order within, and the domestics around the outside of the rail.
The chapel was more than crowded. Near three hundred tickets,
signed by the present Earl, were given out to the nobility and
gentry, to be admitted. All was hushed and solemn. Proper hymns
were sung, and I preached on these words, ‘I heard a voice from
heaven, saying unto me, Write, blessed are the dead that die
in the Lord.’ Attention sat on every face, and deep and almost
universal impressions were made.
“The like scene, and if possible more solemn, was exhibited in
the evening; and I was enabled to preach a second time. A like
power attended the word, as in the morning.
“Ever since, there has been public service and preaching twice a
day. This is to be continued till Friday morning. Then all is to
be removed to Bristol, in order to be shipped for Scotland. The
inscription on the coffin runs thus:――
“His life was honourable,
His death blessed;
He sought earnestly peace with God;――
He found it,
With unspeakable joy,
Alone in the merits of Christ Jesus,
Witnessed by the Holy Spirit to his soul.
He yet speaketh:
‘Go thou, and do likewise.’”
These were strange scenes, but who can find fault with them? And who
can estimate their permanent influence upon the eleventh Earl of Buchan,
and upon his illustrious brother, then only seventeen years of age, but
afterwards Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain?
Whitefield continued preaching at Bath, Bristol, and Kingswood, till
December 21, when he set out for London. Meanwhile, the young Earl of
Buchan had also come to town, from his father’s funeral in Scotland,
and, at once, associated himself with Lord and Lady Dartmouth, Mrs.
Carteret, Mrs. Cavendish, and a numerous circle of distinguished
persons, the friends of Whitefield and the Methodists. Whitefield
refers to this, in the following letter to the Rev. John Gillies:――
“London, December 28, 1767. The present noble Earl of Buchan,
I believe, has got the blessing. He seems to determine to know
nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. He has behaved
in the most delicate manner to the Countess, and other noble
survivors. He stands here in town against all opposition, like
an impregnable rock; and I humbly hope will prove the Daniel
of the age. He has already been thrown into a den of lions;
but he has One with him, who stops the lions’ mouths. You will
encourage all God’s people to pray for him. What if you wrote
him a line? I am sure it will be taken kindly; for I know he
honours and loves you much.
“I am now fifty-three years old. Did you ever hear of such a
fifty-three years’ old barren fig-tree? So much digging, so
much dunging; and yet so little fruit. God be merciful to me a
sinner! A sinner! A sinner! A sinner! He is merciful! His mercy
endureth for ever! He yet vouchsafes to bless my feeble labours.”
The young Earl of Buchan did not disappoint Whitefield’s hopes
concerning him. Besides maintaining the dignity of the Scottish
peerage, and becoming an ardent lover and promoter of literature and
the fine arts, he made a public avowal of his religious principles;
and, though this drew down upon him the laugh and lash of wits and
witlings, he defied their sneers, and dared “to be singularly good;”
and, acting under the advice of the Countess of Huntingdon, appointed
Venn, Fletcher, and Berridge to be his chaplains.[596]
Benjamin Franklin, the poor printer, was now a man of great distinction.
He had visited Holland, Germany, and France; and, for the last two
years, had been in England. The degree of LL.D. had been conferred upon
him by the three Universities of St. Andrew’s, Edinburgh, and Oxford.
In France Louis XV. had shown him marked attention. But, in the midst
of all his honours, he still respected his old friend Whitefield. The
following letter, which the great preacher addressed to Franklin, is
highly characteristic of the writer:――
“TOTTENHAM COURT, _January 21, 1768_.
“MY DEAR DOCTOR,――When will it suit you to have another
interview? The” (Bethesda) “College affair is dormant. For above
a week, I have been dethroned, by a violent cold and hoarseness.
Who but would work and speak for God while it is day! ‘The night
cometh when no man can work.’ Through rich grace, I can sing, ‘O
death, where is thy sting?’ but only through Jesus of Nazareth.
Your daughter, I find, is beginning the world. I wish you joy
from the bottom of my heart. You and I shall soon go out of
it. Ere long we shall see it burst. Angels shall summon us to
attend on the funeral of time; and we shall see eternity rising
out of its ashes. That you and I may be in the happy number of
those who, in the midst of the tremendous blaze, shall cry Amen!
Hallelujah! is the hearty prayer of, my dear Doctor,
“Yours, etc.,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[597]
Not long after this, Franklin wrote to Whitefield respecting the
disturbances at Boston, which resulted in the American rebellion.
Though his affection for Whitefield was undoubtedly sincere, he found
it difficult to conceal his scepticism even when writing to his friend.
The following is an extract from his letter:――
“I am under continued apprehensions that we may have bad news
from America. The sending soldiers to Boston always appeared to
me a dangerous step; they could do no good, they might occasion
mischief. When I consider the warm resentment of a people who
think themselves injured and oppressed, and the common insolence
of the soldiery who are taught to consider that people as in
rebellion, I cannot but fear the consequences of bringing them
together. It seems like setting up a smith’s forge in a magazine
of gunpowder. I _see_ with you that our affairs are not well
managed by our rulers here below; I wish I could _believe_ with
you, that they are well attended to by those above; I rather
suspect, from certain circumstances, that though the general
government of the universe is well administered, our particular
little affairs are perhaps below notice, and left to take the
chance of human prudence or imprudence, as either may happen to
be uppermost. It is, however, an uncomfortable thought, and I
leave it.”
No wonder that Whitefield endorsed his friend’s letter with the words,
“_Uncomfortable_ indeed! and, blessed be God, _unscriptural_; for we
are fully assured that ‘the Lord reigneth,’ and are directed to cast
_all_ our care on Him, because He careth for us.”[598]
Lady Huntingdon was multiplying her chapels; but none of them were
episcopally consecrated. Whitefield, the Wesleys, Romaine, Madan,
Fletcher, and other Methodist clergymen preached in them as far as they
had opportunity; but, it was evident, that, without lay evangelists,
the work would be impeded. Captain Scott, Captain Joss, Thomas Adams,
and others rendered efficient help to Whitefield in his London chapels;
but they were not sufficient to meet the growing wants of himself and
the Countess. Hence, her ladyship began to make preparation for the
training of converted and zealous men to supply the existing pulpits,
and to extend the work. At Trevecca, not far from the residence of
Howell Harris, stood an ancient structure, part of an old castle,
erected in the reign of Henry II. The date over the entrance is 1176.
This venerable ruin belonged to Harris, who rented it to the Countess,
for the purpose of its being turned into a sort of ministerial college.
The repairs were now in hand, and Harris acted as supervisor. In a
letter addressed to him, she wrote:――
“London, February 22, 1768. I think the work cannot be finished,
for the furniture, before June; and, therefore, conclude the
opening of the school must be delayed until the end of August.
I shall be glad to have an exact account of the expenses as they
go on.
“What must I say of this poor city? Religion is _fashion_, not
faith. Disputing and church party is the subject of all I see.
Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield hold up their heads above it.
Sandeman principles make some noise. May my soul and spirit,
life, mind, and talents, be ever devoted to Christ alone!”[599]
The proposal of her ladyship was to admit none into her school
except such as were truly converted to God, and resolved to dedicate
themselves to His service. They were to be at liberty to stay three
years, during which time they were to have their education gratis, with
every necessary of life, and a suit of clothes once a year. Afterwards,
those who desired it might enter into the ministry, either in the
Established Church, or among Protestants of any other denomination.
The plan for the examination of candidates was drawn up, and approved
of by Romaine, Venn, Wesley, and others; and Fletcher was fixed upon to
be the president.[600]
Little did the Countess think that the time was near when such a
provision would become more important than either she or any of her
advisers had imagined. A storm had long been gathering, in both the
Oxford and Cambridge Universities; and now it burst. A correspondent
of _Lloyd’s Evening Post_[601] wrote as follows:――
“St. Edmund’s Hall is the place where a lady sends all those
who have a mind to creep into Orders. The other day, several of
the undergraduates of that Hall disobliged their tutor; and this
one spark set their whole Methodistical foundation on fire. The
tutor went immediately to their visitor, and laid open all their
proceedings, upon which he appointed a meeting of the heads of
houses, where seven of them, one of whom is a gentleman commoner,
were accused of their several offences. One, I think, was for
procuring a false testimonium;[602] another for preaching in
the fields before he was in orders; a letter was read publicly,
which the tutor had received from a gentleman, testifying that
this man had made him a very good periwig only two years before;
two or three for frequenting illicit conventicles; but another
was accused only of ignorance, impudence, and disobedience,
and is acquitted. All the others were expelled, not only for
the offences I have mentioned, but, likewise, for preaching
doctrines contrary to the Church of England.”
The “lady” referred to in this letter was the Countess of Huntingdon;
but there is not the slightest proof of the accusation brought against
her.[603] It might contain a modicum of truth; but the base part of the
allegation was false and slanderous. The names of the undergraduates
were Benjamin Kay, James Matthews, Thomas Jones, Thomas Grove, Erasmus
Middleton, and Joseph Shipman. This is not the place to relate the
history of the six expelled students; but, it may be added, that, Mr.
Kay was of respectable family, and an excellent scholar. Mr. Matthews,
who was charged with having been instructed by Fletcher, of Madeley,
with being the associate of known Methodists, and with attending
illicit conventicles, was afterwards received into Lady Huntingdon’s
Academy at Trevecca. Thomas Jones was the periwig-maker, but, for
some time, had resided with John Newton, curate of Olney, under
whose instruction he had acquired a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew
Scriptures. Besides the crime of being brought up to the trade of a
hair-dresser, he was accused of praying, singing hymns, and expounding
the Scriptures in private houses. After his expulsion, he was ordained,
became curate of Clifton, near Birmingham, and married the sister of
the poet Cowper’s friend, the Lady Austin. Mr. Grove confessed to the
Archbishop of Canterbury that he had been led into irregularities;
the Chancellor consented to his re-admission; but the Vice-Chancellor
refused; and the future history of the submissive undergraduate is
unknown. Mr. Middleton was ordained in Ireland by the Bishop of Down;
became curate of Romaine and Cadogan; wrote his _Biographia Evangelica_;
and finally was presented to the rectory of Turvey, in the county of
Bedford. Mr. Shipman, after his expulsion, was admitted to the Academy
of the Countess of Huntingdon at Trevecca. His ministry was soon ended;
but, at Plymouth, Bristol, Rodborough, and Haverfordwest, his preaching
was singularly useful. He died October 31, 1771.
The tutor, who preferred the charges against the Methodist students,
was Mr. Higson, who was not always _compos mentis_, and had been
treated as insane. The Vice-Chancellor was the Rev. Dr. Durell, who
was the determined enemy of the accused. Their friend, the Rev. Dr.
Dixon, was the principal of their college. Their judges were Drs.
Durell, Randolph, Fothergill, Nowell, and Atterbury. The expulsion took
place on March 11, 1768.[604]
The event, as might be expected, created a national sensation. A large
number of persons warmly approved of the sentence of the judicial junta;
among whom was the famous Dr. Johnson. “Sir,” said Johnson to his
friend Boswell, “the expulsion was extremely just and proper. What have
they to do at a University, who are not willing to be taught, but will
presume to teach? Where is religion to be learnt but at a University?
Sir, they were examined, and found to be mighty ignorant fellows.”
Boswell: “But was it not hard, sir, to expel them, for I am told they
were good beings?” Johnson: “I believe they might be good beings,
but they were not fit to be in the University of Oxford. A cow is a
very good animal in the field, but we turn her out of a garden.”[605]
Johnson’s similitude was more forcible than appropriate; but, even
admitting that, in a literary point of view, the expelled were not
fit for the University, it may be asked, who were responsible for
their admission? Really, their only crimes were, that some of them had
been ignobly bred, and all of them had sung, and prayed, and read the
Scriptures in private houses. In this respect, they were not alone.
Dr. Stillingfleet, Fellow of Merton College, and afterwards Prebendary
of Worcester; Mr. Foster, of Queen’s College; Mr. Pugh, of Hertford
College; Mr. Gordon, of Magdalen; Mr. Clark, of St. John’s; and
Mr. Halward, of Worcester College, had done just the same; but these
were gentlemen whom it would have been somewhat perilous to treat
with the same collegiate tyranny that was exercised towards the humble
undergraduates who were ignominiously expelled.
The latter, however, were not without friends. Rowland Hill and his
Methodist associates, Pentycross, Simpson, Robinson, and others, at
Cambridge, were in intimate communion with them; and Rowland Hill’s
brother, afterwards Sir Richard Hill, became their principal defender.
He published his “Pietas Oxoniensis.” (8vo. 85 pp.); which was answered
by Dr. Nowell, principal of St. Mary’s Hall. Other pamphlets, _pro et
con_, were issued, too numerous to be mentioned here; but Whitefield’s
must have attention. It was the last he published, and was entitled,
“A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Durell, Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Oxford; occasioned by a late Expulsion of Six Students from Edmund
Hall. By George Whitefield, M.A., late of Pembroke College, Oxford; and
Chaplain to the Countess of Huntingdon.” (8vo., 50 pp.) The “Letter”
was dated, “London, April 12, 1768,” and was one of Whitefield’s most
spirited productions. In reply to “one article of impeachment, namely,
that some of” the six expelled students “were of trades before they
entered the University,” he reminded the Vice-Chancellor that there
was no “evil or crime worthy of expulsion” in this, for “God took
David from the sheep-fold;” “David’s Lord had for his reputed father a
carpenter, and, in all probability, worked at the trade of a carpenter
Himself;” He “chose poor fishermen to be His apostles;” and St. Paul
“laboured with his own hands, and worked at the trade of a tent-maker.”
In reference to the charge of using extempore prayer, Whitefield
argued, that, though the “English liturgy is one of the most excellent
forms of public prayer in the world,” yet no form “can possibly suit
every particular case.” Besides, said he, “what great sinners must they
have been, who prayed, in an extempore way, before any forms of prayer
existed? The prayers we read of in Scripture,――the prayers which opened
and shut heaven, the effectual, fervent, energetic prayers of those
righteous and holy men of old, which availed so much with God, were
all of an extempore nature. And I am apt to believe, if, not only
our students and ministers, but private Christians, were born from
above, and taught of God, as those wrestlers with God were, they would
want forms of prayer no more than they did.”[606] “The crime of using
extempore prayer is not so much as mentioned in any of our law books;
and, therefore, a crime for which, it is to be hoped, no student will
hereafter be summoned to appear at the bar of any of the reverend
doctors of divinity, or heads of houses in the University of Oxford.”
“It is also to be hoped that as some have been expelled for extempore
praying, we shall hear of some being expelled for extempore swearing.”
One extract must suffice respecting the charge of “singing hymns”:――
“Were the sons of the prophets more frequently to entertain
themselves thus, it would be as suitable to the ministerial
character as tripping up their heels, skipping and dancing at
the music of a ball-room, or playing a first fiddle at a concert.
The voice of spiritual melody would be as much to the honour of
the University as the more frequent noise of box and dice, at
the unlawful games of hazard and back-gammon.”
On the subject of “giving private exhortations,” Whitefield aptly
observed:――
“Our all-wise Master sent His disciples on short excursions,
before He gave them the more extensive commission to go into
all the world; and were our students in general, under proper
limitations, to be thus exercised, they would not turn out to be
such mere novices, as too many raw creatures do when they make
their first appearance in the pulpit. I remember, above thirty
years ago, some young students had been visiting the sick and
imprisoned, and had been giving a word of exhortation in a
private house; and, upon meeting the minister of the parish on
their return to college, they frankly told him what they had
been doing; when he turned to them, and said, ‘God bless you! I
wish we had more such young curates;’――a more Christian sentence
this, than that of a late expulsion for the very same supposed
crimes and misdemeanours.”
Whitefield proceeded to remind Dr. Durell of the effort which was being
made to establish the episcopacy in the American colonies, and of the
opposition of the colonists to the scheme, and then added:――
“That persons of all ranks, from Quebec down to the two Floridas,
are at this time more than prejudiced against it, is notorious;
but how will the thought of the introduction of lord bishops
make them shudder, if their lordships should think proper to
countenance the expulsion of religious students, whilst those
who have no religion at all meet with approbation and applause.”
Turning to the general subject of Methodism, Whitefield continued:――
“It is notorious that the grand cause of these young men’s
expulsion was, that they were either real or reputed Methodists.
Scarce any now-a-days can pray extempore, sing hymns, go to
church or meeting, and abound in other acts of devotion, but
they must be immediately dubbed Methodists.”
And then, in reference to the first Oxford Methodists, he added:――
“If worldly church preferments had been their aim, some of
them, at least, might have had ladders enough to climb up by;
but having received a kind of apostolical commission at their
ordination, they would fain keep up the dignity of an apostolic
character; and, therefore, without ever so much as designing
to enter into any political cabals, or civil or church factions,
without turning to the right hand or the left, or troubling the
world with a single sermon or pamphlet on the bare externals of
religion, they have endeavoured to have but one thing in view,
namely, to think of nothing, to know nothing, and to preach of
nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified; to spend and be
spent for the good of souls, and to glory in nothing saving in
the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto them
and they unto the world.”
Such was Whitefield’s last description of the first Methodist preachers.
May this be the character of all their successors to the end of time!
Of course, Whitefield’s “Letter” to Dr. Durell evoked replies; but only
one of these can be noticed here. It was entitled, “Remarks upon the
Rev. Mr. Whitefield’s Letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Oxford; in a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield. By a late Member of
the University of Oxford. Oxford, 1768.” (8vo., 62 pp.) Two or three
extracts from this angry and abusive production must be given. In
reference to Whitefield himself, the author says:――
“I address you without any hope of reforming you, for, it would
be absurd in me to prove a person insane, and, at the same
time, attempt to convince him of that insanity. That would be
supposing him in his senses in order to satisfy him that he is
out of them. My design is to deal with you as magistrates do
with an offender, whom they despair of bringing to any good.
They animadvert upon him for the good of others, and, by open
punishment, aim at suppressing the influence which his advice
or example may have had upon his acquaintance.
“Your sermons are off-hand harangues,――mere enthusiastic
rant,――a wild rhapsody of nonsense,――the foam of an over-heated
imagination,――like old wives’ fables, or profane and
vain babblings,――proceeding from a spirit of pride and
ignorance. Such teachers as yourself, are blind leaders of the
blind,――jack-o’-lanthorn meteors, or _ignes fatui_, drawing
the mazed follower through briars and bogs, till he is plunged
into inextricable ruin. But, however absurd and ridiculous
your sermons――the _spuings_ of the heart upon the people, in
unconcocted sentences――they are tolerable in comparison of your
extempore prayers to the Deity.”
This was hardly polite to come from “a late member of the University
of Oxford;” but let it pass, and listen to what the accomplished author
says of the six expelled students:――
“These low mechanics were moved with the spirit of pride and
ignorance, and had no other calls but of vanity, idleness, and
hunger; and, I make no doubt, had their attempt to creep through
some privy holes, or to climb over the fences into the ministry
been crowned with success, they would have scorned the dust from
whence they sprung, and, spurred on with the turbulent spirit
of ambition, would never have ceased clambering after the higher
places, and would even have been dissatisfied, though they
reached the highest round of the ecclesiastical ladder.”
One sentence more from this elegant publication:――
“If a large stock of pride, with the profoundest ignorance,
and a brow harder than adamant, be sufficient to set up a
Methodistical spouter, what occasion is there to send him to
the University?”
In order to get rid of a subject so unpleasant, it may be added
here, that, besides this, there were several other pamphlets published
against Whitefield and the Methodists during the year 1768. For
instance, there was “The Troublers of Israel, in which the Principles
of those who turn the World upside down are displayed. With a Preface
to the Rev. Dr. ――――. To which is prefixed a short introductory
Description of Modern Enthusiasts.” (4to.) A kind of opera, exceedingly
incoherent, and profanely foolish. 2. “Sermons to Asses” (12mo., 212
pp.), dedicated to Whitefield, Wesley, Romaine, and Madan,――chiefly a
political publication, with a fling at the Methodists. 3. “Enthusiasm
Detected and Defeated. By Samuel Roe, A.M., Vicar of Stotfold, in
Bedfordshire.” (8vo., 319 pp.) Principally an attack on Wesley, but not
altogether exempting Whitefield. “I humbly propose to the legislative
powers,” said the Rev. Samuel Roe, “to make an example of Tabernacle
preachers, by enacting a law to _cut out their tongues_, who have
been the incorrigible authors of so many mischiefs and distractions
throughout the English dominions. And, by the said authority, to _cut
out the tongues_ of all field-teachers, and preachers in houses, barns,
or elsewhere, without apostolical ordination and legal authority, being
approved and licensed to enter upon that most sacred trust.” 4. “The
Hypocrite: a Comedy. As it is performed at the Theatre Royal in Drury
Lane” (8vo.),――in which a Tabernacle enthusiast occupied a prominent
position.