The life and times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., founder of the Methodists. Vol. 3 (of 3)

The concluding sentences of these extracts sound strangely. Did afflicted Wesley, amid the London fog of a dark December day, really think, that the last thirty years had been comparatively wasted, and that he was more pious when almost a cloistered monk within the walls of Oxford, than he was now, a veteran evangelist, flying through the three kingdoms, and preaching the gospel of God his Saviour? His medical adviser came not near him; Sir Richard Hill was wantonly assailing him; his brother, except as a localised pastor in London and in Bristol, was of no use to him; his wife,—bah! Is it surprising, that even Wesley had seasons of depression; and that, like others, he was sometimes “in heaviness through manifold temptations”?

But it is time to turn to the Calvinian controversy, which we left raging in 1771. Wesley rarely mentions it, either in his journal or in his letters, and yet it continued with undiminished fury.

Fletcher, of Madeley, again entered the field of battle, by publishing “A Third Check to Antinomianism,” in a letter to Sir Richard Hill, 12mo, 114 pages. This was not only a defence of Wesley, but a triumphant answer to the “Five Letters” of the baronet, and is written in a style exceedingly beautiful and Christian. Before the year was out, it reached a second edition.

Fletcher’s other publication, in 1772, was “Logica Genevensis; or, a Fourth Check to Antinomianism: in which St. James’s pure religion is defended against the charges, and established upon the concessions, of Mr. Richard and Mr. Rowland Hill. In a Series of Letters to those Gentlemen.” 12mo, 237 pages.⁠[178]

It is no part of our present plan to give even the briefest analysis of these masterly productions. Suffice it to say, that, for sound scriptural argument, able exposition, lively imagination, elegance of style, polished irony, and Christian temper, they have no superiors. The two brothers, notwithstanding their goodness, their learning, their genius, and their pluck, were but pigmies in the grasp of a Goliath.

Rowland Hill, a young man of twenty-seven, had experienced the mortification of being refused ordination by not fewer than six bishops, and was a roving evangelist, preaching with great success in Whitefield’s London Tabernacle, in Bristol, Bath, and all over the west of England. At the commencement of the controversy, Berridge wrote to him thus: “The late contest at Bristol seems to turn upon this hinge, whether it shall be Pope John or Pope Joan. My dear friend, keep out of all controversy, and wage no war but with the devil.”⁠[179] Unfortunately for himself, the young preacher did not follow the counsel of the vicar of Everton, but, in 1772, issued an octavo pamphlet of 71 pages, entitled “Friendly Remarks occasioned by the Spirit and Doctrines contained in the Rev. Mr. Fletcher’s Vindication, and more particularly in his Second Check to Antinomianism, to which is added a Postscript, occasioned by his Third Check.” The production is what might be expected from YOUNG Rowland Hill. Fletcher is accused of using “tartness of style,” “banter,” “contempt,” “numberless sneers, taunts, and sarcasms;” “infernal terms of darkness,” “bravado,” “slander,” “high flown metaphors,” “frothy declamation,” “odious appellations,” “glaring inconsistencies,” “palpable mistakes.” He says, “Wesley has been a proverb for his contradictions for above thirty years.” The “Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love,” “formerly sent forth from the Foundery,” are stigmatised as “certain godly lampoons of famous memory.” This was pretty strong to come from a stripling not yet ordained.

His brother also was not a laggard. Without loss of time, he published an octavo volume of 151 pages, with the following gigantic title: “A Review of all the Doctrines taught by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley; containing a full and particular Answer to a Book entitled ‘A Second Check to Antinomianism.’ In six Letters to the Author of that Book; wherein the Doctrines of a twofold Justification, Free Will, Man’s Merit, Sinless Perfection, Finished Salvation, and Real Antinomianism are particularly discussed, and the Puritan Divines vindicated from the Charges brought against them of holding Mr. Wesley’s Doctrines. To which is added, a Farrago of Hot and Cold Medicines. By the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, Author of the ‘Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.’ Extracted from his own Publications.”

Richard Hill’s scurrility is quite equal to his brother’s. He writes: “O my dear sir, I never could have supposed that sneer, banter, and sarcasm, yea, notorious falsehoods, calumny, and gross perversions, would have appeared under the sanction of your venerable name.” He tells Fletcher that he “dips his pen in gall,” and “maintains his cause by artful insinuations.” “In your first letter,” says he, “I really cannot find many lines together free from gross misrepresentations and perversions, and hardly one single paragraph exempt from cutting sneers and low sarcasms.” “Your pages,” he adds, “are as totally void of solid Scripture argument as they are replete with calumny, gross perversions and equivocations.” Wesley is treated with the same bitterness as Fletcher. “His opinions” are said to be “a mixture of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, popery, mysticism, and quakerism.” Such quotations might be multiplied ad nauseam; but the reader has had enough. Suffice it to add, that, before the year 1772 was ended, the public was blessed with “a second, corrected and enlarged edition” of this loving effusion of the Salopian baronet.

Besides all this, Sir Richard published, in 1772, another octavo pamphlet of 16 pages, with the title, “Some Remarks on a Pamphlet entitled A Third Check to Antinomianism,” a production brief, but, like the rest, far too rancorous. Scurrility is almost a sure sign of feeble arguments and a defenceless cause.

The two Hills were not Wesley’s only antagonists. Toplady issued his “More Work for Mr. John Wesley; or, a Vindication of the Decrees and Providence of God from the Defamations of a late printed paper, entitled ‘The Consequence Proved.’” 8vo, 104 pages: 1772.⁠[180]

In his advertisement, Toplady tells his readers, that he bears not the least ill will to Wesley; and that his manuscript had lain by him for several weeks, “merely with a view of striking out, from time to time, whatever might savour of undue asperity and intemperate warmth.” The following extracts will show how far Toplady succeeded in his pious and loving wish.

“Mr. Wesley has as much of the insidious in his composition, as he has of the acid; and it would be difficult to say which predominates.” “He is for adding the lion to the fox. He wishes not only to wheedle, but to thunder the Church out of her Calvinism. He is, like Mahommed, for propagating his religion by the sword. Peals of anathemas are issued, and torrents of the lowest calumny are thrown out, against all who abide by the thirty-nine articles. Pope John’s authority may have some weight with such men as Messrs. Walter Sellon, Haddon Smith, and Thomas Olivers; but not an inch beyond the purlieus of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition will his dictatorship extend.” “His mode of phraseology is as pregnant with craft as his conduct is destitute of honour. He first hatches blasphemy, and then fathers it on others.” “His forehead must be petrified, and quite impervious to a blush.” “He sits down, and deliberately writes a known, wilful, palpable lie to the public.” “He is a pitiful nibbler at the file he cannot bite.” “Thomas Olivers, a journeyman shoemaker, retained by Mr. Wesley as a lay preacher at the rate of £10 per annum, is his bully in chief. In chief, did I say? I had forgot the Rev. Mr. Walter Sellon; prunella claims precedency of leather; Thomas is only second in commission. Mr. Wesley skulks for shelter under a cobbler’s apron.” “Has Tom, the shoemaker, more learning, or more integrity, than John the priest?” “Without the least heat or emotion, I plainly say, Mr. Wesley lies.”⁠[181]

The following is part of Mr. Toplady’s concluding paragraph.

Poor young Augustus Toplady, now thirty-one years of age, after doing his utmost to purge his pamphlet from offensive expressions, thus, by the electing grace of God, speaks of a man approaching seventy. Little did he think, that within seven years he himself would stand before that bar with which he threatened Wesley; and that the hoary headed man, who he thought might be “given over to final obduration,” would be his survivor nearly thirteen years.

Besides all this public annoyance, Wesley and Fletcher had sent to them anonymous letters of the vilest description. Two may suffice as specimens. Both have Birmingham post mark, and both were addressed to Fletcher. Both are in the same handwriting; the orthography of one is correct, but of the other purposely otherwise. In the first are ink sketches of Wesley and Fletcher in two pulpits, and pelting each other with Bibles. In the other, Wesley is represented as being hanged, and Fletcher is shooting him after he is dead. Take an extract from the first, which, though bad enough, is not the worst that it contains.

What had Wesley done to deserve all this? Literally nothing, except publishing the brief and imperfect minutes of a conversation he had with his itinerant preachers in 1770, on the subject of Calvinism; and, further, three small tracts, one an abridgment of Toplady’s Zanchius; another an answer to the question, “What is an Arminian?” and the third, “The Consequence Proved.” This was absolutely the sum total of his offence so far as the public was concerned. The minutes fill little more than an octavo page, and contain not the slightest reflection upon any one under heaven. The description of an Arminian occupies only eight pages 12mo, and merely states, in the most temperate terms, the difference between the Arminian and Calvinistic creeds. From first to last, the name of no living man is mentioned, except the name of Wesley himself. The abridgment of Toplady’s Zanchius fills only twelve pages 12mo, and is honestly and fairly made. The only thing in it, that can, with any degree of fairness, be considered personal, is the summing up of the principles of Zanchius, which occupy half-a-dozen lines, and to which Wesley appended the words, characteristic enough of the young predestinarian whose translation he was abridging, “Reader, believe this, or be damned. Witness my hand, A—— T——.” Then, in reference to the third tract, “The Consequence Proved,” the printed matter fills just eight pages 12mo, and there is absolutely nothing in it but what is fair argument, except that Wesley calls Toplady “a young, bold man,” and says he will leave him “to be farther corrected by one that is full his match, Mr. Thomas Olivers.” This is all, literally all; the first and last; the substance and the details of Wesley’s offending. The two Hills, one of them not yet forty, and the other not yet thirty years of age, are never mentioned, or in the least alluded to, in any of Wesley’s publications just named. And yet, because an old man, who, for more than thirty years, had been incessantly traversing the three kingdoms to preach the gospel of God his Saviour, happens to express, in the most temperate language, an opinion contrary to the Calvinian creed, he becomes the butt of the disgraceful abuse, specimens of which have been given in the previous pages. For many a long year, Wesley was lampooned in newspapers and magazines, and in tracts and pamphlets written by two different classes of literary men—​Samuel Foote, the comedian, the representative of one, and George Lavington, the merryandrew bishop, the representative of the other: but now these were silent; and, in their stead, we have another set of opponents, far more angry than the former ones, animated by a spirit quite as bitter, and using opprobrious epithets almost more offensive; men believing themselves to be among God’s elect, called, and converted; loud religious professors, and adepts in the art of railing; profound admirers of the dead Whitefield, but perfect haters of Whitefield’s surviving friend, Wesley. In turn, Wesley had encountered mobs and men of letters, drunken parsons, furious papists, honest infidels, and others; but, of all his enemies, his last were his bitterest and worst, Calvinistic Christians!!

Some will blame the writer for furnishing modern readers with specimens of the foul mouthed language used, respecting Wesley, by some of the most flaming professors of Christ’s religion a hundred years ago. His answer is, the task is far from pleasant; but without a knowledge of Wesley’s unmerited and unparalleled persecutions, who can have a just conception of Wesley’s character? The result of such exposures, it is true, is not only to enhance the fame of Wesley, but to blot the history of his opponents. This no one regrets more deeply than the present writer; but he cannot help it. Besides, it is a fact, which cannot be denied, that there are some sins which, even though repented of, and pardoned, are, in the present world, always punished. A man rails, and God forgives him; but even forgiveness cannot prevent his railing injuring his character. Injured fame, in such a case, is a penalty unavoidable, reasonable, and right.

We have furnished specimens of the foolish and disgraceful ravings of Richard and Rowland Hill. What was Wesley’s reply? There is a quiet irony in one of the entries in his journal, which is worth quoting: “1772. July. 11—I was presented with Mr. Hill’s Review, a curiosity in its kind. But it has nothing to do either with good nature or good manners; for he is writing to an Arminian. I almost wonder at his passionate desire to measure swords with me. This is the third time he has fallen upon me without fear or wit. Tandem extorquebis ut vapules.”

Accordingly, Wesley prepared and published “Some Remarks on Mr. Hill’s ‘Review of all the Doctrines taught by Mr. John Wesley.’” This is the tartest of Wesley’s publications, and not without reason. He writes:

This was unsheathing the sword, and casting away the scabbard.

Wesley proceeds, in most trenchant style, to defend himself against Hill’s grand objection, self inconsistency. Our space renders it impossible to give an outline of Wesley’s answers to the charges, so recklessly brought against him. The following is a part of his conclusion:

Thus did Wesley accept the challenge; and it is not hazarding too much to make the assertion, that Fletcher’s almost inimitable polemical productions, and Wesley’s own sermons, together with his Arminian Magazine, started six years afterwards, did what Wesley wished, namely drove the fiendish doctrine of reprobation to its “own hell,” and gave a blow to the Calvinian theory, which has been felt from that time to this.

Wesley’s other publications, in 1772, were the following.

1. A revised and enlarged edition of the minutes of his conferences.

2. The issue of eleven volumes of his revised and collected works, making a little more than 3900 printed 12mo pages.

3. Two political tracts: one entitled, “Thoughts upon Liberty”; the other, “Thoughts concerning the Origin of Power.” The disturbed state of the nation, at this period, has been already sketched. Junius and John Wilkes were the arch agitators of the day, and well-nigh drove the nation into rebellion. Hampson states that, when the Letters of Junius appeared, Wesley offered his services to the government, and proposed to answer them, saying, “I will show the difference between rhetoric and logic.”⁠[183] We have no means of either substantiating or contradicting this; but Wesley’s “Thoughts upon Liberty” fully show that Wilkes, the demagogue, was no favourite of his, and that King George had no truer or more loyal subject than the leader of the Methodists.

In his second tract, Wesley combats the theory, that the people of a nation are the “origin of power.” He shows that, if this were true, every man, woman, and child ought to possess the electoral franchise, and to be allowed to take a part in constituting parliaments and governmental cabinets. He taunts, with withering sarcasm, the advocates of such a theory, on the ground, that they themselves resist the facts their theory implies, because they allowed none to vote except freeholders of forty shillings yearly value, and not even them unless they had arrived at the age of twenty one. “Worse and worse,” he writes: “after depriving half the human species of their natural rights for want of a beard; after depriving myriads more for want of a stiff beard, for not having lived one-and-twenty years; you rob others of their birthright for want of money! Yet not altogether on this account either; for here is an Englishman who has money enough to buy the estates of fifty freeholders, and yet he must not be numbered among the people because he has not two or three acres of land.”

Having shown the absurdities which, as he thinks, the theory involves, he then concludes: “Common sense brings us back to the grand truth, ‘There is no power but of God.’”

Wesley’s tract is little known; but the radical politicians of the present age would be none the worse for studying the principles to which it summarily adverts.⁠[184]