Chapter XXIV: Part 24

Wesley was more than satisfied with his trip to these lovely islands. “Here,” says he, “is an open door: high and low, rich and poor, receive the word gladly; so that I could not regret being detained by contrary winds several days longer than we intended.”[589]

Wesley’s landing in Cornwall was unexpected, but not unwelcome. He writes: “We appeared to our friends here as men risen from the dead. Great was their rejoicing over us; and great was the power of God in the midst of the congregation.” On Saturday, September 8, he preached twice, out of doors, to large congregations; and, the day following, thrice, besides meeting a society in a chapel “exactly round, and composed wholly of brazen slags, which,” says Wesley, “I suppose will last as long as the earth.”

On September 14, he got to Bristol, where he spent the next three weeks. First of all, “with the assistance of two of his friends, he had to answer _abundance of letters_,” the accumulation of the last five weeks. Then, he had to visit the “country societies” round about, and, among others, that at Castle Carey, where the mob had thrown the first preacher, that visited the place, into a horse pond. On October 8, he returned to London, where he employed the next few days “in answering letters, and preparing matter for the magazine.” One or two of the letters, belonging to this period, may be inserted here.

The first was addressed to William Black, in Nova Scotia, who was considerably troubled with a recent importation from Scotland, in the form of a presbyterian minister, who was more a Socinian than a Calvinist.

“NEAR BATH, _September 26, 1787_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--You have great reason to praise God for the
great things that He hath done, and to expect still greater
things than these. Your grand difficulty, now, will be to guard
your flock against that accomplished seducer. When you
mentioned a person came from Scotland, I took it for granted
that he was a Calvinist. But I find it is not so well; for I
take a Socinian to be far worse than even a predestinarian.
Nevertheless, I advise you and all our preachers, never oppose
him openly. Doing thus would only give the unawakened world an
advantage against you all. I advise you farther, never speak
severely, much less contemptuously, of him in any mixed
company. You must use no weapons in opposing him, but only
those of truth and love. Your wisdom is: (1) Strongly to
inculcate the doctrines which he denies; but without taking any
notice of him, or seeming to know that any one does deny them.
(2) To advise all our brethren (but not in public) never to
hear him, at the peril of their souls. And (3) narrowly to
inquire whether any one is staggered, and to set such an one
right as soon as possible. Thus, by the blessing of God, even
those that are lame will not be turned out of the way. Peace be
with your spirit!

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”[590]

The next has not before been published. Jonathan Crowther and Duncan McAllum had been appointed to succeed Edward Burbeck and Joshua Keighley, in Scotland. On arriving, they found the former “dying of fever in a _lousy_ bed”; and the latter already dead and buried. Their journey had been adventurous and dangerous; their circuit (Inverness) was large; and their allowances next to nothing; for Crowther received only fifty shillings for the whole year’s labour; and forty of these he spent in removing to Dunbar. He wrote to Wesley: “No man is fit for Inverness circuit, unless his flesh be brass, his bones iron, and his heart harder than a stoic’s.” After giving an account of the death of Burbeck and Keighley, he adds: “I too shall probably be sacrificed in this miserable corner; and, if I were doing good, I should be content (if I had them) to sacrifice seven lives every year; but to live in misery, and to die in banishment, for next to nothing, is afflicting indeed.”[591]

Poor Crowther was downhearted, and no wonder. Wesley’s reply was characteristic.

“NEAR BATH, _September 25, 1787_.

“DEAR JONATHAN,--The sum of the matter is, you want money; and
money you shall have, if I can beg, borrow, or anything but
steal. I say, therefore, ‘Dwell in the land, and be doing good,
and, verily, thou shalt be fed.’ I should be sorry for the
death of Mr. Burbeck, but that I know God does all things well;
and, if His work prospers in your hands, this will make your
labours light. Our preachers now find, in the north of
Scotland, what they formerly found all over England; yet they
went on; and when I had only blackberries to eat in Cornwall,
still God gave me strength sufficient for my work. I am, etc.,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

“P.S.--To Mr. Atlay:

Pay to Jonathan Crowther, or his order, Five Guineas.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[592]

The next two letters refer to a case of discipline in the Channel islands, in which Wesley displayed greater liberality than some of his itinerants. The first was written to Robert Carr Brackenbury, the second to Adam Clarke.

“LONDON, _October 20, 1787_.

“DEAR SIR,--Mr. ---- is undoubtedly a good young man; and has a
tolerably good understanding. But he thinks it better than it
is; and, in consequence, is apt to put himself in your or my
place. For these fifty years, if any one said, ‘If you do not
put such an one out of society, I will go out of it’; I have
said, ‘Pray go; I, not you, are to judge who shall stay.’ I,
therefore, greatly approve of your purpose, to give Mr. W---- a
full hearing in the presence of all the preachers. I have often
repented of judging too severely; but very seldom of being too
merciful. As the point is undoubtedly of very great importance,
it deserved serious consideration; and I am glad you took the
pains to consider it, and discussed it so admirably well,
according to Scripture and sound reason.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”[593]

“LONDON, _December 8, 1787_.

“... Brother de Queteville and you do not mind what I say. I do
not wonder at him, (he does not know me,) but I do at you. His
natural temper is stern; yours is not. Therefore, I expect you
to regard me, whether he does or no. We have no such custom
among our societies, nor ever had, as for a man to acknowledge
his fault before a whole society. There shall be no such custom
while I live. If he acknowledge it before the preachers it is
enough.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[594]

In the month of May of the present year, there was instituted, in London, a society for the suppression of the slave trade, of which the chief members were Granville Sharp, William Dillwyn, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce. In this, as in other great beneficent movements, Wesley was one of the pioneers. Thirteen years previously, he had published his “Thoughts upon Slavery”; and, at the commencement of the present year, had inserted a long letter, on the same subject, in his _Arminian Magazine_. The formation of an antislavery society was to him a joy; and he, at once, wrote to the committee, expressing his satisfaction. He desired to warn them, that they must expect great difficulties and great opposition; for those interested in the system of slavery were a powerful body, and would employ hireling writers, who would have neither justice nor mercy. As for himself, he would do all he could to promote the object of their institution. He would reprint a new and large edition of his “Thoughts on Slavery,” and circulate it among his friends in England and Ireland, to whom he would add a few words in favour of their design. He then concluded in these words: “I commend you to Him, who is able to carry you through all opposition, and support you under all discouragements.”

On the 30th of October, 1787, he sent a second letter, which was read to the society, and in which he said, that he had now read the publications which the committee had sent him, and that he took, if possible, a still deeper interest in their cause. He exhorted them to more than ordinary diligence and perseverance; to be prepared for opposition; to be cautious about the manner of procuring information and evidence, that no stain might fall upon their character; and to take care that the question should be argued as well upon the consideration of interest as of humanity and justice, the former of which he feared would have more weight than the latter.[595]

Wesley fulfilled his promise to render help. Hence the following to Mr. Thomas Funnell, Lewes, Sussex.

“_November 24, 1787._

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Whatever assistance I can give those
generous men, who join to oppose that execrable trade, I
certainly shall give. I have printed a large edition of the
‘Thoughts on Slavery,’ and dispersed them to every part of
England. But there will be vehement opposition made, both by
slave merchants and slave holders; and they are mighty men: but
our comfort is, He that dwelleth on high is mightier.

“I am, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[596]

Thus began a struggle, which lasted six-and-forty years, and terminated in the Emancipation Act, which took effect on August 1, 1834. Wesley died four years after the fight commenced; Wilberforce just as the victory was being won, for he expired while the resolutions, preparatory to the bill, were being passed in the House of Commons.

The last three months of the year 1787 were spent in London, and in the usual journeys through the surrounding counties. On October 15, he began what he calls his “little tour through Oxfordshire,” and preached twice a day, besides travelling. At this time, Joseph Entwisle and Richard Reece were in the “Oxfordshire” circuit. The former, a young man of twenty, while riding with Wesley, had the misfortune to have a horse whose pace was swifter than its steps were sure. The nag fell with suddenness, the young preacher made a summersault over the head of the prostrate animal, and alighted on his feet unhurt. “Well done!” cried Wesley, delighted with the agility of his youthful friend, and, no doubt, remembering many of his own marvellous escapes,--“Well done, Joseph! I could not have done better than that myself.”[597]

Richard Reece also used to relate an anecdote respecting Wesley’s visit to this, his first circuit, in 1787. Wesley was accompanied by Thomas Rankin, and the two came to Oxford, where Wesley had to preach in the chapel in New Inn Hall Lane. The front gallery was filled with gownsmen, who, whatever other accomplishments they had acquired, still lacked the politeness of gentlemen, for, as soon as Wesley began to read his text, the beardless boys, in gowns and college caps, began to cheer. Up jumped Rankin, his Scotch blood boiling, and, with stentorian voice, cried: “In the name of God, gentlemen, what can ye mean, to interrupt and insult a servant of the Lord, about to preach salvation?” Wesley, more used to such behaviour than his impetuous friend, calmly said, “Sit down, Tommy, sit down”; and then quietly proceeded with his discourse.[598]

In his excursion through Kent, Wesley preached both morning and evening, every day. In Hertfordshire, he met Simeon from Cambridge.

“Sir,” said young Simeon, “Sir, I understand you are called an Arminian; now I am sometimes called a Calvinist, and therefore, I suppose, we are to draw daggers. But, before I begin to combat, with your permission, I will ask you a few questions, not from impertinent curiosity, but for real instruction. Pray sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not put it into your heart?”

“Yes,” said the veteran, “I do indeed.”

“And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything that you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?”

“Yes, solely through Christ.”

“But, sir, supposing you were _first_ saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards, by your good works?”

“No; I must be saved by Christ, from first to last.”

“Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?”

“No.”

“What, then? are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?”

“Yes, altogether.”

“And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God, to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?”

“Yes, I have no hope but in Him.”

“Then, sir, with your leave, I will put up my dagger again: for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification, my final perseverance. It is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and, therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.”[599]

Such was the catechetical examination instituted by a young parson of twenty-eight, and submitted to by an old man of eighty-four.

In November, Wesley took another step, which virtually involved a separation from the Church of England. Seventeen years before, in warning his preachers against such a separation, he had not only directed them and the people to attend the services and sacraments of the Church, but to guard against calling preachers “ministers,” and their places of worship “meeting-houses.” “Do not,” said he, “license them as such: the proper form of a petition to the judge or justice is, ‘A. B. desires to have his house in C-- licensed for public worship.’” He continued: “Do not license yourself till you are constrained; and then not as a Dissenter, but a Methodist. It is time enough when you are prosecuted, to take the oaths. And by so doing you are licensed.”[600]

Hitherto, Wesley had been opposed to licensing, except in cases of necessity, simply on the ground that this savoured of separation from the Established Church. Now he writes:

“1787, November 3--I had a long conversation with Mr. Clulow,”
[his legal adviser,] “on that execrable act called the
Conventicle Act. After consulting the Act of Toleration, with
that of the fourteenth of Queen Anne, we were both clearly
convinced, that it was the safest way to license _all_ our
chapels, and _all_ our travelling preachers, not as Dissenters,
but simply ‘preachers of the gospel’; and that no justice, or
bench of justices, has any authority to refuse licensing either
the house or the preachers.”

The “execrable Conventicle Act” was levelled against Dissenters from the Church of England; the Act of Toleration was passed for the relief of such Dissenters; and Wesley, by availing himself of the provisions of that act, _ipso facto_, conceded the point that the Methodists were Dissenters.

He still, however, persisted in asserting that the Methodists were members of the Church of England; and this involved both him and them in further difficulties. In some instances, the magistrates remarked: “You profess yourselves to be members of the Church of England; therefore, your licences are worthless; nor can you, as members of the Church, receive any benefit from the Act of Toleration.” This was a subtle distinction; and Wesley saw that the Methodists must either profess themselves Dissenters, or be subjected to an indefinite amount of trouble. He was unwilling to alter their relation to the Established Church; and yet he wished them to be saved from this embarrassment. Hence the following, addressed to a member of parliament.[601]

“DEAR SIR,--Last month, a few poor people met together in
Somersetshire, to pray, and to praise God, in a friend’s house;
there was no preaching at all. Two neighbouring justices fined
the man of the house £20. I suppose, he was not worth twenty
shillings. Upon this, his household goods were distrained, and
sold to pay the fine. He appealed to the quarter sessions; but
all the justices averred, ‘The Methodists could have no relief
from the Act of Toleration, because they went to church; and
that, so long as they did so, the Conventicle Act should be
executed upon them.’

“Last Sunday, when one of our preachers was beginning to speak
to a quiet congregation, a neighbouring justice sent a
constable to seize him, though he was licensed; and would not
release him till he had paid £20, telling him his licence was
good for nothing, ‘because he was a Churchman.’

“Now, sir, what can the Methodists do? They are liable to be
ruined by the Conventicle Act, and they have no relief from the
Act of Toleration! If this is not oppression, what is? Where
then is English liberty? the liberty of Christians, yea, of
every rational creature? who, as such, has a right to worship
God according to his own conscience. But, waiving the question
of right and wrong, what prudence is there in oppressing such a
body of loyal subjects? If these good magistrates could drive
them, not only out of Somersetshire, but out of England, who
would be gainers thereby? Not his majesty, whom we honour and
love; not his ministers, whom we love and serve for his sake.
Do they wish to throw away so many thousand friends, who are
now bound to them by stronger ties than that of interest? If
you will speak a word to Mr. Pitt on that head, you will oblige
yours, etc.

“JOHN WESLEY.”

About the same time, Wesley wrote as follows to a bishop.[602]

“MY LORD,--I am a dying man, having already one foot in the
grave. Humanly speaking, I cannot long creep upon the earth,
being now nearer ninety than eighty years of age. But I cannot
die in peace, before I have discharged this office of Christian
love to your lordship. I write without ceremony, as neither
hoping nor fearing anything from your lordship, or any man
living. And I ask, in the name and presence of Him, to whom
both you and I are shortly to give an account, why do you
trouble those that are quiet in the land; those that fear God
and work righteousness? Does your lordship know what the
Methodists are? That many thousands of them are zealous members
of the Church of England; and strongly attached, not only to
his majesty, but to his present ministry? Why should your
lordship, setting religion out of the question, throw away such
a body of respectable friends? Is it for their religious
sentiments? Alas, my lord, is this a time to persecute any man
for conscience sake? I beseech you, my lord, do as you would be
done to. You are a man of sense; you are a man of learning;
nay, I verily believe, (what is of infinitely more value,) you
are a man of piety. Then think, and let think. I pray God to
bless you with the choicest of His blessings.

“I am, my lord, etc.,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[603]

Is it surprising, that the Methodists wished to separate from the Church of England, and that Wesley was led, in fact driven, to take the dissenting steps he did? And yet, to the very last, we find him still adhering to the church of his early choice. Already the Methodists had begun to have service in church hours; but this was far from having his warm approval. Only two days after his consultation with Mr. Clulow, he went to Dorking, where he wrote:

“The congregation was, as usual, large and serious. But there
is no increase in the society. So that we have profited nothing
by having our service in the church hours, which some imagined
would have done wonders. I do not know that it has done more
good anywhere in England; in Scotland I believe it has.”

If possible, Wesley was more popular than ever. He writes:

“November 4--The congregation at the new chapel” [City Road]
“was far larger than usual; and the number of communicants was
so great, that I was obliged _to consecrate thrice_.” “November
9--A friend offering to bear my expenses, I set out to
Nottingham, where I preached a charity sermon for the
infirmary, which was the design of my coming. This is not a
county infirmary, but is open to all England; yea, to all the
world; and everything about it is so neat, so convenient, and
so well ordered, that I have seen none like it in the three
kingdoms.”[604] “November 25--I preached two charity sermons at
West Street, in behalf of our poor children.” “December
16--After preaching at Spitalfields, I hastened to St. John’s,
Clerkenwell, and preached a charity sermon for the Finsbury
dispensary; as I would gladly countenance every institution of
the kind.”

All this was extra work; for Wesley’s chief employment, at the end of every year, was preaching to the London Methodists, and meeting the London classes. Strange to say, the latter was to Wesley an irksome task. Hence he writes:

“1787, November 19--I began the _unpleasing work_ of visiting
the classes. I still continue to do this in London and Bristol,
as well as in Cork and Dublin. With the other societies, their
respective assistants supply my lack of service.”

There were also other things, far from pleasant, requiring his attention. A Laodicean spirit had crept in among the London Methodists, and, in strong terms, he had to warn them of their sin and danger. They were also £300 in debt, and he found it necessary to devise means to make the income equal to the expenditure. His preachers also, and his household, vexed him. He writes:

“1787. Sunday, December 9--I went down at half-hour past five,
but found no preacher in the chapel, though we had three or
four in the house; so I preached myself. Afterwards, inquiring
why none of my family attended the morning preaching, they said
it was because they sat up too late. I resolved to put a stop
to this; and, therefore, ordered, that (1) every one under my
roof should go to bed at nine; that (2) every one might attend
the morning preaching; and so they have done ever since.”

Amid all this labour and annoyance, it is amusing to find this venerable man, in the eighty-fifth year of his age, visiting what then answered to the Madame Tussaud’s exhibition of 1871, and evincing a curiosity and a keenness of observation not often equalled by the visitors of the present time. Hence the following.

“December 10--I was desired to see the celebrated waxwork at
the museum in Spring Gardens. It exhibits most of the crowned
heads in Europe, and shows their characters in their
countenance. Sense and majesty appear in the king of Spain;
dulness and sottishness in the king of France; infernal
subtlety in the late king of Prussia; (as well as in the
skeleton Voltaire;) calmness and humanity in the emperor, and
king of Portugal; exquisite stupidity in the prince of Orange;
and amazing coarseness, with everything that is unamiable, in
czarina.

With the exception of contributing to the _Arminian Magazine_, Wesley’s literary life was ended. He revised former publications, as, for instance, his Notes on the New Testament; and he occasionally published an extract from some other author; but all the _original_ productions of his mind and pen were now published in the magazine. During this present year, he committed to the press a new pocket hymn-book, 24mo, 240 pages; but the work was _compiled_, not _written_, and was intended as a substitute for the volume issued in 1785. He also published “Conjectures concerning the Nature of Future Happiness. Translated from the French of Monsieur Bonnet, of Geneva:” 12mo, 12 pages,--a remarkable tract, little known, but full of thought.[605] The following is Wesley’s address “To the Reader.” “Dublin, April 7, 1787. I am happy in communicating to men of sense in this kingdom, and at a very low price, one of the most sensible tracts I ever read.--JOHN WESLEY.”

The magazine, as usual, contains six original sermons by Wesley, several of them among the most able and interesting that he ever wrote. That on Temptation is marked by great discrimination and beauty. The one on Dress fearlessly denounces what was then, and still is, a fearfully prevailing evil. Having laid down the principles, that “slovenliness is no part of religion”; and that “there may undoubtedly be a moderate difference of apparel, between persons of different stations”; he proceeds to show, that the natural effects of “adorning ourselves with gold, or pearls, or costly array,” are pride, vanity, anger, and lust; and concludes with one of his most withering addresses to the Methodists then living, and which the Methodists of the present day would do well to ponder.

“Have not many of you grown finer as fast as you have grown
richer? As you increased in substance, have you not increased
in dress? Witness the profusion of ribbons, gauze, or linen
about your heads! What have you profited then by bearing the
reproach of Christ? by being called Methodists? Are you not as
fashionably dressed as others of your rank that are no
Methodists? Do you ask, ‘But may we not as well buy fashionable
things as unfashionable?’ I answer, Not if they give you a
bold, immodest look, as those huge hats, bonnets, headdresses
do. And not, if they cost more. ‘But I can _afford_ it.’ Oh,
lay aside for ever that idle nonsensical word! No Christian can
_afford_ to waste any part of the substance which God has
entrusted him with. How can it be, that, after so many
warnings, you persist in the same folly? Is it not hence? There
are among you some that neither profit themselves by all they
hear, nor are willing that others should; and these, if any of
you are almost persuaded to dress as Christians, reason, and
rally, and laugh you out of it. O ye pretty triflers, I entreat
you not to do the devil’s work any longer. Whatever ye do
yourselves, do not harden the hearts of others. And you, that
are of a better mind, avoid these tempters with all possible
care. You answer, universal custom is against me. Not only the
profane, but the religious world, run violently the other way.
Look into, I do not say the theatres, but the churches, nay,
and the meetings of every denomination (except a few old
fashioned quakers, or the people called Moravians); look into
the congregations, in London or elsewhere, of those that are
styled gospel ministers; look into Northampton chapel, yea,
into the Tabernacle, or the chapel in Tottenham Court Road;
nay, look into the chapel in West Street, or that in the City
Road; look at the very people that sit under the pulpit, or by
the side of it,--and are not _those that can afford it_ (I can
hardly refrain from doing them the honour of naming their
names) as richly, as fashionably adorned, as those of the same
rank in other places? This is a melancholy truth. I am ashamed
of it; but I know not how to help it. I call heaven and earth
to witness this day, that it is not my fault. The trumpet has
not _given an uncertain sound_, for near fifty years last past.
O God! Thou knowest I have borne a clear and faithful
testimony. In print, in preaching, in meeting the society, I
have not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God. I am,
therefore, clear of the blood of those that will not hear. It
lies upon their own heads. And, yet, I warn you once more, in
the name, and in the presence of God, that the number of those
that rebel against God is no excuse for their rebellion. He
hath expressly told us, _Thou shalt not follow the multitude to
do evil_. I conjure you, all who have any regard for me, show
me, before I go hence, that I have not laboured, even in this
respect, in vain, for near half a century. Let me see, before I
die, a Methodist congregation full as plainly dressed as a
quaker congregation. Only be more consistent with yourselves.
Let your dress be _cheap_ as well as plain; otherwise, you do
but trifle with God and me, and your own souls. I pray, let
there be no costly silks among you, how grave soever they may
be. Let there be no _quaker linen_, proverbially so called, for
their exquisite fineness; no Brussels lace; no elephantine hats
or bonnets, those scandals of female modesty. Be all of a
piece, dressed, from head to foot, as persons _professing
godliness_; professing to do everything small and great, with
the single view of pleasing God.”

Wesley’s sermon on the Lord’s Supper was written in 1732, and has been already noticed. To the sentiments then avowed, he still adhered.

That on the More Excellent Way is characteristic of himself; and re-enforces his views on early rising, on the manner of transacting business, on food, conversation, amusements, and money. One or two extracts may be given.

“Diversions are of various kinds. Some are almost peculiar to
men, as the sports of the field,--hunting, shooting, fishing.
Others are indifferently used by persons of both sexes,--as
races, masquerades, plays, assemblies, balls, cards, dancing
and music; to which may be added, the reading of plays, novels,
romances, newspapers, and fashionable poetry. Some diversions,
which were formerly in great request, are now fallen into
disrepute. The nobility and gentry, (in England at least,) seem
totally to disregard the once fashionable diversion of hawking;
and the vulgar themselves are no longer diverted by men hacking
and hewing each other in pieces at broad sword. The noble game
of quarter staff, likewise, is now exercised by very few. Yea,
cudgelling has lost its humour, even in Wales itself. Bear
baiting is now very seldom seen, and bull baiting not very
often. And it seems cock fighting would totally cease in
England, were it not for two or three right honourable patrons.
It is not needful to say anything more of these foul ‘remains
of Gothic barbarity,’ than that they are a reproach, not only
to all religion, but even to human nature. One would not pass
so severe a censure on the sports of the field. Let those, who
have nothing better to do, still run foxes and hares out of
breath. Neither need much be said about horse races, till some
man of sense will undertake to defend them. It seems a great
deal more may be said in defence of seeing a serious tragedy. I
could not do it with a clear conscience, at least, not in an
English theatre, the sink of all profaneness and debauchery;
but possibly others can. I cannot say quite so much for balls,
or assemblies; which are more reputable than masquerades, but
must be allowed, by all impartial persons, to have exactly the
same tendency. So undoubtedly have all public dancings. Of
playing at cards, I say the same as seeing of plays. I could
not do it with a clear conscience. But I am not obliged to pass
any sentence on those that are otherwise minded. I leave them
to their own Master; to Him let them stand or fall.

“But supposing these, as well as the reading of plays, novels,
newspapers, and the like, to be quite _innocent diversions_,
yet are there not more excellent ways of diverting themselves,
for those that love or fear God? Would men of fortune divert
themselves in the open air? They may do it, by cultivating and
improving their lands, by planting their grounds, by laying
out, carrying on, and perfecting their gardens and orchards. At
other times, they may visit and converse with the most serious
and sensible of their neighbours; or they may visit the sick,
the poor, the widows, and fatherless in their afflictions. Do
they desire to divert themselves in the house? They may read
useful history, pious and elegant poetry, or several branches
of natural philosophy. If you have time, you may divert
yourselves by music, and perhaps by philosophical experiments.
But, above all, when you have once learned the use of prayer,
you will find, that this will fill every space of life, be
interfused with all your employments, and, wherever you are,
whatever you do, embrace you on every side. Then you will be
able to say boldly:

‘With me no melancholy void,
No moment lingers unemployed,
Or unimproved below;
My weariness of life is gone,
Who live to serve my God alone,
And only Jesus know.’”

On the subject of money, Wesley’s “More Excellent Way,” to the worldly minded, is equally startling, but one which he himself, for fifty years, invariably adopted.

“If you have a family, seriously consider, before God, how much
each member of it wants, in order to have what is needful for
life and godliness. And, in general, do not allow them less,
nor much more than you allow yourself. This being done, fix
your purpose, to gain no more. I charge you, in the name of
God, do not increase your substance! As it comes daily or
yearly, so let it go: otherwise you _lay up treasures upon
earth_; and this our Lord as flatly forbids, as murder and
adultery. By doing it, therefore, you would _treasure up to
yourselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of
the righteous judgment of God_. But suppose it were not
forbidden, how can you, on principles of reason, spend your
money in a way, which God may _possibly forgive_, instead of
spending it in a manner which He will _certainly reward_? You
will have no reward in heaven, for what you _lay up_: you will,
for what you _lay out_. Every pound you put into the earthly
bank is sunk; it brings no interest above. But every pound you
give to the poor is put into the bank of heaven; and it will
bring glorious interest; yea, and such as will be accumulating
to all eternity.”

This was plain speaking; but who will undertake to gainsay it?

The sermon on Christian Courtesy is full of the wisdom of an aged, and widely experienced, saint; while that on Former Times Better than These is equally remarkable, and well worth reading.

The _Arminian Magazine_ for 1787 is enriched, as usual, with letters, poetry, biography, apparition anecdotes, and choice extracts from other writers; but, besides these, there are a few other productions from Wesley’s pen, as his able article “On Allegorical Writings in general, and especially the Parables of our Lord”; and his weighty “Thoughts upon Methodism.” We can only afford space for an extract from the latter. He writes:

“I am not afraid, that the people called Methodists should ever
cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid,
lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of
religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the
case, unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and
discipline with which they first set out.”

After describing the rise of Methodism, he proceeds:

“From this short sketch of Methodism, any man of understanding
may easily discern, that it is only plain, scriptural religion,
guarded by a few prudential regulations. The essence of it is
holiness of heart and life; the circumstantials all point to
this. And as long as they are joined together in the people
called Methodists, no weapon formed against them shall prosper.
But, if even the circumstantial parts are despised, the
essential will soon be lost. And if ever the essential parts
should evaporate, what remains will be dung and dross.

“It nearly concerns us to see how the case stands with us at
present. I fear, wherever riches have increased (exceeding few
are the exceptions) the essence of religion, the mind that was
in Christ, has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I
do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any
revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must
necessarily produce both industry and frugality; and these
cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will
pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.

“How then is it possible that Methodism, that is, the religion
of the heart, though it flourishes now as a green bay tree,
should continue in this state? For the Methodists in every
place grow diligent and frugal; consequently, they increase in
goods. Hence, they proportionably increase in pride, in the
desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of
life. So, although the form of religion remains, the spirit is
swiftly vanishing away.

“Is there no way to prevent this? this continual declension of
pure religion? We ought not to forbid people to be diligent and
frugal; we _must_ exhort all Christians, to gain all they can,
and to save all they can: that is, in effect, to grow rich!
What way then, I ask again, can we take, that our money may not
sink us to the nethermost hell? There is one way, and there is
no other under heaven. If those who _gain all they can_, and
_save all they can_, will likewise _give all they can_, then
the more they gain, the more they will grow in grace, and the
more treasure they will lay up in heaven.”

Wesley knew not how to flatter. However painful to himself or to others, when he deemed it needful, he never tried to conceal his thoughts. The above was not likely to win him the applause of prosperous and rich Methodists; but that to him was a matter of indifference. His great anxiety was to perpetuate _Methodism_,--not merely _Methodists_.

FOOTNOTES:

[564] Percival was one of the itinerant preachers at
Newcastle on Tyne.

[565] _Methodist Magazine_, 1834, p. 674.

[566] Bardsley’s colleagues in Colne circuit.

[567] Manuscript letter in British Museum.

[568] Dr. Harmer had recently published vols. iii. and
iv. of his “Observations on various Passages of
Scripture.”

[569] Black’s Memoirs, p. 185.

[570] Memoirs of Burgess.

[571] Life of Henry Moore, p. 271.

[572] Ibid. p. 272.

[573] Manuscript journal.

[574] In his “Short Hymns on Select Passages of the Holy
Scriptures,” published in 1762, Charles Wesley wrote,
concerning the poor itinerants:

“Raised from the people’s lowest lees,
Guard, Lord, Thy preaching witnesses,
Nor let their pride the honour claim
Of sealing covenants in Thy name:
Rather than suffer them to dare
Usurp the priestly character,
Save from the arrogant offence,
And snatch them uncorrupted hence.”

(Hymn on Numbers xvi. 10.) “Wesley Poetry,” vol. ix.,
p. 79.

[575] Manuscript letter.

[576] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 486. It is only fair
to add that all was not sunshine in America. At
the conference of 1784, the American preachers had
recorded a declaration that, “during the life of
Mr. Wesley they were ready to obey his commands in
matters belonging to church government”; but, in
1787, and thenceforward, this declaration was omitted
from their printed minutes. Why? Because Wesley,
without consulting them, had changed the time and
place of holding their conference, and had appointed
Richard Whatcoat to be co-superintendent with Francis
Asbury.--(Etheridge’s Life of Coke, p. 173.) Dr. Coke
was present, and, in a letter printed four years
afterwards, pronounced this an “excommunication”
of Wesley, and declared that, in his opinion, it
hastened Wesley’s death; for, “from the time he was
informed of it, he began to hang down his head, and
to think he had lived long enough.”--(“Impartial
Statement of the known Inconsistencies of Rev. Dr.
Coke.” By William Hammet: 1792.) We gravely doubt the
correctness of Dr. Coke’s opinion.

[577] _Wesley Banner_, 1850, p. 114.

[578] _Methodist Magazine_, 1846, p. 562.

[579] Ibid.

[580] Ibid. p. 563.

[581] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 286. The Rev.
David Simpson, also, is said to have commenced
Sunday-schools, in Macclesfield, as early as the year
1778.--(_Evangelical Magazine_, 1842, p. 84.)

[582] _Methodist Magazine_, 1805, p. 1.

[583] Manuscript letter.

[584] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 490.

[585] Smith’s History of Methodism.

[586] Drew’s Life of Coke.

[587] Reynolds’s “Anecdotes of Wesley,” p. 25.

[588] Life of Clarke, vol. i., p. 259.

[589] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 80.

[590] Black’s Memoirs, p. 200.

[591] Crowther’s manuscript autobiography.

[592] Ibid.

[593] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 6.

[594] _Wesleyan Times_, Sept. 28, 1868.

[595] Clarkson’s “Abolition of the Slave Trade,” vol. i.,
p. 447.

[596] _Methodist Magazine_, 1827, p. 391.

[597] Entwisle’s Memoir, p. 36.

[598] _Wesleyan Times_, June 19, 1849.

[599] “Wesley the Worthy,” by Dr. Dobbin, p. 91.

[600] Large Minutes, 1770.

[601] Henry Moore says this letter was written in the
autumn of 1790; and that, when the lawyer, at the
head of the persecution, boasted that he would drive
Methodism out of Somersetshire, Wesley quietly
remarked, “Yes, when he can drive God out of
it.”--(Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 383.)

[602] This letter is without date. Henry Moore says it was
written about 1790. (Wesley’s Life, vol. ii., p. 383.)

[603] Atmore’s “History of Persecution,” p. 420.

[604] The infirmary was built in 1781, on land partly
given by the Duke of Newcastle, and partly by the
corporation. During the first thirty years of its
existence, it afforded assistance to 33,926 persons.

[605] Its republication would enrich the pages of the
_Methodist Magazine_ of the present day. One
conjecture is, that, after the resurrection,
“our eyes may unite in themselves the qualities
of microscopes and telescopes, and accommodate
themselves exactly to all distances.”

1788.
Age 85

Wesley had published, in the ten volumes of his _Arminian Magazine_ already issued, forty-two original sermons by himself; and he now ascertained, that a clergyman, in the west of England, intended to reprint them in a separate form. Wesley had been frequently solicited to do this himself; but had as often answered, “I leave this for my executors.” Now, to prevent piracy, he determined to be his own republisher; and issued these invaluable discourses, with a few others, in four volumes, 12mo; to which he prefixed a preface, from which the following characteristic extract is taken.

“Is there need to apologise to sensible persons for the
plainness of my style? A gentleman, whom I much love and
respect, lately informed me, with much tenderness and courtesy,
that men of candour made great allowance for the decay of my
faculties; and did not expect me to write now, either with
regard to sentiment or language, as I did thirty or forty years
ago. Perhaps they are decayed; though I am not conscious of it.
But is not this a fit occasion to explain myself concerning the
style which I use from choice, not necessity? I _could_ even
now write as floridly and rhetorically as even the admired Dr.
B----; but I dare not; because I seek the honour that cometh
from God only. What is the praise of man to _me_, that have one
foot in the grave, and am stepping into the land whence I shall
not return? Therefore, I dare no more write in a _fine style_
than wear a fine coat. But were it otherwise, had I time to
spare, I should still write just as I do. I should purposely
decline, what many admire, a highly ornamental style. I cannot
admire French oratory; I despise it from my heart. Let those
that please be in raptures at the pretty, elegant sentences of
Massillon or Bourdaloue; but give me the plain nervous style of
Dr. South, Dr. Bates, or Mr. John Howe; and, for elegance, show
me any French writer who exceeds Dean Young, or Mr. Seed. Let
who will admire the French frippery, I am still for plain sound
English.

“I think a preacher or writer of sermons has lost his way, when
he imitates any of the French orators; even the most famous of
them; even Massillon or Bourdaloue. Only let his language be
plain, proper, and clear; and it is enough. God Himself has
told us how to speak, both as to the matter and manner: ‘If any
man speak’ in the name of God, ‘let him speak as the oracles of
God’; and if he would imitate any part of these above the rest,
let it be the First Epistle of St. John. This is the style, the
most excellent style, for every gospel preacher. And let him
aim at no more ornament than he finds in that sentence, which
is the sum of the whole gospel, ‘We love Him, because He first
loved us.’”

Wesley’s journal for the first two months of 1788 is lost; but existing letters show, that the time was spent in London. The following have not hitherto been published; and, though brief, refer to two subjects of the highest interest,--Sunday-schools and cottage prayer-meetings. The first was addressed to Duncan Wright, who was now at Bolton; the second to William Simpson, at Stockton upon Tees.

“LONDON, _January 9, 1788_.

“DEAR DUNCAN,--You send me a comfortable account of the work of
God in your circuit. I cannot doubt but a blessing redounds to
you all for the sake of the poor children. I verily think,
these Sunday-schools are one of the noblest specimens of
charity, which have been set on foot in England since the time
of William the Conqueror.

“If Michael Fenwick has a mind to go to Dumfries and assist
Robert Dall, you may give him three guineas, which he must
husband well. He may write to me from thence.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”

“LONDON, _January 18, 1788_.

“DEAR BILLY,--You did exceeding well to enlarge the number of
prayer-meetings, and to fix them in serious courts. I do not
know that any means of grace whatever has been more owned of
God than this.

“It is not now, but at the time of conference, that children
are received into Kingswood school.

“I am glad sister Moor has not forgotten me. I hope sister
Middleton also thinks of me sometimes. You are welcome to the
four volumes of sermons.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Charles Wesley was now dying. Long, loving, and faithful had been the friendship between the two brothers. Their opinions had often differed; but their affection had never failed. Their most serious difference had been on the subject of separation from the Church of England, ordinations, and the administration of the sacraments; but, even on these matters, Charles, while writing strongly, never wrote unbrotherly. His last letter, in our possession, on these disputed topics, is as follows.

“_April 9, 1787._

“DEAR BROTHER,--I served West Street chapel on Friday and
Sunday. Next Saturday, I propose to sleep in your bed. Stand to
your own proposal: ‘Let us agree to differ.’ I leave America
and Scotland to your latest thoughts and recognitions; only
observing now, that you are exactly right. Keep your authority
while you live; and, after your death, _detur digniori_, or
rather, _dignioribus_. You cannot settle the succession: you
cannot divine how God will settle it. Have the people of ----
given you leave to die, E. A. P. J.?[606]

“I am, etc.,
“C. WESLEY.”[607]

It would almost seem from this, that Charles was disposed to abandon his objections to the ordinations for America and Scotland; but, be that as it may, we have here some of his last thoughts respecting the Methodists. He evidently believed that, after his brother’s death, they would exist as a separated people, and he wished them to be governed by those of themselves who were worthiest.

Wesley loved his brother, and on February 18, 1788, addressed to him the following laconic note.

“DEAR BROTHER,--You must go out every day, or die. Do not die
to save charges. You certainly need not want anything as long
as I live.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[608]

Ten days after this, Wesley left London, for his long northern journey, saying: “If I see it again, well; if not, I pray God to raise up others, that will be more faithful and more successful in His work! I find, by an increase of years, (1) Less activity; I walk slower, particularly up hill: (2) My memory is not so quick: (3) I cannot read so well by candlelight. But, I bless God, that all my other powers of body and mind remain just what they were.”

A month later, Wesley’s brother had entered into rest. They had parted, not to meet again till they met in heaven. Wesley, however, thought that his brother might recover. Hence the following, written on March 2.

“DEAR BROTHER,--Many inquire after you, and express much
affection, and desire of seeing you. In good time! You are
first suffering the will of God. Afterwards, He has a little
more for you to do: that is, provided you now take up your
cross, (for that it frequently must be,) and go out, at least,
an hour in a day. I would not blame you, if it were two or
three. Never mind expense. I can make that up. You shall not
die to save charges. Peace be with all your spirits!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[609]

Three days later he wrote again.

“_March 5, 1788._

“DEAR BROTHER,--I hope you keep to your rule, of going out
every day, although it may sometimes be a cross. Keep to this
but one month, and I am persuaded you will be as well as you
were at this time twelve-month. Adieu!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[610]

Here, with one exception, epistolary correspondence between the two brothers ceased. Charles was too feeble to continue it, and his daughter became his substitute. In reply to one of her letters, Wesley wrote as follows.

“BRISTOL, _March 7, 1788_.

“MY DEAR SALLY,--When my appetite was entirely gone, so that
all I could take at dinner was a roasted turnip, it was
restored in a few days, by riding out daily, after taking ten
drops of elixir of vitriol in a glass of water. It is highly
probable, this would have the same effect in my brother’s case.
But, in the mean time, I wish he would see Dr. Whitehead. I am
persuaded there is not such another physician in England;
although, to confound human wisdom, he does not know how to
cure his own wife.

“He must lie in bed as little as possible in the daytime;
otherwise it will hinder his sleeping at night.

“Now, Sally, tell your brothers from me, that their tenderly
respectful behaviour to their father, (even to asking his
pardon, if in anything they have offended him,) will be the
best cordial for him under heaven. I know not but they may save
his life thereby. To know nothing will be wanting, on your
part, gives great satisfaction to, my dear Sally,

“Yours very affectionately,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[611]

To Samuel Bradburn, now stationed in London, Wesley addressed the following hitherto unpublished letter.

“BRISTOL, _March 13, 1788_.

“DEAR SAMMY,--With regard to my brother, I advise you: (1)
Whether he will or no, (at least, if not done already,) carry
Dr. Whitehead to him. (2) If he cannot go out, and yet must
have exercise or die, persuade him to use ---- twice or thrice
a day, and procure one for him. (3) I earnestly advise him to
be electrified; not shocked, but only filled with electric
fire. (4) Inquire if he has made his will, though I think it
scarcely possible he should have delayed it.

“The tunes, which brother Rhodes left with you, should be
immediately printed in the cheap form. Kind love to Sophy.

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

“J. WESLEY.”

Four days later, Wesley wrote his last letter to his brother.

“BRISTOL, _March 17, 1788_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I am just setting out on my northern journey,
but must snatch time to write two or three lines. I stand and
admire the wise and gracious dispensations of Divine
providence! Never was there before so loud a call to all that
are under your roof. If they have not hitherto sufficiently
regarded either you, or the God of their fathers, what is more
calculated to convince them, than to see you so long hovering
upon the borders of the grave? And, I verily believe, if they
receive the admonition, God will raise you up again. I know you
have the sentence of death in yourself: so had I more than
twelve years ago. I know nature is utterly exhausted: but is
not nature subject to His word? I do not depend upon
physicians, but upon Him that raiseth the dead. Only let your
whole family stir themselves up, and be instant in prayer; then
I have only to say to each, ‘If thou canst believe, thou shalt
see the glory of God!’ Be strong in the Lord, and in the power
of His might. Adieu!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[612]

Another letter must be inserted, written three days after the above, to his niece, Miss Wesley.

“WORCESTER, _March 20, 1788_.

“MY DEAR SALLY,--Mr. Whitefield had, for a considerable time,
thrown up all the food he took. I advised him to slit a large
onion across the grain, and bind it warm on the pit of his
stomach. He vomited no more. Pray apply this to my brother’s
stomach, the next time he eats.