⁂ For more particulars of this affair, see Volume II. Letters 526, 527, 529, 545, 549, and 550.
A LETTER TO THE Revᵈ. THOMAS CHURCH, M.A. Vicar of BATTERSEA, and Prebendary of ST. PAUL’S; IN ANSWER TO HIS Serious and Expostulatory LETTER TO THE Revᵈ. GEORGE WHITEFIELD, On Occasion of his late LETTER to the Bishop of LONDON, and other Bishops.
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.