received much damage, and have been frequently in great hazard
of their lives. Wiltshire has been remarkable for mobbing and
abusing the Methodists; and, for about ten months past, it
has also prevailed very much in Gloucestershire, especially at
Hampton. About the beginning of July, 1743, for several days,
the mob at Hampton assembled in great bodies, broke the windows
of Mr. Adams’s house, and assaulted the people to such a degree
that many expected to be murdered, and hid themselves in holes
and corners, to avoid the rage of their adversaries. Once,
when I was there, they continued from four in the afternoon
till midnight, rioting, giving loud huzzas, casting dirt upon
the hearers, and making proclamations, ‘that no Anabaptists,
Presbyterians, etc., should preach there, upon pain of being
first put into a skin-pit, and afterwards into a brook.’ At
another time, they pulled one or two women down the stairs
by the hair of their heads. On the 10th of July, they took
Mr. Adams out of his house, and threw him into a skin-pit full
of noisome things and stagnated water. They also put one of our
friends, named Williams, into the same pit twice, and afterwards
beat him, and dragged him along the kennel. They likewise led
Mr. Adams a mile and a half to Bourn brook, and threw him in, and
so injured his leg, that he went lame for near a fortnight.
“Both the constables and justices were applied to, but refused
to act; and seemed rather to countenance the mobbing, hoping,
thereby, that Methodism would be put a stop to, at least, at
Hampton. For a season, they gained their end. There was no
preaching for some time, the people fearing to assemble on
account of the violence of the mob.
“Upon my return to town, I advised with my friends what to do.
For several reasons, we thought it our duty to move for an
information in the King’s Bench against five of the ringleaders,
and fixed upon the riot which they made on Sunday, July 10,
when they put Messrs. Adams and Williams into the skin-pit and
brook. But, before this was done, I wrote a letter to one whom
they called captain, desiring him to inform his associates,
that, if they would acknowledge their fault, and would pay for
curing a boy’s arm, which was broken the night I was there, and
would mend the windows of Mr. Adams’s house, we would readily
pass all by. The rioters sent me an insolent answer, and said,
‘There should be no more preaching in Hampton.’ Finding them
irreclaimable, we moved for a rule of court in the King’s Bench
to lodge an information against five of the ringleaders. The
rioters were apprised of this, appeared by their counsel, and
prayed the rule might be enlarged till the next term. This was
granted.
“Meanwhile, they continued mobbing. One Saturday night, at
eleven o’clock, they broke into Mr. Adams’s house, when there
was no preaching, made those who were in bed get up, and
searched the oven, cellar, and every corner of the house, to
see whether they could find any Methodists. Some time after, they
threw another young man into a mud-pit three times successively,
and abused the people in a dreadful manner.
“The next term came on. We proved our accusation by twenty-six
affidavits; the rule was made absolute, and an information was
filed against them. To this they pleaded ‘Not guilty;’ and the
cause was referred to the assize held at Gloucester, March 3,
1744. Being aware of the great consequence of the trial, we kept
a day of fasting and prayer through all the Societies both in
England and Wales. Our Scotch friends also joined us. We had
about thirty witnesses to prove the riot and facts laid down in
the information.
“Our counsel opened the cause with much solidity and sound
reason. They shewed, ‘That rioters were not to be reformers, and
that His Majesty had nowhere put the reins of government into
the hands of mobbers, or made them judge or jury.’ Our witnesses
were then called.
“The counsel for the defendants then rose, and, I think, said
all that could be said, to make the best of a bad matter. One
urged that we were enthusiasts, and that our principles and
practices had such a tendency to infect and hurt the people,
that it was right for any private person to put a stop to
us, and whoever did so was a friend to his country. The other
counsel was pleased to mention me by name, and acquainted the
court, that, ‘Mr. Whitefield had been travelling from common to
common, making the people cry, and then picking their pockets,
under pretence of collecting money for the colony of Georgia;
that he had now several curates, of which Mr. Adams was one, who,
in his preaching, had found fault with the proceedings of the
clergy, and said, if the people went to hear them, they would be
damned.’”
Whitefield then proceeds to give an outline of the evidence in favour
of the defendants, and the substance of the judge’s charge; and
continues:――
“Upon this, the jury were desired to consider their verdict.
There seemed to be some little demur amongst them. His lordship
perceiving it, informed them, ‘they had nothing to do with the
damages; that was to be referred to the King’s Bench; they were
only to consider whether the defendants were guilty or not.’
Whereupon, in a few minutes, they brought in all the defendants
‘guilty of the whole information lodged against them.’
“I then retired to my lodgings, kneeled down, and gave thanks,
with some friends. Afterwards, I went to the inn, prayed and
returned thanks, with the witnesses; exhorted them to behave
with meekness and humility to their adversaries; and sent them
home rejoicing. In the evening, I preached on these words, ‘By
this I know that Thou favourest me, since Thou hast not suffered
mine enemy to triumph over me.’ Next morning, I set out for
London.”
We must return to Whitefield’s travels. When he left the rioters at
Minchin-Hampton, on Saturday, July 23, 1743, he returned direct to
Bristol; and, on the following day, “preached four times in the fields,
to congregations as large as those at the beginning” of his career.
On Saturday next ensuing, he came to Exeter, where he spent three days.
He writes:――
“EXETER, _August 2, 1743_.
“I preached, last Saturday night, to a great body of people.
Several of the clergy attended, with whom Exeter abounds. Some
went off; others stayed till I had done. All was quiet; and our
Lord soon made way for Himself into the people’s hearts.
“Yesterday evening, I preached, on Southernay Green, to upwards
of ten thousand. It was just like a Moorfields congregation. God
was with us of a truth.
“The people were very desirous of my longer continuance here;
but so many things concur to call me to London, that I leave
Exeter to-morrow morning, and preach in my way to town. I am in
my element when evangelizing.”
One of the things which brought Whitefield, in such haste, to London,
was the necessity of consulting his friends concerning the steps which
ought to be taken in reference to the Hampton rioters; but there were
also other matters scarcely of less importance.
In the beginning of this year, 1743, Count Zinzendorf had declared war
against Whitefield. He had heard him preach, and, in the plenitude of
his power, had said to the young evangelist,――“You must first formally
recant the _abominable doctrine_ of reprobation, so contrary to sound
reason; and then preach openly _free grace_ in the blood of the Lamb,
and an _election of grace_ as taught in the Scriptures, which is quite
different from the doctrine of predestination which you teach; and if
not, our Church must necessarily be opposed to you.”[64]
Probably, Whitefield cared but little for Zinzendorf’s imperious
censure; but, in the month of August, another incident occurred, which
touched him more deeply.
John Syms, for years past, had been Whitefield’s travelling companion.
He seems also to have acted as Whitefield’s secretary. He was his
confidential friend. During the last two months, Whitefield had written
Syms, at least, eight letters, giving an account of his every-day
proceedings, and all of which are published in Whitefield’s collected
works. Strangely enough, all at once, the faithful Syms wished to
leave Whitefield and to join the Moravians. Whitefield was extremely
reluctant to part with him; and told James Hutton, that, “he could
not discharge John Syms, his agent, believing it to be the Saviour’s
will that he should stay with him, and do the work with which he had
entrusted him. Whitefield wished Hutton to advise Syms to continue
with him; but this could not be done, inasmuch as Syms had said he
was called by the Holy Ghost to leave him; and the Brethren could not
advise him against his own convictions.”[65]
The result was, Whitefield lost his secretary, travelling companion,
and major-domo. John Syms was received into the Moravian fellowship;
and continued one of the Unitas Fratrum until his death, in 1756. He
was buried in Camberwell churchyard, where there used to be a memorial
of him and of his sister, Mrs. Sarah Osborn.[66]
Another matter demanded Whitefield’s attention, even more important
than the retention or otherwise of Secretary Syms.
John Wesley was now in the north of England; Charles Wesley was in
Cornwall; Whitefield was in Devonshire; Spangenberg was in London;
John Nelson was in Yorkshire. The Moravians were an organized body of
Christians. The Calvinistic Methodists were formed into a connexion.
And Wesley had large and flourishing societies in London; Bristol,
Newcastle-on-Tyne, and other places. Somehow, Wesley formed a project
for bringing the three communities into closer union with each other;
and, for that purpose, proposed that a conference should be held in
London.[67] He himself travelled from Newcastle; his brother Charles
hurried from Cornwall; Whitefield came from Exeter; John Nelson trudged
from Birstal. What was the result? Charles Wesley writes:――
“Gwennap, Sunday, August 7. My brother summoned me to London, to
confer with the heads of the Moravians and Predestinarians. We
had near three hundred miles to ride in five days. I was willing
to undertake this labour for peace, though the journey was too
great for us and our weary beasts, which we have used almost
every day for these three months.
“Friday, August 12. By nine at night, I reached the Foundery.
Here I heard the Moravians would not be present at the
conference. Spangenberg, indeed, _said_ he would, but
immediately left England. My brother was come from Newcastle,
John Nelson from Yorkshire, and I from the Land’s End to good
purpose!”[68]
What did John Wesley say? To a Moravian, who, in 1746, taunted him with
having opposed reconciliation and union, he wrote:――
“Alas, my brother! what an assertion is this! Did not I come,
three years ago, in all haste, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and
my brother, in five days, from the Land’s End, to a supposed
conference in London? Was this standing out? But with what
effect? Why, Mr. Spangenberg had just left London. None besides
had any power to confer with us. And, to cut us off from any
such expectation, James Hutton said they had orders not to
confer at all, unless the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the
Bishop of London, were present. There cannot be under heaven a
greater mistake than this, that I ever did stand out, or that
I do so now. There has not been one day, for these seven years
last past, wherein my soul has not longed for union.”[69]
It is impossible to determine, with certainty, whether Wesley’s wish
was for the Moravians, the Calvinistic Methodists, and the Arminian
Methodists to be amalgamated into one connexion; or whether he merely
wished that, by mutual explanations and concessions, they might
cultivate a better understanding with each other, and so avoid all
unnecessary collision, and unite, as far as practicable, in advancing
the work of God; but one thing is certain, through no fault of his, the
attempt was a failure. Ten months later, Wesley instituted a conference
of his own.
No authentic information exists as to the part which Whitefield took
in these proceedings; but, a few days after the proposed conference
should have met, Wesley, “to cut off all needless dispute,” wrote
down his sentiments, as plainly as he could, on the “three points in
debate” between him and Whitefield, namely, “Unconditional Election,
Irresistible Grace, and Final Perseverance.” The paper[70] doubtless
was put into Whitefield’s hands, and must have satisfied him of the
sincerity of Wesley’s friendship; though Arminian Methodists, as
Mr. Jackson says, will think “it leans too much towards Calvinism.”
In one thing, Whitefield and Wesley were agreed; namely, that their
Societies should not separate themselves from the Established Church.
Hence the following letter, written, by Whitefield, soon after the date
of the intended conference:――
“LONDON, _August 20, 1743_.
“How wonderfully does our all-wise Redeemer order things for
the trial of His children! Alas! alas! how apt are they to judge,
censure, and be needlessly prejudiced against each other!
“In our last Association, we agreed not to separate from the
Established Church, but to go on in our usual way. The motion
to separate was made only by a very few, of more contracted
principles. By far the greater part most strenuously opposed
it, and with good reason; for, as we enjoy such great liberty
under the mild and gentle government of his present majesty,
King George, we think we can do him, our country, and the cause
of God, more service in ranging up and down, preaching repentance
towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus, to the multitudes
who will neither come into church or meeting, but who are led,
by curiosity, to follow us into the fields. However disorderly
this may seem to bigots of every denomination, yet, it is a
way to which God has affixed His seal for many years past; and,
therefore, we have no reason to turn to the right hand or to
the left, but to press forwards, and to do our utmost towards
enlarging the kingdom of our Lord Jesus.”
Whitefield’s wife was near her confinement; and, at the beginning
of September, had a narrow escape from an untimely death. Whitefield
himself shall tell the story.
“LONDON, _September 2, 1743_.
“My wife has been in trying circumstances, partly through the
unskilfulness of a chaise-driver――I mean myself. Being advised
to take her out into the air, I drove her, as well as myself,
through inadvertence, into a ditch. The ditch might be about
fourteen feet deep. All, who saw us, cried out, ‘They are
killed!’ but, through infinite mercy, we received no great hurt.
The place was very narrow near the bottom, and yet the horse
went down, as though lowered by a pulley. A bystander ran, and
caught hold of its head, to prevent its going forwards. I got
upon its back, and was drawn out; whilst my wife, still hanging
between the chaise and the bank, was pulled up by two or three
kind assistants. The chaise and horse being taken up, and our
bruises being washed with vinegar in a neighbouring house, we
went on our intended way, and came home rejoicing in God our
Saviour.
“Not expecting my wife’s delivery for some time, I intend making
a short excursion, and then you may expect further news from
yours, etc.,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
Northampton, among other places, was visited by Whitefield, in the
“short excursion” just mentioned. His friend Hervey had recently become
curate at Weston-Favel; and, perhaps, it was this circumstance which
brought Whitefield into this particular locality. Be that as it may,
the visit became a memorable one, from the angry feelings it excited
among some of the leading Dissenters of the day.
Others, besides clergymen and Presbyterian ministers, were unpleasantly
perplexed by Whitefield and the Methodists. Dr. Doddridge, though
one of the most liberal-minded of the Dissenters, found it difficult
to look with favour upon the proceedings of _some_ of the Methodist
evangelists. Hence the following extract from a letter, addressed to
the Rev. Mr. Witton, son-in-law of the celebrated Philip Henry:――
“NORTHAMPTON, _June 8, 1743_.
“I am much concerned at the anxiety and disturbance which
Mr. Wesley’s coming into your neighbourhood has occasioned. You
are pleased to ask my advice, and therefore I give it.
“I think the gentlest methods will be the most effectual.
Opposition will but give strength to the faction, if it be
attended with violence and heat. Should Mr. Wesley come hither,
as perhaps he may, and excite such a flame among the weaker part
of my hearers, I would appoint some stated season for meeting
once a week, with a few steady and experienced brethren of
the church, that an hour or two might be spent in prayer and
consultation, as new incidents might arise within the sphere
of our personal observation. I would endeavour to renew my zeal
in preaching the great truths of the gospel, and in visiting
and exhorting my hearers. I would, with great meekness and
compassion, and yet with great solemnity, admonish the persons
attacked with the contagion, and lay open before them the absurd
nature and tendency of the views they had rashly entertained;
and I would, as God enabled me, pray earnestly for them.”[71]
Among others, who wrote to Doddridge, respecting Whitefield, was the
Rev. Robert Blair, D.D., author of the well-known poem, “The Grave.”
In a letter, dated July 28, 1743, he says:――
“I wish you would give me your opinion of Mr. Whitefield, a
man who has made abundance of noise in the world. I never in my
life knew any person so much idolized by some, and railed at by
others.”[72]
Soon after this, during a visit to London, Doddridge seems to have
attended Whitefield’s Tabernacle, and to have taken part in one or more
of its services. Perhaps the influence of Colonel Gardiner, one of his
correspondents, had induced him to do this. Whatever the inducement,
however, the act itself created alarm among the London Dissenters.
Hence the following, addressed to Doddridge, from Dr. Isaac Watts:――
“STOKE NEWINGTON, _September 20, 1743_.
“I am sorry that, since your departure, I have had many
questions asked me about your preaching or praying at the
Tabernacle, and of sinking the character of a minister, and
especially of a tutor, among the Dissenters, so low thereby. I
find many of your friends entertain this idea; but I can give no
answer, not knowing how much you have been engaged there. I pray
God to guard us from every temptation.”[73]
This is mightily amusing. Dr. Doddridge, the theological tutor of
the Dissenters’ College, daring to preach or pray in Whitefield’s
Tabernacle! What a sin against all ecclesiastical and ministerial
propriety! The poor Doctor, however, went further than even this. He
allowed Whitefield to preach in his own pulpit at Northampton! This
seemed to perfect the enormity. Among others who took the Northampton
professor to task for his eccentric conduct, was the Rev. John Barker,
an influential minister,[74] in London, who wrote as follows:――
“_November 4, 1743._
“It is an honour to our interest that you stand so well with
the sober and moderate clergy. For this reason, I was troubled
to hear of the late intercourse between you and Mr. Whitefield,
the consequence of which, with respect to the Church, it is
easy to foresee. I was willing to think well of the Methodists;
but, after a candid attention to them, their proceedings appear
not to me to be wise and good. Their devotion is unseasonable,
irregular, and injudicious. Their sermons are low and loose.
Their spirit appears to me turbulent, unruly, and censorious.
They practise upon weak people and poor people. They call them
to pray and sing when they should be in their business or their
beds. They disturb the peace and order of families, and give
great uneasiness in them. What they pretend to above their
neighbours appears to be mere enthusiasm. Their people are
slothful, or mopish, or dejected, or pragmatical, rather than
sober, discreet, judicious, exemplary, regular Christians;
and I have no expectation but that Methodism, like any other
enthusiasm, will promote infidelity, and turn out to the hurt
and damage of religion, and the souls of men. Though I judge
not their hearts, views, and motives, but admit those are secret
things which belong to God, yet I thought it needful, very
lately, to warn my hearers of these people’s errors, and advise
them to avoid them.”[75]
Doddridge’s chief castigator, however, was Nathaniel Neal, Esq., son
of the Rev. Daniel Neal, the historian of the Puritans. Nathaniel was
an eminent attorney, secretary to the Million Bank, and author of “A
Free and Serious Remonstrance to Protestant Dissenting Ministers, on
occasion of the Decay of Religion.”[76] He wrote not fewer than three
long letters to Doddridge, filling nine printed octavo pages, and dated
respectively, Million Bank, October 11, October 15, and December 10,
1743. He addresses Doddridge with great deference and respect; but,
evidently, in great alarm, lest Doddridge should irretrievably injure
his position and character, as the chief of the Dissenters’ tutors, by
countenancing the proceedings of the eccentric Methodist.
In the first of his letters, he writes:――
“It was with the utmost concern that I received the information
of Mr. Whitefield’s having preached last week in your pulpit. I
attended the meeting of the trustees of Mr. Coward’s benefaction
this day, when the matter was canvassed, and I now find myself
obliged to apprize you of the very great uneasiness which your
conduct herein has occasioned them.”
Mr. Neal proceeds to tell the Doctor that his “regard to the
Methodists” was injuring him in the opinion of his friends, and was
giving an advantage against him to his “secret and avowed enemies.”
He adds:――
“In the case of such a public character, and so extensive a
province for the service of religion as yours, it seems to me
a point well worth considering, whether it is a right thing to
risk such a prospect as Providence has opened before you, of
eminent and distinguished usefulness, for the sake of any good
you are likely to do amongst these people. Your countenancing
the Methodists has been the subject of conversation much oftener
than I could have wished. The trustees are particularly in
pain for it, with regard to your academy; as they know it is an
objection made to it, by some persons seriously, and by others
craftily.”[77]
In his third letter, Mr. Neal expresses a holy dread lest Doddridge
should be “engaged amongst men of weak heads, and narrow, gloomy
sentiments, who may and ought to be pitied and prayed for, but whom
no rules of piety or prudence will oblige us to make our confidants
and friends.” He continues:――
“There are letters shewn about town, from several ministers
in the west, which make heavy complaints of the disorders
occasioned by Whitefield and Wesley in those parts. One of
them, speaking of Mr. Whitefield, calls him ‘_honest, crazy,
confident_ Whitefield.’ These letters, likewise, mention that
some ministers there, who were your pupils, have given them
countenance; and you can hardly conceive the disrespect this has
occasioned several ministers and other persons in town to speak
of you with.”[78]
Poor Doddridge, with the best intentions, had stirred up a nest of
ecclesiastical hornets. He had to make the best of the affair; and part
of his answer to Mr. Neal was as follows:――
“_December 12, 1743._
“I am truly sorry that the manner in which I spoke of Mr.
Whitefield, in my last, should have given you uneasiness. What
I said proceeded from a principle which I am sure you will not
despise: I mean a certain frankness of heart, which would not
allow me to seem to think more meanly of a man to whom I had
once professed some friendship than I really did.
“I must, indeed, look upon it as an unhappy circumstance that
he came to Northampton just when he did, as I perceive that,
in concurrence with other circumstances, it has filled town and
country with astonishment and indignation.