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.”