1763.

1763
Age 60

IN almost every successive year, the Methodist movement devolved more and more on Wesley. His brother was in feeble health, had an increasing family, and employed himself almost exclusively in writing hymns, and in preaching to the Methodists of London and of Bristol. Whitefield’s asthma had become chronic, and well-nigh disabled him. He spent the first six months of 1763 chiefly in the north of England and in Scotland; but, for six weeks of that period, he was entirely silent; and during the remainder, his preaching was often intermitted, and in no instance was more frequent than once a day. Three months were occupied with his voyage to America, where he landed about the beginning of September, and speaks of himself as “wearied and almost worn out”; and where he was not able to preach more than twice or thrice a week. Comparatively speaking, his work was already done; though still preaching, it was as an invalid. For the last five and twenty years, it would be difficult to say whether Whitefield or Wesley, simply considered as evangelists, had been in labours more abundant. For twenty-eight years after this, Wesley was almost the only itinerant clergyman living. Grimshaw was dead; Whitefield, to a great extent, was disabled, and, as early as the year 1770, was removed to the rest of heaven; Charles Wesley had already become a settled minister; Berridge’s itinerancy was confined to his own comparatively small circuit, and to his visits to the metropolis; Romaine, Venn, Rowland Hill, and others, had pastoral charges, which necessarily prevented them leaving home, as often as they wished. Wesley, and Wesley only, was unfettered. He was without a church, and really without a home. His wife made him miserable, and he had no children to demand his time. His health was as vigorous as ever, and his heart as warm; and hence, while all his old clerical friends either died, or were disabled, or otherwise were obliged to relinquish the itinerant ministry, he and he alone ended as he first began; and, from 1735 to 1791, a period of five and fifty years, lived not the enviable life of a settled pastor, but the homeless life of a wandering evangelist, and devoted his health, energies, and talents to a work resembling his who said, “I am a debtor both to the Greeks, and to the barbarians”; “so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.”

At the commencement of 1763, Wesley was in the midst of the fanatical troubles, chiefly created by Bell and Maxfield. The following letters refer to these affairs. They were all published in the London Chronicle.

“Southwark, January 6, 1763.

“Sir,—One Bell, said to be a Lifeguardsman, holds forth to an assembly, near Hanover Square. He is supposed to belong to the Methodists; but he advances things which many Methodists abhor. Nevertheless, his delusions spread. Many of his followers think themselves perfect, and declare they shall never die, ‘because,’ as they say, ‘our dear Lord, who certainly will come a second time, is at the door, and we shall see Him come.’

“God only knows where this folly of Mr. Bell’s may end, if not soon stopped. Soon after the Reformation in Germany, many sprung up who held that they were perfect; they despised authority, and declared Christ was at the door (as Mr. Bell does) to destroy the world. Many of them, men and women, worshipped naked, and appeared so in the streets of Amsterdam and elsewhere, declaring that, as clothes came in only in consequence of sin, so they being free from sin were to wear none.

“Impartiality.”[500]

“Windmill Hill, January 7, 1763.

“Sir,—When I returned to London two or three months ago, I received various accounts of some meetings for prayer, which had lately been held by Mr. Bell and a few others. Some highly applauded them; others utterly condemned; some affirmed they had done much good; others that they had done much hurt. This convinced me, that it was requisite to proceed with caution, and to do nothing rashly. The first point was to form my own judgment, and that upon the fullest evidence. To this end I first talked with Mr. Bell himself, whom I knew to be an honest, well meaning man. Next, I told him they were at liberty, for a few times, to meet under my roof. They did so, both in the society room at the Foundery, and in the chapel at West Street. By this means, I had an opportunity of hearing them myself, which I did at both places. I was present also, at the next meeting after that, which is mentioned by Mr. Dodd and Mr. Thompson, in the Public Ledger. The same things which they blame I blame also; and so I told Mr. Bell the same evening. I was in hopes they would be done away, which occasioned my waiting till this time. But now, having lost that hope, I have given orders that they shall meet under my roof no more.

“John Wesley.”[501]

“February 9, 1763.

“Sir,—I take this opportunity of informing all whom it may concern—1. That Mr. Bell is not a member of our society; 2. That I do not believe either the end of the world, or any signal calamity, will be on the 28th instant; and 3. That not one in fifty, perhaps not one in five hundred, of the people called Methodists, believe any more than I do, either this or any other of his prophecies.

“I am, etc.,

“John Wesley.”[502]

Christian perfection, for a season, took the place of Church separation. The Methodists, for years past, had been on the point of declaring themselves Dissenters; now they were not unlikely to become fanatics. From the first, Wesley had taught the doctrine of Christian perfection; but now some of Wesley’s followers were in danger of attaching to that doctrine whims which Wesley never sanctioned. Besides, is there not truth in the statement of Dr. Whitehead, a man well qualified to judge: “The doctrine of perfection, or perfect love, was undoubtedly taught among the Methodists from the beginning; but the manner in which it was now preached, pressing the people to expect what was called the destruction of the root of sin, in one moment, was most certainly new; I can find no trace of it before the period at which I have fixed its introduction”?[503]

Wesley’s annoyance was great, and his forbearance with the London fanatics exposed him to the censure of his friends. John Downes, in a letter to Joseph Cownley, wrote: “I consider the follies and extravagance of the witnesses as the devices of Satan, to cast a blemish upon a real work of God. The more I converse with the solid ones, the more I long to experience what they do. It is a state worthy of a Christian. As to the follies of the enthusiasts, Mr. Charles hears every week less or more. Why his brother suffers them we cannot tell. He threatens, but cannot find in his heart to put in execution. The consequence is, the talk of all the town, and entertainment for the newspapers.”[504]

Charles Wesley, in a letter dated February 1, 1763, remarks: “Sad havoc Satan has made of the flock. What they will do after my brother’s departure, I leave to the Lord; for I dare not think of it. I gave warning four years ago of the flood of enthusiasm which has now overflowed us; and of the sect of ranters that should arise out of the witnesses. My last hymns are a further standing testimony. Tell Christopher Hopper, I reverence him for his stand against the torrent.”[505]

This was well, so far as it went; but it would have been considerably better, if Charles Wesley had joined with his warnings and vaticinations his active cooperation to stem the torrent of which he had prophesied. Wesley wrote to him on February 8, saying: “The sooner you could be here the better; for the mask is thrown off. George Bell, John Dixon, Joseph Calvert, Benjamin Briggs, etc., etc., have quitted the society, and renounced all fellowship with us. I wrote to Thomas” (Maxfield), “but was not favoured with an answer. This morning I wrote a second time, and received an answer indeed! The substance is, ‘You take too much upon you.’”[506]

Charles evidently declined to come to his brother’s help; hence the following extracts from two other letters, dated respectively February 26 and March 6, 1763:

“I perceive, verba fiunt mortuo; so I say no more about your coming to London. Here stand I; and I shall stand, with or without human help, if God is with us. That story of Thomas Maxfield is not true. But I doubt more is true than is good. He is a most incomprehensible creature. I cannot convince him, that separation is any evil; or, that speaking in the name of God, when God has not spoken, is any more than an innocent mistake. I know not what to say to him, or do with him. He is really mali caput et fons.”[507]

A fortnight after this, Wesley wrote as follows to the Countess of Huntingdon.

“March 20, 1763.

“My Lady,—By the mercy of God, I am still alive, and following the work to which He has called me, although without any help, even in the most trying times, from those of whom I might have expected it. Their voice seemed to be rather, ‘Down with him, down with him; even to the ground.’ I mean (for I use no ceremony or circumlocution) Mr. Madan, Mr. Haweis, Mr. Berridge, and (I am sorry to say it) Mr. Whitefield. Only Mr. Romaine has shown a truly sympathising spirit, and acted the part of a brother. As to the prophecies of these poor wild men, George Bell and half-a-dozen more, I am not a jot more accountable for them than Mr. Whitefield is, having never countenanced them in any degree, but opposed them from the moment I heard them; neither have these extravagances any foundation in any doctrine which I teach. The loving God with all our heart, soul, and strength, and the loving all men as Christ loved us, is, and ever was, for these thirty years, the sum of what I deliver, as pure religion and undefiled. However, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved! The will of the Lord be done!

‘Poor and helpless as I am,

Thou dost for my vileness care,

Thou hast called me by Thy name,

Thou dost all my burdens bear.’

“I am, your ladyship’s servant for Christ’s sake,

“John Wesley.”[508]

Wesley thought he had one friend left, though only one, in Mr. Romaine; but in this he was mistaken. Hence the following, written within a week after the above.

“Lambeth, March 26, 1763.

“Madam,—Thanks to your ladyship for your kind remembrance of me in your last. Enclosed is poor Mr. John Wesley’s letter. The contents of it, as far as I am concerned, surprised me; for no one has spoken more freely of what is now passing among the people than myself. Indeed, I have not preached so much as others whose names he mentions, nor could I. My subject is one, and I dare not vary from it. A perfection out of Christ is with me all rank pride and damnable sin. Man cannot be laid too low; nor Christ set too high. I would therefore always aim, as good brother Grimshaw expresses it, to get the old gentleman down, and keep him down; and then Christ reigns like Himself, when He is all, and man is nothing.

“I pity Mr. John from my heart. His societies are in great confusion; and the point, which brought them into the wilderness of rant and madness, is still insisted on as much as ever. I fear the end of this delusion. As the late alarming providence has not had its proper effect, and perfection is still the cry, God will certainly give them up to some more dreadful thing. May their eyes be opened before it is too late!

“Things are not here as at Brighton. The Foundery, the Tabernacle, the Lock, the Meeting, yea, St. Dunstan’s, has each its party, and brotherly love is almost lost in our disputes. Thank God, I am out of them.

“My wife joins me in duty and affection to your ladyship, and we are your faithful servants in our most dear and eternally precious Jesus,

“W. Romaine.”[509]

Such, in the midst of his London troubles, was Wesley’s want of sympathy and help from those whom he had been accustomed to regard as friends. Fletcher of Madeley continued faithful, but the duties of his distant vicarage were a bar to his rendering assistance in the metropolis. As early as November 22, 1762, he wrote Charles Wesley:[510] “Many of our brethren are overshooting sober Christianity in London. Oh that I could stand in the gap! Oh that I could, by sacrificing myself, shut this immense abyss of enthusiasm, which opens its mouth among us! The corruption of the best things is always the worst of corruptions.”

In another letter, dated September 9, 1763, Fletcher writes: “If Mr. Maxfield returns, the Lord may correct his errors, and give him so to insist on the fruits of faith as to prevent antinomianism. I believe him sincere; and, though obstinate and suspicious, I am persuaded he has a true desire to know the will, and live the life of God. I reply in the same words you quoted to me in one of your letters: ‘Don’t be afraid of a wreck, for Jesus is in the ship.’ After the most violent storm, the Lord will, perhaps all at once, bring our ship into the desired haven.”[511]

Fletcher thoroughly understood Wesley’s doctrines; but it is clear that Romaine did not. When and where did Wesley preach “a perfection out of Christ”? What was Romaine’s meaning when he employed that expression? Who can tell? Could Romaine himself? We greatly doubt it. Wesley, in the plainest language, had said all he had to say, both in the former and in the Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection. Had Romaine read these tracts? If he had, he ought to have known that they contained not a single syllable concerning any “perfection out of Christ”; if he had not, he was culpable in branding a doctrine, the meaning of which he had yet to learn. In a letter to Mrs. Maitland, dated May 12, 1763, Wesley declares, that he can say nothing on the subject of Christian perfection but what he has said already. Nevertheless, at her request, he is willing to add a few words more. He proceeds:—

“As to the word perfection, it is scriptural. Therefore, neither you nor I can in conscience object to it, unless we would send the Holy Ghost to school, and teach Him to speak, who made the tongue.

“By Christian perfection I mean, (as I have said again and again,) the so loving God and our neighbour, as to ‘rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks.’ He that experiences this is scripturally perfect. And if you do not, yet you may experience it; you surely will, if you follow hard after it, for the Scripture cannot be broken.

“What then does their arguing prove, who object against Christian perfection? Absolute or infallible perfection, I never contended for; sinless perfection I do not contend for, seeing it is not scriptural. A perfection such as enables a person to fulfil the whole law, and so need not the merits of Christ, I do not acknowledge. I do now, and always did protest against it.

“But is there no sin in those who are perfect in love? I believe not; but, be that as it may, they feel none,—no temper contrary to pure love, while they rejoice, pray, and give thanks continually. Whether sin is suspended, or extinguished, I will not dispute. It is enough, that they feel nothing but love. This you allow we should daily press after; and this is all I contend for.”[512]

In 1759, Wesley published his “Thoughts on Christian Perfection”; and now he issued another 12mo tract of thirty-nine pages, entitled “Farther Thoughts upon Christian Perfection,” in which he says: “In most particulars, I think now as I did then; in some I do not. My present thoughts I now offer to your consideration; being still open to further conviction; and willing, I trust, to be taught of God, by whatever instrument He shall choose.” He proceeds to show, that the highest degree of sanctification attainable on earth will not save a man from “unavoidable defect of understanding,” and from “mistakes in many things”; and that “these mistakes will frequently occasion something wrong, both in our tempers, and words, and actions.” For this reason, “the holiest of men still need Christ, as their prophet, king, and priest.” He maintains, that the sanctified have a direct, as well as an indirect, witness of their sanctification; and that “some, though not all, may have a testimony from the Spirit” of their final perseverance. He admits that, in most instances, those who are “justified gradually die to sin and grow in grace, till at, or perhaps a little before death, God perfects them in love”; but, in some instances, “God cuts short His work. He does the work of many years in a few weeks: perhaps in a week, a day, an hour.” Concerning those in London, who professed to have attained to Christian perfection, he says: “there is a wide difference between some of them and others.” He adds: “I think most of them, with whom I have spoken, have much faith, love, joy, and peace. Some of these, I believe, are renewed in love, and have the direct witness of it; and they manifest the fruit of it in all their words and actions. But some, who have much love, peace, and joy, have not the direct witness; and others, who think they have, are manifestly wanting in the fruit. How many I will not say: perhaps one in ten, perhaps more or fewer. Some are undeniably wanting in longsuffering; some in gentleness; some in goodness; some in fidelity; some in meekness; and some in temperance.” To these last mentioned he says: “Let us not fight about words; in the thing we clearly agree. You have not what I call perfection. If others will call it so, they may.”

After laying it down, that “those who are perfect may grow in grace, not only while they are in the body, but to all eternity,” he proceeds to say: “formerly, we thought, one saved from sin could not fall. Now, we know the contrary. We are surrounded with instances of those, who lately experienced all that I mean by perfection. They had both the fruit of the Spirit and the witness; but they have now lost both. There is no such height of holiness as it is impossible to fall from. If there be any that cannot fall, this wholly depends on the promise and faithfulness of God.”

His advices to those who professed perfection are—

“1. Watch and pray continually against pride. Always remember, much grace does not imply much light. These do not always go together. Give not place to the dangerous mistake that none can teach you, but those that are themselves saved from sin. 2. Beware of that daughter of pride, enthusiasm. Do not hastily ascribe things to God. Do not easily suppose dreams, voices, impressions, visions, or revelations to be from God. They may be from Him. They may be from nature. They may be from the devil. Try all things by the written word, and let all bow down before it. 3. Beware of antinomianism, making void the law, or any part of it, through faith. Do not put your head on the hole of a cockatrice’s den. Beware of Moravianism, the most refined antinomianism that ever was under the sun, producing the grossest libertinism, and most flagrant breach of every moral precept, such as could only have sprung from the abuse of true Christian experience. Beware of Moravian bigotry, stillness, self indulgence, censoriousness, and solifidianism. 4. Beware of sins of omission. Lose no opportunity of doing good in any kind. Give no place to indolence. Lose no shred of time. Do not talk much; neither long at a time: few can converse profitably above an hour. Keep at the utmost distance from pious chit-chat, from religious gossiping. 5. Beware of desiring anything but God. Admit no desire of pleasing food, or of any pleasure of sense; no desire of pleasing the eye, or the imagination, by anything grand, or new, or beautiful; no desire of money, of praise, or esteem; of happiness in any creature. 6. Beware of schism, of making a rent in the church of Christ. Do not extol, or run down, any preacher. Never omit meeting your class or band; never absent yourself from any public meeting. These are the very sinews of our society. Beware of impatience of contradiction, of touchiness, of testiness. Beware of tempting others to separate from you. Be particularly careful in speaking of yourself. Avoid all magnificent, pompous words. 7. Be exemplary in all things; particularly in outward things, as in dress; in little things; in laying out your money, avoiding every needless expense; in deep, steady seriousness; and in the solidity and usefulness of all your conversation.”

Such are some of the salient points in Wesley’s “Farther Thoughts upon Christian Perfection.” Opinions respecting them will vary; but all will admit the sincerity and intense earnestness of the man who wrote them.

Let us now track his footsteps in 1763. With the exception of a brief visit to Norwich, and another to Bristol, the first four months were spent in London and its vicinity, during which two or three incidents occurred, besides the perfectionist agitation, that are worth mentioning.

One was the death of Mrs. Charity Perronet, the good vicar of Shoreham’s wife, whom Wesley buried on February 11.

Another was an effort to relieve the sufferings of the London poor. The year opened with one of the severest frosts on record. The Thames was so covered with ice, that passengers and carriages crossed from one shore to the other; and booths were erected, and fairs held, on the river’s ice-glazed surface. Navigation was entirely stopped, and many thousands of watermen, with their families, were plunged into extreme distress. In some places, the ice was measured, and found to be six feet thick. Sea gulls came up as high as London Bridge; and other birds, in great numbers, were driven from their usual haunts, and were seen in the streets of the metropolis. Many persons were frozen to death; and large bodies of famished men wandered throughout the capital, begging bread and clothes.[513] Wesley was not the man to witness such suffering without endeavouring to relieve it. “Great numbers,” says Lloyd’s Evening Post, “of poor people had pease pottage and barley broth given them at the Foundery, at the expense of Mr. Wesley; and a collection was made, in the same place of worship, for further supplying the necessities of the destitute, at which upwards of £100 was contributed.”[514] Considering the value of money at that period, this was not amiss for the poor Foundery Methodists.

A third incident must be mentioned. We have just seen Wesley trying to relieve misery; we shall now see him endeavouring to put an end to vice. The Society for the Reformation of Manners was first instituted about the year 1677.[515] From 1730 to 1757, the society was defunct. In the last mentioned year, and perhaps as one of the results of Methodism, it was revived. The approbation of the lord mayor of London, and of the court of aldermen, was obtained. Thousands of books of instruction were sent to parish officers and parish constables, to remind them of their duty. The laws against immorality were again enforced. Streets, and fields, and public houses were swept of their notorious offenders. In five years, about ten thousand persons were brought to justice, chiefly for gambling, swearing, sabbath breaking, lewdness, and selling obscene engravings.

There can be little doubt that Wesley was connected with the revival of this useful association. At all events, in 1763, when the society consisted of one hundred and sixty members, nearly half of that number were Methodists.[516] On January 30, the society met at Wesley’s chapel, in West Street, Seven Dials; where he preached, before its members, the annual sermon, taking as his text the very scripture which had been selected by his father, when performing the same service sixty-five years before: “Who will rise up with me against the wicked?” Wesley attached considerable importance to this sermon, as is seen from the fact, that he retired to Lewisham to compose and write it, and that it was immediately published in an octavo pamphlet of thirty pages. Three years afterwards, the society, a second time, ceased to be; chiefly through an action instituted against it in the King’s Bench, where an adverse verdict was obtained, by the false swearing of a man whom the society subsequently convicted of wilful perjury. Still the death blow to the society was struck. Wesley writes: “They could never recover the expense of that suit. Lord, how long shall the ungodly triumph?”

In the early part of the year 1763, a shameful fraud was attempted upon Wesley, and is referred to in the following letter, published in the London Chronicle.

“April 5, 1763.

“Sir,—Some time since, I heard a man in the street bawling, ‘The Scripture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, asserted and maintained by the Rev. John Wesley.’ I was a little surprised, not having published anything on the head; and more so when, upon reading it over, I found not one line of it was mine, though I remembered to have read something like it. Soon after, to show what I really do maintain, I published ‘Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ’: mentioning therein that ‘pious fraud,’ which constrained me so to do.

“The modest author of the former publication now prints a second edition of it, and faces me down before all the world, yea, and proves, that it is mine.

“Would you not wonder, by what argument? Oh, the plainest in the world. ‘There is not,’ says he, ‘the least fraud in the publication, nor imposition on Mr. Wesley; for the words are transcribed from the ninth and tenth volumes of his Christian Library.’ But the Christian Library is not Mr. Wesley’s writing; it is ‘Extracts from and Abridgments of’ other writers; the subject of which I highly approve, but I will not be accountable for every expression. Much less will I father eight pages of I know not what, which a shameless man has picked out of that work, tacked together in the manner he thought good, and then published in my name. He puts me in mind of what occurred some years since. A man was stretching his throat near Moorfields, and screaming out: ‘A full and true Account of the Death of the Rev. George Whitefield.’ One took hold of him, and said: ‘Sirrah! what do you mean? Mr. Whitefield is yonder before you.’ He shrugged up his shoulders, and said: ‘Why, sir, an honest man must do something to turn a penny.’

“I am, sir, your humble servant,

“John Wesley.”[517]

On the 16th of May, two months later than usual, Wesley left London for the north.[518] By travelling in postchaises, he reached Newcastle in three days, and in three more came to Edinburgh, where he had an interview with his old friend Whitefield. He writes: “Humanly speaking, he is worn out; but we have to do with Him who hath all power in heaven and earth.”

At Edinburgh, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland were holding their annual conference, and many of the ministers, nobility, and gentry flocked together to hear Wesley preach in the High School yard, at seven a.m. He says: “I spake as plain as ever I did in my life. But I never knew any in Scotland offended at plain dealing. In this respect, the north Britons are a pattern to all mankind.”

One of Wesley’s hearers, on this occasion, was Lady Frances Gardiner, the widow of the renowned Colonel Gardiner, who fell at the battle of Preston Pans. A month afterwards, this Christian lady wrote to him, congratulating him on sending Mr. Hanby and Mr. Roberts to Edinburgh, where their labours had been greatly blessed; and then adding: “I have never, I own, been at the preaching house in a morning yet, as they preach so early; but I ventured to the High School yard the morning you left Edinburgh; and it pleased God, even after I got home, to follow part of your sermon with a blessing to me.”[519]

A year later, Wesley formed an acquaintance, at Edinburgh, with Lady Maxwell, who about the year 1761 had been left a widow, at nineteen years of age. She now became a Methodist; and, in 1770, for the purpose of affording a Christian education to poor children, she established a school in Edinburgh, which she liberally sustained for forty years; and, at her death, made provision for its existence to the end of time.[520] In the same year, Wesley was introduced to Lady Glenorchy, who also, a few months afterwards, became a widow at the age of thirty-one, and opened a chapel, which had been a popish church, for the supply of which Wesley obtained the services of the Rev. Richard de Courcy; the agreement being that, while this young minister of the Church of England should take the principal duties of the chapel, one night in the week should be set apart for the preaching of Wesley’s itinerants; and that liberty should be given to any presbyterian clergyman, who might be willing occasionally to officiate.[521] The plan was utopian, and was soon a failure.

Of the Methodist chapel which, during the year 1763, was built in Edinburgh,[522] we know nothing; but, in 1788, a second was erected, under the auspices of Zechariah Yewdall,[523] which Valentine Ward described as “a dirty, damp, dark, dangerous hole, seating six hundred people;[524] and which, twenty-seven years afterwards, was bought by the Edinburgh commissioners, for the sum of £1900, in order to build the bridge from Shakespeare Square to Calton Hill.[525]

During his present stay in Scotland, Wesley also preached at Dunbar, where, eleven years before, a company of English dragoons held a prayer-meeting, at which Andrew Affleck was converted; became a member of the Methodist society, which was then formed; and, for fifty-nine years, lived the life of an earnest Christian, and then expired, saying, “Dying is hard work, but the grace of God is sufficient for me.”[526]

Wesley returned to Newcastle on the 1st of June, preaching at Alnwick and Morpeth on his way. In a few days, he proceeded to Barnard castle, where there was a remarkable revival of religion. A few months before, the societies throughout “the dales,” or Barnard castle circuit, had been exceeding lifeless. Samuel Meggot recommended them to observe every Friday with fasting and prayer. The result has just been stated. Twenty in Barnard castle had found peace with God, and twenty-eight had been sanctified.

For sixteen years, Methodism had existed in this small country town, and here, as in other places, had been baptized in suffering. Many a time had Catherine Graves, one of the first members, been hunted by the rabble, and been pricked with pins for the purpose of drawing blood, and thereby depriving her of the power of sorcery; but now the Barnard castle Methodists, comparatively speaking, were no longer a feeble folk. They built themselves a chapel; and became the head of perhaps the widest Methodist circuit then existing. They were pious, but they were poor, and contributed, upon an average, not more than a farthing per member per week; and, of course, their circuit allowances were upon a corresponding scale. The following is a verbatim et literatim extract from their stewards’ book, for the quarter ending Midsummer, 1768.

To Diner and Letters£100
Mr. Rowell and Family5150
Mr. Bramer and Wife5150
Mr. Hunter and Wife460
Mr. Fenwick350
Mr. Rowell to the Conference220
Intrist060
Mr. Bramer for the dockter110
Mr. Rowell balance for his horse2120
Mr. Bramah’s House Rent150
Quarter’s Expenditure£2770

In other words, in 1768, three married Methodist ministers, and an unmarried one, cost the Barnard castle circuit about £109 8s. a year; or, including house rent, doctors’ bills, circuit horse, allowances for wives, conference expenses, and interest on borrowed money, about ten shillings and sixpence per minister per week. O tempora! O mores!

In his journey southwards, Wesley omitted visiting several of his preaching places in the north of Yorkshire. One of these was Helmsley, to which the following letter, by Dr. Conyers, refers.

“June 7, 1763.

“Reverend and dear Sir,—I have had information, from many hands, of your design of calling upon me at Helmsley, in your return from Scotland. I take this opportunity, frankly and freely, to declare to you, that my house and my heart are, and ever shall be, open to you. I presume our archdeacon will be with me, from Stokesley, on Wednesday evening, as he always takes a bed, and spends a night or two with me, when he is upon his visitation, which is at this place on Friday next. How far you may alter your design of preaching here, on that account, I leave to yourself. I speak this not out of fear; for I love you as I love my own soul: my only apprehension is, that he, being upon the spot, may shut my church doors against you. But if you only mean a friendly visit to me, I shall be glad to see you, let who will be here; and it will be the comfort of my heart, to have you preach to my flock in every room of my house, at any time when you come this way. As far as the doctrine you teach has come to my knowledge, I know not one part to which I could not subscribe, both with hand and heart.

“I am, reverend and dear sir, your affectionate friend and servant in Christ,

“Richard Conyers.”[527]

On the 13th of June, Wesley came to Epworth, where, while he was preaching, “a kind of gentleman” hired a company of boys and a drunken man to disturb the congregation. The boys shouted; the drunkard, as well as he could articulate, bawled ribaldry and nonsense; and the gentleman, with a French horn, did his utmost in blowing blasts of discord; but, despite the hubbub, the congregation quietly listened to the preacher’s sermon.

From Epworth, Wesley proceeded to Doncaster, Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester. While at Manchester, he paid his first visit to Matthew Mayer, at Portwood Hall, near Stockport, now a young man twenty-three years of age, a Methodist of about four years’ standing, but who had found peace with God only a few months before. In conjunction with John Morris, he had established weekly prayer-meetings at Davyhulme, Dukinfield, Ashton under Lyne, and other places, in one of which John Whitehead, the biographer of Wesley, was converted. Wesley invited young Mayer to accompany him to Birmingham, which invitation was accepted; and thus commenced a remarkable career of earnest and successful preaching, which lasted fifty years. Matthew Mayer never became, in the common sense of the designation, an itinerant preacher; and yet he itinerated tens of thousands of miles; and there are few towns, or even large villages, in Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, the south of Lancashire, or the west of Yorkshire, in which there were not numerous living witnesses of the Divine, converting power that attended his preaching. Matthew Mayer was one of the most remarkable local preachers that Methodism has ever had. He died in 1814, and Joseph Benson went all the way from London to Lancashire, in the depth of winter, purposely to preach his funeral sermon.

Wesley left Stockport on the 20th of June, and reached the metropolis four days afterwards. Finding that the ferment, arising out of Thomas Maxfield’s separation, still continued, he resolved to remain in London until after his conference had met.

Unfortunately, no explicit record of the proceedings of this conference exists. It is known that the first edition of what are called “The Large Minutes” was published in 1753. A second edition, containing the added legislation of the last ten years, was issued in 1763. Comparing the two, we find the following decisions arrived at during the interval between the dates just mentioned.

1. “We believe the design of God, in raising up the preachers called Methodists, is to reform the nation, and, in particular, the Church; to spread scriptural holiness over the land.”[528]

2. “The greatest hindrance to field preaching is to be expected from the rich, or cowardly, or lazy Methodists. But regard them not, neither stewards, leaders, nor people. Whenever the weather will permit, go out in God’s name into the most public places, and call all to repent and believe the gospel. Every assistant, at least, in every circuit, should endeavour to preach abroad every Sunday; especially in the old societies, lest they settle upon their lees.”[529]

3. In order to prevent strangers being present more than twice or thrice at society meetings, “See that all, in every place, show their tickets before they come in. If the stewards and leaders are not exact and impartial herein, employ others which have more resolution.”[530]

4. “Examining and instructing the people” [under our care] “at their own houses, at times set apart for that purpose, has never been effectually done yet; though Thomas Walsh took some steps therein. Who will take up that cross? It will be of great use to others, and a blessing to his own soul. Do all you can herein, if not all you would. Inquire in each house, ‘Have you family prayer? Do you read the Scripture in your family? Have you a fixed time for private prayer?’ Examine each as to his growth in grace, and discharge of relative duties.”[531]

5. “Should we insist everywhere on the band rules? particularly that relating to ruffles?

“Answer. By all means. This is no time to give any encouragement to superfluity of apparel. Therefore, give no band tickets to any in England or Ireland, till they have left them off. In order to this, (1) Read, in every society, the ‘Thoughts concerning Dress.’ (2) In visiting the classes, be very mild, but very strict. (3) Allow no exempt case, not even of a married woman; better one suffer than many.

“To encourage meeting in band: (1) In every large society, have a lovefeast quarterly for the bands only. (2) Never fail to meet them, apart from the society, once a week. (3) Exhort all believers to embrace the advantage. (4) Give a band ticket to none till they have met a quarter on trial.”[532]

6. “At each meeting of children, in every place, we may first set them a lesson in the ‘Instructions,’ or ‘Tokens for Children,’ (2) Hear them repeat it. (3) Explain it to them in an easy, familiar manner. (4) Often ask, ‘What have I been saying?’ and strive to fasten it on their hearts.”[533]

7. “Ought any woman to marry without the consent of her parents?

“Answer. In general she ought not. Yet there may be an exception. For if (1) a woman be under necessity of marrying; if (2) her parents absolutely refuse to let her marry any Christian: then she may, nay ought, to marry without their consent. Yet even then a Methodist preacher ought not to marry her.”[534]

8. “Read the sermon upon evil speaking, in every society. Extirpate smuggling, buying or selling uncustomed goods, out of every society; particularly in Cornwall, and in all seaport towns. Let no person remain with us, who will not totally abstain from every kind and degree of it. Extirpate bribery; receiving anything, directly or indirectly, for voting in any election. Show no respect of persons herein, but expel all who touch the accursed thing. Let this be particularly observed at Grimsby and St. Ives.”[535]

9. Let every preacher in town “examine carefully what state the sick is in; and instruct, reprove, or exhort accordingly.”[536]

10. “Rarely spend above an hour at a time in conversing with any one. Earnestly recommend the five o’clock hour to all.”[537]

11. The preachers were requested to offer constantly and fervently, at set times, private, family, and public prayer; consisting of deprecation, petition, intercession, and thanksgiving. They were to forecast, wherever they were, how to secure the hour at five in the evening, and the hour before or after morning preaching, for private devotion. They were constantly to read the Scriptures, Wesley’s tracts, and the Christian Library. They were to devote their mornings to reading, writing, prayer, and meditation. They were always to have a New Testament in their pockets; and were to see that Wesley’s Notes thereon were in every society, and were to explain them to the congregations. They were devoutly to use the Lord’s supper at every opportunity. They were advised to fast every Friday, Wesley avowing his purpose generally to eat only vegetables on Friday, and to take only toast and water in the morning. They were to meet every society weekly; also the leaders, and the bands, if any. They were diligently to inquire into the state of the books, to do all they could to propagate them. They were to keep watchnights once a month, and lovefeasts twice a year for the whole society. They were to visit every society once a quarter; to take a regular catalogue of the members, at least, once a year; and to write Wesley an account of all the defects of “the common preachers,” which they could not themselves cure. They were steadily to watch against the world, the devil, themselves, and besetting sins; and to deny themselves every useless pleasure of sense, imagination, and honour. They were recommended to use only that kind and that degree of food, which was best both for the body and the soul; to eat no flesh and no late suppers; and to take only three meals a day.[538]

12. “What can be done to make the people sing true?

“Answer. (1) Learn to sing true yourselves. (2) Recommend the tunes everywhere. (3) If a preacher cannot sing himself, let him choose two or three persons in every place, to pitch the tune for him.”[539]

13. “What is it best to take after preaching?

“Answer. Lemonade; candied orange peel; or a little soft, warm ale. But egg and wine is downright poison. And so are late suppers.”[540]

14. Preachers on probation were “not to ramble up and down, but to go where the assistant directed, and there only.”[541]

15. No one was to exhort in any of the societies without a note of recommendation from the assistant, which was to be renewed yearly.[542]

16. To make the Methodists sensible of the excellency of Kingswood school, every assistant was to read an account of it yearly; to exhort parents, who were able, to send their children thither; to answer all their objections, and refute all the lies they had heard about it; and to make a collection for it, at Midsummer, in every preaching house throughout England.[543]

17. “Has the office of an assistant been thoroughly executed?

“Answer. No; not by one assistant out of three. For instance, every assistant ought (1) To ‘see that the other preachers behave well.’ But who has sent me word whether they did or no? (2) ‘To visit the classes, regulate the bands, and deliver tickets quarterly.’ How few have done this! (3) Lovefeasts for the bands have been neglected. (4) Nor have persons been regularly taken in, and put out of, the bands. (5) I fear many of the quarterly meetings are formal, not spiritual. (6) The societies are not half supplied with books; not even with ‘Kempis,’ ‘Instructions for Children,’ and ‘Primitive Physic,’ which ought to be in every house. And why should not each of you do like William Pennington—carry books with you through every round? Exert yourselves in this. Be not ashamed. Be not weary. Leave no stone unturned. And let none print anything of his own, till it has been approved by the conference. (7) How few accounts have I had, either of remarkable deaths or remarkable conversions! (8) How few exact lists have we received of the societies! Take more time and more pains in preparing them. (9) Who of you has met the married and single men and women once a quarter, even in the largest societies? (10) You have not provided a private room everywhere for the preacher; nor a bed to himself; neither the ‘Library,’ for want of which some still read trash. Till this can be done, let there be, immediately, in every place, at least the ‘Notes,’ and the tract on original sin.”[544]

18. “Is there any other advice which you would give assistants?

“Answer. Yes. In every place, exhort those who were brought up in the Church, constantly to attend its service. And in visiting the classes, ask every one, ‘Do you go to church as often as ever you did?’ Set the example yourself. And immediately alter every plan that interferes therewith. Is there not a cause for this? Are we not unawares, by little and little, tending to a separation from the Church? Oh remove every tendency thereto with all diligence. (1) Let all our preachers go to church. (2) Let all our people go constantly. (3) Receive the sacrament at every opportunity. (4) Warn all against niceness in hearing; a great and prevailing evil. (5) Warn them likewise against despising the prayers of the Church. (6) Against calling our society a church, or the church. (7) Against calling our preachers ministers, our houses meeting-houses (call them plain preaching houses). (9) Do not license them as such. The proper form of a petition to the judge is, ‘A. B. desires to have his house in C. licensed for public worship.’ (10) Do not license yourself, till you are constrained; and then not as a Dissenter, but a Methodist preacher. It is time enough when you are prosecuted, to take the oaths. Thereby you are licensed.”[545]

19. “What do you advise with regard to public buildings?

“Answer. (1) Let none be undertaken without the consent of the assistant. (2) Build, if possible, in the form of Rotherham house. (3) Settle it in the following form.”

Here follows the trust deed for the chapel in Manchester, to the effect that, during their lifetime, Wesley, his brother, and Grimshaw of Haworth, and others, whom they might appoint, should have the use of the said chapel; and that, after their death, the trustees should permit such persons to preach in it as were appointed by the yearly conference; provided always, that such persons preach no other doctrine than is contained in Wesley’s Notes upon the New Testament, and his four volumes of sermons; and provided also, that they preach —— evenings in every week, and at five o’clock on each morning following.[546]

20. “How may we raise a general fund?

“Answer. By a yearly subscription, to be proposed by every assistant when he visits the classes at Christmas, and to be received at the visitation following.”

To this end, the assistant was to enlarge on the following hints. (1) That the debts on the chapels of the Connexion amounted to about £4000. (2) That God had raised up preachers, and that they were greatly needed; but could not be employed for want of money to find them food. (3) That, in order to quell riotous mobs, it was necessary to have recourse to the King’s Bench, and that a suit there usually cost £50 or £60, which must be met by a general contribution.[547]

21. “How may provision be made for old or worn out preachers?

“Answer. As to their employ, they may be supernumerary preachers, or assistants, in those circuits wherein there is most need. As to their subsistence,—(1) Let every travelling preacher contribute ten shillings yearly. (2) Let this be lodged in the hands of three stewards, approved of by the majority of the preachers. (3) Out of this, let what is needful be allowed yearly; first for the old or sickly preachers and their families; then for the widows and children of those that are dead.”[548]

22. “If God should call you away, what would be the most probable means of preventing the people from being scattered?

“Answer. Let all the assistants, for the time being, immediately go up to London, and consult what steps are fittest to be taken. And God will then make the way plain before them.”[549]

We have thus endeavoured, in as brief a form as possible, to embody all the points, in the Minutes published in 1763, that are not contained in the previous publication of 1753. Some of these are curious, and others of the greatest consequence. Three connexional funds are sanctioned and recommended. A trust deed for chapels is supplied. Continued union with the Church of England is strongly urged. To say nothing of the discipline prescribed for the preachers, and for the people, these were matters of the utmost moment, and deserve more attention than we have space to give them. Facts are furnished; the reader himself must ponder them.

Before leaving the conference of 1763, it may be added, that its sessions were held in the chapel at Spitalfields; and that Howel Harris was present, and exhorted the preachers to have faith in God, and whenever they met a man, in any of their journeyings, to speak to him about his soul. “If I meet a poor man,” said he, “I give him a halfpenny, if I have one; but I always remember that the man has a soul as well as a body, and therefore I say something to him respecting his salvation. And if I meet a rich man, why should I be afraid of him? For aught I know, he may be worse than the beast he rides upon. Perhaps the beast carries the devil upon its back.”[550]

The conference being ended, Wesley set out, on the 15th of August, perhaps in company with Howel Harris, to the principality of Wales. At all events, four days afterwards, he reached Trevecca, and wrote: “Howel Harris’s house is one of the most elegant places which I have seen in Wales. The little chapel, and all things round about it, are finished in an uncommon taste; and the gardens, orchards, fishponds, and mount adjoining, make the place a little paradise. He thanks God for these things, and looks through them. About sixscore persons are now in the family; all diligent, all constantly employed; all fearing God and working righteousness.”

Wesley continues: “August 20.—We took horse at four in the morning, and rode through one of the pleasantest countries in the world. I will be bold to say, all England does not afford such a line of fifty miles’ length, for fields, meadows, woods, brooks, and gently rising mountains, fruitful to the very top.”

On completing his Welsh tour, Wesley wrote: “I was more convinced than ever, that the preaching like an apostle, without joining together those that are awakened, and training them up in the ways of God, is only begetting children for the murderer. How much preaching has there been for these twenty years all over Pembrokeshire! But no regular societies, no discipline, no order or connection; and the consequence is, that nine in ten of the once awakened are now faster asleep than ever.”

These are weighty words, and well worth pondering by those, in modern days, who advocate a revision of the laws respecting Methodists meeting together in weekly class. Wesley spoke from experience; these are theorists, who, in the absence of experience, will do well to hesitate before they step.

During his journey in Wales, Wesley informed himself respecting a Welsh extravagance, referred to in the following letter, published in Lloyd’s Evening Post, for June 27, 1763.

“There is here” [at Lancroyes] “what some call a great reformation in religion among the Methodists; but the case is really this. They have a sort of rustic dance in their public worship, which they call religious dancing, in imitation of David’s dancing before the ark. Some of them strip off their clothes, crying out, Hosannah, etc., in imitation of those that attended our Saviour when He rode into Jerusalem. They call this the glory of the latter day; and when any person speaks to them of their extravagance, the answer they give is, ‘You have the mark of the enemy in your forehead.’ Such are the delusion and uncharitableness of this people.”

These Welsh jumpers are called Methodists; but they were Methodists over whom Wesley had no control. He writes:

“1763, August 27.—Mr. Evans gave me an account, from his own knowledge, of what has made a great noise in Wales. ‘It is common, in the congregations attended by Mr. W. W., and one or two other clergymen, after the preaching is over, for any one that has a mind, to give out a verse of a hymn. This they sing over and over with all their might, perhaps above thirty, yea, forty times. Meanwhile the bodies of two or three, sometimes ten or twelve, are violently agitated; and they leap up and down, in all manner of postures, frequently for hours together.’ I think, there needs no great penetration to understand this. They are honest, upright men, who really feel the love of God in their hearts. But they have little experience, either of the ways of God, or the devices of Satan. So he serves himself in their simplicity, in order to wear them out, and to bring a discredit on the work of God.”

Strangely enough this jumping in public worship found an advocate in good William Williams, the Welsh hymnist, who wrote a pamphlet in defence of it.[551] To the injury of religion it was perpetuated for many years.

At the end of August, Wesley came to Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which he remained a month, frequently preaching out of doors, and expressing the opinion, that in no other way could the outcasts of men be reached. He cautioned the Bristol Methodists, not to “love the world, neither the things of the world”; and writes, in language and tone which ought to be a warning to the Methodists of the present day: “This will be their grand danger; as they are industrious and frugal, they must needs increase in goods. This appears already; in London, Bristol, and most other trading towns, those who are in business have increased in substance sevenfold, some of them twenty, yea, an hundredfold. What need, then, have these of the strongest warnings, lest they be entangled therein, and perish!”

On October 1, he returned to London, and says: “I found our house in ruins, great part of it being taken down, in order to a thorough repair. But as much remained as I wanted; six foot square suffices me by day or by night.” He adds: “All this week, I endeavoured to confirm those who had been shaken, as to the important doctrine of Christian perfection, either by its wild defenders, or wise opposers, who much availed themselves of that wildness.”

He then made a three weeks’ tour to Norwich, where he read the rules of the society, adding: “Those who are resolved to keep these rules may continue with us, and those only.” He told them he would immediately put a stop to Methodist preaching in the time of Church service; and wound up by saying: “For many years I have had more trouble with this society, than with half the societies of England put together. With God’s help, I will try you one year longer; and I hope you will bring forth better fruit.”

On October 29, Wesley returned to London, where he continued the remainder of the year. He visited the classes, and found that, since February, one hundred and seventy-five persons had left the society, one hundred and six of whom were Thomas Maxfield’s friends. All his leisure hours he employed in reading over, with the London preachers, the publications of himself and his brother; considering the objections that had been made against them; and correcting whatever they judged wrong either in matter or expression.

Hitherto Wesley had consorted but little with Dissenting ministers. He had visited Doddridge, and had been in friendly communication with Gillies and a few of the presbyterians of North Britain; but that was well-nigh all. With a heart big enough to embrace all men, without distinction of nation, sect, or colour, he had, hitherto, intentionally or otherwise, been as exemplary an observer of the etiquette of episcopal caste as almost any high church ritualist could wish. In December, 1763, he added to his friends the presbyterian minister of Staplehurst, in Kent. A few months before, the Rev. Jacob Chapman, the minister alluded to, wrote to Wesley, saying: “I am a minister of the presbyterian denomination; but my Master has enabled me to love real Christians of all denominations. I have reason to bless God for my acquaintance with the Methodists; they have been great blessings to me and my dear wife. The Lord has inclined us to receive the preachers most freely and joyfully.”[552] Mr. Chapman was not an episcopalian; but he was a Christian, and, on December 7, Wesley went to visit him. He writes: “Mr. Chapman, who loves all that love Christ, received us gladly. At six, the congregation, gathered from many miles round, seemed just ripe for the gospel; so that, contrary to my custom in a new place, I spoke merely of ‘the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

Immediately after Wesley’s return to London, Mr. Chapman wrote him as follows.

“Staplehurst, December 10, 1763.

“Reverend Sir,—You shall be always most heartily welcome to the best part of my house, for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose you are, and whom you serve. Whatever preachers you send, we shall joyfully receive, be their opinions what they may. I would like those best, who are most like Christ. I very greatly approve of the rules of the society, and very fervently love you; and I trust never to let a day pass without praying for you. I make no doubt, the lay preachers are sent by our Lord as extraordinary messengers; and that His design is, that they should go about calling poor sinners to repent and believe the gospel, and consequently that they are not to settle anywhere. This is a very difficult office. The Lord strengthen them for the arduous undertaking.”[553]

The friendship, thus begun, was long continued. Mr. Chapman’s house and chapel were open to the Methodist preachers. He himself became a member of the Methodist society, and was as docile and humble as though he had been one of the most illiterate among the people. His stipend was £80 per annum; he lived on £20, and gave away the rest in charity. He almost, if not entirely, used a vegetarian diet, and principally for the purpose of being able to relieve the necessities of his poorer brethren. He survived Wesley; and when visited by Robert Miller, about the year 1790, gave him the heartiest welcome, saying: “I have entertained the preachers for seven-and-twenty years, and hope they will never forsake me while I live.” Mr. Miller adds: “Mr. Chapman was one of the best men I ever knew”;[554] and good old John Reynolds testified: “Of all the men of God, with whom I have had the happiness to be acquainted, in a life of more than threescore years, I have never known one who appeared to possess so much of the mind of Christ as Mr. Chapman.”[555]

The world is full of changes. Man’s circle of acquaintance alters in character, though not materially in size. New friends spring up on earth; but old friends are removed to heaven. Thus it was with Wesley. In 1763, he became acquainted with Mr. Chapman; in the same year, he was bereaved of Dr. Byrom.

Byrom was the son of a linen draper, and born at Kersal, near Manchester, in 1691. After being educated in his native town, and at the Merchant Taylors’ school in London, he was, at the age of sixteen, admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge. In 1714, he was elected fellow of his college, and, in the same year, became a contributor to Addison’s Spectator. Two years later, he resigned his college preferment, and went to Montpelier, to study physic. On his return to England, he assumed the office of teacher of shorthand writing, of which he was preeminently a master. On the death of his brother, he came into possession of the family estate, at Kersal, and gave himself up to the enjoyment of domestic and social felicity. He was a profound admirer of the great English mystic, William Law; but was also a man of unaffected piety. At a time when much obloquy was attached to the name of Methodist, he was not ashamed of being known as the particular friend of Wesley. He died September 28, 1763.[556] His only son died ten years afterwards.[557]

In many respects, Byrom was a remarkable man. In stature, he was one of the tallest men in England; so that, in the course of fifty years, he appears to have met only two others taller than himself.[558] In stenography, he was the greatest proficient then existing. The extent, variety, and accuracy of his literary studies were amazing, as is shown by his manuscripts still extant. There seems hardly to have been any language, of which the literature was of any value, which he did not master; and his writing of Hebrew, Arabic, etc., was such as the engraver might vainly attempt to imitate.[559] His poetry, quaint but pungent, is too well known to need description. As a specimen of it, and of his politics, the following is far from being bad:

“God bless the King, and bless the Faiths Defender;

God bless—no harm in blessing—the Pretender;

But who Pretender is, and who is King,

Why, bless us all, that’s quite another thing.”[560]

Wesley inserted not a few of his poems in the old Arminian magazines; and writes: “It cannot be denied, that he was a man of uncommon genius, a man of the finest and strongest understanding; and, yet, very few even of his countrymen and contemporaries have so much as heard his name.”[561] “He has all the wit and humour of Dr. Swift, together with much more learning, and, above all, a serious vein of piety. A few things, in the second volume of his poems, are taken from Jacob Behmen; to whom I object, not only, that he is obscure, and not only, that his whole hypothesis is wholly unsupported either by Scripture or reason; but also, because the ingenious madman over and over contradicts Christian experience, reason, Scripture, and himself. But setting these things aside, we have” [in Dr. Byrom’s poems,] “some of the finest sentiments that ever appeared in the English tongue; some of the noblest truths, expressed with the utmost energy, and the strongest colours of poetry.”[562]

One or two other matters, belonging to this period of Wesley’s history, must be mentioned.

The increase of Methodism was one of Wesley’s difficulties, as well as his great encouragement. His societies, especially the larger ones, naturally wished to receive the sacrament in their own chapels: but as Wesley had no clerical helper, entirely devoted to the work, except his brother; and as he himself was almost always itinerating, it was physically impossible to meet the demands of London, Bristol, and other places. Neither of the Wesleys was prepared to allow the unordained preachers to administer, and they themselves were utterly unable to attend to the reasonable claims of all that wanted them. Hence the difficulty. This was partly met, when Thomas Maxfield received ordination from an Irish bishop. For several years, Maxfield was stationed in London, to read the liturgy and to administer the sacrament in Wesley’s absence. But now Maxfield had left him, and his embarrassment was greater than ever. One of his principal helpers was John Jones, a man of considerable learning, of good abilities, and of deep piety, and who, for seventeen years, had faithfully acted the part of an itinerant preacher. Just at this juncture, Erasmus, a bishop of the Greek church, visited London; and, as it was impossible to obtain ordination, for the Methodist preachers, from the bishops of the English Church, it occurred to Wesley, that it might be expedient to apply to Erasmus to ordain Mr. Jones. Previous, however, to doing this, Wesley felt it necessary to satisfy himself, that Erasmus really was a bishop. By his direction, Jones wrote to the patriarch of Smyrna on the subject; and received an answer, stating that Erasmus was bishop of Arcadia in Crete. To this was added the testimony of several gentlemen who had met the eastern prelate in Turkey. Wesley says, “he had abundant unexceptionable credentials as to his episcopal character.”[563] Being fully satisfied of this, Wesley requested him to set apart Mr. Jones, to assist him in administering the sacrament to his societies. Erasmus did so; and, if the matter had ended here, the thing would hardly have deserved further notice.

No sooner was it known, however, that one of the itinerants had been ordained, than several others applied to the good tempered bishop for the same episcopal favour. The following appeared in Lloyd’s Evening Post, for December 7, 1764.

“To the article in the papers relating to three tradesmen being ordained by a Greek bishop, another may be added, a master baker. And two celebrated Methodist preachers made also an application to the same bishop, to consecrate one or both of them bishops; but the Greek told them, it was contrary to the rule of his church for one bishop to make another: yet, notwithstanding all he said, they very unwillingly took a denial.”

Whether this was strictly true, we can hardly tell; but certain it is, that John Jones, Samson Staniforth, Thomas Bryant, and others were ordained. The result was, Charles Wesley took huge offence; and, shortly after, Mr. Jones was obliged to leave the connexion; Samson Staniforth had to refrain from exercising his priestly functions; and Thomas Bryant put on a gown, and made a rent in the Methodist society of Sheffield.[564]

The unpleasantness did not end even here. In 1771, Augustus Toplady, one of Wesley’s bitterest opponents, published “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,” in which he revived the thing. With his unenviable scurrility, he called Erasmus “a foreign mendicant”; and said: “to this day, the Greek church in Amsterdam believes him to be an impostor.” He also supplied a certificate, written in Greek, of which the following is a translation.

“Our measure from the grace, gift, and power of the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, given by our Saviour Jesus Christ to His Divine and holy apostles, to ordain subdeacons and deacons; and also, to advance to the dignity of a priest; of this grace which hath descended to our humility, I have ordained subdeacon and deacon, at Snowfields chapel, on the 19th day of November, 1764, and at Wells Street chapel on the 24th of the same month, priest the reverend: Mr. W. C.[565] according to the rules of the holy apostles, and of our faith. Moreover, I have given to him power to minister and teach, in all the world, the gospel of Jesus Christ, no one forbidding him in the church of God. Wherefore, for that very purpose, I have made this present letter of recommendation from our humility, and have given it to the ordained Mr. W. C. for his certificate and security.

“Given and written at London, in Britain, November 24, 1764.

“Erasmus, Bishop of Arcadia.”

Toplady proceeds to ask Wesley four insinuating questions.

“1. Did you get him to ordain several of your lay preachers according to the Greek ritual? 2. Did not these preachers both dress and officiate as clergymen of the Church of England, in consequence of that ordination; and under your own sanction and approbation? Nay, did you not repeatedly declare, that their ordination was, to all intents and purposes, as valid as your own? 3. Did you not strongly press this supposed Greek bishop to consecrate you a bishop, that you might be invested with a power of ordaining what ministers you pleased, to officiate in your societies as clergymen? And did he not refuse to consecrate you, alleging this for his reason,—That, according to the canons of the Greek church, more than one bishop must be present to assist at the consecration of a new one? 4. In all this, did you not palpably violate the oath of supremacy, which you have repeatedly taken? part of which runs thus: ‘I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm,’”

How much truth was there in all this? It will be seen, that the pretended certificate was signed only a fortnight before the statement, already quoted, appeared in Lloyd’s Evening Post. Both the chapels mentioned were Wesley’s chapels. Alexander Mather, who had been six years in the itinerancy, was a baker before he entered it, and had a considerable amount of innocent ambition. Wesley was in great difficulty arising from the want of ordained preachers to administer the sacraments; and, though he had long held the theory of Lord King, that, according to New Testament teaching, every presbyter was, in reality, a bishop; and therefore, that he himself, being a presbyter, was also a bishop, and as fully authorised to ordain others as any bishop in the world; yet, for prudential reasons, this was an authority which, at present, he was not prepared to exercise: and, hence, it would not have been surprising if he had made the application to Erasmus which it is surmised he did.

All this gives considerable plausibility to the half affirmative queries of Augustus Toplady. On the other hand, however, we have the absolute declaration of Wesley himself, that Erasmus never rejected any overture that he made to him;[566] and, if this were so, it follows that, either Erasmus did actually ordain him a bishop (which no one ventures to assert); or, that Toplady’s insinuation is calumniously untrue. To this, also, must be added, the testimony of Thomas Olivers, who with Wesley’s consent,[567] if not at his request, replied to Toplady’s attack; namely, that though Wesley did get Erasmus to ordain John Jones, and though John Jones did dress as a clergyman of the Church of England, and did assist Wesley in administering the Lord’s supper in the Methodist societies, yet Wesley had authorised him (Olivers) to give the most positive and unqualified denial to the insinuation, that he had asked Erasmus to ordain himself to the high office of a bishop. “But,” continues Olivers, “suppose he had, where would have been the blame? Mr. Wesley is connected with a number of persons who have given every proof, which the nature of the thing allows, that they have an inward call to preach the gospel. Both he and they would be glad if they had an outward call too. But no bishop in England will give it them. What wonder then, if he was to endeavour to procure it by any other innocent means?”[568]

This was written in 1771, only six or seven years after the alleged events took place. Which is likeliest to be true—the bitter insinuation of a malignant opponent like Toplady; or the positive assertion of Wesley himself, and the authorised declaration of Wesley’s friend Olivers? Here the matter must be left. Though somewhat tedious, it is also important, as tending to show, that the growth of Methodism was one of Wesley’s greatest difficulties, and rendered it absolutely imperative—either that he should make the Methodists Dissenters; or, that he should procure episcopal ordination for his preachers; or, that he should do something else, which he tried to do in 1764, and which will have to be noticed in the year following.

Wesley’s life was a continued warfare. In 1763, there was published, “A Caution against Religious Delusion: a sermon preached at the visitation of the Archdeacon of Ely, in the church of St. Michael, Cambridge, on Thursday, May 19, 1763. By William Backhouse, M.A., fellow of Christ’s college, and vicar of Meldreth.” 8vo, 20 pages. Of course, this was another attack on Methodism. Methodist preachers are “modern pretenders to supernatural informations”; they are “hurried away with the exorbitancies of ungoverned piety”; they are “enthusiastic preachers, who are mindful enough of one part of St. Paul’s injunction to Timothy, ‘to give attendance to exhortation, and to doctrine,’ but alas! if they really would, they could not give heed to the first and fundamental part of it—reading.”

Another onslaught was made by a greater Church dignitary than Mr. Backhouse. Dr. Thomas Rutherforth was a fellow of the Royal Society, archdeacon of Essex, regius professor of divinity at Cambridge, and an author of repute; though Warburton says of him: “If he knows no more of theology than, he does of morals, he is the meanest pedant of the age.” In 1763, Rutherforth published “Four Charges to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Essex”; in which he took the liberty to tell his readers, that though “the Methodists pretend to be the genuine sons of the Church of England, they adopt the language and opinions of the conventicle; for they maintain, that every believer, provided he has the gift of utterance, is qualified to preach, and that human learning is rather an impediment than otherwise.” His pamphlet of ninety-five pages, octavo, is dull and dreary, though upon the whole, respectful. Five years afterwards, Wesley wrote an answer to it, from which the following are extracts. Rutherforth charges Wesley with maintaining contradictions. Wesley replies:—

“If all my sentiments were compared together, from the year 1725 to 1768, there would be truth in the charge; for, during the latter part of this period, I have relinquished several of my former sentiments. During these last thirty years, I may also have varied in some of my sentiments and expressions without observing it. I will not undertake to defend all the expressions which I have occasionally used during this time, but must desire men of candour to make allowance for those

‘Quas aut incuria fudit,

Aut humana parum cavit natura.’

It is not strange if, among these inaccurate expressions, there are some seeming contradictions, especially considering, I was answering so many different objectors, frequently attacking me at once. Nevertheless, I believe there will be found few, if any, real contradictions in what I have published for near thirty years.”

Again, Dr. Rutherforth had objected to the Methodists, on the ground of their doctrine of assurance. Wesley’s reply to this is well worth pondering.

“I believe a few, but very few, Christians have an assurance from God of everlasting salvation; and that is the thing which the apostle terms full assurance of hope.

“I believe more have such an assurance of being now in the favour of God as excludes all doubt and fear; and this, if I do not mistake, the apostle means by the full assurance of faith.

“I believe a consciousness of being in the favour of God, (which I do not term full assurance, since it is frequently weakened, nay, perhaps interrupted, by returns of doubt or fear,) is the common privilege of Christians, fearing God and working righteousness. Yet I do not affirm there are no exceptions to this general rule but, I believe, this is usually owing either to disorder of body, or to ignorance of the gospel promises. Therefore, I have not, for many years, thought a consciousness of acceptance to be essential to justifying faith.

“After I have thus explained myself once for all, I hope all reasonable men will be satisfied; and whoever will dispute with me on this head must do it for disputing’s sake.”

Rutherforth’s main accusation, however, is that the Methodists teach, that “Christianity rejects the aid of human learning.” To this Wesley replies: “Mr. Berridge thinks it does; but I am not accountable for him, from whom, in this, I totally differ.” In proof of this he appeals to his “deliberate thoughts on human learning” in his “Serious Address to the Clergy”; to his establishment of Kingswood school; and to the fact that, though his preachers did not profess to know the languages and philosophy, yet some of them understood both one and the other better than great part of his pupils at the university did. He continues:

“What I believe concerning learning is this: that it is highly expedient for a guide of souls, but not absolutely necessary. What I believe to be absolutely necessary is, a faith unfeigned, the love of God and our neighbour, a burning zeal for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, with a heart and life wholly devoted to God. These I judge to be necessary in the highest degree; and next to these a competent knowledge of Scripture, a sound understanding, a tolerable utterance, and a willingness to be as the filth and offscouring of the world.”[569]

Noble words are these of Wesley. Let all Methodist quarterly and district meetings and conferences act upon them.

The most furious attack on Wesley, in 1763, was by Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, in an octavo volume of 259 pages, first published in 1762, and entitled, “The Doctrine of Grace: or, The Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the Insults of Infidelity, and the Abuses of Fanaticism.” Warburton allows, that Wesley is “an extraordinary man”; but finds fault with him for having “laid claim to almost every apostolic gift and grace in as full a measure as they were possessed of old.” In earnest raillery, and trenchant language, the Gloucester prelate professes to establish this, by citations from Wesley’s Journals. To attempt a summary of his episcopal scoldings is impracticable; indeed, it would be of little use. It is a curious fact, that Warburton sent the manuscript to Wesley before the work was printed, with a request to notice its errors. Wesley says: “the manuscript abounded with quotations from poets, philosophers, etc., both in Greek and Latin. After correcting the false readings, improper glosses, and other errors, I returned it.”[570] This incident helps to explain a sentence in one of Wesley’s letters to his brother, dated “January 5, 1762”: “I was a little surprised to find Bishop Warburton so entirely unacquainted with the New Testament; and, notwithstanding all his parade of learning, I believe he is no critic in Greek.”[571]

Wesley lost no time in replying to Warburton’s attack. This he did, in “A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester. Occasioned by his tract on the office and operations of the Holy Spirit. London: 1763.” 12mo, 144 pages. The character and substance of Wesley’s answer may be inferred from its concluding paragraphs.

“I have now finished what I had to say, either concerning myself, or on the operations of the Holy Spirit. In doing this, I have used great plainness of speech, and yet, I hope, without rudeness. If anything of that kind has slipped from me, I am ready to retract it. I desire, on the one hand, to accept no man’s person; and yet, on the other, to give honour to whom honour is due.

“If your lordship should think it worth your while to spend any more words upon me, may I presume to request one thing of your lordship,—to be more serious? It cannot injure your lordship’s character, or your cause.”

Warburton’s book was principally an attack on Wesley and Conyers Middleton; but as the title page, at least, referred to the “office and operations of the Holy Spirit,” others, beside Wesley, deemed it their duty to call the jaunty bishop to account for his errors and omissions. Whitefield, though scarcely alluded to by Warburton, sent forth a pamphlet of twenty-four pages, in which he charges the bishop with having, “in effect, robbed the church of its promised Comforter; and, thereby, left us without any supernatural influence or Divine operations whatsoever.” The Rev. John Andrews, LL.B., of St. Mary hall, Oxford, published a book of 224 pages to correct his lordship’s notions; and soon after was dismissed from a small Church benefice the prelate had previously bestowed upon him. John Payne also, once a bookseller, but afterwards accountant of the Bank of England, issued a volume of five hundred pages, accusing the bishop of unfairness to Mr. Law. Dr. Thomas Leland, a fellow of Trinity college, Dublin, the most admired preacher of that city, and whose classical learning Dr. Johnson considered to be unrivalled, gave to the world his “Dissertation on the Principles of Human Eloquence,” in which he refuted the arguments used by Warburton in reference to the style and composition of the New Testament. Thus the irate bishop got into a nest of hornets. Wesley considered, that he himself had so “untwisted the bishops arguments,” that to put them together again was a thing impossible.[572] Andrews so stung his lordship, that he was soon dismissed from his benefice. And Leland so vanquished his antagonist, that, instead of the bishop defending his own, Dr. Hurd, in a tone of sarcasm and contempt, thought proper to answer on behalf of his episcopal master, and, three years afterwards, was made archdeacon of his master’s diocese. Samuel Charndler, also, of Newington, appeared as the bishop’s champion, in “An Answer to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Letter to William, Lord Bishop of Gloucester.” 8vo, 22 pages. With no slight degree of egotism, he tells his readers, that his “remarks are not the fruits of idle conceit, or mere conjecture, not party suggestions, or newfangled notions, but a plain series of well considered thoughts.” He informs Wesley, that Methodist “doctrine has filled Bedlam and the several madhouses in England with shoals of patients”; that he had “occasioned many and great violations of the peace”; and that he is “well skilled in the rudiments of deceit.” Poor Samuel Charndler, by the side of Bishop Warburton, was a Lilliputian playing antics in the presence of a Patagonian giant.

The other publications of Wesley, in 1763, were as follows.

1. “Letters wrote by Jane Cooper, to which is prefixed some account of her Life and Death.” 12mo, 41 pages. Jane Cooper was born in Norfolk, in 1738; and, in the twentieth year of her age, came to London as a domestic servant; was converted; and joined the Methodists. Four years afterwards she died of smallpox, and Wesley buried her. She was evidently one of Wesley’s pattern saints, and professed to live in the enjoyment of Christian holiness. Indeed, her experience forms a part of Wesley’s “Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” Considering her social position, her letters are remarkable productions. “All here,” says Wesley, “is strong, sterling sense, strictly agreeable to sound reason. Here are no extravagant flights, no mystic reveries, no unscriptural enthusiasm. The sentiments are all just and noble; the result of a fine natural understanding, cultivated by conversation, thinking, reading, and true Christian experience.” The last words of this servant maid were: “My Jesus is all in all to me; glory be to Him through time and eternity.” Wesley calls her “a pattern of all holiness, and of the wisdom which is from above.”

2. “Farther Thoughts upon Christian Perfection.” 12mo, 39 pages. This has been already noticed.

3. As also the following: “A Sermon preached before the Society for the Reformation of Manners; on Sunday, January 30, 1763. At the chapel in West Street, Seven Dials.” 8vo, 31 pages. At the end of it, the names of five gentlemen are given, who would receive subscriptions to the funds of the society, on behalf of which it was delivered.

4. The substance also of another pamphlet has been already given: “Minutes of several Conversations between the Rev. Mr. John and Charles Wesley, and others.” 12mo, 30 pages.

5. The “Sermon on Sin in Believers” was written March 28, 1763. Its object is to refute the doctrine of Zinzendorf, that all true believers are entirely sanctified. The sermon is one of Wesley’s ablest homilies; and, doubtless, had its origin in the excitement arising out of the subject of Christian perfection. “I wrote it,” says he, “in order to remove a mistake which some were labouring to propagate,—that there is no sin in any that are justified.”

6. “An Extract from Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost,’ with Notes.” 18mo, 320 pages. Wesley’s object, in this publication, may be gathered from his preface. “This inimitable work, amidst all its beauties, is unintelligible to abundance of readers: the immense learning, which Milton has everywhere crowded together, making it quite obscure to persons of a common education. This difficulty I have endeavoured to remove in the following extract: first, by omitting those lines which I despaired of explaining to the unlearned; and secondly, by adding short and easy notes. To those passages, which I apprehend to be peculiarly excellent, either with regard to sentiment or expression, I have prefixed a star; and these, I believe, it would be worth while to read over and over, or even to commit to memory.”[573]

7. “A Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation; or, a Compendium of Natural Philosophy.” 2 vols., 12mo. This work was begun as early as the year 1758;[574] and was published by subscription. In a circular to his assistants, Wesley said: “Spare no pains to procure subscriptions for the Philosophy. It will be the most complete thing of its kind in the English tongue.”[575] A second edition, in three volumes, was issued in 1770; a third, in five volumes, in 1777. In the London Magazine, for 1774, a long letter, signed “Philosophaster,” was addressed to Wesley, criticising some of his statements. In his reply,[576] Wesley, in some points, acknowledges himself to be in error; but not in others; and then concludes: “Permit me, sir, to give you one piece of advice. Be not so positive; especially with regard to things which are neither easy nor necessary to be determined. I ground this advice on my own experience. When I was young, I was sure of everything. In a few years, having been mistaken a thousand times, I was not half so sure of most things as before. At present, I am hardly sure of anything, but what God has revealed to man.”