the Father of mercies for giving me a son, continuing it to me
so long, and taking it from me so soon. All joined in desiring
that I would decline preaching till the child was buried; but
I remembered a saying of good Mr. Henry, ‘that weeping must not
hinder sowing;’ and, therefore, I preached twice the next day,
and also the day following; on the evening of which, just as I
was closing my sermon, the bell struck out for the funeral. At
first, I must acknowledge, it gave nature a little shake; but,
looking up, I recovered strength, and then concluded with saying,
that this text, on which I had been preaching, namely, ‘All
things work together for good to them that love God,’ made me as
willing to go out to my son’s funeral, as to hear of his birth.
Our parting from him was solemn. We kneeled down, prayed, and
shed many tears, but, I hope, tears of resignation; and then,
as he died in the house wherein I was born, he was taken and
laid in the church where I was baptized, first communicated, and
first preached.
“All this, you may easily guess, threw me into very solemn
and deep reflection, and, I hope, deep humiliation; but I was
comforted from that passage in the book of Kings, where is
recorded the death of the Shunammite’s child, which the prophet
said, ‘the Lord had hid from him,’ and the woman’s answer to the
prophet when he asked, ‘Is it well with thee? Is it well with
thy husband? Is it well with thy child?’ And she answered, ‘It
is well.’ This gave me no small satisfaction. I preached upon
the text, the day following, at Gloucester; and then hastened
up to London, and preached upon the same there.
“Though disappointed of a living preacher, by the death of my
son, yet, I hope, what happened before his birth, and since at
his death, has taught me such lessons, as, if duly improved,
may render his mistaken parent more cautious, more sober-minded,
more experienced in Satan’s devices, and, consequently, more
useful in his future labours to the Church of God. Thus, ‘out
of the eater comes forth meat, and out of the strong comes
forth sweetness.’ Not doubting but our future life will be one
continued explanation of this blessed riddle, I commend myself
and you to the unerring guidance of God’s word and Spirit, and
am,
“Yours, etc.,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
Whilst Whitefield was burying his child at Gloucester, his friend,
Charles Wesley, was preaching, at the peril of his life, in
Staffordshire. At Wednesbury, the mob “assaulted, one after another,
all the houses of those who were called Methodists.” All the windows
were broken, and furniture of every kind was dashed in pieces. At
Aldridge and several other villages, many of the houses were plundered,
and the rioters “loaded themselves with clothes and goods of all sorts,
as much as they could carry.”[93] Whitefield heard of this execrable
rioting, and wrote:――
“There has been dreadful work near Birmingham; but Satan will
be overthrown. We had a glorious fast on Monday (February 20th),
and collected above £60 for our poor suffering brethren.”
A week after this, Whitefield set out on a visit to his wife at
Abergavenny, and took her “a second-hand suit of curtains,” which he
had bought for her humble dwelling.
At the beginning of the month of March, he returned to Gloucester,
to be present at the assizes, at which the Hampton rioters, already
mentioned, were tried, and found guilty, the amount of damages to be
paid being referred to the King’s Bench, London. Whitefield writes:――
“I hear the rioters are hugely alarmed; but they know not that
we intend to let them see what we could do, and then to forgive
them. This troublesome affair being over, I must now prepare for
my intended voyage to America.”
Nearly seven months, however, elapsed before Whitefield’s voyage was
begun,――an interval which was partly occupied with what, to Whitefield,
was extremely uncongenial, a literary war.
To understand the controversy, it is needful to remark, that, of late,
several publications had been issued, and industriously circulated,
attacking the loyalty of Whitefield and his friends. Among others,
there was a quarto-sized sheet, of four pages, entitled, “The Case
of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point of
Field-Preaching.” The writer tries to prove that field-preaching is
contrary to the Act of Toleration; and then he proceeds to shew, that,
because of the largeness of his congregations, Whitefield’s preaching
in the open air was eminently calculated to promote sedition, and to be
a serious danger to the state.
The principal publication, however, was “Observations upon the Conduct
and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the name of
Methodists. London: printed by E. Owen, in Amen Corner. 1744.” (4to.
24 pp.) Rightly or wrongly, Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, was supposed
to be the author. The pamphlet consisted of three parts. In the first,
it was alleged, 1. That the Methodists generally set the government
at defiance, by appointing public places of religious worship, and
by preaching in the fields, without taking the prescribed oaths, and
subscribing the declaration against popery. 2. That they broke the
rules of the Church, of which they professed themselves members, by
going to other than their own parish churches to receive the sacrament.
3. It was also stated that really there was no need for Methodist
meetings, because, for many years past, many of the Religious Societies,
in London and Westminster, had spent their Sunday evenings (after
attending church) in serious conversation and reading good books; and
the bishops and clergy had encouraged these Societies, though some of
them had been misled into Methodist extravagances.
In the second part, which is principally levelled against
Whitefield, thirteen questions are asked, of which the following are
specimens:――Question 4. Whether a due and regular attendance in the
public offices of religion does not better answer the true ends of
devotion, and is not better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy
Spirit, than those sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings, tremblings,
droppings-down, ravings, and madness into which the hearers of the
Methodists had been cast? Question 9. Whether it does not savour of
self-sufficiency and presumption, when a few young heads, without any
colour of a Divine commission, set up their own schemes as the great
standard of Christianity?
The third part is a severe critique on the _Christian History_, of
which Whitefield was the chief promoter. Here, again, sundry questions
were asked, as, for instance, “Whether the zealous endeavours to form
Band-Societies, according to the Moravian way, and putting them under
the instruction and ordering of particular _superintendents_, and
_exhorters_; and the holding of _associations_ and _meetings_, at set
times and places, with select moderators; together with the fixing
of _visitations_ and their boundaries and limits,――whether these
proceedings, not warranted by any law, are not a presumptuous attempt
to erect a new church constitution, upon a foreign plan, in contempt
of those wise rules of government, discipline, and worship, which were
judged by our pious ancestors to be the best means for preserving and
maintaining religion, together with public peace and order in Church
and State?” Again, “Whether these itinerant preachers, and the setting
up of separate places of public worship _at pleasure_, and those
pretences to more immediate communications with God, and the visible
endeavours to bring the parochial pastors and the public worship under
a disesteem among the people,――whether these and the like practices
are not of the same kind with those of the last century, that had so
great a share in bringing on those religious confusions, which brought
a reproach upon Christianity in general, and which, by degrees, worked
the body of the people into a national madness and frenzy in matters of
religion?”
To see the full force of these accusations, it must be borne in mind,
that, they were published at a time when, (1) The nation was in a
state of great excitement from an expected invasion by Prince Charles,
the young Pretender; (2) The Methodists in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire,
and Staffordshire, were being subjected to the most brutal treatment
by clerically encouraged mobs; and (3) The general belief was that
these “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists”
were not of ignoble origin, but were written by the bishop of the
metropolitan diocese, and with the approval of a considerable number
of his prelatic brethren.
On January 26, 1744, Whitefield published the following
advertisement:――
“Whereas some anonymous papers, against the people called
Methodists in general, and myself and friends in particular,
have been, for some weeks, printed in a large edition, and
handed about and read in the Religious Societies of the cities
of London and Westminster, and given into the hands of many
private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one,
nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after
having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many
queries, of great importance, concerning me and my conduct,
contained therein; and as it appears, that, one paper has
little or no connection with another, and a copy, when applied
for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark for
Georgia――I am, therefore, obliged hereby to desire a speedy
open publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid
impartial answer may be made thereto by me,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
Six days after the date of this advertisement, Whitefield wrote as
follows to the Bishop of London:――
“LONDON, _February 1, 1744_.
“MY LORD,――Simplicity becomes the followers of Jesus Christ;
and, therefore, I think it my duty to trouble your lordship with
these few lines.
“I suppose your lordship has seen the advertisement published
by me, about four days ago, concerning certain anonymous papers,
which have been handed about the Societies for some considerable
time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad
to be informed whether the report be true, that your lordship
composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct
my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your
lordship’s keeping, would oblige, my lord, your lordship’s most
obliged, dutiful son and servant,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
“P.S. The bearer will bring your lordship’s answer; or, if your
lordship favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to
be left with Mr. J. Syms, in Pitfield Street, near Hoxton.”
Instead of writing, the Bishop sent, by the bearer of Whitefield’s
letter, a verbal message, to the effect that Whitefield should hear
from him; but the only further communication which came to hand was
the following, written, two days after the date of Whitefield’s letter
to the Bishop, by the printer of the “anonymous papers.”
“_February 3, 1744._
“SIR,――My name is Owen. I am a printer in Amen Corner, and I
waited upon you to let you know that I have had orders from
several of the Bishops, to print, for their use, such numbers
of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the
Methodists,’ with some few additions, as they have respectively
bespoken; and I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as
soon as the impression is finished.
“I am, sir, your most obedient servant,
“E. OWEN.”
There can hardly be a doubt that the “Observations” were the
productions of Bishop Gibson’s pen. Others, besides Whitefield and
his friends, fully believed this. Zinzendorf, on receiving a copy of
the anonymous pamphlet, wrote a long letter, in Latin, to the Bishop,
expressing his surprise that any one belonging to the Church of England
should have evinced such ignorance by the remarks made respecting
the Moravians. A Moravian deputation also waited upon Gibson, on
the same subject; and a further correspondence ensued between the
Bishop, Zinzendorf, and James Hutton;[94] in which Zinzendorf almost
indignantly repudiated any present connection with the Methodists,
telling his lordship, that, it was “very difficult to decide whether
the Moravians have a greater dislike to the Methodists’ plan of
salvation, or the Methodists to that of the Moravians.”
But leaving this, all candid readers will acknowledge that the
“conduct and behaviour” of the Bishop of London and his brethren were
disingenuous. To be the circulators of anonymous “fly-sheets,” full of
the most serious accusations, was an act dishonourable to a bishop’s
dignity, and savoured more of the assassin than of a pastor of the
flock of Christ.
Whitefield lost no time in replying to the Bishops’ pamphlet. On the
10th of March, he finished, and committed to the press, “An Answer to
the first part of an anonymous Pamphlet, entitled, ‘Observations upon
the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by
the name of Methodists.’ In a Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop
of London, and the other the Right Reverend the Bishops concerned in
the publication thereof.” (8vo. 26 pp.) Before the year was ended,
Whitefield’s “Letter” passed, at least, through three editions in
England, besides being printed and published at Boston in America.
The motto on his title-page was Psalm xxxv. 11, “False witnesses did
rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.”
It is difficult to furnish an outline of Whitefield’s pamphlet; but
the following extracts will give the reader an idea of its style and
spirit:――
“Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and
the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart, not
to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others;
and that I, consequently, may have sometimes mistaken nature
for grace, imagination for revelation, and the fire of my own
temper for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal. If, therefore,
upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable
in any respect, I will not only confess it, but return hearty
thanks both to the compiler and your lordships, _though unknown_.
Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the
cause to know who the author is. Only this much may be said,
your lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair to
_give stabs in the dark_.”
Whitefield proceeds to say, that the title of the Bishops’ pamphlet
ought to have run thus: “Misrepresentations of the Conduct and
_Principles_ of many Orthodox, well-meaning Ministers and Members of
the Church of England, and loyal Subjects to his Majesty, King George,
_falsely termed a Sect_, and usually distinguished, _out of contempt_,
by the name of Methodists.” He adds:――
“The _principles_, as well as conduct, of the Methodists are
greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. Its design is to
exhibit their proceedings as dangerous to the Church and State,
in order to procure an Act of Parliament against them, or to
oblige them to secure themselves by turning Dissenters. But is
not such a motion, at such a season as this, both uncharitable
and unseasonable? Is not the Administration engaged enough
already in other affairs, without troubling themselves with
the Methodists? Or, who would now advise them to bring further
guilt upon the nation, by persecuting some of the present
government’s _most hearty_ friends? I say, my lords, _the present
government’s most hearty friends_; for, though the Methodists
(as the world calls them) disagree in some particulars, yet
I venture to affirm that, to _a man_, they all agree in this:
namely, to love and honour the king. For my own part, I profess
myself a zealous friend to his present majesty King George, and
the present Administration. Wherever I go, I think it my duty
to pray for him and to preach up obedience to him, and all that
are set in authority under him. I have now been a preacher above
seven years, and for six years past have been called to act in
a very public way. Your lordships must have heard of the great
numbers who have attended: sometimes several of the nobility,
and, now and then, even some of the clergy have been present.
Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal word? Are there not
thousands, who can testify how fervently and frequently I
pray for his majesty King George, his royal offspring, and
the present government? Yes, my lords, they can; and, I trust,
I should be enabled to do so, though surrounded with popish
enemies, and in danger of dying for it as soon as my prayer was
ended.”
So much for Whitefield’s loyalty. What about his ecclesiastical
misbehaviour? He writes:――
“If your lordships apprehend that we are liable to
ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence,
whenever called to it by our ecclesiastical superiors. As for
myself, your lordships very well know that I am a Bachelor of
Arts, have taken the oaths, have subscribed to the Articles,
and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character, I
have acted, both at home and abroad; and I know of no law of
our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn,
street, or outhouse whatever.”
Whitefield proceeds to say, he has perused “all the Acts of King
Charles II., wherein the word _field_ is mentioned,” and that he finds
“they are intended to suppress _seditious conventicles_,” and then
continues:――
“These are the only _field-meetings_ that are prohibited; and
how, my lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Are
they ‘seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence
of tender consciences, contrive insurrections?’ No, my lords.
How then can your lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage
such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number of Mr. Owen, in order,
as may be supposed, that they may be dispersed among your
lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A
more notorious libel has not been published. The pamphlet comes
into public like a child dropped, that nobody cares to own. And,
indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel?”
This, addressed to bishops, by a young clergyman, was bold language;
but their lordships deserved it; for, whatever faults belonged to
Whitefield and the first Methodists, they certainly were as free from
sedition as the Episcopal Bench itself.
Whitefield’s “Second Letter,” to the bishops, was written during his
voyage to America, and was first “printed and sold by Rogers and Fowle,
in Queen Street, near the Prison, Boston, 1744.” (4to. 24 pp.) It is
dated August 25, 1744; but, to prevent a recurrence to the subject,
it is noticed here. First of all, Whitefield replies to the censures
pronounced upon “itinerant preaching,” and concludes thus:――
“May I not take the freedom of acquainting your lordships,
that, if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty,
(especially my Lord of London, whose diocese is of such vast
extent,) they would all of them long since have become itinerant
preachers.”
He next defended the doctrines, preached by himself and the
Methodists,――justification by faith, sudden and instantaneous
conversion, and other cognate truths. He attacked Archbishop Tillotson,
because, “contrary to the laws of Church and State, he makes good works
a _condition_ of our acceptance with God;” and he declared concerning
the author of “The Whole Duty of Man,” that, because he entirely omits
to teach the doctrine of justification by faith, his famous book might
“more properly be termed, _Half the Duty of Man_.” He belaboured the
clergy for playing at _dice_, and _cards_, and other _unlawful games_,
contrary to the seventy-fifth canon of the Church; and complained,
that, by “frequenting taverns and alehouses,” they injured the laity
by a vile “example.” He rebutted the charge against himself of being an
enthusiast; and, as for the “sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings”
of some of his converts, he said, “The itinerant preachers look
upon these as extraordinary things, proceeding _generally_ from
soul-distress, and _sometimes_, it may be, from the agency of the
evil spirit, who labours to drive poor souls into despair.”
What was the result of all this plain-speaking? First of all, another
anonymous author, merely using the initials, “J. B.,” published a
furious pamphlet of fifty-four pages, entitled, “A Letter to the
Reverend Mr. Whitefield, occasioned by his _pretended_ Answer to the
first part of the Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the
Methodists. By a Gentleman of Pembroke College, Oxon. London, 1744.”
(8vo.)
How far the author of this letter was a _gentleman_ will appear from
the following extracts from his rancorous production:――
“Do you think my Lord of London would choose to let you know
whether he was the author of the papers, or would be fond
of entering into a _personal_ dispute with you? with you, I
say, sir, or your followers; who, I may venture to affirm, can
curse, rail, and berogue your antagonists, (though in Scripture
language all the while,) so as hardly to be exceeded by any Pope,
or _spiritual bully_, that ever yet appeared in Christendom.”
“You are one who has been travelling over all countries,
to establish _new-fangled societies_; _heads and spiritual
directors_, _hot-brained cobblers_, and the meanest class of men;
_fellows that have nothing to lose_, all big with venom against
the clergy of the _present Establishment_, and _despising the
laws_ of the State, and the _peaceful constitution_ of the realm.
You are perpetually sowing divisions, and urging on the bigotry
of your disciples, and their implacable malice, by your belying,
railing, and scandalising the ministers of the Church, as well
as by treating as heathens and reprobates of the infinitely good
Being, all others, who dare despise your hellish doctrines and
practices. You exactly copy after Cromwell, the _Whitefield
of the last century_, in _artfully compounding_ Churchmen and
Dissenters, people of all sorts and denominations, to bring
about your design of ruining the present constitution. When I
see a man, of your _vast importance_, _railing_, _hectoring_,
and _bullying_ your superiors, I cannot help thinking of a
_pert_ liquor amongst us, which foams, and bounces, and sputters,
and makes a mighty ado; and yet all the while is but _bottled
small-beer_.
“Your _favourite method_ of wounding characters in a scrip of
prayer, to shew the world how kindly you can forgive, after you
have been publicly railing at them for _nothing_, puts me in
mind of Jack in the _Tale of a Tub_; who was mighty fond of
falling down on his knees, and turning up his eyes in the midst
of a kennel, as if at his devotions; but who, when curiosity
attracted men to laugh or to listen, would, of a sudden,
bespatter them with mud.”
Much more of the same kind of scurrility, and of even worse, might
be given; but the last paragraph in the “Gentleman’s” ill-mannered
pamphlet must suffice.
“Thus ends your railing; and, like a woman that has _fought
herself out of breath_, when you can _spit no more of your
malice_, you tell us, you would ‘not bring a railing accusation
against any.’ What a monstrous fib is that! ‘Neither would
I,’ you add, ‘when giving a reason of the hope that is in me,
do it any otherwise than with meekness and fear.’ There you
fib again most desperately! Why, _my dear meek soul, of a
sudden_, you have certainly forgot yourself; and your darling
_spirit of bitterness, that has possessed you through the whole
Letter_, at length, seems to be _jaded_. However, it cannot help
_fibbing still_; and there is not a more remarkable instance
of this, than in your _last Judas’ kiss_, where you would have
their lordships believe, you are ‘_their most dutiful son and
servant_.’”