Chapter VI: Part 6

In a subsequent number, “Simplex” reappears, and tells his readers that he is “sorry to see the name of a Christian minister prefixed to such foul and futile productions as those of Mr. Sellon. Mr. Fletcher’s pen is more cleanly, but every whit as unfair. He is like a madman flinging abroad firebrands, arrows, and death, amongst those who differ from him. Master Thomas Olivers has shocked common decency in his letter to Mr. Toplady. And Mr. Wesley must be more explicit than he has been accustomed to be, before he can give a satisfactory answer to Simplex’s querulous epistle.” These are moderate specimens of the tone and language of the _Gospel Magazine_.

Another brace of antagonists must be mentioned, Richard and Rowland Hill, the sons of Sir Rowland Hill, the former born in 1732, and the latter in 1745. Richard had been educated at Westminster, and had spent four or five years at Magdalen college, Oxford. Rowland had been sent to Eton, and then to Cambridge university. Both the brothers had turned preachers, though, as yet, neither of them had been ordained. They were young, proud, and irascible; and, with greater zeal than prudence, entered into the Calvinian conflict.

Richard Hill published[148] a sixpenny pamphlet, 8vo, of 31 pages, entitled “A Conversation between Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr. Madan, and Father Walsh, superior of a convent of English Benedictine monks at Paris, held at the said convent, July 13, 1771, relative to some doctrinal Minutes, advanced by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley and others, at a conference in London, August 7, 1770. To which are added some Remarks by the Editor; as also Mr. Wesley’s own Declaration concerning his Minutes, versified by another Hand.” A prodigiously long title of a supremely silly tract, whose object is to show that Wesley’s doctrine was a great deal worse than popery; in fact, that “popery is about midway between protestantism and Mr. J. Wesley.” We content ourselves with Sir Richard’s poetical version of Wesley’s declaration:

“Whereas, the religion and fate of three nations
Depend on the importance of our conversations;
And as some objections are thrown in our way,
Our words have been construed to mean what they say;
Be’t known from henceforth, to each friend and each brother,
Whene’er we _say_ one thing, we _mean_ quite _another_.”

Sir Richard was not content with this. He issued a penny 12mo tract of 12 pages, with the title, “An Answer to some capital Errors contained in the Minutes,” etc., which finishes by reproducing the doggerel calumny just given, as though it were far too precious to be entombed in the more costly pamphlet with which he had enriched the Christian church.

His third publication,--by far the best,--was an octavo pamphlet of 40 pages, entitled, “Five Letters to the Reverend Mr. Fletcher, relative to his Vindication of the Minutes of the Reverend Mr. John Wesley.” Apart from its theology, of which we say nothing, this was worthy of a scholar, a Christian, and a gentleman. The spirit of the piece is most loving, and the style unexceptionable.

The publications, on the other side, in addition to those of Fletcher, were three in number.

First, Wesley’s tract of 12 pages, entitled, “The Consequence Proved”; without either the author’s or the printer’s name. Its object is to substantiate his former assertion, that the gist of Toplady’s Zanchius is to teach that “one in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected, and nineteen in twenty are reprobate: that the elect shall be saved, do what they will; and the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.” Wesley says: “I have not leisure to consider the matter at large. I can only make a few strictures, and leave the young man (Toplady) to be farther corrected by one that is full his match, Mr. Thomas Olivers.”[149]

To be handed over to Thomas Olivers was one of the bitterest pills that Toplady had to swallow. Olivers was a man of great intellectual power; but he had the misfortune to commence life as a Welsh mechanic of not the highest order. He was left an orphan when only four years old, and had now attained the age of forty-six. His publication, 12mo, 60 pages, was entitled, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Toplady, occasioned by his late Letter to the Reverend Mr. Wesley.” In invective and tart rebuke, Toplady met a match in the intrepid and fiery Welshman who, on behalf of Wesley, undertook to fight the furious predestinarian with the not too respectable weapons of his own choosing. It certainly is difficult to decide which is the more proficient in the use of strong language. It was a fisticuff encounter between a pugilistic pair, whose thumping blows may be considered of equal force.

The third publication, alluded to above, was “The Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of Predestination, as it is stated and asserted by the Translator of Jerome Zanchius, in his Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nowell; together with some Animadversions on his Translation of Zanchius, his Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, and his Sermon on 1 Timothy i. 10.” 12mo, 129 pages. The author was the redoubtable Walter Sellon, who, for outspokenness, was only second to Toplady and Olivers themselves. At the same time, however, Sellon’s book evinces great ability and research, and thoroughly demolishes the unfounded theories of an opponent, whose pen was guided by bigotry rather than by Christian discretion. The castigation was severe, but it was merited. The lash of a scorpion whip is far from pleasant; but the man who uses it has no reason to complain of another using it in self defence. Toplady had a right to wince and writhe; but, under the circumstances, he had no right to foam, as, in succeeding chapters, we shall find he did.

Here, for the present, we shall leave this embittered conflict, and trace the steps of the illustrious man whose high position seemed to engender the envy which led to the attack upon him; but who, excepting a short skirmish now and then, pursued his high and holy mission with as much serenity as if the conflict had not existed.

He landed in Ireland on March 24, and re-embarked for England on July 22nd following.

At Dublin, the society had been jangling for years, and, as a consequence, had suffered loss. Though not expressly stated, it is clear that the cause of their quarreling was a dispute respecting the authority of the preachers and of the leaders respectively. Wesley, as the fountain of Methodistic law, now laid it down that classleaders had no authority to restrain the assistant, if they thought he acted improperly; but might mildly speak to him, and then refer the matter to Wesley to be decided. They had no “authority to hinder a person from preaching, or to displace a particular leader, or to expel a particular member, or to regulate the temporal and spiritual affairs of the society, or to make any public collection, or to receive the yearly subscription.” All this was the work of the assistant, with one exception, namely, that the temporal affairs of the society were regulated by the society steward. The power of a classleader simply consisted in authority to meet his class, to receive their contributions, and to visit his sick members; and the power of all classleaders united was “authority to show their classpapers to the assistant, and to deliver the money they had received to the stewards, and to bring in the names of the sick.”

Rightly or wrongly, such was Methodist discipline in 1771. “In the Methodist discipline,” writes Wesley, “the wheels regularly stand thus: the assistant, the preachers, the stewards, the leaders, the people. But here the leaders, who are the lowest wheel but one, were quite got out of their place. They were got at the top of all, above the stewards, the preachers, yea, and above the assistant himself. To this chiefly, I impute the gradual decay of the work of God in Dublin.” “Nothing,” says he, at Londonderry, where two years before he had organised a band of singers, which through the preacher’s neglect was now dispersed, “Nothing will stand in the Methodist plan unless the preacher has his heart and his hand in it. Every preacher, therefore, should consider it is not his business to mind this or that thing only, but everything.”

More than three months of Wesley’s time were spent, not in Dublin, but in itinerating the Irish provinces. In many instances, he was gladdened with the prosperity of the work of God; in others, as Dublin, Athlone, Tullamore, Waterford, Cork, and Augher, the aspect of things was far from promising.

While on this lengthened journey, Wesley made the following entry in his journal: “1771. June 28--This day I entered the sixty-ninth year of my age. I am still a wonder to myself. My voice and strength are the same as at nine-and-twenty. This also hath God wrought.”

Wesley remained in Ireland until he was obliged to leave in order to meet his conference at Bristol. Much space has been already occupied with an account of its important proceedings; but it may be added that, notwithstanding the Calvinian disturbances, there was reported an increase of 1934 members. Among others, Joseph Benson was received on trial as an itinerant preacher; and Francis Asbury and Richard Wright were sent as a reinforcement to America. Nearly £1700 were contributed to extinguish the chapel debts; and, to accomplish the thing at once, it was recommended that, upon an average, every Methodist, in the three kingdoms, should give, for one year, a penny a week. “If this is done,” says Wesley, “it will both pay our whole debt, and supply all contingencies.”

No sooner was the conference over than Wesley set out for Wales, where he laboured nearly the next three weeks. One of the Sundays was spent in Pembroke, where he preached in two of the churches. He writes: “Many of the congregation were gay, genteel people; so I spake on the first elements of the gospel. But I was still out of their depth. Oh how hard it is to be shallow enough for a polite audience!”

Returning to Bristol on August 31, he employed the next month in visiting the societies surrounding that city. Twelve months before, he had rejoiced over an apparently great religious revival in Kingswood school; but now, says he, “it is gone! It is lost! It is vanished away! There is scarce any trace of it remaining! Then we must begin again; and, in due time, we shall reap if we faint not.”

Just at this period, Dr. William Cadogan’s book on the gout and all chronic diseases was attracting great attention. Dr. Johnson called it “a good book in general, but a foolish one in particulars.” Wesley read the book, and agrees with Cadogan, that “very few of the chronic distempers are properly hereditary; and that most of them spring either from indolence, or intemperance, or irregular passions. But,” he adds, and here he comes in conflict with modern teetotallers, “but why should Dr. Cadogan condemn wine _toto genere_, which is one of the noblest cordials in nature? Yet stranger, why should he condemn bread? Great whims belong to great men!”

After an absence of seven months, Wesley got back to London on Saturday, October 5; and, on the Monday following, set out on his usual tour through the counties of Bedford and Northampton. This occupied a week, as did a similar visit to the societies in Oxfordshire. For many years, Wesley was accustomed to spend the last two or three months in each year in weekly journeys from London as a pastoral centre. The Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire journey was one; the Oxfordshire another; Chatham and Sheerness a third; Staplehurst, Rye, Winchelsea, and other places a fourth; and Norfolk a fifth, which generally occupied a longer time.

Wesley concludes the year with this entry: “December 30--At my brother’s request, I sat again for my picture. This melancholy employment always reminds me of that natural reflection,--

‘Behold, what frailty we in man may see!
His shadow is less given to change than he.’”

Little more remains to be related respecting the year 1771, except the points following.

It is a curious fact, that, in the year when Fletcher began to render Wesley important service by the publication of his “Checks,” Fletcher’s future wife, Miss Bosanquet, applied to Wesley for advice on the subject of female preaching. Our space prevents the possibility of discussing such a topic at the length which it deserves; but Wesley’s letter, hitherto unpublished, will be acceptable, as showing that, however much importance he was disposed to attach to church order, he was not the man to make all things bend to it.

“LONDONDERRY, _June 13, 1771_.

“MY DEAR SISTER,--I think the strength of the cause rests there,--on
your having an _extraordinary_ call. So, I am persuaded, has every
one of our lay preachers; otherwise, I could not countenance his
preaching at all. It is plain to me, that the whole work of God
termed Methodism is an extraordinary dispensation of His providence.
Therefore, I do not wonder if several things occur therein, which do
not fall under the ordinary rules of discipline. St. Paul’s ordinary
rule was, ‘I permit not a woman to speak in the congregation.’ Yet,
in extraordinary cases, he made a few exceptions; at Corinth in
particular.

“I am, my dear sister, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[150]

In 1771, Wesley began a revision and republication of all the works which he had published during the last five-and-thirty years, with the exception of his Notes on the Old and New Testament, his “Christian Library,” his “Natural Philosophy,” and his books for Kingswood school. It was during this year that he issued a careful reprint of the four volumes of sermons published in 1746, 48, 50, and 60, with the addition of ten sermons, most of which had been published separately.

Besides these, he published five 12mo volumes of his collected works, embracing the sermons just mentioned; and making together about 1800 printed pages, in which he not only corrected the errors of the press, but his own mistakes, and did, what has not been done in any subsequent edition of his works,--placed an asterisk before the passages and paragraphs which he judged were most worthy of the reader’s notice.

He likewise published the fourteenth “Extract” from his journal, extending from May 27, 1765, to May 5, 1768. 12mo, 128 pages.[151]

His only other publications were his “Consequence Proved,” and his “Defence” of his minutes, already mentioned; and finally, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Fleury,” of Waterford, in Ireland. Mr. Fleury was a young parson, who, both in 1769, and now again in 1771, had taken the opportunity of Wesley’s visits to Waterford to preach against him. Wesley writes: “1771, May 28--At eleven, and again in the afternoon, I went to the cathedral, where a young gentleman most valiantly encountered the ‘grievous wolves,’ as he termed the Methodists. I never heard a man strike more wide of the mark. However, the shallow discourse did good; for it sent abundance of people, rich and poor, to hear and judge for themselves.” The “young gentleman’s” two sermons, which were published, were made up of the stale objections and invectives that had been used, by his superiors and seniors, times without number. Wesley’s letter is a characteristic reply to them.

FOOTNOTES:

[118] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 72.

[119] _Methodist Magazine_, 1784, p. 388.

[120] Lady Maxwell’s Life, p. 22.

[121] Ibid.

[122] Doubtless his letter to Lady Huntingdon.

[123] _Methodist Magazine_, 1805, p. 279.

[124] Wesley’s Life of Fletcher.

[125] Manuscript letter.

[126] Benson’s Life, by Treffry.

[127] Wesley’s Works, vol. xi., p. 285.

[128] Probably Mr. Romaine.

[129] Fletcher’s Vindication, 1st Edit., p. 21.

[130] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 240.

[131] Jackson’s Life of C. Wesley, vol. ii., p. 256.

[132] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 563.

[133] The minutes of the conference of 1770.

[134] The _italic_ words are emphasized in the original.

[135] Shirley’s “Narrative,” p. 5.

[136] _Methodist Magazine_, 1797, p. 253.

[137] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 394.

[138] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 237.

[139] This was probably “The Consequence Proved,” to be
noticed shortly.

[140] Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 127.

[141] Shirley’s “Narrative,” p. 8.

[142] Ibid. p. 10.

[143] Charles Wesley’s name is not in the list: a further
proof that, strangely enough, he was not at this most
important conference.

[144] This is the word in Shirley’s “Narrative”; but in
the _Gospel Magazine_ for August, 1771, the word
“justification” is used instead; and there can be
little doubt, that this was the reading of the
original declaration. The difference at first seems
slight, but, in reality, it is of great importance,
as the readers of Fletcher’s “Checks” will easily
perceive.

[145] Whitehead’s Life of Wesley, vol. ii., p. 349.

[146] Shirley’s “Narrative.”

[147] “Second Check,” 1st Edit., p. 40.

[148] See Sir Richard Hill’s Life, p. 191.

[149] There was also published, at this period, a smartly
written rebuke of Toplady, and a defence of Wesley,
entitled, “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Augustus Toplady,
written in great part by himself, relative to part of
his printed Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.” 8vo,
21 pages.

[150] Manuscript letter.

[151] As a curiosity, and as tending to show that, in this
season of excitement, all men were not Wesley’s
enemies, we give an extract from a review of this
section of Wesley’s Journal, published in _Lloyd’s
Evening Post_, for January 20, 1772:--“In this
interval, between May 27, 1765, and May 5, 1768,
this zealous and truly laborious missionary of the
Methodists, who seems to consider the three kingdoms
as his parochial cure, twice traverses the greater
part of Ireland and Scotland, from Londonderry
to Cork, from Aberdeen to Dumfries, visiting and
confirming the churches, besides making a progress,
chiefly on horseback (in many places more than
once), through great part of Wales, and almost
all the counties in England, from Newcastle to
Southampton, from Dover to Penzance. Those who expect
to find in this Journal only the peculiar tenets of
Methodism will be agreeably disappointed, as they
are intermixed with such occasional reflections on
men and manners, on polite literature, and even on
polite places, as prove that the writer is endued
with a taste well cultivated both by reading and
observation; and above all with such a benevolence
and sweetness of temper, such an enlarged, liberal,
and truly protestant way of thinking towards those
who differ from him, as clearly show that _his
heart_, at least, is right, and justly entitle him to
that candour and forbearance, which, for the honour
of our common religion, we are glad to find he now
generally receives.”

1772.
Age 69

Wesley’s first journey from London, in 1772, was on the 16th of January, when he came to Luton, and preached in the parish church. The friendly clergyman, who gave him this permission, was the Rev. Mr. Copleston, whose son afterwards became a Methodist local preacher, and was driven from Luton by the iron hand of persecution, and then, after preaching for a while at St. Albans, introduced Methodism into Leighton Buzzard, where he died, in 1835, at the age of seventy, having been an earnest Methodist more than fifty years.[152]

In a visit to Dorking, Wesley read Sterne’s “Sentimental Journey,” and writes, “_Sentimental!_ What is that? It is not English; he might as well say _continental_. It is not sense. It conveys no determinate idea; yet one fool makes many, and this nonsensical word (who would believe it?) is become a fashionable one! However, the book agrees full well with the title; for one is as queer as the other. For oddity, uncouthness, and unlikeness to all the world beside, I suppose the writer is without a rival.” This was a bold criticism on Laurence Sterne, and his recently published book, which was now immensely popular. On his return from Dorking, on February 12, Wesley writes: “I read a very different book, published by an honest quaker, on that execrable sum of all villanies, commonly called the slave trade. I read of nothing like it in the heathen world, whether ancient or modern; and it infinitely exceeds, in every instance of barbarity, whatever Christian slaves suffer in Mahommedan countries.”

This is a remarkable utterance. It was in this very year that Granville Sharpe, the first of the English antislavery advocates, began to take up the subject; and it was not until fifteen years after this, that the “Society for the Suppression of the Slave Trade” was founded, of which, besides Sharpe, two of the chief members were Thomas Clarkson, a young graduate of Cambridge, and William Wilberforce, who was then M.P. for the county of York. The book which Wesley read was probably written by Anthony Benezet, a French protestant, who, after being educated in England, became a quaker in Philadelphia; and, in 1762, published the work which first attracted the attention of this country[153] to the inhuman traffic, which Wesley so justly designates “that execrable sum of all villanies.” Let it be noted that, besides all his other honours, John Wesley, the poor, persecuted Methodist, was one of the first advocates on behalf of the enthralled African that England had, and that, sixty years before slavery was abolished in the dominions of Great Britain, he denounced the thing in the strongest terms it was possible to employ.

Before we accompany Wesley on his long northern tour, three other facts, belonging to this period, may be briefly mentioned.

Ten years ago, Thomas Maxfield had dishonourably forsaken his old friend, and had set up a rival church in the neighbourhood of Moorfields. For some reason, he now seemed to desire a reunion. Wesley was not the man to repel an overture even from one whose behaviour had been ungrateful and treacherous. He met Maxfield; but writes: “He only _seemed_ to desire a reunion; for when we explained upon the head, I found he meant just nothing.”

Wesley was now close upon the age of threescore years and ten. His life had been a scene of unparalleled activity; and, though still possessed of amazing vigour, he had not the energy he had been wont to have. His friends in London saw this; and hence the following entry in his journal. “1772. Feb. 21.--I met several of my friends, who had begun a subscription to prevent my riding on horseback, which I cannot do quite so well, since a hurt which I got some months ago. If they continue it, well; if not, I shall have strength according to my need.”

Wesley’s last act before leaving London was to open a new chapel at Poplar. He writes: “1772. Feb. 28--I opened the new preaching house in Poplar: one might say, consecrated it; for the English law (notwithstanding the vulgar error) does not require, nay, does not allow, any other consecration of churches than by performing public service therein.”

Up to this period, the preaching at Poplar had been in private dwellings, and in the workhouse, the mistress of which was a Methodist. Now a wooden building was erected in High Street, which was long called, out of derision, “the pantile shop.” One of the first members was Benjamin King, who previous to this attended Gravel Lane chapel, Wapping, one of the oldest Methodist meeting-houses in London, but which was long since demolished for the making of the London Docks. For many a year, Methodism at Poplar had a struggle for existence, and often was Wesley importuned to give up the preaching there; but his constant answer was, “Does the old woman” (Mrs. Clippendale) “who sits in the corner of the long pew, still attend?” “O yes,” was the reply; “she never misses.” “Then for her sake keep going,” was Wesley’s rejoinder. The venerable woman, who was thus the means of perpetuating Methodist preaching at Poplar, was a native of Swalwell, near Newcastle, and, at twelve years of age, received her first society ticket, in 1745, from the hands of Wesley. Four years later, she came to London, and continued a faithful Methodist for above seventy years.[154]

Strangely enough, it was now currently reported that Wesley was about to leave England for America. The following refers to this.

“NEW YORK, _April 1, 1772_.

“REVEREND SIR,--By a letter from Mr. Lloyd, of London, we are
informed that you incline to visit America. Mr. Whitefield’s
preaching was of unspeakable use to many; but he preached mostly in
the seaport towns, and the most populous parts of the provinces,
where the gospel was known, though not preached in power. In the back
parts, which are now grown populous, the inhabitants are still in
a state of deplorable ignorance. If some zealous and able teachers
would engage heartily in the work of their conversion, how soon
might rivers spring forth in the desert, and these owls and dragons
of the wilderness give honour to God. No doubt, many in England and
elsewhere, who abound in wealth, would contribute towards erecting
schools to teach the children, and also towards the support of
preachers, if such an undertaking was properly set on foot. But who
is qualified for this work? I know none except yourself.

“But, dear sir, what concerns me more than all is the unhappy
condition of our negroes, who are kept in worse than Egyptian
bondage. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, and all the
superfluities we possess, are the produce of their labours; and what
do they receive in return? Nothing equivalent; on the contrary, we
keep from them the key of knowledge; so that their bodies and souls
perish together in our service! If, therefore, you are not too
advanced in years, I say to you, in the name of God, come over and
help us; in doing which you will greatly oblige many thousands, and,
among the rest, your friend and brother,

“JONATHAN BRYAN.”[155]

Did Wesley seriously think of this? We are not sure; but the following characteristic letter to Walter Sellon will be read with interest.

“_February 1, 1772._

“DEAR WALTER,--You do not understand your information right. Observe,
‘I am going to America to turn bishop.’ You are to understand it _in
sensu composito_. I am not to be a bishop till I am in America. While
I am in Europe, therefore, you have nothing to fear. But as soon as
ever you hear of my being landed in Philadelphia, it will be time for
your apprehensions to revive. It is true, some of our preachers would
not have me stay, so long; but I keep my old rule, _Festina lente_.

“I am, dear Walter, your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[156]

Previous to his leaving London, Wesley commenced a long correspondence, which extended over the next two years, with Samuel Sparrow, Esq., a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Sheffield, who had published a volume, entitled “Family Prayers and Moral Essays,” a copy of which was presented to Wesley by the author. The writer has before him the correspondence that ensued; and perhaps the following extracts, from some of Wesley’s letters, will be acceptable.

“To the questions which you propose I answer: (1) I think that if
a hundred, or a hundred thousand, sincere, honest, humble, modest,
self diffident men were, with attention and care, to read the New
Testament, uninfluenced by any but the Holy Spirit, nine in ten of
them, at least, if not every one, would discover that the Son of God
was ‘adorable,’ and one God with the Father; and would be immediately
led to ‘honour Him even as they honoured the Father.’

“(2) Give a fair, impartial reading to that account of mankind in
their present state, which is contained in the book on original sin.
It is no play of imagination, but plain, clear fact. We see it with
our eyes, and hear it with our ears daily. Heathens, Turks, Jews,
Christians of every nation, are such men as are there described. Such
are the tempers, such the manners, of lords, gentlemen, clergymen
in England, as well as of tradesmen and the low vulgar. No man in
his senses can deny it: and none can account for it, but upon the
supposition of original sin.

“On Scripture and common sense I build all my principles; and just so
far as it agrees with these, I regard human authority.

“There is too ‘just ground for charging the preachers both at
Blackfriars church, the chapel at the Lock,[157] and the Tabernacle,
with grievous want of charity; for most of them flatly maintain, ‘all
who do not believe as they believe, are in a state of damnation;’
all who do not believe the absolute decree of election, which
necessarily infers absolute reprobation. My brother and I set out on
two principles: (1) None go to heaven without holiness of heart and
life; (2) Whoever follows after this, whatever his opinions be, is my
brother; and we have not swerved a hair’s breadth from either the one
or the other to this day.”

On the 1st of March Wesley set out on his northern visitation, and did not return to London until seven months afterwards. It was now that he preached his first sermon in the town of Leek, where Thomas Hanby, eighteen years before, had formed a society at the peril of his life. “Kill him, kill him,” bawled the mob, as they pelted him with showers of stones; but the young evangelist, then only in the twenty-first year of his age, mercifully escaped; and the rabble, headed by a lawyer, had to content themselves with merely burning him in effigy.[158]

Wesley writes: “March 27, 1772.--While I was dining at Leek, some gentlemen of the town sent to desire I would give them a sermon. As it seemed to be a providential call, I did not think it right to refuse. A large congregation quickly ran together, and were deeply attentive.”

A society had recently been gathered at Nantwich, of which Mr. Salmon, an eccentric Christian gentleman, and some of his sisters, were members; and hence Nantwich was now added to the places which Wesley had to visit. This was probably the Mr. Salmon who was to have gone with the Wesleys to Georgia, but who was forcibly detained in his Cheshire home by his father and mother, who were distracted at the thought of their son leaving them. Joseph Whittingham Salmon had a good heart, but muddy head. Soon after this, he began to preach,[159] and, at the death of his wife, in 1785, published a long rigmarole funeral sermon, 8vo, 39 pages, which he preached in Barker Street chapel, Nantwich, and which is strongly spiced with the mystical delusion into which he had fallen. It is scarcely too much to say, that the weak mind of this well meaning man henceforth lost its balance, and that mystic pride and _cacoethes scribendi_ were the chief features that distinguished the close of a lengthened but lustreless life. His wife, however, and several of the Misses Salmon were intelligent and earnest Methodists, and were among the earliest friends of Hester Ann Roe, afterwards Mrs. Rogers.[160]

There was another gentleman of note, near Nantwich, Sir Thomas Broughton, of Doddington Hall, who had a chapel in his park, and who, though not a Methodist, himself read or preached to the congregation the whole of Wesley’s sermons from first to last.[161] Salmon tells us, that this “reverend baronet,” as he calls him, at the death of his lady, called together his eleven children and his thirty servants, at eleven o’clock at night, and then, as they stood round the corpse, amid midnight silence and the dim radiance of lighted tapers, engaged in prayer, previous to the interment, the whole forming a scene not easily forgotten.

These were Methodism’s auxiliaries in the town of Nantwich; but, for long years, it had to struggle with adversity, its members worshipping in an old hired baptist chapel until the year 1808, when, chiefly through the help of Mr. Withinshaw, a new chapel was erected, and Nantwich was made a circuit town.[162]

On the 5th of April, Wesley reached Bolton and Manchester. In reference to the former town he writes: “How wonderfully has God wrought in this place! John Bennet, some years ago, reduced this society from sevenscore to twelve; and they are now risen to a hundred and seventy.” At Manchester, Wesley “drank tea at Am. O.;” probably Adam Oldham’s, and remarks: “But how was I shocked! The children that used to cling about me, and drink in every word, had been at a boarding school. There they had unlearned all religion, and even seriousness; and had learned pride, vanity, affectation, and whatever could guard them against the knowledge and love of God. Methodist parents, who would send your girls headlong to hell, send them to a fashionable boarding school!”

Proceeding by way of Whitehaven and Carlisle, Wesley came to Glasgow on April 18, and, a week later, arrived at Perth, where he was the provost’s guest, and received an honour which fell to him only once again in his long lifetime. He shall tell his own story.

“1772. April 28, Tuesday. We walked through the Duke of Athol’s
gardens, in which was one thing I never saw before,--a summerhouse in
the middle of a greenhouse, by means of which one might, in the depth
of winter, enjoy the warmth of May, and sit surrounded with greens
and flowers on every side.

“In the evening I preached once more at Perth, to a large and serious
congregation. Afterwards they did me an honour I never thought
of,--presented me with the freedom of the city. The diploma ran
thus:--

“‘_Magistratuum illustris ordo et honorandus senatorum cætus inclytæ
civitatis Perthensis, in debiti amoris et affectuum tesseram erga
Johannem Wesley, immunitatibus præfatæ civitatis, societatis etiam
et fraternitatis ædilitiæ privilegiis donarunt. Aprilis die 28, anno
Sal. 1772._’

“I question whether any diploma from the city of London be more
pompous, or expressed in better Latin.”

Eight days afterwards, the magistrates of Arbroath conferred on Wesley a similar mark of their respect.

While in this part of Scotland, Wesley read two Scotch authors, upon whom his criticisms are too racy to be omitted. He writes:

“In my way to Perth, I read over the first volume of Dr. Robertson’s
‘History of Charles the Fifth.’ I know not when I have been so
disappointed. It might as well be called the History of Alexander
the Great. Here is a quarto volume of eight or ten shillings’ price,
containing dry verbose dissertations on feudal government, the
substance of all which might be comprised in half a sheet of paper!
But ‘Charles the Fifth!’ Where is Charles the Fifth?

‘Leave off thy reflections, and give us thy tale!’”

“May 5. I read over, in my journey to Arbroath, Dr. Beattie’s
ingenious ‘Inquiry after Truth.’ He is a writer quite equal to his
subject, and far above the match of all the minute philosophers,
David Hume in particular, the most insolent despiser of truth and
virtue that ever appeared in the world. And, yet, it seems some
complain of this doctor’s using him with too great severity! I cannot
understand how that can be, unless he treated him with rudeness
(which he does not), since he is an avowed enemy to God and man, and
to all that is sacred and valuable on earth.”

On the 9th of May, Wesley reached Edinburgh, where his state of health was made the subject of an important medical examination. It has been already stated that, before he left London, his friends there, perceiving signs of age and debility, had contributed to provide him a carriage in which to pursue his extensive and laborious journeys. Since then, in less than ten weeks, he had travelled, in his chaise and on horseback, from London to Bristol, and thence to Birmingham, Nottingham, Macclesfield, Chester, Liverpool, Manchester, Whitehaven, Carlisle, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, preaching there, and at a great number of intervening towns and villages, sometimes as many as four sermons in a day. He had had to encounter winter storms, to wade mid-leg deep in snow, and to travel roads so execrably bad, that sometimes he was literally bogged. Not unfrequently he preached in the midst of piercing winds in the open air; and yet, there is not a single entry in his journal indicative of failing health. Never, in his life, was he more intent upon the prosecution of his great work than now. Writing to his brother from Congleton, and again from Perth, he says:

“I find almost all our preachers, in every circuit, have done with
Christian perfection. They say, they believe it; but they never
preach it, or not once in a quarter. What is to be done? Shall we
let it drop, or make a point of it? Oh what a thing it is to have
_curam animarum_! You and I are called to this; to save souls from
death; to watch over them as those that must give account! If our
office implied no more than preaching a few times in a week, I could
play with it; so might you. But how small a part of our duty (yours
as well as mine) is this! God says to you, as well as me, ‘Do all
thou canst, be it more or less, to save the souls for whom My Son has
died.’ Let this voice be ever sounding in our ears; then shall we
give up our account with joy. _Eia age, rumpe moras!_ I am ashamed of
my indolence and inactivity. Your business, as well as mine, is to
save souls. When we took priests’ orders we undertook to make it our
one business. I think every day lost, which is not (mainly at least)
employed in this thing. _Sum totus in illo._

“I am glad you are to be at Bristol soon. To whom shall I leave my
letters and papers? I am quite at a loss. I think Mr. Fletcher is the
best that occurs now. Adieu!”[163]

Wesley was too busy to think of being ill. He was not alarmed; but his friends were. Hence, the following addressed to Charles Wesley.

“SHOREHAM, _April 18, 1772_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I doubt not, but we both join in constant
petitions, at the throne of grace, for the life and health of our
dear absent friend, thy brother. By all accounts, his valuable health
is in a precarious state; and unless God provides (as I doubt not but
He will), for His people, they will have abundant reason to mourn.
May God give thee a double portion of His Spirit, that thou mayest
stand in the gap, and prevent the flock being led by any who have not
true gospel light in the head, and great integrity in the heart! My
love to thy dear brother; the same attends thee and my dear sister,
and all thy family. The Divine blessing be with all of us!

“Thine, most affectionately,

“VINCENT PERRONET.”[164]

Probably it was the request of his friends, rather than his own anxiety, which induced Wesley, at Edinburgh, to submit to a medical examination.

At this period, Dr. James Hamilton was a young man of about two-and-thirty, and was practising medicine in his native town of Dunbar, where he also had joined the Methodists. Afterwards he removed to Leeds, and then to London, where he was elected physician to the London Dispensary, and rose to eminence in the medical profession. He died in Finsbury Square, April 21, 1827, at the age of eighty-seven, having been a Methodist upwards of sixty years, and nearly as long a highly acceptable and useful local preacher.

Dr. Alexander Monro was a few years older. Such was his ability, that, at the age of twenty-two, he was appointed professor of anatomy and surgery to the University of Edinburgh; and is said, by the excellence of his lectures, to have materially assisted in raising it to the highest celebrity as a school of medicine.

Dr. James Gregory was now a young man in his twentieth year; but, two years later, was appointed professor of the theory of physic, and rose to such eminence in his profession as to draw pupils from all parts of the world.

These were the three physicians who attended Wesley. He writes: “May 18--Dr. Hamilton brought with him Dr. Monro and Dr. Gregory. They satisfied me what my disorder was; and told me there was but one method of cure. Perhaps but one natural one; but I think God has more than one method of healing either the soul or the body.”

Wesley’s disease was hydrocele.[165] A few months later, he writes: “I am almost a disabled soldier. I am forbid to ride, and am obliged to travel mostly in a carriage.”[166]

That Wesley’s health was seriously affected there cannot be doubt. _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, for June 15, remarks: “By accounts from Scotland, we learn that the Rev. Mr. Wesley has had a dangerous fit of illness, in which he was attended by three of the most eminent of the faculty there, who gave him over; but some younger gentlemen in practice have been luckily assistant to him, and they have now hopes that he may continue his ministry many years longer.”

Wesley doubtless was amused with this. During his ten days’ stay in Edinburgh, he preached at least about half-a-dozen times; and, on the very day when the medical men met, he opened a new chapel at Leith, and two days later started for Newcastle, preaching on his way at Dunbar, Alnwick, and Morpeth.

Reaching Newcastle on May 25, he spent the remainder of the week in the town and neighbourhood, preaching, on the Sunday, three times out of doors, to immense and attentive congregations.

The first four days in the month of June were occupied with what he calls “a little tour through the dales”; and, in this brief period, besides travelling scores of miles over “the horrid mountains,” and examining societies, he preached at least eight sermons. He writes: “from the top of an enormous mountain we had a view of Weardale. It is a lovely prospect. The green, gently rising meadows and fields, on both sides of the little river, clear as crystal, were sprinkled over with innumerable little houses; three in four of which, if not nine in ten, are sprung up since the Methodists came hither. Since that time, the beasts are turned into men, and the wilderness into a fruitful field.”

Six months before this, Weardale had been blessed with a remarkable religious revival, the penitent prayer-meetings often continuing till ten or eleven o’clock at night, and sometimes till four in the morning. On one occasion, four young men, seeking pardon, remained on their knees for five hours together. Among others who found mercy was an old woman, who, twenty-three years before, was the first in Weardale to receive the Methodists into her house. Sometimes as many as half-a-dozen “lay on the ground together, roaring for the disquietude of their hearts.” Chiefly through the instrumentality of Jane Salkeld, a schoolmistress, thirty children were converted, including Phœbe Featherstone, Hannah Watson, and others whom Wesley mentions.

Not only does Wesley give, at great length, the details of this revival; but he compares it with that at Everton thirteen years before. His remarks are worth quoting.

“It resembled the work at Everton in many respects, but not in all.

“It resembled that work--(1) In its unexpected beginning; no such
work had ever been seen before either at Everton or in Weardale. (2)
In the swiftness of its progress, I mean in the persons affected;
many of whom were in one day, or even two or three hours, both
convinced of sin (without any previous awakening), and converted
to God. (3) In the number of persons both convinced and converted,
which was greater in a few months than it had been in Weardale from
the first preaching there, or in Everton for a century. (4) In the
outward symptoms which have attended it: in both, the sudden and
violent emotions of mind affected the whole bodily frame; insomuch
that many trembled exceedingly, many fell to the ground, many were
violently convulsed, and many seemed to be in the agonies of death.
(5) In most of the instruments whom God employed: these were plain,
artless men, simple of heart, but without any remarkable gifts;
men who, almost literally, knew ‘nothing save Jesus Christ and Him
crucified.’

“In these respects, the work of God in Weardale nearly resembled
that at Everton; but, in other respects, they were widely different.
For--(1) That was the first work of God, of the kind, which had ever
been in those parts in the memory of man; this was only a revival of
a work, which had continued for many years. Now these circumstances
are common at the dawn of a work, but afterwards very uncommon. I do
not remember to have seen the like anywhere in the three kingdoms,
unless at the beginning of a work. (2) Although the former work was
swift, the latter was far swifter. In general, persons were both
awakened and justified in a far shorter time. (3) A far greater
number were converted to God in Weardale than about Everton, although
the number of hearers about Everton was abundantly greater than in
Weardale. (4) Although the outward symptoms were the same, yet in
Weardale there were none of the dreams, visions, and revelations
which abounded at Everton; and which, though at first they
undoubtedly were from God, yet were afterwards fatally counterfeited
by the devil. (5) There was a great difference in the instruments
whom God employed. Not one of those in or near Everton had any
experience in the guiding of souls. None of them were more than
‘babes in Christ,’ if any of them so much. Whereas, in Weardale, not
only the three preachers were, I believe, renewed in love, but most
of the leaders were deeply experienced in the work of God. Hence, (6)
we may easily account for the grand difference, namely, that the one
work was so shallow, and the other so deep. Many children here have
had far deeper experience, and more constant fellowship with God,
than the oldest man or woman at Everton which I have seen or heard
of.”

Such were Wesley’s moralisings on the Weardale revival, in 1772, in which less than a hundred people were converted, and concerning which he says: “upon the whole, we may affirm, such a work of God as this has not been seen before in the three kingdoms.” If this was so, who will say that the former times were better than these? How many thousands of aged Methodists can easily call to mind far more remarkable revivals of the work of God than even that in Weardale! And, further, how was it that, at Wesley’s visit two years after, the results of this revival were almost reduced to nothing, except that, in consequence of the backslidings, “the preachers were discouraged; and jealousies, heart burnings, and evil surmisings, were multiplied more and more”?

Wesley returned from Weardale to Newcastle on the 5th of June, and here, and in the immediate neighbourhood, he spent the next ten days. In the Newcastle society, there were fewer members than he had found two years before. “This,” says he, “I can impute to nothing but the want of visiting from house to house; without which the people will hardly increase, either in number or grace.” This was a sharp thrust at some of the most distinguished preachers of the day, namely, Peter Jaco, Joseph Cownley, Thomas Hanby, Matthew Lowes, Thomas Tennant, William Thompson, and Thomas Simpson, all of them appointed to Newcastle at this period.

On June 15, Wesley left Newcastle, and spent the next week in preaching at Durham, Stockton, Yarm, Thirsk, Osmotherley, Hutton Rudby, Stokesley, Castleton, Whitby, Robinhood’s Bay, and Scarborough. This was pretty well, for a man afflicted as Wesley was, and at the age of seventy.

Eighteen months before this, his termagant wife had abruptly left him, and gone to her house at Newcastle. Now that his health was so endangered, she was returning with him, whether to his comfort or otherwise we are not informed; but, at all events, she had in Wesley’s chaise the undeserved luxury of a summer’s ride through the most beautiful scenes of Yorkshire.[167]

From Scarborough he proceeded to Bridlington, Driffield, Beverley, Hull, York, Tadcaster, Pateley Bridge, Otley, Heptonstall, Keighley, Haworth, Bingley, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Morley, Birstal, Doncaster, Sheffield, Epworth, Brigg, Horncastle, Louth, Grimsby, Pontefract, Horbury, Wakefield, and other places, preaching at all of them, until, on August 2, he got to Leeds, for the purpose of holding his annual conference. This was enormous labour for any man, and especially for an old man, suffering from a severe and painful malady. To all this must be added, cottage accommodation, hard beds, and often hard living; and, though brutal persecution had considerably abated, Wesley was not entirely exempt from this; for, at Halifax, on July 8, a ruffian struck him most violently on the face, when, with tears starting from his eyes, the venerable saint acted upon the precept of his Master: “Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”; a display of heroic meekness which cowed the brutal coward, and made him slink away into the ignoble crowd.[168] Yet, in the midst of all this, there is not a single syllable, in his journal, concerning either persecution, hardship, debility, or disease.

He writes: “On Tuesday, August 4, our conference began. Generally, during the time of conference, as I was talking from morning to night, I had used to desire one of our brethren to preach in the morning; but, having many things to say, I resolved, with God’s help, to preach mornings as well as evenings. And I found no difference at all; I was no more tired than with my usual labour; that is, no more than if I had been sitting still in my study from morning to night.”

One of Wesley’s sermons, preached to an immense congregation, in a field behind the chapel, was from Isaiah lxvi. 8, 9: “Who hath heard such a thing?” etc.; in which he dwelt upon the great work which God had wrought among the Methodists, discoursing on its rapidity, depth, extensiveness, and its growing character. “It was,” says good old Thomas Rutherford, “marrow and fatness to my soul.”[169]

Wesley, in needful cases, was a brave defender of his preachers. The following, addressed to Mr. Alexander Clark, of Dublin, and written at this period, will be read with interest.

“SHEFFIELD, _August 10, 1772_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,--Now the hurry of conference is over, I get a
little time to write. When I chose you to be steward in Dublin, you
both loved and esteemed your preachers; but I find you have now drunk
in the whole spirit of Pat. Geoghegan. O beware! You are exceedingly
deceived. By this time, I should be some judge of man; and if I am,
all England and Ireland cannot afford such a body of men, number for
number, for sense and true experience, both of men and things, as
the body of Methodist preachers. Our leaders in London, Bristol, and
Dublin are by no means weak men. I would not be ashamed to compare
them with a like number of tradesmen in every part of the three
kingdoms. But I assure you, they are no more than children compared
to the preachers in conference, as you would be thoroughly convinced,
could you but have the opportunity of spending one day among them.
Mr. Jaco will make a fair trial whether he can supply Dublin alone;
if he cannot, he shall have another to help, for he must not kill
himself to save charges. But I dare not stint him to £20 a year. He
will waste nothing; but he must want nothing. You will make his stay
among you, in every respect, as comfortable as you can.

“I am your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[170]

No sooner was the conference ended, than Wesley again started on his itinerancy of mercy. On his way to Burslem, his chaise broke down; but, notwithstanding his disease, rather than disappoint the people, he mounted a horse and rode two-and-twenty miles, arriving just in time for preaching.

On reaching Trevecca, on August 14, he met his old friend, Howel Harris, who, while almost all others of his class had imbibed the most bitter feelings, still remained faithful. “I have borne,” said the honest Welshman, “with these pert, ignorant young men, vulgarly called students, till I cannot, in conscience, bear any longer. They preach barefaced reprobation, and so broad antinomianism, that I have been constrained to oppose them to the face, even in the public congregation.” This was no great compliment to the students of the Countess of Huntingdon, especially as coming from a Calvinist. Wesley, almost as an apology, adds to this: “It is no wonder that they should preach thus. What better can be expected from raw lads, of little understanding, little learning, and no experience?”

It is pleasing to add, that Howel Harris was not the only one of Whitefield’s friends who still stood true to Wesley, though differing from his views. Hence the following, addressed to him by Cornelius Winter.

“BRECON, _August 10, 1772_.