“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 James Hutton;[94] in 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 the 10th of 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. 26 pp.) 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 Psalm xxxv. 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 to give stabs in the dark.”
Whitefield proceeds to say, that the title of the Bishops’ pamphlet ought to have run thus: “Misrepresentations of the Conduct and Principles of 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:—
“The principles, 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’s most hearty friends? 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, to a 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:—