Volume 2 — 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:—

“In a week or two after we sailed, we began to have a church in our ship. Two serious New England friends, finding how I was served at Portsmouth, came from thence to Plymouth, to bear me company. We had regular public prayer morning and evening, frequent communion, and days of humiliation and fasting. Being time of war, and sailing out with near a hundred and fifty ships, we had several convoys. Their taking leave of each other, at their several appointed places, was striking. We have often been alarmed; once with the sight of a Dutch fleet, which we took for an enemy; and again at the sight of Admiral Balchen, who rode by us, receiving the obeisance of the surrounding ships as though he were lord of the whole ocean. On another occasion, one of the ships struck her mainsail into our bowsprit. A little after we came up with the convoy, and our captain informed them of what had happened. The answer was, ‘This is your praying, and be damned to you!’ This shocked me more than the striking of the ships. At another time, we were alarmed with the sight of two ships, which our captain took to be enemies. The preparations for an engagement were formidable: guns were mounted, chains put round the masts, everything taken out of the great cabin, and hammocks placed about the sides of the ships. All, except myself, seemed ready for fire and smoke. My wife, after having dressed herself to prepare for all events, set about making cartridges, whilst I wanted to go into the holes of the ship, hearing that was the chaplain’s usual place. I went; but not liking my situation, I crept upon deck, and, for the first time in my life, beat up to arms, by a warm exhortation. The apprehended enemy approached; but, upon a nearer view, we found them to be two ships going under the same convoy as ourselves.”

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:—

“With some difficulty, I reached the pulpit. All looked quite surprised. I was as pale as death, and told them they must look upon me as a dying man; and that I came to bear my dying testimony to the truths I had formerly preached amongst them, and to the invisible realities of another world. I continued an hour in my discourse, and nature was almost exhausted; but, O what life, what power, spread all around! All seemed to be melted, and were in tears. Upon my coming home, I was laid on a bed, upon the ground, near the fire; and I heard them say, ‘He is gone!’ but God was pleased to order it otherwise. I gradually recovered; and, soon after, a poor negro woman came, sat down upon the ground, looked earnestly in my face, and said, ‘Master, you just go to heaven’s gate; but Jesus Christ said, Get you down, get you down; you must not come here yet. Go first, and call more poor negroes.’111 You will find by this, I am still alive; and, if spared to be made instrumental in making any poor dead soul alive to God, I shall rejoice that the all-wise Redeemer has kept me out of heaven a little longer.”

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

“Portsmouth, New England, November 14, 1744.

“My dear and honoured master has ordered me to send you an account of our sorrowful, yet joyful, voyage.

“Our captain and others say, they never saw such a voyage; for all nature seemed to be turned upside down. We had nothing but storms, calms, and contrary winds. We frequently expected to go into eternity. Our own provision was spent; and Mr. Whitefield was so ill, that he could not take the ship’s provision. The winds were such that we expected to be driven off the coast, after we had seen land a week. We prayed to the Lord to send a boat to take us on shore; and, accordingly, a fishing schooner came, that had not been out for a long time before. Into it we went, hoping to get on shore in three or four hours: but the wind arose, and we were out all night.

“On the morrow, being the 26th of October, we landed, about nine in the morning, at York; where the Lord was pleased to visit my dear and honoured master with a nervous colic, which almost took his life. As soon as he was able to go about, he went out and preached twice a day, which was too much for him. We came from York here; and, in the way, he preached in the rain. On reaching Portsmouth, he preached at candle-light. This laid him up again, and the next day he was judged to be dangerously ill; but, when the time he had proposed to preach arrived, finding himself free from pain, he went out and preached. This had like to have cost him his life, for he became as cold as a clod. But the Lord was pleased to hear prayer from him, and he is now in a fair way.

“The Lord is doing great things here. The fields are indeed ready to the harvest, though there is some opposition. Mr. Whitefield has written several things, which will be sent as soon as printed here. We received your letter by Captain Adams, but Mr. Whitefield has not strength to answer it. He desires you will send the contents of this to all friends, and tell them they may expect letters the first opportunity.

“The Lord is with my dear Mr. Whitefield, and has been through his illness. He says, he was frequently in hopes of entering his eternal rest; but, since he is longer detained, he is fully persuaded it will be for the Mediator’s glory. I would enlarge, but my dear master’s illness, and many other things, oblige me to subscribe myself your sincere friend and affectionate servant,

“Elizabeth Whitefield.”112

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.

“Boston, New England, September 24, 1743.

“Whitefield has plagued us with a witness. It would be an endless attempt to describe the scene of confusion and disturbance occasioned by him: the divisions of families, neighbourhoods, and towns; the contrariety of husbands and wives; the undutifulness of children and servants; the quarrels among the teachers; the disorders of the night; the intermission of labour and business; the neglect of husbandry and the gathering of the harvest.

“Our presses are for ever teeming with books, and our women with bastards. Many of the teachers have left their particular cures, and are strolling about the country. Some have been ordained by them evangelizers. They all have their armour-bearers and exhorters. In many conventicles and places of rendezvous, there has been chequered work—several preaching, and several exhorting, or praying, at the same time,—the rest crying, or laughing, yelping, sprawling, or fainting. This revel, in some places, has been maintained many days and nights together, with intermission, and then there were the ‘blessed outpourings of the Spirit!’

“Some of the New Lights113 have overdone themselves by ranting and blaspheming, and are quite demolished; others have extremely weakened their interest, and others are terrified from going the lengths they are inclined to. On the other hand, many of the Old Lights (thus are they distinguished) have been forced to trim, and some have lost their congregations; but they will soon raise up a new congregation in any new town where they are opposed. I do not know, but we have fifty, in one place or other, and some of them large and much frequented.

“When Mr. Whitefield first arrived here, the whole town was alarmed. He made his first visit to church on a Friday, and conversed with many of our clergy together, and belied them, me especially, when he had gone. Being not invited into our pulpits, the Dissenters were highly pleased, and engrossed him; and immediately the bells rang, and all hands went to lecture. This show kept on all the while he was here. The town was ever alarmed; the streets were filled with people, with coaches, and chaises—all for the benefit of that holy man. The conventicles were crowded; but he rather chose the common, where multitudes might see him in all his awful postures: besides, in one crowded conventicle, six were killed in a fight before he came in. The fellow treated the most venerable with an air of superiority; but he for ever lashed and anathematized the Church of England, and that was enough.

“After him came one Tennent—a monster! impudent and noisy—and told them they were all damned! damned! damned! This charmed them; and, in the most dreadful winter I ever saw, people wallowed in snow, night and day, for the benefit of his beastly brayings; and many ended their days under these fatigues. Both of them carried more money out of these parts than the poor could be thankful for.”114

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:—

“I write this under the immediate views of a happy eternity; and rejoice in the prospect of that day, wherein I shall appear before a compassionate Judge, who will cover all my infirmities with the mantle of His everlasting righteousness, and graciously accept my poor and weak efforts to promote His kingdom. I beg, reverend sir, an interest in your prayers, that I may glorify God, whether by life or death; and, praying that you may be taught of God to preach the truth as it is in Jesus, turn many to righteousness, and shine in the kingdom of heaven, as the stars in the firmament, for ever and ever, I subscribe myself, reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate, humble servant,

“George Whitefield.”

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:—

“He came here in September, 1740, and, with indefatigable industry, travelled through this province, preaching, begging, and collecting from town to town. Though he was a man of a weak mind, little learning, and no argument, yet, by means of a somewhat crafty improvement of the advantageous circumstances and character under which he arrived, and by his being somewhat of an orator, and assuming an over-sanctified behaviour, by great diligence, and by preaching frequently memoriter and with a vehemence unusual to the people of this province, he gained upon their passions, and thereby wheedled himself into their affections.”

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:—

“Brethren, are you satisfied that Mr. Whitefield approves not of these disorders? Is he against separations? Is he an enemy to enthusiasm? Do you find in him a disposition to the most plain Christian duty, of humbly confessing and publicly retracting his wicked and slanderous suggestions concerning the ministry, and concerning our colleges, so much our glory? Do you find him inclined to heal the unhappy divisions occasioned by his former visit? Have you not, by opening your pulpit doors to this gentleman, encouraged the weaker sort of people to expect the like of their ministers?” etc., etc.

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:—

“The ministers and people of Connecticut seem to be more simple and serious than those who live near Boston, especially in those parts where I went. But I think the ministers preaching almost universally by notes, is a certain mark they have in a great measure lost the old spirit of preaching. For, though all are not to be condemned who use notes, yet it is a sad symptom of the decay of vital religion, when reading sermons becomes fashionable where extempore preaching did once almost universally prevail. When the spirit of prayer began to be lost, then forms of prayer were invented; and I believe the same observation will hold good as to preaching. As for the universities, I believe it may be said their light is now become darkness—darkness that may be felt—and is complained of by the most godly ministers. I pray God these fountains may be purified, and send forth pure streams to water the city of our God. The Church of England is at a very low ebb; and, as far as I can find, had people kept their primitive purity, it would scarce have got a footing in New England. I have many evidences to prove that most of the churches have been first set up by immoral men, and such as would not submit to the discipline of their congregations, or were corrupt in the faith. But I will say no more about the poor Church of England. Most of her sons, whether ministers or people, I fear, hate to be reformed.”

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:—

“I am come to New England with no intention to meddle with, much less to destroy, the order of the New England churches; or to turn out the generality of their ministers, and re-settle them with ministers from England, Scotland, and Ireland, as hath been hinted in a late letter written by the Rev. Mr. Clap, rector of Yale College. Such a thought never entered my heart. I have no intention of setting up a party for myself, or to stir up people against their pastors. Had not illness prevented, I had some weeks ago departed from these coasts. But, as it is not a season of the year for me to undertake a very long journey, and as I have reason to think the great God daily blesses my poor labours, I think it my duty to comply with the invitations that are sent to me, and, as I am enabled, to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. This indeed, I delight in. It is my meat and my drink. I esteem it more than my necessary food. This, I think, I may do, as a minister of the King of kings, and a subject of his present majesty King George, upon whose royal head I pray God the crown may long flourish. And, as I have a right to preach, so, I humbly apprehend, the people have a right to hear. If the pulpits should be shut, blessed be God! the fields are open. I can go without the camp, bearing the Redeemer’s sacred reproach. I am used to this, and glory in it. At the same time, I ask public pardon for any rash word I have dropped, or anything I have written or done amiss. This leads me also to ask forgiveness, gentlemen, if I have done you or your society, in my Journal, any wrong. Be pleased to accept unfeigned thanks for all tokens of respect you shewed me when here last. And, if you have injured me in the “Testimony” you have published against me and my conduct (as I think you have), it is already forgiven, without asking, by, gentlemen, your affectionate, humble servant,

“George Whitefield.”

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:—

“Those two pious and valuable men of God, who have been lately laboring more abundantly among us, have been greatly instrumental in the hands of God, in reviving His blessed work; and many, no doubt, have been savingly converted from the error of their ways, many more have been convicted, and all have been in some measure roused from their lethargy.”

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:—

“At a meeting of the President and Fellows of Harvard College, August 22, 1768, the Rev. G. Whitefield having, in addition to his former kindness to Harvard College, lately presented to the library a new edition of his Journals, and having also procured large benefactions from several benevolent and respectable gentlemen, it was voted that the thanks of this corporation be given to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, for these instances of candour and generosity.”117

Unfortunately the list of controversial pamphlets is not exhausted. To those already noticed, the following must be added:—

4. “A Letter from the Rev. Nathaniel Henchman, Pastor of the First Church in Lynn, to the Rev. Stephen Chase, of Lynn End, giving his reasons for declining to admit the Rev. George Whitefield into his pulpit.” Mr. Henchman’s letter is dated “January 3, 1745.” The reverend writer was too angry to be polite. He speaks of “strolling itinerants, and swarms of mean animals called exhorters.” He resents Whitefield’s “slanderous treatment of our colleges,” and “the insufferable pride and vanity of the man.” “Who,” he asks, “ever equalled him in vain-glorious boasting?” and adds: “In one country, he is a true son of the Church of England; in a second, a staunch Presbyterian; and in a third, a strong Congregationalist.” He suspects Whitefield of coming to America “to make a purse for himself, by begging, with great solemnity, for his poor little ones at the Orphan House in Georgia,—the most ill-projected scheme since darkness was on the face of the deep, to found an Orphan House in an infant and expiring colony, and in the heart of the enemy’s country, though it answered well his mendicant intention.” Henchman also accuses Whitefield of a design “to raze the foundation of our churches, and change the religion of New England.”

5. “The Sentiments and Resolution of an Association of Ministers, convened at Weymouth, January 15, 1745, concerning the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield.” In addition to accusations already mentioned, the “Association” find fault with Whitefield, because, though he had condemned persons who “cried out in the public assemblies,” yet, when preaching in country towns, if such an incident occurred, he would at once raise his voice as if he were trying to vie with the people in screaming; the result of which was, the cries waxed louder and louder, till the whole assembly was thrown into confusion. The Association were “surprised and grieved,” that he, a priest of the Church of England, should administer the Lord’s supper in Congregational churches. They condemned his practice of singing hymns in the public roads, when riding from town to town, and lamented, that, in almost every town where he had preached, there had been more or less alienation between the minister and people. They came to the “resolution,” that, they would not “directly or indirectly encourage Mr. Whitefield to preach, either publicly or privately, in their respective parishes.” This was signed by fifteen ministers.

6. Another pamphlet contained “The Testimony of an Association of Ministers, convened at Marlborough, January 22nd, 1745;” and also the Testimony of another “Association of Ministers in the county of Bristol.” The two Testimonies unitedly were signed by nineteen ministers, who came to the general conclusion, that “the devil himself, with all his cunning, could not take a more direct step to overthrow the churches of New England, hurt religion, and destroy the souls of men, than Whitefield had taken.”

7. “The Declaration of the Faculty of Yale College,” dated “February 25, 1745.” The “Faculty” endorse “The Testimony” of their brethren of Harvard College. They also especially insist upon two things: 1. “That Whitefield and other itinerants had laid a scheme to turn the generality of ministers out of their places, and to introduce a new set, attached to Whitefield; because Whitefield had stated, that, the generality of ministers were unconverted, and that all unconverted ministers were half beasts and half devils, and could no more be the means of any man’s conversion than a dead man could beget living children.” 2. That Whitefield had “publicly told the people in New England, that they might expect, in a little time, a supply of ministers from his Orphan House; and that he had told Edwards, of Northampton, that he intended to bring over a number of young men from England to be ordained by the Tennents.”

8. This publication was followed by “A Letter from the Rev. Mr. Clap, Rector of Yale College, in New-Haven, to the Rev. Mr. Edwards, of Northampton, expostulating with him for his injurious reflections in a late Letter to a Friend, and shewing that Mr. Edwards, in contradicting the Rector, plainly contradicts himself.”

Mr. Clap was a strong-minded man, and, in the higher branches of mathematics, had no equal in America, except Professor Winthorpe. He constructed the first orrery made in that country. The pith of his present pamphlet was a dispute between him and Edwards, as to what Whitefield had said respecting his design “to turn the generality of the ministers of New England out of their pulpits, and to bring ministers from England, Scotland, and Ireland,” to supply their places. Besides displaying considerable bitterness between the two disputants, the publication of Rector Clap exhibited Whitefield in an obnoxious light.

9. “Mr. Pickering’s Letter to Mr. Whitefield, touching his Relation to the Church of England, his Impulses, or Impressions, and the present unhappy state of things.” The letter of the Rev. Theophilus Pickering, minister at Ipswich, is dated “February 12, 1745,” and the writer objects to Whitefield, 1. Because he is a clergyman of the Church of England; 2. Because of his “dreams and impressions;” 3. Because Whitefield’s “travelling services will be more hurtful than beneficial.”

10. “A Letter to the Second Church and Congregation in Scituate; written by their Reverend Pastor, shewing some Reasons why he doth not invite the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield into his Pulpit.” The Letter is signed “N. Eells,” and is dated “April 15, 1745.” Mr. Eells had been the pastor of the Church at Scituate forty years and ten months; and his “Reasons” were—1. Whitefield “did not stand right in the gospel of Christ; for, by his episcopal ordination, he received no authority to itinerate, as he had done for years past; and the authority he had received from the bishop who ordained him, he had forfeited, and was now suspended from the ministry of the Church of England, and from communion at the Lord’s table.” 2. “The manner of his itinerancy was not according to Scripture, but was rather a blemish, reproach, and scandal to the ministry; for he had no authority from Christ, either mediately or immediately; and he spent his time in places where the people did not want him.” 3. “He had made it manifest that he was no real friend to the ministers and churches of this land; for he had represented the pastors of these churches to be men of no grace, without the knowledge of Christ, and so unqualified for the ministry; he had preached in places at the invitation of factious persons, contrary to the mind of their pious and orthodox pastors; he had favoured disorders in the public worship of God, such as screaming, etc.; and he had encouraged separation and separatists from our churches.”

Such are specimens of the publications against Whitefield. We have met with three only in his favour.

1. “An Apology on behalf of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, offering a fair Solution of certain Difficulties, objected against some parts of his Public Conduct, in point of Moral Honesty and Uniformity with his own Subscriptions and Ordination Vows: as the said exceptions are set forth in a late Pamphlet entitled, ‘A Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, publicly calling upon him to vindicate his Conduct, or confess his Faith,’ signed L. K. By Thomas Foxcroft, A.M., one of the Pastors of the first Church in Boston. Being several Letters, written for the satisfaction of a Friend, and published by Desire. Boston, 1745.” (4to. 38 pp.)

For twenty-eight years, Mr. Foxcroft had been the minister of the Church just mentioned, and, strangely enough, Dr. Chauncy was his colleague. Mr. Foxcroft’s first letter is dated “December 31, 1744,” and his second and third were written during the fortnight next ensuing. He shews, that, “Bishops of the Church of England have power to grant licenses of wider extent than the narrow district of a single parish, to any ordained minister they think proper, who, in virtue of such license, may travel from place to place as they think fit.” “The sending forth of itinerant preachers was a practice of the Church of England at the beginning of the Reformation; and has been remarkably revived of late years, particularly with relation to foreign parts.” “Mr. Whitefield is not the only episcopal itinerant in America. In the Abstract of the Proceedings of the Society for Propagating the Gospel, for 1743, Mr. Morris is expressly named ‘Itinerant Missionary,’ in Connecticut; Mr. Punderson, ‘Itinerant Missionary,’ in New England; and Mr. Lindsay, ‘Itinerant Missionary,’ in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is no violation, therefore, of the original commission from the Bishop, to act beyond the limits of a particular cure or charge, or even in the character of an itinerant. And, with regard to special license,” continues Mr. Foxcroft, “I question whether the itinerant missionaries above-mentioned have had this any more than Mr. Whitefield.”

2. “An Inquiry into the Itinerancy and the Conduct of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, an Itinerant Preacher: vindicating the former against the charge of unlawfulness and inexpediency, and the latter against some aspersions, which have been frequently cast upon him. By William Hobby, A.M., Pastor of the first Church in Reading. Boston, 1745.” (8vo. 28 pp.)

Mr. Hobby was a graduate of Harvard College, and was a fluent and fervid preacher. He died in 1765, aged fifty-seven. Passing over that part of his pamphlet which refers to the lawfulness of itinerancy, it may be stated, that he successfully replies to the attacks on Whitefield respecting his Orphan House accounts, his being an enthusiast and ecclesiastical chameleon,118 and his aspersion of ministers. With regard to the accusation that he was a perjurer, because he had sworn to prosecute his appeal against Commissary Garden’s censure, and had not done so, Mr. Hobby says, “Whitefield exerted himself to the utmost to get a hearing in the court at home (which he now proves by an affidavit, taken before the Lord Mayor of London by himself and his solicitor), but all in vain.”

Mr. Hobby comes to the following conclusion respecting Whitefield: “In most things he is highly commendable; in more justifiable; and in almost all very excusable. I say in almost all, for I am willing to allow Mr. Whitefield has his foibles and imperfections. He is a man of like passions with others. What then—shall I condemn him because he is not perfect? Alas! what shall I then do with myself and others? The sun itself has its spots: shall we therefore try to put out the sun? Vain attempt! Or shall I shut my eyes against its light? Ridiculous and absurd! Neither would I shut my eyes against Mr. Whitefield’s excellences, and only open them to behold his weaknesses.”

3. “Invitations to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield from the Eastern Consociation of the County of Fairfield. With a Letter from the Rev. Mr. Samuel Cooke,119 of Stratfield, in Connecticut, to a Minister in Boston, concerning the former success of Mr. Whitefield’s Ministry there. Boston, 1745.” (8vo. 8 pp.) There is nothing in this publication that deserves special notice, except that Mr. Cooke, on behalf of himself and nine other ministers, whose names and residences are given, earnestly entreats Whitefield to visit the churches of the “Eastern Consociation;” and forwards to Whitefield a minute passed at a meeting held in 1740, inviting him to visit the same churches, but stipulating that he should not make “personal reflections to wound the characters of others, who have been generally well accepted among Christians for piety;” and that he should “not expect them to make collections for his Orphan House in Georgia.”

Such was the literary storm through which Whitefield had to pass when he visited America in 1744. There is much in the publications, so briefly noticed, which invites remark; but want of space precludes comment. It is certainly amusing that liberty-loving Connecticut should pass and enforce the despotic Act it did. Puritanism was becoming as intolerant as prelacy. As to Whitefield’s aspersions of New England ministers, the accusation was scarcely true. He rarely, if ever, mentioned names; but rather denounced, in general terms, the employment of an unconverted ministry. No doubt, in many instances, the pulpits of America were occupied by sincere, earnest, able, godly men; but it is equally certain, that, in many other instances, the ministers were culpably defective. Even President Holyoke seems to admit this; and Dr. Chauncy becomes its apologist. It is also true, that, during Whitefield’s residence in England, the American revival had been disgraced by many scenes of fanatical confusion, and by a bitterness of spirit indulged by some of its converts; but it is difficult to see how absent Whitefield deserved blame for this. It is absolutely false, that Whitefield had been suspended from the ministry, and excluded from the communion of the Church of England. The taunts, likewise, in reference to his Orphan House accounts, were unmerited, inasmuch as he had printed and published a balance-sheet, which his enemies in New England might have read if they had wished. The power and the practice of bishops to license ordained ministers to become itinerant preachers is a point which must be left to Church lawyers. There is, however, one other subject too important to pass unnoticed. In England and in Wales, he and others associated with him had formed a considerable number of Societies, and had employed an earnest band of itinerant preachers and exhorters, and had instituted quarterly and other associations, or conferences. In short, almost without intending it, he had formed a party, he himself being its “moderator,” the Tabernacle, Moorfields, its head-quarters, and the Christian History its literary magazine.120 Whitefield, however, refrained from the formation of a sect across the Atlantic. He honestly told the faculty of Harvard College, that he had “no intention of setting up a party for” himself; and he faithfully adhered to this declaration. In America, at least, he was not the founder of a sect. It is true, that, in New England and elsewhere, separate congregations were formed in several places, by illiterate, but pious, preachers; but this was not done by the authority and immediate help of Whitefield. These “Separatists” and “New Lights,” as they were called, might have been converted, or benefited by Whitefield’s preaching; but their organizations were their own. In many instances, their former pastors failed to feed them with the bread of life, and, naturally enough, they sought it somewhere else. Many of these “separate” churches existed long after Whitefield’s death; and some of them warmly welcomed Wesley’s preachers. A member of the Irish conference was induced to become the pastor of one of them, over which he presided for nearly half a century. It is now known as “The Benevolent Congregationalist Church,” and is one of the largest and most wealthy churches in New England.121

We must now return to Whitefield’s itinerancy. He was left at Portsmouth, New England, ill and disabled. As soon as possible, he removed to Boston. The following is from Prince’s Christian History, No. xciv.:—

“Saturday, November 24, 1744. The Rev. Mr. Whitefield was so far revived, as to be able to set out from Portsmouth to Boston, whither he came, in a very feeble state, the Monday evening after. Since then, he has been able to preach in several of our largest houses of public worship, particularly the Rev. Dr. Colman’s, Dr. Sewall’s, Mr. Webb’s, and Mr. Gee’s. At Dr. Colman’s request, and the consent of the Church, on the Lord’s-day after his arrival, he administered to them the holy communion. And, last Lord’s-day, he preached for Mr. Cheever, of Chelsea, and administered the holy supper there. The next day, he preached for the Rev. Mr. Emerson, of Maiden. Yesterday, he set out to preach at some towns to the northward. On his return, he proposes to comply with the earnest invitation of several ministers, to go and preach to their congregations in the southern parts of the province. He comes with the same extraordinary spirit of meekness, sweetness, and universal benevolence, as before. In opposition to the spirit of bigotry, he is still for holding communion with all Protestant churches. In opposition to enthusiasm, he preaches a close adherence to the Scriptures, the necessity of trying all impressions by them, and of rejecting whatever is not agreeable to them, as delusions. In opposition to antinomianism, he preaches up all kinds of relative, and religious duties; and, in short, the doctrines of the Church of England, and of the first fathers of this country. As before, he first applies himself to the understandings of his hearers, and then to the affections; and the more he preaches, the more he convinces people of their mistakes about him, and increases their satisfaction.”

To this testimony must now be added extracts from Whitefield’s letters.

“Boston, January 18, 1745.

“You see I am now at Boston, whither I was brought from Piscataqua122 in a coach and four. The joy with which I was received by the common people, cannot be described; but many of the ministers,—how shy! how different from what they once were! When last in Boston, Governor Belcher was in the chair. He honoured me with great honour, and the clergy paid the nod, and obeyed. In many, I then perceived, it was quite forced; and, I think, when at his table, I whispered to some one, and said, ‘If ever I come again, many of those, who now seem extremely civil, will turn out my open enemies.’ The event has proved, that, in this respect, I have been no false prophet. You know where it is written, ‘There arose a king, who knew not Joseph.’ Freed, therefore, from their former restraint, many have appeared in puris naturalibus. Some occasions of offence had undoubtedly been given whilst I was here, and preached up and down the country. Nothing, however, appeared but a pure, divine power, converting, and transforming people’s hearts, of all ranks, without any extraordinary phenomena attending it. Good Mr. Tennent succeeded me; numbers succeeded him. Lectures were set up in various places. One minister called to another, to help to drag the gospel net; and one would have imagined the millennium was coming. At last, wild-fire broke out and spread itself; and, it must be confessed, that, many good souls, both among clergy and laity, for a while, mistook fancy for faith, and imagination for revelation; and were guilty of great imprudences. What these were, I have not time now to particularize; I can only inform you, that all is laid to me as being the primum mobile, though there was not so much as the appearance of anything of this nature when I left New England last. But, maugre all, my poor labours are yet attended with the usual blessings.”

Whitefield seems to have spent about three months in Boston and its neighbourhood, partly in preaching, and partly in writing pamphlets and sermons for the press.

Hence the following:—

“Boston, February 6, 1745.

“I remember you once told me, one of the good old Puritans wrote, that he went from Old England to avoid the lord bishops, and came to New England to get under the Lord Brethren. Well is it at present that there are ‘Lord Brethren;’ for, finding some of their pastors, without cause, shy of me, they have passed votes of invitation for me to preach in the pulpits; and some time ago prevailed upon me to set up a lecture at six o’clock in the morning. Not expecting a very great auditory, I opened a lecture in one of the smallest meeting-houses, upon these words, ‘And they came early in the morning to hear him.’ How was I disappointed! Such great numbers flocked to hear, that I was obliged to make use of two of their largest places of worship, where, I believe, seldom less than two or three thousand hearers assembled. I began with the first of Genesis, and have lectured, in order, till I am almost come to the story of Abraham sending his servant to fetch a wife for Isaac. It is impossible to describe the eagerness and punctuality of these early visitants. To see so many hundreds, of both sexes, neatly dressed, walking or riding so early along the streets to get food for their souls, has feasted my own heart. The Pharaohs, who used to say, ‘Ye are idle, ye are idle,’ now are struck dumb; for lecture, and family prayer, and breakfast, are over in many houses before the sun is suffered to come into the windows of others; and it is become almost a common proverb, ‘Between tar-water and early rising, the physicians will have no business.’ One morning, the crowd was so great, that I was obliged to go in at the window. The high-sheriff, who was most forward in persecuting good Mr. Davenport, accompanied me; and when he put his head into the window after me, the people were ready to cry out, ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’”

These were remarkable scenes, on cold, dark, wintry mornings, in the city of Boston, where ministers had joined in denouncing Whitefield, and where the “Lord Brethren,” by their voting powers, had defeated the ministers, and had opened to Whitefield their pulpit-doors. Under the circumstances, his success was marvellous. The following extract describes one of his converts:—

“Boston, February 17, 1745.

“Good Mr. P――123 told me I should be very shortly favoured with the company of a very pensive and uncommon person;—a man of good parts, ready wit, and lively imagination, who, in order to furnish matter for preaching over a bottle, had made it his business to come and hear, and then carry away scraps of my sermons to serve as texts for his tavern harangues. A few nights ago, he came, for this purpose, to Dr. Sewall’s meeting. Upon my coming in, he crowded after me amongst the people, and, having got sufficient matter to work upon, attempted to go out; but, being pent in on every side, his endeavours were fruitless. Obliged thus to stay, waiting for fresh matter for ridicule, he was pricked to the heart. He came to Mr. P――, full of horror, confessed his crimes, and longed to ask my pardon, but was afraid to see me. Mr. P―― encouraged him to venture. This morning, hearing some one knock at my parlour door, I arose, and, upon opening the door, by the paleness, pensiveness, and horror of his countenance, guessed who he was. He cried, ‘Sir, can you forgive me?’ I smiled, and said, ‘Yes, sir, very readily.’ He replied, ‘Indeed, sir, you cannot when I tell you all.’ I then asked him to sit down; and, judging that he had sufficiently felt the lashes of the law, I preached to him the gospel.”

The following refers to the paper warfare at that time raging, and which has been already noticed:—

“Boston, February 19, 1745.

“Tempora mutantur. A confederacy, a confederacy! The clergy, amongst whom are a few mistaken, misinformed good old men, are publishing halfpenny testimonials against me. Even the president, professors, and tutors, of Harvard College, where, some few years ago, I was received with such uncommon respect, have joined the confederacy. The testimonials have done me real service. I certainly did drop some unguarded expressions in the heat of less experienced youth; and was too precipitate in hearkening to, and publishing private information. Some good friends are publishing testimonials in my favour. Thus you see what a militant state we are in at present. Amidst all, the word runs, and is glorified. Many are so enraged at the treatment I meet with, that they came to me lately, assuring me that, if I will consent, they will erect, in a few weeks’ time, the outside of the largest place of worship in America; but, you know, ceiled houses were never my aim. I, therefore, thanked them for their kind offer; but begged leave to refuse accepting it. How or when the present storm will subside is uncertain. I can only, at present, beg the continuance of your prayers, that, I may be kept in good temper towards those, who, I believe, really think they do God’s service by opposing me.”

Whitefield was busy writing for the press; and, as soon as he had finished three of his pamphlets, he seems to have returned to Piscataqua. Why he deferred going to his Orphan House, it is impossible to determine; but he was happy, and hard at work. Hence the following:—

“Piscataqua, March 6, 1745.

“I have sent a letter to Dr. C――, with my Answer to Harvard College, and my Answer to the Second Part of the Observations, and also my Remarks upon the Charge of the Bishop of Lichfield. May Jesus give them His blessing! I would have them printed so as to be sold cheap. You may collect, or print them severally, as you will. I cannot yet get time to prepare my sermons, or the other part of my life, for the press. I am writing another New England journal, which I will send, when I leave the country. When that will be, I know not.

“America, I am afraid, begins to be too dear to me. The Lord smiles upon me and mine, and makes us very happy in Himself, and happy in one another. Here is a very large field of action. My bodily strength is recovered; and my soul is more than ever in love with a crucified Jesus.”

On the same day, Whitefield wrote to John Cennick, as follows:—

“Our Saviour wonderfully smiles on us here. The Lord helps me to preach with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power. My wife and I go on like two happy pilgrims, leaning upon our Beloved. O help us to adore and praise free grace! We salute all the conference and trustees, and every particular choir, and the Societies in every place.”

For a season, Cennick succeeded Whitefield in the Tabernacle, Moorfields; and he and others introduced into some of the Societies “choirs,” or classes for singing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” after the manner of the Moravians. Indeed, Cennick already was more of a Moravian than a Whitefieldian; and, in December 1745, openly avowed his predilection. Thomas Adams, his colleague at the Tabernacle, as openly opposed the sentiments which Cennick had advanced. The result was, Cennick seceded, and joined the Unitas Fratrum. A large number of the people, both in London and the provinces, followed his example; and even those who remained behind wept at his departure, for he was greatly beloved by all. Cennick’s secession was a severe shock to the Connexion; but Whitefield and Cennick retained their friendship for each other, and kept up an affectionate correspondence until Cennick’s death, in 1755.124 125

Whitefield had been nearly five months in America, but had not visited his Orphanage in Georgia. He had arranged, however, for Mr. Habersham, the orphans’ chaplain, to visit him. Hence the following to a friend, in London:—

“Piscataqua (sixty miles from Boston),

“March 12, 1745.

“This comes by a young gentleman, who expects to return to South Carolina in August next. By him, I send you one of each of the pamphlets I have published here. I would have them sent to Scotland as soon as may be. America is pleasanter and pleasanter every day. The door for preaching opens wider and wider. I am preparing my sermons for the press,126 and am also writing another journal. You shall have them the first opportunity. I wrote to you last week, and sent about fifty letters, by Captain Darling. I expect Mr. Habersham hourly.”

The editor of the Christian History adds: “Mr. Habersham arrived soon after the writing of the above letter; and wrote, from the same place, on March 18, and stated, that Mr. Whitefield had been as far eastward as was settled by the English (which is about a hundred and fifty miles), and had preached with much success. Mr. Whitefield was to go with him to Boston the next day, to consult friends there about the affairs of the Orphan House in Georgia, which was what Mr. Habersham came there about.”

Soon after this, Whitefield was in a new position. Up to the present, Cape Breton had been in the possession of the French. Besides being the key to Canada, the island was of great importance in a mercantile point of view. The soil was poor, but, in 1743, fish was exported to the amount of a million sterling. In return for this, the people received sugar and coffee, rum and molasses; part of which they used themselves, and the remainder of which they conveyed to Canada and New England, where they obtained, in exchange, fruits, vegetables, bricks, wood, and cattle. Cape Breton, also, was a formidable seminary of seamen, the French employing, in their enormous fishery, twenty thousand men, and at least a thousand sail of from two to four hundred tons each. English ships were terribly exposed to privateers and men of war issuing from the island. Possession of the place would not only cut off all communication between France and Quebec, but the harbour would likewise be a safer retreat for British vessels, than any other harbour in North America. In 1745, a plan for the invasion of Cape Breton was laid at Boston, and New England bore the expense of it. Colonel Pepperell, who has been already introduced to the reader’s notice, was entrusted with the command of an army of six thousand men, levied for the expedition; and these forces, convoyed by a squadron from Jamaica, brought the first news to Cape Breton of the danger that threatened it. The invaders had to encounter but six hundred regular troops, and eight hundred inhabitants armed in haste. Still, the success of the undertaking would have been precarious, if the soldiers on the island had fought with their accustomed spirit. It so happened, however, that, for the last six months, they had in fact, been in open rebellion. The construction and repairs of the fortifications of Louisbourg, sometimes called “the Gibraltar of America,” had always been left to the care of the garrison; but the troops had been so defrauded of the profit of their labours, that they had determined to assert their rights; and their indignation had risen to such a pitch, that they now despised all authority. The soldiers, indeed, made advances against the invaders; but, after a siege of seven weeks, the Governor of Cape Breton was obliged, on the 16th of June, to sign a capitulation, whereby the island, and its harbour of Louisbourg, became the possession of his Britannic Majesty. On the news reaching London, the conquest was celebrated by the firing of cannons, the illumination of the public offices, the ringing of bells, the lighting of bonfires, and all the other usual demonstrations of national thankfulness and joy.127

These remarks will help to explain the following letter:—

“Boston, July 29, 1745.

“You will be surprised that a messenger of the Prince of peace should beat up to arms. No doubt, you have judged me, as well you may; but Providence seemed to force me into it.

“The Cape Breton expedition was begun and finished before it could be scarcely known to you at home. Worthy Colonel Pepperell was fixed upon to command. The day before he accepted the commission, he purposed to dine with me, to ask my advice. I told him, I hoped, if he did undertake it, he would beg of the Lord God of armies to give him a single eye; that the means proposed to take Louisbourg, in the eye of human reason, were no more adequate to the end, than the sounding of rams’ horns to blow down Jericho; but that, if Providence really called him, he would return more than conqueror. He thanked me; and, his lady having given her free consent, he commenced general.

“The sound now was, ‘To arms! to arms!’ New recruits were eagerly sought after, and my worthy friend Mr. Sherburne was appointed one of the commissaries. Being at his house one evening, he told me that he was preparing the flag, and that I must give him a motto, and that the people must know I had given it. I absolutely refused, urging that it would be out of character. He replied, he believed the expedition was of God, and that if I did not encourage it, many of the serious people would not enlist. I still refused. He desired me to consider, and to sleep upon it, and to give him my answer in the morning. I retired, I prayed, I slept; and, upon his renewing his request in the morning, I told him he might take this motto, ‘Nil desperandum Christo duce.’

“Upon this, great numbers enlisted; and, before their embarkation, their officers desired me to preach them a sermon. I preached from these words: ‘As many as were distressed, as many as were discontented, as many as were in debt, came to David, and he became a captain over them.’ Officers, soldiers, and others attended. I spiritualized the subject, and told them how distressed sinners came to Jesus Christ, the Son of David; and, in my application, exhorted the soldiers to behave like the soldiers of David, and the officers to act like David’s worthies; then, I made no manner of doubt but we should receive good news from Cape Breton. After this, I preached to the general himself, who asked me if I would not be one of his chaplains. I told him, I should think it an honour; but believed, as I generally preached three times a day, in various places, to large congregations, I could do my king, my country, and my God more service, by stirring up the people to pray, and, thereby, strengthening his and his soldiers’ hands.

“Through Divine grace, I was enabled to persist in this practice for some weeks; but, at last, news arrived that the case was desperate. Letter upon letter came from the officers to those who planned the expedition, and did not know the strength of the fortress. I smiled, and told my friends, that I believed now we should have Louisbourg; for all having confessed their helplessness, God would now reveal His arm, and make our extremity His opportunity. I was not disappointed of my hope; for one day, having taken a weeping leave of dear Boston, and being about to preach a few miles out of town, news was brought that Louisbourg was taken. Numbers flocked with great joy from all quarters, and I immediately preached to them a thanksgiving sermon from these words, ‘By this I know that Thou favourest me, since Thou hast not permitted mine enemies to triumph over me.’

“Here ends, dear madam, my beating to arms. It is left to you to judge as you please of yours, etc.,

“George Whitefield.”

To say the least, this is a curious episode in English history,—Whitefield, the despised Methodist preacher, associated with one of England’s conquests,—a conquest so important, that King George II. raised Colonel Pepperell to the dignity of a baronet of Great Britain; and London and other places went mad with joy.128

It is impossible, through want of materials, to trace the course of Whitefield during the next twelve months. Dr. Gillies says, “As his bodily strength increased, he began to move farther southward; and, after preaching eastward as far as Casco Bay and North Yarmouth, he went through Connecticut, Plymouth, and Rhode Island, preaching to thousands, generally twice a day.” Whitefield himself writes:—

“Though there was much smoke, yet every day I had convincing proof that a blessed gospel fire had been kindled in the hearts both of ministers and people. At New York, I found that the seed sown had sprung up abundantly; and also at the east end of Long Island. In my way to Philadelphia, I had the pleasure of preaching, by an interpreter, to some converted Indians, and of seeing near fifty young ones in a school near Freehold, learning the Assembly’s catechism. A blessed awakening had been begun among the Delaware Indians, by the instrumentality of Mr. David Brainerd.129 Mr. William Tennent seemed to encourage his endeavours with all his heart. I found Mr. Gilbert Tennent, in Philadelphia, settled in the place” (building) “erected at the beginning of the awakening. The gentlemen offered me £800 per annum, only to preach among them six months in the year, leaving me at liberty to travel the other six months where I would.”

The offer here mentioned was made in the month of September, 1745.130 Where and how he spent the remainder of the year cannot be ascertained.

On the 1st of January, 1746, he was at Bethesda, in Georgia, where he remained during the next three months.131 It is a strange fact, that the most adverse rumours had been circulated respecting the Orphan House, and that, in New England, affidavits had been made that the institution did not exist.132 To silence such calumnies, Whitefield and Habersham appeared before Henry Parker and William Spencer, bailiffs of Savannah, to whom they submitted the Orphan House ledger, and swore that the book contained “a just and true account of all the moneys collected by or given to them, or any other, for the use and benefit of the said House; and that the disbursements had been faithfully applied to and for the use of the same.” Whitefield further swore that “he had not converted or applied any part thereof to his own private use and property, neither had he charged the said House with any of his travelling, or any other private expenses whatever.”

Besides this, William Woodroofe, William Ewen, and William Russel, of Savannah, appeared before the same bailiffs, and swore that they had “carefully and strictly examined all and singular the accounts relating to the Orphan House, contained in forty-one pages, in a book entitled ‘Receipts and Disbursements for the Orphan House in Georgia;’ and had also carefully and strictly examined the original bills, receipts, and other vouchers, from the 15th of December, 1738, to the 1st of January, 1746;” and found “that the moneys received on account of the said Orphan House amounted to the sum of £4,982 12s. 8d. sterling, and that it did not appear that the Reverend Mr. Whitefield had converted any part thereof to his own private use and property, or charged the said House with any of his travelling or other private expenses; but, on the contrary, had contributed to the said House many valuable benefactions.” The three auditors further swore, “that the moneys disbursed on account of the said House amounted to the sum of £5,511 17s. 9¼d. sterling, all of which appeared to have been faithfully and justly applied to and for the use and benefit of the said House only.”

To the two affidavits, the substance of which is here given, the bailiffs appended the following:—

“Sworn this 16th day of April, 1746, before us bailiffs of Savannah; in justification whereof we have hereunto fixed our hands, and the common seal.

“Henry Parker.

“William Spencer.”

Whitefield acted wisely in thus submitting his accounts to official auditors. It was the only way to silence the falsehoods of his enemies. His friends, also, were entitled to such an audit, and to such a magisterial declaration.

After all his efforts, Whitefield was still in debt to the amount of £529 5s. 1¼d.; and he now, with a confessedly honest front, appealed to his friends, in America and England, to defray the debt, and told them that any one wishing to contribute might send their gifts “to Mr. Branson, iron merchant, in Philadelphia; the Rev. Mr. Smith, in Charleston; Mr. John Smith, merchant, in Boston; the Rev. Mr. Shutlift, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire; the Rev. Mr. Pemberton, in New York; Mr. James Habersham,133 merchant, in Savannah; Gabriel Harris, Esq., in Gloucester; Mr. James Smith, at St. Philip’s Plain, in Bristol; Mr. John Kennedy, at Exon; Mr. Jonathan Houlliere, in Queen Street, Upper Moorfields; and Mr. William Strahan, printer, in Wine Office Court, Fleet Street.”

After all this, no one could reasonably dispute the existence of the Orphan House, or Whitefield’s honesty; but it might be asked, had the £5,511 17s. 9¼d. been well expended? An answer to this question will be found in the following testimony, given by one of Whitefield’s enemies,—a gentleman who had made a tour through most of America, and, in his travels, visited the Orphan House, in 1743. After describing a magnificent vista, of nearly three miles’ length, cut through the pine groves between Wormsloe and Bethesda, the gentleman observes:—

“It gave me much satisfaction to have an opportunity to see Mr. Whitefield’s Orphan House, as the design had made such a noise in Europe, and the very being of it was so much doubted everywhere, that, even no farther from it than New England, affidavits were made to the contrary.

“It is a square building of very large dimensions, the foundations of which are brick, with chimneys of the same; the rest of the superstructure is of wood. The whole is laid out in a neat and elegant manner. A kind of piazza surrounds it, which is a very pleasing retreat in the summer. The hall and all the apartments are very commodious, and prettily furnished. The garden, which is very extensive, and well kept, is one of the best I ever saw in America; and you may discover in it plants and fruits of almost every climate and kind. The outhouses are convenient; and the plantation will soon surpass almost anything in the country.

“We were received by Mr. Barber, a Dissenting minister, in a genteel and friendly manner. They were at dinner when we arrived, the whole family at one table; and never was there a more orderly, pretty sight. If I recollect aright, besides Mr. Barber, the schoolmaster, and some women, there were near forty young persons of both sexes, dressed very neatly and decently. After dinner, they retired, the boys to school, the girls to their spinning and knitting. I was told, their vacant hours were employed in the garden, and in plantation work.

“Prepossessed with a bad opinion of the institution, I made all the enquiries I could, and, in short, became a convert to the design, which seems very conducive to the good of the infant colony. Whatever opinion I may have of the absurdity of some of their religious notions, tenets, and practices, yet, so far as they conduce to inculcate sobriety, industry, and frugality, they deserve encouragement from all well-wishers of the country, I could not here perceive anything of that spirit of uncharitableness and enthusiastic bigotry, for which their leader is so famed, and of which I heard shocking instances all over America.”

The writer then proceeds to speak of the road which Whitefield made from the Orphan House to Savannah,—a “road cut through the woods, and which had a hundred curiosities to delight the attentive traveller.” He describes Savannah; speaks of the air as “pure and serene;” and concludes by deploring the ingratitude, ignorance, opposition to government, and the “cursed spirit of dissension amongst” the people, which had nearly ruined the colony.134

So much from an unfriendly visitor. What says the founder? In the “Further Account of God’s Dealings” with him, published in 1747, there is a long letter, written only five days after the date of the affidavits just mentioned. The following is an extract from it:—

“Bethesda, in Georgia, March 21st, 1746.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,—It is now some months since I arrived here. Blessed be God! Bethesda has proved to be a house of mercy to many. Several of our labourers, as well as visitors, have been born of God here, and have given proofs of it, by bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit. Many boys have been put out to trades; and many girls put out to service. One boy, whom I brought from New England, is handsomely settled in Carolina; and another, from Philadelphia, is married, and lives very comfortably at Savannah. How so large a family has been supported, in such a colony, without any visible fund, is wonderful. I am surprised, when I look back, and see how, for these six years last past, God has spread a table in the wilderness for so many persons.

“I cannot yet say, that I have surmounted the first year’s expense, which indeed was very great; but, by the blessing of God, I doubt not, in a short time, to pay off my arrears; and then the family will be maintained at a small expense.

“My standing annual charges are now but trifling to what they have been; and my friends have raised an annual subscription sufficient for discharging them, till the family may be able to provide for itself. This, I hope, will be, in a good measure, speedily effected. We have lately begun to use the plough; and next year I hope to have many acres of good oats and barley. We have near twenty sheep and lambs, fifty head of cattle, and seven horses. We hope to kill a thousandweight of pork this season. Our garden, which is very beautiful, furnishes us with all sorts of greens. We have plenty of milk, eggs, and poultry; and make a good deal of butter weekly. A good quantity of wool and cotton has been given me, and we hope to have sufficient spun and woven for the next winter’s clothing. If the vines hit, we may expect two or three hogsheads of wine out of the vineyard.

“The family now consists of twenty-six persons. Two of the orphan boys are blind; one is little better than an idiot. But, notwithstanding, they are useful in the family; the one in the field, and the other in the kitchen. I have two women to take care of the household work, and three men and two boys employed about the plantation and cattle. A set of Dutch servants has lately been sent to Georgia; the magistrates were pleased to give me two of them. I took in a poor old widow, aged nearly seventy, whom nobody else cared to have. A valuable young man, from New England, is my schoolmaster; and, in my absence, performs duty in the family. On Sabbaths, the grown people attend on public worship at Savannah, or at Whitebluff, a village near Bethesda, where a Dutch minister officiates. My dear friends, who have hitherto been my assistants, being married and having each one or two children, thought it best to remove, and are now comfortably settled—some at Savannah, and some elsewhere.

“Many have applied to me to erect a public school, and to take their children as boarders; but I have not yet determined. If there should be peace, it is certain that such a school would be exceedingly useful, not only for these northern parts of the colony, but also for the more southern parts of Carolina, and for Parisburgh and Frederica, where are many fine youths. I have been prevailed on to take one from Frederica, and another from Purisburg, and it may be shall admit more. For the present, considering the situation of affairs,135 I think it most prudent to go on in making what improvements I can on the plantation, and to bring a tutor with me, from the north, in the fall, to teach a few youths the languages, and enlarge the family when affairs are more settled. The house is a noble, commodious building, and everything is sweetly adapted for bringing up youth. Here is land to employ them and exercise their bodies, and keep them from idleness out of school hours. Here are none of the temptations, to debauch their tender minds, which are common to more populous countries, or in places where children must necessarily be brought up with negroes.

“What God intends to do with the colony is not for me to enquire; but it has hitherto been wonderfully preserved; and the Orphan House, like the burning bush, has flourished unconsumed. No doubt the government has its welfare much at heart; and I intend to carry on my design till I see the colony sink or swim. The money that has been expended on the Orphan House, and Orphan House family, has been of vast service to this part of the country.

“I have had a very comfortable winter. The people of Savannah, having no minister till lately, gladly accepted my labours; and, at Frederica, the gentlemen and soldiers of General Oglethorpe’s regiment, as well as the inhabitants of the town, received me very gladly. Major Horton136 seems to behave well. He has a fine growing plantation. I saw barley in the ear on the 1st of March. Georgia is very healthy. Only a little child has died out of our family since it removed to Bethesda. If the inhabitants were sufficiently numerous, I think the colony is capable of as much improvement as any on the continent.”

Such then were the bold and benevolent schemes of the indigent young clergyman, who, for the last eight years, had been abused and lampooned by thousands of professing Christians, of all descriptions. While they reviled, Whitefield worked.

In England, Howell Harris faithfully did his utmost, as Whitefield’s locum tenens. He writes:—

“London, February 18, 1746.

“Since I came here, the Lord has been very kind to us. He is returning apace to the despised Tabernacle. All disputing has quite ceased, and we go on harmoniously together. We are now settling the Society in classes; and re-settling all the scattered bands. I have been through every class. Many propose to join the bands and Society. We have had a letter from Mrs. Whitefield, giving an account of the progress of the gospel in America. The Indians and negroes are baptized, twelve or fourteen in a day; and many of them are filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit.”137

Harris was full of hope; but his hope was not realized. Whitefield’s presence among the Calvinistic Methodists was sorely needed. Cennick’s secession had been a peril and a disaster. Both people and preachers suffered loss. James Hutton, with more sourness than sanctity, observed: “Of all the crowds of the Tabernacle people that offered to come amongst us” (the Moravians), “we have found scarce two or three that are good for anything.”138

When Cennick seceded in 1745, the Association at the Tabernacle “gave up” to him and the Moravians the Societies in Wiltshire; but some of the Societies objected to this arrangement, and, since then, had requested Whitefield’s preachers to revisit them. At the Association held in Bristol, March 7, 1746, the matter was discussed; and Howell Harris wrote a letter “to the Brethren at Fetter Lane,” endeavouring to promote a common understanding with respect to the fields of labour to be occupied by the two Societies, and with respect to transferring members from one Society to the other. James Hutton’s answer to the Association, written on behalf of “the Brethren in Fetter Lane,” was as arrogant and scolding as Harris’s letter was meek and loving. The imperious printer and publisher wrote:—

“We cannot at all consent to any one going into Wiltshire that belongs to your Association. Your business would chiefly be to confound poor souls, by preaching strange doctrine, and spreading scandalous lies. Should any of you go thither, after receiving this, you will act contrary to all honesty. It is for the sake of Mr. Howell Harris that we answer you at all. For him we have regard; but with the rest of you we cannot have any kind of fellowship at all. You are vainly puffed up,—the enemies of Christ, and of His blood and atonement, which some of you blaspheme. To say that we believed you to be fellow-labourers in the vineyard of Christ, would be dissimulation in us. We look upon you as the destroyers of that vineyard; and we are much grieved to see Mr. Whitefield’s labours and blessings so spoiled and ruined by such evil-labourers. We are, however, sincerely, your well-wishers,

“The Brethren in Fetter Lane.”139

Was there any reason for the use of this strong and offensive language? It is to be feared there was. Howell Harris, in his autobiography, written in 1749, remarks:—

“About the year 1746, I saw a spirit creeping into the work different from that which had been before; namely, the spirit of levity, pride, foolish jesting, unwatchfulness, and carnal rejoicing. This took place immediately after extensive frames and transports, which many seemed to enjoy at the hearing of the word, and singing, etc.; but the real and serious spirit that began the work was at length almost extinguished. The spirit of awakening sinners in the ministry was also, in a great measure, lost; together with its real and solid fruits in the hearts of men. I beheld a tendency in the ministry to please men, and to appear wise and popular in the world; and the spirits of many of my nearest friends grew great and proud, and would not take the word of reproof or exhortation.”140

The work, however, was still prosecuted. At an Association, held in London, June 18, 1746, it was determined to retain the “room” at Lambeth; and an offer of “the playhouse, in the Haymarket, Westminster,” was prayerfully considered. It was also resolved that, “henceforth, the tickets should be delivered to every band and class by their visitors; who, after consulting the minister, should take care of the money” collected. The preachers, likewise, were stationed; some to Deptford and Lambeth; some to Essex, Wiltshire, and Gloucestershire; one to Portsmouth, and another to Bristol; and others to Chinnor, Tewkesbury, Hereford, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, and Wales.

At another Association, held in Bristol, January 22, 1747, Wesley and four of his assistants were present. It was enquired: “1. How we may remove any hindrances of brotherly love which have occurred? 2. How we may prevent any arising hereafter?” It was agreed that Wesley’s and Whitefield’s preachers should “endeavour to strengthen each other’s hands, and prevent separations in the several Societies.” Harris, also, was requested to go to Plymouth and the west, “to heal the breach there made, and to insist on a spirit of love and its fruits among the people.”

On July 1, 1747, at the Association, held in London, the Rev. Mr. Bateman, rector of St. Bartholomew, was present. Preaching arrangements were made for London, Portsmouth, Olney, Chatham, Bristol, Birmingham, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Staffordshire, Salop, Essex, and Wales. It was also determined that Syms, Whitefield’s agent, at Hoxton, should give up “his office of keeping the books and accounts into the hands of Harris.”141

In public labours, Harris was indefatigable, and generally joyous. On October 13, 1746, he writes:—

“Since I came home, I have discoursed in three counties; and the spirit of praise and thanksgiving has been so poured down upon us, in several places, that we could not cease praising, rejoicing, and crying, ‘Hallelujah!’”142

Again, on October 16, 1747:—

“Things in Wales have a lovely aspect. Fresh doors are opening; many are awakened and added to us; and a spirit of love, discipline, and subordination runs through the whole. We have settled Friday, November 6, as a day of prayer and humiliation, for our own, the churches’, and the nation’s sins; and if the Society in London joins us, we shall be glad. In two days, I begin a round through North Wales, where, if my work be done, I expect to be sent home, or, at least, imprisoned. For ten days, my life will be in continual danger.”143

Again, February 4, 1748:—

“This day, our Welsh Association broke up. Scores have been added since our last Association. Fresh doors have been opened, and several new Societies settled. At Builth, last Sunday, the new house we have built there was crowded, and a great number stood without. I am now going on my rounds to Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Glamorganshire, and Monmouthshire; and have to-night begun collecting for the Orphan House; but, as we have built a house in Builth, and are building two houses in Carmarthenshire, and as last year we raised £40 towards the law suit, I cannot expect such encouragement as I should otherwise have had.”

Whitefield’s other assistants were labouring with equal bravery and success. Thomas Adams tells of preaching in a barn at Gosport; and of a soldier gathering a society at a place seven miles from Portsmouth.144 Another preacher writes: “We cannot get a peaceable meeting at Gosport. The rude men of the King’s Dock, Portsmouth, come into the barn, and make great disturbances, sometimes pelting us with eggs, and, at other times, with dirt and stones.”145

James Relly writes: “June, 1747. I examine the whole Society in Bristol once a week, the brethren on Sunday evening, and the sisters on Wednesday evening; and our Saviour has blessed it to the quickening of many. There seems also to be a good prospect at Bath.”146 Again, “December 21, 1747. I formed twenty or more into a Society at Birmingham; and, on examining them, was quite satisfied of the spirit of grace working in all their hearts. Yesterday, many assembled to hear the word at Tewkesbury, but we were assaulted by such a furious mob, that all was turned into confusion. They flapped the tables, stamped on the floor, pushed the people, swore, cursed, laughed, pricked with pins, threw handfuls of snuff, and brickbats, and dirt. I discoursed about an hour; but the noise still increasing, I left off.”147