1746.
1746.
Age 43
WHITEFIELD and his wife spent the whole of the year 1746 in America. “I love,” said he, “to range in the American woods, and sometimes think I shall never return to England any more.” Writing to Wesley, in October, he remarks:—
“The regard I have always had for you and your brother, is still as great as ever; and I trust we shall give this and future ages an example of true Christian love abiding, notwithstanding difference in judgment. Why our Lord has permitted us to differ as to some points of doctrine, will be discovered at the last day. I have had the pleasure of reading the continuance of your Appeal; and pray, that God would prosper every labour of your pen and lip. I find that antinomianism has been springing up in many places. I bless God, you have made a stand against it. If you ask, how it is with me, I answer, happy in Jesus, the Lord my righteousness. If you ask, what I am doing,—ranging and hunting in the American woods after poor sinners. If you ask, with what success,—my labours were never more acceptable; and the door, for fifteen hundred miles together, is quite open for preaching the everlasting gospel. In Maryland and Virginia, people fly to hear the word like doves to the windows. Congregations are large, and the work is going on, just as it began and went on in England. Notwithstanding the declining state of Georgia, the orphan house is in a better situation than ever; and, in a year or two, I trust it will support itself. Several of the great and rich favour the Redeemer’s cause, and many of my professed enemies are made to be at peace with me. O reverend and dear, and very dear sir, be pleased to continue to pray for me, your most affectionate, though unworthy, younger brother and servant in Jesus Christ,
“George Whitefield.”
Charles Wesley spent more than four months in London and its vicinity; about six in Bristol, in Cornwall, and in the west of England; and the last weeks of the year in a tour to Yorkshire and Newcastle. Like a flaming seraph, his soul glowed with sacred love and music; and no toil, danger, or persecution was too great to be encountered for his Saviour. In Cornwall, it was rumoured, that he had brought the Pretender with him; and the famous Mr. Eustick came with a warrant to apprehend him: but, as usual, at the last moment, Eustick’s courage failed him. At Shoreham, as soon as he commenced the service, the wild rabble “began roaring, stamping, blaspheming, ringing the bells, and turning the church into a bear garden.” At Hexham, while preaching in a cockpit, Squire Roberts did his utmost to raise a mob; and two butlers, in the employ of two magistrates, brought their cocks, and set them fighting. In the midst of all, Charles was jubilant, and expressed the gratitude of his heart in the following thanksgiving:—
Equal zeal and heroism characterized Wesley’s helpers. At Nottingham, the mob surrounded the meeting-house, and threatened to pull it down. John Nelson was seized by the constable for creating the riot, and was taken to an alderman, the crowd following him with curses and huzzas. The alderman asked his name, and said: “I wonder you cannot stay at home; you see the mob won’t suffer you to preach in Nottingham.” John replied, that he was not aware that Nottingham was governed by a mob, most towns being governed by the magistrates; and then proceeded “to set life and death before him.” “Don’t preach here,” said the alderman; while the constable began to be uneasy, and asked how he was to dispose of his prisoner. “Take him to your house,” quoth the alderman. The constable desired to be excused; and, at length, was directed to conduct Nelson back to the place from which he had brought him, and to be careful he was not injured. “So,” says honest John, “he brought me to our brethren again; and left us to give thanks to God for all His mercies.”
Wesley began the year 1746 by preaching in London at four o’clock in the morning, a thing not often done by his successors.
On January 20, he set out for Bristol, and on the road read a book which greatly moulded his future character and course. Lord King was the son of a grocer at Exeter, and the nephew of the celebrated Locke, who left him half his library. At the age of twenty-two, in 1691, he published, “An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church, that flourished three hundred years after Christ; faithfully collected out of the extant writings of those ages.” King was a rigid Dissenter; and the chief object of his learned work was to prepare the way for that comprehension of the Dissenters within the pale of the Established Church, which the Revolution of 1688 was supposed likely to accomplish. After this, he rose to be Lord High Chancellor of England, and died in 1734, leaving behind him a character of great virtue and humanity, and of steady attachment to civil and religious liberty.
The above book by Lord King was Wesley’s companion on his way to Bristol; and, after reading it, he wrote: “In spite of the vehement prejudice of my education, I was ready to believe that this was a fair and impartial draught; but, if so, it would follow, that bishops and presbyters are essentially of one order, and that, originally, every Christian congregation was a church independent of all others.”
Thus, notwithstanding his strong affection for the Church of England, we find Wesley, almost at the commencement of his Methodist career, entertaining doubts respecting its ecclesiastical polity. The recorded decisions of the Conference of 1745 plainly show, that he regarded his preachers as deacons, and presbyters, and thought himself a scriptural bishop. Lord King’s researches served to confirm these sentiments. In the minutes of the conference held a year after this (1747), we find the following questions and answers:—
“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 then in the New Testament for a national church?
“A. We know none at all. We apprehend it to be a merely 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, that 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, that 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 varieties in the government of various churches?
“A. There must, in the nature of things. For, 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 this 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.”
This is an important extract. Wesley loved the Church of England; but who will say, that the views of Wesley were now identical with those of the high church bigots of either past or present days! Their views had been his; but he now renounced them. Lord King, the Dissenter, had converted him. His principles, respecting ecclesiastical polity, were changed. After this, we have no more nonsense concerning apostolical succession. Indeed, in reference to this, Wesley wrote (in 1761): “I never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall.” It is not too much to say, that, from the time of reading the book of Lord King, Wesley’s principles of ecclesiastical polity were substantially the same as those of Dissenters. He still preferred the Church of England, not because he thought it the only church, but because, upon the whole, he thought it the best. In the above extract, we have the principles deliberately adopted, which laid the groundwork of his future proceedings. As a presbyter, in other words a bishop, he employed preachers, and set them apart to the sacred office. It is true, that it was not until nearly forty years after this, that he began to use the imposition of hands; but that was a mere circumstance, not the essence of ministerial ordination. Mr. Watson properly observes: “It has been generally supposed, that Mr. Wesley did not consider his appointment of preachers as an ordination to the ministry; but only as an irregular employment of laymen in the spiritual office of merely expounding the Scriptures in a case of moral necessity. This is not correct. They were not appointed to expound or preach merely, but were solemnly set apart to the pastoral office; nor were they regarded by him as laymen, except when in common parlance they were distinguished from the clergy of the Church.” His usual mode of setting apart or ordaining to the ministry consisted of a most rigid examination of the ministerial candidate on the three points—Has he grace? Has he gifts? Has he fruit? preceded by fasting and prayer; and followed by official and authoritative appointment to ministerial work. For the present, the form of laying on of hands was not employed; but it was thought of, and was discussed. Hence the following extract from the minutes of the conference held in 1746:—
“Q. Why do we not use more form and solemnity in receiving a new labourer?
“A. We purposely decline it—(1) Because, there is something of stateliness in it. (2) Because, we would not make haste. We desire barely to follow Providence, as it gradually opens.”
It is granted that, for Wesley, after this, to fight so tenaciously for the Church of England was inconsistent, but we take him as we find him. Facts are facts; and we shall not attempt to blink them. Having founded churches, or societies as he persisted in calling them, he proceeded to provide and to ordain,—yes, to ordain for them ministers. He was a clergyman of the episcopal Church of England, with the views of a Dissenter, and, acting accordingly, there was, of course, in his future proceedings, much that was incongruous and perplexing.
Wesley left London for Bristol, on January 20. Two days afterwards, he attended, in the latter city, a conference of the Calvinistic Methodists, at which there were present Howel Harris and eleven of his preachers, and Wesley and four of his. Wesley seems to have been president; at all events, his name stands first. The following are the minutes:—
“After prayer it was inquired:—(1) How we may remove any hindrances of brotherly love which have occurred. (2) How we may prevent any arising hereafter. It was feared that, in consequence of Mr. Wesley’s preaching in Neath, there would be a separation in the society. He answered, ‘I do not design to erect a society at Neath, or any town in Wales, where there is a society already, but to do all that in me lieth to prevent any such separation.’
“We all agreed that, if we occasionally preached among each other’s people, we should endeavour to strengthen and not to weaken each other’s hands, and prevent any separation in the several societies; and that a brother from Wesley’s society should go with Harris to Plymouth and the west, to heal the breach there made, and to insist on a spirit of love and its fruits among the people. Agreed, that we should, on each side, be careful to defend each other’s characters.”
This is beautiful, and sets an example worthy of being emulated by the Methodist Conferences of the present day. It was but five or six years since the Methodist schism had happened; and yet, under the magnanimous management of Wesley and Howel Harris, here we find the two parties met, not to fight, but to love each other. Differences are kept up and perpetuated, not by greatness and goodness, but by despicable ignorance and selfish meanness. Why should Ephraim envy Judah, and Judah vex Ephraim? The two are brothers; and, as brethren, it would be a goodly and pleasant sight to see them dwelling together in unity.
Wesley spent a month in Bristol and the neighbourhood; during which period his brother Charles opened a chapel at Wapping; and Wesley himself received the following cautionary letter from a new clerical acquaintance, and, ever afterwards, most confidential and trustworthy friend. Vincent Perronet was now vicar of Shoreham, in the county of Kent. A year and a half before, Wesley and Perronet had been brought together by their mutual friend, the Rev. Henry Piers. Wesley writes: “I hope to have cause of blessing God for ever for the acquaintance begun this day.” The hope was realised. Wesley had no more faithful friend than Vincent Perronet, who now wrote as follows:—
“February 7, 1746.
“My dear Friend,—I make no apology for this trouble, because I know that you will think it needs none. God hath raised you up to propagate His spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men; therefore, be careful how you frustrate this great design of God. But will you not do this, if you injure your health? Or can you labour in the vineyard of Christ, when your strength is gone? Deny yourself, my dear friend, so far as is consistent with your constant labour; but be cautious lest your self denials should rob God or His children of what you have undertaken for the service of both. Remember, that, if you weaken your body by over mortifications, you render yourself so far incapable of promoting the honour of the former, and the happiness of the latter; and yet I know that each of these is dearer to you than life itself. Let the Holy Spirit’s advice, out of the mouth of a mortified apostle, to the abstemious Timothy, be constantly before you.
“I am, with great sincerity, my dear brother in Christ, your most affectionate
Vincent Perronet.”
At this period, advice like this, in Wesley’s case, was not unneeded.
On February 17, when days were short and weather far from favourable, he set out, on horseback, from Bristol to Newcastle, a distance of between three and four hundred miles. The journey occupied ten weary days. Brooks were swollen, and, in some places, the roads were impassable, obliging the itinerant to go round about through fields. At Aldridge Heath, in Staffordshire, the rain turned into snow, which the northerly wind drove against him, and by which he was soon crusted over from head to foot. At Leeds, the mob followed him, and pelted him with whatever came to hand. Several of the missiles struck him, some on the face, but none seriously hurt him. At Skircoat Green, he preached to a congregation of Quakers; and at Keighley, found the snow so deep, that he was obliged to abandon his intention of travelling through the dales. He arrived at Newcastle on February 26.
Here he found general sickness. Two thousand of the soldiers, belonging to the encampment on the town moor, were already dead, and the fever was still sweeping others away in troops. In Newcastle and its neighbourhood, he spent the next eighteen days, preaching, on one occasion, at Placey, out of doors, in the midst of a “vehement storm,” which, however, the preacher and his “congregation regarded not.”
While he was here, a letter was published in the London Magazine, addressed “to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, in relation to some false facts affirmed by him in his Farther Appeal.” A passage was quoted in reference to the clergy putting no difference between the holy and profane at the sacramental table; and it was declared, that the quotation “contains almost as many falsehoods as it does lines.” Wesley is further accused of “gross misrepresentations and uncharitable reflections”; of being “base, unjust, and senseless”; of “crowding a heap of untruths into a little room”; of being animated by “a blind and rash zeal, and glad to catch at every pretence of making God the patron and favourer of his cause.”
A production so bitterly scurrilous scarcely deserved an answer; but, as Wesley was slightly in error, he, like an honest man, frankly confessed it. The following is his reply, published in the same periodical.
“June 18, 1746.
“Sir,—I delayed answering your letter of March 18, till I could be fully informed of the facts in question.
“I said in the Farther Appeal, page 48, ‘Who dares repel one of the greatest men in his parish from the Lord’s table, even though he openly deny the Lord that bought him? Mr. Stonehouse did this once; but what was the event? The gentleman brought an action against him. And who was able and willing to espouse his cause? He alone who took it into His own hands; and, before the day when it should have been tried here, caused the plaintiff to answer at a higher bar.’
“You (1) blame me for supposing that gentleman to be one who openly denied the Lord that bought him; I mean, openly denied the supreme Godhead of Christ. If he did not, I retract the charge.
“You say (2) that gentleman brought no action, nor commenced any suit against Mr. Stonehouse. Upon stricter inquiry, I find he did not; it was another gentleman, Mr. C—p—r.
“You (3) observe, it was not the death of the plaintiff which stopped the action; but before it proceeded to a trial, Mr. Stonehouse thought fit to request it as a favour, that the action might be stopped, promising not to do the like any more. Mr. Stonehouse himself gives a different account; but whether his or yours be the more just, is not material, since the substance of what you observe is true, namely, ‘That it was not the plaintiff’s death which stopped the action.’
“You add, ‘I would willingly hope, that you did not deliberately design to impose upon the world.’ I did not; and do, therefore, acknowledge the truth in as public a manner as I am able, being willing, as far as in me lies, to make amends for whatever injury I have done.
“I am, sir, yours,
“John Wesley.”
In the same month of March, another letter, of a different complexion, was published in the Gentleman’s Magazine. The writer begins by showing, that the years 48 and 88, in the last two centuries, at least, if not longer, had been noted for great changes and revolutions. Thus, in 1548, the Reformation was first completely established in England; and, in 1588, the famous pretended invincible Spanish Armada made its futile attempt to destroy the Protestantism of Great Britain. In 1648, King Charles was condemned to death, and the gravest changes followed; and, in 1688, occurred the flight of the last of the Stuart kings, and the English Revolution.
The writer then proceeds to ask, whether there is not something remarkable “in the revival of the Moravians very nearly about the same time with the rise of the Methodists in England; and of a sect of the same kind in Scotland, by the field preaching of Erskine and others; and of exactly the same in Wales by the preaching of Howel Harris; and of something of the same nature in France, where the principal preacher concerned had been executed by the royal will and pleasure. Is there not,” the writer continues, “something very surprising in all these peoples’ rising about the same time, and preaching, all of them, the same doctrines, and yet all of them, and all their several intentions of so doing, being previously unknown to each other?”
The above coincidence was more than curious, and the author of the letter suggests, that such facts and others, which he mentions, may be “the dawning of some important religious change, or, at least, of something very extraordinary, which the sacred womb of providence is big with.”
At the same time as the above, Wesley was engaged in an important correspondence of another kind. Dr. Doddridge was exactly a year older than his illustrious Methodist contemporary, was the pastor of a Dissenting congregation at Northampton, and the principal of an academy for the education of candidates for the Dissenting ministry. Up to the present, Wesley had chiefly lived within the state-church enclosure; but now, having become a convert to the principles of Lord King, he overstepped the enchanted circle, and thought it no disgrace to commune and mingle with Dissenters. Methodist preachers were multiplying. Few of them had had the advantages of education and of reading. Their knowledge, generally speaking, was confined to the first principles of religion. These were the only subjects on which they either did, or were able to converse. Of necessity, their preaching was solely on the fundamental points of experimental and practical religion; and hence, their unequalled success in awakening and converting sinners. Preachers of education and diversified knowledge would, perhaps, not have excluded these; but they would, to a large extent, have regaled their hearers with other truths, which, though of great interest, were insignificant in point of importance when compared with the few great and grand cardinal doctrines which formed the staple of all the sermons of Wesley’s first itinerants. The effect of this unadorned preaching of the greatest of all verities was surprising. Under these untutored discourses, people found themselves emerging out of thick darkness into light, which St. Peter aptly describes as “marvellous.” These were glorious results, and almost make one wish, that among the cultivated and captivating preachers of the present day, who can discourse most eloquently upon any subject, from Eve’s figleaves up to Aaron’s wardrobe, or from the architecture of Noah’s ark down to the whale that swallowed Jonah, there were a sprinkling of men whose preaching powers, like those of Wesley’s first helpers, were confined to an incessant utterance, in burning though somewhat boorish words, of the glorious old truths now-a-days too much neglected,—Repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, followed by the fruits of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. If sinners are to be converted, these are the doctrines which must be preached. Other doctrines and truths may be interesting, useful, and instructive; these are absolutely saving and essential.
Wesley was devoutly thankful for his uneducated but soul saving preachers. Still, he saw that, as the Methodists increased in knowledge, the preachers must keep pace with them. Without this, though they might still be as successful as ever in converting ignorant and rude sinners, they would be in danger of being neglected and even despised by those who, in consequence of conversion, had been greatly raised, in both an intellectual and social sense, above their neighbours. In short, Wesley felt convinced that his preachers must not only preach but read; and being persuaded, as a sort of clerical Dissenter, that good things might be found even in Dissenting Nazareths, he wrote to the most distinguished of all Dissenters then existing, to make inquiry. Six months before, he had called on Doddridge and had addressed his students; now, at Newcastle, in March, 1746, he addressed to him a letter, the nature of which may be gathered from Doddridge’s answer.
“March 15, 1746.
“I am grieved and ashamed, that any hurry, public or private, should have prevented my answering your obliging letter from Newcastle; especially as it has a face of disrespect, where I ought to express the very reverse, if I would do justice either to you, or my own heart. But you have been used to forgive greater injuries. I have unwillingly a guardianship affair on hand, on account of which, I must beg your patience for a little longer, as to the list of books you desire me to send you. I presume the list you desire is chiefly theological. Perhaps my desire of making it too particular has hindered me from setting about it. But, if God permit, you shall be sure to have it in a few weeks.
“Let me know how you do, what your success is, and what your apprehensions are. I fear we must have some hot flame to melt us. Remember in your prayers,
“Reverend and dear sir,
“Your affectionate brother and servant,
“P. Doddridge.”
Three months later, Doddridge’s promise was fulfilled, in a long letter, almost a little pamphlet, dated Northampton, June 18, 1746. He writes—
“Reverend and dear Sir,—I set myself down, as well as I can, to discharge my promise, and fulfil your request, in giving my thoughts on that little collection of books, which you seem desirous to make for some of your young preachers.”
Then follow his recommendations, which we give in brief:—
Logic—Carmichael, and Dr. Watts.
Metaphysics—De Urce, Dr. Watts, and Le Clerc.
Ethics—Puffendorf, and Hutcheson.
Jewish Antiquities—Lewis, Reland, Calmet, and Prideaux.
Civil History—Puffendorf, Turselme, and Lampe.
Natural Philosophy—Rowning, Ray, Cotton Mather, and Derham.
Astronomy—Watts, Jennings, and Wells.
Natural and Revealed Religion—Carmichael, Synge, Clarke, Gibson, Doddridge, Jefferies, Bullock, Conybeare, Leland, and Chandler.
He next proceeds to the chief subject, practical divinity, which he thinks “ought to employ the greatest part of the care of every preacher,” and adds:—
“I will not presume, sir, to mention to you the divines of the Established Church; but as I may reasonably conclude, that the Puritans and the divines of the separation are less known to you, you will pardon me, if I mention a few of them, and of the chief pieces.”
Then he gives the names of Bolton, Hall, Reynolds, Sibbes, Ward, Jackson, Owen, Goodwin, Baxter, Bates, Flavel, Taylor, and Howe. He continues:—
“In recommending the writings of the Dissenters of the present age, I would be more sparing; yet permit me to mention Evans, Wright, Watts, Henry, Boyce, Bennett, Jennings, and Grosvenor. And here, dear sir, I thought to have concluded my letter; but it occurs to my mind, that I have said nothing of commentators. I have recommended to my pupils Beza, Erasmus, Castellio, Heinsius, Patrick, Lowth, Locke, Pierce, Benson, Ainsworth, Hammond, Grotius, Brennius, Wells, Calvin, Poole, Le Clerc, and Cradock. I might mention several considerable writers, that illustrate Scripture, though not direct commentators, such as Witsius, Saurin, Mede, Hallet, Edwards, Le Crene, Wolsius, Raphelius, Vitringa, Boss, Elsner, and Lardner. But as the critical study of Scripture is not so much intended in your plan, perhaps you will think, I have gone a little out of the way in mentioning so many upon this head.
“I am afraid I have by this time thoroughly wearied you. It only remains, that I most cordially recommend you and your labours to the continued presence and blessing of God, and subscribe myself, reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate brother, and faithful humble servant,
“P. Doddridge.”
We return to Wesley. Accompanied by two of his preachers, John Downes, and William Shepherd, he started from Newcastle for the south, on the 17th of March. When they had ridden between forty and fifty miles, Downes was so ill that he was unable to proceed farther; and Wesley’s horse was so lame, that it could scarcely walk. Wesley writes:—“By riding thus seven miles, I was thoroughly tired, and my head ached more than it had done for months. I then thought, ‘cannot God heal either man or beast, by any means, or without any?’ Immediately, my weariness and headache ceased, and my horse’s lameness in the same instant. Nor did he halt any more either that day or the next. I here aver a naked fact; let every man account for it as he sees good.”
Coming to Nottingham, he says: “I had long doubted what it was which hindered the work of God here. But, upon inquiry, the case was plain. So many of the society were either triflers or disorderly walkers, that the blessing of God could not rest upon them; so I made short work, cutting off all such at a stroke, and leaving only a little handful, who, as far as can be judged, were really in earnest to save their souls.”
At Wednesbury and Birmingham, the antinomian teachers had laboured hard to corrupt the Methodists. One came to Wesley at Birmingham, and the following colloquy ensued:—
Wesley. “Do you believe you have nothing to do with the law of God?”
Antinomian. “I have not: I am not under the law; I live by faith.”
W. “Have you, as living by faith, a right to everything in the world?”
A. “I have: all is mine, since Christ is mine.”
W. “May you then take anything you will anywhere—suppose out of a shop, without the consent or knowledge of the owner?”
A. “I may, if I want it; for it is mine: only I will not give offence.”
W. “Have you also a right to all the women in the world?”
A. “Yes, if they consent.”
W. “And is not that a sin?”
A. “Yes, to him that thinks it is a sin; but not to those whose hearts are free.”
Horrible! No wonder, that Wesley wrote tracts against antinomian teachers; and no wonder he adds, “Surely these are the firstborn children of Satan!”
Wesley reached Bristol on March 27; and, eleven days afterwards, laid “the first stone of the new house at Kingswood;” preaching, on the occasion, from the words, “For brass I will bring gold,” etc. (Isaiah lx. 17‒22.)
He then hurried up to London, where in company with his friend, the Rev. H. Piers, he visited a man who called himself a prophet. Wesley says: “We were with him about an hour. But I could not at all think, that he was sent of God: 1. Because he appeared to be full of himself, vain, heady, and opinionated. 2. Because he spoke with extreme bitterness, both of the king, and of all the bishops, and all the clergy. 3. Because he aimed at talking Latin, but could not.”
Having spent three weeks in London, Wesley, on the 4th of May, again set out for Bristol; but on the 17th was back to London. Here his first business was to settle the chapels in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle, upon seven trustees, reserving only to himself and his brother, as he says, the liberty of preaching and lodging there. This, however, was scarcely correct, so far at least as Newcastle was concerned, and as the following synopsis of the trust deed will show. The seven trustees, for the Orphan House there, were Henry Jackson, weaver, and William Mackford, corndealer, both of Newcastle; John Nelson, mason, of Birstal; John Haughton, weaver, of Chinley End; Thomas Richards, late of Trinity College, Oxford; Jonathan Reeves, baker, late of Bristol; and Henry Thornton, gentleman, of Grays Inn, London. The trusts were:—1. That Wesley and his brother should have the free use of the premises, and likewise any person or persons whom they might nominate or appoint during their lifetime. 2. That, after the death of the two Wesleys, the trustees should monthly or oftener nominate and appoint one or more fit person or persons to preach in the said house, in the same manner, as near as may be, as God’s holy word was preached at present. 3. That a school should be taught on the said premises, consisting of forty poor children, to be selected by Wesley and his brother during their respective lives, and, after their death, by the trustees. 4. That when, by any cause, the trustees were reduced to three, they should fill up the vacancies, and make the number seven. 5. That, during their lifetime, the two Wesleys should have the sole appointment and removal of the masters and mistresses of the school. 6. That every preacher or minister, appointed to the Orphan House, should, as long as the appointment lasted, preach in the said house every morning and every evening, as had been usual and customary to be done.
Southey has fallen into an error as to the settlement of chapels. He writes:—“Whenever a chapel was built, care was taken, that the property should be vested, not in trustees, but in Mr. Wesley and the Conference.” This is incorrect. From the first, the property of Methodist chapels was always vested in trustees. It is true, that Wesley reserved to himself the right of preaching in such chapels, and of appointing others to preach therein; but, as Mr. Watson observes, neither he nor the Conference had any more “property in the best secured chapels, than in the poet laureate’s butt of sack.” Wesley was glad to divest himself of such property, and to put it into the hands of others. A year afterwards, he writes: 1747, March 19—“I considered, ‘what would I do now, if I was sure I had but two days to live?’ All outward things are settled to my wish; the houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle are safe; the deeds, whereby they are conveyed to the trustees, took place on the 5th instant; my will is made; what have I more to do, but to commend my soul to my merciful and faithful Creator?”
Having made arrangements in London for the settlement of his chapels, Wesley turned his attention to another subject, upon which opinions will differ. The number of members in the London society, on the 12th of April, 1746, was 1939, and the amount of their quarterly contributions £113 9s., upon an average, fourteen pence per member. Considering the high price of money, and that nearly the whole of the London Methodists were extremely poor, the amount subscribed was highly creditable. Wesley, however, needed more than this, not for himself but others, and propounded a somewhat novel plan for raising it.
Tea was a costly luxury. It was first imported into England about the year 1660, when an act of parliament was passed, imposing a duty of eightpence on every gallon of the infusion sold in coffee houses. In 1664, the East India Company bought two pounds two ounces as a royal present to his majesty King Charles II. It continued to be sold in London for sixty shillings per pound till the year 1707; and, though considerably cheaper in 1746, it was still a dear indulgence. Wesley also believed its use to be injurious.
He tells us that, when he first went to Oxford, with an exceeding good constitution, and being otherwise in health, he was somewhat surprised at certain symptoms of a paralytic disorder. His hand shook, especially after breakfast; but he soon observed that, if for two or three days he intermitted drinking tea, the shaking ceased. Upon inquiry, he found tea had the same effect on others, and particularly on persons whose nerves were weak. This led him to lessen the quantity he took, and to drink it weaker; but still, for above six and twenty years, he was more or less subject to the same disorder.
In July, 1746, he began to observe, that abundance of the people of London were similarly affected, some of them having their nerves unstrung, and their bodily strength decayed. He asked them if they were hard drinkers; they replied, “No, indeed, we drink scarce anything but a little tea, morning and night.” He says:
“I immediately remembered my own case, and easily gathered, from many concurring circumstances, that it was the same case with them. I considered, ‘what an advantage would it be to these poor enfeebled people, if they would leave off what so manifestly impairs their health, and thereby hurts their business also! If they used English herbs instead of tea, they might, hereby, not only lessen their pain, but in some degree their poverty. How much might be saved in so numerous a body as the Methodists, even in this single article of expense! And how greatly is all that can possibly be saved, in every article, wanted daily by those who have not even food convenient for them! Some of the Methodists had not food to sustain nature; some were destitute of necessary clothing; and some had not where to lay their heads. The little weekly contributions were barely sufficient to relieve the sick.’ I reflected ‘what might be done, if ten thousand, or one thousand, or only five hundred, would save all they could in this single instance, and put their savings into the poor-box weekly, to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked!’ I thought further: ‘many tell me to my face, I can persuade this people to anything. I will make a fair trial. If I can persuade any number, many who are now weak or sick will be restored to health and strength; many will pay those debts which others, perhaps equally poor, can but ill afford to lose; many will be less straitened in their own families; many, by helping their neighbour, will lay up for themselves treasures in heaven.’ Immediately it struck me, ‘but example must go before precept; therefore, I must not plead an exemption for myself, from a daily practice of twenty-seven years: I must begin.’ I did so; the three first days my head ached, more or less, all day long, and I was half asleep from morning to night. The third day, my memory failed, almost entirely. In the evening, I sought my remedy in prayer; and next morning my headache was gone, and my memory as strong as ever. And I have found no inconvenience, but a sensible benefit, in several respects, from that day to this. My paralytic complaints are all gone; my hand is as steady now (1748) as it was at fifteen; and so considerable a difference do I find in my expense, that, in only those four families at London, Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle, I save upwards of fifty pounds a year.”
Having set the example, Wesley recommended the same abstinence to a few of his preachers; and, a week later, to about a hundred of his people whom he believed to be strong in faith; all of whom, with two or three exceptions, resolved, by the grace of God, to make the trial without delay. In a short time, he proposed it to the whole society. Objections rose in abundance. Some said, “Tea is not unwholesome at all.” To these, he replied that many eminent physicians had declared it was; and that, if frequently used by those of weak nerves, it is no other than a slow poison. Others said, “Tea is not unwholesome to me: why then should I leave it off?” Wesley answered, “To give an example to those to whom it is undeniably prejudicial, and to have the more wherewith to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked.” Others said, “It helps my health; nothing else will agree with me.” To such, Wesley’s caustic reply was, “I suppose your body is much of the same kind with that of your great grandmother; and do you think nothing else agreed with her, or with any of her progenitors? What poor, puling, sickly things, must all the English then have been, till within these hundred years! Besides, if, in fact, nothing else will agree with you,—if tea has already weakened your stomach, and impaired your digestion to such a degree, it has hurt you more than you are aware. You have need to abhor it as deadly poison, and to renounce it from this very hour.”
What was the result of Wesley’s attempt to form a tea-total society? We can hardly tell; except that he himself abstained from tea for the next twelve years, until Dr. Fothergill ordered him to resume its use. Charles Wesley began to abstain, but how long his abstinence lasted we are not informed. About a hundred of the London Methodists followed the example of their leader; and, besides these, a large number of others began to be temperate, and to use less than they had previously.
This was, to say the least, an amusing episode in Wesley’s laborious life. All must give him credit for the best and most benevolent intentions; and it is right to add, that, ten days after his proposal was submitted to the London society, he had collected among his friends thirty pounds for “a lending stock,” and that this was soon made up to fifty, by means of which, before the year was ended, above two hundred and fifty destitute persons had received acceptable relief.
On July 20, Wesley set out for Bristol, where he spent the next fortnight. While here he paid a visit to Oakhill, near Shepton Mallet, where “the good curate” hired a drunken mob to make disturbance. As soon as Wesley began preaching, the “drunken champions” began “screaming out a psalm”; but Wesley says, “our singing quickly swallowed up theirs. Soon after, their orator named a text, and preached a sermon; his attendants meantime being busy in throwing stones and dirt” at Wesley’s congregation.
On August 10, Wesley went to Wales. He preached in Builth churchyard to nearly all the inhabitants that the town contained. At Maesmennys, Lanzufried, and Wenvo, he preached in the parish churches; and at Cardiff in the castle yard. At Neath, he found twelve young men whom, he says, he almost envied. They lived together in one house, and gave away whatever they earned above the necessaries of life. Most of them were predestinarians, but so little bigoted to their opinions, that they would not suffer a predestinarian to preach among them, unless he would avoid controversy. Here Wesley preached in the open street, a gentleman and a drunken fiddler doing their best to interrupt his service; but, none joining them, they were soon ashamed, and the gentleman slunk away on one side, and the fiddler on the other. At Margam, he had to have a Welsh interpreter; and at Leominster (to which he went during his tour), he began preaching on a tombstone, on the south side of the parish church, but was not allowed to finish. The mob “roared on every side”; the bells were set a ringing; and then the organ began to play amain. Wesley’s voice was drowned, and hence he thought it advisable to remove to the corn market, where he had a “quiet time,” and “showed what that sect is, which is ‘everywhere spoken against.’”
Returning to Bristol, he started, on September 1, for Cornwall. At St. Just, he found the liveliest society in the county, and yet a few of the members he was “obliged to reprove for negligence in meeting, which,” says he, “is always the forerunner of greater evils.” At Sithney, he preached by moonlight; and, at Gwennap, to an “immense multitude,” a funeral sermon for Thomas Hitchins, from, “To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
Having spent a fortnight among the Cornish Methodists, he set out, on the 16th of September, for London, his brother meeting him at Uxbridge, and becoming his escort to the capital.
After a week in London, he paid a visit to his friend Perronet, preaching, on the way, at Sevenoaks, “to a large, wild company,” one of whom cursed him bitterly. At Shoreham, he preached twice in Perronet’s church; but says, “the congregation seemed to understand just nothing of the matter.” The rest of the year was spent in the metropolis.
It has been already stated, that Wesley, for conscience sake, was now an abstainer from tea. Before the year expired, he went a step further. He writes: December 29—“I resumed my vegetable diet (which I had now discontinued for several years), and found it of use both to my soul and body; but, after two years, a violent flux, which seized me in Ireland, obliged me to return to the use of animal food.”
Whatever may be thought about the wisdom of a man, of such active habits, adopting such an abstemious, anchorite sort of diet, there can be no question about the fact, that his motives were of the highest and purest kind. He gave up tea, that he might benefit the poor; and, contemporaneously with his resumption of a vegetable diet, he commenced an institution, which, to say the least, was not then so popular and so common as it is at present. He writes: “I mentioned my design of giving physic to the poor. In three weeks about three hundred came.” Such is the entry in his Journal.
He had already provided a fund for relieving the necessities of the poor by furnishing them with food and clothing; but something more was requisite. Many of them were sick; their sufferings stirred his sympathy; and yet he knew not how to help them. “At length,” he says, “I thought of a kind of desperate expedient: ‘I will prepare and give them physic myself.’ For six or seven and twenty years, I had made anatomy and physic the diversion of my leisure hours; though I never properly studied them, unless for a few months when I was going to America, where I imagined I might be of some service to those who had no regular physician among them. I applied to it again. I took into my assistance an apothecary, and an experienced surgeon; resolving, at the same time, not to go out of my depth, but to leave all difficult and complicated cases to such physicians as the patients should choose. I gave notice of this to the society; and, in five months, medicines were occasionally given to above five hundred persons. Several of these I never saw before; for I did not regard whether they were of the society or not. In that time, seventy-one of these, regularly taking their medicines, and following the regimen prescribed (which three in four would not do), were entirely cured of distempers long thought to be incurable. The whole expense of medicines, during this time, was nearly forty pounds.”
This was a bold step, and exposed Wesley to animadversion. He was not a legally qualified medical practitioner, and there were not wanting those who were ready to brand him as a quack. His defence was, that the poor were neglected; that physicians were often useless; and that his own gratuitous treatment was successful. In a letter, published in the Bath Journal, in 1749, he writes: “I do not know that any one patient yet has died under my hands. If any person does, let him declare it, with the time and circumstances.” And, in another letter addressed to Archbishop Secker, in 1747, four months after his dispensary was opened, he remarks:—
“For more than twenty years, I have had numberless proofs, that regular physicians do exceeding little good. From a deep conviction of this, I have believed it my duty, within these four months last past, to prescribe such medicines to six or seven hundred of the poor as I knew were proper for their several disorders. Within six weeks, nine in ten of them, who had taken these medicines, were remarkably altered for the better; and many were cured of disorders under which they had laboured for ten, twenty, forty years. Now, ought I to have let one of these poor wretches perish, because I was not a regular physician? to have said, ‘I know what will cure you; but I am not of the college; you must send for Dr. Mead’? Before Dr. Mead had come in his chariot, the man might have been in his coffin. And when the doctor was come, where was his fee? What! he cannot live upon nothing! So, instead of an orderly cure, the patient dies; and God requires his blood at my hands.”
It was difficult to answer this, and Wesley was not the man to be browbeaten from the path of duty by envious and angry members of the healing profession. Indeed, his success was such, that, within two months after opening his dispensary at the Foundery in London, he instituted a second in Bristol, and writing to his friend and patron, Mr. Ebenezer Blackwell, says, “Our number of patients increases in Bristol daily. We have now upwards of two hundred. Many have already desired to return thanks, having found a considerable change for the better already. But we are at a great loss for medicines; several of those we should choose being not to be had at any price in Bristol.”
There are only two other matters, belonging to the year 1746, which require attention; namely, Wesley’s conference, and Wesley’s publications.
The conference commenced in Bristol on the 12th of May, and lasted four days. Four clergymen were present—the two Wesleys, and Messrs. Hodges and Taylor. Besides these, there were four itinerants, Messrs. Reeves, Maxfield, Westall, and Willis; and also Thomas Glascot, of whom we know nothing. As at former conferences, so at this, doctrines were reviewed, and carefully guarded against error and abuse; and, after this, points of discipline were discussed and settled. It was agreed, that “the properest persons to be present,” at the annual conferences, were—1. The preachers. 2. The most earnest and most sensible of the bandleaders living in the town where the conference was held. 3. Any pious and judicious stranger who might be visiting the place. It was thought, that it might be useful to read one or more of Wesley’s tracts at each conference, were it only to correct errors, or to explain obscurities. Wesley’s helpers were defined to be “extraordinary messengers, designed of God to provoke the others to jealousy.” It was resolved, that those who believed themselves to be called of God to preach should be strictly examined on the three points, Have they grace, gifts, and fruit? and that those in whom these three marks undeniably concurred should be allowed to have such a call. It was thought that, at present, they were not preaching the atonement so much as they did at first; and that the sermons which were attended with the greatest blessing, were—“1. Such as were most close, convincing, particular. 2. Such as had most of Christ, the Priest, the Atonement. 3. Such as urged the heinousness of men’s living in contempt or ignorance of Him.” It was determined, that a sufficient call of Providence to a new place was an invitation from some worthy person, and a probability of doing more good by going thither, than by staying longer where they were. New members were to be admitted into the bands and societies only once a quarter, their names having been previously read at meetings of the existing members; and, at the same time, had to be read the names of those excluded from the society. Directions were given to guard against formality in public singing. Efforts were to be employed to induce the people to attend the church; and, as an example to the Bristol Methodists, it was agreed, that the Bristol preachers should go to St. James’s church every Wednesday and Friday. The country was divided into seven circuits, namely—1. London, including Brentford, Egham, Windsor, Wycombe, and the three counties of Surrey, Kent, and Essex. 2. Bristol, including the isle of Portland, and the counties of Somerset, Wilts, Oxford, and Gloucester. 3. Cornwall. 4. Evesham, embracing Shrewsbury, Leominster, Hereford, and all the places from Stroud to Wednesbury. 5. Yorkshire, to which was to be attached the six counties of Cheshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutlandshire, and Lincolnshire. 6. Newcastle. 7. Wales. The present assistants were Reeves, Bennet, Haughton, Nelson, Wheatley, Trembath, Westall, Richards, Downes, Meyrick, Maxfield, and Walker. And to these, perhaps, would be added, Jones, Larwood, and Cownley. Copies of the minutes of the conferences were to be given only to those who were or might have been present; but they were to be read to the stewards and leaders of bands, the Sunday and Thursday following each conference.
Such is a synopsis of the proceedings of the conference of 1746.
Notwithstanding Wesley’s almost incessant travelling and preaching, he still found time to write. Two of his publications, in 1746, were partly his own, but principally his brother’s.
First: “Hymns for those that seek, and those that have, Redemption in the Blood of Jesus Christ.” 12mo, 68 pages. Twenty-eight of these hymns are inserted in the Wesleyan Hymn-Book, and are among the finest that the book contains. One of them, evidently written by Wesley himself, begins with the line, “How happy is the pilgrim’s lot;” and though two or three of the verses are not suitable for a mixed congregation to sing, the whole is strikingly descriptive of Wesley’s own condition and experience. He had no wife, and no children, and had just transferred his chapels to trustees, and, hence, could sing what many in Methodist congregations cannot.
Second. The other joint publication was, “Hymns of Petition and Thanksgiving for the Promise of the Father.” By John and Charles Wesley. 12mo, 36 pages. These were thirty-two in number, and were specially intended for use at Whitsuntide. Several of the best of them are in the Methodist Hymn-Book.
Wesley’s other publications were the following:—
1. “A Word of Advice to Saints and Sinners.” 12mo, 12 pages.
2. “Lessons for Children. Part I.” 12mo, 76 pages; with a vignette on the title-page of an angel on clouds, with a scroll in one hand, and a trumpet in the other. The lessons are fifty-four in number, and are almost entirely taken from the five books of Moses. Prefixed is an address “to all parents and schoolmasters,” in which Wesley says:—
“I have endeavoured in the following lessons to select the plainest and most useful portions of Scripture; such as children may the most easily understand, and such as it most concerns them to know. These are set down in the same order, and generally in the same words, wherein they are delivered by the Spirit of God. Where an expression is less easy to be understood, I have subjoined a word or two by way of explication. I cannot but earnestly entreat you, to take good heed, how you teach these deep things of God. Beware of that common, but accursed way, of making children parrots, instead of Christians. Regard not how much, but to how good purpose they read. Turn each sentence every way, propose it in every light, and question them continually on every point.”
3. In the month of March, the Rev. Thomas Church, vicar of Battersea, published another two shilling pamphlet, entitled, “Some further Remarks on Mr. Wesley’s last Journal;” and, in July, Wesley issued, “The Principles of a Methodist farther explained; occasioned by the Reverend Mr. Church’s second letter to Mr. Wesley; in a second letter to that gentleman.” 12mo, 79 pages. First of all, Wesley takes up the case of the Moravians; and then explains his views of justification, and of the faith and repentance preceding it. Next he vindicates himself against the charge of violating the discipline of the Church of England, and of his being an enthusiast. He declares his belief, that, in points of importance, when the reasons brought on each side appear to be of equal weight, it is right to decide the question by casting lots; that there are still such persons as demoniacs, and will be such as long as Satan is the god of this world; and that there is nothing either in the Old Testament or the New which teaches, that “miracles were to be confined within the limits of the apostolic or the Cyprianic age, or, that God hath in any way precluded Himself from working miracles, in any kind or degree, in any age to the end of time.” The pamphlet must be read to be appreciated. It is multum in parvo.
In November, Wesley, for the first time, published a volume of sermons, price, in sheets, half-a-crown. The title was, “Sermons on Several Occasions;” and the book is the first of the four volumes of sermons, which, with the Notes on the New Testament, were afterwards constituted the perpetual standard of Methodist theology. These are so widely and so well known that further description is unneeded. The preface, however, deserves notice. It states that the sermons contain the substance of what Wesley had been preaching during the last eight years; and, that there was no point of doctrine, on which he had been accustomed to speak in public, which was not here, incidentally, if not professedly, laid before the reader. Wesley adds:—
“Nothing here appears in an elaborate, elegant, or oratorical dress. If it had been my desire or design to write thus, my leisure would not permit. But, in truth, I, at present, designed nothing less; for I now write, as I generally speak, ad populum. I design plain truth for plain people; therefore, of set purpose, I abstain from all nice and philosophical speculations; from all perplexed and intricate reasonings; and, as far as possible, from even the show of learning, unless in sometimes citing the original Scripture. I have thought, I am a creature of a day. I am a spirit come from God, and returning to God. I want to know one thing,—the way to heaven. God Himself has condescended to teach me the way. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it; here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri. Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In His presence, I read His book; for this end, to find the way to heaven. Is there a doubt concerning the meaning of what I read? I lift up my heart to the Father of lights, and ask Him to let me know His will. I then search after and consider parallel passages of Scripture. I meditate thereon with all the attention and earnestness of which my mind is capable. If any doubt still remains, I consult those who are experienced in the things of God; and then the writings whereby, being dead, they yet speak. And what I thus learn, that I teach.”
This is very beautiful. Wesley was no copyist. He owed his theology to no class of theologians, either ancient or modern,—Moravian or otherwise. Peter Bohler and others might suggest truths like the grand old doctrine of salvation by faith only; but before adopting them Wesley went to the only pure fount of theology existing, and deduced his creed, not from Bohler’s notions, but from the book of God. His belief was thus founded upon a rock, and he felt it so. He declares, that his mind is open to conviction; but, at the same time, he was conscious that he had, not only human, but Divine authority for what he taught. Let all divinity students copy his example.
Wesley’s last publication, in 1746, was Parts II. and III. of his “Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.” 12mo, 139 pages. In some respects, this was one of the severest works that Wesley ever committed to the press. With terrible power, he depicts the wickedness of the nation,—forgetfulness of God and neglect of His holy ordinances, swearing, perjury, sabbath breaking, drunkenness, lasciviousness, speaking evil of dignities, and robbery. Attorneys are lashed as being, in some instances, less honest than pickpockets; and the way in which they whipped money out of their clients’ purses is so described, that an unjust lawyer by whom Wesley himself had been victimised sent him back half the amount he had extorted from him. The guardians of public charities are charged with sacrilege. Lying was one of the fashions of the day; and language was swollen with compliment. Pride was rampant; and even cobblers, in London, thought themselves wiser than secretaries of state, and coffee house disputers abler divines than archbishops. Prisons were schools of vice, out of which prisoners emerged fitted for any kind or degree of villainy, perfectly brutal and devilish, thoroughly furnished for every evil word and work. In the army, profanity was fearful. In the navy, almost every man-of-war was a floating hell. The clergy were not free from the taint of lewdness and drunkenness, from covetousness and idleness, from neglecting the poor and flattering the rich. Presbyterians, in many instances, kept a conscience void of offence, but they had among them drunkards, gluttons, dishonest dealers, and extortioners. Baptists were far from being faultless. Quakers affected great sanctity and simplicity, and yet many of their women wore gold upon their very feet, and their men might be seen with glittering canes and snuff-boxes, even in their solemn assemblies; their female members were too strict to lay out a shilling in a necklace, but not too strict to lay out fourscore guineas in a repeating watch; in one kind of apron or handkerchief they durst not expend twenty shillings, but in another sort would, expend twenty pounds; they declined to touch a coloured ribbon, but would cover themselves from head to foot in costly silk. Papists, Jews, and infidels are castigated with equal severity; and with them the second part of the Appeal concludes.
The third Part commences with an account of the present revival of religion, and of the brutal persecutions with which it had been assailed. Then objections are answered. Wesley states, that he has seven thousand persons in his societies, whose souls he could not neglect without endangering his own salvation. He shows the difference between other reformations of the church, and that with which he and his contemporaries were identified, and concludes thus:—
“The difference is wide between our case and the case of any of those above mentioned. They avowedly separated from the church; we utterly disavow any such design. They severely, and almost continually, inveighed against the doctrines and discipline of the church they left; we approve both the doctrines and discipline of our church, and inveigh only against ungodliness and unrighteousness. They spent great part of their time and strength in contending about externals and circumstantials; we agree with you in both; so that having no room to spend any time in such contentions, we have one desire of spending and being spent, in promoting plain, practical religion.”
It is impossible, in a brief summary like this, to give an adequate idea of these “Appeals,” the best defence of Methodism extant. They are among the most elaborate of Wesley’s productions; giving a melancholy view of the low state of religion and of public morals, when he and his brother Methodists entered upon their extraordinary career of ministerial labour; and containing a triumphant vindication of their doctrines and proceedings. They all are pervaded with a spirit of great seriousness, and display a mind deeply affected by the sins and follies of mankind.