his position in the communion of the Established Church untenable. In 1804 he seceded and formed a sect that “rejected ordination and an appointed ministry, practised close communion, refusing to admit any, save his own followers, to the Holy Communion, and taught that he could not even pray or sing with any others, as the prayers of the wicked—under which amiable category he classed his opponents—were an abomination to the Lord”.
The description of Walker’s singularities sounds as if it might be unintentionally exaggerated, as the singularities of the Brethren have often been. But if the story I have been told (on excellent authority, as I suppose) about the Walkerites is correct, there will be little à priori ground for calling Professor Stokes’ account in question. A friend, extremely well acquainted with Irish affairs, related that a conference was held between the Walkerites and the Kellyites to discuss terms on which a union between the two communions might be effected. The negotiations were broken off by the absolute refusal of Kelly and his friends to entertain a term of fellowship on which the other side peremptorily insisted. The article of belief to which the Kellyites declined to commit themselves was “that John Wesley is in hell”.
Much closer, I should imagine, were the affinities subsisting between the Kellyites and the original Brethren. The Kellyites were the followers of Thomas Kelly, the well-known hymn writer, and one of the most devoted of evangelists. Like the Walkerites, they rejected ordination and did not restrict the ministry to a special class. Ministry in the congregation was not absolutely thrown open, but was exercised by various speakers, according to a prearranged plan, though I cannot positively assert that there was no opening allowed for extempore exer-
