This is really, Rev. Sir, the truth of the case. However, we are willing to frequent the church, and receive the holy sacrament, if the clergy please to give us leave. This I think we may do, without being guilty of the inconsistency you charge us with (page 29th), because in the 26th article of our church we are taught, “Although in the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments: yet, forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the word of God, and in receiving of the sacraments: neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such, as by faith, and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.” This I think a sufficient vindication, for the methodists keeping in the church. But if some cannot go thus far, nor bear to hear the doctrine of justification by faith alone continually preached against, the preachers must thank themselves if any entirely desert the church, and run to meeting-houses or elsewhere, to get food for their souls. For I am persuaded, if the doctrine of justification by faith alone be banished from our pulpits, people may attend to their lives end, and yet never have the whole counsel of God (as you think they may, page 50.) declared unto them.

I could enlarge upon this point, and also answer the charge of enthusiasm which you bring against me in several parts of your letter. But I willingly omit it, because I shall have occasion to write more explicitly on these points in my second answer to the Observations: I have some reasons for deferring it at present. But I assure you, Rev. Sir, you must not expect me to treat that anonymous author with less justice than in my last. For however worthy perhaps he may be in your sight, I think I shall prove him to be no better than an unskilful slandering sophister; and if a clergyman, an unorthodox blind guide.

As for the irregularities I have been guilty of, in curtailing the liturgy, or not using the common-prayer in the fields, &c. 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, as I mentioned in my answer to the first part of the observations, whenever it shall be required at my hands. Only I would beg leave to observe, that by calling extempore prayer, extempore effusions, you cast a slur upon the whole body of dissenters, and on many of the reformed churches abroad. And as the free grace dissenters have helped to keep up the Calvinistical disputes, which you say have happily slept in the established church for so many years; was it not for his Majesty’s great kindness, and the lenity of his government, they would meet with no better treatment than the poor Methodists do now.

Indeed you say (page 41st) “We do not oppose or deny the true scripture doctrine concerning these points, (viz. Free justification, the new birth, and the in-dwelling of the spirit) but only your account and explication of them.” Give me leave therefore, Rev. Sir, if you are pleased to favour me with another letter, to let me know how you explain these important points, or what you can find inconsistent with scripture, or the articles of the church of England, in those discourses which I have published, and in which I have endeavoured to treat on these points in an explicit manner.

I would observe to you, that I wish every non-resident minister in England, could give as good an account of their non-residence, as I can of my absence from Savannah. To satisfy you, Rev. Sir, I will acquaint you with the whole. 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 magistrates and people, I continued at Savannah, teaching publicly, and from house to house, and catechising 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 fifty pounds out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a public account. About four months after, I came over to England to receive priest’s orders, and 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 fifty pounds per annum, which they generously offered me. Neither did I put them to any expence 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 the honourable trustees, I knew 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 over to the honourable trustees to provide another minister. In the mean while, as most of my parishioners were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being employed, and as I believed, that 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 make more collections towards carrying on the Orphan-house. The Lord stirred up many to be ready to distribute and willing to communicate on this occasion. 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 any thing like the non-residents of most of the English clergy. When I was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living at ease, but preaching 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 relations. No: freely as I had received, freely I gave: and “therefore when the ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the eye saw me, it gave witness to me: because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me; and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.” I am become a fool in glorying. But you have compelled me. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knoweth that I lie not. I fought not theirs, but them. And however you may judge me, (page 20th) as though I chose this itinerant way of preaching for the sake of Profit; yet I assure you the last day will prove that you and all like-minded are quite mistaken. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of God and the good of souls is my only aim. The manner of my call to my present way of acting, if the Lord gives me freedom, shall be the subject of a future tract. I send you this short letter, to convince you that I am really willing to give an answer of the hope that is in me, with [♦]meekness and fear. I shall only add, if you do not like the example of Gallio (page 27th) I would humbly recommend to you the advice of Gamaliel. “Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this council, or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” I am, Rev. Sir,

Your affectionate brother and servant,

George Whitefield.

[♦] “meakness” replaced with “meekness”


AN
ANSWER