FOOTNOTES:
1780.
Age 77
The year 1780 will always be marked in English history. The nation was steeped in guilt and misery. War was raging on almost every side. Trade was paralysed; and taxes intolerable. Popery had been established in Canada; and, by the repealing of the statutes of the 11th and 12th of King William III., had received great encouragement in England. The Protestant Association sprung into existence; and the Gordon riots followed. The details of these events are full of profound interest and instruction; but our limited space prevents enlargement. Suffice it to say, that, in this serious crisis, Wesley took an active interest. He writes: “1780. January 18—Receiving more and more accounts of the increase of popery, I believed it my duty to write a letter concerning it, which was afterwards inserted in the public papers. Many were grievously offended; but I cannot help it; I must follow my own conscience.”
The following was Wesley’s unanswerable, though obnoxious letter.
“A Letter to the Printer of the Public Advertiser, occasioned by the late Act, passed in favour of Popery.
“City Road, January 21, 1780.
“Sir,—Some time ago, a pamphlet was sent me, entitled ‘An Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great Britain.’ A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hands, which pronounces ‘its style contemptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious.’ On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of that tract by a few plain arguments.
“With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let there be as ‘boundless a freedom in religion,’ as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius’s creed to be true; suppose the council of Trent to have been infallible: yet, I insist upon it, that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion.
“I prove this by a plain argument; let him answer it that can. That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus. It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a public council, that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics.’ This has been openly avowed by the council of Constance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, it is plain that the members of that church can give no reasonable security, to any government, of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government, protestant, Mahommedan, or pagan.
“You may say, ‘Nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance.’ True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ sweeps them all away as a spider’s web. So that still, no governors that are not Roman Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.
“Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the pope can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but all Roman Catholics acknowledge this; therefore, they can give no security for their allegiance.
“The power of granting pardons for all sins, past, present, and to come, is, and has been, for many centuries, one branch of his spiritual power.
“But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no security for their allegiance; since they believe the pope can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins whatsoever.
“The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is another branch of the spiritual power of the pope. And all who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the pope can give no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths and promises are none; they are light as air; a dispensation makes them all null and void.
“Nay, not only the pope, but even a priest has power to pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason.
“Setting then religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, no government ought to tolerate men, who cannot give any security to that government for their allegiance and peaceable behaviour. But this no Romanist can do, not only while he holds that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ but so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution or the spiritual power of the pope.
“‘But the late act,’ you say, ‘does not either tolerate or encourage Roman Catholics.’ I appeal to matter of fact. Do not the Romanists themselves understand it as a toleration? You know they do. And does it not already (let alone what it may do by-and-by) encourage them to preach openly, to build chapels (at Bath and elsewhere), to raise seminaries, and to make numerous converts day by day, to their intolerant, persecuting principles? I can point out, if need be, several of the persons. And they are increasing daily.
“But ‘nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended from them.’ I am not certain of that. Some time since, a Romish priest came to one I knew; and, after talking with her largely, broke out, ‘You are no heretic! You have the experience of a real Christian!’ ‘And would you,’ she asked, ‘burn me alive?’ He said, ‘God forbid! unless it were for the good of the church!’
“Now what security could she have had for her life, if it had depended on that man? The good of the church would have burst all the ties of truth, justice, and mercy. Especially when seconded by the absolution of a priest, or, if need were, a papal pardon.
“If any please to answer this, and to set his name, I shall probably reply; but the productions of anonymous writers I do not promise to take any notice of.
“I am, sir, your humble servant,
“John Wesley.”
Wesley’s arguments are irrefutable; and terrible is England’s danger, at the present day, because such arguments, instead of being answered, have been dexterously, but disastrously, ignored by England’s statesmen. Wesley’s letter will probably be treated, by many, as they would treat an old almanack, out of date; but, on February 17, 1780, it evoked the unanimous thanks of the Protestant Association; and, in the same month, was published in the pages of Wesley’s bitterest antagonist,—the Gospel Magazine,—with an editorial note, that it had “been almost universally approved of,” and that it was a “production of real merit.”
Wesley’s letter was too damaging to the disloyalty and preposterous assumptions of popery, to pass unnoticed. His chief antagonist was the Rev. Arthur O’Leary, the son of peasant parents, and now a popish priest, in the fiftieth year of his age.
O’Leary’s remarks on Wesley’s letter made an octavo pamphlet of 101 pages. The friar tells the Methodist, that the temperature of Ireland’s climate and the quality of its soil had cleansed the veins of its papists “from the sour and acid blood of the Scythians and Saxons.” He writes:
“We are tender hearted, we are good natured, we have feelings. We shed tears on the urns of the dead; deplore the loss of hecatombs of victims slaughtered on the gloomy altars of religious bigotry; cry in seeing the ruins of cities over which fanaticism has displayed the funeral torch; and sincerely pity the blind zeal of our Scotch and English neighbours, whose constant character is to pity none, for erecting the banners of persecution, at a time when the inquisition is abolished in Spain and Milan, and the protestant gentry are caressed at Rome, and live unmolested in the luxuriant plains of France and Italy. We are too wise to quarrel about religion. The Roman Catholics sing their psalms in Latin, with a few inflections of the voice. Our protestant neighbours sing the same psalms in English, on a larger scale of musical notes. We never quarrel with our honest and worthy neighbours, the quakers, for not singing at all; nor shall we ever quarrel with Mr. Wesley for raising his voice to heaven, and warbling forth his canticles on whatever tune he pleases. We like social harmony; and, in civil music, hate discordance. Thus, when we go to the shambles, we never inquire into the butcher’s religion, but into the quality of his meat. We care not whether the ox was fed in the pope’s territories, or on the mountains of Scotland; provided the joint be good; for, though there be many heresies in old books, we discover neither heresy nor superstition in beef and claret. We divide them cheerfully with one another; and, though of different religions, we sit over the bowl with as much cordiality as if we were at a lovefeast.”
O’Leary’s quaint jocularity and rounded periods are amusing; but they furnish not the slightest answer to Wesley’s allegations. On March 23, Wesley replied to O’Leary, in a letter addressed to the editors of the Freeman’s Journal, and from which the following is extracted.
“Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are no more an answer to my letter, than to the Bull Unigenitus. His manner of writing is easy and pleasant; but might it not as well be more serious? The subject we are treating of is not a light one; it moves me to tears, rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country; yea, for the children that are yet unborn. I would not have the Roman Catholics persecuted at all. I would only have them hindered from doing hurt: I would not put it in their power to cut the throats of their quiet neighbours.”
O’Leary published a “Rejoinder to Mr. Wesley’s Reply,” in which he was less jocular, but not more logical. Of Wesley’s three reasons why it is not safe to tolerate papists, two were left untouched, and one was played with and evaded. Such a controversialist scarcely deserved an answer; and, yet, Wesley supplemented his second letter by a third, dated Chester, March 31, 1780. After recapitulating his three reasons, Wesley writes:
“Nine parts in ten of Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are quite wide of the mark. Not that they are wide of his mark, which is to introduce a plausible panegyric upon the Roman Catholics, mixed with keen invectives against the protestants, whether true or false it matters not. All this is admirably well calculated to inspire the reader with aversion to these heretics, and to bring them back to the holy, harmless, much injured Church of Rome! Close arguing he does not attempt; but he vapours, and skips to and fro, and rambles to all points of the compass, in a very lively and entertaining manner.”
Wesley thus concludes his long letter:
“What security for my life can any man give me, till he utterly renounces the council of Constance? What security can any Romanist give a protestant, till this doctrine is publicly abjured? If Mr. O’Leary has anything more to plead for this council, I shall follow him step by step. But let him keep his word, and ‘give a serious answer to a serious charge.’ ‘Drollery may come in when we are talking of roasting fowls’; but not when we talk of ‘roasting men.’
“Would I then wish the Roman Catholics to be persecuted? I never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor the thought: it is foreign to all I have preached and wrote for these fifty years. But I would wish the Romanists in England (I had no others in view) to be treated still with the same lenity that they have been these sixty years; to be allowed both civil and religious liberty, but not permitted to undermine ours. I wish them to stand just as they did before the late act was passed: not to be persecuted or hurt themselves; but gently restrained from hurting their neighbours.
“I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
“John Wesley.”
Here the controversy ended. O’Leary was baffled; and, to this day, the arguments in Wesley’s letter of January 21, 1780, remain unanswered. Seven years afterwards; when at Cork, Wesley wrote: “A gentleman invited me to breakfast, with my old antagonist, Father O’Leary. I was not at all displeased at being disappointed. He is not the stiff, queer man that I expected; but of an easy, genteel carriage, and seems not to be wanting either in sense or learning.”
It was during this controversy, and while Wesley was in the north of Ireland, that the fearful riots occurred, which are so unfortunately associated with the name of Lord George Gordon, and which were the cause of that nobleman’s incarceration (rightly or wrongly) in the Tower of London. Here Wesley, after repeated invitations, visited him, and writes: “1780, December 19—I spent an hour with Lord George Gordon, at his apartment in the Tower. Our conversation turned upon popery and religion. He seemed to be well acquainted with the Bible; and had abundance of other books, enough to furnish a study. I was agreeably surprised to find he did not complain of any person or thing; and cannot but hope his confinement will take a right turn, and prove a lasting blessing to him.”
We return to more congenial matters. Wesley spent the first two months of 1780 in London and its vicinity. On February 28, he started on his journey to the north. Among other places, he now, for the first time, preached at Delph. He writes: “April 7—I went to Delph, a little village upon the mountains, where a remarkable work of God is just broke out. I was just set down, when the minister sent me word, I was welcome to preach in his church. On hearing this, many people walked thither immediately, near a mile from the town; but, in ten minutes, he sent me word his mind was changed. We knew not then what to do, till the trustees of the independent meeting offered us the use of their house. It was quickly filled, and truly God bore witness to His word.”
The minister of the parish church was the Rev. Mr. Heginbotham, who had engaged Mr. Stones as his curate. Mr. Stones was a sportsman, fond of his dog and gun. On one occasion, a rough Yorkshireman told him, it would be better if he minded his study more and his gun less. The curate took the hint; his dogs and his guns were given up; he became a thorough Christian; his ministry was greatly blessed; an extensive religious awakening followed; meetings for prayer were convened in private houses; and not a few were scripturally converted. Opposition soon ensued, on the ground that the poor, by spending so much time in prayer, would neglect their work, and become chargeable to the parish. The curate was dismissed; the young converts applied to Joseph Benson, then at Manchester, for help; Methodist preaching was commenced; a room in Millgate hired; and a flourishing society was formed. The case was named to Wesley; and, a fortnight before his visit, he signed the following legal looking document, which to a Methodist antiquarian will be welcome.
“Whereas for about twelve months last past, the people called Methodists have preached in a room at Delph, in Saddleworth, in the county of York,—the travelling preachers coming there regularly every fortnight from Manchester, besides local preachers occasionally on Sundays. And Whereas the last summer such crowds attended, that the room could not contain them, the society also increasing very fast, and a great likelihood of much good being done in the place,—It is, therefore, thought necessary that a preaching house be erected at Delph aforesaid, twelve yards long and eight wide. The expense of such a building, according to the plan laid down, will be vastly more than the society will be able to raise amongst themselves. They have, therefore, requested our consent to go amongst our societies, to ask the charitable contributions of such of our friends as would willingly encourage such an undertaking. This is, therefore, to certify that we approve of the measure, and recommend the same to our Christian friends everywhere, hoping they will readily and cheerfully contribute to the same.
“John Wesley.
“Manchester, March 25, 1780.”
This formalised certificate smacks of the office of Joseph Mellor, the Methodist attorney of the town of Delph; and Wesley must have been hard pressed for time when, instead of writing a statement of the case himself, he put his hand to such legal magniloquence. Suffice it to add, the chapel was built, with not more than £100 of debt resting upon the premises.
It was during this northern tour, that Wesley, for the first time, was denied the use of the church at Haworth. He writes: “Sunday, April 23—Mr. Richardson being unwilling that I should preach any more in Haworth church, Providence opened another; I preached in Bingley church, both morning and afternoon. This is considerably larger than the other.”
It was either on this, or some future occasion, when Wesley was preaching in Bingley church, that a rich man in the congregation, who seemed to think that his wealth was a licence to practise bad manners, sneered at the preacher and at his sentiments. Wesley paused, and fixing his keen eye on the Dives sitting in the seat of the scornful, said: “I heed your sneers no more than I heed the fluttering of a butterfly; but I know what good breeding is as well as any gentleman in the land.”
It was now that Wesley preached his first sermon in Blackburn. He writes: “April 27—I preached in Todmorden church with great enlargement of heart. In the afternoon we went on to Blackburn. It seemed the whole town was moved; and the question was where to put the congregation. We could not stand abroad because of the sun; so as many as could squeezed into the preaching house. All the chief men of the town were there.” Mr. Banning was Wesley’s host at Blackburn; and, on one occasion, took his venerable guest to see a neighbouring chapel which was in the course of being built. “Mr. Banning,” said Wesley, “I have a favour to ask. Let there be no pews in the body of this chapel, except one for the leading singers. Be sure to make accommodation for the poor. They are God’s building materials in the erecting of His church. The rich make good scaffolding, but bad materials.” Weighty words! One of Methodism’s evil omens, at the present day, is a disregard of the advice which Wesley gave, namely, that, in building chapels, the Methodists should never fail to provide ample accommodation for the poor.
It was a sign of Wesley’s growing popularity, that, though, forty years before, he had been indignantly expelled from the pulpits of the Established Church, he was now invited, in all parts of the country, by rectors, vicars, curates, and others, to favour them with his services. At Pateley Bridge, in 1752, Thomas Lee, the old itinerant, and his Methodist companions, were subjected to treatment the most barbarous; and, on applying to the Dean of Ripon for protection, were met with a churchman’s scorn rather than a magistrate’s just dealing. Now it was otherwise. Wesley writes: “1780, May 1—At Pateley Bridge, the vicar offered me the use of his church. Though it was more than twice as large as our preaching house, it was not near large enough to contain the congregation. How vast is the increase of the work of God! particularly in the most rugged and uncultivated places. How does He ‘send the springs’ of grace also ‘into the valleys, that run among the hills!’”
Leaving Pateley, Wesley, for the first time, visited Ripon. He writes: “May 2—We came to Ripon, and observed a remarkable turn of providence: the great hindrance of the work of God in this place has suddenly disappeared; and the poor people, being delivered from their fear, gladly flock together, and hear His word. The new preaching house was quickly more than filled.”
Four years previous to this, Thomas Dixon was one of the Ripon preachers, and, in his unpublished autobiography, wrote: “Upon our going to Ripon, we preached in a small room up a flight of stairs, and even this we were to leave at Martinmas. But, just at this time, Mr. T. Dowson, who had suffered much for the gospel’s sake, bought the premises where an old barn and stable stood. He immediately pulled down the barn, and built a decent chapel and a dwelling house upon the site, and, with such expedition, that we were able to get into the shell of the new chapel by the time we had to leave the upstairs room. By this means, God gave the poor persecuted Methodists, in Ripon, a degree of rest they had never known before, and the work, from that time, gradually grew.”
On leaving Ripon, Wesley proceeded “through a delightful country to the immense ruins of Garvaix Abbey,” and thence across the “horrid, dreary, enormous mountains” to Penrith, another place where he now, for the first time, preached. He writes: “May 5—In the evening, a large room, designed for an assembly, was procured for me at Penrith; but several of the poor people were struck with panic, for fear the room should fall. Finding there was no remedy, I went down into the court below, and preached in great peace to a multitude of well behaved people.”
On May 11, Wesley reached Newcastle, and thence proceeded to Scotland. On his return southwards, we find him preaching at Durham, Darlington, Northallerton, Boroughbridge, and York. Making his way through Lincolnshire, he came to Newark, where, twenty years before, the mob had burnt the Methodist pulpit in the market place; and had not only pelted the preacher, Thomas Lee, with all sorts of missiles, and dragged him to the river Trent, where they ducked and dabbled him without mercy, but, to complete the whole, a painter came with his pot and brush, and bedaubed him most ludicrously. Wesley writes: “1780, June 12—Our friends at Newark were divided as to the place where I should preach. At length, they found a convenient place, covered on three sides, and on the fourth open to the street. It contained two or three thousand people well, who appeared to hear as for life. Only one big man, exceeding drunk, was very noisy and turbulent, till his wife (fortissima Tyndaridarum!) seized him by the collar, gave him two or three hearty boxes on the ear, and dragged him away like a calf. But, at length, he got out of her hands, crept in among the people, and stood as quiet as a lamb.”
On June 13, Wesley wrote: “I accepted of an invitation from a gentleman at Lincoln, in which I had not set my foot for upwards of fifty years. At six in the evening, I preached in the castle yard to a large and attentive congregation. They were all as quiet as if I had been at Bristol. Will God have a people here also?” For seven years after this, there was not a Methodist in Lincoln.
After an interval of many years, Wesley preached again at Boston, where, in 1757, Alexander Mather, the first Methodist preacher there, had his face plastered with mire taken from the kennels of the streets, and his head laid open with a stone.
Wesley spent his birthday in Sheffield, and wrote: “June 28—I can hardly think I am entered this day into the seventy-eighth year of my age. By the blessing of God, I am just the same as when I entered the twenty-eighth. This hath God wrought, chiefly by my constant exercise, my rising early, and preaching morning and evening.”
The next day, he preached his first and last sermon at Worksop. He says: “I was desired to preach at Worksop; but when I came, they had not fixed on any place. At length, they chose a lamentable one, full of dirt and dust, but without the least shelter from the scorching sun. This few could bear; so we had only a small company of as stupid people as I ever saw.”
After this, Wesley made his way to London, where he spent a week; and, then, he and his brother set out for Bristol, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He writes: “August 1—Our conference began. We have been always, hitherto, straitened for time. It was now resolved, ‘For the future, we will allow nine or ten days for each conference; that everything, relative to the carrying on of the work of God, may be maturely considered.’”
The conference, in this instance, lasted from August 1 to August 9, inclusive. Its main business was a revision of the minutes of conferences already held. Several alterations were made, some of the chief being the following. It was no longer to be a rule, that Methodists were to endeavour to preach most where Wesley and his brother clergymen were allowed to preach in parish churches. Classmeetings were to be made more lively and profitable, by removing improper leaders; and care was to be taken, that those appointed were not only men of sound judgment, but truly pious. If a preacher could secure twenty hearers at five o’clock in the morning, he was to preach; if not so many, he was to sing and pray. “Observe,” says Wesley to his preachers, “it is not your business to preach so many times, and to take care of this or that society; but to save as many souls as you can, to bring as many sinners as you possibly can to repentance, and, with all your power, to build them up in that holiness without which they cannot see the Lord. And remember! a Methodist preacher is to mind every point, great and small, in the Methodist discipline! Therefore, you will need all the sense you have, and to have all your wits about you.” It was agreed, that the neglect of fasting was sufficient to account for their feebleness and faintness of spirit. They were continually grieving the Holy Spirit of God, by the habitual neglect of a plain duty. “Let you and I,” says Wesley, “every Friday (beginning on the next), avow this duty throughout the nation, by touching no tea, coffee, or chocolate, in the morning, but, (if we want it,) half-a-pint of milk or water gruel. Let us dine on potatoes, and, (if we need it,) eat three or four ounces of flesh in the evening. At other times, let us eat no flesh suppers. These exceedingly tend to breed nervous disorders.” The rule was rescinded, that no preacher ought to print anything without Wesley’s approbation. The preachers were to join as one man in putting an end to the indecency of the people talking in the preaching houses, before and after service. Complaints having been made, that sluts had spoiled preachers’ houses, Wesley writes: “Let none, that has spoiled one, ever live in another. But what a shame is this! A preacher’s wife should be a pattern of cleanliness, in her person, clothes, and habitation. Let nothing slatternly be seen about her; no rags, no dirt, no litter. And she should be a pattern of industry; always at work, either for herself, her husband, or the poor. I am not willing that any should live in the Orphan House at Newcastle, or any preaching house, who does not conform to this rule.” Complaints were also made, that people crowded into the preachers’ houses as into coffee shops, without invitation; and it was ruled, that no person should, in future, come into a preacher’s house, unless he wanted to ask a question.
Some of these may appear to be minute matters; but they are not without interest as indicative of the defects of Methodists in the days of Wesley.
There is reason to believe, though the fact is not recorded in the minutes, that the Church question was again discussed at the conference of 1780. Hence the following letter, written to Miss Bosanquet.
“Bristol, August 5, 1780.
“My dear Sister,—I snatch time from the conference to write two or three lines. I am glad you have begun a prayer-meeting at Hunslet, and doubt not it will be productive of much good. Hitherto, we have had a blessed conference. The case of the Church we shall fully consider by-and-by; and, I believe, we shall agree that none who leave the Church shall remain with us.
“I am, my dear sister, yours most affectionately,
“John Wesley.”
Charles Wesley was present, and was far from satisfied. He purposed to attend no more of these annual synods, and wrote as follows:
Poor Charles, alarmed lest the Methodists should leave the Church, retired from the conference to weep and die; John to rejoice and work.
Conference statistics have not been given annually; but the following figures will show the progress made during the decade of years ending at the conference of 1780.
Circuits.
Members.
1770
50
123
29,406
£218
1
1780
64
171
43,830
£402
1
Increase
14
48
14,424
£183
To these numbers, however, must be added the Methodists in the West Indies, and also 20 circuits, 42 itinerant preachers, and 8504 members of society in America.
The American conference met at Baltimore on April 24, and agreed to continue in close communion with the Church, and to permit “the friendly clergy” to preach and administer the sacraments in Methodist chapels. Hitherto, neither Asbury, nor any other of the preachers in America, had administered these Christian ordinances to the Methodist people; and, as the number of members was now rapidly increasing, this was becoming a momentous question. The want in England had been met, to some extent, by Wesley and his brother and their clerical assistants; but, in America, the Methodists had no ordained clergyman to render service like this. Besides, there the Methodists were very differently situated from what Methodists were in England. In this country, wherever there was a Methodist society there was a parish church, at which, if they chose, Methodists might attend on sacramental occasions. In America it was otherwise. Clergymen were few; and parish churches far distant from each other; and, in many instances, where Methodist societies had been formed, no church existed. The case was becoming serious. Were these thousands of American Methodists to be left without sacraments? Or were unordained Methodist preachers to administer sacraments? Or was an effort to be made, to send a clergyman of the Church of England to supply this lack of sacred service? Or was Wesley himself to assume episcopal functions, and, by ordination, turn his preachers into priests? These were serious difficulties to be surmounted. To deprive eight thousand converted people of the most sacred ordinances of the church, would have been a sin against the church’s Head. To allow unordained preachers to administer baptism and the Lord’s supper was a thing for which Wesley himself was not prepared; though who can question, that a man like Francis Asbury, whom God had so signally honoured, had as much right to do this as the most renowned priest or prelate in existence? An alternative remained, namely, either to send the American Methodists an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; or that Wesley should take upon himself the office of ordainer, and thus qualify his own itinerants for what was conceived to be a higher function than that of preaching the infinitely great and everlasting truths of Christ’s glorious gospel.
Was Wesley prepared for such a step as this? Fortunately, this is a point on which we are not left to speculate. In a letter to his brother, dated June 8, 1780, he writes: “Read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon,’ or any impartial history of the ancient church, and I believe you will think as I do. I verily believe, I have as good a right to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper. But I see abundance of reasons why I should not use that right, unless I was turned out of the Church. At present, we are just in our place.”
As yet, Wesley, for “abundance of reasons,” hesitated to ordain his preachers; and, hence, the only remaining expedient was to endeavour to secure an ordained clergyman of the Church of England; and this he attempted. The following letter was addressed to Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, two months after the date of his letter to his brother Charles. The reader will perceive, that it was written the day after the close of the Bristol conference. It ought to be premised that, previous to this, Wesley had applied to the bishop for a clerical helper, and had met with a refusal.
“August 10, 1780.
“My Lord,—Some time since, I received your lordship’s favour, for which I return your lordship my sincere thanks. These persons did not apply to the Society,” [for Propagating Christian Knowledge in Foreign Parts,] “because they had nothing to ask of them. They wanted no salary for their minister: they were themselves able and willing to maintain him. They, therefore, applied, by me, to your lordship, as members of the Church of England, and desirous so to continue, begging the favour of your lordship, after your lordship had examined him, to ordain a pious man who might officiate as their minister.
“But your lordship observes, ‘There are three ministers in that country already.’ True, my lord: but what are three, to watch over all the souls in that extensive country? Will your lordship permit me to speak freely? I dare not do otherwise. I am on the verge of the grave, and know not the hour when I shall drop into it. Suppose there were threescore of those missionaries in the country, could I in conscience recommend these souls to their care? Do they take any care of their own souls? If they do, (I speak it with concern,) I fear they are almost the only missionaries in America that do. My lord, I do not speak rashly: I have been in America; and so have several with whom I have lately conversed. And both I and they know, what manner of men the greater part of these are. They are men who have neither the power of religion, nor the form; men that lay no claim to piety, nor even decency.
“Give me leave, my lord, to speak more freely still: perhaps it is the last time I shall trouble your lordship. I know your lordship’s abilities and extensive learning: I believe, what is far more, that your lordship fears God. I have heard, that your lordship is unfashionably diligent in examining the candidates for holy orders; yea, that your lordship is generally at the pains of examining them yourself. Examining them! in what respects? Why whether they understand a little Latin and Greek; and can answer a few trite questions in the science of divinity! Alas, how little does this avail! Does your lordship examine, whether they serve Christ or Belial? Whether they love God or the world? Whether they ever had any serious thoughts about heaven or hell? Whether they have any real desire to save their own souls, or the souls of others? If not, what have they to do with holy orders? and what will become of the souls committed to their care?
“My lord, I do by no means despise learning: I know the value of it too well. But what is this, particularly in a Christian minister, compared to piety? What is it in a man that has no religion? ‘As a jewel in a swine’s snout.’
“Some time since, I recommended to your lordship a plain man, whom I had known above twenty years, as a person of deep, genuine piety, and of unblamable conversation. But he neither understood Greek nor Latin; and he affirmed, in so many words, that ‘he believed it was his duty to preach, whether he was ordained or no.’ I believe so too. What became of him since, I know not. But I suppose he received presbyterian ordination; and I cannot blame him if he did. He might think any ordination better than none.
“I do not know, that Mr. Hoskins had any favour to ask of the Society. He asked the favour of your lordship to ordain him, that he might minister to a little flock in America. But your lordship did not see good to ordain him: but your lordship did see good to ordain, and send to America, other persons, who knew something of Greek and Latin; but knew no more of saving souls, than of catching whales.
“In this respect, also, I mourn for poor America; for the sheep scattered up and down therein. Part of them have no shepherds at all, particularly in the northern colonies; and the case of the rest is little better, for their own shepherds pity them not. They cannot, for they have no pity on themselves, they take no thought or care about their own souls.
“Wishing your lordship every blessing from the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, I remain, my lord, your lordship’s dutiful son and servant,
“John Wesley.”
Did his lordship ever receive, from any other “dutiful son and servant,” a letter like this? We doubt it. Wesley was foiled in his attempt to obtain episcopal ordination for an American Methodist preacher: no wonder, that, soon after, he administered ordination himself.
Before proceeding with Wesley’s history, the insertion of a selection of his letters, belonging to this period, may be acceptable.
It is a terrible thing to write a dangerous book. When Joseph Benson was a young man, he read Dr. Watts’s “Glory of Christ as God-man,” and became a convert to his doctrine of the pre-existence of our Lord’s human soul. Speaking his mind too freely upon this unscriptural dogma, Benson was suspected to be an Arian, and was represented as such, by Dr. Coke, all over the kingdom. At the conference of 1780, Coke accused him of holding the Arian heresy; the matter was sifted; Benson was acquitted; and Coke offered to ask his pardon. Still, Benson, for years afterwards, held Dr. Watts’s dangerous speculation; and it was not until he undertook the revision of Fletcher’s manuscripts, that he laid aside the expression, “pre-existent soul of Christ;” “an expression,” says he, “which neither reason, nor Scripture, nor antiquity, will warrant our using.”
Dr. Watts’s pernicious book, and also the Gordon riots, (at this time raging,) are referred to in the following extract from a letter to Charles Wesley.
“June 8, 1780.
“Dear Brother,—I would not read over Dr. Watts’s tract for a hundred pounds. You may read it, and welcome. I will not, dare not, move those subtle, metaphysical controversies. Arianism is not in question; it is Eutychianism or Nestorianism. But what are they? What neither I nor any one else understands. But they are what tore the eastern and western churches asunder.
“It is well I accepted none of Lord George’s invitations. If the government suffers this tamely, I know not what they will not suffer.
“Mr. Collins is not under my direction; nor am I at all accountable for any steps he takes. He is not in connection with the Methodists. He only helps us now and then. I will suffer no disputing at the conference.
“Undoubtedly many of the patriots seriously intend to overturn the government; but the hook is in their nose.
“Peace be with you all!
“John Wesley.”
The Mr. Collins, mentioned in the above extract, was Brian Bury Collins, of the university of Cambridge, who, without ever receiving a regular appointment, continued to assist Wesley, in various parts of the kingdom, until Wesley’s death in 1791. A number of his manuscript letters, all written in 1779 and 1780, now lie before us, from which we learn, that he regarded himself as having “an unlimited preaching commission”; and that one of his great objects was to unite Wesley’s and Whitefield’s followers. “I could freely die,” says he, “to see the Tabernacles and Foundery reconciled.” He began the year 1779 in the north of England, where he sometimes preached five or six times a day. He then removed to London, Bristol, and the west, where his health failed. In May, 1780, he was among his relatives at Linwood, and wrote: “I am not yet recovered from my late illness, though I am much better than I have been. My relations here receive me with more cordiality than I expected. I find the Divine presence in the churches where I preach; but what the Lord designs to do with me I cannot tell. Lately, I have thought of spending a few weeks at Cambridge. I have also had fresh desires of being in full orders.” In pursuance of this, Mr. Collins went to St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, in July 1780, he took his master of arts degree. By advice of the two Wesleys, he sought ordination; and the dowager Lady Townsend gave him a recommendatory letter to the Bishop of Chester, requesting that the rite might be administered in private; but the bishop, having heard of his irregular preaching, hesitated until he had time to confer with his brother bishops. Ordination was ultimately obtained; Collins married, and, for a time, was assistant to David Simpson, at Macclesfield; after this, he again became a rover, and preached in Wesley’s and Lady Huntingdon’s chapels, and wherever else he had a chance. He writes: “I wish to do good unto all. I do not love one and dislike another. I can unite with all who are united to Jesus. I care not for names in the least.”
These glimpses of a man whom Wesley, to the end of life, repeatedly mentions in his journals, will not be unwelcome. Of his subsequent career we know nothing; except that its close was not as bright as its beginning. A son of his lies interred in the burial ground of the new chapel in City Road.
One of the legislative acts of the conference of 1780 was to enforce the old rule, that, in Methodist meeting-houses, the men and women should sit apart. In galleries, where they had always sat together, they might do so still; but in all new erected galleries, and in the seats below, the old rule was to be rigidly observed. “If,” said Wesley, “I come into any new house, and see the men and women together, I will immediately go out. I hereby give public notice of this. Pray let it be observed.”
This sounds strangely at the present day; but, for some reason, it was with Wesley a matter of importance. Hence also the following unpublished letter to the leaders at Sheffield.
“Bristol, September 4, 1780.
“My dear Brethren,—Let the persons, who purpose to subvert the Methodist plan, by mixing men and women together in your chapel, consider the consequence of so doing. First, I will never set foot in it more. Secondly, I will forbid any collection to be made for it in any of our societies.
“I am, my dear brethren, your affectionate brother,
“John Wesley.”
Two more letters, now for the first time given to the public, will be welcome. They were addressed to Samuel Bradburn, who had been three years in Ireland, and was now to remove to Keighley.
“Near Bristol, September 16, 1780.
“Dear Sammy,—I wanted to have Betsy” [Mrs. Bradburn] “a little nearer me. And I wanted her to be acquainted with her twin soul, Miss Ritchie, the fellow to whom I scarce know in England. But I do not like your crossing the sea till your children are a little stronger. If there was stormy weather, it might endanger their lives. Therefore, it is better you should stay in Ireland a little longer. Athlone circuit will suit you well; and John Bredin may be at Keighley in your place.
“Now read over the minutes concerning the office of an assistant, and exert yourself as to every branch of it. I fear the late assistant neglected many articles; dispersing the books in particular.
“My love to Betsy. Let her love Molly Pennington for my sake.
“I am, etc., J. Wesley.”
“London, October 28, 1780.
“Dear Sammy,—I am glad you are safe landed at Keighley. You will find there
“There are many amiable and gracious souls in Cork; but there are few in the whole kingdom of Ireland to be named, (either for depth of sense or grace,) with many, very many persons in Yorkshire, particularly the west riding. Go to Betsy Ritchie, at Otley, and then point me out such a young woman as she in Ireland.
“I think lemonade would cure any child of the flux.
“Now be exact in every branch of discipline; and you will soon find what a people you are among.
“I am, with tender love to Betsy, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,
“John Wesley.”
The following letter, kindly supplied by the Rev. Thomas W. Smith, and now for the first time published, was addressed “To Mr. Valton, at the preaching house, in Manchester.” Oldham Street chapel was now in course of erection, and was opened by Wesley seven months afterwards.
“Bristol, October 1, 1780.
“My dear Brother,—I expected the state of Manchester circuit to be just such as you have found it. But the power of the Lord is able to heal them. I fear S. Mayers was left unemployed, because she loved perfection. If you find a few more of the same spirit, I believe you will find them employment. The accommodations everywhere will mend, if the preachers lovingly exert themselves. I am glad you take some pains for the new chapel. Our brother Brocklehurst will do anything that is reasonable.
“In one thing only, you and I do not agree; but, perhaps, we shall when we have prayed over it: I mean, the giving me an extract of your life. I cannot see the weight of your reasons against it. ‘Some are superficial.’ What then? All are not; brother Mather’s and Haime’s in particular. Add one to these; a more weighty one, if you can. You know what to omit, and what to insert. I really think you owe it (in spite of shame and natural timidity) to God and me and your brethren. Pray for light in this matter.
“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,
“J. Wesley.”
The next, though short, is not devoid of interest. For the first time, it was published in the Watchman newspaper, as recently as October 12, 1870; and was written on the same day as the foregoing one.
“Bristol, October 1, 1780.
“My dear Brother,—Joseph Bradford has been at the gate of death; but is now so far recovered, that he thinks to set out to-morrow morning, with me and his wife, for London.
“Mr. Brackenbury likewise seems to be better, with regard to his bodily health; but he is married! And I shall not be much disappointed if he soon takes leave of the Methodists.
“I am, your affectionate brother,
“J. Wesley.”
The following, which has not before been published, is kindly furnished by Charles Reed, Esq., M.P.
“London, November 3, 1780.
“My dear Brother,—Disorderly walkers are better excluded than retained; and I am well satisfied you will exclude no others. I am glad you have made a beginning at Trowbridge. If it be possible, say not one offensive word. But you must declare the plain, genuine gospel; and, sooner or later, God will give you His blessing.
“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,
“J. Wesley.”
Another, equally characteristic, was sent to Zechariah Yewdall, stationed in “Glamorganshire” circuit, which extended (from Llanelly in Wales to Calvert in Gloucestershire) above a hundred miles, and was traversed regularly every month. Mr. Yewdall was now in the second year of his itinerancy, and, at Monmouth, had met with brutal treatment. The letter also refers to the principle involved in Mr. M‘Nab’s affair.
“London, December 3, 1780.
“My dear Brother,—You mistake one thing. It is I, not the conference, (according to the twelfth rule,) that station the preachers; but I do it at the time of the conference, that I may have the advice of my brethren. But I have no thought of removing you from the Glamorganshire circuit; you are just in your right place. But you say, ‘Many of the people are asleep.’ They are; and you are sent to awaken them out of sleep. ‘But they are dead.’ True; and you are sent to raise the dead. Good will be done at Monmouth and Neath in particular. Where no good can be done, I would leave the old, and try new places. But you have need to be all alive yourselves, if you would impart life to others. And this cannot be without much self denial.
“I am, dear Zachary, your affectionate brother,
“John Wesley.”
After the conference at Bristol was concluded, Wesley set out for Cornwall. Some time before this, Sir Harry Trelawney, a student of Christ Church, Oxford, had become a zealous revivalist, and had begun to preach at West Looe, where, in 1777, he became the pastor of a congregation of his own raising, and which worshipped in a meetinghouse fitted up at his own expense. The novelty of the proceeding, and the rank of the preacher, created great excitement. Sir Harry, the descendant of one of the seven bishops who were committed to the Tower in the reign of James II., was made the hero of a witty book, written by a clergyman of the Church of England, and entitled, “The Spiritual Quixote; or the History of Geoffry Wildgoose, Esq.” 3 vols., 12mo: 1773. The preaching baronet vindicated his nonconformity in “A Letter addressed to the Rev. Thomas Alcock, Vicar of Runcorn.” For a time, the Rev. John Clayton was his assistant, but, in 1778, removed to the Weigh House congregation, in London. Soon after, Sir Harry returned to Oxford; procured ordination in the national establishment; was made a country rector in the west of England; whilst his chapel at West Looe was ignominiously changed into a house for converting barley into malt. He died in 1834.
It was about the time of Wesley’s visit to Cornwall, that he wrote the subjoined letter. Sir Harry had been a Calvinist, and had been patronised by the Countess of Huntingdon’s connexion; but, having renounced his Calvinian tenets, he was now regarded with disfavour. Some communication had passed between him and Wesley on the subject; Wesley knew his danger; and wrote to him as follows.
“For a long time, I have had a desire to see you, but could not find an opportunity. Indeed, I had reason to believe my company would not be agreeable; as you were intimate with those who think they do God service by painting me in the most frightful colours. It gives me much satisfaction to find, that you have escaped out of the hands of those warm men. It is not at all surprising, that they should speak a little unkindly of you too in their turn. It gave me no small satisfaction to learn from your own lips the falsehood of their allegation. I believed it false before, but could not affirm it so positively as I can do now.
“Indeed, it would not have been without precedent, if from one extreme you had run into another. This was the case with that great man, Dr. Taylor. For some years, he was an earnest Calvinist; but, afterwards, judging he could not go far enough from that melancholy system, he ran, not only into Arianism, but into the very dregs of Socinianism.
“You have need to be thankful on another account likewise; that is, that your prejudices against the Church of England are removing. Having had an opportunity of seeing several of the churches abroad, and having deeply considered the several sorts of Dissenters at home, I am fully convinced, that our own Church, with all her blemishes, is nearer the scriptural plan than any other in Europe.
“I sincerely wish you may retain your former zeal for God; only, that it may be a zeal according to knowledge. But there certainly will be a danger of your sinking into a careless, lukewarm state, without any zeal or spirit at all. As you were surfeited with an irrational, unscriptural religion, you may easily slide into no religion at all; or into a dead form, that will never make you happy either in this world, or in that which is to come.
“Wishing every spiritual blessing, both to Lady Trelawney and you,
“I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,
“John Wesley.”
Wesley, at the end of August, returned to Bristol, and here he spent the month of September. He then set out for London, which he reached on October 7. A week later he made a tour to Tunbridge Wells, and other towns in Kent. After this, we find him, as usual, visiting the societies in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire. The last month of the year was chiefly employed in London. He read to the society, and explained, the Large Minutes of conference, recently published; and wrote: “I desire to do all things openly and above board. I would have all the world, and especially all of our society, see not only the steps we take, but the reasons why we take them.” He visited Lord George Gordon in the Tower. He went with some of his friends to the British Museum. He wrote his well known sermon on “This is the true God and eternal life,” fully establishing the doctrine which Joseph Benson, at the conference, had been accused of denying—the Divinity of Christ. He likewise wrote his “Thoughts upon Jacob Behmen,” allowing the Teuton to be a good man, but charging him with propounding “a crude, indigested philosophy, supported neither by Scripture, nor reason, nor anything but his own ipse dixit;” and with using “language that was never used since the world began, queerness itself, mere dog Latin.” “None,” says Wesley, “can understand it without much pains, perhaps not without reading him thrice over. I would not read him thrice over on any consideration. (1) Because it would be enough to crack any man’s brain to brood so long over such unintelligible nonsense; and (2) because such a waste of time might provoke God to give me up to a strong delusion to believe a lie.”
Wesley concludes the year with the following entry in his journal. “Sunday, December 31—We renewed our covenant with God. We had the largest company that I ever remember; perhaps two hundred more than we had last year. And we had the greatest blessing. Several received either a sense of the pardoning love of God, or power to love Him with all their heart.”
Happy, happy old man! “I do not remember,” said he, only nine days before the year 1780 was ended, “I do not remember to have felt lowness of spirits for one quarter of an hour since I was born.”
It only remains to notice Wesley’s publications in 1780; and this shall be done as briefly as possible. His letters on popery, his revised minutes of the conferences, and his Thoughts upon Behmen, have been already mentioned. Besides these, there were—
1. “Directions for Renewing our Covenant with God.” 12mo, 23 pages.
2. “Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion.” 12mo, 96 pages.
3. “The History of Henry, Earl Moreland.” Abridged. 2 vols., 12mo.
It has been already stated, that this was a novel, written by Mr. Brooke, and originally published, in five vols., in 1766, with the title, “The Fool of Quality.” Dr. Adam Clarke once stated, that Mr. Brooke’s nephew declared to him, that, “with the exception of a few touches of colouring, everything in the book was founded in fact—even the very incidents were facts.” This might be so; but still the colouring made the work a fiction; and that an old evangelist, like Wesley, bordering on fourscore years of age, should revise, abridge, publish, and circulate a novel, has always been a perplexity to a certain section of Wesley’s admirers. John Easton, one of his itinerants, belonged to these. After John had very freely condemned the conduct of his great leader, Wesley proposed to him the following interrogations in reference to three of the personages in this remarkable book.
Wesley.—“Did you read Vindex, John?”
Easton.—“Yes, sir.”
W.—“Did you laugh, John?”
E.—“No, sir.”
W.—“Did you read Damon and Pythias, John?”
E.—“Yes, sir.”
W.—“Did you cry, John?”
E.—“No, sir.”
W., lifting up his eyes, and clasping his hands, exclaimed: “O earth—earth—earth!”
Whatever may be thought and said on the general subject of novels and novel reading, all must admit, that “Henry, Earl Moreland,” is one of the most unexceptionable ever published. Wesley writes:
“I recommend it as the most excellent in its kind, that I have seen, either in the English or any other language. The lowest excellence therein is the style, which is not only pure in the highest degree, not only clear and proper, every word being used in its true genuine meaning, but frequently beautiful and elegant, and, where there is room for it, truly sublime. But what is of far greater value is the admirable sense, which is conveyed herein: as it sets forth in full view most of the important truths, which are revealed in the oracles of God. And these are not only well illustrated, but also proved in an easy, natural manner: so that the thinking reader is taught, without any trouble, the most essential doctrines of religion.
“But the greatest excellence of all in this treatise is, that it continually strikes at the heart. It perpetually aims at inspiring and increasing every right affection. And it does this, not by dry, dull, tedious precepts, but by the liveliest examples that can be conceived: by setting before your eyes one of the most beautiful pictures, that was ever drawn in the world. The strokes of this are so delicately fine, the touches so easy, natural, and affecting, that I know not who can survey it with tearless eyes, unless he has a heart of stone. I recommend it, therefore, to all those who are already, or desire to be, lovers of God and man.”
The whole of this is strictly accurate; and if this is not enough to justify Wesley in the eyes of faultfinders, like earthy John Easton, the task of doing so must be abandoned as a hopeless one. Besides, it may be added, that, if Wesley sinned, his successors copied his example; for, twenty-two years after Wesley’s death, the conference book-room published a fourth edition of the novel which Wesley first published in 1780.
4. “A Collection of Hymns for the use of the People called Methodists.” 12mo, 520 pages.
Up to this period, the hymns and the books used in Methodist congregations had been endlessly varying; now Wesley issued a book which, with slight alterations, has been used from that time to this; and prefixed the preface which has been read by millions; and from which, therefore, we must content ourselves with quoting only the concluding hint, which is far more needed now than even when first published.
“Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them; for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours: either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men.”
5. Wesley’s only other publication, in 1780, was his Arminian Magazine, 8vo, 683 pages. The work contains Goodwin’s Paraphrase on Romans ix.; an extract from Bird’s “Fate and Destiny, inconsistent with Christianity;” lives of Armelle Nicolas and Gregory Lopes; short accounts of Thomas Lee, Alexander Mather, John Haime, Thomas Mitchell, Thomas Taylor, Thomas Hanson, Thomas Hanby, and John Mason. There are about fifty valuable letters; and about seventy poetic pieces. Also Wesley’s “Thought on Necessity,” and “Thoughts upon Taste.”
To enlarge concerning these is superfluous. The volume was quite equal to the former ones; though Wesley confesses, that the portraits were not yet such as he desired; and declares, that he will have better, or none at all.
FOOTNOTES:
Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 295.
Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 352.
As a specimen of popish jesuitry, it may be added, that O’Leary’s Remarks upon Wesley’s Letter were first printed in six successive numbers of the Freeman’s Journal; but were afterwards reprinted in London with the following title, “Mr. O’Leary’s Remarks on the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Letter in Defence of the Protestant Associations in England, to which are prefixed Mr. Wesley’s Letters.” This was a popish deception, intended, no doubt, to cast upon Wesley the odium incurred by the Protestant Association during the Gordon riots. The truth is: (1) Wesley had not written more than a few lines in defence of the appeal of that Association. (2) His two replies to O’Leary, published in the Freeman’s Journal, were suppressed in O’Leary’s pamphlet. (3) A spurious letter was inserted, and palmed on the public as genuine, which Wesley declared was not his, and one which he had never seen before O’Leary printed it.—(Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 295.)
Methodist Magazine, 1853, p. 785.
Manuscript.
Methodist Magazine, 1853, p. 786.
Banning’s Memoirs (private circulation).
Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 379.
Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 327.
Minutes of Methodist Conferences in America.
Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 137.
Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 392.
Dr. Coke, a young man of thirty-three, displayed, at this period, a fussy officiousness, which scarcely redounded to his honour. He wrote to Bradburn, to the effect, that he suspected that he also was an Arian; though it was only four years before, that Thomas Taylor, at the London conference, had blamed Bradburn for “preaching too much on the Divinity of Christ, and for being too warm against the Arians.” (“Memoirs of Bradburn,” p. 225.) In an unpublished letter, addressed to Bradburn, and dated October, 1779, Wesley asks: “Is there any truth in the report that John Hampson has converted you to Arianism?”
Benson’s Life, by Macdonald, p. 108.
Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 137.
Manuscript letters.
Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 117.
Minutes, 1780.
Methodist Magazine, 1795, p. 268.
Wesley’s words were verified. At Monmouth Mr. Yewdall was mobbed by a bellowing rabble; but the society increased one third.
Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 10.
Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 395.
Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 189.
Wesley’s Works, vol. ix., p. 491.
Methodist Magazine, 1781, p. 185.
Everett’s Life of Clarke.
Ibid.
I am not quite sure of this. In 1780, a 12mo tract of 12 pages was published with the following title:—“Jesus, altogether Lovely: or, a Letter to some of the Single Women of the Methodist Society. London: Printed by R. Hawes; and sold at the New Chapel, in the City Road; and at the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Preaching Houses, in town and country. 1780.” The letter is dated, “Hoxton, March 10, 1763.” It enforces chastity, poverty, and obedience; and is written in a style strongly resembling Wesley’s.