Chapter XII: Part III (11)

Wesley employed a month in Dublin; during which he met about a hundred children, whom the Methodist preachers catechized publicly twice a week he conducted the first covenant service in Ireland, in which nearly four hundred of the Dublin society united; and he held a conference of the Irish preachers. He writes: “I never before found such unanimity among them. They appeared now to be not only of one heart, but likewise of one mind and judgment.”

He wrote as follows to his friend Blackwell.

“DUBLIN, _April 19, 1756_.

“DEAR SIR,—While you, in England, are under I know not what apprehensions, all here are as safe as if they were already in paradise. We have no fortifying of seaports; no military preparations; but all is in absolute peace and safety. Both high and low seem fully persuaded, that the whole talk of an invasion is only a trick to get money.

“I purpose going to Cork directly; and, after two or three weeks, turning back toward the north of Ireland. If it please God that troublous times come between the design and the execution, I shall go as far as I can, and no farther. But I take no thought for the morrow. To-day I am determined, by His grace, to do the work of Him that sent me. I find encouragement so to do; for all the people here are athirst for the word of life.

“Do you, at London, believe that the danger of an invasion is over?

“I am, dear sir, your affectionate servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[265]

Wesley set out for Cork on April 26. On his way, he preached at Edinderry, where the little society had built a commodious preaching house. At Tullamore, he preached in the market-place, and spent an hour with certain military officers in the barracks. At Kilkenny, he found a number of soldiers meeting in class; and preached in one of the officers’ rooms. “Still,” he writes, “in Ireland, the first call is to the soldiery.” At Waterford, he had to remove “misunderstandings and offences.” The society was split asunder, and was reduced to six-and-twenty members; but he succeeded in winning one-and-thirty back. At Clonmel, which he pronounces the pleasantest town he had seen in Ireland, he preached once in a large loft, capable of containing five or six hundred people; and once in the open street. At the latter service, the mayor of the town, and a number of soldiers and officers, were present, and gave great attention; but, in the midst of the sermon, a drunken man came marching down the street, attended by a popish mob, with a club in one hand, and a large cleaver in the other, grievously cursing and blaspheming, and swearing he would cut off the preacher’s head. The soldiers were for punishing the man, and Wesley had difficulty in hindering them. The brute began to strike the congregation; and wounded a constable in the wrist. He himself was then knocked down, and the mayor and constables marched him away to gaol.

Wesley arrived at Cork on the 12th of May, and preached in the new chapel, which he describes as being “very near as large as that in Dublin; and far better finished in every respect, though at £400 less expense.” This, like the chapel at Dublin, had apartments for the preachers. It stood till 1826, when it was rebuilt, and again opened for Methodist services in 1827.

Having spent three weeks in Cork and its immediate neighbourhood, Wesley, on the 7th of June, turned his face northwards.

He came to Ballygarrane, a town of Palatines, who “retain,” says he, “much of the temper and manners of their own country, having no resemblance of those among whom they live. I found much life among this plain, artless, serious people. The whole town came together in the evening, and praised God for the consolation. Many of those, who are not outwardly joined with us, walk in the light of God’s countenance; yea, and have divided themselves into classes, in imitation of our brethren, with whom they live in perfect harmony. In examining the society, I was obliged to pause several times. The words of the plain, honest people came with so much weight, as frequently to stop me for a while, and raise a general cry among the hearers.”

The Palatines, as previously intimated, were refugees from the Palatinate of the Rhine, in Germany, and were driven from their homes for having embraced the principles of Luther and of the Reformation. Thousands fled to the camp of the Duke of Marlborough; and seven thousand were brought to England in 1709. Of these, three thousand were sent to America; a few remained in England; and the rest were removed to Ireland, and settled principally on the estate of Lord Southwell, in the neighbourhood of Ballingran, where each man was supplied with a musket, called “a Queen Anne,” to protect himself and family; while for every man, woman, and child, eight acres of ground were leased, at the annual rental of five shillings per acre, which the government, who wished to encourage the protestant interest, engaged to pay for the first twenty years. Having no gospel minister, these fugitive Germans soon became “eminent for drunkenness, cursing, swearing, and an utter neglect of religion.” Now they were again reformed; “an oath was rarely heard among them, or a drunkard seen”; they had built a preaching house; numbers were Methodists; and those that were not imitated the Methodists, by forming themselves into classes, and by holding meetings for Christian fellowship. They continued to be a serious, thinking people. “By their diligence,” says Wesley, “they turned all their land into a garden.” Days of darkness, however, soon came. Rents were so raised, that tenants were starved, and obliged to emigrate. In 1760, a company of these, now oppressed, Irish Palatines embarked at Limerick, as Christian emigrants, for America. The crowd who saw them leave little thought that two of that small band on board—Philip Embury, the local preacher, and Barbara Heck, the honest Methodist—were destined, in the mysterious providence of God, to influence for good countless myriads of human beings, and that their names would live as long as the sun and moon endure. That little and unpretending ship contained the germ of all the Methodist churches of the United States; churches which have now more or less beneath their influence about eight millions of the population of that prosperous hemisphere.

Leaving the Palatines, Wesley and Thomas Walsh proceeded to Limerick. At Ennis, he preached in the “courthouse, to a huge, wild, unawakened multitude, protestants and papists, many of whom would have been rude enough if they durst.”

Riding through the counties of Galway and Connaught, Wesley and Walsh came to Castlebar, in the county of Mayo. For ten days, this was the centre of their operations. Wesley preached repeatedly in the churches at Castlebar, Hollymount, and Ballyheen, to large and attentive congregations.

On the 19th of July, he first set foot in the province of Ulster, though his preachers had been labouring there, for several years, with great success. Many had been converted, and a considerable number united together in Christian fellowship.[266] At Lisburn, he preached in the market-house. The rector and his curate called upon him, and “spent two hours in free, serious, friendly conversation.” The society was small, and their preaching house, either now or soon after, was the shop of a stocking weaver, named William Black; his stocking frames filling a large portion of the place.[267] He spoke “plain,” he says, “both to the great vulgar and the small. But between Seceders, old, self conceited presbyterians, new-light men, Moravians, Cameronians, and formal churchmen, it is a miracle of miracles, if any here bring forth fruit to perfection.”

He proceeded to Belfast, where the great proportion of the population were presbyterians. There were four places of worship belonging to the body, two of which were Socinian or Arian. The parish church, in Donegall Street, was the only one then belonging to the Establishment, with the Rev. William Bristow for its vicar,—an able, orthodox, and liberal Christian.

At Carrickfergus, he preached in the session house to most of the inhabitants of the town. Here he was opposed by the notorious James Relly, who “begun a dull, pointless harangue, about hirelings and false prophets.” “He cawed, and cawed,” says Wesley, “but could utter nothing, hardly three words together.” Wesley preached, at the desire of the prisoners, near the prison door, so that the inmates might hear him. He went to church, and heard “a lively, useful sermon”; but, naturally enough, shocked one of the Methodists who asked him “to go to the meeting,” by saying, “I never go to a meeting.” “He seemed,” says he, “as much astonished as the old Scot, at Newcastle, who left us because we were Church of England men. We are so; although we condemn none who have been brought up in another way.” So Wesley salved his conscience, and feebly tried to free himself from the charge of bigotry.

On the 4th of August, he got back to Dublin, and, on the 10th, set sail, with three of his preachers, Walsh, Haughton, and Morgan, for England, having spent nineteen weeks in the sister island.

Preaching, on his way, at Chester, Bolton, Manchester, Chelmerton, Wednesbury, and other places, he arrived in Bristol on August 25, and held a conference with about fifty of his preachers. The rules of the society were “read, and carefully considered one by one; and all agreed to abide by them all, and to recommend them with all their might.” The rules of the bands were similarly considered, and, after making some verbal alterations, all consented to observe and to enforce them. The rules of Kingswood school were also reviewed, and were pronounced “agreeable to Scripture and reason.” It was also determined to begin a subscription for the school in every place; and, if needful, to make a collection every year.

The principal point discussed was the same as that which occupied so much of the time and attention of the conference of 1755. Wesley writes: “We largely considered the necessity of keeping in the Church, and using the clergy with tenderness; and there was no dissenting voice. God gave us all to be of one mind and of one judgment. My brother and I closed the conference by a solemn declaration of our purpose never to separate from the Church; and all our brethren concurred therein.”

This, among the Methodists, was the great question of the day, and deserves the reader’s best attention. “The attempt to force the Methodists to an attendance upon the services of the Church, by refusing to them the sacraments from their own preachers, and by closing their chapels during the sabbath, except early in the morning, and in the evening, drove many of them into a state of actual separation both from the Church and their own societies, and placed them in the hands of Dissenters. At Leeds, Mr. Edwards had assumed the character of an independent minister, as Charles Skelton had done in London, and had drawn away the greater part of the society with him.”[268]

Besides this, Edward Perronet, a man of great wit, had published a withering satire on the national Establishment, entitled “The Mitre,” 12mo, 279 pages. As the book was suppressed by Wesley,[269] and is now so extremely scarce, that perhaps not more than a dozen copies can be found,[270] the following selection, from the concluding verses of the first canto, may be acceptable, and may serve to suggest an idea of all the others. They are intended to describe the Established Church.

“To what compare thy fertile womb?
A den, a cavern, or the tomb?
Why not compare to all?
Dark, hollow, teeming, large and deep;
Or wild, or dead, or fast asleep;
And stubborn as a wall.

Or like a _mart_, high vending place;
Open for every age and face,
Who loiter, steal, or range:
Or, like the common road or street,
Where knaves, as honest, walk or meet;
As _Albion’s_ grand _Exchange_.

In short, thou’rt like a common shore,
Filling and emptying, never pure
From pride, or pomp, or sin:
That, (speak they truth who say they know,)
With all thy _scavengers_ can do,
They cannot keep thee clean.”

The second canto, which consists of 363 stanzas, is devoted to the Church’s “Divine right” to take tithes, and to enact, and to enforce laws, in reference to Easter dues, leases, etc.; to impose creeds; to preach; and to give sacraments. The following are the second and third verses.

“This _sprite_ unseen, whence does it spring?
Is it a beggar or a king?
Or vile hermaphrodite?
To me _this_ seems to be its sex;
It sometimes asks, and sometimes takes,
Careless of _wrong_ or _right_.

I think its source is easy traced,
As are its claims in order placed,
Its furniture and crests;
A blended spawn of Church and State,
Its father—_Constantine_ the _Great_,
Its dam—the pride of priests.”

The third canto is principally devoted to preachers and preaching; the fourth to christenings, confirmations, Church emoluments, the Lisbon earthquake, and England’s danger. No one will agree with all the author’s sentiments; but all must admit the pungency and power of his withering wit.

Space forbids the insertion of lengthened extracts from Edward Perronet’s suppressed production; but the following are fair specimens of its style and spirit. To express the indignation and disgust of a Churchman at the thought of receiving the sacrament from a lay preacher, whose call to preach is as much Divine as is that of the preacher episcopally ordained, the poet writes,—

“What, take the ordinance from them!
O, what a frenzy of a dream!
Nor _deacon_ nor a priest!
Sooner renounce our _grace_ or friends,
Than take it from _their_ fingers’ ends!
A lay, unhallowed beast!”

Perronet, in a note, denounces the doctrine of the Lord’s supper being “a sacrifice”; and says, so long as this delusion is maintained, the sacrament must be administered by priests, and by priests only. He writes: “only reduce this _simple_ institution to its _primitive_ and _scriptural_ standard, and then, a handful of _private_ individuals, or a single family, may communicate, as the Christians did of old, and the _sacrament_ (so called) become, once more, _literally_, a daily sacrifice of _prayer_ and _thanksgiving_.” (Page 128.)

In another note (page 235), after referring to a book entitled, “The Dissenting Gentleman’s Answer to the Rev. Mr. White,” he says: “I was born, and am like to die in the tottering _communion_ of the Church of England; but I despise her nonsense; and thank God, that I have once read a book, that no fool _can_ answer, and that no _honest_ man _will_.” He then proceeds to pronounce the Church’s doom. The reader must be satisfied with two stanzas only.

“Permit me to foretell thy _doom_,
(Which has in _part_ been that of _Rome_,)
Thou wilt be clean abhorred:
The _nation_ will expose thy shame,
Cast out as dung thy putrid name,
The vengeance of the Lord!

For while her _orders_, and her _rules_,
Are made the _standard_ of thy _schools_,
And all beside of blame:
What other portion canst thou hope,
But that the wise should give thee up,
Her _ape_—without her _name_?”

The book throughout is written in the same severe,—almost savage style. Remembering this; and also remembering, that numbers of Methodists had already turned Dissenters; and that separation from the Church of England was still the great question agitating the Methodistic mind; no wonder that the subject was re-discussed in the conference of 1756, and that a most important correspondence followed.

While in Ireland, Wesley wrote to a clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Clark, of Hollymount,[271] in the following terms.

“CASTLEBAR, _July 3, 1756_.

“REVEREND SIR,—I still believe the episcopal form of church government to be scriptural and apostolical. I mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the apostles. But, that it is _prescribed_ in Scripture, I do not believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of, ever since I read Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Irenicon.’ I think he has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor His apostles _prescribe_ any particular form of church government; and, that the plea of _Divine right_ for diocesan episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive church.

“As to _heresy_ and _schism_, I cannot find one text in the Bible, where they are taken in the modern sense. I remember no one scripture, wherein _heresy_ signifies ‘error in opinion,’ whether fundamental or not; nor any, wherein _schism_ signifies a ‘separation from the church,’ whether with cause or without. I wish, sir, you would reconsider this point, and review the scriptures wherein those terms occur.

“I would take some pains to recover any one from error, or to reconcile him to our church, I mean, to the Church of England; from which I do not separate yet, and probably never shall; but I would take much more pains to recover any one from sin. One who lives and dies in error, or in dissent from our church, may yet be saved: but one who lives and dies in sin, must perish. I would to God, we could all agree both in opinions and outward worship; but, if this cannot be, may we not agree in holiness? This is the great desire of, reverend sir, your very humble servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[272]

Nineteen days before the Bristol conference was opened, Charles Wesley addressed the following to the Rev. Samuel Walker, of Truro.

“BRISTOL, _August 7, 1756_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—My brother is coming hither to a conference with his preachers. Another letter from you might, by the blessing of God, confirm him in his calling. He seems resolved to temporize with them no longer. Mr. Grimshaw is coming to strengthen his hands. We shall have a private conference before the general one.

“I should have broken off from the Methodists and my brother, in 1752, but for the agreement.[273] I think every preacher should sign that agreement, or leave us. What I desire of my brother is:—1. That the unsound, unrecoverable preachers should be let depart just now. 2. That the wavering should be confirmed, if possible, and established in their calling. 3. That the sound ones should be received into the strictest union and confidence, and, as soon as may be, prepared for orders.

“To this end, my brother ought, in my judgment, to declare and avow, in the strongest and most explicit manner, his resolution to live and die in the communion of the Church of England. (1) To take all proper pains to instruct and ground both his preachers and his flock, in the same: a treatise is much wanting on this subject, which he might write and spread through all his societies. (2) To wait with me on the archbishop, who has desired to see him, and tell him our whole design. (3) To advise, as far as they think proper, with such of our brethren the clergy as know the truth, and do nothing without their approbation.

“I was advised long ago, by Lady Huntingdon, to write you on this subject, but could not do it till now. Your concern for the cause of God will, I doubt not, induce you to do all you can to promote it, and to hinder the work from being destroyed; although it would not be destroyed (as I often tell the Methodists) even if they all desert it, and turn aside to vain sectarian janglings. Remember at the throne of grace, dear sir, your meanest fellow servant,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[274]

The above was confidential. Mr. Walker treated it as such; and, nine days afterwards, not only wrote a long letter to Wesley himself, which will be noticed shortly, but also a long reply to Charles. The following are extracts.

“_August 16, 1756._

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—I am greatly concerned about the issue of the conference your brother is to have with his lay preachers. We had a short correspondence on that head last winter, wherein I saw he was greatly pushed by his preachers, unwilling to part with them, and yet not caring to part from the Church of England.

“Lay preachers, being contrary to the constitution of the Church of England, are, as far as that point goes, a separation from it. It is quite another question, whether lay preachers be agreeable to the appointment of the Spirit respecting the ministry. The matter is not, whether lay preachers be needful, or what their calling may be. Be the one and the other as it will, the thing is plainly inconsistent with the discipline of the Church of England; and so, in one essential point, setting up a church within her, which cannot be of her. When, therefore, it is asked, shall we separate from the Church of England? it should rather be asked, shall we make the separation, we have begun, a separation in all forms? And if we do not think ourselves allowed to do this, shall we unite with her? We do not, unless lay preaching is laid aside.

“Yourselves must judge of the call and necessity of lay preachers, and whether that, or anything beside, may justify a separation. Meantime, there is a continual bar kept up between you and any regular clergyman, who cannot in conscience fall in with this measure. The most he can do is not to forbid them; he cannot take them by the hand. And so there must be two disunited ministrations of the word in the same place, by people who yet do call themselves of the Church of England.

“After all these considerations, might not an expedient be found out which might correspond with the word of God and the Church of England; and, at the same time, both remove all objections, and render the body of Methodists more useful? I have long and often thought of such a thing. My scheme is this. 1. That as many of the lay preachers as are fit for, and can be procured, ordination, be ordained. 2. That those who remain be not allowed to preach, but be set as inspectors over the societies, and assistants to them. 3. That they be not moved from place to place, to the end they may be personally acquainted with all the members of such societies. 4. That their business may be to purge and edify the societies under their care, to the end that no person be continued a member, whose conversation is not orderly and of good report.

“If this should be made an objection, that hereby lay preachers would be prevented from preaching abroad, and so much good be put a stop to, I would suggest it to be inquired into, whether this lay preaching hath been so much to the honour or interest of religion or Methodism as may be supposed? I remember, when it first began, I said and thought lay preaching would be the ruin of Methodism.

“The archbishop is greatly to be commended for his labours after peace; and, without question, if the measures are obtained which you desire, it will be very desirable he be waited on, and informed of them. But this must be done with fear, lest the leaders among you, being taken notice of by such great ones, do abate their zeal. Especially, it would be capable of a very bad interpretation, should any of them be advanced to considerable preferment.

“To my thinking, you will not gain much by getting the preachers to subscribe the agreement of March 10, 1752. If things are left as they are, they will break out at last, nor can anything less be expected at your brothers death, which is an event at no great distance, in all human appearance. Or should he live, still the evil is unremoved.

“I am yours, etc.,

“SAMUEL WALKER.”[275]

In his letter to Wesley himself, Mr. Walker urges him to do something decisive in the way of putting Methodism on a footing that will “render it more serviceable to the church of Christ, and the Church of England.” He propounds the plan detailed in his letter to Charles Wesley. He wishes him, at the approaching conference: (1) To declare himself as satisfied concerning the _unlawfulness_ of separation from the Church of England, and as fully determined to dispute that matter no more with any who dissented from his opinion; (2) to act with vigour, in requiring his preachers to declare themselves, suffering such to depart as declined to concur with him, and to make all his societies acquainted with the action he had taken. He adds: “Delays will make matters worse. The disaffected will grow upon you, corrupt others, and imagine you are afraid of them; while also, in so unsettled a state of things, nothing can go forward; the enemy has advantage; and the interests of vital religion must suffer.” He concludes by requesting that the business “be so conducted as to give no offence to Dissenters of any denomination, lest unadvisedly old disputes and party heats should be revived.”[276]

Before his brother’s arrival in Bristol, Charles Wesley replied to Mr. Walker, as follows.

“BRISTOL, _August 21, 1756_.

“DEAR SIR,—Your last brings a blessing with it. I hope to consider it fully with my brother, who is expected every hour.

“Lay preaching, it is allowed, is a partial separation, and may, but _need_ not, end in a total one. The probability of it has made me tremble for years past, and kept me from leaving the Methodists. I stay not so much to do good, as to prevent evil. I stand in the way of my brother’s violent counsellors, the object of both their fear and hate.

“The regulations you propose are the same in substance which I have been long contending for in vain. I know my brother will not hear of laying aside his lay preachers in so many words. All I can desire of him, to begin, is: (1) To cut off all their hopes of his leaving the Church of England; (2) to put a stop to any more new preachers, till he has entirely regulated, disciplined, and secured the old ones. If he wavers still, and trims between the Church and them, I know not what to do. As yet, it is in his power, if he exert himself, to stop the evil. But I fear he will never have another opportunity. The tide will be too strong for him, and bear him away into the gulf of separation. Must I not, therefore, enter my protest and give up the preachers formally to him? _Hoc Ithacus volit_, and they impatiently wait for it. The restless pains of bad men, to thrust me out from the Methodists, seem a plain argument for my continuing with them. I want light, and would have no will of my own, but prove what is that good and perfect will of God. Continue your prayers for, dear sir, your sincere, though weak and despised brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[277]

Wesley arrived; the conference was held; and, a few days afterwards, the following sensible and Christian letter was sent to Mr. Walker.

“KINGSWOOD, _September 3, 1756_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—I have one point in view, to promote, so far as I am able, vital, practical religion. On this single principle, I have hitherto proceeded, and taken no step but in subservience to it. With this view, when I found it to be absolutely necessary for the continuance of the work which God had begun in many souls, and which their _regular pastors_ generally used all possible means to destroy, I permitted several of their brethren, whom I believed God had called thereto, and qualified for the work, to comfort, exhort, and instruct those who were athirst for God, or who walked in the light of His countenance. But, as the persons so qualified were few, and those who wanted their assistance very many, it followed, that most of these were obliged to travel continually from place to place; and this occasioned several regulations from time to time, which were chiefly made in our conferences.

“So great a blessing has, from the beginning, attended the labour of these itinerants, that we have been more and more convinced, every year, of the more than lawfulness of this proceeding. And the inconveniences, most of which we foresaw from the very first, have been both fewer and smaller than were expected. Rarely two in one year, out of the whole number of preachers, have either separated themselves or been rejected by us. A great majority have all along behaved as becometh the gospel of Christ; and, I am clearly persuaded, still desire nothing more than to spend and be spent for their brethren.

“‘How these may be settled on such a footing, as one might wish they might be after my death,’ is a weighty point, and has taken up many of my thoughts for several years; but I know nothing yet. The steps I am now to take are plain. I see broad light shining upon them; but the other part of the prospect I cannot see; clouds and darkness rest upon it. ‘To follow my own conscience, without any regard to consequences, or prudence, so called,’ is a rule which I have closely followed for many years, and hope to follow to my life’s end.

“The first of your particular advices is, ‘to keep in full view the interest of Christ’s church in general, and of practical religion; not considering the Church of England, or the cause of Methodism, but as subordinate thereto.’ This advice I have punctually observed from the beginning, as well as at our late conference. You advise, (2) ‘to keep in view the unlawfulness of a separation from the Church of England.’ To this likewise I agree. It cannot be lawful to separate from it, unless it be unlawful to continue in it. You advise, (3) ‘fully to declare myself on this head, and to suffer no dispute concerning it.’ The very same thing I wrote to my brother from Ireland. And we have declared ourselves without reserve. Nor was there any at the conference otherwise minded; those who would have aimed at dispute had left us before. All our preachers, as well as ourselves, purpose to continue in the Church of England. Nor did they ever before so freely and explicitly declare themselves on this subject.

“Your last advice is, ‘that as many of our preachers as are fit for it, be ordained; and that the others be fixed to certain societies, not as preachers, but as readers or inspectors.’

“You oblige me by speaking your sentiments so plainly: with the same plainness I will answer. So far as I know myself, I have no more concern for the reputation of Methodism, than for the reputation of Prester John.

“Is that which you propose a better way? This should be coolly and calmly considered.

“If I mistake not, there are now in Cornwall about four and thirty of these societies, part of whom now experience the love of God; part are more or less earnestly seeking it. Four preachers,—Peter Jaco, Thomas Johnson, W. Crabb, and William Allwood,—design, for the ensuing year, partly to call other sinners to repentance, but chiefly to guide and feed those few feeble sheep.

“Now suppose, that we can effect, that Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson be ordained and settled in the curacies of Buryan and St. Just; and suppose William Crabb and William Allwood fix at Launceston and the Dock, as readers and exhorters; will this answer the end I have in view, so well as travelling through the county?

“It will not answer it so well, even with regard to those societies with whom Peter Jaco and Thomas Johnson have settled. Be their talents ever so great, they will, ere long, grow dead themselves, and so will most of those that hear them. I know, were I myself to preach one whole year in one place, I should preach both myself and most of my congregation asleep. Nor can I ever believe, it was ever the will of our Lord, that any congregation should have one teacher only. We have found, by long and constant experience, that a frequent change of teachers is best. This preacher has one talent, that another. No one, whom I ever knew, has all the talents which are needful for beginning, continuing, and perfecting the work of grace in a whole congregation.

“But suppose this would better answer the end with regard to those two societies, would it answer in those where William Allwood and William Crabb were settled as inspectors or readers? First, who shall feed them with the milk of the word? The ministers of their parishes? Alas, they cannot: they themselves neither know, nor live, nor teach the gospel. These readers? Can then either they, or I, or you, always find something to read our congregation, which will be as exactly adapted to their wants, and as much blessed to them, as our preaching? And here is another difficulty still: what authority have I to forbid their doing what I believe God has called them to do? I apprehend, indeed, that there ought, if possible, to be both an outward and inward call to this work; yet, if one of the two be supposed wanting, I had rather want the outward than the inward call. I rejoice, that I am called to preach the gospel both by God and man. Yet, I acknowledge, I had rather have the Divine without the human, than the human without the Divine call.

“But waiving this, and supposing these four societies to be better provided for than they were before, what becomes of the other thirty? Will they prosper as well when they are left as sheep without a shepherd? The experiment has been tried again and again, and always with the same event; even the strong in faith grew weak and faint; many of the weak made shipwreck of faith; the awakened fell asleep; and sinners, changed for a while, returned as a dog to the vomit. And so, by our lack of service, many of the souls perished for whom Christ died. Now, had we willingly withdrawn our service from them, by voluntarily settling in one place, what account of this could we have given to the great Shepherd of all our souls?

“I cannot, therefore, see how any of those four preachers, or any others in like circumstances, can ever, while they have health and strength, ordained or unordained, fix in one place, without a grievous wound to their own conscience, and damage to the _general_ work of God. Yet, I trust, I am open to conviction; and your further thoughts on this, or any subject, will be always acceptable to, reverend and dear sir, your very affectionate brother and fellow labourer,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[278]

Such a letter ought to have been conclusive. By its practical common sense, it demolishes the fanciful theory of Charles Wesley and his friend Walker. The matter, however, was far from being settled. Walker accused Wesley of timidity. “He is,” says he, in a letter to Charles Wesley, “hindered by his own fears, which give the preachers an advantage they could not otherwise possibly have. He sees the necessity of either laying the preachers aside, or making them a separate church; while also, on the one hand, his conscience will not digest separation; and, on the other, he has had too great a hand in setting them up, to think of pulling them down. It has been a great fault all along, to have made the low people of your council; and, if there be not power enough left in your brother’s hands to do as he sees fit, they will soon show him they will be their own masters.”[279]

Mr. Walker, on September 2, wrote to the Rev. Thomas Adam, rector of Wintringham, telling him that the affair had become exceedingly serious; and that, in his opinion, unless the lay preachers were laid aside, it would end in separation. He adds, that Charles Wesley might consent to their dismissal; but Wesley himself would not.[280]

Three weeks later, Adam replied to Walker in the following, not over charitable, terms.

“_September 21, 1756._

“DEAR SIR,—Methodism, as to its external form, is such a deviation from the rule and constitution of the Church of England, that all attempts to render it consistent must be in vain. Lay preaching is a manifest irregularity, and would not be endured in any Christian society. To salve this sore, you say, _let some of their lay preachers be ordained_. But suppose they were, to what end would they be ordained? That they might still go on to preach in fields, or private houses, and hold separate meetings? This would be as great a breach upon the order of the Church as ever, and perhaps attended with greater inconveniences than their present practice. J. Wesley will not, cannot give up the point of lay preaching; it will be giving up all; he must cry _peccavi_, and his heart will hold him a tug before it comes to that. Upon the whole, my judgment is, that they have embarrassed themselves past recovery; and must either go on in their present form, or separate totally and openly. The latter, many think, would be more ingenuous than an underhand separation. I think you must e’en let the Methodists alone. I do not see what help you can afford them, consistently with their principles and your own. ‘Every plant,’ etc., should make us tremble on one side and the other.

“I am, reverend and dear sir,

“Your unworthy brother,

“THOS. ADAM.”[281]

Amid such difficulties, such friends, and such opponents, poor perplexed Wesley had to grope his way as he best could. For a time, the feverish anxiety of his brother somewhat subsided. Within a week after the conference, he wrote to Mr. Walker, his confidential, if not wise, adviser, as follows.

“BRISTOL, _September 6, 1756_.

“DEAR SIR,—Between forty and fifty, or almost all, our itinerant preachers were present at our conference. I have talked largely with each, some of whom I had not known before so much as by name. Mr. Venn, a clergyman, was with us the whole time. Since our last conference at Leeds, two or three of our preachers, of a froward unhumbled spirit, have left us. The rest, except two here and two in Ireland, are, I have good reason to believe, men of a single eye, and humble, teachable spirit. My brother seems farther from a separation than ever. This morning, he set out for London, to print a new edition of his Notes. He has also undertaken to write a treatise, to confirm the Methodists in the Church. Next Monday, I expect to set out for the north on the same errand. Continue your prayers for, dear sir, your weakest brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[282]

On September 17, Charles Wesley started upon his northern mission. At Walbridge, he exhorted the forty-three members of the Methodist society “to continue steadfast in the communion of the Church of England.” At Cheltenham, he writes: “I did not forget to confirm the brethren in their calling; that is, to live and die in the Church of England.” At Sheffield, he “spake plainly and lovingly to the society of continuing in the Church; and, though many of them were Dissenters and predestinarians, none were offended.” At Rotherham, he says: “I plainly told the society, that ‘there is no salvation _out of the church_,’ that is, out of the mystical body of Christ, or the company of faithful people.” At Leeds, he tells us, the society “were unanimous to stay in the Church, because the Lord stays in it, and multiplies His witnesses therein, more than in any other church in Christendom.” At York, he writes: “I exhorted them to go to church, that they might be found of Jesus in the temple.” At Seacroft, where Grimshaw joined him, he “strongly exhorted the society to continue stedfast in fellowship with each other, and the whole Church of England.” At Heptonstall, he “warned them of the wiles of the devil, whereby he would draw them away from the church, and the other means of grace.” At Manchester, he challenged them “to show him one Methodist who had ever prospered by turning Dissenter.” While here, he also addressed his brother as follows.

“One thing might prevent, in great measure, the mischiefs which will probably ensue after our death; and that is, _greater, much greater deliberation and care in admitting preachers_. Ought any new preacher to be received before we know, that he is grounded, not only in the doctrines we teach, but in the discipline also, and, particularly, in the communion of the Church of England? Ought we not to try what he can answer a baptist, a quaker, a papist, as well as a predestinarian or Moravian? If we do not insist on that στοργη for our desolate mother as a pre-requisite, yet should we not be well assured, that the candidate is no enemy to the Church? Is it not our duty to stop J. C.” [Joseph Cownley?] “and such like, from railing and laughing at the Church? Should we not now, at least, shut the stable door? The short remainder of my life is devoted to this very thing, to follow our sons with buckets of water, to quench the flame of strife and division, which they have or may kindle.”

He also wrote, from the same place, to his friend Grimshaw, under date of October 29: “I could not leave this poor shattered society so soon as I proposed. They have not had fair play from our treacherous sons in the gospel. I have once more persuaded them to go to church and sacrament, and stay to carry them thither the next Lord’s day. Nothing but grace can keep our children, after our departure, from running into a thousand sects, a thousand errors.”

He likewise wrote to his “beloved brethren at Leeds, etc.,” as follows: “I knew beforehand, that the Sanballats and Tobiahs would be grieved when they heard there was a man come to seek the welfare of the Church of England. I expected they would pervert my words, as if I should say, ‘_The Church could save you_.’ But let not their slanders move you. Continue in the old ship. Jesus hath a favour for our Church, and is wonderfully visiting and reviving His work in her.”[283]

On November 6, he got back to Bristol, and, ten days later, sent the following furious letter to his brother—a letter now for the first time published.

“BRISTOL, _November 16, 1756_.

“Doubtless you guard in your ‘Preservative’ against that levelling, devilish, root and branch, spirit, which breathes in every line of the ‘Mitre.’ I kept my own thoughts till you imparted yours, with which I entirely agree. Only you do him too much honour by naming him with the _Independent Whig_. The religion of both is equal, but Ted exceeds in bitterness and malice beyond all comparison. Much wit I can see in the _Independent Whig_; but in the ‘Mitre’ none at all. Such insufferable dulness would surfeit every reader, but those whose hearts are as thoroughly corrupted as the writer’s. I marvel how he can look you or me in the face, after writing and propagating such a book; how he can pretend to be our fellow labourer! Notwithstanding his promise to us, at J. Jones’, he continues to spread his notions with his book. He does not sell, but gives it to _our_ preachers and friends. One he made me the bearer of to York. I have heard none commend its wit, but Mrs. James, and Christopher Hopper, which convinces me nothing is too stupid to do hurt. Is it right or fair, that he should go on to poison our children, and wound us through the influence which we lend him? I love both him and Charles and the whole family. So you do, as we have abundantly shown. But must we, therefore, suffer this madman to cast firebrands, and to tear our flock to pieces? I know he is totally fallen from grace; and _can_ I, _ought_ I, ever to trust him till he is sensible of his fall? In my private capacity, I show him what love and civility I can, and intend to continue his friend, as far as he is capable of receiving good from me; but, as ministers of Christ, as guardians of this particular church, as fathers of the poor Methodists, what ought we to do? Let us first agree betwixt ourselves, and cut off all his hopes of ever coming between us. Then, whatever you say, or do, or judge, I say, do, and judge the same. Only, what we do, we must do quickly. You can better write than speak your mind. He stays here another week. Suppose you wrote him a letter (for me also to subscribe and deliver), and set before him some of the things which he hath done.

“1. He has set himself against us, almost from the beginning, counteracting us with our preachers, spiriting them up, poisoning, proselyting them to his own wretched notions.

“2. He has withstood the utmost efforts both you and I have used to make him our friend.

“3. He has stirred up persecution against us, and given such a wound to the cause as may never be healed. For of all the prejudices, bitterness, disaffection of both preachers and people, he is _et caput et frons_. Unless he says Joseph Cownley corrupted him, and he his brother Charles.

“4. To sum up all, and perpetuate his evil, he has sent forth his ‘Mitre,’ in open contradiction of all we have said, wrote, done from the beginning. If we say, the Church of Christ and England are but one, he says, the Church of Rome and England are but one. If we condemn lay administering, he attempts to justify and prove it. What Charles told Dr. Tucker, that he had not one sentiment in common with the Church of England, Ted might say with equal truth.

“At Canterbury, I saw our Sacrament Hymns, which Ted has scratched out and blotted, hardly leaving twenty entire lines. How can two walk together except they be agreed? How can he pretend to labour with us? He has no power over his own will or words. If, in a relenting fit, he promises us to be quiet, his vanity soon betrays him again into his old spirit and conversation.

“Let us try, with the help of God, whether we cannot hinder his doing further mischief. Things are come to this, that we must conquer or be conquered. My advice is: 1. That you write and insist upon his keeping his promise to us, by calling in and destroying his book. If he will part with that right eye, we may have some hope of him. 2. That he settle to _something_. He is unwilling to break with us—(1) Because he still in some sort loves us; (2) because he comes recommended by us to all our friends. But his own soul can never recover while he wanders from house to house in such a lounging way of life. Therefore, let him go home to his wife, and do as much good and as little harm as he can at Canterbury. Poor Mr. Lepine he had almost assimilated. I hope your late visit has set him right. I will join you in your _kindest_ treatment of him; but make him not your companion or counsellor. Keep your absolute superiority, by steady, serious love. The same behaviour might suit his brother also. I have much more to say, but time and paper fail. When do you expect that your Notes will be out? I am half choked with a cold, yet setting out for the country. Farewell!

CHARLES WESLEY.”

“To Mr. Windsor, in King Street,
Tower Hill, London, for J. W. with speed.”

Thus was Wesley badgered. It certainly was strange, that one of the fiercest attacks upon the Church of England, ever published, should be written by a Methodist itinerant preacher; and that the preacher should be the son of a man, who, at one time at least, was Wesley’s most confidential friend, Vincent Perronet; and further, that the writer should have lived on terms of the greatest intimacy with both Wesley and his brother. The book contains not a little which cannot be commended; but Charles Wesley’s opinion of its dulness and want of wit is preposterously opposed to fact. Charles was in a terrible fever of Church of England excitement; and all that he said and did, at this momentous period of Methodistic history, must be taken _cum grano salis_. Why Vincent Perronet was not consulted in these grave affairs we are left to guess.

Charles Wesley was most anxious to have the present preachers ordained, or otherwise attached to settled societies; and also to stop the employment of additional itinerants, or, at all events, without subjecting them to a most searching ordeal. On the other hand, his brother continued to employ them as usual; and, during this very year of 1756, called to the itinerant work five fresh labourers—William Allwood, John Catermole, Robert Gillespy, Thomas Greaves, and Matthew Lowes; while the only ones who left him were John Haughton, John Maddern, and James Morris.[284] Many, indeed most, of his preachers were without learning, but not without sense. They were thoroughly converted; and, though destitute of other knowledge, knew the Scriptures, and how to teach the gospel plan of salvation. In a letter, written at the close of the Bristol conference, Wesley says:—

“BRISTOL, _August 31, 1756_.

... “A careless reader of the Address may think I make it necessary for a minister to have much learning; and, thence, imagine I act inconsistently; seeing many of our preachers have no learning at all. But the answer is easy. First, I do not make any learning necessary even for a minister,—the minister of a parish, who, as such, undertakes single to guide and feed, to instruct and govern, that whole flock,—but the knowledge of the Scriptures; although many branches of learning are highly expedient for him. Secondly, these preachers are not ministers; none of them undertakes single the care of a whole flock; but ten, twenty, or thirty, one following and helping another; and all, under the direction of my brother and me, undertake jointly what (as I judge) no man in England is equal to alone.”[285]

In another letter, to Mr. Norton, he writes thus.

“KINGSWOOD, _September 3, 1756_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,—In your letters of July, and August 27, you charge me first with _self inconsistency_, in tolerating lay preaching, and not lay administering; and, secondly, with showing a spirit of _persecution_, in denying my brethren the liberty of _acting_, as well as _thinking_, according to their own _conscience_.

“As to the former charge, the fact alleged is true; but it is not true, that I am _self inconsistent_ in so doing. I tolerate lay preaching, because I conceive there is an absolute necessity for it, inasmuch as, were it not, thousands of souls would perish everlastingly; yet I do not tolerate _lay administering_, because I do not conceive there is any such necessity for it; seeing it does not appear, that, if this is not at all, one soul will perish for want of it.

“As to the latter charge, I again allow the fact; but deny the consequence. I mean, I allow the fact thus far; some of our preachers, who are not ordained, think it quite right to administer the Lord’s supper, and believe it would do much good. I think it quite wrong, and believe it would do much hurt. Hereupon I say: ‘I have no right over your conscience, nor you over mine; therefore, both you and I must follow our own conscience. You believe it is a duty to administer do so; and therein follow your own conscience. I verily believe it is a sin; which consequently I dare not _tolerate_; and herein I follow mine,’ Yet, this is no _persecution_, were I to separate from our society, (which I have not done yet,) those who practise what I believe is contrary to the word, and destructive of the work, of God.

“If John Jones, my brother, or any other preacher, has preached sharply on this head, I certainly am a stranger to it, and therefore not answerable for it. I persecute no man on this account, or any other; and yet, I cannot _consent_, that any of our lay preachers should either preach predestination, or administer the sacraments, to those who are under my care.