clerical jurisdiction in Long Acre, was Zachary Pearce, D.D., the son
of a distiller in Holborn; from 1748 to 1756, was Bishop of Bangor;
and, afterwards, Bishop of Rochester;――an accomplished scholar, a
perspicuous writer, a feeble orator, an active prelate, and a hearty
hater of the Methodists.
Whitefield had long wished to have a West-end chapel, which might serve
as the meeting-house, not only of the rich in general, but especially
of the distinguished persons who were accustomed to assemble in the
mansions of the Countess of Huntingdon, Lady Frances Shirley, and Lady
Gertrude Hotham.
These brief memoranda will help to explain the allusions in the
following extracts from Whitefield’s letters.
The first is taken from a letter addressed to the Rev. John Gillies, of
Glasgow:――
“London, January 22, 1756. Ever since I came from the north,
I have had a violent cold and sore throat, which threatened
an inflammatory quinsy. One physician prescribed a _perpetual
blister_, but I have found _perpetual preaching_ to be a better
remedy. When this grand catholicon fails, it is over with me.
You will pray that, if I must put out to sea again, it may be
to take fresh prizes for my God. Every day brings us fresh news
of newly awakened souls. Both at this and the other end of the
town (where I now preach in a chapel twice a week), there is a
glorious stirring among the dry bones.”
The next is from a letter written to the Countess of Huntingdon:――
“London, January 29, 1756. I know not how soon I may be called
before my superiors. The sons of _Jubal_ and _Cain_ continue to
serenade me at Long Acre chapel. They have been called before
a justice; and, yesterday, the Bishop of Bangor sent for them,
and enquired where I lived. My house is pretty public, and the
‘Bishop of souls’ shall answer for me. One, who subscribes to
hire men to make the noise, has been pricked to the heart, and
can have no rest till he speaks with me. Thus Jesus gets Himself
the victory. One of the enclosed extracts comes from a person
who, a few weeks ago, was a confirmed Deist; now, I trust, he is
a little child. The Redeemer speaks, and it is done; He commands,
and new creatures instantaneously arise before Him.”
Did these “sons of Jubal and Cain” belong to the adjoining theatres?
Perhaps they did. Still, it is curious that Wesley, in West Street
chapel, had never been disturbed by their unwelcome serenading; and
it is equally remarkable, that though Bishop Pearce did his utmost to
silence Whitefield in Long Acre, he seems not at all to have interfered
with Wesley in a neighbouring street. The annoyance, to Whitefield
and his _West-end_ congregation, was great; but he was more wishful
to convert the serenaders than to punish them. Hence the following,
addressed to the gentleman who had brought some of the disturbers
before a magistrate:――
“January 30. Gratitude constrains me to send you a few lines of
thanks for the care and zeal you have exercised in suppressing
the late disorders at Long Acre chapel. I hear that some unhappy
man has incurred the penalty inflicted by our salutary laws. As
peace, not revenge, is the thing aimed at, I should rejoice if
this could be procured without the delinquents suffering any
further punishment. Perhaps what has been done already may be
sufficient to deter others from any further illegal proceedings;
and that will be satisfaction enough for me.”
But for the meddling of Bishop Pearce, it is possible, perhaps probable,
that these disreputable disturbances might have ceased; but, two days
after writing thus to the gentleman who had commenced a prosecution
of the noisy musicians, Whitefield received a letter from the Bishop,
in which he prohibited Whitefield’s further preaching in the Long Acre
chapel. This led to an important correspondence between the prelate
and the preacher. Whether his lordship had a legal right to issue
such a prohibition, ecclesiastical lawyers must determine; but, to
say the least, his action had the appearance of episcopal persecution.
The Bishop’s letters to Whitefield have not been published; for, with
contemptible cowardice, Pearce informed Whitefield that, if he dared
to publish them, he must be prepared to undergo the penalty due to
the infringement of “the privilege of a peer!” Still, the substance of
his letters may be gathered from Whitefield’s answers; and, as these
answers contain an explanation and a defence of the course of conduct
which Whitefield had pursued for nearly the last twenty years, they are
inserted here at greater length, than, under other circumstances, they
would have been.
“TABERNACLE HOUSE, _February 2, 1756_.
“MY LORD,――A few weeks ago, several serious persons, chosen to
be a committee for one Mr. Barnard, applied to me, in the name
of Jesus Christ, and a multitude of souls desirous of hearing
the gospel, to preach at a place commonly called Long Acre
chapel. At the same time, they acquainted me, that the place
was licensed; that Mr. Barnard either had taken or was to take
it for a certain term of years; that he had preached in it for
a considerable time, as a Protestant Dissenting minister; but
that, notwithstanding this, I might use the Liturgy if I thought
proper, so that I would but come and preach once or twice a week.
“Looking upon this as a providential call from Him, who, in
the days of His flesh, taught all who were willing to hear,
_on a mount_, _in a ship_, or by _the sea-side_, I readily
complied; and I humbly hope that my feeble labours have not
been altogether in vain.
“This being the case, I was somewhat surprised at the
prohibition I received from your lordship this evening. For,
I looked upon the place as a particular person’s property;
and being, as I was informed, not only unconsecrated, but also
licensed according to law, I thought I might innocently preach
the love of the crucified Redeemer, and loyalty to the best
of princes, our dread sovereign King George, without giving
any just offence to Jew or Gentile, much less to any bishop
or overseer of the Church of God. As I have, therefore, given
notice of preaching to-morrow evening, and every Tuesday and
Thursday whilst I am in town, I hope your lordship will not look
upon it as _contumacy_, if I persist in prosecuting my design,
till I am more particularly apprized wherein I have erred.
“Controversy, my lord, is what I abhor; and, as raising
popular clamours and ecclesiastical dissensions must be quite
unseasonable, especially at this juncture, when _France_ and
_Rome_, and _hell_ ought to be the common butt of our resentment,
I hope your lordship will be so good as to inform yourself
and me more particularly about this matter; and, upon due
consideration, as I have no design but to do good to precious
souls, I promise to submit. But, if your lordship should judge
it best to decline this method, and I should be called to answer
for my conduct, either before a spiritual court, or from the
press, I trust the irregularity I am charged with will appear
justifiable to every true lover of English liberty, and (what
is _all_ to me) will be approved of at the awful and impartial
tribunal of the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, in obedience
to whom I beg leave to subscribe myself, your lordship’s most
dutiful son and servant,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
The Bishop of Bangor replied to this straightforward letter; but, of
course, his threat, as a peer of the realm, suppressed his
communication. Whitefield’s next letter was as follows:――
“TABERNACLE HOUSE, _February 16, 1756_.
“MY LORD,――I this evening received your lordship’s kind letter;
and, though it is late, and nature calls for rest, I now sit
down to give your lordship an explicit answer.
“God can witness, that I entered into holy orders, according
to the form of ordination of the Church of England, with a
disinterested view to promote His glory, and the welfare of
precious and immortal souls. For near twenty years, as thousands
can testify, I have conscientiously defended her Homilies
and Articles, and, upon all occasions, have spoken well of
her Liturgy. So far from renouncing these, together with her
discipline, I earnestly pray for the due restoration of the one,
and daily lament the departure of too many from the other. But,
my lord, what can I do?
“When I acted in the most regular manner, and when I was
bringing multitudes, even of Dissenters, to crowd the churches,
without any other reason being given than that too many followed
after me, I was denied the use of the churches. Being thus
excluded, and many thousands of ignorant souls, that perhaps
would neither go to church nor meeting-houses, being very hungry
after the gospel, I thought myself bound in duty to deal out to
them the bread of life.
“Being further ambitious to serve my God, my king, and my
country, I sacrificed my affections, and left my native soil, in
order to begin and carry on an Orphan House in the infant colony
of Georgia, which is now put upon a good foundation. This served
as an introduction, though without design, to my visiting the
other parts of his Majesty’s dominions in North America; and I
humbly hope that many in that foreign clime will be my joy and
crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus.
“Nay, my lord, if I were not assured that the blessed Redeemer
has owned me for the real conversion and turning of many
from darkness to light, the weakness of my decaying body, the
temptations that have beset my soul, and the violent opposition
with which I have met, would long since have led me to accept
some of those offers that have been made me to nestle, and by
accepting which I might have screened myself from the obloquy
and contempt which, in some degree or other, I meet with every
day. But, hitherto, without eating a morsel of the Church of
England’s bread, I still continue to use her Liturgy, wherever
a church or chapel is allowed me, and preach up her Articles,
and enforce her Homilies. Your lordship, therefore, judgeth me
exceeding right, when you say, ‘I presume you do not mean to
declare any dissent from the Church of England.’ Far be it from
me. No, my lord, unless thrust out, I shall never leave her; and
even then I shall still adhere to her doctrines, and pray for
the restoration of her discipline, to my dying day.
“Fond of displaying her truly protestant and orthodox principles,
especially when Church and State are in danger from a cruel and
popish enemy, I am glad of an opportunity of preaching, though
it should be in a meeting-house; and I think it discovers a good
and moderate spirit in the Dissenters, who quietly attend on the
Church service, as many have done, and continue to do at Long
Acre chapel, while many, who style themselves the faithful sons
of the Church, have endeavoured to disturb and molest us.
“If the lessor of this chapel has no power to let it, or if
it be not legally licensed, I have been deceived; and if, upon
enquiry, I find this to be the case, I shall soon declare, in
the most public manner, how I have been imposed upon. But if
it appears that the lessor has a right to dispose of his own
property, and that the place is licensed, and as some good, I
trust, has been done by this foolishness of preaching, surely
your lordship’s candour will overlook a little irregularity,
since, I fear, that, in these dregs of time wherein we live, we
must be obliged to be irregular, or we must do no good at all.
“My lord, I remember well (and O that I may more than ever
obey your lordship’s admonition!) that awful day, wherein I was
ordained priest, and when authority was given me, by my honoured
friend and father, good Bishop Benson, to preach the word of
God; but never did I so much as dream that this was only a
local commission, or that the condition annexed, ‘Where you
shall be lawfully appointed thereunto,’ was to confine me to any
particular place, and that it would be unlawful for me to preach
out of it. It is plain my Lord Bishop of Gloucester did not
think so; for when his secretary brought a license for me, his
lordship said, it would cost me thirty shillings, and therefore
I should not have it. And when, after being presented to the
late Bishop of London, I applied to him for a license, his
lordship was pleased to say I was going to Georgia, and needed
none. Accordingly, I preached in most of the London churches,
under his lordship’s immediate inspection; and why any other
license than my letters of orders should now be required, I
believe no substantial, I am positive no scriptural, reason can
be assigned.
“It is true, as your lordship observes, there is one canon that
says, ‘No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in
any place, without examination and admission of the Bishop of
the Diocese.’ And there is another, as quoted by your lordship,
which tells us, ‘Neither minister, churchwarden, nor any other
officers of the Church shall suffer any man to preach within
their chapels, but such as, by shewing their license to preach,
shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorised thereunto.’
But, my lord, what curacy or parsonage have I desired, or do
I desire to be admitted to serve in? or, into what church or
chapel do I attempt to intrude myself, without leave from the
churchwardens or other officers? Being, as I think, without
cause, denied admission into the churches, I am content to take
the field, and, when the weather will permit, with a table for
my pulpit, and the heavens for my sounding-board, I desire to
proclaim to all the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ. Besides,
my lord, if this canon should be always put into full execution,
I humbly presume, no bishop or presbyter can legally preach at
any time out of the diocese in which he is appointed to serve;
and, consequently, no city incumbent can even occasionally be
lawfully assisted by any country clergyman; or even can a bishop
himself be lawfully permitted to preach a charity sermon out of
his own diocese, without a special license for so doing.
“As for the other canon which your lordship mentions, and which
runs thus, ‘Neither shall any minister, not licensed as is
aforesaid, presume to appoint or hold any meetings for sermons,
commonly termed, by some, prophecies or exercises, in market
towns or other places, under the said pains,’――I need not inform
your lordship, that it was originally levelled against those who
would not conform to the Church of England, and that, too, in
such high-flying times as not one of the present moderate bench
of bishops would wish to see restored. If this be so, how, my
lord, does this canon belong to me, who am episcopally ordained,
and have very lately published a small tract recommending the
communion office of the Church of England?
“But, my lord, to come nearer to the point in hand. And, for
Christ’s sake, let not your lordship be offended with my using
such plainness of speech. As in the presence of the living God,
I would put it to your lordship’s conscience, whether there
is one bishop or presbyter, in England, Wales, or Ireland, who
looks upon our canons as his rule of action? If this opinion
be true, we are all perjured with a witness, and, in a very
bad sense of the word, _irregular indeed_. If the canons of
our Church are to be implicitly obeyed, may I not say, ‘He,
who is without the sin of acting illegally, let him cast the
first stone at me, and welcome.’ Your lordship knows full well,
that canons and other Church laws are good and obligatory,
when conformable to the laws of Christ, and agreeable to the
liberties of a free people; but, when invented and compiled
by men of little hearts and bigotted principles, to hinder
persons of more enlarged souls from doing good, or being more
extensively useful, they become mere _bruta fulmina_; and,
when made use of as cords to bind the hands of a zealous few,
who honestly appear for their king, their country, and their
God, they may, in my opinion, like the withes with which the
Philistines bound Samson, very legally be broken. As I have
not the canons at present before me, I cannot tell what pains
and penalties are to be incurred for such offence; but, if
any penalty is incurred, or any pain to be inflicted on me,
for preaching against sin, the Pope, and the devil, and for
recommending the strictest loyalty to the best of princes, his
Majesty King George, in this metropolis, or in any other part
of his Majesty’s dominions, I trust, through grace, I shall be
enabled to say,――
‘All hail reproach, and welcome pain!’
“There now remains but one more particular in your lordship’s
letter to be answered,――your lordship’s truly apostolical canon,
taken out of 2 Cor. x. 16,――upon reading of which, I could not
help thinking of a passage in good Mr. Philip Henry’s life.
It was this. Being ejected out of the Church, and yet thinking
it his duty to preach, Mr. Henry used, now and then, to give
the people of Broad-Oaks, where he lived, a gospel sermon; and
one day, as he was coming from his exercise, he met with the
incumbent, and thus addressed him: ‘Sir, I have been taking the
liberty of throwing a handful of seed into your field.’ ‘Have
you?’ said the good man. ‘May God give it His blessing! There
is work enough for us both.’ This, my lord, I humbly conceive,
is the case, not only of your lordship, but of every minister’s
parish in London, and of every bishop’s diocese in England; and,
therefore, as good is done, and souls are benefited, I hope your
lordship will not regard a little irregularity, since, at the
worst, it is only the irregularity of doing well. But, supposing
this should not be admitted as an excuse at other seasons, I
hope it will have its weight at this critical juncture, wherein,
if there were ten thousand sound preachers, and each preacher
had a thousand tongues, they could not be too frequently
employed in calling upon the inhabitants of Great Britain to
be upon their guard against the cruel and malicious designs of
_France_, of _Rome_, and of _hell_.
“After all, my lord, if your lordship will be pleased to apply
to Mr. Barnard himself, who, I suppose, knows where the place
is registered; or if, upon enquiry, I shall find that the lessor
has no power to let it, as I abhor every dishonourable action,
after my setting out for Bristol, which I expect to do in a
few days, I shall decline preaching in the chapel any more.
But, if the case should appear to be otherwise, I hope your
lordship will not be angry, if I persist in this, I trust, not
unpardonable irregularity; for, if I decline preaching in every
place, merely because the incumbent may be unwilling I should
come into his parish, I fear I should seldom or never preach at
all. This, my lord, especially at the present juncture, when all
our civil and religious liberties are at stake, would to me be
worse than death itself.
“I humbly ask pardon for detaining your lordship so long; but,
being willing to give your lordship all the satisfaction I could,
I have chosen rather to sit up and deny myself proper repose,
than to let your lordship’s candid letter lie by me one moment
longer than was absolutely necessary.
“I return your lordship a thousand thanks for your favourable
opinion of me, and for your good wishes; and, begging the
continuance of your lordship’s blessing, and earnestly praying
that, whenever your lordship shall be called hence, you may give
up your account with joy, I beg leave to subscribe myself, my
lord, your lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
Such was Whitefield’s midnight letter to Bishop Pearce. Its length is
gigantic, but, throughout, it is pointed, manly, and respectful; and,
because of its historical facts, and its statement of the principles
which regulated Whitefield’s life, it is of great importance. A summary
of it could not have done it justice.
A week later, Whitefield wrote a third letter to the bishop, informing
him he had ascertained that the chapel was duly licensed, and that Mr.
Barnard’s committee were resolved to retain possession of it. He added,
“As your lordship would undoubtedly choose that the Church liturgy
should be read in it sometimes, rather than it should be entirely
made use of in a Nonconformist way, I hope your lordship will not
be offended, if I go on as usual after my return from Bristol. I am
sorry to inform your lordship, that, notwithstanding the admonitions
which, I hear, your lordship has given them, some unhappy persons have
still endeavoured to disturb us, by making an odd kind of noise in a
neighbouring house. I hear that some of them belong to your lordship’s
vestry, and, therefore, wish you would so far interpose, as to order
them once more to stop their proceedings.”
Whitefield went to Bristol; and, on Sunday, March 14, opened his
“spring campaign, by preaching thrice in the fields, to many thousands,
in Gloucestershire.”[383] Immediately after this he returned to London,
and found it necessary to write again to Bishop Pearce.
“TABERNACLE HOUSE, _March 20, 1756_.
“MY LORD,――Upon my coming up to town, I found, to my great
surprise, that the disturbances near Long Acre chapel had been
continued. On Thursday evening last, when I preached there
myself, they were rather increased. Some of the windows were
stopped up, to prevent, in some degree, the congregation being
disturbed by the unhallowed noise; but large stones were thrown
in at another window, and one young person was sadly wounded.
“This constrains me to beg your lordship to desire the persons,
belonging to your lordship’s vestry, to desist from such
irregular proceedings. For my own irregularity in preaching,
I am ready at any time to answer; and were I myself the only
sufferer, I should be entirely unconcerned at any personal
ill-treatment I might meet with in the way of duty. But to have
the lives of his Majesty’s loyal subjects endangered, when they
come peaceably to worship God, is an irregularity which, I am
persuaded, your lordship will look upon as unjustifiable in the
sight of God, and of every good man.
“Your lordship will allow that, as a subject of King George, and
a minister of Jesus Christ, I have a right to do myself justice;
and, therefore, I hope, if the disturbances be continued, that
your lordship will not be offended, if I lay a plain narration
of the whole affair, together with what has passed between your
lordship and myself, before the world. I beg you not to look
upon this as a threatening. I scorn any such mean procedure.
But, as Providence seems to point out such a method, I hope your
lordship will have no just reason to censure me if I do it.”
The bishop replied, and Whitefield wrote to him again, as follows:――
“LONDON, _March 25, 1756_.
“Your lordship needed not to inform me of the privilege of
a peer, to deter me from publishing your lordship’s letters,
without first asking leave. Nothing shall be done in that
way, which is the least inconsistent with the strictest honour,
justice, and simplicity. But, if a public account of the
repeated disturbances at Long Acre chapel be rendered necessary,
I hope your lordship will not esteem it unreasonable in me, to
inform the world what previous steps were taken to prevent and
stop them.