George Whitefield.
⁂ For more particulars of this affair, see Volume II. Letters 526, 527, 529, 545, 549, and 550.
A
LETTER
TO THE
Revᵈ. Thomas Church, M.A.
Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s;
IN
ANSWER
TO HIS
Serious and Expostulatory Letter
TO THE
Revᵈ. George Whitefield,
On Occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London, and other Bishops.
A
LETTER, &c.
London, May 22, 1744.
Reverend Sir,
I HAVE read your expostulatory letter, and thank you for prefixing your name. Had the author of the observations been so ingenuous, he would have saved you and me some trouble; but as he hath not, and the pamphlet was published in such a way, I cannot think myself justly chargeable with ill-manners or censoriousness, for treating him and their Lordships concerned, in the manner I have done. Our Saviour dealt always very plainly with the rulers of the Jewish Church; and when one was offended, and said, “Master, thus saying, thou reproachest us also,” he was so far from recanting, that he said, “And woe unto you also ye lawyers.” In the same spirit, the proto-martyr Stephen addressed himself to the Jewish Sanhedrim, and said unto them, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” And however shocking, Rev. Sir, it may appear to you, (page 43d of your letter) for us to urge our Lord’s example and his blessed apostles, yet I think it quite consistent for a minister, who has received an apostolical commission at his ordination, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands, &c.” to make use of the example of our Lord and his apostles, in vindication of his conduct; because Christ left us an example, that we might follow his steps; and we are called to be followers of the apostles, as they were of Jesus Christ. I know not how to give flattering titles, and therefore must stand to it, that they are false witnesses, however dignified or distinguished, and lay to my charge a thing that I know not, who tax me with being an open defier of government, for preaching in the fields. Neither do I think I have wronged the author of the observations at all, by insinuating, “That the design and scope of this pamphlet was to represent the proceedings of the Methodists as dangerous to the church and state, in order to procure an act of parliament against them, or oblige them to secure themselves by turning dissenters.” That this was his drift, (at least that he intended to move the government against the Methodists in general, and me in particular) I think appears quite plain from a little two-penny paper lately published, (I suppose by the same anonymous author) wherein he declares, “That though Mr. Whitefield has pleaded in behalf of the Methodists, that they are an harmless and loyal people, yet 1st. He cannot possibly be supposed to know all the persons, or even one tenth part of those present at his meetings of 30, 50, or 80000.—2d. When he appoints or holds a meeting, all people are at liberty to come, and to carry on such purposes as they think proper.—3d. Such a free and safe resort for great multitudes to one place, subject to no controul or examination, is doubtless a great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” He adds, “How consistently with the act of toleration, or with what safety to the public, these field-preachings may be continued, let the world judge.” If this be not intended to move the government against me, surely there was never a motion made against any man living; but with what little shew of true reasoning I need not mention. Let the world judge.
Here lies the point, Rev. Sir: the generality of the clergy are offended in their hearts, that his majesty is so mild towards his harmless and loyal people the Methodists. They have denied the Methodist preachers the use of their churches, and think, if field-preaching was put a stop to, Methodism, as they term it, would be less extensive. But were they to gain their point, and the preachers to be bound, yet perhaps after all they would find themselves mistaken, for the word of God would not be bound. And I remember a saying of the then Lord Chancellor to that holy martyr Bradford, “Thou hast done more hurt (as he called it) by thy letters and exhortations since thou hast been in prison, than thou ever didst before.” However this be, field-preaching is at present the clergy’s eye-sore. Hence they raise a clamour that it is unlawful. We deny it. We say the act of toleration urged against us is nothing to the purpose, for we are true members of the established church; and that if we were not (quod magno mercenter Atridæ) yet the trial of Mede and Pen is an adjudged case. But still, if you or any other person please to move for an information against me, for preaching in a field, or a street, though I purpose to go abroad shortly, yet I shall think it my duty to stay some time, to make a legal defence. But if not, henceforward whatever questions may be put to me in print, about the lawfulness of field-preaching, they will lie unanswered.