words, if nothing else; abstain from either sour looks or harsh words,
LONDON AND THE WESY
5. You are to take it in turn, month by month, to be chairman.
The chairman is to see that all the rules be punctually observed, and immediately to check him who breaks any of them.
6. You are to do nothing without the consent of the minister, either actually had or reasonably presumed.
7. You are to consider, whenever you meet, ' God is here.'
Therefore be deeply serious ; utter no trifling word ; speak as in His presence, and to the glory of His great name.
8. When anything is debated, let one at once stand up and speak, the rest giving attention.
And let him speak just loud enough to be heard, in love and in the spirit of meekness.
9g. You are continually to pray and endeavour that a holy harmony of soul may in all things subsist among you; that in every step you may ' keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace.'
10. In all debates you are to watch over your spirits, avoiding, as fire, all clamour and contention, being ' swift to hear, slow to speak'
; in honour every man preferring another before himself.
11. If you cannot relieve, do not grieve, the poor.
Give them soft words, if nothing else; abstain from either sour looks or harsh words,
Let them be glad to come, even though they should go empty away.
Put yourself in the place of every poor man, and deal with him as you would God should deal with you.
These instructions we whose names are under-written (being the present stewards of the Society in London) do heartily receive, and earnestly desire to conform to.
In witness whereof we have set our hands.
N.B.—If any steward shall break any of the preceding rules, after having been thrice admonished by the chairman (whereof notice is to be immediately given the minister), he is no longer steward.?
During his short visit to London John Wesley's pen was busy.
It is only necessary to mention the fact that on June II he finished his well-known Letter to the Bishop of London.
In it he defended the Methodists against the charges which Dr. Gibson had brought against them.
Those charges had been the subject of friendly conversations between Wesley and the Bishop ; it was surprising that they should be repeated in the face of the public.
But good came out of evil.
The Letter deeply affected the Bishop, and he wrote no more against Wesley.* On Sunday, June 14, John Wesley preached again in St.
Bartholomew's.
He was much pleased with the conduct of the congregation.
There was no sign of lightness or inattention, and he was persuaded that all the seed sown there would
4 John Wesley's Journal, iii, 300-301.
2H. Moore's Life of Wesley, ii. 415.
LONDON AND THE WEST
. not be lost.
The service was a fit preparation for the great event of the next day.
In his Journal, under the date Monday, June 15, he says, ' Our Conference began and ended on Saturday, the zoth.
The Minutes of all that passed therein were some time after transcribed and published'
(iii. 302).
It is fortunate that we are not left in the dark concerning the proceedings of this Conference.
Some time elapsed before the publication of the Minutes, but we know that a transcription of the proceedings was made by John Bennet.
It appears in the first of the Publications of the Wesley Historical Society.
The Conference assembled at the Foundery.
On Monday morning there were present John and Charles Wesley, Westley Hall, and Charles Manning, four clergymen; and John Jones, Thomas Maxfield, Jonathan Reeves, John Nelson,
John Bennet, John Downes, Thomas Crouch, Robert Swindells, and John Maddern, lay preachers.
The next day Mr. Bateman of St. Bartholomew's, Mr. Piers, Howell Harris, and Thomas Hardwick, joined them.
On Wednesday Mr. Perronet, the Vicar of Shoreham, came.
The business followed the routine of the earlier Conferences, save that it was decided that it was not necessary ' at every Conference to read over all the Conferences we have had from the beginning.'
It was considered to be enough to read the Minutes of the Conference immediately preceding, and so much of the rest as might be needful from time to time.
Careful attention was paid to doctrinal matters; and the conclusions reached by the preceding Conference on justifying faith, assurance, and entire sanctification were reviewed.
Their verbal expression was in some points revised, but the doctrines previously accepted were firmly maintained.
When Mr.
Perronet arrived, about ten o'clock on the Wednesday morning, the Conference had reached a very important item of the agenda.
It was inevitable that the relation of the Methodist Societies to the National Church should be defined, and it was well that the question should be discussed in a Conference when seven clergymen were present.
The discussion is so important that we must follow its record in the Minutes.
The Conference defined ' schism,' as the word is used in the New Testament, as 'a causeless breach, rupture, or division made among the members of Christ, among those who are the living body of Christ, and members in particular.'
Then it was asked,
LONDON AND THE WEST
'Are not the Methodists guilty of making such a schism? '
The answer was, 'No more than rebellion or murder.
They do not divide themselves at all from the living body of Christ.
Let any prove it if they can.'
Then the Conference faced other urgent questions, and their decisions we Bive in their own words.
Q. You profess to obey both the governors and rules of the Church, yet in many instances you do not obey them ; how is this consistent ?
Upon what principles do you act, while you sometimes obey and sometimes not?
A. It is entirely consistent.
We act at all times on one plain, uniform principle—' We will obey the rules and governors of the Church, whenever we can consistently with our duty to God; whenever we cannot, we will quietly obey God rather than men.'
Q. But why do you say you are thrust out of the Church?
Has not every minister a right to dispose of his own church ?
A. He ought to have, but in fact he has not.
A minister desires I should preach in his church, but the Bishop forbids him.
That Bishop then injures him, and thrusts me out of that church.
Q. Does a Church in the New Testament always mean 'a single congregation '?
A. We believe it does.
We do not recollect any instance to the contrary.
Q. What instance or ground is there in the New Testament for a national Church ?
A. We know none at all, We apprehend it to be a mere political institution.
Q. Are the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons plainly described in the New Testament ?
A. We think they are, and believe they generally obtained in the Churches of the apostolic age.
Q. But are you assured God designed the same plan should obtain in all Churches throughout all ages ?
A. We are not assured of this, because we do not know that it is asserted in Holy Writ.
Q. If this plan were essential to a Christian Church, what must become of all the foreign reformed Churches ?
A. It would follow they are no parts of the Church of Christ—a, consequence full of shocking absurdity.
Q. In what age was the divine right of episcopacy first asserted in England ?
A, About the middle of Queen Elizabeth's reign.
Till then all the Bishops and clergy in England continually allowed and joined in the ministrations of those who were not episcopally ordained.
Q. Must there not be numberless accidental variations in the government of various Churches?
LONDON AND THE WEST
fy, A. There must in the nature of things. As God variously dispenses His gifts of nature, providence, and grace, both the offices themselves and the officers in each ought to be varied from time to time.
Q. Why is it that there is no determinate plan of Church government appointed in Scripture?
A, Without doubt, because the wisdom of God had a regard to the necessary variety.
Q. Was there any thought of uniformity in the government of all Churches until the time of Constantine ?
A. It is certain there was not; and would not have been then had men consulted the word of God only.'
It is clear that in these questions and answers we have a revelation of the opinions of John Wesley on the subject of national Churches.
His position in regard to the Church of England has given rise to almost interminable discussion.
It might have been sooner ended if the conclusions of the Conference in 1747 had been known to ardent controversialists.
Bearing those conclusions in mind, we will watch their effect on Wesley's conduct in after years.
At the Conference of 1747 it was reported that the ' ordinary assistants' numbered twenty-three, Edward and Charles Perronet being included, to the satisfaction of their father.
Thirty-eight lay preachers 'assisted in one place.'
A wise decision was arrived at in the case of the communicants who crowded to the Lord's Table.
In the first place it was determined to be ' exactly careful whom we admit into the Society' ; and then it was resolved to give notes of admission to the Sacrament only to those who came to the minister to receive them, on the days appointed in each quarter.
So far as we know, this is the first indication of the use of ' communicants' notes.'
Among other regulations, there are ' smaller advices' concerning preaching.
Among them we observe that the assistants are advised to sing no hymns of their own composing when conducting their services, a suggestion which looks towards William Darney.
The Conference also resolved on a very important step in relation to the visitation of the classes.
It was agreed that John Wesley should select some of the ' assistants' to visit the classes in each place, and to write new lists of the members.
He was also to give them power to regulate the bands, to deliver new tickets, to keep watch-nights and love-feasts.
1W.H.S, Publications, No. 1, 46-48.
LONDON AND THE WEST
In addition, these ' assistants' were to send him an exact account of the behaviour of the stewards, housekeepers, schoolmasters, and leaders.
After fixing 'the journeys of the assistants' for the next six months the Conference dispersed, hoping to meet again in Bristol in May, 1748.1
On June 21 John Wesley preached at St. Bartholomew's.
He tells us that he spoke very plain and strong words on the Gospel for the day—the story of Dives and Lazarus.
The people listened intently, and the preacher says, 'God gave the audience ears to hear, so that they appeared as far from anger on the one hand as from sleepiness on the other.'
After preaching at West Street in the afternoon, he and his companion, Robert Swindells, began their journey to Bristol.
As Wesley rode along to the West it is probable that he thought over the decision of the Conference as to fieldpreaching.
In 1746 it did not seem clear to the Conference that the preaching in Moorfields should be continued, as the Foundery was a more convenient place, which contained as many as could hear.
The hesitation was only temporary.
In 1747 this question was put and answered, ' Have we not limited field-preaching too much?'
The answer was, ' It seems we have.
1. Because our calling is to save that which is lost. Now we cannot expect the wanderers from God to seek us; it is our part to go and seek them.
2. Because we are more particularly called, by going out into the highways and hedges (which none will do if we do not) to compel them to come in.
3. Because that reason against it is not good, "' The house will hold all that come."
The house may hold all that will come to the houses, but not all that will come into the field.
4. Because we have always found a greater blessing in field-preaching than in any other preaching whatever.'?
When Wesley reached Bristol the wisdom of the London Conference decision was confirmed.
The argument concerning the capacity of the ' old room' scarcely affected the question.
The building was in a dangerous condition and was ready to fall on the heads of the worshippers.
But the large increase of the hearers in a ' field ' was quickly evidenced.
On Tuesday evening, June 23, we see John Wesley in the 1 John Wesley says that the Conference closed on Saturday, June 20.
We have no record of the business transacted after Thursday of that week.
2W.H:S. Publications, No. 1, 48.
LONDON AND THE WEST
AN open air standing in the presence of a great multitude of rich and poor people.
He says, in his Journal, ' We had a solemn and a joyful hour.
Surely, these fields are white unto the harvest.'
He was in a new preaching-place.
He had taken his stand on Kingsdown in the ' Old Orchard,' a spot familiar to the citizens of Bristol.
On that June evening, when he preached there, it must have acquired an additional charm.
As he walked down the hill after the service, and looked at the landscape, in which gardens and orchards greeted his eye, he would rejoice in the beauty of the Broadmead valley.
The 'Old Orchard' was one of George Fox's preaching-places.
He stood on a stone which was long known as ' The Quaker's Stone.'
Wesley reached Exeter on June 24, having ridden there through storms of rain.
While his clothes were drying he took the opportunity of writing A Word to a Freeholder.
The country was on the eve of an election, and the prevalence of bribery was a crying scandal.
The Wesleys attacked this evil with all their might.
In addition to this written protest we know that about this time Charles Wesley expelled a member of Society who had taken a bribe for his vote.
After recording the fact, he says, ' I hope there is not another like offender in all our Societies.'
The leaflet that John Wesley wrote in Exeter was published in 1748, and was used in other elections.
Casting a forward look, we wonder if Wesley, when he was in Exeter, heard anything concerning the new Bishop.
In following the story of the introduction of Methodism into Exeter we have been impressed by the fact that, under the rule of Bishop Nicholas Claggett, the Methodists, so far as we know, had exceptional opportunities for preaching the gospel to the citizens.
He was a man who preached sound and practical sermons, and was not likely to be a violent opponent of the new evangelists.
His successor was Dr. George Lavington, =e will claim our attention at a later stage.
On his way to Cornwall Wesley preached at Plymouth Dock, where he was disturbed by a mob, but when he came to St. Ives, on June 30, he found a welcome which sharply contrasted with some of his previous experiences.
He walked to the church to attend morning prayers, and no one shouted a derisive 'Huzza.'
He says, ' How strangely has one year 1C. Wesley's Journal, i. 453.
LONDON AND THE WEST
changed the 'scene in Cornwall!
This is now a peaceable, nay, honourable station.
They give us good words almost in every place. What have we done, that the world should be so civil to us?'
The next day was the eve of the election, and Wesley spoke severally to all the Methodists who had votes.
He was delighted to find that not one would even eat or drink at the expense of him for whom he voted.
Bribes had been offered and had been returned.
He remained in Cornwall nearly a month.
He found that although a mob here and there threatened him, the assaults were comparatively trivial.
The heart had been wellnigh taken out of his adversaries.
When preaching at Camborne, he looked about for John Rogers, the champion, who had so often sworn that Wesley should never more preach in that parish.
He afterwards learned that Rogers had given up his opposition, saying, "One may as well blow against the wind.'
On Thursday, July 9, Wesley met the stewards of all the Societies, and made special inquiries about the exhorters.
He found there were no less than eighteen of these workers in the county.
Five he set aside as lacking either ' gifts or grace.'
Three he specially approved, they having been much blessed in the work.
The rest he considered might be helpful when there was no preacher in their own or the neighbouring societies, provided they would take no steps without the advice of those who had more experience than themselves.
Being well satisfied with the condition of affairs in Comwall, he left the county, and on Sunday evening, August 2, he preached once more in Bristol, in the ' Old Orchard,' to the largest congregation which, so far as he could remember, he had ever seen in that city.
It was well that he was so enheartened by his visit to the West of England, for on his return he found himself face to face with an enterprise that called for the exercise of all his wisdom and courage.
IV IRELAND On Thursday, May 15, 1746, the following question was asked in the Conference which met in Bristol:
' What is a sufficient call of Providence to a new place—suppose Edinburgh or Dublin?'
The answer was:
' (x) An invitation from some one that is worthy, from a serious man, fearing God, who has a house to receive us; (2) A probability of doing more good by going thither than by staying longer where we are.'
So far as Scotland was concerned, those conditions were not fulfilled for some years; but at the London Conference of 1747 there is an entry in the Minutes which indicates that the call to Ireland was increasing in clearness.
At the foot of 'the stations' Ireland appears for the first time.
Jonathan Reeves and John Trembath are appointed; but the words Deo volente appear in connexion with their appointment.
The words indicate the provisional character of the arrangement ; it is further shown by the fact that Reeves and Trembath are also appointed to other circuits.
These entries excite our curiosity, and we must search for light which will reveal their meaning.'
In attempting to describe the origin of Methodism in Ireland we must not overlook the fact that in 1738, when Whitefield returned from Georgia, he landed in Ireland, and preached in the cathedral at Limerick at the request of Bishop Burscough.
That was on Sunday, November 20.
Three days later he arrived in Dublin.
He called on Dr. Delany, who received him with the greatest kindness.
He introduced him to the Bishop of Londonderry and the Archbishop of Armagh, both of whom invited him to dinner.
He also preached in St. Werburgh's and in St. Andrew's, two of the 1JTn all matters that concern Methodism in Ireland the late Rev. C. H. Crookshank's History is an admirable guide.
For our immediate purpose we shall frequently avail ourselves of the facts recorded in his book on Wesley and his Times.
It is the first of three excellent volumes.
IRELAND
Dublin churches.
The cordiality of his reception must have made a deep impression on him after his rough and perilous voyage.
It may have had a decisive effect on some of his subsequent actions, but in our opinion it is wiser to look in another direction for the origin of Methodism in Ireland.
In 1745 a soldier had formed a small Society in Dublin.
Our knowledge of him is slight ; he belongs to the little band of devout soldiers who at that time did so much to secure the success of the Evangelical Revival.
Not content with meeting the members of the Society, he began to preach to them.
At this point Mr. Benjamin La Trobe, a Baptist, having finished his studies at the University of Glasgow, came to Dublin, and was made the leader of this Society.
In June, 1746, John Cennick, so well known to all who are acquainted with the early history of the Methodist Church, came to Dublin, and began to preach in a chapel in Skinner's Alley, which had been hired from the Baptists.
Cennick had been one of Wesley's lay preachers; he then joined Whitefield ; and at the time of his visit to Dublin he was a Moravian.
His preaching in the chapel in the alley was very successful.
The place was crowded with hearers, and a large addition was made to the membership of the Society.
We get a glimpse of one of his services.
It was probably held on Christmas Day.
In the course of his sermon he referred to ' the Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes,' and a priest in the congregation cried out that the preacher was 'a swaddler.'
The retort _ suited the taste of some who were present.
The nickname became popular with the mob, and at a subsequent stage the Methodists in Ireland were known by it for many years.
At the close of 1746 John Cennick left Dublin.
Following the longing of his heart, he went to the Moravian settlement in Germany.
We do not know how far Wesley was acquainted with the events which had taken place in Dublin, but certain entries in the Minutes of the Conference in 1746 and 1747 suggest that he had some knowledge of them.
In a preceding volume we have had to describe the unsatisfactory conduct of Thomas Williams, a man who had almost exhausted the extraordinary patience of John Wesley.
Mr.
Crookshank's description of him is correct.
He was a member of a respectable Welsh family.
Having received a good 1 See Tyerman's Life of Whitefield, i. 146,
IRELAND Ss education, he had graduated at one of the Universities.
He was a man of attractive appearance, and had a pleasing manner.
He was most acceptable as a preacher.
But he had fatal defects of character.
He was ambitious, impatient of control, unstable in his religious views, and ' sadly lacking in high moral principle.'
Notwithstanding these defects, some of which were revealed with startling clearness in the process of the years, it cannot be denied that in 1747 he rendered a great service to Methodism.
In the summer of that year he went to Dublin and preached in the open air.
It is probable that his first sermon was delivered on Oxmantown Green.
It was a place of public resort, and on Sundays and holy days numbers of people were accustomed to gather there.
The Royal barracks contributed their contingent of soldiers to the crowds.
It was just the spot on which a fervent evangelist would desire to take his stand.
In addition to his open-air work Williams preached in a house situated at the corner of Marlborough and Talbot Streets.
It had been part of a Lutheran church.
The first Lutheran congregation in Dublin was formed by Esdras Marcus Lightenstone, who in 1689 was ordained as chaplain to the Duke of Brandenburgh's regiment, then in Ireland.
At the conclusion of the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697, the regiment was disbanded.
Lightenstone remained in Dublin, and gathered together a congregation in Marlborough Street.
About
the Lutherans moved to Poolbeg Street, where a new church and manse were built.
Whitelaw, in his History of Dublin, says that 'the cause was small, and ultimately disappeared.'*
The ' room' in Marlborough Street in which Williams preached had accommodation for about four hundred people, but four or five times that number could stand in the spacious yard.
As the result of his preaching a Society was soon formed.
One of its earliest members was Mr. William Lunell, a Moravian, who resided in Francis Street.
He was a descendant from a Huguenot family, and possessed great influence in Dublin.
He was a member of the banking firm of Lunell & Dickson, which failed owing to the 'run' upon it in 1745, the year of the Young Pretender's invasion.
But in October of that year an advertisement appeared in the Dublin 1 Crookshank's History, i. 14.
3See W.H.S. Proceedings, v. 68.
IRELAND
newspapers bearing the signatures ofa great number of the chief city merchants, who guaranteed the notes and bills of the bank, and the crisis was surmounted.
That guarantee indicates the esteem in which the bankers were held.?
It is difficult to define the precise position of Thomas Williams at the time of his visit to Ireland in the summer of 1747.
He had pursued an erratic course.
He had been sometimes in close association with the Wesleys; then, early in 1743, he was appointed by Whitefield as the superintendent of his
Societies in the Vale of Glamorgan and in part of Monmouthshire ; three months later he was present at the Conference of the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales.
In 1744 he returned to the Wesleys and caused them great trouble ; but, after confessing his fault he was again employed by them.
He may have been in association with them in 1747, but his name does not appear in the list of lay preachers in the Bennet Minutes for that year.
Whatever may have been his position, we know that he wrote to John Wesley and gave him an account of the progress of the work he was doing in Dublin.
Wesley at once saw his opportunity; and on August 4 he left Bristol for Holyhead.
On August 8, he and his companions—John Trembath and William Tucker, lay preachers—embarked on board the packet-boat for Ireland.
On Sunday morning, August 10, John Wesley landed at St. George's Quay in Dublin.
Soon he heard the bells ringing for church, and immediately answered their call.
Mr. Lunell had intended to meet him at the Quay, but arrived too late.
After the service he called at the house where Wesley had left his baggage and took him to his own home.
In the afternoon Wesley wrote a note tothe curate of St. Mary's, Moses Rouquier, who sent word that he would be glad of his assistance.
He went to St. Mary's and preached to as gay and senseless a congregation as he had ever seen.
The next day he met the Society at Marlborough Street at five o'clock in the morning, and at six he preached there on " Repent and believe the gospel."
The room, large as it was, would not contain the people.
He was delighted with the attention of those whom he addressed.
Between eight and nine o'clock he went to see Mr. Rouquier, in accordance with the arrangement they had
1W.H.S. Proceedings, iv. 87.
2See John Wesley and the Methodist Socteites, 228-229.
IRELAND AN made on the preceding day.
The curate of St. Mary's was profuse in his expressions of goodwill.
He highly commended the sermon Wesley had preached, but, during their conversation, he candidly expressed the most rooted prejudice against lay preachers, or preaching out of a church, and said 'the.
Archbishop of Dublin was resolved to suffer no such irregularities in his diocese.'
It was an honest utterance, and we know how Wesley would receive it. He had grown accustomed to such declarations.on the part of clergymen; but 'the expression of goodwill,' and the ' commendation ' of his sermon, were new accompaniments to the ordinary outbursts of the English clergy.
On the same morning he went to wait on the Archbishop, but found he had gone out of town.
In the evening Wesley preached again in the Marlborough Street room.
Many of the rich, and many ministers of every denomination, were there.
His comment on the service was:
' If my brother or I could have been here for a few months, I question if there might not have been a larger Society here than even in London itself."
The next day he waited on the Archbishop at Newbridge, a place about ten miles from Dublin, and had a conversation with him which lasted two or three hours.
He answered an ' abundance of objections,' and seems to have been satisfied with the result of the interview.
Wesley purposely delayed the examination of the Society in Dublin until Monday, August 17. He finished it the next day, and found that it contained about two hundred and eighty members, ' many of whom appeared to be strong in the faith.'
Before commencing the examination he had taken care at his morning services to explain the ' Rules of the United Societies.'
He took a few sections at a time, and caused the people to understand the conditions of admission into the Society and of continued membership.
He admired intelligent enthusiasm, he rejoiced in great accessions, but, as we know, he never was blinded by the glamour of numbers.
In the mass he constantly observed the individual.
What he prized was the consistency of each member.
In that fact may be found the secret of the strict discipline that governed the Methodist Societies.
It was well that he took pains to explain the reasons for the adoption of the ' Rules,' for the Dublin Society was soon to feel the scourge of sharp persecution.
John Wesley's first visit to Ireland lasted until August 23.
IRELAND
During that* time he made mental notes of the religious condition of Dublin; and, by conversation, reading, and observation, he was able to arrive at certain conclusions concerning the state of the country.
It has been estimated that the population of Ireland in 1754 amounted to 2,372,634 persons.
For purposes of comparison we may say that in 175r the estimated population of England and Wales was 6,467,000, and of Scotland 1,255,663.
These figures cannot be absolutely relied on, but they serve a useful purpose.
Carrying his investigations into the sphere of religion, John Wesley came to the conclusion that at least ninety-nine in a hundred of the native Irish remained in the religion of their forefathers.
Confronting this fact, he says:
' Nor is it any wonder that those who are born Papists generally live and die such, when the Protestants can find no better ways to convert them than Penal Laws and Acts of Parliament.'
In the light of the present day this opinion has exceptional significance.
It is clear that during his short visit Wesley reflected on the difficulties of the coming campaign, and that he did not make up his mind to commence his mission to the Irish people without surveying the ground and counting the cost.
But from his experiences at Osmotherley and Hainton he knew that it was possible to win the attention of Roman Catholics to the great doctrines of the gospel.
As for the Protestants, his success among crowds of Englishmen gave him the assurance that Irishmen could be reached and affected.
And so, in reliance on the power of the Spirit of God, he determined that he would arrange for the continuance of the work which had been so successfully commenced in Dublin.
John Wesley's voyage back to England was hindered by "a dead calm.'
Starting on August 23, he did not get within sight of Wales until three days afterwards.
He had written twice to Charles Wesley, who was taking care of the London and Bristol Societies, urging on him the need of his presence in Ireland.
An appointment to meet at Garth was arranged.
No pleasanter place could have been chosen.
Charles Wesley arrived there first, he and Charles Perronet being received by 'the whole family as messengers of God.'
On August 29, while the members of the happy company in Mr. Gwynne's home were talking together, and wondering what had become of John Wesley, he walked in ' and brought life and a blessing
IRELAND with him.'
Picturing the scene of that reception, two figures make a quiet appeal to us.
We see Charles Wesley, and, near him, Miss Sarah Gwynne, the beautiful daughter of the house.
As we look at them our thoughts fly through the years that were before them.
We think of their long companionship, their perfect love, the sunshine and the shadows that fell on their path, and we are not surprised that it was not until
September 9 that Charles Wesley and Charles Perronet arrived in Dublin.
The ' dead calm' that delayed the voyage of John Wesley to Wales was not a prophecy of the continuance of summer weather in the Dublin Society. No Church has ever been firmly rooted without storms. When we walk through the woodlands in spring we pause for a while to brood over the fact that much of their beauty is the result of the shaking of the winds of winter.
withered leaves and the broken branches at our feet have their lesson.
He must know little of the history of the Christian Churches who fails to recognize that those which wear an aspect of the greatest strength and grandeur have been searched again and again by the tempests of persecution.
When Charles Wesley landed in Dublin he found that the storm had commenced.
John Wesley writes enthusiastically about the Irish people whom he met on his first visit.
But an Irishman would be the first to admit that in the mass of the population of his country in the eighteenth century many were to be found who were unworthy of John Wesley's eulogium. We will let Mr. Crookshank speak of the inhabitants of Dublin at the time of the first visits of the Wesleys.
He says :
The city had been long remarkable for its lawlessness.
Robberies and murders were frequently committed in the streets.
The butchers of Ormond market, and the weavers of the Liberty, would sometimes meet, and fight until one or more persons were killed.
On one occasion a constable was beaten to death in the open streets and the body hung up in triumph, yet no one was called to account for it. The magistrates were weak and inefficient, and consequently their authority was despised.
There were two mobs in Dublin, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant, and both of them became assailants of the 1 History of Methodism, i. 17.
IRELAND
Methodists.
One Sunday evening, before Charles Wesley's arrival, they seem to have arranged their differences and united in an assault on the house where the Society met.
As the members came out they were attacked with sticks and stones.
Several of the Methodists were knocked down and beaten, while others retreated to the room.
The mob then broke open the door, tore down the desk, the forms, and wainscoting, and carried them into the street and burnt
them.
They then broke into and ransacked a warehouse over the preaching-room, stole about one hundred pound's worth of goods, and committed the remainder to the flames.
Watching this scene of tumult, we notice a coach drawing up and stopping.
Young ladies are in it who, looking at the fire, ask 'What is the matter?'
Someone answers, 'It is only a mob pulling down the swaddling-house and burning the pulpit and benches in the street.'
Then one of the ladies cries, 'Ah!
I am glad of that; I hope these false prophets will now be driven out of the kingdom.
If they would only try to do some good to the poor, ignorant Papists they might be borne with ; but to think of their assurance in pretending to instruct good Protestants, when we have everything we can wish for in our own Church—it is intolerable.'
In justice to the speaker it is right to say that shortly afterwards she became a well-known Methodist in Athlone.
At last the Lord Mayor appeared on the scene with his guard.
When he saw the havoc that had been made he readily granted warrants for the apprehension of the rioters.
He was laughed at for his interference.
Some of the mob were imprisoned, but when the time for trial came the Grand Jury threw out the bills, and the Methodists were abandoned to the fury of their persecutors.
John Trembath, writing to John Wesley after describing the riots said that, with few exceptions, the Society, which numbered three hundred and eighty-six members, stood firm.
As to the preachers, he declared, ' No one is fit to be a preacher here who is not ready to die at any moment.'
Preachers and people were animated by the same spirit; they faced the storm with unwavering courage.
When Charles Wesley and Charles Perronet landed in Dublin they found themselves in a hostile city; but the former was a veteran soldier, and the latter had received his ' baptism of fire.'
We expect that thoughts of Garth and Da
IRELAND Shoreham were often in their minds, but the great 'cry of a multitude that needed Christ and His gospel triumphed over the voices that whispered of ease and loving friends.
They put on the armour and went to the fight.
On September 9 they walked in the evening to the shattered room in Marlborough Street, where a few people were met ' who did not fear what men or devils could do unto them.'
Charles Wesley preached on ' Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, saith the Lord.'
His words strengthened the resolution of the hearers.
In his conversation with them he learned the particulars of the riot.
The account was sufficiently illustrated by the ruins that lay around him.
When the little company left the building they found themselves in the midst of a gibing and threatening crowd.
Charles Wesley says, 'The Popish mob, encouraged and assisted by the Protestant, are so insolent and outrageous that, whatever street we pass through, it is up in arms.
The Mayor would assist us, but cannot.'
On Sunday, September 13, Charles Wesley did a daring thing.
He was rewarded for his courage.
He went to Oxmantown Green, and preached there morning and evening.
In the morning he stood under the wall of the barracks and preached 'Christ crucified.'
The Wesleys' influence over soldiers was remarkable; the best of them admired their heroism and constantly defended them.
In Dublin at that time the officers were opposed to Charles Wesley, and forbade the soldiers to attend the services; but the attraction of the preacher was strong and, in many cases, proved irresistible:
In the evening thousands of people assembled on the Green.
Some of the Roman Catholics raged and shouted and threw stones, but Charles Wesley's bold experiment succeeded.
His appeals to Protestants and Romanists prevailed.
During the week the news of the throwing out of the bills against the rioters by the Grand Jury became known, but Charles
Wesley, nothing daunted, walked to the Green on Sunday, September 20, and preached there morning and afternoon.
The promise of success brightened in the morning, the power of God was present, keeping down all opposition.
The preacher found his way to the hearts of the Roman Catholics.
Urging the need of repentance, and declaring the love of Christ, he quoted in support of his teaching the words of Thomas a Kempis and of the Roman Liturgy.
The eyes of the Romanists
IRELAND
were fixed on him.
Many were in tears.
As we listen to that far-oft voice strange thoughts arise in our mind.
A scene quietly depicted by Miss Margaret Stokes shines before us.
She has told us of St. Deicola, the friend of St. Columban at Bangor, in Down.
Columban had a great love for him, but he was perplexed by his wonderful cheerfulness.
One day he said to Deicola, ' How does it happen that your face is always shining with joy, and nothing seems to trouble your soul?'
And Deicola answered, ' It is because nothing can ever part me from my God.':
Charles Wesley told the secret of the same assurance and radiant peace to the crowd on Oxmantown Green; and, when the Roman Catholics listened to words of Thomas 4 Kempis which set forth the eternal love of God, they 'listened with strained attention.'
Their surprise was increased when they heard the preacher advising the congregation to go to their respective places of worship.
In the evening there was a great multitude of serious hearers at the service on the Green.
They clustered around the preacher.
Those who did not wish to hear withdrew on every side to the opposite hill, where they sat down in rows on the grass and remained the whole time of the service.
When Wesley had gone, a Popish mob gathered and began to abuse the women ; but the soldiers interfered and beat off the assailants, who retreated, with the threat that they would come with all their forces the next Sunday.
The threat was not carried out.
Wesley says, ' Never have I seen a quieter congregation at the Foundery than we had at the Green, both morning and afternoon.
Many of the soldiers were within hearing, though behind the doors and walls, for fear of their officers.
The Papists stood like lambs.
I quoted Kempis, which makes some of them confident I am a good Catholic.'?
It was the custom of the Wesleys, when preaching in the open air, to advise the people to attend their own places of worship, and we have seen that this advice was given by Charles Wesley to the crowd assembled on Oxmantown Green.
He set an example by leading the Methodists to St. Patrick's; but their attendance was strongly resented by the clergy and the congregation.
There was one exception.
The Dean, Francis Corbet, welcomed them heartily.
Charles Wesley says, ' He has always treated us with great courtesy ; 1 Three Months tn the Forests of France, 41.
§ Journal, i. 461.
IRELAND RY looks pleased to see us make the bulk of the communicants ; appointed us a seat by ourselves ; and constantly administers to me first, as the rubric directs...
Dean Corbet's example did not improve the manners of the clergy and officers of the Church.
Charles Wesley declares that he seldom entered the place without feeling that they were ready to drag him out as a profaner of the temple.
On one occasion he had to hear a sermon directed against the Methodists.
As he listened to a discourse, 'full of low, pitiful lies and nonsense,' he was reminded of 'the ingenious Mr. Hoblyn,' the Cornish preacher, who, until that moment, had occupied in his estimation the chief place among the pulpit-vituperators of the Methodists.* It speaks well for the good temper of Charles Wesley and the Dublin Methodists that they continued to attend the services and the Sacraments at St. Patrick's; but they did not overlook the fact that it would be a great advantage if they could secure a preaching-house in which they might carry on the work of the growing Society.
The dilapidated room in Marlborough Street was not suitable.
On September 29 the way seemed to open.
Charles Wesley met the landlord of Cennick's preaching-house, who told him that he was about to raise the rent, and asked if the Methodists would take the room if the present tenants refused to pay the sum he required.
The arrangement made was that the present tenants were to have the first offer; if they did not accept it, then the Methodists were to have 'the next refusal.'
Mr.
Crookshank shall guide us through the proceedings which concern another attempt to secure a preaching-house.
He says :
At this period the Earl of Meath's Liberty was apparently the most flourishing and wealthiest part of the city, owing principally to the cotton, silk, and broad-cloth weaving, as well as the tanning and leather-dressing trades in that locality. Education and religion amongst the workpeople were altogether neglected or ignored, and immorality existed to an alarming extent.
Prizeand cock-fighting, card-playing, drunkenness, and other vices abounded.
The employers complained bitterly, but felt quite helpless to improve the moral condition of the workmen.
Just then a party of Methodists waited on them to request that Mr. C. Wesley should be afforded an opportunity of preaching to the weavers ; and they not only consented, but also expressed their
* Journal, i. 463.
For Mr. Hoblyn see John Wesley and the Methodist Societies, 140.
IRELAND
willingness to afford every assistance in their power.
There was a large building in Cork Street, where the looms were kept, called ' The Weavers' Store,' which could accommodate about five hundred persons, and it was arranged that this should be cleared out for the service.
On the day appointed hundreds assembled; but the half of those who came could not get into the room.
When C. Wesley arrived they gave him a hearty reception, and behaved with all due respect.
He was surrounded by a large number of the members of Society, and, after singing and prayer, announced as his text, ' How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?'
The poor weavers were greatly broken down, and a deep impression was made on all who heard.
Before the congregation dispersed it was intimated that C. Wesley would preach again in a few days in an adjacent field ; at which meeting several thousands were present, and were most orderly and attentive.
A check was thus given to the sinful habits of the people, many of whom subsequently became Methodists. Thus encouraged, C. Wesley purchased a room in that neighbourhood called ' Dolphin's Barn,' now known as 104 Cork Street.
The whole ground floor, which had been a weaver's shop, was forty-two feet long and twenty-four broad, and was turned into a preaching-room, with two rows of benches and a pulpit at the end, while the preachers were accommodated in the rooms above.?
In Charles Wesley's Journal we see that on Saturday, October 17, he passed the day at the new house.
The conditions under which he and Charles Perronet had previously lived in Dublin, had become intolerable; and the change was heartily welcomed by them.
On Sunday, October 25, Charles Wesley opened the house at Dolphin's Barn by preaching to a great multitude within and without.
The purchase of the new house was not completed until John Wesley had been consulted.
Charles Wesley also wrote to Mr. Blackwell, the London banker, that staunch friend of the Wesleys, who so often helped them when money was needed to assist them in their evangelizing enterprises.
Charles Wesley also went about Dublin collecting subscriptions towards the expense of the purchase, alterations, and furnishing of the Dolphin's
Barn 'Room.'
He stayed in Ireland until March 20, 1748, and during his wisely prolonged visit he and his companions laid there the firm foundations of a church that has deeply affected the spiritual life, not only of this country, but of lands that lie far beyond our narrow seas.
1 Crookshank's History of Methodism, i. 20-21.
2.On October 31 Charles Wesley preached, as he thought for the last time, at Marlborough Street; but Mr. Crookshank says that, when better days arrived, the Methodists appear to have regained possession of their old room.
A NEW ROOM IN BRISTOL
On February 9, 1748, we see John Wesley in Bristol.
About sixty members of the Society had assembled to meet him, and we listen with great interest to their earnest conversation.
It concerns the ' Room' he built in 1739.
It was in a dangerous condition.
Describing it, John Wesley says, ' There was no small danger of its falling upon our heads.'
The successful work of nine years rendered it imperative that it should be enlarged.
The result of the conversation was an agreement that the necessary alterations should be made.
Collectors were appointed who, in two or three days, obtained £230 from subscribers.
Experienced builders were engaged to make an estimate of the probable expense; and Wesley appointed five stewards, in addition to those of the Society, to superintend the work of reconstruction.
The appointment of this building committee is significant.
Wesley had borne the financial responsibility connected with the erection of the original room; but since then he had seen the wisdom of adopting the principle of 'devolution' in the management of the ' temporal affairs ' of the Societies.
He had found that when laymen were willing to share the load he had carried they did him most helpful service.
It is possible, with the aid of the old deeds and documents relating to the 'Room,' and of the references in John and Charles Wesley's Journals, to follow the proceedings of the local committee.
The stewards had to face two questions ; first, the enlargement of the room ; and, secondly, the instability of the original structure.
The first difficulty was met by the purchase, in John Wesley's name, of a house and garden which are described in a deed dated June 8, 1748, as 1 The deeds are now in the possession of the Wesleyan Conference Office, City
Road, London.
They were formerly in private hands, and were then used by me when writing an article on 'The New Room in the Horsefair,' which appeared in The Methodist Recorder on November 3, 1898.
A NEW ROOM IN BRISTOL
being 'contiguous to a certain room commonly called Mr.
Wesley's Room, or the New Room.'
By this purchase the required space for enlargement was secured.
As to the strengthening of the original structure, the stewards were embarrassed by the fact that the new plans arranged for the erection of a dwelling-house over the 'Room.'
Would the walls of the 'Old Room' bear the weight?
That question must have been discussed by the 'experienced builders.'
They could adapt the walls of 'the extension' to the new burden, but it was improbable that they could put. much trust in the walls of a building that was 'in danger of falling on the heads of the people.'
What was to be done?
Some portion of the old walls may have been sound, and might be spared; but it is certain that the stewards determined to change the size and appearance of the building.
When it was completed the preaching-room contained twice as many people as the original room.
Its value had been largely increased.
The amount of the insurance on the 'Old Room' had been £300, but the new policy of insurance, dated December
21, 1748, was for £500, or nearly double the original sum.
The insurers are Thomas Richards and other feoffees, and. in the policy the premises are described as ' their New Room in the Horsefair, in the parish of St. James, in the City of Bristol, commonly known by the name of the Meeting, belonging to John Westley, clerk ; with a Dwelling-house over it, being built with stone, and covered with tile, in the occupation of the said John Westley, clerk.'
That is an accurate description of the room erected in 1748.
The previous policy of insurance effected with the Bristol Crown Fire Office, dated
May 16, 1740, describes the original 'Room' as 'a dwellinghouse, school, and Society room, all under one roof, and another small schoolroom adjoining thereto.'
If we compare the two descriptions we shall have some idea of the change effected in 1748 in the Bristol ' Room.'
The advocate of the theory that when the alterations were made in 1748 the 'Old Room' was left practically intact will have to face the question why the Wesleys did not hold services in it when they visited Bristol at intervals between February and September, 1748.
The 'Old Orchard' was 1The Rev. Henry J. Foster, one of our acutest Methodist antiquaries, thought he could detect remains of the old walls in a part of the present building.
A NEW ROOM IN BRISTOL
used on several occasions, and great crowds assembled there.
It is true that on Sunday, July 24, Charles Wesley preached twice in the ' Room'
; but he expressly says that the services were held in 'the shell of our house.'
The unfinished building was in a condition that made it possible for a service to be held in it on a summer day; but Charles Wesley's description is fatal to the theory that the ' Room' John Wesley built in 1739 had been preserved intact.
It was not until Tuesday, September 13, 1748, that John Wesley saw the reconstructed ' House.'
In one part of his Journal he merely says, 'I preached in the new-built room at Bristol.'
During the time when the Standard Journal was being published some fragments of a manuscript Journal, from which Wesley made selections for publication, were discovered.
In the final volume of the present edition of the Journal these fragments are printed, and in them we find an expression of Wesley's opinion of the alterations made in the Bristol ' Room.'
He says, I preached in the new-built room, which is indeed an awful place, and contains nearly twice as many people as it did before.
At five in the morning there was such a congregation there as I never saw before in a morning at Bristol.
After preaching I talked with the stewards of the building: men whose hearts God had prepared for the work.
They have expended all the money they had received, and about a hundred pounds more.
But they are not discouraged, believing He will provide, whose is the earth and the fullness thereof.
It must be remembered that at the beginning of February £230 had been contributed to the building fund.
This sum, and all that had been raised from February to September, had been spent, and {100 of debt remained.
When we consider the value of money in the eighteenth century, and the price of labour, we get some idea of the extent of the alterations made in ' the new-built ' house.
One incident in connexion with the new house in Bristol calls for special notice. We are not able to indicate the person with whom the idea originated, but it is clear that some of the Bristol Methodists came to the conclusion that, for the protection of the worshippers in the new building, the provisions contained in the eighteenth and nineteenth clauses of the +See Standard Journal, viii. 159.
A NEW ROOM IN BRISTOL
Act of Toleration, passed in 1689, should be observed, and that the 'New Room' should be registered.
The defence afforded by the eighteenth clause was needed for the protection of the building and its congregation.
This clause enacted that if any person or persons, at any time or times after the tenth day of June, do and shall willingly, and of purpose, maliciously or contemptuously come into any cathedral or parish church, chapel, or other congregation permitted by this Act, and disquiet or disturb the same, Or misuse any preacher or teacher, such person or persons, upon proof thereof before any Justice of Peace, by two or more sufficient witnesses, shall find two sureties, to be bound by recognizance in the penal sum of fifty pounds, and, in default of such sureties, shall be committed to prison, there to remain till the next general or quarter sessions ; and upon conviction of the said offence, at the said quarter vessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of twenty pounds, to the use of the King's and Queen's Majesties, their heirs and successors.
There can be no doubt that the words ' or other congregation permitted by this Act' referred to a congregation of 'their Majesties' Protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England,' as indicated in the title of the Act. But to an ingenious mind the scope of the nineteenth clause seemed wider.
It stands as follows :
Provided always that no congregation or assembly for religious worship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act, until the place of such meeting shall be certified to the bishop of the diocese, or to the archdeacon of that archdeaconry, or to the justices of the peace at the general or quarter sessions of the peace for the county, city, or place in which such meeting shall be held, and registered in the said bishop's or archdeacon's court respectively, or recorded at the said general or quarter sessions ; the register, or clerk of the peace whereof respectively, is hereby required to register the same, and to give certificate thereof to such person as shall demand the same, for which there shall be no greater fee nor reward taken than the sum of sixpence.
A broad interpretation of the nineteenth clause seemed to make it imperative that the 'New Room' should be 'certified,' inasmuch as ' no congregation or assembly for religious worship was to be permitted or allowed until the place of such meeting was duly recorded.'
Conforming to the directions of the Act, Thomas Richards, one of Wesley's well-known lay preachers, who was a trustee of the Bristol
'Room' and of the Orphan House at Newcastle, appeared
A NEW ROOM IN BRISTOL
. in the Bristol court of quarter sessions and certified that the 'New Room' was a place for religious worship.
The justices directed that the fact should be 'recorded,' and a certificate of the record, signed by the Clerk of the Peace, was given.
So far as we know, that was the first occasion on which a request for the registration of a Methodist preaching-house was made.
It will be of interest, therefore, if we reproduce a copy of the certificate that was granted.
City of Bristol At an adjournment of the Court of General and County Page Quarter Sessions of the peace of our Sovereign of the Lord the King held in and for the said City same City and County in the Guild-hall there on Monday the seventeenth day of October One thousand seven hundred and forty eight before Buckler
Weekes Esquire Mayor of the said City Jacob Elton Nathaniel Day and Edward Cooper Esquires Aldermen of the same City and others their associated Justices Thomas Richards one of the Trustees of a House or Room lately re-built and commonly called the New Room? situate in or near the Horse fair in the parish of St. James within the said City of Bristol came into this Court and certified unto the Justices above named that the said
House or Room called the New Room was also a place of meeting of a Congregation or Assembly for Religious Worship conformable to the Statute made in the first year of the reign of the late King William and Queen Mary intituled an Act for Exempting their
Majesties Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the penalties of certain Laws and prayed that the said place might be so recorded among the Records of this Court and the same is recorded accordingly
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
When we examine the certificate we find that at least one person seems to have resented the action of Thomas Richards.
On the back of the document some one has written the following words in capital letters:
'I protest against this needless, useless, and senseless licence.'
Then, still in capitals, the name "Charles Wesley' is added.
Those who are acquainted with his clear and beautiful handwriting will be astonished at the style of this uncouth inscription.
It does not bear any resemblance to Charles Wesley's ordinary writing. We do not 1 The original is in the Wesleyan Conference Office, City Road, London.
The words ' a House or Room lately re-built and commonly called the New Room,' settle a long-continued controversy.
See John Wesley's Journal, iii. 376, 377, note.