We begrudge the space which has been filled with this unfortunate anecdote; but Samuel Wesley is too great and good a man to permit his character to be injured undeservedly. Let the full truthfulness of the legend be admitted, and Wesley’s fair fame is branded. Viewed in such a light, the thing is serious, and deserves some research and trouble in refuting it. This is the only matter, in the whole of Mr Wesley’s history, that in the least affects his morality and honour; and, in our conscience, we believe that everything in the story, which is deserving of being censured, is unfounded fiction, and utterly unworthy of the public credence.
Samuel Wesley attended convocation thrice. It is certain that one of these occasions was in 1701, and it is probable that a second was in the same year; and hence we give a brief account of the proceedings of both these ecclesiastical gatherings.
With the exception of the abortive attempt in 1689, convocation, though regularly assembling with every parliament, had literally done nothing for the last nine and thirty years. Now, in 1701, it met to transact business. First of all, on February 10th, those ecclesiastical legislators assembled in St Paul’s Cathedral, where a sermon was preached by Dr Haley, Dean of Chichester. The members of the Lower House then proceeded to the Chapter House, and elected Dr Hooper, Dean of Canterbury, their prolocutor. “A man of learning,” says Burnet, “of good conduct, but reserved, crafty, and ambitious.” They then adopted certain resolutions as a preparation for the battle which they knew was coming. 1. That they had a right to sit whenever parliament sat, and that they could not be legally prorogued but when parliament was prorogued. 2. That they had no need of licence to enter upon debates, and to prepare matters. 3. That as parliament could pass no act without the royal assent, so convocation could neither enact nor publish a canon without the royal licence.
This soon brought them into conflict with their brethren of the Upper House. On February 25th, an order was brought to them, signed by the archbishop, proroguing both houses in the usual form. At the time, the Lower House was holding its session in the chapel of Henry VIII., and the session was continued in defiance of the archbishop’s mandate, until, after a short debate, they adjourned themselves. Then followed a private squabble between the archbishop and the prolocutor, respecting the prerogatives of the two houses. This lasted until the 6th of March, when the two houses met, and agreed upon the form of an address to the king, thanking him for his pious regard for the reformed churches in general, and expressing their determination to maintain the royal supremacy, and the articles and canons of the Church.
Their next session was a fortnight later, on March 20th, when the prolocutor of the Lower House brought up a representation of the “pernicious, dangerous, and scandalous” doctrines contained in Toland’s “Christianity not Mysterious,” and requested the bishops to agree to their resolutions, and to censure the book. This was another cause of jangling. Burnet says:—“This struck directly at Episcopal authority. It seemed strange to see men who had so long asserted the divine right of Episcopacy, and that presbyters were only their assistants and council, now assume to themselves the most important act of church government, the judging in points of doctrine.”
On March 22d, another book was discussed in the Upper House, entitled, “Essays on the Balance of Power,” in which it was asserted that persons had been promoted in the Church who were remarkable for nothing but enmity to the divinity of Christ.[[154]] The bishops, therefore, agreed that a paper should be affixed to the doors of Westminster Abbey, calling upon the author to make good his assertion, in order that the parties might be proceeded against, otherwise the passage in question would be voted a public scandal.
The next fortnight was spent in a quarrel between the two houses respecting the right of the Lower House to prorogue itself, and they then adjourned from the 8th of April to the 8th of May.
On the latter day the houses again assembled. The archbishop warmly rebuked the Lower House for their unwarrantable assumption in daring to prorogue themselves, and for claiming a distinct recess; and declared that such behaviour had “given the greatest blow to the Church that it received since the Presbyterian assembly that sat at Westminster in the late times of confusion.” This rebuke made bad things worse, and the Lower House became more rebellious than ever. The bishops appointed a committee of five to meet a similar number of the Lower House, for the purpose of examining the acts of the present synod, and to report upon them. To this proposal, the Lower House replied that they should not nominate any committee; but some of its members sent an address to the archbishop stating their disapproval of its proceedings. Burnet says:—“Many of the most eminent and learned of its members protested against its proceedings;” but the actual protest shows that the opposition, in point of numbers, was a very insignificant minority, consisting, at the most, of only fifteen persons.
To evince their opposition still more, the Lower House proceeded to attack the work of Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles. This work had been undertaken at the request of Queen Mary, and was published in 1699, after being revised, corrected, and approved by three archbishops, Tillotson, Tennison, and Sharpe, and five bishops, Stillingfleet, Patrick, Lloyd, Williams, and More. The complaints of the Lower House were three. 1. That Burnet’s book tends to introduce such a latitude and diversity of opinions, as the articles were framed to avoid. 2. That there are many passages in the book which are contrary to the true meaning of the articles, and to other received doctrines of the Church. And, 3. That there are some things in the book which are of dangerous consequence to the Church of England, and which derogate from the honour of its reformation. For a time, the Upper House stoutly refused to receive these complaints, because of other irregularities of which the Lower House had been guilty; but, at length, at Burnet’s request, they were entertained. A committee was appointed, and came to the following resolutions:—1.That the Lower House “had no manner of power judicially to censure any book.” 2. That it “ought not to have entered on the examination of a book of any bishop without first acquainting the president and bishops with it.” 3. That the censure of Burnet’s book “is defamatory and scandalous.” 4. That Burnet, by his writings, “had done great service to the Church of England, and deserves the thanks of convocation.” 5. That the prolocutor and some other members of the Lower House had been guilty of contempt and disobedience.
These were hard words; but the unseemly squabble was soon over; for a few days afterwards, on June 24th, the royal writ prorogued parliament, and, of course, prorogued convocation with it.