The life and times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., founder of the Methodists. Vol. 2 (of 3)

by L. Tyerman

1755.

1755
Age 52

AT the commencement of 1755, Wesley complied with the wish of his old friend, the Rev. James Hervey, and began a revision of Hervey’s greatest work, which, soon after, was published, in three octavo volumes, with the title “Theron and Aspasio; or, a Series of Dialogues and Letters upon the most important and interesting subjects.” Wesley’s revision, however, was not to Hervey’s taste. The manuscript of the first three dialogues (which make 129 printed pages) was sent, and was returned “with a few inconsiderable corrections.” Hervey was not satisfied with this, and told Wesley, that he was not acting the part of a friend unless he took greater liberties in literary lopping. On Wesley promising that he would, the manuscript was a second time submitted for the purpose of being pruned. Wesley’s alterations were now of a more important character; and Hervey was as much dissatisfied with the excessive as he had been with the insufficient parings. Wesley’s work was ended. He was not again consulted. He had revised only 129 pages out of more than 1300; but even that was more than he got thanks for doing.[216] Hence the following, which Hervey addressed to Lady Frances Shirley, to whom the book was dedicated.

“Weston, January 9, 1755.

“... Mr. John Wesley takes me very roundly to task, on the score of predestination; at which I am much surprised. A reader, ten times less penetrating than he is, may easily see that this doctrine (be it true or false) makes no part of my scheme; never comes under consideration; is purposely and carefully avoided. I cannot but fear, he has some sinister design. Put the wolf’s skin on the sheep, and the flock will shun him; the dogs will worry him. I do not charge such an artifice, but sometimes I cannot help forming a suspicion. If I live to do myself the honour of writing again to your ladyship, I hope you will give me leave to relate the whole affair, as it stands between Mr. Wesley and myself.”[217]

On the 1st of April, Wesley set out, from Bristol, on a three months’ journey to the north of England. Birmingham is described as “a barren, dry, uncomfortable place. Most of the seed,” he writes, “which has been sown for so many years, the ‘wild boars’ have rooted up; the fierce, unclean, brutish, blasphemous antinomians have utterly destroyed it. And the mystic foxes have taken true pains to spoil what remained, with their new gospel.”

At Ashbourne, in Derbyshire, he formed a society of eighteen persons, one of whom was “Miss Beresford,—a sweet, but short lived flower,” who, two years afterwards, exchanged earth for heaven.

At Hayfield, Wesley was the guest of the Rev. William Baddiley,—a sort of second Grimshaw,—a clergyman, who had formed a number of irregular societies, and who had committed the audacious act of employing laymen to assist him.[218] A few hours before Wesley’s arrival, Mr. Baddiley’s favourite daughter died, and it was Wesley’s task to bury her, and to preach to such a congregation as could scarcely have been expected in the Peak of Derbyshire. In the course of his sermon, Wesley had occasion to refer to the text in Ecclesiastes, stating that there is “a time to dance,” and observed, “I know of no such time, except it be a time analogous to that in which David danced before the ark.” “Be careful,” he added, “that you don’t dance yourselves into hell.” This gave great offence to some of his auditors, who had dancing proclivities; and, as if to defy the itinerant parson, a dancing master was immediately engaged, and a school opened for teaching Mr. Baddiley’s parishioners the art of gracefully tripping, on light fantastic toe, the downward path to the place of horrors with which Wesley had dared to threaten them. The dancing was in an alehouse. The alehousekeeper had an only child, whom the fiddling and the dancing exceedingly distressed. The child cried, and said, “I’ll not stay here: I’ll go home.” He ran into the fields, and, being asked by some one whither he was going, answered, “Home.” At the next dancing party, he was put for safety into a back kitchen, but escaped, and, when discovered, was found dead in a neighbouring river.[219]

From Hayfield, Wesley proceeded to Manchester, where he wrote as follows to his friend Blackwell.

“Manchester, April 9, 1755.

“Dear Sir,—I have another favour to beg of you,—to procure Mr. Belchier’s leave for me to enclose my proof sheets to him. Mr. Perronet sends them down to me in franks; then I correct and send them back to him. The next week I am to spend at Liverpool; toward the end of the week following, I hope to be at Haworth. God has blessed me with a prosperous journey hither, though the roads and the weather were rough.”[220]

There can be no question, that the above relates to the proof sheets of his “Notes on the New Testament,”—sheets now in the possession of Mr. Bate, of Sittingbourne, and which have been kindly lent to the present writer.

On the 15th of April, Wesley paid his first visit to the town of Liverpool, where he spent the next five days. “It is,” says he, “one of the neatest, best built towns I have seen in England: I think it is full twice as large as Chester; most of the streets are quite straight. Two thirds of the town, we were informed, have been added within these forty years. If it continue to increase, in the same proportion, in forty years more, it will nearly equal Bristol. The people in general are the most mild and courteous I ever saw in a seaport town; as, indeed, appears by their friendly behaviour, not only to the Jews and papists who live among them, but even to the Methodists. The preaching house is a little larger than that at Newcastle.” He adds: “every morning, as well as evening, abundance of people gladly attended the preaching. Many of them, I learned, were dear lovers of controversy; but I had better work—I pressed upon them all ‘repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

Wesley’s description of a town, now, in point of size, the second city in the kingdom, is not without interest. We have before us a map of Liverpool, published in 1754, which represents the town as merely skirting the Mersey; while Everton and other places, now engulfed in the vast Liverpool population, are represented as somewhat distant villages, surrounded with fields and woods. At that period, there were only three churches—St. Nicholas’s, St. Peter’s, and St. George’s; and two of these had been built within the last half century.

The first Methodist preaching place in Liverpool was a small, dingy, and inconvenient room in Cable Street. A society being formed, a piece of ground was purchased for the erection of a chapel,—the same as the site of the present Pitt Street chapel, and here was built the meeting-house, which Wesley describes as being a little larger than the Orphan House at Newcastle. The neighbourhood was unoccupied and dirty. At the front of the chapel was a large pool of water, through which the Methodists had to pass by the help of stepping stones.[221] Nearly forty years after the time of Wesley’s first visit, the chapel was flanked by a large brickfield; and Adam Clarke, who was then the resident preacher, describes his house as being “neither in hell nor purgatory, yet in a place of torment.” “But where is it?” asked his friend. “You must go,” answered the warm-hearted Hibernian, “down Dale Street, then along East Street, and when you are up to the middle in clay and mud, call out lustily for Adam Clarke.”[222]

One of the first worshippers in the first Pitt Street chapel was a diminutive tailor, whose Christian name was Timothy, and who had a spouse as great corporeally as he was little. Timothy’s wife helped to maintain his family by washing, but this was the only sense in which she was a helpmeet to him. She hated the Methodists, and did her utmost to make the life of poor Tim a scene of purgatorial misery. The little tailor, however, continued faithful; and one night, when he had gone to chapel, his persecuting queen engaged the services of a number of ragged boys to assist her in driving a herd of pigs into the Pitt Street meeting-house for the purpose of disturbing its congregation. Again and again the pigs were got to the chapel door, but as often they revolted, to the termagant’s great vexation. Finding her toil fruitless, and seeing a seat, at the entrance of the chapel, vacant, she seated herself, and, for the first time, listened to the ministry of truth. She was convinced of sin, and went home in deep distress. On poor Tim’s arrival, he was much surprised to see his wife in tears, and asked the reason of such a phenomenon. She related what had happened; Tim found it difficult to believe that the change was genuine; and yet so it was, for, henceforth, she became a sincere penitent; she soon found peace with God; and was as valiant a champion in the service of her Saviour as she had ever been in that of Satan. For sixteen years, she lived the life of a faithful Methodist, and then died happy in God, and went triumphantly to heaven.[223]

From Liverpool, Wesley went to Bolton, Todmorden, Heptonstall, Haworth, Keighley, Bradford, and Birstal, at which last mentioned place his brother met him. The next few days were spent in reading together, “A Gentleman’s Reasons for his Dissent from the Church of England,” the author of which was a Dissenting minister at Exeter. Wesley writes: “It is an elaborate and lively tract, and contains the strength of the cause; but it did not yield us one proof, that it is lawful for us (much less our duty) to separate from the Church. In how different a spirit does this man write from honest Richard Baxter! The one dipping, as it were, his pen in tears, the other in vinegar and gall. Surely one page of that loving, serious Christian, weighs more than volumes of this bitter, sarcastic jester.”

The reading of this treatise was a preparation for the chief business of the ensuing conference, which began at Leeds, on the 6th of May. Wesley says: “The point on which we desired all the preachers to speak their minds at large was, ‘Whether we ought to separate from the Church.’ Whatever was advanced, on one side or the other, was seriously and calmly considered; and, on the third day, we were all fully agreed in that general conclusion,—that, whether it was lawful or not, it was no ways expedient.”

This was by far the largest conference that had yet been held, there being not fewer than sixty-three preachers present, being seventeen more than the entire number of itinerants then employed. Twelve are designated “half itinerants,” namely, William Shent, William Roberts, Jonathan Jones, Jonathan Maskew, James Rouquet, John Fisher, Matthew Lowes, John Brown, Charles Perronet, Enoch Williams, John Haime, and John Furz. Fifteen are named as “our chief local preachers,” namely, John Jones, Thomas Maxfield, Thomas Westall, J. Haughton, Francis Walker, Joseph Tucker, William Tucker, Thomas Colbeck, Titus Knight, John Slocomb, James Morris, Eleazer Webster, Michael Calender, John Bakewell, and Alexander Mather.

“At the close of the conference,” says Wesley, “I spoke thus:—It has been affirmed, that none of our itinerant preachers are so much alive as they were seven years ago. I fear many are not. But if so, they are unfit for the work, which requires much life. Otherwise your labour will be tiresome to yourself, and of little use to others. Tiresome, because you will no longer serve Christ and the people willingly and cheerfully. Of little use, because you will no longer serve them diligently, doing it with your might. I have several reasons to fear it is so with many of you; but let your own conscience be the judge. Who of you is exemplarily alive to God, so as to carry fire with him wherever he goes? Who of you is a pattern of self denial even in little things? Who of you drinks water? Why not? Who rises at four? Why not? Who fasts on Friday? Why not? Who has not four meals a day? Who goes through his work willingly and diligently? never on any account disappoints a congregation? Who has every part of the plan at heart? always meets society, bands, leaders? Who visits in Mr. Baxter’s method? Who preaches the old thundering doctrine, no faith without light? Who constantly and zealously enforces practical religion? relative duties? recommends books? Kingswood school? Who is never idle? What assistant enforces uniformly every branch of the Methodist plan on the preachers and people? visits all the societies regularly? Do you see every preacher observe the rules? Do you reprove, and, if need be, send me word of the defaulters? Do you send me a regular account quarterly? Is your whole heart in the work? Do not you give way to unconcern, indolence, and fear of man? Who will join heart and hand, according to the twelve rules? particularly the twelfth?”[224]

This was faithful dealing with a vengeance. Probably, it was not unneeded; but none but a man of Wesley’s courage would have dared to use it. Affairs, however, were becoming desperate, and a strong hand was necessary to put them right. Some of the preachers had lost their zeal, and others were wishful to become Dissenters. The year 1755 was a crisis. It was an infinite mercy that Methodism was not dashed to pieces.

The great question was the necessity or propriety of the Methodists separating from the Established Church, and of the Methodist itinerant preachers administering the Christian sacraments. For years, there had been dissatisfaction and grumbling. The people, in many instances, had been repelled from the sacramental table in the church, and had been driven to the alternative, of either receiving the Lord’s supper in Dissenting chapels (where such an irregularity might be permitted), or of absolutely committing sin by neglecting one of the most important ordinances of the Christian system. No wonder, that the Methodists were uneasy, and dissatisfied. No wonder, that not a few of Wesley’s preachers, embracing nearly all the most pious and gifted, sighed for some arrangement to meet the emergency created by their own success. Among these were the two Perronets—Edward and Charles—men of education, talent, and piety. Another was Thomas Walsh, pronounced by Wesley the best biblical scholar he ever knew. The leader of the dissentient band was Joseph Cownley, whom Wesley considered one of the best preachers in England. These were men of mark and influence among their less cultured brethren. They were as capable of forming correct opinions as the two Wesleys were. They had a right to be heard; and it was hardly fair to denounce them because they thought that the Methodists were entitled to the sacraments of the Christian church; and that they, as divinely called preachers of Christ’s religion, might be permitted to administer ordinances which that religion solemnly enjoined. Cownley, Walsh, and the Perronets were right; but the time was scarcely come for this to be acknowledged. To a great extent, the Church of England was corrupt; it was also persecuting and repelling. What was there in such a church to make Methodists and Methodist preachers long for continued union with it?

Charles Wesley was irritated and fidgety to a most extraordinary extent. With all the bigotry of the high churchmanship of the present day, he seemed to think, and speak, and act as though salvation, out of the Church of England, was impossible. This may be forgiven, but it cannot be commended. He was unquestionably sincere; but his action, in this affair, was intolerant and absurd. His brother, with a mind far more equable, would probably have acted very differently from what he did, if he had been unfettered, and uninfluenced by his friends. But Charles worried him, and others puzzled him; and the result, as we have already seen, was the agreement come to, after a three days’ discussion by the conference of 1755, that, whether it was lawful or not, it was not expedient for the Methodists to separate from the Established Church.

This was a matter of high importance; and, as it will, ever and anon, present itself throughout the whole of Wesley’s subsequent career, we shall be excused for giving further details respecting it at this period of its history. The following are extracts from unpublished letters written by Charles Wesley to the Rev. Walter Sellon, formerly a Methodist preacher, and master of Kingswood school, but now an ordained clergyman of the Church of England, and settled at Smithsby, near Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

“My dear Brother,—I have seen your honest, friendly letter to Charles Perronet, for which I thank you, both in behalf of myself, and the Church of England. You see through him and his fellows. Pride,—cursed pride has perverted him and them; and, unless the Lord interpose, will destroy the work of God, and scatter us all as sheep upon the mountains. In your fidelity to my old honoured mother, you are a man after my own heart. I always loved you, but never so much as now. How unlike the spirit of poor Perronet and his associates! What a pity, that such spirits should have any influence over my brother! They are continually urging him to a separation; that is, to pull down all he has built, to put a sword in our enemies’ hands, to destroy the work, scatter the flock, disgrace himself, and go out—like the snuff of a candle.

“May I not desire it of you, as a debt you owe the Methodists and me, and the Church, as well as him, to write him a full, close, plain transcript of your heart on the occasion? Charles Perronet, you know, has taken upon him to administer the sacrament, for a month together to the preachers, and twice to some of the people. Walsh and three others have followed his vile example.[225] The consequence you see with your own eyes. O that my brother did so too! Our worthy friend [Lady Huntingdon?] at Clifton could not but believe, my brother had laid on hands, or they would not have dared to act thus. You have her thoughts in mine. Write to my lady, that you may have her mind from herself. You must make one of our conference in Leeds, which will be in May. I give you timely notice. Pray for us. I stand alone, as the preachers imagine. Nevertheless the Lord stands by me. Fain would they thrust me out, that they may carry all before them. The Lord bless and keep you!

“C. Wesley.“[226]

“London, December 14, 1754.

“My dear Brother and Friend,—Write again and spare not. My brother took no notice to me of your letter. Since the Melchisedechians have been taken in, I have been excluded his cabinet council. They know me too well to trust him with me. He is come so far as to believe a separation quite lawful, only not yet expedient. They are indefatigable in urging him to go so far, that he may not be able to retreat. He may lay on hands, say they, without separating. I charge you, keep it to yourself, that I stand in doubt of him; which I tell you, that you may pray for him the more earnestly, and write to him the more plainly. Our conference is in May. You must be there, if alive. The Methodist preachers must quickly divide to the right or left, the church or meeting. God be praised for this, that Satan is dragged out to do his worst, while we are yet living to look him in the face. I know none fitter for training up the young men in learning than yourself or J. Jones. We must, among us, get the sound preachers qualified for orders.

“You are a poor writer of shorthand. Perhaps I may teach you better when we meet.

“My partner salutes you in increasing love. Many thousands, besides her, shall prosper, because they love our Jerusalem. Farewell in Christ!

“C. Wesley.“[227]

“London, February 4, 1755.

“My dear Brother,—There is no danger of my countenancing them, but rather of my opposing them too fiercely. ‘Tis pity a good cause should suffer by a warm advocate. If God gives me meekness, I shall, at the conference, speak and not spare. Till then, it is best the matter should sleep, or we should make the delinquents desperate, and their associates, among the preachers, hypocrites. My brother purposely holds his peace, that he may come to the bottom of them. Your letters, and some others wrote with the same honesty, have had due effect upon him; and made him forget he was ever inclined to their party. He has spoken as strongly of late, in behalf of the Church of England, as I could wish, and everywhere declares he never intends to leave her. This has made the Melchisedechians draw in their horns, and drop their design. Sed non ego credulus illis. We must know the heart of every preacher, and give them their choice of church or meeting. The wound can no longer be healed slightly. Those who are disposed to separate had best do it while we are yet alive. Write to my brother again, and urge it upon his conscience, whether he is not bound to prevent a separation both before and after his death. Whether, in order to do this, he should not take the utmost pains to settle the preachers, discharging those who are irreclaimable, and never receiving another without this previous condition, ‘that he will never leave the Church.’ He is writing an excellent treatise on the question, whether it is expedient to separate from the Church of England, which he talks of printing. Be very mild and loving in your next, lest he should still say, ‘The separatists show a better spirit than their opposers.’ You may honestly suppose him now of our mind. I will answer for your admission to the conference at Leeds in the beginning of May. My brother says, his book will be out next summer. I will allow him till next winter. Is not Nicholas Norton under the influence of Charles Perronet? Keep copies of yours to my brother. J. Jones will thank you for a title. I suppose you know, W. Prior is ordained, without learning, interest, or ought but Providence to recommend him. The Lord of the harvest is thrusting out labourers in divers places. Mr. Romaine, Venn, Dodd, Jones, and others here are much blessed. Pray for them as well as us. The Lord be your strength. Farewell in Christ!

“C. Wesley.”[228]

These letters are not worthy of the man who wrote them. The scruples of men like Cownley, Walsh, and the two Perronets deserved respect, instead of being denounced as “pride,—cursed pride.” “The men,” says Mr. Jackson, “were not children, either in years, understanding, or piety. They were rebuked, but not convinced; and were left to utter their complaints in all directions. To treat them in this manner was only to restrain the evil for a time. It was not removed.”

As already stated, Charles Wesley met his brother at Birstal previous to the opening of the conference. While there, he wrote to his wife as follows.

“My time is chiefly spent with my brother in reading the Dissenter’s book. He found and showed me many flaws in his arguments against the Church, which he interweaves and answers in his excellent treatise on that question. Mr. Grimshaw, whom the separatists claimed for their own, designed coming to the conference, only to take his leave of us, if we did of the Church. All the preachers in the north are unanimous for it. Satan has done his worst, and confirmed us in our calling.”[229]

Early in the morning of the day after the debate in conference was ended, Charles Wesley took his departure, without even informing his brother of his intention; and, on his way to London, composed a poetical “epistle to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,” which he read, to a “crowded audience,” at the Foundery, and printed in a 12mo tract of 16 pages, four thousand copies being immediately put into circulation. He speaks of his brother as his “first and last, unalienable friend”; and denounces in withering language the unfaithful clergy,

“Who not for souls, but their own bodies care,

And leave to underlings the task of prayer.”

After describing the true members of the Church of England, he proceeds:—

“Yet, while I warmly for her faith contend,

Shall I her blots and blemishes defend?

Inventions added in a fatal hour,

Human appendages of pomp and power

Whatever shines in outward grandeur great,

I give it up—a creature of the State!

Nor would I e’er disgrace the Church’s cause,

By penal edicts, and compulsive laws.

Let others for the shape and colour fight,

Of garments short or long, or black or white;

Or, fairly matched, in furious battle join

For and against the sponsors and the sign;

Copes, hoods, and surplices the Church miscall,

And fiercely run their heads against the wall;

Far different care is mine; o’er earth to see

Diffused her true essential piety.”

He then refers to the great revival of religion within the Church, and adds:—

“For her, whom her apostate sons despise,

I offer up my life in sacrifice,

My life in cherishing a parent spend,

Fond of my charge, and faithful to the end.

Thrust out as from her pale, I gladly roam,

Banished myself, to bring her wanderers home.

Yet well content, so I my love may show,

My friendly love, to be esteemed her foe,

Foe to her order, governors, and rules:

The song of drunkards, and the sport of fools;

Or, what my soul doth as hell fire reject,

A pope—a count—and leader of a sect.“

The battle was not ended. A month subsequent to the Leeds conference, the following letter was addressed to Wesley, by his clerical friend, the Rev. Mr. Baddiley.

“Hayfield, June 7, 1755.

“Dear Sir,—I would speak with regard to the case debated in your last conference at Leeds. Some of your lay itinerant preachers had a desire, as such, to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper. Now might it not be justly said unto them, ‘Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that God hath separated you from among the congregation, to bring you near to Himself, that ye thus seek the priesthood also? Alas! alas! ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.’

“What can the event be, but settling in such places as seem most commodious to them, and then settling upon their lees? Has not this been the general bane of scriptural Christianity? Has it not eaten out the life of religion, and caused the power of godliness to dwindle in Dissenters of every denomination? For who—who can bear ease and fulness of bread?

“Be not, dear sir, estranged in your affection, nor straitened in your bowels of love to the mother that bare you, and still continues, notwithstanding small irregularities in you, to dandle you on her knees. O! labour, watch, and pray, with all your might, that no such breach be made. Wherefore should the pickthank heathen have cause to say, ‘Where is now their God?’ I query much, if, upon dissenting from the Established Church, the divisions and subdivisions of the Methodists among themselves would not exceed those of the anabaptists in Germany.”[230]

Before leaving the subject, a few more letters must be added. The following were addressed by Wesley to his brother.

“London, June 20, 1755.

“Dear Brother,—Did not you understand, that they all promised, by Thomas Walsh, not to administer, even among themselves? I think that a huge point given up; perhaps more than they could give up with a clear conscience. They showed an excellent spirit. When I (not to say you) spoke once and again—spoke satis pro imperio, when I reflected on their answers, I admired their spirit, and was ashamed of my own. The practical conclusion was, ‘Not to separate from the Church.’ Did we not all agree in this? Surely either you or I must have been asleep, or we could not differ so widely in a matter of fact! Here is Charles Perronet raving ‘because his friends have given up all’; and Charles Wesley, ‘because they have given up nothing’; and I, in the midst, staring and wondering both at one and the other. I do not want to do anything more, unless I could bring them over to my opinion; and I am not in haste for that. Joseph Cownley says, ‘For such and such reasons, I dare not hear a drunkard preach, or read prayers’; I answer, I dare—but I cannot answer his reasons. Adieu!

“John Wesley.”[231]

“London, June 28, 1755.

“Dear Brother,—Go to Ireland, if you think so, and save Ireland. Wherever I have been in England, the societies are far more firmly and rationally attached to the Church than ever they were before. I have no fear about this matter. I only fear the preachers’ or the people’s leaving, not the Church, but the love of God, and inward or outward holiness. To this I press them forward continually. I dare not, in conscience, spend my time and strength on externals. If, as my lady says, all outward establishments are Babel, so is this establishment. Let it stand for me. I neither set it up nor pull it down. But let you and I build up the city of God. I have often desired our preachers to bury a corpse at Wapping; I mean, to give an exhortation closed with prayer. I do not know, that this is any branch of the sacerdotal office. Thomas Walsh (I will declare it on the housetop) has given me all the satisfaction I desire, and all that an honest man could give. I love, admire, and honour him; and wish we had six preachers in all England of his spirit. But enough of this. Let us draw the saw no longer, but use all our talents to promote the mind that was in Christ. We have not one preacher, who either proposed, or desires, or designs (that I know) to separate from the Church at all. Their principles, in this single point of ordination, I do not approve; but I pray for more and more of their spirit (in general) and practice. Driving me may make me fluctuate; though I do not yet. ‘When the preachers in Ireland set up for themselves, must you not disown them?’ I answer, ‘When.’ Adieu.

“John Wesley.”[232]

At this period the Rev. Samuel Walker was a zealous and useful clergyman in Cornwall. Born in Exeter, he had become a graduate of Exeter College, Oxford, and, for fourteen years, had been a minister of the Church of England. His labours had been greatly blessed at Truro. At least, eight hundred persons had repaired to him with the gaoler’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” Within the last twelve months, he had formed his converts into societies, and had drawn up rules for their regulation. He was a deeply devoted man, and finished a laborious and useful life within six years after the time of which we are now writing. He was one of the friends of Wesley, who wrote to him as follows.

“Bristol, September 24, 1755.

“Reverend dear Sir,—You greatly oblige me by speaking your thoughts so freely. All that you say concerning the inexpediency of a separation from the Church, I readily allow; as, likewise, that the first and main question must be, is it lawful to separate? Accordingly, this was debated first, and that at large, in seven or eight long conversations. And it was then only, when we could not agree concerning this, that we proceeded to weigh the expediency of it.”

Wesley then proceeds to state the reasons assigned by his preachers, why they ought to separate from the Established Church, namely:—1. Though the liturgy is, in general, possessed of rare excellence, “it is both absurd and sinful, to declare such an assent and consent, to any merely human composition,” as is required to it. 2. Though they did not “object to the use of forms,” they durst “not confine themselves to them.” 3. Because they considered the decretals of the Church as “the very dregs of popery,” and “many of the canons as grossly wicked as absurd. The spirit which they breathe is throughout popish and antichristian. Nothing can be more diabolical than the ipso facto excommunications so often denounced therein. While the whole method of executing these canons, in our spiritual courts, is too bad to be tolerated, not in a Christian, but in a Mahommedan or pagan nation.” 4. Because they feared that many of the Church of England ministers neither lived the gospel, taught it, nor knew it; and because they doubted “whether it was lawful to attend the ministrations of those whom God had not sent to minister.” 5. Because the doctrines preached by these clergymen were “not only wrong, but fundamentally so, and subversive of the whole gospel.”

Having stated these as the reasons assigned for separation, Wesley proceeds.

“I will freely acknowledge that I cannot answer these arguments to my own satisfaction; so that my conclusion, which I cannot yet give up, ‘that it is lawful to continue in the Church,’ stands almost without any premises that are able to bear its weight.

“My difficulty is very much increased by one of your observations. I know the original doctrines of the Church are sound; and I know her worship is, in the main, pure and scriptural; but, if ‘the essence of the Church of England, considered as such, consists in her orders and laws; (many of which I, myself can say nothing for) ‘and not in her worship and doctrines,’ those who separate from her have a far stronger plea than I was ever sensible of.

“At present, I apprehend those, and those only, to separate from the Church, who either renounce her fundamental doctrines, or refuse to join in her public worship. As yet, we have done neither; nor have we taken one step further than we were convinced was our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this, that we have—(1) preached abroad; (2) prayed extempore; (3) formed societies; and (4) permitted preachers who were not episcopally ordained. And were we pushed on this side, were there no alternative allowed, we should judge it our bounden duty, rather wholly to separate from the Church, than to give up any one of these points. Therefore, if we cannot stop a separation without stopping lay preachers, the case is clear: we cannot stop it at all.

“‘But if we permit them, should we not do more? Should we not appoint them? Since the bare permission puts the matter out of our hands, and deprives us of all our influence?’ In great measure it does; therefore, to appoint them is far more expedient, if it be lawful. But is it lawful for presbyters, circumstanced as we are, to appoint other ministers? This is the very point wherein we desire advice, being afraid of leaning to our own understanding.

“It is undoubtedly needful, as you observe, to come to some resolution on this point, and the sooner the better. I, therefore, rejoice to hear that you think, ‘this matter may be better, and more inoffensively ordered; and that a method may be found, which, conducted with prudence and patience, will reduce the constitution of Methodism to due order, and render the Methodists, under God, more instrumental to the ends of practical religion.’ This, sir, is the very thing I want. I must, therefore, beg your sentiments on this head; and that as particularly as your other engagements will allow. I remain, reverend dear sir,

“Your obliged and affectionate brother and servant,

“John Wesley.”[233]

All must admit, that this is a most important letter. It proves three momentous facts. 1. That the conference of 1755 could not come to an agreement as to the lawfulness of separating from the Church of England; and that the only point settled was as to the present expediency of such a separation. 2. That the arguments used, in favour of a separation, were arguments which Wesley was not able to answer to his own satisfaction. And, 3. That rather than give up open air preaching, extemporaneous prayer, forming societies, and permitting men not episcopally ordained to preach, Wesley would wholly separate himself from the Established Church.

Wesley’s position was peculiar. Of all the Methodist clergymen then existing, he was the only one who evinced a willingness to look the difficulties of the situation fairly in the face. His brother was furious. Grimshaw threatened to leave the Methodists if the Methodists left the Church. Baddiley unworthily taunted the lay preachers with aspiring after priestly honours. Walker evidently held strong opinions against the contemplated movement. And Whitefield wrote to Lady Huntingdon as follows.

“Newcastle, September 24, 1755.

“Oh, how hath my pleasure been alloyed at Leeds! I rejoiced there with trembling; for, unknown to me, they had almost finished a large house in order to form a separate congregation. If this scheme succeeds, an awful separation, I fear, will take place among the societies. I have written to Mr. Wesley, and have done all I could to prevent it. Oh this self love, this self will! It is the devil of devils.”[234]

Another clergyman, who was consulted in this emergency, was the Rev. Thomas Adam, rector of Wintringham, near Malton, in Yorkshire, two years older than Wesley, born and educated in Leeds, a graduate of Christ’s College, Cambridge, who obtained the Wintringham living at the age of twenty-three, and retained it for about sixty years, until his death in 1784. Mr. Adam wrote to Wesley as follows.

“Wintringham, October 10, 1755.

“Reverend Sir,—As you are pleased to desire my opinion on ‘a formal separation of the Methodists from the Church of England,’ I shall make no apology for giving it to you in as explicit a manner as I can.

“As you are not satisfied, in your conscience, of the lawfulness of a separation in form, but, on the contrary, have advanced many reasons against it, methinks your way is plain before you. If any considerable number of the Methodists should persist in carrying their design of separation into execution, you and others, your present scruples subsisting, will be obliged in conscience to disavow, and declare openly against it. Your present embarrassments are very great, and should be a warning to all how they venture upon a revolt from the authority and standing rules of the church to which they belong. I fear, sir, that your saying, you do not appoint, but only approve of the lay preachers, from a persuasion of their call and fitness, savours of disingenuity. Where is the difference? Under whose sanction do they act? Would they think their call a sufficient warrant for commencing preachers without your approbation, tacit or express? And what is their preaching upon this call, but a manifest breach upon the order of the Church, and an inlet to confusion? Upon the whole, therefore, I submit to your serious consideration, whether the separation is not wide enough already, particularly in the instance of unordained persons preaching, and gathering societies to themselves wherever they can; and whether all the Methodists might not serve the interests of Christ better, by returning to a closer union with the Church, and repairing the breach they have made, than by making it still wider, and separating, what they think, the gospel leaven from the lump?”[235]

The following is Wesley’s answer.

“London, October 31, 1755.

“Reverend Sir,—You have much obliged me by your clear and friendly answer; with the main of which I fully agree: for I am still in my former sentiment—‘We will not go out; if we are thrust out, well.’ And of the same judgment are, I believe, nineteen in twenty of our preachers, and an equal majority of the people. We are fully convinced, that, to separate from an established church is never lawful but when it is absolutely necessary; and we do not see any such necessity yet. Therefore, we have, at present, no thoughts of separation.

“With regard to the steps we have hitherto taken, we have used all the caution which was possible. We have done nothing rashly, nothing without deep and long consideration, and much prayer. Nor have we taken one deliberate step, of which we, as yet, see reason to repent. It is true, in some things, we vary from the rules of the Church; but no further than we apprehend is our bounden duty. It is from a full conviction of this, that we preach abroad, use extemporary prayer, form those who appear to be awakened into societies, and permit laymen, whom we believe God has called, to preach.

“I say permit, because we ourselves have hitherto viewed it in no other light. This we are clearly satisfied we may do; that we may do more, we are not satisfied. It is not clear to us, that presbyters, so circumstanced as we are, may appoint or ordain others; but it is, that we may direct, as well as suffer them to do, what we conceive they are moved to by the Holy Ghost. It is true, that, in ordinary cases, both an inward and an outward call are requisite. But we apprehend there is something far from ordinary in the present case; and, upon the calmest view of things, we think, they, who are only called of God, and not of man, have more right to preach than they who are only called of man, and not of God. Now that many of the clergy, though called of man, are not called of God to preach His gospel is undeniable: 1. Because they themselves utterly disclaim, nay, and ridicule the inward call. 2. Because they do not know what the gospel is: of consequence, they do not and cannot preach it.

“This, at present, is my chief embarrassment. That I have not gone too far yet, I know; but whether I have gone far enough, I am extremely doubtful. I see those running whom God hath not sent; destroying their own souls, and those that hear them. Unless I warn, in all ways I can, these perishing souls of their danger, am I clear of the blood of these men? Soul damning clergymen lay me under more difficulties than soul saving laymen!

“Those among ourselves, who have been in doubt, whether they ought so to beware of these false prophets, as not to hear them at all, are not men of a ‘forward, uncharitable zeal;’ but of a calm, loving, temperate spirit. They are perfectly easy as to their own call to preach; but they are sometimes afraid, that the countenancing these blind guides is a dead weight even on those clergymen who are really called of God. ‘Why else,’ say they, ‘does not God bless their labours?’ We know several regular clergymen who preach the genuine gospel, but to no effect at all. There is one exception in England: Mr. Walker, of Truro. We do not know one more, who has converted one soul in his own parish. If it be said, ‘Has not Mr. Grimshaw and Mr. Baddiley?’ No, not one, till they were irregular: till both the one and the other formed irregular societies, and took in laymen to assist them. Can there be a stronger proof that God is pleased with irregular, even more than with regular preaching?”[236]

No apology is needed for the insertion of these long extracts. In these days,—when the reunion, amalgamation, or absorption of the Methodists with the Church of England, is exciting so much attention, they deserve to be read with more than ordinary interest. A recurrence to the subject will often be necessary; but, for the present, we must leave it, and track the footsteps of Wesley during the remainder of the year 1755.

The conference at Leeds being concluded, he left that town, on the 12th of May, for Newcastle, where he found some of the Methodists had left the Church already, and others were on the point of doing so, and all, “as they supposed, on his authority!” Three weeks were spent in the Newcastle circuit. He then set out for London, and, at the end of the first day’s journey, reached Osmotherley.[237]

Here he made strict inquiry concerning an event of recent occurrence, and which at the time excited great attention. Osmotherley lies nestled nearly at the foot of a long mountain range, known by the name of Black Hambleton. A few weeks before, a part of the mountain consisting of a vast ridge of rock, called Whiston Cliff, was split asunder, amid a sound as of rolling thunder. On March 25, there was a loud noise issuing from the mountain, but nothing more. Next day, a huge piece of the rocky precipice, fifteen yards thick, ten high, and above twenty broad, was torn from the mountain side and thrown into the valley. The ground shook, and immense stones, of several tons weight, rose like giants out of the ground below, and rolled to and fro with marvellous velocity. On the three succeeding days, the ground continued trembling; in many places the earth clave asunder; and huge rocks turned upside down and moved in all directions. Patches of ground, as much as fifty yards in diameter, were lifted bodily, and, burdened with rocks and even trees, were removed to a considerable distance, without the least fissure being created by the transit. In a space of about forty acres, the earth was cleft in a thousand places, while the cliff, from which the rest was torn, was white as snow, and, glittering in the sunlight, was visible at a distance of many miles.

Wesley, at all times keenly alive to the supernatural, took the deepest interest in this phenomenon. At Osmotherley, he met with eye and ear witnesses of this strange occurrence. He went with one of them, Edward Abbot, a weaver, to the spot, and “walked, crept and climbed, round and over great part of the ruins.” He wrote a description of what he saw, which was published in the London Magazine, the Gentleman’s Magazine, the Public Advertiser, and other periodicals. He endeavoured to account for the phenomenon, and came to the conclusion, that it was not produced by any “merely natural cause,—fire, water, or air, but by God Himself,” who arose to shake terribly the earth; and who purposely chose such a place, where there was so great a concourse of nobility and gentry every year.[238] This excited the ire of an anonymous contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine, who declared that he had “caused an inquiry to be made into the fact, at no small trouble and expense; and found the whole to be a falsehood, without the least degree of truth for its foundation.” A more audacious lie than this, it is difficult to imagine; and yet it was published. A few months later, Wesley wrote as follows to the editor of that periodical.

“Bristol, March 8, 1756.

“Mr. Urban,—I have met with many persons in my life, who did not abound with modesty; but I never yet met with one who had less of it than your anonymous correspondent. The whole account of Whiston Cliff, inserted in one of your magazines, I aver to be punctually true, having been an eye witness of every particular of it. And if F. D. will set his name, and aver the contrary, I will make him ashamed, unless shame and he have shook hands, and parted.

“Yours, etc.,

“John Wesley.”

The editor adds, that, if his anonymous correspondent does not make good his assertion, he is treated in Wesley’s letter with less severity than he deserves. This evoked a communication from a man who afterwards rose to fame in the literary world. John Langhorne, who, besides numerous other works, became the well known translator of Plutarch’s Lives, was now in his twentieth year, and a private tutor in the neighbourhood of Thirsk. Having read the impudent mendacity of F. D., he wrote to Mr. Urban, stating that he himself had visited the scene of this strange upheaving, and fully confirmed Wesley’s statement. Thus terminated this earthquake episode in Wesley’s history.

From Whiston Cliff, Wesley went to Thirsk, and then to York, the society at the latter place being, number for number, the richest he had in England. “I hope,” says he, “that York will not prove, as Cork has done, the Capua of our preachers.” He reached London on the 16th of June, and wrote:—

“From a deep sense of the amazing work which God has of late years wrought in England, I preached, in the evening, on those words (Psalm cxlvii. 20), ‘He hath not dealt so with any nation;’ no, not even with Scotland or New England. In both these, God has indeed made bare His arm; yet not in so astonishing a manner as among us. This must appear to all who impartially consider—(1) The numbers of persons on whom God has wrought. (2) The swiftness of His work in many, both convinced and truly converted in a few days. (3) The depth of it in most of these, changing the heart, as well as the whole conversation. (4) The clearness of it, enabling them boldly to say, ‘Thou hast loved me, Thou hast given Thyself for me.’ (5) The continuance of it. God has wrought in Scotland and New England, at several times, for some weeks or months together; but, among us, He has wrought for near eighteen years together, without any observable intermission. Above all, let it be remarked, that a considerable number of the clergy were engaged in that great work in Scotland; and, in New England, above a hundred, perhaps as eminent as any in the whole province, not only for piety, but also for abilities, both natural and acquired; whereas, in England, there were only two or three inconsiderable clergymen, with a few young, raw, unlettered men; and those opposed by well-nigh all the clergy, as well as laity, in the nation. He that remarks this must needs own, both that this is a work of God, and that He hath not wrought so in any other nation.”

Immediately after his return to London, Wesley entered into an important correspondence, which lasted for the next nine months, and which, in 1760, was published in an octavo pamphlet of 52 pages, with the title, “Original Letters between the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, and Mr. Richard Tompson, respecting the Doctrine of Assurance, as held by the former: Wherein that Tenet is fully examined. With some Strictures on Christian Perfection.” Richard Tompson was no ordinary man. He makes no pretension to any knowledge of the learned languages; but he was unquestionably well acquainted with his own. Without the advantages of early education, he had, by great assiduity in reading, mastered the science of divinity, and was a respectable proficient in the study of literature in general. He was evidently a man of powerful mind, and there is the greatest fairness in his reasoning. Wesley wrote: “Of all the disputants I have known, you are the most likely to convince me of any mistakes I may be in; because you have found out the great secret of speaking the truth in love.” This was praise which Tompson well merited. From first to last, there is nothing in his letters but what is consonant with the highest respect and sincerest love. And yet, he pins his opponent with consummate skill, states his objections in the clearest light, and deduces his conclusions with a power which Wesley found it difficult to resist. In former years, he had been a Methodist; at present he was not. Still, he was a man of enlightened and earnest piety, and of a sober and exemplary life. All his letters, except the last, were anonymous; not because he was doubtful of his tenets, or ashamed of the doctrines he was endeavouring to defend, but because he not unreasonably apprehended, that, if his name was given, his letters might not be read, nor receive the attention which, he knew their intrinsic worth deserved. When he divulged his name, Wesley, like a Christian gentleman, instead of being annoyed at being betrayed into a correspondence with one of whom he had spoken in his Journal somewhat disparagingly, addressed him with brotherly affection, and concluded this remarkable and able correspondence thus: “Your reasons for concealing your name were good: we cannot too carefully guard against prejudice. You have no need of any excuse at all. For you have done no wrong, but rather a pleasure, to your affectionate brother, John Wesley.”

Wesley’s letters are published in his collected works; but, of course, unaccompanied by Tompson’s; and, without the latter, no one can form a correct opinion concerning this courteous and loving contest. Our own honest conviction is, that Tompson is the master. It is true that, in the main matter of dispute, the difference between the two was more imaginary than real,—more in words than fact; but we feel bound to say, that, in managing the argument, Wesley, either for want of time or want of something else, is worsted.

The subject of Christian perfection is summarily dismissed. Tompson quotes texts of Scripture, and appeals to history, and concludes with an argument which has been elaborated in modern days: “Suppose that two persons, absolutely free from the corruption of human nature, should marry and have children, it is very evident, that they could convey no corruption of nature to their offspring, nor they to theirs, even to the remotest generations: and, therefore, this new species of mankind would stand in no need of a Saviour; that is, in no need of Christ’s righteousness to justify them; in no need of His Spirit to enable them to do their duty, they being possessed of that rectitude of nature which will enable them to act entirely for themselves.”

This is quoted, not for its soundness, but, merely to show how feebly one of the ablest logicians of his age confronted it. The following is the whole of Wesley’s answer: “As to Christian perfection, I believe two, who were made perfect in love, never did, or will, marry together.” This was not argument, but assumption; and Tompson was not slow to avail himself of his advantage. In his next communication he asks, “Why is the marriage state proper for those only who are tainted with sin and corruption?” He reminds his opponent, that two persons, Adam and Eve, absolutely free from sin, have been married, and that by the express command of God Himself. Besides, he asks, “Suppose that two persons, already married, should attain to such a state,—the very same consequences would inevitably follow; and, I suppose, you will hardly venture to affirm, that God will never make any married couple (capable of having children) perfect. If you did, I should ask you first, what ground you had for such an arbitrary hypothesis? and secondly, how you came to marry yourself, when you judged it would be an infallible means of keeping either yourself, or your wife, from that state which is of all others the most desirable?” Wesley, like a prudent man, attempted no reply to this; and so the matter ended.

It will thus be seen, that the doctrine of Christian perfection was not fairly and fully discussed by the two friendly antagonists. Their main subject of dispute was this: “that no person is a true believer in Christ, but he who either certainly knows, or has known, by the immediate revelation of the Holy Ghost, that his sins are forgiven.” Tompson argues, that the definition of faith given by the Church of England,—“a sure trust or confidence in God that my sins are forgiven,” applies not to that faith “which is the immediate proximate cause of justification,” but to that faith which follows after justification. Wesley’s reply to this, in brief, was: “I agree with you, that justifying faith cannot be a conviction that I am justified; but still, I believe that it implies such a conviction.” Further correspondence followed, and Wesley’s opinion, just given, was modified to this extent: “I believe there are some instances of a man who has not a clear assurance that his sins are forgiven, being in a state of justification.” This, in substance, was all that Tompson contended for; and so terminated one of the most friendly controversies in Wesley’s history. No man was more open to conviction than Wesley was; no man was more sincerely in search of truth; no man met a reasonable opponent in a more loving spirit. “If,” said he, in his first reply to Tompson, “if you have observed anything in any of the tracts I have published, which you think is not agreeable to Scripture or reason, you will oblige me by pointing out, and by communicating to me any remarks you have occasionally made. I seek two things in this world—truth and love; whoever assists me in this search is a friend indeed.”

While on the subject of controversy, it may be added, that during the year 1755 a furious attack was made upon the Methodists, in an octavo pamphlet of 37 pages, entitled, “An Apology for the Clergy; with a view to expose the groundless assertions of a late Commentator on the 107th Psalm; and to undeceive the admirers of certain popular declaimers, by showing the dangerous consequences of their manner of preaching.” In this precious morceau, the Wesleys and their fellow Methodists are spoken of as “giving vent to the rankest enthusiasm,”—as captivating the people “with unintelligible jargon,” and “importing contraband doctrines into pulpits” which they had no right to enter. These were hard words, but hardly worth answering.

Another kindred publication was issued, with the title, “A Dissertation on Enthusiasm, showing the danger of its late increase. By Thomas Green, M.A., vicar of Wymeswould, Leicestershire.” 8vo, 219 pages. In this, the Methodists were likened, not only to papists, but to Mahommedans, and fanatics of all descriptions. It was too late for scurrilous publications like these to obtain, or to deserve an answer. Like their authors, they soon sank into well merited oblivion.

On the 30th of June, Wesley set out for Norwich, where he spent the next four days, and spoke personally to each member of the society. On returning to London, at the request of “a friendly gentlewoman,” he became a witness to her will, wherein she bequeathed part of her estates to charitable uses; and part, during his natural life, to her dog Toby. “I suppose,” says he, “her legacy to Toby may stand good; but that to the poor is null and void, by the statute of mortmain!” He dined with one who, for many years, was one of the most celebrated beauties in Europe; but who, suffering from a painful and nauseous disease, was now literally rotting. He called upon an old friend, after a separation of sixteen years, found him a beggar, forsaken by all his old acquaintance, and offered him all the assistance in his power. He held the first Methodist covenant service, at the French church in Spitalfields, above eighteen hundred persons standing up in testimony of their assent to the tenor of the covenant, still in use among the Methodist societies.

On the 18th of August, he started for Cornwall. On the way, he preached to “sleepy congregations” at Reading and at Salisbury. At Shaftesbury, he found a more lively people. In Cornwall, his congregations were large and attentive. Even at Helstone, all were quiet, except two drunken men, one of whom soon walked away, and the other fell asleep on his horse’s neck. At Breage, the lions were now changed into lambs, though their wretched minister had told them, from the pulpit, a few years before, that John Wesley was expelled from the Oxford university for being the father of a bastard child; and that all the Methodists, at their private meetings, put out the lights. In the interval, this mendacious priest had grown thoughtful and melancholy, and had hanged himself. At St. Ives, Wesley visited a young attorney, who had attended the Methodist preaching, but who now sung, and swore, and screamed, and cursed, as if possessed by legion; now, however, after prayer, he sunk down into a state of quietude. At St. Just, Wesley preached on the foundation stone of the new Methodist meeting-house; and, at Launceston, in a gentleman’s dining room, capable of containing a congregation of some hundreds.

Having spent three weeks in Cornwall, he returned to Bristol to finish his “Notes on the New Testament.” During this Cornish tour, he was accompanied by Michael Fenwick, whom he pronounces to be “an excellent groom, valet de chambre, nurse, and, upon occasion, a tolerable preacher.”[239] He wrote to his friend Blackwell as follows.

“Redruth, August 31, 1755.

“Dear Sir,—In my last journey into the north, all my patience was put to the proof again and again, and all my endeavours to please; yet without success. In my present journey, I leap, as broke from chains. I am content with whatever entertainment I meet with, and my companions are always in good humour, ‘because they are with me,’ This must be the spirit of all who take journeys with me. If a dinner ill dressed, a hard bed, a poor room, a shower of rain, or a dirty road, will put them out of humour, it lays a burden upon me, greater than all the rest put together. By the grace of God, I never fret; I repine at nothing; I am discontented with nothing. And to have persons at my ear, fretting and murmuring at everything, is like tearing the flesh off my bones. I see God sitting upon His throne, and ruling all things well. Peace be with you all.

“I am, etc.

“John Wesley.”[240]

At the end of October, he returned to London, and, on the first Sunday after his arrival, read prayers, preached, and gave the sacrament, at Snow’s Fields, in the morning; preached and gave the sacrament at noon in West Street chapel; met the leaders at three; buried a corpse at four; preached at five; and afterwards met the society, and concluded the day with a general lovefeast.

Whitefield had returned from America in the month of May, and wrote: “The poor despised Methodists are as lively as ever; and, in several churches, the gospel is now preached with power. Many, in Oxford, are awakened to a knowledge of the truth, and I have heard almost every week of some fresh minister or another that seems determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. The greatest venom is spit out against Mr. Romaine, who, having been reputed a great scholar, is now looked upon and treated as a great fool.”[241]

On November 5, after a long separation, Wesley and Whitefield met in London. “Disputings,” writes the former, “are now no more: we love one another, and join hand in hand to promote the cause of our common Master.” The remainder of the year was spent in the metropolis and its immediate vicinity.

At this period, John Fletcher, afterwards vicar of Madeley, was a young man, twenty-six years of age, and officiated as private tutor to the two sons of Thomas Hill, Esq., at Tern Hall, in Shropshire. He had recently been converted, principally by the instrumentality of the Methodists, and had already formed a warm attachment to Wesley, which continued to increase until his death, in 1785. One of his first letters to the great Methodistic leader, perhaps the very first, was dated “London, November 29, 1755,” and is, in all respects, a remarkable production. He expresses a conviction that the end of the world is near at hand, and adduces elaborated reasons for this opinion. He confesses his belief in the second coming of our Saviour; in His making war among His enemies; and in His personal reign on earth for a thousand years. Fletcher’s millenarian letter is far too long to be inserted here; it may be read in the Methodist Magazine for 1793; and is of some importance, as showing, that the millenarian theory, which is now attracting so much attention, found considerable favour among some of the most distinguished of the first Methodists. We shall have to recur to this important subject at a future period.

Before leaving the year 1755, it only remains to review Wesley’s publications.

At the commencement of the year, an anonymous octavo pamphlet, of 32 pages, was published, entitled “Queries humbly proposed to the Right Reverend and Right Honourable Count Zinzendorf.” James Hutton, who was Zinzendorf’s chief disciple, believed this to be the work of Wesley;[242] and, after a careful examination, we are bound to say, that we concur in this belief;[243] and as the pamphlet is extremely rare and also curious, a brief analysis of its contents may not be unacceptable. The Queries are arranged under ten divisions, and the writer hopes the count will give “speedy, plain, positive, categorical answers.” He also states, that, in these Queries, he has “summed up, as briefly as possible, the most material parts of the charges against the Moravians.” Viewed in such a light, the pamphlet is of great importance. The following are specimens.

“I. With regard to yourself and your community. 1. Do you permit the Brethren to style you ‘The angel of the church of Philadelphia’? 2. Do not they almost implicitly believe your assertions, and obey your directions? 3. Do not you think yourself, as a teacher, equal to any of the apostles? 4. Do not you believe your doctrinal writings are of equal authority with the Bible? 5. Do not you judge your church to be the only true church under heaven; and the members of it the only true Christians on earth? 6. Are the Brethren the 144,000 mentioned in the Revelation? 7. Is it honest to term yourselves the Moravian church, when you know you are not the Moravian church? 8. Do you yourself expect to be judged at the last day? 9. Do you believe a thousand souls of the wicked will be saved in that day at your intercession?

“II. With respect to your doctrines concerning the Trinity. Have you spoken these words, or anything to the same effect, ‘Praying to God the Father is not a whit better than praying to a wooden or stone God? The preachers of God the Father are Satan’s professors? The Father and the Holy Ghost minister to Christ in all things? The Holy Ghost is the wife of God, the mother of Christ, and of the church?’

“III. With regard to the Son of God. Do you affirm, that He sometimes gave answers to people that are not fit to be examined according to logic; and, that He had nothing extraordinary in His turn of mind or gifts?

“IV. With regard to the apostles and Scriptures. Do you affirm, that the apostles, except St. Paul and John, did not know so much of the blood theology as the Brethren? Were these your words, ‘I have ever, and still do protest, that the first Christians cannot properly be called a church, being no more than a troop of legalists’? Did you affirm, that there are more than six hundred blunders in the four gospels? Have you left out the whole epistle of St. James in your edition of the New Testament? Are there any persons among you who boast that they never read the Bible in their lives? Have you used it as a term of reproach, to have ‘heads full of Biblish lumber’? Did any of the Brethren say, ‘The Bible is dung, fit only to be spit upon’?

“V. With regard to the moral law of God. Are these your own words, ‘There is but one duty, which is that of believing’? ‘Our method is to preach no commandment but that of believing’? Is it true that, at some of the merry meetings of the Brethren, there was an uproar as if a madhouse had broken loose? that the Brethren threw one another on the floor, and struggled, with many gross indecencies? Is it true, that your son vindicated all this? And that you yourself said, it was blasphemy to censure it?

“VI. With regard to idolatry and superstition. Have you not hymns directed to angels, and the Virgin Mary? Has not a large image of our Saviour been placed in the midst of the Brethren met together? Has not incense been burnt for you?

“VII. With regard to your manner of conversation. Are not you of a close, dark, reserved temper and behaviour? Is not the spirit of secrecy the spirit of your community? Do not you, in many cases, use cunning, guile, dissimulation? Was not Mr. Gambold guilty of a calm, deliberate lie, in publicly affirming, you had not so much as seen those hymns, some of which you had not only seen but composed?

“VIII. With regard to moral honesty. Have you not distressed, if not totally ruined, numerous families?

“IX. With regard to your manner of answering for yourselves. Have you ordered the Brethren to give no answer to any accusation, but the general one, ‘It’s all a lie’? Do you still deem those who blame your hymns worthy of having their tongues plucked out, or their hands chopped off?”

The above are fair specimens of all the Queries proposed by the writer of this curious pamphlet.[244] The conclusion is as follows.

“But I have done. I have proposed the Queries which you desired, and have endeavoured therein to come to the point. Permit me now to remind your lordship of the assurance given to the public, ‘As soon as these Queries are finished, the Moravians, who expect them with earnest longing, will lose no time in answering them.’ If your lordship is inwardly and deeply convinced, that the bulk of the preceding objections are just, and if you are determined to amend whatsoever is capable of amendment, then silence may be a sufficient answer. I am, my lord, your lordship’s real well wisher, and humble servant.”

What gave birth to this publication? Was Wesley justified in writing it? The following facts will help to answer these questions.

The reader has already seen that the eccentricities of the Moravian brotherhood had occasioned a large amount of public scandal. This, unfortunately, increased, rather than diminished; and, hence, on the last day of the year 1754, James Hutton published an advertisement in the London Daily Advertiser, calling for “Queries” to be proposed in reference to the charges publicly circulated against the Brethren; and indicating that answers to the Queries would be furnished.[245]

What was the result? Seven days after the appearance of Hutton’s advertisement, Wesley’s Queries were published;[246] but we can hardly say that they were answered. It is true, that an octavo volume was issued soon after; but the jejuneness, irrelevance, and confusion of the answers to the Queries may be guessed from the cumbrous title of the book, which was as follows: “An Exposition, or True State of the Matters objected to in England to the people known by the name of Unitas Fratrum: in which facts are related as they are; the true readings and sense of books, said to be his, (which have been laid to his charge sometimes without sufficient proof that they were so, and been moreover perverted and curtailed) are restored; principles are laid down as they ought, fairly; the practice, as it has been, is at present, and is intended for the future, is owned. By the Ordinary of the Brethren. The notes and additions by the editor,”—that is, by Count Zinzendorf and James Hutton.

Passing to other publications. It was in 1755, that Wesley completed his “Christian Library,” by the issue of ten additional 12mo volumes, containing more than 3000 printed pages. One of these was in the form of an index to the whole of the fifty volumes published; the others consisted of extracts from the writings of Reynolds, South, Flavel, Annesley, Nelson, Beveridge, Howe, and other distinguished authors.

Another of Wesley’s publications, in 1755, arose out of one of the most fearful events of modern times. On November 1, occurred the great earthquake at Lisbon, a city containing 36,000 houses, 350,000 inhabitants, a cathedral, forty parish churches, as many monasteries, and a royal palace. In six minutes, the greatest part of the city was destroyed, and not less than 60,000 persons met with an untimely death. The same earthquake was severely felt in almost the whole of Europe.

In 1754, Whitefield visited Lisbon, on his way to America, and spent nearly a month in that ill fated city. Early in 1755, he published a 12mo pamphlet of 29 pages, giving an account of what he witnessed, little thinking that the scene of so much sin would soon become the graveyard of tens of thousands of its inhabitants. He found crucifixes, and images of the Virgin, and of other real or reputed saints, in almost every street, lamps hanging before them, and the people rendering them obeisance as they passed. Processions of priests and friars, with lighted wax tapers, were almost of daily occurrence. One of these was led by three popish dignitaries in scarlet clothes, followed by two little boys with wings fixed on their shoulders to make them resemble angels. Then came several images of St. Francis; then an image of our Saviour, with long black hair, and dressed in a purple gown; and then the virgin mother, to whom St. Francis rendered homage. After this, followed a mitred cardinal gaudily, attired; a gorgeous friar under a splendid canopy; and then a long train of fat Franciscans. Another procession consisted of nearly two hundred penitents, all clothed in white, their faces veiled, their feet bare, and chains fastened to their ankles; some having on their backs great stones; others carrying in their hands dead men’s bones and skulls; some bearing upon their shoulders a heavy cross; and most lashing themselves with cords, or beating themselves with iron rods. In one of the churches, Whitefield found a solid silver altar of several yards circumference, and about twelve steps high. In another, he met with a golden altar, of nearly the same dimensions, its base studded with precious stones, each step lit up with large lighted silver candlesticks, and the top adorned with silver images of angels. In a large church, belonging to the convent of St. De Beato, he mingled with many thousands in witnessing what was meant to be a representation of the crucifixion of the Son of God. Upon a high scaffold were three full-sized figures of the blessed Saviour and of the crucified malefactors. At a little distance, was the holy Virgin, in long ruffles and widow’s weeds, her face veiled with purple silk, and her head encircled with a crown of glory. At the foot of the Saviour’s cross, lay, in a mournful posture, a living man, dressed in woman’s clothes, personating Mary Magdalene; while near at hand was a younger man, arrayed in a bob-wig and a green silk vesture, representing the apostle John. On each side, stood two sentinels in buff, with formidable caps and beards; and, directly in front, a personation of the Roman centurion, with a large target in his hand. From behind the purple hangings came twenty purple-vested boys, all wearing golden caps, and adorned with wings, and each one bearing a lighted taper in his hand. Opposite to the stage, a black friar, mounted in a pulpit, preached a sort of fifteen minutes’ sermon. Then came four long-bearded men, two of them carrying a ladder, and the other two, as the representatives of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa, bearing large gilt dishes filled with spices. Amid great ceremony, the body of the Saviour was taken down; Mary Magdalene wrapped the feet in her widespread handkerchief; the beloved disciple clasped the corpse to his loving heart; shrouded in linen, it was carried round the churchyard in grand procession; and then, followed by the Virgin, Mary Magdalene, and St. John, and by a whole troop of friars, bearing wax tapers in their hands, was conducted to an open sepulchre, and buried. Thus ended the Good Friday’s superstitious tragedy in the far famed Lisbon. A year and a half afterwards, Lisbon was a heap of ruins.

Under the date of November 26, Wesley says: “Being much importuned thereto, I wrote ‘Serious Thoughts on the Earthquake at Lisbon;’ directed, not as I designed at first, to the small vulgar, but the great; to the learned, rich, and honourable heathens, commonly called Christians.”

This was published in an octavo pamphlet of 34 pages; and, within a month, passed through two editions. Perhaps none of Wesley’s publications contain so much fiery eloquence as this. The reader must peruse it for himself.

Another of Wesley’s publications, in 1755, though small, was important—“Catholic Spirit. A Sermon on 2 Kings x. 15.” 12mo, 31 pages. It contains the principles of an evangelical alliance, namely, belief in the Holy Trinity in Unity, love to God and man, and the practice of good works. Wherever he found a man answering to this description, he was ready to recognise a Christian and a brother. He would not urge him to entertain his opinions, or to embrace his modes of worship. The presbyterian, the independent, the baptist, and even the quaker, had as much right to their opinions and preferences as he had to his. All he asked was this, If thine heart be as my heart, in the three great points already named, give me thine hand. In this respect, as in many others, Wesley was far in advance of the age in which he lived; and, more than a hundred years ago, was quite prepared for the Evangelical Alliance that has since been organised.

Wesley’s principal publication, in 1755, was his “Explanatory Notes on the New Testament” (with a portrait), quarto, 762 pages.

Concerning the portrait, Wesley himself gives the following information, in his account of the death of John Downes, one of his untaught itinerants. “In 1744, while I was shaving, John Downes was whittling the top of a stick; I asked, ‘What are you doing?’ He answered, ‘I am taking your face, which I intend to engrave on a copper plate.’ Accordingly, without any instruction, he first made himself tools, and then engraved the plate. The second picture which he engraved was that which was prefixed to the ‘Notes on the New Testament.’ Such another instance, I suppose, not all England, or perhaps Europe, can produce.”[247]

We believe this was the first instance in which Wesley’s portrait was prefixed to any of his works. John Hampson pronounced it one of the best that he had seen.[248]

In his preface, Wesley tells the reader that, for many years, he had contemplated such a work as this; and that the Notes are written “chiefly for plain, unlettered men, who understand only their mother tongue, and yet reverence and love the word of God, and have a desire to save their souls.”

In reference to his new translation of the text, he remarks that he has never altered the authorised version for altering’s sake; but only where, first, the sense was made better, stronger, clearer, or more consistent with the context; and, secondly, where, the sense being equally good, the phrase was better or nearer the original.

He made the notes as short as possible, that the comment might not obscure or swallow up the text. Many of them were translations from Bengelius’s “Gnomon Novi Testamenti;” many more were abridgments from the same learned and invaluable work. He also acknowledges himself largely indebted to the writings of Dr. Heylin, Dr. Guyse, and Dr. Doddridge.

A second edition of Wesley’s Notes was published in 1757. In 1759, he and his brother carefully compared the translation with the original, and corrected and enlarged the Notes for a new edition, which was issued in 1760.[249]

It is a fact worth mentioning, that, before Wesley’s Notes were put to press, he sent the manuscript to his old friend, the Rev. James Hervey, at that time one of the most popular writers of the day, and received the following answer.

“Weston, June 29, 1754.

“Dear Sir,—I have read your Notes, and have returned them, with such observations as occur to my mind. I think, in general, you are too sparing of your remarks and improvements. Many expositions are too corpulent, yours are rather too lean. May the good hand of the Lord be with them and their author.”[250]

As a set off to this, Dr. Adam Clarke observes: “Though short, the notes are always judicious, accurate, spiritual, terse, and impressive; and possess the happy and rare property of leading the reader immediately to God and his own heart.”[251]