Chapter XXI: Part 21

“What will become of these poor sheep in the wilderness, the
American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a
separation from the Church of England, which their preachers
and they no more intended than the Methodists here! Had they
had patience a little longer, they would have seen a real
bishop in America, consecrated by three Scotch bishops, who
have their consecration from the English bishops, and are
acknowledged by them as the same with themselves. There is,
therefore, not the least difference betwixt the members of
Bishop Seabury’s[507] church, and the members of the Church of
England. He told me he looked upon the Methodists in America as
sound members of the Church, and was ready to ordain any of
their preachers whom he should find duly qualified. His
ordination would be indeed genuine, valid, and episcopal. But
what are your poor Methodists now? Only a new sect of
presbyterians. And, after my brother’s death, which is now so
near, what will be their end? They will lose all their
influence and importance; they will turn aside to vain
janglings; they will settle again upon their lees; and, like
other sects of Dissenters, come to nothing.”[508]

Charles Wesley hints, that his brother was “_surprised_ into the rash act” of ordaining. Perhaps he was; but did he afterwards regret it? In answering this question, we must use materials which properly belong to succeeding years.[509]

It is a fact, which cannot be denied, that, while Wesley himself was, to some extent, welcomed in Scotland, by the ministers of the kirk, the Methodists, in many instances, were substantially in the same position as the Methodists in America. There were, indeed, clergymen of the English Church in Scotland; but several of them absolutely refused to admit the Methodists to the sacraments, except on the condition that they would renounce all future connection with the Methodist ministry and discipline.[510] There was, therefore, the same necessity to ordain for the one country as for the other. Accordingly, Wesley, in his journal, writes: “1785: August 1--Having, with a few select friends, weighed the matter thoroughly, I yielded to their judgment, and set apart three of our well tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland.” A year afterwards, at the conference of 1786, he ordained Joshua Keighley and Charles Atmore, for Scotland; William Warrener, for Antigua; and William Hammet, for Newfoundland. A year later, five others were ordained; in 1788, when Wesley was in Scotland, John Barber and Joseph Cownley received ordination at his hands; and, at the ensuing conference, seven others, including Alexander Mather, who was ordained to the office, not only of deacon and elder, but of _superintendent_. On Ash Wednesday in 1789, Wesley ordained Henry Moore and Thomas Rankin; and this, we believe, completes the list of those upon whom Wesley laid his hands. All these ordinations were in private; and many of them at four o’clock in the morning. Some of the favoured ones were intended for Scotland; some for foreign missions; and a few, as Mather, Moore, and Rankin, were employed in England. In most instances, probably in all, they were ordained deacons on one day; and, on the day following, received the ordination of elders, Wesley giving to each letters testimonial.[511] Wesley justified his ordinations for Scotland thus.

“After Dr. Coke’s return from America, many of our friends
begged I would consider the case of Scotland, where we had been
labouring for many years, and had seen so little fruit of our
labours. Multitudes, indeed, have set out well, but they were
soon turned out of the way; chiefly by their ministers either
disputing against the truth, or refusing to admit them to the
Lord’s supper, yea, or to baptize their children, unless they
would promise to have no fellowship with the Methodists. Many,
who did so, soon lost all they had gained, and became more the
children of hell than before. To prevent this, I, at length,
consented to take the same step with regard to Scotland, which
I had done with regard to America. But this is not a separation
from the Church at all. Not from the Church of Scotland, for we
were never connected therewith, any further than we are now:
nor from the Church of England; for this is not concerned in
the steps which are taken in Scotland. Whatever then is done in
America, or Scotland, is no separation from the Church of
England. I have no thought of this; I have many objections
against it. It is a totally different case. ‘But for all this,
is it not possible there may be such a separation after you are
dead?’ Undoubtedly it is. But what I said at our first
conference above forty years ago, I say still: ‘I dare not omit
doing what good I can while I live, for fear of evils that may
follow when I am dead.’”[512]

There is some force in this, so far as it regards Scotland. The Scotch Methodists never professed themselves to be members of the Church of England; in fact, they regarded that church almost with as much abhorrence as they cherished towards the Church of Rome. Hence the following extract from one of Pawson’s unpublished letters, dated “Edinburgh, October 8, 1785.”

“Dr. Coke intends to be with us on Sunday, the 23rd instant,
when we are to have the sacrament again; but Mr. Wesley is
against us having it in the Scotch form, and I am well
satisfied our new plan will answer no end at all in Scotland,
but will prove a hindrance to the work of God. The people
generally hate the very name of Prayer-Book, and everything
belonging to it, as they have always been taught to believe it
a limb of antichrist, and very little better than the popish
mass-book. Popery, prelacy, and all such things, they hold in
the greatest detestation. They would soon tell us: ‘I dunna ken
what you mean by these unca inventions. We belong to the gude
old kirk of Scotland, and will not join with the whore of
Babylon at all.’”

In reference to the English ordinations, Mr. Pawson writes:

“Mr. Wesley knew the state of the societies in England required
such measures to be taken, or many of the people would leave
the connexion; and had the preachers, after his death, only
acted upon his plan, and quietly granted the people, who
desired the sacraments, that privilege, no division would have
taken place.[513] He foresaw, that the Methodists would soon
become a distinct body. He was deeply prejudiced against
presbyterian, and as much in favour of episcopal, government.
In order, therefore, to preserve all that is valuable in the
Church of England among the Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather
and Dr. Coke, bishops. These he undoubtedly designed should
ordain others. Mr. Mather told us so at the Manchester
conference, in 1791.[514] I believe, Mr. Wesley’s first thought
of ordaining arose out of the bishop of London refusing to
ordain a preacher for America; but that he originally intended
to ordain preachers for England is what I never could believe;
and, with respect to Scotland, he often declared to me, and in
the congregation at Edinburgh, that he was over persuaded to
it. And, a few months before his death, he was so annoyed with
Dr. Coke’s conduct, in persuading the people to depart from the
original plan, that he threatened, in a letter, to have no more
to do with him, unless he desisted from such a course of
procedure.”[515]

We give this as we find it; and now turn to a deeply interesting correspondence between Wesley and his brother. Within a fortnight after the ordination of Pawson, Hanby, and Taylor, at the conference of 1785, and in which Wesley, Coke, and Creighton took part,[516] Charles Wesley wrote to his brother as follows.

“BRISTOL, _August 14, 1785_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I have been reading over again your ‘Reasons
against a Separation,’ printed in 1758, and your Works; and
entreat you, in the name of God, and for Christ’s sake, to read
them again yourself, with previous prayer, and stop, and
proceed no farther, till you receive an answer to your inquiry,
‘Lord, what wouldst _Thou_ have me to do?’

“Every word of your eleven pages deserves the deepest
consideration; not to mention my testimony and hymns. Only the
seventh I could wish you to read,--a prophecy which I pray God
may never come to pass.

“Near thirty years, since then, you have stood against the
importunate solicitations of your preachers, who have scarcely
at last prevailed. I was your natural ally, and faithful
friend; and, while you continued faithful to yourself, we two
could chase a thousand.

“But when once you began ordaining in America, I knew, and you
knew, that your preachers here would never rest till you
ordained them. You told me, they would separate by-and-by. The
doctor tells us the same. His Methodist episcopal church in
Baltimore was intended to beget a Methodist episcopal church
here. You know he comes, armed with your authority, to make us
all Dissenters. One of your sons assured me, that not a
preacher in London would refuse orders from the doctor.

“Alas! what trouble are you preparing for yourself, as well as
for me, and for your oldest, truest, and best friends! Before
you have quite broken down the bridge, stop, and consider! If
your sons have no regard for you, have some regard for
yourself. Go to your grave in peace; at least, suffer me to go
first, before this ruin is under your hand. So much, I think,
you owe to my father, to my brother, and to me, as to stay till
I am taken from the evil. I am on the brink of the grave. Do
not push me in, or embitter my last moments. Let us not leave
an indelible blot on our memory; but let us leave behind us the
name and character of honest men.

“This letter is a debt to our parents, and to our brother, as
well as to you, and to

“Your faithful friend,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[517]

Five days afterwards, Wesley replied as follows. The line of poetry was his brother’s.

“PLYMOUTH, _August 19, 1785_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with all
simplicity, and wait for better information. If you agree with
me, well; if not, we can, as Mr. Whitefield used to say, agree
to disagree.

“For these forty years, I have been in doubt concerning that
question, What obedience is due to

‘Heathenish priests and mitred infidels’?

“I have, from time to time, proposed my doubts to the most
pious and sensible clergymen I knew. But they gave me no
satisfaction. Rather, they seemed to be puzzled as well as me.

“Obedience I always paid to the bishops, in obedience to the
laws of the land. But I cannot see, that I am under any
obligation to obey them further than those laws require.

“It is in obedience to these laws, that I have never exercised
in England the power which, I believe, God has given me. I
firmly believe, I am a scriptural επισκοπος, as much as any man
in England, or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I
know to be a fable, which no man ever did or can prove. But this
does in no wise interfere with my remaining in the Church of
England, from which I have no more desire to separate than I had
fifty years ago. I still attend all the ordinances of the Church,
at all opportunities; and I constantly and earnestly advise all
that are connected with me so to do. When Mr. Smyth pressed us
to separate from the Church, he meant, ‘Go to church no more.’
And this was what I meant twenty-seven years ago, when I persuaded
our brethren not to separate from the Church.

“But here another question occurs: ‘What is the Church of
England?’ It is not all the people of England. Papists and
Dissenters are no part thereof. It is not all the people of
England, except papists and Dissenters. Then we should have a
glorious church indeed! No; according to our twentieth article,
a particular church is ‘a congregation of faithful people among
whom the word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly
administered.’ Here is a true logical definition, containing
both the essence and the properties of a church. What then,
according to this definition, is the Church of England? Does it
mean all the believers in England (except the papists and
Dissenters) who have the word of God and the sacraments duly
administered among them? I fear, this does not come up to your
idea of the Church of England. Well, what more do you include
in the phrase? ‘Why, all the believers that adhere to the
doctrine and discipline established by the convocation under
Queen Elizabeth.’ Nay, that discipline is well-nigh vanished
away; and the doctrine both you and I adhere to.

“All these ‘Reasons against a Separation from the Church,’ in
this sense, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted
at? I no more separate from it now than I did in 1758. I submit
still (though sometimes with a doubting conscience) to ‘mitred
infidels,’ I do, indeed, vary from them in some points of
doctrine, and in some points of discipline (by preaching
abroad, for instance, by praying extempore, and by forming
societies); but not a hair’s breadth farther than I believe to
be meet, right, and my bounden duty. I walk still by the same
rule I have done for between forty and fifty years. I do
nothing rashly. It is not likely I should. The high day of my
blood is over. If you will go on hand in hand with me, do. But
do not hinder me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept
close to me, I might have done better. However, with or without
help, I creep on; and as I have been hitherto, so I trust I
shall always be,

“Your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[518]

To this letter Charles Wesley returned the following reply.

“MARYLEBONE, _September 8, 1785_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I will tell you my thoughts with the same
simplicity. There is no danger of our quarrelling; for the
second blow makes the quarrel; and you are the last man upon
earth whom I would wish to quarrel with.

“That juvenile line of mine,

‘Heathenish priests, and mitred infidels,’

I disown, renounce, and with shame recant. I never knew of more
than one ‘mitred infidel,’ and for him I took Mr. Law’s word.

“I do not understand what obedience to the bishops you dread.
They have let us alone, and left us to act just as we pleased,
for these fifty years. At present, some of them are quite
friendly toward us, particularly toward you. The churches are
all open to you; and never could there be less pretence for a
separation.

“That you are a scriptural επισκοπος, or overseer, I do not
dispute. And so is every minister who has the cure of souls.
Neither need we dispute whether the uninterrupted succession
be fabulous, as you believe; or real, as I believe; or whether
Lord King be right or wrong.

“Your definition of the Church of England is the same in prose
with mine in verse. By the way, read over my ‘Epistle,’ to
oblige me, and tell me you have read it, and likewise your own
‘Reasons.’

“You write, ‘all these reasons against a separation from the
Church, I subscribe to still. What then are you frighted at? I
no more separate from it than I did in the year 1758; I submit
still to its bishops; I do indeed vary from them in some points
of discipline; (by preaching abroad, for instance, praying
extempore, and by forming societies’); (might you not add, and
by ordaining?). ‘I still walk by the same rule I have done for
between forty and fifty years; I do nothing rashly.’

“If I could prove your actual separation, I would not; neither
wish to see it proved by any other. But do you not allow, that
the doctor has separated? Do you not know and approve of his
avowed design and resolution to get all the Methodists of the
three kingdoms into a distinct, compact body? Have you seen his
ordination sermon? Is the high day of his blood over? Does he
do nothing rashly? Have you not made yourself the author of all
his actions? I need not remind you, _qui facit per alium facit
per se_.

“I must not leave unanswered your surprising question, ‘What
then are you frighted at?’ At the doctor’s rashness, and your
supporting him in his ambitious pursuits; at an approaching
schism, as causeless and unprovoked as the American rebellion;
at your own eternal disgrace, and all those frightful evils
which your ‘Reasons’ describe.

“‘If you will go on hand in hand with me, do.’ I do go, or
rather creep on, in the old way in which we set out together,
and trust to continue in it, till I finish my course.

“‘Perhaps if you had kept close to me, I might have done
better.’ When you took that fatal step at Bristol, I kept as
close to you as close could be; for I was all the time at your
elbow. You might certainly have done better, if you had taken
me into your counsel.

“I thank you for your intention to remain my friend; herein my
heart is as your heart; whom God hath joined let not man put
asunder. We have taken each other for better for worse, till
death do us--part? No; but unite eternally. Therefore, in the
love which never faileth, I am your affectionate friend and
brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[519]

Five days later, Wesley replied.

“_September 13, 1785._

“DEAR BROTHER,--I see no use of you and me disputing together;
for neither of us is likely to convince the other. You say, I
separate from the Church; I say, I do not. Then let it stand.

“Your verse is a sad truth. I see fifty times more of England
than you do; and I find few exceptions to it.

“I believe Dr. Coke is as free from ambition as from
covetousness. He has done nothing rashly, that I know; but he
has spoken rashly, which he retracted the moment I spoke to him
of it. To publish, as his present thoughts, what he had before
retracted, was not fair play. He is now such a right hand to me
as Thomas Walsh was. If you will not or cannot help me
yourself, do not hinder those that can and will. I must and
will save as many souls as I can while I live, without being
careful about what may _possibly be_ when I die.

“I pray do not confound the intellects of the people in London.
You may thereby a little weaken my hands, but you will greatly
weaken your own.

“I am, etc.,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[520]

Wesley failed to grapple with his brother’s question; or rather he declined. Charles’s point evidently was the same as Lord Mansfield’s,--“ordination was separation.” No doubt this was strictly accurate. Wesley was too keen sighted not to see it; but he was too much a churchman to acknowledge it. He felt himself unable to reply to his brother’s argument; and, therefore, really did not attempt to reply at all.

Two brief letters more, and then we quit the subject of ordination. Six days after the date of the above, Charles Wesley replied as follows.

“LONDON, _September 19, 1785_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I did not say, you separate from the Church;
but I did say, ‘If I could prove it, I would not.’

“That ‘sad truth’ is not a new truth; you saw it when you
expressed in your ‘Reasons’ such tenderness of love for the
unconverted clergy.

“Of your second Thomas Walsh we had better talk than write.

“How ‘confound their intellects’? how ‘weaken your hands’? I
know nothing which I do to prevent the _possible_ separation,
but pray. God forbid I should sin against Him by ceasing to
pray for the Church of England, and for you, while my breath
remains in me!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[521]

Again:

“BRISTOL, _July 27, 1786_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I cannot rest, living or dying, unless I deal
as faithfully with you as I am persuaded you would deal with
me, if you were in my place, and I in yours.

“I believe you have been too hasty in ordaining. I believe God
left you to yourself in that matter, as He left Hezekiah, to
show you the secret pride which was in your heart. I believe
Lord Mansfield’s decisive words to me, ‘ordination is
separation.’

“Thus I have discharged my duty to God and His church, and
approved myself your faithful friend and affectionate brother,

“CHARLES WESLEY.”[522]

This is a long, and, we fear, a wearisome account of what, abstractedly considered, was a trivial thing. John Wesley’s preachers, being called of God, were as much ministers of Christ, and as much entitled to administer the sacraments of the church, without the imposition of his hands as with it. We raise no objection to the formality; we think it right, and, because of its solemnity, likely to be useful; but to contend that the thing itself is necessary, would be to condemn all the grand old Methodist preachers, who flourished from the year 1795, when their administration of sacraments was authorised by the Methodist conference, to the year 1836, when, for the first time, ordination by imposition of hands was solemnly enacted, and declared to be a “standing rule and usage in future years.”

This, however, is not the point in question. The right or wrong, of ordaining, is left to others to discuss. There can be no doubt that, as a minister of Christ, Wesley had as much right to ordain as any bishop, priest, or presbytery in existence; but he had no right to this as a clergyman of the Church of England; and, by acting as he did, he became, what he was unwilling to acknowledge, a Dissenter, a separatist from that church. Such was the opinion of Lord Mansfield; and such was the argument of Wesley’s brother. Wesley refused to acknowledge this; but, feeling the impossibility of the thing, he declined to attempt refuting it. With great inconsistency, he still persisted in calling himself a member of the Church of England;[523] and, as will be seen, to the day of his death, told the Methodists that if they left the Church they would leave him. All things considered, this was not surprising; but it was absurd. Great allowance must be made for Wesley; but to reconcile Wesley’s practice and profession, in this matter, during the last seven years of his eventful life, is simply impossible.

Much space has been occupied with these recitals; but, remembering that no event, in Wesley’s history, has occasioned more controversy than his act of ordaining preachers, it became a duty to give all the facts concerning it within our knowledge.

We now return to the conference of 1784. As soon as its sessions ended, Wesley again set out on his evangelistic ramblings; and, two days afterwards, came to Shrewsbury, and preached a funeral sermon “in memory of good John Appleton.” John was a currier, and became a Methodist under circumstances somewhat peculiar, and which are worth relating.

While at Bristol, he happened to go into a church, where the minister preached a violent sermon, which he had already delivered in two other churches, against “the upstart Methodists.” Shortly after, he had to preach again in the church of St. Nicholas, but, while announcing his text, was suddenly seized with a rattling in his throat, fell backward against the pulpit door, rolled down the steps, was carried home, and died. Mr. Appleton was present, and was so greatly shocked with this event, that, when he returned to Shrewsbury, he took a house, in which he fitted up a room for religious service, and began to preach himself. In 1781, at his own expense, he built the Methodists a chapel, which Wesley opened. A more devoted Christian it would be difficult to find than good John Appleton. His labour, as a working currier, was hard; but, for many years, besides preaching every Sunday, he preached twice a week on the week days, and had full and attentive congregations. He died in the full triumph of faith on the 1st of May, 1784.[524]

From Shrewsbury, Wesley made his way, through Wales, to Bristol, which he reached on August 29, and where, a few days afterwards, he ordained Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey. The next month was spent in incessant preaching in the surrounding neighbourhood.

Here we pause to insert two of his remarkable letters: the first to Miss Bishop, the mistress of a boarding school; the second to the Right Hon. William Pitt, now in the twenty-fifth year of his age, and prime minister of England.

“HAVERFORDWEST, _August 18, 1784_.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--It seems God Himself has already decided the
question concerning dancing. He has shown His approbation of
your conduct, by sending these children to you again. If
dancing be not evil in itself, yet, it leads young women to
numberless evils. And the hazard of these, on the one side,
seems far to overbalance the little inconveniences, on the
other. Therefore, thus much may certainly be said, you have
chosen the more excellent way.

“I would recommend very few novels to young persons, for fear
they should be desirous of more. Mr. Brooke wrote one more,
beside the ‘Earl of Moreland,’ ‘The History of the Human
Heart.’ I think, it is well worth reading, though it is not
equal to his former production. The want of novels may be more
than supplied by well chosen history: such as ‘The Concise
History of England,’ ‘The Concise History of the Church,’
Rollin’s Ancient History, Hooke’s Roman History (the only
impartial one extant), and a few more. For the elder and more
sensible children, Malebranche’s ‘Search after Truth’ is an
excellent French book. Perhaps, you might add Locke’s ‘Essay on
the Human Understanding,’ with the remarks upon it in the
_Arminian Magazine_. I had forgotten that beautiful book, ‘The
Travels of Cyrus,’ whether in French or English.

“I always am your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[525]

The letter to Pitt was one such as prime ministers seldom get.

“BATH, _September 6, 1784_.

“SIR,--Your former goodness, shown to Mr. Ellison,[526]
emboldens me to take the liberty of recommending to your notice
an old friend, Lieutenant Webb.[527]

“On my mentioning formerly some of his services to Lord North,
his lordship was pleased to order him £100 a year. But as it
has since been reduced, it is hardly a maintenance for himself
and his family. If you would be so good as to remember him in
this, or any other way, I should esteem it a particular favour.

“Will you excuse me, sir, for going out of my province by
hinting a few things, which have been long upon my mind? If
those hints do not deserve any further notice, they may be
forgiven and forgotten.

“New taxes must undoubtedly be imposed; but may not more money
be produced by the old ones? For instance:

“1. When the land tax is four shillings in the pound, I know
some towns which pay regularly seven or five pence. Nay, I know
one town where they pay one penny in the pound. Is there no
help for this?

“2. As to the window tax: I know a gentleman who has near a
hundred windows in his house, and he told me he paid for
_twenty_.

“3. The same gentleman told me: ‘We have above one hundred men
servants in this town, but not above _ten_ are paid for.’

“4. I firmly believe, that, in Cornwall alone, the king is
defrauded of half a million yearly in customs. What does this
amount to in all Great Britain? Surely not so little as five
millions.

“5. Servants of distillers inform me, that their masters do not
pay for a fortieth part of what they distil. And this duty last
year, (if I am rightly informed,) amounted only to £20,000. But
have not the spirits distilled this year cost 20,000 lives of
his majesty’s liege subjects? Is not then the blood of these
men vilely bartered for £20,000? not to say anything of the
enormous wickedness, which has been occasioned thereby; and not
to suppose that these poor wretches have any souls! But, (to
consider money alone,) is the king a gainer, or an immense
loser? To say nothing of many millions of quarters of corn
destroyed, which, if exported, would have added more than
£20,000 to the revenue, be it considered, ‘Dead men pay no
taxes,’ So that, by the death of 20,000 persons yearly, (and
this computation is far under the mark,) the revenue loses far
more than it gains.

“But I may urge another consideration to you. You are a man.
You have not lost human feelings. You do not love to drink
human blood. You are a son of Lord Chatham. Nay, if I mistake
not, you are a Christian. Dare you then sustain a sinking
nation? Is the God whom you serve able to deliver from ten
thousand enemies? I believe He is. Nay, and you believe it. O,
may you fear nothing but displeasing Him!

“May I add a word on another head? How would your benevolent
heart rejoice, if a stop could be put to that scandal of the
English nation, suicide!

“The present laws against it avail nothing; for every such
_murderer_ is brought in _non compos_. If he was a poor man,
the jurors forswear themselves from pity. If he was rich, they
hope to be well paid for it. So no ignominy pursues either the
living or the dead, and self murder increases daily. But what
help?

“I conceive this horrid crime might be totally prevented, and
that without doing the least hurt to either the living or the
dead. Do you not remember, sir, how the rage for self murder
among the Spartan matrons was stopped at once? Would it not
have the same effect in England, if an act of parliament were
passed, repealing all other acts and appointing that every self
murderer should be hanged in chains?

“Suppose your influence could prevent suicide by this means,
you would do more service to your country than any prime
minister has done these hundred years. Your name would be
precious to all true Englishmen as long as England continued a
nation. And, what is infinitely more, a greater Monarch than
King George would say to you, ‘Well done, good and faithful
servant.’ I earnestly commit you to His care, and am, sir, your
willing servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[528]

Methodism was established not only in America, but also in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, though neither of these countries found a place in the conference minutes till 1785. William Black, now a young man of twenty-four, had begun to pray and preach, and had witnessed the conversion of hundreds. Societies had been formed; and quarterly meetings held; and, for three years, Black had devoted himself wholly to the work of the ministry, without being formally recognised as one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers. He had encountered no ordinary difficulties in the prosecution of his work. The Rev. Henry Alline, a Calvinist preacher, had divided his societies, by sowing the seeds of antinomian error; and Methodist meetings had been illegally disturbed, and broken up, by English soldiers: but, in the midst of all, young Black courageously persevered. He applied to Wesley for assistance; and he himself expressed a wish to come to Kingswood school to fit himself more fully for the Christian ministry. During the year 1784, Wesley addressed to him the two following letters.

“INVERNESS, _May 11, 1784_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you have given a little assistance
to our brethren at Halifax, and along the coast. There is no
charity under heaven to be compared to this,--the bringing
light to the poor heathens, that are called Christians, but,
nevertheless, still sit in darkness and the shadow of death. I
am in great hopes, that some of the emigrants, from New York,
are really alive to God. And, if so, they will every way be a
valuable acquisition to the province where their lot is now
cast.

“There is no part of Calvinism or antinomianism which is not
fully answered in some part of our writings; particularly in
the ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.’ I
have no more to do with answering books. It will be sufficient
if you recommend, to Mr. Alline’s friends, some of the tracts
that are already written. As to himself, I fear he is wiser in
his own eyes than seven men that can render a reason.

“The work of God goes on with a steady pace in various parts of
England. But, still, the love of many will wax cold, while many
others are continually added to supply their place. In the west
of England, in Lancashire, and in Yorkshire, God still mightily
makes bare His arm. He convinces many, justifies many, and many
are perfected in love.

“My great advice to those who are united together, is, Let
brotherly love continue! See that ye fall not out by the way!
Hold the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! Bear ye one
another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[529]

“LONDON, _October 15, 1784_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--A letter of yours, some time ago, gave me
hopes of meeting you in England; as you seemed desirous of
spending some time here, to improve yourself in learning. But,
as you have now entered into a different state, I do not expect
we shall meet in this world. But you have a large field of
action where you are, without wandering into Europe. Your
present parish is wide enough, namely, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. I do not advise you to go any farther. In the
United States, there are abundance of preacher. They can spare
four preachers to you, better than you can spare one to them.
If I am rightly informed, they have already sent you one or
two; and they may afford you one or two more, if it please God
to give a prosperous voyage to Dr. Coke and his fellow
labourers. Does there not want a closer and more direct
connection between you of the north, and the societies under
Francis Asbury? Is it not more advisable, that you should have
a constant correspondence with each other, and act by united
counsels? Perhaps it is for want of this, that so many have
drawn back. I want a more particular account of the societies
in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I am not at all glad of Mr.
Scurr’s intention to remove from Nova Scotia to the south. That
is going from a place, where he is much wanted, to a place
where he is not wanted. I think, if he got £10,000 thereby, it
would be but a poor bargain; that is, upon the supposition,
which you and I make, that _souls_ are of more value than
_gold_. Peace be with all your spirits!

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[530]

Wesley returned to London on October 9, and, nine days afterwards, set out on his usual visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. He then went off to Norfolk; and spent the rest of the year in London, and the surrounding counties. He had a long interview with Pascal Paoli, the great Corsican general. He visited convicts, under sentence of death, in Newgate, preached the condemned criminals’ sermon, forty-seven of these unhappy creatures being present, all in chains, and most of them in tears. Burglars broke into his house, in City Road. He met with Simeon, who had been with Fletcher at Madeley, and, for fifty-three years afterwards, was rector of Trinity church, Cambridge. Jottings like these might be multiplied; Wesley’s life was full of them. We conclude with an unpublished letter to Henry Moore, who was now at Dublin.

“LONDON, _November 4, 1784_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am glad you spoke freely to Mr. Collins.
He is a good man, but not very adviseable. If he should declare
open war in England, he will do little or no harm. Mr. Smyth
will not be fond of him, if he preaches at Plunkett
Street.[531] There will not soon be a coalition between
Arminianism and Calvinism. This we found even in Holland.

“If James Rogers and you keep to the Church still, a few, I
doubt not, will follow your example. We made just allowance
enough for leaving the Church at the last conference.

“I am, with kind love to Nancy, yours affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Besides “The Sunday Service of the Methodists in America,” and a tract or two, Wesley published nothing, in 1784, except his _Arminian Magazine_. This was as racy and rich as ever. “The Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked” was continued from the previous volume, and run through the whole of this. Like its predecessors, it contained six original sermons by Wesley himself. In that on Dissipation, he expresses the startling opinion: “There is not, on the face of the earth, another nation so perfectly dissipated and ungodly as England; not only so totally without God in the world, but so openly setting Him at defiance. There never was an _age_, that we read of in history, since Julius Cæsar, since Noah, since Adam, wherein dissipation and ungodliness did so generally prevail, both among high and low, rich and poor.” In the sermon on Patience, he gives an interesting account of the way in which he was led to embrace the doctrine of Christian perfection; and observes that, in 1762, there were 652 members of the London society, who professed to have attained to this state of grace. That on the text, “We know in part,” is a marvellous production, such as none but a man like Wesley could have written. In the sermon on the “Wisdom and Knowledge of God,” as displayed in the history of the church, after giving one of his most interesting accounts of the rise of Methodism, he does not hide the fact, that many of the Methodist preachers and people had not been faithful. Speaking of the first preachers, he says, they “were young, poor, ignorant men, without experience, learning, or art; but simple of heart, devoted to God, full of faith and zeal, seeking no honour, no profit, no pleasure, no ease, but merely to save souls; fearing neither want, pain, persecution, nor whatever man could do unto them: yea, not counting their lives dear unto them, so they might finish their course with joy.” But in process of time, “several of the preachers increased in other knowledge; but not proportionably in the knowledge of God. They grew less simple, less alive to God, and less devoted to Him. They were less zealous for God, and consequently less active, less diligent in His service. Some of them begun to desire the praise of men, and not the praise of God only; some, to be weary of a wandering life, and to seek ease and quietness. Some began to fear the faces of men; to be ashamed of their calling; to be unwilling to deny themselves, to take up their cross daily, and endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Wherever these preachers laboured, there was not much fruit of their labours. Their word was not, as formerly, clothed with power; it carried with it no demonstration of the Spirit!” Weighty words these! especially as coming from an old man of more than eighty, one of the keenest observers of facts, himself the founder of Methodism, now nearly at the close of his remarkable career. And equally pungent are his remarks respecting the people. Referring to the causes of Methodist backslidings, he writes: “But of all the temptations, none so struck at the whole work of God, as the deceitfulness of riches; a thousand melancholy proofs of which I have seen, within these last fifty years. I have not known threescore rich persons, perhaps not half the number, during threescore years, who, as far as I can judge, were not less holy than they would have been, had they been poor. By riches, I mean not thousands of pounds; but any more than will procure the conveniences of life.” “Having gained and saved all you can, give all you can: else your money will eat your flesh as fire, and will sink you to the nethermost hell! O beware of laying up treasures upon earth! Is it not treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath? Lord! I have warned them: but if they will not be warned, what can I do more? I can only give them up unto their own hearts’ lusts, and let them follow their own imaginations! By not taking this warning, it is certain many of the Methodists are already fallen. Many are falling at this very time. And there is great reason to apprehend, that many more will fall, most of whom will rise no more!” If Wesley found it necessary to say this in 1784, what would he have said in 1871?

In the sermons, on Obedience to Parents, and Companionship with the Wicked, the reader will find most valuable advices, such as none but a long experienced casuist like Wesley has wisdom and confidence enough to give.

Further description of the _Magazine_, for 1784, is scarcely needed. The letters and the poetry are quite equal to those in the former volumes; the biographies are rich in Christian experience; the anecdotes quaint and instructive. Extracts from his “Natural Philosophy” are given in every number, and also from Bryant’s Ancient Mythology. Benson’s Letters on Polygamy run through the whole. The supernatural disturbances at Epworth parsonage are related; and, as if in anticipation of his own death, Wesley tells his readers, that, not “to lessen the honour of the house of God, or infect it with unwholesome vapours, he has left orders to bury his remains, not in the new chapel in City Road, but in the burying ground adjoining it;” and then, to show that “epitaphs ought to be prepared by persons who have some knowledge of grammatical and typographical accuracy; and not be left to illiterate relations, parish clerks, or stonemasons, to the great scandal of the nation in general, and of religion in particular,” he gives the following, taken from a tombstone in Arbroath churchyard.

“Here lyis Alexand Peter, _present_ Town Treasurer of Arbroth, who died ---- day January 1630.

“Such a Treasurer was not since, nor yet before,
For common works, calsais, brigs, and schoir--
Of all others he did excel;
He deviced our skoel, and he hung our bell.”

FOOTNOTES:

[472] Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 404.

[473] Manuscript letter.

[474] Manuscript diary.

[475] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 144.

[476] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 397.

[477] On Sunday, September 18, 1870, the London Road
Methodist Sunday-school, Manchester, removed from
their somewhat dingy premises to a new and more
commodious building, erected in Grosvenor Street
East, and adjoining the Wesleyan chapel there. A
card commemorative of the event was presented to
each person joining in the day’s proceedings, with
the following inscription: “London Road Wesleyan
Sunday School, founded in 1785, by John Lancaster,
and first conducted by him in a cellar at the corner
of Travis Street. It was soon after removed to a
room in Worsley Street, built specially for its
accommodation, and there carried on until November
10, 1811, when it took possession of the then new
schools, situated behind Borough Buildings, and there
continued until this day, when it was again removed
to the recently erected building adjoining the
Grosvenor Street chapel, in commemoration of which
event this card is presented to ----. Manchester,
September 18, 1870.”

[478] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, pp. 12, 13.

[479] Minutes of Conference, vol. i., p. 41.

[480] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 37.

[481] Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

[482] Hampson’s Life of Wesley.

[483] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 523.

[484] Manuscript.

[485] Myles’ History, p. 201.

[486] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 269.

[487] American minutes.

[488] Bangs’ “Original Church of Christ,” p. 114.

[489] Stevens’ History of Methodism, vol. ii., p. 212.

[490] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 326.

[491] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 682.

[492] Manuscript letter.

[493] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 417.

[494] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 200.

[495] Ibid. p. 223.

[496] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 137.

[497] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon;” and “Authentic
Narrative of Primary Ordination in Spafields Chapel,
1784.”

[498] The Rev. James Creighton was present; but Charles
Wesley was not, though he was in Bristol at the
time.--(Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p.
389.)

[499] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 66.

[500] _Methodist Magazine_, 1785, p. 602.

[501] Ibid. 1786, p. 677.

[502] Coke’s Life, by Etheridge.

[503] American minutes.

[504] Cokesbury college, twice burned down.

[505] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 70.

[506] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 419.

[507] Dr. Samuel Seabury was a missionary of the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel. After the
ratification of the treaty of peace, the American
episcopal church felt it necessary, not to remain
dependent on the good offices of a prelate residing
in England, but to have bishops of its own.
Accordingly, the clergy in Connecticut assembled in
a voluntary convention, and elected Seabury. The
election was easily accomplished; the _consecration_
was more difficult. Seabury came to England, asking
of the archbishops of the English Church a boon
which, for a hundred and fifty years, had been asked
in vain, namely, that episcopalians in America might
have ordained bishops of their own. At the time, the
see of Canterbury was vacant; and the archbishop of
York was unable to take measures for the consecration
of an American citizen, without the authority of
parliament. A long delay was unavoidable, and, under
the circumstances, Seabury proceeded to Scotland,
where he applied for consecration to the bishops of
the Scottish episcopal church. His application was
granted, and he was solemnly ordained at Aberdeen,
on November 14, 1784, by the bishops of Aberdeen,
Ross, and Moray.--(Caswall’s American Church, p.
124.) This will explain the meaning of C. Wesley’s
letter; but is it surprising that, amid all these
changes, difficulties, and confusions, Wesley took
upon himself to ordain deacons and presbyters for the
abandoned Methodists of America?

[508] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 392.

[509] The Rev. James Creighton, in his reply to Bradburn’s
pamphlet in 1793, affirms that Wesley repented, with
tears, that he had ordained any of his preachers. He
states, that he expressed his sorrow for this at the
conference of 1789, and occasionally afterwards till
his death. Creighton adds: “About six weeks before he
died, he said, ‘The preachers are now too powerful
for me.’” This must pass for as much as it is worth;
James Creighton was a clergyman.

[510] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 382.

[511] Manuscripts; also _Methodist Magazine_, 1867, p. 622.

[512] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 678.

[513] Manuscript memoir of Whitehead.

[514] Manuscript letter.

[515] Manuscript letter.

[516] Pawson’s manuscript.

[517] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 394.

[518] _Methodist Magazine_, 1786, p. 50.

[519] C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 398.

[520] Ibid.

[521] C. Wesley’s Life, vol. ii, p. 398.

[522] _Methodist Magazine_, 1867, p. 625.

[523] Let us suppose John Hampson, not only to have formed
societies, different from the Methodist societies,
but also to have ordained local preachers to
administer to them the sacraments; and let us suppose
further, that, despite this, John Hampson still
persisted in calling himself a Methodist: and we
have a case analogous to that of Wesley. Under such
circumstances, would Wesley have admitted Hampson’s
claim to continued membership among the Methodists?
We trow not; and yet this is exactly the sort of
claim which he himself makes in reference to the
Church of England.

[524] _Methodist Magazine_, 1790, p. 636.

[525] _Methodist Magazine_, 1807, p. 472; and Wesley’s
Works, vol. xiii., p. 36.

[526] Wesley’s nephew, an excise officer (Clarke’s “Wesley
Family,” vol. ii., p. 273).

[527] Commonly called Captain Webb.

[528] _Methodist Magazine_, 1850, p. 161.

[529] Black’s Memoirs, p. 112.

[530] Black’s Memoirs, p. 126.

[531] The Rev. Edward Smyth was about to become minister of
Bethesda chapel, Dublin. The Rev. Brian Collins seems
to have been in Dublin at the same time.

1785.
Age 82

Wesley began the year 1785, by spending five days in walking through London, often ankle deep in sludge and melting snow, to beg £200, which he employed in purchasing clothing for the poor. He visited the destitute in their own houses, “to see with his own eyes what their wants were, and how they might be effectually relieved.” Besides preaching in his own chapels, he preached in Spitalfields, St. Ethelburga’s, and Stepney churches. As usual, he met the London classes, from which he received, as ticket money, £48 7_s._, out of which he was paid his quarter’s salary, £15.[532] His activity was unabated and marvellous.

He wrote as follows, to Mr. Stretton, in Newfoundland.

“LONDON, _February 25, 1785_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--If that deadly enemy of true religion,
popery, is breaking in upon you, there is indeed no time to be
lost; for it is far easier to prevent the plague than to stop
it. Last autumn Dr. Coke sailed from England, and is now
visiting the flock in the midland provinces of America, and
setting them on the New Testament plan, to which they all
willingly and joyfully conform. I trust, they will no more want
such pastors, as are after God’s own heart. After he has gone
through these parts, he intends to see the brethren in Nova
Scotia, probably attended with one or two able preachers, who
will be willing to abide there. A day or two ago, I wrote and
desired him to call upon our brethren also in Newfoundland, and
leave a preacher there likewise. About food and raiment we take
no thought; our heavenly Father knoweth that we need these
things, and He will provide; only let us be faithful and
diligent in feeding His flock. Your preacher will be ordained.
You shall want no assistance that is in the power of your
affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[533]

At the previous conference, Wesley had appointed William Moore to Plymouth. Moore was an itinerant of ten years’ standing, and was dissatisfied with Wesley’s deed of declaration; and, instead of serving Wesley, as he had done formerly, he dissevered the connection. He hired a room, drew away about forty of the Plymouth Methodists, and formed a society of his own. He issued “An Appeal to the Inhabitants of the Town of Saltash,” 8vo, 8 pages; telling the people, that he preached none other doctrines than those contained in the articles, homilies, and prayers of the Church of England; that he coveted no man’s silver, gold, or apparel; and that he was actuated only by a sincere desire to serve them. Moore was evidently a man of education, courage, and Christian zeal; and might have occupied a superior position among his brethren. But Wesley’s seeming partiality, in the constitution of his conference, led to Moore’s secession; and here, at Plymouth, he had become a somewhat formidable rival. Wesley was summoned, and, in a most bitter frost, off he went, on February 28, to put wrong things right. Here he spent six days, and left the society “confirmed in the truth more than ever.”

Leaving Plymouth, Wesley came to Bristol, where he employed a fortnight in visiting and preaching to neighbouring societies.

On March 21, he started off to Ireland, preaching all the way to Liverpool, and, notwithstanding frost and snow, and bitter cold, frequently in the open air. He arrived at Dublin on April 11, and found “two such preachers,” James Rogers and Andrew Blair, “with two such wives as he knew not where to find again.”

Having spent a week in Dublin, he set out for the provinces. He often preached in churches, and not unfrequently in the open air. Everywhere, with one or two exceptions, the people welcomed him; congregations were large, and societies, in general, were lively. Two months were occupied in this employment. His labours were almost incredible. All over Ireland he went, preaching every day, and often twice or thrice a day, not only in Methodist meeting-houses, but in churches, presbyterian chapels, in factories, in bowling greens, in assembly rooms, in courthouses, in barns, in “sloping meadows,” in “shady orchards,” in groves and avenues, in linen halls, in churchyards and streets, everywhere, where he had a chance. We know, with certainty, that, minute as are the details of Wesley’s journals, he, by no means, mentions every sermon that he delivered, and every society that he visited; and yet, in this two months’ Irish provincial tour, he records the names of not fewer than between fifty and sixty towns, in which he preached, collectively, about fourscore discourses.