Chapter VII: Part 7

One of his publications, issued in 1742, was entitled, “Enthusiasm described and cautioned against. A Sermon preached at the Old Brick Meeting-house in Boston, in 1742. With a Letter to the Rev. Mr. James Davenport.” (8vo. 35 pp.) Mr.Davenport was the minister of Southhold, Long Island; and, during Whitefield’s previous visit to America, became extremely popular in the great revival. Among other places, he visited New Haven, and encouraged the agitations and outcries, which at that time attracted so much attention. In 1742, the Assembly of Connecticut, deeming him under the influence of enthusiastic impulses, directed the governor to transport him out of the colony to the place whence he came. Two years afterwards, he published a confession and retractation. Whitefield is not mentioned in Dr. Chauncy’s sermon; but there can be little doubt, that it was levelled against him as well as against James Davenport.

Twelve months after this, Whitefield was made one of the most prominent figures in another of Chauncy’s works: “Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England. By Charles Chauncy, D.D. Boston, 1743.” (8vo. 454 pp.) It is impossible to give here any general outline of Chauncy’s book, but a few facts and extracts may be useful.

Dr. Chauncy declares that he “could never see upon what warrant, either from _Scripture_ or _reason_, Mr. Whitefield went about preaching from one province and parish to another, where the gospel was already preached, and by persons as well qualified for the work as he could pretend to be.” He inclines to think, however, that Whitefield was moved by conceit and a love of popular applause. “The inconveniences, which had arisen from this method of acting, had been so great, that the Assembly of Connecticut had passed an Act, restraining both _ordained ministers_, and _licensed candidates_, from preaching in _other men’s parishes_, without _their_ and their _church’s_ consent; and wholly prohibiting the _exhortations of illiterate laymen_.” “Most, if not all, of the present _itinerants_ are swollen and ready to burst with _spiritual pride_. As to their _mission_, they have none, except from their own fond imagination.” “Mr. Whitefield seldom preached, but he had something or other in his sermon, against _unconverted ministers_; and what he delivered had an evident tendency to fill the minds of the people with evil surmisings against the ministers, as though they were, for the most part, _carnal_, _unregenerate_ wretches. He often spake of them, in the lump, as _Pharisees_, _enemies of Christ Jesus_, and the _worst enemies_ he had.” “There never was a time, since the settlement of New England, wherein there was so much _bitter and rash judging_――parents condemning their children, and children their parents; husbands their wives, and wives their husbands; masters their servants, and servants their masters; ministers their people, and people their ministers. _Censoriousness_, to a _high degree_, is the _constant appendage_ of this _religious commotion_.” “I have all along encouraged a hope of Mr. Whitefield as a _real Christian_. And he has certainly been _zealous_ and _active_ beyond most of his _brethren_. But has he not, through the _inexperience of youth_, and an _intemperature of zeal_, been betrayed into such things as cannot but be condemned? In particular, I was always afraid, lest people, from him, should learn to give heed to _impulses_ and _impressions_, and, by degrees, come to _revelations_, and other _extraordinaries_ of this kind.”

“Another _bad_ thing is the _confusion_ that has been so common, of late, in some of our houses of worship. Says a friend, in giving an account of things, he was himself a witness to, ‘The meeting was carried on with great confusion; some _screaming_ out in distress and anguish; some _praying_; others _singing_; some _jumping up and down_ the house, while others were _exhorting_; some _lying along_ on the floor, and others _walking_ and _talking_: the whole with a very great noise, to be heard at a mile’s distance, and continued almost the whole night.’”[115]

Dr. Chauncy proceeds to mention the _dangerous errors_ now prevalent among the people; namely: 1. “That which supposes ministers, if not _converted_, incapable of being _instruments of spiritual good_ to men’s souls. Mr. Whitefield very freely vented this error!”[116] 2. “A _presumptuous dependence on the blessed Spirit_; appearing in the following particulars: so depending on the help of the Spirit as to _despise learning_;” also, so as to “oppose a diligent use of _appointed means_;” and so as to “reflect _dishonour upon the written revelations of God_.” 3. “The making _assurance essential to conversion_.” 4. “The connecting a knowledge of the _time of conversion_ with the _thing itself_ as though there could not be the one without the other.” 5. “The _vilifying of good works_.” 6. “Decrying _sanctification_ as an _evidence of justification_.”

Dr. Chauncy inserts a “proclamation for a day of public fasting and prayer,” issued, on the 9th of February, 1743, by the Honourable Jonathan Law, Esq., Governor of Connecticut, in which the ministers and people of the colony are exhorted to “confess and bewail” all their sins; “particularly, the great neglect and contempt of the gospel and the ministry thereof, and the prevailing of a spirit of error, disorder, unpeaceableness, pride, bitterness, uncharitableness, censoriousness, disobedience, calumniating and reviling of authority; also divisions, contentions, separations, and confusions in churches; and injustice, idleness, evil-speaking, lasciviousness, and all other vices and impieties which abound among us.”

The fifth and last part of Dr. Chauncy’s book contains “the best expedients to promote the interest of religion at this day.” He quotes, with approval, some of Jonathan Edwards’s recommendations, such as “confessing of faults on both sides;” “the exercise of extraordinary meekness and forbearance;” “prayer with fasting;” “care taken that the colleges be so regulated as to be nurseries of piety;” and “taking heed that, while fulfilling the external duties of devotion――as praying, hearing, singing, and attending religious meetings――there must be proportionable care to abound in _moral duties_, as acts of righteousness, truth, meekness, forgiveness, and love towards our neighbour.” To these recommendations, Dr. Chauncy adds some of his own, namely: 1. “The putting a stop to _itinerant preaching_.” 2. “So to guard church pulpits, that no raw, unqualified persons might be suffered, upon any terms, to go into them.” 3. To guard “against a wrong use of the passions.” 4. The exercise of a “_strict discipline_ in our churches.” 5. “A due care to prove all things, that we may hold fast that which is good.”

These are lengthy, though imperfect, extracts; but, if an apology be needed, it may be found in the facts that Dr. Chauncy was one of the most influential men in New England, and that the effects produced by his book were greater than can be well imagined. He prefixes to his work a list of nearly eight hundred subscribers, including four governors of colonies, twenty-seven “honourables,” and a hundred and forty-seven “reverends.”

Whitefield published a reply to Chauncy’s book; but, strangely enough, the reply is not in his collected works, and seems to have been unknown to all his biographers. The following was its title: “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Chauncy, on account of some passages relating to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, in his book entitled, ‘Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England.’ By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxon. Boston, 1745.” (4to. 14 pp.) The letter is dated, “Portsmouth, Piscataqua, November 19, 1744;” and the preface to it, “Boston, January 18, 1745.”

The spirit breathing in Whitefield’s pamphlet is beautifully Christian; and, wherever he defends himself, he does it most successfully. He confesses, however, that he was wrong, when he said, “_Many_, nay, _most_ of the New England preachers did not experimentally know Christ;” and, in reference to Tillotson, he says, “I acknowledge that I spake of his _person_ in too strong terms, and too rashly condemned his _state_, when I ought only to have censured his _doctrine_.” The following is Whitefield’s concluding paragraph:――

“I write this under the immediate views of a happy eternity;
and rejoice in the prospect of that day, wherein I shall appear
before a compassionate Judge, who will cover all my infirmities
with the mantle of His everlasting righteousness, and graciously
accept my poor and weak efforts to promote His kingdom. I beg,
reverend sir, an interest in your prayers, that I may glorify
God, whether by life or death; and, praying that you may be
taught of God to preach the truth as it is in Jesus, turn many
to righteousness, and shine in the kingdom of heaven, as the
stars in the firmament, for ever and ever, I subscribe myself,
reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate, humble servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Other hostile publications must be mentioned. The Congregational ministers of Massachusetts were accustomed to meet at Boston on the day of the opening of the colonial legislature, to converse on matters of general interest, and to hear a sermon from one of their number previously appointed. The convention of 1743 had for its moderator the Rev. Nathaniel Eells, and by its authority the following was published: “The Testimony of the Pastors of the Churches in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England, at their Annual Convention in Boston, May 25, 1743, against several Errors in Doctrine and Disorders in Practice, which have of late obtained in various parts of the Land.” The doctrinal errors were attaching importance to secret impulses of the mind, without due regard to the written word; that none are converted, but such as know they are converted, and the time when; that assurance is of the essence of saving faith; and that sanctification is no evidence of justification. The disorders in practice were: Ordained ministers and young candidates going from place to place, and preaching without the knowledge, or contrary to the leave, of the stated pastors in such places; private persons of no education and but low attainments, without any regular call, taking upon themselves to be preachers of the word; ordaining or separating persons to the work of the evangelical ministry at large, without any relation to a particular charge; separation from the particular flocks to which persons belong, to join themselves with, and support lay exhorters and itinerants; and assuming the prerogatives of God, to look into the hearts of their neighbours, and to censure their brethren, especially their ministers, as Pharisees and Arminians.

As an antidote to the decisions of this convention, another publication was issued. On the 7th of July, 1743, ninety ministers met at Boston, chose Dr. Sewall as their moderator, and Thomas Prince as their secretary, and published “The Testimony and Advice of an Assembly of Pastors of Churches in New England, at a meeting in Boston, July 7, 1743, occasioned by the late happy Revival of Religion in many parts of the Land.” The “Testimony” was signed by sixty-eight of the ministers present, and was agreed to by forty-five who were absent.

After this there was a convention of laymen, who issued the following: “The Testimony and Advice of a Number of Laymen, respecting Religion and the Teachers of it. Addressed to the Pastors of New England.” The “Testimony” is dated “Boston, September 12, 1743.” Speaking of Whitefield, it says:――

“He came here in September, 1740, and, with indefatigable
industry, travelled through this province, preaching, begging,
and collecting from town to town. Though he was a man of a
weak mind, little learning, and no argument, yet, by means of
a somewhat crafty improvement of the advantageous circumstances
and character under which he arrived, and by his being somewhat
of an orator, and assuming an over-sanctified behaviour, by
great diligence, and by preaching frequently _memoriter_ and
with a vehemence unusual to the people of this province, he
gained upon their passions, and thereby wheedled himself into
their affections.”

After sneering at Whitefield as “the grand itinerant,” “the reverend bachelor of arts,” “the reverend youth,” and “the reverend stripling,” the “Testimony” finishes by exhorting the “pastors of New England,” to study the Scriptures, to acquire knowledge, to preach the gospel in its simplicity, to throw aside the use of technical terms, which neither they nor their hearers understand, and not to be “apish imitators of foreigners.”

All these were issued previous to Whitefield’s arrival in 1744; the following were published soon after:――

1. “A Letter from two neighbouring Associations of Ministers in the Country, to the Associated Ministers of Boston and Charlestown, relating to the admission of Mr. Whitefield into their pulpits.” The “letter” was dated December 26, 1744, and had the approbation of nineteen ministers. The following is an extract. Having assumed, as an undisputed truth, that great and grievous disorders had prevailed among the churches, through the influence of itinerants, they ask:――

“Brethren, are you satisfied that Mr. Whitefield approves not
of these disorders? Is he against separations? Is he an enemy to
enthusiasm? Do you find in him a disposition to the most plain
Christian duty, of humbly confessing and publicly retracting
his wicked and slanderous suggestions concerning the ministry,
and concerning our colleges, so much our glory? Do you find
him inclined to heal the unhappy divisions occasioned by his
former visit? Have you not, by opening your pulpit doors to this
gentleman, encouraged the weaker sort of people to expect the
like of their ministers?” etc., etc.

2. The next publication must be prefaced. The Rev. Edward Wigglesworth, D.D., was a man of distinguished talents, and, for the last two and twenty years, had been professor of divinity in Harvard College. The Rev. Edward Holyoke was president of the same college, and, as a scholar and a preacher, had gained a high reputation. During his former visit to America, Whitefield had preached before the professors and students of Harvard College with great power and acceptance; but, in his journal, subsequently published, there was the following paragraph:――

“The ministers and people of Connecticut seem to be more simple
and serious than those who live near Boston, especially in
those parts where I went. But I think the ministers preaching
almost universally by notes, is a certain mark they have in
a great measure lost the old spirit of preaching. For, though
all are not to be condemned who use notes, yet it is a sad
symptom of the decay of vital religion, when reading sermons
becomes fashionable where extempore preaching did once almost
universally prevail. When the spirit of prayer began to be
lost, then forms of prayer were invented; and I believe the
same observation will hold good as to preaching. As for the
universities, I believe it may be said their light is now become
darkness――darkness that may be felt――and is complained of by the
most godly ministers. I pray God these fountains may be purified,
and send forth pure streams to water the city of our God. The
Church of England is at a very low ebb; and, as far as I can
find, had people kept their primitive purity, it would scarce
have got a footing in New England. I have many evidences to
prove that most of the churches have been first set up by
immoral men, and such as would not submit to the discipline of
their congregations, or were corrupt in the faith. But I will
say no more about the poor Church of England. Most of her sons,
whether ministers or people, I fear, hate to be reformed.”

This evoked “A Testimony from the President and Professors, Tutors, and Hebrew Instructor of Harvard College, against the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield and his Conduct.” The “Testimony” is dated “December 28, 1744.” The faculty of Harvard College say, “We look upon Mr. Whitefield’s going about in an itinerant way, especially as he has so much of an enthusiastical turn of mind, as being utterly inconsistent with the peace and order, if not the very being, of the Churches of Christ.” Whitefield was charged with “enthusiasm,” and with being “an uncharitable, censorious, and slanderous man.” The faculty refer to his “reproachful reflections” on their college, and denounce his “rashness and his arrogance; his rashness,” say they, “in publishing such a disadvantageous character of us, because somebody had so informed him; and his arrogance, that such a young man as he should take upon him to tell what books we should allow our pupils to read.” They pronounce Whitefield’s assertion that “the light of the universities had become darkness,” a “most wicked and libellous falsehood;” and, in reference to his statement that many of the ministers of the country were unconverted, they say he is “guilty of gross breaches of the ninth commandment of the moral law.” They bear “testimony” against him as “a deluder of the people,” in the affair of contributions for the Orphan House; for he had led the people to believe that the orphans would be under his own immediate instruction, and yet “he had scarce been at the Orphan House for these four years.” And, in conclusion, they condemn his extempore preaching, and his itinerating, as “by no means proper.”

Whitefield replied to the “Testimony,” in a letter, dated “Boston, January 23, 1745.” He answers the accusation of the college faculty, that “he _conducted himself by dreams_;” and “usually governed himself by _sudden impulses and impressions_ on his mind.” As to his having slandered Harvard College, he says, he meant no more than President Holyoke did, when, speaking of the degeneracy of the times, in his sermon at the annual convention of ministers, May 28, 1741, he remarked: “Alas! how is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed! We have lost our first love; and, though religion is still in fashion with us, it is evident that the power of it is greatly decayed.” He further replies to the charges that he was “a deluder of the people,” and had “extorted money” from them for his Orphan House. He explains in what sense he was an “extempore preacher;” denies the charge that he was an “Antinomian;” and justifies his itinerancy. He concludes thus:――

“I am come to New England with no intention to meddle with, much
less to destroy, the order of the New England churches; or to
turn out the generality of their ministers, and re-settle them
with ministers from England, Scotland, and Ireland, as hath been
hinted in a late letter written by the Rev. Mr. Clap, rector of
Yale College. Such a thought never entered my heart. I have no
intention of setting up a party for myself, or to stir up people
against their pastors. Had not illness prevented, I had some
weeks ago departed from these coasts. But, as it is not a season
of the year for me to undertake a very long journey, and as I
have reason to think the great God daily blesses my poor labours,
I think it my duty to comply with the invitations that are sent
to me, and, as I am enabled, to preach the unsearchable riches
of Christ. This indeed, I delight in. It is my meat and my drink.
I esteem it more than my necessary food. This, I think, I may
do, as a minister of the King of kings, and a subject of his
present majesty King George, upon whose royal head I pray God
the crown may long flourish. And, as I have a right to preach,
so, I humbly apprehend, the people have a right to hear. If the
pulpits should be shut, blessed be God! the fields are open. I
can go without the camp, bearing the Redeemer’s sacred reproach.
I am used to this, and glory in it. At the same time, I ask
public pardon for any rash word I have dropped, or anything
I have written or done amiss. This leads me also to ask
forgiveness, gentlemen, if I have done you or your society, in
my Journal, any wrong. Be pleased to accept unfeigned thanks for
all tokens of respect you shewed me when here last. And, if you
have injured me in the “Testimony” you have published against
me and my conduct (as I think you have), it is already forgiven,
without asking, by, gentlemen, your affectionate, humble servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The whole of Whitefield’s letter is in his best style of writing. For _him_, it is terse and pointed; and, of course, it is respectful and Christian. Certainly it contains one retort, which, though perfectly fair, must have been especially stinging. The faculty of Harvard College published their “Testimony” to prove that Whitefield was “an enthusiast, a censorious, uncharitable person, and a deluder of the people;” and here Whitefield quietly reminds them that, on May 28, 1741, Mr. Holyoke, their president, preached a sermon, which was afterwards published, in which the following paragraph occurs, respecting himself and his friend Gilbert Tennent:――

“Those _two pious and valuable men of God_, who have been
lately laboring more abundantly among us, have been greatly
instrumental in the hands of God, in reviving His blessed work;
and many, no doubt, have been savingly converted from the error
of their ways, many more have been convicted, and all have been
in some measure roused from their lethargy.”

Whitefield’s reply to the “Testimony” of Harvard College was complete; but Harvard College, unfortunately, was not silenced. Hence the publication of the following unworthy production:――

3. “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, by way of Reply to his Answer to the College Testimony against him and his Conduct. By Edward Wigglesworth, D.D., Professor of Divinity in said College. To which is added the Reverend President’s Answer to the things charged upon him, by the said Mr. Whitefield, as Inconsistencies. Boston, New England, 1745.” (4to. 68 pp.) The president’s Answer is dated “February 20, 1745,” and Dr. Wigglesworth’s Letter, “April 22, 1745.” The former contains nothing that need be noticed; but the letter, written “in the name, and at the desire of the Reverend President and others of Harvard College,” must not be passed in silence.

Dr. Wigglesworth reiterates the charge of enthusiasm; he censures Whitefield for censuring Tillotson; and is angry because Whitefield had said, Harvard College, “in piety and true godliness,” was not much superior to the English Universities. He accuses Whitefield of uttering and writing “pernicious reflections upon the Ministers of the Churches of New England,” and says, “What you have done, and others who have followed your example, has had an effect more extensive and pernicious than any man could have imagined six years ago. Who could have believed, that, in such a country as this, such a spirit of jealousy and evil-surmising could have been raised, by the influence and example of a _young stranger_? Perhaps there is not now a single town in this province, and, probably, not in Connecticut, in which there are not numbers of people whose minds are under strong prejudices against their ministers; such prejudices as almost cut off all hope of their profiting by their sacred ministrations.”

Wigglesworth next attacks Whitefield respecting his Orphan House management and accounts; censures him for leaving the children; and tells him that his superintendents, Habersham and Barber, are “gentlemen of no name or character in these parts of New England, nor so much as known by name among multitudes of his contributors.” Itinerant preaching and its results are condemned; and then the divinity professor says: “You have in all parts of England and Wales, as far as your interest reached, formed your followers into bands and associations, after the _Moravian_ manner; and have set over them exhorters, superintendents, and visitors; and are yourself _Grand Moderator_ over all, when in England, and your dear brother Harris in your absence. So we may very reasonably conclude, that, whenever you think the good people of this country enough under your influence to bear it, you will throw off the mask here too, and endeavour to reduce us to the same model.”

Dr. Wigglesworth benignly concludes, by saying, “As you have been permitted to fall into repeated, deliberate, most public, comprehensive, and pernicious violations of the holy laws of God, I cannot persuade myself that any good could come of _private conferences_, but think you ought to give _satisfaction_ in as _public_ a manner as you have given _offence_.”

Whitefield lived long enough to requite this offensive imperiousness. Twenty-nine years afterwards, when the library of Harvard College was destroyed by fire, and while Wigglesworth was still divinity professor, Whitefield, forgetful of the past, did his utmost in begging books for the new library; and, four years later still, while Holyoke was yet president, had the noble revenge of being thanked, in the following minute, entered in the college records:――

“At a meeting of the President and Fellows of Harvard College,
August 22, 1768, the Rev. G. Whitefield having, in addition to
his former kindness to Harvard College, lately presented to the
library a new edition of his Journals, and having also procured
large benefactions from several benevolent and respectable
gentlemen, it was voted that the thanks of this corporation be
given to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, for these instances of candour
and generosity.”[117]

Unfortunately the list of controversial pamphlets is not exhausted. To those already noticed, the following must be added:――

4. “A Letter from the Rev. Nathaniel Henchman, Pastor of the First Church in Lynn, to the Rev. Stephen Chase, of Lynn End, giving his reasons for declining to admit the Rev. George Whitefield into his pulpit.” Mr. Henchman’s letter is dated “January 3, 1745.” The reverend writer was too angry to be polite. He speaks of “strolling itinerants, and swarms of mean animals called exhorters.” He resents Whitefield’s “slanderous treatment of our colleges,” and “the insufferable pride and vanity of the man.” “Who,” he asks, “ever equalled him in vain-glorious boasting?” and adds: “In one country, he is a true son of the Church of England; in a second, a staunch Presbyterian; and in a third, a strong Congregationalist.” He suspects Whitefield of coming to America “to make a purse for himself, by begging, with great solemnity, for his poor little ones at the Orphan House in Georgia,――the most ill-projected scheme since darkness was on the face of the deep, to found an Orphan House in an infant and expiring colony, and in the heart of the enemy’s country, though it answered well his mendicant intention.” Henchman also accuses Whitefield of a design “to raze the foundation of our churches, and change the religion of New England.”

5. “The Sentiments and Resolution of an Association of Ministers, convened at Weymouth, January 15, 1745, concerning the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield.” In addition to accusations already mentioned, the “Association” find fault with Whitefield, because, though he had condemned persons who “cried out in the public assemblies,” yet, when preaching in country towns, if such an incident occurred, he would at once raise his voice as if he were trying to vie with the people in screaming; the result of which was, the cries waxed louder and louder, till the whole assembly was thrown into confusion. The Association were “surprised and grieved,” that he, a priest of the Church of England, should administer the Lord’s supper in Congregational churches. They condemned his practice of singing hymns in the public roads, when riding from town to town, and lamented, that, in almost every town where he had preached, there had been more or less alienation between the minister and people. They came to the “resolution,” that, they would not “directly or indirectly encourage Mr. Whitefield to preach, either publicly or privately, in their respective parishes.” This was signed by fifteen ministers.

6. Another pamphlet contained “The Testimony of an Association of Ministers, convened at Marlborough, January 22nd, 1745;” and also the Testimony of another “Association of Ministers in the county of Bristol.” The two Testimonies unitedly were signed by nineteen ministers, who came to the general conclusion, that “the devil himself, with all his cunning, could not take a more direct step to overthrow the churches of New England, hurt religion, and destroy the souls of men, than Whitefield had taken.”

7. “The Declaration of the Faculty of Yale College,” dated “February 25, 1745.” The “Faculty” endorse “The Testimony” of their brethren of Harvard College. They also especially insist upon two things: 1. “That Whitefield and other itinerants had laid a scheme to turn the generality of ministers out of their places, and to introduce a new set, attached to Whitefield; because Whitefield had stated, that, the generality of ministers were unconverted, and that all unconverted ministers were half beasts and half devils, and could no more be the means of any man’s conversion than a dead man could beget living children.” 2. That Whitefield had “publicly told the people in New England, that they might expect, in a little time, a supply of ministers from his Orphan House; and that he had told Edwards, of Northampton, that he intended to bring over a number of young men from England to be ordained by the Tennents.”

8. This publication was followed by “A Letter from the Rev. Mr. Clap, Rector of Yale College, in New-Haven, to the Rev. Mr. Edwards, of Northampton, expostulating with him for his injurious reflections in a late Letter to a Friend, and shewing that Mr. Edwards, in contradicting the Rector, plainly contradicts himself.”

Mr. Clap was a strong-minded man, and, in the higher branches of mathematics, had no equal in America, except Professor Winthorpe. He constructed the first orrery made in that country. The pith of his present pamphlet was a dispute between him and Edwards, as to what Whitefield had said respecting his design “to turn the generality of the ministers of New England out of their pulpits, and to bring ministers from England, Scotland, and Ireland,” to supply their places. Besides displaying considerable bitterness between the two disputants, the publication of Rector Clap exhibited Whitefield in an obnoxious light.

9. “Mr. Pickering’s Letter to Mr. Whitefield, touching his Relation to the Church of England, his Impulses, or Impressions, and the present unhappy state of things.” The letter of the Rev. Theophilus Pickering, minister at Ipswich, is dated “February 12, 1745,” and the writer objects to Whitefield, 1. Because he is a clergyman of the Church of England; 2. Because of his “dreams and impressions;” 3. Because Whitefield’s “travelling services will be more _hurtful_ than _beneficial_.”

10. “A Letter to the Second Church and Congregation in Scituate; written by their Reverend Pastor, shewing some Reasons why he doth not invite the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield into his Pulpit.” The Letter is signed “N. Eells,” and is dated “April 15, 1745.” Mr. Eells had been the pastor of the Church at Scituate forty years and ten months; and his “Reasons” were――1. Whitefield “did not stand right in the gospel of Christ; for, by his episcopal ordination, he received no authority to itinerate, as he had done for years past; and the authority he had received from the bishop who ordained him, he had forfeited, and was now suspended from the ministry of the Church of England, and from communion at the Lord’s table.” 2. “The manner of his itinerancy was not according to Scripture, but was rather a blemish, reproach, and scandal to the ministry; for he had no authority from Christ, either _mediately or immediately_; and he spent his time in places where the people did not want him.” 3. “He had made it manifest that he was no real friend to the ministers and churches of this land; for he had represented the pastors of these churches to be men of no grace, without the knowledge of Christ, and so unqualified for the ministry; he had preached in places at the invitation of factious persons, contrary to the mind of their pious and orthodox pastors; he had favoured disorders in the public worship of God, such as screaming, etc.; and he had encouraged separation and separatists from our churches.”

Such are specimens of the publications against Whitefield. We have met with three only in his favour.

1. “An Apology on behalf of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, offering a fair Solution of certain Difficulties, objected against some parts of his Public Conduct, in point of Moral Honesty and Uniformity with his own Subscriptions and Ordination Vows: as the said exceptions are set forth in a late Pamphlet entitled, ‘A Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, publicly calling upon him to vindicate his Conduct, or confess his Faith,’ signed L. K. By Thomas Foxcroft, A.M., one of the Pastors of the first Church in Boston. Being several Letters, written for the satisfaction of a Friend, and published by Desire. Boston, 1745.” (4to. 38 pp.)

For twenty-eight years, Mr. Foxcroft had been the minister of the Church just mentioned, and, strangely enough, Dr. Chauncy was his colleague. Mr. Foxcroft’s first letter is dated “December 31, 1744,” and his second and third were written during the fortnight next ensuing. He shews, that, “Bishops of the Church of England have power to grant licenses of wider extent than the narrow district of a single parish, to any ordained minister they think proper, who, in virtue of such license, may travel from place to place as they think fit.” “The sending forth of itinerant preachers was a practice of the Church of England at the beginning of the Reformation; and has been remarkably revived of late years, particularly with relation to foreign parts.” “Mr. Whitefield is not the only episcopal itinerant in America. In the Abstract of the Proceedings of the Society for Propagating the Gospel, for 1743, Mr. Morris is expressly named ‘_Itinerant Missionary_,’ in Connecticut; Mr. Punderson, ‘_Itinerant Missionary_,’ in New England; and Mr. Lindsay, ‘_Itinerant Missionary_,’ in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is no violation, therefore, of the original commission from the Bishop, to act beyond the limits of a particular cure or charge, or even in the character of an itinerant. And, with regard to special license,” continues Mr. Foxcroft, “I question whether the itinerant missionaries above-mentioned have had this any more than Mr. Whitefield.”

2. “An Inquiry into the Itinerancy and the Conduct of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, an Itinerant Preacher: vindicating the former against the charge of _unlawfulness_ and _inexpediency_, and the latter against some aspersions, which have been frequently cast upon him. By William Hobby, A.M., Pastor of the first Church in Reading. Boston, 1745.” (8vo. 28 pp.)

Mr. Hobby was a graduate of Harvard College, and was a fluent and fervid preacher. He died in 1765, aged fifty-seven. Passing over that part of his pamphlet which refers to the _lawfulness_ of itinerancy, it may be stated, that he successfully replies to the attacks on Whitefield respecting his Orphan House accounts, his being an enthusiast and ecclesiastical chameleon,[118] and his aspersion of ministers. With regard to the accusation that he was a _perjurer_, because he had sworn to prosecute his appeal against Commissary Garden’s censure, and had not done so, Mr. Hobby says, “Whitefield exerted himself to the utmost to get a hearing in the court at home (which he now proves by an affidavit, taken before the Lord Mayor of London by himself and his solicitor), but all in vain.”

Mr. Hobby comes to the following conclusion respecting Whitefield: “In most things he is highly commendable; in more justifiable; and in almost all very excusable. I say in _almost all_, for I am willing to allow Mr. Whitefield has his foibles and imperfections. He is a man of like passions with others. What then――shall I condemn him because he is not perfect? Alas! what shall I then do with myself and others? The sun itself has its spots: shall we therefore try to _put out_ the sun? Vain attempt! Or shall I _shut my eyes_ against its light? Ridiculous and absurd! Neither would I shut my eyes against Mr. Whitefield’s excellences, and only open them to behold his weaknesses.”

3. “Invitations to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield from the Eastern Consociation of the County of Fairfield. With a Letter from the Rev. Mr. Samuel Cooke,[119] of Stratfield, in Connecticut, to a Minister in Boston, concerning the former success of Mr. Whitefield’s Ministry there. Boston, 1745.” (8vo. 8 pp.) There is nothing in this publication that deserves special notice, except that Mr. Cooke, on behalf of himself and nine other ministers, whose names and residences are given, earnestly entreats Whitefield to visit the churches of the “Eastern Consociation;” and forwards to Whitefield a minute passed at a meeting held in 1740, inviting him to visit the same churches, but stipulating that he should not make “personal reflections to wound the characters of others, who have been generally well accepted among Christians for piety;” and that he should “not expect them to make collections for his Orphan House in Georgia.”

Such was the literary storm through which Whitefield had to pass when he visited America in 1744. There is much in the publications, so briefly noticed, which invites remark; but want of space precludes comment. It is certainly amusing that liberty-loving Connecticut should pass and enforce the despotic Act it did. Puritanism was becoming as intolerant as prelacy. As to Whitefield’s aspersions of New England ministers, the accusation was scarcely true. He rarely, if ever, mentioned names; but rather denounced, in general terms, the employment of an _unconverted_ ministry. No doubt, in many instances, the pulpits of America were occupied by sincere, earnest, able, godly men; but it is equally certain, that, in many other instances, the ministers were culpably defective. Even President Holyoke seems to admit this; and Dr. Chauncy becomes its apologist. It is also true, that, during Whitefield’s residence in England, the American revival had been disgraced by many scenes of fanatical confusion, and by a bitterness of spirit indulged by some of its converts; but it is difficult to see how absent Whitefield deserved blame for this. It is absolutely false, that Whitefield had been suspended from the ministry, and excluded from the communion of the Church of England. The taunts, likewise, in reference to his Orphan House accounts, were unmerited, inasmuch as he had printed and published a balance-sheet, which his enemies in New England might have read if they had wished. The power and the practice of bishops to license ordained ministers to become itinerant preachers is a point which must be left to Church lawyers. There is, however, one other subject too important to pass unnoticed. In England and in Wales, he and others associated with him had formed a considerable number of Societies, and had employed an earnest band of itinerant preachers and exhorters, and had instituted quarterly and other associations, or conferences. In short, almost without intending it, he had formed a _party_, he himself being its “moderator,” the Tabernacle, Moorfields, its head-quarters, and the _Christian History_ its literary magazine.[120] Whitefield, however, refrained from the formation of a sect across the Atlantic. He honestly told the faculty of Harvard College, that he had “no intention of setting up a party for” himself; and he faithfully adhered to this declaration. In America, at least, he was not the founder of a sect. It is true, that, in New England and elsewhere, separate congregations were formed in several places, by illiterate, but pious, preachers; but this was not done by the authority and immediate help of Whitefield. These “Separatists” and “New Lights,” as they were called, might have been converted, or benefited by Whitefield’s preaching; but their organizations were their own. In many instances, their former pastors failed to feed them with the bread of life, and, naturally enough, they sought it somewhere else. Many of these “separate” churches existed long after Whitefield’s death; and some of them warmly welcomed Wesley’s preachers. A member of the Irish conference was induced to become the pastor of one of them, over which he presided for nearly half a century. It is now known as “The Benevolent Congregationalist Church,” and is one of the largest and most wealthy churches in New England.[121]

We must now return to Whitefield’s itinerancy. He was left at Portsmouth, New England, ill and disabled. As soon as possible, he removed to Boston. The following is from Prince’s _Christian History_, No. xciv.:――

“Saturday, November 24, 1744. The Rev. Mr. Whitefield was so
far revived, as to be able to set out from Portsmouth to Boston,
whither he came, in a very feeble state, the Monday evening
after. Since then, he has been able to preach in several of
our largest houses of public worship, particularly the Rev.
Dr. Colman’s, Dr. Sewall’s, Mr. Webb’s, and Mr. Gee’s. At
Dr. Colman’s request, and the consent of the Church, on the
Lord’s-day after his arrival, he administered to them the holy
communion. And, last Lord’s-day, he preached for Mr. Cheever,
of Chelsea, and administered the holy supper there. The next
day, he preached for the Rev. Mr. Emerson, of Maiden. Yesterday,
he set out to preach at some towns to the northward. On his
return, he proposes to comply with the earnest invitation of
several ministers, to go and preach to their congregations
in the southern parts of the province. He comes with the same
extraordinary spirit of meekness, sweetness, and universal
benevolence, as before. In opposition to the spirit of _bigotry_,
he is still for holding communion with all Protestant churches.
In opposition to _enthusiasm_, he preaches a close adherence to
the Scriptures, the necessity of trying all impressions by them,
and of rejecting whatever is not agreeable to them, as delusions.
In opposition to _antinomianism_, he preaches up all kinds of
relative, and religious duties; and, in short, the doctrines of
the Church of England, and of the first fathers of this country.
As before, he first applies himself to the understandings of his
hearers, and then to the affections; and the more he preaches,
the more he convinces people of their mistakes about him, and
increases their satisfaction.”

To this testimony must now be added extracts from Whitefield’s letters.

“BOSTON, _January 18, 1745_.

“You see I am now at Boston, whither I was brought from
Piscataqua[122] in a coach and four. The joy with which I was
received by the common people, cannot be described; but many
of the ministers,――how shy! how different from what they once
were! When last in Boston, Governor Belcher was in the chair. He
honoured me with great honour, and the clergy paid the nod, and
obeyed. In many, I then perceived, it was quite forced; and, I
think, when at his table, I whispered to some one, and said, ‘If
ever I come again, many of those, who now seem extremely civil,
will turn out my open enemies.’ The event has proved, that, in
this respect, I have been no false prophet. You know where it
is written, ‘There arose a king, who knew not Joseph.’ Freed,
therefore, from their former restraint, many have appeared _in
puris naturalibus_. Some occasions of offence had undoubtedly
been given whilst I was here, and preached up and down the
country. Nothing, however, appeared but a pure, divine power,
converting, and transforming people’s hearts, of all ranks,
without any extraordinary phenomena attending it. Good Mr.
Tennent succeeded me; numbers succeeded him. Lectures were set
up in various places. One minister called to another, to help to
drag the gospel net; and one would have imagined the millennium
was coming. At last, wild-fire broke out and spread itself; and,
it must be confessed, that, many good souls, both among clergy
and laity, for a while, mistook fancy for faith, and imagination
for revelation; and were guilty of great imprudences. What these
were, I have not time now to particularize; I can only inform
you, that all is laid to me as being the _primum mobile_, though
there was not so much as the appearance of anything of this
nature when I left New England last. But, maugre all, my poor
labours are yet attended with the usual blessings.”

Whitefield seems to have spent about three months in Boston and its neighbourhood, partly in preaching, and partly in writing pamphlets and sermons for the press.

Hence the following:――

“BOSTON, _February 6, 1745_.

“I remember you once told me, one of the good old Puritans wrote,
that he went from _Old England_ to avoid the lord bishops, and
came to _New England_ to get under the Lord Brethren. Well is it
at present that there are ‘Lord Brethren;’ for, finding some of
their pastors, without cause, shy of me, they have passed votes
of invitation for me to preach in the pulpits; and some time
ago prevailed upon me to set up a lecture at six o’clock in
the morning. Not expecting a very great auditory, I opened a
lecture in one of the smallest meeting-houses, upon these words,
‘And they came early in the morning to hear him.’ How was I
disappointed! Such great numbers flocked to hear, that I was
obliged to make use of two of their largest places of worship,
where, I believe, seldom less than two or three thousand hearers
assembled. I began with the first of Genesis, and have lectured,
in order, till I am almost come to the story of Abraham sending
his servant to fetch a wife for Isaac. It is impossible to
describe the eagerness and punctuality of these early visitants.
To see so many hundreds, of both sexes, neatly dressed, walking
or riding so early along the streets to get food for their souls,
has feasted my own heart. The Pharaohs, who used to say, ‘Ye are
idle, ye are idle,’ now are struck dumb; for lecture, and family
prayer, and breakfast, are over in many houses before the sun
is suffered to come into the windows of others; and it is become
almost a common proverb, ‘Between tar-water and early rising,
the physicians will have no business.’ One morning, the crowd
was so great, that I was obliged to go in at the window. The
high-sheriff, who was most forward in persecuting good Mr.
Davenport, accompanied me; and when he put his head into the
window after me, the people were ready to cry out, ‘Is Saul also
among the prophets?’”

These were remarkable scenes, on cold, dark, wintry mornings, in the city of Boston, where ministers had joined in denouncing Whitefield, and where the “_Lord Brethren_,” by their voting powers, had defeated the ministers, and had opened to Whitefield their pulpit-doors. Under the circumstances, his success was marvellous. The following extract describes one of his converts:――

“BOSTON, _February 17, 1745_.

“Good Mr. P――――[123] told me I should be very shortly favoured
with the company of a very pensive and uncommon person;――a man
of good parts, ready wit, and lively imagination, who, in order
to furnish matter for preaching over a bottle, had made it his
business to come and hear, and then carry away scraps of my
sermons to serve as texts for his tavern harangues. A few nights
ago, he came, for this purpose, to Dr. Sewall’s meeting. Upon my
coming in, he crowded after me amongst the people, and, having
got sufficient matter to work upon, attempted to go out; but,
being pent in on every side, his endeavours were fruitless.
Obliged thus to stay, waiting for fresh matter for ridicule, he
was pricked to the heart. He came to Mr. P――――, full of horror,
confessed his crimes, and longed to ask my pardon, but was
afraid to see me. Mr. P―――― encouraged him to venture. This
morning, hearing some one knock at my parlour door, I arose, and,
upon opening the door, by the paleness, pensiveness, and horror
of his countenance, guessed who he was. He cried, ‘Sir, can you
forgive me?’ I smiled, and said, ‘Yes, sir, very readily.’ He
replied, ‘Indeed, sir, you cannot when I tell you all.’ I then
asked him to sit down; and, judging that he had sufficiently
felt the lashes of the law, I preached to him the gospel.”

The following refers to the paper warfare at that time raging, and which has been already noticed:――

“BOSTON, _February 19, 1745_.

“_Tempora mutantur._ A confederacy, a confederacy! The clergy,
amongst whom are a few mistaken, misinformed good old men, are
publishing halfpenny testimonials against me. Even the president,
professors, and tutors, of Harvard College, where, some few
years ago, I was received with such uncommon respect, have
joined the confederacy. The testimonials have done me real
service. I certainly did drop some unguarded expressions in
the heat of less experienced youth; and was too precipitate in
hearkening to, and publishing private information. Some good
friends are publishing testimonials in my favour. Thus you see
what a militant state we are in at present. Amidst all, the word
runs, and is glorified. Many are so enraged at the treatment I
meet with, that they came to me lately, assuring me that, if I
will consent, they will erect, in a few weeks’ time, the outside
of the largest place of worship in America; but, you know,
ceiled houses were never my aim. I, therefore, thanked them for
their kind offer; but begged leave to refuse accepting it. How
or when the present storm will subside is uncertain. I can only,
at present, beg the continuance of your prayers, that, I may be
kept in good temper towards those, who, I believe, really think
they do God’s service by opposing me.”

Whitefield was busy writing for the press; and, as soon as he had finished three of his pamphlets, he seems to have returned to Piscataqua. Why he deferred going to his Orphan House, it is impossible to determine; but he was happy, and hard at work. Hence the following:――

“PISCATAQUA, _March 6, 1745_.

“I have sent a letter to Dr. C――――, with my Answer to Harvard
College, and my Answer to the Second Part of the Observations,
and also my Remarks upon the Charge of the Bishop of Lichfield.
May Jesus give them His blessing! I would have them printed so
as to be sold cheap. You may collect, or print them severally,
as you will. I cannot yet get time to prepare my sermons, or the
other part of my life, for the press. I am writing another New
England journal, which I will send, when I leave the country.
When that will be, I know not.

“America, I am afraid, begins to be too dear to me. The Lord
smiles upon me and mine, and makes us very happy in Himself, and
happy in one another. Here is a very large field of action. My
bodily strength is recovered; and my soul is more than ever in
love with a crucified Jesus.”

On the same day, Whitefield wrote to John Cennick, as follows:――

“Our Saviour wonderfully smiles on us here. The Lord helps me
to preach with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power.
My wife and I go on like two happy pilgrims, leaning upon our
Beloved. O help us to adore and praise free grace! We salute all
the conference and trustees, and every particular choir, and the
Societies in every place.”

For a season, Cennick succeeded Whitefield in the Tabernacle, Moorfields; and he and others introduced into some of the Societies “choirs,” or classes for singing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” after the manner of the Moravians. Indeed, Cennick already was more of a Moravian than a Whitefieldian; and, in December 1745, openly avowed his predilection. Thomas Adams, his colleague at the Tabernacle, as openly opposed the sentiments which Cennick had advanced. The result was, Cennick seceded, and joined the Unitas Fratrum. A large number of the people, both in London and the provinces, followed his example; and even those who remained behind wept at his departure, for he was greatly beloved by all. Cennick’s secession was a severe shock to the Connexion; but Whitefield and Cennick retained their friendship for each other, and kept up an affectionate correspondence until Cennick’s death, in 1755.[124][125]

Whitefield had been nearly five months in America, but had not visited his Orphanage in Georgia. He had arranged, however, for Mr. Habersham, the orphans’ chaplain, to visit him. Hence the following to a friend, in London:――

“PISCATAQUA (sixty miles from Boston),

“_March 12, 1745_.

“This comes by a young gentleman, who expects to return to
South Carolina in August next. By him, I send you one of each of
the pamphlets I have published here. I would have them sent to
Scotland as soon as may be. America is pleasanter and pleasanter
every day. The door for preaching opens wider and wider. I am
preparing my sermons for the press,[126] and am also writing
another journal. You shall have them the first opportunity. I
wrote to you last week, and sent about fifty letters, by Captain
Darling. I expect Mr. Habersham hourly.”

The editor of the _Christian History_ adds: “Mr. Habersham arrived soon after the writing of the above letter; and wrote, from the same place, on March 18, and stated, that Mr. Whitefield had been as far eastward as was settled by the English (which is about a hundred and fifty miles), and had preached with much success. Mr. Whitefield was to go with him to Boston the next day, to consult friends there about the affairs of the Orphan House in Georgia, which was what Mr. Habersham came there about.”