Volume 2 — IN ENGLAND AND WALES. November 1742 to August 1744. (continued 2)

In his third letter, Mr. Neal expresses a holy dread lest Doddridge should be “engaged amongst men of weak heads, and narrow, gloomy sentiments, who may and ought to be pitied and prayed for, but whom no rules of piety or prudence will oblige us to make our confidants and friends.” He continues:—

“There are letters shewn about town, from several ministers in the west, which make heavy complaints of the disorders occasioned by Whitefield and Wesley in those parts. One of them, speaking of Mr. Whitefield, calls him ‘honest, crazy, confident Whitefield.’ These letters, likewise, mention that some ministers there, who were your pupils, have given them countenance; and you can hardly conceive the disrespect this has occasioned several ministers and other persons in town to speak of you with.”78

Poor Doddridge, with the best intentions, had stirred up a nest of ecclesiastical hornets. He had to make the best of the affair; and part of his answer to Mr. Neal was as follows:—

“December 12, 1743.

“I am truly sorry that the manner in which I spoke of Mr. Whitefield, in my last, should have given you uneasiness. What I said proceeded from a principle which I am sure you will not despise: I mean a certain frankness of heart, which would not allow me to seem to think more meanly of a man to whom I had once professed some friendship than I really did.

“I must, indeed, look upon it as an unhappy circumstance that he came to Northampton just when he did, as I perceive that, in concurrence with other circumstances, it has filled town and country with astonishment and indignation.

“I had great expectations from the Methodists and Moravians; and I am grieved that so many things have occurred among them which have been quite unjustifiable. I suppose they have also produced the same sentiments in the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, to my certain knowledge, received Count Zinzendorf with open arms, and wrote of his being chosen the Moravian Bishop, as what was done ‘plaudente toto cœlesti choro.’ I shall always be ready to weigh whatever can be said against Mr. Whitefield; and, though I must have actual demonstration before I can admit him to be a dishonest man, and though I shall never be able to think all he has written, and all I have heard from him to be nonsense; yet, I am not so zealously attached to him as to be disposed to celebrate him as one of the greatest men of the age, or to think that he is the pillar which bears up the whole interest of religion among us.

“I had heard before of the offence which had been taken at two of my pupils in the west, for the respect they shewed to Mr. Whitefield: and yet they are both persons of eminent piety. He whose name is chiefly in question, I mean Mr. Darracott, is one of the most devout and extraordinary men I ever sent out, and a person who has, within these few years, been highly useful to numbers of his hearers. Mr. Fawcett labours at Taunton; and his zeal, so far as I can judge, is inspired both with love and prudence. Yet, I hear those men are reproached because they have treated Mr. Whitefield respectfully; and that one of them, after having had a correspondence with him for many years, admitted him into his pulpit.

“I own, I am very thoughtful where these things will end. In the meantime, I am as silent as I can be. I commit the matter to God in prayer. I am sure I see no danger that any of my pupils will prove Methodists. I wish many of them may not run into the contrary extreme.”79

These are long, almost tedious, extracts; but they are of great importance as plainly shewing that, at the beginning of his career, the Independents looked upon Whitefield with as much suspicion as many of the clergy of the Church of England and many of the Presbyterian ministers of Scotland did. It was a heinous sin against all the proprieties of their Church, that Doddridge and two of his ordained pupils had countenanced the preaching of this young, popular, powerful, and successful evangelist.

We again return to Whitefield’s wanderings. In the Scots’ Magazine, for 1743, under the heading of “Marriages and Births,” the following announcement was made: “October, 1743. At his house in Hoxton, the wife of Mr. George Whitefield, of a son.” This event seems to have occurred during Whitefield’s “short excursion” to Northampton and its neighbourhood. Hence, under date of October 5th, he writes: “The last evening of my short excursion, I preached from a balcony, to many thousands, who stood in the street as comfortable as at noonday. Upon retiring to my lodgings, news was brought me, that God had given me a son. This hastened me up to London, where I now am, and from whence, after I have baptized my little one, I purpose to set out again on my Master’s public business.” Ten days after writing this, the untiring Whitefield was at Avon, in Wiltshire, and did not return to his wife and infant son until seven weeks afterwards. Perhaps, this was not an example of either connubial or paternal behaviour to be commended; but let it pass. The following extracts from his letters will furnish an idea of his labours, in the west of England, during the next two months:—

“Collumpton, October 25, 1743.

“I wrote to you on the 15th instant at Avon. In the morning, I walked to Tytherton, and preached. After sermon, I baptized four boys, each about three months old. The ordinance was so solemn and awful, that Mrs. Gotley80 (who is a Quaker) had a mind immediately to partake of it. When I go to Wiltshire, I believe I shall baptize her and her children, with some adult persons who have tasted of redeeming love. About one o’clock I preached at Clack, in the street. I then rode to Brinkworth and preached there, and, afterwards, administered the holy sacrament to about two hundred and fifty communicants. Some strangers, from Bath, went home filled with our Redeemer’s presence. I have also preached at Chippenham. We had a wonderful time in Wiltshire.

“I hope I managed all things right about the affair of the Hampton rioters. They have compelled us to appeal unto Cæsar. Evidences shall be examined in the country, in time enough to send the examinations to town.

“On Saturday last (October 22nd), when I came to Wellington, the Rev. Mr. Darracott81 persuaded me to stay there, because the country people had come from all quarters several times to hear me, and had been disappointed. I consented, and preached in his meeting-house, in the evening, to a large auditory. The Rev. Mr. Fawcett,82 formerly pupil to Dr. Doddridge, came there, and stayed all night. The blessed Jesus gave us much freedom in conversation. I hope both will be instruments, under God, in promoting a good work in these parts.

“Sunday morning, I preached again in the meeting-house; and, in the evening, to seven thousand in the field.83

“On Monday, at ten in the morning, and at two in the afternoon, I preached, at Collumpton, with much freedom and power; was kindly received, met some reputable Dissenters, and am now setting out for Exeter.”

Whitefield seems to have made Exeter his head-quarters for nearly a fortnight. Hence the following letters:—

“Exeter, October 28, 1743.

“I have a strong conviction that our Lord intends doing something in the west. Since my arrival here, letters of invitation have come from many parts. The common people begin to feel. I preached this afternoon on Southernay Green. Even some of the polite were much affected. I believe I shall think it my duty to stay in these parts for some time.”

“Exeter, November 6, 1743.

“On Monday last” (October 31st), “I went to Axminster, and preached to about two thousand without; and afterwards exhorted within the house where I lay. The next day, I preached to a greater number of people; and, at night, gave an exhortation, and met the Society. Our Lord vouchsafed us a gracious blessing.

“On Wednesday, I went to Ottery; but, just as I named my text, the bells rang. Upon this, I adjourned to a field, whither the people ran in droves. As I stepped into the inn, before I went to the field, a clergyman came, who asked me by what authority I preached, and said it was a riot, and that the meeting was illegal. I answered him, as I thought pertinently, and afterwards went and shewed him my authority, by preaching on these words, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’ In the evening, I returned to Exeter, where some hundreds were waiting to hear me expound. The Lord makes this place very comfortable to me. Prejudices fall off daily, and people begin not only to discern, but to feel, the doctrines of the gospel.

“Postscript.—Ten at night. It would have pleased you to be here this evening. I question whether near a third part of Exeter were not attending on the word preached. All was solemn and awful, and the Lord gave me much assistance from His Holy Spirit. Help me to praise Him.”

From Exeter, Whitefield proceeded to Bideford, where he wrote as follows:—

“Bideford, November 11, 1743.

“The Rev. Mr. Thompson, Rector of St. Gennys, Cornwall, is here. God willing, I will go with him to-morrow. There is also another clergyman about eighty years of age, but not above one year old in the school of Christ.84 He lately preached three times and rode forty miles the same day. The Dissenting minister and his wife were very hearty; and, perhaps, here is one of the most settled female Christian Societies in the kingdom. I cannot well describe with what power the word was attended. Yesterday, in the afternoon and evening, it was just like as at Edinburgh. The old clergyman was much broken. A young Oxonian, who came with him, and many others, were most deeply affected. I suppose, there were upwards of two thousand, in the evening, in the meeting-house. Dear Mr. Hervey,85 one of our first Methodists at Oxford, and who was lately a curate here, had laid the blessed foundation.

“So far from thinking of nestling at London, I am more and more convinced that I should go from place to place; and I therefore question if I shall see London for some time.

“Postscript.—Seven at night. To-day has been as yesterday, and much more abundant. I am here, as in Scotland and New England. Here is work enough for three months. The weather is very favourable; range, therefore, I must and will.”

On Saturday, November 12, Whitefield accompanied Mr. Thompson to his rectory at St. Gennys, Cornwall, where he seems to have remained a fortnight. Hence the following:—

“St. Gennys, November 25, 1743.

“I am glad that the Lord inclined my heart to come hither. He has been with us of a truth. How did His stately steps appear in the sanctuary last Lord’s-day! Many, many prayers were put up, by the worthy rector and others, for an outpouring of God’s blessed Spirit. They were answered. Arrows of conviction fled so thick and so fast, and such a universal weeping prevailed from one end of the congregation to the other, that good Mr. Thompson could not help going from seat to seat, to encourage and comfort the wounded souls. The Oxonian’s father was almost struck dumb; and the young Oxonian’s crest was so lowered, that I believe he will never venture to preach an unknown Christ, or to deal in the false commerce of unfelt truths.

“I could enlarge, but I must away to Bideford, just to give Satan another stroke, and bid my Christian friends farewell; and then return the way I came, namely, through Exeter, Wellington, and Bristol, to the great metropolis.”

Whitefield arrived in London at the beginning of December, and wrote the following hitherto unpublished letter to “Mr. Howell Harris, at Trevecca, near the Hay, South Wales, Breconshire.”

“London, December 6, 1743.

“My very dear Brother,—I thank you for your kind letters and kind present. Our Saviour will plentifully reward you for all favours conferred on me and mine.

“I rejoice exceedingly that the word runs and is glorified in Wales. I hope to rejoice together with you at the next Association. Great things have been doing in the west. I believe Mr. Thompson, of Cornwall, will come with me into Wales. I have thoughts of removing my little family to Abergavenny in a short time; and to leave that house for you and yours to live in, till I come from abroad again, if you will be pleased to accept of it.

“I can easily forgive our dear brother Beaumont;86 but, I think, he and his wife have dealt very unsimply in respect to their marriage. I pray our Lord Jesus Christ to bless them exceedingly, and to prevent all ill consequences that may arise, to the people of God, from such a procedure.

“I intend being here but a few days; and I have many things to say to you when we see each other face to face. Oh, my brother, my dear, very dear brother Harris, Jesus is better and better to me every day. I have had close attacks, but strong consolations. I would write much, would time and business permit; but I must bid you adieu. My tender, tender love to all. My dear wife and Mr. Grace send their most cordial respects. The Lord Jesus be with your dear soul, and give you to pray for, my dear, dear, dear brother,

“Yours most affectionately in Christ Jesus,

“George Whitefield.”

“P.S.—Mr. Mason, the bookseller, is dead; also Mr. Dubert’s wife. About seven of our friends have lately died in the Lord. Courage, my dear man,—courage; we shall go ere long. Yet a little while, and He that cometh will come, and will not tarry.”

In less than a fortnight, Whitefield was again on the wing. On Friday, December 16, he rode to a place “five miles beyond Reading.” The next day, he got to Clack. “It rained and snowed much for about seven miles,” says he, “and the way was dangerous; but the blessed Jesus kept us in safety.” On Sunday morning, he preached, and administered the sacrament to the Wiltshire Societies, at Tytherton;87 and, in the evening, he preached at Brinkworth. He writes: “They were good times. I have a cold, but our Lord warms my heart. To-morrow (December 19) I must away to Gloucester. Oh, follow, follow with your prayers.”

Whitefield was now on his way to a new sphere of labour. All readers of Methodist history are well acquainted with the disgraceful and terrible riots which took place at Walsal, Wednesbury, Darlaston, and West Bromwich, in 1743. In the former part of the year, both the Wesleys had preached here, at the peril of their lives. As recently as October 20, John Wesley had been all but murdered by the godless ruffians of the neighbourhood; and now, at the end of December, Whitefield came.88 The following extract is taken from a pamphlet, entitled, “Some Papers, giving an Account of the Rise and Progress of Methodism at Wednesbury, in Staffordshire, and in other Parishes adjacent; as likewise of the late Riot in those parts.” Printed by J. Roberts, London. 1744. (8vo. 30 pp.)

“Mr. Whitefield was at Birmingham, where there is a Society, about Christmas last; and you may suppose great numbers would, out of curiosity, flock to hear a man who had been so much talked of. He was also invited to Wednesbury, where he preached in the streets for several days. He was invited to Birmingham by a Dissenter. His stay was not above a week or ten days, and, towards the last, his auditors were not so numerous, and the behaviour of some of them not over civil. I do not find the number of the Methodist converts to be near so numerous as was at first apprehended; and those few of them, who were of the communion of the Church of England, are, in general, very regular in their behaviour, and in their attendance at church. The Dissenters constitute the greater number, and are their greatest admirers, particularly of Mr. Whitefield. About Wednesbury, some of their converts have been raised into strange and unaccountable ecstasies; but I cannot find there have been any of the like instances at Birmingham.”

Such was the testimony of an unfriendly writer. Whitefield’s own account is as follows:—

“December 31, 1743.

“What do you think? Since my last, I have stolen a whole day to dispatch some private business; however, in the evening, I expounded, at Birmingham, to a great room full of people, who would rush into my lodgings, whether I would or not.

“On Sunday morning (Christmas Day), at eight, I preached, in the street, to about a thousand, with much freedom. I then went to church and received the sacrament, and afterwards preached to several thousands in the street. As no minister would preach in a house at Wednesbury,89 where a weekly lecture used to be kept up, I was earnestly entreated to go; and, after my afternoon’s preaching at Birmingham, I went and preached there, at six in the evening, to many hundreds in the street. The word came with power, and only one or two made a noise. We afterwards had a precious meeting in private.

“On Monday morning, about eight, I preached to a large company in a field. By eleven, I returned to Birmingham, and preached to many thousands, on a common near the town. The soldiers were exercising; but the officers, hearing that I was come to preach, dismissed them, and promised that no disturbance should be made. All was quiet, and a blessed time we had. In the afternoon, at three, I preached again to about the same company, with the same success. Then I rode to Wednesbury, and preached there, and afterwards exhorted. About one, I went to bed exceeding happy.

“In the morning, I broke up some fallow-ground at a place called Mare Green, about two miles from Wednesbury. Much mobbing had been there against Mr. Wesley’s friends. A few began to insult me. Several clods were thrown, one of which fell on my head, and another struck my fingers, while I was in prayer. A sweet gospel spirit was given to me. I preached again at Birmingham, to larger auditories than before, about eleven in the morning and three in the afternoon. In the evening, I expounded twice in a large room; once to the rich, and once to the poor; and went to rest happier than the night before.90

“In the morning (Wednesday, Dec. 28), I took my leave of the Birmingham people, who wept much, and shewed great concern at my departure. I then went to Kidderminster, where I was kindly received by Mr. Williams, with whom I have corresponded for near two years. Many friends were at his house. I was greatly refreshed to find what a sweet savour of good remained to this day, from Mr. Baxter’s doctrine, works, and discipline. I preached, about three in the afternoon, to a large auditory, near the church. Some unkind men, though they promised not to do so, rang the bells; but our Saviour enabled me to preach with power. In the evening and next morning, I preached in the meeting-house.

“I then (Thursday) went with Mr. Williams to Bromsgrove, and was kindly received by one Mr. K――y, a good man, and several others, among whom were two or three Baptist ministers, and one Independent. In the afternoon, I preached in a field. Some rude people kicked a football, and sounded a horn; but the Lord enabled me to preach with boldness. About six, I preached in the Baptist meeting-house; left Kidderminster at eight, and reached Worcester at ten. Mr. Williams and another friend accompanied us.

“The next day, I reached Gloucester, very thankful, and rejoicing greatly in Christ for giving me such a delightful and happy Christmas.”

This is a notable letter. Whitefield was now on the ground where Wesley and his friends had been nearly murdered; but all the inconvenience suffered by Whitefield was a little noise at Wednesbury, the throwing of a few clods at Mare Green, the ringing of the church bells at Kidderminster, and a game at football and the sounding of a horn at Bromsgrove. Compared with Wesley, the lines fell to Whitefield in pleasant places.

The observant reader will also notice Whitefield’s enormous labours. In four days, in mid-winter, he held nineteen services, twelve of his sermons being preached in the open air, and three in Dissenting chapels. The opportunity of thus serving his great Master was Whitefield’s idea of spending “a delightful and happy Christmas!” No wonder that his Master blessed him, and filled him so full of joy at midnight hours.

But little more remains to be said respecting Whitefield’s career in 1743. In common with his friend Wesley, he was again and again fiercely assailed by the public press. He was pilloried in the famous Dunciad of Alexander Pope, as follows:—

“So swells each windpipe; ass intones to ass,

Harmonic twang! of leather, horn, and brass;

Such as from lab’ring lungs th’ Enthusiast blows,

High Sound, attemper’d to the vocal nose!

Or such as bellow from the deep Divine;

There, Webster! peal’d thy voice, and, Whitefield! thine.”

Pope was a poet; another assailant, the author of “The Progress of Methodism in Bristol, or, the Methodists Unmasked, 1743” (18mo. 72 pp.), was a poetaster, and unworthy of being further noticed; but, possibly, his ribald verses, in which he malignantly attacked Whitefield, as well as Wesley, were quite as goading as Pope’s more polished lines.

Whitefield began the year 1744 in his native city, Gloucester. He then went to Watford in Wales, and, as moderator of the Calvinistic Methodists, presided, on January 3rd, at one of their associations, or conferences. Among the subjects considered at this meeting, the Hampton riot seems to have been the principal. Whitefield writes:—

“After mature deliberation, we determined to prosecute the affair to the utmost, and to set apart January 24 (the first day of the term) for a day of fasting and prayer, and to make collections for that purpose. The cause is the Lord’s, and much depends on our getting the victory. I believe we shall.”

The work in Wales was in great prosperity. In a letter, written soon after the assembling of this conference, Howell Harris says:—

“The labours of all our associates are more or less blessed. The Lord countenances the lay-preachers much; but He is more abundantly with the ordained ministers. The believers are generally strong and full of spiritual warmth and life. They do, indeed, adorn the gospel. The congregations are exceedingly large wherever we preach. Some of the greatest opposers are not only silenced, but constrained to own that the Lord is among us of a truth. In many places, the people meet at five o’clock in the morning to adore and worship the Lord together; and, in some places, meetings are resumed in the evenings, and kept up all night in prayer and praise.”91

It is a strange fact, that, notwithstanding the falsely reputed wealth of Whitefield’s wife, and his own enormous popularity, his income was insufficient for the maintenance of his family in London. Hence, during his visit to Wales, he made arrangements for the removal of his wife and child to Abergavenny;92 and, on his return to London, wrote, as follows, to a friend at Gloucester:—

“London, January 18, 1744.

“This afternoon, I received your kind letter; and I thank you a thousand times for your great generosity in lending me some furniture, having little of my own. I know who will repay you. Next week, God willing, my dear wife and little one will come to Gloucester, for I find it beyond my circumstances to maintain them here. I leave London this day sennight. My brother will receive a letter about my wife’s coming. She and the little one are brave and well. But why talk I of wife and little one? Let all be absorbed in the thoughts of the love, sufferings, free and full salvation, of the infinitely great and glorious Emmanuel.”

Three weeks after this, Whitefield’s “little one” was dead. The letter containing an account of his bereavement is so characteristic, and so unfolds Whitefield’s weaknesses as well as virtues, that it must be inserted without abridgment.

“Gloucester, February 9, 1744.

“Who knows what a day may bring forth? Last night, I was called to sacrifice my Isaac; I mean, to bury my only child and son, about four months old.

“Many things had occurred to make me believe he was, not only to be continued to me, but, to be a preacher of the everlasting gospel. Pleased with the thought, and being ambitious of having a son of my own so divinely employed, Satan was permitted to give me some wrong impressions, whereby, as I now find, I misapplied several texts of Scripture. Upon these grounds, I made no scruple of declaring ‘that I should have a son, and that his name was to be John.’ I mentioned the very time of his birth, and fondly hoped that he was to be great in the sight of the Lord.

“Everything happened according to the predictions, and my wife having had several narrow escapes while pregnant, especially by her falling from a high horse, and my driving her into a deep ditch in a one-horse chaise a little before the time of her lying-in, and from which we received little or no hurt, confirmed me in my expectation, that God would grant me my heart’s desire.

“I would observe to you, that the child was even born in a room which the master of the house had prepared as a prison for his wife, on account of her coming to hear me. With joy would she often look upon the bars and staples and chains, which were fixed in order to keep her in. About a week after his birth, I publicly baptized him in the Tabernacle, and, in the company of thousands, solemnly gave him up to that God, who gave him to me. A hymn, too fondly composed by an aged widow, as suitable to the occasion, was sung, and all went away big with hopes of the child’s being hereafter to be employed in the work of God; but how soon have all their fond, and, as the event has proved, their ill-grounded expectations been blasted, as well as mine!

“House-keeping being expensive in London, I thought it best to send both parent and child to Abergavenny, where my wife had a little house, the furniture of which, as I thought of soon embarking for Georgia, I had partly sold, and partly given away. In their journey thither, they stopped at Gloucester, at the Bell Inn, which my brother now keeps, and in which I was born. There, my beloved was cut off with a stroke. Upon my coming here, without knowing what had happened, I enquired concerning the welfare of parent and child; and, by the answer, found that the flower was cut down.

“I immediately called all to join in prayer, in which I blessed the Father of mercies for giving me a son, continuing it to me so long, and taking it from me so soon. All joined in desiring that I would decline preaching till the child was buried; but I remembered a saying of good Mr. Henry, ‘that weeping must not hinder sowing;’ and, therefore, I preached twice the next day, and also the day following; on the evening of which, just as I was closing my sermon, the bell struck out for the funeral. At first, I must acknowledge, it gave nature a little shake; but, looking up, I recovered strength, and then concluded with saying, that this text, on which I had been preaching, namely, ‘All things work together for good to them that love God,’ made me as willing to go out to my son’s funeral, as to hear of his birth. Our parting from him was solemn. We kneeled down, prayed, and shed many tears, but, I hope, tears of resignation; and then, as he died in the house wherein I was born, he was taken and laid in the church where I was baptized, first communicated, and first preached.

“All this, you may easily guess, threw me into very solemn and deep reflection, and, I hope, deep humiliation; but I was comforted from that passage in the book of Kings, where is recorded the death of the Shunammite’s child, which the prophet said, ‘the Lord had hid from him,’ and the woman’s answer to the prophet when he asked, ‘Is it well with thee? Is it well with thy husband? Is it well with thy child?’ And she answered, ‘It is well.’ This gave me no small satisfaction. I preached upon the text, the day following, at Gloucester; and then hastened up to London, and preached upon the same there.

“Though disappointed of a living preacher, by the death of my son, yet, I hope, what happened before his birth, and since at his death, has taught me such lessons, as, if duly improved, may render his mistaken parent more cautious, more sober-minded, more experienced in Satan’s devices, and, consequently, more useful in his future labours to the Church of God. Thus, ‘out of the eater comes forth meat, and out of the strong comes forth sweetness.’ Not doubting but our future life will be one continued explanation of this blessed riddle, I commend myself and you to the unerring guidance of God’s word and Spirit, and am,

“Yours, etc.,

“George Whitefield.”

Whilst Whitefield was burying his child at Gloucester, his friend, Charles Wesley, was preaching, at the peril of his life, in Staffordshire. At Wednesbury, the mob “assaulted, one after another, all the houses of those who were called Methodists.” All the windows were broken, and furniture of every kind was dashed in pieces. At Aldridge and several other villages, many of the houses were plundered, and the rioters “loaded themselves with clothes and goods of all sorts, as much as they could carry.”93 Whitefield heard of this execrable rioting, and wrote:—

“There has been dreadful work near Birmingham; but Satan will be overthrown. We had a glorious fast on Monday (February 20th), and collected above £60 for our poor suffering brethren.”

A week after this, Whitefield set out on a visit to his wife at Abergavenny, and took her “a second-hand suit of curtains,” which he had bought for her humble dwelling.

At the beginning of the month of March, he returned to Gloucester, to be present at the assizes, at which the Hampton rioters, already mentioned, were tried, and found guilty, the amount of damages to be paid being referred to the King’s Bench, London. Whitefield writes:—

“I hear the rioters are hugely alarmed; but they know not that we intend to let them see what we could do, and then to forgive them. This troublesome affair being over, I must now prepare for my intended voyage to America.”

Nearly seven months, however, elapsed before Whitefield’s voyage was begun,—an interval which was partly occupied with what, to Whitefield, was extremely uncongenial, a literary war.

To understand the controversy, it is needful to remark, that, of late, several publications had been issued, and industriously circulated, attacking the loyalty of Whitefield and his friends. Among others, there was a quarto-sized sheet, of four pages, entitled, “The Case of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point of Field-Preaching.” The writer tries to prove that field-preaching is contrary to the Act of Toleration; and then he proceeds to shew, that, because of the largeness of his congregations, Whitefield’s preaching in the open air was eminently calculated to promote sedition, and to be a serious danger to the state.

The principal publication, however, was “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the name of Methodists. London: printed by E. Owen, in Amen Corner. 1744.” (4to. 24 pp.) Rightly or wrongly, Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, was supposed to be the author. The pamphlet consisted of three parts. In the first, it was alleged, 1. That the Methodists generally set the government at defiance, by appointing public places of religious worship, and by preaching in the fields, without taking the prescribed oaths, and subscribing the declaration against popery. 2. That they broke the rules of the Church, of which they professed themselves members, by going to other than their own parish churches to receive the sacrament. 3. It was also stated that really there was no need for Methodist meetings, because, for many years past, many of the Religious Societies, in London and Westminster, had spent their Sunday evenings (after attending church) in serious conversation and reading good books; and the bishops and clergy had encouraged these Societies, though some of them had been misled into Methodist extravagances.

In the second part, which is principally levelled against Whitefield, thirteen questions are asked, of which the following are specimens:—Question 4. Whether a due and regular attendance in the public offices of religion does not better answer the true ends of devotion, and is not better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, than those sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings, tremblings, droppings-down, ravings, and madness into which the hearers of the Methodists had been cast? Question 9. Whether it does not savour of self-sufficiency and presumption, when a few young heads, without any colour of a Divine commission, set up their own schemes as the great standard of Christianity?

The third part is a severe critique on the Christian History, of which Whitefield was the chief promoter. Here, again, sundry questions were asked, as, for instance, “Whether the zealous endeavours to form Band-Societies, according to the Moravian way, and putting them under the instruction and ordering of particular superintendents, and exhorters; and the holding of associations and meetings, at set times and places, with select moderators; together with the fixing of visitations and their boundaries and limits,—whether these proceedings, not warranted by any law, are not a presumptuous attempt to erect a new church constitution, upon a foreign plan, in contempt of those wise rules of government, discipline, and worship, which were judged by our pious ancestors to be the best means for preserving and maintaining religion, together with public peace and order in Church and State?” Again, “Whether these itinerant preachers, and the setting up of separate places of public worship at pleasure, and those pretences to more immediate communications with God, and the visible endeavours to bring the parochial pastors and the public worship under a disesteem among the people,—whether these and the like practices are not of the same kind with those of the last century, that had so great a share in bringing on those religious confusions, which brought a reproach upon Christianity in general, and which, by degrees, worked the body of the people into a national madness and frenzy in matters of religion?”

To see the full force of these accusations, it must be borne in mind, that, they were published at a time when, (1) The nation was in a state of great excitement from an expected invasion by Prince Charles, the young Pretender; (2) The Methodists in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and Staffordshire, were being subjected to the most brutal treatment by clerically encouraged mobs; and (3) The general belief was that these “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists” were not of ignoble origin, but were written by the bishop of the metropolitan diocese, and with the approval of a considerable number of his prelatic brethren.

On January 26, 1744, Whitefield published the following advertisement:—

“Whereas some anonymous papers, against the people called Methodists in general, and myself and friends in particular, have been, for some weeks, printed in a large edition, and handed about and read in the Religious Societies of the cities of London and Westminster, and given into the hands of many private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one, nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many queries, of great importance, concerning me and my conduct, contained therein; and as it appears, that, one paper has little or no connection with another, and a copy, when applied for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark for Georgia—I am, therefore, obliged hereby to desire a speedy open publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid impartial answer may be made thereto by me,

“George Whitefield.”

Six days after the date of this advertisement, Whitefield wrote as follows to the Bishop of London:—

“London, February 1, 1744.

“My Lord,—Simplicity becomes the followers of Jesus Christ; and, therefore, I think it my duty to trouble your lordship with these few lines.

“I suppose your lordship has seen the advertisement published by me, about four days ago, concerning certain anonymous papers, which have been handed about the Societies for some considerable time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad to be informed whether the report be true, that your lordship composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your lordship’s keeping, would oblige, my lord, your lordship’s most obliged, dutiful son and servant,

“George Whitefield.”

“P.S. The bearer will bring your lordship’s answer; or, if your lordship favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to be left with Mr. J. Syms, in Pitfield Street, near Hoxton.”

Instead of writing, the Bishop sent, by the bearer of Whitefield’s letter, a verbal message, to the effect that Whitefield should hear from him; but the only further communication which came to hand was the following, written, two days after the date of Whitefield’s letter to the Bishop, by the printer of the “anonymous papers.”

“February 3, 1744.

“Sir,—My name is Owen. I am a printer in Amen Corner, and I waited upon you to let you know that I have had orders from several of the Bishops, to print, for their use, such numbers of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists,’ with some few additions, as they have respectively bespoken; and I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as soon as the impression is finished.

“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 England should 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 for revelation, 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:—

“If your lordships apprehend that we are liable to ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence, whenever called to it by our ecclesiastical superiors. As for myself, your lordships very well know that I am a Bachelor of Arts, have taken the oaths, have subscribed to the Articles, and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character, I have acted, both at home and abroad; and I know of no law of our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn, street, or outhouse whatever.”

Whitefield proceeds to say, he has perused “all the Acts of King Charles II., wherein the word field is mentioned,” and that he finds “they are intended to suppress seditious conventicles,” and then continues:—

“These are the only field-meetings that are prohibited; and how, my lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Are they ‘seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence of tender consciences, contrive insurrections?’ No, my lords. How then can your lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number of Mr. Owen, in order, as may be supposed, that they may be dispersed among your lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A more notorious libel has not been published. The pamphlet comes into public like a child dropped, that nobody cares to own. And, indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel?”

This, addressed to bishops, by a young clergyman, was bold language; but their lordships deserved it; for, whatever faults belonged to Whitefield and the first Methodists, they certainly were as free from sedition as the Episcopal Bench itself.

Whitefield’s “Second Letter,” to the bishops, was written during his voyage to America, and was first “printed and sold by Rogers and Fowle, in Queen Street, near the Prison, Boston, 1744.” (4to. 24 pp.) It is dated August 25, 1744; but, to prevent a recurrence to the subject, it is noticed here. First of all, Whitefield replies to the censures pronounced upon “itinerant preaching,” and concludes thus:—

“May I not take the freedom of acquainting your lordships, that, if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty, (especially my Lord of London, whose diocese is of such vast extent,) they would all of them long since have become itinerant preachers.”

He next defended the doctrines, preached by himself and the Methodists,—justification by faith, sudden and instantaneous conversion, and other cognate truths. He attacked Archbishop Tillotson, because, “contrary to the laws of Church and State, he makes good works a condition of our acceptance with God;” and he declared concerning the author of “The Whole Duty of Man,” that, because he entirely omits to teach the doctrine of justification by faith, his famous book might “more properly be termed, Half the Duty of Man.” He belaboured the clergy for playing at dice, and cards, and other unlawful games, contrary to the seventy-fifth canon of the Church; and complained, that, by “frequenting taverns and alehouses,” they injured the laity by a vile “example.” He rebutted the charge against himself of being an enthusiast; and, as for the “sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings” of some of his converts, he said, “The itinerant preachers look upon these as extraordinary things, proceeding generally from soul-distress, and sometimes, it may be, from the agency of the evil spirit, who labours to drive poor souls into despair.”

What was the result of all this plain-speaking? First of all, another anonymous author, merely using the initials, “J. B.,” published a furious pamphlet of fifty-four pages, entitled, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, occasioned by his pretended Answer to the first part of the Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists. By a Gentleman of Pembroke College, Oxon. London, 1744.” (8vo.)

How far the author of this letter was a gentleman will appear from the following extracts from his rancorous production:—

“Do you think my Lord of London would choose to let you know whether he was the author of the papers, or would be fond of entering into a personal dispute with you? with you, I say, sir, or your followers; who, I may venture to affirm, can curse, rail, and berogue your antagonists, (though in Scripture language all the while,) so as hardly to be exceeded by any Pope, or spiritual bully, that ever yet appeared in Christendom.”

“You are one who has been travelling over all countries, to establish new-fangled societies; heads and spiritual directors, hot-brained cobblers, and the meanest class of men; fellows that have nothing to lose, all big with venom against the clergy of the present Establishment, and despising the laws of the State, and the peaceful constitution of the realm. You are perpetually sowing divisions, and urging on the bigotry of your disciples, and their implacable malice, by your belying, railing, and scandalising the ministers of the Church, as well as by treating as heathens and reprobates of the infinitely good Being, all others, who dare despise your hellish doctrines and practices. You exactly copy after Cromwell, the Whitefield of the last century, in artfully compounding Churchmen and Dissenters, people of all sorts and denominations, to bring about your design of ruining the present constitution. When I see a man, of your vast importance, railing, hectoring, and bullying your superiors, I cannot help thinking of a pert liquor amongst us, which foams, and bounces, and sputters, and makes a mighty ado; and yet all the while is but bottled small-beer.

“Your favourite method of wounding characters in a scrip of prayer, to shew the world how kindly you can forgive, after you have been publicly railing at them for nothing, puts me in mind of Jack in the Tale of a Tub; who was mighty fond of falling down on his knees, and turning up his eyes in the midst of a kennel, as if at his devotions; but who, when curiosity attracted men to laugh or to listen, would, of a sudden, bespatter them with mud.”

Much more of the same kind of scurrility, and of even worse, might be given; but the last paragraph in the “Gentleman’s” ill-mannered pamphlet must suffice.

“Thus ends your railing; and, like a woman that has fought herself out of breath, when you can spit no more of your malice, you tell us, you would ‘not bring a railing accusation against any.’ What a monstrous fib is that! ‘Neither would I,’ you add, ‘when giving a reason of the hope that is in me, do it any otherwise than with meekness and fear.’ There you fib again most desperately! Why, my dear meek soul, of a sudden, you have certainly forgot yourself; and your darling spirit of bitterness, that has possessed you through the whole Letter, at length, seems to be jaded. However, it cannot help fibbing still; and there is not a more remarkable instance of this, than in your last Judas’ kiss, where you would have their lordships believe, you are ‘their most dutiful son and servant.’”

These are fair specimens of the scolding of this zealous defender of the Bishop of London and his brethren, and of Church and State. Whitefield never noticed the defence, though written by a Gentleman of Pembroke College, Oxford. Another pamphlet, however, written by a Church dignitary of some importance, received more attention. This was “A Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London and other Bishops; and in Vindication of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of Methodists,’ not long since published. By Thomas Church, A.M., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s, London.95 1744.” (8vo. 60 pp.) Want of space prevents the insertion of lengthy extracts from Mr. Church’s letter, but its scope may be guessed by the following sentences:—

“Field-preaching is forbidden by the statute, as having a tendency to sedition and tumults.” “Your extravagances have been the scorn of the profane, and have strengthened the prejudices of some against our religion itself.” “I never knew nor heard of any one instance of a parish in England so carelessly attended as the charge committed to you in Georgia, the only place, I think, to which you have had any regular appointment. How unfit are you, of all men, to upbraid the clergy with non-residence, with being shepherds who leave their flocks, and let them perish for lack of knowledge.”

Whitefield immediately replied to this, in an 8vo. pamphlet of 20 pages, bearing the following title:—“A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Church, M.A., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s; in Answer to his Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London, and other Bishops. By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxford. London: printed by W. Strahan, for J. Robinson, at the Golden Lion, in Ludgate Street, and sold at the Tabernacle, near Moor-Fields, 1744.” The letter is dated, “London, May 22, 1744,” and its biographical sections must be briefly noticed.

Whitefield had often been taunted and even threatened for not using the Liturgy in many of his public services. In reference to this, he writes:—

“As for my irregularities in curtailing the Liturgy, or not using the Common Prayer in the fields, 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, whenever it shall be required at my hands.”

Mr. Church and many others had retorted Whitefield’s attacks on non-resident clergy, by telling him he had been guilty of non-residence himself. To this Whitefield replied as follows:—

“I wish every non-resident minister in England could give as good an account of his non-residence as I can give of my absence from Savannah. To satisfy you, reverend sir, I will acquaint you with the whole affair. 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 the magistrates and people, I continued at Savannah, teaching publicly, and from house to house, and catechizing 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 £50 out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a public account. In about four months, I came back to England to receive priest’s orders, and to 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 £50 per annum, which they generously offered me. Neither did I put them to any expense 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 I knew the honourable trustees 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 to the honourable trustees to provide another minister. In the meanwhile, as most of my parishioners were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being employed, and, as I believed 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 raise further collections towards carrying on the Orphan House. The Lord stirred up many to be ready to distribute and willing to communicate on these occasions. 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 anything like the non-residence of most of the English clergy. When I was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living at ease, but preaching Christ Jesus, 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 my relations. No: freely as I had received, freely I gave. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of God and the good of souls is my only aim.”

All candid readers will admit that Whitefield’s simple statement is a sufficient refutation of the plausible charge, so often brought against him, concerning his non-residence in the only parish he ever had.

Before proceeding with Whitefield’s itinerary, it may be well to complete the list of his publications during the year 1744. This shall be done as briefly as possible.

1. “A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield, A.B., from his Infancy to the Time of his entering into Holy Orders. The Second Edition.” (12mo. 46 pp.) This was an exact reprint of the edition published in 1740.

2. “A Brief Account of the Occasion, Process, and Issue of a late Trial at the Assize held at Gloucester, March 3, 1744.” (8vo. 15 pp.) This has been already noticed.

3. “The Experience of Mr. R. Cruttenden, as delivered to a Congregation of Christ in Lime Street, under the pastoral care of the Rev. Mr. Richardson. Prefaced and recommended by George Whitefield, A.B.” (8vo. 32 pp.) Cruttenden, after losing his fortune, by the bursting of the South Sea bubble, had recently been converted, at the Tabernacle, under the preaching of John Cennick.96 Nothing in the pamphlet requires notice, except, perhaps, the following well-deserved rap, which Whitefield, in his preface, gives to Dissenting ministers, some of whom were as bitterly opposed to the great preacher as were his clerical brethren of the Church of England.

“Those serious, godly ministers among the Dissenters, who, through prejudice or misinformation, oppose, or are shy of us, as though some dangerous sect was sprung up, may, from this and such-like instances, begin to reason with themselves, whether we are not sent of God? and whether it is not high time to acknowledge and adore God in His late sovereign way of working? Here is an account of a learned and rational man, brought to Jesus, and built up in Him, by what the world would call illiterate preachers. This is not the first instance by hundreds. No set of men could do such things, or meet with such success, unless God was with them. It is not the first time that our Saviour has perfected praise out of the mouths of babes, and chosen the weak things of this world to confound the strong.”

4. There is only another publication to be noticed. Three years before, Dr. Smalbroke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, had delivered a charge, to his clergy, against the Methodists; and now, in the year 1744, and when a part of his diocese was disgraced by the riots at Wednesbury and other places, he published it. Smalbroke was a somewhat distinguished man; but withal whimsical, as, for instance, when, in his “Vindication of the Miracles of Christ,” he made elaborate calculations concerning the number of devils in the herd of swine at Gadarene. He was also fond of strife, more than twenty of his publications being of a controversial character. The pith of his anti-Methodistic charge was, that, “the indwelling and inward witnessing of the Spirit in believers’ hearts, (if there were ever such things at all,) as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, are all the extraordinary gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical and primitive times; and, that, consequently, all pretensions to such favours, in these last days, are vain and enthusiastical.” Whitefield’s reply was written on shipboard, during his voyage to America, and was first printed at Boston, in New England. Its long title was as follows: “Some Remarks upon a late Charge against Enthusiasm, delivered by the Right Reverend Father in God, Richard, Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to the Rev. the Clergy in the several parts of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, in a Triennial Visitation of the same in 1741; and published, at their request, in the present year 1744. In a Letter to the Rev. the Clergy of that Diocese. By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxon.” (8vo. 35 pp.) Passing over the theological part of Whitefield’s pamphlet, one extract from his concluding observations must suffice. In a foot-note he states, “The Methodists in Staffordshire were mobbed last Shrove-Tuesday, and plundered of their substance to the amount of £700.” To these persecuted inhabitants of the diocese of Lichfield, Whitefield says:—

“You have lately been enabled joyfully to bear the spoiling of your goods. Think it not strange, if you should hereafter be called to resist unto blood. Fear not the faces of men, neither be afraid of their revilings. The more you are afflicted, the more you shall multiply and grow. Persecution is your privilege; it is a badge of your discipleship; it is every Christian’s lot, in some degree or other. Only be careful to give no just cause of offence. Be studious to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit in your lives. Call no man master, but Christ. Follow others only as they are followers of Him. Be fond of no name but that of Christian. Beware of making parties, and of calling down fire from heaven to consume your adversaries. Labour to shine in common life, by a conscientious discharge of all relative duties; and study to adorn the gospel of our Lord in all things. If you are good Christians, you will fear God, and, for His sake, honour the king. Be thankful for the many blessings you enjoy under the government of his present majesty, King George; and continue to pray to Him, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice, to keep a popish pretender from ever sitting on the English throne.”

We now return to Whitefield’s itinerancy. There is but little evidence to shew how he spent the interval between March 15th and June 26th. John Cennick, in his diary, says: “On the 3rd of April, at my special desire, the first association of our ministers and preachers, which had been kept in Wilts, took place in my house at Tytherton. There were present the following preachers: Mr. Whitefield, Howell Harris, John Cennick, Joseph Humphreys, and Thomas Adams; and the following exhorters: William Humphreys, Isaac Cottle, Thomas Lewis, and Thomas Beswick.”97

Part of the fifteen weeks was spent in London, part in Bristol, and part in Wilts. He was also awaiting an opportunity to embark for Georgia; and, with Mr. Smith, a merchant, actually took a passage in a ship about to sail from Portsmouth. At the last moment, however, the captain refused to take him; upon which he set out for Plymouth, preaching at Wellington, Exeter, Bideford, and Kingsbridge on the way.98 At Plymouth, he was made the subject of a brutal attack, which might have ended seriously. Hence the following letters:—

“Plymouth, June 26, 1744.

“My dear Friend,—You see by this where I am. Doubtless, you will wonder at the quick transition from Portsmouth to Plymouth. When I wrote last, I intended going to the former; but, just before I took leave of the dear Tabernacle people, a message was sent to me, that the captain, in whose ship I was to sail from thence, would not take me, for fear of my spoiling his sailors. Upon this, hearing of a ship that was going under convoy from Plymouth, I hastened hither, and have taken a passage in the Wilmington, Captain Dalby, bound to Piscataway, in New England.

“My first reception here was a little unpromising. A report being spread that I was come, a great number of people assembled upon the Hoe (a large green for walks and diversions), and somebody brought out a bear and a drum; but I did not come till the following evening, when, under pretence of a hue-and-cry, several broke into the room where I lodged at the inn, and disturbed me very much.

“I then betook myself to private lodgings, and being gone to rest, after preaching to a large congregation, and visiting the French prisoners, the good woman of the house came and told me, that a well-dressed gentleman desired to speak with me. Imagining that he was some Nicodemite, I desired he might be brought up. He came and sat down by my bedside, told me he was a lieutenant of a man of war, congratulated me on the success of my ministry, and expressed himself much concerned for being detained from hearing me. He then asked me if I knew him? I answered, No. He replied, his name was Cadogan. I rejoined, that I had seen one Mr. Cadogan, who was formerly an officer in Georgia, about a fortnight ago, at Bristol. Upon this, he immediately rose up, uttering the most abusive language, calling me dog, rogue, villain, etc., and beat me most unmercifully with his gold-headed cane. As you know, I have not much natural courage; and, being apprehensive that he intended to shoot or stab me, I underwent all the fears of a sudden violent death. My hostess and her daughter, hearing me cry ‘Murder,’ rushed into the room, and seized him by the collar; but he immediately disengaged himself from them, and repeated his blows upon me. The cry of murder was repeated, and he made towards the chamber door, from whence the good woman pushed him downstairs. A second man now cried out, ‘Take courage, I am ready to help you;’ and, accordingly, whilst the other was escaping, he rushed upstairs, and finding one of the women coming down, took her by the heels, and threw her upon the floor, by which her back was almost broken. By this time the neighbourhood was alarmed; but, being unwilling to add to the commotion, I desired the doors might be shut, and so betook myself to rest.”

This strange adventure is explained in another letter, written to the same friend, a few days afterwards.

“Plymouth, July 4, 1744.

“Since my last, I have had some information about the late odd adventure. It seems that four gentlemen came to the house of one of my particular friends, and desired to know where I lodged, that they might pay their respects to me. My friend directed them; and, soon afterwards, I received a letter, informing me that the writer of it was a nephew of Mr. S――, an eminent attorney at New York; that he had had the pleasure of supping with me at his uncle’s house; and that he desired my company to sup with him and a few more friends at a tavern. I sent him word that it was not customary for me to sup out at taverns, but I should be glad of his company, out of respect to his uncle, to eat a morsel with him at my lodgings. He came; we supped. I observed that he frequently looked around him, and seemed very absent; but, having no suspicion, I continued in conversation with him and my other friends till we parted. I now find that this man was to have been the assassin; and that, being interrogated by his companions as to what he had done, he answered, that being used so civilly, he had not the heart to touch me.

“Upon this, as I am informed, the person who assaulted me, laid a wager of ten guineas that he would do my business for me. Some say, that they took his sword from him, which I suppose they did, for I only saw and felt the weight of his cane.

“The next morning, I was to expound at a private house, and then to set out for Bideford. Some urged me to stay and prosecute; but, being better employed, I went on my intended journey; was greatly blessed in preaching the everlasting gospel; and, upon my return, was well paid for what I had suffered; for curiosity led perhaps two thousand more than ordinary to see and hear a man who had like to have been murdered in his bed. Thus all things tend to the furtherance of the gospel.

“‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,

And yet the thing they thwart effect.’

“Leaving you to add a hallelujah, I subscribe myself,

“Ever, ever yours,

“George Whitefield.”

Whitefield seriously believed that this atrocious outrage was a deliberate attempt to murder him; the probability is, that it was a cruel freak, similar to many others for which naval stations have frequently been infamous.

Whitefield spent more than six weeks at Plymouth, and in the immediate neighbourhood. His detention, occasioned by waiting for the convoy, was not without good results. Hence the following extracts from letters written during this interval. To John Syms, Whitefield wrote as follows:—

“Plymouth, July 21, 1744.

“My dear Man,—I expected a line from you to-day; but, I suppose, you think we are gone. This day came in a privateer, who saw the Brest squadron, which has pursued two of our men of war; so that, had we sailed, we should in all probability have been carried into France. We are now to go under the convoy of the grand fleet.

“I have been greatly refreshed this evening in preaching the blood of Jesus. The congregations grow every day. Last night, many from the dock guarded me home, being apprehensive there was a design against me. Without my knowledge, they insulted a man who intended to hurt me. I am sorry for it. My health is better. Whether we sail or not, expect to hear again from, dear, dear Johnny, ever, ever yours whilst

“George Whitefield.”99

“Plymouth, July 26, 1744.

“Could you think it? I have been preaching a confirmation sermon. Do you ask me where? In a Quaker’s field. As I saw thousands flocked to the church to have the bishop’s hands imposed upon them, I thought it not improper to let them have a word of exhortation suitable to the occasion. I have also made an elopement to Kingsbridge, where, a few days ago, I preached to many thousands. It was a most solemn occasion. The hearts of the auditory seemed to be bowed as the heart of one man.”

In other letters to his “dear man,” John Syms, he writes:—

“Plymouth, July 27, 1744.

“Matters go on better and better here. I begin to think myself in London. We have our regular morning meetings. We are looking out for a place proper for a Society, and to expound in. People come daily to me, especially from the dock, under convictions. Some, I believe, have really closed with Christ; and here are several aged persons perfectly made young again. We are just now entered upon our singing hours.

“Fresh news from Kingsbridge of souls being awakened; but I am kept close prisoner on account of the convoy. Brother Cennick must come into these parts soon.”

“Plymouth, July 29, 1744.

“Our Lord has been giving us blessings in drops; but now He is sending them in showers. We have had a most precious meeting this morning. Perhaps more good has been done by this one sermon, than by all I have preached before. The wind is yet against us. Our Lord detains me here for wise reasons. Some persons, formerly prejudiced against me, have offered to give me a piece of ground for a Society room. I believe one will be built soon. Brother Cennick must stay in the west some time.”

“Plymouth, August 3, 1744.

“Our convoy is come, and perhaps we may sail to-morrow. It is delightful to be here. We come from the dock, in the evenings, singing and praising God. Our parting there has been more awful than words can express.

“I must tell you one thing more. There is a ferry over to Plymouth; and the ferrymen are now so much my friends, that they will take nothing of the multitude that come to hear me preach, saying, ‘God forbid that we should sell the word of God!’”

Thus, at Plymouth, as in other places, did Whitefield triumph in Christ Jesus. One of the conversions, which took place under his marvellous ministry, is too notable to pass unnoticed. Henry Tanner, born at Exeter, was now in the twenty-sixth year of his age, and was working, at Plymouth, as a shipwright. One day, while at work, he heard, from a considerable distance, the voice of Whitefield, who was preaching in the open air; and, concluding that the man was mad, he and half a dozen of his companions filled their pockets with stones, and set off to knock the preacher down. Whitefield’s text was Acts xvii. 19, 20. Tanner listened with astonishment; and, without using his stones, went home, determined to hear him again next evening. The text, on this occasion, was Luke xxiv. 47; and Tanner was in such an agony of soul, that he was forced to cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner!” The next night, while Whitefield was preaching on “Jacob’s Ladder,” Tanner found peace with God. He, at once, joined the Society at Plymouth, which had been formed by Whitefield, and suffered violent persecution from his unconverted wife. To secure time for prayer and Christian usefulness, he seldom allowed himself more than six hours in bed, and frequently but four. Ten years after his conversion, he removed to Exeter, and began to preach with great success. In 1769, the Tabernacle at Exeter was built, mainly through his exertions, and he became its minister. His labours, however, were not confined to Exeter. At the request of Toplady, he used to preach at Broad Hembury; whilst Moreton, Hampstead, Crediton, Topsham, and various other places, were favoured with his services. On Sunday morning, March 24, 1805, when he had completed the eighty-sixth year of his age, he was carried, in a chair, to his pulpit, and tried to preach, but was so ill that he was obliged to relinquish the attempt. A week afterwards he peacefully expired.100

While, however, God was raising up new labourers, by means of Whitefield’s ministry, He was taking others to Himself. One of these was the Rev. David Crossly, of Manchester, who, within a week of the time when Whitefield embarked at Plymouth for America, wrote as follows to Whitefield’s friend, Mr. Syms:—

“Manchester, August 3, 1744.

“How glad I am to hear of Mr. Whitefield’s success in the service of his God. O happy Mr. Whitefield! His unparalleled labours, with answerable success, make his life a continued miracle. For a month past, I have been nigh unto death. My life is generally despaired of; and the Lord seems to be preparing the way for it, first, by a flow of converts, above twenty having been added to us during the last two months; and, secondly, by raising up several with very useful gifts; so that I am ready to say, ‘Lord, now let Thy servant depart in peace! Let me, O Lord, come above to the palm-bearing company! Fifty-five years have I been in the work, a poor weakling, yet crowned, by Thy blessing, with success.’

“As to Mr. Whitefield’s Preface to my Sermon,101 I give a thousand thanks to him. It is his goodness, not my deserts, that has placed his valuable name before any performance of mine.”102

A month after the date of this letter, good old David Crossly was gone. “I am ready for the Bridegroom,” he cried; “I know my Redeemer liveth;” with the utterance of which he triumphantly expired.103

Another brave-hearted man must be mentioned. Thomas Beard was one of Wesley’s preachers, but he was also warmly attached to Whitefield, and wrote to him the following sweet and simple letter:—

“Berwick-upon-Tweed, September 17, 1744.

“Sir,—It has been often upon my mind to write to you since I have been in this state of life, which is not agreeable at all to my inclinations. I have but little acquaintance with you, but I hope you will not be offended at my writing to you. The children of God, while on this side of the grave, always stand in need of one another’s prayers, especially such of them as are under persecutions, or temptations, for the truth’s sake. I find I stand in need of the prayers of all the children of God.

“I was pressed, in Yorkshire, for preaching, and so sent for a soldier. I earnestly pray for them who were the occasion of it. All my trust is reposed in Jesus, my sweet Saviour. I know He will not leave nor forsake me. His blood has atoned for my sin, and appeased His Father’s wrath, and procured His favour for such a sinful worm as myself. Herein is my comfort, though men raged at me, my dear Saviour did not leave nor forsake me.

“I have lately been on a command in Scotland, and met with many who enquired concerning you. I preached at Cowdingham. Some of your friends came to see me from Coppersmith. Many thought it strange to see a man in a red coat preach.

“I beg you would write to me in General Blakeney’s regiment of foot, in Captain Dunlop’s company.

“I am your unworthy brother,

“Thomas Beard.”104

Before Whitefield had an opportunity to answer, poor Beard, as one of the first of Methodism’s martyrs, had been called to inherit a martyr’s crown. Wesley, in 1744, wrote thus concerning him:—

“Thomas Beard, a quiet and peaceable man, who had lately been torn from his trade, and wife and children, and sent away as a soldier; that is, banished from all that was near and dear to him, and constrained to dwell among lions, for no other crime, either committed or pretended, than that of calling sinners to repentance. But his soul was in nothing terrified by his adversaries. Yet the body, after a while, sunk under its burden. He was then lodged in the hospital at Newcastle, where he still praised God continually. His arm festered, mortified, and was cut off: two or three days after which, God signed his discharge, and called him up to his eternal home.”

The case of Thomas Beard was far from being a solitary one. Magistrates, as well as mobs, hated the Methodists, and were always ready to approve of the violent proceedings of the press-gangs of the period. Not a few of both Wesley’s and Whitefield’s preachers and people were driven from their homes, and dragged into the army. Two purposes were thought to be served by these high-handed acts; first, the army obtained the recruits it greatly needed; and, secondly, as both mobs and magistrates imagined, the voices of Methodists and Methodist preachers were likely to be silenced. The last was a huge mistake. It may fairly be questioned whether the Methodists, who were forced into the army and navy, did not, in such positions, render greater service to the cause of Christ and of Methodism, than they could have rendered had they remained at home unmolested. Passing men like John Nelson, Thomas Beard, and many others, pressed into regiments at home, there were a considerable number with the English army in Flanders, whose heroism and Christianity will always shed a lustre on Methodism’s early annals. Wesley mentions some of these with the highest approbation, as, for instance, John Haime, John Greenwood, William Clements, John Evans, and others. Whitefield also, in his periodical, the Christian History,105 published a number of letters, written by soldiers belonging to his own community, as well as by some who were Wesley’s followers. One man, at Ghent, under the date of December 24, 1744, tells of being recently converted under the preaching of a “dragoon,” belonging to “the first regiment of guards,” in which regiment there were now “about a hundred members of that branch of the Society, that is, the United Society.” He continues: “The Lord adds to our number daily, and works very powerfully amongst us.” Another, at the same place, blesses God that he ever heard John Cennick preach. Anthony Conjuet, “a drummer in the English camp in Flanders,” relates that he and the regiment of English Guards had lately been “seven hours under the firing of the French cannons,” and then adds:—

“There are many of the members of the Societies killed and wounded. Most of them were taken notice of for their valour. Ebenezer Wells and Thomas Burford, and our brothers Cook and Forrest, are all wounded, and prisoners with the French. William Clements, teacher of a Society, is wounded in both arms, but is in a fair way to do well. John Evans, teacher of another Society, (who is a gunner of the train,) and Brother Hymms (Haime?) the dragoon, are well. Brother Hymms is also teacher of another Society. There are three other teachers alive and well.

“There is a great awakening in our camp, and the work of grace goes on with great success. Many blaspheming tongues are now singing praises to God, and to the Lamb.”

William Clements, mentioned in the foregoing letter, gives an account of “an engagement with the French, which lasted from five o’clock in the morning until three in the afternoon;” and of his being “now under the surgeon’s hands in Brussels.” He adds, that he has “received letters from the Brethren at the Camp,” telling him, that, since the battle, “the work of the Lord had gone on with great power.” And then, after sending his salutations to his “friend in Suffolk,” he concludes thus:—

“Grant, I beseech Thee, O Lord Jesus Christ, that we may be of that happy number who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and that we may stand upon Mount Zion, amongst the multitude which no man can number, to sing praises and hallelujahs for ever and ever. Amen.

“Which is all at present from your poor unworthy brother,

“W. Clements.”

These were bravely loyal, though deeply injured, Methodists; and displayed equal valour in fighting for their country, and for the kingdom of their God and Saviour.

Before following Whitefield to America, a few facts respecting the Societies over which he and his assistants presided may be useful. For want of materials, a full account of these is impossible; but the following scraps of information, taken from the Christian History, will, perhaps, be interesting:—

Wales.—Herbert Jenkins, in a letter dated “October 3, 1744,” tells of attending an “Association,” in Wales, at which “above twenty brethren” were present.

“The Lord,” says he, “made us of one heart and mind. We consulted about the best measures to carry on the cause of our Redeemer. We sung and prayed heartily together. When we parted, we went east, west, north, and south. The waters were out, and I was to the middle of my leg on horseback. One of the brethren had his horse carried away by the floods, and he himself narrowly escaped being drowned.”

In another letter, dated “February 23, 1745,” Jenkins writes:—

“I went to the Association in Wales, where about sixty of us met together, four of whom were clergymen. The Lord was amongst us. Many of the hearers were greatly comforted. We were two days together, and had sweet harmony. We had good accounts of the progress of the work of our Lord in six or seven counties.”

Bristol, Bath, etc.—In October, 1744, E. Godwin writes:—

“I have changed the tickets of about a hundred and twenty at Bristol, and have received fourteen new members. After I changed the tickets, I held a lovefeast, when, with a hymn, we publicly admitted our new members. On the first Monday in this month, we had a letter-day. We were about three hours together, and had a collection for defraying the charge of the place, which was the largest that had been made since Mr. Whitefield solemnized a feast-day here.”

Under the date of November 16, 1744, Herbert Jenkins says:—

“The hall in Bristol is commonly full. I generally preach, morning and evening, with freedom and delight. The people are devout and serious. Last Sunday, I preached four times; but, though I had walked to Connam and Kingswood, I was stronger in body, and happier in my soul at last than I was at first. The Society at Bath goes on sweetly, and grows in grace, and in number, daily. We had a choice lovefeast there last Thursday night. It was the first in that place, and was very solemn and orderly.”

Ludlow, Leominster, etc.—In a letter, dated December 12, 1744, James Ingram says:—

“I went to Ludlow, it being fair-day there; and soon had a pressing invitation to preach at an honest Dissenter’s house. I complied, though a young man told my sister I should be put into the stocks if I offered to cant there. I preached to a serious auditory, and the poor loving people would not willingly part with me. Only one of them had ever heard such things before. I promised to visit them again. The Society at Leominster seems pretty sweet. We met at four in the morning. I have now almost finished my round, and a happy one it has been. The people in Monmouthshire are more lively than usual. I was accompanied by eight or nine horse-people, and some on foot, from Caldicot to Redwick.”

A letter from James Beaumont must be quoted at greater length. It is dated June 10, 1745. He writes:—

“On Thursday, the 7th inst., I was at Leominster. During the time of my preaching, the people behaved tolerably well; but, soon after I had done, a man came to press me. He took me to the justice’s house, and there left me. The justice being absent, I knew not what to do; but, seeing myself surrounded by a large and turbulent mob, I got upon the justice’s steps, and spake of their illegal proceedings, and then returned, without any hurt, to Brother K――’s, and sang a hymn of praise to our great Deliverer. Soon after this, I was pressed again, by another constable, who took me before the commissioners in a public-house. By this time the town was in an uproar. The commissioners ordered the constable to take me to a private room. I was confined about four hours; and was then called before the commissioners, who asked me if I was exempted from the present Act. I told them I was. Justice H―― said, ‘By what?’ I answered, ‘I have £3 a year freehold in the parish of Old Radnor.’ ‘Where are your writings?’ said they. I said, ‘At home.’ They then asked me if I had any friend, in Leominster, who would satisfy them of the account I had given of myself. ‘I have,’ said I; and, soon after, the man came in, and confirmed what I had said. Then the gentlemen were pleased to condescend to do me justice, and I was discharged immediately. They ordered an officer to guard me to my friends, to whom I was safely brought; and we joined in praises to God for His mercies to me His sinful child.”

Wiltshire.—On November 15, 1744, E. Godwin writes:—

“Wiltshire is surely a garden of the Lord. Last week I was chiefly about Longley and Brinkworth. Last Monday I went to Blunsdon. It was their revel; so I preached out of doors, and a great power seemed to attend the word, some crying, who had hardly ever wept since they were children.”

The preacher, at this time appointed to the Wiltshire circuit, was George Cook, of whom E. Godwin had said, only a few weeks before, “Brother Cook’s preaching is much blessed in Wiltshire, though his gifts are not enlarged enough for a city.” On December 8, Cook wrote to Cennick:—

“On the 22nd day of last month I went to Wickwar. As soon as I began preaching, the mob came with sheep-bells tied to a stick, and so they did ring them. They had also frying-pans, horse-rugles, a salt-box, and a post-horn. Some of the mob did put their mouths to the window, and made a noise like that of dogs; and they called me false prophet, and all manner of names they could think of; but Satan can go no farther than his chain. The Lord gave me an uncommon power to speak of His blood; and many of the people were greatly refreshed in their souls. Pray for me, dear sir.

“I am your little, weak, sinful, simple brother, in the wounds of the Lamb,

“George Cook.”

Within a month afterwards, this “weak and simple brother” was dead. John Cennick writes:—

“January 7, 1745. I rode round by Avebury, where brother Cook sickened of the small-pox. The minister of Avebury behaved very ill while he was sick, and threatened he would remove him, bad as he was, out of the place, and would treat him as a vagabond. He was not willing that brother Cook should be buried at Avebury; and, therefore, in the dead of the night, the friends brought him to Tytherton upon a horse; and, about two o’clock on Sunday morning last, they laid him by the side of three other bodies of the saints.”

Eight months after this strange interment, John Edwards came to Avebury, where George Cook had died. Edwards shall tell his own story.

“I went to Avebury, where we had a blessed season; but, in the midst of my discourse, came the minister’s servant-maid, from her master, with a partridge for my supper; and to tell me, that he would have me come to drink a bottle with him. I met him the next day, and thanked him for his present and invitation. He called me ignorant, unlearned, fool, etc. I told him I was wise unto salvation; but as for being a fool, I acknowledged that, and was determined to be more and more a fool for Christ’s sake. He hooted and hallooed me, like a schoolboy, till I left him. The same night, when in the midst of my discourse, a company came, and began to throw stones at me, and struck me once on the breast. The people shut the door, and then those outside began their music with bells and horns. They broke the windows with clubs, and some of the people’s faces were cut with glass. They threw in dirt and mud; and, at length, I broke off preaching, and went to prayer for our enemies.”

Gloucestershire.—Isaac Cottell, in a letter dated October 10, 1744, gives an account of his labours in the Gloucestershire circuit. The following is an extract:—

“On October 7, I came to Wickwar about five o’clock in the evening. The house, where I was to preach, was surrounded with a mob, making a great noise. When I had been there about a quarter of an hour, in came the curate of the town, three gentlemen, and the constable with his long black staff. One of the gentlemen ordered the people to make way for the parson to come up to me. I was then singing a hymn; and the gentleman snatched the book out of my hand, tore it, and threw it up into the window. I then gave out a verse extempore; and he put his elbow up to stop my mouth. Then the curate came up to me, and began to read the Act of Parliament, and commanded us to depart in half an hour. At the same time, the gentleman asked me why I ran about the country, to pick people’s pockets? I told him I came to preach the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings. He said I came to make a riot. I told him, if he did not take care, he would make a riot himself. With that the gentlemen began to withdraw; and I got upon a stool, sang a hymn, and went to prayer. Dear sir, though the devil roars, the Lord Jesus Christ will have the victory.”

This kind of persecution, in Whitefield’s native country, was continued. Ten months afterwards, George Cross wrote to John Cennick:—

“I met with much opposition in Gloucestershire; for T. B. had declared to the congregations at Thornbury and Rangeworthy, that, I preach damnable doctrine; and that you, brother Godwin, brother Thorne, brother Pugh, and I worship the body of Jesus, which, he said, is idolatry.”

Essex.—In a letter dated July 30, 1744, F. Pugh gives an interesting narrative of his preaching at Braintree, Bocking, and in “a Quaker’s mill-yard, about a mile from Chelmsford.” In another letter, written at Braintree, twelve months afterwards, he says:—

“I have met with a deal of persecution since I came here. There were many stones, and much dust thrown at me last Wednesday night. There is a mountebank in town, who is the cause of all the persecution. There was a drummer, who drew his hanger at me, and damned me, saying it was fit for me to die; but a soldier ran to him, and took it from him. Last Sunday, I preached at Tiptree-heath, to some thousands. There were two chariots; and gentlemen in gold lace came to hear. One of the gentlemen, in a chariot, sent for me, and desired me to preach in the town where he lived; but I could not, for my rounds were already settled and published.”

Northamptonshire, etc.—Thomas Lewis, in a long letter, written at Olney, October 13, 1744, tells of his preaching “in the Tabernacle” there, for an entire week, and of the conversions which took place during the services. At Northampton, “the people seemed to be all in a flame, and stretched after God.” Other places in the counties of Buckingham and Northampton were also visited.

Staffordshire, etc.—W. Allt writes:—

“February 6, 1745. Several at Whittington are under convictions. One, who had spent all his youth in indefatigable industry to gather together this world’s wealth, was for selling what he had, and said he could travel the world over with me; but I advised him to keep at home, telling him that Jesus would be found there. Many at Wolverhampton seem very desirous to meet, but dare not, the mob is so desperate. They arose, after I was gone on Sunday last, and broke brother D――’s windows, and beat a young man shamefully, and tore his coat all to pieces. At Brewood, the friends are very zealous, in going from house to house, to tell what the Lord has done for them; and people come several miles to converse, and sing, and pray with them. I am persuaded, if a minister was there, several hundreds would come to hear him every Sunday. The people are very simple and free from prejudice. They say the parishioners are half papists; and the Church and Dissenting ministers are exceeding bitter. I have exhorted twice at Birmingham with much freedom.”