as has been transacted in your lordship’s parish, in the house
or yard of Mr. Cope, who, I hear, is your lordship’s overseer,
ever since last _Twelfth-day_, I believe is not to be met with
in English history. It is more than noise. It is _premeditated
rioting_. Drummers, soldiers, and many of the baser sort, have
been hired by subscription. A copper furnace, bells, drums,
clappers, marrow-bones, and cleavers, and such-like instruments
of reformation, have been provided for them, and repeatedly have
been used by them, from the moment I have begun preaching, to
the end of my sermon. By these horrid noises, many women have
been almost frightened to death; and mobbers have, thereby, been
encouraged to come and riot at the chapel door during the time
of divine service; and, after it has been over, have insulted
and abused me and the congregation. Not content with this, the
chapel windows, while I have been preaching, have repeatedly
been broken by large stones of almost a pound weight, which,
though levelled at me, missed me, but sadly wounded some of my
hearers. If your lordship will only ride to Mr. Cope’s house,
you will see the scaffold, and the costly preparations for such
a noise upon it, as must make the ears of all who shall hear it
to tingle.
“I am informed that Mr. C―――― and Mr. M―――― are parties greatly
concerned. I know them not, and I pray God never to lay this
ill and unmerited treatment to their charge. If no more noise
is made, I assure your lordship no further resentment shall be
made. But if they persist, I have the authority of an apostle,
on a like occasion, to appeal unto Cæsar. I have only one
favour to beg of your lordship. As the above-named gentlemen are
your lordship’s parishioners, I request that you desire them,
henceforward, to desist from such unchristian, such riotous, and
dangerous proceedings. Whether, as a chaplain to a most worthy
peeress, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a steady
disinterested friend to our present happy constitution, I have
not a right to ask such a favour, I leave to your lordship’s
mature deliberation. Henceforward, I hope to trouble your
lordship no more.”
Certainly, it was high time to bring matters to a crisis. The Rev.
Zachary Pearce, D.D., though himself the son of a rich distiller in
Holborn, and though the husband of a wife, who, as the daughter of
another Holborn distiller, brought him a large fortune, was a pluralist.
Twenty-three years ago, by the exertions of the Earl of Macclesfield,
he had been presented with the fat living of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields,
even after it had been promised to another man. For seventeen years,
he had been dean of Winchester; and, in 1748, had exchanged the deanery
for the bishopric of Bangor. And now, in this memorable year of 1756,
the Duke of Newcastle conferred upon him the see of Rochester and
the deanery of Westminster. No doubt, it was in his capacity of vicar
of St. Martin’s, that this wealthy pluralist prohibited Whitefield’s
preaching in Long Acre, and, if he did not actually employ, yet
connived at the noisy ruffians who disturbed Whitefield’s services.
Whitefield’s language to the Bishop of Bangor was too respectful. Such
a man deserved rebuke, quite as strong as the liquors, by which his own
father and the father of his wife had made their fortunes.
Notwithstanding all the efforts of Whitefield to obtain peace, the
disturbances at Long Acre were continued. Besides this, early in
the month of April, Whitefield received three anonymous letters,
threatening him with “a certain, sudden, and unavoidable stroke,”
unless he desisted from preaching, and refrained from prosecuting the
rioters of Long Acre. It is impossible to suspect Bishop Pearce of
being implicated in the sending of these disgraceful threats; but there
can be little doubt that the known animosity of himself and others gave
encouragement to the masked assassins. For years past, the bishops and
clergy of the Established Church, comparatively speaking, had ceased
from their open and violent persecution of the poor itinerant preacher;
but their rancorous feelings towards him, perhaps, were not at all
abated. Even free-thinking Dr. Herring, Archbishop of Canterbury, who
was now within twelve months of his decease, wrote, in the very midst
of the Long Acre riots, to William Duncombe, Esq., as follows:――
“CROYDON HOUSE, _January 25, 1756_.
“Your judgment is right. Whitefield is Daniel Burgess[384]
_redivivus_; and, to be sure, he finds his account in his
joco-serious addresses. Wesley, with good parts and learning,
is a most dark and saturnine creature. His pictures may frighten
weak people, who, at the same time, are wicked; but, I fear,
he will make few converts, except for a day. I have read his
‘Serious Thoughts’;[385] but, for my own part, I think the
rising and setting of the sun is a more durable argument for
religion than all the extraordinary convulsions of nature
put together. Let a man be good on right principles, and
then _impavidum ferient ruinae_. So far, Horace was as good a
preacher as any of us. I have no constitution for these frights
and fervours; and, if I can but keep up to the regular practice
of a Christian life, upon Christian reasons, I shall be in
no pain for futurity; nor do I think it an essential part of
religion, to be pointed at for any foolish singularities. The
subjects of the Methodist preaching, you mention, are excellent
in the hands of wise men, not enthusiasts. As to their notion
that men are by nature devils, I can call it by no other name
than wicked and blasphemous, and the highest reproach that man
can throw upon his wise and good Creator.
“I am, etc.,
“THOMAS CANTUAR.”[386]
Under the circumstances of the time, Whitefield was almost driven to
seek redress. First of all, he consulted the Honourable Hume Campbell,
brother of Lady Jane Nimmo, and solicitor to the Princess of Wales,
Lord Clerk Registrar of Scotland, and one of Whitefield’s occasional
hearers. In a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, dated “Canterbury,
April 10, 1756,” Whitefield wrote:――
“The noise at Long Acre has been infernal. I have reason to
think there was a secret design for my life. Some of my friends
were sadly used; they applied for warrants; and that occasioned
the sending of a threatening letter. I have written to Sir
Hume Campbell for advice. Here all is peaceable. It is most
delightful to see the soldiers flock to hear the word; officers
likewise attend very orderly.”
On his return to London, Whitefield was introduced to the Earl of
Holdernesse, one of his Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State. Hence
the following to Lady Huntingdon:――
“LONDON, _April 18, 1756_.
“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Since my last, from Canterbury, I have
received two more threatening letters. My greatest distress
is, how to act so as to avoid rashness on the one hand, and
timidity on the other. I have been introduced to the Earl of
Holdernesse, who received me very courteously, and seemed to make
no objection against issuing a reward for the discovery of the
letter-writer. Whether I had best accept the plan, I know not.
Sir Hume Campbell says the offence is not felony; and he advises
me to put all concerned into the Court of King’s Bench. Lord
Jesus, direct me, for Thy mercy’s sake! A man came up to me in
the pulpit, at the Tabernacle; God knows what was his design. I
see no way for me to act, than, either resolutely to persist in
preaching and prosecuting, or entirely to desist from preaching,
which would bring intolerable guilt upon my soul, and give the
adversary cause to blaspheme. Blessed be God! I am quite clear
as to the occasion of my suffering. It is for preaching Christ
Jesus, and loyalty to King George. Alas! alas! what a condition
would this land be in, were the Protestant interest not to
prevail! If Popery is to get a footing here, I should be glad
to die by the hands of an assassin. I should then be taken away
from the evil to come.”
The result of all this battling with the vestry mobs of Bishop Pearce,
and of the apprehension created by these anonymous popish menaces, was
the publication of the following announcement in the _London Gazette_
of May 1, 1756, and in the two next succeeding numbers of that official
journal. The italics and spelling are as they appear in the original:――
“WHITEHALL, _April 30, 1756_.
“Wheras it has been humbly represented to the King that an
anonimous letter, without date, directed, _To Doctor Whitefield,
at his Tabernacle, by the Foundery in Moorfields_, was, on the
6th of this instant April, received by the Reverend Mr. George
Whitefield, by the penny post; and that two other letters,
viz., one of them dated the 7th of the present month of April,
subscribed, Your Friendly Adversary, and directed, _To Mr.
Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, near Hogston, beyond the Upper
Moorfields_; and the other, anonimous, without date, and
directed, _To the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, at the Tabernacle, near
Moorfields_, were also received by the said Reverend Mr. George
Whitefield, by the penny post, on the 8th of this instant
April; and that the said letters, written in very abusive terms,
contained threats of injury and destruction to the said Reverend
Mr. George Whitefield; His Majesty, for the better discovering,
and bringing to justice the persons concerned in writing and
sending the said three letters, as above-mentioned, or any one,
or more, of them, is pleased to promise his most gracious pardon
to any one of them, who shall discover his, or her, accomplice,
or accomplices therein, so that he, she, or they, may be
apprehended and convicted thereof.
“HOLDERNESSE.
“And as a further encouragement, James Cox, jeweller, in Racquet
Court, Fleet Street, does hereby promise a reward of twenty
pounds, to be paid by him, to the person or persons making such
discovery as aforesaid, upon the conviction of one or more of
the offenders.
“JAMES COX.”
So ended one of the toughest battles that Whitefield ever fought,
but its issue was of great importance; for, before the appearance of
the third advertisement in the _London Gazette_, Whitefield had taken
successful steps for the erection of his own Tottenham Court Road
chapel, where, for awhile, at least, he and his people were permitted
to worship God in peace. But more of this anon.
Remembering that Wesley and his Society were permitted, throughout
the whole of these disgraceful proceedings, to conduct their services,
in their neighbouring West Street chapel, in perfect quietude, it is
difficult to account for the disturbances Whitefield had to encounter
in Long Acre. Were the “infernal” noises, in the first instance,
promoted by the adjoining theatres? Probably they were. Wesley’s
preaching in West Street was regarded, by dramatical actors, with less
alarm than Whitefield’s in Long Acre. They, probably, felt that, with
the great dramatical preacher so near to them, they might soon have
to utter a wailing cry, analogous to that of the old Ephesians, under
circumstances somewhat similar: “Not only is this our craft in danger
to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess
Diana should be despised, and her magnificence destroyed.” But,
even admitting that the theatres began the noises, there cannot be
a doubt that the vestries of the Church continued them. Bishop Pearce
undeniably prohibited Whitefield’s preaching; and, considering his
hatred of the Methodists, perhaps, it is not ungenerous to suppose that
he secretly did more than this. As it respects the three threatening
letters, it is probable that they emanated, neither from the theatre
nor Church, but from popish politicians, who, during the “seven years’
war,” which was now in terrific progress, were full of angry excitement,
and far more active than they often seemed to be. Whitefield had
bitterly offended them by the publication of a “Short Address,” a copy
of which he sent to Bishop Pearce on February 23;[387] and, as there
can be little doubt that this small publication had to do with the
riots and the threatening letters, a brief description of it may be
useful.
The title was, “A Short Address to Persons of all Denominations,
occasioned by the Alarm of an intended Invasion. By George Whitefield,
Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon. London,
1756.” (8vo. pp. 20.) The pamphlet had a large sale, not only in
Great Britain, but in America. Even during this selfsame year of
1756, as many as six editions were issued at Boston in New England.
Its publication was opportune. A Royal Proclamation had recently
been published in the _London Gazette_, setting forth that the king
commanded all officers and ministers, civil and military, within their
respective counties, to cause the coasts of England to be carefully
watched, and, in case of any hostile attempt to land upon them, to
immediately order all horses, oxen, and cattle, which might be fit for
draught or burden, and not actually employed in his Majesty’s service,
and also, as far as practicable, all other cattle and provisions, to
be removed at least twenty miles from the place where such a hostile
attempt was made, so as to prevent them falling into the hands of
the enemy. Besides this, “on the 6th of February, a public fast was
observed, by all ranks of the people. The churches and meeting-houses
were thronged; and there was, in appearance, an entire cessation
from business throughout London and the suburbs, and all over the
kingdom.”[388] From such facts the reader may imagine the state of the
country, when Whitefield wrote his “Short Address.” The following are
extracts from it:――
“An insulting, enraged, and perfidious enemy is now advancing
nearer and nearer to the British borders. Not content with
invading and ravaging our rightful sovereign King George’s
dominions in America, our popish adversaries have now the
ambition to attempt, at least to threaten, an invasion of
England itself; hoping, no doubt, thereby, not only to throw
us into confusion at home, but also to divert us from more
effectually defeating their malicious designs abroad. That such
a design is now actually on foot, the late Royal Proclamation
renders indisputable.”
Having referred to the recent public fast, Whitefield proceeds to
say:――
“Artful insinuations have been industriously published, in order
to lay all the blame of this war upon us. But bold assertions
and solid proofs are two different things; for it is plain,
beyond all contradiction, that the French, fond of rivalling
us both at home and abroad, have unjustly invaded his Majesty’s
dominions in America; and have also, by the most vile artifices
and lies, been endeavouring to draw the six nations of Indians
from our interest. In short, almost all their proceedings, since
the late treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, have been little else than a
tacit declaration of war. But He that sitteth in heaven, we may
humbly hope, laughs them to scorn; and, as He once came down to
confound the language of those aspiring projectors, who would
fain have built a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven,
so, we trust, He will frustrate the devices of our adversary’s
most subtle politicians, and speak confusion to all their
projects; who, by aiming at universal monarchy, are attempting
to erect a more than second Babel.”
Whitefield goes on to shew that good Christians may be soldiers, and
writes:――
“The British arms were never more formidable, than when our
soldiers went forth in the strength of the Lord; and, with a
Bible in one hand, and a sword in the other, cheerfully fought
under His banner, who has condescended to style Himself ‘a
man of war.’ What Bishop Saunderson says of study may be said
of fighting: ‘Fighting without prayer is atheism, and prayer
without fighting is presumption.’ I would be the more particular
on this point, because, through a _fatal scrupulosity_ against
bearing arms, even in a defensive war, his Majesty has been in
danger of losing the large province of Pennsylvania, the very
centre and garden of all North America. Such very scrupulous
persons, grasping at every degree of worldly power, and, by
all the arts of worldly policy, labouring to monopolize and
retain in their own hands all parts both of the legislative
and executive branches of civil government, certainly act a
most inconsistent part. Say what we will to the contrary, civil
magistracy and defensive war must stand or fall together. Both
are built upon the same basis; and there cannot be a single
argument urged to establish the one, which does not corroborate
and confirm the other.”
Whitefield then adverts to the recent earthquakes, at Lisbon and
elsewhere, and proceeds to say:――
“Were even the like judgments to befal us, they would be
but small, in comparison of our hearing that a French army,
accompanied with a popish pretender, and thousands of Romish
priests, was suffered to invade England, and to blind, deceive,
and tyrannize over the souls and consciences of the people
belonging to this happy isle. How can any serious and judicious
person be so stupid to all principles of self-interest, and so
dead to all maxims of common sense, as to prefer a French to an
English government; or a popish pretender, born, and bred up in
all the arbritary and destructive principles of the court and
Church of Rome, to the present _Protestant succession_, settled
in the illustrious line of Hanover?”
Whitefield next refers to popish persecutions of Protestants, and
remarks:――
“After perusing this,” (a late declaration of ‘his Most
Christian Majesty’ Louis XV.,) “read, also, I beseech you, the
shocking accounts of the horrid butcheries and cruel murders
committed on the bodies of many of our fellow-subjects in
America, by the hands of _savage Indians_, instigated thereto
by more than _savage popish priests_.[389] And if this be
the beginning, what may we suppose the end will be, should a
_French_ power, or popish pretender, be permitted to subdue
either us or them? Speak, _Smithfield_, speak, and, by thy
dumb but persuasive oratory, declare to all who pass by and
over thee, how many _English_ Protestant martyrs thou hast seen
burnt to death in the reign of the cruel popish queen, to whom
the present pretender to the _British_ throne claims a distant
kindred! Speak, _Ireland_, speak, and tell how many thousands
and tens of thousands of innocent, unprovoking Protestants were
massacred, in cold blood, by the hands of cruel Papists, within
thy borders, about a century ago! Speak, _Paris_, speak, and
say, how many thousands of Protestants were once slaughtered, to
serve as a bloody dessert, to grace the solemnity of a marriage
feast! Speak, _Languedoc_, speak, and tell how many Protestant
ministers have been lately executed; how many more of their
hearers have been dragooned and sent to the galleys; and how
many hundreds are now lying in prisons, fast bound in misery
and iron, for no other crime than that unpardonable one in the
_Romish_ Church, hearing and preaching the pure gospel of the
meek and lowly Jesus!
“And think you, my countrymen, that _Rome_, glutted with
Protestant blood, will now rest satisfied, and say, ‘I have
enough’? No, on the contrary, having through the good hand
of God upon us, been kept so long fasting, we may reasonably
suppose, that, the popish priests are only grown more voracious,
and, like so many hungry and ravenous wolves pursuing harmless
and innocent flocks of sheep, will with double eagerness,
pursue after, seize upon, and devour their wished-for Protestant
prey; and, attended with their bloody red coats, these Gallic
instruments of reformation, who know they must either fight or
die, will necessarily breathe out nothing but threatening and
slaughter, and carry along with them desolation and destruction,
go where they will.”
This was strong language, but, under the circumstances, not too
strong.[390] No wonder, however, that infuriated Papists sent the
writer threatening letters. Whitefield expresses his confidence
in God’s interposition, and in England’s “glorious fleet,” and
“well-disciplined army;” and then finishes with the following
peroration:――
“If we can but make God our friend, we need not fear what
_France_ and _Rome_ and _hell_ can do against us. All the
malicious efforts and designs of men and devils shall, so far
from obstructing, be made to subserve the enlargement of His
interests, who, in spite of all the strivings of the potsherds
of the earth, will hold the balance of _universal monarchy_ in
His own hands, and, at last, bring about the full establishment
of that blessed kingdom, whose law is truth, whose King is love,
and whose duration is eternity. _Fiat! fiat!_ Amen and amen!”
These are long quotations, but they help to shew the excited state
of public feeling in 1756; and, perhaps, they may help the reader
to understand the secrets of the disgraceful clangours, riots, and
threatening letters already mentioned.
In his pamphlet, Whitefield refers to the persecution of Protestants
in France. Much might be said respecting this; but suffice it to
remark, that, on the general fast day, February 6th, Whitefield made
a collection in his Tabernacle, eighty pounds of which he devoted to a
fund which was being raised for the assistance of these poor persecuted
people.[391] Remembering that, in 1756, money was probably of four
times greater worth than it is at present, this collection of the poor
Methodists was a noble one; but even this fell far short of the sum,
which Whitefield, three months afterwards, obtained, within a week,
towards the erection of his Tottenham Court Road chapel. Hence the
following, addressed to the Countess of Huntingdon:――
“LONDON, _May 2, 1756_.
“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Various have been my exercises since
I wrote you last; but, I find, all things happen for the
furtherance of the gospel. I suppose your ladyship has seen
his Majesty’s promise of pardon to any who will discover the
letter-writer; and this brings you the further news of my
having taking a piece of ground, very commodious to build
on, not far from the Foundling Hospital. On Sunday, I opened
the subscription, and, through God’s blessing, it has already
amounted to near £600. If He is pleased to continue to smile
upon my poor endeavours, and to open the hearts of more of His
dear children to contribute, I hope, in a few months, to have
what has long been wanted,――a place for the gospel at the other
end of the town. This evening, God willing, I venture once more
to preach at Long Acre. The enemy boasts that I am frightened
away; but the triumph of the wicked is short. On Tuesday next,
I hope to set out for Wales.”
The site of Whitefield’s new chapel was surrounded by fields and
gardens. On the north side of it, there were but two houses. The next
after them, half a mile further, was the “Adam and Eve” public-house;
and thence, to Hampstead, there were only the inns of “Mother Red
Cap” and “Black Cap.”[392] The chapel, when first erected, was seventy
feet square within the walls. Two years after it was opened, twelve
almshouses and a minister’s house[393] were added. About a year after
that, the chapel was found to be too small, and it was enlarged to its
present dimensions of a hundred and twenty-seven feet long, and seventy
feet broad, with a dome a hundred and fourteen feet in height. Beneath
it were vaults for the burial of the dead; and in which Whitefield
intended that himself and his friends, John and Charles Wesley, should
be interred. “I have prepared a vault in this chapel,” Whitefield used
to say to his somewhat bigotted congregation, “where I intend to be
buried, and Messrs. John and Charles Wesley shall also be buried there.
We will all lie together. You will not let them enter your chapel
while they are alive. They can do you no harm when they are dead.”[394]
The lease of the ground was granted, to Whitefield, by General George
Fitzroy, and, on its expiration in 1828, the freehold was purchased for
£14,000. The foundation-stone of the chapel was laid in the beginning
of June, 1756, when Whitefield preached from the words, “They sang
together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because
He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the
people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because
the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid.” (Ezra iii. 11.)[395]
Among others present on the occasion, were the Rev. Thomas Gibbons,
one of the Tutors of the Dissenting Academy at Mile End; Dr. Andrew
♦Gifford, Assistant Librarian of the British Museum; and the celebrated
Rev. Benjamin Grosvenor, D.D., for many years the pastor of the
Presbyterian congregation in Crosby Square, and who, after preaching
in London for half a century, had recently retired into private life.
The chapel was opened for divine worship on November 7, 1756, when
Whitefield selected, as his text, the words, “Other foundation can no
man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. iii. 11).[396]