it fails to produce purity of heart. The
  prophets were, (with two or three exceptions,) what we call
  laymen,--taken from the common occupations in Judæa, chiefly
  farmers and shepherds,--holy men, men of strong faith, their
  hearts overflowing with zeal for the honour of God,--men of
  invincible courage, practising the strictest temperance, and
  clothed in the plainest manner.”

Dr. Hamilton then proceeded to argue, that Methodist preachers bore
some analogy to these special messengers of God in ancient times; and
after an affectionate allusion to the two Wesleys, and to Whitefield,
continued:

  “And here mark the Divine wisdom. Although their brother
  priests in the Church thrust them from them, and although their
  names were cast out as evil above the names of all men, they
  ever retained a strong and affectionate attachment to the men
  who had thus abused them, and to the Church of which they were
  members; and this has been, in the overruling hand of God, the
  great means of carrying on that glorious spiritual work which
  we now behold. Had it not been for this attachment, the
  Methodists would have, long ere this, become a distinct body,
  separate from the Church and all others; and, I fear, in
  consequence thereof, would have sunk into the dead formality of
  the numerous sects, with which the world is harassed and
  divided.”

Then proceeding to address the assembled conference, the preacher
added:

  “Will ye bear with me, ye spiritual messengers of the Lord,
  while I presume to say a few words to _you_? See with what a
  holy calling ye are called; for what a glorious and important
  end God has raised you up! Even to set spiritual religion
  before the eyes of all men; to cry to men of all opinions,
  sects, and parties, ‘Trust not unto lying words, saying, The
  temple of the Lord are these’; to bring them, from resting in
  external duties, to the possession of internal holiness; from
  an opinion in the head, to the love of God in the heart. Let
  then the dead bury their dead! Let the formalist and the
  pharisee, the church bigot and the sectary, contend for ways of
  thinking, gestures in worship, and modes of church government;
  but may ye never forget, that ye are sent for a nobler end;
  that your commission is the same as Paul’s, not to baptize, but
  to preach the gospel. Although I am neither a prophet, nor the
  son of a prophet; yet forgive me when I express my fears, that,
  if ever the Methodists leave their several churches; if ever ye
  set up as a separate people by external distinctions and
  creeds; if ye substitute a silken gown and sash for rough
  garments and a leathern girdle, and call one another, Rabbi!
  Rabbi! then the glory will depart from you, and God will raise
  up another people. He will call other lay preachers, no matter
  by what name; and He will send them to call _you_ from opinions
  and forms, and to sound in _your_ ears, ‘Trust not unto lying
  words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,
  the temple of the Lord are these.’”

Hamilton’s sermon, to say the least, was ingenious; and referring as
it does to the great topic of the day, separation from the Church,
these extracts will not be regarded as out of place.

Wesley says, there were about a hundred preachers present at the
conference; Atmore says, about a hundred and thirty;[689] be that as
it may, one hundred and fifteen of them signed a declaration, that
they entirely approved of Methodist chapels being settled on the
conference plan; and, among these, were several who, soon after,
distinguished themselves as Methodist reformers, namely, William Thom,
Henry Taylor, and Alexander Kilham.

The principal subjects discussed are thus referred to in Wesley’s
journal.

  “July 28--The case of separation from the Church was largely
  considered, and we were all unanimous against it. August 1--We
  considered the case of Dewsbury house, which the self elected
  trustees have robbed us of. The point they contended for was
  this,--that they should have a right of rejecting any preachers
  they disapproved of. But this, we say, would destroy
  itinerancy. So they chose John Atlay for a preacher, who
  adopted William Eels for his curate. Nothing remained but to
  build another preaching house, towards which we subscribed £206
  on the spot.”

Besides these, some other points were decided; namely, that the
preachers should read the rules of the society in every society once a
quarter; that no person should be admitted to lovefeasts without a
society ticket, or a note from the assistant; that every watchnight
should be continued till midnight; that the collections at lovefeasts
should be most conscientiously given to the poor; that preachers
should not go out to supper, and should be home before nine at night;
that preachers’ children should dress exactly according to the band
rules; that only one preacher should come in future to the conference
from Scotland, except those that were to be admitted into full
connexion; and that no books should be published without Wesley’s
sanction, and that those approved by him should be printed at his
press in London, and be sold by his book steward.

We give these legislative enactments as we find them. The last bore
hardly on strong minded writers, like Thomas Taylor and Joseph Benson.

The day after the conference concluded, Wesley set out for London, and
thence, for the last time, to Cornwall. His first day’s journey was
seventy miles, and his second eighty, and to this amount of labour was
added preaching. One day in London was devoted to business; on the
next, which was Sunday, the patriarchal preacher delivered two sermons
in the chapel in City Road, set out at seven o’clock, p.m., travelled
all night, and reached Bristol about noon on Monday. Without delay, he
hurried on to Plymouth, preaching at Taunton, Collumpton, and Exeter.
At Plymouth there had been, what he calls, a “senseless quarrel”; but
he administered the sacrament to six hundred people, and preached to
an enormous congregation out of doors.

Arriving at St. Austell, he says: “I knew not where to preach, the
street being so dirty, and the preaching house so small. At length, we
determined to squeeze as many as we could into the preaching house;
and truly God was there.” At Truro, the street, leading to the chapel,
being blocked up with starving tinners demanding an increase to their
wages, and a troop of soldiers who were keeping peace, Wesley was
obliged to preach “under the coinage hall.” Forty years had elapsed
since he was last at Falmouth, and then he was “taken prisoner by an
immense mob, gaping and roaring like lions; now high and low lined the
street, from one end of the town to the other, out of stark love and
kindness”; and he preached to the largest congregation he had ever
seen in Cornwall, except in or near Redruth. The same sort of scenes
awaited him at Helstone, St. Just, Newlyn, and Penzance. In Gwennap
pit his congregation was calculated at five-and-twenty thousand. This
remarkable spot was first used by Wesley, as a place for preaching, in
1762, on account of the wind being so boisterous as to prevent him
occupying his usual stand in the town itself. “At a small distance,”
says he, “was a hollow capable of containing many thousand people. I
stood on one side of this amphitheatre, toward the top, with the
people beneath, and on all sides.” Many since then had been the
marvellous scenes he had witnessed in this “the finest natural
amphitheatre in the kingdom.” There can be little doubt, that the
estimated numbers were sometimes greater than the real; but still, it
was here, on this Cornish common, that Wesley had the largest
congregations to whom he ever preached. The place is now one of the
“sights” of Cornwall. Here an annual service has been held ever since
Wesley’s death; and now, on every Whitmonday, thousands wend their
way, in every style of conveyance, from the donkey cart of the poor
peasant to the dashing carriage of the wealthy squire, and assembling
within the area and around the banks of this consecrated hollow, join
in one vast act of worship, offered to the God of heaven. Here we have
Methodism’s yearly pilgrimage, made by hosts of Cornish Methodists,
not to honour man, but to commemorate the mercies of their fathers’
God, and to ask His help and blessing on behalf of themselves and
their posterity.

Eleven days were spent in Cornwall, during which Wesley preached, at
least, seventeen times, nine of which were in the open air. “There
is,” says he, “a fair prospect in Cornwall, from Launceston to the
Land’s End.”

On his way back, we find him preaching at Tavistock, Plymouth, Exeter,
Tiverton, Halberton, Taunton, Castle Carey, Ditcheat, and Shepton
Mallet, eleven sermons, in seven days, besides the travelling from
Cornwall to Bristol. No wonder that the venerable traveller sometimes
started at three o’clock in the morning!

Bristol was the centre of Wesley’s labours from September 5 to October
5. On one of the Sundays, he preached twice in his own chapel, and
once in Temple church; but writes: “It was full as much as I could do.
I doubt I must not hereafter attempt to preach more than twice a day.”

On October 5, he started from Bristol at four o’clock in the morning,
for London. Arriving in town, he wrote:

  “I am now as well, by the good providence of God, as I am
  likely to be while I live. My sight is so decayed, that I
  cannot well read by candlelight; but I can write as well as
  ever; and my strength is much lessened, so that I cannot easily
  preach above twice a day. But, I bless God, my memory is not
  much decayed; and my understanding is as clear as it has been
  these fifty years.”

Having spent five days in London, he set out for Norfolk. The
remainder of the year was employed, as usual, partly in London, and
partly in his long accustomed preaching tours to the surrounding
counties. On the last Sunday in the year, he occupied the pulpit of
St. Luke’s, his parish church. “The tables are turned,” says he; “I
have now more invitations to preach in churches than I can accept of.”

One of his London retreats was, what he calls, “the lovely family at
Balham.” This was, doubtless, the family of George Wolff, Esq., one of
his executors,--a merchant, and also consul general to the court of
Denmark,--a gentleman of unassuming manners, deeply pious, and one of
the most liberal of the metropolitan Methodists,--for many years the
confidential friend of Wesley, and who died at Balham, in 1828, at the
age of ninety-two.[690]

Before concluding the year, we insert a further selection from
Wesley’s letters.

The first was to his nephew, Samuel Wesley, the musical genius, now
twenty-three years of age, and is strikingly characteristic of the
venerable writer.

                             “NEAR BRISTOL, _September 16, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR SAMMY,--It gives me pleasure to hear, that you have so
  much resolution, that you go to bed at ten, and rise at four
  o’clock. Let not the increase of cold affright you from your
  purposes. Bear your cross, and it will bear you. I advise you
  carefully to read over Kempis, the Life of Gregory Lopez, and
  that of Mons. de Renty. They are all among my brother’s books.

  “I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate uncle and friend,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[691]

The next beautifully illustrates the benevolence of Wesley, and the
faithfulness of his friendship. Mr. Salmon, at the time referred to,
was not a member of the Methodist society, but only an occasional
hearer; and, yet, the instance of his liberality, which Wesley
mentions, was not the only one which does honour to his character. In
1762, Wesley opened a new chapel at Shepton Mallet, with a mudden
floor; and, in this state, it was occupied for years, when Mr. Salmon
gave the stewards £40 to improve the floor, and to supply back rails
to the benches.[692] Richard Rodda, to whom the following was
addressed, now filled the office of assistant at Manchester.

                                “WALLINGFORD, _October 24, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You are a man whom I can trust: whatever you
  do, you will do it with your might. Some years since, we wanted
  a preaching place near Coleford, in Somersetshire. A
  neighbouring gentleman, Mr. Salmon, gave us ground to build on,
  and timber for the house, and desired me to use his house as my
  own. He is now by wicked men reduced to want.

  “I am informed, a master for a poorhouse is wanted at
  Manchester. Pray inquire, and, if it be so, leave no means
  untried to procure the place for him. Apply, in my name, to B.
  Barlow, D. Yates, T. Phillips, Dr. Easton, Mr. Brocklehurst,
  Stonehouse, and all that have a regard for me. Make all the
  interest you can. Leave no stone unturned. ‘Join hands with God
  to make a good man live.’ I hope you will send me word in
  London, that you have exerted yourself, and are not without a
  prospect of success.

  “I am, dear Richard, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[693]

The following letter is now, for the first time, published. The
Liverpool Methodists were about to build their Mount Pleasant chapel.
An expenditure of £1100 startled Wesley. What would he have said to
the expenditure of as many thousands? And yet Liverpool Methodism does
the one now with as much nonchalance as it did the other then. The
letter was addressed to Mr. Lawrence Frost.

                                     “LONDON, _October 23, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You are bold people! Two hundred pounds,
  purchase money, besides nine hundred pounds! But I do not use
  to damp any good design. Go on in the name of God. It is true,
  your deed is clumsy enough. I am surprised, that no Methodist
  will take my advice. I have more _experience_, in these things,
  than any attorney in the land. And have I not the Methodist
  interest as much at heart? Oh, why will you alter the beautiful
  deed we have already? why will you employ any attorney at all?
  Only to seek a knot in a bulrush; only to puzzle the cause.
  Well, comfort yourself. You will not long be troubled with

  “Your affectionate brother,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The next, which was written to William Black, in Nova Scotia, is
interesting as containing a reference to Wesley’s labours, and his
professed adherence to the Church.

                                    “LONDON, _November 21, 1789_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Your letter has given me great satisfaction.
  My fears are vanished away. I am persuaded, brother Wray,
  Stretton, and you, will go on hand in hand, and that each of
  you will take an equal share in the common labour. I do so
  myself. I labour now just as I did twenty or forty years ago.
  By all means, proceed by common consent, and think not of
  _separating_ from the Church of England. I am more and more
  confirmed in the judgment which our whole conference passed on
  that head, in the year 1758.

  “I am your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[694]

Thirty-two years before, Wesley preached his first and last sermon in
Bideford. For long it had been a barren soil, but, in 1788, was made a
circuit town; and now simple minded, sanctified Samuel Bardsley was
labouring with great success. “I am glad,” says Wesley to this godly
man, “to hear so good an account of the work of God at Bideford. It
had held out long, and seemed to bid defiance to the gospel.”[695]
Bardsley was all alone; and Michael Fenwick, fond of meddling, wrote
to him: “Dear Sammy,--Write a pressing letter every post, until Mr.
Wesley sends you another preacher. It is cruel to let you be all alone
in that great wide circuit; and I will tell Mr. Wesley so. I am glad,
that Col. Buck is the reigning mayor with you. Pray, when you see him,
give my Christian respects to him, and tell him, I am glad he is
raised to be the first magistrate in Bideford.” Fenwick was without an
appointment, and was resident at Hexham. Wesley took him at his word,
and sent him to Bideford. Poor Michael seems to have been a stormy
petrel. No sooner was he come, than there was serious trouble. Hence
the following.

                                            “_December 25, 1789._

  “MOST ESTEEMED FRIEND,--Yesterday, I waited upon the lord
  lieutenant for this county, Lord Fortescue, and we spent an
  hour together in a close, pointed conversation, respecting the
  hot persecution at Bideford. His lordship told me, he will go
  over and inquire into matters, for he thinks our lives are in
  danger, seeing that the mayor of Bideford and the other
  justices have thrown open the flood gates to the mob, to do
  with us as they please. I recommended to his lordship the 23rd
  of Matthew, (only changing the word Jerusalem into that of
  Bideford,) in which our blessed Lord describes the men. His
  lordship is greatly alarmed at our present situation; but, the
  next week, he will be with his majesty, and will let him know
  of our treatment; and they must take the consequences. My dear
  brother, never fear: only believe; and we shall see great
  things in due time. I shall conquer, or die in the field.

  “I am your affectionate friend,

                                          “MICHAEL FENWICK.”[696]

The above not only furnishes a glimpse of Methodist affairs at
Bideford, but casts light on the following letters, which Wesley sent
to Bardsley.

                               “NORTHAMPTON, _November 25, 1789_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--Yours of the 21st instant was sent to me hither.
  You have done exceeding well to take the upper room. If need
  be, we will help you out. Let us have no law, if it be possible
  to avoid it: that is the last and worst remedy. Try every other
  remedy first. It is a good providence, that the mayor of
  Bideford is a friendly man. Prayer will avail much in all
  cases. Encourage our poor people to be instant in prayer. Take
  care of poor Michael; and do not forget,

  “Dear Sammy, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[697]

                         “NEWCASTLE UNDER LYNE, _March 29, 1790_.

  “DEAR SAMMY,--Take particular care, that neither Michael
  Fenwick, nor any other, give any just offence; and especially,
  that they offend not God; then He will make your enemies to be
  at peace with you.

  “If I remember well, I did write to the mayor of Bideford; and
  I expect, that makes him more quiet. By meekness, gentleness,
  and patience, with faith and prayer, you will prevail at
  Torrington also. You have only to go on calmly and steadily,
  and God will arise and maintain His own cause. Only let us
  labour to have a conscience void of offence toward God, and
  toward man.

  “I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[698]

All must admire this advice. During this year of storm and tempest,
the Bideford Methodists increased from eighty-three to one hundred and
forty.

We insert one more letter. In the Isle of Man there were 2569
Methodists, within five hundred of the number there are at present.
Then there was one circuit; now there are four: then there were three
itinerant preachers; now there are ten. George Holder was assistant;
and to him Wesley addressed the following.

                               “NEAR LONDON, _November 29, 1789_.

  “DEAR GEORGE,--You did well to remember the case of Dewsbury
  house, and to send what you could to Mr. Mather.

  “I exceedingly disapprove of publishing anything in the Manx
  language. On the contrary, we should do everything in our power
  to abolish it from the earth, and persuade every member of our
  society to learn and talk English. This would be much hindered
  by providing them with hymns in their own language. Therefore,
  gently and quietly let the proposal drop.

  “I hope you and your fellow labourers are of one heart. Peace
  be with your spirits!

  “I am, dear George, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[699]

Wesley would take no step to gratify the linguistic folly of the Manx
Methodists; but he was still actively employed in supplying books to
his English readers. His publications, in 1789, were:

1. “The Life of Mr. Silas Told.” 18mo, 113 pages.

2. “A Short Account of the Life and Death of Jane Newland, of Dublin.”
12mo, 12 pages.

3. “An Extract of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from September
4, 1782, to June 28, 1786.” 12mo, 134 pages.

4. “Minutes of Several Conversations between the Rev. Mr. Wesley and
others. From the year 1744, to the year 1789.” 12mo, 51 pages.

5. His chief publication, of course, was his _Arminian Magazine_, 8vo,
679 pages.

As usual, it contains six of his own sermons. Those on Man, Faith, and
the Omnipresence of God, are among the ablest he ever wrote. That on
the Rich Man and Lazarus is a powerful exposition of the text, which
Wesley believed to be, not merely a parable, but a history. The sermon
on Riches is boldly faithful, and must have made the rich Methodists
of that period wince and tremble; as, indeed, it ought to make such
Methodists wince and tremble at the present day. The following,
addressed to rich men, are the concluding paragraphs.

  “O how pitiable is your condition! And who is able to help you?
  You need more plain dealing than any men in the world; and you
  meet with less. For how few dare to speak as plain to _you_, as
  they would to one of your servants? No man living that either
  hopes to gain anything by your favour, or fears to lose
  anything by your displeasure. Oh that God would give me
  acceptable words, and cause them to sink deep into your hearts!
  Many of you have known me long, well-nigh from your infancy!
  You have frequently helped me, when I stood in need. May I not
  say, you loved me? But now the time of our parting is at hand;
  my feet are just stumbling upon the dark mountains. I would
  leave one word with you, before I go hence; and you may
  remember it when I am no more seen.

  “O let your heart be whole with God! Seek your happiness in
  Him, and Him alone. Beware, that you cleave not to the dust!
  This earth is not your place. See that you use this world as
  not abusing it; _use_ the world, and _enjoy_ God. Sit as loose
  to all things here below, as if you were a poor beggar. Be a
  good steward of the manifold gifts of God; that, when you are
  called to give an account of your stewardship, He may say,
  ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy
  of thy Lord.’”

Nothing can be plainer than that, for several of the last years of his
life, Wesley regarded the growing riches of the Methodists as one of
their greatest dangers. His magazines, to say nothing of his letters
and his journals, are full of this. Hence, his eighteen lengthy
extracts on the Surest Way of Thriving, running through the whole of
the magazine of 1788, and part of that for 1789. Hence, the solemn
warning, contained in his brief article on “The Origin of Image
Worship among Christians”; an article meriting the serious thought of
those wealthy Methodists, who are adorning (?) their chapels with
painted windows and emblematic pulpits. Citations might be multiplied,
all tending to show that, rightly or wrongly, Wesley regarded the
growth of riches among Christians, not as a good to be desired, but as
a necessary evil, and a serious danger.

The only sermon, which remains unnoticed, is that on God’s
Vineyard,--a sermon on the doctrine, spiritual helps, discipline, and
outward protection of Methodism. He tells us that, notwithstanding the
assistance they received from Peter Bohler, he and the other Oxford
Methodists “were never clearly convinced, that we are justified by
faith alone, till they carefully consulted the homilies of the Church
of England, and compared them with the sacred writings, particularly
St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans.” He propounds the principle, which
Dr. James Hamilton enlarged upon in his conference sermon, already
mentioned, that for the Methodists to have become a separate sect,
like the Moravians, “would have been a direct contradiction to the
whole design of God in raising them up, to spread scriptural religion
throughout the land, among people of every denomination, leaving every
one to hold his own opinions, and to follow his own mode of worship.”
Having shown the great advantages that the Methodists had enjoyed, his
early hopes concerning them, and how these hopes had hardly been
realised, he concludes with the following address to the rich members
of the society.

  “O ye that have riches in possession, once more hear the word
  of the Lord! Ye that are rich in this world, that have food to
  eat, and raiment to put on, and something over! Are you clear
  of the curse? of loving the world? Are you sensible of your
  danger? Do you feel, ‘How hardly will they that have riches
  enter into the kingdom of heaven’? Do you continue unburnt in
  the midst of fire? Are you untouched with the love of the
  world? Are you clear from the desire of the flesh, the desire
  of the eye, and the pride of life? Do you _put a knife to your
  throat_ when you sit down to meat, lest your _table_ should be
  a _snare to you_? Is not your belly your god? Is not eating and
  drinking, or any other pleasure of sense, the greatest pleasure
  you enjoy? Do not you seek happiness in dress, furniture,
  pictures, gardens; or anything else that pleases the eye? Do
  not you grow soft and delicate? unable to bear cold, heat, the
  wind or the rain, as you did when you were poor? Are you not
  increasing in goods, laying up treasures on earth; instead of
  restoring to God, in the poor, not so much or so much, but all
  that you can spare! Surely ‘it is easier for a camel to go
  through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the
  kingdom of heaven!’”

There are other contributions by Wesley, in the _Magazine_ for 1789,
which ought to have attention. There is an exquisitely drawn up
article on “The Nature of Inspiration, clearly explained and enforced,
as applicable to the Old and New Testament”; and also his piece “On
the Manners of the Times”; neither of which has been included in
Wesley’s collected works. And there are also his “Thoughts on
Separation from the Church,” and his “Thoughts upon a late
Phenomenon;” both of them really on the same subject. After showing
how revivals of religion have generally ended in the formation of
separate sects, and thereby rarely lasted, according to Luther’s
_dictum_, “longer than a generation, that is, thirty years,” Wesley
remarks:

  “The Methodists have been solicited again and again, to
  separate from the Established Church, and to form themselves
  into a distinct body, independent of all other religious
  societies. Thirty years ago, this was seriously considered
  among them, at a general conference. All the arguments, urged
  on one side and the other, were considered at large; and it was
  determined, without one dissenting voice, that they ‘ought not
  to separate from the Church.’

  “This is a new thing in the world; this is the peculiar glory
  of the people called Methodists. In spite of all manner of
  temptations, they will not separate from the Church. What many
  so earnestly covet, they abhor; they will not be a distinct
  body. Now what instance have we of this before, either in
  ancient or modern history, of a body of people, in such
  circumstances, who will not be a distinct party, but choose to
  remain in connection with their own church, that they may be
  more effectually the servants of all? This, I say again, is an
  utterly new phenomenon! I never saw, heard, or read of anything
  like it. The Methodists will not separate from the Church,
  although continually reproached for doing it; although it would
  free them from abundance of inconveniences, and make their path
  much smoother and easier; and although many of their friends
  earnestly advise, and their enemies provoke them to it,--the
  clergy in particular; most of whom, far from thanking them for
  continuing in the Church, use all the means in their power,
  fair and unfair, to drive them out of it.”


FOOTNOTES:

     [666] The photographic portrait, in the present volume, is
           taken from Romney’s painting, by the kind permission
           of its possessor, the Rev. G. Stringer Rowe.

     [667] Life of Garretson.

     [668] _Methodist Magazine_, 1867, p. 623.

     [669] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 313.

     [670] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 253.

     [671] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 254.

     [672] _Methodist Magazine_, 1831, p. 298.

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

     [674] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

     [675] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 379.

     [676] _Methodist Magazine_, 1840, p. 543.

     [677] It ought to have been eighty-seventh.

     [678] “Anecdotes of the Wesleys,” p. 312.

     [679] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 404.

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

     [681] A reference to Richard Brothers, the prophecy
           expounder of that period.

     [682] Cowper’s Works, Bohn’s edit., vol. iii., p. 370.

     [683] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 409.

     [684] Crowther’s manuscript autobiography.

     [685] Thomas Rutherford was sent in this emergency.

     [686] _Wesleyan Times_, June 11, 1866.

     [687] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 313.

     [688] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 115.

     [689] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 115.

     [690] _Methodist Magazine_, 1828, p. 286.

     [691] _Wesley Banner_, 1851, p. 405.

     [692] _Methodist Magazine_, 1827, p. 285.

     [693] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 478.

     [694] Black’s Memoirs, p. 251.

     [695] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 472.

     [696] Manuscript letter.

     [697] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 675.

     [698] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 473.

     [699] Ibid. vol. xiii., p. 108.




                                1790.
                               Age 87


Wesley’s career is drawing to a close. He himself was on the
“Delectable mountains,” basking in the sheen of the celestial city;
but all around him, or rather beneath him, was darkness and confusion.
The riots of 1789 were about to culminate in the indescribable horrors
of the French revolution. Burke wrote against this terrible upheaving;
Dr. Price applauded it. English newspapers, all at once, became
Gallican and republican; and overflowed with abuse of the old
constitution,--abuse of the Church,--abuse of the aristocracy,--abuse
of almost everything except the French insurrection, and the men who
made it. Thomas Paine and his friends were in the highest feather; and
infidel and revolutionary pamphlets were published with prodigal
profusion. Even Fox, in parliament, declared that the French army, by
refusing to obey the court and to act against the people, had set a
glorious example to all the armies of Europe; to which Burke, who had
hitherto been Fox’s friend, replied, that the revolutionists were “an
irrational, unprincipled, proscribing, confiscating, plundering,
ferocious, bloody, tyrannical democracy.” It was amid such excitement,
that Wesley spent his last days on earth.

He began the year in London, and wrote in his journal:

  “1790, January 1.--I am now an old man, decayed from head to
  foot: my eyes are dim; my right hand shakes much; my mouth is
  hot and dry every morning; I have a lingering fever almost
  every day; my motion is weak and slow. However, blessed be God,
  I do not slack my labour; I can preach and write still.”

Henry Moore observes:

  “Being in the house with him when he wrote thus, I was greatly
  surprised. I knew it must be as he said; but I could not
  imagine his weakness was so great. He still rose at his usual
  hour, four o’clock, and went through the many duties of the
  day, not indeed with the same apparent vigour, but without
  complaint, and with a degree of resolution that was
  astonishing.”[700]

On Saturday, January 2, he preached at Snowsfields. The next day,
Sunday, he held the covenant service in the City Road chapel, at which
nearly two thousand persons were present. A few days were then devoted
to writing letters, two of which we give. The first has not before
been published. It was addressed to Daniel Jackson, then appointed to
the Stockport circuit.

                                      “LONDON, _January 2, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is no wonder many of the societies should
  be in a poor condition, considering what poor care has lately
  been taken of them. They will soon find the difference.

  “The books that are damaged you may give away as you judge
  proper.

  “None ought to have made a collection for any place before the
  house at Dewsbury was built. However, do what you can, and you
  do enough.

  “I am, with love to sister Jackson,
     “Your affectionate friend and brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

The next was written to John Mason, the assistant in the St. Austell
circuit.

                                “NEAR LONDON, _January 13, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--As long as I live, the people shall have no
  share in choosing either stewards or leaders among the
  Methodists. We have not, and never had, any such custom. We are
  no republicans, and never intend to be. It would be better for
  those, that are so minded, to go quietly away. I have been
  uniform, both in doctrine and discipline, for above these fifty
  years; and it is a little too late for me to turn into a new
  path, now I am old and grey headed. Neither good old brother
  Porna (God bless him!) expects it from me, nor brother Wood,
  nor brother Flamank.

  “If you and I shall be called hence this year, we may bless God
  that we have not lived in vain. Come, let us have a few more
  strokes at Satan’s kingdom, and then we shall depart in peace!

  “I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[701]

On Sunday, January 17, Wesley buried Mrs. Dornford, a good woman; and
preached her funeral sermon. In the afternoon, he preached to a large
congregation, in the church of Great St. Helen’s.

On Monday, January 25, he went to Dorking, “and laboured to awaken a
harmless, honest, drowsy people, who, for many years, seemed to stand
stock still, neither increasing nor decreasing.”

On January 29, Wesley writes: “We held our general quarterly meeting,
whereby it appeared, that the society received and expended about
£3000 a year; but our expense still exceeds our income.”

The next eight days were employed in meeting the London classes,
containing about 2500 members.

During the month of February, we find him preaching a funeral sermon
for Robert Windsor; and sermons to children--beautiful sights--at West
Street, and at City Road. He retired to his friend Mr. Wolff’s, at
Balham, “to finish his sermons, and to put all his little things in
order.” He “submitted to importunity, and once more sat for his
picture.” He “dined at Mr. Baker’s, one of the sheriffs of London; a
plain man, who still lived in an inn yard!”

On Sunday, February 28, which, for five months, was his last day in
London, he preached to enormous congregations, at City Road, West
Street, and Brentford; and then started off on his long journey to the
north. Before we follow him, two short letters may be welcome; the
first to Adam Clarke at Bristol, the second to Miss Bisson in the
Channel islands.


                                    “LONDON, _February 11, 1790_.

  “DEAR ADAM,--On Monday, March 1, I hope to set out hence; and
  to preach that evening, and on Tuesday, at half-past six
  o’clock, at Bath. On Thursday, if he desires it, I will dine at
  Mr. Durbin’s; and, on Monday following, begin as usual to meet
  the classes. I am not at all sorry that James Gore is removed
  from this evil world. You and I shall follow him in due time;
  as soon as our work is done. Many of our friends have been
  lately gathered into the garner, as ripe shocks of wheat. Peace
  be with both your spirits! I am, dear Adam, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[702]

                                    “LONDON, _February 13, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--I love to see your name at the bottom of a
  letter, especially when it brings me the good news, that your
  spirit is still rejoicing in God your Saviour. My sight is so
  far decayed, that I cannot well read a small print by
  candlelight; but I can write almost as well as ever I could;
  and it does me no harm, but rather good, to preach once or
  twice a day. A few days since, I had a letter from one of our
  sisters in Scotland, whose experience agrees much with yours;
  only she goes farther; she speaks of being ‘taken up into
  heaven, surrounded with the blessed Trinity, and let into God
  the Father.’ I commend you to His care; and am, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley spent a fortnight at Bath, Bristol, and Kingswood; preached
daily; visited the sick; and met the Bristol classes. On one of the
Sundays, at least, he preached thrice; having on the night previous
occupied the pulpit of his friend, the Rev. Joseph Easterbrook, in
Temple church. He writes: “Mr. Easterbrook has lately been very ill;
but God has again lifted up his head to be a father to the poor a
little longer.”[703]

This indefatigable clergyman was the son of the Bristol bellman; was
educated at Kingswood school; became assistant master at Trevecca
college; obtained ordination; was presented to Temple church by the
Bristol corporation; and succeeded James Roquet as chaplain of Newgate
prison.[704] Fletcher, in writing to the Countess of Huntingdon
concerning him, says, when he first entered Trevecca, he began to live
upon water and potatoes; and yet, besides attending to his scholastic
duties, he preached every evening in the week, and occasionally as
many as four times on Sundays. Atmore states that, in Bristol, it was
Easterbrook’s invariable rule to send those, who were awakened under
his ministry, to meet in class among the Methodists. His work was now
nearly ended. When Wesley came again to Bristol, in September, he
wrote: “Mr. Easterbrook is ill of a disorder which no physician
understands, and which it seems God alone can cure. He is a pattern to
all Bristol, and indeed to all in England; having, besides his other
incessant labours, which were never intermitted, preached in every
house in his parish!” Within four months after this, Easterbrook was
dead, and Henry Moore preached for him a funeral sermon, which was
printed. He died on the 21st of January, 1791, in the fortieth year of
his age, some of his last words being “God does all things well. I
have no fear of death or of judgment.”[705]

While at Bristol, Wesley addressed the following characteristic
letter, not before published, to Jasper Winscomb, one of his preachers
in the Isle of Wight. What would Wesley have said concerning the
circuit divisions of the present day?

                                      “BRISTOL, _March 13, 1790_.

  “DEAR JASPER,--The story of Thomas Whitwood is very remarkable,
  and the story is well told, and God has done much honour to him
  by the happy effects which have been consequent on his death. I
  am in no haste at all concerning building, without having paid
  some more of our debts. I am likewise in no haste to multiply
  preachers, or to divide circuits. Most of our circuits are too
  small rather than too large. I wish we had no circuit with
  fewer than three preachers on it, or less than four hundred
  miles’ riding in four weeks. Certainly, no circuit shall be
  divided before conference. If we do not take care we shall all
  degenerate into milksops. ‘Soldiers of Christ, arise!’

  “I am, dear Jasper, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

On leaving London, the following circular, bearing Wesley’s signature,
was issued, indicating to his friends the places he meant to visit, in
his journey to the north. It furnishes a bird’s eye view of the
Herculean labours of an old man nearly eighty-seven years of age, and
also helps to fill up a gap in Wesley’s journal. It must be
remembered, that the means of transit in 1790 were not what they are
at present; and that, at every place mentioned, Wesley preached at
least once, and often several times more than that. It will also be
seen, that from three to four days were employed in some of the
principal societies, where he arranged to spend his Sundays.

                                        “LONDON, _March 1, 1790_.

  “As many persons desire to know where I am from this time till
  the conference, I here set down my route, which, if God permit,
  I shall keep till that time.

                               _March._

    Monday, 15, Stroud; 16, Gloucester; 17, Worcester; 18,
    Stourport; 19, Birmingham.

    Monday, 22, Wednesbury; 23, Dudley and Wolverhampton;
    24, Madeley; 25, Salop; 26, Madeley; 27, Newcastle under
    Lyne; 28, Lane End and Burslem.

    Monday, 29, Congleton; 30, Macclesfield.

                               _April._

    Thursday, 1, Stockport; 2, Manchester.

    Monday, 5, Nantwich and Liverpool; 7, Warrington and
    Chester; 9, Wigan; 10, Bolton.

    Monday, 12, Blackburn; 13, Colne; 17, Keighley; 18,
    Haworth and Halifax.

    Tuesday, 20, Huddersfield; 21, Dewsbury; 24, Wakefield;
    25, Birstal and Leeds.

    Tuesday, 27, Bradford; 29, Otley.

                                _May._

    Saturday, 1, Parkgate; 2, York; 4, Pocklington; 6,Newcastle.

    Monday, 10, Alnwick; 12, Dunbar; 13, Edinburgh.

    Tuesday, 18, Dundee; 19, Arbroath; 20, Aberdeen.

  “N.B. I have not yet finally settled the rest of my plan. I
  probably shall, if I come to York. Many persons are continually
  teasing me to visit more places. Now let them judge whether
  I have not work enough.

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

To this circular, two postscripts were added, by some other hand,
namely:

  “Those persons, who have occasion to write to Mr. Wesley, are
  requested to direct their letters according to this plan, and
  not to London.”

  “Our friends here earnestly desire that Mr. Wesley may be
  remembered in prayer, especially at the next quarterly fast,
  that his strength may be continued, and, if it please God,
  increased also.”

Such was Wesley’s plan of travel and of labour for the next ten weeks;
but even this was a mere outline; and it will be found, as we follow
him, that he preached at many places besides the above mentioned.

At Stroud, on March 15, hundreds were unable to get into the chapel.
On the day following, he preached to two other crowds, at Painswick,
and at Gloucester, March 17, the chapel at Tewkesbury was not large
enough to hold the noonday congregation; and at Worcester, in the
evening, he “found much comfort among a well established people.”

Twenty years before this, Stourport did not exist; now there were a
couple of streets, at least, and also a prosperous trade. In 1780,
John Cowell came with his family from Wolverhampton; and, soon after,
Thomas Hanby preached the first Methodist sermon, in an upper room, at
Mr. Morris’s.[706] A chapel was soon erected, towards which Mr. Cowell
was a large contributor. The chapel was to be occupied by both
Calvinist and Arminian preachers. The Arminians were speedily ejected;
and, rather than appeal to law, Mr. Cowell, at his own expense, built
another and a larger chapel, which Wesley opened in 1788. He now
visited them again; had a crowded congregation; was pleased with their
attention; but writes: “The moment I ceased speaking, fourscore or one
hundred begun talking all at once. I do not remember to have been
present at such a scene before. This must be amended; otherwise, if I
should live, I will see Stourport no more.”

March 19, at eleven a.m., Wesley preached at Quinton; and, at night,
to a densely packed congregation at Birmingham. Next day, Saturday,
the same scene was repeated; and, on Sunday, when he opened a new
meeting-house, and preached twice, hundreds of people were unable to
get in. Joseph Benson, at this time stationed in Birmingham, met
Wesley at Stourport, and writes: “I found him much stronger and better
than I expected. Still his sight is so defective, that he is much at a
loss in giving out hymns, in reading his text, and in referring to any
portion of Scripture. In conversation, he seemed much as usual, lively
and entertaining.”[707]

On Monday, March 22, at Wednesbury, as many as could _squeezed_ into
the chapel, and the rest were fain to be listeners outside. The next
day, he opened a new meeting-house, “one of the neatest in England,”
at Dudley; and, at night, preached at Wolverhampton. Three days were
spent at Madeley and Salop; one sermon was written; and four were
preached. Week day though it was, Madeley church was crowded; and so
also was the meeting place at Salop; but concerning the Salopians,
Wesley writes: “I was much ashamed for them. The moment I had done
speaking, I suppose fifty of them were talking all at once; and no
wonder they had neither sense nor good manners, for they were
gentlefolks!”

The halt at Madeley gave him the opportunity, not only to write his
sermon on the wedding garment, but to write letters to his friends. To
Adam Clarke he expresses the opinion, that “animal magnetism is
diabolical from the beginning to the end;” he also advises him to
consult Dr. Whitehead about his health, and requests him to follow all
the doctor’s directions, “except the leaving off preaching”; naively
adding, “I think, if I had taken this advice many years since, I
should not have been a living man.”[708]

Charles Atmore had recently commenced a Sunday-school, in the Orphan
House, at Newcastle, consisting of seventy teachers and more than a
thousand children.[709] And Michael Longridge, one of Wesley’s best
local preachers, in the north of England, had published a 12mo
pamphlet of 13 pages, entitled, “Sunday-schools Recommended as a
Religious Institution: with a Plan for their Extension at a small
Expense.” All this had Wesley’s cordial approval; and, hence, the
following letter to Atmore, which, besides a reference to the
Sunday-schools, also contains an addition to Wesley’s _preaching
plan_.

                                      “MADELEY, _March 24, 1790_.

  “DEAR CHARLES,--I am glad you have set up Sunday-schools in
  Newcastle. It is one of the noblest institutions which has been
  seen in Europe for some centuries, and will increase more and
  more, provided the teachers and inspectors do their duties.
  Nothing can prevent the increase of this blessed work, but the
  neglect of the instruments. Therefore, be sure to watch over
  these with all care, that they may not grow weary in well
  doing.

  “I shall be at Darlington, if God permit, on Tuesday and
  Wednesday, May 4th and 5th; on Thursday, at Durham to preach at
  twelve o’clock at noon; and at Newcastle between four and five
  in the afternoon. Grace be with you and yours!

  “I am, dear Charles, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[710]

To return. According to announcement, Wesley, on Saturday, March 27,
preached at Newcastle under Lyne; and, on the day following, twice, to
large crowds, in the open air, at Lane End, and at Burslem. At nine
o’clock on Monday morning, he opened Tunstall new chapel, “the most
elegant he had seen since he left Bath”; and, at night, preached at
Congleton, the clergyman of the parish, “the mayor, and all the heads
of the town,” forming a part of his congregation. He quietly remarks:
“That I might not overshoot them, I preached on, ‘So teach us to
number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.’”

Two days were spent at Macclesfield, and two crowded audiences were
addressed. Here, also, one of his horses died. On April 1, he had a
large congregation at Stockport. The next day, Good Friday, he
preached at Oldham and Manchester; and, at the latter place, again on
Saturday.

On Easter Sunday, at Manchester, he preached twice, and held a
sacramental service at which there were about sixteen hundred
communicants!

Next day, he preached thrice, at Altrincham, Northwich, and Chester;
and, in each place, had crowded congregations. At Warrington, “the
chapel was well filled with serious hearers”; and, at Liverpool,
multitudes were not able to get in. At Wigan, the chapel “was more
than filled”; and “in the lovely house at Bolton” he preached to, what
he calls, “one of the loveliest congregations in England.” This was on
April 10; and, from this date to May 24, there is a chasm in Wesley’s
journal, which we shall endeavour to fill up; first of all, however,
giving an unpublished letter, addressed to Thomas Taylor, who, with
William Simpson, was stationed at Hull.

                                    “MANCHESTER, _April 4, 1790_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--I did not approve of Dr. Coke’s making
  collections either in yours or any other circuit. I told him
  so, and am not well pleased with his doing it. It was very ill
  done. It is exceeding probable, that sea bathing will be of use
  to brother Simpson, especially if he be temperate in all
  things.

  “I do not know what you mean concerning talking ‘about the
  Church.’ I advise all our brethren, that have been brought up
  in the Church, to continue there; and there I leave the matter.
  The Methodists are to spread life among all denominations;
  which they will do, till they form a separate sect.

  “I am, dear Tommy, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

According to Wesley’s plan, the week, intervening between April 10 and
17, was to be spent in visiting Blackburn, Colne, Keighley, Haworth,
and Halifax. But, besides these places, he also preached at Preston,
from Revelation xxii. 17; and was the guest of Mrs. Emmett of
Walton,[711] where he wrote the following letter to the celebrated Ann
Cutler, commonly called “praying Nanny.”

                                       “WALTON, _April 15, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--There is something in the dealings of God
  with your soul, which is out of the common way. But I have
  known several whom He has been pleased to lead in exactly the
  same way, and particularly in manifesting to them distinctly
  the three Persons of the ever blessed Trinity. You may tell all
  your experience to me any time; but will need to be cautious in
  speaking to others, for they would not understand what you say.
  Go on in the name of God, and in the power of His might. Pray
  for the whole spirit of humility; and I wish that you would
  write and speak without reserve to, dear Nanny,

  “Yours affectionately,

                                           “JOHN WESLEY.”[712]

Wesley spent April 21 at Halifax;[713] and, in connection with his
visit here, preached at Bradshaw, where, on his tottering up the
pulpit stairs, the whole congregation burst into a flood of tears.
More than once, his memory failed him, and Joseph Bradford and William
Thompson had to act the part of remembrancers. The visit was memorable
in more respects than one. While the congregation was waiting for the
venerable preacher, and a crowd was assembled at the door, a woman of
the name of Wilson mockingly exclaimed, “They are waiting for their
God”; no sooner was the sentence uttered than she fell senseless to
the ground, and, the day following, she expired.[714]

The next few days, according to Wesley’s plan, were employed at
Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Wakefield, Birstal, Leeds, Bradford, and
Otley. On the 3rd of May, he came to York. Thomas Taylor, in his
unpublished diary, remarks: “May 3--I went to York, and was amazed to
meet such a number of travelling preachers, fifteen or sixteen of
them. Mr. Wesley preached a useful sermon; and, after preaching, we
had a meeting respecting one of our number who was accused of
drunkenness.”

On the 5th of May, Wesley was met at Darlington by his son in law, Mr.
William Smith, and by Charles Atmore, from Newcastle. Atmore writes:
“We heard him preach in the evening, from ‘He is before all things,
and by Him all things consist.’ He appears very feeble; and no wonder,
he being nearly eighty-seven years of age. His sight has failed so
much, that he cannot see to give out the hymn; yet his voice is
strong, and his spirits remarkably lively. Surely this great and good
man is the prodigy of the present age.”

Old as he was, Wesley set out next morning, at half-past three
o’clock, for Newcastle, where he preached, in the evening, from Isaiah
lvii. 1, 2. The following night (Friday) he preached again his
remarkable sermon to the children of the Sunday-school, taking as his
text Psalm xxxiv. 11; the sermon being literally composed and
delivered in words of not more than two syllables.[715] On Saturday,
May 8, we find him at North Shields, preaching, says Atmore, “an
excellent sermon, from ‘What things were gain to me, these I counted
loss for Christ.’” Next day, Sunday, May 9, he addressed a crowd of
several thousands, on Byker Hill, from Matthew vii. 24; and, in the
evening, at the Orphan House, took his old favourite text, “By grace
are ye saved, through faith.” “The house,” writes Atmore, “was much
crowded, and many hundreds returned, not being able to obtain an
entrance.” Atmore continues:

  “He was highly honoured in his ministry; particularly to one
  who had been in a state of great despair for many years. As
  soon as he arrived at the Orphan House, Mr. Wesley inquired
  after this individual, and I accompanied him in visiting him.
  As soon as he entered the room, where the poor man was, he went
  up to him, and said, ‘Brother Reed, I have a word from God unto
  thee; Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.’ He then knelt down to
  pray; and such a season I have seldom experienced. Hope
  instantly sprang up, and despair gave place; and, although Reed
  had not been out of his habitation, nor even from his wretched
  bed, for several years, he went that evening to hear Mr. Wesley
  preach; and God graciously confirmed the testimony of His
  servant in restoring him to ‘the light of His
  countenance.’”[716]

On Monday, May 10, Wesley proceeded on his journey to Scotland. Of his
labours during the next fortnight, we have no record; but, on May 25,
we find him preaching to a crowded audience at Aberdeen; then at
Brechin, Glasgow, and Dumfries. The last mentioned town was now a part
of the Glasgow circuit, and had, as its resident preacher, Mr.
Yewdall, who writes: “In the latter end of May, Mr. Wesley visited us.
He came from Glasgow that day, (about seventy miles,) but his strength
was almost exhausted, and, when he attempted to preach, very few could
hear him. His sight was likewise much decayed, so that he could
neither read the hymn or text. The wheels of life were ready to stand
still; but his conversation was agreeably edifying, being mixed with
the wisdom and gravity of a parent, and the artless simplicity of a
child.”[717]

From Dumfries, Wesley proceeded, on June 2, to Carlisle, where the
chapel would not near contain his congregation. Thence he went to
Hexham, where he “found a loving people, much alive to God, and
consequently increasing daily.”

On Friday, June 4, he once again, and, for the last time, reached
Newcastle. He writes:

  “In this and Kingswood house, were I to do my own will, I
  should choose to spend the short remainder of my days. But it
  cannot be; this is not my rest. This and the next evening, we
  had a numerous congregation; and the people seemed much alive.
  Sunday, June 6, I was invited to preach in Lemsley church, on
  the side of Gateshead Fell; but, some hours after, the minister
  changed his mind. So I preached in our own preaching house,
  which contained the greater part of the congregation; among
  whom were Sir Henry Liddell and his lady, with a great number
  of his servants. The chapel was hot as a stove; but neither
  high nor low seemed to regard it: for God was there! The Orphan
  House was equally crowded in the evening; but the rain would
  not suffer me to preach abroad. Monday, June 7, I transcribed
  the stations of the preachers. Tuesday, June 8, I wrote a form
  for settling the preaching houses, without any superfluous
  words, which shall be used for the time to come, verbatim, for
  all the houses to which I contribute anything. I will no more
  encourage that villainous tautology of lawyers, which is the
  scandal of our nation. In the evening, I preached to the
  children of our Sunday-school; six or seven hundred of whom
  were present. Observe, none of our masters or mistresses teach
  for pay; they seek a reward that man cannot give.”

Two days after this, Wesley left Newcastle, where he had spent so many
happy hours, for ever. Before we follow him, three more of his letters
may be acceptable; the first to Henry Moore, the second to the wife of
Adam Clarke, the third to Miss Bisson.

                                       “DUMFRIES, _June 1, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR HENRY,--So I am upon the borders of England once
  again. My sight is much as it was, but I doubt I shall not
  recover my strength, till I use that noble medicine, preaching
  in the morning. But where can we put poor Adam Clarke? He must
  not preach himself to death. What circuit is he equal to? Where
  can he have rest as well as labour? The best place I can think
  of, at present, is Leeds.

  “The dying words of the Prince of Orange are much upon my mind
  this morning: ‘Lord have mercy upon the people!’ I never saw so
  much likelihood of doing good in Scotland as there is now, if
  all our preachers here would be Methodists indeed! Tell dear
  Nancy to love me as well as she can.

  “I am, my dear Henry, etc.,

                                                “J. WESLEY.”[718]

                                       “DUMFRIES, _June 1, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--The great question is, What can be done for
  Adam Clarke? Now, will you save his life? Look round; consider
  if there be any circuit where he can have much rest, and little
  work; or shall he and you spend September in my rooms at
  Kingswood, on condition that he shall preach but twice a week,
  and ride to the Hotwells every day? I think he must do this, or
  die; and I do not want him (neither do you) to run away from us
  in haste. You need not be told, that this will be attended with
  some expense; if it be, we can make it easy. I am apt to think
  this will be the best way. In the meantime, let him do as much
  as he can, and no more.

  “It is probable, I shall stay with you a little longer, as my
  strength does not much decline. I travelled yesterday nearly
  eighty miles, and preached in the evening without any pain. The
  Lord does what pleases Him. Peace be with all your spirits!

                             “I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[719]

                                      “NEWCASTLE, _June 6, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--To hear from you is always a pleasure to me;
  though it is a pleasure mixed with concern when I hear of your
  weakness or sickness; only I know the Lord loveth whom He
  chasteneth. But of what kind is your illness? Perhaps I might
  be enabled to tell you how to remove it; and if you can recover
  your health, you ought; for health is a great blessing.

  “In August last, my strength failed almost at once; and my
  sight, in a great measure, went from me. But all is well; I can
  still write almost as easily as ever; and I can read in a clear
  light; and, I think, if I could not read or write at all, I
  could still say something for God. When you have more strength,
  tell me more of the work of God, whether in yourself or those
  round about you. And ought you not to let me know if you are in
  any temporal distress? For everything that concerns you,
  concerns, my dear Jenny, yours most affectionately,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[720]

On leaving Newcastle, on the 10th of June, Wesley proceeded, over
rough roads and high hills, a distance of at least thirty miles, to
Weardale, where he preached both at noon and night. On the 11th, he
preached twice in the open air, at Stanhope and at Durham, the crowds
being so immense that the chapels were utterly unable to contain them.
The 12th and 13th he spent at Sunderland, where he preached thrice:
once in the Methodist chapel; a second time in Monkwearmouth church,
for the benefit of the Sunday-school; and a third, to many thousands
of people, out of doors.

During the ensuing week, we find him preaching at Hartlepool,
Stockton, Yarm, Potto, Hutton Rudby, Stokesley, and Whitby. At the
last mentioned town, he spent Sunday, June 20, preached twice,
attended church, and wrote in his journal: “It was very providential,
that part of the adjoining mountain fell down, and demolished our old
meeting-house, with many houses besides; by which means we have one of
the most beautiful chapels in Great Britain, finely situated on the
steep side of the mountain. In all England, I have not seen a more
affectionate people than those at Whitby.”

This was high praise of these Yorkshire fishermen; but it was not
unmerited. Warm hearts often beat under rough exteriors. Besides, the
Methodist society at Whitby was now well-nigh a model. Most of the two
hundred and fifty members met in _band_. Their itinerant preachers
preached to them three mornings every week; and, on the other
mornings, they were either supplied with local preachers, or held
prayer-meetings. At noon, every Friday, they had their intercession
meeting; and, after the toils of the week were ended, they met
together every Saturday night, to ask God to fit their minds and
hearts for the services of Sunday.[721]

On June 21, Wesley preached at Pickering and Malton; and, on the
following days, at Scarborough, Bridlington, Beverley, and Hull. At
Hull, he spent Sunday, June 27, and also his birthday. He writes:

  “Friday, June 25--About noon I preached at Beverley, to a
  serious, well behaved congregation; and, in the evening, to one
  equally serious, and far more numerous, at Hull. Saturday, 26,
  was a day of satisfaction. I preached at seven in the morning,
  and at six in the evening, to as many as our house would
  contain; the ground being too wet for the congregation to stand
  abroad.”

This is a simple entry, and gives no idea of the commotion created by
Wesley’s visit. Thomas Taylor, who was now the assistant in the Hull
circuit, writes in his diary: “I and many friends from Hull met Mr.
Wesley at Beverley. We dined at an inn. He preached, and we hastened
to Hull. Many people attending this evening.” Taylor is as laconic as
Wesley; but, from another source, we learn, that the “many friends
from Hull” were a regular cavalcade of forty persons, some in chaises,
and the rest on horses. All these dined with Wesley at his inn at
Beverley; spirits were lively, and conversation brisk; but, in the
midst of it, and while all present were utterly oblivious of the
flight of time, Wesley pulled out his watch, started on his feet, bid
his friends good day, stepped into his carriage, and was gone before
they had time to remonstrate, or to wish him to wait for the cavalcade
to attend him. Horses were saddled, and carriages got ready with as
much celerity as possible; but the old man was on his way, and it was
with the utmost difficulty that “the horsemen and the chariots”
overtook the illustrious visitor in sufficient time to do him honour
in the sight of their fellow citizens.[722]

On his birthday, he wrote:

  “Monday, June 28.--This day, I enter into my eighty-eighth
  year. For above eighty-six years, I found none of the
  infirmities of old age; my eyes did not wax dim, neither was my
  natural strength abated; but, last August, I found almost a
  sudden change. My eyes were so dim, that no glasses would help
  me. My strength likewise now quite forsook me; and probably
  will not return in this world. But I feel no pain from head to
  foot; only it seems nature is exhausted; and, humanly speaking,
  will sink more and more, till ‘the weary springs of life stand
  still at last.’”

Thus did the venerable man calmly contemplate the inevitable closing
of his remarkable career. No weary child of innocence ever went to its
welcome couch with greater serenity than Wesley went down the steps
leading to his sepulchre.

Here we pause again, to insert another selection of his letters. The
first was addressed to William Black, in Nova Scotia.

                                    “SUNDERLAND, _June 14, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You did well to send me an account of your
  little societies. Here is a good beginning, though it is, as
  yet, in many places, a day of small things; and although it
  does not please God to carry on His work so rapidly with you as
  in the United States. But one soul is worth all the merchandise
  in the world; and, whoever gets money, do you win souls.

  “Never was there, throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland, so
  great a thirst for the pure word of God as there is at this
  day. The same we find in the little islands of Man, Wight,
  Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney in the Western Ocean. In the
  Isle of Man alone (thirty miles long) the societies contain
  about four-and-twenty hundred members. I have just now finished
  my route through Scotland, where I never had such congregations
  before. So it pleases God to give me a little more to do,
  before He calls me hence.

  “What has become of brother Scurr, Dodson, and our other
  Yorkshire friends? Some of them doubtless are gone into a
  farther country; but some I suppose remain. I doubt you do not
  keep up a constant intercourse with each other. Love as
  brethren!

  “I am, dear William, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[723]

The following, kindly lent by Charles Reed, Esq., M.P., has not before
been published. It was addressed to William Thom, the assistant
appointed to Sarum circuit.

                                        “MALTON, _June 21, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--I concur in the judgment of my brother, that
  the using of the form of prayer will tend to unite our people
  to the Church, rather than to separate them from it; especially
  if you earnestly insist on their going to church every fourth
  Sunday.

  “I am very indifferent concerning the preaching house, and
  shall not concern myself about it any more. I have lost £10 by
  it already, although to no purpose. If anything more is done
  concerning it, it must be done by the people at Sarum
  themselves.

  “I am, with love to sister Thom, dear Billy, your affectionate
  friend and brother,

                                                     “J. WESLEY.”

The next was addressed to a bishop, whose name is not given.

                                          “HULL, _June 26, 1790_.

  “MY LORD,--It may seem strange, that one, who is not acquainted
  with your lordship, should trouble you with a letter. But I am
  constrained to do it; I believe it is my duty both to God and
  your lordship. And I must speak plain; having nothing to hope
  or fear in this world, which I am on the point of leaving.

  “The Methodists, in general, my lord, are members of the Church
  of England. They hold all her doctrines, attend her service,
  and partake of her sacraments. They do not willingly do harm to
  any one, but do what good they can to all. To encourage each
  other herein, they frequently spend an hour together in prayer
  and mutual exhortation. Permit me then to ask, ‘_Cui bono?_ for
  what reasonable end, would your lordship drive these people out
  of the Church?’ Are they not as quiet, as inoffensive, nay, as
  pious, as any of their neighbours? except perhaps here and
  there a hairbrained man, who knows not what he is about. Do you
  ask, ‘Who drives them out of the Church?’ Your lordship does;
  and that in the most cruel manner; yea, and the most
  disingenuous manner. They desire a licence to worship God after
  their own conscience. Your lordship refuses it; and then
  punishes them for not having a licence! So your lordship leaves
  them only this alternative, ‘Leave the Church or starve.’ And
  is it a Christian, yea, a protestant bishop, that so persecutes
  his own flock? I say _persecutes_; for it is persecution, to
  all intents and purposes. You do not burn them, indeed, but you
  starve them; and how small is the difference! And your lordship
  does this, under colour of a vile, execrable law, not a whit
  better than that _de hæretico comburendo_! So persecution,
  which is banished out of France, is again countenanced in
  England!

  “O my lord, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, for pity’s sake,
  suffer the poor people to enjoy their religious, as well as
  civil liberty! I am on the brink of eternity! Perhaps so is
  your lordship too! How soon may you also be called, to give an
  account of your stewardship, to the great Shepherd and Bishop
  of our souls! May He enable both you and me to do it with joy!
  So prays, my lord, your lordship’s dutiful son and servant,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[724]

The following letter is without date, but is too characteristic to be
omitted.

  “You give five reasons why the Rev. Mr. P---- will come no more
  among us. 1. Because we despise the ministers of the Church of
  England. This I flatly deny: I am answering letters, this very
  post, which bitterly blame me for just the contrary. 2. Because
  so much backbiting and evil speaking is suffered amongst our
  people. It is not suffered; all possible means are used, both
  to prevent and remove it. 3. Because I, who have written so
  much against hoarding up money, have put out £700 to interest.
  I never put sixpence out to interest since I was born; nor had
  I ever £100 together, my own, since I came into the world. 4.
  Because our lay preachers have told many stories of my brother
  and me. If they did, I am sorry for them; when I hear the
  particulars, I can answer, and, perhaps, make those ashamed who
  believed them. 5. Because we did not help a friend in distress.
  We did help him as far as we were able. ‘But we might have made
  his case known to Mr. G., Lady H., etc.’ So we did, more than
  once; but we could not pull money from them, whether they would
  or no. Therefore, these reasons are of no weight. You conclude
  with praying, that God would remove pride and malice from
  amongst us. Of pride, I have too much; of malice, I have none;
  however, the prayer is good, and I thank you for it.”[725]

The next was addressed to Adam Clarke, then at Bristol.

                                                “_June 28, 1790._

  “DEAR ADAM,--I often wonder at the people of Bristol. They are
  so honest, yet so dull, ’tis scarce possible to strike any fire
  into them. Only with God all things are possible. Many years
  ago, I put the society at Bath into a way wherein, if they had
  persevered, they would now have owed nothing. They were at
  Plymouth but thirty in number, and their debt was £1400. I
  advised them, let every member subscribe monthly what he can;
  and a hundred at the Dock promised to do the same. ‘I,’ said
  one, ‘will give a crown a month’; ‘I,’ said another,
  ‘half-a-crown.’ Many subscribed a shilling, sixpence, or
  threepence a month. And now the debt is paid. I began such a
  subscription in Bath; as I have done in many places with
  success. But they left it off in two or three weeks. Why?
  Because I gave four guineas to prevent one, that was arrested,
  from going to jail! Good reason, was it not? ‘Why,’ said one
  and another, ‘might he not have given it to _me_?’

  “On Monday four weeks, I shall probably set out for Bristol.
  Peace be with your spirits.

                             “I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[726]

While on money matters, let an explanation be given. Wesley asserts,
in one of the foregoing letters, that he never had, at one time, since
he was born, £100 that was his own. No doubt, excepting an occasional
legacy, this was strictly true; and yet, towards the close of life, a
year never passed without his giving hundreds of pounds away in
charity. Wesley not only kept a journal of his labours, but account
books of his income and expenditure. The last of these has, at the end
of it, the following entry, in Wesley’s own handwriting, but in
penmanship which it is extremely difficult to decipher:

  “N.B. For upwards of eighty-six years,[727] I have kept my
  accounts exactly. I will not attempt it any longer, being
  satisfied with the continual conviction, that I save all I can,
  and give all I can, that is, all I have.

                                          “JOHN WESLEY,
                                               “_July 16, 1790._”

What was Wesley’s income? He had £30 a year from the London
circuit;[728] and, in the country, the Methodists occasionally, but
not often, paid his hostelry bill, and other similar expenses incurred
in travelling. But this was not all. Wesley was the proprietor of a
large publishing and book concern, from which he derived considerable
profits; but be the profits what they might, they were at once
distributed in the work of God, and in acts of charity. In as brief a
form as possible, we give, from the book above mentioned, a few items
belonging to the last nine years of Wesley’s life.

In 1782, Wesley received £361 19_s._ Of this, he spent £5 19_s._ for
clothes. The balance, £356, he, with his own hands, gave away; and,
during the same year, John Atlay, his book steward, by his directions,
gave a further sum of £237 13_s._; making £593 13_s._ for the year.

In 1783, he, and his steward by his orders, gave £832 1_s._ 6_d._ In
1784, £534 17_s._ 6_d._ In 1785, £851 12_s._ In 1786, £738 5_s._ In
1787, including his travelling expenses, £961 4_s._ In 1788, the last
year Atlay acted for him, the two united gave in charity £738 4_s._

At the end of his accounts for 1789, he writes:

       “I have given this year by myself   £206  0  0
        By George Whitfield[729]            560  0  0
        Travelling                           60  0  0
  “But I can be accurate no[730] ... ‘Not as _I_ will, but as Thou
  wilt.’”

No one can dispute that the profits of Wesley’s book establishment
were as much his own property as the profits of any of the great
publishing houses in Paternoster Row; but, of these profits, he
literally spent none upon himself, except for an occasional suit of
clothes. All were most scrupulously given, as fast as they were
realised, and sometimes faster, to the support and extension of the
great work to which his long life was cheerfully devoted, and to the
relief of the distresses of his fellow creatures as far as he had the
power. Dr. Whitehead says, it was supposed that, in the course of
fifty years, Wesley gave away between twenty and thirty thousand
pounds. Henry Moore writes: “Mr. Wesley’s accounts lie before me, and
his expenses are noted with the greatest exactness. Every penny is
recorded; and, I am persuaded, the supposed £30,000 might be increased
several thousands more.”[731]

Wesley made a will, in which he bequeathed his book business, and his
books then on sale, (subject to a rent charge of £85 a year to the
widow and children of his brother,) to the Methodist conference, in
trust “for carrying on the work of God, by itinerant preachers”; his
furniture, books, and whatever else belonged to him at Kingswood, to
Coke, Mather, and Moore, “in trust, to be still employed in teaching
and maintaining the children of poor travelling preachers”; all the
books which belonged to him in his studies at London and other places,
to Coke, Whitehead, and Moore, “in trust, for the use of the preachers
who shall labour there from time to time”; all his manuscripts to the
same Coke, Whitehead, and Moore, “to be burned, or published, as they
saw good”; his gowns, cassocks, sashes, and bands in City Road chapel,
“for the use of the clergymen attending there”; his “pelisse to the
Rev. Mr. Creighton”; all the rest of his “wearing apparel to four of
the travelling preachers that wanted it most”; his watch to Joseph
Bradford; his gold seal to Elizabeth Ritchie; his chaise and horses to
James Ward and Charles Wheeler, “in trust, to be sold, and the money
to be divided, one half to Hannah Abbott, and the other to the members
of the select society”; and copies of the eight volumes of his sermons
to “each travelling preacher who should remain in the connexion six
months after his decease.”

All this was property, but not money. Hitherto, not a _coin_ has been
bequeathed; but still there are six clauses in Wesley’s will, which
may be designated _monetary_. We give them in substance, though the
first two seem to contradict each other. (1) All the coins, and
whatever else was found in the drawer of his bureau at London, to his
granddaughters, Mary and Jane Smith. (2) Whatever money remained in
his bureau and pockets, to Thomas Briscoe, William Collins, John
Easton, and Isaac Brown. (3) Out of the first money arising from the
sale of books, £40 to his sister Martha, £40 to Mr. Creighton, and £60
to the Rev. Mr. Heath. (4) The annuity of £5, left by Roger Shiel to
Kingswood school, to be paid to Henry Brooke, Arthur Keene, and
William Whitestone. (5) A pound each to the six poor men who should
carry his body to the grave. (6) Any personal estate, undisposed of,
to be given to his two nieces, E. Ellison, S. Collet, equally.

The reader has here the substance of Wesley’s will. Where were his
hoardings, his money put out to interest, his landed, household, and
chapel property? He had none. He died, as he had lived, without a
purse. He had been his own executor as far as possible; and now had
nothing to bequeath, except what, in his lifetime, could not easily be
turned into current coin.

We return to his itinerary. Leaving Hull, Wesley proceeded to
Lincolnshire. On June 29, the crowd at Owston was such that he had to
preach in the open air. At Lincoln, his text was, “One thing is
needful.” “Is this the great Mr. Wesley?” exclaimed a lady when
retiring: “why, the poorest person in the chapel might understand
him.” “Yes,” replied a gentleman; “in this he displays his greatness,
that while the most ignorant can understand him, the most learned are
edified, and can take no offence.”[732] On Friday, July 2, he preached
twice, once out of doors at Newton, and a second time in the chapel at
Gainsborough. On Saturday, he preached at Epworth, and met the
society. On Sunday, July 4, he attended his father’s church, where the
congregation was five times, and the attendance at sacrament ten
times, larger than usual. Besides this, he preached at Misterton, to a
great multitude, “under a spreading tree”; and, in Epworth market
place, to “such a congregation as was never seen at Epworth before.”

Here occurs an eight weeks’ hiatus in Wesley’s journal. The space
between July 4 and August 27 we shall fill up in the best way we can.

At Doncaster, where he had a crowded congregation, a burly butcher,
noted for his popery, his wickedness, and his pugilistic feats, was
converted, became a Methodist, and, to his dying day, continued a
peaceful, humble, loving Christian.[733] This was probably on July 5,
as, on the day following, he was at Rotherham.[734] There can be no
question, that Sheffield also would be visited; and, most likely,
Derby and Nottingham; also perhaps Castle Donington, Leicester,
Coventry, and other places. At all events, the Castle Donington old
stewards’ book contains this item: “1790. Paid for Mr. Wesley’s
carriage through the circuit, £1 6_s._”[735]

We cannot trace him farther; but, three weeks after he was at
Doncaster and Rotherham, he opened his conference at Bristol,--the
last that he attended. Charles Atmore writes: “Mr. Wesley appeared
very feeble; his eyesight had failed so much that he could not see to
give out the hymns; yet his voice was strong, his spirit remarkably
lively, and the powers of his mind, and his love towards his fellow
creatures, were as bright and as ardent as ever.”[736]

The only legislation at this conference was concerning preachers and
preaching houses.

In reference to the latter, it was determined: (1) That, in future,
all chapels should be built on the same plan as those in Bath and in
City Road. (2) No chapel should be undertaken without the consent of a
majority of the connexional building committee. (3) Not a stone was to
be laid, till the chapel was settled after the Methodist form,
verbatim; nor until two thirds of the estimated expense were
subscribed; and no collections were to be made for any chapel except
in the circuit where it was to be erected.

Then in reference to preachers: (1) None, in future, were to attend
conference, except those whose travelling expenses were paid by the
circuits in which they respectively laboured. Those in Scotland and
Wales were to be the only exceptions. (2) The assistants were to tell
the people, that every circuit must bear its own burden, and that
those circuits which “did not provide for their preachers and their
children, (except Scotland, Ireland, and Wales,) should have no more
preachers sent to them, for the time to come, than they would provide
for.” (3) No assistant was to take into society any one put out by his
predecessor, without consulting him. (4) Preachers were never to
hasten home to their families, after evening preaching, till they had
met the society. (5) No preacher was to leave conference before the
conclusion of it, without consent publicly obtained. (6) No preacher
was to preach three times the same day to the same congregation; or
oftener than twice on a week day, or thrice on Sundays.

In reference to the last of these regulations, Adam Clarke relates
that Wesley was outwitted. In a private meeting with some of his
principal and senior preachers, Wesley proposed that no preacher
should preach thrice on the same day. Messrs. Mather, Pawson,
Thompson, and others objected. Wesley replied: “It must be given up;
we shall lose our preachers by such excessive labour.” They answered:
“We have all done so; and you, even at a very advanced age, have
continued to do so.” “What I have done,” said he, “is out of the
question: my life and strength have been under an especial providence;
besides, I know better than they how to preach without injuring
myself; and no man can preach thrice a day without killing himself
sooner or later; and the custom shall not be continued.” The objectors
pressed the point no further, finding that he was determined; but
deceived him after all, by altering the minute thus, when it was sent
to press: “No preacher shall preach three times the same day, _to the
same congregation_.”

This was not ingenuous. Wesley was right; and Methodism has paid an
incalculable penalty by disregarding his almost dying wish. Clarke
justly remarks:

  “He who preaches the gospel, as he ought, must do it with his
  whole strength of body and soul; and he who undertakes a labour
  of this kind thrice every Lord’s day will infallibly shorten
  his life by it. He who, instead of _preaching_, _talks_ to the
  people,--merely _speaks_ about good things, or _tells_ a
  religious story,--will never injure himself by such an
  employment: but such a person does not _labour_ in the word and
  doctrine; he tells his tale; and, as he preaches, so his
  congregation believes; and sinners are left as he found them.”
  [737]

During the last decade of years in Wesley’s life, Methodism had made
amazing progress. In 1780, there were 64 circuits in the United
Kingdom; now there were 115. Then there were 171 itinerant preachers
employed; now there were 294. Then there were 43,380 members of
society; now there were 71,568. Then there were no missionary
stations; now 19 missionaries were appointed to Antigua, Barbadoes,
St. Vincent’s, St. Christopher’s, Nevis, Tortola, Jamaica, Nova
Scotia, and Newfoundland, which had an aggregate membership of 5350
persons,--800 in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and 4550 in the West
Indies. In 1780, there were in America twenty circuits, 42 itinerant
preachers, and 8504 members of society. In 1790, there were 114
circuits, 228 itinerant preachers, and 57,631 members of society.

These statistics, put into another form, will stand thus.

  ------------+-------------+------------+-------------
              |  Methodist  | Methodist  |  Methodist
              |  Circuits   | Itinerant  |   Members.
              |  throughout | Preachers. |
              |  the world. |            |
  ------------+-------------+------------+-------------
     =1790=   |    240      |    541     |   134,549
     =1780=   |     84      |    213     |    52,334
  ------------+-------------+------------+-------------
   INCREASE   | ⎫  156      |    328     |    82,215
  in 10 years | ⎭           |            |
  ------------+-------------+------------+-------------

Marvellous had been the success of Methodism up to the year 1780; and,
yet, the results during the last ten years of Wesley’s life were much
more than double the united results of the forty years preceding!

Before leaving the conference of 1790, we insert an unpublished
letter, addressed by Miss Ritchie to the wife of one of Wesley’s
clerical assistants, the Rev. Peard Dickenson.

                                               “_August 3, 1790._

  “... I felt much for our Zion previous to the conference. Our
  dear and honoured father’s state of health was alarming; but
  prayer was heard, and he is much better, and things have such
  an appearance as revives my hope that we shall still go on in
  the good old way.

  “Mr. Wesley has very openly and fully declared his sentiments
  respecting the impropriety of a separation from the Church; and
  the preachers, in general, have agreed to abide by the old
  plan. I sincerely pity Dr. Coke; but I really believe good will
  be brought out of evil.

  “The preachers have had a most searching conference, and the
  Lord has been very present. The preachers’ dress has been
  largely debated, and what is verging towards worldly conformity
  is to be laid aside. We all lament dress as a growing evil
  among the Methodists; and, if the preachers are not patterns in
  this respect, how can they exhort the people? One morning, at
  breakfast, among a very few select friends, Mr. Wesley said he
  had some things to complain of, which he had better mention
  before half-a-dozen persons than before a hundred. Among other
  things, he spoke with disapprobation of the ruffles on Mr.
  Dickenson’s shirts. I endeavoured to soften matters, saying,
  that you desired to take them off, and that, if this was not
  already done, it was because you had been prevented; on which I
  was requested to mention to you the conversation which had
  taken place. My dear sister, let me beg of you then, never to
  let Mr. Dickenson wear a ruffled shirt again. You both love our
  dear father too well to grieve him. Yours in Jesus,

                                             “ELIZABETH RITCHIE.”

As soon as the Bristol conference was ended, the veteran evangelist
again set out on his glorious mission, and spent the next three weeks
in Wales. At Brecon, he preached in the town hall; and in Watton
chapel, on the state of the church at Ephesus, and our Lord’s
lamentation over Jerusalem.[738] At Haverfordwest, he wrote as
follows, to Thomas Roberts, then a young preacher, of four years’
standing, whom he had just appointed to the Bristol circuit.

                               “HAVERFORDWEST, _August 13, 1790_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--Now I shall make a trial of you, whether I can
  confide in you or no. Since I came hither, I have been much
  concerned. This is the most important circuit in all Wales; but
  it has been vilely neglected by the assistant, whom, therefore,
  I can trust no more. I can trust you, even in so critical a
  case. I desire, therefore, that, whoever opposes, you will set
  out immediately, and come hither as soon as ever you can. I
  wish you could meet me at Cardiff, or Cowbridge. You will see,
  by the printed plan, when I shall be at either of those places.
  If you have not notice enough to do this, meet me to-morrow
  sennight at the New Passage, unless you can get a passage by
  the weekly boat to Swansea. If it be possible, do not fail. It
  may be, this may be the beginning of a lasting friendship
  between you and, dear Tommy, yours, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[739]

At Pembroke, Wesley wrote the following to Mr. William Mears, a useful
local preacher, at Rochester.

                                    “PEMBROKE, _August 16, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--It is my desire that all things be done to
  the satisfaction of all parties. If, therefore, it be more
  convenient, let brother Pritchard’s[740] family be at
  Canterbury, and sister Boone[741] lodge in Chatham house.

  “Why do you not again set on foot a weekly subscription in
  order to lessen your debt? Have neither the preachers nor the
  people any spirit in them? Who begins? I will give half-a-crown
  a week for a year, if all of you will make it up twenty
  shillings.

  “I am, dear Billy, your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[742]

In a letter to his niece, Miss Sarah Wesley, dated “Near Cowbridge,
August 18, 1790,” he writes: “I always reprove profane sailors, or,
what is worse, profane gentlemen; and many of them will receive it
civilly, if not thankfully. They all know, captains as well as common
men, that swearing is not necessary. And, even now, we have captains
of several men-of-war who do not swear at all; and never were men
better obeyed.”[743]

Thus was Wesley always about his heavenly Father’s work. On August 27,
he returned to Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which he was busily
employed till September 27.

In the morning of Sunday, August 29, he read prayers, preached, and
administered the Lord’s supper, a service in which, without
assistance, he was occupied for three full hours; and, yet, in the
afternoon, he preached again, out of doors. The next day, we find him
preaching twice, at Castle Carey, and Ditcheat.

On Tuesday 31, he was visited by a _lusus naturæ_, William Kingston,
born without arms, who, in Wesley’s presence, took his teacup between
his toes, and the toast with his other foot; and afterwards, by
another feat, showed himself to be a man of no mean penmanship. On the
same day, Wesley had “a lovely congregation at Shepton Mallet,” and a
crowded one at Pensford.

During the remainder of the week, he preached at Bristol, and
corrected and abridged the Life of Mrs. Scudamore.

On Saturday, September 4, he went to Bath and preached; and on Sunday,
the 5th, writes: “At ten we had a numerous congregation, and more
communicants than ever I saw here before. This day, I cut off that
vile custom, I know not when or how it began, of preaching three times
a day by the same preacher to the same congregation; enough to weary
out both the bodies and minds of the speaker, as well as his hearers.”
On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, in the ensuing week, he preached
once daily, and on Friday twice.

On Sunday, September 12, he employed himself in Bristol, and, during
the week following, met the classes, containing 944 members, and
likewise preached at Thornbury, and at Kingswood.

In labour like this the whole month was spent.

At the preceding conference, Wesley had appointed Adam Clarke to the
Dublin circuit, and, on September 5, Adam wrote him a long letter,
telling him that Thomas Rutherford had been laid aside by rheumatic
fever, and that the results of a religious revival had been destroyed
by the extravagant irregularities of those who conducted the
prayer-meetings during Mr. Rutherford’s illness. These meetings had
been, and still were, kept up till ten or eleven o’clock on Sunday
nights, and sometimes till twelve and one; and it was no uncommon
thing for a person, in the midst of them, to give an exhortation of
half or three quarters of an hour’s continuance. Clarke wished to
correct these irregularities, and wrote to Wesley for advice,[744] who
replied to him as follows.

                                   “BRISTOL, _September 9, 1790_.

  “Dear Adam,--Did not the terrible weather that you had at sea
  make you forget your fatigue by land? Come, set one against the
  other, and you have no great reason to complain of your
  journey.

  “You will have need of all the courage and prudence God has
  given you. Indeed, you will want constant supplies of both.
  Very gently, and very steadily, you should proceed between the
  rocks on either hand. In the great revival at London, my first
  difficulty was, to bring into temper those who opposed the
  work; and my next, to check and regulate the extravagances of
  those that promoted it. And this was far the hardest part of
  the work; for many of them would bear no check at all. But I
  followed one rule, though with all calmness: ‘You must either
  bend or break.’ Meantime, while you act exactly right, expect
  to be blamed by both sides. I will give you a few directions.
  (1) See that no prayer-meeting continue later than nine at
  night, particularly on Sunday: let the house be emptied before
  the clock strikes nine. (2) Let there be no exhortation at any
  prayer-meeting. (3) Beware of jealousy, or judging one another.
  (4) Never think a man is an enemy to the work, because he
  reproves irregularities. Peace be with you and yours!

                             “I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[745]

Clarke acted upon Wesley’s good advice, and wrote him the results.
Wesley answered.

                                    “BEDFORD, _October 28, 1790_.

  “DEAR ADAM,--I am glad my letter had so good an effect. I
  dearly love our precious society in Dublin, and cannot but be
  keenly sensible of anything that gives them disturbance. I am
  glad our leaders have adopted that excellent method of
  regularly changing their classes. Wherever this has been done,
  it has been a means of quickening both the leaders and the
  people. I wish this custom could be more extensively
  introduced.

  “You did well to prevent all irregular and turbulent
  prayer-meetings, and, at all hazards, to keep the meetings of
  the society private.

  “Poor Mr. Smyth is now used just as he used _me_. He must
  either bend or break. Although you cannot solicit any of
  Bethesda to join with us, yet neither can you refuse them when
  they offer their hand.

  “You do well to offer all possible courtesy to Mr. William
  Smyth and his family.

  “As long as the society in Dublin continues upward of a
  thousand, you will have no reason to complain.

                             “I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[746]

Before returning to Wesley’s journal, another letter may be welcome.
It was addressed to Mr. Robert C. Brackenbury. Wesley’s reference to
himself is touching; and his remarks on the doctrine of Christian
perfection ought to be remembered.

                                  “BRISTOL, _September 15, 1790_.

  “DEAR SIR,--I am glad to find you are in better bodily health,
  and not weary and faint in your mind. My body seems nearly to
  have done its work, and to be almost worn out. Last month, my
  strength was nearly gone, and I could have sat almost still
  from morning to night. But, blessed be God, I crept about a
  little, and made shift to preach once a day. On Monday, I
  ventured a little further; and, after I had preached three
  times (once in the open air), I found my strength so restored,
  that I could have preached again without inconvenience.

  “I am glad brother D---- has more light with regard to full
  sanctification. This doctrine is the grand _depositum_ which
  God has lodged with the people called Methodists; and, for the
  sake of propagating this chiefly, He appeared to have raised
  them up.

  “I congratulate you upon sitting loose to all below; stedfast
  in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free. Moderate
  riding on horseback, chiefly in the south of England, would
  improve your health. If you choose to accompany me, in any of
  my little journeys on this side Christmas, whenever you were
  tired you might go into my carriage. I am not so ready a writer
  as I was once; but, I bless God, I can scrawl a little,--enough
  to assure you that,

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[747]

On Monday, September 27, Wesley set out from Bristol to London, and
preached at Devizes and Salisbury. On Wednesday we find him preaching
at Winchester and Portsmouth; and on Thursday and Friday at Newport,
in the Isle of Wight.

On Saturday, October 2, he left Portsmouth, at two o’clock in the
morning; and, at Cobham, twenty miles from London, was met by James
and Hester Ann Rogers, and six other friends, in carriages, to welcome
him.[748] Mr. Rogers writes: “He arrived in good health and spirits.
We all dined at Cobham, and, about six in the evening, reached London,
where we praised the Lord with joyful hearts.”[749]

The next day, Sunday, October 3, he preached twice in the City Road
chapel, and held a lovefeast. Rogers says:

  “Many souls were greatly comforted. Indeed, his preaching,
  during the whole winter, was attended with uncommon unction;
  and he frequently spoke, both in his sermons and exhortations,
  as if each time were to be his last; and often desired the
  people to receive what he advanced as his dying charge. His
  conversation also, in his family, seemed to indicate a
  presentiment of death. He frequently spoke of the state of
  separate spirits, and their particular employments; and, for
  the last three months of his life, there were scarcely three
  evenings passed together, but he gave out and sung, in the
  family, the hymn beginning with the line, ‘Shrinking from the
  cold hand of death.’”[750]

After spending two short days in London, Wesley set off, on October 5,
to Rye, a distance of upwards of sixty miles, and preached to a large
and serious congregation. The day after, for the last time, he
preached in the open air. This was at Winchelsea, beneath an ash tree,
in the churchyard,--a tree long protected by the vicar of the parish,
and known for miles round, by the name of “Wesley’s Tree,” though
often mutilated by pilgrim Methodists, who chopped and lopped it for
wood to make it into Methodist snuff boxes, and other _un Wesleyan_
mementoes of Wesley’s last outdoor preaching service. On one occasion,
a local preacher was detected in the act of bearing away a bough in
pious triumph, was apprehended for the theft, had to beg for mercy,
was solemnly reprimanded, and was threatened with transportation, in
case of repeating the offence. Wesley’s text, at Winchelsea, was a
part of Christ’s first outdoor sermon, “The kingdom of God is at hand;
repent ye, and believe the gospel;” and he writes: “It seemed as if
all that heard were, for the present, almost persuaded to be
Christians.” Robert Miller was with him at the time, and says: “The
word was attended with mighty power, and the tears of the people
flowed in torrents.”[751] On the evening of the same day, he preached
again at Rye.

Returning to London, for the services on Sunday, October 10, Wesley
started on the day following for Norfolk. At Colchester, things were
disheartening, but he says he had, “on Monday and Tuesday evenings,
wonderful congregations of rich and poor, clergy and laity.” One of
his hearers was a shoemaker, a young man of twenty-four, who was then
convinced of sin, became a useful local preacher, and often returned
from his appointments besmeared, from head to foot, with the filthy
missiles of persecuting mobs. William Candler, the preaching
shoemaker, took a deep interest in the spiritual welfare of soldiers,
and was not unrewarded; for, one morning, to his great surprise, he
received a government commission to make military shoes, and an
extraordinary despatch, from the Colchester commanding officer, that
all the shoemakers in the regiments stationed at Harwich, Ipswich, and
Colchester, should assist him in executing the martial order. For near
fifty years, William Candler rendered important service to the cause
of Christ, and then, in 1838, died, kissing his family, and whispering
to each, “Good bye; God bless you!”[752]

In years past, Colchester had been one of Wesley’s favourite places;
but now, he says, “the society was lessened, and cold enough;
preaching was discontinued, and the spirit of Methodism quite gone,
from the preachers and the people.” All this was the result of the
clerical interference of the Rev. Mr. S----, of St. Peter’s, who had
adopted the theory, that, wherever there was a gospel ministry in the
Church, Methodist preaching ought to cease, and Methodist societies be
handed over to the care of the gospel clergyman. To accomplish this at
Colchester, no pains were spared, and even gifts and bribes were used.
Wesley was annoyed, and, in the course of his sermon, said: “I
understand there is a sheep stealer in Colchester, who takes both
sheep and lambs from his neighbour’s fold at will. Now, I charge that
man to desist; or to meet me, and answer for his deeds, at the bar of
God, in the day of judgment.” The reverend gentleman was present; and
his subsequent conduct showed that he was not a forgetful hearer.[753]

Wesley had, in his congregation, at Colchester, another remarkable
hearer, Henry Crabb Robinson, who writes:

  “It was, I believe, in October 1790, that I heard John Wesley
  in the great round meeting-house at Colchester. He stood in a
  wide pulpit, and on each side of him stood a minister, and the
  two held him up, having their hands under his armpits. His
  feeble voice was barely audible; but his reverend countenance,
  especially his long white locks, formed a picture never to be
  forgotten. There was a vast crowd of lovers and admirers. It
  was for the most part a pantomime, but the pantomime went to
  the heart. Of the kind, I never saw anything comparable to it
  in after life.”

Considering the long picturesque life which Mr. Robinson lived
subsequent to this, the last sentence is remarkable. In a letter dated
October 18, 1790, this young auditor, then fifteen years of age,
remarks:

  “I felt great satisfaction last week in hearing that veteran in
  the service of God, the Rev. John Wesley. At another time, and
  not knowing the man, I should almost have ridiculed his figure.
  Far from it now. I looked upon him with a respect bordering
  upon enthusiasm. After the people had sung one verse of a hymn,
  he arose and said: ‘It gives me a great pleasure to find that
  you have not lost your singing; neither men nor women. You have
  not forgotten a single note. And I hope, by the assistance of
  God, which enables you to sing well, you may do all other
  things well.’ A universal ‘Amen’ followed. At the end of every
  head or division of his discourse, he finished by a kind of
  prayer, a momentary wish as it were, not consisting of more
  than three or four words, which was always followed by a
  universal buzz. His discourse was short. The text I could not
  hear. After the last prayer, he rose up and addressed the
  people on liberality of sentiment, and spoke much against
  refusing to join with any congregation on account of difference
  in opinion.”[754]

On Wednesday, October 13, Wesley went from Colchester to Norwich, and
writes: “I preached; but the house would in nowise contain the
congregation. How wonderfully is the tide turned! I am become an
honourable man at Norwich. God has, at length, made our enemies to be
at peace with us; and scarce any but antinomians open their mouths
against us.”

The next day, he preached at Yarmouth, to a congregation “far too
large to get into the chapel.” And the day following at Lowestoft.
Here again, he had another distinguished hearer, the poet Crabbe; and
repeated the well known lines from Anacreon, with an application of
his own.

              “Oft am I by woman told,
               Poor Anacreon! thou grow’st old;
               See, thine hairs are falling all:
               Poor Anacreon! how they fall!
               Whether I grow old or no,
               By these signs, I do not know;
               But this I need not to be told,
               ’Tis time to _live_, if I grow old.”

Crabbe was greatly struck with the reverend appearance of the aged
preacher, with his cheerful air, and the beautiful cadence he gave to
the lines he quoted; and, after the service, was introduced to him,
and was received with benevolent politeness.[755]

On Saturday, October 16, Wesley preached at Loddon and at Norwich;
and, next day, twice again in the latter city, besides administering
the sacrament at seven o’clock in the morning, to about one hundred
and fifty persons. He writes: “I take knowledge, that the last year’s
preachers were in earnest. Afterwards, we went to our own parish
church; although there was no sermon there, nor at any of the
thirty-six churches in the town, save the cathedral and St. Peter’s.”
Who will say that Methodist preaching was not needed in this
_non-preaching_ diocesan city?

On Monday, October 18, Wesley preached at Swaffham, and at Lynn. At
the latter place, he preached again on Tuesday, administered the
sacrament,[756] made a collection for the Sunday-schools, and had
present to hear him all the clergymen of the town, except one, whose
lameness prevented his attending. On Wednesday, the 20th, he occupied
the church at Diss, one of the largest in the county. “I suppose,”
says he, “it has not been so filled these hundred years.” His text
was, “Seek ye the Lord while He may be found”; and the results of the
sermon were remarkable and lasting.[757]

On the evening of the same day, and also on the day following, he
preached at Bury St. Edmunds; and on Friday, October 22, returned to
London.

The last entry, in Wesley’s published journal, is dated two days
later. “Sunday, October 24--I explained, to a numerous congregation,
in Spitalfields church, ‘the whole armour of God,’ St. Paul’s,
Shadwell, was still more crowded in the afternoon, while I enforced
that important truth, ‘one thing is needful’; and I hope many, even
then, resolved to choose the better part.”

There can be little doubt, that the rest of the year was occupied with
what Wesley often called his “_little journeys_,” into Bedfordshire,
Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, etc. The reader will catch
glimpses of him in the following letters.

The first was addressed to his niece, Miss Sarah Wesley, at Mrs.
Whitcomb’s, in Margate. The reference to his relatives is significant
and painful.

                                      “LONDON, _October 5, 1790_.

  “DEAR SALLY,--I am glad you are situated so comfortably. Mrs.
  Whitcomb does really fear God; and, I hope, before you leave
  her house, will know what it is to love Him. Providence has not
  sent you to spend a little time in Margate merely on your own
  account. Before you leave it, she, with several others, shall
  have reason to praise God that you came. See that you lose no
  time. A word spoken in season how good is it! Warn every one,
  and exhort every one, if by any means you may save some. ‘In
  the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy
  hand; for thou knowest not which shall prosper.’ Say not, ‘I
  can do nothing, I am slow of speech.’ True; but who made the
  tongue? You have seen sister Boon, a loving, simple hearted
  woman. Be a follower of her, as she is of Christ. Why should
  you not meet in her class? I think you will not be ashamed. Is
  it not a good opportunity of coming a little nearer to them
  that love you well? Let me have the comfort of one relation, at
  least, that will be an assistant to me in the blessed work of
  God.

  “I must visit other places before I come into Kent, as well as
  visit the classes in London; so that I cannot be at Margate
  till the latter end of next month. If you stay there till then,
  you will see me.

  “I am, my dear Sally, your affectionate uncle,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[758]

The next was written the day after his return to town from Norfolk,
and was addressed to James Macdonald, then stationed at Newry, in
Ireland. It will be seen, that the Methodist sin of neglecting fasting
is not of recent growth.

                                     “LONDON, _October 23, 1790_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have great reason to praise God for His
  late glorious work at and near Newry; and I make no doubt, but
  it will continue, yea, and increase, if the subjects of it
  continue to walk humbly and closely with God. Exhort all our
  brethren steadily to wait upon God in the appointed means of
  fasting and prayer; the former of which has been almost
  universally neglected by the Methodists, both in England and
  Ireland. But it is a true remark of Kempis: ‘The more thou
  deniest thyself, the more thou wilt grow in grace.’

                             “I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[759]

Something has been already said respecting the division of circuits.
The Dales circuit in 1790 had forty-three preaching places, including
Barnardcastle, Bishop Auckland, Appleby, Alstone, Allendale,
Wolsingham, Hexham, Penrith, and Kendal,--now all of them circuit
towns themselves. The nearest neighbouring circuit, eastwards, was
Yarm; westwards, Whitehaven; northwards, Newcastle; and southwards,
Thirsk. This will give the reader an idea of the enormous region
embraced in the Dales circuit at the time to which we are now
adverting. Within the same border, there are now not fewer than at
least twenty circuit towns, most of them the centre of a large cluster
of smaller towns and villages.[760] The Dales circuit, in 1790, had
three itinerant preachers, and 980 members of society, who contributed
for the maintenance of their preaching triumvirate, during the quarter
in which Wesley died, the sum of £29 8_s._ 6_d._, sevenpence per
member per quarter, and affording £9 16_s._ 2_d._ for the support of
each preacher, his wife, and family, and the general maintenance of
Methodist machinery throughout the circuit.[761] George Holder was the
assistant, and Jonathan Hern and John Wittam were his colleagues. The
feed was poor, the pay pauperish, the journeys long, the roads bad,
the region mountainous, and the work heavy. There was a wish to divide
the circuit; but the following was Wesley’s reply to Holder.

                                     “LONDON, _October 30, 1790_.

  “DEAR GEORGE,--The assistant in every circuit (not the leaders)
  is to determine how each preacher is to travel. If Jonathan
  Hern will not, or cannot, take his turn with his fellow
  labourers, I must send another that will. I do not like
  dividing circuits. Could not three or more of the northern
  places be added to the Sunderland or Newcastle circuits, in
  order to lessen yours, and bring it into a six weeks’ circuit?
  Pray send me the manner of your travelling through your
  circuit. I think, I shall order it better.

  “I am, with love to sister Holder, dear George, yours, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[762]

A small circuit then was one of the things which Wesley thought
inimical to the interests of Methodism. Was Wesley right? Unless
Methodist preachers can become thoroughly pastoral in their habits,--a
thing which triennial changes render extremely difficult,--would it
not be better for circuits to be of such a size as to make daily
preaching a healthy duty, instead of being so circumscribed that one
or two sermons, between sabbaths, is all that their necessities
require? This is a serious problem, which we must leave to be solved
by others.

Another hindrance, as Wesley thought, to Methodist progress, was the
neglect of reading. Hence the following extract from an unpublished
letter, dated November 8, 1790.

  “If you and your wife strengthen each other’s hands in God,
  then you will surely receive a blessing from Him. But it is not
  abundance of money, or any creature, that can make us happy
  without Him.

  “It cannot be that the people should grow in grace, unless they
  give themselves to reading. A reading people will always be a
  knowing people. A people who talk much will know little. Press
  this upon them with your might; and you will soon see the fruit
  of your labours.”

An extract from another letter may be given here. The letter was
addressed to Alexander Mather.

  “No, Aleck, no! The danger of ruin to Methodism does not lie
  here. It springs from quite a different quarter. Our preachers,
  many of them, are fallen. They are not spiritual. They are not
  alive to God. They are soft, enervated, fearful of shame, toil,
  hardship. They have not the spirit which God gave to Thomas Lee
  at Pateley Bridge, or to you at Boston. Give me one hundred
  preachers, who fear nothing but sin, and desire nothing but
  God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or
  laymen, such alone will shake the gates of hell, and set up the
  kingdom of heaven upon earth.”[763]

As we have often shown, Wesley regarded the preaching of the doctrine
of Christian perfection as of the utmost importance. The following
letter to Adam Clarke is to the same effect.

                                    “LONDON, _November 26, 1790_.

  “DEAR ADAM,--To retain the grace of God, is much more than to
  gain it; hardly one in three does this. And this should be
  strongly and explicitly urged on all who have tasted of perfect
  love. If we can prove that any of our local preachers or
  leaders, either directly or indirectly, speak against it, let
  him be a local preacher or leader no longer. I doubt whether he
  should continue in society. Because he, that could speak thus
  in our congregations, cannot be an honest man. I wish sister
  Clarke to do what she can, but no more than she can. Betsy
  Ritchie, Miss Johnson, and Mary Clarke are women after my own
  heart. Last week I had an excellent letter from Mrs. Pawson, (a
  glorious witness of full salvation,) showing how impossible it
  is to retain pure love without growing therein. I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[764]

Such letters might be greatly multiplied. We only add another. He was
now an old man, and extremely feeble; and Mr. Ireland, having heard
that claret wine had been recommended to him by his medical adviser,
sent him a small case as a present. The wine was seized by the custom
house authorities, to whom Wesley addressed the following laconic
letter.

                                 “CITY ROAD, _November 14, 1790_.

  “GENTLEMEN,--Two or three days ago, Mr. Ireland sent me, as a
  present, two dozen of French claret, which I am ordered to
  drink, during my present weakness. At the White Swan it was
  seized. Beg it may be restored to,

  “Your obedient servant,

                                          “JOHN WESLEY.

  “Whatever duty comes due, I will see duly paid.”

The letter seems to have been returned to the dying man; and, across
it, a government official curtly wrote: “No. M. W.”[765]

Wesley’s only publication, in 1790, besides the thirteenth volume of
his _Magazine_, was his translation of “The New Testament, with an
Analysis of the several Books and Chapters.” 16mo, 424 pages. In his
preface, he remarks:

  “In this edition, the translation is brought as near as
  possible to the original; yet the alterations are few and
  seemingly small; but they may be of considerable importance.
  Though the old division of chapters is retained, for the more
  easy finding of any text, yet the whole is likewise divided,
  according to the sense, into distinct sections; a little
  circumstance which makes many passages more intelligible to the
  reader. The analysis of every book and epistle is prefixed to
  it. And this view of the general scope of each will give light
  to all the particulars.”

It ought to be remarked, that this is, by no means, a verbatim reprint
of Wesley’s translation, published with his Notes in 1755. The book is
extremely scarce; but the variations are too numerous and minute to be
pointed out in a work like this.

As it respects the _Magazine_, there can be no doubt, that all the
articles composing it may be considered to be in harmony with Wesley’s
own sentiments; but, as usual, in this review, we only notice the
articles which Wesley himself contributed; and that, principally, for
the purpose of obtaining knowledge of his latest opinions and
feelings. We pass over his “Thoughts on Memory”; his critique on
Captain Wilson’s “Account of the Pelew Islands”; and his “Thoughts on
Suicide”; and direct attention to his last, his dying manifesto, on
separation from the Established Church. The article is dated,
“December 11, 1789,” and is in the April number of the _Magazine_ for
1790.

He states that, next to the primitive church, he had, from childhood,
esteemed the Church of England as the most scriptural, national church
in the world; and had, therefore, not only assented to all the
doctrines, but observed all the rubric in the liturgy; and that with
all possible exactness, even at the peril of his life. He proceeds to
give the history of the rise of Methodism, and of his own
_irregularities_; and thus concludes:

  “I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have
  no such design now. I do not believe, the Methodists in general
  design it, when I am no more seen. I do, and will do, all that
  is in my power to prevent such an event. Nevertheless, in spite
  of all that I can do, many of them will separate from it
  (although, I am apt to think, not one half, perhaps not one
  third of them). These will be so bold and injudicious as to
  form a separate party, which, consequently, will dwindle away
  into a dry, dull, separate party. In flat opposition to these,
  I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church
  of England; and that none, who regard my judgment or advice,
  will ever separate from it.”

To the same effect is his sermon on “No man taketh this honour unto
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,”--a sermon which
he wrote at Cork, in May 1789, and published in his magazine, twelve
months afterwards. He correctly maintains that, in ancient times, the
offices of priest and preacher were entirely distinct. Priests were
not preachers; and preachers, or prophets, were not priests. He argues
that, in the New Testament, the office of an evangelist is not the
same as that of a pastor. Pastors presided over the flock, and
administered the sacraments; evangelists helped them, and preached the
word. He asserts that the same distinction is recognised in the
English, presbyterian, and Roman churches; and then, coming to
Methodism, tells his readers that Methodist itinerant preachers are
evangelists, not pastors; and that their work is wholly and solely to
preach, not to administer sacraments. His address to them is worth
quoting.

  “God has commissioned you to call sinners to repentance; but it
  does by no means follow from hence, that ye are commissioned to
  baptize, or to administer the Lord’s supper. Ye never dreamt of
  this, for ten or twenty years after ye began to preach. Ye did
  not then, like _Korah Dathan_, and _Abiram_, _seek the
  priesthood also_. Ye knew, ‘No man taketh this honour to
  himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.’ O contain
  yourselves within your own bounds. Be content with preaching
  the gospel. Do the work of evangelists. I earnestly advise you,
  abide in your place; keep your own station. Ye were fifty years
  ago,--those of you that were then Methodist
  preachers,--_extraordinary messengers_ of God, not going in
  your own will, but _thrust out_, not to supersede, but to
  _provoke to jealousy_ the _ordinary messengers_. In God’s name,
  stop there! Both, by your preaching and example, provoke them
  to love and good works. Ye are a new phenomenon in the earth; a
  body of people, who, being of no sect or party, are friends to
  all parties, and endeavour to forward all, in the knowledge and
  love of God and man. Ye yourselves were, at first, called in
  the Church of England; and though ye have and will have a
  thousand temptations to leave it, regard them not. Be Church of
  _England_ men still. Do not cast away the peculiar glory which
  God hath put upon you, and frustrate the design of Providence,
  the very end for which God raised you up.”

In reply to the charge that he himself had already separated from the
Church, Wesley allows, that he deviated from the rules of the Church
in “preaching abroad,” in “praying extempore,” in forming societies,
and in employing lay preachers; but he adds:

  “All this is not separating from the Church. So far from it,
  that, whenever I have opportunity, I attend the Church service
  myself, and advise all our societies so to do. Nevertheless,
  the generality even of religious people naturally think, ‘I am
  inconsistent.’ And they cannot but think so, unless they
  observe my two principles. The one, that I dare not separate
  from the Church, that I believe it would be a sin so to do; the
  other, that I believe it would be a sin not to _vary_ from it
  in the points above mentioned. I say, put these two principles
  together, first, I will not _separate_ from the Church; yet,
  secondly, in cases of necessity, I will _vary_ from it; and
  inconsistency vanishes away. I have been true to my profession
  from 1730 to this day.”

Here we leave the matter. This is the last time we shall quote Wesley
on separation from the Church. We care not either to vindicate or to
condemn his thoughts and course of conduct. In a few lines, Wesley
here says all that can be said in favour of the anomalous position in
which he stood: he did not _separate_, but he _varied_ from the Church
of England. It will be difficult for either sophistry or sound
argument to make either more or less than this of the vexed
question,--the difference between Wesley’s profession and his practice
in reference to his continued adherence to, or separation from, the
Established Church. He lived and died a hearty, but inconsistent
Churchman.

There is another point which must be mentioned. The reader has already
seen Wesley’s intense anxiety in reference to rich Methodists. In the
last fourteen sermons that he wrote, during the last two years of his
eventful life, and which were, for the first time, published in the
magazines for 1790, 1791, and 1792, he again and again, in the
strongest and most affecting language, reverts to this momentous
matter. Exception may be taken to his opinions; but they are worthy of
being quoted. They are the last sentiments of an old man, with
unparalleled experience; and, throughout a long life, were by himself
reduced to practice. The following are extracts.

In the remarkable sermon, on Jeremiah viii. 22, written in Dublin,
July 2, 1789, in which he tries to answer the question, “Why has
Christianity done so little good in the world?” he writes:

  “Who regards those solemn words, _Lay not up for yourselves
  treasures upon earth_? Of the three rules, which are laid down
  on this head, in the sermon on _The Mammon of Unrighteousness_,
  you may find many that observe the first rule, namely, _Gain
  all you can_. You may find a few that observe the second, _Save
  all you can_. But how many have you found, that observe the
  third rule, _Give all you can_? Have you reason to believe,
  that five hundred of these are to be found among fifty thousand
  _Methodists_? And, yet, nothing can be more plain, than that
  all who observe the two first rules, without the third, will be
  twofold more the children of hell than ever they were before.

  “O that God would enable me once more, before I go hence and am
  no more seen, to lift up my voice like a trumpet to those who
  _gain_ and _save_ all they can, but do not _give_ all they can!
  Ye are the men, some of the chief men, who continually grieve
  the Holy Spirit of God, and, in a great measure, stop His
  gracious influence from descending on our assemblies. Many of
  your brethren, beloved of God, have not food to eat; they have
  not raiment to put on; they have not a place where to lay their
  head. And why are they thus distressed? Because _you_
  impiously, unjustly, and cruelly detain from them what your
  Master and theirs lodges in _your_ hands, on purpose to supply
  _their_ wants. In the name of God, what are you doing? Do you
  neither fear God, nor regard man? Why do you not deal your
  bread to the hungry? And cover the naked with a garment? Have
  you laid out, in your own costly apparel, what would have
  answered both these intentions? Did God command you so to do?
  Does He commend you for so doing? Did He entrust you with
  _His_,--not _your_,--goods for this end? And does He now say,
  ‘Servant of God, well done’? You well know He does not. This
  idle expense has no approbation, either from God or your own
  conscience. But, you say, ‘You can _afford_ it!’ O be ashamed
  to take such miserable nonsense into your mouths. Never more
  utter such stupid cant, such palpable absurdity! Can any
  steward _afford_ to be an arrant knave? to waste his lord’s
  goods? Can any servant _afford_ to lay out his master’s money,
  any otherwise than his master appoints him? So far from it,
  that whoever does this ought to be excluded from a Christian
  society.

  “I am distressed. I know not what to do. I see what I might
  have done once. I might have said peremptorily and expressly,
  ‘Here I am: I and my Bible. I will not, I dare not, vary from
  this book, either in great things or small. I have no power to
  dispense with one jot or tittle of what is contained therein. I
  am determined to be a Bible Christian, not almost but
  altogether. Who will meet me on this ground? Join me on this,
  or not at all.’ With regard to dress in particular, I might
  have been as firm, (and I now see it would have been far
  better,) as either the people called quakers, or the Moravian
  brethren. I might have said, ‘This is _our_ manner of dress,
  which we know is both scriptural and rational. If you join with
  us, you are to dress as we do: but you need not join us unless
  you please.’ But alas! the time is now past. And what I can do
  now, I cannot tell. The Methodists grow more and more self
  indulgent, because they _grow rich_. Although many of them are
  still deplorably poor (_Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in
  the streets of Askelon!_), yet many others, in the space of
  twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a
  hundred times richer than they were when they first entered the
  society. And it is an observation which admits of few
  exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace, in
  the same proportion as they increased in wealth. Indeed,
  according to the natural tendency of riches, we cannot expect
  it to be otherwise.

  “But how astonishing a thing is this! Does it not seem (and yet
  this cannot be!) that true scriptural Christianity has a
  tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself?
  For, wherever it spreads, it must cause diligence and
  frugality, which, in the natural course of things, beget
  riches. And riches naturally beget pride, love of the world,
  and every temper that is destructive to Christianity. Now, if
  there be no way to prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent
  with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand, cannot long
  continue among any people; since, wherever it generally
  prevails, it saps its own foundation.

  “But, allowing that diligence and frugality must produce
  riches, is there no means to hinder riches destroying the
  religion of those that possess them? I can see only one
  possible way; find out another who can. Do you gain all you
  can, and save all you can? Then you must, in the nature of
  things, grow rich. Then if you have any desire to escape the
  damnation of hell, _give_ all you can; otherwise I can have no
  more hope of your salvation, than for that of Judas Iscariot.

  “I call God to record upon my soul, that I advise no more than
  I practise. I do, blessed be God, gain, and save, and give all
  I can. And so, I trust in God, I shall do, while the breath of
  God is in my nostrils. But what then? I count all things but
  loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus, my Lord!
  Still

            ‘I give up every plea beside,
             Lord, I am damned! but Thou hast died!’”[766]

To the same effect is Wesley’s searching and terrible sermon, on the
Rich Fool, written at Balham, February 19, 1790; and another written
at Bristol, September 21, 1790, on the text, “If riches increase, set
not thine heart upon them.” In the latter sermon, he writes:

  “By whatsoever means thy riches increase, whether with or
  without labour; whether by trade, legacies, or any other way,
  unless thy charities increase in the same proportion,--unless
  thou givest a full tenth of thy substance, of thy fixed and
  occasional income, thou dost undoubtedly set thy heart upon thy
  gold, and it will _eat thy flesh as fire_.

  “But O! who can convince a rich man, that he sets his heart
  upon riches? For considerably above half a century, I have
  spoken on this head, with all the plainness that was in my
  power. But with how little effect? I doubt whether I have, in
  all that time, convinced fifty misers of covetousness.

  “I have a message from God unto thee, O rich man, whether thou
  wilt hear, or whether thou wilt forbear. Riches have increased
  with thee; at the peril of thy soul, _set not thine heart upon
  them_. Be thankful to Him that gave thee such a talent, so much
  power of doing good. Yet dare not to rejoice over them, but
  with fear and trembling.

  “Let us descend to particulars; and see that each of you deal
  faithfully with his own soul. If any of you have now twice,
  thrice, or four times as much substance as when you first saw
  my face, faithfully examine yourselves, and see if you do not
  set your hearts, if not directly on riches themselves, yet, on
  some of the things that are purchaseable thereby, which comes
  to the same thing. Do you not _eat_ more plentifully or more
  delicately than you did ten or twenty years ago? Do not you use
  more _drink_, or drink of a more _costly_ kind, than you did
  then? Do you sleep on as hard a bed as you did once, suppose
  your health will bear it? Do you _fast_ as often now you are
  rich, as you did when you were poor? Ought you not in all
  reason to do this, rather more often than more seldom? I am
  afraid, your own heart condemns you. You are not clear in this
  matter.

  “Do not some of you seek no small part of happiness in that
  trifle of trifles, dress? Do not you bestow more money, or,
  which is the same, more time and pains upon it, than you did
  once? I doubt this is not done to please God. Then it pleases
  the devil. If you laid aside your needless ornaments, some
  years since, ruffles, necklaces, spider caps, ugly, unbecoming
  bonnets, costly linen, expensive laces, have you not, in
  defiance of religion and reason, taken to them again?

  “After having served you between sixty and seventy years, with
  dim eyes, shaking hands, and tottering feet, I give you one
  more advice before I sink into the dust. Mark those words of
  St. Paul, _Those that desire_, or endeavour, _to be rich_, that
  moment, _fall into temptation_; yea, a deep gulf of temptation,
  out of which nothing less than Almighty power can deliver them.
  Permit me to come a little closer still: perhaps I may not
  trouble you any more on this head. I am pained for you that are
  _rich in this world_. Do you give all you can? You who receive
  £500 a year, and spend only £200, do you give £300 back to God?
  If not, you certainly rob God of that £300. ‘Nay, may I not do
  what I will with _my own_?’ Here lies the ground of your
  mistake. It is not your _own_. It cannot be, unless you are
  Lord of heaven and earth. ‘However, I must provide for my
  children.’ Certainly. But how? By making them rich? When you
  will probably make them heathens, as some of you have done
  already. Leave them enough to live on, not in idleness and
  luxury, but by honest industry. And if you have not children,
  upon what scriptural or rational principle can you leave a
  groat behind you, more than will bury you? I pray consider:
  What are you the better for what you leave behind you? What
  does it signify, whether you leave behind you ten thousand
  pounds, or ten thousand shoes and boots? Oh, leave nothing
  behind you! Send all you have before you into a better world!
  Lend it, lend it all unto the Lord, and it shall be paid you
  again! Is there any danger that _His_ truth should fail? It is
  fixed as the pillars of heaven. Haste, haste, my brethren,
  haste! lest you be called away, before you have settled what
  you have, on this security!”[767]

To say the least, this was plain speaking, such as is seldom heard at
present; the following, in the sermon on Matthew vi. 22, 23, written
at Bristol, September 25, 1789, is terrific.

  “How great is the darkness of that execrable wretch (I can give
  him no better title, be he rich or poor), who will sell his own
  child to the devil! who will barter her own eternal happiness,
  for any quantity of gold or silver! What a monster would any
  man be accounted, who devoured the flesh of his own offspring!
  And is he not as great a monster, who, by his own act and deed,
  gives her to be devoured by that roaring lion? As he certainly
  does (so far as is in his power), who marries her to an ungodly
  man. ‘But he is rich; he has £10,000!’ What if it were
  £100,000? The more the worse; the less probability will she
  have of escaping the damnation of hell. With what face wilt
  thou look upon her, when she tells thee in the realms below,
  ‘Thou hast plunged me into this place of torment! Hadst thou
  given me to a good man, however poor, I might now have been in
  Abraham’s bosom!’

  “Are any of you, that are called Methodists, seeking to marry
  your children well (as the cant phrase is), that is, to sell
  them to some purchaser, that has much money, but little or no
  religion? Have _ye_ profited no more by all ye have heard? Man,
  woman, think what you are about. Dare _you_ also sell your
  child to the devil? You undoubtedly do this (as far as in you
  lies), when you marry a son or a daughter to a child of the
  devil, though it be one that wallows in gold and silver. O take
  warning in time! Beware of the gilded bait! Death and hell are
  hid beneath. Prefer grace before gold and precious stones;
  glory in heaven, to riches on earth! If you do not, you are
  worse than the very Canaanites. They only made their children
  _pass through the fire_ to Moloch. You make yours _pass into
  the fire_ that never shall be quenched, and _to stay in it for
  ever_. O how great is the darkness that causes you, after you
  have done this, _to wipe your mouth and say, you have done no
  evil_!

  “Upwards of fifty years, I have ministered unto you. I have
  been your servant for Christ’s sake. During this time, I have
  given you many solemn warnings on this head. I now give you one
  more, perhaps the last. Dare any of you, in choosing your
  calling or situation, eye the things on earth, rather than the
  things above? In choosing a profession or a companion of life
  for your child, do you look at earth or heaven? And can you
  deliberately prefer, either for yourself or your offspring, a
  child of the devil with money, to a child of God without it?
  Repent, repent of your vile earthly mindedness! Renounce the
  title of Christians; or prefer, both in your own case and the
  case of your children, grace to money, and heaven to earth. For
  the time to come, at least, _let your eye be single_, that your
  _whole body may be full of light_!”

These were Wesley’s last words to the Methodists. The extracts are
long; but, in this money making, mammon worshipping, intensely worldly
age, they may be useful.

The other sermons, published in the last year of Wesley’s life, and in
the year subsequent to his death, are well worthy of the reader’s
notice. That on “Knowing Christ after the flesh” is perhaps the only
one, in the English language, on such a subject. That on the text,
“There is one God,” is characteristically thoughtful, keen, logical,
and evangelical. That on “Walking by Faith,” terse, vigorous, earnest,
practical, and terribly faithful. That on “The Wedding Garment,” an
excellent exposition of an often ill used text. That on “The
Deceitfulness of the Human Heart” is one which none but a man like
Wesley could have preached. That on “Atheism,” ingenious, searching,
and powerful. That on “The Treasure in Earthen Vessels,” simple and
beautiful. While that on “Life like a Dream” was being printed on the
very day when Wesley’s corpse lay in the chapel in City Road; and that
on “Faith, the evidence of things not seen,” was the last he ever
wrote, and was finished only six weeks previous to his death.

Both the last mentioned deserve quoting. They are the profoundly
interesting musings of an old man, conscious that he must soon enter
the spiritual and unseen world. Imagining a disembodied soul before
him, he thus soliloquises.

  “Now that your eyes are open, see how inexpressibly different
  are all the things that are now around you! What a difference
  do you perceive in yourself! Where is your body? Your house of
  clay? Where are your limbs? your hands, your feet, your head?
  There they lie; cold, insensible! What a change is in the
  immortal spirit! You see everything around you: but how? Not
  with eyes of flesh and blood! You hear; but not by a stream of
  undulating air, striking on an extended membrane. You feel; but
  in how wonderful a manner! You have no nerves to convey the
  ethereal fire to the common sensory; rather are you not now all
  eye, all ear, all feeling, all perception?”

Again, in his last, the sermon on faith:

  “How will this material universe appear to a disembodied
  spirit? Who can tell whether any of these objects, that now
  surround us, will appear the same as they do now? What
  astonishing scenes will then discover themselves to our newly
  opening senses! Probably fields of ether, not only tenfold, but
  ten thousand fold, ‘the length of this terrene.’ And with what
  variety of furniture, animate and inanimate! How many orders of
  beings, not discovered by organs of flesh and blood! Perhaps
  ‘thrones, dominions, principalities, and, powers!’ And shall we
  not then, as far as angels’ ken, survey the bounds of creation,
  and see every place where the Almighty

                ‘Stopped His rapid wheels, and said,
                 This be thy just circumference, O world!’

  Yea, shall we not be able to move, quick as thought, through
  the wide realms of uncreated night? Above all, the moment we
  step into eternity, shall we not feel ourselves swallowed up of
  Him, who is in this and every place, who filleth heaven and
  earth? It is only the veil of flesh and blood which now hinders
  us from perceiving, that the great Creator cannot but fill the
  whole immensity of space; He is every moment above us, beneath
  us, and on every side. Indeed, in this dark abode, this land of
  shadows, this region of sin and death, the thick cloud, which
  is interposed between, conceals Him from our sight. But then
  the veil will disappear, and He will appear in unclouded
  majesty, God over all, blessed for ever!”

The blessed old man already had glimpses of the shining ones, and of
the gates of that celestial city, into which, six weeks after these
words were written, he triumphantly entered.


FOOTNOTES:

     [700] Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 380.

     [701] _Methodist Magazine_, 1830, p. 251.

     [702] Dunn’s Life of Clarke, p. 72.

     [703] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 105.

     [704] Pawson’s manuscripts.

     [705] Moore’s sermon.

     [706] _Methodist Magazine_, 1832, p. 594.

     [707] Benson’s Life, by Macdonald, p. 209.

     [708] Dunn’s Life of Clarke, pp. 72, 73.

     [709] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 119.

     [710] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 113.

     [711] “Methodism in Preston,” p. 44.

     [712] Cutler’s Life, p. 5.

     [713] _Methodist Magazine_, 1792, p. 66.

     [714] “Methodism in Halifax,” p. 181.

     [715] See page 472 of this volume.

     [716] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 121.

     [717] _Methodist Magazine_, 1795, p. 423.

     [718] Moore’s Life, p. 89.

     [719] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 94.

     [720] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 105.

     [721] Kilham’s Life, by Blackwell, p. 114.

     [722] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 494.

     [723] Black’s Memoirs, p. 265.

     [724] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 384.

     [725] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 139.

     [726] Dunn’s Life of Clarke, p. 73.

     [727] Ought it not to be sixty-eight.

     [728] An error occurred in the first edition of this
           volume, on page 224. It was there stated, that Wesley
           received £60 a year; it ought to have been £30.
           According to the old circuit book, at City Road, it
           was the custom to pay him £15 in the first quarter of
           each year, and £15 in the last.

     [729] Now his steward.

     [730] The sentence is unfinished.

     [731] Samuel Bradburn remarks: “I know that, from the
           conference of 1780 to the conference of 1781, he gave
           away, in _private charities_, above £1400. He told me
           himself, in 1787, that he never gave away, out of his
           own pocket, less than £1000 a year.” Bradburn adds:
           “He never relieved poor people in the street, but he
           either took off, or removed, his hat to them, when
           they thanked him.”

     [732] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 25.

     [733] Ibid. 1828, p. 741; and _Christian Miscellany_, 1847,
           p. 173.

     [734] _Methodist Magazine_, 1792, p. 288.

     [735] Ibid. 1856, p. 234.

     [736] Ibid. 1845, p. 123.

     [737] Clarke’s Life, vol. i., p. 277.

     [738] _Methodist Magazine_, 1847, p. 211.

     [739] _Methodist Magazine_, 1837, p. 11.

     [740] The assistant in Chatham circuit.

     [741] The wife of Charles Boone, the assistant in
           Canterbury circuit.

     [742] _Local Preachers’ Magazine_, 1851, p. 75.

     [743] _Methodist Magazine_, 1847, p. 656.

     [744] _Wesleyan Times_, June 11, 1866.

     [745] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 98.

     [746] _Wesleyan Times_, June 11, 1866.

     [747] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 8.

     [748] This was done with the approbation of the London
           stewards, who paid £1 19_s._ for the carriages and
           expenses. (City Road society book.)

     [749] Life of James Rogers, p. 44.

     [750] Life of James Rogers, p. 44.

     [751] _Youth’s Instructor_, 1833, p. 330.

     [752] _Methodist Magazine_, 1841, p. 1.

     [753] Ibid.

     [754] “Diary, Reminiscences, and Correspondence of Henry
           Crabb Robinson,” vol. i., p. 20.

     [755] Crabbe’s Life.

     [756] _Methodist Magazine_, 1856, p. 203.

     [757] Reynolds’ “Anecdotes of Wesley,” p. 39.

     [758] _Methodist Magazine_, 1846, p. 1189.

     [759] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 113.

     [760] Merely in the circuits above mentioned (a fraction
           of the Dales circuit) there are, at present, 7819
           members. (See Minutes of Conference, 1870.)

     [761] Circuit manuscript books.

     [762] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 109.

     [763] Sigston’s Life of Bramwell.

     [764] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 99.

     [765] Manuscript letter, kindly lent by Charles Reed, Esq.,
           M.P.

     [766] _Methodist Magazine_, 1790, pp. 348, 400, etc.

     [767] _Methodist Magazine_, 1792, p. 341, etc.




                                1791.
                               Age 88


Only two months of Wesley’s eventful life are left unnarrated. The
following letters, belonging to this period, will be read with
interest.

The first was addressed to Adam Clarke, who, in Dublin, had buried his
eldest daughter, and was himself dangerously afflicted with rheumatic
affection in the head.[768]

                                              “_January 3, 1791._

  “DEAR ADAM,--You startle me when you talk of grieving so much
  for the death of an infant. This is certainly a proof of
  inordinate affection; and, if you love them _thus_, all your
  children will die. How did Mr. De Renty behave when he supposed
  his wife to be dying? There is a pattern for a Christian.

  “But you forget to send me anything about magnetism. John
  Bredin is a weak brother: let him not complain. He behaved ill
  both at Jersey and Guernsey; but let him behave well now, and
  that will be forgotten. I wish my dear sister Clarke and you
  many happy years; and am, dear Adam, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[769]

The next has not before been published. It was written to Thomas
Taylor, then in the Hull circuit. Dr. King was made archbishop of
Dublin in 1702, and died in 1729. He was author of “_De Origine
Mali_,” written to prove, that the existence of natural and moral evil
is not incompatible with the power and goodness of the Deity, and may
be accounted for without the supposition of an evil principle.

                                      “LONDON, _January 6, 1791_.

  “DEAR TOMMY,--With regard to the powerful workings of the
  Spirit, I think those words of our Lord are chiefly to be
  understood: ‘The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
  hearest the sound thereof,’ (thou art sure of the fact,) ‘but
  canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth.’

  “Make your yearly subscription when you see best, only take
  care it does not interfere with any other subscription.

  “The tract of Archbishop King has been particularly admired by
  many persons of excellent sense. I do not admire it so much as
  they do; but I like it well. Yet, I have corrected a far better
  tract on the same subject, perhaps, the last I shall have to
  publish.[770]

  “Indeed, I hope I shall not live to be useless. I wish you and
  yours many happy years, and am, dear Tommy, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The next letter, addressed to Miss Bolton of Witney, contains an
important reference to Wesley’s state of health.

                                     “LONDON, _January 12, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR NANCY,--I thank you for your welcome present, and
  rejoice to hear that your health is better. What is it, which
  is good for us, that our Lord will not give, if we can but
  trust Him?

  “These four last days, I have had better health than I had for
  several months before. Only my sight continues much as it was.
  But good is the will of the Lord.

  “I am, dear Nancy, affectionately yours,

                                                “J. WESLEY.”[771]

The following was addressed to the wife of Adam Clarke, and refers to
her husband’s serious affliction, as well as to the loss of their
daughter.

                                     “LONDON, _January 18, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--Before this time, I hope God has heard
  prayer, and given brother Clarke a little more ease. I should
  suspect a dropsy in the brain, which, though formerly judged
  incurable, has lately been cured.

  “Both brother Clarke and you have large proofs that whom the
  Lord loveth He chasteneth. He knoweth the way whence you go;
  when you have been tried, you shall come forth as gold.

  “I wonder at the folly of Mr. V. Surely, he is a very weak man.
  But I shall judge better when I have seen his performances.
  Peace be multiplied again!

  “I am, my dear sister, ever yours,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[772]

John Booth was now assistant in Keighley circuit, and to him was
addressed the following.

                                     “LONDON, _January 29, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--You give me a very agreeable account of the
  progress of the work of God in your circuit. As to the poor,
  self conceited enthusiasts in Keighley, it seems best that you
  should never name them in public; but, when occasion offers,
  strike at the root of their errors, by clearly proving the
  truth which they deny. And whenever you meet with any of them
  in private, then speak and spare not. Whenever you have
  opportunity of speaking to believers, urge them to go on to
  perfection. Spare no pains; and God, even our own God, still
  give you His blessing!

                             “I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[773]

Miss Cambridge was an Irish Methodist, twenty-nine years of age, and
had established meetings in various parts of the town of Bandon, at
which she prayed and occasionally exhorted. She had also held similar
meetings at Kinsale, Youghal, and other places. Many of the
Methodists, and some of the Methodist preachers, pronounced her public
addresses to be entirely irregular, and what ought not to be tolerated
in the Christian church. She wrote to Wesley for advice; and received
the following reply,--Wesley’s last utterance on female preaching.

                                     “LONDON, _January 31, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR SISTER,--I received your letter an hour ago. I thank
  you for writing so largely and so freely; do so always to me as
  your friend, as one that loves you well. Mr. Barber has the
  glory of God at heart; and so have his fellow labourers. Give
  them all honour, and obey them in all things as far as
  conscience permits. But it will not permit you to be silent
  when God commands you to speak; yet, I would have you give as
  little offence as possible; and, therefore, I would advise you
  not to speak at any place where a preacher is speaking at the
  same time, lest you should draw away his hearers. Also, avoid
  the first appearance of pride or magnifying yourself. If you
  want books, or anything, let me know; I have your happiness
  much at heart. During the little time I have to stay on earth,
  pray for,

  “Your affectionate brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[774]

Ezekiel Cooper was the son of an officer in the army of the American
revolution, and was now twenty-eight years of age, and a Methodist
preacher at Annapolis. He was a man of great mental vigour and
versatility, almost unequalled in debate, and was called, by the
American Methodists, _Lycurgus_, in reference to his profound wisdom.
He was a diligent student, and a close observer of men and things,
lived a long life of celibacy, was frugal to a fault, left behind him
an estate of about fifty thousand dollars, and died in 1847, the
oldest Methodist preacher in the world. When he entered the ministry
in 1783, the American Methodists numbered eighty-three preachers, and
fifteen thousand members; when he died, their ministry numbered five
thousand, and their membership above a million.[775] To him Wesley
wrote the last letter which he posted to America.

                                “NEAR LONDON, _February 1, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Those that desire to write, or to say
  anything, to me, have no time to lose, for time has shaken me
  by the hand, and death is not far behind. But I have reason to
  be thankful for the time that is past. I felt few of the
  infirmities of old age, for fourscore and six years. It was not
  till a year and a half ago, that my strength and my sight
  failed. And still I am enabled to scrawl a little, and to
  creep, though I cannot run. Probably I should not be able to do
  so much, did not many of you assist me by your prayers.

  “I have given a distinct account of the work of God, which has
  been wrought in Britain and Ireland, for more than half a
  century. We want some of you to give us a connected relation,
  of what our Lord has been doing in America, since the time that
  Richard Boardman accepted the invitation, and left his country
  to serve you. See that you never give place to one thought of
  separating from your brethren in Europe. Lose no opportunity of
  declaring to all men, that the Methodists are one people in all
  the world, and that it is their full determination so to
  continue,--

                ‘Though mountains rise, and oceans roll,
                   To sever us in vain.’

  “To the care of our common Lord I commit you, and am your
  affectionate friend and brother,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[776]

Such was Wesley’s dying legacy to the transatlantic Methodists.

The next is brief, but full of interest. For many years Wesley had
been accustomed to leave London, on, or about, the 1st of March, for
what he was accustomed to call his long journey, to the north, or to
Ireland. Though so aged and feeble, he fully intended to do the same
again; and Henry Moore relates, that, in reference to this, he
actually sent his chaise and his horses before him to Bristol, and
took places for himself and his friends in the Bath coach; but, almost
on the very day when he purposed to begin afresh his “long journey” on
earth, the venerable pilgrim left earth for heaven.

                                     “LONDON, _February 6, 1791_.

  “DEAR SIR,--On Wednesday, March 17, I purpose, if God permit,
  to come from Gloucester to Worcester; and, on Thursday, the
  18th, to Stourport. If our friends at Worcester are displeased,
  we cannot help it. Wishing you and yours all happiness,

  “I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The letter was addressed to Mr. York, of Stourport; but was not sent.
At the bottom of it is the last line that Wesley ever wrote.

  “February 28--This morning I found this in my bureau.”[777]

In a letter, given on page 622, Mr. Thomas Roberts was directed, in an
emergency, to leave Bristol for Haverfordwest circuit. He went, and
had to encounter difficulties. Wesley now wrote to him as follows.

                                     “LONDON, _February 8, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR BROTHER,--Who was it that opposed your reducing the
  preachers, in the circuit, to two? and on what pretence? We
  must needs reduce all our expenses everywhere as far as
  possible. You must never leave off till you carry this point,
  and constitute bands in each large society. When the lecture
  begins at Carmarthen, it will then be time enough to prevent
  any ill effects of it. I am glad to hear your journey home has
  not been in vain. My best wishes attend my friends at Traison
  and Langwair.

  “I am, dear Tommy, yours, etc.,

                                                   “JOHN WESLEY.”

The original, from which this is copied, was written by an amanuensis,
but is signed in Wesley’s own tremulous handwriting.

We have already seen that Adam Clarke had been dangerously ill in
Dublin. In fact, it was reported in England that he was dead; and
William Stevens actually preached his funeral sermon in the isle of
Jersey. He was now slowly recovering, had entered himself a medical
student in Trinity college, Dublin, and had founded a “Strangers’
Friend Society,” like those already instituted in London, and in
Bristol.[778] To him Wesley now addressed the following.

                                     “LONDON, _February 9, 1791_.

  “DEAR ADAM,--You have great reason to bless God for giving you
  strength according to your day. He has indeed supported you in
  an uncommon manner under these complicated afflictions. You may
  well say, ‘I will put my trust in Thee as long as I live.’ I
  will desire Dr. Whitehead thoroughly to consider your case, and
  to give us his thoughts upon it. I am not afraid of your doing
  too little, but too much. I am in continual danger of this. Do
  little at a time, that you may do the more. My love to sisters
  Cookman and Boyle, but it is a doubt with me whether I shall
  cross the seas any more.

  “What preacher was it who first omitted meeting the select
  society? I wonder it did not destroy the work!

  “You have done right in setting up the strangers’ society: it
  is an excellent institution.

  “I am quite at a loss concerning Mr. Maddan; I know not what to
  think of him. Send me your best thoughts concerning him.

  “Let not the excluded preachers by any means creep in again. In
  any wise, write, and send me your thoughts on _animal
  magnetism_. I set my face against that device of Satan. Two of
  our preachers here are in danger of that satanical delusion;
  but, if they persist to defend it, I must drop them. I know its
  principles full well.

  “With much love to your wife, I am, etc.,

                                              “JOHN WESLEY.”[779]

Wesley was quite ready to “cross seas,” as he had already done so
often, in his Master’s service; but he might well doubt his ability.
Exactly three weeks after writing thus to Adam Clarke, he crossed the
dark river of death.

For sixty-five years, Wesley had been an earnest, laborious, self
denying, and unceasing preacher of “the glorious gospel of the blessed
God”; and, notwithstanding his extreme age and feebleness, he
continued in his beloved employ until within seven days of his
decease. The following was his last week of public labour.

On Thursday, February 17, he preached at Lambeth, then a thriving
suburban village, from the text, “Labour not for the meat which
perisheth; but for that which endureth to everlasting life.” Returning
home, he seemed to be unwell, and said he had taken cold.

Friday the 18th, he read and wrote as usual, dined at Mr. Urling’s,
and preached at Chelsea, in the evening, from the words, “The king’s
business requireth haste.” Once or twice he was obliged to stop, and
to tell the people that his cold so affected his voice as to prevent
his speaking without these necessary pauses. He had, as usual,
arranged to meet the classes for the renewal of their tickets; but was
persuaded to leave this part of his work to his companions, James
Rogers, and Joseph Bradford.

Saturday, the 19th, was principally employed in reading and writing.
The following was addressed to Mrs. Susanna Knapp, of Worcester, and
shows his unquenchable Christian ardour.

                                    “LONDON, _February 19, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR SUKY,--As the state of my health is exceeding
  wavering, and waxes worse, I cannot yet lay down any plans for
  my future journeys. Indeed, I propose, if God permit, to set
  out for Bristol on the 28th instant; but how much further I
  shall be able to go, I cannot yet determine. If I am pretty
  well, I hope to be at Worcester about the 22nd of March. To
  find you and yours in health of body and mind will be a great
  pleasure to,

  “My dear Suky, yours affectionately,

                                               “J. WESLEY.” [780]

On the same day, Wesley went out to dinner, at Mrs. Griffith’s,
Islington, and, while there, desired a friend to read to him the
fourth and three following chapters of the book of Job, containing the
speech of Eliphaz, and the answer of Job, and strikingly appropriate
to the case of a dying man. After dinner, he purposed to meet the
penitents at City Road, but was prevailed on to allow Mr. Brackenbury
to take his place.

Next morning (Sunday) he rose, at his usual hour, but was utterly
unfit for the sabbath services. At seven o’clock, he was obliged to
lie down again; and slept for above three hours. In the afternoon, he
had again to go to bed; had another sleep; and then, after two of his
own sermons had been read to him, came downstairs to supper.

On Monday, the 21st, he seemed better, and, despite persuasion, would
fulfil an engagement he had made to dine at Twickenham. His niece,
Miss Sarah Wesley, and Miss Ritchie, went with him. On the way he
called upon Lady Mary Fitzgerald, and conversed and prayed most
sweetly.

Tuesday, the 22nd, he proceeded with his usual work; dined at Mr.
Horton’s, Islington; and preached in City Road chapel, from, “We
through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” After
this, he met the leaders.

Wednesday, February 23, he arose at four a.m., as he also did the day
following, and, accompanied by Mr. Rogers, set out to Leatherhead,
eighteen miles from London, to visit a magistrate, in whose dining
room he preached, from “Seek ye the Lord while He may be found; call
upon Him while He is near.” This was Wesley’s last sermon.

Thursday, February 24, he spent with his old friend, Mr. Wolff, at
Balham, where he was cheerful, and seemed nearly as well as
usual.[781]

During the day, he wrote his last letter, which was addressed to
Wilberforce, who had brought before parliament the question, which
Wesley was one of the first to advocate, the abolition of slavery.

                                    “LONDON, _February 24, 1791_.

  “MY DEAR SIR,--Unless the Divine Power has raised you up to be
  as Athanasius, _contra mundum_, I see not how you can go
  through your glorious enterprise, in opposing that execrable
  villainy, which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of
  human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing,
  you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils; but,
  _if God be for you, who can be against you_? Are all of them
  together stronger than God? O! ‘_be not weary in well doing_.’
  Go on, in the name of God, and in the power of His might, till
  even American slavery, the vilest that ever saw the sun, shall
  vanish away before it.

  “Reading this morning a tract, wrote by a poor African, I was
  particularly struck by that circumstance,--that a man who has a
  black skin, being wronged or outraged by a white man, can have
  no redress; it being a _law_, in our colonies, that the _oath_
  of a black, against a white, goes for nothing. What villainy is
  this!

  “That He who has guided you, from your youth up, may continue
  to strengthen you in this and all things, is the prayer of,
  dear sir,

  “Your affectionate servant,

                                             “JOHN WESLEY.” [782]

Friday, February 25, Mr. Wolff having brought him home, to City Road,
Wesley went upstairs, and requested that, for half an hour, he should
be left alone. When the time expired, faithful Joseph Bradford found
him so unwell, that he sent for Dr. Whitehead. “Doctor,” said the
dying patriarch, “they are more afraid than hurt.”

Saturday, February 26, was principally passed in drowsiness and sleep.

Sunday morning, February 27, he seemed better, got up, sat in his
chair, looked cheerful, and repeated, from one of his brother’s
hymns,--

              “Till glad I lay this body down,
                 Thy servant, Lord, attend!
               And oh! my life of mercy crown
                 With a triumphant end!”

And then, soon after, with marked emphasis, he said, “Our friend
Lazarus sleepeth.” His niece, Miss Wesley, and Miss Ritchie prayed
with him. “When at Bristol,” said he, alluding to his illness there in
1753, “my words were,

              ‘I the chief of sinners am,
                 But Jesus died for me!’”

Miss Ritchie asked, “Is that your language now?” “Yes,” said he.
“Christ is all! He is all!” He then dozed, and sometimes wandered;
but, in his wanderings, was always preaching or meeting classes.

On Monday, February 28, his weakness increased. Dr. Whitehead wished
for further assistance. Wesley replied: “Dr. Whitehead knows my
constitution better than any one. I am quite satisfied, and will have
no one else.”[783] Most of the day was spent in sleep. He seldom
spoke; but, once, in a wakeful interval, was heard saying, in a low,
distinct voice, “There is no way into the holiest, but by the blood of
Jesus.” Then referring to the text, “Ye know the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich,” etc., he remarked, with
solemn emphasis, “That is the foundation, the only foundation, there
is no other.” It was now evident to all, that he was beginning to
sleep his last sleep. His friends were intensely anxious and alarmed.
Poor, broken hearted, Joseph Bradford despatched notes to the
preachers, asking their prayers, in the following terms.

                                            “_February 27, 1791._

  “DEAR BROTHER,--Mr. Wesley is very ill: pray! pray! pray!

  “I am your affectionate brother,

                                          “JOSEPH BRADFORD.”[784]

All was unavailing. Wesley’s work was ended. On Tuesday, March 1,
after a restless night, being asked if he suffered pain, he answered,
“No,” and began singing,--

              “All glory to God in the sky,
                 And peace upon earth be restored!
               O Jesus, exalted on high,
                 Appear our omnipotent Lord.
               Who, meanly in Bethlehem born,
                 Didst stoop to redeem a lost race,
               Once more to Thy people return,
                 And reign in Thy kingdom of grace.

               Oh, wouldst Thou again be made known,
                 Again in the Spirit descend;
               And set up in each of Thy own
                 A kingdom that never shall end!
               Thou only art able to bless,
                 And make the glad nations obey,
               And bid the dire enmity cease,
                 And bow the whole world to Thy sway.”

Here, while breathing faith and universal benevolence, his strength
failed. “I want to write,” said he. A pen was put into his hand, and
paper was placed before him. His hand had forgot its cunning. “I
cannot,” said the dying man. “Let me write for you,” remarked Miss
Ritchie: “tell me what you wish to say.” “Nothing,” he replied, “but
that God is with us.”

“I will get up,” said he; and, while his friends were arranging his
clothes, the happy old man again began singing,--

              “I’ll praise my Maker while I’ve breath;
               And, when my voice is lost in death,
                 Praise shall employ my nobler powers:
               My days of praise shall ne’er be past,
               While life, and thought, and being last,
                 Or immortality endures.

               Happy the man whose hopes rely
               On Israel’s God; He made the sky,
                 And earth, and seas, with all their train;
               His truth for ever stands secure,
               He saves the’ oppressed, He feeds the poor,
                 And none shall find His promise vain.”

Once more seated in his chair, he, in a weak voice, said: “Lord, Thou
givest strength to those that can speak, and to those that cannot.
Speak, Lord, to all our hearts, and let them know that Thou loosest
tongues.” And again he began to sing, what proved to be his last song
on earth:

              “To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
                 Who sweetly all agree.”

But here his voice failed, and, after gasping for breath, he said:
“Now we have done. Let us all go.”

Full of happiness, but utterly exhausted, he was put to bed, where,
after a short but quiet sleep, he opened his eyes, and, addressing the
weeping watchers who stood around him, said, “Pray, and praise!” and,
of course, they at once complied. Then he asked Joseph Bradford about
the key and contents of his bureau, remarking, “I would have all
things ready for my executors. Let me be buried in nothing but what is
woollen, and let my corpse be carried in my coffin into the chapel.”
And then, as if no other earthly matters required his attention, he
again called out, “Pray and praise!” Down fell his friends upon their
knees, and fervent were the dying patriarch’s responses, especially to
John Broadbent’s prayer, that God would still bless the system of
doctrine and discipline, which Wesley had been the means of
establishing. On rising, from prayer, each watcher drew near to the
bed of the expiring saint, and, with affectionate solicitude, awaited
the coming of the shining ones to conduct him home. With the utmost
placidity, he saluted each one present, shook hands, and said,
“Farewell! farewell!”

Conflict there was none. The scene was the peaceful setting of a
glorious sun, undisturbed by the slightest soughing wind, undimmed by
the smallest intervening cloud.

He tried to speak; but his friends found it difficult to make out what
he meant, except that he wished his sermon on “The Love of God to
Fallen Man,” founded on the text, “Not as the offence, so also is the
free gift,” to be “scattered abroad, and given to everybody.”[785]
Seeing that those around him were at a loss to understand what he
tried to say, the grand old Christian gladiator paused; and,
summoning, for a final effort, all the little strength he had
remaining, he exclaimed, in a tone well-nigh supernatural, “The best
of all is, God is with us!” And then, after another pause, and while
lifting his arm in grateful triumph, he emphatically reiterated, “The
best of all is, God is with us!”

Nature was once more exhausted. Some one wetted his parched lips. “It
will not do,” said he; “we must take the consequence. Never mind the
poor carcase.”

James Rogers and Thomas Rankin were standing by his bed; but his sight
was so nearly gone, that he was unable to recognise their features.
“Who are these?” he asked. “Sir,” said Mr. Rogers, “we are come to
rejoice with you; you are going to receive your crown.” “It is the
Lord’s doing,” replied Wesley, “and it is marvellous in our eyes.”

Being told that his brother’s widow had come to see him, he thanked
her, affectionately endeavoured to kiss her, and remarked, “He giveth
His servants rest.” She wet his lips; on which he repeated his
constant thanksgiving after meals: “We thank Thee, O Lord, for these
and all Thy mercies. Bless the Church and king, and grant us truth and
peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord, for ever and ever!” Then,
pausing a little, he cried, “The clouds drop fatness.” After another
pause, “The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge!
Pray and praise!” And again his friends fell upon their knees.

During the night, he scores of times repeated the words, “I’ll praise.
I’ll praise!” but could say nothing more. Next morning, Wednesday,
March 2, Joseph Bradford prayed with him. It was a few minutes before
ten o’clock. Around the bed there knelt his niece, Miss Sarah Wesley;
one of his executors, Mr. Horton; his medical attendant, Dr.
Whitehead; his book steward, George Whitfield; the present occupants
of his house, James and Hester Ann Rogers, and their little boy; and
his friends and visitors, Robert Carr Brackenbury, and Elizabeth
Ritchie,--eleven persons altogether. Bradford, so long Wesley’s
faithful friend and travelling companion, was the mouthpiece of the
other ten. “Farewell!” cried Wesley,--the last word he uttered; and
then, as Joseph Bradford was saying, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates;
and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and this heir of glory shall
come in!” Wesley gathered up his feet in the presence of his brethren;
and, without a groan and without a sigh, was gone. He died about ten
o’clock a.m., on Wednesday, March 2, 1791.[786]

What followed? “Children!” said John Wesley’s mother, “as soon as I am
dead, sing a song of praise!” As soon as Wesley himself died, his
friends, standing about his corpse, sang:

              “Waiting to receive thy spirit,
                 Lo! the Saviour stands above;
               Shows the purchase of His merit,
                 Reaches out the crown of love.”

And then they knelt down, and prayed, that the mantle of the ascended
Elijah might rest upon his followers.[787]

Wesley’s remains were interred, behind the chapel in City Road, on the
9th of March. Such was the excitement created by his death, that,
within twelve hours only before the funeral took place, it was
determined, in order to prevent the assembling of an inconvenient
crowd, that the funereal solemnities should be performed at the early
hour of five a.m. The notice to his friends was short; but hundreds
attended; and to each one was given a biscuit, in an envelope,
engraven with a beautifully executed portrait of the departed, dressed
in canonicals, surmounted by a halo and a crown.

Much remains unsaid; but our space is gone. Whilst the present pages
are passing through the press, we learn, that “a most eligible site,
in Westminster Abbey, has been courteously offered,” by the dean of
that noble edifice, for the erection of a “public monument” to Wesley
and his brother Charles; and that arrangements are being made to
secure the services of “a first class sculptor,” at the cost of about
£800. Thus the wheel turns round. One hundred and thirty years ago,
Wesley was shut out of every church in England; now marble medallion
profiles of himself and his brother, accompanied with suitable
inscriptions, are deemed deserving of a niche in England’s grandest
cathedral. The man who, a century since, was the best abused man in
the British isles, is now hardly ever mentioned but with affectionate
respect. In the literature of the age; in its lectures and debates; in
chapels and in churches; in synods, congresses, and all sorts of
conferences; by the highest lords and the most illustrious commoners,
the once persecuted Methodist is now extolled; and the judgment of
Southey, in a letter to Wilberforce, is tacitly confirmed: “I consider
Wesley as the most influential mind of the last century,--the man who
will have produced the greatest effects, centuries, or perhaps
millenniums hence, if the present race of men should continue so
long.”

In person, Wesley was rather below the middle size, but beautifully
proportioned, without an atom of superfluous flesh, yet muscular and
strong; with a forehead clear and smooth, a bright, penetrating eye,
and a lovely face, which retained the freshness of its complexion to
the latest period of his life.

In _general_ scholarship and knowledge, he had few superiors; whilst
such was his acquaintance with the New Testament, that, when at a loss
to repeat a text in the words of the authorised translation, he was
never at a loss to quote it in the original Greek.

As an author, the chief characteristics of his style are brevity,
perspicuity, and strength. He abhorred verboseness, and constantly
endeavoured to say everything in the fewest words possible. “I never
think,” said he, “of my style at all, but just set down the words that
come first. Only when I transcribe anything for the press, then I
think it my duty to see that every phrase be _clear_, _pure_,
_proper_, and _easy_. Conciseness, which is now as it were natural to
me, brings _quantum sufficit_ of strength.” Not for want of genius,
but for want of time, and for want of disposition to make it
otherwise, his style is one of naked and self dependent strength,
unaccompanied with gaudy colouring, and equally undiluted with the
pretentious puerilities of weak and little minds. It is impossible to
abridge his writings without omitting thoughts as well as words. Who
can abridge Euclid’s Elements without maiming them? And who can take
from the works of Wesley without reducing their specific gravity?

In the pulpit, Wesley’s attitude was graceful and easy; his action
calm, natural, pleasing, and expressive; and his voice, not loud, but
clear and manly. Whitefield was the greater orator; Wesley the better
divine. Wesley’s preaching was without Whitefield’s Demosthenic
eloquence; but it had the accuracy of a scholar, the authority of an
ambassador, the unction of a saint, the power of God. It was always
searching; but not often terrible and severe, except when addressed to
congregations rich, respectable, and polite. “Sir,” said a friend to
him, after he had preached to a genteel audience from the words, “Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
hell?” “Sir,” said Wesley’s offended hearer, “such a sermon would have
been suitable in Billingsgate; but it was highly improper here”; to
whom Wesley quietly, but significantly, remarked: “If I had been in
Billingsgate, my text should have been, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world.’” The poor need to be told the
terribleness of their danger, and the rich more; but, unfortunately,
the poor hear most of this, and the rich least. Wesley was a faithful
minister to both.

In social life, Wesley was a Christian gentleman, and, with perfect
ease, accommodated himself to both the high and low, the rich and
poor. Placid, benevolent, and full of anecdote, wit, and wisdom, his
conversation was not often equalled; and was generally concluded with
two or three verses of a hymn, applicable to what had just been
spoken. Though never trifling, he was always cheerful; sometimes
saying, “I dare no more _fret_ than _curse_ or _swear_.” His
sprightliness among his friends never left him; but was as conspicuous
at eighty-seven as at seventeen. He was at home in mansions, and
equally in cottages; courteous to all, and especially to the young,
often remarking, “I reverence the young, because they may be useful
after I am dead.”

Of his piety nothing need be said. “His modesty,” writes Bradburn,
“prevented him saying much concerning his own religious feelings. In
public, he hardly ever spoke of the state of his own soul; but, in
1781, he told me that his experience might almost at any time be
expressed in the following lines:

              ‘O Thou, who camest from above,
                 The pure celestial fire to’ impart,
               Kindle a flame of sacred love
                 On the mean altar of my heart!

               There let it for Thy glory burn,
                 With inextinguishable blaze,
               And trembling to its source return,
                 In humble love and fervent praise!’”

His industry is almost without a parallel. In many things, he was
gentle and easy to be entreated; but, in his earnestness in redeeming
time, he was decisive and inexorable. While kept waiting for his
carriage, on one occasion, he passionately exclaimed, “I have lost ten
minutes for ever!” “You have no need to be in a hurry!” said a friend:
“Hurry,” he replied, “I have no time to be in a hurry.” It has been
calculated, that, during the fifty years of his itinerant ministry, he
travelled a quarter of a million of miles, and preached more than
forty thousand sermons. In these volumes, we have seen him rising with
the lark, travelling with the sun, preaching throughout the three
kingdoms, and always acting in harmony with his own well known
utterance, “The world is my parish!” Looking at his travelling, the
marvel is how he found time to write; and, looking at his books, the
marvel is how he found time to preach. His hands were always full; but
his action was never fluttered. He was always moving, and yet, in the
midst of his ceaseless toils, betraying no more bustle than a planet
in its course. His mission was too great to allow time for trifles.

Was Wesley without faults? Not so; no man but “_the Man Christ Jesus_”
ever was. Wesley, for instance, was naturally irritable; but even that
was better than being apathetic. “Tommy,” said Wesley once, “touch
that!” pointing to a dock. The itinerant did so. “Do you feel
anything?” asked Wesley. “No,” replied his friend. “Touch that!”
continued Wesley, pointing to a nettle. His companion obeyed, and, in
consequence, was stung. “Now, Tommy,” remarked Wesley, “some men are
like docks; say what you will to them, they are stupid and insensible.
Others are like nettles; touch them, and they resent it. Tommy, you
are a nettle; and, for my part, I would rather have to do with a
nettle than a dock.”

Numberless instances of Wesley’s wit and repartee might easily be
given. “Stop that man from speaking!” exclaimed Charles Wesley at one
of the early conferences, when a preacher rose up, and, full of the
love of Christ and irrepressible emotion, began to relate his
religious experience. “Stop that man from speaking!” said Charles;
“let us attend to business!” but still the good man proceeded. “Unless
he stops, I’ll leave the conference,” continued Charles. Wesley
himself, revelling in the itinerant’s religious recital, effectually
cooled the warmth of his brother’s temper by quietly remarking, “Reach
him his hat!”

On another occasion, when about to dine with a rich Methodist, one of
his preachers, who was present, with more piety than politeness, cried
out: “O sir, what a sumptuous dinner! Things are very different to
what they were formerly! There is now but little self denial amongst
the Methodists!” Wesley pointed to the abundantly furnished table, and
then silenced the preacher’s untimely eloquence by saying, “My
brother, there is a fine opportunity for self denial now.”

Thus was Wesley always “instant in season, and out of season.” Always
and everywhere he was ready to turn passing incidents to practical
account. “Pray, sir, let us go,” said one of his friends, whilst two
women, near Billingsgate market, were quarrelling most furiously, and
using language far more forceful than pious: “Pray, sir, let us go; I
cannot stand it.” “Stay, Sammy,” replied Wesley, as he looked at the
viragoes, who were evidently _inspired_, though not from heaven.
“Stay, Sammy,” answered the man who had eyes for everything; “stay,
and learn how to preach!”

We must close. Taking him altogether, Wesley is a man _sui generis_.
He stands alone: he has had no successor; no one like him went before;
no contemporary was a coequal. There was a wholeness about the man,
such as is rarely seen. His physique, his genius, his wit, his
penetration, his judgment, his memory, his beneficence, his religion,
his diligence, his conversation, his courteousness, his manners, and
his dress,--made him as perfect as we ever expect man to be on this
side heaven. “A greater poet may rise than Homer or Milton,” writes
Dr. Dobbin, “a greater theologian than Calvin, a greater philosopher
than Bacon, a greater dramatist than any of ancient or modern fame;
but a more distinguished revivalist of the churches than John Wesley,
never.” “He was a man,” says Lord Macaulay, “whose eloquence and
logical acuteness might have rendered him eminent in literature; whose
genius for government was not inferior to that of Richelieu; and who
devoted all his powers, in defiance of obloquy and derision, to what
he sincerely considered the highest good of his species.”

But, in the case of a man like Wesley, panegyric is out of place. He
is one of the very few, whose memory can afford to do without it. His
well won and world wide fame requires no inscription on his monumental
marble,--whether in England or in America, in Westminster or in
Washington,--more elaborate than this:


                             JOHN WESLEY,
                           Born, A.D. 1703.
                           Died, A.D. 1791.


FOOTNOTES:

     [768] Clarke’s Life, vol. i., pp. 278, 283.

     [769] _Wesley Banner_, 1852, p. 275; and _Wesleyan Times_,
           June 1, 1866

     [770] This was probably “An Essay on the Liberty of Moral
           Agents,” published consecutively in the first five
           numbers of the _Arminian Magazine_ for 1791, and
           concerning which Wesley writes: “I do not remember to
           have ever seen a more strong and beautiful treatise
           on moral liberty than the following; which I,
           therefore, earnestly recommend to the consideration
           of all those who desire ‘to vindicate the ways of God
           with man.’”

     [771] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 157.

     [772] Dunn’s Life of Clarke, p. 80.

     [773] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 146.

     [774] Memoir of Miss A. Cambridge, p. 39.

     [775] Sprague’s “Annals of the American Methodist Pulpit.”

     [776] _Methodist Magazine_, 1804, p. 46.

     [777] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 147.

     [778] Everett’s Life of Clarke.

     [779] _Wesleyan Times_, June 1, 1866.

     [780] Manuscript letter, kindly lent by Mr. Dimbleby of
           Malvern.

     [781] Life of James Rogers.

     [782] Wilberforce’s Life, vol. i., p. 297; and Moore’s Life
           of Wesley, vol. ii., P. 437.

     [783] Jacob Jones, Esq., however, seems to have been called
           in. He was then a young man, and had just joined
           the Methodists. He died, in Finsbury Square, in
           1830.--(_Methodist Magazine_, 1830, p. 511.)

     [784] Smith’s “History of Methodism,” vol. i., p. 608.

     [785] In compliance with his wish, ten thousand copies were
           printed, and gratuitously distributed. (Rogers’ Life.)

     [786] James Rogers’ Life.

     [787] “Authentic Narrative,” 1791.




                              APPENDIX.


  [As some American Methodists have expressed dissatisfaction with Mr.
  Tyerman’s views (vol. iii., p. 426 _et seq._) of Wesley’s ordination
  of Coke and organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the
  following exhaustive review of the question is cited from Dr. Abel
  Stevens’s History of Methodism, vol. ii., p. 209 _et seq._]

It is another of the great providential facts of Wesley’s history that
the same year which gave a constitutional security to Methodism in
Great Britain was signalized by its episcopal organization in America,
a measure which, by its consequences, may well be ranked among the
most important events of Wesley’s important life. Here again did he
follow, with simple wisdom, the guidance of that divine Providence,
the recognition of which in the affairs of men, and especially in the
affairs of the Church, was the crowning maxim of his philosophy and
the crowning fact of his policy. He had been providentially preparing
for this new and momentous exigency by that gradual development of
his personal opinions which we have already traced. Bigoted even,
as a High-Churchman, at the beginning of his career, we have seen
him, year after year, attaining more liberal views of ecclesiastical
policy. Nearly forty years before his ordinations for America, he
had, after reading Lord King’s “Primitive Church,” renounced the
opinion that a distinction of order, rather than of office, existed
between bishops and presbyters.[788] Fifteen years later he denied the
necessity, though not the expediency, of episcopal ordination. Bishop
Stillingfleet had convinced him that it was “an entire mistake that
none but episcopal ordination was valid.”[789] Henceforth he held that
presbyters and bishops, identical in order, differing only in office,
had essentially the same right of ordination. It was not possible
for a man like Wesley, keen, quick, fearless, and candid, to remain
long in any ecclesiastical prejudice now that he was on this track of
progressive opinions. He soon broke away from all other regard for
questions of Church government than that of Scriptural expediency;
and as early as 1756, when in his maturest intellectual vigor, he
declares: “As to my own judgment, I still believe ‘the episcopal form
of Church government to be Scriptural and apostolical’--I mean, well
agreeing with the practice and writings of the apostles; but that it is
prescribed in Scripture I do not believe. This opinion, which I once
zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of ever since I read
Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon.’ I think he has unanswerably proved
that ‘neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe any particular form
of Church government, and that the plea of divine right for diocesan
episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive Church.’”[790]

It was, then, by no new assumption in his old age--in his imbecility,
as some of his critics allege, that he now met the necessities
of American Methodism by ordaining men to provide for them. His
keenest-eyed associates could as yet detect no declension of his
faculties; and if they could, still his course in this case was in
accordance with the reasonings of his best days, and he but repeats
his long-established opinions when he now asserts, “I firmly believe
I am a Scriptural _episcopos_ as much as any man in England, for the
uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or
can prove.”[791]

Methodism had spread rapidly in America, notwithstanding the war of
the Revolution. It now comprised eighty-three traveling preachers,
besides some hundreds of local preachers, and about fifteen thousand
members and many thousands of hearers, and its ecclesiastical plans
were extending a network of powerful agencies over the country.
The Revolution had not only dissolved the civil, but also the
ecclesiastical relations of the colonies to England. Many of the
English clergy, on whom the Methodist societies had depended for
the sacraments, had fled from the land, or had entered political or
military life, and the Episcopal Church had been generally disabled.
In Virginia, the centre of its colonial strength, it had rapidly
declined, morally as well as numerically. At the Declaration of
Independence it included not more than one third of the population of
that province.[792] At the beginning of the war the sixty-one counties
of Virginia contained ninety-five parishes, one hundred and sixty-four
churches, and ninety-one clergymen. At the conclusion of the contest
many of her churches were in ruins, nearly a fourth of her parishes
“extinct or forsaken,” and thirty-four of the remaining seventy-two
were without pastoral supplies; twenty-eight only of her ninety-one
clergymen remained, and these, with an addition, soon after the war,
of eight from other parts of the country, ministered in but thirty-six
parishes.[793] In the year in which Wesley ordained an American
Methodist bishop, “memorials” to the Virginia Legislature for the
incorporation of the “Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia,” and
for other advantages to religion, were met by counter petitions that
“no step might be taken in aid of religion, but that it might be left
to its own superior and successful influence.”[794] The memorials were
postponed till the next session, and then rejected; but a bill for the
“incorporation of all religious societies which may apply for the same”
was adopted. In other parts of the country the English Church never had
been numerically strong, and its existence was now precarious, except
in two or three large cities.

Under these circumstances the Methodists demanded of their preachers
the administration of the sacraments. Many of the societies had
been months, some of them years, without them. The demand was not
only urgent, it was logically valid, but by the majority of the
preachers it was not deemed expedient. The prudent delay which Wesley,
notwithstanding his liberal ecclesiastical principles, had practiced in
England, afforded a lesson which their good sense could not disregard.
They exhorted their people, therefore, to wait patiently till he could
be consulted. Thomas Rankin, one of Wesley’s missionaries, presiding at
the Conference of Deer Creek, Maryland, 1777, induced them to delay one
year. At the next session the subject was again prudently postponed,
as no English preacher was present, Rankin having returned to England,
and Asbury being absent and sick. In 1779 the question occasioned a
virtual schism, the preachers of the South being resolute for the
administration of the sacraments, those of the North still pleading for
patient delay. The latter met in Conference at Judge White’s residence,
the retreat of Asbury, in Delaware; the former at Brockenback Church,
Fluvanna County, Virginia, where they made their own appointments, and
proceeded to ordain themselves by the hands of three of their senior
members, unwilling that their people should longer be denied their
right to the Lord’s Supper, and their children and probationary members
the rite of baptism. At the session of 1780 Asbury was authorized to
visit the Southern preachers, and, if possible, conciliate them. He met
them in Conference; they appeared determined not to recede, but at last
consented to suspend the administration of the sacraments till further
advice could be received from Wesley. The breach was thus happily
repaired, but must evidently soon again be opened if redress should not
be obtained.[795]

What could Wesley do under these circumstances? What but exercise the
right of ordination which he had for years theoretically claimed, but
practically and prudently declined? He had importuned the authorities
of the English Church in behalf of the Americans. In this very year
he had written two letters to Lowth, Bishop of London, imploring
ordination for a single preacher, who might appease the urgency of the
American brethren by traveling among them as a presbyter, and by giving
them the sacraments; but the request was denied, Lowth replying that
“there are three ministers in that country already.” “What are these,”
rejoined Wesley, “to watch over all that extensive country? I mourn
for poor America, for the sheep scattered up and down therein--part
of them have no shepherds at all, and the case of the rest is little
better, for their shepherds pity them not.”[796] If there was any
imprudence on the part of Wesley in this emergency, it was certainly
in his long-continued patience, for he delayed yet nearly four years.
When he yielded, it was only after the triumph of the American arms and
the acknowledged independence of the colonies; and not then till urged
to it by his most revered counselors. Fletcher, of Madeley, was one of
these. That good man’s interest for American Methodism should endear
his memory to the American Church. He had thoughts at one time of going
to the New World and of giving himself to its struggling societies, but
his feeble health forbade him.

Fletcher was present with Wesley and Coke at the Leeds Conference of
1784, and there, with his assistance,[797] the question was brought to
an issue. Wesley had previously consulted with Coke respecting it. He
represented to Coke that as the Revolution had separated the United
States from the mother country, and the Episcopal Establishment was
utterly abolished in the States, it became his duty, as providentially
at the head of the Methodist societies, to obey their demand and
furnish for them the means of grace. He referred to the example of
the Alexandrian Church, which, at the death of its bishops, provided
their successors through ordination by its presbyters--a historical
fact exemplified during two hundred years. Recognized as their founder
by the American Methodists, required by them to provide for their new
necessities, and unable to induce the English prelates to do so, he
proposed to appoint Coke, that he might go to the American societies
as their superintendent or bishop, ordain their preachers, and thus
afford them the sacraments with the least possible irregularity. Coke
hesitated, but in two months wrote to Wesley accepting the office.[798]
Accordingly, accompanied by Rev. James Creighton, a presbyter of
the Church of England, Coke met him at Bristol, and on the second
of September, 1784, was ordained _superintendent or bishop of the
Methodist societies in America_, an act of as high propriety and
dignity as it was of urgent necessity. Richard Whatcoat and Thomas
Vasey were at the same time ordained presbyters; and on the third of
November, attended by his two presbyters (the number necessary to
assist a bishop in ordination, according to the usages of the English
Church), Coke arrived in the Republic, and proceeded to ordain Francis
Asbury, first as a deacon, then as a presbyter, and finally as a
bishop, and to settle the organization of American Methodism, one of
the most important ecclesiastical events (whether for good or evil)
of the eighteenth century, or indeed since the Reformation, as its
historical consequences attest.

The Colonial English Church being dissolved by the Revolution, its
dwindled fragments were yet floating, as had been the Methodist
societies, on the stormy tide of events. Methodism preceded it in
reorganization. The Methodist bishops were the first Protestant
bishops, and Methodism was the first Protestant Episcopal Church of
the New World;[799] and as Wesley had given it the Anglican Articles
of Religion (omitting the seventeenth, on Predestination), and the
Liturgy, wisely abridged, it became, both by its precedent organization
and its subsequent numerical importance, the real successor to the
Anglican Church in America.

Of course this extraordinary but necessary measure met with opposition
from Charles Wesley. He still retained his High-Church opinions;
he denounced the ordinations as schism; with his usual haste he
predicted that Coke would return from “his Methodist Episcopal Church
in Baltimore” to “make us all Dissenters here.” The poet was no
legislator; he became pathetic in his remonstrances to his brother;
“alas!” he wrote, “what trouble are you preparing for yourself, as well
as for me, and for your oldest, truest, best friends! Before you have
quite broken down the bridge, stop and consider! If your sons have no
regard for you, have some for yourself. Go to your grave in peace; at
least suffer me to go first, before this ruin is under your hand.”
He did soon after go to his grave in peace, except the alarms of his
imaginary fears, and the only evidence of the predicted “ruin” is seen
to-day in the prevalent and permanent success of Methodism in both
hemispheres.

The next year after the ordination of Coke, Wesley records in
his Journal: “I was now considering how strangely the grain of
mustard-seed, planted about fifty years ago, had grown up. It spread
through all Great Britain and Ireland, the Isle of Wight, and the Isle
of Man; then to America, through the whole continent, into Canada, the
Leeward Islands, and Newfoundland. And the societies in all these parts
walk by one rule, knowing religion is holy tempers, and striving to
worship God, not in form only, but likewise in spirit and in truth.”
His policy becomes more and more liberal as he now finds it necessary
to fortify his cause before his approaching death. The following
year (1786) he ordained six or seven more preachers, sending some to
Scotland, and others to the West Indies,[800] but he ordained none as
yet for England, where he and his clerical friends could partially
supply the sacraments. Three years later he ordained Mather, Rankin,
and Moore.[801] About a score of lay preachers received ordination
from his hands, and for no other purpose but that they might administer
the sacraments in cases of necessity.

Thus did providential events give shape and security to Methodism, as
its aged leader approached his end.

No act of Wesley’s public life has been more misrepresented, if
not misunderstood, than his ordination of Coke, and the consequent
episcopal organization of his American societies. Churchmen, so called,
have especially insisted that he did not design to confer upon Coke
the character of a bishop; that Coke’s new office was designed to be
a species of supervisory appointment, vague and contingent--something
widely different from episcopacy, however difficult to define; and
that, therefore, the distinct existence of American Methodism, as an
episcopal Church, is a fact contrary to the intention of Wesley.

No extant forensic argument, founded upon documentary evidence, is
stronger than would be a right collocation of the evidence which
sustains the claim of American Methodism respecting this question. All
Methodist authorities, British as well as American, support that claim;
its proofs have been more or less cited again and again, but they have
not usually been drawn out in detail. Presented in their right series,
they become absolutely decisive, and must conclude the controversy with
all candid minds. It is appropriate, at this point of our narrative, to
review the argument. In stating the facts which compose it, in their
successive relations one to another, some repetition will be necessary;
but the highest logic--mathematical demonstration itself--is that in
which not only the postulates, but the successive proofs most often
recur to strengthen the advancing demonstration.

It has been seen that, as before the American Revolution the two
countries were under one government, the two Methodist bodies were
also. Wesley’s “Minutes” were the discipline of the American as well as
the British Methodists; and Asbury represented his person in America,
vested with much greater powers than have since belonged to the
American Methodist bishops. Thus was the American Church governed for
years by the paternal direction of Wesley. It has been further shown
that, as none of the American preachers were ordained, the societies
were dependent for the sacraments upon the clergy of the English Church
in the colonies; that at the Revolution most of these left the country,
and the Methodists were thereby deprived of those means of grace; that
many societies insisted upon having them without ordination; that a
general strife ensued, and a large portion of the Southern societies
revolted; that a compromise was effected until they could apply to
Wesley for powers to ordain and to administer the sacraments; and
that, in meeting their demand, he ordained and sent over Dr. Coke,
with episcopal powers, under the name of superintendent, to ordain
Francis Asbury a “joint superintendent,” and to ordain the preachers
to the offices of deacons and elders. He sent also a printed liturgy,
or “Sunday Service,” containing, besides the usual prayers, forms for
“ordaining superintendents, elders, and deacons,” the “Articles of
Religion,” and “A Collection of Psalms and Hymns.” Coke also bore from
him a circular letter to the societies, stating reasons for the new
measures, the chief one being the demand of the American societies.
When Coke arrived, the preachers assembled in Baltimore to receive him
and the new arrangements borne by him from Wesley. The adoption of the
provisions thus made by Wesley, at the request of “some thousands of
the inhabitants of these states,” is what is called the “organization”
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The “Minutes,” which had before
been the law of the Church, were continued, with such additions as
were required by these new arrangements. There was no revolution of
the Church polity, and no new powers were imparted to Asbury, except
authority to ordain. Every thing proceeded as before, except that the
American societies no longer depended upon the Church of England for
the sacraments, but received them from their own preachers. Thus, then,
it appears that the so-called “organization” of the Methodist Episcopal
Church at Baltimore was simply and substantially the adoption of the
system appointed by Wesley. In respect to the very term “episcopal”
itself, the Conference of Baltimore said, in their “Minutes” of the
so-called organization, that, “following the counsel of Mr. John
Wesley, _who recommended the episcopal mode_ of Church government,
we thought it best to become an episcopal Church.”[802] The Minutes
containing this declaration were, six months afterward, in the hands of
Wesley, and were published in England without a word of disapprobation
from him; and when Coke was attacked in an English pamphlet for his
proceedings at Baltimore, he publicly defended himself by declaring
that he had “done nothing without the direction of Mr. Wesley.” This he
did in a publication, under the eye of Wesley.[803]

It should be frankly admitted, however, that Wesley, while he
established the American episcopacy, did not approve the use of the
title of “bishop,” because of the adventitious dignities associated
with it. But let it be borne in mind that the American societies
had been in existence nearly four years under the express title
of an “Episcopal Church,” with the uninterrupted approbation of
Wesley, before the name bishop was personally applied to their
superintendents.[804] Not till this term was so applied did he demur.
He then wrote a letter to Bishop Asbury objecting strongly to his being
“called a bishop.” And it is on this letter, more than any thing else,
that the opponents of Methodism have founded their allegation that
Wesley did not design to establish the American Methodist episcopacy,
but that Coke and the Baltimore Conference exceeded his intentions in
assuming it. Quotations from this letter have been incessantly given
in a form adapted only to produce a false effect, for the letter can
be rightly comprehended only by the aid of the historical facts of the
case.

Did Wesley, then, design, by his ordination of Coke, to confer on
him the office of a bishop, and to constitute the American Methodist
societies an episcopal Church? Three things are to be assumed as
preliminary to this inquiry:

1. That Wesley was a decided Episcopalian. What man was ever more
attached to the national episcopacy of England? We have already cited
proofs that he believed the “episcopal form of Church government to
be Scriptural and apostolical,” that is, “well agreeing with the
practice and writings of the apostles,” though that it is prescribed in
Scripture he did not believe.

2. That Wesley, while he believed in episcopacy, belonged to that
class of Episcopalians who contend that episcopacy is not a distinct
“order” (in the usual technical or ecclesiastical sense of the term),
but a distinct office in the ministry; that bishops and presbyters,
or elders, are of the same order, and have essentially the same
prerogatives; but that, for convenience, some of this order may be
raised to the episcopal office, and some of the functions originally
pertaining to the whole order, as ordination, for example, may be
confined to them; the presbyter thus elevated being but _primus inter
pares_--the first among equals--a presiding officer.[805]

3. That the words _episcopos_ (Greek), _superintendent_ (Latin), and
bishop (English)[806] have the same meaning, namely, an overseer.

With these preliminaries, we recur to the questions, Did Wesley appoint
Coke to the episcopal office? Did he establish the American Methodist
episcopacy? Let us look at the evidence.

1. Wesley mentions, in Coke’s certificate of ordination, as a reason
for ordaining him, that the Methodists in America desired “still to
adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England.”[807]
That Church in America was dissolved by the Revolution; he therefore
appointed Coke, with an episcopal form of government, a ritual, and
articles of religion, to meet the exigency. If Coke was appointed
merely to some such indefinite and contingent supervisory office
as “Church” writers allege, if he possessed not the authoritative
functions of episcopacy, wherein did his appointment answer the purpose
mentioned by Wesley--“the discipline of the Church of England?” Wherein
consists the main feature of the discipline of the English Church?
In its episcopal superintendence. Wherein does American Methodism
resemble it? Certainly not in class-meetings, itinerancy, and other
characteristic peculiarities, but in its episcopal regimen. Wesley’s
language is without sense if this is not its meaning.

2. Why did Wesley attach so much importance to the appointment if it
was of the secondary character alleged? He says in his circular letter
respecting Coke’s ordination, “For many years I have been importuned,
from time to time, to exercise this right by _ordaining_ part of our
traveling preachers; but I have still refused, not only for peace’
sake, but because I was determined as little as possible to violate
the established order of the national Church to which I belonged. But
the case is widely different between England and America. Here there
are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America there are none,
neither any parish ministers, so that for some hundred miles together
there are none either to baptize or administer the sacrament. Here,
therefore, my scruples are at an end!”

Scruples! What could have been his “scruples” about sending Coke on
such a secondary errand as the opponents of the Methodist episcopacy
assert? He had already sent Asbury and others to America, and to Asbury
he had actually assigned such a special yet secondary office, but
unaccompanied with the ordination and authority of episcopacy. This he
had done years before, without any scruple whatever; but during all
this time he had been scrupling about this new and solemn measure,
till the Revolution relieved him by abolishing the jurisdiction of the
English bishops in the colonies. There is certainly sheer absurdity in
all this if Wesley merely gave to Coke and Asbury a sort of indefinite
though special commission in the American Church, not including in it
the distinctive functions of episcopacy. We can conceive of nothing in
the nature of such a commission to excite such scruples--a commission
which had long since been given to Asbury.

Again: When Wesley proposed to Coke his ordination to this new office,
some six or seven months before it was conferred, Coke “was startled
at a measure so unprecedented in modern days,” and doubted Wesley’s
authority to ordain him, as Wesley himself was not a bishop.[808]
Wesley recommended him to read Lord King’s Primitive Church, and gave
him time to reflect. Coke passed two months in Scotland, and, on
satisfying his doubts, wrote to Wesley accepting the appointment, and
was afterward ordained, with solemn forms and the imposition of hands,
by Wesley, assisted by presbyters of the Church of England. What could
have possibly been the pertinency of all these former scruples of
Wesley, this surprise, and doubt, and delay of Coke, this reference to
ecclesiastical antiquity, and to a book which demonstrates the right of
presbyters to ordain bishops in given cases, and these solemn forms, if
they related merely to the alleged species of appointment, especially
as this very species of commission had already existed for some years
in the person of Asbury?

3. It is evident, beyond all question, that Wesley did not consider
this solemn act in the subordinate sense of an appointment, but as
an “ordination,” using the word in its strictest ecclesiastical
application. In his circular letter he says, “For many years I have
been importuned ... to exercise this right by _ordaining_ a part of
our traveling preachers; but I have still refused ... because I was
determined as little as possible to violate the established order of
the national Church.... Here my scruples are at an end.” Here the
word ordaining is expressly used; and if the new appointment was not
a regular “ordination,” but a species of nondescript commission,
solemnized by the mere forms of ordination, how could it be an
interference with the “established order of the national Church?”
How, especially, could it be such an interference, in any important
sense different from that which Wesley had already, for years, been
exercising without “scruple,” in sending to America his unordained
preachers? It was clearly an ordination, in the ecclesiastical sense
of the term; but there have been only three ordinations claimed in the
Christian world, namely, to the offices of, 1. Deacons; 2. Elders or
presbyters; and, 3. Bishops. If, then, Coke was ordained by Wesley,
and was not ordained a bishop, it becomes at once a pertinent but
unanswerable question, To what was he ordained? He had been a presbyter
for years. To what, then, did Wesley ordain him, if not to the next
recognized office?

Let it be remembered that Whatcoat and Vasey were ordained elders
for America at the time of Coke’s ordination, but by a distinct act.
If Coke did not receive a higher ordination (that is, episcopal, for
this is the only higher one), why was he ordained separately from
them, though on the same occasion? And why did Wesley, in his circular
letter, declare to the American Methodists that, while Whatcoat and
Vasey were “to act as elders among them,” Coke and Asbury were “to be
joint superintendents over them?”

4. Wesley, in his circular letter, appeals to Lord King’s Sketch of
the Primitive Church to show that he, as a presbyter, had a right,
under his peculiar circumstances, to perform these ordinations. Lord
King establishes the second of the above preliminary statements, and
the right of presbyters to ordain. And Wesley cites particularly his
reference to the Alexandrian Church, where, on the decease of a bishop,
the presbyters ordained his successor.

Why now this reference to Lord King and the Alexandrian Church--proving
that presbyters could ordain--in justification of Wesley’s proceedings,
if he did not ordain? And if he did ordain Coke, it may again be
asked, as Coke was already a presbyter, To what was he thus ordained,
if it was not to the only remaining office--the episcopacy? And still
more pointedly may it be asked, What propriety was there in Wesley’s
justifying himself by referring to the ordination of bishops by the
presbyters of Alexandria if he himself had not ordained a bishop?

5. Wesley prepared at this time a Prayer-Book for the American
Church--an abridgment of the English Liturgy--to be used under the new
arrangement. It contains the forms for the ordination of, 1. Deacons;
2. Elders; 3. Superintendents; and directs expressly that all preachers
elected to the office of deacon, elder, or superintendent shall be
presented to the superintendent “to be ordained.” Let it be remarked
then, 1. That here the very word ordain is used. 2. We have here the
three distinct offices of the ministry stated in order, according
to the understanding of Wesley, and of all Episcopalians throughout
the world. 3. That not only is the name of bishop changed to that
of superintendent, but the name of presbyter, or priest, to that of
elder--the new names being in both cases synonymous with the old ones.
If the change of the former name implies a difference in the office
also, why does not the change in the latter imply the same? 4. These
forms of ordination were taken from the forms in the English Liturgy
for the ordination of deacons, presbyters, and bishops, the names of
the latter two being changed to synonymous terms, namely, elders and
superintendents. The opponents of the Methodist episcopacy readily
grant that elder means presbyter, yet, as soon as superintendents are
mentioned as bishops, they protest. 5. These forms show that Wesley
not only created the Methodist episcopacy, but designed it to continue
after Coke and Asbury’s decease; they were printed for permanent use.

6. By reading Coke’s letter to Wesley, consenting to and directing
about his proposed ordination, it will be seen that Whatcoat and Vasey
were ordained presbyters at Coke’s request, because “propriety and
universal practice,” he says, “make it expedient that I should have
two presbyters with me in this work.”[809] That is, Coke requests, and
Wesley grants, that two presbyters shall be ordained to accompany Coke
in his new office, because “propriety and universal practice” require
that two presbyters assist a bishop in ordaining; and yet Coke was
not appointed to the office of a bishop! Coke in this letter, let it
be repeated, requests that these two men should be made “presbyters;”
Wesley complies; and yet, in the forms of the Prayer-Book, or
Discipline, they are called “elders.” The name only was changed,
therefore, not the thing; why, then, is not the inference just, that
the other change in these forms, that of bishop to superintendent, is
only in the name, not in the thing? The rule certainly ought to “work
both ways.”

7. Charles Wesley was a rigid High-Churchman, and opposed to all
ordinations by his brother. The latter knew his views so well that he
would not expose the present measure to interruption by acquainting him
with it till it was consummated. Though Charles Wesley was a presbyter
of the Church of England, and in the town at the time, yet other
presbyters were summoned to meet the demand of “propriety and universal
practice” on such occasions, while he was carefully avoided. Now why
this remarkable precaution against the High-Church prejudices of his
brother respecting ordinations if he did not in these proceedings
ordain? If it be replied that Charles was not only opposed to his
brother’s ordaining a bishop, but equally to his ordaining to the other
offices of the ministry, and, therefore, the ordinations might have
been confined to the latter, and yet such precautions be proper, it
may then be asked again, How can we suppose Coke to be now ordained
to these lower offices when he had already received them, and had
exercised them for years?

8. As soon as Charles Wesley learned these proceedings he was
profoundly afflicted. His correspondence with his brother[810] shows
that he understood them in the manner that the American Methodists do,
and Wesley never corrected this interpretation. He defends himself,
but never denies the facts. Charles Wesley speaks of Coke’s “Methodist
Episcopal Church in Baltimore,” alluding to the name assumed by the
American Church at its organization in that city. Wesley, in his reply,
utters not a word in denial or disapproval of this title, but simply
vindicates the necessity of his course in respect to the American
Methodists. Charles Wesley, in response, speaks of the doctor’s
“ambition” and “rashness.” Wesley, though he knew the Church had been
organized at Baltimore with the title of “Episcopal,” and had used
the very word “bishop,” but not as a personal title, says, “I believe
Dr. Coke as free from ambition as covetousness. He has done nothing
rashly that I know.” Charles Wesley, in his letter to Dr. Chandler,
a clergyman about to sail for America, speaks of his brother having
“assumed the episcopal character, ordained elders, _consecrated a
bishop_, and sent him to ordain our lay preachers in America,” showing
thus what the office really was, though the name was changed. Evidently
it was only the appellation of bishop, applied to the superintendents
in person, that Wesley disapproved.

9. The Conference at which the Church was organized terminated
January 1, 1785. The Minutes were published by Coke, with the title
“General Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in America.” The Minutes, as has been stated, expressly say that the
American societies were formed into an Episcopal Church, and this,
too, at the “recommendation” of Wesley. By July, Coke was with Wesley
at the British Conference. By the 26th of the preceding June, his own
Journal, containing this phrase, was inspected by Wesley. Coke also
took to England the American Minutes, and they were printed on a press
which Wesley used, and under his own eye. The Baltimore proceedings
were therefore known to Wesley, but we hear of no remonstrance from
him. They soon became known, by the Minutes, to the public; and when
Coke was attacked publicly for what he had done, he replied, as we
have seen, through the press, that “he had done nothing but under
the direction of Mr. Wesley.” Wesley never denied it. How are all
these facts explicable on the supposition that Coke and Asbury had
ambitiously broken over Wesley’s restrictions?

10. One of Charles Wesley’s greatest fears was, as we have noticed,
that the English preachers would be ordained by Coke. He had prevailed
upon his brother to refuse them ordination for years. He now writes,
with deep concern, that “not a preacher in London would refuse orders
from the doctor.” “He comes armed with your authority to make us all
Dissenters.” Now, why all this sudden disposition of the English
preachers to receive “orders from the doctor,” if it was not understood
that he had received episcopal powers, and they despaired of ever
getting ordination from the national bishops? If it is replied, they
believed, with Wesley, that, under necessary circumstances, presbyters
could ordain, and therefore desired it from Coke, not in view of
his new appointment, but because he was a presbyter of the Church
of England, then it may be properly asked, why did they not seek it
before? for Coke had been a presbyter among them for years. Why start
up with such a demand all at once as soon as they learned of the new
position of Coke? And how could Charles Wesley say in this case, “He
comes armed with your authority?” for his authority as a presbyter
he obtained from a bishop of the English Church years before he knew
Wesley.

11. The term bishop was not personally applied in the Discipline
to the American superintendents till about three years after the
“organization” of the Church, and Wesley’s objurgatory letter to Asbury
was not written till four years after it. During all this interval,
however, the American societies were called an “Episcopal Church.”
Six months after adopting the name, its Minutes were, as stated,
inspected by Wesley, and published under his auspices; they were called
the “Minutes of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America;” and they
expressly declare that, “following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who
recommended the episcopal mode of Church government, we thought it best
to become an Episcopal Church;” yet, as has been shown, during this
long interim Wesley never uttered a syllable against this assumption!
When his brother writes him, accusing Coke of rashness, he replies that
“the doctor has done nothing rashly;” and when Coke is accused through
the press, he declares, under Wesley’s eye, and without contradiction,
that “he had done nothing without the direction of Mr. Wesley.” What,
now, do all these incidents imply? What but that Wesley did approve the
American episcopacy--that it was established by his direction? Yet four
years after, when the appellation of bishop had been applied personally
to the American _episcopoi_, this letter of Wesley was written.
What further does this imply? What but that it was not the thing he
condemned, but the name? The thing had existed for years uncondemned,
nay, defended by him; the very name “Episcopal,” so far as it applied
to the Church collectively, he did not condemn; the title “bishop,” as
a definition or synonym of “superintendent” in the Minutes, he did not
condemn; but the personal title of bishop he disapproved, because of
its objectionable associations. Is it possible to escape this inference?

Thus we see that, whatever view we take of the subject, we are
compelled to one conclusion: that Wesley did create and establish the
American Methodist episcopate. The man who gainsays such evidence must
be given up as incorrigible. There can be no reasoning with him.

And now, what is the sum of this evidence? It has already been
presented with sufficient detail, but let us retrace the successive
and decisive steps of the argument. Here we have Wesley proposing to
establish “the discipline of the Church of England” among the American
Methodists, and to do so he ordains for them bishops, and gives them
an episcopal regimen; yet, according to their antagonists, he never
designed them to be a distinct Church, but only a “society” in the
Protestant Episcopal Church! Wesley and Coke have “scruples,” delays,
references to antiquity, imposition of hands, and other solemn forms,
conforming to the “universal practice” of episcopal ordination, and
yet all concerning some nondescript kind of appointment, analogous to
that which is conferred upon a missionary in charge over his brethren
in a foreign station! Wesley speaks of it as “ordaining,” and of his
refusing to use the right before the Revolution because it would have
interfered with the “established order of the national Church;” and
yet a mere secondary commission of Coke, such a one as had existed in
the person of Asbury for years, is the momentous interference with the
established order of the national Church--though there was nothing in
that order with which it could interfere, the national Church never
having had any such appointments! Wesley solemnly “ordains” Coke; and
yet it is not to the episcopal office, though he had been ordained to
all the other offices to which ordination is appropriate years before!
Wesley ordains two other men to the office of elders, and at the same
time separately and formally ordains Coke, who had already borne this
office; but still Coke’s new office is not the only remaining one that
could be conferred upon him! Wesley refers to the ordination of bishops
by the presbyters of Alexandria in justification of his ordination of
Coke, and yet he does not ordain Coke a bishop! Wesley prepares for
the American Church a Prayer-Book, abridged from that of the Church
of England, prescribing the English forms for the three offices
of deacons, presbyters, and bishops; the two former are admitted
unquestionably to be what they are in England, and yet the latter is
explained into something new and anomalous, answering to nothing ever
heard of in the Church of England or in any other episcopal Church! In
these forms the old names of two of the offices are changed to new but
synonymous appellations--that of presbyter or priest to elder, that of
bishop to superintendent; in the former case, the change of the name
is not for a moment supposed to imply a change of the thing, and yet,
in the other case, the change of the name invalidates entirely the
thing, without a particle more evidence for it in one case than in the
other! Charles Wesley, being a High-Churchman, is kept unaware of his
brother’s proceedings till they are accomplished, though he is in the
town at the time of the ordination; and yet it is no ordination, but
a species of appointment against which he could have had no episcopal
prejudice whatever! When he learns the facts he is overwhelmed with
surprise, and in his correspondence exclaims against his “brother’s
consecration of a bishop,” and “Dr. Coke’s Methodist Episcopal
Church” at Baltimore; and Wesley, in his replies, never denies these
titles, but simply vindicates his ordinations, and says that Coke had
“done nothing rashly;” yet there was no bishop, no episcopal office
appointed, no distinct episcopal Church established, but Coke had
fabricated the whole! When the preachers in England, trained, from
childhood, under episcopacy, hear of Coke’s new office, they are, to
the great alarm of Charles Wesley, suddenly seized with a desire to be
ordained by Coke, though they fully know that he is no bishop, but the
same presbyter that he had been among them for years! In six months
after the organization of the American Church, Coke publishes its
Minutes, with the title “Methodist Episcopal Church in America,” in
London, under the eye of Wesley, and in these Minutes it is declared
that Wesley “recommended the episcopal mode of Church government;” but
no remonstrance is heard from Wesley! When Coke is condemned through
the press for his proceedings, he publicly replies that he had done
“nothing without the direction of Mr. Wesley;” no rebuke follows
from Wesley, but Coke goes on as usual, active in his Conferences,
and maintained in his new position; and yet his American proceedings
were an ambitious plot, contrary to the will of Wesley! The American
Methodists had borne the title “Episcopal Church,” with Wesley’s full
approval, for four years, when, on the use of the personal title of
bishop, Wesley writes his letter to Asbury; and yet it is not the mere
personal title he condemns, but the office which for four years he had
left uncondemned, nay, had vindicated!

And now, looking again at this series of arguments, will not the
American Methodists be acquitted of presumption when they assume
that they may here make a triumphant stand, surrounded by evidence
altogether impregnable? The mighty ecclesiastical system under which
it has pleased God to give them and their families spiritual shelter
and fellowship with his saints, and whose efficiency has surprised
the Christian world, is not, as their opponents would represent, an
imposition of their preachers, and contrary to the wishes of Wesley,
but was legitimately received from his hands as the providential
founder of Methodism.

If Wesley’s strong repugnance to the mere name of bishop had been
expressed before its adoption by the American Church, it would probably
not have been adopted. Still, the American Church was now a separate
organization, and was at perfect liberty to dissent from Wesley on a
matter of mere expediency. The Church thought it had good reasons to
use the name. The American Methodists were mostly of English origin.
The people of their country among whom Methodism was most successful
were either from England or of immediate English descent, and had been
educated to consider episcopacy a wholesome and apostolical government
of the Church. The Church approved and had the office, why not, then,
have the name? especially as, without the name, the office itself would
be liable to lose, in the eyes of the people, its peculiar character,
and thereby fail in that appeal to their long-established opinions
which Methodism had a right, both from principle and expediency,
to make? The English Establishment having been dissolved in this
country, and the Protestant Episcopalians not being yet organized on
an independent basis, and the episcopal organization of the Methodists
having preceded that of the Protestant Episcopalians, the Methodist
Church had a clear right to present itself to the American public as
competent to aid in supplying the place of the abolished Establishment,
having the same essential principles without its peculiar defects.

And may not the circumstance of the assumption of an episcopal
character, nominally as well as really, by the American Methodists, be
considered providential? Episcopacy, both in America and England, has
reached an excess of presumption and arrogance. The moderate party,
once declared by Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, to
include a large majority of American Episcopalians,[811] has nearly
disappeared. Was it not providential, under these circumstances, that a
body of Christians should appear, exceeding every other in success, and
nominally and practically bearing an episcopal character, without any
of its presumptuous pretensions? Amid the uncharitable assumptions of
prelatical Episcopalians, the Methodist Episcopal Church stands forth
a monument of the laborious and simple episcopacy of the early ages,
its success, as well as its humility, contrasting it signally with its
more pretentious but feebler sister. It has thus practically vindicated
episcopacy as an expedient form of ecclesiastical government, and
assuredly it needs vindication in these days.

Such, then, is the evidence which should, with all men of
self-respectful candor, conclude decisively the question of Wesley’s
design and agency in the organization of American Methodism.

Driven from this ground, objectors retreat to an equally untenable
one by alleging that the episcopal organization of the societies in
America is to be attributed to the influence of ambitious counselors
over Wesley in the imbecility of his old age. It has already been shown
that he as yet betrayed no such imbecility; but it has still more
conclusively been demonstrated that the ecclesiastical opinions which
sanction this great act were adopted in the prime of his manhood. They
were the well-considered and fully demonstrated convictions of two
score years, before he yielded to the unavoidable necessity of giving
them practical effect. Few facts in the history of Methodism are more
interesting and instructive than the gradual development of Wesley’s
own mind and character under his extraordinary and accumulating
responsibilities; it has therefore been studiously traced throughout
the preceding pages. No reader who has followed our narrative will
accept this last objection to the American Methodist episcopacy, and
no possible ground of argument remains for its opponents but the
prelatical charge against its legitimacy, founded in the traditional
and exploded ecclesiasticism of obsolete ages. Methodists are content,
with Wesley, to pronounce the apostolic succession “a fable which no
man ever did, or ever can prove,” and believe that, in this age, they
need not anxiously challenge any advantage which their opponents can
claim from a pretension so incompatible alike with the letter and the
charity of the Gospel, as well as with the Christian enlightenment of
modern times.[812]

[Attempts have been made to impugn Coke, as having overweeningly led
Wesley into this important measure.[813] The charge, however, were
it valid, could not affect the validity of the measure itself as
genuinely Wesleyan, and as giving to American Methodism an Episcopal
organization. After the preceding review, no one can doubt that the
whole proceeding was in accordance with Wesley’s own views of Church
government. He was, as we have seen, a decided Episcopalian, and he
designed to give the American Methodist, as he says, “the discipline
of the Church of England;” that is to say, an Episcopal regimen. His
appeal to Lord King’s proof, that the presbyters of Alexandria ordained
bishops, could otherwise have no relevancy. His use of this proof with
Coke, while the latter hesitated, shows what was his original design,
and it is impossible to conceive what merely Presbyterian system,
without a “superintendency” or episcopate, could at this time fit into
the itinerant ministerial scheme of the American Church, where Rankin
and Asbury had hitherto been superintendents, though without ordination
or the power to ordain.

Whether Coke influenced Wesley or not does not, then, let it be
repeated, affect the main question. Whether Wesley was influenced or
not, he did construct and solemnly appoint the Episcopal system of
the American Methodists, such as it was adopted by the Conference of
1784; he did provide for its perpetuation by abridging, printing, and
sending over with Coke the English Liturgy, containing its forms of
ordination for the threefold ministerial functions recognized in the
Anglican Church, and all these acts were in strict accordance with his
long-avowed ideas of Church government.

Coke’s character alone, then, is concerned in this charge. That
character, however, is dear to all Methodists, and important, not
to the validity, but to the historical character of the American
episcopate. He is to stand forever as its first representative. I have
elsewhere sketched his remarkable life and character.[814] Though he
had essential greatness, he had, doubtless, characteristic weaknesses
also. There have been few great men without them. The faults of such
men become the more noticeable, either by contrast with or by partaking
of their greatness; and the vanity of ordinary human nature is eagerly
disposed, in self-gratulation, to criticise, as peculiar defects
of superior minds, infirmities which are common to all. Practical
energy was his chief intellectual trait, and, if it was sometimes
effervescent, it was never evanescent. He had a leading agency in the
greatest facts of Methodism, and it was impossible that the series of
momentous deeds which mark his career could have been the result of
mere accident or fortune. They must have been legitimate to the man.
Neither Whitefield nor Wesley exceeded him in ministerial travels. It
is probable that no Methodist of his day, it is doubtful whether any
Protestant of his day, contributed more from his own property for the
spread of the Gospel. His biographer says that he expended the whole
of his patrimonial estate, which was large, on his missions and their
chapels. He was married twice; both his wives were like-minded with
himself, and both had considerable fortunes, which were used like
his own. In 1794 was published an account of his missionary receipts
and disbursements for the preceding year, from which it appeared
that there were due him nearly eleven thousand dollars; but he gave
the whole sum to the cause. Flying, during nearly forty years, over
England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland; crossing the Atlantic eighteen
times; traversing the United States and the West Indies; the first who
suggested the organization of English Methodism by Wesley’s Deed of
Declaration; the organizer, under Wesley, of American Methodism; one of
the first, if not the very first, of Protestant bishops in the Western
hemisphere; the founder of the Methodist missions in the West Indies,
in Africa, and in Asia, as well as in Ireland, Wales, and England;
the official and almost sole director of the missionary operations of
the denomination during his long public life, and the founder of the
first Tract Society in the world, he must be recognized as one of the
chief representative men of modern religious history, if not, indeed,
as Asbury pronounced him, “the greatest man of the last century as a
minister of Christ.”

Asbury, who hesitated not thus to place him above Wesley “as a
minister of Christ,” knew him well, and especially knew him in those
transactions for which he has been most blamed. A settled and wealthy
clergyman of the Establishment, bearing the highest literary title
which its universities could give, a man of high family and high
prospects, he forsook, under the influence of deepened religious
feelings, all his apparent advantages, to become a wandering evangelist
in Wesley’s despised but heroic band of itinerants. He became, as
Wesley called him, “the right hand” of the great founder. His spirit
flamed with evangelic zeal. He expressed truly his own character in the
exclamation, recorded on the high seas, when passing for the first time
to America, “I want the wings of an eagle and the voice of a trumpet,
that I may proclaim the Gospel through the East and the West, the North
and the South.” He seemed almost ubiquitous in the United States,
superintending its ministry, and in the United Kingdom, administering
the affairs of the Wesleyan Church, founding and conducting its
Irish, its Welsh, its “Domestic,” and its Foreign Missions, virtually
embodying in his own person the whole missionary enterprise of English
Methodism. When an old man of nearly seventy years he conceived the
project of introducing Methodism into Asia. He presented himself before
the British Conference, and, against great opposition, entreated, with
tears, to be sent as a missionary to India, offering to defray the
expenses of himself and seven chosen colleagues. The Conference could
not resist his appeal, and at length, on the 30th of December, 1813,
he departed with his little band, consisting of nine persons besides
himself. He died on the voyage, and was buried in the Indian Ocean;
but, though the great leader was no more, his spirit remained, and the
successful East Indian Missions of Methodism are the sublime results.
History should respect the reputation of such a man.

The charge of his leading Wesley into the measures for the organization
of the American Church is made in spite of the express testimony of
Drew, his intimate friend and biographer, who says that “Wesley, in
his study, ‘City Road,’ first divulged his purpose to Coke,” and that,
arguing with him there on the ordination of bishops by presbyters in
the Alexandrian Church, he concluded by proposing “that, being himself
a presbyter, Coke should accept ordination from his hands, and proceed
to the continent of America to superintend the societies in the United
States.”[815]

A letter from Coke to Wesley, proposing that a messenger should be
sent to America to inspect the field and report to Wesley, has been
cited as proof of Coke’s overweening wish for such an appointment.[816]
The hostile critic seems not to be aware that this letter was written
_after_ Wesley’s proposition to send Coke as superintendent. The
conversation in Wesley’s London study was in February, 1784. Coke’s
letter, proposing a preliminary inspection and report of the wants
of the American societies, was not written till the middle of April
[“Near Dublin, April 17, 1784”]. It was actually sent while he was yet
considering Wesley’s proposition. It showed his hesitancy rather than
his eagerness for the new office.

Thus far, then, no solicitation, no selfish management, is apparent
in the course of Coke. If, contrary to Drew’s express statement, the
particular act of Coke’s ordination by Wesley was by the request of
Coke himself, it does not materially affect the question of either
the American Church system or Coke’s character. Wesley undoubtedly
designed, as we have seen, that the former should be a system of
superintendency, of practical episcopacy “conformed to the discipline
of the Church of England,” as he expressly says--such as, in fact, it
had hitherto been, except that its superintendents had not yet the
function of ordination, which was now to be supplied. If he had not
at first designed to ordain Coke (according to his reasoning about
the Alexandrian example), it was doubtless because he had assumed
that Coke, being already a presbyter, could, in accordance with that
example, ordain Asbury a superintendent, and complete the organization
of the American Church. Now Wesley had, as we have seen, for years
believed in the essential parity of presbyters and bishops, and their
equal right to ordain. Coke’s request (if any there were) for more
formal authorization by Wesley himself was perfectly correspondent
with Wesley’s theory and design, and, this being the fact, it was
indisputably expedient, as Wesley himself saw. The agitations and
debates among the American Methodists rendered it necessary that he
should bear with him the highest possible sanction of Wesley, who
was recognized as founder and superintendent of the whole Methodist
cause. Coke’s liability to disaffected criticism at home, especially
from Charles Wesley (whose opinions were well known), gave him a right
to claim, as he did in his letter to Wesley, that the latter should
“be obliged to acknowledge that I acted under your direction”--a
phrase which would have been inadmissible had not Wesley’s designs
corresponded fully with his own. This objection to Coke, then, is not
relevant. His course was logical; it was prudent; it was necessary; and
its historical results have proved its supreme wisdom.

Almost every other disputed act of Coke’s life has been adduced to
confirm the unfounded objection to his course in this great measure.
It has been alleged that he wrote to Bishop White, of Philadelphia,
that “he would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the
English [American Protestant Episcopal] Church on condition that he
himself were ordained to be their bishop.”[817] Coke was already a
bishop, and Asbury another, in America; their denomination was already
more extended than the Protestant Episcopal Church, and it had an
immeasurably better prospect in the new republic. Coke’s impulsive
zeal and catholicity led him to think, what many Churchmen, if not
Methodists, have since thought, that a union of the two bodies would
be a blessing to common Christianity. If he was imprudent, he was
nevertheless charitable in his desire. It did more credit to his heart
than discredit to his head. He did not propose it, as alleged, in order
to be “ordained their bishop.” He included his Episcopal colleague,
Asbury, and all his ministerial brethren. The union was to be made
“on terms which in no wise compromised the honor or rights of the
Methodist Episcopal Church.”[818] “I never did apply,” says Coke, “to
the General Convention, or any other Convention, for reconsecration. I
never intended that either Bishop Asbury or myself should give up our
episcopal office if the junction were to take place.”

It has been alleged against him, as an “unpleasant fact,” and as
illustrating his course in the present case with Wesley, that he
solicited the “Prince Regent and the government to appoint him their
bishop in India,” and this “within twelve months of his lamented
death.”[819] This aspersion is founded in incidents connected with
that last heroic mission to India above noticed, for which, in his old
age, he sublimely sacrificed his property, his episcopal functions in
America, and his life, but founded the whole East India Methodist work.
The British domination there had, to his eyes, opened a door for the
Gospel to all Asia. For some years he had been planning and working
for a mission to the Hindoos; the East India Company’s government
“had steadily opposed” their evangelization; Coke knew that he could
not accomplish his grand designs without authority from the home
government in an episcopal appointment; for this reason he sought
that appointment. He was still a priest of the national Church, and
the Wesleyans were all yet considered as members of that Church. He
proved the purity of his purpose when his application failed, for
then, as we have seen, he stood, an aged and broken man, before the
British Conference, and extorted, by his entreaties, his tears, and the
pledge of his own property, its consent to let him go, with a corps of
Methodist evangelists, and attempt the great work in the only way that
remained for him.[820]

Again, it is alleged that “in 1794 he secretly summoned a meeting of
the most influential of the English preachers, and passed a resolution
that the Conference should appoint an order of bishops to ordain
deacons and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member
of the prelatical brotherhood.”[821] The real facts of this case, as
in the others, need but to be correctly stated to fully vindicate
Coke. Wesley had been dead some three years; the Wesleyans were in
the greatest anxiety and distraction respecting their permanent
organization during these years; the very existence of the body
seemed periled; ministerial disputes and popular agitation prevailed,
ending at last in the Kilham schism; the people were clamoring for
the sacraments--the preachers were not empowered, by ordination, to
administer them. “At present we really have no government,” wrote
Pawson, the president of the Conference, toward the latter part of
1793. “It will by no means answer our ends to dispute one with another
as to which is the most scriptural form of Church government. We should
consider our present circumstances, and endeavor to agree upon some
method by which our people may have the ordinances of God, and, at the
same time, be preserved from division. I care not a rush whether it
be Episcopal or Presbyterian; I believe neither of them to be purely
scriptural. But our preachers and people in general are prejudiced
against the latter; consequently, if the former will answer our end, we
ought to embrace it. Indeed, I believe it will suit our present plan
far better than the other. The design of Mr. Wesley will weigh much
with many, which now evidently appears to have been this: He foresaw
that the Methodists would, after his death, soon become a distinct
people; he was deeply prejudiced against a Presbyterian, and was as
much in favor of an Episcopal form of government. In order, therefore,
to preserve all that was valuable in the Church of England among the
Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather and Dr. Coke bishops. These he
undoubtedly designed should ordain others. Mr. Mather told us so at
the Manchester Conference, but we did not then understand him. I see
no way of coming to any good settlement but on the plan I mentioned
before. I sincerely wish that Dr. Coke and Mr. Mather may be allowed
to be what they are, bishops. We must have ordination among us at any
rate.”[822] It was in these circumstances that Coke met some of the
most venerable and devoted preachers at Litchfield. He “addressed them
on the agitated state of the Connection, and the perils which menaced
it; he referred to the success of Methodism in the New World under its
Episcopal organization, and the relief which Wesley’s establishment
of this form of government there had given to a similar controversy.
He offered ordination to the brethren who were present. His motive
was disinterested, for he already possessed the Episcopal office and
dignity, conferred by an authority which they all venerated above
that of any archbishop of the realm. Most of the meeting approved his
proposition, but Moore, who had been ordained by Wesley, very wisely
suggested that they should confine their proceedings to the discussion
of its practicability, and defer its decision to the next Conference.
He, however, pronounced the measure a scriptural and suitable
expedient for the government of any Christian Church. Mather concurred
with Moore. They adjourned after adopting a series of resolutions
which were to be submitted with all their signatures to the Annual
Conference.”[823] It is certainly remarkable that a sinister motive
could be imputed to Coke in these circumstances--to him who had already
a diocese co-extensive with the United States of America.

An impartial revision, then, of all the facts directly or indirectly
involved in this discussion, results, first, in a vindication of the
Episcopal government, adopted at Baltimore in 1784, as the genuine work
of Wesley himself, accordant with his previously declared opinions on
the subject; and, secondly, of Coke’s conduct respecting it, as also
in the other above facts alleged against him. Wesley was just when,
after the whole measure had transpired, he declared Coke to “have
done nothing rashly,” and that he was “as free from ambition as from
covetousness.”]


FOOTNOTES:

     [788] History of Methodism, vol. i., book iii., chap. v.
           The persistent misrepresentations of him on this
           point are astonishing. The Rev. Edwin Sidney (Life of
           Walker, of Truro, p. 260) says that “when he wanted
           ordained preachers for America, he, of a sudden,
           _in his old age_, found out, by reading Lord King’s
           Account of the Primitive Church, that bishops and
           presbyters are of the same order.” This inexcusable
           violation of historical truth is common in the
           writings of Churchmen against Methodism.

     [789] A Letter to a Friend, Works, vol. vii., p. 301.

     [790] Letter to Rev. Mr. Clark, Works, vol. vii., p. 284.

     [791] “On the Church,” Works, vol. vii., p. 312.

     [792] Burk’s History of Virginia, vol. ii., p. 180. Hawks
           (Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the
           United States of America, vol. i., chap. ix.) doubts
           Burk’s estimate. Dr. Hawks’s volume needs important
           emendations, especially in respect to Methodism.

     [793] Hawks’s “Contributions,” vol. i., chap. x.

     [794] Journals of the Virginia Assembly, 1784.

     [795] Bangs’s Hist. M. E. Church, vol. i., pp. 135-7.

     [796] Works, vol. vii., p. 231.

     [797] Coke’s Letter to Wesley, Smith’s History of Wesleyan
           Methodism, vol. i., book ii., chap. 6.

     [798] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 5.

     [799] Unless the Moravians are to be considered an
           exception.

     [800] Jackson’s Charles Wesley, chap. 26.

     [801] “To administer the sacraments of baptism and the
           Lord’s Supper according to the usages of the Church
           of England,” says the certificate of ordination (see
           it in Life of Henry Moore, p. 134, Am. ed.); and yet
           a living Churchman (Dr. Pusey’s Letter to the Bishop
           of Oxford, p. 151) says that “Wesley reluctantly took
           the step of ordaining at all;” and that “to the last
           _he refused, in the strongest terms, his consent
           that those thus ordained should take upon them to
           administer the sacraments_. He felt that it exceeded
           his powers, and so inhibited it, however it might
           diminish the numbers of the society he had formed.”
           The biographers of Wilberforce (vol. i., p. 248) also
           say: “Nor were any of his preachers _suffered during
           his lifetime to attempt to administer the sacraments
           of his Church_.” It is high time that such fictions
           should cease among English Churchmen. It seems that
           they have yet to learn how thorough and noble a
           heretic Wesley really was.

     [802] Minutes of 1785, in Minutes of the Annual Conference
           of the M. E. Church, vol. i., p. 22. New York, 1840.

     [803] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 6. His assailant is
           supposed to have been Charles Wesley. Etheredge’s
           Coke, book ii., chap. 7.

     [804] It had been used, however, all this time, in the
           Minutes, as explanatory of the word “superintendent.”
           The Minutes say that, “following the counsel of
           Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal
           mode of Church government, we thought it best to
           become an episcopal Church, making the episcopal
           office elective, and the elected superintendent,
           or _bishop_, amenable to the body of ministers and
           preachers.” Minutes, vol. i., p. 22. New York, 1840.
           It was not in the bishops’ address to Washington in
           1789 that the title was first _personally_ assumed.
           The Discipline of 1787 so used it. Emory’s History
           of the Discipline, p. 82. But, as we have just
           seen, the title was inserted in the Minutes of the
           Organization of the Church (1784, 1785) as synonymous
           with “superintendent.” Minutes 1785, vol. i., p. 22.
           Wesley’s letter of reproof to Asbury was written
           before the bishops’ address to Washington.

     [805] See his circular letter to the American Societies,
           Drew’s Coke, chap. 5.

     [806] Bishop (Saxon, bischop) is a corruption of the
           Latinized Greek word episcopus. Its analogy to the
           second and third syllables of the latter is obvious.

     [807] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 5.

     [808] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 5.

     [809] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., book ii.,
           chap, vi., p. 541.

     [810] Jackson’s Charles Wesley, chap. 26.

     [811] Case of the Prot. Epis. Church in the United States,
           etc., p. 25.

     [812] Wesley was in good company among Churchmen in his
           denunciation of the “fable” of the succession.
           Chillingworth said, “I am fully persuaded there
           hath been no such succession.” Bishop Stillingfleet
           declares that “this succession is as muddy as the
           Tiber itself.” Bishop Hoadley asserts, “It hath not
           pleased God, in his providence, to keep up any proof
           of the least probability, or moral possibility, of
           a regular uninterrupted succession; but there is a
           great appearance, and, humanly speaking, a certainty
           to the contrary, that the succession hath often been
           interrupted.” Archbishop Whately says “there is not a
           minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up,
           with approach to certainty, his spiritual pedigree.”

     [813] Tyerman’s Wesley, vol. iii. An. 1784.

     [814] History of Methodism, vol. iii., _passim_. History of
           the M. E. Church, vol. ii., p. 151; vol. iv., p. 503.

     [815] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 62. Etheridge (Life of
           Coke, p. 101) says: “A writer in the Quarterly
           Review affirms that it was Coke who first requested
           Wesley to make him a bishop, and send him as such
           to America. The opposite is the truth: the request
           came from Wesley, and took Coke by surprise. He had
           not even given the clerical question involved in
           the project any serious consideration; and he first
           required of Wesley some time for investigation,
           before he could express with confidence an opinion
           upon it at all. He now applied himself to those
           Biblical and patristic studies which bear upon the
           subject, and after the lapse of two months, spent
           partly in Scotland, communicated to Wesley that the
           conclusions at which he had arrived enabled him,
           without any hesitation, to concur with himself as to
           the abstract lawfulness of the measure which had been
           propounded.”

     [816] Tyerman’s Wesley, vol. iii., p. 428.

     [817] Tyerman, vol. iii., p. 344.

     [818] History of M. E. Church, vol. iii., p. 41. Also vol.
           iv., p. 443.

     [819] Tyerman, vol. iii., p. 434.

     [820] See Etheridge’s Coke, p. 368. Etheridge gives all the
           facts of the case, and fully vindicates Coke from the
           charge of unchristian ambition.

     [821] Tyerman, vol. iii., p. 434.

     [822] Smith, History of Methodism, etc., vol. ii., p. 4, 3.
           Stevens’s History of Methodism, vol. iii., p. 51.

     [823] History of Methodism, vol. iii., p. 52.




                                INDEX.


  Aberdeen, ii. 404, 470, 568; iii. 10, 411.

  “Act of Toleration,” ii. 385.

  Adam, Rev. Thomas, ii. 209, 251; iii. 18.

  Adams, Rev. Mr., i. 485.

  Adams, Thomas, i. 536.

  “Advice to a Young Clergyman,” i. 106.

  Affleck, Andrew, ii. 471.

  African Methodist Episcopal Church, i. 9.

  African Mission proposed, iii. 272.

  Agutter, Rev. Mr., iii. 536.

  Alemouth, ii. 140.

  Alliance, Quadruple, ii. 557.

  Alnwick, ii. 166, 276, 328; ii. 473, 573.

  Alpraham, iii. 352.

  Ambition, i. 20.

  American Colonies, i. 114.

  American Indians, i. 115, 124, 130.

  American Methodism, i. 8, 9; iii. 47, 60, 62, 75, 116, 151, 175, 194,
        248, 331, 426, 498, 646.

  American Rebellion, iii. 147, 185, 237.

  American Wesleyan Methodists, i. 9.

  Amsterdam, i. 197; iii. 394, 395.

  Andrews, Mr., iii. 28.

  Andrews, Rev. John, i. 428; ii. 493.

  Animal Magnetism, iii. 603, 648.

  Annesley, Dr. Samuel, i. 285.

  Antigua, iii. 151, 195, 273.

  Antinomianism, i. 477, 481, 519; ii. 400; iii. 14.

  Antislavery Society, iii. 508.

  Apparitions, i. 22, 23; iii. 11, 40, 41.

  Appleton, John, iii. 449.

  Arbroath, iii. 66, 120, 457.

  Armagh, ii. 601; iii. 41, 154.

  _Arminian Magazine_, iii. 251, 280, 316, 344, 346, 367, 388, 406,
        455, 469, 488, 508, 515, 563, 594, 634.

  Asbury, Francis, ii. 610; iii. 7, 110, 175, 195, 248, 429, 435, 438.

  Ashbourne, ii. 195.

  Ashburton, ii. 585.

  Ashby de la Zouch, ii. 501.

  Ashton under Lyne, iii. 371.

  Assistants, duties of, i. 445, 499.

  Athlone, ii. 4, 35, 37, 78, 601.

  Atlay, John, iii. 207, 297, 315, 404, 552-558, 565, 567.

  Atmore, Charles, iii. 441, 533, 604, 607, 618.

  Atterbury, Bishop, i. 42, 60.

  Aughrim, ii. 4, 78.

  Aylesbury, iii. 29.


  Backhouse, Rev. William, ii. 489.

  Baddiley, Rev. William, ii. 195, 205, 211.

  Bagshaw, Matthew, ii. 560.

  Baildon, iii. 362.

  Bailey, Rev. Mr., ii. 90.

  Balham, iii. 589, 599, 650.

  Ball, Hannah, ii. 534; iii. 241.

  Ball, Roger, ii. 77.

  Ballinrobe, iii. 460.

  Bandon, ii. 36, 81, 304, 354; iii. 645.

  Bandroom Methodists, i. 5.

  Bands, Methodist, i. 445, 463; ii. 475, 516; iii. 22, 542.

  Banff, Lady, iii. 412.

  Baptism, i. 229; ii. 135, 264.

  Barber, John, iii. 441, 474, 533, 645.

  Barclay’s Apology, i. 489.

  Bardsley, Samuel, ii. 540; iii. 156, 164, 208, 348, 353, 402, 591,
        592.

  Barlow, Margaret, iii. 535.

  Barnardcastle, ii. 141, 434, 472, 535, 569; iii. 18, 293, 537.

  Barnes, John, ii. 552.

  Barnet, iii. 488.

  Barnsley, iii. 474.

  Bate, Rev. James, i. 249.

  Bateman, Rev. Richard T., i. 548.

  Bath, ii. 557, 587; iii. 252, 290, 305, 614, 623.

  _Bath Journal_, ii. 41.

  Baxter, John, iii. 273.

  Bayley, Dr. Cornelius, ii. 261; iii. 397, 416.

  Beard, Thomas, i. 441.

  Beau Nash, i. 237.

  Bedford, ii. 160, 274, 300, 340, 358.

  Bedford, Rev. Arthur, i. 209, 364.

  Behmen, Jacob, ii. 265; iii. 341, 388.

  Belfast, ii. 240, 445, 600.

  Bell, George, ii. 433, 441, 444, 450, 460, 462, 507, 556; iii. 13,
        29, 59.

  Benefactions, Wesley’s, iii. 615.

  Benezet, Anthony, iii. 115.

  Bennet, John, i. 472; ii. 42, 57, 129; iii. 119.

  Bennett, Rev. Mr., i. 458.

  Bennis, Elizabeth, iii. 45.

  Benson, Joseph, ii. 474; iii. 35, 51, 70, 73, 110, 152, 168, 215,
        247, 270, 272, 324, 334, 341, 538, 603.

  Beresford, Miss, ii. 195.

  Berridge, Rev. John, ii. 309, 324, 331-333, 356, 370, 397, 444, 459,
        463, 491; iii. 2, 158.

  Berwick, ii. 328.

  Bethnal Green, iii. 193.

  Beverley, ii. 330, 502; iii. 611.

  Bible Christians, i. 6.

  Bible, Study of, i. 532.

  Bideford, iii. 591.

  Bigg, Thomas, ii. 53.

  Bingham, iii. 69.

  Bingley, ii. 275, 411, 573; iii. 225, 243, 325, 414.

  Birmingham, i. 488; ii. 115, 163, 195, 348, 399, 500; iii. 7, 392,
        472, 493, 503, 568, 603.

  Birr, ii. 4.

  Birstal, i. 369, 383, 440; ii. 121, 139, 331, 412; iii. 270, 373, 404.

  Bishop of Bristol, i. 246.

  Bishop, Letter to a, iii. 513, 613.

  Bishop, Miss, ii. 559; iii. 86, 97, 278, 357, 450.

  Bishops, Interview with, i. 230.

  Bisson, Miss, iii. 599, 609.

  Black, William, iii. 401, 452, 484, 492, 506, 541, 591, 612.

  Blackburn, iii. 325.

  Blackheath, i. 359.

  Blackwell, Ebenezer, i. 555, 558, 559; ii. 5, 26, 83, 107, 142, 169,
        174, 185, 196, 219, 236, 275, 304, 326, 352, 414, 506; iii. 251.

  Blackwell, Richard, ii. 587.

  Blades, John, iii. 536.

  Blair, Andrew, iii. 459.

  Blarney, ii. 37.

  Blendon, i. 173, 178.

  Boarding Schools, iii. 120.

  Boardman, Richard, iii. 47, 54.

  Bogie, James, iii. 362.

  Bohler, Peter, i. 177, 179, 181, 186, 197, 532; ii. 156-158; iii.
        201, 595.

  Bolton, i. 547; ii. 18, 57, 116; iii. 191, 351, 472, 501, 527.

  Bolton, Edward, ii. 498.

  Bolton, Miss, ii. 498; iii. 644.

  Bolzius, Martin, i. 151.

  Book Stewards’ Circular, ii. 179.

  Books recommended by Dr. Doddridge, i. 517.

  Books recommended by Wesley, iii. 359, 450.

  Booth, Alice, i. 546.

  Booth, John, iii. 645.

  Boothbank, i. 546.

  Borlase, Dr., i. 453, 470.

  Bosanquet, Miss, ii. 286, 289, 517, 588; iii. 68, 111, 206, 208, 213,
        240, 329.

  Boston, ii. 327, 413; iii. 327.

  Boswell, James, iii. 294.

  Bourke, Richard, ii. 603.

  Bourne, Hugh, ii. 609.

  Bowden, Dr. Samuel, ii. 190.

  Bowman, Rev. William, i. 328.

  Brackenbury, Robert C., iii. 338, 393, 408, 429, 487, 504, 507, 625,
        649, 655.

  Bradburn, Samuel, iii. 177, 251, 287, 315, 334, 336, 355, 376, 525,
        526, 546, 616.

  Bradford (Yorkshire), ii. 12, 331, 569.

  Bradford (Wilts), iii. 52, 409.

  Bradford, Joseph, iii. 16, 156, 203, 204, 338, 403, 557, 606, 649,
        651, 652, 655.

  Brainerd, David, iii. 36.

  Brammah, Alice, iii. 29.

  Brammah, William, iii. 243.

  Bramwell, William, iii. 354.

  Brandon, John, ii. 170, 281.

  Breage, ii. 218.

  Brecon, i. 457.

  Bredin, John, iii. 151, 643.

  Brettell, Jeremiah, iii. 403.

  Bribery, i. 554; ii. 515.

  Briggs, William, ii. 176-179.

  Briscoe, Thomas, iii. 375.

  Bristol, i. 234, 296, 390, 391, 425, 461; ii. 1, 25, 75, 85, 86, 171,
        190, 235, 255, 290, 339, 362, 425, 481, 512, 514, 546, 587;
        iii. 28, 52, 75, 110, 129, 157, 165, 178, 236, 349, 364, 370,
        391, 396, 404, 492, 530, 568, 589, 600, 622.

  _Bristol Weekly Intelligencer_, ii. 85.

  Broadbent, John, iii. 393, 487.

  Brooke, Henry, iii. 172, 342, 392.

  Broughton, Rev. J., i. 68, 83, 102, 108, 132, 178.

  Broughton, Sir Thomas, iii. 119.

  Brute Creation, iii. 347.

  Bryan, Jonathan, iii. 117.

  Bryant, Thomas, ii. 487.

  Buchan, Earl, iii. 2.

  Bull, Patrick, iii. 189.

  Bulmer, Agnes, iii. 541.

  Bumby, John H., ii. 277.

  Bunting, Dr., i. 340.

  Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, i. 434.

  Burbeck, Edward, iii. 507.

  Burgess, Joseph, iii. 577.

  Burnet, Bishop, i. 64.

  Burnley, iii. 414.

  Burslem, ii. 349; iii. 8, 127, 472, 493.

  Burton, Dr. John, i. 108, 136.

  Burton on Trent, ii. 560.

  Bury, iii. 166.

  Bush, Elijah, iii. 231, 364.

  Butterworth, Joseph, i. 545.

  Butterworth, Rev. John, i. 545.

  Butts, Thomas, ii. 142, 176-179.

  Buxton, iii. 393.

  Byrom, Dr., i. 135, 210, 243, 484.

  Byron, James Mac, iii. 7, 466.


  Cadogan, Dr., iii. 110, 182.

  Cadogan, Rev. W. B., iii. 179.

  Calling of Methodist Preachers, iii. 635.

  “Calm Address,” Publication of, iii. 186-192.

  Calvinism, i. 39; ii. 191-193; iii. 278.

  Calvinist Concessions, i. 349.

  Calvinist Controversy, iii. 71, 81, 86, 97, 136, 158, 179, 209, 228,
        232, 259.

  Calvinistic Methodists, i. 402, 511.

  Camborne, i. 453.

  Cambridge, Miss, iii. 645.

  Candler, William, iii. 627.

  Canterbury, ii. 69, 230, 309, 339, 425, 511.

  Cardiff, i. 560.

  Carlisle, iii. 63.

  Carrickfergus, ii. 240, 350, 445.

  Castle Carey, iii. 506.

  Castlebar, iii. 153.

  Catechism, ii. 64.

  Catechumen Classes, ii. 362.

  Catholic Spirit, ii. 374.

  Causton, Thomas, i. 143, 152, 162.

  Cavignac, General, ii. 350.

  Cayley, Cornelius, ii. 317.

  Celibacy, i. 432; ii. 6, 551.

  Cennick, John, i. 225, 263, 274, 277, 295, 331, 343, 344, 360, 402,
        419, 556, 559; ii. 23, 101.

  Chandler, Samuel, ii. 493.

  Channel Islands, iii. 503-505.

  Chapel Affairs, i. 11, 270, 519; ii. 291, 539, 584, 610; iii. 30, 70,
        152, 216, 325, 511, 533, 614, 619, 622.

  Chapel-en-le-Frith, iii. 472.

  Chapman, Mrs., i. 138.

  Chapman, Rev. Jacob, ii. 482.

  Chapman, William, i. 133.

  Charlton, Mary, iii. 353.

  Charter House School, i. 19.

  Chatham, iii. 6.

  Cheltenham, ii. 559; iii. 7.

  Chester, i. 547; ii. 142, 448, 565; iii. 410, 500.

  Chesterfield, iii. 226.

  Chester-le-Street, ii. 277, 329, 538.

  Cheyne, Dr., i. 27.

  Children’s Meetings, i. 446; iii. 23.

  Chinley, i. 459.

  Chipping, ii. 116.

  Christian, Almost a, i. 175.

  Christian, David, i. 200.

  “Christian Library,” ii. 26, 65.

  Church Government, i. 499; ii. 257.

  Church, Rev. Thomas, i. 455, 478, 530.

  Church, Stephen, ii. 376.

  Church, William, iii. 277.

  Churchey, Walter, iii. 244, 282, 547, 579.

  Circuits, Division of, iii. 601, 632.

  City Road Chapel, iii. 220, 241, 243, 251, 255, 275, 297.

  Clanmain, ii. 445.

  Clark, Rev. James, ii. 244, 373.

  Clarke, Adam, ii. 119, 227; iii. 342, 386, 397, 504, 507, 583, 599,
        609, 614, 619, 623, 643, 644, 648.

  Clarkson, Thomas, iii. 115.

  Class Meetings, i. 379, 380; ii. 516; iii. 215, 328, 550.

  Classes, Methodist, i. 353, 377; iii. 391.

  Classical Learning, i. 117.

  Classleaders, i. 446; iii. 109.

  Clayton, Rev. John, i. 68, 83, 93, 94; ii. 138.

  Clements, William, i. 494.

  Clergy, Advice to Young, ii. 63.

  Clerical Costume, ii. 338.

  Clippendale, Mrs., iii. 116.

  Clive, Sir Edward, ii. 300.

  Clones, iii. 202.

  Clonmel, ii. 237.

  Clowes, William, ii. 609.

  Clulow, Elizabeth, iii. 8.

  Coates, Alexander, ii. 413.

  Cobham, Mr., ii. 351.

  Cockburn, Dr., ii. 278.

  Cocker, Jeremiah, ii. 502; iii. 226, 474.

  Coke, Dr. Thomas, iii. 16, 214, 222, 244, 271, 297, 299, 310, 334,
        361, 378, 396, 403, 421, 428-432, 478, 480-485, 492, 542, 552,
        562, 570, 580, 605.

  Colbeck, Thomas, ii. 14.

  Colchester, ii. 313, 324, 327, 334, 342; iii. 627.

  Coleford, i. 487; ii. 236; iii. 590.

  College, Methodist, proposed, ii. 360.

  Colley, Rev. Benjamin, ii. 413, 614.

  Collins, Rev. Brian, iii. 310, 315, 335, 391, 454, 573.

  Colne, ii. 15; iii. 226, 243.

  Cologne, i. 197.

  Communion of Saints, iii. 157.

  Community, The Christian, iii. 134.

  Companions, Trifling, i. 54.

  Conferences, Methodist, i. 441, 497, 527, 551; ii. 5, 60, 104, 120,
        144, 166, 187, 240, 278, 305, 333, 354, 415, 448, 474, 479,
        511, 538, 584, 608; iii. 21, 45, 70, 110, 126, 156, 177, 209,
        226, 245, 270, 302, 328, 361, 372, 396, 465, 477, 496, 547,
        584, 598, 618.

  Congleton, ii. 349; iii. 8, 165, 604.

  Coningsby, ii. 11, 327.

  Connexion, Lady Huntingdon’s, i. 5; iii. 430-432.

  Consecration of Churches, etc., ii. 512; iii. 528.

  Conversation, iii. 3.

  Conversion, Instantaneous, i. 178.

  Convicts, i. 175; ii. 27.

  Conyers, Rev. Dr., ii. 335, 473, 502.

  Coolylough, ii. 354.

  Cooper, Jane, ii. 450, 494.

  Cooper, Ezekiel, iii. 645.

  Cooper, Miss, i. 382.

  Cordeux, Rev. Mr., ii. 571.

  Cork, ii. 36, 80, 147, 237, 304; iii. 42, 269, 460.

  Cornwall, i. 415, 555; ii. 362.

  Costerdine, Robert, iii. 48.

  Coughlan, Lawrence, ii. 313; iii. 25, 177.

  Courcy, Rev. Richard de, ii. 471; iii. 65, 84.

  Coventry, iii. 295, 399.

  Coward, William, ii. 276.

  Cownley, Joseph, ii. 53, 83, 117, 129, 200, 206, 230, 253, 381, 387;
        iii. 441, 543, 581.

  Crabbe, the Poet, iii. 629.

  _Craftsman_, i. 475.

  Credulity, iii. 537.

  Creighton, Rev. James, iii. 276, 429, 434, 441.

  Cricket, John, iii. 391.

  Crook, John, iii. 228, 476.

  Crosby, Sarah, ii. 286, 289, 398, 436, 565; iii. 41, 68.

  Crowther, Jonathan, iii. 507, 581.

  Cudworth, William, i. 482; ii. 400, 527.

  Cussons, George, i. 11; ii. 410; iii. 315.

  Cutler, Ann, iii. 606.


  “Dairyman’s Daughter,” The, iii. 387, 503.

  Dales Circuit, iii. 631.

  Dall, Robert, iii. 225, 304, 532.

  Darlington, ii. 407; iii. 293, 535, 606.

  Darney, William, i. 545; ii. 128; iii. 68.

  Dartmouth, Lord, ii. 509, 511; iii. 197.

  Davenport, Rev. Thomas, iii. 383.

  Deal, i. 173.

  Deaths, Happy, i. 294, 355, 395; iii. 218, 219.

  Deed of Declaration, iii. 408, 417, 465.

  Delamotte, Charles, i. 117, 118, 134, 135, 140, 146, 164.

  Delamotte, William, i. 299.

  Delany, Dr., i. 80.

  Deleznot, Rev. Mr., i. 353.

  Delph, iii. 323.

  Demoniacs, i. 401, 531; iii. 541.

  Depravity, National, i. 62.

  Deptford, iii. 488, 490.

  Derby, ii. 398, 501; iii. 244.

  Devizes, i. 538.

  Dewsbury, iii. 275, 565.

  Dewsbury Chapel Case, iii. 551.

  Dickenson, Rev. Peard, iii. 621.

  Dillon, John, ii. 603.

  Dingle, Thomas, iii. 27.

  Dispensary opened, i. 11, 525.

  Diss, iii. 629.

  Diversions, iii. 517.

  Dixon, Rev. Mr., i. 160.

  Dixon, Thomas, iii. 295, 326, 414.

  Dobbin, Dr., quoted, iii. 660.

  Dobinson, Mr., ii. 501.

  Dodd, Dr., ii. 231, 526, 597; iii. 237-240.

  Doddridge, Dr., i. 251, 300, 383, 490, 515, 516.

  Dodwell, Rev. William, iii. 356, 383.

  Dogmatism, ii. 542.

  Doncaster, i. 493; ii. 502; iii. 618.

  Dover, ii. 339, 363, 548.

  Downes, John, i. 402, 418, 441, 518; ii. 26, 134, 226, 450, 461.

  Downes, Rev. John, ii. 342.

  Dram Drinking, ii. 390, 540; iii. 44.

  Dress, i. 139; ii. 390; iii. 413, 470, 517, 621.

  “Drummer Jack,” ii. 19.

  Drunkenness, i. 503.

  Dublin, i. 556; ii. 3, 35, 77, 82, 143, 236, 272, 301, 350, 445, 447,
        537; iii. 41, 109, 202, 206, 251, 269, 313, 392, 459, 493, 542,
        568, 623.

  _Dublin Chronicle_, iii. 570.

  _Dublin Evening Post_, iii. 568.

  Dudley, ii. 115, 500.

  Dumfries, ii. 164; iii. 532, 608.

  Dunbar, ii. 276, 471; iii. 66.

  Dundee, ii. 567.

  Dunlop, Andrew, iii. 315.

  Dunstan, Edward, i. 543.

  Durham, i. 458; ii. 277, 407, 588; iii. 610.


  Earthquakes, ii. 71, 212.

  Easingwold, iii. 473.

  Easterbrook, Rev. Joseph, iii. 35, 600.

  Easton, John, iii. 342.

  Edinberry, ii. 35, 302.

  Edinburgh, ii. 118, 470, 503, 568; iii. 63, 121, 371, 411, 534.

  Education of Children, iii. 399.

  Education of the Wesleys, i. 17.

  Edwards, John, i. 537; ii. 241.

  Edwards, Rev. Jonathan, i. 218, 500.

  Eels, William, iii. 558.

  Egginton, Rev. Mr., i. 407, 414.

  Election, i. 311, 334, 349; ii. 144, 145, 536.

  Electricity, ii. 161.

  Elizabeth, Queen, iii. 32.

  Ellison, Richard, ii. 139.

  Elmoor, Micah, i. 541.

  Elocution, ii. 60.

  Ely, iii. 178.

  Embury, Philip, ii. 146, 239, 607; iii. 47.

  England needed Methodism, i. 173.

  England, State of, i. 16, 42, 60; ii. 393; iii. 185, 286, 318.

  Enniskillen, iii. 153.

  Entwisle, Joseph, iii. 29, 509.

  Episcopacy, ii. 244, 257.

  Epitaphs, iii. 457.

  Epworth, i. 91, 387, 405, 458, 488, 493, 540; ii. 8, 120, 278, 300,
        327, 413, 473; iii. 371, 413, 539, 545, 618.

  Epworth, Fire at, i. 17.

  Epworth Rectory, i. 95.

  Erasmus, Bishop, ii. 486.

  Erskine, Rev. Ralph, i. 264.

  Escrick, George, iii. 351.

  Eustick, Mr., i. 507.

  Evans, Caleb, iii. 187, 188.

  Evans, John, i. 494.

  Evans, Rev. Theophilus, ii. 229.

  Everton, ii. 311, 331, 341, 397, 444.

  Evesham, ii. 163, 399, 560; iii. 47.

  Exeter, i. 419, 473, 554; ii. 448; iii. 302, 384, 492.


  Faith, i. 52, 167, 177, 182, 186, 238, 552; ii. 216.

  Falmouth, i. 471; ii. 279; iii. 587.

  Family Religion, i. 466.

  Fanaticism, i. 188, 395; ii. 434, 454, 460.

  Fasting, i. 81; iii. 157, 164, 179, 287, 631.

  Faversham, i. 173; ii. 548.

  Female Preaching, ii. 398; iii. 41, 111, 645.

  Fenwick, John, ii. 612.

  Fenwick, Michael, ii. 219, 278; iii. 351, 391, 522.

  Ferguson, William, iii. 394.

  Ferrars, Earl, ii. 364.

  Fetter Lane Society, i. 301, 308.

  Field Preaching, i. 227, 233, 235, 446; ii. 329, 339; iii. 588, 626.

  Final Perseverance, i. 313; ii. 135, 536.

  Fitzgerald, Lady Mary, iii. 650.

  Fleetwood, William, i. 364.

  Fletcher, Rev. John, ii. 220, 262, 299, 308, 437, 464, 556, 563; iii.
        3, 19, 34, 87, 92, 95, 100, 136, 140, 147, 158, 181, 190, 209,
        212, 232, 234, 247, 290, 361, 370, 416, 429, 463, 472, 480, 487.

  Fleury, Claude, ii. 64.

  Fleury, Rev. Mr., iii. 113.

  _Fogg’s Weekly Journal_, i. 85, 86.

  “Fool of Quality,” iii. 342.

  Foote, Samuel, ii. 366, 591.

  Fothergill, Dr., ii. 161, 174, 189.

  Foundery, Old, i. 271, 551; ii. 498; iii. 220, 303.

  Fox, John, ii. 421.

  Francke’s Orphanage, i. 199.

  Francks, Samuel, ii. 345; iii. 155, 207.

  Franklin, Benjamin, ii. 161.

  Frederica, i. 124, 131, 134.

  “Free Grace,” Sermon, i. 317, 320, 323.

  Free, Rev. Dr., ii. 321.

  Freedom of Speech, i. 497.

  French Invasion, threatened, i. 438; ii. 323.

  French Language, ii. 260.

  French Prisoners, ii. 339.

  French Revolution, iii. 597.

  Frome, i. 473; ii. 190; iii. 28.

  Fulneck, i. 544.

  Funeral, Irish, ii. 79.

  Furley, Rev. Samuel, ii. 186, 450.


  Gainsborough, ii. 330, 331, 413, 502.

  Gallatin, Colonel, ii. 117, 189.

  Gambold, Rev. John, i. 68, 70, 108, 179, 281, 337, 339, 361; iii. 222.

  Garden, Rev. Mr., i. 139, 326.

  Gardiner, Lady, ii. 470.

  Gardner, John, ii. 253.

  Garretson, Freeborn, iii. 461, 484, 566.

  Gateshead, ii. 328.

  Gawksham, ii. 275.

  Gayer, Mr., iii. 203.

  _Gentleman’s Magazine_, i. 357.

  Georgia, i. 109-117, 120, 122.

  Georgian Mission, i. 169.

  German Methodists, i. 9.

  Ghosts, i. 22.

  Gib, Rev. Adam, i. 374.

  Gibraltar, iii. 46.

  Gibson, Bishop, i. 207, 217, 244, 454, 548.

  Gifted Itinerants, ii. 84.

  Gilbert, Francis, ii. 298, 535; iii. 151.

  Gilbert, Miss Mary, ii. 535.

  Gilbert, Nathaniel, ii. 297, 535; iii. 273.

  Gilbert, Nicholas, ii. 382.

  Gill, Rev. Dr., ii. 148, 191.

  Gillies, Rev. John, ii. 164, 165, 276, 328; iii. 9.

  Girl, Starving, i. 71.

  Giving, ii. 516.

  Glasbrook, James, ii. 353, 587.

  Glasgow, ii. 164, 276, 328, 568; iii. 9, 533.

  Glass, John, ii. 293.

  Glenorchy, Lady, ii. 471, 604; iii. 64.

  Gloucester, iii. 6, 503.

  Godfathers, ii. 148.

  Goldney, Edward, ii. 375.

  Goodday, Rev. Thomas, ii. 334, 335, 606.

  Goodenough, Matthew, iii. 259.

  Gordon, Lord George, iii. 323, 341.

  Gordon Riots, iii. 318.

  _Gospel Magazine_, iii. 89, 105, 179, 233, 237, 256, 314.

  Gospel Preaching, iii. 135.

  Grant, Sir Archibald, ii. 404.

  Grant, Sir Lodowick, iii. 412.

  Grantham, iii. 356.

  Grantham, Rev. Thomas, i. 366.

  Granville, Mary, i. 74.

  Graves, Rev. C. G., i. 339, 382, 391, 406, 414.

  Green, Rev. Dr., ii. 370.

  Green, Rev. Thomas, ii. 217.

  Greenwood, Parson, iii. 352, 553-555.

  Greenwood, Paul, ii. 381.

  Gregory, Dr., iii. 122.

  Grey, Rev. Zachary, i. 325, 476.

  Griffith, Rev. Thomas, ii. 229.

  Grimsby, i. 406, 488; ii. 11, 278, 327, 502; iii. 294.

  Grimshaw, Rev. William, i. 536, 544; ii. 13, 17, 165, 166, 204, 211,
        245, 275, 327, 363, 384, 387, 412, 415, 423, 478, 573; iii. 373.

  Grou, Monsieur, ii. 11.

  Guier, Philip, ii. 144, 146.

  Guisborough, ii. 409.

  Guiseley, ii. 330.

  Gwennap, i. 524, 540; ii. 289; iii. 275, 364, 588.


  Haime, John, i. 494; ii. 164, 190.

  Hales, Rev. Dr., i. 265.

  Halifax, i. 544; ii. 12, 573; iii. 126, 291, 606.

  Hall, Westley, i. 68, 99, 117, 132, 285, 337, 496, 561; ii. 87; iii.
        212.

  Hall, Mrs., iii. 567.

  Halyburton, Thomas, i. 287.

  Hamilton, Dr. James, iii. 122, 163, 584.

  Hammet, William, iii. 441.

  Hampson, John, ii. 102, 189, 226, 381, 398, 511, 579; iii. 251, 277,
        298, 334, 420, 423, 424, 449, 534, 552.

  Hampton, i. 426.

  Hanby, Thomas, ii. 470, 560; iii. 71, 85, 118, 417, 441, 574, 602.

  Harman, John, ii. 373, 498.

  Harris, Howel, i. 220, 275, 277, 299, 307, 315, 321, 342, 349, 375,
        402, 535; ii. 68, 154, 236, 479, 555, 608; iii. 128.

  Harrison, Hannah, ii. 421; iii. 41.

  Harrison, Nathaniel, i. 384.

  Hart, Joseph, i. 364.

  Hartlepool, ii. 277, 330.

  Hartley, Rev. Thomas, ii. 518.

  Haverfordwest, ii. 595.

  Haweis, Rev. Dr., ii. 463, 499; iii. 34.

  Hawes, Dr., i. 564.

  Hawnby, ii. 277.

  Haworth, ii. 12, 33, 69, 155, 275, 330, 363, 412, 573; iii. 292, 325.

  Hayes, ii. 70.

  Hayes, Eleanor, i. 165.

  Hayfield, ii. 195.

  Healey, John, i. 440; ii. 2.

  Hebrew Points, ii. 260.

  Heck, Barbara, ii. 239, 607; iii. 47.

  Helme, John, ii. 455.

  Helmsley, ii. 335, 473, 502.

  Helstone, ii. 218, 585.

  Heptonstall, ii. 18, 141.

  Heresy, ii. 244.

  Herrnhuth, i. 199, 202-207.

  Hertford, iii. 28.

  Hervey, Rev. James, i. 68, 132, 133; ii. 194, 227, 261, 293, 315,
        526, 535; iii. 56.

  Hervey, T., i. 252.

  Hewgill, William, ii. 277.

  Hexham, i. 507.

  Hey, William, iii. 363.

  Hicks, Rev. Mr., ii. 310.

  High Churchism, i. 95, 147, 152, 160, 496.

  Hill, Rev. Rowland, iii. 106, 137, 255, 258, 266.

  Hill, Sir Richard, iii. 32, 34, 54, 75, 106, 136, 159, 179, 266.

  Hilton, John, iii. 245.

  Hinckley, iii. 295, 392.

  Hitchcock, Rev. Dr., ii. 428.

  Hitchins, Thomas, i. 524.

  Hoblin, Rev. Mr., i. 417.

  Hobson, Elizabeth, iii. 10.

  Hodges, Rev. John, i. 442.

  Hodgson, Ralph, iii. 536.

  Holder, George, iii. 362, 593, 631.

  Holland, i. 196; iii. 393, 487.

  “Honest Munchin,” i. 413.

  Hooker, Mr., i. 326.

  Hopkey, Miss, i. 146-149, 169.

  Hopper, Christopher, i. 543, 545; ii. 52, 75, 118, 254, 381, 383,
        404, 407, 462, 612; iii. 152, 169, 297, 355, 382.

  Horncastle, ii. 327, 413, 566.

  Horne, Bishop, ii. 457; iii. 34.

  Horne, Melville, i. 11.

  Horton, John, iii. 17, 650, 655.

  Hoskins, John, iii. 176.

  Hosmer, John, ii. 408.

  Hospital, Methodist, proposed, ii. 360.

  How, John, ii. 290.

  Howard, John, iii. 495, 581.

  Huddersfield, ii. 274, 414, 541; iii. 292.

  Hull, ii. 139, 330, 410; iii. 473, 538, 611.

  Humane Society, Royal, iii. 251.

  Hume, David, iii, 121.

  Humphreys, Dr., i. 141.

  Humphreys, Joseph, i. 346, 402.

  Hunt, John, ii. 606.

  Huntingdon, Lady, i. 339, 341, 369, 381; ii. 20, 68, 245, 326, 337,
        364, 448, 462, 508, 556, 604; iii. 2, 34, 59, 73, 88, 92, 431.

  Hurd, Dr., ii. 493.

  Husk, General, i. 492.

  Hutchins, Mr., i. 179.

  Hutchinson, John, ii. 260; iii. 491.

  Hutton, James, i. 108, 132, 181, 182, 236, 298, 300, 307, 342, 420,
        477; ii. 158, 159, 220, 222.

  Hutton, Mrs., i. 189.

  Hutton, Rev. Mr., i. 189.

  Hutton Rudby, ii. 409, 570.

  Hymn Book, Methodist, ii. 181; iii. 343.

  Hymn Singing in Scotland, ii. 164.

  Hymn Writing, i. 397.

  “Hymns and Sacred Poems,” i. 290.


  I‘Anson, Mr., ii. 358.

  Ilkestone, iii. 475.

  Imputed Righteousness, ii. 458, 469, 551; iii. 14.

  Infidelity and Popery, i. 140.

  Infidelity at Oxford, i. 65.

  Ingham, Benjamin, i. 68, 108, 117, 118, 122, 126, 127, 135, 137, 196,
        198, 250, 277, 299, 306, 328, 338; ii. 116, 164, 166, 534; iii.
        255.

  Innys, Rev. Mr., i. 538.

  Inverness, iii. 65, 293, 507.

  Ireland, i. 556.

  Irish Methodists, iii. 42, 227.

  Irish Primitive Methodists, i. 6.

  Isle of Man, iii. 228, 241, 354, 593.

  Isle of Wight, i. 121, 171; ii. 304; iii. 386.

  Itinerancy, iii. 167, 168, 561.

  Itinerant Preachers Advised, ii. 163, 199.

  Itinerant Preachers in 1744, i. 459.


  Jackson, Daniel, iii. 598.

  Jackson, Thomas, ii. 114.

  Jaco, Peter, i. 555; iii. 297.

  Jane, John, ii. 75.

  Janitor, Grateful, i. 24.

  Jarratt, Rev. Mr., iii. 151.

  Jenkins, Herbert, i. 537.

  Jephson, Rev. Alexander, ii. 369.

  Johnson, Dr. Samuel, i. 51, 61; iii. 185, 238, 294, 406.

  Johnson, John, ii. 359, 383.

  Johnson, Miss, iii. 272.

  Johnson, Thomas, ii. 416.

  Jones, Jacob, iii. 651.

  Jones, Rev. Griffith, i. 221.

  Jones, Rev. John, ii. 11, 202, 203, 358, 486, 507; iii. 205.

  Jones, Rev. Thomas, ii. 324.

  Jumpers, Welsh, ii. 480.

  Justification, i. 52, 306, 443, 497.


  Keighley, i. 544; ii. 330; iii. 243, 289.

  Keighley, Joshua, iii. 441, 507.

  Keith, Jeannie, i. 542; ii. 52, 166.

  Kelso, ii. 276; iii. 371.

  Kempis, Thomas à, i. 33-36, 106; iii. 631.

  Kendal, ii. 164, 505, 535.

  Kennicott, Dr., i. 448.

  Kennington Common, i. 228.

  Kershaw, James, ii. 531, 535; iii. 362.

  Kilham, Alexander, iii. 408, 504.

  Kinchin, Charles, i. 67, 225.

  King, Archbishop, iii. 643.

  King, John, iii. 207.

  King, Lord, i. 508.

  Kingsford, William, iii. 562.

  Kingswood, i. 227, 268, 519; ii. 34, 75, 86, 89, 290, 425; iii. 110.

  Kingswood School, i. 269; ii. 7, 121, 171, 241, 287, 297, 454, 559;
        iii. 51, 70, 129, 367, 396-400.

  Kinnard, iii. 41.

  Kinsale, ii. 147, 354; iii. 460.

  Kirkby, Rev. John, ii. 70.

  Kirkham, Robert, i. 49.

  Knaresborough, ii. 411.

  Knight, Titus, ii. 573.

  Knox, Alexander, ii. 536, 577.

  Koker, Dr., i. 196; ii. 57.


  Lackington, James, i. 550.

  Lacy, David, ii. 275.

  Lambeth, iii. 217, 649.

  Lancaster, John, iii. 416.

  Lancaster, Rev. Nathaniel, ii. 616.

  Land, Rev. Tristam, i. 242.

  Landau Church, i. 458.

  Lane End, iii. 411, 472.

  Laneast, i. 458.

  Langhorne, Dr., ii. 213, 455.

  Langston, Mr., ii. 375.

  Languages, ii. 135.

  Larwood, Samuel, ii. 187.

  Latrobe, Benjamin, i. 556.

  Laughing, i. 293.

  Launceston, ii. 190, 218, 361.

  Lavington, Bishop, ii. 23, 91, 134, 150.

  Law, William, i. 50, 83, 99, 132, 185-187, 284, 330, 399; ii. 63,
        265, 269; iii. 36.

  Lay Preaching, i. 201, 276; ii. 246.

  Learning, Wesley on, i. 367; ii. 64, 491.

  Leatherhead, iii. 650.

  Lee, Thomas, ii. 572; iii. 326, 327.

  Leeds, i. 490, 495, 513; ii. 2, 33, 120, 139, 166, 316, 399, 448,
        584; iii. 45, 68, 126, 206, 270, 292, 356, 415.

  Leek, iii. 118.

  Lefevre, Mrs., ii. 109.

  Leicester, ii. 170, 281.

  Leifchild, Rev. Dr., iii. 488.

  Leighton Buzzard, iii. 114.

  Leith, iii. 123.

  Leland, Dr. Thomas, ii. 493.

  Lending Society, i. 550.

  Leominster, i. 524.

  Letters for first time published, i. 26, 27, 29, 37, 94, 131, 132,
        136, 137, 224, 233, 306, 312; ii. 112, 167, 201, 253, 281, 360,
        416, 503, 508, 563, 564, 612; iii. 3, 5, 31, 54, 55, 69, 70,
        72, 78, 83, 88, 95, 150, 177, 204, 212, 225, 230, 273, 277,
        284, 288, 289, 293, 304, 315, 324, 336, 337, 349, 355, 358,
        376, 377, 378, 382, 392, 404, 408, 428, 442, 454, 467, 477,
        482, 486, 491, 497, 507, 522, 525, 532, 542-544, 546, 565, 580,
        590, 592, 598, 601, 605, 621, 632, 633, 643, 649.

  Leven, Lord, iii. 412.

  Lewen, Miss, ii. 588.

  Ley, William, ii. 353; iii. 17.

  Leytonstone, ii. 287.

  Libraries, i. 499.

  Licensing Chapels, iii. 511.

  Lichfield, Bishop of, i. 61.

  Limerick, ii. 36, 37, 78, 354, 448; iii. 460.

  Lincoln, iii. 327, 617.

  Lisbon, Earthquake at, ii. 223.

  Lisburn, ii. 240, 445; iii. 154.

  Liskeard, ii. 290.

  List of Itinerants, ii. 126.

  Liverpool, ii. 196, 274, 301, 328, 448, 566, 600; iii. 9, 486, 590.

  Lloyd, Rev. David, iii. 402.

  Lloyd, Rev. Richard, ii. 79.

  _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, ii. 348, 388, 428.

  Logic, ii. 90.

  _London Chronicle_, ii. 460.

  London Circuit Plan in 1792, iii. 223.

  _London Daily Post_, ii. 58.

  _London Evening Post_, i. 473.

  London in 1739, i. 213.

  _London Magazine_, ii. 292, 427.

  London Methodist Chapels, ii. 89; iii. 216.

  London Methodist Day School, i. 550.

  London Methodist Society, i. 420, 461, 489.

  Londonderry, ii. 536; iii. 42, 202.

  Longden, Henry, iii. 474.

  Longridge, Michael, iii. 604.

  Lots, Casting, i. 147, 232, 323, 531.

  Loughborough, iii. 69.

  Lovefeast at Fetter Lane, i. 229.

  Lovefeasts, Methodist, ii. 341, 539.

  Lowes, Matthew, iii. 6, 70, 71, 78.

  Lowestoft, ii. 512; iii. 628.

  Lowth, Bishop, ii. 596; iii. 251, 332.

  Loyalty, Methodist, i. 439, 440, 491; iii. 235, 236, 286.

  Lunell, Mr., i. 557; ii. 5.

  Lurgan, ii. 303, 445; iii. 202.

  Lutheran Reformation, i. 2.

  Luton, iii. 114.

  Lynn, iii. 629.


  McAllum, Duncan, iii. 272, 293, 497, 507, 565.

  Macaulay, Lord, iii. 660.

  Macclesfield, ii. 448; iii. 8, 165, 370, 393, 404, 493, 501, 605.

  M‘Donald, James, iii. 630.

  M‘Geary, John, iii. 493.

  M‘Geary, Thomas, iii. 399.

  M‘Gowan, John, ii. 407; iii. 34, 314.

  Machiavel, Nicholas, i. 134.

  M‘Kersey, J., iii. 466.

  Mackford, Mr., ii. 14.

  Mackie, George, iii. 134.

  M‘Nab, Alexander, iii. 84, 85, 303, 348, 559.

  Madan, Rev. Martin, ii. 283, 448, 499, 556.

  Maddox, Mr., iii. 421.

  Madeley, ii. 299; iii. 290, 370, 411, 472, 603.

  Maldon, ii. 300.

  Malton, ii. 570.

  Manchester, i. 92, 174, 545; ii. 138, 164, 327, 399, 448, 478, 540;
        iii. 119, 313, 337, 350, 353, 393, 411, 416, 496, 605.

  Mann, John, iii. 544.

  Manners, John, ii. 415, 570.

  Manners, Nicholas, ii. 306; iii. 559.

  Manning, Rev. Charles, i. 551; ii. 70, 101.

  March, Miss, iii. 177.

  Marienbourn, i. 197.

  Marriage with deceased wife’s sister, ii. 259.

  Marriages, Improper, iii. 364, 640.

  Marriott, Thomas, i. 465.

  Marvellous Escape, iii. 169.

  Mary, Queen of Scotland, iii. 32.

  Maskew, Jonathan, ii. 411; iii. 68.

  Mason, John, ii. 170; iii. 598.

  Mason, William, iii. 75.

  Massiot, James, ii. 304.

  Mathematics, ii. 389.

  Mather, Alexander, ii. 184, 488; iii. 155, 204, 327, 375, 441, 478,
        553, 558, 575.

  Maud, Rev. J., i. 474.

  Maxfield, Thomas, i. 274, 302, 369, 454, 470; ii. 381, 432, 436, 440,
        450, 454, 462, 464, 474, 482, 486, 507, 556; iii. 26, 59, 115,
        261, 296.

  Maxwell, Lady, ii. 471, 503, 603; iii. 40, 65, 84, 86, 561.

  Mayer, Matthew, ii. 328, 473; iii 290.

  Mayor, First Methodist, ii. 274.

  Mayor of Grampound, ii. 290.

  Means of Grace, i. 304.

  Mears, William, iii. 622.

  Meek, Jenny, i. 487.

  Meggot, Samuel, ii. 472.

  Mellar Barn, ii. 142.

  Meriton, Rev. John, i. 442, 458, 539; ii. 3.

  Merryweather, George, ii. 408, 415, 565, 612; iii. 69, 83.

  Methodism, Growth of, ii. 538.

  Methodism’s first Lay Preacher, i. 274.

  Methodist Episcopal Church, i. 8.

  Methodist Manifestoes, i. 484; ii. 533.

  Methodist, Name of, i. 67, 331.

  Methodist New Connexion, i. 5.

  Methodist Newspapers, i. 11.

  Methodism, Perpetuation of, iii. 49.

  Methodist Protestant Church, i. 9.

  Methodist Statistics, i. 7, 9; ii. 608, 609; iii. 330, 620.

  Methodists not perfect, ii. 540, 580.

  Middleton, Dr. Conyers, ii. 34, 61.

  Middleton, John, ii. 409.

  Midsomer Norton, iii. 231.

  Mill, Peter, iii. 573.

  Millard, Henry, i. 453.

  Millenarianism, ii. 220, 521; iii. 544.

  Miller, Robert, ii. 483; iii. 626.

  Milner, Rev. J., ii. 116, 141, 164, 166, 330.

  Milton, John, ii. 495.

  Ministerial Responsibility, iii. 121.

  Ministers, Unconverted, iii. 564.

  Minulla, ii. 304.

  Miracles, i. 531; ii. 87.

  Missionary Collection, First Methodist, ii. 606.

  Missionary Report, First Methodist, iii. 480.

  Missionaries, Wesley on, i. 135, 142; ii. 606.

  Missions, Methodist, iii. 46; iii. 272-274, 480-484.

  Missions to India proposed, iii. 483.

  Mitchell, Thomas, ii. 44, 381; iii. 68.

  “Mitre,” The, ii. 241, 254.

  Molther, Philip H., i. 297, 301, 302.

  Monmouth, iii. 339.

  Monro, Dr., iii. 122.

  Montanists, ii. 87.

  Moon, Elizabeth, ii. 409.

  Moore, Henry, i. 147, 350; ii. 101, 115; iii. 16, 224, 246, 441, 543,
        566, 575, 598, 609, 616, 647.

  Moore, William, iii. 458.

  Moorfields, i. 214.

  Moorhouse, Michael, iii. 467.

  Moravian Missions, i. 300.

  Moravianism, i. 205, 206, 210, 281; ii. 155, 467; iii. 72.

  Moravians, i. 121, 126, 195, 279, 310, 337, 477, 478, 535; ii. 58, 95.

  Morgan, James, ii. 358; iii. 16, 23, 41.

  Morgan, R., i. 131.

  Morgan, William, i. 67, 84.

  Morley, ii. 331.

  Morley, Dr., i. 58.

  Morning Preaching, iii. 22, 167, 410.

  Morpeth, ii. 329.

  Morris, James, ii. 315.

  Moss, Richard, i. 471, 482; ii. 11.

  Murgatroyd, John, i. 385.

  Murlin, John, ii. 381; iii. 292.

  Murray, Grace, i. 541, 543; ii. 12, 45-56.

  Music, ii. 500.

  Musselburgh, ii. 118, 276.

  Myles, William, iii. 154, 568, 572, 583.

  Mystics, The, i. 133; ii. 519.


  Nantwich, ii. 163; iii. 118.

  National Alarm, iii. 267, 286.

  National Churches, i. 509.

  National Commotion, ii. 234; iii. 39.

  National Distress and its Remedies, iii. 130.

  Naval and Military Bible Society, iii. 315.

  Neath, i. 525; iii. 20.

  Nelson, John, i. 369, 381, 383, 418, 420, 441, 458, 507, 544; ii. 53,
        169, 383, 573; iii. 70, 373.

  Nervousness, iii. 274, 489.

  New Birth, i. 230.

  New Mills, iii. 9.

  New York, ii. 607; iii. 47.

  Newark, iii. 327, 491, 549.

  Newbury, iii. 29, 62, 471.

  Newcastle on Tyne, i. 385, 392, 403-405, 425, 431, 461, 483, 487,
        490, 494, 513, 541; ii. 12, 33, 49, 56, 112, 117, 120, 140,
        166, 212, 328, 406, 418, 470, 503, 537, 567, 569, 595, 603,
        606; iii. 7, 17, 66, 123, 169, 202, 215, 241, 294, 355, 412,
        573, 604, 607, 608.

  Newfoundland, iii. 25, 176, 458.

  Newgate Prison, ii. 396.

  Newlyn, i. 555; ii. 25.

  Newman, Miss, ii. 560.

  Newry, ii. 445, 600.

  Newspaper, First Methodist, i. 346.

  Newton, Rev. John, ii. 295, 314, 349, 363; iii. 33.

  Nitschmann, David, i. 117, 119, 146.

  Nitschmann, Hannah, ii. 157.

  Norris, Dr. John, i. 367.

  North, Lord, iii. 197.

  Northallerton, i. 486, 487.

  Northampton, ii. 587.

  Northtawton, ii. 544.

  Northwich, i. 547.

  Norton, Mr., ii. 256.

  Norwich, ii. 123, 189, 218, 273, 290, 309, 313, 317, 325, 333, 342,
        348, 381, 397, 444, 482, 512, 534, 615; iii. 178, 405, 465, 629.

  Norwood, ii. 290.

  “Notes on New Testament,” ii. 184, 226.

  “Notes on Old Testament,” ii. 552.

  Nottingham, i. 339, 440, 507, 518; ii. 514, 560; iii. 409, 514.

  Nova Scotia, iii. 401, 497, 545.

  Novels, iii. 172, 450.

  Nowell, Dr., iii. 32, 54, 108.


  Oastler, Robert, iii. 424.

  Oddie, James, iii. 70, 71, 420, 559, 574.

  Oglethorpe, General, i. 110, 117, 118, 122, 129, 136, 146.

  Okeley, Francis, ii. 301.

  Oldham, iii. 290, 371.

  Oldham, Adam, iii. 119.

  O’Leary, Arthur, iii. 320.

  Oliphant, Lawrence, ii. 190.

  Oliver, John, iii. 71.

  Olivers, Thomas, ii. 489, 588; iii. 41, 104, 106-108, 140, 156, 158,
        166, 181, 188, 259, 285.

  Oratorios, ii. 499.

  Ordination, i. 510.

  Ordination of Methodist Preachers, ii. 202, 487; iii. 311, 331, 427.

  Ordination Vows, i. 100.

  Original Sin, i. 443; ii. 294.

  Orphan House, Newcastle, i. 393, 519, 543.

  Orphanage, Methodist, ii. 517.

  Orton, Rev. Job, iii. 19.

  Osborn, Thomas, ii. 359.

  Osmotherley, i. 485, 487, 490, 541, 544; ii. 12, 107, 140, 212, 277,
        409.

  Otley, ii. 330, 410, 416.

  Oulton, John, ii. 370.

  Owen, Miss, iii. 129.

  Oxford, i. 174, 179, 182, 224; iii. 29, 32.

  Oxford Methodists, 66-74, 83-88, 90, 92, 106, 182, 361.


  Padiham, ii. 275; iii. 291.

  Palatines, ii. 146, 238, 354.

  Paoli, General, iii. 454.

  Papists, i. 485; ii. 384; iii. 318-323.

  Parkhurst, Dr., ii. 180.

  Pastoral Visitation, i. 420, 446; ii. 313, 580; iii. 23, 125, 164.

  Pateley, ii. 572; iii. 326.

  Pawson, John, ii. 112, 443, 511, 547; iii. 163, 221, 297, 300,
        310-312, 420, 423, 428, 441, 442, 496, 529, 557, 573, 582.

  Payne, John, ii. 493.

  Pearse, Colonel, iii. 460.

  Pearson, George, iii. 8.

  Pebworth, iii. 7.

  Peel, Sir Robert, iii. 499.

  Pembroke, iii. 20, 110.

  Penitents, i. 445.

  Penn, Rev. James, ii. 456.

  Pennington, William, ii. 532.

  Penrith, iii. 327.

  Pensford, i. 236.

  Perfection, Christian, i. 88, 288, 313, 316, 334, 339, 349, 365, 444,
        461, 498, 535, 553; ii. 215, 232, 306, 346, 399, 413, 416, 431,
        439, 442, 447, 449-453, 461, 465, 482, 494, 507, 535, 546, 550,
        562, 593, 596; iii. 12, 14, 22, 26, 59, 121, 462, 625, 633.

  Periam, Joseph, i. 247.

  Perronet, Charles, i. 559; ii. 2, 34, 84, 109, 189, 200, 201, 206,
        381, 548.

  Perronet, Edward, ii. 57, 84, 101, 104, 200, 230, 241, 254, 419.

  Perronet, Rev. Vincent, i. 512, 525; ii. 6, 8, 54, 62, 92, 104, 107,
        108, 129, 130, 149, 179, 230, 298, 467, 549; iii. 53, 96, 122,
        296, 390, 463.

  Persecution, i. 236, 238, 296, 331, 356, 396, 425, 453, 470, 547; ii.
        2, 37, 272, 291, 353.

  Persecutors, Death of, ii. 278.

  Perth, iii. 10, 120, 168.

  Peters, Sarah, ii. 27, 28.

  Philanthropy, i. 294, 332, 352; ii. 348, 467; iii. 458, 491.

  Philips, Sir John, i. 132.

  Pickering, ii. 570.

  Pickles, Joseph, ii. 411.

  Piercy, George, ii. 607.

  Piers, Rev. Henry, i. 375, 427.

  Pilkington, Mrs., ii. 77.

  Pilmoor, Joseph, iii. 47, 54, 178.

  Pine, William, iii. 188, 211.

  Piracy, i. 465.

  Pitt, Right Hon. William, iii. 450.

  Placey, ii. 276.

  Plagiarism, i. 366.

  Plainness, ii. 183.

  Playdell, Mrs., iii. 532.

  Plendelieth, Rev. Mr., iii. 13.

  Plummer, Stephen, ii. 171.

  Plymouth, i. 554; ii. 190, 361, 585; iii. 28, 384, 459, 492, 587.

  Pocklington, ii. 140, 278.

  Poor House, Methodist, i. 549.

  Popery, iii. 315, 318, 388.

  Poplar, iii. 115.

  Port Isaac, i. 555; ii. 361.

  Portadown, ii. 600.

  Portarlington, ii. 37, 78, 82, 302, 353, 447; iii. 42.

  Portsmouth, ii. 170.

  Potter, Archbishop, i. 43; ii. 16; iii. 571.

  Potter, Rev. Mr., ii. 317.

  Potto, ii. 409.

  Power, Autocratic, ii. 577; iii. 305, 309.

  Prayer Answered, i. 232; iii. 204.

  Prayer Book, Methodist, iii. 548.

  Prayer Meetings, iii. 135, 522, 623.

  Preachers’ Allowances, iii. 550.

  Preachers, how to mend, ii. 582.

  Preachers, First Methodist, iii. 455.

  Preaching, Extempore, iii. 563.

  Preaching, Gospel, ii. 130.

  Preaching the Law, ii. 84.

  Preaching, Lay, i. 369; ii. 245.

  Preaching, Methodist, i. 515.

  Predestination, i. 40, 318, 319, 366; ii. 148; iii. 14, 54.

  Preston, iii. 354.

  Preston Pans, ii. 567.

  Pretender, The, i. 42, 489.

  Price, Dr., iii. 234.

  Primitive Methodists, i. 6; ii. 609.

  Prince Edward’s Island, iii. 66.

  Pritchard, John, ii. 547.

  Protestant Association, iii. 318.

  Publications, Anti-Methodist, i. 325, 364, 426, 454, 474, 513; ii.
        180, 217, 229, 270, 291, 367, 427, 455, 489, 525, 537, 550,
        590, 616; iii. 35, 56, 79, 255, 261, 314.

  Publications, Wesley’s, i. 90, 105, 210, 288, 333, 365, 397, 430,
        463, 500, 529, 562; ii. 29, 60, 89, 135, 142, 147, 181, 191,
        220, 264, 293, 317, 345, 389, 429, 457, 494, 532, 550, 593,
        617; iii. 36, 57, 80, 112, 145, 161, 182, 210, 234, 260, 267,
        280, 315, 342, 366, 387, 406, 455, 469, 488, 515, 593, 633.

  Publow, iii. 129.

  Punctuality, iii. 539.


  Quakerism, i. 489; ii. 30; iii. 245, 246.

  Quarterly Meetings, ii. 42.

  Quarterly Visitation, i. 380; iii. 514.

  Questions to Candidates, ii. 583.

  Quick, Catherine, i. 416.

  Quincy, Rev. Samuel, i. 114, 126, 127.


  Rankin, Thomas, ii. 507, 532, 545; iii. 69, 97, 194, 248, 297, 299,
        300, 429, 441, 510, 566, 567, 575, 654.

  Reading (Berks.), ii. 218.

  Reading recommended, ii. 515; iii. 359, 632.

  Redemption, Universal, i. 535.

  Reece, Richard, iii. 29, 509.

  Reeves, Jonathan, i. 453, 454, 473.

  Religion, how to Revive, iii. 22.

  Religious Cheerfulness, i. 138.

  Religious Reformations Compared, i. 533.

  Religious Revivals, i. 218, 220, 222, 223, 467; iii. 124.

  Religious Societies, i. 254.

  Relly, James, i. 536; ii. 240, 400.

  Relly, John, i. 537.

  Renty, Monsieur de, i. 366.

  Repentance, i. 52, 497; iii. 24.

  Reprobation, i. 317; ii. 144, 145.

  Reproving Sin, iii. 622.

  Reynolds, John, ii. 484.

  Richardson, Rev. John, ii. 507, 573; iii. 222, 299.

  Rich Methodists Warned, iii. 456, 516, 519, 563, 594, 636.

  Riches, Danger of, iii. 347.

  Richmond (Yorkshire), iii. 18.

  Ridley, Mr., i. 491, 494.

  Rimius, Henry, ii. 156.

  Riots in Staffordshire, i. 407.

  Ripon, ii. 569; iii. 326.

  Ritchie, Miss, ii. 411; iii. 243, 337, 461, 621, 650, 651.

  Ritualism, i. 168.

  Robe, Rev. James, i. 222.

  Roberts, Thomas, iii. 621, 647.

  Robertson, Dr., iii. 120.

  Robin Hood’s Bay, ii. 277, 330, 409.

  Robinson, Archbishop, i. 277.

  Robinson, Henry Crabb, iii. 628.

  Rochdale, ii. 57.

  Rochester, iii. 622.

  Rodda, Richard, iii. 248, 500, 574, 590.

  Rogers, Hester Anne, iii. 166, 371, 392, 650.

  Rogers, James, iii. 178, 348, 459, 625, 649, 650, 654.

  Rolvenden, ii. 359.

  Romaine, Rev. William, ii. 219, 277, 412, 448, 459, 463, 534, 556;
        iii. 75.

  Romley, Rev. Mr., i. 405, 458, 488, 493; ii. 11.

  Roquet, Rev. James, ii. 11, 546; iii. 16, 188.

  Rotherham, ii. 69, 278, 331, 412, 502.

  Roughlee, ii. 14.

  Rousseau, iii. 58.

  Rowell, Jacob, ii. 144, 381, 565.

  Rules of Methodist Societies, i. 430.

  Rutherford, Thomas, iii. 304, 623.

  Rutherforth, Rev. Dr., ii. 490; iii. 36.

  Ryan, Sarah, ii. 109, 285, 297, 517, 562.

  Rye, iii. 566.

  Ryles, Mr., iii 8.


  Sabbath Desecration, i. 501; iii. 366, 372.

  Sacraments, i. 81, 353, 501; ii. 263; iii. 574-576.

  Sagar, William, iii. 243.

  Salisbury, ii. 87, 218; iii. 52, 503.

  Salmon, Mr., i. 117; iii. 118.

  Saltzburghers, i. 112.

  Salvation by Faith, i. 183, 238.

  Sandeman, Robert, ii. 293, 534; iii. 3.

  Sandemanianism, ii. 293, 550.

  Saunderson, Hugh, iii. 42.

  Savannah, i. 123, 126, 128, 161, 163.

  Scarborough, ii. 330, 410, 509; iii. 413.

  Schism, ii. 244.

  Schisms, i. 325, 344.

  Scilly Islands, i. 419.

  Scotch Funerals, iii. 167.

  Scotch National Assembly, ii. 567.

  Scotland, Methodism in, ii. 119.

  _Scots Magazine_, i. 239, 357.

  Scott, Captain, ii. 587.

  Scott, Francis, ii. 12.

  Scott, Sir Walter, iii. 371.

  Seabury, Dr. Samuel, iii. 440.

  Secker, Archbishop, i. 500.

  Selby, ii. 327.

  Select Societies, i. 445.

  Sellon, Rev. Walter, ii. 8, 11, 201, 281, 359, 531; iii. 54, 55, 81,
        87, 91, 108, 117, 140, 180, 408, 431.

  Separation from Church of England, ii. 198, 200, 241, 279, 317, 380,
        402, 416, 444, 477, 526, 575; iii. 12, 18, 23, 270, 278, 330,
        363, 391, 413, 431, 436, 449, 465, 468, 477, 488, 490, 496,
        511, 523, 534, 542, 545, 547, 569, 613, 634.

  Sermons before University, i. 362, 448.

  Settle, iii. 242.

  Sevenoaks, i. 376, 525; iii. 562.

  Seward, William, i. 342.

  Shackerley, ii. 18.

  Shadford, George, iii. 175, 248.

  Shaftesbury, ii. 86, 87, 218, 585.

  Sharpe, Granville, iii. 114.

  Shaw, Mrs., iii. 465.

  Sheerness, ii. 615.

  Sheffield, i. 390, 425, 488; ii. 139, 278, 328, 331, 501, 561; iii.
        48, 328, 336, 348, 474.

  Shent, William, ii. 118, 595; iii. 289, 296.

  Shepherd, Mr., i. 416, 418.

  “Shepherd of Salisbury Plain,” iii. 53.

  Shepton Mallet, i. 524; ii. 1, 2, 86; iii. 590.

  Sherlock, Bishop, ii. 72.

  Shields, i. 404; ii. 329; iii. 18, 573.

  Shirley, Lady Frances, ii. 32, 194.

  Shirley, Rev. Walter, ii. 337, 364, 380; iii. 65, 93.

  Shoreham, i. 507, 525; iii. 53.

  Short Prayers, ii. 577.

  Shrewsbury, iii. 19, 449.

  Silvester, Rev, Tipping, i. 209.

  Simeon, Rev. Charles, iii. 454, 510.

  Simpson, Rev. David, iii. 165, 336, 370, 404, 501.

  Simpson, Rev. Mr., i. 302, 303, 338, 476.

  Simpson, Thomas, iii. 397.

  Simpson, William, iii. 486, 522, 542.

  Singing, i. 398; ii. 429; iii. 20, 22, 352, 502.

  Skelton, Charles, ii. 36, 129, 134, 187, 241.

  Skerret, Rev. Dr., i. 239.

  Skircoat Green, i. 513.

  Slanders, i. 357.

  Slavery, ii. 132; iii. 114, 183, 650.

  Sleep, i. 72; iii. 357, 359.

  Sligo, ii. 354, 445; iii. 269.

  Slocomb, John, i. 440.

  Smalbroke, Bishop, i. 504.

  Smith, Christopher, ii. 408.

  Smith, John, ii. 350.

  Smith, Rev. Haddon, iii. 80.

  Smith, Rev. Thomas, iii. 337.

  Smith, William, ii. 112; iii. 16, 169, 607.

  Smyth, Agnes, iii. 241.

  Smyth, Aquila, i. 326.

  Smyth, Rev. Edward, iii. 241, 304, 313, 454, 494, 571, 572, 583, 624.

  Smuggling, ii. 277, 449, 515, 617; iii. 215.

  Snowsfields Chapel, i. 421.

  Snuff taking, ii. 540.

  Societies, Methodist, i. 278, 444.

  Society for Reformation of Manners, ii. 468.

  Society Meetings, i. 446.

  Socinianism, ii. 295.

  Soldiers, i. 432; ii. 231, 237.

  South Leigh, ii. 498.

  South Sea Bubble, i. 43.

  Southall, Mr., ii. 500.

  Southampton, iii. 503.

  Southey, Robert, i. 265; iii. 656.

  Spangenberg, Rev. Mr., i. 125, 420.

  Sparrow, Samuel, iii. 117.

  Spence, Robert, iii. 496, 539.

  Spencer, William, ii. 11.

  Spitalfields, ii. 534; iii. 25.

  St. Agnes, i. 554; ii. 289, 361.

  St. Austell, ii. 290; iii. 465, 587.

  St. Helens, iii. 371.

  St. Ives, i. 416, 453, 454, 554; ii. 87, 171, 218, 361, 587, 610.

  St. Just, i. 489, 524; ii. 25, 87, 218, 289, 361.

  Stafford, iii. 403, 411.

  Stamp, John, iii. 573.

  Stanhope, iii. 535.

  Staniforth, Samson, ii. 487.

  Stanton Harcourt, i. 174, 179.

  Stationing Preachers, iii. 271, 339, 373, 418.

  Stebbing, Rev. Dr., i. 240, 475.

  Stennett, Dr., iii. 13.

  Stephens, Joseph Rayner, iii. 462.

  Stephens, William, i. 162, 164.

  Sterne, Lawrence, ii. 369, 590; iii. 114.

  Stevens, William, iii. 648.

  Stewards, London, i. 422, 549.

  Stockport, iii. 327.

  Stockton, ii. 12, 120, 277, 330, 407; iii. 412.

  Stokesley, ii. 330.

  Stonehouse, Rev. Mr., i. 179, 305, 514.

  Stourport, iii. 602, 647.

  Strangers’ Friend Society, i. 11; iii. 252.

  Stroud, ii. 500, 535; iii. 391, 410.

  Sunday Schools, i. 10; ii. 534; iii. 414, 500, 522, 604.

  Sunderland, i. 404; ii. 140, 277, 329, 618; iii. 48, 328, 336, 348,
        474.

  Suter, Alexander, iii. 497.

  Swaddlers, i. 559.

  Swearing, i. 502.

  Sweden, Methodism in, iii. 66, 462.

  Swedenborg, iii. 59, 407.

  Swindells, Robert, ii. 2, 3, 29, 122, 129.

  Syke House, i. 458.


  Tadcaster, ii. 327, 330.

  Taunton, i. 419; ii. 133; iii. 27, 211, 214.

  Taxes, ii. 390; iii. 451.

  Taylor, David, i. 10, 382, 383, 390, 426; ii. 42.

  Taylor, Dr., ii. 18, 291, 294.

  Taylor, Rev. Mr., iii. 431.

  Taylor, Isaac, i. 266.

  Taylor, Jeremy, i. 35, 36.

  Taylor, Joseph, iii. 391, 441, 549, 574.

  Taylor, Thomas, iii. 9, 20, 177, 225, 227, 243, 246, 271, 284, 287,
        292, 306, 334, 361, 496, 544, 606, 611, 643.

  Tea Drinking, i. 521.

  Teetotalism, i. 117; iii. 111.

  Tennant, Thomas, iii. 224.

  Terryhugan, ii. 303.

  Teulon, Mr., iii. 17.

  Tewkesbury, iii. 411.

  Theatres, ii. 514.

  Theological Institution, i. 543.

  Thirsk, i. 544; ii. 567, 595; iii. 424.

  Thom, William, iii. 612.

  Thompson, Joseph, ii. 568; iii. 573.

  Thompson, Rev. Mr., i. 458; iii. 384.

  Thompson, Thomas, iii. 272.

  Thompson, William, iii. 152, 606.

  Thornton, Mrs., iii. 78.

  Thorold, Sir John, i. 132, 478.

  Thurot, Commodore, ii. 350.

  Ticket, Unique Society, ii. 188.

  Tipton, i. 406.

  Tissot, Dr., ii. 345; iii. 57.

  Tiverton, ii. 86, 87, 133; iii. 275.

  Todmorden, ii. 141.

  Told, Silas, i. 273; ii. 387; iii. 279.

  Toltschig, John, i. 196.

  Tomo Chichi, i. 114, 126.

  Tompson, Richard, ii. 214.

  Toplady, Rev. Augustus, ii. 315, 487; iii. 54, 81, 139, 158, 179,
        190, 210, 228, 232, 258, 266.

  Tottie, Rev. Dr., ii. 591.

  Towcester, ii. 348.

  Townsend, Rev. Joseph, ii. 604.

  Tract Distribution, i. 496.

  Tract Society, Methodist, i. 11; iii. 369.

  Tracts, Publication of, i. 505.

  Trapp, Rev. Dr., i. 241, 329; ii. 63.

  Tratham, David, ii. 129.

  Trelawney, Sir Harry, iii. 339.

  Trembath, John, i. 493, 558; iii. 385.

  Trevecca, ii. 236.

  Trevecca College, iii. 34, 50, 88, 128, 255.

  Tripp, Ann, ii. 289.

  Troutbeck, Dr., ii. 8.

  Trowbridge, ii. 190; iii. 338.

  Truro, ii. 449, 585; iii. 587.

  Tucker, Rev. Dr., i. 244, 399.

  Tullamore, ii. 4, 78, 303; iii. 269.

  Tunstall, iii. 604.

  Tyerman, Elizabeth, i. 486.

  Tyerman, Rev. Daniel, iii. 387.

  Tyrell’s Pass, ii. 2, 78, 353.


  Ulverstone, ii. 69.

  Union, i. 321; ii. 542.

  Union, Clerical, proposed, ii. 508.

  Union of Methodists, i. 511.

  United Methodist Free Churches, i. 6.

  Unthank, John, ii. 407.

  Uxbridge, ii. 71.


  Valton, John, iii. 337, 383, 552.

  Vasey, Thomas, iii. 428.

  Vegetarianism, i. 117, 525.

  Venn, Rev. Henry, i. 11; ii. 186, 252, 337, 412, 414, 448, 459, 541;
        iii. 18.

  Visitors, Methodist, i. 353, 422.

  Voltaire, iii. 58, 288.

  Voltaire and Wesley contrasted, i. 44.

  Vowler, Rev. Mr., ii. 279.


  Wakefield, i. 440; ii. 12, 139; iii. 184.

  Waldron, Isaac, ii. 387.

  Walker, Rev. Samuel, ii. 207, 211, 244, 250, 279, 317, 414, 585.

  Walpole, Horace, ii. 32, 72, 558.

  Walpole, Sir Robert, i. 103, 136.

  Walsal, i. 407; ii. 501.

  Walsh, Thomas, i. 462; ii. 146, 147, 200, 202, 206, 239, 261, 273,
        304, 534, 597.

  Wandsworth, ii. 25, 297.

  Wanley, Dean, ii. 570.

  Warburton, Bishop, i. 208; ii. 450, 454, 492, 519.

  Ward, Elizabeth, ii. 407.

  Ward, Valentine, ii. 471.

  Warminster, ii. 1, 308.

  Warne, Jonathan, iii. 139.

  Warrener, William, iii. 441.

  Warrington, ii. 565; iii. 352.

  Watchnight, First, i. 333.

  Watchnight Service, iii. 252.

  Waterford, ii. 147; iii. 153, 202.

  Waterland, Rev. Daniel, i. 330.

  Watson, Richard, i. 265; ii. 102.

  Watteville, Baron, i. 196.

  Watts, Dr., iii. 334, 346.

  Weardale, ii. 406, 503, 569; iii. 123, 610.

  Webb, Captain, ii. 546, 607; iii. 47, 451.

  Webster, Rev. Dr., iii. 64, 304.

  Webster, Eleazer, i. 543.

  Wednesbury, i. 406, 495; ii. 115, 348, 399, 501, 600; iii. 603.

  _Weekly Miscellany_, i. 250, 326, 358.

  Welch, Thomas, iii. 399.

  Wells, Samuel, iii. 302.

  Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, i. 4.

  Wentworth, General, i. 493.

  Wentworth House, iii. 475.

  Wesley, Charles, jun., iii. 345, 360.

  Wesley, Mrs. Charles, ii. 35; iii. 654.

  Wesley, Rev. Charles, i. 67, 117, 126-128, 131, 137, 178, 179, 181,
        188, 210, 226, 229, 232, 253, 260, 264, 279, 295, 299, 302,
        303, 310, 317, 324, 331, 336, 341, 343, 349, 404, 406, 407,
        412, 416, 425, 437, 439, 440, 448, 458, 470, 487, 506, 538,
        559; ii. 2, 6, 32-34, 40, 52, 73, 95, 101, 103, 107, 113, 118,
        122, 127, 130, 137, 138, 143, 147, 172, 175, 189, 201, 206,
        230, 244-253, 271, 307, 319, 357, 358, 361, 365, 381, 387, 388,
        396, 416, 431, 441, 448, 453, 459, 462, 487, 497, 506, 507,
        511, 556, 562, 574, 595, 596, 602; iii. 1, 5, 12, 92, 97, 100,
        135, 171, 194, 204, 207, 222, 225, 233, 246, 257, 261, 296,
        309, 312, 316, 330, 355, 376, 434, 439, 443, 478, 497, 522,
        529, 562, 659.

  Wesley Family, The, i. 16.

  Wesley’s Brother Samuel, i. 24, 29, 46, 133, 188-194, 252, 264, 286,
        287.

  Wesley’s Father, i. 16, 30, 39, 41, 45, 98, 102, 103.

  Wesley’s First Convert, i. 49.

  Wesley’s Journals Commenced, i. 35.

  Wesley’s Marriage and Wife, ii. 101, 111-115; iii. 20, 30, 84, 126,
        207, 233, 365.

  Wesley’s Mother, i. 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37-39, 127, 132, 285,
        369, 390.

  Wesley’s Nephew Samuel, iii. 345, 361.

  Wesley’s Niece Sarah, iii. 356, 524, 622, 630, 650, 651, 655.

  Wesley’s Poetry, i. 47.

  Wesley’s Sister Emily, i. 33, 94, 424; ii. 406.

  Wesley’s Sister Keziah, i. 99, 161.

  Wesley’s Sister Martha (Mrs. Hall), ii. 406, 589; iii. 16, 567.

  Wesley’s Sister Mehetabel (Mrs. Wright), ii. 74, 406.

  Wesley’s Will, in 1768, iii. 15.

  Wesley’s Will, in 1789, iii. 616.

  Wesleyan Methodism, i. 3.

  Wesleyan Reform Union, i. 7.

  West, Hon. James, ii. 234.

  West Bromwich, i. 406; iii. 7, 290.

  West Street Chapel, i. 421.

  Westall, Thomas, i. 440, 453.

  _Westminster Journal_, i. 473; ii. 397.

  Whatcoat, Richard, i. 442; iii. 428.

  Wheatley, Benjamin, i. 543.

  Wheatley, James, ii. 121, 189, 309, 313, 325.

  Wheatley, Rev. Charles, i. 240.

  Whiston, Rev. Thomas, i. 325.

  Whitaker, John, ii. 410.

  Whitby, ii. 409; iii. 68, 413, 538, 610.

  Whitchurch, ii. 339.

  White, Rev. George, ii. 15.

  Whitefield, Rev. George, i. 68, 104, 108, 132, 141, 171, 179, 221,
        226, 232, 233, 243, 247, 250, 252, 254, 269, 277, 311-316, 321,
        322, 327, 336, 342, 344, 346-349, 372, 402, 414, 426, 437, 455,
        470, 477, 506, 535; ii. 19, 22, 24, 32, 33, 42, 53, 68, 95,
        118, 132, 137, 147, 150, 154, 156, 167, 175, 185, 209, 219,
        223, 228, 234, 272, 297, 366, 371, 373, 396, 415, 416, 426,
        431, 448, 459, 463, 470, 493, 497, 537, 548, 556, 562, 595,
        608, 614; iii. 1, 34, 39, 60, 71, 76, 78, 85, 89, 255, 261.

  Whitehaven, ii. 117, 504; iii. 411.

  Whitehead, Dr., ii. 103, 474; iii. 16, 298, 616, 650, 651.

  Whitelamb, Rev. John, i. 68, 389.

  Whitfield, George, iii. 393, 557, 650.

  Whitford, John, ii. 57, 187.

  Wickedness, Abounding, i. 215, 503, 532; ii. 72.

  Wickham, ii. 141.

  Wigan, ii. 566; iii. 352, 371.

  Wilberforce, William, iii. 115, 509, 650.

  Wilder, Rev. John, i. 239.

  Wilkes, John, iii. 37, 81, 145.

  Wilkinson, Benjamin, ii. 411.

  Williams, Rev. Joseph, i. 252, 536.

  Williams, Robert, i. 429.

  Williams, Thomas, i. 557; ii. 536.

  Williams, William, ii. 481.

  Williamson, William, i. 146, 149, 163.

  Wills, Rev. Mr., iii. 431.

  Winchelsea, iii. 566, 626.

  Windsor, i. 174.

  Windsor, Robert, ii. 189.

  Winscomb, Jasper, iii. 546, 561, 601.

  Winter, Cornelius, ii. 616; iii. 128.

  Witchcraft, iii. 11, 171.

  Witness of the Spirit, i. 190-195, 201, 207, 285, 552; ii. 168, 216,
        491; iii. 24, 57.

  Witney, ii. 498.

  Wogan, William, i. 138.

  Wolfenden, Mrs., iii. 203.

  Wolff, George, iii. 589, 599, 650.

  Wolverhampton, ii. 399; iii. 7, 164, 493.

  Wood, John, iii. 354.

  Wood, Samuel, ii. 144.

  Wooler, ii. 276.

  Worcester, ii. 127; iii. 7, 647, 649.

  Worksop, iii. 328.

  Worship, Methodist, ii. 282, 576.

  Wrangel, Dr., iii. 66.

  Wray, James, iii. 546.

  Wrestlingworth, ii. 311.

  Wride, Thomas, iii. 466.

  Wright, Duncan, ii. 569; iii. 362, 522.

  Wroote, i. 57.

  Wycombe, ii. 534; iii. 241, 251.


  Yarm, ii. 12, 277, 408, 569; iii. 83.

  Yarmouth, ii. 555, 615.

  Yeadon, iii. 68.

  Yearly Collection, iii. 5, 551.

  Yewdall, Zechariah, ii. 471; iii. 338, 608.

  York, ii. 120, 140, 214, 278, 327, 410, 500, 571; iii. 539, 606.

  Yorkshire Methodism, ii. 608.


  Zeal, Christian, iii. 346.

  Zinzendorf, Count, i. 181, 196-198, 206, 298, 300, 339, 477; ii. 58,
        88, 97, 116, 220.



                       VALUABLE RELIGIOUS WORKS

                             PUBLISHED BY

                     HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.


     ☞ HARPER & BROTHERS _will send either of the following
           works by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the
           United States, on receipt of the price_.


  Barnes’s Notes on the New Testament.
    New Edition. Revised, with Maps and Illustrations. Now ready:
    _Gospels_, 2 vols.; _Acts_, 1 vol.; _Romans_, 1 vol.; _First
    Corinthians_, 1 vol.; _Second Corinthians_ and _Galatians_, 1
    vol. 12mo, Cloth, $1 50 per vol.

  Barnes’s Evidences of Christianity.
    Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity in the Nineteenth
    Century. By ALBERT BARNES. 12mo, Cloth, $1 75.

  Robertson’s Life and Works.
    Harper’s Complete Edition of the Life and Works of the Rev.
    F. W. ROBERTSON, Incumbent of Brighton. In Two Volumes. $1 50
    each.
       ROBERTSON’S LIFE, LETTERS, LECTURES ON CORINTHIANS, AND
         ADDRESSES. Complete in One Volume. With Portrait on
         Steel. Large 12mo, 840 pages, Cloth, $1 50; Half
         Calf, $3 25.
       ROBERTSON’S SERMONS. Complete in One Volume. With Portrait
         on Steel. Large 12mo, 838 pages, Cloth, $1 50; Half
         Calf, $3 25.

  Beecher’s Morning and Evening Exercises.
    Morning and Evening Devotional Exercises: selected from the
    Published and Unpublished Writings of the Rev. HENRY WARD
    BEECHER. Edited by LYMAN ABBOTT. With Portrait on Steel.
   Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 00.

  Beecher’s Sermons.
    Sermons by HENRY WARD BEECHER, Plymouth Church, Brooklyn.
    Selected from Published and Unpublished Discourses, and
    Revised by their Author. In Two Volumes. With Steel Portrait
    by Halpin. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  Light at Evening Time.
    A Book of Support and Comfort for the Aged. Edited by JOHN
    STANFORD HOLME, D.D. Printed from large type on toned paper,
    4to, Cloth, Beveled Edges, $2 50.

  Cocker’s Christianity and Greek Philosophy.
    Christianity and Greek Philosophy; or, the Relation between
    Spontaneous and Reflective Thought in Greece and the
    Positive Teaching of Christ and his Apostles. By B. F.
    COCKER, D.D., Professor of Moral and Mental Philosophy in
    Michigan University. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 75.

  Macgregor’s Rob Roy on the Jordan.
    The Rob Roy on the Jordan, Nile, Red Sea, and Gennesareth,
    &c. A Canoe Cruise in Palestine and Egypt, and the Waters of
    Damascus. By J. MACGREGOR, M.A. With Maps and Illustrations.
    Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 50.

  Krummacher’s David.
    David, the King of Israel: a Portrait drawn from Bible
    History and the Book of Psalms. By FREDERICK WILLIAM
    KRUMMACHER, D.D., Author of “Elijah the Tishbite,” &c.
    Translated under the express sanction of the Author by the
    Rev. M. G. EASTON, M.A. With a Letter from Dr. Krummacher
    to his American Readers, and a Portrait. 12mo, Cloth,
    $1 75.

  The Student’s Old Testament History.
    The Old Testament History. From the Creation to the Return of
    the Jews from Captivity. Edited by WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D. With
    Maps and Woodcuts. Large 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

  The Student’s New Testament History.
    The New Testament History. With an Introduction, connecting
    the History of the Old and New Testaments. Edited by WILLIAM
    SMITH, LL.D. With Maps and Woodcuts. Large 12mo, Cloth, $2
    00.

  M‘Whorter’s Hand-Book of the New Testament.
    A Popular Hand-Book of the New Testament. By GEORGE CUMMING
    M‘WHORTER. 16mo, Cloth, $1 00.

  M‘Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia.
    Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
    Literature. By the late Rev. JOHN M‘CLINTOCK, D.D., and JAMES
    STRONG, S.T.D. With numerous Maps and Illustrations. Vols.
    I.-IV., comprising the Letters A to J, are now ready. Price
    per vol., in Cloth, $5 00; Sheep, $6 00; Half Morocco, $8 00.

  The Land and the Book.
    Or, Biblical Illustrations drawn from the Manners and
    Customs, the Scenes and the Scenery of the Holy Land. By W.
    M. THOMSON, D.D., Twenty-five Years a Missionary of the
    A.B.C.F.M. in Syria and Palestine. With two elaborate Maps of
    Palestine, an accurate Plan of Jerusalem, and Several Hundred
    Engravings, representing the Scenery, Topography, and
    Productions of the Holy Land, and the Costumes, Manners, and
    Habits of the People. Two elegant Large 12mo Volumes, Cloth,
    $5 00; Sheep, $6 00; Half Calf, $8 50.

  Southey’s Wesley.
    Life of John Wesley, and the Rise and Progress of Methodism.
    By ROBERT SOUTHEY, LL.D. With Notes by the late SAMUEL T.
    COLERIDGE, and Remarks on the Life and Character of John
    Wesley by the late ALEXANDER KNOX. Edited by the Rev. CHARLES
    C. SOUTHEY, M.A. Second American Edition, with Notes, &c., by
    the Rev. DANIEL CURRY, D.D. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $2 50.

  Taylor’s Wesley and Methodism.
    By ISAAC TAYLOR. 12mo, Cloth, $1 50.


 ☞ _For a full list of_ HARPER & BROTHERS’ _Publications, including
      many works of great interest on Religious, Historical, and
        Social topics, as well as the most important books of
          Travel and Adventure, see_ HARPER’S CATALOGUE,
            _which will be sent by mail on receipt
                of Six Cents in postage stamps_.



                        VALUABLE STANDARD WORKS

                   FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES,

               PUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.


  ☞ _For a full List of Books suitable for Libraries, see_
       HARPER & BROTHERS’ TRADE-LIST _and_ CATALOGUE, _which
       may be had gratuitously on application to the
       Publishers personally, or by letter enclosing Five
       Cents_.

  ☞ HARPER & BROTHERS _will send any of the following works by
       mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States,
       on receipt of the price_.


  MOTLEY’S DUTCH REPUBLIC. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. By
    JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY, LL.D., D.C.L. With a Portrait of William
    of Orange. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 50.

  MOTLEY’S UNITED NETHERLANDS. History of the United Netherlands:
    from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Years’
    Truce--1609. With a full View of the English-Dutch Struggle
    against Spain, and of the Origin and Destruction of the
    Spanish Armada. By JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY, LL.D., D.C.L.
    Portraits. 4 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $14 00.

  NAPOLEON’S LIFE OF CÆSAR. The History of Julius Cæsar. By His
    Imperial Majesty NAPOLEON III. Two Volumes ready. Library
    Edition, 8vo, Cloth, $3 50 per vol.

       _Maps to Vols. I. and II. sold separately. Price
       $1 50 each_, NET.

  HAYDN’S DICTIONARY OF DATES, relating to all Ages and Nations.
    For Universal Reference. Edited by BENJAMIN VINCENT,
    Assistant Secretary and Keeper of the Library of the Royal
    Institution of Great Britain; and Revised for the Use of
    American Readers. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00; Sheep, $6 00.

  MACGREGOR’S ROB ROY ON THE JORDAN. The Rob Roy on the Jordan,
    Nile, Red Sea, and Gennesareth, &c. A Canoe Cruise in
    Palestine and Egypt, and the Waters of Damascus. By J.
    MACGREGOR, M.A. With Maps and Illustrations. Crown 8vo,
    Cloth, $2 50.

  WALLACE’S MALAY ARCHIPELAGO. The Malay Archipelago: the Land of
    the Orang-Utan and the Bird of Paradise. A Narrative of
    Travel, 1854-1862. With Studies of Man and Nature. By ALFRED
    RUSSEL WALLACE. With Ten Maps and Fifty-one Elegant
    Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

  WHYMPER’S ALASKA. Travel and Adventure in the Territory of
    Alaska, formerly Russian America--now Ceded to the United
    States--and in various other parts of the North Pacific. By
    FREDERICK WHYMPER. With Map and Illustrations. Crown 8vo,
    Cloth, $2 50.

  ORTON’S ANDES AND THE AMAZON. The Andes and the Amazon; or,
    Across the Continent of South America. By JAMES ORTON, M.A.,
    Professor of Natural History in Vassar College, Poughkeepsie,
    N. Y., and Corresponding Member of the Academy of Natural
    Sciences, Philadelphia. With a New Map of Equatorial America
    and numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 00.

  WINCHELL’S SKETCHES OF CREATION. Sketches of Creation: a
    Popular View of some of the Grand Conclusions of the Sciences
    in reference to the History of Matter and of Life. Together
    with a Statement of the Intimations of Science respecting the
    Primordial Condition and the Ultimate Destiny of the Earth
    and the Solar System. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL, LL.D., Professor
    of Geology, Zoology, and Botany in the University of
    Michigan, and Director of the State Geological Survey. With
    Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

  WHITE’S MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. The Massacre of St.
    Bartholomew: Preceded by a History of the Religious Wars in
    the Reign of Charles IX. By HENRY WHITE, M.A. With
    Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $1 75.

  LOSSING’S FIELD-BOOK OF THE REVOLUTION. Pictorial Field-Book of
    the Revolution; or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of the
    History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War
    for Independence. By Benson J. Lossing. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth,
    $14 00; Sheep, $15 00; Half Calf, $18 00; Full Turkey Morocco,
    $22 00.

  LOSSING’S FIELD-BOOK OF THE WAR OF 1812. Pictorial Field-Book
    of the War of 1812; or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of
    the History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of
    the Last War for American Independence. By BENSON J. LOSSING.
    With several hundred Engravings on Wood, by Lossing and
    Barritt, chiefly from Original Sketches by the Author. 1088
    pages, 8vo, Cloth, $7 00; Sheep, $8 50; Half Calf, $10 00.

  ALFORD’S GREEK TESTAMENT. The Greek Testament: with a
    critically revised Text; a Digest of Various Readings;
    Marginal References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage;
    Prolegomena; and a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. For
    the Use of Theological Students and Ministers. By HENRY
    ALFORD, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. Vol. I., containing the
    Four Gospels. 944 pages, 8vo, Cloth, $6 00; Sheep, $6 50.

  ABBOTT’S FREDERICK THE GREAT. The History of Frederick the
    Second, called Frederick the Great. By JOHN S. C. ABBOTT.
    Elegantly Illustrated. 8vo,
             Cloth, $5 00.

  ABBOTT’S HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The French
    Revolution of 1789, as viewed in the Light of Republican
    Institutions. By JOHN S. C. ABBOTT. With 100 Engravings. 8vo,
    Cloth, $5 00.

  ABBOTT’S NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. The History of Napoleon Bonaparte.
    By JOHN S. C. ABBOTT. With Maps, Woodcuts, and Portraits on
    Steel. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 00.

  ABBOTT’S NAPOLEON AT ST. HELENA; or, Interesting Anecdotes and
    Remarkable Conversations of the Emperor during the Five and a
    Half Years of his Captivity. Collected from the Memorials of
    Las Casas, O’Meara, Montholon, Antommarchi, and others. By
    JOHN S. C. ABBOTT. With Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  ADDISON’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Works of Joseph Addison,
    embracing the whole of the “Spectator.” Complete in 3 vols.,
    8vo, Cloth, $6 00.

  ALCOCK’S JAPAN. The Capital of the Tycoon: a Narrative of a
    Three Years’ Residence in Japan. By Sir RUTHERFORD ALCOCK,
    K.C.B., Her Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
    Plenipotentiary in Japan. With Maps and Engravings. 2 vols.,
    12mo, Cloth, $3 50.

  ALISON’S HISTORY OF EUROPE. FIRST SERIES: From the Commencement
    of the French Revolution, in 1789, to the Restoration of the
    Bourbons, in 1815. [In addition to the Notes on Chapter
    LXXVI., which correct the errors of the original work
    concerning the United States, a copious Analytical Index has
    been appended to this American edition.] SECOND SERIES: From
    the Fall of Napoleon, in 1815, to the Accession of Louis
    Napoleon, in 1852. 8 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $16 00.

  BALDWIN’S PRE-HISTORIC NATIONS. Pre-Historic Nations; or,
    Inquiries concerning some of the Great Peoples and
    Civilizations of Antiquity, and their Probable Relation to a
    still Older Civilization of the Ethiopians or Cushites of
    Arabia. By JOHN D. BALDWIN, Member of the American Oriental
    Society. 12mo, Cloth, $1 75.

  BARTH’S NORTH AND CENTRAL AFRICA. Travels and Discoveries in
    North and Central Africa: being a Journal of an Expedition
    undertaken under the Auspices of H. B. M.’s Government, in
    the Years 1849-1855. By HENRY BARTH, Ph.D., D.C.L.
    Illustrated. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $12 00.

  HENRY WARD BEECHER’S SERMONS. Sermons by HENRY WARD BEECHER,
    Plymouth Church, Brooklyn. Selected from Published and
    Unpublished Discourses, and Revised by their Author. With
    Steel Portrait. Complete in 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  LYMAN BEECHER’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, &c. Autobiography,
    Correspondence, &c., of Lyman Beecher, D.D. Edited by his
    Son, CHARLES BEECHER. With Three Steel Portraits, and
    Engravings on Wood. In 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $5 00.

  BOSWELL’S JOHNSON. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Including
    a Journey to the Hebrides. By JAMES BOSWELL, Esq. A New
    Edition, with numerous Additions and Notes. By JOHN WILSON
    CROKER, LL.D., F.R.S. Portrait of Boswell. 2 vols., 8vo,
    Cloth, $4 00. DRAPER’S CIVIL WAR. History of the American
    Civil War. By JOHN W. DRAPER, M.D., LL.D., Professor of
    Chemistry and Physiology in the University of New York. In
    Three Vols. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50 per vol.

  DRAPER’S INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. A History of the
    Intellectual Development of Europe. By JOHN W. DRAPER, M.D.,
    LL.D., Professor of Chemistry and Physiology in the
    University of New York. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  DRAPER’S AMERICAN CIVIL POLICY. Thoughts on the Future Civil
    Policy of America. By JOHN W. DRAPER, M.D., LL.D., Professor
    of Chemistry and Physiology in the University of New York.
    Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 50.

  DU CHAILLU’S AFRICA. Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial
    Africa: with Accounts of the Manners and Customs of the
    People, and of the Chase of the Gorilla, the Crocodile,
    Leopard, Elephant, Hippopotamus, and other Animals. By PAUL
    B. DU CHAILLU. Numerous Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  BELLOWS’S OLD WORLD. The Old World in its New Face: Impressions
    of Europe in 1867-1868. By HENRY W. BELLOWS. 2 vols., 12mo,
    Cloth, $3 50.

  BRODHEAD’S HISTORY OF NEW YORK. History of the State of New
    York. By JOHN ROMEYN BRODHEAD. 1609-1691. 2 vols. 8vo, Cloth,
    $3 00 per vol.

  BROUGHAM’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Life and Times of HENRY, LORD
    BROUGHAM. Written by Himself. In Three Volumes. 12mo, Cloth,
    $2 00 per vol.

  BULWER’S PROSE WORKS. Miscellaneous Prose Works of Edward
    Bulwer, Lord Lytton. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 50.

  BULWER’S HORACE. The Odes and Epodes of Horace. A Metrical
    Translation into English. With Introduction and Commentaries.
    By LORD LYTTON. With Latin Text from the Editions of Orelli,
    Macleane, and Yonge. 12mo, Cloth, $1 75.

  BULWER’S KING ARTHUR. A Poem. By EARL LYTTON. New Edition.
    12mo, Cloth, $1 75.

  BURNS’S LIFE AND WORKS. The Life and Works of Robert Burns.
    Edited by ROBERT CHAMBERS. 4 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $6 00.

  REINDEER, DOGS, AND SNOW-SHOES. A Journal of Siberian Travel
    and Explorations made in the Years 1865-’67. By RICHARD J.
    BUSH, late of the Russo-American Telegraph Expedition.
    Illustrated. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $3 00.

  CARLYLE’S FREDERICK THE GREAT. History of Friedrich II., called
    Frederick the Great. By THOMAS CARLYLE. Portraits, Maps,
    Plans, &c. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $12 00.

  CARLYLE’S FRENCH REVOLUTION. History of the French Revolution.
    Newly Revised by the Author, with Index, &c. 2 vols., 12mo,
    Cloth, $3 50.

  CARLYLE’S OLIVER CROMWELL. Letters and Speeches of Oliver
    Cromwell. With Elucidations and Connecting Narrative. 2
    vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 50.

  CHALMERS’S POSTHUMOUS WORKS. The Posthumous Works of Dr.
    Chalmers. Edited by his Son-in-Law, Rev. WILLIAM HANNA, LL.D.
    Complete in 9 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $13 50.

  COLERIDGE’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor
    Coleridge. With an Introductory Essay upon his Philosophical
    and Theological Opinions. Edited by Professor SHEDD. Complete
    in Seven Vols. With a fine Portrait. Small 8vo, Cloth, $10
    50.

  CURTIS’S HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. History of the Origin,
    Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United
    States. By GEORGE TICKNOR CURTIS. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $6 00.

  DOOLITTLE’S CHINA. Social Life of the Chinese: with some
    Account of their Religious, Governmental, Educational, and
    Business Customs and Opinions. With special but not exclusive
    Reference to Fuhchau. By Rev. JUSTUS DOOLITTLE, Fourteen
    Years Member of the Fuhchau Mission of the American Board.
    Illustrated with more than 150 characteristic Engravings on
    Wood. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $5 00.

  GIBBON’S ROME. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
    Empire. By EDWARD GIBBON. With Notes by Rev. H. H. MILMAN and
    M. GUIZOT. A new cheap Edition. To which is added a complete
    Index of the whole Work, and a Portrait of the Author. 6
    vols., 12mo, Cloth, $9 00.

  HARPER’S NEW CLASSICAL LIBRARY. Literal Translations.
    The following Volumes are now ready. Portraits. 12mo, Cloth,
       $1 50 each.
    CÆSAR.--VIRGIL.--SALLUST.--HORACE.--CICERO’S ORATIONS.--
       CICERO’S OFFICES, &C.--CICERO ON ORATORY AND ORATORS.--
       TACITUS (2 vols.).--TERENCE.--SOPHOCLES.--JUVENAL.--
       XENOPHON.--HOMER’S ILIAD.--HOMER’S ODYSSEY.--HERODOTUS.--
       DEMOSTHENES.--THUCYDIDES.--ÆSCHYLUS.--EURIPIDES
       (2 vols.).--LIVY (2 vols.).

  DAVIS’S CARTHAGE. Carthage and her Remains: being an Account of
    the Excavations and Researches on the Site of the Phœnician
    Metropolis in Africa and other adjacent Places. Conducted
    under the Auspices of Her Majesty’s Government. By Dr. DAVIS,
    F.R.G.S. Profusely Illustrated with Maps, Woodcuts,
    Chromo-Lithographs, &c. 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

  EDGEWORTH’S (MISS) NOVELS. With Engravings. 10 vols., 12mo,
    Cloth, $15 00.

  GROTE’S HISTORY OF GREECE. 12 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $18 00.

  HELPS’S SPANISH CONQUEST. The Spanish Conquest in America, and
    its Relation to the History of Slavery and to the Government
    of Colonies. By ARTHUR HELPS. 4 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $6 00.

  HALE’S (MRS.) WOMAN’S RECORD. Woman’s Record; or, Biographical
    Sketches of all Distinguished Women, from the Creation to the
    Present Time. Arranged in Four Eras, with Selections from
    Female Writers of each Era. By Mrs. SARAH JOSEPHA HALE.
    Illustrated with more than 200 Portraits. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  HALL’S ARCTIC RESEARCHES. Arctic Researches and Life among the
    Esquimaux: being the Narrative of an Expedition in Search of
    Sir John Franklin, in the Years 1860, 1861, and 1862. By
    CHARLES FRANCIS HALL. With Maps and 100 Illustrations. The
    Illustrations are from Original Drawings by Charles Parsons,
    Henry L. Stephens, Solomon Eytinge, W. S. L. Jewett, and
    Granville Perkins, after Sketches by Captain Hall. 8vo,
    Cloth, $5 00.

  HALLAM’S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from the Accession
    of Henry VII. to the Death of George II. 8vo, Cloth, $2 00.

  HALLAM’S LITERATURE. Introduction to the Literature of Europe
    during the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries.
    By HENRY HALLAM. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

  HALLAM’S MIDDLE AGES. State of Europe during the Middle Ages.
    By HENRY HALLAM. 8vo, Cloth, $2 00.

  HILDRETH’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. FIRST SERIES: From the
    First Settlement of the Country to the Adoption of the
    Federal Constitution. SECOND SERIES: From the Adoption of the
    Federal Constitution to the End of the Sixteenth Congress. 6
    vols., 8vo, Cloth, $18 00.

  HUME’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. History of England, from the
     Invasion of Julius Cæsar to the Abdication of James II.,
     1688. By DAVID HUME. A new Edition, with the Author’s last
     Corrections and Improvements. To which is Prefixed a short
     Account of his Life, written by Himself. With a Portrait of
     the Author. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $9 00.

  JAY’S WORKS. Complete Works of Rev. William Jay: comprising his
    Sermons, Family Discourses, Morning and Evening Exercises for
    every Day in the Year, Family Prayers, &c. Author’s enlarged
    Edition, revised. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $6 00.

  JEFFERSON’S DOMESTIC LIFE. The Domestic Life of Thomas
    Jefferson: compiled from Family Letters and Reminiscences by
    his Great-Granddaughter, SARAH N. RANDOLPH. With
    Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Illuminated Cloth, Beveled Edges,
    $2 50.

  JOHNSON’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D.
    With an Essay on his Life and Genius, by ARTHUR MURPHY, Esq.
    Portrait of Johnson. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

  KINGLAKE’S CRIMEAN WAR. The Invasion of the Crimea, and an
    Account of its Progress down to the Death of Lord Raglan. By
    ALEXANDER WILLIAM KINGLAKE. With Maps and Plans. Two Vols.
    ready. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00 per vol.

  KINGSLEY’S WEST INDIES. At Last: A Christmas in the West
    Indies. By CHARLES KINGSLEY. Illustrated. 12mo, Cloth, $1 50.

  KRUMMACHER’S DAVID, KING OF ISRAEL. David, the King of
    Israel: a Portrait drawn from Bible History and the Book of
    Psalms. By FREDERICK WILLIAM KRUMMACHER, D.D., Author of
    “Elijah the Tishbite,” &c. Translated under the express
    Sanction of the Author by the Rev. M. G. EASTON, M.A. With a
    Letter from Dr. Krummacher to his American Readers, and a
    Portrait. 12mo, Cloth, $1 75.

  LAMB’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Works of Charles Lamb. Comprising
    his Letters, Poems, Essays of Elia, Essays upon Shakspeare,
    Hogarth, &c., and a Sketch of his Life, with the Final
    Memorials, by T. NOON TALFOURD. Portrait. 2 vols., 12mo,
    Cloth, $3 00.

  LIVINGSTONE’S SOUTH AFRICA. Missionary Travels and Researches
    in South Africa; including a Sketch of Sixteen Years’
    Residence in the Interior of Africa, and a Journey from the
    Cape of Good Hope to Loando on the West Coast; thence across
    the Continent, down the River Zambesi, to the Eastern Ocean.
    By DAVID LIVINGSTONE, LL.D., D.C.L. With Portrait, Maps by
    Arrowsmith, and numerous Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $4 50.

  LIVINGSTONES’ ZAMBESI. Narrative of an Expedition to the
    Zambesi and its Tributaries, and of the Discovery of the
    Lakes Shirwa and Nyassa. 1858-1864. By DAVID and CHARLES
    LIVINGSTONE. With Map and Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  M‘CLINTOCK & STRONG’S CYCLOPÆDIA. Cyclopædia of Biblical,
    Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Prepared by the
    Rev. JOHN M‘CLINTOCK, D.D., and JAMES STRONG, S.T.D. _3 vols.
    now ready._ Royal 8vo. Price per vol., Cloth, $5 00; Sheep,
    $6 00; Half Morocco, $8 00.

  MARCY’S ARMY LIFE ON THE BORDER. Thirty Years of Army Life on
    the Border. Comprising Descriptions of the Indian Nomads of
    the Plains; Explorations of New Territory; a Trip across the
    Rocky Mountains in the Winter; Descriptions of the Habits of
    Different Animals found in the West, and the Methods of
    Hunting them; with Incidents in the Life of Different
    Frontier Men, &c., &c. By Brevet Brigadier-General R. B.
    MARCY, U.S.A., Author of “The Prairie Traveller.” With
    numerous Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, Beveled Edges, $3 00.

  MACAULAY’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The History of England from the
    Accession of James II. By THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY. With an
    Original Portrait of the Author. 5 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 00;
    12mo, Cloth, $7 50.

  MOSHEIM’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, Ancient and Modern; in which
    the Rise, Progress, and Variation of Church Power are
    considered in their Connection with the State of Learning and
    Philosophy, and the Political History of Europe during that
    Period. Translated, with Notes, &c., by A. MACLAINE, D.D. A
    new Edition, continued to 1826, by C. COOTE, LL.D. 2 vols.,
    8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

  NEVIUS’S CHINA. China and the Chinese: a General Description of
    the Country and its Inhabitants; its Civilization and Form of
    Government; its Religious and Social Institutions; its
    Intercourse with other Nations; and its Present Condition and
    Prospects. By the Rev. JOHN L. NEVIUS, Ten Years a Missionary
    in China. With a Map and Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $1 75.

  OLIN’S (DR.) LIFE AND LETTERS. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 00.

  OLIN’S (DR.) TRAVELS. Travels in Egypt, Arabia Petræa, and the
    Holy Land. Engravings. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $3 00.

  OLIN’S (DR.) WORKS. The Works of Stephen Olin, D.D., late
    President of the Wesleyan University. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth,
    $3 00.

  OLIPHANT’S CHINA AND JAPAN. Narrative of the Earl of Elgin’s
    Mission to China and Japan, in the Years 1857, ’58, ’59. By
    LAURENCE OLIPHANT, Private Secretary to Lord Elgin.
    Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

  OLIPHANT’S (MRS.) LIFE OF EDWARD IRVING. The Life of Edward
    Irving, Minister of the National Scotch Church, London.
    Illustrated by his Journals and Correspondence. By Mrs.
    OLIPHANT. Portrait. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

  RAWLINSON’S MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY. A Manual of Ancient
    History, from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western
    Empire. Comprising the History of Chaldæa, Assyria, Media,
    Babylonia, Lydia, Phœnicia, Syria, Judæa, Egypt, Carthage,
    Persia, Greece, Macedonia, Parthia, and Rome. By GEORGE
    RAWLINSON, M.A., Camden Professor of Ancient History in the
    University of Oxford. 12mo, Cloth, $2 50.

  RECLUS’S THE EARTH. The Earth: a Descriptive History of the
    Phenomena and Life of the Globe. By ELISÉE RECLUS. Translated
    by the late B. B. Woodward, and Edited by Henry Woodward.
    With 234 Maps and Illustrations, and 23 Page Maps printed
    in Colors. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

  POETS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. The Poets of the Nineteenth
    Century. Selected and Edited by the Rev. ROBERT ARIS
    WILLMOTT. With English and American Additions, arranged by
    EVERT A. DUYCKINCK, Editor of “Cyclopædia of American
    Literature.” Comprising Selections from the Greatest Authors
    of the Age. Superbly Illustrated with 132 Engravings from
    Designs by the most Eminent Artists. In elegant small 4to
    form, printed on Superfine Tinted Paper, richly bound in
    extra Cloth, Beveled, Gilt Edges, $6 00; Half Calf, $6 00;
    Full Turkey Morocco, $10 00.

  SHAKSPEARE. The Dramatic Works of William Shakspeare, with the
    Corrections and Illustrations of Dr. JOHNSON, G. STEEVENS,
    and others. Revised by ISAAC REED. Engravings. 6 vols., Royal
    12mo, Cloth, $9 00.

  SMILES’S LIFE OF THE STEPHENSONS. The Life of George
    Stephenson, and of his Son, Robert Stephenson; comprising,
    also, a History of the Invention and Introduction of the
    Railway Locomotive. By SAMUEL SMILES, Author of “Self-Help,”
    &c. With Steel Portraits and numerous Illustrations. 8vo,
    Cloth, $3 00.

  SMILES’S HISTORY OF THE HUGUENOTS. The Huguenots: their
    Settlements, Churches, and Industries in England and Ireland.
    By SAMUEL SMILES. With an Appendix relating to the Huguenots
    in America. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $1 75.

  SPEKE’S AFRICA. Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the
    Nile. By Captain JOHN HANNING SPEKE, Captain H. M. Indian
    Army, Fellow and Gold Medalist of the Royal Geographical
    Society, Hon. Corresponding Member and Gold Medalist of the
    French Geographical Society, &c. With Maps and Portraits and
    numerous Illustrations, chiefly from Drawings by Captain
    GRANT. 8vo, Cloth, uniform with Livingstone, Barth, Burton,
    &c., $4 00.

  STRICKLAND’S (MISS) QUEENS OF SCOTLAND. Lives of the Queens of
    Scotland and English Princesses connected with the Regal
    Succession of Great Britain. By AGNES STRICKLAND. 8 vols.,
    12mo, Cloth, $12 00.

  THE STUDENT’S SERIES.
    France. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Gibbon. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Greece. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Hume. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Rome. By Liddell. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Old Testament History. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    New Testament History. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Strickland’s Queens of England. Abridged. Engravings. 12mo,
      Cloth, $2 00.
    Ancient History of the East. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Hallam’s Middle Ages. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.
    Lyell’s Elements of Geology. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

  TENNYSON’S COMPLETE POEMS. The Complete Poems of Alfred
    Tennyson, Poet Laureate. With numerous Illustrations by
    Eminent Artists, and Three Characteristic Portraits. 8vo,
    Paper, 75 cents; Cloth, $1 25.

  THOMSON’S LAND AND THE BOOK. The Land and the Book; or,
    Biblical Illustrations drawn from the Manners and Customs,
    the Scenes and the Scenery of the Holy Land. By W. M.
    THOMSON, D.D., Twenty-five Years a Missionary of the
    A.B.C.F.M. in Syria and Palestine. With two elaborate Maps of
    Palestine, an accurate Plan of Jerusalem, and several hundred
    Engravings, representing the Scenery, Topography, and
    Productions of the Holy Land, and the Costumes, Manners, and
    Habits of the People. 2 large 12mo vols., Cloth, $5 00.

  TYERMAN’S WESLEY. The Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley,
    M.A., Founder of the Methodists. By the Rev. LUKE TYERMAN,
    Author of “The Life of Rev. Samuel Wesley.” Portraits. 3
    vols., Crown 8vo.

  VÁMBÉRY’S CENTRAL ASIA. Travels in Central Asia. Being the
    Account of a Journey from Teheran across the Turkoman Desert,
    on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian, to Khiva, Bokhara, and
    Samarcand, performed in the Year 1863. By ARMINIUS VÁMBÉRY,
    Member of the Hungarian Academy of Pesth, by whom he was sent
    on this Scientific Mission. With Map and Woodcuts. 8vo,
    Cloth, $4 50.

  WOOD’S HOMES WITHOUT HANDS. Homes Without Hands: being a
    Description of the Habitations of Animals, classed according
    to their Principle of Construction. By J. G. WOOD, M.A.,
    F.L.S. With about 140 Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, Beveled
    Edges, $4 50.




Transcriber’s Note:

Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
this_. Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the end
of each chapter. There is no anchor for Footnote [703]. It was added
where it may belong. There are two anchors to Footnote [134]. Sidenotes
displaying Wesley’s age were changed to follow the chapter title.
Obsolete and alternative spellings were not changed. Nine misspelled
words were corrected.



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76882 ***