Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, M.A.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in │
│ printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for │
│ easier reading. │
│ │
│ The text may show quotations within quotations, all set │
│ off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ emphasized text within │
│ italics --> |text| │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣✤ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

THE
WORKS
OF THE REVEREND
GEORGE WHITEFIELD, M.A.

Late of PEMBROKE-COLLEGE, OXFORD,
And Chaplain to the Right Honourable,
the Countess of HUNTINGDON.

CONTAINING

All his SERMONS and TRACTS
Which have been already published:

WITH

A SELECT COLLECTION of LETTERS,

Written to his most intimate Friends, and Persons of Distinction,
in _England_, _Scotland_, _Ireland_, and _America_, from the Year
1734, to 1770, including the whole Period of his Ministry.

ALSO

Some other PIECES on IMPORTANT SUBJECTS,
never before printed; prepared by Himself for the Press.

To which is prefixed,

An ACCOUNT of his LIFE,
Compiled from his Original PAPERS and LETTERS.

VOLUME IV.

LONDON:

Printed for EDWARD and CHARLES DILLY, in the Poultry;
and Messrs. KINCAID and CREECH, at Edinburgh.

MDCCLXXI.

ANSWER
TO THE
BISHOP of LONDON’s
LAST
PASTORAL LETTER.

ANSWER
TO THE
BISHOP of LONDON’s
LAST
PASTORAL LETTER.

_My Lord_,

I NEED make no apology for troubling your Lordship with this. As your Lordship was pleased to make me the chief subject matter of your _last Pastoral Letter_, I think it my duty to answer in the best manner I can.

Your Lordship is highly to be commended, for the care you have taken in watching over the souls of those, who are committed to your Lordship’s charge. Lukewarmness and enthusiasm, are the two rocks against which even well-meaning people are in danger of splitting. All ought to be thankful to that pilot, who will teach them to steer a safe and middle course. I would gladly hope, that “a zeal for GOD in the discharge of your duty, and a hearty concern for the safety of souls,” moved your Lordship to write. These are the principles, I trust, which now excite me, to direct this answer to your Lordship. And, blessed be GOD, that I can write with somewhat of that love and meekness, which becomes a disciple of JESUS CHRIST, and with all that humility and reverence, which is due from a presbyter to a bishop of the church of GOD.

Lukewarmness and enthusiasm, my Lord, are certainly the bane of true christianity. I thank your Lordship again for your kind cautions against them. The only query is, “Whether there was any occasion for your Lordship’s warning the people of your diocese, against running into either of these extremes, upon account of any thing, I have either spoken or written?” Your Lordship thinks there was, and quotes passages out of my Journal to prove it; if it can be proved, I will ask public pardon, both of your Lordship and them, with all my heart.

As for your Lordship’s cautions against _lukewarmness_, I am not much concerned in them. You do not seem to point at me in particular; unless it is, where your Lordship (page 10.) informs your people, “That a diligent attendance on the duties of the station wherein Providence has placed them, is, in the strictest sense, the serving of GOD.” None but those, who condemn me unheard, can justly charge me with affirming to the contrary.

However, I beg leave to observe, that your Lordship, (page 8.) calls that a very imperfect state of christianity, which is _no state of christianity_ at all. St. _Paul_, writing to the _Corinthians_, _2 Corinthians_ chapter xiii. verse 5, says, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your ownselves.” And that they might have a certain rule, whereby to judge whether they were in the faith, truly so called, or not; he immediately adds, “Know ye not your ownselves, how that CHRIST JESUS is in you, except ye be reprobates?” So that, according to St. _Paul_’s rule, “He that finds, he has hitherto contented himself with a bare bodily attendance upon the public worship of GOD, and with following his daily employment on other days, and with abstaining from the more gross and notorious acts of sin, and from doing any hurt or injury to his neighbour, and has rested finally upon these, as the whole of what christianity requires of him;” is so far from being in a very imperfect state, as your Lordship is pleased to affirm, page 8. that he is in no state of christianity at all. No, my Lord, he is a _reprobate_, or, one who at present is out of a state of salvation, nor can he ever have any assurance that he is in a state of salvation, till he knows that JESUS CHRIST is in him, by the indwelling of his Holy Spirit. If I have mistaken your Lordship’s expression, I will freely beg your Lordship’s pardon.

Another thing, my Lord, to me seems darkly expressed, in page 18. (let not your Lordship be angry, for indeed I will endeavour to speak with all gentleness and humility): your Lordship’s words are these: “Nor need they any other evidence besides those _good dispositions_ they find in their hearts, that the Holy Spirit of GOD co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin and grow in goodness.” If by good dispositions, your Lordship only means _good inclinations_ or desires, I deny that to be a sufficient evidence, that the Spirit of GOD co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin and grow in goodness. For there is a great difference between good desires and good habits: many have one, who never attain the other. Many have good desires to subdue sin, and yet, resting in those good desires, sin has always had dominion over them. A person sick of a fever may desire to be in health, but that desire is not health itself. In like manner, many have good dispositions, or desires to be good, but that is not goodness itself. And consequently men need more evidence than good dispositions, to prove to themselves or others, “that the Holy Spirit of GOD co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin.” If by good dispositions, your Lordship means good habits wrought in the heart by the Spirit of GOD, such as peace, love, joy, long-suffering, goodness, truth, &c. I then agree a man needs no other evidence: for these are the proper and genuine fruits of the Spirit itself.

Your Lordship immediately adds, “Nor that, persevering in their course, and praying to GOD for his assistance, and relying upon the merits of CHRIST for the pardon of all such sins, failings, and imperfections, as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state.” I beg leave to ask your Lordship, whether this does not savour too much of the common divinity, That we are to do something for ourselves: or, in other words, that we have partly a righteousness of our own, and that JESUS CHRIST is to make up the deficiencies of that righteousness? What else can your Lordship mean, by saying, That we must rely on the merits of CHRIST for the pardon of “all such sins as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state?” Did JESUS CHRIST come into the world, my Lord, only to save us from the guilt of such sins, as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state? The scriptures every where affirm, that man hath no righteousness of his own, “That there is none righteous, no not one;――that all our righteousness is as filthy rags;” and that JESUS CHRIST died, not only to save us from the guilt of all such sins, failings, and infirmities, as are more or less unavoidable in this mortal state, but from all wilful sins, and also from that original corruption, which every man naturally engendered of the offspring of _Adam_, brings into the world with him. I hope I have not misunderstood, or overstrained your Lordship’s expression.

I come now to your Lordship’s caution against _enthusiasm_. For that, I suppose, your Lordship intended more particularly against me.

And here, my Lord, I beg leave to observe, That, in my opinion, your Lordship has by no means been clear enough in your definition of the word enthusiasm.

According to the fair rules of writing, was it not first incumbent on your Lordship to shew, that the word _enthusiast_ had a good as well as a bad meaning: that it signifies no more than _a person in God_, and consequently every christian, in the proper sense of the word, is an enthusiast? For St. _Peter_ writes, “That to us are given exceeding great and precious promises, that by these we might be partakers of the divine nature.”

And our church says, “If we receive the sacrament worthily, we are one with CHRIST, and CHRIST with us: we dwell in CHRIST, and CHRIST in us.” For which she has sufficient warrant from our LORD’s prayer, _John_ xvii. 20, &c. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, I in them, and they in me, that they may be made perfect in one: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.”

But indeed your Lordship’s definition of _enthusiasm_, when examined, does not convey any ill idea at all. “Enthusiasm, is a strong persuasion on the mind, that they are guided in an extraordinary manner, by immediate impulses and impressions of the Spirit of GOD.” Had your Lordship said, a strong but _groundless persuasion_, that they are guided in an extraordinary manner, it would have been to your Lordship’s purpose. But to affirm, without any restriction, that a strong persuasion that we are guided in an extraordinary manner by immediate impulses, is enthusiasm in the worst sense of the word, when your Lordship yourself says, (page 54.) “There is no doubt, but GOD, when he pleases, can work upon the minds of men by extraordinary influences,” to me seems a little inconsistent.

Your Lordship proceeds thus: “And this is owing chiefly to the want of distinguishing aright between the ordinary and extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit. The extraordinary operations were those, by which the apostles and others, who were entrusted with the first propagation of the gospel, were enabled to work miracles, and speak with tongues, in testimony, that their mission and doctrine were from GOD.”

I suppose, by extraordinary operations, your Lordship means the same as being guided in an extraordinary manner, just above. And if so, according to your Lordship’s own definition, I am no enthusiast. For I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues, in testimony that my mission and doctrine were from GOD; I only lay claim to the ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit, which your Lordship (page 20.) says, “Still continue:” and what need was there then, my Lord, that the people of your Lordship’s diocese should be cautioned against enthusiasm upon my account?

But your Lordship farther adds, “The ordinary gifts, however real and certain in themselves, are no otherwise discernible, than by their fruits and effects.” Had your Lordship said, No otherwise discernible _to others_, than by their fruits and effects, it would have been right: but if your Lordship means, they are no otherwise discernible to ourselves, in my opinion, it is wrong; for it is possible, my Lord, for a person to feel and discern these ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit _in himself_, when there is no opportunity of discovering them to others.

For instance, on supposition that your Lordship was assisted by the blessed Spirit, in writing your pastoral letter; might not your Lordship be sensible of an inward joy and complacency, wrought by that self-same Spirit, which was not then discernible to others? So is it possible for another to feel joy in the Holy Ghost, with the rest of his fruits, which at that time may not be discernible to others; and which they, who have never experienced the like, may not believe, though a man declare it unto them. I hope, my Lord, these reasonings carry with them their own evidence.

But to proceed: (pages 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.) your Lordship has taken pains to collect several passages out of the public liturgy, to prove the doctrine of regeneration, or our new birth, to be the doctrine of the Church of _England_. Your reason for so doing, appears (page 25.) “to arm your people against any suggestions, as if our church were so regardless of the doctrine of regeneration and new birth, as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.” If this, my Lord, was intended to arm your people against any such suggestions made by me; indeed your Lordship does not do me justice. As your Lordship, I find, has done me the honour to peruse my Third Journal, your Lordship may remember this observation, (page 39.) that, after I had baptized an adult, I proved the necessity of the new birth, from the office of our church.

In my sermon, upon the _indwelling of the Spirit of GOD_, which I have made bold to send to your Lordship with this letter, you will find, I have quoted the expressions of our own church offices, to prove the doctrine of the new birth, as your Lordship does in your pastoral letter. My constant way of preaching is, first, to prove my propositions by scripture, and then to illustrate them by the articles and collects of the church of _England_. Those that have heard me, can witness, how often I have exhorted them to be constant at the public service of the church. I attend on it myself, and would read the public liturgy every day, if your Lordship’s clergy would give me leave. What further satisfaction can your Lordship require, that I do not suggest to your Lordship’s people, “as if our church were regardless of the doctrine of regeneration, and new birth, and as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.”

In the following paragraph, your Lordship has the same insinuation, as though I wanted to introduce _extempore prayer_, and to lay aside the public liturgy of our church. For after your Lordship had been speaking against praying by the Spirit, and affirming that the scripture no where tells us, that prayer is the single work of the Spirit, your Lordship says to your people, “you have great reason to be thankful to GOD, for a public service prepared to your hands.” My Lord, I never said to the contrary. But does not your Lordship seem to insinuate at the same time, that we are not to depend on the Spirit of GOD, to enable us to pray extempore, either in public or private? That prayer is not the single work of the Spirit, without any co-operation of our own, I readily confess. But that the Spirit of GOD does assist true christians to pray extempore, now, as well as formerly, is undeniable, if the scriptures be true. For what says the Apostle? “We know not what to pray for, as we ought; but the Spirit itself helpeth our infirmities, and maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.” And this is founded upon a general promise, made to all GOD’s people, _Zachariah_ xii. 10. “I will pour upon the house of _David_, and upon the inhabitants of _Jerusalem_, the Spirit of grace, and of supplication.” And I believe, my Lord, we may appeal to the experience of all true christians, whether or no they did not find the Spirit of supplication, or a power of praying without a form, increase in proportion to the increase of GOD’s Grace or Holy Spirit in their hearts. This is all, my Lord, that I pretend to: and where is the impropriety of this, when your Lordship confesses in the same page, that “the Spirit of GOD does particularly assist us, in a due performance of religious offices?”

Further, as your Lordship seems to deny the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit, in our particular addresses at the throne of Grace, so your Lordship seems to deny it also in our particular actions. “In like manner, (you say) we are firmly persuaded in general, that we live under the gracious influence of GOD’s Holy Spirit, and that he both excites and enables us to do good. But that this or that thought or action is an effect of the sole motion, or immediate impulse of the Spirit, without any co-operation of our own mind”――[My Lord, who ever ♦affirmed, that there was no co-operation of our own minds, together with the impulse of the spirit of GOD?] Your Lordship adds, “or that the Holy Spirit, and our natural conceptions, do respectively contribute to this or that thought or action, in such a measure, or to such a degree; these are things we dare not say.” Indeed, my Lord, I do dare to say them. For if there be any such thing as a particular providence, why may we not expect particular direction from GOD’s Holy Spirit in particular cases? Does not our church, my Lord, teach us to pray, “that GOD’s Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts?” But your Lordship says, we dare not say this, because our Saviour has told us, that we know no more of the working of the Spirit, than we know of the wind, from whence it cometh, and whither it goeth. Neither need we know any more of them: but you must allow, that we know as much. Cannot your Lordship feel the wind then? Does not your Lordship know when it makes any impression upon your body? So easy it is for a spiritual man to know when the Holy Spirit makes an impression upon his soul. Without acknowledging this, all the expressions of being _led by the Spirit_, _walking by the Spirit_, and such like, must be only so many words without any real meaning. Your Lordship acknowledges, that the Holy Spirit does act in general, and why not in the particular actions of our lives also? For, can the one be without the other? Does it not frequently happen, my Lord, that the comfort and happiness of our whole lives, depend on one particular action? And where then, my Lord, is the absurdity of saying, that the Holy Spirit may even, in the minutest circumstance, direct and rule our hearts? I have been the more particular, my Lord, on this part of your Lordship’s letter, because if this be proved, many of your Lordship’s objections against my Journals, will fall to the ground.

♦ “arffimed” replaced with “affirmed”

Page 27. Your Lordship has the following paragraph. “GOD forbid, that in this profane and degenerate age, every thing that has an appearance of piety and devotion, should not be considered in the most favourable light that it is capable of. But at the same time, it is surely very proper, that men should be called upon for some reasonable evidences of a _divine Commission_.”

I take it for granted, that I am one of those men, whom your Lordship thinks should be called upon for some reasonable evidence of a _divine Commission_.

But, my Lord, what reasonable evidence does your Lordship require? Did I not receive letters dimissory from your Lordship’s own hands to be ordained a priest? Did I not, when ordained deacon, affirm, “that I was inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon me that office and ministration?” Did not my Lord of _Gloucester_, when he ordained me priest, say unto me, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?” And is not this, my Lord, a reasonable evidence that I act by a _divine Commission_? If this be not true, must not all those whom your Lordship, or the other Bishops ordain, act only by a _human Commission_? Nay, to use the words of Bishop _Burnet_ in his _Pastoral Letter_, “must not they who are ordained, lie not only unto man but unto GOD, by saying, they are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit?”

If your Lordship in any wise disputes my acting by a _divine Commission_, you disclaim your own divine right and authority; nor can you possibly avoid the dilemma, of either allowing _my divine Commission_, or denying _your own_.

After your Lordship has insinuated a demand for the evidences of my _divine Commission_, immediately follows these words; “when they tell us of _extraordinary communications_ they have with GOD.”

If by extraordinary communications, your Lordship means the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit, as working miracles, and speaking with tongues; your Lordship may assure yourself, I never pretended to any such thing. If, by extraordinary communications, your Lordship means more assistance and comforts from GOD, at some times, than I have at others, (which is all I mean by extraordinary communications) I own the charge? And what is there, my Lord, _extraordinary_ in that?

Again, your Lordship says, (page 28.) “When they talk in the language of those, who have a _special_ and _immediate mission_ from GOD.”

And does your Lordship, and the rest of the Bishops, ordain any, without obliging them first to give good proofs, that they have a special call or immediate mission from GOD to the work of the ministry? If ever you so do, my Lord, do not your Lordships lay hands too suddenly upon men?

Page 29. Your Lordship writes thus. “When they profess to think and act under the immediate guidance of a _divine Inspiration_.”

And does not your Lordship think and act by the same rule? Why, otherwise, does your Lordship pray when you administer the holy Communion, “that GOD would cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit?”

Page 31. Your Lordship says, “when they speak of their preaching and expounding, and the effects of them, as the _sole work of a divine Power_.”

And would your Lordship have me ascribe any, the least thing to myself? The good that is done upon earth, doth not GOD do it himself? Does not the Apostle say, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of GOD?” And where then, my Lord, is the absurdity of ascribing the effects of expounding and preaching to the sole work of a divine Power?

Again, (page 33.) “When they boast of sudden and surprizing effects as wrought by the _Holy Ghost_, in consequence of their preaching.”

Where, my Lord, is the enthusiasm of such a pretension? Has your Lordship been a preacher in the church of _England_, for so many years, and have you never seen any sudden or surprizing effects, consequent upon your Lordship’s preaching? Was this my case, should I not have reason to doubt, my Lord, whether I had any more than a bare human commission? Or might I not take up the Prophet’s lamentation, “O my leanness, my leanness!” My Lord, the gospel, like its author, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; and, if preached as it ought to be, will prick numbers to the heart, and extort the cry of the trembling goaler, “What must I do to be saved!” as surely now, as it did seventeen hundred years ago.

These then are the sudden and surprizing effects, my Lord, I always desire to have, and I heartily pray GOD, your Lordship and all your clergy may always see such effects in consequence of their preaching.

(Page 34.) “When they claim the spirit of _prophecy_.”

What I have said about my success, GOD has been pleased to fulfil already. What I have said about sufferings, they who without cause are my enemies are fulfilling daily. And as for the promises mentioned in my Journal, I freely own there are some particular promises, which GOD has so strongly impressed, and does still impress on my heart, that I verily believe they will be fulfilled.

(Page 35.) “When they speak of themselves in the language, and under the character of _Apostles of Christ_, and even of CHRIST himself.”

If I am not to speak in an apostolical language, why did my Lord of _Gloucester_ give me an apostolical commission, “whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained?” And I hope, my Lord, using the words which JESUS CHRIST used, is not taking upon me the character of CHRIST.

(Page 36.) “When they profess to plant and propagate a _new Gospel_, as unknown to the generality of ministers and people, in a christian country.”

’Tis true, my Lord, in one sense, mine is a new gospel, and will be always unknown to the generality of ministers and people, even in a christian country, if your Lordship’s clergy follow your Lordship’s directions. For what says your Lordship, (page 46.) “I hope, that when your ministers preach to you of _justification by faith alone_, which is asserted in the strongest manner by our church, they explain it in such a manner, as to leave no doubt upon your minds, whether good works are a _necessary condition_ of your being justified in the sight of GOD.”

But pray, my Lord, where has the scripture made good works a necessary condition of our being justified in the sight of GOD? St. _Paul_ says, “by grace ye are saved, through faith, not of works, and that, least any man should boast. For eternal life is the gift of GOD through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.” Your Lordship exhorts your clergy to preach _justification by faith alone_, and quotes the 11th article of our church, which tells us, “we are justified by faith only, and not for our own works or deservings.” At the same time, your Lordship bids them to explain it in such a manner, as to leave no doubt upon their minds, whether good works are a necessary condition of their being justified in the sight of GOD.” Your Lordship, in my opinion, could not well be guilty of a greater inconsistency. This, my Lord, is truly a _new Gospel_. I am sure it is not what the Apostles preached; and it is as contrary to the doctrine of the church of _England_, and the whole tenour of the gospel, as light is contrary to darkness. Had your Lordship insisted on your clergy’s preaching up good works as a _necessary fruit_ and consequence, instead of a necessary condition of our being justified, your Lordship would have used your authority aright. For we are commanded to shew forth or declare to others, that we have a true faith by our works. And the 12th article of our church says, that “good works _follow_ after justification;” and how then, my Lord, are they a necessary condition of our justification? No, my Lord, salvation (if the gospel be true) is the free gift of GOD through JESUS CHRIST. Faith is the means whereby that salvation is applied to our hearts, and good works are the necessary fruits and proof of that faith.

This, my Lord, is the doctrine of JESUS CHRIST, this is the doctrine of the church of _England_, and it is, because the generality of the clergy of the church of _England_ do not preach _this doctrine_, that I am resolved, GOD being my helper, to continue instant in season and out of season, to declare it unto all men, let the consequences, as to my own private person, be what they will.

As for your Lordship’s blaming me for rashly censuring the clergy, for their practice, none are concerned, but my _indolent, earthly-minded, pleasure-taking brethren_ (page 39.) And surely, your Lordship will not stand up in their defence. No, I hope your Lordship will not fail to rebuke them sharply. And as for your Lordship’s suspicions, page 50. (For your Lordship’s sake I would not mention them) I hope my life and doctrine will always prove them to be groundless.

Would time permit, I could now proceed to satisfy your Lordship more particularly about the case of Mr. _Benjamin Seward_: but as that is done in a letter sent to my Lord of _Gloucester_, and as I am now to embark in a few hours, I hope your Lordship will excuse me, if I only add my hearty prayers for your Lordship’s temporal and eternal welfare, and subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient, though unworthy son and servant,

_G. W._

Blendon, Monday, August 13, 1739.

The letter above mentioned, as sent to the Bishop of _Gloucester_, was occasioned by the Bishop’s acquainting Mr. _Whitefield_, in a letter, “That he ought to preach only in that congregation to which he was lawfully appointed.” This produced the following answer.

_My Lord_,

I THANK your Lordship for your Lordship’s kind letter. My frequent removes from place to place prevented my answering it sooner. I am greatly obliged to your Lordship, in that you are pleased to watch over my soul, and to caution me against acting contrary to the commission given me at ordination. But if the commission we then receive, obliges us to preach no where but in that parish which is committed to our care, then all persons act contrary to their commission when they preach occasionally in any strange place: and consequently your Lordship equally offends, when you preach out of your own diocese. As for inveighing against the clergy, (without a cause) I deny the charge. What I say, I am ready to make good whenever your Lordship pleases. Let those that bring reports to your Lordship about my preaching, be brought face to face, and I am ready to give them an answer. St. _Paul_ exhorts _Timothy_, “Not to receive an accusation against an elder under two or three witnesses.” And even _Nicodemus_ could say, “The law suffered no man to be condemned unheard.” I shall only add, that I hope your Lordship will inspect into the lives of your other clergy, and censure them for being _over-remiss_, as much as you censure me for being _over-righteous_. It is their falling from their articles, and not preaching the truth as it is in JESUS, that has excited the present zeal of (those whom they in derision call) _the Methodist preachers_. Dr. _Stebbing_’s sermon, (for which I thank your Lordship) confirms me more and more in my opinion, that I ought to be instant in season and out of season. For to me, he seems to know no more of the true nature of regeneration, than _Nicodemus_ did, when he came to JESUS by night. Your Lordship may observe, that he does not speak a word of original sin, or the dreadful consequences of our fall in _Adam_, upon which the doctrine of the new birth is entirely founded. No: like other polite preachers, he seems to think in the very beginning of his discourse, that St. _Paul_’s description of the wickedness of the heathen is only to be referred to them of past ages: whereas I affirm, we are all included as much under the guilt and consequences of sin, as they were; and if any man preach any other doctrine, he shall bear his punishment, whosoever he be. Again, my Lord, the Doctor entirely mistakes us, when we talk of the sensible operations of the Holy Ghost. He understands us just as those carnal Jews understood JESUS CHRIST, who, when our LORD talked of giving them that bread which came down from heaven, said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Indeed I know not that we do use the word _sensible_, when we are talking of the operations of the Spirit of GOD. But if we do, we do not mean, that GOD’s Spirit does manifest itself to our senses, but that it may be perceived by the soul, as really as is any sensible impression made upon the body. But to disprove this, the Doctor brings our LORD’s allusion to the wind in the third of St. _John_, which is one of the best texts he could urge to prove it. For if the analogy of our LORD’s discourse be carried on, we shall find it amounts to thus much: that although the operations of the Spirit of GOD can no more be accounted for, than how the wind cometh and whither it goeth; yet may they be as easily felt by the soul as the wind may be felt by the body. My Lord, indeed we speak what we know. But, says the Doctor, “These men have no proof to offer for their inward manifestations.” What proof, my Lord, does the Doctor require? Would he have us raise dead bodies? Have we not done greater things than these? I speak with all humility; has not GOD by our ministry raised many dead souls to a spiritual life? Verily, if men will not believe the evidence GOD has given that he sent us, neither would they believe though one rose from the dead. Besides, my Lord, the Doctor charges us with things to which we are entire strangers, such as the denying men the use of GOD’s creatures. Encouraging abstinence, prayer, &c. to the neglect of the duties of our stations. LORD, lay not this sin to his charge! Again, he says, “That I suppose Mr. _Benjamin Seward_ to be a person believing in CHRIST, and blameless in his conversation, before what I call his conversion.” But this is a direct untruth: for it was through the want of a living faith in JESUS CHRIST, which he now has, that he was not a christian before, but a mere moralist. Your Lordship knows that our article says, “Works done without the Spirit of GOD, and true faith in JESUS CHRIST, have the nature of sin.” And such were all the works done by Mr. _Benjamin Seward_, before the time mentioned in my Journal. Again, my Lord, the Doctor represents, that as my opinion concerning quakers in general, which I only meant of those I had conversed with in particular. But the Doctor, and the rest of my reverend brethren, are welcome to judge me as they please.――Yet a little while, and we shall all appear before the great Shepherd of our souls. There, there, my Lord, shall it be determined, who are his true ministers, and who are only wolves in sheeps cloathing. Our LORD, I believe, will not be ashamed to confess us publicly in that day. I pray GOD we all may approve ourselves such faithful ministers of the New Testament, that we may be able to lift up our heads with boldness. As for declining the work in which I am engaged, my blood runs chill at the very thoughts of it. I am as much convinced, it is my duty to act as I do, as that the sun shines at noon-day. I can foresee the consequences very well. They have already in one sense thrust us out of the synagogues. By and by they will think it is doing GOD service to kill us. But, my Lord, if you and the rest of the bishops cast us out, our great and common Master will take us up. Though all men should deny us, yet will not he. And however you may censure us as evil doers, and disturbers of the peace, yet if we do suffer for our present way of acting, your Lordship at the great day will find, that we suffer only for righteousness sake. In patience therefore do I possess my soul. I willingly tarry the LORD’s leisure. In the mean while I shall continually bear your Lordship’s favours upon my heart, and endeavour to behave, so as to subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient Son, and obliged servant,

GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

A
LETTER
TO THE
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES
OF
_ENGLAND_.

Written during the Voyage to _Philadelphia_, 1739; and
particularly recommended to those who had then lately formed
themselves into RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES in _Scotland_.

A
LETTER, &c.

_My dear Brethren in Christ_,

THE Apostle in his epistle to the _Hebrews_, chapter x. 23. exhorts them to hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering; and soon after adds, as a most effectual means to so desirable an end, “Let us consider one another to provoke unto love, and to good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.”

As christianity was not then the national religion, I suppose the assemblies here intended, were not such as our public congregations, but rather little private societies, or associations, or churches, as was the custom of the primitive christians, who, we are told, continued stedfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine, and in fellowship one with another.

This was the Apostle’s exhortation to the christians of those times; and I am fully persuaded there never was more occasion for renewing it, than the age wherein we live.

Nothing hath of late more alarmed the enemies of the cross of CHRIST, than the zeal that GOD hath stirred up in the hearts of many to put in practice this apostolical injunction. Balls, plays, horse-races, and such like unchristian and fatal entertainments, are countenanced and supported by public authority. And few as yet have had courage to speak, preach, or write for the suppressing them, so plainly and publicly as they ought; but, if the children of GOD meet (as they are required) to build up each other in their most holy Faith, almost every one’s mouth is opened against them. Nay, with grief it must be spoken, even many of our masters in _Israel_, who ought to be patterns, and promote every good word and work, are not content with countenancing the polite and sinful diversions of the age by their presence and approbation, but are generally most bitter in their invectives against religious societies. The former, though directly contrary to our baptismal vow, are deemed innocent, if not useful, by them: the latter, they are continually crying down (especially if any life or divine power be amongst them) as schismatical, seditious, and tending to destroy the present established constitution.

For these, and many such like reasons, I, as present with you in spirit, though absent in body, thought it my duty to put you in mind, zealously to persist in your obedience to the forementioned injunction once delivered to the saints; and so much the more, as in all probability the day of persecution nearer and nearer approaches.

GOD has given an harvest, and there has been a gathering in: a winnowing time will come. His fan is already in his hand. Yet a little while, and (if the work lately begun be carried on) I am persuaded he will throughly purge his flour. The shepherds must first be smitten; and next, endeavours will be used to scatter the sheep. The religious societies Satan has undoubtedly desired to have, that he may sift them as wheat. My brethren, watch and pray one for another, that you may be enabled to stand in such an hour of temptation, and having done all, to stand.

Be not ashamed of that wherein you ought to glory. Religious society is of divine extraction. As GOD made man, so GOD said, “It is not good that man should be alone: I will make a help meet for him.” Meet, as I take it, not merely for his body (man had few corporal wants in paradise) but chiefly and primarily for his better part the soul, that he might have one to converse with of his own species, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.

It is true, man is now a fallen, but yet he is a social creature: and as the end of his coming into this world was to prepare for a better; so without doubt the chief end of society in general, and of religious society in particular, is, that we may be helps meet for each other in the great work of our salvation.

Upon this account it was, that the first christians so frequently assembled themselves together, when obliged to shut the doors for fear of the _Jews_; and their continuing in fellowship with each other, was one main reason why they continued stedfast in the apostles doctrine.

Take then, my brethren, the primitive christians for your examples: their practices are recorded for our learning. No power on earth can lawfully forbid or hinder your imitating them. In all such cases we must obey GOD rather than man; otherwise, we so far deny our holy profession, and are enemies to the cross of CHRIST: and though, because you have got a little out of the formal way, some blind zealots may brand you as schismatical; yet if you fear GOD, and truly honour the King, and are of the number of those who are quiet in the land, there is no reason can be urged against your societies, which will not equally hold good against all assembling together for religious purposes.

In this respect, a private prelate has no more authority than a private presbyter. If it be lawful for more than five to meet in a private vestry, it is equally lawful for more than five to meet in a private house; as is the practice of some of the societies who are under the government of those called the Twelve Stewards. If it be enquired of you, by what authority you use sometimes to pray without a premeditated form of words; you may enquire, “By what authority any one reads the church forms, who is not commissioned so to do, and that in any place but in the church,” where only they are appointed to be read, and only by one so commissioned? If they reply, “We have Doctor _Woodward_’s form;” you may answer them with this question, “What difference is there, in respect to others, between a person’s reading a form, which few that hear it know beforehand, and a person’s praying extempore, as the Holy Spirit gives him utterance?” If they laugh at the mention of “praying by the Spirit,” brethren, I hope you know better. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith CHRIST has made you free; and be not afraid, by such a practice, to make innovations in the church, which does not confine its members to forms, but within the church walls, nor even there altogether. In private assemblies, such as yours, all are left to their liberty; and therefore, as many as would hinder you in this, at once discover their pitiable ignorance of that constitution they pretend to promote, and an unhappy estrangement from the spirit and privileges of the gospel.

How to improve your meetings, so as best to promote GOD’s glory, and the good of your own souls, ought to be your constant and chief concern: for as christians in general, so members of religious societies in particular, are as cities built upon a hill; and therefore it more highly concerns them to let their light so shine before men, that they seeing their good works, may glorify our Father who is in heaven.

Not that a communion of perfect saints is to be expected here on earth: or that you ought to be immediately offended, if some of your brethren should be overtaken with a fault. In this world, tares will be always springing up amongst the wheat. Many that are first, will be last, and the last first. Nay, it is well if some, like _Judas_, do not at length lay aside their profession, and openly betray our Master.

To prevent this, you ought to be _very cautious_, my brethren, whom you admit into fellowship with you. Examine them again and again, not barely whether they receive the sacrament, and go to church; but whether they be in the faith. Set them upon proving their own selves; and by no means receive them into your brotherhood, unless they can produce sufficient evidences of their having tasted the good word of life, and felt the powers of the world to come. This, some may object, is not a very good way to increase and multiply you as to number; but it is the best, the only way, to establish and increase a communion of true saints. And such a society, consisting of a few solid christians, is far preferable to one that is filled with a multitude of such as do not bring forth fruit unto holiness, but have only the fig-leaves of an outward profession. Formal hypocrites will do any society more harm than good: and however they may endure for a while, and receive the word with joy; yet, having no root in themselves, in time of temptation they will shamefully fall away.

Next to your care about admitting others, I think it highly concerns you, whenever you assemble, to _remember the end_ of meeting, yourselves; and then (to use the words of the wise son of _Sirach_ on another occasion) “you will never do amiss.” Now, the end of your meeting, brethren, is not that you may think yourselves more holy than your neighbours, much less to form a sect or party, or promote a schism or sedition in the church or state. No: such thoughts, I trust, are far from you: for they are earthly, sensual, devilish. And, if ever such designs should be set on foot, I earnestly pray GOD the abettors of them may be detected, and all their schemes, though never so plausibly concerted, fall to the ground. The only end which, I hope, you all propose by your assembling yourselves together, is the same for which you were redeemed, “The renewing of your depraved natures, and promoting the hidden life of JESUS CHRIST in your souls.” These terms, however foolishness to others, I trust, my brethren, are not so to you. I take it for granted, you are not only desirous of, but already in some measure blessed with, a saving experimental knowledge of JESUS CHRIST in your hearts: for unless a man be born again from above, and made a partaker of the divine nature by the indwelling of GOD’s Holy Spirit, he can in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whoever denies this to be true in the most literal, real, and absolute sense of the words, knows nothing yet as he ought to know: for it is grounded on a self-evident truth, that we are fallen from GOD in _Adam_, and must be renewed in the spirit of our minds, ere we can be restored to that blissful communion with him, which is the free gift of GOD and eternal life.

The only way to this, is faith in JESUS CHRIST; faith in contradistinction to, though necessarily productive of, good works. “I am the way, the truth, and the life: whosoever believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live,” says CHRIST himself. And I think it my bounden duty, to exhort you at this time, to contend earnestly for the doctrine of _Justification by faith only_, because so many blind guides are lately gone out into the world. My brethren, it is much to be feared that many of our present preachers are no better than doctrinal papists. And however this, to those who having eyes see not, may be judged an uncharitable censure; yet surely they cannot justly blame me for want of candour, who consider, that one of the most reputed orthodox prelates in the kingdom, in a late pastoral letter advises his clergy, “So to explain the doctrine of justification in the sight of GOD by faith only, as to make good works a necessary condition.” Such advice from a _Roman_ cardinal would be no more than we might expect; but, coming from a bishop of the Church of _England_, is surprising, and much to be lamented.

GOD forbid, my brethren, that you should so learn CHRIST! If the scriptures are true, such a doctrine is absolutely false. The lively oracles no where declare good works to be a necessary condition of our justification in the sight of GOD; on the contrary, they every where affirm, that “Salvation is the free gift of GOD, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD: that we are saved by grace through faith; and that it is not of works, lest any man should boast.” No, my brethren, in the great mystery of man’s redemption by JESUS CHRIST, boasting is entirely excluded.

We must not expect to be saved, or any way recommend ourselves to GOD, by any or all the works of righteousness which we have done, or shall, or can do. The LORD CHRIST is our righteousness,――our whole righteousness: imputed to us, instead of our own. “We are compleat in him,” says the scripture. “We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merits of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, by faith,” saith the eleventh article of our church. And if so, how are good works, my brethren, a necessary condition of our justification in the sight of GOD? The law indeed says, “Do this, and live:” but the gospel brings us the glad tidings, that “CHRIST is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” CHRIST, by his sacrifice, and perfect obedience, has every way fulfilled the law for us; and GOD will not require to be paid twice. CHRIST bought our justification with a great price, even with his own blood. It comes to us freely, without any regard to works past, present, or to come. This is the constant language of CHRIST and his apostles; and therefore, to use the words of the forementioned article, “That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” Observe, my brethren, justified _by_ or _through_ faith, and not _for_ faith; for faith is only a means or instrument whereby the whole righteousness of JESUS CHRIST is applied to the sinner’s soul: and whosoever does thus believe in his heart, setting to his seal that GOD is true, may be assured that his pardon is sealed in heaven; notwithstanding he has lived in an open breach of GOD’s commandments all his life-time before. “Believe, (says the apostle to the trembling ♦jailor,) and thou shalt be saved:” “Whosoever believeth that JESUS is the CHRIST, is born of GOD.” So that this faith will not be dead, idle or inactive: for ’tis not a faith of the head, or a bare assent to things credible as credible; the devils thus believe and tremble: but it is a faith of the heart, a living principle of new life, infused into the soul by the spirit of GOD, applying that inwardly, which was wrought for him outwardly by the obedience and death of JESUS CHRIST, and continually exciting the possessor of it to shew it forth by his works; not as necessary conditions, but as proofs of his justification in GOD’s sight; and as so many tokens of his gratitude and love for what GOD has done for his soul. This is what the apostle stiles a “Faith working by love.”

♦ “jaylor” replaced with “jailor”

I cannot conclude this better than in the words of a truly evangelical writer now before me. “The law (sayst thou) must be obeyed.” I answer, “CHRIST JESUS hath done that in his own person, and justified me thereby; and, for my own part, I will not labour now to fulfil the law for justification, lest I should undervalue the merits of the man CHRIST JESUS, and what he hath done without me; and yet will I labour to fulfil, if possible, ten thousand laws if there were so many: and O let it be out of love to my sweet LORD JESUS. For the love of CHRIST constrains me.”