"_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.
Doubtless there is truth in Johnson's opinion, that, one reason why
Whitefield had such crowds to hear him was because it was a perfect
novelty to have a clergyman of the Church of England preaching,
in gown and cassock, in the open air. It was a further novelty
to see such a clergyman standing up to preach without reading
the appointed liturgy of the Church, and using extemporaneous
prayers in lieu of it. It is also probable that Whitefield created
considerable sensation by employing language such as the clergy in
their churches were not wont to use. All this may be conceded; and
it might likewise be allowed, that, to a large extent, Dr. Trapp and
the editor of the _Weekly Miscellany_ defeated their own purposes,
and that, by their virulent attempts to dishonour Whitefield, they
helped to make him more popular. On the other hand, however, it
must be borne in mind that opinions like those of Doddridge and
Watts were widely entertained both by Churchmen and Dissenters,
and that such a fact was not likely to contribute to the largeness
of Whitefield's congregations. The reasons above assigned, for
Whitefield's popularity, may be perfectly correct, but they are not
complete; for to them must be added the following: (1) Whatever his
faults might be, Whitefield was a natural orator of the highest
order. (2) The truths which distinguished his preaching were truths
exactly adapted to the wants and yearnings of human nature,--such as
meet the necessities of human beings of all classes, in all lands,
and belonging to all ages. (3) Speaking generally, these truths,
until recently, had been forgotten, and were not preached in the
churches and chapels of England. (4) Whitefield preached them with
a fervour which shewed that he believed them. (5) Above all, in
answer to the long-continued prayers of the Religious Societies,
and by the sovereign grace of God, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter,
was now moving the masses of the people, and making them anxious
concerning their personal salvation; and, further, He was connecting
with Whitefield's ministry a "power from on high," like that which
distinguished the Apostles' ministry at Pentecost, and making it
the means of turning men "from sin to holiness, and from the power
of Satan unto God." Let the reader ponder such facts as these,
and, perhaps, his wonder will cease at the tens of thousands who
tramped from London to Kennington Common to hear the unpolished and
imperfect sermons of this youthful Methodist, whose years had not
yet reached twenty-five.
While Whitefield was preaching to his large congregations on
Kennington Common and in Moorfields, Wesley was similarly employed
at Bristol and Kingswood. It is a curious fact that, though
Whitefield was forbidden to preach in Newgate Prison, Bristol,
Wesley was admitted. Another notable incident must be mentioned. In
Bristol and its neighbourhood, Wesley was daily witnessing the most
remarkable conversions,--conversions accompanied by those mysterious
convulsions that have perplexed all his biographers. In London,
Whitefield had prodigious congregations, and his oratorical powers
were far greater than those of his friend Wesley; but where were
his conversions? His congregations were often powerfully affected;
and, on May 12th, he speaks of "many" coming to him, and telling him
"what God had done for their souls by his preaching in the fields;"
but this, in substance, is all that he himself records. Perhaps this
difference in ministerial results may be accounted for by the fact,
that nearly the whole of the conversions under Wesley's ministry
took place in the meetings of the Religious Societies, where united
prayer was always joined to scriptural exposition. On the other
hand, during this month of May, Whitefield devoted himself almost
exclusively to the work of preaching to vast crowds in the open air,
where private spiritual enquiries and united prayers for penitents
were impracticable. Besides, at the first, Whitefield strongly
objected to such conversions as his friend Wesley was witnessing;
and plainly told him that, though he doubted not that God was in the
work, yet he equally believed the devil was interposing. He wrote:--
"Were I to give so much encouragement to those convulsions as
you have given, how many would cry out every night? I think it
is tempting God to require such signs."[217]
[217] _Methodist Magazine_, 1849, p. 165.
Whitefield, however, was not without conversions; and two notable
instances must be mentioned here.
Wesley, a few months before he died, said, "Joseph Humphreys was
the first lay preacher that assisted me in England, in the year
1738."[218] Who was Joseph Humphreys? The following particulars are
gleaned from a pamphlet of forty-four pages, published in 1742, and
entitled, "An Account of Joseph Humphreys' Experience of the Work of
Grace upon his Heart. Bristol: printed by Felix Farley."
[218] Wesley's Works, vol. iv., p. 473. I incline to think this date
is not correct.--L. T.
Joseph Humphreys was born at Burford, in Oxfordshire, October 28,
1720, where his father, for nearly thirty years, was the minister
of a Dissenting congregation. Joseph was educated at a grammar
school at Fairford, in Gloucestershire. His father died in 1733;
and being, says Joseph, "uncommonly zealous in his day both for
faith and holiness, he was almost universally despised both by
Church-people and Dissenters." After his father's death, Joseph was
sent to a school in London, "where young men were trained for the
ministry." At this early period of his life, he had determined to be
a minister, and says, "I used to write sermons of my own composing,
thundering exceedingly against all _unrepenting_ sinners." "The
pupils every evening took their turns in prayer;" and Joseph thought
himself "highly blessed in having his lot cast with such pious,
serious _young men_." He was soon shocked, however, by the fact
"that these same young men indulged in light and foolish talking and
jesting, playing at draughts, fives, blindman's buff, hunt the shoe,
and such-like ludicrous games, quite unbecoming such as professed
godliness." By degrees, Joseph grew to be as light-hearted as the
rest, and, without confessing it, became an infidel. After indulging
in a frightful excess of wickedness, he again began to be religious;
and writes:--
"I was for joining the Papists, Church-people, and Dissenters of
all denominations in _one_; I was for reconciling the Arians,
Socinians, Arminians, and Calvinists altogether; I would have
had them lay aside all disputable points, and harmonize in those
things wherein they were all agreed. I liked those men who were
for reducing the _Christian Articles_ to a _few_; and if any one
called the Pope _Antichrist_, I thought he was very ignorant and
uncharitable."
In the year 1737, Joseph became a member of the Independent Church,
in London, presided over by the Rev. Dr. Guyse; but was still
unconverted. Notwithstanding this, however, on June 18, 1738, he
began to preach. Six months afterwards, Whitefield returned to
England, and Humphreys writes:--
"About this time there was great talk of Mr. Whitefield; and,
accordingly, on May 2, 1739, I went to hear him on Kennington
Common. I liked him, because he so affectionately invited poor
guilty sinners to come to Jesus Christ by faith. I afterwards
heard him several times. I felt the power of the Lord to be with
him; and was much affected to see the seriousness and tears of
many in the congregations. The flocking of the multitudes to
hear the word made me think and say, 'It was never so seen in
Israel.' One evening, as I was coming home from hearing him, I
wept exceedingly, thinking what a hearty, pious minister he was
(though educated at such a wicked place as Oxford) in comparison
of what any of us at our academy were like to be. I earnestly
sought his acquaintance; and, accordingly, one evening I supped
with him and Mr. Howell Harris, and several more brethren, at a
public-house on Blackheath, just after his preaching to a most
numerous congregation. The _public-house_ seemed to be turned
into a _church_; and to me it was like heaven upon earth. One
Sabbath-day, I think it was June 3, as we were singing a hymn at
the academy, I had such a taste of the dying love of Christ as
I never had before. My heart was quite melted, and my eyes were
a fountain of tears. When I came forth, one of the pupils asked
me what was the matter with me? I told him I was _happy_. When
another enquired the same, I signified that I _felt_ more than I
could express."
Humphreys was still a student in the Dissenting Academy (which had
been removed to Deptford), and, though he was not nineteen years
of age, yet, being intended for the ministry, he began, in the
month of the ensuing August, to preach in "a large dancing room."
He had crowded congregations, and soon formed a Religious Society
consisting of a hundred and forty members. He writes:--
"I insisted chiefly upon a sinner's justification before God,
through the Redeemer's merits; and shewed the nature, necessity,
and blessedness of it. For this, I was soon violently opposed.
I became the butt of the common people; I was _singular_ in the
school; was threatened by my tutor; dropped by most of my old
friends; deemed _beside myself_ by some; and at last, December
25, 1739, was expelled the academy, for no other crime but this."
For about a year, Humphreys found a refuge in the academy of Mr. J.
Eames, in Moorfields; and, while pursuing his studies, ministered
to the Religious Societies of Deptford, Greenwich, and Ratcliffe.
The clergy preached against him; and two pamphlets were published,
which, says he, "were not worth reading, much less answering."
"The rude mob," he writes, "treated both _me_ and the _people_
most roughly; haling us about, throwing us upon the ground,
beating us, and pelting us with stones or brickbats, rotten
eggs, apples, dung, and fireworks. Officers sent their men
to _press_ me. I was hooted at along the streets; spit upon;
called names; threatened, reviled, and belied; hated of all,
and counted the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all
things. I was frequently in danger, not only of having my eyes,
but also my brains, beat out by the large flints that were
continually thrown upon the roof of the barn where I preached."
Often while young Humphreys was preaching, numbers of his hearers
were thrown into convulsions similar to those which occurred under
Wesley's ministry at Bristol. Humphreys writes:--
"Their bodies were strangely agitated; their bones would
sometimes seem to be out of joint; their breasts would heave
prodigiously; some would bite, tear, and beat themselves, and
do mischief to others also, unless they were forcibly held
down; and some would roar hideously, crying out that the devil
was coming to fetch them, or to torment them. That it was no
_feigned_ thing, at least in _most_ of them, is most certain.
That it was occasioned in some by _sympathy_, I will not deny;
but I do really believe that in others it was occasioned by a
_discovery_ of their _undone condition_; and was followed by
_true conversion_ to the Lord. I own that the cases of some who
were _thus affected_ was so unaccountable, to this day, I am at
a stand to determine _how_ or _what_ it was. For what I know,
they might be _torn by the devil_. God might suffer Satan to be
let loose upon them for a season; generally, however, it was so
_awful_, that the beholders durst not make game of it. I only
relate matters of fact; and do not pretend to say that all were
_renewed_ or _converted_ who were _thus_ affected, for I believe
no such thing, but the contrary. Neither could I ever look upon
these things as _signs_ from heaven for the establishment or
confirmation of any particular doctrine. I rather think the case
was often this: the word of God would come with a convincing
light and power into the consciences of sinners, whereby they
were _so far_ awakened, as to be seized with dreadful terrors.
The rebellion of their natures would be raised; the peace of the
strong man armed would be disturbed; hell within would begin to
roar; the devil, that before, being unmolested, lay quiet in
their hearts, would now be stirred up, and be most outrageously
angry, because of this convincing light and power of the word.
Hence, I believe, proceeded some of these agonies of body. And
all this might be, and perhaps frequently was, without any real
change of heart; for I depend upon no such things as proofs of
a person's conversion to God. Rather let this be made manifest
by the fruits of righteousness, in all gracious tempers and
conversation, with perseverance therein unto the end.
"September 1, 1740. I began to preach at the Foundery in London,
to Mr. Wesley's congregation, and many a powerful opportunity
there was. In the _private society_ also we had many _sweet
meetings_. At this time, I had a very great intimacy with the
Rev. Mr. John Wesley. We were together almost continually night
and day. There were many things very exemplary in him--worthy,
indeed, of every minister's and every Christian's imitation.
But, on account of some important doctrines of grace wherein we
differed, I was obliged, on April 25, 1741, to separate from him.
Space forbids further details respecting Joseph Humphreys. Suffice
it to say that, in the month of May, 1741, he joined himself to
Whitefield, and acted as one of his itinerant preachers. Such he was
in the twenty-first year of his age. In the pamphlet, from which
these facts are taken, he declares himself a Dissenter. In some
respects, he was a remarkable man; and the reader will meet with him
again. The following is Wesley's summary of his life:--
"1790. September 9. I read over the experience of Joseph
Humphreys, the first lay teacher that assisted me in England,
in the year 1738. From his own mouth, I learn that he was
perfected in love, and so continued for at least a twelvemonth.
Afterwards, he turned Calvinist, and joined Mr. Whitefield,
and published an invective against my brother and me in the
newspaper. In a while, he renounced Mr. Whitefield, and was
ordained a Presbyterian minister. At last he received Episcopal
ordination. He then scoffed at inward religion, and when
reminded of his own experience, replied, 'That was one of the
foolish things which I wrote in the time of my madness.'"
At the risk of wearying the reader, another of Whitefield's
converts, belonging to this period, must be introduced.
Joseph Periam was the son of respectable parents, who appear to have
resided at Bethnal Green. Joseph had been articled to an attorney,
and intended to devote himself to the legal profession. He read
Whitefield's sermon on the New Birth, and was converted. The change
in him was so great, that his father and friends thought him mad.
The "symptoms" or proofs of his madness were three. 1. He had fasted
for a fortnight. 2. He had prayed loud enough to be heard all over
a house four storeys high. 3. He had sold his clothes and given
the money to the poor. The first of these allegations was probably
a fact exaggerated. The second, in all likelihood, was perfectly
correct. The third also was literally true; for, says Whitefield,--
"Joseph ingenuously confessed to me, that, under his first
awakenings, he was one day reading the story of the young man
whom our Lord commanded to sell all he had, and to give to the
poor, and, thinking it must be taken in the literal sense, out
of love, to Jesus Christ, he sold his clothes, and gave the
money to the poor."
For such reasons, Joseph Periam was put into the general receptacle
of all London lunatics--Bethlehem Hospital; an old edifice founded
in 1547, and standing in St. George's Fields, Lambeth. The
institution was a disgrace to all connected with it. The miserable
inmates were treated most brutally. Their terrible affliction was
turned into pecuniary profit, and the hospital received about
£400 a year, in the form of fees, collected by exhibiting the
poor maniacs, chiefly naked, and uniformly chained to the walls of
their respective dungeons. The practice of entertaining the outside
public by thus shewing the inside patients of this infernal prison
house was not abolished until the year 1770; and, even then, the
abolition was unaccompanied by any other improvement of the usage of
the unhappy sufferers.[219] If men were not mad when they entered,
there was enough to make them mad before they left.
[219] "Pictoral Handbook of London."
Joseph Periam became the occupant of No. 50 in this dismal dungeon,
miscalled an hospital. "His room," says Whitefield, "was a cold
place, without windows, and had a damp cellar under it." On
entering, Joseph's first refection was a dose of physic. Whitefield
writes:--
'Being sensible that he wanted no physic, Joseph was unwilling
at first to take it; upon which four or five men took hold of
him, cursed him most heartily, put a key into his mouth, threw
him upon the bed, and said, 'You are one of Whitefield's gang,'
and so drenched him."