A Brand From The Burning
Dr Herbert McGonigle, Chairman
of the Wesley Fellowship, reviews Roy Hattersley’s
biography of John Wesley.
A BRAND FROM THE BURNING :THE
LIFE OF JOHN WESLEY, Roy Hattersley, London: Little,
Brown – Time Warner Books, 2002. pp. vi.
451. £20, ISBN 0-316 86020 4
This book, with
its 451 pages of text, deals very comprehensively
with the life and ministry of John Wesley, the
revival he led in 18th century England and the
Methodist Societies that emerged. Quite a lot
of the important primary material has been consulted,
together with some of the more important secondary
texts. The author writes clearly and lucidly and
sometimes very vividly. He has the art of summing
up events and evaluating characters in very succinct
paragraphs and some of the research is particularly
well done. The reader will find the origins of
the Georgia colony in America, the difficulties
faced by American Methodists in the troubled years
of the Revolutionary 1770s and John Wesley attempts
to control the American revival from England,
very fully and clearly explained. There is a particular
good treatment of the growing tensions in John
Wesley’s life as he sought to maintain his
sincere love for, and allegiance to, the Church
of England. This loyalty was tested to the full
from the 1760s onwards, when there were louder
and louder demands for separation coming from
many Methodists, especially some of his preachers.
But the book
has many blemishes, so many indeed, that its value
is greatly diminished. To begin with, there are
so many errors and inaccuracies relating to names,
dates and places. John Wesley was not christened
‘John Benjamin’ (p.20), just ‘John,’
as the Epworth baptismal register proves. John’s
first sermon was not preached at South Leigh,
Oxfordshire, on 24 September 1726 (p.60); it was
preached at Fleet Marston, in Buckinghamshire,
on October 3, 1725. John Wesley’s Diary
was not begun in 1722 (p.61), rather 1725. Jacobus
Arminius did not teach his students at Leyden
University that ‘Luther’s harsh interpretation
of Augustine’ was wrong (p.82); it was Calvin’s
and Beza’s interpretation. Charles Delamotte
was not a member of the Oxford ‘Holy Club’
nor did he later take a parish in Kent (p.126).
May 19, 1738 was not Charles Wesley’s ‘Day
of Pentecost’ (p.135); it was May 21. The
date given for John Wesley’s preaching at
Islington was not in February 1740 (p.145); it
was 1739. George Whitefield’s assistant,
William Seward, did not die in 1741 (p.171); it
was 1740. The words allegedly spoken by Bishop
Butler of Bristol to Whitefield (p. 185) were
in fact spoken to John Wesley. Thomas Coke was
a Welshman, not an Irishman (p.363), and the very
important date of John Wesley’s last open-air
sermon was not November 20, 1790; it was October
7.
Listing any more
of these errors would be too tedious. Likewise
quite a number of the References are unreliable
if the reader wants to consult the original text.
These multiplied errors are the result of careless
research and even more careless proof-reading.
More serious, however, are some of the statements
and conclusions found in the book. On page 171
the allegation is made that John Wesley preached
a memorial sermon for William Seward and ‘added
outrage to grief’ by preaching universal
redemption. Where is the proof that Wesley preached
such a sermon? Another specimen of the author’s
many failures to check his sources is found on
page 187. After relating how Wesley preached on
his father’s tombstone in Epworth in June
1742, the author declares that ‘legend has
it’ that he later said he had done more
good in three days preaching on his father’s
tomb than he had done formerly in three years
preaching in his pulpit. But why is this described
as ‘legend’? Had the author checked,
he would have found that, far from it being legend,
Wesley used these very words in a letter to ‘John
Smith’ in March 1747; (see Wesley’s
Letters, 2:96). John Bennet is described as having
been ‘instantly converted by a glance from
John Wesley’ (p.232). This is pure fiction.
Had the author done his research a little more
carefully, he would have known that while Bennet
was converted in January 1742, he didn’t
meet John Wesley until June that year!
Discussing John
Wesley’s relations with James Hervey, the
author alleges that when Hervey sent his manuscript
of Theron and Aspasio to Wesley, asking for his
comments, he received ‘a scathing denunciation’
(p.322). This looks like one of the many instances
in the book where the writer is determined to
put Wesley in the worst possible light. But the
facts are very different! Wesley did reply and
sent Hervey what he called ‘a few inconsiderable
corrections.’ But Hervey wrote back, saying
to Wesley, ‘You are not my friend if you
do not take more liberty with me’ (see Wesley’s
Works, 10:317). Why does this book not give the
full facts before it makes accusations? On page
355, referring to the letter written by John Wesley
to Lord North in June 1775, on the eve of the
American War of Independence, the author asserts
that the letter was ‘certainly written in
the hope of gaining favour.’ Where is the
proof of this? The writer produces none, and,
in the absence of proof, it is nothing more than
cheap jibe and insult.
Referring to
Wesley’s near-death experience at Lisburn
(not Lurgan, as p. 336 has it) in June 1775, the
author tells how an English newspaper mistakenly
reported that Wesley had died. Then we read: ‘It
was easy for early Methodists to believe that
Wesley had in fact died, and that he had been
raised from the dead’ (p.337). Really? It
is because this book has so many of these gratuitous
‘findings’ that it is of very little
value in assessing either John Wesley or his work.
Any event, even the fictitious, can it seems be
used to portray what is described as his ‘theological
intemperance’ (p.322). The author alleges
that Wesley, fearing that the pupils of his Kingswood
School in Bristol ‘were attracted to the
heresy of election’ determined that he would
‘kill or cure - I will have one or the other
– a Christian school or none at all’
(p.324). But why is the doctrine of election dragged
in? Had the author researched more carefully (see
Wesley’s Journal for October 5, 1765, and
January 12 and 13, 1766) he would have known that
Wesley was very concerned about the lack of discipline
and spiritual life at the school; election had
nothing at all to do with the matter.
For any reader
who has some acquaintance with the letters, journals
and sermons of John Wesley, the many errors in
this book, factual, theological and interpretative,
will be a constant irritation. John Wesley, like
any other Christian leader, is not above criticism
–but surely such criticism should be fair
and built on sound evidence. Most of the insinuations
made against Wesley in this book have neither
of these foundations. Of all the flagrant allegations
in these pages, and there are many, the worst
is found on page 239. We are told that after John
Bennet married Grace Murray, whom John Wesley
came close to marrying, Bennet ‘continually
feared and suspected that, despite his marriage,
Wesley would persist in paying court to his wife
– a suspicion probably put in his mind by
Charles, who knew of his brother’s previous
record with married women.’ This is deplorable
innuendo. Where is the proof that Bennet suspected
Wesley like this and where is the proof that Charles
Wesley suggested it? But of course this book does
not need proof to make allegations. The blurb
on the dust jacket describes this work as ‘a
fascinating account,’ but a careful and
an informed reading suggests other adjectives.
Revd Dr Herbert
McGonigle
Principal and Senior Lecturer in Historical Theology
and Wesley Studies
Nazarene Theological College
Manchester
England
HMcGonigle@nazarene.ac.uk
top
|