Works of the Reverend George Whitefield, M.A.

Another thing, my Lord, to me seems darkly expressed, in page 18. (let not your Lordship be angry, for indeed I will endeavour to speak with all gentleness and humility): your Lordship’s words are these: “Nor need they any other evidence besides those good dispositions they find in their hearts, that the Holy Spirit of God co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin and grow in goodness.” If by good dispositions, your Lordship only means good inclinations or desires, I deny that to be a sufficient evidence, that the Spirit of God co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin and grow in goodness. For there is a great difference between good desires and good habits: many have one, who never attain the other. Many have good desires to subdue sin, and yet, resting in those good desires, sin has always had dominion over them. A person sick of a fever may desire to be in health, but that desire is not health itself. In like manner, many have good dispositions, or desires to be good, but that is not goodness itself. And consequently men need more evidence than good dispositions, to prove to themselves or others, “that the Holy Spirit of God co-operates with their honest endeavours to subdue sin.” If by good dispositions, your Lordship means good habits wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God, such as peace, love, joy, long-suffering, goodness, truth, &c. I then agree a man needs no other evidence: for these are the proper and genuine fruits of the Spirit itself.

I come now to your Lordship’s caution against enthusiasm. For that, I suppose, your Lordship intended more particularly against me.

And here, my Lord, I beg leave to observe, That, in my opinion, your Lordship has by no means been clear enough in your definition of the word enthusiasm.

According to the fair rules of writing, was it not first incumbent on your Lordship to shew, that the word enthusiast had a good as well as a bad meaning: that it signifies no more than a person in God, and consequently every christian, in the proper sense of the word, is an enthusiast? For St. Peter writes, “That to us are given exceeding great and precious promises, that by these we might be partakers of the divine nature.”

And our church says, “If we receive the sacrament worthily, we are one with Christ, and Christ with us: we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us.” For which she has sufficient warrant from our Lord’s prayer, John xvii. 20, &c. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, I in them, and they in me, that they may be made perfect in one: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.”

Your Lordship proceeds thus: “And this is owing chiefly to the want of distinguishing aright between the ordinary and extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit. The extraordinary operations were those, by which the apostles and others, who were entrusted with the first propagation of the gospel, were enabled to work miracles, and speak with tongues, in testimony, that their mission and doctrine were from God.”

I suppose, by extraordinary operations, your Lordship means the same as being guided in an extraordinary manner, just above. And if so, according to your Lordship’s own definition, I am no enthusiast. For I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues, in testimony that my mission and doctrine were from God; I only lay claim to the ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit, which your Lordship (page 20.) says, “Still continue:” and what need was there then, my Lord, that the people of your Lordship’s diocese should be cautioned against enthusiasm upon my account?

But your Lordship farther adds, “The ordinary gifts, however real and certain in themselves, are no otherwise discernible, than by their fruits and effects.” Had your Lordship said, No otherwise discernible to others, than by their fruits and effects, it would have been right: but if your Lordship means, they are no otherwise discernible to ourselves, in my opinion, it is wrong; for it is possible, my Lord, for a person to feel and discern these ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit in himself, when there is no opportunity of discovering them to others.

But to proceed: (pages 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.) your Lordship has taken pains to collect several passages out of the public liturgy, to prove the doctrine of regeneration, or our new birth, to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Your reason for so doing, appears (page 25.) “to arm your people against any suggestions, as if our church were so regardless of the doctrine of regeneration and new birth, as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.” If this, my Lord, was intended to arm your people against any such suggestions made by me; indeed your Lordship does not do me justice. As your Lordship, I find, has done me the honour to peruse my Third Journal, your Lordship may remember this observation, (page 39.) that, after I had baptized an adult, I proved the necessity of the new birth, from the office of our church.

In my sermon, upon the indwelling of the Spirit of God, which I have made bold to send to your Lordship with this letter, you will find, I have quoted the expressions of our own church offices, to prove the doctrine of the new birth, as your Lordship does in your pastoral letter. My constant way of preaching is, first, to prove my propositions by scripture, and then to illustrate them by the articles and collects of the church of England. Those that have heard me, can witness, how often I have exhorted them to be constant at the public service of the church. I attend on it myself, and would read the public liturgy every day, if your Lordship’s clergy would give me leave. What further satisfaction can your Lordship require, that I do not suggest to your Lordship’s people, “as if our church were regardless of the doctrine of regeneration, and new birth, and as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.”

(Page 35.) “When they speak of themselves in the language, and under the character of Apostles of Christ, and even of Christ himself.”

If I am not to speak in an apostolical language, why did my Lord of Gloucester give me an apostolical commission, “whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained?” And I hope, my Lord, using the words which Jesus Christ used, is not taking upon me the character of Christ.

(Page 36.) “When they profess to plant and propagate a new Gospel, as unknown to the generality of ministers and people, in a christian country.”

’Tis true, my Lord, in one sense, mine is a new gospel, and will be always unknown to the generality of ministers and people, even in a christian country, if your Lordship’s clergy follow your Lordship’s directions. For what says your Lordship, (page 46.) “I hope, that when your ministers preach to you of justification by faith alone, which is asserted in the strongest manner by our church, they explain it in such a manner, as to leave no doubt upon your minds, whether good works are a necessary condition of your being justified in the sight of God.”

This, my Lord, is the doctrine of Jesus Christ, this is the doctrine of the church of England, and it is, because the generality of the clergy of the church of England do not preach this doctrine, that I am resolved, God being my helper, to continue instant in season and out of season, to declare it unto all men, let the consequences, as to my own private person, be what they will.

As for your Lordship’s blaming me for rashly censuring the clergy, for their practice, none are concerned, but my indolent, earthly-minded, pleasure-taking brethren (page 39.) And surely, your Lordship will not stand up in their defence. No, I hope your Lordship will not fail to rebuke them sharply. And as for your Lordship’s suspicions, page 50. (For your Lordship’s sake I would not mention them) I hope my life and doctrine will always prove them to be groundless.

Would time permit, I could now proceed to satisfy your Lordship more particularly about the case of Mr. Benjamin Seward: but as that is done in a letter sent to my Lord of Gloucester, and as I am now to embark in a few hours, I hope your Lordship will excuse me, if I only add my hearty prayers for your Lordship’s temporal and eternal welfare, and subscribe myself, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient, though unworthy son and servant,

G. W.

Blendon, Monday,
August 13, 1739.

The letter above mentioned, as sent to the Bishop of Gloucester, was occasioned by the Bishop’s acquainting Mr. Whitefield, in a letter, “That he ought to preach only in that congregation to which he was lawfully appointed.” This produced the following answer.

My Lord,

Your Lordship’s obedient Son, and obliged servant,

George Whitefield.