side the Welsh mountains! Blessed be God, I have been on the
other side! What a scene last Sunday![567] What a cry for more
of the bread of life! But I was quite worn down. I am now better
than could be expected. To-morrow, God willing, my wife shall
know what route I take. O when shall I begin to live to Jesus,
as I would! I want to be a flame of fire.”
A week after this, Whitefield was in London. During his absence, he
had tried to secure the services of Fletcher of Madeley, and Fletcher’s
reply to his application is too characteristic to be omitted:――
“MADELEY, _May 18, 1767_.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――Your mentioning my poor ministrations
among your congregations opens again a wound of shame that was
but half healed. I feel the need of asking God, you, and your
hearers’ pardon, for weakening the glorious matter of the gospel
by my wretched, broken manner, and spoiling the heavenly power
of it by the uncleanness of my heart and lips. I should be
glad to go and be your curate some time this year; but I see
no opening, nor the least prospect of any. What between the
dead and the living, a parish ties one down more than a wife.
If I could go anywhere this year, it should be to Yorkshire, to
accompany Lady Huntingdon, according to a design that I had half
formed last year; but I fear that I shall be debarred even from
this. I set out, God willing, to-morrow morning for Trevecca,
to meet her ladyship there, and to show her the way to Madeley,
where she proposes to stay three or four days in her way to
Derbyshire. What chaplain she will have there I know not; God
will provide. I rejoice that, though you are sure of heaven,
you have still a desire to inherit the earth, by being a
_peacemaker_. Somehow, you will enjoy the blessings that others
may possibly refuse.
“Last Sunday seven-night, Captain Scott preached, to my
congregation, a sermon, which was more blessed, though preached
only upon my horse-block, than a hundred of those I preach in
the pulpit. I invited him to come and treat her Ladyship next
Sunday with another, now the place is consecrated. If you should
ever favour Shropshire with your presence, you shall have the
captain’s or the parson’s pulpit at your option. Many ask me
whether you will not come to have some fruit here also. What
must I answer them? I, and many more, complain of a stagnation
in the work. What must we do? Everything buds and blossoms
around us, yet our winter is not over. I thought Mr. Newton,[568]
who has been three weeks in Shropshire, would have brought
the turtle-dove along with him; but I could not prevail upon him
to come to this poor Capernaum. I think I hardly ever met his
fellow for a judicious spirit. Still, what has God done in him
and in me? I am out of hell, and mine eyes have seen something
of His salvation. Though I must and do gladly yield to Mr.
Newton and all my brethren, yet I must and will contend, that my
being in the way to heaven makes me as rich a monument of mercy,
as he, or any of them.
“I am, reverend and dear sir, your willing, though halting and
unworthy servant,
“JOHN FLETCHER.”
Rowland Hill has been mentioned. Though not ordained, and still
an undergraduate at St. John’s College, Cambridge, he had begun to
preach. He had also formed a small Society of his fellow-students,
and was infusing into them a portion of his own ardent zeal. For
these proceedings he was bitterly assailed. His father and mother were
decidedly opposed to the action he had taken. His superiors in the
University condemned, in the strongest terms, what they were pleased
to call his infringements of discipline; and hints were given him of a
refusal of testimonials and his degree, as the probable result of his
irregularities. In the midst of all this, Whitefield wrote to him as
follows:――
“HAVERFORDWEST, _June 4, 1767_.
“MY DEAR PROFESSOR,――I wish you joy of the late high dignity
conferred upon you――higher than if you were made the greatest
professor in the University of Cambridge.[569] The honourable
degrees you intend giving to your promising candidates, I trust,
will excite a holy ambition, and a holy emulation. Let me know
who is first honoured. As I have been admitted to the degree of
doctor for near these thirty years, I assure you I like my field
preferment, my airy pluralities, exceeding well.
“For these three weeks past, I have been beating up for fresh
recruits in Gloucestershire and South Wales. Thousands and
thousands attended. Good Lady Huntingdon was present at one of
our reviews. Her ladyship’s aide-de-camp preached in Brecknock
Street; and Captain Scott, that glorious field-officer, lately
fixed his standard upon dear Mr. Fletcher’s horse-block at
Madeley. Being invited thither, I have a great inclination
to lift up the Redeemer’s ensign, next week, in the same
place;――with what success, you and your dearly beloved candidates
for good old Methodistical contempt shall know hereafter. God
willing, I intend fighting my way up to town. Soon after my
arrival thither, I hope thousands and thousands of vollies
of prayers――energetic, effectual, fervent, heaven-besieging,
heaven-opening, heaven-taking prayers――shall be poured forth for
you all.
“Oh, my dearly beloved and longed for in the Lord, my bowels
yearn towards you. Fear not to go without the camp. Keep open
the correspondence between the two Universities.[570] Remember
the praying legions. They were never known to yield. God bless
those who are gone to their respective _cures_! I say not
_livings_,――a term of too modern date. Christ is our life.
Christ is the Levite’s inheritance. Greet your dear young
companions whom I saw. They are welcome to write to me when
they please.
“I am, etc.,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[571]
At this period, there was great excitement in the English colonies
of America respecting the proposed introduction of bishops of the
Established Church. The Rev. Thomas Bradbury Chandler, D.D., was now in
the forty-first year of his age. He had graduated at Yale College, but,
in 1751, came to England, and was episcopally ordained. He returned
to America as a missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts, and became rector of St. John’s Church, at
Elizabeth Town, New Jersey, where he long maintained a high character
for talent and learning. In the present year, 1767, he published “An
Appeal to the Public in Behalf of the Church of England in America,”
and dedicated his able performance to Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury.
The object of it was to secure the designation of two or more bishops,
to reside and to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in ♦the transatlantic
settlements.
He alleged that the appointment of commissaries had been a failure,
and that, as a consequence, such appointments had ceased for near
twenty years. The result of this was, the episcopal clergy in America
had no ecclesiastical superiors to unite or to control them; they were
independent of each other; and the people were free from all restraints
of ecclesiastical authority. For want of bishops, candidates for the
ministry had to come to England for ordination, at great hazard and
expense; and, because of this, numerous congregations were without
ministers. In the province of New Jersey, there were twenty-one
churches and congregations, eleven of which were entirely destitute of
clergymen, and there were but five to supply the pulpits of the other
ten. In Pennsylvania, there were in the city of Philadelphia three
churches, and but two ministers; and, in the rest of the province,
the number of the churches was twenty-six, and that of the clergy
only seven. In North Carolina, there were six clergymen, to supply the
wants of twenty-nine parishes, each parish containing a whole county.
Another argument adduced by Dr. Chandler was “the impossibility
that a bishop residing in England should be sufficiently acquainted
with the characters of those coming to them for Holy Orders. To this
it was owing, that ordination had been sometimes fraudulently and
surreptitiously obtained by such wretches, as were not only a scandal
to the Church, but a disgrace to the human species.” Dr. Chandler
further stated that the white population of America numbered about
three millions; and that, of these, about a third were professed
members of the Church of England; “the Presbyterians, Independents,
and Baptists were not so many; and the Germans, Papists, and other
denominations, amounted to more.” Besides these three millions, however,
there were, in the different colonies, about 840,000 negroes, most of
whom “belonged to the professors of the Church of England.” And there
were also the native Indians, the conversion of whom had been almost
altogether neglected. It was proposed that the “two or more bishops”
to be sent should “have no authority, but purely of a spiritual and
ecclesiastical nature; that they should not interfere with the property
or privileges, whether civil or religious, of Churchmen or Dissenters;
that, in particular, they should have no concern with the Probate of
Wills, Letters of Guardianship and Administration, or Marriage Licences,
nor be judges of any cases relating thereto; but that they should only
ordain and govern the clergy, and administer confirmation to those who
might desire it.” It was also proposed that they should be supported,
not by _tithes_, but by “perquisites such as the people might freely
grant them;” by the interest arising from a fund already in existence
for the purpose, in connection with the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts; and, if need were (which was not likely),
by the levying of a tax at the rate of fourpence in £100.
Such was the substance of Dr. Chandler’s temperate “Appeal,”――an
appeal which embodied the general views and feelings of the clergy and
members of the Church of England in America. Considerable excitement
existed previous to its publication; but now the subject became one
of the great controversies of the day. An American writer affirms
that “it had more to do with the American Revolution than is generally
supposed.”[572] The _American Whig_, a weekly newspaper, stoutly
opposed the scheme of Dr. Chandler. So also did the _Philadelphia
Centinél_. Their articles on the subject were reprinted in several
of the colonies; and a general agitation followed. The chief opponent,
however, was Dr. Chauncy, minister in Boston, who, more than twenty
years before, had made a vigorous onslaught upon Whitefield and his
co-revivalists. The general apprehension was, that the taxation of
the colonies, and the proposal to send them bishops, were parts of the
same system, the object of which was to infringe upon the political
and religious privileges of the people. Chauncy and his friends were
afraid, and perhaps not without reason, that the power and influence
of the government were being used to give ascendancy to the Episcopal
Church. They were angry with the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts for sending so many of their clergy to New
England, where they were not wanted. At this time, there were at least
five hundred and fifty educated ministers in the province, and not a
town, unless just settled, without a pastor. Besides, the clergy thus
sent were arrogant. They spoke of all the inhabitants of the town, in
which they lived, as _their_ parishioners, and as bound both by the
law of God and the state to be in communion with the Church of England.
Other churches were represented as mere excrescences or fungosities,
and their ministers were declared to be unauthorised, and their
ordinances invalid. All this naturally created opposition among the
non-episcopal churches. And, further, though Dr. Chandler professed
that the bishops to be sent would be no burden to the population,
the people feared it would be otherwise. Already the support of the
episcopal clergy had been thrown upon the community in South Carolina,
Virginia, and Maryland; and it was thought to be possible and probable
that the bishops, if sent, would have to be sustained, at least in
part, by the public taxes.
Amid this state of things, Whitefield commenced a correspondence
with the Archbishop of Canterbury, respecting the conversion of
his Orphanage into a College; and a remembrance of the facts just
noticed will help to a better understanding of some parts of that
correspondence. The letters are too long to be inserted _in extenso_,
but their substance shall be given. They were first published in
the month of May, 1768, with the title, “A Letter to his Excellency
Governor Wright, giving an Account of the Steps taken relative to the
converting the Georgia Orphan House into a College; together with the
Literary Correspondence that passed upon that Subject between his Grace
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Reverend Mr. Whitefield. To which
also is annexed the Plan and Elevation of the present and intended
Buildings,[574] and Orphan House Lands adjacent, By G. Whitefield,
A.M., late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain to the Countess
of Huntingdon. London, 1768.” (8vo. 31 pp.)
In his letter to “Governor Wright,” Whitefield mentions the deep
interest which his Excellency and the Council of Georgia had taken
in the scheme to convert the Orphan House into a College. He relates
that, since his return to England, in 1765, he had exerted his utmost
efforts to accomplish this; but various circumstances had impeded the
fulfilment of his plan. He had “delivered a memorial into the hands
of the late Clerk of his Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council.”
The memorial had been “transmitted to the Lord President;” and the
Lord President had submitted it “to the consideration of his Grace
the Archbishop of Canterbury.” He (Whitefield) had had “a literary
correspondence” with his Grace; but the correspondence, and the
negotiations, were now ended. He, therefore, wished to lay an account
of the whole transactions before his Excellency, and the Council and
Assembly of Georgia, and also before “all the other American colonists,
and the public in general.”
Whitefield commenced his correspondence with the Archbishop on June 17,
1767, and terminated it on February 12, 1768, within six months of his
Grace’s death.
He begins by reminding the Primate that the Lord President had
submitted his memorial to his Grace’s consideration, and that the Earl
of Dartmouth had put into his hands a copy of the intended charter for
the College. The Archbishop had made “judicious corrections,” and had
suggested that the charter should provide that the president of the
College should be a member or minister of the Church of England. In
reply to this, Whitefield writes:――
“I cannot in honour and conscience _oblige_ the master of the
Georgia College to be a member or minister of the Church of
England. Such an obligation has greatly retarded the progress
of the College of New York; as, on the contrary, the letter
signed by your Grace, Proprietor Penn, and the late Dr. Chandler,
engaging that the College of Philadelphia shall be continued on
a _broad bottom_, has promoted the growth of that institution.
The trustees of that seminary (as your Grace is pleased to
observe) have agreed ‘That their provost shall always be a
minister of the Established Church.’ But they are not thereto
enjoined by their charter. That is entirely silent concerning
this matter. Their agreement is purely voluntary. The wardens
of the College of Georgia will not be prohibited by charter
from following the example of the trustees of the College of
Philadelphia,” if they choose.
“The first master will assuredly be a clergyman of the Church
of England. By far the majority of the intended wardens are, and
always will be, members of that communion; and, consequently,
the choice of a master will always run in that channel. I
also desire that some worthy duly qualified minister of that
Church may be always found for this office. But, as persons of
all denominations have been contributors, I dare not confine
or fetter the future electors. The monies for the erecting
a college in New York were given by persons of all religious
persuasions, in confidence that the college would be founded on
an enlarged basis; and great numbers think themselves injured
by its being confined within its present contracted boundary.
Hence, many fine promising youths are sent from the college in
their native city to that of New Jersey. I dread giving the same
occasion of offence, and, therefore, am determined to avoid it
in the wording of the Georgia College charter.”
The Archbishop had further suggested that the charter should provide
for the daily use of the liturgy of the Church of England in the
College, and that the doctrines to be taught in it should be specified.
Whitefield objected to these suggestions, and wrote:――
“For the same reasons, I dare not enjoin the daily use of our
Church liturgy. I myself love to use it. I have fallen a martyr,
in respect to bodily health, to the frequent reading it in
Tottenham Court chapel. It has, also, been constantly read twice
every Sunday in the Orphan House, from its first institution to
this very day. The wardens, likewise, when the power is devolved
upon them, may determine this point as they please. But I cannot
enjoin it by charter; and have, therefore, in the accompanying
draught, not only omitted the paragraph concerning public prayer,
but also that concerning doctrinal articles.
“Your Grace further wisely observes, ‘His Majesty should be
well advised, whom he names for the first master.’ I trust he
will be so. I believe the Earl of Dartmouth will be so good as
to present the first master to your Grace’s approbation; but,
in the meanwhile, you may be assured the lot will not fall upon
me. My shoulders are too weak for such an academical burden. My
capacity is by no means extensive enough for such a scholastic
trust. To be a Presbyter at large is the station which Divine
Providence has called me to for near thirty years past. During
that space, I trust my eye has been single, and my views
disinterested; and my highest, my only ambition is that the
last glimmerings of an expiring taper may be blessed to guide
some wandering sinners to the practical knowledge of the great
Shepherd and Bishop of souls.
“I desire to bless His name, that I have been spared long enough
to see the colony of the once-despised Georgia, and the yet more
despised Orphan House, advanced to such a promising height. My
honoured friend and father, good Bishop Benson, from his dying
bed, sent me a benefaction for it of ten guineas, and poured
forth his dying breathings for its future prosperity. That your
Grace may be instrumental in promoting its welfare, when turned
into a College, is the earnest prayer of, etc.,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”
On July 1, the Archbishop acknowledged the receipt of Whitefield’s
letter, and stated that he had put Whitefield’s draught of a charter
for the College into the hands of the Lord President, who had promised
to consider it, but, meanwhile, desired to know how Whitefield proposed
to endow the College. Whitefield replied to this three days afterwards
to the following effect:――
“The present annual income of the Orphan House is between four
and five hundred pounds sterling. The house is surrounded with
1,800 acres of land. The number of negroes employed on this
land, in sawing timber, raising rice for exportation, and corn,
with all other provisions for the family, is about thirty.
The College will also be immediately possessed of 2,000 acres
of land near Altamaha, which were granted me by the Governor
and Council, when I was last in Georgia; and 1,000 acres more,
left, as I am informed, by the late Rev. Mr. Zububuhler.[575] By
laying out £1,000 in purchasing an additional number of negroes,
and allowing another £1,000 for repairing the house and building
the two intended wings, the present annual income may easily and
speedily be augmented to £1,000 per annum.
“Out of this standing fund may be paid the salaries of the
master, professors, tutors, etc., and also small exhibitions be
allowed for orphans or other poor students, who may have their
tutorage and room-rent gratis, and act as servitors to those who
enter commoners.
“At present, I would only further propose, that the negro
children, belonging to the College, shall be instructed, in
their intervals of labour, by one of the poorer students, as
is done now by one of the scholars in the present Orphan House.
And I do not see why provision may not likewise be made for
educating and maintaining a number of Indian children, which,
I imagine, may easily be procured from the Creeks, Choctaws,
Cherokees, and the other neighbouring nations.”
Such was Whitefield’s scheme. Further correspondence followed. The Lord
President expressed the opinion that the head of the College must be
a member of the Church of England, and that “the public prayers in the
College should not be extempore ones, but the liturgy of the Church,
or some part thereof, or some other settled and established form.”
Whitefield’s reply is dated, “Tottenham Court, October 16, 1767.” He
again objected to any clause being inserted in the charter, making
it _obligatory_ that the head of the College should be a member of
the Established Church. He reminded the Archbishop that “by far the
greatest part of the Orphan House collections and contributions came
from _Dissenters_, not only in New England, New York, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Scotland, but in England also.” He stated that,
since the announcement of the design to turn the Orphan House into a
College, and of the approval of that project by the Governor, Council,
and Assembly of Georgia, he had visited most of the places where the
benefactors of the Orphan House resided, and had frequently been asked,
“Upon what bottom the College was to be founded?” To these enquiries he
had answered, indeed, he had declared from the pulpit, that “it should
be upon a _broad bottom, and no other_.” He then continues:――
“This being the case, I would humbly appeal to the Lord
President, whether I can answer it to my God, my conscience, my
king, my country, my constituents, and Orphan House benefactors
and contributors, both at home and abroad, to betray my trust,
forfeit my word, act contrary to my own convictions, and greatly
retard and prejudice the growth and progress of the institution,
by narrowing its foundation, and thereby letting it fall upon
such a bottom, as will occasion general disgust, and most justly
open the mouths of persons of all denominations against me. This
is what I dare not do.”
Whitefield concludes by telling the Archbishop, that, as the influence
of his Grace, and of the Lord President, “will undoubtedly extend
itself to others of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council,” he
will not trouble them again about the business, but will himself “turn
the charity into a more generous and extensively useful channel.”
Thus the matter ended. Whitefield tried to convert his Orphan House
into a College; but, because the Lord President of the Privy Council,
and the Archbishop of Canterbury, insisted that it should practically
be an institution of the Church of England, by insisting that its
provost should be a member of that Church, his design, together with
that of the governor and rulers of Georgia, was frustrated. He was
well aware, that, in the present state of excited feeling among the
non-episcopalians of America, it would have been worse than useless to
turn his Orphanage into a Church of England College. His decision was,
at once, just and prudent. When the correspondence with the Archbishop
was concluded, Whitefield wrote as follows “To his Excellency James
Wright, Esq., Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the Province of
Georgia”:――
“Thus, may it please your Excellency, concluded my
correspondence with his Grace; and, I humbly hope, the Province
of Georgia will, in the end, be no loser by this negotiation.
For, I now purpose to superadd a public academy to the Orphan
House, as the College of Philadelphia[576] as constituted a
public academy, as well as charitable school, for some time
before its present college charter was granted in 1755.”