“Narrative”; and, in whole or in part, was reprinted in the magazines
and newspapers of the day. The Moravians were angry. Peter Bohler
declared publicly, in the pulpit, that Whitefield’s letter “was all a
lie.” James Hutton spoke of “many bulls of Bashan roaring madly against
the Count; and describing him as a Mahomet, a Cæsar, an impostor, a
Don Quixote, a devil, the beast, the man of sin, the Antichrist.”[321]
He also sent the following threatening letter “to the publisher of the
_Public Advertiser_”:――
“SATURDAY, _June 2, 1752_.
“You, sir, have published such an extract of Mr. Whitefield’s
libel in your paper, as is punishable by law; which example
of yours the country newspapers and the London magazines have
followed.
“I would have you immediately consider well, whether you are
liable or no; and, if you find yourself so, to let me know what
steps you think to take to avoid a prosecution.
“A submission in the _Public Advertiser_, next Monday,
expressing your sorrow for having published that extract
(without at all entering into the merits of the cause, whether
true or false), and asking pardon of the persons reflected on
therein, seems to me the best and only way of preventing that
prosecution, which else, in all probability, will very soon
begin.
“I am, sir, yours,
“JAMES HUTTON.”
A similar letter was sent to the publisher of the _Daily Gazetteer_.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, likewise, received an anonymous epistle,
not written, but made up of words, taken out of printed books, of
different types, and pasted upon a sheet of paper:――
“MY LORD,――Our Moravian Church having subsisted above 1700 years,
and you being the chief of a Church, which is her puny sister,
your Grace ought not to suffer that villain Rimius publicly to
vilify our right reverend and valuable patron and us. The man
is quite stupid, else he would have known that he, being but a
single person, and deeply in debt, can do us no hurt. We are a
multitude, a parliamentary constitution, a church that stands
upon a rock, and have treasures inexhaustible, and can hold out
against him, and all the rest of our enemies. But we shall soon
make him flee his country; or he shall meet with a fate which he
scarce expects.”[322]
Bohler and Zinzendorf both wrote to Whitefield; and, as their letters
are of historical importance, they are here given _in extenso_:――
“_May 8, 1753._
“SIR,――I pity you very much that you suffer yourself to
be so much imposed on, and to print your impositions so
inconsiderately.
“You have now attempted a second time to ruin my character. You
represent me as the inventor of an _artificial mount_,[323] etc.
You build upon that, two assertions: 1. That I invented it as
a means to encourage a certain gentleman in his undertakings.
2. That I did it to make up a quarrel with him, by these means.
Now I can attest, with a good conscience, before God, that I had
no hand in inventing, or contriving, or executing, etc., such an
_artificial mound and picture_, etc.; and both your conclusions,
that you build on it, drop of course.
“You also assert, that, I and others paid our devotions in a
certain room, of which you please to give a description; but you
really are in this point also grossly imposed upon. By whom? By
an apostate!
“The person against whom you chiefly level your letter, is so
maliciously misrepresented therein, that really you yourself
will be ashamed of it one day before God and man. It would have
been ingenuous in you to have asked some of your old friends,
whether the charges you lay against us be true. But that,
you have not done. You will perhaps say to me, ‘You can clear
yourself in print.’ But this sounds, in my ears, as if a drunken
man would pelt one with dirt, and then say, ‘Now I will shew you
water where you can wash yourself again.’ I, for my part, have
always abhorred paper war; for I think the result of such a
war, for a child of God, is no other than _vinco seu vincor,
semper ego maculor_ (conquering or conquered, I am dishonoured).
And, besides that, I think it incumbent upon an honest man,
when he rashly and heedlessly has cast an aspersion upon his
fellow-creatures――fathered actions upon an innocent person of
whom he was altogether ignorant――and, with the most prejudicial
assertions, charged a body of people with faults of which they,
neither in whole nor in part, are guilty――to do all in his
power to remove such aspersions of which he is the author or
propagator.
“Dear Mr. Whitefield, when the secret intentions of man,
together with all his unjust deeds and actions, will be judged,
how glad would you be then, not to have treated our Society, in
general; and, in particular, that venerable person against whom
your letter is chiefly levelled; and poor me, in so injurious,
yea, I may say, impudent and wicked a manner.
“But, perhaps, my dear and merciful Saviour may give you grace,
that I may, a second time, be asked pardon by you; which I,
for your sake, heartily desire; but, for my sake, am entirely
unconcerned about; who, as an unworthy servant of my dear Lord
Jesus Christ, who was slain for His enemies, shall continue to
love and pray for you.
“PETER BOHLER.”
To say the least, this is an odd, evasive letter, unworthy of the
man who had taught the Wesleys the way of salvation by faith in Jesus
Christ. Zinzendorf’s is no better:――
“_May 8, 1753._
“REV. SIR,――As I read no newspapers, I knew nothing of your
‘Expostulatory Letter,’ till a worthy clergyman of the Church of
England communicated to me his copy but yesterday.
“You are a preacher, I suppose, of Christ; therefore, though you
are, it seems, an utter stranger to me, you may guess why you
see no reply to your letter.
“In private, I tell you so much, that you are mistaken in the
chief point you urge with more zeal than knowledge.
“As yet, I owe not a farthing of the £40,000 you are pleased
to tell me of; and, if your precipitate officiousness should
save me and those foreigners, you forewarn so compassionately,
from that debt, your zeal would prove very fatal to the English
friends you pity, it seems, no less than the German.
“As for the distinction in the dress of our women, pray consider
that St. Paul has thought it worth his while to make certain
regulations about the head-dress; and you may remain more quiet,
as you have no notion what our ordinances are.
“If some brethren, in their Easter Liturgy, make use of
French-horns, (which they are to answer for, not I, for my chapel
has none,) let the synod consider of it.
“I have not seen the pamphlet you tell us of. It is dedicated
to the Archbishop, you say. If the author got the permission of
his Grace fairly, then the thing is serious indeed; yet, I shall
have nothing to say to Mr. Rimius.
“I make but one observation for your good, sir. Are you sure
that all the quotations out of the Bible are true? If so, is it
possible that the interpretations, which some eighty different
sects of Christians give to the passages in which they oppose
each other, can be the true meaning of the author? Are all those
which are made out of your own books to be depended upon? For
my own part, I find that the single passage you borrow from Mr.
Rimius is an imposition upon the public, as gross as if St. Paul,
when he says, ‘We have but one God the Father,’ etc., should be
charged with denying the divinity of Jesus. As thousands of our
people are satisfied, that I oppose that meaning of the said
quotation, with all my credit in the Church; and have supported
my opposition, with all my substance and that of my family,
above these thirty years; and will continue so long as I have a
shirt left; what must they think when they see my book quoted in
that manner?[324] I add no more.
“As your heart is not prepared to love me, nor your
understanding to listen to my reasons, I wish you well, sir,
and am your loving friend,
“LOUIS.”[325]
These were unsatisfactory and discreditable letters, and not at all an
answer to Whitefield’s charges. The truth is, a satisfactory answer was
impossible. There can be no question, that the Moravians had begun to
practise a _ritualism_ the most silly; and that their expenditure had
brought them to the very verge of bankruptcy and disgraceful ruin.[326]
It would be wearisome and unprofitable to pursue the subject. Suffice
it to say, that, in the month of November, 1753, a pamphlet, of
forty-three pages, was published with the following uncouth title:
“He who is a Minister of the Gospel, and highly esteems the Sufferings
of the Lamb, his Introduction to the Method or Way of the Evangelical
Church of the Brethren in dealing with Souls. To which is prefixed,
A short Answer to Mr. Rimius’s long uncandid Narrative. And a Lesson
for Mr. Whitefield to read before his Congregation.” The bulk of the
pamphlet was a translation of Zinzendorf’s German treatise, entitled,
“Method with Souls,” etc., and requires no attention; but that section
of it which relates to Whitefield may be quoted:――
“If Mr. Whitefield had been more acquainted with the customs
of the primitive Christians, he need not have asked, ‘Did the
primitive Christians visit the graves of the deceased?’
“As to the illuminations, they are no part of the worship, and
cannot concern him.
“As to their debts, he has no business to trouble himself about
them. He will never be asked to pay them; for he, among the
Brethren, to whom the Lord has been most bountiful, has taken
upon himself to discharge them.
“As his intelligence has been from such as St. Paul
distinguishes by the name of false brethren, any man, possessed
of common sense, may know what regard it deserves.
“One fault among the Brethren is, that they do not abound with
charity sermons, and look sharp after the plate, as is done he
knows where and by whom.
“By this time, I doubt not, Mr. Whitefield is able to answer his
own queries; and, I hope, wishes he had taken Paul’s advice to
Timothy: ‘Foolish and unlearned _questions_ avoid, knowing that
they do gender strifes.’”
On the other side, there was published a pamphlet, whose title will
convey an idea of its contents:――“A true and authentic Account of
Andrew Frey; containing the occasion of his coming among the Hernhuters,
or Moravians; his Observations on their Conferences, Casting Lots,
Marriages, Festivals, Merriments, Celebrations of Birth-days, Impious
Doctrines, and Fantastic Practices, Abuse of Charitable Contributions,
Linen Images, Ostentatious Profuseness, and Rancour against any who
in the least differ from them; and the Reasons for which he left them;
together with the Motives for publishing this Account. Faithfully
translated from the German.”[327]
All this disreputable contention prepared the way for Bishop Lavington
to publish, two years afterwards, his “Moravians Compared and Detected.”
(8vo. 180 pp.)
It is time to return to Whitefield’s gospel wanderings, and
correspondence.
About the middle of the month of May, he left London for a tour in
Wales, and made “a circuit of about seven hundred miles.”[328] He
preached above twenty times, at Narberth, Pembroke, Haverfordwest, and
other places; and was again in London on the 7th of June. The Moravian
controversy filled his mind and crushed his heart. To his old secretary,
John Syms, who had joined the Moravians, and who had basely threatened
a revelation of some of Whitefield’s secret affairs, he wrote:――
“HAVERFORDWEST, _May 27, 1753_.
“MY DEAR MAN,――Though my wife has not forwarded the letter, she
says you have sent me a threatening one. I thank you for it,
though unseen, and say unto thee, if thou art thus minded, ‘What
thou doest, do quickly.’ Blessed be God, I am ready to receive
the most traitorous blow, and to confess, before God and man,
all my weaknesses and failings, whether in public or private
life. I laid my account of such treatment, before I published my
‘Expostulatory Letter.’ Your writing in such a manner convinces
me more and more, that Moravianism leads men to break through
the most sacred ties of nature, friendship, and disinterested
love.
“My wife says, you write, that, ‘_I am drunk with power_ and
_approbation_.’ Wast thou with me so long, my dear man, and hast
thou not known me better? What power didst thou know me ever to
grasp at? or, what power am I now invested with? None, that I
know of, except that of being a poor pilgrim. As for approbation,
God knows, I have had little else besides the cross to glory in,
since my first setting out. May that be my glory still!
“My wife says, you write, that ‘I promised not to print.’ I
remember no such thing. I know you advised me not to do so,
but I know of no promise made. If I rightly remember, I had not
then read Rimius; but, after that, I both heard and saw so many
things, that I could not, with a safe conscience, be silent.
“My wife says, you write, ‘the bulk of my letter is not truth.’
So says Mr. Peter Bohler; nay, he says, ‘it is all a lie;’ and,
I hear, he declares so in the pulpit; so that, whether I will
or not, he obliges me to clear myself in print. If he goes on
in this manner, he will not only constrain me to print a third
edition, but also to publish a dreadful heap that remains behind.
My answers to him, the Count, and my old friend Hutton, are
almost ready. I cannot send them this post, but may have time
before long.
“O, my dear man, let me tell thee, that the God of truth and
love hates lies. That cause can never be good, that needs
equivocations and falsehoods to support it. You shall have none
from me. I have naked truth. I write out of pure love. The Lord
Jesus only knows what unspeakable grief I feel, when I think
how many of my friends have so involved themselves. If anything
stops my pen, it will be concern for them, not myself. I value
neither name nor life itself, when the cause of God calls me to
venture both. Thanks be to His great name, I can truly say, that,
for many years past, no sin has had dominion over me; neither
have I slept with the guilt of any known, unrepented sin lying
upon my heart.
“I wish thee well in body and soul, and subscribe myself, my
dear John, your very affectionate, though injured, friend for
Christ’s sake,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
To another friend, Whitefield wrote as follows:――
“LONDON, _June 8, 1753_.
“Mr. S―――― can tell you what concern the Brethren’s awful
conduct has given me. Surely, if the Redeemer had not supported
me, I should, within these two months, have died of grief. But I
will say no more; Jesus knows all things. He will not long bear
with guile. I and the Messrs. Wesley are very friendly. I like
them, because they let the world see what they are at once. I
suspect something wrong, when so much secresy is required.”
Two days after writing this, Whitefield opened his new Tabernacle,
on which occasion he preached, in the morning, from Solomon’s prayer
at the dedication of the temple; and, in the evening, from 1 Chron.
xxix. 9: “Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly,
because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the Lord: and
David the king also rejoiced with great joy.” It is needless to
add, that the building “was crowded almost to suffocation in every
part.”[329]
The Tabernacle being built and opened, Whitefield felt himself at
liberty to “take the field.” Accordingly, on June 20, he started off to
Portsmouth, where he spent about a week. Having fulfilled his mission
there, he set out for the north of England. He had “two good meetings”
at Olney. At Northampton, “several thousands attended.” Leicester
was “a cold place; but the people stood very attentive, and some were
affected.” At Nottingham, “a great multitude came to hear, but a son
of Belial endeavoured to disturb them.” At Sheffield, he had “two good
meetings,” and a congregation “consisting of several thousands.” At
Rotherham, “after preaching, a young man was set at liberty, who had
been groaning under the spirit of bondage for four years.” At Leeds
thousands attended daily; and, on the Lord’s-day, it was computed that
near twenty thousand were present. At Birstal[330] and Bradford, “many
thousands flocked together.” “At York,” he says, “I preached four
times; twice we were disturbed, and twice we had sweet seasons.” Thus
did he preach all the way from London to Newcastle where he arrived on
Saturday, July 14. Three days afterwards, he wrote to the Countess of
Huntingdon:――
“NEWCASTLE, _July 17, 1753_.
“I wrote to your ladyship just before I set out for Portsmouth,
and thought to have written again at my return, but was hindered
by staying only one night in London. Ever since, I have been
on the range for lost sinners; and, blessed be God! I have
been much owned by Him who delights to work by the meanest
instruments. Sometimes I have scarce known whether I have been
in heaven or on earth. I came hither on Saturday, and have
preached seven times, and once at Sunderland, where a great
multitude attended, and were deeply impressed. At five in the
morning, the great room[331] is filled; and, on the Lord’s-day,
the congregation out of doors was great indeed. Surely the shout
of a King has been amongst us. All is harmony and love. I am now
going to a place called Sheep-hill, and shall return to preach
here again in the evening. To-morrow I set forward to Scotland.
This may be communicated to Mr. Charles Wesley, to whom I would
write if I had time.”
The _Scots’ Magazine_ for 1753 (p. 361) says:――
“Mr. George Whitefield arrived at Edinburgh July 20th; went
thence to Glasgow on the 27th; returned to Edinburgh August 3rd;
and set out for London on the 7th. He preached daily, morning
and evening, when at Edinburgh, in the Orphan Hospital Park; and,
when at Glasgow, in the Castle-yard, to numerous audiences. In
his sermons at Glasgow, he declaimed warmly against a play-house,
lately erected within the enclosure in which he preached.
The consequence was, that, before his departure, workmen were
employed to take it down, to prevent its being done by ruder
hands.”
Whitefield went to Scotland, not with his usual buoyancy. Under date of
“Edinburgh, July 21,” he wrote:――
“The inward discouragements I have felt against coming to
Scotland have been many. I have left a people full of fire.
Thousands and thousands flocked to hear the glorious gospel.
I have heard of awakenings in every place. Saints have been
revived, and heaven, as it were, has come down on earth. We have
enjoyed perpetual Cambuslang seasons. My heart is quite broken
to think poor Scotland is so dead.”
He, however, plunged into his work, and not without success. In another
letter, dated “Glasgow, July 25, 1753,” he says:――
“Yesterday, I was enabled to preach five times, and, I suppose,
the last time to near twenty thousand. At Edinburgh, I preached
twice every day to many thousands, among whom were many of
the noble and polite. Attention sits on the faces of all; and
friends come round me, like so many bees, to importune me for
one week’s longer stay in Scotland.”
As already stated, Whitefield started, from Edinburgh to London, on
Tuesday, August 7th. On Wednesday, he preached at Berwick, and again
on Thursday morning. On Thursday night, he arrived at Alnwick, and “it
being the time of the races,” he preached on the words, “So run that ye
may obtain.” He writes:――
“Whilst I was discoursing, the gentlemen came down from the race,
and surrounded the congregation, and heard very attentively.
The next morning, at five, I preached again; and, about noon,
at a place called Placey; and, in the evening, about nine, at
Newcastle, where a great number expected me, and my text was,
‘At midnight, a cry was made, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh.’”
On the Sunday following, he wrote to Mr. Gillies, of Glasgow:――
“I am to preach three times every day this week. This promise
supports me――‘As thy day is, so shall thy strength be.’ By the
enclosed, you will see the devil owes me a grudge for what was
done at Glasgow. Would it not be proper to insert a paragraph to
contradict it?”
Next day, August 13th, he wrote to another friend:――
“My route is now fixed. After preaching here” (Newcastle) “and
hereabouts three times each day, I am to leave this place on
Thursday; to be at Stockton on Sunday; at Osmotherley on Monday
noon; lie at Topcliff, and reach York, by way of Boroughbridge,
on Tuesday next; and then come forwards to Leeds.
“I could not finish this letter last night. It is now Tuesday
morning. Surely heaven came down amongst us, under the last
evening’s preaching. It was almost too much for my body. I must
away to Horsley to preach, from whence I am to return here to
preach again this evening. Thrice a day tries me, but in the
Lord have I righteousness and strength. If you hear of a mob
being raised, by my preaching, at Glasgow, assure your friends
there was none; but Satan owes me a grudge for speaking against
the play-house.”
It is important to bear in mind, that, at nearly all, if not actually
all, the places in the north of England, where Whitefield preached,
there were meeting-houses and Societies belonging to his friend Wesley.
In truth, whatever might be the case in London, Whitefield, in the
country, was Wesley’s fellow-labourer. There was no formal and avowed
union between the two, and, on some important doctrines, they differed;
but wherever Whitefield went, Wesley’s people were prepared to welcome
him; and he was equally prepared to do them all the good he could.[332]
Osmotherley[333] is mentioned in the foregoing extract. This was a
small moorland village, quite out of Whitefield’s way to London, and
difficult of access; but one of Wesley’s Societies had been formed
even here, and they were about to erect a chapel. On no other ground,
except that Whitefield, without professing it, was acting as Wesley’s
lieutenant, is it possible to account for Whitefield’s visits to places
like Osmotherley, Placey, Horsley, Sheephill, Stockton, and others
which might be mentioned.
The mob at Glasgow has been named. The explanation is, the proprietor
of a play-house was supposed to be so affected by Whitefield’s
preaching, that he, at once, began to take down the roof of his edifice.
Either through malice or misinformation, several of the newspapers of
the day represented this as being done by a mob, under the exciting
influence of Whitefield’s ministry.[334] Whitefield had been so often
mobbed himself, that he had no wish to be announced as allied to mobs.
Hence, before he left Newcastle, he wrote the following letter, which
was printed, by the publishers, in the _Newcastle Journal_:――
“NEWCASTLE, _August 17, 1753_.
“GENTLEMEN,――By your last Saturday’s paper, I find that some
Edinburgh correspondent has informed you, that, when I was
preaching at Glasgow on the 2nd inst., to a numerous audience,
near the play-house lately built, I inflamed the mob so much
against it, that they ran directly from before me, and pulled it
down to the ground; and that several of the rioters, since then,
have been taken up, and committed to jail. But, I assure you,
this is mere slander and misinformation. It is true, indeed,
that I was preaching at Glasgow, to a numerous auditory, at
the beginning of this month; and that I thought it my duty
to shew the evil of having a play-house erected in a trading
city――almost, too, before the very door of the university. And
this, by the help of God, if called to it, I should do again.
But that I inflamed the mob, or that they ran directly from me,
and pulled the play-house down, or that the rioters were taken
up and put into prison, is entirely false.
“I suppose all this took its rise from the builder taking down
the roof of the house himself. You must know that the walls of
this play-house were part of the old palace of the Bishop of
Glasgow, and only had a board covering put upon them during
the time of the players being there. They being gone, the owner
(whether convinced by anything that was said, I cannot tell)
began to take off the roof several days before I left that place;
so that, if there had been any riot, doubtless I should have
seen it.
“No, gentlemen, your correspondent may assure himself that I
am too much a friend to my God, my king, and my country, to
encourage any such thing. I know of no such means of reformation,
either in church or state. The weapons of a Christian’s warfare
are not carnal. And therefore, if you please to inform the
public and your Edinburgh correspondent of the mistake, in
to-morrow’s paper, you will oblige, Gentlemen,
“Your very humble servant,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”