Chapter XXXII: Part 32

And now, what is the sum of this evidence? It has already been presented with sufficient detail, but let us retrace the successive and decisive steps of the argument. Here we have Wesley proposing to establish “the discipline of the Church of England” among the American Methodists, and to do so he ordains for them bishops, and gives them an episcopal regimen; yet, according to their antagonists, he never designed them to be a distinct Church, but only a “society” in the Protestant Episcopal Church! Wesley and Coke have “scruples,” delays, references to antiquity, imposition of hands, and other solemn forms, conforming to the “universal practice” of episcopal ordination, and yet all concerning some nondescript kind of appointment, analogous to that which is conferred upon a missionary in charge over his brethren in a foreign station! Wesley speaks of it as “ordaining,” and of his refusing to use the right before the Revolution because it would have interfered with the “established order of the national Church;” and yet a mere secondary commission of Coke, such a one as had existed in the person of Asbury for years, is the momentous interference with the established order of the national Church--though there was nothing in that order with which it could interfere, the national Church never having had any such appointments! Wesley solemnly “ordains” Coke; and yet it is not to the episcopal office, though he had been ordained to all the other offices to which ordination is appropriate years before! Wesley ordains two other men to the office of elders, and at the same time separately and formally ordains Coke, who had already borne this office; but still Coke’s new office is not the only remaining one that could be conferred upon him! Wesley refers to the ordination of bishops by the presbyters of Alexandria in justification of his ordination of Coke, and yet he does not ordain Coke a bishop! Wesley prepares for the American Church a Prayer-Book, abridged from that of the Church of England, prescribing the English forms for the three offices of deacons, presbyters, and bishops; the two former are admitted unquestionably to be what they are in England, and yet the latter is explained into something new and anomalous, answering to nothing ever heard of in the Church of England or in any other episcopal Church! In these forms the old names of two of the offices are changed to new but synonymous appellations--that of presbyter or priest to elder, that of bishop to superintendent; in the former case, the change of the name is not for a moment supposed to imply a change of the thing, and yet, in the other case, the change of the name invalidates entirely the thing, without a particle more evidence for it in one case than in the other! Charles Wesley, being a High-Churchman, is kept unaware of his brother’s proceedings till they are accomplished, though he is in the town at the time of the ordination; and yet it is no ordination, but a species of appointment against which he could have had no episcopal prejudice whatever! When he learns the facts he is overwhelmed with surprise, and in his correspondence exclaims against his “brother’s consecration of a bishop,” and “Dr. Coke’s Methodist Episcopal Church” at Baltimore; and Wesley, in his replies, never denies these titles, but simply vindicates his ordinations, and says that Coke had “done nothing rashly;” yet there was no bishop, no episcopal office appointed, no distinct episcopal Church established, but Coke had fabricated the whole! When the preachers in England, trained, from childhood, under episcopacy, hear of Coke’s new office, they are, to the great alarm of Charles Wesley, suddenly seized with a desire to be ordained by Coke, though they fully know that he is no bishop, but the same presbyter that he had been among them for years! In six months after the organization of the American Church, Coke publishes its Minutes, with the title “Methodist Episcopal Church in America,” in London, under the eye of Wesley, and in these Minutes it is declared that Wesley “recommended the episcopal mode of Church government;” but no remonstrance is heard from Wesley! When Coke is condemned through the press for his proceedings, he publicly replies that he had done “nothing without the direction of Mr. Wesley;” no rebuke follows from Wesley, but Coke goes on as usual, active in his Conferences, and maintained in his new position; and yet his American proceedings were an ambitious plot, contrary to the will of Wesley! The American Methodists had borne the title “Episcopal Church,” with Wesley’s full approval, for four years, when, on the use of the personal title of bishop, Wesley writes his letter to Asbury; and yet it is not the mere personal title he condemns, but the office which for four years he had left uncondemned, nay, had vindicated!

And now, looking again at this series of arguments, will not the American Methodists be acquitted of presumption when they assume that they may here make a triumphant stand, surrounded by evidence altogether impregnable? The mighty ecclesiastical system under which it has pleased God to give them and their families spiritual shelter and fellowship with his saints, and whose efficiency has surprised the Christian world, is not, as their opponents would represent, an imposition of their preachers, and contrary to the wishes of Wesley, but was legitimately received from his hands as the providential founder of Methodism.

If Wesley’s strong repugnance to the mere name of bishop had been expressed before its adoption by the American Church, it would probably not have been adopted. Still, the American Church was now a separate organization, and was at perfect liberty to dissent from Wesley on a matter of mere expediency. The Church thought it had good reasons to use the name. The American Methodists were mostly of English origin. The people of their country among whom Methodism was most successful were either from England or of immediate English descent, and had been educated to consider episcopacy a wholesome and apostolical government of the Church. The Church approved and had the office, why not, then, have the name? especially as, without the name, the office itself would be liable to lose, in the eyes of the people, its peculiar character, and thereby fail in that appeal to their long-established opinions which Methodism had a right, both from principle and expediency, to make? The English Establishment having been dissolved in this country, and the Protestant Episcopalians not being yet organized on an independent basis, and the episcopal organization of the Methodists having preceded that of the Protestant Episcopalians, the Methodist Church had a clear right to present itself to the American public as competent to aid in supplying the place of the abolished Establishment, having the same essential principles without its peculiar defects.

And may not the circumstance of the assumption of an episcopal character, nominally as well as really, by the American Methodists, be considered providential? Episcopacy, both in America and England, has reached an excess of presumption and arrogance. The moderate party, once declared by Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, to include a large majority of American Episcopalians,[811] has nearly disappeared. Was it not providential, under these circumstances, that a body of Christians should appear, exceeding every other in success, and nominally and practically bearing an episcopal character, without any of its presumptuous pretensions? Amid the uncharitable assumptions of prelatical Episcopalians, the Methodist Episcopal Church stands forth a monument of the laborious and simple episcopacy of the early ages, its success, as well as its humility, contrasting it signally with its more pretentious but feebler sister. It has thus practically vindicated episcopacy as an expedient form of ecclesiastical government, and assuredly it needs vindication in these days.

Such, then, is the evidence which should, with all men of self-respectful candor, conclude decisively the question of Wesley’s design and agency in the organization of American Methodism.

Driven from this ground, objectors retreat to an equally untenable one by alleging that the episcopal organization of the societies in America is to be attributed to the influence of ambitious counselors over Wesley in the imbecility of his old age. It has already been shown that he as yet betrayed no such imbecility; but it has still more conclusively been demonstrated that the ecclesiastical opinions which sanction this great act were adopted in the prime of his manhood. They were the well-considered and fully demonstrated convictions of two score years, before he yielded to the unavoidable necessity of giving them practical effect. Few facts in the history of Methodism are more interesting and instructive than the gradual development of Wesley’s own mind and character under his extraordinary and accumulating responsibilities; it has therefore been studiously traced throughout the preceding pages. No reader who has followed our narrative will accept this last objection to the American Methodist episcopacy, and no possible ground of argument remains for its opponents but the prelatical charge against its legitimacy, founded in the traditional and exploded ecclesiasticism of obsolete ages. Methodists are content, with Wesley, to pronounce the apostolic succession “a fable which no man ever did, or ever can prove,” and believe that, in this age, they need not anxiously challenge any advantage which their opponents can claim from a pretension so incompatible alike with the letter and the charity of the Gospel, as well as with the Christian enlightenment of modern times.[812]

[Attempts have been made to impugn Coke, as having overweeningly led Wesley into this important measure.[813] The charge, however, were it valid, could not affect the validity of the measure itself as genuinely Wesleyan, and as giving to American Methodism an Episcopal organization. After the preceding review, no one can doubt that the whole proceeding was in accordance with Wesley’s own views of Church government. He was, as we have seen, a decided Episcopalian, and he designed to give the American Methodist, as he says, “the discipline of the Church of England;” that is to say, an Episcopal regimen. His appeal to Lord King’s proof, that the presbyters of Alexandria ordained bishops, could otherwise have no relevancy. His use of this proof with Coke, while the latter hesitated, shows what was his original design, and it is impossible to conceive what merely Presbyterian system, without a “superintendency” or episcopate, could at this time fit into the itinerant ministerial scheme of the American Church, where Rankin and Asbury had hitherto been superintendents, though without ordination or the power to ordain.

Whether Coke influenced Wesley or not does not, then, let it be repeated, affect the main question. Whether Wesley was influenced or not, he did construct and solemnly appoint the Episcopal system of the American Methodists, such as it was adopted by the Conference of 1784; he did provide for its perpetuation by abridging, printing, and sending over with Coke the English Liturgy, containing its forms of ordination for the threefold ministerial functions recognized in the Anglican Church, and all these acts were in strict accordance with his long-avowed ideas of Church government.

Coke’s character alone, then, is concerned in this charge. That character, however, is dear to all Methodists, and important, not to the validity, but to the historical character of the American episcopate. He is to stand forever as its first representative. I have elsewhere sketched his remarkable life and character.[814] Though he had essential greatness, he had, doubtless, characteristic weaknesses also. There have been few great men without them. The faults of such men become the more noticeable, either by contrast with or by partaking of their greatness; and the vanity of ordinary human nature is eagerly disposed, in self-gratulation, to criticise, as peculiar defects of superior minds, infirmities which are common to all. Practical energy was his chief intellectual trait, and, if it was sometimes effervescent, it was never evanescent. He had a leading agency in the greatest facts of Methodism, and it was impossible that the series of momentous deeds which mark his career could have been the result of mere accident or fortune. They must have been legitimate to the man. Neither Whitefield nor Wesley exceeded him in ministerial travels. It is probable that no Methodist of his day, it is doubtful whether any Protestant of his day, contributed more from his own property for the spread of the Gospel. His biographer says that he expended the whole of his patrimonial estate, which was large, on his missions and their chapels. He was married twice; both his wives were like-minded with himself, and both had considerable fortunes, which were used like his own. In 1794 was published an account of his missionary receipts and disbursements for the preceding year, from which it appeared that there were due him nearly eleven thousand dollars; but he gave the whole sum to the cause. Flying, during nearly forty years, over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland; crossing the Atlantic eighteen times; traversing the United States and the West Indies; the first who suggested the organization of English Methodism by Wesley’s Deed of Declaration; the organizer, under Wesley, of American Methodism; one of the first, if not the very first, of Protestant bishops in the Western hemisphere; the founder of the Methodist missions in the West Indies, in Africa, and in Asia, as well as in Ireland, Wales, and England; the official and almost sole director of the missionary operations of the denomination during his long public life, and the founder of the first Tract Society in the world, he must be recognized as one of the chief representative men of modern religious history, if not, indeed, as Asbury pronounced him, “the greatest man of the last century as a minister of Christ.”

Asbury, who hesitated not thus to place him above Wesley “as a minister of Christ,” knew him well, and especially knew him in those transactions for which he has been most blamed. A settled and wealthy clergyman of the Establishment, bearing the highest literary title which its universities could give, a man of high family and high prospects, he forsook, under the influence of deepened religious feelings, all his apparent advantages, to become a wandering evangelist in Wesley’s despised but heroic band of itinerants. He became, as Wesley called him, “the right hand” of the great founder. His spirit flamed with evangelic zeal. He expressed truly his own character in the exclamation, recorded on the high seas, when passing for the first time to America, “I want the wings of an eagle and the voice of a trumpet, that I may proclaim the Gospel through the East and the West, the North and the South.” He seemed almost ubiquitous in the United States, superintending its ministry, and in the United Kingdom, administering the affairs of the Wesleyan Church, founding and conducting its Irish, its Welsh, its “Domestic,” and its Foreign Missions, virtually embodying in his own person the whole missionary enterprise of English Methodism. When an old man of nearly seventy years he conceived the project of introducing Methodism into Asia. He presented himself before the British Conference, and, against great opposition, entreated, with tears, to be sent as a missionary to India, offering to defray the expenses of himself and seven chosen colleagues. The Conference could not resist his appeal, and at length, on the 30th of December, 1813, he departed with his little band, consisting of nine persons besides himself. He died on the voyage, and was buried in the Indian Ocean; but, though the great leader was no more, his spirit remained, and the successful East Indian Missions of Methodism are the sublime results. History should respect the reputation of such a man.

The charge of his leading Wesley into the measures for the organization of the American Church is made in spite of the express testimony of Drew, his intimate friend and biographer, who says that “Wesley, in his study, ‘City Road,’ first divulged his purpose to Coke,” and that, arguing with him there on the ordination of bishops by presbyters in the Alexandrian Church, he concluded by proposing “that, being himself a presbyter, Coke should accept ordination from his hands, and proceed to the continent of America to superintend the societies in the United States.”[815]

A letter from Coke to Wesley, proposing that a messenger should be sent to America to inspect the field and report to Wesley, has been cited as proof of Coke’s overweening wish for such an appointment.[816] The hostile critic seems not to be aware that this letter was written _after_ Wesley’s proposition to send Coke as superintendent. The conversation in Wesley’s London study was in February, 1784. Coke’s letter, proposing a preliminary inspection and report of the wants of the American societies, was not written till the middle of April [“Near Dublin, April 17, 1784”]. It was actually sent while he was yet considering Wesley’s proposition. It showed his hesitancy rather than his eagerness for the new office.

Thus far, then, no solicitation, no selfish management, is apparent in the course of Coke. If, contrary to Drew’s express statement, the particular act of Coke’s ordination by Wesley was by the request of Coke himself, it does not materially affect the question of either the American Church system or Coke’s character. Wesley undoubtedly designed, as we have seen, that the former should be a system of superintendency, of practical episcopacy “conformed to the discipline of the Church of England,” as he expressly says--such as, in fact, it had hitherto been, except that its superintendents had not yet the function of ordination, which was now to be supplied. If he had not at first designed to ordain Coke (according to his reasoning about the Alexandrian example), it was doubtless because he had assumed that Coke, being already a presbyter, could, in accordance with that example, ordain Asbury a superintendent, and complete the organization of the American Church. Now Wesley had, as we have seen, for years believed in the essential parity of presbyters and bishops, and their equal right to ordain. Coke’s request (if any there were) for more formal authorization by Wesley himself was perfectly correspondent with Wesley’s theory and design, and, this being the fact, it was indisputably expedient, as Wesley himself saw. The agitations and debates among the American Methodists rendered it necessary that he should bear with him the highest possible sanction of Wesley, who was recognized as founder and superintendent of the whole Methodist cause. Coke’s liability to disaffected criticism at home, especially from Charles Wesley (whose opinions were well known), gave him a right to claim, as he did in his letter to Wesley, that the latter should “be obliged to acknowledge that I acted under your direction”--a phrase which would have been inadmissible had not Wesley’s designs corresponded fully with his own. This objection to Coke, then, is not relevant. His course was logical; it was prudent; it was necessary; and its historical results have proved its supreme wisdom.

Almost every other disputed act of Coke’s life has been adduced to confirm the unfounded objection to his course in this great measure. It has been alleged that he wrote to Bishop White, of Philadelphia, that “he would like the Methodists of America to be reunited to the English [American Protestant Episcopal] Church on condition that he himself were ordained to be their bishop.”[817] Coke was already a bishop, and Asbury another, in America; their denomination was already more extended than the Protestant Episcopal Church, and it had an immeasurably better prospect in the new republic. Coke’s impulsive zeal and catholicity led him to think, what many Churchmen, if not Methodists, have since thought, that a union of the two bodies would be a blessing to common Christianity. If he was imprudent, he was nevertheless charitable in his desire. It did more credit to his heart than discredit to his head. He did not propose it, as alleged, in order to be “ordained their bishop.” He included his Episcopal colleague, Asbury, and all his ministerial brethren. The union was to be made “on terms which in no wise compromised the honor or rights of the Methodist Episcopal Church.”[818] “I never did apply,” says Coke, “to the General Convention, or any other Convention, for reconsecration. I never intended that either Bishop Asbury or myself should give up our episcopal office if the junction were to take place.”

It has been alleged against him, as an “unpleasant fact,” and as illustrating his course in the present case with Wesley, that he solicited the “Prince Regent and the government to appoint him their bishop in India,” and this “within twelve months of his lamented death.”[819] This aspersion is founded in incidents connected with that last heroic mission to India above noticed, for which, in his old age, he sublimely sacrificed his property, his episcopal functions in America, and his life, but founded the whole East India Methodist work. The British domination there had, to his eyes, opened a door for the Gospel to all Asia. For some years he had been planning and working for a mission to the Hindoos; the East India Company’s government “had steadily opposed” their evangelization; Coke knew that he could not accomplish his grand designs without authority from the home government in an episcopal appointment; for this reason he sought that appointment. He was still a priest of the national Church, and the Wesleyans were all yet considered as members of that Church. He proved the purity of his purpose when his application failed, for then, as we have seen, he stood, an aged and broken man, before the British Conference, and extorted, by his entreaties, his tears, and the pledge of his own property, its consent to let him go, with a corps of Methodist evangelists, and attempt the great work in the only way that remained for him.[820]

Again, it is alleged that “in 1794 he secretly summoned a meeting of the most influential of the English preachers, and passed a resolution that the Conference should appoint an order of bishops to ordain deacons and elders, he himself, of course, expecting to be a member of the prelatical brotherhood.”[821] The real facts of this case, as in the others, need but to be correctly stated to fully vindicate Coke. Wesley had been dead some three years; the Wesleyans were in the greatest anxiety and distraction respecting their permanent organization during these years; the very existence of the body seemed periled; ministerial disputes and popular agitation prevailed, ending at last in the Kilham schism; the people were clamoring for the sacraments--the preachers were not empowered, by ordination, to administer them. “At present we really have no government,” wrote Pawson, the president of the Conference, toward the latter part of 1793. “It will by no means answer our ends to dispute one with another as to which is the most scriptural form of Church government. We should consider our present circumstances, and endeavor to agree upon some method by which our people may have the ordinances of God, and, at the same time, be preserved from division. I care not a rush whether it be Episcopal or Presbyterian; I believe neither of them to be purely scriptural. But our preachers and people in general are prejudiced against the latter; consequently, if the former will answer our end, we ought to embrace it. Indeed, I believe it will suit our present plan far better than the other. The design of Mr. Wesley will weigh much with many, which now evidently appears to have been this: He foresaw that the Methodists would, after his death, soon become a distinct people; he was deeply prejudiced against a Presbyterian, and was as much in favor of an Episcopal form of government. In order, therefore, to preserve all that was valuable in the Church of England among the Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather and Dr. Coke bishops. These he undoubtedly designed should ordain others. Mr. Mather told us so at the Manchester Conference, but we did not then understand him. I see no way of coming to any good settlement but on the plan I mentioned before. I sincerely wish that Dr. Coke and Mr. Mather may be allowed to be what they are, bishops. We must have ordination among us at any rate.”[822] It was in these circumstances that Coke met some of the most venerable and devoted preachers at Litchfield. He “addressed them on the agitated state of the Connection, and the perils which menaced it; he referred to the success of Methodism in the New World under its Episcopal organization, and the relief which Wesley’s establishment of this form of government there had given to a similar controversy. He offered ordination to the brethren who were present. His motive was disinterested, for he already possessed the Episcopal office and dignity, conferred by an authority which they all venerated above that of any archbishop of the realm. Most of the meeting approved his proposition, but Moore, who had been ordained by Wesley, very wisely suggested that they should confine their proceedings to the discussion of its practicability, and defer its decision to the next Conference. He, however, pronounced the measure a scriptural and suitable expedient for the government of any Christian Church. Mather concurred with Moore. They adjourned after adopting a series of resolutions which were to be submitted with all their signatures to the Annual Conference.”[823] It is certainly remarkable that a sinister motive could be imputed to Coke in these circumstances--to him who had already a diocese co-extensive with the United States of America.

An impartial revision, then, of all the facts directly or indirectly involved in this discussion, results, first, in a vindication of the Episcopal government, adopted at Baltimore in 1784, as the genuine work of Wesley himself, accordant with his previously declared opinions on the subject; and, secondly, of Coke’s conduct respecting it, as also in the other above facts alleged against him. Wesley was just when, after the whole measure had transpired, he declared Coke to “have done nothing rashly,” and that he was “as free from ambition as from covetousness.”]

FOOTNOTES:

[788] History of Methodism, vol. i., book iii., chap. v.
The persistent misrepresentations of him on this
point are astonishing. The Rev. Edwin Sidney (Life of
Walker, of Truro, p. 260) says that “when he wanted
ordained preachers for America, he, of a sudden,
_in his old age_, found out, by reading Lord King’s
Account of the Primitive Church, that bishops and
presbyters are of the same order.” This inexcusable
violation of historical truth is common in the
writings of Churchmen against Methodism.

[789] A Letter to a Friend, Works, vol. vii., p. 301.

[790] Letter to Rev. Mr. Clark, Works, vol. vii., p. 284.

[791] “On the Church,” Works, vol. vii., p. 312.

[792] Burk’s History of Virginia, vol. ii., p. 180. Hawks
(Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the
United States of America, vol. i., chap. ix.) doubts
Burk’s estimate. Dr. Hawks’s volume needs important
emendations, especially in respect to Methodism.

[793] Hawks’s “Contributions,” vol. i., chap. x.

[794] Journals of the Virginia Assembly, 1784.

[795] Bangs’s Hist. M. E. Church, vol. i., pp. 135-7.

[796] Works, vol. vii., p. 231.

[797] Coke’s Letter to Wesley, Smith’s History of Wesleyan
Methodism, vol. i., book ii., chap. 6.

[798] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 5.

[799] Unless the Moravians are to be considered an
exception.

[800] Jackson’s Charles Wesley, chap. 26.

[801] “To administer the sacraments of baptism and the
Lord’s Supper according to the usages of the Church
of England,” says the certificate of ordination (see
it in Life of Henry Moore, p. 134, Am. ed.); and yet
a living Churchman (Dr. Pusey’s Letter to the Bishop
of Oxford, p. 151) says that “Wesley reluctantly took
the step of ordaining at all;” and that “to the last
_he refused, in the strongest terms, his consent
that those thus ordained should take upon them to
administer the sacraments_. He felt that it exceeded
his powers, and so inhibited it, however it might
diminish the numbers of the society he had formed.”
The biographers of Wilberforce (vol. i., p. 248) also
say: “Nor were any of his preachers _suffered during
his lifetime to attempt to administer the sacraments
of his Church_.” It is high time that such fictions
should cease among English Churchmen. It seems that
they have yet to learn how thorough and noble a
heretic Wesley really was.

[802] Minutes of 1785, in Minutes of the Annual Conference
of the M. E. Church, vol. i., p. 22. New York, 1840.

[803] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 6. His assailant is
supposed to have been Charles Wesley. Etheredge’s
Coke, book ii., chap. 7.

[804] It had been used, however, all this time, in the
Minutes, as explanatory of the word “superintendent.”
The Minutes say that, “following the counsel of
Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal
mode of Church government, we thought it best to
become an episcopal Church, making the episcopal
office elective, and the elected superintendent,
or _bishop_, amenable to the body of ministers and
preachers.” Minutes, vol. i., p. 22. New York, 1840.
It was not in the bishops’ address to Washington in
1789 that the title was first _personally_ assumed.
The Discipline of 1787 so used it. Emory’s History
of the Discipline, p. 82. But, as we have just
seen, the title was inserted in the Minutes of the
Organization of the Church (1784, 1785) as synonymous
with “superintendent.” Minutes 1785, vol. i., p. 22.
Wesley’s letter of reproof to Asbury was written
before the bishops’ address to Washington.

[805] See his circular letter to the American Societies,
Drew’s Coke, chap. 5.

[806] Bishop (Saxon, bischop) is a corruption of the
Latinized Greek word episcopus. Its analogy to the
second and third syllables of the latter is obvious.

[807] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 5.

[808] Drew’s Life of Coke, chap. 5.

[809] Smith’s History of Methodism, vol. i., book ii.,
chap, vi., p. 541.

[810] Jackson’s Charles Wesley, chap. 26.

[811] Case of the Prot. Epis. Church in the United States,
etc., p. 25.

[812] Wesley was in good company among Churchmen in his
denunciation of the “fable” of the succession.
Chillingworth said, “I am fully persuaded there
hath been no such succession.” Bishop Stillingfleet
declares that “this succession is as muddy as the
Tiber itself.” Bishop Hoadley asserts, “It hath not
pleased God, in his providence, to keep up any proof
of the least probability, or moral possibility, of
a regular uninterrupted succession; but there is a
great appearance, and, humanly speaking, a certainty
to the contrary, that the succession hath often been
interrupted.” Archbishop Whately says “there is not a
minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up,
with approach to certainty, his spiritual pedigree.”

[813] Tyerman’s Wesley, vol. iii. An. 1784.

[814] History of Methodism, vol. iii., _passim_. History of
the M. E. Church, vol. ii., p. 151; vol. iv., p. 503.

[815] Drew’s Life of Coke, p. 62. Etheridge (Life of
Coke, p. 101) says: “A writer in the Quarterly
Review affirms that it was Coke who first requested
Wesley to make him a bishop, and send him as such
to America. The opposite is the truth: the request
came from Wesley, and took Coke by surprise. He had
not even given the clerical question involved in
the project any serious consideration; and he first
required of Wesley some time for investigation,
before he could express with confidence an opinion
upon it at all. He now applied himself to those
Biblical and patristic studies which bear upon the
subject, and after the lapse of two months, spent
partly in Scotland, communicated to Wesley that the
conclusions at which he had arrived enabled him,
without any hesitation, to concur with himself as to
the abstract lawfulness of the measure which had been
propounded.”

[816] Tyerman’s Wesley, vol. iii., p. 428.

[817] Tyerman, vol. iii., p. 344.

[818] History of M. E. Church, vol. iii., p. 41. Also vol.
iv., p. 443.

[819] Tyerman, vol. iii., p. 434.

[820] See Etheridge’s Coke, p. 368. Etheridge gives all the
facts of the case, and fully vindicates Coke from the
charge of unchristian ambition.

[821] Tyerman, vol. iii., p. 434.

[822] Smith, History of Methodism, etc., vol. ii., p. 4, 3.
Stevens’s History of Methodism, vol. iii., p. 51.

[823] History of Methodism, vol. iii., p. 52.

INDEX.

Aberdeen, ii. 404, 470, 568; iii. 10, 411.

“Act of Toleration,” ii. 385.

Adam, Rev. Thomas, ii. 209, 251; iii. 18.

Adams, Rev. Mr., i. 485.

Adams, Thomas, i. 536.

“Advice to a Young Clergyman,” i. 106.

Affleck, Andrew, ii. 471.

African Methodist Episcopal Church, i. 9.

African Mission proposed, iii. 272.

Agutter, Rev. Mr., iii. 536.

Alemouth, ii. 140.

Alliance, Quadruple, ii. 557.

Alnwick, ii. 166, 276, 328; ii. 473, 573.

Alpraham, iii. 352.

Ambition, i. 20.

American Colonies, i. 114.

American Indians, i. 115, 124, 130.

American Methodism, i. 8, 9; iii. 47, 60, 62, 75, 116, 151, 175, 194,
248, 331, 426, 498, 646.

American Rebellion, iii. 147, 185, 237.

American Wesleyan Methodists, i. 9.

Amsterdam, i. 197; iii. 394, 395.

Andrews, Mr., iii. 28.

Andrews, Rev. John, i. 428; ii. 493.

Animal Magnetism, iii. 603, 648.

Annesley, Dr. Samuel, i. 285.

Antigua, iii. 151, 195, 273.

Antinomianism, i. 477, 481, 519; ii. 400; iii. 14.

Antislavery Society, iii. 508.

Apparitions, i. 22, 23; iii. 11, 40, 41.

Appleton, John, iii. 449.

Arbroath, iii. 66, 120, 457.

Armagh, ii. 601; iii. 41, 154.

_Arminian Magazine_, iii. 251, 280, 316, 344, 346, 367, 388, 406,
455, 469, 488, 508, 515, 563, 594, 634.

Asbury, Francis, ii. 610; iii. 7, 110, 175, 195, 248, 429, 435, 438.

Ashbourne, ii. 195.

Ashburton, ii. 585.

Ashby de la Zouch, ii. 501.

Ashton under Lyne, iii. 371.

Assistants, duties of, i. 445, 499.

Athlone, ii. 4, 35, 37, 78, 601.

Atlay, John, iii. 207, 297, 315, 404, 552-558, 565, 567.

Atmore, Charles, iii. 441, 533, 604, 607, 618.

Atterbury, Bishop, i. 42, 60.

Aughrim, ii. 4, 78.

Aylesbury, iii. 29.

Backhouse, Rev. William, ii. 489.

Baddiley, Rev. William, ii. 195, 205, 211.

Bagshaw, Matthew, ii. 560.

Baildon, iii. 362.

Bailey, Rev. Mr., ii. 90.

Balham, iii. 589, 599, 650.

Ball, Hannah, ii. 534; iii. 241.

Ball, Roger, ii. 77.

Ballinrobe, iii. 460.

Bandon, ii. 36, 81, 304, 354; iii. 645.

Bandroom Methodists, i. 5.

Bands, Methodist, i. 445, 463; ii. 475, 516; iii. 22, 542.

Banff, Lady, iii. 412.

Baptism, i. 229; ii. 135, 264.

Barber, John, iii. 441, 474, 533, 645.

Barclay’s Apology, i. 489.

Bardsley, Samuel, ii. 540; iii. 156, 164, 208, 348, 353, 402, 591,
592.

Barlow, Margaret, iii. 535.

Barnardcastle, ii. 141, 434, 472, 535, 569; iii. 18, 293, 537.

Barnes, John, ii. 552.

Barnet, iii. 488.

Barnsley, iii. 474.

Bate, Rev. James, i. 249.

Bateman, Rev. Richard T., i. 548.

Bath, ii. 557, 587; iii. 252, 290, 305, 614, 623.

_Bath Journal_, ii. 41.

Baxter, John, iii. 273.

Bayley, Dr. Cornelius, ii. 261; iii. 397, 416.

Beard, Thomas, i. 441.

Beau Nash, i. 237.

Bedford, ii. 160, 274, 300, 340, 358.

Bedford, Rev. Arthur, i. 209, 364.

Behmen, Jacob, ii. 265; iii. 341, 388.

Belfast, ii. 240, 445, 600.

Bell, George, ii. 433, 441, 444, 450, 460, 462, 507, 556; iii. 13,
29, 59.

Benefactions, Wesley’s, iii. 615.

Benezet, Anthony, iii. 115.

Bennet, John, i. 472; ii. 42, 57, 129; iii. 119.

Bennett, Rev. Mr., i. 458.

Bennis, Elizabeth, iii. 45.

Benson, Joseph, ii. 474; iii. 35, 51, 70, 73, 110, 152, 168, 215,
247, 270, 272, 324, 334, 341, 538, 603.

Beresford, Miss, ii. 195.

Berridge, Rev. John, ii. 309, 324, 331-333, 356, 370, 397, 444, 459,
463, 491; iii. 2, 158.

Berwick, ii. 328.

Bethnal Green, iii. 193.

Beverley, ii. 330, 502; iii. 611.

Bible Christians, i. 6.

Bible, Study of, i. 532.

Bideford, iii. 591.

Bigg, Thomas, ii. 53.

Bingham, iii. 69.

Bingley, ii. 275, 411, 573; iii. 225, 243, 325, 414.

Birmingham, i. 488; ii. 115, 163, 195, 348, 399, 500; iii. 7, 392,
472, 493, 503, 568, 603.

Birr, ii. 4.

Birstal, i. 369, 383, 440; ii. 121, 139, 331, 412; iii. 270, 373, 404.

Bishop of Bristol, i. 246.

Bishop, Letter to a, iii. 513, 613.

Bishop, Miss, ii. 559; iii. 86, 97, 278, 357, 450.

Bishops, Interview with, i. 230.

Bisson, Miss, iii. 599, 609.

Black, William, iii. 401, 452, 484, 492, 506, 541, 591, 612.

Blackburn, iii. 325.

Blackheath, i. 359.

Blackwell, Ebenezer, i. 555, 558, 559; ii. 5, 26, 83, 107, 142, 169,
174, 185, 196, 219, 236, 275, 304, 326, 352, 414, 506; iii. 251.

Blackwell, Richard, ii. 587.

Blades, John, iii. 536.

Blair, Andrew, iii. 459.

Blarney, ii. 37.

Blendon, i. 173, 178.

Boarding Schools, iii. 120.

Boardman, Richard, iii. 47, 54.

Bogie, James, iii. 362.

Bohler, Peter, i. 177, 179, 181, 186, 197, 532; ii. 156-158; iii.
201, 595.

Bolton, i. 547; ii. 18, 57, 116; iii. 191, 351, 472, 501, 527.

Bolton, Edward, ii. 498.

Bolton, Miss, ii. 498; iii. 644.

Bolzius, Martin, i. 151.

Book Stewards’ Circular, ii. 179.

Books recommended by Dr. Doddridge, i. 517.

Books recommended by Wesley, iii. 359, 450.

Booth, Alice, i. 546.

Booth, John, iii. 645.

Boothbank, i. 546.

Borlase, Dr., i. 453, 470.

Bosanquet, Miss, ii. 286, 289, 517, 588; iii. 68, 111, 206, 208, 213,
240, 329.

Boston, ii. 327, 413; iii. 327.

Boswell, James, iii. 294.

Bourke, Richard, ii. 603.

Bourne, Hugh, ii. 609.

Bowden, Dr. Samuel, ii. 190.

Bowman, Rev. William, i. 328.

Brackenbury, Robert C., iii. 338, 393, 408, 429, 487, 504, 507, 625,
649, 655.

Bradburn, Samuel, iii. 177, 251, 287, 315, 334, 336, 355, 376, 525,
526, 546, 616.

Bradford (Yorkshire), ii. 12, 331, 569.

Bradford (Wilts), iii. 52, 409.

Bradford, Joseph, iii. 16, 156, 203, 204, 338, 403, 557, 606, 649,
651, 652, 655.

Brainerd, David, iii. 36.

Brammah, Alice, iii. 29.

Brammah, William, iii. 243.

Bramwell, William, iii. 354.

Brandon, John, ii. 170, 281.

Breage, ii. 218.

Brecon, i. 457.

Bredin, John, iii. 151, 643.

Brettell, Jeremiah, iii. 403.

Bribery, i. 554; ii. 515.

Briggs, William, ii. 176-179.

Briscoe, Thomas, iii. 375.

Bristol, i. 234, 296, 390, 391, 425, 461; ii. 1, 25, 75, 85, 86, 171,
190, 235, 255, 290, 339, 362, 425, 481, 512, 514, 546, 587;
iii. 28, 52, 75, 110, 129, 157, 165, 178, 236, 349, 364, 370,
391, 396, 404, 492, 530, 568, 589, 600, 622.

_Bristol Weekly Intelligencer_, ii. 85.

Broadbent, John, iii. 393, 487.

Brooke, Henry, iii. 172, 342, 392.

Broughton, Rev. J., i. 68, 83, 102, 108, 132, 178.

Broughton, Sir Thomas, iii. 119.

Brute Creation, iii. 347.

Bryan, Jonathan, iii. 117.

Bryant, Thomas, ii. 487.

Buchan, Earl, iii. 2.

Bull, Patrick, iii. 189.

Bulmer, Agnes, iii. 541.

Bumby, John H., ii. 277.

Bunting, Dr., i. 340.

Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, i. 434.

Burbeck, Edward, iii. 507.

Burgess, Joseph, iii. 577.

Burnet, Bishop, i. 64.

Burnley, iii. 414.

Burslem, ii. 349; iii. 8, 127, 472, 493.

Burton, Dr. John, i. 108, 136.

Burton on Trent, ii. 560.

Bury, iii. 166.

Bush, Elijah, iii. 231, 364.

Butterworth, Joseph, i. 545.

Butterworth, Rev. John, i. 545.

Butts, Thomas, ii. 142, 176-179.

Buxton, iii. 393.

Byrom, Dr., i. 135, 210, 243, 484.

Byron, James Mac, iii. 7, 466.

Cadogan, Dr., iii. 110, 182.

Cadogan, Rev. W. B., iii. 179.

Calling of Methodist Preachers, iii. 635.

“Calm Address,” Publication of, iii. 186-192.

Calvinism, i. 39; ii. 191-193; iii. 278.

Calvinist Concessions, i. 349.

Calvinist Controversy, iii. 71, 81, 86, 97, 136, 158, 179, 209, 228,
232, 259.

Calvinistic Methodists, i. 402, 511.

Camborne, i. 453.

Cambridge, Miss, iii. 645.

Candler, William, iii. 627.

Canterbury, ii. 69, 230, 309, 339, 425, 511.

Cardiff, i. 560.

Carlisle, iii. 63.

Carrickfergus, ii. 240, 350, 445.

Castle Carey, iii. 506.

Castlebar, iii. 153.

Catechism, ii. 64.

Catechumen Classes, ii. 362.

Catholic Spirit, ii. 374.

Causton, Thomas, i. 143, 152, 162.

Cavignac, General, ii. 350.

Cayley, Cornelius, ii. 317.

Celibacy, i. 432; ii. 6, 551.

Cennick, John, i. 225, 263, 274, 277, 295, 331, 343, 344, 360, 402,
419, 556, 559; ii. 23, 101.

Chandler, Samuel, ii. 493.

Channel Islands, iii. 503-505.

Chapel Affairs, i. 11, 270, 519; ii. 291, 539, 584, 610; iii. 30, 70,
152, 216, 325, 511, 533, 614, 619, 622.

Chapel-en-le-Frith, iii. 472.

Chapman, Mrs., i. 138.

Chapman, Rev. Jacob, ii. 482.

Chapman, William, i. 133.

Charlton, Mary, iii. 353.

Charter House School, i. 19.

Chatham, iii. 6.

Cheltenham, ii. 559; iii. 7.

Chester, i. 547; ii. 142, 448, 565; iii. 410, 500.

Chesterfield, iii. 226.

Chester-le-Street, ii. 277, 329, 538.

Cheyne, Dr., i. 27.

Children’s Meetings, i. 446; iii. 23.

Chinley, i. 459.

Chipping, ii. 116.

Christian, Almost a, i. 175.

Christian, David, i. 200.

“Christian Library,” ii. 26, 65.

Church Government, i. 499; ii. 257.

Church, Rev. Thomas, i. 455, 478, 530.

Church, Stephen, ii. 376.

Church, William, iii. 277.

Churchey, Walter, iii. 244, 282, 547, 579.

Circuits, Division of, iii. 601, 632.

City Road Chapel, iii. 220, 241, 243, 251, 255, 275, 297.

Clanmain, ii. 445.

Clark, Rev. James, ii. 244, 373.

Clarke, Adam, ii. 119, 227; iii. 342, 386, 397, 504, 507, 583, 599,
609, 614, 619, 623, 643, 644, 648.

Clarkson, Thomas, iii. 115.

Class Meetings, i. 379, 380; ii. 516; iii. 215, 328, 550.

Classes, Methodist, i. 353, 377; iii. 391.

Classical Learning, i. 117.

Classleaders, i. 446; iii. 109.

Clayton, Rev. John, i. 68, 83, 93, 94; ii. 138.

Clements, William, i. 494.

Clergy, Advice to Young, ii. 63.

Clerical Costume, ii. 338.

Clippendale, Mrs., iii. 116.

Clive, Sir Edward, ii. 300.

Clones, iii. 202.

Clonmel, ii. 237.

Clowes, William, ii. 609.

Clulow, Elizabeth, iii. 8.

Coates, Alexander, ii. 413.

Cobham, Mr., ii. 351.

Cockburn, Dr., ii. 278.

Cocker, Jeremiah, ii. 502; iii. 226, 474.

Coke, Dr. Thomas, iii. 16, 214, 222, 244, 271, 297, 299, 310, 334,
361, 378, 396, 403, 421, 428-432, 478, 480-485, 492, 542, 552,
562, 570, 580, 605.

Colbeck, Thomas, ii. 14.

Colchester, ii. 313, 324, 327, 334, 342; iii. 627.

Coleford, i. 487; ii. 236; iii. 590.

College, Methodist, proposed, ii. 360.

Colley, Rev. Benjamin, ii. 413, 614.

Collins, Rev. Brian, iii. 310, 315, 335, 391, 454, 573.

Colne, ii. 15; iii. 226, 243.

Cologne, i. 197.

Communion of Saints, iii. 157.

Community, The Christian, iii. 134.

Companions, Trifling, i. 54.

Conferences, Methodist, i. 441, 497, 527, 551; ii. 5, 60, 104, 120,
144, 166, 187, 240, 278, 305, 333, 354, 415, 448, 474, 479,
511, 538, 584, 608; iii. 21, 45, 70, 110, 126, 156, 177, 209,
226, 245, 270, 302, 328, 361, 372, 396, 465, 477, 496, 547,
584, 598, 618.

Congleton, ii. 349; iii. 8, 165, 604.

Coningsby, ii. 11, 327.

Connexion, Lady Huntingdon’s, i. 5; iii. 430-432.

Consecration of Churches, etc., ii. 512; iii. 528.

Conversation, iii. 3.

Conversion, Instantaneous, i. 178.

Convicts, i. 175; ii. 27.

Conyers, Rev. Dr., ii. 335, 473, 502.

Coolylough, ii. 354.

Cooper, Jane, ii. 450, 494.

Cooper, Ezekiel, iii. 645.

Cooper, Miss, i. 382.

Cordeux, Rev. Mr., ii. 571.

Cork, ii. 36, 80, 147, 237, 304; iii. 42, 269, 460.

Cornwall, i. 415, 555; ii. 362.

Costerdine, Robert, iii. 48.

Coughlan, Lawrence, ii. 313; iii. 25, 177.

Courcy, Rev. Richard de, ii. 471; iii. 65, 84.

Coventry, iii. 295, 399.

Coward, William, ii. 276.

Cownley, Joseph, ii. 53, 83, 117, 129, 200, 206, 230, 253, 381, 387;
iii. 441, 543, 581.

Crabbe, the Poet, iii. 629.

_Craftsman_, i. 475.

Credulity, iii. 537.

Creighton, Rev. James, iii. 276, 429, 434, 441.

Cricket, John, iii. 391.

Crook, John, iii. 228, 476.

Crosby, Sarah, ii. 286, 289, 398, 436, 565; iii. 41, 68.

Crowther, Jonathan, iii. 507, 581.

Cudworth, William, i. 482; ii. 400, 527.

Cussons, George, i. 11; ii. 410; iii. 315.

Cutler, Ann, iii. 606.

“Dairyman’s Daughter,” The, iii. 387, 503.

Dales Circuit, iii. 631.

Dall, Robert, iii. 225, 304, 532.

Darlington, ii. 407; iii. 293, 535, 606.

Darney, William, i. 545; ii. 128; iii. 68.

Dartmouth, Lord, ii. 509, 511; iii. 197.

Davenport, Rev. Thomas, iii. 383.

Deal, i. 173.

Deaths, Happy, i. 294, 355, 395; iii. 218, 219.

Deed of Declaration, iii. 408, 417, 465.

Delamotte, Charles, i. 117, 118, 134, 135, 140, 146, 164.

Delamotte, William, i. 299.

Delany, Dr., i. 80.

Deleznot, Rev. Mr., i. 353.

Delph, iii. 323.

Demoniacs, i. 401, 531; iii. 541.

Depravity, National, i. 62.

Deptford, iii. 488, 490.

Derby, ii. 398, 501; iii. 244.

Devizes, i. 538.

Dewsbury, iii. 275, 565.

Dewsbury Chapel Case, iii. 551.

Dickenson, Rev. Peard, iii. 621.

Dillon, John, ii. 603.

Dingle, Thomas, iii. 27.

Dispensary opened, i. 11, 525.

Diss, iii. 629.

Diversions, iii. 517.

Dixon, Rev. Mr., i. 160.

Dixon, Thomas, iii. 295, 326, 414.

Dobbin, Dr., quoted, iii. 660.

Dobinson, Mr., ii. 501.

Dodd, Dr., ii. 231, 526, 597; iii. 237-240.

Doddridge, Dr., i. 251, 300, 383, 490, 515, 516.

Dodwell, Rev. William, iii. 356, 383.

Dogmatism, ii. 542.

Doncaster, i. 493; ii. 502; iii. 618.

Dover, ii. 339, 363, 548.

Downes, John, i. 402, 418, 441, 518; ii. 26, 134, 226, 450, 461.

Downes, Rev. John, ii. 342.

Dram Drinking, ii. 390, 540; iii. 44.

Dress, i. 139; ii. 390; iii. 413, 470, 517, 621.

“Drummer Jack,” ii. 19.

Drunkenness, i. 503.

Dublin, i. 556; ii. 3, 35, 77, 82, 143, 236, 272, 301, 350, 445, 447,
537; iii. 41, 109, 202, 206, 251, 269, 313, 392, 459, 493, 542,
568, 623.

_Dublin Chronicle_, iii. 570.

_Dublin Evening Post_, iii. 568.

Dudley, ii. 115, 500.

Dumfries, ii. 164; iii. 532, 608.

Dunbar, ii. 276, 471; iii. 66.

Dundee, ii. 567.

Dunlop, Andrew, iii. 315.

Dunstan, Edward, i. 543.

Durham, i. 458; ii. 277, 407, 588; iii. 610.

Earthquakes, ii. 71, 212.

Easingwold, iii. 473.

Easterbrook, Rev. Joseph, iii. 35, 600.

Easton, John, iii. 342.

Edinberry, ii. 35, 302.

Edinburgh, ii. 118, 470, 503, 568; iii. 63, 121, 371, 411, 534.

Education of Children, iii. 399.

Education of the Wesleys, i. 17.

Edwards, John, i. 537; ii. 241.

Edwards, Rev. Jonathan, i. 218, 500.

Eels, William, iii. 558.

Egginton, Rev. Mr., i. 407, 414.

Election, i. 311, 334, 349; ii. 144, 145, 536.

Electricity, ii. 161.

Elizabeth, Queen, iii. 32.

Ellison, Richard, ii. 139.

Elmoor, Micah, i. 541.

Elocution, ii. 60.

Ely, iii. 178.

Embury, Philip, ii. 146, 239, 607; iii. 47.

England needed Methodism, i. 173.

England, State of, i. 16, 42, 60; ii. 393; iii. 185, 286, 318.

Enniskillen, iii. 153.

Entwisle, Joseph, iii. 29, 509.

Episcopacy, ii. 244, 257.

Epitaphs, iii. 457.

Epworth, i. 91, 387, 405, 458, 488, 493, 540; ii. 8, 120, 278, 300,
327, 413, 473; iii. 371, 413, 539, 545, 618.

Epworth, Fire at, i. 17.

Epworth Rectory, i. 95.

Erasmus, Bishop, ii. 486.

Erskine, Rev. Ralph, i. 264.

Escrick, George, iii. 351.

Eustick, Mr., i. 507.

Evans, Caleb, iii. 187, 188.

Evans, John, i. 494.

Evans, Rev. Theophilus, ii. 229.

Everton, ii. 311, 331, 341, 397, 444.

Evesham, ii. 163, 399, 560; iii. 47.

Exeter, i. 419, 473, 554; ii. 448; iii. 302, 384, 492.

Faith, i. 52, 167, 177, 182, 186, 238, 552; ii. 216.

Falmouth, i. 471; ii. 279; iii. 587.

Family Religion, i. 466.

Fanaticism, i. 188, 395; ii. 434, 454, 460.

Fasting, i. 81; iii. 157, 164, 179, 287, 631.

Faversham, i. 173; ii. 548.

Female Preaching, ii. 398; iii. 41, 111, 645.

Fenwick, John, ii. 612.

Fenwick, Michael, ii. 219, 278; iii. 351, 391, 522.

Ferguson, William, iii. 394.

Ferrars, Earl, ii. 364.

Fetter Lane Society, i. 301, 308.

Field Preaching, i. 227, 233, 235, 446; ii. 329, 339; iii. 588, 626.

Final Perseverance, i. 313; ii. 135, 536.

Fitzgerald, Lady Mary, iii. 650.

Fleetwood, William, i. 364.

Fletcher, Rev. John, ii. 220, 262, 299, 308, 437, 464, 556, 563; iii.
3, 19, 34, 87, 92, 95, 100, 136, 140, 147, 158, 181, 190, 209,
212, 232, 234, 247, 290, 361, 370, 416, 429, 463, 472, 480, 487.

Fleury, Claude, ii. 64.

Fleury, Rev. Mr., iii. 113.

_Fogg’s Weekly Journal_, i. 85, 86.

“Fool of Quality,” iii. 342.

Foote, Samuel, ii. 366, 591.

Fothergill, Dr., ii. 161, 174, 189.

Foundery, Old, i. 271, 551; ii. 498; iii. 220, 303.

Fox, John, ii. 421.

Francke’s Orphanage, i. 199.

Francks, Samuel, ii. 345; iii. 155, 207.

Franklin, Benjamin, ii. 161.

Frederica, i. 124, 131, 134.

“Free Grace,” Sermon, i. 317, 320, 323.

Free, Rev. Dr., ii. 321.

Freedom of Speech, i. 497.

French Invasion, threatened, i. 438; ii. 323.

French Language, ii. 260.

French Prisoners, ii. 339.

French Revolution, iii. 597.

Frome, i. 473; ii. 190; iii. 28.

Fulneck, i. 544.

Funeral, Irish, ii. 79.

Furley, Rev. Samuel, ii. 186, 450.

Gainsborough, ii. 330, 331, 413, 502.

Gallatin, Colonel, ii. 117, 189.

Gambold, Rev. John, i. 68, 70, 108, 179, 281, 337, 339, 361; iii. 222.

Garden, Rev. Mr., i. 139, 326.

Gardiner, Lady, ii. 470.

Gardner, John, ii. 253.

Garretson, Freeborn, iii. 461, 484, 566.

Gateshead, ii. 328.

Gawksham, ii. 275.

Gayer, Mr., iii. 203.

_Gentleman’s Magazine_, i. 357.

Georgia, i. 109-117, 120, 122.

Georgian Mission, i. 169.

German Methodists, i. 9.

Ghosts, i. 22.

Gib, Rev. Adam, i. 374.

Gibraltar, iii. 46.

Gibson, Bishop, i. 207, 217, 244, 454, 548.

Gifted Itinerants, ii. 84.

Gilbert, Francis, ii. 298, 535; iii. 151.

Gilbert, Miss Mary, ii. 535.

Gilbert, Nathaniel, ii. 297, 535; iii. 273.

Gilbert, Nicholas, ii. 382.

Gill, Rev. Dr., ii. 148, 191.

Gillies, Rev. John, ii. 164, 165, 276, 328; iii. 9.

Girl, Starving, i. 71.

Giving, ii. 516.

Glasbrook, James, ii. 353, 587.

Glasgow, ii. 164, 276, 328, 568; iii. 9, 533.

Glass, John, ii. 293.

Glenorchy, Lady, ii. 471, 604; iii. 64.

Gloucester, iii. 6, 503.

Godfathers, ii. 148.

Goldney, Edward, ii. 375.

Goodday, Rev. Thomas, ii. 334, 335, 606.

Goodenough, Matthew, iii. 259.

Gordon, Lord George, iii. 323, 341.

Gordon Riots, iii. 318.

_Gospel Magazine_, iii. 89, 105, 179, 233, 237, 256, 314.

Gospel Preaching, iii. 135.

Grant, Sir Archibald, ii. 404.

Grant, Sir Lodowick, iii. 412.

Grantham, iii. 356.

Grantham, Rev. Thomas, i. 366.

Granville, Mary, i. 74.

Graves, Rev. C. G., i. 339, 382, 391, 406, 414.

Green, Rev. Dr., ii. 370.

Green, Rev. Thomas, ii. 217.

Greenwood, Parson, iii. 352, 553-555.

Greenwood, Paul, ii. 381.

Gregory, Dr., iii. 122.

Grey, Rev. Zachary, i. 325, 476.

Griffith, Rev. Thomas, ii. 229.

Grimsby, i. 406, 488; ii. 11, 278, 327, 502; iii. 294.

Grimshaw, Rev. William, i. 536, 544; ii. 13, 17, 165, 166, 204, 211,
245, 275, 327, 363, 384, 387, 412, 415, 423, 478, 573; iii. 373.

Grou, Monsieur, ii. 11.

Guier, Philip, ii. 144, 146.

Guisborough, ii. 409.

Guiseley, ii. 330.

Gwennap, i. 524, 540; ii. 289; iii. 275, 364, 588.

Haime, John, i. 494; ii. 164, 190.

Hales, Rev. Dr., i. 265.

Halifax, i. 544; ii. 12, 573; iii. 126, 291, 606.

Hall, Westley, i. 68, 99, 117, 132, 285, 337, 496, 561; ii. 87; iii.
212.

Hall, Mrs., iii. 567.

Halyburton, Thomas, i. 287.

Hamilton, Dr. James, iii. 122, 163, 584.

Hammet, William, iii. 441.

Hampson, John, ii. 102, 189, 226, 381, 398, 511, 579; iii. 251, 277,
298, 334, 420, 423, 424, 449, 534, 552.

Hampton, i. 426.

Hanby, Thomas, ii. 470, 560; iii. 71, 85, 118, 417, 441, 574, 602.

Harman, John, ii. 373, 498.

Harris, Howel, i. 220, 275, 277, 299, 307, 315, 321, 342, 349, 375,
402, 535; ii. 68, 154, 236, 479, 555, 608; iii. 128.

Harrison, Hannah, ii. 421; iii. 41.

Harrison, Nathaniel, i. 384.

Hart, Joseph, i. 364.

Hartlepool, ii. 277, 330.

Hartley, Rev. Thomas, ii. 518.

Haverfordwest, ii. 595.

Haweis, Rev. Dr., ii. 463, 499; iii. 34.

Hawes, Dr., i. 564.

Hawnby, ii. 277.

Haworth, ii. 12, 33, 69, 155, 275, 330, 363, 412, 573; iii. 292, 325.

Hayes, ii. 70.

Hayes, Eleanor, i. 165.

Hayfield, ii. 195.

Healey, John, i. 440; ii. 2.

Hebrew Points, ii. 260.

Heck, Barbara, ii. 239, 607; iii. 47.

Helme, John, ii. 455.

Helmsley, ii. 335, 473, 502.

Helstone, ii. 218, 585.

Heptonstall, ii. 18, 141.

Heresy, ii. 244.

Herrnhuth, i. 199, 202-207.

Hertford, iii. 28.

Hervey, Rev. James, i. 68, 132, 133; ii. 194, 227, 261, 293, 315,
526, 535; iii. 56.

Hervey, T., i. 252.

Hewgill, William, ii. 277.

Hexham, i. 507.

Hey, William, iii. 363.

Hicks, Rev. Mr., ii. 310.

High Churchism, i. 95, 147, 152, 160, 496.

Hill, Rev. Rowland, iii. 106, 137, 255, 258, 266.

Hill, Sir Richard, iii. 32, 34, 54, 75, 106, 136, 159, 179, 266.

Hilton, John, iii. 245.

Hinckley, iii. 295, 392.

Hitchcock, Rev. Dr., ii. 428.

Hitchins, Thomas, i. 524.

Hoblin, Rev. Mr., i. 417.

Hobson, Elizabeth, iii. 10.

Hodges, Rev. John, i. 442.

Hodgson, Ralph, iii. 536.

Holder, George, iii. 362, 593, 631.

Holland, i. 196; iii. 393, 487.

“Honest Munchin,” i. 413.

Hooker, Mr., i. 326.

Hopkey, Miss, i. 146-149, 169.

Hopper, Christopher, i. 543, 545; ii. 52, 75, 118, 254, 381, 383,
404, 407, 462, 612; iii. 152, 169, 297, 355, 382.

Horncastle, ii. 327, 413, 566.

Horne, Bishop, ii. 457; iii. 34.

Horne, Melville, i. 11.

Horton, John, iii. 17, 650, 655.

Hoskins, John, iii. 176.

Hosmer, John, ii. 408.

Hospital, Methodist, proposed, ii. 360.

How, John, ii. 290.

Howard, John, iii. 495, 581.

Huddersfield, ii. 274, 414, 541; iii. 292.

Hull, ii. 139, 330, 410; iii. 473, 538, 611.

Humane Society, Royal, iii. 251.

Hume, David, iii, 121.

Humphreys, Dr., i. 141.

Humphreys, Joseph, i. 346, 402.

Hunt, John, ii. 606.

Huntingdon, Lady, i. 339, 341, 369, 381; ii. 20, 68, 245, 326, 337,
364, 448, 462, 508, 556, 604; iii. 2, 34, 59, 73, 88, 92, 431.

Hurd, Dr., ii. 493.

Husk, General, i. 492.

Hutchins, Mr., i. 179.

Hutchinson, John, ii. 260; iii. 491.