FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

1784.

Age 81

Dr. Whitehead calls the year 1784 “the grand climacteric year of Methodism, because of the changes which now took place in the form of its original constitution. Not,” says he, “that these changes destroyed at once the original constitution of Methodism; but the seeds of its corruption and final dissolution were this year solemnly planted, and have since been carefully watered and nursed by a powerful party among the preachers.”⁠ The doctor was an able man; but he can scarcely be called a prophet. Of course, he refers to Wesley’s deed of declaration, and Wesley’s ordination of bishops for America; both of which must have due attention, before we conclude the present year.

Wesley himself, according to his own correspondence, seemed to grow younger as he grew older. In a letter to “the Rev. Walter Sellon, at Ledsham, near Ferrybridge, Yorkshire,” and dated, “London, January 10, 1784,” he writes:

“On the 28th of last June, I finished my eightieth year. When I was young, I had weak eyes, trembling hands, and abundance of infirmities. But, by the blessing of God, I have outlived them all. I have no infirmities now, but what I judge to be inseparable from flesh and blood. This hath God wrought. I am afraid you want the grand medicine which I use,—exercise and change of air.”⁠

On the same day, he wrote another letter, now also, like the former, for the first time published. Methodism had recently been introduced, by a company of soldiers, into the Channel islands; and Mr. Robert Carr Brackenbury, with his servant, Alexander Kilham, had gone to promote its interests. The letter was addressed, “Robert Carr Brackenbury, Esq., in St. Heliers, Isle of Jersey.”

“London, January 10, 1784.

“Dear Sir,—While those poor sheep were scattered abroad, without any shepherd, and without any connection with each other, it is no wonder that they were cold and dead. I am glad you have gathered a few of them together, and, surely, if prayer be made concerning it, God will provide you with a convenient place to meet in. Perhaps an application to the gentlemen, who have hired the ballroom, might not be without success.

“’Tis pity but you had the ‘Earnest Appeal’ to present to the governor, as well as the minister. I trust both you and our newly connected brethren will overcome evil with good. We can easily print the rules here, and send them down with some other books. ’Tis good that every one should know our whole plan. We do not want any man to go on blindfold. Peace be with your spirit!

“I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend,

“J. Wesley.”

The first two months of 1784 were chiefly spent in London, with the exception of a flying visit to Colchester, and another to Nottingham; Wesley’s errand to the last mentioned place being to “preach a charity sermon for the general hospital.” He had a grand covenant service in City Road chapel, attended by upwards of eighteen hundred people. He took counsel with the London preachers, as to the desirability of the Methodists sending missionaries to India. He read “Orlando Furioso,” and says, “Ariosto had, doubtless, an uncommon genius, and subsequent poets have been greatly indebted to him; yet, it is hard to say, which was the most out of his senses, the hero or the poet. He has not the least regard even to probability; his marvellous transcends all conception. Who, that is not himself out of his senses, would compare Ariosto with Tasso?”

On the 1st of March, the venerable Wesley,—as agile as a boy, above fourscore years of age, and yet reading the Italian poet with all the zest of a youth still at school,—set out on a seven months’ journey, first to Bristol, then to Scotland, then to Leeds, then through Wales to the west of England, and then to London, which he reached on October 9. With a hasty step, we must try to follow him.

Wesley, as opportunity permitted, “intermeddled with all wisdom,” and, to the end of life, showed, that a man is never too old to learn. At Bradford, in Wiltshire, he says: “I was convinced of two vulgar errors; the one, that nightingales will not live in cages; the other, that they only sing a month or two in the year. Samuel Rayner has now three nightingales in cages; and they sing almost all day long, from November to August.”

At Stroud, he wrote: “Here, to my surprise, I found the morning preaching was given up, as also in the neighbouring places. If this be the case while I am alive, what must it be when I am gone? Give up this, and Methodism too will degenerate into a mere sect, only distinguished by some opinions and modes of worship.”

Wesley considered, that preaching at five o’clock in the morning was the healthiest exercise in the world; and probably he was not far from being right. But besides this, these early matutinal services had now, for five-and-forty years, been one of the things which made the Methodists “a peculiar people,” as well as “zealous of good works.” No other church or community, in England, had a service like this. It was a religious ordinance which Wesley dearly loved. In thousands of instances, he and his friends had proved the words, “Those that seek Me early shall find Me.” No wonder then, that he evinced alarm when he found the Methodists giving up the morning services. Three weeks after he was at backslidden Stroud, he came to Chester, and expressed himself in the strongest terms on this subject. He writes:

“I was surprised, when I came to Chester, to find that there also morning preaching was quite left off, for this worthy reason: ‘Because the people will not come, or, at least, not in the winter.’ If so, the Methodists are a fallen people. Here is proof. They have ‘lost their first love’; and they never will or can recover it, till they ‘do the first works.’ As soon as I set foot in Georgia, I began preaching at five in the morning; and every communicant, that is, every serious person in the town, constantly attended throughout the year; I mean, came every morning, winter and summer, unless in the case of sickness. They did so till I left the province. In the year 1738, when God began His great work in England, I began preaching at the same hour, winter and summer, and never wanted a congregation. If they will not attend now, they have lost their zeal; and then, it cannot be denied, they are a fallen people. And, in the meantime, we are labouring to secure the preaching houses to the next generation! In the name of God, let us, if possible, secure the present generation from drawing back to perdition! Let all the preachers, that are still alive to God, join together as one man, fast and pray, lift up their voice as a trumpet, be instant, in season, out of season, to convince them that are fallen; and exhort them instantly to ‘repent, and do the first works’: this in particular,—rising in the morning, without which neither their souls nor bodies can long remain in health.”

Perhaps this was looking at the thing too seriously. That early morning service is highly profitable cannot reasonably be called in question; but, that it should begin at the hour of five may fairly be disputed. Early risers are persons to be envied; they breathe the purest air, listen to the sweetest songs, and have promptings to worship God that the sluggard never feels.

At Tewkesbury, Wesley had to correct the “impropriety of standing at prayer, and sitting while singing praise.” At Worcester, he “preached, to a crowded audience, in St. Andrew’s church.” At Madeley, he preached twice in the parish church, revised the vicar’s letters to Dr. Priestley, and declared, that there was hardly another man in England, so fit to encounter the great Socinian philosopher as his friend from the mountains of Switzerland. At Stafford, he preached, to “a small company, in a deplorable hole, formerly a stable.” At Lane End, near Newcastle under Lyne, in the face of one of the most piercing winds of the month of March, he preached, by moonlight, in the open air, the congregation being four times larger than the chapel could contain. At Burslem, also, for the same reason, he was obliged to abandon the chapel for the field. At Manchester, on Easter Sunday, he had “near a thousand communicants”; Thomas Taylor says, twelve hundred.⁠

Thus he employed himself all the way to Whitehaven, where he “had all the church ministers” to hear him, “and most of the gentry in the town”; and, to his evident surprise, “they all behaved with as much decency as if they had been colliers.” At Edinburgh, he writes: “I am amazed at this people. Use the most cutting words, and apply them in the most pointed manner, still they hear, but feel no more than the seats they sit upon.” Throughout Scotland, morning preaching and prayer-meetings had almost vanished. “At Aberdeen,” he writes, “I talked largely with the preachers, and showed them the hurt it did both to them and the people, for any one preacher to stay six or eight weeks together in one place. Neither can he find matter for preaching every morning and evening, nor will the people come to hear him. Hence, he grows cold by lying in bed, and so do the people. Whereas, if he never stays more than a fortnight together in one place, he may find matter enough, and the people will gladly hear him. The preachers immediately drew up such a plan for this circuit, which they determined to pursue.”

From Aberdeen, Wesley went, by invitation, to Lady Banff’s at Old Meldrum, where he preached twice; and thence to Keith, where he had a congregation to his heart’s content, all the people poor, and “not a silk coat among them.” At Forres, he was the guest of Sir Lodowick Grant. In making his way to Inverness, by the mistake of his coachman, he had to trudge, through heavy rain, twelve miles and a half on foot, but says, he “was no more tired” than when he first set out. At Elgin, he preached in the church, and significantly remarks: “I do not despair of good being done even here, provided the preachers be ‘sons of thunder.’” At Newburgh, he found “the liveliest society in the kingdom.” At Melval House, “the grand and beautiful seat of Lord Leven,” he was hospitably entertained by the countess and her family, and, at their desire, preached from, “It is appointed unto men once to die.” Here, also, he wrote his “Thoughts on Nervous Disorders.” His next halting place was at Lady Maxwell’s, “who appeared to be clearly saved from sin, although exceedingly depressed by the tottering tenement of clay.”

After thus visiting most of the important towns in Scotland, Wesley reached Newcastle, where, on Whitsunday, he preached thrice to large congregations. A week later, he again set out, on his unwearied mission; and, at Stockton, “found an uncommon work of God among the children,” upwards of sixty of whom, from the age of “six to fourteen, were under serious impressions, and earnestly desirous to save their souls.” He writes: “As soon as I came down from the desk, I was enclosed by a body of children; all of whom sunk down upon their knees: so I kneeled down myself, and began praying for them.” Beautiful picture this, well worth painting! No wonder that he adds: “abundance of people ran back into the house. The fire kindled, and ran from heart to heart, till few, if any, were unaffected. Is not this a new thing in the earth? God begins His work in children. Thus it has been also in Cornwall, Manchester, and Epworth. Thus the flame spreads to those of riper years; till at length they all know Him, and praise Him from the least unto the greatest.”

Having visited the “dales,” Darlington, Northallerton, Thirsk, Osmotherley, and other places, he made his way to Whitby, where he wrote: “The society here may be a pattern to all in England. They despise all ornaments but good works, together with a meek and quiet spirit. I did not see a ruffle, no, nor a fashionable cap among them; though many of them are in easy circumstances. About forty had a clear witness of being saved from inbred sin; and seemed to walk in the full light of God’s countenance.”

At Scarborough, Wesley attended church, and was regaled with one of the bitterest sermons he ever heard. “So,” says he, “all I have done, to persuade the people to attend the church, is overturned at once! And all who preach thus will drive the Methodists from the church, in spite of all that I can do.” Two years after this, in a letter to his brother, he wrote: “The last time I was at Scarborough, I earnestly exhorted our people to go to church; and I went myself. But the wretched minister preached such a sermon, that I could not in conscience advise them to hear him any more.”⁠

From Scarborough, Wesley proceeded along the east coast to Hull; thence to Pocklington and York; and thence to Epworth, where he spent his birthday, and preached in the market place of the town, whose church, for nine-and-thirty years, had been blessed with the able and faithful ministry of his honoured father. He writes: “June 28—To-day I entered on my eighty-second year, and found myself just as strong to labour, and as fit for any exercise of body or mind, as I was forty years ago. I do not impute this to second causes, but to the sovereign Lord of all. It is He who bids the sun of life stand still, so long as it pleaseth Him. I am as strong at eighty-one, as I was at twenty-one; but abundantly more healthy, being a stranger to the headache, toothache, and other bodily disorders which attended me in my youth. We can only say, ‘The Lord reigneth!’ While we live, let us live to Him!”

Having spent a week in visiting the Lincolnshire societies, Wesley proceeded to various towns in the west riding of Yorkshire; and thence, for the first time, to Burnley. He writes: “Burnley had been tried for many years, but without effect. Now, high and low, rich and poor, flocked together from all quarters; and all were eager to hear, except one man, who was the town crier. He began to bawl amain, till his wife ran to him, and literally stopped his noise; she seized him with one hand, and clapped the other upon his mouth, so that he could not get out one word. God then began a work, which, I am persuaded, will not soon come to an end.” Wesley’s words were verified.

Thomas Dixon, who was appointed to the Colne circuit in 1784, remarks, in his unpublished diary: “The work of God at Burnley was very young; but many, during this year, were converted. The great men of the place were angry, and agreed to banish the Methodist preachers from the town. The proprietor of the preaching house sent us notice to quit the premises; and the rest of the gentlemen pledged themselves not to let us have another. But about a month before the expiration of the notice, the Lord converted a man, who had a house of his own, which he opened to the preachers; and now we had a better preaching place than we had before. Soon after a chapel was erected.” One of the first members was John Eagin, who, for fifty years, maintained an unspotted character; and died, in 1836, saying, “I am happy.”⁠

Leaving Burnley, Wesley went to Otley, where, marvellous to relate! he had a two days’ rest. He then, on July 18, preached twice in Bingley church, a great part of his congregation being obliged to stand outside. He writes: “Before service, I stepped into the Sunday-school, which contains two hundred and forty children, taught every Sunday by several masters, and superintended by the curate. So many children, in one parish, are restrained from open sin, and taught a little good manners, at least, as well as to read the Bible. I find these schools springing up wherever I go. Perhaps God may have a deeper end therein, than men are aware of. Who knows but some of these schools may become nurseries for Christians?”

This is Wesley’s first notice of Sunday-schools. Though such schools had long existed in a few isolated cases, it was not until now that they attracted public attention. Miss Ball’s Methodist Sunday-school at High Wycombe has been already mentioned; and it has also been stated, that Miss Cooke, a Methodist young lady (afterwards the wife of Samuel Bradburn), was the first to suggest to Robert Raikes the idea of instituting a Sunday-school at Gloucester. Raikes commenced that school about the year 1783. At all events, his account of it was dated Gloucester, June 5, 1784, and was published in the January number of Wesley’s Arminian Magazine, for 1785, with the title, “An Account of the Sunday Charity Schools, lately begun in various parts of England.” Wesley was one of the first to catch and patronise the Sunday-school idea. At Bingley, he visited the school before preaching in the church, and gave to Sunday-schools one of their happiest designations, “nurseries for Christians.” Similar institutions had been begun in Leeds, where Wesley was about to hold his conference. The town was already divided into seven divisions; and had twenty-six schools, containing above two thousand scholars, taught by forty-five masters. Each school commenced at one o’clock in the afternoon, the children being taught reading, writing, and religion. At three, they were taken to their respective churches; then conducted back to school, where a portion of some useful book was read, a psalm sung, and the whole concluded with a form of prayer, composed and printed for that purpose. Boys and girls were kept separate. There were four “inquisitors,” persons whose office it was to spend Sunday afternoon in visiting the twenty-six schools, to ascertain who were absent, and then in seeking the absentees at their homes or in the public streets. The masters were mostly pious men, and were paid from one to two shillings a Sunday for their services, according to their respective qualifications. Each had a written list of his scholars’ names, which he was required to call over, every Sunday, at half-past one, and half-past five. Five clergymen visited the schools, and gave addresses; and the expenses of the first year, ending in July 1784, were about £234.

Such were the Sunday-schools at Leeds when Wesley, for the first time, visited one in the neighbouring town of Bingley. Manchester also had taken up Raikes’ Methodist idea; and, on the 1st of August, 1784, Wesley’s old friend, the Rev. Cornelius Bayley, D.D., who for ten years had been one of the masters of Kingswood school, but was now an ordained clergyman in this important city, published an “Address to the Public on Sunday-Schools,” in which he gave an account of the schools at Leeds, and urged the men of Manchester to copy so excellent an example. Bayley’s address produced a powerful effect; the magistrates patronised his scheme; and the result was, that Cornelius Bayley, D.D., the quondam Methodist, and master of Wesley’s Kingswood school, became one of the chief, though not only, instruments of establishing Sunday-schools in Manchester and its neighbourhood.⁠

After visiting some of the intermediate towns and villages, Wesley arrived at Leeds, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. He writes:

“July 25, Sunday—I preached to several thousands at Birstal, and to, at least, as many at Leeds. July 27, Tuesday—​Our conference began; at which four of our brethren, after long debate (in which Mr. Fletcher took much pains) acknowledged their fault, and all that was past was forgotten. July 29, Thursday—​Being the public thanksgiving day, as there was not room for us in the old church, I read prayers, as well as preached, at our room. Having five clergymen to assist me, we administered the Lord’s supper, as was supposed, to sixteen or seventeen hundred persons. August 1, Sunday—​We were fifteen clergymen at the old church. August 3, Tuesday—​Our conference concluded in much love, to the great disappointment of all.”

Such are Wesley’s brief notices of this momentous conference. Some additional incidents must be added. The war of American independence was now ended, and the day of public thanksgiving had reference to that event. In the morning, at five, Thomas Hanby preached from, “My grace is sufficient for thee.” Wesley’s text, previous to the almost unparalleled sacramental service, was 1 Corinthians xiii. 1–4. The five clergymen who assisted him were Messrs. Coke, Fletcher, Dillon, Bayley, and Simpson. In the afternoon, the business of the conference was resumed; and, at night, Wesley preached again, taking as his text, “This is the first and great commandment.” Altogether, Wesley preached not fewer than eight times during this important session, besides regulating the ticklish and difficult business that had to be transacted.⁠

The “long debate,” which Wesley mentions, had reference to the deed of declaration, which must now have the best attention that space permits us to give it.

At an early period of his history, Wesley published a model deed for the settlement of chapels, to the effect, that the trustees, for the time being, should permit Wesley himself and such other persons as he might, from time to time, appoint, to have the free use of such premises, to preach therein God’s holy word. In case of his death, the same right was secured to his brother; and providing that his brother’s decease occurred before that of William Grimshaw, the same prerogatives were to belong to the last mentioned. After the death of the three clergymen, the chapels were to be held, in trust, for the sole use of such persons as might be appointed at the yearly conference of the people called Methodists, provided, that the said persons preached no other doctrines than those contained in Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament, and in his four volumes of sermons.⁠

Thus the matter stood in 1784. According to Myles’ Chronological History, there were, at this time, in the United Kingdom, three hundred and fifty-nine Methodist chapels; and it may be fairly presumed, that most of these were settled substantially according to the provisions of the deed above mentioned.

Here it may be asked, what necessity was there for a further deed? The answer is, that, as yet, there was no legal definition of what was meant by the term “conference of the people called Methodists.” To supply this defect, Wesley, on the 28th of February, 1784, executed his famous deed of declaration, which, a few days afterwards, was enrolled in the high court of chancery. To use the language of the deed itself, its object was “to explain the words, ‘yearly conference of the people called Methodists,’ and to declare what persons are members of the said conference, and how the succession and identity thereof is to be continued.”

The document proceeds to state, that the said conference had always consisted of Methodist preachers whom Wesley had annually invited to meet him for the following purposes: namely, to advise with him for the promotion of the gospel of Christ; to appoint the said preachers, and other preachers and exhorters in connection with him, to the use and enjoyment of chapels conveyed upon trust as aforesaid; to expel unworthy preachers; and to admit others on probation.

The deed then gives the names and addresses of one hundred preachers, who are now declared to be the members of the said conference; and proceeds to state (1) That they and their successors, for the time being for ever, shall assemble once a year. (2) That the act of the majority shall be the act of the whole. (3) That their first business, when they assemble, shall be to fill up vacancies. (4) That no act of the conference assembled shall be valid unless forty of its members are present. (5) That the duration of the yearly conference shall not be less than five days, nor more than three weeks. (6) That, immediately after filling up vacancies, they shall choose a president and secretary of their assembly out of themselves. (7) That any member of the conference, absenting himself from the yearly assembly thereof for two years successively, without the consent or dispensation of the conference, and who is not present on the first day of the third yearly assembly thereof, shall forthwith cease to be a member, as though he were naturally dead. (8) That the conference shall and may expel any member thereof, or any person admitted into connection therewith, for any cause which to the conference may seem fit or necessary. (9) That they may admit into connection with them any person, of whom they approve, to be preachers of God’s holy word, under the care and direction of the conference. (10) That no person shall be elected a member of the conference, who has not been admitted into connection with the conference, as a preacher, for twelve months. (11) That the conference shall not appoint any person to the use of a chapel or chapels, who is not either a member of the conference, or admitted into connection with the same, or upon trial; and that no person shall be appointed for more than three years successively, except ordained ministers of the Church of England. (12) That the conference may appoint the place of holding the yearly assembly thereof, at any other town, or city, than London, Bristol, or Leeds. (13) That the conference may, when it shall seem expedient, send any of its members as delegates to Ireland, or other parts out of the kingdom of Great Britain, to act on its behalf, and with all the powers of the conference itself. (14) That all resolutions and acts whatsoever of the conference shall be written in the journals of the conference, and be signed by the president and secretary thereof for the time being. (15) That whenever the conference shall be reduced under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced for three years successively; or whenever the members thereof shall decline or neglect to meet together annually during the space of three years, the conference of the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and all its powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease. (16) That nothing in this deed shall extinguish or lessen the life estate of the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, in any of the chapels in which they now have, or may have, any estate or interest, power or authority whatsoever.

Such was Wesley’s deed of declaration,—a deed recognised in the trust deeds of all the chapels that Methodism builds; and, hence, a deed investing a hundred Methodist preachers with the unexampled power of determining, irrespective of trustees, societies, and congregations, who shall be the officiating ministers in the thousands of chapels occupied by Methodist societies at home and abroad, throughout the United Kingdom and throughout the world. We repeat, this is an unexampled power; and the ministers, invested with it, ought to feel, that they have a corresponding responsibility to God and to His church. High is the honour; the responsibility is fearful. If Methodism should ever fail in its duty, or fall to pieces, they, above all men else, must bear the blame.

We purposely refrain from raising the vexed question about the kind of church government, involved in this great settlement; and proceed to notice the history of the deed of declaration, up to the time of its being signed on February 28, 1784.

Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, states that, from the year 1750, all Methodist chapels were settled according to the provisions of the model deed that has been already mentioned; but several of the “wisest and best preachers” were not satisfied, and, from time to time, brought up the matter at the yearly conferences, and earnestly urged Wesley to do something more to preserve the chapels for the purpose which the original builders intended. Wesley replied, that the trust deed in itself was quite sufficient; that it had been drawn up by three of the most eminent counsellors in London; and that, even supposing there might be some defect in it, no one would be so mad as to go to law with an entire body of people like the Methodists. Such reasoning failed to satisfy the preachers, especially Messrs. Hampson and Oddie, both of whom, says Pawson, “were men of remarkably deep understanding and sound judgment.” At length, Wesley began to yield to the pressure that was brought upon him; and various schemes were propounded to accomplish the purpose upon which men like Hampson and Oddie had set their hearts. One was to consolidate all the chapels in the connexion into a general trust, the trustees to be chosen out of all the large societies throughout the three kingdoms. Another was to have all the chapel deeds brought to London, and deposited in a strong box, to be provided for the purpose; and, in execution of this project, many were actually sent, and some were thereby lost. All this occurred previous to Dr. Coke’s uniting himself with Wesley; and, from Pawson’s testimony, we now turn to that of Coke.

In his “Address to the Methodist Society in Great Britain and Ireland, on the Settlement of Preaching Houses,” Coke relates that, at the conference of 1782, the preachers seemed to be universally alarmed at the danger arising from the want of a legal definition of what was meant by the term, “the conference of the people called Methodists”; and unanimously wished some method to be taken to remove a danger which appeared to them to be pregnant with evils of the first magnitude. In consequence of this, Coke took the opinion of Mr. Maddox, one of the first counsel of the day, and ascertained, that the law would not recognise the conference, without some further definition; and, consequently, that there was nothing to preserve the Methodist connexion from being shivered into a thousand fragments after Wesley’s death. To prevent this, Mr. Maddox advised, that Wesley should execute a deed, specifying the persons by name who composed the conference, together with the mode of succession for its perpetuity. Dr. Coke read Mr. Maddox’s opinion to the conference of 1783; and the whole conference expressed their wish that such a deed should be drawn up and executed. Coke immediately set to work, and, with the assistance of Mr. Clulow, a solicitor, and Mr. Maddox, the barrister, a draft of the deed was carefully prepared, and submitted to Wesley for his approval. Coke’s opinion was, that every preacher, in full connexion, should have his name inserted; and that admission into full connexion should, in the future, be looked upon as admission into membership with the conference. Wesley demurred to this, and determined to limit the number of members to one hundred, and, without any advice from Coke, made his own selections. In this form, the deed was executed; and Coke sent copies of it to all the assistants of circuits throughout the United Kingdom.⁠

We believe that this is, substantially, all that can be said respecting the origin of what has been termed Methodism’s Magna Charta.

What was the result? There were, at the conference of 1783, one hundred and ninety-two preachers appointed to sixty-nine circuits, throughout the three kingdoms. We have no hesitancy in saying, that we think it would have been wise to have inserted the names of the whole of these in the deed of declaration, with the exception of twenty-two, who were still on trial, and not admitted into full connexion. All seemed to have an equal right to this; and, thereby, all would have been satisfied. Instead of this, Wesley proceeded to the invidious task of selecting a hundred, and rejecting ninety-two. It was a perilous experiment; and the peril was augmented by the mode in which the experiment was made. For instance, sixteen were elected who had travelled less than four years; whereas among the rejected were the following.

Thomas Lee

travelled

36

years.

John Atlay

”

21

”

Joseph Thompson

”

25

”

John Poole

”

25

”

William Ashman

”

19

”

Jonathan Hern

”

15

”

William Eels

”

12

”

Thomas Mitchell

”

36

”

Joseph Pilmoor

”

19

”

Besides, where was the fairness of choosing and refusing the following preachers, who, at the time, were colleagues in the same circuit?

Wesley doubtless had a right to make any selection that he liked; but those who were not selected had an equal right to grumble; and we are not surprised that, sooner or later, not fewer than nearly thirty of the rejected withdrew from the connexion altogether.

John Pawson writes:

“Mr. Wesley, designedly or otherwise, left out the names of several of the old and respectable preachers; and these good men were exceedingly grieved and not without reason. Many of the trustees also were alarmed, thinking that we wished to make the chapels our own property; but nothing of the kind was ever contemplated. The one design of the deed, to my certain knowledge, was to prevent any preacher, who might be inclined to settle, from taking possession of any of our chapels. The preachers, whose names were inserted in the deed, so far from being desirous to be distinguished above their brethren, very cheerfully complied with Mr. Wesley’s desire, and gave up every privilege granted to them in the deed, except that of electing their own president and secretary, which appears to me to be a matter of little consequence.”⁠

There can be no question, that the deed of declaration occasioned great excitement. John Hampson, jun., says:

“Every itinerant had always considered himself as a member of conference; and, hence, when the ninety-one, who were to be excluded, saw the deed, it was with astonishment and indignation. The injustice of the thing stared them in the face; and they found that, in consenting to such a deed, they had consented, that all the affairs of the connexion should be lodged in the hundred mentioned in the declaration; that they should be the lords and rulers of the rest; and should have it in their power to turn any other preacher out of the conference, and tell him he had no business there. The exclusion itself was both an iniquitous and a mortifying measure. But the partiality of it rendered it still more oppressive. Some of the oldest and ablest preachers, in the connexion, were excluded. Many of the selected members were not only deficient in abilities, but some of them, at the time of their insertion in the deed, were only upon trial; while the chief qualifications of others were ignorance, fanaticism, and ductility. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder if the persons excluded thought themselves aggrieved. They were really so, and they made no scruple to declare their sentiments. They sent circular letters, inviting all the preachers to canvass the business at the ensuing conference; and a large number assembled. Many of them were as averse to the deed, as those who had so decidedly opposed it, and had repeatedly execrated the measure, both by letter and in conversation; but they had not the courage to avow their sentiments in conference. Mr. Wesley made a speech, and invited all who were of his mind to stand up. They all rose to a man. The five were found guilty, and it was unanimously determined, that they should either make concessions or be dismissed. Urged by the entreaties of Mr. Fletcher, and anxious for the restoration of peace, the preachers in the opposition apologised to Mr. Wesley, for printing the circular letter, without having first appealed to conference.”⁠

Such, in substance, and omitting acrid comments, is the account given by John Hampson, jun.; and there can be little doubt that, in the main, it is quite correct. The printed circular he mentions was issued by his father, and was entitled, “An Appeal to the Reverend John and Charles Wesley; to all the preachers who act in connection with them; and to every member of their respective societies in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America.”⁠ Another circular was drawn up by James Oddie, in the form of a petition to Wesley and the legalised conference, to the effect, that the preachers, whose names had been inserted in the deed, would sign an agreement that, at the death of Wesley, they would refrain from taking any advantage of their position, but would invite the excluded to their first conference, and would treat them, in all respects, as equals. This was first suggested by Robert Oastler, of Thirsk; and was widely circulated, and received with favour;⁠ and, perhaps, it was this that evoked the following letter, which was written on April 7, 1785, and entrusted to Joseph Bradford, to deliver to the conference, at their first meeting after the writer’s death.

“My dear Brethren,—Some of our travelling preachers have expressed a fear, that, after my decease, you would exclude them, either from preaching in connection with you, or from some other privileges which they now enjoy. I know no other way to prevent any such inconvenience, than to leave these my last words with you.

“I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you never avail yourselves of the deed of declaration, to assume any superiority over your brethren; but let all things go on, among those itinerants who choose to remain together, exactly in the same manner as when I was with you, so far as circumstances will permit.

“In particular, I beseech you, if you ever loved me, and if you now love God and your brethren, to have no respect of persons in stationing the preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood school, in disposing of the yearly contribution and the preachers’ fund, or any other of the public money; but do all things with a single eye, as I have done from the beginning. Go on thus, doing all things without prejudice or partiality, and God will be with you even to the end.

“John Wesley.”

This was a serious crisis in the history of Methodism. Fortunately, it passed over without any other immediate consequences than the retirement of the five principal opponents to the deed of declaration, namely, the two Hampsons, Joseph Pilmoor, William Eels, and John Atlay. Considerable excitement, however, existed; and, in the spring of 1785, Wesley found it desirable to write his “Thoughts upon some late Occurrences.” He gives the history of the origin of his conferences; and states that the term conference meant not so much conversation, as the persons that conferred, that it had become necessary to define the term, and that, at the conference of 1783, he had been requested to fix the determinate meaning of the word. He accordingly took counsel’s opinion how to act, and was advised to execute a deed of declaration. At first, he thought of naming only ten or twelve; but, on second thoughts, he believed there would be more safety in a greater number of counsellors, and, therefore, named a hundred; as many as, he judged, could meet without too great expense, and without leaving any circuit without preachers while the conference assembled. He adds:

“In naming these preachers, as I had no adviser, so I had no respect of persons; but I simply set down those that, according to the best of my judgment, were most proper. But I am not infallible. I might mistake, and think better of some than they deserved. However, I did my best; if I did wrong, it was not the error of my will, but of my judgment.

“This was the rise, and this the nature, of that famous deed of declaration,—that vile, wicked deed, concerning which you have heard such an outcry! And now, can any one tell me how to mend it, or how it could have been made better? ‘O yes. You might have inserted two hundred, as well as one hundred, preachers.’ No; for then the expense of meeting would have been double, and all the circuits would have been without preachers. ‘But you might have named other preachers instead of these.’ True, if I had thought as well of them as they did of themselves. But I did not: therefore, I could do no otherwise than I did, without sinning against God and my own conscience.

“‘But what need was there for any deed at all?’ There was the utmost need of it; without some authentic deed fixing the meaning of the term, the moment I died, the conference had been nothing. Therefore, any of the proprietors of the land on which our preaching houses were built might have seized them for their own use; and there would have been none to hinder them; for the conference would have been nobody, a mere empty name.

“You see then, in all the pains I have taken about this absolutely necessary deed, I have been labouring, not for myself (I have no interest therein), but for the whole body of Methodists; in order to fix them upon such a foundation as is likely to stand as long as the sun and moon endure. That is, if they continue to walk by faith, and to show forth their faith by their works; otherwise, I pray God to root out the memorial of them from the earth.

“John Wesley.

“Plymouth Dock, March 3, 1785.”

We have done. All the facts, within our knowledge, have been given. The reader must form his own opinion. Comment would be easy; but we purposely refrain; only adding, that, by Wesley’s famous deed of declaration, the Methodist conference became a legally incorporated institution; and that, without this, the Methodist itinerancy must have ceased, and Methodism itself have been broken up into congregational churches.

We must now advert to another matter, which, if not of equal, was of great importance, namely, the episcopal organisation of the Methodist societies in America. This has been the subject of bewildering controversy for more than eighty years. Wesley and Coke have been bitterly assailed, and as warmly defended. We will narrate the facts as simply and briefly as we can.

During the American war, which was now ended, the American Methodists had multiplied with marvellous rapidity. In 1774, they numbered 2073; in 1784, they were 14,988; showing an increase of 12,915. They had 46 circuits, and 83 itinerant, besides some hundreds of local, preachers.⁠ All these, so far as the sacraments were concerned, were as sheep without shepherds. Some of the clergymen of the Church of England had taken military commissions in the army; others were destitute of both piety and sense; and nearly all opposed and persecuted the Methodists to the utmost of their power. Bishop White testified, that “the Church of England was becoming more and more unpopular,—with some, because it was not considered as promoting piety,—and with others, because they thought the provision for it a useless burden on the community.” At the termination of the revolutionary struggle, says Dr. Hawks, himself a clergyman, “a large number of the churches in Virginia were destroyed or irreparably injured; twenty-three of her ninety-five parishes were extinct or forsaken; and of the remaining seventy-two, thirty-four were destitute of ministerial services; while of her ninety-eight clergymen, only twenty-eight remained.” The Rev. Mr. Jarratt, another clergyman of the Church of England, stated, that “most of the clergy preached what was little better than deism,” and were bitter revilers and persecutors of those who preached the truth.⁠

Under these circumstances, the Methodists demanded of their preachers the administration of the sacraments. Many of the societies had been months, some of them years, without these sacred ordinances. Five years before this, in 1779, the preachers in the south proceeded to ordain themselves by the hands of three of their senior members, unwilling that their people should longer be denied the Lord’s supper, and their children and probationary members the rite of baptism. Asbury was greatly annoyed at this, and, a year afterwards, with difficulty succeeded in persuading them to suspend the administration of the sacraments till further advice could be received from Wesley.⁠ Asbury wrote to Wesley, telling him of the greatness of the work, and of the division that had taken place in Virginia, on account of the people’s uneasiness respecting the sacraments. Thousands of their children were unbaptized, and the members of the societies, in general, had not partaken of the Lord’s supper for many years.⁠ “Dear sir,” says he, on March 20, 1784, “we are greatly in need of help. A minister, and such preachers as you can fully recommend, will be very acceptable. Without your recommendation, we shall receive none. But nothing is so pleasing to me, sir, as the thought of seeing you here; which is the ardent desire of thousands more in America.”⁠

Wesley’s going was impossible. He had tried (as we have already seen) to induce Bishop Lowth to ordain a minister, and had failed. What else remained? He thought of Dr. Coke, who replied as follows.

“Near Dublin, April 17, 1784.

“Honoured and very dear Sir,—I intended to trouble you no more about my going to America; but your observations incline me to address you again on the subject.

“If some one, in whom you could place the fullest confidence, and whom you think likely to have sufficient influence and prudence and delicacy of conduct for the purpose, were to go over and return, you would then have a source of sufficient information to determine on any points or propositions. I may be destitute of the last mentioned essential qualification (to the former I lay claim without reserve); otherwise my taking such a voyage might be expedient.

“By this means, you might have fuller information concerning the state of the country and the societies than epistolary correspondence can give you; and there might be a cement of union, remaining after your death, between the societies and preachers of the two countries. If the awful event of your decease should happen before my removal to the world of spirits, it is almost certain, that I should have business enough, of indispensable importance, on my hands in these kingdoms.

“I am, dear sir, your most dutiful and most affectionate son,

“Thomas Coke.”

This is a curiously expressed letter; but if it means anything, it means, that if Wesley would be good enough to think and say, that Coke had “sufficient influence, and prudence, and delicacy of conduct,” he was willing to become Wesley’s envoy to the American Methodists.

Here the matter rested, until the assembling of the conference at Leeds. Mr. Pawson, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, relates, that ordination was first proposed by Wesley himself in his select committee of consultation. Pawson was a member, and was present. He writes: “The preachers were astonished when this was mentioned, and, to a man, opposed it. But I plainly saw that it would be done, as Mr. Wesley’s mind appeared to be quite made up.”

Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey were appointed to America; and, six days after the conference concluded, Coke wrote to Wesley as follows.

“August 9, 1784.

“Honoured and dear Sir,—The more maturely I consider the subject, the more expedient it appears to me, that the power of ordaining others should be received by me from you, by the imposition of your hands; and that you should lay hands on brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for the following reasons: (1) It seems to me the most scriptural way, and most agreeable to the practice of the primitive churches. (2) I may want all the influence, in America, which you can throw into my scale. Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he would not receive any person, deputed by you, with any part of the superintendency of the work invested in him; or words which evidently implied so much. I do not find the least degree of prejudice in my mind against Mr. Asbury; on the contrary, I find a very great love and esteem; and am determined not to stir a finger without his consent, unless necessity obliges me; but rather to be at his feet in all things. But, as the journey is long, and you cannot spare me often, it is well to provide against all events; and I am satisfied that an authority, formally received from you, will be fully admitted; and that my exercising the office of ordination, without that formal authority, may be disputed, and perhaps, on other accounts, opposed. I think you have tried me too often to doubt, whether I will, in any degree, use the power you are pleased to invest me with, farther than I believe absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work.

“In respect of my brethren Whatcoat and Vasey, it is very uncertain whether any of the clergy, mentioned by brother Rankin, except Mr. Jarratt, will stir a step with me in the work; and it is by no means certain, that even he will choose to join me in ordaining; and propriety and universal practice make it expedient, that I should have two presbyters with me in this work. In short, it appears to me, that everything should be prepared, and everything proper be done, that can possibly be done, on this side the water. You can do all this in Mr. C——n’s house, in your chamber; and afterwards, (according to Mr. Fletcher’s advice,) give us letters testimonial of the different offices with which you have been pleased to invest us. For the purpose of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and Vasey, I can bring Mr. Creighton down with me, by which you will have two presbyters with you.

“In respect to brother Rankin’s argument, that you will escape a great deal of odium by omitting this, it is nothing. Either it will be known, or not known. If not known, then no odium will arise; but if known, you will be obliged to acknowledge, that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to sink under the weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the head of them. I shall entreat you to ponder these things.

“Your most dutiful, Thomas Coke.”

Would it not seem from this, that Wesley had no idea of ordaining any one himself; but, that he intended Coke, who, as a presbyter of the same church, had coequal power, to go out to America for that purpose? There can be no question, that there is force in Dr. Whitehead’s critique, that “Dr. Coke had the same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that Mr. Wesley had to ordain Dr. Coke.” Wesley, we think, never intended doing this; but, at Coke’s request, he acquiesced.

Of his power to ordain others, Wesley had no doubt. Nearly forty years before this, he had been convinced, by Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church, “that bishops and presbyters are of one order.” In 1756, he wrote: “I still believe the episcopal form of church government, to agree with the practice and writings of the apostles; but, that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of, ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon.’ I think he has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor His apostles prescribe any particular form of church government; and that the plea of Divine right, for diocesan episcopacy, was never heard of in the primitive church.”⁠ Again, in 1761, in a letter to a friend, he repeated, that Stillingfleet had fully convinced him, that to believe that none but episcopal ordination was valid “was an entire mistake.”⁠ And again, in 1780, he shocked the high church bigotry of his brother, by declaring, “I verily believe I have as good a right to ordain, as to administer the Lord’s supper.”⁠

His right to ordain, then, was no new assumption of Wesley, adopted in his old age, or in his imbecility, as some of his critics have alleged. It was a firm conviction of forty years’ standing.

Besides, there was another fact, which might have some influence with him, but which none of his biographers have noticed. The Methodists, under the care of the Countess of Huntingdon, stood in the same relation to the Church of England that the Methodists under Wesley did. They varied, not dissented, from the Church. Recently, however, there had been a formal and avowed secession. Many of Lady Huntingdon’s chapels were supplied by ordained clergymen, and, among others, a large building in Spafields, previously known as the Pantheon. This edifice stood in the parish of Clerkenwell, of which the Rev. William Sellon was minister. Mr. Sellon claimed the right of appointing ministers and clerks to the Spafields chapel; also the right of himself to officiate within its walls as often as he liked. He further demanded the sum of £40 a year, in consideration of his permitting two of the Countess’s preachers to occupy the said chapel; also all the sacramental collections; and four collections yearly, for the benefit of the children of the charity school of Clerkenwell parish; and, finally, that, for the due performance of these demands, the proprietors should sign a bond for £1000.

Of course, the proprietors refused to comply with such demands. Mr. Sellon then instituted a suit in the consistorial court of the Bishop of London, and cited the Revs. Messrs. Jones and Taylor, the officiating clergymen, and both of them ordained, to answer for their irregularity in preaching in a place not episcopally consecrated, and for carrying on Divine worship there, contrary to the wish of the minister of the parish. Verdicts were obtained against them. The question was then removed to the ecclesiastical courts; and was again decided against the ministers of the countess, and in favour of Mr. Sellon, who obtained the name of Sanballat.

This was a momentous matter. Hitherto, Romaine, Venn, and others had preached for the countess; but now, as ordained clergymen, in danger of prosecution, they had to withdraw their services; and some of the most important chapels were left without supplies. The crisis was serious. The countess took counsel with her friends; and, at length, it was determined, that Messrs. Wills and Taylor should formally secede from the Church of England, and should take upon themselves to ordain others: both of them had received episcopal ordination themselves, both were scholars and able preachers, and Mr. Wills had married Miss Wheeler, the countess’s niece. Accordingly, these two ministers issued an address to the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, stating that, because they could not, as clergymen of the Established Church, continue preaching to their present congregations, without “knowingly and wilfully opposing the Church’s laws,” they had resolved to secede peaceably, and to put themselves under the protection of the Toleration Act.

Here then was a formal Methodist secession from the Established Church. But more than this: on March 9, 1783, these two seceding clergymen began to do what Wesley did eighteen months afterwards,—they held their first ordination. This was in Spafields chapel. The service commenced at 9 a.m., and lasted about seven hours. The names of the six young men, then set apart to the Christian ministry, were Thomas Jones, Samuel Beaufoy, Thomas Cannon, John Johnson, William Green, and Joel Abraham Knight. During the service, Mr. Wills addressed the congregation, and assigned his reasons for believing that he had the right to ordain, namely, that presbyters and bishops were the same order, and that, as he and Mr. Taylor had been ordained presbyters, they had really been ordained bishops, and had as much right to ordain others as any bishop in the land.⁠

Wesley was acquainted with all this, though he never mentions it. For aught he knew, an action might be commenced against himself and the other clergymen preaching in City Road, West Street, and elsewhere, similar to that which had been successfully prosecuted against the Countess of Huntingdon’s preachers at Spafields. It was time to look about. He held exactly the same views respecting presbyters and bishops that had been publicly avowed by Messrs. Wills and Taylor; and now, in September 1784, reduced them to practice by proceeding to Bristol, and there ordaining Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey.

Passing by the ordinations of Whatcoat and Vasey, which involve no difficulty except Wesley’s churchmanship, the ordination of Coke is a perplexing puzzle. Coke had been already ordained a deacon and a priest of the Church of England; and, hence, his ministerial status was the same as Wesley’s. What further ordination was needed? Wesley intended none; but Coke wished it.

Wesley was the founder and father of the Methodists. There were 15,000 in America whom he had never seen. In no sense were these members of the Church of England; for, at the termination of the war, no state church was recognised. What were they? Not presbyterians, not Dissenters, not quakers, not anything, except simple Methodists. They were without sacraments. They wished to have them. As Christians, they had a right to them. But who was to administer? Common sense would have said, the men by whose preaching they had been converted; but here priestly prejudice stepped in, and forbad men, whom God had called to preach, to administer the sacraments, until episcopal or presbyterian hands had been put upon them. Things were brought into a dead lock. The question was, are the Methodist preachers in America to administer the sacraments without ordination? Or shall Wesley or some one else go from England to give them ordination? Wesley, a man of action, decided to send Coke, and Coke consented; but, before starting, he wished to have an additional ordination himself. What was that ordination to be? The only one possible was this. Wesley was the venerable father of the 15,000 Methodists in America. He was not able to visit them himself; but sends them Dr. Coke. The doctor pretends, that it is more than possible, that some of the American preachers and societies will refuse to acknowledge his authority. To remove this objection, Wesley, at Bristol, in a private room, holds a religious service, puts his hands upon the head of Coke, and, (to use his own words,) sets him apart as a superintendent of the work in America, and gives him a written testimonial to that effect. This was all that Wesley did, and all that Wesley meant; but we greatly doubt whether it was all that the departing envoy wished.

With the highest respect for Dr. Coke, and his general excellences, it is no detraction to assert, that he was dangerously ambitious, and that the height of his ambition was a desire to be a bishop. Some years after this, Coke, unknown to Wesley and Asbury, addressed a confidential letter to Dr. White, bishop of the protestant episcopal church of Pennsylvania, which, if it meant anything, meant that he would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the English Church, on condition that he himself was ordained to be their bishop. In 1794, he secretly summoned a meeting, at Lichfield, of the most influential of the English preachers, and passed a resolution, that the conference should appoint an order of bishops, to ordain deacons and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member of the prelatical brotherhood. And again, it is a well known fact, that, within twelve months of his lamented death, he wrote to the Earl of Liverpool, stating that he was willing to return most fully into the bosom of the Established Church, on condition, that his royal highness the Prince Regent, and the government, would appoint him their bishop in India. These are unpleasant facts; which we would rather have consigned to oblivion, had they not been necessary to vindicate Wesley from the huge inconsistency of ordaining a coequal presbyter to be a bishop. Wesley meant the ceremony to be a mere formality likely to recommend his delegate to the favour of the Methodists in America: Coke, in his ambition, wished, and intended it to be considered as, an ordination to a bishopric. This will be clear as we proceed farther. The following are the “letters testimonial,” which Coke asked to have.

“To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late Fellow of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth greeting.

“Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, according to the usage of the same Church; and whereas there does not appear to be any other way of supplying them with ministers:

“Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be providentially called, at this time, to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry in America. And, therefore, under the protection of almighty God, and with a single eye to His glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers,⁠) Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four.

“John Wesley.”

“Bristol, September 10, 1784.

“To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America.

“By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces of North America are totally disjoined from the mother country, and erected into independent states. The English government has no authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the congress, partly by the provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation, some thousands of the inhabitants of these states desire my advice, and, in compliance with their desire, I have drawn up a little sketch.

“Lord King’s account of the primitive church convinced me, many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years, I have been importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused; not only for peace sake, but because I was determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the national church to which I belonged.

“But the case is widely different between England and North America. Here there are bishops, who have a legal jurisdiction; in America there are none, neither any parish minister; so that, for some hundreds of miles together, there is none either to baptize, or to administer the Lord’s supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man’s rights, by appointing and sending labourers into the harvest.

“I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord’s supper. And I have prepared a liturgy, little differing from that of the Church of England, (I think the best constituted national church in the world,) which I advise all the travelling preachers to use on the Lord’s day, in all the congregations, reading the litany only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days. I also advise the elders to administer the supper of the Lord, on every Lord’s day.

“If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. At present, I cannot see any better method than that I have taken.

“It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object: (1) I desired the Bishop of London to ordain one, but could not prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. (3) If they would ordain them now, they would expect to govern them; and how grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our American brethren are now totally disentangled, both from the state and the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty, simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church. And we judge it best, that they should stand fast in that liberty, wherewith God has so strangely set them free.

“John Wesley.”

“These are the steps,” says Wesley in another place, “which, not of choice, but necessity, I have slowly and deliberately taken. If any one is pleased to call this separating from the Church, he may. But the law of England does not call it so; nor can any one properly be said so to do, unless, out of conscience, he refuses to join in the service, and partake of the sacraments administered therein.”⁠

Eight days after the date of the above letter, Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey set sail for America, where they arrived on November 3. A conference of nearly sixty preachers met in Baltimore on December 24. Three days later, Coke ordained Asbury; and the two then ordained a number of elders and deacons. Coke preached a sermon, which was published, with the title, “The Substance of a Sermon preached at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, before the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 27th of December, 1784, at the Ordination of the Rev. Francis Asbury to the office of Superintendent. By Thomas Coke, LL.D., Superintendent of the said Church. Published at the desire of the Conference.” 12mo, 22 pages.

The title is worth observing. Coke and Asbury are superintendents; the Methodist church is episcopal,—a church governed by bishops. The sermon begins with an onslaught on the Church of England in America. “The churches had, in general, been filled with the parasites and bottle companions of the rich and great. The humble and importunate entreaties, of the oppressed flocks, were contemned and despised. The drunkard, the fornicator, and the extortioner, triumphed over bleeding Zion, because they were faithful abettors of the ruling powers. But these intolerable fetters were now struck off; and the antichristian union, which before subsisted between church and state, was broken asunder.” Coke then proceeds to answer the question, “What right have you to exercise the episcopal office?” “To me,” says he, “the most manifest and clear. God has been pleased, by Mr. Wesley, to raise up, in America and Europe, a numerous society, well known by the name of Methodists. The whole body have invariably esteemed this man as their chief pastor, under Christ; and we are fully persuaded, he has a right to ordain. Besides, we have every qualification for an episcopal church, which that of Alexandria possessed for two hundred years; our bishops, or superintendents (as we rather call them), having been elected by the suffrages of the whole body of our ministers through the continent, assembled in general conference.”

This is scarcely conclusive reasoning, but it shows that, from the very first, Coke assumed, what Wesley never gave him, the title of a bishop. Five years later, in May, 1789, Coke and Asbury presented an address to Washington, the president of the United States, beginning with the words, “We, the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church”;⁠ and at the conference of the same year the first question asked was: “Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist church in Europe and America? Answer. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and succession.”⁠

This grandiloquent parade of office must not be ascribed to Wesley. He never sanctioned it; he positively condemned it. Besides, even allowing that Coke and Asbury had a right to designate themselves bishops of the Methodist churches in America, what was their authority for pronouncing Wesley the bishop of the Methodist church in Europe? They had none. It was an unwarrantable liberty taken with the name of a venerable man, who had censured the use of such an appellation, and whose humility and modesty Coke would have been none the worse for copying. As it was, Wesley was held up to ridicule, and made to suffer, on account of the episcopal ambition of his friends.

We have no fault to find with the American Methodists being called the Methodist Episcopal Church. They have the fullest right to such a designation if they choose to use it; but it was a name which Wesley never used; and to censure him for ordaining bishops is to censure him for what he never did. He ordained a superintendent; but he never thought to call him bishop. Hence the following to Asbury.

“London, September 20, 1788.

“... There is indeed a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Methodists; I am, under God, the father of the whole family. Therefore, I naturally care for you all in a manner no other person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for you all; for the supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide, were it not for me,—were it not that I not only permit him to collect, but also support him in so doing.

“But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid, both the doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little; you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school; you a college! nay, and call it after your own names!⁠ O, beware; do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and ‘Christ be all in all!’

“One instance of this, of your greatness, has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me bishop! For my sake, for God’s sake, for Christ’s sake, put a full end to this! Let the presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better.

“Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart. And let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

Coke, in his letter, dated August 9, 1784, mentions the “odium” which Wesley was likely to incur by the ordinations which he himself was soliciting; and, with a want of chivalry not to be commended, requests Wesley to acknowledge that the deed was all his own, otherwise Coke would “sink under the weight of his enemies, with Charles Wesley at the head of them.” The apprehension was not unfounded. Charles Wesley knew nothing of the ordinations in Bristol till they were over; but, of course, it was impossible to keep them secret; and great was the excitement which the revelation created. One of the preachers wrote:

“Ordination among Methodists! Amazing indeed! Surely it never began in the midst of a multitude of counsellors; and, I greatly fear, the Son of Man was not secretary of state, or not present, when the business was brought on and carried. Who is the father of this monster, so long dreaded by the father of his people, and by most of his sons? Whoever he be, time will prove him to be a felon to Methodism, and discover his assassinating knife sticking fast in the vitals of its body. Years to come will speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary of our religious madness for gowns and bands.”

Another wrote: “I wish they had been asleep when they began this business of ordination: it is neither episcopal nor presbyterian; but a mere hodge-podge of inconsistencies.”⁠

On April 28, 1785, Charles Wesley addressed a long letter to Dr. Chandler, an episcopal clergyman, who was about to embark for America, from which the following is an extract.

“I never lost my dread of separation, or ceased to guard our societies against it. I frequently told them: ‘I am your servant as long as you remain in the Church of England; but no longer. Should you forsake her, you would renounce me.’

“Some of the lay preachers very early discovered an inclination to separate, which induced my brother to print his ‘Reasons against Separation.’ As often as it appeared, we beat down the schismatical spirit. If any one did leave the Church, at the same time he left our society. For near fifty years, we kept the sheep in the fold; and, having filled the number of our days, only waited to depart in peace.

“After our having continued friends for above seventy years, and fellow labourers for above fifty, can anything but death part us? I can scarcely yet believe it, that, in his eighty-second year, my brother, my old, intimate friend and companion, should have assumed the episcopal character, ordained elders, consecrated a bishop, and sent him to ordain our lay preachers in America! I was then in Bristol, at his elbow; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention. How was he surprised into so rash an action? He certainly persuaded himself that it was right.

“Lord Mansfield told me last year, that ordination was separation. This my brother does not and will not see; or that he has renounced the principles and practice of his whole life; that he has acted contrary to all his declarations, protestations, and writings; robbed his friends of their boasting; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long as it shall be remembered!

“Thus our partnership here is dissolved, but not our friendship. I have taken him for better for worse, till death do us part; or, rather, reunite us in love inseparable. I have lived on earth a little too long, who have lived to see this evil day. But I shall very soon be taken from it, in stedfast faith, that the Lord will maintain His own cause, and carry on His own work, and fulfil His promise to His church, ‘Lo, I am with you always, even to the end!’

“What will become of these poor sheep in the wilderness, the American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a separation from the Church of England, which their preachers and they no more intended than the Methodists here! Had they had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real bishop in America, consecrated by three Scotch bishops, who have their consecration from the English bishops, and are acknowledged by them as the same with themselves. There is, therefore, not the least difference betwixt the members of Bishop Seabury’s⁠ church, and the members of the Church of England. He told me he looked upon the Methodists in America as sound members of the Church, and was ready to ordain any of their preachers whom he should find duly qualified. His ordination would be indeed genuine, valid, and episcopal. But what are your poor Methodists now? Only a new sect of presbyterians. And, after my brother’s death, which is now so near, what will be their end? They will lose all their influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain janglings; they will settle again upon their lees; and, like other sects of Dissenters, come to nothing.”⁠

Charles Wesley hints, that his brother was “surprised into the rash act” of ordaining. Perhaps he was; but did he afterwards regret it? In answering this question, we must use materials which properly belong to succeeding years.⁠

It is a fact, which cannot be denied, that, while Wesley himself was, to some extent, welcomed in Scotland, by the ministers of the kirk, the Methodists, in many instances, were substantially in the same position as the Methodists in America. There were, indeed, clergymen of the English Church in Scotland; but several of them absolutely refused to admit the Methodists to the sacraments, except on the condition that they would renounce all future connection with the Methodist ministry and discipline.⁠ There was, therefore, the same necessity to ordain for the one country as for the other. Accordingly, Wesley, in his journal, writes: “1785: August 1—Having, with a few select friends, weighed the matter thoroughly, I yielded to their judgment, and set apart three of our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland.” A year afterwards, at the conference of 1786, he ordained Joshua Keighley and Charles Atmore, for Scotland; William Warrener, for Antigua; and William Hammet, for Newfoundland. A year later, five others were ordained; in 1788, when Wesley was in Scotland, John Barber and Joseph Cownley received ordination at his hands; and, at the ensuing conference, seven others, including Alexander Mather, who was ordained to the office, not only of deacon and elder, but of superintendent. On Ash Wednesday in 1789, Wesley ordained Henry Moore and Thomas Rankin; and this, we believe, completes the list of those upon whom Wesley laid his hands. All these ordinations were in private; and many of them at four o’clock in the morning. Some of the favoured ones were intended for Scotland; some for foreign missions; and a few, as Mather, Moore, and Rankin, were employed in England. In most instances, probably in all, they were ordained deacons on one day; and, on the day following, received the ordination of elders, Wesley giving to each letters testimonial.⁠ Wesley justified his ordinations for Scotland thus.

“After Dr. Coke’s return from America, many of our friends begged I would consider the case of Scotland, where we had been labouring for many years, and had seen so little fruit of our labours. Multitudes, indeed, have set out well, but they were soon turned out of the way; chiefly by their ministers either disputing against the truth, or refusing to admit them to the Lord’s supper, yea, or to baptize their children, unless they would promise to have no fellowship with the Methodists. Many, who did so, soon lost all they had gained, and became more the children of hell than before. To prevent this, I, at length, consented to take the same step with regard to Scotland, which I had done with regard to America. But this is not a separation from the Church at all. Not from the Church of Scotland, for we were never connected therewith, any further than we are now: nor from the Church of England; for this is not concerned in the steps which are taken in Scotland. Whatever then is done in America, or Scotland, is no separation from the Church of England. I have no thought of this; I have many objections against it. It is a totally different case. ‘But for all this, is it not possible there may be such a separation after you are dead?’ Undoubtedly it is. But what I said at our first conference above forty years ago, I say still: ‘I dare not omit doing what good I can while I live, for fear of evils that may follow when I am dead.’”⁠

There is some force in this, so far as it regards Scotland. The Scotch Methodists never professed themselves to be members of the Church of England; in fact, they regarded that church almost with as much abhorrence as they cherished towards the Church of Rome. Hence the following extract from one of Pawson’s unpublished letters, dated “Edinburgh, October 8, 1785.”

“Dr. Coke intends to be with us on Sunday, the 23rd instant, when we are to have the sacrament again; but Mr. Wesley is against us having it in the Scotch form, and I am well satisfied our new plan will answer no end at all in Scotland, but will prove a hindrance to the work of God. The people generally hate the very name of Prayer-Book, and everything belonging to it, as they have always been taught to believe it a limb of antichrist, and very little better than the popish mass-book. Popery, prelacy, and all such things, they hold in the greatest detestation. They would soon tell us: ‘I dunna ken what you mean by these unca inventions. We belong to the gude old kirk of Scotland, and will not join with the whore of Babylon at all.’”

In reference to the English ordinations, Mr. Pawson writes:

“Mr. Wesley knew the state of the societies in England required such measures to be taken, or many of the people would leave the connexion; and had the preachers, after his death, only acted upon his plan, and quietly granted the people, who desired the sacraments, that privilege, no division would have taken place.⁠ He foresaw, that the Methodists would soon become a distinct body. He was deeply prejudiced against presbyterian, and as much in favour of episcopal, government. In order, therefore, to preserve all that is valuable in the Church of England among the Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather and Dr. Coke, bishops. These he undoubtedly designed should ordain others. Mr. Mather told us so at the Manchester conference, in 1791.⁠ I believe, Mr. Wesley’s first thought of ordaining arose out of the bishop of London refusing to ordain a preacher for America; but that he originally intended to ordain preachers for England is what I never could believe; and, with respect to Scotland, he often declared to me, and in the congregation at Edinburgh, that he was over persuaded to it. And, a few months before his death, he was so annoyed with Dr. Coke’s conduct, in persuading the people to depart from the original plan, that he threatened, in a letter, to have no more to do with him, unless he desisted from such a course of procedure.”⁠

We give this as we find it; and now turn to a deeply interesting correspondence between Wesley and his brother. Within a fortnight after the ordination of Pawson, Hanby, and Taylor, at the conference of 1785, and in which Wesley, Coke, and Creighton took part,⁠ Charles Wesley wrote to his brother as follows.

“Bristol, August 14, 1785.

“Dear Brother,—I have been reading over again your ‘Reasons against a Separation,’ printed in 1758, and your Works; and entreat you, in the name of God, and for Christ’s sake, to read them again yourself, with previous prayer, and stop, and proceed no farther, till you receive an answer to your inquiry, ‘Lord, what wouldst Thou have me to do?’

“Every word of your eleven pages deserves the deepest consideration; not to mention my testimony and hymns. Only the seventh I could wish you to read,—a prophecy which I pray God may never come to pass.

“Near thirty years, since then, you have stood against the importunate solicitations of your preachers, who have scarcely at last prevailed. I was your natural ally, and faithful friend; and, while you continued faithful to yourself, we two could chase a thousand.

“But when once you began ordaining in America, I knew, and you knew, that your preachers here would never rest till you ordained them. You told me, they would separate by-and-by. The doctor tells us the same. His Methodist episcopal church in Baltimore was intended to beget a Methodist episcopal church here. You know he comes, armed with your authority, to make us all Dissenters. One of your sons assured me, that not a preacher in London would refuse orders from the doctor.

“Alas! what trouble are you preparing for yourself, as well as for me, and for your oldest, truest, and best friends! Before you have quite broken down the bridge, stop, and consider! If your sons have no regard for you, have some regard for yourself. Go to your grave in peace; at least, suffer me to go first, before this ruin is under your hand. So much, I think, you owe to my father, to my brother, and to me, as to stay till I am taken from the evil. I am on the brink of the grave. Do not push me in, or embitter my last moments. Let us not leave an indelible blot on our memory; but let us leave behind us the name and character of honest men.

“This letter is a debt to our parents, and to our brother, as well as to you, and to

“Your faithful friend,

“Charles Wesley.”

Five days afterwards, Wesley replied as follows. The line of poetry was his brother’s.

“Plymouth, August 19, 1785.

“Dear Brother,—I will tell you my thoughts with all simplicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with me, well; if not, we can, as Mr. Whitefield used to say, agree to disagree.

“For these forty years, I have been in doubt concerning that question, What obedience is due to

‘Heathenish priests and mitred infidels’?

“I have, from time to time, proposed my doubts to the most pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But they gave me no satisfaction. Rather, they seemed to be puzzled as well as me.

“Obedience I always paid to the bishops, in obedience to the laws of the land. But I cannot see, that I am under any obligation to obey them further than those laws require.

“It is in obedience to these laws, that I have never exercised in England the power which, I believe, God has given me. I firmly believe, I am a scriptural επισκοπος, as much as any man in England, or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove. But this does in no wise interfere with my remaining in the Church of England, from which I have no more desire to separate than I had fifty years ago. I still attend all the ordinances of the Church, at all opportunities; and I constantly and earnestly advise all that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. Smyth pressed us to separate from the Church, he meant, ‘Go to church no more.’ And this was what I meant twenty-seven years ago, when I persuaded our brethren not to separate from the Church.

“But here another question occurs: ‘What is the Church of England?’ It is not all the people of England. Papists and Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of England, except papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a glorious church indeed! No; according to our twentieth article, a particular church is ‘a congregation of faithful people among whom the word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered.’ Here is a true logical definition, containing both the essence and the properties of a church. What then, according to this definition, is the Church of England? Does it mean all the believers in England (except the papists and Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly administered among them? I fear, this does not come up to your idea of the Church of England. Well, what more do you include in the phrase? ‘Why, all the believers that adhere to the doctrine and discipline established by the convocation under Queen Elizabeth.’ Nay, that discipline is well-nigh vanished away; and the doctrine both you and I adhere to.

“All these ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church,’ in this sense, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted at? I no more separate from it now than I did in 1758. I submit still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to ‘mitred infidels,’ I do, indeed, vary from them in some points of doctrine, and in some points of discipline (by preaching abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming societies); but not a hair’s breadth farther than I believe to be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high day of my blood is over. If you will go on hand in hand with me, do. But do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I might have done better. However, with or without help, I creep on; and as I have been hitherto, so I trust I shall always be,

“Your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

To this letter Charles Wesley returned the following reply.

“Marylebone, September 8, 1785.

“Dear Brother,—I will tell you my thoughts with the same simplicity. There is no danger of our quarrelling; for the second blow makes the quarrel; and you are the last man upon earth whom I would wish to quarrel with.

“That juvenile line of mine,

‘Heathenish priests, and mitred infidels,’

I disown, renounce, and with shame recant. I never knew of more than one ‘mitred infidel,’ and for him I took Mr. Law’s word.

“I do not understand what obedience to the bishops you dread. They have let us alone, and left us to act just as we pleased, for these fifty years. At present, some of them are quite friendly toward us, particularly toward you. The churches are all open to you; and never could there be less pretence for a separation.

“That you are a scriptural επισκοπος, or overseer, I do not dispute. And so is every minister who has the cure of souls. Neither need we dispute whether the uninterrupted succession be fabulous, as you believe; or real, as I believe; or whether Lord King be right or wrong.

“Your definition of the Church of England is the same in prose with mine in verse. By the way, read over my ‘Epistle,’ to oblige me, and tell me you have read it, and likewise your own ‘Reasons.’

“You write, ‘all these reasons against a separation from the Church, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted at? I no more separate from it than I did in the year 1758; I submit still to its bishops; I do indeed vary from them in some points of discipline; (by preaching abroad, for instance, praying extempore, and by forming societies’); (might you not add, and by ordaining?). ‘I still walk by the same rule I have done for between forty and fifty years; I do nothing rashly.’

“If I could prove your actual separation, I would not; neither wish to see it proved by any other. But do you not allow, that the doctor has separated? Do you not know and approve of his avowed design and resolution to get all the Methodists of the three kingdoms into a distinct, compact body? Have you seen his ordination sermon? Is the high day of his blood over? Does he do nothing rashly? Have you not made yourself the author of all his actions? I need not remind you, qui facit per alium facit per se.

“I must not leave unanswered your surprising question, ‘What then are you frighted at?’ At the doctor’s rashness, and your supporting him in his ambitious pursuits; at an approaching schism, as causeless and unprovoked as the American rebellion; at your own eternal disgrace, and all those frightful evils which your ‘Reasons’ describe.

“‘If you will go on hand in hand with me, do.’ I do go, or rather creep on, in the old way in which we set out together, and trust to continue in it, till I finish my course.

“‘Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I might have done better.’ When you took that fatal step at Bristol, I kept as close to you as close could be; for I was all the time at your elbow. You might certainly have done better, if you had taken me into your counsel.

“I thank you for your intention to remain my friend; herein my heart is as your heart; whom God hath joined let not man put asunder. We have taken each other for better for worse, till death do us—​part? No; but unite eternally. Therefore, in the love which never faileth, I am your affectionate friend and brother,

“Charles Wesley.”

Five days later, Wesley replied.

“September 13, 1785.

“Dear Brother,—I see no use of you and me disputing together; for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say, I separate from the Church; I say, I do not. Then let it stand.

“Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England than you do; and I find few exceptions to it.

“I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from covetousness. He has done nothing rashly, that I know; but he has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him of it. To publish, as his present thoughts, what he had before retracted, was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and will save as many souls as I can while I live, without being careful about what may possibly be when I die.

“I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London. You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly weaken your own.

“I am, etc.,

“John Wesley.”

Wesley failed to grapple with his brother’s question; or rather he declined. Charles’s point evidently was the same as Lord Mansfield’s,—“ordination was separation.” No doubt this was strictly accurate. Wesley was too keen sighted not to see it; but he was too much a churchman to acknowledge it. He felt himself unable to reply to his brother’s argument; and, therefore, really did not attempt to reply at all.

Two brief letters more, and then we quit the subject of ordination. Six days after the date of the above, Charles Wesley replied as follows.

“London, September 19, 1785.

“Dear Brother,—I did not say, you separate from the Church; but I did say, ‘If I could prove it, I would not.’

“That ‘sad truth’ is not a new truth; you saw it when you expressed in your ‘Reasons’ such tenderness of love for the unconverted clergy.

“Of your second Thomas Walsh we had better talk than write.

“How ‘confound their intellects’? how ‘weaken your hands’? I know nothing which I do to prevent the possible separation, but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to pray for the Church of England, and for you, while my breath remains in me!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“Charles Wesley.”

Again:

“Bristol, July 27, 1786.

“Dear Brother,—I cannot rest, living or dying, unless I deal as faithfully with you as I am persuaded you would deal with me, if you were in my place, and I in yours.

“I believe you have been too hasty in ordaining. I believe God left you to yourself in that matter, as He left Hezekiah, to show you the secret pride which was in your heart. I believe Lord Mansfield’s decisive words to me, ‘ordination is separation.’

“Thus I have discharged my duty to God and His church, and approved myself your faithful friend and affectionate brother,

“Charles Wesley.”

This is a long, and, we fear, a wearisome account of what, abstractedly considered, was a trivial thing. John Wesley’s preachers, being called of God, were as much ministers of Christ, and as much entitled to administer the sacraments of the church, without the imposition of his hands as with it. We raise no objection to the formality; we think it right, and, because of its solemnity, likely to be useful; but to contend that the thing itself is necessary, would be to condemn all the grand old Methodist preachers, who flourished from the year 1795, when their administration of sacraments was authorised by the Methodist conference, to the year 1836, when, for the first time, ordination by imposition of hands was solemnly enacted, and declared to be a “standing rule and usage in future years.”

This, however, is not the point in question. The right or wrong, of ordaining, is left to others to discuss. There can be no doubt that, as a minister of Christ, Wesley had as much right to ordain as any bishop, priest, or presbytery in existence; but he had no right to this as a clergyman of the Church of England; and, by acting as he did, he became, what he was unwilling to acknowledge, a Dissenter, a separatist from that church. Such was the opinion of Lord Mansfield; and such was the argument of Wesley’s brother. Wesley refused to acknowledge this; but, feeling the impossibility of the thing, he declined to attempt refuting it. With great inconsistency, he still persisted in calling himself a member of the Church of England;⁠ and, as will be seen, to the day of his death, told the Methodists that if they left the Church they would leave him. All things considered, this was not surprising; but it was absurd. Great allowance must be made for Wesley; but to reconcile Wesley’s practice and profession, in this matter, during the last seven years of his eventful life, is simply impossible.

Much space has been occupied with these recitals; but, remembering that no event, in Wesley’s history, has occasioned more controversy than his act of ordaining preachers, it became a duty to give all the facts concerning it within our knowledge.

We now return to the conference of 1784. As soon as its sessions ended, Wesley again set out on his evangelistic ramblings; and, two days afterwards, came to Shrewsbury, and preached a funeral sermon “in memory of good John Appleton.” John was a currier, and became a Methodist under circumstances somewhat peculiar, and which are worth relating.

While at Bristol, he happened to go into a church, where the minister preached a violent sermon, which he had already delivered in two other churches, against “the upstart Methodists.” Shortly after, he had to preach again in the church of St. Nicholas, but, while announcing his text, was suddenly seized with a rattling in his throat, fell backward against the pulpit door, rolled down the steps, was carried home, and died. Mr. Appleton was present, and was so greatly shocked with this event, that, when he returned to Shrewsbury, he took a house, in which he fitted up a room for religious service, and began to preach himself. In 1781, at his own expense, he built the Methodists a chapel, which Wesley opened. A more devoted Christian it would be difficult to find than good John Appleton. His labour, as a working currier, was hard; but, for many years, besides preaching every Sunday, he preached twice a week on the week days, and had full and attentive congregations. He died in the full triumph of faith on the 1st of May, 1784.⁠

From Shrewsbury, Wesley made his way, through Wales, to Bristol, which he reached on August 29, and where, a few days afterwards, he ordained Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey. The next month was spent in incessant preaching in the surrounding neighbourhood.

Here we pause to insert two of his remarkable letters: the first to Miss Bishop, the mistress of a boarding school; the second to the Right Hon. William Pitt, now in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and prime minister of England.

“Haverfordwest, August 18, 1784.

“My dear Sister,—It seems God Himself has already decided the question concerning dancing. He has shown His approbation of your conduct, by sending these children to you again. If dancing be not evil in itself, yet, it leads young women to numberless evils. And the hazard of these, on the one side, seems far to overbalance the little inconveniences, on the other. Therefore, thus much may certainly be said, you have chosen the more excellent way.

“I would recommend very few novels to young persons, for fear they should be desirous of more. Mr. Brooke wrote one more, beside the ‘Earl of Moreland,’ ‘The History of the Human Heart.’ I think, it is well worth reading, though it is not equal to his former production. The want of novels may be more than supplied by well chosen history: such as ‘The Concise History of England,’ ‘The Concise History of the Church,’ Rollin’s Ancient History, Hooke’s Roman History (the only impartial one extant), and a few more. For the elder and more sensible children, Malebranche’s ‘Search after Truth’ is an excellent French book. Perhaps, you might add Locke’s ‘Essay on the Human Understanding,’ with the remarks upon it in the Arminian Magazine. I had forgotten that beautiful book, ‘The Travels of Cyrus,’ whether in French or English.

“I always am your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

The letter to Pitt was one such as prime ministers seldom get.

“Bath, September 6, 1784.

“Sir,—Your former goodness, shown to Mr. Ellison,⁠ emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice an old friend, Lieutenant Webb.⁠

“On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North, his lordship was pleased to order him £100 a year. But as it has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in this, or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favour.

“Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by hinting a few things, which have been long upon my mind? If those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be forgiven and forgotten.

“New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money be produced by the old ones? For instance:

“1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know some towns which pay regularly seven or five pence. Nay, I know one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no help for this?

“2. As to the window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a hundred windows in his house, and he told me he paid for twenty.

“3. The same gentleman told me: ‘We have above one hundred men servants in this town, but not above ten are paid for.’

“4. I firmly believe, that, in Cornwall alone, the king is defrauded of half a million yearly in customs. What does this amount to in all Great Britain? Surely not so little as five millions.

“5. Servants of distillers inform me, that their masters do not pay for a fortieth part of what they distil. And this duty last year, (if I am rightly informed,) amounted only to £20,000. But have not the spirits distilled this year cost 20,000 lives of his majesty’s liege subjects? Is not then the blood of these men vilely bartered for £20,000? not to say anything of the enormous wickedness, which has been occasioned thereby; and not to suppose that these poor wretches have any souls! But, (to consider money alone,) is the king a gainer, or an immense loser? To say nothing of many millions of quarters of corn destroyed, which, if exported, would have added more than £20,000 to the revenue, be it considered, ‘Dead men pay no taxes,’ So that, by the death of 20,000 persons yearly, (and this computation is far under the mark,) the revenue loses far more than it gains.

“But I may urge another consideration to you. You are a man. You have not lost human feelings. You do not love to drink human blood. You are a son of Lord Chatham. Nay, if I mistake not, you are a Christian. Dare you then sustain a sinking nation? Is the God whom you serve able to deliver from ten thousand enemies? I believe He is. Nay, and you believe it. O, may you fear nothing but displeasing Him!

“May I add a word on another head? How would your benevolent heart rejoice, if a stop could be put to that scandal of the English nation, suicide!

“The present laws against it avail nothing; for every such murderer is brought in non compos. If he was a poor man, the jurors forswear themselves from pity. If he was rich, they hope to be well paid for it. So no ignominy pursues either the living or the dead, and self murder increases daily. But what help?

“I conceive this horrid crime might be totally prevented, and that without doing the least hurt to either the living or the dead. Do you not remember, sir, how the rage for self murder among the Spartan matrons was stopped at once? Would it not have the same effect in England, if an act of parliament were passed, repealing all other acts and appointing that every self murderer should be hanged in chains?

“Suppose your influence could prevent suicide by this means, you would do more service to your country than any prime minister has done these hundred years. Your name would be precious to all true Englishmen as long as England continued a nation. And, what is infinitely more, a greater Monarch than King George would say to you, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’ I earnestly commit you to His care, and am, sir, your willing servant,

“John Wesley.”

Methodism was established not only in America, but also in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, though neither of these countries found a place in the conference minutes till 1785. William Black, now a young man of twenty-four, had begun to pray and preach, and had witnessed the conversion of hundreds. Societies had been formed; and quarterly meetings held; and, for three years, Black had devoted himself wholly to the work of the ministry, without being formally recognised as one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers. He had encountered no ordinary difficulties in the prosecution of his work. The Rev. Henry Alline, a Calvinist preacher, had divided his societies, by sowing the seeds of antinomian error; and Methodist meetings had been illegally disturbed, and broken up, by English soldiers: but, in the midst of all, young Black courageously persevered. He applied to Wesley for assistance; and he himself expressed a wish to come to Kingswood school to fit himself more fully for the Christian ministry. During the year 1784, Wesley addressed to him the two following letters.

“Inverness, May 11, 1784.

“My dear Brother,—I am glad you have given a little assistance to our brethren at Halifax, and along the coast. There is no charity under heaven to be compared to this,—the bringing light to the poor heathens, that are called Christians, but, nevertheless, still sit in darkness and the shadow of death. I am in great hopes, that some of the emigrants, from New York, are really alive to God. And, if so, they will every way be a valuable acquisition to the province where their lot is now cast.

“There is no part of Calvinism or antinomianism which is not fully answered in some part of our writings; particularly in the ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.’ I have no more to do with answering books. It will be sufficient if you recommend, to Mr. Alline’s friends, some of the tracts that are already written. As to himself, I fear he is wiser in his own eyes than seven men that can render a reason.

“The work of God goes on with a steady pace in various parts of England. But, still, the love of many will wax cold, while many others are continually added to supply their place. In the west of England, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire, God still mightily makes bare His arm. He convinces many, justifies many, and many are perfected in love.

“My great advice to those who are united together, is, Let brotherly love continue! See that ye fall not out by the way! Hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

“London, October 15, 1784.

“My dear Brother,—A letter of yours, some time ago, gave me hopes of meeting you in England; as you seemed desirous of spending some time here, to improve yourself in learning. But, as you have now entered into a different state, I do not expect we shall meet in this world. But you have a large field of action where you are, without wandering into Europe. Your present parish is wide enough, namely, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I do not advise you to go any farther. In the United States, there are abundance of preacher. They can spare four preachers to you, better than you can spare one to them. If I am rightly informed, they have already sent you one or two; and they may afford you one or two more, if it please God to give a prosperous voyage to Dr. Coke and his fellow labourers. Does there not want a closer and more direct connection between you of the north, and the societies under Francis Asbury? Is it not more advisable, that you should have a constant correspondence with each other, and act by united counsels? Perhaps it is for want of this, that so many have drawn back. I want a more particular account of the societies in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I am not at all glad of Mr. Scurr’s intention to remove from Nova Scotia to the south. That is going from a place, where he is much wanted, to a place where he is not wanted. I think, if he got £10,000 thereby, it would be but a poor bargain; that is, upon the supposition, which you and I make, that souls are of more value than gold. Peace be with all your spirits!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

Wesley returned to London on October 9, and, nine days afterwards, set out on his usual visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. He then went off to Norfolk; and spent the rest of the year in London, and the surrounding counties. He had a long interview with Pascal Paoli, the great Corsican general. He visited convicts, under sentence of death, in Newgate, preached the condemned criminals’ sermon, forty-seven of these unhappy creatures being present, all in chains, and most of them in tears. Burglars broke into his house, in City Road. He met with Simeon, who had been with Fletcher at Madeley, and, for fifty-three years afterwards, was rector of Trinity church, Cambridge. Jottings like these might be multiplied; Wesley’s life was full of them. We conclude with an unpublished letter to Henry Moore, who was now at Dublin.

“London, November 4, 1784.

“My dear Brother,—I am glad you spoke freely to Mr. Collins. He is a good man, but not very adviseable. If he should declare open war in England, he will do little or no harm. Mr. Smyth will not be fond of him, if he preaches at Plunkett Street.⁠ There will not soon be a coalition between Arminianism and Calvinism. This we found even in Holland.

“If James Rogers and you keep to the Church still, a few, I doubt not, will follow your example. We made just allowance enough for leaving the Church at the last conference.

“I am, with kind love to Nancy, yours affectionately,

“John Wesley.”

Besides “The Sunday Service of the Methodists in America,” and a tract or two, Wesley published nothing, in 1784, except his Arminian Magazine. This was as racy and rich as ever. “The Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked” was continued from the previous volume, and run through the whole of this. Like its predecessors, it contained six original sermons by Wesley himself. In that on Dissipation, he expresses the startling opinion: “There is not, on the face of the earth, another nation so perfectly dissipated and ungodly as England; not only so totally without God in the world, but so openly setting Him at defiance. There never was an age, that we read of in history, since Julius Cæsar, since Noah, since Adam, wherein dissipation and ungodliness did so generally prevail, both among high and low, rich and poor.” In the sermon on Patience, he gives an interesting account of the way in which he was led to embrace the doctrine of Christian perfection; and observes that, in 1762, there were 652 members of the London society, who professed to have attained to this state of grace. That on the text, “We know in part,” is a marvellous production, such as none but a man like Wesley could have written. In the sermon on the “Wisdom and Knowledge of God,” as displayed in the history of the church, after giving one of his most interesting accounts of the rise of Methodism, he does not hide the fact, that many of the Methodist preachers and people had not been faithful. Speaking of the first preachers, he says, they “were young, poor, ignorant men, without experience, learning, or art; but simple of heart, devoted to God, full of faith and zeal, seeking no honour, no profit, no pleasure, no ease, but merely to save souls; fearing neither want, pain, persecution, nor whatever man could do unto them: yea, not counting their lives dear unto them, so they might finish their course with joy.” But in process of time, “several of the preachers increased in other knowledge; but not proportionably in the knowledge of God. They grew less simple, less alive to God, and less devoted to Him. They were less zealous for God, and consequently less active, less diligent in His service. Some of them begun to desire the praise of men, and not the praise of God only; some, to be weary of a wandering life, and to seek ease and quietness. Some began to fear the faces of men; to be ashamed of their calling; to be unwilling to deny themselves, to take up their cross daily, and endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Wherever these preachers laboured, there was not much fruit of their labours. Their word was not, as formerly, clothed with power; it carried with it no demonstration of the Spirit!” Weighty words these! especially as coming from an old man of more than eighty, one of the keenest observers of facts, himself the founder of Methodism, now nearly at the close of his remarkable career. And equally pungent are his remarks respecting the people. Referring to the causes of Methodist backslidings, he writes: “But of all the temptations, none so struck at the whole work of God, as the deceitfulness of riches; a thousand melancholy proofs of which I have seen, within these last fifty years. I have not known threescore rich persons, perhaps not half the number, during threescore years, who, as far as I can judge, were not less holy than they would have been, had they been poor. By riches, I mean not thousands of pounds; but any more than will procure the conveniences of life.” “Having gained and saved all you can, give all you can: else your money will eat your flesh as fire, and will sink you to the nethermost hell! O beware of laying up treasures upon earth! Is it not treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath? Lord! I have warned them: but if they will not be warned, what can I do more? I can only give them up unto their own hearts’ lusts, and let them follow their own imaginations! By not taking this warning, it is certain many of the Methodists are already fallen. Many are falling at this very time. And there is great reason to apprehend, that many more will fall, most of whom will rise no more!” If Wesley found it necessary to say this in 1784, what would he have said in 1871?

In the sermons, on Obedience to Parents, and Companionship with the Wicked, the reader will find most valuable advices, such as none but a long experienced casuist like Wesley has wisdom and confidence enough to give.

Further description of the Magazine, for 1784, is scarcely needed. The letters and the poetry are quite equal to those in the former volumes; the biographies are rich in Christian experience; the anecdotes quaint and instructive. Extracts from his “Natural Philosophy” are given in every number, and also from Bryant’s Ancient Mythology. Benson’s Letters on Polygamy run through the whole. The supernatural disturbances at Epworth parsonage are related; and, as if in anticipation of his own death, Wesley tells his readers, that, not “to lessen the honour of the house of God, or infect it with unwholesome vapours, he has left orders to bury his remains, not in the new chapel in City Road, but in the burying ground adjoining it;” and then, to show that “epitaphs ought to be prepared by persons who have some knowledge of grammatical and typographical accuracy; and not be left to illiterate relations, parish clerks, or stonemasons, to the great scandal of the nation in general, and of religion in particular,” he gives the following, taken from a tombstone in Arbroath churchyard.

“Here lyis Alexand Peter, present Town Treasurer of Arbroth, who died —— day January 1630.

FOOTNOTES:

Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 404.

Manuscript letter.

Manuscript diary.

Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 144.

Methodist Magazine, 1836, p. 397.

On Sunday, September 18,1870, the London Road Methodist Sunday-school, Manchester, removed from their somewhat dingy premises to a new and more commodious building, erected in Grosvenor Street East, and adjoining the Wesleyan chapel there. A card commemorative of the event was presented to each person joining in the day’s proceedings, with the following inscription: “London Road Wesleyan Sunday School, founded in 1785, by John Lancaster, and first conducted by him in a cellar at the corner of Travis Street. It was soon after removed to a room in Worsley Street, built specially for its accommodation, and there carried on until November 10, 1811, when it took possession of the then new schools, situated behind Borough Buildings, and there continued until this day, when it was again removed to the recently erected building adjoining the Grosvenor Street chapel, in commemoration of which event this card is presented to ——. Manchester, September 18, 1870.”

Methodist Magazine, 1845, pp. 12, 13.

Minutes of Conference, vol. i., p. 41.

Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 37.

Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

Hampson’s Life of Wesley.

Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 523.

Manuscript.

Myles’ History, p. 201.

Methodist Magazine, 1785, p. 269.

American minutes.

Bangs’ “Original Church of Christ,” p. 114.

Stevens’ History of Methodism, vol. ii., p. 212.

Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 326.

Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 682.

Manuscript letter.

Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 417.

Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 200.

Ibid. p. 223.

Ibid. vol. xii., p. 137.

“Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon;” and “Authentic Narrative of Primary Ordination in Spafields Chapel, 1784.”

The Rev. James Creighton was present; but Charles Wesley was not, though he was in Bristol at the time.—(Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 389.)

Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 66.

Methodist Magazine, 1785, p. 602.

Ibid. 1786, p. 677.

Coke’s Life, by Etheridge.

American minutes.

Cokesbury college, twice burned down.

Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 70.

Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 419.

Dr. Samuel Seabury was a missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. After the ratification of the treaty of peace, the American episcopal church felt it necessary, not to remain dependent on the good offices of a prelate residing in England, but to have bishops of its own. Accordingly, the clergy in Connecticut assembled in a voluntary convention, and elected Seabury. The election was easily accomplished; the consecration was more difficult. Seabury came to England, asking of the archbishops of the English Church a boon which, for a hundred and fifty years, had been asked in vain, namely, that episcopalians in America might have ordained bishops of their own. At the time, the see of Canterbury was vacant; and the archbishop of York was unable to take measures for the consecration of an American citizen, without the authority of parliament. A long delay was unavoidable, and, under the circumstances, Seabury proceeded to Scotland, where he applied for consecration to the bishops of the Scottish episcopal church. His application was granted, and he was solemnly ordained at Aberdeen, on November 14, 1784, by the bishops of Aberdeen, Ross, and Moray.—(Caswall’s American Church, p. 124.) This will explain the meaning of C. Wesley’s letter; but is it surprising that, amid all these changes, difficulties, and confusions, Wesley took upon himself to ordain deacons and presbyters for the abandoned Methodists of America?

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 392.

The Rev. James Creighton, in his reply to Bradburn’s pamphlet in 1793, affirms that Wesley repented, with tears, that he had ordained any of his preachers. He states, that he expressed his sorrow for this at the conference of 1789, and occasionally afterwards till his death. Creighton adds: “About six weeks before he died, he said, ‘The preachers are now too powerful for me.’” This must pass for as much as it is worth; James Creighton was a clergyman.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 382.

Manuscripts; also Methodist Magazine, 1867, p. 622.

Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 678.

Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

Manuscript letter.

Manuscript letter.

Pawson’s manuscript.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 394.

Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 50.

C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 398.

Ibid.

C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii, p. 398.

Methodist Magazine, 1867, p. 625.

Let us suppose John Hampson, not only to have formed societies, different from the Methodist societies, but also to have ordained local preachers to administer to them the sacraments; and let us suppose further, that, despite this, John Hampson still persisted in calling himself a Methodist: and we have a case analogous to that of Wesley. Under such circumstances, would Wesley have admitted Hampson’s claim to continued membership among the Methodists? We trow not; and yet this is exactly the sort of claim which he himself makes in reference to the Church of England.

Methodist Magazine, 1790, p. 636.

Methodist Magazine, 1807, p. 472; and Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.

Wesley’s nephew, an excise officer (Clarke’s “Wesley Family,” vol. ii., p. 273).

Commonly called Captain Webb.

Methodist Magazine, 1850, p. 161.

Black’s Memoirs, p. 112.

Black’s Memoirs, p. 126.

The Rev. Edward Smyth was about to become minister of Bethesda chapel, Dublin. The Rev. Brian Collins seems to have been in Dublin at the same time.

↑ Back to top