Chapter XXVII: Part 27

At this sacramental service, he employed his assistant, William Myles, in giving the cup to the communicants; an act which occasioned huge offence, for William Myles was not ordained. In the week following, a long paragraph appeared in the _Dublin Evening Post_, setting forth, that “the _Church was in danger!_ and calling upon the archbishop to use his authority; for a Mr. William Myles, a layman, had assisted Mr. Wesley in administering the Lord’s supper; the greatest innovation that had been witnessed for the last fifty years!” “This brought on,” says Mr. Myles, “a newspaper controversy, which continued for three months. My name was bandied about to some purpose; but I endeavoured in patience to possess my soul. At the expiration of the three months, the subscribers desired the printer to put no more Methodist nonsense into his paper; and he had the good sense to listen to the requisition of his customers, which happily terminated this exquisitely silly controversy.”[669]

On Wesley’s arrival at Dublin, he had, to use his own expression, “letter upon letter,” concerning the alteration in the Sunday service, which had been introduced by Dr. Coke; and, hence, he addressed the following.

“_To certain Persons in Dublin._

“WHITEFRIAR STREET, DUBLIN, _March 31, 1789_.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,--I much approve of the manner and spirit
wherein you write concerning these tender points. I explained
myself upon them, in some measure, on Sunday: I will do it more
fully now.

“At present, I have nothing to do with Dr. Coke: but I answer
for myself. I do not separate from the Church, nor have any
intention so to do. Neither do they, that meet on Sunday noon,
separate from the Church, any more than they did before: nay,
less; for they attend the church and sacrament oftener now than
they did two years ago.

“‘But this occasions much strife.’ True; but they make the
strife who do not attend the service. Let them quietly either
come or stay away, and there will be no strife at all.

“‘But those that attend say, those that do not are fallen from
grace.’ No, they do not give them a bad word; but they surely
will fall from grace, if they do not let them alone who follow
their own consciences.

“But you ‘fear this will make way for a total separation from
the Church.’ You have no ground for this fear. There can be no
such separation while I live. Leave to God what may come after.

“But, to speak plainly, do not you separate from the Church?
Yea, much more than those you blame? Pray, how often have you
been at church since Christmas? Twelve times in twelve weeks?
And how long have you been so fond of the Church? Are you fond
of it at all? Do not you go oftener to a Dissenting meeting
than either to St. Patrick’s, or your parish church?

“My dear brethren, you and I have but a short time to stay
together. ‘My race of glory is run, and race of shame; and I
shall shortly be with those that rest.’ Therefore, as one that
loves you well, and has loved you long, I advise you, in the
presence and in the fear of God: (1) Either quietly attend the
Sunday service, or quietly refrain from it; then there will be
no strife at all. Now you make the strife of which you
complain. (2) Make not this a pretence for being weary of well
doing. Do not, for so poor a reason, withdraw your subscription
from the school or the preachers. What a miserable revenge
would this be! Never let it be said, that my friend A----
K----, that brother D----, or B----, were capable of this. From
this hour, let this idle strife be buried in eternal oblivion.
Talk not of it any more. If it be possible, think not of it any
more. Rather think, ‘the Judge standeth at the door;’ let us
prepare to meet our God!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[670]

Such was Wesley’s attempt to defend the Dublin Methodist service in church hours; or rather, such was his attack on those who were opposed to it. No doubt his accusations were founded upon facts; but this was hardly an answer to the argument of objectors, that having service in church hours was, _ipso facto_, separation from the Church. He tells us, that one consequence of Dr. Coke’s new arrangement was, that three times more Methodists now went to St. Patrick’s, on the first Sunday in every month, than had done for ten or twenty years before; and that, on the first Sunday of April, when he went himself, many of them went with him; the number of communicants being about five hundred, or, in other words, more communicants, on that single Sunday, than St. Patrick’s used to have the whole year round, before the Methodists were known in Ireland. The arrangement, says Wesley, that the Methodists in Dublin should have service in church hours, “on condition that they would attend St. Patrick’s every first Sunday in the month, was made, not to prepare for, but to prevent, a separation from the Church.” There can be no question, that this was Wesley’s wish; but it may be doubted whether it was Dr. Coke’s intention.

During this Dublin fracas, Wesley sent, at least, one letter to the public papers. The following is an extract.

“_To the Printer of the ‘Dublin Chronicle.’_

“LONDONDERRY, _June 2, 1789_.

“SIR,--As soon as I was gone from Dublin, the _Observer_ came
forth, only with his face covered. Afterwards, he came out,
under another name, and made a silly defence for me, that he
might have the honour of answering it. His words are smoother
than oil, and flow (who can doubt it?) from mere love both to
me and the people.

“But what does this smooth, candid writer endeavour to prove,
with all the softness and good humour imaginable? Only this
point, (to explain it in plain English,) that I am a double
tongued knave, an old crafty hypocrite, who have used religion
merely for a cloak, and have worn a mask for these fifty years,
saying one thing and meaning another. A bold charge this, only
it happens that matter of fact contradicts it from beginning to
end.”

Wesley then proceeds to give an outline of his history from his youth to the time when he took the French churches in West Street, Seven Dials, and in Spitalfields, and he and his brother began to preach in them in church hours; and states that the two archbishops of Canterbury, Potter and Secker, and the two bishops of London, Gibson and Lowth, never blamed them for this, or thought or called it separation from the Church; only, on one occasion, Archbishop Potter said: “These gentlemen are irregular; but they have done good, and I pray God to bless them.” Wesley continues:

“It may be observed that, all this time, if my brother or I
were ill, I desired one of our other preachers, though not
ordained, to preach in either of the chapels, after reading
part of the Church prayers. This both my brother and I judged
would endear the Church prayers to them, whereas, if they were
used wholly to extemporary prayer, they would naturally
contract a kind of contempt, if not aversion, to forms of
prayer; so careful were we, from the beginning, to prevent
their leaving the Church.

“When the Rev. Mr. Edward Smyth came to live in Dublin, he
earnestly advised me to leave the Church; meaning thereby, (as
all sensible men do,) to renounce all connection with it, to
attend the services of it no more, and to advise all our
societies to take the same steps. I judged this to be a matter
of great importance, and would, therefore, do nothing hastily;
but referred it to the body of preachers, then met in
conference. We had several meetings, in which he proposed all
his reasons for it at large. They were severally considered,
and answered, and we all determined not to leave the Church.

“A year ago, Dr. Coke began officiating at our chapel in
Dublin. This was no more than had been done in London for
between forty and fifty years. Some persons immediately began
to cry out, ‘This is leaving the Church, which Mr. Wesley has
continually declared he would never do.’ And I declare so
still. But I appeal to all the world, I appeal to common sense,
I appeal to the _Observer_ himself, could I mean hereby, ‘I
will not have service in church hours’? No; but I denied, and
do deny still, that this is leaving the Church, either in the
sense of Bishop Gibson, or of Mr. Smyth at the Dublin
conference. Yet, by this outcry, many well meaning people were
frighted well-nigh out of their senses.

“‘But see the consequence of having Sunday service here! See
the confusion this occasioned!’ Some time since, while a
popular preacher was preaching at Leeds, one cried out, ‘Fire!
Fire!’ The people took fright, some leaped over the gallery,
and several legs and arms were broken. But upon whom were these
consequences to be charged? Not on the preacher, but on him
that made the outcry. Apply this to the present case. I have
kindled no more fire in Dublin than I did in London. It is the
_Observer_ and a few other mischief makers, who fright the
people out of their senses; and they must answer to God for the
consequence.

“This is my answer to them that trouble me, and will not let my
grey hairs go down to the grave in peace. I am not a man of
duplicity; I am not an old hypocrite, a double tongued knave.
More than forty years, I have frequented Ireland. I have wished
to do some good here. I now tell a plain tale, that ‘the good
that is in me may not be evil spoken of.’ I have no temporal
end to serve. I seek not the honour that cometh of men. It is
not for pleasure, that, at this time of life, I travel three or
four thousand miles a year. It is not for gain.

‘No foot of land do I possess,
No cottage in this wilderness;
A poor wayfaring man,
I lodge awhile in tents below,
Or gladly wander to and fro,
Till I my Canaan gain.’

“JOHN WESLEY.

“P.S. At the desire of a friend, I add a few words in answer to
one or two other objections.

“First. When I said, ‘I believe I am a scriptural bishop,’ I
spoke on Lord King’s supposition, that bishops and presbyters
are essentially one order.

“Secondly. I did desire Mr. Myles to assist me in delivering
the cup. Now, be this right or wrong, how does it prove the
point now in question, that I leave the Church? I ask (2) What
law of the Church forbids this? And (3) What law of the
primitive church? Did not the priest in the primitive church
send both the bread and wine to the sick by whom he pleased,
though not ordained at all?

“Thirdly. The _Observer_ affirms, ‘To say you will not leave
the church, meaning thereby all true believers in England, is
trifling.’ Certainly; but I do not mean so when I say, ‘I will
not leave the Church.’ I mean, unless I see more reason for it
than I ever yet saw, I will not leave the Church of England as
by law established, while the breath of God is in my
nostrils.”[671]

Such was Wesley’s manifesto in 1789; in reality, a defence of a thing he had often condemned,--Methodist service in church hours.

While Wesley was thus attacked in the public press, he met with the greatest respect and attention from several persons of distinguished rank in Dublin and its environs; the Earl of Moira among the number. “They seemed,” says Mr. Myles, “to think it a blessing to have him beneath their roof.”[672] Many of them flocked to hear him, on Good Friday, when he preached, morning and evening, in the elegant chapel of his old clerical dissenting friend, the Rev. Edward Smyth. Neither grand people, however, nor grand chapels, were at all prized by Wesley, except as they furnished opportunities of Christian usefulness. “At both times on Good Friday,” says he, “we had a brilliant congregation, among whom were honourable and right honourable persons; but I felt they were all given into my hands; for God was in the midst. What a mercy it is, what a marvellous condescension in God, to provide such places as Bethesda, and Lady Huntingdon’s chapels, for these delicate hearers, who could not bear sound doctrine if it were not set off with these _pretty trifles_!”

Dublin was not the only place which, at this time, gave Wesley trouble. The Dewsbury circuit was entirely wrested by his traitorous book steward; and now, the same rebellion against giving Wesley, and (after his death) Wesley’s conference, the sole power to appoint preachers, was showing itself at Shields. Hence the following, addressed to the three itinerant preachers stationed in the Newcastle circuit.

“DUBLIN, _April 11, 1789_.

“I _require_ you three, Peter Mill, Joseph Thompson, and John
Stamp, without consulting or regarding any person whatever, to
require a positive answer of Edward Coats, within three weeks
after the receipt of this, ‘Will you, or will you not, settle
the house at Milburn Place, North Shields, on the Methodist
plan?’ If he will not do it within another week, I farther
require that none of you preach in that house, unless you will
renounce all connection with your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.

“I am at a point. I will be trifled with no longer.”[673]

Was this more hasty than wise? John Pawson seemed to think so. The following is taken from one of his unpublished letters, to Charles Atmore, dated “Leeds, May 9, 1789.”

“What a pity it is that Mr. Wesley will pursue these violent
measures! If he goes thus, there will be divisions upon
divisions among us. Mr. Hanby informs me, that, at North and
South Shields, and at Alnwick, they refuse to settle their
houses upon the conference plan; and, at Newcastle, they have
been talking of building a chapel for the Rev. Mr. Collins, and
of inviting some of the best preachers to settle among them,
and make a circuit by themselves. I suppose Mr. Sagar would
tell you, they had strange commotions among them when he was
there.”

But even this was not all. In 1785, Wesley ordained John Pawson and Thomas Hanby for Scotland; where, for two years, they had administered the sacraments, and had preached in gown and bands. In 1787, as already stated, he brought them back to England, commanded them to doff their canonicals, and, being in England, to discontinue their sacramental services. This, to Pawson, was exceedingly annoying; but he hardly had the pluck of Hanby in resisting it. Hanby and Joseph Taylor, (who had also been ordained, and was in the same dubious position,) were now stationed in the Nottingham circuit; and many of the Methodists, aware of their ordination, naturally wished them to administer to them the Christian ordinances; but this Wesley imperiously prohibited. Taylor yielded; Hanby persisted. The following extracts, from two of his unprinted letters, will be read with interest. The first was addressed to James Oddie; the second to Richard Rodda.

“GRANTHAM, _May 21, 1789_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I have been in deep waters on account
of my administering the Lord’s supper, which I think it my duty
to do, especially to those who, for conscience sake, cannot go
to church. Mr. Wesley ordered me to desist. I told him, if I
did, I should sin, because I was persuaded it was my duty. Then
he instructed the London clergy and preachers to take me in
hand. I have received their letter, and have replied, that I
must still do as I have done; and that, if Mr. Wesley has given
me up into their hands, they must act according to their own
judgment; for what I was now doing was from a Divine conviction
of my duty. Thus the matter rests. For some time, I have
expected another preacher to take my place; but, as he has not
come, perhaps, they will refer the matter to conference. Mr.
Wesley has ordered Joseph Taylor, (who opposes me all he can,)
to remove the leaders who have promoted the sacraments; if he
does so, I expect there will be a division.

“See, my brother, my situation. I am much afraid of myself,
lest I should defile my conscience by yielding to the
importunity of the preachers. I am of all others the most
improper person to make a stand in defence of Christ’s precious
and most neglected ordinance. However, hitherto, through
infinite mercy, I have been firm and immovable; and our
solemnities are much owned of God; and I have much employment
in the sacred service. I meet with great opposition from the
high church bigots; but yet there are many, who will stand by
me, let the consequence be what it will.

“Let me hear from you soon; and advise your very affectionate
friend and brother,

“THOMAS HANBY.”

“PLUMTREE, _June 4, 1789_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,--O yes! my sin is not to be forgiven unless I
repent, which I cannot do. That is too late, because I cannot
seek it with tears. Mr. Wesley has declared, that he will
exclude the preachers who administer the Lord’s supper in
England. For some time, I have expected to be unshipped; but
whether hands are scarce, or I am to be permitted to finish my
voyage, which will be the last week in July, I cannot tell.

“I came under no such obligations to Mr. Wesley, not to
administer in England. If this prohibition had been laid upon
me, I hope I should have refused his offer of _nothing_. I am
in the fire, but, like the salamander, I live there. I am up to
the chin in deep waters; but not drowned. Mr. Mather sent me a
threatening bull; Mr. Wesley a second; and, to complete the
work, the clergy in London, Mr. Rankin and Mr. Moore, joined
their artillery. The last in command is my colleague, Joseph
Taylor, who opposes me with the utmost warmth. You will readily
conclude, ‘Poor Hanby will be overpowered by numbers.’ True;
but I still keep the field, for all that, and mean to die
there. I am single handed, for my brethren, who promised to
support me, have deserted to the strongest party, not an
unusual case. I grant, that those who are called to preach have
an equal right to administer; but do not talk of ‘depreciating
ordination.’ Mr. Wesley did that, seven years ago, when he
published in the newspapers those who had presumed to be
ordained by the Greek bishop. I expect, he will depreciate me,
though he himself ordained me, and commanded me to administer
the ordinances in the church of God.

“When the great opposition against the sacraments was formed,
Mr. Taylor had administered once; and I had promised to do so
in two other places; and when my engagements were fulfilled, I
proposed to desist from proceeding further, (as he had done,)
for I saw there was no withstanding so formidable a body.
However, I was brought into deep distress of mind, by the
earnest request of the people, who had not communicated for
years, and who would not communicate with drinking, whoring,
swearing, and fighting parsons. The Lord let me see that His
ordinance was become obsolete, and that it was an unreasonable
stretch of power, in any human creature, to say, ‘If you will
not communicate with these wicked men, you shall not
communicate at all.’ This appeared to me as an abrogation of
Christ’s commanded ordinance, for which no one, either man or
angel, had authority. I saw it was my duty to stand forth in
defence of this ordinance, and to suffer for it; for suffer I
am sure to do. Mr. Wesley, for many years, has treated me
contemptuously, putting me beneath the weakest and most
suspicious characters, (viz. Briscoe and Fenwick,) and,
therefore, I expect no favour in that quarter.

“I begin to look out for some poor cottage, to which I may
retire, and wait the opening of Providence. ‘_Vox populi vox
Dei_,’ is my motto; and, whatever others may say or think of
me, I have no other motive but the principle of Divine love. I
can promise my sect neither riches nor honour, by my opposition
to the conference; but quite the reverse. To be expelled the
connexion, after thirty-five years of uninterrupted labour, is,
to me, a very painful thought; but I see I must suffer it; and
shall only take away with me this motto, ‘Driven from Methodism
for defending the injured, and nearly abrogated and obsolete,
ordinance of Christ.’ Farewell, Mr. Wesley! Farewell, Mr.
Rodda! Farewell, conference!

“I have written Mr. Wesley my reasons for acting in opposition
to his will, and my reasons why I must still act as I do; but
he has given me no answer. Well, I am nothing. I only want to
be the servant of God; and I see I must be His servant in His
own way. If we may judge of the propriety of our action, by His
sacred presence, I can assure you the tokens of that presence
are wonderfully manifested in our assemblies.

“Many of the people in this circuit intend to apply again for
the ordinance; and, perhaps, their petition will be treated
with the same contempt as their last was at Manchester.

“I am your very affectionate, and much obliged friend and
brother,

“THOMAS HANBY.”

This was a painful state of things; Dewsbury, Shields, Nottingham, and Dublin, in rebellion; and now Thomas Hanby, ordained by Wesley, and one of his best preachers, in danger of expulsion, for doing what he deemed to be his duty. Fortunately, this unbending minister was saved; and became the elected president of the fourth conference that was held after Wesley’s death. On Christmas day, in 1796, he preached thrice in Nottingham, and met four or five classes for the renewal of their quarterly tickets. This was his last labour of love. Four days afterwards, he died, saying: “I am departing; but I have fought a good fight.”[674]

Wesley left Dublin, on his preaching tour through the Irish provinces, on the 13th of April, and returned on the 19th of June. In this nine weeks’ journey he preached about a hundred sermons, in more than sixty different towns and villages, at least a dozen times in the open air, half-a-dozen times in churches, and once in a place which, he says, was “large, but not elegant--a cow house.”

During a part of the time, he was seriously unwell, being attacked with a complaint which was new to him, diabetes. He wrote to London for the advice of Dr. Whitehead, and, though the disease abated under the doctor’s treatment, he suffered from it, more or less, to the time of his decease.[675]

“I was delighted,” says Mr. Alexander Knox, “to find his cheerfulness in no respect abated. It was too obvious that his bodily frame was sinking; but his spirit was as alert as ever; and he was little less the life of the company he happened to be in, than he had been three-and-twenty years before, when I first knew him. Such unclouded sunshine of the breast, in the deepest winter of age, and on the felt verge of eternity, bespoke a mind whose recollections were as unsullied as its present sensations were serene.”

In illustration of Mr. Knox’s testimony, an anecdote may be added. At this time, Mr. (afterwards the Rev.) Joseph Burgess was quartermaster of a regiment of soldiers in Sligo barracks, and had the honour of entertaining Wesley as his guest. A large party of friends were assembled to meet the venerable visitor at dinner; and, while the meal was in progress, he suddenly laid down his knife and fork, clasped his hands, and lifted up his eyes, as in the attitude of praise and prayer. In an instant, feasting was suspended, and all the guests were silent. Wesley then gave out, and sang with great animation,

“And can we forget,
In tasting our meat,
The angelical food which ere long we shall eat;
When enrolled with the blest,
In glory we rest,
And for ever sit down at the heavenly feast?”

The happy old man, so near to the gates of heaven, then quietly resumed his knife and fork; and all felt that this beautiful spontaneous episode, in the midst of an Irish dinner, had done them good.[676]

Wesley spent three weeks more in Dublin and its vicinity. He visited the classes, which contained above a thousand members, after he had excluded about a hundred. He also held his Irish conference, at which, of the sixty preachers then employed in the sister island, between forty and fifty were present. He writes:

“I found such a body of men as I hardly believed could have
been found together in Ireland; men of so sound experience, so
deep piety, and so strong understanding. I am convinced, they
are no way inferior to the English conference, except it be in
number. I never saw such a number of preachers before, so
unanimous in all points, particularly as to leaving the Church,
which none of them had the least thought of. It is no wonder,
that there has been this year so large an increase of the
society.”

On the conference Sunday, Wesley and his preachers, and a large number of the Dublin Methodists, attended the service in St. Patrick’s. “The dean,” says he, “preached a serious, useful sermon; and we had such a company of communicants as, I suppose, had scarce been seen there together, for above a hundred years.”

On his birthday he wrote:

“June 28.--This day I enter on my eighty-sixth year.[677] I now
find, I grow old: (1) My sight is decayed; so that I cannot
read a small print, unless in a strong light. (2) My strength
is decayed; so that I walk much slower than I did some years
since. (3) My memory of names, whether of persons or places, is
decayed; till I stop a little to recollect them. What I should
be afraid of, is, if I took thought for the morrow, that my
body should weigh down my mind; and create either stubbornness,
by the decrease of my understanding, or peevishness, by the
increase of bodily infirmities: but Thou shalt answer for me, O
Lord my God.”

At length, on July 12, Wesley bid adieu to the shores of Ireland, for ever. It was a touching scene. Multitudes followed him to the ship. Before he went on board, he read a hymn; and the crowd, as far as emotion would let them, joined the sainted patriarch in singing. He then dropped upon his knees, and asked God to bless them, their families, the Church, and Ireland. Shaking of hands followed; many wept most profusely; and not a few fell on the old man’s neck and kissed him. He stepped on deck; the vessel moved; and then, with his hands still lifted up in prayer, the winds of heaven wafted him from an island which he dearly loved; and the warm hearted Irish Methodists “saw his face no more.”[678]

Before proceeding with Wesley’s history, another selection from his letters may be welcome. The first was addressed to a man who deserves a passing notice.

Walter Churchey was an enthusiastic Welshman; a lawyer with a large family and a slender purse; a good, earnest, conceited old Methodist, who, unfortunately for his wife and children, had more delight in writing poetry than he had employment in preparing briefs. He was one of Wesley’s correspondents as early as 1771;[679] exchanged letters with Wesley’s brother Charles; was an acquaintance of the saintly Fletcher; and an intimate friend of Joseph Benson and Dr. Coke. He claimed the honour, which belonged to others, of having first suggested to Wesley the publishing of his _Arminian Magazine_;[680] and, in a manuscript letter before us, states that he it was who originated the scheme for reducing what he calls “the national debt” of Methodism in the year 1800. He was a good man, though perhaps flighty, very diligent but very poor, a warm admirer of Methodist doctrine, but withal a millenarian, who wrote, in the letter just mentioned: “I have lost my friend, Wesley; but I shall see him again, perhaps _soon_, even upon _earth_, where the _sufferers_ for Christ are to rise to reign in His spiritual kingdom on earth a thousand years. I grow daily a greater _Brotherite_.”[681]

In 1786, Churchey wished to enrich the world with his poetical productions; and, among others, consulted Wesley and the poet Cowper. The latter, in reply, remarked: “I find your versification smooth, your language correct and forcible, and especially in your translation of the Art of Printing. But you ask me, would I advise you to publish? I would advise every man to publish, whose subjects are well chosen, whose sentiments are just, and who can afford to be a loser, if that should happen, by his publication.”[682]

Thus encouraged, the sanguine Welshman set to work; Wesley helped him in obtaining subscribers; the poems were published; the reviewers were revilers; and poor Churchey was poorer than ever.

The following letters, among others, were addressed to this worthy, but needy man. The first and second have not before been published.

“LONDON, _February 11, 1789_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--On Monday, March 2, I hope to be in Bath or
Bristol, and then we may talk about the number of copies. I
have been much more concerned than you, for these sixty years,
in printing books, both with and without subscription; and I
still think, with all our skill and industry, we shall be hard
set to procure three hundred subscribers. Perhaps three hundred
may _promise_; but we must never imagine that _all_ who promise
will perform. But of this we may talk more, when we meet at
Bristol.

“I suppose every one that loves King George loves Mr. Pitt.
Peace be with all your spirits!

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

“CLONES, _May 25, 1789_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--I am afraid of delay. I doubt, I shall not
be able to be as good as our word, although, in the last
proposals, I have protracted the time of delivery till the 1st
of August. As you are not a stripling, I wonder you have not
yet learnt the difference between _promise_ and _performance_.
I allow, at least, five-and-twenty per cent; and, from this
conviction, I say to each of my subscribers (what, indeed,
_you_ cannot say so decently to _yours_), ‘Sir, down with your
money.’

“I know Dr. Ogilvie well. He is a lovely man and an excellent
poet. I commend you for inoculating the children. I believe the
hand of God is in our present work: therefore, it must prosper.
Indeed, I love sister Churchey, and am your affectionate friend
and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

The following, besides referring to Churchey’s poems, is possessed of interest as containing an allusion to the prayer-book published in 1788; and also Wesley’s final testimony concerning the great philanthropist, John Howard, who died seven months afterwards.

“DUBLIN, _June 20, 1789_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Michael ---- is an original. He tells lies
innumerable, many of them plausible enough. But many talk full
as plausibly as he; and they that can believe him, may.

“I do not doubt, but some part of your verse, as well as prose,
will reach the hearts of some of the rich.

“Dr. Coke made two or three little alterations in the
prayer-book without my knowledge. I took particular care
throughout, to alter nothing merely for altering’s sake. In
religion, I am for as few innovations as possible; I love the
old wine best. And if it were only on this account, I prefer
‘_which_’ before ‘_who_ art in heaven.’

“Mr. Howard is really an extraordinary man. God has raised him
up to be a blessing to many nations. I do not doubt, but there
has been something more than natural in his preservation
hitherto, and should not wonder if the providence of God should
hereafter be still more conspicuous in his favour.

“About three weeks hence, I expect to embark for England. Peace
be with you and yours!

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[683]

While in Ireland, Wesley was troubled with the affairs of Scotland. Two years before this, John Pawson, eager to exercise his newly acquired episcopal or presbyterian power,--whichever the reader has a mind to call it,--began, in Glasgow, a species of Methodism, which was not Wesley’s, but his own. He ordained seven elders, who were to meet weekly, and to have the supervision of the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Glasgow Methodists. In a book, Pawson wrote the rules, which were to regulate their conduct. Among others, one regulation was, that no person should be admitted into the society, or be expelled from it, but by a majority of these ordained elders; for, though the itinerant preacher might preside at their meetings, he was not allowed to vote. No doubt, honest but simple Pawson expected good and great results. The elders, however, like Pawson, had no notion of being invested with ecclesiastical office without using it; and, hence, all sorts of paltry cases were got up, apparently for the purpose of enabling the newly fledged elders to show their skill in settling them. One must suffice, as a specimen. Thomas Tassey, the most vigilant and active of the official seven, alleged that Peggy ---- had become a lodger with Peggy ----, and had committed theft; and that, as the time for the administration of the sacrament was approaching, the charge against Peggy ---- ought to be judicially examined. Accordingly, a sessions was appointed. The elders, the accuser, the accused, and the witnesses were present. Beside these, there were also the two circuit preachers, Jonathan Crowther and Joseph Cownley, whom Crowther justly designates “two poor ciphers,” seeing, though they might preside, they had no power to vote. The charge was, that when Peggy ---- went to lodge with Peggy ----, the latter Peggy bought half an ounce of tea, and a farthing’s worth of oil; that these household provisions did not last so long as usual; and that the probability was, that the property of Peggy ---- had, to some extent, been feloniously appropriated by her lodger, Peggy ----. The affair was so serious, and withal so solemnly conducted, that it became needful to adjourn. At the second sessions, Crowther (who, though not allowed to vote, had a right to examine witnesses), asked the Peggy whose property was in question, how often she had made herself tea out of the half ounce, part of which had been stolen. Peggy dolorously answered, “Only seven times.” She was then examined respecting her farthing’s worth of oil; and it was ascertained, that, though it had not lasted as long as usual, she had been using a _new_ feather in applying it; and it was thought that the _new_ feather might have absorbed the quantity which Peggy, the lodger, was accused of stealing.

So the matter ended. Jonathan Crowther was disgusted, and told Pawson’s ordained elders, that their discipline resembled the wisdom of Solomon, for it took cognisance of everything, from the hyssop on the wall to the cedars of mount Lebanon. The system had been instituted by Pawson, one of Wesley’s confidential friends, and a preacher of seventeen years’ standing. Crowther was young and inexperienced, only in the fifth year of his itinerant life; but he was gifted with common sense, and saw that, if this ordained machinery was continued, Methodism must be ruined. Wesley had been in Scotland twelve months before; but, strangely enough, appears to have been kept in ignorance of the new court at Glasgow. At all events, Jonathan Crowther now wrote to him; and received the following decisive answer.

“CORK, _May 10, 1789_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--‘Sessions’! ‘elders’! We Methodists have no
such custom, neither any of the churches of God that are under
our care. I require _you_, Jonathan Crowther, immediately to
dissolve that session (so called) at Glasgow. Discharge them
from meeting any more. And if they will leave the society, let
them leave it. We acknowledge only preachers, stewards, and
leaders among us, over which the assistant in each circuit
presides. You ought to have kept to the Methodist plan from the
beginning. Who had my authority to vary from it? If the people
of Glasgow, or any other place, are weary of us, we will leave
them to themselves. But we are willing to be still their
servants, for Christ’s sake, according to our own discipline,
but no other.

“JOHN WESLEY.”[684]

Before accompanying Wesley on his way back to England, we insert another letter, which is abridged in Wesley’s collected works. Adam Clarke was in the isle of Jersey; but Wesley wished him to remove to Dublin, on account of the disturbed state of the society in that city. His old friend, the Rev. Edward Smyth, was now one of his bitter enemies. Hence the following.

“NEAR DUBLIN, _June 25, 1789_.

“DEAR ADAM,--You send me good news with regard to the islands.
Who can hurt us, if God is on our side? Trials may come, but
they are all good. I have not been so tried for many years.
Every week and almost every day, I am bespattered in the public
papers, either by Mr. Smyth, or by Mr. Mann, his curate.
Smooth, but bitter as wormwood, are their words; and five or
six of our richest members have left the society, because (they
say) ‘I have left the Church.’ Many are in tears on account of
it; and many are terribly frightened, and crying out, ‘Oh! what
will the end be?’ What will it be? Why, ‘Glory to God in the
highest, peace on earth, and goodwill among men.’

“But, meantime, what is to be done? What will be the most
effectual means to stem this furious torrent? I have just
visited the classes, and find still in the society upwards of a
thousand members; and, among these, many as deep Christians as
any I have met with in Europe. But who is able to watch over
them, that they may not be moved from their steadfastness? I
know none more proper than Adam Clarke and his wife. Indeed, it
may seem hard for them to go into a strange land again. Well,
you may come to me at Leeds, at the latter end of next month;
and if you can show me any that are more proper, I will send
them in your stead.[685] That God may be glorified, is all that
is desired by, dear Adam,

“Your affectionate friend and brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[686]

It has been already stated, that Wesley embarked for England on July 12. William Myles was with him, and says: “We had a pleasant passage; Mr. Wesley preached, and we sang hymns most of the way.”[687] The passage lasted about six-and-thirty hours.

After holding services at Chester and Northwich, Wesley made his way to Manchester, where he and Coke administered the sacrament to about twelve hundred communicants. At Dewsbury, where John Atlay had taken both the Methodists and their chapel, Wesley preached out of doors, in a drenching rain. He then proceeded to Leeds for the purpose of holding his annual conference; and, on the day before it began its sessions, preached from what would be a good conference text at the present time: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.”

As usual, Wesley, besides conducting the business of the conference, preached every day during its sittings; and his texts throughout were equally well timed, namely: “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it.” “We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.” “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” “Well, Master, Thou hast said the truth; for there is one God; and there is none other but He.” “I have a message from God unto thee.” “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.”[688] Here was a word in season for every one. Rare was the treat to attend a conference like this. On the conference Sunday, Wesley seems to have devolved the preaching upon others; but the day was not an idle one. He writes: “with the assistance of three other clergymen, I administered the sacrament to fifteen or sixteen hundred persons.” When and where are such sacramental services held at present?

What may be called the _conference sermon_ was preached by a local preacher, perhaps the only instance of the kind in Methodism’s history. James Hamilton, M.D., was the preacher; his text, “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these.” His sermon was printed, and was sold “at the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s preaching houses in town and country,” with the following title: “A Sermon preached at Leeds, July 29, 1789, before the Methodist Preachers, assembled in Conference, and a large body of the people in connection with them; and now published at the request of many of the Hearers.”

This also was a sermon for the times, and evidently had Wesley’s approbation. Its gist may be gathered from a few brief extracts.

After dwelling on the functions of the priests and scribes of the Jewish church, the preacher said:

“But as all external religion is of no use, any farther than as
it advances the spiritual kingdom of Christ in the soul; and as
the Jews too often lost sight of this, resting in their types
and ceremonies, God called a race of men, named prophets, who
had nothing to do with the priesthood; men full of the Holy
Ghost; and sent them to declare that all external religion is
nothing worth, when it fails to produce purity of heart. The
prophets were, (with two or three exceptions,) what we call
laymen,--taken from the common occupations in Judæa, chiefly
farmers and shepherds,--holy men, men of strong faith, their
hearts overflowing with zeal for the honour of God,--men of
invincible courage, practising the strictest temperance, and
clothed in the plainest manner.”

Dr. Hamilton then proceeded to argue, that Methodist preachers bore some analogy to these special messengers of God in ancient times; and after an affectionate allusion to the two Wesleys, and to Whitefield, continued:

“And here mark the Divine wisdom. Although their brother
priests in the Church thrust them from them, and although their
names were cast out as evil above the names of all men, they
ever retained a strong and affectionate attachment to the men
who had thus abused them, and to the Church of which they were
members; and this has been, in the overruling hand of God, the
great means of carrying on that glorious spiritual work which
we now behold. Had it not been for this attachment, the
Methodists would have, long ere this, become a distinct body,
separate from the Church and all others; and, I fear, in
consequence thereof, would have sunk into the dead formality of
the numerous sects, with which the world is harassed and
divided.”

Then proceeding to address the assembled conference, the preacher added:

“Will ye bear with me, ye spiritual messengers of the Lord,
while I presume to say a few words to _you_? See with what a
holy calling ye are called; for what a glorious and important
end God has raised you up! Even to set spiritual religion
before the eyes of all men; to cry to men of all opinions,
sects, and parties, ‘Trust not unto lying words, saying, The
temple of the Lord are these’; to bring them, from resting in
external duties, to the possession of internal holiness; from
an opinion in the head, to the love of God in the heart. Let
then the dead bury their dead! Let the formalist and the
pharisee, the church bigot and the sectary, contend for ways of
thinking, gestures in worship, and modes of church government;
but may ye never forget, that ye are sent for a nobler end;
that your commission is the same as Paul’s, not to baptize, but
to preach the gospel. Although I am neither a prophet, nor the
son of a prophet; yet forgive me when I express my fears, that,
if ever the Methodists leave their several churches; if ever ye
set up as a separate people by external distinctions and
creeds; if ye substitute a silken gown and sash for rough
garments and a leathern girdle, and call one another, Rabbi!
Rabbi! then the glory will depart from you, and God will raise
up another people. He will call other lay preachers, no matter
by what name; and He will send them to call _you_ from opinions
and forms, and to sound in _your_ ears, ‘Trust not unto lying
words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,
the temple of the Lord are these.’”

Hamilton’s sermon, to say the least, was ingenious; and referring as it does to the great topic of the day, separation from the Church, these extracts will not be regarded as out of place.

Wesley says, there were about a hundred preachers present at the conference; Atmore says, about a hundred and thirty;[689] be that as it may, one hundred and fifteen of them signed a declaration, that they entirely approved of Methodist chapels being settled on the conference plan; and, among these, were several who, soon after, distinguished themselves as Methodist reformers, namely, William Thom, Henry Taylor, and Alexander Kilham.

The principal subjects discussed are thus referred to in Wesley’s journal.

“July 28--The case of separation from the Church was largely
considered, and we were all unanimous against it. August 1--We
considered the case of Dewsbury house, which the self elected
trustees have robbed us of. The point they contended for was
this,--that they should have a right of rejecting any preachers
they disapproved of. But this, we say, would destroy
itinerancy. So they chose John Atlay for a preacher, who
adopted William Eels for his curate. Nothing remained but to
build another preaching house, towards which we subscribed £206
on the spot.”

Besides these, some other points were decided; namely, that the preachers should read the rules of the society in every society once a quarter; that no person should be admitted to lovefeasts without a society ticket, or a note from the assistant; that every watchnight should be continued till midnight; that the collections at lovefeasts should be most conscientiously given to the poor; that preachers should not go out to supper, and should be home before nine at night; that preachers’ children should dress exactly according to the band rules; that only one preacher should come in future to the conference from Scotland, except those that were to be admitted into full connexion; and that no books should be published without Wesley’s sanction, and that those approved by him should be printed at his press in London, and be sold by his book steward.

We give these legislative enactments as we find them. The last bore hardly on strong minded writers, like Thomas Taylor and Joseph Benson.

The day after the conference concluded, Wesley set out for London, and thence, for the last time, to Cornwall. His first day’s journey was seventy miles, and his second eighty, and to this amount of labour was added preaching. One day in London was devoted to business; on the next, which was Sunday, the patriarchal preacher delivered two sermons in the chapel in City Road, set out at seven o’clock, p.m., travelled all night, and reached Bristol about noon on Monday. Without delay, he hurried on to Plymouth, preaching at Taunton, Collumpton, and Exeter. At Plymouth there had been, what he calls, a “senseless quarrel”; but he administered the sacrament to six hundred people, and preached to an enormous congregation out of doors.

Arriving at St. Austell, he says: “I knew not where to preach, the street being so dirty, and the preaching house so small. At length, we determined to squeeze as many as we could into the preaching house; and truly God was there.” At Truro, the street, leading to the chapel, being blocked up with starving tinners demanding an increase to their wages, and a troop of soldiers who were keeping peace, Wesley was obliged to preach “under the coinage hall.” Forty years had elapsed since he was last at Falmouth, and then he was “taken prisoner by an immense mob, gaping and roaring like lions; now high and low lined the street, from one end of the town to the other, out of stark love and kindness”; and he preached to the largest congregation he had ever seen in Cornwall, except in or near Redruth. The same sort of scenes awaited him at Helstone, St. Just, Newlyn, and Penzance. In Gwennap pit his congregation was calculated at five-and-twenty thousand. This remarkable spot was first used by Wesley, as a place for preaching, in 1762, on account of the wind being so boisterous as to prevent him occupying his usual stand in the town itself. “At a small distance,” says he, “was a hollow capable of containing many thousand people. I stood on one side of this amphitheatre, toward the top, with the people beneath, and on all sides.” Many since then had been the marvellous scenes he had witnessed in this “the finest natural amphitheatre in the kingdom.” There can be little doubt, that the estimated numbers were sometimes greater than the real; but still, it was here, on this Cornish common, that Wesley had the largest congregations to whom he ever preached. The place is now one of the “sights” of Cornwall. Here an annual service has been held ever since Wesley’s death; and now, on every Whitmonday, thousands wend their way, in every style of conveyance, from the donkey cart of the poor peasant to the dashing carriage of the wealthy squire, and assembling within the area and around the banks of this consecrated hollow, join in one vast act of worship, offered to the God of heaven. Here we have Methodism’s yearly pilgrimage, made by hosts of Cornish Methodists, not to honour man, but to commemorate the mercies of their fathers’ God, and to ask His help and blessing on behalf of themselves and their posterity.

Eleven days were spent in Cornwall, during which Wesley preached, at least, seventeen times, nine of which were in the open air. “There is,” says he, “a fair prospect in Cornwall, from Launceston to the Land’s End.”

On his way back, we find him preaching at Tavistock, Plymouth, Exeter, Tiverton, Halberton, Taunton, Castle Carey, Ditcheat, and Shepton Mallet, eleven sermons, in seven days, besides the travelling from Cornwall to Bristol. No wonder that the venerable traveller sometimes started at three o’clock in the morning!

Bristol was the centre of Wesley’s labours from September 5 to October 5. On one of the Sundays, he preached twice in his own chapel, and once in Temple church; but writes: “It was full as much as I could do. I doubt I must not hereafter attempt to preach more than twice a day.”

On October 5, he started from Bristol at four o’clock in the morning, for London. Arriving in town, he wrote:

“I am now as well, by the good providence of God, as I am
likely to be while I live. My sight is so decayed, that I
cannot well read by candlelight; but I can write as well as
ever; and my strength is much lessened, so that I cannot easily
preach above twice a day. But, I bless God, my memory is not
much decayed; and my understanding is as clear as it has been
these fifty years.”

Having spent five days in London, he set out for Norfolk. The remainder of the year was employed, as usual, partly in London, and partly in his long accustomed preaching tours to the surrounding counties. On the last Sunday in the year, he occupied the pulpit of St. Luke’s, his parish church. “The tables are turned,” says he; “I have now more invitations to preach in churches than I can accept of.”

One of his London retreats was, what he calls, “the lovely family at Balham.” This was, doubtless, the family of George Wolff, Esq., one of his executors,--a merchant, and also consul general to the court of Denmark,--a gentleman of unassuming manners, deeply pious, and one of the most liberal of the metropolitan Methodists,--for many years the confidential friend of Wesley, and who died at Balham, in 1828, at the age of ninety-two.[690]

Before concluding the year, we insert a further selection from Wesley’s letters.

The first was to his nephew, Samuel Wesley, the musical genius, now twenty-three years of age, and is strikingly characteristic of the venerable writer.

“NEAR BRISTOL, _September 16, 1789_.