Dr. Gell, the Oxford Divines, the late pious and learned Dr. Doddridge,
'NOTES UPON THE NEW TESTAMENT?'
require to offer here and there a small alteration : though not taking upon me to dictate to any; but simply to propose what appears to me either certain or probable.
5. To the text will be added, a few short explanatory notes : as few as possible ; it being not my view, to swell the book,.but to contract it ; not to make it as large, but as small as I can : and as short as possible, that the comment may not obscure or swallow up the text.
And these few short notes, will be explanatory only, not curious or critical: In pursuance of my great design, of making the Scripture more intelligible to the unlearned reader.
Agreeably to this design, I shall (together with the common division into chapters and verses) divide the text all along, according to the matter it contains, after the manner of the great Bengelius : making a small, or a large pause, just as the sense requires.
And even this is such a help in many places as one who has not tried it, would hardly conceive.
Those to whom I am chiefly indebted in the following work are Dr. Gell, the Oxford Divines, the late pious and learned Dr. Doddridge, and that great light of the world Bengelius.
May the Father of Lights, the Giver of every good gift, open the eyes of our understanding, and cause the Light of the glorious gospel of His Son to shine in all our hearts !
This was the preface which Wesley intended to publish in his projected book.
Having read it, we look at the big quarto volume that lies on our desk.
It contains seven hundred and fifty-nine pages, with two and a half pages crowded with errata.
As we turn over the leaves of the first edition we feel that the book does not answer to the description contained in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the original preface ; and we are convinced that Wesley must have changed his first design concerning the scope and character of the book.
The needed light soon reaches us.
In the first edition of the Notes we find the expanded preface, which contains twelve paragraphs.
The first six sections, slightly altered, are taken from the original preface.
Then come six new paragraphs of great interest.1
Examining the first of the new paragraphs, we find the reason of Wesley's change of plan, and arrive at an understanding of the problem of the dual composition of the book.
In the seventh paragraph Wesley says:
I once designed to write down barely what occurred to my own mind, consulting none but the inspired writers.
But no sooner was I acquainted with that great light of the Christian world (lately gone to his i[tmust be noted that the date at the end of the expanded preface is booted 4s
1754; that was when the original preface was written.
It is somewhat misleading,
'NOTES UPON THE NEW TESTAMENT'
reward) Bengelius, than I entirely changed my design, being thoroughly convinced, it might be of more service to the cause of religion, were I barely to translate his Gnomon Novi Testamenti, than to write many volumes upon it.
Many of his excellent notes I have therefore translated.
Many more I have abridged, omitting that part which was purely critical, and giving the substance of the rest.
Those various readings likewise which he had showed to have a vast majority of ancient copies and translations on their side, I have without scruple incorporated in the text: which after his manner I have divided all along (though not omitting the common division into chapters and verses, which is of use on various accounts) according to the matter it contains, making a larger or smaller pause.
And even this is such a help in many places, as one who has not tried it can scarcely conceive.
The seventh paragraph marks the parting of the ways.
In the next Wesley mentions other authors who have helped him, but he omits Dr. Gell and the Oxford divines, who have a place in the original preface.
Having acknowledged his obligation to Bengel, he says:
IT am likewise indebted for some useful observations to Dr. Heylyn's Theological Lectures: and for many more to Dr. Guyse, and to the Family Expository of the late pious and learned Dr. Doddridge.
It was a doubt with me for some time whether I should not subjoin to every Note I received from them, the name.of the author from whom it was taken: especially considering I had transcribed some, and abridged many more, almost in the words of the author.
But upon farther consideration, I resolved to name none, that nothing might divert the mind of the reader from keeping close to the point in view, and receiving what was spoke, only according to its own intrinsic value.
It is interesting to note the catholicity of Wesley's choice of helpers.
Dr. Heylyn wasa clergyman; Dr. Philip Doddridge and Dr. John Guyse were Dissenters. * We must now turn from the preface, and fix our attention on John Wesley's principal helper, Johann Albrecht Bengel.
He was born at Winnenden, in Wiirtemberg, on June 24, 1687, and died at Stuttgart on November 2, 1751.
He has had many eulogists ; we venture to think their number would have been increased if he had not endeavoured to explain the mysterious visions of the Book of the Revelation.
He possessed an extraordinary capacity for work.
It is said that the Gnomon was 'the fruit of twenty years' labour.'
His Erhlarte ® Dr. Doddridge died in Lisbon on October 26, 1751, and was interred in the buryingground belonging to the British factory in that city ; Dr. Guyse died on November 22,
1761, and was buried in Bunhill Fields, London.
'NOTES UPON THE NEW TESTAMENT'
mentioned by Wesley in his introduction to the Revelation, contains nearly twelve hundred. pages.
It is, according to him 'a full and regular comment on the Revelation.'
There is no need to insist on the fact that Bengel was an abnormally industrious man.
Dr. Rudolf Stier, in The Words of the Lord Jesus, admits us into the secret of Bengel's power.
He speaks of his ' keen penetration into the Scripture.'
That is the fitting phrase.
It brings before us the miner pictured by that supreme artist the author of the Book of Job.* Many glide over the surface of books, others dig into them.
The man who pauses when reading a book, and says, "Surely there is a mine for silver, and a place for gold which they refine,' does well ; but he does better who breaks open a shaft, and cuts out channels among the rocks ; who has eyes to see every precious thing, and who has power to bring the thing that was hidden to the light.
Such a man was Bengel.
We will add a later testimony.
It is written by Dr. Fausset, who translated the Gnomon into English.
Writing in 1857, he says:
It is quite superfluous to write in praise of the Guomon of Bengel.
Ever since the year it was first published, a.D. 1742, up to the present time, it has been growing in estimation, and has been more and more widely circulated among the scholars of all countries.
Though modern criticism has furnished many valuable additions to our materials for New Testament exegesis, yet in some respects Bengel stands out still facile princeps among all who have laboured, or who as yet labour, in that important field.
He is unrivalled in felicitous brevity, combined with what seldom accompanies that excellence, namely, perspicuity.
Terse, weighty and suggestive, he often, as a modern writer observes, 'condenses more matter into a line than can be extracted from pages of other writers.'
We cannot point out the precise hour when John Wesley made his fortunate and final choice of Bengel as his principal guide, but we think it was at an early stage of his work in Bristol.
The photographs of his MS. book show that on the page where the original preface ends, and the date January 6,
1754, appears, he has written the words:
' Notes upon the New Testament.'
Then he begins by transcribing an extract from Bengel's address 'To the Christian Reader.'
The preface was on his mind.
It was clear that it must 1 Wesley's misspelling of the title of this book still persists,
4 Job xxviii. I-11.
8 Fausset's English ed. of the Gnomon, i., Preface v.
'NOTES UPON THE NEW TESTAMENT :
be enlarged.
With slight alteration Bengel's 'address was transferred by Wesley to his Notes upon the New Testament.
It appears in paragraphs ten to thirteen, and its authorship is rarely suspected.
It is necessary to emphasize the fact that these paragraphs are borrowed from Bengel, as there are some expressions in them which are not in strict harmony with Wesley's own opinions.
Our conviction concerning the time when Wesley adopted Bengel as his guide is strengthened by another fact.
In the eleventh paragraph of the preface it is said that 'the chain of argument in each book is briefly exhibited in the table prefixt to it, which contains also the sum thereof, and may be of more use than prefixing the argument to each chapter, the division of the New Testament into chapters having been made in the dark ages, and very incorrectly ; often separating things that are closely joined, and joining those that are entirely distinct from each other.'
This is an extract from Bengel.
Looking at Wesley's manuscript book again, we find that the Bengel method was at once adopted.
Beginning the 'notes' on St. Matthew, Wesley copies Bengel's summary of the contents of the gospel from the Gnomon, making only slight alterations.
His trans cript fills five closely written pages of the note-book.
If we compare the 'summaries' in Wesley's Notes with those in the Gnomon we shall find that they are almost invariably taken from Bengel.
We think that Wesley must have hesitated to insert the 'short view' of the contents of the Book of the Revelation.
It contains Bengel's prediction of the great events which he thought might happen in 1836.
That prediction has been much misrepresented.
Bengel did not say that the world would come to an end in that year, but that a new age would then commence under the conditions mentioned in the Book of the Revelation.
That is a distinction which Wesley points out in a letter to Christopher Hopper, his sturdy and faithful assistant.
It is certain that Wesley hesitated to accept Bengel's interpretations of the mysterious visions contained in the closing book of Scripture.
That being the case we wonder why he put Bengel's short view of the whole contents of the Revelation at the end of his Notes on the New Testament.
We eagerly admit John Wesley's obligations to Bengel.
That so large a number of the Notes are taken from him increases the value of Wesley's book.
But we are not prepared
'NOTES UPON THE NEW TESTAMENT'
to accept the assertion that ' Wesley's work is to be regarded as little more than an abridged translation from Bengel.'
That is a hasty judgement.
It overlooks the statement in the seventh paragraph of the preface ; and, if we may say so, it reveals the fact that the critic is not fully acquainted with the contents of Wesley's Notes.
But the critic echoes a popular opinion.
Some years ago we determined to test its correctness.
We compared Wesley's Notes with the five volumes of Fausset's English edition of Bengel's Gnomon.
It was not necessary to carry our comparison into the Book of the Revelation, for that is almost entirely Bengel's ground.
The result of our investigation was that the principal notes in Wesley's book may be placed in three groups:
-(r) Notes selected from the Gnomon ; (z) Notes written by Wesley ; (3) Composite notes, i.e. notes taken from Bengel, but curtailed, extended, or corrected by Wesley.
As we expected, the notes of the first class preponderated ; but we were surprised to find that those contributed by Wesley were so numerous.
It occurred to us that Wesley had made up his mind to write all the notes on subjects that concerned the doctrines which had emerged into prominence during the years of the Methodist revival.
In our search we were soon able to say, ' There speaks Wesley!'
Turning to the Gnomon we found we were right.
The fact is that, in the second and third groups, ' our doctrines,' as we affectionately term them, receive full and distinct exposition.
In addition, we found that Wesley often puts in a 'note' that arrests the attention of a reader who is interested in the progress of theological thought ; and he sees, with no little surprise, that on some subjects Wesley was a theologian far in advance of his age.
No man who has closely examined Wesley's Notes will accept the statement that they are 'little more than an abridged translation from Bengel.'
They differ from the Gnomon in many places, and on very important points.
Let us watch John Wesley in Bristol at work on ' the Gospel.'
He has reached the 'Sermon on the Mount.'
He has consulted Bengel's translation of the text and his own copy of the Greek Testament.
And now Wesley begins to write his Notes.
1 An important article on ' The Greek Text of Wesley's Translation of the New Testament,' written by the Rev. Dr. A. W. Harrison, appeared in the Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society in March, 1914.
Dr. Harrison also contributed to the Proceedings in 1922, an article on ' Gambold's Edition of the Greek Testament, 1742.'
Both atricles abound in interest.
See W.H.S. Proceedings, ix. 105, Zilli. 103.
'NOTES UPON THE NEW TESTAMENT?
As we read them to-day we seem to be familiar with them.
They do not suggest Bengel t» us.
We glance at the table at which Wesley is sitting and see volumes well known to the Methodist antiquary.
The mystery is solved.
The 'notes' on St. Matthew v.—vii. are almost all taken from Wesley's ' Discourses' on the Sermon on the Mount.
That is one illustration of the fact that Wesley, while ready to confess his obligation to Bengel, was not a mere copyist, but, when preparing his Notes upon the New Testament, bore a large share of the expositor's burden.
For some time John Wesley carried on his work alone.
At the end of January his wife was summoned to London to see her dying child.
A few days after her arrival her son passed_ away.
Charles Wesley's Journal at this time is blank, but from another source we find that on February 27 he came from London.
He soon visited his brother at his lodging, and assisted him in his work.
John Wesley says:
' We spent several days together in comparing the translation of the Evangelists with the original, and reading Dr. Heylyn's
Lectures and Dr. Doddridge's Family Expositor.'
Later when the rough draft of the Gospels was finished, Charles Wesley, at intervals, assisted his brother in writing out the fair copy for the Press.
It is pleasant to see this renewal of their comradeship.
As they worked together they may have thought of the little group that began to meet together at Oxford, in November, 1729, for the purpose of reading the Latin and Greek classics, and ' especially the Greek Testament '—the little group that formed the nucleus of the ' Holy Club.'
It is still more probable that as John Wesley availed himself of the results of Bengel's labours he began to see a deeper meaning in his association with the Germans of Savannah.
It was in his exile that he learned to read and speak their language.
The path he struck in the wilds of Georgia led him to the treasure-house of Bengel's wisdom.
XXI NORWICH On one of his voyages from Ireland John Wesley read Pascal's Thoughts on Religion—that spacious harvest-field in which reapers and gleaners may work together.
We wonder if his eye rested on these words:
' When a soldier or a labourer complains of his toils, let him be set to do nothing.'
We can imagine how his eyes would brighten when he read this sentence.
The luxury of idleness had no charms for him; to be ' set to do nothing ' would have been an acute form of misery.
And yet, as we have watched him working continuously at the Old Hot Well, we have not been able to repress the thought that it would have been well if he had resisted for a time that craving for hard work which possessed him to the end of his life.
His visit to some extent answered its purpose, but his health was not re-established.
Having devoted much time to the 'notes' on the Gospels, he left the Well on Sunday,
March 10, and removed to Bristol.
He confesses that he had not strength for his ordinary work among the Societies, but he thought he had sufficient to be of some service to his people.
' He seems to have ' rested' for a few days, being busy with the 'fair copy' of the Gospels; but on Tuesday, March 26, he preached for the first time after an intermission of four months.
His attempt to resume this part of his work filled him with gratitude.
He says in his Journal:
' What reason have I to praise God that He does not take the word of His truth utterly out of my mouth ! '
During this visit to Bristol an event occurred of exceptional importance.
We have mentioned the opinion of Canon Overton concerning the slight impression made on the Church of England by the Methodist Revival.
There is considerable truth in his view; but it fails to emphasize the fact of John
Wesley's influence over the men who became the founders 4 See ante, 1503 SA
NORWICH a of the Evangelical Party in that Church.
It was at the period we have reached, when the Wesleys were practically excluded from the churches, that men whose names now stand high in the esteem of all who care for the religious condition of this country began their quiet work in congregations that would not have listened with patience to the preaching of a " Methodist'' clergyman.
The name of Henry Venn is familiar to us all.
He was a Cambridge man.
From 1754 to 1759 he was curate of the village of Clapham, near London.
Mr. Balleine, in his excellent book on The Evangelical Party in the Church of England, says that during Venn's Clapham curacy he rode into London four times a week to lecture at St. Antholin's ;
St. Alban's, Wood Street ; and St. Swithin's, London Stone.
The mention of St. Antholin's arrests us.
It is the church in which John Wesley once preached—it was afterwards closed against him—and in which Charles Wesley preached by the gracious permission of the clerk after he had been informed that ' Dr. Venn had forbidden any Methodist to preach in the church.'
Now let us straighten the ravelled threads.
Mr.
Balleine tells us that, on going to Clapham, Henry Venn wrote to John Wesley for advice.
He does not quote his letter ; but, fortunately, Tyerman has preserved it.
It is as follows:
Dzar Sir, London, March 21, 1754.
As I have often experienced your words to be as thunder to my drowsy soul, I presume, though a stranger, to become a petitioner, begging you would send me a personal charge, to take heed to feed the flock committed to me.
If you consider the various snares to which a curate is exposed—either to palliate the doctrines of the gospel, or to make treacherous allowances to the rich and great, or, at least, to sit down satisfied with doing the least, more than the best, among the idle shepherds—you will not, I hope, condemn this letter, as impertinently interrupting you in your noble employment, or think one hour lost in complying with its request.
It is the request of one, who though he differs from you, and possibly ever may in some points, yet must ever acknowledge the benefit and light he has received from your works and preaching ; and, therefore, is bound to thank the Lord of the harvest for sending a labourer among us, so much endued with the spirit and power of Elias; and to pray for your long continuance among us, to encourage me and my brethren, by your example, while you edify us by your writings.
Iam, Sir, your feeble brother in Christ,
HENRY VENN.*
1 Both events occurred in 1738. See John Wesley and the Religious Societies, 183, 233,
® Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, ii. 186.
NORWICH
About the time when Henry Venn wrote this letter, Samuel Furly, a friend of Venn's who was at Cambridge, sent a letter to Wesley asking for his advice.
He became a clergyman.
In 1766 John Thornton, the well-known member-of the ' Clapham Sect,' presented him to the living of Roche.
He was a strong evangelical preacher, who has been described as ' rather a Boanerges than a Barnabas.' A letter in reply to his request, dated Bristol, March 30, 1754, appears in Tyerman's Life of Wesley in close connexion with the answer to Henry Venn's appeal for advice.
It must have encouraged Wesley in the time of his weariness to find that his example and teaching had deeply affected these young men.
And so Wesley's influence began to touch men who afterwards became famous for their evangelizing work in the Church of England.
On April r John Wesley, with his wife, set out for London, reaching the Foundery the next day.
Having settled business matters, Wesley retired to Paddington, where he spent some weeks in writing, only going to town on Saturday evenings and returning on Monday.
He sought to recruit his strength by walking in that once rural neighbourhood.
He paced the roads and lanes book in hand.
We catch sight of him in his rambles.
His eyes are fixed on Dr. Calamy's Abnidgement of Mr. Baxter's History of hs Life and Times.
He studied it closely.
His indignation was stirred.
This is what he says of it:
' What a scene is opened here!
In spite of all the prejudices of education, I could not but see that the poor Nonconformists had been used without either justice or mercy, and that many of the Protestant Bishops of King Charles had neither more religion nor humanity than the Popish Bishops of Queen Mary.'
The storms of persecution which had beaten on him and his people had sharpened his insight.
He saw more clearly the days of suffering through which his greatgrandfather, his grandfather and Dr. Annesley had passed, and the latent Nonconformist in him began to assert itself.
John Wesley's weekly visits to the Foundery sometimes revealed difficulties which he had insufficient strength to manage.
In our description of the proceedings of the Leeds Conference of 1753 we referred to the case of John Edwards, and commented on Wesley's difficulties arising from the lack of competent lay preachers.'
He soon found that the problems 3 See
NORWICH PRS which had troubled him were unsolved.
It was clear that some of his lay preachers were about to abandon him.
On Sunday April 21, he preached at Spitalfields.
On that day he met Charles Skelton, a man whom he highly valued.
At their interview, Skelton told him that he intended to go to Bury and settle there.
There is a tone of weariness in Wesley's note of the interview:
'Finding he was fully determined, I said nothing against it.
So we parted civilly.'
All that we know of Skelton increases our regret at his 'departure from the work.'
He had been a lay preacher since 1749, and had met with much success.
Charles Atmore, in reviewing his case, confesses that he could not determine the reason why he left the Methodists.
All that he can say in explanation is that ' as in those days, particularly, the labour was hard, the journeys long, and the accommodations very mean, he grew weary of this kind of life ; and an opportunity offering of his settling, he gladly embraced it.'
He became the minister of a small independent chapel in Southwark.
We think he was a Dissenter by conviction, as were others of the lay preachers.
In after years John Wesley, who watched his career, was moved to say, ' Did God design that this light should be hid under a bushel?
In a little, obscure, Dissenting meeting-house ?'
His ministry there was a failure.
His congregation dwindled to nothing.
He gave up the ministry and died.?
John Wesley held a Conference in London which commenced on Wednesday, May 22.
We regret that the record of its proceedings is so meagre.
Wesley's report is as follows:
'Our Conference began, and the spirit of peace and love was in the midst of us.
Before we parted we all willingly signed an agreement not to act independently on each other ; so that the breach lately made has only united us more closely together than ever.'*
This report excites but does not satisfy our curiosity.
It is clear that ' conversations' on important matters took place; but it needs much practice in the fine art of reading the well-nigh inscrutable to detect the subjects discussed.
If we had a list of those who attended the Conference we might venture to indicate subjects which might arise.
But no complete list exists.
However, we are not left entirely in the dark.
In the Methodist Magazine for 1855 there is a 1 Atmore's Methodist Memorial, 387.
® Journal, iv. 94.