PART II. (continued 8)

Equal zeal and heroism characterized Wesley’s helpers. At Nottingham, the mob surrounded the meeting-house, and threatened to pull it down. John Nelson was seized by the constable for creating the riot, and was taken to an alderman, the crowd following him with curses and huzzas. The alderman asked his name, and said: “I wonder you cannot stay at home; you see the mob won’t suffer you to preach in Nottingham.” John replied, that he was not aware that Nottingham was governed by a mob, most towns being governed by the magistrates; and then proceeded “to set life and death before him.” “Don’t preach here,” said the alderman; while the constable began to be uneasy, and asked how he was to dispose of his prisoner. “Take him to your house,” quoth the alderman. The constable desired to be excused; and, at length, was directed to conduct Nelson back to the place from which he had brought him, and to be careful he was not injured. “So,” says honest John, “he brought me to our brethren again; and left us to give thanks to God for all His mercies.”

Wesley began the year 1746 by preaching in London at four o’clock in the morning, a thing not often done by his successors.

On January 20, he set out for Bristol, and on the road read a book which greatly moulded his future character and course. Lord King was the son of a grocer at Exeter, and the nephew of the celebrated Locke, who left him half his library. At the age of twenty-two, in 1691, he published, “An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church, that flourished three hundred years after Christ; faithfully collected out of the extant writings of those ages.” King was a rigid Dissenter; and the chief object of his learned work was to prepare the way for that comprehension of the Dissenters within the pale of the Established Church, which the Revolution of 1688 was supposed likely to accomplish. After this, he rose to be Lord High Chancellor of England, and died in 1734, leaving behind him a character of great virtue and humanity, and of steady attachment to civil and religious liberty.

The above book by Lord King was Wesley’s companion on his way to Bristol; and, after reading it, he wrote: “In spite of the vehement prejudice of my education, I was ready to believe that this was a fair and impartial draught; but, if so, it would follow, that bishops and presbyters are essentially of one order, and that, originally, every Christian congregation was a church independent of all others.”

Thus, notwithstanding his strong affection for the Church of England, we find Wesley, almost at the commencement of his Methodist career, entertaining doubts respecting its ecclesiastical polity. The recorded decisions of the Conference of 1745 plainly show, that he regarded his preachers as deacons, and presbyters, and thought himself a scriptural bishop. Lord King’s researches served to confirm these sentiments. In the minutes of the conference held a year after this (1747), we find the following questions and answers:—

“Q. Does a church in the New Testament always mean a single congregation?

“A. We believe it does. We do not recollect any instance to the contrary.

“Q. What instance or ground is there then in the New Testament for a national church?

“A. We know none at all. We apprehend it to be a merely political institution.

“Q. Are the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons plainly described in the New Testament?

“A. We think they are; and believe they generally obtained in the churches of the apostolic age.

“Q. But are you assured, that God designed the same plan should obtain in all churches, throughout all ages?

“A. We are not assured of this; because we do not know that it is asserted in Holy Writ.

“Q. If this plan were essential to a Christian church, what must become of all the foreign reformed churches?

“A. It would follow, that they are no parts of the church of Christ! A consequence full of shocking absurdity.

“Q. In what age was the Divine right of episcopacy first asserted in England?

“A. About the middle of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Till then all the bishops and clergy in England continually allowed, and joined in, the ministrations of those who were not episcopally ordained.

“Q. Must there not be numberless accidental varieties in the government of various churches?

“A. There must, in the nature of things. For, as God variously dispenses His gifts of nature, providence, and grace, both the offices themselves and the officers in each ought to be varied from time to time.

“Q. Why is it, that there is no determinate plan of church government appointed in Scripture?

“A. Without doubt, because the wisdom of God had a regard to this necessary variety.

“Q. Was there any thought of uniformity in the government of all churches, until the time of Constantine?

“A. It is certain there was not; and would not have been then, had men consulted the word of God only.”[586]

This is an important extract. Wesley loved the Church of England; but who will say, that the views of Wesley were now identical with those of the high church bigots of either past or present days! Their views had been his; but he now renounced them. Lord King, the Dissenter, had converted him. His principles, respecting ecclesiastical polity, were changed. After this, we have no more nonsense concerning apostolical succession. Indeed, in reference to this, Wesley wrote (in 1761): “I never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall.”[587] It is not too much to say, that, from the time of reading the book of Lord King, Wesley’s principles of ecclesiastical polity were substantially the same as those of Dissenters. He still preferred the Church of England, not because he thought it the only church, but because, upon the whole, he thought it the best. In the above extract, we have the principles deliberately adopted, which laid the groundwork of his future proceedings. As a presbyter, in other words a bishop, he employed preachers, and set them apart to the sacred office. It is true, that it was not until nearly forty years after this, that he began to use the imposition of hands; but that was a mere circumstance, not the essence of ministerial ordination. Mr. Watson properly observes: “It has been generally supposed, that Mr. Wesley did not consider his appointment of preachers as an ordination to the ministry; but only as an irregular employment of laymen in the spiritual office of merely expounding the Scriptures in a case of moral necessity. This is not correct. They were not appointed to expound or preach merely, but were solemnly set apart to the pastoral office; nor were they regarded by him as laymen, except when in common parlance they were distinguished from the clergy of the Church.”[588] His usual mode of setting apart or ordaining to the ministry consisted of a most rigid examination of the ministerial candidate on the three points—Has he grace? Has he gifts? Has he fruit? preceded by fasting and prayer; and followed by official and authoritative appointment to ministerial work. For the present, the form of laying on of hands was not employed; but it was thought of, and was discussed. Hence the following extract from the minutes of the conference held in 1746:—

“Q. Why do we not use more form and solemnity in receiving a new labourer?

“A. We purposely decline it—(1) Because, there is something of stateliness in it. (2) Because, we would not make haste. We desire barely to follow Providence, as it gradually opens.”

It is granted that, for Wesley, after this, to fight so tenaciously for the Church of England was inconsistent, but we take him as we find him. Facts are facts; and we shall not attempt to blink them. Having founded churches, or societies as he persisted in calling them, he proceeded to provide and to ordain,—yes, to ordain for them ministers. He was a clergyman of the episcopal Church of England, with the views of a Dissenter, and, acting accordingly, there was, of course, in his future proceedings, much that was incongruous and perplexing.

Wesley left London for Bristol, on January 20. Two days afterwards, he attended, in the latter city, a conference of the Calvinistic Methodists, at which there were present Howel Harris and eleven of his preachers, and Wesley and four of his. Wesley seems to have been president; at all events, his name stands first. The following are the minutes:—

“After prayer it was inquired:—(1) How we may remove any hindrances of brotherly love which have occurred. (2) How we may prevent any arising hereafter. It was feared that, in consequence of Mr. Wesley’s preaching in Neath, there would be a separation in the society. He answered, ‘I do not design to erect a society at Neath, or any town in Wales, where there is a society already, but to do all that in me lieth to prevent any such separation.’

“We all agreed that, if we occasionally preached among each other’s people, we should endeavour to strengthen and not to weaken each other’s hands, and prevent any separation in the several societies; and that a brother from Wesley’s society should go with Harris to Plymouth and the west, to heal the breach there made, and to insist on a spirit of love and its fruits among the people. Agreed, that we should, on each side, be careful to defend each other’s characters.”[589]

This is beautiful, and sets an example worthy of being emulated by the Methodist Conferences of the present day. It was but five or six years since the Methodist schism had happened; and yet, under the magnanimous management of Wesley and Howel Harris, here we find the two parties met, not to fight, but to love each other. Differences are kept up and perpetuated, not by greatness and goodness, but by despicable ignorance and selfish meanness. Why should Ephraim envy Judah, and Judah vex Ephraim? The two are brothers; and, as brethren, it would be a goodly and pleasant sight to see them dwelling together in unity.

Wesley spent a month in Bristol and the neighbourhood; during which period his brother Charles opened a chapel at Wapping;[590] and Wesley himself received the following cautionary letter from a new clerical acquaintance, and, ever afterwards, most confidential and trustworthy friend. Vincent Perronet was now vicar of Shoreham, in the county of Kent. A year and a half before, Wesley and Perronet had been brought together by their mutual friend, the Rev. Henry Piers. Wesley writes: “I hope to have cause of blessing God for ever for the acquaintance begun this day.” The hope was realised. Wesley had no more faithful friend than Vincent Perronet, who now wrote as follows:—

“February 7, 1746.

“My dear Friend,—I make no apology for this trouble, because I know that you will think it needs none. God hath raised you up to propagate His spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men; therefore, be careful how you frustrate this great design of God. But will you not do this, if you injure your health? Or can you labour in the vineyard of Christ, when your strength is gone? Deny yourself, my dear friend, so far as is consistent with your constant labour; but be cautious lest your self denials should rob God or His children of what you have undertaken for the service of both. Remember, that, if you weaken your body by over mortifications, you render yourself so far incapable of promoting the honour of the former, and the happiness of the latter; and yet I know that each of these is dearer to you than life itself. Let the Holy Spirit’s advice, out of the mouth of a mortified apostle, to the abstemious Timothy, be constantly before you.

“I am, with great sincerity, my dear brother in Christ, your most affectionate

Vincent Perronet.”[591]

At this period, advice like this, in Wesley’s case, was not unneeded.

On February 17, when days were short and weather far from favourable, he set out, on horseback, from Bristol to Newcastle, a distance of between three and four hundred miles. The journey occupied ten weary days. Brooks were swollen, and, in some places, the roads were impassable, obliging the itinerant to go round about through fields. At Aldridge Heath, in Staffordshire, the rain turned into snow, which the northerly wind drove against him, and by which he was soon crusted over from head to foot. At Leeds, the mob followed him, and pelted him with whatever came to hand. Several of the missiles struck him, some on the face, but none seriously hurt him. At Skircoat Green, he preached to a congregation of Quakers; and at Keighley, found the snow so deep, that he was obliged to abandon his intention of travelling through the dales. He arrived at Newcastle on February 26.

Here he found general sickness. Two thousand of the soldiers, belonging to the encampment on the town moor, were already dead, and the fever was still sweeping others away in troops. In Newcastle and its neighbourhood, he spent the next eighteen days, preaching, on one occasion, at Placey, out of doors, in the midst of a “vehement storm,” which, however, the preacher and his “congregation regarded not.”

While he was here, a letter was published in the London Magazine, addressed “to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, in relation to some false facts affirmed by him in his Farther Appeal.” A passage was quoted in reference to the clergy putting no difference between the holy and profane at the sacramental table; and it was declared, that the quotation “contains almost as many falsehoods as it does lines.” Wesley is further accused of “gross misrepresentations and uncharitable reflections”; of being “base, unjust, and senseless”; of “crowding a heap of untruths into a little room”; of being animated by “a blind and rash zeal, and glad to catch at every pretence of making God the patron and favourer of his cause.”

A production so bitterly scurrilous scarcely deserved an answer; but, as Wesley was slightly in error, he, like an honest man, frankly confessed it. The following is his reply, published in the same periodical.

“June 18, 1746.

“Sir,—I delayed answering your letter of March 18, till I could be fully informed of the facts in question.

“I said in the Farther Appeal, page 48, ‘Who dares repel one of the greatest men in his parish from the Lord’s table, even though he openly deny the Lord that bought him? Mr. Stonehouse did this once; but what was the event? The gentleman brought an action against him. And who was able and willing to espouse his cause? He alone who took it into His own hands; and, before the day when it should have been tried here, caused the plaintiff to answer at a higher bar.’

“You (1) blame me for supposing that gentleman to be one who openly denied the Lord that bought him; I mean, openly denied the supreme Godhead of Christ. If he did not, I retract the charge.

“You say (2) that gentleman brought no action, nor commenced any suit against Mr. Stonehouse. Upon stricter inquiry, I find he did not; it was another gentleman, Mr. C—p—r.

“You (3) observe, it was not the death of the plaintiff which stopped the action; but before it proceeded to a trial, Mr. Stonehouse thought fit to request it as a favour, that the action might be stopped, promising not to do the like any more. Mr. Stonehouse himself gives a different account; but whether his or yours be the more just, is not material, since the substance of what you observe is true, namely, ‘That it was not the plaintiff’s death which stopped the action.’

“You add, ‘I would willingly hope, that you did not deliberately design to impose upon the world.’ I did not; and do, therefore, acknowledge the truth in as public a manner as I am able, being willing, as far as in me lies, to make amends for whatever injury I have done.

“I am, sir, yours, “John Wesley.”

In the same month of March, another letter, of a different complexion, was published in the Gentleman’s Magazine. The writer begins by showing, that the years 48 and 88, in the last two centuries, at least, if not longer, had been noted for great changes and revolutions. Thus, in 1548, the Reformation was first completely established in England; and, in 1588, the famous pretended invincible Spanish Armada made its futile attempt to destroy the Protestantism of Great Britain. In 1648, King Charles was condemned to death, and the gravest changes followed; and, in 1688, occurred the flight of the last of the Stuart kings, and the English Revolution.

The writer then proceeds to ask, whether there is not something remarkable “in the revival of the Moravians very nearly about the same time with the rise of the Methodists in England; and of a sect of the same kind in Scotland, by the field preaching of Erskine and others; and of exactly the same in Wales by the preaching of Howel Harris; and of something of the same nature in France, where the principal preacher concerned had been executed by the royal will and pleasure. Is there not,” the writer continues, “something very surprising in all these peoples’ rising about the same time, and preaching, all of them, the same doctrines, and yet all of them, and all their several intentions of so doing, being previously unknown to each other?”

The above coincidence was more than curious, and the author of the letter suggests, that such facts and others, which he mentions, may be “the dawning of some important religious change, or, at least, of something very extraordinary, which the sacred womb of providence is big with.”

At the same time as the above, Wesley was engaged in an important correspondence of another kind. Dr. Doddridge was exactly a year older than his illustrious Methodist contemporary, was the pastor of a Dissenting congregation at Northampton, and the principal of an academy for the education of candidates for the Dissenting ministry. Up to the present, Wesley had chiefly lived within the state-church enclosure; but now, having become a convert to the principles of Lord King, he overstepped the enchanted circle, and thought it no disgrace to commune and mingle with Dissenters. Methodist preachers were multiplying. Few of them had had the advantages of education and of reading. Their knowledge, generally speaking, was confined to the first principles of religion. These were the only subjects on which they either did, or were able to converse. Of necessity, their preaching was solely on the fundamental points of experimental and practical religion; and hence, their unequalled success in awakening and converting sinners. Preachers of education and diversified knowledge would, perhaps, not have excluded these; but they would, to a large extent, have regaled their hearers with other truths, which, though of great interest, were insignificant in point of importance when compared with the few great and grand cardinal doctrines which formed the staple of all the sermons of Wesley’s first itinerants. The effect of this unadorned preaching of the greatest of all verities was surprising. Under these untutored discourses, people found themselves emerging out of thick darkness into light, which St. Peter aptly describes as “marvellous.” These were glorious results, and almost make one wish, that among the cultivated and captivating preachers of the present day, who can discourse most eloquently upon any subject, from Eve’s figleaves up to Aaron’s wardrobe, or from the architecture of Noah’s ark down to the whale that swallowed Jonah, there were a sprinkling of men whose preaching powers, like those of Wesley’s first helpers, were confined to an incessant utterance, in burning though somewhat boorish words, of the glorious old truths now-a-days too much neglected,—Repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, followed by the fruits of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. If sinners are to be converted, these are the doctrines which must be preached. Other doctrines and truths may be interesting, useful, and instructive; these are absolutely saving and essential.

Wesley was devoutly thankful for his uneducated but soul saving preachers. Still, he saw that, as the Methodists increased in knowledge, the preachers must keep pace with them. Without this, though they might still be as successful as ever in converting ignorant and rude sinners, they would be in danger of being neglected and even despised by those who, in consequence of conversion, had been greatly raised, in both an intellectual and social sense, above their neighbours. In short, Wesley felt convinced that his preachers must not only preach but read; and being persuaded, as a sort of clerical Dissenter, that good things might be found even in Dissenting Nazareths, he wrote to the most distinguished of all Dissenters then existing, to make inquiry. Six months before, he had called on Doddridge and had addressed his students; now, at Newcastle, in March, 1746, he addressed to him a letter, the nature of which may be gathered from Doddridge’s answer.

“March 15, 1746.

“I am grieved and ashamed, that any hurry, public or private, should have prevented my answering your obliging letter from Newcastle; especially as it has a face of disrespect, where I ought to express the very reverse, if I would do justice either to you, or my own heart. But you have been used to forgive greater injuries. I have unwillingly a guardianship affair on hand, on account of which, I must beg your patience for a little longer, as to the list of books you desire me to send you. I presume the list you desire is chiefly theological. Perhaps my desire of making it too particular has hindered me from setting about it. But, if God permit, you shall be sure to have it in a few weeks.

“Let me know how you do, what your success is, and what your apprehensions are. I fear we must have some hot flame to melt us. Remember in your prayers,

“Reverend and dear sir, “Your affectionate brother and servant, “P. Doddridge.”[592]

Three months later, Doddridge’s promise was fulfilled, in a long letter, almost a little pamphlet, dated Northampton, June 18, 1746. He writes—

“Reverend and dear Sir,—I set myself down, as well as I can, to discharge my promise, and fulfil your request, in giving my thoughts on that little collection of books, which you seem desirous to make for some of your young preachers.”

Then follow his recommendations, which we give in brief:—

Logic—Carmichael, and Dr. Watts.

Metaphysics—De Urce, Dr. Watts, and Le Clerc.

Ethics—Puffendorf, and Hutcheson.

Jewish Antiquities—Lewis, Reland, Calmet, and Prideaux.

Civil History—Puffendorf, Turselme, and Lampe.

Natural Philosophy—Rowning, Ray, Cotton Mather, and Derham.

Astronomy—Watts, Jennings, and Wells.

Natural and Revealed Religion—Carmichael, Synge, Clarke, Gibson, Doddridge, Jefferies, Bullock, Conybeare, Leland, and Chandler.

He next proceeds to the chief subject, practical divinity, which he thinks “ought to employ the greatest part of the care of every preacher,” and adds:—

“I will not presume, sir, to mention to you the divines of the Established Church; but as I may reasonably conclude, that the Puritans and the divines of the separation are less known to you, you will pardon me, if I mention a few of them, and of the chief pieces.”

Then he gives the names of Bolton, Hall, Reynolds, Sibbes, Ward, Jackson, Owen, Goodwin, Baxter, Bates, Flavel, Taylor, and Howe. He continues:—

“In recommending the writings of the Dissenters of the present age, I would be more sparing; yet permit me to mention Evans, Wright, Watts, Henry, Boyce, Bennett, Jennings, and Grosvenor. And here, dear sir, I thought to have concluded my letter; but it occurs to my mind, that I have said nothing of commentators. I have recommended to my pupils Beza, Erasmus, Castellio, Heinsius, Patrick, Lowth, Locke, Pierce, Benson, Ainsworth, Hammond, Grotius, Brennius, Wells, Calvin, Poole, Le Clerc, and Cradock. I might mention several considerable writers, that illustrate Scripture, though not direct commentators, such as Witsius, Saurin, Mede, Hallet, Edwards, Le Crene, Wolsius, Raphelius, Vitringa, Boss, Elsner, and Lardner. But as the critical study of Scripture is not so much intended in your plan, perhaps you will think, I have gone a little out of the way in mentioning so many upon this head.

“I am afraid I have by this time thoroughly wearied you. It only remains, that I most cordially recommend you and your labours to the continued presence and blessing of God, and subscribe myself, reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate brother, and faithful humble servant,

“P. Doddridge.”[593]

We return to Wesley. Accompanied by two of his preachers, John Downes, and William Shepherd, he started from Newcastle for the south, on the 17th of March. When they had ridden between forty and fifty miles, Downes was so ill that he was unable to proceed farther; and Wesley’s horse was so lame, that it could scarcely walk. Wesley writes:—“By riding thus seven miles, I was thoroughly tired, and my head ached more than it had done for months. I then thought, ‘cannot God heal either man or beast, by any means, or without any?’ Immediately, my weariness and headache ceased, and my horse’s lameness in the same instant. Nor did he halt any more either that day or the next. I here aver a naked fact; let every man account for it as he sees good.”

Coming to Nottingham, he says: “I had long doubted what it was which hindered the work of God here. But, upon inquiry, the case was plain. So many of the society were either triflers or disorderly walkers, that the blessing of God could not rest upon them; so I made short work, cutting off all such at a stroke, and leaving only a little handful, who, as far as can be judged, were really in earnest to save their souls.”

At Wednesbury and Birmingham, the antinomian teachers had laboured hard to corrupt the Methodists. One came to Wesley at Birmingham, and the following colloquy ensued:—

Wesley. “Do you believe you have nothing to do with the law of God?”

Antinomian. “I have not: I am not under the law; I live by faith.”

W. “Have you, as living by faith, a right to everything in the world?”

A. “I have: all is mine, since Christ is mine.”

W. “May you then take anything you will anywhere—suppose out of a shop, without the consent or knowledge of the owner?”

A. “I may, if I want it; for it is mine: only I will not give offence.”

W. “Have you also a right to all the women in the world?”

A. “Yes, if they consent.”

W. “And is not that a sin?”

A. “Yes, to him that thinks it is a sin; but not to those whose hearts are free.”

Horrible! No wonder, that Wesley wrote tracts against antinomian teachers; and no wonder he adds, “Surely these are the firstborn children of Satan!”

Wesley reached Bristol on March 27; and, eleven days afterwards, laid “the first stone of the new house at Kingswood;” preaching, on the occasion, from the words, “For brass I will bring gold,” etc. (Isaiah lx. 17‒22.)

He then hurried up to London, where in company with his friend, the Rev. H. Piers, he visited a man who called himself a prophet. Wesley says: “We were with him about an hour. But I could not at all think, that he was sent of God: 1. Because he appeared to be full of himself, vain, heady, and opinionated. 2. Because he spoke with extreme bitterness, both of the king, and of all the bishops, and all the clergy. 3. Because he aimed at talking Latin, but could not.”

Having spent three weeks in London, Wesley, on the 4th of May, again set out for Bristol; but on the 17th was back to London. Here his first business was to settle the chapels in Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle, upon seven trustees, reserving only to himself and his brother, as he says, the liberty of preaching and lodging there. This, however, was scarcely correct, so far at least as Newcastle was concerned, and as the following synopsis of the trust deed will show. The seven trustees, for the Orphan House there, were Henry Jackson, weaver, and William Mackford, corndealer, both of Newcastle; John Nelson, mason, of Birstal; John Haughton, weaver, of Chinley End; Thomas Richards, late of Trinity College, Oxford; Jonathan Reeves, baker, late of Bristol; and Henry Thornton, gentleman, of Grays Inn, London. The trusts were:—1. That Wesley and his brother should have the free use of the premises, and likewise any person or persons whom they might nominate or appoint during their lifetime. 2. That, after the death of the two Wesleys, the trustees should monthly or oftener nominate and appoint one or more fit person or persons to preach in the said house, in the same manner, as near as may be, as God’s holy word was preached at present. 3. That a school should be taught on the said premises, consisting of forty poor children, to be selected by Wesley and his brother during their respective lives, and, after their death, by the trustees. 4. That when, by any cause, the trustees were reduced to three, they should fill up the vacancies, and make the number seven. 5. That, during their lifetime, the two Wesleys should have the sole appointment and removal of the masters and mistresses of the school. 6. That every preacher or minister, appointed to the Orphan House, should, as long as the appointment lasted, preach in the said house every morning and every evening, as had been usual and customary to be done.[594]

Southey has fallen into an error as to the settlement of chapels. He writes:—“Whenever a chapel was built, care was taken, that the property should be vested, not in trustees, but in Mr. Wesley and the Conference.” This is incorrect. From the first, the property of Methodist chapels was always vested in trustees. It is true, that Wesley reserved to himself the right of preaching in such chapels, and of appointing others to preach therein; but, as Mr. Watson observes, neither he nor the Conference had any more “property in the best secured chapels, than in the poet laureate’s butt of sack.” Wesley was glad to divest himself of such property, and to put it into the hands of others. A year afterwards, he writes: 1747, March 19—“I considered, ‘what would I do now, if I was sure I had but two days to live?’ All outward things are settled to my wish; the houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle are safe; the deeds, whereby they are conveyed to the trustees, took place on the 5th instant; my will is made; what have I more to do, but to commend my soul to my merciful and faithful Creator?”

Having made arrangements in London for the settlement of his chapels, Wesley turned his attention to another subject, upon which opinions will differ. The number of members in the London society, on the 12th of April, 1746, was 1939, and the amount of their quarterly contributions £113 9s.,[595] upon an average, fourteen pence per member. Considering the high price of money, and that nearly the whole of the London Methodists were extremely poor, the amount subscribed was highly creditable. Wesley, however, needed more than this, not for himself but others, and propounded a somewhat novel plan for raising it.

Tea was a costly luxury. It was first imported into England about the year 1660, when an act of parliament was passed, imposing a duty of eightpence on every gallon of the infusion sold in coffee houses. In 1664, the East India Company bought two pounds two ounces as a royal present to his majesty King Charles II. It continued to be sold in London for sixty shillings per pound till the year 1707; and, though considerably cheaper in 1746, it was still a dear indulgence. Wesley also believed its use to be injurious.

He tells us that, when he first went to Oxford, with an exceeding good constitution, and being otherwise in health, he was somewhat surprised at certain symptoms of a paralytic disorder. His hand shook, especially after breakfast; but he soon observed that, if for two or three days he intermitted drinking tea, the shaking ceased. Upon inquiry, he found tea had the same effect on others, and particularly on persons whose nerves were weak. This led him to lessen the quantity he took, and to drink it weaker; but still, for above six and twenty years, he was more or less subject to the same disorder.

In July, 1746, he began to observe, that abundance of the people of London were similarly affected, some of them having their nerves unstrung, and their bodily strength decayed. He asked them if they were hard drinkers; they replied, “No, indeed, we drink scarce anything but a little tea, morning and night.” He says:

“I immediately remembered my own case, and easily gathered, from many concurring circumstances, that it was the same case with them. I considered, ‘what an advantage would it be to these poor enfeebled people, if they would leave off what so manifestly impairs their health, and thereby hurts their business also! If they used English herbs instead of tea, they might, hereby, not only lessen their pain, but in some degree their poverty. How much might be saved in so numerous a body as the Methodists, even in this single article of expense! And how greatly is all that can possibly be saved, in every article, wanted daily by those who have not even food convenient for them! Some of the Methodists had not food to sustain nature; some were destitute of necessary clothing; and some had not where to lay their heads. The little weekly contributions were barely sufficient to relieve the sick.’ I reflected ‘what might be done, if ten thousand, or one thousand, or only five hundred, would save all they could in this single instance, and put their savings into the poor-box weekly, to feed the hungry, and to clothe the naked!’ I thought further: ‘many tell me to my face, I can persuade this people to anything. I will make a fair trial. If I can persuade any number, many who are now weak or sick will be restored to health and strength; many will pay those debts which others, perhaps equally poor, can but ill afford to lose; many will be less straitened in their own families; many, by helping their neighbour, will lay up for themselves treasures in heaven.’ Immediately it struck me, ‘but example must go before precept; therefore, I must not plead an exemption for myself, from a daily practice of twenty-seven years: I must begin.’ I did so; the three first days my head ached, more or less, all day long, and I was half asleep from morning to night. The third day, my memory failed, almost entirely. In the evening, I sought my remedy in prayer; and next morning my headache was gone, and my memory as strong as ever. And I have found no inconvenience, but a sensible benefit, in several respects, from that day to this. My paralytic complaints are all gone; my hand is as steady now (1748) as it was at fifteen; and so considerable a difference do I find in my expense, that, in only those four families at London, Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle, I save upwards of fifty pounds a year.”

Having set the example, Wesley recommended the same abstinence to a few of his preachers; and, a week later, to about a hundred of his people whom he believed to be strong in faith; all of whom, with two or three exceptions, resolved, by the grace of God, to make the trial without delay. In a short time, he proposed it to the whole society. Objections rose in abundance. Some said, “Tea is not unwholesome at all.” To these, he replied that many eminent physicians had declared it was; and that, if frequently used by those of weak nerves, it is no other than a slow poison. Others said, “Tea is not unwholesome to me: why then should I leave it off?” Wesley answered, “To give an example to those to whom it is undeniably prejudicial, and to have the more wherewith to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked.” Others said, “It helps my health; nothing else will agree with me.” To such, Wesley’s caustic reply was, “I suppose your body is much of the same kind with that of your great grandmother; and do you think nothing else agreed with her, or with any of her progenitors? What poor, puling, sickly things, must all the English then have been, till within these hundred years! Besides, if, in fact, nothing else will agree with you,—if tea has already weakened your stomach, and impaired your digestion to such a degree, it has hurt you more than you are aware. You have need to abhor it as deadly poison, and to renounce it from this very hour.”[596]

What was the result of Wesley’s attempt to form a tea-total society? We can hardly tell; except that he himself abstained from tea for the next twelve years, until Dr. Fothergill ordered him to resume its use.[597] Charles Wesley began to abstain, but how long his abstinence lasted we are not informed. About a hundred of the London Methodists followed the example of their leader; and, besides these, a large number of others began to be temperate, and to use less than they had previously.[598]

This was, to say the least, an amusing episode in Wesley’s laborious life. All must give him credit for the best and most benevolent intentions; and it is right to add, that, ten days after his proposal was submitted to the London society, he had collected among his friends thirty pounds for “a lending stock,” and that this was soon made up to fifty, by means of which, before the year was ended, above two hundred and fifty destitute persons had received acceptable relief.

On July 20, Wesley set out for Bristol, where he spent the next fortnight. While here he paid a visit to Oakhill, near Shepton Mallet, where “the good curate” hired a drunken mob to make disturbance. As soon as Wesley began preaching, the “drunken champions” began “screaming out a psalm”; but Wesley says, “our singing quickly swallowed up theirs. Soon after, their orator named a text, and preached a sermon; his attendants meantime being busy in throwing stones and dirt” at Wesley’s congregation.

On August 10, Wesley went to Wales. He preached in Builth churchyard to nearly all the inhabitants that the town contained. At Maesmennys, Lanzufried, and Wenvo, he preached in the parish churches; and at Cardiff in the castle yard. At Neath, he found twelve young men whom, he says, he almost envied. They lived together in one house, and gave away whatever they earned above the necessaries of life. Most of them were predestinarians, but so little bigoted to their opinions, that they would not suffer a predestinarian to preach among them, unless he would avoid controversy. Here Wesley preached in the open street, a gentleman and a drunken fiddler doing their best to interrupt his service; but, none joining them, they were soon ashamed, and the gentleman slunk away on one side, and the fiddler on the other. At Margam, he had to have a Welsh interpreter; and at Leominster (to which he went during his tour), he began preaching on a tombstone, on the south side of the parish church, but was not allowed to finish. The mob “roared on every side”; the bells were set a ringing; and then the organ began to play amain. Wesley’s voice was drowned, and hence he thought it advisable to remove to the corn market, where he had a “quiet time,” and “showed what that sect is, which is ‘everywhere spoken against.’”

Returning to Bristol, he started, on September 1, for Cornwall. At St. Just, he found the liveliest society in the county, and yet a few of the members he was “obliged to reprove for negligence in meeting, which,” says he, “is always the forerunner of greater evils.” At Sithney, he preached by moonlight; and, at Gwennap, to an “immense multitude,” a funeral sermon for Thomas Hitchins, from, “To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

Having spent a fortnight among the Cornish Methodists, he set out, on the 16th of September, for London, his brother meeting him at Uxbridge, and becoming his escort to the capital.[599]

After a week in London, he paid a visit to his friend Perronet, preaching, on the way, at Sevenoaks, “to a large, wild company,” one of whom cursed him bitterly. At Shoreham, he preached twice in Perronet’s church; but says, “the congregation seemed to understand just nothing of the matter.” The rest of the year was spent in the metropolis.

It has been already stated, that Wesley, for conscience sake, was now an abstainer from tea. Before the year expired, he went a step further. He writes: December 29—“I resumed my vegetable diet (which I had now discontinued for several years), and found it of use both to my soul and body; but, after two years, a violent flux, which seized me in Ireland, obliged me to return to the use of animal food.”

Whatever may be thought about the wisdom of a man, of such active habits, adopting such an abstemious, anchorite sort of diet, there can be no question about the fact, that his motives were of the highest and purest kind. He gave up tea, that he might benefit the poor; and, contemporaneously with his resumption of a vegetable diet, he commenced an institution, which, to say the least, was not then so popular and so common as it is at present. He writes: “I mentioned my design of giving physic to the poor. In three weeks about three hundred came.” Such is the entry in his Journal.

He had already provided a fund for relieving the necessities of the poor by furnishing them with food and clothing; but something more was requisite. Many of them were sick; their sufferings stirred his sympathy; and yet he knew not how to help them. “At length,” he says, “I thought of a kind of desperate expedient: ‘I will prepare and give them physic myself.’ For six or seven and twenty years, I had made anatomy and physic the diversion of my leisure hours; though I never properly studied them, unless for a few months when I was going to America, where I imagined I might be of some service to those who had no regular physician among them. I applied to it again. I took into my assistance an apothecary, and an experienced surgeon; resolving, at the same time, not to go out of my depth, but to leave all difficult and complicated cases to such physicians as the patients should choose. I gave notice of this to the society; and, in five months, medicines were occasionally given to above five hundred persons. Several of these I never saw before; for I did not regard whether they were of the society or not. In that time, seventy-one of these, regularly taking their medicines, and following the regimen prescribed (which three in four would not do), were entirely cured of distempers long thought to be incurable. The whole expense of medicines, during this time, was nearly forty pounds.”[600]

This was a bold step, and exposed Wesley to animadversion. He was not a legally qualified medical practitioner, and there were not wanting those who were ready to brand him as a quack. His defence was, that the poor were neglected; that physicians were often useless; and that his own gratuitous treatment was successful. In a letter, published in the Bath Journal, in 1749, he writes: “I do not know that any one patient yet has died under my hands. If any person does, let him declare it, with the time and circumstances.”[601] And, in another letter addressed to Archbishop Secker, in 1747, four months after his dispensary was opened, he remarks:—

“For more than twenty years, I have had numberless proofs, that regular physicians do exceeding little good. From a deep conviction of this, I have believed it my duty, within these four months last past, to prescribe such medicines to six or seven hundred of the poor as I knew were proper for their several disorders. Within six weeks, nine in ten of them, who had taken these medicines, were remarkably altered for the better; and many were cured of disorders under which they had laboured for ten, twenty, forty years. Now, ought I to have let one of these poor wretches perish, because I was not a regular physician? to have said, ‘I know what will cure you; but I am not of the college; you must send for Dr. Mead’? Before Dr. Mead had come in his chariot, the man might have been in his coffin. And when the doctor was come, where was his fee? What! he cannot live upon nothing! So, instead of an orderly cure, the patient dies; and God requires his blood at my hands.”[602]

It was difficult to answer this, and Wesley was not the man to be browbeaten from the path of duty by envious and angry members of the healing profession. Indeed, his success was such, that, within two months after opening his dispensary at the Foundery in London, he instituted a second in Bristol, and writing to his friend and patron, Mr. Ebenezer Blackwell, says, “Our number of patients increases in Bristol daily. We have now upwards of two hundred. Many have already desired to return thanks, having found a considerable change for the better already. But we are at a great loss for medicines; several of those we should choose being not to be had at any price in Bristol.”[603]

There are only two other matters, belonging to the year 1746, which require attention; namely, Wesley’s conference, and Wesley’s publications.

The conference commenced in Bristol on the 12th of May, and lasted four days.[604] Four clergymen were present—the two Wesleys, and Messrs. Hodges and Taylor. Besides these, there were four itinerants, Messrs. Reeves, Maxfield, Westall, and Willis; and also Thomas Glascot, of whom we know nothing. As at former conferences, so at this, doctrines were reviewed, and carefully guarded against error and abuse; and, after this, points of discipline were discussed and settled. It was agreed, that “the properest persons to be present,” at the annual conferences, were—1. The preachers. 2. The most earnest and most sensible of the bandleaders living in the town where the conference was held. 3. Any pious and judicious stranger who might be visiting the place. It was thought, that it might be useful to read one or more of Wesley’s tracts at each conference, were it only to correct errors, or to explain obscurities. Wesley’s helpers were defined to be “extraordinary messengers, designed of God to provoke the others to jealousy.” It was resolved, that those who believed themselves to be called of God to preach should be strictly examined on the three points, Have they grace, gifts, and fruit? and that those in whom these three marks undeniably concurred should be allowed to have such a call. It was thought that, at present, they were not preaching the atonement so much as they did at first; and that the sermons which were attended with the greatest blessing, were—“1. Such as were most close, convincing, particular. 2. Such as had most of Christ, the Priest, the Atonement. 3. Such as urged the heinousness of men’s living in contempt or ignorance of Him.” It was determined, that a sufficient call of Providence to a new place was an invitation from some worthy person, and a probability of doing more good by going thither, than by staying longer where they were. New members were to be admitted into the bands and societies only once a quarter, their names having been previously read at meetings of the existing members; and, at the same time, had to be read the names of those excluded from the society. Directions were given to guard against formality in public singing. Efforts were to be employed to induce the people to attend the church; and, as an example to the Bristol Methodists, it was agreed, that the Bristol preachers should go to St. James’s church every Wednesday and Friday. The country was divided into seven circuits, namely—1. London, including Brentford, Egham, Windsor, Wycombe, and the three counties of Surrey, Kent, and Essex. 2. Bristol, including the isle of Portland, and the counties of Somerset, Wilts, Oxford, and Gloucester. 3. Cornwall. 4. Evesham, embracing Shrewsbury, Leominster, Hereford, and all the places from Stroud to Wednesbury. 5. Yorkshire, to which was to be attached the six counties of Cheshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutlandshire, and Lincolnshire. 6. Newcastle. 7. Wales. The present assistants were Reeves, Bennet, Haughton, Nelson, Wheatley, Trembath, Westall, Richards, Downes, Meyrick, Maxfield, and Walker. And to these, perhaps, would be added, Jones, Larwood, and Cownley. Copies of the minutes of the conferences were to be given only to those who were or might have been present; but they were to be read to the stewards and leaders of bands, the Sunday and Thursday following each conference.

Such is a synopsis of the proceedings of the conference of 1746.

Notwithstanding Wesley’s almost incessant travelling and preaching, he still found time to write. Two of his publications, in 1746, were partly his own, but principally his brother’s.

First: “Hymns for those that seek, and those that have, Redemption in the Blood of Jesus Christ.” 12mo, 68 pages. Twenty-eight of these hymns are inserted in the Wesleyan Hymn-Book, and are among the finest that the book contains. One of them, evidently written by Wesley himself, begins with the line, “How happy is the pilgrim’s lot;” and though two or three of the verses are not suitable for a mixed congregation to sing, the whole is strikingly descriptive of Wesley’s own condition and experience. He had no wife, and no children, and had just transferred his chapels to trustees, and, hence, could sing what many in Methodist congregations cannot.

Second. The other joint publication was, “Hymns of Petition and Thanksgiving for the Promise of the Father.” By John and Charles Wesley. 12mo, 36 pages. These were thirty-two in number, and were specially intended for use at Whitsuntide. Several of the best of them are in the Methodist Hymn-Book.[605]

Wesley’s other publications were the following:—

1. “A Word of Advice to Saints and Sinners.” 12mo, 12 pages.

2. “Lessons for Children. Part I.” 12mo, 76 pages; with a vignette on the title-page of an angel on clouds, with a scroll in one hand, and a trumpet in the other. The lessons are fifty-four in number, and are almost entirely taken from the five books of Moses. Prefixed is an address “to all parents and schoolmasters,” in which Wesley says:—

“I have endeavoured in the following lessons to select the plainest and most useful portions of Scripture; such as children may the most easily understand, and such as it most concerns them to know. These are set down in the same order, and generally in the same words, wherein they are delivered by the Spirit of God. Where an expression is less easy to be understood, I have subjoined a word or two by way of explication. I cannot but earnestly entreat you, to take good heed, how you teach these deep things of God. Beware of that common, but accursed way, of making children parrots, instead of Christians. Regard not how much, but to how good purpose they read. Turn each sentence every way, propose it in every light, and question them continually on every point.”

3. In the month of March, the Rev. Thomas Church, vicar of Battersea, published another two shilling pamphlet, entitled, “Some further Remarks on Mr. Wesley’s last Journal;”[606] and, in July,[607] Wesley issued, “The Principles of a Methodist farther explained; occasioned by the Reverend Mr. Church’s second letter to Mr. Wesley; in a second letter to that gentleman.” 12mo, 79 pages. First of all, Wesley takes up the case of the Moravians; and then explains his views of justification, and of the faith and repentance preceding it. Next he vindicates himself against the charge of violating the discipline of the Church of England, and of his being an enthusiast. He declares his belief, that, in points of importance, when the reasons brought on each side appear to be of equal weight, it is right to decide the question by casting lots; that there are still such persons as demoniacs, and will be such as long as Satan is the god of this world; and that there is nothing either in the Old Testament or the New which teaches, that “miracles were to be confined within the limits of the apostolic or the Cyprianic age, or, that God hath in any way precluded Himself from working miracles, in any kind or degree, in any age to the end of time.” The pamphlet must be read to be appreciated. It is multum in parvo.

In November, Wesley, for the first time, published a volume of sermons, price, in sheets, half-a-crown.[608] The title was, “Sermons on Several Occasions;” and the book is the first of the four volumes of sermons, which, with the Notes on the New Testament, were afterwards constituted the perpetual standard of Methodist theology. These are so widely and so well known that further description is unneeded. The preface, however, deserves notice. It states that the sermons contain the substance of what Wesley had been preaching during the last eight years; and, that there was no point of doctrine, on which he had been accustomed to speak in public, which was not here, incidentally, if not professedly, laid before the reader. Wesley adds:—

“Nothing here appears in an elaborate, elegant, or oratorical dress. If it had been my desire or design to write thus, my leisure would not permit. But, in truth, I, at present, designed nothing less; for I now write, as I generally speak, ad populum. I design plain truth for plain people; therefore, of set purpose, I abstain from all nice and philosophical speculations; from all perplexed and intricate reasonings; and, as far as possible, from even the show of learning, unless in sometimes citing the original Scripture. I have thought, I am a creature of a day. I am a spirit come from God, and returning to God. I want to know one thing,—the way to heaven. God Himself has condescended to teach me the way. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it; here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri. Here then I am, far from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone: only God is here. In His presence, I read His book; for this end, to find the way to heaven. Is there a doubt concerning the meaning of what I read? I lift up my heart to the Father of lights, and ask Him to let me know His will. I then search after and consider parallel passages of Scripture. I meditate thereon with all the attention and earnestness of which my mind is capable. If any doubt still remains, I consult those who are experienced in the things of God; and then the writings whereby, being dead, they yet speak. And what I thus learn, that I teach.”

This is very beautiful. Wesley was no copyist. He owed his theology to no class of theologians, either ancient or modern,—Moravian or otherwise. Peter Bohler and others might suggest truths like the grand old doctrine of salvation by faith only; but before adopting them Wesley went to the only pure fount of theology existing, and deduced his creed, not from Bohler’s notions, but from the book of God. His belief was thus founded upon a rock, and he felt it so. He declares, that his mind is open to conviction; but, at the same time, he was conscious that he had, not only human, but Divine authority for what he taught. Let all divinity students copy his example.

Wesley’s last publication, in 1746, was Parts II. and III. of his “Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion.” 12mo, 139 pages. In some respects, this was one of the severest works that Wesley ever committed to the press. With terrible power, he depicts the wickedness of the nation,—forgetfulness of God and neglect of His holy ordinances, swearing, perjury, sabbath breaking, drunkenness, lasciviousness, speaking evil of dignities, and robbery. Attorneys are lashed as being, in some instances, less honest than pickpockets; and the way in which they whipped money out of their clients’ purses is so described, that an unjust lawyer by whom Wesley himself had been victimised sent him back half the amount he had extorted from him. The guardians of public charities are charged with sacrilege. Lying was one of the fashions of the day; and language was swollen with compliment. Pride was rampant; and even cobblers, in London, thought themselves wiser than secretaries of state, and coffee house disputers abler divines than archbishops. Prisons were schools of vice, out of which prisoners emerged fitted for any kind or degree of villainy, perfectly brutal and devilish, thoroughly furnished for every evil word and work. In the army, profanity was fearful. In the navy, almost every man-of-war was a floating hell. The clergy were not free from the taint of lewdness and drunkenness, from covetousness and idleness, from neglecting the poor and flattering the rich. Presbyterians, in many instances, kept a conscience void of offence, but they had among them drunkards, gluttons, dishonest dealers, and extortioners. Baptists were far from being faultless. Quakers affected great sanctity and simplicity, and yet many of their women wore gold upon their very feet, and their men might be seen with glittering canes and snuff-boxes, even in their solemn assemblies; their female members were too strict to lay out a shilling in a necklace, but not too strict to lay out fourscore guineas in a repeating watch; in one kind of apron or handkerchief they durst not expend twenty shillings, but in another sort would, expend twenty pounds; they declined to touch a coloured ribbon, but would cover themselves from head to foot in costly silk. Papists, Jews, and infidels are castigated with equal severity; and with them the second part of the Appeal concludes.

The third Part commences with an account of the present revival of religion, and of the brutal persecutions with which it had been assailed. Then objections are answered. Wesley states, that he has seven thousand persons in his societies, whose souls he could not neglect without endangering his own salvation. He shows the difference between other reformations of the church, and that with which he and his contemporaries were identified, and concludes thus:—

“The difference is wide between our case and the case of any of those above mentioned. They avowedly separated from the church; we utterly disavow any such design. They severely, and almost continually, inveighed against the doctrines and discipline of the church they left; we approve both the doctrines and discipline of our church, and inveigh only against ungodliness and unrighteousness. They spent great part of their time and strength in contending about externals and circumstantials; we agree with you in both; so that having no room to spend any time in such contentions, we have one desire of spending and being spent, in promoting plain, practical religion.”

It is impossible, in a brief summary like this, to give an adequate idea of these “Appeals,” the best defence of Methodism extant. They are among the most elaborate of Wesley’s productions; giving a melancholy view of the low state of religion and of public morals, when he and his brother Methodists entered upon their extraordinary career of ministerial labour; and containing a triumphant vindication of their doctrines and proceedings. They all are pervaded with a spirit of great seriousness, and display a mind deeply affected by the sins and follies of mankind.

1747.

1747 Age 44

FOR a moment, let us look at Whitefield, who spent the year 1747 in America. Wesley had written him on the subject of union; to which he replied on the 11th of September, as follows:—

“Dear and reverend Sir,—Not long ago I received your kind letter, dated in February last. My heart is really for an outward, as well as an inward union. Nothing shall be wanting on my part to bring it about; but I cannot see how it can possibly be effected, till we all think and speak the same things. I rejoice to hear that you and your brother are more moderate with respect to sinless perfection. Time and experience, I believe, will convince you that, attaining such a state in this life, is not the doctrine of the everlasting gospel. As for universal redemption, if we omit on each side the talking for or against reprobation, which we may fairly do, and agree, as we already do, in giving an universal offer to all poor sinners that will come and taste of the water of life, I think we may manage very well. But it is difficult to determine such matters at a distance. Some time next year, I hope to see you face to face. I hope ere long to be delivered from my outward embarrassments. I long to owe no man anything but love. This is a debt, reverend sir, I shall never be able to discharge to you, or your brother. Jesus will pay you all. For His sake, I love and honour you very much, and rejoice as much in your success as in my own. I cannot agree with you in some principles, but that need not hinder love. What have you done with the Moravian Brethren? Their affairs are in confusion here. I think their foundation is too narrow for their superstructure. I believe, in their plan, there are many plants that our heavenly Father hath not planted. The Lord bless what is right, and rectify what is wrong in them, in us, and in all. O for heaven! where we shall mistake, judge, and grieve one another no more. Continue to pray for us, and assure yourself, that you are always remembered by, reverend and very dear sir, your most affectionate, though unworthy younger brother and willing servant for Christ’s sake,

“George Whitefield.”[609]

So much for Whitefield. What about his English coadjutors? Howel Harris writes:—

“Wales is like the garden of the Lord; many are awakened, and fresh doors are opened. All the ministers and exhorters go on heartily, and the presence and power of the Lord are still more manifest. Hasten thy winged motion, oh glorious day! when I shall see Paul and Barnabas, Luther and Calvin, and all the saints, joining in one song, and not so much as remembering that they ever differed. I have lately, at their own request, discoursed three or four times before several gentlemen, ladies of fashion, some magistrates, counsellors, attorneys, and doctors in divinity, and they behaved well. I have been all round South Wales, travelling often twenty, and sometimes thirty miles a day, and preaching twice, besides settling and conferring with the societies everywhere. I am about to begin a round through North Wales, where I expect to be sent home, or at least imprisoned. For ten days, my life will be in continual danger.”

Joseph Williams, of Kidderminster, relates, that he had recently been on a preaching tour in Wales, and in Yorkshire. At Haworth, he had taken a bed at the house of Grimshaw, with whom he held sweet fellowship, from six o’clock at night till two o’clock next morning. Grimshaw’s church was always crowded, and hundreds were not able to get in at all. People flocked to hear him from all the neighbouring towns, and as many as a hundred strangers were accustomed, on a Sunday, to dine at the village inn. The surrounding clergy were caballing to get him suspended; and, if they succeeded, he was resolved to become at once an itinerant preacher. The landlord, at Colne, told Williams that Grimshaw had preached in that town “damnation beyond all sense and reason,” his sermon lasting two long hours; and that, “every week, and almost every day, he preached in barns and private houses, and was a great encourager of conventicles.”

Thomas Adams says, he had been preaching in a barn at Gosport, and that in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth the good work was prospering. In Wilts, he had seen religion reviving. In Gloucestershire, his labours had been blessed, and the meetings of the societies had been a pentecost. When at Bristol there had been “a brave shaking among the dry bones.”

James Relly (who afterwards founded a sect called “Rellyan Universalists,”) observes, that at Bristol he had examined the whole society once a week, but the place had been “a furnace” to him. At Bath, he had “particular freedom.” In Gloucestershire, he had been preaching every day, and thrice on Sundays; and had found the people “honest, simple, and hungering after the bread of life.” At Wednesbury, he found his heart enlarged every time he preached. At Birmingham, he had formed a society of twenty members, and had left them with great regret. At Bromsgrove, he had preached in an Independent chapel, to a congregation of “simple, loving souls.” At Tewkesbury, a furious mob assaulted him, swore, cursed, laughed, pricked the congregation with pins, threw handfuls of snuff among them, and brickbats and dirt; and broke the windows of the house; but, in the midst of all, he continued preaching for an hour.

John Relly was witnessing “many inroads made in Satan’s kingdom,” and he seldom preached without seeing conversions.

Herbert Jenkins had been preaching in Scotland, and conversing with the clergy, many of whom he pronounces to be “good men, and very powerful preachers.” In Edinburgh, he had found nearly twenty societies, including one composed of soldiers, who had fought at the battle of Culloden. In the park, he had had a congregation of many thousands. “At Glasgow,” says the Scots Magazine, “he was complimented with the freedom of the city, and was entertained by the magistrates and by the presbytery. He made no public collections as Whitefield did, and his behaviour altogether was inoffensive and becoming.”

John Edwards had made a tour through the midland counties, where “King Jesus was getting Himself the victory.” He writes:—“Oh what times and seasons we have had; souls fired with the love of God, and following the word from place to place, horse and foot, like men engaged in a war, determined to take the city by force of arms.” At Haverfordwest and in Wales, multitudes flocked to hear him.

Certain members of the Tabernacle society, in London, relate that the place was generally full; and a gentleman at Plymouth writes, that “the work goes on very comfortably there.”[610]

These hints will suggest to the reader an idea of the work that was being done by the preachers who propagated Whitefield’s doctrines. All the letters, filling more than a hundred pages of the “Christian History,” breathe the most ardent piety, and are full of gratitude, hope, and exultation.

Charles Wesley spent the first two months of 1747 in a journey from Newcastle to Bristol. The next six months he made London and Bristol the centre of his operations. The last four months of the year were employed in Ireland.

Wesley himself was travelling almost incessantly, and we must now try to follow him.

On January 11 he left London for Bristol. Reaching Devizes, he found the town in the greatest uproar. Swelling words, oaths, curses, and threatenings were abundant. Mr. Innys, the curate, who knew of Wesley’s coming, had spent the day in visiting from house to house, to stir up the people against him. He had also published an advertisement, in the most public places in the town, of “An obnubilative, pantomime entertainment, to be exhibited at Mr. Clark’s,” in whose house Wesley had to preach. For the present, however, the high purpose of the zealous curate was not realised. At the appointed hour, Wesley commenced preaching. The well instigated mob were listeners, but they were all dumb dogs, and attention sat on every face.

Sixteen days afterwards, Wesley returned to this clerical preserve, where he again found, that great efforts had been used to raise a rabble, but, he writes, “it was lost labour; all that could be mustered were a few straggling soldiers, and forty or fifty boys.”

Wesley told his brother, “there was no such thing as raising a mob at Devizes”; but Charles soon found it to be otherwise. Coming within a month after, on February 24, a crowd awaited him, headed by “the chief gentleman of the town,” while Mr. Innys, the energetic curate, stood with them in the street, jumping for very joy. The reverend persecutor had been more successful in organising ruffians to do his dirty work, in the case of Charles, than he had been in the case of Wesley himself. He had declared in the pulpit, as well as from house to house, that he had heard Charles preach blasphemy before the university, and tell his congregation, “If you don’t receive the Holy Ghost while I breathe upon you, you will all be damned.” He had secured the services of two of the chief men in the borough, Messrs. Sutton and Willy, both of them Dissenters. The poor parson was so supremely happy, that he began to dance. The church bells were rung backwards. Mrs. Philip’s house was ransacked; the windows were smashed, and the shutters of the shop torn down; the door was blocked up with a wagon; and lights were kindled to prevent the preacher’s escaping. The mob then proceeded to the inn, and seized the horses of Charles Wesley and his friend Meriton, and, some hours afterwards, the poor animals were found in a pond, up to the neck in water. A water engine was played into the house where Charles was staying; the rooms were flooded; and the goods were spoiled. The leader of the small society was thrown into a pool, and, almost miraculously, escaped an untimely death. The son of the mayor had been converted, and, instead of running away to sea, had joined the society. His father was a coward, and had left the town, when he ought to have remained in it; but his mother sent her maid, begging Charles Wesley to disguise himself in a woman’s clothes, and endeavour to escape. At length, the constable came, beseeching him to leave the town; and poor Mr. Sutton and Mr. Willy began to fear the mob, which they and their clerical friend Innys had been the means of raising, was becoming more violent than might be safe. In the midst of this, Charles Wesley and Mr. Meriton took the opportunity to get away; and, after escaping a most murderous attack from a couple of bulldogs, not less savage than the bloodthirsty villains which hounded them on, the two martyr like ministers began singing the hymn commencing, “Worship, and thanks, and blessing;” and thus, in a tone of triumph, made their way to Bath and Bristol.[611]

Strangely enough, Wesley was accustomed to choose the worst season of the year for his most trying journey. Why? We cannot tell. Having finished his visitation of the London classes, he set out, on the 16th of February, for Newcastle. A north wind blew so hard and keen, that, when he and his companions got to Hatfield, they could scarcely use either their hands or feet. In making their way to Baldock, they encountered a storm of snow and hail, which drove so vehemently in their faces, that sight was useless, and breathing almost impossible. Next day, they had the greatest difficulty in keeping their horses on their feet. The wind rose higher and higher, till it threatened to overturn both man and beast. A storm of rain and hail drove through their coats, great and small, boots, and everything; and, freezing as it fell, their eyebrows were hung with icicles. On Stamford Heath, the snow was lying in mountain drifts, which sometimes well-nigh swallowed up both horses and riders; but, about sunset, they came, cold and weary, to Brigg-Casterton. On the 18th, they were told, so much snow had fallen in the night, that travelling was impracticable. Wesley replied, “At least, we can walk twenty miles a day, with our horses in our hands”; and off he set. The north-east wind was piercing; the main road was impassable; Wesley was distracted with the toothache; but, at five in the afternoon, they arrived at Newark. Next day, they came to Epworth, where they rested the three days following; with the exception, that, on Sunday Wesley preached twice in the humble meeting-house, and once, after the evening prayers, at Epworth cross, to most of the adult population of the town.

The next three days were spent in an excursion to Grimsby and back again to Epworth. Charles Wesley had been at the former town seven weeks before, when the meeting-house was invaded by a mob of wild creatures, almost naked, who ran about the place, attacking all they met. Several caught at the preacher to drag him down, and one struck at him. At length, they fell to fighting and beating each other, till, in a few minutes, they literally drove themselves out of the very room from which they meant to drive the poor Methodists; and one of the ringleaders, armed with a great club, swore he would conduct the minister to his lodgings, and forthwith led him through the drunken rioters to brother Blow’s.[612]

On this occasion, when Wesley himself came, “a young gentleman and his companions” drowned Wesley’s voice, till a poor woman took up the cause, and, by keenly and wittily reciting a few passages of the young spark’s life, turned the laugh of his companions upon him, and obliged him to skulk away discomfited. Next day, he came to ask Wesley’s pardon, and thus, for some years, Methodist persecution at Grimsby ceased. At Tetney, Wesley found the most remarkable society in England, with Micah Elmoor for its leader. The members were all poor, and yet each gave from eightpence to two shillings weekly,—certainly a large amount, considering the rate of agricultural wages and the worth of money. The members of the London society were not averaging more than about a penny per week. Wesley was surprised at the difference, and asked, “How is this?” To which Micah Elmoor replied, “All of us, who are single persons, have agreed together, to give both ourselves and all we have to God; and, by this means, we are able, from time to time, to entertain all the strangers that come to Tetney; who often have no food to eat, nor any friend to give them lodging.”

On February 26, Wesley left Epworth, and proceeded northwards, preaching, on his way, at Sykehouse, Acomb, Thirsk, and Osmotherley. At the last mentioned place, where he had already found a friend in the popish priest, the clergyman of the parish allowed him to preach twice in the parish church. “The bitterest gainsayers,” says Wesley, “seemed now to be melted into love. All were convinced we are no papists. How wisely does God order all things in their season!”

On the 2nd of March, he reached Newcastle. At this period, Grace Murray had charge of the Orphan House family. More than once, she had been an inmate; but she and sister Jackson, like rival queens in the same establishment, were unable to agree, and, at least twice, Wesley had had the unenviable task of reconciling two gossiping women, whose religion made them proud and garrulous, rather than of “a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Grace’s first husband was drowned in 1742, upon which she removed from London to Newcastle, where she was appointed leader of several classes. Within six months of her husband’s death, she became the sweetheart of John Brydon, and it was commonly supposed they were about to marry, but, in the long run, Grace declined the honour of John’s alliance. At the end of 1745, she was made Orphan House keeper, and retained the office at the time of Wesley’s visit, in 1747.[613] Unfortunately, we shall have to recur to sister Murray at a subsequent period.

Another inmate was Jeannie Keith, belonging to a respectable family of the Keiths in Scotland. Being persecuted on account of her religious principles, she fled to England, and took shelter in Wesley’s Orphan House, where she went by the cognomen of “Holy Mary.” She was afterwards married to James Bowmaker, a master builder at Alnwick, who erected the first Methodist chapel in that town, and was the grandfather of the Rev. James Everett. She had two children, and died about the year 1752. It has generally been supposed, that Jeannie Keith fell from grace, this opinion being founded upon an expression in one of Wesley’s letters, written a year or two previous to her death;[614] but the inference is hardly legitimate, and the thing itself is incorrect. The writer is possessed of authentic manuscripts, showing, that though Jeannie returned to the presbyterian religion, she continued faithful to her great Master to the very last. A year only before her death, she was diligently distributing the works of John and Charles Wesley among her friends and relatives, including Lord and Lady Saltoun; and the greatest crime that I can find alleged against her, is that of rejoining the church of her childhood. An extract from one of Jeannie’s letters to Wesley, in 1747, may be useful.

“I bless God, that ever He brought me into this house. It is like a little heaven to me. There is not only such love, but such freedom among us, as I could not have believed would have been so soon. I have never seen a thing, that I thought amiss in any of the family, neither do they seem to think anything wrong in me. I am as much entangled with the great ones of the world as ever; and if they are not with me, I am with them. I have great reasonings, whether to shake off all acquaintance with them or not. I am surprised how they bear the plainness of speech that I use; for with tears do I tell them the danger that their souls are in. Oh! forget not your weak child,

“Jeannie Keith.”[615]

In another letter, dated November 1, 1748, and addressed to Wesley, she writes:—

“I think we never had a more blessed time in this house, since it was a house. I know of nothing amiss betwixt sister Murray and me; but we cannot be as one soul; for, you know, she must have a little pre-eminence. I am exceeding willing that she should; and so we live in great peace, and, I believe, in love. I am still unwilling to take anything from anybody. I work out of choice, having never yet learned how long a woman can be idle and innocent. I do not murmur because I have not worldly goods, or a little skin-deep beauty; but I am happy, because, as long as God lives, I shall enjoy Him; so long as there is a heaven, I shall possess it. If this thought cannot make me happy, without anything else, I deserve to be miserable.

“Your affectionate and loving child, “Jeannie Keith.”[616]

How many more refugee sisters there were in the Orphan House, we are not informed; but we learn from the manuscript already quoted, that, about this period, Christopher Hopper, Benjamin Wheatley, Edward Dunstan, and Eleazer Webster, all of them either already or about to become itinerants, were, more or less, Orphan House residents; and it is probable, that these were some of the young men referred to in the extracts following. The Orphan House was, at once, a place of worship, a school for orphans, a refuge for the injured and oppressed, the northern home of Wesley, and the “theological institution” of his preachers. Wesley writes:—

“March 2.—I rode to Newcastle. I found all in the house of the same spirit; pouring out their souls to God many times in a day together, and breathing nothing but love and brotherly kindness.”

“March 4.—This week I read over, with some young men, a compendium of rhetoric, and a system of ethics. I see not, why a man of tolerable understanding may not learn in six months more of solid philosophy than is commonly learned at Oxford in four (perhaps seven) years.”

The old Orphan House was thus the first institution in which young Methodist preachers received instructions for the efficient discharge of their ministerial duties. Here Wesley himself studied. During this very visit, he read “The Exhortations of Ephraem Syrus,” whose picture of a broken and contrite heart had never been excelled since the days of David,—and “The History of the Puritans;” after which he wrote:—“I stand in amaze: first, at the execrable spirit of persecution which drove those venerable men out of the Church, and with which Queen Elizabeth’s clergy were as deeply tinctured as ever Queen Mary’s were; secondly, at the weakness of those holy confessors, many of whom spent so much of their time and strength in disputing about surplices and hoods, or kneeling at the Lord’s supper.”

It is a curious fact, that, though only little more than four years had elapsed since the society at Newcastle was founded by Charles Wesley, it was now reduced from above eight hundred members to four hundred. Wesley, however, considered, according to the old proverb, that “the half was more than the whole”; but if this were true, the whole must have been a motley mass.

Having spent seven weeks at Newcastle and in the neighbourhood, Wesley set out, on Easter Monday, April 20, for London. In the evening, he reached Osmotherley, where, after having ridden, at least, sixty miles, and preached twice, he mounted a tombstone, and concluded the day by a sermon from “The Lord is risen indeed.” Here John Nelson met him, having just escaped from the hands of his murderous persecutors in the vicinity of York.

Proceeding to Thirsk, Wesley found the town full of holiday folks, drinking, cursing, swearing, and cockfighting. Making his way to Leeds and other towns in the west riding of Yorkshire, he visited the Moravian settlement at Fulneck, which was now approaching completion. “It stands,” says he, “on the side of a hill, commanding all the vale beneath, and the opposite hill. The front is exceeding grand, though plain, being faced with fine, smooth, white stone. The Germans suppose it will cost about three thousand pounds; it is well if it be not nearer ten. But that is no concern to the English Brethren; for they are told, and believe, that all the money will come from beyond the sea.” We shall find, in a subsequent chapter, that Wesley’s doubts respecting the “ways and means” were not unfounded.

At Keighley, Wesley ascertained that the small society of ten had increased tenfold. He visited Grimshaw, and preached in Haworth church. At Halifax, he addressed “a civil, senseless congregation,” and baptized a Quaker. Meeting with William Darney, who, besides converting Grimshaw, had been the means of forming a number of societies among the mountains of Lancashire and Yorkshire, Wesley, at his request, set out to visit those infant churches, at Roughlee, Widdap, Stonesey Gate, and other places. While preaching one morning at five o’clock, near New Church, in Rossendale, one of his hearers was a young man, then in his twentieth year, who afterwards rose to a high position,—John Butterworth, for more than fifty years the pastor of a Baptist church, the author of a valuable concordance to the Holy Scriptures, and the father of the late Joseph Butterworth, Esq., who was long a distinguished Methodist in the metropolis, and a member of the House of Commons.

From Rossendale, Wesley proceeded to Manchester, where, on the 7th of May, he preached at Salford cross. Within the last few months, a few young men had formed themselves into a society, had rented a room, and written a letter desiring the Wesleys to own them as brethren. The “room” was a small apartment in a house built upon a rock on the bank of the Irwell, on the north side of Blackfriars Bridge, at the bottom of a large yard, known by the name of the “Rose and Crown yard,” and which was filled with wood built, thatched cottages. The house, containing the “preaching room” was three storeys high. The ground floor was a joiner’s shop; the rooms in the middle story were the residence of a newly married couple; the garret was the “room,” and was itself also the home of a poor woman, who there plied her spinning wheel, while her husband, in the same apartment, flung the shuttle. Christopher Hopper, at one of the Manchester conferences, referred to this little meeting-house, and said: “In 1749, I preached in an old garret, that overhung the river, in the neighbourhood of the old bridge. The coals were in one corner of the room, the looms in another, and I was in danger of breaking my neck in getting up to it. The congregation consisted of not more than from twenty to thirty persons.”[617] Such was the cradle of Manchester Methodism, in 1747. Wesley says, “their house would not contain a tenth part of the people,”—and hence he went to Salford cross.

While at Manchester, Wesley made his first visit to Boothbank. Here resided John and Alice Crosse. Alice had been a rude, uncultivated creature, but had a dash of the heroine in her constitution. “John Crosse,” said she, “wilt thou go to heaven with me? If not, I am determined not to go to hell with thee.” Her decision was firm and final, and honest John soon joined her in her journey to the better land. They now gladly received the servants of God into their dwelling, a pulpit was fixed in their largest room, a society was formed, and Alice was made leader. Her endeavours to be useful were indefatigable. Common beggars were intercepted, warned of their sin and danger, prayed with, and then relieved. Gentlemen, who came a-hunting, were run after, and told, in the plainest terms, the consequences of their sinful doings. On her husband being made a constable, (she having far more courage than himself) he would send her to the constables’ meetings, to defend the despised and persecuted Methodists. When disappointed of a preacher, Alice herself would occupy the pulpit, and, with faithful energy, declare the truth as it is in Jesus. Though marked with rusticity, she was, in decision and majesty, a Deborah.[618] “She was,” says John Pawson, “one of the most zealous, active, spiritually minded women I ever knew.” She died in 1774, aged sixty-five. Her house, for generations, was the happy home of Methodist itinerants. Up to a few years ago, a bootjack, made by John Nelson, at one of his visits, was carefully preserved by her descendants living in the same farm dwelling; and on the panes of glass in the window of what was known as “the prophet’s chamber,” were not a few inscriptions written by the brave hearted evangelists, who there found a warm welcome. Boothbank was the loving centre where the first Methodists of Lancashire and Cheshire used to meet, for friendly counsel, and the old farmhouse was licensed for preaching before any Methodist chapel was built in Manchester. Five years after this first visit by Wesley, the first Cheshire quarterly meeting was held in the humble dwelling of John and Alice Crosse, when Chester sent, by Jonathan Pritchard, the sum of twelve shillings; Bolton, by George Eskrick, eight shillings and twopence; Manchester, by Richard Barlow, two pounds three shillings and fivepence; while Boothbank itself contributed the not insignificant sum of ten shillings and elevenpence.[619] Wesley’s description of the Boothbank congregation, at his first visit, is brief but beautiful,—“a quiet and loving people.”

Leaving Boothbank, he proceeded to Mr. Anderton’s, near Northwich. Here he preached, prayed, and talked for more than two hours, his rustic congregation being intermixed with “several of the gay and rich.” Many long years elapsed, however, before Methodist preaching was established in the town itself, and here, as elsewhere, Methodism met with brutal persecution. On one occasion, the preacher was pulled down the street by the hair of his head.[620] On another, John Morris narrowly escaped being thrown over the bridge into the river.[621] The mob, encouraged by two young gents of the names of Barrow and Jeffreys, rejoiced not only in throwing stones, mud, and rotten eggs, but in dragging the Methodist itinerants into a quagmire, which divided the townships of Northwich and Witton. One of the first Methodists here was Isaac Barnes, a seedsman, who was often rolled in the foul river, and in other respects made to suffer; but his sister once used a device by which the biters were bitten. While the mob were shouting, swearing, and throwing stones at the front of her brother’s house, she quietly heated the poker, and then, letting it cool till its redness was removed, she rushed into the street, and pretended to strike the assembled scamps. One seized the poker, but instantly let it go. Others, in quick succession, did the same; and, in a little while, the amazon was victorious; by their own act, in seizing the heated poker, most of the assailants were in burning agony; and the valorous mob were surprised and scattered. Moses Dale was another of the first Northwich Methodists,—a poor and plain, but earnest and honest man,—a class-leader and local preacher, who was once carried round the town on a butcher’s block, and then set down in the market place, where the crowd with cow horns blew into his ears till he was almost deafened. Moses was a man of small ability, but a son of thunder. Once a year, he made a preaching tour through Derbyshire and Shropshire, and, on one occasion, preached in the vicarage at Madeley, with his hands on Fletcher’s shoulders. “Moses,” said some young swells in a chemist’s shop, “is it true that you know your sins forgiven?” “I am forbidden to tell you,” quietly replied Moses. “Who forbids you, Moses?” “Jesus Christ,” said Moses; “look at Matthew vii. 6.” “Surely, Moses, you don’t compare us to swine?” “No,” quoth Moses, “but the Bible does, and I have no occasion.” Poor Moses died in 1788.

From Northwich, Wesley went to Congleton, and Macclesfield, and Sheffield, and Leeds; and then, turning round, he hurried, by way of Nottingham and Birmingham, to London, which he reached on the 21st of May.

For the last eight years, Wesley had been shut out of the London churches; but now, to one of them, he was again admitted. The Rev. Richard Thomas Bateman, a man of high birth and great natural endowments, was rector of St. Bartholomew’s the Great, in Smithfield, and also held a living in Wales, where he had been converted under the powerful ministry of the Rev. Howel Davies.[622] Being converted himself, he, at once, with great fervour, began to pray and preach for the conversion of others.

As soon as Wesley got back to London, Mr. Bateman offered him his pulpit, and the offer was accepted. The church was crowded to excess. The churchwardens complained to Bishop Gibson, saying, “My lord, Mr. Bateman, our rector, invites Mr. Wesley very frequently to preach in his church.” The bishop replied, “What would you have me do? I have no right to hinder him. Mr. Wesley is a clergyman, regularly ordained, and under no ecclesiastical censure;”[623] and so the matter ended.

From the first, the financial affairs of the London society had been entrusted to stewards. Hitherto, they had been sixteen in number, but Wesley now reduced them to seven, to whom he gave a series of instructions how to regulate their behaviour. They were to hold meetings every Tuesday and Thursday morning. Every meeting was to begin and end with prayer. Once a month, their accounts were to be transcribed into the ledger. Each, in turn, was to be chairman for a month. Nothing was to be done without the consent of the minister. They were to be deeply serious. Only one was to speak at once, and he only just loud enough to make himself heard. They were to avoid all clamour and contention. If they could not relieve the poor who came, they were not to grieve them. They were to give them soft words, if nothing else; and to make them glad to come, even though they had to go away empty. A steward breaking any of these rules, after being thrice admonished by the chairman, was to be deposed from office.

It may be asked whence the stewards obtained their funds. The answer is, that, for more than forty years, all the money collected in the London classes was put into the hands of these officials, and was distributed in relieving the necessities of the poor. Not a shilling seems to have been spent upon the preachers’ salaries.[624]

Visiting the sick, and the opening of the dispensary, have been already noticed. But, besides these, there were connected with the old Foundery other expensive and valuable institutions. Two small houses were taken and fitted up for the reception of needy and deserving widows, for the support of whom the collections at the sacraments and the contributions of the bands were given. In 1748, Wesley writes: “In this (commonly called the poor-house) we have now nine widows, one blind woman, two poor children, and two upper servants, a maid and a man. I might add, four or five preachers; for I myself, as well as the other preachers who are in town, diet with the poor, on the same food, and at the same table; and we rejoice herein, as a comfortable earnest of our eating bread together in our Father’s kingdom.”[625]