A New Phase of Charles Wesley's Ministry After withdrawing from the itinerancy in 1756 Charles Wesley appeared to slip into the background of the Methodist movement, restricting his labours to Bristol, and in later years London. This can be seen as a move into comparative obscurity, as Charles left the centre of the Methodist stage to concentrate on raising a family and writing verse. While there is no doubting the significance of such areas of his life, it would be a mistake to assume that these years were devoid of other interest, and indeed, a strong argument can be made that Charles's behind-the-scenes activities in the years between 1756 and 1788 represent one of the most fascinating aspects of his contribution to the development of early Methodism.
It is important to emphasize that Charles did not abandon his public ministry entirely but continued to preach extensively and lead worship in two of the premier societies in the country. He and Sarah had made their home in Bristol shortly after their marriage and he always had great affection for the city and its people. After his retirement from the road, Charles frequently officiated at the New Room and neighbouring societies, but by the 1760s Bristol's importance in Methodist terms was beginning to give way to other centres such as Newcastle and Leeds, and increasingly, Charles's own ministry had London as its primary focus. He spent long periods in the capital and he finally moved his family there in 1771. In concentrating his ministry in London, Charles was located at the centre of British Methodism. The London society had the largest membership in the country and was the hub of such Connexional activities as printing and book distribution. London Methodism did not have a monopoly on rich lay members, but it did have a higher
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 163 concentration by virtue of the city's place at the centre of national life.
Prominent figures in commerce such as William Marriott, Samuel Lloyd, and John Horton worshipped at the Foundery and at West
Street Chapel, while Evangelicals within the Houses of Parliament such as William Wilberforce and Lord Dartmouth were often resident in the city. London was in fact the one society through which Charles could have hoped to exercise an important influence over Methodist affairs nationally. One of the reasons why he was the object of such dislike in certain quarters, even in his years of comparative retirement, was because he was still a figure to be reckoned with.
Charles's withdrawal from the itinerancy underlined his changing role within the Methodist movement. His chief priority now was to thwart the activities of separatist preachers. In a letter written to his brother on 23 October 1756, Charles made this intention very clear: 'The short remains of my life are devoted to this very thing, to follow your sons ...with buckets of water, and quench the flame of strife and division which they have, or may kindle.'1 It is worth noting Charles's effective denial of any personal responsibility for establishing and encouraging an itinerant lay ministry, but placed all the blame on John's shoulders; it is hardly suprising that he tried his brother's patience. In August 1756, Charles confided to the Evangelical clergyman Samuel Walker that he remained within the movement
'not so much to do good, as to prevent evil'.2 Charles Wesley was no longer a revivalist itinerant but a self-appointed guardian of the Church-Methodist gate. He was to find in both London and Bristol a circle of friends and supporters who reinforced his convictions, and whose pro-Anglican leanings were bolstered by his formidable presence. Charles's activities in this, the third phase of his Evangelical ministry, should not be seen in isolation from the emergence of this strong body of opinion.
Charles's ministry in Bristol and London was exercised against a background of continued Methodist expansion. The number of circuits in Britain and Ireland rose from thirty-nine in 1765 to sixty-four
1 Quoted by Baker, Charles Wesley as Revealed, 97.
2 CW to Samuel Walker, 19th-century copy letter, 21 August 1756 (MCA: DDCW 1/55).
164 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry by 1780.3 During the same period, the number of lay itinerants increased from ninety-four to one hundred and sixty-eight.4 There were also the first stirrings of overseas activity, as the movement was introduced into the West Indies in 1759 and North America shortly after.
The single most important issue that dominated polity in the second half of the century remained the link with the Church of England. The continuing success of Methodism at home and overseas forced into greater prominence the question of the relationship with the Church. As pressure to separate mounted in certain quarters, a pro-Anglican Methodist opposition emerged as a counterweight and battle-lines were drawn that were to last until the early nineteenth century. The Victorian Wesleyan Methodist Church was in part at least a product of the compromise that brought this conflict to a close. This chapter will examine one of the major controversies of the period, namely the Norwich dispute of 1760. By looking in detail at one episode rather than embarking on a wider but inevitably less detailed survey, it is possible to gain a sharp insight into the grassroots reality of early Methodism as the movement approached an important crossroads.
A STORM IN EAST ANGLIA There was an uneasy public peace with regard to separation between 1756 and 1760, but there were developments behind the scenes that made a renewal of conflict inevitable. One of these was the increasing incidence of Dissenters' licences being applied for by preachers and on behalf of preaching houses. These granted a measure of legal protection from persecution, but raised inevitable questions about the link with the Church of England.
The powder keg exploded in February 1760 with the revelation that three itinerants of the Norwich circuit were administering Communion. The men concerned, John Murlin, Paul Greenwood, and Thomas Mitchell, were well-regarded preachers of long standing, and their actions represented a significant threat to the connection with 3 Conference Minutes, i. 47–8 and 143–5. 4 Ibid.
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 165 the Anglican Church. The Wesley brothers were in London when the news broke. In a letter to his wife written on 2 March, Charles described how in leading that morning's worship, he felt 'constrained to pray for these poor sheep, that they may be kept after our departure from the grievous wolves and sectarian teachers: and never leave the Church till Christ left it'.5 Having made his initial stand in a typically public and forthright manner, Charles attended Spitalfields Chapel and handed his brother a letter in response to John's request that Charles travel to Norwich to deal with the situation. Charles transcribed this letter for Sarah's benefit:
I have thought and prayed about going to Norwich, and am ready to go; but not on a fool's errand. Your want of resolution yesterday saved you the reading of a long letter. Did you give Murlin and his fellows the least check? Did you blame them in the slightest word? What must be the consequence? The rest [of the preachers] secure in your weakness will do what they wish ...If your weak conscience will not let you touch them, what signifies my going to [Norwich]? You will not stand by me. Your fear and dissimulation will throw all the blame upon me and perhaps disown me. Write a letter by me to the preachers, what you would have them and me to do. Blame them as strongly as your conscience will let you. Otherwise you betray them and all the preachers; you betray your own authority, and our children and our
Church; and are the author of the separation.6
Stung into action, John exhorted the Spitalfields congregation to remain steadfast in the Church of England. The generally poor opinion that Charles entertained of his brother at this time is illustrated by his observation to Sarah that 'nothing else which he said was worth remembering'.7
The following day, Charles informed his wife of the outcome of John's deliberations, namely that no action would be taken until
Conference assembled in five months' time.8 This decision could be construed as evidence of John's statesmanlike qualities, although some might also agree with Charles that his brother was simply irresolute. A third possibility is that John Wesley wanted to gauge the wider Methodist reaction to events in Norwich before making his
5 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 2/3 March 1760 (MCA: DDCW 7/57).
6 CW to John Wesley, MS copy letter, 2 March 1760 (MCA: DDCW 7/57).
7 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 2/3 March 1760 (MCA: DDCW 7/57).
166 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry decision. Charles certainly felt that it suited John to have the Conference vote in favour of allowing preachers to administer and that the delay of five months would favour its advocates.9 While Charles was always inclined to believe the worst, it is nevertheless certain that his brother's mind was not resolved on a particular course of action, despite his strong words to the Spitalfields congregation. In a letter to Charles written on 23 June 1760, he referred to the 'bad dilemma, leave preaching, or leave the Church. We have reason to thank God, it is not come to this yet. Perhaps it never may.'10 The fact that John did not rule out the possibility if circumstances compelled justified his brother's fears.
Historians of early Methodism have long accepted that there was inherent contradiction in John Wesley's profession of loyalty to one denomination while laying the foundations of another,11 but have been reluctant to believe that this sprang from anything other than the purest of motives.12 Yet it has already been shown that John possessed an unusually dominant and ambitious personality, and his life's record with regard to this issue shows that he was only brought back from the brink of separation several times by a combination of circumstances and pressure from other people. John's burning sense of mission coupled with his egotism would not allow him to rule out the possibility of cutting the ties with his Mother Church.
Charles knew his brother better than anyone and he certainly felt that John was capable of underhand dealings in pursuit of what he perceived to be a higher good. The brothers' friend William Grimshaw also expressed doubts about John's sincerity during the Norwich
9 'At the Conference, I presume, he will put it to the vote whether they have a right to administer. Then by a large majority they consent to a separation.' Ibid.
10 JW to CW, MS letter, 23 June 1760 (MCA: DDWes 3/12).
11 Summed up by the 19th-century Wesleyan minister Joseph Beaumont: 'Mr Wesley, like a strong and skilful rower, looked one way, while every stroke of his oar took him in the opposite direction.' Benjamin Gregory, Sidelights on the Conflicts of Methodism during the Second Quarter of the Nineteenth Century (London: Cassell,
12 'The story of the separation of Methodism from the Church of England is one of the humble apothecary prescribing homely remedies for spiritual ills ...Methodism was the result, not of the fulfilling of an ambitious dream, but of the constant frustration of hopes which we now see as fruitless.' Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 4.
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 167 dispute,13 although his reservations might be at least partly explained by the fact that he was responding to a complaint from Charles.
Why did the preachers of that particular society take this radical step and how representative were the Norwich Methodists of the movement at large? It has been persuasively argued that the itinerants acted in response to local pressure;14 the controversy would therefore appear to represent strong evidence of a wish at grassroots level for a break with the Church of England. However, the situation is not so clear-cut when one looks in detail at the local picture and compares it with the Methodist situation elsewhere.
East Anglia was a stronghold of traditional Dissent. John Wesley observed during his visit to Norwich in March 1759 that the majority of the Methodist communicants were from a Nonconformist background,15 and it is reasonable to assume therefore that the bond with the Church was not as strong as in other parts of the country. The picture is rendered more complicated still by the fact that the Wesleyans formed a joint society with worshippers at the Calvinist Tabernacle
Chapel,16 a result of the rapprochement with the disgraced itinerant James Wheatley who had pioneered the cause in the city.17 John Wesley divided the combined society in March 1759 into classes, 'without any distinction between them who had belonged to the Foundery or the Tabernacle'.18 This example of evangelical cooperation was at the root of the trouble that occurred less than a year later. The Tabernacle people were accustomed to receive Communion from their preacher
William Cudworth and had held services during Anglican church hours. Baker is probably correct to argue that it was their influence that proved decisive in persuading the itinerants to administer.19
13 'I little thought that your brother approved or connived at these things, especially at the preachers' doings at Norwich. If it be so ...it's time for me to shift for myself. To disown all connection with the Methodists.' William Grimshaw to CW, MS letter, 31 March 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/63).
14 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 129.
15 JWJ, 18 March 1759. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, xxi. 179.
16 Opened by George Whitefield in August 1755. Cyril Jolly, The Spreading Flame:
The Coming of Methodism to Norfolk 1751–1811 ([Dereham]: published by Cyril Jolly, n.d.), 12.
18 JWJ, 29 March 1759. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, xxi. 181.
19 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 129.
168 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry There was animosity towards the Wesleys within the Calvinist part of the Norwich society20 and John Wesley had suspected early in 1759 that there would be reluctance to fall into line with his leadership.21
Cudworth was vehemently opposed to Arminian doctrine and had engaged in pamphlet warfare on the subject. It is difficult in fact to see how such collaboration could have worked; certainly, John was to have cause to regret his typically confident assertion that he could bring the people to order as 'hitherto there has been no King in Israel'.22 He visited the city in August 1759 and preached at the Tabernacle to a 'large, rude, noisy congregation. I took knowledge what manner of teachers they had been accustomed to, and determined to mend them or end them.'23 The following week, he told the assembled society that 'they were the most ignorant, self-conceited, self-willed, fickle, untractable, disorderly, disjointed society that I knew in the three kingdoms'.24 It should come as no surprise therefore that this same congregation was at the centre of trouble less than six months later.
The situation in Norwich posed particular difficulties, the combination of which according to John Wesley's own testimony was unique in British Methodism. Hostility or indifference towards the Church of England may have been an element of this explosive mix, but it was by no means the most important. The administration of Communion appears to have been a by-product of a tense local situation, rather than a defiant symbol of impending separation on a wider scale.
THE WIDER METHODIST REACTION There is no evidence in the primary sources that the example of the Norwich preachers was followed elsewhere, despite the five-month hiatus. This is not to say that such a possibility does not exist, as the 20 'I rode to Forncett, twelve miles from Norwich ...We found William Cudworth had preached there in the morning ...The people looked as direful upon me as if it had been Satan in person.' JWJ, 25 March 1759. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, xxi. 180.
21 JWJ, 1 April 1759. Ibid. 181. 22 JWJ, 25 March 1759. Ibid.
23 JWJ, 30 August 1759. Ibid. 226. 24 JWJ, 9 September 1759. Ibid. 227.
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 169 Wesleys would not necessarily have discovered what local Methodists were doing behind their backs; the Norwich itinerants had apparently been administering the Sacrament for many months before the leadership found out. It is, however, unlikely that such a controversial action would have escaped attention, if it had occurred over any length of time or to an appreciable extent.
We know of the detailed reaction of ordinary Methodists to the controversy in only two places, namely London and the 'Great Haworth Round', which straddled the border of Lancashire and Yorkshire.25 Both these circuits occupied important positions;
London for reasons that have been outlined and Haworth because it was at the centre of a region where Methodism enjoyed tremendous success and which was to remain a stronghold well into the nineteenth century. It is interesting that these circuits apparently represented very different viewpoints.
On 17 March 1760, Charles attended the capital's Spitalfields Chapel and reported to Sarah as follows:
I read the Reasons against leaving the Church ...A spirit of unanimity breathed in all, or most of our hearts. Great confidence I felt that they will be none otherwise minded than myself, that they are determined to live and die in their calling.
I told them my brother and I had agreed that I should warn them after this manner ...I did not speak a disrespectful word of the Lay preachers.
Our [class] leaders (J. Jones informs me) are sufficiently scandalized at their licensing themselves, that is coming to the people with a lie in their pocket. I shall see how this matter is. God is plainly at work ...I met the select band, where all seemed satisfied with our last night's assembly. Several seconded my word ...Bestowed another hour on the preachers who seem (for I see not their hearts) likeminded. J. Murlin, I cannot but believe sincere. I have sent up for Paul Greenwood.26
25 The Haworth Circuit in 1760 stretched over a large area from Birstal and Bradford to the south, Nidderdale in the east, Burnley in the west and the Cumbrian coast to the north. The village of Haworth was at the centre of the circuit by virtue of the presence of the Anglican minister William Grimshaw. Colin Dews,
A History of Methodism in Haworth from 1744: Comprised for the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Sunday School, 3 May 1981 (Keighley: Bronte Print,
26 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 17 March [1760] (MCA: DDCW 5/108).
170 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry Charles may have avoided speaking disrespectfully of the lay preachers on that occasion, but he was unable or unwilling to curb his tongue for long. He reported to Sarah with satisfaction on 11 April that in a society meeting he had 'asked a preacher how he reconciled it with sincerity, his licensing himself as a Protestant Dissenter while he continued a member of the Church of England? He frankly owned himself a Dissenting minister. The Communion of Saints was immediately up in arms. I could not stay to appease or govern their zeal.'27
The reaction of the preacher to being put on the spot in such a way and then being left to fend for himself can well be imagined. Two days later, Charles again stirred up popular feeling by reading out William
Grimshaw's spirited condemnation of events in Norwich:28
All cried out against the licensed preachers: many demanded that they should be silenced immediately: many, that they should give up their licenses; some protested against ever hearing them more ...The lay preachers pleaded my
B's [brother's] authority. I took occasion from thence to moderate the others ...and desired the [class] leaders to have patience till we had our Conference ...'My chief concern upon earth', I said, 'was the prosperity of the Church of E. [England]. My next, that of the Methodists, my 3rd, that of the preachers ...' They all cried out they would answer for 99 out of 100 in London if [sic] they would live and die in the Church.29
Public opinion in London appears to have been solidly in favour of remaining within the Church of England. The evidence is admittedly reported from a particular viewpoint, but it is in accord with what we know of the conservative nature of Methodism in the capital.
It is also valuable to point out that the attachment to the Church appears to have crossed social boundaries. The prominent role played by wealthy Church-Methodists in fighting against separation can give the impression that such opinions were the preserve of the social elite, but it will become clear that this was not the case and that Charles and his friends were more representative of British Methodism than is commonly supposed.
If Charles had good reason to be satisfied with the reaction in his immediate vicinity, he would have been disturbed by William
27 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 11 April 1760 (MCA: DDCW 7/3).
28 William Grimshaw to CW, MS letter, 31 March 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/63).
29 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter [13 April 1760] (MCA: DDWes 9/13).
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 171 Grimshaw's summary on 31 March 1760 of feeling within the Haworth circuit:
The licensing of preachers and Preaching Houses is a matter that I never expected to have seen or heard of among the Methodists. If I had, I dare say, I had never entered into connection with them. I am in connection with them, and desire to continue so. But how can I do it consistently with my relation to the Church of England? For as it is with you, so it is with us ...many of the preachers in these parts have got licensed at the Quarter Sessions. Several of the preaching houses and other houses are got licensed. To be sure the Methodists are no longer members of the Church of England; They are as real a body of dissenters from her, as the [Presbyterians], [Baptists] and [Quakers] ...
Nor is this spirit merely in the preachers, it is in the people also. There are so many inconveniences attend the people, that in most places they all plead strenuously for a settled ministry. They cannot, they say in conscience receive the Sacraments as administered in our Church. They cannot attend preaching at 8, 12, and 4 o'clock on Lord's Days and go to Church etc. They reason these things with the preachers and urge them upon ordination ...for my part, though I do not approve of every thing in our liturgy, yet I see nothing so material amiss in it or our Church or constitution ...as to justify my separation from her.30
This pessimistic assessment of public opinion in the Methodist heartland is plausible. The hold of the Church of England in the villages and farms around Haworth was traditionally weak:31 parishes encompassed large, thinly populated areas, and to attend worship it was often necessary to travel long distances in harsh upland country.32 It is hardly surprising that there should have been a general wish for a 'settled ministry' and complex theological debate would have had little meaning in isolated communities with a 90 per cent illiteracy rate.33
30 William Grimshaw to CW, MS letter, 31 March 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/63).
31 Dews, A History of Methodism in Haworth, 10.
32 John Newton described the area around Haworth at the time of Grimshaw's appointment as 'bleak and barren' and the inhabitants as possessed of 'little more sense of religion than their cattle, and were wild and uncultivated like the mountains and rocks which surrounded them'. Quoted by Faith Cook, William Grimshaw of Haworth (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 45.
33 Revealed by reference to the Nidderdale Anglican marriage register between 1740 and 1790. Joanna Dawson, 'Methodism at the Grassroots within the Great
Haworth Round', Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, Yorkshire Branch Occasional Paper, 3 (1978), 6.
172 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry As in Norwich, parts of the Haworth circuit were strongholds of Dissent. The Archbishop's Visitation in 1743 recorded the existence of Quaker meetings in settlements that were to be susceptible to the work of itinerant preachers in the decade that followed.34 This aspect should not, however, be overstated, for while many local Methodists would have come from a Nonconformist background, it would not have been the case throughout the circuit—the Visitation listed the number of dissenting families in the chapelry of Haworth itself as just
3 out of a total of 326.35
It is possible to present an alternative to Grimshaw's gloomy prognosis. Five years previously, he had implied that lay administration of the Sacraments was not an issue of local concern,36 and there do not appear in the interim to have been worrying developments. In his letter of 31 March 1760, he confessed that he rarely wrote to Charles because he seldom had anything to write about,37 and there is some suggestion that Grimshaw, like Charles, had a tendency to worry unnecessarily.38 This may have been fuelled by embarrassment that two of the Norwich preachers, Greenwood and Mitchell, were products of his ministry.39 A strong argument can in fact be made that far from weakening the Church of England, Grimshaw and his lay helpers revived Anglican fortunes in Haworth and adjacent parishes.
In 1742, when he was appointed to the curacy, Grimshaw recorded the number of communicants as twelve;40 within a year, this had risen to between fifty and sixty,41 and in May 1748, he reported to the Archbishop of York that in the summer, he administered to as many as twelve hundred;42 this in a town that had a population of about 2,200.43 Services became so popular that nine months after his arrival
Grimshaw drafted a proposal to enlarge the church.44 Many people 34 Dawson, 'Methodism at the Grassroots', 13.
35 Cook, William Grimshaw, 66.
36 'As to the Lay Preachers new scheme, I've no relish for it, nor is it expedient ...because few of the clergy deny this sacrament [Communion] to our people.
Nor is the reception of it from a carnal minister's hand any objection thereto, or any obstruction to the communicant's blessing, provided he receives in faith.' William
Grimshaw to Mrs Gallatin, 2 May 1755. Transcribed by Laycock, Methodist Heroes, 149.
37 William Grimshaw to CW, MS letter, 31 March 1760 (MCA: DDPr 2/63).
38 Cook, William Grimshaw, 226. 39 Ibid. 225. 40 Ibid. 57.
41 Ibid. 66. 42 Ibid. 125. 43 Ibid. 52. 44 Ibid. 62.
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 173 were obviously travelling in from other parishes to attend services in Haworth, and while this might be seen as testimony to the poor quality of Anglican provision elsewhere in the region, it should be noted that people walked and rode long distances to hear a Church of England minister in an Anglican setting.
By the late 1740s, the small isolated country town of Haworth was an unlikely centre of mass evangelism. The Wesleys45 and Whitefield46 made it a regular stop on their itineraries and their visits attracted huge interest, but it was Grimshaw who was the driving force. His ministry left an indelible impression47 and while he was irregular in his Evangelical activities, his own loyalty to the Church was without question. Much has been written about the persecution that Grimshaw experienced from some of his fellow clergy, most notably George White of Colne,48 but this was not always the Anglican reaction. After hearing Grimshaw preach, Archbishop Gilbert of York took him by the hand and said 'I would to God that all the clergy in my diocese were like this good man.'49 Grimshaw's own view of separation was unequivocal and in keeping with the fear of discord that was current in contemporary society: 'By these means, Satan stirs up disputes, contentions and controversies ...and then divides the Church of Christ into sects and parties.'50
The argument could be put forward that it was Grimshaw's personal and spiritual qualities that were paramount and that his Anglican orders were incidental. No doubt this was the case with some of his listeners, but there were others who would have agreed with their fellow Evangelicals elsewhere that there was no bar to being both Methodist and Anglican. The Nidderdale parish records reveal that Thomas Green, who entertained John Wesley eight times, was
45 Charles Wesley's journal records that his first visit to Haworth was on 22 October 1746 and his last was on 17 October 1756. John made at least eighteen visits between May 1747 and April 1790. Dews, A History of Methodism in Haworth, 7.
46 Baker estimated in his doctoral thesis on Grimshaw that Whitefield visited Haworth about seventeen times. Cook, William Grimshaw of Haworth, 196.
47 When preparing a biography of Grimshaw that was never subsequently published, James Everett visited Haworth in 1826 and found that 'though 60 years had elapsed ...his presence was still visible ...stop an aged person, utter the name of Grimshaw—it operates like a charm'. Ibid. 144.
48 Baker, William Grimshaw, 130–43.
49 Quoted by Cook, William Grimshaw, 198. 50 Ibid. 230.
174 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry an office holder of the parish church, as was the local preacher and class leader Thomas Pullen, while Moses Rayner was in charge of the orchestra at Middlesmoor Church in addition to leading three classes.51
It should be questioned whether a wish for what Grimshaw referred to as a 'settled ministry' under the supervision of Methodist preachers was incompatible in people's minds with continued loyalty to the Church of England. To Charles Wesley and William Grimshaw, steps such as lay administration of Communion amounted to separation, and that was a matter of supreme importance. In those places where the issue was brought to public notice, emotions would obviously be stirred up, yet it is unlikely that the majority of lay
Methodists accorded it the same significance. Throughout the eighteenth century, most of the Wesleys' followers obeyed, apparently without objection, their instructions to attend both Methodist and Anglican worship. Lacking the theological training of the Wesleys, their priority was spiritual solace whether that was to be found in a Methodist or an Anglican setting, or both. Bishop Samuel Horsley wrote in 1790 that 'The bulk of the people submit with much complacency to the religion of the state; and, where no undue arts are employed to perplex their understandings, do not usually trouble themselves or their neighbours with theological niceties.'52
Where people found it difficult to attend their parish church they would have naturally gravitated towards the Methodist meeting, and over a period of time this would inevitably have weakened the bond with the Church, but this should not necessarily be seen as evidence of a wish to separate. Nor was this a one-way process, for in response to the ebb and flow of local conditions people drifted quite happily between preaching house and parish. In 1786 the Vicar of Eastchurch in Kent noted that a Methodist meeting that had started during the tenure of an unpopular curate disappeared in response to his replacement.53 When viewed in this context, it appears that John Wesley
51 Dawson, 'Methodism at the Grassroots', 12.
52 [Samuel Horsley], An Apology for the Liturgy and Clergy of the Church of England (London: printed for J. F. and C. Rivington, 1790), 9.
53 Jeremy Gregory, Restoration, Reformation and Reform, 1660–1828: Archbishops of Canterbury and their Diocese (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 229.
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 175 was correct to argue that his brother was extreme in his fears.54 The Methodist people had minds of their own and to consider them as 'poor sheep' corrupted by 'grievous wolves and sectarian teachers'55 was an oversimplification of a complex issue. This brings us back to the important point that Charles was reacting not simply to concerns for the future of the movement, but to his own deeply rooted personal anxieties. He apparently failed to see that the Methodist people were not as far down the separatist path as he feared.
THE METHODIST PEOPLE AND THE LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CHURCH OF ENGLAND When one looks closely at the place of the Church of England in national life during the second half of the eighteenth century, it becomes clear that the ties between Methodism and the Church remained strong at a local level even after fear of sectarian conflict started to fade. This was not simply a question of sentiment: until
1837, all marriages, other than those of Quakers and Jews, had by law to take place according to Anglican rites and even after that date not all Methodist chapels sought registration as a place where marriages could be legally performed.56 With regard to baptism, the Wesleys frequently officiated at the Foundery and in private homes,57 although its celebration was officially restricted to Anglican ministers working in association with the societies. Some preachers baptized any way58 and Methodist registers begin to appear from 1772,59 but for most people having a child christened in a Methodist chapel was not an option even if they felt strongly on the issue. Chapel burials in the eighteenth century were also rare because, with the exception of London's City Road which opened its own burial ground in 1779,
54 For example, 'Your gross bigotry lies here, in putting a man on a level with an adulterer because he differs from you as to church government.' JW to CW, MS letter,
16 July 1755 (MCA: DDWes 3/11).
55 CW to Sarah Wesley, MS letter, 2 March 1760 (MCA: DCW 7/57).
56 William Leary, My Ancestors were Methodists, 2nd edn. (London: Society of Genealogists, 1990), 8.
57 Bernard Holland, Baptism in Early Methodism (London: Epworth, 1970), 90–2.
59 See Holland's list of baptism registers begun before 1791. Ibid. 170–2.
176 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry very few Methodist places of worship could offer this service. It was not until 1803 that the Wesleyan Conference directed circuits to keep registers of burials, and that instruction seems to have been widely ignored.60 The inability to offer certain vital functions until very late in the century contributed to keeping people both Methodist and Anglican.
Some of the Wesleys' followers would have attended Anglican services and received its Sacraments under duress, but this does not appear to have been the case for the majority. William Leary discovered that it was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for Methodist children to be baptized in both chapel and parish church.61
In the Canterbury Diocesan Visitation of 1806, the Rector of Dover remarked that the Methodists 'are not only punctual in their attendance at church, and at the sacrament, but in the course of twentythree years I have often been called to visit them in sickness'.62 As late as 1851, the Vicar of Treswell in Nottinghamshire remarked on his returns for the Ecclesiastical Census that attendance at morning service on Census Sunday was below average because the Methodists were holding a large meeting.63
The separation question was rendered complicated by this ingrained loyalty towards the Church of England. This was not something that many people could have easily articulated as it was grounded in centuries of community and family life. When people attended services in their local parish church, they were often worshipping in the same building where multiple generations of their family had been baptized, married, and buried; it was their church in a way that transcended any definition of legal establishment. It is true that during the eighteenth century the traditional structure of English society was starting to break down as people migrated from rural areas to emerging towns and cities such as Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester.64 The argument has often been made that the Anglican
60 Leary, My Ancestors were Methodists, 8. 61 Ibid. 7.
62 Quoted by Gregory, Restoration, Reformation and Reform, 229.
63 Religion in Victorian Nottinghamshire: The Religious Census of 1851, 2 vols., Centre for Local History Record Series 7, ed. Michael Watts (Nottingham: University of Nottingham Department of Adult Education, 1988), i. 36.
64 The population of Manchester increased from about 10,000 in 1717 to over 70,000 by 1801. W. H. Chaloner, 'Manchester in the Latter Half of the Eighteenth
Century', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 42 (1959–60), 41–2.
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 177 Church failed to respond effectively to this radical demographic change, particularly with regard to the construction of new churches and the modification of existing buildings. This view certainly has some merit as will be shown by our later examination of the situation in the town of Devonport, but recent scholarship does indicate a more positive Anglican response in some areas to rapid urbanization.65
Certainly there is considerable evidence that despite the fracture of local communities, many Methodists continued, well into the next century, to regard themselves as part of the Church of England. The prominent Methodist historian Abel Stevens, writing in the 1870s, mused on the glorious future that Methodism would have enjoyed if formal separation had occurred in the 1750s when the 'popular mind [had] so little ground of sympathy with the clergy'.66 In the light of the above evidence and additional material that will be presented later, it must be seriously doubted whether Methodist public opinion in Britain would have countenanced formal separation at any time during the eighteenth century.
The dual loyalty exhibited by members of the societies applied to some of the itinerants, despite Charles Wesley's unfortunate tendency to tar them all with the same brush. Francis Gilbert, one of the pioneers of West Indian Methodism, writing to Charles at the time of the Norwich dispute, declared himself opposed to the actions of his colleagues on the grounds of the confusion that would result, but he did make an important qualification: 'Were I to preach the Gospel in any distant part of the world, where there was no plan of a church yet laid, and where the Sacrament was not given more than once or twice in the year in the Church after the English Establishment [Church of England], I am now apt to think that it might then be my duty to give the Sacrament as well as to preach.'67 Gilbert went on to say that he was prepared to take Anglican orders if a bishop willing to ordain him could be found. In this letter, Gilbert epitomizes the pragmatism that characterized both the Church of England and the Methodist movement. The prominent Irish itinerant John Johnson was similarly opposed to the action of his Norwich colleagues; he told Charles in 65 For example, Smith, Religion in Industrial Society, 33–46.
66 Stevens, History of Methodism, i. 314.
67 Francis Gilbert to CW, MS letter, 15 March 1760 (MCA: DDWes 2/54).
178 A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 1763 that he had 'often thought that desire in the hearts of some of the preachers to give the Sacrament, would be the means of destroying the work'.68 As late as 1826, Adam Clarke, the first itinerant to be three times President of the Wesleyan Conference, described the Anglican
Church as the 'purest national Church in the world' and himself as possessing not 'a particle of a dissenter in me'. He also acknowledged that even after holding such high office in the Wesleyan Connexion, he would be prepared to seek Anglican ordination if he was allowed to preach wherever he pleased.69
It is evident that old habits and loyalties died hard. Given the level of duality that was inherent in Methodism, it is not surprising that even the Wesleys and their close colleagues were confused as to where people's loyalties and intentions truly lay. In the decades after 1750, there were many shades of Methodist opinion over the separation question, and as many interpretations as to what constituted loyalty to the Church of England. Charles's self-appointed role as the champion of the 'Church-Methodist' interest, and the privileged if stormy access that he enjoyed to his brother would be extremely important in shaping the future of the Wesleyan movement.
In the event, the Methodists did not separate from the Anglicans in 1760 or for many years thereafter. In the months before Conference debated the Norwich affair, Charles gathered support from itinerants and ordained Evangelicals. His language was typically forceful; he told the preacher John Nelson that he would rather see him dead than a dissenting minister.70 Based on such comments it is easy to dismiss
Charles as a hysteric and this certainly formed part of his nature, as exemplified by his reaction to his brother's marriage. However, he was also a gifted and subtle disputant and it is this character trait that is illustrated by the remark to Nelson, a blunt-speaking Yorkshireman with little patience for sophisticated debate.71 Charles was aware of his friend's straight-talking ways and adapted his style accordingly.
68 John Johnson to CW, MS letter, 2 June 1763 (MCA: EMV, 92).
69 Adam Clarke to George Wilkinson, MS letter, 27 January 1826 (MCA: PLP 25.7.8).
70 CW to John Nelson, MS letter, 27 March 1760 (MCA: DDWes 4/92B).
71 'no other preaching will do in Yorkshire but the old sort that comes like thunder claps upon the conscience for fine preaching doth more harm than good here'. John
Nelson to CW, MS letter, 4 March 1755 (MCA: PLP 78.53.1).
A New Phase of Charles's Ministry 179 It is noticeable that when he wrote on the same day to the more educated Christopher Hopper,72 his comments regarding the controversy are rationally stated and the tone is moderate.73 When considering
Charles, it is important to remember this formidable intellect and insight.
At the Bristol Conference in August 1760, the Welsh preacher and Anglican loyalist Howell Harris reported the debate on separation.74
John Wesley's loyalty to the Church had strengthened in the preceding months, possibly after considering the lack of enthusiasm among his followers for following the Norwich example, and he killed the opposition's chance of success by threatening to leave the Methodists if they abandoned the Church. Harris also reported that John was quite meek in his reaction, whereas Harris and Charles Wesley were the 'rough workers'. The Conference decision ended the Norwich dispute. As in earlier controversies, the preachers were not disciplined for their act of defiance.75
The Norwich dispute exemplified Charles's new place within the Methodist movement and underlined his role as the champion of the Church of England. This episode is also significant for the insight that it provides into the shadowy world of the grassroots of the Methodist societies. The opinions of ordinary people with regard to issues such as separation were of fundamental importance for the future of the Wesleyan arm of the Revival. Methodism was not simply the Wesleys or the preachers, it was also the rank and file of the membership.
Such men and women had their own view on the movement that they wished to be part of, and their opinions form the backdrop to any examination of the evolution of Methodist identity and Charles
Wesley's controversial input. This is of particular significance when looking at events leading up to the landmark year of 1784.
72 Hopper was a self-educated man, fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and had worked as a schoolmaster prior to entering the itinerancy.
73 CW to Christopher Hopper, MS letter, 27 March 1760 (MCA: DDWes 4/92D).
74 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 178. 75 Ibid.