The Oxford Methodists

MEMOIRS OF THE
REV. MESSRS. CLAYTON, INGHAM, GAMBOLD,
HERVEY, AND BROUGHTON,
WITH BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF OTHERS.

BY THE
Rev. L. TYERMAN,
AUTHOR OF “THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE REV. JOHN WESLEY, M.A.,
FOUNDER OF THE METHODISTS.”

The present book is intended to serve as a companion volume to “The Life and Times of Wesley;” and to assist in showing the wide and gracious results of a revival of religion.

In compiling the work just mentioned, I was compelled, by want of space, to lay aside a large amount of biographical material, some portions of which are embodied in the work now submitted to the reader; and other portions of which may be published at a future time.

Memoirs of the two Wesleys and of Whitefield have been designedly omitted, on the ground, that, their Memoirs, in extenso, are already in existence. Still, those illustrious men are often noticed in the following pages; and, I hope, the facts concerning them will be both interesting and instructive. Of the other Oxford Methodists, no biographies have been previously written, with the exception of Hervey; and it is not censorious to say, that the two principal ones of him,—Ryland’s and Brown’s—are far from satisfactory.

The information concerning some of the Oxford Brotherhood is meagre. I have used all the diligence I could in obtaining materials; but brief notices, and scraps, and a few letters are all that I have to give. Fragmentary, however, though they are, I trust, they will not be regarded as useless and irrelevant. The biographical sketches of Clayton, Ingham, Gambold, Hervey, and Broughton, are more extended. It would have been a satisfaction to have left Westley Hall in[iv] the shades of oblivion; but, in telling the story of the Oxford Methodists, it was impossible not to notice him.

A marvellous work was accomplished by the Wesley brothers and by Whitefield; but it is a great mistake, and not a just acknowledgment of the grace of God, to regard the results of the revival of religion in the Oxford University, as confined to Methodism. Contemporaneous Reformers, raised up by Providence, are seldom all employed in the same kind of work. At the beginning of the Christian era, God “gave some, apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, pastors, and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians iv. 11, 12). Luther, Zuinglius, Melancthon, Œcolampadius, Erasmus, Calvin, Knox, Ridley, Latimer, and Cranmer were all engaged, at the same time, in the same great and glorious reformation; but the services they rendered were as various as the dispositions and talents of the men themselves. So in regard to the movement in the Oxford University. Among the Oxford Methodists, the Wesleys and Whitefield will always be pre-eminent; but a great work was also done by their associates. Clayton’s High-Churchism was objectionable; but it is not unreasonable to indulge the hope, that, his earnest piety exercised a useful influence upon the clergy among whom he lived, and especially upon the young gentlemen who were favoured with the instructions of his school. Ingham, as an evangelist, was exceedingly successful among the masses in the North. The Moravian Church owes a debt of incalculable gratitude to Gambold, for checking and correcting its early religious follies. Broughton was efficiently employed in promoting the translation of the Bible, in the work of Home and Foreign Missions, in the distribution[v] of religious tracts, and in the education of the children of the poor, at a period when the present principal societies for such objects did not exist. Hutchins, though retaining, at least, a few of his High-Church doctrines, was a spiritually-minded, earnest Christian; and, in the important office which, for so many years, he held in Lincoln College, could hardly fail in moulding the minds and hearts of some of the young students there. And Hervey was one of the first clergymen of the Church of England, in the last century, who turned the attention of the upper classes of society to religious matters. These were not trifling services. Do they not deserve to be recorded?

The Oxford revival of religion was pregnant with the most momentous issues. And so are most revivals. How often in the history of Methodism, though on a smaller scale, have its revivals of the work of God resulted in consequences bearing some analogy to those of the Oxford movement of a hundred and forty years ago? Who will not pray, that such “Divine visitations” may be continued and multiplied, not only in Methodism, but, in all the Churches of the Great Redeemer?

The Oxford Methodists, up to the time of their general dispersion from that seat of learning, were all (excepting, perhaps, Whitefield) Church of England Ritualists. Their moral conduct was most exemplary. They were studious, devout, self-denying, charitable. Their study of the Bible gained them the nicknames of “Bible-bigots,” and “Bible-moths.” Every morning and every evening, they spent an hour in private prayer; and, throughout the day, habituated themselves to the use of ejaculations, for humility, faith, hope, and love. They communicated at Christ Church once a week, and persuaded all they could to attend public[vi] prayers, sermons, and sacraments. They were constant visitors of the inmates of the parish workhouse, and of the prisoners in the Castle; and it was the practice of all of them to dispense in charity all they had, after providing for their own necessities. They also observed the discipline of the Church of England to the minutest points; and were scrupulously strict in practising the rubrics and canons. Every Wednesday and Friday, they fasted, tasting no food whatever, till three o’clock in the afternoon. Though, perhaps, they never held the doctrine of the human nature of the Divine Redeemer being present in the elements of the holy sacrament, they held something approaching this, and spoke of “an outward sacrifice offered therein.” They more than approved of the mixture of water with the sacramental wine; and religiously observed saint days, holidays, and Saturdays. They maintained the doctrine of apostolical succession, and believed no one had authority to administer the sacraments who was not episcopally ordained. Even in Georgia, Wesley excluded Dissenters from the holy communion, on the ground, that they had not been properly baptized, and would himself baptize only by immersion, unless the child, or person, was in a weak state of health. He also enforced confession, penance, and mortification; and, as far as possible, carried into execution the Apostolic Constitutions. In short, with the exception of sacerdotal millinery, the burning of incense, the worship of the Virgin, prayers for the dead, and two or three other kindred superstitions, the Oxford Methodists were the predecessors of the present ritualistic party in the Church of England.

The Oxford Methodists, however, had no desire to aggrandize themselves. They had not the slightest wish to be considered superior to their fellow mortals. They were[vii] sincere, and earnest inquirers after truth, and, in the study of the Holy Bible, in prayer to God, and in other devotional exercises, were an example worthy of imitation. God rarely leaves such inquirers in the dark. Wesley, and most of his Oxford friends were brought to a knowledge of “the truth as it is in Jesus;” and, being so, their faith, their energy, their prayers, their toils, and their cheerfully endured sufferings resulted in one of the most glorious revivals of the work of God, recorded in the history of the Christian Church.

May we not indulge the hope, that, what God did for the Oxford Methodists, He will do for those at the present day, who, in most respects, resemble them? Ought we not to pray for this? Indeed, has it not, to some extent, been realized? Though the leaders of the Oxford Tractarian movement have unquestionably served the interests of the Church of Rome, far more than the interests of the Church which nurtured them; yet, is it not a fact, that some of the hard-working evangelical clergy of the Church of England, now so successfully employed in the spread of truth, began their Christian life as the Oxford Methodists began theirs? And is it wrong to prayerfully cherish the expectation, that, in mercy to mankind, others will be brought to the same convictions? The Church, the Nation, and the World need their energy, earnestness, diligence, self-denial, and devotion. Let them lay aside their popish follies and proud pretensions and embrace the truth of Christ in its simplicity and its purity, and, at least, some of them may, under God, accomplish a work as great and as blessed as was accomplished by Wesley and his “Holy Club.”

I have nothing more to add, except to express my obligations to the descendants of the Oxford Methodists, for their[viii] courteous kindness in responding to my requests for information; and to other clergymen and gentlemen with whom I have been in correspondence.

The book is not a series of written portraits. I make no pretensions to artistic skill. I have simply done my best in collecting facts, from every source within my reach; and have narrated them as truly and as lucidly as I could.

Robert Kirkham.

Wesley writes:—“In November, 1729, four young gentlemen of Oxford,—Mr. John Wesley, Fellow of Lincoln College; Mr. Charles Wesley, Student of Christ Church; Mr. Morgan, Commoner of Christ Church; and Mr. Kirkham, of Merton College,—began to spend some evenings in a week together in reading, chiefly, the Greek Testament.”[1]

These were the first Oxford Methodists; and, though there is little to be said of Morgan, and still less of Kirkham, they must not be passed in silence. Methodism may be traced to their associating with the two Wesleys, to read the Greek Testament, in 1729.

Robert Kirkham was the son of the Rev. Lionel Kirkham, a clergyman resident at Stanton, in Gloucestershire. The family consisted of Robert and at least two sisters, Sarah and Betty.

Sarah was the intimate friend of Mary Granville, afterwards Mrs. Delany, a woman of great accomplishments, who moved in the highest society and, for more than fifty years, was honoured with the friendship and confidence of King George III. and his Queen Charlotte. Sarah Kirkham was born in 1699; and, in 1725, was married to the Rev. John Capon, or, as the name is sometimes spelt, Chapone. She was a woman of great intellect and of an intensely warm and generous nature. “Sally,” wrote Mary Granville, in 1737, then Mrs.[2] Pendarves, “would shine in an assembly composed of Tullys, Homers, and Miltons: at Gloucester, she is like a diamond set in jet,—their dulness makes her brightness brighter.”[2] Mrs. Chapone died in 1764.

Her sister Betsy was probably the first of Wesley’s sweethearts. As early as February 2, 1726, Robert Kirkham, writing, from home, to his “Dear Jacke,” at “Lincoln College, Oxford, by the Worcester carrier,” says,—

For more than three years subsequent to this, Wesley kept up a correspondence with Kirkham’s sister, and spoke of her in the tenderest terms. In 1731, their friendship was interrupted. Why? Did the young lady’s father interfere? Or did she herself prefer another? These are questions which it is almost impossible to answer; but it is a significant fact that, though the Kirkham family seems to have consisted of only one son and two daughters, one of those daughters died about twelve months afterwards; she, at the time of her death, bearing the name of Mrs. Wilson. Hence the following extract from a letter, written by Mrs. Pendarves, and dated “Killala, June 28th, 1732.”

Was Mrs. Wilson the quondam Betsy Kirkham? It is probable she was; for, though Mrs. Pendarves and Mrs. Chapone continued to be the warmest friends for thirty-two years after this, there is not, in the voluminous correspondence of the former, the least allusion to Betsy.

Perhaps these notices of Robert Kirkham’s sisters are hardly relevant; but it must be borne in mind that Kirkham was one of Wesley’s warmest friends, and that he wished to have Wesley for a brother.

As already intimated, of Robert Kirkham himself next to nothing has been published. In a letter to his mother, dated February 28, 1730, three months after the first Methodist meeting in Oxford, Wesley wrote:—

This was a brave act. For a frank, frivolous, jovial young fellow like Robert Kirkham, who, in a letter to Wesley, four years before, had told his friend of his revelling over a dish of calves’ head and bacon, and a newly-tapped barrel of excellent cider, now to resolve to live a life like that which Wesley mentions, and to have firmness enough to fulfil his resolution, was no ordinary fact, and indicated a great change in the light-hearted young collegian. Was not this the very commencement of the Methodist organization?

In 1731, Kirkham took his leave of the Oxford brotherhood,[4] to become his uncle’s curate. Where did he live after this? How did he live? When did he die? These are questions which we cannot answer. We have tried to obtain information concerning his subsequent career, but have failed.

William Morgan.

William Morgan was not only one of the first Oxford Methodists, but the first of them to enter heaven. The Wesleys and Kirkham were the sons of English clergymen. Morgan was the son of an Irish gentleman, resident in Dublin. As already stated, he was a Commoner of Christ Church; and Samuel Wesley, junior, who was well acquainted with him, speaks of him in the highest terms. From his childhood, he had been devout and diligent; he revered and loved his father; was a warm-hearted, faithful friend; a welcome visitor of orphans, widows, and prisoners; neither a formalist nor an enthusiast; but a man whose life was a beautiful gospel sermon, in a practical, embodied form. A short extract from Samuel Wesley’s poem, on Mr. Morgan’s death, will not be out of place.

It was in November, 1729, that the first four of the Oxford Methodists began their sacred meetings. Two months later, William Morgan wrote to Wesley the following, which contains a reference to the interest that the Methodists already took in prisoners, and which, being one of the very few of Morgan’s letters still existing, may not be unacceptable.

This curious letter of small commissions is not devoid of interest, inasmuch as it plainly shows,—1. The close intimacy between Morgan and the Wesley brothers. 2. Morgan’s keenness in looking after his pecuniary rights. And 3. That some, at least, of the Oxford Methodists were not, as yet, so intensely religious as they soon afterwards became.

It was not long before the young collegians evinced more earnestness. Wesley writes:—

Wesley’s father highly approved of the project of the young Methodists, and wrote,—

The venerable Rector of Epworth then proceeds to advise them to consult with the chaplain of the prisoners, and to obtain the direction and approbation of the bishop.

Methodism, in its beneficence, was now fairly started. Its first object was a condemned felon; its first visitor, William Morgan; its first approver, Wesley’s father; and its next the Bishop of Oxford, with his chaplain, Mr. Gerard.

The small band of godly collegians soon became the butt of ridicule. Robert Kirkham especially was stigmatized as a member of The Holy Club; and his college (Merton) became immensely merry at the expense of him and his companions. On December 1st, 1730, Wesley’s father addressed to them a letter to inspire them with confidence and hope:—

To the reading of the Greek Testament, and the visiting of prisoners and the poor, we here have weekly communion added to the programme of Oxford Methodism. What was the result?

Such, at the end of 1730, was the plan of benevolent action drawn up by the Oxford Methodists. Who can find fault with it? Wesley tells us, that they met with none who answered these questions in the negative, and that several helped them with quarterly subscriptions.[8]

Thus encouraged, the two Wesleys, Kirkham, and Morgan, cheerily pursued their way, “in spite of the ridicule which increased fast upon them during the winter.” The men of wit, in Christ Church, called them Sacramentarians. Their allies, at Merton, styled them The Holy Club. Others stigmatized them as The Godly Club; and others the Enthusiasts, or the Reforming Club; but ridicule, though far from pleasant, failed to check them in their laborious career.

In the summer of 1731, Mr. Morgan was disabled, by an attack of sickness, and retired to Holt; but under the date of June 11th, Wesley writes:—

Mr. Morgan’s affliction excited great interest in the Wesley family. Matthew Wesley, an eminent physician in London, was on a visit to his brother Samuel, the Rector of Epworth, and from thence went to Scarborough. In a letter to her son John, dated, “Epworth, July 12, 1731,” Susannah Wesley wrote:—

In the month of March, 1732, his father informed him that he should no longer be limited to a fixed allowance, but should have all the money that was necessary for his state of health; at the same time, however, strongly insisting that no part of his remittances should be spent in charity; and adding,—

Thus had the young Methodists to encounter, not only the ridicule of the outside world, but the rebuke of their own relatives and friends. The Epworth rector encouraged them; the Dublin gentleman pronounced upon them censure.

A month after the date of Mr. Morgan’s letter to his sick son, Samuel Wesley, junior, paid a visit to the Oxford Methodists, and, on his return to London, wrote a poetical epistle to his brother Charles, dated April 20, 1732. The following are some of the concluding lines:—

Two months subsequent to Samuel Wesley’s visit, poor Morgan took his final departure from his friends at Oxford. He was sick in body and in mind. His end was near, though he knew it not. Leaving Oxford on the 5th of June, 1732, he proceeded to his father’s house in Dublin. Here he spent six weeks, and again set out for Oxford. The following[12] letter, addressed to Wesley by his father, will tell the brief remainder of his short history. The letter was written fifteen months after Morgan’s untimely death; and, during this melancholy interval, his only surviving brother had been placed under Wesley’s tuition.

This, in all respects, is a mournful story. No useful end would be answered by asking, whether much religion, or[13] much unkindness, or “much learning,” made poor Morgan mad. His father’s letter, written in March, 1732, was, to say the least, injudicious; and the treatment of the Dublin doctors, in August following, was preposterously cruel. The man himself was a lovely character. Gambold, who seems to have made the fifth Oxford Methodist, observes concerning Morgan:—

Poor Morgan’s decease occurred in Dublin, on August 26, 1732; and no sooner was the event known, than it was wickedly and cruelly alleged, that his Methodist associates had killed him. Hence the following, which Wesley addressed to Morgan’s father within two months after the former’s death.

Apart from amply refuting the slanderous charge already[14] mentioned, this extract from Wesley’s letter is of considerable importance, as it clearly shows that fasting was not a part of the primary programme of the Methodists; and that, if fasting is to be taken as a proof of religious earnestness, Morgan, in the first instance, was the most religious of the brotherhood. Whether Morgan was in the habit of observing the ecclesiastical fasts when the Methodist meetings were commenced in November, 1729, is not apparent; but it is quite clear that his discontinuance of fasting was occasioned by his declining health. It was about the month of May, 1731, when fasting was relinquished; and, as we have already seen, it was then that the illness commenced which issued in his death. Whether fasting induced that illness is a point which must be left undecided; but, even admitting that it did, Wesley was not to blame, for Wesley himself did not begin to fast until a year after Morgan had laid aside the practice.

Whatever others did, Morgan’s father fully exonerated the two Wesleys; and, though he had censured his son for what he conceived to be excessive piety only five months before the young man’s death, that piety was now a source of consolation. Replying to Wesley’s letter, dated October 18, 1732, Mr. Morgan writes:—

Here the chapter on “The First of the Oxford Methodists” ought to end; but, perhaps, this is the most fitting place for the following correspondence respecting William Morgan’s brother; especially as it casts further light upon the principles and mode of life of Wesley and his friends. Chronologically it is out of order, for Richard Morgan did not belong to the quaternion brotherhood who were first branded with the name of “Methodists;” but, still, the ensuing letters serve as a continuation of those already given, and, viewed in such a light, may be acceptable.

William Morgan’s Brother.

In a letter, dated “Feb. 17, 1733,” Mr. Morgan, senior, states that he is wishful that the books of his deceased son, William, should belong to his only surviving son; and then adds:—

The Oxford Methodists were still slandered; but the father of the dead Morgan, so far from blaming them, was now their faithful friend and defender. This was shown, not in words only, but in deeds; for, during this same year, 1733, he sent his surviving son to Oxford, and placed him under the[16] tuition of Wesley, one of the men who had been accused of hastening the death of William. Hence the following, extracted from a letter addressed to Wesley:—

No one can find fault with Mr. Morgan’s letter. It was economical, and yet generous. For want of judicious restraint like his, hundreds of young Oxonians have been ruined. Too much money in a young man’s pocket is a terrible temptation and danger. Besides, Morgan, though only nineteen years of age, had hitherto evinced none of the sobriety of his elder brother; but, on the contrary, had been a brisk, showy, gay young fellow. Hence, his father’s description of him to[17] Charles Wesley. After stating that though he had left school at the age of sixteen, he was even then “fit for the university, and at least as good a scholar as his brother was when he went to Oxford;” Mr. Morgan adds,—

Charles Wesley, however, thought that the young man would be safer with his brother than with himself; and, indeed, Morgan himself desired that he might be entered a Gentleman Commoner of Lincoln College, and be Wesley’s pupil. His father complied with this request; but the youth soon became dissatisfied. Being under Wesley’s care, he was branded with the name of Methodist; and, in a fit of mortified vanity, wrote to his father, saying, he would rather return to his office in Dublin, than suffer the sneers of his gay companions, in Oxford. Wesley became acquainted with this, and immediately addressed to Mr. Morgan a letter, which, though long, is too interesting and important to be omitted. We have here a glimpse of the daily life of the Oxford Methodists, a specimen of the contumely cast upon them, and a description of the collegiate wickedness surrounding them. It will be seen that Wesley’s letter was written within two months after the date of Mr. Morgan’s letter just given.

This is a noble letter, though, perhaps, somewhat hard upon Mr. Morgan, senior. The picture of collegiate life at Oxford shows the need there was for Oxford Methodism; while the definitions of real religion demonstrate that the leader of the Oxford Methodists was not the fanatic which his enemies said he was.

Unfortunately, we soon lose sight of the gay young Gentleman Commoner of Lincoln College; but Wesley’s interest in his welfare was not without results. For a considerable time, no impression could be made on the airy and thoughtless youth. Wesley did his best, but failed; and, at length, he desired Hervey to undertake the task. Hervey succeeded. John Gambold writes:—

About two years after this change in the young Irishman, Wesley, and his brother, accompanied by Benjamin Ingham, set sail for Georgia; and Morgan, so far from being ashamed of their acquaintance, went to London purposely to see them[21] start; and expressed a willingness to go all the way to Yorkshire to do them service. Ingham writes:—[14]

This was the fashionable young man who, two years before, entered Lincoln College, bringing a favourite greyhound with him; choosing men “more pernicious than open libertines” for his companions; and writing to his father querulous and false complaints of the Oxford Methodists.

Now he was an Oxford Methodist himself. Hence the following letter, which was addressed to Wesley, three weeks before the two Wesleys and Ingham embarked for Georgia.

This is a curious letter,—not remarkable for either intelligence or scholarship; but it partly unfolds the character of its writer; reveals some of the difficulties of the collegiate life of the Oxford Methodists; shows the importance which they attached to fasts; and points to Wesley as the leader of the religious brotherhood.

The Wesleys had left Oxford; but, for a time at least, Charles Morgan and Mr. Broughton carried on the work which they and the elder Morgan had commenced. Charles Morgan undertook the care of Bocardo, which he visited three days every week. He read an hour every other day, at the house of Mr. Fox, in the Catechism of the Bishop of the Isle of Man; and, in the same place, held a meeting every Sunday night with “a cheerful number of Christians.” “The Lord’s kingdom,” he writes, November 27, 1735, “increaseth apace; and I find-more and more comfort in the holy Scriptures every day.”

Our information concerning Robert Kirkham, William Morgan, and his younger brother Charles, is exhausted. As Oxford Methodists, they deserve notice; but, so far as is ascertained, they were of comparatively little use either to the Church or to the world. William Morgan had no opportunity for public usefulness; and Robert Kirkham and Charles Morgan drift away into the great ocean of existence, and leave no track behind them.

God has wisely and graciously hidden the future from us. We may form guesses concerning it; but we have not the slightest certainty that our guesses will be realised. Who, in 1732, could have foretold the future career of the Oxford Methodists? If the members of the Methodist fraternity could have seen beforehand the events of the next fifty years, what would have been the issue? Would the fellowship of the Hanoverian and Jacobite, the Methodist and Moravian, the Churchman and Dissenter, the Arminian and Calvinist, the itinerant Evangelist and the parish Priest, have been continued? That fellowship was of incalculable importance; but its maintenance depended upon the shortsightedness of those who were united in it. The drawing aside of the veil of futurity would, in all likelihood, have converted the loving brotherhood into an Ishmaelitish band, endangering, not only its future usefulness, but its present existence, by its own internecine fights. As it was, there went forth a number of brave-hearted men, all of them the better for their godly meetings in Wesley’s comfortable room in Lincoln College; and, though their courses were divergent, yet, in the main, they continued faithful to the cause of truth, and, with few exceptions, were always loyal to their great Master, Christ. In a qualified sense, we may apply to Oxford Methodism the words of the sacred text: “A river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads” (Gen. ii 10). Let us follow one of the out-flowings:—

John Clayton was the son of William Clayton, a bookseller in Manchester;[15] was born in 1709, and was educated[25] by the Rev. John Richards, M.A., at the Grammar School in that important town. He entered Brazenose College in 1726, and became Hulme’s exhibitioner in 1729.[16] He was introduced to Wesley in 1732; and, by his recommendation, the Oxford Methodists took another important step, that of fasting twice a week. Wesley writes,—

These were brave Christian words; the noble utterance of an earnest, conscientious, godly man. The Methodist brotherhood, thus portrayed, present an example which all who are right-minded cannot but admire. There is no taking for “doctrines the commandments of men;” no ridiculous toying with ecclesiastical or superstitious trifles; but a stout-hearted[26] adherence to great, scripture principles. Wesley and his friends were not pious for the purpose of being singular, but because they felt it to be a duty. To be laughed at was far from being pleasant; but they were quite prepared to sacrifice even their reputation, rather than dishonour the religion of their great Master. Men might brand them with opprobrious epithets; but that with them was of trifling importance, if only at the day of judgment, Christ acknowledged them as friends. They knew they were not following “cunningly devised fables;” they were not flippant dabblers in “doubtful disputations;” but earnest men who knew that what they held was truth, and who, at all hazards, were resolved to practise it.

Clayton had spent six years at Oxford, and was now a college tutor.[19] The following letter was addressed to Wesley about three months after he and Clayton became acquainted. It is long, but is full of interest, and casts considerable light on the doings and difficulties of the Oxford Methodists. Wesley, at the time, seems to have been in London; where he was now made a member of “The Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge,” and also formed a friendship with William Law.

This long epistle, besides unfolding Clayton’s character, helps us to a better understanding of the position and practices of the Oxford Methodists. The debtors in Bocardo, the prisoners in the Castle, and paupers in the streets were objects[30] of their beneficent compassion. They had their schools for the children of the poor; and, in their mission of mercy, were about to visit the workhouse of St. Thomas’s. Early rising was a habit, and prayer for each other a daily practice. Constant communion was enforced; though the dogma of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ was, as yet at least, no article of their faith.

Wesley being absent, there was a lull in the storm of Methodist persecution; but this was of short duration. Within a month after the date of Clayton’s letter, poor William Morgan died; an event which furnished an occasion for a violent attack upon the Oxford brotherhood, in what was then one of the most literary and respectable papers published,—Fogg’s Weekly Journal. They were accused of mopishness, hypocrisy, censoriousness, enthusiasm, madness, and superstitious scruples. “Among their own party,” says the writer, “they pass for religious persons and men of extraordinary parts; but they have the misfortune to be taken by all who have ever been in their company, for madmen and fools.”

Hardly any evil is without a good. The virulence of Fogg’s Weekly Journal excited the curiosity of a gentleman who had no acquaintance with the Methodists, but who now sought an interview with them, and shortly after published an octavo pamphlet of thirty pages, entitled,—“The Oxford Methodists: Being some account of a Society of young Gentlemen, in that City, so denominated: setting forth their Rise, Views, and Designs.” In this first defence of Methodism ever published, the slanderous accusations cast upon Wesley and his friends were refuted; and the Methodists were described as follows:—

To return to Clayton. About the time of the publication of this pamphlet (the beginning of 1733), Clayton removed to[31] Manchester; where, during the ensuing summer, he was visited by Wesley, who, on Sunday, June 3rd, preached thrice in three different churches, namely, the Cathedral, and Salford, and St Anne’s churches. Whether these pulpits were obtained through Clayton’s influence, there is no evidence to show; but, remembering the odium connected with the name, it certainly is a curious fact, that in the populous and thriving town of Manchester, the Oxford Arch-Methodist was allowed to occupy so prominent a position.

When Clayton left Oxford, Clayton’s pupils left Methodism. Ten days after his visit to Manchester, Wesley wrote,—

This was somewhat discouraging. Meanwhile, besides keeping two fast days every week, Clayton, and also Wesley, began to evince other High Church proclivities. Hence the following, sent to Wesley only a month after his visit to Manchester:—

This is an important letter, not only as exhibiting the religious earnestness, but also the high churchism of the Oxford Methodists. The following, which was written two months later, is likewise full of interest. It was addressed, like the former one, “to the Rev. Mr. Wesley, Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxon.”

These letters are long, perhaps also dry and tedious; but they are useful in casting considerable light on Oxford Methodism. We learn, that the godly brotherhood, though unevangelical, were, in the highest degree, conscientious and devout. In this respect, they put to shame, not only the great bulk of professing Christians, but, many who, at the present day, are known by the name of Methodists. Doubtless, they sought salvation by the practice of piety and good works; but the piety and good works themselves are not to be censured, but commended. Self-examination, prayer, sacramental attendance, fasting, diligence, kindness to the poor, deep concern for the conversion of sinners, and early rising, are not things of slight importance; but deserve far more practical recognition than what they get.

As to the special religious observance of saint days and of the Jewish Sabbath; and the sacred adoption of ecclesiastical canons and decretals, opinions will differ; but most Methodists will concur in the Methodist Preachers’ opinions, as stated by Wesley himself, in 1755:

Dr. Deacon, the non-juring clergyman, was Clayton’s bosom friend, and Wesley’s chosen counsellor. William Law, another non-juror, was consulted as their guide. Mr. Spinckes’ volume, made up of extracts from the works of the most eminent of the high-church party, was one of their books of devotion. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising to find them plunging into the authentic and unauthentic writings of the Christian Fathers; listening to Apostolical and other Canons as to the voice of oracles; displaying ridiculous anxiety about sacramental wine being mixed with water; and assuming an arrogant willingness to become auricular confessors. Up to the time of Clayton’s admission among the Oxford Methodists, we find none of these proclivities. The Bible had been their sole supreme authority in faith and morals; and, hence, though their views of evangelical truth were unquestionably defective, their lives were free from the practice of popish follies. Now it began to be otherwise. Some of the young men were priests; and priests, according to the Canons of the Church, were invested with the terrible prerogatives of enforcing auricular confession, of pronouncing divine absolution, and of administering the body and blood of the blessed Jesus! “Poor Miss Potter” had a confessor, who, though a great man, was, evidently in Clayton’s estimation, heretical. Emily Wesley indignantly and righteously refused all confessors, her brother not excepted. Well would it be if the priests of the present day, who “creep into houses, and lead captive silly women,” were answered, as this noble-minded young lady answered Wesley, the Arch-Methodist. She writes:—

Clayton was young, only twenty-four; but, besides his scholarship, he was evidently a man of extensive reading. As the son of a bookseller, he had had the opportunity of gratifying literary cravings from his earliest days. He was a man of energy; and, though he reproaches himself for his sluggishness in not rising earlier than at five o’clock, he was exemplary for his diligence. All this had already made him a man of mark. In this very year, 1733, he was appointed to preach the ordination sermon in Manchester cathedral; and was so ardent in the enforcement of the rubrics of the Church, and so successful in his ministerial and pastoral office as to bring seventy old people, all of them above sixty years of age, to be confirmed by the bishop in Salford church.[37]

Three years later, he was selected to occupy another important post. Darcy Lever, Esq., LL.D., has been already mentioned as one of the friends of Clayton and of the two Wesleys. This gentleman, being appointed, in 1736, to fill the distinguished office of High Sheriff of Lancashire, made Clayton his chaplain. In such a capacity, Clayton had to preach at the Lancaster assizes; and chose for his text, the words,—“He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. xiii. 4). This was a ticklish subject for so young a man; but the chaplain was not without courage; and gave utterance to sentiments, which, at the present day, would scarcely be popular. The discourse was printed, and the title will suggest an idea of the preacher’s faithfulness. “The Necessity of duly executing the Laws against Immorality and Profaneness: Set forth in a Sermon, preached at the Assizes held at Lancaster, before the Honourable Sir Lawrence Carter, one of the Barons of his Majesty’s Court[41] of Exchequer. By John Clayton, A.M. late of Brazenose College, Oxon. Published at the request of the High Sheriff, and the Gentlemen of the Grand Jury. London. 1736.” 8vo, 29 pp. Two or three extracts may be useful, as serving to illustrate Clayton’s views and style, and also the alarming wickedness of the nation.

Advocates of political expediency may object to these high-toned sentiments; but there are still a few who have[42] old-fashioned hardihood enough to exclaim with the Psalmist, “Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” (Psalm xciv. 16).

The friendship between Clayton and the Wesley brothers was unbroken until the latter departed from Church usages, and became out-door evangelists. In 1735, when urged by Oglethorpe and others to go to Georgia, Wesley, not only sought advice from his brother Samuel and William Law, but went to Manchester to consult with Clayton and others whose judgment he respected; and, six weeks after his return from the Georgian colony, we find him spending several days with his old Oxford friend. He writes:—

Two months after the date of this extract from his journal, Wesley, ceasing to rely on the merit of his own good works, and trusting solely for salvation in the infinitely meritorious sacrifice of Christ, experienced an amazing change. His own words must be quoted. After relating that, for “above ten years,” he had “dragged on heavily,” “trusting to his own works and his own righteousness,” “in a refined way, zealously inculcated by the mystic writers,”[39] he remarks:—

This was the turning point in Wesley’s history. Hitherto, like his friend Clayton, he had hoped to be saved by works; now he was saved by faith. This new experience confirmed his new conceptions of gospel truth, and he began to preach accordingly. He insisted upon good works as much as ever; but he henceforth taught, that man is saved, not by these, but by faith in Christ only. His new doctrine was the means of his being shut out of churches; and this led to his preaching in the open air; and the whole resulted in a rupture of the friendship between him and Clayton, who, so far as there is evidence to show, went on to the end of life, as he and Wesley had begun at Oxford,—a sincere, earnest, self-denying, devout, and laborious Pharisee, trusting in his own righteousness, instead of trusting solely in Christ Jesus.

After the date of Wesley’s conversion, we hear of no further friendly meetings. Clayton’s death did not occur till 1773, but, during this long interval of thirty-five years, though Wesley’s visits to Manchester were numerous, there is no mention made of any interview between the two Oxford Methodists. No proof exists, that Clayton ever ranked himself among Wesley’s opponents and slanderers; but, from this period, he ceased to be one of Wesley’s friends. Coldness sprang up, and separation. In 1756, Charles Wesley spent nearly a fortnight among the Manchester Methodists, the object of his visit being to prevent their seceding from the Established Church. He himself attended the Church services, and took with him as many of the Methodists as he could. He heard Clayton preach “a good sermon on constant prayer,” and, at the same service, by the senior chaplain’s invitation, went “with the other clergy” present to the communion table, and received the sacrament; but even this was not enough to regain Clayton’s favour; and, hence, the following entries in Charles’s journal:—

It has been already shown, that Clayton was an intimate friend of Dr. Deacon, the non-juror; and there can be no doubt that, substantially, the ecclesiastical and political opinions of both were identical. Hence, it is not surprising that both were implicated in the rebellious proceedings of 1745.

Charles Edward Stuart, a young man of twenty-five, with a few attendants, five or six hundred broad-swords, about two thousand muskets, and rather less than £4,000 in cash, set out from France, to overturn the government of Great Britain, and, on behalf of his father, to demand its throne. Such was his success, that, on September 16th, he entered Edinburgh. Three days afterwards, the battle of Preston Pans was fought; and, immediately, the handsome Young Pretender began, as prince regent, to exercise various acts of sovereign authority. He appointed a council; ordered regiments to be levied for his service; and held drawing-rooms, which were, for the most part, brilliantly attended, and generally ended in a public supper and a ball. On the last day of October, Charles Edward quitted Edinburgh, at the head of six thousand men; and, in a fortnight, took Carlisle. On November 29th, he and his troops reached Manchester; and then proceeded, by regular marches, to Derby, where they arrived on December 4th. This was their nearest approach to London. Before the year was ended, they were hastily retreating to Carlisle, Glasgow, Stirling, and the Highlands.

There we leave them, and return to Manchester. A local authority[41] has stated, that, previous to the rebellion of 1745, Charles Edward had passed several weeks at Ancoats Hall, the seat of Sir Oswald Moseley; and, that, the leading inhabitants, the clergy of the Collegiate Church, together with Dr. Deacon and his followers, were all warm adherents of the cause of the exiled Stuarts, and recognised, as their political leaders, Colonel Townley, Dr. Byrom, Mr. Dickenson, and others; who were accustomed to hold their[45] meetings in a public-house, contiguous to Jackson’s Ferry, near Didsbury.

To what extent Clayton was associated with these sympathising and plotting Jacobites, it is impossible to determine; but, when the prince marched through Salford, in 1745, this high churchman, with more hardihood than prudence, fell upon his knees before him, and prayed for the blessing of God on the adventurous Chevalier.[42] Charles Edward made the “Palace” hostelry, in Market Street Lane, his residence; and hither Jacobites of both sexes flocked to welcome him. Three sons of Dr. Deacon, true to their father’s principles, enlisted beneath the Pretender’s banner; Charles Deacon being placed at the head of the recruiting department, and Thomas and Robert Deacon being made Lieutenants.

The results were disastrous. Charles, Thomas, and Robert Deacon fell into the hands of the Royalists, at Carlisle; were tried, condemned, and executed in London, in July, 1746; the head of the eldest, together with that of Adjutant Siddal, being sent to Manchester, and fixed on the Exchange. Townley,[46] the colonel of the Manchester Jacobinical regiment, was hanged on Kennington Common, had his bowels torn out, and his heart cast into a fire; and eight of his officers and men were treated in the same barbarous manner.[43]

Great excitement followed. People on both sides were roused. Whitworth’s Manchester Magazine, the only newspaper published in the town, took the part of the Government; Dr. Deacon, Dr. Byrom, Clayton, and others, were obliged to send all their attacks, replies, and other Jacobite outpourings to the city of Chester, where they obtained insertion in the Chester Courant. For two years, this paper warfare was continued; and, in 1749, the whole of what had been printed, both in Manchester and Chester, was collected and published, in a 12mo volume of 324 pages, entitled, “Manchester Vindicated; being a complete Collection of the Papers lately published in Defence of that Town in the Chester Courant, together with all those on the other Side of the Question, printed in the Manchester Magazine, or elsewhere, which are answered in the said Chester Courant, Chester, 1749.”

This act, innocent and natural enough in itself, was regarded as popery—a worshipping of saints—and gave birth to not a few squibbs and verses. The following was by a Quaker:—

This was replied to in a somewhat long article. The writer says, Dr. Deacon has told him that he “never passed by his son’s head but once; and then, indeed, he did pull off his hat.” In reference to Deacon’s large and growing church, it is added:—

Much recrimination followed. It was broadly stated in Whitworth’s Magazine, and absolutely denied in the Chester Courant, that, whilst the Rebels were at Manchester, Dr. Deacon “had the very distinguished honour paid him of being escorted by a file of musqueteers to the Pretender’s lodgings;” and one of Whitworth’s poetasters favoured the public with the following:—

Further quotations would be useless and wearisome. Many of the poetical scraps strongly resemble the poetry of Dr. Byrom, an undoubted Jacobite and a friend of Clayton. His three poems,—“A Dialogue, occasioned by the March of the Highlanders into Lancashire, in the Year 1745”; “A Dialogue about compelling a Person to take the Oaths to the Government”; and “A Genuine Dialogue, between a Gentlewoman at Derby and her Maid, in the beginning of December, 1745,” are ample proofs of his sympathy with the non-jurors, and of his ardent attachment to the Stuarts; and, though it might be rash to assert with positiveness that he was actually the author of the Jacobite versicles in the Chester Courant, it is not unwarrantable to affirm that they bear a striking similitude to his well-known lines:—

Of Clayton’s participation in this Jacobinical controversy there can be little doubt. In fact, he is said to have assisted in procuring a printing press for Joseph Harrop, who had been one of Whitworth’s apprentices. Harrop began the publication of a paper, in opposition to that of his late master, and to that paper Clayton was an important contributor.[44] Clayton’s Jacobite leanings were notorious. In Whitworth’s Magazine, for November 20, 1746, he was publicly rebuked, because one of his senior scholars had recently affronted a lady at the close of public service in the church by shouting, “Down with the Rump;” an affront, however, which was “very pardonable in the scholar, since that was a health at the master’s table.”

Clayton’s praying for the Pretender, in the public streets of Salford, has been already mentioned. It is also said, by one who knew him personally,[45] that he visited Prince Charles at[49] the Palace Inn, paid him profound respect, and was regarded as a sort of royal chaplain. Wheeler, in his “History of Manchester,” asserts that when the government sent to Manchester to search for those who had shown disloyalty to the House of Brunswick, Clayton absconded. Be that as it may, he was placed under suspension by his bishop, and was subjected to the painful penalty of a long-continued silence in the church.[46] On resuming his ministerial duties, after his inhibition was ended, he displayed considerable keenness, and, perhaps, some degree of irreverence in the selection of his text. The Bishop of Chester, having commanded him to preach before him, the bold Jacobite, who had so long been silent, but was now again allowed to speak, somewhat startled both the bishop and the congregation by reading as his text, “I became dumb, and opened not my mouth, for Thou didst it.”[47]

There can be no question of the purity of Clayton’s motives, but his openly avowed adherence to the cause of the Pretender involved him in serious troubles. To say nothing of his ministerial suspension, he was, for years afterwards, the target of his townsmen’s malice. Some hated him, but others loved him; and the two united turned his life into a turmoil. Hence the following, taken from a work entitled, “Jacobite and Non-Juring Principles freely examined,” and published, in Manchester, against Dr. Deacon, by J. Owen, in 1748. Speaking of Clayton, Owen asks:—

Clayton’s school has just been mentioned,—a school, perhaps,[50] commenced in consequence of his clerical suspension.[48] His residence was in Greengate, Salford, and the present well-known Methodist Chapel, in Gravel Lane, stands on what was once his garden. Here he ably conducted his classical academy, not a few of his pupils becoming graduates at the Oxford University. Here he kept a favourite monkey which came to a cruel and untimely end; for his pupils, either in wanton mischief or temporary spite, seized poor Pug, and fastened him to a stake in the vicinity of a hive of bees; and then so exasperated the apiarian insects, that the excited and miserable monkey was literally stung to death. At Kersall Cell, the seat of the Byrom family at Manchester, there is a large original oil-painting representing the interior of Clayton’s School in Salford, and a full-length portrait of Clayton himself, dressed in a blue velvet gown, and surrounded by his scholars.

Little more remains to be said of this sincere and earnest high church clergyman. He was stiff in his churchmanship, but was greatly respected. His Jacobite inclinations might be foolish, but they were not wicked, and were not peculiar to himself. Many of the most learned and pious and useful men then existing entertained the same sentiments and feelings. They were doubtless mistaken; but they were honest, and merited forbearance more than punishment. It is said that, in after years, Mr. Clayton’s opinions were greatly modified; and that, in fact, he became a Hanoverian. Perhaps there is no absolute proof of such a politico-religious change; but a caricature (now extremely scarce) was published, in which he was represented as standing on a pedestal, with two faces looking in opposite directions; on his breast was inscribed, “The art of trimming;” in his left hand was a scroll with “God bless King James III.” upon it; and in his right another, bearing the inscription of “Charles III.” The remainder of the picture consisted of a view of Manchester Old Church, the initials of Prince Charles, sundry portraits, a box and dice, a schoolmaster’s birchen rod, a broken punch-bowl, a dog snatching at a shadow, and finally two fighting cats. At the foot of the engraving was written:—

For twenty years, Clayton was chaplain of the Collegiate Church of Manchester; and, in 1760, was elected a fellow thereof, in the place of Mr. Crouchley, deceased.[49] Nine years afterwards, in 1769, he preached the sermon at the consecration of St. John’s Church, Manchester, founded by Edward Byrom, Esq., the son of his warmly attached friend, Dr. Byrom. He died September 25, 1773. His funeral sermon was preached by his intimate friend, the Rev. Thomas Aynscough, M.A., from the words, “We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.” His old pupils erected a monument to his memory, in the Collegiate Church, bearing the following inscription:—

“Sacred to the Memory of the Rev. John Clayton, M.A.,
Successively Chaplain and Fellow of this Church,
Who died September 25th, 1773, Aged 64 Years.
This Monument is erected by his Scholars,
A grateful Token of their Affection and Esteem.
He had endeared himself to them
by his manly Cheerfulness, and strict Integrity,
diffusive Charity, heroic Forgiveness,
and Serenity of Temper under Disappointments;
his judicious Fidelity to guard against
the Dangers of Vice, and Follies of Ignorance,
by forming the Man, the Scholar, and the Christian,
in every Mind submitted to his Cultivation;
his ardent Zeal for true Religion;
warm Attachment to the Church of England;
and unwearied Discharge of all the Labours
of a conscientious Parish Priest;
by the uncommon Lustre of his declining Years,
wherein he bore the sharpest Agonies
of a painful and humiliating Disease,
with the Fortitude of Faith, the Resignation of Hope,
and the strong Consolation of a well-spent Life.”

This is high praise, but not unmerited,—given not by strangers, who never saw him, but by those who knew him best. Old Manchester Methodists used to describe him as being about five feet eight inches in stature, somewhat portly,[52] dignified in gait, wearing an enormous wig, always deeply serious, a rigid disciplinarian among his scholars and choristers, a pattern of canonical regularity in the performance of his ministerial duties, and very venerable in appearance at the close of life.

Though a scholar and a man of considerable mental power, he seems to have published nothing, except the Sermon already mentioned, his Jacobinical strictures in the Chester Courant, and a sixpenny pamphlet, with the following title, “Friendly Advice to the Poor; Written and Published, at the Request of the late and present Officers of the Town of Manchester, by John Clayton, M.A. Manchester: Printed by Joseph Harrop, opposite the Clock End of the Exchange; for Messrs. Newton’s, Booksellers, 1755.” 47 pp.

Clayton was a faithful and fearless friend. He had no notion of using lollipops when bitters were required. His “advice” was “friendly”; but the opposite of fulsome. In his municipal publication, he delivers himself in no measured terms. He writes:—

After this exordium, follows his castigation. He reminds his readers of the numerous charitable institutions of the town, for “lodging, clothing, and feeding the poor; for breeding up their children in useful Christian knowledge, and putting them out to proper trades; for helping young people at their first setting out in the world; for maintaining and relieving the sick and maimed; and, lastly, for succouring and supporting the impotent and aged.” He tells them, that, the town abounds

Clayton acknowledges, that, there are many exceptions of “edifying examples of industry, frugality, and good economy;” but he maintains, that, generally speaking, his description is painfully correct. The town swarmed with “loiterers”; and “common custom had established so many holidays, that few of the manufacturing work-folks were closely and regularly employed above two thirds of their time;” the result being “that every little accident, that prevented a single week’s work, reduced them absolutely to the state of paupers.” Besides this, “it frequently happened, that, the week’s labour of an industrious family, were swallowed up in a day’s debauch of the extravagant master.” Vice is contagious, and the pestilent example of masters filled the streets of Manchester “with idle, ragged children; who were not only losing their time, but learning habits of gaming; which constantly produced lying, quarrelling, profane swearing and cursing; and frequently, led to pilfering and stealing, and every degree of wickedness and enormity.” Added to this, while “the husband wasted his time and squandered his substance at the alehouse, the wife was as often wasteful at the tea-table, as the other was prodigal over his cups; for, strange as it might appear, it was a truth that even this wretched piece of luxury, this shameful devourer of time and money, had found its way into the houses of the poor; and it was no unusual thing to find a miserable family, with hardly rags to cover their nakedness, in a wretched garret, or more loathsome cellar, fooling away a precious hour, and spending more money over this confessedly[54] hurtful food,” (beverage) “than would have furnished a good meal or two of wholesome diet.” In fact, “ale, gin, and tea mainly swallowed up that slender income, which might have been turned to much better account, had it been laid out with the baker and the butcher.”

Clayton adds mismanagement to his charges of idleness and luxury. There was a want of “good housewifry,” of “frugal cookery,” and of domestic cleanliness.

Clayton, besides being an able instructor of the young, and an indefatigable parish priest, wished to be a social reformer; and, certainly, his services, in this respect, were greatly needed. His picture of Manchester, a little more than a hundred years ago, is far from savoury; but there can be little doubt of its being true. Clayton’s plain speaking would hardly be tolerated at the present day; but, notwithstanding that, perhaps, it might be useful. At all events, one cannot but admire the stern fidelity of this really kind and exemplary visitor of the poor and friendless, in dealing so faithfully with his fellow-townsmen, who, by their idleness and extravagance, systematically reduced themselves to rags and ruin; and, if the above extracts answer no other purpose, they will not be useless in helping to illustrate the character and principles of this Oxford Methodist.[50]

Clayton’s life was not mis-spent; but it might have been much more useful if his friendship with the Wesleys had not been broken. John Wesley, between the years 1738 and 1773, visited Manchester more than twenty times; and some of these visits were so memorable, that, Clayton must have heard of them; and, yet, there is not the slightest evidence of any renewal of that fraternal intercourse which was interrupted when Wesley began to preach salvation by faith only, and, in consequence, was excluded from the pulpits of the Established Church. This was heresy too great for a high churchman to overlook. To be saved by faith in Christ, instead of by sacraments, fasts, penances, ritualism, and good works was an unpardonable novelty, deserving of Clayton’s life-long censure; and hence, after 1738, the two old Oxford friends seem to have been separated till they met in heaven. It is rather remarkable, that, Wesley’s first visit to Manchester, subsequent to his conversion, was at the very time when the Jacobite controversy, already mentioned, was at its height; and that Wesley preached at Salford Cross, immediately adjoining Clayton’s residence. He writes:—

Clayton at the time was suspended from exercising ministerial functions by his bishop; but he was probably in Manchester,[56] and in a neighbouring house; but there was no recognition of his quondam friend. Wesley might have called upon him; but perhaps Clayton’s dubious position, as a clergyman suspended for his Jacobinical leanings, prevented this. Wesley himself had been falsely accused of being a friend of the Pretender, and common prudence dictated the inexpediency of seeking the company of one who had shown Charles Edward such marks of sympathy and respect.

Did Wesley join in this sacramental service? Was Clayton one of the administrators? Was there any intercourse between the two?

Another of Wesley’s visits was in 1755, the year in which Clayton published his “Friendly Advice to the Poor”; and Wesley’s entry in his journal shows that reformation was needed not only among the working-classes, but their superiors.

It was a year after this, when Charles Wesley attended the Collegiate church every day for a whole week, and every day stood close to Clayton, and yet the latter would not even look at him.

Here we must leave the Jacobite Churchman. Of his sincerity, and of his earnest purpose faithfully to fulfil his office as a minister of the Church of England, there can be no question; but, remembering the sacred associations and Methodist meetings of Oxford, this priestly superciliousness was not to be commended, even though his two former friends were now excluded from Church of England pulpits, and were so ecclesiastically irregular as to preach in the open air.

Benjamin Ingham was born at Osset, in Yorkshire, June 11th, 1712. Like the Wesleys, he was a descendant of one of the ministers ejected from the Church of England by the black Bartholomew Act of 1662.[51] Having received a liberal education at the grammar-school, Batley, he was sent, when about eighteen years of age, to Queen’s College, Oxford. Two years afterwards, he joined the Methodists. None of that godly brotherhood were more diligent and devout than this young Yorkshireman. Hence, the following letter addressed to his friend Wesley:—

Here we have another glimpse of Oxford Methodism,—intense conscientiousness, concern on account of surrounding wickedness, early rising, religious employment of every hour, devout study, care for neglected children, and observance of the weekly fasts; but not a word respecting the great truth, that sinners are saved by the alone merits of Jesus Christ, and by a penitential trust in His all-sufficient sacrifice. These were truths which the Oxford Methodists had yet to learn. Ingham, like Kirkham, the Morgans, and Clayton, looked to Wesley for guidance; but, in this respect, Wesley as yet was an incompetent instructor.

Ingham mentions his teaching forty-two children how to[59] read, and his Sunday meetings among the poor people at Osset. Such efforts to improve his neighbours deserve to be commended; and it is a pleasant duty to relate, that, his benevolent endeavours were attended with great success. Numbers of persons were convinced of their lost condition as sinners: and thus was commenced a religious movement akin to that, which, eight years afterwards, seemed to upheave a large portion of the West Riding of the county of York.

Notwithstanding his prayers, fasts, scripture reading, and diligence, Ingham was not happy; and no wonder. He was a conscientious, earnest Pharisee, seeking to be saved by works of righteousness, rather than by penitential faith in Christ. The following letter, also addressed to Wesley, and written nine months after the former one, shows how dissatisfied he was with his present religious state; and reveals a scrupulousness of conscience in reference to shooting and Quakers, which is somewhat amusing:—

From the above, it is quite evident that the Oxford Methodists regarded the Quakers as not Christians; yea, as people, in whose houses, it was doubtful whether Christians, except in cases of necessity, ought to dwell. This was not surprising. Sacraments, fasts, and feast days were essentials among the Oxford Methodists; among the Quakers they were utterly neglected. The religion of the Methodists, to a great extent, consisted in the observance of outward forms; the religion of the Quakers, to an equal extent, in the neglect of them.

Ingham returned to Oxford in February, 1735; and was ordained in Christ Church, by Bishop Potter, on the 1st of June following. On the day of his ordination, he preached his first sermon, his congregation consisting of the prisoners in Oxford Castle. On the 4th of the same month, he proceeded, with Mr. Gambold, to London, where he was engaged as the “reader of public prayers at Christ Church, and at St. Sepulchre’s,” Newgate Street. Ingham’s zeal was too fervent to be pent up in the reading-desks of these city churches. His age was only twenty-three; he was full of youthful buoyancy, and longed for a wider sphere of action.[61] In Yorkshire, he had held conversational meetings in his mother’s house; but now, for the first time, he was allowed to mount the pulpit, and to preach. Christ Church and St. Sepulchre’s had other, probably older, men than himself as preachers; but, rather than be silent, away he went, on a sort of ecclesiastical itinerancy, far beyond the precincts of London proper, and preached in many of the surrounding villages, and with such singular success, that great numbers of the people were powerfully impressed, and had eternal cause to be grateful for his youthful and fervid ministry.[53]

The Oxford Methodists were already scattered. In consequence of his father’s death, on April 25, 1735, Wesley had gone to Epworth. His brother Charles, ordained about the same time as Ingham, had also taken his departure from Oxford. Clayton was in Manchester; Hervey at home; Gambold in London. The following letter, addressed to Wesley, and written a fortnight after Ingham’s ordination, contains interesting references to this religious brotherhood.

“A man’s heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps.” Within three months after this, Wesley wrote to Ingham, in substance, as follows:—“Fast and pray; and then send me word whether you dare go with me to the Indians.” Ingham’s answer will be found in the following long letter, or journal, dated “Savannah, May 1st, 1736;” and which is now, for the first time, published at full length. The substance of it was given in the “Wesley Banner” for 1852; but it is here printed verbatim, and without abridgment. Perhaps, and indeed, probably, the letter was an extract from a longer journal; but if so, the journal is unknown. The document is long, and somewhat loosely written; but, besides illustrating Ingham’s character, it contains a considerable amount of interesting information, and will serve to confirm the journals of Wesley and his brother, and to fill up gaps in them:—

“Savannah, May 1st, 1736.

“To my much-honoured Mother, my dearly beloved Brethren and Sisters, and all my Christian Friends:—Grace, mercy and peace be multiplied from Almighty God, the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost; to whom be glory, honour, and praise for ever and ever. Amen.

“Blessed, for ever blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of all mercy, and the God of all consolation, who, of His great goodness, has been graciously pleased to conduct us safe through the terrors of the great deep! ‘They that go down to the sea[64] in ships, and occupy their business in great waters, these men see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep, for, at His word, the stormy wind ariseth, which lifteth up the waves thereof. They are carried up to the heavens, and down again to the deep. Their soul melteth away because of the trouble. They reel to and fro, and are tossed up and down, so that they are at their wit’s end. Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and He delivereth them out of their distress. For He maketh the storm to cease, so that the waves thereof are still. Then are they glad, because they are at rest; and so He bringeth them unto the haven where they would be! O! that men would therefore praise the Lord for His goodness, and declare the wonders that He doeth to the children of men!’

“I can now inform you that we are all arrived in safety in Georgia. But, because I believe that a relation of our voyage will not be unacceptable to you, I shall, with God’s assistance, set down both the chief occurrences thereof, and also the reasons which moved me to undertake it. But, lest you should think of me, or my designs, more highly than you ought to think, I do assure you that I am a very grievous and abominable sinner, proud, sensual, and self-willed. And, oh! that I was truly sensible, and heartily sorry of being so! Oh! that it would please Almighty God, of His great grace, to make me thoroughly humble and contrite! Oh! that my sins were done away; that my nature was changed; that I was a new creature in Christ Jesus! Then, perhaps, God would make me an instrument to His glory. Oh! my dear friends, I beg of you, I entreat you, I beseech you, pray mightily to God in my behalf, that I may not be a castaway.

“About six weeks before we took shipping for Georgia, I received a letter from the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, the substance whereof was as follows: ‘Fast and pray; and then send me word whether you dare go with me to the Indians,’ Having observed his directions, about three days after the receipt of this, I answered him to this effect: ‘I am satisfied that God’s providence has placed me in my present station. Whether He would have me go to the Indians or not, I am not as yet informed. I dare not go without being called,’ I kept his letter secret for some days. I was utterly averse from going. I thought we had heathens anew at home. However, I continued to pray that God would be pleased to direct me, whether He would have me go, or not.

“About a fortnight after this, Mr. John Wesley came to London, as also his brother Charles, and Mr. Salmon, a gentleman of Brazen-Nose College, Oxon. The first time I was with them, I desired to know the reasons which moved them to leave England. They answered, they thought they could be better Christians, alleging particular advantages which they might reasonably expect would further their spiritual progress, by going amongst the Indians. Some of their reasons I approved of; to others I objected, alleging that a man might be a Christian in any place, but chiefly insisting upon this, that no one ought to go without being called of God. They told me, if I required a voice or sign from[65] heaven, that was not now to be expected; and that a man had no other way of knowing God’s will, but by consulting his own reason, and his friends, and by observing the order of God’s providence. They, therefore, thought it a sufficient call to choose that way of life which they had reason to believe would most promote their Christian welfare. Our conversation being ended, they lent me several letters, written by Mr. Oglethorpe, relating to the Indians, their manner of living, their customs, and their great expectation of having a white man come amongst them to teach them wisdom. All this moved me a little, but I had no mind to leave England. However, I now began to pray more frequently and fervently that God would be pleased to direct me to do His will.

“Besides the three gentlemen aforementioned, there was also one Mr. Hall, brother-in-law to Mr. Wesley, resolutely determined to go. When they had been in London about ten days, in which time I frequently conversed with them, I found my heart so moved one night, by being with Mr. John Wesley, that, almost without thinking it, I said to him, ‘If neither Mr. Hall nor Mr. Salmon go along with you, I will go.’ At that time, there seemed no probability that either of them would draw back. They were both of them ordained by the Bishop of London in order to go: Mr. Salmon, deacon; Mr. Hall, both deacon and priest.

“But, lo! Mr. Salmon was immediately seized upon by his relations in town, and was sent down, post haste, to his parents in Cheshire. Upon his arrival, his father left the house, furious and distracted, protesting he would not return unless his son would stay. His mother, also, was labouring under a fever. In this distress, he knew not what to do; but he promised his parents to stay, and wrote Mr. Wesley word that he hoped to follow him next spring, though since then he has writ to him, telling him he doth not think himself as yet at liberty to leave father and mother.

“However, Mr. Hall still continued steady. Neither his wife, nor mother, nor brother, nor uncle, nor all his friends, either by prayers, tears, threats, or entreaties, could, in the least, turn him aside from his purpose.

“A few days after this, Mr. Wesley began to be more importunate with me, urging me with my promise, telling me he had now little hope of Mr. Salmon; and, as for Mr. Hall, he could not properly be said to go with him, for his design was to go amongst the Indians, whereas Mr. Hall was only to go to Savannah, and be minister there; and as for his brother Charles, he went over only as secretary to the trustees for the colony of Georgia.

“I still refused, telling him, ‘If Mr. Hall went, I would not go.’ Nevertheless, I prayed very earnestly, almost night and day revolving upon it. My heart began to be now more and more affected. It pleased God to let me see I might be a better Christian by going with Mr. Wesley. I thought, by living with him and having his example always before mine eyes, I should be enabled to rise regularly and early, and to spend all my time carefully, which are great and necessary points in Christianity, and wherein I grew very deficient by living in London. Besides these, there[66] were three other reasons which moved me. I thought, I should not meet with so many temptations, to sensuality and indulgence, among the Indians as in England. Hereby, likewise, I saw I should be freed from the slavery of worldly interests, and the danger and drudgery of hunting for preferment, which hinders so many from being Christians, making them to betray the Church to serve the State, and to deny Jesus Christ to please worldly-minded men. The last and chief reason was the goodness of the work, and the great and glorious promises that are made to those who forsake all for the sake of the gospel.[57]

“Notwithstanding all these reasons, I was not yet fully determined to go; but, what is very remarkable, the Psalms, the Lessons, and all that I then read suggested to me that I should go. So that, being at Morning Prayers in Westminster Abbey, on Tuesday, October 7th, 1735, the tenth chapter of St. Mark, which was then read, made so strong and vigorous an impression upon me, that, at the hearing of these words, ‘And Jesus answered and said, Verily, I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life,’—I determined in my heart that I would go. I may likewise observe that, without any intention or design, I read the same chapter the next day at St. Sepulchre’s Church, which did not a little strengthen my resolution.

“Though I was thus determined in my own mind, yet I did not make known my purpose to Mr. Wesley; but told him there were three objections against my going. My mother and Mr. Nicolson knew nothing of the matter; whereas I ought to have acquainted them both and obtained their consent. To these Mr. Wesley answered, he did not doubt but God would provide better for the school in my absence than if I stayed, especially if I recommended it to His care in my prayers, which I have constantly done. Mr. Morgan, likewise, a gentleman of Lincoln College, Oxford, who came up to London to take leave of Mr. Wesley, a zealous and sincere Christian, being very earnest with me to go, promised himself to make a journey into Yorkshire to see my mother, and to do what he could towards settling the school. As to having my mother’s consent, he said, if I thought it was God’s will, I must obey my Master, and go wherever I could do Him service, whether my relations were willing or not. But, however, I could not go without Mr. Nicolson’s knowledge and consent, because that would be leaving the parish unprovided, which would be unlawful. We therefore put the matter upon this issue,—if Mr. Nicolson consented, I might go; if not, then there was a reasonable hindrance against my going at this time. Mr. Nicolson had been some weeks at his parish of Matching, in Essex, whereof I was[67] curate. He usually came to town on Saturdays, but, by a wonderful Providence, he was now brought to town on Monday night. His intent was to have returned the next day, but he was strangely detained, by one thing or other, till Wednesday. I would gladly have met with him on Tuesday, but could not find him at home. However, I writ a letter, and ordered it to be given him as soon as he came. Next morning, he came to my lodgings at Mr. Lissons’s. He told me he had received my letter, which had acquainted him with my designs. He was sorry to part with me; my warning was short; my departure was sudden; yet, as I was going about a good work, he would not oppose me; and, provided I could preach the Sunday following, he would give me his consent. I went to Mr. Oglethorpe to know if I could stay so long. He said, I might. I returned, acquainted Mr. Nicolson, and so parted with him very friendly, he going directly into the country.

“After this, I made known my designs, and got things in readiness as fast as I could. My friends in town endeavoured to persuade me; but I did not consult them, but God.

“On Friday, October 10, 1735, I made my will, which I sent inclosed in a letter to you at Osset.

“Sunday, October 12, I preached at St. Mary Somerset[58] in the morning, and at St. Sepulchre’s in the afternoon. Service being ended, I took leave of my good old friend, Mrs. Lissons, and her family, who wept much—my cousin, Robert Harrap, and some other friends. Thence I went to Sir John Philips’, a very worthy gentleman, and a devout Christian, who showed me a great deal of respect, and did me many favours when I was in London, where, having exhorted one another, we kneeled down to pray, and so parted. Thence I went with Mr. Morgan to Mr. Hutton’s, a good family in Westminster, where we spent the next day with Messrs. Wesley, chiefly in private. But there happened such a remarkable circumstance on it, as I cannot pass over in silence. Mr. Hall, who had made great preparations for the voyage, and had now got all things ready for his departure, having this very morning hired a coach to carry himself and wife down to Gravesend, where the ship lay, at the very hour wherein they should have gone, drew back. He came unexpectedly, and told Mr. Oglethorpe, his uncle and mother would get him a living, and, therefore, he would not go. So he, whom all his friends could not dissuade before, lost himself, and dropped all his resolutions in the very last moments.

“This strange occurrence, which was so much beyond all expectation, was a strong and fresh demonstration to me, that it was God’s will I should go. Because, as I observed, I had said to Mr. Wesley some time ago, ‘If neither Mr. Hall nor Mr. Salmon go along with you, I will go.’—And again, ‘If Mr. Hall goes, I will not go.’

“Having now no further doubt, but, that, I was intended by Providence to accompany Mr. Wesley, on Tuesday, October 14, he, his brother, Mr. Charles, myself, and Mr. Delamotte, son of a merchant in London,[68] who had a mind to leave the world, and give himself up entirely to God, being accompanied by Mr. Morgan, Mr. Burton, (one of the trustees), and Mr. James Hutton, took boat at Westminster, for Gravesend. We arrived there about four in the afternoon, and immediately went on board the ship, called the Symmonds.

“We had two cabins allotted us in the forecastle; I and Mr. Delamotte having the first, and Messrs. Wesley the other. Theirs was made pretty large, so that we could all meet together to read or pray in it. This part of the ship was assigned to us by Mr. Oglethorpe, as being most convenient for privacy.

“Wednesday and Thursday we spent chiefly with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Hutton, exhorting and encouraging one another. We also received the Lord’s Supper with them each day, thereby to strengthen our spiritual strength and resolutions. They were both sorry to part with us; and, I believe, Mr. Morgan would have been very glad to have gone along with us.

“Friday, October 17, Mr. John Wesley, began to learn the German tongue, in order to converse with the Moravians, a good, devout, peaceable, and heavenly-minded people, who were persecuted by the Papists, and driven from their native country, upon the account of their religion. They were graciously received and protected by Count Zinzendorf, of Hernhuth, a very holy man, who sent them over into Georgia, where lands will be given them. There are twenty-six of them in our ship; and almost the only time that you could know they were in the ship, was when they were harmoniously singing the praises of the Great Creator, which they constantly do in public twice a day, wherever they are. Their example was very edifying. They are more like the Primitive Christians than any other church now in the world; for they retain both the faith, practice, and discipline delivered by the Apostles. They have regularly ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. Baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist are duly administered. Discipline is strictly exercised without respect of persons. They all submit themselves to their pastors, being guided by them in everything. They live together in perfect love and peace, having, for the present, all things in common. They are more ready to serve their neighbours than themselves. In their business, they are diligent and industrious; in all their dealings, strictly just and conscientious. In everything, they behave themselves with great meekness, sweetness, and humility.

“Saturday, October 18. This morning, Mr. John Wesley and I began to read the Old Testament, which we finished during our voyage. Mr. Wesley likewise baptised a man of thirty, who before only had received lay baptism.[59] I was witness.

“Sunday, October 19. Mr. John Wesley began to preach without notes, expounding a portion of Scripture extempore, according to the ancient usage. During our passage, he went over our Saviour’s Sermon on[69] the Mount. He also constantly explained the Second Lesson, except when he catechized the children; whereby, all that heard, with sincere hearts, were much edified. To-day, being the first time we celebrated the Lord’s Supper publicly, (which we did constantly every Lord’s-day afterwards,) we had but three communicants besides ourselves;—a small number, yet God has been graciously pleased to add to them. All love, all glory, be to Thee, O Lord!

“Monday, October 20 I began to teach and catechize the children on board our ship, being in number about twelve. I likewise helped two or three of the Moravians[60] to learn English. This I continued to do several weeks, till we came out to sea, and then I could but do it seldom, by reason of the rolling of the ship. O that we were all like little children, willing to be instructed and guided by our Heavenly Father! O that we were truly sensible of our own ignorance, and how very little the wisest of us knows that is worth knowing! It is God that teacheth man knowledge.

“Tuesday, October 21. We left Gravesend, and went down the river, though but very slowly, the wind not being favourable to us.

“We now began to be more in earnest. We resolved to rise early, and to spend our time regularly and carefully. The first hour, we allotted ourselves, was to pray for ourselves and absent friends. The next, we read the Scriptures; and, from six to breakfast, we generally read something relating to the Primitive Church. At eight, we had public prayers. The forenoon I spent either in teaching and instructing the children, or reading antiquity; Mr. John Wesley, in learning German; Mr. Charles Wesley, mostly in writing; Mr. Delamotte, in learning Greek, or Navigation. At twelve, we all met together, to join in prayer, and to exhort one another, consulting both how to profit our neighbours and ourselves. After dinner, I taught the children, or conversed religiously with some of the passengers, as also Mr. Wesley constantly did. At four, we had public prayer. From five to six, we spent in private; then we supped. At seven, I read to as many of the passengers as were willing to hear, and instructed them in Christianity. Mr. John Wesley joined with the Moravians in their public devotions. At eight, we all met together again, to give an account of what we had done, whom we had conversed with, deliberating on the best method of proceeding with such and such persons; what advice, direction, exhortation, or reproof was necessary for them; and sometimes we read a little, concluding with prayer; and so we went to bed about nine, sleeping soundly upon mats and blankets, regarding neither the noise of the sea or sailors. “The angels of the Lord are round about them that fear Him.”

“Monday, October 27. We sailed from Margate Road to the Downs. A gentleman passenger strongly opposed our having prayers in the great cabin; and, indeed, he half carried his point, so that we were forced to submit to the inconvenience of having them between decks in the afternoons, till it pleased God to remove him out of the ship.

[70]

“Sunday, November 2. We passed the fleet at Spithead, and came into Cowes Road, off the Isle of Wight, where we lay till the 10th of December. During our stay here, we had an excellent opportunity of promoting the work of God among our fellow passengers. We met with both opposition and success, passing through evil report and good report. May it please the Almighty to give us all an abundant measure of His grace, to persevere zealously in His service to the end of our days! Every Christian must be perfected through sufferings, either inward or outward, for even the Captain of our salvation was made perfect through suffering; and we are to be like Him.

“Mr. Charles Wesley, being known to the minister at Cowes, preached several times in the island, and read at a poor woman’s house to a good number of the people there assembled. Before we came away, he left a few books among them. The poor people were very glad, expressed much thankfulness, and, I believe, were not a little edified by his admonition and exhortation.

“Monday, November 3. We took a walk into the Isle, where we agreed upon the following resolutions:—

“‘In the name of God, Amen.

“‘We whose names are here underwritten, being fully convinced, that, it is impossible, either to promote the work of God among the heathen without an entire union amongst ourselves; or, that, such an union should subsist unless each one will give up his single judgment to that of the majority, do agree, by the help of God:—

“‘First. That none of us will undertake anything of importance without first proposing it to the other three.

“‘Second. That, whenever our judgments or inclinations differ, any one shall give up his single judgment or inclination to the others.

“‘Third. That, in case of an equality, after begging God’s direction, the matter shall be decided by lot,

“‘John Wesley,
C. Wesley,
B. Ingham,
C. Delamotte.’

“The wind was now fair, but the man-of-war, that was to convey us over, was not yet ready. The passengers grew impatient of delay; but our Heavenly Father intended it for our good. Known unto God are all His works from everlasting. Unsearchable are Thy ways, O Lord God of hosts. Blessed art Thou for ever.

“Saturday, November 8. I went upon quarter-deck, after dinner, to teach the children; but, because some gentlemen were there who laughed at me for it, I was ashamed to proceed. O! what a dreadful thing is the fear of man! How does it defeat our best purposes, and stagger our stoutest courage! O! how deceitful is my heart! If Thou, O Lord, shouldest withdraw Thy grace from me but one day, I should utterly renounce Thee, and commit the most enormous crimes!

“Sunday, November 16. Mr. John Wesley baptized Thomas Herd and[71] Grace, his wife, Mark, his son, and Phœbe, his daughter, both adults, having prepared them for it by private instruction. To this, I was a witness. They were brought up Quakers; but are now serious people and constant communicants. Praised be the Lord! who has turned their hearts from error, and put them in the right way.

“Thursday, November 20. The man-of-war being come, we left Cowes and got down to Yarmouth, where they cast anchor. But next morning, the wind being contrary, we were forced back again into Cowes Road. During this our latter stay here, there were several storms, in one of which, two ships, that ventured out, were stranded upon the island. Notwithstanding this, several of our people murmured at the delay. If God should deal with us according to our deservings, we should be consumed in a moment.

“Sunday, November 23. We had, besides ourselves, eight communicants. The Tuesday following, I got a boy well whipped, by Mr. Oglethorpe’s orders, for swearing and blaspheming. Private admonition had no effect upon him, so that I was forced to have recourse to public correction.

“Sunday, November 30. I preached on board the other ships, and read prayers, which I did several times while we lay at Cowes. We now again had prayers in the great cabin, the gentleman afore-mentioned having yesterday left the ship. Blessed be God! who delivered us from him, for he very much opposed us. I did think, and I told it my friends, that, we could not sail while he was in the ship. This, perhaps, might be one reason why we were kept so long from sailing.

“Monday, December 1. We agreed upon the following resolution,—‘If any one upon being reproved, or upon any other occasion, shall feel any sort or degree of anger or resentment, he shall immediately, or at the next meeting, frankly and fully confess it.’

“Saturday, December 6. The second mate, a very insolent and ill-natured fellow, who had abused many of the passengers and also Mr. Wesley, at last affronted even Mr. Oglethorpe to his face. The next day, he was sent on board the man-of-war. The people rejoiced at this; and praised be God! who delivered them from his power. ‘The fierceness of man shall turn to Thy praise; and the fierceness of them shalt Thou restrain.’ This, I think, was another reason why we were kept still at Cowes.

“Sunday, December 7. We were fifteen communicants. This evening, we resolved to leave off eating suppers, till we found some inconvenience from it; which none of us did to the end of the voyage. Since our settling in America, Messrs. Wesley and Mr. Delamotte have resumed them. As yet, it agrees perfectly with my health, and I still continue it.

“Monday, December 8. A young man, very providentially, was taken into our ship. I, perceiving that he was a stranger, began to converse with him. He gave me an account of himself, and the reason of his coming. He had left his parents, he said, who were rich, (though he was their only son,) because they would not let him serve God as he had a mind. He used to spend a good part of the night in prayer, not having[72] opportunity to do it by day. When he left home, he did not know where he should go, having no clothes with him; but he did not seek for money or worldly enjoyments; he desired only to save his soul. When he was travelling, he prayed that he might go to some place where he could have the advantage of public prayers and the Holy Sacrament. Several times he had thoughts of turning hermit; but Providence had brought him to us; and he was glad to meet with ministers with whom he could freely converse about spiritual things; and, indeed, I was glad to meet with him. This, I think, was another reason for our delay. All love, all glory be to Thee, O Lord!

“Wednesday, December 10. Now, at length, it pleased our Heavenly Father to send us a fair wind. We left Cowes about nine in the morning. Two gentlemen passengers of the other ship were left behind, having, the night before, gone to Portsmouth. We waited for them near two hours; but, they not coming, we made the best of our way, running between seven and eight miles an hour. Friday, in the forenoon, we left the man-of-war, he not being able to sail as fast as our ships. Most of the passengers were now sick; I was so for about half an hour; Mr. John Wesley scarce at all.

“Friday, December 19. Messrs. Wesley and I, with Mr. Oglethorpe’s approbation, undertook to visit, each of us, a part of the ship, and daily to provide the sick people with water-gruel, and such other things as were necessary for them. At first, we met with some difficulties; but God enabled us to persevere in the constant performance to the end of the journey. Mr. Oglethorpe himself went several times about the ship to comfort and encourage the people; and, indeed, he has never been wanting in this respect. He is a pattern of fatherly care and tender compassion, being always ready, night and day, to give up his own ease and conveniences to serve the poorest body among the people. He seldom eats above once a day, and then he usually chooses salt provisions, (though not so agreeable to his health,) that, he might give the fresh to the sick. But more will appear from the following instance. One Mrs. Welch, who was believed to be at the point of death, being big with child, in a high fever, attended with a violent cough, was, by Mr. Oglethorpe’s order, removed into his own cabin, which was the best in the ship, he himself lying several nights in a hammock, till another cabin was got ready for him. He also constantly supplied her with all the best things in the ship. Some of the gentlemen seemed disgusted at this; but that made him only the more resolute. Yet, notwithstanding all possible care was taken of her, human means failed; the doctor gave her up; everybody thought she would die; Mr. Oglethorpe only continued in hope. Nay, he said, he was sure God would raise her up to manifest His glory in her. She had a desire to receive the Lord’s Supper before she died; and, lo! from the moment she received, she began to recover, and is now safely delivered of a daughter, and in perfect health. ‘Gracious is the Lord, and merciful, long-suffering, and of great goodness; the Lord is loving to every man, and His mercy is over all His works.’

“Sunday, December 21. We were twenty-one communicants. This, as[73] well as yesterday, was an exceedingly calm and pleasant day. The sky appeared to me more beautiful than ever I had observed it in England. We were likewise got so far to the southward, that, the weather was as warm now as it is in the spring at home. This being Mr. Oglethorpe’s birthday, he gave a sheep and wine to the people, which, with the smoothness of the sea, and the serenity of the sky, so enlivened them, that, they perfectly recovered from their sea sickness. On Christmas-day, also, Mr. Oglethorpe gave a hog, and wine to the people.

“Monday, December 29. We are now past the latitude of twenty-five degrees, and are got into what they call the Trade winds, which blow much the same way all the year round. The air is balmy, soft, and sweet. The ship glides smoothly and quietly along. The clouds are finely variegated with numbers of pretty colours. The nights are mild and pleasant, being beautifully adorned with the shining hosts of stars. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handywork. One day telleth another; and one night certifies another.’

“What, though, in solemn silence, all

Move round this dark, terrestrial ball;

What, though nor real voice nor sound

Amidst their radiant orbs is found;

In reason’s ear they all rejoice,

And utter forth a glorious voice,

For ever singing as they shine,

‘The Hand that made us is divine.’

“1736, Sunday, January 4. A gentleman was very angry with me for accusing his servant, of swearing, before Mr. Oglethorpe.

“The next day, Mr. John Wesley began to catechise the children publicly, after the Second Lesson evening service, which he continued to do every day for about three weeks.

“Monday, January 12. I began to write out the English Dictionary, in order to learn the Indian tongue. O! ‘who is sufficient for these things?’

“When the ship rolled so that we could not well go about to visit the people, we generally spent the evening in conversation with Mr. Oglethorpe, from whom we learnt many particulars concerning the Indians.

“Saturday, January 17. The wind was very strong. About half an hour after ten at night, we encountered such a wave as we did not meet with in all our passage besides. It shook the whole frame of the ship, from stem to stern. The water sprung through the sides of the ship, which before were tight, and, also, above the main-yard. Falling down, it covered the decks, broke into the great cabin, and filled Mrs. Welch’s bed. Mr. Oglethorpe was gone to bed, and resigned his own dry cabin to the sick, betaking himself once more to his hammock. Hitherto, we had had a very fine passage; but now, approaching near land, we met with contrary winds, which kept us above a fortnight longer at sea than otherwise we should have been.

“Tuesday, January 20. I baptized a child, which was thought to be at[74] the point of death; nay, some thought it was dead; but, from the moment it was baptized, it began to recover.

“Wednesday, January 21. This evening, Mr. Oglethorpe called together the heads of families, as he also did at some other times, and gave them several excellent and useful instructions relating to their living in Georgia, exhorting them likewise to love God and one another.

“Sunday, January 25. We were twenty communicants. Towards evening, we had a terrible storm, which lasted several hours. I observed it well; and, truly, I never saw anything hitherto so solemn and majestic. The sea sparkled and smoked, as if it had been on fire. The air darted forth lightning; and the wind blew so fierce, that, you could scarcely look it in the face, and draw your breath. The waves did not swell so high as at some other times, being pressed down by the impetuosity of the blast; neither did the ship roll much; but it quivered, jarred, and shook. About half an hour past seven, a great sea broke in upon us, which split the main-sail, carried away the companion, filled between decks, and rushed into the great cabin. This made most of the people tremble; and, I believe, they would then have been glad to have been Christians, how light soever they made of religion before. I myself was made sensible, that, nothing will enable us to smile in the face of death, but a life of extraordinary holiness. I was under some fear for a little while; but I recollected myself again, by reflecting that every thing came by the will of God; and that whatever He willed was the best for me. If, therefore, He was pleased to take me off at this very time, so much the better:—I should be delivered from many evils, and prevented from committing many sins to come. Betwixt eleven and twelve, I recommended myself to God, and went to bed, resting satisfied with whatever should befal me. Towards three, the wind abated. In the morning, we returned public thanks for our deliverance; and, before night, most of the people had forgotten, that, they were ever in a storm. ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.’[61]

“Wednesday, January 28. Being a calm day, I went on board the other ship, read prayers, and visited the people. At my return, I acquainted Mr. Oglethorpe with their state; and he sent them such things as they needed.

“Sunday, February 1. Three sail appearing, we made up towards them, and got what letters we could write, in hopes some of them might be bound for England. I writ a short one to you at Osset. One of them, that was bound for London, made towards us, and we put our letters on board her.

“On Tuesday, we found ground; on Wednesday, we saw land; and, on Thursday afternoon, 5th of February, we got safe into Tybee-road, in the mouth of the river Savannah, in the province of Georgia, in America.[75] Messrs. Wesley, Mr. Delamotte, and I had some discourse about our manner of living in this new country. I was struck with a deep, religious awe, considering the greatness and importance of the work I came upon, but was comforted with these words in the Psalms:—‘O! tarry thou the Lord’s leisure; be strong, and He shall comfort thy heart; and put thou thy trust in the Lord.’ From the whole service, I was moved to think, that, the Gospel would be propagated over the whole world. May God, of His great mercy, graciously be pleased to grant it!

“February 6. We went on shore, and had prayers, where we were comforted by the Second Lesson. Next day, I received a letter from my brother William, one from my sister Hannah, and another from Mr. H. Washington, whereby I was very much comforted. I called to mind several things past; reflected upon the sweet happiness of true friendship; and prayed earnestly for my dear friends in England, with tears.

“Saturday, February 14. This morning, as well as yesterday, we met with several remarkable passages, in our course of reading the prophets, relating to the propagation of the Gospel, which not a little comforted and encouraged us. I was also strongly affected by the Second Lesson, Mark xiii.

“A little after noon, some Indians came to make us a visit. We put on our gowns and cassocks; spent some time in prayer; and then went into the great cabin to receive them. At our entrance, they all rose up; and both men and women shook hands with us. When we were all seated, Toma-Chache, their king, spoke to us to this effect. (His interpreter was one Mrs. Musgrove, who lives about five miles above Savannah. She is descended of a white man by an Indian woman. She understands both languages, being educated amongst the English. She can read and write, and is a well-civilized woman. She is likewise to teach us the Indian tongue.)

“‘Ye are welcome. I am glad to see you here. I have a desire to hear the Great Word, for I am ignorant. When I was in England, I desired that some might speak the Great Word to me. Our nation was then willing to hear. Since that time, we have been in trouble. The French on one hand, the Spaniards on the other, and the Traders that are amongst us, have caused great confusion, and have set our people against hearing the Great Word. Their tongues are useless; some say one thing, and some another. But I am glad that ye are come. I will assemble the great men of our nation, and I hope, by degrees, to compose our differences; for, without their consent, I cannot hear the Great Word. However, in the meantime, I shall be glad to see you at my town; and I would have you teach our children. But we would not have them made Christians as the Spaniards make Christians; for they baptize without instruction; but we would hear and be well instructed, and then be baptized when we understood.’

“All this he spoke with much earnestness, and much action, both of his head and hands. Mr. John Wesley made him a short answer,—‘God only can teach you wisdom, and, if you be sincere, perhaps, He will do it by us.’ We then shook hands with them again, and withdrew.

[76]

“The Queen made us a present of a jar of milk, and another of honey; that we might feed them, she said, with milk; for they were but children; and that we might be sweet to them.

“About three next day, in the afternoon, just before they went away, we put on our surplices, at Mr. Oglethorpe’s desire, and went to take leave of them.

“Monday, February 16. About seven this evening, I set forward with Mr. Oglethorpe, and some others, in a ten-oared boat, for the Alatamahaw river, the southernmost part of Georgia. At eleven, we arrived at a place called Skiddowa, where we went ashore into the woods, and kindled a fire under a lofty pine-tree. Having written some letters, and eaten something, we lay down to sleep upon the ground, without either bed or board, having no covering, besides our clothes, but a single blanket each, and the canopy of heaven. About eight next day, we set forward again, passing several marshes, beset on both sides with trees of various sorts, whose leaves, being gilded with the glorious rays of the sun, yielded a beautiful prospect. About twelve, the wind blew so high, that, we were driven upon an oyster bank, where we could not get a stick to make a fire. Here we dined very comfortably. Near two, we set forward again, and, with great difficulty, crossed over the mouth of the river Ogechee. The wind was exceeding high, and the water very rough. Almost every wave drove over the side of the boat; so that every moment we were in jeopardy of our lives; and, truly, if Mr. Oglethorpe had not roused up himself, and struck life into the rowers, I do not know but most of us might here have made our exit. Towards six, we got to a little place, called Boar’s Island, where we encamped all right, round a roaring fire, in a bed of canes, where the wind could not reach us. Here also we came up with a large boat, called a Pettiangur,[62] loaded with people for the Alatamahaw, who had set out before us. Next morning, after prayers, Mr. Oglethorpe, considering, that, our own boat was overladen, and also that I might probably be of some service to the people, asked me if I was willing to go on board the Pettiangur, whereto I readily consented. Here, during the remainder of our passage, I read to the people, and instructed them as I had opportunity. This evening, we lay upon St. Catherine’s, a very pleasant island, where we met with two Indians a-hunting. I took one of them on board the Pettiangur, and gave him some biscuit and wine, and he, in return, sent us the greatest part of a deer.

“On Sunday morning, February 22, we arrived at the island of St. Simons, upon the river Alatamahaw, a pleasant and fertile place, which Mr. Oglethorpe had reached the Thursday night before. Several of the people were firing guns, but, upon my landing, I asked Mr. Oglethorpe if Sunday was a proper day for sporting. He immediately put a stop to it. Having breakfasted, we joined in the Litany, and then he returned to Savannah, having already put the people in a method of proceeding.

“Next day in the forenoon, we were alarmed by a sail appearing in the river. We called all the people together; and, after consultation, we[77] threw up a trench, strengthening it with barrels of beef and pork, which we had here in abundance. We also sent a canoe down the river, and several men into the woods for scouts, to bring us intelligence. In the meantime, we got all our arms in readiness, providing for the worst. About half an hour past twelve, the canoe returned, and brought us word, it was the sloop which brought the provisions, that had returned to take in ballast.

“Two or three of the first days, the people spent in building palmetto bowers. We enclosed a little round place with myrtles, bays, and laurels, in the midst whereof we nightly kept a great fire, round which I lay several weeks in the open air, my whole bed consisting of two blankets; and I never had health better in my life. Now we had short prayers early in the morning, before they began; and at night, after they had done working. My chief business was daily to visit the people, to take care of those that were sick, and to supply them with the best things we had. For a few days at the first, I had everybody’s good word; but, when they found I watched narrowly over them, and reproved them sharply for their faults, immediately the scene changed. Instead of blessing, came cursing, and my love and kindness were repaid with hatred and ill-will.

“Sunday, February 29. After morning prayers, which we had pretty early, I told the people that, it was the Lord’s day, and, therefore, ought to be spent in His service; that, they ought not to go a-shooting, or walking up and down in the woods; and that, I would take notice of all those who did. One man answered, that, these were new laws in America! This man, as well as several others went out; but he, I think, was two days before he could find his way back again. I reproved most of them afterwards, in a friendly manner, laying before them the heinousness of the sin, and the dreadful consequences that would necessarily follow. One or two took my advice well; but the rest were hardened, and, instead of reforming, raised heavy complaints and accusations to the gentleman, that was left chief in commission, that, I had made a black list; and that, I intended to ruin them. This caused a very sharp contest between that gentleman and me; wherein God enabled me, boldly and courageously, to vindicate the honour of His day and worship, without regarding the favour of any man. So soon as I was retired, I prayed earnestly from my heart, that, God would forgive him, and also give him a new mind; which prayer God heard (blessed be His goodness!) for, since I came away, he frankly confessed, that, he was in the wrong; that, his passions carried him to too great a height; that, I was certainly in the right, and had only done what was my duty. I mention this to show the great use of praying for our enemies. Who knows how much such prayer will avail before God? Certainly, it purifies our own heart, and is the only sure enemy to keep out hatred, malice, and revenge.

“Tuesday, March 2. This morning, I prayed that God would be pleased to send home the lost man, and also make him sensible of his sin. About breakfast time, he came looking very ghastly, sadly affrighted, telling me he was resolved never more to profane the Sabbath. God grant he may keep his word! This example would not make others take warning.[78] Next Sunday, three more went a-shooting, who were all lost till next day. Nothing but the almighty grace of God is sufficient to turn a sinner from the error of his ways.

“Monday, March 8. Mr. Oglethorpe arrived, with four Pettiangurs; and, next day, my dear friend, Mr. C. Wesley, with another, wherein were all the married men and women, and children, that came over in our two ships. Mr. Oglethorpe immediately laid out the new town, Frederica, in a neat and regular method; and kept the people to strict work in building themselves palmetto houses. During the three weeks longer, which I spent here, there happened such a variety of incidents, that, it would be too tedious to relate them. Only I will add, that, Mr. C. Wesley and I had the happiness of undergoing, for the truth’s sake, the most glorious trial of our whole lives, wherein God enabled us exceedingly to rejoice, and also to behave ourselves throughout with undaunted courage and constancy; for which may we ever love and adore Him! The book of God was our support, wherein, as our necessities required, we always met with direction, exhortation, and comfort—‘Thy Word is a lantern to my feet, and a light unto my paths. In God’s Word will I comfort me.’[63]

“Sunday, March 28. About seven in the evening, I left Frederica, and took boat for Savannah. We had a fair wind; and, if we had not run twice aground, I believe we should have got thither in twenty-four hours. Towards four on Tuesday morning, it began to thunder, and lighten, and rain in the most dreadful manner I ever beheld since I was born. Ours was a little open boat, without any cover. The rest of the people wrapped themselves up, head and ears, in blankets and sails, whatever they could get, and laid down in the bottom of it. I plucked up a good heart, threw[79] my cloak over me, and stood up, as stiff as I could, in the midst of it, that I might behold the majesty of God in thunder; and, truly, so glorious a scene I never saw. I dare not attempt to describe. However, I passed the time very comfortably in praising God; and, whereas, all the rest were well wet, I was pure and dry all over, excepting only my cloak and shoes. Betwixt seven and eight, we arrived at Savannah, where I was kindly received by Mr. John Wesley and Mr. Delamotte. The latter had began to teach a few little orphans; and the former had brought the people to short prayers morning and night I now again entered upon a manner of life more agreeable to me than what I spent at Frederica, having both time and convenience for regular retirement.

“Sunday, April 4. This afternoon, Mr. Wesley and Mr. Delamotte, took boat for Frederica. In their absence, I took care both of the church and school.

“Monday, April 5. After evening prayers, I begun to catechize, at our own house, all young persons that were willing to come, as well children as servants, and apprentices, who would not come in the day time. I have continued to do this every night since. On Sundays, I do it after dinner, and also publicly in the church after the Second Lesson.

“Sunday, April 11. After evening service, I made a visit to a few people, who had formed themselves into a Society,—meeting together on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday nights. I found their design was good. They read, prayed, and sung psalms together. Accordingly, I exhorted them to go on, promising myself to meet with them sometimes, and to give them such helps and directions as I could. I have joined them every Sunday since; and I hope it will be a means of some good. God grant it!

“Sunday, April 18. This afternoon, there was an alarm made in time of Divine service, whereupon, several people went out of church. The cause of it was a young lad that had run away from his master. He had broken into our house, under which, he said, he had laid a fortnight, and stolen provisions when I was at prayers. He had taken down a pistol, and loaded it, with a design, I suppose, to shoot in the woods; for he had gotten the powder flask, and, as he was getting out of the window, somehow, he slipped, and fired off the pistol, which broke his arm to shivers. He then called out aloud for help; whereupon, some people that heard, went to see what was the matter. He begged of them to drag him out at the window, which they did, and found him in a bad condition. They carried him to a surgeon, who cut off his arm. In the night, not having due attendance, he loosed it, whereby, he lost so much blood, that, he died next morning. I was very sorry for the unfortunate wretch, for he came to be catechized the night before he run away, and I, being informed that he had done so several times before, talked to him a good while, to behave himself well, and to obey his master. But, not having grace, he did the very reverse to what I exhorted him. A sad example, whereby others ought to take warning.

“This being the great and holy week, I dedicated it to devotion, observing the discipline of the Primitive Church.

[80]

“On Tuesday evening, Mr. John Wesley and Mr. Delamotte arrived from Frederica. Next day, Mr. Wesley gave me an account of what had passed there since my departure. O what secrets will come to pass in the last day!

“Easter Sunday, April 25. We were thirty-four communicants. Our constant number is about a dozen. Next day, Mr. Wesley and I went up to Cowpen, in a boat, bought for our use, to converse with Mrs. Musgrave about learning the Indian language. I agreed to teach her children to read, and to make her whatever recompence she would require more for her trouble. I am to spend three or four days a week with her, and the rest at Savannah, in communicating what I have learned to Mr. Wesley; because he intends, as yet, wholly to reside there.

“The Moravians, being informed of our design, desired me to teach one of the brethren along with Mr. Wesley. To this I consented at once, with my whole heart. And who, think ye, is the person intended to learn? Their lawful bishop.[64] ‘The right hand of the Lord hath the pre-eminence; the right hand of the Lord bringeth mighty things to pass.’

“Friday, April 30. Mr. Wesley and I went up again to Cowpen, taking along with us, Toma-Cache and his Queen. Their town is about four miles above Savannah, in the way to Mrs. Musgrave’s. We told them we were about to learn their language. I asked them, if they were willing I should teach the young prince. They consented, desiring me to check and keep him in; but not to strike him. The Indians never strike their children; neither will they suffer any one to do it. I told them, I would do my best, as far as gentleness and good advice would go. How I shall manage, God alone can direct me. The youth is sadly corrupted, and addicted to drunkenness, which he has learnt of our Christian heathen. Nay, the whole Creek nation is now generally given to this brutal sin, whereto they were utter strangers before Christians came among them.

“Oh! what a work have we before us! Who is sufficient for these things? I am nothing. I have nothing. I can do nothing. O! my dearest friends, pray for us. Pray earnestly for us; and more especially for me, your very weak, though most dutiful son, and affectionate brother,

“Benjamin Ingham.”

This lengthened document needs no apology. It exhibits Ingham as a sincere, earnest, self-denying, zealous servant of the Divine Redeemer. It helps to justify the suddenness of his departure from his native country, without obtaining the consent of his family and friends, and even without consulting them. It shows, that, he was a firm believer in the sacred text—“In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” Who can doubt that Ingham was divinely guided in embarking for America? The service that he rendered there, might be[81] comparatively small; but, at that period, it required no ordinary courage, for a young man of three and twenty, to encounter the storms of the Atlantic, and to live with wild Indians in the woods of Georgia. The results of Ingham’s ministerial labours in the new colony might be few; but the mission there brought him into the society of a set of simple-minded, earnest, godly men, by whom the current of the whole of his subsequent life was changed; and the rough experience of the few months spent among colonial settlers and untutored savages, was a useful training for the hard labours and hard treatment awaiting him in his native country. If Ingham had not embarked for Georgia, the probability is, he would not have been brought into fellowship with Moravians; and, therefore, would not have become a Moravian Evangelist among the masses of the north of England. The Providence, which sent him to Georgia, separated him from the Established Church; but, as in the case of Wesley, it made him the Founder of a large number of religious societies, which exercised a mighty influence on the people of Yorkshire, and of the neighbouring counties.

As yet, Ingham, like the Wesleys, was seeking to be saved by works, rather than by penitent faith in Christ Jesus; but the very fact that he hoped to be saved thus, served as an incentive to the practice of self-denial and other austerities, and to the use of diligence and faithfulness in his ministerial office which have seldom been surpassed. The man had a large heart, brim-full of benevolent feeling; and regarded it as the highest honour and happiness of his life to be of service to the cause of God, and to the welfare of his fellow-creatures. Without doubt, he was what would be called a high churchman when he set sail for Georgia; but his sympathies were too large to be ice bound with high church bigotry. His description of the twenty-six psalm-singing Moravians is just and generous. He was willing to admit the fact, and to rejoice in it, that there were as good Christians without the pale of his own Church, as there were within it. Like all men of noble mind, he was not too much a man to bend to a little child. Teaching and catechizing children was a self-imposed, but happy task, while on the waves of the Atlantic Ocean; and it was equally one of his pleasant toils in Georgia. Idleness and[82] he were strangers to each other. Early rising, abstemious diet, and constant working, were, with him, not accidents, but principles. They were part and parcel of his religion. The Bible was his daily study; and prayer, for himself, and for others, his highest privilege and duty. The two combined inspired him with a confidence in God, which never faltered; and which kept him calm in the greatest dangers. Let us follow him.

Ingham landed in Georgia, on February 5, 1736: he re-embarked for England on February 26, 1737. Nearly three of the thirteen months he spent in Georgia, are comprehended in the Journal already given. The details of the other ten are few and scanty.

Both he and Wesley intended and wished to be, not chaplains among the English colonists, but, missionaries among the wild Indians; and, accordingly, at the end of the first three months of their Georgian residence, we find Ingham arranging to spend three days a week in learning the Indian language from a half-caste woman; and the other three in teaching what he learnt to Wesley, and to Nitschmann, the Moravian bishop. Their design was Christian and heroic; but it was not realised.

On May 16, 1736, Charles Wesley, unexpectedly, came to his brother, and Ingham, and Delamotte, at Savannah; and, for want of better accommodation, each of the four “retired to his respective corner of the room, where, without the help of a bed, they all slept soundly till the morning.”[65] Charles had now left Frederica for ever; and, ten weeks later, he embarked for England.

Frederica was left without a minister; and it was agreed, that, Wesley and Ingham should take Charles’s place in turns. Wesley went off at once; and remained at Frederica till June 23rd. He and Ingham now hoped to obtain permission to live among the Choctaw Indians; but Oglethorpe objected; first, on the ground, that, they would be in danger of being intercepted or killed by the French; and, secondly, because it was inexpedient to leave Savannah without a pastor. This induced them to remain where they were; but, in the meantime, they had a most interesting interview with a number of Chicasaw[83] Indians, the details of which, Wesley has related in his Journal.

On August 4, Wesley again went to Frederica, leaving Savannah to the care of Ingham and Delamotte; and thus things continued till February, 1737; Wesley and Ingham ardently wishing to proceed as missionaries among the Indians; but not able to fulfil their wish, because there was no minister to occupy their places at Savannah and Frederica.

Ingham had been an apt and diligent pupil of Mrs. Musgrave’s; and had formed a vocabulary of about one half of the words in the Indian language; but, unless Savannah and Frederica could be supplied by other ministers, all his fagging to acquire this barbarous language was likely to be useless. What was done? The following is an extract from a letter, addressed to Mr. ⸺, in Lincoln College, Oxon.

Wesley’s standard of a Christian missionary was enough to appal ordinary men; but who will say that the standard was too high? He himself and also his friend Ingham answered to this description; but it was doubtful whether others could be found, among their old associates, who were like-minded. Accordingly, ten days after the date of the above letter, another step was taken. Wesley writes:—

The Oxford Methodists were scattered when Ingham arrived in England; but they were still a loving and confiding brotherhood. In July, 1737, Charles Wesley and James Hutton spent some days at Oxford; and, accompanied by Mr. Morgan and Mr. Kinchin, set out, on the 29th of that month, for London, where, at the house of Hutton’s father, in College Street, Westminster, they found their “old, hearty friend, Benjamin Ingham.”[68] The last mentioned also visited the Delamotte family at Blendon. Hence, under the date of September 10, 1737, C. Wesley writes:—

Immediately after this, Ingham was at his own home, in Yorkshire. No more faithful and honest friend existed; but, like many Yorkshiremen, he was sometimes almost blunt. The following letter, addressed to Wesley, in Georgia, supplies evidence of this, and also contains references to Wesley and the Oxford Methodists, of considerable interest:—

Ingham still purposed to return to Georgia. He longed to preach the gospel of his Saviour to the heathen, and was busily employed in mastering their language. He sought spiritual fellowship among his Christian friends in Yorkshire; and, as opportunity offered, occupied the pulpit of the Established Church. His preaching created great sensation; and his private labours, among his neighbours, were not without results. A man with a soul like his,—burning with a zeal which would have led him gladly to sacrifice his life among the wild Indians of America,—could scarcely fail to be an earnest, successful evangelist in his own country. As already stated, his intention to return to Georgia was not fulfilled. Perhaps Wesley’s departure from that colony, about six weeks after the date of the above letter, was one of the things which prevented it. Be that as it might, he was quite prepared for hard work, and for rough usage, in other places.

In the letter just given, he complains of the silence and reserve of Charles Wesley. At the very time, however, Charles was writing to him; and, three days afterwards, Ingham addressed to him the following reply, full of the Christian fire of the first Methodists:—

On May 24, 1738, Wesley, by simple “trust in Christ alone for salvation,” received “an assurance that Christ had taken away his sins.” This, to him, was a new experience; but, perhaps, not to Ingham. It is a well-known fact, that, Peter Böhler, who was now on his way to the Moravians in Georgia, was of the utmost service to Wesley in teaching him the doctrine of justification by faith only. Besides this, both Wesley and Ingham had been brought into close communion with the Moravian bishop, David Nitschmann, and his Christian fraternity, during their voyage across the Atlantic. In Georgia, also, they had met with the Moravian elder, the Rev. August Gottlieb Spangenberg, a man of high position among the Brethren. The result of the whole was, that Wesley and Ingham, on June 13, 1738, embarked for Germany, principally for the purpose of becoming better acquainted with the Moravian churches in that country.

They were accompanied by John Toltschig,[74] one of the fugitives, who fled to Hernhuth, from the fierce persecution in Moravia, in 1724; who became one of Ingham’s co-evangelists in the county of York; and was a man of great influence among the English Moravians. At Ysselstein, they had an interview with Baron Watteville, who had been a fellow student of Count Zinzendorf, and became a Moravian bishop. On the 4th July, they reached Marienborn, the residence of Zinzendorf, where they remained a fortnight. Whilst here, Ingham, in a letter to Sir John Thorold,[75] London, observed:—

Ingham was pleased with the Moravians; and the Moravians were pleased with him. In fact, Ingham was preferred to Wesley, and was admitted to partake of the holy communion, while Wesley was rejected. The reasons assigned for admitting Ingham were, (1) that he had already shown an inclination to leave the English Established Church, and to join the Brethren; and (2), “that his heart was better than his head.” The reasons for rejecting Wesley were, (1) he was “homo perturbatus; (2) his head had gained an ascendency over his heart; (3) he claimed to be a zealous English Churchman, and they were not desirous to interfere with his plan of effecting good as a clergyman of the English Church.”[76]

Ingham, as well as Wesley, visited Hernhuth, where he spent a fortnight, and was “exceedingly strengthened and comforted by the services and conversation of the Brethren. Towards the end of the year, he returned to England.”

It is a curious fact that Wesley and Ingham were not the only Oxford Methodists who began to associate with the Moravians. On the first day of the year 1739, we find not fewer than seven of the Oxford brotherhood—the two Wesleys, Ingham, Whitefield, Westley Hall, Kinchin, and Hutchins,—present at a Moravian lovefeast in Fetter Lane, respecting which Wesley writes:—

This was a memorable beginning of what will ever be a memorable year in the history of the Methodistic movement.

Four days afterwards, the same clergymen, joined by Mr. Seward, had a conference at Islington, and, without effect, tried to prevail on Charles Wesley to settle at Oxford. Whitefield writes:—

The men evidently were willing to be used in any way which Providence might appoint; and their conviction of the coming of great events was not falsified.

On Ingham’s return to Osset, his native place, he renewed his labours, and preached in most of the churches and chapels about Wakefield, Leeds, and Halifax. Private religious meetings also were greatly multiplied. Large numbers of persons were convinced of sin, and were converted. It was pre-eminently a day of divine visitation. The clergy, however, instead of rejoicing at an enlargement of the work of God, were envious and malignant; and, at a Church congress, held at Wakefield, June 6, 1739, Ingham was prohibited from preaching in any of the churches in the diocese of York; and was thus placed in the same position as Wesley had been compelled to occupy in London. Both were ordained clergymen, and both longed to preach the gospel of God their Saviour; but both were without a church of their own, and both were now uniformly shut out of the churches of others. What Wesley began to do at Bristol, Kingswood, and elsewhere, Ingham began to do in Yorkshire. Village greens, the public streets, fields, barns, cottages, and houses of all descriptions became his preaching places; and, such was the divine power which[91] attended his ministry, that not fewer than forty religious societies were formed.

Ingham was reviled, but he reviled not again. The following letter illustrates his fine Christian spirit, at the period of which we are now writing. It probably was addressed to Wesley. At all events, Wesley published it in the first volume of his Arminian Magazine (p. 181).

While the above exhibits Ingham’s spirit, the subjoined clearly shows that his ideas on the Methodist doctrines were as yet imperfect. It is a well-known fact, that Wesley himself was sorely perplexed with the doctrine of what is called “the witness of the Spirit,” and that his intercourse with the Moravians rather increased his mistiness than scattered it. In 1738 he had a lengthened and very important correspondence with his brother Samuel on the subject; and now he consulted Ingham, who replied as follows:—

The above is given verbatim from the manuscript letter, and is of great importance as revealing the views, doubts, and difficulties of the leaders of the Methodist movement.

Before proceeding further, it may be added that Ingham was not forgotten by his old friend Whitefield, who wrote to him as follows:—

In the midst of all this, a new evangelist sprang up, who,[94] without the educational advantages of the Oxford Methodists, had a kindred soul.

John Nelson, the brave-hearted Yorkshire stonemason, after hearing almost all sorts of religionists,—Church of England men, Dissenters, Papists, and Quakers,—had been brought to a knowledge of the truth by Wesley. This was under the first sermon preached by Wesley in Moorfields. In 1740, Nelson returned to Yorkshire, and related to his friends his happy experience. He writes:—

Nelson here obviously refers to his enjoyment of the Holy Spirit’s witness to the fact that his sins were pardoned; and hence he continues,—

Soon after this, Ingham went to London, where the Wesleys were in painful conflict with the Moravians. Philip Henry Molther, who had been the private tutor of Zinzendorf’s only son, was preaching, to large congregations, four times every week, and was much more popular than his talents or his misty doctrines merited. The chief controversy between him and Wesley was concerning the use of the means of grace. Molther recommended penitent inquirers to “be still;” that is, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate, not to do good; for it was impossible to use means, without trusting in them. Wesley, on the other hand, recommended and enforced just the opposite. The contention among their partisans was fierce and furious; and the object of Ingham’s visit to the metropolis seems to have been to reconcile the irritated disputants. Charles Wesley writes:—

Ingham continued among these angry people a week longer, when John Wesley wrote:—

Matters now reached a crisis. For about two years, Wesley had been a sort of member and minister of the Moravian Society in Fetter Lane. Five weeks after this, by a vote of the Brethren, Wesley was expelled; and Molther, his rival, was left in full possession. Those who sympathised with Wesley were, in number, about twenty-five men and fifty women, all of whom seceded with him, and, on July 23rd, 1740, met, for the first time, at the Foundery, instead of at Fetter Lane; and thus the Methodist Society was founded.

Whitefield was in America; but, in the midst of these wretched squabbles, wrote to Ingham the following Calvinistic, and not too luminous epistle:—

It is needless to say, that some of the doctrines in the above letter were not held by Wesley; but let that pass.

Ingham returned to Yorkshire with broader views and sympathies than he had when he left for London. Sending for John Nelson to one of his meetings, he said, “John, I believe God has called you to speak His word; for I have spoken with several since I came back from London, who, I believe, have received grace since I went; and I see God is working in a shorter manner than He did with us at the beginning; and I should be sorry to hinder any one from doing good.” Then, turning to the assembled brethren and sisters, Ingham continued, “Before you all, I give John leave to exhort in all my societies;” and, taking the rough hand of the Yorkshire stonemason, he added, “John, God hath given you great honour, in that He hath made use of you to call sinners to the blood of our Saviour; and I desire you to exhort in all my societies as often as you can.”

Thus, in the employment of lay preachers, Ingham co-operated with his friend Wesley. Both were clergymen of the Church of England; and both were willing to have[99] lay helpers. Nelson’s preaching was attended with great success. “Nine or ten in a week were brought to experience the love of Jesus.”[84] John was no proselytizer. Those of his converts, who belonged to the Church of England, he “exhorted to keep close to the Church and sacrament;” and those who were “Dissenters, to keep to their own meetings, and to let their light shine before their own community.”

In this respect, he was somewhat in advance of his reverend patron; for Ingham advised just the contrary, and several acted on his advice, which, says Nelson, “made me very uneasy.” Nelson firmly adhered to the Church of England, and wished to avoid a schism. Ingham, on the other hand, had already virtually seceded, and was at the head of the Moravian sect in Yorkshire. The priest and the mason found it difficult to work in harmony. Besides, though always actuated by the best intentions, Ingham was somewhat fickle, and easily influenced by his Moravian helpers. Nelson was just the opposite; and, yet, his steadfastness was not stubbornness. He was firm, because he felt that the ground he occupied was right. As already stated, Ingham, on his return from London, publicly authorised, and even requested, Nelson to exhort in all his societies; but, shortly afterwards, the authorization was withdrawn. Why? Because Ingham was no longer the commander-in-chief of the Yorkshire converts, but a merely co-ordinate member of a common-council. He could no longer act as he liked; but must proceed in harmony with the decisions of those to whom he had allied himself. Here an explanation is necessary.

The work begun by Ingham bid fair to exceed that in London. Hitherto the rendezvous of the English Moravian[100] ministers had been the metropolis; now it became a farm-house in Yorkshire. About four miles east of Halifax stood a spacious dwelling, with extensive outbuildings, and a large farm attached. This the Moravians rented, that it might serve as a place of residence for those Moravian pastors to whom the spiritual affairs of the societies were committed, and as a common centre of union. They entered on the occupancy of the premises in 1741; and, shortly after, Ingham, who had hitherto had the chief care of the Yorkshire societies, urgently, and in writing, requested the Brethren to take the entire direction of them into their own hands, so that he might devote himself wholly to the work of preaching. To carry out his purpose, a public meeting was convened, on July 30, 1742, which was attended by about a thousand persons, belonging to these societies. Ingham’s proposal was submitted to them, and was heartily accepted. A document was drawn up, which, after referring to Ingham’s faithful labours, expressed a desire to be served in future by the ministers of the Brethren’s Church, “whom,” said the twelve hundred persons who signed it, “we not only desire to preach publicly amongst us, but also to visit us in private, put us to rights, and make such orders amongst us as they shall see useful and necessary, according to the grace the Lord shall give them.”

Smith House, near Halifax, was now the head-quarters of English Moravianism. Even members in London, elected to fulfil sacred functions there, were sent all the way to Yorkshire to be solemnly inducted into their respective offices. The field, hitherto occupied by Ingham, Nelson, and other co-operators, was divided into six principal districts, namely, Smith House, Adwalton, Mirfield, Great Horton, Holbeck, and Osset; and to each of these districts a Moravian minister was appointed.[85]

We now return to Ingham, and his neighbour Nelson. The latter tells us of a great Moravian meeting at Gomersal Field House, at which Ingham desired him to be present. Nelson went. The house was filled with five or six preachers, four[101] exhorters, and about a hundred of the principal members of the Yorkshire societies. Not being able to gain admittance to the house, and finding a large number of people outside, the honest stonemason went into a field and preached. At length, Ingham came out, and announced the decision of the Brethren: namely, that it was not prudent to have so much preaching, for fear it should engender persecution. “I desire, therefore,” said he, “that none of the young men will expound till they are desired by the Brethren; we shall meet again this day month, and then we will let you know what we are all to do.” He next spoke to the young expounders, one by one, and said, “I hope you will be obedient.” They all replied, “Yes, sir.” He then turned to Nelson, saying, “John, I hope you will leave off till you have orders from the Church.” “No, sir,” replied intrepid John; “I will not leave off—I dare not; for I did not begin by the order of man, nor by my own will; therefore, I shall not leave off by your order; for, I tell you plainly, I should have left off without your bidding, but that I believed, if I did, I should be damned for disobedience.” Ingham answered, “You see these young men are obedient to the elders, and they have been blessed in their labours as well as you.” Nelson said, “I cannot tell how they have been blessed; but, I think, if God had sent them on His own errand, they would not stop at your bidding.” At this point, one of the preachers interfered, saying, “The spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets; therefore, they are right and you are wrong, for they are subject.” John failing to be convinced by the preacher’s logic, boldly answered, “You are not obedient to the prophets of God that were of old, for God saith by one of them, ‘I have set watchmen upon the walls of Jerusalem that shall not cease day or night;’ but you can hold your peace for a month together at man’s bidding.” Then turning to Ingham, Nelson continued, “You know that many have been converted by my exhorting lately, and a great many more are under convictions; what a sad thing would it be to leave them as they are.” Ingham’s lame reply was, “Our Saviour can convert souls without your preaching.” “Yes,” retorted John, “or yours either; and He can give corn without ploughing or sowing, but He does not, neither[102] has He promised that He will.” Ingham rejoined, “Be still one month, and then you will know more of your own heart.” “With one proviso, I will,” said Nelson: “if you can persuade the devil to be still for a month; but if he goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, and God hath put a sword into my hand, I am determined to attack him wheresoever I meet him; and wheresoever I meet sin, I meet Satan.” Further conversation followed; and, at length, Ingham “charged all the people, as they loved him and the brethren, that they should not let Nelson preach in their houses, nor encourage him by hearing him elsewhere.”

This, on the part of Ingham, was painful and unworthy conduct. The preaching of the stonemason had probably been as greatly blessed and as successful as his own. The man was no irreligious, rash intruder; but a real evangelist, called and qualified by Him who, in all ages, has been wont to choose “the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; that no flesh should glory in His presence; and that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord.” Nelson was as divinely called to preach Christ’s glorious gospel as Ingham was. His ministry had the seals of divine approbation in the souls it had been the means of converting; and Ingham’s effort to suspend it, even for a month only, was a bold, bad act. Besides, the reason assigned for such an interference with a commission, which Nelson had received from God Himself, was a piece of cowardice unworthy of the man who had braved the storms of the Atlantic Ocean, and the hardships and miasmata of Georgia, solely for the purpose of being useful to the wild Indians and to a portion of England’s outcast population. For fear of persecution, Nelson, whom God had used in saving sinners, was to be gagged and silenced. The change which had come over the naturally brave spirit of the Oxford Methodist was a painful one; and also puzzling, except on the ground that he had changed his company.

It is a mournful duty to have to mention another incident.[103] Ingham interdicted Nelson, though unsuccessfully. He further renounced his old friend Wesley, and, for a season at least, became intoxicated with the Moravian vanity, at that time disastrously spreading. Hence, the following extract from Nelson’s Journal:—

Thus did Ingham fully and finally sever himself from the Methodists. Nelson continued preaching; souls were saved; and, in 1742, Wesley, for the first time, visited the Birstal stonemason. After giving an account how Nelson was led to begin to preach, and of his success, Wesley adds:—

This is a long account; but not without interest; inasmuch as it furnishes a glimpse of the way in which Ingham parted with the Methodists, and of the beginnings of both Moravianism and Methodism in the north of England. We only add, that, though Ingham passed through Birstal during Wesley’s visit, there was no interview between them.[89] Thus was an old and close friendship severed.

It has been already stated, that, the differences between Ingham and Nelson probably occurred in 1741; and that Wesley’s visit to Birstal took place in 1742. This, in some respects, was the most important period in Ingham’s life.

Far away from the miserable strifes of the Moravians in London, we find him, in 1740, an humble, happy, loving, useful Christian. The following letter is simple and beautiful:—

If Ingham and John Nelson had been left to themselves, Ingham’s prayer for continued unity might have been answered; but Ingham wished for Toltschig, one of the ministerial chiefs among the London Moravians; and Toltschig doubtless went.

Did Toltschig carry the cantankerous contagion of the London Moravians with him? We cannot tell; but there can be no question, that, the “simple-hearted” Yorkshire brethren caught it; and, that, in Yorkshire, as in London, a schism among the Moravians led to the formation of the society of Methodists.

Indeed, it is a curious fact, that, for a season, the spirit of discord, among nearly the whole of the new religionists, seemed rampant. No man ever lived who sighed for peace more ardently than Whitefield. His large and loving heart had room enough for every man. The language of the Psalmist’s pen was pre-eminently the language of Whitefield’s life: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions’ sake, I will now say, Peace be within thee.” And, yet, at this very time,[106] as if to make bad things worse, the quarrel, between the London Moravians and Methodists, was followed by the quarrel between Wesley and Whitefield, respecting Wesley’s sermon on “Free Grace;” and, to complete the whole, and to make the confusion more confounded, the Yorkshire converts, so far away from the strifeful scene, began disputing; and the frank, warm-hearted Ingham began to regard his old friend Wesley with a suspicious eye, and presumptuously tried to annul John Nelson’s divine commission to act as an evangelist among his neighbours!

Ingham’s objection to Wesley’s doctrine of entire sanctification has been already mentioned; but, besides this, there were other points of difference. Wesley writes:—

Ingham’s wish to prevent persecution has been noticed. On this ground, he requested Nelson and other exhorters to desist from preaching for a month. What led to this? Perhaps, the publication, in 1740, of a furious pamphlet of eighty-four pages, with the following title: “The Imposture[107] of Methodism displayed; in a Letter to the Inhabitants of the Parish of Dewsbury and Occasioned by the Rise of a certain Modern Sect of Enthusiasts, (among them,) called Methodists. By William Bowman, M.A., Vicar of Dewsbury and Aldborough in Yorkshire, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Charles Earl of Hoptoun.”

This pastorly letter was avowedly written against the Methodists; but the reverend author, like many others at the time, employed an inappropriate word; for, at that period, there were no Methodists at all, either in Yorkshire or any other part of the north of England. His letter is dated, “Aldbrough, August 15, 1740”; whereas, John Nelson, the beginner of northern Methodism, did not commence preaching to his neighbours for several months after this.[94] The Vicar of Dewsbury meant Moravians; but, for reasons of his own, he preferred to use the word Methodists.

Terrible was the anger which Ingham and his coadjutors had excited in the Christian breast of their reverend neighbour. The pamphlet is a rarity, and, perhaps, a condensed account of it may be welcome.

It is a curious fact, that, the writer, while professing so much interest in the spiritual welfare of his flock, acknowledges, that, “for the greatest part of his time,” he is “absent and remote from them.” He is, however, notwithstanding this, greatly distressed on account of “the impious spirit of enthusiasm and superstition, which has of late crept in among” them, “and which sadly threatens a total ruin and destruction of all religion and virtue.” Indeed, he had himself been, “in some measure, an eye-witness of this monstrous madness, and religious frenzy, which introduced nothing but a confused and ridiculous medley of nonsense and inconsistency.” It was true, that, “at present, the contagion was pretty much confined to the dregs and refuse of the people,—the weak, unsteady mob;” but, then, the mob was so numerous in the west of Yorkshire, that, the danger was greater than was apprehended. He next proceeds to review “some of the chief doctrines” of “these modern visionaries,” which he will not now determine[108] whether, “like the Quakers,” they “are a sect hatched and fashioned in a seminary of Jesuits; or whether, like the German Anabaptists, they are a set of crazy, distempered fanatics.” “The first and chief principle they inculcated was, that they are divinely and supernaturally inspired by the Holy Ghost, to declare the will of God to mankind.” Mr. Bowman attempts to demolish this “high and awful claim,” and to demonstrate, that, its assertors are “a set of idiots or madmen,” “only worthy of a dark corner in Bedlam, or the wholesome correction of Bridewell.” “Another principle doctrine of these pretended pietists was, that, for the sake of a further Reformation, it was not only lawful, but incumbent on the people, to separate from their proper ministers, and adhere to them.” In refuting this barefaced heresy, the Dewsbury vicar, quotes, at considerable length, in the Greek and Latin languages, (which probably not half-a-dozen of his parishioners understood), the testimonies of Clemens Romanus, St. Ignatius, St Cyprian, St. Austin, and Irenæus,—on “the necessity of Church unity.” He admits, “that, all the clergymen of reputation in the neighbourhood” of Dewsbury, had “refused these Methodists the use of their pulpits;” but he was glad of this; and says “this was not done till, by their extravagant flights and buffooneries, they had made the church more like a bear-garden than the house of God; and the rostrum nothing else but the trumpet of sedition, heresy, blasphemy, and everything destructive to religion and good manners.” “A third mark of imposture propagated by these mad devotionalists was, that it was lawful and expedient for mere laymen, for women, and the meanest and most ignorant mechanics, to minister in the Church of Christ, to preach and expound the word of God, and to offer up the prayers of the congregation in public assemblies.” To refute this, Mr. Bowman favours his parishioners with a lengthy dissertation on the three orders, bishops, presbyters, and deacons; and comes to the charitable conclusion, that, the Methodists are “the most impious cheats and impostors.” “A fourth doctrine of these enthusiasts was, that, it is possible for a man to live without sin; that themselves actually do so; and that regeneration, or the new birth, necessary to salvation, consists[109] in an absolute and entire freedom from all kind of sin whatsoever.” Mr. Bowman asserts, that, “intolerable pride and presumption is the foundation of this unhappy delusion.” “A fifth mark of imposture was, that cruel, uncharitable, and consequently unchristian doctrine, which denounces eternal death and damnation on all, who cannot conform to the ridiculous sentiments of these mad devotionalists.” And a sixth was, “that, in order to be true Christians, we are absolutely to abandon and renounce all worldly enjoyments and possessions whatsoever; to have all things in common amongst one another; and entirely neglect everything in this life, but prayer and meditation; to be always upon our knees, and at our devotions.”

Such were the six charges of the Vicar of Dewsbury. They consist of a little truth enveloped in a large amount of scurrilous mendacity. After discussing them, Mr. Bowman proposes to conclude with “some general reflections;” one of which is, that, “the religion of the Methodists inculcates violence, wrath, uncharitableness, fierceness, arbitrariness, and affectation of dominion; and teaches men to hate, reproach, and ill-treat one another.” Was this a dream of Mr. Bowman’s? or was it a wicked invention? The reverend writer finishes with a personal attack on Ingham, which must have separate attention.

In the year 1740, bread was scarce, and prices were high. Riots occurred in various parts of England; the military were called out, and several persons killed. Yorkshire was the scene of one of these disturbances. On April 26, a mob of about five hundred people assembled at Dewsbury, broke into a mill, and took away all the meal they found. On the next day, which was Sunday, the rioters again appeared, and sacked a second mill. Sir Samuel Armitage, who filled the office of high-sheriff, and Sir John Kaye a magistrate, read the proclamation, and endeavoured to disperse them; but the mob threw stones; and, proceeding to another mill in the parish of Thornhill, captured all the meal and corn, partly pulled down the building, and stole all the miller’s beef and bacon. Things were becoming desperate; and the two gentlemen, already named, desired the rioters to assemble at the house of Sir John Kaye, on[110] Monday, April 28th, where the neighbouring magistrates would listen to their complaints. About a thousand came, beating drums, and carrying colours. Nothing good resulted. The mob retired, shouting; they neither cared for the magistrates nor the high-sheriff. They hurried to three more mills, and decamped with all the edibles the mills contained. They next proceeded to Criggleston, and broke into the barn of Joseph Pollard, and carried away a quantity of flour. Pollard fired at them; and captured several prisoners. On Tuesday, the 29th, Pollard took his captives to Wakefield, to have them tried. The rioters assembled to release their friends; and threatened to pull down Pollard’s house; to “hang himself; and to skin him like a cat.” Captain Burton,[95] however, boldly advanced to meet them; “knocked down three or four of them with his stick; took six or seven prisoners;” and marched them off to the house of correction. On the same day, a detachment of soldiers were brought from York; and, though great murmurings continued; outward quiet was restored.[96]

Strangely enough, Ingham was accused as the chief promoter of this disgraceful tumult. In the Weekly Miscellany for June 8, 1740, the following anonymous communication, from “Yorkshire,” was inserted. It was addressed to Mr. Hooker, the editor.

In the then excited state of the country, and especially of Yorkshire, it would have been unwise for Ingham to have allowed such a publication to pass in silence. Hence, he waited upon Hooker, the editor of the Weekly Miscellany, who, says he, “received me in a genteel manner, and gave me proof that the letter of June 8th was from Yorkshire.” This is something to Mr. Hooker’s credit, especially when it is borne in mind that, at that period, he was one of Methodism’s bitterest opponents. The result of the interview was, Ingham wrote, and Hooker published the following lengthy letter:—

Mr. Hooker, the editor, inserted Ingham’s letter; but he did so with reluctance. He snarled even while pretending to be just and generous. Hence he appended an ill-tempered article of his own, from which the following is an extract. Having told his readers, that, “at Mr. Ingham’s request, he had published his letter,” he proceeds,—

This was hard measure. Poor Ingham had been most unjustly accused of being the author of the Yorkshire riot, and had defended himself; and now the editor of the Weekly Miscellany charges him with insincerity, dishonesty, and causing public scandal; and officiously prescribes that he should ask public pardon. Hooker was too much of a partisan to discharge his editorial duties with even-handed justice. Ingham made no reply to the Editor’s unwarrantable attack; but the latter printed two other letters, in which the same hostility was rampant. The first was dated, “Wakefield, July 16, 1740,” and fills an entire folio page, and nearly one third of another. In reply to Ingham’s statement, that he was not in the parish of Dewsbury when the riot commenced, nor for several days afterwards, the anonymous letter-writer calls this “an equivocating way of talking,” for three men of veracity had declared that he was all the while at Osset, a township in the parish. Can this be true? We cannot but disbelieve it. Ingham was incapable of such equivocation. The following extracts also are too manifestly malignant to be altogether truthful:—

In reference to Mr. Ingham’s “new way of worship,” all that the correspondent of the Weekly Miscellany can allege, is the following:—

The other letter was not dissimilar to the one already quoted. It was dated, “Dewsbury, August 18, 1740,” and signed “A Layman;” and was published in the Weekly Miscellany, on August 30th. This charitably alarmed “Layman” brands the Methodists as “hot-headed enthusiasts;” speaks of Ingham and Delamotte as “those high pretenders to purity and holiness;” and stigmatises the latter as an “enthusiastic babbler,” pouring out “effusions of nonsense.” The following is the concluding paragraph:—

In the same month in which this layman’s letter was published, Mr. Bowman, the reverend vicar of Dewsbury, finished his furious pamphlet on “The Imposture of Methodism Displayed;” and, of course, was too zealously honest to be silent respecting the riot. Mr. Hooker’s correspondents were meekness itself compared with this pamphleteering pugilist. He declares, he “never met with so much downright falsehood, such trifling evasions, and matter so foreign to the purpose” as he had met with in Ingham’s letter in the Weekly Miscellany. He asserts, that, during the riot, Ingham “had a constant communication with several of the inhabitants, by means of his nocturnal assemblies; and, that, he had rashly given out, some little time before the riot happened, that, in a few hours’ warning, he could have ten thousand men ready for any emergency.” Mr. Bowman writes:—

Thus, nolens volens, was Ingham branded as a Communist, and the author of the Yorkshire riots. It was far from pleasant to be pelted with such paper pellets; but there was no help for it. In every age, the inspired text has been literally fulfilled, “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” We are not prepared to justify everything which Ingham said and did; but we are prepared to deny, with righteous indignation, that he was a communist and a rioter. His enemies were too bitter to be truthful. His utterances respecting the members of the primitive Church were perverted to serve a malignant purpose. They might, on some occasions, be unguarded; but they were not intended to sanction communistic politics. He himself repudiated such intention; but his adversaries persisted in their unrighteous accusation, and made it worse by charging him with mendacity. It was hard usage; but not uncommon among the Moravians and Methodists. The newspaper controversy respecting Ingham was ended; but, for ten months afterwards, Mr. Hooker employed almost every number of his Weekly Miscellany in abusing the Methodists, and Wesley and Whitefield in particular.

This is a long account of what some may deem a comparatively unimportant chapter in Ingham’s life; but, we trust, it may not be altogether uninteresting and useless; first, because, we believe, this was the only newspaper warfare that fell to Ingham’s lot; and, secondly, and especially, because it shows the unfavourable circumstances under which John Nelson began to preach, and the difficulty there must have been in instituting Yorkshire Methodism only a few months afterwards.

Ingham’s ministerial labours were not confined to his native county. John Bennett brought him into Derbyshire.[101] We[119] have also seen, that, he paid frequent visits to the metropolis. Bedford, likewise, and the vicinity were favoured with his preaching. His Christian sympathy was world-wide. Six years before, he had crossed the Atlantic to convert the Indians. He was an active member of the Moravian “Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel”; and having, by some means, become acquainted with the great Dissenter of the day, the Rev. Dr. Doddridge, proposed him as one of its corresponding members. Hence the following letter sent to Doddridge:—

This Missionary Society, of which Ingham was one of the chief members, though still in its infancy, had already accomplished a most marvellous and blessed work. Its origin was remarkable. In 1731, Count Zinzendorf visited Copenhagen, for the purpose of being present at the coronation of Christian VI., king of Denmark. Whilst there, some of the count’s servants became acquainted with a negro, from the island of St. Thomas, in the West Indies. The negro told them of the ardent desire of many of the slaves in that island to be taught the way of salvation; but added, that their labours were so incessant that they had no leisure for religious instruction; and that the only way to reach them was for the missionary himself to become a slave, and to teach them during their daily toils. This was related to the Brethren of Herrnhut; and the result was, two young men, Leonard Dover and Tobias Leupold publicly offered to go to St. Thomas’s, and even to sell themselves as slaves, if they could find no other way of preaching to the negroes. Thus began the Moravian missions to the heathen; and, within ten years, at the time when Ingham proposed Doddridge as a corresponding member of the Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, missionaries had been sent to St. Thomas’s, to St. Croix, to Greenland, to Surinam, to the Rio de Berbice, to several Indian tribes in North America, to the negroes in South Carolina, to Lapland, to Tartary, to Algiers, to Guinea, to the Cape of Good Hope, and to Ceylon.

Among others greatly benefited by Ingham’s ministry, were[121] the four daughters of the Earl of Huntingdon, Lady Anne, Lady Frances, Lady Catherine, and Lady Margaret Hastings. While on a visit at Ledstone Hall, in Yorkshire, they were induced, by motives of curiosity, to hear him preach in a neighbouring parish. He was then invited to preach in Ledsham Church; and became a frequent visitor at the Hall. When in London, the Ladies Hastings attended the preaching of the Moravians and first Methodists. Under this ministry, they were given to see the insufficiency of their own righteousness and the method of salvation on which they had been resting, and were made willing to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as the foundation of their hope and trust. Lady Margaret was the first who received the truth; and the change effected, by the Holy Spirit, on her heart soon became visible to all. Considering the obligations she was under to the grace of God, she felt herself called upon to seek the salvation of her fellow-creatures, and the promotion of their best and eternal interests. Next to her own soul, the salvation of her own family and friends became her care. She exhorted them faithfully and affectionately, one by one, to “flee from the wrath to come;” and the Lord was pleased to make her the honoured instrument of the conversion of not a few of them. Her brother, the ninth Earl of Huntingdon, had been married to Lady Selina Shirley, second daughter of Earl Ferrers; and it is a fact too interesting to be omitted, that, the conversion of this remarkable woman was, under God, the result of a casual remark which fell from Lady Margaret. The two conversing one day, on the subject of religion, Lady Margaret observed, “That since she had known and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for life and salvation, she had been as happy as an angel.” This scrap of Methodist lovefeast-experience was “a word spoken in due season.” It led to self-examination, and to scriptural inquiry; and Selina, Countess of Huntingdon, never rested until she also had found peace with God through faith in Christ.

Lady Margaret Hastings was united in marriage to Mr. Ingham, on November 12th, 1741, at the residence of her brother, the Earl of Huntingdon, in London. The union was a happy one. To the last moments of his life, Ingham[122] expressed the highest veneration and affection for his wife, and was honoured with the intimate friendship of several of her noble relatives. The marriage, in some aristocratic circles, was considered a mésalliance, and furnished food for scandal in the fashionable world. “The Methodists,” said the Countess of Hertford, “have had the honour to convert my Lord and Lady Huntingdon, both to their doctrine and practice; and the town now says, that Lady Margaret Hastings is certainly to marry one of their teachers, whose name is Ingham.” “The news I hear from London,” wrote Lady Mary Wortley Montague, from Rome, “is that Lady Margaret Hastings has disposed of herself to a poor, wandering Methodist preacher.” The higher classes of society indulged in ridicule; the poor Moravians gave thanks to God, and prayed for the newly-wedded couple. Ingham wrote to inform the Brethren of his marriage, and the Brethren sang for him the hymn beginning—

Ingham had enemies, some of them, as already shown extremely bitter; but one of them, at least, was doubtless well pleased with Ingham’s marriage. By this event, the Vicar of Dewsbury got rid of a neighbour who had greatly troubled him; for Ingham now removed from Osset, the place of his nativity, to Aberford, a village about five miles from Tadcaster, and sixteen miles south-west of York; and here he continued to reside until his death.

It has been already stated that, on July 30th, 1742, nine months after his marriage, Ingham formally transferred his Yorkshire and Lancashire societies, above fifty in number, to the Moravians; and, henceforward, these societies were placed under the control of the Moravian ministerial conclave at Smith House, near Halifax.

Besides these societies, however, Ingham was connected with others. A great work had been wrought in the midland counties. The Rev. Jacob Rogers, a clergyman of the Established Church, had preached with much power and success at Bedford. Mr. Francis Okeley had assisted him; and thither Ingham repaired, and preached several times in St.[123] Paul’s Church, to vast multitudes, who listened to him with profound attention. The number of converts increased daily, and were formed into societies, like those in Yorkshire. Being formed, the next point was how to manage them. Ingham was consulted; and, by his advice they, also, were placed under the care of Moravian ministers. This prepared the way for the settlement of the United Brethren at Bedford, in 1745; and for the erection of their chapel there in 1751.

By these arrangements, Ingham freed himself from an immense amount of personal responsibility. His old friend, Wesley, was not only forming societies, but ruling them. On the contrary, Ingham formed societies, and left them to be ruled by others. By this means, Moravianism found admission to the midland counties, and instituted a flourishing and permanent Church in Yorkshire and the neighbourhood round about. Ingham was left at liberty to be what he evidently liked,—an evangelist at large. He was also helped by earnest co-adjutors. There were the Batty Brothers,—Lawrence, William, and Christopher, of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, sons of Mr. Giles Batty, a man of considerable respectability, who resided at Newby Cote, near Settle. The three brothers were all eloquent and popular preachers. Then there was John Nelson, the sturdy Methodist, whom Ingham left behind at Birstal. Also David Taylor, formerly footman to Lady Ingham,—a man who had been converted under Ingham’s ministry, and who, notwithstanding certain vacillations, was a great and successful preacher, and raised societies in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and in some parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Others might be mentioned, if space permitted.

Ingham had no warmer friend than Whitefield, who watched the steps taken by his old acquaintance with the utmost interest. The following letter will not be considered out of place:—

Ingham was now one of the most influential members of the Moravian Church, in England; and, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. James Hutton, and the Sisters, Esther Kinchin, Mary Bowes, and Martha Ireland, set out on May 20th, 1743, to attend a Moravian Synod, to be held at Hirschberg, in Germany, from the first to the twelfth of July inclusive. This important Synod seems to have supervised the Moravian operations generally; including not only the affairs of the English Churches, but those of the Continent and Livonia, where fourteen hundred labourers of the Brethren were employed in endeavouring to bring men to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

The above are extracts from the Memoirs of James Hutton, at that period, the chief of the London Moravians. It is difficult for an outsider to understand and rightly interpret some of the expressions; but, upon the whole, it appears, 1. That the chief settlement of the Moravians was in Yorkshire; and, 2. That London was the training college of their ministers.

It is a well-known fact, that 1744 was a year of great anxiety. England was threatened with a French invasion, and with the unwelcome presence of the Jacobite Pretender. A large number of loyal addresses were presented to the king. Wesley wrote one on behalf of the Methodists, but his brother Charles successfully objected to its presentation, because its being sent, in the name of the Methodists, would constitute them a sect, at least would seem to allow that they were a body distinct from the Church of England. The same difficulty was felt by the Moravians; and, on April 23, a Conference[126] of six persons met in London, respecting the Address. Ingham went all the way from Yorkshire, to be present; and seems to have been the presiding spirit. The Conference perceived that, when so many addresses were being presented to the king, the Moravians might be regarded with suspicion, unless they also presented one; but the perplexity was how to designate the Moravian community. The Wesleys were unwilling for the Methodists to be regarded as Dissenters from the Church of England, and so were the Moravians. Brother Neisser, one of the Conference, attempted to solve the difficulty by observing, that “the English brethren, who had joined the Moravian Church, were not, on that account, Dissenters from the English Church.” They had taken such a step merely “to enjoy the blessed discipline of the Apostolic Churches, which was wanting in the English Church.” This was a solution scarcely sufficient to relieve the mind from doubt; but an address was written; and, on April 27, Ingham Hutton, and Bell went to Court, and, being admitted to the chamber of audience, Ingham delivered into the hand of the king the document which had been prepared. His Majesty, smiling graciously, accepted the same, and Ingham kissed his hand. The following is an extract:—

Having thus defined themselves, they then declare affectionate[127] loyalty to his “Majesty’s sacred person, family, and government;” and their “abhorrence for Popery and Popish pretenders,”—and conclude thus:—

This Address will help to define the position in which Ingham stood, with reference to the Moravian Church and the Church of England.

There is another important fact belonging to the year 1744. For some reason,—probably the disturbed state of the country,—the Brethren were prohibited preaching in the open air; and, from this period, Ingham relinquished all out-door services. In this, also, he differed from his quondam friend Wesley, who, for forty-seven years afterwards, persisted in “field-preaching.”

It has been already stated that Smith House, near Halifax, had been made the head-quarters of the Moravian community in Yorkshire. This took place about the year 1741. In 1743, Mr. Holmes, the proprietor of the place, died; and, on account of his widow not being well-disposed towards her peculiar tenants, the Brethren found it necessary to look out for another and more permanent establishment. Just at this juncture, Zinzendorf visited Yorkshire; and, one day, when climbing a mountain on which Bank House, near Pudsey, stood, he had such a sweet feeling and deep impression of the place, that he called it “Lamb’s Hill,” fully believing, that, it would become the site of a Moravian settlement. Strangely enough, the Hill soon afterwards was advertised for sale; in 1744, Ingham, at the request of a Moravian synod, bought it; and, on the 10th of May, 1746, the foundation stone of “Grace Hall, at Lamb’s Hill,” was laid amid great rejoicing. At six in the afternoon, the whole congregation came together, and sang a hymn, after which, Toltschig delivered an address.[128] A letter was read from Lady Ingham, expressing her great satisfaction in regard to the building of the Hall; the stone was to have been laid by Ingham, but, being unexpectedly detained in Lancashire, the office was performed by Toltschig, and the ceremonial was concluded with singing songs of praise. The building was completed in 1748; choir houses and schools were added; private dwellings were erected; and a Moravian settlement was established, which, in 1763, was called Fulneck, Ingham all the while being the proprietor of the soil.[105] Wesley visited the place in 1747, and wrote:—

Thirty-three years after this, Wesley paid another visit. The following extract, from his Journal, will show how Fulneck had increased:—

This is not the place to write a history of Fulneck; but merely to show Ingham’s connection with it.

It was about this period (1746), that Ingham and Grimshaw,[129] of Haworth, became acquainted; and once, and sometimes twice, a year, Grimshaw preached throughout Ingham’s circuit. The Societies increased rapidly, and spread, not only in Yorkshire, but also in Westmoreland, Cumberland, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, and Cheshire. General meetings of the preachers and exhorters were held with frequency, several of which were attended by the Countess of Huntingdon and Lady Margaret Ingham. Grimshaw invariably attended these meetings, and always preached, never troubling himself to ask the consent of the minister, or caring whether he liked it or not. Sometimes the two itinerant clergymen met with treatment far from pleasant.

As a specimen, the following may be given. Ingham, and Mr. Batty, one of his preachers, had been several times to Colne, and had succeeded in establishing a small society. Occasionally they were accompanied by Grimshaw; and, in this instance, the three commenced a meeting by the singing of a hymn. As soon as they begun, the Rev. George White, the notorious vicar of Colne and Marsden, rushed into the house, staff in hand, attended by the constable and a mob collected from the lowest and most depraved people of the town. White sprang towards Batty with intent to strike him. Ingham, perceiving the danger of his friend, instantly pulled him out of the reach of his clerical assailant, and retired into an adjoining room. The vicar and the constable threatened to put the master of the house into the parochial stocks, and attempted to take him away by force. The man demanded the constable’s authority; and the official, finding that he had none, was obliged to release his prisoner. White and his officer of the peace then insisted, that, Ingham and Grimshaw should sign a paper, promising not to preach in the parish of Colne during the next twelve months, under a penalty of fifty pounds. The demand was met by a firm refusal; and now the “Captain-General,” as White was designated, ordered the mob to lead away their captives. This was done, and, on the way, every friend who attempted to speak to them was abused and beaten. New proposals were made, that, Grimshaw and Ingham should give a written promise not to preach at Colne for six months, and then two; but without success. Magnanimously giving up the written[130] document, the mob asked a promise upon their word and honour; but this proposal also was rejected. Finding it impossible to coerce the three evangelists, the rioters let loose their vengeance. Ingham, Grimshaw, and Batty were violently dragged along the road, with clubs brandished about their heads. They were pelted with mud and dirt; and, with Ingham’s coat torn and hanging on the ground, were conducted to the Swan Inn, there to receive magisterial justice at the hands of the Rev. Mr. White.[106]

In 1747, the chief labourers, Ingham, Gambold, Hutton, and Okeley, attended a Synod at Herrnhaag, in Germany. Many English affairs were carefully considered, especially the history of the English congregations since 1737, and the gradual separation of the Brethren’s labours from those of the Methodists. The peculiar choir regulations were gradually introduced into England. The Discourses of Zinzendorf, the Church Litany, the Liturgies, the Common Prayers of the Brethren, and the Hymns of the Day, were translated into English; and the more intimate the acquaintance of the English Brethren became with German formularies, the more the Methodistic element was banished from among them. The Brethren and Methodists moved alongside of each other; and, not unfrequently, there was considerable flank-firing.

In July, 1748, Whitefield arrived in England, after an absence of nearly four years. Ingham wrote to his old friend, who sent the following affectionate reply:—

In course of time, Whitefield came to Yorkshire; and Ingham and Batty accompanied him throughout the county, and occasionally preached with him. They were also his companions into Lancashire and Cheshire. He preached four times at Aberford, the place of Ingham’s residence; and everywhere immense crowds attended him. The tour was a triumphal one; and, moreover, the two old Oxford friends were reunited. In one place, Whitefield mounted a temporary scaffold to address the thousands who stood before him; and, with a solemnity peculiarly his own, announced his text,—“It is appointed unto men once to die; but after this the judgment.” No sooner had the words escaped his lips, than a terrifying shriek issued from the centre of the congregation. Grimshaw hurried to the place where Whitefield stood, and shouted,—“Brother Whitefield, you stand among the dead and dying,—an immortal soul has been called into eternity,—the destroying angel is passing over the congregation,—cry aloud and spare not.” A few moments elapsed, and Whitefield re-announced his text; when another loud shriek was heard; a shriek which, in this instance, came from the spot where the Countess of Huntingdon and Lady Margaret Ingham were standing. A second person had dropped down dead. Consternation was general; but Whitefield[132] proceeded with the service, and, in a strain of tremendous eloquence, warned the wicked to flee from the wrath to come.[107] Who can adequately conceive, and paint the scene just mentioned? Whitefield on a platform,—thousands assembled before him,—two in the midst of them, in an instant, struck with death,—the Incumbent of Haworth rushing to the preacher with his irrepressible exclamation,—and two noble ladies, with Ingham at their side, gazing at the awful spectacle, their souls thrilled with feelings which no language can describe. And yet, if not in regard to the death occurrences, in point of solemn sublimity and religious grandeur, Whitefield’s life was full of such scenic facts.

Mention has been made of Ingham and Whitefield becoming reunited. During this same evangelistic tour, efforts were used to reunite Ingham and his old friend Wesley. Seven years before, they had separated. Both were intensely conscientious, and were actuated by the purest religious motives; but their course of action was different. Ingham was a Moravian: Wesley was a Methodist. The two designations were often used synonymously; and yet their meanings were widely different. By order of Zinzendorf, an advertisement had been published, in the Daily Advertiser, declaring, that, the Moravians had no connection with the Wesleys. Angry pamphlets, on both sides, had been issued; and angry feelings, both among Moravians and Methodists, had been kindled. It was hardly possible for Ingham and Wesley to live on the same terms of intimate friendship as they had done at Oxford and in Georgia. There is no evidence, that, they ever quarrelled; but they were undoubtedly estranged. This was painful both to themselves and to a certain circle of their friends; and, as above stated, means were used to reunite them. Hence the following, extracted from a letter, addressed to Wesley, by the Rev. Mr. Milner, Incumbent of Chipping, in Lancashire, who accompanied Whitefield, Ingham, and Grimshaw in their glorious visits to Manchester, Stockport, and other places:—

So far as it concerned Ingham, things were now coming to a crisis. For about a dozen years, he had been a Moravian; but Moravianism, always eccentric, was now becoming arrogant. Everything was carried on upon a higher scale, both in diet and clothing, with a view to the benevolent but impracticable design of abolishing the distinction between the different stations in life. This, however, only tended to make persons of low degree exalt themselves above their station in society, which, in more respects than one, was really injurious. Then there was also a season of trial, which is known in the Brethren’s Church, under the name of ‘the great sifting,’—especially from 1745 to 1749. The Yorkshire Diary of the Brethren, 1747-1749, speaks of “the light and trifling spirit, which had crept into almost all the congregations, both in doctrine and practice;” and joins “in thanksgiving to the Head of the Church, who had caused a deep shame and contrition to take place in the hearts of the true Brethren and Sisters.” In June, 1749, Zinzendorf addressed a pompous[134] letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving him a catalogue of the Moravian Bishops, Administrators of Tropuses, and Evangelics. He spoke of himself as, “Lewis, by Divine Providence, Bishop, Liturgus, and Ordinary of the Churches known by the name of the Brethren; and, under the auspices of the same, Advocate during life, with full power over the hierarchy of the Slavonic Unity, Custos rotulorum, and Prolocutor both of the general Synod, and of the Tropus of Instruction.” In a postscript, he made a characteristic attack on Sherlock, Bishop of London, as follows:—

To say the least, this was hardly modest, on the part of a foreigner, when addressed to the highest dignitary of the English Church. It is also noticeable, that, in the list of Bishops, Administrators of Tropuses, Evangelics, and Primary Ministers, sent to his Grace of Canterbury, the name of Ingham is not included. Why was this?

Further,—a new “Church Litany,” of great length, and curious construction, had been published, and was now in use in the Congregations of the Brethren. Lindsey House, in Chelsea, was bought of Sir Hans Sloane; and, at a great expense, was converted into the head-quarters of English Moravianism. Zinzendorf was the pope of the English Brotherhood. All bishops and elders were subordinate to him; and, under the name “Papa,” he was exclusively the ruler of their Church. He caused to be published a Hymn-book, in two volumes; the second of which was filled with doggerel of the worst description. He had had the effrontery to ask the English Parliament to pass an Act, not only recognising the Unitas Fratrum as an ancient Protestant Episcopal Church; but also exempting them from taking oaths; from being summoned as jurymen; and, in the American colonies, from being called upon to engage in military service. Marvellous[135] to relate, all this was granted; but one demand of the Moravian “Papa” was rejected. He asked for power to be vested in himself, to enjoin upon the bishops and ministers of the Church of England to give certificates, that, the parties holding them, were members of the Unitas Fratrum; and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions specified. The Lord Chancellor objected to this putting of the prelates and clergy of the Established Church beneath the power of a foreign count. “Against the will of the king,” exclaimed this modest man; “I would not like to press the matter; but a limitation of the Act I will not accept. Everything or nothing. No modifications.” This was German rodomontade; for, rather than lose his Bill, he relinquished his claim to be empowered to coerce the bishops and clergy of the English Church to grant the certificates. The Act of Parliament was passed on the 12th of May, 1749. A few months afterwards, Zinzendorf published a folio volume, entitled “Acta Fratrum in Angliâ,” and containing, besides the Moravian public negotiations in England, an exposition of the Moravian doctrine, liturgy, etc. The book was full of repulsive jargon; and the less that is said respecting it the better.

Besides all this, an enormous debt had been contracted. A crop of lawsuits sprung up. Zinzendorf and others were in danger of arrest. Bankruptcy was imminent; disgrace was great; and scandals of all kinds were rife. Henry Rimius, “Aulic Counsellor to his late Majesty the King of Prussia,” published an octavo pamphlet of 177 pages, in which Zinzendorf was accused of flagrant falsehood. Wesley read the pamphlet as soon as it was printed; and wrote, “I still think several of the inconsiderable members of that” (Moravian) “community, are upright; but I fear their governors wax worse and worse,—having their conscience seared as with a hot iron.”

Whitefield, in 1753, published “An Expostulatory Letter, addressed to Nicholas Lewis, Count Zinzendorf, and Lord Advocate of the Unitas Fratrum,” in which he charges Zinzendorf and his friends with “Misguiding many honest-hearted Christians; with distressing, if not ruining, numerous families; and with introducing a whole farrago of superstitious, not to say idolatrous, fopperies into the English nation.”

Another pamphlet was published, at the same time, and created considerable excitement. Its long title will suggest an idea of its contents. “A true and authentic Account of Andrew Frey: containing the occasion of his coming among the Hernhutters, or Moravians; his Observations on their Conferences, Casting Lots, Marriages, Festivals, Merriments, Celebrations of Birth-Days, impious Doctrines, and fantastical Practices, Abuse of charitable Contributions, linen Images, ostentatious Profuseness, and Rancour against any who in the least differ from them; and the Reasons for which he left them; together with the Motives for publishing this Account. Faithfully transcribed from the German.”

It would not be pleasant to enter into further details. Enough has been said to show that, Ingham had sufficient reasons to sever his connections with the Moravians. He had found the money for the purchase of the land about Grace Hall (Fulneck); and, in 1753, asked for the repayment; but money was not forthcoming, and he agreed to receive a yearly rental of £30 instead of it.[110]

The particulars of Ingham’s separation from the Moravian community have not been published; but he now formed a circuit of his own of about five hundred miles, and had several thousand followers. Members were received by laying on of hands; they had elders; and the feast of charity; and the Lord’s Supper once a month.

Ingham was the chief of the new sect in Yorkshire and the neighbouring counties. One of his principal co-workers was Mr. J. Allen; who, in 1752, and when only eighteen years of age, became a preacher in the Inghamite connexion. Allen was the eldest son of Oswald Allen, Esq., of Gayle, in the county of York. His father intended him for the ministry in the Established Church, and placed him under the care of a clergyman, whose inconsistency of conduct seems to have[137] shocked his pupil, and to have made him doubt the propriety of entering into holy orders. In 1748, he was sent to Scorton School, near Richmond, in Yorkshire, conducted by the Rev. Mr. Noble. In the year following, he had the opportunity of hearing Ingham preach, and was converted. In 1751, he was admitted into St. John’s College, Cambridge; and, a year afterwards, as already stated, began himself to preach. For many years, he was one of the most useful and popular preachers in Ingham’s connexion; and his conduct throughout life was becoming a minister of Christ.[111]

Besides Allen, the three Battys, already mentioned, Lawrence, William, and Christopher,—Ingham’s other coadjutors were Hunter and Brogden, both of whom had been in the British army; also James Hartley, Richard Smith, and James Crossley, all of whom had been awakened under the thundering preaching of Grimshaw, the Incumbent of Haworth; and the first and second of whom ultimately became pastors of Baptist congregations; and the third, a minister of an Independent Church at Bradford. Mr. Molesworth, likewise, of Thornhill, and Mr. Fleetwood Churchill, gentlemen descended from families of rank, and moving in the upper ranks of life, were faithful fellow-labourers. All these were earnest evangelists, and most of them suffered serious persecution for the Word of God, and the testimony which they held.[112]

Ingham’s separation from the Moravians altered his relationship to the Methodists; and, at Wesley’s Conference, held in 1753, it was asked, “Can we unite, if it be desired, with Mr. Ingham?—Answer: We may now behave to him with all tenderness and love, and unite with him when he returns to the Old Methodist doctrine.”[113] Two years after this, Wesley held his yearly Conference at Leeds; and Ingham summoned several of his preachers to meet him there for the purpose of attending the Conferential sittings. Wesley admitted Ingham; but his coadjutors were excluded. Was it Ingham’s wish to amalgamate his Societies and preachers with the Methodists? This is a question, we[138] cannot answer. One matter, however, was discussed in which Ingham, as an ordained Clergyman of the Church of England, must have felt interest. Wesley writes:—

Supposing that Ingham wished for an amalgamation, this was a decisive answer to his proposal, for already Ingham had separated from the Church, not only by the formation of societies and the employment of lay preachers, but also, and especially, by the institution of separate sacramental services.

Some time after the Conference at Leeds, Ingham went to Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, and thence to Ashby, on a visit to Lady Huntingdon. During his stay, he preached frequently, at her ladyship’s and in the neighbourhood, to large congregations. On his return to Yorkshire, the Countess accompanied him, and visited most of his northern societies.

Whilst she was in Yorkshire, a conference of his preachers was held at Winewall, when, as at Wesley’s first Conference, in 1744, doctrine and discipline were discussed.

In reference to Doctrine, it was agreed:—1. That Justification consists in the forgiveness of sins, and an imputation of Christ’s righteousness; and, that, the instrumental cause of this is faith in Christ. 2. That, sanctification consists, not in holy actions, but, in the divine life, new heart and spirit, which are given by Jesus Christ at our justification; and love, joy, and peace, and all the graces or fruits of the Spirit. 3. That, all good works spring from this, as fruit from a tree.

With regard to Church Government, it was resolved, That, there should be a general overseer, chosen and appointed by the Trustees and by the consent of the Societies.

As was natural, Ingham was set apart to this office; and he proceeded to elect one of the Batty brothers and Mr. Allen, as fellow-helpers; who, after giving an account of their conversion and call to the ministry, and, being examined respecting[139] the doctrines they had preached, and intended to preach in future, were then and there solemnly ordained, by the laying on of Ingham’s hands, and prayer.

In this respect, Ingham was far ahead of his old friend Wesley; for it was not till twenty-eight years after this, that Wesley assumed episcopal functions, by ordaining two of his preachers for America.

From this period, Lady Huntingdon used to call Ingham a Bishop; and, in doing so, her ladyship was not seriously wrong. There can be little doubt, that, Ingham, like Wesley, held the opinion, that, “bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain”; and, assuming this to be correct, there can be no question, that, he, being an acknowledged Presbyter of the Church of England, was also a Bishop.

But to let that pass. Lady Huntingdon, though on the most friendly terms with Ingham, was very far from being satisfied with several of the rules of the Inghamite Societies; and, hence, whilst a visitor at Ingham’s house at Aberford, she conferred with him respecting an amalgamation with the Methodists. Whitefield proceeded to Newcastle-on-Tyne, where, it is said, he met the two Wesleys, and was commissioned by Ingham to offer them his house at Aberford, for the purpose of discussing the subject. Charles Wesley readily assented; but his brother as decidedly objected; and, from that time forth, no further steps were taken to effect a union with the Methodists.

Charles Wesley became an ardent friend and advocate of Ingham. Hence the following extracts from his journal:—

The Rev. William Romaine, also, became one of Ingham’s frequent visitors, and was received by him and Lady Margaret with every mark of respect and affectionate attention. Indeed, at a period when Romaine’s stipend was quite inadequate to provide sustenance for his family, his necessities were often liberally met by Lady Ingham’s bounty. Ingham sometimes accompanied him in his preaching excursions into several parts of the county of Durham; Romaine preaching wherever he obtained a church, and Ingham in the Methodist Chapels and private houses. Long after this, Romaine remarked in reference to Ingham’s societies,—

This horrid northern blast must be explained. In 1755, Hervey published his “Theron and Aspasio,” in three octavo volumes. In 1757, Robert Sandeman issued an elaborate reply, in two volumes octavo, entitled, “Letters on Theron and Aspasio, addressed to the Author of that Work.” Very erroneous were some of the views of Sandeman, but, all who have read his publication must admit that he was a man of considerable ability. His work, however, was blemished, not only by heterodox expositions of holy Scripture, but by severe attacks on the chief evangelical preachers and authors of the day. A furious controversy succeeded; and a large number of pamphlets and tracts bearing on the subject were printed. Sandeman’s volumes themselves were in great demand, and, in less than five years, three editions of them were published. His principal doctrine, from which all his other erroneous teachings sprang, was his doctrine of Christian faith. Hervey, Whitefield, Erskine, and others, substantially acquiesced in Wesley’s definition, namely, “Christian faith is not only an assent to the whole gospel of Christ, but also a full reliance on the blood of Christ; a trust in the merits of His life, death, and resurrection; a recumbency on Him as our atonement and our life, as given[141] for us, and living in us.” Perhaps it would sound less sectarian to say, that the whole of these distinguished men held the doctrine of the Homilies of the Church of England: “The right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe, that holy Scripture and the articles of our faith are true, but also, to have a sure trust and confidence, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ; whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey His commandments.” Or, again; a man’s “sure trust and confidence in God, that, by the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God.” “Three things must go together in our justification. Upon God’s part, His great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, the satisfaction of God’s justice, by the offering His body and shedding His blood, with fulfilling the law perfectly and thoroughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ. So that, in our justification, there is not only God’s mercy and grace, but His justice also. And so the grace of God doth not shut out the righteousness of God in our justification; but only shutteth out the righteousness of man; that is to say, the righteousness of our works. And, therefore, St. Paul declareth nothing on the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and living faith, which itself is the gift of God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified. But it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified; yet they justify not altogether.” (Homilies of the Church of England.)

Sandeman’s views were widely different, as a few extracts from his book will show:—

Perhaps, the reader has had enough of the misty dogmas of Robert Sandeman. The foregoing extracts contain the kernel of his heresy. By the obedience and sufferings of Christ, a number of persons, the elect, are accepted or justified of God. The gospel declares this. It is the sinner’s privilege and duty to believe this general statement;—not to believe on Christ as his Saviour (for he has no authority to do that), but simply to become persuaded of the truthfulness of the gospel’s general declaration, that a select number are accepted of God, solely and entirely, because of the finished work of Christ. This persuasion, in the course of time, and in the case of the accepted persons, produces what Sandeman calls repentance unto life. For a season, they have “anxious fears of coming short of everlasting life.” Their love to the truth works “in the way of painful desire, attended with many fears.” At length, however, they attain to such a state, that their conscience testifies, they are “not destitute of love to that truth which the world hates;” and now “the Spirit of the truth gives His testimony, as a second witness, by shedding abroad in the heart such an abundant sense of the divine love, as perfects their love to the truth, and crowns it with the highest enjoyment it is capable of in this mortal state.”

This, in brief, was Sandeman’s way of salvation—a huge heresy tagged to the glorious truth, that man is accepted of[144] God solely through the meritorious work and sufferings of Christ. This is not the place for its refutation. Suffice it to remark, that, in 1759, Ingham read Sandeman’s “Letters on Theron and Aspasio,” and also Glass’s “Testimony of the King of Martyrs;” and that this was the means of bringing upon Ingham’s societies the “horrid blast from the north,” so strongly deprecated by the Rev. William Romaine.

The Rev. John Glass, about the year 1728, had been expelled from the established Church of Scotland, and had formed a number of Churches conformable, in their institution and discipline, to what he apprehended to be the plan of the first Churches of Christianity. Sandeman was an elder in one of these Churches. The chief practices in which they differed from others were:—their weekly administration of the Lord’s Supper; their love feasts, of which every member was not only allowed, but required to partake, and which consisted in their dining together at each other’s houses in the interval between the morning and afternoon services; their kiss of charity, used on this occasion, at the admission of a new member, and at other times, when they deemed it to be necessary or proper; their weekly collection before the Lord’s Supper, for the support of the poor, and defraying other expenses; mutual exhortation; abstinence from blood and things strangled; washing each other’s feet, the precept concerning which, as well as other precepts, they understood literally; community of goods, so far as that every one was to consider all that he had in his possession and power as liable to the calls of the poor and the Church; and unlawfulness of laying up treasures on earth, by setting them apart for any distant future, or uncertain use; the allowing of public and private diversions so far as they were not connected with circumstances really sinful; and the employment of a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops, in each Church, and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of discipline, but the administration of the Lord’s Supper. In the choice of these elders, want of learning, and engagements in trade, were not regarded as disqualifications for office, but a second marriage was. The elders were ordained by prayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the right hand of fellowship. In their discipline, they were strict and severe,[145] and thought themselves obliged to separate from the communion of all such religious societies as appeared to them not to profess the simple truth to be their only ground of hope, and who did not walk in obedience to it. In every Church transaction, also, they esteemed unanimity to be absolutely necessary.

Such were the Glassites or Sandemanians more than a hundred years ago. In an evil hour, after reading the publications of Glass and Sandeman, Ingham sent his fellow-helpers, Mr. Batty and Mr. Allen, privately to Scotland, for the purpose of acquiring more distinct and detailed information respecting this Scottish sect. At Edinburgh, they were introduced to Sandeman; and at Dundee, to Glass; and returned to Yorkshire thoroughly converted to the Sandemanian theology and discipline. Warm debates took place in Ingham’s societies respecting the nature of a true Church, and respecting their former views of religious experience. Many became jealous of the authority which Ingham exercised; but he steadfastly adhered to the validity of his commission as general overseer, and wished the dissatisfied to withdraw. Frequent attempts were made to reconcile the two contending parties: the Countess of Huntingdon wrote letters; Romaine paid a personal visit; and Whitefield prayed and wept; but all was ineffectual. Disputes without end arose; excommunications followed; and thus the great work over which Ingham had most religiously watched, was nearly wrecked. Out of upwards of eighty flourishing Churches, only thirteen remained under Ingham’s care. This was probably the severest trial of his life, and was one from the effects of which he never afterwards recovered.[115] It would be incorrect and uncharitable to assert, that, all who were excommunicated or seceded, ceased to be Christians. Dr. Stevens says, “many of them were merged in the Wesleyan or Dissenting bodies, especially in the class of Scotch Presbyterians called Daleites.”[116] Mr. Allen formed a[146] number of them into a separate Church, and officiated as their pastor until his death, in 1804. The Messrs. Batty also continued to preach; and, in 1761, published, at Kendal, a Hymn Book of 136 pp., entitled, “A Collection of Hymns for the Use of those that seek, and those that have, Redemption in the Blood of Christ.” Many of the hymns are thorough doggerel. Some other of the seceding preachers also “remained useful men; and the disaster was much relieved by the consideration that Wesleyan Methodism took general possession of Yorkshire, and by the fact, that two Methodist orders were hardly necessary at the time of Ingham’s failure.”

Efforts were not wanting to conserve and perpetuate the work. In September, 1760, Lady Huntingdon and the Rev. William Romaine joined Ingham, at a general meeting of his societies, held at Wheatley, when the choice of Church officers was determined by lot. They also visited, in company, several of the brotherhoods in Yorkshire and Lancashire, Ingham and Romaine preaching alternately, almost every day. At Thinoaks, in Craven, where they remained several days, there was a large assemblage of people, and two elders were ordained. There, also, it was agreed to recommend to the different societies in the connexion to make collections every Sabbath; and the following circular was issued:—

Nothing more need be said of this unhappy schism, except quoting a sentence from Wesley’s sermon, preached at the laying of the foundation stone of City Road Chapel, in 1777. With an undoubted reference to Ingham, he remarked:—

Unlike his friend Wesley, Ingham made but little use of the printing-press. In 1748, he published a Hymn Book, of 96 pp., 12mo, with the title, “A Collection of Hymns for Societies. Leeds: Printed by James Lister, 1748.” The book, now extremely scarce, contains eighty-eight hymns; five of which are translations from the German, by John Wesley; fifteen are by Watts; five by Cennick; and three by Charles Wesley. How many Ingham himself contributed is not known. The following serves as a sort of Preface:—

Ingham’s only other publication was a small volume, entitled, “A Discourse on the Faith and Hope of the Gospel. Leedes: Printed for the Author, by Griffith Wright, 1763.” 12mo, 207 pp.

This, though a small, was an important book, for it contained the views of Ingham, on the chief doctrines of the Christian religion, immediately after he had read the works of Glass and Sandeman. There can be no question, that, he substantially embraced the dogmas which they had so boldly propounded. The following extracts are confirmative of this. The reader will excuse the length of them, on the ground, that they exhibit the principal articles of Ingham’s creed towards[148] the close of life. The book is pervaded by a fine Christian spirit; and, here and there, almost waxes eloquent.

These extracts are long, but they serve to exhibit Ingham’s views of the way of a sinner’s salvation. Substantially, they are the same as Sandeman’s, and were doubtless derived from him. One cannot but regret that Ingham suffered himself to be led astray by the hazy dogmatisms of the new Scottish sect, instead of adhering to the Scriptural views of his friend Wesley.[117] Of his sincerity there cannot be a doubt; but, in trying to make the salvation of a sinner more simple, he made it vastly more dubious and difficult. How different were these misty speculations to the plain, straightforward teachings of the Methodists! Their adoption by the truly converted and godly societies, raised up by Ingham and his friends, was a fatal error, and renders it no matter of regret, that, societies espousing and propagating such principles gradually dwindled, and nearly became extinct.

Before taking our leave of Ingham’s book, a few lines may be added concerning its general merits, apart from its doctrinal heresies; and these shall be given as an extract from a review,[152] written by Samuel Drew, the able and honest editor of the Imperial Magazine, for 1823. After adverting to Ingham’s doctrinal peculiarities, Mr. Drew proceeds:—

Ingham’s active and useful work was now nearly ended. In 1762, on the re-settlement of affairs, he was chosen elder of the Church at Tadcaster, which office, in addition to that of general overseer, he sustained to the end of life; but the labours of himself and his coadjutors resulted in small success. On July 23rd, 1766, Wesley wrote:—

The state of his societies greatly affected poor Ingham’s mind. The well-informed author of the “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” remarks, “The almost total dispersion of the Yorkshire Churches, caused by the introduction of the Sandemanian principles, had a sad effect on Mr. Ingham’s mind. He was liable to sudden transitions from the highest flow of spirits to the utmost depression, and the peculiar character of his temperament was an extreme accessibility to sudden attacks of melancholy.” The thing which he had “greatly feared had come upon him.” He was deserted by his spiritual children, and the thought distressed him. “I am lost! I am lost! was his despairing cry.” It is true, that, there were gleams of comfort. Lady Huntingdon’s letters were soothing to his anguished spirit. “A thousand and a thousand times,” he tells her, “do I bless and praise my[153] God, for the words of comfort and consolation which your ladyship’s letters conveyed to my mournful heart, dismayed and overwhelmed as it was by the pressure of my calamities. ‘Righteous art Thou, O Lord, and just are Thy judgments.’”

This was but the beginning of his sorrows. One of his beloved and faithful friends was the laborious and devoted Grimshaw. In the early part of the year 1763, Haworth was visited with a malignant putrid fever, and, among its many victims, Grimshaw was one. At great risk, Ingham repeatedly visited the Christian veteran in his fatal illness; and, afterwards, gave to Lady Huntingdon, the following account of his several interviews:—

Not long after this, Ingham had to mourn the death of another and dearer friend. After twenty-seven years of connubial happiness, his noble and Christian wife was taken from him. During her fatal sickness,

Lady Margaret Ingham died on the 30th of April, 1768, in the sixty-eighth year of her age.

Her sorrowing partner did not long survive. He, also, four years afterwards, in 1772, passed away to that “rest which remains to the people of God,” leaving behind him a son, who, for a time at least, united himself with Wesley’s societies, and officiated as a local preacher.[118]

His societies, once so flourishing, gradually dwindled. In 1813, when they became united to the Daleites, or Scotch Independents, they were thirteen in number, assembling in the following places—Wheatley, 56 members; Winewall, 41; Kendal, 27; Nottingham, 25; Salterforth, 21; Bulwel, 17; Tadcaster, 14; Howden, 11; Wibsey, 10; Leeds, 9; Rothwell, 8; Haslingden, 8; Todmorden, 5. So far as has been ascertained, these, at the present moment, are reduced to six,—Winewall, (the largest and most flourishing,) Wheatley, Todmorden, Kendal, Tadcaster, and Leeds.[120]

The whole of the Oxford Methodists intended to devote their lives to the service of the Church of England. This, at Oxford, was their highest wish and holiest ambition. The future was hidden from them,—fortunately so. Without this, their brotherhood would not have lasted for a single week; and many of the results of their godly intercourse would never have been realized. How different from the course of Clayton was that of Ingham; and how different again was that of Gambold from that of Whitefield and the Wesley brothers; and again, how different was that of Hervey and Broughton from any of the others! Men would have ordered it otherwise; but who will say that the way of Providence was not infinitely better? There may be much in the lives of men that is mysterious and perplexing; but of all the sincerely pious it may be confidently asserted,—“A man’s heart deviseth his ways, but the Lord directeth his steps.” The subject of the following memoir is no exception.

John Gambold was born April 10th, 1711, at Puncheston, in Pembrokeshire, South Wales. His father, a clergyman of the Church of England, lived an ornament to his profession, and was greatly respected, for his unaffected piety and purity of manners. The children of this devout minister were educated with the utmost care and attention, and no pains were spared to instil into their minds the principles and precepts of the Christian religion.

Nothing is known of the early life of young Gambold, except, that he was greatly benefited by his father’s instructions; and, at the early age of fifteen, went to the University of Oxford, where he entered as servitor in Christ Church College, and soon became eminent for his diligent devotion to reading and study. He was naturally of a vivacious and active spirit; and, besides his attention to his collegiate exercises,[156] employed himself in an extensive perusal of the most approved dramatists and poets in the English language.[121]

Two years after he went to Oxford, his father died; and this event, together with the exhortations and counsels he received from the dying minister in his last moments, so affected him, that he at once abandoned poetry and plays, lost his liveliness of disposition, sunk into a state of melancholy, and made the salvation of his soul the chief business of life. Painful experience was the inspirer of a short poem of his, afterwards published in his collected works:—

Gambold entered Christ Church College in the same year that Charles Wesley did, the latter being more than two years older than the former. John Wesley also was a member of the same college, and twelve months before, on September 19, 1725, had been ordained a deacon. In 1729, the society of Oxford Methodists was formed by Charles Wesley; and, a year afterwards, Gambold, still only in his teens, became one of them. He shall narrate his own story, written when Wesley was in Georgia. The account is long; but, containing as it does a full description of the rise and peculiarities of the “Holy Club,” and a faithful delineation[157] of the character and influence of their confessed “curator,” it is too important to be omitted. Gambold writes:—

In the above extracts, the reader has the practices which principally distinguished the Oxford Methodists from their fellows. The account is full of interest, and of great importance, being written by one of the members of this godly brotherhood, and immediately after that brotherhood was broken up. The remainder of Gambold’s narrative is chiefly a defence and eulogy of Wesley, their “Curator;” and only such parts of it will be given as affect the whole of these earnest students. Gambold continues:—

This long account does something more than give a general idea of the Oxford Methodists and of their distinguished leader. It exhibits the course of life adopted by Gambold in his twentieth year. Like the rest of his youthful friends, he became an earnest religionist; but he was not happy. “He gave way to desponding thoughts; neglected his person and apparel; confined himself as much as possible to his room; and applied, in search of information and comfort, to the works of such authors as he supposed could satisfy his inquiries, namely, the fathers of the first ages of the Christian Church. Of these, the most abstruse were his greatest favourites, and particularly those which are called mystics. Being well versed in the Greek language, he was much pleased with that energy of expression in which it excels. The deep speculations of these ancient writers, their beautiful allusions, the richness of style with which they clothed their ideas, and the strain of piety running through the whole, suited his taste, and so far influenced his understanding, that he adopted their sentiments, went the same lengths with them in the scenes of imagination, and, by degrees, became so much like one of them, that his cast of mind bore a nearer resemblance to that which was peculiar in them, than to any that appeared among the modern. By a close attention to writers of this stamp, he contracted such a turn of mind, and imbibed such an exalted notion of internal purity, that he could not be satisfied with himself, unless he became such a refined being as those philosophical Christians portrayed. This being the state to which his aim was directed, he spared no pains to model himself according to the idea which he had formed of it. His exertions were abortive. Disappointment[163] occasioned great concern;” and it was not until after years of laborious endeavour to form and establish a righteousness of his own, that he was led to submit to “the righteousness of God, by faith of Jesus Christ.”

In September, 1733, he was ordained, by Dr. Potter, Bishop of Oxford; and, as soon as he was capable of holding a living, was instituted to that of Stanton-Harcourt. In this sequestered village, where his parochial duties were not numerous, he had more leisure than was desirable to pursue his philosophical inquiries. He loved retirement, and seldom went abroad. But whenever he could prevail upon himself to visit any of his friends, and, among the rest, Lord Harcourt, he was received with much respect. His abilities, both natural and acquired, were great, but his unfeigned humility was so apparent to every one with whom he conversed, that, his superior powers excited no dislike in any. Indeed, his whole conduct was so inoffensive, that he very rarely, if ever, made himself an enemy. Still, his philosophical and platonic kind of religion failed to make him happy, and was of little use to his rustic parishioners. Four years were spent,—almost wasted,—in those high flights of imagination, deep speculation, intense reflection, and metaphysical reasoning, to which his natural disposition inclined him.

Meanwhile, his friendship with the Wesleys was continued. Charles returned from Georgia in the month of December, 1736; and, in the following February, speaks of meeting his “good friend Mr. Gambold,” at Oxford, who was “right glad to see” him. In fact, at this period and more or less for at least a year and a half afterwards, Kezziah Wesley, the youngest surviving sister of John and Charles, was domiciled with Gambold and his sister (who kept his house,) at Stanton-Harcourt. Poor Kezziah, from childhood, had been delicate, and her health had not been bettered by her residence at Lincoln, where, at nineteen years of age, she became a teacher in a boarding-school, and was painfully in want of both clothes and money. Her life was a wandering one. For a time, she lived in the house of the Vicar of Bexley, the Rev. Mr. Piers, and, afterwards, she resided with an aunt at Islington. It was not long that she needed the kindness of her friends, for, at the age of thirty-one, nearly a year and a half before the[164] decease of her Christian mother, she peacefully expired, on the 9th of March, 1741.[123]

John Wesley landed in England on February 1, 1738; and, a week afterwards, met with Peter Böhler, just arrived from Germany. Within a fortnight, the two Wesleys, accompanied by Böhler, set out for Oxford, whence all the first brotherhood of Oxford Methodists were now dispersed. The elder Wesley writes:—

The nearest to Oxford was Gambold; and, accordingly, on February 18th, Wesley says:—

Gambold was already returning to gospel simplicity; and his acquaintance with Böhler rendered him service of the highest importance. Böhler held meetings in Oxford, attended both by members of the university and citizens. He delivered discourses in Latin, and Gambold interpreted them for the benefit of those of his audiences who were unfamiliar with that language. This friendship with the newly arrived German, proved the means, not only of the conversion of the two Wesleys, but, ultimately of Gambold also.

The following letters will show the change which took place in Gambold’s views and feelings. The first was addressed to[165] Wesley, and has never before been published. As will be seen, it was written three days before Wesley’s return from Georgia, and, consequently, before Wesley and Gambold became acquainted with Böhler. It is given here without abridgment, and verbatim.

Such was Gambold’s philosophical religion, previous to his acquaintance with Peter Böhler. He was sincere and in earnest; but he was enveloped in a mystic fog. His was a grand attempt to save himself, but how the thing was to be accomplished he hardly knew. It was greatly to his credit, as it was also to that of Wesley, that he was willing to be taught, even by a German stranger. Twelve months after the date of the foregoing letter, Gambold wrote another equally important. In the interval, both he and the two Wesley’s had been “brought out of” Pharisaic and Philosophic “darkness into marvellous light.” The two letters have only to be compared to see the surprising change in the writer’s views. The following was addressed to Wesley’s brother Charles:—

Though exception may be taken to some of the expressions, yet the above is a most admirable letter; and shows that Gambold had embraced the same faith as Wesley,—sinners are saved solely through the merits of Christ Jesus; and on the simple exercise of faith in Him. It was not without a struggle that he was brought to this conviction. Peter Böhler said to Wesley, “My brother, my brother, that philosophy of yours must be purged away.” The same might have been said to Gambold. His learning had to give place to the simple teaching of the Word of God. He had to relinquish philosophical theories; and submit to the authoritative utterances of Christ and of His Apostles. Reason had to bend to revelation. In the case of a sincere[171] and earnest man, like Gambold, this mental transformation was not a trifle. He himself, in a letter without date, and apparently addressed to Wesley, refers to the difficulties, and obstacles he encountered. His very learning was a hindrance in the way of his being saved; and he was reluctantly convinced, that, when “the aphorisms of learning pretend to describe and circumscribe the process of salvation, then the words of any one who has but a good heart and common sense, are generally more complete than those of a finished divine; and tally better with the unsearchable divine economy.” He continues:—

There is another letter, written by Gambold, during his transition state, which further illustrates his views and feelings at this important crisis. It was addressed “to a studious young lady,”—probably Kezziah Wesley,—and concerning it Wesley himself remarks:—“It well deserves the attention of the serious and sensible reader. Indeed, unless read with a good deal of attention, it will scarce be understood, the thoughts are so deep, and so concisely expressed.” The following are brief extracts:—

Some may think, that, in these quotations, the importance of human learning is unduly lowered; but all will admit that the learned recluse at Stanton-Harcourt, had embraced the simple method of human salvation, by a simple and sole reliance on the sacrifice and merits of Christ Jesus. This is the point which we are wishful to enforce; inasmuch as it, not only is “the truth as it is in Jesus;” but, was the origin of the great Methodist movement of the eighteenth century. Without this, England would have been without its latest religious reformation. On this ground, some other extracts from the works of Gambold, may be useful.

It is a fact, not generally noticed, that, though Gambold’s Tragedy,—the Martyrdom of Ignatius, was not published until after the authors death,[127] it was written as early as the year 1740; and, hence, may be taken as an exposition of Gambold’s views and feelings, at this early period of his life.

It certainly seems somewhat strange, that an earnest young clergyman, twenty-nine years of age, and only recently brought to the enjoyment of personal salvation, by penitent faith in Christ, should employ his time and pen upon a dramatical production; but it must be borne in mind,—(1) that, from his youth, Gambold had had a great fondness for dramatic pieces, both ancient and modern, (2) that, Gambold’s Tragedy was never intended for the stage, (3) that, its sentiments are unexceptionably pure and good; and (4) that, he was not the first who had attempted to represent the principles and practices of the Christian religion in such a form.

Gambold’s work may be a defective drama; but it is a thoughtful poem, and deserves attention. Take the following extracts, all bearing upon faith in Christ and its immediate results.

More extracts are not needed. John Gambold, the learned, moping, gloomy, philosophic Mystic, became an humble, happy, trustful believer in Christ Jesus. He shall tell his own story. Though he was introduced to Böhler in January, 1738, and became his interpreter when he preached, yet, for two years after this, his state of mind was very painful. In a letter dated April 3, 1740, he describes himself as being “mostly pensive and dejected, surrounded with solitude, sickness, and silence; not gathering strength, like the heroes, from rich circumstances, but, like vulgar minds, contracting an abjectness that blunts every finer sentiment, and damps every nobler ardour of the soul.” The day of his deliverance, however, was drawing nigh. Speaking of the Moravians, he writes:—

It is a curious fact, that, in the same year in which Wesley seceded from the London Moravians, Gambold became enamoured with them. Philip Henry Molther had created immense confusion and bitterness, by preaching the unscriptural doctrine, that, “to search the Scriptures, to pray, or to communicate, before we have faith, is to seek salvation by works; and such works must be laid aside before faith can be received.” Strangely enough, Gambold, and also Westley Hall (another of the Oxford Methodists), adopted this dangerous delusion. Hence the following from Wesley’s Journal:—

The reader has here a characteristic specimen of Wesley’s refined irony, and determined adherence to the word of God. In the latter, Gambold sometimes failed. He was still a young man of only thirty; and yet not a few of the years of his past life had been worse than wasted, by his indulging in the philosophical speculations of the ancients, instead of taking the Scriptures for his guide; and now, when he had emerged from the mists of the early ages of the Christian Church, he suddenly plunged into the delusive fog of the newly-arrived Philip Henry Molther. How long he continued there we have no means of knowing; but one thing is certain, that, the above-named heresy occasioned contentions which created a partial estrangement between him and his old friend Wesley. In July, 1741, Wesley had to preach before the Oxford University, in the church of St Mary’s;[177] and, being in doubt as to the subject of his sermon, whether it should be from the text, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” or from, “How is the faithful city become an harlot!” he went to Oxford, a month before the time of its delivery, to advise with Gambold concerning it, but met with a response far from friendly. Wesley writes:—

Such was another of the disastrous results of Molther’s visit to the London Moravians: Wesley and Gambold, bound together by hundreds of endearing facts, were parted; and, though not converted into foes, were no longer friends.

It is a melancholy fact, that this estrangement was not temporary. Twelve months before, the friendship between Whitefield and Wesley had been ruptured; but, in 1742, there was a sincere and hearty reunion, which lasted until death. In the case of Gambold, it was otherwise, but through no fault of Wesley’s. On December 23, 1745, Charles Wesley wrote as follows:—

Yea, more than this. Eighteen years afterwards, Wesley himself made the following entries in his journal:—

Gambold would not resume the friendship; but, to the very last, Wesley held him in high esteem. Only twelve months before Gambold’s death, he spoke of him as being one of the most “sensible men in England.”[128] But to return to Oxford, where the breach first occurred.

Wesley’s sermon, before the University, was preached and published; and it is a curious fact, that, of all the sermons Gambold ever preached, only two have appeared in print, and, that, one of the two was delivered in the same year, in the same church, and before the same audience, as this of Wesley’s was. Gambold’s sermon was founded upon the text, “And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people;” and was entitled: “Christianity Tidings of Joy. A Sermon preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, December 27, 1741. Published at the request of Mr. Vice-Chancellor.”

The two sermons were widely different. Wesley’s was intensely practical and faithful; an earnest and comprehensive enforcement of experimental and practical religion, with a direct, searching, personal application, which, under the circumstances, was much more likely to be censured than applauded. Gambold’s was much more than twice the length of Wesley’s; but not half so simple and useful. Wesley’s was full of the Methodist doctrine of the day; Gambold’s was a metaphysical disquisition, which might, with consistency, have been uttered by any of the Oxford divines opposed to the Methodist movement. It would not be true to say, that, his remarks were not pertinent; but they were not what such an audience might have expected from a newly converted Methodist. How to account for this we know not. His sermon is long, learned, and able; but it fails to reach the heart and conscience as Wesley’s does. Besides,[179] there is one sentence in it which, as coming from such a man, is perfectly perplexing. He expressly asserts that “a man’s sins are forgiven in baptism;” and that baptism, “the channel of remission, is qualification enough for heaven, to those who die upon it.” To reconcile the discrepancy between this and Gambold’s own statements as already quoted, is difficult, if not impossible. The fact seems to be, that, though he had embraced the doctrine of salvation by faith only, he was still infected with some of the High Church principles of the Oxford Methodists; and his evangelical and able ministry was marred and made misty by the philosophical speculations and reasonings in which he had so long indulged. That he was a trustful and saved believer in Jesus Christ, there cannot be a doubt; but he failed to announce the great doctrines, which he had been taught by Böhler, with the simplicity, clearness, earnestness, and pathos that Wesley did. Wesley’s heart was full of them; and, in all his wanderings, they were almost the only theme of his daily ministry. Gambold held, and also preached them; but, perhaps, from his metaphysical cast of mind, they were not so clearly and forcibly presented as by his quondam friend.

Nine months after the delivery of his sermon before the University, Gambold formally severed himself from the Established Church, and united with the Moravians. He was the fifth of the Oxford Methodists who had joined the Brethren. Of these, the two Wesleys had seceded,—or, it might almost be said,—had been virtually expelled. The third, Benjamin Ingham, in this very year, 1742, transferred to the Moravians more than fifty societies, which he had been the instrument of raising in two of the northern counties. Westley Hall, the fourth, need not here be further mentioned. Gambold, the fifth, was the only one who died in the Moravian communion. The step he took was well-considered. He might seem odd; but he was unquestionably sincere. The Moravians in England were only of a few years’ standing, and had many faults; but there was one thing in existence among them, and practised by them, after which Gambold, newly converted, longed with the utmost earnestness,—Christian fellowship. Of this, there was none at Stanton-Harcourt; and it was only now, in 1742, that his old friend Wesley thoroughly[180] succeeded in making such a provision for the Methodists, by dividing their Societies into Classes. This was the thing for which Gambold pined. It could be enjoyed nowhere except among either Wesley’s people or the Moravians. Gambold and Wesley were no longer friends; and, hence, the union of Gambold with the Brethren. With this view, he applied to them for admission, committing himself to their direction, and having no choice with regard to any station or office to be held by him in the future. In the beginning of October, 1742, he simply writes:—

Of course he had previously communicated his intention to the Bishop of Oxford, and also to his patron, Lord Harcourt; and both had strongly urged him to change his purpose: but his resolution was fixed. In due form he resigned his living, and issued an address to his parishioners, of which the following is the substance:—

Nothing need be added to this, except the remark that, in these days, when the utility and necessity of meetings for religious fellowship are so boldly called in question, an argument in their favour may be taken from the yearning experience of this Oxford Methodist.

Gambold spent twenty-nine years in close and active connection with the Moravians; but his life, compared with the career of Wesley and of Whitefield, was uneventful.

At the time of his admission, “the congregation of the Lamb, with its officers and servants as settled in London,” consisted of twenty-one married men, thirteen married women, three widowers, five widows, sixteen single men, and fourteen single women, a total of seventy-two persons. This was a small affair. The Moravians had the start of Wesley’s society in London; and yet that Society, in February, 1743, numbered not fewer than 1950 members.[129] It is also a curious fact, that, nearly one half of the Moravian Society were office-bearers; that is, “Congregation Elders, Vice Elders, Eldresses, Waiters, Choristers, Admonitors, Censors, Servants, and Sick Waiters.” Excepting Gambold and James Hutton, none seem to have had the advantages of education; and, probably, all the men were tradesmen, journeymen, or[182] mechanics.[130] This was the society Gambold joined, for the sake of Christian fellowship.

His stay in London was not long. On the 14th of May, 1743, he married, and, for eighteen months afterwards, abode in Wales, chiefly at Haverfordwest, where he kept a school, and preached occasionally.

Gambold returned to London in November, 1744; and here, with trifling exceptions, he seems to have resided until his death, in 1771. Here, at Fetter Lane, he preached with power, eloquence, and sacred unction; and numbers were benefited by his ministry. His views of baptism, and his mode of administering it, may be gathered from a paragraph in the “Memoirs of James Hutton,” where, under date of September 13, 1745, it is said,—

As already stated, the Moravian Society in London was small; but its meetings were numerous. From a list of the “public and private opportunities of the Brethren at London, throughout the whole week,” in February, 1747, we learn that they had four sermons every Sunday, two in English and two in German; also German preaching every Tuesday, and English every Tuesday and Thursday. Besides these services, however, there were twenty-two others on Sunday, six on Monday, five on Tuesday, thirteen on Wednesday, nine on Thursday, five on Friday, and five on Saturday, making seventy-two religious services every week, exclusive of monthly general meetings, prayer days, children’s prayer days, and sacraments. To what extent Gambold took part in these Moravian meetings, it is impossible to say; but, numerically considered, there was, beyond a doubt, sufficient scope to gratify his longings for religious fellowship.

In 1747, Gambold, accompanied by Ingham, Okeley, Hutton,[183] and Cennick, paid a visit to Hernhaag, where he continued for several months, and gained the respect and love of all who knew him. His visit was at an important crisis in the Brethren’s history; and, probably, was occasioned by the disastrous fanaticism which had broken out in that important settlement. In 1738, a building was begun at Hernhaag, designed to serve as an asylum for persons educated in the German Calvinistic Church, and persecuted on account of their connection with the Brethren. In 1740, a congregation was regularly organized; and, in a few years, Hernhaag contained a greater number of inhabitants than Herrnhut. Here boarding-schools were established for the education of the children of the Moravian ministers, whether employed in the service of the church at home or in foreign lands; and the place altogether was one of great importance. In 1746, however, there was the utmost danger of this Christian settlement being ruined. Here began an evil, which soon became widespread, and which required vigorous and long-continued efforts to annihilate. The following is extracted from Holmes’ “History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren” (Vol. i., p. 399).

What part Gambold took in this affair at Herrnhaag, and with what results, we have no means of knowing; but certain it is, that, this pestiferous lusciousness spread to England, and, for many a long year afterwards, disgraced the Moravian hymns, and justly exposed the Moravians themselves to the censures and taunts of both friends and foes. It would be easy to quote instances illustrative of this, from the English Moravian Hymn Book, “published chiefly for the Use of the Congregations in Union with the Brethren’s Church,” in 1754; but the reader would not be edified by such quotations.

The Moravians in England, when compared with the Methodists, could hardly be considered a prosperous community. From the first, a considerable number of their members belonged to other churches; and, in 1749, an effort was made to multiply such extra-ecclesiastical adherents, by instituting what was called an English Tropus, the object being to provide a means whereby the members of other communities, and, notably, of the Church of England, might be enrolled in the Moravian Brotherhood, without severing themselves from the churches of which they already formed a part. This was one of the subjects discussed at a synod held in London in the above-mentioned year; and, to facilitate the matter, Gambold addressed the following letter “To Papa, i.e. Count Zinzendorf,” the beginning of which, to mention nothing else, shows how far even Gambold had fallen into the offensive use of the adulatory language of Moravian sycophants.

This long and tiresome letter is not without its use. For eight years, Gambold had been a Moravian; he was in the vigour of his manhood; but his mode of thinking and style of writing were not improved; nay, had become as murky as the religious clouds in which he lived. Besides, he was only eleven years the junior of Zinzendorf, and was naturally and scholastically his equal, if not his superior; and, yet, contaminated by the sycophancy of his associates, Gambold, the Oxford student, the learned mystic, the dramatic poet, condescends to use the offensive twaddle then so common, and must needs address the ambitious foreigner as “Papa,” and “Most dear and paternal Heart.” Think of Wesley, or even of Ingham, employing such epithets as these! The manliness of the man was being dwarfed by the fooleries of his friends.

But, apart from this, Gambold’s letter is a curious production, and not without interest at the present day, as containing a scheme for a kind of amalgamation of some of the Moravians with the Established Church. The Moravians differed from the Methodists; for Zinzendorf, at the very Synod held immediately after the date of Gambold’s letter, formally announced that the English Moravians were “now openly in the eye of the world acknowledged to be a Church;” whereas Wesley, to the day of his death, denied this distinction to the Methodists, affirming, in the strongest terms, that the Methodists were not a Church, but only Societies within a Church. Thus, the position of the two communities was different. To be consistent, the Methodists might have claimed, and, indeed, ought to have claimed, membership with some existing Church, beyond the circle of the Society enclosure; but, according to Zinzendorf and the London Synod of 1749, the Moravians were themselves a Church; and, hence, for any Moravian, like Gambold, to profess himself a member of the Anglican Church, was, in point of fact, to claim to be a member of two Churches instead of one. This was a grave inconsistency; but, in accordance with Gambold’s suggestions, an attempt was made to carry it into effect.

The proposed Synod met in London, in September, 1749; and “the Most Reverend Thomas Wilson, Bishop of Sodor[188] and Man,” already in the eighty-sixth year of his age, with great formality, and with a pomp of language almost startling, was “chosen into the order and number of the Anetecessors of the General Synod of the Brethren of the Anatolic Unity.” It was also decreed further, “that, the aforesaid Most Reverend Prelate ought to be offered the administration of the Reformed tropus in our hierarchy for life, with full liberty, in case of emergency, to employ, as his substitute, the Rev. Thomas Wilson, Royal Almoner, Doctor of Theology, and Prebendary of St. Peter’s, Westminster.”

The good old Bishop, with joy and thankfulness, accepted the office to which the Moravians had elected him;[132] and, thus, Gambold and Zinzendorf succeeded in securing the patronage of an English Prelate. Practically, the arrangement was of little use, perhaps of none at all. Five years afterwards, the venerable and pious Bishop was gathered to his fathers, at the age of ninety-one.

Moravianism and its illustrious “Papa” had now arrived at the zenith of their offensive ambition. It would be useless, and also far from pleasant, to disinter the history of the Moravian Brotherhood at this important crisis. A few of the facts have been mentioned in Ingham’s Memoir; and nothing more need now be added, except, that, while Zinzendorf was almost idolatrously honoured by the Moravians themselves, he was the subject of severe but just attacks outside the pale of his own community. Prudently, though perhaps somewhat arrogantly, he generally declined to defend himself, partly on the ground that royalty always acted thus; but he found it desirable to do something else which was almost tantamount to this. In this same year, 1749, he published, in his own private printing-office, a folio volume of 184 pages, entitled, “Acta Fratrum Unitatis in Angliâ, 1749;” the whole of which, with the exception of the sixth section of the second part, was translated or edited by Gambold. The first part of this curious work consists entirely of Acts of Parliament and Reports of Parliamentary Committees in reference to the Brethren, together with original documents adduced as proofs of the propositions which had been made.[189] The second part embraces:—1. A paraphrase of the twenty-one Articles of the Confession of Augsburg; 2. The Brethren’s method of preaching the Gospel according to the Synod of Berne; 3. The Moravian Litany; 4. Extracts from the Minutes of Moravian Synods; 5. Zinzendorf’s Rationale of the Brethren’s Liturgies; 6. Original passages from the writings of the early fathers of the Church, and of theologians of the middle ages.

This was not the only service which Gambold rendered to Zinzendorf and the Moravians. On June 4, 1750, he sent to Spangenberg a long letter, which was afterwards published in a pamphlet, with the title, “An Essay towards giving some just ideas of the personal character of Count Zinzendorf, the present Advocate and Ordinary of the Brethren’s Church: In several Letters wrote by Eye-Witnesses. Published by James Hutton, late of Westminster, and now of Chelsea. London, 1755.” 8vo. Gambold’s letter is too long for insertion here; but throughout it is a vindication of the Count,—the best doubtless that Gambold could supply,—and a few extracts may be useful:—

How far this serves as a vindication or apology, the reader must form his own opinion; but it exhibits the fidelity of Gambold to his German leader, and also indicates some of the principles which Gambold himself entertained at this period of his history.

Gambold did more than this for the censured Zinzendorf. In 1751, a five shillings volume was published, with the title, “Maxims, Theological Ideas, and Sentences, out of the[192] present Ordinary of the Brethren’s Dissertations and Discourses, from the year 1738 to 1747. Extracted by John Gambold, M.A. 8vo.” In his Preface, Gambold writes:—

To this there could be no objection; but it may be doubted whether Gambold’s extracts were as impartial as he wished them to be regarded.

In 1753, Gambold rendered another service to the Count, by the publication of “The Ordinary’s Remarks upon the manner of his being treated in Controversy. Translated from the High-Dutch, with a Preface, by John Gambold, Minister of the Moravian Chapel in Fetter Lane.”

And shortly after this, in 1754, Gambold issued, “A Modest Plea for the Church of the Brethren,” of which publication, Lavington, Bishop of Exeter, wrote:—

Lavington was a bitter antagonist, and what he says must be received with caution; but still, the very title of Gambold’s production indicates that the Brethren’s Church was hardly perfect.

More than this. In 1754, was published the largest hymn-book in the English language: “A Collection of Hymns of the Children of God in all Ages, from the Beginning till now. In two Parts. Designed chiefly for the Use of the Congregations in Union with the Brethren’s Church.” Two Volumes, pp. 380, and 390.[134] 8vo. Zinzendorf projected this; but[193] Gambold was his chief editor.[135] The Preface, which probably was Gambold’s production, contains the following description of the Brotherhood:—

The last statement is remarkable, and greatly to the honour of the Brethren’s Church, especially when it is remembered that only thirty years had elapsed since the Church was founded at Herrnhuth, in Germany.

From these brief notices of his literary labours, it will be seen, that, Gambold was a faithful, unflinching friend of the illustrious Count. The English Moravians were passing through the terrible crisis already mentioned in the Memoir of Ingham. They were nearly wrecked; and not undeservedly. Ingham left them; but Gambold did his utmost to defend them; and, as the chief English member of their community, was ordained a “Chor-Episcopus,” in other words, an Assistant Bishop. The ceremony took place at a Synod, held at Lindsey House, London, in November, 1754; and was performed by Bishops Watteville, and John and David Nitschmann.[136]

Little more remains to be told of this sincere and devoted man. For seventeen years, he wore the honours of his office “with humility and diffidence.” The writer of the Memoir, prefixed to Gambold’s works, remarks:—

It has been already stated, that, of the thousands of sermons which Gambold preached, during the thirty-eight years of his Christian ministry, only two were printed. One of these was delivered, before the University of Oxford, in 1741; the other, in Fetter Lane Chapel, London, on a National Fast Day, in 1756.

At the latter period, the nation was in a state of great excitement and alarm. War with France was inevitable. February 6, 1756, was observed as a day of humiliation and prayer. Such a fast in London had not been seen since the Restoration. Business was suspended; and churches and chapels everywhere were crowded. Gambold’s sermon was founded upon the text, “Tremble, thou Earth, at the presence of the Lord;” and, when published, was entitled, “The Reasonableness and Extent of Religious Reverence.” Though somewhat metaphysical in its style, and mode of reasoning, it displays ability, and is worth perusing.

So far as is known, there are only two other works with the publication of which Gambold was connected.[137] One was a beautiful and comprehensive Catechism, of about sixty pages, 12mo, published in the year 1765, with the title, “A Short Summary of Christian Doctrine, in the Way of Question and Answer: The Answers being all made in the sound and venerable Words of the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England. To which are added, Some Extracts out of the Homilies. Collected for the Service of a few Persons, Members of the Established Church; but imagined not to be unuseful to others.” Two facts are made manifest by this publication; namely, that, Gambold’s creed was orthodox; and that, notwithstanding his Moravian bishopric, he had still a warm affection for the Church of England.

The other book, referred to above, was Cranz’s History of Greenland. This was, in the first instance, published in Germany; but the General Synod of 1765, directed that it should be translated into English; and a great part of the translation, and the whole of the editing was devolved upon Gambold. The work was published, in London, in 1767, with the following title: “The History of Greenland: containing a Description of the Country and its Inhabitants; and particularly a Relation of the Mission carried on, for above thirty years, by the Unitas Fratrum at New Herrnhuth and Lichtenfels, in that Country. By David Cranz. Translated from the High Dutch; and illustrated with Maps and other Copperplates. London, 1767. Printed for the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen.” 8vo; vol. i., pp. 405; vol. ii., pp. 497.

About eighty copies were distributed among the nobility and gentry, for the purpose of enlightening them respecting the Moravian Mission; and the writer of the Memoirs of James Hutton, says:—

For ten years after his episcopal ordination, Gambold resided chiefly in London, employing himself in every branch of service for the congregation settled there, and in regular correspondence with all his fellow-labourers of the same communion throughout England.

In 1760, the death of Zinzendorf occurred; and four years later, a General Synod was held at Marienborn, which Gambold attended. Besides Himself, there were present, eleven bishops, forty-six presbyters, deacons, and lay-elders, and thirty-seven deputies from different congregations. It was opened, with great solemnity, on the 1st of July, and continued its deliberations, by several adjournments, in forty-four sessions, till the 29th of August.

Ten years had elapsed since the last General Synod; and, hence, many and momentous were the questions that had to be considered. Their sphere of labour had been[197] considerably enlarged, especially in heathen countries. There had been the long and embittered controversy in England. Some of their Settlements had been disturbed and injured by the existing war. Zinzendorf, their chief, had died; and the debt of the Brethren’s Church amounted to the alarming sum of £150,000.[138] It is unnecessary to enter into the details of this important Conference. Suffice it to say, that, from this period, Moravianism became a purer, healthier, and more scriptural thing than it had been before.

Gambold secured the respect and love of the Brethren composing this General Synod; and was in a position to be of greater service to his community than ever. His work, however, was nearly ended. After the sessions of the Synod were concluded, he returned to London, where he continued to reside till 1768, when he was seized with “a dropsical asthma,” from which his sufferings were such, that his friends, who were about him, apprehended that every day would be his last. Hoping to be benefited by the change, he removed to his native air; and, for a time, there were flickering hopes of amended health. Wishing to render himself useful to the Brethren’s Church at Haverfordwest, he exerted his failing energies to the utmost. As far as he was able, he visited the sick, and poor, and tried to comfort them in their distresses. When he could, he preached; his last text being “Set your affections on things above.” When not able to preach in public, he explained the Scriptures in private, and held fellowship with his Christian friends. His work was done; and it only remains to see how the Oxford Methodist, and Moravian Bishop died.

In a letter dated October 11, 1770, after stating that his asthma was so relieved that he could now lie down in bed, and obtain a little sleep, he continued:—

The last time that he attended the public celebration of the Lord’s Supper, was only five days before his death. At the conclusion of it, weak and wasted as he was, he commenced singing a verse of praise and thanksgiving, and the impression produced was such, that the whole congregation began to weep.

From the nature of his disease, it was seldom he could sleep; but he was always patient and confiding. “All He does is well done,” said he; “let us only look to Him, and the end will be blessed.” He was deeply thankful for the kind offices of his friends, and especially for those of his loving wife, who nursed him, in every stage of his illness, with the greatest tenderness. Just before the close of all his sufferings, he was heard to pray: “Dear Saviour! remember my poor name, and come, come soon!” His prayer was answered. Shortly after these words were uttered, he peacefully[199] expired, on September 13, 1771, leaving behind him, besides his widow, two children, a son and a daughter, to lament their loss.[139]

Gambold, like Wesley, wrote an epitaph on himself; and, as it is a fair specimen of the better class of his poetical productions, it is here subjoined:—

Though Bishop Gambold was a man of great learning, and of extensive reading, especially in the early writings of the Christian Church, he himself was not a voluminous author. Excepting his translations, and the works he merely edited, all that he published of his own were two sermons; his Short Summary of Christian Doctrine; a few Prefaces; and some brief Hymns and Poems. In this respect, he differed widely from his old friend Wesley. Then again, though an able and effective preacher, his pulpit exercises were almost entirely confined to the small village of Stanton-Harcourt, and the Brethren’s Chapel in Fetter Lane, London. In this also, he differed, not only from Wesley, but from Whitefield. Still, it would be incorrect to say, that his life, to a great extent, was a useless one. Wesley, after publishing one of Gambold’s poetic pieces, is reported to have said: “And this light was buried under a bushel! How might he have enlightened all Christendom!”[140] We scarcely concur in this. Gambold, notwithstanding his learning and his piety, was constitutionally too timorous and retiring to be the man to enlighten[200] all Christendom; but, at the same time, he was of such service to the Moravian Church, that, it is an extravagance to say, “his light was buried under a bushel.” With all its weaknesses, follies, and faults, at the beginning of its history, the Moravian Brotherhood set a Christian and heroic example to other Churches, in its missions to the heathen; and the man who chiefly helped to edify, purify, improve, and perpetuate such a community, did no mean service to the cause of the Divine Redeemer. Gambold’s poetry has been over-estimated by Methodist and Moravian writers; and, perhaps also, his natural ability and learning; but all must admit, that he was an exceedingly devout and earnest Christian; and that, though he might, for a season, be somewhat tainted with the religious lusciousness of the early Moravian society, his moral character, from first to last, was without a speck.

Perhaps it ought to be added, that, a beautiful portrait of Gambold was painted by Abraham Louis Brandt, an earnest and laborious Moravian minister, and that an exquisite engraving from the original picture was prefixed to Gambold’s works, when first published in 1789.

James Hervey, with great appropriateness, was designated by Charles Wesley, the “Isocrates” of the Oxford Methodists.[141] The old Greek rhetorician was not an orator; the weakness of his voice and his natural timidity prevented that; but the polish of his style in writing and the harmonious construction of his sentences obtained for him a fame which seems to be undying. And so in regard to Hervey. He lacked Whitefield’s eloquence, and Wesley’s constructive faculty; but he had a peculiar mental quality, which invested his productions with an air of gracefulness beyond the power of either of his friends to imitate. Critics, great and small, genuine and pretentious, have condemned Hervey’s style; and yet, notwithstanding this, few books have passed through more editions than his have done; and, after the lapse of a hundred years since their author’s death, few are greater favourites at the present day. Why is this? Perhaps some of his censors can answer the question.

James Hervey, like the Wesleys and Gambold, was the son of a country clergyman. He was born at Hardingstone, near Northampton, on the 26th of February, 1714; his father holding the two neighbouring livings of Weston-Favel and Collingtree. His ancestors appear to have been highly respectable. One of them was a judge; another had been member of Parliament for the town of Northampton; and the patronage of the above-mentioned livings had been, for many years, in the possession of the family.

Until the age of seven, Hervey was under the tuition of his mother. He then became a day-scholar in the free grammar school at Northampton, where he displayed great dexterity in[202] the usual gymnastic exercises of boys like himself; and where, in the course of ten years, he learned enough of the Latin and Greek languages, to enable him to matriculate at the Oxford University. His progress, however, would probably have been greater than what it was, had it not been for the execrable conduct of his master, who determined that no one in the school should learn faster than his own stupid son. “Hervey himself told me,” says Mr. Ryland, “that his master never made but one remark in reading the Greek Testament, and that was a very foolish one.”

When only a boy, seventeen years of age, Hervey, full of youthful frolic, left the quietude of his father’s house for the animated scenes, the high advantages, and peculiar dangers of collegiate life. It was something infinitely more sacred than an accident which led to his admission into Lincoln College, where Wesley was a fellow and a tutor, and where, for the last two years, the Methodists had frequently held their meetings.[142]

The effects of the idleness enforced upon him at the Northampton free grammar school, were felt at Oxford. It was difficult for a sprightly and clever boy, like Hervey, to lay aside, all at once, the unstudious habits of the last ten years, and to devote himself, with unflagging earnestness, to the academical pursuits which now demanded his attention. For two years, from 1731 to 1733, he was idle at Oxford, as he had been obliged to be idle at Northampton. At the end of that time, he became acquainted with the Methodists, and distinguished himself, as they also did, by his devotion to the duties of religion, and to his collegiate studies. Wesley rendered him considerable assistance, especially by giving him instructions in the Hebrew language.

Thus wrote Hervey, at the age of twenty-two, when he had taken his degree of Bachelor of Arts, and was leaving the[203] university to enter upon the duties of the Christian ministry. Eleven years afterwards, when in the midst of the fame arising from the recent publication of his “Meditations among the Tombs,” etc., he wrote to Wesley another letter:—

Here we pause, to take a glance at Hervey during his five years’ residence at Oxford. John Gambold, writing of him, while he was still at college, says:—

Hervey became one of the Oxford Methodists in 1733, when he was only nineteen years of age. In the same year, he wrote as follows to his sister:—

This letter has been inserted without abridgment, 1. Because, it evinces, that, even while in his teens, Hervey cultivated that flowingly harmonious style, which was one of the chief characteristics of all his publications. And, 2. Because, it is thoroughly unevangelical, and, in spirit, such as might be naturally expected from an Oxford Methodist seeking salvation by his own good works. 3. It was written at the time when Hervey first united himself with Wesley and his Pharisaic friends.

There are several other letters, written during the years of Hervey’s collegiate life; but, for want of space, they can be only sparingly employed:—

All good, so far as it goes, especially from a youth of twenty; but not a word of Christ, or of being saved by His mediatorial merits, and by the exercise of faith in Him.

His sister wished him to turn poet; but, instead of writing poetry himself, he sent her “The Last Day,” by Dr. Young; and wrote as follows:—

The next are extracts from a long letter, of six octavo pages, entirely on the Christian eucharist, and addressed to Whitefield:—

This was a letter widely different from those which Hervey had written to his sister. In them, he wrote as a man trusting for salvation solely in his own good works. In this, he propounds the doctrine, that, salvation is entirely owing to the sacrifice of Christ; and, that its blessings are obtained (not by the exercise of faith, but,) in the participation of the Christian sacrament. It need not be added, that, this was one of the chief doctrines of the Oxford Methodists.

The two Wesleys and Ingham left Oxford in 1735, and the time was now approaching for Hervey’s departure. Hence, the following letter to his father:—

Though not ordained, when Hervey left Oxford, in June, 1736, and returned to his father’s house at Hardingstone, he, at once, commenced holding meetings among his neighbours. The following letter, addressed to Mr. Chapman, one of the Oxford Methodists, refers to this, and contains Hervey’s views on what ought to be Chapman’s behaviour among the polite inhabitants of Bath, whither he was going:—

Hervey was a churchman; but he was not a bigot. At this period of his history, one of the students in Doctor Doddridge’s Academy, at Northampton, was the celebrated Rev. Risdon Darracott, then a youth, nineteen years of age. Hervey and young Darracott had had an interview in the house of a member of Dr. Doddridge’s church. Darracott was endeavouring to form a religious society among Doddridge’s students, somewhat similar to the society of Methodists at Oxford; and the interview, just mentioned, led him to write to Hervey for advice. The latter had recently left Oxford, and the following is an extract from his answer:—

Hervey, as an Oxford Methodist, was doubtless speaking from experience; and his reasons for religious fellowship are well worth weighing.

A few weeks after the date of the above, Hervey proceeded to Oxford to be ordained; and, whilst there, wrote again, to this young Dissenter, as follows:—

Another letter, written previous to his ordination, shall be given, at full length. Wesley was now in Georgia; and Hervey addressed to him the following:—

Seventeen days, after the date of the above letter, Hervey was ordained a deacon at Christ Church, by Dr. Potter, Bishop of Oxford.[151]

One of the Oxford Methodists was Charles Kinchin, Fellow[213] of Corpus Christi College.[152] On leaving Oxford, he was presented with the rectory of Dummer, near Basingstoke; and now, in 1736, Hervey became his curate. This is not the place to describe his curacy; but further extracts from his letters, during the time he held it, will serve to illustrate his character.

His brother, being desirous to be apprenticed in London, received from him the following:—

At the time when this letter was addressed to his brother, he received a sort of petition, signed by the inhabitants of Collingtree, one of his father’s parishes, praying him to become their minister. In his long reply, dated June 29, 1737, he did not absolutely refuse to accede to their request; but sketched what a minister of Christ ought to be, and exhorted them to ask the great Head of the Church, to supply them with such an one. The letter is too long for insertion here; but, it shows, that, this young man of twenty-three had correct and exalted notions of ministerial duty. The standard of excellence was high, and but seldom reached; but it was not higher than it ought to be.

Meanwhile, the services of Hervey were not confined to Dummer. Even the Oxford Methodists, to some extent,[214] were itinerant ministers, and, by interchange, occupied each other’s pulpits. Hence the following:—

In the early part of the year 1738, Hervey suffered from enfeebled health; and accepted the invitation of Paul Orchard, Esq., who resided at Stoke Abbey,[154] a beautifully situated old mansion in Devonshire.

The foregoing, to Mr. Orchard, was written three days after Whitefield embarked for Georgia, and Wesley returned to England. No sooner did Hervey hear of his friend Wesley’s safe arrival, than he wrote him the following loving and interesting letter:—

Hervey’s health did not improve at the beautiful residence of his friend, Orchard. Hence, four months after his settlement at Stoke Abbey, he wrote to his sister as follows:—

For upwards of two years, Hervey was the cherished guest of Mr. Orchard and his family. David and Jonathan were not warmer or more faithful friends than these. Hence the following remarkable agreement:—

While Hervey was thus resting, and recruiting his health, in Devonshire, Wesley and his brother Charles became acquainted with Peter Böhler, found peace with God, associated with the Moravians, and began to preach the doctrine of salvation by faith only, with a fervour and earnestness, which excited almost national attention, and brought upon them, in varied forms, the malice of their enemies. Hervey, in his beautiful retirement, heard of this, and wrote to Wesley as follows[155]:—

The first of these rumours was a calumny; for, while Wesley inculcated faith, he also strenuously enforced good works. The second was not without foundation; for Wesley himself writes:—

The two Wesleys and Whitefield, full of the love of God, and with faces beaming with peace and joy through believing in Christ Jesus, were now about the most abused men in England. All the churches were closed against them; and fields, streets, and village greens were their chief preaching places. The mob treated them with violence. The clergy used the pulpit in denouncing them. The press was employed in spreading scandalous reports concerning them. Some of their old friends were puzzled, and began to stand aloof from them. But, in the midst of all, they themselves were happy; and were honoured, almost every day, in being made the instruments of turning men from sin to holiness, and from the power of Satan unto God.

Hervey’s health was such, that, even had he wished, he was utterly unable to join his friends in this their bold and marvellously successful out-door mission to the unconverted masses. While they were preaching to assembled thousands on Hannam Mount, Kennington Common, and Blackheath, he was being nursed, with the greatest tenderness, amid the comforts and beauties of Stoke Abbey; and was preaching, as opportunity permitted, and as his strength allowed, in some of the neighbouring churches, and especially in Mr. Thompson’s, of St. Gennys, Cornwall. Though absent, however, he was not forgotten. Whitefield, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, wrote to him, inquiring whether he had found the same blessings, which he and the Wesleys had.[219] Hervey’s answer was so beautifully ingenuous; and, moreover, is so important as bearing upon the subject of his conversion, that, it is given here without curtailment.

The friendship of these Oxford Methodists was most sincere and cordial; but was not unruffled. All was not plain sailing. Breakers were a-head. It is a well-known fact, that, early in the year 1739, Whitefield and Wesley, being shut out of the pulpits of the Established Church, commenced their marvellous career of out-door preaching. Astonishing effects followed. All sorts of rumours were current. Enemies were active, and, as already stated, even friends were staggered. In his Devonshire retreat, Hervey was excited, and wrote to the Rev. Mr. Kinchin, of Dummer, an immensely long letter from which the following is an extract:—

To some extent, Hervey was evidently misinformed. It is possible, it is not unlikely, that, Wesley and Whitefield had advised their brother Methodist, Mr. Kinchin, to become an itinerant preacher; but there is no evidence, that, they ever wished either him or any of their friends to leave the Established Church, or, that, they ever entertained the idea of leaving the Church themselves. Still, there can be no doubt, that Hervey had heard such reports as these, and was intensely anxious on this account. Hervey refers to the diffusion of “erroneous and pernicious notions.” These were, probably, not so much the doctrines of justification by faith, the witness of the Spirit, and cognate truths, as the things mentioned in the following letter, addressed to Whitefield, three weeks after the foregoing letter was sent to Mr. Kinchin:—

Remembering the rumours of the day, such a letter as the above is not surprising. Falsehoods concerning Wesley and his friends were rife. No report was too extravagant to be believed. Unfortunately, Whitefield’s answer to Hervey is not forthcoming; but the invalided recluse was soon led into the way of truth. Hence, the following, also addressed to Whitefield, pointing out the means by which Hervey had been induced to renounce his Oxford Pharisaism, and to embrace the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ only. The letter is too valuable to be abridged:—

Hervey and Whitefield were young men, both twenty-five years of age; but they were not novices in religious knowledge. By extensive reading, by conversation, by docility, above all, by the blessed Bible, and by the Spirit’s teaching, they had, at this early period of their history, arrived at theological conclusions, from which they never wavered to the end of life. Exception may be taken to some of the expressions of Hervey in the foregoing letter; and to the Calvinistic views of both; but they believed what they preached; and they undoubtedly thought and felt that their doctrines were founded upon the Divine authority of the sacred Scriptures. It is no part of the plan of the present work to defend or to attack the doctrines taught by the men whose histories are sketched; but simply to furnish honest information respecting their manner of life, their teaching, their religious experience, their success, and the termination of their toil and suffering.

In 1740, Hervey’s health was sufficiently restored to justify his undertaking the curacy of Bideford, where he continued till about the month of July, 1743. His congregation was large, but his stipend small, amounting to not more than £60 a year. Here he planned and partly executed his “Meditations among the Tombs,” and his “Reflections on a Flower Garden.” A ride from Bideford to Kilhampton suggested the former; and the latter were, in part, composed in the summer-house of a pleasant garden, belonging to the family with whom he lodged. At his entrance upon his ministry at Bideford, he wrote as follows to his friend, Mr. Orchard, in whose hospitable mansion he had been so long a guest:—

Another letter, written at Bideford, and addressed to Whitefield, will be welcome. It strikingly exhibits the change in Hervey’s views and religious character:—

In the discharge of his ministerial duties at Bideford Hervey was exemplary. He preached twice every Sunday; and, on Tuesdays and Fridays, expounded part of one of the Lessons for the day; except when he examined the children, and gave explanations of the Church’s Catechism. Like his friends Wesley and Whitefield, he also formed a religious society, which continued to meet above forty years. This brought upon him considerable reproach; but, “so far from being ashamed” of what he had done, he wrote,—

Brave words were these! The Wesleys and Whitefield were encountering murderous mobs in all directions; and, so far from complaining, were “rejoicing, that, they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus Christ.” The feebleness of Hervey’s body rendered it impossible for him to undertake the rough mission work, which was so zealously undertaken by his friends; but, the Christian heroism of his soul, rendered him not unworthy of their brotherhood. The men, one and all, were animated with the spirit of “the noble army of martyrs;” and, at any moment, were prepared to die for the sake of the Lord Jesus. No wonder, that, such men were successful, and, that, their memories are wreathed with[228] unfading laurels; while the names of their “enemies, persecutors, and slanderers,” are either forgotten, or only remembered with contempt.

The Rev. Mr. Nichols, the Rector of Bideford, died early in the year 1741, only a few months after Hervey had entered upon his labours there; and, as the Bideford living was a valuable one, there were a considerable number of aspirants after it. On March 2, 1741, Hervey wrote to a friend as follows:—

Shortly after this, Hervey was summoned home, on account of the serious illness of his father. Hence the following:—

Hervey did return to Bideford; but, at the end of about two years, the new rector dismissed him, against the united request of his parishioners, who offered to maintain him at their own expense. This, to a man of Hervey’s exquisite sensitiveness of feeling, was no trivial trial. To the people[229] of Bideford he was devotedly attached. He writes, while still among them:—

Before following Hervey to his next sphere of labour, further extracts from his correspondence, at and about this period, will help to illustrate his character.

Hervey was an earnestly religious man, a devout student of the holy Bible, and an extensive reader of pious authors, but he was also a lover of at least some of the light and popular literature of the age. Hence the following to his sister:—

Such a confession is not surprising in a man who was now employed in writing “Meditations among the Tombs,” and “Reflections on a Flower Garden.”

Hervey seems to have left Bideford in the month of July, 1743; but, on his way to Northamptonshire, he halted at Bath, where he resided several weeks, and wrote a number of his most interesting letters. The following are extracts from some of them:—

The following is an extract from an enormously long letter, of eighteen printed pages, addressed to a clergyman, who had been preaching in the Abbey Church.

These were the three points explained and enforced in Hervey’s pungent and scorching letter, sent to the clerical sycophant, who, because the sinners, in his crowded church, were fashionable ones, imitated, not the honest Baptist of Scripture history, but the dangerous Syren of ancient mythology, and flattered the rich and elegantly dressed “children of wrath” who sat before him, instead of reproving their sins, and proclaiming their danger. Hervey was still young in years; but the unfaithful preacher deserved all he got.

This was not the only rebuke which Hervey administered during his brief residence in the gay city of the west. At this period, Bath was, perhaps, the most fashionable place in Great Britain; and the most renowned man in Bath was Richard, commonly called “Beau,” Nash. Four years before, this accomplished rake had endeavoured to prevent Wesley preaching in the city where, by a sort of general consent, he acted as the king of all the fops and fashionables there assembled; but Nash was not a match for the poor, persecuted Methodist; and, smarting from Wesley’s keen retort, and stung by an old woman’s taunts, was glad to sneak away from a scene of conflict of his own creating. Beau Nash was still in power; and now young Hervey addressed to him the following faithful, and caustic letter,—

This was plain dealing; but was greatly needed. To write such a letter, to such a man,—an accomplished gallant, exercising sovereignty over nearly all the fashionable residents of a gambling, dissipated city,—required no ordinary courage in a young clergyman, who had not yet attained his thirtieth year. How it was received, and what were its effects, we are left to guess; but it is a curious fact, that, it was not destroyed, but was found among Nash’s papers after his decease.

Leaving Bath, Hervey, in October, 1743, became curate to his father, at Weston-Favel, a small village of three or four hundred inhabitants, near Northampton; and here, in this rural seclusion, he continued to reside (with the exception of a short interval) until his death, in 1758.

His pastoral duties were comparatively light; but his time was not unoccupied. Compared with the career of Wesley and Whitefield, who were living a rough, itinerant life, this settlement[236] of Hervey was a perfect contrast; but, it must be borne in mind, that, Hervey was physically unfit for the out-door preaching, which his two old Oxford friends were practising. His voice was unsuitable for such exercises. The exposure to rain, frost, and snow, would have made his brief life briefer still. Besides, the delicate gentleness of his nature totally disqualified him for encountering the hardships, privations, and persecutions of Wesley and Whitefield’s wandering life. It would be hasty to say, that, he was lacking in faith, love, zeal, prayer, and religious energy. He possessed all these in a far more than ordinary degree. In this respect he had but few equals, and scarcely any superiors. The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak. To imitate Wesley, Whitefield, Grimshaw, Berridge, was simply impossible; but Hervey did all he could. He most conscientiously cared for the souls of his handful of parishioners; and as conscientiously employed his leisure, not only in writing long religious letters to his absent friends, but, in composing books, which, as every one admits, breathe the devoutest piety, and which have been read, with pleasure and with profit, by thousands belonging to each successive generation during the last hundred and twenty years. Hervey’s life was not a failure, because the last fifteen years of it were spent in a secluded country village.

Apart from his ministerial duties, the first labour to which his attention was devoted, after his settlement at Weston-Favel, was the finishing and the publication of the well-known works begun in Devonshire, namely, “Meditations among the Tombs,” and “Reflections on a Flower Garden.” Hence the following:—

An extract from another letter, on the same subject, may not be unacceptable. Probably it was addressed to Dr. Doddridge.

Hervey’s book, referred to in these letters, was published in 1746, the size, 8vo., the pages, 216. The lady to whom it was dedicated was the daughter of his friend, the Rev. Mr. Thompson, Vicar of St. Gennys, Cornwall. The book is too well known to render an account of its contents necessary; but a brief extract from the preface will show the objects at which he aimed.

During the year 1746, Hervey wrote to a friend several long and very valuable letters on the doctrine of the Trinity. These may be found in his collected works, and are well worth reading. He also, as was his usage, carried on an extensive correspondence concerning experimental and practical religion; and his letters, belonging to this class, though occasionally verbose and fanciful, are characterized by the devoutest piety. None but a godly man could have written them; and none but godly people will peruse them. Many of them are almost little sermons, and all of them are rich in religious truth. In the days of penny postage, letters like these are rarely written; and it is greatly to be feared, that, English biographers in future centuries, will find a vexatious lack of biographical material belonging to this. People are too busy to write long letters; and, were it otherwise, the removal of the heavy postage of olden times has taken away one of the chief stimulants to make a letter longer than the pressing necessities of the case demand. Besides, locomotion is now[240] so easy, cheap, and rapid, that friends, instead of sending their secrets to each other, in a written form, prefer to make a railway trip, and to tell them viva voce. Things were widely different a hundred years ago; and, hence, the extensiveness, richness, the fulness, and detail, the confidential gossip, and the heart-outpourings found in the correspondence of our English ancestors. They wrote letters: their grandsons send telegrams. The letters are of the greatest use to those who wish to become biographers. The telegrams are usually burnt as soon as they are read. In former days, letters were too long, interesting, and valuable to be destroyed. At the present day, they are too brief and common-place, to be worth preserving. The results of such a change in the epistolary habits of the people, are not felt at present; but they will be bitterly lamented in the approaching future.

Not to mention other distinguished men belonging to the past, the most eminent of the Oxford Methodists all excelled in epistolary correspondence. Wesley’s collected works alone contain nine hundred and twenty-three of his private letters; Whitefield’s works, when published, even more than a hundred years ago, contained one thousand four hundred and sixty-five; while the works of short-lived Hervey, by far the longest letter writer of the three, contain two hundred and nine, to all of which must be added hundreds more, published in other forms.

In a book like this, it is impracticable to do more than very sparingly employ such copious materials; and nearly all that is attempted, in the case of Hervey, is to give only extracts containing incidents. These, however, shall be as exhaustive as possible. Proceeding on this plan, the following belong to the year when Hervey first became an author.

Hervey’s charity to the poor was only limited by his means, and even such a limit was sometimes overstepped. At Bideford, for instance, such was his unbounded benevolence, that, to prevent embarrassment, his friends practised upon him the innocent deception of borrowing his money when he received his salary, lest he should disperse it all in benefactions; and then repaying it as his necessities required. All the profits of his ‘Meditations,’ amounting to £700 pounds, he distributed in charitable donations; and directed that any profit, arising[241] from the sale of his books after his decease, should be used in the same manner.

Every one knows that, in 1745, England was thrown into a state of the utmost excitement, by the landing of Charles Edward Stuart, and his Scotch and Irish adherents, and by the futile march to Manchester, and subsequent retreat to Culloden. The following refers to this and other matters:—

The next was written to his Cornish friend, the Rev. Mr. Thompson, of St. Gennys,—a gentleman possessed of considerable property, and whose family seat was at Brynsworthy, near Barnstaple, in Devonshire.

The success of the “Meditations and Reflections” was such, as to encourage Hervey to attempt another work of the same description. Hence, the following letter, probably addressed either to his friend Dr. Doddridge or Dr. Stonehouse:—

While Hervey was thus occupied in literary pursuits, he was neither unmindful of his flock, nor of the general claims of Christian charity. Among other public institutions in which he felt deeply interested, the county hospital of Northampton was not the least important In a letter, apparently to Dr. Stonehouse, he writes:—

In 1747, Hervey joined himself to a society, whose object was that of reading together the Old Testament in English, and the New Testament in Greek. This assembly, which was not to “consist of more than ten or twelve individuals, lest an increased number should produce confusion or dissensions,” met on the first Tuesday morning in every month,[246] and, oddly enough, in different inns, agreed upon, from time to time, by the majority. Each member was chairman of the meetings, in alphabetical succession, and read a chapter out of each of the two Testaments, pausing at the end of every verse for inquiries and reflections. Every one also was expected to give an account of some religious book, which had been read by him since the last time of meeting; all dined together, at the expense of eighteen-pence a head; and each one subscribed half a crown a month for charitable uses. The meetings, including an hour for dinner, lasted seven hours in the summer season, and six in winter. Hervey drew up two beautiful forms of prayer, to be used by the respective members, before and after they came together. The society was unique, but useful. None but gentlemen of social position and of good education were qualified for admission; and it was certainly to the honour of the neighbourhood in which Hervey lived, that, in that age of fox-hunting, carousing, and roistering, such an assembly was formed.

Meanwhile, Hervey was busily occupied in completing his “Contemplations on the Night”; and also in publishing a second edition of the volume which he had issued in 1746. References to these and other matters will be found in the following extracts from his letters.

From the above, it is evident, that, though Hervey had now spent several years at Weston-Favel, his acquaintance with the clergy of the diocese was extremely limited. Why was this? Was it because he lived, to a great extent, the life of a literary recluse? Or was it because he had been a Methodist? Or was it because of his known friendship with Dr. Doddridge, the great and good Dissenter of Northampton? Whatever the reason, the fact existed; and, in this respect, he was in the same position as his old friends Wesley, Whitefield, and Ingham.

The next extract is valuable, and ought to be seriously considered by all who are chargeable with the same criminal inadvertencies. It is also a beautiful instance of Hervey’s extreme delicacy in administering reproof.

In July, 1747, Hervey completed his “Contemplations on the Night,” which he dedicated to the youthful son of his deceased friend, Mr. Orchard, of Stoke Abbey. He was also diligently occupied in the preparation of his “Contemplations on the Starry Heavens,” and his “Winter Piece”; hence the following, from a letter by Dr. Doddridge, dated,

The next, which appears to have been sent to some friend in the neighbourhood of Stoke Abbey, refers to the same subject; and also shows, that the state of Hervey’s health was becoming serious:—

Hervey was afflicted in person; he was also afflicted in the sufferings of his friends. Hence the following, written in the month of December, 1747.

The venerable Dr. Watts, in 1746, had published his speculative and dangerous book, entitled, “The Glory of Christ as God-Man Displayed,” and had presented Hervey with a copy. He was now in the last year of his life, and died November 25, 1748. Hervey wrote to him as follows:—

It is a curious fact, that, Hervey possessed and cherished the friendship of the two greatest Dissenters of the age, Doctor Doddridge and Dr. Watts; and, that, the hymns of the latter, even in his lifetime, were sung in the service of an established church.

For eight years, Wesley had been an itinerant preacher, and had encountered an unparalleled amount of violent opposition. There had been a temporary estrangement between him and Whitefield, on Calvinistic doctrines; but the two were now as warmly attached to each other as ever. Methodism, meanwhile, had been established in all directions; and, in this very year, 1747, had been introduced into Ireland. Brutal were the persecutions from which the poor Methodists still had to suffer; but their truth was mighty and triumphant. Hervey had taken no part in the great movement of the Wesleys and Whitefield; but he had not opposed it. Indeed, it had his sympathy and prayers. His old friends occupied one sphere of Christian usefulness; he, according to his ability, occupied another. Hence the following, addressed to Wesley:—

Affliction was still the heritage of Hervey; but, in the midst of all, his full heart overflowed with pure benevolence, and his pen was not unemployed. Having completed his “Contemplations,” he now devoted what health he had to the revision and enlargement of his “Descant on Creation.” The following are extracts from letters written in the months of March and April, 1748.

For months after this, Hervey’s health was very feeble, but his soul as large as ever; hence the following:—

To a great extent, Hervey was now an invalid. Sometimes he catechised the children on the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; but confesses his want of aptitude for this, and that he rarely did it so as to satisfy himself. His public work, however, was extremely limited. By preaching, he could do but little; but, by his treatises, he was reaching the hearts and consciences of thousands who never heard his voice. In 1749, a sixth edition of his “Meditations and Contemplations,” in two volumes,[187] was published; and Whitefield wrote as follows:—[188]

Hervey was ill, and the warm-hearted Whitefield never loved him so much as now. Hitherto, Lady Huntingdon had not corresponded with Hervey, though she had long entertained a great regard for him. One or two letters had passed between them, but no regular correspondence took place till the beginning of the year 1750. Again and again, had Whitefield conveyed her ladyship’s request that he would write to her; and, at length, on February 2, 1750, Hervey yielded, and commenced a correspondence, which was continued, without interruption, until his death. Whitefield was delighted, and wrote:—“I am glad you have opened a correspondence with our elect lady. Keep it open, I entreat you, my dear friend.”

A few weeks after this, Hervey was prevailed on, by the repeated importunity of Whitefield and Lady Huntingdon, to visit London, for the benefit of his enfeebled health.[190] He arrived in June, 1750, and remained until the death of his father, in May, 1752. One of the winters was spent in the house of Whitefield; and, for some time, he lodged with his brother William, in Miles Lane. By means of Lady Huntingdon, he became acquainted with Lady Gertrude Hotham, Lady Chesterfield, the Countess Delitz, Lady Fanny Shirley, and many other distinguished and pious persons. Here he met with Charles Wesley; was visited by Dr. Gill, Mr. Cudworth, and John Cennick; and, for the first time, heard Romaine. Here, also, he enlarged and corrected his ‘Meditations,’ composed his ‘Remarks on Bolingbroke’s Letters,’ and wrote part of his ‘Theron and Aspasio.’ He could rarely attempt to preach; but his time was fully occupied. How his two years in London were employed will be best exhibited by extracts from his voluminous correspondence.

At the time of Hervey’s arrival in the metropolis, Whitefield was in the north of England, and the two friends did not again see each other till about the beginning of September.

Three days after this, Hervey, Whitefield, and Charles Wesley,—a happy trio,—met at Whitefield’s house. C. Wesley writes:—“1750. September 14. I met James Hervey at the Tabernacle, and in the fellowship of the spirit of love;”[191] and, on the same day, Whitefield, as follows:—

The young lady referred to in this extract, was the daughter of Lady Gertrude Hotham. Hervey had frequently visited her in her last sickness, and, on one occasion, had administered to her the Lord’s supper. Hence the following to the Countess of Huntingdon:—

Hervey was already employed in writing another book. He was slowly dying, but to be idle was impossible. Hence, the following:—

The sale of the works which Hervey had already published was extraordinary. The ensuing letter to his father is evidence of this, and also unfolds a feature of Hervey’s domestic character not heretofore noticed.

When Hervey first came to London, he had no intention of staying the length of time he did. On September 11, 1750, in a letter to his father, he wrote:—

During the whole of the year 1751, Hervey continued in the same debilitated state. It was now, that, he began his long series of letters to Lady Frances Shirley, one hundred and eighteen of which were subsequently published by her ladyship’s executors. Early in the year, he tells his noble correspondent, that, he had put on his “coat but once during all the winter,” and, even then, he “returned home with a cold, and was obliged to take to his bed.” There is something painfully affecting in extracts like the following:—

One cannot but experience a feeling of surprise, that, a man in such physical debility was able to evince such activity of mind. Hervey could not be idle. To have been totally unemployed would not have retarded, but probably have hastened his decease. To some men, at least, a certain amount of work is a solace. It braces the mind; and enables the sufferer to better bear the afflictions of the body. So it was with Hervey. In the house of his brother, he had a comfortable home; and his father and friends were able and willing to afford him all the help he needed. No man was[265] more free from the love of money. His wants were few, and his earthly longings were quite as limited. He had no need to work; but work was what he liked. His brain teemed with thought; and it was no inconsiderable relief to put some of his conceptions and conceits on paper. Besides, as he himself was wont to solicit the critical kindness of his friends, in the revision of his writings; so he sometimes rendered the same assistance to others. The following was written to the Rev. Mr. Pearsall, of Taunton, and is somewhat amusing as coming from one of the most florid writers of the period,—

The sick man used his utmost endeavours to be useful. Writing to another friend, towards the close of the year 1751, he says,—

It is a curious fact, that, there is no evidence of any interview between Hervey and the Wesleys, during 1751. At the beginning of the year, John Wesley was married, in London, to Mrs. Vazeille; and his brother Charles also spent several months in the metropolis; but neither their Journals nor their Letters contain the least allusion to their valetudinarian friend Hervey. With the exception of the month of January, Whitefield was scarcely at all in London; but he wrote to Hervey, from Bristol, as follows:—

Hervey’s health was such that he declined yielding to this request;[195] and Whitefield wrote him another of his great-hearted letters:—

Hervey was very happy in the house of his friend, and wrote to Mrs. Whitefield, at Bristol, with a playfulness which was unusual in him:—

In the month of September, Whitefield embarked for Georgia; and, on his arrival there, wrote to Hervey as follows:—

Dr. Doddridge, the beloved and honoured friend of Hervey, was already dead. The great Dissenter, in feeble health, had embarked for Portugal, in the same month as Whitefield started for America. He landed at Lisbon on October 13th, 1751; and, thirteen days afterwards, peacefully expired. In writing to Lady Frances Shirley, in reference to this event, Hervey intimates, that, heaven to him was now more attractive than ever. The removal of his friends made it easier for himself to die. Like Whitefield, he entered upon the year 1752, in the spirit of ardent gratitude, and entire devotedness to the service of his Saviour.

The accident was alarming; and, to use the words of Hervey himself, “in order to avoid the fire, he had to wade through water,” and caught a cold and fever, which seriously shook his enfeebled health, and confined him to his chamber several weeks.

It has been already mentioned, that, Whitefield prevailed on Hervey to have his portrait taken. Early in the year 1752, a mezzotinto engraving was published;[197] and the following was addressed to the Rev. Mr. Nixon,[198] Rector of Cold-Higham, in Northamptonshire, who had put together eight lines, which he wished to be printed beneath the likeness:—

Hervey was, in part at least, a Calvinist. Wesley, on the other hand, was an Arminian; and, in 1751 and 1752, published two of his most convincing and cogent pamphlets, namely, “Serious Thoughts upon the Perseverance of the Saints,” and “Predestination Calmly Considered.” It would not be rash to say, that, both were unanswerable, though Hervey thought differently. On the first, he was thoroughly opposed to his friend Wesley; on the second he was dubious. Hence the following:—

Hervey was now employed in writing his able and beautiful controversial pamphlet, entitled, “Remarks on Lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the Study and Use of History; so far as they relate to the History of the Old Testament, and especially to the case of Noah, denouncing a Curse upon Canaan; in a Letter to a Lady of Quality.” The great infidel had died on November 15th, 1751; and his book, which had been published posthumously, had created a painful sensation. Hervey completed his “Remarks” on April 22, 1752; though they were not published for some time after: indeed, originally, they were not intended for publication at all. Lady Frances Shirley, having read Bolingbroke’s bad book,[271] wrote to Hervey, asking his opinion concerning it; and the “Remarks” were, in the first instance, nothing more than a private letter to the “Lady of Quality” just mentioned.[199] The pamphlet is a successful attempt to refute a few of Bolingbroke’s bold and unauthorized assertions, namely: 1. That, “the Old Testament is no sufficient authority for chronology from the beginning of time.” 2. That, in the Holy Scriptures, instead of history, we have “a heap of fables; which can pretend to nothing but some inscrutable truths, and therefore useless to mankind.” 3. That, the Scriptures are “full of additions, and interpolations, and transpositions.” 4. That, Noah “was still drunk when he denounced a curse upon Canaan; for no man in his senses could hold such language, or pass such a sentence.”

In the infidel objections of Bolingbroke, the reader finds the pith of all the infidel objections of the present day; and, in order to refute them, nothing more is needed than to turn to the manly defences of the Holy Bible written more than a hundred years ago. Modern infidelity is the infidelity of Bolingbroke and others, dished up, and served with newly-invented garnishing, and a pretentiously learned flavour. Hervey’s treatise is free from all the ornate faultiness of his “Meditations”; its style is flowing, clear, and forcible; and its arguments fairly put and unanswerable. It would be rendering useful service to republish it in the present alarming prevalency of unbelief.

In the month of May, 1752, the livings of Weston-Favel and Collingtree were rendered vacant by the death of Hervey’s father. The following extracts from letters to Lady Frances Shirley refer to this event, and to other matters.

Hervey visited the metropolis, and, on his return to Weston-Favel, had a near escape from an untimely death. He writes:—

Hervey was now instituted, by the Bishop of Peterborough, in his second living, and opened his commission, among his new parishioners, by preaching from the text,—“To me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that, I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” He also sent to the press his “Remarks on Lord Bolingbroke’s Letters,” which, in the month of November, were published. He solicited Lady Frances Shirley to favour him with the criticisms of her friends; and, on December 5, 1752, wrote to her as follows:—

In these extracts, the reader may find the reasons why Hervey became a pluralist. The thing cannot be commended; but, perhaps, in his case, it may be pardoned. He himself disliked it; but the circumstances of his widowed mother and fatherless sister, the importunity of his relatives, and the advice of his friends, overcame his righteous repugnance. At one time, he seems to have entertained the idea of giving one of the livings to his friend Dr. Stonehouse;[204] but this was abandoned; and Hervey placed himself in the extremely objectionable position of holding two ecclesiastical benefices instead of only one. It is true, that, the united populations of Weston-Favel and Collingtree were not more than about six hundred souls; and that the income of the two livings was only about £180 a year; but the question is,[276] was it absolutely wrong, in every case, to become a pluralist? If it was not, Hervey was excusable, for, though £180 then was worth more than £600 now, the presentation to the two benefices was his own hereditary property, and, subject to the law of the land, he had a right to do as he liked with it. Still, the being a pluralist was an ugly fact. Churches have always objected to it. Even as early as the thirteenth century, at the Lateran council, holding more than one benefice was expressly forbidden, by a canon, under the penalty of deprivation; the same canon, however, granting the pope a power to dispense with it in favour of persons of distinguished merit. The practical result was, there were so many found with a title to this merit, that the prohibition became useless. In this way, the holding of more benefices than one, became legal; and such was the existing state of things in the time of Hervey. The law of the land created difficulties; but they were far from being insuperable. Two certificates had to be obtained from the bishop of the Diocese, one for the Archbishop, and the other for the Lord Chancellor. Testimonials, also, had to be procured, from the neighbouring clergy, concerning the presentee’s behaviour and conversation. He must also exhibit to the Archbishop, not only his letters of order of deacon and priest, but also a certificate of his having taken the degree of Master of Arts at the least, in one of the Universities of the realm. These and other preliminaries had to be observed; after which, if the Archbishop was satisfied, the dispensation was granted (not by the pope as in former days, but), by the Faculty Office; it was then confirmed under the broad seal of the Lord Chancellor; and, finally, the affair was completed, by an application to the bishop of the diocese where the living was situated, for the presentee’s admission and institution into his second cure of souls. Hervey had to pass through the whole of this worrying process; and, beside other expenses, had to pay a stamp duty of £30 for every skin, or paper, or parchment, on which his dispensation was engrossed. No wonder, that, he speaks of it as having cost him “six score pounds.” For five hundred years, or more, plurality of benefices had been an ecclesiastical disgrace; and, though, perhaps, permissible in a case like Hervey’s, it adds no lustre to his fame, and was not obtainable[277] without handsome fees to the highest authorities of the English Church and State.

There is another fact, belonging to this period of Hervey’s history, too curious to be omitted. Every one knows, that, Whitefield believed, that, the keeping of slaves was sanctioned by the Scriptures; that, hot countries could not be cultivated without negroes; and, that, the lives of numbers of white people had been destroyed in Georgia, and large amounts of money wasted, for want of negro labour. Holding such principles, Whitefield, in 1751, bought a number of slaves, partly to cultivate the land attached to his Orphan House, in Georgia: and partly to instruct them, and to make them Christians.[205] Strange to say, the gentle Hervey approved of this procedure; and having, during his residence in London, largely shared in Whitefield’s hospitality, he gave to him, as a souvenir on leaving,—what? A slave! Hence the following:—

Whitefield readily acquiesced. His answer, referring to other matters as well as this, was as follows:—

One other letter from Whitefield may fitly close the year 1752. Whitefield had read Hervey’s “Remarks on Bolingbroke,” and now wished him to publish his “Theron and Aspasio.”

Though so feeble and delicate, Hervey tried to preach twice every Sunday. His ministry also was popular and attractive, his churches being crowded to excess, and the windows sometimes removed, that, the people outside might hear. His style was familiar, and adapted to the congregations to whom he preached; and, of course, his sentiments were Calvinistical. “You have observed,” said he, about this period of his history, “the walls on either side of the path leading to this church. They are covered, as you know, with ivy. Now, you may pluck off the leaves, and break off the branches, so that none of them shall be seen on the outside; but the roots of the plant have so worked themselves into the wall, that, it would be impossible entirely to eradicate them[279] without taking down the wall, and not leaving one stone upon another. And so must this frail body be taken down; and then, and not till then, shall we get rid of the remains of a degenerate nature.”[208]

To employ his own expressions, Hervey began the year 1753 in “ill-health and weak spirits, which cramped his mind, and unnerved his hand.” He was “sadly indisposed; languid and dispirited; out of humour with himself, and displeased with his own thoughts.”

His “Theron and Aspasio” was now the chief and almost only occupation of his leisure hours. A part of the work was sent to Whitefield for revisal. Hence the following:—

Doddridge was dead, and beyond the reach of consultation; but Hervey now became acquainted with another eminent dissenter,—John Ryland, the well-known Baptist minister,—who[280] became the intimate friend of the Rector of Weston-Favel, and one of his most trusted advisers. In a letter, dated “February 3, 1753,” Hervey sent to Ryland a rough outline of his “Theron and Aspasio,” and said,

Hervey was almost fastidious in his literary tastes; and, hence, his habit of asking his friends to revise his manuscripts previous to their being printed. There can be no question, that, he went further, in this respect, than he need have done. Whitefield was a glorious evangelist; but made no pretensions to being a man of letters. Ryland was a strong-minded man; but not an accomplished scribe. The Countess of Huntingdon, in some respects, was one of the most remarkable women that ever lived; but polite literature was not the orbit in which she shone. And, yet, Hervey sought “friendly corrections” from the coroneted lady as well as from the great itinerant, and the Baptist minister. Hence, the following:—

Lady Huntingdon sympathized with the design of Hervey’s book; claimed the assistance of all those whom she considered capable of suggesting improvements and useful hints; and transmitted their observations to the author; but declined the offered dedication. Hervey writes:—

Such extracts as these are not without interest. They show, that, Hervey, unlike his friends Wesley and Whitefield, wrote not so much for the masses of the people as for the educated and genteel; and, that, he was intensely anxious to have his publications, in a literary point of view, as perfect as possible.

It was in May, 1752, that, Hervey, in broken health, succeeded his father as Rector of Weston-Favel. Twelve months afterwards, he was called upon to preach, at the visitation of the Archdeacon of Peterborough, in All Saints Church, Northampton. Writing to Lady Frances Shirley, he says,—

Hervey’s text, on this occasion, was, “God forbid, that, I should glory,” etc. (Gal. vi. 14); and the sermon was the first he published. Though not remarkable for either learning or argument, it was thoroughly evangelical and faithful; and, unless the belief and practice of the clergy there assembled were exceptional, it must have been somewhat startling. It was the sermon of a Methodist; and Methodist sermons then were seldom heard in the Established Church.

Preaching it was a duty; publishing it was an act of charity. Hence the following:—

Printed sermons have seldom been popular; but the adventure, in this instance, succeeded. “I have no business going forward with the printer,” wrote Hervey, in a letter to Lady Frances Shirley, on July 15, 1753.

An extract from another letter may be welcome. It refers, not only to this visitation sermon, but to Hervey’s parochial labours.

Another glimpse of Hervey, in the midst of his rustic congregations, is furnished by a letter written by one of Whitefield’s preachers.

There was no high-church ritualism here; but a godly pastor making himself at home among his poor parishioners, and simply and earnestly trying to promote the spiritual and eternal welfare of them and of their children.

In his enfeebled health, the wonder is how Hervey managed to undertake so many of these rural services. And yet, while thus faithfully discharging his duties as a parish priest, he was, if not an extensive reader, a most diligent student of the holy Bible, and a conscientious cultivator of literary æsthetics. Wesley, when an old man, remarked,—

It was otherwise with Hervey. Of set purpose, he cultivated the “fine style” of writing. Wesley wrote for the masses; Hervey for the élite of human society.

Wesley and Hervey were equally conscientious; and opinions will differ concerning the wisdom of their different decisions; though all will probably admit, that, if Wesley’s writings had less of scholastic learning, sonorousness, and rhythm, they had vastly more point and power than those of his old Oxford friend. Still, both acted from the purest motive; and it is in such a light that their respective merits should be judged. In a letter to a friend, dated, “Weston-Favel, August 18, 1753,” Hervey writes:—

Hervey was now possessed of a large and varied library; but, like Wesley, he was, to a great extent, “homo unius libri.”

Hervey’s “Theron and Aspasio,”—by far the greatest work of his short life,—was now nearly completed; and his time was chiefly occupied in putting it through the press. All kinds of friends were consulted; and their revisions and emendations solicited. The book was too bulky, and yet Hervey was at his wits’ end to make it less. Postage of proof-sheets was heavy; and compositors and printers were dilatory to a most worrying extent. The year throughout was a trying one, especially to a valetudinarian like Hervey. Brief extracts from his letters will best illustrate what we mean.

These extracts might be multiplied; but the reader has had sufficient for the purpose of showing the almost extreme assiduity of Hervey in making his book correct and popular. Among others, he consulted his old friend Wesley, who[290] revised the first three “Dialogues,” and “sent them back with a few inconsiderable corrections.” Hervey replied, “You are not my friend, if you do not take more liberty with me.” Wesley promised, that, he would; upon which the manuscripts were again revised; and alterations were made of a more important character.[226] Whether Wesley, on this occasion, had used the prerogatives of a friend to a greater extent than Hervey liked, is a matter which has never been explained; but it is quite certain, that, when Hervey’s work was nearly ready for the public, Hervey and Wesley, by some means, had become alienated, and were no longer the warm-hearted friends they had been in former days. Writing to Lady Frances Shirley, under the date of January 9, 1755, Hervey says,—

This is a mournful episode. From letters, already printed in the foregoing pages, it is manifest, that, Hervey, at one period, held Wesley in the highest affection and esteem; and, that, this was mutual is evident from the fact, that, as recently as the year 1754, not only had Hervey twice over requested Wesley to revise his “Theron and Aspasio,” but, Wesley (at the time an invalid like Hervey) had requested his friend to revise his “Notes on the New Testament.” Hence the following:—

The two old Oxford friends were now estranged; and, mournful to relate, their friendship was not renewed till they met in heaven. But more of this anon.

Hervey’s “Theron and Aspasio” was advertised to be published on February 18, 1755; but he writes, “there are so many unexpected remoras, that, I dare not answer for its forthcoming, even at the expiration of ten days more.”

A copy of the “large octavo edition” is before us, in three volumes; pp. 405, 464, and 446; with a dedication, as already intimated, “to the Right Honourable Lady Frances Shirley.”[228] The following is a copy of “the Contents”:—

Such is Hervey’s own correct outline of his work. As the reader will easily perceive, the book is a mixture of theological teaching and scenic painting, the latter being used, as Hervey himself states, “to soften the asperities of argument.” His “views of nature” are employed, not as being essential to the truths which he wished to teach, but rather, to grace his book with ornament, and to render it more readable. Whether this ought to be regarded as an excellence or a blemish, Hervey leaves his readers to determine. He writes,—

Hervey’s work was one of great importance. Of his “luxuriant descriptions” nothing need be said, except, that, many of them are quite equal to those in his “Meditations and[294] Contemplations.”[229] Nearly all of them, however, might have been entirely omitted without at all interfering with the principal doctrines which it was the object of Hervey to teach and vindicate. They are excrescences, though beautiful,—oases in a doctrinal arena. To many of Hervey’s readers, they would be the most attractive sections of his book; to others, only intent on pursuing and mastering the author’s argument, they would be embellished barriers, and would be skipped.

To Hervey’s doctrines, considered as a whole, orthodox Christians can take no exception. Wesley observed with perfect justness, “Most of the grand truths of Christianity are herein explained and proved with great strength and clearness.”[230] The crux criticorum was Hervey’s peculiar views of what he called “the imputed righteousness of Christ.” A few brief extracts will show what he meant.

In these extracts, the reader has, in Hervey’s own words, a full account of his doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. All must admit, his fairness in the putting of Theron’s objections; most will doubt his successfulness in answering them. His theory, that, the death of Christ bought the sinner’s pardon, and the righteousness of Christ procured for the sinner the privileges and rights of justification; or, to speak more precisely, of adoption into the family of God, was a speculative distinction, without Scriptural authority, and pregnant with antinomian heresy. He meant well; but he missed the mark. Wesley was right, when he said,—

Hervey’s book created great commotion. It was both attacked and defended; and was turned to good purpose and to bad. Sandeman, in his “Letters on Theron and Aspasio,”[232] both approved and disapproved. Cudworth, a dissenting minister, in his reply to Sandeman,[233] was a warm defender of his friend, the Church of England rector. Dr.[299] Witherspoon, “Minister of the Gospel in Beith,” published a pamphlet of 72 pages, in 1756, to show, that Hervey’s doctrine of justification, by imputed righteousness, does not weaken the obligations to holiness of life. Besides these, other pamphlets were issued, on both sides of the dispute; but the only one which Hervey himself answered, was a tract by his old friend Wesley. This will be noticed hereafter. Meanwhile, a selection from Hervey’s voluminous correspondence will furnish the reader with glimpses of this period of Hervey’s history.

Lady Frances Shirley had given him a hint, that some one wished to make a present to the author of “Theron and Aspasio.” He replied:—

The next refers to the same subject, and to his being thanked for a copy of his “Theron and Aspasio,” by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

The demand for Hervey’s book was such, that, though the first edition consisted of nearly six thousand copies, a second edition was almost immediately required. He writes to the Rev. John Ryland:—

Hervey perceived his book would be attacked on the ground, that, his doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ led to Antinomianism; and he already entertained the idea of writing another work as a sort of appendix to his former one. Under the date of March 19, 1755, he observes:—

The sale of “Theron and Aspasio” proceeded with such rapidity, that, the second edition was made larger than Hervey and his publisher had originally agreed. Hence the following:—

In revising the work for this second edition, he earnestly asked the help, not only of John Ryland, the Baptist minister, but of William Cudworth, the minister of an Independent congregation, in Margaret Street, London. To the latter, he wrote as follows:—

Cudworth responded to the request of Hervey; and the two henceforward became ardently attached and confiding friends. This, if it did not actually create, widened the breach between Hervey and his old adviser, Wesley. Ten[302] years before, Wesley and Cudworth had come into collision, by Wesley’s publication of his two Dialogues “between an Antinomian and his friend;” partly written in answer to a “Dialogue” which Cudworth himself had published. Wesley, rightly or wrongly, accounted Cudworth an Antinomian, and spoke of him with a severity which he seldom used. Cudworth resented this; angry feelings were engendered; and, beyond a doubt, Hervey’s affection and respect for Wesley were lamentably abated.

The year 1755 was a crisis in the history of the Societies, which had been founded by the labours of Wesley and his itinerant evangelists. At a Conference, held at Leeds, three days were spent in discussing the momentous question, whether the Methodists should separate from the Established Church. It was on this occasion, that, Charles Wesley composed and published his famous poetical “Epistle” to his brother. Hervey heard of this, and wrote as follows:—

Hervey had ceased to write to Wesley; but Wesley wrote to him. Hence the following:—

Did Hervey get his “private intelligence” from Whitefield? Probably he did. It is a curious fact, that, at this very time, there was a misunderstanding between Wesley and Whitefield, respecting Methodist affairs at Norwich;[243] and, though[303] there was no breach of friendship, it is not at all unlikely, that, this and cognate matters would be the subject of conversation at the meeting which Hervey mentions.

Whitefield was at Weston-Favel on August 30; and here he wrote several letters, remarking in one of them:—“Mr. Hervey is now writing another volume, upon Sanctification.” This, of course, was the work which has been already named; but which was never published. Ten days after Whitefield’s visit, Hervey described his plan, in a long letter, from which the following is an extract:—

Hervey, certainly, had great encouragement to continue the employment of his pen. The first edition of “Theron and Aspasio,” as already stated, consisted of nearly six thousand copies; and the second of four thousand; and yet, within nine months from the time when the work was first published, a third edition issued from the press.

No wonder, that, the book obtained the attention of Hervey’s old friend, Wesley. The first three of the Dialogues had been submitted to him, in manuscript, for his revision, and he had sent “some important alterations.” Now he read the whole of Hervey’s work, not only once, but twice, and says, “I wrote him my thoughts freely, but received no answer.” This was probably the letter which Hervey mentions, in one of the foregoing pages, under the date of “August, 1755.” In a little more than a year afterwards, Wesley wrote again; and this letter, he himself subsequently published; though, he says,—

No doubt this second letter contained the substance of the former one. There is much in Hervey’s book which Wesley heartily commends: the chief points of animadversion are two. (1) He begs that Hervey will lay aside the phrase “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” adding, “it is not scriptural, it is not necessary, it has done immense hurt.” Unprejudiced readers must allow that this position is impregnable. Many of Wesley’s critiques are so brief as to be almost blunt, but[305] they serve to show that Hervey’s interpretation of scriptural texts, in support of his favourite idea of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is, in many instances, at least, arbitrary and incorrect; and, in all instances, insufficient for his purpose. To this part of Wesley’s letter no exception ought to have been taken. True, it destroys the pivot on which the whole of Hervey’s book is made to turn; but all that is said is relevant, and there is nothing that is disrespectful. Wesley’s remarks were pointed, but not intended to be impolite. (2) The other section of Wesley’s criticisms, while correct in sentiment, are perhaps hardly pertinent Hervey, to some extent, was undoubtedly a Calvinist; but he never taught, or held the doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation. Remembering this, Wesley was scarcely fair in such comments as the following:—

If Hervey had taught the doctrines of ultra-Calvinism, such strictures, though strongly worded, would not have been unjust. But the question is, did Hervey hold the tenets of unconditional election and reprobation? If he did, Wesley was not unfair; if otherwise, Wesley’s remarks are not applicable. Hervey probably clung to the doctrine of election; and, it may be said, this inevitably involves the doctrine of reprobation; but there is no evidence that Hervey regarded it in such a light. On this subject, the man must be allowed to be his own exponent. In a letter, written to Lady Frances Shirley, immediately after Wesley had sent him his criticisms on “Theron and Aspasio,” Hervey observes:—

On receiving Wesley’s letter, Hervey wrote to his friend Ryland as follows:—

Wesley’s strictures were printed in 1758; and till then we must leave the subject.

The only pieces published by Hervey in 1756, were a “Recommendatory Letter,” prefixed to his favourite book, “Marshall’s Gospel Mystery of Sanctification”; and a “Preface” to “Jenks’s Meditations,” the latter of which was reprinted, in two volumes, by Hervey’s expressed desire.[245] Besides these, however, he preached three sermons, which he subsequently committed to the press, with the titles,—“The[308] Time of Danger;” “The Means of Safety” and “The Way of Holiness.”[246]

Hervey’s published sermons are few in number, principally because the sermons he preached were never written.

The reason, why he wrote and published the three sermons above mentioned, he states in a letter to Lady Frances Shirley,—

At the time, England was at war with France; and many of the sermons preached on the day of national humiliation were published; but Hervey was not satisfied. He writes:—

Space forbids giving an outline of Hervey’s sermons.[248] Suffice it to say, that, they are able and eloquent, and intensely earnest and faithful. If such were a fair specimen of his pulpit performances, Hervey’s preaching must have been as remarkable as his writings; and, had he possessed Whitefield’s voice and elocution, the effects would have been something marvellous. Mr. Ryland, who visited him at Weston-Favel twice a year, observes,—

These are mere glimpses of Hervey as a preacher; but they are of some importance, as being furnished by those who saw and heard him.

Hervey had become famous, and some of his friends wished for a formal recognition of the fact. The following refers to this, and also to Wesley’s strictures on his “Theron and Aspasio”:—

In this world, no man basks in unclouded sunshine. Upon the whole, the reviews of Hervey’s “Theron and Aspasio,” had been favourable; those of his later publications[250] had been otherwise.

In the midst of all this, Hervey commenced the rebuilding of his parsonage; and, besides the vexations usually connected with such undertakings, he had to suffer the annoyance of the builder, with which he had contracted, decamping, before the erection was completed, and exposing poor Hervey[312] to the worry of being dunned by the rogue’s disappointed creditors.[251]

Hervey was more sensitive than he thought he was; and the combined circumstances just mentioned painfully affected him. In the excitement of his feelings, he began to prepare a shilling pamphlet, in reply to the Critical Review, which had designated Jenks’s Meditations “ridiculous and enthusiastic.” With greater vulgarity than refinement, they had been described “like hairs on the greasy coat of a groom, or like dish-water thrown down the kennel.” Malevolence like this was too contemptible to be noticed; and, yet, Hervey put himself to considerable inconvenience in writing, “Ned Dry’s Apology for the Critical Reviewers,”—a pamphlet which he intended to be a satirical castigation of his nameless opponents, as well as a vindication of Mr. Jenks and of himself. It was a mistake to notice anonymous revilers at all; and it was an additional mistake for Hervey to attempt to compose a satire. His mind was too exquisitely refined, and his soul too loving, to succeed in literary flagellation. He was himself in doubt respecting this, and wrote to Mr. Ryland as follows:—

Nothing more need be added, except, that, though “Ned Dry’s Apology for the Critical Reviewers,” was written, it was never published.

Troubles often come in troops. In 1757, Mr. Robert Sandeman published his “Letters on Theron and Aspasio,” in two volumes,—a work already noticed in the biography of Ingham. Concerning this, Hervey writes as follows:—

Sandeman’s “Letters” created a great sensation;[252] but[314] Hervey had neither strength nor time to answer them. He was about to measure swords with an opponent far more noted than Mr. Sandeman, and left the latter in the hands of his friend, Mr. Cudworth, who, immediately after Hervey’s death, issued “A defence of Theron and Aspasio against the Objections contained in a late Treatise, entitled ‘Letters on Theron and Aspasio.’ To which is prefixed, a series of Letters from Mr. Hervey to the author, authenticating this Defence with his entire approbation, and manifesting it to be the only one that can be presented to the public with that authority.” pp. 224.

Perhaps the title was more ostentatious than facts would justify; but, still, there can be no doubt, that Hervey was perfectly cognisant of a correspondence between Cudworth and Sandeman, and, that, in the main, he approved of Cudworth’s sentiments. Only three weeks before his death, he wrote to Cudworth as follows:—

Hervey now devoted his dying energies to the task of writing a reply to the animadversions of his old friend Wesley. Their friendship was beclouded; and it is a mournful fact, that, the few last months of Hervey’s lovely life were spent in fighting one, who, a quarter of a century before, had been the greatest of his human oracles. He writes,—

Hervey’s suspicion was unfounded and ungenerous; but let it pass. His eyes, as far as Wesley was concerned, were now unfortunately jaundiced. Besides, he was, at present, extremely ill; in fact, it was currently reported that he was dead. “I do not go out of my room,” he wrote on January 21st, “till dinner time, and then it is rather to see my relations, than to take refreshment myself.” And again, in another letter, dated the 12th of March, he states, that, he had “not been at church since Christmas.” Still, he was not inactive. The following are extracts from his letters to Mr. Ryland.

It is a curious fact, that, Wesley’s strictures on “Theron and Aspasio” had not yet been printed; so that, Hervey was employed in preparing an answer to what existed only in manuscript. Even as late as the 4th of March, 1758, Hervey, writing to a friend, observes:

Perplexity is here. Wesley had written twice to Hervey, criticising “Theron and Aspasio.” Hervey was obviously offended at Wesley’s abruptness, and, as Hervey believed, dogmatism. Of course, remembering their former friendship, Wesley expected a reply; but, for some reason, Hervey, almost unexceptionally gentle and courteous, resolved to maintain a sort of sullen silence. As yet, Wesley’s critique was not printed; it was simply a private letter. Hervey was apparently as unfit for controversy as he professed to be averse to it: in fact, he was actually dying; and, yet, the tremulous energies of the dying man were exerted to the utmost, in preparing an answer to Wesley’s private letter, not to be sent to Wesley himself, but to be committed to the press. Why was this? If Wesley’s letter was wholly private, why should Hervey answer it in public? He had a right to feel grieved, to be offended, and, if not discourteous, to refuse[317] writing a reply; but was it fair that, without consulting Wesley, he should resolve to publicly answer a private communication, even though that communication was not in the most complaisant language? Wesley’s second letter was dated, October 15, 1756, so that, Hervey had now had it in his possession for nearly a year and a half; and, as his correspondence proves, had shown it to several of his friends. Why did he, at the commencement of 1758, when his health had entirely failed, begin to answer a letter, which, for fifteen months, he had treated with silent sullenness? Was he instigated by Mr. Cudworth, who, at the same time, was in diligent correspondence with Mr. Sandeman? Or had Wesley been so annoyed, by Hervey’s contemptuous silence, as to make his letter the subject of conversation among his friends, and Hervey having heard, that, what had been a private communication was now becoming the subject of public observation, was so extremely sensitive, and so afraid of tarnished honour, that, he unadvisedly resolved to print a public answer, and employed his dying days in writing it? It is impossible to answer these questions with certainty. Opinions will differ. Two holier men than Wesley and Hervey did not live; but, by a most painful misunderstanding, they were now estranged. Which of them was blamable? Was either? or were both?

Wesley disliked Hervey’s doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and he told him so;—a thing which, as a friend, he had a perfect right to do. If he erred at all, it was in using a brusque abruptness, the very opposite of the sort of style usually employed by Hervey, and which was undoubtedly somewhat grating to a sensitive mind like his. Still, even this may be excused. Wesley was without “learned leisure.” Bearing in mind the incessant duties of his itinerant life, the wonder is, how he found time to write at all. Perforce of circumstances, as well as by deliberate choice, his style of writing was always concise, and frequently abrupt. Besides, in this instance, he was writing, not for the public, but privately to a friend.

One cannot but lament, that, they were not thus regarded. In such a case, an unseemly and unhappy controversy would have been avoided. For want of confidence, and a frank and friendly explanation, the two old and warm-hearted friends were alienated from each other. Hervey submitted Wesley’s private letter to the inspection of friends who had no right to see it; Wesley, perhaps, yea probably, heard of this, and made it the subject of remark; Hervey, increasingly irritated, began to write an answer; and now Wesley, in an unlucky moment, published what, up to the present, had been a private letter. Hence the following, by Hervey, to a friend, perhaps Cudworth:—

Hervey not only wrote his answer; but, unfortunately, he submitted it, for revision, to Mr. Cudworth, between whom and Wesley, for several years, Christian charity was nearly at zero. Most of Hervey’s manuscript was sent to Cudworth during the three months, next succeeding the date of the foregoing letter.

Hervey’s reply to Wesley was completed in September. A month afterwards, he wrote as follows:—

Ill as he was, however, his mind was, at least, occasionally occupied with his controversial pamphlet, which, though written, was still under the revision of his friends. Five days after the date of the preceding extract, he says:—

This was Wesley’s last letter to Hervey; the following, written three weeks later, was Whitefield’s:—

The following, it is believed, are Hervey’s last letters,—the first to Mr. Cudworth; the second to Lady Frances Shirley:—

Nine days afterwards, Hervey was a corpse. To his curate, the Rev. Abraham Maddock, he observed,—

The day before his death, in walking across his room, he fainted, and, to all appearance was dead. On reviving, his brother William said, “We were afraid you were gone”; to which he answered, “I wish I were.” And well he might, for, besides the utter exhaustion of his strength, his bones were so intensely sore, that, he shrank from the touch of his attendants, when it was necessary to alter his position; but, in the midst of weakness and of pain, he was unceasingly praising God for His boundless mercies, and never received even a piece of lemon to moisten his parched mouth, without uttering thanks.

On December 25, the day he died, he complained of a great inward conflict, and, as he sat in his easy chair, (for he was not able to lie in bed,) almost constantly had his eyes lifted towards heaven, and his hands clasped in prayer. “O let me spend,” said he, “my last few moments in adoring our great Redeemer! ‘Though my flesh and my heart fail me, yet, God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.’” He then proceeded to expatiate on the words of St. Paul, “All things are yours,—life and death,—for ye are Christ’s.”

Being raised a little in his chair, he exclaimed, “Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy Word; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation.” “Here,” he continued, “is my cordial. What are all the cordials given to support the dying, in comparison of that which arises from the promises of salvation by Christ? This, this supports me.”

About three o’clock in the afternoon, he remarked, “The great conflict is over. Now all is done:” after which the only words he articulated intelligibly were, “Precious salvation.” Between the hours of four and five on Christmas-Day, 1758, James Hervey tranquilly fell asleep, in the forty-fifth year of his age.

Three days afterwards, his body was buried under the Communion table of Weston-Favel Church, in the presence of a large congregation. By his own desire, the pall used, on the occasion, was that employed in covering the coffins of his poor parishioners. Deep was the distress of the assembled crowd. Some wept in silence; others sobbed; and others were even more violently affected. The devout Rector was where “the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest.”

Funeral sermons were preached, and printed, in London, by Romaine, the Lecturer of St. Dunstan’s; and by Cudworth, the dissenting minister, in Margaret Street. Charles Wesley, also, poured out the affection of his lyric soul, in one of his glowing hymns, from which the following stanzas are extracted:—

The principal facts in Hervey’s life have been narrated; and eulogy is not needed. His devout and loving piety has been amply illustrated in the numerous extracts from his letters. In learning, he was inferior to few. His acquaintance with the Latin authors was extensive; and it was one of his peculiarities, when he was called to tea, to bring with him his Hebrew Bible or Greek Testament, and lovingly instruct the members of his family, from the sacred text. His kindness to the poor was only bounded by his means. Private fortune he had none; and, after the payment of his curate, his church emoluments were small; but all the profits arising from the sale of his books,—no inconsiderable sum,—were devoted to the cause of charity; and one of his last directions was, that all future profits should be constantly applied to the same sacred purpose. As the master of a family, his example was worthy of imitation. Twice a day his domestics were summoned for holy worship. At nine every night, he spent about a quarter of an hour in expounding a text of[325] Scripture, and concluded with a prayer. At eight next morning, each of his servants was required to repeat the text of the previous evening, when he gave a summary of his exposition, and again engaged in prayer. As a friend, he was affectionate and faithful. “Though always ill,” said Dr. Stonehouse, “Hervey was always cheerful.” “I am always weak and ill,” he himself remarked; “half dead while I live; yet my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.” His religion, however, led him to live a life of comparative retirement. The gentlemen of his neighbourhood showed him great respect; but he was seldom among their table guests; observing, “I can hardly name a polite family where the conversation ever turns on the things of God. I hear much frothy chit-chat; but not a word of Christ. And I am determined not to visit those companies where there is not room for my Master as well as for myself.”

His ministerial duties were all performed with the greatest strictness. Few of his sermons have been printed,[258] for the simple reason, that, except in outline and in shorthand, few were written; but, in the pulpit, he was always earnest, fervent, and affectionate, and often eloquent. He spake, because he believed and felt. Besides his Sunday preaching, he set up a week-night lecture; catechized the children; and, to the utmost of his ability, visited the homes of his parishioners. “Mr. Hervey,” said the Rev. Henry Venn, “was the most extraordinary man I ever saw.”[259] Probably there was a little of extravagance in this gushing eulogy; but there must have been distinguished excellence to prompt such a man as Venn to utter it. In the same way, the rapturous effusions of John Ryland must be received with caution; and likewise not a few of the hyperbolical encomiums[326] of Mr. Brown; but we heartily endorse the judgment of the late Rev. David McNicol:—

Hervey was one of the most godly men of the age in which he lived; and certainly, he was one of the most popular and successful authors. It is a curious fact, that, at least, four of the Oxford Methodists were gifted with poetic genius,—the two Wesleys, Gambold, and Hervey. In early life, Hervey wrote several short poems, some of them beautiful, and sent several of his hymns to his friend Whitefield; but, strangely enough, he ceased to cultivate his talent, from a fear lest his poetry should feed the pride and vanity of his heart. Throughout life, however, his love of nature was that of an enthusiast; and his “Meditations,” especially, to a great extent, are poetry in prose. Devoutly he blesses the Providence of God, for his well-used microscope, which, in the gardens and fields about Weston-Favel, he almost always took with him. He believed and intimated that the discovery of so much of the wisdom, power, and goodness of the great Creator, even in the minutest parts of vegetable and animalcular creation, helped to attune his soul to sing the song of the four-and-twenty elders, “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power; for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Of course, opinions vary respecting Hervey’s peculiar style; but the fact cannot be denied, that he became one of the most widely-read writers of his time. The young still read his “Meditations” with avidity; and many of the old remember the pleasure that his writings afforded them in their early days. With some degree of appropriateness, he has been designated the Melancthon of the Methodist Reformation. It is quite certain that the elaborated polish of Hervey’s works secured them the attention of the upper circles of society, to a far greater extent than that attention was secured for the writings of Whitefield and Wesley. Hervey avowedly wrote for the élite; Whitefield and Wesley for the masses. Hervey’s style is objectionable to those who cultivate a taste for the simple and chaste, in opposition to what is elaborate and grand; but, somehow, in Hervey’s day, his books, as Whitefield said, “suited the taste of the polite.” May it not be added, that, they also helped to refine the taste of Methodists? The polite read them because they were flowery; the Methodists, because they were savoury; and while, through their medium, the former looked at grace with less prejudice; the latter looked at nature with more delight.

The following, from the North British Review, is, perhaps, as just a critique on Hervey’s writings as can be furnished:—

Here Hervey’s Memoir ought to end; but, unfortunately, posthumous facts must be added.

Already, it has been stated, that, the last days of the devout Rector of Weston-Favel were employed in writing his “Eleven Letters” in answer to Wesley’s “Remarks on Theron and Aspasio.” It is extremely disagreeable to tag to the end of a life so beautiful as Hervey’s a controversial fracas which ought never to have happened, but fidelity forbids the unpleasant duty to be avoided. For more than a hundred years, partisans, on both sides, have discussed the question; and, on both sides, not a little has been written which both Hervey and Wesley would wish to have blotted out. It would not be difficult to lengthen the unprofitable controversy by an analysis of Hervey’s “Eleven Letters” (next to his “Theron and Aspasio,” his ablest work), but the task is uninviting, and the subject shall be dismissed as briefly as possible.

Six years after Hervey’s death, his “Eleven Letters” were surreptitiously published, 12mo, 288 pp., without the printer’s name attached, and with nothing but a brief Preface, signed[329] “Philolethes,” who acknowledged that the work now “found its way into the world, as it were, by stealth.” A year afterwards, in 1765, an authentic edition was issued, with the following title—“Eleven Letters from the late Rev. Mr. Hervey, to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley; containing An Answer to that Gentleman’s Remarks on Theron and Aspasio, Published from the Author’s Manuscript, left in the possession of his Brother, Mr. Hervey. With a Preface, showing the Reason of their being now printed.” 12mo, 297 pp.[260]

The Preface states, that, Hervey did not commence his reply to Wesley before Wesley published his private letter to Hervey, in his “Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion;” in other words, not until after June 23, 1758. This is an error; for, in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Ryland, dated “January, 1758, Hervey says he was even then ‘transcribing his intended answer to Mr. Wesley for the press’” (see 315 page preceding).

He says, he knew not who was the editor of the surreptitious edition of his brother’s letters; and, in the absence of counter evidence, he is entitled to belief. It is somewhat staggering, however, that he had been informed, the editor “gave away the whole impression,” without being told the donor’s name; and also, that, as the proprietor of his brother’s manuscript, he must have known in whose hands the manuscript had been placed since his brother’s death. Mr. Cudworth is generally believed to have been the stealthy publisher; but, if he was, he was not alone. Mr. Ryland writes:—

Not many will coincide with Mr. Ryland’s notions “of[331] foolish and false delicacy.” Apart from the question, Hervey versus Wesley, the surreptitious publication of the book was a base, treacherous, nefarious deed. No wonder that the name of the editor was never authoritatively announced.

Mr. William Hervey complains, that, the edition was extremely “faulty and incorrect,” and did not convey an adequate idea “of the propriety and force of his brother’s Answers to Mr. Wesley.” Fair play makes it imperative to say, that, intentionally or otherwise, this is far from being true. Any one who takes the trouble to compare the two editions will perceive, that, except in typographical corrections, the insertion of Hebrew words in Hebrew instead of English characters, the punctuation of sentences, and the addition of a quotation from St. Chrysostom in Greek, the authentic edition hardly differs a hair-breadth from the surreptitious one.

Mr. William Hervey’s last reason, for the publication of his brother’s manuscript, is not without force. Seven years before, Wesley had unwisely printed his “Remarks on Theron and Aspasio” in his “Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.” Notwithstanding Hervey’s death, that book was still on sale; and, thus, Hervey was continuously attacked without being able to answer for himself. Was this fair, and brotherly? Perhaps, it was not enough to justify the avowed violation of Hervey’s dying wish, and absolute command; but does it not somewhat palliate the dishonour of the treacherous act, and, to some extent, relieve William Hervey of the odium which has been cast upon him?

It is undeniable, that, Hervey’s “Letters” contain severe, and apparently bitter recriminations against his old Oxford acquaintance; but did he himself write them? Those, who are the friends of both the combatants, have doubted this, and have, at least, insinuated that their author was William Cudworth, Wesley’s inveterate enemy. This might be so; but it might be otherwise. It is true, that, the taunting reproaches in the “Eleven Letters” are not what might have been reasonably expected from a man of Hervey’s loving and gentle spirit. His other writings are perfectly exempt from bitterness. He seemed incapable of wounding even an enemy, much more one who, in former days at least, had been a friend. Was his the hand, then, that wrote the reproaches in[332] his “Letters”? Defenders regarded Cudworth as the culprit. There cannot be a doubt, that Cudworth was capable of this. He hated Wesley, and his style of writing, when he chose, was trenchant; but, after all, he might be innocent. The “Eleven Letters” were written during the last year of Hervey’s life, when his illness, always serious, was greatly augmented, and not unlikely to affect his spirits. From his letters, already quoted, it is evident, his irritation against Wesley was such, that, he honestly confesses, he found it “no small difficulty to preserve the decency of the gentleman, and the meekness of the Christian in his intended Answer.” Further, though naturally so loving and so gentle, his sensitiveness was excessive. And, once again, it must be borne in mind, that, with one or two exceptions, such as the attack in the Critical Review, his writings had evoked unmingled approbation,—religious, literary, and aristocratic circles all uniting in his praise; and, that this was not adapted to prepare him for the unceremonious animadversions sent to him by Wesley. God forbid! that, we should cast a speck, which does not belong to it, on a character so beautiful; but no man is exempt from errors; and, perhaps, the hints just dropped are worthy of attention.

The results were painful, and, in some respects, disastrous. Wesley himself was exceedingly annoyed. It was one of the great trials of his life. It engendered a polemical warfare which culminated in the great Calvinian controversy of 1770; a controversy which, on one side at least, grew in bitterness until the death of Toplady, in 1778. And, lastly, not to mention other direful effects, by the action of Dr. Erskine, who published Hervey’s “Eleven Letters” in Scotland, and, not only so, but, in his Preface, made a violent attack on Wesley’s doctrines, Methodism, across the Tweed, sustained an injury, not only deep, but of many years’ duration.

It is a painful task to conclude the life of Hervey amid the din of war; but the facts are too important to be entirely omitted. The difference between the two Oxford Methodists was a mournful occurrence. Neither of them was perfect. Both are blamable. It was a misfortune, that, Wesley’s animadversions were written in a style so blunt. It was a[333] mistake in Hervey to allow his excessive sensitiveness to obtain such a mastery as to prevent his writing to his faithful friend for friendly explanation. It was a serious blunder for Wesley to publish his critique in his “Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.” And, finally, though Hervey’s “Letters” are ably written, it was a great calamity, that, he died before he had given them a finishing revision; and it was a huge breach of trust, as well as a grave impertinence, for any one to violate Hervey’s most solemn wish, and to commit to the public press an uncompleted manuscript, whose publication Hervey, in dying accents, had prohibited.

Thomas Broughton was the son of English parents, who resided in Scotland. His father was Commissioner of Excise, at Edinburgh, and had sixteen children, born and baptized.

Even Mr. Broughton’s descendants seem to know nothing of his early life. From Wesley, we learn, that he was a member of Exeter College, Oxford, and that he joined the Methodists in 1732.[261]

On leaving the University, he appears, first of all, to have officiated at Cowley, near Uxbridge; and, with such success, that, Sir John Harold remarks, in a letter to Wesley, “Several of Mr. Broughton’s late parishioners at Cowley forget not the assembling of themselves together.” In 1736, he became curate at the Tower of London; undertook to preach to the prisoners in Ludgate prison every Tuesday afternoon; and read prayers every night to a religious society at Wapping. By means of Whitefield, he was presented to St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate Street Within; and, through faithfulness to his old Oxford friend, he lost it. The parishioners objected to Whitefield having the use of Broughton’s pulpit. Broughton answered, “Through Mr. Whitefield’s influence, I obtained the living of St. Helen’s, and, if he insists upon it, he shall have my pulpit.” Whitefield did insist, and Broughton lost his lectureship.

Like all the other Oxford Methodists, Broughton was ardently attached to Wesley. In the spring of 1735, when the venerable Rector of Epworth was at the point of death, he used his utmost endeavours, to secure the appointment of Wesley to the vacant rectory; but without effect. In the[335] autumn of that year, Wesley went on his mission to Georgia; and Broughton wrote to him the following self-abasing letter, which has not before been published.

This is far from being a bright and joyous letter; and yet it is conscientious and earnest. Like all the other Oxford Methodists, Broughton was seeking to be saved by his own[336] good works. These were far from perfect; and, hence, his abasement, anguish, and despondency.

In 1737, in the course of his official duty, as curate at the Tower of London, Broughton preached a sermon, which, by request of the commander of the garrison, was published, with the title,—

In 1748, a second edition of this discourse was printed, with a Dedication to The Right Honourable Lord Viscount Ossulstone, in which, in reference to his style, Broughton says,—

The following brief extracts from Broughton’s sermon will furnish an idea of his fidelity, and honest-speaking zeal. Having described the character and conduct of Cornelius, he addressed his military audience as follows:—

The preacher uttering such reproofs as these was, to say the least, a courageous man,—a worthy brother of Wesley himself, who, four years afterwards, preached his withering sermon, on “The Almost Christian” before the Oxford University. Perhaps both were more pointed than pleasant; but in the time-serving age in which we live, the pulpit would be improved by a dash of that stern fidelity which was used by Wesley, Broughton, and the first Methodists. It is far easier to condemn sins, than to reprove sinners. It required greater heroism for Nathan to say to David, “Thou art the man,” than to deliver Nathan’s parable concerning the[338] heinousness of David’s sin; and for Elijah to say to Ahab, “Thou and thy father’s house have troubled Israel,” than to dwell on the general evils of idolatry. John the Baptist was, not rude, but, courageous, when, face to face, he told king Herod, “it was not lawful” for him to have his brother Philip’s wife; and when, in a crowd of Pharisees and Sadducees, he exclaimed, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Who will accuse the Divine Redeemer of want of manners, in His fearful utterance, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Is such fidelity now common in the pulpits of England? Is it less necessary now than it used to be in the days of old? Are the congregations of the present day more educated and refined than David, Ahab, Herod, and the scribes and Pharisees? Have preachers improved upon the spirit and the courage of Nathan, Elijah, the Baptist, and Jesus Christ? And have they discovered a more effectual mode of addressing sinners? Is it not a fact, that, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning”? Is it better and safer to listen to those who “say to the seers, See not, and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits”; or to listen to the voice of God Himself, “O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore, thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand”?

This string of questions may be thought to indicate, that, the writer approves of the rough fidelity of the Oxford Methodists, and is far from satisfied with much of the preaching of the present day. Be it so. He has no wish to avoid the odium, if odium it be. Fine preaching has never effected great reformations. Preaching is often too polite to be[339] powerful. The pulpits of the age would be more successful if filled by men like Wesley, Whitefield, and their friend Broughton. A luxurious, self-indulgent generation needs, not obsequiousness, but, unflinching honesty. Costly clothing, and refined tastes do not turn sinners into saints; but is it not a truth, that, in many instances, they frighten preachers from a faithful, uncompromising discharge of duty?

Broughton belonged to another class. He fearlessly reproved the sinner, and as fearlessly told him of his danger. Addressing his congregation of soldiers,—officers as well as privates,—the bold preacher says,—

Such may be taken as a specimen of Broughton’s preaching, at all events at the commencement of his ministry.

After a five months’ residence in Georgia, Charles Wesley returned to England. Whitefield was ordained, by Bishop[340] Benson, on the 20th of June 1736, and immediately commenced his marvellous career of preaching. At the Christmas following, when only twenty-two years of age, he was fully determined to join Wesley, Ingham, and Delamotte in America. Some of his friends, however, protested against this, and, among others, his friend Broughton, the result of which was, his departure was postponed until the beginning of the year 1738. The following was Broughton’s letter on this occasion:—

John Wesley arrived in England on February 1st, 1738. By repeated interviews with Peter Böhler, he was converted to Böhler’s doctrines, 1. That, faith is “a sure trust and confidence which a man hath in God, that, through the merits of Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God. 2. That, the fruits of this faith are the witness of the Spirit, and the new birth. And, 3. That, this faith is given in a moment, and, that, instantaneously a man may be translated out of darkness into light, out of sin and fear into holiness and happiness.” This, however, was an experience, which Wesley, as yet, had not realized; and, hence, he came to the conclusion, that, notwithstanding all his past piety and devotion, he was still without saving faith. Wesley asked his friend Böhler, whether, being destitute of faith, he “ought not to refrain from teaching others?” Böhler said, “No; do not hide in the earth the talent God hath given you.” Accordingly, when Wesley, his brother Charles, and Broughton met, on April 25, in the house of Mr. Delamotte, at Blendon, the nature and fruits of faith became the subject of discussion. Wesley propounded his new ideas “clearly and fully;” and writes:—

Charles Wesley’s account of this important meeting, held at five o’clock in the morning, is more minute. He remarks:—

Strange to say, within three weeks after this religious fracas, Charles Wesley became a convert to the very opinions which had given him such huge offence; and began to pity and upbraid his friend Broughton for not thinking like himself. Accordingly he writes:—

Charles Wesley was now as impassioned on the one side, as, three weeks before, he had been on the other. He and Broughton became estranged. Hence the following, in his journal:—

A week after this, Charles Wesley believed in Christ to the[343] saving of his soul; and became increasingly anxious for his friend Broughton. He writes:—

At this period, Charles Wesley was intensely interested in the welfare of half a score of malefactors, under sentence of death, in Newgate prison, all of whom were executed at Tyburn, on the 19th of July. During the last nine days they had to live, besides other visits, and personal conversations with them, he preached to them at least six sermons, and twice administered to them the holy Sacrament. On the day of execution, he, and Broughton, and Mr. Sparks were at the prison as early as six o’clock.[265] At Tyburn, these three earnest ministers ascended the cart where, beneath the hideous gibbet, the ten poor wretches, with ropes round their necks, stood awaiting their ignominious end. Charles Wesley offered prayer, then Sparks, and then Broughton; after which the cart was drawn away, and the lives of the miserable men were ended.

Charles Wesley believed that several of them had found peace with God; and declared, that, the hour he spent beneath the Tyburn gallows “was the most blessed hour of his life.” The alienation, however, between him and Broughton still continued. Three weeks afterwards, they met at Mrs. Hind’s, and resumed their old disputes. The details of the interview are not recorded; but Charles declares, that, Broughton acknowledged, he had never read the Homilies of the Established Church; and adds, “he denied explicitly, that, we are saved by Christ’s imputed righteousness; and affirmed, that, works do justify, and have a share in making[344] us righteous before God.” The two were earnest and eager disputants; but, to use Charles Wesley’s words, they “parted good friends.”

After this, we lose sight of Broughton until the year 1741, when he was chosen lecturer of Allhallows, Lombard Street;[266] and when he also married.

The marriage was to have taken place early in the year; but had to be postponed, in consequence of the death of Mr. Capel (the young lady’s father), only two days before the time primarily appointed. In a long letter, dated April 4, 1741, and addressed to Charles Morgan, Broughton gives full particulars of Mr. Capel’s illness and decease, and relates, that, Mr. C. had been married twenty-five years, and was buried in a vault belonging to St. Peter’s, Cornhill. He then remarks:—

It is a well-known fact, that, at this period, the vagaries of[345] the Moravians created great excitement in the religious world. Gambold openly joined the Brethren, as Ingham had already done before him. Fickle Westley Hall was tainted with their heresy; and even Charles Wesley, for a season, was in danger of subsiding into their unscriptural stillness. An effort was made to re-unite Wesley’s London Societies with the Moravians at Fetter Lane; and Wesley and Zinzendorf had a memorable conference in Gray’s Inn public promenade. Whitefield, also, for the time being, was so out of favour with the Brotherhood, that James Hutton, who had been his publisher, refused to have any further transactions with him; and, to add to his annoyance, “the people of the world,” he says, “fled from him as from a viper,” because of his “injudicious and too severe expressions against Archbishop Tillotson, the author of the old Duty of Man.” Hooker, the mendacious editor of the Weekly Miscellany, in his trenchant style, was attacking both Moravians and Methodists indiscriminately; and a Mr. Hopson, one of the twelve stewards of the Religious Societies, pronounced excommunication, from their fellowship, against all the members who were guilty of the crime of hearing the Moravian Brethren, or Wesley, or Whitefield preach.

In this miserable fracas, Broughton was not an uninterested spectator. It is said, that, Mr. Hopson, just mentioned, was instigated by the Bishop of London, and, that, his lordship also entertained the idea of bringing the Moravian proceedings under the notice of Parliament. It is also alleged, that, Broughton became one of his most active agents; and, that, to accomplish the bishop’s scheme of stamping out the Moravian heresy, he availed himself of the services of Mr. Bray, an ex-Moravian, who “made it his business to go among the Brethren, construing all they did to suit his purpose, and then spreading calumnies concerning them.” Be that as it might, a pamphlet was printed, but not published, against both the Methodists and Moravians, containing, among other things, a letter, which Spangenberg had formerly addressed to Bray, and which was now made to tell against the Brotherhood. With what correctness we know not, the author of the “Memoirs of James Hutton” writes,—

No doubt there is some truth in this. Broughton was incapable of the cowardice and misrepresentation alleged against him; but there can be no question, that, he strongly disapproved of some of the doctrines and usages of the Moravians; and no fault can be found with him for this. Like all new religious movements, Moravianism was inexperienced, excitable, and, to some extent, erratic. Infancy cannot be expected to possess the perfection of manhood. With the best intentions, many of the Brethren said and did foolish things. Broughton censured this, and so also did his old friends, Wesley and Whitefield; but it is possible, that, he was desirous of going further than they. Wesley and Whitefield would have weeded Moravianism; Broughton and the Bishop of London would have totally uprooted it.

Nor is there anything in this to excite surprise. Broughton was full of religious zeal and intensely earnest; but he was a rigid Churchman, and, therefore, not in favour of sectarists. Besides, while firmly holding most of the leading doctrines of the Christian faith, he had a strong antipathy, as already seen, to those dogmas of the Brethren, which the Wesley brothers had been taught by Böhler. To what extent his opposition to Methodism and Moravianism was carried, it is impossible to determine. Neither can it be ascertained, whether he cherished his repugnance to Wesley’s newly-found doctrines to the end of life. Charles Wesley, on visiting Newgate prison, in 1743, observes,—

There is obscurity in the last two extracts. Both were written at Newcastle-on-Tyne; and, yet, it is almost certain, that, Broughton was, not there, but, in London. Probably letters from London had been received by Charles, during his northern tour; but what he means by the “affidavits” and by Broughton’s persecution, there is no evidence to show. On the old principle, that, where there is smoke there is fire, it may be safely inferred, that, though Charles Wesley, impulsive and impassioned, entertained an excessive prejudice against his old Oxford friend, Broughton was still in hostility to the doctrines and the action of the Methodists.

Did this continue to the end of life? We cannot tell. We hope not, and are encouraged in this by a fact which happened soon after the year 1750. The Rev. Henry Venn is well known as having belonged to the party of evangelical clergymen, who sprang up in the days of Wesley, embracing the Revs. Samuel Walker, J. Jones, Dr. Conyers, W. Romaine, J. Berridge, and others who might be mentioned. Mr. Venn commenced his earnest and useful ministry in 1750, by accepting the curacy of a Mr. Langley, who held the livings of St. Matthew, Friday Street, London, and of West Horsley, near Guildford, in Surrey. It was his duty to serve the church in London during part of the summer months, and to reside the remainder of the year at Horsley. In this employment he continued from 1750 to 1754, when he accepted the curacy of Clapham. Such was his activity and zeal at Horsley, that, his family prayer was often attended by thirty or forty of his poorer neighbours; and the number of communicants was increased, while he was curate, from twelve to sixty. The neighbouring clergy stigmatized him as an enthusiast and a Methodist, which presupposes that, in spirit,[348] doctrine, or behaviour, or all combined, he bore a likeness to the branded sect. Up to the present, he was personally unknown to Wesley; but he had frequently been among his auditors, and confesses, in a letter, dated March 21, 1754, that, Wesley’s words had often been “as thunder to his drowsy soul.” All this goes to prove, that, the sympathies of the young curate were with Wesley and his friends; and, yet, presuming that Broughton’s antipathy to the recently risen sect still existed, Venn was the means of conferring a substantial benefit on the man who opposed the principles and party which he himself regarded with affectionate and zealous approbation. The story, as related in the life of Venn, is as follows:—

During the time that Mr. Venn held the curacy of Horsley, Sir John Evelyn had the disposal of the living of Wotton, in the same neighbourhood; a living then worth between £200 and £300 a year, and at present worth double that amount. Sir John was exceedingly anxious to obtain a clergyman of exemplary character, and a man of knowledge and learning. The squire of Horsley strongly recommended Mr. Venn, and Sir John seemed ready to accept the recommendation of his friend; but Venn, who had long been acquainted with Broughton, and had a high respect for his virtues, judged him more in need of preferment than himself, and wrote an anonymous letter to the patron, giving a full and faithful account of Broughton’s character, and urging his appointment to the vacant Rectory. Sir John, after making inquiry concerning Broughton, presented him; nor had he ever reason to repent of following the advice of his anonymous correspondent.[268]

If Broughton retained his objection to the doctrines of the Methodists, is it likely, that Venn, himself a Methodist in point of doctrine, would have recommended him for such a post? Venn was well acquainted with him, and must have known his sentiments, not only past but present. He had no personal interests to serve. In fact, his act was one of generous[349] and rare disinterestedness. He was full of youthful zeal, and ardent longings to promote the spread of Christian truth. Under such circumstances, is it rash to regard the action that he took as evidence that the views of Broughton, who, at the beginning of the Methodist movement, had opposed the Methodist doctrines, were now materially changed, and that, in his ministerial teachings, he was substantially in harmony with the Methodist clergy? The reader must form his own opinion on the subject; but as Broughton has always been represented, not as a friend, but as a somewhat zealous opponent of the Methodists, it is hoped, that this seeming digression may not be deemed irrelevant.

To proceed. In 1743, Broughton was appointed the Secretary of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; an office which he held until his death in 1777. For thirty-four years the secretarial duties of this Society were the principal employment of Broughton’s life. In the Society’s house, first in Bartlett’s Buildings, Holborn, and afterwards, in Hatton Garden, he spent five hours every day in the week, except on Saturdays and Sundays; and during these five hours, from 9 a.m., till 2 p.m., was accessible to all members and friends of the Society, who had business to transact. Was his life mis-spent? In answering this, some account of the Society itself is needful; and the following is chiefly taken from its own Reports.

It is a well-known fact, that, the useful and popular preaching of Horneck, Beveridge, and Smithies, led to the institution of the Society for the Reformation of Manners, in 1677. Coexistent with this Society, were a large number of Christian brotherhoods, in London and throughout the kingdom, who held private meetings for religious fellowship, set up prayers in many of the city churches, and were most exemplary in their attendance at the monthly Sacrament, and at public services. To some extent, these religious organizations were one; and yet they were distinct and separate. The Society for the Reformation of Manners was intended to suppress vice in others; the religious societies were instituted principally to promote religion among themselves. The Reformation Society was composed of members of the Church of England and of Dissenters unitedly; the religious societies did not[350] admit Dissenters, and consisted entirely of the members of the Established Church.

Things proceeded thus, till about the end of 1698, when a few gentlemen, belonging to these fraternities, formed themselves into a Society “to promote the knowledge of true religion,” on a more extensive scale than had been yet attempted; and “in 1701, at their instance, a charter was obtained, from William III., whereby all the then subscribing members, with other persons of distinction in Church and State, were incorporated for the better carrying on of that branch of their designs, which related to the Plantations, Colonies, and Factories beyond the seas, belonging to the kingdom of England.” This Society was henceforward known as “The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.”

The incorporation of this Society for foreign missions hardly satisfied the yearnings of many of its members, principally on the ground, that, the British plantations, colonies, and factories beyond the seas, were chiefly in America.

The American colonies were of great importance; but others, besides them, needed sympathy and help. Hence, these godly and earnest workers in the cause of Christ, still continued to carry on, by distinct and separate efforts, other designs for the honour of God, and the good of the human race. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was chartered and designated on June 16, 1701. At the end of the same year, the parties making the distinct and separate efforts were called, “The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.”

The original designs of the latter Society were two-fold. 1. “The dispersion, both at home and abroad, of Bibles, Prayer-Books, and Religious Tracts.” 2. The promotion of “Charity Schools in all parts of the kingdom; in which, besides receiving religious and useful instruction, the children of the poor might be inured to industry and labour, so as to make them, not only good Christians, but loyal and useful subjects of the realm, and willing, as well as fit, to be employed in trades and services, in husbandry, navigation, or any other business, that should be thought of most use and benefit to the public. With these views, the Society[351] printed and circulated a set of rules for the good order and government of such schools,—rules which had been approved by the archbishops and bishops, who directed that the same should be observed within their respective dioceses.”

“Besides these general designs, the Society undertook, in 1710, the management of such charities as might be put into their hands, for the support and enlargement of the Protestant Mission, then maintained by the King of Denmark, at Tranquebar, in the East Indies, for the conversion of the heathen in those parts.” In the prosecution of this work, the Society assisted the Missionaries, at Tranquebar, “with money, a printing press, paper, and other necessaries.” In 1728, they commenced a new mission, for the conversion of the native population at Madras; and, subsequently, another at Cudulore, an English settlement near Fort St. David; a third at Calcutta; and a fourth at Tirutschinapally, the capital of the kingdom of Madurei, an inland country in East India.

In 1720, the Society extended their work to the Greek Church in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Egypt; and, by a special fund, towards which King George I. contributed £500, printed, in Arabic, and, by means of correspondents in Russia, ultimately dispersed in the aforesaid countries, 6000 Psalters, 10,000 New Testaments, and 5000 Catechetical Instructions, with an abridgment of the History of the Bible annexed.

In 1725, when workhouses began to be instituted, for employing the poor and their children, the Society used its influence to promote the extension of such establishments, by publishing an account of those already in existence, and by urging, that, “a particular regard ought always to be had to such an education of poor children, as might, by bringing them up in the faith, knowledge, and obedience of the Gospel, prove the most effectual means to make them good men, and useful to their country.”

In 1732, the Society, hearing the melancholy account of the sufferings of the Protestants in Saltzburg, issued two publications on the subject, and raised a fund, out of which, “besides many large remittances to Germany, they sent to the colony of Georgia, in 1733, 1734, 1735, and 1741, four transports, containing more than two hundred of those poor,[352] persecuted Protestants; who, with two missionaries and a schoolmaster, were settled at Ebenezer, and there lived contented and comfortable.”

This brief outline of the ordinary and special work of the Society brings us down to the time when Broughton was made Secretary. The following are extracts from the manuscript Minutes of the Board of Management:—

Here is added another field of usefulness,—that of benefiting indebted, criminal, and political prisoners. Remembering the interest which, for years past, Broughton had taken in the welfare of prison inmates, there can be little doubt, that, this proceeding of the Society was adopted at his suggestion. Broughton’s sermon to Soldiers, in 1737, has been already mentioned. So far as can be ascertained, his only other publication was issued at the time referred to in the above extracts from the Society’s Minute Book; and, as will be seen, it had its origin in his anxiety concerning prisons. Its title was as follows,—“A Serious and Affectionate Warning to Servants, more especially those of our Nobility and Gentry: occasioned by the shameful and untimely Death of Matthew Henderson; who was executed April 25, 1746, for the Murder of his Lady, Mrs. Dalrymple,[269][353] With some Account of his Behaviour under Sentence of Death. By Thomas Broughton, Lecturer of Allhallows, Lombard Street, and late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. London. 1746.” 47 pp. Broughton repeatedly visited Matthew Henderson,—who was only nineteen years of age,—in the murderer’s cell, and expressed a hope, that, he found peace with God. “His behaviour,” says he, “at the place of execution, was penitent and devout, and such as moved the compassion of a great crowd of spectators, who came to see him suffer.” Two days before his death, Henderson was also visited by Wesley, who wrote;—

Broughton’s pamphlet,[270] on this melancholy occasion, is characterized by great fidelity, and outspokenness; and, as this is the last time, that, his authorship will be mentioned, three extracts, bearing on questions that are still of profound importance, may be acceptable:—

But enough. We return to Broughton as Secretary of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

In 1740, Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, issued a circular letter to the clergy of his diocese, lamenting “the decay of piety and religion, and the increase of sin and vice;” and strongly recommending them to patronize the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, in their work of printing and dispersing Religious Tracts. His Lordship urgently pleaded for the extensive circulation of such publications, on the ground, that, “being short, they were likely to be read; and, being plain, they were likely to be understood; and, being always at hand, and frequently perused, they would naturally make a deeper impression than instructions and admonitions, either from the pulpit, or by word of mouth.”

To furnish an idea of the work of the Society in this department, it may be added, that, the Catalogue, when[355] Broughton became Secretary, embraced, besides Bibles, Psalters, New Testaments, and Prayer-Books—1. Small books and tracts on the Holy Scriptures. 2. On the Church Catechism. 3. On the Christian Religion, Doctrine, and Practice. 4. On the Sacraments and Church Service. 5. On Education and Schools. 6. On Devotion. 7. Miscellanies. 8. On Confirmation. 9. On Particular Duties. 10. On Common Vices. 11. On Charity Schools. 12. On Popery. And, finally, on Enthusiasm, under which heading were two publications only, namely, Bishop Gibson’s “Caution against Enthusiasm,” and “An Earnest and Affectionate Address to the Methodists.” All the Bibles, books, and tracts were sold to the members of the Society at cost price. The number of the Society’s publications were about 160. The Treasurers were the Rev. Dr. Denne, Archdeacon of Rochester, and Rector of St. Mary’s, Lambeth; William Tillard, Esq., Holborn; and Benjamin Hoare, Esq., Fleet Street.

The number of Charity Schools, in London and Westminster, in 1744, were 136, containing 3119 boys and 1950 girls; and, since their establishment, 15,250 boys had been apprenticed, sent to service, or to sea, or had been taken out by their respective friends. Of the girls, 1658 had been apprenticed, and 6162 had been employed in domestic service, etc.[271] Besides those in the metropolis, there were, throughout the kingdom, 1703 other charity schools, in which were educated, and “inured to industry and labour,” 31,184 boys, and 4515 girls.

It must not be understood, that, these charity schools were supported by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge;[272] but the Society had promoted their establishment; and, to some extent, furnished them with books and[356] tracts. Every year also, a sermon was preached, in London, under the auspices of the Society, at “the time of the yearly meeting of the children educated in the charity schools, in and about the cities of London and Westminster;” and all of these sermons (many of them exceedingly able) were published in the Society’s Reports. That, such Schools were needed, there can be no question. The following description is taken from the sermon preached by the Rev. Glocester Ridley, LL.B., in 1757, and is alarmingly true of the “London Arabs” now existing. Speaking of the outcast children of the metropolis, the preacher represents them, as, “A brood of miserable wretches in themselves, and noxious vermin to society; a kind of rational brutes, but worse than savages, being equally beasts of prey, but more mischievous, from their use of reason and resemblance of human kind. They may be the care, the admiration, the triumph of Infidelity; but every generous heart must grieve to see reason so disordered and human nature so in ruins.”

From what has been already written, an idea may be formed of the Society of which Broughton was the Secretary, from 1743 to 1777. It was a Bible, Prayer-Book, Religious Tract, Home and Foreign Mission, and Industrial Society, all in one. The present “British and Foreign Bible Society” was established in the year 1804; the “National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church,” in 1811; the Religious Tract Society, in 1799; the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge was long anterior to the oldest of these.

It had two kinds of members; 1. Those who gave annual subscriptions, lived in or near London, and were called Residing Members; 2. Corresponding Members, being persons, in Great Britain and Ireland, and other Protestant countries, who were chosen to correspond with the Society, on the state of religion in the places where they dwelt, to distribute the Society’s publications, and to remit any occasional benefactions, which they or their friends might be pleased to contribute. No one, however, was elected a corresponding member, who was not “well affected to his Majesty King George and his Government, and to the Church of England as by law established;” and who was not “of a sober, and religious life[357] and conversation, and of an humble, peaceable, and charitable disposition.” The subscribing members were chiefly clergymen and bishops; including the following, who were often called Methodists, the Rev. Thomas Adam, Richard Conyers, Thomas Hartley, Henry Venn, and Vincent Perronet.[273] The last mentioned became a member as early as 1744. Among the few highly respectable lay-members, Sir John Thorold, an early friend of the Oxford Methodists, was the most munificent subscriber. The number of members altogether was, in 1767, upwards of 700; and the income, for that year, including a balance in hand, was £5580. In the same year, the Society sold, 3829 Bibles; 2281 New Testaments; 5416 Prayer-Books; 8902 other bound books; and 58,429 tracts. Of these, 1014 books and tracts were given to the Society, and 19,423 bought by it; the remainder, 58,420, were its own publications.

Such, then, was the Society of which Broughton was the chief manager. Its operations, comparatively speaking, might be small, but it had the honour of being the pioneer of some of the greatest movements of the present day. It distributed Bibles long before the British and Foreign Bible Society existed. The great Religious Tract Society was not formed until twenty-two years after Broughton’s death. Its Foreign Missions were few in number, but were important and successful; one of its missionaries being the celebrated Schwartz, who, as early as 1772, had five native assistants, and was held in such high esteem, by the Hindoos, among whom he laboured, that, the Rajah of Tanjore made him tutor to his son. In the education of the children of the poor, the Society deserves the utmost commendation, for it promoted the work when all others neglected it; and not only gave the children useful and religious instruction, but “inured them to industry and labour,” and prepared them to become useful subjects of the commonwealth.

Little is known of Broughton’s pulpit labours; and, though his parishioners at Wotton numbered not more than about 600, if they had any pastoral visitation at all, their visitor must have been, not Broughton himself, but, a curate employed by him. Five days every week were spent in the[358] Society’s House, in Hatton Garden; Saturday and Sunday, Broughton reserved for other duties. Some will doubt the propriety of his holding the Wotton living, when most of his time was devoted to work, which prevented him residing among his people; and that is a fair subject for discussion. All that we are disposed to say, is, that, Broughton was, unquestionably, a conscientious man, and, though liable to mistakes, there cannot be a doubt, he acted for the best. Broughton had a large family,—fifteen children altogether, five of whom died in infancy; and his official salary was small, the entire payment, by the Society, for “rent, taxes, and salaries” to himself and a “messenger,” being, for the year 1767, not more than £290 8s. 9d. Was it surprising, that, with such a family and such a pittance, he was willing to accept preferment? It is true, when inducted into the Wotton living, he might have relinquished his secretarial office, and, perhaps, should have done; but, on the other hand, he, doubtless, felt that, as Secretary of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, he had the opportunity of being far more extensively useful than he could be as a village clergyman, whose ministerial labours had to be confined to a population of six hundred souls. The two-fold position that he occupied is open to objection; but, without all the facts, for and against it, to pronounce a decisive judgment might be rash.

One thing is certain, Broughton’s secretaryship was not a sinecure. The supervision of the missions in India and Georgia; the continuous printing and publishing of Bibles, books, and tracts; the charity schools’ affairs; the publication of the annual Sermon and Report; and the correspondence with more than seven hundred subscribing and corresponding members, would find the Secretary quite enough of work, without the claims of Allhallows, Lombard Street, or the parishioners of Wotton, Surrey.

Two facts, connected with Broughton’s term of office, are too important to be omitted.

In 1743, when Broughton became Secretary, Wales was almost without Bibles, and the poverty of vast numbers of the people was such, that, it was impossible for them to buy them. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,[359] becoming acquainted with this disgraceful fact, appealed to the public, without delay, for special contributions to publish a new edition of the Bible in the Welsh language, with the Common Prayer, and with the Psalms in Metre. The success of this appeal was such, that, the Society issued an edition, in 1748, of 15,000 copies; in 1752, a second edition of 15,000 Bibles, besides 5000 New Testaments, and as many Prayer-Books; and, in 1768, a third edition, with marginal references, of 20,000 copies. These copies of the Holy Scriptures were not given, but were sold at the lowest price possible.

Again: In 1763, it was ascertained, that, of the twenty thousand inhabitants of the Isle of Man, a very large majority were entirely ignorant of the English language; “and, yet, for many ages, the island had been without the Bible in the vulgar tongue, and congregations were necessitated to receive off-hand translations of the English Bible and Common Prayer, according to the different sense, attention, and ability of the officiating ministers.” To remedy this fearful state of things, the Bishop of the Island began, in 1762, to collect subscriptions; and, in 1763, transferred the matter to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The result was, in 1768, the Society had printed in the Manx language, and distributed in the Isle of Man, 1000 copies of the four Gospels and of the Acts of the Apostles; 1500 Prayer-Books; 2000 Catechisms; and 1200 Christian Monitors. They were also proceeding with the translation and printing of the rest of the Holy Scriptures; the Apostolical Epistles being now, for the first time, translated into the native language of the island.

Little more remains to be narrated. On Sunday morning, December 21, 1777, in Hatton Garden, Broughton put on his ministerial robes, and, according to his wont, retired into his room till church-time. The bells were ringing, and he continued in his closet. They ceased, but he made no appearance. His friends entered, and found him on his knees,—dead.[274] An original portrait of him hangs in the Board[360] Room of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 67, Lincoln’s Inn Fields; from which the engraving, in the present volume, has been taken.

It is difficult to determine the exact number, who, at one time or another, were Oxford Methodists. As early as the year 1733, four had left the brotherhood, three of the seceders being pupils of Wesley, and one under Clayton’s care. Wesley writes:—

The “fourteen or fifteen” included the two Wesleys and Whitefield, Memoirs of whom have been designedly omitted in the present work. There were, also, Clayton, Ingham, Gambold, Hervey, and Broughton, with whom the reader has been made acquainted. Besides these, Robert Kirkham, Charles Morgan, William Smith, and Matthew Salmon, who have been briefly noticed, were, less or more, connected with them. Seven others, standing in the same relationship, must now be mentioned,—namely, Messrs. Boyce, Chapman, Kinchin, Hutchins, Atkinson, Whitelamb, and Hall. This is a greater number than that stated by Wesley; but it must be recollected, that, in 1735, Oxford Methodism was in the seventh year of its existence, and that some of its first members had then left the University.

REV. MR. BOYCE.

Of Mr. Boyce we know nothing, except that his father lived at Barton.[276] Did he subside into an ordinary country parish priest,—pious and plodding, but unenterprising and unknown? To say the least, it would be interesting to know his career, after he left Oxford. Will some one, better informed than the present writer, furnish what is lacking?

REV. WILLIAM CHAPMAN.

The history of William Chapman also is wanting. He was ardently attached to the two Wesleys; but,[362] strangely enough, they never mention him. After their departure from Oxford, he was the nightly companion of Hervey; but, excepting the letter, dated “June 12, 1736,” already given in Hervey’s Memoir (page 208), we possess no epistolary correspondence between the two. Chapman, like all the other Oxford Methodists, was humble, earnest, and devout. The following, hitherto unpublished, letter affords ample evidence of this. It was addressed “To the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, at Savannah, in Georgia, America.”

It is hoped, that, this fragment of the religious experience of the Oxford Methodists will not be unacceptable. The men were intensely earnest and sincere, but not happy.

REV. CHARLES KINCHIN.

Charles Kinchin, a Fellow of Corpus Christi College,[277] left Oxford about the same time the Wesleys did, and became Rector of Dummer, a small village of about four hundred inhabitants, with a benefice, at present, worth more than £400 a year. Like a good Oxford Methodist, he visited from house to house, catechised the children, and had public prayers twice every day,—in the morning, before the people went to work, and, in the evening, after their return.

Towards the end of 1736, being likely to be chosen Dean of Corpus Christi College, he requested Whitefield to supply his place at Dummer, while he was absent on the business of the pending election. Whitefield writes:—

Kinchin being elected Dean of Corpus Christi, was now frequently obliged to reside at Oxford; but he still retained his rectory at Dummer, where Whitefield was succeeded by Hervey. The Dean, however, continued faithful to the principles of the Methodists, and, on the removal of Hervey, Whitefield, and others from the University, willingly took upon himself the spiritual charge of the Oxford prisoners. Charles Wesley on his return from Georgia, hastened to Oxford, where, in February, 1737, he met with his “old pupil, Robert Kirkham,” “good Mr. Gambold,” “poor languid Smith,” and “Mr. Kinchin,” whom, says he, “I found changed into a courageous soldier of Christ.” A year afterwards, W. Seward, speaks of Kinchin expounding at Oxford, and of “forty gownsmen” being among his auditors.[278]

On March 15th, 1738, Wesley and Kinchin set out for Manchester, accompanied by Kinchin, and a Mr. Fox, who had been an inmate of Oxford prison. An extract from Wesley’s Journal will help to illustrate the character, not of Wesley only, but, of Kinchin. Wesley writes:—

There is something beautiful in all this:—the two Oxford Methodists and an ex-prisoner, in a dark and rainy night, making the lanes ring with their praises to the Almighty, and, in the absence of a church, using a country inn, for[365] reading the Church liturgy and expounding the word of God. Wesley proceeds:—

Here, again, is a useful lesson. As yet, neither Wesley nor Kinchin had found peace with God, by trustful faith in Christ. They were, if the reader likes the designation, legalists,—men seeking to be saved by their own good works. Be it so; but, in their conscientiousness with regard to duty, and in their earnest desire to be useful to their fellow-men, they set an example to Christian travellers, which is not generally followed. Wesley continues:—

Men like Kinchin and Wesley will never be without adventures. This long three days’ journey, in the wintry weather, was filled with incidents, by the earnest efforts of the travellers to be of service to those with whom they met. They were scholars, gentlemen, and philanthropists. Religion was all in all to them. They lived it; looked it; breathed it. Everywhere, in the humble home of the quondam prisoner, the town hotel, the country inn, and the ostler’s stable,—among waiters, fellow-travellers, and disputatious Quakers,—they were equally about their Master’s business. Would, that, in these days of unequalled locomotion, men of such a spirit and of such behaviour were multiplied!

Three days were spent in Manchester, one of them “entirely with Mr. Clayton, by whom,” says Wesley, “and the rest of our friends here, we were much refreshed and strengthened.” On the Sunday, both the Oxford Methodists “officiated at Salford Chapel”; and, on Monday, March 20th, they set out on their return to Oxford. Wesley writes:—

In a moral and religious sense, this episode in the lives of the two Oxford Methodists is pre-eminently picturesque. The two were of one mind and heart, and all their energies and time were devoted to the service of their great Master.

Four days were spent at Oxford, during which Wesley met Böhler, and was “amazed more and more, by the account he gave of the fruits of living faith,—the holiness and happiness which he affirmed to attend it.” And, on Easter Monday, April 3rd, at Kinchin’s desire, Wesley went with him to Dummer, where he remained, for him, the unusually lengthened period of a fortnight. Here they doubtless pondered Böhler’s doctrines, and brought them to the test of Scripture; and here, perhaps, was held a meeting, which Wesley mentions, without giving the date and place of it.

Among others at Dummer, in whose religious interests Wesley took an active interest, was Kinchin’s sister, who, three weeks after his departure, wrote to him, as follows:—

Letters like these show the religious confidence and friendship which Kinchin and his sister cherished towards Wesley.

Kinchin, as yet, was only a penitent inquirer. In the month of August, 1738, Charles Wesley went to Oxford, and met him and Gambold, who, says he, “surprised me, by receiving my hard saying, that they had not faith. I was ashamed to see the great thankfulness, and child-like loving spirit of Mr. Kinchin, even before justification.” They attended together a Society meeting, where C. Wesley read his sermon on, “The Scripture hath concluded all under sin.” He writes,—

This, especially at the time, was a strange scene; and Kinchin was there as a listener and a learner. Soon after this, the two Wesleys and Whitefield were almost uniformly excluded from the pulpits of the Established Church. During the year 1739, Wesley himself was not allowed to preach in more than eight; and one of these was the pulpit of his friend Kinchin. In the month of March, when at Oxford, he wrote,—

Wesley, and his brother, and Whitefield were now, by force of circumstances, evangelistic itinerants; ordained clergymen, without churches, and yet preaching everywhere; and Kinchin was inclined to join them. It was, at this momentous period, that Hervey wrote to him the letter, dated, “April 18, 1739,” an extract from which has been already given (see page 220). Whether that letter turned him from his purpose, there is no means of knowing. Any how, his decision, comparatively speaking, was of little consequence, for his work was nearly ended. In spirit, in aim, and in doctrine, however, he thoroughly sympathized with his outcast brethren, and, in time of need, sought their counsel and[370] their prayers. The following is an extract from a long letter addressed to Wesley, and hitherto unpublished.[283]

In a little more than two years after this, Kinchin entered into rest. Wesley writes:—

REV. RICHARD HUTCHINS, D.D.

It has been already stated, that, Dr. Hutchins was Hervey’s tutor. We have no further information concerning him, except[371] the following, kindly supplied, from the Register of Lincoln College, Oxford, by the present Rector:—

The only publication by Dr. Hutchins, which we have seen, is a Latin sermon, delivered at the time of his being made Doctor of Divinity, in 1747, and with the following title,—“Elucidatio Sexti Capitis Evangelii secundem Johannem, in solenni Praelectione habita in Schola Theologica Oxon, pro Gradu Doctoris in Theologia. A. Ric. Hutchins, S. T. B. Colleg. Lincoln Socio., 1747,” 8 vol. 51 pp. The sermon is learned and spiritual; and the reader may infer what were the views and sympathies of its author, when it is stated, that, the third and principal division, is, that, the body and blood of Christ are communicated to the faithful in the Eucharist. In more respects than one, Dr. Hutchins continued an Oxford Methodist long after all his old friends had been dispersed.

REV. CHRISTOPHER ATKINSON.

In the Parish Register of Thorp-Arch, near to Wetherby, in the county of York, there is the following entry, in Christopher Atkinson’s own hand-writing:—

Here, for a quarter of a century, Mr. Atkinson lived and laboured. He and Ingham were not distant neighbours, and close at hand were flourishing societies of Methodists; and, yet, there is no evidence, that either Ingham, the Wesleys or Whitefield ever paid him visits. Why was this? It is impossible to tell. The two villages of Thorp-Arch and Walton were small, not containing a population of more than about three hundred each; but they were not remote from Otley, Leeds, and York, places which Wesley, at least, often visited.

Mr. Atkinson had a large family, and a church income hardly equal to his wants.[285] One of his sons, the Rev. Miles Atkinson, rose to considerable eminence. Besides being Vicar of Kippax, Lecturer of the parish church in Leeds, and Incumbent of St. Paul’s, in that important town, he was the author of “Practical Sermons,” in two octavo volumes, and had the honour of being sneered at by the half-infidel Monthly Review of the period in which he lived. The famous “Billy” Dawson was greatly benefited by his ministry and friendship in early life; and, in 1779, at Atkinson’s request, Wesley preached in the parish church, at Leeds, to such a congregation as had seldom been assembled within its walls. In spirit and in doctrine, Miles Atkinson was thoroughly in harmony with the Methodists; and, from such a circumstance, perhaps, it may with safety be inferred, that, in this respect, he was walking in the footsteps of his father.

A happy death is generally the sequence of a holy and useful life; and such a death was that of Atkinson, the Oxford Methodist. The details are here given in the language of the son just mentioned. He visited him on the day of his decease, and thus writes:—

Christopher Atkinson lies interred in the burial ground of Thorp-Arch church, of which he was the minister for five-and-twenty years.

REV. JOHN WHITELAMB.

John Whitelamb, the son of poor parents, was born in 1707, in the neighbourhood of Wroot, a small village of about three hundred inhabitants, in the county of Lincoln. The village stands upon an eminence, surrounded by 60,000 acres of land, which, in Whitelamb’s days, were often flooded, rendering Wroot accessible only by boats. The land, also, even at the best of times, was fenny, moorish, swampy.

About the time of Whitelamb’s birth, Henry Travis, Esq., of London, bequeathed three hundred and seventy-nine acres of land, for the endowment of three schools, at Wroot, Hatfield, and Thorne, in which children, male and female, were to be taught to read English, especially the Bible and Catechism, and to be well instructed in the principles of the Christian religion. The Archbishop of York was to be special visitor; the children were to be elected by the clergyman of each of the three respective parishes, and by his churchwardens; and on leaving school, and attaining the age of seventeen, each scholar was to be presented with a Bible and the “Whole Duty of Man.” It was in the charity school, at Wroot, that Whitelamb received the rudiments of his education.

It is well known, that, Wesley’s father was rector of both Epworth and Wroot, and that his greatest literary work was his “Dissertationes in Librum Jobi,” a large-size folio book of 600 pages. Samuel Wesley was employed upon this remarkable production for more than five-and-twenty years. On leaving school, young Whitelamb became his amanuensis. For four years, he was occupied in transcribing the aged rector’s Dissertations. He also designed its illustrations, several of which he also engraved.

While resident beneath the roof of Samuel Wesley, Whitelamb acquired a sufficient knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, to enter Lincoln College, Oxford, where he was principally maintained by the Epworth Rector, and had Wesley for his tutor.

Samuel Wesley was a large-hearted man, to whom it was always a happiness to have the power of showing kindness to a fellow-creature. His own early life had been an almost friendless one. With an insatiable thirst for knowledge,[375] he had to pursue it “under difficulties.” Bitter experience had taught him the preciousness of a friend’s assistance. These facts were quite sufficient to render the poor boy, from the Wroot Charity School, an object of affectionate regard; but there were others beside these. John Whitelamb was the son of one of Samuel Wesley’s peasant parishioners; as an amanuensis, he had rendered the Rector important service for four long years; and, more than that, he had been the means of saving the Rector’s life. In a letter, dated, “Epworth, September 5, 1728,” Samuel Wesley writes:—

Remembering all this, it will be felt, that, it was a grateful, as well as generous, act, for Samuel Wesley to send his youthful helper and deliverer to Lincoln College, Oxford.

Whitelamb’s going to Oxford must have taken place soon after Samuel Wesley’s providential deliverance from being drowned; for, five years after this, he had finished his collegiate education, and become the Rector’s curate, and son-in-law.

Like his patrons, however, Whitelamb was very poor; and poverty always implies trials. The young gentlemen of Oxford, as a rule, had ample means, and could dress[376] accordingly; but Whitelamb, without a purse, had to submit to the indignity of wearing a worn-out college gown. Wesley, his tutor, pitied him, and yet had scarcely the ability to help him. Hence the following, to his brother Samuel, under the date of “November 17, 1731:”

No wonder that Susannah Wesley used to call Whitelamb “poor starveling Johnny.” His position was a proud, and yet a painful one.

In 1733, Whitelamb became Samuel Wesley’s curate, and, soon afterwards, married his daughter Mary. Whitelamb’s wife was eleven years older than himself; and, through affliction in early life, and, probably, some mismanagement in her nurse, was of stunted growth, and considerably deformed; but her face was exquisitely beautiful, and her amiable temper made her the delight and favourite of the whole of the Wesley family. In her elegy, written by her accomplished sister Mehetabel, and published in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1736, are the following lines:—

Such was John Whitelamb’s wife. To provide for the newly-married pair, Samuel Wesley resigned to Whitelamb his rectory at Wroot. The village was sequestered, and the surrounding country, to a great extent, a swamp. The church, also, was extremely unpretending, and its walls composed of boulder stones which, in 1794, were used in paving Epworth streets. Still, there was a field for usefulness, and a benefice, which now is worth about £260 a year. Samuel Wesley’s letter to the Lord Chancellor is so characteristic of both himself and his son-in-law, that its insertion is not irrelevant.

His lordship complied with this request, and, in the Gentleman’s Magazine for the ensuing month, February, 1734, in the list of ecclesiastical preferments, was the following:—“Mr. Whitelamb to the rectory of Wroot, Lincolnshire.”

Immediately after, Whitelamb and his wife removed to Wroot, and took “true pains among the people.” Their parsonage is thus described by Samuel Wesley, junior:—

Their parishioners were sketched by Mehetabel Wesley, in the lines following:—

The pictures are not attractive; but, despite their thatched residence, and the boorishness of the people among whom they lived, Whitelamb and his wife were happy. Their union, however, was of brief duration. Within one short year of her marriage, the grave received all that was mortal of Mrs. Whitelamb and her infant child. She died in childbirth, at the end of October, 1734.

This was a terrible stroke to the young husband. For a season, he was inconsolable, and, to divert him from his trouble, his father-in-law brought him to the Epworth Rectory. This was just about the time when Oglethorpe returned from Georgia, whither he had gone with his first company of motley emigrants. Samuel Wesley, now within six months of his decease, took an intense interest in the Georgian colony, and declared that, if he had been ten years younger, he would gladly have devoted the remainder of his life and labours to the emigrants, and in acquiring the language of the Indians among whom they had to live. Among others[379] who had gone to Georgia with Oglethorpe, and had returned with him, was John Lyndal, one of Samuel Wesley’s parishioners, of whom the venerable Rector earnestly inquired whether the ministers who had migrated to the infant colony understood the Indian language, and could preach without interpreters. All this tended to turn poor Whitelamb’s thoughts to Georgia; and, five weeks after Mrs. Whitelamb’s death, the Rector of Epworth wrote to General Oglethorpe as follows:—

Samuel Wesley then proceeds to give an account of the life of Whitelamb, and continues:—

Samuel Wesley died within five months after the date of this application to Oglethorpe; his son-in-law, John Whitelamb, for some unknown reason, did not go to Georgia; but his sons John and Charles set sail for the recently founded colony on October 14, 1735.

Did Whitelamb miss the way of Providence in not becoming a Georgian missionary? Perhaps he did. At all events, the remaining thirty-four years of his life seem to have been of comparatively small importance to his fellow-men. While the two Wesleys, his brothers-in-law, and Whitefield, were preaching everywhere, and, with Christian heroism, were braving the most infernal and brutish persecutions; while Clayton, in Manchester, was living the active life of a Church of England Ritualist, and Ingham, in Yorkshire, was performing the part of a useful evangelist; while Gambold was restraining Moravian follies, and Broughton was doing his utmost to disperse Bibles, and religious books and tracts;—poor, bereaved Whitelamb seems to have sunk down into a disconsolate and nearly useless widowerhood, and to have spent,—wasted, we had almost said,—his dreary life among the unappreciative dolts, so graphically described by his deceased wife’s sister—Mehetabel. It is true, he had the care of about three hundred souls; but, with his natural ability and collegiate education, he might, in addition to fulfilling his parochial duties, have rendered other service to the Church of Christ, and to mankind at large. At all events, his venerable patron did not sleep away his probationary being as his son-in-law, John Whitelamb, did.

It is a significant fact, that, though Whitelamb lived at Wroot nearly forty years after Wesley began his itinerant career, and though the visits of the latter, to Epworth and the neighbourhood, were numerous, he never, excepting once, and that during his first evangelistic tour to the north of England, came to Wroot. He writes:—

It ought to be said, that, Wesley had been at Epworth and in the neighbourhood for the last eight days. He had preached from his father’s tombstone, from, “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;” and again, from, “By grace are ye saved through faith;” and a third time from, “Unto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness;” and a fourth, either from the tombstone or in the street, on Friday, the 11th of June, on, “Ezekiel’s vision of the resurrection of the dry bones;” and a fifth, on the day before he went to Wroot, from the same subject as he took at the afternoon service in Whitelamb’s church. His visit had occasioned immense excitement. During the sermon, on Friday, “lamentation and great mourning were heard; God bowing the hearts of the people, so that, on every side, as with one accord, they lifted up their voice and wept aloud;” and, on Saturday, he writes:—

Whitelamb was present at one, at least, of these Epworth services; and, like others, was deeply impressed with the preacher’s doctrines; but, strangely enough, seems not to have spoken to him. Two days afterwards, however, he wrote to Wesley, and this, probably, occasioned the visit to Wroot just mentioned. His letter was as follows:—

This is a curious letter. It is evident, that, there was, at least, a partial estrangement between Whitelamb and the Wesley family. Correspondence had ceased; and, even when Wesley visited Epworth, and Whitelamb was one of his hearers, they parted without speaking. Why was this? Whitelamb did not believe in Wesley’s doctrines; but that is hardly sufficient to account for such a fact. Perhaps the reason may be found in Whitelamb’s own confession, that, he had “been passionate, fickle, and a fool,” though it is impossible to tell to what such words referred. In the melancholy state of mind in which he obviously was, the epithets might be a severer condemnation of himself than his spirit and behaviour had merited. Be that as it may, though Whitelamb lived for[383] twenty-seven years after this, and though, with undeniable sincerity, he professes great gratitude for the past kindness of the Wesley family, and ardent and affectionate admiration of Wesley himself, this was the winding up of their friendly intercourse. Wesley says, with what correctness we know not, that, at “this time, and for some years afterwards,” Whitelamb “did not believe the Christian Revelation;” but whether Wesley meant, that, Whitelamb was a disbeliever in the Bible as a whole, or only in those doctrines of the Bible which Wesley and his friends were daily preaching, it is impossible to say. If he meant the former, we incline to think there must have been some mistake; for, unless Whitelamb were the most arrant knave, he must, in such a case, have relinquished his high office of the Christian ministry. If Wesley meant the latter, his words are too strong, and it was an injustice to Whitelamb’s character and memory to insert them in the Arminian Magazine.

Wesley’s and Whitelamb’s intercourse, at Wroot, seems to have been friendly and pleasant; but allowing the Arch-Methodist to preach in the humble pulpit of the little church gave great offence, and perhaps this was one of the reasons why Wesley ceased to visit him. The following letter, written within three months after Wesley’s visit, is full of interest, and furnishes additional evidence, that, the young widower had been guilty of serious follies, and, as a consequence, had been eschewed by the Wesley family. It was addressed to Wesley’s brother Charles.

The last sentence of this letter is significant. John Whitelamb was religious before Charles Wesley was. When Charles was elected to Christ Church, in 1726, he was a sprightly,[385] rollicking young man, with more genius than grace. In 1728, or 1729, “he began to attend the weekly sacrament, and induced two or three other students to attend with him;” and this was really the beginning of the Methodist movement. It is a curious fact, that, this was the very time when Whitelamb went to Oxford. Was John Whitelamb, a young man of twenty-one, fresh from the religious atmosphere of the Epworth rectory, the means of reforming the sprightly Charles Wesley; and, in that indirect way, the means of Methodism being started? The question has never before been put; and it is one which, perhaps, cannot, with certainty, be answered.

Of the last twenty-seven years of Whitelamb’s life we know nothing. More than a quarter of a century ago, an aged female, at Wroot, had a distinct recollection of him, and described him “as a person of retiring habits, and fond of solitude.” She was present when he was suddenly seized, while on his way to perform divine service at the church, with the illness which shortly terminated in his death; and spoke of his funeral as having been attended by a considerable number of clergymen, who thus paid their last tribute of respect to a departed friend.[293]

Whitelamb died in the month of July, 1769; and, three months afterwards, Wesley wrote to Mrs. Woodhouse, of Epworth, as follows:—

Wesley evidently knew nothing of the circumstances of Whitelamb’s death; and his contrast in reference to the religious state of the deceased rector of Wroot “forty years ago” appears to be hardly generous. “Forty years ago” Methodism was just beginning; and it was not until[386] nine years afterwards, that, Wesley himself attained the knowledge of being saved, not by good works, but, by faith in Christ.

In Wroot churchyard, a small stone, about two feet long and one foot broad, bears the following inscription:—

REV. WESTLEY HALL.

It is far from pleasant to conclude a book in darkness and in pollution; but, in the present case, it cannot be avoided. In most flocks, there is, at least, one objectionable sheep; and few are the brotherhoods without offenders. Among the patriarchs, Reuben, by sin, forfeited the rights of primogeniture and the priesthood; and, among the apostles, Judas Iscariot was an infamous betrayer. History not only supplies examples, but hoists beacons. The former are useful, and the latter not unneeded. The story of the Oxford Methodists cannot be fully told without a reference to the sin and shame of Westley Hall. The subject is a nauseous one; but, it may help to enforce the apostolic admonition, founded upon the same kind of historic facts,—“Wherefore, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”

At Lincoln College, Oxford, he was one of Wesley’s pupils, and was a man of agreeable person, pleasing manners, and good property. The time of his joining the Methodist brotherhood is not known; but Susanna Wesley, writing to her son John, on October 25, 1732, observes:—

Hall seems to have been ordained as early as the year 1734. Hence, in another letter, dated March 30, 1734, Wesley’s mother, after referring to the religious practices of the Oxford Methodists and other matters, says,—

These extracts furnish the reader with a glimpse of Hall at Oxford. Wesley himself testifies that, while at the University, Hall “was holy and unblamable in all manner of conversation.” In what his “extraordinary piety” consisted, we are not informed; but it is a curious fact, that, he, of all men, made ostentatious professions of his having the gift mentioned by the Divine Redeemer (Matt. xix. 10-12).[297] This reads oddly in connection with the following extract from one of Wesley’s letters:—

What is the history of this strange transaction? Martha Wesley was born in 1707; Kezziah, her sister, in 1710.[388] About the year 1734, Westley Hall met Martha at her uncle’s house in London, proposed to marry her, and, without the knowledge of her parents, or her brothers, was accepted. He then accompanied John and Charles to Epworth, and there saw Kezziah, grew enamoured of her, courted, and obtained her consent, and that of the family in general, to marry him; all of them being ignorant of his pre-engagement with Martha. Returning to London, Hall renewed his addresses to “poor Patty,” who was completely unconscious of what had transpired at Epworth. She wrote to her mother, stating, that for some time past, she had been betrothed to Hall. Kezziah, on learning this, renounced all claim to him. The mother wrote to Martha, assuring her, “that, if she obtained the consent of her uncle, there was no obstacle” to the marriage. The uncle raised no objection; gave Martha a dowry of £500; and the wedding was completed.

Such, in outline, is the account given by Dr. Adam Clarke. It is not without difficulties. Knowing all the facts, Mrs. Wesley’s approbation is unaccountable, except on the ground, that, now and for years afterwards, she held a high opinion of Hall’s piety and character. Charles Wesley, at the time, was excessively indignant, and wrote to Martha a poetical epistle full of terrible invective; and yet, soon afterwards, when the Wesleys were about to embark for Georgia, it was arranged that Hall should attend them, indicating, that, some sort of a reconciliation had taken place between Charles and Hall. The following are selections from Charles’s poem:—

Poor jilted Kezziah took the matter more calmly. In a letter to her brother John, dated June 16, 1734, not long before Martha’s marriage, she observed,—

Comment on the above facts would not be difficult; but the reader must form his own opinion on all the parties concerned in this mournful business. We only add a copy of verses printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine, for September, 1735, p. 551,—verses portraying a nuptial life, the very opposite of that which awaited the unfortunately wedded couple.

As already related (see pp. 65-67), it was fully arranged, that, a month after the appearance of this epithalamium, Westley Hall and his newly-wedded wife should accompany the Wesleys to Georgia; and, that, at the last moment, Hall declined to go, on the ground, that, his uncle and his mother had engaged to obtain for him an English benefice. The man, in more respects than one, was double-minded. In unstableness, as well as incontinency, he was Reuben redivivus.

The church appointment, secured for Hall, seems to have been the office of curate, at Wootton-Rivers, a small village of about four hundred inhabitants, in the county of Wilts. Here he took, not only his wife, but, strangely enough, Kezziah Wesley, with whose affections he had so basely trifled. The two sisters were evidently reconciled; but their brother Samuel, a keen judge of character, regarded Hall with feelings of suspicion and dislike. Hence the following extract from one of Samuel’s letters, dated, “Blundell’s School, Tiverton, Devon, September 29, 1736,” and addressed to his brother Charles in Georgia:—

It was certainly a strange,—an almost unaccountable thing, for Kezziah Wesley to become domiciled with such a man. It is true, her venerable father had died just about the time of the ill-fated marriage, leaving both her mother and herself without a home; but the mother had found a welcome in the house of her son Samuel; who was also wishful to have Kezziah beneath his roof, if his brother John would continue to allow her £50 a year.[299] Why, then, did she go to Westley[392] Hall’s? Samuel Wesley strongly disapproved of this; and so also did his brother Charles. Hence the following, from Charles’s Journal, written only three days after his return from Georgia:—

Hall was a hawk among the doves of the Wesley family. There was dislike, and there was also a reasonable suspicion. A sort of truce existed; but it was hollow and uncertain. Samuel Wesley regarded Hall as a smooth-tongued hypocrite, and evidently thought his sister Kezziah had made a great mistake in making the house of Hall her domicile. Charles Wesley was equally dissatisfied, as is evident from his Latin quotation; and, yet, ten weeks after writing thus, he went to Hall’s himself, as a friendly visitor, and spent a week with the reverend coquet, and with his “sisters, Patt and Kez.”[300] Indeed, a few months afterwards, Mrs. Wesley, the widow, who had taken up her residence at the house of her son Samuel, at Tiverton, removed to Hall’s at Wootton-Rivers, where, on August 5, 1737, she wrote:—

Shortly after this, Westley Hall seems to have removed to Salisbury. Hence the following entry in Charles Wesley’s Journal:—

In 1739, he came to London. In a letter, to her son Samuel, dated “March 8, 1739,” Mrs. Wesley writes:—

Here he associated with Wesley and his brother, and, like them, was soon involved in the Moravian squabbles. A “famous French Prophetess,” of the name of Lavington, sprang up among them, who, at one of their meetings, on June 7, 1739, asked, “Can a man attain perfection here?” Charles Wesley answered, “No.” The Prophetess began groaning. Charles turned and said, “If you have anything to speak, speak it.” She lifted up her voice, like the lady on the tripod, and cried out vehemently, “Look for perfection; I say, absolute perfection!” Charles writes:—

On the three following days, Charles Wesley took the depositions of certain parties, “concerning her lewd life and conversation;” read the account to the Society; and warned his friends against her. On June 12th, at another of their meetings, she again appeared. Charles remarks:—

The next day, the two Wesleys, with their brother-in-law, Westley Hall, met the Society, and discussed “the Prophetess’s affair.” Charles Wesley says,—

Thus we find Westley Hall employed in silencing the profanities[394] of a half-crazed woman, and expelling men from a religious society, because they would not acknowledge themselves to be members of the Established Church.

It is not known in what church Hall officiated during his residence in London; but there is one circumstance connected with his ministry while here, too interesting to be omitted. At this period, the great themes of the preaching and of the conversation of Wesley and his brother were their newly found doctrines of Justification by Faith only, the Witness of the Spirit, and the New Birth. For many a long year, Susannah Wesley had been one of the most Christian women then living; but her sons’ doctrine of the Witness of the Spirit was one of which she had scarcely ever heard. Now, however, at the age of seventy, and only three years before her death, she obtained the blessing for herself, and obtained it under the ministry of Westley Hall. Wesley writes:—

Westley Hall, though a clergyman of the Established Church, continued to attend the Moravian meetings; and, to his credit, it ought to be recorded, that, for a time at least, he withstood the Moravian heresies. Charles Wesley writes:—

Fickleness was one of Westley Hall’s characteristic faults. Within a twelvemonth after this resistance of the Moravian stillness, he himself adopted it, and argued against the two Wesleys, that, “silent prayer, and quiet waiting for God, was the only possible way to attain living, saving faith.”[304]

Still, Hall and the Wesley brothers continued to be on friendly terms; so much so, that, when Whitefield and Wesley quarrelled respecting the doctrine of “Free Grace,” and Whitefield declared his intention to attack Wesley and his brother wherever he went, Westley Hall assumed the office of peace-maker, waited upon Whitefield, and reminded him of a promise, he had made, “that, whatever his private opinion was, he would never publicly preach against” them.[305] This, however, was not of long duration. At the close of 1739, Wesley took possession of “The Foundry,” which he fitted up as a place for preaching and the meetings of his London Society. Here, he, also, opened a day-school for the children of the poor; and, over the band-room, there were apartments, occupied by his mother and himself. Here, the Stewards and Leaders met to receive and distribute money, and to manage the general affairs of the London Methodists. Westley Hall seems to have held some sort of office at the Foundry; and he began, during Wesley’s absence in the north, to be treacherous to Wesley himself, as, seven years before, he had been to Wesley’s sister Kezziah. Wesley writes:—

Wesley’s mother had died in the Foundry three months previous to this disclosure; and Wesley had invited Hall and his wife (who had been bereaved of several children) to take up their residence in his own humble dwelling. The following letter, addressed to Mrs. Hall, refers to this and other matters.

Not long after this, “poor Moravianized Mr. Hall,” as Charles Wesley calls him, seems to have removed to Salisbury, and there to have occupied a chapel, and set up a Society of his own, which his wife refused to join. Charles Wesley writes:—

Westley Hall was now an avowed Dissenter. His wife objected to leave the Church of her venerable father. Her husband’s disciples jeered her; and, before long, her husband himself committed against her the most cruel wrongs. Another extract from Charles Wesley’s Journal will be useful. On his way from London to Bristol, he wrote:—

Six months after this, Hall, not satisfied with his dissenting success at Salisbury, used his utmost endeavours to make converts of the two Wesley brothers. To John Wesley he wrote a long letter, earnestly pressing him and his brother “to renounce the Church of England.” Hall’s letter is lost; but Wesley’s answer exists, and is too important to be omitted. It exhibits the ground taken by Hall, and shows the position and difficulties of some, at least, of the Oxford Methodists.

This long, but sententiously expressed letter is of considerable importance. It contains the arguments employed by Hall to induce Wesley and his brother to renounce their connection with the Church of England; and it shows, that, notwithstanding the novel steps that Wesley had taken during the last half a dozen years, he still, in some respects, belonged to the High-Church clergy, and believed in the popish figment of apostolical succession, and could talk of the “outward Sacrifice” offered in the Church.

Hall failed to convert Wesley to his Dissenting principles; and equally failed to persuade him to abandon out-door preaching, the employment of lay-evangelists, and the administration of the sacraments in unconsecrated chapels. The two old friends were not yet finally separated; but they[400] had no confidence in each other. A few months after the date of the above letter, Wesley wrote as follows:—

The last gasp of expiring love it proved. In a little more than a year afterwards, Hall infamously deserted his wife and family. From a letter, published in the Gentleman’s Magazine, and dated “Salisbury, October 30, 1747,” we learn, that, “by an uncommon appearance of sanctity, joined with indefatigable labour in field and house preaching,” he had drawn “multitudes of the meaner sort, both of Dissenters and the Established Church, to attend him. And, though he had continually advanced the grossest absurdities, both in his preaching and writings,[309] yet, he so bewitched his followers, that, his words had greater weight with them than the words of Christ and His Apostles.” The writer continues,—

At the time of this disgraceful occurrence, Charles Wesley was in Ireland; but John, with as little delay as possible, hastened to the desolate home of his forsaken sister, where he wrote:—

Wesley wrote to the miserable delinquent the following long, faithful, and Christian letter, in which “the several steps, whereby he fell from his steadfastness” are enumerated.

What success attended Wesley’s honest letter? Hall had left his wife at the end of October, 1747. Three months afterwards, he had returned to Salisbury; and Wesley, on his way to Bristol, resolved to call on him. He writes:—

Having thus failed in his attempt to reason with Westley Hall, and having tried to be of use to a mere handful of the best of the faithless man’s followers, Wesley, two days afterwards, went on his way to Bristol.

Things grew worse and worse. Hall’s first female victim was a young woman, employed in his house as a seamstress. Other infidelities followed; until, at length, his much-enduring wife was driven from him. The man became a professed polygamist.[404] Life at home became intolerable to “poor Patty;” and, even when she fled from the husband, who had become a monster and a brute, again and again she and her brothers were harassed by his following her. The following are extracts from her brother Charles’s Journal:—

There is something horrible in such a scene as this. Westley Hall was “now a settled Deist;”[310] and, yet, here we find him, with stentorian lustiness, and in mockery, singing, in the midst of a disturbed congregation, one of Charles Wesley’s Christian hymns. The man seemed to be abandoned by his God, and left to his own corrupted passions. He is said to have thrown off all restraint, and all regard to decency. He publicly and privately recommended polygamy, as conformable to nature, preached in its defence, and practised as he preached. For years, he lived the life of an adventurer, and a profligate; acting sometimes as a physician, sometimes as priest, or figured away with his sword, cane, and scarlet cloak; assuming any character, according to his humour, or the convenience of the day.[311]

His wife had borne him ten children, nine of whom had been interred at Salisbury. One of them,—Wesley Hall,—still survived, and was being educated at the expense of his uncles, John and Charles. At the age of fourteen, the[405] worse than fatherless boy was seized with small-pox, and died. Dr. Adam Clarke says, he had seen “a folio printed sheet, evidently the publication of Mr. Hall;” entitled, “The Art of Happiness; or, the Right use of Reason: an Epistle to Wesley Hall, Junior.” “The whole,” writes the Doctor, “is a miserable Deistical address, strongly advising his son to follow the dictates of his own nature, as the best way of fulfilling the purposes of his Creator!”

Declaiming against superstition and bigotry, and, perhaps, shooting a shaft against the boy’s uncles,—the two Wesleys,—the profligate poet writes:—

“He concludes,” says Dr. Clarke, “his ungodly advices to his godly son, in these words:—

The date of the death of the last of Hall’s legitimate offspring has not been recorded; but his memory was embalmed, and his father’s gibbeted, by his uncle, Charles Wesley, in a poetical pamphlet, entitled “Funeral Hymns,” published in 1759, pp. 70. The tenth of these hymns is devoted entirely to the son, and is exquisitely beautiful; the eleventh is a withering invective against the apostate father. The following is a copy:—

It would be an odious task to relate all the details of Westley Hall’s sad apostasy. Suffice to say, that he, at length, went off to the West Indies with one of his concubines, lived there with her till she died, and then returned to England, where, professing penitential sorrow, he was cordially received by his incomparable wife, who showed him every Christian attention till his death, which took place at Bristol, on January 3, 1776; some of his last words being, “I have injured an angel! an angel that never reproached me!” Wesley writes:—

“Requiescat in pace!” And yet, justice demands that a word more be added. The fact cannot be denied, that, in many instances, the faults of husbands may be traced to the tempers, frailties, and follies of their wives. A bad wife often makes a good husband bad. Was this the fact in the case of Westley Hall? Did the man who, at Oxford, was so pre-eminently holy, become a licentious infidel through the misbehaviour of his wife? This is not a memoir of “Patty” Hall; but to be entirely silent concerning her might create suspicion, that, she was not unblamable in her connubial life. Hence, even at the expense of returning to the dunghill of Westley Hall’s disgusting wickedness, a few more facts must be stated.

Assuming Martha Wesley to have been aware, that, Westley Hall had proposed marriage to her sister Kezziah, and had jilted her, it was a huge, seriously censurable imprudence for her to become his wife; but that being said, there is not another fact to be told against her. What was her behaviour to one of the worst of husbands?

The seduction of the seamstress has been already mentioned. Mrs. Hall knew nothing of her husband’s criminality till the poor girl actually fell in labour. Hall had gone from home; his wife instantly ordered her other servants to call in a doctor. The servants refused. She remonstrated with them on their inhumanity. They completed her surprise by telling her the seamstress was in labour through her criminal connection with their master. The poor wife was terribly wounded; but the life of her husband’s paramour was in danger. The servants refused to stir, and she herself had to bring in a midwife. Her purse contained six pounds. Five of these she gave to a neighbour to look after the adulterous young mother; with the other pound, she went off to seek her worthless husband, who had designedly gone to London; mildly told him what had happened, and actually persuaded him to[409] return to Salisbury as soon as the young woman and her child could be removed to another dwelling.

Another instance must be given. One day, Hall had the shameful inhumanity to bring home one of his illegitimate infants, and to order his wife to take charge of it. Will it be believed, that “Patty” actually brought out her cradle, placed the bastard babe in it, and continued to perform for it all that its helplessness required!

Was the woman demented? or a good-tempered silly fool, without any self-respect, and without the least idea of what was due unto herself? Not so; but just the opposite. As a proof of this, the following may be given:—

While nursing the illegitimate child just mentioned, her own charming boy, Wesley Hall, displeased his father, who had as little government of his temper as of his passions. In a rage, the father thrust his son into a dark closet, and locked him up. The poor boy was terrified to distraction. His mother, with her usual calmness, desired her husband to release the child. He refused. She entreated; but he was resolute. “Sir,” said she, at length thoroughly aroused; “Sir, thank the grace of God, that, while my child is thus cruelly treated, suffering to distraction a punishment he has not merited, I had not turned your babe out of the cradle; but now I demand, that you will immediately unlock the closet and release the child, or, if you refuse, I myself will do it.” The miserable poltroon succumbed, and the little prisoner regained his liberty. There was more in this than female firmness. Caitiff as he was, Hall had exercised the authority of a father, and his wife did her utmost not to set aside that authority; wishing, with true philosophy, that the lips which had pronounced the sentence might pronounce also its repeal. The woman, taking and maintaining this position, was the very opposite of a senseless, insipid household drudge, without either mind or manners, a very slave to some selfish brute who unfortunately rules over her.

If “Patty” Wesley,—we are reluctant to call her “Patty” Hall,—erred at all, it was on the side of fidelity to her worthless husband, and of kindness to his wretched mistresses. “How could you give money to your husband’s concubine?” asked her brother Charles. “I knew,” she answered, “that I could[410] obtain what I wanted from many; but she, poor hapless creature, could not. Pity is due to the wicked, the good claim esteem. Besides, I did not act as a woman, but as a Christian.”

Notwithstanding all her bad treatment, this incomparable wife was never heard to speak of her husband but with kindness. Two extracts from her letters will show both her feelings and good sense, under circumstances the most trying to a female mind:—

It is hardly necessary to give further details of this memorable woman. Enough has been said, to show, that, Westley Hall’s infamous behaviour was not owing to the character or conduct of his wife. We only add an extract from a manuscript, now before us, written by her niece, Miss Sarah Wesley, with whom she lived on the most loving and confidential terms. Miss Wesley, daughter of Charles, observes:—

Mrs. Hall was the last survivor of the Wesley family,—her father, mother, brothers, and sisters having all died before her. In the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1791, there is the following obituary notice.

Her remains are interred in the same vault as those of her brother John, in the burial ground of his chapel, in City Road, London.

By an oversight, the following letter was not inserted in Hervey’s memoir. It ought to have found a place at page 220. When Wesley became an out-door preacher, in 1739, Hervey wrote him a letter of remonstrance, to which he replied as follows:—

FOOTNOTES

[1] Wesley’s Works, vol. viii., p. 334.

[2] Autobiography of Mrs. Delany, vol. i., p. 586.

[3] “Poems on Several Occasions,” by Samuel Wesley, A.M., 1736, p. 107.

[4] Two villages in Bedfordshire.

[5] Probably the mother of the wife of Wesley’s brother Samuel.

[6] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 8.

[7] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 9.

[8] Ibid. p. 10.

[9] Ibid. vol. xii., p. 6.

[10] Moore’s “Life of Wesley,” vol i, p. 187.

[11] Wesley’s Works, vol, i., p. 5.

[12] Wesley’s father had been thrown out of a waggon and seriously injured. (See “Life and Times of Rev. Samuel Wesley,” pp. 416, 417.)

[13] Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. i., p. 198.

[14] MS. Journal.

[15] Clayton’s father died in January, 1737 (The Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom, vol ii., p. 87).

[16] The Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom, 1855.

[17] Mr. Rivington, the bookseller of St. Paul’s Churchyard, London.

[18] Wesley’s Works, vol. i, p. 13.

[19] Wesley’s Works, vol. viii., p. 334.

[20] Mr. Smith was evidently one of the Oxford Methodists, and appears to have been a Fellow of Lincoln College; In a letter dated Aug. 17, 1733, Wesley writes,—“The thing that gives offence here, is the being singular with regard to time, expense, and company. This is evident beyond exception, from the case of Mr. Smith, one of our Fellows, who no sooner began to husband his time, to retrench unnecessary expenses, and to avoid his irreligious acquaintances, but he was set upon, by not only those acquaintance, but many others too, as if he had entered into a conspiracy to cut all their throats: though, to this day, he had not advised any single person, unless in a word or two and by accident, to act as he did in those instances” (Moore’s Life of Wesley, vol. i., p. 206). We have not been able to trace Mr. Smith’s subsequent career. The following letter, however, written a few months later than the above by Wesley, will not be unacceptable.

“London, February 6, 1734; 4, Perpool Lane.

“My dearest Friend,—It was waiting for Mr. Greeve’s coming made me not answer yours sooner. If, when I come, I don’t give you a sufficient reason for my being so long absent from college, never trust me more. But, yet, alas! how lukewarm is piety become with me at the best; and fasting neglected, which I never looked for; not entirely dropped, I hope, but for a week or two, to be taken up and practised again incessantly.

“Notwithstanding, I cannot be present in body sooner than in a month’s time, because I am learning shorthand, which will take up a full fortnight of it. You know, I presume, I was obliged to see my father before my return, and, therefore, we will get you to ask leave of absence, and entreat Mr. Farrer for so much longer.

“I beg my humble service to him and all friends; and accept the same yourself from, my dearest friend, your much obliged friend and servant, William Smith.

“The Rev. Mr. Wesley, Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford.”

[21] Probably another Oxford Methodist.

[22] Probably his pupils.

[23] A room over the north gate of the city, used as a common prison, principally for debtors.

[24] Moore’s “Life of Wesley,” vol. i., p. 205.

[25] Where is Clayton’s diary now? We wish we could find it. Wesley begun to keep a diary as early as about the year 1725 (see Wesley’s Works, vol. i. p. 3), in which, he says, he noted how he “employed every hour.” This practice he continued to do, wherever he was, till he left England in 1735; and yet not a line of these interesting journals has been published. Where are those manuscripts, and why are they not given to the public?

[26] To use a popular designation, Clayton and Wesley were becoming Ritualists. Hitherto the Bible had been their only rule of faith and practice; now they began to study ecclesiastical canons and decretals. One of these was to regard Saturday as the Sabbath-day, and Sunday as the Lord’s-day. Christians, however, were not to “Judaize and rest on” (Saturday, or) “the Sabbath-day; but work, and give the preference to the Lord’s-day, by resting as Christians.” On both days might be celebrated the Feast of the Eucharist, even during Lent. If any clergyman was found fasting on any Saturday, except Easter Eve, he was to be deposed; and if a layman was guilty of such a peccadillo, he was to be suspended from communion. At the time of the Laodicean Council (about A.D. 363), public assemblies were held on Saturdays as well as Sundays, and it was decreed that on the former, as on the latter, “the Gospels, with the other Scriptures, ought to be read” before “the Sacrifice,” or Eucharist. (Laodicean Canons, 29th, 49th, 16th; and Apostolical Canons, 56th.)

[27] Dr. Deacon was one of the non-juring priests, or high churchmen, who refused to take the oaths to the government of King William III. They maintained:—1. The doctrine of passive obedience. 2. That the hereditary succession to the throne is of Divine institution, and, therefore, can never be interrupted, suspended, or annulled. 3. That the Church is subject to the jurisdiction, not of the civil magistrates, but of God alone, particularly in matters of a religious nature. 4. That, consequently, the bishops deposed by William III. remained, notwithstanding their deposition, true bishops to the day of their death; and that those who were substituted in their place were the unjust possessors of other men’s property. 5. That these unjust possessors of ecclesiastical dignities were rebels against the State, as well as schismatics in the Church; and that all, therefore, who held communion with them were also chargeable with rebellion and schism; and, 6. That this schism, which rends the Church in pieces, was a most heinous sin, whose punishment must fall heavy on all those who did not return sincerely to the true Church from which they had departed.

Dr. Deacon held such opinions and suffered for them. It was alleged by his opponents that, after the rebellion in 1715, he absolved Justice Hall and Parson Paul at the gallows, and publicly declared to them, at Tyburn, that the fact for which they were executed was meritorious. It was further said that, on account of this, a warrant was issued against Deacon by the State Secretary, and that his friends prevented his arrest by sending him off to Holland to study physic. The principal part of this allegation was denied by Deacon. He admits that he went to Holland; but says, he lived upon his own fortune there, and did not begin his medical studies until after his return to London, where he derived great assistance from the celebrated Dr. Mead. He then removed to Manchester, where he collected a small congregation of high churchmen like himself; and, a few years later, became painfully prominent in the disturbances arising out of the Manchester visit of the Young Pretender. But more of this anon.

Dr. Deacon’s publications embraced the following:—“The History of the Arians, and of the Council of Nice, written in French by Sebastian Lenain de Tillemont, and translated into English by Thomas Deacon. London, 1721.” 8vo, 356 pp. “The Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Purgatory, proved to be contrary to Catholic Tradition, and inconsistent with the Necessary Duty of Praying for the Dead, as practised by the Ancient Church. By Thomas Deacon, Priest. London, 1718.” 12mo, 143 pp. “Ecclesiastical Memoirs of the six first Centuries, made good by Citations from Original Authors, etc. Written in French by Sebastian Le Nain de Tillemont.” Translated by Deacon. “London. Printed for the benefit of the Translator, and sold by J. Wilford, at the three Flower de luces, behind St. Paul’s Chapter House; and W. Clayton, Bookseller in Manchester.” Folio, vol. I., 1733. 667 pp. Vol. II., 1735. 593 pp. These volumes come down to the year A.D. 177. The work seems not to have been completed. The list of subscribers includes “John Byrom. A.M. F.R.S.” and “Rev. John Clayton. A.M. Curate of Salford, in Lancashire.” Deacon also published another work, immediately after the rebellion in 1745, entitled, “A Full, True, and Comprehensive View of Christianity: Containing a Short Historical Account of Religion from the Creation of the World to the fourth Century after our Lord Jesus Christ.” 8vo, 483 pp.: a work far more Popish than Protestant. The following are some of the things which Deacon tries to elucidate and recommend:—“Public Confession and Penance;” “The Eucharist, a Sacrament and a Sacrifice;” “Unction before Baptism, and the Consecration of the Oil and Water;” “Trine Immersion, the White Garment, the Kiss of Peace, the Milk and Honey,” etc.; “Prayer for the Faithful Departed;” “Infant Communion;” etc. This book excited great attention, as well it might; and several severe replies to it were published in the years 1748 and 1749.

Such was the chosen counsellor of Clayton and of Wesley. He was as much a papist as a protestant. Wesley was mercifully introduced to other guides. Clayton, without, perhaps, adopting all the opinions of his non-juring adviser, was doubtlessly influenced by them to the end of life. Dr. Deacon died in 1753, and was buried in St Ann’s churchyard, Manchester. The following clumsy inscription was on his tomb:—

“Ἐι μη ἐν σταυρω.

“Here lie interred the remains (which, though mortality is at present corrupt, it shall one day most surely be raised again to immortality, and put on incorruption) of Thomas Deacon, the greatest of sinners, and the most unworthy of Primitive Bishops, who died 16th of February, 1753, in the fifty-sixth year of his age; and of Sarah, his wife, who died July 4th, 1745, in the forty-fifth year of her age. The Lord grant the faithful, here underlying, the mercy of the Lord in that day! (2 Tim. i 18)

“Ἐν τουτω νικα.”

(Gentleman’s Magazine, 1821.)

[28] The Ecclesiastical term for the Fasts of the fourth and sixth days of the week, Wednesday and Friday, in memory of the council which condemned Christ, and of His passion.

[29] Here, again, the Oxford Methodists have recourse, not to the Bible, as at the commencement of their history, but to superstitious canons. At the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 683, it was decreed against the Armenians, that wine used at the Eucharist should be mixed with water; and, in support of this, were quoted the Liturgies of St James, and St Basil, and the 37th Canon of the African Code. Of course, the origin of this superstition was the fact, that water, as well as blood, came out of the side of the Divine Redeemer; but Dr. Deacon, in a pamphlet, published in 1719, and entitled, “The Plaintiff’s Charge Disproved,” etc., took other ground. He maintained that our blessed Saviour “used wine and water at the Eucharist;” that He “ordained these elements to be the matter of the sacrament, and commanded His apostles and the Church to practice after His example.” Deacon adds:—“How terrible the consequence may be of omitting part of our Redeemer’s cup, is what I dare not determine.”

[30] This work, by Dr. Deacon, was entitled, “A Complete Collection of Devotions: taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, the Ancient Liturgies, and the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England.

“Part I. Comprehending the Public Offices of the Church. Humbly offered to the Consideration of the present Churches of Christendom, Greek, Roman, English, and all others.

“Part II. Being a Primitive Method of Daily Private Prayer, containing Devotions for the Morning and Evening, and for the Ancient Hours of Prayer, nine, twelve, and three; together with the Hymns of Thanksgivings for the Lord’s Day and Sabbath; and Prayers for Fasting Days; as also Devotions for the Altar, and Graces before and after Meat; all taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Ancient Liturgies, with some additions: and recommended to the practice of all private Christians of every Communion. London: Printed for the Author. 1734.”

This is a curious book, showing the ritualistic proclivities of Dr. Deacon and his friends. Space forbids lengthened extracts; but, in “Morning Prayer,” occurs the following; “Let us pray for those who are departed in the faith, and are at rest in Christ; that God, the lover of mankind, who hath received their souls, would forgive them all their sins voluntary and involuntary, and of His great mercy would graciously grant them perpetual peace in the region of the just.”

There are public Prayers, “for the Catechumens, or unbaptized persons, who are receiving instruction in Christianity;” and “for the Energumens, or Persons possessed by Evil Spirits.”

There is “The Form of admitting a Penitent to Penance,” embracing a confession of his crimes to the Priest; and a prayer that God would “graciously accept the man’s Penance; and that, by his continuance in a state of mournful confession and prayer, he may the sooner obtain God’s merciful pardon.”

In the Office of Baptism, it is ordered, that, the Priest shall “anoint the child with the Holy Oil, and make the sign of the Cross upon its forehead, breast, and palms of the hands.” It was then to be “dipped in the water three times;” and then to be “clothed in White Garments;” after which, the Sponsors were to give it “the Kiss of Peace,” and the Priest was to put into its mouth “a little of the Consecrated Milk and Honey.”

Then there is “The Form of Consecrating the Oil for Baptism:” and “The Form of Consecrating the Milk and Honey:” and “The Form of Consecrating the Chrism for Confirmation:” and “The Form of Consecrating the Oil for the Sick.” N.B. The Oil was to be “sweet oil of Olives;” and the Chrism “sweet oil of Olives and precious balsam, commonly called Balm of Gilead.”

These extracts speak for themselves.

[31] Was this the daughter of Dr. Potter, Bishop of Oxford? And was she one of the Oxford Methodists?

[32] John Baptist Cotelerius was a learned French author, born in 1628. He made a collection of the writings of the Fathers, who lived in the Apostolic age, revised and corrected from several manuscripts, with a Latin translation and notes. His work was published in two volumes folio, in 1672.

[33] “The Apostolical Constitutions,” a collection of regulations attributed to the Apostles, and supposed to have been collected by St Clement, whose name they bear.

[34] “The Recognitions of Clement,” a book whose authenticity has been greatly doubted, and whose chief subject is the “Travels and Acts of Peter.”

[35] Mr. Spinckes was prebendary of Salisbury, and rector of St Martin’s in that town. In 1690, he was deprived of all his preferments for refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary. In 1713, he was consecrated a non-juring bishop by Dr. Hickes, and the Scotch bishops, Campbell and Gadderar. He died in 1727. The full title of the book, which Clayton mentions is, “The True Church of England—Man’s Companion in the Closet; or, a Complete Manual of Private Devotions; collected from the Writings of Archbishop Laud, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Ken, Dr. Hickes, Mr. Kettlewell, Mr. Spinckes, and other eminent Divines of the Church of England. With a Preface by the Reverend Mr. Spinckes.” Though deficient in its recognition of the doctrine of salvation by faith, it contains hardly anything seriously objectionable; it is intensely devotional; and could be sincerely used by none except those who made religion the supreme business of their lives.

[36] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 185.

[37] The Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom. 1855.

[38] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 83.

[39] Ibid. p. 94, 95.

[40] Ibid. p. 97.

[41] “Manchester: its Political, Social, and Commercial History,” by James Wheeler. 1836.

[42] Dr. Byrom’s eldest daughter has left a journal of the events of this memorable entry into Manchester. She writes:—“1745. November 29. Friday, eleven o’clock, we went to the cross; about three o’clock, the Prince and the main body came. The Prince went straight to Mr. Dickenson’s, where he lodges; the Duke of Athol at Mr. Marsden’s, and the Duke of Perth at Gartside’s. The bells rung, and P. Cotterel made a bonfire. All the town was illuminated,—every house, except Mr. Dickenson’s. About four o’clock, the king was proclaimed. The mob shouted very cleverly.

“Saturday, November 30. An officer called on us to go and see the Prince. We went to Mr. Fletcher’s, and saw him get on horseback; and a noble sight it was. I would not have missed it for a great deal of money. When he rid out of the court, he was received with as much joy and shouting almost as if he had been king without any dispute. As soon as he was gone, the officer and we went to prayers at the old church, at two o’clock. Mr. Sprigley read prayers, and prayed for the King and Prince of Wales, and named no names. We went up to Mr. Fletcher’s, and stayed there till the Prince was at supper. Secretary Murray came to let us know that the Prince was at leisure; so we were all introduced, and had the honour to kiss his hand. My papa was fetched prisoner (playfully, by the ladies,) to do the same, as was Mr. Deacon; Mr. Cattell and Mr. Clayton did it without; the latter said grace for him.”

Mr. Dickenson’s house, in which the prince resided, was at the top of Market Street. There was a court-yard in front, shut out from the street by large iron gates. In virtue of the prince’s short residence, the house was afterwards called the “Palace”; and on its becoming a hostelry, was designated the “Palace Inn.”

[43] Pictorial History of England, vol. iv., p. 548.

[44] Everett’s “Methodism in Manchester,” p. 121.

[45] Mr. Samuel Barker.

[46] Tradition says the suspension lasted three years.

[47] Everett’s “Life of Clarke,” vol. ii., p. 239.

[48] An excellent library was attached to Clayton’s school (“Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom”).

[49] Lloyd’s Evening Post, June 30, 1760.

[50] In 1756, a 12mo pamphlet, of 34 pages, was published, with the title, “A Sequel to the Friendly Advice to the Poor of the Town of Manchester. By Joseph Stot, Cobbler.” This vivaciously written brochure taunts Clayton with having published nothing except a solitary sermon and his “Friendly Advice,” and pretends to have expected that his pen would have benefitted the public during the time his tongue was silenced by his bishop. It also states that Clayton was never seen out of doors “without a great sweeping nosegay;” and accounts for this on the ground that, perhaps, the foul smells of Manchester made it necessary.

[51] Calamy’s “Nonconformist Memorial,” vol. ii., p. 599; and Evangelical Magazine, 1814, p. 302.

[52] Fast-day.

[53] “Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 242.

[54] Salmon was one of the Oxford Methodists. In 1779, Wesley wrote: “Fifty years ago Mr. Matthew Salmon was one of our little company at Oxford, and was then, both in person, in natural temper, and in piety, one of the loveliest young men I knew.” (Wesley’s Journal.) Like Clayton, Mr. Salmon became alienated from the Methodists. In 1748, he published the “Foreigner’s Companion through the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge,” which contained the following:—“The times of the day the University go to this church, are ten in the morning, and two in the afternoon, on Sundays and holidays, the sermon usually lasting about half an hour. But, when I happened to be at Oxford, in 1742, Mr. Wesley, the Methodist, of Christ Church, entertained his audience two hours; and, having insulted and abused all degrees, from the highest to the lowest, was, in a manner, hissed out of the pulpit by the lads.”

The preacher on this occasion was Charles Wesley, and the two hours’ sermon, was his well-known Discourse, before the University of Oxford, on “Awake thou that sleepest,” etc. (Eph. v. 14). On reading Salmon’s unbrotherly attack, Charles Wesley remarked: “And high time for the lads to do so, if the historian said true; but, unfortunately for him, I measured the time by my watch, and it was within the hour; I abused neither high nor low, as my sermon, in print, will show: neither was I hissed out of the pulpit, or treated with the least incivility, either by young or old. What, then, shall I say to my old high church friend whom I once so much admired? I must rank him among the apocryphal writers, such as the judicious Dr. Mather, the wary Bishop Burnet, and the most modest Mr. Oldmixon.” (C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 71.)

A nephew of Mr. Salmon’s, and some other branches of his family, afterwards became Methodists, at Nantwich and in the neighbourhood. Miss Salmon was an intimate friend of Elizabeth Ritchie and Hester Ann Rogers. Joseph Whittingham Salmon, the nephew, entertained Wesley at Nantwich, in 1779. In 1785, he preached, and published a sermon on the death of his wife, with the title, “The Robes of the Saints washed in the Blood of the Lamb: being the Substance of a Funeral Discourse, preached at the Barker Street Chapel, Nantwich, on Occasion of the Death of Mrs. Salmon.” 8vo, 39 pages. And, in 1796, he gave to the world a book of poetry, entitled, “Moral Reflections in Verse, begun in Hawkstone Park,” etc. 8vo, 264 pages.

Matthew Salmon, the Oxford Methodist, will be occasionally mentioned in succeeding pages.

[55] A parish in Essex.

[56] The celebrated, Rev. William Law.

[57] Wesley’s reasons were substantially the same as Ingham’s. (See “Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. i., p. 115, 116.)

[58] In Thames Street

[59] Another instance of the high-churchism of these Oxford Methodists.

[60] One of these was David Nitschmann, the Moravian Bishop. (See Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 16.)

[61] It was during this storm, that Wesley was struck with the contrast between the Moravians and the rest of the ship’s occupants. The crew in general were in paroxysms of fear and anxiety; the Moravians were calm, and employed themselves in singing psalms (Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 20).

[62] A sort of flat-bottomed barge (Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 28).

[63] Charles Wesley writes:—“Tuesday, March 9, 1736. The first who saluted me on my landing, was honest Mr. Ingham, and that with his usual heartiness. Never did I more rejoice at the sight of him; especially when he told me the treatment he has met with for vindicating the Lord’s day.” Charles had gone to be the minister of the palmetto town, Frederica; and was soon in greater trouble than Ingham had experienced. Ingham remained with his friend nineteen days; and, during this brief period, Charles encountered a difficulty about baptizing a child by immersion; got into hot water, by endeavouring to reconcile two termagant women; and was wrongfully charged by Oglethorpe with mutiny and sedition. By March 28th, things had arrived at such a pass, that Charles Wesley requested Ingham to go to Savannah for his brother. Ingham was extremely reluctant to leave his friend in such trouble and danger; but was, at last, persuaded; and, accordingly, on the day just mentioned, after preaching “an alarming sermon on the day of judgment, and joining with” Charles Wesley “in offering up the Christian sacrifice,” he started. This is not the place to enter into detail respecting C. Wesley’s trials at Frederica. Suffice it to give an extract from his Journal: “I hastened to the water-side, where I found Mr. Ingham just put off. O happy, happy friend! Abiit, erupit, evasit! But woe is me, that I am still constrained to dwell with Meshech! I languished to bear him company, followed him with my eyes till out of sight, and then sank into deeper dejection than I had known before.” We must now keep company with Ingham.

[64] David Nitschmann.

[65] C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. i., p. 27.

[66] The Indians gave to Ingham a plot of fruitful ground, in the midst of which was a small, round hill; and, on the top of this hill, a house was built for an Indian school. The house was named Irene. (Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 61.)

[67] Gentleman’s Magazine, 1737, p. 575.

[68] C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. i., p. 73.

[69] William Delamotte, who became the friend of Ingham, and joined the Moravians. For four or five years, he was one of their most ardent and useful preachers. His labours in Yorkshire were attended with great success. He died February 22, 1743, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s-in-the-East, London (Holmes’ “History of the Brethren,” vol. i., p. 315: Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 94.)

[70] Charles Delamotte, who also became a Moravian, and, after a long life of piety and peace, died at Barrow-upon-Humber, in 1796.

[71] At this date, Wesley was in the thick of his Georgian troubles.

[72] The English bishops would have acted more justly and generously if they had helped Wesley out of their own fat incomes, instead of finding fault with his trifling expenses. On March 4, 1737, Wesley says, “I writ the trustees for Georgia an account of our year’s expenses, from March 1, 1736, to March 1, 1737; which, deducting extraordinary expenses, such as repairing the parsonage house, and journeys to Frederica, amounted, for Mr. Delamotte and me, to £44 4s. 4d.” Can it be correct that the bishops found fault with Wesley costing the trustees £22 2s. 2d. per year? It may be asked what Wesley received from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts? The answer is £50; “which, indeed,” says he, “was in a manner forced upon me, contrary both to expectation and desire” (Wesley’s Unpublished Journal). Seven months later, on November 10, 1737, he writes, in the same Journal, “Colonel Henderson arrived, by whom I received a benefaction of £10 sterling, after having been for several months without one shilling in the house, but not without peace, health, and contentment.” This was the man at whose extravagance the bishops grumbled, and concerning whom even Ingham felt some anxiety. The Georgian trustees had no misgivings.

[73] Methodist Magazine, 1848, p. 1096.

[74] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 40.

[75] Sir John Thorold belonged to one of the oldest families in Lincolnshire. He was a great friend of the first Methodists; and, as early as 1738, used to attend the Moravian meetings, in the house of James Hutton, at The Bible and Sun, a little westward of Temple Bar; and to expound among the Brethren the Holy Scriptures, and to engage in prayer. In 1742, he became dissatisfied, and brought the following charges against them. “1. Their not praying so much to the Father and the Holy Ghost as to the Son. 2. Their speaking so contemptuously of reason, which opened a door to fancy and enthusiasm. 3. Their saying, there were no duties in the New Testament. 4. Their not giving an open conscientious confession of their faith. 5. Their disowning their tenets when driven to a pinch.”

Sir John Thorold died in 1748. (Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 82; and Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon, vol. i., p. 77.)

[76] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 40.

[77] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 161.

[78] Whitefield’s Journals, p. 115; and C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. i., p. 139.

[79] The meaning of this phraseology may, perhaps, be gathered from a letter which Wesley wrote to his brother Samuel, on October 23, 1738, five months after Wesley’s conversion. The following is an extract:—“The πληροφορία πίστεως,—the seal of the Spirit, the love of God shed abroad in my heart, and producing joy in the Holy Ghost, joy which no man taketh away, joy unspeakable and full of glory,—this witness of the Spirit I have not; but I wait patiently for it. I know many who have already received it,” etc. (“Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. i., p. 190). The fact is, Wesley, for a season, appeared to confound the witness of the Spirit to the justification of a Christian believer with what he afterwards meant by the attainment of Christian perfection. Soon afterwards, however, he was blessed with clearer light, and gave to the Church, perhaps, the best definition of the doctrine ever penned,—“The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given Himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God.”

[80] Nelson’s Journal.

[81] C. Wesley’s Journal.

[82] One of Molther’s dogmas was, that no one has any faith while he has any doubt.

[83] Wesley’s Journal.

[84] Nelson’s Journal.

[85] See “Hutton’s Memoirs,” p. 100-108; and Holmes’ “History of the Church of the Brethren,” vol. i., p. 318.

[86] To say the least, this was offensively premature. Where is the evidence that either Wesley or Nelson wished to be received into the Moravian community?

[87] This interview probably occurred in the year 1741, though Nelson neglects to supply the date. In 1739, Wesley had published his “Character of a Methodist,” and also his abridged “Life of Halyburton,” with a preface by himself. In both of these publications, he propounded, in strong language, his doctrine of entire sanctification.

[88] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 350.

[89] Nelson’s Journal.

[90] In a letter by James Hutton to Count Zinzendorf, and dated, September 17, 1740, only three days before the date of this letter by Ingham, the following occurs:—“Ingham writes from Yorkshire, that, he also has discovered something new in his heart, and is now assured he shall not die eternally; he had never before experienced the like. He also writes, that, many souls in Yorkshire have of late found grace, and he desires that Toltschig may come to him.” (“Memoirs of James Hutton,” p. 63.)

[91] Methodist Magazine, 1778, p. 182.

[92] “Memoirs of James Hutton,” p. 64.

[93] Wesley’s Journal.

[94] See Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 349.

[95] Probably the same as Mr. Justice Burton, who figured so prominently in endeavouring to obtain witnesses, that Charles Wesley was a Jacobite, in 1744. (See C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. i., p. 358.)

[96] Weekly Miscellany, May 17, 1740.

[97] Ibid. June 8, 1740.

[98] Weekly Miscellany, June 21, 1740.

[99] The Rev. Jacob Rogers, of Bedford, of whom Wesley, in 1753, wrote as follows:—“Above fourteen years ago, Mr. Rogers, then curate of St. Paul’s (Bedford), preached the pure gospel with general acceptance. A great awakening began, and continually increased, till the poor weather-cock turned Baptist; he then preached the absolute decrees with all his might; but in a while the wind changed again, and he turned and sank into the German whirlpool. How many souls has this unhappy man to answer for!” (Wesley’s Works, vol. ii., p. 293.)

[100] Weekly Miscellany, July 26, 1740.

[101] Memoirs of Mrs. Grace Bennett.

[102] Memoirs of James Hutton, p. 59 and 60.

[103] A pilgrim, according to Zinzendorf’s definition, is “a Philadelphian (lover of the brethren), with a Moravian coat and a Lutheran tongue.” (“Hutton’s Memoirs,” p. 118.)

[104] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 152.

[105] The property is now held of Ingham’s descendants, on a lease for five hundred years. (Methodist Magazine, 1848, p. 1,099.)

[106] Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon, vol. i., p. 260.

[107] Life and Times of Lady Huntingdon, vol. i., p. 266.

[108] Doubtless, a Tract, of twenty-four pages, published by Wesley, in 1745, and entitled “A Short View of the Difference between the Moravian Brethren, lately in England, and the Rev. Mr. John and Charles Wesley.”

[109] Methodist Magazine, 1797, p. 512.

[110] Hutton’s Memoirs, pp. 221 to 280.

[111] Evangelical Magazine, 1814, p. 306.

[112] Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon, vol. i., p. 270.

[113] Minutes of Methodist Conferences, vol. i., p. 717. The 1862 edition.

[114] Wesley’s Works, vol. ii., p. 313.

[115] Sandemanianism was afterwards introduced into New England, but failed by its own distractions. Sandeman died in Danbury, Connecticut. His tomb is still preserved there, and slight traces of his system linger in the vicinity. (Stevens’ History of Methodism, vol. i., p. 392.)

[116] The Daleites derived their name from David Dale, Esq., a successful man of business, who, after being agent for the sale of the cotton yarn of Sir R. Arkwright, became, in 1785, the proprietor of the cotton mills at Lanark. A lawsuit, between the magistrates of Glasgow and the General Session, led Mr. Dale to secede from the established kirk. Having began to preach, he was the means of founding several Independent Churches in Scotland; and, after an active and useful life, died, greatly lamented, in 1806, aged sixty-seven. (Evangelical Magazine, 1807, p. 49.)

[117] Wesley writes: “1765. January 20, I looked over Mr. Romaine’s strange book on the ‘Life of Faith.’ I thought nothing could ever exceed Mr. Ingham’s, but really this does; although they differ not an hair’s breadth from each other, any more than from Mr. Sandeman.” (Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 193.)

[118] Evangelical Magazine, 1814, p. 308.

[119] Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon, vol. i., p. 303.

[120] Wesleyan Times, December 14th, 1863.

[121] It is a noticeable fact, that Whitefield also was extremely fond of reading plays, not only when at school in Gloucester, but, even after he went to Oxford.

[122] Methodist Magazine, 1798, p. 172.

[123] For further particulars of Kezziah Westley, see Memoir of Westley Hall.

[124] Holmes’s “History of the United Brethren,” vol. ii., p. 38.

[125] Wesley’s sister, Kezziah, now Gambold’s guest.

[126] The Works of Rev. John Gambold, p. 260.

[127] The first edition was published in 1773, with the following title: “The Martyrdom of Ignatius; a Tragedy. Written in the year 1740. By the late John Gambold, at that time Minister of Stanton-Harcourt, Oxfordshire,” 8vo. Cadell, etc.

[128] Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 388.

[129] Stevenson’s “City Road Chapel,” p. 28.

[130] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 97.

[131] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 245.

[132] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 246.

[133] “The Moravians Compared and Detected,” 1775, p. 150.

[134] It is said, on what authority we know not, that Gambold’s contributions to this hymn-book consisted of twenty-eight original hymns, and eleven translations from the Greek, Latin, or German. (Wesleyan Times, January 23, 1865.)

The following are the first lines of both, the numbers being those of the hymns as they are placed in the respective volumes:—

TRANSLATIONS.

Vol. I.	182.	Ye elect, who peace possess unshaken.
”	183.	I’m bound fast, with Jesus’ grave clothes platted.
”	184.	In this sense we’re a body.
”	191.	Jesu, Saviour of man’s nature.
”	192.	Be propitious.
”	193.	O thou eternal Saviour.
”	208.	Majestic Father! whose pity gave.
”	211.	Saviour of the nations, come.
”	221.	Thousand times by me be greeted.
”	222.	O head so full of bruises.
”	442.	O World! attention lend it.

ORIGINAL COMPOSITIONS.

Vol. II.	1.	God we praise, that in these days.
”	17.	What says a soul, that now doth taste.
”	34.	No more with trembling heart I try.
”	42.	O tell me no more.
”	50.	Ye who have known th’ atoning blood.
”	51.	Jesu, that gentle touch of thine.
”	55.	How happy is the heart.
”	56.	Jesu, each blind and trembling soul.
”	58.	How is it, Lamb?
”	66.	How happy we, when guilt is gone.
”	67.	How Christ his souls doth bless.
”	71.	Grant Lord, I ne’er may doubt again.
”	89.	Hear what of him and me this day.
”	127.	After the labours of thy life.
”	138.	Attend, O Saviour, to our prayer.
”	167.	Few in former times could venture.
”	168.	For us no night can be happier styled.
”	169.	Whene’er him I can eat.
”	170.	The man from Nazaret.
”	185.	They who now God’s children are.
”	199.	O my Lamb! thou slaughter’d Prince!
”	230.	That I am thine, my Lord and God.
”	303.	Should an historiographer.
”	304.	Of this point so divine.
”	431.	Since I, a worm unworthy.
”	451.	Look on me, Lamb, a child of thine.

Can these hymns be Gambold’s? We doubt it. Nay, we hope that they are not. It is scarcely possible to conceive, that a man of such culture could write such doggerel. With two or three poor exceptions, they ought never to have been printed. To say nothing of their horribly limping rhythm, they have far too much of the irreverent familiarity with the Divine Redeemer, which was so offensively employed in the hymns at that time sung by the Moravian Brotherhood. The two best are republished in Gambold’s Works.

[135] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 303.

[136] Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 294, and Holmes’ History of the United Brethren, vol. ii., p. 41.

[137] It is said, however, that he translated the “Divine Poems” of Rees Pritchard, from Welsh into English; (Wesleyan Times, January 23, 1865), a work which we have never seen.

[138] Holmes’ History of the United Brethren, vol. ii., p. 2, etc.

[139] It is a somewhat curious coincidence, that of the Oxford Methodists, Whitefield died in 1770, Gambold in 1771, Ingham in 1772, and Clayton in 1773. At least three of these also died in the month of September. The two Wesleys were in the midst of the Calvinian controversy,—the hottest of their lives.

[140] Methodist Magazine, 1814, p. 92.

[141] Charles Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 393.

[142] Mr. Hutchins, one of the Oxford Methodists, and afterwards doctor, and rector of Lincoln College, was Hervey’s tutor (Gospel Magazine, 1769, p. 12).

[143] Coke and Moore’s “Life of Wesley,” p. 51.

[144] Arminian Magazine, 1798, p. 171.

[145] The letter was written on the Sabbath.

[146] Evangelical Magazine, 1794, p. 295.

[147] Memoirs of Risdon Darracott, p. 24.

[148] Memoirs of Risdon Darracott, p. 155.

[149] Mr. Ryland writes,—“Mr. Hervey began the study of the Hebrew about the nineteenth year of his age, by the instigation of an acquaintance, who gave him no manner of assistance. The only book he took up was the Westminster Hebrew Grammar. That book seems to be contrived by the devil to prevent the learning of the Hebrew language: it is dark and obscure, harsh and unpleasant, ugly and disgustful, dull and listless; and Hervey threw it by in despair. After a long time and much perplexity, by a happy Providence, there was another Fellow of Lincoln College, who, seeing Hervey in his painful embarrassment, pitied him, and took him into his bosom. He conducted him to the first chapter of Genesis, and analysed every word; he taught him to reduce every noun to its proper pattern; he instructed him to trace every verb to its proper root, and to work every verb through the active and passive conjugations. If the devil could have had his way, we should have lost one of the finest Hebrew scholars in the world; but, after Mr. Hervey had learnt to analyse the first chapter of Genesis, he went on like a giant, and, to my certain knowledge, became one of the first scholars in Europe for a familiar knowledge of the Hebrew Bible.”

[150] Arminian Magazine, 1778, p. 132.

[151] He was ordained a priest, at Exeter, in the month of December, 1739.

[152] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 81.

[153] Gospel Magazine, 1771, p. 174.

[154] In after-years, called Hartland Abbey.

[155] Arminian Magazine, 1778, p. 132.

[156] This refers to Wesley’s visit to Herrnhut in 1738.

[157] Wesley’s Works, vol. iv., p. 473.

[158] Evangelical Magazine, 1794, p. 373.

[159] Evangelical Magazine, 1794, p. 503; and A Selection of Letters, partly Original, by J. Hervey, 1816, p. 261.

[160] From a long printed letter, of twenty-four octavo pages, we learn, that, this society was formed, as early as May 21, 1739, before the Methodist Societies were formed. Hervey refers to the “scaring reports, that had lately been raised concerning religious societies,” and proceeds to state their object, and their practices. The society at Bideford was, “by no means, in contradistinction to the Established Church, but in dutiful conformity to her.” He says, “Woodward’s rules we purpose punctually to observe, reading his exhortations distinctly and solemnly; offering up his prayers humbly and reverently; only with this difference, that some edifying book be substituted in the room of religious talk, not because we disapprove of religious conference, but because we think ourselves scarcely capable of managing it with regularity, propriety, and order. We set up no examination, nor require any confession before others; but hope to be constant, careful, and strict, in searching our hearts, and acknowledging our iniquities before the all-seeing God.”

[161] Evangelical Magazine, 1806, p. 28.

[162] The Rev. Mr. Thompson, Rector of St Gennys, a warm friend of the Oxford Methodists.

[163] Most likely William Chapman, the Oxford Methodist.

[164] This was probably July 17, 1743, for Whitefield writes on Tuesday, July 19th, “I came here” (Bristol) “to preach at the fair, because people from all parts flock hither at that season. Yesterday I preached four times. Last night was such a time as I never saw in Bristol society before. To-morrow, God willing, I set out for Hampton, to see what can be done for the poor persecuted sheep there. I hear I am threatened, but Jesus will stand by me.”

It may be added, that, a few days before, Whitefield had been almost murdered at this self-same Hampton. First of all, the mob threw him into a lime-pit, and then twice over into a deep brook of water (Whitefield’s Letters, Nos. 527 and 528).

[165] Gospel Magazine, 1777, p. 260.

[166] This was left out in the first edition, but inserted in subsequent ones. It was a long, but irrelevant comment, on a verse by Pope, inscribed on the monument of Dr. Stonehouse’s wife, in Northampton church.

[167] The motto afterwards selected was: “Every stone that we look upon, in this repository of past ages, is both an entertainment and a monitor.” (“Plain Dealer,” vol. i., No. 42.)

[168] Probably Wesley, who was now in London. Whitefield was in America.

[169] Gospel Magazine, 1771, p. 176.

[170] Evangelical Magazine, 1802, p. 393.

[171] The seat of Hervey’s friend, Mr. Orchard.

[172] Doubtless, the Rev. Mr. Bennet, of Tresmere.

[173] Mr. Thompson, though not an Oxford Methodist, had begun to preach the Methodist doctrine of salvation by faith, and had received Charles Wesley, with open arms, at St. Gennys. He had allowed the branded itinerant to preach twice in his parish church, and had kept him company on a preaching excursion to Penryn, Gwennap “Pit,” and other places. In Mr. Bennet’s Church, at Tresmere, a strange scene had been witnessed. Charles Wesley was the preacher, and, on his declaring, that, by “harmless diversions,” he had been “kept dead to God, asleep in the devil’s arms, secure in a state of damnation for eighteen years,” Mr. Merriton, one of his travelling companions, added aloud, “And I for twenty-five;” “And I,” cried Mr. Thompson, “for thirty-five;” “And I,” said Mr. Bennet, “for above seventy.” This was quite enough to expose Thompson to the ecclesiastical anger of the bishop of the diocese.

[174] The battle at Culloden.

[175] His “Descant on Creation,” also was published in 1746. It is so well known as not to need further notice.

[176] The eminent mathematician and astronomer.

[177] “Contemplations on the Night.”

[178] The motto really used was the following:—

“Night is fair Virtue’s immemorial friend:

The conscious Moon, through every distant age,

Has held a lamp to Wisdom.”

[179] The society mentioned on a previous page.

[180] The famous French novelist, who died in 1777.

[181] Gospel Magazine, 1771, p. 179.

[182] Hervey was godfather to the son of his friend, Mr. Orchard.

[183] Dr. Stonehouse was one of Hervey’s most intimate and confidential friends. For seven years, he was an infidel, and even wrote a pamphlet against the Christian religion. He was brought to the obedience of the faith by the labours of Dr. Doddridge and Hervey. After the death of his wife, he entered into holy orders; and, for many years, officiated as minister in St James’s Church, Bristol. He was a man of great ability, was no mean poet, published many religious treatises, and died in 1795, full of years and honour.

[184] Evangelical Magazine, 1811, p. 338.

[185] Not to mention other places, Wesley already had, in connection with his Old Foundery, in London, a dispensary, a poor-house, a day-school, and a lending society, to which must be added an efficient organization for visiting and relieving the afflicted poor in their own houses.

[186] Arminian Magazine, 1778, p. 34.

[187] London Magazine, 1749, p. 436.

[188] Hervey’s book became so popular, that, in more instances than one, some parts of it were turned into poetry. The most notable instance was that of Mr. T. Newcomb, M.A., who, in 1757, published “Mr. Hervey’s Contemplations on the Night, done into blank verse, after the manner of Dr. Young.” In 1764, the same gentleman published the whole of the “Meditations and Contemplations,” in the same form. It may be added, that, the demand for the “Meditations and Contemplations” was such, that, in 1764, not fewer than seventeen authorized editions of the work had been published, or about one a year from the time when the work was first printed.

[189] To some, it may seem strange, that, Whitefield did not occupy Hervey’s pulpit; but it must be remembered, that, as yet, Hervey was only his father’s curate. Notwithstanding this, however, Hervey, in 1749, took the liberty of inviting Whitefield to occupy his church. Whitefield’s reply was characterized by greater prudence then he sometimes manifested. In a letter dated, “Chelsea, January 13, 1749,” he writes,—

“You will not be offended if I tell you that good Lady Huntingdon saw your letter. She was much pleased with it, and has a great regard for you. The prospect of doing good to the rich that attend her ladyship’s house, is very encouraging. I preach twice a week, and, yesterday, Lord Bolingbroke was one of my auditors. His lordship was pleased to express very great satisfaction. I thank you for your kind invitation to your house and pulpit. I would not bring you, or any of my friends, into difficulties, for owning poor, unworthy, ill and hell-deserving me. But, if Providence should give me a fair call, I should be glad to come your way. I rejoice in the prospect of having some ministers in our church pulpits that own a crucified Redeemer.”—Whitefield’s Letters, No. 726.

[190] Hervey’s removal to London was a sort of abduction, accomplished by Whitefield, Dr. Stonehouse, and the Rev. Thomas Hartley. The particulars need not be given. Suffice it to say, on his arrival, he wrote his father as follows:—

“I am now at Mr. Whitefield’s house, where everything is neat and convenient; great care is taken of me, and a hearty welcome given me. The house is very open and airy, and has no bug, a sort of city gentry for whom I have no fondness. I hope my mother has taken care to get my parish supplied. I desire her to send me some shirts, a silk handkerchief or two, a pair of shoes, and anything that she may think necessary. I have already bespoken a new suit of clothes, and a wig. Dr. Stonehouse, when he pressed me into this expedition, put five guineas into my hand, for which I am accountable. I would not have Mary clean my study, lest she should displace or lose any papers, of more importance than they appear to be. I conclude myself, with duty to my mother and love to sisters, honoured sir, your dutiful son,

“James Hervey.”

[191] C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. 2, p. 75.

[192] Whitefield’s Letters, No. 860.

[193] This refers to his greatest work, “Theron and Aspasio,” published, in three octavo volumes, in 1755.

[194] Gospel Magazine, 1777, p. 298.

[195] Charles Wesley partly supplied his lack of service (see C. Wesley’s Journal, from June 1 to June 27, 1751).

[196] Letters to Lady F. Shirley. No. 25.

[197] In reference to this, Hervey, writing to his father, says, “The original picture, I presume, will be offered to me; and then I accept it, and present it to you. The drawing is to cost five guineas, and the mezzotinto copper-plate fifteen guineas.”

[198] Mr. Nixon was a man of considerable learning; but not a poet. The following are his limping lines:—

“Williams! ’tis yours to bid the canvas wear,

By art illusive, Hervey’s form and air;

Oh! with like happy labour, could I trace

Each virtue, each exalted Christian grace,

Each heavenly gift with which his soul is blest,

And fix the bright assemblage in my breast;

Then how transcendent far would be my plan,

You paint his mimic shade: I’d live the man.”

[199] Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon, vol. i., p. 191.

[200] While in London Hervey had the offer of a tutorship in Jamaica. Writing to his father, he says,—“Dr. Nichols has made me an offer, which many young clergymen would covet:—to go over to Jamaica, to be tutor to a son of one of the most considerable persons in the island; for which, I should be entitled immediately to £100 sterling a year, also meat, drink, washing, and lodging; with an assurance of having, in a little time, a living of a hundred and fifty. I am greatly obliged to the doctor, but have taken leave to decline accepting the proposal.”

[201] His Pamphlet on Bolingbroke’s “Study and Use of History.”

[202] Probably the eminent Rev. Stephen Hales, D.D., of Teddington, Fellow of the Royal Society, a Member of the French Academy of Sciences, and Clerk of the Closet to the Princess Dowager of Wales.

[203] The two livings of Weston-Favel and Collingtree were when worth about £180 a year. According to the “Clergy List,” they are now worth £567 a year; and the united population of the two villages is about 600. For several years, the Rev. Moses Brown was Hervey’s curate at Collingtree.

[204] Whitefield’s “Letters.” No. 916.

[205] Whitefield’s “Works,” vol. ii., p. 404.

[206] Probably “Theron and Aspasio,” now in hand, though not published for three years afterwards. It could not be the “Remarks on Bolingbroke”; for there is no “scenery” in them.

[207] “Theron and Aspasio.”

[208] “Memorials of Rev. W. Bull,” p. 8.

[209] Hervey was remarkable for his beautiful handwriting.

[210] Gospel Magazine, 1774, p. 139.

[211] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 188.

[212] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 190. The work was ultimately dedicated to Lady Frances Shirley.

[213] Gospel Magazine, 1774, p. 183.

[214] “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 192.

[215] Letters to Lady F. Shirley, No. 106.

[216] Letters to Rev. J. Ryland. No. 6.

[217] Letters to Ryland, No. 7.

[218] Letters to Lady F. Shirley, No. 69.

[219] The widow of Frederick, Prince of Wales.

[220] Dr. Thomas, Bishop of Peterborough.

[221] Letters to Lady F. Shirley, No. 70.

[222] The Prince of Wales, afterwards George the Third.

[223] Andrew Stone, a proud, very able, and very mercenary man, and sub-preceptor of the Prince of Wales.

[224] Dr. Hales was clerk of the closet to the Princess Dowager of Wales.

[225] Letters to Lady F. Shirley, No. 73.

[226] Wesley’s “Works,” vol. x., p. 305.

[227] Methodist Magazine, 1847, p. 965.

[228] The work was published in two sizes: 3 vols., 8vo, 18s.; and 3 vols., 12mo, 9s.

[229] Wesley writes:—“The twelfth dialogue is unexceptionable; and contains such an illustration of the wisdom of God in the structure of the human body, as, I believe, cannot be paralleled in either ancient or modern writers” (Wesley’s “Works,” vol. x., p. 314).

[230] Wesley’s “Works,” vol x., p. 322.

[231] Wesley’s “Works,” vol. x., p. 306.

[232] Published in two volumes, 8vo, in 1757.

[233] Published in 1760, pp. 224, octavo.

[234] Three weeks afterwards, Lady Frances Shirley herself sent this valuable work to Hervey, who described the present as “a magnificent and beautiful set of books; the paper fine; the type grand; the binding rich; the principal contents invaluable.”

[235] Letters to Ryland, No. 15.

[236] Ibid., No. 16.

[237] Letters to Ryland, No. 17.

[238] Objections to Dialogue xvi. In other words, that, saving faith is “A real persuasion, that the blessed Jesus has shed His blood for me, and fulfilled all righteousness in my stead: that, through this great atonement and glorious obedience, He has purchased, even for my sinful soul, reconciliation with God, sanctifying grace, and all spiritual blessings”; and that, in the case of a man convinced of his sin and danger, this is the only requisite in order to the obtaining of pardon, and adoption into the family of God.

[239] “An intended collection of the most evangelical pieces from the beginning of the Reformation down to the present day.”

[240] Wesley’s “Christian Library, consisting of Extracts and Abridgments of the Choicest Pieces of Practical Divinity, which have been published in the English Tongue.” In fifty-one volumes, 12mo; begun in 1749, and now being completed, in 1755. Hervey’s critique is unjust, and indicates the alienation, which already existed between the two Oxford Methodists.

[241] Letters to Lady F. Shirley, No. 83.

[242] Letters to Ryland, No. 19.

[243] See Whitefield’s “Works,” vol. iii., p. 133.

[244] Doubtless, Wesley.

[245] Whitefield, in a letter to Hervey, dated, December 9th, 1756, observes:—“Last night, Mr. M⸺ informed me, that, Mr. C⸺” (udworth?) “showed him a pamphlet, wrote on purpose to prove the fundamental errors of my printed sermons, and that you had offered to preface it, but he chose you should not. That this is true, I as much believe, as that I am now at Rome. But I wish that my dear friend may not repent his connection and correspondence with some, when it is too late. This is my comfort, I have delivered my soul. Mr. R⸺ has sent me the two volumes of ‘Jenks’s Meditations,’ and desires me to annex my recommendation to yours. I have answered, that, it will not be prudent, or beneficial to him, so to do. I fear they are too large to go off.”

[246] These Sermons were published in 1757; but preached in 1756.

[247] Letters to Lady F. Shirley, Nos. 91 and 95.

[248] Hervey’s Fast-Day Sermons had an enormous circulation. In a letter, dated August 5, 1758, he writes,—“Besides six thousand printed in London, an edition was printed in Scotland, which was speedily sold off. I was also desired, by a Society established for giving away religious books among the poor, to grant them leave to print an impression for this purpose. In Ireland they have been printed. Into Dutch they are translated; and a letter, from America, informs me, that, they have been reprinted there.” All this was within two years of their first publication.

[249] Evangelical Magazine, 1777, p. 73.

[250] “Marshall on Sanctification;” and “Jenks’s Meditations.”

[251] Letters to Ryland, Nos. 57 and 63.

[252] The following are some of the publications to which Sandeman’s book gave birth:—

1. A Sufficient Answer to the Author of the Letters on Theron and Aspasio. By J. Wesley.

2. Animadversions on the Letters on Theron and Aspasio.

3. A Plain Account of Faith in Jesus Christ.

4. An Epistolary Correspondence, relating to the Letters on Theron and Aspasio.

5. The Law of Nature defended by Scripture.

6. The True Comer. By Colin Mackie.

7. Thoughts, on Letters to the Author of Theron and Aspasio.

8. An Inquiry into the Spirit and Tendency of Letters on Theron and Aspasio.

9. Palaemon’s Creed, reviewed and examined: in two volumes. By David Wilson.

10. Nymphas to Sosipater, remarking on the Letters on Theron and Aspasio.

[253] Wesley says, “both the misplacing the commas, and the putting of ‘mankind’ for ‘this kind,’ were the printer’s fault, not mine; a part of those numerous errors of the press, which were occasioned by my absence, from it, and the inaccuracy of the corrector” (Wesley’s Works, vol. x. p. 332).

[254] Wesley’s “Works,” vol. x. p. 305.

[255] Gospel Magazine, 1775, p. 255.

[256] Arminian Magazine, 1778, p. 136.

[257] New Spiritual Magazine, 1783, p. 164.

[258] Hervey’s sermons, printed in his lifetime, were the following:—1. “The Cross of Christ, the Christian’s Glory;” a Visitation Sermon. 2. “The Time of Danger.” “The Means of Safety.” And “The Way of Holiness;” three Fast-day Sermons. After his death, the following were published:—1. “The Ministry of Reconciliation.” 2. “The Grounds of Christian Rejoicing.” 3. “Salvation by Christ.” 4. “Many made Righteous by the Obedience of One,” two sermons. 5. “The Divinity of Christ,” four sermons. 6. “On Repentance.” 7. “Search the Scriptures.” 8. “On Love to God,” two sermons.

[259] Life of Venn, p. 332.

[260] The title of the surreptitious edition was, “Aspasio Vindicated, and the Scripture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended against the Objections and Animadversions of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley. In Eleven Letters, written and prepared for the Press, by the late Rev. Mr. J⸺s H⸺y, A.B.”

[261] Wesley’s Works, vol. viii., p. 334.

[262] The sermon was addressed to the second regiment of foot guards, who, to the beat of the drum, marched to the chapel, with the Commander of the garrison at their head.

[263] William Wogan was born in 1694; and, after being educated at Westminster and Oxford, entered the army. In 1718, he married Catherine Stanhope, of the family of the Earls of Chesterfield. He died at Ealing in 1758. He was a Millennarian, but attended the daily service of the Church of England, and advocated a strict attention to the Church’s rubrics.—“Private Journal and Literary Remains of Dr. Byron.”

[264] A recent Bishop of the Church of England, on perusing this manuscript letter, wrote: “It is a very interesting document, and leads to many reflections. Mr. Broughton’s day, and the day of his once friend Wesley, were more important in the history of our Church than many are willing to believe. They disturbed, but they taught; and they led others to think and teach. Whatever might be their errors, it was not for the careless and thoughtless and the ignorant to be their judges. It might be for the best that Whitefield would not take the advice in this letter; but the affectionate strain is peculiarly pleasing, and the pious union between two persons, who differed on some points, may be a lesson that need not be lost even in our own day.”

[265] On this occasion, Broughton administered the Sacrament, and prayed.

[266] Gentleman’s Magazine, 1741, p. 387.

[267] A pet name.

[268] In the life of Venn, Broughton is called “Mr. Bryan Broughton, Secretary to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.” This is a mistake. There was a Mr. Bryan Broughton; but he was not the man whom the author meant.

[269] This was a most unaccountable and barbarous murder. The lady was the wife of Captain Dalrymple. The wretched youth had lived in the service of his master and mistress for the last five years. In the full confession that he made, he stated, he had no dislike to the unfortunate lady, and he murdered her, not from malice or for plunder, but solely at the instigation of the devil. The details of the deed are too revolting to be here recited. Suffice it to say, the murder was committed “of Wigmore Street, Cavendish Square,” on March 25, 1746; and, that, exactly a month afterwards, “Matthew Henderson was carried in a cart from Newgate, and executed at the end of New Bond Street. He went to the place of execution in a white waistcoat, drawers, and stockings. Two clergymen, one of the Church of England, and the other of the Church of Scotland, prayed with him, in the cart, for a considerable time. His body was carried from the gallows, and hung in irons, on a common, about five miles from London, on the Edgware Road” (London Magazine, 1746).

[270] A fourth edition of this pamphlet was published in 1763.

[271] The Society’s Report, for 1763, contains a notice, “To all Farmers, Gardeners, and other Occupiers of Land in England,” from the Trustees for the Charity Schools in St. Andrew’s, Holborn, to the effect, that, they had been informed, the country was in need of labourers; and that they were prepared “to bind Boys apprentices for seven years, to learn the art of husbandry; and Girls for five years, to do household work;” and, that, they would give £5 with every boy, and £3 with every girl so apprenticed. The Boys had been taught reading, writing, and the first five rules of Arithmetic; and the Girls to read and write, and “to do plain work.”

[272] They were begun in 1688, and were all supported by private subscriptions. (Report of Society, for 1772.)

[273] The Rev. John Clayton, also, was a subscriber, of £2 2s. per annum.

[274] Thomas Broughton, the Secretary of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and Thomas Broughton, Vicar of St. Mary Redcliff, Bristol, and Prebendary of Sarum, have sometimes been mistakenly considered one and the same person. The latter, an eminent author, was son of the Rector of St. Andrew’s, Holborn; and died, at Bristol, in 1774, at the age of 70. It is a curious fact, that, both the Thomas Broughtons died in the same month of the year, and on the same day of the month, and that the day was St. Thomas’s.

[275] Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 288.

[276] Ibid., vol. xii., p. 6.

[277] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 81.

[278] Supplement to Whitefield’s Answer to Bishop of London’s Letter, p. 8.

[279] Wesley’s Works, vol. viii., p. 335.

[280] Methodist Magazine, 1778, p. 177.

[281] Ibid., p. 176.

[282] C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. i., p. 129.

[283] The remainder of the letter refers to some arrangements to render assistance to Mr. Fox, who accompanied Kinchin and Wesley to Manchester. By Wesley’s advice, he had settled at Oxford; and it was now proposed to subscribe £30, to pay his rent, and to establish him in business, as a vendor of “fowls, pigs, and cheeses.”

[284] Another entry in the same Register is as follows:—“The parish church of Thorp-Arch was rebuilt in 1756, and finished in 1762. William Sisset, Esq., gave the stone. The Rev. Mr. Atkinson gave fifteen guineas, and paid for the plastering. His mother, Mrs. Agnes Atkinson, gave the font. Lady Hastings gave five pounds for the pulpit. Mr. Sisset built his own and servants’ seats, and gave the painting of the pews. The rest was done by the parishioners.”

[285] Even now, the united value of the two livings is not more than about £400 a year.

[286] Wesley’s text on this occasion, was, “Unto him that worketh not,” etc.; “the great truth,” he writes, “so little understood in what is called a Christian country.” Whitelamb evidently understood it not.

[287] Wesley adds, “on my father’s tombstone.”

[288] The rich farmer, who married Wesley’s sister Susannah,—a brutal fellow, who was reduced to poverty, and ultimately lived on alms, which Wesley obtained for him, through Mr. Ebenezer Blackwell. The Rector of Epworth used to speak of him as “the wen of my family.”

[289] Arminian Magazine, 1778, p. 184.

[290] Wesley says, Whitelamb offered it.

[291] Mrs. Wesley died about six weeks before this letter was written. Kezziah Wesley died March 9, 1741, “full of thankfulness, resignation, and love.”

[292] Arminian Magazine, 1778, p. 186.

[293] Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 151.

[294] Clarke’s Wesley Family, vol. ii., p. 280.

[295] Clarke’s Wesley Family, vol. ii., p. 102.

[296] Methodist Magazine, 1845, p. 37.

[297] Wesley’s Works, vol. ii., p. 75.

[298] Ibid., vol. xii., p. 453.

[299] Clarke’s Wesley Family, vol. ii., p. 184.

[300] C. Wesley’s Journal, vol i., p. 69.

[301] Clarke’s Wesley Family, vol. ii., p. 106.

[302] Ibid., p. 110.

[303] James Hutton, the publisher,—an early friend of the Wesleys, and one of the principal Moravians in England.

[304] Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 279.

[305] Ibid., p. 286.

[306] The Moravians.

[307] Clarke’s Wesley Family, vol. ii., p. 338.

[308] Wesley’s Journal, 1st edition.

[309] It is difficult to say what is meant by the word “writings.” Does it refer to some newspaper correspondence? Or to published sermons, tracts, or pamphlets? I have never met with anything published by Westley Hall himself; or heard of anything except a poetical epistle to his son, mentioned hereafter; and his sermon, preached at Salisbury, in defence of polygamy.

[310] Wesley’s Works, vol. ii., p. 214.

[311] Dove’s Wesley Family.

The “Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley,” by Tyerman, is, if we may judge of the whole from the first volume, the most satisfactory exhibit of that good and great man with which I am acquainted. It is impartial and exhaustive. It gives all the known facts, and, in difficult questions, leaves the reader to form his own opinions. The portrait, therefore, is full, round, and lifelike. With all his rare and, in many respects, unrivaled excellences, Mr. Wesley was a man with like passions with other men. The work reminds one of the “Life and Epistles of St Paul,” by Conybeare & Howson. It will, I doubt not, have a wide circulation. It merits it.—Rev. Levi Scott, D.D., Bishop M. E. Church.

I have examined the volume carefully, and consider it vastly superior to any biography of Mr. Wesley which has heretofore appeared.—Rev. M. Simpson, D.D., Bishop M. E. Church.

I have read the volume with pleasure and profit. It is by far the best work that has as yet been written on that subject. I trust it will have an extensive circulation.—Rev. E. R. Ames, D.D., Bishop M. E. Church.

I prize the volume very highly indeed, for the sake of the author and the subject.—Rev. E. S. Janes, D.D., Bishop M. E. Church.

My conviction is that it is by far the most exhaustive and trustworthy life of Wesley extant. The plan of the work, by the division into years, is convenient and happy; and, although no pretensions are made to a finished literary style, and the writing is rather careless than complete, it is both racy and readable. In Mr. Tyerman’s desire for scrupulous impartiality he has sometimes, by a not uncommon mental process, landed on the other side of it. There are some details which might have been well omitted; there are some expressions of opinion which I deem to be hasty and mistaken; and it is, at best, a dubious wisdom to have rescued so many foul pamphlets of the former time from the chandler’s basket. But, with these small drawbacks, the work is a monument of industry and painstaking, and a faithful portrait of a man in whom the strongest light has failed to discover any but small impurities—like thin clouds which just relieve the eye of the beholder, and through which, hardly dimmed by their shadows, we see the sun in his strength.—Rev. W. Morley Punshon.

An indispensable standard of Methodist literature, and you confer an important favor upon the denomination by its publication.—Rev. Abel Stevens, LL.D.

I am fully convinced that it far excels any other biography of the founder of Methodism. The candor of the author, his critical and correct taste, his laborious research, which has been rewarded with the discovery of much unpublished matter, his shunning of fulsome adulation, and yet ardent sympathy with his subject and profound appreciation of the mission of the son of the Epworth rector, conspire to place his work in the front rank of ecclesiastical biography.—Rev. J. F. Hurst, D.D., Drew Theological Seminary.

Mr. Tyerman’s work was fairly called for, both by the fact that no life of Wesley had been published for forty years, and because Southey’s, the only one tolerably written as a literary performance, is the production of a writer who was not himself a member of the Society, who in few points of character resembled the subject of his memoir, and possessed no sources of information which were not already before the world. Mr. Tyerman is a Wesleyan minister, and his materials, both printed and in manuscript, have been accumulating for seventeen years. He has made most diligent use of them; and his history, in regard to its facts, is incomparably more full than any that preceded it.—Saturday Review, London.

The time had fairly come for a new and original life of Wesley, embodying, as such a work must, a history of the forming period of Methodism.... The changes wrought by the lapse of time have prepared the way for fuller, fairer, and more appreciative examination and statement of the subject, and it is well that the execution of that task has devolved upon one so competent. Mr. Tyerman is thoroughly a Wesleyan, and yet he is able to discuss the subject taken in hand with judicial calmness. A ripe scholar—having made Methodist history a specialty—and a practiced writer, he possessed peculiar fitness for that kind of work, and viewing his subject from so great a distance of time, and in the softened light of a hundred years ago, he was better situated than any of his predecessors in the same field to see the subject in its true relations and circumstances. He has been charged with injustice to the good name of Wesley, but to us it seems quite otherwise. Time and its changes have removed the halo in which it was once encircled and its real character hidden. Some of this false glory having passed away, its unreality is recognized; but as all true greatness appears greatest when set in the clearest light, so nowhere else are the character and the works of Wesley shown to so great advantage as in these pages. We have read the work with real pleasure, and we trust it will meet with a large sale, and be widely read by both Methodists and others.—N. Y. Christian Advocate.

Full of interest as this work will be for Wesleyans, it will also prove most truly so for the philosophic observer of religious movements.—Westminster Review, London.

Mr. Tyerman is master of much valuable material that no early biographer or critic has made use of.—Examiner, London.

The life is one of intense and varied interest. Not a page can we open without our attention being riveted. There is no doubt that this will be recognized henceforth as the standard life of the great preacher, and we are thankful that such a book has been written by one fully capable of understanding and describing its religious influences.—Christian Work.

A most interesting and real picture of John Wesley as he was, of the times in which he lived, and of the remarkable movements and scenes in which he bore so prominent a part. There is much in this volume to interest Christians of all denominations.—Lutheran Observer.

The writer is in every way fitted to the task. Himself a Wesleyan minister, and in full sympathy with the life and work of the subject of his memoir, it was to him a labor of love and delight. He also enjoyed better facilities than any of his predecessors for the prosecution of the work. His materials, both written and printed, had been accumulating for nearly twenty years, and he has availed himself of them with no common degree of diligence and skill. His work is not only admirable from a literary point of view, but, in regard to its facts, is so full and in every way authenticated with such painstaking scrutiny as to be incomparably superior to any of the former biographies of Wesley. It is not a work for Methodists alone, nor one in which the religious world only will be interested. John Wesley was no ordinary man. Intellectually far above the average standing of the ministry, of naturally broad and liberal views, still further enlarged by education and experience with the world, he excited a wider and more lasting influence upon the religious thought of England and America than any other man of his time. His name will always be held in grateful remembrance by all who honor worth and sincerity, and who see in a life devoted to the advancement of the highest interest of mankind—to the elevation and enlightenment of the poor, the lowly, and degraded—something that demands admiration, without regard to the dividing lines of the sects.—N. Y. Evening Post.

Its author eschews irrelevant controversy and unprofitable speculations, and confines himself to the facts and incidents in the eventful life of the great preacher, and to his views, sentiments, doctrines, and herculean labors. It is a work which not only Methodists will desire to read, but which will be eagerly sought for by all who can appreciate and admire the self-sacrifice and unswerving devotion of one of the most earnest, fearless, and successful defenders of the faith whose name has passed into modern history.—Albany Evening Journal.

For those who wish to know every fact that can be known of Wesley’s life, this biography will probably supersede all others.—Athenæum, London.

The preparation of this biography has evidently been a labor of love with Mr. Tyerman, but he has to a commendable degree avoided the besetting sin of biographers—excessive eulogy—and his work is such a record of Wesley’s life as not only Methodists but the public at large will be willing to accept without reservation. Few men have lived in modern times who have better deserved attention at the hands of the historian than Wesley, for the religious reform movement of which he was the head was the most important that has ever taken place.—Philadelphia Evening Telegraph.

Mr. Tyerman’s book is by for the most valuable life of Wesley. Its thoroughness, frankness, fearlessness, simplicity; bold, yet self-distrusting discrimination; its loving, yet not blind appreciation of the subject; its patient, painstaking, one would think exhaustive, collection of data and weighing of evidence; its gathering into a focus all the scattered rays of information about Wesley and his work; all this makes one profoundly grateful to Mr. Tyerman. The leading minds of other denominations will welcome this as distinctly the best life of Wesley ever issued; and Methodists will recognize the gracious wisdom of Providence in setting Mr. Tyerman apart for this work.—City Road Magazine, London.

Mr. Tyerman has compiled a biography that an examination of the first volume convinces us is infinitely the best yet published, and that promises to be accepted as the standard one. It is very circumstantial, and very calmly and justly appreciative, the greatest care being manifested to present the whole truth and to abstain from any thing like mere eulogy of his subject. Many hitherto unpublished letters of Wesley are given, and in other directions the work has unusual interest.—Philadelphia Inquirer.

Seventeen years of patient labor, the careful study of an immense mass of unpublished original manuscript letters and documents, fidelity to his subject, with an impartiality of judgment that is frequently seen in his strictures upon Wesley’s language and actions, and an enthusiastic love for the venerated man, are among the author’s qualifications for his work. So far as possible he has followed the plan which has made Dr. Hanna’s life of Thomas Chalmers a model of biography. Wesley, for the most part, is here his own biographer. The author, with skill, and in a lucid style, has arranged the facts and shaped the story, without regard to the philosophy of it.... We have been fascinated over his interesting pages, not only with his photographic views of his hero, but with his equally faithful representations of Whitefield and the compeers of these two great ministers of Christ.—Christian Intelligencer, N. Y.

An extremely able and interesting life of John Wesley. It is complete and accurate, written in an agreeable style, full of those reminiscences illustrative of slight traits of character which form the great charm of a biography; a striking and faithful picture of a remarkable man.—English Independent.

The best biography of the great leader of modern active Christianity.—Freeman.

Mr. Tyerman, as his last, and we think his best biographer, has produced a record highly honorable to his subject, fresh and lively in style, copious in information, discriminating and candid in its tone, and worthy of a first rank as a biographical history of early Methodism.—Methodist New Connexion Magazine.

The verdict of his numerous readers will be that he has admirably succeeded; henceforth his production will be pre-eminently the Life of Wesley, and we question whether it will ever be superseded or rivaled by any subsequent biography, certainly not for the amplitude of its information or the impartiality or faithfulness with which facts are given. So fully and vividly is the spiritual and moral condition of the country during Wesley’s lifetime depicted in these pages, that the reader finds the work a most excellent general religious history of the nation for the period, and for this purpose it will have great value as a book of reference.—Methodist Quarterly, London.

Mr. Tyerman especially deserves well of the general public, because his Methodist reverence for the subject of his narrative does not induce him to keep back or cover up any thing. An honest and thorough biography, dealing with naked facts, and chiefly leaving the reader to his own impressions, is a rare thing in religious history; but this, in the main, Mr. Tyerman has given.—Chicago Evening Journal.

Mr. Tyerman has earned a debt of gratitude from his readers by the faithful, painstaking light which he throws on the man and his time, and it may fairly be said that this, the fifth life of Wesley which has been published, is the first which presents him to us both justly and fully.—Christian Register.

There are few biographies more minute, careful, and impartial than “Tyerman’s Wesley.” There is no influence nor incident which in any way had to do with the great preacher’s character and opinions that Mr. Tyerman does not describe with faithful sincerity. The work is not alone a life of Wesley—every relative and friend and disciple is given such generous mention that it seems a perfect nest of biographies, and it is at the same time a profuse and thorough history of the foundation and first forty years of Methodism.... He is at no pains to hide John Wesley’s faults and foibles: he gives us a definite picture of the man exactly as he was.... There could not be a more accurate record of Wesley’s noble life and unselfish labors, of his innumerable publications and most important sermons. The literature of Methodism has no more judicious and valuable work than this.—N. Y. Tribune.

He is not an eulogist, but a biographer, and he gives us Wesley as he lived, and hence his work is entitled to the high praise that is due to impartiality. No one desires to read of an ideal Wesley, but to have the real man reproduced, and Mr. Tyerman has reproduced his hero.—Boston Traveller.

There is a conscientious honesty in the portraiture of his hero which wins our regard for the author too.—Christian Standard.

We regard this as an invaluable contribution to Church history.... We believe the author has given us a history worthy of confidence, as he has certainly given it in a pleasing style.—Methodist Protestant, Baltimore.

Mr. Tyerman’s work will henceforth be regarded as the standard life of Wesley.—Evangelical Magazine.

This is the most complete, and will doubtless prove the most satisfactory biography of Wesley yet written. It is the result of diligent research and much painstaking, extending through twenty of the best years of a man’s life. Mr. Tyerman, the biographer, has been living amid favorable circumstances to do this, which has been to him a work of love. He writes con amore, yet free from the blinding influence of prejudice. It is to be expected that he would have his own predilections, and if he did not have them his work would not be worthy of public notice; but the severest criticism will fail, we think, to detect any miscoloring of essential facts, however it may estimate personal opinion of the man or events in his life.... The book is more than a valuable, almost indispensable, accession to the literature of the Methodist Church; it is a part of the theological treasures of the age.—College Courant.

It deserves the praise, not only of being the fullest biography of Wesley, but also of being eminently painstaking, veracious, and trustworthy.—Edinburgh Review.

It is full, fair, and written with an enthusiasm that the reader can hardly help sharing, as he is brought by the force of the author into close acquaintance with one of the remarkable religious leaders of the world.... One can not arise from a perusal of this book without feeling an increased admiration for the noble, courageous, patient saint; and the devout reader will be moved with a heartfelt gratitude to God for the life and example of such a man. The book should be read not only by all Methodists, but by every one who is interested either in accounts of moral heroism and greatness of soul, or who would trace the rise of a great form of religious thought and its development through the magnetic enthusiasm of a gifted and unselfish nature.—Louisville Courier Journal.

The best way to make a biography interesting is to permit its hero, as far as possible, to tell his own story. This plan has been adopted by Mr. Tyerman with notable success, and has resulted in the production of a work alike instructive and entertaining.—Brooklyn Union.

... It is as interesting as a novel, and as refreshing as a kindling sermon. To those who do not sympathize with Methodism, but who are interested in the career and experience of an eminent religious genius and reformer, the book presents strong attractions.—Boston Globe.

☞ Harper & Brothers will send the above volumes by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of the price.

☞ For a full List of Books suitable for Libraries, see Harper & Brothers’ Trade-List and Catalogue, which may be had gratuitously on application to the Publishers personally, or by letter enclosing Six Cents.

☞ Harper & Brothers will send any of the following works by mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of the price.

FLAMMARION’S ATMOSPHERE. The Atmosphere. Translated from the French of Camille Flammarion. Edited by James Glaisher, F.R.S., Superintendent of the Magnetical and Meteorological Department of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. With 10 Chromo-Lithographs and 86 Woodcuts. 8vo, Cloth.

HUDSON’S HISTORY OF JOURNALISM. Journalism in the United States, from 1690 to 1872. By Frederick Hudson. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $5.00.

PIKE’S SUB-TROPICAL RAMBLES. Sub-Tropical Rambles in the Land of the Aphanapteryx. By Nicholas Pike, U. S. Consul, Port Louis, Mauritius. Profusely Illustrated from the Author’s own Sketches; containing also Maps and Valuable Meteorological Charts. 8vo, Cloth, $3.50.

TYERMAN’S OXFORD METHODISTS. The Oxford Methodists: Memoirs of the Rev. Messrs. Clayton, Ingham, Gambold, Hervey, and Broughton, with Biographical Notices of others. By the Rev. L. Tyerman, Author of “Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley,” &c. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.50.

TRISTRAM’S THE LAND OF MOAB. The Result of Travels and Discoveries on the East Side of the Dead Sea and the Jordan. By H. B. Tristram, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., Master of the Greatham Hospital, and Honorary Canon of Durham. With New Map and Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.50.

SANTO DOMINGO, Past and Present; with a Glance at Hayti. By Samuel Hazard. Maps and Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $3.50.

LIFE OF ALFRED COOKMAN. The Life of the Rev. Alfred Cookman; with some Account of his Father, the Rev. George Grimston Cookman. By Henry B. Ridgaway, D.D. With an Introduction by Bishop Foster, LL.D. Portrait on Steel. 12mo, Cloth, $2.00.

HERVEY’S CHRISTIAN RHETORIC. A System of Christian Rhetoric, for the Use of Preachers and Other Speakers. By George Winfred Hervey, M.A., Author of “Rhetoric of Conversation,” &c. 8vo, Cloth.

CASTELAR’S OLD ROME AND NEW ITALY. Old Rome and New Italy. By Emilio Castelar. Translated by Mrs. Arthur Arnold. 12mo, Cloth, $1.75.

THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON: Its Negotiation, Execution, and the Discussions Relating Thereto. By Caleb Cushing. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.00.

PRIME’S I GO A-FISHING. I Go a-Fishing. By W. C. Prime. Crown 8vo, Cloth, Beveled Edges, $2.50.

HALLOCK’S FISHING TOURIST. The Fishing Tourist: Angler’s Guide and Reference Book. By Charles Hallock, Secretary of the “Blooming-Grove Park Association.” Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.00.

SCOTT’S AMERICAN FISHING. Fishing in American Waters. By Genio C. Scott. With 170 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $3.50.

ANNUAL RECORD OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY FOR 1872. Edited by Prof. Spencer F. Baird, of the Smithsonian Institution, with the Assistance of Eminent Men of Science. 12mo, over 700 pp., Cloth, $2.00. (Uniform with the Annual Record of Science and Industry for 1871. 12mo, Cloth, $2.00.)

COL. FORNEY’S ANECDOTES OF PUBLIC MEN. Anecdotes of Public Men. By John W. Forney. 12mo, Cloth, $2.00.

MISS BEECHER’S HOUSEKEEPER AND HEALTHKEEPER: Containing Five Hundred Recipes for Economical and Healthful Cooking; also, many Directions for securing Health and Happiness. Approved by Physicians of all Classes. Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $1.50.

FARM BALLADS. By Will Carleton. Handsomely Illustrated. Square 8vo, Ornamental Cloth, $2.00; Gilt Edges, $2.50.

[2]

POETS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. The Poets of the Nineteenth Century. Selected and Edited by the Rev. Robert Aris Willmott. With English and American Additions, arranged by Evert A. Duyckinck, Editor of “Cyclopædia of American Literature.” Comprising Selections from the Greatest Authors of the Age. Superbly Illustrated with 141 Engravings from Designs by the most Eminent Artists. In elegant small 4to form, printed on Superfine Tinted Paper, richly bound in extra Cloth, Beveled, Gilt Edges, $5.00; Half Calf, $5.50; Full Turkey Morocco, $9.00.

THE REVISION OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. With an Introduction by the Rev. P. Schaff, D.D. 618 pp., Crown 8vo, Cloth, $3.00.

This work embraces in one volume:

I. ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Canon of St. Paul’s, and Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. Second Edition, Revised. 196 pp.

II. ON THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT in Connection with some Recent Proposals for its Revision. By Richard Chenevix Trench, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. 194 pp.

III. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE REVISION OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By J. C. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 178 pp.

NORDHOFF’S CALIFORNIA. California: For Health, Pleasure, and Residence. A Book for Travelers and Settlers. Illustrated. 8vo, Paper, $2.00; Cloth, $2.50.

MOTLEY’S DUTCH REPUBLIC. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. By John Lothrop Motley, LL.D., D.C.L. With a Portrait of William of Orange. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10.50.

MOTLEY’S UNITED NETHERLANDS. History of the United Netherlands: from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Years’ Truce—1609. With a full View of the English-Dutch Struggle against Spain, and of the Origin and Destruction of the Spanish Armada. By John Lothrop Motley, LL.D., D.C.L. Portraits. 4 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $14.00.

NAPOLEON’S LIFE OF CÆSAR. The History of Julius Cæsar. By His late Imperial Majesty Napoleon III. Two Volumes ready. Library Edition, 8vo, Cloth, $3.50 per vol.

Maps to Vols. I. and II. sold separately. Price $1.50 each, net.

HAYDN’S DICTIONARY OF DATES, relating to all Ages and Nations. For Universal Reference. Edited by Benjamin Vincent, Assistant Secretary and Keeper of the Library of the Royal Institution of Great Britain; and Revised for the Use of American Readers. 8vo, Cloth, $5.00; Sheep, $6.00.

MACGREGOR’S ROB ROY ON THE JORDAN. The Rob Roy on the Jordan, Nile, Red Sea, and Gennesareth, &c. A Canoe Cruise in Palestine and Egypt, and the Waters of Damascus. By J. Macgregor, M.A. With Maps and Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.50.

WALLACE’S MALAY ARCHIPELAGO. The Malay Archipelago: the Land of the Orang-Utan and the Bird of Paradise. A Narrative of Travel, 1854-1862. With Studies of Man and Nature. By Alfred Russel Wallace. With Ten Maps and Fifty-one Elegant Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.50.

WHYMPER’S ALASKA. Travel and Adventure in the Territory of Alaska, formerly Russian America—now Ceded to the United States—and in various other parts of the North Pacific. By Frederick Whymper. With Map and Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.50.

ORTON’S ANDES AND THE AMAZON. The Andes and the Amazon; or, Across the Continent of South America. By James Orton, M.A., Professor of Natural History in Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y., and Corresponding Member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. With a New Map of Equatorial America and numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.00.

WINCHELL’S SKETCHES OF CREATION. Sketches of Creation: a Popular View of some of the Grand Conclusions of the Sciences in reference to the History of Matter and of Life. Together with a Statement of the Intimations of Science respecting the Primordial Condition and the Ultimate Destiny of the Earth and the Solar System. By Alexander Winchell, LL.D., Professor of Geology, Zoology, and Botany in the University of Michigan, and Director of the State Geological Survey. With Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $2.00.

WHITE’S MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew: Preceded by a History of the Religious Wars in the Reign of Charles IX. By Henry White, M.A. With Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $1.75.

[3]

LOSSING’S FIELD-BOOK OF THE REVOLUTION. Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution; or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of the History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence. By Benson J. Lossing. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $14.00; Sheep, $15.00; Half Calf; $18.00; Full Turkey Morocco, $22.00.

LOSSING’S FIELD-BOOK OF THE WAR OF 1812. Pictorial Field-Book of the War of 1812; or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of the History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the Last War for American Independence. By Benson J. Lossing. With several hundred Engravings on Wood, by Lossing and Barritt, chiefly from Original Sketches by the Author. 1088 pages, 8vo, Cloth, $7.00; Sheep, $8.50; Half Calf, $10.00.

ALFORD’S GREEK TESTAMENT. The Greek Testament: with a critically revised Text; a Digest of Various Readings; Marginal References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage; Prolegomena; and a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. For the Use of Theological Students and Ministers. By Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. Vol. I., containing the Four Gospels. 944 pages, 8vo, Cloth, $6.00; Sheep, $6.50.

ABBOTT’S FREDERICK THE GREAT. The History of Frederick the Second, called Frederick the Great. By John S. C. Abbott. Elegantly Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, $5.00.

ABBOTT’S HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The French Revolution of 1789, as viewed in the Light of Republican Institutions. By John S. C. Abbott. With 100 Engravings. 8vo, Cloth, $5.00.

ABBOTT’S NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. The History of Napoleon Bonaparte. By John S. C. Abbott. With Maps, Woodcuts, and Portraits on Steel. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10.00.

ABBOTT’S NAPOLEON AT ST. HELENA; or, Interesting Anecdotes and Remarkable Conversations of the Emperor during the Five and a Half Years of his Captivity. Collected from the Memorials of Las Casas, O’Meara, Montholon, Antommarchi, and others. By John S. C. Abbott. With Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5.00.

ADDISON’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Works of Joseph Addison, embracing the whole of the “Spectator.” Complete in 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $6.00.

ALCOCK’S JAPAN. The Capital of the Tycoon: a Narrative of a Three Years’ Residence in Japan. By Sir Rutherford Alcock, K.C.B., Her Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Japan. With Maps and Engravings. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3.50.

ALISON’S HISTORY OF EUROPE. First Series: From the Commencement of the French Revolution, in 1789, to the Restoration of the Bourbons, in 1815. [In addition to the Notes on Chapter LXXVI., which correct the errors of the original work concerning the United States, a copious Analytical Index has been appended to this American edition.] Second Series: From the Fall of Napoleon, in 1815, to the Accession of Louis Napoleon, in 1852. 8 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $16.00.

BALDWIN’S PRE-HISTORIC NATIONS. Pre-Historic Nations; or, Inquiries concerning some of the Great Peoples and Civilizations of Antiquity, and their Probable Relation to a still Older Civilization of the Ethiopians or Cushites of Arabia. By John D. Baldwin, Member of the American Oriental Society. 12mo, Cloth, $1.75.

BARTH’S NORTH AND CENTRAL AFRICA. Travels and Discoveries in North and Central Africa: being a Journal of an Expedition undertaken under the Auspices of H. B. M.’s Government, in the Years 1849-1855. By Henry Barth, Ph.D., D.C.L. Illustrated. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $12.00.

HENRY WARD BEECHER’S SERMONS. Sermons by Henry Ward Beecher, Plymouth Church, Brooklyn. Selected from Published and Unpublished Discourses, and Revised by their Author. With Steel Portrait. Complete in 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $5.00.

LYMAN BEECHER’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, &c. Autobiography, Correspondence, &c., of Lyman Beecher, D.D. Edited by his Son, Charles Beecher. With Three Steel Portraits, and Engravings on Wood. In 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $5.00.

BOSWELL’S JOHNSON. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Including a Journey to the Hebrides. By James Boswell, Esq. A New Edition, with numerous Additions and Notes. By John Wilson Croker, LL.D., F.R.S. Portrait of Boswell. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4.00.

[4]

DRAPER’S CIVIL WAR. History of the American Civil War. By John W. Draper, M.D., LL.D., Professor of Chemistry and Physiology in the University of New York. In Three Vols. 8vo, Cloth, $3.50 per vol.

DRAPER’S INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. By John W. Draper, M.D., LL.D., Professor of Chemistry and Physiology in the University of New York. 8vo, Cloth, $5.00.

DRAPER’S AMERICAN CIVIL POLICY. Thoughts on the Future Civil Policy of America. By John W. Draper, M.D., LL.D., Professor of Chemistry and Physiology in the University of New York. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.50.

DU CHAILLU’S AFRICA. Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa with Accounts of the Manners and Customs of the People, and or the Chase of the Gorilla, the Crocodile, Leopard, Elephant, Hippopotamus, and other Animals. By Paul B. Du Chaillu. Numerous Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5.00.

BELLOWS’S OLD WORLD. The Old World in its New Face: Impressions of Europe in 1867-1868. By Henry W. Bellows. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3.50.

BRODHEAD’S HISTORY OF NEW YORK. History of the State of New York. By John Romeyn Brodhead. 1609-1691. 2 vols. 8vo, Cloth, $3.00 per vol.

BROUGHAM’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Life and Times of Henry, Lord Brougham. Written by Himself. In Three Volumes. 12mo, Cloth, $2.00 per vol.

BULWER’S PROSE WORKS. Miscellaneous Prose Works of Edward Bulwer. Lord Lytton. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3.50.

BULWER’S HORACE. The Odes and Epodes of Horace. A Metrical Translation into English. With Introduction and Commentaries. By Lord Lytton. With Latin Text from the Editions of Orelli, Macleane, and Yonge. 12mo, Cloth, $1.75.

BULWER’S KING ARTHUR. A Poem. By Earl Lytton. New Edition. 12mo, Cloth, $1.75.

BURNS’S LIFE AND WORKS. The Life and Works of Robert Burns. Edited by Robert Chambers. 4 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $6.00.

REINDEER, DOGS, AND SNOW-SHOES. A Journal of Siberian Travel and Explorations made in the Years 1865-’67. By Richard J. Bush, late of the Russo-American Telegraph Expedition. Illustrated. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $3.00.

CARLYLE’S FREDERICK THE GREAT. History of Friedrich II., called Frederick the Great. By Thomas Carlyle. Portraits, Maps, Plans, &c. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $12.00.

CARLYLE’S FRENCH REVOLUTION. History of the French Revolution. Newly Revised by the Author, with Index, &c. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3.50.

CARLYLE’S OLIVER CROMWELL. Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. With Elucidations and Connecting Narrative. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3.50.

CHALMERS’S POSTHUMOUS WORKS. The Posthumous Works of Dr. Chalmers. Edited by his Son-in-Law, Rev. William Hanna, LL.D. Complete in 9 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $13.50.

COLERIDGE’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. With an Introductory Essay upon his Philosophical and Theological Opinions. Edited by Professor Shedd. Complete in Seven Vols. With a fine Portrait. Small 8vo, Cloth, $10.50.

DOOLITTLE’S CHINA. Social Life of the Chinese: with some Account of their Religious, Governmental, Educational, and Business Customs and Opinions. With special but not exclusive Reference to Fuhchau. By Rev. Justus Doolittle, Fourteen Years Member of the Fuhchau Mission of the American Board. Illustrated with more than 160 characteristic Engravings on Wood. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $5.00.

GIBBON’S ROME. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By Edward Gibbon. With Notes by Rev. H. H. Milman and M. Guizot. A new cheap Edition. To which is added a complete Index of the whole Work, and a Portrait of the Author. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $9.00.

HAZEN’S SCHOOL AND ARMY IN GERMANY AND FRANCE. The School and the Army in Germany and France, with a Diary of Siege Life at Versailles. By Brevet Major-General W. B. Hazen, U.S.A., Colonel Sixth Infantry. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2.50.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Oxford Methodists

PREFACE.

THE
OXFORD METHODISTS.

THE FIRST OF THE OXFORD METHODISTS.

Robert Kirkham.

William Morgan.

William Morgan’s Brother.

THE REV. JOHN CLAYTON, M.A.,
THE JACOBITE CHURCHMAN.

REV. BENJAMIN INGHAM,
THE YORKSHIRE EVANGELIST.

REV. JOHN GAMBOLD, M.A.,
THE MORAVIAN BISHOP.

REV. JAMES HERVEY, M.A.,
THE LITERARY PARISH-PRIEST.

REV. THOMAS BROUGHTON, M.A.,
THE FAITHFUL SECRETARY.

OTHER OXFORD METHODISTS.

REV. MR. BOYCE.

REV. WILLIAM CHAPMAN.

REV. CHARLES KINCHIN.

REV. RICHARD HUTCHINS, D.D.

REV. CHRISTOPHER ATKINSON.

REV. JOHN WHITELAMB.

REV. WESTLEY HALL.

ADDENDUM.

FOOTNOTES

INDEX OF NAMES.

TYERMAN’S LIFE OF JOHN WESLEY.

VALUABLE & INTERESTING WORKS
FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES,
Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Oxford Methodists

PREFACE.

THE OXFORD METHODISTS.

THE FIRST OF THE OXFORD METHODISTS.

Robert Kirkham.

William Morgan.

William Morgan’s Brother.

THE REV. JOHN CLAYTON, M.A., THE JACOBITE CHURCHMAN.

REV. BENJAMIN INGHAM, THE YORKSHIRE EVANGELIST.

REV. JOHN GAMBOLD, M.A., THE MORAVIAN BISHOP.

REV. JAMES HERVEY, M.A., THE LITERARY PARISH-PRIEST.

REV. THOMAS BROUGHTON, M.A., THE FAITHFUL SECRETARY.

OTHER OXFORD METHODISTS.

REV. MR. BOYCE.

REV. WILLIAM CHAPMAN.

REV. CHARLES KINCHIN.

REV. RICHARD HUTCHINS, D.D.

REV. CHRISTOPHER ATKINSON.

REV. JOHN WHITELAMB.

REV. WESTLEY HALL.

ADDENDUM.

FOOTNOTES

INDEX OF NAMES.

TYERMAN’S LIFE OF JOHN WESLEY.

VALUABLE & INTERESTING WORKS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES, Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

THE
OXFORD METHODISTS.

THE REV. JOHN CLAYTON, M.A.,
THE JACOBITE CHURCHMAN.

REV. BENJAMIN INGHAM,
THE YORKSHIRE EVANGELIST.

REV. JOHN GAMBOLD, M.A.,
THE MORAVIAN BISHOP.

REV. JAMES HERVEY, M.A.,
THE LITERARY PARISH-PRIEST.

REV. THOMAS BROUGHTON, M.A.,
THE FAITHFUL SECRETARY.

VALUABLE & INTERESTING WORKS
FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES,
Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.