“Tabernacle House,February 16, 1756.“My Lord,—I this evening received your lordship’s kind letter; and, though it is late, and nature calls for rest, I now sit down to give your lordship an explicit answer.“God can witness, that I entered into holy orders, according to the form of ordination of the Church of England, with a disinterested view to promote His glory, and the welfare of precious and immortal souls. Fornear twenty years, as thousands can testify, I have conscientiously defended her Homilies and Articles, and, upon all occasions, have spoken well of her Liturgy. So far from renouncing these, together with her discipline, I earnestly pray for the due restoration of the one, and daily lament the departure of too many from the other. But, my lord, what can I do?“When I acted in the most regular manner, and when I was bringing multitudes, even of Dissenters, to crowd the churches, without any other reason being given than that too many followed after me, I was denied the use of the churches. Being thus excluded, and many thousands of ignorant souls, that perhaps would neither go to church nor meeting-houses, being very hungry after the gospel, I thought myself bound in duty to deal out to them the bread of life.“Being further ambitious to serve my God, my king, and my country, I sacrificed my affections, and left my native soil, in order to begin and carry on an Orphan House in the infant colony of Georgia, which is now put upon a good foundation. This served as an introduction, though without design, to my visiting the other parts of his Majesty’s dominions in North America; and I humbly hope that many in that foreign clime will be my joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus.“Nay, my lord, if I were not assured that the blessed Redeemer has owned me for the real conversion and turning of many from darkness to light, the weakness of my decaying body, the temptations that have beset my soul, and the violent opposition with which I have met, would long since have led me to accept some of those offers that have been made me to nestle, and by accepting which I might have screened myself from the obloquy and contempt which, in some degree or other, I meet with every day. But, hitherto, without eating a morsel of the Church of England’s bread, I still continue to use her Liturgy, wherever a church or chapel is allowed me, and preach up her Articles, and enforce her Homilies. Your lordship, therefore, judgeth me exceeding right, when you say, ‘I presume you do not mean to declare any dissent from the Church of England.’ Far be it from me. No, my lord, unless thrust out, I shall never leave her; and even then I shall still adhere to her doctrines, and pray for the restoration of her discipline, to my dying day.“Fond of displaying her truly protestant and orthodox principles, especially when Church and State are in danger from a cruel and popish enemy, I am glad of an opportunity of preaching, though it should be in a meeting-house; and I think it discovers a good and moderate spirit in the Dissenters, who quietly attend on the Church service, as many have done, and continue to do at Long Acre chapel, while many, who style themselves the faithful sons of the Church, have endeavoured to disturb and molest us.“If the lessor of this chapel has no power to let it, or if it be not legally licensed, I have been deceived; and if, upon enquiry, I find this to be the case, I shall soon declare, in the most public manner, how I have been imposed upon. But if it appears that the lessor has a right to dispose of his own property, and that the place is licensed, and as some good, Itrust, has been done by this foolishness of preaching, surely your lordship’s candour will overlook a little irregularity, since, I fear, that, in these dregs of time wherein we live, we must be obliged to be irregular, or we must do no good at all.“My lord, I remember well (and O that I may more than ever obey your lordship’s admonition!) that awful day, wherein I was ordained priest, and when authority was given me, by my honoured friend and father, good Bishop Benson, to preach the word of God; but never did I so much as dream that this was only a local commission, or that the condition annexed, ‘Where you shall be lawfully appointed thereunto,’ was to confine me to any particular place, and that it would be unlawful for me to preach out of it. It is plain my Lord Bishop of Gloucester did not think so; for when his secretary brought a license for me, his lordship said, it would cost me thirty shillings, and therefore I should not have it. And when, after being presented to the late Bishop of London, I applied to him for a license, his lordship was pleased to say I was going to Georgia, and needed none. Accordingly, I preached in most of the London churches, under his lordship’s immediate inspection; and why any other license than my letters of orders should now be required, I believe no substantial, I am positive no scriptural, reason can be assigned.“It is true, as your lordship observes, there is one canon that says, ‘No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in any place, without examination and admission of the Bishop of the Diocese.’ And there is another, as quoted by your lordship, which tells us, ‘Neither minister, churchwarden, nor any other officers of the Church shall suffer any man to preach within their chapels, but such as, by shewing their license to preach, shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorised thereunto.’ But, my lord, what curacy or parsonage have I desired, or do I desire to be admitted to serve in? or, into what church or chapel do I attempt to intrude myself, without leave from the churchwardens or other officers? Being, as I think, without cause, denied admission into the churches, I am content to take the field, and, when the weather will permit, with a table for my pulpit, and the heavens for my sounding-board, I desire to proclaim to all the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ. Besides, my lord, if this canon should be always put into full execution, I humbly presume, no bishop or presbyter can legally preach at any time out of the diocese in which he is appointed to serve; and, consequently, no city incumbent can even occasionally be lawfully assisted by any country clergyman; or even can a bishop himself be lawfully permitted to preach a charity sermon out of his own diocese, without a special license for so doing.“As for the other canon which your lordship mentions, and which runs thus, ‘Neither shall any minister, not licensed as is aforesaid, presume to appoint or hold any meetings for sermons, commonly termed, by some, prophecies or exercises, in market towns or other places, under the said pains,’—I need not inform your lordship, that it was originally levelled against those who would not conform to the Church of England, and that, too, in such high-flying times as not one of the present moderate bench of bishops would wish to see restored. If this be so, how, my lord, doesthis canon belong to me, who am episcopally ordained, and have very lately published a small tract recommending the communion office of the Church of England?“But, my lord, to come nearer to the point in hand. And, for Christ’s sake, let not your lordship be offended with my using such plainness of speech. As in the presence of the living God, I would put it to your lordship’s conscience, whether there is one bishop or presbyter, in England, Wales, or Ireland, who looks upon our canons as his rule of action? If this opinion be true, we are all perjured with a witness, and, in a very bad sense of the word,irregular indeed. If the canons of our Church are to be implicitly obeyed, may I not say, ‘He, who is without the sin of acting illegally, let him cast the first stone at me, and welcome.’ Your lordship knows full well, that canons and other Church laws are good and obligatory, when conformable to the laws of Christ, and agreeable to the liberties of a free people; but, when invented and compiled by men of little hearts and bigotted principles, to hinder persons of more enlarged souls from doing good, or being more extensively useful, they become merebruta fulmina; and, when made use of as cords to bind the hands of a zealous few, who honestly appear for their king, their country, and their God, they may, in my opinion, like the withes with which the Philistines bound Samson, very legally be broken. As I have not the canons at present before me, I cannot tell what pains and penalties are to be incurred for such offence; but, if any penalty is incurred, or any pain to be inflicted on me, for preaching against sin, the Pope, and the devil, and for recommending the strictest loyalty to the best of princes, his Majesty King George, in this metropolis, or in any other part of his Majesty’s dominions, I trust, through grace, I shall be enabled to say,—‘All hail reproach, and welcome pain!’“There now remains but one more particular in your lordship’s letter to be answered,—your lordship’s truly apostolical canon, taken out of2 Cor.x.16,—upon reading of which, I could not help thinking of a passage in goodMr.Philip Henry’s life. It was this. Being ejected out of the Church, and yet thinking it his duty to preach,Mr.Henry used, now and then, to give the people of Broad-Oaks, where he lived, a gospel sermon; and one day, as he was coming from his exercise, he met with the incumbent, and thus addressed him: ‘Sir, I have been taking the liberty of throwing a handful of seed into your field.’ ‘Have you?’ said the good man. ‘May God give it His blessing! There is work enough for us both.’ This, my lord, I humbly conceive, is the case, not only of your lordship, but of every minister’s parish in London, and of every bishop’s diocese in England; and, therefore, as good is done, and souls are benefited, I hope your lordship will not regard a little irregularity, since, at the worst, it is only the irregularity of doing well. But, supposing this should not be admitted as an excuse at other seasons, I hope it will have its weight at this critical juncture, wherein, if there were ten thousand sound preachers, and each preacher had a thousand tongues, they could not be too frequently employed in calling upon the inhabitants of GreatBritain to be upon their guard against the cruel and malicious designs ofFrance, ofRome, and ofhell.“After all, my lord, if your lordship will be pleased to apply toMr.Barnard himself, who, I suppose, knows where the place is registered; or if, upon enquiry, I shall find that the lessor has no power to let it, as I abhor every dishonourable action, after my setting out for Bristol, which I expect to do in a few days, I shall decline preaching in the chapel any more. But, if the case should appear to be otherwise, I hope your lordship will not be angry, if I persist in this, I trust, not unpardonable irregularity; for, if I decline preaching in every place, merely because the incumbent may be unwilling I should come into his parish, I fear I should seldom or never preach at all. This, my lord, especially at the present juncture, when all our civil and religious liberties are at stake, would to me be worse than death itself.“I humbly ask pardon for detaining your lordship so long; but, being willing to give your lordship all the satisfaction I could, I have chosen rather to sit up and deny myself proper repose, than to let your lordship’s candid letter lie by me one moment longer than was absolutely necessary.“I return your lordship a thousand thanks for your favourable opinion of me, and for your good wishes; and, begging the continuance of your lordship’s blessing, and earnestly praying that, whenever your lordship shall be called hence, you may give up your account with joy, I beg leave to subscribe myself, my lord, your lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,“George Whitefield.”Such was Whitefield’s midnight letter to Bishop Pearce. Its length is gigantic, but, throughout, it is pointed, manly, and respectful; and, because of its historical facts, and its statement of the principles which regulated Whitefield’s life, it is of great importance. A summary of it could not have done it justice.A week later, Whitefield wrote a third letter to the bishop, informing him he had ascertained that the chapel was duly licensed, and thatMr.Barnard’s committee were resolved to retain possession of it. He added, “As your lordship would undoubtedly choose that the Church liturgy should be read in it sometimes, rather than it should be entirely made use of in a Nonconformist way, I hope your lordship will not be offended, if I go on as usual after my return from Bristol. I am sorry to inform your lordship, that, notwithstanding the admonitions which, I hear, your lordship has given them, some unhappy persons have still endeavoured to disturb us, by making an odd kind of noise in a neighbouring house. I hear that some of them belongto your lordship’s vestry, and, therefore, wish you would so far interpose, as to order them once more to stop their proceedings.”Whitefield went to Bristol; and, on Sunday, March 14, opened his “spring campaign, by preaching thrice in the fields, to many thousands, inGloucestershire.”383Immediately after this he returned to London, and found it necessary to write again to Bishop Pearce.“Tabernacle House,March 20, 1756.“My Lord,—Upon my coming up to town, I found, to my great surprise, that the disturbances near Long Acre chapel had been continued. On Thursday evening last, when I preached there myself, they were rather increased. Some of the windows were stopped up, to prevent, in some degree, the congregation being disturbed by the unhallowed noise; but large stones were thrown in at another window, and one young person was sadly wounded.“This constrains me to beg your lordship to desire the persons, belonging to your lordship’s vestry, to desist from such irregular proceedings. For my own irregularity in preaching, I am ready at any time to answer; and were I myself the only sufferer, I should be entirely unconcerned at any personal ill-treatment I might meet with in the way of duty. But to have the lives of his Majesty’s loyal subjects endangered, when they come peaceably to worship God, is an irregularity which, I am persuaded, your lordship will look upon as unjustifiable in the sight of God, and of every good man.“Your lordship will allow that, as a subject of King George, and a minister of Jesus Christ, I have a right to do myself justice; and, therefore, I hope, if the disturbances be continued, that your lordship will not be offended, if I lay a plain narration of the whole affair, together with what has passed between your lordship and myself, before the world. I beg you not to look upon this as a threatening. I scorn any such mean procedure. But, as Providence seems to point out such a method, I hope your lordship will have no just reason to censure me if I do it.”The bishop replied, and Whitefield wrote to him again, as follows:—“London,March 25, 1756.“Your lordship needed not to inform me of the privilege of a peer, to deter me from publishing your lordship’s letters, without first asking leave. Nothing shall be done in that way, which is the least inconsistent with the strictest honour, justice, and simplicity. But, if a public account of the repeated disturbances at Long Acre chapel be rendered necessary,I hope your lordship will not esteem it unreasonable in me, to inform the world what previous steps were taken to prevent and stop them.“Such a scene, at such a juncture, and under such a government, as has been transacted in your lordship’s parish, in the house or yard ofMr.Cope, who, I hear, is your lordship’s overseer, ever since lastTwelfth-day, I believe is not to be met with in English history. It is more than noise. It ispremeditated rioting. Drummers, soldiers, and many of the baser sort, have been hired by subscription. A copper furnace, bells, drums, clappers, marrow-bones, and cleavers, and such-like instruments of reformation, have been provided for them, and repeatedly have been used by them, from the moment I have begun preaching, to the end of my sermon. By these horrid noises, many women have been almost frightened to death; and mobbers have, thereby, been encouraged to come and riot at the chapel door during the time of divine service; and, after it has been over, have insulted and abused me and the congregation. Not content with this, the chapel windows, while I have been preaching, have repeatedly been broken by large stones of almost a pound weight, which, though levelled at me, missed me, but sadly wounded some of my hearers. If your lordship will only ride toMr.Cope’s house, you will see the scaffold, and the costly preparations for such a noise upon it, as must make the ears of all who shall hear it to tingle.“I am informed thatMr.C—— andMr.M—— are parties greatly concerned. I know them not, and I pray God never to lay this ill and unmerited treatment to their charge. If no more noise is made, I assure your lordship no further resentment shall be made. But if they persist, I have the authority of an apostle, on a like occasion, to appeal unto Cæsar. I have only one favour to beg of your lordship. As the above-named gentlemen are your lordship’s parishioners, I request that you desire them, henceforward, to desist from such unchristian, such riotous, and dangerous proceedings. Whether, as a chaplain to a most worthy peeress, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a steady disinterested friend to our present happy constitution, I have not a right to ask such a favour, I leave to your lordship’s mature deliberation. Henceforward, I hope to trouble your lordship no more.”Certainly, it was high time to bring matters to a crisis. TheRev.Zachary Pearce,D.D., though himself the son of a rich distiller in Holborn, and though the husband of a wife, who, as the daughter of another Holborn distiller, brought him a large fortune, was a pluralist. Twenty-three years ago, by the exertions of the Earl of Macclesfield, he had been presented with the fat living ofSt.Martin’s-in-the-Fields, even after it had been promised to another man. For seventeen years, he had been dean of Winchester; and, in 1748, had exchanged the deanery for the bishopric of Bangor. And now, in this memorable year of 1756, theDuke of Newcastle conferred upon him the see of Rochester and the deanery of Westminster. No doubt, it was in his capacity of vicar ofSt.Martin’s, that this wealthy pluralist prohibited Whitefield’s preaching in Long Acre, and, if he did not actually employ, yet connived at the noisy ruffians who disturbed Whitefield’s services. Whitefield’s language to the Bishop of Bangor was too respectful. Such a man deserved rebuke, quite as strong as the liquors, by which his own father and the father of his wife had made their fortunes.Notwithstanding all the efforts of Whitefield to obtain peace, the disturbances at Long Acre were continued. Besides this, early in the month of April, Whitefield received three anonymous letters, threatening him with “a certain, sudden, and unavoidable stroke,” unless he desisted from preaching, and refrained from prosecuting the rioters of Long Acre. It is impossible to suspect Bishop Pearce of being implicated in the sending of these disgraceful threats; but there can be little doubt that the known animosity of himself and others gave encouragement to the masked assassins. For years past, the bishops and clergy of the Established Church, comparatively speaking, had ceased from their open and violent persecution of the poor itinerant preacher; but their rancorous feelings towards him, perhaps, were not at all abated. Even free-thinkingDr.Herring, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was now within twelve months of his decease, wrote, in the very midst of the Long Acre riots, to William Duncombe,Esq., as follows:—“Croydon House,January 25, 1756.“Your judgment is right. Whitefield is DanielBurgess384redivivus; and, to be sure, he finds his account in his joco-serious addresses. Wesley, with good parts and learning, is a most dark and saturnine creature. His pictures may frighten weak people, who, at the same time, are wicked; but, I fear, he will make few converts, except for a day. I have read his ‘SeriousThoughts’;385but, for my own part, I think therising and setting of the sun is a more durable argument for religion than all the extraordinary convulsions of nature put together. Let a man be good on right principles, and thenimpavidum ferient ruinae. So far, Horace was as good a preacher as any of us. I have no constitution for these frights and fervours; and, if I can but keep up to the regular practice of a Christian life, upon Christian reasons, I shall be in no pain for futurity; nor do I think it an essential part of religion, to be pointed at for any foolish singularities. The subjects of the Methodist preaching, you mention, are excellent in the hands of wise men, not enthusiasts. As to their notion that men are by nature devils, I can call it by no other name than wicked and blasphemous, and the highest reproach that man can throw upon his wise and good Creator.“I am,etc.,“Thomas Cantuar.”386Under the circumstances of the time, Whitefield was almost driven to seek redress. First of all, he consulted the Honourable Hume Campbell, brother of Lady Jane Nimmo, and solicitor to the Princess of Wales, Lord Clerk Registrar of Scotland, and one of Whitefield’s occasional hearers. In a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, dated “Canterbury, April 10, 1756,” Whitefield wrote:—“The noise at Long Acre has been infernal. I have reason to think there was a secret design for my life. Some of my friends were sadly used; they applied for warrants; and that occasioned the sending of a threatening letter. I have written to Sir Hume Campbell for advice. Here all is peaceable. It is most delightful to see the soldiers flock to hear the word; officers likewise attend very orderly.”On his return to London, Whitefield was introduced to the Earl of Holdernesse, one of his Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State. Hence the following to Lady Huntingdon:—“London,April 18, 1756.“Ever-honoured Madam,—Since my last, from Canterbury, I have received two more threatening letters. My greatest distress is, how to act so as to avoid rashness on the one hand, and timidity on the other. I have been introduced to the Earl of Holdernesse, who received me very courteously, and seemed to make no objection against issuing a reward for the discovery of the letter-writer. Whether I had best accept the plan, I know not. Sir Hume Campbell says the offence is not felony; and he advises me to put all concerned into the Court of King’s Bench. Lord Jesus, direct me, for Thy mercy’s sake! A man came up to me in the pulpit, at the Tabernacle; God knows what was his design. I seeno way for me to act, than, either resolutely to persist in preaching and prosecuting, or entirely to desist from preaching, which would bring intolerable guilt upon my soul, and give the adversary cause to blaspheme. Blessed be God! I am quite clear as to the occasion of my suffering. It is for preaching Christ Jesus, and loyalty to King George. Alas! alas! what a condition would this land be in, were the Protestant interest not to prevail! If Popery is to get a footing here, I should be glad to die by the hands of an assassin. I should then be taken away from the evil to come.”The result of all this battling with the vestry mobs of Bishop Pearce, and of the apprehension created by these anonymous popish menaces, was the publication of the following announcement in theLondon Gazetteof May 1, 1756, and in the two next succeeding numbers of that official journal. The italics and spelling are as they appear in the original:—“Whitehall,April 30, 1756.“Wheras it has been humbly represented to the King that an anonimous letter, without date, directed,To Doctor Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, by the Foundery in Moorfields, was, on the6thof this instant April, received by the ReverendMr.George Whitefield, by the penny post; and that two other letters,viz., one of them dated the7thof the present month of April, subscribed, Your Friendly Adversary, and directed,ToMr.Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, near Hogston, beyond the Upper Moorfields; and the other, anonimous, without date, and directed,To theRev.Mr.Whitefield, at the Tabernacle, near Moorfields, were also received by the said ReverendMr.George Whitefield, by the penny post, on the8thof this instant April; and that the said letters, written in very abusive terms, contained threats of injury and destruction to the said ReverendMr.George Whitefield; His Majesty, for the better discovering, and bringing to justice the persons concerned in writing and sending the said three letters, as above-mentioned, or any one, or more, of them, is pleased to promise his most gracious pardon to any one of them, who shall discover his, or her, accomplice, or accomplices therein, so that he, she, or they, may be apprehended and convicted thereof.“Holdernesse.“And as a further encouragement, James Cox, jeweller, in Racquet Court, Fleet Street, does hereby promise a reward of twenty pounds, to be paid by him, to the person or persons making such discovery as aforesaid, upon the conviction of one or more of the offenders.“James Cox.”So ended one of the toughest battles that Whitefield ever fought, but its issue was of great importance; for, before the appearance of the third advertisement in theLondon Gazette, Whitefield had taken successful steps for the erection of his own Tottenham Court Road chapel, where, for awhile, at least, he and his people were permitted to worship God in peace. But more of this anon.Remembering that Wesley and his Society were permitted, throughout the whole of these disgraceful proceedings, to conduct their services, in their neighbouring West Street chapel, in perfect quietude, it is difficult to account for the disturbances Whitefield had to encounter in Long Acre. Were the “infernal” noises, in the first instance, promoted by the adjoining theatres? Probably they were. Wesley’s preaching in West Street was regarded, by dramatical actors, with less alarm than Whitefield’s in Long Acre. They, probably, felt that, with the great dramatical preacher so near to them, they might soon have to utter a wailing cry, analogous to that of the old Ephesians, under circumstances somewhat similar: “Not only is this our craft in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence destroyed.” But, even admitting that the theatres began the noises, there cannot be a doubt that the vestries of the Church continued them. Bishop Pearce undeniably prohibited Whitefield’s preaching; and, considering his hatred of the Methodists, perhaps, it is not ungenerous to suppose that he secretly did more than this. As it respects the three threatening letters, it is probable that they emanated, neither from the theatre nor Church, but from popish politicians, who, during the “seven years’ war,” which was now in terrific progress, were full of angry excitement, and far more active than they often seemed to be. Whitefield had bitterly offended them by the publication of a “Short Address,” a copy of which he sent to Bishop Pearce onFebruary 23;387and, as there can be little doubt that this small publication had to do with the riots and the threatening letters, a brief description of it may be useful.The title was, “A Short Address to Persons of all Denominations, occasioned by the Alarm of an intended Invasion. By George Whitefield, Chaplain to the RightHonourable the Countess of Huntingdon. London, 1756.” (8vo.pp.20.) The pamphlet had a large sale, not only in Great Britain, but in America. Even during this selfsame year of 1756, as many as six editions were issued at Boston in New England. Its publication was opportune. A Royal Proclamation had recently been published in theLondon Gazette, setting forth that the king commanded all officers and ministers, civil and military, within their respective counties, to cause the coasts of England to be carefully watched, and, in case of any hostile attempt to land upon them, to immediately order all horses, oxen, and cattle, which might be fit for draught or burden, and not actually employed in his Majesty’s service, and also, as far as practicable, all other cattle and provisions, to be removed at least twenty miles from the place where such a hostile attempt was made, so as to prevent them falling into the hands of the enemy. Besides this, “on the6thof February, a public fast was observed, by all ranks of the people. The churches and meeting-houses were thronged; and there was, in appearance, an entire cessation from business throughout London and the suburbs, and all over thekingdom.”388From such facts the reader may imagine the state of the country, when Whitefield wrote his “Short Address.” The following are extracts from it:—“An insulting, enraged, and perfidious enemy is now advancing nearer and nearer to the British borders. Not content with invading and ravaging our rightful sovereign King George’s dominions in America, our popish adversaries have now the ambition to attempt, at least to threaten, an invasion of England itself; hoping, no doubt, thereby, not only to throw us into confusion at home, but also to divert us from more effectually defeating their malicious designs abroad. That such a design is now actually on foot, the late Royal Proclamation renders indisputable.”Having referred to the recent public fast, Whitefield proceeds to say:—“Artful insinuations have been industriously published, in order to lay all the blame of this war upon us. But bold assertions and solid proofs are two different things; for it is plain, beyond all contradiction, that the French, fond of rivalling us both at home and abroad, have unjustly invaded his Majesty’s dominions in America; and have also, by the mostvile artifices and lies, been endeavouring to draw the six nations of Indians from our interest. In short, almost all their proceedings, since the late treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, have been little else than a tacit declaration of war. But He that sitteth in heaven, we may humbly hope, laughs them to scorn; and, as He once came down to confound the language of those aspiring projectors, who would fain have built a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven, so, we trust, He will frustrate the devices of our adversary’s most subtle politicians, and speak confusion to all their projects; who, by aiming at universal monarchy, are attempting to erect a more than second Babel.”Whitefield goes on to shew that good Christians may be soldiers, and writes:—“The British arms were never more formidable, than when our soldiers went forth in the strength of the Lord; and, with a Bible in one hand, and a sword in the other, cheerfully fought under His banner, who has condescended to style Himself ‘a man of war.’ What Bishop Saunderson says of study may be said of fighting: ‘Fighting without prayer is atheism, and prayer without fighting is presumption.’ I would be the more particular on this point, because, through afatal scrupulosityagainst bearing arms, even in a defensive war, his Majesty has been in danger of losing the large province of Pennsylvania, the very centre and garden of all North America. Such very scrupulous persons, grasping at every degree of worldly power, and, by all the arts of worldly policy, labouring to monopolize and retain in their own hands all parts both of the legislative and executive branches of civil government, certainly act a most inconsistent part. Say what we will to the contrary, civil magistracy and defensive war must stand or fall together. Both are built upon the same basis; and there cannot be a single argument urged to establish the one, which does not corroborate and confirm the other.”Whitefield then adverts to the recent earthquakes, at Lisbon and elsewhere, and proceeds to say:—“Were even the like judgments to befal us, they would be but small, in comparison of our hearing that a French army, accompanied with a popish pretender, and thousands of Romish priests, was suffered to invade England, and to blind, deceive, and tyrannize over the souls and consciences of the people belonging to this happy isle. How can any serious and judicious person be so stupid to all principles of self-interest, and so dead to all maxims of common sense, as to prefer a French to an English government; or a popish pretender, born, and bred up in all the arbritary and destructive principles of the court and Church of Rome, to the presentProtestant succession, settled in the illustrious line of Hanover?”Whitefield next refers to popish persecutions of Protestants, and remarks:—“After perusing this,” (a late declaration of ‘his Most Christian Majesty’ LouisXV.,) “read, also, I beseech you, the shocking accounts of the horrid butcheries and cruel murders committed on the bodies of many of our fellow-subjects in America, by the hands ofsavage Indians, instigated thereto by more thansavage popishpriests.389And if this be the beginning, what may we suppose the end will be, should aFrenchpower, or popish pretender, be permitted to subdue either us or them? Speak,Smithfield, speak, and, by thy dumb but persuasive oratory, declare to all who pass by and over thee, how manyEnglishProtestant martyrs thou hast seen burnt to death in the reign of the cruel popish queen, to whom the present pretender to theBritishthrone claims a distant kindred! Speak,Ireland, speak, and tell how many thousands and tens of thousands of innocent, unprovoking Protestants were massacred, in cold blood, by the hands of cruel Papists, within thy borders, about a century ago! Speak,Paris, speak, and say, how many thousands of Protestants were once slaughtered, to serve as a bloody dessert, to grace the solemnity of a marriage feast! Speak,Languedoc, speak, and tell how many Protestant ministers have been lately executed; how many more of their hearers have been dragooned and sent to the galleys; and how many hundreds are now lying in prisons, fast bound in misery and iron, for no other crime than that unpardonable one in theRomishChurch, hearing and preaching the pure gospel of the meek and lowly Jesus!“And think you, my countrymen, thatRome, glutted with Protestant blood, will now rest satisfied, and say, ‘I have enough’? No, on the contrary, having through the good hand of God upon us, been kept so long fasting, we may reasonably suppose, that, the popish priests are only grown more voracious, and, like so many hungry and ravenous wolves pursuing harmless and innocent flocks of sheep, will with double eagerness, pursue after, seize upon, and devour their wished-for Protestant prey; and, attended with their bloody red coats, these Gallic instruments of reformation, who know they must either fight or die, will necessarily breathe out nothing but threatening and slaughter, and carry along with them desolation and destruction, go where they will.”This was strong language, but, under the circumstances, not toostrong.390No wonder, however, that infuriated Papists sent the writer threatening letters. Whitefield expresses his confidence in God’s interposition, and in England’s“glorious fleet,” and “well-disciplined army;” and then finishes with the following peroration:—“If we can but make God our friend, we need not fear whatFranceandRomeandhellcan do against us. All the malicious efforts and designs of men and devils shall, so far from obstructing, be made to subserve the enlargement of His interests, who, in spite of all the strivings of the potsherds of the earth, will hold the balance ofuniversal monarchyin His own hands, and, at last, bring about the full establishment of that blessed kingdom, whose law is truth, whose King is love, and whose duration is eternity.Fiat! fiat!Amen and amen!”These are long quotations, but they help to shew the excited state of public feeling in 1756; and, perhaps, they may help the reader to understand the secrets of the disgraceful clangours, riots, and threatening letters already mentioned.In his pamphlet, Whitefield refers to the persecution of Protestants in France. Much might be said respecting this; but suffice it to remark, that, on the general fast day, February6th, Whitefield made a collection in his Tabernacle, eighty pounds of which he devoted to a fund which was being raised for the assistance of these poor persecutedpeople.391Remembering that, in 1756, money was probably of four times greater worth than it is at present, this collection of the poor Methodists was a noble one; but even this fell far short of the sum, which Whitefield, three months afterwards, obtained, within a week, towards the erection of his Tottenham Court Road chapel. Hence the following, addressed to the Countess of Huntingdon:—“London,May 2, 1756.“Ever-honoured Madam,—Various have been my exercises since I wrote you last; but, I find, all things happen for the furtherance of the gospel. I suppose your ladyship has seen his Majesty’s promise of pardon to any who will discover the letter-writer; and this brings you the further news of my having taking a piece of ground, very commodious to build on, not far from the Foundling Hospital. On Sunday, I opened the subscription, and, through God’s blessing, it has already amounted to near£600. If He is pleased to continue to smile upon my poor endeavours, and to open the hearts of more of His dear children to contribute, I hope, in a few months, to have what has long been wanted,—a place for thegospel at the other end of the town. This evening, God willing, I venture once more to preach at Long Acre. The enemy boasts that I am frightened away; but the triumph of the wicked is short. On Tuesday next, I hope to set out for Wales.”The site of Whitefield’s new chapel was surrounded by fields and gardens. On the north side of it, there were but two houses. The next after them, half a mile further, was the “Adam and Eve” public-house; and thence, to Hampstead, there were only the inns of “Mother Red Cap” and “BlackCap.”392The chapel, when first erected, was seventy feet square within the walls. Two years after it was opened, twelve almshouses and a minister’shouse393were added. About a year after that, the chapel was found to be too small, and it was enlarged to its present dimensions of a hundred and twenty-seven feet long, and seventy feet broad, with a dome a hundred and fourteen feet in height. Beneath it were vaults for the burial of the dead; and in which Whitefield intended that himself and his friends, John and Charles Wesley, should be interred. “I have prepared a vault in this chapel,” Whitefield used to say to his somewhat bigotted congregation, “where I intend to be buried, andMessrs.John and Charles Wesley shall also be buried there. We will all lie together. You will not let them enter your chapel while they are alive. They can do you no harm when they aredead.”394The lease of the ground was granted, to Whitefield, by General George Fitzroy, and, on its expiration in 1828, the freehold was purchased for£14,000. The foundation-stone of the chapel was laid in the beginning of June, 1756, when Whitefield preached from the words, “They sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of thehouse of the Lord was laid.” (Ezraiii.11.)395Among others present on the occasion, were theRev.Thomas Gibbons, one of the Tutors of the Dissenting Academy at Mile End;Dr.AndrewGifford, Assistant Librarian of the British Museum; and the celebratedRev.Benjamin Grosvenor,D.D., for many years the pastor of the Presbyterian congregation in Crosby Square, and who, after preaching in London for half a century, had recently retired into private life. The chapel was opened for divine worship on November 7, 1756, when Whitefield selected, as his text, the words, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.iii.11).396Tottenham Court Road chapel has a history well worthy of being written. From this venerable sanctuary sprang separate congregations in Shepherd’s Market, Kentish Town, Paddington, Tonbridge chapel, Robert Street, Crown Street, and Cravenchapel.397Much also might be said of the distinguished preachers who, in olden days, occupied its pulpit:Dr.Peckwell, De Courcy, Berridge, Walter Shirley, Piercy, chaplain to General Washington, Rowland Hill, Torial Joss, West, Kinsman, Beck, Medley, Edward Parsons, Matthew Wilks, Joel Knight, John Hyatt, and many others; but want of space prevents the insertion of further details. Whitefield’s Tabernacle in Moorfields has been demolished, and a Gothic church erected on itssite.398Whitefield’s Tottenham Court Road chapel is now his only erection in the great metropolis; and long may it stand as a grand old monument, in memory of the man who founded it! Thousands have been converted within its walls, and never was it more greatly needed than at the present day.No sooner had Whitefield raised£600 towards the erection of his intended chapel, than away he went to the west of England, where he spent about a month. He preached at Bristol, Bath, Westbury, Gloucester, Bradford,Frome, Warminster, Portsmouth, and other places. One letter, written during this preaching tour, must be inserted.TheRev.Thomas Haweis,D.D., was now a student at Christ Church College, Oxford. He had been educated at the Grammar School, Truro, and had been converted under the preaching of theRev.Samuel Walker, whose ministry, in that town, during the last few years, had been the means of turning a large number of people “from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.” Young Haweis had formed a Society atOxford,399analogous to the “Holy Club” of the Wesleys and their friends, more than a quarter of a century previous to this. He and a few of his fellow-collegians, all animated by the same views and feelings, met together, in his room, at stated times, for the purpose of reading the Greek Testament, and of conversing on religious subjects.Mr.Walker, the Methodist clergyman of Truro, in a letter, dated “April, 1757,” wrote, “Tom Haweis is at Christ Church, and doing service among a few of the young gentlemen there. He tells me, he is remarked as a dangerous fellow; and adds, that Romaine has been again in the university pulpit, where he preached imputed righteousness, but, it is said, will be allowed to preach no morethere.”400In another letter, written a few months afterwards, Walker remarked, “Tom Haweis has good speed at Oxford. There are pretty many already coming to him in private, and he hopes very well of a few ofthem.”401Haweis, in fact, had founded a second Society of “Oxford Methodists,” a Society which grew into such importance, and became so obnoxious to the heads of houses, as to lead, in 1768, to the expulsion of six students, belonging to Edmund Hall, “for holding Methodistical tenets, and taking upon them to pray, read, and expound the Scriptures in privatehouses.”402As yet, Whitefield had never met with Haweis, but he had heard of him, and, while at Bristol, he addressed to him the following letter:—
“Tabernacle House,February 16, 1756.“My Lord,—I this evening received your lordship’s kind letter; and, though it is late, and nature calls for rest, I now sit down to give your lordship an explicit answer.“God can witness, that I entered into holy orders, according to the form of ordination of the Church of England, with a disinterested view to promote His glory, and the welfare of precious and immortal souls. Fornear twenty years, as thousands can testify, I have conscientiously defended her Homilies and Articles, and, upon all occasions, have spoken well of her Liturgy. So far from renouncing these, together with her discipline, I earnestly pray for the due restoration of the one, and daily lament the departure of too many from the other. But, my lord, what can I do?“When I acted in the most regular manner, and when I was bringing multitudes, even of Dissenters, to crowd the churches, without any other reason being given than that too many followed after me, I was denied the use of the churches. Being thus excluded, and many thousands of ignorant souls, that perhaps would neither go to church nor meeting-houses, being very hungry after the gospel, I thought myself bound in duty to deal out to them the bread of life.“Being further ambitious to serve my God, my king, and my country, I sacrificed my affections, and left my native soil, in order to begin and carry on an Orphan House in the infant colony of Georgia, which is now put upon a good foundation. This served as an introduction, though without design, to my visiting the other parts of his Majesty’s dominions in North America; and I humbly hope that many in that foreign clime will be my joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus.“Nay, my lord, if I were not assured that the blessed Redeemer has owned me for the real conversion and turning of many from darkness to light, the weakness of my decaying body, the temptations that have beset my soul, and the violent opposition with which I have met, would long since have led me to accept some of those offers that have been made me to nestle, and by accepting which I might have screened myself from the obloquy and contempt which, in some degree or other, I meet with every day. But, hitherto, without eating a morsel of the Church of England’s bread, I still continue to use her Liturgy, wherever a church or chapel is allowed me, and preach up her Articles, and enforce her Homilies. Your lordship, therefore, judgeth me exceeding right, when you say, ‘I presume you do not mean to declare any dissent from the Church of England.’ Far be it from me. No, my lord, unless thrust out, I shall never leave her; and even then I shall still adhere to her doctrines, and pray for the restoration of her discipline, to my dying day.“Fond of displaying her truly protestant and orthodox principles, especially when Church and State are in danger from a cruel and popish enemy, I am glad of an opportunity of preaching, though it should be in a meeting-house; and I think it discovers a good and moderate spirit in the Dissenters, who quietly attend on the Church service, as many have done, and continue to do at Long Acre chapel, while many, who style themselves the faithful sons of the Church, have endeavoured to disturb and molest us.“If the lessor of this chapel has no power to let it, or if it be not legally licensed, I have been deceived; and if, upon enquiry, I find this to be the case, I shall soon declare, in the most public manner, how I have been imposed upon. But if it appears that the lessor has a right to dispose of his own property, and that the place is licensed, and as some good, Itrust, has been done by this foolishness of preaching, surely your lordship’s candour will overlook a little irregularity, since, I fear, that, in these dregs of time wherein we live, we must be obliged to be irregular, or we must do no good at all.“My lord, I remember well (and O that I may more than ever obey your lordship’s admonition!) that awful day, wherein I was ordained priest, and when authority was given me, by my honoured friend and father, good Bishop Benson, to preach the word of God; but never did I so much as dream that this was only a local commission, or that the condition annexed, ‘Where you shall be lawfully appointed thereunto,’ was to confine me to any particular place, and that it would be unlawful for me to preach out of it. It is plain my Lord Bishop of Gloucester did not think so; for when his secretary brought a license for me, his lordship said, it would cost me thirty shillings, and therefore I should not have it. And when, after being presented to the late Bishop of London, I applied to him for a license, his lordship was pleased to say I was going to Georgia, and needed none. Accordingly, I preached in most of the London churches, under his lordship’s immediate inspection; and why any other license than my letters of orders should now be required, I believe no substantial, I am positive no scriptural, reason can be assigned.“It is true, as your lordship observes, there is one canon that says, ‘No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in any place, without examination and admission of the Bishop of the Diocese.’ And there is another, as quoted by your lordship, which tells us, ‘Neither minister, churchwarden, nor any other officers of the Church shall suffer any man to preach within their chapels, but such as, by shewing their license to preach, shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorised thereunto.’ But, my lord, what curacy or parsonage have I desired, or do I desire to be admitted to serve in? or, into what church or chapel do I attempt to intrude myself, without leave from the churchwardens or other officers? Being, as I think, without cause, denied admission into the churches, I am content to take the field, and, when the weather will permit, with a table for my pulpit, and the heavens for my sounding-board, I desire to proclaim to all the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ. Besides, my lord, if this canon should be always put into full execution, I humbly presume, no bishop or presbyter can legally preach at any time out of the diocese in which he is appointed to serve; and, consequently, no city incumbent can even occasionally be lawfully assisted by any country clergyman; or even can a bishop himself be lawfully permitted to preach a charity sermon out of his own diocese, without a special license for so doing.“As for the other canon which your lordship mentions, and which runs thus, ‘Neither shall any minister, not licensed as is aforesaid, presume to appoint or hold any meetings for sermons, commonly termed, by some, prophecies or exercises, in market towns or other places, under the said pains,’—I need not inform your lordship, that it was originally levelled against those who would not conform to the Church of England, and that, too, in such high-flying times as not one of the present moderate bench of bishops would wish to see restored. If this be so, how, my lord, doesthis canon belong to me, who am episcopally ordained, and have very lately published a small tract recommending the communion office of the Church of England?“But, my lord, to come nearer to the point in hand. And, for Christ’s sake, let not your lordship be offended with my using such plainness of speech. As in the presence of the living God, I would put it to your lordship’s conscience, whether there is one bishop or presbyter, in England, Wales, or Ireland, who looks upon our canons as his rule of action? If this opinion be true, we are all perjured with a witness, and, in a very bad sense of the word,irregular indeed. If the canons of our Church are to be implicitly obeyed, may I not say, ‘He, who is without the sin of acting illegally, let him cast the first stone at me, and welcome.’ Your lordship knows full well, that canons and other Church laws are good and obligatory, when conformable to the laws of Christ, and agreeable to the liberties of a free people; but, when invented and compiled by men of little hearts and bigotted principles, to hinder persons of more enlarged souls from doing good, or being more extensively useful, they become merebruta fulmina; and, when made use of as cords to bind the hands of a zealous few, who honestly appear for their king, their country, and their God, they may, in my opinion, like the withes with which the Philistines bound Samson, very legally be broken. As I have not the canons at present before me, I cannot tell what pains and penalties are to be incurred for such offence; but, if any penalty is incurred, or any pain to be inflicted on me, for preaching against sin, the Pope, and the devil, and for recommending the strictest loyalty to the best of princes, his Majesty King George, in this metropolis, or in any other part of his Majesty’s dominions, I trust, through grace, I shall be enabled to say,—‘All hail reproach, and welcome pain!’“There now remains but one more particular in your lordship’s letter to be answered,—your lordship’s truly apostolical canon, taken out of2 Cor.x.16,—upon reading of which, I could not help thinking of a passage in goodMr.Philip Henry’s life. It was this. Being ejected out of the Church, and yet thinking it his duty to preach,Mr.Henry used, now and then, to give the people of Broad-Oaks, where he lived, a gospel sermon; and one day, as he was coming from his exercise, he met with the incumbent, and thus addressed him: ‘Sir, I have been taking the liberty of throwing a handful of seed into your field.’ ‘Have you?’ said the good man. ‘May God give it His blessing! There is work enough for us both.’ This, my lord, I humbly conceive, is the case, not only of your lordship, but of every minister’s parish in London, and of every bishop’s diocese in England; and, therefore, as good is done, and souls are benefited, I hope your lordship will not regard a little irregularity, since, at the worst, it is only the irregularity of doing well. But, supposing this should not be admitted as an excuse at other seasons, I hope it will have its weight at this critical juncture, wherein, if there were ten thousand sound preachers, and each preacher had a thousand tongues, they could not be too frequently employed in calling upon the inhabitants of GreatBritain to be upon their guard against the cruel and malicious designs ofFrance, ofRome, and ofhell.“After all, my lord, if your lordship will be pleased to apply toMr.Barnard himself, who, I suppose, knows where the place is registered; or if, upon enquiry, I shall find that the lessor has no power to let it, as I abhor every dishonourable action, after my setting out for Bristol, which I expect to do in a few days, I shall decline preaching in the chapel any more. But, if the case should appear to be otherwise, I hope your lordship will not be angry, if I persist in this, I trust, not unpardonable irregularity; for, if I decline preaching in every place, merely because the incumbent may be unwilling I should come into his parish, I fear I should seldom or never preach at all. This, my lord, especially at the present juncture, when all our civil and religious liberties are at stake, would to me be worse than death itself.“I humbly ask pardon for detaining your lordship so long; but, being willing to give your lordship all the satisfaction I could, I have chosen rather to sit up and deny myself proper repose, than to let your lordship’s candid letter lie by me one moment longer than was absolutely necessary.“I return your lordship a thousand thanks for your favourable opinion of me, and for your good wishes; and, begging the continuance of your lordship’s blessing, and earnestly praying that, whenever your lordship shall be called hence, you may give up your account with joy, I beg leave to subscribe myself, my lord, your lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,“George Whitefield.”
“Tabernacle House,February 16, 1756.
“My Lord,—I this evening received your lordship’s kind letter; and, though it is late, and nature calls for rest, I now sit down to give your lordship an explicit answer.
“God can witness, that I entered into holy orders, according to the form of ordination of the Church of England, with a disinterested view to promote His glory, and the welfare of precious and immortal souls. Fornear twenty years, as thousands can testify, I have conscientiously defended her Homilies and Articles, and, upon all occasions, have spoken well of her Liturgy. So far from renouncing these, together with her discipline, I earnestly pray for the due restoration of the one, and daily lament the departure of too many from the other. But, my lord, what can I do?
“When I acted in the most regular manner, and when I was bringing multitudes, even of Dissenters, to crowd the churches, without any other reason being given than that too many followed after me, I was denied the use of the churches. Being thus excluded, and many thousands of ignorant souls, that perhaps would neither go to church nor meeting-houses, being very hungry after the gospel, I thought myself bound in duty to deal out to them the bread of life.
“Being further ambitious to serve my God, my king, and my country, I sacrificed my affections, and left my native soil, in order to begin and carry on an Orphan House in the infant colony of Georgia, which is now put upon a good foundation. This served as an introduction, though without design, to my visiting the other parts of his Majesty’s dominions in North America; and I humbly hope that many in that foreign clime will be my joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus.
“Nay, my lord, if I were not assured that the blessed Redeemer has owned me for the real conversion and turning of many from darkness to light, the weakness of my decaying body, the temptations that have beset my soul, and the violent opposition with which I have met, would long since have led me to accept some of those offers that have been made me to nestle, and by accepting which I might have screened myself from the obloquy and contempt which, in some degree or other, I meet with every day. But, hitherto, without eating a morsel of the Church of England’s bread, I still continue to use her Liturgy, wherever a church or chapel is allowed me, and preach up her Articles, and enforce her Homilies. Your lordship, therefore, judgeth me exceeding right, when you say, ‘I presume you do not mean to declare any dissent from the Church of England.’ Far be it from me. No, my lord, unless thrust out, I shall never leave her; and even then I shall still adhere to her doctrines, and pray for the restoration of her discipline, to my dying day.
“Fond of displaying her truly protestant and orthodox principles, especially when Church and State are in danger from a cruel and popish enemy, I am glad of an opportunity of preaching, though it should be in a meeting-house; and I think it discovers a good and moderate spirit in the Dissenters, who quietly attend on the Church service, as many have done, and continue to do at Long Acre chapel, while many, who style themselves the faithful sons of the Church, have endeavoured to disturb and molest us.
“If the lessor of this chapel has no power to let it, or if it be not legally licensed, I have been deceived; and if, upon enquiry, I find this to be the case, I shall soon declare, in the most public manner, how I have been imposed upon. But if it appears that the lessor has a right to dispose of his own property, and that the place is licensed, and as some good, Itrust, has been done by this foolishness of preaching, surely your lordship’s candour will overlook a little irregularity, since, I fear, that, in these dregs of time wherein we live, we must be obliged to be irregular, or we must do no good at all.
“My lord, I remember well (and O that I may more than ever obey your lordship’s admonition!) that awful day, wherein I was ordained priest, and when authority was given me, by my honoured friend and father, good Bishop Benson, to preach the word of God; but never did I so much as dream that this was only a local commission, or that the condition annexed, ‘Where you shall be lawfully appointed thereunto,’ was to confine me to any particular place, and that it would be unlawful for me to preach out of it. It is plain my Lord Bishop of Gloucester did not think so; for when his secretary brought a license for me, his lordship said, it would cost me thirty shillings, and therefore I should not have it. And when, after being presented to the late Bishop of London, I applied to him for a license, his lordship was pleased to say I was going to Georgia, and needed none. Accordingly, I preached in most of the London churches, under his lordship’s immediate inspection; and why any other license than my letters of orders should now be required, I believe no substantial, I am positive no scriptural, reason can be assigned.
“It is true, as your lordship observes, there is one canon that says, ‘No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in any place, without examination and admission of the Bishop of the Diocese.’ And there is another, as quoted by your lordship, which tells us, ‘Neither minister, churchwarden, nor any other officers of the Church shall suffer any man to preach within their chapels, but such as, by shewing their license to preach, shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorised thereunto.’ But, my lord, what curacy or parsonage have I desired, or do I desire to be admitted to serve in? or, into what church or chapel do I attempt to intrude myself, without leave from the churchwardens or other officers? Being, as I think, without cause, denied admission into the churches, I am content to take the field, and, when the weather will permit, with a table for my pulpit, and the heavens for my sounding-board, I desire to proclaim to all the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ. Besides, my lord, if this canon should be always put into full execution, I humbly presume, no bishop or presbyter can legally preach at any time out of the diocese in which he is appointed to serve; and, consequently, no city incumbent can even occasionally be lawfully assisted by any country clergyman; or even can a bishop himself be lawfully permitted to preach a charity sermon out of his own diocese, without a special license for so doing.
“As for the other canon which your lordship mentions, and which runs thus, ‘Neither shall any minister, not licensed as is aforesaid, presume to appoint or hold any meetings for sermons, commonly termed, by some, prophecies or exercises, in market towns or other places, under the said pains,’—I need not inform your lordship, that it was originally levelled against those who would not conform to the Church of England, and that, too, in such high-flying times as not one of the present moderate bench of bishops would wish to see restored. If this be so, how, my lord, doesthis canon belong to me, who am episcopally ordained, and have very lately published a small tract recommending the communion office of the Church of England?
“But, my lord, to come nearer to the point in hand. And, for Christ’s sake, let not your lordship be offended with my using such plainness of speech. As in the presence of the living God, I would put it to your lordship’s conscience, whether there is one bishop or presbyter, in England, Wales, or Ireland, who looks upon our canons as his rule of action? If this opinion be true, we are all perjured with a witness, and, in a very bad sense of the word,irregular indeed. If the canons of our Church are to be implicitly obeyed, may I not say, ‘He, who is without the sin of acting illegally, let him cast the first stone at me, and welcome.’ Your lordship knows full well, that canons and other Church laws are good and obligatory, when conformable to the laws of Christ, and agreeable to the liberties of a free people; but, when invented and compiled by men of little hearts and bigotted principles, to hinder persons of more enlarged souls from doing good, or being more extensively useful, they become merebruta fulmina; and, when made use of as cords to bind the hands of a zealous few, who honestly appear for their king, their country, and their God, they may, in my opinion, like the withes with which the Philistines bound Samson, very legally be broken. As I have not the canons at present before me, I cannot tell what pains and penalties are to be incurred for such offence; but, if any penalty is incurred, or any pain to be inflicted on me, for preaching against sin, the Pope, and the devil, and for recommending the strictest loyalty to the best of princes, his Majesty King George, in this metropolis, or in any other part of his Majesty’s dominions, I trust, through grace, I shall be enabled to say,—
‘All hail reproach, and welcome pain!’
‘All hail reproach, and welcome pain!’
‘All hail reproach, and welcome pain!’
“There now remains but one more particular in your lordship’s letter to be answered,—your lordship’s truly apostolical canon, taken out of2 Cor.x.16,—upon reading of which, I could not help thinking of a passage in goodMr.Philip Henry’s life. It was this. Being ejected out of the Church, and yet thinking it his duty to preach,Mr.Henry used, now and then, to give the people of Broad-Oaks, where he lived, a gospel sermon; and one day, as he was coming from his exercise, he met with the incumbent, and thus addressed him: ‘Sir, I have been taking the liberty of throwing a handful of seed into your field.’ ‘Have you?’ said the good man. ‘May God give it His blessing! There is work enough for us both.’ This, my lord, I humbly conceive, is the case, not only of your lordship, but of every minister’s parish in London, and of every bishop’s diocese in England; and, therefore, as good is done, and souls are benefited, I hope your lordship will not regard a little irregularity, since, at the worst, it is only the irregularity of doing well. But, supposing this should not be admitted as an excuse at other seasons, I hope it will have its weight at this critical juncture, wherein, if there were ten thousand sound preachers, and each preacher had a thousand tongues, they could not be too frequently employed in calling upon the inhabitants of GreatBritain to be upon their guard against the cruel and malicious designs ofFrance, ofRome, and ofhell.
“After all, my lord, if your lordship will be pleased to apply toMr.Barnard himself, who, I suppose, knows where the place is registered; or if, upon enquiry, I shall find that the lessor has no power to let it, as I abhor every dishonourable action, after my setting out for Bristol, which I expect to do in a few days, I shall decline preaching in the chapel any more. But, if the case should appear to be otherwise, I hope your lordship will not be angry, if I persist in this, I trust, not unpardonable irregularity; for, if I decline preaching in every place, merely because the incumbent may be unwilling I should come into his parish, I fear I should seldom or never preach at all. This, my lord, especially at the present juncture, when all our civil and religious liberties are at stake, would to me be worse than death itself.
“I humbly ask pardon for detaining your lordship so long; but, being willing to give your lordship all the satisfaction I could, I have chosen rather to sit up and deny myself proper repose, than to let your lordship’s candid letter lie by me one moment longer than was absolutely necessary.
“I return your lordship a thousand thanks for your favourable opinion of me, and for your good wishes; and, begging the continuance of your lordship’s blessing, and earnestly praying that, whenever your lordship shall be called hence, you may give up your account with joy, I beg leave to subscribe myself, my lord, your lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,
“George Whitefield.”
Such was Whitefield’s midnight letter to Bishop Pearce. Its length is gigantic, but, throughout, it is pointed, manly, and respectful; and, because of its historical facts, and its statement of the principles which regulated Whitefield’s life, it is of great importance. A summary of it could not have done it justice.
A week later, Whitefield wrote a third letter to the bishop, informing him he had ascertained that the chapel was duly licensed, and thatMr.Barnard’s committee were resolved to retain possession of it. He added, “As your lordship would undoubtedly choose that the Church liturgy should be read in it sometimes, rather than it should be entirely made use of in a Nonconformist way, I hope your lordship will not be offended, if I go on as usual after my return from Bristol. I am sorry to inform your lordship, that, notwithstanding the admonitions which, I hear, your lordship has given them, some unhappy persons have still endeavoured to disturb us, by making an odd kind of noise in a neighbouring house. I hear that some of them belongto your lordship’s vestry, and, therefore, wish you would so far interpose, as to order them once more to stop their proceedings.”
Whitefield went to Bristol; and, on Sunday, March 14, opened his “spring campaign, by preaching thrice in the fields, to many thousands, inGloucestershire.”383Immediately after this he returned to London, and found it necessary to write again to Bishop Pearce.
“Tabernacle House,March 20, 1756.“My Lord,—Upon my coming up to town, I found, to my great surprise, that the disturbances near Long Acre chapel had been continued. On Thursday evening last, when I preached there myself, they were rather increased. Some of the windows were stopped up, to prevent, in some degree, the congregation being disturbed by the unhallowed noise; but large stones were thrown in at another window, and one young person was sadly wounded.“This constrains me to beg your lordship to desire the persons, belonging to your lordship’s vestry, to desist from such irregular proceedings. For my own irregularity in preaching, I am ready at any time to answer; and were I myself the only sufferer, I should be entirely unconcerned at any personal ill-treatment I might meet with in the way of duty. But to have the lives of his Majesty’s loyal subjects endangered, when they come peaceably to worship God, is an irregularity which, I am persuaded, your lordship will look upon as unjustifiable in the sight of God, and of every good man.“Your lordship will allow that, as a subject of King George, and a minister of Jesus Christ, I have a right to do myself justice; and, therefore, I hope, if the disturbances be continued, that your lordship will not be offended, if I lay a plain narration of the whole affair, together with what has passed between your lordship and myself, before the world. I beg you not to look upon this as a threatening. I scorn any such mean procedure. But, as Providence seems to point out such a method, I hope your lordship will have no just reason to censure me if I do it.”
“Tabernacle House,March 20, 1756.
“My Lord,—Upon my coming up to town, I found, to my great surprise, that the disturbances near Long Acre chapel had been continued. On Thursday evening last, when I preached there myself, they were rather increased. Some of the windows were stopped up, to prevent, in some degree, the congregation being disturbed by the unhallowed noise; but large stones were thrown in at another window, and one young person was sadly wounded.
“This constrains me to beg your lordship to desire the persons, belonging to your lordship’s vestry, to desist from such irregular proceedings. For my own irregularity in preaching, I am ready at any time to answer; and were I myself the only sufferer, I should be entirely unconcerned at any personal ill-treatment I might meet with in the way of duty. But to have the lives of his Majesty’s loyal subjects endangered, when they come peaceably to worship God, is an irregularity which, I am persuaded, your lordship will look upon as unjustifiable in the sight of God, and of every good man.
“Your lordship will allow that, as a subject of King George, and a minister of Jesus Christ, I have a right to do myself justice; and, therefore, I hope, if the disturbances be continued, that your lordship will not be offended, if I lay a plain narration of the whole affair, together with what has passed between your lordship and myself, before the world. I beg you not to look upon this as a threatening. I scorn any such mean procedure. But, as Providence seems to point out such a method, I hope your lordship will have no just reason to censure me if I do it.”
The bishop replied, and Whitefield wrote to him again, as follows:—
“London,March 25, 1756.“Your lordship needed not to inform me of the privilege of a peer, to deter me from publishing your lordship’s letters, without first asking leave. Nothing shall be done in that way, which is the least inconsistent with the strictest honour, justice, and simplicity. But, if a public account of the repeated disturbances at Long Acre chapel be rendered necessary,I hope your lordship will not esteem it unreasonable in me, to inform the world what previous steps were taken to prevent and stop them.“Such a scene, at such a juncture, and under such a government, as has been transacted in your lordship’s parish, in the house or yard ofMr.Cope, who, I hear, is your lordship’s overseer, ever since lastTwelfth-day, I believe is not to be met with in English history. It is more than noise. It ispremeditated rioting. Drummers, soldiers, and many of the baser sort, have been hired by subscription. A copper furnace, bells, drums, clappers, marrow-bones, and cleavers, and such-like instruments of reformation, have been provided for them, and repeatedly have been used by them, from the moment I have begun preaching, to the end of my sermon. By these horrid noises, many women have been almost frightened to death; and mobbers have, thereby, been encouraged to come and riot at the chapel door during the time of divine service; and, after it has been over, have insulted and abused me and the congregation. Not content with this, the chapel windows, while I have been preaching, have repeatedly been broken by large stones of almost a pound weight, which, though levelled at me, missed me, but sadly wounded some of my hearers. If your lordship will only ride toMr.Cope’s house, you will see the scaffold, and the costly preparations for such a noise upon it, as must make the ears of all who shall hear it to tingle.“I am informed thatMr.C—— andMr.M—— are parties greatly concerned. I know them not, and I pray God never to lay this ill and unmerited treatment to their charge. If no more noise is made, I assure your lordship no further resentment shall be made. But if they persist, I have the authority of an apostle, on a like occasion, to appeal unto Cæsar. I have only one favour to beg of your lordship. As the above-named gentlemen are your lordship’s parishioners, I request that you desire them, henceforward, to desist from such unchristian, such riotous, and dangerous proceedings. Whether, as a chaplain to a most worthy peeress, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a steady disinterested friend to our present happy constitution, I have not a right to ask such a favour, I leave to your lordship’s mature deliberation. Henceforward, I hope to trouble your lordship no more.”
“London,March 25, 1756.
“Your lordship needed not to inform me of the privilege of a peer, to deter me from publishing your lordship’s letters, without first asking leave. Nothing shall be done in that way, which is the least inconsistent with the strictest honour, justice, and simplicity. But, if a public account of the repeated disturbances at Long Acre chapel be rendered necessary,I hope your lordship will not esteem it unreasonable in me, to inform the world what previous steps were taken to prevent and stop them.
“Such a scene, at such a juncture, and under such a government, as has been transacted in your lordship’s parish, in the house or yard ofMr.Cope, who, I hear, is your lordship’s overseer, ever since lastTwelfth-day, I believe is not to be met with in English history. It is more than noise. It ispremeditated rioting. Drummers, soldiers, and many of the baser sort, have been hired by subscription. A copper furnace, bells, drums, clappers, marrow-bones, and cleavers, and such-like instruments of reformation, have been provided for them, and repeatedly have been used by them, from the moment I have begun preaching, to the end of my sermon. By these horrid noises, many women have been almost frightened to death; and mobbers have, thereby, been encouraged to come and riot at the chapel door during the time of divine service; and, after it has been over, have insulted and abused me and the congregation. Not content with this, the chapel windows, while I have been preaching, have repeatedly been broken by large stones of almost a pound weight, which, though levelled at me, missed me, but sadly wounded some of my hearers. If your lordship will only ride toMr.Cope’s house, you will see the scaffold, and the costly preparations for such a noise upon it, as must make the ears of all who shall hear it to tingle.
“I am informed thatMr.C—— andMr.M—— are parties greatly concerned. I know them not, and I pray God never to lay this ill and unmerited treatment to their charge. If no more noise is made, I assure your lordship no further resentment shall be made. But if they persist, I have the authority of an apostle, on a like occasion, to appeal unto Cæsar. I have only one favour to beg of your lordship. As the above-named gentlemen are your lordship’s parishioners, I request that you desire them, henceforward, to desist from such unchristian, such riotous, and dangerous proceedings. Whether, as a chaplain to a most worthy peeress, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a steady disinterested friend to our present happy constitution, I have not a right to ask such a favour, I leave to your lordship’s mature deliberation. Henceforward, I hope to trouble your lordship no more.”
Certainly, it was high time to bring matters to a crisis. TheRev.Zachary Pearce,D.D., though himself the son of a rich distiller in Holborn, and though the husband of a wife, who, as the daughter of another Holborn distiller, brought him a large fortune, was a pluralist. Twenty-three years ago, by the exertions of the Earl of Macclesfield, he had been presented with the fat living ofSt.Martin’s-in-the-Fields, even after it had been promised to another man. For seventeen years, he had been dean of Winchester; and, in 1748, had exchanged the deanery for the bishopric of Bangor. And now, in this memorable year of 1756, theDuke of Newcastle conferred upon him the see of Rochester and the deanery of Westminster. No doubt, it was in his capacity of vicar ofSt.Martin’s, that this wealthy pluralist prohibited Whitefield’s preaching in Long Acre, and, if he did not actually employ, yet connived at the noisy ruffians who disturbed Whitefield’s services. Whitefield’s language to the Bishop of Bangor was too respectful. Such a man deserved rebuke, quite as strong as the liquors, by which his own father and the father of his wife had made their fortunes.
Notwithstanding all the efforts of Whitefield to obtain peace, the disturbances at Long Acre were continued. Besides this, early in the month of April, Whitefield received three anonymous letters, threatening him with “a certain, sudden, and unavoidable stroke,” unless he desisted from preaching, and refrained from prosecuting the rioters of Long Acre. It is impossible to suspect Bishop Pearce of being implicated in the sending of these disgraceful threats; but there can be little doubt that the known animosity of himself and others gave encouragement to the masked assassins. For years past, the bishops and clergy of the Established Church, comparatively speaking, had ceased from their open and violent persecution of the poor itinerant preacher; but their rancorous feelings towards him, perhaps, were not at all abated. Even free-thinkingDr.Herring, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was now within twelve months of his decease, wrote, in the very midst of the Long Acre riots, to William Duncombe,Esq., as follows:—
“Croydon House,January 25, 1756.“Your judgment is right. Whitefield is DanielBurgess384redivivus; and, to be sure, he finds his account in his joco-serious addresses. Wesley, with good parts and learning, is a most dark and saturnine creature. His pictures may frighten weak people, who, at the same time, are wicked; but, I fear, he will make few converts, except for a day. I have read his ‘SeriousThoughts’;385but, for my own part, I think therising and setting of the sun is a more durable argument for religion than all the extraordinary convulsions of nature put together. Let a man be good on right principles, and thenimpavidum ferient ruinae. So far, Horace was as good a preacher as any of us. I have no constitution for these frights and fervours; and, if I can but keep up to the regular practice of a Christian life, upon Christian reasons, I shall be in no pain for futurity; nor do I think it an essential part of religion, to be pointed at for any foolish singularities. The subjects of the Methodist preaching, you mention, are excellent in the hands of wise men, not enthusiasts. As to their notion that men are by nature devils, I can call it by no other name than wicked and blasphemous, and the highest reproach that man can throw upon his wise and good Creator.“I am,etc.,“Thomas Cantuar.”386
“Croydon House,January 25, 1756.
“Your judgment is right. Whitefield is DanielBurgess384redivivus; and, to be sure, he finds his account in his joco-serious addresses. Wesley, with good parts and learning, is a most dark and saturnine creature. His pictures may frighten weak people, who, at the same time, are wicked; but, I fear, he will make few converts, except for a day. I have read his ‘SeriousThoughts’;385but, for my own part, I think therising and setting of the sun is a more durable argument for religion than all the extraordinary convulsions of nature put together. Let a man be good on right principles, and thenimpavidum ferient ruinae. So far, Horace was as good a preacher as any of us. I have no constitution for these frights and fervours; and, if I can but keep up to the regular practice of a Christian life, upon Christian reasons, I shall be in no pain for futurity; nor do I think it an essential part of religion, to be pointed at for any foolish singularities. The subjects of the Methodist preaching, you mention, are excellent in the hands of wise men, not enthusiasts. As to their notion that men are by nature devils, I can call it by no other name than wicked and blasphemous, and the highest reproach that man can throw upon his wise and good Creator.
“I am,etc.,
“Thomas Cantuar.”386
Under the circumstances of the time, Whitefield was almost driven to seek redress. First of all, he consulted the Honourable Hume Campbell, brother of Lady Jane Nimmo, and solicitor to the Princess of Wales, Lord Clerk Registrar of Scotland, and one of Whitefield’s occasional hearers. In a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, dated “Canterbury, April 10, 1756,” Whitefield wrote:—
“The noise at Long Acre has been infernal. I have reason to think there was a secret design for my life. Some of my friends were sadly used; they applied for warrants; and that occasioned the sending of a threatening letter. I have written to Sir Hume Campbell for advice. Here all is peaceable. It is most delightful to see the soldiers flock to hear the word; officers likewise attend very orderly.”
“The noise at Long Acre has been infernal. I have reason to think there was a secret design for my life. Some of my friends were sadly used; they applied for warrants; and that occasioned the sending of a threatening letter. I have written to Sir Hume Campbell for advice. Here all is peaceable. It is most delightful to see the soldiers flock to hear the word; officers likewise attend very orderly.”
On his return to London, Whitefield was introduced to the Earl of Holdernesse, one of his Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State. Hence the following to Lady Huntingdon:—
“London,April 18, 1756.“Ever-honoured Madam,—Since my last, from Canterbury, I have received two more threatening letters. My greatest distress is, how to act so as to avoid rashness on the one hand, and timidity on the other. I have been introduced to the Earl of Holdernesse, who received me very courteously, and seemed to make no objection against issuing a reward for the discovery of the letter-writer. Whether I had best accept the plan, I know not. Sir Hume Campbell says the offence is not felony; and he advises me to put all concerned into the Court of King’s Bench. Lord Jesus, direct me, for Thy mercy’s sake! A man came up to me in the pulpit, at the Tabernacle; God knows what was his design. I seeno way for me to act, than, either resolutely to persist in preaching and prosecuting, or entirely to desist from preaching, which would bring intolerable guilt upon my soul, and give the adversary cause to blaspheme. Blessed be God! I am quite clear as to the occasion of my suffering. It is for preaching Christ Jesus, and loyalty to King George. Alas! alas! what a condition would this land be in, were the Protestant interest not to prevail! If Popery is to get a footing here, I should be glad to die by the hands of an assassin. I should then be taken away from the evil to come.”
“London,April 18, 1756.
“Ever-honoured Madam,—Since my last, from Canterbury, I have received two more threatening letters. My greatest distress is, how to act so as to avoid rashness on the one hand, and timidity on the other. I have been introduced to the Earl of Holdernesse, who received me very courteously, and seemed to make no objection against issuing a reward for the discovery of the letter-writer. Whether I had best accept the plan, I know not. Sir Hume Campbell says the offence is not felony; and he advises me to put all concerned into the Court of King’s Bench. Lord Jesus, direct me, for Thy mercy’s sake! A man came up to me in the pulpit, at the Tabernacle; God knows what was his design. I seeno way for me to act, than, either resolutely to persist in preaching and prosecuting, or entirely to desist from preaching, which would bring intolerable guilt upon my soul, and give the adversary cause to blaspheme. Blessed be God! I am quite clear as to the occasion of my suffering. It is for preaching Christ Jesus, and loyalty to King George. Alas! alas! what a condition would this land be in, were the Protestant interest not to prevail! If Popery is to get a footing here, I should be glad to die by the hands of an assassin. I should then be taken away from the evil to come.”
The result of all this battling with the vestry mobs of Bishop Pearce, and of the apprehension created by these anonymous popish menaces, was the publication of the following announcement in theLondon Gazetteof May 1, 1756, and in the two next succeeding numbers of that official journal. The italics and spelling are as they appear in the original:—
“Whitehall,April 30, 1756.“Wheras it has been humbly represented to the King that an anonimous letter, without date, directed,To Doctor Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, by the Foundery in Moorfields, was, on the6thof this instant April, received by the ReverendMr.George Whitefield, by the penny post; and that two other letters,viz., one of them dated the7thof the present month of April, subscribed, Your Friendly Adversary, and directed,ToMr.Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, near Hogston, beyond the Upper Moorfields; and the other, anonimous, without date, and directed,To theRev.Mr.Whitefield, at the Tabernacle, near Moorfields, were also received by the said ReverendMr.George Whitefield, by the penny post, on the8thof this instant April; and that the said letters, written in very abusive terms, contained threats of injury and destruction to the said ReverendMr.George Whitefield; His Majesty, for the better discovering, and bringing to justice the persons concerned in writing and sending the said three letters, as above-mentioned, or any one, or more, of them, is pleased to promise his most gracious pardon to any one of them, who shall discover his, or her, accomplice, or accomplices therein, so that he, she, or they, may be apprehended and convicted thereof.“Holdernesse.“And as a further encouragement, James Cox, jeweller, in Racquet Court, Fleet Street, does hereby promise a reward of twenty pounds, to be paid by him, to the person or persons making such discovery as aforesaid, upon the conviction of one or more of the offenders.“James Cox.”
“Whitehall,April 30, 1756.
“Wheras it has been humbly represented to the King that an anonimous letter, without date, directed,To Doctor Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, by the Foundery in Moorfields, was, on the6thof this instant April, received by the ReverendMr.George Whitefield, by the penny post; and that two other letters,viz., one of them dated the7thof the present month of April, subscribed, Your Friendly Adversary, and directed,ToMr.Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, near Hogston, beyond the Upper Moorfields; and the other, anonimous, without date, and directed,To theRev.Mr.Whitefield, at the Tabernacle, near Moorfields, were also received by the said ReverendMr.George Whitefield, by the penny post, on the8thof this instant April; and that the said letters, written in very abusive terms, contained threats of injury and destruction to the said ReverendMr.George Whitefield; His Majesty, for the better discovering, and bringing to justice the persons concerned in writing and sending the said three letters, as above-mentioned, or any one, or more, of them, is pleased to promise his most gracious pardon to any one of them, who shall discover his, or her, accomplice, or accomplices therein, so that he, she, or they, may be apprehended and convicted thereof.
“Holdernesse.
“And as a further encouragement, James Cox, jeweller, in Racquet Court, Fleet Street, does hereby promise a reward of twenty pounds, to be paid by him, to the person or persons making such discovery as aforesaid, upon the conviction of one or more of the offenders.
“James Cox.”
So ended one of the toughest battles that Whitefield ever fought, but its issue was of great importance; for, before the appearance of the third advertisement in theLondon Gazette, Whitefield had taken successful steps for the erection of his own Tottenham Court Road chapel, where, for awhile, at least, he and his people were permitted to worship God in peace. But more of this anon.
Remembering that Wesley and his Society were permitted, throughout the whole of these disgraceful proceedings, to conduct their services, in their neighbouring West Street chapel, in perfect quietude, it is difficult to account for the disturbances Whitefield had to encounter in Long Acre. Were the “infernal” noises, in the first instance, promoted by the adjoining theatres? Probably they were. Wesley’s preaching in West Street was regarded, by dramatical actors, with less alarm than Whitefield’s in Long Acre. They, probably, felt that, with the great dramatical preacher so near to them, they might soon have to utter a wailing cry, analogous to that of the old Ephesians, under circumstances somewhat similar: “Not only is this our craft in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence destroyed.” But, even admitting that the theatres began the noises, there cannot be a doubt that the vestries of the Church continued them. Bishop Pearce undeniably prohibited Whitefield’s preaching; and, considering his hatred of the Methodists, perhaps, it is not ungenerous to suppose that he secretly did more than this. As it respects the three threatening letters, it is probable that they emanated, neither from the theatre nor Church, but from popish politicians, who, during the “seven years’ war,” which was now in terrific progress, were full of angry excitement, and far more active than they often seemed to be. Whitefield had bitterly offended them by the publication of a “Short Address,” a copy of which he sent to Bishop Pearce onFebruary 23;387and, as there can be little doubt that this small publication had to do with the riots and the threatening letters, a brief description of it may be useful.
The title was, “A Short Address to Persons of all Denominations, occasioned by the Alarm of an intended Invasion. By George Whitefield, Chaplain to the RightHonourable the Countess of Huntingdon. London, 1756.” (8vo.pp.20.) The pamphlet had a large sale, not only in Great Britain, but in America. Even during this selfsame year of 1756, as many as six editions were issued at Boston in New England. Its publication was opportune. A Royal Proclamation had recently been published in theLondon Gazette, setting forth that the king commanded all officers and ministers, civil and military, within their respective counties, to cause the coasts of England to be carefully watched, and, in case of any hostile attempt to land upon them, to immediately order all horses, oxen, and cattle, which might be fit for draught or burden, and not actually employed in his Majesty’s service, and also, as far as practicable, all other cattle and provisions, to be removed at least twenty miles from the place where such a hostile attempt was made, so as to prevent them falling into the hands of the enemy. Besides this, “on the6thof February, a public fast was observed, by all ranks of the people. The churches and meeting-houses were thronged; and there was, in appearance, an entire cessation from business throughout London and the suburbs, and all over thekingdom.”388From such facts the reader may imagine the state of the country, when Whitefield wrote his “Short Address.” The following are extracts from it:—
“An insulting, enraged, and perfidious enemy is now advancing nearer and nearer to the British borders. Not content with invading and ravaging our rightful sovereign King George’s dominions in America, our popish adversaries have now the ambition to attempt, at least to threaten, an invasion of England itself; hoping, no doubt, thereby, not only to throw us into confusion at home, but also to divert us from more effectually defeating their malicious designs abroad. That such a design is now actually on foot, the late Royal Proclamation renders indisputable.”
“An insulting, enraged, and perfidious enemy is now advancing nearer and nearer to the British borders. Not content with invading and ravaging our rightful sovereign King George’s dominions in America, our popish adversaries have now the ambition to attempt, at least to threaten, an invasion of England itself; hoping, no doubt, thereby, not only to throw us into confusion at home, but also to divert us from more effectually defeating their malicious designs abroad. That such a design is now actually on foot, the late Royal Proclamation renders indisputable.”
Having referred to the recent public fast, Whitefield proceeds to say:—
“Artful insinuations have been industriously published, in order to lay all the blame of this war upon us. But bold assertions and solid proofs are two different things; for it is plain, beyond all contradiction, that the French, fond of rivalling us both at home and abroad, have unjustly invaded his Majesty’s dominions in America; and have also, by the mostvile artifices and lies, been endeavouring to draw the six nations of Indians from our interest. In short, almost all their proceedings, since the late treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, have been little else than a tacit declaration of war. But He that sitteth in heaven, we may humbly hope, laughs them to scorn; and, as He once came down to confound the language of those aspiring projectors, who would fain have built a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven, so, we trust, He will frustrate the devices of our adversary’s most subtle politicians, and speak confusion to all their projects; who, by aiming at universal monarchy, are attempting to erect a more than second Babel.”
“Artful insinuations have been industriously published, in order to lay all the blame of this war upon us. But bold assertions and solid proofs are two different things; for it is plain, beyond all contradiction, that the French, fond of rivalling us both at home and abroad, have unjustly invaded his Majesty’s dominions in America; and have also, by the mostvile artifices and lies, been endeavouring to draw the six nations of Indians from our interest. In short, almost all their proceedings, since the late treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, have been little else than a tacit declaration of war. But He that sitteth in heaven, we may humbly hope, laughs them to scorn; and, as He once came down to confound the language of those aspiring projectors, who would fain have built a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven, so, we trust, He will frustrate the devices of our adversary’s most subtle politicians, and speak confusion to all their projects; who, by aiming at universal monarchy, are attempting to erect a more than second Babel.”
Whitefield goes on to shew that good Christians may be soldiers, and writes:—
“The British arms were never more formidable, than when our soldiers went forth in the strength of the Lord; and, with a Bible in one hand, and a sword in the other, cheerfully fought under His banner, who has condescended to style Himself ‘a man of war.’ What Bishop Saunderson says of study may be said of fighting: ‘Fighting without prayer is atheism, and prayer without fighting is presumption.’ I would be the more particular on this point, because, through afatal scrupulosityagainst bearing arms, even in a defensive war, his Majesty has been in danger of losing the large province of Pennsylvania, the very centre and garden of all North America. Such very scrupulous persons, grasping at every degree of worldly power, and, by all the arts of worldly policy, labouring to monopolize and retain in their own hands all parts both of the legislative and executive branches of civil government, certainly act a most inconsistent part. Say what we will to the contrary, civil magistracy and defensive war must stand or fall together. Both are built upon the same basis; and there cannot be a single argument urged to establish the one, which does not corroborate and confirm the other.”
“The British arms were never more formidable, than when our soldiers went forth in the strength of the Lord; and, with a Bible in one hand, and a sword in the other, cheerfully fought under His banner, who has condescended to style Himself ‘a man of war.’ What Bishop Saunderson says of study may be said of fighting: ‘Fighting without prayer is atheism, and prayer without fighting is presumption.’ I would be the more particular on this point, because, through afatal scrupulosityagainst bearing arms, even in a defensive war, his Majesty has been in danger of losing the large province of Pennsylvania, the very centre and garden of all North America. Such very scrupulous persons, grasping at every degree of worldly power, and, by all the arts of worldly policy, labouring to monopolize and retain in their own hands all parts both of the legislative and executive branches of civil government, certainly act a most inconsistent part. Say what we will to the contrary, civil magistracy and defensive war must stand or fall together. Both are built upon the same basis; and there cannot be a single argument urged to establish the one, which does not corroborate and confirm the other.”
Whitefield then adverts to the recent earthquakes, at Lisbon and elsewhere, and proceeds to say:—
“Were even the like judgments to befal us, they would be but small, in comparison of our hearing that a French army, accompanied with a popish pretender, and thousands of Romish priests, was suffered to invade England, and to blind, deceive, and tyrannize over the souls and consciences of the people belonging to this happy isle. How can any serious and judicious person be so stupid to all principles of self-interest, and so dead to all maxims of common sense, as to prefer a French to an English government; or a popish pretender, born, and bred up in all the arbritary and destructive principles of the court and Church of Rome, to the presentProtestant succession, settled in the illustrious line of Hanover?”
“Were even the like judgments to befal us, they would be but small, in comparison of our hearing that a French army, accompanied with a popish pretender, and thousands of Romish priests, was suffered to invade England, and to blind, deceive, and tyrannize over the souls and consciences of the people belonging to this happy isle. How can any serious and judicious person be so stupid to all principles of self-interest, and so dead to all maxims of common sense, as to prefer a French to an English government; or a popish pretender, born, and bred up in all the arbritary and destructive principles of the court and Church of Rome, to the presentProtestant succession, settled in the illustrious line of Hanover?”
Whitefield next refers to popish persecutions of Protestants, and remarks:—
“After perusing this,” (a late declaration of ‘his Most Christian Majesty’ LouisXV.,) “read, also, I beseech you, the shocking accounts of the horrid butcheries and cruel murders committed on the bodies of many of our fellow-subjects in America, by the hands ofsavage Indians, instigated thereto by more thansavage popishpriests.389And if this be the beginning, what may we suppose the end will be, should aFrenchpower, or popish pretender, be permitted to subdue either us or them? Speak,Smithfield, speak, and, by thy dumb but persuasive oratory, declare to all who pass by and over thee, how manyEnglishProtestant martyrs thou hast seen burnt to death in the reign of the cruel popish queen, to whom the present pretender to theBritishthrone claims a distant kindred! Speak,Ireland, speak, and tell how many thousands and tens of thousands of innocent, unprovoking Protestants were massacred, in cold blood, by the hands of cruel Papists, within thy borders, about a century ago! Speak,Paris, speak, and say, how many thousands of Protestants were once slaughtered, to serve as a bloody dessert, to grace the solemnity of a marriage feast! Speak,Languedoc, speak, and tell how many Protestant ministers have been lately executed; how many more of their hearers have been dragooned and sent to the galleys; and how many hundreds are now lying in prisons, fast bound in misery and iron, for no other crime than that unpardonable one in theRomishChurch, hearing and preaching the pure gospel of the meek and lowly Jesus!“And think you, my countrymen, thatRome, glutted with Protestant blood, will now rest satisfied, and say, ‘I have enough’? No, on the contrary, having through the good hand of God upon us, been kept so long fasting, we may reasonably suppose, that, the popish priests are only grown more voracious, and, like so many hungry and ravenous wolves pursuing harmless and innocent flocks of sheep, will with double eagerness, pursue after, seize upon, and devour their wished-for Protestant prey; and, attended with their bloody red coats, these Gallic instruments of reformation, who know they must either fight or die, will necessarily breathe out nothing but threatening and slaughter, and carry along with them desolation and destruction, go where they will.”
“After perusing this,” (a late declaration of ‘his Most Christian Majesty’ LouisXV.,) “read, also, I beseech you, the shocking accounts of the horrid butcheries and cruel murders committed on the bodies of many of our fellow-subjects in America, by the hands ofsavage Indians, instigated thereto by more thansavage popishpriests.389And if this be the beginning, what may we suppose the end will be, should aFrenchpower, or popish pretender, be permitted to subdue either us or them? Speak,Smithfield, speak, and, by thy dumb but persuasive oratory, declare to all who pass by and over thee, how manyEnglishProtestant martyrs thou hast seen burnt to death in the reign of the cruel popish queen, to whom the present pretender to theBritishthrone claims a distant kindred! Speak,Ireland, speak, and tell how many thousands and tens of thousands of innocent, unprovoking Protestants were massacred, in cold blood, by the hands of cruel Papists, within thy borders, about a century ago! Speak,Paris, speak, and say, how many thousands of Protestants were once slaughtered, to serve as a bloody dessert, to grace the solemnity of a marriage feast! Speak,Languedoc, speak, and tell how many Protestant ministers have been lately executed; how many more of their hearers have been dragooned and sent to the galleys; and how many hundreds are now lying in prisons, fast bound in misery and iron, for no other crime than that unpardonable one in theRomishChurch, hearing and preaching the pure gospel of the meek and lowly Jesus!
“And think you, my countrymen, thatRome, glutted with Protestant blood, will now rest satisfied, and say, ‘I have enough’? No, on the contrary, having through the good hand of God upon us, been kept so long fasting, we may reasonably suppose, that, the popish priests are only grown more voracious, and, like so many hungry and ravenous wolves pursuing harmless and innocent flocks of sheep, will with double eagerness, pursue after, seize upon, and devour their wished-for Protestant prey; and, attended with their bloody red coats, these Gallic instruments of reformation, who know they must either fight or die, will necessarily breathe out nothing but threatening and slaughter, and carry along with them desolation and destruction, go where they will.”
This was strong language, but, under the circumstances, not toostrong.390No wonder, however, that infuriated Papists sent the writer threatening letters. Whitefield expresses his confidence in God’s interposition, and in England’s“glorious fleet,” and “well-disciplined army;” and then finishes with the following peroration:—
“If we can but make God our friend, we need not fear whatFranceandRomeandhellcan do against us. All the malicious efforts and designs of men and devils shall, so far from obstructing, be made to subserve the enlargement of His interests, who, in spite of all the strivings of the potsherds of the earth, will hold the balance ofuniversal monarchyin His own hands, and, at last, bring about the full establishment of that blessed kingdom, whose law is truth, whose King is love, and whose duration is eternity.Fiat! fiat!Amen and amen!”
“If we can but make God our friend, we need not fear whatFranceandRomeandhellcan do against us. All the malicious efforts and designs of men and devils shall, so far from obstructing, be made to subserve the enlargement of His interests, who, in spite of all the strivings of the potsherds of the earth, will hold the balance ofuniversal monarchyin His own hands, and, at last, bring about the full establishment of that blessed kingdom, whose law is truth, whose King is love, and whose duration is eternity.Fiat! fiat!Amen and amen!”
These are long quotations, but they help to shew the excited state of public feeling in 1756; and, perhaps, they may help the reader to understand the secrets of the disgraceful clangours, riots, and threatening letters already mentioned.
In his pamphlet, Whitefield refers to the persecution of Protestants in France. Much might be said respecting this; but suffice it to remark, that, on the general fast day, February6th, Whitefield made a collection in his Tabernacle, eighty pounds of which he devoted to a fund which was being raised for the assistance of these poor persecutedpeople.391Remembering that, in 1756, money was probably of four times greater worth than it is at present, this collection of the poor Methodists was a noble one; but even this fell far short of the sum, which Whitefield, three months afterwards, obtained, within a week, towards the erection of his Tottenham Court Road chapel. Hence the following, addressed to the Countess of Huntingdon:—
“London,May 2, 1756.“Ever-honoured Madam,—Various have been my exercises since I wrote you last; but, I find, all things happen for the furtherance of the gospel. I suppose your ladyship has seen his Majesty’s promise of pardon to any who will discover the letter-writer; and this brings you the further news of my having taking a piece of ground, very commodious to build on, not far from the Foundling Hospital. On Sunday, I opened the subscription, and, through God’s blessing, it has already amounted to near£600. If He is pleased to continue to smile upon my poor endeavours, and to open the hearts of more of His dear children to contribute, I hope, in a few months, to have what has long been wanted,—a place for thegospel at the other end of the town. This evening, God willing, I venture once more to preach at Long Acre. The enemy boasts that I am frightened away; but the triumph of the wicked is short. On Tuesday next, I hope to set out for Wales.”
“London,May 2, 1756.
“Ever-honoured Madam,—Various have been my exercises since I wrote you last; but, I find, all things happen for the furtherance of the gospel. I suppose your ladyship has seen his Majesty’s promise of pardon to any who will discover the letter-writer; and this brings you the further news of my having taking a piece of ground, very commodious to build on, not far from the Foundling Hospital. On Sunday, I opened the subscription, and, through God’s blessing, it has already amounted to near£600. If He is pleased to continue to smile upon my poor endeavours, and to open the hearts of more of His dear children to contribute, I hope, in a few months, to have what has long been wanted,—a place for thegospel at the other end of the town. This evening, God willing, I venture once more to preach at Long Acre. The enemy boasts that I am frightened away; but the triumph of the wicked is short. On Tuesday next, I hope to set out for Wales.”
The site of Whitefield’s new chapel was surrounded by fields and gardens. On the north side of it, there were but two houses. The next after them, half a mile further, was the “Adam and Eve” public-house; and thence, to Hampstead, there were only the inns of “Mother Red Cap” and “BlackCap.”392The chapel, when first erected, was seventy feet square within the walls. Two years after it was opened, twelve almshouses and a minister’shouse393were added. About a year after that, the chapel was found to be too small, and it was enlarged to its present dimensions of a hundred and twenty-seven feet long, and seventy feet broad, with a dome a hundred and fourteen feet in height. Beneath it were vaults for the burial of the dead; and in which Whitefield intended that himself and his friends, John and Charles Wesley, should be interred. “I have prepared a vault in this chapel,” Whitefield used to say to his somewhat bigotted congregation, “where I intend to be buried, andMessrs.John and Charles Wesley shall also be buried there. We will all lie together. You will not let them enter your chapel while they are alive. They can do you no harm when they aredead.”394The lease of the ground was granted, to Whitefield, by General George Fitzroy, and, on its expiration in 1828, the freehold was purchased for£14,000. The foundation-stone of the chapel was laid in the beginning of June, 1756, when Whitefield preached from the words, “They sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of thehouse of the Lord was laid.” (Ezraiii.11.)395Among others present on the occasion, were theRev.Thomas Gibbons, one of the Tutors of the Dissenting Academy at Mile End;Dr.AndrewGifford, Assistant Librarian of the British Museum; and the celebratedRev.Benjamin Grosvenor,D.D., for many years the pastor of the Presbyterian congregation in Crosby Square, and who, after preaching in London for half a century, had recently retired into private life. The chapel was opened for divine worship on November 7, 1756, when Whitefield selected, as his text, the words, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.iii.11).396
Tottenham Court Road chapel has a history well worthy of being written. From this venerable sanctuary sprang separate congregations in Shepherd’s Market, Kentish Town, Paddington, Tonbridge chapel, Robert Street, Crown Street, and Cravenchapel.397Much also might be said of the distinguished preachers who, in olden days, occupied its pulpit:Dr.Peckwell, De Courcy, Berridge, Walter Shirley, Piercy, chaplain to General Washington, Rowland Hill, Torial Joss, West, Kinsman, Beck, Medley, Edward Parsons, Matthew Wilks, Joel Knight, John Hyatt, and many others; but want of space prevents the insertion of further details. Whitefield’s Tabernacle in Moorfields has been demolished, and a Gothic church erected on itssite.398Whitefield’s Tottenham Court Road chapel is now his only erection in the great metropolis; and long may it stand as a grand old monument, in memory of the man who founded it! Thousands have been converted within its walls, and never was it more greatly needed than at the present day.
No sooner had Whitefield raised£600 towards the erection of his intended chapel, than away he went to the west of England, where he spent about a month. He preached at Bristol, Bath, Westbury, Gloucester, Bradford,Frome, Warminster, Portsmouth, and other places. One letter, written during this preaching tour, must be inserted.
TheRev.Thomas Haweis,D.D., was now a student at Christ Church College, Oxford. He had been educated at the Grammar School, Truro, and had been converted under the preaching of theRev.Samuel Walker, whose ministry, in that town, during the last few years, had been the means of turning a large number of people “from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.” Young Haweis had formed a Society atOxford,399analogous to the “Holy Club” of the Wesleys and their friends, more than a quarter of a century previous to this. He and a few of his fellow-collegians, all animated by the same views and feelings, met together, in his room, at stated times, for the purpose of reading the Greek Testament, and of conversing on religious subjects.Mr.Walker, the Methodist clergyman of Truro, in a letter, dated “April, 1757,” wrote, “Tom Haweis is at Christ Church, and doing service among a few of the young gentlemen there. He tells me, he is remarked as a dangerous fellow; and adds, that Romaine has been again in the university pulpit, where he preached imputed righteousness, but, it is said, will be allowed to preach no morethere.”400In another letter, written a few months afterwards, Walker remarked, “Tom Haweis has good speed at Oxford. There are pretty many already coming to him in private, and he hopes very well of a few ofthem.”401Haweis, in fact, had founded a second Society of “Oxford Methodists,” a Society which grew into such importance, and became so obnoxious to the heads of houses, as to lead, in 1768, to the expulsion of six students, belonging to Edmund Hall, “for holding Methodistical tenets, and taking upon them to pray, read, and expound the Scriptures in privatehouses.”402
As yet, Whitefield had never met with Haweis, but he had heard of him, and, while at Bristol, he addressed to him the following letter:—