The works of the Reverend George Whitefield, M.A., Vol. 4 (of 6) — Background and Themes

(0 User reviews) 73

In Category - Fantasy Juvenile Worlds

Authors: Whitefield, George, 1714-1770 Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2024 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Sermons, English -- 18th century; Presbyterian Church -- Clergy -- Early works to 1800; Presbyterian Church -- Sermons -- Early works to 1800; Whitefield, George, 1714-1770 -- Early works to 1800 Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 169,439

Reading time 737 min

Text sections 24

The catalog record for The works of the Reverend George Whitefield, M.A., Vol. 4 (of 6) — Background and Themes provides practical reading context through 169,439 words, 12 hr 17 min estimated reading time, and 24 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 29.0 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Sermons, English -- 18th century,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #73267

This volume of Whitefield's collected works includes his defense against a bishop's pastoral letter, arguing for the divine origin of the Methodist revival while acknowledging human imperfections, and reaffirming Reformation doctrines.

Editorial Edition Score 4.9/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg73267

Read the Text

hankful to that pilot, who will teach them to steer a safe and middle course. I would gladly hope, that “a zeal for GOD in the discharge of your duty, and a hearty concern for the safety of souls,” moved your Lordship to write. These are the principles, I trust, which now excite me, to direct this answer to your Lordship. And, blessed be GOD, that I can write with somewhat of that love and meekness, which becomes a disciple of JESUS CHRIST, and with all that humility and reverence, which is due from a presbyter to a bishop of the church of GOD.

Lukewarmness and enthusiasm, my Lord, are certainly the bane of true christianity. I thank your Lordship again for your kind cautions against them. The only query is, “Whether there was any occasion for your Lordship’s warning the people of your diocese, against running into either of these extremes, upon account of any thing, I have either spoken or written?” Your Lordship thinks there was, and quotes passages out of my Journal to prove it; if it can be proved, I will ask public pardon, both of your Lordship and them, with all my heart.

As for your Lordship’s cautions against _lukewarmness_, I am not much concerned in them. You do not seem to point at me in particular; unless it is, where your Lordship (page 10.) informs your people, “That a diligent attendance on the duties of the station wherein Providence has placed them, is, in the strictest sense, the serving of GOD.” None but those, who condemn me unheard, can justly charge me with affirming to the contrary.

However, I beg leave to observe, that your Lordship, (page 8.) calls that a very imperfect state of christianity, which is _no state of christianity_ at all. St. _Paul_, writing to the _Corinthians_, _2 Corinthians_ chapter xiii. verse 5, says, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your ownselves.” And that they might have a certain rule, whereby to judge whether they were in the faith, truly so called, or not; he immediately adds, “Know ye not your ownselves, how that CHRIST JESUS is in you, except ye be reprobates?” So that, according to St. _Paul_’s rule, “He that finds, he has hitherto contented himself with a bare bodily attendance upon the public worship of GOD, and with following his daily employment on other days, and with abstaining from the more gross and notorious acts of sin, and from doing any hurt or injury to his neighbour, and has rested finally upon these, as the whole of what christianity requires of him;” is so far from being in a very imperfect state, as your Lordship is pleased to affirm, page 8. that he is in no state of christianity at all. No, my Lord, he is a _reprobate_, or, one who at present is out of a state of salvation, nor can he ever have any assurance that he is in a state of salvation, till he knows that JESUS CHRIST is in him, by the indwelling of his Holy Spirit. If I have mistaken your Lordship’s expression, I will freely beg your Lordship’s pardon.

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

Continue Reading →

This fourth volume of George Whitefield's collected works opens with a sustained polemical exchange: his Answer to the Bishop of London's Last Pastoral Letter. Whitefield directly addresses the bishop, defending the Methodist movement against charges of enthusiasm and disorder. He frames the controversy as a matter of spiritual discernment, arguing that divine illumination can coexist with human fallibility—"fire without some smoke." The text moves between defensive argument and doctrinal exposition, grounding Methodist preaching in Reformation tenets such as justification by faith alone and the necessity of good works as fruits of faith.

Structure of the Answer

The Answer is structured as a point-by-point rebuttal, mirroring the bishop's original letter. Whitefield adopts a respectful but firm tone, addressing the bishop as "My Lord" and commending his pastoral care before dissenting. He identifies two dangers—"lukewarmness and enthusiasm"—and positions himself as steering a middle course. The argument proceeds through scriptural citation, historical precedent (citing Latimer and Ridley), and logical distinction between genuine spiritual experience and mere imagination. Whitefield does not deny that "imagination has mixed itself with the work" but insists this does not invalidate the whole. The structure thus balances concession with assertion, a rhetorical strategy that allows him to engage the bishop's authority while defending his own.

Recurring Images of Light and Fire

Whitefield repeatedly employs images of light and fire to characterize the Methodist revival. He quotes Bishop Latimer's remark that "a candle is lighted in England ... which will not easily be put out," and compares the movement to fire that inevitably produces smoke. These metaphors serve a dual purpose: they acknowledge imperfections (smoke) while affirming the essential divine origin (fire, light). The image of a candle suggests both vulnerability and persistence—a small flame that cannot be extinguished. Elsewhere, Whitefield speaks of "divine energy" and "power" attending preaching, reinforcing the sense of an active, illuminating force. This pattern of imagery recurs throughout the volume, linking the defense of Methodism to broader theological themes of spiritual enlightenment and purification.

Movement Between Defense and Doctrine

The text shifts fluidly between defensive polemic and positive doctrinal exposition. After countering the bishop's charges, Whitefield lists the "doctrines which they chiefly insist upon," quoting the Articles of Religion verbatim: total depravity, justification by faith alone, and good works as necessary fruits of faith. This movement serves to ground the Methodist position in established Reformation teaching, distancing it from novelty or enthusiasm. Whitefield then cites the example of Paul and Barnabas separating over John Mark to argue that internal disagreements do not discredit a movement. The pattern—defense, then doctrinal affirmation, then historical analogy—creates a rhythm that reinforces his central claim: the revival is of God, despite human imperfections.

Tone and Rhetorical Posture

Whitefield's tone is consistently deferential yet firm. He opens by thanking the bishop for his pastoral care, then proceeds to correct what he sees as misrepresentations. He uses the second person sparingly, addressing the bishop directly but without personal attack. His language is precise and legalistic in places—"I think it my duty to answer"—and emotionally charged in others, as when he speaks of the reformers burned at the stake. This blend of respect and conviction characterizes his rhetorical posture throughout the volume. He positions himself not as a rebel but as a defender of true doctrine, appealing to the bishop's own commitment to orthodoxy. The result is a polemic that seeks to persuade rather than merely condemn, maintaining a measured tone even when the stakes are high.

Readers approaching this volume should attend to Whitefield's use of scriptural and historical precedent as a framework for contemporary controversy. His method of weaving defense with doctrinal exposition reveals a preacher who saw himself as continuing the Reformation. The recurring imagery of light and fire offers a lens through which to understand his view of the revival as both fragile and unstoppable. This is not a systematic theology but a pastoral and polemical work, best read with attention to its rhetorical strategies and the specific charges it answers.

There are moments when reading Whitefield’s insistence that revival came from God despite our faltering hands, and I think of how peace, too, arrives imperfectly—hard-won, partial, still breathing. That same quiet ache of hoping while doubting lingers in Washington and the Riddle of Peace — Themes and Context, as if both writers knew the answer is never quite tidy. Old books, new echoes.