“Whereas some anonymous papers, against the people called Methodists in general, and myself and friends in particular, have been, for some weeks, printed in a large edition, and handed about and read in the Religious Societies of the cities of London and Westminster, and given into the hands of many private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one, nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many queries, of great importance, concerning me and my conduct, contained therein; and as it appears, that, one paper has little or no connection with another, and a copy, when applied for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark for Georgia—I am, therefore, obliged hereby to desire a speedyopen publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid impartial answer may be made thereto by me,“George Whitefield.”Six days after the date of this advertisement, Whitefield wrote as follows to the Bishop of London:—“London,February 1, 1744.“My Lord,—Simplicity becomes the followers of Jesus Christ; and, therefore, I think it my duty to trouble your lordship with these few lines.“I suppose your lordship has seen the advertisement published by me, about four days ago, concerning certain anonymous papers, which have been handed about the Societies for some considerable time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad to be informed whether the report be true, that your lordship composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your lordship’s keeping, would oblige, my lord, your lordship’s most obliged, dutiful son and servant,“George Whitefield.”“P.S. The bearer will bring your lordship’s answer; or, if your lordship favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to be left withMr.J. Syms, in Pitfield Street, near Hoxton.”Instead of writing, the Bishop sent, by the bearer of Whitefield’s letter, a verbal message, to the effect that Whitefield should hear from him; but the only further communication which came to hand was the following, written, two days after the date of Whitefield’s letter to the Bishop, by the printer of the “anonymous papers.”“February 3, 1744.“Sir,—My name is Owen. I am a printer in Amen Corner, and I waited upon you to let you know that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print, for their use, such numbers of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists,’ with some few additions, as they have respectively bespoken; and I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished.“I am, sir, your most obedient servant,“E. Owen.”There can hardly be a doubt that the “Observations” were the productions of Bishop Gibson’s pen. Others, besides Whitefield and his friends, fully believed this. Zinzendorf, on receiving a copy of the anonymous pamphlet, wrote a long letter, in Latin, to the Bishop, expressing his surprise that any one belonging to the Church of Englandshould have evinced such ignorance by the remarks made respecting the Moravians. A Moravian deputation also waited upon Gibson, on the same subject;and a further correspondence ensued between the Bishop, Zinzendorf, and JamesHutton;94in which Zinzendorf almost indignantly repudiated any present connection with the Methodists, telling his lordship, that, it was “very difficult to decide whether the Moravians have a greater dislike to the Methodists’ plan of salvation, or the Methodists to that of the Moravians.”But leaving this, all candid readers will acknowledge that the “conduct and behaviour” of the Bishop of London and his brethren were disingenuous. To be the circulators of anonymous “fly-sheets,” full of the most serious accusations, was an act dishonourable to a bishop’s dignity, and savoured more of the assassin than of a pastor of the flock of Christ.Whitefield lost no time in replying to the Bishops’ pamphlet. On the10thof March, he finished, and committed to the press, “An Answer to the first part of an anonymous Pamphlet, entitled, ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the name of Methodists.’ In a Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of London, and the other the Right Reverend the Bishops concerned in the publication thereof.” (8vo. 26pp.) Before the year was ended, Whitefield’s “Letter” passed, at least, through three editions in England, besides being printed and published at Boston in America. The motto on his title-page was Psalmxxxv.11, “False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.”It is difficult to furnish an outline of Whitefield’s pamphlet; but the following extracts will give the reader an idea of its style and spirit:—“Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart, not to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others; and that I, consequently, may have sometimes mistaken nature for grace, imagination forrevelation, and the fire of my own temper for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal. If, therefore, upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable in any respect, I will not only confess it, but return hearty thanks both to the compiler and your lordships,though unknown. Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the cause to know who the author is. Only this much may be said, your lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair togive stabs in the dark.”Whitefield proceeds to say, that the title of the Bishops’ pamphlet ought to have run thus: “Misrepresentations of the Conduct andPrinciplesof many Orthodox, well-meaning Ministers and Members of the Church of England, and loyal Subjects to his Majesty, King George,falsely termed a Sect, and usually distinguished,out of contempt, by the name of Methodists.” He adds:—“Theprinciples, as well as conduct, of the Methodists are greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. Its design is to exhibit their proceedings as dangerous to the Church and State, in order to procure an Act of Parliament against them, or to oblige them to secure themselves by turning Dissenters. But is not such a motion, at such a season as this, both uncharitable and unseasonable? Is not the Administration engaged enough already in other affairs, without troubling themselves with the Methodists? Or, who would now advise them to bring further guilt upon the nation, by persecuting some of the present government’smost heartyfriends? I say, my lords,the present government’s most hearty friends; for, though the Methodists (as the world calls them) disagree in some particulars, yet I venture to affirm that, toa man, they all agree in this: namely, to love and honour the king. For my own part, I profess myself a zealous friend to his present majesty King George, and the present Administration. Wherever I go, I think it my duty to pray for him and to preach up obedience to him, and all that are set in authority under him. I have now been a preacher above seven years, and for six years past have been called to act in a very public way. Your lordships must have heard of the great numbers who have attended: sometimes several of the nobility, and, now and then, even some of the clergy have been present. Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal word? Are there not thousands, who can testify how fervently and frequently I pray for his majesty King George, his royal offspring, and the present government? Yes, my lords, they can; and, I trust, I should be enabled to do so, though surrounded with popish enemies, and in danger of dying for it as soon as my prayer was ended.”So much for Whitefield’s loyalty. What about his ecclesiastical misbehaviour? He writes:—“If your lordships apprehend that we are liable to ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence, whenever called to it by ourecclesiastical superiors. As for myself, your lordships very well know that I am a Bachelor of Arts, have taken the oaths, have subscribed to the Articles, and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character, I have acted, both at home and abroad; and I know of no law of our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn, street, or outhouse whatever.”Whitefield proceeds to say, he has perused “all the Acts of King CharlesII., wherein the wordfieldis mentioned,” and that he finds “they are intended to suppressseditious conventicles,” and then continues:—“These are the onlyfield-meetingsthat are prohibited; and how, my lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Are they ‘seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence of tender consciences, contrive insurrections?’ No, my lords. How then can your lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number ofMr.Owen, in order, as may be supposed, that they may be dispersed among your lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A more notorious libel has not been published. The pamphlet comes into public like a child dropped, that nobody cares to own. And, indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel?”This, addressed to bishops, by a young clergyman, was bold language; but their lordships deserved it; for, whatever faults belonged to Whitefield and the first Methodists, they certainly were as free from sedition as the Episcopal Bench itself.Whitefield’s “Second Letter,” to the bishops, was written during his voyage to America, and was first “printed and sold by Rogers and Fowle, in Queen Street, near the Prison, Boston, 1744.” (4to. 24pp.) It is dated August 25, 1744; but, to prevent a recurrence to the subject, it is noticed here. First of all, Whitefield replies to the censures pronounced upon “itinerant preaching,” and concludes thus:—“May I not take the freedom of acquainting your lordships, that, if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord of London, whose diocese is of such vast extent,) they would all of them long since have become itinerant preachers.”He next defended the doctrines, preached by himself and the Methodists,—justification by faith, sudden and instantaneous conversion, and other cognate truths. He attacked Archbishop Tillotson, because, “contrary to the laws of Church and State, he makes good works aconditionof ouracceptance with God;” and he declared concerning the author of “The Whole Duty of Man,” that, because he entirely omits to teach the doctrine of justification by faith, his famous book might “more properly be termed,Half the Duty of Man.” He belaboured the clergy for playing atdice, andcards, and otherunlawful games, contrary to the seventy-fifth canon of the Church; and complained, that, by “frequenting taverns and alehouses,” they injured the laity by a vile “example.” He rebutted the charge against himself of being an enthusiast; and, as for the “sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings” of some of his converts, he said, “The itinerant preachers look upon these as extraordinary things, proceedinggenerallyfrom soul-distress, andsometimes, it may be, from the agency of the evil spirit, who labours to drive poor souls into despair.”What was the result of all this plain-speaking? First of all, another anonymous author, merely using the initials, “J. B.,” published a furious pamphlet of fifty-four pages, entitled, “A Letter to the ReverendMr.Whitefield, occasioned by hispretendedAnswer to the first part of the Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists. By a Gentleman of Pembroke College,Oxon.London, 1744.” (8vo.)How far the author of this letter was agentlemanwill appear from the following extracts from his rancorous production:—“Do you think my Lord of London would choose to let you know whether he was the author of the papers, or would be fond of entering into apersonaldispute with you? with you, I say, sir, or your followers; who, I may venture to affirm, can curse, rail, and berogue your antagonists, (though in Scripture language all the while,) so as hardly to be exceeded by any Pope, orspiritual bully, that ever yet appeared in Christendom.”“You are one who has been travelling over all countries, to establishnew-fangled societies;heads and spiritual directors,hot-brained cobblers, and the meanest class of men;fellows that have nothing to lose, all big with venom against the clergy of thepresent Establishment, anddespising the lawsof the State, and thepeaceful constitutionof the realm. You are perpetually sowing divisions, and urging on the bigotry of your disciples, and their implacable malice, by your belying, railing, and scandalising the ministers of the Church, as well as by treating as heathens and reprobates of the infinitely good Being, all others, who dare despise your hellish doctrines and practices. You exactly copy after Cromwell, theWhitefieldof the last century, inartfully compoundingChurchmen and Dissenters, people of all sorts and denominations, to bring about your design of ruining the present constitution. When I see a man, of yourvast importance,railing,hectoring, andbullyingyour superiors, I cannot help thinking of apertliquor amongst us, which foams, and bounces, and sputters, and makes a mighty ado; and yet all the while is butbottled small-beer.“Yourfavourite methodof wounding characters in a scrip of prayer, to shew the world how kindly you can forgive, after you have been publicly railing at them fornothing, puts me in mind of Jack in theTale of a Tub; who was mighty fond of falling down on his knees, and turning up his eyes in the midst of a kennel, as if at his devotions; but who, when curiosity attracted men to laugh or to listen, would, of a sudden, bespatter them with mud.”Much more of the same kind of scurrility, and of even worse, might be given; but the last paragraph in the “Gentleman’s” ill-mannered pamphlet must suffice.“Thus ends your railing; and, like a woman that hasfought herself out of breath, when you canspit no more of your malice, you tell us, you would ‘not bring a railing accusation against any.’ What a monstrous fib is that! ‘Neither would I,’ you add, ‘when giving a reason of the hope that is in me, do it any otherwise than with meekness and fear.’ There you fib again most desperately! Why,my dear meek soul, of a sudden, you have certainly forgot yourself; and your darlingspirit of bitterness, that has possessed you through the whole Letter, at length, seems to bejaded. However, it cannot helpfibbing still; and there is not a more remarkable instance of this, than in yourlast Judas’ kiss, where you would have their lordships believe, you are ‘their most dutiful son and servant.’”These are fair specimens of the scolding of this zealous defender of the Bishop of London and his brethren, and of Church and State. Whitefield never noticed the defence, though written by aGentleman of Pembroke College, Oxford. Another pamphlet, however, written by a Church dignitary of some importance, received more attention. This was “A Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the ReverendMr.George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London and other Bishops; and in Vindication of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists,’ not long since published.By Thomas Church,A.M., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s,London.951744.” (8vo. 60pp.) Want of space prevents the insertion of lengthy extracts fromMr.Church’s letter, but its scope may be guessed by the following sentences:—“Field-preaching is forbidden by the statute, as having a tendency to sedition and tumults.” “Your extravagances have been the scorn of the profane, and have strengthened the prejudices of some against our religion itself.” “I never knew nor heard of any one instance of a parish in England so carelessly attended as the charge committed to you in Georgia, the only place, I think, to which you have had any regular appointment. How unfit are you, of all men, to upbraid the clergy with non-residence, with being shepherds who leave their flocks, and let them perish for lack of knowledge.”Whitefield immediately replied to this, in an 8vo. pamphlet of 20 pages, bearing the following title:—“A Letter to theRev.Mr.Thomas Church,M.A., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s; in Answer to his Serious and Expostulatory Letter to theRev.Mr.George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London, and other Bishops. By George Whitefield,A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxford. London: printed by W. Strahan, for J. Robinson, at the Golden Lion, in Ludgate Street, and sold at the Tabernacle, near Moor-Fields, 1744.” The letter is dated, “London, May 22, 1744,” and its biographical sections must be briefly noticed.Whitefield had often been taunted and even threatened for not using the Liturgy in many of his public services. In reference to this, he writes:—“As for my irregularities in curtailing the Liturgy, or not using the Common Prayer in the fields, I think it needless to make any apology till I am called thereto in a judicial way by my ecclesiastical superiors. They have laws and courts. In and by those, ecclesiastics are to be judged; and I am ready to make a proper defence, whenever it shall be required at my hands.”Mr.Church and many others had retorted Whitefield’s attacks on non-resident clergy, by telling him he had been guilty of non-residence himself. To this Whitefield replied as follows:—“I wish every non-resident minister in England could give as good an account of his non-residence as I can give of my absence from Savannah. To satisfy you, reverend sir, I will acquaint you with the whole affair. When I first went abroad, I was appointed to be minister of Frederica; but, upon my arrival in Georgia, finding there was no minister at Savannah, and no place of worship at Frederica, by the advice of the magistrates and people, I continued at Savannah, teaching publicly, and from house to house, and catechizing the children day by day, during the whole time of my first continuance in Georgia; except about a fortnight, in which I went to Frederica, to visit the people, and to see about building a church, for which I had given£50 out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a public account. In about four months, I came back to England to receive priest’s orders, and to collect money for building an Orphan House. At the request of many, the honourable trustees presented me to the living of Savannah. I accepted it, but refused the stipend of£50 per annum, which they generously offered me. Neither did I put them to any expense during my stay in England, where I thought it my duty to abide till I had collected a sufficient sum wherewith I might begin the Orphan House, though I should have left England sooner, had I not been prevented by the embargo. However, I was more easy, because I knew the honourable trustees had sent over another minister, who arrived soon after I left the colony.“Upon my second arrival at Georgia, finding the care of the Orphan House and the care of the parish too great a task for me, I immediately wrote to the honourable trustees to provide another minister. In the meanwhile, as most of my parishioners were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being employed, and, as I believed erecting an Orphan House would be the best thing I could do for them and their posterity, I thought it my duty, from time to time, to answer the invitations that were sent me to preach Christ Jesus in several parts of America, and to raise further collections towards carrying on the Orphan House. The Lord stirred up many to be ready to distribute and willing to communicate on these occasions. I always came home furnished with provisions and money, most of which was expended among the people; and, by this means, the northern part of the colony almost entirely subsisted for a considerable time. This was asserted, not very long ago, before the House of Commons.“And now, sir, judge you whether my non-residence was anything like the non-residence of most of the English clergy. When I was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living at ease, but preaching Christ Jesus, and begging for them and theirs; and when I returned, it was not to fleece my flock, and then go and spend it upon my lusts, or lay it up for a fortune for myself and my relations. No: freely as I had received, freely I gave. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of God and the good of souls is my only aim.”All candid readers will admit that Whitefield’s simple statement is a sufficient refutation of the plausible charge, so often brought against him, concerning his non-residence in the only parish he ever had.Before proceeding with Whitefield’s itinerary, it may be well to complete the list of his publications during the year 1744. This shall be done as briefly as possible.1. “A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the ReverendMr.George Whitefield,A.B., from his Infancy to the Time of his entering into Holy Orders. The Second Edition.” (12mo. 46pp.) This was an exact reprint of the edition published in 1740.2. “A Brief Account of the Occasion, Process, and Issue of a late Trial at the Assize held at Gloucester, March 3, 1744.” (8vo. 15pp.) This has been already noticed.3. “The Experience ofMr.R. Cruttenden, as delivered to a Congregation of Christ in Lime Street, under the pastoral care of theRev.Mr.Richardson. Prefaced and recommended by George Whitefield,A.B.” (8vo. 32pp.) Cruttenden, after losing his fortune, by the bursting of the South Sea bubble, had recently been converted, at the Tabernacle,under the preaching of JohnCennick.96Nothing in the pamphlet requires notice, except, perhaps, the following well-deserved rap, which Whitefield, in his preface, gives to Dissenting ministers, some of whom were as bitterly opposed to the great preacher as were his clerical brethren of the Church of England.“Those serious, godly ministers among the Dissenters, who, through prejudice or misinformation, oppose, or are shy of us, as though some dangerous sect was sprung up, may, from this and such-like instances, begin to reason with themselves, whether we are not sent of God? and whether it is not high time to acknowledge and adore God in His late sovereign way of working? Here is an account of a learned and rational man, brought to Jesus, and built up in Him, by what the world would call illiterate preachers. This is not the first instance by hundreds. No set of men could do such things, or meet with such success, unless God was with them. It is not the first time that our Saviour has perfected praise out of the mouths of babes, and chosen the weak things of this world to confound the strong.”4. There is only another publication to be noticed. Three years before,Dr.Smalbroke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, had delivered a charge, to his clergy, against the Methodists; and now, in the year 1744, and when a part of his diocese was disgraced by the riots at Wednesbury and other places, he published it. Smalbroke was a somewhat distinguished man; but withal whimsical, as, for instance, when, in his “Vindication of the Miracles of Christ,” he made elaborate calculations concerning the number of devils in the herd of swine at Gadarene. He was also fond of strife, more than twenty of his publications being of a controversial character. The pith of his anti-Methodistic charge was, that, “the indwelling and inward witnessing of the Spirit in believers’ hearts, (if there were ever such things at all,) as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, are all theextraordinarygifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical and primitive times; and, that, consequently, all pretensions to such favours, in these last days, are vain andenthusiastical.” Whitefield’s reply was written on shipboard, during his voyage to America, and was first printed at Boston, in New England. Its long title was as follows: “Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, delivered by the Right Reverend Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to theRev.the Clergy in the several parts of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, in a Triennial Visitation of the same in 1741; and published, at their request, in the present year 1744. In a Letter to theRev.the Clergy of that Diocese. By George Whitefield,A.B., late of Pembroke College,Oxon.” (8vo. 35pp.) Passing over the theological part of Whitefield’s pamphlet,one extract from his concluding observations must suffice. In a foot-note he states, “The Methodists in Staffordshire were mobbed last Shrove-Tuesday, and plundered of their substance to the amount of£700.” To these persecuted inhabitants of the diocese of Lichfield, Whitefield says:—“You have lately been enabled joyfully to bear the spoiling of your goods. Think it not strange, if you should hereafter be called to resist unto blood. Fear not the faces of men, neither be afraid of their revilings. The more you are afflicted, the more you shall multiply and grow. Persecution is your privilege; it is a badge of your discipleship; it is every Christian’s lot, in some degree or other. Only be careful to give no just cause of offence. Be studious to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit in your lives. Call no man master, but Christ. Follow others only as they are followers of Him. Be fond of no name but that ofChristian. Beware of making parties, and of calling down fire from heaven to consume your adversaries. Labour to shine in common life, by a conscientious discharge of all relative duties; and study to adorn the gospel of our Lord in all things. If you are good Christians, you will fear God, and, for His sake, honour the king. Be thankful for the many blessings you enjoy under the government of his present majesty, King George; and continue to pray to Him, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice, to keep a popish pretender from ever sitting on the English throne.”We now return to Whitefield’s itinerancy. There is but little evidence to shew how he spent the interval between March15thand June26th. John Cennick, in his diary, says: “On the3rdof April, at my special desire, the first association of our ministers and preachers, which had been kept in Wilts, took place in my house at Tytherton. There were present the following preachers:Mr.Whitefield, Howell Harris, John Cennick, Joseph Humphreys, and Thomas Adams; and the following exhorters:William Humphreys, Isaac Cottle, Thomas Lewis, and ThomasBeswick.”97Part of the fifteen weeks was spent in London, part in Bristol, and part in Wilts. He was also awaiting an opportunity to embark for Georgia; and, withMr.Smith, a merchant, actually took a passage in a ship about to sail from Portsmouth. At the last moment, however, the captain refused to take him; upon which he set out for Plymouth,preaching at Wellington, Exeter, Bideford, and Kingsbridge on theway.98At Plymouth, he was made the subject of abrutal attack, which might have ended seriously. Hence the following letters:—“Plymouth,June 26, 1744.“My dear Friend,—You see by this where I am. Doubtless, you will wonder at the quick transition from Portsmouth to Plymouth. When I wrote last, I intended going to the former; but, just before I took leave of the dear Tabernacle people, a message was sent to me, that the captain, in whose ship I was to sail from thence, would not take me, for fear of my spoiling his sailors. Upon this, hearing of a ship that was going under convoy from Plymouth, I hastened hither, and have taken a passage in theWilmington, Captain Dalby, bound to Piscataway, in New England.“My first reception here was a little unpromising. A report being spread that I was come, a great number of people assembled upon theHoe(a large green for walks and diversions), and somebody brought out a bear and a drum; but I did not come till the following evening, when, under pretence of a hue-and-cry, several broke into the room where I lodged at the inn, and disturbed me very much.“I then betook myself to private lodgings, and being gone to rest, after preaching to a large congregation, and visiting the French prisoners, the good woman of the house came and told me, that a well-dressed gentleman desired to speak with me. Imagining that he was some Nicodemite, I desired he might be brought up. He came and sat down by my bedside, told me he was a lieutenant of a man of war, congratulated me on the success of my ministry, and expressed himself much concerned for being detained from hearing me. He then asked me if I knew him? I answered, No. He replied, his name was Cadogan. I rejoined, that I had seen oneMr.Cadogan, who was formerly an officer in Georgia, about a fortnight ago, at Bristol. Upon this, he immediately rose up, uttering the most abusive language, calling medog,rogue,villain,etc., and beat me most unmercifully with his gold-headed cane. As you know, I have not much natural courage; and, being apprehensive that he intended to shoot or stab me, I underwent all the fears of a sudden violent death. My hostess and her daughter, hearing me cry ‘Murder,’ rushed into the room, and seized him by the collar; but he immediately disengaged himself from them, and repeated his blows upon me. The cry of murder was repeated, and he made towards the chamber door, from whence the good woman pushed him downstairs. A second man now cried out, ‘Take courage, I am ready to help you;’ and, accordingly, whilst the other was escaping, he rushed upstairs, and finding one of the women coming down, took her by the heels, and threw her upon the floor, by which her back was almost broken. By this time the neighbourhood was alarmed; but, being unwilling to add to the commotion, I desired the doors might be shut, and so betook myself to rest.”This strange adventure is explained in another letter, written to the same friend, a few days afterwards.“Plymouth,July 4, 1744.“Since my last, I have had some information about the late odd adventure. It seems that four gentlemen came to the house of one of my particular friends, and desired to know where I lodged, that they might pay their respects to me. My friend directed them; and, soon afterwards, I received a letter, informing me that the writer of it was a nephew ofMr.S——, an eminent attorney at New York; that he had had the pleasure of supping with me at his uncle’s house; and that he desired my company to sup with him and a few more friends at a tavern. I sent him word that it was not customary for me to sup out at taverns, but I should be glad of his company, out of respect to his uncle, to eat a morsel with him at my lodgings. He came; we supped. I observed that he frequently looked around him, and seemed very absent; but, having no suspicion, I continued in conversation with him and my other friends till we parted. I now find that this man was to have been the assassin; and that, being interrogated by his companions as to what he had done, he answered, that being used so civilly, he had not the heart to touch me.“Upon this, as I am informed, the person who assaulted me, laid a wager of ten guineas that he would do my business for me. Some say, that they took his sword from him, which I suppose they did, for I only saw and felt the weight of his cane.“The next morning, I was to expound at a private house, and then to set out for Bideford. Some urged me to stay and prosecute; but, being better employed, I went on my intended journey; was greatly blessed in preaching the everlasting gospel; and, upon my return, was well paid for what I had suffered; for curiosity led perhaps two thousand more than ordinary to see and hear a man who had like to have been murdered in his bed. Thus all things tend to the furtherance of the gospel.“‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,And yet the thing they thwart effect.’“Leaving you to add a hallelujah, I subscribe myself,“Ever, ever yours,“George Whitefield.”Whitefield seriously believed that this atrocious outrage was a deliberate attempt to murder him; the probability is, that it was a cruel freak, similar to many others for which naval stations have frequently been infamous.Whitefield spent more than six weeks at Plymouth, and in the immediate neighbourhood. His detention, occasioned by waiting for the convoy, was not without good results. Hence the following extracts from letters written during this interval. To John Syms, Whitefield wrote as follows:—“Plymouth,July 21, 1744.“My dear Man,—I expected a line from you to-day; but, I suppose, you think we are gone. This day came in a privateer, who saw the Brest squadron, which has pursued two of our men of war; so that, had we sailed, we should in all probability have been carried into France. We are now to go under the convoy of the grand fleet.“I have been greatly refreshed this evening in preaching the blood of Jesus. The congregations grow every day. Last night, many from the dock guarded me home, being apprehensive there was a design against me. Without my knowledge, they insulted a man who intended to hurt me. I am sorry for it. My health is better.Whether we sail or not, expect to hear again from, dear, dear Johnny, ever, ever yours whilst“George Whitefield.”99“Plymouth,July 26, 1744.“Could you think it? I have been preaching a confirmation sermon. Do you ask me where? In a Quaker’s field. As I saw thousands flocked to the church to have the bishop’s hands imposed upon them, I thought it not improper to let them have a word of exhortation suitable to the occasion. I have also made an elopement to Kingsbridge, where, a few days ago, I preached to many thousands. It was a most solemn occasion. The hearts of the auditory seemed to be bowed as the heart of one man.”In other letters to his “dear man,” John Syms, he writes:—“Plymouth,July 27, 1744.“Matters go on better and better here. I begin to think myself in London. We have our regular morning meetings. We are looking out for a place proper for a Society, and to expound in. People come daily to me, especially from the dock, under convictions. Some, I believe, have really closed with Christ; and here are several aged persons perfectly made young again. We are just now entered upon our singing hours.“Fresh news from Kingsbridge of souls being awakened; but I am kept close prisoner on account of the convoy. Brother Cennick must come into these parts soon.”“Plymouth,July 29, 1744.“Our Lord has been giving us blessings in drops; but now He is sending them in showers. We have had a most precious meeting this morning. Perhaps more good has been done by this one sermon, than by all I have preached before. The wind is yet against us. Our Lord detains me here for wise reasons. Some persons, formerly prejudiced against me, have offered to give me a piece of ground for a Society room. I believe one will be built soon. Brother Cennick must stay in the west some time.”“Plymouth,August 3, 1744.“Our convoy is come, and perhaps we may sail to-morrow. It is delightful to be here. We come from the dock, in the evenings, singing and praising God. Our parting there has been more awful than words can express.“I must tell you one thing more. There is a ferry over to Plymouth; and the ferrymen are now so much my friends, that they will take nothing of the multitude that come to hear me preach, saying, ‘God forbid that we should sell the word of God!’”Thus, at Plymouth, as in other places, did Whitefield triumph in Christ Jesus. One of the conversions, which took place under his marvellous ministry, is too notable to pass unnoticed. Henry Tanner, born at Exeter, was now in the twenty-sixth year of his age, and was working, at Plymouth, as a shipwright. One day, while at work, he heard, from a considerable distance, the voice of Whitefield, who was preaching in the open air; and, concluding that the man was mad, he and half a dozen of his companions filled their pockets with stones, and set off to knock the preacher down. Whitefield’s text was Actsxvii.19, 20. Tanner listened with astonishment; and, without using his stones, went home, determined to hear him again next evening. The text, on this occasion, was Lukexxiv.47; and Tanner was in such an agony of soul, that he was forced to cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner!” The next night, while Whitefield was preaching on “Jacob’s Ladder,” Tanner found peace with God. He, at once, joined the Society at Plymouth, which had been formed by Whitefield, and suffered violent persecution from his unconverted wife. To secure time for prayer and Christian usefulness, he seldom allowed himself more than six hours in bed, and frequently but four. Ten years after his conversion, he removed to Exeter, and began to preach with great success. In 1769, the Tabernacle at Exeter was built, mainly through his exertions, and he became its minister. His labours, however, were not confined to Exeter. At the request of Toplady, he used to preach at Broad Hembury; whilst Moreton, Hampstead, Crediton, Topsham, and various other places, were favoured with his services. On Sunday morning, March 24, 1805, when he had completed the eighty-sixth year of his age, he was carried, in a chair, to his pulpit, and tried to preach, butwas so ill that he was obliged to relinquish the attempt.A week afterwards he peacefullyexpired.100While, however, God was raising up new labourers, by means of Whitefield’s ministry, He was taking others to Himself. One of these was theRev.David Crossly, of Manchester, who, within a week of the time when Whitefield embarked at Plymouth for America, wrote as follows to Whitefield’s friend,Mr.Syms:—“Manchester,August 3, 1744.“How glad I am to hear ofMr.Whitefield’s success in the service of his God. O happyMr.Whitefield! His unparalleled labours, with answerable success, make his life a continued miracle. For a month past, I have been nigh unto death. My life is generally despaired of; and the Lord seems to be preparing the way for it,first, by a flow of converts, above twenty having been added to us during the last two months; and,secondly, by raising up several with very useful gifts; so that I am ready to say, ‘Lord, now let Thy servant depart in peace! Let me, O Lord, come above to the palm-bearing company! Fifty-five years have I been in the work, a poor weakling, yet crowned, by Thy blessing, with success.’“As toMr.Whitefield’s Preface to mySermon,101I give a thousand thanks to him.It is his goodness, not my deserts, that has placed his valuable name before any performance ofmine.”102A month after the date of this letter, good old David Crossly was gone. “I am ready for the Bridegroom,” he cried;“I know my Redeemer liveth;” with the utterance of which he triumphantlyexpired.103Another brave-hearted man must be mentioned. Thomas Beard was one of Wesley’s preachers, but he was also warmly attached to Whitefield, and wrote to him the following sweet and simple letter:—“Berwick-upon-Tweed,September 17, 1744.“Sir,—It has been often upon my mind to write to you since I have been in this state of life, which is not agreeable at all to my inclinations. I have but little acquaintance with you, but I hope you will not be offended atmy writing to you. The children of God, while on this side of the grave, always stand in need of one another’s prayers, especially such of them as are under persecutions, or temptations, for the truth’s sake. I find I stand in need of the prayers of all the children of God.“I was pressed, in Yorkshire, for preaching, and so sent for a soldier. I earnestly pray for them who were the occasion of it. All my trust is reposed in Jesus, my sweet Saviour. I know He will not leave nor forsake me. His blood has atoned for my sin, and appeased His Father’s wrath, and procured His favour for such a sinful worm as myself. Herein is my comfort, though men raged at me, my dear Saviour did not leave nor forsake me.“I have lately been on a command in Scotland, and met with many who enquired concerning you. I preached at Cowdingham. Some of your friends came to see me from Coppersmith. Many thought it strange to see a man in a red coat preach.“I beg you would write to me in General Blakeney’s regiment of foot, in Captain Dunlop’s company.“I am your unworthy brother,“Thomas Beard.”104Before Whitefield had an opportunity to answer, poor Beard, as one of the first of Methodism’s martyrs, had been called to inherit a martyr’s crown. Wesley, in 1744, wrote thus concerning him:—
“Whereas some anonymous papers, against the people called Methodists in general, and myself and friends in particular, have been, for some weeks, printed in a large edition, and handed about and read in the Religious Societies of the cities of London and Westminster, and given into the hands of many private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one, nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many queries, of great importance, concerning me and my conduct, contained therein; and as it appears, that, one paper has little or no connection with another, and a copy, when applied for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark for Georgia—I am, therefore, obliged hereby to desire a speedyopen publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid impartial answer may be made thereto by me,“George Whitefield.”
“Whereas some anonymous papers, against the people called Methodists in general, and myself and friends in particular, have been, for some weeks, printed in a large edition, and handed about and read in the Religious Societies of the cities of London and Westminster, and given into the hands of many private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one, nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many queries, of great importance, concerning me and my conduct, contained therein; and as it appears, that, one paper has little or no connection with another, and a copy, when applied for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark for Georgia—I am, therefore, obliged hereby to desire a speedyopen publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid impartial answer may be made thereto by me,
“George Whitefield.”
Six days after the date of this advertisement, Whitefield wrote as follows to the Bishop of London:—
“London,February 1, 1744.“My Lord,—Simplicity becomes the followers of Jesus Christ; and, therefore, I think it my duty to trouble your lordship with these few lines.“I suppose your lordship has seen the advertisement published by me, about four days ago, concerning certain anonymous papers, which have been handed about the Societies for some considerable time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad to be informed whether the report be true, that your lordship composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your lordship’s keeping, would oblige, my lord, your lordship’s most obliged, dutiful son and servant,“George Whitefield.”“P.S. The bearer will bring your lordship’s answer; or, if your lordship favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to be left withMr.J. Syms, in Pitfield Street, near Hoxton.”
“London,February 1, 1744.
“My Lord,—Simplicity becomes the followers of Jesus Christ; and, therefore, I think it my duty to trouble your lordship with these few lines.
“I suppose your lordship has seen the advertisement published by me, about four days ago, concerning certain anonymous papers, which have been handed about the Societies for some considerable time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad to be informed whether the report be true, that your lordship composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your lordship’s keeping, would oblige, my lord, your lordship’s most obliged, dutiful son and servant,
“George Whitefield.”
“P.S. The bearer will bring your lordship’s answer; or, if your lordship favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to be left withMr.J. Syms, in Pitfield Street, near Hoxton.”
Instead of writing, the Bishop sent, by the bearer of Whitefield’s letter, a verbal message, to the effect that Whitefield should hear from him; but the only further communication which came to hand was the following, written, two days after the date of Whitefield’s letter to the Bishop, by the printer of the “anonymous papers.”
“February 3, 1744.“Sir,—My name is Owen. I am a printer in Amen Corner, and I waited upon you to let you know that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print, for their use, such numbers of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists,’ with some few additions, as they have respectively bespoken; and I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished.“I am, sir, your most obedient servant,“E. Owen.”
“February 3, 1744.
“Sir,—My name is Owen. I am a printer in Amen Corner, and I waited upon you to let you know that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print, for their use, such numbers of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists,’ with some few additions, as they have respectively bespoken; and I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished.
“I am, sir, your most obedient servant,
“E. Owen.”
There can hardly be a doubt that the “Observations” were the productions of Bishop Gibson’s pen. Others, besides Whitefield and his friends, fully believed this. Zinzendorf, on receiving a copy of the anonymous pamphlet, wrote a long letter, in Latin, to the Bishop, expressing his surprise that any one belonging to the Church of Englandshould have evinced such ignorance by the remarks made respecting the Moravians. A Moravian deputation also waited upon Gibson, on the same subject;and a further correspondence ensued between the Bishop, Zinzendorf, and JamesHutton;94in which Zinzendorf almost indignantly repudiated any present connection with the Methodists, telling his lordship, that, it was “very difficult to decide whether the Moravians have a greater dislike to the Methodists’ plan of salvation, or the Methodists to that of the Moravians.”
But leaving this, all candid readers will acknowledge that the “conduct and behaviour” of the Bishop of London and his brethren were disingenuous. To be the circulators of anonymous “fly-sheets,” full of the most serious accusations, was an act dishonourable to a bishop’s dignity, and savoured more of the assassin than of a pastor of the flock of Christ.
Whitefield lost no time in replying to the Bishops’ pamphlet. On the10thof March, he finished, and committed to the press, “An Answer to the first part of an anonymous Pamphlet, entitled, ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the name of Methodists.’ In a Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop of London, and the other the Right Reverend the Bishops concerned in the publication thereof.” (8vo. 26pp.) Before the year was ended, Whitefield’s “Letter” passed, at least, through three editions in England, besides being printed and published at Boston in America. The motto on his title-page was Psalmxxxv.11, “False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.”
It is difficult to furnish an outline of Whitefield’s pamphlet; but the following extracts will give the reader an idea of its style and spirit:—
“Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart, not to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others; and that I, consequently, may have sometimes mistaken nature for grace, imagination forrevelation, and the fire of my own temper for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal. If, therefore, upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable in any respect, I will not only confess it, but return hearty thanks both to the compiler and your lordships,though unknown. Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the cause to know who the author is. Only this much may be said, your lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair togive stabs in the dark.”
“Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart, not to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others; and that I, consequently, may have sometimes mistaken nature for grace, imagination forrevelation, and the fire of my own temper for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal. If, therefore, upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable in any respect, I will not only confess it, but return hearty thanks both to the compiler and your lordships,though unknown. Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the cause to know who the author is. Only this much may be said, your lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair togive stabs in the dark.”
Whitefield proceeds to say, that the title of the Bishops’ pamphlet ought to have run thus: “Misrepresentations of the Conduct andPrinciplesof many Orthodox, well-meaning Ministers and Members of the Church of England, and loyal Subjects to his Majesty, King George,falsely termed a Sect, and usually distinguished,out of contempt, by the name of Methodists.” He adds:—
“Theprinciples, as well as conduct, of the Methodists are greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. Its design is to exhibit their proceedings as dangerous to the Church and State, in order to procure an Act of Parliament against them, or to oblige them to secure themselves by turning Dissenters. But is not such a motion, at such a season as this, both uncharitable and unseasonable? Is not the Administration engaged enough already in other affairs, without troubling themselves with the Methodists? Or, who would now advise them to bring further guilt upon the nation, by persecuting some of the present government’smost heartyfriends? I say, my lords,the present government’s most hearty friends; for, though the Methodists (as the world calls them) disagree in some particulars, yet I venture to affirm that, toa man, they all agree in this: namely, to love and honour the king. For my own part, I profess myself a zealous friend to his present majesty King George, and the present Administration. Wherever I go, I think it my duty to pray for him and to preach up obedience to him, and all that are set in authority under him. I have now been a preacher above seven years, and for six years past have been called to act in a very public way. Your lordships must have heard of the great numbers who have attended: sometimes several of the nobility, and, now and then, even some of the clergy have been present. Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal word? Are there not thousands, who can testify how fervently and frequently I pray for his majesty King George, his royal offspring, and the present government? Yes, my lords, they can; and, I trust, I should be enabled to do so, though surrounded with popish enemies, and in danger of dying for it as soon as my prayer was ended.”
“Theprinciples, as well as conduct, of the Methodists are greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. Its design is to exhibit their proceedings as dangerous to the Church and State, in order to procure an Act of Parliament against them, or to oblige them to secure themselves by turning Dissenters. But is not such a motion, at such a season as this, both uncharitable and unseasonable? Is not the Administration engaged enough already in other affairs, without troubling themselves with the Methodists? Or, who would now advise them to bring further guilt upon the nation, by persecuting some of the present government’smost heartyfriends? I say, my lords,the present government’s most hearty friends; for, though the Methodists (as the world calls them) disagree in some particulars, yet I venture to affirm that, toa man, they all agree in this: namely, to love and honour the king. For my own part, I profess myself a zealous friend to his present majesty King George, and the present Administration. Wherever I go, I think it my duty to pray for him and to preach up obedience to him, and all that are set in authority under him. I have now been a preacher above seven years, and for six years past have been called to act in a very public way. Your lordships must have heard of the great numbers who have attended: sometimes several of the nobility, and, now and then, even some of the clergy have been present. Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal word? Are there not thousands, who can testify how fervently and frequently I pray for his majesty King George, his royal offspring, and the present government? Yes, my lords, they can; and, I trust, I should be enabled to do so, though surrounded with popish enemies, and in danger of dying for it as soon as my prayer was ended.”
So much for Whitefield’s loyalty. What about his ecclesiastical misbehaviour? He writes:—
“If your lordships apprehend that we are liable to ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence, whenever called to it by ourecclesiastical superiors. As for myself, your lordships very well know that I am a Bachelor of Arts, have taken the oaths, have subscribed to the Articles, and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character, I have acted, both at home and abroad; and I know of no law of our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn, street, or outhouse whatever.”
“If your lordships apprehend that we are liable to ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence, whenever called to it by ourecclesiastical superiors. As for myself, your lordships very well know that I am a Bachelor of Arts, have taken the oaths, have subscribed to the Articles, and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character, I have acted, both at home and abroad; and I know of no law of our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn, street, or outhouse whatever.”
Whitefield proceeds to say, he has perused “all the Acts of King CharlesII., wherein the wordfieldis mentioned,” and that he finds “they are intended to suppressseditious conventicles,” and then continues:—
“These are the onlyfield-meetingsthat are prohibited; and how, my lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Are they ‘seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence of tender consciences, contrive insurrections?’ No, my lords. How then can your lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number ofMr.Owen, in order, as may be supposed, that they may be dispersed among your lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A more notorious libel has not been published. The pamphlet comes into public like a child dropped, that nobody cares to own. And, indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel?”
“These are the onlyfield-meetingsthat are prohibited; and how, my lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Are they ‘seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence of tender consciences, contrive insurrections?’ No, my lords. How then can your lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number ofMr.Owen, in order, as may be supposed, that they may be dispersed among your lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A more notorious libel has not been published. The pamphlet comes into public like a child dropped, that nobody cares to own. And, indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel?”
This, addressed to bishops, by a young clergyman, was bold language; but their lordships deserved it; for, whatever faults belonged to Whitefield and the first Methodists, they certainly were as free from sedition as the Episcopal Bench itself.
Whitefield’s “Second Letter,” to the bishops, was written during his voyage to America, and was first “printed and sold by Rogers and Fowle, in Queen Street, near the Prison, Boston, 1744.” (4to. 24pp.) It is dated August 25, 1744; but, to prevent a recurrence to the subject, it is noticed here. First of all, Whitefield replies to the censures pronounced upon “itinerant preaching,” and concludes thus:—
“May I not take the freedom of acquainting your lordships, that, if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord of London, whose diocese is of such vast extent,) they would all of them long since have become itinerant preachers.”
“May I not take the freedom of acquainting your lordships, that, if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord of London, whose diocese is of such vast extent,) they would all of them long since have become itinerant preachers.”
He next defended the doctrines, preached by himself and the Methodists,—justification by faith, sudden and instantaneous conversion, and other cognate truths. He attacked Archbishop Tillotson, because, “contrary to the laws of Church and State, he makes good works aconditionof ouracceptance with God;” and he declared concerning the author of “The Whole Duty of Man,” that, because he entirely omits to teach the doctrine of justification by faith, his famous book might “more properly be termed,Half the Duty of Man.” He belaboured the clergy for playing atdice, andcards, and otherunlawful games, contrary to the seventy-fifth canon of the Church; and complained, that, by “frequenting taverns and alehouses,” they injured the laity by a vile “example.” He rebutted the charge against himself of being an enthusiast; and, as for the “sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings” of some of his converts, he said, “The itinerant preachers look upon these as extraordinary things, proceedinggenerallyfrom soul-distress, andsometimes, it may be, from the agency of the evil spirit, who labours to drive poor souls into despair.”
What was the result of all this plain-speaking? First of all, another anonymous author, merely using the initials, “J. B.,” published a furious pamphlet of fifty-four pages, entitled, “A Letter to the ReverendMr.Whitefield, occasioned by hispretendedAnswer to the first part of the Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists. By a Gentleman of Pembroke College,Oxon.London, 1744.” (8vo.)
How far the author of this letter was agentlemanwill appear from the following extracts from his rancorous production:—
“Do you think my Lord of London would choose to let you know whether he was the author of the papers, or would be fond of entering into apersonaldispute with you? with you, I say, sir, or your followers; who, I may venture to affirm, can curse, rail, and berogue your antagonists, (though in Scripture language all the while,) so as hardly to be exceeded by any Pope, orspiritual bully, that ever yet appeared in Christendom.”“You are one who has been travelling over all countries, to establishnew-fangled societies;heads and spiritual directors,hot-brained cobblers, and the meanest class of men;fellows that have nothing to lose, all big with venom against the clergy of thepresent Establishment, anddespising the lawsof the State, and thepeaceful constitutionof the realm. You are perpetually sowing divisions, and urging on the bigotry of your disciples, and their implacable malice, by your belying, railing, and scandalising the ministers of the Church, as well as by treating as heathens and reprobates of the infinitely good Being, all others, who dare despise your hellish doctrines and practices. You exactly copy after Cromwell, theWhitefieldof the last century, inartfully compoundingChurchmen and Dissenters, people of all sorts and denominations, to bring about your design of ruining the present constitution. When I see a man, of yourvast importance,railing,hectoring, andbullyingyour superiors, I cannot help thinking of apertliquor amongst us, which foams, and bounces, and sputters, and makes a mighty ado; and yet all the while is butbottled small-beer.“Yourfavourite methodof wounding characters in a scrip of prayer, to shew the world how kindly you can forgive, after you have been publicly railing at them fornothing, puts me in mind of Jack in theTale of a Tub; who was mighty fond of falling down on his knees, and turning up his eyes in the midst of a kennel, as if at his devotions; but who, when curiosity attracted men to laugh or to listen, would, of a sudden, bespatter them with mud.”
“Do you think my Lord of London would choose to let you know whether he was the author of the papers, or would be fond of entering into apersonaldispute with you? with you, I say, sir, or your followers; who, I may venture to affirm, can curse, rail, and berogue your antagonists, (though in Scripture language all the while,) so as hardly to be exceeded by any Pope, orspiritual bully, that ever yet appeared in Christendom.”
“You are one who has been travelling over all countries, to establishnew-fangled societies;heads and spiritual directors,hot-brained cobblers, and the meanest class of men;fellows that have nothing to lose, all big with venom against the clergy of thepresent Establishment, anddespising the lawsof the State, and thepeaceful constitutionof the realm. You are perpetually sowing divisions, and urging on the bigotry of your disciples, and their implacable malice, by your belying, railing, and scandalising the ministers of the Church, as well as by treating as heathens and reprobates of the infinitely good Being, all others, who dare despise your hellish doctrines and practices. You exactly copy after Cromwell, theWhitefieldof the last century, inartfully compoundingChurchmen and Dissenters, people of all sorts and denominations, to bring about your design of ruining the present constitution. When I see a man, of yourvast importance,railing,hectoring, andbullyingyour superiors, I cannot help thinking of apertliquor amongst us, which foams, and bounces, and sputters, and makes a mighty ado; and yet all the while is butbottled small-beer.
“Yourfavourite methodof wounding characters in a scrip of prayer, to shew the world how kindly you can forgive, after you have been publicly railing at them fornothing, puts me in mind of Jack in theTale of a Tub; who was mighty fond of falling down on his knees, and turning up his eyes in the midst of a kennel, as if at his devotions; but who, when curiosity attracted men to laugh or to listen, would, of a sudden, bespatter them with mud.”
Much more of the same kind of scurrility, and of even worse, might be given; but the last paragraph in the “Gentleman’s” ill-mannered pamphlet must suffice.
“Thus ends your railing; and, like a woman that hasfought herself out of breath, when you canspit no more of your malice, you tell us, you would ‘not bring a railing accusation against any.’ What a monstrous fib is that! ‘Neither would I,’ you add, ‘when giving a reason of the hope that is in me, do it any otherwise than with meekness and fear.’ There you fib again most desperately! Why,my dear meek soul, of a sudden, you have certainly forgot yourself; and your darlingspirit of bitterness, that has possessed you through the whole Letter, at length, seems to bejaded. However, it cannot helpfibbing still; and there is not a more remarkable instance of this, than in yourlast Judas’ kiss, where you would have their lordships believe, you are ‘their most dutiful son and servant.’”
“Thus ends your railing; and, like a woman that hasfought herself out of breath, when you canspit no more of your malice, you tell us, you would ‘not bring a railing accusation against any.’ What a monstrous fib is that! ‘Neither would I,’ you add, ‘when giving a reason of the hope that is in me, do it any otherwise than with meekness and fear.’ There you fib again most desperately! Why,my dear meek soul, of a sudden, you have certainly forgot yourself; and your darlingspirit of bitterness, that has possessed you through the whole Letter, at length, seems to bejaded. However, it cannot helpfibbing still; and there is not a more remarkable instance of this, than in yourlast Judas’ kiss, where you would have their lordships believe, you are ‘their most dutiful son and servant.’”
These are fair specimens of the scolding of this zealous defender of the Bishop of London and his brethren, and of Church and State. Whitefield never noticed the defence, though written by aGentleman of Pembroke College, Oxford. Another pamphlet, however, written by a Church dignitary of some importance, received more attention. This was “A Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the ReverendMr.George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London and other Bishops; and in Vindication of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists,’ not long since published.By Thomas Church,A.M., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s,London.951744.” (8vo. 60pp.) Want of space prevents the insertion of lengthy extracts fromMr.Church’s letter, but its scope may be guessed by the following sentences:—
“Field-preaching is forbidden by the statute, as having a tendency to sedition and tumults.” “Your extravagances have been the scorn of the profane, and have strengthened the prejudices of some against our religion itself.” “I never knew nor heard of any one instance of a parish in England so carelessly attended as the charge committed to you in Georgia, the only place, I think, to which you have had any regular appointment. How unfit are you, of all men, to upbraid the clergy with non-residence, with being shepherds who leave their flocks, and let them perish for lack of knowledge.”
“Field-preaching is forbidden by the statute, as having a tendency to sedition and tumults.” “Your extravagances have been the scorn of the profane, and have strengthened the prejudices of some against our religion itself.” “I never knew nor heard of any one instance of a parish in England so carelessly attended as the charge committed to you in Georgia, the only place, I think, to which you have had any regular appointment. How unfit are you, of all men, to upbraid the clergy with non-residence, with being shepherds who leave their flocks, and let them perish for lack of knowledge.”
Whitefield immediately replied to this, in an 8vo. pamphlet of 20 pages, bearing the following title:—“A Letter to theRev.Mr.Thomas Church,M.A., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary ofSt.Paul’s; in Answer to his Serious and Expostulatory Letter to theRev.Mr.George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London, and other Bishops. By George Whitefield,A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxford. London: printed by W. Strahan, for J. Robinson, at the Golden Lion, in Ludgate Street, and sold at the Tabernacle, near Moor-Fields, 1744.” The letter is dated, “London, May 22, 1744,” and its biographical sections must be briefly noticed.
Whitefield had often been taunted and even threatened for not using the Liturgy in many of his public services. In reference to this, he writes:—
“As for my irregularities in curtailing the Liturgy, or not using the Common Prayer in the fields, I think it needless to make any apology till I am called thereto in a judicial way by my ecclesiastical superiors. They have laws and courts. In and by those, ecclesiastics are to be judged; and I am ready to make a proper defence, whenever it shall be required at my hands.”
“As for my irregularities in curtailing the Liturgy, or not using the Common Prayer in the fields, I think it needless to make any apology till I am called thereto in a judicial way by my ecclesiastical superiors. They have laws and courts. In and by those, ecclesiastics are to be judged; and I am ready to make a proper defence, whenever it shall be required at my hands.”
Mr.Church and many others had retorted Whitefield’s attacks on non-resident clergy, by telling him he had been guilty of non-residence himself. To this Whitefield replied as follows:—
“I wish every non-resident minister in England could give as good an account of his non-residence as I can give of my absence from Savannah. To satisfy you, reverend sir, I will acquaint you with the whole affair. When I first went abroad, I was appointed to be minister of Frederica; but, upon my arrival in Georgia, finding there was no minister at Savannah, and no place of worship at Frederica, by the advice of the magistrates and people, I continued at Savannah, teaching publicly, and from house to house, and catechizing the children day by day, during the whole time of my first continuance in Georgia; except about a fortnight, in which I went to Frederica, to visit the people, and to see about building a church, for which I had given£50 out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a public account. In about four months, I came back to England to receive priest’s orders, and to collect money for building an Orphan House. At the request of many, the honourable trustees presented me to the living of Savannah. I accepted it, but refused the stipend of£50 per annum, which they generously offered me. Neither did I put them to any expense during my stay in England, where I thought it my duty to abide till I had collected a sufficient sum wherewith I might begin the Orphan House, though I should have left England sooner, had I not been prevented by the embargo. However, I was more easy, because I knew the honourable trustees had sent over another minister, who arrived soon after I left the colony.“Upon my second arrival at Georgia, finding the care of the Orphan House and the care of the parish too great a task for me, I immediately wrote to the honourable trustees to provide another minister. In the meanwhile, as most of my parishioners were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being employed, and, as I believed erecting an Orphan House would be the best thing I could do for them and their posterity, I thought it my duty, from time to time, to answer the invitations that were sent me to preach Christ Jesus in several parts of America, and to raise further collections towards carrying on the Orphan House. The Lord stirred up many to be ready to distribute and willing to communicate on these occasions. I always came home furnished with provisions and money, most of which was expended among the people; and, by this means, the northern part of the colony almost entirely subsisted for a considerable time. This was asserted, not very long ago, before the House of Commons.“And now, sir, judge you whether my non-residence was anything like the non-residence of most of the English clergy. When I was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living at ease, but preaching Christ Jesus, and begging for them and theirs; and when I returned, it was not to fleece my flock, and then go and spend it upon my lusts, or lay it up for a fortune for myself and my relations. No: freely as I had received, freely I gave. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of God and the good of souls is my only aim.”
“I wish every non-resident minister in England could give as good an account of his non-residence as I can give of my absence from Savannah. To satisfy you, reverend sir, I will acquaint you with the whole affair. When I first went abroad, I was appointed to be minister of Frederica; but, upon my arrival in Georgia, finding there was no minister at Savannah, and no place of worship at Frederica, by the advice of the magistrates and people, I continued at Savannah, teaching publicly, and from house to house, and catechizing the children day by day, during the whole time of my first continuance in Georgia; except about a fortnight, in which I went to Frederica, to visit the people, and to see about building a church, for which I had given£50 out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a public account. In about four months, I came back to England to receive priest’s orders, and to collect money for building an Orphan House. At the request of many, the honourable trustees presented me to the living of Savannah. I accepted it, but refused the stipend of£50 per annum, which they generously offered me. Neither did I put them to any expense during my stay in England, where I thought it my duty to abide till I had collected a sufficient sum wherewith I might begin the Orphan House, though I should have left England sooner, had I not been prevented by the embargo. However, I was more easy, because I knew the honourable trustees had sent over another minister, who arrived soon after I left the colony.
“Upon my second arrival at Georgia, finding the care of the Orphan House and the care of the parish too great a task for me, I immediately wrote to the honourable trustees to provide another minister. In the meanwhile, as most of my parishioners were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being employed, and, as I believed erecting an Orphan House would be the best thing I could do for them and their posterity, I thought it my duty, from time to time, to answer the invitations that were sent me to preach Christ Jesus in several parts of America, and to raise further collections towards carrying on the Orphan House. The Lord stirred up many to be ready to distribute and willing to communicate on these occasions. I always came home furnished with provisions and money, most of which was expended among the people; and, by this means, the northern part of the colony almost entirely subsisted for a considerable time. This was asserted, not very long ago, before the House of Commons.
“And now, sir, judge you whether my non-residence was anything like the non-residence of most of the English clergy. When I was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living at ease, but preaching Christ Jesus, and begging for them and theirs; and when I returned, it was not to fleece my flock, and then go and spend it upon my lusts, or lay it up for a fortune for myself and my relations. No: freely as I had received, freely I gave. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of God and the good of souls is my only aim.”
All candid readers will admit that Whitefield’s simple statement is a sufficient refutation of the plausible charge, so often brought against him, concerning his non-residence in the only parish he ever had.
Before proceeding with Whitefield’s itinerary, it may be well to complete the list of his publications during the year 1744. This shall be done as briefly as possible.
1. “A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the ReverendMr.George Whitefield,A.B., from his Infancy to the Time of his entering into Holy Orders. The Second Edition.” (12mo. 46pp.) This was an exact reprint of the edition published in 1740.
2. “A Brief Account of the Occasion, Process, and Issue of a late Trial at the Assize held at Gloucester, March 3, 1744.” (8vo. 15pp.) This has been already noticed.
3. “The Experience ofMr.R. Cruttenden, as delivered to a Congregation of Christ in Lime Street, under the pastoral care of theRev.Mr.Richardson. Prefaced and recommended by George Whitefield,A.B.” (8vo. 32pp.) Cruttenden, after losing his fortune, by the bursting of the South Sea bubble, had recently been converted, at the Tabernacle,under the preaching of JohnCennick.96Nothing in the pamphlet requires notice, except, perhaps, the following well-deserved rap, which Whitefield, in his preface, gives to Dissenting ministers, some of whom were as bitterly opposed to the great preacher as were his clerical brethren of the Church of England.
“Those serious, godly ministers among the Dissenters, who, through prejudice or misinformation, oppose, or are shy of us, as though some dangerous sect was sprung up, may, from this and such-like instances, begin to reason with themselves, whether we are not sent of God? and whether it is not high time to acknowledge and adore God in His late sovereign way of working? Here is an account of a learned and rational man, brought to Jesus, and built up in Him, by what the world would call illiterate preachers. This is not the first instance by hundreds. No set of men could do such things, or meet with such success, unless God was with them. It is not the first time that our Saviour has perfected praise out of the mouths of babes, and chosen the weak things of this world to confound the strong.”
“Those serious, godly ministers among the Dissenters, who, through prejudice or misinformation, oppose, or are shy of us, as though some dangerous sect was sprung up, may, from this and such-like instances, begin to reason with themselves, whether we are not sent of God? and whether it is not high time to acknowledge and adore God in His late sovereign way of working? Here is an account of a learned and rational man, brought to Jesus, and built up in Him, by what the world would call illiterate preachers. This is not the first instance by hundreds. No set of men could do such things, or meet with such success, unless God was with them. It is not the first time that our Saviour has perfected praise out of the mouths of babes, and chosen the weak things of this world to confound the strong.”
4. There is only another publication to be noticed. Three years before,Dr.Smalbroke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, had delivered a charge, to his clergy, against the Methodists; and now, in the year 1744, and when a part of his diocese was disgraced by the riots at Wednesbury and other places, he published it. Smalbroke was a somewhat distinguished man; but withal whimsical, as, for instance, when, in his “Vindication of the Miracles of Christ,” he made elaborate calculations concerning the number of devils in the herd of swine at Gadarene. He was also fond of strife, more than twenty of his publications being of a controversial character. The pith of his anti-Methodistic charge was, that, “the indwelling and inward witnessing of the Spirit in believers’ hearts, (if there were ever such things at all,) as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, are all theextraordinarygifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical and primitive times; and, that, consequently, all pretensions to such favours, in these last days, are vain andenthusiastical.” Whitefield’s reply was written on shipboard, during his voyage to America, and was first printed at Boston, in New England. Its long title was as follows: “Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, delivered by the Right Reverend Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to theRev.the Clergy in the several parts of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, in a Triennial Visitation of the same in 1741; and published, at their request, in the present year 1744. In a Letter to theRev.the Clergy of that Diocese. By George Whitefield,A.B., late of Pembroke College,Oxon.” (8vo. 35pp.) Passing over the theological part of Whitefield’s pamphlet,one extract from his concluding observations must suffice. In a foot-note he states, “The Methodists in Staffordshire were mobbed last Shrove-Tuesday, and plundered of their substance to the amount of£700.” To these persecuted inhabitants of the diocese of Lichfield, Whitefield says:—
“You have lately been enabled joyfully to bear the spoiling of your goods. Think it not strange, if you should hereafter be called to resist unto blood. Fear not the faces of men, neither be afraid of their revilings. The more you are afflicted, the more you shall multiply and grow. Persecution is your privilege; it is a badge of your discipleship; it is every Christian’s lot, in some degree or other. Only be careful to give no just cause of offence. Be studious to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit in your lives. Call no man master, but Christ. Follow others only as they are followers of Him. Be fond of no name but that ofChristian. Beware of making parties, and of calling down fire from heaven to consume your adversaries. Labour to shine in common life, by a conscientious discharge of all relative duties; and study to adorn the gospel of our Lord in all things. If you are good Christians, you will fear God, and, for His sake, honour the king. Be thankful for the many blessings you enjoy under the government of his present majesty, King George; and continue to pray to Him, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice, to keep a popish pretender from ever sitting on the English throne.”
“You have lately been enabled joyfully to bear the spoiling of your goods. Think it not strange, if you should hereafter be called to resist unto blood. Fear not the faces of men, neither be afraid of their revilings. The more you are afflicted, the more you shall multiply and grow. Persecution is your privilege; it is a badge of your discipleship; it is every Christian’s lot, in some degree or other. Only be careful to give no just cause of offence. Be studious to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit in your lives. Call no man master, but Christ. Follow others only as they are followers of Him. Be fond of no name but that ofChristian. Beware of making parties, and of calling down fire from heaven to consume your adversaries. Labour to shine in common life, by a conscientious discharge of all relative duties; and study to adorn the gospel of our Lord in all things. If you are good Christians, you will fear God, and, for His sake, honour the king. Be thankful for the many blessings you enjoy under the government of his present majesty, King George; and continue to pray to Him, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice, to keep a popish pretender from ever sitting on the English throne.”
We now return to Whitefield’s itinerancy. There is but little evidence to shew how he spent the interval between March15thand June26th. John Cennick, in his diary, says: “On the3rdof April, at my special desire, the first association of our ministers and preachers, which had been kept in Wilts, took place in my house at Tytherton. There were present the following preachers:Mr.Whitefield, Howell Harris, John Cennick, Joseph Humphreys, and Thomas Adams; and the following exhorters:William Humphreys, Isaac Cottle, Thomas Lewis, and ThomasBeswick.”97
Part of the fifteen weeks was spent in London, part in Bristol, and part in Wilts. He was also awaiting an opportunity to embark for Georgia; and, withMr.Smith, a merchant, actually took a passage in a ship about to sail from Portsmouth. At the last moment, however, the captain refused to take him; upon which he set out for Plymouth,preaching at Wellington, Exeter, Bideford, and Kingsbridge on theway.98At Plymouth, he was made the subject of abrutal attack, which might have ended seriously. Hence the following letters:—
“Plymouth,June 26, 1744.“My dear Friend,—You see by this where I am. Doubtless, you will wonder at the quick transition from Portsmouth to Plymouth. When I wrote last, I intended going to the former; but, just before I took leave of the dear Tabernacle people, a message was sent to me, that the captain, in whose ship I was to sail from thence, would not take me, for fear of my spoiling his sailors. Upon this, hearing of a ship that was going under convoy from Plymouth, I hastened hither, and have taken a passage in theWilmington, Captain Dalby, bound to Piscataway, in New England.“My first reception here was a little unpromising. A report being spread that I was come, a great number of people assembled upon theHoe(a large green for walks and diversions), and somebody brought out a bear and a drum; but I did not come till the following evening, when, under pretence of a hue-and-cry, several broke into the room where I lodged at the inn, and disturbed me very much.“I then betook myself to private lodgings, and being gone to rest, after preaching to a large congregation, and visiting the French prisoners, the good woman of the house came and told me, that a well-dressed gentleman desired to speak with me. Imagining that he was some Nicodemite, I desired he might be brought up. He came and sat down by my bedside, told me he was a lieutenant of a man of war, congratulated me on the success of my ministry, and expressed himself much concerned for being detained from hearing me. He then asked me if I knew him? I answered, No. He replied, his name was Cadogan. I rejoined, that I had seen oneMr.Cadogan, who was formerly an officer in Georgia, about a fortnight ago, at Bristol. Upon this, he immediately rose up, uttering the most abusive language, calling medog,rogue,villain,etc., and beat me most unmercifully with his gold-headed cane. As you know, I have not much natural courage; and, being apprehensive that he intended to shoot or stab me, I underwent all the fears of a sudden violent death. My hostess and her daughter, hearing me cry ‘Murder,’ rushed into the room, and seized him by the collar; but he immediately disengaged himself from them, and repeated his blows upon me. The cry of murder was repeated, and he made towards the chamber door, from whence the good woman pushed him downstairs. A second man now cried out, ‘Take courage, I am ready to help you;’ and, accordingly, whilst the other was escaping, he rushed upstairs, and finding one of the women coming down, took her by the heels, and threw her upon the floor, by which her back was almost broken. By this time the neighbourhood was alarmed; but, being unwilling to add to the commotion, I desired the doors might be shut, and so betook myself to rest.”
“Plymouth,June 26, 1744.
“My dear Friend,—You see by this where I am. Doubtless, you will wonder at the quick transition from Portsmouth to Plymouth. When I wrote last, I intended going to the former; but, just before I took leave of the dear Tabernacle people, a message was sent to me, that the captain, in whose ship I was to sail from thence, would not take me, for fear of my spoiling his sailors. Upon this, hearing of a ship that was going under convoy from Plymouth, I hastened hither, and have taken a passage in theWilmington, Captain Dalby, bound to Piscataway, in New England.
“My first reception here was a little unpromising. A report being spread that I was come, a great number of people assembled upon theHoe(a large green for walks and diversions), and somebody brought out a bear and a drum; but I did not come till the following evening, when, under pretence of a hue-and-cry, several broke into the room where I lodged at the inn, and disturbed me very much.
“I then betook myself to private lodgings, and being gone to rest, after preaching to a large congregation, and visiting the French prisoners, the good woman of the house came and told me, that a well-dressed gentleman desired to speak with me. Imagining that he was some Nicodemite, I desired he might be brought up. He came and sat down by my bedside, told me he was a lieutenant of a man of war, congratulated me on the success of my ministry, and expressed himself much concerned for being detained from hearing me. He then asked me if I knew him? I answered, No. He replied, his name was Cadogan. I rejoined, that I had seen oneMr.Cadogan, who was formerly an officer in Georgia, about a fortnight ago, at Bristol. Upon this, he immediately rose up, uttering the most abusive language, calling medog,rogue,villain,etc., and beat me most unmercifully with his gold-headed cane. As you know, I have not much natural courage; and, being apprehensive that he intended to shoot or stab me, I underwent all the fears of a sudden violent death. My hostess and her daughter, hearing me cry ‘Murder,’ rushed into the room, and seized him by the collar; but he immediately disengaged himself from them, and repeated his blows upon me. The cry of murder was repeated, and he made towards the chamber door, from whence the good woman pushed him downstairs. A second man now cried out, ‘Take courage, I am ready to help you;’ and, accordingly, whilst the other was escaping, he rushed upstairs, and finding one of the women coming down, took her by the heels, and threw her upon the floor, by which her back was almost broken. By this time the neighbourhood was alarmed; but, being unwilling to add to the commotion, I desired the doors might be shut, and so betook myself to rest.”
This strange adventure is explained in another letter, written to the same friend, a few days afterwards.
“Plymouth,July 4, 1744.“Since my last, I have had some information about the late odd adventure. It seems that four gentlemen came to the house of one of my particular friends, and desired to know where I lodged, that they might pay their respects to me. My friend directed them; and, soon afterwards, I received a letter, informing me that the writer of it was a nephew ofMr.S——, an eminent attorney at New York; that he had had the pleasure of supping with me at his uncle’s house; and that he desired my company to sup with him and a few more friends at a tavern. I sent him word that it was not customary for me to sup out at taverns, but I should be glad of his company, out of respect to his uncle, to eat a morsel with him at my lodgings. He came; we supped. I observed that he frequently looked around him, and seemed very absent; but, having no suspicion, I continued in conversation with him and my other friends till we parted. I now find that this man was to have been the assassin; and that, being interrogated by his companions as to what he had done, he answered, that being used so civilly, he had not the heart to touch me.“Upon this, as I am informed, the person who assaulted me, laid a wager of ten guineas that he would do my business for me. Some say, that they took his sword from him, which I suppose they did, for I only saw and felt the weight of his cane.“The next morning, I was to expound at a private house, and then to set out for Bideford. Some urged me to stay and prosecute; but, being better employed, I went on my intended journey; was greatly blessed in preaching the everlasting gospel; and, upon my return, was well paid for what I had suffered; for curiosity led perhaps two thousand more than ordinary to see and hear a man who had like to have been murdered in his bed. Thus all things tend to the furtherance of the gospel.“‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,And yet the thing they thwart effect.’“Leaving you to add a hallelujah, I subscribe myself,“Ever, ever yours,“George Whitefield.”
“Plymouth,July 4, 1744.
“Since my last, I have had some information about the late odd adventure. It seems that four gentlemen came to the house of one of my particular friends, and desired to know where I lodged, that they might pay their respects to me. My friend directed them; and, soon afterwards, I received a letter, informing me that the writer of it was a nephew ofMr.S——, an eminent attorney at New York; that he had had the pleasure of supping with me at his uncle’s house; and that he desired my company to sup with him and a few more friends at a tavern. I sent him word that it was not customary for me to sup out at taverns, but I should be glad of his company, out of respect to his uncle, to eat a morsel with him at my lodgings. He came; we supped. I observed that he frequently looked around him, and seemed very absent; but, having no suspicion, I continued in conversation with him and my other friends till we parted. I now find that this man was to have been the assassin; and that, being interrogated by his companions as to what he had done, he answered, that being used so civilly, he had not the heart to touch me.
“Upon this, as I am informed, the person who assaulted me, laid a wager of ten guineas that he would do my business for me. Some say, that they took his sword from him, which I suppose they did, for I only saw and felt the weight of his cane.
“The next morning, I was to expound at a private house, and then to set out for Bideford. Some urged me to stay and prosecute; but, being better employed, I went on my intended journey; was greatly blessed in preaching the everlasting gospel; and, upon my return, was well paid for what I had suffered; for curiosity led perhaps two thousand more than ordinary to see and hear a man who had like to have been murdered in his bed. Thus all things tend to the furtherance of the gospel.
“‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,And yet the thing they thwart effect.’
“‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,And yet the thing they thwart effect.’
“‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,
And yet the thing they thwart effect.’
“Leaving you to add a hallelujah, I subscribe myself,
“Ever, ever yours,
“George Whitefield.”
Whitefield seriously believed that this atrocious outrage was a deliberate attempt to murder him; the probability is, that it was a cruel freak, similar to many others for which naval stations have frequently been infamous.
Whitefield spent more than six weeks at Plymouth, and in the immediate neighbourhood. His detention, occasioned by waiting for the convoy, was not without good results. Hence the following extracts from letters written during this interval. To John Syms, Whitefield wrote as follows:—
“Plymouth,July 21, 1744.“My dear Man,—I expected a line from you to-day; but, I suppose, you think we are gone. This day came in a privateer, who saw the Brest squadron, which has pursued two of our men of war; so that, had we sailed, we should in all probability have been carried into France. We are now to go under the convoy of the grand fleet.“I have been greatly refreshed this evening in preaching the blood of Jesus. The congregations grow every day. Last night, many from the dock guarded me home, being apprehensive there was a design against me. Without my knowledge, they insulted a man who intended to hurt me. I am sorry for it. My health is better.Whether we sail or not, expect to hear again from, dear, dear Johnny, ever, ever yours whilst“George Whitefield.”99“Plymouth,July 26, 1744.“Could you think it? I have been preaching a confirmation sermon. Do you ask me where? In a Quaker’s field. As I saw thousands flocked to the church to have the bishop’s hands imposed upon them, I thought it not improper to let them have a word of exhortation suitable to the occasion. I have also made an elopement to Kingsbridge, where, a few days ago, I preached to many thousands. It was a most solemn occasion. The hearts of the auditory seemed to be bowed as the heart of one man.”
“Plymouth,July 21, 1744.
“My dear Man,—I expected a line from you to-day; but, I suppose, you think we are gone. This day came in a privateer, who saw the Brest squadron, which has pursued two of our men of war; so that, had we sailed, we should in all probability have been carried into France. We are now to go under the convoy of the grand fleet.
“I have been greatly refreshed this evening in preaching the blood of Jesus. The congregations grow every day. Last night, many from the dock guarded me home, being apprehensive there was a design against me. Without my knowledge, they insulted a man who intended to hurt me. I am sorry for it. My health is better.Whether we sail or not, expect to hear again from, dear, dear Johnny, ever, ever yours whilst
“George Whitefield.”99
“Plymouth,July 26, 1744.
“Could you think it? I have been preaching a confirmation sermon. Do you ask me where? In a Quaker’s field. As I saw thousands flocked to the church to have the bishop’s hands imposed upon them, I thought it not improper to let them have a word of exhortation suitable to the occasion. I have also made an elopement to Kingsbridge, where, a few days ago, I preached to many thousands. It was a most solemn occasion. The hearts of the auditory seemed to be bowed as the heart of one man.”
In other letters to his “dear man,” John Syms, he writes:—
“Plymouth,July 27, 1744.“Matters go on better and better here. I begin to think myself in London. We have our regular morning meetings. We are looking out for a place proper for a Society, and to expound in. People come daily to me, especially from the dock, under convictions. Some, I believe, have really closed with Christ; and here are several aged persons perfectly made young again. We are just now entered upon our singing hours.“Fresh news from Kingsbridge of souls being awakened; but I am kept close prisoner on account of the convoy. Brother Cennick must come into these parts soon.”“Plymouth,July 29, 1744.“Our Lord has been giving us blessings in drops; but now He is sending them in showers. We have had a most precious meeting this morning. Perhaps more good has been done by this one sermon, than by all I have preached before. The wind is yet against us. Our Lord detains me here for wise reasons. Some persons, formerly prejudiced against me, have offered to give me a piece of ground for a Society room. I believe one will be built soon. Brother Cennick must stay in the west some time.”“Plymouth,August 3, 1744.“Our convoy is come, and perhaps we may sail to-morrow. It is delightful to be here. We come from the dock, in the evenings, singing and praising God. Our parting there has been more awful than words can express.“I must tell you one thing more. There is a ferry over to Plymouth; and the ferrymen are now so much my friends, that they will take nothing of the multitude that come to hear me preach, saying, ‘God forbid that we should sell the word of God!’”
“Plymouth,July 27, 1744.
“Matters go on better and better here. I begin to think myself in London. We have our regular morning meetings. We are looking out for a place proper for a Society, and to expound in. People come daily to me, especially from the dock, under convictions. Some, I believe, have really closed with Christ; and here are several aged persons perfectly made young again. We are just now entered upon our singing hours.
“Fresh news from Kingsbridge of souls being awakened; but I am kept close prisoner on account of the convoy. Brother Cennick must come into these parts soon.”
“Plymouth,July 29, 1744.
“Our Lord has been giving us blessings in drops; but now He is sending them in showers. We have had a most precious meeting this morning. Perhaps more good has been done by this one sermon, than by all I have preached before. The wind is yet against us. Our Lord detains me here for wise reasons. Some persons, formerly prejudiced against me, have offered to give me a piece of ground for a Society room. I believe one will be built soon. Brother Cennick must stay in the west some time.”
“Plymouth,August 3, 1744.
“Our convoy is come, and perhaps we may sail to-morrow. It is delightful to be here. We come from the dock, in the evenings, singing and praising God. Our parting there has been more awful than words can express.
“I must tell you one thing more. There is a ferry over to Plymouth; and the ferrymen are now so much my friends, that they will take nothing of the multitude that come to hear me preach, saying, ‘God forbid that we should sell the word of God!’”
Thus, at Plymouth, as in other places, did Whitefield triumph in Christ Jesus. One of the conversions, which took place under his marvellous ministry, is too notable to pass unnoticed. Henry Tanner, born at Exeter, was now in the twenty-sixth year of his age, and was working, at Plymouth, as a shipwright. One day, while at work, he heard, from a considerable distance, the voice of Whitefield, who was preaching in the open air; and, concluding that the man was mad, he and half a dozen of his companions filled their pockets with stones, and set off to knock the preacher down. Whitefield’s text was Actsxvii.19, 20. Tanner listened with astonishment; and, without using his stones, went home, determined to hear him again next evening. The text, on this occasion, was Lukexxiv.47; and Tanner was in such an agony of soul, that he was forced to cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner!” The next night, while Whitefield was preaching on “Jacob’s Ladder,” Tanner found peace with God. He, at once, joined the Society at Plymouth, which had been formed by Whitefield, and suffered violent persecution from his unconverted wife. To secure time for prayer and Christian usefulness, he seldom allowed himself more than six hours in bed, and frequently but four. Ten years after his conversion, he removed to Exeter, and began to preach with great success. In 1769, the Tabernacle at Exeter was built, mainly through his exertions, and he became its minister. His labours, however, were not confined to Exeter. At the request of Toplady, he used to preach at Broad Hembury; whilst Moreton, Hampstead, Crediton, Topsham, and various other places, were favoured with his services. On Sunday morning, March 24, 1805, when he had completed the eighty-sixth year of his age, he was carried, in a chair, to his pulpit, and tried to preach, butwas so ill that he was obliged to relinquish the attempt.A week afterwards he peacefullyexpired.100
While, however, God was raising up new labourers, by means of Whitefield’s ministry, He was taking others to Himself. One of these was theRev.David Crossly, of Manchester, who, within a week of the time when Whitefield embarked at Plymouth for America, wrote as follows to Whitefield’s friend,Mr.Syms:—
“Manchester,August 3, 1744.“How glad I am to hear ofMr.Whitefield’s success in the service of his God. O happyMr.Whitefield! His unparalleled labours, with answerable success, make his life a continued miracle. For a month past, I have been nigh unto death. My life is generally despaired of; and the Lord seems to be preparing the way for it,first, by a flow of converts, above twenty having been added to us during the last two months; and,secondly, by raising up several with very useful gifts; so that I am ready to say, ‘Lord, now let Thy servant depart in peace! Let me, O Lord, come above to the palm-bearing company! Fifty-five years have I been in the work, a poor weakling, yet crowned, by Thy blessing, with success.’“As toMr.Whitefield’s Preface to mySermon,101I give a thousand thanks to him.It is his goodness, not my deserts, that has placed his valuable name before any performance ofmine.”102
“Manchester,August 3, 1744.
“How glad I am to hear ofMr.Whitefield’s success in the service of his God. O happyMr.Whitefield! His unparalleled labours, with answerable success, make his life a continued miracle. For a month past, I have been nigh unto death. My life is generally despaired of; and the Lord seems to be preparing the way for it,first, by a flow of converts, above twenty having been added to us during the last two months; and,secondly, by raising up several with very useful gifts; so that I am ready to say, ‘Lord, now let Thy servant depart in peace! Let me, O Lord, come above to the palm-bearing company! Fifty-five years have I been in the work, a poor weakling, yet crowned, by Thy blessing, with success.’
“As toMr.Whitefield’s Preface to mySermon,101I give a thousand thanks to him.It is his goodness, not my deserts, that has placed his valuable name before any performance ofmine.”102
A month after the date of this letter, good old David Crossly was gone. “I am ready for the Bridegroom,” he cried;“I know my Redeemer liveth;” with the utterance of which he triumphantlyexpired.103
Another brave-hearted man must be mentioned. Thomas Beard was one of Wesley’s preachers, but he was also warmly attached to Whitefield, and wrote to him the following sweet and simple letter:—
“Berwick-upon-Tweed,September 17, 1744.“Sir,—It has been often upon my mind to write to you since I have been in this state of life, which is not agreeable at all to my inclinations. I have but little acquaintance with you, but I hope you will not be offended atmy writing to you. The children of God, while on this side of the grave, always stand in need of one another’s prayers, especially such of them as are under persecutions, or temptations, for the truth’s sake. I find I stand in need of the prayers of all the children of God.“I was pressed, in Yorkshire, for preaching, and so sent for a soldier. I earnestly pray for them who were the occasion of it. All my trust is reposed in Jesus, my sweet Saviour. I know He will not leave nor forsake me. His blood has atoned for my sin, and appeased His Father’s wrath, and procured His favour for such a sinful worm as myself. Herein is my comfort, though men raged at me, my dear Saviour did not leave nor forsake me.“I have lately been on a command in Scotland, and met with many who enquired concerning you. I preached at Cowdingham. Some of your friends came to see me from Coppersmith. Many thought it strange to see a man in a red coat preach.“I beg you would write to me in General Blakeney’s regiment of foot, in Captain Dunlop’s company.“I am your unworthy brother,“Thomas Beard.”104
“Berwick-upon-Tweed,September 17, 1744.
“Sir,—It has been often upon my mind to write to you since I have been in this state of life, which is not agreeable at all to my inclinations. I have but little acquaintance with you, but I hope you will not be offended atmy writing to you. The children of God, while on this side of the grave, always stand in need of one another’s prayers, especially such of them as are under persecutions, or temptations, for the truth’s sake. I find I stand in need of the prayers of all the children of God.
“I was pressed, in Yorkshire, for preaching, and so sent for a soldier. I earnestly pray for them who were the occasion of it. All my trust is reposed in Jesus, my sweet Saviour. I know He will not leave nor forsake me. His blood has atoned for my sin, and appeased His Father’s wrath, and procured His favour for such a sinful worm as myself. Herein is my comfort, though men raged at me, my dear Saviour did not leave nor forsake me.
“I have lately been on a command in Scotland, and met with many who enquired concerning you. I preached at Cowdingham. Some of your friends came to see me from Coppersmith. Many thought it strange to see a man in a red coat preach.
“I beg you would write to me in General Blakeney’s regiment of foot, in Captain Dunlop’s company.
“I am your unworthy brother,
“Thomas Beard.”104
Before Whitefield had an opportunity to answer, poor Beard, as one of the first of Methodism’s martyrs, had been called to inherit a martyr’s crown. Wesley, in 1744, wrote thus concerning him:—