Chapter XVIII: Part 18

Among other questions debated at this conference, was the sabbath. Methodists, in some instances, visited barbers’ shops on Sundays; and, in others, practised military exercises, as volunteers, or were spectators of such exercises. This led the conference to enact, that no members of society should have their hair dressed on Sundays; and that, as far as possible, those barbers should be patronised who observed the sabbath’s sanctity. It was further determined, that any Methodist, who practised military exercises on the sabbath, as a volunteer, should be expelled; and that any one who, after proper admonition, continued a spectator of such sabbath drills should undergo the same penalty. Though not absolutely forbidden, preachers were recommended not to powder their hair, nor to wear artificial curls. The weekly and quarterly contributions having been shamefully neglected in many of the societies, the assistants and leaders were to remind the people of the original rule, that “every member contributes one penny weekly, (unless he is in extreme poverty,) and one shilling quarterly.” Wesley adds: “_Money lovers_ are the pest of every Christian society. They have been the main cause of destroying every revival of religion. They will destroy _us_, if we do not put them away. A man not worth a shilling enters our society. Yet he freely gives a penny a week. Five years after, he is worth scores of pounds; he gives a penny a week still. I must think this man covetous, unless he assures me he bestows his charity some other way. For every one is covetous, whose beneficence does not increase in the same proportion as his substance.”

The most troublesome subject of discussion was the case of the Birstal chapel. It was asked, “What can be done with regard to the preaching house at Birstal?” Answer. “If the trustees still refuse to settle it on the Methodist plan: 1. Let a plain statement of the case be drawn up. 2. Let a collection be made throughout all England, in order to purchase ground, and to build another preaching house as near the present as may be.”

This was an important matter, on account of its involving one of Methodism’s fundamental principles, namely, that the conference _alone_ shall have the power of appointing preachers to preach in Methodist chapels. This was the first time that the question was fairly raised. It was seen, that the issue, either way, would be most momentous. It affected not Birstal merely, but the whole Methodist connexion; and not the present only, but the future. Great excitement was created. The controversy, among other great results, led to the drawing up and enrolment of Methodism’s Magna Charta, Wesley’s deed of declaration, in 1784. Altogether, this was one of the most important events in Wesley’s history; and, hence, a detailed account of it will not be inappropriate.

The original chapel at Birstal was erected, under the auspices of John Nelson, about the year 1751. By the deed of settlement, the right of occupying the pulpit was given, first, to the two Wesleys in succession, and then to Grimshaw of Haworth; but, after the decease of these three ministers, the trustees were to elect their own preachers monthly; and all such preachers, so long as they continued in this office, were to preach in the chapel twice every Sunday, every Christmas day, New Year’s day, and Good Friday, and also every Thursday night, as had been, up to 1751, “usual and customary to be done.”

Such was the substance of the obnoxious clause; which hitherto, however, had created no difficulty.

In 1782, it was found necessary, either to enlarge the old chapel, or to build a new one in its place. Contributions were given for this purpose; but were not sufficient. It was ascertained, that the sum of £350 additional would be required, and that eight of the intended trustees would have to advance the money. To give them security, a deed of transfer was prepared, in which John and Charles Wesley, for the considerations therein mentioned, sold to certain specified trustees the old premises, with the following agreements in reference to the enlarged, or the new chapel, which was to be provided to meet the growing necessities of the Birstal Methodists. 1. The trustees advancing the £350 were to have, as their security, “the rents and profits to arise from the hearers’ pews and seats.” 2. The new or enlarged chapel was to be occupied, during their lifetime, by John and Charles Wesley, or by those whom they might from time to time appoint. 3. After their death, the appointment of preachers, to preach in the said chapel, was to be made by the trustees, and by “such members of the Methodist society as had been classleaders for three years, within the circumjacent villages of Birstal, Great Gomersal, Little Gomersal, Birkenshaw, Adwalton, Drighlington, Batley, Carlinghow, and Heckmondwike; or by the major part of such trustees and classleaders.” Provided always, that the said preachers preach no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes upon the Old and New Testament; that they preach in the said chapel twice every Sunday, and at least one evening every week; and that they hold the said premises and exercise the function of a preacher only during the goodwill and pleasure of the major part of the aforesaid trustees and classleaders. After this, followed a number of provisoes in reference to pew rents, etc. (1) The rents were to be applied in keeping the premises in repair. (2) In paying interest upon the debt of £350, at 5 per cent. per annum. (3) In maintaining the preacher for the time being, for which purpose, however, not more than £10 a year should be appropriated, until after the whole of the £350 had been repaid; when, after deducting for repairs and lasting improvements, the whole of the clear rents and profits arising from the pews and seats should be given “for and towards the maintenance and support of the preachers or pastors for the time being of the said society at Birstal.” It was further provided, that the appointment and removal of chapel stewards should be vested in the preachers, trustees, and classleaders aforesaid, or the major part of them, notice of their meetings for such purpose, however, having to be publicly read to the congregation on three successive Sunday evenings immediately preceding. Certain rooms also in a dwelling house, on the premises, were to be at the use of the stewards and leaders, for the purpose of transacting business and meeting classes.

The above is an abstract of all the important points in the new trust deed of 1782. That deed had attached to it the following signatures.

John Aspinall,
Joseph Bennett,
James Blackburn,
John Tempest,
Jonathan Brearley,
Benjamin Mallinson,
Anthony Williamson,
Nathaniel Harrison,
John White,
Joseph Nelson,
William Booth,
John Wesley,
Joseph Charlesworth,
Charles Gunson,
John Armitage,
Joseph Lee,
Thomas Crowther,
William Tempest,
Isaac Smith,
William Chadwick.

Wesley’s signature was witnessed by Thomas Briscoe and Alexander Mather. The deed was dated May 14, 1782, and was enrolled on the 11th of October following. It may be added, that, of the above signers, Aspinall, Bennett, Blackburn, Tempest, Brierley, Williamson, Harrison, White, Nelson, and Booth were old trustees; Mallinson, Charlesworth, Gunson, Armitage, Lee, Crowther, W. Tempest, Smith, and Chadwick were the new trustees.

The deed of 1782 was widely different from that of 1751, and, as the vice chancellor ruled in 1854, so far as it purported to vary the trusts of the latter deed, it was void and of no effect;[421] but it still contained the obnoxious clause, giving power to other parties than Wesley’s conference, to appoint the preachers. Wesley says, in a letter to his brother, dated May 28, 1782:

“The trustees brought to me the deed, at Daw Green, which they
read over, and desired me to sign. We disputed upon it about an
hour. I then gave them a positive answer, that I would not sign
it; and, leaving them abruptly, went up into my room. At night,
a little before I went to bed, they came again, got round and
worried me down. But, I think, they cannot worry you. May you
not very properly write to Mr. Valton? ‘If the trustees will
settle the Birstal house on the Methodist plan, I will sign
their deed with all my heart; but, if they build a house for a
presbyterian meeting-house, I will not, dare not, have anything
to do with it.’”[422]

Wesley committed a mistake; but, be it borne in mind, that he was now an old man of nearly eighty, and that Alexander Mather, and Thomas Briscoe, the superintendents of the Leeds and Birstal circuits, were participators in his folly.

In an unpublished letter to Samuel Bradburn, then stationed at Bradford, Wesley wrote:

“LONDON, _November 9, 1782_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--I abhor the thought of giving to twenty men the
power to place or displace the preacher in their congregations.
How would he then dare to speak an unpleasing truth? And, if he
did, what would become of him? This must never be the case,
while I live, among the Methodists. And Birstal is a leading
case, the first of an avowed violation of our plan. Therefore,
the point must be carried for the Methodist preachers now or
never; and I alone can carry it, which I will, God being my
helper. You are not a match for the silver tongue, nor brother
Hopper. But do not, to please any of your new friends forsake

“Your true old friend,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Charles Wesley acted upon his brother’s advice. He entered into correspondence with the Birstal reformers. In answer to their objection, that “the present trustees _could not_ legally transfer any of their power _to the conference_,” he asks: “Then how can they transfer any of their power to the leaders?” He continues:

“You add,--‘As long as the conference appoints preachers with
candid impartiality, we doubt not their appointments will be
acquiesced in by the trustees and classleaders.’ But, according
to this deed, the conference has no more business than the
parliament to appoint preachers at all. To touch on one more
point. From the beginning of Methodism till now, the assistants
appointed the stewards in all societies; but this deed gives
the trustees and leaders this power; which they think is
‘_necessary_ to ensure the repayment of the £350 to be advanced
for the building.’ _Necessary!_ Not at all. How many thousand
pounds, advanced for buildings, have been paid within these
forty years, though all the stewards in England, Scotland, and
Ireland, have been hitherto appointed by my brother or the
assistants! You conclude your letter with a very just
observation: ‘the civil and religious rights of mankind have
seldom been promoted by the assemblies of ecclesiastics of any
denomination; and they never will be, unless they are composed
of men devoted to God, and dead to all the allurements of ease,
and avarice, and ambition.’ This is undoubtedly true; and this,
we humbly hope, is the real character of most (at least) of
those persons that meet in our assemblies. We hope, likewise,
that ‘their consultations will always be moderated by some wise
and truly religious man’; otherwise, that God will sweep away
the very name of Methodist from the earth. Upon the whole, I
cannot, I dare not sign that deed. I can have nothing to do
with it. If the house should, nevertheless, be built, and
settled upon that plan, I apprehend the consequence would be
this: 1. No Methodist preacher would ever preach in it. If any
did, the whole body would disclaim him. 2. My brother would
immediately set a subscription on foot for buying ground and
building another house. The trustees then might do what they
pleased with theirs.”[423]

This letter was written a week before the conference of 1782 was opened; and was a reply to one written by James Carr, the trustees’ attorney, who, soon afterwards, addressed the following unpublished letter to Mr. Charlesworth.

“MY GOOD FRIEND,--Having an insuperable aversion to _recite_ my
own simple performances, I here enclose a correct copy of my
letter to Mr. Charles Wesley.

“I know, that you and the other framers of the present trust
deed, were actuated by the _purest_, most _equitable_, and
_disinterested_ motives; and, therefore, in my address to Mr.
Wesley, I held myself bound, by every tie of justice, to
explain and enforce the _grounds_ and _reasons_ of your
conduct, with all the energy in my power. I hope, I have no
immodest opinion of my poor abilities, when I assert, that the
_reasons_, by me alleged, for modifying the deed, in the manner
described, cannot be fairly answered or refuted, by Mr. Mather,
or Mr. C. Wesley. Ingenuity may perplex, wit may ridicule,
sophistry may misinterpret, or prejudice may dislike a deed
framed contrary to _received systems_ or _opinions_. But when
it is calmly considered, that the poor, beneficent founders of
the preaching house had an undoubted right to settle it in what
manner they thought meet; that it would be _impious_, as well
as _illegal_, to abrogate their constitution; that you could
only modify and improve it in a way consistent with their
manifest intention; that the honour of religion required you to
make a legal and effectual provision for payment of a just
debt;--when these things, I say, are calmly considered, candour
must admit, every preacher of righteousness must acknowledge,
that the present trust deed is modelled with that rectitude and
propriety, which become Christian men.

“As nothing can discourage me when I am engaged in a righteous
cause, I mean to write again to Mr. Charles Wesley; and,
therefore, if I have omitted, in my former address, any topics
or arguments which occur to you or friends, I wish you would
specify them in _writing_; though I shall certainly now speak
to him more in a _professional_ style than in a religious one.

“Yours most sincerely,

“JAMES CARR.”

In the mean time, the new chapel was built, and Dr. Coke took up the matter. The following also is a letter now for the first time published. It was addressed to Mr. Charlesworth.

“BRISTOL, _October 18, 1782_.

“SIR,--There is but one argument, which you have used, which
appears to me to have any force in it against the many
uncontrovertible arguments, which I have urged on the other
side. It is this: is it not unjust, that the persons who have
advanced money on the building, which has been lately erected,
should lose that money, when they advanced it upon the word of
Mr. Wesley, and would not have advanced it on any other ground?
In answer to this, I observe, that, as I am in this business
the servant of the conference, and have invested in me a
discretionary power to act as I see occasion, I will,
therefore, remove this objection as far as justice, equity, and
my trust, will admit me to go. For this purpose, I promise and
engage, that the interest of the money, which has been lent on
the lately erected building, shall be regularly paid, either
out of the profits of that building, or out of the profits of
the building which is to be erected, or out of the profits of
both of them together, so long as the two Messrs. Wesley live;
and, after their decease, as long as the lately erected
building is at the disposal of the Methodist conference, and no
longer. Provided, that either of the chapels, or both of them
together, produce an income sufficient to pay the aforesaid
interest, after paying for the necessary repairs, and the £10
paid to the support of the preachers, be deducted. Provided,
also, that the debt _itself_ which has been already incurred,
remain upon the lately erected edifice, and upon that alone,--I
promise and engage, that the aforesaid interest shall be paid
to the creditors annually in preference to every other payment,
except the said necessary repairs, and £10 towards the support
of the preachers.

“I am, sir, your humble servant in the gospel,

“THOMAS COKE.”

Shortly after, Dr. Coke published a 12mo tract of 12 pages, entitled, “An Address to the inhabitants of Birstal, and the adjacent villages.” He relates how the attorney of the trustees obtained Wesley’s signature to the deed. He states, that Charles Wesley had not signed, and, he believed, never would. The “_amazing deed_” had been discussed at the late conference, and had created just alarm; and he (Dr. Coke) had been delegated to carry into execution the minute that was passed; but, upon application to the trustees, he had “found the greatest part of them determined to hold fast their unlimited and most dangerous power.” He answers the objection, “Would it not be equally dangerous to invest this power in the conference?” by saying, “No: for the plan of settlement, adopted by the conference, ties them down to the principles of religion at present held by the Methodists.” He relates, that he had proposed to the trustees to submit the matter to the arbitration of the attorney general, or some other eminent counsellor; and had engaged that, if the opinion thus obtained was the same as that of the trustees and Mr. Carr, “Birstal preaching house should be considered an exempt case, and the trustees should be suffered quietly to retain all the power which they had at present”; with the understanding, on the other hand, that, if the legal opinion of the arbitrator was, “that the surviving trustees, with the consent of the original proprietor, and all the parties concerned, could resettle the house on the Methodist plan, they would resettle it accordingly.” He had also added, at another meeting, that, in such a case, he would give a bond of five or six hundred pounds, that the trustees, who had advanced the £350, should not only have their interest, but their _principal_ paid them, in instalments of £50 per annum; and, further, that he would engage, that all subscribers to the recently erected building, “who signified their desire of having their money returned, should have it returned to them within two years.” The trustees, however, “obstinately refused to comply with this.”

Coke continues:

“Afterwards, another plan of reconciliation was proposed, by
one of themselves, to which we all consented, namely, that all
the trustees should bind themselves by a deed, that if they, or
the major part of them, should agree, after the demise of the
Messrs. Wesley, to choose an independent teacher, they should
be obliged to signify, this their intention, by three years’
notice to the conference, or to the moderator of the conference
for the time being; with a provision, that, if the preachers
were ever to desist from meeting in regular conference, as they
did at present, or to deviate from the grand Methodist plan on
which they at present act, then the full power should
immediately devolve upon the trustees, and they might, without
any previous notice whatever, choose an independent teacher.”

Such was the unanimous agreement. A rough draft of the intended deed was made, and (_horresco referens!_) was brought, by the attorney of the trustees, to Dr. Coke on the _Sunday_ following. On reading it, Coke found a few words inserted, which upset the whole. It read: “If the said trustees and leaders, or the major part of them, shall at any time, _in their judgment, think_ that the said conference deviates from the grand Methodist plan, then,” etc., “thus constituting themselves judges in their own cause.” Dr. Coke objected to this; and they seemed willing to give it up; but “desired that another meeting might be held on the following Sunday! at which all the leaders might be present, that their consent might also be procured.” The conference representative agreed to this; Sunday came; and the trustees and leaders “would not move a single step.”

Such had been the negotiations, and such was the state of affairs, when Dr. Coke published his pamphlet in November, 1782. He makes an appeal “to the congregation, and to the society,” and concludes with the following prayer: “O Thou Lover of concord and Prince of peace, keep these little ones under Thy fostering wing. Preserve them from the silken tongued sycophant, the sly deceiver, who seeks his own, and not the things of Jesus Christ. Hide them for a little moment in the chambers of Thy love, till this and every indignation be overpast. Keep them close to the bleeding side of Jesus, and close to the affectionate hearts of their faithful pastors for ever.”

What more was done? Two months after this, on January 3, 1783, Wesley issued a folio circular, entitled, “The Case of the Birstal House.”[424] This all can read for themselves in Wesley’s collected works (vol. xiii., p. 260). Suffice it to say, that the reasons assigned by Wesley, why neither the Birstal, nor any other Methodist chapel, should be settled according to the Birstal deed, were: (1) It would put an end to itinerant preaching, for when the trustees got a preacher whom they liked, they would keep him. (2) It would put a bridle in the preacher’s mouth; for how would he dare to speak the full and the whole truth, when he was liable to lose his bread? (3) “The power of the trustees was greater than that of any nobleman; yea, or of the king himself. Where he is patron, he can _put in_ a preacher, but he cannot _put him out_.” He concludes: “No Methodist trustees, if I can help it, shall, after my death, any more than while I live, have the power of _placing_ and _displacing_ the preachers.”

So the thing went on. A case was submitted to Mr. John Maddocks, barrister, for his opinion, as to the possibility of legally making such an alteration in trust deeds, as was desired in the Birstal case. His opinion, dated “Lincoln’s Inn, July 24, 1783,” is before us, and is to the effect, that such an alteration might be made. On the 5th of September following, Wesley met the nineteen trustees, and offered to allow the same clause to be inserted in a new deed as was inserted in the deed of the chapel in City Road, namely, “In case the doctrine or practice of any preacher should, in the opinion of the major part of the trustees, be not conformable to Mr. Wesley’s Sermons and Notes on the New Testament, on representing this, another preacher shall be sent within three months.” Five of the trustees were willing to accept of this; the rest refused.

In an unpublished letter, written by Dr. Coke, and addressed to Mr. Benson, only ten days after this interview, there are some other particulars given. Wesley first told the trustees, he wished their chapel to be settled according to the Methodist plan contained in the minutes of conference. He then offered to allow the clause to be inserted which has just been mentioned; adding, “this was never allowed to any trustees before, and never shall again while I live.” He further offered to relieve the trustees of their £350 debt, promising to give £100 himself, and saying, “This I do, because I love you, and for old acquaintance sake.” And he further promised to make them a present of the piece of ground which Dr. Coke had purchased for the site of another chapel. The names of the five consenting trustees were, Nathaniel Harrison, Anthony Williamson, John Aspinall, Joseph Bennett, and James Blackburn.[425]

The dissentient trustees took time to think. On September 25, 1783, Christopher Hopper wrote to one of them, Mr. Charlesworth, in a somewhat ambiguous style, as follows.

“MY VERY DEAR JOSEPH,--It gives me pleasure to hear that you
were so well satisfied with Mr. Wesley’s temper and conduct;
and I am glad to hear you behaved so well. Solemn conference!
Great expectations! Grand overture! But alas! no decision!
Mortifying indeed! I still wish we never had given you any
trouble, but patiently waited the event. But, if you are
determined to stand your ground after this meeting, I cannot
tell what the consequence will be. Great grace be on you all!

“C. HOPPER.”[426]

Reflection often brings wisdom. On the 13th of January, 1784, Mr. Charlesworth wrote to Wesley, saying, that his offer would now be accepted. He says, with a Yorkshire keenness, which smacks of avarice--

“We cannot but acknowledge your goodness in promising the land,
and the money towards paying our debt, which will be two very
convenient articles at this place, as we are in great want of
both.

“I am, reverend and dear sir, for and on behalf of the
trustees,

“Yours very affectionately,

“JOSEPH CHARLESWORTH.”[427]

The result was, a new deed was made, giving the conference power to appoint preachers; and this serious hubbub, _pro tem._, subsided. We shall soon have to recur to the same subject; and this apparently long and tedious digression may serve as an introduction to what will have to be said hereafter. The controversy was the first battle fought for restricting, or rather for setting aside, an ecclesiastical power, which has grown to be the greatest exercised by any church throughout the whole of the Christian world; and perhaps, on this ground, the writer will be pardoned for trespassing on the reader’s patience; and especially as many of the incidents are now for the first time published.[428]

We return to Wesley. Of course, the dispute at Birstal led to much unpleasantness; but Wesley was firm in maintaining discipline. Hence the following, addressed to Mr. Valton, then one of the Birstal preachers.

“_June 18, 1782._

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot allow J---- S---- to be any longer
a leader; and, if he will lead the class, whether I will or no,
I require you to put him out of our society. If twenty of his
class will leave the society too, they must. The first loss is
the best. Better forty members should be lost, than our
discipline be lost. _They are no Methodists, that will bear no
restraints._ Explain this at large to the society.

“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[429]

Wesley’s clerical friends were now regularly and constantly increasing. He had, to some extent, outlived their _brotherly_ persecution. They began to appreciate his motives and his services; and, so far from hooting and hissing him, began to greet him, to court his company, and to ask his counsel. Among others of this description may be mentioned the Rev. Thomas Davenport, who was now in his sixtieth year, but had only recently found peace with God, and that principally through Wesley’s help.[430] Wesley wrote to him as follows.

“BRISTOL, _August 14, 1782_.

“DEAR SIR,--It would have given me a good deal of satisfaction
to have had a little conversation with you. But I do not stay
long in one place. I have no resting place on earth:

‘A poor wayfaring man,
I dwell in tents below,
Or gladly wander to and fro,
Till I my Canaan gain.’

“You would have been very welcome at our conference. Mr. Pugh
and Mr. Dodwell[431] were present at it; and, I believe, are
more determined than ever to spend their whole strength in
saving their own souls, and them that hear them.

“I believe, that one of our preachers, who are stationed in the
Leicester circuit, will call upon you at Alexton; and I make no
doubt but some of the seed which you have been long sowing will
then grow up. No one should wish or pray for persecution. On
the contrary, we are to avoid it, to the uttermost of our
power. ‘When they persecute you in one city, flee unto
another.’ Yet, when it does come, notwithstanding all our care
to avoid it, God will extract good out of evil.

“To-morrow I am to set out for Cornwall. In about three weeks,
I expect to be here again. In the beginning of October, I
generally move towards London; in the neighbourhood of which I
usually spend the winter.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”[432]

The day after this letter was written, Wesley set out westwards. On reaching Exeter, where his old antagonist, Bishop Lavington, once resided, he met with a most friendly welcome; and, by invitation, dined on the Sunday, with the bishop, in his palace, five other clergymen and four of the aldermen of Exeter being present besides himself. Arriving at Plymouth, Wesley preached in the Square, and, while doing so, a regiment of soldiers, with military music, marched into it. No sooner, however, did the commanding officer perceive the preacher, than he stopped the music, and drew up his men to listen. “They were all still as night;” says Wesley, “nor did any of them stir, till I had pronounced the blessing.”

In Cornwall, he found an old clerical friend at the point of death, the Rev. Mr. Thompson, rector of St. Gennis. It was now thirty-seven years since Wesley first preached in Mr. Thompson’s church, and, throughout the whole of that period, they had been faithful friends. The dying rector wished once more to see his old acquaintance. Wesley, borrowing the best horse he could find, and riding as fast as he was able, says: “I found Mr. Thompson just alive, but quite sensible. He had many doubts concerning his final state, and rather feared, than desired, to die; so that my whole business was to comfort him, and to increase and confirm his confidence in God. He desired me to administer the Lord’s supper, which I willingly did; and I left him much happier than I found him, calmly waiting till his change should come.”

While riding to see his friend, Mr. Thompson, Wesley was accosted by an old acquaintance of another sort. He writes: “On the way, I met with a white headed old man, who caught me by the hand, and said, ‘Sir, do you not know me?’ I answered, ‘No.’ He said, ‘My father, my father! I am poor John Trembath.’ I desired him to speak to me in the evening at Launceston; which he did. He was, for some time, reduced to extreme poverty, so as to hedge and ditch for bread; but, in his distress, he cried unto God, who sent him an answer of peace. He, likewise, enabled him to cure a gentleman that was desperately ill, and afterwards several others; so that he grew into reputation, and gained a competent livelihood. ‘And now,’ said he, ‘I want for nothing: I am happier than ever I was in my life.’”

Who was John Trembath? One of Wesley’s first itinerants, who commenced his ministry in 1743, and, for several years, laboured with diligence under Wesley’s direction,[433]--a man of great eloquence and zeal,[434]--a burning and shining light, and a workman who, at one time, according to Wesley, had no need to be ashamed,[435]--a preacher not deep, and yet so popular as to be almost idolised by the people;[436] but who, alas! for the last twenty years, had sunk into an extreme of sin, and shame, and misery. Naturally vain, the applauses of the people spoiled him. He became bouncing, and boastful, and not always truthful. He married, gave up reading, turned to farming, and kept company with men who had just wit enough to “talk of bullocks,” and to “smoke, drink, and flatter him.” He became a sportsman, and was suspected of smuggling.[437] His career was almost a romance. But now, to use Wesley’s language, “John Trembath was alive again.”[438] A month after the strange interview above related, Trembath wrote to Wesley: “Though God has forgiven me, yet I cannot forgive myself for the precious time I have wasted, the years I have lost, and the glorious harvest I have neglected.”[439] Poor Trembath died of paralysis, at Cork, about the year 1793.[440]

Such were the old friends whom Wesley met in Cornwall. Getting back to Bristol, on September 6, he found a new one, young, but warm hearted, honest, and faithful. Adam Clarke, just emerging out of his teens, had arrived from Ireland. He had travelled from Birmingham to Bristol upon a penny loaf and a halfpennyworth of apples; and had just three halfpence left when he got to Kingswood school. He met with a reception from Simpson, the head master, as frigid as cold heartedness could make it. Simpson’s stupid, imperious wife made bad things worse, by suspecting that the young Irishman might be afflicted with the itch, and by making him rub himself from head to foot with Jackson’s ointment. This “infernal unguent,” as Adam calls it, made him smell worse than a polecat. His only sustenance was bread and milk; and not enough of that. For more than three weeks, no one performed any kind act for him. As for Mrs. Simpson, he feared her as he feared the devil. At length, Wesley arrived from Cornwall; Clarke was introduced; Wesley laid his hands upon his head, and spent a few minutes in beseeching God to bless him; and then gave him his commission to proceed to Wiltshire as a Methodist preacher. Fifty years after this, Adam Clarke died in London,--an old itinerant preacher, without a spot on the fair escutcheon of his character,--one of the most extensively learned scholars of the age,--a voluminous author,--the friend of philosophers and princes,--and a man intensely beloved by nearly all who knew him.

Wesley left Bristol for London on October 7, and, on his way, preached at Newport in the Isle of Wight. He writes: “This place seems now ripe for the gospel, opposition is at an end.”

At, Newport the first Methodist preaching place was a room in Node Hill; and the opposition, referred to by Wesley, consisted of the beating of drums, tin kettles, and bells; the throwing of rotten eggs, sticks, and stones; sparrows let loose in the room for the purpose of putting out the lights; and covering the chimney top and fastening the door, in order to stifle the imprisoned worshippers. It was at Newport, that Robert Wallbridge heard Wesley preach; was converted; became a Methodist; and a Methodist local preacher. Elizabeth Wallbridge, his sister, was now a light haired, ruddy faced, and merry hearted girl, of twelve years old. Of scholastic learning she had but a slender share; and had to earn her bread as a household servant. She had a high flow of spirits, vanity, and ready wit, and was inordinately fond of dress. Elizabeth was converted under the ministry of James Crabb, a Methodist preacher, became a Methodist herself, and continued such to the end of life. Her father joined the church presided over by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman, who published an account of him, in a well written tract, a short time before he set sail on his mission to the South Sea islands. Elizabeth’s brother Robert, for more than forty years, was a Methodist local preacher, and died at Newport in 1837. Elizabeth herself died, at the age of thirty-one, in the year 1801; the Rev. Legh Richmond visited her in her last moments; and afterwards wrote her life, with the title of “The Dairyman’s Daughter,” omitting to state, however, that his heroine was a Methodist. Millions of copies of that publication have been circulated; it has been translated into, at least, thirty languages; and, thirty years ago, it had been the means of the conversion of three hundred and fifty persons.[441]

Wesley reached London on October 11. Here, and in eight or nine of the southern counties of England, he spent, according to his custom, the remainder of the year.

His publications, in 1782, were few in number.

1. An Extract from his Journal, from January 1, 1776, to August 5, 1779. 12mo, 112 pages.

2. “Alleine’s Alarm to the Unconverted.” 12mo, 107 pages.

3. “An Estimate of the Manners of the present Times.” 12mo, 23 pages.

This was an exceedingly characteristic piece. With terrible severity, he lashes the vices of the age; the slothfulness of people of fashion; the increase of luxury, both in meat, drink, dress, and furniture; and lewdness of every kind. He writes: “A total ignorance of God is almost universal among us. The exceptions are exceeding few, whether among the learned or unlearned. High and low, cobblers, tinkers, hackney coachmen, men and maid servants, soldiers, sailors, tradesmen of all ranks, lawyers, physicians, gentlemen, lords, are as ignorant of the Creator of the world as Mahommedans or pagans.”

4. The _Arminian Magazine_. 8vo, 680 pages. Here we have an engraving of the new chapel in City Road, with portraits of George Story, etc. About forty pages are filled with a continuation of Wesley’s translation of the Dialogues of Castellio on Election and Free Will. There are long extracts from Wesley’s “Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation”; and from Dr. Watts’s Treatise on the Passions. Remarks upon Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding make a part of every number. Memoirs and happy deaths are more numerous than ever. There are sixty letters, and as many poems. There are six original sermons by Wesley himself. One, on “Redeeming the Time,” is a vigorous enforcement of the principles propounded in his letter to his niece in 1781.[442] Another is a remarkable homily on “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”; and another, equally striking, is on God’s six days’ work. Then there is his magnificent sermon on, “Not as the transgression, so is the free gift.” And, lastly, there is his terrific discourse on the Punishments of Hell. If the _Arminian Magazine_ had done nothing more than give birth to sermons like these, it would have rendered incalculable service to the cause of Christ.

In addition to the above, the magazine contains several original articles, by Wesley’s pen, of great interest and importance. In one, on Persecuting Papists, he says: “I set out in early life with an utter abhorrence of persecution in every form, and a full conviction, that every man has a right to worship God, according to his own conscience. I would not hurt a hair of the head of Romanists. Meantime, I would not put it into their power to hurt me, or any other persons whom they believe to be heretics. I would neither kill, nor be killed. I wish them well; but I dare not trust them.” In another article there is an onslaught on the “Divinity and Philosophy of the highly illuminated Jacob Behmen”; concluding thus: “May we not pronounce, with the utmost certainty, of one who thus distorts, mangles, and murders the word of God, That the light which is in him is darkness; that he is _illuminated_ from beneath, rather than from above; and that he ought to be styled _Demonosopher_, rather than _Theosopher_?”

This was savage; and Wesley’s old friend, Mr. Harry Brooke, of Dublin, wrote him a letter of earnest remonstrance; to which Wesley replied as follows.

“_April 21, 1783._

“DEAR HARRY,--Your letter gave me pleasure and pain. It gave me
pleasure, because it was written in a mild and loving spirit;
but it gave me pain, because I found I had pained you, whom I
so tenderly love and esteem. But I shall do it no more. I
sincerely thank you for your kind reproof. It is a precious
balm, and will, I trust, in the hands of the Great Physician,
be the means of healing my sickness. I am so sensible of your
real friendship herein, that I cannot write without tears. The
words you mention were too strong. They will no more fall from
my mouth.

“I am, dear Harry, affectionately yours,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[443]

This may serve as an _erratum_, belonging to the _Arminian Magazine_ of 1782.

FOOTNOTES:

[419] _Methodist Recorder_, Aug. 16, 1867.

[420] It was doubtless at this time that he had a youthful
hearer, who afterwards became the renowned Sir Walter
Scott. In a letter to Southey, dated Abbotsford,
April 4, 1819, Scott writes: “When I was about twelve
years old, I heard Wesley preach more than once,
standing on a chair, in Kelso churchyard. He was a
most venerable figure, but his sermons were vastly
too colloquial for the taste of Saunders. He told
many excellent stories. One I remember, which he
said had happened to him at Edinburgh. ‘A drunken
dragoon,’ said Wesley, ‘was commencing an assertion
in military fashion, G----d eternally d----n me,
just as I was passing. I touched the poor man on the
shoulder, and when he turned round fiercely, said
calmly, You mean, _God bless you_.’ In the mode of
telling the story, he failed not to make us sensible
how much this patriarchal appearance, and mild yet
bold rebuke, overawed the soldier, who touched his
hat, thanked him, and, I think, came to chapel that
evening.”--(“Memoirs of Sir Walter Scott,” by J. G.
Lockhart, Esq.)

[421] _Methodist Magazine_, 1854, p. 184.

[422] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 138.

[423] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 140.

[424] The copy before us is addressed “To Mr. Thompson, at
the Methodist chapel, Hull,” and is signed by Wesley
in his own handwriting.

[425] Coke’s manuscript letter.

[426] Manuscript letter.

[427] Ibid.

[428] For the manuscripts that have been used, I am
indebted to the kindness of Mr. Clapham, of Birstal.

[429] _Methodist Magazine_, 1824, p. 307.

[430] Ibid. 1790, pp. 106, 163.

[431] Both clergymen.

[432] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 475.

[433] Myles’s History.

[434] _Methodist Magazine_, 1826, p. 794.

[435] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 309.

[436] _Methodist Magazine_, 1782, p. 468.

[437] Ibid. 1798, p. 492; and 1780, p. 448.

[438] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 13.

[439] _Methodist Magazine_, 1790, p. 557.

[440] Everett’s “Methodism in Sheffield.”

[441] Dyson’s “History of Methodism in the Isle of Wight.”

[442] In 1783, this sermon was reprinted, in a separate
form, without Wesley’s knowledge, by a gentleman of
Cambridge, in 12mo.

[443] Walton’s “Memorial of W. Law,” p. 91; and Brooke’s
Life, p. 194.

1783.
Age 80

One of the first entries in Wesley’s journal, in 1783, is the following. “Friday, January 10--I paid one more visit to Mr. Perronet, now in his ninetieth year. I do not know so venerable a man. His understanding is little, if at all, impaired; and his heart seems to be all love. A little longer, I hope, he will remain here, to be a blessing to all that see and hear him.” This is beautiful, after an unbroken friendship of about forty years.

Another entry, equally deserving of being noted, was as follows: “Sunday, January 19--I preached in St. Thomas’s church in the afternoon, and at St. Swithin’s in the evening. The tide is now turned; so that I have more invitations to preach in churches than I can accept of.” What a contrast between 1783 and 1739!

Wesley was an unendowed clergyman; but was not unsupported. The funds, raised for his purposes, were large; but his own appropriation from them, not equal to the poor parson’s, who was “passing rich on £40 a year.” In reference to the London annual audit, he writes: “Friday, February 21--At our yearly meeting for that purpose, we examined our yearly accounts, and found the money received, (just answering the expense,) was upwards of £3000 a year. But that is nothing to me: what I receive of it, yearly, is neither more nor less than £30.”

Wesley was an old man; but he was still an outdoor preacher: for five-and-forty years he had been branded as a schismatic and a Dissenter; but he was still an ardent Churchman. Hence the following, addressed to Joseph Taylor, one of his itinerant preachers.

“LONDON, _January 16, 1783_.

“DEAR JOSEPH,--I am glad to hear so good an account of
Marazion. You must endeavour to hire a larger room at Truro. We
shall not build any more in haste. I often preach abroad, in
winter as well as summer.

“In my journals, in the magazine, in every possible way, I have
advised the Methodists to keep to the Church. They that do this
most prosper best in their souls; I have observed it long. If
ever the Methodists in general were to leave the Church, I must
leave them.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”[444]

An extract from another letter may be inserted here, showing that, rightly or wrongly, the Methodist preachers of the present day have departed from one of the principles of their founder. Ministerial classes are now almost general. Hear what Wesley had to say, on this subject, to John Cricket, then stationed, with Henry Moore, at Londonderry.

“LONDON, _February 10, 1783_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You must immediately resume the form at
least of a Methodist society. I positively forbid you, or any
preacher, to be a leader; rather put the most insignificant
person in each class to be the leader of it. And try if you
cannot persuade three men, if no more, and three women, to meet
in band.

“Hope to the end! You shall see better days! The plainer you
speak, the more good you will do. Derry will bear plain
dealing. I am just as well as I was forty years ago.

“I am, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[445]

The hale old man soon found himself in a different plight. On March 2, he set off for Bristol, in the neighbourhood of which he spent the next twelve days, preaching and meeting classes. He then became seriously unwell; but, for two days longer, continued preaching, when he was obliged to take his bed. He had a deep tearing cough; was weak and heavy, and in a fever. He had fixed the next morning for commencing his journey to Ireland, and had sent notice to Stroud, and various other places, of the days wherein he purposed to visit them. Fortunately, the Rev. Brian Collins was at hand, and undertook to supply his appointments as far as Worcester. Accordingly, Mr. Collins, in the morning of March 17, set out to preach at Stroud; but Wesley, finding himself better, in the afternoon, imprudently set out after him, and actually gave a short exhortation to the Stroud society. For the next three days, he was dangerously ill. The whole nervous system was violently agitated. His cough was most distressing. He was seized with cramp. He was bereft of strength, “scarce able to move, and much less to think.” Before leaving Bristol, he wrote the following unpublished letter to Miss Hester Ann Roe, afterwards Mrs. Rogers.

“BRISTOL, _March 16, 1783_.

“MY DEAR HETTY,--It has frequently been on my mind of late,
that my pilgrimage is nearly at an end; and one of our sisters
here told us this morning a particular dream which she had two
months ago. She dreamt, that the time of conference was come,
and that she was in a church expecting me to enter; when she
saw a coffin brought in, followed by Dr. Coke and Mr. Fletcher,
and then by all our preachers walking two and two. A fortnight
ago, she dreamt the same dream again. Such a burying I have
ordered in my will, absolutely forbidding either hearse or
coach.

“I intended to have written a good deal more. For a few days, I
have had just such a fever as I had in Ireland a few years ago.
But all is well. I am in no pain; but the wheel of life seems
scarcely able to move. Yet, I made a shift to preach this
morning to a crowded audience, and hope to say something to
them this afternoon. I love that word, ‘And Ishmael died in the
presence of all his brethren.’

“I am, in life or death, my dear sister, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[446]

What was the result? The news of Wesley’s being dangerously ill flew far and wide. A number of the preachers met together to pray for a further prolongation of his life; and, from that time, he rapidly recovered.[447] For three days he lay at Stroud, in great danger. On the morning of the fourth day, he wrote: “A violent fit of the cramp carried the fever quite away; and, perceiving this, I took chaise without delay, and reached Worcester in the afternoon. Here I overtook Mr. Collins, who had supplied all my appointments, with a remarkable blessing to the people; and, the next morning, I gave a short exhortation, and then went on to Birmingham.” At Birmingham, he was electrified, and “ventured to preach three quarters of an hour.” He then made his way to Hinckley, where, for three days, he preached morning and evening, “to a serious and well behaved people.” He then visited other societies on his way to Holyhead, and reached Dublin on April 13.

For three weeks, he was the guest of Mr. Henry Brooke, and was employed in healing serious divisions in the Dublin society.[448] Four days were spent in holding a conference with his Irish preachers, at which, he says, “all was peace and love.” “I wish,” he writes, “all our English preachers were of the same spirit with the Irish, among whom is no jarring string. I never saw such simplicity and teachableness run through a body of preachers before.”[449] This was a high compliment paid to Thomas Rutherford, Andrew Blair, Zechariah Yewdall, Richard Boardman, Thomas Barber, Henry Moore, John Cricket, John Crook, and their twenty-six colleagues in Christian enterprise and labour.

Wesley embarked for England on the 8th of May, and, after preaching at Warrington, Liverpool, Wigan, Bolton, and other places, reached Manchester nine days afterwards. Here he had an enormous sacramental service, at which thirteen or fourteen hundred communicants were present: “such a sight,” says he, “as, I believe, was never seen in Manchester before.” “I believe,” he adds, “there is no place but London where we have so many souls so deeply devoted to God.”

Leaving Manchester, he proceeded to Macclesfield, where a week never passed “in which some were not justified, and some renewed in love.” He preached, for the first time, at Buxton, where John Knowles and his wife were almost the only Methodists, and frequently rode on horseback to Stockport, a distance of sixteen miles, to hear the Methodist preachers.[450] Here he married a couple of his friends, and preached in the parish church. He arrived in London on May 31.

On June 11, accompanied by Messrs. Brackenbury, Broadbent, and Whitfield, he set out for Holland. For more than forty years, Wesley had been incessantly at work forming Methodist societies. Up to the present, he had never indulged in the luxury of a ministerial holiday; and we are not sure, that his trip to Holland should be regarded in such a light as that. Still, there was a difference between this journey and others. In other instances, his object was to institute Methodist societies, or to strengthen those already formed; in this instance, that was no part of the object at which he aimed. He went, says Mr. Moore, “partly for relaxation, and partly to indulge and enlarge his catholic spirit, by forming an acquaintance with the truly pious in foreign nations.” The fact is, one of his own local preachers, whom he highly esteemed, Mr. William Ferguson, had removed to Holland, and, by his earnest piety, had attracted the attention of the public generally, including many of the principal inhabitants and persons in authority. He spoke much of Wesley and of the Methodists, and distributed Wesley’s sermons among his friends. The result was a general wish to see the veteran evangelist, and to hear him for themselves. One difficulty, however, was in the way. Wesley was acquainted, to a greater or less extent, with the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the English, French, German, and Spanish languages; but he knew nought of Dutch. This objection was surmounted by Mr. Ferguson’s son, Jonathan, offering to act as his interpreter.[451] Accordingly, off Wesley went, accompanied by the three preachers above mentioned.

His visit was eminently pleasant. Ministers of religion welcomed him; and persons of high rank showed him honour. At Rotterdam, he preached twice, in the episcopal church, to large congregations, and says: “Were it only for this, I am glad I came to Holland.” At the Hague, in the house of a lady of the first quality, he met a dozen ladies and two military gentlemen, expounded the first three verses of the thirteenth of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and prayed, Captain M---- interpreting sentence by sentence. Wesley writes: “I believe, this hour was well employed.” He held a sort of service in the passenger boat between Haarlem and Amsterdam. That is, he and his friends began to sing a hymn; the people listened; Wesley talked; Ferguson interpreted; “and all our hearts,” says Wesley, “were strangely knit together, so that, when we came to Amsterdam, they dismissed us with abundance of blessings.”

At Utrecht, Wesley wrote: “June 28--I have this day lived fourscore years; and, by the mercy of God, my eyes are not waxed dim, and what little strength of body or mind I had thirty years since, just the same I have now. God grant I may never live to be useless! rather may I

‘My body with my charge lay down,
And cease at once to work and live!’”

On the same day, he made a short excursion. Hence, the following extract from the diary of the Moravian congregation at Zeyst: