Chapter XXVI: Part 26

“2. The service of the Lord’s day, the length of which has
often been complained of, is considerably shortened.

“3. Some sentences, in the offices of baptism, and for the
burial of the dead, are omitted. And,

“4. Many psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as
being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian
congregation.”

Throughout his book, Wesley uses the word “minister,” instead of the objectionable word “priest.” The half popish canticle in the morning prayer, “Benedicite, omnia opera,” is left out. In the communion service, the word “elder” is used instead of “priest”; and, in the public baptism of infants, Wesley dispenses with signing the child with the sign of the cross, and leaves out the sentence, in the thanksgiving, that “it hath pleased God to regenerate this infant with His Holy Spirit.” The “order of confirmation” is omitted, and no reference is made to godfathers and godmothers. The “order for the visitation of the sick” is totally expunged, and of course the popish absolution, “by His (Christ’s) authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” In lieu of the three forms for ordaining deacons, priests, and bishops, Wesley gives three for “ordaining _superintendents_, _elders_, and _deacons_.” Wesley takes equal liberty with the articles of religion. Some are entirely omitted; others are abridged, or variously altered.

We find no fault with all this. Upon the whole, we regard Wesley’s expurgations as emendations.[645] His prayer-book is purged from popish and Calvinian errors; and, in that respect, is superior to the prayer-book of the Church of England. This, however, is not the point in question; but rather, whether, after Wesley had done all this, he could be fairly and honestly considered a member and minister of the Established Church. The Rev. G. Nott, in his Bampton lecture, delivered eleven years after Wesley’s death, elaborately argued this matter, and returned a negative reply; and, we confess, it seems impossible to refute his general conclusion, namely, that both “Wesley and Whitefield are to be regarded as separatists from the Church of England.”[646] To the day of his death, Wesley protested against this; but his warmest friends must admit that, though both were undeniably sincere, yet, in this respect, profession and practice were at variance.

Three years before this, he had ordained Joseph Taylor, who, ever since, had preached in gown and bands, and administered the sacraments in Scotland. Joseph was now appointed to Nottingham circuit; and, of course, as an ordained minister, dreamed that he was the same in England as he had been in Scotland. But not so. Wesley, who, three years before, had _frocked_ his itinerant for the people across the Tweed, now _unfrocked_ him for the people bordering on the Trent. Hence the following.

“LONDON, _November 16, 1788_.

“DEAR JOSEPH,--I take knowledge of your spirit, and believe it
is your desire to do all things right. Our friends in Newark
should not have forgotten, that we have determined over and
over ‘not to leave the Church.’ Before they had given you that
foolish advice, they should have consulted me. I desire you
would not wear the surplice, nor administer the Lord’s supper,
any more.

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

“JOHN WESLEY.”[647]

Such was the frequent clashing between practice and profession. The prayer-book, above mentioned, had been put into the hands of the Methodists; and yet, because of its alterations and abridgments, it was of no use in services conducted in the Church of England. For what then was it intended? The following extract, from the minutes of conference in 1788, supplies an answer.

“_Q. 21._ What further directions may be given concerning the
prayers of the Church of England?

“_A._ The assistants shall have a discretionary power to read
the Prayer-Book in the preaching houses on Sunday mornings,
where they think it expedient, if the generality of the society
acquiesce with it; on condition that Divine service never be
performed in the church hours on the Sundays when the sacrament
is administered in the parish church where the preaching house
is situated; and that the people be strenuously exhorted to
attend the sacrament in the parish church on those Sundays.”

This may be vaguely worded; but there can be no mistake about its meaning. By Wesley’s authority, and that of his conference, assistants everywhere were permitted to do what Dr. Coke had authorised to be done in Dublin, namely, that, on certain conditions, there should be Divine service in Methodist chapels in the same hours as Divine service was performed in the parish churches adjoining them. If this was not separation, what was it?

There were two other points discussed at the conference of 1788, of great importance. Many of the preachers were shamefully left without adequate support, and were actually obliged, either to starve from hunger, or to go from house to house to obtain their meals. Wesley was annoyed, perhaps indignant; and, to remedy this glaring evil, the assistants were directed to enforce, that every member, who could afford it, should contribute, in the classmeetings, a penny per week, and a shilling per quarter, at the quarterly visitation, for the maintenance of the preachers appointed to watch over them. And, in addition, Wesley issued the following address.

“_To our Societies in England and Ireland._

“FIFTY years ago, and for several years following, all our
preachers were single men, when, in process of time, a few of
them married. Those with whom they laboured maintained both
them and their wives, there being then no settled allowance
either for the one or the other. But above thirty years ago, it
was found most convenient to fix a stated allowance for
both,[648] and this was found by the circuits where they were
stationed; till one year some of the circuits complained of
poverty. Dr. Coke and I supplied what was wanting. The next
year, the number of wives increasing, three or four of them
were supplied out of the contingent fund. This was a bad
precedent, for more and more wives were thrown upon this fund,
till it was likely to be swallowed up thereby.[649] We could
think of no way to prevent this, but to consider the state of
our societies in England and Ireland, and to beg the members of
each circuit to give us that assistance which they can easily
do without hurting their families.

“Within these fifty years, the substance of the Methodists is
increased in proportion to their numbers. Therefore, if you are
not straitened in your own bowels, this will be no grievance,
but you will cheerfully give food and raiment to those who give
up all their time, and strength, and labour to your service.

“LONDON, _August 2, 1788_.

“JOHN WESLEY.”

No wonder that, in his later years, Wesley so often wrote and spoke of the corrupting influence of the riches of rich Methodists!

The other affair, which demanded the attention of Wesley’s conference, in 1788, was equally unpleasant. Six years before, as we have already seen, the trustees, at Birstal, claimed the power of appointing preachers to their chapel. This was followed by the deed of declaration in 1784. At the very time this deed was being signed, the same subject was revived at Dewsbury, a town contiguous to Birstal.

Here it had been proposed to build a new chapel. Mr. Valton, the assistant, refused to move in the matter, unless it was agreed that the chapel should be settled according to the conference plan. Mr. Heald and some others wished to obtain from Wesley certain concessions, and wrote to John Atlay, the book steward, to secure them. Atlay replied as follows.

“LONDON, _February 23, 1784_.

“MY DEAR SIR,--I have, this morning, been with Mr. Wesley, and
have laid your letter before him.[650] He is not only willing,
but _desires_, it be inserted in your deed, that, if ever the
conference, or the preacher appointed by conference, refuse or
neglect to provide a preacher for your chapel for three or four
Sundays, then the trustees shall have it in their own power to
call one whom they please, and the power of nomination shall be
theirs in future.

“If any preacher, appointed to serve your chapel, should be
proved guilty of immorality, the trustees shall have a power to
reject him; and, if the conference does not send another to
fill up his place, you shall have a power to call one to do it.

“JOHN ATLAY.”

On the receipt of this letter, Valton solicited subscriptions, and preached at the laying of the foundation stone.[651]

Five days after the date of the above letter, the deed of declaration was executed; and, among other names omitted, in the constitution of the legal conference, were those of John Atlay and William Eels, the first of whom had been a preacher one-and-twenty years, and the second twelve. This, by no means, increased Atlay’s loyalty. In an unpublished letter, dated September 17, 1785, he writes: “Mr. Hampson is well provided for. I have begun to do a little business for myself as coal merchant; and have reason to think it will do well for me. I have not left the book room, nor do I intend it _at present_. I have my trials; but the disagreeable things I have met with, in our connexion, have really raised my heart to God.”

In another, bearing date, April 18, 1786, he says: “You smile at my commencing coal merchant. There was a time when I could have trusted to my good old friend” (Wesley) “for everything that I wanted, or was likely to want; but late occurrences have given me a check; and, I really think, the thing is right in the sight of the Lord.” He then proceeds to state that he had lately been attending the ministry of Mr. Latrobe, the Moravian minister, and that he increasingly admired him every time he heard him.

These extracts may help to throw some light on Atlay’s subsequent conduct.

Meanwhile, Dewsbury chapel was completed, and a draft of the trust deed was sent, by Parson Greenwood, to Manchester conference, in 1787, for perusal. This was handed officially to Alexander Mather, who strongly objected to its provisions; and complained that the trustees had not inserted a clause, to the effect, “that no preacher should be sent away till he was tried, and found guilty, before his peers, or the neighbouring assistant preachers.” The trustees refused to yield, thus, in reality, making themselves, as Dr. Coke put it, “accusers, jury, judges, and executioners.”[652] Wesley had appointed Parson Greenwood and William Percival to the Dewsbury circuit; but, on October 23, he instructed them to abandon the chapel and to leave the trustees to provide for themselves to their hearts’ content.

Mr. Mather, at the time, was in the Sheffield circuit, and obtained Wesley’s consent to become mediator between the contending parties. Accordingly he went, and proposed to the trustees that they should have power: (1) To mortgage the premises for the debt unpaid. (2) To let the seats at any price they liked. (3) To appoint their own stewards, and dispose of their own income. He further proposed, that no assistant should expel a trustee from the society but by the consent of the majority of his co-trustees. All this was palatable; but what followed was otherwise. Mather, of course, had no objection to a preacher being dismissed for immorality, as was proposed in Atlay’s letter; but he wished to institute a court in which the accused might have a fair and impartial trial; and, hence, requested that a clause might be inserted in the trust deed, providing that three of the nearest assistants should be judges; that, if they found the charges proved, they should join with the trustees in requesting Wesley, or the president of the conference for the time being, to remove the guilty preacher, and to send another in his place; that, if this was not done within a specified time, the trustees should do it themselves; and that, if the conference next ensuing did not send another preacher, then the election of preachers was to remain with the trustees, and the power of conference, to appoint preachers to Dewsbury chapel, to be forfeited for ever. This the trustees stubbornly rejected; and the further consideration of the matter was postponed till February 5, 1788. At this second interview, it was proposed by Mr. Mather, that an appeal should be made to the subscribers to decide whether the clauses he had named should be inserted in the deed; and that their decision should be final. This also was refused; and now, when all further negotiation seemed impossible, Mather, by Wesley’s request, informed the seatholders, “that they were not to pay any more rent till the matter was settled between him and the trustees.”

Thus the affair was left till the conference of 1788; when a committee met on the subject. John Atlay was present, and remarked, that if he were to go down to Dewsbury he would soon settle matters with the trustees. Mather objected to Atlay’s suggestion, and said: “Mr. Atlay, it is reported, that you have promised the trustees, that, if Mr. Wesley withdraws the preachers from Dewsbury, you will yourself go and serve them. I ask you then, before God and these brethren, have you made _any_ such promise, or have you not?” Atlay reluctantly acknowledged, that he had; and, further, that he had also advised the Methodists at Malton not to settle their chapel on the conference plan. Next morning Wesley wrote as follows.

“_To the Trustees of Dewsbury._

“LONDON, _July 30, 1788_.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--The question between us is, ‘By whom shall
the preachers sent, from time to time, to Dewsbury be judged?’
You say, ‘By the trustees.’ I say, ‘By their peers--the
preachers met in conference.’ You say, ‘Give up this, and we
will receive them.’ I say, ‘I cannot, I dare not, give up
this.’ Therefore, if you will not receive them on these terms,
you renounce connection with your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

As the trustees still held out, the conference decided that another deputation, consisting of Mather, Pawson, Thompson, Greenwood, and Percival, should meet at Dewsbury on August 14. The deputies asked, “Have you executed a trust deed?” The trustees answered, “Yes.” “Can we see it?” “No.” “Will you add to it a clause such as Mr. Wesley wishes?” “No.” Such, in substance, were the proceedings of the meeting. The result was, as before stated, the preachers, who had been appointed at Dewsbury, were at once removed; the chapel was abandoned; and the preachers in the Birstal circuit once more commenced Methodism at Dewsbury, by preaching in the open streets.[653]

Five days after the date of the Dewsbury meeting, John Atlay, who, as we have seen, had joined to Wesley’s book stewardship the business of a coal merchant, and had also been toying with the Dewsbury trustees, wrote as follows to Wesley.

“LONDON, _August 19, 1788_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I was in hopes matters at Dewsbury
would have been made up; but, by a letter yesterday, I am
informed that their preachers are removed from them, and their
place declared vacant; in consequence of which, the trustees
have most solemnly called me to come amongst them. They plead
my promise; and I cannot go back from it. With me a promise is
sacred, though it should be ever so much to my hurt; and, as to
temporals, it must hurt me much. But I regard not that, if
there is a prospect that I shall be much more useful there than
I ever have been, or can be, in London. But it gives me more
pain than I can express, when I tell you that, in order to go
there, I must quit the book room. The longest that I can stay
in it will be till the 25th of September; and, by that time,
you will be able to get one for my place. I think the fittest
man in the world for it is Joseph Bradford. If he should be
appointed, he may come directly, and stay with us till we go;
and, by that time, I could teach him more than he can learn in
three months without me; but these things I leave to your
superior judgment.

“I have only now to request a few things of you. Do not be
angry with me for leaving you, after having spent fifteen of
the best years of my life in serving you, with more care, fear,
labour, and pain, than all the years of my life have produced.
Do not blame me for going to a people you have left; they are
the Lord’s redeemed ones, and some of them living members of
His body. Do not disown me, nor forbid my preaching in any of
your places; but give me leave, where and when it is agreeable
to the preachers, to preach in your houses. But if this request
cannot be complied with, then drop me silently; and let me be
of too little consequence to say anything about me from the
pulpit or press. I beg you will write by return of post; and do
not write unkindly to your faithful servant and friend,

“JOHN ATLAY.”[654]

Was this the whine of a mercenary man? or was it the genuine effusion of a loving and honest heart? The reader must answer for himself; remembering, however, that the Dewsbury chapel had been built, not by the money of the trustees, but by the subscriptions of the Methodists; that three years previous to this, Atlay had entertained the thought of ultimately leaving Wesley’s stewardship, and, with an eye to that, had begun the business of selling coals; and, further, that, since then, he had unquestionably encouraged the Dewsbury trustees in their rebellion, by promising to become their preacher, when Wesley withdrew his. What was Wesley’s answer to his double dealing friend?

“PEMBROKE, _August 23, 1788_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--If you are persuaded, that such a promise
(which is the whole and sole cause of the breach at Dewsbury)
is binding, you must follow your persuasion. You will have
blame enough from other persons; my hand shall not be upon you.
If I can do you good, I will; but shall certainly do you no
harm. George Whitfield is the person I choose to succeed you. I
wish you would teach him as much as you can without delay.

“I am, with kind love to sister Atlay, your affectionate
brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Thus did Wesley dispose of his book steward’s mischievous promise; his pert nomination of Joseph Bradford as his successor; and his whimpering prayer that Wesley would not punish him for his naughty tricks.

It is hardly necessary to insert the whole of the correspondence. Suffice it to say, that Wesley requested Atlay, before he left, to employ “one or two proper persons to take an inventory of all the books in the shop and under the chapel,” so that George Whitfield might know what was put into his care. Atlay’s reply to this was the following.

“LONDON, _September 20, 1788_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--We have almost this moment finished
our job of taking the stock; and, as near as we can tell, your
stock is this day worth £13,751 18_s._ 5_d._, according to the
prices fixed in the catalogue. However, you may be sure it is
not less than that. Most of these are saleable things. You will
be sure to find sale for them, if you live; and, if not, they
will be of equal value to those to whom you leave them.

“I am, etc.,

“JOHN ATLAY.”

Atlay went to Dewsbury on September 24, and took possession of the chapel built with the money of Methodists. We have before us a number of Mr. Pawson’s letters, written at this period, and in reference to the Dewsbury unpleasantness. Pawson went, and preached to the discontented Methodists; and spent two days in endeavouring to put them right; but without effect. Mr. Mather was “highly offended” on account of this; and Mr. Atlay wrote to Pawson “a thundering letter.” Under date of September 16, 1788, Pawson says:

“You see the blessedness of striving to make peace. The
assistants of the neighbouring circuits are to preach in the
streets at Dewsbury, in their turns. This is pain and grief to
me. To preach in opposition, Methodists against Methodists, is
painful beyond expression. I believe all might have been
prevented by loving, prudent preachers. We have had a few
unworthy men among us, who have been a great burden to us and
to the people; but we do not lay them aside. Therefore, the
people will oblige us to do it, by making deeds like that at
Dewsbury. Some of our preachers do not live near to God, and do
not endeavour, by reading and prayer, to render themselves
acceptable to the people. But now it seems as though the people
would make them look about them a little.”

From other unpublished letters, we learn that Atlay and Eels[655] had large congregations; that they had taken with them the whole of the Dewsbury society, except a good man and his wife, of the name of Drake; and that one of the trustees soon became a bankrupt, and was said to have squandered a considerable amount of Atlay’s money. Difficulties speedily ensued; hence the following, extracted from a letter dated

“BIRSTAL, _December 18, 1789_.

“... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels cannot supply the places they have
at present. They want another preacher, but cannot get one.
They have tried to get Mr. Holmes, who left us last conference,
but he is engaged to Sheerness, as the society there is
divided. Besides, I understand, they are all for the Church,
and utterly against separation, ordination, etc. The devil can
no longer set the men of the world against us; but he is trying
a much more effectual way, setting the people and preachers one
against another.

“JOHN PAWSON.”[656]

Thus did Mr. Atlay really set up an _imperium in imperio_. He called himself a Methodist; and yet was setting Methodism’s founder at defiance. Not content with taking possession of the Dewsbury circuit, he went to Shields, and there, and in Newcastle, and other places, founded separate societies. At length, he and his friend Eels quarrelled. Hence the following.

“BIRSTAL, _May 17, 1791_.

“... Mr. Atlay and Mr. Eels have differed and parted. Mr. Atlay
is gone to London, and whether he will return to Dewsbury is
quite uncertain. I believe very few desire or expect it. He has
treated Mr. Eels in a very unkind and unbrotherly manner ever
since he came to Dewsbury, and Mr. Eels was determined to bear
it no longer. The trustees had a meeting, and determined that
Mr. Eels should stay; and be, in every respect, equal to Mr.
Atlay. They are greatly displeased with Mr. Atlay’s conduct, as
well as with his doctrines. He has got deep into Mr.
Manners’[657] opinions, and says that he has believed them
these twenty years. Mr. Eels is very friendly, and I believe
most sincerely wishes a reconciliation, and I hope will
endeavour to bring it about.

“JOHN PAWSON.”[658]

William Eels died within two years after this. In the meantime, the Dewsbury trustees began to entertain “shocking opinions” of their friend Atlay; and in September, 1792, sent for Pawson to effect a reunion.[659]

We need not pursue the subject farther. Here we have the rise, the progress, and collapse of the Atlayite rebellion. We could give a number of Atlay’s letters, showing that, in 1789, he coquetted with Alexander McNab, and tried to secure the co-operation of James Oddie. But the traitorous book steward has already occupied more space than his worth deserves. We only add, that, to all his other faults, he added that of circulating the most infamous reports reflecting on Wesley’s moral character;[660] which extorted from Wesley the following characteristic “Word to whom it may Concern,” inserted in his _Magazine_ for 1790, just after the appearance of Atlay’s pamphlet on the subject.

“IN August, 1788, Mr. Atlay wrote me word, ‘I must look out for
another servant, for he would go to Dewsbury on September 25.’
So far was I from ‘bidding him go,’ that I knew nothing of it
till that hour. But I then told him, ‘Go and serve them’:
seeing I found he would serve me no longer.

“He sent me word that I had in London £13,751 18_s._ 5_d._,
stock in books. Desiring to know exactly, I employed two
booksellers to take an account of my stock. The account they
brought in, October 31, 1788, was:

‘Value of stock, errors excepted, £4827 10_s._ 3½_d._

‘John Parsons,
Thomas Scollick.’

“Why did John Atlay so wonderfully overrate my stock? Certainly
to do me honour in the eyes of the world.

“I never approved of his going to Dewsbury; but I submitted to
what I could not help.

“With respect to Dewsbury House, there never was any dispute
about the _property of preaching houses_, that was an artful
misrepresentation; but merely the _appointing of preachers_ in
them.

“If John Atlay has a mind to throw any more dirt upon me, I do
not know I shall take any pains to wipe it off. I have but a
few days to live; and I wish to spend those in peace.

“LONDON, _Feb. 25, 1790_. “JOHN WESLEY.”

These are long, perhaps tedious, statements; but they are not without interest, as helping to illustrate the life and character of Wesley. His career was a long continued scene of trouble. Mobs assailed him first; then parsons and pamphleteers; then his friends, the Calvinists; and, last of all, his vexations were chiefly those occasioned by some of his own faithless followers.

Not to return to Dewsbury, it may be added here, that, at the conference of 1789, the preachers subscribed £206 towards the erection of a new chapel; and Wesley issued two circulars, stating the case to the Methodists in general, and asking their assistance. After mentioning that the former chapel had been built by the contributions of the people, (the trustees themselves not giving a quarter of what it cost,) he continues:

“Observe, here is no dispute about the right of houses at all.
I have no right to any preaching house in England. What I claim
is, a right of stationing the preachers. This these trustees
have robbed me of in the present instance. Therefore, only one
of these two ways can be taken; either to sue for this house,
or to build another: we prefer the latter, being the most
friendly way.

“I beg, therefore, my brethren, for the love of God; for the
love of me, your old and well-nigh worn out servant; for the
love of ancient Methodism, which, if itinerancy is interrupted,
will speedily come to nothing; for the love of justice, mercy,
and truth, which are all so grievously violated by the
detention of this house; that you will set your shoulders to
the necessary work. Be not straitened in your own bowels. We
have never had such a cause before. Let not then unkind,
unjust, fraudulent men, have cause to rejoice in their bad
labour. This is a common cause. Exert yourselves to the utmost.
I have subscribed £50. So has Dr. Coke. The preachers have done
all they could. O let them that have much give plenteously!
Perhaps, this is the last labour of love I may have occasion to
recommend to you; let it then stand as one more monument of
your real gratitude to, my dear brethren, your old,
affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[661]

We now return to the conference of 1788. These were not the only things to try Wesley’s patience. An effort was made to set aside the itinerant plan in Scotland,--a plan to which, as already shown, Wesley attached the utmost importance. This evoked the following letter to Lady Maxwell.

“LONDON, _August 8, 1788_.

“MY DEAR LADY,--It is certain, many persons, both in Scotland
and England, would be well pleased to have the same preachers
always. But we cannot forsake the plan of acting, which we have
followed from the beginning. For fifty years, God has been
pleased to bless the itinerant plan; the last year most of all;
it must not be altered, till I am removed; and, I hope, it will
remain till our Lord comes to reign upon earth.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[662]

To the same effect was another, written three months later, and addressed to Jasper Winscomb.

“LONDON, _November 8, 1788_.

“DEAR JASPER,--William Cashman advised you like a heathen. Mr.
Valton _deserves_ pay, as well as you do. But he does not want
it, and, therefore, scorns to take it, knowing the poverty of
the land.

“I am glad to hear so good an account of the Isle of Wight. The
work of God will flourish, there, if it be steadily pursued.

“No preacher ought to stay either at Portsmouth, or Sarum, or
any other place, a whole week together. That is not the
Methodist plan at all. It is a novel abuse.

“I am, dear Jasper, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[663]

On the 10th of August, Wesley set out for Wales and the west of England; generally preaching twice a day, and on the Sundays thrice, and everywhere to crowded congregations.

On the 28th of September, he returned to London, and, two days after, went off to Norfolk. The remainder of the year was employed, as usual, in the metropolis and the surrounding counties.

These were not pleasure trips; but made in wintry weather, in frost and snow; the veteran of eighty-five preaching almost daily, both night and morning, and attending to a thousand things which demanded his attention.[664] He writes.

“December 10, and the following days, I corrected my brother’s
posthumous poems; being short psalms, and hymns on the four
gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. They make five volumes
in quarto, containing eighteen or nineteen hundred pages. Many
of them are little, if any, inferior to his former poems,
having the same justness and strength of thought, with the same
beauty of expression; yea, the same keenness of wit on proper
occasions, as bright and piercing as ever. Some are bad; some
mean; some most excellently good. They give the true sense of
Scripture, always in good English, generally in good verse;
many of them are equal to most, if not to any, he ever wrote;
but some still savour of that poisonous mysticism, with which
we were both not a little tainted before we went to America.
This gave a gloomy cast, first to his mind, and then to many of
his verses; this made him frequently describe religion as a
melancholy thing; this so often sounded in his ears, ‘To the
desert!’ and strongly persuaded in favour of solitude.”

What had Wesley to say respecting himself? He writes.

“About this time” [December 15] “I was reflecting on the gentle
steps whereby age steals upon us. Take only one instance. Four
years ago, my sight was as good as it was at five-and-twenty. I
then began to observe, that I did not see things quite so clear
with my left eye as with my right; all objects appeared a
little browner to that eye. I began next to find a little
difficulty in reading a small print by candlelight. A year
after, I found it in reading such a print by daylight. In the
winter of 1786, I could not well read our four shilling
hymn-book, unless with a large candle; the next year, I could
not read letters, if wrote with a small or bad hand. Last
winter, a pearl appeared on my left eye, the sight of which
grew exceeding dim. The right eye seems unaltered; only I am a
great deal nearer sighted than ever I was. Thus are ‘those that
look out at the windows darkened’; one of the marks of old age.
But, I bless God, ‘the grasshopper is’ not ‘a burden.’ I am
still capable of travelling, and my memory is much the same as
it ever was; and so, I think, is my understanding.”

Thus did Wesley take stock of himself.

On Christmas day, he preached at four o’clock in the morning, in City Road, again at eleven, and in West Street in the evening. On the last Sunday in the year, he had an exceedingly large congregation in Allhallows church, Lombard Street; and, concerning this, there is an anecdote worth relating. The sermon was for the benefit of forty-eight poor children belonging to St. Ethelburga society. “Sir,” said Wesley to his attendant while putting on his gown, “it is above fifty years since I first preached in this church; I remember it from a particular circumstance. I came without a sermon; and, going up the pulpit stairs, I hesitated, and returned into the vestry, under much mental confusion and agitation. A woman, who stood by, noticed my concern, and said, ‘Pray, sir, what is the matter?’ I replied, ‘I have not brought a sermon with me.’ Putting her hand on my shoulder, she said, ‘Is that all? Cannot you trust God for a sermon?’ This question had such an effect upon me, that I ascended the pulpit, preached extempore, with great freedom to myself, and acceptance to the people; and have never since taken a written sermon into the pulpit.”[665] “A word spoken in due season, how good is it!”

Wesley’s publications, in 1788, have all been noticed, except his _Magazine_; and, concerning this, it is not needful to say much. There are, as usual, six new sermons from the venerable editor’s own pen: namely, On Reproving Sin; The Signs of the Times; Man; The Ministry of Wicked Ministers; Conscience; and Faith.

Wesley concludes the first of these thus:

“I have now only a few words to add unto you, my brethren, who
are vulgarly called Methodists. I never heard or read of any
considerable revival of religion, which was not attended with a
spirit of reproving. I believe, it cannot be otherwise; for
what is faith unless it worketh by love? Thus it was in every
part of England, when the present revival of religion began
about fifty years ago. All the subjects of that revival,--all
the Methodists, in every place, were reprovers of outward sin.
And, indeed, so are all that, being justified by faith, have
peace with God through Jesus Christ. Such they are at first;
and if they use that precious gift, it will never be taken
away. Come, brethren! In the name of God, let us begin again!
Rich or poor, let us all arise as one man! And, in any wise,
let every man rebuke his neighbour, and not suffer sin upon
him!”

Wesley’s sermon, on attending the ministry of unconverted ministers, would never have been written, had he not been pressed by the objections of Methodists, and yet determined to prevent their leaving the Established Church. Its arguments are specious, not sound. It might puzzle the simple minded Methodists; but it would not convince them they were wrong. It was a feeble attempt to get converted people to sit under an unconverted ministry. We conclude with one extract.

“It has been loudly affirmed, that most of those persons now in
connection with _me_, who believe it their duty to call sinners
to repentance, having been taken immediately from low trades,
tailors, shoemakers, and the like, are a set of poor, stupid,
illiterate men, that scarce know their right hand from their
left; yet, I cannot but say, that I would sooner cut off my
right hand, than suffer one of them to speak a word in any of
our chapels, if I had not reasonable proof, that he had more
knowledge in the holy Scriptures, more knowledge of himself,
more knowledge of God and of the things of God, than nine in
ten of the clergymen I have conversed with, either at the
universities, or elsewhere. Undoubtedly, there are many
clergymen in these kingdoms, that are not only free from
outward sin, but men of eminent learning, and, what is
infinitely more, deeply acquainted with God. But, still, I am
constrained to confess, that the far greater part of those
ministers I have conversed with, for above half a century, have
not been holy men,--not devoted to God,--not deeply acquainted
either with God or themselves.”

Such was Wesley’s reluctant confession; and yet, to prevent what he called a separation from the Established Church, he elaborately persuades the Methodists, that they ought to receive the sacraments from these men; instead of requiring them at the hands of the converted artisans, who had preached so successfully, and who, according to Wesley’s own confession, were, even in point of _scriptural knowledge_, the superiors of the unconverted gentlemen, trained in colleges, and made priests or deacons--not by Christ,--but by bishops!

FOOTNOTES:

[606] Four letters, standing for _Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ
Presbyter Johannes_: “John, presbyter of the Church
of England.” Wesley, in early life, sometimes used
this signature in writing to his brother.

[607] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 359.

[608] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 437.

[609] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 438.

[610] Ibid. p. 438.

[611] Ibid. p. 439.

[612] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 440.

[613] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 441.

[614] “The Allens of Shiney Row,” p. 59.

[615] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 442.

[616] _Methodist Recorder_, Dec. 5, 1861.

[617] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 445.

[618] _Methodist Magazine_, 1788, p. 543.

[619] Manuscript letter.

[620] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 449.

[621] Ibid.

[622] Mrs. Fletcher’s Life, p. 251.

[623] Manuscript letter.

[624] J. Pawson’s manuscript letter.

[625] _Methodist Magazine_, 1845, p. 111.

[626] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 553.

[627] Memoir of Mrs. Knaggs.

[628] _Methodist Magazine_, 1836, p. 492.

[629] Memoirs of Spence, p. 26.

[630] Ibid.

[631] It ought to have been _eighty-sixth_.

[632] Black’s Memoirs, p. 219.

[633] Bulmer’s Memoir, p. 4.

[634] Smith’s “Methodism in Ireland.”

[635] Ibid.

[636] Manuscript letters in Mission House.

[637] Ibid.

[638] Ibid.

[639] A proposal to ordain him. See _Methodist Magazine_,
1845, p. 112.

[640] Manuscript letters in Mission House.

[641] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 298.

[642] James Wray was a member of Wesley’s legalised
conference. After travelling six years in English
circuits, he now went, as an ordained missionary
superintendent to Nova Scotia. It is a curious fact
that the Nova Scotians objected to him, not only on
the ground of his want of learning, but because he
was _an Englishman_! On hearing of this, Wesley, in
an unpublished letter, wrote: “O American gratitude!
Lord, I appeal to Thee!”

[643] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiv., p. 343.

[644] Cowper had recently published “The Task,” and was
now employed in his translation of Homer. In another
letter, Wesley says: “I think Mr. Cowper has done as
much as is possible to be done with his lamentable
story. I can only wish he had a better subject.”

[645] Except in the case of the psalms, where about thirty
are discarded, and about sixty mutilated. The
propriety of this may be fairly doubted.

[646] See Nott’s Bampton Lecture, 1802.

[647] _The Wesleyan_, Nov. 4, 1846.

[648] As a curious specimen of the way in which things were
managed in the early days of Methodism, the following
extracts are given from “The Dales” circuit book,
whose accounts extend from 1765 to 1791.

_s._ _d._
“1765. Dec. 7. Thomas Rankin. Two meals, and
horse one night 1 0
1766. March 29. John Ellis. Six meals, and
horse three nights, shirt washed, and
pennyworth of paper 2 10
” Sept. 28. Jeremiah Robertshaw. Twelve
meals, and horse four nights, and
shirt washing 5 3”

The reader can calculate how many meals a day were
allowed to these godly men, and how much per meal.
Besides these allowances for _board_, each preacher
was entitled to receive, as _quarterage_, for himself
£3; and, for his wife, if he had one, £2 10_s._

[649] The contingent fund, raised by the yearly collection
in the classes, was originally intended to defray
law expenses, and to pay, or reduce, chapel debts.
In this year, 1788, the income of the fund was £1203
7_s._ 1_d._, out of which was paid for law expenses,
£37 4_s._ 2_d._; for chapels, £106 15_s._ 0_d._;
and for the deficiencies of the preachers and their
families, £433 18_s._ 1_d._ It was high time for
Wesley to take action; though his effort to correct
the evil was without effect.

[650] In a 12mo pamphlet, published in 1788, and entitled,
“A Reply to what the Rev. Dr. Coke is pleased to
call ‘The State of the Dewsbury House,’ being a
Vindication of the Conduct of the Trustees of that
House,”--it is stated, that the questions proposed
to Wesley by Mr. Heald were: (1) “If the conference
should neglect to supply the house with preachers,
would it be understood to remain the property of the
conference, or would the trustees have a power to
provide for themselves? (2) If any preacher, sent
them, should be found guilty of immorality, would
the trustees have a power of rejecting him?” It
further states, that the trustees had, in Wesley’s
own handwriting, a paragraph to the effect that
“the _assistants and leaders_ were to be the proper
judges” of a preacher charged with immorality.
This certainly clashes with Wesley’s letter, given
hereafter, and dated July 30, 1788.

[651] “The State of Dewsbury House.” By Dr. Coke.

[652] By the kindness of Mr. Robinson, of Dewsbury, we have
before us a copy of the original trust deed, from
which we learn that, if, after a vacancy, Wesley or
the conference refused or neglected, for the space
of forty days, to appoint a preacher; or if the
preacher appointed should “not conduct or conform
himself to the satisfaction of the trustees or, the
major part of them, it should be lawful for the said
trustees, or such major part, not only to displace
such preacher, (after giving him one month’s previous
notice thereof in writing,) but also to appoint such
other preacher as they should deem more proper, and
better qualified to benefit the society.” The deed is
dated January 31, 1788, and the names and occupations
of the trustees are as follows.

John Heald, maltster.
John Robinson, weaver.
Joseph Gill, clothier.
John Beaumont, cordwainer.
John Lancaster, currier.
John Howgate, sen., clothier.
John Howgate, jun., clothier.
Bartholmew Archer, clothier.
William Walker, clothier.
John Thorns, clothier.
Isaac Wilman, clothier.
Abraham Thomas, clothier.
Timothy Parker, clothier.
John Hirst, clothier.
Joseph Bennett, farmer.
Thomas Bromley, clothier.
Benjamin Whitaker, farmer.

[653] Mather’s “State of Dewsbury House.”

[654] “Letters by Rev. J. Wesley and Mr. John Atlay.” 1790.

[655] By some strange oversight, William Eels, at
the conference of 1788, was left without an
appointment; and, at the time of Atlay’s arrival
there, was actually at Dewsbury, endeavouring to
make peace. Hearing of this, and mistaking Eels’
motive, Mr. Mather impetuously took steps to
prevent his preaching in other Methodist pulpits.
“This was the only cause of his uniting with John
Atlay.”--(Pawson’s manuscripts.)

[656] Unpublished letter.

[657] Nicholas Manners was one of Wesley’s itinerant
preachers from 1759 to 1784. He was an able man. His
heresy, in substance, was, that, in consequence of
the work and death of Christ, all men are born in the
same state as that in which Adam stood previous to
his fall.

[658] Unpublished letter.

[659] Pawson’s manuscript letters.

[660] We have, in manuscript, his most malignant slander,
but prefer withholding it. No wonder John Atlay
wrote, in a letter to Mr. Merryweather, of Yarm, in
1785, “You know I never mount high in profession of
grace.”

[661] _Methodist Magazine_, 1790, p. 103.

[662] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 328.

[663] _Methodist Magazine_, 1859, p. 247.

[664] Among other places, he preached at Sevenoaks, and
is said to have used these words: “When a sinner is
awakened, the baptists begin to trouble him about
outward forms, and modes of worship, and that of
baptism. They had better cut his throat,” etc.
Whether the exact words were used we have no means
of knowing; but a warm controversy sprung out of the
affair. Mr. William Kingsford issued “A Vindication
of the Baptists from the Criminality of a Charge
exhibited against them by the Rev. Mr. Wesley.”
This was answered by T. C., supposed by Kingsford
to be the Rev. Mr. Coleman. (Query Thomas Coke?)
And this was replied to by Kingsford in a shilling
pamphlet, bearing the title, “Three Letters to the
Rev. Mr. Wesley, containing remarks on a Piece lately
published, with his approbation, and Three Challenges
to all the Methodists in the Kingdom.” The whole
thing was “much ado about nothing.”

[665] _Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 105.

1789.
Age 86

Wesley wrote:

“January 1, 1789--If this is to be the last year of my life,
according to some of those prophecies, I hope it will be the
best. I am not careful about it, but heartily receive the
advice of the angel in Milton,--

‘How well is thine; how long, permit to Heaven.’

“January 5--I once more sat for my picture. Mr. Romney is a
painter indeed. He struck off an exact likeness at once; and
did more in an hour than Sir Joshua did in ten.[666]

“January 9--I left no money to anyone in my will, because I had
none. But now, considering that, whenever I am removed, money
will soon arise by sale of books, I added a few legacies by a
codicil, to be paid as soon as may be. But I would fain do a
little good while I live; for who can tell what will come after
him?”

“January 11--I again warned the congregation, as strongly as I
could, against conformity to the world. But who will take the
warning? If hardly one in ten, yet is my record with the Most
High.”

“January 20--I retired in order to finish my year’s accounts.
If possible, I must be a better economist; for, instead of
having anything beforehand, I am now considerably in debt; but
this I do not like. I would fain settle even my accounts before
I die.”

It was at this period that the following unpublished letter was written. Duncan McAllum had been ordained by Wesley in 1787, and the reader will observe that, instead of addressing him as he addressed his preachers in general, he gives him the title of “reverend.”

“LONDON, _January 20, 1789_.

“DEAR DUNCAN,--By all means choose trustees without delay; and
let them be such as belong to the circuit; only such as you can
depend upon, both for judgment and honesty. I think it is by
prayer that you must alter the purpose of the Earl of
Findlater. I am not at all surprised at the behaviour of John
Atlay. In a year or two, he will find whether he has changed
for the better. He was the first occasion of the division at
Dewsbury, by sending word to the trustees, that, if the
conference would not supply them with preachers, he would come
himself, and settle among them.

“I am, with love to sister McAllum, your affectionate friend
and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.

“To the Rev. Mr. McAllum, Inverness.”

Four days later, he wrote as follows to Freeborn Garretson, in America.

“LONDON, _January 24, 1789_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--It signifies but little where we are, so we
are but fully employed for our good Master. Whether you went,
therefore, to the east, it is all one, so you were labouring to
promote His work. You are following the order of His
providence, wherever it appeared, as a holy man expressed it,
in a kind of holy disordered order. But there is one
expression, that occurs twice or thrice in yours, which gives
me some concern: you speak of finding freedom to do this or
that. This is a word much liable to be abused. If I have plain
Scripture, or plain reason, for doing a thing,--well. These are
my rules, and my only rules. I regard not whether I had freedom
or no. This is an unscriptural expression, and a very
fallacious rule. I wish to be in every point, great and small,
a scriptural, rational Christian.

“I am, your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[667]

At the end of January, Wesley went to open new chapels at Rye and Winchelsea. Returning to London, the month of February was spent in preaching, in writing, in meeting classes and the local preachers, and in ordaining Henry Moore and Thomas Rankin, the last of his preachers upon whom he laid his hands.[668]

The following anecdotes, related in the Life of Moore, belong to the present year, and are strikingly characteristic of Wesley and his friends.

One of the leading men, in the London circuit, (though not a member,) had been in the habit of receiving the sacrament from the hands of Wesley and his brother clergymen, but had fallen into sin. Henry Moore waited upon him for an explanation of his conduct, and, not being satisfied, told him he should be obliged to refuse him a note of admission to the Lord’s supper. The gentleman was annoyed, and went to one of Wesley’s clergy, whom he persuaded to apply to Wesley on his behalf. Entering the vestry while Wesley was writing the note, Moore with his honest sternness accosted him: “Sir, do you mean to give a note of admission to Mr. ----?” “Yes, Henry,” replied Wesley, “I have reason to believe the report of his conduct is a mistake.” “I have fully examined it,” answered Moore, “and I find it no mistake; and, if you give him a note, I shall not take the sacrament myself.” Wesley, in reply, observed, “I would take the sacrament if the devil himself were there.” “So would I,” said Moore, “but not if you gave him a note of admission.” The Irishman came off with flying colours; for Wesley put the note into the fire, and left the erring one to think and to repent.

Mrs. Hall was Wesley’s only surviving sister, and was an inmate of his house, but not a Methodist. One day, the two called on Henry Moore. “Brother,” said Mrs. Hall, “I should like to attend the religious meetings of your people. Have I your leave?” “O yes,” said he, “you may go to them.” “Then,” rejoined this friend of the great Dr. Johnson, “having your permission, I shall not ask that of any one else.” “Yes, you must;” replied her brother, remembering that Moore was circuit assistant, “when I am not here, you must ask leave of Henry Moore.”

In these days, it was customary for the itinerant and local preachers to take breakfast together, on Sunday mornings, at City Road. On one occasion, when Wesley was present, a young man rose and found fault with one of his seniors. The Scotch blood of Thomas Rankin was roused, and he sharply rebuked the juvenile for his impertinence; but, in turn, was as sharply rebuked himself. Wesley instantly replied: “I will thank the youngest man among you to tell me of any fault you see in me; in doing so, I shall consider him as my best friend.” This was quite enough to silence Rankin.

“Henry Moore,” said Wesley, “you are a witness that what John Atlay said, when he left us, is untrue. He said, ‘Mr. Wesley could never bear a man who contradicted him.’ Now no man in England has contradicted me as much as you have done; and yet, Henry, I love you still. You are right.”

Hundreds of such anecdotes might be given: these must serve as specimens.

On Sunday, the 1st of March, after preaching to two crowded congregations, in City Road, Wesley and three of his preachers took coach for Bath; and “spent,” says he, “a comfortable night, partly in sound sleep, and partly in singing praise to God.” Such, after a hard day, at seven o’clock in a winter’s night, was the start of an old man of eighty-six, on a five months’ preaching tour!

At Bath and Bristol, he spent a fortnight, in preaching and meeting classes, and then set out for Ireland. On the way, he preached at Stroud, Gloucester, and Tewkesbury. At Birmingham, he opened a new chapel, and remarks: “Saturday, March 21--I had a day of rest, only preaching morning and evening.” The passage from Holyhead, instead of occupying four hours, as at present, occupied thirty-six, and, during it, the venerable voyager was a serious sufferer. “I do not remember,” he writes, “that I was ever so sick at sea before; but this was little to the cramp which held most of the night with little intermission.” He arrived at Dublin quay at eight on Sunday morning, and, notwithstanding the illness from which he had suffered, went direct to Dublin chapel, and “preached on the sickness and recovery of King Hezekiah and King George,” and afterwards administered the sacrament to about five hundred people.