“Reads one English, one Latin, and one Greek book alternately;
and never meddles with a new one, in any of the languages, till
he has ended the old one. If he goes on as he has begun, I dare
take upon me to say, that, by the time he has been here four or
five years, there will not be such an one, of his standing, in
Lincoln College, perhaps not in the University of Oxford.”
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 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:”
“John Whitelamb wants a gown much, and I am not rich enough
to buy him one at present If you are willing that my twenty
shillings (that were) should go toward that, I will add ten
to them, and let it lie till I have tried my interest with my
friends to make up the price of a new one.”
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:—
“From earliest dawn of life, through Thee alone,
The saint sublime, the finished Christian shone;
Yet would not grace one grain of pride allow,
Or cry, ‘Stand off, I’m holier than thou!’
With business or devotion never cloyed,
No moment of thy time passed unemployed,
Nor was thy form unfair, (though Heaven confined
To scanty limits thy exalted mind).”
“Witness the brow, so faultless, open, clear,
That none could ask if honesty was there:
Witness the taintless lustre of thy skin,
Bright emblem of the brighter soul within:
That soul, which, easy, unaffected, mild,
Through jetty eyes, with cheerful sweetness smiled.
But, oh! could fancy reach, or language speak
The living beauties of thy lip and cheek,
Where nature’s pencil, leaving art no room,
Touched to a miracle the vernal bloom,
Lost though thou art in _Stella’s_ faithful line,
Thy face, immortal as thy fame, should shine.”
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.
“_January 14, 1734._
“MY LORD,—The small rectory of Wroot, in the diocese and county
of Lincoln, is in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, and, more
than seven years since, was conferred on Samuel Wesley, rector
of Epworth. It lies in our low levels, and is often overflowed.
During the time I have had it, the people have lost the fruits
of the earth to that degree, that it has hardly brought me £50
per annum, _omnibus annis_; and, some years, not enough to pay
my curate there his salary of £30 a year.
“This living, by your lordship’s permission and favour, I
would gladly resign to one Mr. John Whitelamb, born in the
neighbourhood of Wroot, where his father and grandfather lived;
when I took him from among the scholars of a charity school
(founded by one Mr. Travers, an attorney), brought him to my
house, and educated him there, where he was my amanuensis for
four years, in transcribing my ‘Dissertations on the Book of
Job,’ now well advanced in the press; and was employed in
drawing my maps and figures for it, as well as we could by
the light of nature. After this, I sent him to Oxford, to my
son John, Fellow of Lincoln College; under whom he made such
proficiency, that he was, the last summer, admitted, by the
Bishop of Oxford, into deacon’s orders, and became my curate at
Epworth, while I came up to town to expedite the printing of my
book.
“Since then, I gave my consent to his marrying one of my seven
daughters, and they are married accordingly; and, though I
can spare little more with her, yet I would gladly give them
a little glebe land at Wroot, where, I am sure, they will not
want springs of water. But _they_ love the place, though I can
get nobody else to reside on it.
“If I do not flatter myself, he is indeed a valuable person,
of uncommon brightness, learning, piety, and indefatigable
industry; always loyal to the king, zealous for the Church,
and friendly to our dissenting brethren. For the truth of this
character I will be answerable to God and man.
“If, therefore, your lordship will grant me the favour to let
me resign my living unto him, and please to confer it on him,
I shall always remain, your lordship’s most bounden, most
grateful, and most obedient servant,
“SAMUEL WESLEY.”
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:—
“The house is good, and strong, and clean,
Though there no battlements are seen,
But humble roof of thatch, I ween,
Low rooms from rain to cover.
Where, safe from poverty, (sore ill!)
All may live happy if they will,
As any that St. James’s fill,
The Escurial, or the Louvre.”
Their parishioners were sketched by Mehetabel Wesley, in the lines
following:—
“High births and virtue equally they scorn,
As asses dull, on dunghills born;
Impervious as the stones, their heads are found,
Their rage and hatred, steadfast as the ground.”
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
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:—
“EPWORTH, _December 7, 1734_.
“DEAR SIR,—I cannot express how much I am obliged by your last
kind and instructive letter concerning the affairs of Georgia.
I could not read it without sighing, when I reflected on my
own age and infirmities, which made such an expedition utterly
impracticable for me. Yet, my mind worked hard about it; and it
is not impossible but Providence may have directed me to such
an expedient as may prove more serviceable to your colony than
I should ever have been.”
Samuel Wesley then proceeds to give an account of the life of Whitelamb,
and continues:—
“I consented to his marrying one of my daughters, there having
been a long and intimate friendship between them. But neither
he nor I were so happy as to have them live long together; for
she died in childbed of her first child. He was so inconsolable
at her loss, that I was afraid he would soon have followed her;
to prevent which, I desired his company here at my own house,
that he might have some amusement and business, by assisting me
in my cure during my illness.
“It was then, sir, I received the favour of yours, and let him
see it for diversion; more especially, because John Lyndal and
he had been fellow-parishioners and schoolfellows at Wroot,
and had no little kindness one for the other. I made no great
reflection on the thing at first; but, soon after, I found he
had thought often upon it; was very desirous to go to Georgia
himself; and wrote the enclosed letter to me on the subject. As
I knew not of any person more proper for such an undertaking,
I thought the least I could do was to send the letter to your
honour, who would be so very proper a judge of the affair; and,
if you approve, I shall not be wanting in my addresses to my
Lord Bishop of London, or any other, to forward the matter as
far as possible.
“As for his character, I shall take it upon myself to say, he
is a good scholar, a sound Christian, and a good liver. He has
a very happy memory, especially for languages, and a judgment
and intelligence not inferior. My eldest son, at Tiverton, has
some knowledge of him; my two others, his tutor at Lincoln,
and my third, of Christ Church, have been long and intimately
acquainted with him; and, I doubt not, they will give him, at
least, as just a character as I have done.
“And here I shall drop the matter till I have the honour of
hearing again from you, ever remaining your honour’s most
sincere and most obliged friend and servant,
“SAMUEL WESLEY.”
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:—
“1742, Sunday, June 13. At seven I preached at Haxey, on, ‘What
must I do to be saved?’ Thence I went to Wroot, of which, as
well as Epworth, my father was rector for several years. Mr.
Whitelamb offering me the church, I preached, in the morning,
on, ‘Ask, and it shall be given you;’ in the afternoon, on
the difference between the righteousness of the law and the
righteousness of faith. But the church could not contain the
people, many of whom came from far; and, I trust, not in vain.
At six, I preached in Epworth churchyard to a vast multitude
gathered together from all parts, on the beginning of our
Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. I continued among them for near
three hours, and yet we scarce knew how to part.”
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:—
“While I was speaking several dropped down as dead; and such
a cry was heard of sinners groaning for the righteousness of
faith as almost drowned my voice. But many of these soon lifted
up their heads with joy, and broke out into thanksgiving,
being assured that they now had the desire of their soul—the
forgiveness of their sins.”
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:—
“_June 11, 1742._
“DEAR BROTHER,—I saw you at Epworth, on Tuesday evening.
Fain would I have spoken to you, but that I am quite at a
loss how to address or behave. Your way of thinking is so
extraordinary,[286] that, your presence creates an awe, as if
you were an inhabitant of another world. God grant you and your
followers may always have entire liberty of conscience! Will
you not allow others the same? Indeed, I cannot think as you
do, any more than I can help honouring and loving you.
“Dear sir, will you credit me? I retain the highest veneration
for you. The sight of you moves me strangely. My heart
overflows with gratitude. I feel, in a higher degree, all that
tenderness and yearning of bowels with which I am affected
towards every branch of Mr. Wesley’s family. I cannot refrain
from tears when I reflect, ‘This is the man, who, at Oxford,
was more than a father to me. This is he whom I have there
heard expound, or dispute publicly, or preach at St. Mary’s,
with such applause. And Oh that I should ever add, whom I have
lately heard preach at Epworth!’[287]
“I am quite forgot. None of the family ever honours me with
line! Have I been ungrateful? I appeal to sister Patty; I
appeal to Mr. Ellison,[288] whether I have or no. I have
been passionate, fickle, a fool, but I hope I shall never be
_ungrateful_.
“Dear sir, is it in my power to serve or oblige you in any way?
Glad I should be, that, you would make use of me. God open all
our eyes, and lead us into truth, whatever it be.
“JOHN WHITELAMB.”[289]
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 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.
WROOT, _September 2, 1742_.
“DEAR BROTHER,—I must make bold to give you that title. I was
informed, that, you have entertained so hard an opinion of
me as scarcely to hear me named with patience. This made me
fear, the sight of me would not be agreeable. However, I have
ventured to write, lest I should confirm that opinion by a
behaviour that seems to show neglect and ingratitude.
“It is probably not in my power to alter your sentiments of
me; but there is a day, which you and I expect, when it will
appear, that, J. Whitelamb was never either ungrateful, or
vicious; though, by the heat of youthful blood, and the want of
experience of the world, he has been betrayed into very great
follies.
“I had the happiness and honour (for I account it both) of
seeing and conversing with my brother John, when he was last
over. He behaved to me truly like himself. I found in him,
what I have always experienced heretofore, the gentleman, the
friend, the brother, the Christian.
“Dear sir, command me in anything, whereby I can show my regard
to you, or the family; provided conscience be not concerned.
Alas! that I should be forced to distinguish Mr. Wesley,
from the preacher! My brother John demanded[290] my pulpit.
By the authority of a tutor, and one to whom I have so great
obligations, he has the disposal of whatever is mine. However,
I find, by the outcry it caused, that it gives very great
offence. I know not what measures may be taken against me, this
triennial visitation; nor am I so solicitous about it, as I
am uneasy that the interest of religion and the public peace
should, in the least, suffer by my means.
“For, to be frank, I cannot but look upon your doctrines as of
ill consequence. Consequence, I say; for, take them nakedly
in themselves, and nothing seems more innocent, nay, good
and holy. Suppose we grant, that, in you and the rest of the
leaders, who are men of sense and discernment, what is called
the seal and testimony of the Spirit, is something real; yet,
I have great reason to think, that, in the generality of your
followers, it is merely the effect of a heated fancy.
“So much for dispute; and I beg you will forgive me it. Oh
that we could so have met, as that there should have been no
contention, but in loving one another!
“I promised my tutor to write to him. Since then, I have had a
dangerous illness. I am scarce well recovered; and, besides, it
has left behind such a drowsy disposition, as I have not yet
had resolution to conquer. I hope to fulfil my promise shortly.
I have endeavoured to lay myself quite open to truth; and this
(with shame I ought to say it) has cost me some pains. My dear
mother Wesley, and poor sister Kezzy are gone.[291] God of the
spirits of all flesh, grant us all to meet in a happy eternity!
“Dear brother, are you in earnest in what you teach? I cannot
persuade any of my friends that you are. If you be, give me
your prayers. If not, do not, as you have formerly done,
ridicule me for being too religious. You little thought, when
you laughed at me, for being shocked at your gay discourse,
that you yourself should come to maintain the very notions
which I had then.
“I am, your obliged and most affectionate brother,
“JOHN WHITELAMB.”[292]
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, 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:—
“1769, October 4. How long is it since Mr. Whitelamb died? What
disease did he die of? Did he lie ill for any time? Do you know
any circumstances preceding or attending his death? Oh, why did
he not die forty years ago, while he knew in whom he believed?
Unsearchable are the counsels of God, and His ways past finding
out.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[294]
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 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:—
“In memory of John Whitelamb, Rector of this Parish thirty-five
years. Buried 29th of July, 1769, aged 62 years. Worthy of
imitation. This at the cost of Francis Wood, Esq., 1772.”