A
LETTER, &c.
London, May 22, 1744.
Reverend Sir,
I HAVE read your expostulatory letter, and thank you for prefixing your name. Had the author of the observations been so ingenuous, he would have saved you and me some trouble; but as he hath not, and the pamphlet was published in such a way, I cannot think myself justly chargeable with ill-manners or censoriousness, for treating him and their Lordships concerned, in the manner I have done. Our Saviour dealt always very plainly with the rulers of the Jewish Church; and when one was offended, and said, “Master, thus saying, thou reproachest us also,” he was so far from recanting, that he said, “And woe unto you also ye lawyers.” In the same spirit, the proto-martyr Stephen addressed himself to the Jewish Sanhedrim, and said unto them, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” And however shocking, Rev. Sir, it may appear to you, (page 43d of your letter) for us to urge our Lord’s example and his blessed apostles, yet I think it quite consistent for a minister, who has received an apostolical commission at his ordination, “Receive thou the Holy Ghost now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands, &c.” to make use of the example of our Lord and his apostles, in vindication of his conduct; because Christ left us an example, that we might follow his steps; and we are called to be followers of the apostles, as they were of Jesus Christ. I know not how to give flattering titles, and therefore must stand to it, that they are false witnesses, however dignified or distinguished, and lay to my charge a thing that I know not, who tax me with being an open defier of government, for preaching in the fields. Neither do I think I have wronged the author of the observations at all, by insinuating, “That the design and scope of this pamphlet was to represent the proceedings of the Methodists as dangerous to the church and state, in order to procure an act of parliament against them, or oblige them to secure themselves by turning dissenters.” That this was his drift, (at least that he intended to move the government against the Methodists in general, and me in particular) I think appears quite plain from a little two-penny paper lately published, (I suppose by the same anonymous author) wherein he declares, “That though Mr. Whitefield has pleaded in behalf of the Methodists, that they are an harmless and loyal people, yet 1st. He cannot possibly be supposed to know all the persons, or even one tenth part of those present at his meetings of 30, 50, or 80000.—2d. When he appoints or holds a meeting, all people are at liberty to come, and to carry on such purposes as they think proper.—3d. Such a free and safe resort for great multitudes to one place, subject to no controul or examination, is doubtless a great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” He adds, “How consistently with the act of toleration, or with what safety to the public, these field-preachings may be continued, let the world judge.” If this be not intended to move the government against me, surely there was never a motion made against any man living; but with what little shew of true reasoning I need not mention. Let the world judge.
Here lies the point, Rev. Sir: the generality of the clergy are offended in their hearts, that his majesty is so mild towards his harmless and loyal people the Methodists. They have denied the Methodist preachers the use of their churches, and think, if field-preaching was put a stop to, Methodism, as they term it, would be less extensive. But were they to gain their point, and the preachers to be bound, yet perhaps after all they would find themselves mistaken, for the word of God would not be bound. And I remember a saying of the then Lord Chancellor to that holy martyr Bradford, “Thou hast done more hurt (as he called it) by thy letters and exhortations since thou hast been in prison, than thou ever didst before.” However this be, field-preaching is at present the clergy’s eye-sore. Hence they raise a clamour that it is unlawful. We deny it. We say the act of toleration urged against us is nothing to the purpose, for we are true members of the established church; and that if we were not (quod magno mercenter Atridæ) yet the trial of Mede and Pen is an adjudged case. But still, if you or any other person please to move for an information against me, for preaching in a field, or a street, though I purpose to go abroad shortly, yet I shall think it my duty to stay some time, to make a legal defence. But if not, henceforward whatever questions may be put to me in print, about the lawfulness of field-preaching, they will lie unanswered.
Not that I think it is barely field-preaching that gives the generality of the clergy such offence. No, it is the doctrine that I preach there, that is the grand cause of their contending with me. You are pleased, Rev. Sir, to say (Page 39th) “That I have revived the old Calvinistical disputes concerning predestination, &c.” (I suppose you mean justification by faith alone, the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, man’s utter inability to turn to God, or to do good works, &c.) “Which you say had happily slept for so many years.” But if this be my shame, I glory in it. For what is this but reviving the essential articles of the Church of England, which undoubtedly are Calvinistical, and which, by your own confession, have happily slept for so many years? This is too true. But however you may count this a happiness, yet in my opinion it is one of the greatest judgments that has befallen our nation. And if it had not been for the remnant of free-grace, dissenting ministers, (stiled by the author of the observations, dissenting teachers) and the little flock of the Methodist preachers, that the Lord Jesus has raised up and preserved amongst us, many of the essential doctrines of the articles of the Church of England might have, as you term it, happily slept many years more.
These, Rev. Sir, are the real sentiments of my heart. I think they are founded on truth and soberness. And if so, blame me not, as you do (page 21st) for comparing the Church of England, as it now subsists, to a leaky ship. For is it not too evident that she is not only leaky, but really sinking, when several of the Right Reverend the Bishops, and a prebendary of St. Paul’s, can openly plead for works being a condition of our justification in the sight of God? This was the particular charge my Lord of London gave his clergy in his last pastoral letter, “So to explain the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as not to exclude good works from being a condition of our justification.” Was the great apostle of the Gentiles now living, what anathema’s would he pronounce against such Judaizing doctrine? Was Luther on earth, how would he thunder against such a charge? For he calls justification by faith alone, articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ. This is the great fundamental point in which we differ from the church of Rome. This is the grand point of contention between the generality of the established clergy, and the Methodist preachers: we plead for free justification in the sight of God, by faith alone, in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, without any regard to works past, present, or to come. You (Bellarmine like) are for making your works, conditions (page 17th); “And joining your honest, though imperfect endeavours to serve and please your Maker, with a hearty trust and confidence in his everlasting mercies,” (page 42.) You say, (page 58th) we are very far from building wholly on our morality;” we say, our morality is not to be built on at all, but that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” This, you think, is one of my errors. But if it be an error, it is a scriptural error; and so plainly taught in the eleventh article of our church, that he that runs may read: and however you may blame me for insinuating, “That some of the clergy may adhere to his majesty only for his preferments, and consequently not appear altogether so hearty in a time of danger;” yet I cannot think it an instance of hard-judging at all. For if persons can deliberately subscribe to the doctrines of justification by faith alone, and other articles that are purely Calvinistical, yet so explain them away as plainly to prove they scarce believe a word of them, I should not wonder if they turned Jacobites, or went over to the pretender, whenever they saw it suited their worldly interest so to do.
That I am not alone in my opinion, give me leave, Rev. Sir, to transcribe a passage I lately met with in the latter end of a book, entitled, The Honeycomb of Free Justification, written by one Mr. Eaton, A.M. of Trinity College in Cambridge, printed at London in the year 1642.
“Free justification was first enjoined to be diligently taught, for the reformation of the church, by King Henry VIII. but was by King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, principally established by parliament, and singled out from all the rest of the established articles of religion; and reduced into sermons and homilies to be (after the people’s sight of their lost estate, and woeful misery by sin) principally taught, and chiefly known and understood of all the subjects and commons of the land, for these four causes.
1st. “Because it is the only immediate cause and means of our peace with God. For being justified by faith we have peace with God, Romans v. 1. and our assurance of free salvation by Jesus Christ, and is therefore called the justification of life, Romans v. 18. ‘For whom God justifieth, them he also glorifieth,’ Romans viii. 30.
2d. “Because it is the ordinance of God (quite contrary to the judgment of popish carnal reason) that powerfully causeth people to leave their sins, and live a true sanctified and godly life. Titus ii. 11 to 15. Romans 5th and 6th chapter.
3d. “Because it is the chief cause and means to discover and suppress the Romish antichrist, popery, &c. and all other superstitions, sects, errors and schisms out of the land; and to establish unity, peace and concord in matters of religion, and of assurance of free salvation, and makes every man to keep in a lawful vocation, and to do it profitably in love. Galatians v. 13.
4th. “To direct ministers ὀρθοποδεῖν to go with a right foot to the truth of the gospel, Galatians ii. 14. in sound preaching, and pure declaring of the word of God, by true faith of free justification, because (saith the established doctrine of our church) sincere preachers ever were, and ever shall be but a few; and their preaching of God’s word most sincere in the beginning, by process of time waxeth less and less pure, and after is corrupt, and last of all quite laid down, and left off; because free justification is a doctrine hardly learned in a church, and soon lost again, Galatians i. 6. and yet is the true strength, happiness and safety of the whole land, Isaiah lxii. 1–6.”
Hereupon, the 5th part of the sermon against disobedience and rebellion, established by Queen Elizabeth, teacheth the commons, that such bishops or ecclesiastical persons, as by pride and ambitious rule, do by terms of error, schism, or heresy, hinder this main light of God’s word from the people, are the chiefest traytors in the land: and the 6th and last part largely teacheth, that such subjects and commons to whom through ignorance of God’s word, this light of righteousness, and this sun of understanding doth not shine, although they may brag, as did sometimes the Jewish clergy and people, that they cannot lack knowledge, yet are such by their blind dead faith, traytors to God, traytors to their king, traytors to their own souls and bodies, and traytors to the whole land and country.”
Thus writes that good man Mr. Eaton. I leave you, Rev. Sir, to make what use of it you please. You see we have human as well as divine authority on our side. And yet we are looked upon as erroneous, and are accordingly denied the churches: and what for? even for preaching up the doctrine of justification by faith alone; for which the glorious martyrs of the Church of England burnt in Smithfield. If this be not like Nero’s setting Rome on fire, and then charging it upon the christians, I know not what is.
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.