FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:

1788.

Age 85

Wesley had published, in the ten volumes of his Arminian Magazine already issued, forty-two original sermons by himself; and he now ascertained, that a clergyman, in the west of England, intended to reprint them in a separate form. Wesley had been frequently solicited to do this himself; but had as often answered, “I leave this for my executors.” Now, to prevent piracy, he determined to be his own republisher; and issued these invaluable discourses, with a few others, in four volumes, 12mo; to which he prefixed a preface, from which the following characteristic extract is taken.

“Is there need to apologise to sensible persons for the plainness of my style? A gentleman, whom I much love and respect, lately informed me, with much tenderness and courtesy, that men of candour made great allowance for the decay of my faculties; and did not expect me to write now, either with regard to sentiment or language, as I did thirty or forty years ago. Perhaps they are decayed; though I am not conscious of it. But is not this a fit occasion to explain myself concerning the style which I use from choice, not necessity? I could even now write as floridly and rhetorically as even the admired Dr. B——; but I dare not; because I seek the honour that cometh from God only. What is the praise of man to me, that have one foot in the grave, and am stepping into the land whence I shall not return? Therefore, I dare no more write in a fine style than wear a fine coat. But were it otherwise, had I time to spare, I should still write just as I do. I should purposely decline, what many admire, a highly ornamental style. I cannot admire French oratory; I despise it from my heart. Let those that please be in raptures at the pretty, elegant sentences of Massillon or Bourdaloue; but give me the plain nervous style of Dr. South, Dr. Bates, or Mr. John Howe; and, for elegance, show me any French writer who exceeds Dean Young, or Mr. Seed. Let who will admire the French frippery, I am still for plain sound English.

“I think a preacher or writer of sermons has lost his way, when he imitates any of the French orators; even the most famous of them; even Massillon or Bourdaloue. Only let his language be plain, proper, and clear; and it is enough. God Himself has told us how to speak, both as to the matter and manner: ‘If any man speak’ in the name of God, ‘let him speak as the oracles of God’; and if he would imitate any part of these above the rest, let it be the First Epistle of St. John. This is the style, the most excellent style, for every gospel preacher. And let him aim at no more ornament than he finds in that sentence, which is the sum of the whole gospel, ‘We love Him, because He first loved us.’”

Wesley’s journal for the first two months of 1788 is lost; but existing letters show, that the time was spent in London. The following have not hitherto been published; and, though brief, refer to two subjects of the highest interest,—Sunday-schools and cottage prayer-meetings. The first was addressed to Duncan Wright, who was now at Bolton; the second to William Simpson, at Stockton upon Tees.

“London, January 9, 1788.

“Dear Duncan,—You send me a comfortable account of the work of God in your circuit. I cannot doubt but a blessing redounds to you all for the sake of the poor children. I verily think, these Sunday-schools are one of the noblest specimens of charity, which have been set on foot in England since the time of William the Conqueror.

“If Michael Fenwick has a mind to go to Dumfries and assist Robert Dall, you may give him three guineas, which he must husband well. He may write to me from thence.

“I am, dear Duncan, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

“London, January 18, 1788.

“Dear Billy,—You did exceeding well to enlarge the number of prayer-meetings, and to fix them in serious courts. I do not know that any means of grace whatever has been more owned of God than this.

“It is not now, but at the time of conference, that children are received into Kingswood school.

“I am glad sister Moor has not forgotten me. I hope sister Middleton also thinks of me sometimes. You are welcome to the four volumes of sermons.

“I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

Charles Wesley was now dying. Long, loving, and faithful had been the friendship between the two brothers. Their opinions had often differed; but their affection had never failed. Their most serious difference had been on the subject of separation from the Church of England, ordinations, and the administration of the sacraments; but, even on these matters, Charles, while writing strongly, never wrote unbrotherly. His last letter, in our possession, on these disputed topics, is as follows.

“April 9, 1787.

“Dear Brother,—I served West Street chapel on Friday and Sunday. Next Saturday, I propose to sleep in your bed. Stand to your own proposal: ‘Let us agree to differ.’ I leave America and Scotland to your latest thoughts and recognitions; only observing now, that you are exactly right. Keep your authority while you live; and, after your death, detur digniori, or rather, dignioribus. You cannot settle the succession: you cannot divine how God will settle it. Have the people of —— given you leave to die, E. A. P. J.?⁠

“I am, etc.,

“C. Wesley.”

It would almost seem from this, that Charles was disposed to abandon his objections to the ordinations for America and Scotland; but, be that as it may, we have here some of his last thoughts respecting the Methodists. He evidently believed that, after his brother’s death, they would exist as a separated people, and he wished them to be governed by those of themselves who were worthiest.

Wesley loved his brother, and on February 18, 1788, addressed to him the following laconic note.

“Dear Brother,—You must go out every day, or die. Do not die to save charges. You certainly need not want anything as long as I live.

“John Wesley.”

Ten days after this, Wesley left London, for his long northern journey, saying: “If I see it again, well; if not, I pray God to raise up others, that will be more faithful and more successful in His work! I find, by an increase of years, (1) Less activity; I walk slower, particularly up hill: (2) My memory is not so quick: (3) I cannot read so well by candlelight. But, I bless God, that all my other powers of body and mind remain just what they were.”

A month later, Wesley’s brother had entered into rest. They had parted, not to meet again till they met in heaven. Wesley, however, thought that his brother might recover. Hence the following, written on March 2.

“Dear Brother,—Many inquire after you, and express much affection, and desire of seeing you. In good time! You are first suffering the will of God. Afterwards, He has a little more for you to do: that is, provided you now take up your cross, (for that it frequently must be,) and go out, at least, an hour in a day. I would not blame you, if it were two or three. Never mind expense. I can make that up. You shall not die to save charges. Peace be with all your spirits!

“John Wesley.”

Three days later he wrote again.

“March 5, 1788.

“Dear Brother,—I hope you keep to your rule, of going out every day, although it may sometimes be a cross. Keep to this but one month, and I am persuaded you will be as well as you were at this time twelve-month. Adieu!

“John Wesley.”

Here, with one exception, epistolary correspondence between the two brothers ceased. Charles was too feeble to continue it, and his daughter became his substitute. In reply to one of her letters, Wesley wrote as follows.

“Bristol, March 7, 1788.

“My dear Sally,—When my appetite was entirely gone, so that all I could take at dinner was a roasted turnip, it was restored in a few days, by riding out daily, after taking ten drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water. It is highly probable, this would have the same effect in my brother’s case. But, in the mean time, I wish he would see Dr. Whitehead. I am persuaded there is not such another physician in England; although, to confound human wisdom, he does not know how to cure his own wife.

“He must lie in bed as little as possible in the daytime; otherwise it will hinder his sleeping at night.

“Now, Sally, tell your brothers from me, that their tenderly respectful behaviour to their father, (even to asking his pardon, if in anything they have offended him,) will be the best cordial for him under heaven. I know not but they may save his life thereby. To know nothing will be wanting, on your part, gives great satisfaction to, my dear Sally,

“Yours very affectionately,

“John Wesley.”

To Samuel Bradburn, now stationed in London, Wesley addressed the following hitherto unpublished letter.

“Bristol, March 13, 1788.

“Dear Sammy,—With regard to my brother, I advise you: (1) Whether he will or no, (at least, if not done already,) carry Dr. Whitehead to him. (2) If he cannot go out, and yet must have exercise or die, persuade him to use —— twice or thrice a day, and procure one for him. (3) I earnestly advise him to be electrified; not shocked, but only filled with electric fire. (4) Inquire if he has made his will, though I think it scarcely possible he should have delayed it.

“The tunes, which brother Rhodes left with you, should be immediately printed in the cheap form. Kind love to Sophy.

“I am, dear Sammy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“J. Wesley.”

Four days later, Wesley wrote his last letter to his brother.

“Bristol, March 17, 1788.

“Dear Brother,—I am just setting out on my northern journey, but must snatch time to write two or three lines. I stand and admire the wise and gracious dispensations of Divine providence! Never was there before so loud a call to all that are under your roof. If they have not hitherto sufficiently regarded either you, or the God of their fathers, what is more calculated to convince them, than to see you so long hovering upon the borders of the grave? And, I verily believe, if they receive the admonition, God will raise you up again. I know you have the sentence of death in yourself: so had I more than twelve years ago. I know nature is utterly exhausted: but is not nature subject to His word? I do not depend upon physicians, but upon Him that raiseth the dead. Only let your whole family stir themselves up, and be instant in prayer; then I have only to say to each, ‘If thou canst believe, thou shalt see the glory of God!’ Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might. Adieu!

“John Wesley.”

Another letter must be inserted, written three days after the above, to his niece, Miss Wesley.

“Worcester, March 20, 1788.

“My dear Sally,—Mr. Whitefield had, for a considerable time, thrown up all the food he took. I advised him to slit a large onion across the grain, and bind it warm on the pit of his stomach. He vomited no more. Pray apply this to my brother’s stomach, the next time he eats.

“One in Yorkshire, who was dying for want of food, as she threw up all she took, was saved by the following means: Boil crusts of white bread to the consistence of a jelly; add a few drops of lemon juice, and a little loaf sugar; take a spoonful once or twice an hour. By all means, let him try this.

“If neither of these avail, (which I think will not be the case,) remember the lady at Paris, who lived several weeks without swallowing a grain, by applying thin slices of beef to the stomach.

“But, above all, let prayer be made continually; and, probably, he will be stronger after this illness than he has been these ten years. Is anything too hard for God? On Sunday I am to be at Birmingham; on Sunday sennight, at Madeley. My dear Sally, adieu!

“John Wesley.”

Nine days after this, on March 29, Charles Wesley died. It is a curious incident, that Wesley, at the time, was preaching in Shropshire, and (as was afterwards ascertained) he and his congregation, at the very moment of his brother’s exit, were singing:

Samuel Bradburn, the assistant in the City Road circuit, immediately dispatched a letter to Wesley, informing him of his brother’s death; but, in consequence of its being misdirected, it failed to reach him till April 4, the day before the burial. Wesley was at Macclesfield, and to get to London in time for the funeral was impossible. Hence the following letter to the bereaved widow.

“Macclesfield, April 4, 1788.

“Dear Sister,—Half an hour ago, I received a letter from Mr. Bradburn, informing me of my brother’s death. For eleven or twelve days before, I had not one line concerning him. The last I had was from Charles, which I delayed to answer, expecting every day to receive some further information. We have only now to learn that great lesson, ‘The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!’ If it had been necessary, in order to serve either him or you, I should not have thought much of coming up to London. Indeed, to serve you, or your dear family, in anything that is in my power, will always be a pleasure to, dear sister, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

Wesley had no disposition to tell the deep sorrows of his heart; but that he severely felt the departure of his brother, there can be no question. A fortnight afterwards, when at Bolton, he attempted to give out, as his second hymn, the one beginning with the words, “Come, O Thou Traveller unknown”; but when he came to the lines,⁠—

the bereaved old man sunk beneath emotion which was uncontrollable, burst into a flood of tears, sat down in the pulpit, and hid his face with his hands. The crowded congregation well knew the cause of his speechless excitement; singing ceased; and the chapel became a Bochim. At length, Wesley recovered himself, rose again, and went through a service which was never forgotten by those who were present at it.⁠

Wesley intended to write his brother’s life, and began to collect materials for it; but his other engagements were too numerous to admit of the fulfilment of his purpose. The following is the obituary published in the conference minutes.

“Mr. Charles Wesley, who, after spending fourscore years with much sorrow and pain, quietly retired into Abraham’s bosom. He had no disease; but, after a gradual decay of some months,

‘The weary wheels of life stood still at last.’

His least praise was his talent for poetry; although Dr. Watts did not scruple to say, that that single poem, ‘Wrestling Jacob,’ was worth all the verses he himself had written.”

This is not the place, nor indeed have we room for it, to write a critique on the life and character of this remarkable man. It would be easy to give the opinions of those who knew him,—Whitehead, Moore, Coke, Bradburn, Clarke, and Pawson,—some in favour, and others to the contrary. Suffice it to say, that, had he done nothing more than furnish the Methodists, and the church of Christ generally, with his incomparable hymns, in which so many millions have devoutly worshipped the God of heaven, he would have rendered service to the cause of truth and piety which no language can adequately describe. His “hymns, and psalms, and spiritual songs,” for a hundred and thirty years, have been the metrical liturgy of the people called Methodists, and to them countless multitudes have been indebted for not a few of their richest blessings.

True to his high church principles, Charles Wesley, instead of selecting the burial ground of his brother’s chapel in City Road, desired to be interred in the consecrated churchyard of St. Marylebone. This, to Wesley, was a painful disappointment. “It is a pity,” said he, in a letter to the Rev. Peard Dickenson, “but the remains of my brother had been deposited with mine. Certainly that ground is holy as any in England; and it contains a large quantity of ‘bonny dead.’”⁠ So deeply did he feel this, that, seven weeks after his brother’s funeral, he wrote an article, at Dumfries, on the consecration of churches and burial grounds, which he published in his magazine; and in which, after showing, that there is no law of England, or of the English Church, enjoining such a practice, he remarks:

“Neither is it enjoined by the law of God. Where do we find one word, in the New Testament, enjoining any such thing? Neither do I remember any precedent of it in the purest ages of the church. It seems to have entered, and gradually spread itself, with the other innovations and superstitions of the Church of Rome. For this reason, I never wished that any bishop should consecrate any chapel or burial ground of mine. Indeed, I should not dare to suffer it; as I am clearly persuaded the thing is wrong in itself, being not authorised either by any law of God, or by any law of the land. In consequence of which, I conceive, that either the clerk or the sexton may as well consecrate the church, or the churchyard, as the bishop. With regard to the latter, I know not who could answer that plain question: You say, ‘This is consecrated ground, so many feet broad, and so many long’; but pray how deep is it? ‘Deep! what does that signify?’ Oh, a great deal! for if my grave be dug too deep, I may happen to get out of the consecrated ground! And who can tell, what unhappy consequences may follow from this! I take the whole of this practice to be a mere relic of Romish superstition. And I wonder, that any sensible protestant should think it right to countenance it; much more that any reasonable man should plead for the necessity of it! Surely it is high time now, that we should be guided, not by custom, but by Scripture and reason.”⁠

This was a heavy blow at his brother’s prejudice. Wesley himself resolved to be buried in the ground connected with the chapel in the City Road, and he wished his brother to be buried with him. To this Charles objected, because the ground had not been consecrated by a bishop! The objection was foolish; and the burial, in another place, occasioned considerable gossip. John Pawson, in a letter dated April 28, 1788, remarks: “Charles Wesley would not be buried at the new chapel, because it was not consecrated; nor by any of our ministers, but by one of his own choosing. He sent for the parson of the parish where he lived, and said: ‘Sir, whatever the world may have thought of me, I have lived, and I die, in the communion of the Church of England, and I will be buried in the yard of my parish church.’”⁠ Wesley well knew that remarks like these were current; and he owed it to his people to publish his thoughts on a subject, which, however insignificant in itself, was not unlikely to be a gossiping gangrene in his societies.

Wesley’s affection for his brother was evinced in the continued kindness exercised towards his brother’s family. According to his own account book, he gave to them, in this the year of their bereavement, at least, two hundred guineas. He also assured his brother’s widow that, as long as he lived, he would help her to the utmost of his power. The two following letters may fitly draw the curtain on Charles Wesley’s death and burial.

“July 25, 1788.

“My dear Sister,—You know well what a regard I had for Miss Gwynne, before she was Mrs. Wesley. And it has not ceased from that time till now. I am persuaded it never will. Therefore, I will speak without reserve just what comes into my mind. I have sometimes thought you are a little like me. My wife used to tell me, ‘My dear, you are too generous. You don’t know the value of money.’ I could not wholly deny the charge. Possibly, you may sometimes lean to the same extreme. I know you are of a generous spirit. You have an open heart, and an open hand. But may it not sometimes be too open, more so than your circumstances will allow? Is it not an instance of Christian, as well as worldly, prudence, to cut our coat according to our cloth? If your circumstances are a little narrower, should you not contract your expenses too? I need but just give you this hint, which I doubt not you will take kindly from, my dear Sally,

“Your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

“December 21, 1788.

“My dear Sister,—It is undoubtedly true, that some silly people, (whether in the society or not I cannot tell,) have frequently talked in that manner, both of my brother and me. They have said, that we were well paid for our labours. And, indeed, so we were, but not by man. Yet, this is no more than we were to expect, especially from busybodies in other men’s matters. And it is no more possible to restrain their tongues, than it is to bind up the wind. But it is sufficient for us, that our own conscience condemned us not; and that our record is with the Most High.

“What has concerned me more than this idle slander is a trial of another kind. I supposed, when John Atlay left me, that he had left me one or two hundred pounds beforehand. On the contrary, I am one or two hundred pounds behindhand, and shall not recover myself till after Christmas. Some of the first moneys I receive, I shall set apart for you; and in everything that is in my power, you may depend upon the willing assistance of,

“Dear Sally, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

We must now return to Wesley’s journal. On the last day in February, he left London, for Bath and Bristol. The mayor of Bristol invited him to preach in the civic church, which invitation he accepted. His worship and most of the aldermen were present; and Wesley, fearing no man’s frown, and courting no man’s favour, took for his text the fearful narrative of the rich man and Lazarus; and then dined, with the rich men, at the rich man’s table, in the mansion house. The most remarkable incident, however, occurred in his own chapel on Thursday evening, the 6th of March. At that time, one of the great questions of the day was the subject of slavery; and Wesley had announced his intention to preach on it. The chapel, in consequence, was densely crowded, with both rich and poor. Wesley selected as his text, “God shall enlarge Japheth: and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.” The rest we give in the words of Wesley himself. He writes:

“About the middle of the discourse, while there was on every side attention still as night, a vehement noise arose, none could tell why, and shot like lightning through the congregation. The terror and confusion were inexpressible. You might have imagined it was a city taken by storm. The people rushed upon each other with the utmost violence; the benches were broken in pieces; and nine tenths of the congregation appeared to be struck with the same panic. In about six minutes, the storm ceased, almost as suddenly as it rose; and, all being calm, I went on without the least interruption. It was the strangest incident of the kind I ever remember; and, I believe, none can account for it, without supposing some præternatural influence. Satan fought, lest his kingdom should be delivered up. We set the next day apart as a day of fasting and prayer, that God would remember those poor outcasts of men,” [the slaves,] “and make a way for them to escape, and break their chains asunder.”

The sceptic will sneer at Wesley’s solution; but, before he does so, he ought himself to supply a better. Opinions respecting this mysterious commotion will be different; but all parties will unite in admiring Wesley’s sympathy with the suffering slave. Wesley was the first Englishman who appointed a fast day to pray that slavery might cease.

On the 17th of March, Wesley set out on his journey to the north. Everywhere he had enormous congregations; and frequently was obliged, in wintry weather, to preach in the open air. Mrs. Fletcher, at Madeley, wrote: “I could not but discern a great change in him. His soul seems far more sunk into God, and such an unction attends his word, that each sermon was indeed spirit and life.”⁠

Exactly eight weeks were occupied in reaching the Scottish border; and, during this interval, Wesley preached more than eighty sermons, in fifty-seven different towns and villages. In seven instances, all in Yorkshire, he preached in churches. The crowds were greater than ever; and, almost in every place he visited, he found the work of God progressing.

On the 13th of May, Wesley visited Dumfries, where he had stationed Robert Dall, at the conference of 1787. Dumfries was without a chapel, and without a society; but Mr. Dall had just the sort of energy which such a place required; and Wesley knew it. The following letters to his home missionary have not before been published.

“London, December 1, 1787.

“Dear Robert,—You have reason to praise God, who has prospered you, and given you to see the fruit of your labours. Our all dispensing God has called us to preach the plain gospel. I am glad your hands are strengthened in corresponding with the brethren. I will desire any to change with you when you see it best, and, if I live till spring, please God, I will visit you at Dumfries.

“I am, with love to sister Dall, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

“London, February 11, 1788.

“Dear Robert,—I allow you to build at Dumfries, providing any one will lend a hundred guineas on interest

“I hope to see you, God willing, in May,

“I am, etc.,

“John Wesley.”

Robert Dall was one of Wesley’s favourites, and so was his Christian wife, to whom, said Wesley, in another unpublished letter now before us, “God has given both sense and grace.” This godly couple set all their energies to work; and, by begging of their friends in all parts of the United Kingdom, succeeded, in three months, in building the unique chapel which Wesley describes below. The effort was regarded as gigantic; and Wesley’s visit was a sort of triumphant top stone to the whole affair. “Such,” writes Mrs. Gordon Playdell to Mr. Dall, “such was the general prejudice against Mr. Wesley, that I really feared his coming would end your hopeful prosperity; but God has disappointed all my fears, and outdone all my hopes. The popularity, which met him here, was marvellous. The turn in his favour was such as none but God could have brought about. You have been all along respected, and the esteem for you grows more and more. Your pious, unwearied attentions to the poor criminals have increased the general regard for you, and your sermons in the jail been much approved.”⁠ “Mr. Wesley,” wrote Charles Atmore, “was much pleased with Dumfries and you. He has given you a place in his journal, and what you have done at Dumfries will be a memorial of you to all generations.”

We could quote a large number of other letters relative to the same subject; but the above is a sufficient preface to the following racy extract from Wesley’s journal.

“May 13—To-day, we went through lovely roads to Dumfries. Robert Dall soon found me out. He has behaved exceeding well, and done much good here: but he is a bold man; he has begun building a preaching house, larger than any in Scotland, except those in Glasgow and Edinburgh! In the evening, I preached abroad in a convenient street, on one side of the town. Rich and poor attended from every quarter, of whatever denomination; and every one seemed to hear for life. Surely the Scots are the best hearers in Europe! At five, next morning, I was importuned to preach in the preaching house; but such an one I never saw before. It had no windows at all: so that, although the sun shone bright, we could see nothing without candles.”

Wesley’s next halting place was Glasgow. It had been widely reported, by some of the Scottish ministers, that he was about to publish a new edition of the Bible, and to leave out part of the Epistle to the Romans, St. John’s Apocalypse, and other portions of the inspired writings;⁠ but, notwithstanding this, says Charles Atmore, in the letter before quoted, “he was far better received in Glasgow than ever.”

Here he spent three days; preached six sermons; gave an account concerning the rise and progress of Methodism; and ordained John Barber.⁠

Speaking of the Glasgow chapel, Wesley writes: “It will contain about as many as the chapel at Bath. But oh the difference! It has the pulpit on one side; and has exactly the look of a presbyterian meeting-house. It is the very sister of our house at Brentford. Perhaps an omen of what will be when I am gone.”

In his address on Methodism, which was delivered to the congregation, he remarked:

“There is no other religious society under heaven, which requires nothing of men in order to their admission into it, but a desire to save their souls. Look all around you, you cannot be admitted into the church, or society of the presbyterians, anabaptists, quakers, or any others, unless you hold the same opinions with them, and adhere to the same mode of worship. The Methodists alone do not insist on your holding this or that opinion; but they think and let think. Neither do they impose any particular mode of worship; but you may continue to worship in your former manner, be it what it may. Now, I do not know any other religious society, either ancient or modern, wherein such liberty of conscience is now allowed, or has been allowed, since the age of the apostles. Here is our glorying; and a glorying peculiar to us. What society shares it with us?”

From Glasgow, Wesley went to Edinburgh, where he wrote: “I still find a frankness and openness in the people of Edinburgh, which I find in few other parts of the kingdom. I spent two days among them with much satisfaction; and I was not at all disappointed, in finding no such increase, either in the congregation or the society, as many expected from their leaving the kirk.”

Wesley here recognises the Edinburgh Methodists as a separated people, in other words, a church; but adroitly intimates, that the result was not equal to what many of his friends had ventured to expect. How stands the case? In 1766, when the numbers were first given, Edinburgh circuit had 165 members of society, who, in the next four years, dwindled to 62. Then the circuit rallied, and, in four years more, the numbers rose to 287. In the next quadrennial period, we find them reduced to 161. In 1785, when the ordinations for Scotland took place, Edinburgh had 134 Methodists; now, in 1788, it had 330; which, however, at Wesley’s death in 1791, were reduced to 205. These are curious statistics; and help to cast light on Wesley’s meaning.

On May 25, Wesley reached Newcastle, which, for the next fortnight, was the centre of his labours. Two incidents, in connection with this visit, are worth recording.

Three years before, John Hampson, jun., greatly offended, had relinquished the itinerancy, and was now a clergyman at Sunderland. Strangely enough, Hampson invited Wesley to occupy his pulpit, and Wesley willingly accepted the invitation. The church was crowded both morning and afternoon.

The other incident occurred at Stanhope, famed “for nothing but a very uncommon degree of wickedness.” The preaching place was an upper room, and the congregation large. Presently, the main beam, that supported the room, gave way, and a frightful hubbub followed. “One man,” says Wesley, “leaped out of the window; the rest quietly went out; and nothing was hurt except a poor dog beneath the window. I then preached in the open air, to twice or thrice as many as the room would have contained, who were all attention.” This, which might have been a serious catastrophe, happened at five o’clock on a summer’s morning.

On the 9th of June, Wesley left Newcastle for the south. Reaching Darlington, he writes:

“Margaret Barlow came to me; and I asked her abundance of questions. I was soon convinced, that she was not only sincere, but deep in grace; and, therefore, incapable of deceit. I was convinced likewise, that she had frequent intercourse with a spirit that appeared to her in the form of an angel. I know not how to judge of the rest. Her account was:—‘For above a year, I have seen this angel, whose face is exceeding beautiful: her raiment white as snow, and glistering like silver; her voice unspeakably soft and musical. She tells me many things before they come to pass. She foretold I should be ill at such a time, in such a manner, and well at such an hour; and it was so exactly. She has said, such a person shall die at such a time; and he did so. Above two months ago, she told me your brother was dead; (I did not know you had a brother;) and that he was in heaven. And some time since, she told me, you will die in less than a year. But what she has most earnestly and frequently told me, is, that God will, in a short time, be avenged on obstinate sinners, and will destroy them with fire from heaven.’”

Wesley adds:

“Whether this will be so or no, I cannot tell; but when we were alone there was a wonderful power in her words; and, as the Indian said to David Brainerd, ‘They did good to my heart.’ It is above a year since this girl was visited in this manner, being then between fourteen and fifteen years old. But she was then quite a womanish girl, and of unblamable behaviour. Suppose that which appeared to her was really an angel; yet from the face, the voice, and the apparel, she might easily mistake him for a female; and this mistake is of little consequence. Much good has already resulted from this odd event; and is likely to ensue; provided those who believe, and those who disbelieve, her report, have but patience with each other.”

Marvellous! Who was Margaret Barlow? The answer involves an episode in Methodistic history.

In the conference minutes for 1778, John Blades is reported as one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers on trial; but, beyond this, he is never mentioned. Blades was a native of Northumberland, a weakminded fanatic, totally unfit for the itinerant work. Perhaps, for this reason, he was not appointed to a circuit. For some years, however, he acted, in the capacity of a local preacher, in the north of England. He then began to preach consummate nonsense respecting the privileges of believers, and, with such success that, when he left the Methodists in 1784, he was enabled to form separate societies in a large number of places in the county of Durham, and in the north of Yorkshire. Among his followers, who were called Bladonians,⁠ was Ralph Hodgson, a miller at West Auckland, in whose house Margaret Barlow was a servant. We have before us a long unpublished letter, written by this dusty enthusiast, only a fortnight before Wesley’s interview with his servant girl at Darlington. It is addressed to “Mr. Richard Steel, Tanner, Wolsingham. With all possible speed”: and is dated, May 27, 1788. Hodgson tells his friend Steel that an angel from the Lord had appeared to him, and stated that the “wicked were about to be destroyed from off the face of the earth.” He also urges Steel to join with him in making this angelic revelation as widely known as possible.

It is a curious fact that Hodgson waited upon Wesley at Newcastle, for the purpose of converting him to his opinions; and that he accompanied his clairvoyant servant, Margaret Barlow, to meet Wesley at the house of Thomas Pickering, at Darlington. He also wrote a long letter, dated “West Auckland, October 26, 1788,” to the Rev. Mr. Agutter, St. Mary Magdalen college, Oxford, in which he informed that gentleman that Margaret Barlow had been his servant about two years; that she had attended the services of the Methodists; that an angel had appeared to her in the form of a female, and with a lustre brighter than the light of a thousand candles; that the angel had come to her in the daytime as well as night; and had made known to her the state of many who were dead, as well as many who were still alive; but that the principal matter, which the angel had revealed, was the exact day when the wicked would be destroyed. Margaret also had been much disturbed by the appearance of two evil spirits, both clad in black, and wearing horns; but the recital of her visions had produced effects great and blessed.

What was the result of all this religious raving? Margaret, at length, announced the exact day when the destruction of the wicked was to be accomplished. Intense excitement followed. Some sold their clothing and property, and distributed the proceeds among the poor; and others exulted at the thought of the possessions of the wicked being distributed among themselves. The day came, numbers having sat up all night to watch its dawning. Portentous signs appeared. The heavens gathered blackness, lightnings flashed, and thunders roared. At Barnardcastle it was the day of the weekly market. The people were frantic, some with hope, and some with fear. Cries were heard, “It is coming! It is coming!” The business of the market was suspended; and consternation was general. At length, the clouds were scattered, the heavens brightened, the day passed over, and all things continued as they were. The bubble burst; Blades, Hodgson, his wife, and Margaret Barlow were discredited, and fled across the Atlantic; where most, if not all of them, joined the shakers, whose principles and morals, to say the least, were capable of great improvement.

The reader will excuse this lengthened digression concerning a mad miller and his servant maid. We have purposely omitted the numerous stories, of a similar description, which Wesley has inserted in his journal and magazine; but one instance seemed necessary, to illustrate what was unquestionably a feature in Wesley’s character,—excessive credulity in receiving doubtful proofs of the existence and nearness of an unseen world of spirits. We are not inclined to say hard things concerning this. It was a weakness, but not a sin. Besides, though some of the stories, referred to, were ridiculously foolish, it would be rashness to deny that some of the others were strictly and startlingly true. And further, we honestly declare that, in an age like this, when the general tendency is to scepticism rather than to credulity, we should hail, as no bad omen, the appearance of a disposition, like that of Wesley, to cherish, not denounce, any and every evidence of another and future state of being.

On leaving Darlington, Wesley proceeded to Whitby, where he was advertised to open a new chapel; but, as often happens now, when the day arrived, the building was far from being ready. For want of stairs, the people had to be admitted to the gallery through one of the back windows near the pulpit; and, for want of a gallery front, a number of stalwart Yorkshiremen squatted themselves all round the gallery ledge, their backs protecting the people behind them, and their feet dangling over the heads of those below.⁠ Wesley writes:

“June 13, Friday.—At eight, I preached to a lovely congregation at Stokesley; and, at eleven, in Guisborough, to one far larger. In the evening, I preached at Whitby, in the new house, thoroughly filled above and below. The unfinished galleries, having as yet no fronts, were frightful to look upon. It is the most curious house we have in England. You go up to it by about forty steps; and have then before you a lofty front, I judge, near fifty feet high, and fifty-four feet broad.”

Wesley spent the next two days in Whitby, preaching twice on Saturday, and thrice on Sunday, and finishing up with a Yorkshire lovefeast.

From the “plain people at Whitby,” Wesley went to the Scarborough elegants; and thence to Bridlington, Malton, Beverley, and Hull. In the last mentioned town, Joseph Benson and the Methodists had recently erected George Yard chapel, an edifice of which Benson was immensely proud, and whose account of its opening services, six months before, drew from Wesley the following laconic letter.

“Dear Joseph,—I greatly rejoice in the erection of your new preaching house; and in the tokens of the Divine presence with which you and the people were favoured at the opening; but if it be at all equal to the new chapel in London, I will engage to eat it.

“I am, yours affectionately,

“John Wesley.”

Wesley’s new chapel in City Road was his beau ideal, and great was his jealousy of all pretentious competitors; but still he was obliged to acknowledge, that even George Yard chapel, Hull, was “well built, and elegantly finished; handsome, but not gaudy.”

During his stay in Hull, he preached twice in the high church, by the invitation of the vicar, Mr. Clark; and thrice in Benson’s pet chapel.

Notwithstanding his three heavy services on the previous day, Wesley, an old man, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, set out on June 23, and not only travelled all the way from Hull to York, but, preached four sermons in four different towns and villages.

At York a happy reconciliation was brought about. Wesley had been greatly annoyed with Robert Spence for publishing the “York Hymn Book”; and Robert had been so grieved by Wesley’s strictures as to be strongly tempted to leave the Methodists. Wesley and the grand old Methodist at York, however, were not the men to harbour malice; and, by appointment, the offending bookseller breakfasted with Wesley, at three o’clock in the morning, and all past differences were consigned to the shades of charitable oblivion.⁠

A three o’clock breakfast! And yet, this, with Wesley, was not at all unusual. His energy, diligence, and punctuality were marvellous. Addressing his coachman, at this early breakfast in the city of York, he said, “Have the carriage at the door at four. I do not mean a quarter or five minutes past, but four.” The man knew what his master meant; and, as the minster clock struck four, Wesley had shaken hands with Robert Spence, and was entering his chaise.⁠ Railways, since then, have helped to make some men punctual; but Wesley was perfect in this human excellence long before railway engines began to whistle.

Wesley made his way to Epworth, where he spent his birthday. He writes:

“June 28.—I this day enter on my eighty-fifth year⁠: and what cause have I to praise God, as for a thousand spiritual blessings, so, for bodily blessings also! How little have I suffered yet by ‘the rush of numerous years!’ It is true, I am not so agile as I was in times past. I do not run or walk so fast as I did; my sight is a little decayed; my left eye is grown dim, and hardly serves me to read; I have daily some pain in the ball of my right eye, as also in my right temple, (occasioned by a blow received some months since,) and in my right shoulder and arm, which I impute partly to a sprain, and partly to the rheumatism. I find, likewise, some decay in my memory, with regard to names and things lately past; but not at all with regard to what I have read or heard twenty, forty, or sixty years ago; neither do I find any decay in my hearing, smell, taste, or appetite; (though I want but a third part of the food I did once;) nor do I feel any such thing as weariness, either in travelling or preaching; and I am not conscious of any decay in writing sermons; which I do as readily, and I believe, as correctly, as ever.

“To what cause can I impute this, that I am as I am? First, doubtless, to the power of God, fitting me for the work to which I am called, as long as He pleases to continue me therein; and, next, subordinately to this, to the prayers of His children.

“May we not impute it, as inferior means, (1) To my constant exercise and change of air? (2) To my never having lost a night’s sleep, sick or well, at land or at sea, since I was born? (3) To my having sleep at command; so that, whenever I feel myself almost worn out, I call it, and it comes, day or night? (4) To my having constantly, for above sixty years, risen at four in the morning? (5) To my constant preaching at five in the morning, for above fifty years? (6) To my having had so little pain in my life; and so little sorrow, or anxious care?

“Even now, though I find pain daily in my eye, or temple, or arm; yet it is never violent, and seldom lasts many minutes at a time. Whether or not this is sent to give me warning, that I am shortly to quit this tabernacle, I do not know; but be it one way or the other, I have only to say,

Wesley’s two texts on this memorable birthday were appropriate. Here, eighty-five years before, he had been born, in the Epworth parsonage; and now, in the morning, he preached from, “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”; and, in the evening, from, “Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.”

This may be a fitting place to insert a selection from Wesley’s letters, written in the previous six months.

The first was addressed to William Black, one of his missionaries in Nova Scotia. Black had related to Wesley the cases of certain demoniacs, and particularly one which he himself had seen. When Black approached, it was with the utmost difficulty that four men could hold the poor wretch, and prevent him doing the missionary serious injury. Black immediately fell upon his knees, and began to pray. In an instant, the frenzy of the man subsided; and the lips, that a few moments before had uttered blasphemy, began to syllable the praises of the great Redeemer. Wesley’s letter is as follows.

“Gloucester, March 19, 1788.

“My dear Brother,—I am glad to find you are still going on in the glorious work to which you are called. We have need to make haste therein; to use all diligence. For the work is great; the day is short; and lonely is the night wherein no man can work.

“It is well that Satan is constrained to show himself so plainly in the case of those poor demoniacs. Thereby, he weakens his own kingdom, and excites us to assault him more zealously. In the beginning of the work in England and Ireland, we had many cases of the kind. But he now chooses to assault us by subtlety more than by strength.

“I wish you would do all you possibly can to keep our brethren in peace with each other. Your pains will not be lost on poor John McGeary. There is much good in him. Indeed, he is naturally of a bold, forward temper; but I hope his zeal is now according to knowledge.

“Praying that you may increase with all the increase of God, I am your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

The next is brief, but interesting. Agnes Collinson was now a remarkable child, twelve years old. Six years afterwards, she became the wife of Mr. Joseph Bulmer; and lived to be the authoress of “Messiah’s Kingdom,” in twelve books, 486 pages, and of the beautiful hymn, which is so often sung at the laying of the foundation stones of Methodist chapels, “Thou who hast in Zion laid,” etc.

Mrs. Bulmer was born a poet, and, at the death of Charles Wesley, wrote an elegy, which was sent to the surviving brother, and evoked the following characteristic letter.

“My dear Maiden,—Beware of pride; beware of flattery; suffer none to commend you to your face; remember, one good temper is of more value, in the sight of God, than a thousand good verses. All you want is to have the mind that was in Christ, and to walk as Christ walked.

“I am, etc.,

“John Wesley.”

The following is now for the first time published. William Simpson, to whom it was addressed, was assistant in the Yarm circuit.

“Near Colne, April 26, 1788.

“Dear Billy,—You did well to expel those who marry ungodly persons,—a real evil, which we never can tolerate. You should speak to every believer singly concerning meeting in band. There were always some in Yarm circuit, though not many. No circuit ever did, or ever will flourish, unless there are bands in the large societies. It is a good sign, that so many of our preachers are willing to contribute to those necessary expenses. They used to be much straitened in their bowels, whenever money was wanted. You have now good encouragement to remain another year in the circuit. But you know two preachers do not remain in the same circuit more than one year.

“I am, dear Billy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

Dr. Coke was an innovator. Finding that many of the Dublin Methodists were in the habit of attending Dissenting chapels on the sabbath, he, in order to prevent this, directed that, on three Sundays out of four, there should be service in Whitefriar Street chapel in church hours; and that, on the fourth, the Methodists should be recommended to attend St. Patrick’s church, and receive the sacrament.⁠ Henry Moore was the assistant in the Dublin circuit; was nearly as old a man as Coke; and, as a preacher, his superior. Coke’s assumption to act as Wesley’s vicar gave great offence, and the new arrangement had to be abandoned.⁠ The following letters refer to this Dublin fracas, and are not without interest, as evincing Wesley’s persistent adherence to the Established Church. The first three were addressed to Moore; the fourth to Coke.

“Leeds, May 6, 1788.

“Dear Henry,—The doctor is too warm. He ought to have had more regard to so respectable a body of men as applied to him. I am a Church of England man; and, as I said fifty years ago, so I say still, in the Church I will live and die, unless I am thrust out. We must have no more service at Whitefriars in the church hours. Leave all contention before it be meddled with. Follow after peace.

“I am, etc.,

“John Wesley.”

“Whitehaven, May 11, 1788.

“Dear Henry,—Still, the more I reflect, the more I am convinced, that the Methodists ought not to leave the Church. I judge, that to lose a thousand, yea, ten thousand, of our people, would be a less evil than this. ‘But many had much comfort in this.’ So they would in any new thing. I believe Satan himself would give them comfort herein; for he knows what the end would be. Our glory has hitherto been not to be a separate body:

‘Hoc Ithacus velit.’

“But whatever Mr. Smyth does, I am for the old way. I advise you to abide in it, till you find another new event, although, indeed, you may expect it every day; namely, the removal of your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

“Glasgow, May 12, 1788.

“Dear Henry,—I allow two points: 1. That, while Dr. Coke is in Dublin, he may have service at eleven o’clock as before. 2. That, on condition that our brethren will attend St. Patrick’s one Sunday in four, you may read prayers the other three in the room. When Dr. Coke returns from Dublin, he should immediately send me word who is proper to succeed you there. I shall be glad, if I can, to have Nancy and you at Bristol next year. It is not unlikely, I may finish my course there; and, if so, I should love to have her to close my eyes. My brother said, I should follow him within the year. But, be that as it may, by God’s help, I will live to-day.

“I am, etc.,

“John Wesley.”

“Glasgow, May 16, 1788.

“Dear Sir,—I came hither this morning. There is a fair opening at Dumfries, and a prospect of much good. I like your proposal concerning Joseph Cownley,⁠ and will talk with him about it if I live to see Newcastle.

“As I said before, so I say still, I cannot, I dare not, leave the Church, for the reasons we all agreed to thirty years ago in the conference at Leeds. Thus far only I could go. On condition, that our people would receive the Lord’s supper once a month either at St. Patrick’s, or their own parish church (the reasonableness of which should be strongly and largely explained),—on this condition, I would allow Henry Moore to read the morning service at Whitefriars on the other Sundays.

“I wonder at the imprudence of Mr. Edward Smyth, to say nothing of his unkindness. You did well in changing the stewards at Waterford.

“I am, dear sir, yours most affectionately,

“John Wesley.”

The following, hitherto unpublished, letter was addressed to Thomas Taylor, then stationed at Manchester, and refers to a gigantic evil which still exists.

“Near Newcastle, June 7, 1788.

“Dear Tommy,—I have no time to spend on controversy about the Church, unless I had leisure to write a folio.

“It is no wonder, that every one should be ruined who concerns himself with that execrable bill trade. In London, I expel every one out of our society who has anything to do with it. Whoever endorses a bill, (that is, promises to pay,) for more than he is worth, is either a fool or a knave.

“I am, dear Tommy, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

When Wesley was at Bradford, in the month of May, he preached in the parish church, and, in the course of his sermon, quoted the opinion of Bengelius, that the millennial reign of Christ would begin in the year 1836. Some one present circulated this as the opinion of Wesley himself; and, as the opinion of such a man was regarded of high importance, the rumoured prophecy ran throughout the kingdom, and more than one of Wesley’s friends wrote to ask if what was said was true. The following is Wesley’s reply to Christopher Hopper.

“My dear Brother,—I said nothing, less or more, in Bradford church, concerning the end of the world, neither concerning my own opinion, but what follows:—That Bengelius had given it as his opinion, not that the world would then end, but, that the millennial reign of Christ would begin in the year 1836. I have no opinion at all upon the head; I can determine nothing about it. These calculations are far above, out of my sight. I have only one thing to do,—to save my soul, and those that hear me.

“I am, yours affectionately,

“John Wesley.”

We left Wesley celebrating his eighty-sixth birthday, in his birthplace, Epworth. Here he preached four or five sermons, held a lovefeast, and attended sacred service in his father’s church. He writes:

“Mr. Gibson read the prayers with seriousness, and preached a plain, useful sermon; but I was sorry to see scarce twenty communicants, half of whom came on my account. I was informed, likewise, that scarce fifty persons used to attend the Sunday service. What can be done to remedy this sore evil? I fain would prevent the members here from leaving the Church; but I cannot do it. As Mr. Gibson is not a pious man, but rather an enemy to piety, who frequently preaches against the truth, and those that hold and love it, I cannot, with all my influence, persuade them either to hear him, or to attend the sacrament administered by him. If I cannot carry this point even while I live, who then can do it when I die? And the case of Epworth is the case of every church, where the minister neither loves nor preaches the gospel; the Methodists will not attend his administrations. What then is to be done?”

This is amusing. Here we find Wesley acknowledging, that, in the very place where his father had been rector for nearly forty years, the Methodists had, ipso facto, separated from the Church, and that he, with all his influence, had not sufficient power to hinder it.

During the next fortnight, Wesley preached, on an average, twice a day, until his arrival in London, on July 15. The following letters belong to this period. The first was addressed to Mr. John Mann, one of his missionaries in Nova Scotia.

“June 30, 1788.

“My dear Brother,—I am greatly concerned for the prosperity of the work of God in Nova Scotia. It seems some way to lie nearer my heart than even that in the United States; many of our brethren there are, we may hope, strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might; but I look upon those in the northern provinces to be younger, and tender children, and consequently to stand in need of our utmost care. I hope all of you, that watch over them, are exactly of one mind, and of one judgment; that you take care always to speak the same things, and to watch over one another in love.

“Mr. Wray is a workman that need not be ashamed. I am glad to hear of his safe arrival. Although he has not much learning,⁠ he has, what is far better, uprightness of heart, and devotedness to God. I doubt not but he and you will be one, and go on your way hand in hand. Whatever opposers you meet with, Calvinists, papists, antinomians, or any other, have a particular care, that they do not take up too much either of your thoughts or time. You have better work; keep to your one point, Christ dying for us, and living in us; so will you fulfil the joy of,

“My dear brethren, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

The following was addressed to Samuel Bradburn, and, up to the present, has not been published.

“Epworth, July 6, 1788.

“Dear Sammy,—To-morrow evening, I hope to be at Doncaster; on Wednesday, at Sheffield; and to-morrow sennight, at London, bringing my daughter with me. That evening I should not object to preaching at West Street. On Tuesday morning, I would breakfast in Chesterfield Street, if my sister will be ready at eight o’clock. Then I must hide myself till Sunday; when I will preach at one or the other chapel for Kingswood. Peace be with you and yours!

“I am, dear Sammy, etc.,

“John Wesley.”

The next, addressed to Mr. Jasper Winscomb, is also now for the first time printed.

“London, July 16, 1788.

“Dear Jasper,—If all our society at Portsmouth, or elsewhere, separate from the Church, I cannot help it. But, I will not. Therefore, I can in no wise consent to the having service in church hours. You used to love the Church; then keep to it, and exhort all our people to do the same. If it be true, that brother Hayter is used to talk against the other preachers, as well as against Thomas Warwick, brother Hayter and I shall not agree. Of dividing circuits we may speak at the conference.

“I am, dear Jasper, your affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

The following also has not before been published. It was addressed to “Mr. Churchey, attorney at law, near the Hay, Brecon”; and refers to certain poetical productions which Mr. Churchey wished to print.

“Near London, July 22, 1788.

“My dear Brother,—I am glad you spoke to Mr. Cowper.⁠ What pity it is that such talents as his should be employed in so useless a manner!

“Mr. Bradburn delivered your papers to me a few days ago; but this is so busy a time, that I had not leisure to go through them till to-day. In the Translation of the Art of Printing, there are many very good lines; but there are some that want a good deal of filing; and many that are obscure. The sense is so much clouded, that it is not easy to be understood. For many years, I have not had any booksellers but Mr. Atlay and my assistants. Some of the shorter copies are good sense and good poetry.

“My dear brother has left a translation of the Book of Psalms, and verses enough to make, at least, six volumes in duodecimo. I could but ill spare him, now I am myself so far declined into the vale of years. But it is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good. Our time is now short. Let my dear sister Churchey, and you, and I make the best of it.

“I am your affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

A week after the above letter was written, Wesley opened his conference, which continued its sittings till August 6. Besides presiding, he preached every evening, and on the conference Sunday twice. The last day was kept as a solemn fast,—prayer-meetings being held at five, nine, and one, and the day concluded with a watchnight. No wonder, that the old Methodist preachers returned from conferences, to their respective circuits, like flames of fire. Wesley writes:

“One of the most important points considered at this conference was that of leaving the Church. The sum of a long conversation was: (1) that, in a course of fifty years, we had neither premeditatedly nor willingly varied from it in one article either of doctrine or discipline; (2) that we were not yet conscious of varying from it in any point of doctrine; (3) that we have, in a course of years, out of necessity, not of choice, slowly and warily varied in some points of discipline, by preaching in the fields, by extemporary prayer, by employing lay preachers, by forming and regulating societies, and by holding yearly conferences. But we did none of these things till we were convinced we could no longer omit them, but at the peril of our souls.”

This was correct so far as it went; but Wesley ought to have added, the ordaining of preachers, the licensing of chapels; and, further, that in this selfsame year he had published a 12mo volume of 430 pages, entitled, “The Sunday Service of the Methodists; with other Occasional Services”; in reality, an altered edition of the Prayer-Book of the Church of England, attached to which was a “Collection of Psalms and Hymns for the Lord’s Day,” composed by himself and his brother. Wesley, in his preface, says:

“Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, [The Prayer-Book,] except in the following instances:

“1. Most of the holy days (so called) are omitted, as, at present, answering no valuable end.

“2. The service of the Lord’s day, the length of which has often been complained of, is considerably shortened.

“3. Some sentences, in the offices of baptism, and for the burial of the dead, are omitted. And,

“4. Many psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian congregation.”

Throughout his book, Wesley uses the word “minister,” instead of the objectionable word “priest.” The half popish canticle in the morning prayer, “Benedicite, omnia opera,” is left out. In the communion service, the word “elder” is used instead of “priest”; and, in the public baptism of infants, Wesley dispenses with signing the child with the sign of the cross, and leaves out the sentence, in the thanksgiving, that “it hath pleased God to regenerate this infant with His Holy Spirit.” The “order of confirmation” is omitted, and no reference is made to godfathers and godmothers. The “order for the visitation of the sick” is totally expunged, and of course the popish absolution, “by His (Christ’s) authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” In lieu of the three forms for ordaining deacons, priests, and bishops, Wesley gives three for “ordaining superintendents, elders, and deacons.” Wesley takes equal liberty with the articles of religion. Some are entirely omitted; others are abridged, or variously altered.

We find no fault with all this. Upon the whole, we regard Wesley’s expurgations as emendations.⁠ His prayer-book is purged from popish and Calvinian errors; and, in that respect, is superior to the prayer-book of the Church of England. This, however, is not the point in question; but rather, whether, after Wesley had done all this, he could be fairly and honestly considered a member and minister of the Established Church. The Rev. G. Nott, in his Bampton lecture, delivered eleven years after Wesley’s death, elaborately argued this matter, and returned a negative reply; and, we confess, it seems impossible to refute his general conclusion, namely, that both “Wesley and Whitefield are to be regarded as separatists from the Church of England.”⁠ To the day of his death, Wesley protested against this; but his warmest friends must admit that, though both were undeniably sincere, yet, in this respect, profession and practice were at variance.

Three years before this, he had ordained Joseph Taylor, who, ever since, had preached in gown and bands, and administered the sacraments in Scotland. Joseph was now appointed to Nottingham circuit; and, of course, as an ordained minister, dreamed that he was the same in England as he had been in Scotland. But not so. Wesley, who, three years before, had frocked his itinerant for the people across the Tweed, now unfrocked him for the people bordering on the Trent. Hence the following.

“London, November 16, 1788.

“Dear Joseph,—I take knowledge of your spirit, and believe it is your desire to do all things right. Our friends in Newark should not have forgotten, that we have determined over and over ‘not to leave the Church.’ Before they had given you that foolish advice, they should have consulted me. I desire you would not wear the surplice, nor administer the Lord’s supper, any more.

“I am, dear Joseph, your affectionate friend and brother,

“John Wesley.”

Such was the frequent clashing between practice and profession. The prayer-book, above mentioned, had been put into the hands of the Methodists; and yet, because of its alterations and abridgments, it was of no use in services conducted in the Church of England. For what then was it intended? The following extract, from the minutes of conference in 1788, supplies an answer.

“Q. 21. What further directions may be given concerning the prayers of the Church of England?

“A. The assistants shall have a discretionary power to read the Prayer-Book in the preaching houses on Sunday mornings, where they think it expedient, if the generality of the society acquiesce with it; on condition that Divine service never be performed in the church hours on the Sundays when the sacrament is administered in the parish church where the preaching house is situated; and that the people be strenuously exhorted to attend the sacrament in the parish church on those Sundays.”

This may be vaguely worded; but there can be no mistake about its meaning. By Wesley’s authority, and that of his conference, assistants everywhere were permitted to do what Dr. Coke had authorised to be done in Dublin, namely, that, on certain conditions, there should be Divine service in Methodist chapels in the same hours as Divine service was performed in the parish churches adjoining them. If this was not separation, what was it?

There were two other points discussed at the conference of 1788, of great importance. Many of the preachers were shamefully left without adequate support, and were actually obliged, either to starve from hunger, or to go from house to house to obtain their meals. Wesley was annoyed, perhaps indignant; and, to remedy this glaring evil, the assistants were directed to enforce, that every member, who could afford it, should contribute, in the classmeetings, a penny per week, and a shilling per quarter, at the quarterly visitation, for the maintenance of the preachers appointed to watch over them. And, in addition, Wesley issued the following address.

“To our Societies in England and Ireland.

“Fifty years ago, and for several years following, all our preachers were single men, when, in process of time, a few of them married. Those with whom they laboured maintained both them and their wives, there being then no settled allowance either for the one or the other. But above thirty years ago, it was found most convenient to fix a stated allowance for both,⁠ and this was found by the circuits where they were stationed; till one year some of the circuits complained of poverty. Dr. Coke and I supplied what was wanting. The next year, the number of wives increasing, three or four of them were supplied out of the contingent fund. This was a bad precedent, for more and more wives were thrown upon this fund, till it was likely to be swallowed up thereby.⁠ We could think of no way to prevent this, but to consider the state of our societies in England and Ireland, and to beg the members of each circuit to give us that assistance which they can easily do without hurting their families.

“Within these fifty years, the substance of the Methodists is increased in proportion to their numbers. Therefore, if you are not straitened in your own bowels, this will be no grievance, but you will cheerfully give food and raiment to those who give up all their time, and strength, and labour to your service.

“London, August 2, 1788.

“John Wesley.”

No wonder that, in his later years, Wesley so often wrote and spoke of the corrupting influence of the riches of rich Methodists!

The other affair, which demanded the attention of Wesley’s conference, in 1788, was equally unpleasant. Six years before, as we have already seen, the trustees, at Birstal, claimed the power of appointing preachers to their chapel. This was followed by the deed of declaration in 1784. At the very time this deed was being signed, the same subject was revived at Dewsbury, a town contiguous to Birstal.

Here it had been proposed to build a new chapel. Mr. Valton, the assistant, refused to move in the matter, unless it was agreed that the chapel should be settled according to the conference plan. Mr. Heald and some others wished to obtain from Wesley certain concessions, and wrote to John Atlay, the book steward, to secure them. Atlay replied as follows.

“London, February 23, 1784.

“My dear Sir,—I have, this morning, been with Mr. Wesley, and have laid your letter before him.⁠ He is not only willing, but desires, it be inserted in your deed, that, if ever the conference, or the preacher appointed by conference, refuse or neglect to provide a preacher for your chapel for three or four Sundays, then the trustees shall have it in their own power to call one whom they please, and the power of nomination shall be theirs in future.

“If any preacher, appointed to serve your chapel, should be proved guilty of immorality, the trustees shall have a power to reject him; and, if the conference does not send another to fill up his place, you shall have a power to call one to do it.

“John Atlay.”

On the receipt of this letter, Valton solicited subscriptions, and preached at the laying of the foundation stone.⁠

Five days after the date of the above letter, the deed of declaration was executed; and, among other names omitted, in the constitution of the legal conference, were those of John Atlay and William Eels, the first of whom had been a preacher one-and-twenty years, and the second twelve. This, by no means, increased Atlay’s loyalty. In an unpublished letter, dated September 17, 1785, he writes: “Mr. Hampson is well provided for. I have begun to do a little business for myself as coal merchant; and have reason to think it will do well for me. I have not left the book room, nor do I intend it at present. I have my trials; but the disagreeable things I have met with, in our connexion, have really raised my heart to God.”

In another, bearing date, April 18, 1786, he says: “You smile at my commencing coal merchant. There was a time when I could have trusted to my good old friend” (Wesley) “for everything that I wanted, or was likely to want; but late occurrences have given me a check; and, I really think, the thing is right in the sight of the Lord.” He then proceeds to state that he had lately been attending the ministry of Mr. Latrobe, the Moravian minister, and that he increasingly admired him every time he heard him.

These extracts may help to throw some light on Atlay’s subsequent conduct.

Meanwhile, Dewsbury chapel was completed, and a draft of the trust deed was sent, by Parson Greenwood, to Manchester conference, in 1787, for perusal. This was handed officially to Alexander Mather, who strongly objected to its provisions; and complained that the trustees had not inserted a clause, to the effect, “that no preacher should be sent away till he was tried, and found guilty, before his peers, or the neighbouring assistant preachers.” The trustees refused to yield, thus, in reality, making themselves, as Dr. Coke put it, “accusers, jury, judges, and executioners.”⁠ Wesley had appointed Parson Greenwood and William Percival to the Dewsbury circuit; but, on October 23, he instructed them to abandon the chapel and to leave the trustees to provide for themselves to their hearts’ content.

Mr. Mather, at the time, was in the Sheffield circuit, and obtained Wesley’s consent to become mediator between the contending parties. Accordingly he went, and proposed to the trustees that they should have power: (1) To mortgage the premises for the debt unpaid. (2) To let the seats at any price they liked. (3) To appoint their own stewards, and dispose of their own income. He further proposed, that no assistant should expel a trustee from the society but by the consent of the majority of his co-trustees. All this was palatable; but what followed was otherwise. Mather, of course, had no objection to a preacher being dismissed for immorality, as was proposed in Atlay’s letter; but he wished to institute a court in which the accused might have a fair and impartial trial; and, hence, requested that a clause might be inserted in the trust deed, providing that three of the nearest assistants should be judges; that, if they found the charges proved, they should join with the trustees in requesting Wesley, or the president of the conference for the time being, to remove the guilty preacher, and to send another in his place; that, if this was not done within a specified time, the trustees should do it themselves; and that, if the conference next ensuing did not send another preacher, then the election of preachers was to remain with the trustees, and the power of conference, to appoint preachers to Dewsbury chapel, to be forfeited for ever. This the trustees stubbornly rejected; and the further consideration of the matter was postponed till February 5, 1788. At this second interview, it was proposed by Mr. Mather, that an appeal should be made to the subscribers to decide whether the clauses he had named should be inserted in the deed; and that their decision should be final. This also was refused; and now, when all further negotiation seemed impossible, Mather, by Wesley’s request, informed the seatholders, “that they were not to pay any more rent till the matter was settled between him and the trustees.”

Thus the affair was left till the conference of 1788; when a committee met on the subject. John Atlay was present, and remarked, that if he were to go down to Dewsbury he would soon settle matters with the trustees. Mather objected to Atlay’s suggestion, and said: “Mr. Atlay, it is reported, that you have promised the trustees, that, if Mr. Wesley withdraws the preachers from Dewsbury, you will yourself go and serve them. I ask you then, before God and these brethren, have you made any such promise, or have you not?” Atlay reluctantly acknowledged, that he had; and, further, that he had also advised the Methodists at Malton not to settle their chapel on the conference plan. Next morning Wesley wrote as follows.

“To the Trustees of Dewsbury.

“London, July 30, 1788.

“My dear Brethren,—The question between us is, ‘By whom shall the preachers sent, from time to time, to Dewsbury be judged?’ You say, ‘By the trustees.’ I say, ‘By their peers——​the preachers met in conference.’ You say, ‘Give up this, and we will receive them.’ I say, ‘I cannot, I dare not, give up this.’ Therefore, if you will not receive them on these terms, you renounce connection with your affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

As the trustees still held out, the conference decided that another deputation, consisting of Mather, Pawson, Thompson, Greenwood, and Percival, should meet at Dewsbury on August 14. The deputies asked, “Have you executed a trust deed?” The trustees answered, “Yes.” “Can we see it?” “No.” “Will you add to it a clause such as Mr. Wesley wishes?” “No.” Such, in substance, were the proceedings of the meeting. The result was, as before stated, the preachers, who had been appointed at Dewsbury, were at once removed; the chapel was abandoned; and the preachers in the Birstal circuit once more commenced Methodism at Dewsbury, by preaching in the open streets.⁠

Five days after the date of the Dewsbury meeting, John Atlay, who, as we have seen, had joined to Wesley’s book stewardship the business of a coal merchant, and had also been toying with the Dewsbury trustees, wrote as follows to Wesley.

“London, August 19, 1788.

“Reverend and dear Sir,—I was in hopes matters at Dewsbury would have been made up; but, by a letter yesterday, I am informed that their preachers are removed from them, and their place declared vacant; in consequence of which, the trustees have most solemnly called me to come amongst them. They plead my promise; and I cannot go back from it. With me a promise is sacred, though it should be ever so much to my hurt; and, as to temporals, it must hurt me much. But I regard not that, if there is a prospect that I shall be much more useful there than I ever have been, or can be, in London. But it gives me more pain than I can express, when I tell you that, in order to go there, I must quit the book room. The longest that I can stay in it will be till the 25th of September; and, by that time, you will be able to get one for my place. I think the fittest man in the world for it is Joseph Bradford. If he should be appointed, he may come directly, and stay with us till we go; and, by that time, I could teach him more than he can learn in three months without me; but these things I leave to your superior judgment.

“I have only now to request a few things of you. Do not be angry with me for leaving you, after having spent fifteen of the best years of my life in serving you, with more care, fear, labour, and pain, than all the years of my life have produced. Do not blame me for going to a people you have left; they are the Lord’s redeemed ones, and some of them living members of His body. Do not disown me, nor forbid my preaching in any of your places; but give me leave, where and when it is agreeable to the preachers, to preach in your houses. But if this request cannot be complied with, then drop me silently; and let me be of too little consequence to say anything about me from the pulpit or press. I beg you will write by return of post; and do not write unkindly to your faithful servant and friend,

“John Atlay.”

Was this the whine of a mercenary man? or was it the genuine effusion of a loving and honest heart? The reader must answer for himself; remembering, however, that the Dewsbury chapel had been built, not by the money of the trustees, but by the subscriptions of the Methodists; that three years previous to this, Atlay had entertained the thought of ultimately leaving Wesley’s stewardship, and, with an eye to that, had begun the business of selling coals; and, further, that, since then, he had unquestionably encouraged the Dewsbury trustees in their rebellion, by promising to become their preacher, when Wesley withdrew his. What was Wesley’s answer to his double dealing friend?

“Pembroke, August 23, 1788.

“My dear Brother,—If you are persuaded, that such a promise (which is the whole and sole cause of the breach at Dewsbury) is binding, you must follow your persuasion. You will have blame enough from other persons; my hand shall not be upon you. If I can do you good, I will; but shall certainly do you no harm. George Whitfield is the person I choose to succeed you. I wish you would teach him as much as you can without delay.

“I am, with kind love to sister Atlay, your affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

Thus did Wesley dispose of his book steward’s mischievous promise; his pert nomination of Joseph Bradford as his successor; and his whimpering prayer that Wesley would not punish him for his naughty tricks.

It is hardly necessary to insert the whole of the correspondence. Suffice it to say, that Wesley requested Atlay, before he left, to employ “one or two proper persons to take an inventory of all the books in the shop and under the chapel,” so that George Whitfield might know what was put into his care. Atlay’s reply to this was the following.

“London, September 20, 1788.

“Reverend and dear Sir,—We have almost this moment finished our job of taking the stock; and, as near as we can tell, your stock is this day worth £13,751 18s. 5d., according to the prices fixed in the catalogue. However, you may be sure it is not less than that. Most of these are saleable things. You will be sure to find sale for them, if you live; and, if not, they will be of equal value to those to whom you leave them.

“I am, etc.,

“John Atlay.”

Atlay went to Dewsbury on September 24, and took possession of the chapel built with the money of Methodists. We have before us a number of Mr. Pawson’s letters, written at this period, and in reference to the Dewsbury unpleasantness. Pawson went, and preached to the discontented Methodists; and spent two days in endeavouring to put them right; but without effect. Mr. Mather was “highly offended” on account of this; and Mr. Atlay wrote to Pawson “a thundering letter.” Under date of September 16, 1788, Pawson says:

“You see the blessedness of striving to make peace. The assistants of the neighbouring circuits are to preach in the streets at Dewsbury, in their turns. This is pain and grief to me. To preach in opposition, Methodists against Methodists, is painful beyond expression. I believe all might have been prevented by loving, prudent preachers. We have had a few unworthy men among us, who have been a great burden to us and to the people; but we do not lay them aside. Therefore, the people will oblige us to do it, by making deeds like that at Dewsbury. Some of our preachers do not live near to God, and do not endeavour, by reading and prayer, to render themselves acceptable to the people. But now it seems as though the people would make them look about them a little.”

From other unpublished letters, we learn that Atlay and Eels⁠ had large congregations; that they had taken with them the whole of the Dewsbury society, except a good man and his wife, of the name of Drake; and that one of the trustees soon became a bankrupt, and was said to have squandered a considerable amount of Atlay’s money. Difficulties speedily ensued; hence the following, extracted from a letter dated

“Birstal, December 18, 1789.

“... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels cannot supply the places they have at present. They want another preacher, but cannot get one. They have tried to get Mr. Holmes, who left us last conference, but he is engaged to Sheerness, as the society there is divided. Besides, I understand, they are all for the Church, and utterly against separation, ordination, etc. The devil can no longer set the men of the world against us; but he is trying a much more effectual way, setting the people and preachers one against another.

“John Pawson.”

Thus did Mr. Atlay really set up an imperium in imperio. He called himself a Methodist; and yet was setting Methodism’s founder at defiance. Not content with taking possession of the Dewsbury circuit, he went to Shields, and there, and in Newcastle, and other places, founded separate societies. At length, he and his friend Eels quarrelled. Hence the following.

“Birstal, May 17, 1791.

“... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels have differed and parted. Mr. Atlay is gone to London, and whether he will return to Dewsbury is quite uncertain. I believe very few desire or expect it. He has treated Mr. Eels in a very unkind and unbrotherly manner ever since he came to Dewsbury, and Mr. Eels was determined to bear it no longer. The trustees had a meeting, and determined that Mr. Eels should stay; and be, in every respect, equal to Mr. Atlay. They are greatly displeased with Mr. Atlay’s conduct, as well as with his doctrines. He has got deep into Mr. Manners’⁠ opinions, and says that he has believed them these twenty years. Mr. Eels is very friendly, and I believe most sincerely wishes a reconciliation, and I hope will endeavour to bring it about.

“John Pawson.”

William Eels died within two years after this. In the meantime, the Dewsbury trustees began to entertain “shocking opinions” of their friend Atlay; and in September, 1792, sent for Pawson to effect a reunion.⁠

We need not pursue the subject farther. Here we have the rise, the progress, and collapse of the Atlayite rebellion. We could give a number of Atlay’s letters, showing that, in 1789, he coquetted with Alexander McNab, and tried to secure the co-operation of James Oddie. But the traitorous book steward has already occupied more space than his worth deserves. We only add, that, to all his other faults, he added that of circulating the most infamous reports reflecting on Wesley’s moral character;⁠ which extorted from Wesley the following characteristic “Word to whom it may Concern,” inserted in his Magazine for 1790, just after the appearance of Atlay’s pamphlet on the subject.

“In August, 1788, Mr. Atlay wrote me word, ‘I must look out for another servant, for he would go to Dewsbury on September 25.’ So far was I from ‘bidding him go,’ that I knew nothing of it till that hour. But I then told him, ‘Go and serve them’: seeing I found he would serve me no longer.

“He sent me word that I had in London £13,751 18s. 5d., stock in books. Desiring to know exactly, I employed two booksellers to take an account of my stock. The account they brought in, October 31, 1788, was:

‘Value of stock, errors excepted, £4827 10s. 3½d.

‘John Parsons,  

Thomas Scollick.’

“Why did John Atlay so wonderfully overrate my stock? Certainly to do me honour in the eyes of the world.

“I never approved of his going to Dewsbury; but I submitted to what I could not help.

“With respect to Dewsbury House, there never was any dispute about the property of preaching houses, that was an artful misrepresentation; but merely the appointing of preachers in them.

“If John Atlay has a mind to throw any more dirt upon me, I do not know I shall take any pains to wipe it off. I have but a few days to live; and I wish to spend those in peace.

“London, Feb. 25, 1790.

“John Wesley.”

These are long, perhaps tedious, statements; but they are not without interest, as helping to illustrate the life and character of Wesley. His career was a long continued scene of trouble. Mobs assailed him first; then parsons and pamphleteers; then his friends, the Calvinists; and, last of all, his vexations were chiefly those occasioned by some of his own faithless followers.

Not to return to Dewsbury, it may be added here, that, at the conference of 1789, the preachers subscribed £206 towards the erection of a new chapel; and Wesley issued two circulars, stating the case to the Methodists in general, and asking their assistance. After mentioning that the former chapel had been built by the contributions of the people, (the trustees themselves not giving a quarter of what it cost,) he continues:

“Observe, here is no dispute about the right of houses at all. I have no right to any preaching house in England. What I claim is, a right of stationing the preachers. This these trustees have robbed me of in the present instance. Therefore, only one of these two ways can be taken; either to sue for this house, or to build another: we prefer the latter, being the most friendly way.

“I beg, therefore, my brethren, for the love of God; for the love of me, your old and well-nigh worn out servant; for the love of ancient Methodism, which, if itinerancy is interrupted, will speedily come to nothing; for the love of justice, mercy, and truth, which are all so grievously violated by the detention of this house; that you will set your shoulders to the necessary work. Be not straitened in your own bowels. We have never had such a cause before. Let not then unkind, unjust, fraudulent men, have cause to rejoice in their bad labour. This is a common cause. Exert yourselves to the utmost. I have subscribed £50. So has Dr. Coke. The preachers have done all they could. O let them that have much give plenteously! Perhaps, this is the last labour of love I may have occasion to recommend to you; let it then stand as one more monument of your real gratitude to, my dear brethren, your old, affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

We now return to the conference of 1788. These were not the only things to try Wesley’s patience. An effort was made to set aside the itinerant plan in Scotland,—a plan to which, as already shown, Wesley attached the utmost importance. This evoked the following letter to Lady Maxwell.

“London, August 8, 1788.

“My dear Lady,—It is certain, many persons, both in Scotland and England, would be well pleased to have the same preachers always. But we cannot forsake the plan of acting, which we have followed from the beginning. For fifty years, God has been pleased to bless the itinerant plan; the last year most of all; it must not be altered, till I am removed; and, I hope, it will remain till our Lord comes to reign upon earth.

“John Wesley.”

To the same effect was another, written three months later, and addressed to Jasper Winscomb.

“London, November 8, 1788.

“Dear Jasper,—William Cashman advised you like a heathen. Mr. Valton deserves pay, as well as you do. But he does not want it, and, therefore, scorns to take it, knowing the poverty of the land.

“I am glad to hear so good an account of the Isle of Wight. The work of God will flourish, there, if it be steadily pursued.

“No preacher ought to stay either at Portsmouth, or Sarum, or any other place, a whole week together. That is not the Methodist plan at all. It is a novel abuse.

“I am, dear Jasper, your affectionate brother,

“John Wesley.”

On the 10th of August, Wesley set out for Wales and the west of England; generally preaching twice a day, and on the Sundays thrice, and everywhere to crowded congregations.

On the 28th of September, he returned to London, and, two days after, went off to Norfolk. The remainder of the year was employed, as usual, in the metropolis and the surrounding counties.

These were not pleasure trips; but made in wintry weather, in frost and snow; the veteran of eighty-five preaching almost daily, both night and morning, and attending to a thousand things which demanded his attention.⁠ He writes.

“December 10, and the following days, I corrected my brother’s posthumous poems; being short psalms, and hymns on the four gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. They make five volumes in quarto, containing eighteen or nineteen hundred pages. Many of them are little, if any, inferior to his former poems, having the same justness and strength of thought, with the same beauty of expression; yea, the same keenness of wit on proper occasions, as bright and piercing as ever. Some are bad; some mean; some most excellently good. They give the true sense of Scripture, always in good English, generally in good verse; many of them are equal to most, if not to any, he ever wrote; but some still savour of that poisonous mysticism, with which we were both not a little tainted before we went to America. This gave a gloomy cast, first to his mind, and then to many of his verses; this made him frequently describe religion as a melancholy thing; this so often sounded in his ears, ‘To the desert!’ and strongly persuaded in favour of solitude.”

What had Wesley to say respecting himself? He writes.

“About this time” [December 15] “I was reflecting on the gentle steps whereby age steals upon us. Take only one instance. Four years ago, my sight was as good as it was at five-and-twenty. I then began to observe, that I did not see things quite so clear with my left eye as with my right; all objects appeared a little browner to that eye. I began next to find a little difficulty in reading a small print by candlelight. A year after, I found it in reading such a print by daylight. In the winter of 1786, I could not well read our four shilling hymn-book, unless with a large candle; the next year, I could not read letters, if wrote with a small or bad hand. Last winter, a pearl appeared on my left eye, the sight of which grew exceeding dim. The right eye seems unaltered; only I am a great deal nearer sighted than ever I was. Thus are ‘those that look out at the windows darkened’; one of the marks of old age. But, I bless God, ‘the grasshopper is’ not ‘a burden.’ I am still capable of travelling, and my memory is much the same as it ever was; and so, I think, is my understanding.”

Thus did Wesley take stock of himself.

On Christmas day, he preached at four o’clock in the morning, in City Road, again at eleven, and in West Street in the evening. On the last Sunday in the year, he had an exceedingly large congregation in Allhallows church, Lombard Street; and, concerning this, there is an anecdote worth relating. The sermon was for the benefit of forty-eight poor children belonging to St. Ethelburga society. “Sir,” said Wesley to his attendant while putting on his gown, “it is above fifty years since I first preached in this church; I remember it from a particular circumstance. I came without a sermon; and, going up the pulpit stairs, I hesitated, and returned into the vestry, under much mental confusion and agitation. A woman, who stood by, noticed my concern, and said, ‘Pray, sir, what is the matter?’ I replied, ‘I have not brought a sermon with me.’ Putting her hand on my shoulder, she said, ‘Is that all? Cannot you trust God for a sermon?’ This question had such an effect upon me, that I ascended the pulpit, preached extempore, with great freedom to myself, and acceptance to the people; and have never since taken a written sermon into the pulpit.”⁠ “A word spoken in due season, how good is it!”

Wesley’s publications, in 1788, have all been noticed, except his Magazine; and, concerning this, it is not needful to say much. There are, as usual, six new sermons from the venerable editor’s own pen: namely, On Reproving Sin; The Signs of the Times; Man; The Ministry of Wicked Ministers; Conscience; and Faith.

Wesley concludes the first of these thus:

“I have now only a few words to add unto you, my brethren, who are vulgarly called Methodists. I never heard or read of any considerable revival of religion, which was not attended with a spirit of reproving. I believe, it cannot be otherwise; for what is faith unless it worketh by love? Thus it was in every part of England, when the present revival of religion began about fifty years ago. All the subjects of that revival,—all the Methodists, in every place, were reprovers of outward sin. And, indeed, so are all that, being justified by faith, have peace with God through Jesus Christ. Such they are at first; and if they use that precious gift, it will never be taken away. Come, brethren! In the name of God, let us begin again! Rich or poor, let us all arise as one man! And, in any wise, let every man rebuke his neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him!”

Wesley’s sermon, on attending the ministry of unconverted ministers, would never have been written, had he not been pressed by the objections of Methodists, and yet determined to prevent their leaving the Established Church. Its arguments are specious, not sound. It might puzzle the simple minded Methodists; but it would not convince them they were wrong. It was a feeble attempt to get converted people to sit under an unconverted ministry. We conclude with one extract.

“It has been loudly affirmed, that most of those persons now in connection with me, who believe it their duty to call sinners to repentance, having been taken immediately from low trades, tailors, shoemakers, and the like, are a set of poor, stupid, illiterate men, that scarce know their right hand from their left; yet, I cannot but say, that I would sooner cut off my right hand, than suffer one of them to speak a word in any of our chapels, if I had not reasonable proof, that he had more knowledge in the holy Scriptures, more knowledge of himself, more knowledge of God and of the things of God, than nine in ten of the clergymen I have conversed with, either at the universities, or elsewhere. Undoubtedly, there are many clergymen in these kingdoms, that are not only free from outward sin, but men of eminent learning, and, what is infinitely more, deeply acquainted with God. But, still, I am constrained to confess, that the far greater part of those ministers I have conversed with, for above half a century, have not been holy men,—not devoted to God,—not deeply acquainted either with God or themselves.”

Such was Wesley’s reluctant confession; and yet, to prevent what he called a separation from the Established Church, he elaborately persuades the Methodists, that they ought to receive the sacraments from these men; instead of requiring them at the hands of the converted artisans, who had preached so successfully, and who, according to Wesley’s own confession, were, even in point of scriptural knowledge, the superiors of the unconverted gentlemen, trained in colleges, and made priests or deacons—​not by Christ,—but by bishops!

FOOTNOTES:

Four letters, standing for Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Presbyter Johannes: “John, presbyter of the Church of England.” Wesley, in early life, sometimes used this signature in writing to his brother.

Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 359.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 437.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 438.

Ibid. p. 438.

Ibid. p. 439.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 440.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 441.

“The Allens of Shiney Row,” p. 59.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 442.

Methodist Recorder, Dec. 5, 1861.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 445.

Methodist Magazine, 1788, p. 543.

Manuscript letter.

Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 449.

Ibid.

Mrs. Fletcher’s Life, p. 251.

Manuscript letter.

J. Pawson’s manuscript letter.

Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 111.

Methodist Magazine, 1797, p. 553.

Memoir of Mrs. Knaggs.

Methodist Magazine, 1836, p. 492.

Memoirs of Spence, p. 26.

Ibid.

It ought to have been eighty-sixth.

Black’s Memoirs, p. 219.

Bulmer’s Memoir, p. 4.

Smith’s “Methodism in Ireland.”

Ibid.

Manuscript letters in Mission House.

Ibid.

Ibid.

A proposal to ordain him. See Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 112.

Manuscript letters in Mission House.

Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 298.

James Wray was a member of Wesley’s legalised conference. After travelling six years in English circuits, he now went, as an ordained missionary superintendent to Nova Scotia. It is a curious fact that the Nova Scotians objected to him, not only on the ground of his want of learning, but because he was an Englishman! On hearing of this, Wesley, in an unpublished letter, wrote: “O American gratitude! Lord, I appeal to Thee!”

Wesley’s Works, vol. xiv., p. 343.

Cowper had recently published “The Task,” and was now employed in his translation of Homer. In another letter, Wesley says: “I think Mr. Cowper has done as much as is possible to be done with his lamentable story. I can only wish he had a better subject.”

Except in the case of the psalms, where about thirty are discarded, and about sixty mutilated. The propriety of this may be fairly doubted.

See Nott’s Bampton Lecture, 1802.

The Wesleyan, Nov. 4, 1846.

As a curious specimen of the way in which things were managed in the early days of Methodism, the following extracts are given from “The Dales” circuit book, whose accounts extend from 1765 to 1791.

The reader can calculate how many meals a day were allowed to these godly men, and how much per meal. Besides these allowances for board, each preacher was entitled to receive, as quarterage, for himself £3; and, for his wife, if he had one, £2 10s.

The contingent fund, raised by the yearly collection in the classes, was originally intended to defray law expenses, and to pay, or reduce, chapel debts. In this year, 1788, the income of the fund was £1203 7s. 1d., out of which was paid for law expenses, £37 4s. 2d.; for chapels, £106 15s. 0d.; and for the deficiencies of the preachers and their families, £433 18s. 1d. It was high time for Wesley to take action; though his effort to correct the evil was without effect.

In a 12mo pamphlet, published in 1788, and entitled, “A Reply to what the Rev. Dr. Coke is pleased to call ‘The State of the Dewsbury House,’ being a Vindication of the Conduct of the Trustees of that House,”—it is stated, that the questions proposed to Wesley by Mr. Heald were: (1) “If the conference should neglect to supply the house with preachers, would it be understood to remain the property of the conference, or would the trustees have a power to provide for themselves? (2) If any preacher, sent them, should be found guilty of immorality, would the trustees have a power of rejecting him?” It further states, that the trustees had, in Wesley’s own handwriting, a paragraph to the effect that “the assistants and leaders were to be the proper judges” of a preacher charged with immorality. This certainly clashes with Wesley’s letter, given hereafter, and dated July 30, 1788.

“The State of Dewsbury House.” By Dr. Coke.

By the kindness of Mr. Robinson, of Dewsbury, we have before us a copy of the original trust deed, from which we learn that, if, after a vacancy, Wesley or the conference refused or neglected, for the space of forty days, to appoint a preacher; or if the preacher appointed should “not conduct or conform himself to the satisfaction of the trustees or, the major part of them, it should be lawful for the said trustees, or such major part, not only to displace such preacher, (after giving him one month’s previous notice thereof in writing,) but also to appoint such other preacher as they should deem more proper, and better qualified to benefit the society.” The deed is dated January 31, 1788, and the names and occupations of the trustees are as follows.

Mather’s “State of Dewsbury House.”

“Letters by Rev. J. Wesley and Mr. John Atlay.” 1790.

By some strange oversight, William Eels, at the conference of 1788, was left without an appointment; and, at the time of Atlay’s arrival there, was actually at Dewsbury, endeavouring to make peace. Hearing of this, and mistaking Eels’ motive, Mr. Mather impetuously took steps to prevent his preaching in other Methodist pulpits. “This was the only cause of his uniting with John Atlay.”—(Pawson’s manuscripts.)

Unpublished letter.

Nicholas Manners was one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers from 1759 to 1784. He was an able man. His heresy, in substance, was, that, in consequence of the work and death of Christ, all men are born in the same state as that in which Adam stood previous to his fall.

Unpublished letter.

Pawson’s manuscript letters.

We have, in manuscript, his most malignant slander, but prefer withholding it. No wonder John Atlay wrote, in a letter to Mr. Merryweather, of Yarm, in 1785, “You know I never mount high in profession of grace.”

Methodist Magazine, 1790, p. 103.

Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 328.

Methodist Magazine, 1859, p. 247.

Among other places, he preached at Sevenoaks, and is said to have used these words: “When a sinner is awakened, the baptists begin to trouble him about outward forms, and modes of worship, and that of baptism. They had better cut his throat,” etc. Whether the exact words were used we have no means of knowing; but a warm controversy sprung out of the affair. Mr. William Kingsford issued “A Vindication of the Baptists from the Criminality of a Charge exhibited against them by the Rev. Mr. Wesley.” This was answered by T. C., supposed by Kingsford to be the Rev. Mr. Coleman. (Query Thomas Coke?) And this was replied to by Kingsford in a shilling pamphlet, bearing the title, “Three Letters to the Rev. Mr. Wesley, containing remarks on a Piece lately published, with his approbation, and Three Challenges to all the Methodists in the Kingdom.” The whole thing was “much ado about nothing.”

Methodist Magazine, 1825, p. 105.

↑ Back to top