After his farewell sermon, at the Tabernacle, on February23, Whitefield set out for Scotland. On his way, he preached for Berridge at Everton;[501] Berridge, together with Thomas Adams, having engaged to supply his place in London.[502] He visited Sheffield, and preached in Wesley’s, unplastered, though white-washed, chapel in Mulberry Street, taking as his text, Romans v. 11. Here, as in the extract above given, he warned the people against resting satisfied with a past conversion. “In your Bibles,” said he, “you have registered your births; and some of you the time when you were born again; but are you new creatures now?”[503]
On March 4, he arrived at Leeds, and here, besides preaching, he employed himself in writing his “Observations on some Fatal Mistakes, in a Book lately published, and entitled, ‘The Doctrine of Grace; or, the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit Vindicated from the Insults of Infidelity and the Abuses of Fanaticism. By William, Lord Bishop of Gloucester.’ In a Letter to a Friend. By George Whitefield, A.M., late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain to the Countess of Huntingdon. London, 1763.” (12mo. 35 pp.)[504]
This was, I believe, the first instance in which, in England, A.M. was attached to Whitefield’s name; and even now the degree, conferred by New Jersey College in 1754, was not appropriated by Whitefield himself, but was foolishly used by his friends, who printed his pamphlet after he embarked for America.
So far as the Methodists were concerned, the book of Bishop Warburton was levelled against Wesley, rather than against Whitefield. The worst, indeed, almost the only sneer against Whitefield, was, that, though both Wesley and he were mad, Whitefield was “the madder of the two.” Wesley’s reply to Warburton was published in a 12mo. volume of 144 pages; but, with a single exception, need not be quoted here. In answer to one of the Bishop’s contemptuous remarks, that Whitefield set up himself as Wesley’srival, Wesley says: “We were[505] in full union; nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I still sincerely ‘praise God for His wisdom in giving different talents to different preachers;’ and particularly for His giving Mr. Whitefield the talents which I have not.”
Whitefield’s “Observations” were smartly and rather ably written; but two extracts must suffice. He admits that the “modern defenders of Christianity, in their elaborate and well-meant treatises, against the attacks of Infidels and Free-thinkers, have shewn themselves, as far as human learning is concerned, to be masters of strong reasoning, nervous language, and conclusive arguments;” but they lacked a “deep and experimental knowledge of themselves, and of Jesus Christ.” With regard to Bishop Warburton in particular, he affirms, that, his lordship, “in his great zeal against fanaticism, and to the no small encouragement of infidelity, has, as far as perverted reason and disguised sophistry could carry him, robbed the Church of Christ of its promised Comforter; and, thereby, left us without any supernatural influence or Divine operations whatsoever” (pp. 5, 6). Then turning to Warburton’s abuse of the Methodists, Whitefield remarks:—
“To set these off in a ridiculous light, this writer runs from Dan to Beersheba; gives us quotation upon quotation out of the Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journals; and, to use his own simile upon another occasion, by a kind of Egyptian husbandry, draws together whole droves of obscene animals, of his own formation, who rush in furiously, and then trample the Journals, and this sect, under their feet. Our author calls the Rev. Mr. John Wesley ‘paltry mimic, spiritual empiric, spiritual martialist, new adventurer.’ The Methodists, according to him, are ‘modern apostles, the saints, new missionaries, and illuminated doctors.’ Methodism itself is modern saintship; Mr. Law begat it; Count Zinzendorf rocked the cradle; and the devil himself was midwife to their new-birth” (p. 24).
In reference to Wesley’s Journals and his own, Whitefield says:—
“Whatever that indefatigable labourer, the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, may think of his, I have long since publicly acknowledged that there were, and doubtless, though now sent forth in a more correct attire, thereare yet many exceptionable passages in my Journals. And I hope it will be one of the constant employments of my declining years to humble myself daily before the Most High God, for the innumerable mixtures of corruption which have blended themselves with my feeble, but, I trust, sincere endeavours to promote the Redeemer’s glory. If his lordship had contented himself with pointing out, or even ridiculing, any such blemishes, imprudences, or mistakes, in my own, or in any of the Methodists’ conduct or performances, I should have stood entirely silent. But when I observed his lordship, through almost his whole book, not only wantonly throwing about the arrows and firebrands of scurrility, buffoonery, and personal abuse, but, at the same time, taking occasion to vilify, and totally deny the operations of the blessed Spirit, by which alone his lordship, or any other man, can be sanctified and sealed to the day of eternal redemption, I must own that I was constrained to vent myself to you, as a dear and intimate friend, in the manner I have done. Make what use of it you please.
“At present, I am on the road to Scotland, in order to embark for America; and only add, that the method used by his lordship to stop, will rather serve to increase and establish what he is pleased to term a ‘sect of fanatics.’ Bishop Burnet prescribed a much better way to stop the progress of the Puritan ministers. ‘Out-live, out-labour, out-preach them,’ said his lordship. That the Rev. Mr. John Wesley himself, that famed leader of the Methodists, and every Methodist preacher in England may be thus outed and entirely annihilated is, and shall be, the hearty prayer of George Whitefield” (pp. 33–35).
Having completed his pamphlet at Leeds, Whitefield proceeded to Newcastle, where he wrote:—