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_.