---

THIRD VISIT TO AMERICA.

August 1744 to June 1748.

WHITEFIELD and his wife embarked at Plymouth about August 10, and landed at York, in New England, on October 26. The voyage was long, rough, and dangerous. Six days before his arrival, he wrote:—

Perhaps it will be thought that Whitefield and his fellow-voyagers were more alarmed than hurt. But the narrative is not ended. When near the port of York, a small fishing smack approached them. Being told that the smack would be in port several hours before the ship, Whitefield and others went on board. It soon grew dark. The pilots missed the inlet, and the smack was tossed about all night. Whitefield’s hunger was such, that, to use his own expression, he “could have gnawed the very boards.” The fishermen had nothing eatable, except a few potatoes. Whitefield eagerly devoured them. About half an hour after his arrival at York, he “was put to bed, racked with a nervous colic, and convulsed from his waist down to his toes.” For four days, his life was in danger. Word was sent to Boston, that he was dying. A friend and a physician came, says he, “either to take care of me, or to attend my funeral; but, to their great surprise, they found me in the pulpit.” The truth is, as soon as Whitefield’s pain abated, the minister at York asked him to preach, and, of course, the temptation was too powerful to be resisted.

Not content with this imprudence, he crossed the ferry to Portsmouth, caught cold, had a return of illness, and was taken to the house of Mr. Sherburne.109 Three physicians attended him, and Colonel Pepperell,110 with many others, came to condole with him. It so happened, however, that he was announced to preach at Portsmouth the day after his arrival. A substitute was provided: but, when the time for holding the service came, Whitefield suddenly exclaimed, “Doctor, my pains are suspended; by the help of God, I will go and preach, and then come home and die.” He wrote:—

Whitefield was now thoroughly disabled. Hence the following letter from his wife to a friend in England:—

Mrs. Whitefield speaks of “some opposition.” What was it? Considerable space will have to be occupied in answering this question. The reader will already have observed that some of the Presbyterian and Congregational ministers of America were as bitterly opposed to Whitefield as were any of the clergy of the Church of England. This will become increasingly manifest by the following details. First of all, however, must be given a rampant letter by a quondam Congregationalist, who was now an Episcopalian of the most fervid type.

Timothy Cutler, after graduating at Harvard College, was ordained in 1709, minister of Stratford, Connecticut, and soon became the most celebrated preacher in the colony. In 1719, he was chosen president of Yale College. Three years afterwards, he renounced his connection with the Congregational churches; and, in consequence, was dismissed from his presidential chair. Embarking for England, he was, in 1723, ordained, first a deacon and then a priest of the Established Church; and, at the same time, was created a doctor of divinity, by the Oxford University. Soon after, he became rector of Christ Church, Boston, where he continued till his death in 1765. Though haughty and overbearing in his manners, he was a man of great ability, and, in addition to his general learning, was one of the best oriental scholars of the age. In the following letter to the Rev. Dr. Zachary Grey, of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire, Dr. Cutler, doubtless, represented the Episcopalian animosity too generally cherished by the clergy of New England.

Another notable opponent must be introduced. The Rev. Charles Chauncy, D.D., was born in Boston, in the year 1705. He entered Harvard College at the age of twelve, and four years afterwards received his first degree. In 1727, he was ordained pastor of the first church in Boston, as colleague of the Rev. Thomas Foxcroft. He died in 1787, in the eighty-third year of his age, and the sixtieth of his ministry. Chauncy was eminent for his learning, was ardently attached to the civil and religious liberties of his country, and strongly objected to State Church establishments. His publications were too numerous to be specified in a work like this. His last days were almost entirely occupied in devotional exercises.

One of his publications, issued in 1742, was entitled, “Enthusiasm described and cautioned against. A Sermon preached at the Old Brick Meeting-house in Boston, in 1742. With a Letter to the Rev. Mr. James Davenport.” (8vo. 35 pp.) Mr. Davenport was the minister of Southhold, Long Island; and, during Whitefield’s previous visit to America, became extremely popular in the great revival. Among other places, he visited New Haven, and encouraged the agitations and outcries, which at that time attracted so much attention. In 1742, the Assembly of Connecticut, deeming him under the influence of enthusiastic impulses, directed the governor to transport him out of the colony to the place whence he came. Two years afterwards, he published a confession and retractation. Whitefield is not mentioned in Dr. Chauncy’s sermon; but there can be little doubt, that it was levelled against him as well as against James Davenport.

Twelve months after this, Whitefield was made one of the most prominent figures in another of Chauncy’s works: “Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England. By Charles Chauncy, D.D. Boston, 1743.” (8vo. 454 pp.) It is impossible to give here any general outline of Chauncy’s book, but a few facts and extracts may be useful.

Dr. Chauncy declares that he “could never see upon what warrant, either from Scripture or reason, Mr. Whitefield went about preaching from one province and parish to another, where the gospel was already preached, and by persons as well qualified for the work as he could pretend to be.” He inclines to think, however, that Whitefield was moved by conceit and a love of popular applause. “The inconveniences, which had arisen from this method of acting, had been so great, that the Assembly of Connecticut had passed an Act, restraining both ordained ministers, and licensed candidates, from preaching in other men’s parishes, without their and their church’s consent; and wholly prohibiting the exhortations of illiterate laymen.” “Most, if not all, of the present itinerants are swollen and ready to burst with spiritual pride. As to their mission, they have none, except from their own fond imagination.” “Mr. Whitefield seldom preached, but he had something or other in his sermon, against unconverted ministers; and what he delivered had an evident tendency to fill the minds of the people with evil surmisings against the ministers, as though they were, for the most part, carnal, unregenerate wretches. He often spake of them, in the lump, as Pharisees, enemies of Christ Jesus, and the worst enemies he had.” “There never was a time, since the settlement of New England, wherein there was so much bitter and rash judging—parents condemning their children, and children their parents; husbands their wives, and wives their husbands; masters their servants, and servants their masters; ministers their people, and people their ministers. Censoriousness, to a high degree, is the constant appendage of this religious commotion.” “I have all along encouraged a hope of Mr. Whitefield as a real Christian. And he has certainly been zealous and active beyond most of his brethren. But has he not, through the inexperience of youth, and an intemperature of zeal, been betrayed into such things as cannot but be condemned? In particular, I was always afraid, lest people, from him, should learn to give heed to impulses and impressions, and, by degrees, come to revelations, and other extraordinaries of this kind.”

“Another bad thing is the confusion that has been so common, of late, in some of our houses of worship. Says a friend, in giving an account of things, he was himself a witness to, ‘The meeting was carried on with great confusion; some screaming out in distress and anguish; some praying; others singing; some jumping up and down the house, while others were exhorting; some lying along on the floor, and others walking and talking: the whole with a very great noise, to be heard at a mile’s distance, and continued almost the whole night.’”115

Dr. Chauncy proceeds to mention the dangerous errors now prevalent among the people; namely: 1. “That which supposes ministers, if not converted, incapable of being instruments of spiritual good to men’s souls. Mr. Whitefield very freely vented this error!”116 2. “A presumptuous dependence on the blessed Spirit; appearing in the following particulars: so depending on the help of the Spirit as to despise learning;” also, so as to “oppose a diligent use of appointed means;” and so as to “reflect dishonour upon the written revelations of God.” 3. “The making assurance essential to conversion.” 4. “The connecting a knowledge of the time of conversion with the thing itself as though there could not be the one without the other.” 5. “The vilifying of good works.” 6. “Decrying sanctification as an evidence of justification.”

Dr. Chauncy inserts a “proclamation for a day of public fasting and prayer,” issued, on the 9th of February, 1743, by the Honourable Jonathan Law, Esq., Governor of Connecticut, in which the ministers and people of the colony are exhorted to “confess and bewail” all their sins; “particularly, the great neglect and contempt of the gospel and the ministry thereof, and the prevailing of a spirit of error, disorder, unpeaceableness, pride, bitterness, uncharitableness, censoriousness, disobedience, calumniating and reviling of authority; also divisions, contentions, separations, and confusions in churches; and injustice, idleness, evil-speaking, lasciviousness, and all other vices and impieties which abound among us.”

The fifth and last part of Dr. Chauncy’s book contains “the best expedients to promote the interest of religion at this day.” He quotes, with approval, some of Jonathan Edwards’s recommendations, such as “confessing of faults on both sides;” “the exercise of extraordinary meekness and forbearance;” “prayer with fasting;” “care taken that the colleges be so regulated as to be nurseries of piety;” and “taking heed that, while fulfilling the external duties of devotion—as praying, hearing, singing, and attending religious meetings—there must be proportionable care to abound in moral duties, as acts of righteousness, truth, meekness, forgiveness, and love towards our neighbour.” To these recommendations, Dr. Chauncy adds some of his own, namely: 1. “The putting a stop to itinerant preaching.” 2. “So to guard church pulpits, that no raw, unqualified persons might be suffered, upon any terms, to go into them.” 3. To guard “against a wrong use of the passions.” 4. The exercise of a “strict discipline in our churches.” 5. “A due care to prove all things, that we may hold fast that which is good.”

These are lengthy, though imperfect, extracts; but, if an apology be needed, it may be found in the facts that Dr. Chauncy was one of the most influential men in New England, and that the effects produced by his book were greater than can be well imagined. He prefixes to his work a list of nearly eight hundred subscribers, including four governors of colonies, twenty-seven “honourables,” and a hundred and forty-seven “reverends.”

Whitefield published a reply to Chauncy’s book; but, strangely enough, the reply is not in his collected works, and seems to have been unknown to all his biographers. The following was its title: “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Chauncy, on account of some passages relating to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, in his book entitled, ‘Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England.’ By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxon. Boston, 1745.” (4to. 14 pp.) The letter is dated, “Portsmouth, Piscataqua, November 19, 1744;” and the preface to it, “Boston, January 18, 1745.”

The spirit breathing in Whitefield’s pamphlet is beautifully Christian; and, wherever he defends himself, he does it most successfully. He confesses, however, that he was wrong, when he said, “Many, nay, most of the New England preachers did not experimentally know Christ;” and, in reference to Tillotson, he says, “I acknowledge that I spake of his person in too strong terms, and too rashly condemned his state, when I ought only to have censured his doctrine.” The following is Whitefield’s concluding paragraph:—

Other hostile publications must be mentioned. The Congregational ministers of Massachusetts were accustomed to meet at Boston on the day of the opening of the colonial legislature, to converse on matters of general interest, and to hear a sermon from one of their number previously appointed. The convention of 1743 had for its moderator the Rev. Nathaniel Eells, and by its authority the following was published: “The Testimony of the Pastors of the Churches in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in New England, at their Annual Convention in Boston, May 25, 1743, against several Errors in Doctrine and Disorders in Practice, which have of late obtained in various parts of the Land.” The doctrinal errors were attaching importance to secret impulses of the mind, without due regard to the written word; that none are converted, but such as know they are converted, and the time when; that assurance is of the essence of saving faith; and that sanctification is no evidence of justification. The disorders in practice were: Ordained ministers and young candidates going from place to place, and preaching without the knowledge, or contrary to the leave, of the stated pastors in such places; private persons of no education and but low attainments, without any regular call, taking upon themselves to be preachers of the word; ordaining or separating persons to the work of the evangelical ministry at large, without any relation to a particular charge; separation from the particular flocks to which persons belong, to join themselves with, and support lay exhorters and itinerants; and assuming the prerogatives of God, to look into the hearts of their neighbours, and to censure their brethren, especially their ministers, as Pharisees and Arminians.

As an antidote to the decisions of this convention, another publication was issued. On the 7th of July, 1743, ninety ministers met at Boston, chose Dr. Sewall as their moderator, and Thomas Prince as their secretary, and published “The Testimony and Advice of an Assembly of Pastors of Churches in New England, at a meeting in Boston, July 7, 1743, occasioned by the late happy Revival of Religion in many parts of the Land.” The “Testimony” was signed by sixty-eight of the ministers present, and was agreed to by forty-five who were absent.

After this there was a convention of laymen, who issued the following: “The Testimony and Advice of a Number of Laymen, respecting Religion and the Teachers of it. Addressed to the Pastors of New England.” The “Testimony” is dated “Boston, September 12, 1743.” Speaking of Whitefield, it says:—

After sneering at Whitefield as “the grand itinerant,” “the reverend bachelor of arts,” “the reverend youth,” and “the reverend stripling,” the “Testimony” finishes by exhorting the “pastors of New England,” to study the Scriptures, to acquire knowledge, to preach the gospel in its simplicity, to throw aside the use of technical terms, which neither they nor their hearers understand, and not to be “apish imitators of foreigners.”

All these were issued previous to Whitefield’s arrival in 1744; the following were published soon after:—

1. “A Letter from two neighbouring Associations of Ministers in the Country, to the Associated Ministers of Boston and Charlestown, relating to the admission of Mr. Whitefield into their pulpits.” The “letter” was dated December 26, 1744, and had the approbation of nineteen ministers. The following is an extract. Having assumed, as an undisputed truth, that great and grievous disorders had prevailed among the churches, through the influence of itinerants, they ask:—

2. The next publication must be prefaced. The Rev. Edward Wigglesworth, D.D., was a man of distinguished talents, and, for the last two and twenty years, had been professor of divinity in Harvard College. The Rev. Edward Holyoke was president of the same college, and, as a scholar and a preacher, had gained a high reputation. During his former visit to America, Whitefield had preached before the professors and students of Harvard College with great power and acceptance; but, in his journal, subsequently published, there was the following paragraph:—

This evoked “A Testimony from the President and Professors, Tutors, and Hebrew Instructor of Harvard College, against the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield and his Conduct.” The “Testimony” is dated “December 28, 1744.” The faculty of Harvard College say, “We look upon Mr. Whitefield’s going about in an itinerant way, especially as he has so much of an enthusiastical turn of mind, as being utterly inconsistent with the peace and order, if not the very being, of the Churches of Christ.” Whitefield was charged with “enthusiasm,” and with being “an uncharitable, censorious, and slanderous man.” The faculty refer to his “reproachful reflections” on their college, and denounce his “rashness and his arrogance; his rashness,” say they, “in publishing such a disadvantageous character of us, because somebody had so informed him; and his arrogance, that such a young man as he should take upon him to tell what books we should allow our pupils to read.” They pronounce Whitefield’s assertion that “the light of the universities had become darkness,” a “most wicked and libellous falsehood;” and, in reference to his statement that many of the ministers of the country were unconverted, they say he is “guilty of gross breaches of the ninth commandment of the moral law.” They bear “testimony” against him as “a deluder of the people,” in the affair of contributions for the Orphan House; for he had led the people to believe that the orphans would be under his own immediate instruction, and yet “he had scarce been at the Orphan House for these four years.” And, in conclusion, they condemn his extempore preaching, and his itinerating, as “by no means proper.”

Whitefield replied to the “Testimony,” in a letter, dated “Boston, January 23, 1745.” He answers the accusation of the college faculty, that “he conducted himself by dreams;” and “usually governed himself by sudden impulses and impressions on his mind.” As to his having slandered Harvard College, he says, he meant no more than President Holyoke did, when, speaking of the degeneracy of the times, in his sermon at the annual convention of ministers, May 28, 1741, he remarked: “Alas! how is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed! We have lost our first love; and, though religion is still in fashion with us, it is evident that the power of it is greatly decayed.” He further replies to the charges that he was “a deluder of the people,” and had “extorted money” from them for his Orphan House. He explains in what sense he was an “extempore preacher;” denies the charge that he was an “Antinomian;” and justifies his itinerancy. He concludes thus:—

The whole of Whitefield’s letter is in his best style of writing. For him, it is terse and pointed; and, of course, it is respectful and Christian. Certainly it contains one retort, which, though perfectly fair, must have been especially stinging. The faculty of Harvard College published their “Testimony” to prove that Whitefield was “an enthusiast, a censorious, uncharitable person, and a deluder of the people;” and here Whitefield quietly reminds them that, on May 28, 1741, Mr. Holyoke, their president, preached a sermon, which was afterwards published, in which the following paragraph occurs, respecting himself and his friend Gilbert Tennent:—

Whitefield’s reply to the “Testimony” of Harvard College was complete; but Harvard College, unfortunately, was not silenced. Hence the publication of the following unworthy production:—

3. “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, by way of Reply to his Answer to the College Testimony against him and his Conduct. By Edward Wigglesworth, D.D., Professor of Divinity in said College. To which is added the Reverend President’s Answer to the things charged upon him, by the said Mr. Whitefield, as Inconsistencies. Boston, New England, 1745.” (4to. 68 pp.) The president’s Answer is dated “February 20, 1745,” and Dr. Wigglesworth’s Letter, “April 22, 1745.” The former contains nothing that need be noticed; but the letter, written “in the name, and at the desire of the Reverend President and others of Harvard College,” must not be passed in silence.

Dr. Wigglesworth reiterates the charge of enthusiasm; he censures Whitefield for censuring Tillotson; and is angry because Whitefield had said, Harvard College, “in piety and true godliness,” was not much superior to the English Universities. He accuses Whitefield of uttering and writing “pernicious reflections upon the Ministers of the Churches of New England,” and says, “What you have done, and others who have followed your example, has had an effect more extensive and pernicious than any man could have imagined six years ago. Who could have believed, that, in such a country as this, such a spirit of jealousy and evil-surmising could have been raised, by the influence and example of a young stranger? Perhaps there is not now a single town in this province, and, probably, not in Connecticut, in which there are not numbers of people whose minds are under strong prejudices against their ministers; such prejudices as almost cut off all hope of their profiting by their sacred ministrations.”

Wigglesworth next attacks Whitefield respecting his Orphan House 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:—

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.:—