Chapter L: Tyerman (11)

At Oxford, Whitefield was thrown into amusing perturbation by an event which might have been expected to secure his warm approval. Charles Kinchin, one of the most zealous of the Oxford Methodists, was Rector of Dummer and Fellow and Dean of Corpus Christi College. Greatly to Whitefield's distress of mind, Kinchin had resolved to declare himself a Dissenter. He had left the college, intended to resign his living, and purposed, as soon as he was really converted, to become an itinerant preacher.[191] Whitefield himself was already an itinerant, either by necessity, or choice, or both; and yet he seems to have been ridiculously horrified at the probability of Kinchin following his example. He writes:--

"The step taken by Mr. Kinchin gave me a great shock. For I knew
what dreadful consequences would attend a needless separation
from the Established Church. For my own part, I can see no
reason for my leaving the Church, however I am treated by the
corrupt members and ministers of it. I judge of the state of a
church, not from the practice of its members, but its primitive
and public constitutions; and so long as I think the Articles of
the Church of England are agreeable to Scripture, I am resolved
to preach them up without either bigotry or party zeal."

[191] See "The Oxford Methodists," pp. 220-223.

Already Hervey, another of the Oxford Methodists, had written to Kinchin a letter, of more than a dozen printed octavo pages,[192] and had strongly and lovingly entreated him not to leave the Church. Whitefield wrote to the same effect. His letter is thoroughly characteristic, and abbreviation would injure it.

[192] Ibid.

"OXON, _April 22, 1739_.

"DEAREST MR. KINCHIN,--Just now I have received the blessed
sacrament, and have been praying for you. Let me exhort you,
by the mercies of God in Christ Jesus, not to resign your
parsonage till you have consulted your friends in London. It is
undoubtedly true that all is not right when we are afraid to be
open to our dear brethren.

"Satan has desired to sift you as wheat. He is dealing with
you as he did with me some years ago, when he kept me in my
closet near six weeks, because I could not do anything with a
single intention. So he would have you not to preach till you
have received the Holy Ghost in the full assurance of it; and
that is the way never to have it at all. God will be found in
the use of means; and our Lord sent out His disciples to preach
_before_[193] they had received the Holy Ghost in that most
plentiful manner at the day of Pentecost.

[193] The italics are Whitefield's own. This was odd doctrine
for him to teach! It must always be remembered, however, that
Whitefield was a warm-hearted preacher,--never a learned,
logical theologist.

"Besides, consider, my dear brother, what confusion your
separation from the Church will occasion. The prison doors"
(at Oxford) "are already shut" (against us). "Our Society is
stopped; and most are afraid almost to converse with us. I can
assure you, that my being a minister of the Church of England,
and preaching its articles, is a means, under God, of drawing so
many after me.

"As for objecting about habits, robes, etc., good God! I thought
we long since knew that the kingdom of God did not consist in
any externals, but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost.

"Oh! my dear brother, I travail in pain for you. Never was I
more shocked at anything than at your proceedings. I doubt
not that you will pray to God to be kept from delusion at the
reading of this. I am not ignorant of Satan's devices, and I
know he never more successfully tempts us, than when he turns
himself into an angel of light. Oh! my dearest Mr. Kinchin, do
nothing rashly. Consult your friends, and do not break the heart
of your most affectionate, though unworthy brother in Christ,

"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."

Though it is not necessary to pursue the subject, it may be added, 1. That Kinchin was prompted to act as he did chiefly by three Moravian brethren;[194] 2. Though there can be little doubt that he resigned his Fellowship and his office of Dean of Corpus Christi College, it is not certain that he resigned his living; 3. When he died, on January 4, 1742, he left behind him a young widow of the age of thirty, who, ten months afterwards, was one of the enrolled members of "the Congregation of the Lamb, in London;" and, within eighteen months after that, became the wife of Ludolph Ernest Schlicht,[195] who officiated as one of the principal Moravian ministers in London, Dublin, and other places.

[194] Whitefield's Journal, 1739, p. 87.

[195] Memoirs of James Hutton, pp. 93, 146, 177.

Whitefield spent two days at Oxford, trying to put wrong things right. Of course, he was not allowed the use of any of the Oxford churches; but he says:--

"I visited two Societies, at the first of which many gownsmen
did me the honour of coming to hear. Before I began, I desired
them to behave like gentlemen and Christians. I also prayed
particularly for them, and applied myself in meekness and love
to them at the end of my discourse. They behaved quietly; but
afterwards followed me to my inn, and came uninvited up into my
room. I took that opportunity to give them a second exhortation;
and though some, no doubt, mocked, yet, I believe, some will
remember what was said. Blessed be God for sending me hither!
Our dear brother Kinchin, falling into such an error, has given
such a shock, that, unless I had come, in all probability the
brethren would have been scattered abroad like sheep having no
shepherd."

Next morning, before setting out for London, Whitefield conducted another religious service; during which the Vice-Chancellor of the University came and sent a message, requesting Whitefield to come downstairs to see him.[196] As soon as the young preacher presented himself, the learned Don angrily exclaimed, "Have you, sir, a name in any book here?" "Yes, sir," said Whitefield, "but I intend to take it out soon." "Yes," replied the wrathful magnate, "and you had best take yourself out too, or otherwise I will lay you up by the heels. What do you mean by going about, alienating the people's affections from their proper pastors? Your works are full of vanity and nonsense. You pretend to inspiration. If you ever come again in this manner among these people, I will lay you first by the heels, and these shall follow." Having delivered himself of this official threat, the Vice-Chancellor "turned his back, and went away." "I exhorted the brethren," says Whitefield, "not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, though no pastor should be permitted to come amongst them; for, so long as they continued steadfast in the communion of the Established Church, I told them, no power on earth could justify hindering them continuing in fellowship, as the primitive Christians did, in order to build up each other in the knowledge and fear of God. Oh, what advantage has Satan gained over us by our brother Kinchin putting off his gown!"

[196] The following is taken from an old newspaper: "We hear from
Oxford that the Vice-Chancellor, hearing of Mr. Whitefield's arrival
there, sent him word that he must not preach in Oxford, and hoped
he would leave the place, which he did accordingly the beginning of
this week."

The ungentlemanly menace of the Vice-Chancellor was an empty one, and yet it evidently caused Whitefield some anxiety. Hence, on the same day, he wrote as follows to his friend Harris:--

"I rejoice to hear Mr. Cole[197] builds you up in your most
holy faith. Who knows but you may, under God, keep up religion
in Gloucester? Mr. Kinchin's conduct, in leaving the Church
and giving up the parsonage, has sadly grieved the spirit of
many good people here. My heart is drawn towards London most
strangely. Perhaps you may hear of your friend's imprisonment.
I expect no other preferment. God grant I may behave so, that
when I suffer, it may not be for my own imprudencies, but for
righteousness' sake! Then, I am sure, the spirit of Christ and
of glory will rest upon my soul."

[197] The Dissenting minister at Gloucester.

On April 25th, Whitefield and his friends, William Seward and Howell Harris, arrived in London, where (excepting one or two brief excursions made to other places) he continued until the end of June. This was a most important epoch in Whitefield's history, and must be carefully examined.

It is a significant fact, that, though it was through three Moravians that Charles Kinchin was (as Whitefield thought) so disastrously led astray, Whitefield still maintained a close connection with the Moravian Society in Fetter Lane, and, up to the time of his second embarkation for Georgia, attended their assemblies, and assisted in their services. He was really, if not nominally, one of their brotherhood; and, on Sunday, May 20, made the following entry in his Journal: "Went with our brethren of Fetter Lane Society to St. Paul's, and received the holy sacrament, as a testimony that we adhered to the Church of England."

It was not, however, as a Moravian that Whitefield became so notable; but as an outdoor preacher, whose congregations, voice, and oratory were unparalleled.

At this period, the vicar of Islington was the Rev. George Stonehouse, who had recently been converted, chiefly by means of Charles Wesley; and who, like Whitefield and the Wesley brothers, evinced great affection for the Moravian fraternity. In fact, he soon afterwards so identified himself with the Brethren, that he sold his living, and retired to Sherborne, in the west of England, where he fitted up a Moravian meeting house capable of accommodating five hundred people.

Mr. Stonehouse was now the only clergyman in London willing to lend his pulpit to poor outcast Whitefield; and even he was not able to carry out his wishes. Whitefield, the day after he reached London, wrote as follows:--

"Thursday, April 26. Assisted in administering the blessed
sacrament at Islington, where the vicar, in conformity to the
rubric, takes care to observe the octaves of Easter.

"Friday, April 27. Went this morning to Islington to preach,
according to the appointment of my dear brother in Christ, the
Reverend Mr. Stonehouse; but, in the midst of the prayers,
the churchwarden came, demanding me to produce my license, or
otherwise he forbad my preaching in that pulpit. I believe I
might have insisted upon my right to preach, being in priest's
orders, and having the presentation of the living at Savannah,
which is in the Bishop of London's diocese,--a stronger license
than that implicit one by which hundreds of the inferior clergy
are by his lordship permitted to preach. However, for the
sake of peace, I declined preaching in the church; but, after
the communion service was over, I preached in the churchyard,
being assured my Master now called me out here, as well as in
Bristol.[198] God was pleased so to assist me in preaching, and
so wonderfully to affect the hearers, that, I believe, we could
have gone singing of hymns to prison. Let not the adversaries
say I have thrust myself out of their synagogues. No, they
have thrust me out. And since the self-righteous men of this
generation count themselves unworthy, I go out into the highways
and hedges, and compel harlots, publicans, and sinners to come
in, that my Master's house may be filled. They who are sincere
will follow after me to hear the word of God."[199]

[198] _The Universal Weekly History_ of May 5 contained the
following: "On Saturday last, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, being denied
the use of a pulpit, preached to a prodigious concourse of people
on a tombstone, in Islington churchyard. Last Sunday morning, he
did the same from the wall near Bedlam; and, in the afternoon, near
the gallows on Kennington Common, to a vast number of people."
_Read's Weekly Journal_, of the same date, says: "The followers of
Parson Whitefield have done a vast deal of damage to the tombs and
gravestones in Islington churchyard." It also adds that the question
of Whitefield's exclusion from the pulpit of Islington Church was
decided by a committee of ten; five chosen by Mr. Stonehouse, the
vicar, and five by the parish vestry. Their decision was unanimous.

[199] Two days afterwards, Charles Wesley was similarly prohibited,
and was told "the devil was in them all;" that is, in himself,
Whitefield, and the vicar. Mr. Stonehouse waited upon the bishop;
but had to leave him "close, shut up, and sour." In reference to
Whitefield, Charles Wesley writes: "April 25. I heard G. Whitefield,
very powerful, at Fetter Lane. April 27. I heard G. Whitefield in
Islington churchyard. The numerous congregation could not have been
more affected within its walls."

Thus was Whitefield driven to outdoor preaching in London, as well as in Bristol. Perhaps he would have preferred a church; but now he must either preach out of doors, or not at all. His spirit might be vexed, but was not depressed. On the very day when the imperious churchwarden thrust him out of Islington Church into the churchyard, he wrote to his friend Harris at Gloucester:--

"To-day, my Master, by His providence and Spirit, compelled
me to preach in the churchyard at Islington. To-morrow, I
am to repeat that mad trick, and, on Sunday, to go out into
Moorfields. The word of the Lord runs and is glorified. People's
hearts seem quite broken. God strengthens me exceedingly. I
preach till I sweat through and through. Innumerable blessings
does God pour down upon me. Oh that I had a thankful heart!"

When Sunday came, Whitefield, not surprisingly, did more than he intended. He writes:--

"Sunday, April 29. Preached in the morning at Moorfields, to
an exceeding great multitude. At ten, went to Christ Church,
and heard Doctor Trapp preach most virulently against me and
my friends, upon these words, 'Be not righteous over-much: why
shouldest thou destroy thyself?' God gave me great serenity
of mind; but, alas! the preacher was not so calm as I wished
him. His sermon was founded upon wrong suppositions, not to
say that there were many direct untruths in it. And he argued
so strenuously against all _inward feelings_, that he plainly
proved that, with all his learning, he knew nothing yet as
he ought to know. At five, I preached at Kennington Common,
about two miles from London, where thirty thousand people
were supposed to be present. The wind carried my voice to the
extremest part of the audience. All stood attentive, and joined
in the Psalm and the Lord's Prayer most regularly. I scarce ever
preached more quietly in any church. The word came with power.
The people were much affected. All agreed it was never seen on
this wise before. I hope a good inroad has been made into the
devil's kingdom this day.[200]

[200] _Read's Weekly Journal_ of May 5th, says Whitefield
preached from the same text as Dr. Trapp, and adds, "As the
people were kept waiting a long time for the preacher, Dr. Rock
cunningly took the advantage of his absence, and talked so
pathetically to the multitude of the efficacy of his packets,
that he disposed of abundance of them; and it is thought the
quack for the body made greater profit that afternoon than the
quack for the soul."

"Monday, April 30. Declined preaching to-day, that I might
have leisure to write to some of my correspondents, and make
preparations for my poor orphans in Georgia. Heard that Mr.
Kinchin had got over his scruples, and of the wonderful success
of my honoured friend Mr. John Wesley's ministry in Bristol, and
of much opposition at Oxford. Certainly God is about to bring
mighty things to pass."

So ended this eventful month of April. Wesley, whom Whitefield had left as his successor, was preaching to thousands upon thousands in Bristol and its vicinity, and already numbers were falling on the ground as if "thunderstruck," and in the greatest excitement calling upon God for mercy. Whitefield had prepared Wesley's way in Bristol, and he was now doing the same in London. Moorfields--a park laid out in grass plots, intersected by broad gravel walks, and shaded by rows of well-grown elms--was "the city mall." Kennington Common--a mile beyond the small hamlet of Newington, and situated at the end of a vast conglomerated garden which extended to what is now Westminster Bridge--was the rendezvous of London riff-raffs, and the ghostly locale where hundreds of condemned felons had been hanged and gibbeted. These, henceforth, were two of Whitefield's grand cathedrals.[201]

[201] The following abusive doggrel was published in the _London
Daily Post_:--

ON MR. WHITEFIELD'S PREACHING IN MOORFIELDS, NEAR BEDLAM.

"_Map_, _Ward_, and _Taylor_ did our wonder raise,
Now _Whitefield_ has the giddy rabble's praise;
Infatuated crowds to hear him flock,
As once to _France_ for _Mississippi_ stock;
A proof more madmen out of _Bedlam_ dwell,
Than are confined within that spacious cell."

Doctor Trapp has just been mentioned. This gentleman, like Whitefield, was born in Gloucestershire, and educated at Oxford; but he was thirty-six years Whitefield's senior. He was a culpable pluralist. In 1721, he became vicar of Christ Church, Newgate Street, and rector of St. Leonard's, Foster Lane. In 1733, the famous Lord Bolingbroke made him rector of Harlington, in Middlesex; and, a year later, he was elected a joint lecturer of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. These were the church-preferments of the fervent ecclesiastic, who deemed it his high duty to belabour the poor Methodists. Turbulence was an element in which Dr. Trapp liked to live. He had acted as manager for Dr. Sacheverell on his memorable trial in 1709. Several of his principal publications had been of a controversial character. There can be no question that he had a keen relish for a scuffle. He was a man of extensive learning, and Bishop Pearce pronounced him to be of all English students the most diligent. His wit was considerable, but his temper hasty. The one sharpened the other, and made it more gashing.

The sermon by Trapp, which Whitefield heard in Christ Church, on Sunday, April 29th, was probably the first of the series. At all events, the _Gentleman's Magazine_ announced that the "fourth and last sermon against Mr. Whitefield and the Methodists" was "preached on Sunday, May 20th," and that the sermons were to "be printed at the earnest request of the audience."[202]

[202] _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1739, p. 271.

Dr. Trapp, in compliance with "the earnest request" of his hearers, immediately issued an octavo pamphlet of sixty-nine pages, with the title, "The Nature, Folly, Sin, and Danger of being Righteous over-much; with a particular view to the Doctrines and Practices of certain Modern Enthusiasts. Being the Substance of Four Discourses lately preached in the Parish Churches of Christ Church, and St. Lawrence Jewry, London, and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, Westminster. By Joseph Trapp, D.D." Before the end of the year, the work reached a third edition. A few extracts, obviously aimed at Whitefield, may be useful.

In a paragraph censuring "ignorant, illiterate people who presume to expound the Scriptures," the learned Doctor says:--

"Suppose another, though in holy orders, yet a raw novice
very lately initiated into them, shall take upon him, at his
first setting out, to execute, as it were, the office of an
apostle,--to be a teacher, not only of all the laity in all
parts of the kingdom, but of the teachers themselves, the
learned clergy, many of them learned before he was born,--to
reflect upon and censure them as if they did not know their
duty, or would not do it without being instructed and reproved
by _him_,--what is this but an outrage upon common decency
and common sense? the height of presumption, confidence, and
self-sufficiency; so ridiculous as to create the greatest
laughter, were it not so deplorable and detestable as to create
the greatest grief and abhorrence; especially if vast multitudes
are so sottish, and wicked too, as, in a tumultuous manner, to
run madding after him? Surely it is shocking and prodigious for
so _young a son of Levi to take much upon him_."

Such seems to have been the winding-up of the first sermon--the one which Whitefield himself heard in Christ Church. No wonder Whitefield wrote, "The preacher was not so calm as I wished him."

The next extract is equally personal and offensive.

"There is a mighty difference between appearance and reality.
There is often the deepest pride where there is no high or
lofty look, and the height of confidence and self-sufficiency
under the guise of the greatest modesty. But how shall we
_distinguish_? 'By their fruits ye shall know them.' A
pharisaical ostentation, and outward show of piety, praying, or
singing psalms _in the corners of the streets, to be seen of
men_, is one undoubted sign of pride, and that the worst sort of
it--_spiritual pride_. Again, he is proud who 'exercises himself
in great matters which are too high for him,'--who pretends to
be more than ordinarily knowing in things which he knows nothing
of,--who peremptorily censures his betters, and takes upon him
to teach his teachers. All this is contrary to the _spirit_ and
genius of the Gospel, to the _modesty_ and _humility_ of the
Christian religion. These are indications of the worst sort of
pride; or if not pride, it is a _folly_ that approaches very
near to _madness_."

In reference to the Moravian and other Religious Societies, in whose meetings Whitefield so frequently expounded, the zealous, censorious preacher says:--

"The Church itself is, by these irregular, upstart _Societies_,
even by the _best_ of them, and much more by the _worst_,
greatly weakened and impaired. For though they do constantly
attend divine service, as prescribed in the public offices, yet
I appeal to all _discerning_ and _judicious_ persons, whether,
_in the nature of things_, they are not likely to set a greater
value upon _their own particular meetings and exercises_, set
up purely by their own fancies, and commanded by no authority
of God or man. To be plain, if what I am informed of these
meetings be true, they are schismatical, in their _tendency_
at least, though not so designed; for there may be a schism
_in_ the Church, as well as a schism _from_ the Church. If it
be true that they consist of considerable numbers, that they
have prayers (some, too, extemporary ones), and preaching, or
something like it, I do not see how they can be deemed legal
assemblies. The public meetings of Protestant Dissenters from
the Church are tolerated by law, and licensed by authority;
but I never heard that these are either. If they should be, I
doubt there would be more danger _to_ the Church from a kind
of half-dissenters _in_ it, than from those who are total
dissenters _from_ it."

Whitefield's open-air preaching occasioned great disquietude to the minister of three churches in London and one in the country. Dr. Trapp remarks:--

"We have heard of _Field-Conventicles_ in Scotland, among the
enthusiasts of that country; which yet, I think, were there
always suppressed by the authority of Church or State, or
both. We have had, in former times, something of this nature
in England, as practised by Brownists, Anabaptists, Quakers,
Ranters, or such like. But for a _clergyman of the Church of
England to pray_ and _preach in the fields_ in the country, or
in the _streets_ in the city, is _perfectly new_; never heard
of before; a _fresh honour_ to the _blessed age_, in which
_we_ have the happiness to live. To pray, preach, and sing
psalms in the streets and fields is worse, if possible, than
_intruding into pulpits_ by downright _violence_ and _breach
of the peace_; and then _denying_ the plain fact with the most
_infamous prevarication_.[203] I could say much here; but am
quite _ashamed_ to speak upon a subject which is a _shame_ and
_reproach_, not only to our _Church_ and _country_, but to
_human nature_ itself. Can it promote the Christian religion, to
turn it into riot, tumult, and confusion?--to make it ridiculous
and contemptible, and expose it to the scorn and scoffs of
infidels and atheists? If it be alleged, as I think it is, that
Christ and His apostles prayed and preached in the fields, on
mountains, and on the sea-shore,--I ask, Have these creatures
the same spirit and power that they had? Is Christianity now in
its infancy, as it was then? Was the Church then established
as it is now? Are we now to be converted to Christianity, from
Judaism or heathenism, as people were in those days? Or if we
were, are such false and spurious apostles as these able to
convert us? I might here very properly urge the _canons_ of the
Church of England, and the _laws_ of the civil state. But the
thing, though detestable and of most pernicious tendency, is,
in another view, too contemptible to be longer insisted upon.
It would likewise be endless, as well as nauseous, to make
reflections upon that rhapsody of madness, spiritual pride, and
little less than blasphemy, if not quite so, which this _field
preacher_ calls his _Journal_; and so I say no more of it. Go
not after these impostors and seducers; but shun them as you
would the plague. Those who run after them are the _enemies_ of
our _religion_ and Church. These _Protestant enthusiasts_, with
all _Protestant heretics, schismaticks, and false teachers_,
on the one hand; and the _free-thinkers, infidels, deists, and
atheists_, on the other, are doing the work of _Papists_ for
them, to their hearts' desire."

[203] See the _Weekly Miscellany_ concerning the forcible intrusion
into the pulpit at St. Margaret's, Westminster.

In this fit of nausea and disgust Dr. Trapp might be dismissed; but, before parting with him, another of his virulent outpourings must be noticed.

Three months later in the year, the following was published:--"The Nature, Usefulness, and Regulation of Religious Zeal. A Sermon preached at St. Mary's, Oxon; before the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Fortescue Aland and Mr. Baron Thompson; and before the University of Oxford; at the Assizes held there, on Thursday, August 2nd, 1739. By Joseph Trapp, D.D., Minister of Christ Church and St. Leonard's, Foster Lane, London. Published at the desire of the Judges and the Vice-Chancellor." (8vo. 32 pp.)

One extract from this highly patronized sermon must suffice.

"No false zeal is more abusive than that of our _modern
infidels_, on the one hand, and our _modern enthusiasts_,
pretending to be the _only true believers_, on the other:
_Christianity_ and _Christians_ by the _former_, and our
_Established Church_ and _clergy_ by _both_; being outraged
with such virulence and malice, such insolence and contempt,
as was never heard of before; and would not be endured by any
Christian _nation_ under heaven, but _this_ in which we live.
Some _emotion_ in the affections, and in the blood and spirits,
is both becoming and useful; but rage and fury is neither. The
good Christian may have, and should have, some warmth and even
heat; but not be like a red-hot iron, hissing and sparkling
from the forge, and dropping fire wherever it reaches. A brisk
gale at sea is one thing, but a storm is another. Let false
zealots be like raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own
shame; but let the truly zealous Christian carefully avoid these
exorbitances. Let Popery and Protestant enthusiasm, infidelity,
and atheism, all leagued against Christianity in general and
the Church of _England_ in particular, rage like a possessed
pythoness; but let every good Christian know and consider _what
manner of spirit he is of_, which is not such a _manner of
spirit as that_."

Public attacks like these were hard to bear; especially in the case of a young man of twenty-four, ardent, enthusiastic, ambitious, and somewhat overweening, like Whitefield. In his sermon on "The Marriage of Cana," Whitefield writes:--

"What a sad inference one of our masters of Israel, in a
printed sermon, has lately drawn from this commendation of
the bridegroom! His words are these: 'Our blessed Saviour
came eating and drinking, was present at weddings, and other
entertainments; nay, at one of them, worked a miracle to make
wine, when it is plain there had been more drank than was
absolutely necessary for the support of nature; and consequently
something had been indulged to pleasure and cheerfulness.'[204]

[204] Trapp's "Sermons on being Righteous over-much" (p. 17).

"I am sorry such words should come from the mouth and pen of a
dignified clergyman of the Church of England. Alas! how is she
fallen! or, at least, in what danger must her tottering ark be,
when such unhallowed hands are stretched out to support it! Well
may I bear patiently to be styled a blasphemer, and a setter
forth of strange doctrines, when my dear Lord Jesus is thus
traduced, and when those who pretend to preach in His name urge
this example to patronise licentiousness and excess!"

A more lengthy and less temperate critique by Whitefield will be mentioned shortly. Meanwhile, a reply was published by the Rev. Robert Seagrave, M.A., in an octavo pamphlet of 32 pages, with the title, "An Answer to the Reverend Dr. Trapp's four Sermons against Mr. Whitefield, shewing the Sin and Folly of being Angry over-much." The title-page also bore the following text from the Apocrypha: "He was made to reprove our thoughts. He is grievous unto us even to behold; for His life is not like other men's; His ways are of another fashion (Wisdom ii. 14, 15)." This pamphlet passed through two editions in the year 1739.

Mr. Seagrave was born on November 22, 1693, at Twyford, in Leicestershire, where his father was vicar from 1687 to 1720. At the age of seventeen, he was admitted sizar of Clare Hall, Cambridge, where he subsequently took the degrees of B.A. and M.A.[205] He heartily sympathised with Whitefield; and failing to obtain a church, or, perhaps, not desiring to be the minister of one, he became, in 1739, a sort of extra parochial clergyman, and occupied the Lorimers' or Leather-Cutters' Hall, situated at the north end of Basinghall Street. This hall, for at least forty years, had been used as a dissenting meeting-house, first by the Particular Baptists, and next by a Society of Independents. Here, in 1706, the celebrated Dr. Daniel Neal was ordained, and officiated as minister, until his increasing congregation rendered it necessary to remove to a larger meeting-house in Jewin Street.[206]

[205] Seagrave's Hymns, republished, with Preface, by Daniel
Sedgwick, 1860.

[206] Wilson's "Dissenting Churches," vol. ii., p. 559.

For some years, Mr. Seagrave preached in Lorimers' Hall with much success. "He was a good minister of Jesus Christ, a workman who needed not to be ashamed. He was a man of eminent piety, great humility, and remarkable zeal and diligence, and very exemplary in the whole of his conversation. Besides his Answer to Dr. Trapp, he was the author of "Observations upon the Conduct of the Clergy in Relation to the Thirty-Nine Articles, with an Essay towards a Real Protestant Establishment;" also "A Letter to the People of England;"[207] and likewise "Hymns for Christian Worship, 1742." He was also the author of about half a dozen other pamphlets, tracts, and sermons.

[207] _Evangelical Magazine_, 1814, p. 304.

Want of space makes it impossible to give an outline of Mr. Seagrave's reply to Dr. Trapp; but three brief extracts from this scarce production may be welcome.

"Little or nothing was objected to the Methodists, by the
clergy, while they continued _in_ our churches, excepting
some disorders and inconveniences arising, by their means, to
our places of worship; but, from the time they unexpectedly
undertook to preach in fields, and in a manner not altogether
favourable to _ecclesiastical maxims_ and _church authority_,
they have commenced impostors, enthusiasts, and novelists. They
have likewise acquired very additional blame for asserting
that they discern several valuable and worthy Christians
amongst Dissenters of every branch. To which I reply: (1) Does
preaching in a field _annul_ that character or _commission_
of a minister, in all respects ordained like the rest, which
divines themselves call an _indelible character_? A discovery
seems to be made, that the exercise of a minister's function
subsists no longer than he shall _absolutely_ coincide with
the majority of his brethren, or shall _think_ as his diocesan
_thinks_. (2) The Dissenters have mostly _kept_ the old truths
which _now_ begin to be discovered. Why should we confine _all_
religion, and _all_ learning, and _all_ knowledge to our _own_
Church? The Methodists think they see _more_ religion and real
knowledge at present amongst the Dissenters than (I am sorry to
say it) is _commonly_ seen in our own Church; and they have the
impartiality not to deny it."

"I shall not deny that instances of folly are imputable to the
Methodists. Persons have sung psalms in streets and corners; an
indiscretion this, but no crime. We ought to balance the _bad_
part with the _good_. Nothing but obstinacy and envy can deny
that a _great_ reformation has arisen upon the manners of the
age by the _itinerant's_ preaching. If the gospel be preached
in the church, it is well and desirable; but, when our clergy
_leave the old truths_, and are fallen into the scheme of Deism,
though they may not discern it, men have a right to hear the
truth in _the field_, or in a _meeting-house_, supposing they
can find it nowhere else."

One more extract, partly aimed at Dr. Trapp as a pluralist, must suffice.

"Nothing can weaken the credit of any clergy so much as
_their own indiscretions_ and _exorbitancy_ of ambition. When
they afford suspicion of their being lovers of themselves,
and negligent of their respective flocks; when they break
the regularity of their own church by _pluralities_,
_dispensations_, and _other enormities_; and, above all,
when they are actually fallen aside from their foundation by
_departing from their own constituent articles_, a solemn
subscription notwithstanding,--this really may and ought to
weaken and impair, if not the _Church_, yet certainly the
reputation of such in it, who harbour the present _rash_ and
_overbearing_ principles.[208]

[208] In the _Weekly Miscellany_, for June 30, 1739, there
appeared a long article, of two pages, probably written by Dr.
Trapp himself. The writer says it would be foolish to answer every
"half-witted murderer of paper;" and therefore Trapp refuses to
reply to "Seagrave's Answer." The present article, however, would
serve in lieu of a mere formal rejoinder. Two sentences were as
follows:--Seagrave "abuses the clergy with much rudeness and
insolence; and, at the same time, pays his compliments to the
Dissenters, as if the learning and orthodoxy of the nation rested
chiefly, nay, almost only, in them." Again: "Pluralities are the
stale topic of every ignorant creature who hates the Church.
Pluralities are _necessary_ in many cases, _highly expedient_ in
others; nor could the Church well subsist without them."

It is time to return to Whitefield on the playground of the London rabble, Kennington Common. He writes:--

"1739, Wednesday, May 2. Preached this evening to above ten
thousand, at Kennington Common, and spent the remainder of
the evening in conference with our brethren in Fetter Lane
Society. Our brethren, who have fallen into errors, have left us
voluntarily.

"Thursday, May 3. Preached, at six in the evening, at
Kennington, and great power was amongst us. The audience was
more numerous and silent than yesterday.

"Saturday, May 5. Preached yesterday and to-day at Kennington
Common, to about twenty thousand hearers, who were very much
affected.

"Sunday, May 6. Preached this morning in Moorfields, to about
twenty thousand people, who were very quiet and attentive, and
much affected. Went to public worship morning and evening; and,
at six, preached at Kennington. Such a sight I never saw before.
I believe there were no less than fifty thousand people, near
four-score coaches, besides great numbers of horses. There was
an awful silence among the people. God gave me great enlargement
of heart. I continued my discourse for an hour and a half.

"Tuesday, May 8. Preached in the evening, as usual, on
Kennington Common. Before I set out from town, it rained very
hard; but when I came to the Common, I saw, to my great
surprise, above twenty thousand people. Except for a few
moments, the sun shone out upon us; and I trust the Sun of
righteousness arose on some with healing in His wings.

"Wednesday, May 9. Waited at noon upon the trustees for Georgia.
They received me with the utmost civility, agreed to everything
I asked, and gave a grant of five hundred acres of land, to me
and my successors for ever, for the use of the Orphan House.
At night, God enabled me to preach to about twenty thousand,
for above an hour, at Kennington. The hearers contributed most
cheerfully and liberally towards the Orphan House. I was one of
the collectors. It would have delighted any one to see with what
eagerness and cheerfulness the people came up both sides of the
eminence on which I stood, and afterwards to the coach doors,
to throw in their mites. When we came home, we found we had
collected above £47, amongst which were £16 in halfpence.

"Thursday, May 10. Preached at Kennington, but it rained most
part of the day. There were not above ten thousand people, and
thirty coaches.

"Friday, May 11. Preached at Kennington to a larger audience
than last night, and collected £26 15s. 6d. for the Orphan House.

"Saturday, May 12. Agreed to-day, for myself and eleven others,
to go on board the _Elizabeth_, Captain Allen, to Pennsylvania,
where I design to preach the gospel in my way to Georgia, and
to buy provisions for my Orphan House. Many came to me in the
morning, telling me what God had done for their souls by my
preaching in the fields. In the evening, I preached to about
twenty thousand at Kennington. I offered Jesus Christ to all
that could apply Him to their hearts by faith.

"Sunday, May 13. Preached this morning to a prodigious number
of people in Moorfields, and collected for the orphans £52 19s.
6d., above £20 of which was in halfpence. Indeed, they almost
wearied me in receiving their mites, and they were more than one
man could carry home. Went to public worship twice, and preached
in the evening to near sixty thousand people.[209] Many went
away because they could not hear. After sermon, I made another
collection of £29 17s. 8d.

[209] The _Weekly Miscellany_ for May 19th says: "On Sunday
last, during the time of Mr. Whitefield's preaching on
Kennington Common, a well-dressed man dropped down dead, who was
said to be a householder near the Park, Southwark. Two or three
others fainted away in the crowd, with the heat."

"Monday, May 14. Spent most of this day in visiting some
friends, and settling my Georgia affairs. Spent the evening very
agreeably with several Quakers. How much comfort do those lose
who converse with none but such as are of their own communion!

"Tuesday, May 15. Preached this evening at Kennington.
Notwithstanding the rain, the people stood very attentive.

"Wednesday, May 16. Sent a Quaker to be baptized by my dear
brother, Mr. Stonehouse. Waited upon the honourable trustees,
who still treated me with the utmost civility. Dined with some
serious Quakers, and preached at Kennington, and have reason to
bless God, more and more, for the order and devotion of those
that come to hear the word.[210]

[210] On the same day, Whitefield and Charles Wesley attended a
Moravian meeting at Fetter Lane. Charles says, "A dispute arose
about lay-preaching. Many, particularly Bray and Fish, were
zealous for it. Mr. Whitefield and I declared against it." (C.
Wesley's Journal.)

"Thursday, May 17. Preached, after several invitations thither,
at Hampstead Heath, about five miles from London. The audience
was of the politer sort. Most were attentive, but some mocked.

"Friday, May 18. Dined with several of the Moravian Church,
and could not avoid admiring their great simplicity, and deep
experience in the inward life. At six, I preached in a very
large open place in Shadwell, being much pressed by many to go
thither. I believe there were upwards of twenty thousand people.
At first, through the greatness of the throng, there was a
little hurry; but afterwards all was hushed and silent. Near £20
was collected for the Orphan House. Received an excellent letter
from Mr. Ralph Erskine, a field-preacher of the Scots Church, a
noble soldier of the Lord Jesus Christ.

"Saturday, May 19. Dined at Clapham with a Quaker. Preached in
the evening at Kennington Common, to about fifteen thousand
people, who were very attentive and affected.[211] Afterwards,
I spent two hours at Fetter Lane Society, where we had a most
useful conference concerning the necessity of every Christian to
have some particular calling, whereby he may be a useful member
of the society to which he belongs. We all agreed to this. For
my own part, I think if a man will not labour, neither ought he
to eat. To be so intent on pursuing the one thing needful, as
to neglect providing for those of our own households, is to be
righteous over-much.

[211] His text was, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee." (C.
Wesley's Journal.)

"Sunday, May 20. Went with our brethren of Fetter Lane
Society to St. Paul's, and received the holy sacrament, as a
testimony that we adhered to the Church of England. Preached
at Moorfields[212] and Kennington Common, and, at both places,
collected near £50 for the Orphan House. A visible alteration
is made in the behaviour of the people; for, though there were
near fifteen thousand in the morning, and double the number in
the afternoon, they were as quiet as though there had not been
above fifty persons present. I did not meet with a moment's
interruption. I could say of the assembly, as Jacob did on
another occasion, 'Surely God is in this place.'"

[212] On the same day, Charles Wesley writes: "I received the
sacrament at St. Paul's, with best part of our Society." (C.
Wesley's Journal.) Whitefield's sermon at Moorfields was from the
text, Luke xix. 9, 10, and was immediately published, with the
title, "An Exhortation to come and see Jesus. A Sermon preached at
Moorfields, May 20, 1739. By George Whitefield, A.B., of Pembroke
College, Oxford. London: printed for C. Whitefield, in 1739." (12mo.
14 pp.)

On Monday, May 21st, Whitefield set out on a short preaching excursion into the three counties of Hertford, Buckingham, and Northampton; but, before following him, it may be useful to pause, and to ponder these marvellous extracts from the young preacher's Journal. Are they not unique? Is there any other man, except Whitefield, whose diary, for nineteen consecutive days, contains a series of statements like the foregoing? There can be little doubt that Whitefield was always in danger of over-estimating the number of his hearers. It is one of the peculiarities of his Journal and letters to say there were _nearly_ a certain number, rather than to say there were _more_ than a _lower_ number. But, after making ample deductions on this account, the crowds attending his ministry were enormous. Dr. Trapp, during these three weeks, was doing his utmost, in his three metropolitan churches, to bring upon Whitefield the ridicule and contempt of the London populace; but his priestly effort was a failure. The more Trapp denounced the preacher, the greater were the congregations that ran to hear him. Dr. Trapp was vigorously assisted by Dr. Hooker, the conductor of the _Weekly Miscellany_, which was then the principal newspaper of the Church of England. On May 5th, one of its columns was filled with "Queries to Mr. Whitefield," concerning "Principles, Doctrines, Articles of Faith, Motives, and Extraordinary Light," full of banter and ridicule. On May 12, nearly two pages of the comparatively small newspaper were used in denouncing Whitefield and his proceedings. Speaking of Whitefield, it says:--

"Immediately after his ordination to the _priesthood_; without
a license from any bishop; contrary to all the rules of the
Christian Church; contrary to the canons and constitutions of
our own Church, which so lately gave him his orders; contrary
to the laws of the land,--he goes strolling about the kingdom,
shewing the greatest contempt for our excellent liturgy, and
all forms of prayer, and using extemporary effusions; preaching
doctrines different from those which he subscribed before the
bishop, with an unparalleled degree of vanity and vainglory;
extolling himself, and, with the most unchristian spirit of
censoriousness, undervaluing and blaming the _established_
clergy."

In reference to the immense congregations daily assembled on Kennington Common, the same article remarks:--

"If Whitefield and the Wesleys are permitted to hold their
_conventicles_ at pleasure, and to ramble up and down, singing
psalms, and preaching in the open streets, or in the more open
fields, wanton curiosity will carry thousands to hear them;
hundreds of the ignorant multitude will innocently be corrupted;
and the preachers' vanity and enthusiasm, if possible, will be
still more inflamed by a fond imagination that their hearers are
all _admirers_, whereas most of them would as eagerly attend
any other monster equally as strange as that of a clergyman
preaching in a _gown_ and _cassock_ on a common."

On May 26, nearly two pages of the same newspaper were again filled with virulent abuse of Whitefield. The following is an extract:--

"I am told that this unfortunate young man is _forced_ upon this
method of preaching. Hard, indeed, if it be so; but I take it
to be much harder upon _us_ that we must be _forced_ to answer
such impertinence. Have the bishops, from whom alone he ought
to take directions, _commanded_ him to turn _mountebank_? Is he
compelled by military force, or by the violence of the people,
to mount the stage? On the contrary, does he not put out _bills_
in the daily papers, and invite people to assemble together
contrary to law? I know of no force but an _internal_ one--an
impetuous impulse, from a degree of _pride and vanity_ that is
equalled by nothing but his weakness and folly."

This turbid wrathfulness was far from pleasant; but it failed in its purpose to put an end to Whitefield's preaching in the open air, and equally failed in diminishing the number of Whitefield's hearers. No doubt his action was irregular; perhaps, also, in his impetuous zeal, he sometimes indulged in censorious remarks respecting the clergy of the Established Church. As yet he was not a Dissenter; but his open connection with the Moravian brotherhood in Fetter Lane, and his repeated interviews with Quakers, fairly exposed him to the reasonable suspicion of his enemies, that he had Dissenting proclivities. He himself seems to have seen and felt this, and hence the somewhat ostentatious sacramental attendance at St. Paul's on May 20th. All this must be conceded; and it must likewise be allowed, that one of Whitefield's besetting sins, or rather one of his infirmities, was an unconsciously indulged inflatedness of mind, which led him (innocently enough on his own part) to the employment of bombastic expressions, and to the utterance of sentiments often silly, sometimes fanatical, and generally such as a more prudent and worldly wise man would not have used. It would be idle, it would be dishonest, to deny that his published Journals abound in such-like faults, though they have not in the present work been quoted. But what then? Was it right, was it fair, to treat him with so much contempt and ridicule? His moral character was without a speck. His intellect and literary attainments, though not equal to those of his friend Wesley, made him immensely superior to scores and hundreds who were enjoying rich livings in the Established Church. He had no wish to share their ecclesiastical emoluments, but was quite content with his mongrel parish among the swamps of far-distant Georgia. It is true, he desired to have the use of some of their churches, to which he was not at all entitled; but he desired even this not for his own benefit, but rather that he might have the opportunity of proclaiming, trumpet-tongued, some of the forgotten truths of the word of God, and that he might collect a little money for the orphans in Georgia. The clergy had a perfect right to deny him the use of their churches. Perhaps, being so young a man, it was hardly modest for him to expect the privilege of using them; but, having no other place in which to preach, why should he not be allowed to preach in Kingswood, at Rose Green, on Hannam Mount, in Moorfields, on Kennington Common, and Hampstead Heath? His zeal in the cause of Christ, and his love for the souls of men, were not fictitious. They were divinely implanted principles, the results of a genuine conversion, and which ought not to be repressed. Wherever Whitefield met a man, he met a sinner redeemed by the sacrificial death of his Divine Redeemer. As yet he had not become a Calvinist. On Kennington Common, he felt no restraint in "offering Jesus Christ to all" the thousands there assembled. Christ had died for them. Whitefield longed to save them. Why should doctors of divinity, and the writers of anonymous articles in the Church of England newspaper, dare to hinder him?

Whitefield has mentioned his collections for the Orphan House in Georgia; and some, considering the hugeness of his congregations, may think them scarcely worth recording; but two other facts must be borne in mind. The age in which Whitefield lived was not one remarkable for its charitable contributions; and, further, money then was at least three or four times more valuable than money now. Multiply by such a number the amount of Whitefield's collections, and their comparison with _some_ of the Methodist collections of the present day will not dishonour them.

It may reasonably be asked, what was there in this youthful evangelist to draw around him such prodigious congregations? His warmest friends must admit that he was far from being perfect. Not only Churchmen, but Dissenters, saw his faults. It is a curious fact, that Dr. Doddridge, in some respects the most distinguished Nonconformist of the age, was present at one of the Kennington Common meetings which have been already mentioned. In a letter dated "Epsom, May 24, 1739," he writes:--

"I saw Mr. Whitefield preaching on Kennington Common, last week,
to an attentive multitude, and heard much of him at Bath; but,
supposing him sincere and in good earnest, I still fancy that
he is but a _weak_ man,--much too positive, says rash things,
and is bold and enthusiastic. I think, what he says and does
comes but little short of an assumption of inspiration or
infallibility."[213]

[213] Doddridge's Correspondence, vol. iii., p. 381.

In this unfavourable opinion, Dr. Doddridge was not alone. Dr. Watts, the other great Dissenter then living, in a letter dated "August 15, 1739," wrote as follows:--

"I wish Mr. Whitefield would not have risen above any pretences
to the ordinary influences of the Holy Spirit, unless he could
have given some better evidences of it. He has acknowledged to
me in conversation that he knows an impression on his mind to be
divine, though he cannot give me any convincing proofs of it. I
said many things to warn him of the danger of delusion, and to
guard him against the irregularities and imprudences which youth
and zeal might lead him into; and told him plainly that, though
I believed him very sincere, and desirous to do good to souls,
yet I was not convinced of any extraordinary call he had to some
parts of his conduct. He seemed to take this free discourse in a
very candid and modest manner."[214]

[214] Milner's "Life and Times of Dr. Isaac Watts," p. 638.

A witness of another kind may be introduced. Samuel Johnson was nearly of the same age as Whitefield. Both had been students in Pembroke College, Oxford. Johnson was fallible, faulty, and full of personal prejudices; but he was a man of great ability, and of unblemished truthfulness. He knew Whitefield, and was not unqualified to pronounce an opinion concerning him. That opinion must be judged by its own merits; but being expressed by a distinguished contemporary, it deserves attention. Boswell, Johnson's biographer, writes:--

"Of his fellow-collegian, the celebrated Mr. George Whitefield,
he said: 'Whitefield's popularity is chiefly owing to the
peculiarity of his manner. He would be followed by crowds, were
he to wear a night-cap in the pulpit, or were he to preach from
a tree."[215] "He never drew as much attention as a mountebank
does; he did not draw attention by doing better than others,
but by doing what was strange. Were Astley to preach a sermon
standing upon his head on a horse's back, he would collect a
multitude to hear him; but no wise man would say he made a
better sermon for that. I never treated Whitefield's ministry
with contempt: I believe he did good. He devoted himself to the
lower classes of mankind, and among them he was of use. But when
familiarity and noise claim the praise due to knowledge, art,
and elegance, we must beat down such pretensions.'"[216]

[215] Boswell's "Life of Johnson," chap. xvii.

[216] Ibid., chap. xliii.