using the Common Prayer in the fields, I think it needless to
  make any apology till I am called thereto in a judicial way by
  my ecclesiastical superiors. They have laws and courts. In and
  by those, ecclesiastics are to be judged; and I am ready to make
  a proper defence, whenever it shall be required at my hands.”

Mr. Church and many others had retorted Whitefield’s attacks on
non-resident clergy, by telling him he had been guilty of non-residence
himself. To this Whitefield replied as follows:――

  “I wish every non-resident minister in England could give as
  good an account of his non-residence as I can give of my absence
  from Savannah. To satisfy you, reverend sir, I will acquaint you
  with the whole affair. When I first went abroad, I was appointed
  to be minister of Frederica; but, upon my arrival in Georgia,
  finding there was no minister at Savannah, and no place of
  worship at Frederica, by the advice of the magistrates and
  people, I continued at Savannah, teaching publicly, and from
  house to house, and catechizing the children day by day, during
  the whole time of my first continuance in Georgia; except about
  a fortnight, in which I went to Frederica, to visit the people,
  and to see about building a church, for which I had given £50
  out of some money I had collected, and of which I have given a
  public account. In about four months, I came back to England to
  receive priest’s orders, and to collect money for building an
  Orphan House. At the request of many, the honourable trustees
  presented me to the living of Savannah. I accepted it, but
  refused the stipend of £50 per annum, which they generously
  offered me. Neither did I put them to any expense during my
  stay in England, where I thought it my duty to abide till I had
  collected a sufficient sum wherewith I might begin the Orphan
  House, though I should have left England sooner, had I not been
  prevented by the embargo. However, I was more easy, because I
  knew the honourable trustees had sent over another minister, who
  arrived soon after I left the colony.

  “Upon my second arrival at Georgia, finding the care of the
  Orphan House and the care of the parish too great a task for
  me, I immediately wrote to the honourable trustees to provide
  another minister. In the meanwhile, as most of my parishioners
  were in debt, or ready to leave the colony for want of being
  employed, and, as I believed erecting an Orphan House would
  be the best thing I could do for them and their posterity, I
  thought it my duty, from time to time, to answer the invitations
  that were sent me to preach Christ Jesus in several parts of
  America, and to raise further collections towards carrying
  on the Orphan House. The Lord stirred up many to be ready to
  distribute and willing to communicate on these occasions. I
  always came home furnished with provisions and money, most of
  which was expended among the people; and, by this means, the
  northern part of the colony almost entirely subsisted for a
  considerable time. This was asserted, not very long ago, before
  the House of Commons.

  “And now, sir, judge you whether my non-residence was anything
  like the non-residence of most of the English clergy. When I
  was absent from my parishioners, I was not loitering or living
  at ease, but preaching Christ Jesus, and begging for them and
  theirs; and when I returned, it was not to fleece my flock, and
  then go and spend it upon my lusts, or lay it up for a fortune
  for myself and my relations. No: freely as I had received,
  freely I gave. I choose a voluntary poverty. The love of God
  and the good of souls is my only aim.”

All candid readers will admit that Whitefield’s simple statement is a
sufficient refutation of the plausible charge, so often brought against
him, concerning his non-residence in the only parish he ever had.

Before proceeding with Whitefield’s itinerary, it may be well to
complete the list of his publications during the year 1744. This shall
be done as briefly as possible.

1. “A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr. George
Whitefield, A.B., from his Infancy to the Time of his entering into
Holy Orders. The Second Edition.” (12mo. 46 pp.) This was an exact
reprint of the edition published in 1740.

2. “A Brief Account of the Occasion, Process, and Issue of a late Trial
at the Assize held at Gloucester, March 3, 1744.” (8vo. 15 pp.) This
has been already noticed.

3. “The Experience of Mr. R. Cruttenden, as delivered to a Congregation
of Christ in Lime Street, under the pastoral care of the Rev. Mr.
Richardson. Prefaced and recommended by George Whitefield, A.B.” (8vo.
32 pp.) Cruttenden, after losing his fortune, by the bursting of the
South Sea bubble, had recently been converted, at the Tabernacle, under
the preaching of John Cennick.[96] Nothing in the pamphlet requires
notice, except, perhaps, the following well-deserved rap, which
Whitefield, in his preface, gives to Dissenting ministers, some of whom
were as bitterly opposed to the great preacher as were his clerical
brethren of the Church of England.

  “Those serious, godly ministers among the Dissenters, who,
  through prejudice or misinformation, oppose, or are shy of us,
  as though some dangerous sect was sprung up, may, from this and
  such-like instances, begin to reason with themselves, whether
  we are not sent of God? and whether it is not high time to
  acknowledge and adore God in His late sovereign way of working?
  Here is an account of a learned and rational man, brought
  to Jesus, and built up in Him, by what the world would call
  illiterate preachers. This is not the first instance by hundreds.
  No set of men could do such things, or meet with such success,
  unless God was with them. It is not the first time that our
  Saviour has perfected praise out of the mouths of babes, and
  chosen the weak things of this world to confound the strong.”

4. There is only another publication to be noticed. Three years before,
Dr. Smalbroke, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, had delivered a charge,
to his clergy, against the Methodists; and now, in the year 1744, and
when a part of his diocese was disgraced by the riots at Wednesbury and
other places, he published it. Smalbroke was a somewhat distinguished
man; but withal whimsical, as, for instance, when, in his “Vindication
of the Miracles of Christ,” he made elaborate calculations concerning
the number of devils in the herd of swine at Gadarene. He was also
fond of strife, more than twenty of his publications being of a
controversial character. The pith of his anti-Methodistic charge was,
that, “the indwelling and inward witnessing of the Spirit in believers’
hearts, (if there were ever such things at all,) as also praying
and preaching by the Spirit, are all the _extraordinary_ gifts and
operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical
and primitive times; and, that, consequently, all pretensions to
such favours, in these last days, are vain and _enthusiastical_.”
Whitefield’s reply was written on shipboard, during his voyage
to America, and was first printed at Boston, in New England. Its
long title was as follows: “Some Remarks upon a late Charge against
Enthusiasm, delivered by the Right Reverend Father in God, Richard,
Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to the Rev. the Clergy in the
several parts of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, in a Triennial
Visitation of the same in 1741; and published, at their request, in
the present year 1744. In a Letter to the Rev. the Clergy of that
Diocese. By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxon.”
(8vo. 35 pp.) Passing over the theological part of Whitefield’s
pamphlet, one extract from his concluding observations must suffice.
In a foot-note he states, “The Methodists in Staffordshire were mobbed
last Shrove-Tuesday, and plundered of their substance to the amount
of £700.” To these persecuted inhabitants of the diocese of Lichfield,
Whitefield says:――

  “You have lately been enabled joyfully to bear the spoiling of
  your goods. Think it not strange, if you should hereafter be
  called to resist unto blood. Fear not the faces of men, neither
  be afraid of their revilings. The more you are afflicted, the
  more you shall multiply and grow. Persecution is your privilege;
  it is a badge of your discipleship; it is every Christian’s lot,
  in some degree or other. Only be careful to give no just cause
  of offence. Be studious to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit
  in your lives. Call no man master, but Christ. Follow others
  only as they are followers of Him. Be fond of no name but that
  of _Christian_. Beware of making parties, and of calling down
  fire from heaven to consume your adversaries. Labour to shine
  in common life, by a conscientious discharge of all relative
  duties; and study to adorn the gospel of our Lord in all things.
  If you are good Christians, you will fear God, and, for His sake,
  honour the king. Be thankful for the many blessings you enjoy
  under the government of his present majesty, King George; and
  continue to pray to Him, by whom kings reign, and princes decree
  justice, to keep a popish pretender from ever sitting on the
  English throne.”

We now return to Whitefield’s itinerancy. There is but little evidence
to shew how he spent the interval between March 15th and June 26th.
John Cennick, in his diary, says: “On the 3rd of April, at my special
desire, the first association of our ministers and preachers, which
had been kept in Wilts, took place in my house at Tytherton. There
were present the following preachers: Mr. Whitefield, Howell Harris,
John Cennick, Joseph Humphreys, and Thomas Adams; and the following
exhorters: William Humphreys, Isaac Cottle, Thomas Lewis, and Thomas
Beswick.”[97]

Part of the fifteen weeks was spent in London, part in Bristol, and
part in Wilts. He was also awaiting an opportunity to embark for
Georgia; and, with Mr. Smith, a merchant, actually took a passage
in a ship about to sail from Portsmouth. At the last moment, however,
the captain refused to take him; upon which he set out for Plymouth,
preaching at Wellington, Exeter, Bideford, and Kingsbridge on the
way.[98] At Plymouth, he was made the subject of a brutal attack, which
might have ended seriously. Hence the following letters:――

                                    “PLYMOUTH, _June 26, 1744_.

  “MY DEAR FRIEND,――You see by this where I am. Doubtless, you
  will wonder at the quick transition from Portsmouth to Plymouth.
  When I wrote last, I intended going to the former; but, just
  before I took leave of the dear Tabernacle people, a message was
  sent to me, that the captain, in whose ship I was to sail from
  thence, would not take me, for fear of my spoiling his sailors.
  Upon this, hearing of a ship that was going under convoy from
  Plymouth, I hastened hither, and have taken a passage in the
  _Wilmington_, Captain Dalby, bound to Piscataway, in New England.

  “My first reception here was a little unpromising. A report
  being spread that I was come, a great number of people assembled
  upon the _Hoe_ (a large green for walks and diversions), and
  somebody brought out a bear and a drum; but I did not come till
  the following evening, when, under pretence of a hue-and-cry,
  several broke into the room where I lodged at the inn, and
  disturbed me very much.

  “I then betook myself to private lodgings, and being gone to
  rest, after preaching to a large congregation, and visiting
  the French prisoners, the good woman of the house came and
  told me, that a well-dressed gentleman desired to speak with
  me. Imagining that he was some Nicodemite, I desired he might
  be brought up. He came and sat down by my bedside, told me he
  was a lieutenant of a man of war, congratulated me on the success
  of my ministry, and expressed himself much concerned for being
  detained from hearing me. He then asked me if I knew him? I
  answered, No. He replied, his name was Cadogan. I rejoined,
  that I had seen one Mr. Cadogan, who was formerly an officer
  in Georgia, about a fortnight ago, at Bristol. Upon this,
  he immediately rose up, uttering the most abusive language,
  calling me _dog_, _rogue_, _villain_, etc., and beat me most
  unmercifully with his gold-headed cane. As you know, I have not
  much natural courage; and, being apprehensive that he intended
  to shoot or stab me, I underwent all the fears of a sudden
  violent death. My hostess and her daughter, hearing me cry
  ‘Murder,’ rushed into the room, and seized him by the collar;
  but he immediately disengaged himself from them, and repeated
  his blows upon me. The cry of murder was repeated, and he made
  towards the chamber door, from whence the good woman pushed
  him downstairs. A second man now cried out, ‘Take courage, I
  am ready to help you;’ and, accordingly, whilst the other was
  escaping, he rushed upstairs, and finding one of the women
  coming down, took her by the heels, and threw her upon the
  floor, by which her back was almost broken. By this time the
  neighbourhood was alarmed; but, being unwilling to add to the
  commotion, I desired the doors might be shut, and so betook
  myself to rest.”

This strange adventure is explained in another letter, written to the
same friend, a few days afterwards.

                                      “PLYMOUTH, _July 4, 1744_.

  “Since my last, I have had some information about the late odd
  adventure. It seems that four gentlemen came to the house of one
  of my particular friends, and desired to know where I lodged,
  that they might pay their respects to me. My friend directed
  them; and, soon afterwards, I received a letter, informing me
  that the writer of it was a nephew of Mr. S――――, an eminent
  attorney at New York; that he had had the pleasure of supping
  with me at his uncle’s house; and that he desired my company
  to sup with him and a few more friends at a tavern. I sent him
  word that it was not customary for me to sup out at taverns,
  but I should be glad of his company, out of respect to his uncle,
  to eat a morsel with him at my lodgings. He came; we supped. I
  observed that he frequently looked around him, and seemed very
  absent; but, having no suspicion, I continued in conversation
  with him and my other friends till we parted. I now find
  that this man was to have been the assassin; and that, being
  interrogated by his companions as to what he had done, he
  answered, that being used so civilly, he had not the heart to
  touch me.

  “Upon this, as I am informed, the person who assaulted me, laid
  a wager of ten guineas that he would do my business for me. Some
  say, that they took his sword from him, which I suppose they did,
  for I only saw and felt the weight of his cane.

  “The next morning, I was to expound at a private house, and then
  to set out for Bideford. Some urged me to stay and prosecute;
  but, being better employed, I went on my intended journey; was
  greatly blessed in preaching the everlasting gospel; and, upon
  my return, was well paid for what I had suffered; for curiosity
  led perhaps two thousand more than ordinary to see and hear
  a man who had like to have been murdered in his bed. Thus all
  things tend to the furtherance of the gospel.

              “‘Thus Satan thwarts, and men object,
                And yet the thing they thwart effect.’

  “Leaving you to add a hallelujah, I subscribe myself,

                                    “Ever, ever yours,

                                            “GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield seriously believed that this atrocious outrage was a
deliberate attempt to murder him; the probability is, that it was
a cruel freak, similar to many others for which naval stations have
frequently been infamous.

Whitefield spent more than six weeks at Plymouth, and in the immediate
neighbourhood. His detention, occasioned by waiting for the convoy,
was not without good results. Hence the following extracts from
letters written during this interval. To John Syms, Whitefield wrote
as follows:――

                                    “PLYMOUTH, _July 21, 1744_.

  “MY DEAR MAN,――I expected a line from you to-day; but, I suppose,
  you think we are gone. This day came in a privateer, who saw the
  Brest squadron, which has pursued two of our men of war; so that,
  had we sailed, we should in all probability have been carried
  into France. We are now to go under the convoy of the grand
  fleet.

  “I have been greatly refreshed this evening in preaching the
  blood of Jesus. The congregations grow every day. Last night,
  many from the dock guarded me home, being apprehensive there was
  a design against me. Without my knowledge, they insulted a man
  who intended to hurt me. I am sorry for it. My health is better.
  Whether we sail or not, expect to hear again from, dear, dear
  Johnny, ever, ever yours whilst

                                        “GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[99]

                                    “PLYMOUTH, _July 26, 1744_.

  “Could you think it? I have been preaching a confirmation sermon.
  Do you ask me where? In a Quaker’s field. As I saw thousands
  flocked to the church to have the bishop’s hands imposed upon
  them, I thought it not improper to let them have a word of
  exhortation suitable to the occasion. I have also made an
  elopement to Kingsbridge, where, a few days ago, I preached to
  many thousands. It was a most solemn occasion. The hearts of the
  auditory seemed to be bowed as the heart of one man.”

In other letters to his “dear man,” John Syms, he writes:――

                                    “PLYMOUTH, _July 27, 1744_.

  “Matters go on better and better here. I begin to think myself
  in London. We have our regular morning meetings. We are looking
  out for a place proper for a Society, and to expound in. People
  come daily to me, especially from the dock, under convictions.
  Some, I believe, have really closed with Christ; and here are
  several aged persons perfectly made young again. We are just now
  entered upon our singing hours.

  “Fresh news from Kingsbridge of souls being awakened; but I am
  kept close prisoner on account of the convoy. Brother Cennick
  must come into these parts soon.”

                                    “PLYMOUTH, _July 29, 1744_.

  “Our Lord has been giving us blessings in drops; but now He is
  sending them in showers. We have had a most precious meeting
  this morning. Perhaps more good has been done by this one sermon,
  than by all I have preached before. The wind is yet against us.
  Our Lord detains me here for wise reasons. Some persons,
  formerly prejudiced against me, have offered to give me a piece
  of ground for a Society room. I believe one will be built soon.
  Brother Cennick must stay in the west some time.”

                                    “PLYMOUTH, _August 3, 1744_.

  “Our convoy is come, and perhaps we may sail to-morrow. It is
  delightful to be here. We come from the dock, in the evenings,
  singing and praising God. Our parting there has been more awful
  than words can express.

  “I must tell you one thing more. There is a ferry over to
  Plymouth; and the ferrymen are now so much my friends, that they
  will take nothing of the multitude that come to hear me preach,
  saying, ‘God forbid that we should sell the word of God!’”

Thus, at Plymouth, as in other places, did Whitefield triumph in Christ
Jesus. One of the conversions, which took place under his marvellous
ministry, is too notable to pass unnoticed. Henry Tanner, born at
Exeter, was now in the twenty-sixth year of his age, and was working,
at Plymouth, as a shipwright. One day, while at work, he heard, from
a considerable distance, the voice of Whitefield, who was preaching
in the open air; and, concluding that the man was mad, he and half a
dozen of his companions filled their pockets with stones, and set off
to knock the preacher down. Whitefield’s text was Acts xvii. 19, 20.
Tanner listened with astonishment; and, without using his stones, went
home, determined to hear him again next evening. The text, on this
occasion, was Luke xxiv. 47; and Tanner was in such an agony of soul,
that he was forced to cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner!” The next
night, while Whitefield was preaching on “Jacob’s Ladder,” Tanner found
peace with God. He, at once, joined the Society at Plymouth, which had
been formed by Whitefield, and suffered violent persecution from his
unconverted wife. To secure time for prayer and Christian usefulness,
he seldom allowed himself more than six hours in bed, and frequently
but four. Ten years after his conversion, he removed to Exeter, and
began to preach with great success. In 1769, the Tabernacle at Exeter
was built, mainly through his exertions, and he became its minister.
His labours, however, were not confined to Exeter. At the request of
Toplady, he used to preach at Broad Hembury; whilst Moreton, Hampstead,
Crediton, Topsham, and various other places, were favoured with his
services. On Sunday morning, March 24, 1805, when he had completed
the eighty-sixth year of his age, he was carried, in a chair, to his
pulpit, and tried to preach, but was so ill that he was obliged to
relinquish the attempt. A week afterwards he peacefully expired.[100]

While, however, God was raising up new labourers, by means of
Whitefield’s ministry, He was taking others to Himself. One of these
was the Rev. David Crossly, of Manchester, who, within a week of the
time when Whitefield embarked at Plymouth for America, wrote as follows
to Whitefield’s friend, Mr. Syms:――

                                  “MANCHESTER, _August 3, 1744_.

  “How glad I am to hear of Mr. Whitefield’s success in the
  service of his God. O happy Mr. Whitefield! His unparalleled
  labours, with answerable success, make his life a continued
  miracle. For a month past, I have been nigh unto death. My life
  is generally despaired of; and the Lord seems to be preparing
  the way for it, _first_, by a flow of converts, above twenty
  having been added to us during the last two months; and,
  _secondly_, by raising up several with very useful gifts; so
  that I am ready to say, ‘Lord, now let Thy servant depart in
  peace! Let me, O Lord, come above to the palm-bearing company!
  Fifty-five years have I been in the work, a poor weakling, yet
  crowned, by Thy blessing, with success.’

  “As to Mr. Whitefield’s Preface to my Sermon,[101] I give a
  thousand thanks to him. It is his goodness, not my deserts,
  that has placed his valuable name before any performance of
  mine.”[102]

A month after the date of this letter, good old David Crossly was gone.
“I am ready for the Bridegroom,” he cried; “I know my Redeemer liveth;”
with the utterance of which he triumphantly expired.[103]

Another brave-hearted man must be mentioned. Thomas Beard was one of
Wesley’s preachers, but he was also warmly attached to Whitefield, and
wrote to him the following sweet and simple letter:――

                      “BERWICK-UPON-TWEED, _September 17, 1744_.

  “SIR,――It has been often upon my mind to write to you since I
  have been in this state of life, which is not agreeable at all
  to my inclinations. I have but little acquaintance with you,
  but I hope you will not be offended at my writing to you. The
  children of God, while on this side of the grave, always stand
  in need of one another’s prayers, especially such of them as are
  under persecutions, or temptations, for the truth’s sake. I find
  I stand in need of the prayers of all the children of God.

  “I was pressed, in Yorkshire, for preaching, and so sent for a
  soldier. I earnestly pray for them who were the occasion of it.
  All my trust is reposed in Jesus, my sweet Saviour. I know He
  will not leave nor forsake me. His blood has atoned for my sin,
  and appeased His Father’s wrath, and procured His favour for
  such a sinful worm as myself. Herein is my comfort, though men
  raged at me, my dear Saviour did not leave nor forsake me.

  “I have lately been on a command in Scotland, and met with many
  who enquired concerning you. I preached at Cowdingham. Some of
  your friends came to see me from Coppersmith. Many thought it
  strange to see a man in a red coat preach.

  “I beg you would write to me in General Blakeney’s regiment of
  foot, in Captain Dunlop’s company.

                          “I am your unworthy brother,

                                            “THOMAS BEARD.”[104]

Before Whitefield had an opportunity to answer, poor Beard, as one of
the first of Methodism’s martyrs, had been called to inherit a martyr’s
crown. Wesley, in 1744, wrote thus concerning him:――

  “Thomas Beard, a quiet and peaceable man, who had lately been
  torn from his trade, and wife and children, and sent away as a
  soldier; that is, banished from all that was near and dear to
  him, and constrained to dwell among lions, for no other crime,
  either committed or pretended, than that of calling sinners
  to repentance. But his soul was in nothing terrified by his
  adversaries. Yet the body, after a while, sunk under its burden.
  He was then lodged in the hospital at Newcastle, where he still
  praised God continually. His arm festered, mortified, and was
  cut off: two or three days after which, God signed his discharge,
  and called him up to his eternal home.”

The case of Thomas Beard was far from being a solitary one. Magistrates,
as well as mobs, hated the Methodists, and were always ready to approve
of the violent proceedings of the press-gangs of the period. Not a few
of both Wesley’s and Whitefield’s preachers and people were driven from
their homes, and dragged into the army. Two purposes were thought to be
served by these high-handed acts; first, the army obtained the recruits
it greatly needed; and, secondly, as both mobs and magistrates imagined,
the voices of Methodists and Methodist preachers were likely to be
silenced. The last was a huge mistake. It may fairly be questioned
whether the Methodists, who were forced into the army and navy, did not,
in such positions, render greater service to the cause of Christ and
of Methodism, than they could have rendered had they remained at home
unmolested. Passing men like John Nelson, Thomas Beard, and many others,
pressed into regiments at home, there were a considerable number with
the English army in Flanders, whose heroism and Christianity will
always shed a lustre on Methodism’s early annals. Wesley mentions some
of these with the highest approbation, as, for instance, John Haime,
John Greenwood, William Clements, John Evans, and others. Whitefield
also, in his periodical, the _Christian History_,[105] published a
number of letters, written by soldiers belonging to his own community,
as well as by some who were Wesley’s followers. One man, at Ghent,
under the date of December 24, 1744, tells of being recently converted
under the preaching of a “dragoon,” belonging to “the first regiment
of guards,” in which regiment there were now “about a hundred members
of that branch of the Society, that is, the _United Society_.”
He continues: “The Lord adds to our number daily, and works very
powerfully amongst us.” Another, at the same place, blesses God that
he ever heard John Cennick preach. Anthony Conjuet, “a drummer in the
English camp in Flanders,” relates that he and the regiment of English
Guards had lately been “seven hours under the firing of the French
cannons,” and then adds:――

  “There are many of the members of the Societies killed and
  wounded. Most of them were taken notice of for their valour.
  Ebenezer Wells and Thomas Burford, and our brothers Cook and
  Forrest, are all wounded, and prisoners with the French. William
  Clements, teacher of a Society, is wounded in both arms, but is
  in a fair way to do well. John Evans, teacher of another Society,
  (who is a gunner of the train,) and Brother Hymms (Haime?) the
  dragoon, are well. Brother Hymms is also teacher of another
  Society. There are three other teachers alive and well.

  “There is a great awakening in our camp, and the work of grace
  goes on with great success. Many blaspheming tongues are now
  singing praises to God, and to the Lamb.”

William Clements, mentioned in the foregoing letter, gives an account
of “an engagement with the French, which lasted from five o’clock
in the morning until three in the afternoon;” and of his being “now
under the surgeon’s hands in Brussels.” He adds, that he has “received
letters from the Brethren at the Camp,” telling him, that, since the
battle, “the work of the Lord had gone on with great power.” And then,
after sending his salutations to his “friend in Suffolk,” he concludes
thus:――

  “Grant, I beseech Thee, O Lord Jesus Christ, that we may be
  of that happy number who have washed their robes and made them
  white in the blood of the Lamb; and that we may stand upon Mount
  Zion, amongst the multitude which no man can number, to sing
  praises and hallelujahs for ever and ever. Amen.

  “Which is all at present from your poor unworthy brother,

                                                  “W. CLEMENTS.”

These were bravely loyal, though deeply injured, Methodists; and
displayed equal valour in fighting for their country, and for the
kingdom of their God and Saviour.

Before following Whitefield to America, a few facts respecting the
Societies over which he and his assistants presided may be useful.
For want of materials, a full account of these is impossible; but the
following scraps of information, taken from the _Christian History_,
will, perhaps, be interesting:――

_Wales._――_Herbert Jenkins_, in a letter dated “October 3, 1744,”
tells of attending an “Association,” in Wales, at which “above twenty
brethren” were present.

  “The Lord,” says he, “made us of one heart and mind. We
  consulted about the best measures to carry on the cause of our
  Redeemer. We sung and prayed heartily together. When we parted,
  we went east, west, north, and south. The waters were out, and
  I was to the middle of my leg on horseback. One of the brethren
  had his horse carried away by the floods, and he himself
  narrowly escaped being drowned.”

In another letter, dated “February 23, 1745,” _Jenkins_ writes:――

  “I went to the Association in Wales, where about sixty of us
  met together, four of whom were clergymen. The Lord was amongst
  us. Many of the hearers were greatly comforted. We were two days
  together, and had sweet harmony. We had good accounts of the
  progress of the work of our Lord in six or seven counties.”

_Bristol_, _Bath_, etc.――In October, 1744, _E. Godwin_ writes:――

  “I have changed the tickets of about a hundred and twenty at
  Bristol, and have received fourteen new members. After I changed
  the tickets, I held a lovefeast, when, with a hymn, we publicly
  admitted our new members. On the first Monday in this month, we
  had a letter-day. We were about three hours together, and had
  a collection for defraying the charge of the place, which was
  the largest that had been made since Mr. Whitefield solemnized
  a feast-day here.”

Under the date of November 16, 1744, _Herbert Jenkins_ says:――

  “The hall in Bristol is commonly full. I generally preach,
  morning and evening, with freedom and delight. The people are
  devout and serious. Last Sunday, I preached four times; but,
  though I had walked to Connam and Kingswood, I was stronger in
  body, and happier in my soul at last than I was at first. The
  Society at Bath goes on sweetly, and grows in grace, and in
  number, daily. We had a choice lovefeast there last Thursday
  night. It was the first in that place, and was very solemn and
  orderly.”

_Ludlow_, _Leominster_, etc.――In a letter, dated December 12, 1744,
_James Ingram_ says:――

  “I went to Ludlow, it being fair-day there; and soon had a
  pressing invitation to preach at an honest Dissenter’s house. I
  complied, though a young man told my sister I should be put into
  the stocks if I offered to _cant_ there. I preached to a serious
  auditory, and the poor loving people would not willingly part
  with me. Only one of them had ever heard such things before. I
  promised to visit them again. The Society at Leominster seems
  pretty sweet. We met at four in the morning. I have now almost
  finished my round, and a happy one it has been. The people in
  Monmouthshire are more lively than usual. I was accompanied by
  eight or nine horse-people, and some on foot, from Caldicot to
  Redwick.”

A letter from _James Beaumont_ must be quoted at greater length. It is
dated June 10, 1745. He writes:――

  “On Thursday, the 7th inst., I was at Leominster. During the
  time of my preaching, the people behaved tolerably well; but,
  soon after I had done, a man came to press me. He took me to the
  justice’s house, and there left me. The justice being absent,
  I knew not what to do; but, seeing myself surrounded by a large
  and turbulent mob, I got upon the justice’s steps, and spake
  of their illegal proceedings, and then returned, without any
  hurt, to Brother K――――’s, and sang a hymn of praise to our
  great Deliverer. Soon after this, I was pressed again, by
  another constable, who took me before the commissioners in
  a public-house. By this time the town was in an uproar. The
  commissioners ordered the constable to take me to a private
  room. I was confined about four hours; and was then called
  before the commissioners, who asked me if I was exempted from the
  present Act. I told them I was. Justice H―――― said, ‘By what?’
  I answered, ‘I have £3 a year freehold in the parish of Old
  Radnor.’ ‘Where are your writings?’ said they. I said, ‘At home.’
  They then asked me if I had any friend, in Leominster, who would
  satisfy them of the account I had given of myself. ‘I have,’
  said I; and, soon after, the man came in, and confirmed what I
  had said. Then the gentlemen were pleased to condescend to do
  me justice, and I was discharged immediately. They ordered an
  officer to guard me to my friends, to whom I was safely brought;
  and we joined in praises to God for His mercies to me His sinful
  child.”

_Wiltshire._――On November 15, 1744, _E. Godwin_ writes:――

  “Wiltshire is surely a garden of the Lord. Last week I was
  chiefly about Longley and Brinkworth. Last Monday I went to
  Blunsdon. It was their revel; so I preached out of doors, and
  a great power seemed to attend the word, some crying, who had
  hardly ever wept since they were children.”

The preacher, at this time appointed to the Wiltshire circuit, was
_George Cook_, of whom E. Godwin had said, only a few weeks before,
“Brother Cook’s preaching is much blessed in Wiltshire, though his
gifts are not enlarged enough for a city.” On December 8, _Cook_ wrote
to Cennick:――

  “On the 22nd day of last month I went to Wickwar. As soon as
  I began preaching, the mob came with sheep-bells tied to a
  stick, and so they did ring them. They had also frying-pans,
  horse-rugles, a salt-box, and a post-horn. Some of the mob did
  put their mouths to the window, and made a noise like that of
  dogs; and they called me false prophet, and all manner of names
  they could think of; but Satan can go no farther than his chain.
  The Lord gave me an uncommon power to speak of His blood; and
  many of the people were greatly refreshed in their souls. Pray
  for me, dear sir.

  “I am your little, weak, sinful, simple brother, in the wounds
  of the Lamb,

                                                  “GEORGE COOK.”

Within a month afterwards, this “weak and simple brother” was dead.
_John Cennick_ writes:――

  “January 7, 1745. I rode round by Avebury, where brother Cook
  sickened of the small-pox. The minister of Avebury behaved very
  ill while he was sick, and threatened he would remove him, bad
  as he was, out of the place, and would treat him as a vagabond.
  He was not willing that brother Cook should be buried at Avebury;
  and, therefore, in the dead of the night, the friends brought
  him to Tytherton upon a horse; and, about two o’clock on Sunday
  morning last, they laid him by the side of three other bodies of
  the saints.”

Eight months after this strange interment, _John Edwards_ came to
Avebury, where George Cook had died. Edwards shall tell his own story.

  “I went to Avebury, where we had a blessed season; but, in the
  midst of my discourse, came the minister’s servant-maid, from
  her master, with a partridge for my supper; and to tell me, that
  he would have me come to drink a bottle with him. I met him the
  next day, and thanked him for his present and invitation. He
  called me _ignorant_, _unlearned_, _fool_, etc. I told him I
  was wise unto salvation; but as for being a fool, I acknowledged
  that, and was determined to be more and more a fool for Christ’s
  sake. He hooted and hallooed me, like a schoolboy, till I
  left him. The same night, when in the midst of my discourse,
  a company came, and began to throw stones at me, and struck me
  once on the breast. The people shut the door, and then those
  outside began their music with bells and horns. They broke the
  windows with clubs, and some of the people’s faces were cut with
  glass. They threw in dirt and mud; and, at length, I broke off
  preaching, and went to prayer for our enemies.”

_Gloucestershire._――_Isaac Cottell_, in a letter dated October 10,
1744, gives an account of his labours in the Gloucestershire circuit.
The following is an extract:――

  “On October 7, I came to Wickwar about five o’clock in the
  evening. The house, where I was to preach, was surrounded with a
  mob, making a great noise. When I had been there about a quarter
  of an hour, in came the curate of the town, three gentlemen, and
  the constable with his long black staff. One of the gentlemen
  ordered the people to make way for the parson to come up to me.
  I was then singing a hymn; and the gentleman snatched the book
  out of my hand, tore it, and threw it up into the window. I then
  gave out a verse _extempore_; and he put his elbow up to stop
  my mouth. Then the curate came up to me, and began to read the
  Act of Parliament, and commanded us to depart in half an hour.
  At the same time, the gentleman asked me why I ran about the
  country, to pick people’s pockets? I told him I came to preach
  the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings. He said I came to make
  a riot. I told him, if he did not take care, he would make a
  riot himself. With that the gentlemen began to withdraw; and
  I got upon a stool, sang a hymn, and went to prayer. Dear sir,
  though the devil roars, the Lord Jesus Christ will have the
  victory.”

This kind of persecution, in Whitefield’s native country, was continued.
Ten months afterwards, _George Cross_ wrote to John Cennick:――

  “I met with much opposition in Gloucestershire; for T. B. had
  declared to the congregations at Thornbury and Rangeworthy,
  that, I preach damnable doctrine; and that you, brother Godwin,
  brother Thorne, brother Pugh, and I worship the body of Jesus,
  which, he said, is idolatry.”

_Essex._――In a letter dated July 30, 1744, _F. Pugh_ gives an
interesting narrative of his preaching at Braintree, Bocking, and in
“a Quaker’s mill-yard, about a mile from Chelmsford.” In another letter,
written at Braintree, twelve months afterwards, he says:――

  “I have met with a deal of persecution since I came here. There
  were many stones, and much dust thrown at me last Wednesday
  night. There is a mountebank in town, who is the cause of all
  the persecution. There was a drummer, who drew his hanger at me,
  and damned me, saying it was fit for me to die; but a soldier
  ran to him, and took it from him. Last Sunday, I preached at
  Tiptree-heath, to some thousands. There were two chariots; and
  gentlemen in gold lace came to hear. One of the gentlemen, in a
  chariot, sent for me, and desired me to preach in the town where
  he lived; but I could not, for my rounds were already settled
  and published.”

_Northamptonshire_, etc.――_Thomas Lewis_, in a long letter, written
at Olney, October 13, 1744, tells of his preaching “in the Tabernacle”
there, for an entire week, and of the conversions which took place
during the services. At Northampton, “the people seemed to be all in
a flame, and stretched after God.” Other places in the counties of
Buckingham and Northampton were also visited.

_Staffordshire_, etc.――_W. Allt_ writes:――

  “February 6, 1745. Several at Whittington are under convictions.
  One, who had spent all his youth in indefatigable industry to
  gather together this world’s wealth, was for selling what he had,
  and said he could travel the world over with me; but I advised
  him to keep at home, telling him that Jesus would be found there.
  Many at Wolverhampton seem very desirous to meet, but dare not,
  the mob is so desperate. They arose, after I was gone on Sunday
  last, and broke brother D――――’s windows, and beat a young man
  shamefully, and tore his coat all to pieces. At Brewood, the
  friends are very zealous, in going from house to house, to tell
  what the Lord has done for them; and people come several miles
  to converse, and sing, and pray with them. I am persuaded, if
  a minister was there, several hundreds would come to hear him
  every Sunday. The people are very simple and free from prejudice.
  They say the parishioners are half papists; and the Church and
  Dissenting ministers are exceeding bitter. I have exhorted twice
  at Birmingham with much freedom.”

_Herbert Jenkins_, in a letter, dated February 23, 1745, says:――

  “The first night I was at Birmingham, the people received the
  word with great affection, and with many tears. The place where
  we met on Sunday night was so thronged that the candles went
  out; but the Lord made the place a Bethel to our souls. I stayed
  there four days, declaring to all who came the glad tidings
  of salvation. From thence, I went to Wednesbury, where, for a
  week, morning and evening, I shunned not to declare the whole
  counsel of God. Many heard with tears, longing and panting for
  a discovery of the Lord Jesus; while others rejoiced in the Lord,
  their portion and everlasting friend. There is much Christian
  simplicity among them. I preached once at Wolverhampton (a large
  populous place), to a little company of sincere seeking souls.
  The next day I went to Brewood, where there was scarcely a
  dry eye among all the people. From thence, I went to Bewdley,
  where I was invited by a minister of the Established Church,
  who received me very courteously, and procured the Presbyterian
  meeting-house for me to preach in. The minister came to hear me,
  and behaved very civilly. The people flocked to hear the word.
  There is a little Society formed.”

_Devonshire._――After attending “The Association” of Calvinistic
Methodists in Bristol, _John Cennick_, on September 5, 1744, set out
for Devonshire. He preached in Mr. Darracott’s chapel at Wellington,
to a “congregation made up of Church people, and several sorts of
Dissenters.” He had, what he calls, “blessed times,” at Exeter. At
Kingsbridge, he preached in the Baptist and Presbyterian chapels. At
Plymouth, “the room” was always crowded; and, on Tuesday, September 11,
he “laid the first stone of the New Tabernacle with prayer and
singing.” On his return to London (to officiate as Whitefield’s
successor at the Tabernacle), he spent ten days at Exeter, where the
Dissenting ministers circulated “fly-sheets,” asserting that Whitefield
and his assistants were “false prophets, unlearned, and Antinomians.”
Cennick was a puzzle to the people. Some said he was “a patten-maker;”
others said he had been “a footman.” Numerous other trades were
mentioned, when, at last, a man declared he “was certainly a coachman.”
“Yes,” replied another, who happened to be one of Cennick’s hearers.
“Yes, he is a coachman, and drives the chariot of the Lord, and wishes
you all to be his passengers.”

On his arrival in London, Cennick seems to have received a large number
of letters from the Plymouth converts. One correspondent told him, that,
the Presbyterian minister had warned his people against Whitefield and
his preachers, whom he called “Bold Intruders, Usurpers, and Novices.”
The same writer said:――

  “I have removed our singing meeting to the Baptist Chapel.
  There are about fifty who meet to learn the tunes. My house is,
  every night, like a little church; and, last Sunday evening,
  I began to read Mr. Whitefield’s sermons to the people. Several
  gentlemen have desired to draw off our masons, so that the
  building of the Tabernacle has been neglected. I have had much
  trouble to keep the work going forward.”

Cennick was succeeded in Devonshire by _Thomas Adams_. At Exeter, Adams
preached in “the Society room,” at five in the mornings; and in the
house of Mr. Kennedy, his host, at seven in the evenings. He writes:
“It would have delighted you to have seen the multitudes who flocked
to hear. Mr. Kennedy’s three rooms and large passage would not near
contain the people: many, very many stood in the court.” At Kingsbridge,
Adams met a lawyer who had been converted by Whitefield’s preaching. At
Plymouth, he found “the partition-wall of bigotry tumbling down daily.”
This was in the month of November, 1744. Shortly afterwards, so far as
Exeter was concerned, the scene had changed.

In 1745, a pamphlet of forty-two pages was published at Exeter,
entitled, “A brief Account of the late Persecution and Barbarous Usage
of the Methodists at Exeter.[106] By an Impartial Hand.” The author
assures his readers, that he is not a Methodist himself; and that “it
would never have entered his head to have taken up his pen in defence
of the Methodists, had they not been daily, and openly, treated in
Exeter with such rudeness, violence, and abuse, as would have made even
_Indians_, or Pagans, to have blushed.” He relates that,――

  “The rioters violently entered the Methodist meeting-house,
  interrupted the minister with opprobrious and obscene language,
  and fell upon him in a most furious manner with blows and kicks.
  They treated every man they could lay their hands upon with
  such abuse and indignity as is not to be expressed. But what is
  more than all, was their abominable rudeness to the poor women.
  Some were stripped quite naked. Others notwithstanding their
  most piercing cries for mercy and deliverance, were forcibly
  held by some of the wicked ruffians, while others turned their
  petticoats over their heads, and forced them to remain, in that
  condition, as a spectacle to their infamous banter and ridicule;
  the poor creatures being afterwards dragged through the kennel,
  which had been filled with mud and dirt. Others of the women
  had their clothes, yea, their very shifts, torn from their
  backs. Towards the close of the evening, one of the mob forced
  a woman up into the gallery, and attempted other outrages, three
  different times. After many struggles, she freed herself, leaped
  over the gallery, and so made her escape. Many, to avoid falling
  into the hands of this wicked crew, leaped out of the windows,
  and got over the garden walls, to the endangering of their lives.
  This outrage was committed in the centre of the city, and in the
  presence of many thousands. The riot continued for several hours.
  The mob had their full swing. No magistrates came to the relief
  or assistance of the poor people, notwithstanding they were
  applied to, and greatly importuned to read the Riot Act. It is
  true, no one was actually murdered; but the whole Society were
  put into great danger and fear of their lives, and expected
  nothing but death. Many of the women are now in very critical
  circumstances, under the care of surgeons and apothecaries; and
  their lives are even yet (two days after the riot) in danger.

  “Before I dismiss this Exeter riot, I must remark, that the
  Methodists, not only on the day of the grand riot, but, many
  times since, have been treated by this lawless rabble with the
  utmost fury and violence. They have been mobbed and insulted,
  at noonday, in the open streets, and furiously pelted with dirt,
  stones, sticks, and cabbage-stumps.

  “After the strictest enquiry, I cannot find that any one
  _Dissenter_, of _any denomination_, was at all concerned in
  this riot. They were all of the _old stamp_, that have ever
  been known by the name of _church rabble_; though I cannot
  omit to notice, that the Methodists complain much against
  the Presbyterian clergy, who (they say), in their sermons
  and conversations, frequently represent them in a _false_ and
  _injurious_ light; and, thereby, lessen the affection, and raise
  the antipathy, of the people towards them.”

The author concludes by saying, that his pamphlet was written “for his
_own private amusement_, and without any design to _publish_ it;” and
that its _publication_ was the result of what he saw and heard after
the pamphlet was finished.

  “On a certain evening, he saw, with his own eyes, the wicked
  rioters collected and assembled together, by beat of drum, in
  the open streets, with sticks and bats, in order to disturb
  and abuse the poor Methodists, who were at their meeting-house,
  worshipping and serving God, in a manner perfectly innocent
  and inoffensive, without the least disturbance to the public
  peace. He saw the Methodists flee with great fear and trembling,
  and the rabble persecuting with rage and violence. And he
  heard, that, the very night before, this same riotous crew,
  to the number of many hundreds, attacked Mr. Adams, one of the
  Methodist ministers, with sticks, dirt, and mud; and that, in
  all probability, they would have murdered him in the open street,
  had not a good Samaritan, in Southgate Street, taken him into
  his house, and there rescued him from their violent and wicked
  hands.”

At the risk of being prolix, Mr. Adams’s own account must be added to
these statements of the “impartial” observer at Exeter. The _Christian
History_ No. 3, vol. vii., 1745, contains two letters on the subject,
one by “a gentleman in Exeter,”[107] dated June 16, 1745, and the
other by Thomas Adams himself, dated Hampton, June 20, 1745. The latter
writes:――

  “On my way to the west, I heard of a cruel persecution at Exeter;
  but I had no freedom to omit going thither, though I expected
  much opposition. Our Saviour brought me there on Saturday
  evening, and I was kindly received by Mr. Kennedy and his
  wife. Many told me, we should be mobbed, if I preached in the
  play-house; but we thought it was right to try. Accordingly, I
  preached there, at six o’clock on Sunday morning, and we were
  not much disturbed. I preached again in the afternoon, and,
  though many of the mob came in, they did not disturb us.

  “The next morning, (Monday) we were much interrupted, by the
  mob beating a drum and a pan, at a window of the play-house;
  and they hallooed us, and beat the drum quite to Mr. Kennedy’s
  house. We did not, however, receive much personal abuse until
  eight days after, when I came back from Plymouth.” [Adams here
  interjects an account of his preaching at Plymouth, Kingsbridge,
  Wonhil, and Tavistock, at which last-mentioned place, the mob
  brought out the water-engine, and endeavoured to play it upon
  him and his congregation. He then proceeds with his narrative
  of the persecution at Exeter.]

  “The evening I returned to Exeter, I preached in Mr. Kennedy’s
  house. The next morning, (Thursday) I preached at the play-house;
  and so continued morning and evening till Saturday; but not
  without interruption of a drum, besides being hallooed after,
  and pushed about, as we went along the street.

  “On Saturday morning, as soon as I had done preaching, some of
  the brethren told me there were several constables waiting at
  the _Dove_ to impress me. Accordingly, when I came to the _Dove_,
  one of the constables laid hold on me, and said, I was a fit
  person to serve the king. I told him, if he had sufficient
  authority for his proceedings, I would go with him. They then
  took hold of Brother S――――, who had come with me from Plymouth,
  and told him he must go with me. We knew not whither we were
  going, till we got to Southgate prison. When we came to the
  prison door, they stopped us, and said, we must go in there.
  Having entered, one of the constables asked me what countryman
  I was. I modestly answered, ‘My country is Canaan, and thither
  I am journeying.’ They said we must stay in prison till Monday,
  and then be brought before the justices at their quarter
  sessions.

  “We had not, however, been there above five or six hours,
  when two of the constables came again, and desired to know our
  circumstances and manner of living; and particularly if I had
  taken the oaths, and qualified myself for preaching. I said,
  ‘You ought to have enquired into this before you brought us
  hither. Do we look like vagrants? Mr. S. is a tradesman, and
  keeps an open shop in Plymouth, and came hither about business.
  He is also a constable, so that you have impressed one of the
  king’s officers. As to myself, I am of the Church of England,
  and have no need to take the oaths to qualify myself for a
  preacher; and, besides, I am a freeholder.’ When they heard this,
  they said, ‘Gentlemen, we have no more to say. You are welcome
  to go as soon as you please.’ So they called the keeper of the
  prison, and desired him to release us. At first, he refused, and
  said he durst not without an order from the magistrates. They
  said, as they brought us thither without being committed by the
  justices, they had power to release us. The keeper said, they
  must give security to bear him blameless. Whether they did or
  not, I cannot tell; but they let us go; and I believe the poor
  constables were as glad to bring us out as they were to put us
  in. I gave the turnkey sixpence, because he used us kindly, and
  asked us to go on the leads of the house to air ourselves.

  “In the evening, I again preached in the play-house, but was
  much disturbed. Some beat a drum; some hallooed; some stamped
  up and down the galleries; and some spat on the people, and
  slapped them on their faces. Mr. S. and another[108] went to
  a justice of the peace, and desired the Proclamation might be
  read, to disperse the mob. The justice said he would come; and
  bid them go directly to the town clerk’s, and he would meet them
  there. Thither they went, and from thence to the mayor’s, who
  made many objections against going. After great delay, he went
  with reluctance; but, before they came, we were gone, being
  apprehensive that the mob would abuse the women as they had done
  before, which was cruel and inhuman.

  “The passage, from the play-house to the street, was filled with
  fellows of the baser sort. One poor wretch gnashed his teeth,
  and swore he would be revenged on me. We were pushed about most
  grievously. The women were thrown into the dirt, and one had
  her eye much hurt. Two of the brethren were cuffed prodigiously.
  I received only some scratches on my hand, but was besmeared
  all over with mud and dirt, the mob pelting us with all the
  nastiness the kennels afforded, till we got to the house of
  Mr. Kennedy.

  “The next day being Sunday, and the last of my being there,
  many of our friends thought it would be best to preach in
  Mr. Kennedy’s house, which I did both morning and evening. It
  was well we did not go to the play-house, for the mob were there,
  and seemed more desperate than ever. One of our friends found
  a paper stuck up against the play-house door, with these words:
  ‘_For the benefit of the mob. This evening will be acted at the
  theatre, Hell in an Uproar; or, the Furies let loose. The part
  of Beelzebub, by Mr. P――――ns: Queen of Hell, by Mrs. L――――w,
  etc._’

  “After I had done preaching on Sunday evening, and was going
  to Rocks Lane, to take my leave of the Society, I was stopped
  by the same two constables who imprisoned and released us.
  They told me, the mayor had sent them to acquaint me, that I
  must meet him and the justices at their quarter sessions on
  the morrow, at eleven o’clock. I answered, ‘I cannot, for I am
  obliged to go out of town early in the morning.’ They said, if I
  would not promise them to be there, they must keep me in custody.
  I said, I would wait upon the mayor in half an hour, if they
  would appoint a place where I should meet them; which they did.
  So I gave a short exhortation to the Society; and then Brother
  S―――― and I went with one of the constables to the mayor.

  “His worship asked me if my name was Adams. I said, ‘Yes.’ He
  asked if I was the preacher. I said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Have you qualified
  yourself?’ I answered, ‘My qualification and sufficiency are
  of the Lord.’ He bid me not tell him of the _Lord_, but to
  say whether I had qualified myself according to the Act of
  Toleration. I answered, ‘I am not a Dissenter, and therefore
  have nothing to do with that Act, being a son of the Church
  of England.’ He furiously cried, ‘You are not of the Church,’
  and called me several ridiculous names. I said, ‘Sir, you may
  call me what you please, but I say I am of the Church; and,
  considering myself so, do not know that my proceedings are
  illegal.’ He called me several names again, and said I made
  collections among the poor people, and got their money from
  them. ‘Sir,’ said I, ‘I never made a collection amongst them
  in my life.’ He persisted in saying that I did; and asked, ‘How
  else do you live?’ ‘Sir,’ I said, ‘I have nothing from you;
  and I know not why I came here to receive such ill-treatment;’
  to which I added, that, ‘I did not apprehend I was under any
  obligation at all to come there; for,’ said I, ‘by the same rule
  that you stop me on my journey, you may stop any gentleman who
  comes on business.’ He answered, ‘Sure you have not the d――――d
  impudence to call yourself a gentleman!’ I said, ‘Sir, whether I
  be gentle or simple, I am sure you do not use me well; therefore,
  I don’t think to stay any longer with you.’ ‘But,’ said he, ‘I
  desire you will be at the quarter sessions to-morrow.’ ‘I cannot,’
  said I, ‘for I am obliged to go out of town very early in the
  morning.’ The constable standing by said, ‘Sir, if you please,
  I will keep him in custody till the time.’ ‘Will you?’ said I;
  ‘you had best know by what authority you touch me. If you act
  contrary to law, I shall let you hear of it. Besides,’ I added,
  ‘you know I have not reckoned with you yet for yesterday’s five
  hours’ false imprisonment.’ And so, without offering to stop us
  any longer, they let us go.

  “When we came out of the mayor’s house into the street, we
  found a mob of some hundreds gathered together, who pelted us
  with cabbage-stumps, and whatever they could find, until we came
  almost to Southgate, which was near a furlong; when one opened
  a door, and desired us to come in, which we did. By this time,
  I was ready to fall down, by reason of the violent blows I
  received on my head, and other parts of my body. O good God,
  forgive these cruel men!

  “I am to return to the west in a few days. I am filled with
  comfort, and not in the least troubled or terrified, though I
  expect much opposition, and am persuaded afflictions await me.
  O pray for me, my dear, dear friends, that I may be kept near
  the Saviour, and may be made bold as a lion, wise as a serpent,
  meek as a lamb, and harmless as a dove.”

This is a long account; but it is useful as illustrating the state of
some of the first towns in the kingdom a hundred and thirty years ago;
and as shewing the cruel persecutions to which Whitefield’s preachers,
and the Societies they had gathered, were at that time subjected.

It would be easy to furnish other extracts from the _Christian
History_――a book now nearly non-existent; but enough has been written
to afford the reader a glimpse――though an imperfect one――of the extent
and quality of Whitefield’s brotherhood, when, for the third time, he
set sail for America.

                       _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 Lights_[113] 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
  Piscataqua[122] 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