FOOTNOTES:
1771.
Age 68
The year 1771 was one of unceasing conflict. The first two months, as usual, were spent in London, during which Wesley’s wife, in one of her insane piques, and without assigning the slightest reason, unceremoniously left his house in London, and started for her own in Pilgrim Street, Newcastle. It was on this occasion that Wesley wrote the words so often quoted: “Non eam reliqui; non dimisi; non revocabo.”
On the 3rd of March, Wesley set out for Ireland, where he laboured for the next few months.
Affairs in Scotland were a source of increasing anxiety. Hence the following letter to Lady Maxwell, in reference to Alexander McNab, one of his itinerants, and the Rev. Richard De Courcy, who was about to become minister in Lady Glenorchy’s chapel, Edinburgh.
“London, January 24, 1771.
“My dear Lady,—Although Mr. McNab is quite clear as to justification by faith, and is, in general, a sound and good preacher, yet, I fear, he is not clear of blame in this. He is too warm and impatient of contradiction, otherwise he must be lost to all common sense, to preach against final perseverance in Scotland. From the first hour that I entered the kingdom, it was a sacred rule with me never to preach on any controverted point,—at least, not in a controversial way. Any one may see that this is only to put a sword into our enemies’ hands. It is the direct way to increase all their prejudices, and to make all our labours fruitless.
“You will shortly have a trial of another kind. Mr. De Courcy purposes to set out for Edinburgh in a few days. He was from a child a member of our societies in the south of Ireland. There he received remission of sins, and was, for some time, groaning for full redemption. But when he came to Dublin the Philistines were upon him, and soon prevailed over him. Quickly, he was convinced that ‘there is no perfection,’ and that ‘all things depend on absolute and unchangeable decrees.’ At first, he was exceedingly warm upon these heads; now, he is far more calm. His natural temper, I think, is good; he is open, friendly, and generous. He has also a good understanding, and is not unacquainted with learning, though not deeply versed therein. He has no disagreeable person, a pleasing address, and is a lively as well as sensible preacher. Now, when you add to this that he is quite new, and very young, you may judge how he will be admired and caressed. How will a raw, inexperienced youth be able to encounter this? If there be not the greatest of miracles to preserve him, will it not turn his brain? And may he not then do far more hurt than either Mr. W—— or Mr. T—— did? Will he not prevent your friend from going on to perfection? Nay, may he not shake you also? At present, indeed, he is in an exceedingly loving spirit. But will that continue long? There will be danger on the one hand if it does; there will be danger on the other if it does not.
“It does not appear, that any great change has been wrought in our neighbours by Mr. Whitefield’s death. He had fixed the prejudice so deep, that even he himself was not able to remove it; yet, our congregations have increased exceedingly, and the work of God increases on every side. I am glad you use more exercise. It is good for both body and soul. As soon as Mr. De Courcy is come, I shall be glad to hear how the prospect opens. You will then need a larger share of the wisdom from above; and I trust you will write with all openness to, my dear lady, your ever affectionate servant,
“John Wesley.”
It was Wesley who obtained Mr. De Courcy’s services for Lady Glenorchy. He knew the man, and thought highly of him, but also saw his danger; and hence the warning to Lady Maxwell. It would be a pleasant task to sketch the subsequent career of this devoted Irishman; but, at present, we must confine ourselves to Edinburgh. De Courcy set out for the northern metropolis, as Wesley had said he would; and, immediately on his arrival at Newcastle, addressed to Wesley the following.
“February 9, 1771.
“Reverend and dear Sir,—Yesterday evening, after a very tedious journey, the Lord brought me safe to Newcastle. When I reflect on the fatigue and dangers which attend travelling, I should be astonished above measure that you have so indefatigably persevered in all the labours of an itinerant life for so many years, were I not well assured that you have been supernaturally assisted in body and mind for that extensive work to which God has eminently chosen you.
“I write this in Mr. McNab’s chamber, with whom, and Mr. Hanby, I find great fellowship of spirit. I have accepted your kind invitation, and purpose taking up my abode with them till Monday, when I set out for Edinburgh. I would stay longer with your dear people here, but that I find Lady Glenorchy is particularly anxious for my speedy arrival in Edinburgh. As my situation there will expose me to diversified trials, do dear sir, pray that I may be kept
“I remain, reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate, but unworthy brother,
“Richard De Courcy.”
A few days after De Courcy’s arrival, Wesley wrote a second time to Lady Maxwell, as follows.
“February 26, 1771.
“My dear Lady,—I cannot but think the chief reason of the little good done by our preachers in Edinburgh is the opposition which has been made by the ministers of Edinburgh, as well as by the false brethren from England. These steeled the hearts of the people against all the good impressions which might otherwise have been made; so that the same preachers, by whom God has constantly wrought, not only in various parts of England, but likewise in the northern parts of Scotland, were in Edinburgh only not useless. They felt a damp upon their spirits; they had not their usual liberty of speech; and the word they spoke seemed to rebound upon them, and not to sink into the hearts of the hearers. At my first coming, I usually find something of this myself; but the second or third time of preaching, it is gone.
“I think it will not be easy for any one to show us, either, that Christ did not die for all, or, that He is not willing as well as able to cleanse from all sin, even in the present world. If your steady adherence to these great truths be termed bigotry, yet you have no need to be ashamed. You are reproached for Christ’s sake, and the spirit of glory and of Christ shall rest upon you. Perhaps our Lord may use you to soften some of the harsh spirits, and to preserve Lady Glenorchy, or Mr. De Courcy, from being hurt by them.
“I am, my dear lady, your very affectionate servant,
“John Wesley.”
From these letters, it is painfully apparent that the Calvinistic controversy was not confined to England. Edinburgh rang with discordant notes; and, in five months after Mr. De Courcy’s coming, Lady Glenorchy dismissed Wesley’s preachers from her chapel, assigning, as her reason, that they were not Calvinists.
South of the Tweed there were sounds of the coming battle; hence the following extract from a letter to Miss Bishop.
“February 16, 1771.
“My dear Sister,—... Legality, with most that use that term, really means tenderness of conscience. There is no propriety in the word, if one would take it for seeking justification by works. Considering, therefore, how hard it is to fix the meaning of that odd term, and how dreadfully it has been abused, I think it highly advisable for all the Methodists to lay it quite aside.
“If Mr. Shirley could find any other doctrine, which he thought was peculiarly mine, he would be as angry at it as he is at Christian perfection. But it is all well: we are to go forward, whoever goes back or turns aside. Perhaps we may see a new accomplishment of Solomon’s words, ‘He that reproveth a man shall afterward find more favour than he who flattereth with his tongue.’ But, be that as it may, I have done my duty: I could no otherwise have delivered my own soul; and no offence at all would have been given thereby, had not pride stifled both religion and generosity. But my letter is now out of date: it is mentioned no more; there is a more plausible occasion found, namely, those eight terrible propositions which conclude the minutes of our conference. At the instance of some who were sadly frightened thereby, I have revised them over and over; I have considered them in every point of view; and truly, the more I consider them, the more I like them. The more fully I am convinced, not only that they are true,—agreeable both to Scripture and sound experience,—but, that they contain truths of the deepest importance, and such as ought to be continually inculcated by those who would be pure from the blood of all men.
“Your affectionate brother,
“John Wesley.”
Benson had been dismissed from Trevecca, in the month of January, for defending Wesley’s minutes; and now Fletcher, the president of the college, informed the Countess of Huntingdon, that, if all Arminians were to be expelled, he must be expelled. This was a serious matter. Fletcher, at Trevecca, had been, according to Benson, “almost an angel in human flesh.” “Prayer, praise, love, and zeal were the element in which he lived. His one employment was to call, entreat, and urge others to ascend with him to the glorious Source of being and blessedness. He had leisure comparatively for nothing else. Languages, arts, sciences, grammar, rhetoric, logic, even divinity itself, were all laid aside, when he appeared in the schoolroom among the students. His full heart would not suffer him to be silent; and the students were readier to hearken to him than to attend to Sallust, Virgil, or Cicero. Soon, they were all in tears; and then he would say, ‘As many of you as are athirst for the fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my room.’” Away they trooped after him, and would continue praying, one after another, for hours together, till they could bear to kneel no longer; Fletcher, in the midst, so filled with the love of God, that, more than once, he cried, “O my God, withhold Thy hand, or the vessel will burst!” Such a man in such a place was invaluable; but he was not the man to truckle in the presence of arbitrary power. Hence the following to Wesley.
“Madeley, February 20, 1771.
“Reverend and dear Sir,—I fear we are going, or are already gone, from our plan of catholicism at the college. Mr. Benson’s affair has made me tell my mind to our Deborah, about bigotry, partiality, prejudice, and everything that seemed to me contrary to the Christian spirit in some late transactions. The answer was, that if one half of the things objected to by me was true, there would be room for the cruelty of my charges; but facts and words have been grossly misrepresented. Therefore, my mouth is shut so far.
“This, however, I have insisted, and do insist, upon, if every Arminian must quit the college, I am discharged for one; for I cannot give up the possibility of the salvation of all any more than I can give up the truth and love of God.
“Secondly, I will be no party man, nor give up my connections with any that fear God, much less with Mr. Wesley, who shall be always welcome to my pulpit, and I make no doubt will welcome me to his.
“Thirdly, nobody shall prevent my following after an entire devotedness of heart to God, by baiting my Christian hopes and privileges under the name of perfection.
“To this, I have received no particular answer; but, as I set out for the college to-day, I may get one viva voce.
“Though no letter writer, I am and shall always remain, reverend and dear sir, your ready though unprofitable servant,
“John Fletcher.”
The result of Fletcher’s visit to the college is given in the subjoined extracts from letters sent to Benson.
“March 22, 1771.
“On my arrival at the college, I found all very quiet, I fear, through the enemy’s keeping his goods in peace. While I preached, I found myself as much shackled as ever I was in my life; and, after private prayer, I concluded I was not in my place. The same day I resigned my office to my lady, and on Wednesday to the students and the Lord. Last Friday I left them all in peace, the servant, but no more the president, of the college.”
“Mr. Shirley has sent my lady a copy of part of the minutes of the last conference, namely, of the year 1770. They were called horrible and abominable. My lady told me, she must turn against them; and that whoever did not fully disavow them must quit the college. She accordingly ordered the master and all the students to write their sentiments upon them without reserve. I did so; explained them according to Mr. Wesley’s sentiments; and approved the doctrine, though not cautiously worded. I concluded by observing, that, as after such a step on my part, and such a declaration on my lady’s, I could no longer, as an honest man, stay in the college, I took my leave of it; wishing my lady might find a minister to preside over it less insufficient than
“John Fletcher.”
So much respecting Trevecca. Returning to Wesley, we find him defending himself in the following long letter, published in Lloyd’s Evening Post for March 1, 1771.
“February 26, 1771.
“Sir,—The editor of a monthly publication, pompously called The Gospel Magazine, has violently fallen upon one and another, who did not knowingly give him any provocation. And whereas, in other magazines, the accused has liberty to answer for himself, it is not so here. This gentleman will publish only the charge; but not the defence. What can a person, thus injuriously treated, do? To publish pamphlets, on every head, would not answer the end, for the answer would not come into near so many hands as the objection. Is there then a better way than to appeal to candid men, in one of the public papers, by which means the antidote will operate both as widely and as speedily as the poison? This method, therefore, I take at last, after delaying as long as I could with innocence.
“In that magazine for last month, there is a warm attack upon my sermon on the death of Mr. Whitefield. The first charge is against the text, ‘Let me die the death of the righteous.’ ‘How improper,’ says Mr. R., ‘to apply the words of a mad prophet to so holy a man as Mr. Whitefield.’
“Improper! See how doctors differ! I conceive nothing can possibly be more proper. If Mr. R. did indeed tell his congregation, some of whom disliked his attacking my poor text before, ‘Let who will be vexed, I do not care; I will not justify Balaam while I live’; yet, others imagine nothing would be more suitable than for Balaam junior to use the words of his forefather; especially, as he did not apply them to Mr. Whitefield, but to himself. Surely a poor reprobate may, without offence, wish to die like one of the elect! And I dare say, every one understood me to mean this, the moment he heard the text. If not, the very hymn I sung showed to whom I applied the words—
“But the main attack is on the sermon itself; in which I am charged with asserting a gross falsehood, in the face of God and the congregation, and that knowing it to be such, namely, that ‘the grand fundamental doctrines which Mr. Whitefield everywhere preached, were those of the new birth and justification by faith.’ No, says Mr. R., not at all: the grand fundamental doctrines, which he everywhere preached, were the everlasting covenant between the Father and the Son, and absolute predestination flowing therefrom.
“I join issue on this head. Whether the doctrines of the eternal covenant, and of absolute predestination, are the grand fundamental doctrines of Christianity, or not, I affirm again—(1) that Mr. Whitefield did not everywhere preach these; (2) that he did everywhere preach the new birth, and justification by faith.
“1. He did not everywhere preach the eternal covenant, and absolute predestination. In all the times I myself heard him preach, I never heard him utter a sentence either on one or the other. Yea, all the times he preached in West Street chapel, and in our other chapels throughout England, he did not preach these doctrines at all, no, not in a single paragraph; which, by the bye, is a demonstration that he did not think them the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
“2. Both in West Street chapel, and all our other chapels throughout England, he did preach the necessity of the new birth, and justification by faith, as clearly as he has done in his two volumes of printed sermons. Therefore, all that I have asserted is true, and provable by ten thousand witnesses.
“Nay, says Mr. R., ‘Mr. Whitefield everywhere insisted on other fundamental doctrines, from the foundation of which the new birth and justification by faith take their rise, and with which they are inseparably connected. These are the everlasting covenant, which was entered into by the Holy Trinity, and God the Father’s everlasting, unchangeable election of sinners’ (in virtue of which a fiftieth part of mankind shall be saved, do what they will; and the other forty-nine parts shall be damned, do what they can). ‘These doctrines are not of a less essential nature than either regeneration or justification. No, by no means; they are to the full equally essential to the glory of God. Yea, there is an inseparable connection between them. This is a most essential, a most fundamental point.’ (Magazine, p. 41.)
“If so, then every one who does not hold it must perish everlastingly. If, as you here assert, he cannot be justified, then he cannot be saved. If, as you say, he cannot be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
“After asserting this, can Mr. R. ever take the name of catholic love into his mouth? Is not this the very opposite to it? the height and depth of bigotry? Does this spirit do honour to his opinion? Can we conceive anything more horrid? Is it not enough to make a person of humanity shudder? Yea, to make his blood run cold?
“I do not here enter into the merits of the cause. I need not. It is done to my hands. The whole doctrine of predestination is thoroughly discussed in those three tracts lately printed: ‘An Answer to the Eleven Letters commonly ascribed to Mr. Hervey’; ‘Arguments against General Redemption Considered’; and ‘An Answer to Elisha Coles.’ Till these are seriously and solidly refuted, I have no more to say on that head. But I must aver, that the excluding all from salvation who do not believe the horrible decree is a most shocking insult on all mankind, on common sense, and common humanity.
“I am, etc.,
“John Wesley.”
Of course, this was too pungent to pass without notice. Accordingly, in the Gospel Magazine for the month following, there appeared an incisive review of Sellon’s Answer to Elisha Coles, which is described as “a mite of reprobate silver, cast into the Foundery, and coming out thence, with the impress of that pride, self righteousness, and self sufficiency, natural to men in their fallen, unrenewed state.” Sellon is accused of “trifling effrontery,” and is said “to have sunk far below the gentleman, and to have lost all appearance of the Christian”; and is further designated “the Cardinal Bellarmine of the day; the obsequious servant and faithful labourer to his holiness.”
In a subsequent number of the same periodical, published in the month of May, Wesley’s minutes are attacked; the writer, “A Real Protestant,” indignantly asking, “Are not these the very doctrines of popery, yea, of popery unmasked? Is it not awful that 29,406 souls, who are in Mr. Wesley’s societies, should be so dreadfully seduced from the protestant doctrines, and deluded into a belief of the doctrines of the mother of harlots, the whore of Babylon, the Church of Rome?”
Thus the bitter controversy proceeded. Comment would be easy; but we prefer to let the chief actors speak; and, not to interrupt this painful scene, proceed to give other letters bearing upon the subject, so that the reader may have before him as full a view of the spirit and behaviour of both parties as it is possible to furnish.
While on his way to Ireland, Wesley wrote the following to Fletcher.
“I always did, for between these thirty and forty years, clearly assert the total fall of man, and his utter inability to do any good of himself; the absolute necessity of the grace and Spirit of God to raise even a good thought or desire in our hearts; the Lord’s rewarding no work, and accepting of none, but so far as they proceed from His preventing, convincing, and converting grace through the Beloved; the blood and righteousness of Christ being the sole meritorious cause of our salvation. Who is there in England, that has asserted these things more strongly and steadily than I have done?”
The next letter, addressed to Lady Huntingdon, was occasioned by one which her ladyship had sent to Wesley’s brother on the subject of his minutes, and was dated “Bath, June 8, 1771.” The countess brands the minutes as “popery unmasked”; and declares that “all ought to be deemed papists who do not disown them.” She thus concludes: “as you have no part in this matter, I find it difficult to blame your brother to you; while as an honest man I must pity you, as you must suffer equal disgrace, and universal distrust, from the supposed union with him.” Charles Wesley endorsed this unworthy letter with the words: “Lady Huntingdon’s last; unanswered by John Wesley’s brother.”
Charles Wesley doubtless communicated the contents to his brother, who was now in Ireland; in fact, her ladyship requested him to do this: and hence the following.
“June 19, 1771.
“My dear Lady,—Many years since, I saw that ‘without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’ I began following after it, and inciting all with whom I had any intercourse to do the same. Ten years after, God gave me a clearer view than I had before of the way how to attain this, namely, by faith in the Son of God; and, immediately, I declared to all, ‘We are saved from sin, we are made holy, by faith.’ This I testified in private, in public, in print; and God confirmed it by a thousand witnesses. I have continued to declare this, for above thirty years; and God has continued to confirm the word of His grace. But, during this time, well-nigh all the religious world have set themselves in array against me, and, among the rest, many of my own children, following the example of one of my eldest sons, Mr. Whitefield. Their general cry has been, ‘He is unsound in the faith; he preaches another gospel!’ I answer, Whether it be the same which they preach or not, it is the same which I have preached for above thirty years. This may easily appear from what I have published during that whole term. I instance only in three sermons; that on ‘Salvation by Faith,’ printed in the year 1738; that on ‘The Lord our Righteousness,’ printed a few years since; and that on Mr. Whitefield’s funeral, printed only some months ago.
“But it is said, ‘Oh but you printed ten lines in August last, which contradict all your other writings.’ Be not so sure of this. It is probable, at least, that I understand my own meaning as well as you do; and that meaning I have yet again declared in the sermon last referred to. By that, interpret those ten lines, and you will understand them better; although I should think that any one might see, even without this help, that the lines in question do not refer to the condition of obtaining, but of continuing in the favour of God. But whether the sentiment contained in these lines be right or wrong, and whether it be well or ill expressed, the gospel which I now preach God does still confirm by new witnesses in every place; perhaps never so much in this kingdom as within these last three months. Now, I argue from glaring, undeniable fact: God cannot bear witness to a lie; the gospel, therefore, which He confirms must be true in substance. There may be opinions maintained at the same time which are not exactly true; and who can be secure from these? Perhaps, I thought myself so once. When I was much younger than I am now, I thought myself almost infallible; but, I bless God, I know myself better now.
“To be short. Such as I am, I love you well. You have one of the first places in my esteem and affection; and you once had some regard for me. But it cannot continue if it depends upon my seeing with your eyes, or on my being in no mistake. What if I was in as many as Mr. Law himself? If you were, I should love you still, provided your heart was still right with God. My dear friend, you seem not to have well learned yet the meaning of those words, which I desire to have continually written upon my heart, ‘Whosoever doth the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother.’
“I am, my dear lady, your affectionate
“John Wesley.”
Contemporaneously with the above letter, the Rev. Walter Shirley and Lady Huntingdon sent the following circular to Wesley, as well as to a large number of their Calvinian friends.
“Sir,—Whereas Mr. Wesley’s conference is to be held at Bristol, on Tuesday, the 6th of August next, it is proposed, by Lady Huntingdon, and many other Christian friends, (real protestants,) to have a meeting at Bristol at the same time, of such principal persons, both clergy and laity, who disapprove of the underwritten minutes; and as the same are thought injurious to the very fundamental principles of Christianity, it is further proposed, that they go in a body to the said conference, and insist upon a formal recantation of the said minutes; and, in case of a refusal, that they sign and publish their protest against them. Your presence, sir, on this occasion is particularly requested; but, if it should not suit your convenience to be there, it is desired that you will transmit your sentiments on the subject to such person as you think proper to produce them. It is submitted to you, whether it would not be right, in the opposition to be made to such a dreadful heresy, to recommend it to as many of your Christian friends, as well of the Dissenters as of the Established Church, as you can prevail on to be there, the cause being of so public a nature.
“I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“Walter Shirley.
“P.S.—Your answer is desired, directed to the Countess of Huntingdon; or the Rev. Mr. Shirley; or John Lloyd, Esq., in Bath; or Mr. James Ireland, merchant, Bristol; or to Thomas Powis, Esq., at Berwick, near Shrewsbury; or to Richard Hill, Esq., at Hawkstone, near Whitchurch, Shropshire. Lodgings will be provided. Inquire at Mr. Ireland’s, Bristol.”
A fine confederacy of elected saints, armed with self invested papal power to insist upon the recantation of poor Wesley and his heretical preachers!
The modest and self diffident countess and her executive chaplain apologise for this high handed interference on the ground that they “were warmly interested in the revival of spiritual religion and the doctrines of the Reformation;” that they “apprehended that the doctrines contained in the minutes had the most fatal tendency; and, in the strongest and most explicit terms, maintained salvation by works”; and that Wesley was not an ordinary personage, but stood “at the head of near thirty thousand people,—a veteran in the cause of the gospel,—one of the chiefs in the late reformation.”
One would have thought that, at least, the last mentioned reason would have led them to adopt a less offensive and more respectful method of correcting his “dreadful heresy,” than that of marching upon him and his conference en masse; and imperiously insisting upon his recantation. Surely, it would not have been too great a condescension for them and their friends, first of all, to have respectfully solicited of such “a veteran and chief” an explanation of what he meant; and, if they still found him to be in error, to ask for an opportunity to reason the matter with him and to set him right. But, no; this was far too troublesome for the elect of God, who, of course, were right, and all others wrong; and, hence, the only action, which would not impinge upon their sacred dignity, was to march, in solemn phalanx, to the assembly of Wesley and his poor itinerants, and there “insist upon a formal recantation”; and then, in case the heretics should refuse to yield, and because the valiant defenders of the truth were without power to imprison, to banish, or to burn, it was piously proposed that, for want of something more effectual, they should content themselves with a public protest against the pestilential minutes.
One of Shirley’s circulars was handed to Fletcher, the ex-president of Trevecca, who wrote to Wesley the following letter, hitherto unpublished.
“Madeley, June 24, 1771.
“Dear Sir,—When I left Wales, where I had stood in the gap for peace, I thought my poor endeavours were not altogether vain. Lady Huntingdon said she would write civilly to you, and desire you to explain yourself about your minutes. I suppose you have not heard from her, for she wrote me word since that she believed she must not meddle in the affair. At least, that is what I made of her letter. Upon receiving yours from Chester, I cut off that part of it where you expressed your belief of what is eminently called by us the doctrine of free grace; and sent it to the college, with a desire it might be sent to Lady Huntingdon. She has returned it to me, with a letter, in which she expresses the greatest disapprobation of it. The purport of her letter is, to charge you with tergiversation, and me with being the dupe of your impositions. She has also wrote in stronger terms to her college.
“Things, I hoped, would have remained there; but how am I surprised and grieved to see zeal borrowing the horn of discord, and sounding an alarm throughout the religious world against you. Mr. Hutton called upon me last night, and showed me a printed circular, which I suppose is, or will be, sent to the serious clergy and laity throughout the land. I have received none, as I have lost, I suppose, my reputation of being a ‘real protestant,’ by what I wrote upon your minutes in Wales.
“This is an exact copy of the printed letter.
[Here follows Shirley’s circular as above.]
“I think it my duty, dear sir, to give you the earliest intelligence of this bold onset, and to assure you that upon the evangelical principles, mentioned in your last letter to me, I, for one, shall be glad to stand by you and your doctrine to the last, hoping that you will gladly remove stumbling blocks out of the way of the weak, and alter such expressions as may create prejudice in the hearts of those who are inclined to admit it.
“I write to Mr. Shirley to expostulate with him, and to request him to call in his circular letter. He is the last man that should attack you. His sermons contain propositions much more heretical and anti-Calvinistical than your minutes. If my letters have not the desired effect, I shall probably, if you approve of them and correct them, make them public for your justification.
“I find Mr. Ireland is to write to make you tamely recant without measuring swords, or breaking a pike with our real protestants. I wrote to him also.
“I am, dear sir, your unworthy servant in the gospel,
“John Fletcher.
“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, at his Preaching
House in Dublin, Ireland.”
There was chivalry in this,—the real, genuine chivalry of a noble mind and generous heart. The Swiss mountaineer was not the man to see a friend bullied without rushing to his rescue.
Wesley was not without sympathy. A few days later, his faithful friend, Vincent Perronet, the vicar of Shoreham, who was also of Swiss extraction, wrote to him as follows.
“Shoreham, July 9, 1771.
“My very dear Brother,—I am truly concerned, that so laborious a servant of Christ should be attacked in so violent a manner. Insulted by some, without the least decency, or regard to common decorum; and threatened by others with a synodical sentence.
“Had I been honoured with an invitation from a great personage, for whom I have a very high esteem, I should have told her ladyship, that I have no greater veneration for synods than the most excellent Bishop Nazianzen had formerly, whose great learning and Christian virtues could not screen him from the usual violence of those assemblies, and who therefore desired to see no more of them.
“However, with regard to the merit of good works, I should frankly have declared my abhorrence of the very sound of the word; since I could not conceive how an unprofitable servant could merit anything from a holy God. But then, on the other hand, I should have added, that whoever should speak contemptuously of the diligent exercise of good works, as if they derogated from the honour of Christ, I should tell such a divine, that, whether he found his divinity either in Luther, or Calvin, or the Synod of Dort, it was no divinity of the gospel of Christ; since Christ came to purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. And as the Holy Spirit has assured us, over and over, that ‘we shall be judged according to our works,’ it is, therefore, no wonder that St. Paul should pray that his converts might be ‘established in every good word and work.’ Besides, I might have observed that the zealot who decries good works was acting a most ridiculous part with regard to faith; for if his faith did not bring forth good works, his faith was good for nothing.
“However, though such good works were the fruits of faith, and consequently the fruit of the Spirit of Christ, and, for that reason, must be acceptable to God, yet, I must have added, so far as they were our works, so far they wanted the blood of Christ to wash away their defilements, and to atone for their deficiencies; and, therefore, even our best works can have no merit in them.
“I should, then, have remonstrated to that worthy lady to the following purpose,—that if one, who had laboured in the vineyard, I believed, full as much as any person since the days of the apostles, was not thought worthy of the mantle of love, for any mistake he might have made, yet surely he had a right to expect, that notice would have been given him to explain his meaning, before his judge pronounced sentence. This is a privilege granted to every supposed criminal in our courts of law, and where this is denied that court is no better than a court of inquisition.
“But now, my dear brother, what effect such a letter might have had, I pretend not to say. It would, at the least, have testified to that friendship, which I have constantly had for you these twenty-five years. May God direct us both, and may our worst enemies be all brought to Him! You have my leave to make what use you please of this long letter.
“I am, my very dear brother, yours most affectionately,
“Vincent Perronet.”
Just at this juncture, Wesley drew up and printed, at Dublin, under date “July 10, 1771,” a clear and logical exposition of the doctrines set forth in the minutes, which he doubtless circulated among his preachers and friends. At the top of the first page of one of the copies, he requested Miss Bishop, of Bath, not to “show it before conference,” adding, “if the Calvinists do not, or will not understand me, I understand myself; and I do not contradict anything I have written these thirty years. Poor Mr. Shirley’s triumph will be short.”
Wesley’s views were the same as Perronet’s. What were Charles Wesley’s, and what part was taken by him in this momentous controversy? The biographer of the Countess of Huntingdon would have his readers to believe, that Charles disapproved of his brother’s letter to her ladyship; that he would reprove him for it; and, that he preferred peace above all things. It might be so; we have no means of gainsaying it. It is doubtful whether he attended the conference in Bristol; in fact, almost certain that he did not. Hence the following, addressed to him only three days before the commencement of its sittings.
“Kingswood, August 3, 1771.
“Dear Brother,—I will not throw away Thomas Rankin on the people of London. He shall go where they know the value of him.
“We cannot put out what we never put in. I do not use the word ‘merit.’ I never did, neither do I now, contend for the use of it. But I ask you, or any other, a plain question: and do not cry, Murder; but give me an answer. What is the difference between ‘mereri,’ and ‘to deserve’? or between ‘deserving,’ and ‘meritum’? I say still, I cannot tell. Can you? Can Mr. Shirley, or any man living? In asking this question, I neither plead for merit, nor against it. I have nothing to do with it. I have declared a thousand times, there is no goodness in man till he is justified; no merit, either before or after; that is, taking the word in its proper sense: for in a loose sense ‘meritorious’ means no more than ‘rewardable.’
“As to reprobation, seeing they have drawn the sword, I throw away the scabbard. I send you a specimen. Let fifteen hundred of them be printed as soon as you please.
“Nothing was ever yet expended out of the yearly collection, without being immediately set down by the secretary. I never took a shilling from that fund yet.
“What you advise with regard to our behaviour toward our opposers exactly agrees with my sentiments. I am full of business, as you may suppose. So adieu!
“John Wesley.”
On the evening before Wesley’s conference assembled, two letters were put into his hand, one written by Lady Huntingdon, the other by the Rev. Walter Shirley. The purport of her ladyship’s letter was, that, having learned that the proposed method of visiting his conference appeared to him and to his friends “as an arbitrary way of proceeding, she and her allies wished to inform him, that they intended no personal disrespect, but a degree of zeal against the principles established in the minutes, which were repugnant to the whole plan of man’s salvation under the new covenant of grace, and also to the clear meaning of the Established Church, as well as to all other protestant churches, to whose foundations the highest honour and respect are due.”
Shirley’s letter apologises for that part of his circular which seemed to assume, that he and his friends had a “civil right to go in a body to Wesley’s conference, and insist on a formal recantation of the minutes.” All he meant was, to send Wesley a “respectful message importing their design, and requesting him to appoint a day and hour for the conference to receive them.” The reason why he had inserted “the offensive expression, ‘insist upon a formal recantation,’” (for which he now apologised,) was, because “it was supposed by some, that, instead of giving satisfaction on the points in question, such a forced construction would be put on the meaning of the minutes, as might elude the intended opposition, and yet leave the doctrines therein contained entire and unrepealed.” Shirley concludes by stating, that the doctrines of the minutes appear to him “evidently subversive of the fundamentals of Christianity.”
Remembering that Wesley was not under the slightest obligation to either the Countess of Huntingdon, Mr. Shirley, or any of their Calvinistic friends, he might, without any want of courtesy, have treated with contempt a letter casting upon him the slur of trickishness, and have declined to see its author; but, instead of that, he appointed Thursday, August 8, for the momentous interview. Accordingly, on that day, Shirley, and two other ministers of the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapels, together with Messrs. Lloyd, Ireland, and Winter, and two students (!) from Trevecca college, went to Wesley’s conference. Shirley’s circular, summoning a synod, had been sent to all his sympathisers, clerical and laical, throughout the three kingdoms; and the result was a grand convocation of less than half a score, and even these included two laics belonging to Bath and Bristol, and at least two young men, still merely preparing for the ministry. The thing was a ridiculous failure; but not even on that account did Wesley refuse to see the self elected deputies. First of all, Wesley engaged in prayer. Then Shirley desired to know if the letters of himself and Lady Huntingdon had been read to the conference. Being answered in the negative, he asked leave to read them, which was granted. A lengthened conversation followed; and then Shirley produced a written declaration which he wished the conference to sign. Wesley read it, and made some alterations, which Shirley says were “not very material,” and then he and fifty-three of his preachers appended to it their signatures. The declaration thus signed was as follows:—
“Whereas the doctrinal points in the Minutes of a Conference, held in London, August 7, 1770, have been understood to favour Justification by Works: now the Rev. John Wesley, and others assembled in Conference, do declare, that we had no such meaning; and that we abhor the doctrine of Justification by Works as a most perilous and abominable doctrine; and as the said Minutes are not sufficiently guarded in the way they are expressed, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that we have no trust or confidence but in the alone merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for Justification or Salvation either in life, death or the day of judgment; and though no one is a real Christian believer, (and consequently cannot be saved) who doth not good works, where there is time and opportunity, yet our works have no part in meriting or purchasing our salvation from first to last, either in whole or in part.”
After the declaration had been agreed to, Shirley was requested “to make some public acknowledgment, that he had mistaken the meaning of the minutes.” Shirley hesitated, but at last consented, and wrote a certificate to that effect.
In the meantime, Wesley had received from Fletcher the manuscript copy of his “Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Last Minutes: occasioned by a circular, printed letter, inviting principal persons, both clergy and laity, as well of the Dissenters as of the Established Church, who disapprove of those Minutes, to oppose them in a body, as a dreadful heresy: in Five Letters to the Hon. and Rev. Author of the circular letter.”
Wesley at once gave the manuscript to William Pine to print and publish. Shirley, hearing of this, waited upon Wesley the day after he and his friends had been to conference, and requested that the manuscript should not be printed, urging as their reason, that Fletcher himself wished for this, “if matters should end peaceably.” Wesley, however, persisted, and the work was published without delay, in a 12mo pamphlet of 98 pages. Whilst the manuscript was being printed, Wesley took the opportunity to reply to the letter of Lady Huntingdon, which had been put into his hands the night before his conference commenced. Nine days had elapsed since then, and now Wesley, on August 14, addresses her ladyship in the following unflinching terms, his letter also showing that the publication of Fletcher’s “Vindication” was no after thought, but was proceeding even while the conference was sitting.
“My dear Lady,—The principles established in the minutes I apprehend to be no way contrary to that great truth, justification by faith, or that consistent plan of doctrine, which was once delivered to the saints. I believe whoever calmly considers Mr. Fletcher’s Letters will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, that ‘zeal against those principles’ is no less than zeal against the truth, and against the honour of our Lord. The preservation of His honour appears so sacred to me, and has done for above these forty years, that I have counted, and do count, all things loss in comparison of it. But till Mr. Fletcher’s Letters are answered, I must think everything spoken against these minutes is totally destructive of His honour, and a palpable affront to Him; both as our Prophet and Priest, but more especially as the King of His people. Those Letters, therefore, which could not be suppressed without betraying the honour of our Lord, largely prove that the minutes lay no other foundation than that which is laid in Scripture, and which I have been laying, and teaching others to lay, for between thirty and forty years. Indeed, it would be amazing that God should at this day prosper my labours as much if not more than ever, by convincing as well as converting sinners, if I was establishing another foundation, repugnant to the whole plan of man’s ‘salvation under the covenant of grace, as well as the clear meaning of our Established Church, and all other protestant churches.’ This is a charge indeed! But I plead not guilty: and till it is proved upon me, I must subscribe myself, my dear lady, your ladyship’s affectionate but much injured servant,
“John Wesley.”
Wesley had told his brother, that as “they had drawn the sword,” he himself should “throw away the scabbard,” and now this was done. Shirley found the tables turned, and, instead of attacking others, had to defend himself; and hence, in September, he issued his “Narrative of the Principal Circumstances relative to the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s late Conference, held in Bristol, August 6, 1771.” 8vo, 24 pages.
Space prohibits any lengthened outline of Fletcher’s “Vindication.” He gives (1) a general view of Wesley’s doctrine; (2) an account of the commendable design of his minutes; (3) a vindication of their propositions. It is in this production, that he furnishes his fearful description of the antinomianism which was then so prevalent, and which really rendered some utterance on the subject of good works a solemn necessity. He also makes extracts from Shirley’s published sermons, teaching the very doctrines which Wesley’s minutes teach; to which quotations Shirley’s reply was, that “they were wrote many years ago when he had more zeal than light,” and that he had “frequently wished that they were burnt.”
Fletcher concludes thus:—
“O sir, have we not fightings enough without, to employ all our time and strength? Must we also declare war and promote fightings within? Must we catch at every opportunity to stab one another? What can be more cutting to an old minister of Christ than to be traduced as a dreadful heretic, in printed letters sent to the best men of the land, through all England and Scotland, and signed by a person of your rank and piety? While he is gone to a neighbouring kingdom, to preach Jesus Christ, to have his friends prejudiced, his foes elevated, and the fruit of his extensive ministry at the point of being blasted? Of the two greatest and most useful ministers I ever knew, one is no more. The other, after amazing labours, flies still, with unwearied diligence, through the three kingdoms, calling sinners to repentance. Though oppressed with the weight of near seventy years, and the cares of near thirty thousand souls, he shames still, by his unabated zeal and immense labours, all the young ministers in England, perhaps in Christendom. He has generally blown the gospel trumpet, and rode twenty miles, before most of the professors, who despise his labours, have left their downy pillows. As he begins the day, the week, the year, so he concludes them, still intent upon extensive services for the glory of the Redeemer, and the good of souls. And shall we lightly lift up our pens, our tongues, our hands against him? No; let them rather forget their cunning. If we will quarrel, can we find nobody to fall out with, but the minister upon whom God puts the greatest honour?”
Shirley’s “Narrative” was published in September, in which he gives great prominence to one of Fletcher’s letters requesting his “Vindication” to be suppressed. He furnishes an extract from one addressed to Mr. Ireland, dated August 15, to the following effect: “I feel for poor dear Mr. Shirley, whom I have, (considering the present circumstances,) treated too severely in my vindication of the minutes. My dear sir, what must be done? I am ready to defray, by selling to my last shirt, the expense of the printing of my Vindication, and suppress it.”
This was characteristic of Fletcher’s large heartedness; but the extract from his letter was a garbled one, and rendered it necessary that he should again enter the field of battle, and defend himself as well as others. This was done at once, and, before the year was ended, another production of his facile pen was published, namely, “A Second Check to Antinomianism: occasioned by a late narrative, in three letters, to the Hon. and Rev. Author. By the Vindicator of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Minutes.” 12mo, 109 pages.
He tells Shirley, that, though it was perfectly true that he had written to Mr. Ireland, requesting his letters to be suppressed, he had also stated to the same gentleman, that “the minutes must be vindicated,—that Mr. Wesley owed this to the Church, to the ‘real protestants,’ to all his societies, and to his own aspersed character.” He states: “I was going to preach when I had the news of your happy accommodation, and was no sooner out of church, than I wrote to beg my Vindication might not appear in the dress in which I had put it. I did not then, nor do I yet, repent having written upon the minutes; but, as matters are now, I am very sorry I did not write in a general manner, without taking notice of the circular letter, and mentioning your dear name.” He adds, that when he gave the manuscript to Wesley, he begged him to correct it, and to expunge whatever might be “unkind or too sharp.” Wesley had assured him, that “he had expunged every tart expression”; and, if so, (for Fletcher had not yet seen it in a printed form,) he was “reconciled to its publication.” Fletcher further adds, that he had just received a letter (September 11, 1771) from Bristol, stating that when Thomas Olivers, who was now acting as Wesley’s editor, heard of Fletcher’s wish to suppress his “Vindication,” he had already announced to the Bristol congregation, that the work was in the press, and would soon be ready. “Besides,” continues Fletcher, in reference to Thomas Olivers being the only preacher who refused to sign the declaration at the conference,—“Besides, Mr. Olivers would have pleaded, with smartness, that he never approved of a patched up peace,—that he bore his testimony against it at the time it was made,—had a personal right to produce my arguments, since both parties refused to hear his at the conference.”
These facts are of great consequence, inasmuch as Shirley magnifies Wesley’s publication of Fletcher’s Vindication into a heinous fault; and others after him have endeavoured to brand Wesley’s character, not only for perpetuating the war, but for publishing Fletcher’s manuscript contrary to Fletcher’s wish. This is utterly unjust. The war was begun, not by Wesley, but by the Calvinists; and surely the attacked was not presumptuous, or wanton, in endeavouring to defend himself. It is true, that, in doing that, he uses the sword of his friend Fletcher; but what of that? The sword was given him to use, on July 27, when on his return from Ireland; and, though Fletcher subsequently hesitated as to the propriety of the step he had taken, it was not until the sword was brandished, by Fletcher’s manuscript being committed to the press and actually announced for sale. Besides, Fletcher’s hesitancy had reference, not to the thing done, but to the manner of its being done. A vindication he considered to be imperatively required: but he was afraid that his own was too personal. Shirley was aggrieved, because he pretends to have thought that the signing of the declaration would have ended the matter; but Shirley conveniently forgets: (1) that he himself had blackened Wesley’s character throughout the three kingdoms; (2) that Wesley and his preachers had conceded nothing to their adversaries, except that the minutes of 1770 were “not sufficiently guarded in the way in which they are expressed”; (3) that, as Fletcher abundantly demonstrates, there was a terrible necessity for an enforcement of the doctrine of the minutes at this momentous period, both the pulpits and pews of churches being infected with the deadly antinomianism of the late Dr. Crisp; and (4) that, after all, the doctrine of the minutes was only one part of the controversy which the Calvinists had raised, and that there were other attacks on Wesley, made by men like Augustus Toplady, and the editor of the Gospel Magazine, which it was impossible, and, in fact, would have been criminally disastrous, to have passed without rebuke.
That Fletcher did not regret the publishing of his Vindication is evident from the alacrity he showed in the preparation and publishing of his “Second Check;” the chief object of which was to establish “the doctrine of justification by works in the day of judgment”; and to reprove Walter Shirley for insinuating, in his “Narrative,” that this was a doctrine which Wesley and his fifty-three itinerant preachers had given up.
Shirley retired from the field of battle; but others took up the gauntlet. The Gospel Magazine, faithful to its character, was as furious as ever. In its August number, it published a review of the “Church of England vindicated from the Charge of Absolute Predestination,” declaring that Wesley was its author’s “dictator and employer.” The work is pronounced “a composition of low scurrility and illiberal abuse.” The writer is charged with having “horribly blasphemed, and daringly given the lie to the God of truth, by asserting that any justified soul may at last perish in hell.” “Arminianism is a hodgepodge of human systems, made up of grace and works, so blended together as to destroy the true meaning of both.”
In the same number was published Cleon’s poem on “Wesley’s apostasy from the genuine faith of the gospel, an awful proof that evil men and seducers wax worse and worse.” One verse must serve as a specimen. After describing the doctrine of Wesley’s minutes, Cleon writes:
In the September number, “Simplex, from the neighbourhood of the Foundery,” expresses his astonishment, that Shirley and his friends should have been satisfied with the declaration, signed at conference, inasmuch as “it denies not one tittle clearly asserted in the minutes.” Wesley is credited with possessing “the unfathomable policy of a dubious divine.” He is a “fox,” who “has had sagacity enough to elude his hunters;” and “evidently shows that he never meant to recant what he had declared in the minutes, when he signed the declaration.”
In a subsequent number, “Simplex” reappears, and tells his readers that he is “sorry to see the name of a Christian minister prefixed to such foul and futile productions as those of Mr. Sellon. Mr. Fletcher’s pen is more cleanly, but every whit as unfair. He is like a madman flinging abroad firebrands, arrows, and death, amongst those who differ from him. Master Thomas Olivers has shocked common decency in his letter to Mr. Toplady. And Mr. Wesley must be more explicit than he has been accustomed to be, before he can give a satisfactory answer to Simplex’s querulous epistle.” These are moderate specimens of the tone and language of the Gospel Magazine.
Another brace of antagonists must be mentioned, Richard and Rowland Hill, the sons of Sir Rowland Hill, the former born in 1732, and the latter in 1745. Richard had been educated at Westminster, and had spent four or five years at Magdalen college, Oxford. Rowland had been sent to Eton, and then to Cambridge university. Both the brothers had turned preachers, though, as yet, neither of them had been ordained. They were young, proud, and irascible; and, with greater zeal than prudence, entered into the Calvinian conflict.
Richard Hill published a sixpenny pamphlet, 8vo, of 31 pages, entitled “A Conversation between Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr. Madan, and Father Walsh, superior of a convent of English Benedictine monks at Paris, held at the said convent, July 13, 1771, relative to some doctrinal Minutes, advanced by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley and others, at a conference in London, August 7, 1770. To which are added some Remarks by the Editor; as also Mr. Wesley’s own Declaration concerning his Minutes, versified by another Hand.” A prodigiously long title of a supremely silly tract, whose object is to show that Wesley’s doctrine was a great deal worse than popery; in fact, that “popery is about midway between protestantism and Mr. J. Wesley.” We content ourselves with Sir Richard’s poetical version of Wesley’s declaration:
Sir Richard was not content with this. He issued a penny 12mo tract of 12 pages, with the title, “An Answer to some capital Errors contained in the Minutes,” etc., which finishes by reproducing the doggerel calumny just given, as though it were far too precious to be entombed in the more costly pamphlet with which he had enriched the Christian church.
His third publication,—by far the best,—was an octavo pamphlet of 40 pages, entitled, “Five Letters to the Reverend Mr. Fletcher, relative to his Vindication of the Minutes of the Reverend Mr. John Wesley.” Apart from its theology, of which we say nothing, this was worthy of a scholar, a Christian, and a gentleman. The spirit of the piece is most loving, and the style unexceptionable.
The publications, on the other side, in addition to those of Fletcher, were three in number.
First, Wesley’s tract of 12 pages, entitled, “The Consequence Proved”; without either the author’s or the printer’s name. Its object is to substantiate his former assertion, that the gist of Toplady’s Zanchius is to teach that “one in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected, and nineteen in twenty are reprobate: that the elect shall be saved, do what they will; and the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.” Wesley says: “I have not leisure to consider the matter at large. I can only make a few strictures, and leave the young man (Toplady) to be farther corrected by one that is full his match, Mr. Thomas Olivers.”
To be handed over to Thomas Olivers was one of the bitterest pills that Toplady had to swallow. Olivers was a man of great intellectual power; but he had the misfortune to commence life as a Welsh mechanic of not the highest order. He was left an orphan when only four years old, and had now attained the age of forty-six. His publication, 12mo, 60 pages, was entitled, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Toplady, occasioned by his late Letter to the Reverend Mr. Wesley.” In invective and tart rebuke, Toplady met a match in the intrepid and fiery Welshman who, on behalf of Wesley, undertook to fight the furious predestinarian with the not too respectable weapons of his own choosing. It certainly is difficult to decide which is the more proficient in the use of strong language. It was a fisticuff encounter between a pugilistic pair, whose thumping blows may be considered of equal force.
The third publication, alluded to above, was “The Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of Predestination, as it is stated and asserted by the Translator of Jerome Zanchius, in his Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nowell; together with some Animadversions on his Translation of Zanchius, his Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, and his Sermon on 1 Timothy i. 10.” 12mo, 129 pages. The author was the redoubtable Walter Sellon, who, for outspokenness, was only second to Toplady and Olivers themselves. At the same time, however, Sellon’s book evinces great ability and research, and thoroughly demolishes the unfounded theories of an opponent, whose pen was guided by bigotry rather than by Christian discretion. The castigation was severe, but it was merited. The lash of a scorpion whip is far from pleasant; but the man who uses it has no reason to complain of another using it in self defence. Toplady had a right to wince and writhe; but, under the circumstances, he had no right to foam, as, in succeeding chapters, we shall find he did.
Here, for the present, we shall leave this embittered conflict, and trace the steps of the illustrious man whose high position seemed to engender the envy which led to the attack upon him; but who, excepting a short skirmish now and then, pursued his high and holy mission with as much serenity as if the conflict had not existed.
He landed in Ireland on March 24, and re-embarked for England on July 22nd following.
At Dublin, the society had been jangling for years, and, as a consequence, had suffered loss. Though not expressly stated, it is clear that the cause of their quarreling was a dispute respecting the authority of the preachers and of the leaders respectively. Wesley, as the fountain of Methodistic law, now laid it down that classleaders had no authority to restrain the assistant, if they thought he acted improperly; but might mildly speak to him, and then refer the matter to Wesley to be decided. They had no “authority to hinder a person from preaching, or to displace a particular leader, or to expel a particular member, or to regulate the temporal and spiritual affairs of the society, or to make any public collection, or to receive the yearly subscription.” All this was the work of the assistant, with one exception, namely, that the temporal affairs of the society were regulated by the society steward. The power of a classleader simply consisted in authority to meet his class, to receive their contributions, and to visit his sick members; and the power of all classleaders united was “authority to show their classpapers to the assistant, and to deliver the money they had received to the stewards, and to bring in the names of the sick.”
Rightly or wrongly, such was Methodist discipline in 1771. “In the Methodist discipline,” writes Wesley, “the wheels regularly stand thus: the assistant, the preachers, the stewards, the leaders, the people. But here the leaders, who are the lowest wheel but one, were quite got out of their place. They were got at the top of all, above the stewards, the preachers, yea, and above the assistant himself. To this chiefly, I impute the gradual decay of the work of God in Dublin.” “Nothing,” says he, at Londonderry, where two years before he had organised a band of singers, which through the preacher’s neglect was now dispersed, “Nothing will stand in the Methodist plan unless the preacher has his heart and his hand in it. Every preacher, therefore, should consider it is not his business to mind this or that thing only, but everything.”
More than three months of Wesley’s time were spent, not in Dublin, but in itinerating the Irish provinces. In many instances, he was gladdened with the prosperity of the work of God; in others, as Dublin, Athlone, Tullamore, Waterford, Cork, and Augher, the aspect of things was far from promising.
While on this lengthened journey, Wesley made the following entry in his journal: “1771. June 28—This day I entered the sixty-ninth year of my age. I am still a wonder to myself. My voice and strength are the same as at nine-and-twenty. This also hath God wrought.”
Wesley remained in Ireland until he was obliged to leave in order to meet his conference at Bristol. Much space has been already occupied with an account of its important proceedings; but it may be added that, notwithstanding the Calvinian disturbances, there was reported an increase of 1934 members. Among others, Joseph Benson was received on trial as an itinerant preacher; and Francis Asbury and Richard Wright were sent as a reinforcement to America. Nearly £1700 were contributed to extinguish the chapel debts; and, to accomplish the thing at once, it was recommended that, upon an average, every Methodist, in the three kingdoms, should give, for one year, a penny a week. “If this is done,” says Wesley, “it will both pay our whole debt, and supply all contingencies.”
No sooner was the conference over than Wesley set out for Wales, where he laboured nearly the next three weeks. One of the Sundays was spent in Pembroke, where he preached in two of the churches. He writes: “Many of the congregation were gay, genteel people; so I spake on the first elements of the gospel. But I was still out of their depth. Oh how hard it is to be shallow enough for a polite audience!”
Returning to Bristol on August 31, he employed the next month in visiting the societies surrounding that city. Twelve months before, he had rejoiced over an apparently great religious revival in Kingswood school; but now, says he, “it is gone! It is lost! It is vanished away! There is scarce any trace of it remaining! Then we must begin again; and, in due time, we shall reap if we faint not.”
Just at this period, Dr. William Cadogan’s book on the gout and all chronic diseases was attracting great attention. Dr. Johnson called it “a good book in general, but a foolish one in particulars.” Wesley read the book, and agrees with Cadogan, that “very few of the chronic distempers are properly hereditary; and that most of them spring either from indolence, or intemperance, or irregular passions. But,” he adds, and here he comes in conflict with modern teetotallers, “but why should Dr. Cadogan condemn wine toto genere, which is one of the noblest cordials in nature? Yet stranger, why should he condemn bread? Great whims belong to great men!”
After an absence of seven months, Wesley got back to London on Saturday, October 5; and, on the Monday following, set out on his usual tour through the counties of Bedford and Northampton. This occupied a week, as did a similar visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. For many years, Wesley was accustomed to spend the last two or three months in each year in weekly journeys from London as a pastoral centre. The Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire journey was one; the Oxfordshire another; Chatham and Sheerness a third; Staplehurst, Rye, Winchelsea, and other places a fourth; and Norfolk a fifth, which generally occupied a longer time.
Wesley concludes the year with this entry: “December 30—At my brother’s request, I sat again for my picture. This melancholy employment always reminds me of that natural reflection,—
Little more remains to be related respecting the year 1771, except the points following.
It is a curious fact, that, in the year when Fletcher began to render Wesley important service by the publication of his “Checks,” Fletcher’s future wife, Miss Bosanquet, applied to Wesley for advice on the subject of female preaching. Our space prevents the possibility of discussing such a topic at the length which it deserves; but Wesley’s letter, hitherto unpublished, will be acceptable, as showing that, however much importance he was disposed to attach to church order, he was not the man to make all things bend to it.
“Londonderry, June 13, 1771.
“My dear Sister,—I think the strength of the cause rests there,—on your having an extraordinary call. So, I am persuaded, has every one of our lay preachers; otherwise, I could not countenance his preaching at all. It is plain to me, that the whole work of God termed Methodism is an extraordinary dispensation of His providence. Therefore, I do not wonder if several things occur therein, which do not fall under the ordinary rules of discipline. St. Paul’s ordinary rule was, ‘I permit not a woman to speak in the congregation.’ Yet, in extraordinary cases, he made a few exceptions; at Corinth in particular.
“I am, my dear sister, your affectionate brother,
“John Wesley.”
In 1771, Wesley began a revision and republication of all the works which he had published during the last five-and-thirty years, with the exception of his Notes on the Old and New Testament, his “Christian Library,” his “Natural Philosophy,” and his books for Kingswood school. It was during this year that he issued a careful reprint of the four volumes of sermons published in 1746, 48, 50, and 60, with the addition of ten sermons, most of which had been published separately.
Besides these, he published five 12mo volumes of his collected works, embracing the sermons just mentioned; and making together about 1800 printed pages, in which he not only corrected the errors of the press, but his own mistakes, and did, what has not been done in any subsequent edition of his works,—placed an asterisk before the passages and paragraphs which he judged were most worthy of the reader’s notice.
He likewise published the fourteenth “Extract” from his journal, extending from May 27, 1765, to May 5, 1768. 12mo, 128 pages.
His only other publications were his “Consequence Proved,” and his “Defence” of his minutes, already mentioned; and finally, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Fleury,” of Waterford, in Ireland. Mr. Fleury was a young parson, who, both in 1769, and now again in 1771, had taken the opportunity of Wesley’s visits to Waterford to preach against him. Wesley writes: “1771, May 28—At eleven, and again in the afternoon, I went to the cathedral, where a young gentleman most valiantly encountered the ‘grievous wolves,’ as he termed the Methodists. I never heard a man strike more wide of the mark. However, the shallow discourse did good; for it sent abundance of people, rich and poor, to hear and judge for themselves.” The “young gentleman’s” two sermons, which were published, were made up of the stale objections and invectives that had been used, by his superiors and seniors, times without number. Wesley’s letter is a characteristic reply to them.
FOOTNOTES:
Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 72.
Methodist Magazine, 1784, p. 388.
Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 22.
Ibid.
Doubtless his letter to Lady Huntingdon.
Methodist Magazine, 1805, p. 279.
Wesley’s Life of Fletcher.
Manuscript letter.
Benson’s Life, by Treffry.
Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 285.
Probably Mr. Romaine.
Fletcher’s Vindication, 1st Edit., p. 21.
“Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 240.
Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 256.
Methodist Magazine, 1797, p. 563.
The minutes of the conference of 1770.
The italic words are emphasized in the original.
Shirley’s “Narrative,” p. 5.
Methodist Magazine, 1797, p. 253.
Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 394.
“Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 237.
This was probably “The Consequence Proved,” to be noticed shortly.
Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 127.
Shirley’s “Narrative,” p. 8.
Ibid. p. 10.
Charles Wesley’s name is not in the list: a further proof that, strangely enough, he was not at this most important conference.
This is the word in Shirley’s “Narrative”; but in the Gospel Magazine for August, 1771, the word “justification” is used instead; and there can be little doubt, that this was the reading of the original declaration. The difference at first seems slight, but, in reality, it is of great importance, as the readers of Fletcher’s “Checks” will easily perceive.
Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 349.
Shirley’s “Narrative.”
“Second Check,” 1st Edit., p. 40.
See Sir Richard Hill’s Life, p. 191.
There was also published, at this period, a smartly written rebuke of Toplady, and a defence of Wesley, entitled, “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Augustus Toplady, written in great part by himself, relative to part of his printed Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.” 8vo, 21 pages.
Manuscript letter.
As a curiosity, and as tending to show that, in this season of excitement, all men were not Wesley’s enemies, we give an extract from a review of this section of Wesley’s Journal, published in Lloyd’s Evening Post, for January 20, 1772:—“In this interval, between May 27, 1765, and May 5, 1768, this zealous and truly laborious missionary of the Methodists, who seems to consider the three kingdoms as his parochial cure, twice traverses the greater part of Ireland and Scotland, from Londonderry to Cork, from Aberdeen to Dumfries, visiting and confirming the churches, besides making a progress, chiefly on horseback (in many places more than once), through great part of Wales, and almost all the counties in England, from Newcastle to Southampton, from Dover to Penzance. Those who expect to find in this Journal only the peculiar tenets of Methodism will be agreeably disappointed, as they are intermixed with such occasional reflections on men and manners, on polite literature, and even on polite places, as prove that the writer is endued with a taste well cultivated both by reading and observation; and above all with such a benevolence and sweetness of temper, such an enlarged, liberal, and truly protestant way of thinking towards those who differ from him, as clearly show that his heart, at least, is right, and justly entitle him to that candour and forbearance, which, for the honour of our common religion, we are glad to find he now generally receives.”