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.”