“You, sir, have published such an extract of Mr. Whitefield’s libel in your paper, as is punishable by law; which example of yours the country newspapers and the London magazines have followed.
“I would have you immediately consider well, whether you are liable or no; and, if you find yourself so, to let me know what steps you think to take to avoid a prosecution.
“A submission in the Public Advertiser, next Monday, expressing your sorrow for having published that extract (without at all entering into the merits of the cause, whether true or false), and asking pardon of the persons reflected on therein, seems to me the best and only way of preventing that prosecution, which else, in all probability, will very soon begin.
“I am, sir, yours,
“James Hutton.”
A similar letter was sent to the publisher of the Daily Gazetteer. The Archbishop of Canterbury, likewise, received an anonymous epistle, not written, but made up of words, taken out of printed books, of different types, and pasted upon a sheet of paper:—
“My Lord,—Our Moravian Church having subsisted above 1700 years, and you being the chief of a Church, which is her puny sister, your Grace ought not to suffer that villain Rimius publicly to vilify our right reverend and valuable patron and us. The man is quite stupid, else he would have known that he, being but a single person, and deeply in debt, can do us no hurt. We are a multitude, a parliamentary constitution, a church that stands upon a rock, and have treasures inexhaustible, and can hold out against him, and all the rest of our enemies. But we shall soon make him flee his country;or he shall meet with a fate which he scarce expects.”[322]
Bohler and Zinzendorf both wrote to Whitefield; and, as their letters are of historical importance, they are here given in extenso:—
“May 8, 1753.
“Sir,—I pity you very much that you suffer yourself to be so much imposed on, and to print your impositions so inconsiderately.