Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/319

 shared many traits of character. His correspondence is wonderful for terse clearness, lighted by irony, full of epigram, often abrupt, rarely betraying any trace of sentiment. In controversy he was a consummate master of apt and telling statement of a case; as he never wrote without conviction, he convinced others. Hampson says (iii. 160) he offered his services to the government in answer to ‘Junius;’ if this is true, the government missed a powerful ally. Controversy never soured him against persons; he rejoiced to receive the communion (1762) with his old adversary Lavington; [q. v.], who had bitterly opposed him, turned at once to Wesley in his distress; and he never deserted a fallen friend (cf. his relations with [q. v.], and the case of William Shent,, iii. 289). His prejudices were vivid rather than strong, for his mind opened to facts with the utmost readiness; when young, he was ‘sure of everything,’ but in a few years ‘not half so sure of most things’ (London Magazine, 1765, p. 26). To claim him for any one ecclesiastical party is as futile as the attempt to fix the religion of Shakespeare. He was continually breaking bounds. He had ‘no doubt’ of the salvation of Marcus Antoninus, whom he contrasts with ‘nominal Christians’ (Journal, 11 Oct. 1745). Those who adopted John Taylor's view of original sin were ‘silver-tongued antichrists’ (ib. 28 Aug. 1748); yet his challenge to Taylor (3 July 1759) is a fine specimen of the true temper of serious debate; nay, he could ‘guess’ Pelagius to be ‘a wise and a holy man’ (7 July 1761; Works, xii. 224), and he had used exactly the same expressions of Servetus (in a Dialogue, 1741, mainly borrowed from (1634–1692) [q. v.], but this phrase is Wesley's own); in 1786 he abridged the life of  [q. v.] for the ‘Arminian Magazine,’ with a preface allowing that an antitrinitarian might be ‘truly pious.’ His intense biblicism (he called himself a ‘Bible bigot’) led him to write ‘the giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible’ (Arminian Magazine, 1782, p. 366); but, after reading (1769) Glanville's ‘Saducismus Triumphatus’ (1681), he remarks ‘supposing the facts true, I wonder a man of sense should attempt to account for them at all.’ Yet he had his heresies; he was (quite disinterestedly) for marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and he believed in a future life for the brute creation. Great as methodism is, as a religious power, the personal influence of Wesley is greater, and has affected every section of English religion.

As a religious poet his reputation has paled beside that of Charles Wesley; but allowing for Charles greater spontaneity and (at his best) richer quality, it must not be forgotten that his hymns were indebted to John Wesley's editing hand. The latter's best hymns are translations from the German (for his conspicuous merits as a translator see, John Wesley's Translations of German Hymns, Baltimore, 1896). Wesley, by himself or with Charles, published between 1737 and 1786 twenty-three collections of hymns, including compositions by various writers (for the bibliography see, Dictionary of Hymnology, 1892). His pieces are contained in Osborn's ‘Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley,’ 1868–1872, 13 vols.; but it is difficult to apportion in all cases the respective work of the two brothers.

Wesley's prose ‘Works’ were first collected by himself (Bristol, 1771–4, 32 vols. 12mo). The edition used above is the eleventh (1856–62, 15 vols. 12mo), containing only the religious writings, edited by Thomas Jackson (1783–1873) [q. v.], whose first edition is 1829–31, 14 vols. 8vo. Tyerman gives under each year an annotated list of Wesley's publications; to pursue the bibliography of reprints would be endless. Green's ‘Bibliography’ (1896) of the works of John and Charles Wesley gives the fullest account of original editions. Wesley's ‘Sermons,’ numbering 141 (1726–1790), and his ‘Notes on the New Testament’ (1754) are of special importance, as containing the authorised standard of methodist doctrine, specified as such in chapel deeds. His copy of Shakespeare, the margin ‘filled with critical notes,’ was destroyed by John Pawson (, Anecdotes of the Wesleys, 1870, p. 319).

[Wesley's public career is best studied in his published Journals (extending from 1735 to 1790) and his correspondence, parts of which are collected in his Works (vols. xii. xiii.) Omitting brief pamphlets, the first biography is the Life (1791, 3 vols.) by [q. v.], a publication viewed by Methodists with suspicion, but containing some valuable details. The Life by Coke and Moore (chiefly by the latter) was issued by conference in 1792 to forestall Whitehead, and had the disadvantage of being drawn up without access to Wesley's papers. For the dispute see. Whitehead's Life was published 1791–3, 2 vols. The best proof of its worth is the constant borrowing from it by Moore in his amended Life, 1824–5, 2 vols. Southey's Life (1820, 2 vols.) had not the advantage of Moore's additions; it first brought home to the public mind a distinct sense of Wesley's place in the history of English religion. It should be read