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.”
Of the origin of Westley Hall and his early life, we are ignorant.
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:—
“I heartily join with your small Society in all their pious and
charitable actions, which are intended for God’s glory; and
am glad to hear that Mr. Clayton and Mr. Hall have met with
desired success. You do well to wait on the Bishop; though, if
he be a good man, I cannot think it in the power of any one to
prejudice him against you. Your arguments against horse-races
do certainly conclude against masquerades, balls, plays,
operas, and all such light and vain diversions, which, whether
the gay people of the world will own it or no, do strongly
confirm and strengthen the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eye, and the pride of life; all of which we must renounce, or
renounce our God and hope of eternal salvation. I will not say,
it is impossible for a person to have any sense of religion,
who frequents those vile assemblies; but I never, throughout
the course of my long life, knew so much as one serious
Christian that did; nor can I see how a lover of God can have
any relish for such vain amusements.”[295]
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,—
“I cannot think Mr. Hall does well in refusing an opportunity
of doing so much service to religion, as he certainly might do,
if he accepted the living he is about to refuse. Surely, there
never was more need of orthodox, sober divines in our Lord’s
vineyard, than there is now; and why a man of his extraordinary
piety, and love to souls, should decline the service in this
critical juncture, I cannot conceive. But this is none of my
business.”[296]
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:—
“1784, August 31. Many years ago, Mr. Hall, then strong in
faith, believed God called him to marry my youngest sister. He
told her so. She fully believed him, and none could convince
one or the other to the contrary. I talked with her about it;
but she had ‘so often made it matter of prayer, that, she could
not be deceived.’ In a week, he dropped her, courted her elder
sister, and, as soon as was convenient, married her.”[298]
What is the history of this strange transaction? Martha Wesley was born
in 1707; Kezziah, her sister, in 1710. 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:—
“When he, who long in virtue’s paths had trod,
Deaf to the voice of conscience and of God,
Drops the fair mask, proves traitor to his vow,
And thou the temptress, and the tempted thou,—
Prepare thee then to meet the infernal war,
And dare beyond what woman knows to dare;
Guard each avenue to thy fluttering heart,
...
“Trembling, I hear his horrid vows renewed,
I see him come, by _Delia’s_ groans pursued.
Poor injured Delia! all her groans are vain;
Or he denies, or, listening, mocks her pain.
What, though her eyes with ceaseless tears o’erflow,
Her bosom heave with agonizing woe;
What, though the horror of his falsehood near
Tear up her faith, and plunge her in despair;
Yet can he think (so blind to heaven’s decree,
And the sure fate of cursed apostasy),
Soon as he tells the secret of his breast,
And puts the angel off—and stands confessed,
When love, and grief, and shame, and anguish meet,
To make his crimes and _Delia’s_ wrongs complete,
That, then the injured maid will cease to grieve,
Behold him in a sister’s arms, and live!
Mistaken wretch—by thy unkindness hurled
From ease, from love, from thee, and from the world;
Soon must she land on that immortal shore,
Where falsehood never can torment her more:
There all her sufferings and her sorrows cease,
Nor saints turn devils there to vex her peace!”
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,—
“I intended not to write till I could give you an account of
Mr. Hall’s affair; but it is needless, because, I believe,
he won’t do anything without your approbation. I am entirely
of your opinion, that, we ought to ‘endeavour after perfect
resignation’; and I have learned to practise this duty in one
particular, which, I think, is of the greatest importance in
life, namely, marriage. I am as indifferent as it is lawful
for any person to be, whether I ever change my state or not;
because, I think a single life is the more excellent way; and
there are also several reasons why I rather desire to continue
as I am. One is, because, I desire to be entirely disengaged
from the world; but the chief is, I am so well apprized of
the great duty a wife owes to her husband, that, I think it
is almost impossible she should ever discharge it as she
ought. But I can scarce say, I have the liberty of choosing;
for my relations are continually soliciting me to marry. I
shall endeavour to be as resigned and cheerful as possible to
whatever God is pleased to ordain for me.”
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.
“ON THE MARRIAGE OF MR. WESTLEY HALL TO MISS PATTY WESLEY.
“Hymen, light thy purest flame,
Every sacred rite prepare;
Never to thy altar came
A more pious, faithful pair.
“Thee, dispensing mighty pleasure,
Rashly sensual minds invoke;
Only those partake thy treasure
Paired in Virtue’s easy yoke.
“Such are _Hall_ and _Wesley_ joining,
Kindred souls with plighting hands,
Each to each entire resigning,
_One become_ by nuptial bands.
“Happy union, which destroys
Half the ills of life below;
But the current of our joys
Makes with double vigour flow.
“Sympathising friends abate
The severer strokes of fate;
Happy hours still happier prove
When they smile on those we love.
“Joys to vulgar minds unknown
Shall their daily converse crown;
Easy slumbers, pure delights,
Bless their ever peaceful nights.
“Oh Lucina, sacred power,
Here employ thy grateful care;
Smiling on the genial hour,
Give an offspring wise and fair!
“That, when the zealous sire shall charm no more
Th’ attentive audience with his sacred lore,
Those lips in silence closed, whose heavenly skill
Could raptures with persuasive words instil;
A _son_ may in the important work engage,
And with his precepts mend the future age:
That, when the accomplished mother, snatched by fate,
No more shall grace the matrimonial state;
No more exhibit, in her virtuous life,
The bright exemplar of a perfect wife;
A _daughter_, blest with each maternal grace,
May shine the pattern of the female race!”
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:—
“Brother Hall’s is a black story. There was no great likelihood
of his being a favourite with me: his tongue is too smooth for
my roughness, and rather inclines me to suspect than believe.
Indeed, I little suspected the horrid truth; but, finding him
on the reserve, I thought, he was something like Rivington, and
feared me as a jester; which is a sure sign either of guilt
on the one hand, or pride on the other. It is certainly true
of that marriage; it will not, and it cannot come to good. He
is now at a curacy in Wiltshire, near Marlborough. I have no
correspondence with Kez.: I did design it after reading yours;
but the hearing, that, she is gone to live with Patty and her
husband made me drop my design.”
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 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:—
“1736, December 6. I spent an hour at my uncle’s, equally
welcome and unexpected. They informed me, my brother Hall was
gone to a curacy, very melancholy, and impatient at the mention
of Georgia; and that my sister Kezzy was gone to live with him.
“Serpentes avibus geminentur, tigribus agnæ.”
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:—
“Mr. Hall and his wife are very good to me. He behaves like a
gentleman and a Christian; and my daughter with as much duty
and tenderness as can be expressed.”[301]
Shortly after this, Westley Hall seems to have removed to Salisbury.
Hence the following entry in Charles Wesley’s Journal:—
“1737, December 29. I supped in Salisbury, at my brother
Hall’s.”
In 1739, he came to London. In a letter, to her son Samuel, dated “March
8, 1739,” Mrs. Wesley writes:—
“I have been informed, that, Mr. Hall intends to remove his
family to London, hath taken a house, and I must (if it please
God I live) go with them.”[302]
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:—
“I was minded to rebuke her; but God gave me uncommon
recollection, and command of spirit, so that, I sat quiet, and
replied not. I offered, at last, to sing, which she allowed,
but did not join. Bray pressed me to stay, and hear her pray.
They knelt; I stood. She prayed most pompously. I durst not
say, Amen. She concluded with a horrible, hellish laugh; and
showed violent displeasure against our baptized Quaker, saying,
‘God had showed her, He would destroy all outward things.’”
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:—
“She flew upon us like a tigress; tried to outface me; and
insisted, that, she was immediately inspired. I prayed. She
cried, ‘The devil was in me. I was a fool, a blockhead, a blind
leader of the blind.’ She roared outrageously; said, it was the
lion in her. (True; but not the Lion of Judah.) She _would_
come to the Society in spite of me: if not, they would all go
down. I asked, ‘Who is on God’s side? Who for the old Prophets
rather than the new? Let them follow me.’ They followed me into
the preaching room. I prayed, and expounded the lesson with
extraordinary power.”
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,—
“Bray and Bowers were much humbled. All agreed to disown the
prophetess. Brother Hall proposed expelling Shaw and Wolf. We
consented, _nem. con._, that, their names should be erased out
of the Society-book, because they disowned themselves members
of the Church of England.”
Thus we find Westley Hall employed in silencing the profanities 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:—
“1739, September 3. I talked largely with my mother, who told
me, that, till a short time since, she had scarce heard such
a thing mentioned as the having God’s Spirit bearing witness
with our spirit: much less did she imagine, that, this was the
common privilege of all true believers. ‘Therefore,’ said she,
‘I never durst ask it for myself. But two or three weeks ago,
while my son Hall was pronouncing those words, in delivering
the cup to me,—The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was
given for thee,—the words struck my heart, and I knew, God, for
Christ’s sake, had forgiven me all my sins.’”
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:—
“1740, May 14. I found Mr. Hall at Fetter Lane, asking them,
whether they would try their spirits by the Word, or the Word
by their spirits. I enforced the question, which they strove
to evade. Rabbi Hutton[303] forbade their answering me. I
warned the few remaining brethren to beware of the leaven of
_stillness_; showed them the delusion of those who had cast off
the ordinances, and confined the faith to _themselves only_; I
foretold the dreadful consequences of their enthusiasm; set the
case of Gregor before their eyes; besought, entreated, conjured
them not to renounce the means, or deny the Lord that bought
them; read a letter from one who had been strongly tempted
to leave off the Sacrament, but, in receiving, was powerfully
convinced that her dissuader was the devil. Hodges, Hall, and
Howel Harris confirmed my words. Others were hereby emboldened
to bear their testimony to the divine ordinances. By the
strength of the Lord, we have stood between the living and the
dead; and the plague, we trust, is stayed.”
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:—
“1742, Sunday, October 31. Several of the leaders desired to
have an hour’s conversation with me. I found, they were greatly
perplexed about ‘want of management, ill-husbandry, encouraging
idleness, improper distribution of money,’ ‘being imposed
upon by fair pretences,’ and ‘men who talked well, but had no
grace in their hearts.’ I asked, who those men were; but that
they could not tell. Who encouraged idleness; when and how;
what money had been improperly distributed; by whom, and to
whom; in what instances I had been imposed upon (as I presumed
they meant _me_); and what were the particulars of that
ill-husbandry and mismanagement of which they complained. They
stared at one another as men in amaze. I began to be amazed
too, not being able to imagine what was the matter, till one
dropped a word, by which all came out. They had been talking
with Mr. Hall, who had started so many objections against all I
said or did, that, they were in the utmost consternation, till
the fire thus broke out, which then at once vanished away.”
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.
“NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, _Nov. 17, 1742_.
“DEAR SISTER,—I believe the death of your children is a great
instance of the goodness of God towards you. You have often
mentioned to me how much of your time they took up. Now that
time is restored to you, and you have nothing to do but to
serve the Lord without carefulness and without distraction,
till you are sanctified in body, soul, and spirit.
“As soon as I saw Mr. Hall, I invited him to stay at the
Foundry; but he desired I would have him excused. There is a
strange inconsistency in his tempers and sentiments with regard
to me. The _still brethren_[306] have gradually infused into
him as much as they could of their own contempt of me and my
brother, and dislike of our whole method of proceeding, which
is as different from theirs as light from darkness. Nay, they
have blunderingly taught him to find fault even with my economy
and want of management both of my family and society. Whereas,
I know this is the peculiar talent which God has given me,
wherein (by His grace) I am not behind the very chiefest of
them. Notwithstanding this, there remains in him something of
his old regard for me, which he had at Oxford; and, by-and-by,
it will prevail. He will find out these wretched men, and the
clouds will flee away.
“My belief is, that, the present design of God, is to visit the
poor desolate Church of England; and, that, therefore, neither
deluded Mr. Gambold, nor any who leave it, will prosper. O pray
for the peace of Jerusalem. ‘They shall prosper that love thee.’
“Mr. Hall has paid me for the books. I don’t want any money
of you; your love is sufficient. But write, as often and as
largely as you can, to your affectionate friend and brother,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[307]
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:—
“1743, August 11. From ten to two, I got with my sister Hall
in Salisbury. She stands alone. Every soul of her husband’s
Society has forsaken the ordinances of God; for which reason
she refuses to belong to it.”
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:—
“1745, June 19. Three miles on this side Salisbury, a _still_
sister came out to meet, and try her skill upon, me. But,
alas! it was labour lost! I knew the _happy sinner_, and all
her paces. I found my sister as a rock in the midst of waves.
Mr. Hall’s Society had all left the Church, and mocked and
persecuted her for not leaving it. Many pressed me to preach;
but I answered them, ‘My heart was not _free_ to it.’ At four,
I set out with my sister; and reached Bristol in the afternoon
of the next day.”
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.
“_December 30, 1745._
“DEAR BROTHER,—Now you act the part of a friend. It has long
been our desire, that, you would speak freely. And we will do
the same. What we know not yet, may God reveal to us!
“You think, First, that, we undertake to _defend_ some things,
which are not _defensible_ by the _Word of God_. You instance
three: on each of which we will explain ourselves as clearly as
we can.
“1. ‘That, the _validity_ of our _ministry_ depends on
a _succession_ supposed to be from the Apostles, and a
_commission_ derived from the Pope of _Rome_, and his
_successors_ or _dependents_.’
“We believe, it would not be right for us to _administer_,
either Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, unless we had a
_commission_ so to do from those Bishops, whom we apprehend to
be in a _succession_ from the Apostles. And, yet, we allow,
these Bishops are the successors of those, who are dependent on
the Bishop of _Rome_. But, we would be glad to know, on what
reasons you believe this to be inconsistent with the Word of
God.
“2. ‘That, there is an _outward Priesthood_, and consequently
an _outward Sacrifice_, ordained and offered by the Bishop of
_Rome_, and his _successors_ or _dependents_, in the Church of
_England_, as _vicars_ and vicegerents of Christ.’
“We believe there is and always was, in _every_ Christian
Church (whether dependent on the Bishop of _Rome_ or not) an
_outward Priesthood_ ordained by Jesus Christ, and an _outward
Sacrifice_ offered therein, by men authorized to act, as
_Ambassadors of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God_.
On what grounds do you believe, that, Christ has abolished that
_Priesthood or Sacrifice_?
“3. ‘That, this _Papal Hierarchy_ and _Prelacy_, which still
continues in the Church of England, is of _Apostolical
Institution_, and authorized thereby; though not by the
_written Word_.’
“We believe, that, the threefold order of ministers, (which you
seem to mean by _Papal Hierarchy_ and _Prelacy_,) is not only
authorized by its _Apostolical Institution_, but also by the
_written Word_. Yet, we are willing to hear and weigh whatever
reasons induce you to believe to the contrary.
“You think, Secondly, ‘That, we ourselves give up some things
as _indefensible_, which are defended by the same law and
_authority_, that establish the things above mentioned: such
as are many of the _Laws_, _Customs_, and _Practices_ of the
_Ecclesiastical Courts_.’
“We allow, 1. That, those _Laws_, _Customs_, and _Practices_
are really _indefensible_; 2. That, there are Acts of
Parliament, in _defence_ of them; and also of the threefold
order. But, will you show us, how it follows, either, 1. that,
those things and these stand or fall together? Or, 2. that, we
cannot _sincerely plead for_ the one, though we _give up_ the
other? Do you not here quite overlook one circumstance, which
might be a key to our whole behaviour? Namely, that, we no more
look upon those _filthy abuses_, which _adhere_ to our Church,
as _parts_ of the building; than we look upon any _filth_ which
may _adhere_ to the walls of _Westminster Abbey_, as a part of
that structure.
“You think, Thirdly, ‘That, there are other things which
we _defend_ and _practise_, in _open contradiction_ to the
_Orders_ of the Church of _England_. And this you judge to be a
_just exception_ against the _sincerity_ of our _professions_
to adhere to it.’
“Compare what we _profess_ with what we _practise_, and you
will possibly be of another judgment. We profess, 1. That,
we will obey all the laws of that Church, (such we allow the
Rubrics to be, but not the Customs of the Ecclesiastical
Courts,) so far as we can with a safe conscience. 2. That, we
will obey, with the same restriction, the Bishops, as executors
of those _laws_. But their bare _will_, distinct from those
_laws_, we do not _profess_ to obey at all. Now point out, What
is there in our _practice_, which is an _open contradiction_ to
these _professions_?
“Is _Field-Preaching_? Not at all. It is contrary to no law,
which we _profess_ to obey.
“The allowing _Lay-Preachers_? We are not clear, that,
this is contrary to any _such law_. But, if it is, this is
one of the exempt cases; one wherein we cannot obey with a
safe conscience. Therefore, (be it right or wrong on other
accounts,) it is however no just exception against our
sincerity.
“The _Rules_ and _Directions_ given to our _Societies_? which,
you say, is a discipline _utterly forbidden_ by the _Bishops_.
When and where did any Bishop _forbid_ this? And if any did, by
what _law_? We know not either the man who ever _did_ forbid,
or the law by which he _could_ forbid it.
“The allowing _persons_ (for we require none) to _communicate_
at the chapel, in contradiction, (you think,) to _all those
Rubrics_, which require _all_ to attend _always_, on their own
_parish_ church and _pastor_, and to receive _only_ at his
table?
“Which Rubrics are those? We cannot find them. And, till these
are produced, all that is so frequently said of _parochial_
unity, etc., is merely _gratis dictum_. Consequently, neither
is this any just exception against the sincerity of any of our
professions.
“JOHN WESLEY.”[308]
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 had no confidence in each other. A few months after
the date of the above letter, Wesley wrote as follows:—
“1746. July 20. I set out for Salisbury, where, to my utter
amazement, Mr. Hall desired me to preach. Was his motive only,
to grace his own cause? Or rather, was this the last gasp of
expiring love?”
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,—
“Last Wednesday, he took formal leave of his corrupted flock,
and had the impudence to justify his infamous conduct from
the case of Elkanah, (1 Sam. i. 1, 2), which he largely
expounded. On Friday morning, he set out for London, having
first stripped his wife, (a virtuous woman by whom he has had
several children,) of all her childbed linen, and whatever he
could readily convert into money, leaving her in the deepest
distress. The fire of jealousy has broken out in many families,
where _wives_ or _daughters_ were his followers.”
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:—
“From the concurrent account of many witnesses, who spoke no
more than they personally knew, I now learned as much as is
hitherto brought to light concerning the fall of poor Mr.
Hall. Twelve years ago, he was, without all question, filled
with faith and the love of God. He was a pattern of humility,
meekness, seriousness, and, above all, of self-denial; so
that, in all England, I knew not his fellow. It were easy
to point out the several steps, whereby he fell from his
steadfastness; even till he fell into a course of adultery,
yea, and avowed it in the face of the sun!”
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.
“LONDON, _December 22, 1747_.
“DEAR BROTHER,—1. When you were at Oxford with me, fourteen or
fifteen years ago, you were holy and unblamable in all manner
of conversation. I greatly rejoiced in the grace of God, which
was given unto you, which was often a blessing to my own soul.
Yet, even then, you had frequently starts of thought, which
were not of God, though they at first appeared so to be. But
you were humble and teachable: you were easily convinced, and
those imaginations vanished away.
“2. More than twelve years ago, you told me, God had revealed
it to you, that you should marry my youngest sister. I was much
surprised, being well assured that you were able to receive our
Lord’s saying, (so you had continually testified,) and to be an
‘eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.’ But, you vehemently
affirmed, the thing was of God; you were certain it was His
will. God had made it plain to you, that, you must marry,
and, that, she was the very person. You asked, and gained her
consent, and fixed the circumstances relating thereto.
“3. Hence, I date your fall. Here were several faults in one.
You leaned altogether to your own understanding, not consulting
either me, who was then the guide of your soul, or the parents
of your intended wife, till you had settled the whole affair.
And while you followed the voice of nature, you said it was the
voice of God.
“4. In a few days, you had a counter revelation, that, you
were not to marry her, but her sister. This last error was far
worse than the first. But, you were now quite above conviction.
So, in spite of her poor, astonished parent, of her brothers,
of all your vows and promises, you shortly after jilted the
younger, and married the elder sister. The other, who had
honoured you as an angel from heaven, and still loved you much
too well, (for you had stolen her heart from the God of her
youth,) refused to be comforted. She fell into a lingering
illness, which terminated in her death. And doth not her blood
still cry unto God from the earth? Surely it is upon _your_
head.
“5. Till this time, you were a pattern of lowliness, meekness,
seriousness, and continual advertence to the presence of God;
and, above all, of self-denial of every kind, and of suffering
all things with joyfulness. But there was now a worm at the
root of the gourd. Yet, it did not presently wither away; but,
for two years or more, after your marriage, you behaved nearly
the same as before.
“Then anger and surliness began to appear, particularly toward
your wife. But it was not long before you were sensible of
this, and you seemed to have conquered it.
“6. You went up to London ten years ago. After this, you
began to speak on any head; not with your usual diffidence
and self-abasement, but with a kind of confidence in your own
judgment, and an air of self-sufficiency. A natural consequence
was, the treating with more sharpness and contempt those who
opposed either your judgment or practice.
“7. You came to live at London. You then, for a season,
appeared to gain ground again. You acted in concert with my
brother and me; heard our advice, and sometimes followed
it. But, this continued only till you contracted a fresh
acquaintance with some of the Brethren of Fetter Lane.
Henceforward, you were quite shut up to us; we had no manner of
influence over you. You were more and more prejudiced against
us, and would receive nothing which we said.
“8. About six years ago, you removed to Salisbury, and began a
society there. For a year or two, you went with them to church
and sacrament, and simply preached faith working by love. God
was with you, and they increased both in number, and in the
knowledge and love of God.
“About four years since, you broke off all friendship with
us. You would not so much as make use of our hymns, either in
public or private; but laid them quite aside, and took the
German Hymn-book in their stead.
“You would not willingly suffer any of your people to read
anything which we wrote. You angrily caught one of my sermons
out of your servant’s hand, saying, you would have no such
books read in your house. In much the same manner, you
spoke to Mrs. Whitemarsh, when you found her reading one of
the “Appeals.” So that, as far as in you lay, you fixed a
great gulf between us and you, which remains to this day,
notwithstanding a few steps lately made towards a re-union.
“About the same time, you left off going to church, as well
as to the sacrament. Your followers very soon trod in your
steps; and, not content with neglecting the ordinances of God,
they began, after your example, to _despise_ them, and all
that continued to use them, speaking with equal contempt of
the public service, of private prayer, of baptism, and of the
Lord’s Supper.
“From this time, also, you began to espouse and teach many
uncommon opinions: as, that, there is no resurrection of the
body; that, there is no general judgment to come; and, that,
there is no hell, no worm that never dieth, no fire that never
shall be quenched.
“9. Your seriousness and advertence to the presence of God,
now, declined daily. You could talk on anything or nothing,
just as others did. You could break a jest, or laugh at it
heartily; and, as for fasting, abstinence, and self-denial,
you, with the Moravians, trampled it under foot.”