Chapter XV: Part 15

Such was the dispute. What was the result? On November 22, Wesley and his brother set out from London to settle the disturbance. The Bath society was assembled. Wesley says: “I read to them a paper, which I wrote, near twenty years ago, on a like occasion. Herein I observed, that ‘the rules of our preachers were fixed by me, before any conference existed,’ particularly the twelfth: ‘Above all, you are to preach when and where I appoint.’ By obstinately opposing which rule, Mr. M‘Nab has made all this uproar. In the morning, at a meeting of the preachers, I informed Mr. M‘Nab, that, as he did not agree to our fundamental rule, I could not receive him as one of our preachers, till he was of another mind. Wednesday, November 24, I read the same paper to the society at Bristol, as I found the flame had spread thither also. A few at Bath separated from us on this account; but the rest were thoroughly satisfied.”

Such is the entry in Wesley’s journal; but eight months after this, he writes: “Mr. M‘Nab quarrelling with Mr. Smyth threw wildfire among the people at Bath, and occasioned anger, jealousies, judging each other, backbiting, and tale bearing without end; and, in spite of all the pains which have been taken, the wound is not healed to this day.”

Wesley throws all the blame upon M‘Nab; but it may fairly be doubted whether this was just. There can be no question concerning Wesley’s abstract right to appoint to his chapels whom he pleased; but the manner in which the right was exercised is not an improper subject for doubt and discussion. Wesley pleads what he did twenty years before; but, even allowing that his action then was right, it remains to be proved, that the same action, under altered circumstances, was prudent now. During that interval, the number of Methodists and Methodist preachers had more than doubled. Besides, now that the number of itinerant preachers was more than a hundred and sixty; and that many of them were men of great genius and talent, as well as piety; and that all had a right to take part in the deliberations of the annual conference, which really made the appointments for the ensuing year, Wesley’s claim to have the sole and exclusive power, asserted in the document read to the Bath society, is a claim which can hardly be admitted.[342] There is a forgetfulness of existing facts, and therefore a fallaciousness, in the following letter, written on this subject a few weeks after the Bath disturbances occurred.

“_January, 1780._

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You seem not to have well considered the Rules of
a Helper, or the rise of Methodism. It pleased God, by me, to
awaken, first my brother, and then a few others; who severally
desired of me, as a favour, that I would direct them in all things.
After my return from Georgia, many were both awakened and converted
to God. One, and another, and another of these desired to join with
me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a few
plain rules (observe there was no conference in being!), and
permitted them to join me on these conditions. Whoever, therefore,
violates these conditions, particularly that of being directed by me
in the work, does, _ipso facto_, disjoin himself from me. This
brother M‘Nab has done (but he cannot see that he has done amiss):
and he would have it a common cause; that is, he would have all the
preachers do the same. He thinks ‘they have a right so to do.’ So
they have. They have a right to disjoin themselves from me whenever
they please. But they cannot, in the nature of the thing, join with
me any longer than they are directed by me. And what, if fifty of
the preachers disjoined themselves! What should I lose thereby? Only
a great deal of labour and care, which I do not seek; but endure,
because no one else either can or will.

“You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a conference. For
above six years after my return to England, there was no such thing.
I then desired some of my preachers to meet me, in order to advise,
not control, me. And you may observe, they had no power at all, but
what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which
God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation, and
gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken
from their head. But as long as I remain with them, the fundamental
rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As long as any preacher joins
with me, he is to be directed by me in his work. Do not you see
then, that brother M‘Nab, whatever his intentions might be, acted as
wrong as wrong could be? and that the representing of this as the
common cause of the preachers was the way to common destruction, the
way to turn their heads, and to set them in arms? It was a blow at
the very root of Methodism. I could not, therefore, do less than I
did; it was the very least that could be done, for fear that evil
should spread.

“I do not willingly speak of these things at all; but I do it now
out of necessity; because I perceive the mind of you, and some
others, is a little hurt by not seeing them in a true light.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[343]

This was Wesley’s defence of the boldest act of discipline he had ever exercised; but we still doubt its wisdom and sufficiency. All he says about the preachers placing themselves under his direction, and about the first conferences, is strictly true; but Methodist matters now were widely different from what they were when Methodist conferences were first begun. With all due deference to Wesley, Methodism now was not wholly the work of Wesley, nor was it entirely dependent on him. At this very time, there was, among the preachers, a ministerial phalanx, who had a right to be something more than mere _advisers_,-- servants in the gospel, sometimes taken into the counsels of their chief, but wholly at his disposal. There were Olivers, Pawson, Rankin, Murlin, Story, Whatcoat, Valton, Benson, Hanby, Manners, Taylor, Mather, Hopper, Vasey, Thompson, Pilmoor, Rhodes, Bradburn, Boardman, the two Hampsons, Barber, Rutherford, Moore, Myles, and others, whose names will always be memorable in Methodistic history. Considering the talents, the preaching power, the untiring labours, and the marvellous success of these distinguished men, was it wise, and was it fair, for Wesley to insist upon his retention of the absolute authority that he justly exercised when Methodism was first commenced? Remembering the paltry pittance they received for their important and unceasing toil, was it just, that, in a great religious movement, now spread throughout the three kingdoms, and to which they themselves had greatly contributed, they should be employed as mere _workmen_, without the least right to take a part in the arrangement of their respective spheres of labour, and without a particle of authority, except what was implied in their advices, in the general legislation of a body now numbering more than forty thousand people? Was it surprising, that Wesley’s expulsion of M‘Nab, for claiming a pulpit to which he had been appointed at the conference, but into which Wesley desired to introduce an expelled Irish clergyman, should create dissatisfaction and incipient rebellion?

There can be no doubt, that this was one of the most dangerous ordeals through which Methodism passed in the lifetime of its founder. It was hardly a fair statement of the case, when Wesley said, that all that he would lose, by fifty of his preachers leaving him, would be “a great deal of labour and care.” If such an event had happened, Methodism would have been split into fragments, and, as a system, would have ceased to exist; and Wesley, seeing the demolition of such a work, would have been a sorrowful man for the remainder of his life. The crisis, in 1779, was most momentous. It was really the first time that Wesley’s supreme and absolute power was professedly and openly resisted. The whole question hinges on the point, were the appointments to chapels and to circuits made by Wesley and his conference of preachers _conjointly_? or were they made by Wesley himself _alone_? Wesley argues, that the power of appointment rested solely with himself. We can only answer, that this was an unreasonable and dangerous power to wield. Under the circumstances, Wesley could not claim it, without ignoring the reasonable claims of a large body of the most remarkable men that England has ever had; and he could not exercise it without serious danger to himself and to his system.

Alexander M‘Nab, though comparatively young, was not an ordinary man. Testimonies concerning his character, eloquence, and preaching power, have been already given. Mr. Smyth was doubtless both sensible and pious; but we greatly question whether he was as popular and powerful a preacher as the North Briton. No charge of unsound doctrine, or of immorality, or of incompetency, or of inattention to discipline, was made against M‘Nab. He was faithfully and successfully doing the work to which he had been appointed. He was popular with the people. But because he refused, at Wesley’s bidding, to allow an Irish stranger, not at all his superior, but, probably, his inferior in pulpit ability, to take his place, Wesley, at once, by his own _ipse dixit_, expelled him from his connexion of preachers. However painful to do it, we are bound to maintain that this was an injustice. The act might be technically right; but it was an almost popish assumption of autocratic authority, and a most perilous--it might have been disastrous--exercise of disciplinary power. It is true that no absolute rebellion followed,--a fact showing the simple minded piety of the Methodist preachers and people, and the marvellous influence of Wesley over them, and their almost unparalleled respect for his character and labours; but there were great commotions and serious misgivings; and, if concessions had not been made, there might have been open resistance, and a consequent wreck of Methodist success and hope.

Here, however, another question occurs. Was Wesley to be solely or principally blamed for this imprudent exercise of power? We have no wish to shield him from censure, when censure is merited; but if others were to blame as well as he, or if others were even more blamable than he, it is only fair to his memory and name, that the facts should be published.

Charles Wesley’s quarrel with the London preachers has been already mentioned. It occurred a few months only previous to the affair at Bath. There is no denying it, that Charles was violently opposed to lay preachers, and was unreasonably jealous of their intriguing to obtain co-ordinate power with his brother, and of their intention to use such power in effecting a separation of Methodism from the Established Church. On Good Friday, 1779, he wrote to his brother: “The preachers do not love the Church of England. When we are gone, a separation is inevitable. Do you not wish to keep as many good people in the Church as you can? Something might be done now to save the remainder, if you had resolution, and would stand by me as firmly as I will by you. Consider what you are bound to do as a clergyman; and what you do, do quickly.”[344]

It was in such a frame of mind, that Charles Wesley heard of M‘Nab’s resisting the authority of his brother at Bath. Mr. Pawson, who says he was perfectly acquainted with the affair, tells us, in his manuscript memoir of Dr. Whitehead, that Charles Wesley “took fire at once, and highly resented Mr. M‘Nab’s behaviour. He prevailed upon his brother, after much strife and contention, to exclude Mr. M‘Nab from the connexion; and, upon this condition, he promised to attend him to Bath. Accordingly the two brothers, accompanied by Dr. Coke and the Rev. Mr. Collins, went to Bath with all possible secrecy, and the sentence was pronounced upon poor Mr. M‘Nab agreeably to Mr. Charles Wesley’s wish. By this means, the Bath society was divided. Many of the people loved Mr. M‘Nab, and thought it wrong that he should be condemned unheard. The society at Bristol also was thrown into great confusion; and, had it not been for the exertions of Dr. Coke, would have been divided like that at Bath. On the Sunday evening after Mr. Wesley’s return to London, he brought the matter before the London society, and certainly degraded the preachers, and laid them low even in the dust at his feet. When he was gone from London, Mr. Charles, after the sacrament at the new chapel, prayed for his brother in the following words: ‘Lord, preserve him from his rebellious sons. Though they curse him, do Thou bless him. Though they wish his death, do Thou prolong his life. Lord, stand between the living and the dead, and let not the curse of pride destroy them.’”

This was strange language to use, in prayer, and after a solemn sacrament; but it was not dissimilar to the language of a “Hymn for the Rev. John Wesley,” which Charles composed, and which was “sung by the society in Bristol, on Sunday, December 5, 1779,” only a fortnight after M‘Nab’s expulsion.

“Jesus, Thy hated servant own,
And send the glorious Spirit down,
In answer to our prayers;
While others curse, and wish him dead,
Do Thou Thy choicest blessings shed,
And crown his hoary hairs.”--etc., etc.[345]

Pawson was the superintendent of the London circuit, and felt it his duty to write to Charles Wesley, and remonstrate with him for using such language, at such a time, and in such a place. An interview followed; and Pawson adds: “We came to an explanation, and he was in high good humour; but I have reason to believe, he never forgave me. He made his brother believe, that Mr. M‘Nab was only the tool of a violent party among the preachers, among whom there was a very powerful combination against his authority; and that, at the next conference, they would show themselves.” Pawson adds: “There was not a single grain of truth in this. Not one preacher in the whole connexion was concerned in the business, save those who were stationed in the Bristol circuit. It is true, that the preachers in general thought that Mr. M‘Nab was cruelly used; and so they do to this day.”

Not to return to the subject, it may be added, that Dr. Whitehead states that, as the conference of 1780 drew near, Wesley “was evidently intimidated,” and wrote to his brother requesting him to attend the conference. Charles answered as follows:

“My reasons against accepting your invitation to the conference
are: (1) I can do no good; (2) I can prevent no evil; (3) I am
afraid of being a partaker of other men’s sins, or of
countenancing them by my presence; (4) I am afraid of myself;
you know I cannot command my temper, and you have not courage
to stand by me. I cannot trust _your resolution_; unless you
act with a vigour that is not in you, _conclamatum est_, our
affairs are past hope.

“I am not sure, they will not prevail upon you to ordain them.
You claim the _power_, and only say, ‘It is not probable you
shall ever exercise it.’ Probability on one side implies
probability on the other; and I want better security. So I am
to stand by, and see the ruin of our cause! You know how far
you may depend on me; let me know how far I may depend on you,
and on our preachers. In the Bath affair, you acted with vigour
for the first time; but you could not hold out. Unmindful of
your power and your infirmity, you yielded to the rebel,
instead of his yielding to you. You should not have employed
him again till he had owned his fault. This quite overturned my
confidence in you, which I should never have told you, had I
not been compelled. If you think my advice can be of any use to
you, I will attend you to Bristol, and be always within
call.”[346]

Poor Wesley! Wishful to repair a wrong, he had become reconciled to Mr. M‘Nab, principally by the mediation of Mr. Pawson and the preachers in London;[347] but, by this, he had offended his brother, by whom he had been goaded to the rash act at Bath.

At the conference of 1780, M‘Nab was restored to his place among his brethren, and was appointed to Sheffield. Charles Wesley was present, and, of course, was exceedingly dissatisfied. About a fortnight after, he wrote the following letter to his brother.

“I did not hope, by my presence at the conference, to do any
good, or prevent any evil. So I told you in London. Yet I
accepted your invitation, only because you desired it. And as I
came merely to please you, I resolved not to contradict your
_will_ in anything. Your _will_, I perceived, was to receive
Mr. M‘Nab, unhumbled, unconvinced, into your confidence, and
into your bosom. He came uninvited, and openly accused your
curate for obeying your orders: you suffered it; and did not
give Mr. M‘Nab the gentlest reproof for disobeying them, and
drawing others into his rebellion; and endeavouring to engage
all the preachers in it; making an actual separation at Bath,
and still keeping up his separate society. My judgment was,
never to receive Mr. M‘Nab as a preacher _till he acknowledged
his fault_. But I submitted and attended in silence. It was
much easier for me to say nothing, than to speak neither more
nor less than you would approve. I was sometimes strongly
tempted to speak; but, if I had opened my mouth, I should have
spoiled all. Your design, I believed, was to keep all quiet. I
allow you your merit. ‘_Tu maximus ille, es unus qui nobis_
CEDENDO _restituis rem_.’ By a very few words, I could have
provoked your preachers to lay aside the mask; but that was the
very thing you guarded against; and, I suppose, the reason for
which you desired my presence was that I might be some sort of
check to the independents. Still, I think it better for the
people, that they (the preachers) should show themselves before
your death than after it. You think otherwise; and I submit.
‘_Satis, jam satis spectata in te amicitia est mea_;’ and I am
perfectly satisfied with my own insignificancy. I have but one
thing to do. The Lord make me ready for it!”[348]

This was an angry letter of a baffled man. It was grumbling in private what ought to have been said in public, or not to have been said at all. The insinuation respecting the preachers was unfounded and unworthy. The desire that M‘Nab should acknowledge his fault was unjust, for M‘Nab was really the aggrieved party. Charles Wesley would have driven the preachers into rebellion; his brother, as ready to repair an injury as he was anxious to avoid committing one, restored unanimity and confidence. “There was nothing at the conference,” writes John Pawson, “but peace, harmony, and love.”

We only add, that Mr. M‘Nab’s subsequent appointments were honourable both to Wesley and himself. In 1780, he was sent to Sheffield; in 1781 to Manchester; and in 1782 to Newcastle. He then retired, “and resided for several years at Sheffield, where he was the pastor of a small congregation, who highly esteemed him; and there he finished his course about the year 1797.”[349]

Mr. Smyth went back to Ireland; but, in 1782, became one of Wesley’s London curates, with a salary of sixty guineas yearly.[350] In 1786, he was appointed minister of Bethesda chapel, Dublin;[351] where he rent the Methodist society, and took with him above a hundred persons, amongst whom were the richer members of the Dublin Methodists.[352] He then removed to Manchester, where he officiated as curate of St. Clement’s and St. Luke’s churches. He was the author of several publications, the chief of which were:--“The Fall and Recovery of Man. A Poem.” 1777: 12mo, 71 pages. “James Poulson further Detected.” 1778: 12mo, 58 pages. “Twelve Sermons on the most important Subjects.” 1778: 12mo, 254 pages. “St. Paul against Calvin.” 1809: 12mo, 115 pages. And “A Confutation of Calvinism.” 1810: 12mo, 391 pages.

Much space has been occupied with the disturbances at Bath; but, considering the importance of the point at issue, the facts connected with it were too important to be omitted.

The year 1779, like most previous ones, was a year of trouble. Besides the anxiety and vexation arising out of Mr. M‘Nab’s affair, Wesley was still annoyed with virulent attacks from his Calvinist opponents. His old friend, John Macgowan, published “The Foundry Budget Opened; or, the Arcanum of Wesleyanism Disclosed.” The animus of Macgowan’s pamphlet may be inferred from his motto on the title page:

“A man so various, that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind’s epitome;
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong;
Was everything by starts, but nothing long.”

He tells his readers, that “for craft and cunning sophistry, he will match the Rev. Mr. John Wesley against any man that ever stained paper with pollution”; and throughout speaks of him in the most contemptuous terms.

Of course, this was too savoury a production to pass unnoticed by the _Gospel Magazine_. Wesley is accused, in the review of it, with using “absurd, unscriptural jargon and contradictions”; and with “robbing Father, Son, and Spirit, of their glory as a covenant God; and exalting the sinful, proud nature of fallen man; and militating against the whole tenor of Scripture, and of reformed Christianity, as professed by all protestant churches.”

Another hostile publication was “Methodism and Popery dissected and compared; and the Doctrines of both proved to be derived from a Papal Origin.” Besides attacking Whitefield, Rowland Hill, and others, the anonymous author of this scurrilous pamphlet learnedly remarks, that “it would be less difficult to paint Proteus, in all his fabled shapes, under one distinct figure, than to describe Wesley”; whom he is pleased to honour with epithets like the following: “a living monument of apostolic frenzy”; “Jesuit”; “rank Catholic;” “actor”; and “anabaptist.”

This was far from being pleasant; but Wesley was used to it; and his character was too well established to need defence from such slanderous attacks. It may be doubted whether he took the trouble to read a tithe of the malignant diatribes launched against him.

While on the subject of books, it is due to Methodism to notice an interesting fact not generally known. The first Bible society, founded in Great Britain, and perhaps in the world, was established in 1779, and was the work of Methodists. George Cussons and John Davies, after leaving the leaders’ meeting in West Street chapel, entered into conversation, and, when near Soho Square, formed a resolution to endeavour to raise a fund for supplying soldiers with pocket Bibles. They and a dozen of their friends united themselves into a society for promoting this object. Their meetings were held once a month in the house of Mr. Dobson, of Oxford Street. John Thornton, Esq., of Clapham, became a generous subscriber. The first parcel of Bibles was sent from the vestry of Wesley’s West Street chapel; and the first sermon on behalf of the society was preached in the same chapel, by the Rev. Mr. Collins, from the appropriate words, “And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.”[353] Thus arose “The Naval and Military Bible Society,”--twenty-five years before the formation of “The British and Foreign Bible Society” in 1804,--a society still in active operation, and we believe the oldest association for the circulation of the word of God, that now exists.

Wesley still employed the press, as well as pulpit, in defending and spreading truth. John Atlay was his book steward, of whose conscientiousness he had a high opinion. Hence the following unpublished letter, sent to Bradburn.

“EDINBURGH, _June 19, 1779_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I suppose John Atlay has paid the money. He is
cautious to an extreme. I _hear_ what angry men say or write;
but I do not often regard it. Lemonade will cure any disorder
of the bowels, (whether it be with or without purging,) in a
day or two. You do well to spread the prayer-meetings up and
down. They seldom are in vain. Honest Andrew Dunlop[354] writes
me word that the book money is stolen. Pray desire him to take
care that the knave does not steal his teeth.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley published, in 1779, the seventeenth extract from his journal, extending from September 13, 1773, to January 2, 1776; 12mo, 82 pages.

Popery was beginning to be troublesome; for parliament, in the previous year, had passed a bill removing from the English and Irish papists the penalties and disabilities imposed upon them by the famous act, “for the further preventing the growth of popery,” enacted in 1699. Wesley had been called a papist times without number; but now, in a time of danger, he proved himself one of popery’s most trenchant opponents. His pamphlet, now issued, with the title, “Popery Calmly Considered,” 12mo, 25 pages, was one of the most timely and valuable productions of his pen. Scores of such pamphlets have been given to the public; but not one superior to Wesley’s. He writes: “In the following tract, I propose, first, to lay down and examine the chief doctrines of the Church of Rome: secondly, to show the natural tendency of a few of those doctrines; and that with all the plainness and all the calmness I can.” “Mr. J. Russell,” observes Charles Wesley, in a letter dated April 23, 1779, “tells me, some of the bitterest Calvinists are reconciled to you for the tract on popery. It should be spread immediately through the three kingdoms.”[355] We shall meet with popery again; but, meantime, we wish the Methodist book committee and conference would do, at present, what Charles Wesley wished to be done ninety years ago. However urgent the case was in 1779, the necessity now is ninety times greater than it was then; and John Wesley’s successors will be recreant to his protestant principles unless they do their duty as he did his.

It only remains, before concluding the present chapter, to notice Wesley’s _Arminian Magazine_. This, like the volume for 1778, was, to a large extent, controversial, Wesley believing that “there never was more need, in the memory of man, of opposing the _Horrible Decree_, than at this day; for thousands, in every part of England, were still halting between two opinions, and were exceedingly perplexed on this account.” Among other pieces, intended to refute the Calvinian theory, he republished his own “Predestination Calmly Considered,” which he first printed in 1752. There are interesting lives of Bishop Bedell, Archbishop Usher, and Dr. Donne, the last mentioned by Wesley’s own pen, though never included in his collected works. There are short accounts of ten of his itinerant preachers, accompanied by their respective portraits, many of which he pronounces “really striking.” There are ninety-three letters, most of which, says he, “are closely practical and experimental.” There are about seventy poetical pieces, one of which, “Henry and Emma, a Dialogue,” fills more than fourteen pages; a sort of love story, to which objections were not unreasonably raised. Wesley acknowledged that it was “not strictly religious”; but maintains that there was “nothing in it contrary to religion, nothing that can offend the chastest ears”; that it was “one of the finest poems in the English tongue, both for sentiment and language”; and that those who could “read it without tears must have a stupid and unfeeling heart.” All this might be true; but, with all due deference to Wesley, there can hardly be two opinions, that it was out of its proper place when inserted in the _Arminian Magazine_.

FOOTNOTES:

[320] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 117.

[321] Manuscript diary.

[322] Manuscript letter.

[323] Manuscripts.

[324] “History of Methodism in Halifax.”

[325] Manuscript diary.

[326] How is it that there are not more Methodists in
Inverness now than there were ninety years ago, in
the days of good old Duncan McAllum?

[327] Boswell’s Life of Johnson.

[328] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 777.

[329] Ibid. 1856, p. 234.

[330] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

[331] _Methodist Magazine_, 1826, p. 244.

[332] Ibid. 1789, p. 388.

[333] These were Pawson, Rankin, and Jaco. The committee
consisted of gentlemen appointed to manage the
business of City Road chapel.--(Pawson’s manuscript.)

[334] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 441.

[335] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 387.

[336] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 456.

[337] _Methodist Magazine_, 1779, p. 240.

[338] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 70.

[339] Rutherford’s Life, p. 94.

[340] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

[341] Manuscript letter.

[342] Thomas Taylor, in his manuscript diary, remarks:
“1780, January 14--I learned, that Mr. M‘Nab is
excluded the connexion; but I cannot learn, that
he has merited such treatment. A man who has been
a credit to our cause, whose moral character is
unblamable, and whose abilities are considerable, is
expelled for his integrity and uprightness. Being
very uneasy on account of the expulsion, I wrote Mr.
Wesley respecting it.”

[343] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 132.

[344] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 372.

[345] _Christian Miscellany_, 1849, p. 57; and “Wesley
Poetry,” vol. viii., p. 415.

[346] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 379.

[347] Pawson’s manuscript.

[348] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 380.

[349] Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”

[350] Manuscript.

[351] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 202.

[352] Life of John Valton, p. 100.

[353] _Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 737.

[354] The assistant of the Limerick circuit.

[355] _Methodist Magazine_, 1789, p. 387.

1780.
Age 77

The year 1780 will always be marked in English history. The nation was steeped in guilt and misery. War was raging on almost every side. Trade was paralysed; and taxes intolerable. Popery had been established in Canada; and, by the repealing of the statutes of the 11th and 12th of King William III., had received great encouragement in England. The Protestant Association sprung into existence; and the Gordon riots followed. The details of these events are full of profound interest and instruction; but our limited space prevents enlargement. Suffice it to say, that, in this serious crisis, Wesley took an active interest. He writes: “1780. January 18--Receiving more and more accounts of the increase of popery, I believed it my duty to write a letter concerning it, which was afterwards inserted in the public papers. Many were grievously offended; but I cannot help it; I must follow my own conscience.”

The following was Wesley’s unanswerable, though obnoxious letter.

“A Letter to the Printer of the _Public Advertiser_, occasioned
by the late Act, passed in favour of Popery.

“CITY ROAD, _January 21, 1780_.

“SIR,--Some time ago, a pamphlet was sent me, entitled ‘An
Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great
Britain.’ A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put
into my hands, which pronounces ‘its style contemptible, its
reasoning futile, and its object malicious.’ On the contrary, I
think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the
reasoning, in general, strong and conclusive; the object, or
design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind
and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy
constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of
that tract by a few plain arguments.

“With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for
his religious principles. Let there be as ‘boundless a freedom
in religion,’ as any man can conceive. But this does not touch
the point; I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of
the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable,
and the Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether
the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or
the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your
commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in
religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius’s creed to be true;
suppose the council of Trent to have been infallible: yet, I
insist upon it, that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought
to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion.

“I prove this by a plain argument; let him answer it that can.
That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his
allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus. It is a Roman
Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a
public council, that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics.’
This has been openly avowed by the council of Constance; but it
never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or
disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as
long as it is so, it is plain that the members of that church
can give no reasonable security, to any government, of their
allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore, they ought not to
be tolerated by any government, protestant, Mahommedan, or
pagan.

“You may say, ‘Nay, but they will take an _oath_ of
allegiance.’ True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, ‘no faith
is to be kept with heretics,’ sweeps them all away as a
spider’s web. So that still, no governors that are not Roman
Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.

“Again, those who acknowledge the _spiritual power_ of the pope
can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but
all Roman Catholics acknowledge this; therefore, they can give
no security for their allegiance.

“The power of granting _pardons_ for all sins, past, present,
and to come, is, and has been, for many centuries, one branch
of his _spiritual power_.

“But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can
give no security for their allegiance; since they believe the
pope can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins
whatsoever.

“The power of _dispensing_ with any promise, oath, or vow, is
another branch of the _spiritual power_ of the pope. And all
who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But
whoever acknowledges the _dispensing power_ of the pope can
give no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths
and promises are none; they are light as air; a dispensation
makes them all null and void.

“Nay, not only the pope, but even a _priest_ has _power_ to
pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of
Rome. But they that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any
security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no
security at all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and
high treason.

“Setting then religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles
of reason, no government ought to tolerate men, who cannot give
any security to that government for their allegiance and
peaceable behaviour. But this no Romanist can do, not only
while he holds that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ but
so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution or the
_spiritual power_ of the pope.

“‘But the late act,’ you say, ‘does not either _tolerate_ or
_encourage_ Roman Catholics.’ I appeal to matter of fact. Do
not the Romanists themselves understand it as a toleration? You
know they do. And does it not already (let alone what it _may_
do by-and-by) _encourage_ them to preach openly, to build
chapels (at Bath and elsewhere), to raise seminaries, and to
make numerous converts day by day, to their intolerant,
persecuting principles? I can point out, if need be, several of
the persons. And they are increasing daily.

“But ‘nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended
from them.’ I am not certain of that. Some time since, a Romish
priest came to one I knew; and, after talking with her largely,
broke out, ‘You are no heretic! You have the experience of a
real Christian!’ ‘And would you,’ she asked, ‘burn me alive?’
He said, ‘God forbid! unless it were for the good of the
church!’

“Now what security could she have had for her life, if it had
depended on that man? The _good of the church_ would have burst
all the ties of truth, justice, and mercy. Especially when
seconded by the absolution of a priest, or, if need were, a
papal pardon.

“If any please to answer this, and to set his name, I shall
probably reply; but the productions of anonymous writers I do
not promise to take any notice of.

“I am, sir, your humble servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Wesley’s arguments are irrefutable; and terrible is England’s danger, at the present day, because such arguments, instead of being answered, have been dexterously, but disastrously, ignored by England’s statesmen. Wesley’s letter will probably be treated, by many, as they would treat an old almanack, out of date; but, on February 17, 1780, it evoked the unanimous thanks of the Protestant Association; and, in the same month, was published in the pages of Wesley’s bitterest antagonist,--the _Gospel Magazine_,--with an editorial note, that it had “been almost universally approved of,” and that it was a “production of real merit.”

Wesley’s letter was too damaging to the disloyalty and preposterous assumptions of popery, to pass unnoticed. His chief antagonist was the Rev. Arthur O’Leary, the son of peasant parents, and now a popish priest, in the fiftieth year of his age.

O’Leary’s remarks on Wesley’s letter made an octavo pamphlet of 101 pages. The friar tells the Methodist, that the temperature of Ireland’s climate and the quality of its soil had cleansed the veins of its papists “from the _sour_ and _acid_ blood of the Scythians and Saxons.” He writes:

“We are tender hearted, we are good natured, we have feelings.
We shed tears on the urns of the dead; deplore the loss of
hecatombs of victims slaughtered on the gloomy altars of
religious bigotry; cry in seeing the ruins of cities over which
fanaticism has displayed the funeral torch; and sincerely pity
the blind zeal of our Scotch and English neighbours, whose
constant character is to pity none, for erecting the banners of
persecution, at a time when the inquisition is abolished in
Spain and Milan, and the protestant gentry are caressed at
Rome, and live unmolested in the luxuriant plains of France and
Italy. We are too wise to quarrel about religion. The Roman
Catholics sing their psalms in Latin, with a few inflections of
the voice. Our protestant neighbours sing the same psalms in
English, on a larger scale of musical notes. We never quarrel
with our honest and worthy neighbours, the quakers, for not
singing at all; nor shall we ever quarrel with Mr. Wesley for
_raising his voice to heaven_, and warbling forth his canticles
on whatever tune he pleases. We like _social harmony_; and, in
_civil_ music, hate _discordance_. Thus, when we go to the
shambles, we never inquire into the butcher’s religion, but
into the quality of his meat. We care not whether the ox was
fed in the pope’s territories, or on the mountains of Scotland;
provided the joint be good; for, though there be many
_heresies_ in old books, we discover neither _heresy_ nor
_superstition_ in beef and claret. We divide them cheerfully
with one another; and, though of different religions, we sit
over the bowl with as much cordiality as if we were at a
_lovefeast_.”

O’Leary’s quaint jocularity and rounded periods are amusing; but they furnish not the slightest answer to Wesley’s allegations. On March 23, Wesley replied to O’Leary, in a letter addressed to the editors of the _Freeman’s Journal_, and from which the following is extracted.

“Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are no more an answer to my letter, than
to the Bull _Unigenitus_. His manner of writing is easy and
pleasant; but might it not as well be more serious? The subject
we are treating of is not a light one; it moves me to tears,
rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country;
yea, for the children that are yet unborn. I would not have the
Roman Catholics persecuted at all. I would only have them
hindered from doing hurt: I would not put it in their power to
cut the throats of their quiet neighbours.”[356]

O’Leary published a “Rejoinder to Mr. Wesley’s Reply,” in which he was less jocular, but not more logical. Of Wesley’s three reasons why it is not safe to tolerate papists, two were left untouched, and one was played with and evaded. Such a controversialist scarcely deserved an answer; and, yet, Wesley supplemented his second letter by a third, dated Chester, March 31, 1780. After recapitulating his three reasons, Wesley writes:

“Nine parts in ten of Mr. O’Leary’s remarks are quite wide of
the mark. Not that they are wide of _his_ mark, which is to
introduce a plausible panegyric upon the Roman Catholics, mixed
with keen invectives against the protestants, whether true or
false it matters not. All this is admirably well calculated to
inspire the reader with aversion to these heretics, and to
bring them back to the holy, harmless, much injured Church of
Rome! Close arguing he does not attempt; but he vapours, and
skips to and fro, and rambles to all points of the compass, in
a very lively and entertaining manner.”

Wesley thus concludes his long letter:

“What security for my life can any man give me, till he utterly
renounces the council of Constance? What security can any
Romanist give a protestant, till this doctrine is publicly
abjured? If Mr. O’Leary has anything more to plead for this
council, I shall follow him step by step. But let him keep his
word, and ‘give a serious answer to a serious charge.’
‘Drollery may come in when we are talking of roasting fowls’;
but not when we talk of ‘roasting men.’

“Would I then wish the Roman Catholics to be persecuted? I
never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor the thought: it is
foreign to all I have preached and wrote for these fifty years.
But I would wish the Romanists in _England_ (I had no others in
view) to be treated still with the same lenity that they have
been these sixty years; to be allowed both civil and religious
liberty, but not permitted to undermine ours. I wish them to
stand just as they did before the late act was passed: not to
be persecuted or hurt themselves; but gently restrained from
hurting their neighbours.

“I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[357]

Here the controversy ended.[358] O’Leary was baffled; and, to this day, the arguments in Wesley’s letter of January 21, 1780, remain unanswered. Seven years afterwards; when at Cork, Wesley wrote: “A gentleman invited me to breakfast, with my old antagonist, Father O’Leary. I was not at all displeased at being disappointed. He is not the stiff, queer man that I expected; but of an easy, genteel carriage, and seems not to be wanting either in sense or learning.”

It was during this controversy, and while Wesley was in the north of Ireland, that the fearful riots occurred, which are so unfortunately associated with the name of Lord George Gordon, and which were the cause of that nobleman’s incarceration (rightly or wrongly) in the Tower of London. Here Wesley, after repeated invitations, visited him, and writes: “1780, December 19--I spent an hour with Lord George Gordon, at his apartment in the Tower. Our conversation turned upon popery and religion. He seemed to be well acquainted with the Bible; and had abundance of other books, enough to furnish a study. I was agreeably surprised to find he did not complain of any person or thing; and cannot but hope his confinement will take a right turn, and prove a lasting blessing to him.”

We return to more congenial matters. Wesley spent the first two months of 1780 in London and its vicinity. On February 28, he started on his journey to the north. Among other places, he now, for the first time, preached at Delph. He writes: “April 7--I went to Delph, a little village upon the mountains, where a remarkable work of God is just broke out. I was just set down, when the minister sent me word, I was welcome to preach in his church. On hearing this, many people walked thither immediately, near a mile from the town; but, in ten minutes, he sent me word his mind was changed. We knew not then what to do, till the trustees of the independent meeting offered us the use of their house. It was quickly filled, and truly God bore witness to His word.”

The minister of the parish church was the Rev. Mr. Heginbotham, who had engaged Mr. Stones as his curate. Mr. Stones was a sportsman, fond of his dog and gun. On one occasion, a rough Yorkshireman told him, it would be better if he minded his study more and his gun less. The curate took the hint; his dogs and his guns were given up; he became a thorough Christian; his ministry was greatly blessed; an extensive religious awakening followed; meetings for prayer were convened in private houses; and not a few were scripturally converted. Opposition soon ensued, on the ground that the poor, by spending so much time in prayer, would neglect their work, and become chargeable to the parish. The curate was dismissed; the young converts applied to Joseph Benson, then at Manchester, for help; Methodist preaching was commenced; a room in Millgate hired; and a flourishing society was formed.[359] The case was named to Wesley; and, a fortnight before his visit, he signed the following legal looking document, which to a Methodist antiquarian will be welcome.

“_Whereas_ for about twelve months last past, the people called
Methodists have preached in a room at Delph, in Saddleworth, in
the county of York,--the travelling preachers coming there
regularly every fortnight from Manchester, besides local
preachers occasionally on Sundays. And _Whereas_ the last
summer such crowds attended, that the room could not contain
them, the society also increasing very fast, and a great
likelihood of much good being done in the place,--It is,
therefore, thought necessary that a preaching house be erected
at Delph aforesaid, twelve yards long and eight wide. The
expense of such a building, according to the plan laid down,
will be vastly more than the society will be able to raise
amongst themselves. They have, therefore, requested our consent
to go amongst our societies, to ask the charitable
contributions of such of our friends as would willingly
encourage such an undertaking. This is, therefore, to certify
that we approve of the measure, and recommend the same to our
Christian friends everywhere, hoping they will readily and
cheerfully contribute to the same.

“JOHN WESLEY.[360]
“MANCHESTER, _March 25, 1780_.”

This formalised certificate smacks of the office of Joseph Mellor, the Methodist attorney of the town of Delph; and Wesley must have been hard pressed for time when, instead of writing a statement of the case himself, he put his hand to such legal magniloquence. Suffice it to add, the chapel was built, with not more than £100 of debt resting upon the premises.[361]

It was during this northern tour, that Wesley, for the first time, was denied the use of the church at Haworth. He writes: “Sunday, April 23--Mr. Richardson being unwilling that I should preach any more in Haworth church, Providence opened another; I preached in Bingley church, both morning and afternoon. This is considerably larger than the other.”

It was either on this, or some future occasion, when Wesley was preaching in Bingley church, that a rich man in the congregation, who seemed to think that his wealth was a licence to practise bad manners, sneered at the preacher and at his sentiments. Wesley paused, and fixing his keen eye on the Dives sitting in the seat of the scornful, said: “I heed your sneers no more than I heed the fluttering of a butterfly; but I know what good breeding is as well as any gentleman in the land.”

It was now that Wesley preached his first sermon in Blackburn. He writes: “April 27--I preached in Todmorden church with great enlargement of heart. In the afternoon we went on to Blackburn. It seemed the whole town was moved; and the question was where to put the congregation. We could not stand abroad because of the sun; so as many as could squeezed into the preaching house. All the chief men of the town were there.” Mr. Banning was Wesley’s host at Blackburn; and, on one occasion, took his venerable guest to see a neighbouring chapel which was in the course of being built. “Mr. Banning,” said Wesley, “I have a favour to ask. Let there be no pews in the body of this chapel, except one for the leading singers. Be sure to make accommodation for the poor. _They_ are God’s building _materials_ in the erecting of His church. The rich make good _scaffolding_, but bad _materials_.”[362] Weighty words! One of Methodism’s evil omens, at the present day, is a disregard of the advice which Wesley gave, namely, that, in building chapels, the Methodists should never fail to provide ample accommodation for the poor.

It was a sign of Wesley’s growing popularity, that, though, forty years before, he had been indignantly expelled from the pulpits of the Established Church, he was now invited, in all parts of the country, by rectors, vicars, curates, and others, to favour them with his services. At Pateley Bridge, in 1752, Thomas Lee, the old itinerant, and his Methodist companions, were subjected to treatment the most barbarous; and, on applying to the Dean of Ripon for protection, were met with a churchman’s scorn rather than a magistrate’s just dealing. Now it was otherwise. Wesley writes: “1780, May 1--At Pateley Bridge, the vicar offered me the use of his church. Though it was more than twice as large as our preaching house, it was not near large enough to contain the congregation. How vast is the increase of the work of God! particularly in the most rugged and uncultivated places. How does He ‘send the springs’ of grace also ‘into the valleys, that run among the hills!’”

Leaving Pateley, Wesley, for the first time, visited Ripon. He writes: “May 2--We came to Ripon, and observed a remarkable turn of providence: the great hindrance of the work of God in this place has suddenly disappeared; and the poor people, being delivered from their fear, gladly flock together, and hear His word. The new preaching house was quickly more than filled.”

Four years previous to this, Thomas Dixon was one of the Ripon preachers, and, in his unpublished autobiography, wrote: “Upon our going to Ripon, we preached in a small room up a flight of stairs, and even this we were to leave at Martinmas. But, just at this time, Mr. T. Dowson, who had suffered much for the gospel’s sake, bought the premises where an old barn and stable stood. He immediately pulled down the barn, and built a decent chapel and a dwelling house upon the site, and, with such expedition, that we were able to get into the shell of the new chapel by the time we had to leave the upstairs room. By this means, God gave the poor persecuted Methodists, in Ripon, a degree of rest they had never known before, and the work, from that time, gradually grew.”

On leaving Ripon, Wesley proceeded “through a delightful country to the immense ruins of Garvaix Abbey,” and thence across the “horrid, dreary, enormous mountains” to Penrith, another place where he now, for the first time, preached. He writes: “May 5--In the evening, a large room, designed for an assembly, was procured for me at Penrith; but several of the poor people were struck with panic, for fear the room should fall. Finding there was no remedy, I went down into the court below, and preached in great peace to a multitude of well behaved people.”