Origin of the Name Wesley

Op the origin of the family name little is known; and of the very remote ancestors of Mr. Wesley the records appear to be lost. Of those who were more immediate, some facts have survived the general loss of original documents; and these, though scanty, are so singular and characteristic, that it would be injustice to the general narrative to withhold them from the reader.

That the progenitors of the Wesleys came from Saxony was believed by the family itself; and that a branch of the paternal tree was planted in Ireland was also credited by them.

About forty-five years ago I met with a family in the county of Antrim in that kingdom, of the name of Posley, or Postley; who said that their name was originally Wesley, but that it had been corrupted by a provincial pronunciation of P for W.

Whether it were the same family with the Wesleys of Dangan, in the county of Meath, in Ireland, that were called Posley, I cannot tell: but a gentleman there of considerable estate, whose family had come from England and settled in Ireland, several generations before that time, wrote to Samuel Wesley, sen. that if he had a son called Charles., he would adopt him for his heir; and at the expense of this gentleman, Charles was actually sent to Westminster school, and had his bills regularly discharged by this unknown friend. But when the gentleman wished to take him over to Ireland, Charles thankfully refused; fearing lest worldly prosperity and its consequences might lead away his heart from due attention to his eternal interests.

The person whom Wesley of Dangan made his heir, and who consequently took the name of Wesley, was Richard Colley of Dublin, who afterwards became the first Earl of Mornington, and was grandfather to the Marquis Wellesley and the Duke of Wellington. Wellesley is therefore a corruption, and an awkward one, (made by the present Marquis at the time of his creation to this title in 1797) of the simple and more elegant name. Wesley.

If the name were originally Spanish, as some have supposed, if must have undergone a change not less considerable, from b or v, to w; as this double consonant is not found in any words in the Spanish language. Were we to consult the Arabic tongue, which so long prevailed in that country, and which has entered into the composition of so many Spanish words, we might find the name with a peculiar and very significant import. iJ^j iccsley weslah, signify union and conjunction, from the root J^>«» wasala, he united, joined, conjoined, associated; was near, or contiguous; was united in a bond of friendship, &c. &c.

It may be thought worthy of remark that &*o) wash, and *L©|^ wasleh are proper na?nes among the Arabians; and a noted person among them, mentioned by Firoozabad, bore the name of J^ojltlabo alwasli, or abool wash, the father of union, or the uniting father. A name more happy or appropriate could not possibly be given to the founder of Methodism. I need not inform the learned reader that the grammatical note called &)*^ weslah, which signifies union or junction, is often found on the letter alif, and indicates that the vowel which terminates the preceding is to be connected with that which follows, e. g. c^L*)| lL£> kalb olmaliki,” The heart of the king.7’

The information that the family of the Wesleys came originally from Spain, in which multitudes of Arab families were long settled, has led me into this discussion of the na?ne; which the reader will pardon, provided he can turn it to no advantage; for I am ready enough to grant that the etymology may be considered precarious as long as we cannot trace the family in a direct line to an Arabic or Moorish origin.

That some of the family had been in the Crusades, or had gone on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, may be inferred from their bearing the escallop shell in their arms.

The orthography of the name is not more certain; — it has been written Westly, and Wesley, and it appears from the Irish family mentioned above, Postley and Posley: but by the autographs of all the family, from the rector of Epworth down to the present time, I find the name invariably written W-e-s-l-e-y.

When Mr. Samuel Wesley, sen. entered himself at Exeter college, Oxford, in the year 1684, he signed himself Samuel Westley: but he himself afterwards dropped the t, which he said was restoring the name to its original orthography.

As, through the Act of Uniformity passed in 1 662, some of Mr. Wesley’s more remote ancestors suffered greatly, being conscientious nonconformists, it will be necessary, before I proceed in their histoiy, to give some account of that act, its influence and consequences.

No reader of English history can be unacquainted with the troubles relative to religion which took place in the unhappy reign of Charles L, by which the kingdom was severely agitated, and the existence of genuine piety threatened with total ruin.

The nation was divided both in politics and religion between the Church and the Dissenters; or perhaps, more properly, between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism; the former contending for unlimited or absolute monarchy in the state and episcopacy in the church; the latter strongly intent on the establishment of a limited monarchy in the state, and church government, either by presbyters solely, or by a ynion of presbyters and bishops.

But though this description be generally true of the parties denominated as above, yet there were many exceptions among individuals of sound sense and learning on both sides.

Many conscientious and eminent churchmen saw and inveighed against the danger of carrying prerogative too far, and wished to promote such measures in ecclesiastical matters as might unite and cement hi one body, all the faithful of the land.

Among the dissenters many were found, especially during the civil wars and the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, who wished to establish republicanism in the state and presbyterianism in the church. But the many on both sides endeavoured to push on their own principles of civil and ecclesiastical government to their utmost consequences, Moderation was considered indecision, half-heariedness, and temporizing, by one party; and hypocrisy, disloyalty, and treachery by the other -. — medio tutissimus ibis, “the golden mean is best,” was no common adage in those days; and division in politics and religion produced suspicion and enmity; and soon, variance, hatred, and malice, lighted up the flames of a civil war.

The king seemed to think that the royal prerogative was omnipotent. The parliament withstood his -encroachments on the liberties of the subject; each side had numerous partisans. They at last took the field; and a long, most unnatural, and sanguinary war terminated in the total overthrow of the royal party; the capture, trial, condemnation, and death of the king himself, who was beheaded January 30, 1648-9.

.By this dreadful issue monarchical government and the House of Lords were abolished; the episcopal hierarchy overturned; and a species of aristocratical republicanism, under the name of the Commonwealth of England, established in the state; of which the mo?- able and successful of the King’s enemies, Oliver Cromwell, was ultimately declared the Protector.

On the death of this powerful chief, who ruled in the professed republic with nearly the same authority that an Asiatic despot rules his states; and who by his counsels, fleets, and armies, rendered the British name formidable throughout Europe; the nation far from being satisfied with the new form of government, torn by many dissensions, and smarting with its recent wounds, looked to the restoration of its monarchy as the only means of healing its distractions and restoring public confidence; was glad to invite back from his exile Charles, the late king’s son; who without difficulty or contest ascended the paternal throne, May 29, 1660, after the nation had suffered an interregnum of eleven years.

As the Presbyterians and Independents had a considerable share in the restoration of the king, with which circumstance he was not unacquainted, and the Episcopal party seemed little inclined to form any kind of union with their dissenting brethren, but rather to establish a religious intolerance, the Dissenters applied to the king for some concessions in their favour, chiefly in respect to a free and full toleration in the exercise of their public ministry. And hoped, that he would order such a reform in the Liturgy that they might be able to use it with a good conscience; or, if not altered to their wishes, that they might not be obliged to use it without having a discretionary power to omit or alter such things as their conscience could not approve; because they appeared to be either contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or to savour too much of Popish superstition.

In these things they were encouraged to expect the king’s ready concurrence, because in his letters and declaration sent from Breda, April 14, 1660, he had expressed a strong desire to discountenance all profaneness and persecution, and to endeavour a happy composing of the differences, and healing the breaches made in the church. aAnd because,” adds the declaration, “the passion and uncharitableness of the times have produced several opinions in religion, by which men are engaged in parties and animosities against each other; which, when they shall hereafter unite in a freedom of conversation, will be composed, or better understood; we do declare a liberty to tender consciences; and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of religion which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom; and, that we shall t:e ready to consent to such an act of parliament, as upon mature deliberation shall be offered unto us, for the full granting that indulgence.” — Rennet, And he had in his conferences with them fully declared his mind, that none should suffer on account of not using the Common Prayer; nor for the omission of the religious ceremonies there prescribed.

In consequence of these declarations, the ministers of the Presbyterian persuasion drew up two papers containing proposals relative to “the discipline and ceremonies of the Church of England,” which they humbly presented to the king.

The first paper contains only general matters, and is a sort of introductory preface to the second. In this they earnestly petition his Majesty to grant, —

1. That private exercises of piety may be encouraged.

2. That an able faithful ministry may be kept up; and the insufficient, negligent, non-resident, and scandalous cast out.

3. That a credible profession of faith and obedience be pre-required of communicants.

4. That the Lord’s day may be appropriated to holy exercises, without unnecesssary divertisements.

After these requests, they enter at large into the questions relative to discipline, ceremonies and the Liturgy.

On this the king issued a commission, dated March 25, l66l, appointing an equal number of divines and learned men on both sides, to review and revise the Liturgy; and to take all other matters into consideration, which had been the cause of dispute; and to repoit upon them.

The commissioners nominated by the king (and who were appointed to meet at the Savoy,) were the following: —

Acceptus Frewen, Archbishop of York; Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London; John Cosin, Bishop of Durham; John I rounge, Bishop of Rochester; Humphrey Henchman, Bishop of Sarvm; George Morley, Bishop of Winchester; Robert Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoin; Benjamin Lanay, Bishop of Peterborough; Brian Walton, Bishop of Chester: Richard Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle; John Gau~ den, Bishop of Exeter; and Edward Reynolds, Bishop of Norivich,

Anthony Tuckney, D. D.; John Conant, D. D.; William Spurston, D. D.; John W allis, D. D.; Thomas Manton, D. D; Edmund Calamy, B. D.; Richard Baxter, Clerk; Arthur Jackson, Thomas Case? Samuel Clarke, Matthew Newcomen, Clerks.

Dr. Earles, Dean of Westminster; Peter Heylin, D. D; John Hackett, D. D.; John Berwick, V>. D.; Peter Gunning, D. D.; John Pearson, D. D.; Thomas Pierce; Anthony Sparrow; Herbert Thorndyke, D. D,

16 History op the act op uniformity.

Thomas Horton, D. D.; Thomas Jacomb, D. D.; William Batey John Rawlinson, Clerks; William Cooper, Clerk; Dr. John Lightfoot; Dr. John Collings; Dr. Benjamin Woodbridg; and William Drake, Clerk.

The first list, containing eleven Bishops, with the Archbishop of York; and the second list containing eleven Dissenters, are properly the Commissioners to try this cause. The third list, beginning with Dr. Paries and ending with Dr. Thorndyke, was a list of reserve, to supply the place of any of the Bishops, absent or ill. And the fourth list beginning with Dr. Thomas Horton, and ending with William Drake, was a similar list to supply the place of any absent Dissenters. Thus we find the commissioners were fairly divided, eleven Bishops, and eleven Dissenting Ministers; each partyhaving nine substitutes, in case of necessity: the Archbishop of York was the President. Among these commissioners on both sides were some of the most learned and eminent men in the kingdom.

As this arrangement was made by the king and his privy council, and the parties on each side were made equal in number, with an equal number of proxies for each, it is most evident that the king expected the matters in dispute to be settled by a majority of votes, in consequence of each article being fully and fairly discussed. But this was the fartherest thing from the minds of the bishops; they were determined to yield nothing, but carry every thing their own way: and the easy king, intent on nothing but his sinful pleasures, made no remonstrance, but permitted them to act as they pleased. The consequence was, the true pastors of the flock were expelled from the fold; and hirelings, who cared more for the fleece and the fat, than for the sheep, climbed over the wall, and seized on flocks to which they had no right, either divine or human; and the people of God were either starved or scattered. The Act of Uniformity soon followed, and became the act of disorganization of the spiritual interests of the kingdom.

To the above named commissioners a paper was presented, August 30, intituled, The exceptions of the Presbyterian brethren against some passages in the Liturgy: accompanied by a very humble address, To the most Rev. Archbishop and Bishops, and the Reverend their Assistants, commissioned by his Majesty to treat about the alteration of the Common Prayer.

These exceptions at various sessions were taken into consideration: but scarcely any concessions of moment were made by the episcopal party. And the Presbyterians, in the answers given to their exceptions, were often treated with great disrespect, and gene-It

vally in a manner little calculated to conciliate or bring about unanimity.

These several proceedings were delivered to the king by the bishops, and form one hundred and twenty-eight closely printed quarto pages.

It need scarcely be added that no agreement took place between the parties; and the Presbyterians judging themselves not fairly represented, delivered a very moving petition to the king; modestly stating their grievances, and imploring his protection, reminding him of his promise, that none should be punished or troubled for not using the Common Prayer, till it should be effectually reformed. And foreseeing that a rigourous Act of Uniformity was about to be made, they conclude thus: — We crave your Majesty’ ’s pardon for the tediousness of this address, and shall wait in hope that so great a calamity of your people, as icill follow the loss of so many able faithful ministers, as the rigourous imposition would cast out, shall never be recorded in the history of your reign: but that these impediments of concord being forborne, your kingdom may fourish in piety and peace. That this may be the signal honour of your happy reign, and your joy in the day of your account, is the prayer of your Majesty’s faithful and obedient subjects.

Whether the king were disposed to favour them, or had forgotten his promises, is, at this time, a matter of little importance. Every thing was carried with a high and inconsiderate hand; and the Act of Uniformity was constructed on the grounds proposed by the bishops, and passed into a law.

To save the reader the trouble of going elsewhere to consult this Act, as tedious and monotonous as it was oppressive, I shall here present him with the sum and substance of it, as far as it affected the consciences and privileges of the opposite party.

“Be it enacted, That all and singular ministers in any cathedral, collegiate, or parish church or chapel, or other place of public worship, within this realm of England, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, shall be bound to say and use the Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, celebration and administration of both the Sacraments; and all other the public and common prayer, in such order and form, as it is mentioned in the said Book annexed and joined to this present act and intituled

“The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England: together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches: and the form or manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons.

“And the Morning and Evening prayers therein contained shall upon every Lord’s-Day, and upon all other days and occasions, and at the time therein appointed, be openly and solemnly read, by all and every minister or curate, in every church or chapel, or other place of public worship, within this realm of England and places aforesaid.

“Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that every parson, vicar, or other minister whatsoever, who now hath and enjoyeth any ecclesiastical benefice or promotion within this realm of England, or places aforesaid, shall in the church, chapel, or place of public worship, belonging to the said benefice or promotion, upon some day before the Feast of Saint Bartholomew, (August 24,) which shall be in the year of our Lord God 1662, openly, publicly, and solemnly read the Morning and Evening prayer appointed to be read by, and according to the said Book of Common Prayer, at the times thereby appointed: and after such reading thereof shall openly, and publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use, and all things in the said Book contained and prescribed, in these words and no other;

“I, A. B., do hereby declare my unfeigned assent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book, intituled, The Book of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches: and the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons.” And that all and every such person who shall neglect or refuse to do the same within the time aforesaid, shall ipso facto, be deprived of all his spiritual promotions: and that from thenceforth it shall be lawful to and for all patrons and doners of all and singular the said spiritual promotions, or of any of them, according to their respective rights and titles, to present or collate to the same, as though the person or persons so offending or neglecting were dead.

“That no person shall be capable of being admitted to any parsonage, &c. or to consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper before such time as he shall be ordained priest by episcopal ordination, upon pain to forfeit for every offence the sum of one hundred pounds.

“That if any person who is by this act disabled to preach any lecture or sermon shall, during the time that he shall continue and remain so disabled, preach any sermon Or lecture, that then for every such offence the person and persons so offending shall suffer three months’ imprisonment in the common gaol, without bail or mainprise.”

The same Act required “every schoolmaster and private tutor to be licensed by the archbishop or ordinary of the diocese, on the penalty, for the first offence of three months’ imprisonment; and for every repetition of the offence, three months’ imprisonment and five pounds to the king.”

I shall here beg leave to make a few remarks upon- this Act in reference to the case of the persons shortly to be introduced to the reader’s notice.

1. The Act, whether considered good or bad politically, was an absolute breach of the king’s solemn declaration and engagement to the Dissenters, and indeed to the nation, while he was at Breda, as we have already seen; and argues that either he was a man of no moral principle, had no regard to his honour nor to his promise, or that his ministers were cruel and malicious men, who well knew the religious scruples of many of his best Mends, and how they must be in every way injured by the passing of such an act.

2. The breach of promise made to the Dissenters was a most dangerous measure, as it put to too severe a test the loyalty of a great part of the nation, and served to widen the breach between them and the established church; the rulers of which, they had too much rea son to believe, were the principal promoters of this measure.

3. The Act required from every minister a solemn declaration, while ministering in the presence of Almighty God, (more solemn, if possible, than any oath,) of his unfeigned assent to all and every thing contained in, and prescribed by, the Book of Common Prayer, — the Psalter, as there printed and pointed, and to all the rites and ceremonies therein enjoined. Now this is more than any man can with a pure conscience say of any human composition of devotion. The Bible alone, as it came from God, can be thus safely acknowledged; and not even a translation of that most sacred book, nor any of the ancient Versions in which it has been handed down to posterity. Though I regard the Liturgy of the Church of England as the purest form of devotion ever composed by man, and next in excellence to the inspired Volume, yet there are words and phrases in it to which I could not declare my assent; and as to the Psalter contained in that book, it is in many places a false and inefficient translation, foreign from the Hebrew verity, with the insertion of a multitude of words which have nothing corresponding to them in the original; while printed as if they were the words of the Holy Spirit / And as to the pointing, it is generally barbarous, and often destructive of the sense. What divine, who ever read a Psalm of David in the original, could give his solemn assent to this composition as it now stands?

4. This Act was intended as a snare to catch many upright men. Many of the clergy of those times doubted greatly whether the hierarchy were exactly conformable to Scripture. Lord King’s position that bishops and presbyters were the same order was a very general opinion among those afterwards called nonconformists; and was the opinion of the late Mr. John Wesley. These were fully convinced that ordination by presbyters was a valid and scripiural ordination; and many of the clergy at that time had none other. But the Act, without Scripture or reason, annuls and sweeps this away at a stroke; and none is permitted to minister in holy things unless episcopally ordained ?; an ordination which not one of them could procure, unless he had been in every sense a thorough conformist.

5. The Act took upon it to restrain and destroy, as far as it could, the spirit of prophecy, or the gift of Christian preaching. Many of those excellent men believed themselves fully called of God to the work of the ministry. But this Act forbade them to preach unless they had episcopal ordination; and although a dispensation of the Gospel was committed unto them, and God pronounced a woe. on such as preached it not; yet one sermon or lecture of the person who did not, because he could not, conform as above, was punished by three months’ imprisonment in the common goal; and those who had the word of the Lord, and could not be silent, were thus treated; and with circumstances of relentless rigour.

6. The Act was not only persecuting, but unjust, as it deprived of the means of subsistence men who were educated for this function; who had been regularly, according to the custom of the times, inducted and employed in it, and had the subsistence of themselves and their families from it. But in one day upwards of two thousand of them were left without a morsel of bread, because they would not defile their consciences by solemnly affirming what they did not believe.

7. The Act was cruel; as it endeavoured to prevent them from getting their bread by public or private teaching, as schoolmasters and tutors, unless licensed by the archbishop or ordinary of the diocese, under the penalty of three months’ imprisonment; and for every repetition of this offence, so called, three months’ imprisonment and five pounds to the king. And the reader may rest assured that the minister who could not conscientiously assent to every thing in the Prayer Book was not likely to be licensed by a bishop as a teacher of youth.

8. The Act had as much respect to rites and ceremonies as to prayers and preaching; hence it required every minister u openly. and publicly before the congregation to declare his unfeigned assent

HISTORY OP THE ACT OF l/NIFORMITY. and consent to the use of all things in the said book contained and prescribed.” But notwithstanding the general excellence of this book, it would puzzle the first casuist in the church to shew the moral or spiritual use of several things therein contained and prescribed.

I have made these remarks to shew the nature and operations of this, at that time the most illiberal and malicious Act, in order to vindicate the persons who were its victims; who because of their conscientious steadiness, have been represented as foolish, fanatical and obstinate men; because they would not solemnly affirm what they did not believe. And for my own part, far from being surprised that so great a number as two thousand and twenty-five according to Mr. Palmer’s reckoning, were cast out of the church in one day, I am rather surprised that one learned or conscientious minister was found, on the requisitions of the Act, to retain his living.

High churchmen may “extol the authors and framers of this Act as deserving the everlasting praises and blessings of the church.” But while honesty, or rendering to every man his due, can be considered a blessing in society, and the steady attendant upon justice — while humanity and mercy are esteemed the choicest characteristics of man, and while sound learning is valued as the ornament and handmaid of religion, — this Act, in its operation on St. Bartholo’ mew’s day, (August 24, 1662) must be regarded as a scandal to the State, and a reproach to the Church.

No doubt the reader has already considered me as a rigid Dissenter, because of the above review of the Act of Uniformity, in its predisposing causes, and subsequent effects: but he is highly mistaken. Bred up in the bosom of the Church, I am strongly attached to it from principle and conscience; and notwithstanding the blots, the existence of which in the Liturgy I cannot deny, ] would not change that form of sound words for any thing that dissent could offer me as a substitute. But I abominate the Act of Uniformity, for its oppression, injustice, and cruelty; and because it gave a blow to the piety of the National Church, from which it is still but slowly recovering. It deprived her of multitudes of her brightest ornaments, whose works have been a credit and a bulwark to the Reformation, and still praise them in the gates. Neither interest nor disaffection prompts this eulogium! Fiat justitia; mat cesium!