Chapter V: Preface (3)

ON _Thursday_ evening I came hither from the _Gloucester_ assizes, where I have been engaged in a trial between some of those who are called Methodists, and some violent rioters. Perhaps this news may a little startle you, and put you upon enquiry (as it hath done some others) “How we came to go to law with our adversaries, when it is our avowed principle to suffer patiently for the truth’s sake?” I will tell you, my dear friend: though perhaps there is nothing in the world more abused than the law, and there are very few that go to law out of a proper principle; yet we hold, that there is a proper use of it, and the law is good, when used lawfully. Whether or know we have used it lawfully in the present case, I shall leave my friend to judge, after I have told him the motives that induced us to engage in it.――――The Methodists, you know, are every where accounted enthusiasts, in the worst sense of the word; but though they are accounted such, yet they would not be enthusiasts in reality. Now we look upon it to be one species of enthusiasm, to expect to attain an end, without making use of proper means. We also think, that believers should be very careful not to be fond of suffering persecution, when they may avoid it, by making application to the higher powers. We are likewise of opinion, that good christians will be good subjects, and consequently it is their duty, as much as in them lies, to put a stop to every thing, in a rightful way, that may prove destructive to the king or the government under which they live. Christian ministers, in particular, we think, ought to consider the weakness of people’s grace, and, in pity to precious souls, do what they can to remove every thing out of the way, that may discourage or prevent poor people’s hearing the everlasting gospel. These considerations, my dear friend, for some time past, have led me to examine whether the _Methodists_ in general (and I myself in particular) have acted the part of good subjects, and judicious christian ministers, in so long neglecting to make an application to the superior courts, and putting in execution the wholesome laws of the land, in order to prevent those many dreadful outrages which have been committed against us. I need not descend to particulars. Our _Weekly History_ is full of them; and before that came out, several of our brethren, both in _England_ and _Wales_, have received much damage from time to time, and been frequently in great hazard of their lives. _Wiltshire_ has been very remarkable for mobbing and abusing the Methodists; and, for about ten months last past, it has also prevailed very much in _Gloucestershire_, especially at _Hampton_, where our friend Mr. _Adams_ has a dwelling-house, and has been much blessed to many people. This displeased the grand enemy of souls, who stirred up many of the baser sort, privately encouraged by some of a higher rank, to come from time to time, in great numbers, with a low-bell and horn, to beset the house, and beat and abuse the people. About the beginning of _July_ last, their opposition seemed to rise to the highest. For several days they assembled in great bodies, broke the windows, and mobbed the people to such a degree, that many expected to be murdered, and hid themselves in holes and corners, to avoid the rage of their adversaries. Once, when I was there, they continued from four in the afternoon till midnight, rioting, giving loud huzzas, casting dirt upon the hearers, and making proclamations, “That no Anabaptists, Presbyterians, &c. should preach there, upon pain of being first put into a skin-pit, and afterwards into a brook.” At another time they pulled one or two women down the stairs by the hair of their heads. And on the 10th of _July_ they came, to the number of near a hundred, in their usual way, with a low-bell and horn, about five in the afternoon, forced into Mr. _Adams_’s house, and demanded him down the stairs whereon he was preaching, took him out of his house, and threw him into a skin-pit full of noisome things and stagnated water. One of our friends, named _Williams_, asking them, “If they were not ashamed to serve an innocent man so?” they put him into the same pit twice, and afterwards beat him, and dragged him along the kennel. Mr. _Adams_ quietly returned home, and betook himself to prayer, and exhorted the people to rejoice in suffering for the sake of the gospel. In about half an hour, they came to the house again, dragged him down the stairs, and led him away a mile and a half to a place called _Bourn-brook_, and then threw him in. A stander-by, fearing he might be drowned, jumped in and pulled him out; whereupon another of the rioters immediately pushed him into the pool a second time, and cut his leg against a stone, so that he went lame for near a fortnight. Both the constable and justices were applied to, but refused to act; and seemed rather to countenance the mobbing, hoping thereby _Methodism_ (as they called it) would be put a stop to, at least at _Hampton_. For a season they gained their end. There was no preaching for some time, the people fearing to assemble on account of the violence of the mob. Upon my return to town, I advised with my friends what to do. We knew we wanted to exercise no revenge against the rioters, and yet we thought it wrong that the gospel should be stopped by such persons, when the government under which we lived countenanced no such thing; and also, that it was absurd to thank GOD for wholesome laws, if they were not to be made use of. We knew very well, that an Apostle had told us, that magistrates were ordained for the punishment of evil doers; and that they bear not the sword in vain. We were also fearful, that if any of our brethren should be murdered by future riotings (as in all probability they might), we should be accessary to their death, if we neglected to tie up the rioters hands, which was all we desired to do. Besides, we could not look upon this as allowed persecution, since it was not countenanced by the laws of the land, and we might have redress from these rioters and inferior magistrates, by appealing to _Cæsar_, whose real friends and loyal subjects we judged ourselves not to be, if we suffered his laws to be publicly trampled under foot by such notorious rioting; and which, though begun against the Methodists, might terminate in open rebellion against King _George_. For these and such like reasons, we thought it our duty to move for an information in the _King’s-Bench_ against five of the ring-leaders, and fixed upon the riot which they made on _Sunday, July 10_, when they put Mr. _Adams_ and _Williams_ into the skin-pit and brook. But before this was done, I wrote a letter to one whom they called Captain, desiring him to inform his associates, “That if they would acknowledge their fault, pay for curing a boy’s arm, which was broken the night I was there, and mend the windows of Mr. _Adams_’s house, we would readily pass all by; but if they persisted in their resolutions to riot, we thought it our duty to prevent their doing, and others receiving, further damage, by moving for an information against them in the _King’s-Bench_.” I also sent a copy of this letter to a minister of the town, and to a justice of the peace, with a letter to each from myself: but all in vain. The rioters sent me a most insolent answer, wrote me word, “They were in high spirits, and were resolved there should be no more preaching in _Hampton_.” Finding them _irreclaimable_, we moved the next term for a rule of court in the _King’s-Bench_ to lodge an information against five of the ring-leaders, for the outrage committed, violence offered, and damage done to Mr. _Adams_ and _Williams_, on _Sunday, July 10_. The rioters were apprized of it, appeared by their council, and prayed the rule might be enlarged till the next term. It was granted. In the mean while they continued mobbing, broke into Mr. _Adams_’s house one _Saturday_ night at eleven o’clock, when there was no preaching, made those that were in bed get up, and searched the oven, cellar, and every corner of the house, to see whether they could find any Methodists. Some time after, they threw another young man into a mud-pit three times successively, and abused the people in a dreadful manner. The next term came on. We proved our accusations by twenty-six affidavits; and the defendants making no reply, the rule was made absolute, and an information filed against them. To this they pleaded NOT GUILTY; and, according to the method in the crown-office, the cause was referred to the assize held at _Gloucester_, _March_ 3d.――――Thither I went, and on _Tuesday_ morning last the trial came on. It was given out by some, “That the Methodists were to lose the cause, whether right or wrong.” And I believe the Defendants depended much on a supposition, that the gentlemen and jury would be prejudiced against us. We were easy, knowing that our Saviour had the hearts of all in his hands. Being aware of the great consequences of gaining or losing this trial, both in respect to us and the nation, we kept a day of fasting and prayer through all the societies both in _England_ and _Wales_. Our _Scotch_ friends also joined with us; and chearfully committed our cause into his hands by whom kings reign and princes decree justice. We had about thirty witnesses to prove the riot and facts laid down in the information. Our council opened the cause (as I heard, being not present when the trial begun) with much solidity and sound reasoning: they shewed, “That rioters were not to be reformers; and that his Majesty had no where put the reins of government into the hands of mobbers, or made them judge or jury.” One of them in particular, with great gravity reminded the gentlemen on the jury of the advice of _Gamaliel_, a doctor of the law, recorded _Acts_ v. 38, 39. “Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of GOD, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against GOD.” Our witnesses were then called. I came into court when the second witness was examining. Mr. _Adams_ and four more (three of which were not called Methodists) so clearly proved both the riot and the facts laid to the charge of the Defendants, that the Judge was of opinion there needed no other evidence. The council for the Defendants then rose, and exerted a good deal of oratory, and I think said all that could well be said, to make the best of a bad matter. One urged, “That we were enthusiasts, and our principles and practices had such a tendency to infect and hurt the people, that it was right, in his opinion, for any private person to stand up and put a stop to us; and whoever did so, was a friend to his country.” He strove to influence the jury, by telling them, “That if a verdict was given against the Defendants, it would cost them two hundred pounds: that the Defendants rioting was not premeditated; but, that coming to hear Mr. _Adams_, and being offended at his doctrine, a sudden quarrel arose, and thereby the unhappy men were led into the present fray, which he could have wished had not happened; but however it did not amount to a riot, but only an _assault_.” Their other council then informed the jury, “That they would undertake to prove that the Methodists began the tumult first.” He was pleased also to mention me by name, and acquainted the court, “That Mr. _Whitefield_ had been travelling from common to common, making the people cry, and then picking their pockets, under pretence of collecting money for the colony of _Georgia_; and knowing that _Gloucestershire_ was a populous country, he at last came there. That he had now several curates, of which Mr. _Adams_ was one, who in his preaching had found fault with the proceedings of the clergy, and said if the people went to hear them, they would be damned. He added, that there had lately been such mobbing in _Staffordshire_, that a regiment of soldiers was sent down to suppress them; insinuating that the Methodists were the authors. That we had now another cause of a like nature depending in _Wiltshire_; and that we were not of that mild pacific spirit, as we would pretend to be.”――――This, and much more to the same purpose, though foreign to the matter in hand, pleased many of the auditors, who expressed their satisfaction in hearing the Methodists in general, and me in particular, thus lashed, by frequent laughing. The eyes of all were upon me. Our Saviour kept me quite easy. I thought of that verse of _Horace_,

――――Hic murus aheneus esto,
Nil conscire sibi, nullâ pallescere culpâ.

_Tertullus_’s accusing _Paul_ came also to my mind, and I looked upon myself as highly honoured in having such things spoken against me ♦falsely for CHRIST’s great name’s sake. To prove what the Defendants council had insinuated, they called up a young man, who was brother to one of the Defendants, and one of the mob. He swore point blank, “That Mr. _Adams_ said, if people went to church, they would be damned; and if they would come to him, he would carry them to JESUS CHRIST. He swore also, that the pool in which Mr. _Adams_ was thrown, was no deeper than half way up his legs. He said first, that there were about ten of them that came to the house of Mr. _Adams_; and then he swore that there were about threescore. He said, there was a low-bell, and that one of the Defendants did ask Mr. _Adams_ to come down off the stairs, but that none of them went up to him; upon which Mr. _Adams_ willingly obeyed, went with them briskly along the street, and, as he would have represented it, put himself into the skin-pit and pool, and so came out again.” He said also some other things; but through his whole evidence appeared so flagrantly false, that one of the counsellors said, “It was enough to make his hair stand an end.” The Judge himself wished, “He had had so much religion as to fear an oath.” So he went down in disgrace. Their second evidence was an aged woman, mother to one of the defendants. She swore, “That her son did go up the stairs to Mr. _Adams_, and that Mr. _Adams_ tore her son’s coat, and would have broken his neck down stairs.” But she talked so fast, and her evidence was so palpably false, that she was sent away in as much disgrace as the other. Their third and last evidence was father to one who was in the mob, though not one of the defendants. The chief he had to say was, “That when Mr. _Adams_ was coming from the pool, one met him, and said, “Brother, how do you do?” Upon which he answered, “That he had received no damage, but had been in the pool, and came out again.” So that all their evidences, however contrary one to another, yet corroborated ours, and proved the riot out of their own mouths. The book was then given to a justice of the peace, who had formerly taken up Mr. _Cennick_, for preaching near _Stroud_, and had lately given many signal proofs that he was no friend to the Methodists. But he intending to speak only about their characters, and the council and Judge looking upon that as quite impertinent to the matter in hand, he was not admitted as an evidence.――――Upon this, his Lordship, with great candour and impartiality, summed up the evidence, and told the jury, “That he thought they should bring all the Defendants in _guilty_; for our evidences had sufficiently proved the whole of the information, and also that the riot was premeditated.” He said, “That, in his opinion, the chief of the Defendants evidence was incredible; and that, supposing the Methodists were heterodox, (as perhaps they might be) it belonged to the ecclesiastical government to call them to an account; that they were subjects, and rioters were not to be their reformers.” ――――He also reminded them of the dreadful ill consequences of rioting at any time, much more at such a critical time as this; that rioting was the fore-runner of, and might end in, rebellion; that it was felony, without benefit of clergy, to pull down a meeting-house; and, for all as he knew, it was high-treason to pull down even a bawdy-house. That this information came from the _King’s-Bench_; that his Majesty’s justices there thought they had sufficient reason to grant it; that the matters contained in it had been evidently proved before them, and consequently they should bring all the Defendants in guilty.”

♦ “falsly” replaced with “falsely”

Upon this the jury were desired to consider of their verdict. There seemed to be some little demur amongst them. His Lordship perceiving it, informed them, “They had nothing to do with the damages, (that was to be referred to the _King’s-Bench_) they were only to consider whether the Defendants were guilty or not.” Whereupon, in a few minutes, they gave a verdict for the prosecutors, and brought in all the Defendants, “guilty of the whole information lodged against them.” I then retired to my lodgings, kneeled down, and gave thanks, with some friends, to our all-conquering _Emmanuel_. Afterwards I went to the inn, prayed, and returned thanks with the witnesses, exhorted them to behave with meekness and humility to their adversaries, and after they had taken proper refreshment sent them home rejoicing. In the evening I preached on those words of the Psalmist, “By this I know, that thou favourest me, since thou hast not suffered mine enemy to triumph over me.” GOD was pleased to enlarge my heart much. I was very happy with my friends afterwards, and the next morning set out for _London_, where we have had a blessed thanksgiving season, and from whence I take the first opportunity of sending you as many particulars of the occasion, progress, and issue of our trial, as I can well recollect. What report his Lordship will be pleased to make of the case, and how the Defendants will be dealt with, cannot be known till next term; when I know I shall apprize you of it, as also of our behaviour towards them. ――――In the mean while let me entreat you to give thanks to the blessed JESUS in our behalf, and to pray that his word may have free course, may run and be glorified, and a stop be put to all such rebellious proceedings. I remain, Sir,

Your very affectionate friend, and humble servant,

GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

⁂ For more particulars of this affair, see Volume II. Letters 526, 527, 529, 545, 549, and 550.

A
LETTER
TO THE
Revᵈ. THOMAS CHURCH, M.A.
Vicar of BATTERSEA, and Prebendary of ST. PAUL’S;
IN
ANSWER
TO HIS
Serious and Expostulatory LETTER
TO THE
Revᵈ. GEORGE WHITEFIELD,
On Occasion of his late LETTER to the Bishop of LONDON,
and other Bishops.

A
LETTER, &c.

_London, May 22, 1744._

_Reverend Sir_,

I HAVE read your expostulatory letter, and thank you for prefixing your name. Had the author of the observations been so ingenuous, he would have saved you and me some trouble; but as he hath not, and the pamphlet was published in such a way, I cannot think myself justly chargeable with ill-manners or censoriousness, for treating him and their Lordships concerned, in the manner I have done. Our Saviour dealt always very plainly with the rulers of the _Jewish Church_; and when one was offended, and said, “Master, thus saying, thou reproachest us also,” he was so far from recanting, that he said, “And woe unto you also ye lawyers.” In the same spirit, the proto-martyr _Stephen_ addressed himself to the _Jewish Sanhedrim_, and said unto them, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” And however shocking, Rev. Sir, it may appear to you, (page 43d of your letter) for us to urge our LORD’s example and his blessed apostles, yet I think it quite consistent for a minister, who has received an apostolical commission at his ordination, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands, &c.” to make use of the example of our LORD and his apostles, in vindication of his conduct; because CHRIST left us an example, that we might follow his steps; and we are called to be followers of the apostles, as they were of JESUS CHRIST. I know not how to give flattering titles, and therefore must stand to it, that they are false witnesses, however dignified or distinguished, and lay to my charge a thing that I know not, who tax me with being an _open defier of government_, for preaching in the fields. Neither do I think I have wronged the author of the observations at all, by insinuating, “That the design and scope of this pamphlet was to represent the proceedings of the Methodists as dangerous to the church and state, in order to procure an act of parliament against them, or oblige them to secure themselves by turning dissenters.” That this was his drift, (at least that he intended to move the government against the Methodists in general, and me in particular) I think appears quite plain from a little two-penny paper lately published, (I suppose by the same anonymous author) wherein he declares, “That though Mr. _Whitefield_ has pleaded in behalf of the Methodists, that they are an harmless and loyal people, yet 1st. He cannot possibly be supposed to know all the persons, or even one tenth part of those present at his meetings of 30, 50, or 80000.――2d. When he appoints or holds a meeting, all people are at liberty to come, and to carry on such purposes as they think proper.――3d. Such a free and safe resort for great multitudes to one place, subject to no controul or examination, is doubtless a great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” He adds, “How consistently with the act of toleration, or with what safety to the public, these field-preachings may be continued, let the world judge.” If this be not intended to move the government against me, surely there was never a motion made against any man living; but with what little shew of true reasoning I need not mention. Let the world judge.

Here lies the point, Rev. Sir: the generality of the clergy are offended in their hearts, that his majesty is so mild towards his harmless and loyal people the Methodists. They have denied the Methodist preachers the use of their churches, and think, if field-preaching was put a stop to, Methodism, as they term it, would be less extensive. But were they to gain their point, and the preachers to be bound, yet perhaps after all they would find themselves mistaken, for the word of GOD would not be bound. And I remember a saying of the then Lord Chancellor to that holy martyr _Bradford_, “Thou hast done more hurt (as he called it) by thy letters and exhortations since thou hast been in prison, than thou ever didst before.” However this be, field-preaching is at present the clergy’s eye-sore. Hence they raise a clamour that it is unlawful. We deny it. We say the act of toleration urged against us is nothing to the purpose, for we are true members of the established church; and that if we were not (_quod magno mercenter Atridæ_) yet the trial of _Mede_ and _Pen_ is an adjudged case. But still, if you or any other person please to move for an information against me, for preaching in a field, or a street, though I purpose to go abroad shortly, yet I shall think it my duty to stay some time, to make a legal defence. But if not, henceforward whatever questions may be put to me in print, about the lawfulness of field-preaching, they will lie unanswered.

Not that I think it is barely field-preaching that gives the generality of the clergy such offence. No, it is the doctrine that I preach there, that is the grand cause of their contending with me. You are pleased, Rev. Sir, to say (Page 39th) “That I have revived the old _Calvinistical disputes_ concerning predestination, &c.” (I suppose you mean justification by faith alone, the imputed righteousness of JESUS CHRIST, man’s utter inability to turn to GOD, or to do good works, &c.) “Which you say had happily slept for so many years.” But if this be my shame, I glory in it. For what is this but reviving the essential articles of the _Church of England_, which undoubtedly are Calvinistical, and which, by your own confession, have happily slept for so many years? This is too true. But however you may count this a happiness, yet in my opinion it is one of the greatest judgments that has befallen our nation. And if it had not been for the remnant of free-grace, dissenting ministers, (stiled by the author of the observations, dissenting teachers) and the little flock of the Methodist preachers, that the LORD JESUS has raised up and preserved amongst us, many of the essential doctrines of the articles of the Church of _England_ might have, as you term it, happily slept many years more.

These, Rev. Sir, are the real sentiments of my heart. I think they are founded on truth and soberness. And if so, blame me not, as you do (page 21st) for comparing the Church of _England_, as it now subsists, to a _leaky ship_. For is it not too evident that she is not only leaky, but really _sinking_, when several of the Right Reverend the Bishops, and a prebendary of _St. Paul’s_, can openly plead for works being a condition of our justification in the sight of GOD? This was the particular charge my Lord of _London_ gave his clergy in his last pastoral letter, “So to explain the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as not to exclude good works from being a condition of our justification.” Was the great apostle of the Gentiles now living, what anathema’s would he pronounce against such _Judaizing_ doctrine? Was _Luther_ on earth, how would he thunder against such a charge? For he calls justification by faith alone, _articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ_. This is the great fundamental point in which we differ from the church of _Rome_. This is the grand point of contention between the generality of the established clergy, and the Methodist preachers: we plead for free justification in the sight of GOD, by faith alone, in the imputed righteousness of JESUS CHRIST, without any regard to works past, present, or to come. You (_Bellarmine_ like) are for making your works, conditions (page 17th); “And joining your honest, though imperfect endeavours to serve and please your Maker, with a hearty trust and confidence in his everlasting mercies,” (page 42.) You say, (page 58th) we are very far from building wholly on our morality;” we say, our morality is not to be built on at all, but that “CHRIST is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” This, you think, is one of my errors. But if it be an error, it is a scriptural error; and so plainly taught in the eleventh article of our church, that he that runs may read: and however you may blame me for insinuating, “That some of the clergy may adhere to his majesty only for his preferments, and consequently not appear altogether so hearty in a time of danger;” yet I cannot think it an instance of hard-judging at all. For if persons can deliberately subscribe to the doctrines of justification by faith alone, and other articles that are purely _Calvinistical_, yet so explain them away as plainly to prove they scarce believe a word of them, I should not wonder if they turned _Jacobites_, or went over to the pretender, whenever they saw it suited their worldly interest so to do.

That I am not alone in my opinion, give me leave, Rev. Sir, to transcribe a passage I lately met with in the latter end of a book, entitled, _The Honeycomb of Free Justification_, written by one Mr. _Eaton_, A.M. of _Trinity College_ in _Cambridge_, printed at _London_ in the year 1642.

“Free justification was first enjoined to be diligently taught, for the reformation of the church, by King _Henry_ VIII. but was by King _Edward_ VI. and Queen _Elizabeth_, principally established by parliament, and singled out from all the rest of the established articles of religion; and reduced into sermons and homilies to be (after the people’s sight of their lost estate, and woeful misery by sin) _principally taught_, and chiefly known and understood of all the subjects and commons of the land, for these four causes.

1st. “Because it is the only immediate cause and means of our peace with GOD. For being justified by faith we have peace with GOD, _Romans_ v. 1. and our assurance of free salvation by JESUS CHRIST, and is therefore called the justification of life, _Romans_ v. 18. ‘For whom GOD justifieth, them he also glorifieth,’ _Romans_ viii. 30.

2d. “Because it is the ordinance of GOD (quite contrary to the judgment of popish carnal reason) that powerfully causeth people to leave their sins, and live a true sanctified and godly life. _Titus_ ii. 11 to 15. _Romans_ 5th and 6th chapter.

3d. “Because it is the chief cause and means to discover and suppress the _Romish_ antichrist, popery, &c. and all other superstitions, sects, errors and schisms out of the land; and to establish unity, peace and concord in matters of religion, and of assurance of free salvation, and makes every man to keep in a lawful vocation, and to do it profitably in love. _Galatians_ v. 13.

4th. “To direct ministers ὀρθοποδεῖν to go with a right foot to the truth of the gospel, _Galatians_ ii. 14. in sound preaching, and pure declaring of the word of GOD, by true faith of free justification, because (saith the established doctrine of our church) sincere preachers ever were, and ever shall be but a few; and their preaching of GOD’s word most sincere in the beginning, by process of time waxeth less and less pure, and after is corrupt, and last of all quite laid down, and left off; because free justification is a doctrine hardly learned in a church, and soon lost again, _Galatians_ i. 6. and yet is the true strength, happiness and safety of the whole land, _Isaiah_ lxii. 1‒6.”

Hereupon, the 5th part of the sermon against disobedience and rebellion, established by Queen _Elizabeth_, teacheth the commons, that such bishops or ecclesiastical persons, as by pride and ambitious rule, do by terms of error, schism, or heresy, hinder this _main light of GOD’s word_ from the people, are the _chiefest traytors_ in the land: and the 6th and last part largely teacheth, that such subjects and commons to whom through ignorance of GOD’s word, this light of righteousness, and this sun of understanding doth not shine, although they may brag, as did sometimes the _Jewish_ clergy and people, that they cannot lack knowledge, yet are such by their blind dead faith, traytors to GOD, traytors to their king, traytors to their own souls and bodies, and traytors to the whole land and country.”

Thus writes that good man Mr. _Eaton_. I leave you, Rev. Sir, to make what use of it you please. You see we have human as well as divine authority on our side. And yet we are looked upon as erroneous, and are accordingly denied the churches: and what for? even for preaching up the doctrine of justification by faith alone; for which the glorious martyrs of the Church of _England_ burnt in _Smithfield_. If this be not like _Nero_’s setting _Rome_ on fire, and then charging it upon the christians, I know not what is.

This is really, Rev. Sir, the truth of the case. However, we are willing to frequent the church, and receive the holy sacrament, if the clergy please to give us leave. This I think we may do, without being guilty of the inconsistency you charge us with (page 29th), because in the 26th article of our church we are taught, “Although in the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments: yet, forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in CHRIST’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the word of GOD, and in receiving of the sacraments: neither is the effect of CHRIST’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of GOD’s gifts diminished from such, as by faith, and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual, because of CHRIST’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.” This I think a sufficient vindication, for the methodists keeping in the church. But if some cannot go thus far, nor bear to hear the doctrine of justification by faith alone continually preached against, the preachers must thank themselves if any entirely desert the church, and run to meeting-houses or elsewhere, to get food for their souls. For I am persuaded, if the doctrine of justification by faith alone be banished from our pulpits, people may attend to their lives end, and yet never have the whole counsel of GOD (as you think they may, page 50.) declared unto them.

I could enlarge upon this point, and also answer the charge of enthusiasm which you bring against me in several parts of your letter. But I willingly omit it, because I shall have occasion to write more explicitly on these points in my second answer to the _Observations_: I have some reasons for deferring it at present. But I assure you, Rev. Sir, you must not expect me to treat that anonymous author with less justice than in my last. For however worthy perhaps he may be in your sight, I think I shall prove him to be no better than an unskilful slandering sophister; and if a clergyman, an unorthodox blind guide.

As for the irregularities I have been guilty of, in curtailing the liturgy, or not using the common-prayer in the fields, &c. I think it needless to make any apology, till I am called thereto in a judicial way by my ecclesiastical superiors. They have laws and courts. In and by those, ecclesiastics are to be judged; and I am ready to make a proper defence, as I mentioned in my answer to the first part of the observations, whenever it shall be required at my hands. Only I would beg leave to observe, that by calling extempore prayer, _extempore effusions_, you cast a slur upon the whole body of dissenters, and on many of the reformed churches abroad. And as the free grace dissenters have helped to keep up the _Calvinistical_ disputes, which you say have happily slept in the established church for so many years; was it not for his Majesty’s great kindness, and the lenity of his government, they would meet with no better treatment than the poor Methodists do now.

Indeed you say (page 41st) “We do not oppose or deny the true scripture doctrine concerning these points, (viz. Free justification, the new birth, and the in-dwelling of the spirit) but only your account and explication of them.” Give me leave therefore, Rev. Sir, if you are pleased to favour me with another letter, to let me know how you explain these important points, or what you can find inconsistent with scripture, or the articles of the church of _England_, in those discourses which I have published, and in which I have endeavoured to treat on these points in an explicit manner.

I would observe to you, that I wish every non-resident minister in _England_, could give as good an account of their non-residence, as I can of my absence from _Savannah_. To satisfy you, Rev. Sir, I will acquaint you with the whole. When I first went abroad, I was appointed to be minister of _Frederica_. But upon my arrival in _Georgia_, finding there was no minister at _Savannah_, and no place of worship at _Frederica_, by the advice of magistrates and people, I continued at _Savannah_, teaching publicly, and from house to house, and catechising the children day by day, during the whole time of my first continuance in _Georgia_; except about a fortnight in which I went to _Frederica_ to visit the people, and to see about building a church, for which I had given fifty pounds out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a public account. About four months after, I came over to _England_ to receive priest’s orders, and collect money for building an Orphan-house. At the request of many, the honourable trustees presented me to the living of _Savannah_. I accepted it, but refused the stipend of fifty pounds per annum, which they generously offered me. Neither did I put them to any expence during my stay in _England_, where I thought it my duty to abide, till I had collected a sufficient sum wherewith I might begin the Orphan-house, though I should have left _England_ sooner, had I not been prevented by the embargo. However, I was more easy because the honourable trustees, I knew had sent over another minister, who arrived soon after I left the colony. Upon my second arrival at _Georgia_, finding the care of the Orphan-house, and the care of the parish, too great a task for me, I immediately wrote over to the honourable trustees to provide another minister. In the mean while, as most of my parishioners were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being employed, and as I believed, that erecting an Orphan-house would be the best thing I could do for them and their posterity, I thought it my duty, from time to time, to answer the invitations that were sent me to preach CHRIST JESUS in several parts of _America_, and to make more collections towards carrying on the Orphan-house. The LORD stirred up many to be ready to distribute and willing to communicate on this occasion. I always came home furnished with provisions and money, most of which was expended among the people, and by this means the northern part of the colony almost entirely subsisted for a considerable time. This was asserted, not very long ago, before the house of commons. And now, Sir, judge you whether my non-residence, was any thing like the non-residents of most of the _English_ clergy. When I was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living at ease, but preaching and begging for them and theirs: and when I returned, it was not to fleece my flock, and then go and spend it upon my lusts, or lay it up for a fortune for myself and relations. No: freely as I had received, freely I gave: and “therefore when the ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the eye saw me, it gave witness to me: because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me; and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.” I am become a fool in glorying. But you have compelled me. The GOD and Father of our LORD JESUS CHRIST knoweth that I lie not. I fought not theirs, but them. And however you may judge me, (page 20th) as though I chose this itinerant way of preaching for the sake of _Profit_; yet I assure you the last day will prove that you and all like-minded are quite mistaken. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of GOD and the good of souls is my only aim. The manner of my call to my present way of acting, if the LORD gives me freedom, shall be the subject of a future tract. I send you this short letter, to convince you that I am really willing to give an answer of the hope that is in me, with ♦meekness and fear. I shall only add, if you do not like the example of _Gallio_ (page 27th) I would humbly recommend to you the advice of _Gamaliel_. “Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this council, or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of GOD, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against GOD.” I am, Rev. Sir,

Your affectionate brother and servant,

GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

♦ “meakness” replaced with “meekness”

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 RIGHT
REVEREND the BISHOPS concerned in the Publication thereof.

_False Witnesses did rise up: they laid to my Charge Things that
I knew not_,
Psalms xxxv. 11.

A
LETTER
To the Right Reverend
The Bishop of LONDON, &c.

_London, March 1744._

_My Lords_,

THE Apostle _Peter_ exhorts us, “to be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear.” And if this is to be our conduct towards every one, much more are we bound to behave thus to those who are overseers of the church of GOD, and consequently are invested with an authority to require an answer at our hands.

A desire of complying with this apostolical injunction, induced me, my Lords, about five weeks ago, to publish an Advertisement¹, wherein I desired an open publication of several anonymous papers, entitled, _Observations upon the conduct and behaviour of a certain sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodists_. Papers, which, upon enquiry, I found had been printed some considerable time, had been read in the societies of _London_ and _Westminster_, and handed about in a private manner to particular friends, with strict orders to part with them to no one. What could be the meaning of such a procedure, I know not. But this I know, however such a clandestine way of acting, may savour of the wisdom of the serpent, it does not bespeak that ♦harmlessness of the dove, which our Saviour in an especial manner recommends to his ministers.

¹ 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 connexion
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_.
_London, January 26, 1744._

♦ “harmlesness” replaced with “harmlessness”

Who the real author of these papers may be, I am not yet able for a certainty to find out. But I had reason to believe, that my Lord of _London_ was concerned in composing or revising them. That I might not be mistaken, after the publication of the advertisement, I wrote his Lordship a letter¹, wherein I desired to know, whether his Lordship was the author of this paper or not, and also desired a copy. His Lordship was pleased to send word by my friend, who carried the letter, that “I should hear from him.” Hitherto his Lordship has not favoured me with an answer. Only some time ago, one Mr. _Owen_, a printer, in _Amen-Corner, Pater-noster Row_, who is printer to my Lord of _London_, left a letter² for me, wherein he informed me, that he had orders from SEVERAL OF THE BISHOPS to print the _Observations on the conduct and behaviour of the Methodists_ (WITH SOME FEW ADDITIONS) for their use; and when the impression was finished, I should have a copy. Why my Lord of _London_, or the several other Bishops concerned, should conceal their names, or why a copy should be denied me, so long after the papers had been printed, I leave the world to judge. I cannot think such a way of proceeding can gain your Lordships any credit from the public, or any thanks from the other Bishops who have not interested themselves in this affair, and who, I believe, are more NOBLE, than to countenance the publication of any such performance.

¹ _My Lord_,
_London, February 1, 1744._

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 some anonymous papers, which have been handed
about in 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 much 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 please to favour me with a line, be pleased to
direct for me, to be left with Mr. _J. Syms_, &c.

² _Sir_,
_February 3. 1744._

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, &c.

It is a weighty thing with me, my Lords, to have insinuations made, or queries put to me, in respect to my practice and doctrine, in such a public manner, by persons that are placed at the head of the church. It is true, your Lordships have not put queries to me in your own names; but as the author has concealed his, and these papers are printed by your Lordships orders, you have thereby adopted them for your own; consequently, I am put under a necessity of directing this letter as I have done. And I can assure your Lordships, that with great deference to the dignity of your office, after earnest prayer, with I trust some degree of humility, and unfeigned simplicity of heart, I now sit down to perform my promise, to give a candid and impartial answer to the fore-mentioned papers, which were sent me last week, (collected into a pamphlet) by Mr. _Owen_; and I suppose, by your Lordships order.

I never yet was, and hope never shall be so far left to lean to my own understanding, as to fancy myself infallible. Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and of the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart; not to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others, and 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, which cometh from GOD’s altar.――If therefore, upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable in any respect (as in all probability I may) 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 thus much may be said, your Lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair to give stabs in the dark; and it is some satisfaction to the person attacked, to know who and what his antagonists are, that he may know the better how to deal with them. But since that cannot be granted, it may be more to the purpose, to consider the matters contained in the pamphlet, and to answer for myself, so far as I am concerned.

It is entitled, _Observations upon the conduct and behavior_ (_i. e._ upon the conduct and conduct) _of a certain sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodists_. I think the title ought rather to 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_. This title, my Lords, would just answer the contents. For the _principles_ as well as _conduct_ of the Methodists are struck at, and greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. And the Methodists are no _sect_, no separatists from the established church, neither do they call people from her communion. Besides, the author ought to have added, _A new edition, with several alterations, additions and corrections_; for otherwise the world is made to believe, that this is the self-same composition which was handed about some months ago, and of which I had a hasty reading. Whereas there are several things omitted, some things added, and divers alterations made in this new edition; so that the title-page is not only injudicious, but false and scandalous.

And if the _title-page_ is so bad, I fear the _design and scope_ of the pamphlet itself is much worse. For is it not to represent the proceedings of the Methodists as dangerous to the church and state, in order to procure an act of parliament against them, or oblige them to secure themselves by turning dissenters?