Chapter V: Part 5

Pope was a poet; another assailant, the author of “The Progress of Methodism in Bristol, or, the Methodists Unmasked, 1743” (18mo. 72 pp.), was a _poetaster_, and unworthy of being further noticed; but, possibly, his ribald verses, in which he malignantly attacked Whitefield, as well as Wesley, were quite as goading as Pope’s more polished lines.

Whitefield began the year 1744 in his native city, Gloucester. He then went to Watford in Wales, and, as moderator of the Calvinistic Methodists, presided, on January 3rd, at one of their associations, or conferences. Among the subjects considered at this meeting, the Hampton riot seems to have been the principal. Whitefield writes:――

“After mature deliberation, we determined to prosecute the
affair to the utmost, and to set apart January 24 (the first
day of the term) for a day of fasting and prayer, and to make
collections for that purpose. The cause is the Lord’s, and much
depends on our getting the victory. I believe we shall.”

The work in Wales was in great prosperity. In a letter, written soon after the assembling of this conference, Howell Harris says:――

“The labours of all our associates are more or less blessed.
The Lord countenances the lay-preachers much; but He is more
abundantly with the ordained ministers. The believers are
generally strong and full of spiritual warmth and life. They
do, indeed, adorn the gospel. The congregations are exceedingly
large wherever we preach. Some of the greatest opposers are not
only silenced, but constrained to own that the Lord is among us
of a truth. In many places, the people meet at five o’clock in
the morning to adore and worship the Lord together; and, in some
places, meetings are resumed in the evenings, and kept up all
night in prayer and praise.”[91]

It is a strange fact, that, notwithstanding the falsely reputed wealth of Whitefield’s wife, and his own enormous popularity, his income was insufficient for the maintenance of his family in London. Hence, during his visit to Wales, he made arrangements for the removal of his wife and child to Abergavenny;[92] and, on his return to London, wrote, as follows, to a friend at Gloucester:――

“LONDON, _January 18, 1744_.

“This afternoon, I received your kind letter; and I thank you
a thousand times for your great generosity in lending me some
furniture, having little of my own. I know who will repay you.
Next week, God willing, my dear wife and little one will come
to Gloucester, for I find it beyond my circumstances to maintain
them here. I leave London this day sennight. My brother will
receive a letter about my wife’s coming. She and the little
one are brave and well. But why talk I of wife and little one?
Let all be absorbed in the thoughts of the love, sufferings,
free and full salvation, of the infinitely great and glorious
Emmanuel.”

Three weeks after this, Whitefield’s “little one” was dead. The letter containing an account of his bereavement is so characteristic, and so unfolds Whitefield’s weaknesses as well as virtues, that it must be inserted without abridgment.

“GLOUCESTER, _February 9, 1744_.

“Who knows what a day may bring forth? Last night, I was called
to sacrifice my Isaac; I mean, to bury my only child and son,
about four months old.

“Many things had occurred to make me believe he was, not only
to be continued to me, but, to be a preacher of the everlasting
gospel. Pleased with the thought, and being ambitious of having
a son of my own so divinely employed, Satan was permitted
to give me some wrong impressions, whereby, as I now find, I
misapplied several texts of Scripture. Upon these grounds, I
made no scruple of declaring ‘that I should have a son, and that
his name was to be John.’ I mentioned the very time of his birth,
and fondly hoped that he was to be great in the sight of the
Lord.

“Everything happened according to the predictions, and my wife
having had several narrow escapes while pregnant, especially
by her falling from a high horse, and my driving her into a
deep ditch in a one-horse chaise a little before the time of
her lying-in, and from which we received little or no hurt,
confirmed me in my expectation, that God would grant me my
heart’s desire.

“I would observe to you, that the child was even born in a room
which the master of the house had prepared as a prison for his
wife, on account of her coming to hear me. With joy would she
often look upon the bars and staples and chains, which were
fixed in order to keep her in. About a week after his birth,
I publicly baptized him in the Tabernacle, and, in the company
of thousands, solemnly gave him up to that God, who gave him to
me. A hymn, too fondly composed by an aged widow, as suitable
to the occasion, was sung, and all went away big with hopes of
the child’s being hereafter to be employed in the work of God;
but how soon have all their fond, and, as the event has proved,
their ill-grounded expectations been blasted, as well as mine!

“House-keeping being expensive in London, I thought it best to
send both parent and child to Abergavenny, where my wife had
a little house, the furniture of which, as I thought of soon
embarking for Georgia, I had partly sold, and partly given away.
In their journey thither, they stopped at Gloucester, at the
Bell Inn, which my brother now keeps, and in which I was born.
There, my beloved was cut off with a stroke. Upon my coming here,
without knowing what had happened, I enquired concerning the
welfare of parent and child; and, by the answer, found that the
flower was cut down.

“I immediately called all to join in prayer, in which I blessed
the Father of mercies for giving me a son, continuing it to me
so long, and taking it from me so soon. All joined in desiring
that I would decline preaching till the child was buried; but
I remembered a saying of good Mr. Henry, ‘that weeping must not
hinder sowing;’ and, therefore, I preached twice the next day,
and also the day following; on the evening of which, just as I
was closing my sermon, the bell struck out for the funeral. At
first, I must acknowledge, it gave nature a little shake; but,
looking up, I recovered strength, and then concluded with saying,
that this text, on which I had been preaching, namely, ‘All
things work together for good to them that love God,’ made me as
willing to go out to my son’s funeral, as to hear of his birth.
Our parting from him was solemn. We kneeled down, prayed, and
shed many tears, but, I hope, tears of resignation; and then,
as he died in the house wherein I was born, he was taken and
laid in the church where I was baptized, first communicated, and
first preached.

“All this, you may easily guess, threw me into very solemn
and deep reflection, and, I hope, deep humiliation; but I was
comforted from that passage in the book of Kings, where is
recorded the death of the Shunammite’s child, which the prophet
said, ‘the Lord had hid from him,’ and the woman’s answer to the
prophet when he asked, ‘Is it well with thee? Is it well with
thy husband? Is it well with thy child?’ And she answered, ‘It
is well.’ This gave me no small satisfaction. I preached upon
the text, the day following, at Gloucester; and then hastened
up to London, and preached upon the same there.

“Though disappointed of a living preacher, by the death of my
son, yet, I hope, what happened before his birth, and since at
his death, has taught me such lessons, as, if duly improved,
may render his mistaken parent more cautious, more sober-minded,
more experienced in Satan’s devices, and, consequently, more
useful in his future labours to the Church of God. Thus, ‘out
of the eater comes forth meat, and out of the strong comes
forth sweetness.’ Not doubting but our future life will be one
continued explanation of this blessed riddle, I commend myself
and you to the unerring guidance of God’s word and Spirit, and
am,

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whilst Whitefield was burying his child at Gloucester, his friend, Charles Wesley, was preaching, at the peril of his life, in Staffordshire. At Wednesbury, the mob “assaulted, one after another, all the houses of those who were called Methodists.” All the windows were broken, and furniture of every kind was dashed in pieces. At Aldridge and several other villages, many of the houses were plundered, and the rioters “loaded themselves with clothes and goods of all sorts, as much as they could carry.”[93] Whitefield heard of this execrable rioting, and wrote:――

“There has been dreadful work near Birmingham; but Satan will
be overthrown. We had a glorious fast on Monday (February 20th),
and collected above £60 for our poor suffering brethren.”

A week after this, Whitefield set out on a visit to his wife at Abergavenny, and took her “a second-hand suit of curtains,” which he had bought for her humble dwelling.

At the beginning of the month of March, he returned to Gloucester, to be present at the assizes, at which the Hampton rioters, already mentioned, were tried, and found guilty, the amount of damages to be paid being referred to the King’s Bench, London. Whitefield writes:――

“I hear the rioters are hugely alarmed; but they know not that
we intend to let them see what we could do, and then to forgive
them. This troublesome affair being over, I must now prepare for
my intended voyage to America.”

Nearly seven months, however, elapsed before Whitefield’s voyage was begun,――an interval which was partly occupied with what, to Whitefield, was extremely uncongenial, a literary war.

To understand the controversy, it is needful to remark, that, of late, several publications had been issued, and industriously circulated, attacking the loyalty of Whitefield and his friends. Among others, there was a quarto-sized sheet, of four pages, entitled, “The Case of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point of Field-Preaching.” The writer tries to prove that field-preaching is contrary to the Act of Toleration; and then he proceeds to shew, that, because of the largeness of his congregations, Whitefield’s preaching in the open air was eminently calculated to promote sedition, and to be a serious danger to the state.

The principal publication, however, was “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodists. London: printed by E. Owen, in Amen Corner. 1744.” (4to. 24 pp.) Rightly or wrongly, Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, was supposed to be the author. The pamphlet consisted of three parts. In the first, it was alleged, 1. That the Methodists generally set the government at defiance, by appointing public places of religious worship, and by preaching in the fields, without taking the prescribed oaths, and subscribing the declaration against popery. 2. That they broke the rules of the Church, of which they professed themselves members, by going to other than their own parish churches to receive the sacrament. 3. It was also stated that really there was no need for Methodist meetings, because, for many years past, many of the Religious Societies, in London and Westminster, had spent their Sunday evenings (after attending church) in serious conversation and reading good books; and the bishops and clergy had encouraged these Societies, though some of them had been misled into Methodist extravagances.

In the second part, which is principally levelled against Whitefield, thirteen questions are asked, of which the following are specimens:――Question 4. Whether a due and regular attendance in the public offices of religion does not better answer the true ends of devotion, and is not better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings, tremblings, droppings-down, ravings, and madness into which the hearers of the Methodists had been cast? Question 9. Whether it does not savour of self-sufficiency and presumption, when a few young heads, without any colour of a Divine commission, set up their own schemes as the great standard of Christianity?

The third part is a severe critique on the _Christian History_, of which Whitefield was the chief promoter. Here, again, sundry questions were asked, as, for instance, “Whether the zealous endeavours to form Band-Societies, according to the Moravian way, and putting them under the instruction and ordering of particular _superintendents_, and _exhorters_; and the holding of _associations_ and _meetings_, at set times and places, with select moderators; together with the fixing of _visitations_ and their boundaries and limits,――whether these proceedings, not warranted by any law, are not a presumptuous attempt to erect a new church constitution, upon a foreign plan, in contempt of those wise rules of government, discipline, and worship, which were judged by our pious ancestors to be the best means for preserving and maintaining religion, together with public peace and order in Church and State?” Again, “Whether these itinerant preachers, and the setting up of separate places of public worship _at pleasure_, and those pretences to more immediate communications with God, and the visible endeavours to bring the parochial pastors and the public worship under a disesteem among the people,――whether these and the like practices are not of the same kind with those of the last century, that had so great a share in bringing on those religious confusions, which brought a reproach upon Christianity in general, and which, by degrees, worked the body of the people into a national madness and frenzy in matters of religion?”

To see the full force of these accusations, it must be borne in mind, that, they were published at a time when, (1) The nation was in a state of great excitement from an expected invasion by Prince Charles, the young Pretender; (2) The Methodists in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and Staffordshire, were being subjected to the most brutal treatment by clerically encouraged mobs; and (3) The general belief was that these “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists” were not of ignoble origin, but were written by the bishop of the metropolitan diocese, and with the approval of a considerable number of his prelatic brethren.

On January 26, 1744, Whitefield published the following advertisement:――

“Whereas some anonymous papers, against the people called
Methodists in general, and myself and friends in particular,
have been, for some weeks, printed in a large edition, and
handed about and read in the Religious Societies of the cities
of London and Westminster, and given into the hands of many
private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one,
nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after
having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many
queries, of great importance, concerning me and my conduct,
contained therein; and as it appears, that, one paper has
little or no connection with another, and a copy, when applied
for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark for
Georgia――I am, therefore, obliged hereby to desire a speedy
open publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid
impartial answer may be made thereto by me,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Six days after the date of this advertisement, Whitefield wrote as follows to the Bishop of London:――

“LONDON, _February 1, 1744_.

“MY LORD,――Simplicity becomes the followers of Jesus Christ;
and, therefore, I think it my duty to trouble your lordship with
these few lines.

“I suppose your lordship has seen the advertisement published
by me, about four days ago, concerning certain anonymous papers,
which have been handed about the Societies for some considerable
time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad
to be informed whether the report be true, that your lordship
composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct
my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your
lordship’s keeping, would oblige, my lord, your lordship’s most
obliged, dutiful son and servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

“P.S. The bearer will bring your lordship’s answer; or, if your
lordship favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to
be left with Mr. J. Syms, in Pitfield Street, near Hoxton.”

Instead of writing, the Bishop sent, by the bearer of Whitefield’s letter, a verbal message, to the effect that Whitefield should hear from him; but the only further communication which came to hand was the following, written, two days after the date of Whitefield’s letter to the Bishop, by the printer of the “anonymous papers.”

“_February 3, 1744._

“SIR,――My name is Owen. I am a printer in Amen Corner, and I
waited upon you to let you know that I have had orders from
several of the Bishops, to print, for their use, such numbers
of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the
Methodists,’ with some few additions, as they have respectively
bespoken; and I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as
soon as the impression is finished.

“I am, sir, your most obedient servant,

“E. OWEN.”

There can hardly be a doubt that the “Observations” were the productions of Bishop Gibson’s pen. Others, besides Whitefield and his friends, fully believed this. Zinzendorf, on receiving a copy of the anonymous pamphlet, wrote a long letter, in Latin, to the Bishop, expressing his surprise that any one belonging to the Church of England should have evinced such ignorance by the remarks made respecting the Moravians. A Moravian deputation also waited upon Gibson, on the same subject; and a further correspondence ensued between the Bishop, Zinzendorf, and James Hutton;[94] in which Zinzendorf almost indignantly repudiated any present connection with the Methodists, telling his lordship, that, it was “very difficult to decide whether the Moravians have a greater dislike to the Methodists’ plan of salvation, or the Methodists to that of the Moravians.”

But leaving this, all candid readers will acknowledge that the “conduct and behaviour” of the Bishop of London and his brethren were disingenuous. To be the circulators of anonymous “fly-sheets,” full of the most serious accusations, was an act dishonourable to a bishop’s dignity, and savoured more of the assassin than of a pastor of the flock of Christ.

Whitefield lost no time in replying to the Bishops’ pamphlet. On the 10th of March, he finished, and committed to the press, “An Answer to the first part of an anonymous Pamphlet, entitled, ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the name of Methodists.’ In a Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of London, and the other the Right Reverend the Bishops concerned in the publication thereof.” (8vo. 26 pp.) Before the year was ended, Whitefield’s “Letter” passed, at least, through three editions in England, besides being printed and published at Boston in America. The motto on his title-page was Psalm xxxv. 11, “False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.”

It is difficult to furnish an outline of Whitefield’s pamphlet; but the following extracts will give the reader an idea of its style and spirit:――

“Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and
the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart, not
to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others;
and that I, consequently, may have sometimes mistaken nature
for grace, imagination for revelation, and the fire of my own
temper for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal. If, therefore,
upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable
in any respect, I will not only confess it, but return hearty
thanks both to the compiler and your lordships, _though unknown_.
Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the
cause to know who the author is. Only this much may be said,
your lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair to
_give stabs in the dark_.”

Whitefield proceeds to say, that the title of the Bishops’ pamphlet ought to have run thus: “Misrepresentations of the Conduct and _Principles_ of many Orthodox, well-meaning Ministers and Members of the Church of England, and loyal Subjects to his Majesty, King George, _falsely termed a Sect_, and usually distinguished, _out of contempt_, by the name of Methodists.” He adds:――

“The _principles_, as well as conduct, of the Methodists are
greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. Its design is to
exhibit their proceedings as dangerous to the Church and State,
in order to procure an Act of Parliament against them, or to
oblige them to secure themselves by turning Dissenters. But is
not such a motion, at such a season as this, both uncharitable
and unseasonable? Is not the Administration engaged enough
already in other affairs, without troubling themselves with
the Methodists? Or, who would now advise them to bring further
guilt upon the nation, by persecuting some of the present
government’s _most hearty_ friends? I say, my lords, _the present
government’s most hearty friends_; for, though the Methodists
(as the world calls them) disagree in some particulars, yet
I venture to affirm that, to _a man_, they all agree in this:
namely, to love and honour the king. For my own part, I profess
myself a zealous friend to his present majesty King George, and
the present Administration. Wherever I go, I think it my duty
to pray for him and to preach up obedience to him, and all that
are set in authority under him. I have now been a preacher above
seven years, and for six years past have been called to act in
a very public way. Your lordships must have heard of the great
numbers who have attended: sometimes several of the nobility,
and, now and then, even some of the clergy have been present.
Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal word? Are there not
thousands, who can testify how fervently and frequently I
pray for his majesty King George, his royal offspring, and
the present government? Yes, my lords, they can; and, I trust,
I should be enabled to do so, though surrounded with popish
enemies, and in danger of dying for it as soon as my prayer was
ended.”

So much for Whitefield’s loyalty. What about his ecclesiastical misbehaviour? He writes:――

“If your lordships apprehend that we are liable to
ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence,
whenever called to it by our ecclesiastical superiors. As for
myself, your lordships very well know that I am a Bachelor of
Arts, have taken the oaths, have subscribed to the Articles,
and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character, I
have acted, both at home and abroad; and I know of no law of
our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn,
street, or outhouse whatever.”

Whitefield proceeds to say, he has perused “all the Acts of King Charles II., wherein the word _field_ is mentioned,” and that he finds “they are intended to suppress _seditious conventicles_,” and then continues:――

“These are the only _field-meetings_ that are prohibited; and
how, my lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Are
they ‘seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence
of tender consciences, contrive insurrections?’ No, my lords.
How then can your lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage
such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number of Mr. Owen, in order,
as may be supposed, that they may be dispersed among your
lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A
more notorious libel has not been published. The pamphlet comes
into public like a child dropped, that nobody cares to own. And,
indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel?”

This, addressed to bishops, by a young clergyman, was bold language; but their lordships deserved it; for, whatever faults belonged to Whitefield and the first Methodists, they certainly were as free from sedition as the Episcopal Bench itself.

Whitefield’s “Second Letter,” to the bishops, was written during his voyage to America, and was first “printed and sold by Rogers and Fowle, in Queen Street, near the Prison, Boston, 1744.” (4to. 24 pp.) It is dated August 25, 1744; but, to prevent a recurrence to the subject, it is noticed here. First of all, Whitefield replies to the censures pronounced upon “itinerant preaching,” and concludes thus:――

“May I not take the freedom of acquainting your lordships,
that, if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty,
(especially my Lord of London, whose diocese is of such vast
extent,) they would all of them long since have become itinerant
preachers.”

He next defended the doctrines, preached by himself and the Methodists,――justification by faith, sudden and instantaneous conversion, and other cognate truths. He attacked Archbishop Tillotson, because, “contrary to the laws of Church and State, he makes good works a _condition_ of our acceptance with God;” and he declared concerning the author of “The Whole Duty of Man,” that, because he entirely omits to teach the doctrine of justification by faith, his famous book might “more properly be termed, _Half the Duty of Man_.” He belaboured the clergy for playing at _dice_, and _cards_, and other _unlawful games_, contrary to the seventy-fifth canon of the Church; and complained, that, by “frequenting taverns and alehouses,” they injured the laity by a vile “example.” He rebutted the charge against himself of being an enthusiast; and, as for the “sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings” of some of his converts, he said, “The itinerant preachers look upon these as extraordinary things, proceeding _generally_ from soul-distress, and _sometimes_, it may be, from the agency of the evil spirit, who labours to drive poor souls into despair.”

What was the result of all this plain-speaking? First of all, another anonymous author, merely using the initials, “J. B.,” published a furious pamphlet of fifty-four pages, entitled, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, occasioned by his _pretended_ Answer to the first part of the Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists. By a Gentleman of Pembroke College, Oxon. London, 1744.” (8vo.)

How far the author of this letter was a _gentleman_ will appear from the following extracts from his rancorous production:――

“Do you think my Lord of London would choose to let you know
whether he was the author of the papers, or would be fond
of entering into a _personal_ dispute with you? with you, I
say, sir, or your followers; who, I may venture to affirm, can
curse, rail, and berogue your antagonists, (though in Scripture
language all the while,) so as hardly to be exceeded by any Pope,
or _spiritual bully_, that ever yet appeared in Christendom.”

“You are one who has been travelling over all countries,
to establish _new-fangled societies_; _heads and spiritual
directors_, _hot-brained cobblers_, and the meanest class of men;
_fellows that have nothing to lose_, all big with venom against
the clergy of the _present Establishment_, and _despising the
laws_ of the State, and the _peaceful constitution_ of the realm.
You are perpetually sowing divisions, and urging on the bigotry
of your disciples, and their implacable malice, by your belying,
railing, and scandalising the ministers of the Church, as well
as by treating as heathens and reprobates of the infinitely good
Being, all others, who dare despise your hellish doctrines and
practices. You exactly copy after Cromwell, the _Whitefield
of the last century_, in _artfully compounding_ Churchmen and
Dissenters, people of all sorts and denominations, to bring
about your design of ruining the present constitution. When I
see a man, of your _vast importance_, _railing_, _hectoring_,
and _bullying_ your superiors, I cannot help thinking of a
_pert_ liquor amongst us, which foams, and bounces, and sputters,
and makes a mighty ado; and yet all the while is but _bottled
small-beer_.

“Your _favourite method_ of wounding characters in a scrip of
prayer, to shew the world how kindly you can forgive, after you
have been publicly railing at them for _nothing_, puts me in
mind of Jack in the _Tale of a Tub_; who was mighty fond of
falling down on his knees, and turning up his eyes in the midst
of a kennel, as if at his devotions; but who, when curiosity
attracted men to laugh or to listen, would, of a sudden,
bespatter them with mud.”

Much more of the same kind of scurrility, and of even worse, might be given; but the last paragraph in the “Gentleman’s” ill-mannered pamphlet must suffice.

“Thus ends your railing; and, like a woman that has _fought
herself out of breath_, when you can _spit no more of your
malice_, you tell us, you would ‘not bring a railing accusation
against any.’ What a monstrous fib is that! ‘Neither would
I,’ you add, ‘when giving a reason of the hope that is in me,
do it any otherwise than with meekness and fear.’ There you
fib again most desperately! Why, _my dear meek soul, of a
sudden_, you have certainly forgot yourself; and your darling
_spirit of bitterness, that has possessed you through the whole
Letter_, at length, seems to be _jaded_. However, it cannot help
_fibbing still_; and there is not a more remarkable instance
of this, than in your _last Judas’ kiss_, where you would have
their lordships believe, you are ‘_their most dutiful son and
servant_.’”

These are fair specimens of the scolding of this zealous defender of the Bishop of London and his brethren, and of Church and State. Whitefield never noticed the defence, though written by a _Gentleman of Pembroke College, Oxford_. Another pamphlet, however, written by a Church dignitary of some importance, received more attention. This was “A Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London and other Bishops; and in Vindication of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists,’ not long since published. By Thomas Church, A.M., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s, London.[95] 1744.” (8vo. 60 pp.) Want of space prevents the insertion of lengthy extracts from Mr. Church’s letter, but its scope may be guessed by the following sentences:――

“Field-preaching is forbidden by the statute, as having a
tendency to sedition and tumults.” “Your extravagances have been
the scorn of the profane, and have strengthened the prejudices
of some against our religion itself.” “I never knew nor heard of
any one instance of a parish in England so carelessly attended
as the charge committed to you in Georgia, the only place, I
think, to which you have had any regular appointment. How unfit
are you, of all men, to upbraid the clergy with non-residence,
with being shepherds who leave their flocks, and let them perish
for lack of knowledge.”

Whitefield immediately replied to this, in an 8vo. pamphlet of 20 pages, bearing the following title:――“A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Church, M.A., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s; in Answer to his Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London, and other Bishops. By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxford. London: printed by W. Strahan, for J. Robinson, at the Golden Lion, in Ludgate Street, and sold at the Tabernacle, near Moor-Fields, 1744.” The letter is dated, “London, May 22, 1744,” and its biographical sections must be briefly noticed.

Whitefield had often been taunted and even threatened for not using the Liturgy in many of his public services. In reference to this, he writes:――

“As for my irregularities in curtailing the Liturgy, or not
using the Common Prayer in the fields, 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, whenever it shall be required at my hands.”

Mr. Church and many others had retorted Whitefield’s attacks on non-resident clergy, by telling him he had been guilty of non-residence himself. To this Whitefield replied as follows:――

“I wish every non-resident minister in England could give as
good an account of his non-residence as I can give of my absence
from Savannah. To satisfy you, reverend sir, I will acquaint you
with the whole affair. 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 the magistrates and
people, I continued at Savannah, teaching publicly, and from
house to house, and catechizing 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 £50
out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a
public account. In about four months, I came back to England to
receive priest’s orders, and to 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 £50 per annum, which they generously
offered me. Neither did I put them to any expense 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 I
knew the honourable trustees 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 to the honourable trustees to provide
another minister. In the meanwhile, as most of my parishioners
were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being
employed, and, as I believed 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 raise further collections towards carrying
on the Orphan House. The Lord stirred up many to be ready to
distribute and willing to communicate on these occasions. 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 anything
like the non-residence of most of the English clergy. When I
was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living
at ease, but preaching Christ Jesus, 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 my relations. No: freely as I had received,
freely I gave. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of God
and the good of souls is my only aim.”

All candid readers will admit that Whitefield’s simple statement is a sufficient refutation of the plausible charge, so often brought against him, concerning his non-residence in the only parish he ever had.

Before proceeding with Whitefield’s itinerary, it may be well to complete the list of his publications during the year 1744. This shall be done as briefly as possible.

1. “A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, A.B., from his Infancy to the Time of his entering into Holy Orders. The Second Edition.” (12mo. 46 pp.) This was an exact reprint of the edition published in 1740.

2. “A Brief Account of the Occasion, Process, and Issue of a late Trial at the Assize held at Gloucester, March 3, 1744.” (8vo. 15 pp.) This has been already noticed.

3. “The Experience of Mr. R. Cruttenden, as delivered to a Congregation of Christ in Lime Street, under the pastoral care of the Rev. Mr. Richardson. Prefaced and recommended by George Whitefield, A.B.” (8vo. 32 pp.) Cruttenden, after losing his fortune, by the bursting of the South Sea bubble, had recently been converted, at the Tabernacle, under the preaching of John Cennick.[96] Nothing in the pamphlet requires notice, except, perhaps, the following well-deserved rap, which Whitefield, in his preface, gives to Dissenting ministers, some of whom were as bitterly opposed to the great preacher as were his clerical brethren of the Church of England.

“Those serious, godly ministers among the Dissenters, who,
through prejudice or misinformation, oppose, or are shy of us,
as though some dangerous sect was sprung up, may, from this and
such-like instances, begin to reason with themselves, whether
we are not sent of God? and whether it is not high time to
acknowledge and adore God in His late sovereign way of working?
Here is an account of a learned and rational man, brought
to Jesus, and built up in Him, by what the world would call
illiterate preachers. This is not the first instance by hundreds.
No set of men could do such things, or meet with such success,
unless God was with them. It is not the first time that our
Saviour has perfected praise out of the mouths of babes, and
chosen the weak things of this world to confound the strong.”

4. There is only another publication to be noticed. Three years before, Dr. Smalbroke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, had delivered a charge, to his clergy, against the Methodists; and now, in the year 1744, and when a part of his diocese was disgraced by the riots at Wednesbury and other places, he published it. Smalbroke was a somewhat distinguished man; but withal whimsical, as, for instance, when, in his “Vindication of the Miracles of Christ,” he made elaborate calculations concerning the number of devils in the herd of swine at Gadarene. He was also fond of strife, more than twenty of his publications being of a controversial character. The pith of his anti-Methodistic charge was, that, “the indwelling and inward witnessing of the Spirit in believers’ hearts, (if there were ever such things at all,) as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, are all the _extraordinary_ gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical and primitive times; and, that, consequently, all pretensions to such favours, in these last days, are vain and _enthusiastical_.” Whitefield’s reply was written on shipboard, during his voyage to America, and was first printed at Boston, in New England. Its long title was as follows: “Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, delivered by the Right Reverend Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to the Rev. the Clergy in the several parts of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, in a Triennial Visitation of the same in 1741; and published, at their request, in the present year 1744. In a Letter to the Rev. the Clergy of that Diocese. By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxon.” (8vo. 35 pp.) Passing over the theological part of Whitefield’s pamphlet, one extract from his concluding observations must suffice. In a foot-note he states, “The Methodists in Staffordshire were mobbed last Shrove-Tuesday, and plundered of their substance to the amount of £700.” To these persecuted inhabitants of the diocese of Lichfield, Whitefield says:――

“You have lately been enabled joyfully to bear the spoiling of
your goods. Think it not strange, if you should hereafter be
called to resist unto blood. Fear not the faces of men, neither
be afraid of their revilings. The more you are afflicted, the
more you shall multiply and grow. Persecution is your privilege;
it is a badge of your discipleship; it is every Christian’s lot,
in some degree or other. Only be careful to give no just cause
of offence. Be studious to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit
in your lives. Call no man master, but Christ. Follow others
only as they are followers of Him. Be fond of no name but that
of _Christian_. Beware of making parties, and of calling down
fire from heaven to consume your adversaries. Labour to shine
in common life, by a conscientious discharge of all relative
duties; and study to adorn the gospel of our Lord in all things.
If you are good Christians, you will fear God, and, for His sake,
honour the king. Be thankful for the many blessings you enjoy
under the government of his present majesty, King George; and
continue to pray to Him, by whom kings reign, and princes decree
justice, to keep a popish pretender from ever sitting on the
English throne.”

We now return to Whitefield’s itinerancy. There is but little evidence to shew how he spent the interval between March 15th and June 26th. John Cennick, in his diary, says: “On the 3rd of April, at my special desire, the first association of our ministers and preachers, which had been kept in Wilts, took place in my house at Tytherton. There were present the following preachers: Mr. Whitefield, Howell Harris, John Cennick, Joseph Humphreys, and Thomas Adams; and the following exhorters: William Humphreys, Isaac Cottle, Thomas Lewis, and Thomas Beswick.”[97]

Part of the fifteen weeks was spent in London, part in Bristol, and part in Wilts. He was also awaiting an opportunity to embark for Georgia; and, with Mr. Smith, a merchant, actually took a passage in a ship about to sail from Portsmouth. At the last moment, however, the captain refused to take him; upon which he set out for Plymouth, preaching at Wellington, Exeter, Bideford, and Kingsbridge on the way.[98] At Plymouth, he was made the subject of a brutal attack, which might have ended seriously. Hence the following letters:――

“PLYMOUTH, _June 26, 1744_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――You see by this where I am. Doubtless, you
will wonder at the quick transition from Portsmouth to Plymouth.
When I wrote last, I intended going to the former; but, just
before I took leave of the dear Tabernacle people, a message was
sent to me, that the captain, in whose ship I was to sail from
thence, would not take me, for fear of my spoiling his sailors.
Upon this, hearing of a ship that was going under convoy from
Plymouth, I hastened hither, and have taken a passage in the
_Wilmington_, Captain Dalby, bound to Piscataway, in New England.

“My first reception here was a little unpromising. A report
being spread that I was come, a great number of people assembled
upon the _Hoe_ (a large green for walks and diversions), and
somebody brought out a bear and a drum; but I did not come till
the following evening, when, under pretence of a hue-and-cry,
several broke into the room where I lodged at the inn, and
disturbed me very much.

“I then betook myself to private lodgings, and being gone to
rest, after preaching to a large congregation, and visiting
the French prisoners, the good woman of the house came and
told me, that a well-dressed gentleman desired to speak with
me. Imagining that he was some Nicodemite, I desired he might
be brought up. He came and sat down by my bedside, told me he
was a lieutenant of a man of war, congratulated me on the success
of my ministry, and expressed himself much concerned for being
detained from hearing me. He then asked me if I knew him? I
answered, No. He replied, his name was Cadogan. I rejoined,
that I had seen one Mr. Cadogan, who was formerly an officer
in Georgia, about a fortnight ago, at Bristol. Upon this,
he immediately rose up, uttering the most abusive language,
calling me _dog_, _rogue_, _villain_, etc., and beat me most
unmercifully with his gold-headed cane. As you know, I have not
much natural courage; and, being apprehensive that he intended
to shoot or stab me, I underwent all the fears of a sudden
violent death. My hostess and her daughter, hearing me cry
‘Murder,’ rushed into the room, and seized him by the collar;
but he immediately disengaged himself from them, and repeated
his blows upon me. The cry of murder was repeated, and he made
towards the chamber door, from whence the good woman pushed
him downstairs. A second man now cried out, ‘Take courage, I
am ready to help you;’ and, accordingly, whilst the other was
escaping, he rushed upstairs, and finding one of the women
coming down, took her by the heels, and threw her upon the
floor, by which her back was almost broken. By this time the
neighbourhood was alarmed; but, being unwilling to add to the
commotion, I desired the doors might be shut, and so betook
myself to rest.”

This strange adventure is explained in another letter, written to the same friend, a few days afterwards.

“PLYMOUTH, _July 4, 1744_.

“Since my last, I have had some information about the late odd
adventure. It seems that four gentlemen came to the house of one
of my particular friends, and desired to know where I lodged,
that they might pay their respects to me. My friend directed
them; and, soon afterwards, I received a letter, informing me
that the writer of it was a nephew of Mr. S――――, an eminent
attorney at New York; that he had had the pleasure of supping
with me at his uncle’s house; and that he desired my company
to sup with him and a few more friends at a tavern. I sent him
word that it was not customary for me to sup out at taverns,
but I should be glad of his company, out of respect to his uncle,
to eat a morsel with him at my lodgings. He came; we supped. I
observed that he frequently looked around him, and seemed very
absent; but, having no suspicion, I continued in conversation
with him and my other friends till we parted. I now find
that this man was to have been the assassin; and that, being
interrogated by his companions as to what he had done, he
answered, that being used so civilly, he had not the heart to
touch me.

“Upon this, as I am informed, the person who assaulted me, laid
a wager of ten guineas that he would do my business for me. Some
say, that they took his sword from him, which I suppose they did,
for I only saw and felt the weight of his cane.

“The next morning, I was to expound at a private house, and then
to set out for Bideford. Some urged me to stay and prosecute;
but, being better employed, I went on my intended journey; was
greatly blessed in preaching the everlasting gospel; and, upon
my return, was well paid for what I had suffered; for curiosity
led perhaps two thousand more than ordinary to see and hear
a man who had like to have been murdered in his bed. Thus all
things tend to the furtherance of the gospel.

“‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,
And yet the thing they thwart effect.’

“Leaving you to add a hallelujah, I subscribe myself,

“Ever, ever yours,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield seriously believed that this atrocious outrage was a deliberate attempt to murder him; the probability is, that it was a cruel freak, similar to many others for which naval stations have frequently been infamous.

Whitefield spent more than six weeks at Plymouth, and in the immediate neighbourhood. His detention, occasioned by waiting for the convoy, was not without good results. Hence the following extracts from letters written during this interval. To John Syms, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“PLYMOUTH, _July 21, 1744_.

“MY DEAR MAN,――I expected a line from you to-day; but, I suppose,
you think we are gone. This day came in a privateer, who saw the
Brest squadron, which has pursued two of our men of war; so that,
had we sailed, we should in all probability have been carried
into France. We are now to go under the convoy of the grand
fleet.

“I have been greatly refreshed this evening in preaching the
blood of Jesus. The congregations grow every day. Last night,
many from the dock guarded me home, being apprehensive there was
a design against me. Without my knowledge, they insulted a man
who intended to hurt me. I am sorry for it. My health is better.
Whether we sail or not, expect to hear again from, dear, dear
Johnny, ever, ever yours whilst

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[99]

“PLYMOUTH, _July 26, 1744_.

“Could you think it? I have been preaching a confirmation sermon.
Do you ask me where? In a Quaker’s field. As I saw thousands
flocked to the church to have the bishop’s hands imposed upon
them, I thought it not improper to let them have a word of
exhortation suitable to the occasion. I have also made an
elopement to Kingsbridge, where, a few days ago, I preached to
many thousands. It was a most solemn occasion. The hearts of the
auditory seemed to be bowed as the heart of one man.”

In other letters to his “dear man,” John Syms, he writes:――

“PLYMOUTH, _July 27, 1744_.

“Matters go on better and better here. I begin to think myself
in London. We have our regular morning meetings. We are looking
out for a place proper for a Society, and to expound in. People
come daily to me, especially from the dock, under convictions.
Some, I believe, have really closed with Christ; and here are
several aged persons perfectly made young again. We are just now
entered upon our singing hours.

“Fresh news from Kingsbridge of souls being awakened; but I am
kept close prisoner on account of the convoy. Brother Cennick
must come into these parts soon.”

“PLYMOUTH, _July 29, 1744_.

“Our Lord has been giving us blessings in drops; but now He is
sending them in showers. We have had a most precious meeting
this morning. Perhaps more good has been done by this one sermon,
than by all I have preached before. The wind is yet against us.
Our Lord detains me here for wise reasons. Some persons,
formerly prejudiced against me, have offered to give me a piece
of ground for a Society room. I believe one will be built soon.
Brother Cennick must stay in the west some time.”

“PLYMOUTH, _August 3, 1744_.

“Our convoy is come, and perhaps we may sail to-morrow. It is
delightful to be here. We come from the dock, in the evenings,
singing and praising God. Our parting there has been more awful
than words can express.

“I must tell you one thing more. There is a ferry over to
Plymouth; and the ferrymen are now so much my friends, that they
will take nothing of the multitude that come to hear me preach,
saying, ‘God forbid that we should sell the word of God!’”

Thus, at Plymouth, as in other places, did Whitefield triumph in Christ Jesus. One of the conversions, which took place under his marvellous ministry, is too notable to pass unnoticed. Henry Tanner, born at Exeter, was now in the twenty-sixth year of his age, and was working, at Plymouth, as a shipwright. One day, while at work, he heard, from a considerable distance, the voice of Whitefield, who was preaching in the open air; and, concluding that the man was mad, he and half a dozen of his companions filled their pockets with stones, and set off to knock the preacher down. Whitefield’s text was Acts xvii. 19, 20. Tanner listened with astonishment; and, without using his stones, went home, determined to hear him again next evening. The text, on this occasion, was Luke xxiv. 47; and Tanner was in such an agony of soul, that he was forced to cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner!” The next night, while Whitefield was preaching on “Jacob’s Ladder,” Tanner found peace with God. He, at once, joined the Society at Plymouth, which had been formed by Whitefield, and suffered violent persecution from his unconverted wife. To secure time for prayer and Christian usefulness, he seldom allowed himself more than six hours in bed, and frequently but four. Ten years after his conversion, he removed to Exeter, and began to preach with great success. In 1769, the Tabernacle at Exeter was built, mainly through his exertions, and he became its minister. His labours, however, were not confined to Exeter. At the request of Toplady, he used to preach at Broad Hembury; whilst Moreton, Hampstead, Crediton, Topsham, and various other places, were favoured with his services. On Sunday morning, March 24, 1805, when he had completed the eighty-sixth year of his age, he was carried, in a chair, to his pulpit, and tried to preach, but was so ill that he was obliged to relinquish the attempt. A week afterwards he peacefully expired.[100]

While, however, God was raising up new labourers, by means of Whitefield’s ministry, He was taking others to Himself. One of these was the Rev. David Crossly, of Manchester, who, within a week of the time when Whitefield embarked at Plymouth for America, wrote as follows to Whitefield’s friend, Mr. Syms:――