succeeded in keeping Whitefield’s preachers in proper order. The
Countess of Huntingdon was a remarkable woman; but she could scarcely
preside, as a female prelate, in the “Associations,” or conferences of
the Calvinistic Methodists. Five years ago, the preachers had elected
Whitefield to be their moderator at all times when he was resident in
England, and had decided that, in his absence, Howell Harris should
be his substitute. For nearly four years past, Whitefield had been
in America, and Harris had done his best, in governing as well as
preaching. Affairs, however, had got into confusion; and, hence, a
fortnight after Whitefield’s arrival in London, he resumed his place
as moderator. The following is taken from the “Life and Times of Howell
Harris,” and is an abridgment of the minutes entered in the “Conference
Book,” already mentioned:――
“Association held in London, July 20, 1748. Present, Whitefield,
(moderator), Bateman, Harris, and others. Whitefield, after
prayer and singing, opened his mind on several points.” He
told the exhorters and preachers present, that, “he had seen so
much confusion occasioned by young men going out rashly beyond
their line, that, he was resolved not to labour with any who
did not shew a teachable mind and a willingness to submit.” He
admonished them “to use all means for improving their talents
and abilities.” And added, that, “though he hated to affect
headship, yet he must see every one acquainted with his own
place, and that they must consider themselves as candidates
on approbation.” The result of this faithful dealing was, “the
Brethren viewed him as a father; and declared their willingness
to use all possible means for their personal improvement.”
Thus began Whitefield’s ecclesiastical administration on his return
from America. Like a wise man, he, first of all, tried to put the
preachers right. Without this, it would have been useless to attempt
to amend the people.
The effort was a temporary one. Having spent nearly a month in London,
Whitefield set out to attend a quarterly “Association,” at Waterford,
in Wales. A month later, he wrote a surprising letter to his friend
Wesley.
“LONDON, _September 1, 1748_.
“REV. AND DEAR SIR,――My not meeting you in London has been a
disappointment to me. What have you thought about a union? I am
afraid an external one is impracticable. I find, by your sermons,
that we differ in principles more than I thought; and I believe
we are upon two different plans. My attachment to America will
not permit me to abide very long in England; consequently, I
should weave but a Penelope’s web, if I formed Societies; and,
if I should form them, I have not proper assistants to take care
of them. I intend, therefore, to go about preaching the gospel
to every creature. You, I suppose, are for settling Societies
everywhere; but more of this when we meet.”
This, on the part of Whitefield, was not an inconsiderate utterance.
The present was really a turning-point in his eventful life. Strictly
speaking, with perhaps a few exceptions, he had not “_formed_”
Societies, as Wesley had; but, for five years past, he had been the
“moderator” of all the Societies founded by Howell Harris, and by
the preachers, who, in the title-page of the _Christian History_, were
constantly designated Whitefield’s “fellow-labourers and assistants.”
Many of Wesley’s Societies were “_formed_” not by Wesley himself, but
by his “assistants;” and the same must be said respecting Whitefield
and the Societies of which he was president. If Whitefield had not
_actually_ “settled” Societies, he had consented to this being done by
his “fellow-labourers and assistants;” and, by accepting the office of
moderator, he had encouraged the proceeding. Now, however, he declared
his intention to take a new position; and, by degrees, his intention
was carried out. At an Association, held in London, April 27, 1749,
at which Whitefield, Harris, and others were present, it was agreed,
that “Harris should take the oversight of the Tabernacle in London,
and of the other _English_ Societies and preachers; and that Whitefield
should do all he could to strengthen the hands of Harris and others,
consistent with his going out to preach the gospel at home and
abroad.”[195] By this resolution, the office of moderator was
practically transferred from Whitefield to Harris. Whitefield was no
longer the head of the Calvinistic Methodists, but his friend Harris,
who first founded them.
For the present, Whitefield did not abandon them. He simply ceased
to be their chief officer. During the first week of September, 1749,
he spent not fewer than five days in conference with them, at the
Tabernacle, London; when, besides settling the “rounds” of the
preachers, it was determined, not only “to preach the Lord Jesus in a
catholic spirit to all the churches,” but “to continue in communion”
with the Church of England.[196]
Harris, however, in his new office, was far from being happy. “In
Wales,” he writes, “great jars and disputes arose amongst us.”[197] He
became dissatisfied with some of the preachers and with many of the
people; and, at an Association held at ♦Llanidloes in 1751, there was
a rupture, and Harris seceded from them. In the year following, Harris
founded his remarkable and well-known settlement at Trevecca; and
here, in comparative seclusion, he continued to reside until his death,
in 1773. For twenty years, he had a small community of his own; but,
though separated from the Calvinistic Methodists, whom he had founded,
he was not an opponent and an enemy. His heart was too warm and large
to be vindictive. To the last, he was a sincere friend of Whitefield,
and of his old companions in toil, tribulation, and success.
The incidents just enumerated deserve attention. It is impossible to
conceive what would have been the result, if Whitefield and Harris had
continued active chiefs of the Calvinistic Methodists; as it is equally
impossible to conceive the probable consequences of Whitefield entering
into an open union with Wesley; and of the Societies, “assistants,
and fellow-labourers” of the two being amalgamated into one common
body. Speculations on such matters would be fruitless. The plain facts
are these: within two months after his return from America, in 1748,
Whitefield determined to put an end to his official relationship to
the Calvinistic Methodists; this determination was gradually carried
out; and, during the last twenty years of his life, he occupied a new
position, which must now be noticed.
The question naturally occurs, Why this change of situation? Was it
because of the wild-fire of some of the preachers, and the consequent
confusion of some of the Societies, with which Whitefield was
officially connected? This is improbable; for, whatever might be
Whitefield’s failings, shirking difficulties was not one of them.
The only way to solve the propounded problem is to remember the close
relationship which was now, unexpectedly, created between the Countess
of Huntingdon and the great preacher. The Countess had recently been
an eye-witness of some of the Societies in Wales, and had been filled
with gratitude and praise for what she had seen and heard; but, now she
seems to have entertained the idea, that both she and Whitefield might
be more usefully employed, than by directly associating themselves
with the Calvinistic Methodists, and by using their time, talents, and
influence in the multiplication of such Societies. Instead of creating
new sects out of the Church of England, was it not possible to reform
and amend the Church of England itself? And was not the raising up of
evangelical and converted ministers the most likely way to bring about
such a reformation? Put the pulpits right, and the pews would certainly
improve.
Though direct evidence may be wanting, there can be little doubt, that,
this was the grand scheme now revolving in the mind of the illustrious
Countess; and that this scheme, in less or greater detail, was
revealed to Whitefield, and led to his separation from the Calvinistic
Methodists. At all events, as will be seen hereafter, this was one of
the chief objects to which Whitefield and her ladyship devoted their
time and energies. Whitefield tried to raise up converted clergymen;
and the Countess procured them ordination, and built them chapels.
The idea was grand,――perhaps inspired,――and the working it out was
unquestionably the principal means of effecting the marvellous change
which has taken place, since then, in the Established Church. Wesley
created a great Church outside the Church of England. Whitefield and
the Countess of Huntingdon were pre-eminently employed in improving
the Church of England itself. Where was evangelistic effort previous
to the days of Wesley? And where were the converted clergymen of the
Established Church previous to the year 1748? A few――a very few――might
be mentioned; but even these were nicknamed Methodists. No one can
estimate the service rendered to the cause of Christ, outside the
Church, by Wesley and his “assistants;” and it is also equally
impossible to estimate the service rendered _to_ the Church by the
despised Whitefield and his female prelate, the grand, stately,
strong-minded, godly, and self-sacrificing Countess of Huntingdon. All
this will be amply illustrated by the further details of Whitefield’s
history.
To return. The following fragments, taken from letters written to
Lady Huntingdon, during the month of August, 1748, will serve to shew
the friendship that now existed between her ladyship and the great
preacher:――
“August 21. I received your ladyship’s letter late last night.
I am quite willing to comply with your invitation. As I am to
preach at St. Bartholomew’s on Wednesday evening, I will wait
upon your ladyship the next morning, and spend the whole day at
Chelsea. Blessed be God, that the rich and great begin to have
a hearing ear. Surely your ladyship and Madam Edwin are only
the firstfruits. A word in the lesson, when I was last at your
ladyship’s, struck me,――‘Paul preached privately to those who
were of reputation.’ This must be the way, I presume, of dealing
with the nobility who yet know not the Lord. O that I may be
enabled so to preach as to win their souls to the blessed Jesus!
“August 22. As there seems to be a door opening for the nobility
to hear the gospel, I will preach at your ladyship’s on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, I will wait upon or send to the Count, the Danish
Ambassador’s brother, who favours me with his company to dine on
Monday. As I am to preach four times to-morrow, I thought it my
duty to send these few lines to your ladyship to-night.”
The Countess made him her domestic chaplain,――the only ecclesiastical
preferment, except the living at Savannah, he ever had; and, in
acknowledgment of the honour, he wrote to her as follows:――
“LONDON, _September 1, 1748_.
“HONOURED MADAM,――Although it is time for me to be setting
out” (for Scotland), “I dare not leave town without dropping
a few lines, gratefully to acknowledge the many favours I have
received from your ladyship, especially the honour you have done
me in making me one of your ladyship’s chaplains. A sense of it
humbles me, and makes me pray more intensely for grace to walk
worthy of that God who has called me to His kingdom and glory.
As your ladyship has been pleased to confer this honour upon me,
I shall think it my duty to send you weekly accounts of what the
Lord Jesus is pleased to do for me and by me.
“Glory be to His great name, the prospect is promising. My
Lord Bath[198] received me yesterday morning very cordially,
and would give me five guineas for the orphans. God’s peculiar
providence has placed your ladyship at Chelsea. Upon the road, I
propose writing you my thoughts of what scheme seems to be most
practicable, in order to carry on the work of God, both here and
in America.”
To a friend, on the same day, Whitefield wrote:――
“LONDON, _September 1, 1748_.
“I have been a mile or two upon the road to Scotland, but turned
back because my chaise was not registered.
“My hands have been full of work, and I have been among great
company. A privy counsellor of the King of Denmark, and others,
with one of the Prince of Wales’s favourites, dined and drank
tea with me on Monday. On Tuesday, I preached twice at Lady
Huntingdon’s, to several of the nobility. In the morning, the
Earl of Chesterfield[199] was present. In the evening, Lord
Bolingbroke.[200] All behaved quite well, and were in some
degree affected. Lord Chesterfield thanked me, and said, ‘Sir,
I will not tell you what I shall tell others, how I approve
of you,’ or words to this purpose. He conversed with me freely
afterwards. Lord Bolingbroke was much moved, and desired I would
come and see him next morning. I did; and his lordship behaved
with great candour and frankness. All accepted of my sermons.
Thus, my dear brother, the world turns round. ‘In all time of my
wealth, good Lord, deliver me!’”
Before following Whitefield to Scotland, further extracts from his
letters must be given.
The friendship between Whitefield and the celebrated Dr. Doddridge
has been already noticed. He now commenced an important correspondence
with one of the doctor’s converts. James Stonehouse was a year or
two younger than Whitefield, and was practising as a physician at
Northampton. For seven years, he had been an infidel; and had written
a pamphlet against revealed religion, which reached three editions. The
death of his young wife, at the age of twenty-five, caused reflection.
He read Doddridge’s “Rise and Progress of Religion,” and was converted.
He was now a sincere and ardent Christian; and Whitefield began to urge
him to become a minister. After much hesitancy, he entered into holy
orders, and obtained the lectureship of All Saints’, Bristol. In 1791,
he succeeded to the title of baronet. He was a man of great ability,
was no mean poet, published several religious pamphlets, and died, in
1795, full of years and honour. He was now living in terms of great
intimacy with Doddridge and Hervey, and had written to Whitefield,
giving him advice about his health. At present, Whitefield had no
leisure to place himself in the hands of a physician. He was soon to
start for Scotland; and he wished to publish a new and revised edition
of his journals, and of some of his sermons. Hence the following,
addressed to Dr. Stonehouse:――
“LONDON, _August 22, 1748_.
“VERY DEAR SIR,――I thank you for your concern about my health.
If it should please God to bring me back from Scotland, to
winter in town, I have thoughts of submitting to some regimen
or other. At present, I think it impracticable.
“I heartily wish that you and Dr. Doddridge[201] and Mr. Hervey
would be pleased to revise my journals and last five sermons. I
intend publishing a new edition soon. I always do as you desire
in respect to Mr. Wesley’s sermons. My prayer for him, for
myself, and for my friends, is this,――‘Lord, give us clear heads
and clean hearts!’
“I would recommend Bishop Beveridge’s sermons more, but they are
too voluminous for the common people, and I have not read them
all. I expect you will do this yourself, by-and-by, from the
pulpit, and recommend his and your Master to the choice of poor
sinners. By your excellent letter, you have publicly confessed
Him. The eyes of all will be now upon you, to see whether the
truths you have delivered to others are transcribed in your own
heart, and copied in your life. Now indeed may you cry――
‘O for a strong, a lasting faith,
To credit what the Almighty saith!’
“Dear sir, let me entreat you to keep from trimming, or so much
as attempting to reconcile two irreconcilable differences,――God
and the world, Christ and Belial. You know me too well to
suppose I want you to turn cynic. No, live a social life; but
beg of the Lord Jesus to free you from love of the world. Thence
arises that fear of man, which now shackles and disturbs your
soul. Dare, dear sir, to be singularly good. If Christ be your
Saviour, make Him a present of your pretty character. Honour Him,
and He will honour you. Never rest till you can give up children,
name, life, and all into His hands, who gave His precious blood
for you. I make you no apology for this: you say you are my
friend.”
Whitefield left London on September 3, and, halting at Olney, wrote, as
follows, to a friend in New England:――
“OLNEY, _September 4, 1748_.
“It is always darkest before daybreak. It has been so in England.
Matters, as to religion, were come almost to an extremity. The
enemy had broken in upon us like a flood. The Spirit of the
Lord is now lifting up a standard. The prospect of the success
of the gospel, I think, was never more promising. In the church,
tabernacle, and fields, congregations have been great; and,
perhaps, as great power as ever hath accompanied the word. A
door is also opening for the mighty and noble. I have preached
four times to several of the nobility at good Lady Huntingdon’s.
All behaved exceeding well; and, I suppose, in the winter,
opportunities of preaching to them will be frequent.
“As for returning to America, if I live, I believe there is no
doubt of it. I intend keeping myself free from Societies, and
hope to see you again next year.”
Whitefield arrived in Edinburgh on Wednesday, September 14, and
continued in Scotland until October 27.[202] During his stay in London,
he had preached regularly, at least once a week, in the Church of
St. Bartholomew, of which his quondam enemy, but now ardent friend,
the Rev. Richard T. Bateman, was rector. Though now patronized by
the Countess of Huntingdon and several of the nobles of the land,
Whitefield was not permitted to preach in any metropolitan church
except this; and even for granting this permission, Mr. Bateman was
likely to be involved in trouble. Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, died
three days after Whitefield set out for Scotland; and it was hoped
that Bateman’s troubles would be buried in the bishop’s grave. Two days
subsequent to his arrival at Edinburgh, Whitefield wrote to Mr. Bateman
as follows:――
“EDINBURGH, _September 16, 1748_.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――I have met with a hearty welcome. Last
night, I preached to a Moorfields congregation, for numbers;
and the Lord, I believe, was pleased to give His blessing. I
hope all is well in London. The bishop’s death, I suppose, will
prevent any further stir about Bartholomew’s. I shall be glad to
hear how you go on. Pray, dear sir, how are your circumstances?
You will not be offended, if I say that more than one have
informed me of your being in debt. I thought it my duty to
apprize you of this, because I know what a burden it is to be
in debt; not indeed for myself, but for others.”
Except about a dozen days spent at Glasgow and Cambuslang, Whitefield’s
labours in Scotland seem to have been confined to Edinburgh. In various
letters to the Countess of Huntingdon, he relates, that, at his first
coming, he was rather discouraged; for “some of the ministers were
shy,” many of his friends were dead, others were backsliders, the
weather was boisterous, and he himself was hoarse. “I have met,” said
he, on September 29, “with some unexpected rubs, but not one more than
was necessary to humble my proud heart.” A fortnight later, he tells
her ladyship that, in the Synod of Glasgow, there had been a long
debate about him; and that the Presbytery of Perth had “made an act
against employing” him. He adds:――
“Ill-nature shews itself in Edinburgh, but I feel the benefit
of it. Congregations are large, and I am enabled to preach with
greater power. My hoarseness is quite gone, and my bodily health
much improved. If my enemies shew themselves, I am persuaded the
blessed Jesus will bless me to His people more and more. Some
give out that I am employed by the Government to preach against
the Pretender; and the seceders are angry with me for not
preaching up the Scotch Covenant. Blessed be God! I preach up
the covenant of grace, and I trust many souls are taught to
profit.”
When at Topcliff, on his way back to London, he wrote to the
Countess:――
“Thanks be to the Lord of all lords for directing my way to
Scotland! I have reason to believe some have been awakened, and
many, many quickened and comforted. My old friends are more
solidly so than ever; and, I trust, a foundation has been laid
for doing much good, if the Lord should call me thither again.
Two Synods and one Presbytery brought me upon the carpet; but
all has worked for good. The more I was blackened, the more the
Redeemer comforted me.”
This was the first time that Whitefield had been discussed in the
Ecclesiastical Courts of Scotland. Though many of the clergy had been
dissatisfied with the countenance given to Whitefield’s preaching,
several circumstances had hitherto prevented them from uniting
in any public measure to restrain it. The proceedings of “The
Associate Presbytery” had been so intemperate, that the clergy of
the Establishment naturally felt a reluctance to countenance their
calumnies. The great body of the people, also, were so extremely
attached to him, that a direct attack upon his ministry could scarcely
have been made, without incurring public odium. Further, some of the
most distinguished families in Scotland were his constant hearers,
and were in the habit of admitting him to their private society.
Among these, in particular, was his Majesty’s representative, as Lord
High Commissioner, in the General Assembly, who not only attended
his ministrations, and invited him to his house, but introduced him
to his public table, during the session of the assembly. When these
circumstances are added to the long-established practice of the
Presbyterian Church, with regard to occasional communion with other
churches, it is not surprising that the ministers of the Establishment
were not forward to agitate a question on which unanimity was not to be
expected, and in which principle and prudence were both involved.
It is difficult to conceive why the subject of Whitefield’s character
and preaching were debated now. Perhaps the members of the Glasgow
Synod were afraid of a repetition of the marvellous scenes which
had been witnessed at Cambuslang and other places, in 1742. Or,
perhaps, they were deeply offended, because, during his present visit,
Whitefield had been employed to preach for Dr. Gillies in the College
Church of Glasgow, and for Dr. Erskine in the Church of Kirkintilloch.
Be that as it may, the Synod of Glasgow deemed it right to discuss
the matter. The topics introduced were numerous, but stale. He was
a priest of the Church of England; he had not subscribed the formula;
he had been imprudent; his Orphan-house scheme was chimerical; there
was want of evidence that the money he collected was rightly applied;
he asserted that assurance was essential to faith; he encouraged
a dependence on impulses and immediate revelations; he declared,
on slender evidence, some people converted, and others carnal and
unregenerated; he often pretended to repent of his blunders, but as
often relapsed into them; and, finally, he was under a sentence of
suspension by Commissary Garden.[203] These were the accusations.
Keen debates occurred; and, at length, the following, almost neutral,
proposition was submitted: “That no minister within the bounds of the
Synod should employ ministers or preachers, not licensed or ordained in
Scotland, till he had had sufficient evidence of their license and good
character, and should be in readiness to give an account of his conduct
to his own presbytery, when required.” Thirteen voted against the
proposition, and twenty-seven for it.[204]