Continuing Family Quarrels and the Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley The last two chapters highlighted a crucial phase in the development of Charles Wesley's relations with his brother and his changing views of the Methodist movement. After ten years of intense collaboration, the lives of the Wesley brothers parted in dramatic fashion.
The special nature of their bond meant that acrimony and a strong sense of betrayal accompanied this division and Charles's peculiar character ensured that his resentment spilled over into the public work at precisely the time that Methodism itself began to change. As the years passed it became impossible to disentangle private conflict from differences in opinion over the Anglican–Methodist question and this set the pattern for the rest of Charles's life. To gain a deeper understanding of these events, it is necessary to take the discussion one stage further by looking at what happened to further divide the brothers on a personal level between 1751 and 1756, and how these various upheavals impacted on Charles's standing within the Methodist movement.
CHARLES WESLEY AND MARY VAZEILLE In February 1751, Charles reacted to his brother's engagement to Mary Vazeille with a hysterical display of public grieving.1 This would have done little for his relationship with his future sister-in-law,
1 For example, CWJ, 2–3 February and 17 February 1751.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 135 which had been amicable to that point. Vazeille's reputation in Methodist circles has been appalling since her own day; as early as November 1752, Vincent Perronet remarked on her 'angry, bitter spirit',2 while Rack states that 'she seems to have been a woman of a naturally jealous and possessive temperament which easily spilled over into a state of mental instability'.3 There is no doubt that John made a terrible mistake in marrying Vazeille, but it is difficult not to feel some measure of sympathy for his wife. John declared just weeks after his marriage that he could not understand a preacher travelling less as a married man than he did as a bachelor;4 if Mary had assumed this to be an exaggeration, she would have soon realized her mistake. She had also entered an arena where every action and word was subject to misinterpretation by Methodists who regarded her as they had done Grace Murray, with jealousy and resentment.5
Like Caesar's wife, she had to be beyond criticism6 and this pressure contributed to the problems created by her own instability.
After the wedding, Charles made a genuine attempt to welcome Mary into the family and when the marriage showed early signs of stress, he offered a sympathetic ear.7 This positive attitude during the summer of 1751 was part of a general thaw in relations between the brothers. John wrote with some surprise to Ebenezer Blackwell in July that his brother's 'mind seemed to be altogether changed ...He was quite free and open to us, and pressed us to make use of his house in his absence.'8 This spirit of reconciliation did not last long and cracks
2 Quoted by Tyerman, John Wesley, ii. 108.
3 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 267.
4 JWJ, 27 March 1751. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, xx. 380.
5 'Now my dear, is the time for you to overcome evil with good. Conquer Sally Clay and Sister Aspernall altogether, with as many more as come in your way.' JW to Mary
Wesley, Published copy letter, 30 March 1751. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 455–6.
6 'Your name is precious among this people. They talk of you much, and know not how to commend you enough, even for those little things, your plainness of dress, your sitting among the poor at the preaching ...' JW to Mary Wesley, MS letter, 22
May 1752 (MCA: MAM JW 5.54).
7 'Found my sister in tears; professed my love, pity and desire to help her. Heard her complaints of my brother, carried her to my house, where after supper, she resumed the subject, and went away comforted.' CWJ, 21 June 1751.
8 JW to Ebenezer Blackwell, Published copy letter, 3 July 1751. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 469.
136 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley soon started to appear in relations between the couples, with money representing an early source of friction.
Charles's marriage settlement had always been a concern for his brother, and at a time when the financial demands of Methodism were an increasing drain on his resources, he was presented with the expenses attendant on his own marriage. To make matters worse,
John had to resign his Lincoln College Fellowship and thereby lost a valuable source of income.9 During the spring and summer of 1752 there was an attempt to renegotiate the terms of the 1749 agreement.
Charles, perhaps surprisingly, seemed content for this to happen: he was irritated by John's complaints and may have suspected his brother of using money as a means of control—this was certainly his suspicion just a few years later.10
The issue of money and the establishment of family harmony were tied together in two letters of January 1753 written to Charles by Ebenezer Blackwell, one of the trustees of the1749 agreement. There is a clear note of desperation as Blackwell tries to bring the warring parties together:
I hardly know how to write more to the purpose than my last and I am vastly discouraged in attempting anything further since I have received your letter ...You seem to take the intentions of my letter far different from what
I meant, for I only mean this. In the first place to have that true Christian love and friendship established between you all which is absolutely necessary for your carrying on the great work you seem to be called to and in the 2nd place to have any agreement between your brother and you with regard to your marriage settlement to be in the most strongful and effectual manner complied with ...11
Blackwell asked Charles and Sarah to come to London to discuss the matter, but evidently did not expect a positive response, and sent a second letter just two days after the first:
It is not my present design to enter into any arguing about the cause of the unhappy difference which now exists between you and your wife and 9 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 76.
10 'perhaps he means to starve me into compliance: yet I think he knows me better'.
CW to Samuel Lloyd, MS letter, 27 July [1755] (MCA: DDCW 1/54).
11 Ebenezer Blackwell to CW, Xerox copy letter, 20 January 1753 (MCA: PLP 9.23.2).
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 137 Mr John Wesley and his wife ...if you and Mrs Wesley will but come to town ...I am persuaded with the assistance of a friend or two we shall be able under the directions of our God to put all things in such a situation as will make you all perfectly easy and perfectly happy, that from henceforth you may go on with that love and harmony which is and must be expected of any persons so engaged and united as you two are.12
The precise conclusion to the talks is unknown, but it is most unlikely that the settlement was adjusted in John's favour, as Blackwell had already precluded the possibility.13 In any case, the Gwynne family would have certainly resisted any attempt to reduce their daughter's guaranteed income and, as Charles was quick to point out in his reply to Blackwell, it was Sarah's family that had the final say in the matter.14
By late 1753, Charles was avoiding contact with his sister-in-law and in December that year when John was seriously ill, he asked his wife and brother to be reconciled: both agreed, only for Charles to voice considerable doubts about her sincerity.15 By the spring of 1755, John was again trying to bring his wife and brother together, but with no success. His letter of 9 April to the faithful Blackwell indicates the extent of the alienation: 'Being very fully persuaded that my brother would gladly embrace any overture of peace, I told him almost as soon as we met what my wife had agreed to. He answered not one word. After a day or two I spoke to him again. It had the same success ...From the whole I learn that there is no prospect of peace.
When one is willing, then the other flies off.'16 For his part too, in that spring and summer of 1755, Charles was convinced that relations with his brother and his wife had irretrievably broken down. The shocking extent of the collapse is revealed in a letter that he sent to the Countess of Huntingdon in the aftermath of the death of Charles
12 Ebenezer Blackwell to CW, Xerox copy letter, 22 January 1753 (MCA: PLP 9.23.3).
13 'Sir, it is neither in yours or the trustees' power to give up anything that is settled on Mrs [Sarah] Wesley, therefore I beg of you not esteem me such a fool as to ask it.'
Ebenezer Blackwell to CW, Xerox copy letter, 20 January 1753 (MCA: PLP 9.23.2).
14 'my wife will do nothing without consulting her relations, and I have neither power nor inclination to force her'. CW to Ebenezer Blackwell, MS letter, 24 January
1753 (MCA: DDCW 1/48).
15 CWJ, 2 December 1753.
16 JW to Ebenezer Blackwell, Published copy letter, 9 April 1755. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 553–4.
138 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley and Sarah's infant daughter Martha Maria: 'He [John Wesley] cannot feel my reasons for staying with my wife. I sent him word, as soon as she was delivered. He has never since taken the least notice of her, or her child. I did not particularly mention the child because I would not give him, or his wife, pain. I do not inform him of her death, because
I would not give them pleasure.'17
While observing the expected codes of public behaviour,18 Charles, as usual, found it difficult to disguise his true feelings. Among the people outside the family who were aware of the prevailing hostility, were Ebenezer Blackwell, William Briggs,19 and Edward Perronet.20 This exposure of private quarrels would have done nothing to improve an already emotionally charged situation.
By 1755 Mary was also accusing John of adultery with several of his followers, and in later years even with Sarah Wesley,21 which would have done little to improve Charles's disposition. There is no doubt that Mary had emotional and perhaps mental problems exacerbated by marriage to a man who had no intention of compromising his ministry. Charles too contributed to the situation with a nature that was quick to suspect the worst and slow to forget.
FINANCIAL TROUBLES The domestic tension between the brothers and their wives formed a backdrop to other concerns that combined to widen the gulf as the 1750s passed their course. Again, money was a key area of discord and requires detailed examination against the general background of Methodist finance. The marriage settlement of 1749 guaranteed Sarah an income in her own right, amounting to £100 per annum from the 17 CW to Selina Hastings, Typescript copy letter, 28 July 1755 (MCA: DDCW 1/95).
18 'I have done her honour before the people, and behaved (though I say it) very much like a gentleman.' CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter [9 May 1755] (MCA: DDCW
19 JW to CW, Published copy letter, 31 October 1753. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 529.
20 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 30 September [1753] (MCA: DDCW 7/98).
21 Tyerman, John Wesley, ii. 109–10.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 139 sale of Methodist publications.22 In addition, Charles continued to draw an allowance of £50 from the societies, although he may have waived this after 1751 because of his brother's complaints.23 Sarah also had access to the proceeds from an additional sum of £1,000 invested for her by the Gwynne family.24
Charles's personal accounts survive for the period 1752–8.25 This records his average annual income as just over £227, which did not apparently include his preacher's allowance of £50. The exact total varied considerably from year to year but rarely dropped below £200: this was made up of the sums of money outlined above, together with 'presents', which consisted of gifts from admirers,26 bequests,27 and miscellaneous items.28 The money coming in from 'presents' could be surprisingly large—for example, £69 17s. 0d. in 1755, and a very impressive £152, 2s. 0d. in 1756. Unfortunately, Charles and Sarah's household expenses have not survived for this specific period so it is impossible to assess how much was given up for Connexional use or to charity. However, his income and expenditure account is extant between 1772 and 1781,29 and this reveals that in one sample year
(1772), out of a total household income of just over £322, about £22 was given to the poor; the only other item of expenditure that could be classed as Connexional was travelling expenses. In addition,
Charles joined with John in providing financial assistance of £10 per annum to their sister Martha Hall during the early 1750s, and he probably helped his other sisters as well.30
22 MS settlement upon the marriage of CW to Sarah Gwynne, 9 August 1749 (MCA: DDCW 6/87).
23 It does not appear as an entry in Charles's personal accounts for 1752. Charles Wesley, MS accounts, 1752–8 (MCA: DDCW 4/10).
24 'Whereas the said Sarah now wife of the said Charles Wesley was before the said marriage possessed of and entitled unto the said sum of £1000 ...the interest or produce whereof is hereby also intended to be settled as a further provision for the said Sarah and the issue of the said marriage.' MS settlement upon the marriage of CW to Sarah Gwynne, 9 August 1749 (MCA: DDCW 6/87).
25 Charles Wesley, MS accounts, 1752–8 (MCA: DDCW 4/10).
26 For example, the £50 given to Charles by Lady Robert Manners in 1756 after he officiated at her wedding. Ibid.
27 For example, the £30 legacy left by Mr Thomas in 1752. Ibid.
28 For example, the proceeds from selling Charles's horse in 1755. Ibid.
29 Charles Wesley, MS accounts, 1772–81 (MCA: DDCW 8/8).
30 CW to Martha Hall, MS letter, 17 June [1753/4?] (MCA: DDWes 4/15).
140 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley It has been argued, or at least assumed, that the Wesley brothers lived according to the same rules concerning money that they imposed on their preachers, summed up by the injunction to 'Take no money of anyone. If they give you food when you are hungry, or clothes when you need them, it is good. But not silver or gold.
Let there be no pretence to say we grow rich by the gospel.'31 John certainly lived according to this rule, but Charles as a married man appears to have regarded all available sources of income as his, or at least his family's, to use.
Charles and Sarah's standard of living compared very favourably with that enjoyed by the majority of parish clergy. It has been estimated that at the beginning of the eighteenth century, 3,826 livings of the total 9,180 had an income of less than £50 per annum.32 In some parishes little changed in over a hundred years: Robert Jarratt,
Vicar of Wellington in Somerset between 1791 and 1843 survived on just £15 per year.33 Few livings were as poor as Wellington, but in 1835 one-quarter of the Anglican clergy in Wales still received less than £100.34 There is an even starker comparison that can be made between Charles's income and that of the itinerants. It was only in 1752 that Conference introduced payment for their services and that was set at just £12 per annum, augmented at the discretion of individual societies: some of the poorer circuits experienced difficulty in providing any assistance well into the nineteenth century.35
His brother's finances made John Wesley acutely uncomfortable. It was not that he believed that the preachers should be paid to the same level, or even paid at all, but rather that Charles was not remaining strictly true to Christian principles in accepting such a high level of domestic income. This is clarified by examining John's views on wealth: he defined a rich man as someone who 'has the necessaries and conveniences of life for himself and his family, and a little to 31 Quoted by Kingsley Lloyd, The Labourers's Hire: The Payment and Deployment of the Early Methodist Preachers (1744–1813) (Bunbury: Wesley Historical Society
Lecture 34, 1968), 5.
32 William Gibson, Church, State and Society 1760–1850 (New York: St Martin's, 1994), 29.
33 Donald Lewis (ed.), Dictionary of Evangelical Biography, 2 vols. (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1995), i. 605.
34 Gibson, Church, State and Society, 31.
35 Lloyd, The Labourers's Hire, 13–15.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 141 spare for them that have not ...'36 He made this principle the foundation stone of Methodist social doctrine. The accounts of the London
Society reveal that during the 1770s, one-third of society expenditure in an average year was dedicated to direct relief of the poor.37 John lived up to his own standards by giving away a considerable part of his personal income, amounting to an estimated £30,000 during his lifetime.38
John's most emphatic statement to his brother on this subject came in a letter of 4 December 1751:
There is another tender point, which I would just touch on. The quarterly contribution of the classes ...is to keep the preachers, and to defray all the expenses of the house, but for this it never did yet suffice. For you therefore
(who have a hundred and fifty pounds a year, to maintain only two persons), to take any part of this, seems to me utterly unreasonable. I could not do it, if it were my own case—I should account it robbery ...I have often wondered how either your conscience or your sense of honour could bear it, especially as you know I am almost continually distressed for money; who am expected to make up the deficiencies of this, as well as all the other funds.39
How justified was John's criticism? Charles's personal habits could not be termed extravagant and he had considerable family obligations, something that John, with his peculiar views on marital responsibilities, did not appear to understand. Charles gave his marriage a high priority and this did not come cheap: the largest items of expenditure in the Wesley household in 1772 were £154 on general housekeeping and £85 on the children40—a total that was almost equivalent to the combined financial allowances of twenty itinerant preachers. Sarah's friends were drawn from the gentry and aristocracy and certain standards had to be maintained. Such was Charles's love for his 'dearest Sally' that he would have found it difficult to deny her anything in his power. In this sense, his brother's attack was harsh in its failure to take into account the change in Charles's circumstances. It should also be acknowledged that John was something of 36 Quoted by Theodore Jennings, Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical
Economics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 106.
37 MS steward's Book of the London Society, 1766–1802 (MCA).
38 Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 361.
39 JW to CW, MS letter, 4 December 1751 (MCA: MAM JW 5.50).
40 Charles Wesley, MS Accounts, 1772–81 (MCA: DDCW 8/8).
142 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley an ascetic—in a letter to Blackwell in June 1753, he admitted: 'you do well to warn me against "popularity, a thirst of power and of applause; against envy, producing a seeming contempt for the conveniences or grandeur of this life; against an affected humility; against sparing from myself to give to others from no other motive than ostentation". '41 It is valuable sometimes to consider just how unreasonable
John Wesley could be: totally single-minded, he demanded the same level of commitment from everyone else, and the fact that Charles was his brother added to the expectation.
Over the question of money, both men had cause to feel aggrieved.
John made extreme demands on his followers and co-workers, but he was no hypocrite—his refusal to compromise his principles contributed to the breakdown of his own marriage. On the other hand, after 1749, Charles's priority lay more with his family than with falling into line with his brother's rigid expectations. In this and other respects, he was a deep disappointment to John who was only too aware that the poor Methodists were supporting his brother's family in their genteel lifestyle.42 Connected with this subject of money and respectability was yet another bone of contention, namely Charles's friends.
CHARLES WESLEY AND THE SOCIAL AND CALVINIST ELITE The Wesleys had always shown great ease in crossing social barriers.
Of a respectable family themselves, they had experienced comparative poverty in their youth and this gave them empathy with the poor.
In their ministry, the brothers made a point of reaching out to people abandoned by society, such as the notorious Kingswood colliers, and John made his views clear when he told his fellow clergymen:
'The rich, the honourable, the great, we ...leave to you. Only let us alone with the poor.'43 Charles's ministry shows that he was equally
41 JW to [Ebenezer Blackwell?], MS letter, 27 June 1753 (MCA: Colman 44).
42 'I have never done so much for any of our preachers (except my brother) as for William Prior.' JW to Robert Gillespie, MS letter, 9 November 1753 (MCA: MAM JW
43 Quoted by Jennings, Good News to the Poor, 49.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 143 concerned with the poor on a pastoral level and felt that there was spiritual corruption associated with wealth. He told Thomas Hardwick in December 1747 that he should not be saddened by God's instruction to sell all, for he would receive his reward in heaven44 and this theme was reflected in Charles's sermons.45
However, there was a difference between the brothers that surfaced after Charles's marriage. John had an unusually strong suspicion of high society exemplified by his dislike for the practice of paying deference to the rich and respectable in public worship.46 While remaining conservative in his views on secular authority, he was radical in his social attitudes. This is not to say that he lacked wealthy supporters: it is a measure of his charisma that he attracted followers from across the social spectrum. Charles, on the other hand, does not appear to have been as concerned with the condition of the poor. This is very much a question of extent; he was certainly responsive to their spiritual needs and by the standards of most people, was generous in his own giving. In his poetic work, he deals occasionally with the theme of those in need, such as his hymn for 'The Fatherless and Widows',47 but the fact that only a handful of poems were specifically devoted to this aspect of his ministry indicates that his personal interest was not as strong. This should not be seen as a critical reflection of Charles's faith, but rather as testimony to John's exceptionally keen awareness of issues surrounding material wealth and its spiritual implications.
This subtle difference became apparent after 1749 as Charles began to mix with the gentry and nobility on a more intimate basis. His circle of friends and acquaintances began to reflect his wife's privileged background and within a few years the couple's closest friends included members of the gentry and aristocracy. These included the 44 CW to Thomas Hardwick, MS letter, 22 December [1747] (MCA: DDCW
45 'preached to the fine folk of selling all to buy the pearl. They took it marvellously well.' CW to Sarah Gwynne jun., MS letter, 2 November [1748] (MCA: DDCW 5/7).
46 'In every congregation in England ...there was undeniably a faulty respect of persons. In our chapel there is a place kept for Lady [Huntingdon] till the Creed; if she does not come before then, anyone takes it that is next ...I doubt whether this respect to her be not too great. But I yield this point to my brother's judgement.' JW to Elizabeth Hutton, Published copy letter, 22 August 1744. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 114.
47 Charles Wesley, Unpublished Poetry, iii. 313–14.
144 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley merchant Samuel Lloyd, Mary Degge (who married a son of the Duke of Rutland in 1756), Colonel and Mrs Samuel Gumley and Lady Gertrude Hotham. In many cases, John mixed with the same people, but their relationship with Charles was more relaxed, existing on a social as well as a pastoral level. Charles and Sarah were able to entertain in the fashion of respectable society, unlike his brother, whose constant itinerancy and unstable wife would have discouraged similar intimacy, even if John had been inclined to indulge in what he would have probably regarded as frivolous intercourse.
Charles and Sarah's friends were almost all supporters of the Evangelical cause and did not therefore represent an entirely negative distraction. At a time when persecution was still going on, it was advantageous to have a friendly ear in important circles, and rich sympathizers were a significant source of income. Nor did the couple neglect other sections of the Methodist family; preachers in Bristol for example were periodically entertained at the Wesleys' home,48 but it is clear from Charles's letters that his closest friends were increasingly from the upper strata of society, something that John would have regarded with innate suspicion.49 The seeds of this development bore particular fruit after Charles's adoption of a settled ministry in 1756.
His loyalty to the Church of England was reinforced by his friendly relationship with important lay people, for whom respectability and the link with the Church went hand in hand. The importance of this emerging Church Methodist faction will become clear.
The 1750s also saw the strengthening of ties between Charles and the leadership of the Calvinist wing of the Revival represented by Whitefield and the Countess of Huntingdon. In spite of the theological differences that had once provoked hostility, the three established very warm relations during this decade. The Countess was regarded as an intimate family friend and nursed Sarah through an attack of smallpox at significant risk to her own health,50 while Charles lauded
Whitefield as a model for the preachers and his own children.51 John 48 Brailsford, A Tale of Two Brothers, 173.
49 'I gave all our brethren a solemn warning not to love the world, or the things of the world. This is one way whereby Satan will surely endeavour to overthrow the present work of God.' Quoted by Jennings, Good News to the Poor, 132.
50 Gill, Charles Wesley, 156.
51 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter [22 December 1755] (MCA: DDWes 4/89).
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 145 reacted to this development with concern tinged with a little jealousy.
In October 1753, he urged Charles to follow his directions with regard to the itinerancy, as he was a better judge than the Countess.52 It was even whispered by some of the preachers that Charles was leaning towards Calvinist doctrine,53 and while this charge was untrue, he was certainly more relaxed than formerly in his dealings with its advocates. Again, part of the reason for this change in attitude can be attributed to the effects of his marriage into the Gwynne family.
Sarah's father Marmaduke was a Calvinist, and while Sarah's own theological opinions are unclear, she certainly worshipped at Whitefield's Tabernacle Chapel in Bristol years after her marriage—she was eventually warned by her husband that for the sake of keeping 'some terms with my brother' it would be politic to stay away, at least for a while.54
Other tensions surfaced in the five years before Charles's withdrawal from the itinerant ministry in 1756. His extended periods relaxing with his wife and her family provoked his brother to sharp criticism: on 20 July 1752, John sent a letter to Ebenezer Blackwell containing the following cryptic passage: 'I am afraid you was not forwarded by one who was in town [London] lately; neither was that journey of any service to his own soul. He has not brought back less indolence and gentle inactivity than he carried to London. O how far from the spirit of a good soldier of Jesus Christ.'55 In the footnote to this letter in the most recent edition of John Wesley's works, Baker tentatively identifies the lazy visitor as one of the Perronet brothers, but it could equally have been Charles Wesley, who was in London from at least January56 until the middle of April 1752.57 Certainly, the criticism fits perfectly with John's opinion of his brother at this time—in May 1753 he expressed the hope that Blackwell could persuade 'our friend' to share the travelling with him as John could not 52 JW to CW, Published copy letter, 20 October 1753. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 527.
53 Brailsford, A Tale of Two Brothers, 252.
54 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 24/25 December [1750s?] (MCA: DDCW 7/95).
55 JW to Ebenezer Blackwell, Published copy letter, 20 July 1752. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 497.
56 CW to John Bennet, MS letter, 23 January [1752] (MCA: DDCW 1/43).
57 'I cannot set out hence till Monday April 13.' CW to John Bennet, MS letter, 3 March [1752] (MCA: DDCW 1/44).
146 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley visit both the north of England and Ireland in the same year.58 Five months later, he issued a direct challenge to his errant sibling: 'Take one side or the other. Either act really in connexion with me: or never pretend to it ...I mean, take counsel with me ...as to the places where you will labour ...At present you are so far from this I do not even know when and where you intend to go.'59 John's closing salutation contained another sting in the tail as he unusually wished his brother
'zeal' as well as peace and love.
Charles of course had no intention of falling into line with his brother's commands. He had discovered the delights of a domestic existence with a wife whom he doted upon and a circle of family and friends whose company and support he enjoyed. His visits to his wife's family, and to Margate, a resort patronized by fashionable society, provoked John to further outbursts.60 Charles's excuse that sea bathing was good for his health61 would not have impressed an older brother who believed that exercise and a Spartan diet were quite enough for the maintenance of strength.
It is interesting that just as Charles had once transferred his loyalties from Samuel junior to John, now the bond shifted to Sarah.
This was noticed by Brailsford, who described how 'the overpowering influence which John ...had wielded over his brother was swiftly passing into the hands of his wife ...the relation between Charles
Wesley and his wife was one in which he played the feminine role.'62
In 1746 Charles had complained to his brother that '[I] have so little success in my remonstrances that I have many times resolved never to contradict your judgement ...'63 In the early 1750s, Charles was still voicing that complaint, and in almost identical terms, but this time it was his young wife who was the overbearing partner.64 Other letters
58 JW to Ebenezer Blackwell, MS letter, 28 May 1753 (MCA: MAM JW 1.59).
59 JW to CW, Published copy letter, 20 October 1753. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley xxvi. 527.
60 'I should wonder if Wales or Margate ...did not hinder your taking any step which I desire.' JW to CW, MS letter, 16 July 1755 (MCA: DDWes 3/110).
61 For example, CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 22 September [1755] (MCA:
62 Brailsford, A Tale of Two Brothers, 231.
63 CW to JW, MS letter [15 July 1746] (MCA: DDCW 6/12).
64 'You give me no opportunity to make objections, for you ask my mind after the thing is done. Yet I cannot find fault as you pretty well know.' CW to Sarah Wesley,
MS letter, 24/25 December [1750s?] (MCA: DDCW 7/95).
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 147 reveal the extent to which Charles was willing to defer to Sarah, his junior by nineteen years—he regularly told her that he was leaving decisions in her hands, which was rather unusual for an eighteenthcentury husband, and he was at pains to stress the paramount place that she occupied. It is an unacknowledged facet of Charles's character that he seemed to be capable of forging close relationships only by distancing himself from old ones. This can be seen in the way that he had once given offence to Samuel Wesley junior by switching his loyalty to their brother; this pattern repeated itself after 1749 but with John as the aggrieved party.65
The 1750s saw the opening skirmishes in a battle between the Wesleys that was to last for nearly forty years as Charles asserted himself against a man for whom control was part of his character and upbringing. Like his mother, John believed in the necessity of breaking the wills of the people alongside him, and the fact that his own brother was rebelling against his hold would have been particularly galling. Charles's sudden emergence as the champion of the Church and his refusal to submit to John's authority should be seen as products of his reaction against their former relationship. In one sense, Methodism after 1749 became the battleground over which the Wesleys waged their own personal conflict, rooted in character rather than issue.
CHARLES WESLEY'S RELATIONS WITH THE PREACHERS We have seen that by the middle of the 1750s, Charles's opinion of the preachers was largely negative. His biographers have experienced difficulty in addressing this subject: some, such as Jackson and Telford, acknowledge or imply that Charles's personality was a source of friction,66 yet moderate this by reference to his admirable qualities, sometimes within the same passage of text. The impression is thereby
65 'The note delivered to me ...convinces me that I must not expect to see the writer [CW] of it at our approaching Conference. This is indeed deserting me at my utmost need.' JW to Ebenezer Blackwell, MS letter, 5 March 1751 (MCA: MAM JW
66 Jackson, Charles Wesley, ii. 446; Telford, Charles Wesley, p. xiii.
148 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley given that Charles was not necessarily unpopular or misunderstood.
Their delicate handling of this important area of Charles's ministry necessitates a new examination of the question in order to gain an insight into his standing with his fellow Methodists.
Comparatively little of Charles's correspondence with the itinerants has survived, although extant letters do indicate that at various times after 1750, he was on good terms with such individuals as Christopher Hopper,67 John Jones,68 and Joseph Cownley.69 The tone of their communications to him is respectful but with sufficient personal comment to suggest that relations were genuinely cordial.
It is noticeable that the few surviving letters written by preachers to Charles during the last twenty years of his life tend to be from men who had known him during the 1740s and early 1750s, and with a few exceptions,70 he does not appear to have been on close terms with the second generation of his brother's helpers. Nevertheless it is rare to find direct criticism of Charles by an itinerant, which can perhaps be explained by the kinship between the Wesleys and the fact that Charles continued to exercise a measure of personal authority—the preachers would have been careful not to overstep the mark, but it is possible to discern troubled undertones: Charles referred in August
1756 to the efforts of 'bad men' to drive him from the movement and to the fact that he was hated and feared by the more radical of his brother's advisers.71 Such extreme sentiments may be attributed to his emotional nature and mode of expression, but it is apparent from other sources that there was a hardening in attitudes.
The preacher Michael Fenwick wrote one of the few extant manuscripts that is directly critical of Charles Wesley. Only an undated extract survives and the internal evidence is so ambiguous that it could have been written at any time from the 1750s to the 1770s.
Regardless of the exact date, this letter, which was addressed to Charles, is invaluable for what it reveals of the impression that Charles
Wesley made on some of his contemporaries:
67 Christopher Hopper to CW, MS letter, 11 September 1763 (MCA: DDPr 2/24).
68 John Jones to CW, MS letter, 10 April 1762 (MCA: DDPr 2/27).
69 Joseph Cownley to CW, MS letter, 26 April 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/16).
70 For example, Samuel Bradburn and Joseph Benson.
71 CW to Samuel Walker, Typescript copy letter, 21 August 1756 (MCA: DDCW 1/55).
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 149 [John Wesley] I know has a mind bent to help his preachers, but he says that you have done them more hurt than ever you will be able do them good while you live. This I think is true. For some years I have looked upon Mr
CW [Charles Wesley] amongst his brother's preachers just like one that had catched the plague and while God was increasing their number Mr Charles
I could only compare to a wild bull in a net. For these ten years I have lain under a hedge permitting you to drive your chariot Jehu like raising a very great dust ...as for evil speaking together with tittle tattle this nation Sir cannot compare with you—No, it really seems as if God had permitted Satan to devote you to this very thing ...72
Even allowing for Fenwick's eccentric nature, which was common knowledge within Methodism, this letter throws up some interesting points. Charles's frantic efforts to thwart the activities of potential or actual separatists were obviously arousing anger, while his inability to disguise his sentiments added to the irritation. It should be remembered that until the end of his life, John Wesley was also publicly opposed to separation, yet his popularity was not undermined.
In searching for reasons for Charles's troubled relationship with the preachers, one can again discern money as a factor. As has already been noted, he enjoyed a very good income compared with the itinerants; it is a sobering thought that lay preachers who were pressed into the armed forces by their persecutors were financially better off as a result.73 There is no direct evidence that Charles Wesley's income was a source of grievance, but it is reasonable to assume that some preachers would have noted the high standard of living that he and his family enjoyed. Any resentment would have been aggravated by Charles's lack of sensitivity: one of his charges against the preachers was that they represented a financial burden, apparently unaware of or unconcerned with the incongruity of such comments from a man whose family life was heavily subsidized by the Methodist movement.
Charles was also scathing in his comments about the ability of certain preachers and was obviously unwilling to tolerate anything
72 Michael Fenwick to CW, MS letter, undated (MCA: DDPr 2/22).
73 In 1760, according to contemporary statistics provided by Joseph Massie, a sailor was paid £20 per annum and a soldier received £14. By way of comparison, a Methodist itinerant received just £12. Geoffrey Holmes, and Daniel Szechi, The Age of Oligarchy 1722–83 (London: Longman, 1993), 353.
150 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley less than both grace and gifts. This was in contrast to his brother, who appears to have been appreciative of well-meaning effort. Any resentment that Charles's sharp tongue provoked would have been exacerbated by a characteristic of his personal ministry, namely his shortcomings. Charles's public worship and preaching frequently reached heights of eloquence and power, but on occasion he also plumbed the depths, as illustrated by this letter written to Charles in March 1749 by his good friend Ebenezer Blackwell:
You did indeed read the prayers but alas! it was more like a Priest of the world who had been up all night and was now half asleep in the desk, Sir, I say that neither myself nor many that were about me could understand one half of what you said ...And as for the 1st lesson in particular you read it so very low that I dare say not one in ten throughout the chapel could hear or perfectly understand ...I must own that your discourse had very little effect on me and I am afraid not much more on many others.74
No minister, regardless of ability, can inspire all the time, especially when preaching and praying extempore, but Charles's attacks on others would have seemed unduly harsh if his own labours were not always of the highest quality. It is also interesting to compare Blackwell's account of that Sunday morning service with Charles's own recollection: 'An extraordinary blessing attended the Word preached both at the chapel and every other place. In the Sacrament I was constrained to pray again and again with strong cryings and tears.'75
This should stand as a warning for scholars not to accept first-hand testimony at face value, even that of the Wesleys.
By the early 1750s, hostility towards Charles Wesley was mounting in certain quarters of the itinerancy. This is revealed not merely through the invective of men such as Fenwick or Charles's own suspicions of what the preachers were saying behind his back, but in more subtle ways as well. Criticisms of Charles Wesley and complaints about his behaviour began to be whispered in his brother's ear, where they found a sympathetic response. In August 1752, John confronted his sibling with statements by some of their preachers that he was lax with regard to the rules of the bands and that he agreed with 74 Ebenezer Blackwell to CW, Xerox copy letter, 18 March 1749 (MCA: PLP 9.23.1).
75 CWJ, 19 March 1749.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 151 Whitefield concerning perseverance and possibly predestination.76
Also, in the autumn of 1752, Charles's letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, declaring the need to check John's power,77 was intercepted and handed to the Methodist leader. It is possible that concern about Charles's theology was a result of genuine confusion, but intercepting a private letter can only be regarded as an act of provocation.
An argument can be made that Charles's enemies were seeking to damage a power base that had always to some degree depended on his special relationship with John. Charles certainly believed this to be the case, referring to efforts to exclude him from his brother's 'cabinet council'.78 Charles's earliest biographer John Whitehead confirmed that tales were circulating within the movement that Charles was 'an enemy to all the lay-preachers and no friend to Methodism itself'.79
This traffic in whispers was not simply a one-way street: correspondence by itinerants criticizing John Wesley is very rare but examples do survive. In April 1760, the veteran preacher Joseph Cownley wrote a letter to Charles that was sharply critical of his brother, accusing him of disloyalty to men such as himself who had been at his side since the early days.80 Charles's annotation on this letter is in itself illuminating, as he describes Cownley as 'sensible, loving'. This pattern of covert tale-telling became a particular feature of Methodism as tension over the future of the movement mounted and the brothers came to represent radically different perspectives.
Part of the problem was that the Wesleys were increasingly predisposed to believe the worst of one another. Their disagreements had been well known since the time of the Grace Murray affair and 76 JW to CW, Published copy letter, 8 August 1752. John Wesley, The Works of John
77 CW to Selina Hastings, MS letter, 4 August 1752 (MCA: PLP 113.2.5).
78 CW to Walter Sellon, 19th-century copy letter, 14 December 1754 (MCA:
79 John Whitehead, Some Account of the Life of the Rev. Charles Wesley, A.M. Late Student of Christ-Church Oxford, collected from his Private Journal (London: printed by Stephen Couchman, 1793), 270.
80 'His [John Wesley's] behaviour to me since I became an invalid though I obeyed him as long as I was able and longer than I was well able ...has been such that if I did not love and honour him, out of principle, I should have taken my leave of him long since and in no very friendly manner ...There are several of my brethren who might make the like complaint with me.' Joseph Cownley to CW, MS letter, 26 April 1760
152 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley caused their friends considerable anxiety. Charles's quick temper and lack of discretion contributed to the situation; his complaints concerning his brother were freely voiced to Anglican ministers and lay people and could certainly have been considered unwise—several of his correspondents differed from the Wesleys on theological grounds, and could, if they had wished, have used Charles's comments to stir up trouble. There is at least a strong possibility that individuals or groups may have used the differences between the brothers to push particular agendas. A divided leadership is vulnerable to such manipulation and Blackwell's strongly expressed sentiments on the need for fraternal unity suggests that such fears were apparent as early as 1752.81 This undercurrent of rivalry and party feeling will become increasingly clear. We will now turn to look at opinion at the grassroots of Methodism concerning Charles Wesley and his proAnglican viewpoint.
CHARLES WESLEY AND THE METHODIST PEOPLE There can be no doubt that Charles was respected and liked by the majority of people with whom he came into contact. His early Evangelical tours were greatly valued and for many years after he withdrew from the travelling ministry his correspondents were urging him to reconsider.82 His criticism of individuals was largely confined to his brother and certain itinerants and while he was a firm upholder of discipline, there was another, much warmer side to his nature. In commenting on Charles's ministry in his closing years, Jackson drew on the memories of surviving members of the London society. Their experience of Charles Wesley was of someone who was 'singularly tender and affectionate in his manner, when addressing those that were "afflicted in mind, body, or estate" '.83 Despite an occasional abruptness Charles possessed a strong pastoral sense and his letters
81 Ebenezer Blackwell to CW, Xerox copy letter, 20 January 1753 (MCA: PLP 9.23.2).
82 For example, Joseph Cownley to CW, MS letter, 26 April 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/16).
83 Jackson, Charles Wesley, ii. 433.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 153 and journal regularly refer to the positive response that he received from congregations and individuals.
It is enlightening to consider the different ways in which people responded to the Wesleys on a personal level. John was of course held in tremendous regard and his influence was such that his followers considered their 'sovereign pastor as a sovereign good'.84 However, he paid a personal price for this central place, experiencing difficulty in relating to the lives of ordinary people; John Wesley always had to be the dominant partner in any relationship, and his sense of personal mission seems at times inhuman in its intensity. Charles's relationship with lay people was different in at least one important respect. His letters are deeply spiritual but they are also very human: he wrote of his wife and children, using his own domestic experience to empathize with the sufferings of others. For example, in 1785, he comforted Thomas Marriott on the death of his son: 'Jesus wept— to see his creatures weeping: therefore he does not disapprove your feeling your loss; neither do you offer God a sacrifice which costs you naught ...My partner sympathizes with yours. We lost our only son by the smallpox.'85
It is hardly surprising that some Methodists felt that Charles was more accessible and understanding. In August 1776, Ann Chapman wrote of the people's concern about the quality of the Bristol preachers. She asked Charles to approach his brother on their behalf for 'the people here are discouraged and say its of no use for them to speak: I believe they think of Mr W. [John Wesley] as some do of our K. [King] that he will not hearken to any remonstrance.'86 Charles was regularly made aware of people's fears about aspects of Methodism, which was in part a response to his own requests for information, but was also a reflection of his approachability compared with a supreme leader who did not like to be contradicted.87 The preacher John Pawson remarked that even at the age of 85, John Wesley 'loves to have his
84 Charles Wesley, Sermons, p. xxxi.
85 CW to Thomas Marriott, MS letter, 24 September 1785 (MCA: DDCW 7/116).
86 Ann Chapman to CW, MS letter, 21 August 1776 (MCA: DDCW 2/13).
87 'I have often heard you do not take those persons to be real friends who reprove you or tell you what they think wrong: but cleave to those who give you praise and respect.' Sarah Ryan to JW, March 1764. Quoted by Rupp, Religion in England, 397.
154 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley own way and he must have it'.88 For people such as Ann Chapman and Joseph Cownley,89 Charles provided a sympathetic ear and a channel through which they could express their hopes and fears.
LAY ATTACHMENT TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Nineteenth-century historians gave the impression that Charles and his sympathizers were in the minority with regard to separation from the Church of England. This is implied by remarks like that of Jackson dismissing Charles's supporters as 'croakers and busy-bodies.'90 The failure to examine the state of general Methodist opinion has the effect of portraying Charles Wesley as being isolated, particularly after 1756, and it is somewhat ironic that his own comments reinforce this viewpoint.91 Yet the large collection of letters written to him by lay Methodists contain no expressions of disloyalty to the Church despite the occasional persecution that people suffered. This may be attributed to prior knowledge of his views, but the same applies equally to John's extant correspondence. There is occasional criticism of the lack of spiritual vitality within the Church of England,92 but Charles was equally scathing on that subject.93 Instead, it is clear from these letters that many and perhaps even the majority of early
Methodists regarded the Church of England as their spiritual home.
In March 1760, the London layman John Parry wrote of his love of the Church in the following words: 'As for my part Sir, I cannot see any cause, or excuse that man can make, why he should forsake her communion because (as far as I can see) her doctrine, discipline and 88 John Pawson to Charles Atmore, MS letter, 19 March 1789 (MCA: PLP 82.5.2).
89 Joseph Cownley to CW, MS letter, 26 April 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/16).
90 Jackson, Charles Wesley, ii. 137.
91 For example, CW to Walter Sellon, 19th-century copy letter, 14 December 1754, (MCA: DDCW 6/92B); CW to Walter Sellon, 19th-century copy letter, 1754 (MCA:
92 'I being of the Church of England, I was at a great loss to find a spiritual friend that could give me any spiritual comfort. What ministers I liked in the Church, I found their lives was so contrary to their doctrine.' Samuel Flewit to CW, MS letter,
November 1741 (MCA: EMV 14).
93 'Incouraged a poor girl ...daily threatened to be turned out of doors by her master, a great swearer and strict churchman; a constant communicant and habitual drunkard.' CWJ, 2 December 1750.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 155 liturgy is such (if properly attended to) as leads to holiness of life ...I do desire to be more and more thankful that I was brought up by so tender a mother.'94
Over time even non-Anglican members of the societies, such as Sarah Perrin, came to regard themselves as both Methodist and Anglican, although in Perrin's case it was initially with reluctance.95
There was, of course, a wide diversity of opinion within the Wesleyan movement and more research needs to be done on how this was affected by such factors as social class and geographical location.
Charles himself testified in his journal to the existence of Methodists who felt little attachment to the Anglican Church,96 but on the other hand, individual societies were centres of loyalty well into the nineteenth century, London being the best-known example. It has recently been argued that such pro-Church feelings were more widespread than previously supposed,97 and certainly the traditional view that 'many of the early Methodists ...had only slight connexions with the Established Church; others had none at all; some were hostile'98 needs fresh evaluation.
There appears to have been contemporary agreement with Charles Wesley over the unsuitability of some of the itinerants and there is no doubt that a number of the early preachers did not bring credit to the movement. In addition to the well-known cases from the early
1750s of itinerants falling short of expectation, there were other more obscure examples. In 1756, the Evangelical John Newton wrote of the Methodist preachers in Liverpool: 'I have been quite pained & ashamed to see what empty ignorant pretenders have undertaken to speak to the people in the name of God at that place.'99 It appears also that Charles was justified in his complaints that some itinerants were using their quasi-ministerial status to develop ideas beyond their
94 John Parry to CW, MS letter, 29 March 1760 (MCA: EMV 118).
95 Sarah Perrin to CW, MS letter, October 1743 (MCA: Folio volume entitled 'Letters Chiefly to the Wesleys', vol. 2), 31.
96 CWJ, 24 September 1756.
97 For example, Mark Smith, Religion in Industrial Society: Oldham and Saddleworth 1740–1865 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 169–70.
98 Bowmer, The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in Early Methodism, 70.
99 Quoted by Bruce Hindmarsh, John Newton and the English Evangelical Tradition between the Conversions of Wesley and Wilberforce (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 126.
156 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley original function.100 In 1760, the preacher Joseph Cownley complained that: the door to preaching with us is as wide as our societies, so that any ignorant or designing man ...may preach without any more ado unless to procure somebody or other to inform your brother, which is not always needful, that he is well enough qualified for it. And there is no man that takes this work upon him though never so unfit for it but may find at least some old woman who will abide by it that he is the finest man they ever heard in all their life.101
From a later period, a Newcastle man described two of the preachers as 'arrant coxcombs'102 while a third was 'wholly unacquainted with that humble mind that was in Christ'.103 Even John Wesley felt the occasional need to put a preacher in his place for adopting airs and graces.104
During his tours of the first half of the 1750s, Charles found little difficulty in finding people willing to report itinerants for wrongful behaviour. Some of the best examples date from his visit to Manchester in October 1756: 'the [class] leaders desired me not to let [Joseph Tucker] come among them again; for he did them more harm than good, by talking in his witty way against the Church and clergy ...When we set the wolf to keep the sheep, no wonder that the sheep are scattered.'105 It may be suspected that Charles was told what people thought he wanted to hear, but while this may have been true in some cases, there were individuals who took it upon themselves to curb separatist tendencies. In 1755, Brother Norton of the London society attacked the itinerant Enoch Williams for his 'profane wickedness' in saying prayers at the graveside of a dead child contrary to Anglican practice.106 Ironically, Williams himself was opposed to separation107 and was so upset that he sought the advice of the Wesley
100 'the universal respect they met with turned their heads—the tinner, barber, thatcher forgot himself and set up for a gentleman and looked out for a fortune'. CW to Selina Hastings, MS letter, 4 August 1752 (MCA: PLP 113.2.5).
101 Joseph Cownley to CW, MS letter, 26 April 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/16).
102 Quoted by Henry Abelove, Evangelist of Desire: John Wesley and the Methodists (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), 17.
103 Ibid. 17–18. 104 Ibid. 13–14. 105 CWJ, 21 October 1756.
106 Enoch Williams to CW, MS letter, 21 June 1755 (MCA: EMV 137).
107 'You know my sentiments concerning those things ...it is not my duty to perform any of those sacred offices which are peculiar to you and those who are
Established ministers except preaching.' Ibid.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 157 brothers and was vindicated by both.108 It is a tendency of human nature to feel resentment or jealousy of individuals in a position of spiritual leadership, especially when no distinct qualifications of education or social status are involved. Many itinerants were regarded with love and respect, but that would not have been true in every case and there was certainly genuine concern that some preachers were leading people away from the Church of England. This fear even extended to John Wesley, who was barred by Ebenezer Blackwell from visiting his home in 1755 when it appeared that he was in favour of separation.109
Scholarship has only in recent years begun to look closely at the strong attachment felt for the Church of England by early
Methodists.110 The vast majority of people in eighteenth-century England and Wales were members of the Established Church, and while many would not have attended worship regularly, there was considerable sentimental attachment.111 Anglicanism pervaded all areas of public life and was regarded as an important asset in the maintenance of national cohesion and sense of identity. The Wesleys by virtue of their orders and often-professed loyalty were able to draw into the Methodist movement people who had no wish to be
Dissenters. The brothers were not the only ordained Evangelicals to derive benefit from their association with the Church; George
Whitefield was alleged to have remarked that 'being a minister of the Church of England, and preaching its Articles, is a means under God, of drawing so many after me'.112 At the same time, the Evangelicals' radical approach and acceptance of members from other
108 Charles Wesley's detailed response does not survive, but his annotation on Williams's letter refers only to Norton's 'roughness', implying that he considered
Williams's treatment to have been unnecessarily harsh.
109 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 167.
110 For example, John Walsh, 'Methodism and the Origins of English-Speaking Evangelicalism', in David Bebbington, Mark Noll, and George Rawlyk (eds.), Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British
Isles and beyond, 1700–1990 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 27–8.
111 'The church could attract the kind of tribal loyalty given to kin or to parent; powerful feelings were drawn to it by the presence of ancestors in its graveyard. It was
Mother Church.' Walsh and Taylor, 'Introduction: The Church and Anglicanism', 27.
112 Quoted by James Bate, Methodism Displayed or Remarks upon Mr Whitefield's answer to the Bishop of London's last Pastoral Letter (London: printed for John Carter
158 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley denominations provided them with an appeal that other more conventional clergymen could not hope to match.
Many of the brothers' followers would have feared life outside the Establishment and one of the keys to understanding why Methodism and the Church of England remained so long in what appears in some ways to have been an unhappy marriage was this fear of division.
Aversion to schism and lingering fears about the renewal of sectarian conflict was not simply a feature of the universities, Church, and government, but was encountered at every level of English society.
Here again, the institutional tolerance of the Church of England was vital, enabling Anglican-Methodists to explore their spirituality in innovative and sometimes controversial ways, but without leaving the familiar bosom of the Church. The reluctance to sever the link with the Church of England and the conviction that such a move was unnecessary would have been even more pronounced in the thousands who attended Evangelical worship but without seeking formal membership of a Methodist society.113 John Wesley himself was only too aware of this complication. In his published Reasons against Separation of 1758, he emphasized the offence and alienation that a division would cause: '[separation] would occasion many hundreds if not some thousands of those who are now united with us, to separate from us'.114 It appears that Charles Wesley was more in tune with Methodist opinion than is commonly realized.
CHARLES WESLEY'S RETIREMENT FROM THE ITINERANCY One of the central events in Charles Wesley's ministry was his abandonment of the itinerancy in 1756. This seemingly abrupt and unannounced step followed seven years of worsening tension, and it is appropriate to end the survey of the second phase of Charles's
113 'A proportion often suggested is two adherents to every one member, though some would say three or more.' Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 437.
114 John Wesley, Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England (London: printed by W. Strahan, 1758), 4.
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 159 Evangelical involvement by examining the reasons why he decided to withdraw permanently from the forefront of Methodism.
Undoubtedly, an important factor in the retirement was his family commitments and personal needs. Sarah provided him with the emotional and domestic stability that he had lacked since leaving
Epworth at the age of 9. Charles's extreme reluctance to be absent from her side was deeply felt, and was to become more pronounced over the years. He was absent during some of the crises of their early married life, such as the death of their firstborn son and Sarah's own life-threatening illness. Such distressing incidents would have caused him to rethink his priorities.
Historians have also cited declining health as a certain factor in his decision.115 It is true that Charles complained, particularly in his later years, of a range of physical ailments from bowel complaints116 to chest problems117 and it is noticeable that after his marriage he was at pains to stress to his wife that he was not overdoing things.118 He seems in fact to have changed during the 1750s from a physically fit and energetic man, to one who was conscious of the need to preserve declining strength. In the preface to a collection of hymns published in 1762, Charles stated that his poor health had 'disabled me for the principal work of the ministry'.119 However, this is a subject that warrants closer examination. In the several years before 1756, Charles does not in reality appear to have been unduly fragile; he did suffer from periodic illness and was apparently plagued by rheumatism, but on other occasions he revelled in a punishing regime of travel and hard work.120 There are many instances of his energy and enthusiasm at an age when he would have been regarded as an old man. Charles certainly gave the impression that he was becoming worn out, but one should ask if this stemmed from a desire to spend time with his family, and his futile search for an excuse that would be acceptable
115 For example, Gill, Charles Wesley, 163.
116 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter [1 September 1773] (MCA: DDCW 7/32).
117 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 21 March 1771 (MCA: DDCW 7/59).
118 For example, CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 29 July [1759?] (MCA: DDCW 5/93).
119 Charles Wesley, Short Hymns on Select Passages of the Holy Scriptures, 2 vols.
(Bristol: printed by E. Farley, 1762), preface to vol. i, unnumbered page).
120 For example, CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 30 September [1753] (MCA:
160 The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley to his demanding brother. Even after 1756, his settled ministry was characterized by hard work, and he was still preaching until a short time before his death at the age of 81. The Anglican Evangelical
John Berridge commented that 'matrimony has quite maimed poor Charles'121 and there is an element of truth in his remark. This is not to say that he consciously malingered, but it undoubtedly suited him to give due regard to his advancing years.
This question of Charles's health and apparent slowing down illustrates an important point about the study of the Wesleys. Their lives ran in tandem from their days at Oxford and Charles's labours, with the exception of his poetry, have never been examined in isolation.
A few of John's biographers have had a tendency to draw unflattering comparisons between their subject's later ministry and that of Charles;122 this is unfair, for John was exceptional in his energy and longevity. By any normal standards, Charles was effective, diligent, and hard-working throughout his long life.
A third reason that is often cited for Charles settling down was his desire to avoid controversy.123 This theory may have originated with the Wesley family—in two letters of 1826, his daughter Sally wrote that her father had said that he withdrew from the forefront of the movement principally to avoid contention.124 Yet this contradicts what we know of Charles's nature. He was no stranger to dispute and his aggressive personality is apparent from as far back as his schooldays;125 itinerant preachers, Anglican prelates, and Calvinist Evangelicals had ample experience of Charles's uncompromising character.
In this, the Wesley brothers were very much alike; John was more restrained in his reactions, but in both men there was the same iron resolve, and in Charles's case, a temper and a tongue to match. The fact that Charles occasionally regretted his impetuosity, or that his family sought to obscure it with noble motives,126 does not make
121 Quoted by Nigel Pibworth, The Gospel Pedlar: The Story of John Berridge and the Eighteenth-Century Revival (Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1987), 121.
122 For example, Tyerman, John Wesley, ii. 358.
123 For example, Jackson, Charles Wesley, ii. 135–6.
124 Sally Wesley to [Henry] Moore, MS letter, c.1818 (MCA: DDWes 6/15); Sally Wesley to anon., MS letter, 7 June 1826 (MCA: DDWes 6/14).
125 Gill, Charles Wesley, 32.
126 'he would bemoan his natural warmth, which to us appeared in affection only, or zeal for good'. Sally Wesley to anon, MS letter, 7 June 1826 (MCA: DDWes 6/14).
The Methodist Opinion of Charles Wesley 161 it any the less true. Jackson suggested that Charles withdrew from the itinerancy out of deference to his brother,127 but this should be dismissed as a pious platitude. After 1756 he showed every inclination to take issue with John whenever he saw the need, which was frequent.
In conclusion, it would appear that Charles's decision to adopt a more settled lifestyle was a direct result of family responsibilities. It may be the case that health and an increasingly fraught relationship with the preachers had a bearing on the matter, but it is unlikely that they would have provoked such a decision in themselves. If Charles did genuinely feel that he was withdrawing for the sake of Methodist peace, it was certainly not a commitment that he kept to in the years that followed.
127 Jackson, Charles Wesley, ii. 136.