unless we think ourselves obliged in Conscience so to do.
me.) ay ) XVII
JOHN BENNET
THERE is a gap in John Wesley's Journal between the dates December 22, 1751, and March 14, 1752; but the editor of the latest edition has rescued from oblivion a few facts that will help us.
At this point we will refer to one of them.
On January 29, 1752, an important agreement was made between the Wesleys and some of the lay preachers.
The document was written by John Wesley, and it was signed by him, Charles Wesley, John Trembath, Edward Perronet, Jonathan Reeves,
Joseph Cownley, Charles Perronet, Thomas Maxfield, John Downes, John Jones, John Nelson, William Shent, and John
Haime.
When we recall the circumstances of the time we shall recognize itsimportance.
Those who signed the document agreed as follows :
1. That we will not listen, or willingly inquire after, any Ill concerning each other. a 2. That if we do hear any IIl of each other, we will not be forward to believe it.
3. That as.soon as possible we will communicate what we hear, by speaking or writing to the Person concerned.
4. That till we have done this, we will not write or speak a Syllable of it to any other Person whatsoever.
5. That neither will we mention it, after we have done this, to any other Person.
6. That we will not make any exception to any of these Rules, unless we think ourselves obliged in Conscience so to do.
On Sunday March 15, 1752, John Wesley preached at West Street Chapel in the afternoon.
A great storm was blowing.
He says that it was one of the most violent he remembered.
He had got to ' the midst of the sermon' when ' a huge noise' was heard.
The people were startled, but retained their selfpossession.
They found out afterwards that a great part of a 1 See facsimile of the Agreement, Journal, iv. 9.
JOHN BENNET
house opposite the chapel had been blown down. A little later, while the tiles were rattling down from the houses on both sides, Wesley mounted his horse, ready for a journey.
We confess to some surprise when we see that Mrs. Wesley and her daughter Jane are also mounted, and set out with him through the gale.
At that time Jenny Vazeille was a girl of about fifteen years of age.
When we think of the steadfastness of the congregation, and the courage of Jenny and her mother, we form a high opinion of the condition of ' nerves' in the eighteenth century.
Let us try to catch sight of the riders on their way.
On Tuesday they set out from Enstone, in Oxfordshire, where the rain ceased.
It had been pouring down on them without intermission.
They were going to Evesham.
When they got to Broadway Hill a strong wind was blowing ; it often ' drove them clear out of the path, and was ready to carry away both horse and rider.'
But they fought their way through ; and, before six in the evening, reached Evesham unhurt.
Wesley closed this tempestuous day by preaching at the Town Hall, where several of the clergy and gentry were present.
Among the clergy we see Wesley's old friend Robert Kirkham, the successor of his father Lionel Kirkham in the family living of Stanton.
We presume that Mrs. Wesley and her daughter rested on the next day ; but John Wesley, with his friend, rode over to Stanton.
Wesley had not seen the village for upwards of twenty years.
The old friends had departed ; ' most of them were gone to their long home.'
But he met his friend's aunt.
After greeting him, says Wesley, 'she could not long forbear telling me how sorry she was that I should leave all my friends to lead this vagabond life.'
He adds words which lift the veil covering his deepest thoughts.
' Why, indeed, it is not pleasing to flesh and blood ; and I would not do it if I did not believe there was another world.'
The dispute did not continue long, and ended 'in much love.'
Kirkham rode back to Evesham with Wesley ; he attended the preaching that evening and the next morning at five o'clock.
Then the two men prepared to part.
It was some time before Wesley's old friend could speak.
Then he solemnly said, 'I am to take care of two thousand souls, and I never yet knew how to take care of my own!' Wesley counselled and comforted
JOHN BENNET
a him ; and he turned away 'full of conviction and good resolutions.'?
On Thursday, March 27, the day before Good Friday, John Wesley, with his wife and daughter, reached Manchester.
The next day he attended the 'Old Church.'
His friend of other days, John Clayton, read prayers; but Wesley says nothing of any private interview with him.
We do not suppose that they spoke to each other, for Clayton had turned his back on the Wesley brothers.
During his journeys in Cheshire and Lancashire Wesley heard reports that grieved him.
They related to John Bennet, and we must now turn to a subject that we approach with great regret.
Passing by the gossip that reached the ears of Wesley, we find that, on March 31,
1752, Thomas Mitchell gave him a full account of the events we have already recorded as having taken place on December
30, 1751.
Wesley must have been surprised by Bennet's statement, ' I have not been in connexion with him these three years, neither will I be any more.'
His surprise would be heightened when Mitchell told him that Bennet had said the same thing ' to all the stewards at the Quarterly Meeting on New Year's Day.'
So late as September, 1751, Bennet had attended the conference of the preachers in Leeds, convened by Charles Wesley ; and therecan be nodoubt that at the time when hemadehisstatement concerning his relation to John Wesley he was thought to,be a preacher still in ' connexion' with him.
April i and 2, 1752, were exceptionally important days in John Wesley's career; but he makes no record of their events in his Journal.
But we are not without guidance.
John Bennet's MS. Journal, which has helped us before, must help us again.
In it we have a full account of the proceedings that have made these dates memorable.
It would have assisted us if we had been able to add Wesley's explanations of matters still somewhat obscure ; but we must «vail ourselves of the materials at hand, instead of longing for those out of our reach.
On March 31 John Bennet and his wife went to Manchester.
We notice them in the congregation gathered to hear John Wesley.
He must have been surprised to see Mrs. Bennet once more.?
The next morning she was at the five o'clock 1 Journal, iv. 12-13.
pathetic story has been told concerning John Wesley and Mrs. Bennet.
It is to the effect that after the interview immediately following her marriage they never met again until they were in extreme old age. That story needs to be revised.
JOHN BENNET
service with her husband.
After that service they went to "Bolton, where Wesley was to preach in the evening.
Before the service began John Bennet called Wesley into a room in the preaching-house, and had a conversation wifh him.
Bennet gave him an account of 'the distraction and uneasiness' which existed in the Bolton Society in consequence of the legal settlement of the 'Room.'
Wesley must have listened with no little wonder to the description of that settlement, and would get some light upon Bennet's outcry against "Popery.'
It appears that John Bennet and some of the mcmbers of the Society in Bolton believed that 'the 'Room' had been ' made over or given' by the trustees to John and Charles Wesley, and that they had enrolled the deed of transfer in Chancery.
Further, that the deed contained a clause securing the exclusive use of the ' Room ' to men who preached the doctrines of the Wesleys.
Having imparted this astounding news to Wesley, Bennet proceeded to give him advice on the best way to allay the ' distraction and uneasiness ' which undoubtedly existed.
He counselled Wesley to return their money to ' the poor people' who had contributed to the fund for the erection of the ' Room,' and suggested that, having done this, the Wesleys might takethe ' House' astheir own possession.
Wesley was reduced to a state ofsilent astonishment by Bennet's description of the contents of the deed.
The silence was broken by Bennet, who told him that the opinion of a lawyer had been taken on the case, and he had informed the people who had consulted him that they might recover the ' House' if they prosecuted Wesley and the trustees 'for giving away what was not their own.'
This suggestion roused Wesley; according to Bennet, 'in a passion' he said, in effect, that he would spend {500 in defending himself against such an action.
Seeing that it would exasperate Wesley still more if he continued to give him further advice, Bennet dropped the subject, and it was agreed that a trustees' meeting should be held after the service.
They were turning to other matters when, suddenly, Mrs. Wesley walked into the room 'in a great rage.'
She declared that there should be 'no private meetings or underhand dealings' on the premises.
It is well known that, although she was said to be a woman of 'a sorrowful spirit,' she possessed an unusual amount of natural pugnacity ; at her command the room was cleared.
As Bennet left she
JOHN BENNET
" expressed the opinion that he was in ' the gall of bitterness,' and was 'a very bad man.'
After this interview Wesley preached in the ' Room' on one of his great texts, ' God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
Bennet listened in a critical spirit, and came to the conclusion that Wesley taught a doctrine concerning 'imputed righteousness' which was contrary to his previous teaching, and which it was impossible that he could accept.
In his Journal there are copious notes on this subject, which it is not necessary to reproduce.
After the service the trustees met in Wesley's room.
Mrs. Wesley was present.
According to Bennet, the greater part of the trustees insisted on the return of their money, as Wesley had 'secured the '' House" to himself.'
In this meeting Bennet also raised a discussion concerning Wesley's doctrinal unsoundness.
The discussion was conducted with considerable warmth, and ended abruptly.
On April 2 Wesley preached three times in the Bolton 'Room.'
After the noon service he desired the Society to stop.
In their presence he defended himself against the charges brought against him.
Bennet asked permission to speak, and it was granted.
At this point the proceedings become interesting ; for the first time we begin to get light on the contents of the Bolton deed.
Escaping from ' hearsays,' we approach a region of facts.
In reading Bennet's description of this meeting we are confirmed in the conviction that he and Wesley had never seen the deed of the Bolton ' House.'
In the course of the discussion the name of Mr. Thornton, a London solicitor, was mentioned.
Commenting, in his Journal, on Wesley's ignorance of the contents of the deed, Bennet says, ' This seemed strange to me, that Mr. Thornton, the lawyer, should come and settle an estate upon him and he not know it.
Besides, Mr. Thornton settled several other houses in the same manner before this on Mr. Wesley.'
These words put a thread into our hand that will guide us through the labyrinth.
Many years ago, when the writer was familiar with ' the dusty purlieus of.the law,' a shrewd solicitor advised him never to give an opinion on a case without seeing documents.
Much of the mischief done in Bolton would have been prevented if the deed of settlement had been produced, and if its terms
JOHN BENNET
had been explained by a competent lawyer.
In the absence of the original deed we must proceed on the supposition that Bennet's reference to the ' Houses' that had been settled by Mr. Thornton 'in the same manner' as the Bolton
' Room' looks in the direction of the ' Houses' at Bristol and Newcastleon-Tyne.
The deeds of settlement of the two ' Houses' are still in existence, and we have carefully examined them.
The Bristol deed, prepared by Mr. Thornton, is in the custody of the Rev.
Dr. Sharp, at the Wesleyan Conference Office, and a copy of the Newcastle deed is contained in Dr. W. W.
Stamp's book on The Orphan House of Wesley.
Both deeds are drawn up on similiar lines.
If the issue of the Bolton discussions had not been so serious we should be amused at Bennet's extraordinary statements.
He knew a little magistrates' law, but that knowledge is of slight use in a case in which a difficult question of property law is concerned.
We have shown that John Wesley was most anxious to get rid of the burden of personal possession of his preaching-houses, and that he employed Mr. Thornton to devise a plan that would effect his release.
In the case of Bristol and Newcastle the houses were conveyed to trustees on the terms mentioned in the deeds ; but the right of nominating the preachers to the buildings was reserved to John and Charles Wesley.
At the death of the survivor of the two brothers that right passed into the hands of the trustees.
We do not wonder that John Wesley sat silent when Bennet assured him that, by secret means, he had obtained by Mr. Thornton's aid the possession of the Bolton ' House.'
Wesley's ignorance of the contents of the deed, which had been prepared by Mr. Thornton in consultation with William Grimshaw who was in charge of a large part of the northern Methodist Societies, might have led to some alteration in the terms of the deed ; and Wesley probably thought it wise to be silent until he knew exactly what had occurred.
After these unpleasant meetings were over Wesley instituted inquiries, and when he returned to Bolton on June 14 he announced the result.
After preaching in the evening on that date, he says, 'I took occasion to tell the whole congregation there had been a mistake concerning the house which John Bennet imagined I had contrived to make my own property ; but Mr. Grimshaw had now cleared it
1See John Wastey and the Methodist Soctettés, 315-317.
JOHN BENNET
RAS up, having assured Mr. Bennet: (1) that I knew nothing of the deed relating to the house, till after it was made ; (2) that I had no property in it still ; only a clause was inserted whereby
Mr. Grimshaw, my brother, and I were empowered to appoint the preachers therein.:
In fact, the trusts of the deed ran along the lines laid down in the case of the Bristol and Newcastle ' Houses.'
John Wesley held another meeting in Bolton on April 2.
He called John Bennet into a room, where he found Mrs.
Wesley, John Haime, and Thomas Mitchell.
Wesley was determined to get a clear understanding with Bennet concerning his connexion with himself and the Methodist Societies.
Mitchell was asked to give his evidence concerning the ' renunciation' statements.
He said that Bennet had told him that he intended to separate himself entirely from the Wesleys, and to take some few Societies under his care.
He also described thescene when Bennet had accused Wesley of ' Popery.'
Bennet acknowledged that Mitchell's statements were true.
He explained that his determination to separate from the Wesleys was formed at the time when he heard that a lawyer had been sent to Bolton to get the ' House' made over to Wesley 'with lies and in a clandestine manner.'
He also expressed his belief that doctrines lately preached by Wesley were ' Popery.'
John Haime then blamed him for speaking anything to others against Wesley before he had spoken to Wesley himself.
He owned it would have been best to take that course, but explained that his reason was that he had ceased all correspondence with Wesley for several months, and 'intended to write or speak to him no more than as with another friend.'
After this Thomas Mitchell raised a very serious question, and we regret that Mrs. Wesley's presence precluded its thorough discussion.
It concerned a rumour which affected John Wesley's moral character.
Mitchell affirmed that Bennet had given him 'broad hints' about Wesley's guilt.
This charge Bennet at once indignantly denied, saying, 'I never accused Mr. John Wesley of any such thing, neither did I ever believe any such thing.'
There had been a correspondence between Wesley and Bennet on this subject before this meeting, and we must confess that Bennet's absolute denial of his belief of Wesley's guilt is reassuring.
1 Journal, iv. 32.
JOHN BENNET
Bennet tells us in his Journal that he thought it his duty to clear Wesley of the accusation his wife being present, ' lest some uneasiness should be created between them.'
He showed his sound sense by denouncing the scandal.
We-have thought it necessary to record this part of the business of the meeting because echoes of the charge against Wesley linger to the present time.
On the day after these important interviews John Wesley began another stage of his northern journey.
John Bennet remained in Bolton.
We shall soon have to part with him, and shall say farewell with regret.
It has been said that "the most marked characteristic of the British race is forgetfulness.'
It may be so; but all of us are not disfigured by that defect.
We remember the men who, in the early days of Methodism, were ' valiant for the truth,' and John Bennet was one of them.
In the early morning light we see him enduring hardship and fighting battles in days when our
Church was struggling for its life.
His incessant labours in Cheshire and Lancashire did much to lay the foundations and determine the success of Methodism in those counties.
He won and held strategic points which have done their part in securing the present prosperity of the Methodist Church in the North of England.
. We cannot dismiss him with a wave of the hand.
Let us watch him for a few moments as he goes on his way to the close of his eventful life.
Before starting on his journey on April 3, John Wesley had a talk with John Haime, and told him that John Bennet was to be allowed to preach in the Bolton ' Room' on the condition that he would not contradict or oppose the doctrines Wesley was accustomed to preach.
Bennet felt that he could not accept the use of the ' Room' on such a condition.
He therefore went to another place—a little room, in Poor House Lane, belonging to Richard Ashworth—and there he preached to a serious congregation.
His influence with many of the members of the Methodist Society in Bolton was strong.
It is said that the larger part of that Society followed him.
He gave up all thought of preaching any more in Wesley's 'Room.'
On April 5, on returning to Bolton, he found that his friends had procured the Market House; he preached in it to a large congregation.
A year afterwards Wesley wrote to him offering him the use of the ' Room,' but he replied, 'I thank you for
ty '
JOHN BENNET
~ the kind offer of the " House.'"'
At present we have a dwellinghouse, and a large room in the town to preach in, both of them very well situated, though not very beautiful either without or within.'
In these courtesies we seem to see the return of the kindly light of an old friendship.
It must be remembered that Bennet still continued the practice of visiting the Societies in Cheshire and Lancashire.
As we read his Journal we think that, as time went on, he began to feel the burden of such visitations, and that his thoughts turned towards a more settled life.
At one pericd the position of a clergyman attracted him ; but in temperament and by conviction he was a Dissenter, and conviction prevailed.
In 1754 he took an important step.
He determined to become a Dissenting minister.
Following the requirements of the Act of Uniformity, he went to Quarter Sessions and offered to take the necessary oaths.
He failed at Bakewell.
At Chesterfield a clergyman opposed the administration of the oaths to him ' because he was a Methodist.'
The counsel who appeared for him pleaded in vain.
The Justices unanimously agreed that the oaths should not be administered.
Then, after an appeal had been made to Sir Henry Haughton, who lived near Preston and was in the Commission of the Peace, he met with success.
Sir Henry brought his influence to bear on the other Justices ; Bennet took the oaths, and the usual certificate was given.
In watching Bennet as he moves among the Societies we see him sometimes at Warburton, a village in Cheshire, near
Warrington.'
Soon after obtaining his certificate he tells us that, in this village, a small ' meeting-house' was built for him.
He promised the people who had built it to take the services on alternate Sundays, and to procure all possible assistance when he could not attend.
They agreed to this arrangement, and the meeting-house was ' opened' by Mr.
Walkden, a Dissenting minister from Stockport.
On May 12, 1754, Mr. Walkden preached and administered the Sacrament.
There were thirty communicants, each of whom, according to Bennet's statement, ' could give an account of God's dealing with their souls.'
The class-meeting and the band-meeting had been introduced into the Society, and Bennet aptly describes his flock as ' Methodist Dissenters.'
his Journal Bennet constantly spells the name of this village Warbutton.
JOHN BENNET
We have mentioned the administration of the Sacrament to the members of the Warburton Society in order to draw attention to the fact that Bennet was not, at the time, ordained.
Thinking over the matter, he determined to seek ordination at the hands of some of the Dissenting ministers of the neighbourhood.
On Saturday, November 9, 1754, he was 'set apart' as the minister of the church at Warburton.
Among his manuscripts there is a full account of the solemn service at which he, and his deacons, were ordained.
The next day he administered the Sacrament to upwards of thirty communicants.
After his settlement as the minister of the Church he did not restrict his work to Warburton ; he gave his help to Bolton and other places.
His term of service was short.
He was worn out with his strenuous labours.
In 1759 he died at Warburton, aged only forty-five.
After a while his widow removed to Chapel-en-le-Frith.
She rejoined the Methodists.
Mr. Curnock says that 'she kept open house for Methodism and its preachers, meeting classes and bands, visiting the sick, and keeping herself unspotted from the world.'
She died on February 23, 1803, in the eighty-ninth year of her age.
Dr. Jabez Bunting preached her funeral sermon.
And so, among the Derbyshire hills, John and Grace Bennet rest, waiting for the coming of their Lord.?
1 Methodist Recorder, Winter Number, 1902.