The Life of the Rev. George Whitefield, Vol. 2 (of 2)

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Life of the Rev. George Whitefield, Vol. 2 (of 2)
Author: Tyerman, L. (Luke)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Life of the Rev. George Whitefield, Vol. 2 (of 2)" ***

The Life of the
Rev. George Whitefield

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ The text may show quotations within quotations, all set off │
│ by double quotes. The inner quotations have been changed to │
│ single quotes for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ superscripts --> x{th} │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a number in │
│ brackets [2] and have been accumulated in a single section │
│ at the end of the text. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified in the text by a ♦ symbol, │
│ and are accumulated in a single section at the end of the │
│ book. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Illustration: REV{D}. GEORGE WHITEFIELD, B.A.
AGED 54

Engraved by J. COCHRAN.

THE LIFE

OF THE

REV. GEORGE WHITEFIELD,

B.A., OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE, OXFORD.

REV. L. TYERMAN,

AUTHOR OF
“THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE REV. SAMUEL WESLEY, M.A.,
RECTOR OF EPWORTH;”
“THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE REV. JOHN WESLEY, M.A.;”
AND “THE OXFORD METHODISTS.”

_IN TWO VOLUMES._

VOL II.

London:
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.

MDCCCLXXVII.

Hazell, Watson, and Viney, Printers, London and Aylesbury.

GENERAL CONTENTS.

VOL. II.

SECOND VISIT TO SCOTLAND.

JUNE TO OCTOBER, 1742.

Marvellous Work of God――Revivals at Cambuslang, Kilsyth,
etc.――Letter to Lord Rae――Erection in the Hospital Park,
Edinburgh――Great Commotions――Opposition of the “Associate
Presbytery”――Mr. Robe’s Answer――Letter to Ebenezer Erskine――
Public Fast――Anti-Whitefieldian Declaration――Letter
from Gentleman in Boston――Hostile Pamphlets――Pamphlet by
Whitefield on New England Revival――Whitefield’s Financial
Report of Orphan House――Letter to Rev. Mr. Willison――
Young Truants――Invasion of Georgia――Whitefield’s Chaplain
and Surgeon Imprisoned――Letter to Trustees of Georgia――
Whitefield’s Vindication of himself――Methodism in Wales――
Whitefield’s Letter to his Mother――Second Visit to
Cambuslang――The Moravians――Letter to Habersham――Revivals in
Scotland――Letter to Colonel Gardiner――Whitefield and Wesley
Reconciled――Collections in Scotland, 1–35

IN ENGLAND AND WALES.

NOVEMBER, 1742, TO AUGUST, 1744.

Letter to Habersham――Aristocratic Hearers――Letter to Lady
Frances Gardiner――Rev. John Meriton――Persecution in Wales――
John Cennick in Trouble――Letter to Bishop Sherlock――Orphan
House――Letter to Ingham――Letter to Colonel Gardiner――
Letter to Hervey――Methodism in Wales――Whitefield in
Gloucestershire――Second Conference of Calvinistic
Methodists――Rev. Howell Davies――Whitefield elected
Moderator――Tour in Wales――David Taylor――In West of England――
Association at Trevecca――Rev. Richard Thomas Bateman――Thomas
Adams――Persecution at Minchin Hampton――John Syms――Proposed
Conference――Separation from Church――Narrow Escape――Dissenters
Alarmed――Birth of Son――In Devonshire and Cornwall――Letter to
Howell Harris――Wiltshire Societies――In Staffordshire, etc.――
Association at Watford――Whitefield’s Poverty――Death of his
Child――Trial at Gloucester Assizes――Fly-Sheets of Bishop of
London――Whitefield’s Answers――A Furious Pamphleteer――Rev.
Thomas Church――Fine Picture of Enthusiasm――Bishop Smalbroke’s
Charge――Whitefield’s Answer――Brutal Treatment at Plymouth――
Labours at Plymouth――Rev. Henry Tanner――Rev. David Crossly――
Thomas Beard――Methodist Soldiers――The _Christian History_――
Whitefield’s Preachers――Outrages at Exeter, 36–119

THIRD VISIT TO AMERICA.

AUGUST, 1744, TO JUNE, 1748.

Dangerous Voyage――Whitefield Ill――Prince’s _Christian
History_――Sir William Pepperell――Letter by Whitefield’s
Wife――Dr. Timothy Cutler――Rev. Charles Chauncy, D.D.――Rev.
Zachary Grey, D.D.――Whitefield’s Answer to Chauncy――Hostile
Publications――Friendly Publications――Summary――Whitefield
in Boston――A Convert――Rev. Thomas Prince――Paper Warfare――
Cennick’s Secession――Cape Breton Expedition――Sermon in a
Thunderstorm――Brainerd――Receipts and Disbursements for Orphan
House――Bickerings ――Associations of Calvinistic Methodists――
Whitefield’s Preachers――Outrage at Plymouth――Whitefield’s
Loyalty――In Maryland――In Virginia――Rev. Samuel Davies――Rev.
Samuel Finley, D.D.――Countess of Huntingdon――Whitefield
a Slave-Owner――Loss of Health――Letter to Cennick――Again
Itinerating――Letter to John and Charles Wesley――Rev. Samuel
Moody――Hunting after Sinners――Visit to Bermudas――Voyage
Home――The Revival in America, 120–185

THREE YEARS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

JULY 1, 1748, TO AUGUST 29, 1751.

Popularity in London――Lady Huntingdon and the Calvinistic
Methodists――Whitefield as Moderator――Resolves not to
found Societies――Ceases to be Moderator――Howell Harris
his Successor――New Scheme――Whitefield becomes Lady
Huntingdon’s Chaplain――Earl of Bath――Earl of Chesterfield――
Lord Bolingbroke――Dr. Stonehouse――Whitefield in Scotland――
Synod of Glasgow――Proceedings of other Synods, and of the
Associate Presbytery――Bishop Lavington Enraged――Persecution
in Wales――Whitefield Visits Dr. Watts――Thomas Olivers
Converted――Whitefield wishes to have Slaves――Letter to Dr.
Doddridge――Aristocratic Hearers――Dr. Stonehouse afraid to
become a Methodist――Whitefield in the West of England――Rev.
Andrew Kinsman――Mr. Robert Cruttenden――A Reverend Slanderer――
John Sladdin’s Pamphlet――Whitefield and Bishop Lavington――
“_The Devil’s Castaways_”――Whitefield at Portsmouth――In
Wales――An Indigent Minister――New Jersey College――College
of Philadelphia――Franklin on Reformations――Rev. Robert
Robinson――Letter to a Bishop――Bishop Lavington’s “Enthusiasm
of Methodists and Papists Compared”――Rev. George Thompson――
At Exeter――Letter to Hervey――Tour to the North of England――
Wesley and Grace Murray――Another Tour――Colonel Galatin――
Methodism in Dublin――Persecution at Cork――New Year’s Sermon――
Rev. William Baddiley――Dr. Andrew Gifford――Persecution in
Ireland――Whitefield helping Wesley――Government of Georgia――At
Gloucester, etc.――Letter to Franklin――In Cornwall――New Jersey
College――At Northampton――Persecution at Rotherham――Rev.
John Thorpe――“Ingham’s Circuit”――In Scotland――James Nimmo,
Esq.――Old Friends Meet again――Rev. Martin Madan――Rev. Moses
Browne――Memorable Visit――Methodism in Canterbury――Letter on
Marriage――Original Letter by Gilbert Tennent――Moses Browne
Embarrassed――“A House of Mourning”――Hostile Publications――
Whitefield on Slavery――In Ireland――Original Letter by
Whitefield’s Wife――Leaving England, 186–277

FOURTH VISIT TO AMERICA, AND RETURN TO ENGLAND.

SEPTEMBER, 1751, TO MARCH, 1754.

In America――Letter on Wesley――Sudden Return to England――
Original Letter to Blackwell――Tour to West of England and
Wales――Letter to Franklin――Success in Scotland――In Yorkshire,
etc.――John Edwards and Dublin Methodists――The Orphan House――
John and Charles Wesley――The New Tabernacle ――The Moravians――
Whitefield’s Hymn Book――Specimens of Preaching――Foundation
Laid of New Tabernacle――Methodism in Norwich――Whitefield’s
“Expostulatory Letter” to Zinzendorf――Letters by James Hutton,
Peter Bohler, and Count Zinzendorf――Andrew Frey’s Pamphlet――
Letter to John Syms――New Tabernacle Opened――Tour to
Scotland――Glasgow Playhouse――Glorious Seasons in Yorkshire――
Another Tour――Norwich Tabernacle――Bristol Tabernacle――Wesley
dangerously Ill――Letters concerning――Visit to England of
Gilbert Tennent and Samuel Davies――New Tabernacle paid for,
278–324

FIFTH VISIT TO AMERICA.

MARCH, 1754, TO MAY, 1755.

Popery in Lisbon――Learning Lessons――Arrival in America――
Itinerating――New Jersey College――Government of Georgia――
Scenes at Boston, etc.――Revival in Virginia――Visit to Orphan
House――Return to England, 325–340

EIGHT YEARS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

1755 TO 1763.

Evangelical Clergymen――Trying to Serve a Friend――Whitefield’s
“Communion Morning’s Companion”――Death of Lady Anne
Hastings――Cornelius Winter――Methodists at Norwich――Wesley and
Hervey――Charles Wesley’s Poem on Whitefield――Commencement of
the “Seven Years’ War”――Tour to Newcastle――Long Acre Chapel――
Bishop Pearce――Letters to――Long Acre Riots――Archbishop
Herring on Whitefield and Wesley――Threatening Letters――
Advertisement in _London Gazette_――Whitefield’s “Address to
Persons of All Denominations”――National Alarm――Collection
on Fast-Day――Tottenham Court Road Chapel――Rev. Dr. Thomas
Haweis――Wesley’s Letter to William Law――Franklin’s Novel
Scheme――Visit to a Murderer――Tour to Scotland――Rev. John
Fawcett, D.D.――Samuel Whitaker――Labours in Scotland――Helping
Charles Wesley――Rev. Henry Venn――Congregations in London――
Faithful Preaching――Balaam-like Pamphlets――Shuter, the
Comedian――Memorable Visit to Scotland――Thomas Rankin――Visit
to Ireland――Nearly Murdered――Methodist Clergymen――“Mission
Week” at Cheltenham――Death of Belcher and Burr――Whitefield’s
Health Failing――Almshouses at Tottenham Court Road Chapel――
Letter to Professor Francke――Journey in One-Horse Chaise――
“Spiritual Routs”――Rev. Robert Robinson――Visit to Berridge――
In Scotland――Thanksgiving Sermons――Return to London――Death
of Hervey――Dr. Free――Remarkable Meetings――Lady Huntingdon and
Methodism in Brighton――Whitefield Publishes a Sermon by John
Foxe, the Martyrologist――Seven Weeks in Scotland――The Orphan
House――Rev. Samuel Clarke’s “Annotations”――Three Thanksgiving
Sermons――Sermon Against Theatres――Enlargement of Tottenham
Court Road Chapel――Whitefield Publishes a Pamphlet on
“Russian Cruelty”――Collections on Fast-Day――Riot at
Kingston-on-Thames――Earl Ferrers――Burial of an Executed
Felon――Preaching Journeys――Samuel Foote――“The Minor”――
Large Number of Disgraceful Pamphlets Published――Madan’s
Letter to Garrick――Painful Year――Foote after Whitefield’s
Death――Sermons and Collections on Fast-Day――Berridge
Helping Whitefield――Whitefield seriously Ill――Scurrillous
Publications――Jonas Hanway――Bishop of Lincoln――At Bristol――
Trip to Holland――Wesley’s Conference at Leeds――In Scotland――
In the West of England――Relieving the Poor――Trying to Settle
his Affairs――Whitefield’s Trustees――A Farewell Sermon――
Extracts from other Sermons――Volume of Sermons, Published by
Gurney――Answer to Bishop Warburton’s “Observations”――Tour to
Scotland――Embarks for America, 341–466

SIXTH VISIT TO AMERICA.

JUNE 4, 1763, TO JULY 8, 1765.

At Sea――Pastoral Letter――At Philadelphia――Prevented Going to
his Orphan House――At New York――Letter to Charles Wesley――At
Boston――Harvard College――Dr. Wheelock’s School――The Orphan
House――Again at New York――At Philadelphia――Letter to Wesley――
The “New Lights”――Arrival at Savannah――Proposal to Convert
the Orphan House into a College――Memorials――Orphan House
Accounts――At Bethesda――Tour to Philadelphia――Embarks for
England――John Harman――_Lloyd’s Evening Post_, 467–486

WHITEFIELD’S LAST FOUR YEARS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

JULY 7, 1765, TO SEPTEMBER 5, 1769.

Health not Improved――Supplies for his Chapels――Important
Letter――Lady Huntingdon――Chapel at Bath――Memorial to
George III.――Whitefield a Peacemaker――Methodists at
Sheerness――“Brilliant Audiences”――Samson Occum――Thomas Powys,
Esq.――“Quadruple Alliance”――John Fawcett begins to Preach――
Letter to Gustavus Gidley――Whitefield’s Loyalty――A Royal
Marriage――Fletcher of Madeley helps Whitefield――At Bath and
Bristol――Captain Torial Joss――Captain Scott――Rowland Hill――
“Lecture upon Heads”――_The Methodist and Mimic_――_The
Methodist_――Letter to Thomas Powys, Esq.――“Preface” to
Bunyan’s Works――Cornelius Winter――Winter’s Delineation of
Whitefield――Re-opening of Brighton Chapel――Rev. Richard de
Courcy――Another Preaching Tour――Services at Haverfordwest――
Letter by Fletcher of Madeley――Letter to Rowland Hill――
Chandler’s Proposal respecting Colonial Bishops――Whitefield’s
Correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury respecting
Orphan House――Proposal to make Orphan House a Public
Academy――Letters to Rowland Hill――Whitefield Attends Wesley’s
Conference――His Kindness to Wesley’s Preachers――Tour
to Newcastle-on-Tyne――A Burglary――Visit to Venn
at Huddersfield――Wesley’s Northern Societies――A Remarkable
Service――Troubles of Methodist Students at Cambridge――Death
of Earl of Buchan――The Young Earl of Buchan――Correspondence
with Benjamin Franklin――Trevecca College――Expulsion of
Oxford Students――Whitefield’s Letter to Dr. Durell――Hostile
Publications――Curious Engraving――A Felon Executed――Visit
to Tunbridge Wells――Letter by Rowland Hill――Death of
Whitefield’s Wife――Opening of Trevecca College――Whitefield
Ruptures a Blood-vessel――His Portrait――Remarkable Meetings
at Lady Huntingdon’s――Orphan House Enlargements――Opening
of Chapel at Tunbridge Wells――Extracts from Last Sermons in
England――Rev. George Burder――Gurney’s Volume of Whitefield’s
Sermons, 487–568

SEVENTH VISIT TO AMERICA.

SEPTEMBER, 1769, TO SEPTEMBER, 1770.

Embarks for America――Letter to Wesley――Detention in the Downs――
Ordination Service at Deal――Last Sermons at Ramsgate――Arrival
at Charleston――At Bethesda――Letter to Charles Wesley――
Memorable Day at the Orphan House――Whitefield’s Memorable
Sermon there――♦Orphan House Accounts――Rules for Orphan House
Academy――Subsequent History of Orphan House――Wesley’s Letter
respecting Orphan House――Happy――Another Gospel Tour――Meets
Wesley’s Missionaries――Rev. Dr. Kirkland――Preaching on
a Felon’s Coffin――A Rebuke――Whitefield’s Popularity――
Whitefield’s Preaching Places during Last Two Months of his
Life――His Last Letters――Riots at Boston――His Last Sermon――Rev.
Jonathan Parsons――Whitefield’s Death――His Funeral――Benjamin
Randall――Mourning at Savannah――Whitefield’s Corpse――His
♦Cenotaph――Proposed Monument――Visits to Whitefield’s
Sepulchre――One of his Bones Stolen――His Will――Elegies,
Charles Wesley’s, Cowper’s――Funeral Sermon by Wesley――Funeral
Sermons _Preached_――Funeral Sermons _Published_――Rev.
Jonathan Parsons on Whitefield――Dr. Pemberton on Ditto――Rev.
Henry Venn on Ditto――Toplady on Ditto――Rev. John Newton on
Ditto――The _Scots’ Magazine_ on Ditto――The _Pennsylvania
Journal_ on Ditto――Dr. Gillies on Ditto――Concluding Remarks,
569–635

INDEX.

NAMES OF PERSONS AND PLACES. 635–645

THE LIFE

THE REV. GEORGE WHITEFIELD, B.A.

_SECOND VISIT TO SCOTLAND._

JUNE TO OCTOBER, 1742.

WHEN Whitefield arrived in Edinburgh, a minister told him, that,
though seven months had elapsed since his departure, scarcely one of
his converts had “fallen back, either among old or young.”[1] This
was a remarkable fact; but there was also another, equally deserving
notice. As already shewn, up to the time of Whitefield’s first visit
to Scotland, the churches of that country, like those of England,
were in the most deplorable condition. In many instances, ministers
were unfaithful; in most instances, congregations were dead; and, as
it respects the outside populace, it is not an extravagance to say,
that, speaking generally, they were almost entirely regardless of
religion, and were steeped in worldliness, frivolity, and vice. In the
interval, however, between Whitefield’s first and second visits, a most
marvellous work of God had taken place. How far Whitefield’s labours
and influence, in 1741, had contributed to this, it, perhaps, would be
presumptuous to say. So far as it concerns the cause of Christ, this is
of little consequence. Every reader of the unvarnished facts will form
his own opinion on the subject. Many of these facts have been already
given; and others must now be mentioned. Cambuslang was then a small
parish, about four miles from Glasgow; and here Whitefield had preached
with amazing power and success only a few months before. The minister
of Cambuslang――the Rev. William McCulloch――was a man of “genuine piety,
and of considerable capacity; but had nothing particularly striking
either in the manner or substance of his preaching.”[2] During most
of the year 1741, he had strongly pressed on his congregation the
nature and necessity of the new birth. In the third week of February,
1742, three days were specially employed in prayer. On the fourth day,
Thursday, February 18, “about fifty persons came to Mr. McCulloch’s
house, under convictions and alarming apprehensions respecting the
state of their souls, and desiring to speak with him.” After this,
numbers of others daily resorted to him, and he soon found it necessary
to preach a sermon every day, and, after the sermon, to spend some
time with the penitents, “in exhortations, prayers, and singing of
psalms.” In less than three months, more than three hundred were
converted. Though the parish was of small extent, and most of the
people lived within a mile of Mr. McCulloch’s church, not fewer than
twelve “societies for prayer” were begun by the converts. In the month
of April, the Rev. Mr. Willison, one of Whitefield’s correspondents,
visited the place, and wrote: “The work at Cambuslang is a most
singular and marvellous outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I pray it may
be a happy forerunner of a general revival of the work of God, and a
blessed means of union among all the lovers of Jesus.”

Kilsyth, a small town, about twelve miles from Glasgow, was another
place graciously visited by God’s good Spirit. Its minister, the Rev.
James Robe, began a series of sermons on the new birth, as early as
the year 1740; but nothing remarkable occurred until May, 1742, the
month when Whitefield set out on his second visit to Scotland. At
the beginning of the month, “societies for prayer were erected in the
parish;” and, almost immediately, great numbers began to cry aloud for
mercy. On May 16, after dismissing his congregation, Mr. Robe invited
the penitents into his barn; but the numbers were so great, that the
barn could not contain them: and, _nolens volens_, he was obliged to
convene them in his kirk. He says, “I sung a psalm, and prayed with
them; but, when I essayed to speak to them, I could not be heard,
such were their bitter cries and groans. After this, I ordered that
they should be brought to me in my closet, one by one; and, in the
meantime, I appointed psalms to be sung with those in the kirk, and
that the precentor and two or three of the elders should pray with
the distressed.” Before the month ended,――that is, before Whitefield
had arrived in Scotland,――the penitents at Kilsyth numbered nearly a
hundred; and a similar work was begun, and was spreading in several
neighbouring parishes, as Kirkintilloch, Auchinloch, Campsie, and
Cumbernauld.[3] Such was the state of things, in this part of Scotland,
when Whitefield and his wife reached Edinburgh, on Thursday, June 3,
1742.

One of his first letters, at Edinburgh, was addressed to Lord Rae, the
death of whose wife had recently occurred. An extract from it will help
to shew the spirit in which Whitefield began his work in Scotland.

“EDINBURGH, _June 4, 1742_.

“MY LORD,――Your lordship’s kind letter was put into my hands
yesterday. I heartily sympathise with you; but could not help
rejoicing on your honoured lady’s account, knowing she is now
entered into her blessed Master’s joy. Among Christians, death
has not only lost its sting, but its name. I never was so joyful
as I am now at the death of those who die in the Lord; and never
was so reconciled to living myself. Lately, in London, we had a
sister in Christ, whose last words were, ‘Holy, holy, holy.’ She
could say no more here; but our Saviour sent for her to finish
her song in heaven. I preached over her corpse; our Society
attended; and surely never did any triumph over death more
than we did that night. But your lordship may ask, ‘Why are you
reconciled to life?’ Because I can do that for Jesus on earth,
which I cannot do in heaven: I mean, be made instrumental in
bringing weary, heavy-laden sinners to find rest in His blood
and righteousness. If our Saviour were to offer either to take
me now, or to let me stay only to take one sinner more, I would
desire to stay to take the sinner with me.

“I hear of wonderful things in Scotland. I can only fall down
and worship. I have seen greater things than ever in England. I
expect to see far greater in Scotland. Our Lord will not let His
people be disappointed of their hopes.”

Whitefield was in Edinburgh, but where was he to preach? The question
was soon solved. The following minute was passed at a meeting of the
managers of Heriot’s Hospital, held on June 17, 1742: “The managers
agree to erect seats in the Hospital Park for about two thousand people,
part of which are to be covered with shades, and let out to the best
advantage. It is further agreed, that, out of the profits arising
from these seats, after paying all charges anent the same, a sum not
exceeding £60 sterling shall be given to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield,
for defraying his charges during his continuance in this country.”[4]
The seats, thus erected, were semicircular in form; those with shades
were let at three shillings each for the season; and those without
shades might be used by paying a halfpenny each for them, every time
they were occupied. A few seats outside the railing were free; and the
back seats within were permitted to be used by soldiers gratuitously.
The money thus raised seems to have amounted to £260 3s., which was
distributed as follows: For erecting seats, £80 4s.; for repairing the
“park dikes,” £28 5s.; payment to the _tacksman_ of the park for damage
done to the grass, £4 10s.; gift to Whitefield, £60; balance paid
to the treasurer of the hospital, £87 4s.[5] Such was Whitefield’s
cathedral in the metropolis of Scotland.

From the day of his arrival, he preached twice daily, expounded almost
every night, and regularly visited the three hospitals.[6] On the 12th
of June, in writing to his helper, John Cennick, he remarked: “Our
Saviour deals most lovingly with me. I never enjoyed so much happiness
in Him as now. Day and night, He is pleased to shine upon my soul. My
success here is great. I am enabled to ‘be instant in season, and out
of season,’ and to ‘reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all longsuffering
and doctrine.’”[7]

Of course, a little time was requisite to erect Whitefield’s open-air
church; and hence, after spending twelve days in Edinburgh, he set
out, on June 15, to Kilsyth, Cambuslang, and other places, in the west
of Scotland. Previous to starting, he wrote, as follows, to the Rev.
William McCulloch, minister at Cambuslang:――

“EDINBURGH, _June 8, 1742_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR BROTHER,――I heartily rejoice at the
awakening at Cambuslang and elsewhere. I believe you will both
see and hear far greater things than these. I trust, that, not
one corner of poor Scotland will be left unwatered by the dew
of God’s heavenly blessing. The cloud is now only rising as big
as a man’s hand: in a little while, we shall hear a sound of an
abundance of gospel rain. God willing, I hope to be with you at
the beginning of next week.”

Whitefield spent more than a fortnight in this revival excursion to
the west,――one of the most remarkable fortnights in his eventful life.
Hence the following letters to his friends. The first and second were
addressed to John Cennick.

“GLASGOW, _June 16, 1742_.

“Last Lord’s-day, I preached, in the morning, in the park at
Edinburgh, to a great multitude. Afterwards, I attended, and
partook of the holy sacrament, and served four tables. In the
afternoon, I preached in the churchyard, to a far greater number.
Such a passover, I never saw before. On Monday, I preached again
in Edinburgh. On Tuesday, twice at Kilsyth, to ten thousand; but
such a commotion, I believe, you never saw. O what agonies and
cries were there! Last night, God brought me hither. A friend
met me without the town, and welcomed me in the name of twenty
thousand. The streets were all alarmed. By three o’clock this
morning, people were coming to hear the word of God. At seven,
I preached to many, many thousands; and again this evening. Our
Lord wounded them by scores. It is impossible to tell you what
I see. The work flies from parish to parish. O what distressed
souls have I beheld this day! _Publish this on the housetop; and
exhort all to give thanks._”

In this letter, Whitefield’s wife added a postscript:――

“My husband _publicly declared here_, that, he was a _member
of the Church of England_, and a curate thereof; and, yet, was
permitted to _receive_, and _assist at the Lord’s supper_ in the
churches at Edinburgh.”[8]

“_June 19, 1742._

“Yesterday morning, I preached at Glasgow, to a large
congregation. At mid-day, I came to Cambuslang, and preached,
at two, to a vast body of people; again at six, and again at
nine at night. Such commotions, surely, were never heard of,
especially at eleven o’clock at night. For an hour and a half,
there was such weeping, and so many falling into such deep
distress, expressed in various ways, as cannot be described.
The people seemed to be slain in scores. Their agonies and cries
were exceedingly affecting. Mr. M’Culloch preached, after I had
done, till past one in the morning; and then could not persuade
the people to depart. In the fields, all night, might be heard
the voice of prayer and praise. The Lord is indeed much with me.
I have, to-day, preached twice already, and am to preach twice
more, perhaps thrice. The commotions increase.”[9]

On his return to Edinburgh, Whitefield wrote to a friend in London, as
follows:――

“EDINBURGH, _July 7, 1742_.

“I arrived here, last Saturday evening, from the west, where
I preached all last week――twice on Monday, at Paisley; three
times each day, on Tuesday and Wednesday, at Irvine; twice on
Thursday, at Mearns; three times on Friday, at ♦Cumbernauld;
and twice on Saturday, at Falkirk, in my way to Edinburgh. In
every place, there was the greatest commotion among the people.
The auditories were very large, and the work of God seems to be
spreading more and more.

“Last Sabbath, I preached twice in the park at Edinburgh, and
once in the church, and I have preached twice every day since. A
number of seats and shades, in the form of an amphitheatre, have
been erected in the park, where the auditory sit in beautiful
order.

“I purpose going to Cambuslang to-morrow, to assist at the
communion; and shall preach at various places westward before
I return here.”

To John Cennick, he sent the following:――

“NEW KILPATRICK, _July 15, 1742_.

“Last Friday night, I came to Cambuslang, to assist at the
blessed sacrament. On Saturday, I preached to above twenty
thousand people. On the Sabbath, scarce ever was such a sight
seen in Scotland. Two tents were set up, and the holy sacrament
was administered in the fields. When I began to serve a table,
the people crowded so upon me, that I was obliged to desist,
and go to preach in one of the tents, whilst the ministers
served the rest of the tables. There was preaching all day,
by one or another; and, in the evening, when the sacrament was
over, at the request of the ministers, I preached to the whole
congregation of upwards of twenty thousand persons. I preached
about an hour and a half. It was a time much to be remembered.
On Monday morning, I preached again to near as many. I never
before saw such a universal stir. The motion fled, as swift as
lightning, from one end of the auditory to the other. Thousands
were bathed in tears――some wringing their hands, others almost
swooning, and others crying out and mourning over a pierced
Saviour. In the afternoon, the concern was again very great.
Much prayer had been previously put up to the Lord. All night,
in different companies, persons were praying to God, and
praising Him. The children of God came from all quarters. It
was like the passover in Josiah’s time. We are to have another
in two or three months, if the Lord will.[10]

“On Tuesday morning, I preached at Glasgow――it was a glorious
time――and, in the afternoon, twice at Inchannon. Yesterday
morning, I preached there again; and here twice. Every time
there was a great stir, especially at this place. A great
company of awakened souls is within the compass of twenty miles;
and the work seems to be spreading apace. I am exceedingly
strengthened, both in soul and body, and cannot now do well
without preaching three times a day.”

These were strange scenes. Much might be written respecting this
remarkable work of God in Scotland; but want of space prevents
enlargement. Those who wish for a full account, will do well to get,
(if they can,) and read, “A Faithful Narrative of the Extraordinary
Work of the Spirit of God, at Kilsyth, and other Congregations in the
Neighbourhood. Written by James Robe, A.M., Minister of the Gospel
at Kilsyth,[11] 1742.” (12mo. 224 pp.) The “_commotions_,” however,
which Whitefield mentions, may be briefly noticed. They were severely
criticised at the time; and even now deserve attention. What were they?
Mr. Robe shall answer.

Besides the intense excitement among the penitents in general, about
one in five of them “_came under_,” what Mr. Robe calls, “faintings,
tremblings, or other bodily distresses.”[12] He writes: “The bodies of
some of the awakened were seized with trembling, and fainting; in some
of the women there were hysterics, and convulsive motions in others,
arising from an apprehension and fear of the wrath of God.” Among
those who were not physically affected, there were loud outcries for
the mercy of God; and, among those who found peace with God, there
were some who experienced great, though joyous, agitation. Mr. Robe
remarks:――

“Some, who had been under deep apprehensions of Divine wrath,
and had sunk under a sense of their guilt, when the Lord opened
their hearts to receive Him as offered to them in the gospel,
were surprised with joy and admiration. Some cried out with a
loud voice, shewing forth the praises of the Lord. Others broke
forth into loud weeping, from a sense of their vileness and
unworthiness. Some had, for a time, their bodies quite overcome,
and were ready to faint, through the feeling of such unexpected
happiness. The countenances of others quite changed. There was
an observable serenity, a brightness, an openness, so that it
was the observation of some concerning them, that they had got
new faces.”[13]

This is not the place to enter into any elaborate defence or
condemnation of such religious phenomena. They were not novel.
Similar scenes had been witnessed, in Bristol, under Wesley’s ministry,
only three years before; and, at this very time, and on a large scale,
similar scenes were being witnessed, among the Presbyterians of New
England. Of course, they were denounced, especially by the Erskines and
their friends; but Mr. Robe, while not enamoured of them, endeavoured
to explain them, shewing that they were the natural results of deep
convictions and strong emotions; that exactly the same sort of thing
had often happened in the history of the Christian Church; and that
the Bible itself contained similar examples. One or two extracts, from
Mr. Robe’s “_Preface_,” must suffice:――

“I seriously beg those who are prejudiced against this
dispensation of God’s extraordinary grace, and look upon it
as a delusion, to direct me and other ministers what we shall
answer the distressed persons of all ages, who come to us crying
bitterly that they are lost and undone, because of their sins.
Shall we tell them, that, their fears of the wrath of God are
all delusion? Shall we tell persons, lamenting their cursing,
swearing, Sabbath-breaking, and other immoralities, that, it is
the devil who makes them see these evils to be offensive to God,
and destructive to their souls? Shall we pray, and recommend
them to pray to be delivered from such delusions? It would be
worse than _devilish_, to treat the Lord’s sighing and groaning
prisoners at this rate. And, yet, such treatment is a natural
consequence of reckoning this the work of the devil, and a
delusion.”

In reply to “The Associate Presbytery”――the Church-reformers of the
age――who bitterly denounced the work, and compared the converts to the
Camisards,[14] Mr. Robe remarks:――

“My dear brethren, whatever bitter names you and your party give
us――whatever bitter reproaches you cast upon us――we take all
patiently. There are thousands of witnesses, that we return you
blessing for cursing, and that we pray for you, who despitefully
use us. We would lay our bodies on the ground, for you to go
over, if it could, in the least, contribute to remove your
prejudices, and advance the kingdom of our dear Redeemer; but
we cannot look upon the guilt you have brought upon yourselves,
without the deepest grief; and upon the opposition you give to
us in our endeavours to recover sinners out of the snare of the
devil, without the most zealous concern. You declare the work of
God to be the work of the grand deceiver. My dear brethren, for
whom I tremble, have you been at due pains to know the nature
and circumstances of this work? Have you taken the trouble to
go to any of these places, where the Lord has appeared in His
glory and majesty? Have you ever so much as written to any
of the ministers, to receive information from them? It is not
consistent with common justice to condemn them as deceivers; and
it is amazing rashness, to pronounce, without enquiry, that to
be the work of the devil, which, for anything you know, may be
the work of the infinitely good and holy Spirit. Is not this to
be like the scribes and Pharisees, who ascribed the miraculous
work of our Lord to Beelzebub? Are you not afraid lest you come
too near this sin?”

There is something profoundly mournful in all this. The Erskines were
sincere, but sour. Their zeal to reform the Church of Scotland might
be commendable; their opposition to the work of God cannot be too
severely censured. They had been the friends of Whitefield. At their
invitation, he, eleven months before, had come to Scotland; but,
instead of co-operating with him, they almost immediately disowned him.
Only a week after this, his second arrival in Scotland, he wrote a most
friendly letter to Ebenezer Erskine; but, as will soon be seen, without
good effect. The letter was as follows:――

“EDINBURGH, _June 10, 1742_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――The love which I bear you, for
my Master’s sake, constrains me to send you a line. It is some
concern to me, that our difference as to outward things should
cut off our sweet fellowship with each other. God knows, I
highly value and honour you. Reverend and dear sir, I do assure
you, I love you and your brethren more than ever. I applaud
your zeal for God; and, though, in some respects, I think it not
according to knowledge, and to be levelled frequently against me,
yet I feel no resentment, and should joyfully hear you and your
brethren preach. I salute them all; and pray our common Lord to
give us all a right judgment in all things. I hope the glorious
Emmanuel will be present at the sacrament, and will make Himself
known to you in breaking of bread. When I shall come to Stirling,
I know not. O when shall the time come, when the watchmen will
see eye to eye? Hasten that time, our Lord and our God! But,
perhaps, I am troublesome. Forgive me, reverend and dear sir,
being, without dissimulation, your younger brother and servant
in the gospel of Christ,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

What was the response to this loving letter? Exactly five weeks
afterwards, on the 15th of July, “The Associate Presbytery” issued a
document announcing a “Public Fast,” and the reasons for observing it.
One reason was, that the “bitter outcryings, faintings, severe bodily
pains, convulsions, voices, visions, and revelations,” connected with
the revivals at Cambuslang and other places, were a proof that the
work there was a delusion, and of the devil; and another was, “the
fond reception given to Mr. George Whitefield, notwithstanding it is
notoriously known, that he is a _priest of the Church of England_,
who has sworn the _oath of supremacy_, and abjured the _Solemn League
and Covenant_, and endeavours, by his _lax toleration principles_, to
pull down the hedges of government and discipline, which the Lord has
planted about His vineyard in this land.”[15]

This was bad enough to come from Christian men; but worse followed.
A month later, there was published a pamphlet of thirty-two pages,
of minute type, and closely printed, with the title, “The Declaration
of the true Presbyterians within the Kingdom of Scotland, concerning
Mr. George Whitefield, and the Work at Cambuslang.”

This pretentiously religious, but extremely malignant production
begins as follows:――“The Declaration, Protestation, and Testimony of
the suffering Remnant of the anti-Popish, anti-Lutheran, anti-Prelatic,
anti-Whitefieldian, anti-Erastian, anti-Sectarian, true Presbyterian
Church of Christ in Scotland.” Very sonorous, but very rancorous!
Whitefield is branded as “an abjured, prelatic hireling, of as lax
toleration principles as any ever set up for the advancing of the
kingdom of Satan.” He is “a wandering star, who steers his course
according to the compass of gain and advantage.” He is “a base English
impostor, whom the enemies of Christ’s kingdom have chosen as their
commander-in-chief, to lead the covenanted kingdom of Scotland back
to Egypt and Babylon, to the bondage and slavery of Popery, Prelacy,
and Sectarianism.” He is “the most latitudinarian, prelatic priest
that ever essayed to confound, and unite into one, almost all sorts
and sizes of sects and heresies with orthodox Christians.” His
“foul, prelatic, sectarian hands” had administered the sacrament to
Presbyterians. He “is not of a blameless conversation, as the Word of
God requires all the ministers of the gospel to be, but is a scandalous
idolater, being a member of the idolatrous Church of England, which
resembles the idolatrous Church of Rome, in many of her idolatries.”
He “is a poor, vain-glorious, self-seeking, puffed-up creature.” He “is
a limb of Antichrist; a boar, and a wild beast, from the anti-Christian
field of England, come to waste and devour the poor erring people of
Scotland.” “In collecting such vast sums of money in Scotland, his
insatiable covetousness is shewn; and it is evident, that, his design
in coming is to pervert the truth, subvert the people, and make gain to
himself, by making merchandise of his pretended ministry.” The pamphlet
finishes by “protesting, testifying, and declaring against Whitefield,
and all, of every rank, station, and degree, within the kingdom of
Scotland, who, in any manner of way, have aided, assisted, countenanced,
and encouraged him.” The last paragraph in this pious production is as
follows:――

“And that this our Declaration, Protestation, and Testimony
may come to the world’s view, we do appoint and ordain our
emissaries, in our name, to pass upon the ―――― day of August,
1742, to the market-cross of ――――, and other public places
necessary, and there publish, and leave copies of the same,
that none may pretend ignorance thereof.

“Given in Scotland, upon the ―――― day of August, 1742.

“Let King Jesus reign,
And let all His enemies be scattered.”

Worse and worse; and yet there is more to follow. About the same time,
there was published, in Edinburgh, “A Letter from a Gentleman in Boston,
to Mr. George Wishart, one of the Ministers of Edinburgh, concerning
the state of Religion in New England.” (12mo. 24 pp.) Three extracts
from this production must suffice.

“The minds of the people, in this part of the world, had been
greatly prepossessed in favour of Mr. Whitefield, from the
accounts transmitted of him, as a _wonder of piety_, and a _man
of God_. Accordingly, when he came to Boston, about two years
ago, he was received as though he had been an _angel of God_,
yea, a _god come down in the likeness of man_. He was strangely
flocked after by all sorts of persons, and much admired by
the _vulgar_, both _great and small_. The ministers had him in
veneration, and, as much as the people, encouraged his preaching,
attending it themselves every day in the week, and mostly twice
a day. The grand subject of conversation was Mr. Whitefield, and
the whole business of the town was to run from place to place
to hear him preach. His reception, as he passed through this
and the neighbouring governments of Connecticut and New York,
was after much the same manner, save only, that he met with no
admirers among the clergy, unless here and there one, anywhere
but in Boston. You ask, What was the _great good_ this gentleman
was the instrument of? I answer, Wherever he went, he generally
moved the passions, especially of the younger people, and
females; the effect whereof was a great talk about religion,
together with a disposition to be perpetually hearing sermons,
to the neglect of all other business. In these things _chiefly_
consisted the goodness so much spoken of. I could not but
discern, that there were the same pride and vanity, the same
luxury and intemperance, the same lying and tricking and
cheating, in the town, as there were before this gentleman
came among us. There was also raised such a spirit of bitter,
censorious, uncharitable judging, as was not known before; and
the greatest friends of Mr. Whitefield were as much puffed up
with conceit and pride as any of their neighbours.”

The writer then proceeds to say, that a number of imitators of
Whitefield sprung up after his departure, and that one of the most
famous of them was Gilbert Tennent,

“A man of no great parts or learning, and whose preaching was in
the _extemporaneous_ way, with much noise, and little connection.
Under his preaching, scores cried out, fell down, swooned
away, and were like persons in fits. Visions became common, and
trances also. _Laughing, loud, hearty laughing_, was one of the
ways in which the _new converts_ almost everywhere expressed
their joy at the conversion of others. Houses of worship were
scarce emptied night or day for a week together, and unheard-of
instances of supposed religion were carried on in them. In the
same house, and at the same time, some would be _praying_, some
_exhorting_, some _singing_, some _clapping their hands_, some
_laughing_, some _crying_, some _shrieking_, and some _roaring
out_.”

The gentleman in Boston concludes thus:――

“I am among those who are clearly of opinion, that, there never
was such a spirit of _superstition_ and _enthusiasm_ reigning in
the land before; never such _gross disorders_, and _bare-faced
affronts to common decency_; never _such scandalous reproaches_
on the blessed Spirit, making Him the author of the _greatest
irregularities and confusions_. Yet, I am of opinion also, that
the appearances among us have been the means of awakening the
attention of many; and a good number, I hope, have settled into
a truly Christian temper.”

The “Letter” was written with seeming candour, but there can be little
doubt that its publication in Edinburgh added to the difficulties
which Whitefield had to encounter among the precise Presbyterians of
the kingdom of Scotland. Almost contemporaneously with this, there
was published in Glasgow, a small 12mo. book, of 130 pages, entitled,
“The State of Religion in New England, since the Rev. Mr. George
Whitefield’s arrival there, in a Letter, from a Gentleman in New
England, to his Friend in Glasgow: with an Appendix containing Proofs
of the principal Facts, and further Accounts of the Disorders in
matters of Religion lately introduced into various parts of New England
and Carolina.” The gentleman’s letter is dated “May 24, 1742.”

The preface to this publication contains the following:――

“Mr. Whitefield asks nothing, indeed, for his preaching, but
he has a brother Syms to suggest, wherever he goes, what it
is decent to give so great a man; and, by these means, he has,
these four months past, made as much gain as several of the
bishops in England, or any six ministers in Scotland, for the
same time; and that partly by getting from some poor parishes,
for a day’s _holding forth_, nearly as much as they collect for
their own poor in a whole year.”

This was a baseless slander; but let it pass. The “Gentleman in New
England” asks:――

“In what does Mr. Whitefield’s fervour turn? Is it not upon
getting money and popular applause, by perpetually roaring
out _hell-flames, fire and brimstone, incarnate devils, and
damnation_? Some are frightened out of their senses; others fall
into convulsions and epileptic fits; and others scream and roar
with hideous voices. These are, according to him, the _fruits of
the Spirit_, and _gales_ from the _Holy Ghost_.”

Gilbert Tennent, the friend of Whitefield, is similarly abused.

“In the pulpit, Gilbert Tennent is an awkward and ridiculous ape
of Whitefield, for his appearance is very clownish. His great
business, in his sermons, is either to puzzle or to frighten his
hearers, but especially the latter, which he does by roaring and
bellowing _damnation_, _devils_, and all the _dreadful words_ he
can think of. He is followed by all sorts of people, as much as
Whitefield was, and, by many, is ♦preferred to him.”

Of the Presbyterian helpers, employed by Whitefield and Tennent in New
England, the “Gentleman” remarks:――

“There is a creature here whom, perhaps, you never heard of
before. It is called an _Exhorter_. It is of both sexes, but
generally of the male, and young. Its distinguishing qualities
are _ignorance_, _impudence_, _zeal_. Numbers of these exhorters
are among the people here. They go from town to town; creep
into houses; lead captive silly women; and then the men. Such
of them as have good voices do _great execution_. They move
their hearers, and make them cry, faint, swoon, and fall into
convulsions.”

The _converts_ of Whitefield and Tennent are thus described:――

“The converts are all made in this manner. First, they become
concerned for their souls, and greatly distressed, and not
rarely distracted. They continue in this condition for some days,
and then, all at once, without any visible means, they come out
of their dark and disconsolate state all light, joy, and ecstasy.
This they express by their talk to their neighbours, which
they call telling their experiences; and, in many places, by
immoderate laughter and singing hymns. Their joy is sometimes
so great, that, their eyes sparkle, and their faces shine. These
are certain signs of the Spirit of God being in them. One of
a hundred excepted, they all make religion to consist in the
feeling of inward impulses and impressions, in an inexplicable
faith, joys, ecstasies, and such-like things. They are bigoted
to certain opinions, which they do not understand; and have not
the least degree of charity for those who are of another way of
thinking. All of them are vain, self-conceited, superstitious,
enthusiastic, censorious slanderers. Reason, learning, and
morality, they professedly disregard. If they hear a minister
preach, in the most evangelical manner, upon any moral duty,
or if they hear him recommend the exercise of reason and
understanding, they call him a dry, husky, Arminian preacher,
and conclude for certain that he is not converted.”

The reader may easily imagine the effects likely to be produced, at
this juncture, among the Presbyterians of Scotland, by such infamous
statements respecting Presbyterian converts and congregations in New
England.

The subject is a loathsome one; but, perhaps, it is best, once for
all, to exhaust it. To say nothing of objectionable passages in
Ralph Erskine’s pamphlet, entitled, “Fraud and Falsehood Detected,”
and in the sermons he preached at different places in the year
1742, particularly those on Luke xxii. 31, 32; Heb. xiii. 8; and
Rev. v. 9;[16] the following publications must have annoyed Whitefield,
and, also, injured him in the estimation of the Scottish people.

1. “Some Observations upon the Conduct of the Famous Mr. W――field.
By a true Lover of the Church and Country. Edinburgh: printed in the
year 1742.” (12mo. 12 pp.) The author of these “Observations” told
his readers, that, Whitefield had taken upon himself “the office of
a thirteenth apostle;” and that he began his work in Scotland “with a
notorious lie, for he said he was £600 out of pocket about his Hospital
in Georgia, whereas it can be proved that he advanced about £1000 to a
captain of a man of war, who gave him bills for it upon the Admiralty,
who paid this sum to him a little before he came to Scotland.” The
writer adds, “Instead of going to Georgia, this thirteenth Apostle was
moved to take to him a fellow-mate; so that now, I am afraid, these”
(Scotch) “collections will be applied towards the maintenance of him,
her, and their issue.” The anxious author, in conclusion, benevolently
remarks: “Let all good people beware of this stroller; for he will
yet find a way to wheedle you out of your money. He is as artful a
mountebank as any I know.”

2. “A Letter to a Gentleman in Edinburgh, containing Remarks upon a
late Apology for the Presbyterians in Scotland, who keep Communion, in
the Ordinances of the Gospel, with Mr. George Whitefield, a Priest of
the Church of England: shewing that such a Practice is not justifiable
by the Principles and Practice of the Church of Scotland, from
the Reformation to this day; nor by the Westminster Confession
of Faith, Solemn League and Covenant. In which Mr. Whitefield’s
Religion, Orthodoxy, and Moral Character are set in a proper light,
by Collections from his own printed Performances. Glasgow, 1742.”
(pp. 112.) The letter is signed, “John Bisset, Minister of the Gospel
in Aberdeen;” and is dated, “October 26, 1742.” Upon the whole, the
pamphlet is well written, and less verbose than many of the Scotch
productions of that period. Half of it is an elaborate criticism of
the “late Apology;” and the remainder a venomous attack on Whitefield,
who is branded as being “enthusiastically, daringly presumptuous,
and popishly superstitious,”――“a strolling impostor, whose cheats,
in due time, will be discovered.” In conclusion, Mr. Bisset writes:
“Mr. Whitefield has done more to promote effectually the cause of
♦Episcopacy, and a liking to it in Scotland, than all the means, fair
and foul, that have been used since our reformation from Popery to this
day.”

Besides the above, two other antagonistic pamphlets must be noticed,
which, though not printed in Scotland, were doubtless circulated there,
and helped to increase the difficulties with which Whitefield had to
struggle.

1. “A Brief History of the Principles of Methodism, wherein the Rise
and Progress, together with the Causes of the several Variations,
Divisions, and present Inconsistencies of this Sect are attempted to
be traced out, and accounted for. By Josiah Tucker, M.A., Vicar of All
Saints, and one of the Minor Canons of the College of Bristol. Oxford,
1742.” (8vo. 51 pp.) Mr. Tucker, in obsequious terms, dedicated his
anti-Methodistic publication to Dr. Boulter, Archbishop of Armagh, who
had treated Whitefield with great courtesy on his return from America
in 1738. Mr. Tucker tells the Archbishop, that Whitefield left the
University of Oxford “with a _crude_ and _undigested_ notion of the
system of William Law;” and, that “it happened through a _blunder_ on
his side, and a _mistake_ of the question on all sides, that he fell in
with the Calvinistical party, and looked upon them as his patrons and
advocates.” “It was some time, however, before he understood his _new
credenda_, or so much as knew the nature of the _five points_, and how
they hang in a _chain_ one upon another.”

2. “Genuine and Secret Memoirs relating to the Adventures of that
Arch-Methodist, Mr. G. W――fi――d: Likewise, Critical and Explanatory
Remarks upon that inimitable piece, entitled ‘God’s Dealings with the
Rev. Mr. Whitefield;’ wherein is likewise proved (by his own words),
that he has had pretty large dealings also with Satan: the whole
interspersed with observations instructive and humorous. Collected
and published, by a Gentleman of Oxford, for general information;
and necessary to be had in all families as a preservative against
Enthusiasm and Methodism. Oxford, 1742.” (8vo. 85 pp.)

This was a most disgraceful and disgusting pamphlet. To quote its
obscenity would be criminal. It finishes with eight verses, entitled
“The Field-Preacher. To the Tune of the Queen’s Old Courtier.” The
first of these verses is as follows:――

“With face and fashion to be known,
With eyes all white, and many a groan,
With arms _outstretched_, and snivelling tone,
And handkerchief from nose new-blown,
And loving cant to sister _Joan_.
(_Chorus._) ’Tis a new teacher about the town,
Oh! the town’s new teacher!”

Abuse like this was not pleasant. It is true, that Whitefield had
long been used to it; but the repetition of the thing did not abate
its hardship. Most of it was utterly untrue, the remainder, to a
great extent, was ill-tempered banter, and the whole was provokingly
disagreeable. Whitefield was quite as sensitive as are popular men in
general; and there can hardly be a doubt that such injustice caused him
many a bitter pang. In the midst of all, however, he rarely, if ever,
lost his equanimity; and he generally avoided “rendering railing for
railing.” He doubtless prized his reputation, as every good man does;
but his own fame was to him of less importance than the prosperity
of the work of God. Whatever interfered with that created profound
distress; and, hence, it is not surprising, that he replied to one of
the slanderous publications just mentioned. If what the “Gentleman in
New England” had said was true, the Presbyterians in Scotland might
justly look upon Whitefield’s ministry with suspicion and alarm. To
prevent this, Whitefield wrote and published the following: “Some
Remarks on a late Pamphlet, entitled, ‘The State of Religion in New
England, since the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield’s arrival there.’ Glasgow:
printed by William Duncan, and sold by the booksellers in Edinburgh
and Glasgow, 1742.” (16mo. 32 pp.) The “Remarks” are dated “Cambuslang,
August 31, 1742.”

Want of space renders it impossible to give a lengthened outline of
Whitefield’s pamphlet. Speaking of the publication to which he was now
replying, he truly says: “The design of it is base and wicked. It is
intended, if possible, to eclipse the late great and glorious work in
New England; to invalidate the testimonies that have been given of it;
and, thereby, to bring a reproach upon, and to hinder the spreading
of, a like glorious work, which God, of His infinite mercy, has, for
some time, been carrying on in Scotland.” He proceeds to shew that the
gentlemen, who had testified concerning the scriptural character of
the New England revival, were men of “sound understanding, integrity,
sobriety of manners, and piety.” Among others, he mentions the
Honourable Mr. Willard, secretary of the province; also the Rev.
Messrs. Colman, Cooper, and Prince, who held degrees conferred by the
University of Glasgow. He gives numerous testimonies, by persons living
on the spot, flatly contradicting the sweeping accusations of the
“Gentleman in New England;” and shews that some of his quotations
were so garbled as to be practically false. Stoutly defending his
friend Tennent, he writes: “I have the happiness of being intimately
acquainted with Mr. Gilbert Tennent. I scarcely know a man of a more
catholic spirit. Indeed, to the honour of the grace of God be it spoken,
he is a son of thunder, especially in his applications, and when he
is preaching the law. At such times, people cannot easily sleep. He is
a workman that needs not be ashamed, and is taught of God rightly to
divide the word of truth. His book, entitled ‘The Presumptuous Sinner
Detected,’ and his many printed sermons, shew him to be a man of great
learning, solidity, and piety.” Whitefield, however, admits that there
had been some chaff among the wheat. “The sum of the matter,” he says,
“seems to be this――there has been a great and marvellous work in New
England; but, by the imprudences of some, and the overboiling zeal of
others, irregularities, in several places, have been committed. This
is nothing but what is common. It was so in _Old_ England a few years
ago. Many young persons there ran out before they were called. Others
were guilty of great indiscretion. I checked them in the strictest
manner myself; and found, as they grew acquainted with the Lord Jesus
and their own hearts, the intemperance of their zeal abated, and they
became truly humble walkers with God. After a gathering, there will
always be a sifting time. The Church is generally shaken before it
is settled.” Finally, to shew that he was neither vanquished nor
disheartened, Whitefield concludes with two verses from the Scotch
Psalter:――

“Why rage the heathen? and vain things
Why do the people mind?
Kings of the earth do set themselves;
And princes are combin’d
To plot against the Lord, and His
Anointed, saying thus,
‘Let us asunder break their bands,
And cast their cords from us.’

He, that in heaven sits, shall laugh;
The Lord shall scorn them all.
Then shall He speak to them in wrath,
In rage, He vex them shall.
Yet, notwithstanding, I have Him
To be my King appointed:
And over Sion, my holy hill,
I have Him King anointed.”

It ought to be added that, immediately after the publication of
Whitefield’s pamphlet, the Rev. Jonathan Edwards issued a very able
and exhaustive treatise on the same subject, with the title, “Some
Thoughts concerning the present Revival of Religion in New England, and
the way in which it ought to be acknowledged and promoted. By Jonathan
Edwards, A.M., Pastor of the Church of Christ at Northampton.” This was
first published in Boston, New England; and, in 1743, was reprinted in
Edinburgh. (12mo. 221 pp.)

In some of the hostile publications already mentioned, Whitefield
had been attacked respecting his Orphan-house collections; and
probably this, and other reasons, led him to publish the following:
“A Continuation of the Account of the Orphan House in Georgia, from
January, 1741, to June, 1742; to which are subjoined some Extracts from
an Account of a Work of a like Nature, carried on by the late Professor
Francke, in Glaucha, near Halle, in Saxony. By George Whitefield, A.B.,
late of Pembroke College, Oxford. Edinburgh: printed by T. Lumisden
and J. Robertson; and sold by J. Traill, Bookseller, in the Parliament
Close. 1742.” (18mo. 86 pp.)

Whitefield’s Preface, dated “September 22, 1742,” contains the
following curious paragraph――a paragraph which, of course, will shock
both teetotallers and the members of the Anti-Slavery Society:――

“Once I am clear of all arrears, the Orphan House will be
supported at a very easy expense. The last Parliament have
altered the constitution of the colony of Georgia, in two
material points: they have allowed the importation of rum, and
free titles to the land. If they should see good hereafter to
grant a limited use of negroes, Georgia must, in all outward
appearances, be as flourishing a colony as South Carolina.”

Since his arrival in England, in March, 1741, Whitefield had collected,
for his Orphan House, £1158 6s. 0½d.; and had expended £1302 17s. 2½d.

Before proceeding further, two more of his publications, in
Scotland, must be mentioned; both of them _reprints_, but suited
to the circumstances in which the now found himself. 1. “A Letter,
from the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield to the Religious Societies of
England, written during his voyage to Philadelphia, in 1739; and now
particularly recommended to those who have lately formed themselves
into Religious Societies in Scotland; to which is added an extract from
a late Author, shewing that a Catholic Spirit is the only thing that
can unite and make Christians happy one amongst another in this divided
state of things. Edinburgh: 1742.” (18mo. 27 pp.) 2. “Nine Sermons,
upon the following subjects, namely: 1. The Lord our Righteousness,”[17]
etc. “By George Whitefield, A.B. Edinburgh, 1742.” (12mo. 199 pp.)

We now return to Whitefield’s correspondence, which, practically, is a
journal of his proceedings. We left him at Edinburgh on July 7, 1742.

The ministers of “The Associate Presbytery” were, without doubt, the
most violent of Whitefield’s opposers in Scotland; but there were also
others who gave him trouble. The Rev. Mr. Willison, of Dundee, was one
of the best of the Scottish clergy. Between him and Whitefield there
had been considerable correspondence. Under his auspices Whitefield had
preached in Dundee. Mr. Willison, also, sympathised with the present
revival movement; but even he occasioned Whitefield some disquietude.
Hence the following letter:――

“EDINBURGH, _July 7, 1742_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――Your letter gave me some concern. I
thought it breathed a sectarian spirit, to which I hoped dear
Mr. Willison was quite averse. You seem not satisfied, unless
I declare myself a Presbyterian, and openly renounce the Church
of England. God knows that I have been faithful in bearing a
testimony against what I think is corrupt in that Church. I
have also shewn my freedom in communicating with the Church of
Scotland, and in baptizing children in their own way. I can go
no further.

“Dear sir, be not offended at my plain speaking. I find but few
of a truly catholic spirit. Most are catholics till they bring
persons over to their own party, and there they would fetter
them. I have not so learned Christ. I shall approve and join all
who are good, in every sect; and cast a mantle of love over all
who are bad, so far as is consistent with a good conscience.

“Morning and evening retirement is certainly good; but if,
through weakness of body, or frequency of preaching, I cannot
go to God at my usual set times, I think my spirit is not in
bondage. It is not for me to tell how often I use secret prayer.
If I did not use it――nay, if, in one sense, I did not pray
without ceasing――it would be difficult for me to keep up that
frame of mind, which, by the Divine blessing, I daily enjoy. If
the work of God prospers, and your hands become more full, you
will then know better what I mean.

“But enough of this. God knows I would do everything I possibly
could to satisfy all men, and give a reason of the hope that is
in me with meekness and fear; but I cannot satisfy all who are
waiting for an occasion to find fault. Our Lord could not; I,
therefore, despair of doing it. However, dear sir, I take what
you have said in good part; only I think you are too solicitous
to clear up my character to captious and prejudiced men. Let
my Master speak for me. Blessed be God! He will, so long as I
simply throw myself into His almighty arms.

“I am glad the work goes on with you. Glory be to God! we have
seen glorious things in the west.

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

In the following letters, Whitefield refers to the opposition which he
had to encounter in Scotland. The first was addressed to a minister in
London:――

“INCHANNON, _July 21, 1742_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――I heartily rejoice that the Lord is
blessing and owning you. Go on, dear sir, go on, and you will
certainly find the glorious Emmanuel will be with you more and
more. It is observable that there is but one thing in Scripture,
which we are commanded to do out of season――_preaching_. Be
instant, therefore, in season and out of season. The Lord will
stand by you and strengthen you, and deliver you from wicked and
unreasonable men. You will find the blessedness of the cross;
and the Spirit of Christ and of glory will rest upon your soul.

“The Messrs. Erskine and their adherents have appointed a public
fast, to humble themselves, among other things, for my being
received in Scotland, and for the delusion, as they term it,
at Cambuslang and other places; and all this because I would
not consent to preach only for them, till I had light into, and
could take the Solemn League and Covenant. To what lengths may
prejudice carry even good men! From giving way to the first
risings of bigotry and a party spirit, good Lord, deliver us!”

The next letter seems to have been addressed to the Rev. John McLaurin,
of Glasgow, and was accompanied by a number of young people who appear
to have come all the way from Glasgow to Edinburgh, to hear Whitefield
preach.

“EDINBURGH, _July 28, 1742_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――With this, I suppose, you will receive
several young ones, who, I think, have acted wrong in leaving
their respective employments, under parents and masters, to go
after me. Be pleased to examine them, and send them home.

“The Lord was with me at Falkirk, and is pleased to work by
me here. O free grace! I am persuaded I shall have more power,
since dear Mr. Gibb has printed such a bitter pamphlet. Now
I begin to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I rejoice and am
exceeding glad. The archers shot sore at me that I might fall,
but the Lord is, and the Lord will be, my helper.”

To a friend in London, Whitefield wrote:――

“EDINBURGH, _July 31, 1742_.

“One of ‘The Associate Presbytery’ has published the most
virulent pamphlet I ever saw, ascribing all that has been done
here, and even in New England, to the influence of the devil.
O how prejudice will blind the eyes of even good men!”

Whitefield had other troubles besides the bitter pamphlets that were
published against him. The Spaniards had invaded Georgia. With forty
sail of small galleys, and other craft, they had come into Cumberland
Sound. With another fleet of thirty-six ships, they had entered
Jekyl Sound. They had landed four thousand five hundred men, and
marched, through the woods, to Frederica. Half of their galleys also
approached the same town, and twenty-eight sail attacked Fort William.
Oglethorpe’s military force was small, but proved victorious; and
July 25, 1742, was appointed, by the General, “as a day of public
thanksgiving to Almighty God for His great deliverance in having put an
end to the Spanish invasion.”[18] Whitefield had heard of the invasion;
but, as yet, he had not heard of the defeat. In a series of letters,
written in July, his superintendent, Mr. Habersham, had informed him,
that, finding the Orphan House in great danger of attack, they had
removed all its inmates, eighty-five in number, to Mr. Jonathan Bryan’s
plantation, in South Carolina. They arrived at midnight on July 10; and,
within six weeks afterwards, were safely back to Bethesda.[19] Hence
the following letter to Whitefield:――

“BETHESDA, _August 19, 1742_.

“MY DEAREST FRIEND AND BROTHER,――I hope, before this reaches
you, you will have received mine of the 4th, 11th, 14th,
and 27th of July; and that you see your way clear to come
to us. Blessed be God! we have reason to conclude the Spaniards
have entirely left the colony; and we are now again very
comfortably settled. The deliverance the Lord has wrought for
us, by General Oglethorpe, I think, is the most remarkable I
ever heard or read of, except some instances recorded in the
Old Testament. I cannot now mention particulars. At Savannah,
the poor people are almost all sick; at Frederica likewise,
and at Mr. Bryan’s, and at other neighbours’, they are in the
same condition. We also have many down. We have a good crop
on the ground; but, except a few boys, have none to gather it.
Brother Hunter” (the surgeon belonging to the Orphan House)
“has his hands full, and is chiefly at Savannah. It is but
little we buy abroad. We hunt, and kill our own stock; and
have potatoes and corn enough of our own. I hope you are now
on your passage to us. We cannot but expect you.”

Besides the Spanish invasion, Whitefield had another trouble in
Georgia. Mr. Jonathan Barber, his lay-chaplain at the Orphan House,
and Mr. Hunter, the house surgeon, had been arrested at Savannah, and
imprisoned above a week, for privately insulting the Savannah clergyman.
These and other matters are mentioned in the following letters. At
the time when they were written, Whitefield was in the midst of the
marvellous revival scenes at Cambuslang. The first was addressed to
Mr. Barber, his recently imprisoned chaplain.

“CAMBUSLANG, _August 17, 1742_.

“And has my dear brother Barber got the start of me? What, put
into prison before me? I wish you joy, my dear brother, with
all my heart. Had I been at Savannah, I would have come, and, if
there had been need, would gladly have washed your feet. I doubt
not but your imprisonment was for Christ’s sake. I wish you had
told me who stood by at Savannah, and brought you refreshment.
Greet them, and give them particular thanks in my name. I must
write to the Trustees, and to others. I heard nothing of the
affair, till I received your letter last week. A word or two of
yours, to Mr.O――――,” (the Savannah clergyman,) “I think a little
too harsh; but Paul spoke once a little too harsh to the high
priest. Our Jesus will overlook this, and will reward you for
your imprisonment by-and-by.

“I cannot help believing that Georgia will yet be a glorious
colony. The counsel of God shall stand. He surely put it into
my heart to build the Orphan House. He certainly brought you to
Georgia to superintend it. He will bless you and yours. I join
in blessing God with you, and in admiring how He has spread a
table for my dear family in that wilderness. I am kept from the
least doubting. I am just now about to publish a further account
of the Orphan House, and hope shortly to collect some more money
towards its support.

“I am blessed with far greater success than ever; and Satan
roars louder. You will see, by what I here send, how the archers,
of different classes, shoot at me; but the Lord causes my bow
to abide in strength, and enables me to triumph in every place.
Last Lord’s-day, I believe, there were here thirty thousand
people, and above two thousand five hundred communicants. The
work spreads, and, I believe, will yet spread.”

Whitefield was young, but plucky. He was not disposed to submit
silently to the high-handed acts of the small officials at Savannah.
Hence the following, addressed to their superiors, the Honourable
Trustees for Georgia:――

“CAMBUSLANG, _August 17, 1742_.

“HONOURED GENTLEMEN,――Letters, which I received last week
from Georgia, occasion my troubling you with this. I find that
Mr. Hunter and Mr. Barber have been taken up by a warrant, and
were imprisoned above a week, for a thing which, I believe,
none of you will judge cognisable by the civil magistrates. It
seems that Mr. Barber, in a private conversation with Mr. O――――,
(who I suppose is the present minister of Savannah,) told him,
‘he was no Christian; that he wondered at the impudence of young
men in subscribing articles they did not believe; and that he
should think it his duty to warn his friends not to hear him.’

“I acknowledge, that such language was too harsh; but Mr. Hunter,
who did not say near so much, was linked in the same prosecution,
and imprisoned with him. Mr. Jones, who was then at Frederica,
being informed of it, declared such a procedure to be illegal;
and his Excellency General Oglethorpe desired my friends to lay
the matter before the Board of the Honourable Trustees. They
have sent to me a particular account of what has passed, which
I will transmit to you, or, when I come to London, I will wait
upon you in person. I find, also, that my friends were denied
a copy of the proceedings in court; in which, I am persuaded,
you will think they have been wronged. My friends require no
satisfaction, but only desire that such a proceeding may be
animadverted upon; knowing that otherwise it will be a great
discouragement to people’s settling in Georgia.

“I am sorry, also, to inform you, honoured gentlemen, that
five very small children, (Swiss or Dutch,) whose parents lately
died in their passage from England, have had their goods sold
at Vendue, and are bound out till the age of twenty-one years.
This I think directly contrary to the grant given me by you; for,
thereby, I was empowered to take as many orphans into the house
as my fund would admit of.

“I understand, also, that the magistrates have been at the
Orphan House, and claim a power to take away the children when
they please, whether the children choose it, or complain of
ill-treatment, or not. This grieves some of the children, and
makes others of them insolent, who are, hereby, taught, that they
have a power to go away when they will. This must be discouraging
to those who are entrusted with their education; and who aim
at nothing but the glory of God, the welfare of the colony, and
the salvation of the children’s souls. I suppose the magistrates
have taken such a liberty from the instructions which were sent
from you some time ago; but Mr. Jones has told them, that, they
have misunderstood you; and his Excellency General Oglethorpe,
I find, has written to you about it.

“Our plantation thrives well; and Mr. Habersham hopes we shall
do with white servants alone. I will do all I can to promote the
good of Georgia: only I beg that the management of the Orphan
House and the orphans may be secured to me and my successors
for ever; and that the magistrates be not suffered to disturb
us, when there is no ground of complaint. They acknowledged,
when at the Orphan House last, that the children were taken good
care of, both as to their bodies and souls: will it not then
tend much to the welfare of the colony, that the Orphan House
should meet with all possible encouragement?

“His Excellency General Oglethorpe has informed my friend Mr.
Habersham, that, if I desired it, he thought you would grant
me a greater tract of land, which I should be obliged to give
away in a certain term of years; and that we might have our own
magistrates, as the people of Ebenezer have. I know not whether
I shall desire such a favour; but, if I should, I desire to know
what you, honoured gentlemen, would say to it. Many have applied
to me respecting their settling in Georgia; but, hitherto, I
could give them no encouragement. I wish I may be enabled to
give them a great deal in the future.

“Honoured gentlemen, I do not desire to find fault. I doubt not
but you have been prejudiced both against me and my friends.
The event will shew what friends we are to Georgia. The Orphan
House will certainly be of great utility to the colony; and the
children educated therein will, I trust, be the glory of the
society to which they belong. They are bred up to industry, as
well as to other things; and are taught to fear God and honour
the king. I heartily pray God to bless all who are concerned in
the management of Georgian affairs.

“I hope to be in London in about two months. In the meanwhile,
I would beg the favour of a line by your secretary, and I also
entreat you, honoured gentlemen, to write to the magistrates of
Savannah, to let the Orphan House managers alone. If I, or my
friends, should happen to say or do anything amiss, I assure you,
you shall have all possible satisfaction given you by them, and
also by, honoured gentlemen, your very humble servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Such was Whitefield’s letter to the Trustees of Georgia, written in the
midst of the great revival at Cambuslang.

On the same day, he wrote a long letter to his good friend, the Rev.
Mr. Willison, of Dundee, who seems to have been far more anxious about
Whitefield’s reputation than Whitefield was himself. The letter is
historical, and extracts from it must be given.

“CAMBUSLANG, _August 17, 1742_.

“REV. AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I heartily thank you for your concern
about unworthy _me_. Though I am not very solicitous respecting
what the world says of me, yet I would not refuse to give to
any one, much less a minister of Jesus Christ, all reasonable
satisfaction about my doctrine or conduct.

“I am sorry that ‘The Associate Presbytery’ have done me much
wrong. As to what they say about the _supremacy_, my sentiments
agree with what is said in the Westminster Confession of Faith
(chapter xxiii.). I do own the Lord Jesus to be the blessed Head
and King of His Church. I never abjured the Solemn League and
Covenant; neither was it ever proposed to me to be abjured.

“As for my _missives_, if ‘The Associate Presbytery’ will be
pleased to print them, the world will see that they had no
reason to expect I would act in any other manner than I have
done.

“What that part of my _experience_ is that savours of the
grossest _enthusiasm_, I know not. It is not specified; but
this one thing I know, when I conversed with them, they were
satisfied with the account I then gave of my experience, and
also of the validity of my mission. Only, when they found I
would preach the gospel promiscuously to _all_, and _for every
minister_ that would invite me, and not adhere only to them,
one of them said, ‘That they were satisfied with all the other
accounts which I gave of myself, except of my call to Scotland
at that time.’ They would have been glad of my help, and would
have received me as a minister of Jesus Christ, had I consented
to preach only at the invitation of them and their people. I
thought their foundation was too narrow for any high house to
be built upon. When I was last in Scotland, I declared freely,
(and I am more and more convinced of it since,) that they were
building a Babel.

“At the same time, they knew very well, I was far from being
against all church government. How can any church subsist
without it? I only urged, as I do now, that, since holy men
differ so much about the form, we should bear with one another,
though, in this respect, we are not of one mind. I have often
declared, in the most public manner, that I believe the Church
of Scotland to be the best constituted National Church in the
world; but, then, I would bear and converse with all others,
who do not err in fundamentals, and who give evidence that they
are true lovers of the Lord Jesus. This is what I mean by a
_catholic spirit_.

“You know how strongly I assert all the doctrines of grace as
contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and in the
doctrinal Articles of the Church of England. I trust, I shall
adhere to these as long as I live; because I verily believe they
are the truths of God, and because I have felt the power of them
in my heart.

“I am only concerned that good men should be guilty of such
misrepresentations; but this teaches me, more and more, to
exercise compassion towards all the children of God, and to be
more jealous over my own heart, knowing what a fallible creature
I am. I acknowledge that I am a poor blind sinner, liable to
err; and I would be obliged to an enemy, much more to so dear
a friend as you are, to point out to me my mistakes, as to my
practice, or as to unguarded expressions in my preaching or
writing.

“I am just about to print a further account of the Orphan House
in Georgia; and, having many other affairs of importance before
me, can only now entreat the continuance of your prayers, and
beg to subscribe myself,

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Unfortunately, Whitefield’s troubles were not confined to Scotland
and Georgia. Methodist affairs in Wales were far from being in a
satisfactory state. Hence the following letter to Howell Harris:――

“CAMBUSLANG, _August 26, 1742_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,――I was glad, last night, to receive your
letter. I love your simple, honest heart.

“The account, sent with this, will shew you how often I have
been enabled to preach; but with what efficacy and success, pen
cannot describe. The glorious Redeemer seems to be advancing
from congregation to congregation, carrying all before Him.

“I am opposed on every side. The Messrs. Erskines’ people have
kept a fast for me, and given out that all the work now in
Scotland is only delusion, and by the agency of the devil.

“What you said about poor Wales affected me. I lay upon my face
this day, and, for some time, pleaded, with groans unutterable,
for direction in that and several other matters of great
consequence. I fear my dear brother thinks too highly of me;
but, if Christ is pleased to honour me so far, I shall be glad
to help the brethren in Wales. I am sorry to hear there have been
such divisions; but dividing times generally precede settling
times.”

In the midst of all these altercations, it is refreshing to be able to
introduce one of Whitefield’s filial outpourings to his mother, who was
now an inmate of Whitefield’s house in Bristol.

“CAMBUSLANG, _August 26, 1742_.

“HONOURED MOTHER,――I rejoice to hear that you have been so
long under my roof. Blessed be God that I have a house for my
honoured mother to come to! You are heartily welcome to anything
it affords, as long as you please. I am of the same mind now,
as formerly. If need were, these hands should administer to your
necessities. I had rather want myself, than you should. I shall
be highly pleased when I come to Bristol, and find you sitting
in your youngest son’s house. O that I may sit with you in the
house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens!

“My honoured mother, I am happier and happier every day. If
any at Bristol enquire after me, please to tell them, I am well
both in body and soul, and desire them to help me to praise
free and sovereign grace. O that my dear mother may be made an
everlasting monument of it! How does my heart burn with love
and duty to you! Gladly would I wash your aged feet, and lean
upon your neck, and weep and pray until I could pray no more.
With this, I send you a thousand dutiful salutations, and ten
thousand hearty and most humble thanks, for all the pains you
underwent in conceiving, bringing forth, nursing, and bringing
up your most unworthy, though most dutiful son, till death.

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield’s second visit to Cambuslang was on Friday, August 13, 1742;
and here, and in the surrounding neighbourhood, he spent the next
three weeks. A glimpse of his enormous labours may be obtained from the
following, which was written to a friend in London:――

“CAMBUSLANG, _August 27, 1742_.

“A fortnight ago, I came to this place, to assist at the
sacramental occasion, with several worthy ministers of the
Church of Scotland. Such a passover has not been heard of. I
preached once on the Saturday. On the Lord’s-day, I preached in
the morning; served five tables; and preached again, about ten
o’clock at night, to a great number in the churchyard. Though
it rained very much, there was a great awakening. The voice of
prayer and praise was heard all night. It was supposed, that,
between thirty and forty thousand people were assembled; and
that three thousand communicated. There were three tents. The
ministers were enlarged, and great grace was among the people.

“On Monday, August 16th, at seven in the morning, the Rev. Mr.
Webster preached, and there was a great commotion; and also in
the third sermon of the day, when I preached.

“On Thursday, August 19th,[21] I preached twice at Greenock; on
Friday, three times at Kilbride; on Saturday, once at Kilbride,
and twice at Stevenson. On Sunday, August 22nd, four times at
Irvine; on Monday, once at Irvine, and three times at Kilmarnock;
on Tuesday, once at Kilmarnock, and four times at Stewarton;
on Wednesday, once at Stewarton, and twice at ♦Mearns; and
yesterday, twice at this place. I never preached with so much
apparent success before. The work seems to spread more and
more. Oh, my friend, pray and give praise on behalf of the most
unworthy wretch that was ever employed in the dear Redeemer’s
service!”

This is a mere outline of a fortnight’s stupendous labours in the
west of Scotland. The sacrament at Cambuslang was an event never to
be forgotten. Thirteen ministers were present on Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday; and, on Monday, twenty-four. “All of them,” wrote the Rev.
Mr. McCulloch, the pastor of Cambuslang, “appeared to be very much
assisted in their work. Four of them preached on the fast-day; four on
Saturday; on the Sabbath I cannot tell how many; and five on Monday.
Mr. Whitefield’s sermons, on Saturday and the two following days, were
attended with much power, particularly on Sunday night, and on Monday;
several crying out, and a great weeping being observable throughout his
auditories. While he was serving some of the tables, he appeared to be
so filled with the love of God, as to be in a kind of ecstasy, and he
communicated with much of that blessed frame. The number present, on
the Lord’s-day, was so great, that, so far as I can hear, none ever
saw the like since the revolution, in Scotland, or even anywhere else,
at any sacrament occasion. This vast concourse of people came, not
only from the city of Glasgow, but, from many places at a considerable
distance. It was reckoned, that, there were two hundred communicants
from Edinburgh, two hundred from Kilmarnock, a hundred from Irvine, and
a hundred from Stewarton. Some, also, were from England and Ireland. A
considerable number of Quakers were hearers. The tables were all served
in the open air, beside the tent below the brae. Some estimated the
number of persons present at fifty thousand; some at forty thousand;
and the lowest estimate was upwards of thirty thousand. Not a few were
awakened to a sense of sin; others had their bands loosed, and were
brought into the liberty of the sons of God; and many of God’s children
were filled with joy and peace in believing.”[22]

Whitefield came back to ♦Edinburgh early in September, and here he
_chiefly_ remained and laboured until his return to England at the end
of October. His letters, during this interval of two months, are full
of interest, and extracts from them must be given.

Already a scheme was contemplated to unite the Methodists in Wales into
a separate connexion; and the following, addressed “to Howell Harris,
in Hoxton, near London,” refers to this:――

“_September 3, 1742._

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,――Wales is upon my heart. I think to meet
all the Brethren there together. As the awakening seems, in some
measure, to be over, and there are so many living stones, it
may be time to think of putting them together. May the great
Builder of the Church guide and direct us! I am glad to hear that
matters at Bristol are better than I expected. We have had most
blessed days here. I and the people have been in the suburbs of
heaven. Blessed be God! I live in heaven daily. O free grace! I
feel myself viler, and yet happier, every day.”[23]

Whitefield’s friend, Gilbert Tennent, had been brought into contact
with the Moravians, and had not liked them. Hence the following, which
Whitefield wrote to a gentleman in America:――

“EDINBURGH, _September 13, 1742_.

“I have just been writing to our dear brother, Gilbert Tennent.
He speaks many things, which, I know, are too true of the
Moravian Brethren; but his spirit seems to be too much heated,
and, I fear, some of his own wildfire is mixed with that sacred
zeal, which comes from ♦God. I want to be more like Jesus, who
sees all the quarrels and heart-risings of His children, and
yet bears with, and loves them still. I confess, I am jealous
over many, who talk and write of the Lamb, and who mimic some
particular person in their outward way, but yet are not truly
poor in spirit. They act too much like me, who, at my first
setting out, imitated the outward show of humility in Monsieur
Dezenly, before I got true simplicity of heart. At the same time,
I would love all who love Jesus, though they differ from me in
some points. The angels love all the true worshippers of Jesus
everywhere, and why should not we? If our brethren will quarrel
with us, let us not quarrel with them.”

In the same catholic spirit, Whitefield wrote as follows, to a friend
in Pennsylvania:――

“EDINBURGH, _September 22, 1742_.

“You cannot have a scene of greater confusion among you, than
there has been in England. But, blessed be God! matters are
brought to a better issue, and, though we cannot agree in
principles, yet we agree in love. I have not given way to the
Moravian Brethren, or to Mr. Wesley, or to any whom I thought
in an error, no, not for an hour. But I think it best not to
dispute, when there is no probability of convincing. Disputing
embitters the spirit, ruffles the soul, and hinders it from
hearing the still small voice of the Holy Ghost.”

To Mr. Habersham, the superintendent of his Orphan House, he wrote:――

“EDINBURGH, _September 24, 1742_.

“MY MOST ENDEARED FRIEND AND BROTHER,――With this, I send you a
‘Continuation of the Orphan House Account,’ which I have printed
to satisfy the public, and to promote future collections. I yet
owe upwards of £250 in England, upon the Orphan House account,
and have nothing towards it. How is the world mistaken about
my circumstances! worth nothing myself, embarrassed for others,
and yet looked upon to abound in riches! Our extremity is God’s
opportunity. O faith, thou hast an all-conquering power! I put
my trust in God, and, through His mercy, I shall not miscarry.
I pray for you. I think and dream of you almost continually. I
long, I long to be with you, and, methinks, could willingly be
found at the head of you, though a Spaniard’s sword should be
put to my throat.

“Some of my friends in Philadelphia are suspicious that I am
joined with the Moravian Brethren; but, indeed, I am not. My
principles are still the same; only, as I believe many of them
love the Lord Jesus, I would be friendly to them, as I would
be to all others who bear the image of our common Master,
notwithstanding some of my principles are as far distant from
theirs as the east is from the west.”

The next extract, from a letter to a minister in Wales, affords a
glimpse of Whitefield’s labours in Scotland, and announces his purpose
to return to England. Perhaps, it ought to be premised, that, on Sunday,
the 3rd of October, a sacrament was held at Kilsyth, in which a dozen
ministers took part. The solemnities of the day began at half-past
eight in the morning, and continued, without intermission, till
half-past eight at night. During the day, twenty-two different services
were held; and the number of communicants were nearly fifteen hundred.
At Muthel, also, a gracious revival had been vouchsafed. After public
worship in the kirk, crowds of people were wont to flock to the manse
of the Rev. William Hally, the minister, who wrote, “Their mourning
cries frequently drown my voice, so that I am often obliged to stop
till they compose themselves.”[24]

“EDINBURGH, _October 6, 1742_.

“The Lord has dealt bountifully with me. He gives me to rejoice
in all His dispensations towards me. I am taught more and more,
every day, to live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave Himself for me. God keeps me, and brings me where I would
desire to be――at His feet, waiting His will, and watching the
motions of His blessed Spirit, word, and providence. Here I
find safety and refuge amidst the various storms of opposition
and reproach with which I daily meet. God is on my side: I will
not fear what men or devils can say of or do unto me. The dear
Messrs. Erskine have dressed me in very black colours. Dear men,
I pity them. Surely they must grieve the Holy Spirit much. O for
a mind divested of all sects and names and parties! I think, it
is my one single aim to promote the kingdom of Jesus, without
partiality and without hypocrisy, indefinitely amongst all. I
care not if the name of George Whitefield be banished out of the
world, so that Jesus be exalted in it.

“Glory be to His great name! we have seen much of His power
in Scotland. The work in the west goes on and increases. Last
Sabbath and Monday, things greater than ever were seen at
Kilsyth. There is a great awakening also at Muthel. I preach
twice every day with great power, and walk in liberty and love.
In about three weeks, I purpose to leave Scotland; and hope,
before long, to spend a month in Wales. I intend to travel
through Newcastle and Yorkshire.[25]

“I have been much strengthened since the Spaniards invaded
Georgia. I am, like the ark, surrounded with waves; but, through
free grace, I am enabled to swim above all. Ere long, I shall
rest on Mount Zion, in the arms of my beloved Jesus.”

Among the distinguished persons with whom Whitefield became acquainted
in Scotland, was Lady Frances Gardiner, daughter of the Earl of Buchan,
and wife of the celebrated Colonel Gardiner, who fell, in the service
of his country, at the battle of Prestonpans, in 1745. The Colonel was
now with his soldiers at Ghent; and to him Whitefield addressed the
following characteristic letter:――

“EDINBURGH, _October 17, 1742_.

“HONOURED SIR,――Though I never had the pleasure of seeing you, I
have often prayed for you. I hope you will not be offended with
me for troubling you with this. Your honoured lady tells me you
will not.

“Dear sir, I rejoice to hear that you are a good soldier of
Jesus Christ, and that you delight to fight the Redeemer’s
battles. May you be covered with all His armour, and be filled
with all His fulness!

“I have the pleasure often to go without the camp, and to bear
a little of His sacred reproach; and I prefer it to all the
treasures in the world. Weak as I am, my Jesus makes me more
than conqueror, through His love. He has brought mighty things
to pass here, and gotten Himself the victory in many hearts. I
trust not a day passes without some poor creature being plucked
as a brand from the burning.

“I wish I could hear that God was more in the camp. Blessed be
His name! for raising you up, to lift a standard for Him. May
you be endued with the _meekness_ of Moses, the _courage_ of
Joshua, the _zeal_ of Paul, and a large portion of the blessed
spirit of Christ!

“I hope, honoured sir, you will, now and then, remember me, a
poor sinner, and speak a word for me to the King of kings and
Lord of lords, that I may not turn my head in the day of battle,
but rather die for Him, than, in any wise, deny Him. Neither you
nor yours are forgotten by me. I am a poor creature, but happy,
very happy, in the once crucified, but now exalted Jesus. For
His sake, and in His great name, I beg leave to subscribe myself,
honoured sir, your affectionate, humble servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Colonel Gardiner was as distinguished a Christian as he was a soldier.
Nine days after the date of Whitefield’s letter, the Colonel wrote, as
follows, to his friend Dr. Doddridge, of Northampton:――

“GHENT, _October 16, 1742_.

“I have received a letter from Mr. Whitefield. The accounts I
have had of that man, both when in England and since I came here,
have ravished my soul. If my heart deceives me not, I would
rather be the persecuted, despised Whitefield, to be an
instrument in the hand of the Spirit, for converting so many
souls, and building up others in their most holy faith, than be
the emperor of the whole world.”[26]

Towards the close of his visit to Scotland, Whitefield re-opened
his correspondence with Wesley, the result of which was a perfect
reconciliation. From this time, their mutual regard and friendly
intercourse suffered no interruption, until Whitefield’s death,
twenty-eight years afterwards. The following is one of the letters
which, at this important period, passed between them:――

“EDINBURGH, _October 11, 1742_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――About ten days ago, I sent you a packet,
by my dear wife, which I hope you will have received ere this
comes to hand. Yesterday morning, I had your kind letter, dated
October 5.

“In answer to the first part of it, I say, ‘Let old things
pass away, and all things become new.’ I can heartily say ‘Amen’
to the latter part of it. ‘Let the king live for ever, and
controversy die.’ It has died with me long ago.

“I shall not leave Scotland in less than three weeks. Before
yours came, I had engaged to go through Newcastle,[27] in my
way to London. I rejoice to hear the Lord has blessed your dear
brother’s labours.

“I am enabled to preach twice daily, and find I walk in light
and liberty continually. I thank you, dear sir, for praying for
me, and thank our common Lord for putting it into your heart so
to do. I have been upon my knees praying for you and yours. O
that nothing but love, lowliness, and simplicity may be among
us! The work is still increasing in Scotland. Dear friend, my
soul is on fire. O let us not fall out in the way! Let us bear
with one another in love. God be praised! for giving you such a
mind. My kind love to all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity.
In much haste, and with great thanks for your last letter,
I subscribe myself, reverend and very dear sir, your most
affectionate, though younger, brother in the gospel of our
glorious Emmanuel,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Before leaving Scotland, Whitefield made three collections for his
Orphan House. In the park, at Edinburgh, on October 6, his congregation
gave him the noble sum of £128 10s. 7d.;[28] and, on another occasion,
they contributed £44. At Glasgow, also, the public collection and
private donations amounted to the same sum as the first collection
in Edinburgh, making £300 in all. Even the liberality of his friends
excited the anger of his enemies. The _Scots’ Magazine_ sneeringly
remarked (pp. 459, 464):――

“By his affecting comments on the widow’s throwing her two mites
into the treasury, many, who live on charity, have literally
given him the whole of their living, and been obliged to beg
their next meal. At his diets for collecting, when he has raised
the passions of his audience by a suitable sermon, his next
care is to ply them while in a right frame. For this purpose,
he makes his last prayer very short; thereafter pronounces the
blessing without singing psalms; and then immediately falls a
collecting, in which he shews great dexterity.”

_IN ENGLAND AND WALES._

NOVEMBER 1742 TO AUGUST 1744.

WHITEFIELD left Scotland on November 1st, 1742; and arrived in
London five days afterwards. He now resumed his ministry in his
wooden Tabernacle, where, for some time past, Howell Harris had been
officiating as his substitute. One of his first letters, in London, was
addressed to his friend Habersham.

“LONDON, _November 12, 1742_.

“MY DEAREST FRIEND AND BROTHER IN A CRUCIFIED JESUS,――How do
I long to come over to see you, and the rest of my dear family!
The cloud seems now to be moving towards America. I trust I
shall be with you in a few months.

“The Lord did wonderful things for me and His people in Scotland.
The concern expressed at my departure was unspeakable. I rode
post from Edinburgh, and came here, in rather less than five
days, on Saturday last.

“There seems to be a new awakening in London. We have been
obliged to enlarge the Tabernacle. Dear Brother Harris has been
sent with a sweet, searching commission. Brother Cennick is much
blessed in Wiltshire. The word runs and is glorified in Wales.
God is raising some fresh witnesses of the power of His dear
Son’s blood in Gloucestershire. Blessed are the eyes which see
the things that we see.

“The collections in Scotland were large. In Edinburgh, I
collected £128 at one time, and £44 at another; and in Glasgow,
about £128, with private donations. Blessed be God! I owe
nothing now in England on the Orphan-house account; what is due
is abroad. I think, since I have been in England, we have got
near £1500. The Lord will provide what we want further. Glory be
to His name!

“My wife lies now very weak. She was tossed for ten days in her
voyage from Scotland. The ship was in imminent danger, but the
Lord gave her much of His presence. I trust she will be ready
shortly for another voyage.”

Whitefield spent nearly four months in London. His congregations, of
course, were very large, and, in another respect, were remarkable. His
friend Wesley was pre-eminently and almost exclusively the poor man’s
preacher. It was otherwise with Whitefield. During the winter of 1742,
the Earl and Countess of Huntingdon were constant in their attendance
upon his ministry, and were often accompanied by his lordship’s sisters,
the Ladies Hastings. Occasionally, Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough,
and Catherine, Duchess of Buckingham, two of the most celebrated and
remarkable women of their day, were among his hearers; so also was
Lord Lonsdale, who had been one of the lords of the bedchamber, and
constable of the tower. Charles, third Duke of Bolton; Lord Hervey, who
had distinguished himself as an orator in both houses of Parliament,
and who had held the offices of vice-chamberlain, and keeper of the
privy-seal; and Lord Sidney Beauclerk, fifth son of the Duke of St.
Albans, were likewise numbered among the young preacher’s auditors.
Yea, even royalty itself, in the persons of William Augustus, Duke
of Cumberland, youngest son of George II., and his brother Frederick,
Prince of Wales, helped to swell some of Whitefield’s congregations.[29]

This is a remarkable fact, and, perhaps, may be partly accounted for
by the favour with which Whitefield had been honoured by some of the
aristocracy of Scotland. Between him and them a warm friendship had
been created; and there can hardly be a doubt that this helped to
secure him the attention of not a few of the nobility of England. As
shewing his Christian intimacy with persons of distinguished rank in
Scotland, the following letters, written within a fortnight after his
arrival in London, will be useful. The first was addressed to Lady
Frances Gardiner, the wife of the celebrated colonel.

“LONDON, _November 13, 1742_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Mindful of my promise, which I made before I
left Edinburgh, I now steal a few moments to send your ladyship
a letter of thanks. I trust it will find you sitting under the
Redeemer’s shadow with great delight. It rejoiced me when I
heard that God had blessed my unworthy ministry, to recover your
ladyship from a state of darkness and spiritual desertion. Glory,
glory be to rich, free, and sovereign grace! I trust you will
now be kept in the love of God, and that no idol will interpose
between you and the Redeemer. I hope the dear Colonel is now in
his proper place, and that you can think of him without anxiety
or distracting care. This is that freedom wherewith Jesus Christ
makes us free: to love all things in Him, and for Him, and to
love Him above all. Thus we have peace and joy. Whenever we
deviate from it, we fall into darkness and distress of soul.

“We have blessed seasons in London. O who can express the
loving-kindness of the Lord, or shew forth all His praise? We
beg your prayers; and wishing you and your honoured Colonel all
manner of prosperity, I am, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The following also was addressed to a titled lady in Edinburgh:――

“LONDON, _November 13, 1742_.

“I hope this will find you a very poor sinner, sitting at the
feet of Jesus. If I mistake not, your soul is athirst for God,
yea, to be filled with all the fulness of God. Go on, dear madam.
God will satisfy all your desires. He has promised, and He will
perform. There is no end of His goodness.

“I believe your ladyship will hear shortly from Mr. Harris.
He is a dear soul, and left London on Thursday last, full of
simplicity and love. The work goes on bravely in Wales, and
elsewhere. Surely it is the midnight cry. Surely the Bridegroom
is coming. Methinks I hear your ladyship say, ‘Then I will make
ready to go forth to meet Him.’ That you may be always ready to
obey the most sudden call, is the hearty prayer of, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The next was written to one of the Scottish nobles:――

“LONDON, _November 15, 1742_.

“MY LORD,――My departure from Edinburgh was very sudden, and
it was but a few days before I left, that I heard of your
lordship’s illness. I have not been unmindful of you, and I
trust, that, in answer to prayer, our Lord has rebuked your
fever, and that this will find you risen and ministering unto
Him. How apt are we, when in health, to follow Jesus afar off,
and to fall into a Laodicæan spirit. May this sickness be a
means of drawing you nearer to God!

“I am now in my winter quarters, preparing for a fresh campaign.
Happy they who fight under the Redeemer’s banner!”

Whitefield’s “fresh campaign” included more than preaching. He lived in
troublous times, and needed both “the sword and trowel.” Affairs in New
England made him anxious. Hence the following to the Rev. Dr. Colman,
of Boston:――

“LONDON, _November 18, 1742_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,――The confusion in New England has given me
concern; but our Lord will over-rule all for good. When I shall
come to Boston, the Lord Jesus only knows. I believe it will
not be long. I find I shall come in perilous times; but the
all-gracious Saviour, who has helped me hitherto, will guide me
by His counsel, and give me a true scriptural zeal. How hard it
is to keep in the true narrow path, when speaking for the Lord
Jesus! God preserve me, and all His ministers, from defending
His truths and cause in our own, or under the influence of a
false spirit! It destroys the cause we would defend. In Scotland,
there have been, as yet, but few of the disorders complained
of amongst you; but, as the work increases, I suppose, the
stratagems of the enemy will increase also. This is my
comfort――Jesus reigns.”

The Rev. John Meriton was encountering bitter opposition in the Isle of
Man, and wished for Whitefield’s advice respecting his going to Georgia.
Whitefield’s answer was as follows:――

“LONDON, _November 19, 1742_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,――If the Lord has given you more zeal, I
wonder not that you meet with more opposition. However, I would
not have you rash or over-hasty in leaving the Isle of Man.
Wait; continue instant in prayer; and you shall see the salvation
of God. I have not heard from my family abroad for some time,
and cannot give you any determinate answer about your going to
Georgia, because I know not how their affairs stand. God will
yet shew you what He would have you to do. Even so, Lord Jesus.
Amen and amen!”

From New England and the Isle of Man, the reader must follow Whitefield
to the principality of Wales. One of the Methodist Exhorters there
had been indicted for holding a conventicle. Whitefield’s services
were solicited on behalf of this luckless brother. He, at once, opened
a correspondence with the Bishop of Bangor, on the subject; and the
following is one of the letters that passed between them:――

“LONDON, _November 19, 1742_.

“MY LORD,――I received your lordship’s letter this evening. It
confirmed me in the character given me of your lordship’s spirit.
I verily believe you abhor everything that has a tendency to
persecution; and yet, in my humble opinion, if Mr. C―――― is not
somewhat redressed, he is persecuted.

“My Lord, the whole of the matter seems to be this: In Wales,
they have fellowship meetings, where some well-meaning people
meet together, simply to tell what God has done for their souls.
In some of these meetings, I believe, Mr. C―――― used to tell
his experience, and to invite his companions to come and be
happy in Jesus Christ. He is, therefore, indicted as holding
a conventicle; and I find this is the case of one, if not two,
more.

“Now, my Lord, as far as I can judge, these persons, thus
indicted, are loyal subjects of his Majesty, and true friends of
the Church of England service, and attendants upon it. You will
see, by the enclosed letters, how unwilling they are to leave
the Church; and yet, if the Acts, made against persons meeting
together to plot against Church and State, be put in execution
against them, what must they do? They must be obliged to declare
themselves Dissenters. I assure your lordship, it is a critical
time in Wales. Hundreds, if not thousands, will go in a body
from the Church, if such proceedings are countenanced. I lately
wrote them a letter, dissuading them from separating from
the Church; and I write thus to your lordship, because of the
excellent spirit of moderation discernible in your lordship, and
because I would not have (to use your lordship’s own expression)
‘such a fire kindled in or from your diocese.’”

Whitefield found it necessary to appeal to another bishop of the
English Church. John Cennick was one of Whitefield’s preachers in as
full a sense as Thomas Maxfield was one of Wesley’s, and had as great
a claim upon Whitefield’s sympathy and support, as the itinerants of
Wesley had upon him. John Cennick was now in trouble. Though he had
occasionally preached in London, Bristol, Kingswood, and elsewhere,
his labours had been principally devoted to the county of Wilts. His
first sermon, in the county, was preached in the street of Castlecombe,
on July 16, 1740; and, before long, he formed himself a preaching
circuit, consisting of Lyneham, Chippenham, Avon, Langley, Hullavington,
Malmsbury, Littleton-Drew, Foxham, Brinkworth, Stratton, Somerford,
Tytherton, Swindon, and other places. He had many adventures, and some
of them serious ones. In the month of June, 1741, accompanied by Howell
Harris and twenty-four other friends, all on horseback, he went to
Swindon, and began to sing and pray; but, before he could begin to
preach, the mob, he writes, “fired guns over our heads, holding the
muzzles so near our faces, that Howell Harris and myself were both made
as black as tinkers with the powder. We were not affrighted, but opened
our breasts, telling them we were ready to lay down our lives for our
doctrine. They then got dust out of the highway, and covered us all
over; and then played an engine upon us, which they filled out of the
stinking ditches. While they played upon brother Harris, I preached;
and, when they turned the engine upon me, he preached. This continued
till they spoiled the engine; and then they threw whole buckets of
water and mud over us. Mr. Goddard, a leading gentleman of the town,
lent the mob his guns, halberd, and engine, and bade them use us as
badly as they could, only not to kill us; and he himself sat on
horseback the whole time, laughing to see us thus treated. After we
left the town, they dressed up two images, and called one Cennick,
and the other Harris, and then burnt them. The next day, they gathered
about the house of Mr. Lawrence, who had received us, and broke all his
windows with stones, cut and wounded four of his family, and knocked
down one of his daughters.”

Within three months after this, Cennick was again in peril. While
preaching at Stratton, the Swindon mob arrived, with “swords, staves,
and poles.” Cennick writes:――“Without respect to age or sex, they
knocked down all who stood in their way, so that some had blood
streaming down their faces, and others were taken up almost beaten and
trampled to death. Many of our dear friends were cut and bruised sadly;
and I got many severe blows myself.”

Notwithstanding, however, this brutal opposition, Cennick’s labours
were successful. He formed several Societies. At Brinkworth, in the
month of August, 1741, he began to build his first meeting-house. “On
Monday, October 25, 1742,” he writes, “I bought the house and land at
Tytherton, where now our chapel is built; and, on Sunday, November 14,
I preached the first time there, after we had taken down several lofts
at one end of the house, in order to make room.”[30]

Cennick continues, “Two days after this, we were sadly misused at
Langley-Burrell. The rude people, besides making a noise, cut the
clothes of the congregation, threw aquafortis on them, and pelted
them with cow-dung.”

In the midst of all this, Cennick wrote to Whitefield, as follows:――

“Last Tuesday, at Langley, several persons came, casting great
stones at the windows of the house where we worshipped, and
hallooed to each other to disturb us with their noise. They then
blamed each other for not dragging me out of the pulpit, and
pulling the house to pieces. At last, they laboured very hard
in gathering dirt and filth, which they continued to throw at us
till we finished. Not content with this, they laid wait for us
in the fields and lanes, and pelted us as we passed on our way.
They cut the clothes of some of the Society with scissors, and
pushed them into brooks and ditches.

“The persecutions in these villages seem to increase in
proportion as the work goes on. The ministers and parish
officers threaten to famish the poor ‘Cennickers.’ Their threats
have prevailed with some, while others tell them, ‘If you
starve us, we will go’ to the meetings; ‘and rather than we will
forbear, we will eat grass like the kine.’”[31]

Such was poor Cennick’s plight. First of all, Whitefield wrote to him
a letter of consolation:――

“LONDON, _November 20, 1742_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,――Your letter did not surprise me at all,
though it made me look up to the Lord for you. I believed you
would be down in the valley of humiliation soon; but, fear not;
it is only that you may be the more exalted. I trust this will
find you mounting on wings like an eagle; walking, yet not weary;
running, yet not faint. God does and will remarkably appear for
you. Doubtless you are His servant and minister. He, therefore,
that touches you, touches the apple of God’s eye. Poor Wiltshire
people! I pity them. If I knew their bishop, I would apply to
him. I wrote to the Bishop of Bangor for our brethren in Wales,
and have received a very favourable answer. The wrath of man
shall turn to God’s praise, and the remainder of it He will
restrain.”

Dr. Sherlock was the bishop in whose diocese Cennick’s “Wiltshire
circuit” was situated. Sherlock, as every one knows, was eminent for
his learning, and yet more eminent for his piety. The prelate had no
power to punish the mob for their riotous proceedings; but he had power
to rebuke his persecuting clergy; and, hence, Whitefield wrote to him
as follows:――

“LONDON, _November 30, 1742_.

“MY LORD,――I beg your lordship’s pardon for troubling you with
this. I believe you will not be offended when you know the cause.

“There is one Mr. Cennick, a true lover of Jesus Christ, who has
been much honoured in bringing many poor sinners in Wiltshire
to the knowledge of themselves and of God. He is a member of
the Church of England; but is sadly opposed by the clergy in
Wiltshire, as well as by many who will come to hear him preach.

“In a letter, dated November 16, from Foxham, he writes thus:
‘The ministers of Bremhill, Seagry, Langley, and many others,
have strictly forbidden the churchwardens and overseers to let
any of the _Cennickers_ have anything out of the parish; and
they obey them, and tell the poor, if they cannot stop them from
following me, they will famish them. Several of the poor, who
have great families, have already been denied any help. Some of
the people, out of fear, have denied they ever came; and others
have been made to promise they will come no more; whilst the
most part come at the loss of friends and all they have. When
the officers threatened some of them to take away their pay,
they answered, “If you starve us, we will go; and rather than
we will forbear, we will live upon grass like the kine.”’

“In another letter, I received from Mr. Cennick last night, he
writes thus: ‘I should be glad if you could mention the cruelty
of the ministers of Bremhill and Seagry to the Bishop of Sarum.
Indeed, their doings are inhuman. The cry of the people, because
of their oppression, is very great.’

“In compliance with my dear friend’s request, I presume to lay
the matter, as he represents it, before your lordship; being
persuaded that you will not favour persecuting practices, or
approve of such proceedings to keep people to the Church of
England. Should this young man leave the Church, hundreds would
leave it with him. But I know, that, at present, he has no such
design. If your lordship pleases to give me leave, I would wait
upon you, upon the least notice. Or, if your lordship is pleased
to send a line into Wiltshire, to know the truth of the matter,
and judge accordingly, it will satisfy your lordship’s most
obedient son and servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The effect of Whitefield’s letter is not known; but, twelve days after
it was written, Cennick says, in his diary: “On Sunday, December 12th,
a servant of farmer Rogers, of Tytherton, daubed the gates and stiles
our people had to pass over with dung and tar; and, by this means, many
had their clothes entirely spoiled.”

At present, nothing need be added respecting Cennick’s circuit.
Whitefield visited it a few months afterwards, and met with some
memorable adventures.

Of course, wherever he was, the Orphan House in Georgia occupied
Whitefield’s attention and time. The clergyman at Savannah, on account
of whom the chaplain and the surgeon of the Orphan House had been
imprisoned, was now dead; and, further, a fatal disease was prevalant
among the colonists. Addressing the secretary of the Trustees of
Georgia, Whitefield writes:――

“LONDON, _November 20, 1742_.

“Another distress is come upon poor Georgia. A violent sickness
rages, and has taken off many. My letters say, the Orphan-house
surgeon had fifty patients under his care. This, I trust, will
more and more convince the Honourable Trustees, of what benefit
the Orphan House is, and will be, to the colony.

“I hear that Mr. O――――, the minister of Savannah, is dead. I
know one Mr. Meriton, a clergyman in the Isle of Man, who would
go and supply his place, if he were applied to. I believe, the
Bishop of Sodor and Man will give him a recommendation. You
may acquaint the Honourable Trustees with this, and let me know
their answer.[32]

“I hope, in about two months, to embark for Georgia. I find, God
has given my family a good crop; but the hands are sick, so they
cannot speedily carry it in.”

Of course, the greatest orphanage of the time was the one founded
by Augustus Hermann Francke, at Halle, in Germany, in which he made
provision for two thousand children. Besides providing for their
sustenance, he established, on their behalf, a large library, and a
museum of natural curiosities; and also commenced a printing office,
and furnished it with the means of printing books in numerous languages.
Fifteen years ago, Professor Francke had died, at the age of sixty-five,
regretted by all classes in Germany, and extolled for the noble
services which he had rendered to his country, and to the world. His
son was his successor, and to him Whitefield addressed the following
letter:――

“LONDON, _November 24, 1742_.

“REV. SIR,――I have long designed writing to you, but have always
been prevented. I can now defer no longer; for, though I never
saw you in the flesh, I highly esteem you, and wish you much
prosperity in the work of the Lord.

“Your honoured father’s memory is very precious to me. His
account of the Orphan House has been a great support and
encouragement to me in a like undertaking. The account, sent
with this, will inform you how it prospers. Hitherto, it has
answered its motto, and has been like the burning bush, on fire,
but not consumed. About January next, God willing, I intend to
embark. In the meanwhile, I should be glad to know how it is
with your Orphan House; and whether you have any commands for
Georgia.”

Whitefield’s work was multifarious in its character; but his great
employment was testifying the gospel of the grace of God. He had no
idle moments; but his highest ambition was to save the souls of his
fellow-men. Hence the following:――

“LONDON, _December 4, 1742_.

“Vile and unfaithful as I am, my Master lets me have my hands
full of work. From morning till midnight, I am employed;
and I am carried through the duties of each day with almost
uninterrupted tranquillity. Our Society[33] is large, but in
good order, and we make improvements daily.”

“LONDON, _December 9, 1742_.

“I am never so much in my element as when I preach free grace
to the chief of sinners. I am much blessed here. We have many
gracious souls. Ere long, I must leave them.”

“LONDON, _December 18, 1742_.

“The 16th of this month was my birthday. It made me blush
to think how much sin I have committed against God, and how
little good I have done for Him. I am now in my winter quarters,
preparing for a fresh campaign. Our Society goes on well. Though
I richly deserve it, our infinitely condescending Jesus will not
lay me aside, until He has performed all His good pleasure by me.”

It is a fact of great importance, and which must always be borne
in mind, that, notwithstanding the excitement in which he lived,
Whitefield habitually cultivated his own personal religion. The
following extracts from letters, written at this period, beautifully
illustrate this momentous matter.

His old friend, the Rev. Benjamin Ingham, by his powerful preaching,
had formed fifty Religious Societies in Yorkshire and Lancashire,
and had recently placed them under the care of Moravian ministers.
Whitefield now wrote to him as follows:――

“LONDON, _December 21, 1742_.

“To-day, I dined with old Mr. F――――, and was kindly entertained
by him and his wife. I remembered what sweet counsel you and I
had taken there together; and I rejoiced in the happy prospect
of our being, before long, with our blessed and glorious Lord.
My brother, what has our Saviour done for us since that time?
What is He doing now? What did He do before time began? What
will He do when time shall be no more? O how sweet it is to be
melted down with a sense of redeeming love! O to be always kept
low at the feet of Jesus! It is right, my brother, to insist on
poverty of spirit. I know what a dreadful thing it is to carry
much sail without proper ballast. Joy, floating upon the surface
of an unmortified heart, is but of short continuance. It puffs
up, but does not edify. I thank our Saviour, that He is shewing
us here more of our hearts and more of His love. I doubt not but
He deals so with you. I heartily greet your dear household,[34]
and your Societies. If our Saviour gave me leave, I would gladly
come to Yorkshire; but the cloud points towards Georgia.”

Colonel Gardiner was still with his regiment in Flanders, and to him
Whitefield wrote the following:――

“LONDON, _December 21, 1742_.

“HONOURED SIR,――Your kind letter put me in mind of righteous Lot,
whose soul was grieved, day by day, at the ungodly conversation
of the wicked. It was the same with holy David. His eyes, like
yours, gushed out with water, because men kept not God’s law.
Your situation and employment cannot be very agreeable to a
disciple of the Prince of Peace. I cannot say, I would change
posts. Indeed, honoured sir, I think mine is a glorious employ.
I am not ashamed of my Master, though my Master may well be
ashamed of me. I know no other reason why Jesus has put me
into the ministry, than because I am the chief of sinners, and,
therefore, fittest to preach free grace to a world lying in the
wicked one. Blessed be God! He gives much success. I am often
ashamed that I can do no more for that Jesus who has redeemed
me by His own most precious blood. O that I could lie lower!
Then should I rise higher. Could I take deeper root downwards,
I should bear more fruit upwards. I want to be poor in spirit.
I want to be meek and lowly in heart. I want to have the whole
mind that was in Christ. O that my heart were Christ’s library!
I would not have one thief to lodge in my Redeemer’s temple.”

To a titled lady in Scotland, he wrote:――

“LONDON, _December 23, 1742_.

“The Lord empties before He fills; humbles before He exalts.
At least, He is pleased to deal thus with me. I thank Him for
it, from my inmost soul; for were it not so, His mercies would
destroy us. When I discover a new corruption, I am as thankful
as a sentinel, keeping watch in a garrison, would be at spying a
straggling enemy come near him. I stand not fighting with it in
my own strength, but run immediately and tell the Captain of my
salvation. By the sword of the Spirit, He soon destroys it. This
is what I call a simple looking to Christ. I know of no other
effectual way of keeping the old man down. Look up then, dear
madam, to a wounded Saviour. Tell Him your whole heart. Go to
Him as a little child. He will hear your lisping, and set your
soul at liberty.”

The Rev. James Hervey had told Whitefield, that his “Journals and
Sermons, especially the sweet sermon upon ‘What think ye of Christ?’”
had been “a means of bringing him to a knowledge of the truth.”[35]
In reply, Whitefield wrote to him as follows:――

“LONDON, _December 23, 1742_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER HERVEY,――I thank you for your kind and very
agreeable letter. It was refreshing to my soul, and stirred me
to give thanks on your behalf. O my dear brother, I hope nothing
will deter you from preaching the glad tidings of salvation
to a world lying in the wicked one. I would not but be a poor
despised minister of Jesus Christ for ten thousand worlds. Go
on, thou man of God; and may the Lord cause thy bow to abide in
strength! I should be glad to come, and shoot some gospel arrows
in Devonshire;[36] but the cloud seems now to point towards
America. Blessed be God! for making any of my poor writings of
use to you. If I did not proclaim free grace, the stones would
cry out against me. Whilst I am writing, the fire kindles.
This fire has been, of late, kindled in many hearts. Our large
Society goes on well. We have many who walk in the comforts of
the Holy Ghost. I hear of glorious things from various parts. I
hope, ere long, we shall hear of persons going from post to post,
and crying, ‘Babylon is fallen! Babylon is fallen!’ I trust you,
my dear sir, will be made a happy instrument, in the Mediator’s
kingdom, of pulling down Satan’s strongholds. Pray write me word,
how the war is going on between Michael and the Dragon. For the
present, adieu!”

Methodism was prospering in Wales; but it needed organization. In a
letter, sent to Whitefield shortly before his departure from Scotland,
Howell Harris wrote: “The people are wounded by scores, and flock
under the word by thousands.” Though the movement was pre-eminently,
if not exclusively, a Church of England one, yet, Dissenters in Wales
were already somewhat numerous. In Carnarvonshire, there was one
congregation; in Denbighshire, there were three; in Flintshire, one; in
Merionethshire, one; in Montgomeryshire, five; in Radnorshire, eight;
in Cardiganshire, ten; in Pembrokeshire, nine; in Carmarthenshire,
about twenty; in Brecknockshire, ten; in Glamorganshire, twenty-three;
and in Monmouthshire, thirteen. Some of the ministers of these
congregations were men of mark. John Thomas, in Carnarvonshire, was
“an humble, meek, and serious man,” and a good preacher. Lewis Rees,
in Merionethshire, was “a very godly man, exceedingly well gifted in
prayer, and also frequent in it.” Philip Pugh, in Cardiganshire, was
“noted for his uncommon piety, diligence, and success.” Henry Palmer,
in Carmarthenshire, was “an Apollos in the Scriptures, and very pious.”
James Davies, in Glamorganshire, was remarkable “for his industry, and
for his gifts in preaching and prayer, especially the latter;” Lewis
Jones, “for his seriousness, popularity, and excellent utterance;” and
Henry Davies, “for devoutness and affectionate piety.”[37]

There were, at least, ten Methodist clergymen in Wales, including
Daniel Rowlands, Rector of Llangeitho; Howell Davies,[38] Rector of
Prengast; Thomas Lewis, a curate near Brecon; William Williams, curate
of Lanwithid; John Hodges, Rector of Wenvoe; and his curate, Thomas
Sweetly.[39] There were also a large number of lay-preachers, including
Howell Harris, Herbert Jenkins, J. Beaumont, J. Lewis, J. Jones,
R. Tibbut, John Richards, to say nothing of John Cennick and Joseph
Humphreys, who were occasional visitors.

For want of rules and order, there had been occasional collisions among
these godly and earnest men. To prevent this, in the future, the first
Calvinistic Methodist Conference was held at Waterford, in South Wales,
on January 5, 1743. The conference consisted of four clergymen――George
Whitefield, Daniel Rowlands, J. Powell, and William Williams; and of
three lay-preachers――Howell Harris, Joseph Humphreys, and John Cennick.
Whitefield was elected moderator. The decisions were: 1. That the
lay-preachers should be divided into two classes――Superintendents and
Exhorters; and that Howell Harris should be their general overseer.
2. That each superintendent should have a certain district in which to
labour. 3. That the ordained clergymen should visit the “districts,”
or circuits, as far as they were able. 4. That the Exhorters should be
arranged in two divisions,――public and private. 5. That Messrs. Jenkins,
Beaumont, James, J. Lewis, B. Thomas, and J. Jones should be the Public
Exhorters; and that certain brethren, whose names were mentioned,
should be the Private Exhorters. 6. That the Private Exhorters should
“inspect only one or two Societies each, and should follow their
ordinary calling.” 7. That none should be received into the Association,
as Exhorters, but such as were “tried and approved of.” And, 8. That
no one should “go beyond his present limits without previous advice and
consultation.”

At a monthly meeting, held soon afterwards, the boundaries of each
circuit were fixed; and it was further agreed: 1. That all _public_
exhorters should have about twelve or fourteen Societies to overlook,
with the _assistance_ of the _private_ exhorters, twice a month.
2. That T. Williams should be the superintendent of the Societies in
the vale of Glamorgan and in part of Monmouthshire. 3. That J. Lewis
should be the superintendent of part of Monmouthshire and part of
Breconshire. 4. T. Jones, of “parts of Monmouthshire and the other side
of the Passage.” 5. T. James, of parts of Breconshire and Radnorshire.
6. And J. Jones, of Herefordshire and a part of Radnorshire. 7. That
J. Beaumont and H. Jenkins should assist Howell Harris in visiting all
the Societies in Wales and England. And, 8. That the associations or
conferences of “ministers and exhorters in England and Wales should be
held every half-year.”[40]

Thus was founded Calvinistic Methodism. For a brief period, Whitefield
was its chief; and the Tabernacle, London, was its principal seat of
government.

It is a notable fact, that the first Calvinistic Methodist Association
was held eighteen months before Wesley held his first Methodist
Conference in London. How far the one gave birth to the other, it is
impossible to determine; but, at the beginning, the two organizations
strongly resembled each other. Howell Harris was the general overseer
in Wales, as Wesley was in England. The Welsh “superintendents”
corresponded to Wesley’s “assistants;” the “public exhorters” occupied
the same position as Wesley’s itinerants; and the “private exhorters”
exactly answered to Wesley’s local preachers.

This is not the place for a history of the Calvinistic Methodist
Connexion; but, it may be added, that, in 1870, the Welsh Calvinistic
Methodists had 1,126 chapels and preaching places; 1,031 societies;
92,735 communicants; 419 ministers; 354 local preachers; 3,321 deacons;
18,579 Sunday-schoolteachers; and 143,946 Sunday-school scholars. The
cost of their chapel property was estimated, at the census of 1851, at
nearly a million sterling.

After finishing the business of the first conference of the Calvinistic
Methodists in Wales, Whitefield returned to London, and, for some
unstated reason, abandoned his intention of immediately setting sail
for Georgia. Perhaps this change of purpose was occasioned by the
duties imposed upon him as moderator of the newly organised body, or
perhaps, the cause was a domestic one; for Whitefield, a few months
later, became a father.

Meanwhile, his fellow-labourers in Wales kept him well informed of
their proceedings. Hence the following:――

“_February 2, 1743._

“MY DEAREST, DEAREST BROTHER WHITEFIELD,――We met to-day,
according to appointment, and had a most heavenly Association. I
trust the work goes on sweetly everywhere. In most places, there
is a general, fresh, and uncommon stirring. Many come anew under
convictions, and old worldly professors and backsliders return.
Never before did I feel such power given me in preaching, and in
administering the Lord’s supper. The Lord comes down among us in
such a manner as words cannot describe. To prevent nature mixing
with the work, I have openly discountenanced all crying out;
but God gives such light and power in the ordinance, that many
cannot help praising and adoring Jesus. Thus I was obliged to
leave my whole congregation, consisting of many hundreds, in a
flame――the one catching it from the other. This is our condition
generally every Sabbath. I trust the exhorters move, for the
most part, very properly, and that every one is owned in his
place.

“I am, etc.,

“DANIEL ROWLANDS.”[41]

Ten days later, Howell Harris wrote to Whitefield, as follows:――

“_February 12, 1743._

“With us, the work everywhere goes on more and more sweetly.
I trust we shall have good order. The exhorters shew a very
tractable spirit; each observes his place; and we have sweet
harmony and love. Great power attends the ministers and
exhorters in their several places. The Lord greatly blesses
brother Herbert Jenkins. He is universally liked, and called
for; and, unless his call be exceeding clear to Wiltshire, I do
not think he ought to go, except it were occasionally. Perhaps,
my brethren Beaumont, T. James, Jenkins, and myself, may
alternately visit our English brethren, if we are called for,
and see that our Saviour blesses us there.

“Since I left you, I have been able to visit the Societies in
every place where I have been. My dear Lord favours me with
continual employment every day, and gives me strength of body.
In some places, He blesses us with His presence in a wonderful
manner. He sometimes gives great freedom to pray for the bishops
and clergy. Brother T. Lewis, the young clergyman near Brecon,
comes on gloriously and powerfully, and has sweet union with
us. He will be a shining light. The work in Cardiganshire
is uncommon. I hope to be there in about a fortnight. I am
now going towards Montgomery and Radnorshire. On the 1st
of March, we are to have another Association at Llandovery,
Carmarthenshire; from whence I hope to go to Pembrokeshire,
and so to settle all the Societies against our next meeting at
Waterford, where I trust our Lord will send you.

“February 14. Since I wrote the above, I have seen brother W.
Williams, on his return from brother Rowlands. He informed me of
the enemy being let loose on them, while they were discoursing
near the sea-side in Cardiganshire. A company of ruffians
came upon them, armed with guns and staves, and beat them
unmercifully; but they escaped without much hurt. The ruffians
were set on by a gentleman of the neighbourhood. No wonder the
enemy rages, when he sees his kingdom so attacked.

“I am, etc.,

“HOWELL HARRIS.”[42]

A fortnight afterwards, Harris wrote again to Whitefield:

“_March 1, 1743._

“MY DEAREST BROTHER WHITEFIELD,――Last Sunday, I was with
brother Rowlands at the ordinance, where I saw, heard, and felt
such things as I cannot communicate on paper. I never before
witnessed such crying, heart-breaking groans, silent weeping,
holy mourning, and shouts of joy and rejoicing. Their ‘Amens,’
and crying of ‘Glory to God in the highest!’ would have inflamed
your soul, had you been there. It is very common, when Mr.
Rowlands preaches, for scores to fall down by the power of the
word. Some lie there for hours; some praising and admiring Jesus
Christ and free grace; others wanting words to express their
feelings. Some fall down on their knees, praying and interceding
for a long time together; others lie wounded under a sense of
their having pierced Jesus, so that they can hardly bear it;
others triumph over all their enemies; and others rejoice in
hope of a clearer manifestation of God’s glory.

“Mr. Rowlands’ congregations consist of above two thousand
people, the greater part of whom are brought into glorious
liberty. Many of them are scattered up and down the country, and,
being exceedingly poor, they cannot come to that exact order and
plan which you have in London. I see daily that what is right
and much to edification in one place and among some people, is
impracticable among others. We have left it to brother Rowlands
to settle and unite the people in private bands, and we find
the good effect of doing so. He provides some glorious souls to
exhort and watch over them.

“O my brother, my heart is full. I am sure God is about to do
a great work in Wales. There is a revival everywhere. I believe
you will be detained here by Jesus Christ a longer time than you
think. There are eight counties open for you, and thirsting to
hear you. Opposition ceases, and, I believe, you will have many
churches opened to you, besides chapels. Some new houses for
worship are being built. Beaumont is much owned in Radnorshire
and Herefordshire.

“I am, etc.,

“HOWELL HARRIS.”[43]

No wonder that Whitefield went to Wales as soon as possible. On his
way, he spent a fortnight in Gloucester and the immediate neighbourhood.
The following letters, apparently to his friend Syms, are full of
interest:――

“GLOUCESTER, _March 24, 1743_.

“MY DEAR MAN,――An effectual door is opened in these parts. On
Saturday night (March 19th), I preached here. The Lord was with
me. On Sunday morning, I preached again in the barn. It was a
sweet time to me and to the people. At noon, I preached at Mr.
F――――r’s, on the hill, to a glorious auditory. Here Jesus Christ
displayed His power. At four, I preached in a field near Stroud,
to a congregation consisting of many, many thousands. Afterwards,
I went to the new house at Hampton, and the glory of the Lord
filled it. It is reported to be haunted; but the landlord spoke
truly, when he said, we should pray the devil out of it. It is
exceedingly commodious for our purpose.

“On Monday, at noon, I preached in the courtyard to a large
auditory. I also settled, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, an
orphan house. Particulars of that you shall have hereafter. It
will be but of little expense. In the evening, the Lord gave me
a sweet time at Pitchcomb.

“On Tuesday, a man was hanged in chains on Hampton Common. A
more miserable spectacle I have not seen. I preached, in the
morning, to a great auditory, about a mile from the place of
execution. I intended doing the same after the criminal was
turned off, but the weather was very violent. Thousands and
thousands came to hear me, but, through misinformation, stayed
at the top of the hill, while I preached at the bottom. In the
evening, I preached at Gloucester, in the barn.

“On Wednesday, I preached at Gloucester-Ham, near the gallows,
after another malefactor was turned off. God gave me to speak
with power; but, the weather being violent, I was shorter than
usual. In the evening, I preached again in the barn. It was a
night much to be remembered.

“This morning, I preached again, and am just now going to my
evening lecture. To-morrow, I leave Gloucester for a few days.
The Association is put off for a week, so I shall have more
time in Gloucestershire. Never did I see people more hungry and
simple. Many come telling me what the Lord did when I was here
last. Let Him have all the glory! I am sure God called me here.

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[44]

“GLOUCESTER, _March 29, 1743_.

“MY DEAR MAN,――Last Thursday evening, I preached at Gloucester,
with as sweet, convincing, soul-edifying power as ever I felt
in my life. The barn, though made more commodious, was quite
crowded.

“On Friday morning, I preached again; and, afterwards, went to
Hampton, the snow falling and freezing on us all the way. In the
evening, I preached at Chalford, upon walking with God.

“On Saturday, I preached at Ruscom in the morning, and at
King-Stanley in the afternoon. In the evening, I visited brother
C――――’s sweet Society; and, afterwards, rode to Hampton. The
congregations, on account of the weather, were not so great; but
our Saviour most richly fed us. At Stanley, I thought I was on
the very suburbs of heaven.

“On Sunday morning, I preached at Dursley, where our dear
brother Adams[45] had been taken down the Sunday before. No one
was permitted to touch or affront me. The congregation consisted
of some thousands, and the word came with a most gloriously
convincing power. In the afternoon, I preached to about
twelve thousand on Hampton Common, at what the people now call
‘Whitefield’s Tump,’ because I preached there first. They hung
on me to hear the word. It ran and was glorified. In the evening,
we had a most precious meeting with the two united Societies in
the new house at Hampton.

“On Monday, I preached at Painswick. It was a precious
opportunity. From a little after one until near seven in the
evening, I met the different classes of the Society here, and
was much pleased with many of them. They grow, and will, I
believe, be brought into good order.

“Last night and this morning, I preached again with sweet power.
Preaching here is now like preaching at the Tabernacle. This
evening I am to preach again; and, after that, to hold our first
lovefeast.

“And now, my dear man, help me to be thankful, and to bless the
Lord for all His mercies conferred on

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[46]

For four days longer, Whitefield continued to preach twice a day;
and then, on the evening of Saturday, April 2, set out for Wales. The
following letter, also addressed to Mr. Syms, describes his journey:――

“WATERFORD (SOUTH WALES), _April 7, 1743_.

“MY DEAR MAN,――I preached and took my leave of the Gloucester
people on Saturday evening last. It was past one in the morning
before I could lay down my weary body. I rose again at five;
got on horseback, and rode to Mr. F――――’s; where, at seven, I
preached to a sweet congregation, come [on Easter Sunday] to
meet their risen Saviour. At ten, I read prayers, and preached
from these words. ‘I am the resurrection and the life.’ I
afterwards helped to administer the sacrament in Stonehouse
church. Then I rode to Stroud, where I preached to about twelve
thousand, in Mrs. G――――’s field. Much of the Divine presence was
there. About six in the evening, I preached to a like number on
Hampton Common; and, after this, I went to Hampton, and held a
general lovefeast with the united Societies there. I went to bed
about midnight, very cheerful and very happy.

“On Monday morning, I preached near Dursley, to some thousands,
with great convictions accompanying the word. About seven in the
evening, I reached Bristol, and preached, with wonderful power,
to a full congregation, at Smith’s Hall; and afterwards spent
the evening very agreeably with dear Mr. Chapman, of Bath, and
some other friends.

“On Tuesday morning, I preached again to a full congregation;
and then set out for this place, where we arrived at about eight
in the evening.

“On Wednesday, at noon, I opened the Association, with a close
and solemn discourse upon walking with God. The brethren and
people felt much of the Divine presence. Afterwards, we betook
ourselves to business. Several matters of great importance were
dispatched. We broke up about seven, and met again at ten, and
continued settling the affairs of the Societies till two in the
morning.

“On Thursday, we sat again till four in the afternoon. Then,
after taking refreshment, I preached upon ‘The Believer’s Rest,’
after which we went on with our business, and finished our
Association about midnight.

“I am chosen, if in England, to be always moderator. I trust
our Saviour gives me a spirit for it. I find, more and more, the
Lord will lead me in a way by Himself, and will perform in me
and by me all the good pleasure of His will. Dear Brother Harris,
in my absence, is to be moderator.

“The Brethren have put the Societies in Wales upon my heart. O
pray that I may put them, and all my other concerns, upon the
Mediator’s shoulders: those alone can bear them. Perhaps, in a
month, I may come to London. It seems the will of the Lord, that
I should stay in Wales about a fortnight, and take a tour into
Pembrokeshire. Great doors are open there. Our Saviour keeps
me very happy; and is, I believe, preparing me for greater
blessings.

“I am, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[47]

Such is Whitefield’s own account of the second conference of the
Calvinistic Methodists,――a godly council, sitting till midnight one
day, and till two o’clock in the morning on another, and refreshing
themselves, in the midst of their business, with two warm-hearted
sermons, by the young man whom they had elected to be their moderator
as long as he lived. Whitefield’s sermon, preached at the opening of
the conference, has been published; but lack of space prevents the
insertion of even a mere outline of it. It is one of his best, and,
of course, has a slight Calvinistic tinge.

“The in-being of sin,” said the preacher, “will never be totally
removed, till we bow down our heads and give up the ghost. The
apostle Paul, no doubt, speaks of himself, and that, too, not
when he was a Pharisee, but a real Christian, when he complains,
that, when he would do good, evil was present with him, not
having dominion over him, but opposing and resisting his good
intentions and actions, so that he could not do the things which
he would, in that perfection which the new man desired. This
is what he calls sin dwelling in him. But as for its prevailing
power, it is destroyed in every soul that is truly born of God,
and is gradually weakened as the believer grows in grace, and
the Spirit of God gains a greater ascendancy in the heart.”

“O prayer,” cried the impassioned preacher, in another part of
his Conference sermon, “O prayer, prayer! it brings and keeps
God and man together; it raises man up to God, and brings God
down to man. If you would keep up your walk with God, pray, pray
without ceasing. Be much in secret, set prayer. When you are
about the common business of life, be much in ejaculatory prayer.
Send, from time to time, short letters post to heaven, upon the
wings of faith. They will reach the very heart of God, and will
return to you loaded with blessings.”

With respect to that with which he was often charged, he justly
observed:――

“Though it is the quintessence of enthusiasm, to pretend to be
guided by the Spirit without the written Word, yet it is every
Christian’s duty to be guided by the Spirit in conjunction with
the written Word. Watch, therefore, I pray you, O believers,
the motions of God’s blessed Spirit in your souls; and always
try your suggestions or impressions by the unerring rule of
God’s most holy Word. By observing this caution, you will
steer a middle course between two dangerous extremes; I mean,
_enthusiasm_ on the one hand, and _Deism_ and _downright
infidelity_ on the other.”

On the subject of Christian fellowship, two sentences fell from his
lips, which Methodists of the present day will do well to ponder.

“If we look into Church history, or make a just observation
of our own times, I believe, we shall find, that, as the power
of God prevails, Christian Societies and fellowship meetings
prevail proportionately. And as one decays, the other insensibly
decays and dwindles away at the same time.”

“One word,” cried the preacher, “one word to my brethren in the
ministry, and I have done. You see, my brethren, my heart is
full; I could almost say it is too big to speak, and yet too big
to be silent, without dropping a word to you. I observed at the
beginning of this discourse, that, in all probability, Enoch was
a public person, and a flaming preacher. Though he be dead, does
he not speak to us, to quicken our zeal, and to make us more
active in the service of our glorious and ever-blessed Master?
How did Enoch preach? How did he walk with God? Let us follow
him, as he followed Christ. The judge is before the door. He
that cometh will come, and will not tarry. His reward is with
Him; and, if we are zealous for the Lord of hosts, ere long, we
shall shine as stars in the firmament, in the kingdom of our
Father, for ever and ever.”

Whitefield himself has left no information respecting the business of
the Conference, except that he was chosen to be perpetual moderator,
and that, in his absence, Howell Harris was to be his substitute.
Fortunately, a manuscript book, containing the minutes of the
proceedings, has been preserved, and, from it, the following facts
are gleaned.

The clergymen present were Whitefield, W. Williams, T. Lewis, and
Howell Davies. The lay-preachers were Howell Harris, Herbert Jenkins,
T. James, J. Beaumont, T. Williams, J. Lewis, T. Adams, and Mr. Hughes.
Besides these, there was also present a Dissenting minister, whose name
is not recorded.

After going through the list of superintendents, exhorters, and
stewards, and making appointments for the several circuits, it was
further agreed, 1. That the superintendents should have liberty to
preach, not only in their own circuits, but, when journeying, elsewhere.
2. That “Howell Harris should be superintendent over Wales, and go
to England when called.” 3. That all persons, who thought they had a
call to be exhorters, should make application to one of “the monthly
Associations,” by whom “their gifts, graces, and call” should be
“closely examined.” If approved of, they were to be appointed, by the
“Association” examining them, to a suitable circuit; with the proviso,
that the “General Association” should be informed of the action that
had been taken. 4. That the superintendents should send an account of
what God had done, in their respective circuits, to London every month,
directed to Mr. J. Syms, Charles Square, Hoxton, for the minister of
the Tabernacle. 5. That each superintendent should keep a book, in
which he should write the names of his private exhorters, and also
the names of the members of his Societies; and that he should report
the state of each Society to the General Association. 6. That the
next Quarterly Association should be held at Trevecca, on the first
Wednesday after Midsummer-day. 7. That there should be a Monthly
Association in each of the counties of South Wales. 8. That the Monthly
Associations should consist of an ordained minister as a moderator, the
superintendent of the circuit, his assistants and private exhorters.
9. That a secretary should be chosen, for each monthly meeting, to
enter in a book minutes of the proceedings. 10. That each meeting
should begin and end with prayer and exhortation. 11. That private
exhorters should not send notices of preaching to any place; but
should speak in any private house, to the family and neighbours, if
desired.[48]

Such was the primitive platform of the Calvinistic Methodists, laid
down, at Waterford, in Wales, on April 6th and 7th, 1743. As soon
as the Conference was ended, their moderator again set out on his
gospel-ramblings. The following jottings are taken from the letters
which he wrote to his friend and secretary Syms:――

Saturday, April 9. Preached at Cardiff, and at Fonmon.[49] At
Cardiff, the congregation large; and the greatest scoffers quiet.

Sunday, April 10. Preached twice at Lantrissaint, where Howell
Harris also preached in Welsh.[50]

Monday, April 11. Preached from a balcony, in the street, at
Neath, to about three thousand people.[51]

Tuesday, April 12. Preached once at Harbrook, and twice at
Swansea, the congregations at the latter place consisting of
four thousand persons. In all these visits, he was accompanied
by Howell Harris, who generally preached in Welsh, after
Whitefield’s sermon was concluded.

Wednesday, April 13. Preached twice at Llanelly, and once at
Abergwilly.

Thursday, April 14. Preached twice at Carmarthen, “one of the
greatest and most polite places in Wales; in the morning, from
the top of the cross; in the evening, from a table near it. It
was the great sessions. The justices desired I would stay till
they rose, and they would come. Accordingly they did, and many
thousands more, and several people of quality.”[52]

Friday, April 15. Preached at “Narberth, to some thousands, with
great power.”

Saturday, April 16. Preached at Newton, and at Jeffreston, to
“several thousands, very like the Kingswood colliers.”

Sunday, April 17. “Preached at Llys-y-fran, and had, as it were,
a Moorfields congregation;”[53] also “to about the same number
near Haverfordwest.”

Wednesday, April 20. “Preached, at eight in the morning,
to about eight thousand people, at Carmarthen; and, in the
afternoon, to several thousands, at Narberth.”

Thursday, April 21. “Preached this morning at Larn;[54] and,
coming over the ferry, had the unexpected compliment paid me,
of one ship firing several guns, and of some others hoisting
their flags. This afternoon, I preached at Kidwelly, to a large
congregation. One of the ministers preached against me last
Sunday, and mentioned me by name; but, like my other opposers,
and like the viper biting the file, he only hurt himself.”

Friday, April 22. “Preached twice at Carmarthen, to about ten
thousand people. We had another blessed Association, and have
now settled all the counties in Wales.”

Saturday, April 23. “Preached at Llangathan, in the church, to a
great congregation; and at Llandovery in the evening.”

Sunday, April 24. “Preached at Llandovery in the morning; and,
in the evening, to a large and polite auditory at Brecon.”

Monday, April 25. Preached at Trevecca, and at Guenfithen. “My
body is weak, but I am at the Redeemer’s feet, and He reigns
King in my heart, and causes me to rejoice and triumph over all.”

Tuesday, April 26. Preached at Builth, and Gore. “Between eight
and nine at night, we set out from Gore for Leominster, and
reached there between two and three in the morning.”

Wednesday, April 27. Preached twice at Leominster. “The Lord
broke up the fallow ground, and gave me a blessed entrance into
Herefordshire.”

Thursday, April 28. “Found some of our Lord’s disciples at
Hereford, and also at Ross, and might have preached at both
places, if time would have permitted; but I was hastening to
Gloucester, where we arrived at eight in the evening; after
having, in about three weeks, travelled four hundred English
miles, spent three days in attending two Associations, preached
about forty times, visited about thirteen towns, and passed
through seven counties. Here, then, will I set up my Ebenezer;
thank the adorable Jesus for all His mercies; and, from the
bottom of my heart, give Him all the glory.”

After preaching three or four times in “the barn” at Gloucester,
(which, during his absence, had been turned into a commodious
chapel,) Whitefield returned direct to London. Arriving there, he
wrote the following letter to one of the servants of the Earl of
Huntingdon――David Taylor――who had been converted under the ministry of
Benjamin Ingham, and was now preaching in Yorkshire. Notwithstanding
the enormous toil indicated by the above jottings, Whitefield was
willing and wishful to undertake fresh labours quite as arduous.

“LONDON, _May 6, 1743_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,――A day or two ago, I had the pleasure of
receiving a letter from you. Accept my thanks for it.

“I am glad that our Saviour is getting Himself the victory in
your parts, and that fresh doors are opened for our dear brother
Ingham to preach the everlasting gospel.

“Blessed be our glorious Emmanuel! I also can tell you of new
and glorious conquests made of late. I am but just returned from
a circuit of four hundred miles in Gloucestershire and Wales.
Dagon has everywhere fallen before the ark. The fields are white
unto the harvest. The congregations were very large; and I was
never enabled to preach with greater power.

“I purpose staying here about a month, and intend once more to
attack the prince of darkness in Moorfields, when the holidays
come. Many precious souls have been captivated with Christ’s
love in that wicked place. Jerusalem sinners bring most glory to
the Redeemer.

“Where I shall go next, I cannot yet tell. If my Master should
point out the way, a visit to Yorkshire would be very agreeable.
Perhaps Exeter and Cornwall may be the next places. I love to
range in such places.

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The Whitsuntide holidays occurred in the fourth week of May; but
no record exists of Whitefield’s intended “attack on the prince of
darkness,” except that he preached in the morning of Whit-Sunday in
Moorfields, and made a collection for his Orphan House, amounting to
£23. The following are extracts from letters addressed, at this time,
to his two superintendents――the first to Mr. Habersham, the second to
Mr. Barber.

“LONDON, _May 21, 1743_.

“MY VERY DEAR FAITHFUL FRIEND AND BROTHER,――After watching and
praying and striving some days for direction, I now sit down to
write you a letter, though I know not well what to say or do.
The concern I have felt for you and my dear family has had an
effect on my body, and has increased the weakness, which the
season of the year, my constant labours, and continual cares
have brought upon me. I fear I have been sinfully impatient
to come to you. I think I could be sold as a slave to serve at
the galleys, rather than you and my dear orphan family should
want. You may well expect me; but I must not mention it, lest my
impatient heart should say, ‘Lord, why wilt Thou not let me go?’

“After I have fought the Lord’s battles in Moorfields, these
holidays, I think to take a tour into Cornwall and Wales, and,
perhaps, to Ireland.”

Whitefield here laments that he has not, before now, returned to
Georgia; and yet, strangely enough, he assigns no _definite_ reason why
his intentions and promises to return were not fulfilled. There is the
same obscurity in the letter addressed to his Orphan-house chaplain:――

“LONDON, _May 21, 1743_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER BARBER,――Little did I think, when I parted
from you at Bethesda, that I should be writing to you at this
time in London. But God’s ways are in the great waters, and His
footsteps are not known. I have essayed to come to you more than
once, or twice; but, I believe I can say, ‘The Spirit suffered
me not.’ In thought, I am with you daily; when I shall come, in
person, our Saviour only knows. I long to be with you, to open
our hearts freely, and to tell one another what God has done for
our souls.”

All this sounds well enough; but it does not assign the reason or
reasons why he was not in Georgia. Was he kept in England by his new
relationship to the Calvinistic Methodists? Or did his wife, for a
sufficient cause, object to his return to America? Because Whitefield
himself is silent on the subject, these are questions which it is
impossible to answer. All the debts due in England, on account of his
Orphan House, were now defrayed; and, with the foregoing letters, he
sent £25 towards the expenses in America; but the debts there required
a considerably larger sum than this.[55]

Whitefield remained in London until June 13, when he again set out on
another of his evangelistic tours. Preaching all the way, he arrived
at Gloucester, “shouting, Grace! Grace!” He preached at Gloucester,
Fairford, Burford, Bengeworth, Stroud, Hampton, Bristol, and Kingswood.
On Saturday, June 25, he rode to John Cennick’s circuit, Wiltshire. He
writes:――

“Sunday, June 26, I preached at Brinkworth, on these words, ‘Thy
Maker is thy husband.’[56] It was a day of espousals, I believe,
to many. God was with us of a truth. After sermon, I rode to
Langley, in company with many dear children of God, who attended
me both on horseback and on foot. We sung, and looked like
persons who had been at a spiritual wedding. The Lord helped
me in preaching there also. All was quiet. In the evening, I
preached at Tytherton, and a blessed time it was. Afterwards, we
set out for Hampton, and reached there about midnight. We rode,
as the children of Israel, passing through the enemies’ country.”

On Wednesday, June 29, Whitefield reached Trevecca, “where,” says he,
“I met a whole troop of Jesus’ witnesses. At five in the evening, I
preached. After I had done, Howell Davies preached and prayed. About
eight, we opened the Association with great solemnity. Our Saviour was
much with me, teaching and helping me to fill my place in a particular
manner. About midnight, we adjourned; but several of the Brethren sat
up all night, and ushered in the morning with prayer and praise. About
eight, we met again, and were greatly delighted at the simple accounts
the superintendents brought in of their respective Societies. We
continued doing business till two in the afternoon, and broke up with
much solemnity and holy joy. We had great union with one another.[57]
Indeed, Jesus has done great things for Wales. The work is much upon
the advance. I was surprised to find so much order. Brother Howell
Davies has been blessed to the conversion of a young clergyman, rector
of St. Bartholomew’s, London.”

The “young clergyman,” just mentioned, was the Rev. Richard Thomas
Bateman, “a man of high birth and great natural endowments.”[58]
About the year 1740, he left his rectory in London, and retired to
a small living in Pembrokeshire. He was wholly unconverted, and was
the clergyman who preached against Whitefield only two months before
Whitefield’s present visit to Trevecca. His text was 1 John iv. 1, and
his sermon was full of railing against the Methodists, charging them
with hypocrisy, enthusiasm, and kindred crimes. He continued in Wales
about four years after his conversion, preaching with great power and
success; and, then, in 1747, returned to his rectory in London;[59]
opened his church to the Wesleys and Whitefield; and was present
at Wesley’s yearly Conference in 1748.[60] Among others with whom
he formed a friendship was the celebrated Joseph Williams, of
Kidderminster, who wrote to him as follows:――

“KIDDERMINSTER, _June 10, 1747_.

“It did me good to hear you pour out your soul in prayer before
your sermon, and to feel you bearing mine along with you to the
mercy-seat. I have great expectations from your coming to London,
and am solicitous about the good fruits thereof. Many a fervent
prayer have I put up for you on that account. I want to know
whether God has touched any hearts by your ministry. God has
not wrought this great change in you, at so ripe an age, merely
for your own sake, but for the sake of many. He has much people
in the great city yet to be called; and, having called many by
Mr. Whitefield, and the Messrs. Wesley, and their fellow-helpers,
He has now appointed to call many more by Mr. Bateman,――many
who perhaps would not come within hearing of any of the others.
I want to know if you have gathered the firstfruits, as a
pledge of a glorious harvest. I want, also, to know how your
parishioners and others, particularly clergymen, behave towards
you. Will you not favour me with a letter? I trust you will.
Let it be a long one. I love long letters from my fathers and
brethren in Christ.”[61]

Like the other Methodist clergymen, Mr. Bateman had to encounter
considerable opposition; but this is not the place to pursue his
history.

To return to Whitefield. When preaching his _first_ sermon on Hampton
Common, Gloucestershire, a young man, Thomas Adams, prompted by
curiosity, came to hear him. Adams was converted, and, being converted
himself, he endeavoured to convert his brethren. For some time past,
he had been one of Whitefield’s preachers, and had been eminently
successful “in Hampton,[62] and the adjacent country, in calling
sinners to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.” Having formed a society
at Hampton, Adams, on Saturday, July 9th, was quietly singing and
praying with its members, when, all at once, the house was surrounded
with a mob, which, for weeks past, had “breathed out threatenings
and slaughter against” Adams and his friends. Adams, in a letter to
Whitefield, shall tell his own story.

“The mob, which consisted of near a hundred persons, were
now about the house, making a terrible noise, and swearing
prodigiously. I went down to them, and opened the door, and
asked them what they wanted. I told them, if they wanted my life,
I was willing to deliver it up for Jesus’ sake; but withal I
desired to know why they either disturbed me or sought my life;
for I was not aware that I had given them any just cause for
either. Some of them said I had, by bringing in false doctrine,
and impoverishing the poor. I told them, that they could prove
neither, and that their accusation was really false. They seemed
somewhat at a stand; when about five of them began to be more
exasperated, and took me, in order to throw me into a lime pit.
I told them, they need not force me, for I was willing to suffer
for Jesus’ sake. But while they were pushing me along, some
neighbours took me in their arms, and carried me into one of
their houses.

“On Sunday morning, about twenty of the Society met again. We
spent the morning in prayer. In the evening I preached; when
in came the mob, demanding me to come down. I asked, by what
authority they did so? They swore they would have me. Then said
I, So you shall. So they took me to the lime pit, and threw me
in. I told them, I should meet them at the judgment. They let
me out, and I came home, and kneeled down with the people there,
and prayed to God, and praised Him. After that, I exhorted them
from 1 John iii. 1–3. When I was concluding, in came the mob
again, and took me to a brook to throw me in there. I told them
the law was against them, but I was willing to suffer anything
for Christ. They said, if I would forbear preaching for a month,
they would let me go. I told them, I would make no such promise.
So forward I went. One of them threw me in, and I went to the
bottom; but I came up again, with my hands clasped together. One
or two of them jumped in, and took me out. Then another pushed
me in again, and much bruised and cut one of my legs against a
stone. I came home talking to them. Many advise us to prosecute
them; but, if they are quiet, I am content, and can say from my
heart, ‘Father, forgive them.’ I should be glad if you would be
here on Sunday next.”

It so happened, that Whitefield could not be there “on Sunday next,”
for he had to preach four times at Bristol fair; but he set out on
Wednesday, July 20th, and five days afterwards wrote as follows:――

“HAMPTON, _July 25, 1743_.

“On Thursday last, I came here, and expected to be attacked,
because the mob had threatened, that, if I ever came again, they
would have my black gown to make aprons with. No sooner had I
entered the town, than I heard the signals, such as blowing of
horns and ringing of bells, for gathering the mob. My soul was
kept quite easy. I preached on a large grass plot, from these
words, ‘And seeing the grace of God, he exhorted them with full
purpose of heart to cleave unto the Lord.’ As it happened, I
finished my sermon and pronounced the blessing, just as the
ringleader of the mob broke in upon us. One of them, as I was
coming down from the table, called me a coward; but I told him
they should hear from me in another way. I then went into the
house, and preached upon the staircase to a large number of
serious souls; but the troublers of Israel soon came in to mock
and mob us. As you know, I have very little natural courage;
but I leaped downstairs, and all ran before me. However, they
continued making a noise about the house till midnight, abusing
the poor people as they went home, and broke one young lady’s
arm in two places. They threw brother Adams a second time into
the pool, by which operation he received a deep wound in his
leg. They wheeled young W―――― H―――― in a barrow to the pool’s
side, lamed his brother, and grievously hurt several others.
Hearing that two or three clergymen were in the town, one of
whom was a justice of the peace, I went to them; but, instead of
redressing, they laid the cause of all the grievances at my door.
By the help of God, I shall persist in preaching myself, and in
encouraging those who, I believe, are truly moved by the Holy
Ghost. I know of no law of God or man against it. As I came out
from the clergymen, two of the unhappy mobbers were particularly
insolent, and huzzaed us out of the town.”

To avoid a recurrence to these disgraceful proceedings, it may be
added, that Whitefield and his friends commenced an action against five
of the ringleaders of the mob; that they were tried at the Gloucester
Assizes on March 3, 1744; and that they were found guilty. Whitefield,
immediately, wrote a full account[63] of the whole affair, and, from
that account, the following extracts are taken:――

“Several of our brethren, both in England and Wales, have
received much damage, and have been frequently in great hazard
of their lives. Wiltshire has been remarkable for mobbing and
abusing the Methodists; and, for about ten months past, it
has also prevailed very much in Gloucestershire, especially at
Hampton. About the beginning of July, 1743, for several days,
the mob at Hampton assembled in great bodies, broke the windows
of Mr. Adams’s house, and assaulted the people to such a degree
that many expected to be murdered, and hid themselves in holes
and corners, to avoid the rage of their adversaries. Once,
when I was there, they continued from four in the afternoon
till midnight, rioting, giving loud huzzas, casting dirt upon
the hearers, and making proclamations, ‘that no Anabaptists,
Presbyterians, etc., should preach there, upon pain of being
first put into a skin-pit, and afterwards into a brook.’ At
another time, they pulled one or two women down the stairs
by the hair of their heads. On the 10th of July, they took
Mr. Adams out of his house, and threw him into a skin-pit full
of noisome things and stagnated water. They also put one of our
friends, named Williams, into the same pit twice, and afterwards
beat him, and dragged him along the kennel. They likewise led
Mr. Adams a mile and a half to Bourn brook, and threw him in, and
so injured his leg, that he went lame for near a fortnight.

“Both the constables and justices were applied to, but refused
to act; and seemed rather to countenance the mobbing, hoping,
thereby, that Methodism would be put a stop to, at least, at
Hampton. For a season, they gained their end. There was no
preaching for some time, the people fearing to assemble on
account of the violence of the mob.

“Upon my return to town, I advised with my friends what to do.
For several reasons, we thought it our duty to move for an
information in the King’s Bench against five of the ringleaders,
and fixed upon the riot which they made on Sunday, July 10,
when they put Messrs. Adams and Williams into the skin-pit and
brook. But, before this was done, I wrote a letter to one whom
they called captain, desiring him to inform his associates,
that, if they would acknowledge their fault, and would pay for
curing a boy’s arm, which was broken the night I was there, and
would mend the windows of Mr. Adams’s house, we would readily
pass all by. The rioters sent me an insolent answer, and said,
‘There should be no more preaching in Hampton.’ Finding them
irreclaimable, we moved for a rule of court in the King’s Bench
to lodge an information against five of the ringleaders. The
rioters were apprised of this, appeared by their counsel, and
prayed the rule might be enlarged till the next term. This was
granted.

“Meanwhile, they continued mobbing. One Saturday night, at
eleven o’clock, they broke into Mr. Adams’s house, when there
was no preaching, made those who were in bed get up, and
searched the oven, cellar, and every corner of the house, to
see whether they could find any Methodists. Some time after, they
threw another young man into a mud-pit three times successively,
and abused the people in a dreadful manner.

“The next term came on. We proved our accusation by twenty-six
affidavits; the rule was made absolute, and an information was
filed against them. To this they pleaded ‘Not guilty;’ and the
cause was referred to the assize held at Gloucester, March 3,
1744. Being aware of the great consequence of the trial, we kept
a day of fasting and prayer through all the Societies both in
England and Wales. Our Scotch friends also joined us. We had
about thirty witnesses to prove the riot and facts laid down in
the information.

“Our counsel opened the cause with much solidity and sound
reason. They shewed, ‘That rioters were not to be reformers, and
that His Majesty had nowhere put the reins of government into
the hands of mobbers, or made them judge or jury.’ Our witnesses
were then called.

“The counsel for the defendants then rose, and, I think, said
all that could be said, to make the best of a bad matter. One
urged that we were enthusiasts, and that our principles and
practices had such a tendency to infect and hurt the people,
that it was right for any private person to put a stop to
us, and whoever did so was a friend to his country. The other
counsel was pleased to mention me by name, and acquainted the
court, that, ‘Mr. Whitefield had been travelling from common to
common, making the people cry, and then picking their pockets,
under pretence of collecting money for the colony of Georgia;
that he had now several curates, of which Mr. Adams was one, who,
in his preaching, had found fault with the proceedings of the
clergy, and said, if the people went to hear them, they would be
damned.’”

Whitefield then proceeds to give an outline of the evidence in favour
of the defendants, and the substance of the judge’s charge; and
continues:――

“Upon this, the jury were desired to consider their verdict.
There seemed to be some little demur amongst them. His lordship
perceiving it, informed them, ‘they had nothing to do with the
damages; that was to be referred to the King’s Bench; they were
only to consider whether the defendants were guilty or not.’
Whereupon, in a few minutes, they brought in all the defendants
‘guilty of the whole information lodged against them.’

“I then retired to my lodgings, kneeled down, and gave thanks,
with some friends. Afterwards, I went to the inn, prayed and
returned thanks, with the witnesses; exhorted them to behave
with meekness and humility to their adversaries; and sent them
home rejoicing. In the evening, I preached on these words, ‘By
this I know that Thou favourest me, since Thou hast not suffered
mine enemy to triumph over me.’ Next morning, I set out for
London.”

We must return to Whitefield’s travels. When he left the rioters at
Minchin-Hampton, on Saturday, July 23, 1743, he returned direct to
Bristol; and, on the following day, “preached four times in the fields,
to congregations as large as those at the beginning” of his career.

On Saturday next ensuing, he came to Exeter, where he spent three days.
He writes:――

“EXETER, _August 2, 1743_.

“I preached, last Saturday night, to a great body of people.
Several of the clergy attended, with whom Exeter abounds. Some
went off; others stayed till I had done. All was quiet; and our
Lord soon made way for Himself into the people’s hearts.

“Yesterday evening, I preached, on Southernay Green, to upwards
of ten thousand. It was just like a Moorfields congregation. God
was with us of a truth.

“The people were very desirous of my longer continuance here;
but so many things concur to call me to London, that I leave
Exeter to-morrow morning, and preach in my way to town. I am in
my element when evangelizing.”

One of the things which brought Whitefield, in such haste, to London,
was the necessity of consulting his friends concerning the steps which
ought to be taken in reference to the Hampton rioters; but there were
also other matters scarcely of less importance.

In the beginning of this year, 1743, Count Zinzendorf had declared war
against Whitefield. He had heard him preach, and, in the plenitude of
his power, had said to the young evangelist,――“You must first formally
recant the _abominable doctrine_ of reprobation, so contrary to sound
reason; and then preach openly _free grace_ in the blood of the Lamb,
and an _election of grace_ as taught in the Scriptures, which is quite
different from the doctrine of predestination which you teach; and if
not, our Church must necessarily be opposed to you.”[64]

Probably, Whitefield cared but little for Zinzendorf’s imperious
censure; but, in the month of August, another incident occurred, which
touched him more deeply.

John Syms, for years past, had been Whitefield’s travelling companion.
He seems also to have acted as Whitefield’s secretary. He was his
confidential friend. During the last two months, Whitefield had written
Syms, at least, eight letters, giving an account of his every-day
proceedings, and all of which are published in Whitefield’s collected
works. Strangely enough, all at once, the faithful Syms wished to
leave Whitefield and to join the Moravians. Whitefield was extremely
reluctant to part with him; and told James Hutton, that, “he could
not discharge John Syms, his agent, believing it to be the Saviour’s
will that he should stay with him, and do the work with which he had
entrusted him. Whitefield wished Hutton to advise Syms to continue
with him; but this could not be done, inasmuch as Syms had said he
was called by the Holy Ghost to leave him; and the Brethren could not
advise him against his own convictions.”[65]

The result was, Whitefield lost his secretary, travelling companion,
and major-domo. John Syms was received into the Moravian fellowship;
and continued one of the Unitas Fratrum until his death, in 1756. He
was buried in Camberwell churchyard, where there used to be a memorial
of him and of his sister, Mrs. Sarah Osborn.[66]

Another matter demanded Whitefield’s attention, even more important
than the retention or otherwise of Secretary Syms.

John Wesley was now in the north of England; Charles Wesley was in
Cornwall; Whitefield was in Devonshire; Spangenberg was in London;
John Nelson was in Yorkshire. The Moravians were an organized body of
Christians. The Calvinistic Methodists were formed into a connexion.
And Wesley had large and flourishing societies in London; Bristol,
Newcastle-on-Tyne, and other places. Somehow, Wesley formed a project
for bringing the three communities into closer union with each other;
and, for that purpose, proposed that a conference should be held in
London.[67] He himself travelled from Newcastle; his brother Charles
hurried from Cornwall; Whitefield came from Exeter; John Nelson trudged
from Birstal. What was the result? Charles Wesley writes:――

“Gwennap, Sunday, August 7. My brother summoned me to London, to
confer with the heads of the Moravians and Predestinarians. We
had near three hundred miles to ride in five days. I was willing
to undertake this labour for peace, though the journey was too
great for us and our weary beasts, which we have used almost
every day for these three months.

“Friday, August 12. By nine at night, I reached the Foundery.
Here I heard the Moravians would not be present at the
conference. Spangenberg, indeed, _said_ he would, but
immediately left England. My brother was come from Newcastle,
John Nelson from Yorkshire, and I from the Land’s End to good
purpose!”[68]

What did John Wesley say? To a Moravian, who, in 1746, taunted him with
having opposed reconciliation and union, he wrote:――

“Alas, my brother! what an assertion is this! Did not I come,
three years ago, in all haste, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and
my brother, in five days, from the Land’s End, to a supposed
conference in London? Was this standing out? But with what
effect? Why, Mr. Spangenberg had just left London. None besides
had any power to confer with us. And, to cut us off from any
such expectation, James Hutton said they had orders not to
confer at all, unless the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the
Bishop of London, were present. There cannot be under heaven a
greater mistake than this, that I ever did stand out, or that
I do so now. There has not been one day, for these seven years
last past, wherein my soul has not longed for union.”[69]

It is impossible to determine, with certainty, whether Wesley’s wish
was for the Moravians, the Calvinistic Methodists, and the Arminian
Methodists to be amalgamated into one connexion; or whether he merely
wished that, by mutual explanations and concessions, they might
cultivate a better understanding with each other, and so avoid all
unnecessary collision, and unite, as far as practicable, in advancing
the work of God; but one thing is certain, through no fault of his, the
attempt was a failure. Ten months later, Wesley instituted a conference
of his own.

No authentic information exists as to the part which Whitefield took
in these proceedings; but, a few days after the proposed conference
should have met, Wesley, “to cut off all needless dispute,” wrote
down his sentiments, as plainly as he could, on the “three points in
debate” between him and Whitefield, namely, “Unconditional Election,
Irresistible Grace, and Final Perseverance.” The paper[70] doubtless
was put into Whitefield’s hands, and must have satisfied him of the
sincerity of Wesley’s friendship; though Arminian Methodists, as
Mr. Jackson says, will think “it leans too much towards Calvinism.”

In one thing, Whitefield and Wesley were agreed; namely, that their
Societies should not separate themselves from the Established Church.
Hence the following letter, written, by Whitefield, soon after the date
of the intended conference:――

“LONDON, _August 20, 1743_.

“How wonderfully does our all-wise Redeemer order things for
the trial of His children! Alas! alas! how apt are they to judge,
censure, and be needlessly prejudiced against each other!

“In our last Association, we agreed not to separate from the
Established Church, but to go on in our usual way. The motion
to separate was made only by a very few, of more contracted
principles. By far the greater part most strenuously opposed
it, and with good reason; for, as we enjoy such great liberty
under the mild and gentle government of his present majesty,
King George, we think we can do him, our country, and the cause
of God, more service in ranging up and down, preaching repentance
towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus, to the multitudes
who will neither come into church or meeting, but who are led,
by curiosity, to follow us into the fields. However disorderly
this may seem to bigots of every denomination, yet, it is a
way to which God has affixed His seal for many years past; and,
therefore, we have no reason to turn to the right hand or to
the left, but to press forwards, and to do our utmost towards
enlarging the kingdom of our Lord Jesus.”

Whitefield’s wife was near her confinement; and, at the beginning
of September, had a narrow escape from an untimely death. Whitefield
himself shall tell the story.

“LONDON, _September 2, 1743_.

“My wife has been in trying circumstances, partly through the
unskilfulness of a chaise-driver――I mean myself. Being advised
to take her out into the air, I drove her, as well as myself,
through inadvertence, into a ditch. The ditch might be about
fourteen feet deep. All, who saw us, cried out, ‘They are
killed!’ but, through infinite mercy, we received no great hurt.
The place was very narrow near the bottom, and yet the horse
went down, as though lowered by a pulley. A bystander ran, and
caught hold of its head, to prevent its going forwards. I got
upon its back, and was drawn out; whilst my wife, still hanging
between the chaise and the bank, was pulled up by two or three
kind assistants. The chaise and horse being taken up, and our
bruises being washed with vinegar in a neighbouring house, we
went on our intended way, and came home rejoicing in God our
Saviour.

“Not expecting my wife’s delivery for some time, I intend making
a short excursion, and then you may expect further news from
yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Northampton, among other places, was visited by Whitefield, in the
“short excursion” just mentioned. His friend Hervey had recently become
curate at Weston-Favel; and, perhaps, it was this circumstance which
brought Whitefield into this particular locality. Be that as it may,
the visit became a memorable one, from the angry feelings it excited
among some of the leading Dissenters of the day.

Others, besides clergymen and Presbyterian ministers, were unpleasantly
perplexed by Whitefield and the Methodists. Dr. Doddridge, though
one of the most liberal-minded of the Dissenters, found it difficult
to look with favour upon the proceedings of _some_ of the Methodist
evangelists. Hence the following extract from a letter, addressed to
the Rev. Mr. Witton, son-in-law of the celebrated Philip Henry:――

“NORTHAMPTON, _June 8, 1743_.

“I am much concerned at the anxiety and disturbance which
Mr. Wesley’s coming into your neighbourhood has occasioned. You
are pleased to ask my advice, and therefore I give it.

“I think the gentlest methods will be the most effectual.
Opposition will but give strength to the faction, if it be
attended with violence and heat. Should Mr. Wesley come hither,
as perhaps he may, and excite such a flame among the weaker part
of my hearers, I would appoint some stated season for meeting
once a week, with a few steady and experienced brethren of
the church, that an hour or two might be spent in prayer and
consultation, as new incidents might arise within the sphere
of our personal observation. I would endeavour to renew my zeal
in preaching the great truths of the gospel, and in visiting
and exhorting my hearers. I would, with great meekness and
compassion, and yet with great solemnity, admonish the persons
attacked with the contagion, and lay open before them the absurd
nature and tendency of the views they had rashly entertained;
and I would, as God enabled me, pray earnestly for them.”[71]

Among others, who wrote to Doddridge, respecting Whitefield, was the
Rev. Robert Blair, D.D., author of the well-known poem, “The Grave.”
In a letter, dated July 28, 1743, he says:――

“I wish you would give me your opinion of Mr. Whitefield, a
man who has made abundance of noise in the world. I never in my
life knew any person so much idolized by some, and railed at by
others.”[72]

Soon after this, during a visit to London, Doddridge seems to have
attended Whitefield’s Tabernacle, and to have taken part in one or more
of its services. Perhaps the influence of Colonel Gardiner, one of his
correspondents, had induced him to do this. Whatever the inducement,
however, the act itself created alarm among the London Dissenters.
Hence the following, addressed to Doddridge, from Dr. Isaac Watts:――

“STOKE NEWINGTON, _September 20, 1743_.

“I am sorry that, since your departure, I have had many
questions asked me about your preaching or praying at the
Tabernacle, and of sinking the character of a minister, and
especially of a tutor, among the Dissenters, so low thereby. I
find many of your friends entertain this idea; but I can give no
answer, not knowing how much you have been engaged there. I pray
God to guard us from every temptation.”[73]

This is mightily amusing. Dr. Doddridge, the theological tutor of
the Dissenters’ College, daring to preach or pray in Whitefield’s
Tabernacle! What a sin against all ecclesiastical and ministerial
propriety! The poor Doctor, however, went further than even this. He
allowed Whitefield to preach in his own pulpit at Northampton! This
seemed to perfect the enormity. Among others who took the Northampton
professor to task for his eccentric conduct, was the Rev. John Barker,
an influential minister,[74] in London, who wrote as follows:――

“_November 4, 1743._

“It is an honour to our interest that you stand so well with
the sober and moderate clergy. For this reason, I was troubled
to hear of the late intercourse between you and Mr. Whitefield,
the consequence of which, with respect to the Church, it is
easy to foresee. I was willing to think well of the Methodists;
but, after a candid attention to them, their proceedings appear
not to me to be wise and good. Their devotion is unseasonable,
irregular, and injudicious. Their sermons are low and loose.
Their spirit appears to me turbulent, unruly, and censorious.
They practise upon weak people and poor people. They call them
to pray and sing when they should be in their business or their
beds. They disturb the peace and order of families, and give
great uneasiness in them. What they pretend to above their
neighbours appears to be mere enthusiasm. Their people are
slothful, or mopish, or dejected, or pragmatical, rather than
sober, discreet, judicious, exemplary, regular Christians;
and I have no expectation but that Methodism, like any other
enthusiasm, will promote infidelity, and turn out to the hurt
and damage of religion, and the souls of men. Though I judge
not their hearts, views, and motives, but admit those are secret
things which belong to God, yet I thought it needful, very
lately, to warn my hearers of these people’s errors, and advise
them to avoid them.”[75]

Doddridge’s chief castigator, however, was Nathaniel Neal, Esq., son
of the Rev. Daniel Neal, the historian of the Puritans. Nathaniel was
an eminent attorney, secretary to the Million Bank, and author of “A
Free and Serious Remonstrance to Protestant Dissenting Ministers, on
occasion of the Decay of Religion.”[76] He wrote not fewer than three
long letters to Doddridge, filling nine printed octavo pages, and dated
respectively, Million Bank, October 11, October 15, and December 10,
1743. He addresses Doddridge with great deference and respect; but,
evidently, in great alarm, lest Doddridge should irretrievably injure
his position and character, as the chief of the Dissenters’ tutors, by
countenancing the proceedings of the eccentric Methodist.

In the first of his letters, he writes:――

“It was with the utmost concern that I received the information
of Mr. Whitefield’s having preached last week in your pulpit. I
attended the meeting of the trustees of Mr. Coward’s benefaction
this day, when the matter was canvassed, and I now find myself
obliged to apprize you of the very great uneasiness which your
conduct herein has occasioned them.”

Mr. Neal proceeds to tell the Doctor that his “regard to the
Methodists” was injuring him in the opinion of his friends, and was
giving an advantage against him to his “secret and avowed enemies.”
He adds:――

“In the case of such a public character, and so extensive a
province for the service of religion as yours, it seems to me
a point well worth considering, whether it is a right thing to
risk such a prospect as Providence has opened before you, of
eminent and distinguished usefulness, for the sake of any good
you are likely to do amongst these people. Your countenancing
the Methodists has been the subject of conversation much oftener
than I could have wished. The trustees are particularly in
pain for it, with regard to your academy; as they know it is an
objection made to it, by some persons seriously, and by others
craftily.”[77]

In his third letter, Mr. Neal expresses a holy dread lest Doddridge
should be “engaged amongst men of weak heads, and narrow, gloomy
sentiments, who may and ought to be pitied and prayed for, but whom
no rules of piety or prudence will oblige us to make our confidants
and friends.” He continues:――

“There are letters shewn about town, from several ministers
in the west, which make heavy complaints of the disorders
occasioned by Whitefield and Wesley in those parts. One of
them, speaking of Mr. Whitefield, calls him ‘_honest, crazy,
confident_ Whitefield.’ These letters, likewise, mention that
some ministers there, who were your pupils, have given them
countenance; and you can hardly conceive the disrespect this has
occasioned several ministers and other persons in town to speak
of you with.”[78]

Poor Doddridge, with the best intentions, had stirred up a nest of
ecclesiastical hornets. He had to make the best of the affair; and part
of his answer to Mr. Neal was as follows:――

“_December 12, 1743._

“I am truly sorry that the manner in which I spoke of Mr.
Whitefield, in my last, should have given you uneasiness. What
I said proceeded from a principle which I am sure you will not
despise: I mean a certain frankness of heart, which would not
allow me to seem to think more meanly of a man to whom I had
once professed some friendship than I really did.

“I must, indeed, look upon it as an unhappy circumstance that
he came to Northampton just when he did, as I perceive that,
in concurrence with other circumstances, it has filled town and
country with astonishment and indignation.

“I had great expectations from the Methodists and Moravians; and
I am grieved that so many things have occurred among them which
have been quite unjustifiable. I suppose they have also produced
the same sentiments in the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, to my
certain knowledge, received Count Zinzendorf with open arms, and
wrote of his being chosen the Moravian Bishop, as what was done
‘_plaudente toto cœlesti choro_.’ I shall always be ready to
weigh whatever can be said against Mr. Whitefield; and, though
I must have actual demonstration before I can admit him to be
a dishonest man, and though I shall never be able to think all
he has written, and all I have heard from him to be nonsense;
yet, I am not so zealously attached to him as to be disposed
to celebrate him as one of the greatest men of the age, or to
think that he is the pillar which bears up the whole interest of
religion among us.

“I had heard before of the offence which had been taken at
two of my pupils in the west, for the respect they shewed to
Mr. Whitefield: and yet they are both persons of eminent piety.
He whose name is chiefly in question, I mean Mr. Darracott, is
one of the most devout and extraordinary men I ever sent out,
and a person who has, within these few years, been highly useful
to numbers of his hearers. Mr. Fawcett labours at Taunton; and
his zeal, so far as I can judge, is inspired both with love and
prudence. Yet, I hear those men are reproached because they have
treated Mr. Whitefield respectfully; and that one of them, after
having had a correspondence with him for many years, admitted
him into his pulpit.

“I own, I am very thoughtful where these things will end. In
the meantime, I am as silent as I can be. I commit the matter to
God in prayer. I am sure I see no danger that any of my pupils
will prove Methodists. I wish many of them may not run into the
contrary extreme.”[79]

These are long, almost tedious, extracts; but they are of great
importance as plainly shewing that, at the beginning of his career,
the Independents looked upon Whitefield with as much suspicion as many
of the clergy of the Church of England and many of the Presbyterian
ministers of Scotland did. It was a heinous sin against all the
proprieties of their Church, that Doddridge and two of his ordained
pupils had countenanced the preaching of this young, popular, powerful,
and successful evangelist.

We again return to Whitefield’s wanderings. In the _Scots’ Magazine_,
for 1743, under the heading of “Marriages and Births,” the following
announcement was made: “October, 1743. At his house in Hoxton, the
wife of Mr. George Whitefield, of a son.” This event seems to have
occurred during Whitefield’s “short excursion” to Northampton and
its neighbourhood. Hence, under date of October 5th, he writes: “The
last evening of my short excursion, I preached from a balcony, to many
thousands, who stood in the street as comfortable as at noonday. Upon
retiring to my lodgings, news was brought me, that God had given me
a son. This hastened me up to London, where I now am, and from whence,
after I have baptized my little one, I purpose to set out again on my
Master’s public business.” Ten days after writing this, the untiring
Whitefield was at Avon, in Wiltshire, and did not return to his wife
and infant son until seven weeks afterwards. Perhaps, this was not
an example of either connubial or paternal behaviour to be commended;
but let it pass. The following extracts from his letters will furnish
an idea of his labours, in the west of England, during the next _two_
months:――

“COLLUMPTON, _October 25, 1743_.

“I wrote to you on the 15th instant at Avon. In the morning, I
walked to Tytherton, and preached. After sermon, I baptized four
boys, each about three months old. The ordinance was so solemn
and awful, that Mrs. Gotley[80] (who is a Quaker) had a mind
immediately to partake of it. When I go to Wiltshire, I believe
I shall baptize her and her children, with some adult persons
who have tasted of redeeming love. About one o’clock I preached
at Clack, in the street. I then rode to Brinkworth and preached
there, and, afterwards, administered the holy sacrament to about
two hundred and fifty communicants. Some strangers, from Bath,
went home filled with our Redeemer’s presence. I have also
preached at Chippenham. We had a wonderful time in Wiltshire.

“I hope I managed all things right about the affair of the
Hampton rioters. They have compelled us to appeal unto Cæsar.
Evidences shall be examined in the country, in time enough to
send the examinations to town.

“On Saturday last (October 22nd), when I came to Wellington, the
Rev. Mr. Darracott[81] persuaded me to stay there, because the
country people had come from all quarters several times to hear
me, and had been disappointed. I consented, and preached in his
meeting-house, in the evening, to a large auditory. The Rev. Mr.
Fawcett,[82] formerly pupil to Dr. Doddridge, came there, and
stayed all night. The blessed Jesus gave us much freedom in
conversation. I hope both will be instruments, under God, in
promoting a good work in these parts.

“Sunday morning, I preached again in the meeting-house; and, in
the evening, to seven thousand in the field.[83]

“On Monday, at ten in the morning, and at two in the afternoon,
I preached, at Collumpton, with much freedom and power; was
kindly received, met some reputable Dissenters, and am now
setting out for Exeter.”

Whitefield seems to have made Exeter his head-quarters for nearly a
fortnight. Hence the following letters:――

“EXETER, _October 28, 1743_.

“I have a strong conviction that our Lord intends doing
something in the west. Since my arrival here, letters of
invitation have come from many parts. The common people begin
to feel. I preached this afternoon on Southernay Green. Even
some of the polite were much affected. I believe I shall think
it my duty to stay in these parts for some time.”

“EXETER, _November 6, 1743_.

“On Monday last” (October 31st), “I went to Axminster, and
preached to about two thousand without; and afterwards exhorted
within the house where I lay. The next day, I preached to a
greater number of people; and, at night, gave an exhortation,
and met the Society. Our Lord vouchsafed us a gracious blessing.

“On Wednesday, I went to Ottery; but, just as I named my text,
the bells rang. Upon this, I adjourned to a field, whither the
people ran in droves. As I stepped into the inn, before I went
to the field, a clergyman came, who asked me by what authority
I preached, and said it was a riot, and that the meeting
was illegal. I answered him, as I thought pertinently, and
afterwards went and shewed him my authority, by preaching on
these words, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel
to every creature.’ In the evening, I returned to Exeter, where
some hundreds were waiting to hear me expound. The Lord makes
this place very comfortable to me. Prejudices fall off daily,
and people begin not only to discern, but to feel, the doctrines
of the gospel.

“Postscript.――Ten at night. It would have pleased you to be here
this evening. I question whether near a third part of Exeter
were not attending on the word preached. All was solemn and
awful, and the Lord gave me much assistance from His Holy Spirit.
Help me to praise Him.”

From Exeter, Whitefield proceeded to Bideford, where he wrote as
follows:――

“BIDEFORD, _November 11, 1743_.

“The Rev. Mr. Thompson, Rector of St. Gennys, Cornwall, is here.
God willing, I will go with him to-morrow. There is also another
clergyman about eighty years of age, but not above one year
old in the school of Christ.[84] He lately preached three times
and rode forty miles the same day. The Dissenting minister and
his wife were very hearty; and, perhaps, here is one of the
most settled female Christian Societies in the kingdom. I cannot
well describe with what power the word was attended. Yesterday,
in the afternoon and evening, it was just like as at Edinburgh.
The old clergyman was much broken. A young Oxonian, who came
with him, and many others, were most deeply affected. I suppose,
there were upwards of two thousand, in the evening, in the
meeting-house. Dear Mr. Hervey,[85] one of our first Methodists
at Oxford, and who was lately a curate here, had laid the
blessed foundation.

“So far from thinking of nestling at London, I am more and more
convinced that I should go from place to place; and I therefore
question if I shall see London for some time.

“Postscript.――Seven at night. To-day has been as yesterday, and
much more abundant. I am here, as in Scotland and New England.
Here is work enough for three months. The weather is very
favourable; range, therefore, I must and will.”

On Saturday, November 12, Whitefield accompanied Mr. Thompson to his
rectory at St. Gennys, Cornwall, where he seems to have remained a
fortnight. Hence the following:――

“ST. GENNYS, _November 25, 1743_.

“I am glad that the Lord inclined my heart to come hither. He
has been with us of a truth. How did His stately steps appear
in the sanctuary last Lord’s-day! Many, many prayers were put
up, by the worthy rector and others, for an outpouring of God’s
blessed Spirit. They were answered. Arrows of conviction fled so
thick and so fast, and such a universal weeping prevailed from
one end of the congregation to the other, that good Mr. Thompson
could not help going from seat to seat, to encourage and comfort
the wounded souls. The Oxonian’s father was almost struck dumb;
and the young Oxonian’s crest was so lowered, that I believe he
will never venture to preach an unknown Christ, or to deal in
the false commerce of unfelt truths.

“I could enlarge, but I must away to Bideford, just to give
Satan another stroke, and bid my Christian friends farewell; and
then return the way I came, namely, through Exeter, Wellington,
and Bristol, to the great metropolis.”

Whitefield arrived in London at the beginning of December, and wrote
the following hitherto unpublished letter to “Mr. Howell Harris, at
Trevecca, near the Hay, South Wales, Breconshire.”

“LONDON, _December 6, 1743_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,――I thank you for your kind letters and
kind present. Our Saviour will plentifully reward you for all
favours conferred on me and mine.

“I rejoice exceedingly that the word runs and is glorified
in Wales. I hope to rejoice together with you at the next
Association. Great things have been doing in the west. I believe
Mr. Thompson, of Cornwall, will come with me into Wales. I have
thoughts of removing my little family to Abergavenny in a short
time; and to leave that house for you and yours to live in, till
I come from abroad again, if you will be pleased to accept of it.

“I can easily forgive our dear brother Beaumont;[86] but,
I think, he and his wife have dealt very unsimply in respect
to their marriage. I pray our Lord Jesus Christ to bless them
exceedingly, and to prevent all ill consequences that may arise,
to the people of God, from such a procedure.

“I intend being here but a few days; and I have many things to
say to you when we see each other face to face. Oh, my brother,
my dear, very dear brother Harris, Jesus is better and better to
me every day. I have had close attacks, but strong consolations.
I would write much, would time and business permit; but I must
bid you adieu. My tender, tender love to all. My dear wife and
Mr. Grace send their most cordial respects. The Lord Jesus be
with your dear soul, and give you to pray for, my dear, dear,
dear brother,

“Yours most affectionately in Christ Jesus,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

“P.S.――Mr. Mason, the bookseller, is dead; also Mr. Dubert’s
wife. About seven of our friends have lately died in the Lord.
Courage, my dear man,――courage; we shall go ere long. Yet a
little while, and He that cometh will come, and will not tarry.”

In less than a fortnight, Whitefield was again on the wing. On Friday,
December 16, he rode to a place “five miles beyond Reading.” The
next day, he got to Clack. “It rained and snowed much for about seven
miles,” says he, “and the way was dangerous; but the blessed Jesus kept
us in safety.” On Sunday morning, he preached, and administered the
sacrament to the Wiltshire Societies, at Tytherton;[87] and, in the
evening, he preached at Brinkworth. He writes: “They were good times.
I have a cold, but our Lord warms my heart. To-morrow (December 19)
I must away to Gloucester. Oh, follow, follow with your prayers.”

Whitefield was now on his way to a new sphere of labour. All readers of
Methodist history are well acquainted with the disgraceful and terrible
riots which took place at Walsal, Wednesbury, Darlaston, and West
Bromwich, in 1743. In the former part of the year, both the Wesleys had
preached here, at the peril of their lives. As recently as October 20,
John Wesley had been all but murdered by the godless ruffians of the
neighbourhood; and now, at the end of December, Whitefield came.[88]
The following extract is taken from a pamphlet, entitled, “Some Papers,
giving an Account of the Rise and Progress of Methodism at Wednesbury,
in Staffordshire, and in other Parishes adjacent; as likewise of
the late Riot in those parts.” Printed by J. Roberts, London. 1744.
(8vo. 30 pp.)

“Mr. Whitefield was at Birmingham, where there is a Society,
about Christmas last; and you may suppose great numbers would,
out of curiosity, flock to hear a man who had been so much
talked of. He was also invited to Wednesbury, where he preached
in the streets for several days. He was invited to Birmingham
by a Dissenter. His stay was not above a week or ten days,
and, towards the last, his auditors were not so numerous, and
the behaviour of some of them not over civil. I do not find
the number of the Methodist converts to be near so numerous
as was at first apprehended; and those few of them, who were
of the communion of the Church of England, are, in general,
very regular in their behaviour, and in their attendance at
church. The Dissenters constitute the greater number, and are
their greatest admirers, particularly of Mr. Whitefield. About
Wednesbury, some of their converts have been raised into strange
and unaccountable ecstasies; but I cannot find there have been
any of the like instances at Birmingham.”

Such was the testimony of an unfriendly writer. Whitefield’s own
account is as follows:――

“_December 31, 1743._

“What do you think? Since my last, I have stolen a whole day
to dispatch some private business; however, in the evening, I
expounded, at Birmingham, to a great room full of people, who
would rush into my lodgings, whether I would or not.

“On Sunday morning (Christmas Day), at eight, I preached, in
the street, to about a thousand, with much freedom. I then went
to church and received the sacrament, and afterwards preached
to several thousands in the street. As no minister would preach
in a house at Wednesbury,[89] where a weekly lecture used to
be kept up, I was earnestly entreated to go; and, after my
afternoon’s preaching at Birmingham, I went and preached there,
at six in the evening, to many hundreds in the street. The word
came with power, and only one or two made a noise. We afterwards
had a precious meeting in private.

“On Monday morning, about eight, I preached to a large company
in a field. By eleven, I returned to Birmingham, and preached
to many thousands, on a common near the town. The soldiers were
exercising; but the officers, hearing that I was come to preach,
dismissed them, and promised that no disturbance should be made.
All was quiet, and a blessed time we had. In the afternoon,
at three, I preached again to about the same company, with the
same success. Then I rode to Wednesbury, and preached there, and
afterwards exhorted. About one, I went to bed exceeding happy.

“In the morning, I broke up some fallow-ground at a place called
Mare Green, about two miles from Wednesbury. Much mobbing had
been there against Mr. Wesley’s friends. A few began to insult
me. Several clods were thrown, one of which fell on my head,
and another struck my fingers, while I was in prayer. A sweet
gospel spirit was given to me. I preached again at Birmingham,
to larger auditories than before, about eleven in the morning and
three in the afternoon. In the evening, I expounded twice in a
large room; once to the rich, and once to the poor; and went to
rest happier than the night before.[90]

“In the morning (Wednesday, Dec. 28), I took my leave of the
Birmingham people, who wept much, and shewed great concern at
my departure. I then went to Kidderminster, where I was kindly
received by Mr. Williams, with whom I have corresponded for
near two years. Many friends were at his house. I was greatly
refreshed to find what a sweet savour of good remained to
this day, from Mr. Baxter’s doctrine, works, and discipline.
I preached, about three in the afternoon, to a large auditory,
near the church. Some unkind men, though they promised not to
do so, rang the bells; but our Saviour enabled me to preach
with power. In the evening and next morning, I preached in the
meeting-house.

“I then (Thursday) went with Mr. Williams to Bromsgrove, and
was kindly received by one Mr. K――――y, a good man, and several
others, among whom were two or three Baptist ministers, and
one Independent. In the afternoon, I preached in a field. Some
rude people kicked a football, and sounded a horn; but the Lord
enabled me to preach with boldness. About six, I preached in the
Baptist meeting-house; left Kidderminster at eight, and reached
Worcester at ten. Mr. Williams and another friend accompanied us.

“The next day, I reached Gloucester, very thankful, and
rejoicing greatly in Christ for giving me such a delightful and
happy Christmas.”

This is a notable letter. Whitefield was now on the ground where Wesley
and his friends had been nearly murdered; but all the inconvenience
suffered by Whitefield was a little noise at Wednesbury, the throwing
of a few clods at Mare Green, the ringing of the church bells at
Kidderminster, and a game at football and the sounding of a horn at
Bromsgrove. Compared with Wesley, the lines fell to Whitefield in
pleasant places.

The observant reader will also notice Whitefield’s enormous labours.
In four days, in mid-winter, he held nineteen services, twelve of his
sermons being preached in the open air, and three in Dissenting chapels.
The opportunity of thus serving his great Master was Whitefield’s idea
of spending “a delightful and happy Christmas!” No wonder that his
Master blessed him, and filled him so full of joy at midnight hours.

But little more remains to be said respecting Whitefield’s career in
1743. In common with his friend Wesley, he was again and again fiercely
assailed by the public press. He was pilloried in the famous Dunciad of
Alexander Pope, as follows:――

“So swells each windpipe; ass intones to ass,
Harmonic twang! of leather, horn, and brass;
Such as from lab’ring lungs th’ Enthusiast blows,
High Sound, attemper’d to the vocal nose!
Or such as bellow from the deep Divine;
There, Webster! peal’d thy voice, and, Whitefield! thine.”

Pope was a poet; another assailant, the author of “The Progress of
Methodism in Bristol, or, the Methodists Unmasked, 1743” (18mo. 72 pp.),
was a _poetaster_, and unworthy of being further noticed; but, possibly,
his ribald verses, in which he malignantly attacked Whitefield, as well
as Wesley, were quite as goading as Pope’s more polished lines.

Whitefield began the year 1744 in his native city, Gloucester. He
then went to Watford in Wales, and, as moderator of the Calvinistic
Methodists, presided, on January 3rd, at one of their associations, or
conferences. Among the subjects considered at this meeting, the Hampton
riot seems to have been the principal. Whitefield writes:――

“After mature deliberation, we determined to prosecute the
affair to the utmost, and to set apart January 24 (the first
day of the term) for a day of fasting and prayer, and to make
collections for that purpose. The cause is the Lord’s, and much
depends on our getting the victory. I believe we shall.”

The work in Wales was in great prosperity. In a letter, written soon
after the assembling of this conference, Howell Harris says:――

“The labours of all our associates are more or less blessed.
The Lord countenances the lay-preachers much; but He is more
abundantly with the ordained ministers. The believers are
generally strong and full of spiritual warmth and life. They
do, indeed, adorn the gospel. The congregations are exceedingly
large wherever we preach. Some of the greatest opposers are not
only silenced, but constrained to own that the Lord is among us
of a truth. In many places, the people meet at five o’clock in
the morning to adore and worship the Lord together; and, in some
places, meetings are resumed in the evenings, and kept up all
night in prayer and praise.”[91]

It is a strange fact, that, notwithstanding the falsely reputed wealth
of Whitefield’s wife, and his own enormous popularity, his income was
insufficient for the maintenance of his family in London. Hence, during
his visit to Wales, he made arrangements for the removal of his wife
and child to Abergavenny;[92] and, on his return to London, wrote, as
follows, to a friend at Gloucester:――

“LONDON, _January 18, 1744_.

“This afternoon, I received your kind letter; and I thank you
a thousand times for your great generosity in lending me some
furniture, having little of my own. I know who will repay you.
Next week, God willing, my dear wife and little one will come
to Gloucester, for I find it beyond my circumstances to maintain
them here. I leave London this day sennight. My brother will
receive a letter about my wife’s coming. She and the little
one are brave and well. But why talk I of wife and little one?
Let all be absorbed in the thoughts of the love, sufferings,
free and full salvation, of the infinitely great and glorious
Emmanuel.”

Three weeks after this, Whitefield’s “little one” was dead. The letter
containing an account of his bereavement is so characteristic, and so
unfolds Whitefield’s weaknesses as well as virtues, that it must be
inserted without abridgment.

“GLOUCESTER, _February 9, 1744_.

“Who knows what a day may bring forth? Last night, I was called
to sacrifice my Isaac; I mean, to bury my only child and son,
about four months old.

“Many things had occurred to make me believe he was, not only
to be continued to me, but, to be a preacher of the everlasting
gospel. Pleased with the thought, and being ambitious of having
a son of my own so divinely employed, Satan was permitted
to give me some wrong impressions, whereby, as I now find, I
misapplied several texts of Scripture. Upon these grounds, I
made no scruple of declaring ‘that I should have a son, and that
his name was to be John.’ I mentioned the very time of his birth,
and fondly hoped that he was to be great in the sight of the
Lord.

“Everything happened according to the predictions, and my wife
having had several narrow escapes while pregnant, especially
by her falling from a high horse, and my driving her into a
deep ditch in a one-horse chaise a little before the time of
her lying-in, and from which we received little or no hurt,
confirmed me in my expectation, that God would grant me my
heart’s desire.

“I would observe to you, that the child was even born in a room
which the master of the house had prepared as a prison for his
wife, on account of her coming to hear me. With joy would she
often look upon the bars and staples and chains, which were
fixed in order to keep her in. About a week after his birth,
I publicly baptized him in the Tabernacle, and, in the company
of thousands, solemnly gave him up to that God, who gave him to
me. A hymn, too fondly composed by an aged widow, as suitable
to the occasion, was sung, and all went away big with hopes of
the child’s being hereafter to be employed in the work of God;
but how soon have all their fond, and, as the event has proved,
their ill-grounded expectations been blasted, as well as mine!

“House-keeping being expensive in London, I thought it best to
send both parent and child to Abergavenny, where my wife had
a little house, the furniture of which, as I thought of soon
embarking for Georgia, I had partly sold, and partly given away.
In their journey thither, they stopped at Gloucester, at the
Bell Inn, which my brother now keeps, and in which I was born.
There, my beloved was cut off with a stroke. Upon my coming here,
without knowing what had happened, I enquired concerning the
welfare of parent and child; and, by the answer, found that the
flower was cut down.

“I immediately called all to join in prayer, in which I blessed
the Father of mercies for giving me a son, continuing it to me
so long, and taking it from me so soon. All joined in desiring
that I would decline preaching till the child was buried; but
I remembered a saying of good Mr. Henry, ‘that weeping must not
hinder sowing;’ and, therefore, I preached twice the next day,
and also the day following; on the evening of which, just as I
was closing my sermon, the bell struck out for the funeral. At
first, I must acknowledge, it gave nature a little shake; but,
looking up, I recovered strength, and then concluded with saying,
that this text, on which I had been preaching, namely, ‘All
things work together for good to them that love God,’ made me as
willing to go out to my son’s funeral, as to hear of his birth.
Our parting from him was solemn. We kneeled down, prayed, and
shed many tears, but, I hope, tears of resignation; and then,
as he died in the house wherein I was born, he was taken and
laid in the church where I was baptized, first communicated, and
first preached.

“All this, you may easily guess, threw me into very solemn
and deep reflection, and, I hope, deep humiliation; but I was
comforted from that passage in the book of Kings, where is
recorded the death of the Shunammite’s child, which the prophet
said, ‘the Lord had hid from him,’ and the woman’s answer to the
prophet when he asked, ‘Is it well with thee? Is it well with
thy husband? Is it well with thy child?’ And she answered, ‘It
is well.’ This gave me no small satisfaction. I preached upon
the text, the day following, at Gloucester; and then hastened
up to London, and preached upon the same there.

“Though disappointed of a living preacher, by the death of my
son, yet, I hope, what happened before his birth, and since at
his death, has taught me such lessons, as, if duly improved,
may render his mistaken parent more cautious, more sober-minded,
more experienced in Satan’s devices, and, consequently, more
useful in his future labours to the Church of God. Thus, ‘out
of the eater comes forth meat, and out of the strong comes
forth sweetness.’ Not doubting but our future life will be one
continued explanation of this blessed riddle, I commend myself
and you to the unerring guidance of God’s word and Spirit, and
am,

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whilst Whitefield was burying his child at Gloucester, his friend,
Charles Wesley, was preaching, at the peril of his life, in
Staffordshire. At Wednesbury, the mob “assaulted, one after another,
all the houses of those who were called Methodists.” All the windows
were broken, and furniture of every kind was dashed in pieces. At
Aldridge and several other villages, many of the houses were plundered,
and the rioters “loaded themselves with clothes and goods of all sorts,
as much as they could carry.”[93] Whitefield heard of this execrable
rioting, and wrote:――

“There has been dreadful work near Birmingham; but Satan will
be overthrown. We had a glorious fast on Monday (February 20th),
and collected above £60 for our poor suffering brethren.”

A week after this, Whitefield set out on a visit to his wife at
Abergavenny, and took her “a second-hand suit of curtains,” which he
had bought for her humble dwelling.

At the beginning of the month of March, he returned to Gloucester,
to be present at the assizes, at which the Hampton rioters, already
mentioned, were tried, and found guilty, the amount of damages to be
paid being referred to the King’s Bench, London. Whitefield writes:――

“I hear the rioters are hugely alarmed; but they know not that
we intend to let them see what we could do, and then to forgive
them. This troublesome affair being over, I must now prepare for
my intended voyage to America.”

Nearly seven months, however, elapsed before Whitefield’s voyage was
begun,――an interval which was partly occupied with what, to Whitefield,
was extremely uncongenial, a literary war.

To understand the controversy, it is needful to remark, that, of late,
several publications had been issued, and industriously circulated,
attacking the loyalty of Whitefield and his friends. Among others,
there was a quarto-sized sheet, of four pages, entitled, “The Case
of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point of
Field-Preaching.” The writer tries to prove that field-preaching is
contrary to the Act of Toleration; and then he proceeds to shew, that,
because of the largeness of his congregations, Whitefield’s preaching
in the open air was eminently calculated to promote sedition, and to be
a serious danger to the state.

The principal publication, however, was “Observations upon the Conduct
and Behaviour of a certain Sect, usually distinguished by the name of
Methodists. London: printed by E. Owen, in Amen Corner. 1744.” (4to.
24 pp.) Rightly or wrongly, Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, was supposed
to be the author. The pamphlet consisted of three parts. In the first,
it was alleged, 1. That the Methodists generally set the government
at defiance, by appointing public places of religious worship, and
by preaching in the fields, without taking the prescribed oaths, and
subscribing the declaration against popery. 2. That they broke the
rules of the Church, of which they professed themselves members, by
going to other than their own parish churches to receive the sacrament.
3. It was also stated that really there was no need for Methodist
meetings, because, for many years past, many of the Religious Societies,
in London and Westminster, had spent their Sunday evenings (after
attending church) in serious conversation and reading good books; and
the bishops and clergy had encouraged these Societies, though some of
them had been misled into Methodist extravagances.

In the second part, which is principally levelled against
Whitefield, thirteen questions are asked, of which the following are
specimens:――Question 4. Whether a due and regular attendance in the
public offices of religion does not better answer the true ends of
devotion, and is not better evidence of the co-operation of the Holy
Spirit, than those sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings, tremblings,
droppings-down, ravings, and madness into which the hearers of the
Methodists had been cast? Question 9. Whether it does not savour of
self-sufficiency and presumption, when a few young heads, without any
colour of a Divine commission, set up their own schemes as the great
standard of Christianity?

The third part is a severe critique on the _Christian History_, of
which Whitefield was the chief promoter. Here, again, sundry questions
were asked, as, for instance, “Whether the zealous endeavours to form
Band-Societies, according to the Moravian way, and putting them under
the instruction and ordering of particular _superintendents_, and
_exhorters_; and the holding of _associations_ and _meetings_, at set
times and places, with select moderators; together with the fixing
of _visitations_ and their boundaries and limits,――whether these
proceedings, not warranted by any law, are not a presumptuous attempt
to erect a new church constitution, upon a foreign plan, in contempt
of those wise rules of government, discipline, and worship, which were
judged by our pious ancestors to be the best means for preserving and
maintaining religion, together with public peace and order in Church
and State?” Again, “Whether these itinerant preachers, and the setting
up of separate places of public worship _at pleasure_, and those
pretences to more immediate communications with God, and the visible
endeavours to bring the parochial pastors and the public worship under
a disesteem among the people,――whether these and the like practices
are not of the same kind with those of the last century, that had so
great a share in bringing on those religious confusions, which brought
a reproach upon Christianity in general, and which, by degrees, worked
the body of the people into a national madness and frenzy in matters of
religion?”

To see the full force of these accusations, it must be borne in mind,
that, they were published at a time when, (1) The nation was in a
state of great excitement from an expected invasion by Prince Charles,
the young Pretender; (2) The Methodists in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire,
and Staffordshire, were being subjected to the most brutal treatment
by clerically encouraged mobs; and (3) The general belief was that
these “Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the Methodists”
were not of ignoble origin, but were written by the bishop of the
metropolitan diocese, and with the approval of a considerable number
of his prelatic brethren.

On January 26, 1744, Whitefield published the following
advertisement:――

“Whereas some anonymous papers, against the people called
Methodists in general, and myself and friends in particular,
have been, for some weeks, printed in a large edition, and
handed about and read in the Religious Societies of the cities
of London and Westminster, and given into the hands of many
private persons, with strict injunctions to lend them to no one,
nor let them go out of their hands to any; and whereas, after
having accidentally had the hasty perusal of them, I find many
queries, of great importance, concerning me and my conduct,
contained therein; and as it appears, that, one paper has
little or no connection with another, and a copy, when applied
for, was refused me, and I know not how soon I may embark for
Georgia――I am, therefore, obliged hereby to desire a speedy
open publication of the aforesaid papers, in order that a candid
impartial answer may be made thereto by me,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Six days after the date of this advertisement, Whitefield wrote as
follows to the Bishop of London:――

“LONDON, _February 1, 1744_.

“MY LORD,――Simplicity becomes the followers of Jesus Christ;
and, therefore, I think it my duty to trouble your lordship with
these few lines.

“I suppose your lordship has seen the advertisement published
by me, about four days ago, concerning certain anonymous papers,
which have been handed about the Societies for some considerable
time. As I think it my duty to answer them, I should be glad
to be informed whether the report be true, that your lordship
composed them, that I may the better know to whom I may direct
my answer. A sight also of one of the copies, if in your
lordship’s keeping, would oblige, my lord, your lordship’s most
obliged, dutiful son and servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

“P.S. The bearer will bring your lordship’s answer; or, if your
lordship favour me with a line, be pleased to direct for me, to
be left with Mr. J. Syms, in Pitfield Street, near Hoxton.”

Instead of writing, the Bishop sent, by the bearer of Whitefield’s
letter, a verbal message, to the effect that Whitefield should hear
from him; but the only further communication which came to hand was
the following, written, two days after the date of Whitefield’s letter
to the Bishop, by the printer of the “anonymous papers.”

“_February 3, 1744._

“SIR,――My name is Owen. I am a printer in Amen Corner, and I
waited upon you to let you know that I have had orders from
several of the Bishops, to print, for their use, such numbers
of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct and Behaviour of the
Methodists,’ with some few additions, as they have respectively
bespoken; and I will not fail to wait upon you with one copy, as
soon as the impression is finished.

“I am, sir, your most obedient servant,

“E. OWEN.”

There can hardly be a doubt that the “Observations” were the
productions of Bishop Gibson’s pen. Others, besides Whitefield and
his friends, fully believed this. Zinzendorf, on receiving a copy of
the anonymous pamphlet, wrote a long letter, in Latin, to the Bishop,
expressing his surprise that any one belonging to the Church of England
should have evinced such ignorance by the remarks made respecting
the Moravians. A Moravian deputation also waited upon Gibson, on
the same subject; and a further correspondence ensued between the
Bishop, Zinzendorf, and James Hutton;[94] in which Zinzendorf almost
indignantly repudiated any present connection with the Methodists,
telling his lordship, that, it was “very difficult to decide whether
the Moravians have a greater dislike to the Methodists’ plan of
salvation, or the Methodists to that of the Moravians.”

But leaving this, all candid readers will acknowledge that the
“conduct and behaviour” of the Bishop of London and his brethren were
disingenuous. To be the circulators of anonymous “fly-sheets,” full of
the most serious accusations, was an act dishonourable to a bishop’s
dignity, and savoured more of the assassin than of a pastor of the
flock of Christ.

Whitefield lost no time in replying to the Bishops’ pamphlet. On the
10th of March, he finished, and committed to the press, “An Answer to
the first part of an anonymous Pamphlet, entitled, ‘Observations upon
the Conduct and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by
the name of Methodists.’ In a Letter to the Right Reverend the Bishop
of London, and the other the Right Reverend the Bishops concerned in
the publication thereof.” (8vo. 26 pp.) Before the year was ended,
Whitefield’s “Letter” passed, at least, through three editions in
England, besides being printed and published at Boston in America.
The motto on his title-page was Psalm xxxv. 11, “False witnesses did
rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.”

It is difficult to furnish an outline of Whitefield’s pamphlet; but
the following extracts will give the reader an idea of its style and
spirit:――

“Young as I am, I know too much of the devices of Satan, and
the desperate wickedness and deceitfulness of my own heart, not
to be sensible, that I am a man of like passions with others;
and that I, consequently, may have sometimes mistaken nature
for grace, imagination for revelation, and the fire of my own
temper for the pure and sacred flame of holy zeal. If, therefore,
upon perusing the pamphlet, I find that I have been blameable
in any respect, I will not only confess it, but return hearty
thanks both to the compiler and your lordships, _though unknown_.
Indeed, it is but of little consequence to the merits of the
cause to know who the author is. Only this much may be said,
your lordships yourselves being judges, it is not quite fair to
_give stabs in the dark_.”

Whitefield proceeds to say, that the title of the Bishops’ pamphlet
ought to have run thus: “Misrepresentations of the Conduct and
_Principles_ of many Orthodox, well-meaning Ministers and Members of
the Church of England, and loyal Subjects to his Majesty, King George,
_falsely termed a Sect_, and usually distinguished, _out of contempt_,
by the name of Methodists.” He adds:――

“The _principles_, as well as conduct, of the Methodists are
greatly misrepresented in this pamphlet. Its design is to
exhibit their proceedings as dangerous to the Church and State,
in order to procure an Act of Parliament against them, or to
oblige them to secure themselves by turning Dissenters. But is
not such a motion, at such a season as this, both uncharitable
and unseasonable? Is not the Administration engaged enough
already in other affairs, without troubling themselves with
the Methodists? Or, who would now advise them to bring further
guilt upon the nation, by persecuting some of the present
government’s _most hearty_ friends? I say, my lords, _the present
government’s most hearty friends_; for, though the Methodists
(as the world calls them) disagree in some particulars, yet
I venture to affirm that, to _a man_, they all agree in this:
namely, to love and honour the king. For my own part, I profess
myself a zealous friend to his present majesty King George, and
the present Administration. Wherever I go, I think it my duty
to pray for him and to preach up obedience to him, and all that
are set in authority under him. I have now been a preacher above
seven years, and for six years past have been called to act in
a very public way. Your lordships must have heard of the great
numbers who have attended: sometimes several of the nobility,
and, now and then, even some of the clergy have been present.
Did they ever hear me speak a disloyal word? Are there not
thousands, who can testify how fervently and frequently I
pray for his majesty King George, his royal offspring, and
the present government? Yes, my lords, they can; and, I trust,
I should be enabled to do so, though surrounded with popish
enemies, and in danger of dying for it as soon as my prayer was
ended.”

So much for Whitefield’s loyalty. What about his ecclesiastical
misbehaviour? He writes:――

“If your lordships apprehend that we are liable to
ecclesiastical censures, we are ready to make a proper defence,
whenever called to it by our ecclesiastical superiors. As for
myself, your lordships very well know that I am a Bachelor of
Arts, have taken the oaths, have subscribed to the Articles,
and have been twice regularly ordained. In this character, I
have acted, both at home and abroad; and I know of no law of
our government which prohibits my preaching in any field, barn,
street, or outhouse whatever.”

Whitefield proceeds to say, he has perused “all the Acts of King
Charles II., wherein the word _field_ is mentioned,” and that he finds
“they are intended to suppress _seditious conventicles_,” and then
continues:――

“These are the only _field-meetings_ that are prohibited; and
how, my lords, can such Acts be applied to the Methodists? Are
they ‘seditious sectaries, disloyal persons, who, under pretence
of tender consciences, contrive insurrections?’ No, my lords.
How then can your lordships, with a safe conscience, encourage
such a pamphlet, or bespeak any number of Mr. Owen, in order,
as may be supposed, that they may be dispersed among your
lordships’ clergy? Well might the author conceal his name. A
more notorious libel has not been published. The pamphlet comes
into public like a child dropped, that nobody cares to own. And,
indeed, who can be blamed for disowning such a libel?”

This, addressed to bishops, by a young clergyman, was bold language;
but their lordships deserved it; for, whatever faults belonged to
Whitefield and the first Methodists, they certainly were as free from
sedition as the Episcopal Bench itself.

Whitefield’s “Second Letter,” to the bishops, was written during his
voyage to America, and was first “printed and sold by Rogers and Fowle,
in Queen Street, near the Prison, Boston, 1744.” (4to. 24 pp.) It is
dated August 25, 1744; but, to prevent a recurrence to the subject,
it is noticed here. First of all, Whitefield replies to the censures
pronounced upon “itinerant preaching,” and concludes thus:――

“May I not take the freedom of acquainting your lordships,
that, if all the Right Reverend the Bishops did their duty,
(especially my Lord of London, whose diocese is of such vast
extent,) they would all of them long since have become itinerant
preachers.”

He next defended the doctrines, preached by himself and the
Methodists,――justification by faith, sudden and instantaneous
conversion, and other cognate truths. He attacked Archbishop Tillotson,
because, “contrary to the laws of Church and State, he makes good works
a _condition_ of our acceptance with God;” and he declared concerning
the author of “The Whole Duty of Man,” that, because he entirely omits
to teach the doctrine of justification by faith, his famous book might
“more properly be termed, _Half the Duty of Man_.” He belaboured the
clergy for playing at _dice_, and _cards_, and other _unlawful games_,
contrary to the seventy-fifth canon of the Church; and complained,
that, by “frequenting taverns and alehouses,” they injured the laity
by a vile “example.” He rebutted the charge against himself of being an
enthusiast; and, as for the “sudden agonies, roarings, and screamings”
of some of his converts, he said, “The itinerant preachers look
upon these as extraordinary things, proceeding _generally_ from
soul-distress, and _sometimes_, it may be, from the agency of the
evil spirit, who labours to drive poor souls into despair.”

What was the result of all this plain-speaking? First of all, another
anonymous author, merely using the initials, “J. B.,” published a
furious pamphlet of fifty-four pages, entitled, “A Letter to the
Reverend Mr. Whitefield, occasioned by his _pretended_ Answer to the
first part of the Observations on the Conduct and Behaviour of the
Methodists. By a Gentleman of Pembroke College, Oxon. London, 1744.”
(8vo.)

How far the author of this letter was a _gentleman_ will appear from
the following extracts from his rancorous production:――

“Do you think my Lord of London would choose to let you know
whether he was the author of the papers, or would be fond
of entering into a _personal_ dispute with you? with you, I
say, sir, or your followers; who, I may venture to affirm, can
curse, rail, and berogue your antagonists, (though in Scripture
language all the while,) so as hardly to be exceeded by any Pope,
or _spiritual bully_, that ever yet appeared in Christendom.”

“You are one who has been travelling over all countries,
to establish _new-fangled societies_; _heads and spiritual
directors_, _hot-brained cobblers_, and the meanest class of men;
_fellows that have nothing to lose_, all big with venom against
the clergy of the _present Establishment_, and _despising the
laws_ of the State, and the _peaceful constitution_ of the realm.
You are perpetually sowing divisions, and urging on the bigotry
of your disciples, and their implacable malice, by your belying,
railing, and scandalising the ministers of the Church, as well
as by treating as heathens and reprobates of the infinitely good
Being, all others, who dare despise your hellish doctrines and
practices. You exactly copy after Cromwell, the _Whitefield
of the last century_, in _artfully compounding_ Churchmen and
Dissenters, people of all sorts and denominations, to bring
about your design of ruining the present constitution. When I
see a man, of your _vast importance_, _railing_, _hectoring_,
and _bullying_ your superiors, I cannot help thinking of a
_pert_ liquor amongst us, which foams, and bounces, and sputters,
and makes a mighty ado; and yet all the while is but _bottled
small-beer_.

“Your _favourite method_ of wounding characters in a scrip of
prayer, to shew the world how kindly you can forgive, after you
have been publicly railing at them for _nothing_, puts me in
mind of Jack in the _Tale of a Tub_; who was mighty fond of
falling down on his knees, and turning up his eyes in the midst
of a kennel, as if at his devotions; but who, when curiosity
attracted men to laugh or to listen, would, of a sudden,
bespatter them with mud.”

Much more of the same kind of scurrility, and of even worse, might
be given; but the last paragraph in the “Gentleman’s” ill-mannered
pamphlet must suffice.

“Thus ends your railing; and, like a woman that has _fought
herself out of breath_, when you can _spit no more of your
malice_, you tell us, you would ‘not bring a railing accusation
against any.’ What a monstrous fib is that! ‘Neither would
I,’ you add, ‘when giving a reason of the hope that is in me,
do it any otherwise than with meekness and fear.’ There you
fib again most desperately! Why, _my dear meek soul, of a
sudden_, you have certainly forgot yourself; and your darling
_spirit of bitterness, that has possessed you through the whole
Letter_, at length, seems to be _jaded_. However, it cannot help
_fibbing still_; and there is not a more remarkable instance
of this, than in your _last Judas’ kiss_, where you would have
their lordships believe, you are ‘_their most dutiful son and
servant_.’”

These are fair specimens of the scolding of this zealous defender
of the Bishop of London and his brethren, and of Church and State.
Whitefield never noticed the defence, though written by a _Gentleman
of Pembroke College, Oxford_. Another pamphlet, however, written by
a Church dignitary of some importance, received more attention. This
was “A Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the Reverend Mr. George
Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London and
other Bishops; and in Vindication of the ‘Observations upon the Conduct
and Behaviour of a certain Sect usually distinguished by the Name of
Methodists,’ not long since published. By Thomas Church, A.M., Vicar
of Battersea, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s, London.[95] 1744.” (8vo.
60 pp.) Want of space prevents the insertion of lengthy extracts from
Mr. Church’s letter, but its scope may be guessed by the following
sentences:――

“Field-preaching is forbidden by the statute, as having a
tendency to sedition and tumults.” “Your extravagances have been
the scorn of the profane, and have strengthened the prejudices
of some against our religion itself.” “I never knew nor heard of
any one instance of a parish in England so carelessly attended
as the charge committed to you in Georgia, the only place, I
think, to which you have had any regular appointment. How unfit
are you, of all men, to upbraid the clergy with non-residence,
with being shepherds who leave their flocks, and let them perish
for lack of knowledge.”

Whitefield immediately replied to this, in an 8vo. pamphlet of 20
pages, bearing the following title:――“A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas
Church, M.A., Vicar of Battersea, and Prebendary of St. Paul’s; in
Answer to his Serious and Expostulatory Letter to the Rev. Mr. George
Whitefield, on occasion of his late Letter to the Bishop of London, and
other Bishops. By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College,
Oxford. London: printed by W. Strahan, for J. Robinson, at the Golden
Lion, in Ludgate Street, and sold at the Tabernacle, near Moor-Fields,
1744.” The letter is dated, “London, May 22, 1744,” and its
biographical sections must be briefly noticed.

Whitefield had often been taunted and even threatened for not using
the Liturgy in many of his public services. In reference to this, he
writes:――

“As for my irregularities in curtailing the Liturgy, or not
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
miles), and had preached with much success. Mr. Whitefield was to go
with him to Boston the next day, to consult friends there about the
affairs of the Orphan House in Georgia, which was what Mr. Habersham
came there about.”

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

These remarks will help to explain the following letter:――

“BOSTON, _July 29, 1745_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

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

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

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

The offer here mentioned was made in the month of September, 1745.[130]
Where and how he spent the remainder of the year cannot be ascertained.

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

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

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

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

“HENRY PARKER.
“WILLIAM SPENCER.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“BETHESDA, IN GEORGIA, _March 21st, 1746_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I have had a very comfortable winter. The people of Savannah,
having no minister till lately, gladly accepted my labours; and,
at Frederica, the gentlemen and soldiers of General Oglethorpe’s
regiment, as well as the inhabitants of the town, received me
very gladly. Major Horton[136] seems to behave well. He has a
fine growing plantation. I saw barley in the ear on the 1st of
March. Georgia is very healthy. Only a little child has died out
of our family since it removed to Bethesda. If the inhabitants
were sufficiently numerous, I think the colony is capable of as
much improvement as any on the continent.”

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

In England, Howell Harris faithfully did his utmost, as Whitefield’s
_locum tenens_. He writes:――

“LONDON, _February 18, 1746_.

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

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

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

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

“THE BRETHREN IN FETTER LANE.”[139]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, on October 16, 1747:――

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

Again, February 4, 1748:――

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

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

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

Herbert Jenkins relates, “August 9, 1747,” that he had been, “almost
a month at Edinburgh, continually exercised in preaching, and visiting
Societies with vast pleasure and delight.”[148]

John Edwards says: “July 21, 1747. Yesterday, I met the young children
at Shrewsbury; and discoursed, sung, and prayed with them about two
hours. The Saviour of little children was there: the Lamb smiling upon
His lambs.”[149]

These extracts might easily be multiplied; but one more must suffice.
It refers to a disgraceful scene at the Tabernacle in Plymouth, on
Sunday, November 29, 1747.

“At five o’clock in the evening, when we were met together to
worship the Lord God of our fathers, being in number about a
thousand, after I had sung and prayed, and gone over the first
head of my discourse, a strong party of sailors, belonging to
the _Windsor_ man of war, came in amongst us. They entered, and
continued, with their hats on. Four of them came up and stood
just under the pulpit, and betrayed, by their looks and sneers,
that they had a mind to put me out of countenance; but I went
on preaching the word of truth with boldness. In about fifteen
minutes, those near the door began to stamp, and to swear
most bitterly. Some of our friends very mildly entreated them,
either to be still, or else to go out peaceably; but, so far
from taking their advice, they laid the weight of their heavy
bludgeons, with unspeakable fury, upon the poor people’s heads.
The cries and groans of the poor women and children were fearful.
There was but one door, and that was guarded by a company of
resolute persons, who swore that the first who attempted to
escape should have his brains blown out by a pistol. The sailors
then beat down the candlesticks, and blew out the candles, to
darken the place; but one of our friends had presence of mind
to push up one of the chandeliers, suspended by a pully, so that
we had a little light preserved. The fury of our foes increased.
Many of the people were knocked down, and had their heads broken.
The windows were dashed to pieces; and the benches taken up as
weapons of warfare. I entreated our friends to march from every
corner of the place, and arrest some of the rioters. This was
done, and three of them being secured, the rest fled as fast as
they could. We concluded the Sabbath with prayers and
thanksgivings.”[150]

In these jottings, the reader has glimpses of the sunshine and shadows
of the Calvinistic Methodists in England and Wales, during Whitefield’s
absence in America. It is now time to turn again to their youthful
moderator across the Atlantic.

For five months, from March to August in 1746, hardly anything is known
of Whitefield’s wanderings. He seems, however, to have visited New York,
and to have found favour among the people. The following is an extract
from the _New York Post-Boy_, of April, 1746:――

“Mr. Whitefield’s excellent parts, fine elocution, and masterly
address; his admirable talent of opening the Scriptures, and
enforcing the most weighty subjects upon the conscience; his
polite and serious behaviour; his unaffected and superior
piety; his prudence, humility, and catholic spirit, are things
which must silence and disarm prejudice itself. By these
qualifications of the orator, the divine, and the Christian,
he has not only fixed himself deeper in the affections of his
former friends, but greatly increased the number wherever he has
preached; and has made his way into the hearts of several, who,
till this visit, had said all the severe things against him that
enmity itself seemed capable of.”[151]

Soon after this, on his way to Philadelphia, Whitefield wrote to Howell
Harris, as follows:――

“_May 2, 1746._

“MY VERY DEAR, DEAR BROTHER HARRIS,――I am glad to hear the Welsh
Brethren continue steady; and that, amongst our English friends,
Antinomianism seems only to be speculative. This is a great evil,
but not so great as when it affects the practice, and leads the
people of God unwarily into licentiousness. The late outward
troubles, I hope, will do good, and put a stop to the many
disputes, and various sects, which always spring up when the
Lord suffers false principles to abound. I expect to hear that
Jesus has made thee immoveable like a wall of brass, as bold as
a lion, but as meek as a lamb. Blessed be His name! He continues
to be very kind to us. The Orphan House is in a promising way.
My temporal affairs begin to be settled; and I am blessed to
many souls. Jesus causes many of my professed and embittered
enemies to be at peace with me. I know you will help me to
praise Him, and beg Him to continue to stand by a poor unworthy
creature, who simply desires to spend and be spent for the good
of precious and immortal souls. You will remember me to your
dear wife, and all our Welsh brethren, in the most endearing
manner. We frequently pray for them, and do not despair of
seeing them once more. My dear wife loves them exceedingly, and
often warms her heart by reflecting on past times.

“Ever, ever thine in Jesus,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[152]

After this, nothing more is known of Whitefield until the month of
August next ensuing. On the 16th of April, at the battle of Culloden,
the Jacobites were utterly defeated, and the cause of the Pretender
entirely ruined. When the news reached Pennsylvania, Whitefield’s
loyalty gushed forth in a sermon, which was immediately printed, with
the title, “Britain’s Mercies, and Britain’s Duty. Represented in
a Sermon preached at Philadelphia, on Sunday, August 24, 1746; and
occasioned by the Suppression of the late unnatural Rebellion. By
George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxon. Printed at
Philadelphia, 1746.”[153] The sermon was almost altogether political,
and need not be further noticed. It was a sufficient answer, however,
to those who doubted Whitefield’s loyalty.

Two days after preaching his thanksgiving sermon, Whitefield wrote to
his mother, as follows:――

“God is exceeding good to me and mine. We have all things
pertaining to life and godliness. Many offers are made me; but
the Lord Jesus keeps me from catching at the golden bait. Favour
is given to me in the sight of the rich and great, and the door
for my usefulness opens wider and wider. I love to range in
the American woods, and sometimes think I shall never return to
England. I was never better in health. My dear wife would send
you a few lines, but she is weak by reason of a miscarriage four
days ago.”

Immediately after this, Whitefield went to Maryland, where he spent, at
least, a month in preaching to large congregations, in seven different
counties. Excepting its slavery, Maryland had great attractions. Its
soil was rich, and its hospitality unique. The young traveller, who
visited Whitefield’s Orphan House in 1743, writes concerning the
province:――

“Mush,[154] milk, and molasses, homine,[155] wild fowl, and fish,
are the principal diet of the meaner inhabitants, whilst the
water presented to you, by one of the barefooted family, in a
copious calabash,[156] with an innocent strain of good breeding
and heartiness,――the cake baking upon the hearth, and the
cleanliness of everything around you,――put you in mind of the
golden age, the times of ancient frugality and purity. All over
the colony, there are full tables and open doors; and the kind
salute, and generous detention remind one of the roast-beef ages
of our forefathers. Their breakfast-tables have generally the
cold remains of the former day, hashed or fricasseed, together
with coffee, tea, chocolate, venison, pastry, punch, rum, and
cider. The dinner consists of good beef, veal, mutton, venison,
turkeys and geese, wild and tame, fowls boiled and roasted,
pies, and puddings. Suppers are the same as dinners, with small
additions, and a good hearty cup to precede a bed of down. This
is the constant life the planters lead, and to this fare every
comer is welcome.”

More than one half of the population of Maryland were slaves, and to
these oppressed and cruelly treated fellow-creatures the planters owed
their riches and their luxuries. Details of Whitefield’s labours in
the colony do not exist. He simply states: “Everywhere almost, the door
is opened for preaching; great numbers flock to hear; and the power
of an ascended Saviour attends the word. I have preached with abundant
success.”[157]

And, again, in a letter to Wesley, dated, “Queen Ann’s County, Maryland,
October 14, 1746,” full of buoyancy, he writes:――

“If you ask, how it is with me? I answer, ‘Happy in Jesus, the
Lord my righteousness.’ If you ask, what I am doing? I answer,
‘Ranging and hunting in the American woods after poor sinners.’
If you ask, with what success? I would answer, ‘My labours were
never more acceptable; and the door, for fifteen hundred miles
together, is quite open for preaching the everlasting gospel.’
Congregations are large, and the work is going on, just as it
began and went on in England.

“Notwithstanding the declining state of Georgia, the Orphan
House is in a better situation than ever; and, in a year or
two, I trust, it will support itself. I am going there to
spend some part of the winter, and to begin a foundation for
literature.”[158]

Soon after this, Whitefield sent off his wife and a young lady through
“the woods,” to Georgia; and, on November 8, he himself started for
Virginia.

The first settlers in Virginia were almost all members of the Church
of England. Episcopacy was established by law.[159] A small number of
Presbyterians from Scotland, and a smaller number of Dissenters from
England, were scattered through the colony; but until about the time
of Whitefield’s first visit, in 1740, there was no ecclesiastical
organization different from the Established Church of the
mother-country. The state of religion in the province was deplorable.
The Rev. Samuel Davies,[160] so justly famed for his sermons and pulpit
oratory, wrote, in 1751:――

“Religion, in most parts of the colony of Virginia, has been,
and still is, in a very low state: a surprising negligence
in attending public worship, and an equally surprising
unconcernedness in those that attend; vices of various kinds
triumphant, and even a form of godliness not common.”

Such a state of things was the natural result of an unfaithful
ministry. Shortly before the year 1740, Samuel Morris began to read,
to his neighbours, Luther on the Galatians, and several pieces of
honest Bunyan, but the effects produced were not great. In 1743, a
young Scotchman brought to Virginia a volume of Whitefield’s sermons,
which Morris read to his cottage congregations on week-days, as well
as Sundays. He writes:――

“The concern of some of the people now was so passionate and
violent, that they could not avoid crying out and weeping
bitterly. My dwelling-house became too small to contain the
congregation, and we determined to build a meeting-house, merely
for reading; for having never been used to extempore prayer,
none of us durst attempt it. When the report was spread abroad,
I was invited to read the sermons at several distant places;
and, by this means, the concern was propagated. About this time,
our absenting ourselves from the Established Church, contrary
to the laws of the province, was taken notice of, and the
court called upon us to assign our reasons, and to declare to
what denomination we belonged. As we knew but little of any
denomination of Dissenters, except Quakers, we were at a loss
what name to assume. At length, recollecting that Luther was a
noted Reformer, and that his books had been of special service
to us, we called ourselves Lutherans.”[161]

The result of this movement was the introduction of Presbyterianism.
Morris and his converts were visited in succession by the Rev. Messrs.
Robinson, Blair, Roan, Tennent, Finley,[162] and other ministers,
until, in the year 1747, Mr. Davies became their settled pastor. These
were the people Whitefield visited in November, 1746; but, unlike
himself, he has left no record of what he saw and did. All that is
known is contained in the following sentence, written by Morris, the
lay-revivalist: “Mr. Whitefield came and preached four or five days,
which was the happy means of giving us further encouragement, and of
engaging others to the Lord, especially among the Church people, who
received the gospel more readily from him than from ministers of the
Presbyterian denomination.”[163]

From Virginia, Whitefield wended his way to Georgia, where, having
received an account of the backsliding and disturbances in London and
elsewhere, which have been already mentioned, he wrote as follows, to
Howell Harris:――

“HANOVER, VIRGINIA, _November 16, 1746_.

“About a week ago, I had the pleasure of receiving a long letter
from you. I was glad to find, that, the Tabernacle was given up
to your care. Whether its breaches are yet repaired, or whether
it be entirely fallen down, I know not. I suppose, when I come
to England, I shall have all to begin again.”[164]

In another letter, written at Bethesda, December 14th, he says:――

“The account you gave me made me mourn. You and all who
attended on my preaching, and had opportunities to converse with
me privately, know how many hints I gave of what has happened.
It might be foreseen; and, consequently, it did not so much
surprise me when I found it had come to pass. But I trust the
storm is now blown over, and that the little flock will enjoy
a calm. Oh that your eyes may be looking towards the blessed
Jesus! From Him alone can come your salvation. He will be better
to you than a thousand Whitefields. I am afraid you are too
desirous of having me with you. Indeed, I long to see you all;
but, for some time, America seems to be my place of action.
The harvest is great in many places, and the labourers are very
few.”[165]

In another letter to Howell Harris, dated “Bethesda, December, 1746,”
he writes:――

“Blessed be God for the good effected by your ministry at
the Tabernacle; of which I have been informed by letters
from Herbert Jenkins and Thomas Adams. The good Countess of
Huntingdon has been there frequently, and has been much pleased,
I am told. She shines brighter and brighter every day; and will
yet, I trust, be spared for a nursing mother to our Israel.[166]
This revives me after the miserable divisions that have taken
place among my English friends. I trust the storm is now blown
over. Her ladyship’s example and conduct, in this trying affair,
will be productive of much good. My poor prayers will be daily
offered up to the God of all grace to keep her steadfast in
the faith, and to make her a burning and shining light in our
British Israel.”[167]

It is a curious fact that, though the Countess of Huntingdon became
acquainted with Whitefield as early as the year 1739, and took a deep
interest in his ordination,[168] there is no evidence of her becoming
a frequent attendant at his Tabernacle, except in the winter of
1742, until nearly eight years afterwards. Just at the time when
the Society there, and, indeed, when the Societies in general, with
which Whitefield was connected, were in danger of being broken up,
her ladyship allied herself with him, and, to the end of life, became
his chief assistant. There is no proof of her being invited to this
position. It would be uncharitable to suppose she was prompted by
ambition. The incident was one of those providential interpositions,
which so strikingly marked Methodism’s early history.

Whitefield remained at Bethesda till towards the end of January, 1747;
and then, leaving his wife with the orphans, he again set out on a
preaching tour. He wrote to Herbert Jenkins as follows:――

“CHARLESTON, _January 23, 1747_.

“I lately came from Bethesda, where I found my family
well――happy in Jesus, and happy in one another. Our Lord bowed
the heavens several times, and came down among us, in the
power of His eternal Spirit. In the beginning of March, I
purpose to set out northward. I am sorry to hear the leaven
of Antinomianism is not yet purged, and that animosities are
not yet ceased among you. I can say nothing at this distance;
but I pray that the God of peace may direct and rule all your
hearts.”[169]

The Orphan House was still a cause of great anxiety. Whitefield had
there a family of twenty-six children. He had also opened a sort of
boarding school, or, to use his own language, had begun “a foundation
for literature.” He was, likewise, more than £500 in debt. To provide
for such necessities, he now took one of the strangest steps in his
chequered life. The people at Charleston gave him £300, which he
expended in buying land and _negroes_! and thus the great preacher
became a slave-owner and a planter! He shall tell his own story.

“CHARLESTON, _March 15, 1747_.

“Blessed be God! I hope I can say, that, Bethesda was never in
better order than it is now. On my arrival there, this winter,
I opened a _Latin_ school, and have now several children of
promising abilities who have begun to learn. One little orphan,
who a year ago could not read his letters, has made considerable
proficiency in his accidence. The blessed Spirit has been
striving with several of the children, and I hope, ere long, to
see some ministers sent forth from Georgia.

“The constitution of that colony is very bad, and it is
impossible for the inhabitants to subsist without the use of
slaves. But God has put it into the hearts of my South Carolina
friends, to contribute liberally towards purchasing, in this
province, a plantation and slaves, which I purpose to devote to
the support of Bethesda. Blessed be God! the purchase is made.
Last week, I bought, at a very cheap rate, a plantation of six
hundred and forty acres of excellent land, with a good house,
barn, and out-houses, and sixty acres of ground ready cleared,
fenced, and fit for rice, corn, and everything that will be
necessary for provisions. One negro has been given me. Some more
I purpose to purchase this week. An overseer is put upon the
plantation, and, I trust, a sufficient quantity of provisions
will be raised this year. The family at Bethesda consists of
twenty-six. When my arrears are discharged, I intend to increase
the number. I hope that God will still stir up the friends of
Zion to help me, not only to discharge the arrears, but also to
bring the plantation, lately purchased, to such perfection, that,
if I should die shortly, Bethesda may yet be provided for.

“As you have been such a benefactor, I thought it proper to give
you this particular account.

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[170]

In all respects, this is a hateful letter. No doubt, it is injurious to
Whitefield’s character and fame; but it could not be honestly withheld.
Some people, perhaps, may be able to invent excuses for Whitefield’s
odious act; but I am not disposed to help them. His motives might be
good, but the transaction itself was bad. Let it pass, as one of the
blots of a distinguished life.

A week after the letter was written, Whitefield and his wife set out
for Maryland, and occupied about five weeks in reaching Bohemia. Here
he spent a month, and wrote:――

“Glad would I be to come and offer myself once more to do New
England service; but I am afraid many of the ministers and the
heads of the people would not bear it. However, were this my
only reason, it would soon be answered; but here are thousands
in these southern parts who scarce ever heard of redeeming grace.
Is it not my duty, as an itinerant, to go where the gospel has
not been named? Those who think I want to make a party, or to
disturb churches, do not know me. I am willing to hunt in the
woods after sinners; and could be content that the name of
George Whitefield shall die, if thereby the name of my dear
Redeemer could be exalted.”

Here, as elsewhere, his labours were incessant. Under the date of
“May 21, 1747,” he writes:――

“I have now been upon the stretch, preaching constantly, for
almost three weeks. My body is often extremely weak, but the joy
of the Lord is my strength; and, by the help of God, I intend
going on till I drop. These southern colonies lie in darkness,
and yet, as far as I find, are as willing to receive the gospel
as others. I have been a three hundred mile circuit in Maryland;
and everywhere the people have a hearing ear, and, I trust, some
have an obedient heart.”

From Maryland, Whitefield proceeded to Pennsylvania. “We travelled,”
says he, “very pleasantly through the woods; and purpose returning to
South Carolina and Georgia in the fall. We lead a moving life; but I
trust we move heavenward.”

On arriving at Philadelphia, Whitefield was in a fever; and no wonder,
considering his outdoor preachings amid the burning sunshine of South
America. The following is from a letter to Howell Harris:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _May 30, 1747_.

“MY DEAREST BROTHER,――Had I strength equal to my will, you
should now receive from me a very long letter; but, at present,
I have such a fever upon me that I can scarce send you a few
lines.

“You are very dear to me,――all of you are very dear to me.
I thank you ten thousand times for all expressions of your
tender love, and your steadiness in the truths and cause of
Christ. Sometimes I hope your prayers will draw me to England
more speedily than I imagine. But what shall I say? Here are
thousands and thousands, in these parts of America, who, as to
spiritual things, know not their right hand from their left;
and yet are ready to hear the gospel from my mouth. Within these
four weeks, I have been a circuit of four hundred miles, and
everywhere found the fields white already unto harvest. No one
goes out scarcely but myself.

“I trust the power of religion will be kept up in England and
Wales. Though my coming may be delayed, I hope, when I am sent,
it will be with a greater blessing. I am daily finishing my
outward affairs, and shall think my call to England clearer,
when I have provided for the support of the Orphan House.

“My dear man, I could write all night, but I am so giddy by hard
riding, and preaching daily in the heat, that I must defer being
more particular till another opportunity. I hope my dear wife
will supply my deficiencies. Remember me in the tenderest manner
to all. Bid them pray me to England. Have you seen my last
volume of five sermons? I hope the gates of hell will never
prevail against the Tabernacle. Amen and amen!”[171]

The next is an extract from Mrs. Whitefield’s letter, also addressed to
Harris, and written at the same date:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _May 30, 1747_.

“MY VERY DEAR FATHER AND FRIEND,――What shall I say to him I
so much love and honour? My dear friends, in England, at the
Tabernacle, and in Wales, can never be forgotten by me.

“The Lord has done great things for and by my dear master. Since
last October, great numbers of precious souls have been brought
from darkness to light, in the six provinces. Last night, my
dear came here from a four hundred miles journey, during which
he preached about thirty times. We left Charleston on March 21st,
and came to Bohemia, in Maryland, on April 27th. He preached
all the way, which has very much fatigued him, and now he has
a great fever upon him.

“Yours in the best of bonds,

“ELIZABETH WHITEFIELD.

“P.S.――Since writing the above, the Lord has enabled my very
dear master to preach, in the _new building_,[172] a most moving
discourse upon growing in grace. I thought it would have been
impossible for his strength to have held out.”[173]

A few days afterwards, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _June 4, 1747_.

“At present, my whole frame of nature seems to be shocked. I
have had several returns of my convulsions, and have almost a
continual burning fever. To oblige my friends, and with great
regret, I have omitted preaching one night, and purpose to do
so once more, that they may not charge me with murdering myself;
but I hope yet to die in the pulpit, or soon after I come out
of it. Dying is exceeding pleasant to me; for though my body is
so weak, the Lord causes my soul to rejoice exceedingly. Letters
from England have refreshed me. All of them call me home loudly.
Congregations here are as large as ever. Next Monday-week, I
purpose to set out for New York.”

Whitefield’s journey to New York had to be postponed. Hence the
following:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _June 23, 1747_.

“I have been several times on the verge of eternity. To-morrow,
God willing, I set out for New York, to see if I can gain
strength. At present, I am so weak, that I cannot preach. It is
hard work to be silent; but I must be tried every way. Friends
are exceeding kind; but the best of all is, the Friend of
sinners looks in upon me, and comforts my heart.”

On reaching New York, Whitefield wrote to Howell Harris:――

“NEW YORK, _June 27, 1747_.

“MY VERY DEAR, DEAR BROTHER,――It is with much pleasure I now sit
down to answer your kind and welcome letters. They have had such
an effect upon me, that, God willing, I am determined to embark
for England, or Scotland, early next spring. Till Christmas, I
am already under indissoluble engagements. I am making a strong
effort to get free from my outward embarrassments; and hope,
before the year is ended, to stock my new plantation in South
Carolina, as a _visible_ fund for the Orphan House.

“For some weeks past, I have been exceedingly indisposed. God
has been pleased to bring me to the very brink of the grave, by
convulsions, gravel, nervous colic, and a violent fever; but as
afflictions abounded, consolations much more abounded, and my
soul longed to take its flight to Jesus. I have not preached for
a week past; but since my leaving Philadelphia, three days ago,
I seem to have gathered strength, and hope once more, to-morrow,
to proclaim amongst poor sinners the unsearchable riches of
Christ. From hence, I purpose to go to Boston, and return by
land, so as to reach Charleston in November.

“You will return my most humble and dutiful respects to good
Lady Huntingdon, the Marquis, and Mrs. Edwin.[174] If possible,
I will write to them. I leave my affairs to you, and depend
on you, under God, to transact them all. The trouble is great,
but Jesus will reward thee. Near £40 yearly were subscribed in
England to the Orphan House; but I have received, I think, not
above £5.”[175]

With the slightest improvement in his health, Whitefield resumed
preaching. The following was addressed to Thomas Adams, one of his
preachers in England:――

“NEW YORK, _July 4, 1747_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER ADAMS,――Your kind letter has affected me
much. It and the other letters have constrained me to set my
face towards England. I hope to discharge what is due in America,
for the Orphan House, this year. I am of your mind respecting
the work in England; and, therefore, am willing so to settle
my affairs, that, when I come, I may stay with you for a long
season.

“At present, I am very weakly, and scarce able to preach above
once or twice a week; but if our Saviour has further work
for me to do, He can make me young and lusty as the eagle. If
not, I shall go to Him whom my soul loveth, and whom I long to
see.”[176]

In another letter, of the same date, Whitefield wrote:――

“I have recovered a little strength, and find my appetite
restored. I have been here eight days; and, to-morrow, intend
posting away to Boston; and then I shall take a long, if not
a final, farewell of all my northward friends. I have preached
twice with great freedom. People flock rather more than ever,
and the Lord vouchsafes us solemn meetings. I have left my dear
yoke-fellow at Philadelphia, and expect to meet her again, in
New York, in six weeks. In these three northward provinces, I
trust something considerable will be done towards paying off the
Orphan-house arrears. When that is effected, I care not how soon
I sing my _Nunc dimittis_.”

Another letter, written at New York, must be added. It was addressed to
John Cennick, who had seceded from Whitefield’s connexion, and joined
the Moravians:――

“NEW YORK, _July 5, 1747_.

“MY DEAR JOHN,――Though sick and weak in body, the love I owe
thee, for Jesus’ sake, constrains me to answer thy last kind
letter, dated February 5. The other, mentioned therein, never
came to hand.

“I am sorry to hear there are yet disputings amongst us
about brick walls. After our contests of that kind about seven
years ago,[177] I hoped such a scene would never appear again;
but I find fresh offences must come, to discover to us fresh
corruptions, to try our faith, to teach us to cease from man,
and to lean more upon God.

“It has been thy meat and drink to preach the unsearchable
riches of Christ. Mayest thou continue in this plan! I wish
thee much success, and shall always pray that the work of the
Lord may prosper in thy hands. Whether thou hast changed thy
principles with thy situation, I know not. I would only caution
thee against taking anything for gospel upon the mere authority
of man. Go where thou wilt, though thou shouldest be in the
purest society under heaven, thou wilt find that the best of men
are but men at best, and wilt meet with stumbling-blocks enough,
to teach thee the necessity of a continual dependence on the
Lord Jesus, who alone is infallible, and will not give that
glory to another.

“My dear man, thou wilt excuse me, as my heart, at present, is
affected with the divisions that subsist between the servants
and churches of Jesus Christ. May Jesus heal them, and hasten
the blessed time, when we shall all see eye to eye, and there
shall be no disputings about houses, doctrine, or discipline,
in all God’s holy mountain!”

On July 20, Whitefield arrived at Boston, and next day wrote to Herbert
Jenkins:――[178]

“I hear the glorious Emmanuel has prospered the work of your
hands at Plymouth, and elsewhere. May He bless and prosper you,
and the rest of my dear brethren, yet more and more! I hope you
will live in unity, and let Satan get no advantage over you.
‘_Divide and destroy_,’ is the devil’s motto. ‘Force united,’
is the Christian’s. Oh that when I come to see you, I may see
you walking in love!”[179]

On August 9th, he wrote as follows to Howell Harris:――

“I have been in New England nearly three weeks. The Lord is with
me. Congregations are as great as ever. I could gladly stay in
New England, but I must return to the southern provinces. Though
faint, I am still pursuing, and, in the strength of Jesus, hope
to die fighting.”[180]

Whitefield’s labours in the north were not confined to Boston. The
following is taken from the _New England Gazette_:――

“Mr. Whitefield came, on Tuesday evening, July 21, to the seat
of his friend, Isaac Royal, Esq., at Charlestown; where, on
the next day, several gentlemen of note from Boston paid him a
friendly visit. On Thursday, the 23rd, he set out for Portsmouth,
where he arrived on Friday, and, that evening, preached there,
to a crowded audience, with as great acceptance as ever. Thence,
he was invited to dine with Sir William Pepperell and his
lady at Kittery, who entertained him with their usual great
politeness and generosity. Thence, he went and preached at York;
the Rev. Mr. Moody and his people received him with the most
hearty welcome. Thence, he returned to Portsmouth, where he
preached again, all the people treating him with gentleman-like
civility. On July 29, he preached at Newbury, and would have
come on to Boston, but was so earnestly solicited to go back
and preach at Exeter and Durham, that he could not resist the
importunity.”

Returning southwards, Whitefield reached New York on August 27, where
he wrote half a dozen letters, from which the following sentences are
culled:――

“We were detained three or four days upon the water; but it
was over-ruled for good. I recovered my appetite, and eat like
a sailor. My health is considerably recruited. My obligations
to my glorious Jesus are increased by my late excursion to
Charlestown, Portsmouth, Boston, and other places in New England.
I am of the same mind as when at Boston,――resolved to preach and
work for Jesus, till I can preach and work no more. He is a good
Master, and is worthy of all our time, and of everything that
we possess. Is not one heart too little for Him? And, yet, He
requires no more. Amazing love! I am lost when I think of it. I
can only say, ‘Lord, I adore and worship!’”

On August 31, Whitefield set out for Philadelphia. At the risk of being
tedious, further extracts from his letters must be given. To Howell
Harris, he addressed the following:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _September 11, 1747_.

“MY VERY DEAR, DEAR BROTHER,――I have good news from Georgia,
and from my new plantation in South Carolina. Many negroes are
brought under conviction. We saw great things in New England.
The flocking, and the power that attended the word, were like
what we witnessed seven years ago. Weak as I was, I travelled
eleven hundred miles, and preached daily. I am now going to
Georgia, to settle all my affairs, and get ready to embark
for England. My dear yoke-fellow is gone forwards. I find no
inclination to settle. I am determined to die fighting. I am
here travelling through a wilderness, but, I trust, leaning on
my Beloved. Jesus is my rock, my stay, my God, my all. Various
are the scenes I pass through; and various are the comforts and
supports with which I meet. Sometimes, the Lord feeds me as it
were by the ravens; and He daily teaches me that man’s extremity
is His opportunity, to help and succour.”[181]

On the same day, Whitefield wrote letters to John and Charles Wesley.
To the former, he says:――

“DEAR AND REVEREND SIR,――Not long ago, I received your kind
letter, dated in February last. Your others, I believe, came to
hand, and I hope ere now you have received my answer. My heart
is really for an outward, as well as inward union. Nothing shall
be wanting on my part to bring it about; but I cannot see how
it can be effected, till we all think and speak the same things.
I rejoice to hear, that you and your brother are more moderate
with respect to _sinless perfection_. As for _universal
redemption_, if we omit on each side the talking for or against
_reprobation_, which we may do fairly, and agree, as we already
do, in giving a universal offer to all poor sinners that will
come and taste the water of life, I think we may manage very
well. But it is difficult to manage such matters at a distance.
Some time next year, I hope to see you face to face.”

So much concerning the amalgamation of their respective Societies.
In reference to the battle of Culloden, and Whitefield’s Thanksgiving
Sermon, on “Britain’s Mercies and Britain’s Duty,” he proceeds to
say:――

“I rejoice to find that the Rebellion has been over-ruled
for the awakening of many souls. Our Lord generally builds
His temple in troublesome times. I cannot, upon the maturest
deliberation, charge myself with a design to flatter in my
sermon upon that occasion.[182] You know my attachment to the
present Establishment. Out of the fulness of my heart, my pen
wrote.”

Passing to his Orphan-house affairs, Whitefield continues:――

“I have news of the awakening of several negroes at my new
plantation, lately purchased in South Carolina. I hope ere
long to be delivered from my outward embarrassments. I long to
owe no man anything but love. This is a debt, reverend sir, I
shall never be able to discharge to you, or your brother. Jesus
will pay you all. I love and honour you very much, and rejoice
in your success as much as in my own. O for heaven! where we
shall mistake, judge, and grieve one another no more. Lately, I
thought myself sailing into the blessed harbour; but it seems I
must put out to sea again. Forgive, reverend sir, the prolixity
of this. Love indites. I salute you for my dear fellow-pilgrim,
who is gone forwards. Continue to pray for us, and assure
yourself that you are always remembered by,

“Reverend and very dear sir, yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield’s letter to Charles Wesley was equally affectionate. He
writes:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _September 11, 1747_.

“VERY DEAR SIR,――Both your letters and your prayers, I trust,
have reached me. May mine reach you also, and then it will not
be long ere we shall be one fold under one Shepherd. However, if
this be not on earth, it will certainly be in heaven. Thither,
I trust, we are hastening apace. Blessed be God! that your
spiritual children are increasing. May they increase more and
more! Jesus can maintain them all. He wills that His house
should be full. Some have written me things to your disadvantage.
I do not believe them. Love thinks no evil of a friend. Such
are you to me. I love you most dearly. You will see my letter to
your dear brother. That you may be guided into all truth, turn
thousands and tens of thousands more unto righteousness, and
shine as stars for ever and ever, is the hearty prayer of,

“Very dear sir, yours most affectionately,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

In the foregoing extract from the _New England Gazette_, the Rev. Mr.
Moody is mentioned. Samuel Moody was a memorable man. Having graduated
in Harvard College, he was ordained in 1700, and, for forty-seven years,
had been minister of York. He was eccentric, but eminent for piety and
usefulness. In his younger years, he himself had been an itinerant,
and had often preached beyond the limits of his own parish. Wherever
he went, he was welcomed. Even the irreligious were impressed with
the sanctity of his character, and were inspired with awe. He refused
to have a fixed salary, as was usual, and elected to depend entirely
on the free contributions of the people. He was frequently in straits,
and almost dinnerless; but always felt confident that, in his extremity,
a meal would be furnished by the providence of God. One day, he had
no provisions and no money, but insisted upon having the cloth laid,
saying to his wife, “The Lord will provide.” No sooner were the words
uttered, than there was a rap at the door, and a person presented him
with a dinner. He was now in the seventy-first year of his age; and,
within four months after the date of Whitefield’s visit, peacefully
expired. The following touching letter was addressed to this venerable
man only eight weeks before his death:――

“BOHEMIA, MARYLAND, _September 17, 1747_.

“HONOURED SIR,――Will you permit a young soldier of Jesus Christ
to write to an experienced veteran, before he goes hence and is
no more seen? I am sorry that my visit to York was short, yet
glad that our Lord gave me to see you once more ready to sing
your ‘Nunc dimittis,’ with steadiness and composure, if not with
joy unspeakable. Happy, thrice happy, reverend sir! You have
gone through that wilderness, which, if hoary hairs should be my
lot, awaits me, your younger son and servant. Well! this is my
comfort: I have the same Beloved to lean upon, as you have had.
The way, though narrow, is not long; the gate, though strait,
opens into life eternal. O that I might pass through it when
young! But, Father, not my will, but Thine be done!

“Honoured sir, be pleased to pray for me. I remember you and
your dear flock. May He, who kissed away the soul of His beloved
Moses, appoint a Joshua to succeed you, when He bids you come
up to the mount and die! I hope my cordial respects will find
acceptance with your dear yoke-fellow; and I beg leave to
subscribe myself, honoured sir, your most affectionate, though
unworthy, younger son and willing servant in Him who liveth for
ever,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Little more remains to be recorded respecting the year 1747. After
spending a few days in Maryland, Whitefield passed into Virginia, where
he “preached once, and would have preached oftener, but the small-pox
was spreading.” He then “posted” to Bath-Town, North Carolina. Writing
to a friend, he says:――

“I am hunting after poor lost sinners in these ungospelized
wilds. People are willing to hear, and I am willing to preach.
My body is weak, and a little riding fatigues me. I long to be
dissolved, and to be with Jesus, but cannot die. I would have
you still pray for me as a _dying_ man; but O pray that I may
not go off as a snuff. I would fain die blazing, not with human
glory, but, with the love of Jesus.”

After riding “on horseback through the woods a hundred and sixty
miles,” and preaching as he went, Whitefield, on October 18, arrived
at Wilmington, Cape Fear. He then proceeded to Charleston; and, on
October 26, set out for Georgia.[183] He closed the year, however, at
Charleston. Hence the following, addressed to John Edwards, one of his
preachers:――

“CHARLESTON, _December 28, 1747_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER EDWARDS,――I have but just time to inform
you that I wait for answers, to my last letters, from dear
brother Harris and you, in order to be determined about my
coming to England. My affairs here are brought under foot.
If friends at home exert themselves, I may be freed from all
outward embarrassments. The Lord is yet with me. All is well at
Bethesda, and at my new plantation. My dear yoke-fellow is at
the Orphan House. We are always praying for you _all_. The Lord
be with you! That we may keep an eternal new year in the New
Jerusalem, is the hearty prayer of, my very dear man,

“Ever yours, whilst

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[184]

Early in the year 1748, Whitefield, instead of embarking for England,
set sail for Bermudas. The following letters, to Howell Harris, will
explain the reason:――

“CHARLESTON, _February 28, 1748_.

“By this time, I hoped to have been on my way to England; but,
having received no answers to the letters I sent you from New
York and elsewhere, and in consequence of other concurring
providences, I have been induced to believe it my duty to go to
Bermudas. My dear yoke-fellow will stay behind, in these parts;
and I purpose to return to her early in the fall. Meanwhile, I
expect to hear from you; and, if my way seems clear, I do not
despair of seeing you before Christmas next. Think not hard of
me, my dear man, for thus deferring to come to you.

“I hope I have now got very near a sufficiency for the future
support of Bethesda. If my friends in England will help me, I
hope my arrears will be paid, and my heart be freed from a load
which has lain on me for years. If not, the Friend of all will
help me. On Him, my eyes wait; and, in obedience to Him, I go
once more upon the mighty waters. My dear wife will have a trial
in my being absent so long.

“Yours most affectionately and eternally in Christ Jesus,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[185]

“ON BOARD THE ‘ANN,’ (Captain Tucker,) _bound from
Charleston to Bermudas, March 6, 1748_.

“MY VERY DEAR, DEAR BROTHER,――Just as I was coming on board,
yours, dated October 16, was put into my hands. I have read it,
and now believe I shall see you sooner than I expected. I have
a great mind to come to you from New England. But what will
_Sarah_ say? I have left her behind me in the tent; and, should
I bring her to England, my two families, in America, must be
left without a head. Should I go without her, I fear, the trial
will be too hard for her; but, if the Lord calls, I can put both
her and myself into His all-bountiful hands.

“I am now going, on a fresh embassage, to Bermudas, after having
had a profitable winter in these southern parts. Congregations
in Charleston have been greater than ever; and Jesus has helped
me to deliver my soul. Had I ten thousand lives, He should have
them all. Excuse this scribble; I am just come on board.

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[186]

As every one knows, the Bermudas are a cluster of small islands, in
the Atlantic Ocean, nearly four hundred in number, but, for the greater
part, diminutive and barren. They were discovered by Juan Bermudas, a
Spaniard, about the year 1522; but were not inhabited till 1609, when
Sir George Somers was cast away upon them, and established a small
settlement. The length of the colony is less than thirty miles, and the
population, even at the present day, is not more than ten thousand, one
half of whom are black and coloured persons. The soil of the inhabited
islands (about five in number) is exceedingly fertile; vegetation is
rapid; spring may be said to be perpetual; and fields and forests are
clad with unfading verdure. In these clustered islets Whitefield landed
on March 15; and here he spent eleven weeks, generally preaching once,
and often twice, a day. In England, it was reported that he was dead.
The _Gentleman’s Magazine_, for the month of May, in its “List of
Deaths,” had the following:――

“April.――Rev. Mr. Whitefield, the famous itinerant preacher, and
founder of the Methodists in Georgia.”

Fortunately, the rumour had afterwards to be corrected.

Whitefield met with the greatest courtesy and kindness in Bermudas.
The Rev. Mr. Holiday, clergyman of Spanish-Point, received him in
the most affectionate manner, and begged him to become his guest.
The governor and the council invited him to dine with them. The Rev.
Mr. Paul, an aged Presbyterian minister, offered him his pulpit.
Colonels Butterfield, Corbusiers, and Gilbert, Captain Dorrel, and
Judge Bascombe, gave him hospitable entertainments. He preached in the
churches, in the Presbyterian meeting-house, in mansions, in cottages,
and in the open air. Colonel Gilbert lent him his horse during his stay;
and the gentlemen of the islands subscribed more than £100 sterling for
his Orphan House. Some of the negroes were offended at him, because he
reproved “their cursing, thieving, and lying,” and said, “their hearts
were as black as their faces;” but, as a rule, they flocked to hear him,
and were powerfully affected by his discourses.

Gillies gives extracts from the Journal which Whitefield wrote in
Bermudas,――extracts filling fifteen printed pages; but the substance of
the whole is contained in the following letter, addressed to a minister
at Boston:――

“BERMUDAS, _May 17, 1748_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,――Nine weeks ago, I arrived here from
Charleston. We had a safe and pleasant passage. We were nine
days on board; and I do not remember hearing one single oath,
from land to land.

“Mr. Holiday, a clergyman of the Church of England, received me
with open heart and arms. The first Lord’s-day, after my arrival,
I read prayers and preached in two of his parish churches; and
the longer I stayed, the more kindly he behaved to me. The two
other Church clergy chose to keep at a distance; but Mr. Paul,
an aged Presbyterian minister, was very free to let me have
the use of his meeting-house, and, as it was pretty large and
in a central part of the island, I preached in it for eight
Lord’s-days successively.

“His excellency, the governor, was pleased to come and hear
me, when I preached in town, with most of the council and the
principal gentlemen in the island. He treated me with great
respect, and invited me more than once to dine with him. I
have preached nearly seventy times; on the week-days chiefly
in private houses, but sometimes in the open air, to larger
assemblies, they tell me, than were ever seen upon the island
before. The word has frequently been attended with Divine power,
and many have been brought under convictions. I have spent nine
happy weeks among them, and was never so little opposed, during
so long a stay in any place. In a few days, I hope to embark, in
the brig _Betsy_, (Captain Eastern,) for England.”[187]

Respecting his farewell sermon, Whitefield wrote:――

“After the service, many came weeping bitterly around me.
Abundance of prayers were put up for my safe passage to England,
and speedy return to Bermudas. Thanks be to the Lord for
sending me hither! I have been received in a manner I dared not
expect, and have met with little, very little, opposition. The
inhabitants seem to be plain and open-hearted. They have also
been open-handed; for they have loaded me with provisions for my
voyage, and, by a private voluntary contribution, have raised me
upwards of £100 sterling. This will pay a little of Bethesda’s
debt, and enable me to make such a remittance to my dear
yoke-fellow, as may keep her from being embarrassed in my
absence.”[188]

This was Whitefield’s only visit to Bermudas. He wrote: “An entrance is
now made into the islands. The Lord, who has begun, can and will carry
on His own work.” It was long before Whitefield’s hope was realized.
Fifty-one years afterwards, Wesley’s Methodist Conference sent to
the islands the Rev. John Stephenson. The white population hated the
missionary, because he was the friend of the enslaved blacks; and,
before long, he was apprehended, tried, condemned, and sentenced to six
months’ imprisonment, besides having to pay a fine of £50, and all the
expenses of his trial. At the end of his imprisonment, Mr. Stephenson
was expelled the colony, and the Methodist mission was abandoned. Eight
years afterwards, it was resumed by the Rev. Joshua Marsden; in due
time, it had the honour of giving to Methodism the well-known Rev.
Edward Frazer; and, in this year, 1876, it has three missionaries, and
between four and five hundred church members.

On the 2nd of June, Whitefield embarked for England, the wife of
the governor of Bermudas being one of his fellow passengers. When
approaching the end of his voyage, he wrote, as follows, to a friend:――

“ON BOARD THE ‘BETSY,’ _June 24, 1748_.

“REV. AND VERY DEAR SIR,――Though we are about two hundred
leagues from land, yet, lest hurry of business should prevent
me when we get ashore, I think proper to write you a few lines
whilst I am on board.

“We sailed from Bermudas twenty-one days ago, and have lived,
as to the conveniences of eating and drinking, like people from
the continent, rather than from one of the islands; so bountiful
were our friends, whom we left behind us. Hitherto, we have met
with no storms or contrary winds. The first day we came out, we
were chased; and, yesterday, a large French vessel shot thrice
at us, and bore down upon us. We gave up all for lost; and I
was dressing to receive our expected visitors; when our captain
cried, ‘The danger is over;’ and the Frenchman turned about and
left us. He was quite near, and we were almost defenceless. Now
we are so near the Channel, we expect such alarms daily.

“The captain is exceedingly civil, and I have my passage free;
but all I have been able to do, in respect to religious duties,
is to read the Church prayers once every evening, and twice on
Sundays. I have not preached yet. This may spare my lungs, but
it grieves my heart. I long to be ashore, if it were for no
other reason.

“Besides, I can do little in respect to writing. You may guess
how it is, when I tell you we have four gentlewomen in the cabin.
However, they have been very civil, and I believe my being on
board has been serviceable. I have finished my abridgment of Mr.
Law’s ‘Serious Call,’ which I have endeavoured to _gospelize_.
Yesterday, I made an end of revising all my Journals. I purpose
to have a new edition before I see America.

“Alas, alas! In how many things have I judged and acted wrong!
I have been too rash and hasty in giving characters, both of
places and persons. Being fond of Scripture language, I have
often used a style too apostolical; and, at the same time, I
have been too bitter in my zeal. Wild-fire has been mixed with
it: and I frequently wrote and spoke in my own spirit, when
I thought I was writing and speaking by the assistance of the
Spirit of God. I have, likewise, too much made impressions my
rule of acting; and have published too soon, and too explicitly,
what had been better told after my death. By these things, I
have hurt the blessed cause I would defend, and have stirred
up needless opposition. This has much humbled me, since I have
been on board, and has made me think of a saying of Mr. Henry’s,
‘Joseph had more _honesty_ than he had _policy_, or he would
never have told his dreams.’

“At the same time, I cannot but bless and praise that good and
gracious God, who filled me with so much of His holy fire, and
carried me, a poor weak youth, through such a torrent both of
popularity and contempt, and set so many seals to my unworthy
ministrations. I bless Him for ripening my judgment a little
more, and for giving me to see and confess, and, I hope, in some
degree, to correct and amend, some of my mistakes. If I have
time before we land, I think to write a short account of what
has happened for these seven years last past; and, when I get
on shore, I purpose to revise and correct the first part of my
Life.”

All must admire this ingenuous confession. Never was the Latin proverb
better illustrated than in the case of Whitefield: “Fas est ab hoste
doceri.” In both mild and savage language, Whitefield had often been
accused of such faults and errors; and now, when he has time to think,
he honestly confesses them.

Whitefield landed at Deal on June 30th, and six days afterwards arrived
in London.[189] One of his first acts, when he stepped ashore, was to
write the following hearty and loving letter “to the Rev. Mr. John or
Charles Wesley.”

“DEAL, _July, 1748_.

“Will you not be glad to hear that the God of the seas and of
the dry land has brought me to my native country once more? I
came last from the Bermudas, where the Friend of sinners was
pleased to own my poor labours abundantly. I hope, I come in the
spirit of love, desiring to study and pursue those things which
make for peace. This is the language of my heart:――

‘O let us find the ancient way,
Our wondering foes to move;
And force the heathen world to say,
See how these Christians love.’

“I purpose to be in London in a few days. Meanwhile, I salute
you and all the followers of the blessed Lamb of God most
heartily. Be pleased to pray for, and give thanks in behalf of,
reverend and dear brother, yours most affectionately in Christ,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Apart from his first visit to America, Whitefield had now spent about
four years and a half in itinerant preaching throughout England’s
transatlantic colonies. Except the religious movement, which began
at Northampton in 1734, and declined in 1736, the time spent in
Whitefield’s second and third visits to America covered the entire
period of what has been termed “the great awakening.” What were the
results of that remarkable work of God? In reference to the churches
of New England only, it has been carefully estimated that from thirty
to forty thousand persons were permanently added to their membership.
With these also must be joined a large number who, after a time, “fell
away;” and likewise the multitudes who were “melted” and made to weep
by Whitefield’s eloquence, but were not converted. Further, it must be
kept in mind, that, up to this period, the practice of admitting to the
communion all persons, though unconverted, who were neither heretical
nor scandalous, was general in the Presbyterian Church, and prevailed
extensively among the Congregational churches; the result being, that a
large proportion of the members of these churches, though orthodox and
moral, were unregenerated. Multitudes of these were now, for the first
time, made the subjects of a saving change. Indeed, in some cases, the
revival seems to have been almost wholly within the Church, and to have
resulted in the conversion of nearly all the members. These, at the
best, had been dead weights to their respective communities; but now
they became active and valuable workers.

Again: it is useless to deny that there were a large number of
unconverted ministers, especially in New England. Young men, without
even the appearance of piety, were received into the colleges to
prepare for the ministry. Graduates, if found to possess competent
knowledge, were ordained as a matter of course, quite irrespective of
their being born again. The result was, that in New England and in all
the colonies, an unconverted ministry, to a lamentable extent, was the
bane of the churches. “The great awakening,” however, reached not only
the pews, but the pulpits and the colleges of the Christian community.
In the vicinity of Boston only, there were not fewer than twenty
ministers who acknowledged Whitefield as the means of their conversion;
and in other parts of the country, there were proportionate numbers.
This was an incalculable gain. The great curse of the Church was turned
into an equally great blessing. Yea, more than this, the revival fully
and finally killed the doctrine that an unconverted ministry might be
tolerated; and, henceforth, parents felt that they were not doing a
worthy deed by consecrating their unregenerated sons to the office of
the Christian ministry, and sending them to colleges to be prepared
for it.[190]

Other immediate results of “the great awakening” might be mentioned,
but these are sufficient to evoke the grateful exclamation, “_What hath
God wrought!_”

_THREE YEARS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND._

JULY 1, 1748, TO AUGUST 29, 1751.

TWO days after his arrival in London, Whitefield wrote to his
much-loved friend, the gentle James Hervey, who was now completing his
“Meditations”:――

“I am very pleased that you appear in print, and that such
encouragement is given to you to print again. My bodily health
is much impaired; but, through Divine assistance, I will go on
working for Jesus, till I can work no more.”

And again, eight days later:――

“Blessed be God, for causing you to write so as to suit the
taste of the polite world! O that they may be won over to admire
Him who is altogether lovely! But what shall I say to your
kind intended present? It is like my dear old friend. My health
somewhat improves. Oh, when shall we get within the veil? Thanks
be to God! it cannot be long. We are both sickly. Lord, give us
patience to wait till our blessed change comes! Our Lord makes
it exceedingly pleasant to me to preach His unsearchable riches.
Multitudes flock to hear; and many seem to be quickened.”

The welcome given to Whitefield in the metropolis was marvellous. It is
true that the only church in which he was allowed to preach was that of
the Rev. Richard Thomas Bateman, who, only five years before, had been
one of Whitefield’s enemies; but there was the wooden tabernacle, and,
above all, his grand old open-air cathedral adjoining it. On Tuesday,
July 12, he wrote:――

“I have preached twice in St. Bartholomew’s Church, and helped
to administer the sacrament once. I believe, on Sunday last,
we had a thousand communicants. Moorfields are as white as ever
unto harvest, and multitudes flock to hear the word. The old
spirit of love and power seems to be revived amongst us.”

In another letter, written eight days later, he says:――

“It is too much for one man to be received as I have been by
thousands. The thoughts of it lay me low, but I cannot get low
enough. I would willingly sink into nothing before the blessed
Jesus, my All in all.”

Whitefield, however, was not exempt from anxieties. His Bethesda debt
was still a burden. Besides this, he wrote:――

“Satan has been sifting all our poor Societies. This is no more
than I expected. Antinomianism has made havoc here; but, I trust,
the worst is over. Our scattered troops begin to unite again,
and the shout of a king is amongst us.”

There can be no question, that Whitefield’s presence was greatly
needed by the Societies, of which he was moderator. Howell Harris was
one of the most devoted and laborious preachers that ever lived; but
his influence was not equal to that of Whitefield. In a letter, dated
March 3, 1748, he speaks of having travelled about a thousand miles,
in the depth of winter, since he left London on December 20th, and of
having preached two, three, or four times every day.[191] Still the
people were clamorous to have Whitefield back.

The Countess of Huntingdon, also, had lately been associated with the
Societies with which Whitefield was connected; and, within the last two
months, had been present at a series of memorable services in Wales.
In the month of May, her ladyship and her daughters, accompanied by
Lady Anne and Lady Frances Hastings, were met, in Bristol, by Howell
Harris, and the Revs. Griffith Jones, Daniel Rowlands, and Howell
Davies, three Methodist clergymen of the Church of England; and, as a
sort of evangelistic cavalcade, the whole set out for the neighbouring
principality. For fifteen days successively, two of the ministers, who
accompanied the Countess, preached in the Welsh towns and villages,
through which they passed. On their arrival at Trevecca, they were
joined by five other clergymen, also by several pious and laborious
Dissenting ministers, and a number of Whitefield’s preachers. Here they
had preaching four or five times every day, immense crowds flocking
together from all the adjacent country. The scenes witnessed by the
Countess and the ladies attending her, were, to them, new and startling.
Numbers of the people, convinced of their guilt and misery, gave
utterance to loud and bitter cries; whilst others, filled with “joy
unspeakable,” magnified the Lord, and rejoiced in God their Saviour. No
wonder, that, after this, the Countess of Huntingdon deeply sympathised
with these earnest clergymen and powerful preachers.

“On a review,” she writes, “of all I have seen and heard, during
the last few weeks, I am constrained to exclaim, ‘Bless the
Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless His holy name!’
The sermons were, in general, lively and awakening, containing
the most solemn and awful truths, such as the utter ruin of
man by the fall, and his redemption and recovery by the Lord
Jesus Christ, the energetic declaration of which produced great
and visible effects in many. I enquired the meaning of the
outcry which sometimes spread through the congregation; and,
when informed that it arose from a deep conviction of sin,
working powerfully on the awakened conscience, I could not but
acknowledge, ‘This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous
in our eyes.’ Many, on these solemn occasions, there is reason
to believe, were brought out of nature’s deepest darkness into
the marvellous light of the all-glorious gospel of Christ. My
earnest prayer to God for them is, that they may continue in His
grace and love.”[192]

Accompanied by Howell Harris and Howell Davies, the Countess of
Huntingdon arrived in London on the 15th of June,[193] exactly three
weeks before Whitefield’s arrival there. Her ladyship, through Howell
Harris, invited Whitefield to her house at Chelsea, where he, at once,
began to preach to crowded and fashionable congregations.[194] This,
to Whitefield, was the beginning of a new career. Henceforth, Hervey
by his writings, and Whitefield by his preaching, began to mould the
character of not a few of the highest nobility in the land.

Howell Harris was a glorious evangelist; but, somehow, he hardly
succeeded in keeping Whitefield’s preachers in proper order. The
Countess of Huntingdon was a remarkable woman; but she could scarcely
preside, as a female prelate, in the “Associations,” or conferences of
the Calvinistic Methodists. Five years ago, the preachers had elected
Whitefield to be their moderator at all times when he was resident in
England, and had decided that, in his absence, Howell Harris should
be his substitute. For nearly four years past, Whitefield had been
in America, and Harris had done his best, in governing as well as
preaching. Affairs, however, had got into confusion; and, hence, a
fortnight after Whitefield’s arrival in London, he resumed his place
as moderator. The following is taken from the “Life and Times of Howell
Harris,” and is an abridgment of the minutes entered in the “Conference
Book,” already mentioned:――

“Association held in London, July 20, 1748. Present, Whitefield,
(moderator), Bateman, Harris, and others. Whitefield, after
prayer and singing, opened his mind on several points.” He
told the exhorters and preachers present, that, “he had seen so
much confusion occasioned by young men going out rashly beyond
their line, that, he was resolved not to labour with any who
did not shew a teachable mind and a willingness to submit.” He
admonished them “to use all means for improving their talents
and abilities.” And added, that, “though he hated to affect
headship, yet he must see every one acquainted with his own
place, and that they must consider themselves as candidates
on approbation.” The result of this faithful dealing was, “the
Brethren viewed him as a father; and declared their willingness
to use all possible means for their personal improvement.”

Thus began Whitefield’s ecclesiastical administration on his return
from America. Like a wise man, he, first of all, tried to put the
preachers right. Without this, it would have been useless to attempt
to amend the people.

The effort was a temporary one. Having spent nearly a month in London,
Whitefield set out to attend a quarterly “Association,” at Waterford,
in Wales. A month later, he wrote a surprising letter to his friend
Wesley.

“LONDON, _September 1, 1748_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,――My not meeting you in London has been a
disappointment to me. What have you thought about a union? I am
afraid an external one is impracticable. I find, by your sermons,
that we differ in principles more than I thought; and I believe
we are upon two different plans. My attachment to America will
not permit me to abide very long in England; consequently, I
should weave but a Penelope’s web, if I formed Societies; and,
if I should form them, I have not proper assistants to take care
of them. I intend, therefore, to go about preaching the gospel
to every creature. You, I suppose, are for settling Societies
everywhere; but more of this when we meet.”

This, on the part of Whitefield, was not an inconsiderate utterance.
The present was really a turning-point in his eventful life. Strictly
speaking, with perhaps a few exceptions, he had not “_formed_”
Societies, as Wesley had; but, for five years past, he had been the
“moderator” of all the Societies founded by Howell Harris, and by
the preachers, who, in the title-page of the _Christian History_, were
constantly designated Whitefield’s “fellow-labourers and assistants.”
Many of Wesley’s Societies were “_formed_” not by Wesley himself, but
by his “assistants;” and the same must be said respecting Whitefield
and the Societies of which he was president. If Whitefield had not
_actually_ “settled” Societies, he had consented to this being done by
his “fellow-labourers and assistants;” and, by accepting the office of
moderator, he had encouraged the proceeding. Now, however, he declared
his intention to take a new position; and, by degrees, his intention
was carried out. At an Association, held in London, April 27, 1749,
at which Whitefield, Harris, and others were present, it was agreed,
that “Harris should take the oversight of the Tabernacle in London,
and of the other _English_ Societies and preachers; and that Whitefield
should do all he could to strengthen the hands of Harris and others,
consistent with his going out to preach the gospel at home and
abroad.”[195] By this resolution, the office of moderator was
practically transferred from Whitefield to Harris. Whitefield was no
longer the head of the Calvinistic Methodists, but his friend Harris,
who first founded them.

For the present, Whitefield did not abandon them. He simply ceased
to be their chief officer. During the first week of September, 1749,
he spent not fewer than five days in conference with them, at the
Tabernacle, London; when, besides settling the “rounds” of the
preachers, it was determined, not only “to preach the Lord Jesus in a
catholic spirit to all the churches,” but “to continue in communion”
with the Church of England.[196]

Harris, however, in his new office, was far from being happy. “In
Wales,” he writes, “great jars and disputes arose amongst us.”[197] He
became dissatisfied with some of the preachers and with many of the
people; and, at an Association held at ♦Llanidloes in 1751, there was
a rupture, and Harris seceded from them. In the year following, Harris
founded his remarkable and well-known settlement at Trevecca; and
here, in comparative seclusion, he continued to reside until his death,
in 1773. For twenty years, he had a small community of his own; but,
though separated from the Calvinistic Methodists, whom he had founded,
he was not an opponent and an enemy. His heart was too warm and large
to be vindictive. To the last, he was a sincere friend of Whitefield,
and of his old companions in toil, tribulation, and success.

The incidents just enumerated deserve attention. It is impossible to
conceive what would have been the result, if Whitefield and Harris had
continued active chiefs of the Calvinistic Methodists; as it is equally
impossible to conceive the probable consequences of Whitefield entering
into an open union with Wesley; and of the Societies, “assistants,
and fellow-labourers” of the two being amalgamated into one common
body. Speculations on such matters would be fruitless. The plain facts
are these: within two months after his return from America, in 1748,
Whitefield determined to put an end to his official relationship to
the Calvinistic Methodists; this determination was gradually carried
out; and, during the last twenty years of his life, he occupied a new
position, which must now be noticed.

The question naturally occurs, Why this change of situation? Was it
because of the wild-fire of some of the preachers, and the consequent
confusion of some of the Societies, with which Whitefield was
officially connected? This is improbable; for, whatever might be
Whitefield’s failings, shirking difficulties was not one of them.
The only way to solve the propounded problem is to remember the close
relationship which was now, unexpectedly, created between the Countess
of Huntingdon and the great preacher. The Countess had recently been
an eye-witness of some of the Societies in Wales, and had been filled
with gratitude and praise for what she had seen and heard; but, now she
seems to have entertained the idea, that both she and Whitefield might
be more usefully employed, than by directly associating themselves
with the Calvinistic Methodists, and by using their time, talents, and
influence in the multiplication of such Societies. Instead of creating
new sects out of the Church of England, was it not possible to reform
and amend the Church of England itself? And was not the raising up of
evangelical and converted ministers the most likely way to bring about
such a reformation? Put the pulpits right, and the pews would certainly
improve.

Though direct evidence may be wanting, there can be little doubt, that,
this was the grand scheme now revolving in the mind of the illustrious
Countess; and that this scheme, in less or greater detail, was
revealed to Whitefield, and led to his separation from the Calvinistic
Methodists. At all events, as will be seen hereafter, this was one of
the chief objects to which Whitefield and her ladyship devoted their
time and energies. Whitefield tried to raise up converted clergymen;
and the Countess procured them ordination, and built them chapels.
The idea was grand,――perhaps inspired,――and the working it out was
unquestionably the principal means of effecting the marvellous change
which has taken place, since then, in the Established Church. Wesley
created a great Church outside the Church of England. Whitefield and
the Countess of Huntingdon were pre-eminently employed in improving
the Church of England itself. Where was evangelistic effort previous
to the days of Wesley? And where were the converted clergymen of the
Established Church previous to the year 1748? A few――a very few――might
be mentioned; but even these were nicknamed Methodists. No one can
estimate the service rendered to the cause of Christ, outside the
Church, by Wesley and his “assistants;” and it is also equally
impossible to estimate the service rendered _to_ the Church by the
despised Whitefield and his female prelate, the grand, stately,
strong-minded, godly, and self-sacrificing Countess of Huntingdon. All
this will be amply illustrated by the further details of Whitefield’s
history.

To return. The following fragments, taken from letters written to
Lady Huntingdon, during the month of August, 1748, will serve to shew
the friendship that now existed between her ladyship and the great
preacher:――

“August 21. I received your ladyship’s letter late last night.
I am quite willing to comply with your invitation. As I am to
preach at St. Bartholomew’s on Wednesday evening, I will wait
upon your ladyship the next morning, and spend the whole day at
Chelsea. Blessed be God, that the rich and great begin to have
a hearing ear. Surely your ladyship and Madam Edwin are only
the firstfruits. A word in the lesson, when I was last at your
ladyship’s, struck me,――‘Paul preached privately to those who
were of reputation.’ This must be the way, I presume, of dealing
with the nobility who yet know not the Lord. O that I may be
enabled so to preach as to win their souls to the blessed Jesus!

“August 22. As there seems to be a door opening for the nobility
to hear the gospel, I will preach at your ladyship’s on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, I will wait upon or send to the Count, the Danish
Ambassador’s brother, who favours me with his company to dine on
Monday. As I am to preach four times to-morrow, I thought it my
duty to send these few lines to your ladyship to-night.”

The Countess made him her domestic chaplain,――the only ecclesiastical
preferment, except the living at Savannah, he ever had; and, in
acknowledgment of the honour, he wrote to her as follows:――

“LONDON, _September 1, 1748_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Although it is time for me to be setting
out” (for Scotland), “I dare not leave town without dropping
a few lines, gratefully to acknowledge the many favours I have
received from your ladyship, especially the honour you have done
me in making me one of your ladyship’s chaplains. A sense of it
humbles me, and makes me pray more intensely for grace to walk
worthy of that God who has called me to His kingdom and glory.
As your ladyship has been pleased to confer this honour upon me,
I shall think it my duty to send you weekly accounts of what the
Lord Jesus is pleased to do for me and by me.

“Glory be to His great name, the prospect is promising. My
Lord Bath[198] received me yesterday morning very cordially,
and would give me five guineas for the orphans. God’s peculiar
providence has placed your ladyship at Chelsea. Upon the road, I
propose writing you my thoughts of what scheme seems to be most
practicable, in order to carry on the work of God, both here and
in America.”

To a friend, on the same day, Whitefield wrote:――

“LONDON, _September 1, 1748_.

“I have been a mile or two upon the road to Scotland, but turned
back because my chaise was not registered.

“My hands have been full of work, and I have been among great
company. A privy counsellor of the King of Denmark, and others,
with one of the Prince of Wales’s favourites, dined and drank
tea with me on Monday. On Tuesday, I preached twice at Lady
Huntingdon’s, to several of the nobility. In the morning, the
Earl of Chesterfield[199] was present. In the evening, Lord
Bolingbroke.[200] All behaved quite well, and were in some
degree affected. Lord Chesterfield thanked me, and said, ‘Sir,
I will not tell you what I shall tell others, how I approve
of you,’ or words to this purpose. He conversed with me freely
afterwards. Lord Bolingbroke was much moved, and desired I would
come and see him next morning. I did; and his lordship behaved
with great candour and frankness. All accepted of my sermons.
Thus, my dear brother, the world turns round. ‘In all time of my
wealth, good Lord, deliver me!’”

Before following Whitefield to Scotland, further extracts from his
letters must be given.

The friendship between Whitefield and the celebrated Dr. Doddridge
has been already noticed. He now commenced an important correspondence
with one of the doctor’s converts. James Stonehouse was a year or
two younger than Whitefield, and was practising as a physician at
Northampton. For seven years, he had been an infidel; and had written
a pamphlet against revealed religion, which reached three editions. The
death of his young wife, at the age of twenty-five, caused reflection.
He read Doddridge’s “Rise and Progress of Religion,” and was converted.
He was now a sincere and ardent Christian; and Whitefield began to urge
him to become a minister. After much hesitancy, he entered into holy
orders, and obtained the lectureship of All Saints’, Bristol. In 1791,
he succeeded to the title of baronet. He was a man of great ability,
was no mean poet, published several religious pamphlets, and died, in
1795, full of years and honour. He was now living in terms of great
intimacy with Doddridge and Hervey, and had written to Whitefield,
giving him advice about his health. At present, Whitefield had no
leisure to place himself in the hands of a physician. He was soon to
start for Scotland; and he wished to publish a new and revised edition
of his journals, and of some of his sermons. Hence the following,
addressed to Dr. Stonehouse:――

“LONDON, _August 22, 1748_.

“VERY DEAR SIR,――I thank you for your concern about my health.
If it should please God to bring me back from Scotland, to
winter in town, I have thoughts of submitting to some regimen
or other. At present, I think it impracticable.

“I heartily wish that you and Dr. Doddridge[201] and Mr. Hervey
would be pleased to revise my journals and last five sermons. I
intend publishing a new edition soon. I always do as you desire
in respect to Mr. Wesley’s sermons. My prayer for him, for
myself, and for my friends, is this,――‘Lord, give us clear heads
and clean hearts!’

“I would recommend Bishop Beveridge’s sermons more, but they are
too voluminous for the common people, and I have not read them
all. I expect you will do this yourself, by-and-by, from the
pulpit, and recommend his and your Master to the choice of poor
sinners. By your excellent letter, you have publicly confessed
Him. The eyes of all will be now upon you, to see whether the
truths you have delivered to others are transcribed in your own
heart, and copied in your life. Now indeed may you cry――

‘O for a strong, a lasting faith,
To credit what the Almighty saith!’

“Dear sir, let me entreat you to keep from trimming, or so much
as attempting to reconcile two irreconcilable differences,――God
and the world, Christ and Belial. You know me too well to
suppose I want you to turn cynic. No, live a social life; but
beg of the Lord Jesus to free you from love of the world. Thence
arises that fear of man, which now shackles and disturbs your
soul. Dare, dear sir, to be singularly good. If Christ be your
Saviour, make Him a present of your pretty character. Honour Him,
and He will honour you. Never rest till you can give up children,
name, life, and all into His hands, who gave His precious blood
for you. I make you no apology for this: you say you are my
friend.”

Whitefield left London on September 3, and, halting at Olney, wrote, as
follows, to a friend in New England:――

“OLNEY, _September 4, 1748_.

“It is always darkest before daybreak. It has been so in England.
Matters, as to religion, were come almost to an extremity. The
enemy had broken in upon us like a flood. The Spirit of the
Lord is now lifting up a standard. The prospect of the success
of the gospel, I think, was never more promising. In the church,
tabernacle, and fields, congregations have been great; and,
perhaps, as great power as ever hath accompanied the word. A
door is also opening for the mighty and noble. I have preached
four times to several of the nobility at good Lady Huntingdon’s.
All behaved exceeding well; and, I suppose, in the winter,
opportunities of preaching to them will be frequent.

“As for returning to America, if I live, I believe there is no
doubt of it. I intend keeping myself free from Societies, and
hope to see you again next year.”

Whitefield arrived in Edinburgh on Wednesday, September 14, and
continued in Scotland until October 27.[202] During his stay in London,
he had preached regularly, at least once a week, in the Church of
St. Bartholomew, of which his quondam enemy, but now ardent friend,
the Rev. Richard T. Bateman, was rector. Though now patronized by
the Countess of Huntingdon and several of the nobles of the land,
Whitefield was not permitted to preach in any metropolitan church
except this; and even for granting this permission, Mr. Bateman was
likely to be involved in trouble. Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, died
three days after Whitefield set out for Scotland; and it was hoped
that Bateman’s troubles would be buried in the bishop’s grave. Two days
subsequent to his arrival at Edinburgh, Whitefield wrote to Mr. Bateman
as follows:――

“EDINBURGH, _September 16, 1748_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――I have met with a hearty welcome. Last
night, I preached to a Moorfields congregation, for numbers;
and the Lord, I believe, was pleased to give His blessing. I
hope all is well in London. The bishop’s death, I suppose, will
prevent any further stir about Bartholomew’s. I shall be glad to
hear how you go on. Pray, dear sir, how are your circumstances?
You will not be offended, if I say that more than one have
informed me of your being in debt. I thought it my duty to
apprize you of this, because I know what a burden it is to be
in debt; not indeed for myself, but for others.”

Except about a dozen days spent at Glasgow and Cambuslang, Whitefield’s
labours in Scotland seem to have been confined to Edinburgh. In various
letters to the Countess of Huntingdon, he relates, that, at his first
coming, he was rather discouraged; for “some of the ministers were
shy,” many of his friends were dead, others were backsliders, the
weather was boisterous, and he himself was hoarse. “I have met,” said
he, on September 29, “with some unexpected rubs, but not one more than
was necessary to humble my proud heart.” A fortnight later, he tells
her ladyship that, in the Synod of Glasgow, there had been a long
debate about him; and that the Presbytery of Perth had “made an act
against employing” him. He adds:――

“Ill-nature shews itself in Edinburgh, but I feel the benefit
of it. Congregations are large, and I am enabled to preach with
greater power. My hoarseness is quite gone, and my bodily health
much improved. If my enemies shew themselves, I am persuaded the
blessed Jesus will bless me to His people more and more. Some
give out that I am employed by the Government to preach against
the Pretender; and the seceders are angry with me for not
preaching up the Scotch Covenant. Blessed be God! I preach up
the covenant of grace, and I trust many souls are taught to
profit.”

When at Topcliff, on his way back to London, he wrote to the
Countess:――

“Thanks be to the Lord of all lords for directing my way to
Scotland! I have reason to believe some have been awakened, and
many, many quickened and comforted. My old friends are more
solidly so than ever; and, I trust, a foundation has been laid
for doing much good, if the Lord should call me thither again.
Two Synods and one Presbytery brought me upon the carpet; but
all has worked for good. The more I was blackened, the more the
Redeemer comforted me.”

This was the first time that Whitefield had been discussed in the
Ecclesiastical Courts of Scotland. Though many of the clergy had been
dissatisfied with the countenance given to Whitefield’s preaching,
several circumstances had hitherto prevented them from uniting
in any public measure to restrain it. The proceedings of “The
Associate Presbytery” had been so intemperate, that the clergy of
the Establishment naturally felt a reluctance to countenance their
calumnies. The great body of the people, also, were so extremely
attached to him, that a direct attack upon his ministry could scarcely
have been made, without incurring public odium. Further, some of the
most distinguished families in Scotland were his constant hearers,
and were in the habit of admitting him to their private society.
Among these, in particular, was his Majesty’s representative, as Lord
High Commissioner, in the General Assembly, who not only attended
his ministrations, and invited him to his house, but introduced him
to his public table, during the session of the assembly. When these
circumstances are added to the long-established practice of the
Presbyterian Church, with regard to occasional communion with other
churches, it is not surprising that the ministers of the Establishment
were not forward to agitate a question on which unanimity was not to be
expected, and in which principle and prudence were both involved.

It is difficult to conceive why the subject of Whitefield’s character
and preaching were debated now. Perhaps the members of the Glasgow
Synod were afraid of a repetition of the marvellous scenes which
had been witnessed at Cambuslang and other places, in 1742. Or,
perhaps, they were deeply offended, because, during his present visit,
Whitefield had been employed to preach for Dr. Gillies in the College
Church of Glasgow, and for Dr. Erskine in the Church of Kirkintilloch.
Be that as it may, the Synod of Glasgow deemed it right to discuss
the matter. The topics introduced were numerous, but stale. He was
a priest of the Church of England; he had not subscribed the formula;
he had been imprudent; his Orphan-house scheme was chimerical; there
was want of evidence that the money he collected was rightly applied;
he asserted that assurance was essential to faith; he encouraged
a dependence on impulses and immediate revelations; he declared,
on slender evidence, some people converted, and others carnal and
unregenerated; he often pretended to repent of his blunders, but as
often relapsed into them; and, finally, he was under a sentence of
suspension by Commissary Garden.[203] These were the accusations.
Keen debates occurred; and, at length, the following, almost neutral,
proposition was submitted: “That no minister within the bounds of the
Synod should employ ministers or preachers, not licensed or ordained in
Scotland, till he had had sufficient evidence of their license and good
character, and should be in readiness to give an account of his conduct
to his own presbytery, when required.” Thirteen voted against the
proposition, and twenty-seven for it.[204]

Similar resolutions were adopted by the Synod of Lothian and
♦Tweeddale, the Synod of Perth and Stirling, and by the Presbytery of
Edinburgh; and, to complete the whole, six hundred of the followers of
the Erskines, by whom Whitefield was first invited to visit Scotland,
assembled in Edinburgh on November 16, and swore to observe the League
and Covenant; and “solemnly engaged to strengthen one another’s hands,
in the use of lawful means, to extirpate Popery, Prelacy, Arminianism,
Arianism, Tritheism, Sabellianism, and _George Whitefieldism_.” The
service “was conducted by the Rev. Adam Gibb and his helpers, with
great solemnity, and the generality of the people evidenced an uncommon
seriousness and concern.”[205]

Of course, all this created great commotion; but limited space will
only permit the insertion of the following letter, which was printed
in the _Edinburgh Courant_:――

“SIR,――On the 27th of October, the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield
set out from this place” (Edinburgh) “to London. During the time
of his stay here, he preached about twenty times in the Orphan
Hospital Park, three times in the Tolbooth Church, and twice
in that of the Cannongate, to very large congregations; and
was much approven of, by the generality of serious Christians,
as a well-accomplished gospel preacher. As his conversation in
private, as well as public, gave entire satisfaction to those
who were most intimate with him, it is not a little surprising
to them to find him represented and asserted to be a person of
suspicious character. He declared, upon his arrival here, that
he was to make no public collections; and he did not. Neither
did he ask money or anything else from any person.[206] As it is
reported he will pay us a visit next summer, it is not doubted
but it will be very acceptable to all who rejoice that Christ is
preached, and sinners are saved through Him.”

Dr. Stonehouse, of Northampton, has been mentioned. Whitefield wished
him to become a minister; but Stonehouse was timorous, and afraid of
being called a Methodist. Whitefield desired to have an interview with
him, on his return from Scotland, and hence the following letter:――

“GLASGOW, _September 28, 1748_.

“MY VERY DEAR SIR,――I purpose to preach at Oundle, in my way
to London. Glad shall I be to see two such friends, as you
and Mr. Hervey, though _incog_. I will endeavour to send you
timely notice. I would have neither of you expose yourselves
to needless contempt on my account. I think I can say that I am
willing to be forgotten, even by my friends, if Jesus Christ may
thereby be exalted. But then, I would not have my friends act
an inconsistent part towards that Friend of all――that Friend of
sinners, the glorious Emmanuel. Whilst you are afraid of men,
you will expose yourself to a thousand inconveniences. Your
polite company (unless you converse with them more as their
physician than as their companion) will prevail on you to such
compliances as will make you smart, when you retire into your
closet and reflect on the part you have acted. Before I shook
off the world, I often came out of company shorn of all my
strength, like poor Samson when he had lost his locks. But this
is a tender point.

“Go on, dear sir, and prove the strength of Jesus to be
yours. Continue instant in prayer, and you shall see and feel
infinitely greater things than you have yet seen or felt. I am
of your opinion, that there is seed sown in England, which will
grow up into a great tree. God’s giving some of the mighty and
noble a hearing ear forebodes future good. I do not despair of
seeing you a proclaimer of the unsearchable riches of Christ.
God be praised! that Mr. Hervey is so bold an advocate for his
blessed Lord.”

Whitefield was always in trouble, from one quarter or another. While
the ecclesiastical courts of Scotland were interdicting his preaching,
without mentioning his name, Lavington, the Bishop of Exeter, was
lashed into an unchristian rage against him. His Lordship of Exeter had
recently delivered a charge to the clergy of his diocese. Some unknown
wag circulated what pretended to be a manuscript copy of the charge,
but containing declarations of doctrine and Christian experience worthy
of Whitefield and Wesley themselves. Without authority, the _pretended_
charge was printed, and occasioned the publication of several pamphlets
in reply and congratulation. Meanwhile, however, Lavington, the
inveterate hater of Methodists and Moravians, was dubbed a Methodist.
This, to his lordship, was intolerable, and drew forth from him an
angry “declaration,” in which he charged the Methodist chiefs with
being the authors of the fraud. The charge was utterly unfounded; the
Countess of Huntingdon interfered; with great difficulty she obtained
a recantation from the infuriated prelate; and this was published in
the leading journals of the day. The following letter refers to this
disreputable _fracas_.

“GLASGOW, _October 5, 1748_.

“VERY DEAR SIR,――I received yours this morning, and think it my
duty to send you an immediate answer.

“You might well inform my Lord of Exeter that I knew nothing
of the printing of his lordship’s pretended charge, or of the
pamphlets occasioned by it. When the former was sent to me in
manuscript, from London to Bristol, as his lordship’s production,
I immediately said, it could not be his. When I found it printed,
I spoke to the officious printer, who did it out of his own head,
and blamed him very much. When I saw the pamphlet, I was still
more offended. Repeatedly, in several companies, I urged the
injustice as well as imprudence thereof, and said it would
produce what it did,――I mean a ♦declaration from his lordship,
that he was no Methodist. I am sorry his lordship had such an
occasion given him to declare his aversion to what is called
Methodism; and, though I think his lordship, in his declaration,
has been somewhat severe concerning some of the Methodist
leaders, I cannot blame him for saying, that he thought ‘some of
them were worse than ignorant and misguided,’ supposing that his
lordship had sufficient proof that they caused to be printed a
charge which he had never owned nor published.

“If you think proper, you may let his lordship see the contents
of this. I will only add, that, I wish a way could be found,
whereby his lordship and other of the right reverend the bishops
might converse with some of us. Many mistakes might thereby be
rectified, and perhaps his lordship’s sentiments, in some degree,
might be altered. If this cannot be effected, (I speak only
for myself,) I am content to wait till we all appear before the
great Shepherd and Bishop of souls. Meanwhile, I heartily pray,
that their lordships may be blessed with all spiritual blessings,
and wishing you the like mercies, I subscribe myself, very dear
sir, your affectionate, obliged, humble servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield reached London at the beginning of November, and immediately
resumed preaching, twice a week, in the house of the Countess of
Huntingdon, “to the great and noble.”[207] Here he had to encounter
another trouble. In a letter, dated October 20th, 1748, Howell Harris
gives an account of his labours, in South and North Wales, during the
last nine weeks. He had visited thirteen counties, had travelled a
hundred and fifty miles every week, and had preached two sermons every
day, and sometimes three or four. During the last week of his tour, he
had never taken off his clothes; and, in one instance, had travelled
above a hundred miles, from morning to the evening of the ensuing day,
without any rest, preaching on the mountains at midnight, in order
to avoid the persecution of Sir Watkin William Wynn. Such was the
malevolence of the Welsh baronet towards the poor Methodists, that,
only a few days before, for simply meeting together to worship God,
a number of them had had to pay fines, varying from five shillings to
twenty pounds. Encouraged by those who ought to have known better, the
mobs, in many places, were almost murderously violent; and, near to
Bala, Harris received a blow on the head nearly sufficient to “split
his skull in two.”[208] Whitefield was informed of these outrageous
proceedings; he reported them to the Countess of Huntingdon; her
ladyship laid the particulars before the Government; and, to the no
small mortification of Sir Watkin Wynn, the fines he had exacted from
the Methodists were ordered to be returned.[209]

Five years ago, Whitefield had formed an acquaintance with Dr.
Doddridge, the great Dissenting tutor; he now visited the equally
celebrated Dr. Watts, whom the Dissenters of the day might properly
have regarded as their _patriarch_. Watts had looked upon Whitefield
with disfavour, and had chidden Doddridge for lowering the dignity of
the Dissenting minister and tutor, by preaching in Whitefield’s wooden
meeting-house. For more than thirty years, Watts had been a beloved and
honoured guest in the mansion of Sir Thomas Abney, Stoke Newington. He
was now dying, and, on November 25th, away Whitefield went to see him.
Being introduced, Whitefield tenderly enquired, “how he found himself?”
“I am one of Christ’s waiting servants,” replied the dying Doctor.
Whitefield assisted in raising him up in bed, that he might with more
convenience take his medicine. Watts apologised for the trouble he
occasioned. Whitefield answered, “Surely, I am not too good to wait on
a waiting servant of Christ.” Whitefield took his leave; and half an
hour afterwards Dr. Watts was dead.[210] Thus met and parted the great
hymnist and the great preacher, until they met again in “the palace of
angels and God.”[211]

A week after Watts’s death, Whitefield set out for Gloucester and
Bristol. In the latter city, his preaching was the means of converting
a Welsh shoemaker, who subsequently became one of Wesley’s best
itinerant preachers, and who, in his wide wanderings, composed a few
of the finest hymns ever sung in the Christian Church,――hymns not
surpassed by the best of Dr. Watts’s, and which, after a century’s use,
are as much in favour among the Methodists as ever.

Thomas Olivers was now twenty-three years of age. His life had been
rambling and wicked. Getting into debt had been a regular practice,
and profane swearing had become his habitual sin. The first night that
he spent in Bristol he was literally penniless. Having obtained work,
he went to lodge in the house of a man who had been a Methodist, but
was now “a slave to drunkenness.” In the same house, there was “a
lukewarm Moravian.” Olivers and the Moravian disputed “about election,”
till they quarrelled. The Moravian, a tall, lusty fellow, struck the
Welshman. Olivers says, “I knew I should have no chance in fighting
him, and therefore, for a whole hour, I cursed and swore, with all the
rage of a fiend, in such a manner as is seldom equalled on earth, or
exceeded even in hell itself.” Soon after this, Olivers met a multitude
of people in the streets of Bristol, and asked where they had been.
One answered, “To hear Mr. Whitefield.” Olivers thought, “I have often
heard of Mr. Whitefield, and have sung songs about him: I’ll go and
hear him myself.” Accordingly, he went. Whitefield’s text was, “Is
not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” Olivers was there and then
convinced of sin, and resolved to give his heart to God. The next
Sunday, he went to the cathedral at six in the morning; and, as the
Te Deum was read, “felt as if he had done with earth, and was praising
God before His throne.” At eight, he went to hear Whitefield preach;
at ten, he went to Christchurch; at two in the afternoon, he again
attended church; at five, he heard Whitefield, and concluded the day
at a Baptist meeting. He writes: “The love I had for Mr. Whitefield was
inexpressible. I used to follow him as he walked the streets, and could
scarce refrain from kissing the very prints of his feet.”

Five years after this, Thomas Olivers had paid all his debts, and was
one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers. His subsequent history was too
remarkable to be condensed in a work like this.

Whitefield’s Orphan House was again causing him anxiety. He wrote to a
friend in America: “I want to make it a seminary of learning. If some
such thing be not done, I cannot see how the _southern_ parts will be
provided with ministers. All here are afraid to come over.”[212] He had
also heard that his wife had lessened the Orphan-house family, and was
about to return to England.[213] And, further, he had been informed
that the trustees were about to allow the employment of slaves in
Georgia.[214] These circumstances led him to write a long and
remarkable letter to the trustees. The following is an extract:――

“GLOUCESTER, _December 6, 1748_.

“HONOURED GENTLEMEN,――Not want of respect, but a suspicion that
my letters would not be acceptable, has been the occasion of my
not writing to you these four years last past. I am sensible,
that in some of my former letters, I expressed myself in too
strong and sometimes in unbecoming terms. For this I desire to
be humbled before God and man. I can assure you, however, that,
to the best of my knowledge, I have acted a disinterested part.
I have simply aimed at God’s glory, and the good of mankind.
This principle drew me first to Georgia; this, and this alone,
induced me to begin and carry on the Orphan House; and this,
honoured gentlemen, excites me to trouble you with the present
lines.

“I need not inform you, how the colony of Georgia has been
declining, and at what great disadvantages I have maintained
a large family in that wilderness. Upwards of £5000 have been
expended in that undertaking; and yet, very little proficiency
has been made in the cultivation of my tract of land; and that
entirely owing to the necessity I lay under of making use of
white hands. Had negroes been allowed, I should now have had a
sufficiency to support a great many orphans, without expending
above half the sum that has been laid out. An unwillingness to
let so good a design drop induced me, two years ago, to purchase
a plantation in South Carolina, where negroes are allowed. This
plantation has succeeded; and, though I have only eight working
hands, in all probability, there will be more raised in one
year, and with a quarter of the expense, than has been produced
at Bethesda for several years past. This confirms me in the
opinion, I have long entertained, that, Georgia never can be
a flourishing province, unless negroes are employed.

“But, notwithstanding my private judgment, I am determined,
that, not one of mine shall ever be allowed to work at the
Orphan House till it can be done in a legal manner, and with the
approbation of the Honourable Trustees. My chief end in writing
this, is to inform you, that, I am as willing as ever to do all
I can for Georgia and the Orphan House, if either a limited use
of negroes is approved of, or some more indentured servants be
sent from England. If not, I cannot promise to keep any large
family, or cultivate the plantation in any considerable manner.

“I would also further recommend to your consideration, whether,
as the Orphan House is intended for a charitable purpose, it
ought not to be exempted from all quit-rents and public taxes?
And, as most of the land on which the Orphan House is built is
good for little, I would humbly enquire, whether I may not have
a grant of five hundred more acres, not taken up, somewhere near
the Orphan House?

“If you, Honourable Gentlemen, are pleased to put the colony
upon another footing,――I mean in respect to the permission of
a limited use of negroes,――my intention is to make the Orphan
House, not only a receptacle for fatherless children, but also
a place of literature and academical studies. Such a place is
much wanted in the southern parts of America, and, if conducted
in a proper manner, must necessarily be of great service to any
colony. I can easily procure proper persons to embark in such a
cause.”

From such a pen, this is a strange production. Whitefield, with his
large heart, urging the introduction of slavery into the province of
Georgia, and almost threatening to abandon his Orphan House unless his
proposal be granted! Whitefield’s honour is best cared for by saying as
little about the incident as possible.

Having spent five days at Gloucester, during which he preached
five times, and received the sacrament at the cathedral; and having
similarly employed himself for a week at Bristol, Whitefield, at the
request of the Countess of Huntingdon, returned to London on December
17th, and resumed his ministry in the Tabernacle, and in the mansion
of her ladyship.

“I am now,” he wrote, “thirty-four years of age; and alas! how little
have I done and suffered for Him, who has done and suffered so much for
me! Thanks be to His great name for countenancing my poor ministrations
so much.”[215]

A letter to Dr. Doddridge, to whom Whitefield had submitted his
Journals for revision,[216] may properly close the year 1748,――a year,
which, like all previous ones of his career, had been thronged with
adventures and striking incidents.

“LONDON, _December 21, 1748_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I was glad, very glad, to receive
your letter, dated November 7th, though it did not reach me till
last night. I thank you for it a thousand times. It has led me
to the throne of grace, where I have been crying, ‘Lord, counsel
my counsellors, and shew them what Thou wouldest have me to
do!’ Alas! alas! how can I be too severe against myself, who,
Peter-like, have cut off so many ears, and, by imprudences, mixed
with my zeal, have dishonoured the cause of Jesus! I can only
look up to Him, who healed the high-priest’s servant’s ear, and
say, ‘Lord, heal all the wounds my misguided zeal has given!’
Assure yourself, dear sir, everything I print shall be revised.
I always have submitted my poor performances to my friends’
corrections. Time and experience ripen men’s judgments, and make
them more solid, rational, and consistent. O that this may be my
case!

“I thank you, dear sir, for your solemn charge in respect to my
health. Blessed be God! it is much improved since my return from
Scotland, and I trust, by observing the rules you prescribe, I
shall be enabled to declare the works of the Lord.

“But what shall I say concerning your present trial?[217] I most
earnestly sympathise with you, having had the same trial from
the same quarter long ago. The Moravians first divided my family;
then my parish, in Georgia; and, after that, the Societies which
I was an instrument of gathering. I suppose not less than four
hundred, through their practices, have left the Tabernacle.
But I have been forsaken in other ways. I have not had above a
hundred to hear me, where I had twenty thousand; and hundreds
now assemble within a quarter of a mile of me, who never come
to see or speak to me, though they must own, at the great day,
that I was their spiritual father. All this I find but little
enough to teach me to cease from man, and to wean me from that
too great fondness, which spiritual fathers are apt to have for
their spiritual children. But I have generally observed, that,
when one door of usefulness is shut, another opens. Our Lord
blesses you, dear sir, in your writings;[218] nay, your people’s
treating you as they are now permitted to do, perhaps, is one of
the greatest blessings you ever received from heaven. I know no
other way of dealing with the Moravians, than to go on preaching
the truth as it is in Jesus, and resting upon the promise,
‘Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be
plucked up.’ Seven years will make a great alteration. I believe
their grand design is to extend their economy as far as possible.
This is now kept up by dint of money, and, I am apt to think,
the very thing, by which they think to establish, will destroy
their scheme. God is a gracious Father, and will not always let
His children proceed in a wrong way. Doubtless, there are many
of His dear little ones in the Moravian flock; but many of their
principles and practices are exceeding wrong, for which, I doubt
not, our Lord will rebuke them in His own time.

“But I fear that I weary you. Love makes my pen to move too
fast, and too long. Last Sunday evening, I preached at the other
end of the town, to a most brilliant assembly. They expressed
great approbation; and some, I think, begin to feel. Good Lady
Huntingdon is a mother in Israel. She is all in a flame for
Jesus.”

Whitefield’s remarks concerning the Moravians may, perhaps, seem
somewhat harsh; but they were not untrue, and will prepare the reader
for other critiques hereafter.

Whitefield mentions his “brilliant assembly” in the mansion of the
Countess of Huntingdon. In a letter to the Countess of Bath, he wrote,
“It would please you to see the assemblies at her ladyship’s house.
They are brilliant ones indeed. The prospect of catching some of
the rich, in the gospel net, is very promising. I know you will wish
prosperity in the name of the Lord.”[219]

No wonder that, after one of his first services at Lady Huntingdon’s,
Whitefield said, “I went home, never more surprised at any incident in
my life.”[220] Such congregations were unique. Nothing like them had
heretofore been witnessed. There were gatherings of England’s proud
nobility, assembled to listen to a young preacher, whose boyhood had
been spent in a public-house; whose youth, at the university, had
been employed partly in study, and partly in attending to the wants
of fellow-students, who declined to treat him as an equal; and whose
manhood life, for the last thirteen years, had been a commingling of
marvellous popularity and violent contempt,――a scene of infirmities
and errors, and yet of unreserved and unceasing devotion to the cause
of Christ and the welfare of his fellow-men. Such was the youthful
preacher,――a man of slender learning, of mean origin, without Church
preferment, hated by the clergy, and maligned by the public press. Who
were his aristocratic hearers? The following list is supplied by the
well-informed author of “The Life and Times of the Countess of
Huntingdon”:――

Lady Fanny Shirley, who had long been one of the reigning beauties
of the court of George the First; the Duchess of Argyll; Lady Betty
Campbell; Lady Ferrers; Lady Sophia Thomas; the Duchess of Montagu,
daughter of the great Duke of Marlborough; Lady Cardigan; Lady Lincoln;
Mrs. Boscawen; Mrs. Pitt; Miss Rich; Lady Fitzwalter; Lady Caroline
Petersham; the Duchess of Queensbury, daughter of the Earl of Clarendon,
and celebrated for extraordinary beauty, wit, and sprightliness,
by Pope, Swift, and Prior; the Duchess of Manchester; Lady Thanet,
daughter of the Marquis of Halifax, and wife of Sackville, Earl of
Thanet; Lady St. John, niece of Lady Huntingdon; Lady Luxborough,
the friend and correspondent of Shenstone, the poet; Lady Monson,
whose husband, in 1760, was created Baron Sondes; Lady Rockingham,
the wife of the great statesman, a woman of immense wit and pleasant
temper, often at court, and possessed of considerable influence in the
higher circles of society; Lady Betty Germain, daughter of the Earl of
Berkeley, and through her husband, Sir John Germain, the possessor of
enormous wealth; Lady Eleanor Bertie, a member of the noble family of
Abingdon; the Dowager-Duchess of Ancaster; the Dowager-Lady Hyndford;
the Duchess of Somerset; the Countess Delitz, one of the daughters
of the Duchess of Kendal, and the sister of Lady Chesterfield; Lady
Hinchinbroke, granddaughter of the Duke of Montagu; and Lady Schaubs.

Besides these “honourable women not a few,” there were also the Earl
of Burlington, so famed for his admiration of the works of Inigo
Jones, and for his architectural expenditure; George Bubb Dodington,
afterwards Lord Melcombe, a friend and favourite of the Prince of Wales,
and whose costly mansion was often crowded with literary men; George
Augustus Selwyn, an eccentric wit, to whom nearly all the current
_bon-mots_ of the day were attributed; the Earl of Holderness; Lord
(afterwards Marquess) Townshend, named George, after his godfather,
George the First, a distinguished general in the army, member of
Parliament for Norfolk, and ultimately a field-marshal. Charles
Townshend, now a young man of twenty-three, whom Burke described as
“the delight and ornament of the House of Commons, and the charm of
every private society he honoured with his presence;” Lord St. John,
half-brother to Lord Bolingbroke; the Earl of Aberdeen; the Earl of
Lauderdale; the Earl of Hyndford, Envoy Extraordinary to the King of
Prussia; the Marquis of Tweeddale, Secretary of State for Scotland;
George, afterwards, Lord Lyttelton, at one time member for Okehampton,
and secretary of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and who had recently
published his well-known book, “Observations on the Conversion of
St. Paul;” William Pitt, the distinguished first Earl of Chatham; Lord
North, in his twenty-first year, afterwards First Lord of the Treasury,
and ultimately Earl of Guildford; Evelyn, Duke of Kingston; Viscount
Trentham (a title borne by the Duke of Sutherland); the Earl of March
(one of the titles of the Duke of Richmond); the Earl of Haddington;
Edward Hussey, who married a daughter of the Duke of Montagu, and was
created Earl of Beaulieu; Hume Campbell, afterwards created Baron Hume;
the Earl of Sandwich, subsequently ambassador to the court of Spain,
First Lord of the Admiralty, and Secretary of State for the Home
Department; and Lord Bolingbroke, the friend of the Pretender, a man
of great ability,――a statesman, a philosopher, and an infidel.

Gillies adds to this long list the name of David Hume, who had recently
returned from Italy in great chagrin, because the people of England
“entirely overlooked and neglected” his “Inquiry concerning Human
Understanding.” It is said that Hume considered Whitefield the most
ingenious preacher he ever listened to, and that twenty miles were not
too far to go to hear him. “Once,” said the great infidel, “Whitefield
addressed his audience thus: ‘The attendant angel is about to leave us,
and ascend to heaven. Shall he ascend and not bear with him the news
of one sinner reclaimed from the error of his way?’ And, then, stamping
with his foot, and lifting up his hands and eyes to heaven, he cried
aloud, ‘Stop, Gabriel, stop, ere you enter the sacred portals, and yet
carry with you the tidings of one sinner being saved.’ This address
surpassed anything I ever saw or heard in any other preacher.”

The Earl of Chesterfield and the Earl of Bath have been previously
noticed as being among Whitefield’s hearers. One more name must be
mentioned. Lady Townshend was one of Whitefield’s earliest admirers.
Her wit and eccentricities were notorious. Of course she was a member
of the Church of England; but Horace Walpole tells a story of George
Selwyn detecting her crossing herself and praying before the altar of
a popish chapel. Alternately, she liked and disliked Whitefield. “She
certainly means,” said Walpole, “to go armed with every viaticum――the
Church of England in one hand, Methodism in the other, and the Host
in her mouth.”[221] Whitefield had the moral courage to tackle even
this eccentric lady; and, towards the close of 1748, wrote to her as
follows:――

“Yesterday, good Lady Huntingdon informed me that your ladyship
was ill. Had I judged it proper, I would have waited upon your
ladyship this morning; but I was cautious of intrusion. My
heart’s desire and prayer to God is, that this sickness be not
unto death, but to His glory, and the present and eternal good
of your precious and immortal soul. O that from a spiritual
abiding sense of the vanity of all created good, you may cry
out,――

‘Begone, vain world, my heart resign,
For I must be no longer thine:
A nobler, a diviner guest
Now claims possession of my breast.’

Then, and not till then, will your ladyship with cheerfulness
wait for the approach of death. It is a true and living faith
in the Son of God that can alone bring present peace, and lay
a solid foundation for future and eternal comfort. I cannot
wish your ladyship anything greater, anything more noble, than
a large share of this precious faith. When, like Noah’s dove, we
have been wandering about in a fruitless search after happiness,
and have found no rest for the sole of our feet, the glorious
Redeemer is ready to reach out His hand and receive us into
His ark. This hand, honoured madam, He is reaching out to you.
May you be constrained to give your heart entirely to Him, and
thereby enter into that rest which remains for the happy, though
despised, people of God.”

The foregoing were _some_, not all, of Whitefield’s aristocratic
hearers. Others will be mentioned hereafter. The gatherings, in Chelsea
and in North Audley Street, were profoundly interesting spectacles;
and never, till the day of judgment, when all secrets will be unfolded,
will it be ascertained to what extent the preaching of the youthful
Whitefield affected the policy of some of England’s greatest statesmen,
and moulded the character of some of its highest aristocratic families.
Who will venture to deny that, in some of these families, the effects
of Whitefield’s ministry is felt to the present day? Let us pursue his
history.

Whitefield continued his correspondence with Hervey and Stonehouse. On
January 13, 1749, he wrote to the former as follows:――

“The prospect of doing good to the rich, who attend the house of
good Lady Huntingdon, is very encouraging. I preach there twice
a week, and yesterday Lord Bolingbroke was one of my auditors.
His lordship was pleased to express very great satisfaction. Who
knows what God may do? He can never work by a meaner instrument.
I want humility, I want thankfulness, I want a heart continually
flaming with the love of God.

“I thank you for your kind invitation to your house and pulpit.
I would not bring you or any of my friends into difficulties,
for owning poor, unworthy, hell-deserving me; but, if Providence
should give me a clear call, I shall be glad to come your way.
I rejoice in the prospect of having some ministers in our church
pulpits who dare own a crucified Redeemer. I hope the time will
come when many of the priests will be obedient to the word.”

It is a humiliating fact, that Whitefield, an ordained clergyman, and
under no official censure, was not able to avail himself of Hervey’s
invitation without the probability of involving his gentle friend in
trouble; and it is a beautiful trait in Whitefield’s character, that,
however great the gratification of preaching in a church might be, he
was unwilling to indulge himself in such a pleasure at the expense of
any of his friends.

Dr. Stonehouse occasioned Whitefield sorrow and anxiety. The Doctor
was a sincere, earnest, and devout Christian, but he was afraid of
being branded as a Methodist; and, for the same reason, he was afraid
of being known as one of Whitefield’s friends. Hence the following,
written four days after the date of the letter just quoted:――

“The way of duty is the way of safety. Our Lord requires of us
to confess Him in His gospel members and ministers. To be afraid
of publicly owning, associating with, and strengthening the
hearts and hands of the latter, especially when they are set
for the defence of the gospel, is, in my opinion, very offensive
in His sight, and can only proceed from a want of more love
to Him and His people. You say, ‘We are most of us too warm;’
but I hope you do not think that being ashamed of any of your
Lord’s ministers is an instance of it. Thanks be to God! that
Mr. Hervey seems, as you express it, ‘to court the enmity of
mankind.’ It is an error on the right side. Better so than to
be afraid of it. The Lord never threatened to spew any church
out of His mouth for being too hot; but, for being neither hot
nor cold, He has. It is too true, my dear sir, ‘we have but
few faithful ministers;’ but is keeping at a distance from one
another the way to strengthen their interest? By no means. To
tell you my whole mind, I do not believe God will bless either
you or your friends, to any considerable degree, till you are
more delivered from the fear of man. Alas! how were you bowed
down with it, when I saw you last! And your letter bespeaks you
yet a slave to it. O my brother, deal faithfully with yourself,
and you will find a love of the world, and a fear of not
providing for your children, have gotten too much hold of your
heart. Do not mistake me. I would not have you throw yourself
into flames. I would only have you act a consistent part, and
not, for fear of a little contempt, be ashamed of owning the
ministers of Christ. After all, think not, my dear sir, that I
am pleading my own cause. You are not in danger of seeing me at
Northampton. I only take this occasion of saying a word or two
to your heart. You will not be offended, as it proceeds from
love. I salute Mr. Hervey, and dear Doctor Doddridge, most
cordially.”

Towards the end of January, Whitefield set out, from London, to the
west of England, where he spent the next five weeks. By appointment,
he and Howell Harris held an “Association” at Gloucester,[222] where,
he says, “affairs turned out better than expectation.” From Gloucester,
he proceeded to Bristol, where he employed the next ten days.

Whitefield was singularly devoid of envy. On leaving London, his
place at Lady Huntingdon’s was occupied by his friend Wesley,[223]
whose preaching secured her ladyship’s approval. Robert Cruttenden
also introduced the Rev. Thomas Gibbons, D.D.,[224] a young man of
twenty-eight, who, at this time, was the officiating minister of the
Independent Church at Haberdashers’ Hall. Cruttenden, in a letter to
Whitefield, told him that their two hours’ interview with the Countess
had been exceedingly pleasant.[225] With his large heart, Whitefield
was delighted by such intelligence as this, and wrote to her ladyship
as follows:――

“BRISTOL, _February 1, 1749_.

“I am glad your ladyship approves of Mr. Wesley’s conduct,
and that he has preached at your ladyship’s. The language of
my heart is, ‘Lord, send by whom Thou wilt send, only convert
some of the mighty and noble, for Thy mercy’s sake!’ Then I care
not if I am heard of no more. I am, also, glad your ladyship
approves of Mr. Gibbons. He is, I think, a worthy man. By taking
this method, you will have an opportunity of conversing with the
best of all parties, without being a bigot, and too strenuously
attached to any. Surely, in this, your ladyship is directed
from above. The blessed Jesus cares for His people of all
denominations. He is gathering His elect out of all. Happy
they who, with a disinterested view, take in the whole church
militant, and, in spite of narrow-hearted bigots, breathe an
undissembled catholic spirit towards all.”

In the same month, Lady Huntingdon wrote to Whitefield a cheering
account of the death of one of his noble converts:――

“My last,” says she, “mentioned the sudden illness of my Lord
St. John. A few days after, her ladyship wrote to me in great
alarm, and begged me to send some pious clergyman to her lord.
Mr. Bateman went. His lordship enquired for you, to whom he said
he was deeply indebted. His last words to Mr. Bateman were: ‘To
God I commit myself. I feel how unworthy I am; but Jesus Christ
died to save sinners; and the prayer of my heart now is, God be
merciful to me a sinner!’ His lordship breathed his last about
an hour after Mr. Bateman left. This, my good friend, is the
firstfruits of that plenteous harvest, which, I trust, the great
Husbandman will yet reap amongst the nobility of our land. Thus
the great Lord of the harvest has put honour on your ministry.
My Lord Bolingbroke was much struck with his brother’s language
in his last moments. O that the obdurate heart of this desperate
infidel may yet be shaken to its very centre! May his eyes be
opened by the illuminating influence of Divine truth! May the
Lord Jesus be revealed to his heart as the hope of glory and
immortal bliss hereafter! I tremble for his destiny. He is a
singularly awful character.”[226]

Whitefield’s preaching in Bristol was again successful.

“The power of the Lord,” he writes, “attended the word, as in
days of old, and several persons, who never heard me before,
were brought under great awakenings.”[227]

On February 8th, he proceeded to Exeter, where he found the Society
affairs in great confusion; but, winter though it was, and though his
health was far from being vigorous, he began to preach in the open
air. Large crowds assembled; and, he says, “I trust real good was
done.”[228] He also preached at Bovey-Tracey, where he “found several
poor simple souls;” and at Marychurch, where there were about a score
of converted people who had been greatly persecuted. At Kingsbridge,
at eight o’clock at night, he found a thousand people assembled in the
street, and at once commenced preaching, from the words, “I must work
the works of Him that sent me while it is day; the night cometh, when
no man can work.” He writes:――

“I preached in the street. The moon shone. All were quiet; and,
I hope, some began to think of working out their salvation with
fear and trembling. The next morning, I preached again. Four
ministers attended. Our Lord was pleased to make it a fine
season. I had the pleasure of hearing, that, by two or three
discourses preached at this place about five years ago, many
souls were awakened. One young man, then called, has become a
preacher. He was in a tree, partly to ridicule me. I spoke to
him to imitate Zaccheus, and come down and receive the Lord
Jesus. The word was backed with power. He heard, came down,
believed, and now adorns the gospel.”[229]

On February 15, Whitefield arrived at Plymouth,[230] being escorted,
the last ten miles of his journey, by a cavalcade of his “spiritual
children,” who had gone out to meet him. He found “many hundreds, in
the tabernacle, waiting to hear the word;” and, though the hour was
late, he immediately commenced preaching. Here he remained a week. The
following was addressed to Lady Huntingdon:――

“About two thousand attend every night. Last Sunday evening, in
the field, there were above five thousand hearers. Affairs bear
a promising aspect. I hear much good has been done at Bristol.
Everywhere, fresh doors are opening, and people flock from all
quarters. Prejudices subside, and strong impressions are made on
many souls. I have not been so well, for so long a season, for
many years, as I have been since I left London: a proof, I think,
that the Lord calls me into the fields.”

Whilst at Plymouth, Whitefield wrote several letters, full of interest,
but too long for insertion here. To Lady Betty Germain, he said:――

“Of the honourable women, ere long, I trust there will be not
a few who will dare to be singularly good, and will confess the
blessed Jesus before men. O with what a holy contempt may the
poor despised believer look down on those who are yet immersed
in the pleasures of sense, and, amidst all the refinements of
their unassisted, unenlightened reason, continue slaves to their
own lusts and passions! Happy, thrice happy, they who begin
to experience what it is to be redeemed from this present evil
world! You, honoured madam, I trust, are one of this happy
number.”

To the Countess of Delitz, he wrote:――

“Your ladyship’s answering my poor scrawl was an honour I did
not expect. Welcome, thrice welcome, honoured madam, into the
world of new creatures! O what a scene of happiness lies before
you! Your frames, my lady, like the moon, will wax and wane;
but the Lord Jesus will remain your faithful friend. You seem
to have the right point in view, to get the constant witness and
indwelling of the Spirit of God in your heart. This the Redeemer
has purchased for you. Of this, He has given your ladyship a
taste. O that your honoured sister may go hand in hand with you!
Wherefore doth she doubt?”

It has been previously stated that, on Whitefield’s arrival at Bermudas,
he was warmly welcomed by the Church clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Holiday.
Unfortunately, Mr. Holiday’s friendship was shortlived. Hence the
following:――

“PLYMOUTH, _February 20, 1749_.

“I did not think Mr. Holiday’s friendship would hold long. It
will be time enough for me to speak to him, when I see Bermudas
again, which I propose doing as soon as possible. Meanwhile,
I would observe that, if I am a Roman Catholic, the pope must
have given me a very large dispensation. Surely, Mr. Holiday
has acted like one, to pretend so much friendship, and yet
have nothing of it in his heart. But thus it must be. We must
be tried in every way. As for any secrets that I told him, he
is very welcome to reveal them. You know me too well to judge
I have many secrets. May the secret of the Lord be with me!
and then I care not if there was a window in my heart for all
mankind to see the uprightness of my intentions.

“I am now in the west, and have begun to take the field. Great
multitudes flock to hear. I find it is a trial, to be thus
divided between the work on this and the other side of the water.
I am convinced I have done right in coming over now; but I keep
myself quite disengaged, that I may be free to leave England the
latter end of the summer, if the Lord is pleased to make my way
clear. I long to have Bethesda a foundation for the Lord Jesus.
If I can procure a proper person, of good literature, who will
be content to stay two or three years, something may be done.”

Before his departure from Plymouth, Whitefield preached at Tavistock;
where, he says, “I was rudely treated; for, whilst I was praying, some
of the baser sort brought a bull and dogs, and disturbed us much; but
I hope good was done.”

On reaching Exeter, he wrote to his friend Robert Cruttenden, once a
minister of Christ, then an infidel, and now re-converted:――

“EXETER, _February 25, 1749_.

“I suppose you will be pleased that I am thus far in my return
to London. O my friend, my friend, I come with fear and
trembling. To speak to the rich and great, so as to win them to
the blessed Jesus, is indeed a task. But, wherefore do we fear?
We can do all things through Christ strengthening us. But why
does Mr. Cruttenden think it strange that no one can be found to
help me in the country? Is it not more strange that you should
lie supine, burying your talents in a napkin, complaining you
have nothing to do, and yet souls everywhere are perishing about
you for lack of knowledge? Why do you not preach or print? At
least, why do you not help me, or somebody or another, in a more
public way? You are in the decline of life, and if you do not
soon reassume the place, you are now qualified for, you may lose
the opportunity for ever. I write this in great seriousness. May
the Lord give you no rest, till you lift up your voice like a
trumpet! Up, and be doing; and the Lord will be with you.”

Whitefield arrived in London at the beginning of the month of March.
On his way, at Bristol, he and Charles Wesley met. Charles was to be
married to Miss Gwynne a month afterwards, and wrote: “March 3. I met
George Whitefield, and made him quite happy by acquainting him with
my design.”[231] Whitefield spent a month in London, and was fully
occupied, not only with preaching in the Tabernacle, and in the house
of Lady Huntingdon, but with work that was not at all congenial to him.

At the end of the year 1748, the Rev. George White, the notorious
clergyman of Colne, in Lancashire, had published his infamous “Sermon
against the Methodists.” In a footnote, the fuming author, speaking of
Whitefield and Wesley, said:――

“These officious haranguers cozen a handsome subsistence out
of their irregular expeditions. No satisfactory account has
been given us of Mr. Whitefield’s disbursements in Georgia; and,
I am afraid, by his late modest insinuations, in or about the
Highlands of Scotland, of the want of £500 more, he thinks the
nation is become more and more foolish, and within the reach of
his further impositions. It appears, from many probable accounts,
that Mr. Wesley has, in reality, a better income than most of
our bishops, though, now and then, (no great wonder,) it costs
him some little pains to escape certain rough compliments.”[232]

This was a false, libellous attack on Whitefield’s honesty; and
Grimshaw, of Haworth, and Benjamin Ingham wished him to answer it.
His reply to Grimshaw was as follows:――

“LONDON, _March 17, 1749_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,――What a blessed thing it is that we can write
to, when we cannot see one another! By this means we increase
our joys, and lessen our sorrows, and, as it were, exchange
hearts.

“Thanks be to the Lord Jesus, that the work flourishes with you!
I am glad your children grow so fast; they become fathers too
soon; I wish some may not prove dwarfs at last. A word to the
wise is sufficient. I have always found awakening times like
spring times; many blossoms, but not always so much fruit. But
go on, my dear man, and, in the strength of the Lord, you shall
do valiantly. I long to be your way; but I suppose it will be
two months first.

“Pray tell my dear Mr. Ingham that I cannot now answer the
Preston[233] letter, being engaged in answering a virulent
pamphlet, entitled, ‘The Enthusiasm of the Methodists and
Papists compared,’ supposed to be done by the Bishop of Exeter.
Thus it must be. If we will be temple builders, we must have
the temple builders’ lot; I mean, hold a sword in one hand,
and a trowel in the other. The Lord make us faithful Nehemiahs,
for we have many Sanballats to deal with! But, wherefore should
we fear? If Christ be for us, who can be against us? ‘_Nil
desperandum, Christo duce_,’ is the Christian’s motto. Remember
me, in the kindest manner, to honest-hearted Mr. Ingham, and
tell him that, in a post or two, I hope he will hear from me.”

What Whitefield, for want of time, could not undertake was accomplished
by the redoubtable Grimshaw, who, in an 8vo. pamphlet of 98 pages,
cudgelled White almost unmercifully.[234]

Whitefield was answering Lavington. Notwithstanding the recantation
extorted from him by the Countess of Huntingdon, only six months before,
the irritable prelate could neither forget nor forgive the publication
of the fictitious charge that has been already mentioned; and now
he vented his anger by issuing anonymously the first part of “The
Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared.” (8vo. 82 pp.) No
good end would be served by lengthened quotations from this scolding
pamphlet. The Bishop of Exeter was too angry to be polite. Suffice it
to say, that, so far as Whitefield is concerned, Lavington’s attacks
are founded upon incautious and improper expressions in Whitefield’s
publications――expressions most of which Whitefield himself had
publicly lamented and withdrawn, or modified. The pith of the bishop’s
pamphlet is contained in his last paragraph but one. The _italics_ in
the following quotations are his lordship’s own:――

“This _new dispensation_ is a _composition_ of _enthusiasm_,
_superstition_, and _imposture_. When the blood and spirits
run _high_, inflaming the brain and imagination, it is most
properly _enthusiasm_, which is _religion run mad_; when _low
and dejected_, causing groundless terrors, or the placing of the
_great duty of man_ in little observances, it is _superstition_,
which is _religion scared out of its senses_; when any
fraudulent dealings are made use of, and any wrong projects
carried on under the mask of piety, it is _imposture_, and may
be termed religion turned _hypocrite_.”

The title of Whitefield’s answer was as follows: “Some Remarks on a
Pamphlet, entitled, ‘The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared;’
wherein several mistakes in some parts of his past writings and conduct
are acknowledged, and his present sentiments concerning the Methodists
explained. In a letter to the Author. By George Whitefield, late of
Pembroke College, Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Countess of
Huntingdon. ‘Out of the eater came forth meat’ (Judges xiv. 4). London:
printed by W. Strahan, 1749.” (8vo. 48 pp.)

The title-page indicates the contents of Whitefield’s pamphlet. He
honestly acknowledges his errors by inserting the letter already
given, under the date of “June 24, 1748,” and which, with very
little alteration, had been published in Scotland, before Lavington’s
malignant ridicule had been committed to the press. Three brief
extracts, from Whitefield’s “Remarks,” will be enough. In reply to
the accusation of claiming to be inspired and infallible, Whitefield
says:――

“No, sir, my mistakes have been too many, and my blunders too
frequent, to make me set up for _infallibility_. I came soon
into the world; I have carried high sail, whilst running through
a whole torrent of popularity and contempt; and, by this means,
I have sometimes been in danger of oversetting; but many and
frequent as my mistakes have been, or may be, as soon as I am
_made sensible of them_, they shall be _publicly acknowledged
and retracted_.”

Again, having stated what are the doctrines of the Methodists,
Whitefield writes:――

“These are doctrines as diametrically opposite to the Church
of Rome, as light to darkness. They are the very doctrines
for which Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, and so many of our first
reformers burnt at the stake. And, I will venture to say, they
are doctrines which, when attended with a divine energy, always
have made, and, maugre all opposition, always will make, their
way through the world, however weak the instruments, who deliver
them, may be.”

Then, again, the object at which Whitefield and his friends were aiming
is thus described:――

“To awaken a _drowsy_ world; to rouse them out of their
_formality_, as well as profaneness, and put them upon seeking
after a _present and great salvation_; to point out to them a
_glorious rest_, which not only remains for the people of God
_hereafter_, but which, by a _living faith_, the very chief of
sinners may enter into even here, and without which the most
blazing profession is nothing worth――is, as far as I know,
the one thing――the grand and common point, in which all the
_Methodists’_ endeavours centre. This is what some of all
denominations want to be reminded of; and to stir them up to
seek after the life and power of godliness, that they may be
Christians, not only in _word and profession_, but in _spirit_
and in _truth_, is, and, _through Jesus Christ strengthening me_,
shall be the one _sole_ business of my life.”

Answers to Bishop Lavington were also written by Wesley, and by the
Rev. Vincent Perronet. On the bishop’s side there was published, “A
Letter to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, occasioned by his ‘Remarks
on a Pamphlet, entitled, The Enthusiasm of the Methodists and Papists
compared.’” (8vo. 59 pp.) Among other railing accusations, the author
charges the poor Methodists with making their followers mad; and
broadly asserts that some of them have committed murders in Wales, and
are now hanging in chains for their crimes. Whitefield was represented
as having “a windmill in his head,” and going “up and down the world
in search of somebody to beat out his brains.” It is a curious fact,
however, that the pamphleteer attacked the Rev. Griffith Jones, who
had recently published his Welsh Catechism, more virulently than he
attacked Whitefield. The same gentleman (he calls himself a “Layman”)
published a second pamphlet, with the title, “A Second Letter to the
Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, occasioned by his Remarks upon a Pamphlet,
entitled, The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared. In this,
Mr. Whitefield’s claim to the doctrine of the 9th, 10th, 11th, and
12th Articles of the Church of England is examined; as also that of
his great Mr. Griffith Jones, of Landowror, to the doctrine of the 17th
Article; together with some further account of the fire kindled by them
both in North and South Wales.” (8vo. 111 pp.) The writer was a man of
learning, and, though a layman, was well acquainted with theology. The
fault of his productions is their bitterness, and their publication
of false and even obscene stories. He charges the Welsh Methodists
with the practice of adultery, and with holding the doctrine that
fornication among themselves was not a sin. He asserts that “Most of
the Methodist teachers in Wales are become Father Confessors;” and that
one of them, Will Richard, a cobbler, “when he forgives the sins of
any person, delivers the party a paper, which, upon its being produced,
will procure him or her admittance into heaven.” There are other
stories too impure to be reproduced.

It may be added, that such was the public importance attached to the
production of Lavington and the reply of Whitefield, that the _Monthly
Review_, for 1749, devoted not fewer than twenty-eight of its pages to
an examination of them.

Whitefield’s “Remarks” being finished, he wrote to his friend Hervey,
as follows:――

“LONDON, _April 5, 1749_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,――I suppose you have seen my pamphlet
advertised. I want to publicly confess my public mistakes. O
how many, how great they have been! How much obliged I am to my
enemies for telling me of them! I wish you could see my pamphlet
before it comes out. O that it may be blessed to promote God’s
glory and the good of souls!

“You will be glad to hear that our Lord has given us a good
passover” (Easter), “and that the prospect is still encouraging
among the rich. I intend to leave town in about a week, and to
begin ranging after precious souls.

“You judge right when you say I do not want to make a sect,
or set myself at the head of a party. No; let the name of
Whitefield die, so that the cause of Jesus Christ may live. I
have seen enough of popularity to be sick of it, and, did not
the interest of my blessed Master require my appearing in public,
the world should hear but little of me henceforward. But who
can desert such a cause? Who, for fear of a little contempt and
suffering, would decline the service of such a Master?”

Whitefield here mentions “the prospect among the rich,” but says
nothing of the poor. It must not be inferred, however, that his
labours and success among the latter were at all abated. The author of
“The Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon” gives an instance,
belonging to this period, which is worth relating. While the rich
assembled in her ladyship’s drawing-room, the poor filled her kitchen.
Certain ladies having called to pay a visit to the Countess, she asked
them if they had heard Mr. Whitefield preach; and, upon being answered
in the negative, she expressed a wish that they should attend his
preaching on the day following. The ladies did so; and the Countess,
when they next met, enquired how they liked him. “O my lady,” they
answered, “of all the preachers we ever heard, he is the most strange
and unaccountable. Among other preposterous things, he declared that
Jesus Christ is so willing to receive sinners, that He does not object
to receive even the devil’s _castaways_! My lady, did you ever hear of
such a thing since you were born?” Her ladyship acknowledged that the
language was a little singular, but, as Mr. Whitefield was in the house,
she would send for him, and he should answer for himself. Whitefield
came; the previous conversation was repeated; and he said: “My lady, I
must plead guilty to the charge; whether I did right or otherwise, your
ladyship shall judge from the following circumstance. Half an hour ago,
a poor, miserable-looking, aged female requested to speak with me. I
desired her to be shewn into your parlour. She said, ‘Oh, sir, I was
accidentally passing the door of the chapel where you were preaching
last night, and I went in, and one of the first things I heard you say
was, that Jesus Christ was so willing to receive sinners, that He did
not object to receiving the devil’s castaways. Now, sir, I have been on
the town many years, and _am so worn out in his service_, that, I think,
I may with truth be called one of the devil’s castaways. Do you think,
sir, that Jesus Christ would receive me?’ I,” said Whitefield, “assured
her there was not a doubt of it, if she was but willing to go to Him.”
The sequel of the story was, the poor creature was converted, and died
testifying that the blood of Christ can cleanse from all
unrighteousness.

On leaving London, Whitefield proceeded to Gloucester and Bristol.
Early in the month of May, he went to Portsmouth, where he spent near
a fortnight, preaching with a success which was marvellous even to
himself. Writing to Lady Huntingdon, on May 8th, he says:――

“The night after I came here” (Portsmouth), “I preached to many
thousands, a great part of whom were attentive, but some of the
baser sort made a little disturbance. On the Friday evening”
(May 5th), “I preached at Gosport, where the mob has generally
been very turbulent; but all was hushed and quiet. Every time
I have preached, the word has seemed to sink deeper and deeper
into the people’s hearts.”[235]

On May 11th, he wrote to the Rev. Mr. M’Culloch, Presbyterian minister,
at Cambuslang:――

“I have been preaching at Portsmouth every day, for a week past,
to very large and attentive auditories. I hear of many who are
brought under convictions; prejudices seem to be universally
removed; and a people who, but a week ago, were speaking all
manner of evil against me, are now very desirous of my staying
longer among them. What cannot God do?

“At London, real good has been done among the rich, and the poor
receive the gospel with as much gladness as ever. Mr. Harris and
some others have agreed to continue preaching at the Tabernacle,
and elsewhere, as formerly. I should be glad to hear of a
revival at Cambuslang; but you have already seen such things as
are seldom seen above once in a century.”

On the day following, in a letter to the Countess Delitz, he says:――

“A wilderness is the best name this world deserves. Ceiled
houses, gaudy attire, and rich furniture, do not make it appear
less so to a mind enlightened to see the beauties of Jesus of
Nazareth. The preaching of the cross has been much blessed here.
Multitudes daily attend, and many are much affected. It would
please your ladyship to see the alteration that has been made in
a week.”

On the same day, he wrote to Lady Fanny Shirley:――

“What a glorious opportunity is now afforded you, to shew, even
before kings, that we are made kings indeed, and priests unto
God, and that it is our privilege, as Christians, to reign over
sin, hell, the world, and ourselves. O the happiness of a life
wholly devoted to the ever-blessed God, and spent in communion
with Him! It is indeed heaven begun on earth. I trust, some in
these parts, who a few days ago had never heard of this kingdom
of God, now begin to look after it. I have not seen a more
visible alteration made in a people for some time. Thousands
have attended, in the greatest order; and numbers are affected.”

On Monday, May 15, Whitefield set out for Wales, taking Salisbury
and Bristol on his way. In ten days, he reached his wife’s house at
Abergavenny, where he spent forty-eight hours of “sweet, very sweet
retirement,――so sweet,” says he, “that I should be glad never to be
heard of again. But this must not be. A necessity is laid upon me; and
woe is me, if I preach not the gospel of Christ.”

Whitefield’s was a warm heart. Distress in others always moved him. His
sympathy was not restrained by bigotry. In the fullest sense, it made
him a good Samaritan. While at Abergavenny, he wrote to a friend in
London, who had charge of “the poor widows, and the other Tabernacle
petitioners,” and laid before him a case of need, which he wished to
be relieved out of the Tabernacle funds. “On Thursday,” says he, “I
saw Mr. E―――― I――――, the Dissenting minister, and found him very meanly
apparelled. He is a most worthy man. Some time ago, he sold £15 worth
of his books, to finish a small meeting-house, in which he preaches.
He has but £3 per annum from the fund, and about as much from his
people. He lives very low, but enjoys much of God; and has as great
understanding of the figurative parts of Scripture as any one I know.
He is a Zacharias, and his wife an Elizabeth. Four or five guineas
might be bestowed on them. What a scene will open at the great day!
How many _rich priests_ will stand confounded, whilst the poor despised
_faithful ministers_ of Christ shall enter, after all their tribulation,
into the joy of their Lord!”

Whitefield spent a glorious month among the Welsh mountains. In a
letter, dated “Carmarthen, June 5, 1749,” he writes: “I am still in
suspense about my wife;[236] but, what is best, (glory be to God!) the
gospel runs, and is glorified. I have preached fourteen times within
the past eight days, and the word has everywhere fallen with weight and
power. Yesterday was a great day here.”

From Carmarthen, Whitefield proceeded to Haverfordwest, where, on June
8th, he wrote to Lady Huntingdon:――

“Congregations grow larger and larger. All the towns hereabout
are quite open for the word of God. Yesterday, I preached near
Pembroke; to-day and next Lord’s-day, I am to preach here;[237]
and to-morrow, at St. David’s. Not a dog stirs a tongue.
The mayor and gentlemen at Pembroke were very civil; and the
young men bred up at Carmarthen Academy were much taken. The
congregations consist of many thousands, and their behaviour is
very affecting. Indeed, we have blessed seasons. O free grace!”

Whitefield got back to Bristol on June 23. Hence the following,
addressed to the Rev. James Hervey:――

“BRISTOL, _June 24, 1749_.

“Yesterday, God brought me here, after having carried me a
circuit of about eight hundred miles, and enabled me to preach,
I suppose, to upwards of a hundred thousand souls. I have been
in eight Welsh counties; and, I think, we have not had one dry
meeting. The work in Wales is much upon the advance, and is
likely to increase daily. Had my dear Mr. Hervey been there to
have seen the simplicity of the people, I am persuaded, he would
have said, ‘_Sit anima mea cum Methodistis!_’ But every one to
his post. On Monday or Tuesday next, I set out for London. Good
Lady Huntingdon is here,[238] and goes on, in her usual way,
doing good.”

The Honourable Jonathan Belcher has been mentioned as one of the
early friends of Whitefield. For eleven years, from 1730 to 1741,
this gentleman was the governor of Massachusetts and New Hampshire,
and performed his official duties with great ability. It so happened,
however, that, just about the time when he shewed Whitefield so much
honour, in 1740, an unprincipled cabal, by falsehood, forgery, and
injustice, succeeded in depriving him of his office. Upon this, he
repaired to the court of George II., where he vindicated his character
and conduct, and exposed the baseness of his enemies. He was restored
to the royal favour; and, in 1747, was appointed governor of New Jersey.
In 1748, he obtained, from King George II., a charter for the founding
of New Jersey College.[239] This was an institution in which Whitefield
was greatly interested. As early as November 21, 1748, he wrote to
the Rev. Ebenezer Pemberton: “I have been endeavouring, in Scotland,
to do all the service I could to the New Jersey College; but I
believe nothing will be done to purpose, unless you or some other
popular minister come over, and make an application in person. In all
probability, a collection might then be recommended by the General
Assembly, and large contributions be raised among private persons who
wish well to Zion.” And now again, in another letter to Mr. Pemberton,
dated “London, July 10, 1749,” Whitefield writes: “Is there no prospect
of your coming over? Your Mr. T―――― might do much for New Jersey
College; but I have told you my mind in a former letter. May God direct
for the best! I have a great mind to return to my beloved America this
autumn, but am not yet determined. My wife arrived about a fortnight
ago.”

It will be seen hereafter, in 1754, that Whitefield’s suggestion was
adopted, and a deputation came to England for the purpose he had
mentioned.

It is a curious coincidence, that, just at the time when Governor
Belcher was obtaining a charter for the New Jersey College, Benjamin
Franklin, then a member of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania,
was publishing his “Proposals relating to the Education of Youth in
Pennsylvania;” in other words, he was proposing to found an academy or
college in Philadelphia. Franklin begged about £5000; the subscribers
requested him and Mr. Francis, the Attorney-General, “to draw up
constitutions for the government of the academy;” twenty-four trustees
were chosen; a house was hired; masters engaged; and the schools opened.
The scholars increasing fast, a larger building was found to be
indispensable. The meeting-house, which had been built for Whitefield,
in 1740, was burdened with an inconvenient debt; Franklin negotiated
with the trustees to transfer it to the academy, on condition that the
debt was paid, that the large hall should be kept open for occasional
preachers, and that a free school should be maintained for the
instruction of poor children. In due time, the trustees of the
academy were incorporated by a royal charter; the funds were increased
by contributions in Great Britain; and thus was established, in
Whitefield’s meeting-house, by the celebrated Benjamin Franklin, the
College of Philadelphia.[240]

The following letter, addressed to Whitefield, refers to these
transactions; and, in other respects, is interesting:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _July 6, 1749_.

“DEAR SIR,――Since your being in England, I have received two of
your favours, and a box of books to be disposed of. It gives me
great pleasure to hear of your welfare, and that you purpose
soon to return to America.

“We have no kind of news here worth writing to you. The affair
of the building remains in _statu quo_, there having been no
new application to the Assembly about it, or anything done, in
consequence of the former.

“I have received no money on your account from Mr. Thanklin,
or from Boston. Mrs. Read,[241] and your other friends here,
in general, are well, and will rejoice to see you again.

“I am glad to hear that you have frequent opportunities of
preaching among the great. If you can gain them to a good and
exemplary life, wonderful changes will follow in the manners of
the lower ranks; for _ad exemplum regis_, etc. On this principle,
Confucius, the famous eastern reformer, proceeded. When he saw
his country sunk in vice, and wickedness of all kinds triumphant,
he applied himself first to the grandees; and, having, by his
doctrine, won them to the cause of virtue, the commons followed
in multitudes. The mode has a wonderful influence on mankind;
and there are numbers, who, perhaps, fear less the being in hell,
than out of the fashion. Our more western reformations began
with the ignorant mob; and, when numbers of them were gained,
interest and party-views drew in the wise and great. Where both
methods can be used, reformations are likely to be more speedy.
O that some method could be found to make them lasting! He who
discovers that, will, in my opinion, deserve more, ten thousand
times, than the inventor of the longitude.

“My wife and family join in the most cordial salutations to you
and good Mrs. Whitefield.

“I am, dear sir, your very affectionate friend, and most obliged
humble servant,

“BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.”[242]

Such was the moralizing of the famous Franklin concerning the
marvellous movement of his friend Whitefield.

It was about this time that Whitefield’s ministry was blessed to the
conversion of a youth, who, afterwards, rose to great eminence. Robert
Robinson had recently been apprenticed to a hair-dresser, in Crutched
Friars, London. The apprentice was attracted to hear Whitefield at
the Tabernacle, and, ever after, called him his spiritual father.[243]
In 1761, at the age of twenty-six, Robert Robinson became the pastor
of a small Dissenting congregation, at Cambridge, whose members
could scarcely afford him £20 a year. His ministry, however, was so
successful, that, in the course of a few years, his church included
above two hundred highly respectable families. Upon Robinson’s
subsequent popularity as a preacher; his ability as an author; and his
embracing, a few years before his death, the Unitarian creed, there is
no necessity to dwell. These are well-known facts.

Having spent a few days in London, Whitefield returned, towards the end
of July, to Lady Huntingdon, at Bristol,[244] where “many in high life”
attended his ministry.[245] Here he had another battle with a bishop.
Whitefield was told that the Bishop of W―――― had accused him of perjury;
and wrote to his lordship to be informed upon what fact or facts his
charge was founded. The bishop’s answer is not published, but its
nature and substance may be inferred from the reply of Whitefield.

“BRISTOL, _August 7, 1749_.

“MY LORD,――I suppose the mistake has lain here; your lordship
might have insinuated, that, by my present way of acting, I have
broken the solemn engagement I entered into at my ordination;
and that might have been interpreted to imply a charge of
_perjury_.

“The relation in which I stand to the Countess of Huntingdon,
made me desirous to clear myself from such an imputation, and to
give your lordship an opportunity of vindicating yourself in the
manner you have done.

“Were I not afraid of intruding too much upon your lordship’s
time, I would endeavour to answer the other part of your
letter, and give you a satisfactory account of whatever may seem
irregular and exceptionable in my present conduct. This I would
gladly do, not only before your lordship, but, before all the
right reverend the bishops; for I highly honour them on account
of the sacred character they sustain; and wish to make it my
daily endeavour to obey all their godly admonitions. This, I
presume, my lord, is the utmost extent of the promise I made
at my ordination. If I deviate from this, in any respect, it is
through ignorance and want of better information, and not out of
obstinacy, or contempt of lawful authority.”

In the second week of August, Whitefield set out for Plymouth; and,
on the way, preached twice at Wellington, once at Exeter, and twice at
Kingsbridge.[246] At Plymouth, he wrote, to a friend, as follows:――

“PLYMOUTH, _August, 19, 1749_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,――Last night, I heard that the bishop”
(of Exeter) “has published a second pamphlet, with a preface
addressed to me. Have you seen it? Or, do you think it worth
answering? He told a clergyman, some time ago, that he might
expect a second part. He said, my answer was honest, and that
I recanted many things; but that I still went on in my usual
way. God forbid I should do otherwise! I am informed, that, upon
threatening to pull Mr. Thompson’s gown off, Mr. Thompson threw
it off himself, and said, he could preach the gospel without a
gown; and so withdrew. Upon which, the bishop sent for him, and
soothed him. I hope to see Mr. Thompson, at Bideford, on Tuesday,
and expect to hear particulars.”[247]

The second part of Bishop Lavington’s “Enthusiasm of Methodists and
Papists compared,” was an 8vo. volume of two hundred pages, and quite
as discreditable to his lordship’s character and position as that
already published. In about equal parts, it was levelled against
Whitefield and Wesley, with an occasional fling at the Moravians.
It is somewhat difficult to reconcile its levity and buffoonery with
Christian piety. At all events, its spirit, tone, and language, are not
in harmony with St. Paul’s injunction, “A bishop must not soon be angry,
but be sober, just, holy, temperate.” It is needless to give an outline
of this episcopal production; but, from the preface of forty-four
pages, wholly addressed to Whitefield, the following choice epithets
and phrases are taken. “You are a most deceitful worker, grievously
seducing your precious lambs.” “Your infallible instructions are so
many mistakes, blunders, or lies.” “You have climbed up, and stolen the
sacred fire from heaven; have even deified yourself, and put your own
spirit in the seat of the Holy Ghost.” “You have owned yourself a cheat
and impostor.” “You say, ‘_After-experience and riper judgment_ have
taught you to _correct_ and _amend_ all your _performances_; and for
the future you are to come out in a more _unexceptionable dress_.’ What
a desirable and delightful _spectacle_! I almost _long_ to have a peep
at you in your _unexceptionable dress_. I begin to be in an _ecstasy_.
_Now_ methinks I see you, like a _player_ after he hath _acted his
part_, stripping off the _dazzling tinsel_ in which he _strutted upon
the stage_. _Now_, like _Presbyter John_, tearing away _points, tags,
ribbands, fringe, lace, and embroidery_. _Now_, again, (_Paulo majora
canamus_,) methinks I see you divesting yourself of your celestial
garments and ornaments; plucking off your _appropriated blossoms_
of Aaron’s _rod_, slipping off the _child_ Samuel’s _linen ephod_,
throwing _Elijah’s mantle_ from your shoulders; and modestly standing
forth in the ordinary attire of a plain _gown and cassock_.”

It was as impossible as it was undesirable, for Whitefield to write an
answer in a scurrilous and bantering style like this; and, therefore,
he wisely determined not to write at all. Hence the following to Lady
Huntingdon:――

“BIDEFORD, _August 24, 1749_.

“I have seen the bishop’s second pamphlet, in which he has
served the Methodists, as the Bishop of Constance served John
Huss, when he ordered some painted devils to be put round his
head before he burned him. His preface to me is most virulent.
Everything I wrote, in my answer, is turned into the vilest
ridicule, and nothing will satisfy but giving up the glorious
work of the ever-blessed God, as entirely cheat and imposture.
I cannot see that it calls for any further answer from me.
Mr. Wesley, I think, had best attack him now, as he is largely
concerned in this second part. I think of leaving this place
to-morrow, and of preaching at Exeter next Lord’s-day.”

Whitefield would not reply to the bishop’s pamphlet, but he would
preach in his episcopal city. It was rather a bold step to take; and
the following is Whitefield’s own account of it. This, like the former
letter, was addressed to Lady Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _September 4, 1749_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――I came to town on Thursday, the 31st ultimo,
after having had a pleasant circuit in the west.

“The day after I wrote to your ladyship, I preached twice at
Exeter, and, in the evening, I believe I had near ten thousand
hearers. The bishop and several of his clergy stood very near me,
as I am informed. A good season it was. All was quiet, and there
was a great solemnity in the congregation; but a drunken man
threw at me three great stones. One of them cut my head deeply,
and was likely to knock me off the table; but, blessed be God!
I was not at all discomposed. One of the other stones struck a
poor man quite down.

“As I came from Exeter, I visited one John Haime, the soldier,
who, under God, began the great awakening in Flanders. He is in
Dorchester gaol for preaching at Shaftesbury, where there has
been, and is now, a great awakening.[248]

“Everywhere the work is spreading; and, since I have been here,
we have had some of the most awful, solemn, powerful meetings,
I ever saw at the Tabernacle. Congregations have been very large,
and I have had several meetings with the preachers.”[249]

Whitefield’s stay in London was of short duration. In a few days,
he set out for Yorkshire and the North of England. On his way, in
Hertfordshire, he wrote as follows to his friend Hervey:――

“BENNINGTON, _September 17, 1749_.

“REV. AND VERY DEAR SIR,――Perhaps I have heard from what corner
your cross comes. It is a very near one indeed. A saying of Mr.
B―――― has often comforted me: ‘I would often have nestled, but
God always put a thorn in my nest.’ Is not this suffered, my
dear brother, to prick you out, and to compel you to appear for
the Lord Jesus Christ? Preaching is my grand _catholicon_, under
all domestic, as well as other trials. I fear Dr. Stonehouse has
done you hurt, and kept you in shackles too long. For Christ’s
sake, my dear Mr. Hervey, exhort him, now that he has taken the
gown, to play the man, and let the world see, that, not worldly
motives, but God’s glory and a love for souls, have sent him
into the ministry. I hope he will turn out a flamer at last.
O when shall this once be! Who would lose a moment? Amazing!
that the followers of a crucified Redeemer should be afraid of
contempt! Rise, Hervey, rise, and see thy Jesus reaching out a
crown with this motto, ‘_Vincenti dabo_.’ Excuse this freedom.
I write out of the fulness of my heart, not to draw you over to
me, or to a party, but to excite you to appear openly for God.

“A letter may be directed (if you write immediately) to be left
at the Rev. Mr. Ingham’s, Yorkshire. Thither I am bound now,
and, if the season of the year should permit, I would stretch
to Scotland. We have had most delightful seasons in London.
The glory of the Redeemer filled the Tabernacle. If any doubt
whether the cause we are embarked in be the cause of God, I say,
‘Come and see.’ Are you free that I should call upon you in my
return to town? I think to come by way of Northampton. You shall
hear what is done in Yorkshire. God has blessed my preaching at
Oundle.”

It is evident that Whitefield wished Hervey to itinerate like himself;
but this was a work for which the gentle rector of Weston-Favell was
physically and mentally unfit. No good end would have been answered
by his attempting it. Besides, by his pen, he was doing a great
work, which Whitefield, had he tried, could not have done; and which
itinerancy would have set aside. The fact is, though Whitefield and
Hervey were both Oxford Methodists, Whitefield had not seen his old
acquaintance for many years, and seems to have had no idea of the
extreme delicacy of his health.

Whitefield’s progress to Ingham’s, at Aberford; to Grimshaw’s, at
Haworth; and to other places, will be seen in the following extracts
from his letters:――

“NEWCASTLE, _September 29, 1749_.

“I have had many proofs that God’s providence directed my way
into Yorkshire. I preached four times at Aberford, four times at
Leeds, and thrice at Haworth, where lives one Mr. Grimshaw. At
his church, I believe, we had above a thousand communicants, and,
in the churchyard, about six thousand hearers. It was a great
day of the Son of man. About Leeds are Mr. Wesley’s Societies.
I was invited thither by them and one of their preachers; and
Mr. Charles Wesley, coming thither, published me himself. I
have preached here once, and am to preach again this evening. On
Monday next, October 2nd, I propose to return to Yorkshire, and,
from thence, to London. I have given over the immediate care of
all my Societies to Mr. Harris; so that now I am a preacher at
large. Everything is turning round strangely. O for simplicity
and honesty to the end!”

To Lady Huntingdon, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“NEWCASTLE, _October 1, 1749_.

“Never did I see more of the hand of God, in any of my journeys,
than in this. At Mr. Grimshaw’s, I believe, there were above
six thousand hearers. The sacramental occasion was most awful.
At Leeds, the congregation consisted of above ten thousand.
In the morning, at five, I was obliged to preach out of doors.
In my way hither, I met Mr. Charles Wesley, who returned, and
introduced me to the pulpit in Newcastle. As I am a debtor to
all, and intend to be at the head of no party, I thought it my
duty to comply. I have preached in their room four times, and,
this morning, I preached to many thousands in a large close.
This evening, I am to do the same. The power of God has attended
His word, and there seems to be a quickening of souls. To-morrow,
God willing, we set out for Leeds. As it is so late in the year,
my Scotch friends advise me to defer my going thither. Had I
known that, I should have embarked for America this autumn.”

In these and other letters, written while in the north of England,
Whitefield makes no mention of an event too important to be entirely
omitted. It was now that Charles Wesley succeeded in preventing his
brother marrying Grace Murray, by getting her married to John Bennet.
This unpleasant, almost romantic, incident occupies so large a space
in “The Life and Times of Wesley,” that I here purposely refrain from
entering into details. The account there introduced has been severely
criticised and censured by some of Wesley’s admirers, who seem to be
unwilling to admit that he shared any of the infirmities common to
human beings. I can only say, that while I could add to the details I
have already given, I know of nothing that I ought either to retract or
to modify. There can be no doubt that Whitefield was cognisant of the
intentions of Charles Wesley; for the marriage with Bennet took place
in Newcastle, the very day Whitefield left that town for Leeds; and,
further, on the night previous to the marriage, Wesley, at Whitehaven,
received a letter from Whitefield, requesting that he would meet him
and Charles Wesley, at Leeds, two days afterwards. Nothing more shall
be added, except to give Wesley’s own account of the distressing
interview. He writes:――

“October 4, 1749. At Leeds, I found, not my brother, but Mr.
Whitefield. I lay down by him on the bed. He told me my brother
would not come till John Bennet and Grace Murray were married.
I was troubled; he perceived it; he wept and prayed over me, but
I could not shed a tear. He said all that was in his power to
comfort me; but it was in vain. He told me it was his judgment
that she was _my_ wife,[250] and that he had said so to John
Bennet, that he would fain have persuaded them to wait, and
not to marry till they had seen me; but that my brother’s
impetuosity prevailed and bore down all before it. On Thursday,
October 5, about eight, one came in from Newcastle, and told
us ‘They were married on Tuesday.’ My brother came an hour
after. I felt no anger, yet I did not desire to see him; but
Mr. Whitefield constrained me. After a few words had passed, he
accosted me with, ‘I renounce all intercourse with you, but what
I would have with a heathen man or a publican.’ I felt little
emotion; it was only adding a drop of water to a drowning man;
yet I calmly accepted his renunciation, and acquiesced therein.
Poor Mr. Whitefield and John Nelson burst into tears. They
prayed, cried, and entreated, till the storm passed away. We
could not speak, but only fell on each other’s neck.”

Thus did Whitefield help to prevent a breach of the lifelong and
ardent friendship of the Wesley brothers. Three days afterwards,
Charles Wesley wrote to Mr. Ebenezer Blackwell, the London banker, as
follows:――

“SHEFFIELD, _Sunday Morning, October 8, 1749_.

“George Whitefield, and my brother, and I, are one,――a threefold
cord which shall no more be broken. The week before last, I
waited on our friend George to our house in Newcastle, and gave
him full possession of our pulpit and people’s hearts, as full
as was in my power to give. The Lord united all our hearts. I
attended his successful ministry for some days. He was never
more blessed or better satisfied. Whole troops of the Dissenters
he mowed down. They also are so reconciled to us, as you cannot
conceive. The world is confounded. The hearts of those who seek
the Lord rejoice. At Leeds, we met my brother, who gave honest
George the right hand of fellowship, and attended him everywhere
to our Societies. Some in London will be alarmed at the news;
but it is the Lord’s doing, as they, I doubt not, will by-and-by
acknowledge.”[251]

It is a fact worth noting, that, on the memorable day, when Whitefield,
the two Wesleys, John Bennet and his newly wedded wife met at Leeds,
Whitefield preached in that town at five in the morning, and at Birstal,
at five in the evening.[252] On both occasions, stricken-hearted
Wesley was present, and says, “God gave Mr. Whitefield both strong and
persuasive words.”[253] Five days afterwards, Wesley was in Newcastle,
and, in soberer language than that used by his brother, pronounced the
following judgment on Whitefield’s visit there: “I was now satisfied
that God had sent Mr. Whitefield to Newcastle in an acceptable time;
many of those who had little thought of God before, still retain the
impressions they received from him.”[254]

On leaving Leeds, Whitefield, accompanied by Ingham, set out on another
evangelizing tour through Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cheshire.[255] “Go
on,” wrote Howell Harris, in a letter to Whitefield, dated “October 15,
1749,”――“Go on, and blaze abroad the fame of Jesus, till you take your
flight, to bow, among the innumerable company, before His unalterable
glory!”[256] And “go on” Whitefield did. The following was written to
Lady Fanny Shirley, at Ewood, (or Estwood, as Whitefield calls it,)
a place whence Grimshaw had married his first wife, and where he
occasionally resided.

“ESTWOOD, IN LANCASHIRE, _October 25, 1749_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Since I wrote to your ladyship from Newcastle,
I have preached about thirty times in Yorkshire, and above
ten times in Cheshire and Lancashire. Congregations have been
very large, and a convincing and comforting influence has
everywhere attended the word. In one or two places, I have had
a little rough treatment; but elsewhere all has been quiet. At
the importunity of many, I am now returning from Manchester to
Leeds; from thence I purpose going to Sheffield; next week I hope
to see good Lady Huntingdon at Ashby; and the week following I
hope to be in London. Thus do I lead a pilgrim life. God give
me a pilgrim heart, and enable me to speak of redeeming love
to a lost world, till I can speak no more. Mrs. Galatin, at
Manchester, goes on well, and is not ashamed to confess Him, who,
I trust, has called her out of darkness into marvellous light.”

Colonel and Mrs. Galatin were sincere and warm-hearted friends both of
Whitefield and the Wesleys. Whitefield met them in Manchester, where
the colonel[257] was then stationed, and made the best use of his
opportunity to benefit him and his subordinate officers. Hence the
following to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“LEEDS, _October 30, 1749_.

“I forwarded your letter to Mrs. Galatin, at Manchester. She
seems to be quite in earnest. I conversed for about two hours
with the captain and some other officers, upon the nature and
necessity of the new birth. He was affected; and, I hope, the
conversation was blessed. Since I left them, I have preached to
many thousands in Rosendale, Aywood” (Ewood?) “and Halifax; also
at Birstal, Pudsey, and Armley; and I have had three precious
seasons here. Congregations are exceeding large, and both the
Established and Dissenting Clergy are very angry. I hear that
yesterday they thundered heartily. But truth is great, and will
prevail, though preached in the fields and streets.

“I thought to have been at Ashby next Lord’s-day, but a door
seems to be opened at Nottingham, and I have thoughts of
trying what can be done there. This morning I shall set out for
Sheffield. This day week, your ladyship may depend on seeing me
at Ashby.”

On November 13th, Whitefield left the country residence of Lady
Huntingdon for London. On arriving there, he found letters, which
turned his attention to Ireland.

After John Cennick seceded from Whitefield, he, in June 1746, went to
Dublin, and commenced preaching in Skinner’s Alley. Soon after this,
Cennick had to attend a Moravian Synod in Germany; and, during his
absence, Thomas Williams, one of Wesley’s itinerants, visited Dublin,
began to preach, and formed a Society. In August, 1747, Wesley himself
went to Dublin, and became the guest of Mr. William Lunell, a banker,
a man of wealth and great respectability, who had been converted under
the preaching of Cennick and Williams. A year afterwards, Charles
Wesley found him mourning the loss of his wife and child, and did
all he could to comfort him. Mr. Lunell became one of Wesley’s most
liberal supporters. He gave £400 towards the erection of Dublin chapel;
and, more than twenty years subsequent to this, Wesley declared that
Mr. Lunell, of Dublin, and Mr. Thomas ♦James, of Cork, were the most
munificent benefactors that Methodism had ever had.[258]

From the first, Methodism in Ireland had to encounter persecution. In
Dublin, the pulpit and benches of Marlborough Street chapel had been
burnt in the open street, and several of the Methodists beaten with
shillalahs. At Athlone, Jonathan Healey, one of Wesley’s itinerants,
had been almost murdered. In the present year, 1749, the Methodists
at Cork, with the connivance of the mayor and magistrates, had
been subjected to the most cruel treatment. Both men and women were
attacked with clubs and swords, and many were stabbed, gashed, slashed,
stoned, and seriously wounded. Their houses were demolished, and their
furniture and goods destroyed. As in Dublin, the pews, benches, and
even flooring of the chapel, were dragged into the streets, and were
set on fire. These horrible outrages were continued during the whole
of the months of May and June.[259] Mr. Lunell wrote to Whitefield
on the subject, and wished him to visit Ireland. Whitefield was quite
willing to accede to this request; but, for the present, was unable
to comply with it. Meanwhile, however, he deeply sympathised with the
sufferers at Cork, and, as will be seen hereafter, took active steps,
in conjunction with the Countess of Huntingdon, to obtain for them the
protection of Government. The following letter, to Mr. Lunell, refers
to the matters just mentioned:――

“LONDON, _November 22, 1749_.

“VERY DEAR SIR,――I received your kind letter on Monday last, and
take the first opportunity of answering it.

“I believe my particular province is to go about and preach
the gospel to all. My being obliged to keep up a large
correspondence in America, and the necessity I am under of going
thither myself, entirely prevent my taking care of any Societies.
Whether it will ever be my lot to come to Ireland, I cannot say.
I have some thought of being there next spring; but I would not
intrude on any one’s labours. The world is large, and there is
sufficient work for all. I profess to be of a catholic spirit:
I am a debtor to all. I have no party to be the head of, and I
will have none; but, as much as in me lies, will strengthen the
hands of all, of every denomination, who preach Jesus Christ in
sincerity.

“Pray how are the poor people at Cork? Lady Huntingdon writes
concerning them,――‘I hope the poor persecuted people in Cork
will be helped. I should be glad, if you could write in my name
to any of them, and inform them that I would have written myself,
but I know not how to direct. You may give them my assurance
of serving them upon any occasion, and a hint that I believe
they will meet with no more of the like rough usage.’ Thus far
my good lady. I am persuaded you will, in a prudent manner,
communicate this to all concerned.”

Whitefield’s health was generally best when he was on his gospel
rambles. In London, it almost invariably suffered. Well or ill, however,
when he could, Whitefield must be allowed to work. Writing to Lady
Huntingdon, he says:――

“LONDON, _November 30, 1749_.

“London already begins to disagree with my outward man, but the
Lord’s smiling upon my poor labours sweetens all. I have begun
to preach at six in the morning. We have large congregations
even then. I trust we shall have a warm winter. I have not been
at the other end of the town this week; but I find all hold on.
However, a leader is wanting. This honour has been put on your
ladyship by the great Head of the Church an honour conferred on
few. That you may every day add to the splendour of your future
crown, by always abounding in the work of the Lord, is the
fervent prayer of your unworthy servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Nine days later, he wrote again to Mr. Lunell, of Dublin:――

“LONDON, _December 9, 1749_.

“MY DEAR MR. LUNELL,――I find by your last kind letter that
the king’s business requires haste. I, therefore, immediately
dispatched it to good Lady Huntingdon, who, I am persuaded,
will think it her highest privilege to serve the dear people of
Cork. Whether your account of their sufferings has reached her
ladyship, I cannot tell, but you will soon know. However, this
we know, they have reached the ears of the blessed Jesus, who
sits in heaven, and laughs all His enemies to scorn. He will
take care that the bush, though burning, shall not be consumed:
nay, He will take care that it shall flourish, even in the midst
of fire. It will be melancholy to have any preachers transported;
but the thoughts of this do not affect me so much, because I
know what a field of action there is for them abroad. It has
been my settled opinion for a long time, that Christ’s labourers
(at least, some of them) love home too much, and do not care
enough for those thousands of precious souls, that are ready to
perish for lack of knowledge, in yonder wilderness. We propose
having an academy, or college, at the Orphan House in Georgia.
Supposing the worst to happen, hundreds may find a sweet retreat
there. The house is large; it will hold a hundred. I trust my
heart is larger, and will hold ten thousand. Be they who they
may, if they belong to Jesus, the language of my heart shall be,
‘Come in, ye blessed of the Lord.’ But, perhaps, this may not be
the issue. The threatening storm may blow over. It is always
darkest before break of day.”

Whitefield’s heart was large and warm. His life was a wandering one,
and he saw but little of his relatives; but his affection for them
never failed. In anticipation of his birthday, he wrote to his mother
the following:――

“LONDON, _December 15, 1749_.

“MY DEAR AND HONOURED MOTHER,――To-morrow it will be thirty-five
years since you brought unworthy me into the world. Alas! how
little have I done for you, and how much less for Him who formed
me. This is my comfort; I hope you want for nothing. Thanks
be to God for His goodness to you in your old age! I hope you
comfort yourself in Him, who, I trust, will be your portion for
ever. After Christmas, I hope to see you. My wife sends you her
most dutiful respects. If you would have anything brought more
than you have mentioned, pray write to, honoured mother, your
ever dutiful, though unworthy son,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield and his Tabernacle friends began the New Year, 1750, by
reading letters respecting the work of God, in different places; and
by singing devout and enthusiastic doggerel. To one of his distant
correspondents, he wrote thus:――

“LONDON, _January 2, 1750_.

“Yesterday was a blessed letter-day. These verses were sung for
you, etc.:――

‘Thy work in the north,
O Saviour, increase;
And kindly send forth
The preachers of peace:
Till throughout the nation
Thy gospel shall ring,
And peace and salvation
Each village shall sing.’

Thousands said, ‘Amen, and amen!’ Let me know when you set out
for Newcastle, and whether the books shall be sent by land or
water. I get very little by them. I do not desire it should be
otherwise. I believe, as many are given away as answer to the
profits of what are sold. If souls are profited, I desire no
more.”

The reading of letters, at stated times, respecting revivals of
the work of God, was an established practice, both in Whitefield’s
Tabernacle and Wesley’s Foundery. The chief difference between the two
places was――in the Tabernacle, each letter was followed by the singing
of hymns, of which the lines just given are too good a specimen; in the
Foundery, the hymns sung were some of the finest that Charles Wesley
ever wrote.

The poor Methodists at Cork were again in the furnace of affliction.
Butler, the ballad singer, was as violent as ever; and, until the Lent
assizes, pursued his murderous career with increasing zest. Accompanied
by his mob, he several times assaulted the house of William Jewell,
a clothier; and, at last, took forcible possession of it, swore he
would blow out the brains of the first who resisted him, beat Jewell’s
wife, and then smashed all the windows. He abused Mary Philips in the
grossest terms, and struck her on the head. Elizabeth Gardelet was
literally almost murdered by him and his ruffians; and others were
similarly abused. On January 3, 1750, Whitefield wrote:――

“Mr. Lunell sends me dreadful news from Cork. Butler is there
again, making havoc of the people. Mr. Haughton,[260] some time
ago, expected to be murdered every minute. I have been with some
who will go to the Speaker of the House of Commons and represent
the case. I hope I have but one common interest to serve; I mean
that of the blessed Jesus.”

On January 5, at the Tabernacle, Whitefield preached a sermon from
Ephes. iv. 24. The sermon was taken down in shorthand, and, after his
death, was published, with the title, “The putting on of the New Man a
certain mark of the real Christian.” (8vo. 30 pp.) The sermon is not in
Whitefield’s collected works, but furnishes a good idea of the popular
style he adopted. It is full of brief illustrations, and is intensely
earnest; the style plain, familiar, and pointed. Three sentences
may interest the reader. “Let me tell you, no matter whether you
are Presbyterian or Independent, Churchman or Dissenter, Methodist
or no Methodist, unless you are new creatures, you are in a state of
damnation” (p. 17). “I like orthodoxy very well; but what signifies an
orthodox head with a heterodox heart?” (p. 19.) “I tell thee, O man;
I tell thee, O woman, whoever thou art, thou art a dead man, thou art
a dead woman, nay, a damned man, a damned woman, without a new heart”
(p. 27).

Whitefield, about this time, became acquainted with another clergyman,
who was a man after his own heart. The Rev. William Baddiley had been
made one of Lady Huntingdon’s domestic chaplains. He soon became a sort
of second Grimshaw, formed a number of Societies, and employed laymen
to assist him.[262] To him, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“LONDON, _January 12, 1750_.

“MY VERY DEAR SIR,――I now sit down to answer your kind letter.
O that I may be helped to write something that may do you service
in the cause in which you are embarked!

“I see you are like to have hot work, for I find you have begun
to batter Satan’s strongest hold――I mean the self-righteousness
of man. Here, sir, you must expect the strongest opposition. It
is the _Diana_ of every age. It is the golden image, which man
continually sets up; and the not falling down to worship it,
much more to speak, write, or preach against it, exposes one
to the fury of its blind votaries, and we are thrown directly
into a den of lions. But fear not, Mr. Baddiley; the God whom
we serve is able to deliver us. If any one need give way, it
must be the poor creature who is writing to you; for, I believe,
there is not a person living more timorous by nature than I
am. But, in a degree, Jesus has delivered me from worldly hopes
and worldly fears, and often makes me as bold as a lion. But,
my dear sir, at first, I did not care to part with this pretty
character of mine. It was death to be despised, and worse than
death to think of being laughed at. Blessed be God! now contempt
and I are pretty intimate, and have been so for above twice
seven years. The love of Jesus makes it an agreeable companion,
and I no longer wonder that Moses made such a blessed choice.
There is no doing good without enduring the scourge of the
tongue; and take this for a certain rule――‘The more successful
you are, the more you will be hated by Satan, and despised by
those who know not God.’ What has the honoured lady suffered
under whose roof you dwell! Above all, what did your blessed
Master suffer! O let us follow Him, though it be through a sea
of blood.”

On the same day that Whitefield wrote to her domestic chaplain,
he wrote to the Countess herself. Perhaps it ought to be premised
that, at this time, Wesley had, besides the “Old Foundery,” two other
London chapels――one in West Street, Seven Dials, built by the French
Protestants; the other in Snowfields, Bermondsey, built by a Unitarian.
The “Mr. Gifford,” whom Whitefield mentions, was a man of some
importance. Besides being the respected minister of the Baptist
Church, in Eagle Street, London, he was chaplain to Sir Richard Ellys,
the learned author of “Fortuita Sacra.” He had a private collection
of coins, said to have been one of the most curious in Great Britain,
and which George II. purchased as an addition to his own. Through Sir
Richard Ellys, he became a personal friend of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke,
Archbishop Herring, Sir Arthur Onslow, the Speaker of the House of
Commons, and other persons of high social rank. He was also ultimately
appointed librarian of the British Museum, and was made a doctor by the
University of Aberdeen.

“LONDON, _January 12, 1750_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Every day we have new hearers, and persons are
almost continually brought under convictions, or are edified, at
the Tabernacle.

“I have offered Mr. Wesley to assist occasionally at his chapel,
and I don’t know but it may be accepted. O that I may learn to
think it my highest privilege to be an assistant to all, but the
head of none! I find a love of power sometimes intoxicates even
God’s own dear children, and makes them to mistake passion for
zeal, and an overbearing spirit for an authority given them from
above. For my own part, I find it much easier to obey than to
govern, and that it is much safer to be trodden under foot than
to have the power to serve others so. This makes me flee from
that which, at our first setting out, we are too apt to court.
Thanks be to God for taking any pains with me! I cannot well buy
humility at too dear a rate.

“His Majesty seems to have been acquainted with some
things about us, by what passed in his discourse with Lady
Chesterfield.[263] The particulars are these. Her ladyship wore
a suit of clothes, with a brown ground and silver flowers. His
Majesty, coming round to her, first smiled, and then laughed
quite out. Her ladyship could not imagine what was the cause of
this. At length, His Majesty said, ‘I know who chose that gown
for you――Mr. Whitefield. I hear that you have attended on him
this year and a half.’ Her ladyship answered, ‘Yes, I have, and
like him very well.’

“I have been with the Speaker about the poor people in Ireland.
Mr. Gifford introduced me, and opened the matter well. His
honour expressed a great regard for your ladyship, and great
resentment at the indignities of the poor sufferers; but said,
Lord Harrington and the Secretary of State were the most proper
persons to apply to; and he did not doubt that your ladyship’s
application would get the people’s grievances redressed. I
wished for a memorial to acquaint him with particulars. He
treated me with great candour, and assured me no hurt was
designed us by the State.”

Six days after this, Whitefield wrote to Mr. Lunell, as follows:――

“LONDON, _January 18, 1750_.

“VERY DEAR SIR,――Last Monday, I waited upon the Speaker of the
House of Commons, with one Mr. Gifford, a Dissenting minister,
who opened the case of our poor suffering brethren in a proper
manner. The Speaker said that, though it did not properly belong
to him, he would make a thorough search into the affair. He
wondered that application had not been made to Lord Harrington,
the king’s representative in Ireland; and wanted to be informed
of more particulars. For want of a memorial, I could only shew
him the contents of your letter. Two things, therefore, seem
necessary. Be pleased to send a well-attested narrative of the
whole affair; and wait upon Lord Harrington yourself. A friend
of mine intends writing to Baron B――――. Is he in Dublin? As soon
as I hear from you, more may be done. Meanwhile, the dear souls
have my constant prayers, and shall have my utmost endeavours
to serve them. I count their sufferings my own. Hearty _Amens_
are given, when our friends are mentioned in prayer at the
Tabernacle.

“To-morrow, I am to preach at Mr. Wesley’s chapel. O that it may
be for the Redeemer’s glory, and His people’s good!”

To avoid a recurrence to the rioting at Cork, the following letter, to
Mr. Lunell, is added:――

“LONDON, _January 28, 1750_.

“VERY DEAR SIR,――I am glad to find the storm is a little abated
at Cork. I always thought it was too hot to last long. I see, by
Mr. Haughton, that suffering grace is always given for suffering
times. If they have honoured him so far as to give him some
lashes, for preaching the everlasting gospel, I shall rejoice.
I am persuaded, the persecution will stir up the resentment of
persons in power on this side the water. I beg, for the dear
people’s sake, you will continue your accounts. They direct me
in my prayers, and also excite the prayers of others. On Monday,
your letter shall be read, and we will besiege the throne of
grace once more, on our dear brethren’s behalf. Surely, we shall
prevail. I will use all endeavours to extricate our friends out
of their troubles. Enclosed, you have a letter to the judge.
You may send or deliver it, as you think proper. I hope you will
wait on Lord Harrington, and let me hear what he says. The Duke”
(of Newcastle) “was spoken to; and, last post, I wrote to Lady
Huntingdon for the memorial, which, if sent, shall be put into
the hands of some who are very near His Majesty. Some honourable
women are much your friends. Jesus makes them so; and, when His
people are distressed, if needful, a thousand _Esthers_ shall be
raised up.

“I have now preached three times in Mr. Wesley’s chapel; and,
each time, the Lord was with us of a truth.”

The result of all this correspondence was: 1. A well-attested
narrative of the persecution of the Methodists at Cork was presented
to Lord Harrington, the king’s representative in Ireland. 2. A
memorial was presented to His Majesty King George II., by the Countess
of Chesterfield. 3. The Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary of State,
was spoken to on the subject, and expressed great resentment at the
proceedings of the magistrates and clergymen of Cork. 4. At the Lent
assizes, 1750, the depositions of the persecuted Methodists were laid
before the grand jury, but were all rejected; a true bill, however,
was found against Daniel Sullivan, one of Wesley’s hearers, for
discharging a pistol, without a ball, over the heads of Butler and his
mob, while they were pelting him with stones; and, finally, several of
the preachers, who, together with Charles Wesley, had been in August,
1749, presented, by the grand jury of the Cork assizes, as “persons of
ill-fame, vagabonds, and common disturbers of the public peace,” were
ordered into the dock as common criminals; but were all “acquitted,”
says John Wesley, “with honour to themselves, and shame to their
persecutors.” It is somewhat remarkable, that, though the Methodists
of Cork were all followers of Wesley, the applications to Government
officials on their behalf were all made by Whitefield and his friends.
This was not for want of sympathy on the part of Wesley, but because
Whitefield, by the aristocratic acquaintances he had formed, was in a
better position to render help.

Another incident must be noticed. In the foregoing letters, Whitefield
mentions, with seeming emphasis, his preaching in Wesley’s chapels.
This, in fact, was a notable occurrence. Except for a few months,
the friendship between Whitefield and Wesley had been unbroken; but,
up to the present, Whitefield had but rarely preached to Wesley’s
congregations. Indeed, of the ten or eleven years that had elapsed
since the first formation of Wesley’s Societies, Whitefield had spent
more than six in America and Scotland, where Wesley had no Societies
or congregations at all; and, during the remaining four or five,
his relationship to the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists was such as to
prevent his rendering fraternal services like those referred to in
his letters to Mr. Lunell. Now, however, he was in a new position.
After considerable correspondence between Wesley and himself, it had
been found that the amalgamation of their respective Societies was
impracticable. For this and for other reasons, Whitefield resigned his
office of moderator; and openly and repeatedly declared that he would
neither found a sect, nor be at the head of one founded by others. His
work for life was to be an evangelist at large,――the friend and helper
of all Christian denominations, and the enemy of none. Hence, during
his recent visit to the north of England, Charles Wesley introduced him
to the Methodists of Newcastle; and Wesley himself to the Methodists
of Leeds; and, for the next twenty years, as opportunity permitted,
Whitefield rendered to Wesley’s Societies and congregations, throughout
the kingdom, an amount of valuable service, the results of which
cannot now be rightly estimated. The fraternal co-operation, begun
at Newcastle and Leeds in 1749, was now continued in London in 1750,
greatly to the delight of Whitefield and Wesley, and of their friends.
Wesley’s memoranda of these memorable London services are as follows:――

“1750. Friday, January 19. In the evening, I read prayers at
the chapel in West Street, and Mr. Whitefield preached a plain,
affectionate discourse. Sunday, 21st. He read prayers, and I
preached: so, by the blessing of God, one more stumbling-block
is removed. Sunday, 28th. I read prayers, and Mr. Whitefield
preached. How wise is God in giving different talents to
different preachers! Even the little improprieties both of his
language and manner were a means of profiting many, who would
not have been touched by a more correct discourse, or a more
calm and regular manner of speaking.”[264]

This was a new fact in Methodist history. Partisans, on both sides, had
done their utmost to keep Whitefield and Wesley apart from each other;
but now their machinations were utterly and finally frustrated. The
Methodist chieftains were united, though it had been found impossible
to unite their Societies. The event afforded satisfaction to others,
as well as to themselves. Hence the following, addressed to Mrs. Jones,
widow of R. Jones, Esq., of Fonmon Castle, a personal friend of the
Wesleys, on the occasion of whose death, Charles Wesley composed a
well-known “Elegy.” The writer of the letter, William Holland, had been
a “painter, in a large way of business, in Basinghall Street.” He was a
member of the first Moravian “congregation” in London, and was one of
its “elders.” He became a preacher, and removed to Yorkshire, where he
succeeded Viney in the stewardship; but, in 1746, he returned to London,
resumed his trade, left the Brethren, and died in 1761.

“ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE,
“LONDON, _January 27, 1750_.

“DEAR MRS. JONES,――I arrived safe and well last Saturday,
and found my wife and family well. The evening before, Mr.
Whitefield preached in Mr. Wesley’s chapel, and Mr. J. Wesley
read prayers. On Sunday, Mr. Whitefield read prayers, and Mr.
J. Wesley preached; and, afterwards, they and two more clergymen
administered the sacrament to Mr. Howell Harris and several of
Mr. Whitefield’s Society, and to many hundreds of Mr. Wesley’s.
Monday morning, Mr. H. Harris preached in the Foundery; a
duke and another nobleman were there to hear Mr. J. Wesley.
On Wednesday, Thursday, and yesterday, Mr. Whitefield preached
again at the chapel; as also he is to do to-morrow morning, and
Mr. J. Wesley in the afternoon.

“You will please to let the enclosed be delivered as directed.
They and you will excuse brevity by reason of the frank.[266]

“My wife joins me in respects to you and your children. I am,
your friend and servant,

“WILLIAM HOLLAND.”[267]

To return to Whitefield. In the midst of his benevolent endeavours to
assist the poor Methodists at Cork, Whitefield, with his characteristic
kindliness, was caring for the welfare of persons of another class.
The following was written to Mr. Habersham, formerly his manager at
Bethesda, and who still took a profound interest in his Orphan House.

To understand the letter, it must be added, that, though, from the
first settlement of Georgia, the province had been under a _military_
government, the trustees, about this period, established a kind of
_civil_ government, and committed the charge to a president and four
councillors. Mr. Stephens was now the president. In 1751, the province
was divided into eleven districts; a colonial assembly of sixteen
members was inaugurated at Savannah; Henry Parker was made president;
and James Habersham provincial secretary. As yet, slavery was not
formally introduced, but it practically existed. The term for which
European servants had been engaged being now generally expired, the
difficulty of procuring labour was met by permitting the colonists to
hire negroes from their owners in South Carolina.[268]

“LONDON, _January 18, 1750_.

“MY VERY DEAR MR. HABERSHAM,――Blessed be God, for dealing so
favourably with my dear families, and for giving the prospect
of such a plentiful crop! I take it as an earnest, that the Lord
Jesus will be the Lord God of Bethesda, and will let the world
see that designs founded on Him shall prosper.

“I shall not wonder to hear, by-and-by, that you are president.
O that you and I may be clothed with humility, and that the more
we are exalted by others, the more we may be abased in our own
eyes! O that something may now be done for the poor negroes! A
good beginning is of vast consequence. Pray stir in it, and let
us exert our utmost efforts in striving to bring some of them to
the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This night,
I have agreed to take little Joseph and his sister. All their
relations are desirous that I should have them, as they will
be but poorly provided for here. I think they have a kind of
natural right to be maintained at Bethesda. I suppose, in your
next, you will acquaint me with particulars concerning their
father, and how he has left his affairs. I hear there is a
little infant, besides the other two. I would willingly have
that likewise, if it could be kept till it is about three years
old. I hope to be rich in heaven, by taking care of orphans on
earth. Any other riches, blessed be God! are out of my view. If
the crop answers expectation, I would have the poor of Savannah
reap the benefit. Pray let one barrel of rice be reserved for
them.

“We have had a blessed winter here. I am pretty well in health,
but my wife is ill.”

On Friday, February 2nd, Whitefield arrived at Gloucester, where
he spent the next ten days. Daily, he preached either in the city or
in its vicinity. “Some young fellows,” says he, “behaved rudely; but
that is no wonder; the carnal mind is ♦enmity against God.” To Colonel
Gumley, who had been converted under his preaching at Lady Huntingdon’s,
and who was the father of the Countess of Bath, he wrote, on February
8th:――

“Contrary to my intentions, I have been prevailed on to
stay all this week in Gloucester; so that I do not expect to
be at Bristol till the 12th instant. I am sorry to hear you
are ill of an ague. Everything we meet with here, is only to
fit us more and more for a blessed hereafter. Christ is the
believer’s _hollow square_; and if we keep close in that, we
are impregnable. Here only I find my refuge. Garrisoned in this,
I can bid defiance to men and devils. O, my dear sir, what did
I experience on the road this day! How did I rejoice at the
prospect of a judgment to come, and in the settled conviction
that I have no designs but to spend and be spent for the good of
precious and immortal souls. The hand of the Lord Jesus, without
adding our carnal policy to it, will support His own cause.
When human cunning is made use of, what is it, but, like Uzzah,
to give a wrong touch to the ark of God, and to provoke God to
smite us? A bigoted, sectarian, party spirit cometh not from
above, but is sensual, earthly, devilish. Many of God’s children
are infected with it. They are sick of a bad distemper. May the
Spirit of God convince and cure them!”

On arriving at Bristol, Whitefield wrote to the Countess of Huntingdon,
as follows:――

“BRISTOL, _February 12, 1750_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Since I wrote last, we have been favoured both
in Gloucester city, and in the country, with very pleasant and
delightful seasons. I have preached about twenty times within
these eight or nine days; and, though frequently exposed to rain
and hail, am much better than when I left London. Everything
I meet with seems to carry this voice with it,――‘Go thou and
preach the gospel. Be a pilgrim on earth. Have no party, or
certain dwelling-place; but be continually preparing for, and
labouring to prepare others for, a house not made with hands,
eternal, in the heavens.’ My heart echoes back,――‘Lord Jesus,
help me to do or suffer Thy will! And, when Thou seest me in
danger of nestling, in pity, put a thorn in my nest, to preserve
me from it!’”

On his way to Plymouth, Whitefield held sweet intercourse with two
eminently pious Dissenting ministers,――the well-known Rev. Richard
Pearsall, of Taunton, and the Rev. Risdon Darracott, of Wellington.
Writing to Lady Huntingdon, he said:――

“PLYMOUTH, _February 25, 1750_.

“The day after I wrote my last letter to your ladyship, I
preached three times, once at Kingswood, and twice at Bristol.
It was a blessed day. The next morning, I came on my way
rejoicing. At Taunton, I met with Mr. Pearsall, a Dissenting
minister, a preacher of righteousness before I was born.[269] At
Wellington, I lay at the house of one Mr. Darracott, a flaming
successful preacher of the gospel, and who may justly be styled,
‘the star in the West.’[270] He has suffered much reproach; and,
in the space of three months, has lost three lovely children.
Two of them died the Saturday evening before the sacrament
was to be administered; but weeping did not hinder sowing. He
preached next day, and administered as usual; and, for his three
natural, the Lord has given him above thirty spiritual children.
He has ventured his little all for Christ; and last week a saint
died, who left him £200 in land. At his place, I began to take
the field for this spring. At a very short warning, a multitude
assembled. The following evening, I preached at Exeter; and last
night and this morning I have preached here. This afternoon, God
willing, I am to take the field again.”

Mention has been already made of Benjamin Franklin issuing his
“Proposals relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania,” a step
which led to the founding of the present university of Philadelphia.
This was a subject in which Whitefield took a profound interest, not
only because the meeting-house which had been built for himself was
likely to be occupied for this purpose; but, also, because, knowing the
principles of his friend Franklin, he was afraid that, in the proposed
academy, religion might not occupy the position which it ought to
have. Franklin had written him on the subject; and the following is
the substance of his answer:――

“PLYMOUTH, _February 26, 1750_.

“MY DEAR MR. FRANKLIN,――I am glad that the gentlemen of
Philadelphia are exerting their efforts to erect an academy. I
have often thought such an institution was exceedingly wanted;
and I am persuaded, if well conducted, it will be of public
service. I have read your plan, and do not wonder at its meeting
with general approbation. It is certainly well calculated to
promote polite literature; but, I think, there wants _aliquid
Christi_ in it, to make it as useful as I would desire it might
be.

“It is true you say, ‘The youth are to be taught some public
religion, and the excellency of the Christian religion in
particular;’ but methinks this is mentioned too late, and too
soon passed over. As we are all creatures of a day, as our
whole life is but one small point between two eternities, it
is reasonable to suppose that the grand end of every Christian
institution for forming tender minds should be to convince them
of their natural depravity, of the means of recovering out of
it, and of the necessity of preparing for the enjoyment of the
Supreme Being in a future state. These are the grand points in
which Christianity centres. Arts and sciences may be built on
this, and serve to embellish the superstructure, but without
this there cannot be any good foundation.

“I should be glad to contribute, though it were but the
least mite, and to promote so laudable an undertaking; but
the gentlemen concerned are so superior to me, in respect to
knowledge of both books and men, that anything I could offer
would be, I fear, of little service. The main thing will be
to get proper masters, who are acquainted with the world, with
themselves, and with God, and who will consequently care for
the welfare of the youth that shall be committed to them. I
think, also, that, in such an institution, there should be a
well-approved Christian orator, who should not be content with
giving a public lecture upon oratory in general, but who should
visit and take pains with every class, and teach them early how
to speak, and read, and pronounce well. An hour or two in a day,
I think, ought to be set apart for this. It would serve as an
agreeable amusement, and would be of great service, whether
the youth be intended for the pulpit, the bar, or any other
profession whatsoever. I should also like the youth to board in
the academy, and, by that means, to be always under the master’s
eye. If a fund could be raised, for the free education of those
of the poorer sort who appear to have promising abilities, I
think it would greatly answer the design proposed. It has often
been found, that some of our brightest men, in Church and State,
have arisen from an obscure condition.

“When I heard of the academy, I told Mr. B―――― that I thought
the new building[271] would admirably suit such a proposal; and
I then determined to mention, in my next, some terms that might
be offered to the consideration of the trustees; but I now find
that you have done this already, and that matters are adjusted
agreeable to the minds of the majority of them. I hope your
agreement meets with the approbation of the inhabitants, and
that it will be serviceable to the cause of vital piety and good
education. If these ends are answered, a free school erected,
the debts paid, and a place preserved for public preaching,
I do not see what reason there is for anyone to complain. But
all this depends on the integrity, disinterestedness, and piety
of the gentlemen concerned. An institution, founded on such a
basis, God will bless and succeed; but, without these, the most
promising schemes will prove abortive, and the most flourishing
structures turn out Babels. I wish you and the gentlemen
concerned much prosperity; and pray the Lord of all lords to
direct you to the best means to promote the best end; I mean
the glory of God and the welfare of your fellow-creatures. Be
pleased to remember me to them and to all friends as they come
in your way, and believe me, dear sir,

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

This long letter is interesting, as revealing Whitefield’s views of
youthful education, and his connection with the founding of one of
the oldest and most important colleges in America. It is difficult to
determine whether his interest in England or in America was greater.
He was a devoted lover of his native land; but he was also profoundly
attached to those transatlantic colonies, which, since his day, have
been developed into one of the greatest nations upon earth. On the same
day that he wrote his letter to Franklin, respecting the college at
Philadelphia, he also wrote to his old friend, the Honourable Jonathan
Belcher, Governor of the Province of New Jersey:――

“I purpose ranging this summer, and then to embark for my
beloved America. Whether I shall see your Excellency is
uncertain. You are upon the decline of life; but, I trust, I
shall meet you in heaven, where the wicked heart, the wicked
world, and the wicked devil, will cease from troubling, and
every soul enjoy an uninterrupted and eternal rest. This I am
waiting for every day. O that death may find me either praying
or preaching!”

Having preached twelve times, in six days, at Plymouth, Whitefield
set out for Cornwall, accompanied by two clergymen, the Rev. G.
Thompson, of St. Gennys, and the Rev. Mr. Grigg, who had come to
Plymouth purposely to be his escort. On Sunday, the 4th of March, the
church at St. Gennys presented a scene such as was not often witnessed.
Whitefield writes: “Four of Mr. Wesley’s preachers were present, and
also four clergymen in their gowns and cassocks――Mr. Bennet[272] (aged
fourscore), Mr. Thompson, Mr. Grigg, and myself. It was a glorious day
of the Son of man.”

Six days later, he wrote the following to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“REDRUTH, _March 10, 1750_.

“Every day, since I left St. Gennys, I have been travelling
and preaching. At Port Isaac, the Redeemer’s stately steps were
seen indeed. At Camelford, I preached with great quietness in
the street. At St. Andrew’s, we had a very powerful season.
Yesterday, at Redruth, several thousands attended. Invitations
are sent to me from Falmouth and several other places. I want
more tongues, more bodies, more souls, for the Lord Jesus. Had
I ten thousand, He should have them all. After preaching, about
noon I am to go to St. Ives; and, in about nine days, I hope to
be at Exeter. Mr. Thompson is mighty hearty, and is gone to his
parish in a gospel flame.”

The account of Whitefield’s Cornish labours is continued in another
letter to her ladyship, dated “Exeter, March 21, 1750,” and in which
he says:――

“Immediately after writing my last, I preached to many thousands
at Gwennap. In the evening, I went to St. Ives. The next day,
Sunday, March 11th, I went to church in the morning, and heard
a virulent sermon from these words, ‘Beware of false prophets.’
The preacher had said, on the day before, ‘Now Whitefield is
coming, I must put on my old armour.’[273] I preached twice to
large auditories, and then rode back to Gwennap rejoicing. On
Monday, I preached again at Redruth, at ten in the morning, to
near ten thousand. Arrows of conviction seemed to fly fast. In
the evening, I preached to above five hundred, at a place twelve
miles distant, and then rode about sixteen miles to one Mr.
B――――’s, a wealthy man, convinced about two years ago. In riding,
my horse threw me violently on the ground, but I got up without
receiving much hurt. The next day,” (Tuesday, March 13,) “we had
a most delightful season at St. Mewan; and the day following,
a like time at Port Isaac. In the evening, I met my dear Mr.
Thompson, at Mr. Bennet’s, a friendly minister aged fourscore;
and, on Thursday, preached in both his churches. Blessed seasons
both! On Friday, we went to Bideford, where there is perhaps
one of the best little flocks in all England.[274] The power
of God so came down, while I was expounding to them, that Mr.
Thompson could scarce stand under it. I preached twice. On Monday
evening” (March 19), “I came to Exeter, and, with great regret,
shall stay till Friday; for I think every day lost that is not
spent in field-preaching. An unexpectedly wide door is opened in
Cornwall, so that I have sometimes almost determined to go back
again.”

Thus did Whitefield requite his abusive foe, the Bishop of Exeter.
Lavington, in the most scurrilous language, blackguarded Whitefield
and the Methodists in the notorious pamphlets which he was now writing
and publishing, without having the manliness to acknowledge them as his
own; and Whitefield, in return, quietly invaded the bishop’s diocese,
and, from Land’s End to Exeter, tried to revive religion, where it was
almost, if not entirely, dead. No wonder that the bishop raved!

After spending about a month in London, Whitefield made, what he calls,
“a short elopement to Portsmouth.” His supreme work was preaching,
and saving souls; but he was always ready to throw his influence
and energies into any scheme that would be subsidiary to the great
object of his life. For this purpose, he had erected his Orphan House
in Georgia, and, as the reader has already seen, wished to have, in
connection with it, an academy or college for the training of ministers.
At this very time, he was taking an active interest in founding what
afterwards became the university of Philadelphia. Added to all this,
he now cheerily devoted himself to the establishment of a kindred
institution in New Jersey. Three years ago, his friend, Jonathan
Belcher, had been appointed the governor of that province. The governor
was an aged man, in his seventieth year; but, before he died, he wished
to found a Presbyterian college for the benefit of the people whom
he ruled. In 1748, he had obtained a royal charter from George II.,
but, to carry out his purpose, he needed money. To collect this,
Mr. Allen and Colonel Williams had come to England, bringing letters
of introduction from Governor Belcher and the Rev. Aaron Burr, who
had been elected president of the New College. Whitefield presented
these gentlemen to the Countess of Huntingdon. A statement of Belcher’s
scheme, with a recommendation of it, was printed, and signed by
her ladyship, Whitefield, Dr. Doddridge, and others. Whitefield
preached sermons for the college; and, in the course of a few months,
considerable sums were collected, and transmitted to America.[275] To
illustrate Whitefield’s interest in this important matter, two extracts
from his letters may be useful, while at Portsmouth, he wrote to
Governor Belcher, as follows:――

“PORTSMOUTH, _April 27, 1750_.

“I am glad your Excellency has been honoured, by Providence,
to put New Jersey College on such a footing, that it may be a
nursery for future labourers. I have had the pleasure of seeing
Mr. Allen and Colonel Williams, and have introduced them to
such of my friends as I believe may serve the interest in which
they are engaged. By the Divine blessing, I hope that something
considerable will be done in England and Scotland.”

A few days afterwards, he wrote to the Rev. Mr. McCulloch, Presbyterian
minister of Cambuslang:――

“Mr. Allen, a friend of Governor Belcher, is come over with a
commission to negotiate the matter concerning the Presbyterian
College in New Jersey. He has brought with him a copy of the
letter which Mr. Pemberton sent you some time ago. This letter
has been shewn to Dr. Doddridge and several of the London
ministers, who all approve of the thing, and promise their
assistance. Last week, I conversed with Dr. Doddridge concerning
it; and the scheme that was then judged most practicable was
this――‘That Mr. Pemberton’s letter should be printed, and that
a recommendation of the affair, subscribed by Dr. Doddridge and
others, should be annexed; and, further, that a subscription
and collections should be set on foot in England, and that
afterwards Mr. Allen should go to Scotland.’ I think it is an
affair that requires despatch. Governor Belcher is old, but
a most hearty man for promoting God’s glory, and the good of
mankind. He looks upon the College as his own daughter, and will
do all he can to endow her with proper privileges. The present
president, Mr. Burr,[276] and most of the trustees, I am well
acquainted with. They are friends to vital piety; and, I trust,
this work of the Lord will prosper in their hands. The spreading
of the gospel in Maryland and Virginia, in a great measure,
depends on it.”

Thus, in more respects than one, was America greatly indebted to the
English Whitefield. The effects of his services on behalf of that
country cannot be estimated.

After a few days spent at Portsmouth, Whitefield returned to London,
and then, early in the month of May, set out on his northern tour.
On Sunday, May 6th, he preached twice, to great multitudes, at Olney.
On the day following, he rode to Northampton, and “had a private
interview” with Dr. Stonehouse, Dr. Doddridge, the Rev. James Hervey,
and the Rev. Thomas Hartley.[277] On Tuesday, the 8th, he preached,
in the morning, “to Dr. Doddridge’s family;” and, in the afternoon, to
above two thousand in a field, his friends, with whom he had held “a
private interview,” to his great gratification, walking with him along
the street. After preaching twice, “to several thousands,” at Kettering,
he made his way to Ashby, the country residence of the Countess of
Huntingdon. Here he remained for above a week, preaching daily in the
house of her ladyship, and also in four neighbouring churches. Resuming
his journey, on May 20, he preached four times at Nottingham, where,
says he, “several came to me, enquiring what they should do to be saved.
One evening, Lord S―――― and several gentlemen were present, and behaved
with great decency. Many thousands attended.” He also preached at
Sutton; thrice at Mansfield; and, on May 25, arrived at Rotherham,
where he met with an adventure worth relating. In a letter to Lady
Huntingdon, dated “Leeds, May 30, 1750,” he writes:――

“Satan rallied his forces at Rotherham;[278] but I preached
twice, on the Friday evening and Saturday morning. The crier
was employed to give notice of a bear-baiting. Your ladyship
may guess who was the _bear_. About seven in the morning, the
drum was heard, and several watermen attended it with great
staves. The constable was struck, and two of the mobbers were
apprehended, but were rescued afterwards. I preached on these
words, ‘Fear not, little flock.’ They were both fed and feasted.
After a short stay, I left Rotherham, when I knew it was become
more pacific.[279]

“In the evening, I preached at Sheffield, where the people
received the word gladly. A great alteration was discernible
in their looks, since I was there last.[280] On Sunday, great
multitudes attended, and, in the evening, many went away, who
could not get near enough to hear. On Monday, we had a parting
blessing; and, in the evening, the Lord Jesus fed us plentifully,
with the bread that cometh down from heaven, at Barley Hall.

“Last night, I preached in Leeds, to many, many thousands; and
this morning also, at five o’clock. Methinks, I am now got into
another climate. It must be a warm one, where there are so many
of God’s people. Our Pentecost is to be kept at Mr. Grimshaw’s.
I have seen him and Mr. Ingham.”

Concerning the “Pentecost” kept at Haworth, on Sunday, June 3rd, no
record has been preserved, except a mere notice, which will be found
in a subsequent letter. The reader must imagine the great preacher,
standing on his temporary scaffold, by the side of Grimshaw’s church,
with thousands upon thousands listening to his impassioned eloquence,
and the surrounding hills and dales echoing with his unequalled voice.

Leaving Haworth, Whitefield proceeded to Manchester, where he wrote, as
follows, to Lady Gertrude Hotham, daughter of the Earl of Chesterfield,
and wife of Sir Charles Hotham, Bart:――

“MANCHESTER, _June 8, 1750_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Thousands and thousands, for some time past,
have flocked to hear the word twice every day, and the power
of God has attended it in a glorious manner. I left good Lady
Huntingdon, some time ago, weak in body, but strong in the grace
which is in Christ Jesus. The good people of Ashby were so kind
as to mob round her ladyship’s door, whilst the gospel was being
preached. Alas! how great and irreconcilable is the enmity of
the serpent! This is my comfort――the seed of the woman shall be
more than conqueror over all. I hope your ladyship, every day,
experiences more and more of this conquest in your heart. This
is the Christian’s daily employ and daily triumph――to die to
self and sin, and to rise more and more into the image of the
blessed Jesus. As it is our duty, so it is our unspeakable
privilege.”

From Manchester, Whitefield set out on a tour through what was called
“Ingham’s Circuit,” a large mountainous tract of country where Ingham
had preached with great success, and had founded Societies. The
following, addressed to the Countess of Huntingdon, will give the
reader an idea of Whitefield’s labours:――

“NEWBY-COTE, _June 16, 1750_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Blessed be God! I have still good news to send
your ladyship. All was quiet at Manchester; and, I humbly hope,
the Redeemer will gather to Himself a people there.[281] Kind
Captain Galatin and his lady will acquaint you with particulars.
I hope he will prove a good soldier of Jesus Christ. We had
sweet seasons at places adjacent to Manchester. Only, at Bolton,
a drunkard stood up to preach behind me; and a woman attempted
twice to stab the person who was putting up a stand, for me
to preach on, in her husband’s field. Since that, we have had
very large and powerful meetings, where formerly were the most
violent outrages.[282] Perhaps, within these three weeks, sixty
thousand souls have heard the gospel. I am now in Mr. Ingham’s
circuit, and purpose being at Kendal next Thursday.”

To this Whitefield appends the following postscript:――

“June 17th, seven in the morning. Last night Satan shewed his
teeth. Some persons got into the barn and stable, and cut my
chaise, and one of the horse’s tails. What would men do, if they
could?”

Whitefield arrived at Kendal four days after this, where he wrote the
following to his friend Hervey:――

“KENDAL, _June 21, 1750_.

“REV. AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I arrived at Kendal this morning,
where I shall preach this evening. An entrance is now made into
Westmoreland. Pen cannot well describe the glorious scenes that
have opened in Yorkshire, etc. Perhaps, since I saw you, seventy
or eighty thousand have attended the word preached, in divers
places. At Haworth, on Whit-Sunday, the church was almost thrice
filled with communicants; and, at Kirby-Stephen, the people
behaved exceedingly well.

“In my way, I have read Mr. Law’s second part of ‘The Spirit of
Prayer.’ His scheme about the fall is quite chimerical; but he
says many noble things. The sun has its spots, and so have the
best of men. I want to see my own faults more, and those of
others less. It will be so, when I am more humble. If mercies
would make a creature humble, I should be a mirror of humility.
But I am far from the mind that was in Jesus. You must pray,
while I go on fighting. Next week, I hope to reach Edinburgh.
You shall have notice of my return. Glad shall I be to meet such
a friend upon the road.”

On the same day, he wrote to the Rev. William Baddiley, domestic
chaplain to the Countess of Huntingdon. Mr. Baddiley was now in London,
and his place at Ashby was supplied by the Rev. Charles Caspar Graves
and the Rev. Mr. Simpson, the former a brave-hearted Oxford Methodist,
who, in 1742, had accompanied Charles Wesley to Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
and helped him in forming the Methodist Society in that important town,
and who, in the year following, preached, for months, among the almost
incarnate fiends in Wednesbury, and in other parishes adjacent, but who
now had a church not far from Lady Huntingdon’s country residence. Mr.
Simpson, also, was one of the Oxford Methodists, and had been ordained,
and presented to a living of considerable value in Leicestershire. This,
however, he resigned, and, having left the Church of England, was now a
Moravian minister at Ockbrook.

“KENDAL, _June 21, 1750_.

“REV. AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I am glad you have sounded the silver
trumpet in London. ‘_Crescit eundo_’ must be your motto and mine.
There is nothing like keeping the wheels oiled by action. The
more we do, the more we may do; every act strengthens the habit;
and the best preparation for preaching on Sundays, is to preach
every day in the week.

“I am glad there is peace at Ashby. What a fool is Satan always
to overshoot his mark! I hope Mr. Graves, as well as Mr. Simpson,
will hold on. They will be glorious monuments of free grace. I
am like-minded with you in respect to Dr. Doddridge’s Commentary.
He is a glorious writer. May the Lord Jesus strengthen him to
finish the work!

“My dear Mr. Baddiley, what blessed opportunities do you enjoy
for meditation, study, and prayer! Now is your time to get
rich in grace. Such an example, and such advantages, no one in
England is favoured with but yourself. I do not envy you. I am
called forth to battle. O remember a poor cowardly soldier, and
pray that I may have the honour to die fighting. I would have
all my scars in my breast. I would not be wounded running away,
or skulking into a hiding-place. It is not for ministers of
Christ to flee, or be afraid.”

Five days afterwards, Whitefield wrote to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“KENDAL, _June 26, 1750_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Still the Lord vouchsafes to prosper the
gospel plough. Such an entrance has been made into Kendal,
as could not have been expected. I preached twice, to several
thousands, last week; and the people were so importunate, that
I was prevailed on to return last night. The congregation was
greatly increased, and the power of the Lord was displayed in
the midst of them.

“Last Saturday evening, and on the Lord’s-day, I preached at
Ulverstone. There Satan made some resistance. A clergyman, who
looked more like a butcher than a minister, came with two others,
and charged a constable with me; but I never saw a poor creature
sent off in such disgrace. I believe good was done in the town.
How I am to succeed at Whitehaven, your ladyship shall know
hereafter. I hear Mr. Wesley has been much abused in Ireland,
but that the mayor of Cork has quite overshot himself. I have
some thoughts of seeing Ireland before my return.”[284]

Whitefield reached Edinburgh on Friday, July 6th, having preached,
since he left London, two months before, above ninety times, and,
as he estimated, to a hundred and forty thousand people. He, at once,
commenced preaching in his open-air cathedral, the Orphan Hospital
Park;[285] and, on July 12th, wrote, as follows, to the Countess of
Huntingdon:――

“Though I am burning with a fever, and have a violent cold,
I must send your ladyship a few lines. They bring good news.
People flock rather more than ever, and earnestly entreat me not
to leave them soon. I preach generally twice a day,――early in
the morning, and at six in the evening. Great multitudes attend.
Praise the Lord, O my soul! Mr. Nimmo and his family are in the
number of those who are left in Sardis, and have not defiled
their garments. Your ladyship’s health is drunk every day.”

James Nimmo, Esq., Receiver-General of the Excise, was connected with
some of the first families in Scotland. His mother was a daughter of
Henry, Lord Cardross. His wife, Lady Jane Hume, was third daughter of
the Earl of Marchmont, and sister of Hugh, fourth Earl of Marchmont,
one of the executors of Pope the poet, and also of Sarah, Duchess of
Marlborough. Mr. Nimmo’s house was Whitefield’s Edinburgh home; and,
during his visit, Lady Jane Nimmo, in a letter to the Countess of
Huntingdon, remarked:――

“Greater crowds than ever flock to hear Mr. Whitefield. Dear
Lady Frances Gardiner is very active in bringing people to hear
him, to some of whom, there is reason to believe, the word has
been blessed. There is a great awakening among all classes.
Truth is great, and will prevail, though all manner of evil is
spoken against it. The fields are more than white, and ready
unto harvest, in Scotland.”[286]

Having preached twenty times in Edinburgh, Whitefield, on the 19th of
July, set out for Glasgow,[287] where, on the 23rd, he wrote:――

“Friends here received me most kindly, and the congregations,
I think, are larger than ever. Yesterday” (Sunday), “besides
preaching twice in the field, I preached in the College Kirk,
being forced by Mr. Gillies. It was a blessed season. I have met
and shaken hands with Mr. Ralph Erskine. Oh, when shall God’s
people learn war no more?”

On July 27, he returned to Edinburgh;[288] and, two days later, wrote
to Lady Huntingdon:――

“No one can well describe the order, attention, and earnestness
of the Scotch congregations. They are unwearied in hearing
the gospel. I left thousands sorrowful at Glasgow; and here I
was again most gladly received last night. By preaching always
twice, and once thrice, and once four times in a day, I am quite
weakened; but I hope to recruit again, and get fresh strength to
work for Jesus.”

On August 3rd, Whitefield set out for London,[289] and, at Berwick,
wrote again to the Countess:――

“BERWICK, _August 4, 1750_.

“I have taken a very sorrowful leave of Scotland. The longer
I continued there, the more the congregations, and the power
that attended the word, increased. I have reason to think that
many are under convictions, and am assured that hundreds have
received great benefit and consolation. I shall have reason to
bless God to all eternity for this last visit to Scotland. Not a
dog moved his tongue all the while I was there, and many enemies
were glad to be at peace with me. Preaching so frequently, and
paying so many religious visits, weakened me very much; but I am
already better for my riding thus far. One of the ministers here
has sent me an offer of his pulpit, and I hear of about ten more
round the town who would do the same. I came here this evening”
(Friday), “and purpose to set out for Newcastle on Monday
morning.”

Such extracts as these are fragments; but, put together, they form
a sort of diary, and exhibit Whitefield’s enormous labours, and his
marvellous popularity and success.

When Whitefield arrived in London, Hervey had become an inmate of his
house, and wrote: “Great care is taken of me. The house is very open
and airy, and has no bugs, a sort of city gentry for which I have
no fondness.”[290] The two friends visited Lady Gertrude Hotham, one
of whose daughters was dying; and, by their joint instrumentality,
the sufferer was led to the Saviour. Hervey attended Whitefield’s
ministry at the Tabernacle, and speaks of him as being “in labours
more abundant,” “a pattern of zeal and ministerial fidelity.”[291]

Though Whitefield had been four months from home, the time had not come
for him to settle in his “_winter quarters_.” First of all, he ran off
to Portsmouth, and was there when Miss Hotham died. At his return to
London, he wrote:――

“September 14. I was received with great joy, and our Lord has
manifested His glory in the great congregation. I have preached
in Mr. Wesley’s chapel several times. Mr. Wesley breakfasted and
prayed with me this morning; and Mr. Hervey was so kind as to
come up and be with me in my house. He is a dear man; and, I
trust, will yet be spared to write much for the Redeemer’s glory.”

On the same day, Charles Wesley wrote, in his Journal: “I met James
Hervey at the Tabernacle, and in the fellowship of the spirit of love.”

Never since they had left Oxford had the four old friends met together
till now. Fifteen years had elapsed since then,――years full of strange
and unforeseen adventures.

Two other clergymen were now introduced into the circle of Whitefield’s
friends.

Martin Madan,――tall in stature, robust in constitution, his countenance
open and majestic, his voice musical and strong, his delivery graceful,
and his language plain and nervous,――was the eldest son of Colonel
Madan, and bred to the study of the law. While in a coffee-house, with
some of his gay companions, he was requested to go and hear Wesley
preach. He went, and, on his return to the coffee-room, was asked, “if
he had taken off the old Methodist?” “No,” said the young barrister,
“No, gentlemen, but he has taken me off.” From that time, he abandoned
his old companions, formed an acquaintance with the Countess of
Huntingdon, and embraced the truth as it is in Jesus. Possessed of a
private fortune of £1800 a year, he renounced his legal profession, and
was now an ordained clergyman of the Church of England. He soon became
immensely popular; but ultimately died, in 1790, beneath the dark cloud
of his chimerical and mischievous “Thelypthora.”

Moses Browne, afterwards well known as vicar of Olney, and chaplain
of Morden College, Blackheath, had never been at either of the
universities, had a large family, and a slender purse. For twenty years,
he had been a constant contributor to the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, and
had obtained some of the prizes offered by Mr. Cave for the best poems
sent to that periodical. He had enjoyed the friendship of Dr. Watts, by
whose kindness he was introduced to Lady Huntingdon; and, at her house,
met many of the poets and _literati_ of the day. Moses was passionately
fond of dancing and of theatrical amusements; but, under the preaching
of the Methodists, he had been converted, and now wanted to be a
clergyman. Testimonials were signed by Hervey, Hartley, and Baddiley.
Lady Huntingdon asked Hoadley, Bishop of Winchester, to ordain him; but
his lordship politely refused the application. She requested the same
favour of the Bishop of Worcester; and ultimately, through the interest
of the Hon. Welbore Ellis, then one of the Lords of the Admiralty,
ordination was obtained, and the poor poet became a successful parish
priest.[292]

Both of these gentlemen are mentioned in the following letter to the
Countess of Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _September 17, 1750_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Yesterday afternoon, I returned from
Chatham, where, I think, there is as promising a work begun as
almost in any part of England. Last night, the Redeemer’s glory
was seen in the Tabernacle; and your ladyship’s letter revived
my heart, and gave me fresh hopes for ungrateful Ashby.

“I am glad Mr. Madan is ordained; and hope Mr. Browne will be
soon. I find your ladyship has acted in the affair like yourself.
Mr. Browne is much for embarking in the cause of Christ, and, if
the D―――― would help him at this juncture, he might be a useful
and happy man. Both he and Mr. Hervey have a grateful sense of
your ladyship’s great kindness. The latter, I believe, intends
to winter with me in London. If possible, I will prevail on Mr.
Hartley to come and pay him a visit. To-morrow morning, I set
out for Gloucester, and intend coming to Birmingham, and so to
your ladyship’s.”

Whitefield reached the Countess’s residence on October 4th, and
remained there the next eleven days. His past and his present
proceedings may be learnt by the following extracts from his letters:――

“Ashby, October 9, 1750. I am now at the house of her ladyship,
with four other clergymen, who, I believe, love and preach
Christ in sincerity; but Ashby people reject the kingdom of God
against themselves. At Portsmouth, Chatham, Gloucestershire,
Birmingham, Wednesbury, Evesham, Nottingham, etc., our infinite
High Priest has given us pleasant seasons. I am now waiting
every day for my wife’s being delivered of her present burden,
and hope, ere long, to rejoice that a child is born into the
world. O that it may be born again, and be made an heir of the
Redeemer’s kingdom!”

“Ashby, October 11.” (To the Countess Delitz.) “Good Lady
Huntingdon goes on acting the part of a mother in Israel more
and more. For a day or two, she has had five clergymen under her
roof, which makes her ladyship look like a good archbishop with
his chaplains around him. Her house is indeed a Bethel. To us
in the ministry, it looks like a college. We have the sacrament
every morning, heavenly consolation all day, and preaching at
night. This is to _live at court_ indeed. Your ladyship, and the
other elect ladies, are never forgotten by us.”

In reference to this memorable visit, the Countess of Huntingdon wrote
to Lady Fanny Shirley, as follows:――

“It was a time of refreshing from the presence of our God.
Several of our little circle have been wonderfully filled with
the love of God, and have had joy unspeakable and full of glory.
Lady Frances” (Hastings) “is rejoicing in hope of the glory of
God. It is impossible to conceive a more real happiness than
she enjoys. Dear Mr. Whitefield’s sermons and exhortations were
close, searching, experimental, awful, and awakening. Surely
God was with him. He appeared to speak of spiritual and divine
things as awful realities. Many of us could witness to the truth
of what he uttered. His discourses in the neighbouring churches
were attended with power from on high, and the kingdom of
darkness trembled before the gospel of Christ.”[293]

On Monday, October 15, Whitefield set out for what he called his
“winter quarters,” in London; but, a month afterwards, he was at
Canterbury, preaching with his characteristic zest and power. Despite
great opposition, one of Wesley’s Societies had been formed in this
venerable city, and here Wesley himself had spent three days at the
beginning of the year. Now Whitefield came, and wrote: “The work
increases at Canterbury. I find several souls are awakened.”

The visit of two of the Methodist chieftains to this archiepiscopal
city, in the same year, was too serious an effrontery to be allowed to
pass unnoticed. The Rev. John Kirkby was rector of Blackmanstone, but a
rector almost without a flock, Blackmanstone, in 1831, containing only
five parishioners! Mr. Kirkby’s parochial work was――what? He had ample
leisure to chastise the Methodists. Accordingly, he published an 8vo.
pamphlet of fifty-five pages, with the elaborate title, “The Impostor
Detected; or, the Counterfeit Saint turned inside out. Containing
a full discovery of the horrid blasphemies and impieties taught by
those diabolical seducers called Methodists, under colour of the only
_real Christianity_. Particularly intended for the use of the city of
Canterbury, where that ministry of iniquity has lately begun to work.
By John Kirkby, Rector of Blackmanstone, in Kent. ‘By their fruits ye
shall know them’ (Matt. vii. 20). London, 1750.”

Mr. Kirkby’s pamphlet was even more rancorous than its title. He could
hardly have been more vulgarly abusive if, instead of Blackmanstone, he
had been rector of Billingsgate.

While at Canterbury, Whitefield wrote a letter to Mr. S――――, in Ireland,
which is too characteristic to be omitted.[294]

“CANTERBURY, _November 20, 1750_.

“MY DEAR MR. S――――, As far as I can judge of the circumstances
you related to me, settling, as you propose, would not hinder,
but rather further, you in your present work. Only beware of
nestling. If you do, and God loves you, you shall have thorns
enough put into your nest. O that I may be enabled, even to the
end, to evidence that nothing but a pure disinterested love to
Christ and souls caused me to begin, go on, and hold out, in
pursuing the present work of God! I have seen so many who once
bid exceedingly fair, and afterwards, Demas-like, preferred the
world to Christ, that I cannot be too jealous over myself, or
others whom I profess to love. This is my motive in writing to
you. O let no one take away your crown. If you marry, let it be
in the Lord, and for the Lord, and then the Lord will give it
His blessing. Only remember this, marry when or whom you will,
expect trouble in the flesh. But I spare you. Seven years hence,
if we should live and meet, we can talk better of these things.
Meanwhile, let us go on leaning on our Beloved. He, and He alone,
can keep us unspotted from the world.”

Shortly after this, Whitefield had a serious illness, which he called
a “violent fever,” and which kept him confined to his room nearly a
fortnight. As soon as he was able, he resumed his preaching, and also
his correspondence. To one of his friends, he wrote: “December 17th.
Yesterday, I entered upon my seven-and-thirtieth year. I am ashamed
to think I have lived so long, and done so little.” To another:
“December 21. I have been near the gates of death, which has hindered
my answering your kind letter as soon as I proposed. I shall be glad
to know your friend’s answer about Georgia. If the Lord raises up a
solid, heavenly-minded, learned young man for a tutor, I shall be glad.
Nothing, I believe, but sickness or death, will prevent my going over
next year. Methinks the winter is long. I want to take the field again.”

Whitefield longed to be in America; and, notwithstanding past revivals,
America was in need of him. Hence the following extract from a hitherto
unpublished letter, kindly lent by Mr. Stampe, of Grimsby:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _December 15, 1750_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER,――Religion, at present, is very low
in general in this country. A great deadness prevails, and few
appear to be converted; but the Church of Christ, I trust, is,
in some measure, edified by the word of God. We wish and hope
for better times. I am glad that you are able to continue your
itinerancy, and that with such encouragement and success. May
your life and labours be long continued, and be blessed to the
great increase of Christ’s kingdom on earth, and the brightening
of your own crown in heaven!

“I am much obliged to you, dear sir, for the hope you gave me,
in a letter I received from you, of doing something among your
friends to assist us in completing the new house of public
worship, which we are erecting. Some time ago, I told you of
the difficult and necessitous state of our case; and I may now
add, that we are likely to lose many hundreds of pounds that
were promised. This is very discouraging. However, we have got
the house covered, and hope to have the pleasure of hearing
you preach in it next fall. Dear sir, as I know your hearty
good-will towards the interests of religion in general, and
towards us in particular, I cannot but believe that you will
compassionate us, and will use your best endeavours for us,
I forbear incitements to a mind that needs them not. I salute
yourself and your consort with cordial respect; and remain yours
as formerly,

“GILBERT TENNENT.”

Whitefield was always ready to assist his friends, both at home and
abroad. Just at this juncture, Moses Browne, with his large family,
was in pecuniary embarrassment. Lady Fanny Shirley took great interest
in his case, and applied to the Duchess of Somerset[295] and others to
afford him help.[296] Whitefield refers to this in the following letter
to Lady Fanny:――

“LONDON, _December 25, 1750_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――Poor Mr. Browne is much obliged to your
ladyship for speaking in his behalf. He happened to be with me
when your ladyship’s letter came. The reception your kind motion
met with, convinces me more and more that, ‘Be ye warmed, and be
ye filled,’ without giving anything to be warmed and filled with,
is the farthest that most professors go. Words are cheap, and
cost nothing. I often told the poor man that his dependence was
too strong, and that I was afraid help would not come from the
quarter where he most expected. He sends ten thousand thanks
for what your ladyship has done already. Surely he is worthy.
He is a lover of Christ, and his outward circumstances are very
pitiable. Your ladyship will not be offended at the liberty
I take. You love to help the distressed to the utmost of your
power; and your ladyship shall find that good measure, pressed
down and running over, shall be returned into your bosom.”

To Whitefield, the year 1751 opened sadly. It is true, he speaks
of having had “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” in
London, and of many being awakened to a consciousness of their sins
and danger; but his own health was shaken, his wife was “expecting an
hour of travail,” and death was entering the mansion of the Countess
of Huntingdon. During the whole of December, the Countess had been
dangerously ill; and, at the beginning of 1751, her health declined so
rapidly, that Whitefield was requested to hasten to Ashby with all the
speed he could. He obeyed the summons; but, before his arrival, death
had claimed a victim,――not, however, Whitefield’s honoured patroness;
she was spared to the Church and the world forty years longer; but Lady
Frances Hastings, sister of her late husband, was taken to the rest of
the righteous; and Lady Selina, the Countess’s daughter, was extremely
ill, though slowly recovering from a fever. Extracts from two of
Whitefield’s letters will tell all that it is needful to relate:――

“Ashby, January 29, 1751. I rode post to Ashby, not knowing
whether I should see good Lady Huntingdon alive. Blessed be God!
she is somewhat better. Entreat all our friends to pray for her.
Her sister-in-law, Lady Frances Hastings, lies dead in the house.
She was a retired Christian, lived silently, and died suddenly,
without a groan. May my exit be like hers! Whether right or not,
I cannot help wishing that I may go off in the same manner. To
me it is worse than death, to live to be nursed, and see friends
weeping about one. Sudden death is sudden glory. But all this
must be left to our heavenly Father.”

Strangely enough, Whitefield’s wish, so often uttered, was literally
fulfilled. To Lady Mary Hamilton, Whitefield wrote:――

“Ashby, January 30, 1751. I found good Lady Huntingdon very sick,
though, I trust, not unto death. The death of Lady Frances was
a translation. Almost all the family have been sick. Lady Selina
has had a fever, but is better. Lady Betty is more affected than
ever I saw her. Lady Ann bears up pretty well, but Miss Wheeler
is inconsolable. It is a house of mourning; that is better than
a house of feasting. The corpse is to be interred on Friday”
(February 1) “evening. May all who follow it, look and learn!
I mean learn to live, and learn to die.”

Whitefield remained some days after the funeral, and then returned to
London, where, to use his own expression, his wife was “exceeding bad.”
Three weeks afterwards, he wrote the following to Lady Huntingdon;
but makes no mention, in any of his letters, of the accouchement of
his wife. It is probable, that, like her last, the present child was
dead:――

“LONDON, _February 26, 1751_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――It would rejoice your ladyship to see
what has been doing here. I have not known a more considerable
awakening for a long time. The Lord comes down as in the days
of old, and the shout of a king is amongst us. Praise the Lord,
O my soul! To-morrow, I purpose to leave London; but whether
the rain and wind will permit me is uncertain. At present, I am
feverish, by my late hurry and fatigue.

“Underneath your ladyship are the everlasting arms. You cannot
sink with such a prop. He is faithful, who has promised, that we
shall not be tempted above what we are able to bear. This is my
daily support. To explain God’s providence by His promise, and
not His promise by His providence, I find is the only way both
to get and to keep our comforts.”

Whitefield was detained in London a few days longer; but, early in the
month of March, set out for Bristol, where the Countess of Huntingdon
was then staying for the benefit of her health.

Hervey’s health was such that he was unable to accompany his friend;
and, hence, Whitefield applied to the Rev. Thomas Hartley, and, as a
persuasion to come, told him that the Countess would be benefited by
his visit, he would have access to some of the Bristol pulpits, and,
perhaps, would “catch some great fish in the gospel net.”[297]

After about a fortnight’s stay in Bristol, he started for Plymouth,
preaching at Taunton and Wellington on his way. On his return, he wrote
to Hervey, dating his letter, “Exeter, April 11, 1751.” He tells the
amiable invalid that he would count it “a great honour and privilege”
to have him as his guest for the remainder of his life. During the
last month, he had had “some trying exercises;” but he had “preached
about forty times,” and, in several instances, had ridden forty miles
a day. He had been among Hervey’s old friends at Bideford; and had been
blessed with “sweet seasons at Plymouth.”

It is impossible to determine what were the “trying exercises,” which
Whitefield mentions. One was the affliction of his wife. Perhaps,
another was occasioned by the insertion of a letter in the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_, proposing that, because “Whitefield preached that man, the
chief work of God in this lower world, _by nature is half brute and
half devil_,” the following lines should be inscribed on the door
of Whitefield’s house, and should not be removed until he “recanted
his shocking account of human nature, and declared that man is the
_offspring of God_, and formed _by nature_ to approve and love what
is _just_ and _good_”:――

“Here lives one by nature half brute and half devil.
Avoid him, ye wise, though he speak kind and civil.
The devil can seem like an _angel of light_,
And _dogs_ look _demure_, the better to bite.”

It is rather surprising that a squib so paltry was admitted into Mr.
Cave’s respectable magazine; and yet it gave birth to a controversy, in
that periodical, which lasted until the month of October next ensuing,
not fewer than six different articles, for and against, being published
on the subject.

Probably, another cause of Whitefield’s “trying exercises” was the
publication, about this period, of the third part of Lavington’s
“Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared,” an 8vo. volume of
four hundred and twenty pages. This was the bishop’s big gun, pointed
at Wesley almost altogether, but discharging a few stray shots at
Whitefield. It was not pleasant, for instance, to find the author
perverting Whitefield’s honest acknowledgment of the errors into which
he had unwittingly fallen, by declaring, “Whitefield has _confessed_
that he has _imposed_ upon the world by many _untruths_” (p. 263).
Whitefield never confessed anything of the sort; and Dr. Lavington,
Bishop of Exeter, knew, when he wrote these words, that he himself was
writing an _untruth_.

Lampoons, and episcopal mendacity like this, were, without doubt,
annoying. It was also a matter of profound grief, that, in the bulky
volume just mentioned, his friend Wesley should be made the butt of all
the sneering sarcasm which Lavington could bring to bear against him.
There were likewise other annoyances, as may be gathered from the title
of a pamphlet of sixteen pages, which was at this time published: “A
Vindication of the Methodists and Moravians from an Assertion in a
Sermon lately printed. Also some Thoughts on the Latter Times.” The
“Assertion” was, that, at least, some of the Methodists and Moravians
were endeavouring “to encourage and increase the Romish religion;”
that it was certain that Methodism and Moravianism would “at last issue
in Popery;” and that some of the present preachers would be employed
in spreading it “both here, and in all our colonies and plantations
abroad.” The author of the pamphlet did his best to vindicate
Whitefield and his friends; but he was so full of millenarianism, that
his defence was worthless, and, instead of serving the Methodists, was
likely to injure them.

In the midst of all this worry and vexation, Whitefield found comfort
and cause of exultation in a fact which ought to have augmented the
severity of his “trying exercises:” slavery was authorised in Georgia!
Read in the light of the last hundred years, the following letter,
addressed to a minister in America, is, to say the least, a curious
production:――

“BRISTOL, _March 22, 1751_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――My wife has been in pitiable
circumstances for some time. The Lord only knows what will
be the issue of them. This is my comfort, ‘All things work
together for good to those that love God.’ He is the Father
of mercies, and the God of all consolation. He can bring light
out of darkness, and cause the barren wilderness to smile.

“This will be verified in Georgia. Thanks be to God! that the
time for favouring that colony seems to be come. Now is the
season for us to exert ourselves to the utmost for the good of
the poor Ethiopians. We are told, that, even they are soon to
stretch out their hands unto God. And who knows but that their
being settled in Georgia maybe over-ruled for this great end?

“As to the lawfulness of keeping slaves, I have no doubt, since
I hear of some that were bought with Abraham’s money, and some
that were born in his house. I, also, cannot help thinking,
that some of those servants mentioned by the apostles, in
their epistles, were or had been slaves. It is plain that the
Gibeonites were doomed to perpetual slavery; and, though liberty
is a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those who
never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps may not be so
irksome.

“However this be, it is plain to a demonstration, that
hot countries cannot be cultivated without negroes. What a
flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of
them been permitted years ago! How many white people have been
destroyed for want of them, and how many thousands of pounds
spent to no purpose at all! Had Mr. Henry been in America,
I believe he would have seen the lawfulness and necessity of
having negroes there. And, though it is true that they are
brought in a wrong way from their native country, and it is
a trade not to be approved of, yet, as it will be carried on
whether we will or not, I should think myself highly favoured
if I could purchase a good number of them, to make their
lives comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up their
posterity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

“You know, dear sir, that I had no hand in bringing them into
Georgia. Though my judgment was for it, and so much money
was yearly spent to no purpose, and I was strongly importuned
thereto, yet I would have no negro upon my plantation, till
the use of them was publicly allowed in the colony. Now this
is done, let us reason no more about it, but diligently improve
the present opportunity for their instruction. The Trustees
favour it, and we may never have a like prospect. It rejoiced
my soul, to hear that one of my poor negroes in Carolina was
made a brother in Christ. How know we but we may have many
such instances in Georgia before long? By mixing with your
people, I trust many of them will be brought to Jesus; and this
consideration, as to us, swallows up all temporal inconveniences
whatsoever.”

Whitefield’s letter is a distracting compound of good and evil
principles. Probably it will lower his character in the estimation of
not a few who read it. Be it so. The letter exists, and it would not be
honest to withhold it.

From April 11th, to May 24th, when he arrived in Dublin, nothing
is known of Whitefield’s work, except that, on leaving Exeter, he
passed through Wales, and that, “in about three weeks,” he “rode
above five hundred miles, and generally preached twice a day, and that
his congregations were as large as usual.”[298] At Dublin, he became
the guest of Mr. Lunell, the banker. The following extracts from his
letters will furnish an idea of his work in Ireland:――

“DUBLIN, _June 1, 1751_.

“After being about five days on the water, I arrived here on the
24th ult. I have now preached fourteen times. Congregations are
large, and hear as for eternity. Last Lord’s-day, upwards of ten
thousand attended. It much resembled a Moorfields auditory. I
lodge at a banker’s, a follower of Christ.”

On Monday, June 4th, Whitefield set out for Athlone, and thence
proceeded to Limerick and Cork. To Lady Huntingdon he wrote as
follows:――

“Athlone, June 10. As the weather grows warmer, my body grows
weaker, and my vomitings follow me continually. For this week
past, I have been preaching twice almost every day in country
towns; and yesterday, I sounded the gospel-trumpet here.
Everywhere there seems to be a stirring among the dry bones.
Through the many offences that have been lately given, matters
were brought to a low ebb; but the cry now is, ‘Methodism is
revived again.’”[299]

A week later he says:――

“Limerick, June 14. At Athlone, I preached four times, and last
night was gladly received here at Limerick. Everywhere, our
Lord has vouchsafed us His blessed presence. This supports me
under the heat of the weather, the weakness of my body, and the
various trials which exercise my mind.”

In other letters to Lady Huntingdon, he wrote:――

“Cork, June 19. Since my last from Athlone, I have been at
Limerick, where I preached seven times to large and affected
auditories. Yesterday, I came to Cork, the seat of the late
persecution. I have preached twice, to a great body of people,
with all quietness. Both the mayor and sheriff have forbidden
all mobbing. Now have the people of God rest. Next week, I shall
return to Dublin.

“Dublin, June 28. My last, from Cork, informed your ladyship of
my having preached twice in that city. From thence, I went to
Bandon and Kinsale, where a like blessing attended the word. At
my return to Cork, I preached five or six times more, and, every
time, the power of the word and the number of hearers increased.
On Sunday evening, there might be more than three thousand
people present. Hundreds prayed for me when I took my leave;
and many of the papists said, if I would stay, they would leave
their priests. After preaching twice in the way, I came here on
Wednesday evening, where I have again published the everlasting
gospel. Next Monday, I set out for Belfast.

“Belfast, July 7, Sunday. On Wednesday evening, I came hither,
and intended immediately to embark for Scotland, but the people
prevailed on me to stay. In about an hour’s time, thousands
were gathered to hear the word. I preached morning and evening;
and, since then, have preached at Lisburn, Lurgan, the Maize,
and Lambeg, towns and places adjacent. So many attend, and the
prospect of doing good is so promising, that I am grieved I did
not come to the north sooner. The country round about is like
Yorkshire in England, and quite different from the most southern
parts of Ireland. I am now waiting for a passage to Scotland.
From thence your ladyship shall hear from me again.”

This was enormous labour for a man in feeble health; but Whitefield
loved his work, and that helped to make hard things easy.

It is only fair to add, that, except at Belfast and the adjacent towns,
Whitefield was treading in the steps of his old friend Wesley. At
Dublin, Wesley had had a Society since 1747. He had preached at Athlone
with great success as early as 1748. He had a Society in Limerick in
1749. Methodism in Cork has been already noticed. At Bandon, Wesley
speaks of having had “by far the largest congregations he had seen in
Ireland.” And, at Kinsale, he had preached in the Exchange, “to a few
gentry, many poor people, and abundance of soldiers.”[300]

The following hitherto unpublished letter,[301] by Whitefield’s wife,
belongs to this period. It was addressed to the Countess of Huntingdon.

“LONDON, _July 13, 1751_.

“HONOURED MADAM,――I am almost ashamed to write to your ladyship
now; but have not been able to write sooner. I have been so ill
since I came home, that Dr. Lobb and Dr. Nisbett have attended
me, more or less, ever since. I was in bed when I received
your ladyship’s letter, and was not able to read it. I had a
pleuritic fever, and was so low that the doctor durst not bleed
me. I am glad to hear, by Mr. Smith, that your ladyship is so
well. God be praised! O may the good Lord give your ladyship
a prosperous soul in a healthy body, to His own glory, and the
good of very many poor souls!

“Your ladyship has heard of God’s goodness to my dear honoured
master in Ireland. A gentleman writes me thus: ‘Dear Mr.
Whitefield has left Dublin very sorrowful. His going away is
lamented by many of all denominations,’ etc., etc. My master
left Dublin on the 2nd inst.; but I have not heard from him
since the 22nd of June. Here are letters from Georgia, bringing
good and bad news; the good, they are all well; the bad, they
run him behind very much. But all is well. The Lord has been and
is exceedingly good to us at the poor Tabernacle, and lets it
often be filled with His glory. O, dear madam, what am I, and
what my father’s house, that I am so highly favoured to be
called a child of God! Oh, to be a _child!_ Dear, dear madam, I
am almost lost in thought. What! to have the great Jehovah, the
God of heaven and earth, to be my Father; to make my bed in my
sickness; to be afflicted in all my affliction; to support me in
and under all my trials and temptations, and to make His abode
with me! Thinking of this has sometimes been too much for my
weak nature to bear. Oh for the time when we shall be dissolved,
and be for ever with the Lord!

“I hope your ladyship will excuse the length of this; but I
could not help it. I have not been able to write to or see the
Countess Delitz, or any friend; but hope to get strength. I
beg a share in your ladyship’s prayers; and hope this will find
your ladyship, Lady Betty, and Lady Selina in health of body and
soul, rejoicing in the Lord. This is and shall be the prayer of,
honoured madam, your ladyship’s most obliged and dutiful servant,
in our dear Lord Jesus,

“E. WHITEFIELD.”

A beautiful letter, and worthy of the woman who had the honour to be
the wife of Whitefield. Her husband arrived at Glasgow on Wednesday,
July 10th;[302] and, two days afterwards, wrote as follows, to the
Countess of Huntingdon:――

“GLASGOW, _July 12, 1751_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――My last was from Belfast, where I
preached twice on yesterday sevennight, and immediately after
took shipping, and arrived the next evening at Irvine. At the
desire of the magistrates, I preached to a great congregation.
Since then, I have been preaching twice a day in this city.
Thousands attend every morning and evening. Though I preached
near eighty times in Ireland, and God was pleased to bless His
word, yet Scotland seems to be a new world to me. To see the
people bring so many Bibles, and turn to every passage, when
I am expounding, is very encouraging. My body is kept pretty
healthy, and my voice greatly strengthened.”

Having reached Edinburgh on Thursday, July 18th, he wrote again to Lady
Huntingdon:――

“EDINBURGH, _July 30, 1751_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――I think it a long time since I last wrote
your ladyship. Continual preaching twice a day, and paying and
receiving visits, quite prevented me putting pen to paper as
I would have done. The parting at Glasgow was very sorrowful.
Numbers set out from the country, to hear the word, by three
or four o’clock in the morning. Congregations here increase
greatly. I now preach twice daily to many thousands. Many of
the best rank attend. My body is almost worn out. I have been
to Musselburgh, to see Captain Galatin and his lady. They hold
on. Mr. Wesley has been there, and intends setting up Societies,
which I think imprudent.”

Whitefield left Edinburgh on August 6th, and at Kendal, on his way to
London, wrote to her ladyship again:――

“KENDAL, _August 10, 1751_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――The longer I stayed at Edinburgh, the
more eagerly both rich and poor attended on the word preached.
For near twenty-eight days, in Glasgow and Edinburgh, I preached
to near ten thousand souls every day. Ninety-four pounds were
collected for the Edinburgh orphans, and I heard of seven or
eight students, awakened about ten years ago, who are likely to
turn out excellent preachers. To the Lord of all lords be all
the glory! I am now on my way to London, in order to embark for
America. I threw up much blood in Edinburgh, but riding recruits
me.”

For the present, Whitefield’s work in England was nearly ended. On
August 29, he went on board the _Antelope_, bound for Georgia with
Germans, and took several destitute children with him. “Parting
seasons,” said he, “have been to me dying seasons. They have broken
my very heart; but it is for Jesus, and, therefore, all is well.”

It was fortunate that he got away. Without this, he probably would have
died. The man was fast becoming a sort of religious suicide. Humanly
speaking, his voyage to America saved, or rather prolonged, his life.
On August 30th, his intimate friend, Robert Cruttenden, in a letter
to the wife of Dr. Doddridge, wrote: “Yesterday I took leave of
Mr. Whitefield, who is embarked for America, with little prospect
of my ever seeing him again. His constitution is quite worn out with
labour.”[303]

_FOURTH VISIT TO AMERICA, AND RETURN TO ENGLAND._

SEPTEMBER 1751 TO MARCH 1754.

WHITEFIELD’S sojourn in America was of short duration. He landed in
October, 1751, and seven months afterwards was again in England. His
time on land seems to have been spent chiefly in Georgia and South
Carolina. Very little, however, is known of his proceedings. There
was urgent need to recruit his health. His business affairs, also,
required attention. Still, he preached, at least, occasionally. With
him, preaching was almost an element of life. His departure from
England was abrupt; and his return was unexpected. All that is known
of his brief visit is contained in half a dozen letters.

On October 6th, when within a few hundred miles of America, he wrote,
almost impatiently:――

“O that I could do something to promote the glory of God! Alas!
alas! how little have I done! My sluggish soul, stir up, and
exert thyself for Jesus!”

In a letter, dated “Bethesda, in Georgia, November 20th, 1751,” he
says:――

“Blessed be God! I found the children at the Orphan House much
improved in learning; and I hope a foundation is now laid for a
useful seminary.”

In another, dated “Charleston, December 26th,” he writes:――

“What mercies, signal mercies, has the Lord Jesus conferred
on you and me! What shall we render unto the Lord? Shall we
not give Him our whole hearts? O let His love constrain us to
a holy, universal, cheerful obedience to all His commands. I am
now returning to the Orphan House, which I trust will be like the
burning bush. My poor labours are accepted here. In the spring,
I purpose going to the Bermudas. Jesus is very good to me. Help
me to praise Him.”

To Mr. Lunell, of Dublin, he wrote:――

“BETHESDA, _January, 25, 1752_.

“VERY DEAR SIR,――Man appoints, but God disappoints. Though we
missed seeing each other on earth, yet, if Jesus Christ be our
life, we shall meet in the kingdom of heaven. Your kind letter
found me employed for the fatherless in this wilderness. I am
now almost ready to enter upon my spring campaign. The news from
Ireland does not at all surprise me. Weak minds soon grow giddy
with power; and then they become pests, instead of helps, to the
Church of God.”

To his friend Hervey, Whitefield addressed the following:――

“CHARLESTON, _February, 1, 1752_.

“The Orphan House is in a flourishing way; and, I hope, will
yet become a useful seminary. My poor labours, in this place,
meet with acceptance. After one more trip to Georgia, I purpose
setting out upon my spring campaign. I wish Lisbon may be
blessed to Dr. Doddridge. O, how I wish that dear Dr. Stonehouse
was fully employed in preaching the everlasting gospel! I hope
you both see our good Lady Huntingdon frequently. I was rejoiced
to hear, from my dear yoke-fellow, that her ladyship was bravely.”

Dr. Doddridge had embarked, for Lisbon, a month after Whitefield
embarked for America. For three months past, he had been in heaven.
Immediately after writing the foregoing letter, Whitefield became
acquainted with the fact. Hence the following:――

“CHARLESTON, _February 5, 1752_.

“Part of your first letter――I mean that respecting the
Tabernacle House――gave me uneasiness; but your last removed
it, and made me thankful to our Redeemer, who, in spite of
all opposition, will cause His word to run and be glorified.
Poor Mr. Wesley is striving against the stream.[304] Strong
assertions will not go for proofs, with those who are sealed by
the Holy Spirit even to the day of redemption. They know that
the covenant of grace is not built upon the faithfulness of a
poor fallible, changeable creature, but upon the never-failing
faithfulness of an unchangeable God. This is the foundation
whereon I build. ‘Lord Jesus, I believe, help my unbelief!
Having once loved me, Thou wilt love me to the end. Thou wilt
keep that safe, which I have committed unto Thee. Establish
Thy people more and more in this glorious truth; and grant that
it may have this blessed effect upon us all, that we may love
Thee more, and serve Thee better!’ All truths, unless productive
of holiness and love, are of no avail. They may float upon the
surface of the understanding; but this is to no purpose, unless
they transform the heart. I trust, the dear Tabernacle preachers
will always have this deeply impressed upon their minds. Let us
not dispute, but love. Truth is great, and will prevail. I am
quite willing that all our hearers shall hear for themselves.
The spirit of Christ is a spirit of liberty. Let us look above
names and parties. Let Jesus, the ever-loving, the ever-lovely
Jesus, be our all in all. So that He be preached, and His Divine
image stamped more and more upon people’s souls, I care not who
is uppermost. I know my place, (Lord Jesus, enable me to keep
it!) even to be the servant of all. I want not to have a people
called after my name, and, therefore, I act as I do. The cause
is Christ’s, and He will take care of it. I rejoice that you go
on so well at the Tabernacle. May the shout of a king be always
in the midst of you! I am apt to believe you will pray me
over. But future things belong to Him, whose I am, and whom
I endeavour to serve. After one more trip to the Orphan House,
I purpose going northward.

“Thanks be to God! all is well at Bethesda. A most excellent
tract of land is granted to me, very near the house, which, in
a few years, I hope, will make a sufficient provision for it.
Dr. Doddridge, I find, is gone. Lord Jesus, prepare me to follow
after!”

Whitefield did not go to “the Bermudas,” nor yet “northward,” as he
intended.[305] About two months after the date of the foregoing letter,
he suddenly set sail for England. Why was this? Nothing has yet been
published to explain it. The following letter, now for the first time
printed, solves the difficulty. It was addressed, “To Mr. Blackwell,
banker, in Lombard Street, London”:――

“PORTSMOUTH, _May 21, 1752_.

“MY DEAR MR. BLACKWELL,――I fully purposed to have written
to you when I was at Charleston, in South Carolina; but my
sudden resolution to embark for England prevented me. God has
vouchsafed to bless me, in respect to the Orphan House, in a
very unexpected manner. To put it upon a proper footing, and
to apply for some privileges, before the time of the Trustees’
Charter be expired, is what has called me home so speedily. Home,
did I say? I trust heaven is my home; and it is my comfort that
it is not far off. Surely this body will not hold out always.
Yet a little while, and our Lord will come, and take us to
Himself, that where He is, there we may be also.

‘There pain and sin and sorrow cease,
And all is calm and joy and peace.’

“I wish you and yours much of this heaven upon earth. Looking
unto Jesus is the only way of drawing it down into our souls.
Out of His fulness, we all receive grace for grace. We have an
open-handed, an open-hearted Redeemer. He giveth liberally, and
upbraideth not. O for power from on high to set forth the riches
of redeeming love! In a few days I hope to attempt a little of
this in London. I beg your prayers. I thank you heartily for
all favours; and, with cordial salutations to your _whole self_,
subscribe myself, dear sir, yours most affectionately in our
common Lord,

“G. WHITEFIELD.”

During his absence, Whitefield’s beloved mother had exchanged mortality
for life; but this was not the reason of his sudden return to England.
The affairs of his Orphan House brought him back――affairs which will
often be introduced to the reader’s notice in succeeding letters.

On reaching London, one of his first efforts was to procure a minister
for a Dissenting church at Charleston. On May 26th, he wrote:――

“People have received me with great affection; and I never saw
the work of God go on in a more promising way. Thousands and
thousands hear the word gladly.

“I wish I could send you good news about your minister; but,
alas! I now almost despair of procuring one. I waited upon
Dr. G―――― immediately after my arrival; but he gave me no hopes.
Several of the large congregations in London, besides many more
in the country, are without pastors; and are obliged to make use
of our preachers. O that the Lord of the harvest may thrust out
more labourers! Who can tell but some ministers may be raised up
at Bethesda?

“At midsummer, the king takes Georgia into his own hands.
Blessed be God! for sending me over at such a juncture. I
am come to a determination, if I can dispose of Providence
plantation, (in South Carolina,) to carry all my strength to
the Orphan House.”

Besides endeavouring to provide a minister for Charleston, Whitefield
was requested to render another service; for which he had no adaptation.
His friend Hervey, who was writing “Theron and Aspasio,” sent him some
of the manuscripts for his revision, at the same time promising him £30
for the purchase of a negro slave! Whitefield replied:――

“_June 9, 1752._

“I have read your manuscripts; but for me to play the critic on
them, would be like holding up a candle to the sun. I think to
call your intended purchase _Weston_, and shall take care to
remind him by whose means he was brought under the everlasting
gospel.”

Having employed about a month in London, Whitefield, in the third
week of June, set out for Portsmouth; and thence to Bath, where he
spent about three weeks with the Countess of Huntingdon, and preached
every evening to great numbers of the nobility. Here also he became
acquainted with Mrs. Grinfield, a lady of high position, who attended
on Queen Caroline. “The Court,” says Whitefield, “rings of her; and,
if she stands, I trust she will make a glorious martyr for her blessed
Lord.”[306]

Four days were employed at Bristol, where he preached nine times. He
writes:――

“Very near as many as attended at Moorfields came out every
evening to hear the word. I have reason to believe much good was
done. Old times seemed to be revived again. The last evening, it
rained a little, but few moved. I was wet, and contracted a cold
and hoarseness; but I trust preaching will cure me. This is my
grand catholicon.”

On July 17, Whitefield went to Wales, where he spent a fortnight,
preached twenty times, and travelled about three hundred miles.

Though Whitefield had resigned his office of moderator of the
Calvinistic Methodists, and though he had often declared his
determination not to form a sect, he still, occasionally, attended
“Associations.” Howell Harris had recently seceded from his old
friends, and, in the month of April of this selfsame year, had laid
the foundation of his unique establishment at Trevecca. The schism had
thrown affairs into great confusion; and, perhaps, this was the reason
why Whitefield attended conferences, of which, strictly speaking, he
was not a member. In a letter, dated “Bristol, August 1, 1752,” he
writes:――

“In my way hither, we held an Association. There were present
about nine clergy, and near forty other labourers. I trust all
of them are born of God, and desirous to promote His glory, and
His people’s good. All was harmony and love.”

On his way back to London, he held another Association, in
Gloucestershire.[307] After so many declarations that he would
not attach himself to any party, Methodist or Moravian, there is
considerable inconsistency in these proceedings, and the only way to
explain the difficulty is to suppose, that, in the largeness of his
heart, he was acting the part of a peacemaker among his old associates,
and endeavouring to put an end to their hurtful strifes.

Benjamin Franklin was now acquiring a European reputation. He had
satisfactorily explained the phenomena of the Leyden jar, and, in
this year of 1752, had established the identity between lightning
and the electric fluid. Up to the present, electricity was a science
which could hardly be said to consist of more than a collection of
unsystematized and ill-understood facts. Franklin’s discoveries led to
remarkable results, and his fame was established. The long-continued
friendship, existing between Whitefield and Franklin, was an odd
incident in the great preacher’s life. In addressing Franklin,
Whitefield never fawned; he was always faithful. Franklin disbelieved
the chief doctrines Whitefield preached; but he respected the good
intentions, the zeal, the benevolence, the honesty of the man. On
his return from Wales, to London, Whitefield wrote to Franklin the
following characteristic letter:――

“LONDON, _August 17, 1752_.

“DEAR MR. FRANKLIN,――I find that you grow more and more famous
in the learned world. As you have made a pretty considerable
progress in the mysteries of electricity, I would now humbly
recommend to your diligent unprejudiced pursuit and study the
mystery of the new birth. It is a most important, interesting
study, and, when mastered, will richly repay you for all your
pains. One, at whose bar we are shortly to appear, hath solemnly
declared, that, without it ‘we cannot enter into the kingdom
of heaven.’ You will excuse this freedom. I must have _aliquid
Christi_ in all my letters.

“I am yet a willing pilgrim for His great name’s sake, and I
trust a blessing attends my poor feeble labours. To the giver
of every good gift be all the glory! My respects await yourself
and all enquiring friends; and hoping to see you once more in
the land of the living, I subscribe myself, dear sir, your very
affectionate friend, and obliged servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Two or three days after writing this, Whitefield set out for Scotland.
On Sunday, August 23rd, he preached twice at Lutterworth, “the famous
John Wycliffe’s parish.” Next day, he “began, in the name of the
Almighty Husbandman, to break up fallow ground at Leicester.” Several
thousands attended. Turnips were thrown at Whitefield during the
first sermon; but at the second all was hushed. The next Sunday was
spent at Newcastle-on-Tyne, where he preached four times, “and a
shower of Divine blessing descended on the great congregations.” Early
in September, he arrived at Edinburgh, where, for a fortnight, he
“preached twice every day” to great multitudes of “polite as well as of
common people.” He wrote, “Many young ministers and students were close
attendants, and I trust good was done.” A week, also, was spent at
Glasgow, where his home, for many years, was at the house of “Mr. James
Niven, merchant, above the Cross.”[308] Five more days were employed in
Edinburgh; and then, on October 10th,[309] he began his journey back
to London. In a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, he wrote: “For
about twenty-eight days, I suppose, I did not preach, in Scotland, to
less than ten thousand every day. This has weakened my body; but the
Redeemer knows how to renew my strength. I am as well as a pilgrim can
expect to be. About £70 were collected for the Edinburgh Orphans; and
I heard of near a dozen young men, who were awakened about ten years
ago, and have since entered the ministry, and are likely to prove very
useful. Praise the Lord, O my soul!”

The Rev. John Gillies, one of his constant hearers, remarks:――

“Though, after the years 1741 and 1742, there were no such
extensive awakenings, Mr. Whitefield’s coming to Scotland was
always refreshing to serious persons, and seemed to put new life
into them, and also to be a means of increasing their number. In
various respects, his preaching was still eminently useful. It
had an excellent tendency to destroy bigotry, and to turn men’s
attention, from smaller matters, to the great and substantial
things of religion. It drew several persons to hear the gospel,
who seldom went to hear it from other ministers. Young people
were much benefited by his ministry, and particularly young
students, who became afterwards serious evangelical preachers.
His morning discourses, which were mostly intended for sincere,
but disconsolate, souls, were peculiarly fitted to direct
and encourage all such in the Christian life. His addresses
in the evening were of a very alarming character. There was
something exceedingly striking in the solemnity of his evening
congregations, in the Orphan Hospital Park at Edinburgh, and
in the High-Churchyard at Glasgow, especially towards the
conclusion of his sermons, (which were commonly very long,
though they seemed short to the hearers,) when the whole
multitude stood fixed, and hung upon his lips, many of them
under deep impressions of the great objects of religion. These
things will not soon be forgotten. His conversation was no less
reviving than his sermons. Many in Edinburgh and Glasgow are
witnesses of this, especially at Glasgow, where, in company with
his good friends Mr. McLaurin, Mr. Robert Scott, and others, one
might challenge the sons of pleasure, with all their wit, good
humour, and gaiety, to furnish entertainment so agreeable. At
the same time, every part of it was not more agreeable than it
was useful and edifying.”

Such a testimony, from a minister living at the time, and one of
Whitefield’s faithful friends, is possessed of more than ordinary value.

On leaving Edinburgh, Whitefield preached at Berwick, ♦Alnwick, and
Morpeth. The people of Newcastle were again favoured with his ministry;
and also those of Sunderland. At length, on reaching Sheffield, he
wrote as follows:――

“SHEFFIELD, _November 1, 1752_.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,――Since I left Newcastle, I have sometimes
scarce known whether I was in heaven or on earth. At Leeds,
Birstal, Haworth, Halifax, etc., thousands and thousands have
flocked twice and thrice a day to hear the word of life. A gale
of Divine influence has everywhere attended it. I am now come
from Bolton, Manchester, Stockport, and Chinley. Yesterday, I
preached in a church, where I believe execution was done. Four
ordained ministers, friends to the work of God, have been with
me. The word has run so swiftly at Leeds, that friends are come
to fetch me back; and I am now going to Rotherham, Wakefield,
Leeds, York, and Epworth, and purpose returning to this place
next Lord’s-day. God favours us with weather, and I would fain
make hay while the sun shines. Fain would I spend and be spent
for the good of souls. This is my meat and drink.”

In another letter, written two days afterwards, and dated “Wakefield,
November 3, 1752,” he wrote:――

“I have been upwards of three weeks from Scotland, and scarce
ever had more encouragement in preaching the everlasting gospel.
At Newcastle, Sunderland, and several places in Yorkshire,
Lancashire, and Cheshire, thousands and thousands have daily
attended on the word preached. I hear that arrows have stuck
fast in many hearts. I am returning to Leeds; and, from thence,
I shall go to York, and to several places in Lincolnshire,
and am to preach at Sheffield ♦next Lord’s-day. My return to
London must be determined by the weather. It has been uncommonly
favourable; and it is a pity to go into winter quarters, so long
as work can be done in the fields. O that I had as many tongues
as there are hairs upon my head! Jesus should have them all.”

On November 10th, Whitefield arrived in London, where he wrote:――

“My Sunday’s work” (at Sheffield), “sickness, the change of
weather, and parting from friends, so enfeebled me, that I was
in hopes, on the road, my imprisoned soul would have been set at
liberty, and fled to the blissful regions.

“I found my poor wife an invalid. Our Lord can restore her, for
He came to heal our sicknesses, and to bear our infirmities.”

Whitefield was resolved not to be the founder of a sect, and yet
he had some difficulty in fulfilling his resolve. His hearers in
Dublin had procured a meeting-house in Skinner Street, and had formed
themselves into a public Society. John Edwards, in former years one of
Whitefield’s assistants, had become their preacher; and his ministry
was highly acceptable. A sort of circuit had been formed, and many were
the perils which Edwards encountered. On one occasion, when returning
from a village, where he had been preaching, the _Ormond Boys_ seized
him, and threatened to throw him into the Liffey. The _Liberty Boys_,
residing on the other side of the river, being political opponents of
the _Ormond Boys_, rushed to his assistance, rescued him, and carried
him home in triumph. At another time, the _White Boys_ beset a house
into which he had entered, and threatened to burn it, if he were
permitted to continue in it. He escaped by a window, being let down,
like the apostle Paul, in a basket.[310] The Dublin Society informed
Whitefield of their position and prospects; and Whitefield wrote to
Edwards, their preacher, as follows:――

“LONDON, _November 11, 1752_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――Last night, the glorious Emmanuel brought me
hither; and, this morning, I have been talking with Mr. Adams,
and cannot help thinking, that you have run before the Lord, in
forming yourselves into a public Society. Mr. Adams’s visit was
designed to be transient, and I cannot promise you any settled
help from hence. I am sincere, when I profess that I do not
choose to set myself at the head of any party. When I came last
to Ireland, my intention was to preach the gospel to all; and,
if it should please the Lord to send me there again, I purpose
to pursue the same plan. For I am a debtor to all, of all
denominations, and have no design but to promote the common
salvation of mankind. The love of Christ constrains me to this.
Accept it as written from that principle.”

When “ranging for souls,” Whitefield had little time to attend to
business; when he got into his winter quarters, he was obliged to
recognise its claims. The following was addressed to one of the
residents in his Orphan House:――

“LONDON, _November 21, 1752_.

“MY DEAR NAT,――Your letters have all been brought safe to hand,
and have given me satisfaction. I know not of a more profitable
situation that you could be in, than that you occupy at present.
Next year, God willing, you will have a fellow-student. I have
agreed with him, as I wrote you from Edinburgh, for three years
at least. I am of your mind in respect to boarders. As affairs
stand, I think that, at present, the less the family is, the
better. Nothing seems to be wanted but a good overseer, to
instruct the negroes in sowing and planting. Let me know whether
the lumber trade is begun. Pray make George and the children to
write often. He should not have written to me, _Honoured Master_,
but _Sir_. I am glad to hear that some of the children promise
well. Surely some good will, in the end, come out of that
institution. I am only afraid of its growing too great in a
worldly way. O that I may be directed to such managers as will
act with a single eye to God’s glory and His people’s good! I
have great confidence in you. I shall be glad to live to see you
a preacher. It is a delightful employment, when done out of love
to Jesus: that sweetens all. O that Georgia’s wilderness may
blossom like a rose! It will, when God’s set time is come. Never
mind a few evil reports. No one need be ashamed of Bethesda
children.”

Whitefield, in his “winter quarters,” was as jubilant as ever. In a
letter, dated December 9, he writes: “The shout of a king is amongst
us. Every day, we hear of persons brought under fresh awakenings, and
of God’s people being comforted. We have had two most awful sacramental
occasions.”

To Wesley, the year 1752 was one of trial. Several of his itinerants
began to give him trouble. At the beginning of the year, he, his
brother, and eleven of their principal assistants, signed a document,
which shewed that suspicion had taken the place of confidence.[311]
During the year, some of the preachers informed Wesley, that his
brother Charles did not enforce discipline so strictly as himself,
and that Charles agreed with Whitefield, “touching perseverance, at
least, if not predestination too.” The latter accusation was utterly
untrue; but, as Charles, at this period, was living on terms of the
most intimate friendship with the Countess of Huntingdon, and was
frequently preaching and administering the sacrament in her house, it
is not surprising that his brother deemed it his duty to write to him
concerning it. The result was the creation of a temporary distrust
and shyness between the two loving brothers. Charles took counsel with
Whitefield; and Whitefield’s answer must be given.

“LONDON, _December 22, 1752_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――I have read and pondered your kind letter,
and now sit down to answer it. What shall I say? Really, I
can scarce tell. The connection between you and your brother
has been so close and continued, and your attachment to him so
necessary to keep up his interest, that I would not willingly,
for the world, do or say anything that may separate such
friends. I cannot help thinking, that he is jealous of me and my
proceedings; but, I thank God, I am quite easy about it. Having
the testimony of a good conscience, that I have a disinterested
view to promote the common salvation only, I can leave all to
Him, who, I am assured, will, in the end, speak for me, and make
my righteousness clear as the light, and my just dealing as the
noonday. I more and more find, that he who believeth doth not
make haste; and that, if we will have patience, we shall find
that every plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted,
shall be plucked up. As I wrote to good Lady Huntingdon, so I
write to you. I bless God for my stripping seasons. I have seen
an end of all perfection, and expect it only in Him, in whom I
am sure to find it, the ever-loving, ever-lovely Jesus. He knows
how I love and honour you and your brother, and how often I have
preferred your interest to my own. This, by the grace of God, I
shall continue to do. My reward is with the Lord. If He approves,
it is enough. More might be said, were we face to face. When
this will be, I cannot tell. Several things, especially our
design of building a new Tabernacle, which I hope will succeed,
detain me in town this winter. God only knows what course I am
to steer in the spring. I would be a blank: let my heavenly
Father fill it up as seemeth Him good.

“I am glad you are with our elect lady. O how amiable is a truly
catholic spirit! Lord, make us all partakers of it more and
more! I beg the continuance of your prayers. I need them much.
You shall have mine in return. That you and yours may increase
with all the increase of God, is the earnest request of, my dear
friend,

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

On the same day, Whitefield wrote as follows to the Countess of
Huntingdon, with whom Charles Wesley was staying:――

“I shall observe your ladyship’s hints about Mr. Wesley. I
believe our visits will not be very frequent.[312] But I am easy,
having no scheme, no design of supplanting or resenting, but,
I trust, a single eye to promote the common salvation, without
so much as attempting to set up a party for myself. This is what
my soul abhors. Being thus minded, I have peace; peace which
the world knows nothing of, and which all must necessarily be
strangers to, who are fond either of power or numbers. God be
praised for the many strippings I have met with! It is good for
me that I have been supplanted, despised, censured, maligned,
and separated from my nearest, dearest friends. By this, I have
found the faithfulness of Him, who is the Friend of friends.
By this, I have been taught to wrap myself in the glorious
Emmanuel’s everlasting righteousness, and to be content that
He, to whom all hearts are open, now sees, and will let all see
hereafter, the uprightness of my intentions towards all mankind.”

It is unpleasant to end the year with a note of discord; but it cannot
honestly be avoided.

For the present, Whitefield had one enjoyment, which was almost new
to him. He was no longer harassed with literary persecution. The only
exception was an 8vo. pamphlet of fifty-one pages, entitled “Candid
Remarks on some particular passages in the fifth edition of the Rev.
Mr. Whitefield’s Volume of Sermons, printed in the year 1750. In a
Letter to a Gentleman. Reading, 1752.” The author, in a gentlemanly
way, criticizes some of Whitefield’s doctrines, especially that of
“imputed righteousness;” and concludes by saying, though “a zeal for
God appears throughout the whole of Whitefield’s performance,” yet
“his method of treating his subject, and his manner of dictating to
his audience, have something in them that may probably work upon the
passions, but can never improve the understanding; that may occasion
them to affect a superficial appearance of piety, but can hardly incite
in them the power; and may induce them to acquiesce so much in the
_imputative righteousness of Christ_, as to forget that they themselves
are to be righteous, and _ready to every good work_, which is an
indispensable part of the covenant of grace.”

One of Whitefield’s first anxieties, in 1753, was to sell his
plantation in South Carolina. Writing to a friend there, on January 7,
he says: “By this conveyance, I send you a power of attorney to dispose
of Providence plantation. I leave it to your discretion to sell at what
price you please. I would only observe, that I had rather it should
be sold for less than its real value, than to keep it any longer in my
hands. I do not choose to keep two families longer than is necessary.
The money you receive from Providence will be immediately wanted to buy
more land, and to pay for opening Bethesda’s new plantation.”

Another was the erection of a new Tabernacle. The wooden meeting-house,
in Moorfields, had now stood the storms of a dozen winters. At the
best, it was but a huge, ugly shed; and, of course, signs of decay
were becoming visible. Still, the uncouth fabric was a sacred one.
Many were the mighty sermons preached by Whitefield beneath its roof;
and countless were the blessings which had fallen upon its crowds
of worshippers. A more durable edifice, however, was greatly needed;
and, in the summer of 1751, while at Lady Huntingdon’s residence at
Ashby-de-la-Zouch, the project had been discussed, in the presence
of her ladyship, Doddridge, Hervey, Hartley, and Stonehouse, all of
whom were “most cordial in their approval and promise of support.”
Towards the end of 1752, the subject was renewed at the house of Lady
Frances Shirley, in South Audley Street; and, in compliance with the
urgent entreaties of her ladyship and of the Countess of Huntingdon,
Whitefield now began to exert himself in collecting money. He resolved
not to begin building till he had £1000 in hand.[313] That amount he
soon obtained; the first brick was laid on the 1st of March, 1753; and,
within fifteen weeks afterwards, the structure was opened for public
worship; the congregations, during that interval, still continuing to
assemble in the wooden tabernacle, which was left standing within the
shell of the building in course of erection.[314] The new Tabernacle
needs no description; for, though a third has within the last few years
been built upon its site, there are thousands still living who have
often gazed with reverence at the low, unpretentious edifice where
Whitefield so often mounted his pulpit throne, and not a few who found
salvation within its walls. It will frequently be mentioned in ensuing
extracts from Whitefield’s letters.[315]

There was a third affair, in which Whitefield, at this period, took,
perhaps, a more active interest than was necessary. Within the last
four years, the Moravians had made themselves more prominent than was
consistent with Christian modesty. It was not until the year 1737, that
the first Moravian services were held in England. Since then, several
of their Societies had been torn by faction. In many instances, they
had been the subjects of bitter persecution. Many of their religious
rites were silly and objectionable. Their hymns and their literature
were, to a great extent, jargon, luscious and irreverent. But, despite
all, they had increased in numbers; and, above all, they had at their
head an ambitious German count, who had considerable influence in
the court of the German who then sat on the British throne. Count
Zinzendorf, in 1749, had succeeded in getting the English parliament
to pass a bill to the following effect: 1. That the Moravians were an
ancient Protestant Episcopal Church. 2. That those of them who scrupled
to take an oath, should be exempted doing so, on making a declaration
in the presence of Almighty God, as witness of the truth. 3. That they
should not be liable to serve upon juries. 4. That, in the colonies,
they should be exempted from military service, under reasonable
conditions. 5. That the _verbal declaration_ of the individual,
together with the certificate of a bishop or minister of the Brethren,
should be regarded as sufficient proof of membership in the Moravian
community. Besides this, the Count was no longer satisfied with “hired
lodgings,” in Bloomsbury Square, for “_the Congregation House_,”
but, in 1751, removed to James Hutton’s house and two adjoining ones,
in Westminster. The premises were large and pleasant, overlooking
the Abbey Gardens; but even they were not good enough to serve
as the offices ♦of a body, on whose behalf the whole machinery of
parliamentary legislation had been set in motion. Accordingly, the
Count bought, of Sir Hans Sloane, a large mansion, in Chelsea, formerly
the property of the ducal family of Ancaster, with beautiful grounds
bordering on the Thames. In connection with this imposing “Congregation
House,” a chapel was fitted up, and a burial ground laid out. These
were costly proceedings; and the result of parliamentary negotiations,
the purchase of Lindsey House, Chelsea, and other expenditures, was,
Count Zinzendorf and the Moravians in England were in debt to the
amount of nearly £140,000, and knew not how to pay it.

As will soon be seen, these facts, put in the briefest form possible,
and others, which might be mentioned, induced Whitefield, both
privately and publicly, to censure the proceedings of his old friends,
the Unitas Fratrum.

Whitefield’s plantation at Bethesda, in Georgia, and his
slave-cultivated plantation in Carolina, made him anxious. The latter
he wished to sell, because, despite all his expectations, it had failed
to afford him help in his benevolent designs. Hence the following:――

“LONDON, _February 1, 1753_.

“I am glad to hear that Ephratah plantation[316] is in some
degree opened, and, thereby, a preparation made for future
progress. Mr. Fox’s not coming, and going upon lumber, has been
a great loss to my poor family; but I hope, ere now, all is
settled, and the sowing carried on with vigour. That seems to
be the thing which Providence points out at present. As so many
negroes are ready, it will be a pity if Bethesda does not do
something, as well as the neighbouring planters. If I were not
erecting a large place for public worship, eighty feet square,
I would come over immediately myself; but, perhaps, it will be
best to stay till the new governor embarks, or to come a little
before him.

“With this, I send your brother a power to dispose of Providence
plantation. I hope to hear shortly that you have purchased more
negroes. My dear friend, do exert yourself a little for me in
this time of my absence. I trust the Orphan-house affairs will
soon be so ordered, that no one will be troubled respecting
them, but my own domestics. As Nathaniel P―――― has behaved so
faithfully, I have sent him a full power, in conjunction with
Mrs. W――――, to act under you. The man and woman who bring this,
are, with their son, indentured to me; and I have an excellent
schoolmistress, and a young student, engaged to come over
shortly. Before long, I suppose, we shall have a large family.
Lord, grant it may be a religious one! I would have nothing done
to the buildings, besides repairing the piazza, and what else
is absolutely necessary, till I come. Perhaps I may bring a
carpenter with me, who will stay some years.

“I cannot tell what induces me to take care of a place, where
the gospel is so little regarded, unless it be a principle of
faith. What a difference is there between Georgia and several
parts of England! Here, thousands and tens of thousands run, and
ride miles upon miles, to hear the gospel. There――but I do not
love to think of it. I see there is no happiness but in keeping
near to Jesus Christ.”

The next, addressed to Lady Huntingdon, refers to the Moravians at
Lindsey House, Chelsea, and to the collections for Whitefield’s new
Tabernacle.

“LONDON, _February 9, 1753_.

“I am apt to believe that the Moravians’ scheme will soon be
disconcerted. Strange! Why do God’s children build Babels? Why
do they flatter themselves that God owns and approves of them,
because He suffers them to build high? In mercy to them, such
buildings, of whatever kind, must come down.

“I hope our intended Tabernacle is not of this nature. It would
have pleased your ladyship to have seen how willingly the people
gave last Lord’s-day. At seven in the morning, we collected £50;
in the evening, £126. We have now near £900 in hand. Our Lord
still continues to work in our old despised place. I trust it
has been a Bethel to many, many souls. This, your ladyship knows,
may be anywhere. Clifton is a Bethel when God is there.”

The following seems to have been written to Grimshaw, of Haworth,
and refers to Gillies’ preparation of his “Historical Collections,”
respecting revivals. Grimshaw complied with Whitefield’s suggestion;
but his long letter, being too late to be inserted in Gillies’ bulky
volumes, was not published till 1761, when it found a place in the
“Appendix to the Historical Collections,” a 12mo. book of 250 pages,
and now extremely rare.

“LONDON, _February 19, 1753_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――At present, I have a cold and
fever upon me; but I preach on, hoping one day or another to die
in my work. We have had a blessed winter. Many have been added
to our flock. Next week, I intend to lay the first brick of our
new Tabernacle. I am looking up for direction about my removal.
Which are the best seasons for the north? I should be glad to
know speedily.

“Have you the first account you wrote of your conversion? Or
have you leisure to draw up a short narrative of the rise and
progress of the work of God in your parts? A dear Christian
minister, in Scotland, is about to publish two volumes, relative
to the late awakenings in various places. Such things should be
transmitted to posterity; in heaven, all will be known. Thanks
be to God, that there is such a rest remaining for His people!
I am too impatient to get at it; but who can help longing to see
Jesus? I wish you much, yea, very much prosperity. I am glad you
have received the books. I am now publishing two more sermons,
and a small collection of hymns for public worship.”

Whitefield’s hymn-book was entitled “Hymns for Social Worship,
collected from various Authors, and more particularly designed for
the use of the Tabernacle congregation in London. By George Whitefield,
A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain to the Right Hon.
the Countess of Huntingdon. London: printed by William Strahan, and to
be sold at the Tabernacle, near Moorfields. 1753.” (16mo. 144 pp.)

The hymns are a hundred and seventy in number, besides several short
doxologies. At least twenty-one of them are hymns by John and Charles
Wesley. The largest number are by Watts. Most of the others were
written by Cennick, Seagrave, Hammond, and Humphreys. Mr. Daniel
Sedgwick, a high authority on such a subject, says, between the years
1753 and 1796, Whitefield’s hymn-book passed through thirty-six
editions, a good number of them containing additions to the hymns
published in 1753. Want of space renders it impossible to give a minute
description of Whitefield’s collection; but the following preface is
too characteristic to be omitted:――

“COURTEOUS READER,――If thou art acquainted with the divine life,
I need not inform thee that, although all the acts and exercises
of devotion are sweet and delightful, yet we never resemble the
blessed worshippers above more than when we are joining together
in public devotions, and, with hearts and lips unfeigned,
singing praises to Him who sitteth upon the throne for ever.
Consequently, hymns, composed for such a purpose, ought to
abound much in thanksgiving, and to be of such a nature, that
all who attend may join in them, without being obliged to sing
lies, or not sing at all.

“Upon this plan, the following collection of hymns is founded.
They are intended purely for social worship, and so altered, in
some particulars, that I think all may safely concur in using
them. They are short, because I think three or four stanzas,
with a doxology, are sufficient to be sung at one time. I am no
great friend to long sermons, long prayers, or long hymns. They
generally weary, instead of edifying, and, therefore, I think,
should be avoided by those who preside in any public worshipping
assembly. Besides, as the generality of those who receive
the gospel are commonly the poor of the flock, I have studied
cheapness, as well as conciseness. Much in a little is what God
gives us in His word; and the more we imitate such a method, in
our public performances and devotions, the nearer we come up to
the pattern given us in the Mount.

“I think myself justified in publishing some hymns, by way of
dialogue, for the use of the Society, because something like
it is practised in our cathedral churches, but much more so
because the celestial choir is represented, in the Book of the
Revelation, as answering one another in their heavenly anthems.

“That we all may be inspired and warmed with a like divine fire,
whilst singing below, and be translated, after death, to join
with them in singing the song of Moses and the Lamb above, is
the earnest prayer of, courteous reader,

“Thy ready servant, for Christ’s sake,

“G. W.”

The publication of Whitefield’s hymn-book was, doubtless, owing to
the erection of his new Tabernacle; but it is somewhat singular, that,
in the same year, Wesley published his “Hymns and Spiritual Songs,
intended for the use of real Christians of all Denominations;” and
that, in the year following, the Moravians published two volumes,
of 380 and 399 pages respectively, with the title, “A Collection of
Hymns for the Children of God of all Ages, from the beginning till
now. Designed chiefly for the use of the Congregations in union with
the Brethren’s Church.” The curious reader may speculate how far
Whitefield’s little book led to the publication of the other two.

The “sermons,” mentioned in Whitefield’s foregoing letter, were
entitled, “The true nature of beholding the Lamb of God, and Peter’s
Denial of his Lord, opened and explained, in two Sermons, by George
Whitefield, late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain to the Right
Hon. the Countess of Huntingdon. London, 1753.” (12mo. 48 pp.) In the
former of these sermons, there seems to be an unworthy fling at his
friend Wesley. Whitefield ought to have known that Wesley never taught
the possibility of any one attaining to a sinlessness equal to that of
Christ; and yet he indulged in the following remarks:――

“There was no corruption in the heart of this immaculate Lamb
of God for Satan’s temptations to lay hold on; but this property
belongeth only to Him. For any of His followers, though arrived
at the highest pitch of Christian perfection, much less for
young converts, mere novices in the things of God, to presume
that they either have arrived, or ever shall, while on this
side of eternity, arrive at such a sinless state, argues such
an ignorance of the spiritual extent of the moral law, of the
true interpretation of God’s word, of the universal experience
of God’s people in all ages, as well as of the remaining
unmortified corruptions of their own desperately wicked and
deceitful hearts, that I venture to tell the preachers and
abettors of any such doctrine, however knowing they may be in
other respects, they know not the true nature of gospel holiness,
nor the completeness of a believer’s standing in the unspotted
imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, as they ought to know, or
as I trust they themselves, through Divine grace, will be made
to know before they die. Surely, it is high time to awake out of
this delusive dream! Pardon this short (would to God there was
no occasion for adding), though too necessary, a digression.”

Whitefield, most assuredly, was in a “delusive dream,” if he thought
such remarks applicable to Wesley.

It was now seventeen years since Whitefield preached his first sermon,
and he lived to preach seventeen years after this. He was in the middle
of his marvellous ministry. Numerous specimens of his early discourses
have been already given; and it may be useful to furnish two extracts
from the sermons now in question, to assist the reader in forming an
idea of the great preacher’s style of address, at the present period of
his life. The first is from the sermon on “Beholding the Lamb of God.”

“If you can bear to be spectators of such an awful tragedy,
I must now entreat you to enter the garden of Gethsemane. But,
stop! What is that we see? Behold the Lamb of God undergoing the
most direful tortures of vindictive wrath! Of the people, even
of His disciples, there is none with Him. Alas! was ever sorrow
like unto that sorrow, wherewith His innocent soul was afflicted
in this day of His Father’s fierce anger? Before He entered
into this bitter passion, out of the fulness of His heart, He
said, ‘_Now is my soul troubled_.’ But how is it troubled now?
His agony bespeaks it to be ‘_exceeding sorrowful, even unto
death_.’ It extorts sweat, yea, a bloody sweat. His face, His
hands, His garments, are all stained with blood. It extorts
strong cryings, and many tears. See how the incarnate Deity lies
prostrate before His Father, who now laid on Him the iniquities
of us all! See how He agonizes in prayer! Hark! Again and again
He addresses His Father with an ‘_if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me!_’ Tell me, ye blessed angels, tell me, Gabriel
(or whatsoever thou art called), who wast sent from heaven in
this important hour, to strengthen our agonizing Lord,――tell
me, if ye can, what Christ endured in this dark and doleful
night! And tell me, tell me what you yourselves felt, when you
heard this same God-man, whilst expiring on the accursed tree,
breaking forth into that dolorous, unheard-of expostulation, ‘My
God, my God, why, or how hast Thou forsaken me?’ Were you not
all struck dumb? And did not an awful silence fill heaven itself,
when God the Father said unto His sword, ‘Sword, smite thy
fellow!’ Well might nature put on its sable weeds. Well might
the rocks rend, to shew their sympathy with a suffering Saviour.
And well might the sun withdraw its light, as though shocked and
confounded to see its Maker die.”

The next extract is from the sermon on “Peter’s Denial of his Lord,”
and describes Peter repenting.

“Methinks I see him wringing his hands, rending his garments,
stamping on the ground, and, with the self-condemned publican,
smiting upon his breast. See how it heaves! O what piteous sighs
and groans are those which come from the very bottom of his
heart. Alas! it is too big to speak; but his tears, his briny,
bitter, repenting tears, plainly bespeak this to be the language
of his awakened soul. ‘Alas! where have I been? On the devil’s
ground. With whom have I been conversing? The devil’s children.
What is this that I have done? Denied the Lord of glory;――with
oaths and curses, denied that I ever knew Him. And now whither
shall I go? or where shall I hide my guilty head? I have sinned
against light. I have sinned against repeated tokens of His
dear, distinguishing, and heavenly love. I have sinned against
repeated warnings, resolutions, promises, and vows. I have
sinned openly in the face of the sun, and in the presence of
my Master’s enemies; and, thereby, have caused His name to be
blasphemed. How can I think of being suffered to behold the
face of, much less to be employed by, the ever-blessed Jesus
any more? O Peter! thou hast undone thyself. Justly mayest thou
be thrown aside like a broken vessel. God be merciful to me a
sinner!’”

Even if he had wished, John Wesley would have found it difficult to
preach in a style like this. Let the taste be good or bad, there cannot
be a doubt that, with Whitefield’s dramatic action and unequalled voice,
the effect of such eloquence would be next to overpowering. We return
to Whitefield’s correspondence.

One of the London ministers, who had been benefited by Whitefield’s
ministry, was the Rev. Mr. Steward. He had been invited to the house
of the Countess of Huntingdon to hear Whitefield preach, and had been
one of the first converts there. His own preaching had become popular
and successful, not only at her ladyship’s, but on Garlick Hill, where,
among others saved by his instrumentality, was Mrs. Kent, at the age of
a hundred and four. Mr. Steward’s career was suddenly ended,――an event
which greatly affected Whitefield.[317] In the following letter to
Charles Wesley, he refers to this and other matters:――

“LONDON, _March 3, 1753_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――I thank you and your brother most heartily for
the loan of the chapel. Blessed be God! the work goes on well.
On Thursday morning” (March 1st), “the first brick of our new
Tabernacle was laid with awful solemnity. I preached from Exodus
xx. 24: ‘In all places where I record my name, I will come unto
thee and bless thee.’ Afterwards, we sung, and prayed for God’s
blessing in all places, where His glorious name is recorded. The
wall is now about a yard high. The building is to be eighty feet
square. It is upon the old spot. We have purchased the house;
and, if we finish what we have begun, we shall be rent-free for
forty-six years. We have £1100 in hand. This, I think, is the
best way to build.

“Mr. Steward’s death so affected me, that, when I met the
workmen that night to contract about the building, I could
scarce bear to think of building tabernacles. Strange! that so
many should be so soon discharged, and we continued. Eighteen
years have I been waiting for the coming of the Son of God; but
I find we are immortal till our work is done. Oh that we may
never live to be ministered unto, but to minister. Mr. Steward
spoke for his Lord as long as he could speak at all. He had no
clouds nor darkness. I was with him, till a few minutes before
he slept in Jesus.

“I have good news from several parts. A door is opening at
Winchester. Surely the little leaven will ferment till the whole
kingdom be leavened. Even so, Lord Jesus, Amen!

“My poor wife has had another plunge. We thought she was taken
with palsy; but, blessed be God, she is now recovering.”[318]

The next deserves insertion for its Christian admonition.

“LONDON, _March 10, 1753_.

“MY DEAR MR. M――――, I have preached at Spitalfields chapel
twice.[319] Both the Mr. Wesleys are agreed, as the younger
brother writes me word, in answer to my letter. Let brotherly
love continue. I do not like writing against anybody; but, I
think, that wisdom which dwells with prudence should direct you
not to fill Mr. Wesley’s people (who expect you will serve them)
with needless jealousies. I hope to see the time when you will
talk less of persons and things, and more of Jesus Christ. This,
and this alone, can make and keep you steady in yourself, and
extensively useful to others. I am glad you know when persons
are justified. It is a lesson I have not yet learnt. There are
so many stony-ground hearers, that I have determined to suspend
my judgment, till I know the tree by its fruits.”

The following needs no explanation:――

“LONDON, _March 21, 1753_.

“What is happening to the Moravians is no more than I have
long expected, and spoken of to many friends. Their scheme is
so _antichristian_, in almost every respect, that I am amazed
the eyes of the English Brethren have not long since been
opened, and the Babel stopped. But the glorious God generally
suffers such buildings to go high, that their fall may be more
conspicuous. May the builders rise (I mean as to spirituals) by
their falls, and gain by their losses! This is all the harm I
wish them. What a blessed thing it is to live and walk in the
simplicity of the gospel! How happy is that man, who, being
neither fond of money, numbers, nor power, goes on day by day
without any other scheme than a general intention to promote
the common salvation among people of all denominations! Will
you pray that I may be thus minded?”

The erection of the new Tabernacle detained Whitefield in London longer
than it was his custom to stay; but, in the month of April, he made a
hurried visit to the city of Norwich, where, two years before, there
had been the most disgraceful riots. James Wheatley, whom the Wesleys
had expelled from their connexion, for infamous behaviour, had come
to Norwich, begun to preach out of doors, and formed a mongrel society
of nearly two thousand persons. A temporary Tabernacle was erected for
him on Timber Hill, in imitation of the one erected for Whitefield in
Moorfields. Then followed the riots. Wheatley braved the storm; and,
in April, 1752, steps were taken to build for him one of the largest
chapels in the city.[320] The history of the entire movement is curious,
but not edifying. Why Whitefield went to Norwich, it is difficult
to tell. An account of his visit is contained in the following short
extracts from his letters:――

“Norwich, April 17, 1753. Were it not sinful, I could wish for
a thousand hands, a thousand tongues, and a thousand lives: all
should be employed, night and day, without ceasing, in promoting
the glory of Jesus. Thanks be to His great name, for reviving
His work in the midst of the years. I trust that His people
everywhere will be made to sing, ‘The winter is past, the rain
is over and gone, the flowers appear on the earth, and the voice
of the turtle is heard in the land.’ For these three days past,
I have been preaching here twice a day. In the mornings, we have
been quiet; but, in the evenings, the sons of Belial have been
somewhat rude. The place built here for public worship is much
larger than yours at Newcastle; and, I believe, hundreds of
truly awakened souls attend. What cannot God do? What will the
end of this be? The destruction of Jericho. The rams’ horns must
go round, till its towering walls fall down. Who would not be
one of these rams’ horns? My dear sir, let us not be ashamed of
the cross of Christ: it is lined with love, and will ere long be
exchanged for a crown. Jesus Himself will put it on our heads.”

“Norwich, April 18, 1753. How does God delight to exceed
the hopes, and to disappoint the fears, of His weak, though
honest-hearted people! In spite of all opposition, He has caused
us to triumph even in Norwich. Thousands attend twice every day,
and hear with the greatest eagerness. I hope it will appear yet
more and more that God has much people here.”

Whitefield returned to London on April 21st; and, for the next
three weeks, was employed, not only in preaching, but in writing.
The following letter deserves attention. It was addressed to David
Taylor――said to have been originally footman to Lady Ingham――a
good man, but unsettled, part Moravian, part Methodist, and part
Inghamite――who, by his preaching, had converted large numbers of the
people in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and
had formed Societies in the several counties.

“LONDON, _May 1, 1753_.

“MY DEAR DAVID,――Do you enquire where I am? I answer, in
London, longing to come to Leeds, and yet withheld by Him, whose
providence ordereth all things well. Let us have a little more
patience, and then, in a few weeks, I hope to have a blessed
range in the north. The word ran and was glorified at Norwich.
Preaching so frequently, and riding hard, almost killed me; but
what is my body in comparison of precious and immortal souls?

“At present, I am engaged in a very ungrateful work; I mean, in
writing against the leading Moravian Brethren. When you see it,
you will know whether there was not a cause.”

Whitefield’s pamphlet was published without delay, and was entitled,
“An Expostulatory Letter, addressed to Nicholas Lewis, Count Zinzendorf,
and Lord Advocate of the Unitas Fratrum. By George Whitefield, A.B.,
late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable
the Countess of Huntingdon. London, 1753.” (8vo. 19 pp.) The letter is
dated, “London, April 24, 1753;” and bears on the title-page the text,
“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?”

Perhaps it ought to be premised that a great sensation had been already
created in the country, by the publication of an octavo pamphlet of
177 pages, dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and entitled, “A
candid Narrative of the Rise and Progress of the Hernhuthers, commonly
called Moravians, or Unitas Fratrum. By Henry Rimius, Aulic Counsellor
to his late Majesty the King of Prussia.” Rimius’s book was a terrible
attack on Zinzendorf; and now Whitefield, wisely or unwisely, rushed
into the affray. His letter begins thus:――

“MY LORD,――Although I am persuaded that nothing has a greater
tendency to strengthen the hands of infidels than the too
frequent altercations between the professors of Christianity,
yet there are certain occasions wherein the necessary defence
of the principles of our holy religion, as well as the practice
of it, renders public remonstrance of the greatest use and
importance.

“For many years past, I have been a silent and an impartial
observer of the progress and effects of Moravianism, both in
England and America; but such shocking things have been lately
brought to our ears, and offences have swollen to such an
enormous bulk, that a real regard for my king and my country,
and a disinterested love for the ever-blessed Jesus, will
not suffer me to be silent any longer. Pardon me, therefore,
my lord, if I am constrained to inform your lordship that
you, together with some of your _leading_ brethren, have been
unhappily instrumental in misguiding many simple, honest-hearted
Christians; of distressing, if not totally ruining, numerous
families; and of introducing a whole _farrago_ of superstitious,
not to say idolatrous, fopperies into the English nation.”

Having asserted that, whatever might be “the principles and usages
of the ancient Moravian Church,” he can find no trace of the present
practices of the Moravians in the primitive churches, Whitefield
continues:――

“Will your lordship give me leave to descend to a few
particulars? Pray, my lord, what instances have we of the first
Christians walking round the graves of their deceased friends
on Easter Day, attended with hautboys, trumpets, French horns,
violins, and other kinds of musical instruments? Or where have
we the least mention made of pictures of particular persons
being brought into the first Christian assemblies, and of
candles being placed behind them, in order to give a transparent
view of the figures? Where was it ever known that the picture
of the apostle Paul, representing him handing a gentleman and
lady up to the side of Jesus Christ, was ever introduced into
the primitive lovefeasts? Or do we ever hear of incense, or
something like it, being burnt for him, in order to perfume the
room before he made his entrance among the brethren? And yet
your lordship knows this has been done for you, and suffered by
you, without your having shewn, as far as I can hear, the least
dislike of it at all.

“Again, my lord, I beg leave to enquire whether we hear anything
in Scripture of eldresses or deaconnesses seating themselves
before a table covered with artificial flowers, and against
that a little altar surrounded with wax tapers, on which stood
a cross, composed either of mock or real diamonds, or other
glittering stones? And yet your lordship must be sensible, this
was done in Fetter Lane chapel, for Mrs. Hannah Nitschmann, the
present general eldress of your congregation, with this addition,
that all the sisters were seated in German caps, and clothed
in white, and the organ also illuminated with three pyramids of
wax tapers, each of which was tied with a red ribbon, and over
the head of the general eldress was placed her own picture,
and over that (_horresco referens_) the picture of the Son of
God. A goodly sight this, my lord, for a company of English
Protestants to behold! Alas! to what a long series of childish
and superstitious devotions, and unscriptural impositions must
they have been habituated, before they could sit as silent
spectators of such an anti-Christian scene!”

Besides this general onslaught on Moravian _ritualism_, Whitefield,
in foot-notes, ridicules the absurdity of the “married women” of the
Moravian community “being ordered to wear blue knots; the single women,
pink; those who are just marriageable, pink and white; widows past
child-bearing, white; and those who were not so, blue and white.”
He also describes a ludicrous, or rather theatrical and repulsive
scene, in Hatton Garden, at the celebration of the birthday of Hannah
Nitschmann; and then proceeds to the subject of Moravian fraud and
bankruptcy. He writes:――

“I have another question to propose to your lordship. Pray,
my lord, did any of the apostles or _leaders_ of the primitive
churches ever usurp an authority, not only over people’s
consciences, but properties, or draw in the members of their
respective congregations to dispose of whole patrimonies at
once, or to be bound for thousands more than they knew they were
worth? And yet your lordship knows this has been done again and
again, in order to serve the purposes of the Brethren; and that,
too, at or very near the time, when, in order to procure an
Act in their favour, they boasted to an English Parliament how
immensely rich they were.”

Whitefield then specifies some of the Moravian debts; and concludes by
speaking of the “horrid equivocations, untruths, and low artifices,”
made use of to obtain such enormous loans:――

“At present,” says he, “I shall add no more, but earnestly say
_Amen_ to that part of the Brethren’s litany, ‘From untimely
projects, and from unhappily becoming great, keep us, our
good Lord and God!’ And as heartily praying, that the glorious
Jesus may prosper all that is right, and give grace to correct
and amend all that is wrong, among all His people of all
denominations, I subscribe myself, my lord, your lordship’s most
obedient humble servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

This was plain speaking. Perhaps some will think that Whitefield’s
interference was offensively officious; but it must be borne in mind,
that, besides being bound to take a general interest in everything
pertaining to the religion of the land, Whitefield was closely
associated with the Moravians at the beginning of his ministry;
and that, in his extensive itinerancy, he still came into frequent
contact with them. And, further, though it may be still contended that
Whitefield might have been more usefully employed, there cannot be a
doubt that he now rendered a great and lasting service to the Moravian
community; for his letter to Zinzendorf helped to check and to correct
the extravagance and the absurdly ritualistic practices, into which the
Unitas Fratrum had fallen.

Whitefield’s “letter” created almost as great a sensation as Rimius’s
“Narrative”; and, in whole or in part, was reprinted in the magazines
and newspapers of the day. The Moravians were angry. Peter Bohler
declared publicly, in the pulpit, that Whitefield’s letter “was all a
lie.” James Hutton spoke of “many bulls of Bashan roaring madly against
the Count; and describing him as a Mahomet, a Cæsar, an impostor, a
Don Quixote, a devil, the beast, the man of sin, the Antichrist.”[321]
He also sent the following threatening letter “to the publisher of the
_Public Advertiser_”:――

“SATURDAY, _June 2, 1752_.

“You, sir, have published such an extract of Mr. Whitefield’s
libel in your paper, as is punishable by law; which example
of yours the country newspapers and the London magazines have
followed.

“I would have you immediately consider well, whether you are
liable or no; and, if you find yourself so, to let me know what
steps you think to take to avoid a prosecution.

“A submission in the _Public Advertiser_, next Monday,
expressing your sorrow for having published that extract
(without at all entering into the merits of the cause, whether
true or false), and asking pardon of the persons reflected on
therein, seems to me the best and only way of preventing that
prosecution, which else, in all probability, will very soon
begin.

“I am, sir, yours,

“JAMES HUTTON.”

A similar letter was sent to the publisher of the _Daily Gazetteer_.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, likewise, received an anonymous epistle,
not written, but made up of words, taken out of printed books, of
different types, and pasted upon a sheet of paper:――

“MY LORD,――Our Moravian Church having subsisted above 1700 years,
and you being the chief of a Church, which is her puny sister,
your Grace ought not to suffer that villain Rimius publicly to
vilify our right reverend and valuable patron and us. The man
is quite stupid, else he would have known that he, being but a
single person, and deeply in debt, can do us no hurt. We are a
multitude, a parliamentary constitution, a church that stands
upon a rock, and have treasures inexhaustible, and can hold out
against him, and all the rest of our enemies. But we shall soon
make him flee his country; or he shall meet with a fate which he
scarce expects.”[322]

Bohler and Zinzendorf both wrote to Whitefield; and, as their letters
are of historical importance, they are here given _in extenso_:――

“_May 8, 1753._

“SIR,――I pity you very much that you suffer yourself to
be so much imposed on, and to print your impositions so
inconsiderately.

“You have now attempted a second time to ruin my character. You
represent me as the inventor of an _artificial mount_,[323] etc.
You build upon that, two assertions: 1. That I invented it as
a means to encourage a certain gentleman in his undertakings.
2. That I did it to make up a quarrel with him, by these means.
Now I can attest, with a good conscience, before God, that I had
no hand in inventing, or contriving, or executing, etc., such an
_artificial mound and picture_, etc.; and both your conclusions,
that you build on it, drop of course.

“You also assert, that, I and others paid our devotions in a
certain room, of which you please to give a description; but you
really are in this point also grossly imposed upon. By whom? By
an apostate!

“The person against whom you chiefly level your letter, is so
maliciously misrepresented therein, that really you yourself
will be ashamed of it one day before God and man. It would have
been ingenuous in you to have asked some of your old friends,
whether the charges you lay against us be true. But that,
you have not done. You will perhaps say to me, ‘You can clear
yourself in print.’ But this sounds, in my ears, as if a drunken
man would pelt one with dirt, and then say, ‘Now I will shew you
water where you can wash yourself again.’ I, for my part, have
always abhorred paper war; for I think the result of such a
war, for a child of God, is no other than _vinco seu vincor,
semper ego maculor_ (conquering or conquered, I am dishonoured).
And, besides that, I think it incumbent upon an honest man,
when he rashly and heedlessly has cast an aspersion upon his
fellow-creatures――fathered actions upon an innocent person of
whom he was altogether ignorant――and, with the most prejudicial
assertions, charged a body of people with faults of which they,
neither in whole nor in part, are guilty――to do all in his
power to remove such aspersions of which he is the author or
propagator.

“Dear Mr. Whitefield, when the secret intentions of man,
together with all his unjust deeds and actions, will be judged,
how glad would you be then, not to have treated our Society, in
general; and, in particular, that venerable person against whom
your letter is chiefly levelled; and poor me, in so injurious,
yea, I may say, impudent and wicked a manner.

“But, perhaps, my dear and merciful Saviour may give you grace,
that I may, a second time, be asked pardon by you; which I,
for your sake, heartily desire; but, for my sake, am entirely
unconcerned about; who, as an unworthy servant of my dear Lord
Jesus Christ, who was slain for His enemies, shall continue to
love and pray for you.

“PETER BOHLER.”

To say the least, this is an odd, evasive letter, unworthy of the
man who had taught the Wesleys the way of salvation by faith in Jesus
Christ. Zinzendorf’s is no better:――

“_May 8, 1753._

“REV. SIR,――As I read no newspapers, I knew nothing of your
‘Expostulatory Letter,’ till a worthy clergyman of the Church of
England communicated to me his copy but yesterday.

“You are a preacher, I suppose, of Christ; therefore, though you
are, it seems, an utter stranger to me, you may guess why you
see no reply to your letter.

“In private, I tell you so much, that you are mistaken in the
chief point you urge with more zeal than knowledge.

“As yet, I owe not a farthing of the £40,000 you are pleased
to tell me of; and, if your precipitate officiousness should
save me and those foreigners, you forewarn so compassionately,
from that debt, your zeal would prove very fatal to the English
friends you pity, it seems, no less than the German.

“As for the distinction in the dress of our women, pray consider
that St. Paul has thought it worth his while to make certain
regulations about the head-dress; and you may remain more quiet,
as you have no notion what our ordinances are.

“If some brethren, in their Easter Liturgy, make use of
French-horns, (which they are to answer for, not I, for my chapel
has none,) let the synod consider of it.

“I have not seen the pamphlet you tell us of. It is dedicated
to the Archbishop, you say. If the author got the permission of
his Grace fairly, then the thing is serious indeed; yet, I shall
have nothing to say to Mr. Rimius.

“I make but one observation for your good, sir. Are you sure
that all the quotations out of the Bible are true? If so, is it
possible that the interpretations, which some eighty different
sects of Christians give to the passages in which they oppose
each other, can be the true meaning of the author? Are all those
which are made out of your own books to be depended upon? For
my own part, I find that the single passage you borrow from Mr.
Rimius is an imposition upon the public, as gross as if St. Paul,
when he says, ‘We have but one God the Father,’ etc., should be
charged with denying the divinity of Jesus. As thousands of our
people are satisfied, that I oppose that meaning of the said
quotation, with all my credit in the Church; and have supported
my opposition, with all my substance and that of my family,
above these thirty years; and will continue so long as I have a
shirt left; what must they think when they see my book quoted in
that manner?[324] I add no more.

“As your heart is not prepared to love me, nor your
understanding to listen to my reasons, I wish you well, sir,
and am your loving friend,

“LOUIS.”[325]

These were unsatisfactory and discreditable letters, and not at all an
answer to Whitefield’s charges. The truth is, a satisfactory answer was
impossible. There can be no question, that the Moravians had begun to
practise a _ritualism_ the most silly; and that their expenditure had
brought them to the very verge of bankruptcy and disgraceful ruin.[326]

It would be wearisome and unprofitable to pursue the subject. Suffice
it to say, that, in the month of November, 1753, a pamphlet, of
forty-three pages, was published with the following uncouth title:
“He who is a Minister of the Gospel, and highly esteems the Sufferings
of the Lamb, his Introduction to the Method or Way of the Evangelical
Church of the Brethren in dealing with Souls. To which is prefixed,
A short Answer to Mr. Rimius’s long uncandid Narrative. And a Lesson
for Mr. Whitefield to read before his Congregation.” The bulk of the
pamphlet was a translation of Zinzendorf’s German treatise, entitled,
“Method with Souls,” etc., and requires no attention; but that section
of it which relates to Whitefield may be quoted:――

“If Mr. Whitefield had been more acquainted with the customs
of the primitive Christians, he need not have asked, ‘Did the
primitive Christians visit the graves of the deceased?’

“As to the illuminations, they are no part of the worship, and
cannot concern him.

“As to their debts, he has no business to trouble himself about
them. He will never be asked to pay them; for he, among the
Brethren, to whom the Lord has been most bountiful, has taken
upon himself to discharge them.

“As his intelligence has been from such as St. Paul
distinguishes by the name of false brethren, any man, possessed
of common sense, may know what regard it deserves.

“One fault among the Brethren is, that they do not abound with
charity sermons, and look sharp after the plate, as is done he
knows where and by whom.

“By this time, I doubt not, Mr. Whitefield is able to answer his
own queries; and, I hope, wishes he had taken Paul’s advice to
Timothy: ‘Foolish and unlearned _questions_ avoid, knowing that
they do gender strifes.’”

On the other side, there was published a pamphlet, whose title will
convey an idea of its contents:――“A true and authentic Account of
Andrew Frey; containing the occasion of his coming among the Hernhuters,
or Moravians; his Observations on their Conferences, Casting Lots,
Marriages, Festivals, Merriments, Celebrations of Birth-days, Impious
Doctrines, and Fantastic Practices, Abuse of Charitable Contributions,
Linen Images, Ostentatious Profuseness, and Rancour against any who
in the least differ from them; and the Reasons for which he left them;
together with the Motives for publishing this Account. Faithfully
translated from the German.”[327]

All this disreputable contention prepared the way for Bishop Lavington
to publish, two years afterwards, his “Moravians Compared and Detected.”
(8vo. 180 pp.)

It is time to return to Whitefield’s gospel wanderings, and
correspondence.

About the middle of the month of May, he left London for a tour in
Wales, and made “a circuit of about seven hundred miles.”[328] He
preached above twenty times, at Narberth, Pembroke, Haverfordwest, and
other places; and was again in London on the 7th of June. The Moravian
controversy filled his mind and crushed his heart. To his old secretary,
John Syms, who had joined the Moravians, and who had basely threatened
a revelation of some of Whitefield’s secret affairs, he wrote:――

“HAVERFORDWEST, _May 27, 1753_.

“MY DEAR MAN,――Though my wife has not forwarded the letter, she
says you have sent me a threatening one. I thank you for it,
though unseen, and say unto thee, if thou art thus minded, ‘What
thou doest, do quickly.’ Blessed be God, I am ready to receive
the most traitorous blow, and to confess, before God and man,
all my weaknesses and failings, whether in public or private
life. I laid my account of such treatment, before I published my
‘Expostulatory Letter.’ Your writing in such a manner convinces
me more and more, that Moravianism leads men to break through
the most sacred ties of nature, friendship, and disinterested
love.

“My wife says, you write, that, ‘_I am drunk with power_ and
_approbation_.’ Wast thou with me so long, my dear man, and hast
thou not known me better? What power didst thou know me ever to
grasp at? or, what power am I now invested with? None, that I
know of, except that of being a poor pilgrim. As for approbation,
God knows, I have had little else besides the cross to glory in,
since my first setting out. May that be my glory still!

“My wife says, you write, that ‘I promised not to print.’ I
remember no such thing. I know you advised me not to do so,
but I know of no promise made. If I rightly remember, I had not
then read Rimius; but, after that, I both heard and saw so many
things, that I could not, with a safe conscience, be silent.

“My wife says, you write, ‘the bulk of my letter is not truth.’
So says Mr. Peter Bohler; nay, he says, ‘it is all a lie;’ and,
I hear, he declares so in the pulpit; so that, whether I will
or not, he obliges me to clear myself in print. If he goes on
in this manner, he will not only constrain me to print a third
edition, but also to publish a dreadful heap that remains behind.
My answers to him, the Count, and my old friend Hutton, are
almost ready. I cannot send them this post, but may have time
before long.

“O, my dear man, let me tell thee, that the God of truth and
love hates lies. That cause can never be good, that needs
equivocations and falsehoods to support it. You shall have none
from me. I have naked truth. I write out of pure love. The Lord
Jesus only knows what unspeakable grief I feel, when I think
how many of my friends have so involved themselves. If anything
stops my pen, it will be concern for them, not myself. I value
neither name nor life itself, when the cause of God calls me to
venture both. Thanks be to His great name, I can truly say, that,
for many years past, no sin has had dominion over me; neither
have I slept with the guilt of any known, unrepented sin lying
upon my heart.

“I wish thee well in body and soul, and subscribe myself, my
dear John, your very affectionate, though injured, friend for
Christ’s sake,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

To another friend, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“LONDON, _June 8, 1753_.

“Mr. S―――― can tell you what concern the Brethren’s awful
conduct has given me. Surely, if the Redeemer had not supported
me, I should, within these two months, have died of grief. But I
will say no more; Jesus knows all things. He will not long bear
with guile. I and the Messrs. Wesley are very friendly. I like
them, because they let the world see what they are at once. I
suspect something wrong, when so much secresy is required.”

Two days after writing this, Whitefield opened his new Tabernacle,
on which occasion he preached, in the morning, from Solomon’s prayer
at the dedication of the temple; and, in the evening, from 1 Chron.
xxix. 9: “Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly,
because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the Lord: and
David the king also rejoiced with great joy.” It is needless to
add, that the building “was crowded almost to suffocation in every
part.”[329]

The Tabernacle being built and opened, Whitefield felt himself at
liberty to “take the field.” Accordingly, on June 20, he started off to
Portsmouth, where he spent about a week. Having fulfilled his mission
there, he set out for the north of England. He had “two good meetings”
at Olney. At Northampton, “several thousands attended.” Leicester
was “a cold place; but the people stood very attentive, and some were
affected.” At Nottingham, “a great multitude came to hear, but a son
of Belial endeavoured to disturb them.” At Sheffield, he had “two good
meetings,” and a congregation “consisting of several thousands.” At
Rotherham, “after preaching, a young man was set at liberty, who had
been groaning under the spirit of bondage for four years.” At Leeds
thousands attended daily; and, on the Lord’s-day, it was computed that
near twenty thousand were present. At Birstal[330] and Bradford, “many
thousands flocked together.” “At York,” he says, “I preached four
times; twice we were disturbed, and twice we had sweet seasons.” Thus
did he preach all the way from London to Newcastle where he arrived on
Saturday, July 14. Three days afterwards, he wrote to the Countess of
Huntingdon:――

“NEWCASTLE, _July 17, 1753_.

“I wrote to your ladyship just before I set out for Portsmouth,
and thought to have written again at my return, but was hindered
by staying only one night in London. Ever since, I have been
on the range for lost sinners; and, blessed be God! I have
been much owned by Him who delights to work by the meanest
instruments. Sometimes I have scarce known whether I have been
in heaven or on earth. I came hither on Saturday, and have
preached seven times, and once at Sunderland, where a great
multitude attended, and were deeply impressed. At five in the
morning, the great room[331] is filled; and, on the Lord’s-day,
the congregation out of doors was great indeed. Surely the shout
of a King has been amongst us. All is harmony and love. I am now
going to a place called Sheep-hill, and shall return to preach
here again in the evening. To-morrow I set forward to Scotland.
This may be communicated to Mr. Charles Wesley, to whom I would
write if I had time.”

The _Scots’ Magazine_ for 1753 (p. 361) says:――

“Mr. George Whitefield arrived at Edinburgh July 20th; went
thence to Glasgow on the 27th; returned to Edinburgh August 3rd;
and set out for London on the 7th. He preached daily, morning
and evening, when at Edinburgh, in the Orphan Hospital Park; and,
when at Glasgow, in the Castle-yard, to numerous audiences. In
his sermons at Glasgow, he declaimed warmly against a play-house,
lately erected within the enclosure in which he preached.
The consequence was, that, before his departure, workmen were
employed to take it down, to prevent its being done by ruder
hands.”

Whitefield went to Scotland, not with his usual buoyancy. Under date of
“Edinburgh, July 21,” he wrote:――

“The inward discouragements I have felt against coming to
Scotland have been many. I have left a people full of fire.
Thousands and thousands flocked to hear the glorious gospel.
I have heard of awakenings in every place. Saints have been
revived, and heaven, as it were, has come down on earth. We have
enjoyed perpetual Cambuslang seasons. My heart is quite broken
to think poor Scotland is so dead.”

He, however, plunged into his work, and not without success. In another
letter, dated “Glasgow, July 25, 1753,” he says:――

“Yesterday, I was enabled to preach five times, and, I suppose,
the last time to near twenty thousand. At Edinburgh, I preached
twice every day to many thousands, among whom were many of
the noble and polite. Attention sits on the faces of all; and
friends come round me, like so many bees, to importune me for
one week’s longer stay in Scotland.”

As already stated, Whitefield started, from Edinburgh to London, on
Tuesday, August 7th. On Wednesday, he preached at Berwick, and again
on Thursday morning. On Thursday night, he arrived at Alnwick, and “it
being the time of the races,” he preached on the words, “So run that ye
may obtain.” He writes:――

“Whilst I was discoursing, the gentlemen came down from the race,
and surrounded the congregation, and heard very attentively.
The next morning, at five, I preached again; and, about noon,
at a place called Placey; and, in the evening, about nine, at
Newcastle, where a great number expected me, and my text was,
‘At midnight, a cry was made, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh.’”

On the Sunday following, he wrote to Mr. Gillies, of Glasgow:――

“I am to preach three times every day this week. This promise
supports me――‘As thy day is, so shall thy strength be.’ By the
enclosed, you will see the devil owes me a grudge for what was
done at Glasgow. Would it not be proper to insert a paragraph to
contradict it?”

Next day, August 13th, he wrote to another friend:――

“My route is now fixed. After preaching here” (Newcastle) “and
hereabouts three times each day, I am to leave this place on
Thursday; to be at Stockton on Sunday; at Osmotherley on Monday
noon; lie at Topcliff, and reach York, by way of Boroughbridge,
on Tuesday next; and then come forwards to Leeds.

“I could not finish this letter last night. It is now Tuesday
morning. Surely heaven came down amongst us, under the last
evening’s preaching. It was almost too much for my body. I must
away to Horsley to preach, from whence I am to return here to
preach again this evening. Thrice a day tries me, but in the
Lord have I righteousness and strength. If you hear of a mob
being raised, by my preaching, at Glasgow, assure your friends
there was none; but Satan owes me a grudge for speaking against
the play-house.”

It is important to bear in mind, that, at nearly all, if not actually
all, the places in the north of England, where Whitefield preached,
there were meeting-houses and Societies belonging to his friend Wesley.
In truth, whatever might be the case in London, Whitefield, in the
country, was Wesley’s fellow-labourer. There was no formal and avowed
union between the two, and, on some important doctrines, they differed;
but wherever Whitefield went, Wesley’s people were prepared to welcome
him; and he was equally prepared to do them all the good he could.[332]
Osmotherley[333] is mentioned in the foregoing extract. This was a
small moorland village, quite out of Whitefield’s way to London, and
difficult of access; but one of Wesley’s Societies had been formed
even here, and they were about to erect a chapel. On no other ground,
except that Whitefield, without professing it, was acting as Wesley’s
lieutenant, is it possible to account for Whitefield’s visits to places
like Osmotherley, Placey, Horsley, Sheephill, Stockton, and others
which might be mentioned.

The mob at Glasgow has been named. The explanation is, the proprietor
of a play-house was supposed to be so affected by Whitefield’s
preaching, that he, at once, began to take down the roof of his edifice.
Either through malice or misinformation, several of the newspapers of
the day represented this as being done by a mob, under the exciting
influence of Whitefield’s ministry.[334] Whitefield had been so often
mobbed himself, that he had no wish to be announced as allied to mobs.
Hence, before he left Newcastle, he wrote the following letter, which
was printed, by the publishers, in the _Newcastle Journal_:――

“NEWCASTLE, _August 17, 1753_.

“GENTLEMEN,――By your last Saturday’s paper, I find that some
Edinburgh correspondent has informed you, that, when I was
preaching at Glasgow on the 2nd inst., to a numerous audience,
near the play-house lately built, I inflamed the mob so much
against it, that they ran directly from before me, and pulled it
down to the ground; and that several of the rioters, since then,
have been taken up, and committed to jail. But, I assure you,
this is mere slander and misinformation. It is true, indeed,
that I was preaching at Glasgow, to a numerous auditory, at
the beginning of this month; and that I thought it my duty
to shew the evil of having a play-house erected in a trading
city――almost, too, before the very door of the university. And
this, by the help of God, if called to it, I should do again.
But that I inflamed the mob, or that they ran directly from me,
and pulled the play-house down, or that the rioters were taken
up and put into prison, is entirely false.

“I suppose all this took its rise from the builder taking down
the roof of the house himself. You must know that the walls of
this play-house were part of the old palace of the Bishop of
Glasgow, and only had a board covering put upon them during
the time of the players being there. They being gone, the owner
(whether convinced by anything that was said, I cannot tell)
began to take off the roof several days before I left that place;
so that, if there had been any riot, doubtless I should have
seen it.

“No, gentlemen, your correspondent may assure himself that I
am too much a friend to my God, my king, and my country, to
encourage any such thing. I know of no such means of reformation,
either in church or state. The weapons of a Christian’s warfare
are not carnal. And therefore, if you please to inform the
public and your Edinburgh correspondent of the mistake, in
to-morrow’s paper, you will oblige, Gentlemen,

“Your very humble servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

On leaving Newcastle, Whitefield continued to visit towns and villages,
where Wesley had formed Societies, and everywhere his gigantic labours
were attended with marvellous success. The following extracts from two
letters to the Countess of Huntingdon will convey an idea of the scenes
he witnessed:――

“YORK, _September 11, 1753_.

“Last Saturday, I returned to Leeds, whence I had been absent
a fortnight. What the glorious Emmanuel gave us to see and
feel, is inexpressible. What a sacrament at Haworth! We used
thirty-five bottles of wine on the occasion. I have been as far
as Bolton, Manchester, and Stockport. At the last place, so much
of the Divine presence came amongst us, that it was almost too
much for our frail natures to bear. Everywhere the congregations
looked like swarms of bees; and the more I preached, the more
eager they seemed to be. At Birstal, last Lord’s-day, there were
near twenty thousand; and, on Monday morning, the parting at
Leeds was the most affecting I ever saw. Last night, I came
hither, and preached with quietness. This morning, I am setting
out for Lincolnshire. Besides travelling, I have been enabled
to preach thrice a day frequently. I hear of scores of souls who
have been awakened. They tell me that a hundred have been added
to the Sunderland Society.[335] Never did I see the work more
promising. God be merciful to me a sinner, and give me an humble,
thankful heart!”

“LONDON, _September 26, 1753_.

“Yesterday, the good and never-failing Redeemer brought me and
mine to London, where I expect to stay only a few days. During
the last three months, I have been enabled to travel about
twelve hundred miles, and to preach about one hundred and eighty
sermons, to many, very many, thousands of souls. More glorious
seasons I never saw. My last excursion has been to York,
Lincolnshire, Rotherham, Sheffield, Nottingham, and Northampton,
where, I believe, near ten thousand came to hear last Lord’s-day.”

Though Whitefield had built and opened his new Tabernacle, he was not
inclined to “_nestle_” in it. Within ten days after his arrival in
London, he resumed his itinerancy. On Saturday, October 6th, he had “a
blessed season at Olney;” and, next day, “two glorious opportunities”
at Northampton. On Monday, October 8th, he preached at Oxenden and
Bosworth; on Tuesday, at Kettering and Bedford; and on Wednesday, at
Bedford and Olney. He then set out for Staffordshire, and preached
“at Birmingham and several adjacent places.” Three weeks after his
departure from London, he wrote as follows:――

“WOLVERHAMPTON, _October 27, 1753_.

“My last, I think, was from Nantwich. Since then, I have been
breaking up new ground.[336] I have preached four times at
Alpraham, in Cheshire, where the Lord was with us of a truth;
and where He had prepared my way, by blessing several of my poor
writings. At Chester, I preached four times; a great concourse
attended; all was quiet;[337] several of the clergy were present;
and the word came with power. I have since heard that the most
noted rebel in the town was brought under deep conviction,
and could not sleep night or day. At Liverpool, the way was
equally prepared. A person, who had been wrought on by some
of my printed sermons, met me at landing, and took me to his
house.[338] A great number, at a short notice, were convened;
all were quiet; and some came under immediate conviction. Wrexham
has been a rude place; and, upon my coming there, the town was
alarmed, and several thousands came to hear. Some of the baser
sort made a great noise, and threw stones, but none touched me,
and, I trust, our Lord got Himself the victory. The next day,
near Alpraham, we had another heaven upon earth. The morning
after, I intended to preach near Nantwich, where a Methodist
meeting-house has lately been pulled down. Here Satan roared.
The mob pelted Mr. D――――[339] and others much, but I got off
pretty free, and had opportunity of preaching quietly a little
out of town. Last night, I preached here, in the dark, to a
great number of hearers. I am now bound for Wednesbury, Dudley,
and Kidderminster.”

Eleven days after writing this, Whitefield had returned to London; but,
two days afterwards, he was off to Gloucester, and the west of England.
The following was addressed to the Rev. Mr. Gillies, of Glasgow, who
had requested him to point out those parts of his Journals which it
might be desirable to insert in the “Historical Collections,” then in
course of preparation for the press:――

“GLOUCESTER, _November 16, 1753_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I received your kind letter, and
would have sent the Journals immediately, but knew not how. My
wife promised to embrace the first opportunity that offered;
and I hope, ere long, they will come safe to hand. As for my
pointing out particular passages, it is impracticable. I have
neither leisure nor inclination so to do. My doings and writings
appear to me in so mean a light, that I think they deserve no
other treatment than to be buried in eternal oblivion.

“Great things were done in and about Newcastle; but far greater
did we see afterwards in Yorkshire, Lancashire, etc. Since
then, I have been another tour, and have preached at Liverpool,
Chester, Coventry, Birmingham, Dudley, Wednesbury, Kidderminster,
Northampton, Bedford, etc. At present, I am in my native county,
where the Lord has given us several precious meetings. After a
few days’ sojourning here, I am bound for Bristol and Plymouth;
and, in about three weeks, I purpose to betake myself to my
winter quarters.”

Whitefield arrived at Bristol on November 19th, and wrote, as follows,
to Thomas Adams:――

“BRISTOL, _November 21, 1753_.

“Never before had I such freedom in Gloucestershire. Showers of
blessings descended from above. I came here on Monday evening,
and to my great disappointment, found that the new Tabernacle
is not finished, so that I know not well what to do. However,
we had a good time last night at the Hall.

“Your motion to go to Norwich, I much approve of. Whatever
others design, that is nothing to us. Simplicity and godly
sincerity will carry all before them in the end. O that the
sons of Zeruiah could be persuaded to let us alone! But how
then should we be able to approve ourselves sons of David? By
thorns and briars, the old man must be scratched to death. O
this crucifixion work! Lord Jesus, help us to go through with
it! He will, He will. I commend thee and thine to His almighty
protection and never-failing mercy: and remain, my very dear man,

“Yours most affectionately,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

A word of explanation. After the termination of James Wheatley’s
ministry at Norwich, it became a serious question who was to occupy his
Tabernacle there. The Society he had gathered was composed of persons
far from perfect. Considerable wrangling ensued; but, until 1758, the
Norwich Tabernacle was chiefly supplied by the preachers connected with
Whitefield’s Tabernacle in Moorfields. It then passed into the hands of
Wesley; who, in 1763, gave it up as a hopeless undertaking. For twelve
years after that, it was occupied by the Rev. John Hook, grandfather
of the Rev. Dr. Hook, Dean of Worcester, and of Theodore Hook, the
celebrated novelist. In 1775, James Wheatley let it to Lady Huntingdon,
at an annual rent of £40. It is not necessary to pursue its history
further.[340]

Then, in reference to the Bristol Tabernacle. Almost from the
commencement of their career, the followers of Whitefield and of Wesley
had held separate services at Bristol. Wesley had had a chapel there
ever since the year 1739. Up to the present, Whitefield had none.
Considering the peculiar position held by Whitefield, as belonging to
no party and yet the friend of all, it is difficult to imagine why he
now sanctioned the erection of a chapel for himself, except that he
and his special adherents were well aware, that many, belonging to
the upper classes of society, who were in the habit of visiting the
Hotwells, would not attend Wesley’s meeting-house, but would be likely
to sit under the more popular ministry of his friend Whitefield. Be
that as it may, the Countess of Huntingdon exerted her influence to
obtain the necessary funds for a new erection. Lord Chesterfield sent
her £20;[341] but added, “I must beg _my name_ not to appear _in any
way_. Lady Chesterfield is active among her friends, and, I doubt
not, you will reap the benefit of her solicitations.” The Earl of Bath
sent £50, and said, “It gives me unfeigned pleasure to hear of the
good effects of Mr. Whitefield’s preaching at Bristol, and amongst
the colliers.” The result of Lady Huntingdon’s efforts was, the
new Tabernacle was now nearly completed, and Whitefield had come to
open it.[342] The dedication services were held on Sunday, November
25th.[343] Hence the following letter to a friend:――

“BRISTOL, _December 1, 1753_.

“We have enjoyed much of God at Bristol. Twice I preached in
my brother’s great house to the quality, amongst whom was one
of Cæsar’s household.[344] On Sunday last, I opened the new
Tabernacle. It is large, but not half large enough. Would the
place contain them, I believe near as many would attend as do in
London.”

This is all that Whitefield has recorded concerning the consecration
of the Bristol Tabernacle. The day after its opening, he set out on a
preaching tour in Somersetshire; but says:――

“The weather was so violent, and my call to London likely to
be so speedy, that I turned back. On Tuesday, at seven in the
evening, I preached in the open air to a great multitude. All
was hushed and exceeding solemn. The stars shone very bright,
and my hands and body were pierced with cold; but what are
outward things, when the soul within is warmed with the love
of God?”

While Whitefield was opening the Bristol Tabernacle, Wesley was seized
with an illness, which all his friends expected to prove fatal. Just
at the same time, the wife of Charles Wesley caught the small-pox at
Bristol, and was in the greatest danger. Between this excellent lady
and the Countess of Huntingdon there existed a close intimacy and
friendship; and, whenever the Countess was in Bristol, Charles Wesley
and his wife always received a warm welcome to her house. Charles was
now in London, visiting his apparently dying brother; but was greatly
needed by his wife in Bristol. In this emergency, Lady Huntingdon
hurried Whitefield to the metropolis, to enable Charles Wesley to pay
a visit to his seemingly dying wife.[345] This brief statement will
help to explain the following beautifully pathetic letters, written by
Whitefield, at this afflictive period. The first was probably addressed
to the noted Methodist at Leeds, William Shent:――

“BRISTOL, _December 3, 1753_.

“I have been preaching the last week in Somersetshire. The fire
there warmed and inflamed me, though I preached in the open air
on Tuesday evening at seven o’clock, as well as on Wednesday and
Thursday. I purposed to go as far as Plymouth, but Providence
has brought me back, and I am now hastening to London, to pay
my last respects to my dying friend. It may be, that shortly
Mr. John Wesley will be no more. The physicians think his disease
a galloping consumption. I pity the Church; I pity myself; but
not him. We must stay behind in this cold climate, whilst he
takes his flight to a radiant throne. Poor Mr. Charles will now
have double work.”

On the same day, Whitefield wrote to both the Wesleys. The first of the
ensuing letters was addressed to Charles; the second to John.

“BRISTOL, _December 3, 1753_.

“Being unexpectedly brought back from Somersetshire, and hearing
you are gone on such a mournful errand, I cannot help sending
after you a few sympathising lines. The Lord help and support
you! May a double spirit of the ascending Elijah descend and
rest on the surviving Elisha! Now is the time to prove the
strength of Jesus yours. A wife, a friend, and brother, ill
together! Well, this is our comfort, all things shall work
together for good to those that love God.

“If you think proper, be pleased to deliver the enclosed. It
is written out of the fulness of my heart. To-morrow, I leave
Bristol, and purpose reaching London on Saturday. Glad shall
I be to reach heaven first; but faith and patience hold out a
little longer. Yet a little while, and we shall be all together
with our common Lord. I commend you to His everlasting love, and
am, my dear friend, with much sympathy, yours, etc.,

“G. WHITEFIELD.”

“BRISTOL, _December 3, 1753_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――If seeing you so very weak, when
leaving London, distressed me, the news and prospect of your
approaching dissolution have quite weighed me down. I pity
myself and the Church, but not you. A radiant throne awaits you,
and, ere long, you will enter into your Master’s joy. Yonder He
stands with a massy crown, ready to put it on your head, amidst
an admiring throng of saints and angels; but I, poor I, who have
been waiting for my dissolution these nineteen years, must be
left behind, to grovel here below! Well, this is my comfort, it
cannot be long ere the chariots will be sent even for worthless
me. If prayers can detain them, even you, reverend and very dear
sir, shall not leave us yet; but, if the decree is gone forth,
that you must now fall asleep in Jesus, may He kiss your soul
away, and give you to die in the embraces of triumphant love! If
in the land of the dying, I hope to pay my last respects to you
next week. If not, reverend and very dear sir, F-a-r-e-w-e-ll!
_I prae sequar, etsi non passibus aequis._ My heart is too big:
tears trickle down too fast; and you, I fear, are too weak for
me to enlarge. Underneath you may there be Christ’s everlasting
arms! I commend you to His never-failing mercy, and am, reverend
and very dear sir, your most affectionate, sympathising, and
afflicted younger brother, in the gospel of our common Lord,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[346]

Ten days later, Whitefield wrote again to Charles Wesley, as follows:――

“LONDON, _December 13, 1753_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――The Searcher of hearts alone knows the
sympathy I have felt for you and yours; and in what suspense my
mind has been concerning the event of your present circumstances.
I pray and enquire, and enquire and pray again; always expecting
to hear the worst. Ere this can reach you, I expect the lot will
be cast, either for life or death. I long to hear, that I may
partake, like a friend, either of your joy or sorrow. Blessed
be God for the promise, whereby we are assured that all things
work together for good to those who love Him! This may make us,
at least, resigned, when called to part with our Isaacs. But
who knows the pain of parting, when the wife and the friend
are conjoined? To have the desire of one’s eyes cut off with a
stroke, what but grace, omnipotent grace, can enable us to bear
it? But who knows? perhaps the threatened stroke may be recalled;
and my dear friend enjoy his dear yoke-fellow’s company a
little longer. Surely the Lord of all lords is preparing you for
further usefulness by these complex trials. We must be purged,
if we would bring forth more fruit.

“Your brother, I hear, is better. To-day I intended to have seen
him; but Mr. Blackwell sent me word, he thought he would be out
for the air. I hope Mr. Hutchinson[347] is better. But I can
scarce mention anybody now, but dear Mrs. Wesley. Pray let me
know how it goes with you. My wife truly joins in sympathy and
love. Night and day indeed you are remembered by, my dear friend,
yours, etc.,

“G. WHITEFIELD.”[348]

A week afterwards, Whitefield wrote another letter to his beloved
friend, full of jubilant thankfulness that the health of the afflicted
ones was improving.

“LONDON, _December 20, 1753_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――I most sincerely rejoice, and have given
private and public thanks, for the recovery of your dear
yoke-fellow. My pleasure is increased by seeing your brother so
well, as I found him on Tuesday at Lewisham. O that you may both
spring afresh, and your latter end increase more and more! Talk
not of having no more work to do in the vineyard! I hope all our
work is but just beginning. I am sure it is high time for me to
do something for Him who has done and suffered so much for me.
Near forty years old, and such a dwarf! The winter come already,
and so little done in the summer! I am ashamed, I blush, and am
confounded. And yet, God blesseth us here. Truly, His outgoings
are seen in the Tabernacle. The top-stone is brought forth: we
will now cry, ‘Grace! grace!’ I must away. Our joint respects
attend you all. I hope Mr. Hutchinson mends. I hear his brother
is dead. My most dutiful respects await our elect lady.”[349]

These touching letters not only exhibit the warm friendship existing
between Whitefield and the two Wesleys, but also unfold the tenderness
of Whitefield’s feelings, and his profound sympathy with distress.
Many others might have been inserted, as illustrative of the same moral
excellencies; but, for want of space, they have been excluded.

Mrs. Grinfield, one of the ladies at the court of King George II., has
been mentioned, as having been greatly blessed by Whitefield’s ministry.
On his return to London, Whitefield visited her; and wrote as follows
to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _December 15, 1753_.

“Yesterday morning, I obeyed your ladyship’s commands, and
carried the enclosed to Mrs. Grinfield, at St. James’s Palace.
I was much satisfied with my visit, and am much rejoiced to
find that she seems resolved to shew out at once. The court, I
believe, rings of her, and, if she stands, I trust she will make
a glorious martyr for her blessed Lord. Oh that your ladyship
could see your way clear to come up! Now seems to be the time
for a fresh stir. Few have either courage or conduct to head a
Christian party amongst persons of high life. That honour seems
to be put upon your ladyship,――and a glorious honour it is.

“On Tuesday, I am to dine with Mr. John Wesley, who was
yesterday, for a few minutes, at the Foundery; but, I hear, his
lungs are touched. I cannot wish him to survive his usefulness.
It is poor living to be nursed; but our Lord knows what is best
for His children. I wish I might have the use of West Street
Chapel once or twice a week. Many want to hear at that end of
the town. The Messrs. Wesley are quite welcome to all the help
I can give them.”

At Christmas, Whitefield’s old friend, the Rev. Gilbert Tennent, and
the great Virginian preacher, the Rev. Samuel Davies, came to England,
as a deputation, to solicit subscriptions for the new college, founded
by Governor Belcher, at Princeton. Their mission was an important
one. The Presbyterian churches in the six colonies of New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina were looking
to this college for their future supply of ministers.[350] Under such
circumstances, and quite apart from the respect which Whitefield felt
for Governor Belcher, the errand of the two American ministers was
sure to have his sympathy and help. He wrote a recommendatory letter
to the Marquis of Lothian, and, through him, introduced the strangers
to the Presbyterians of Scotland. The result of their visit was, they
obtained contributions from England and Scotland, which “amply enabled
the trustees to erect a convenient edifice for the accommodation of
the students, and to lay a foundation for a fund for the support of
necessary instructors.”[351]

Whitefield refers to this in the following letter to the Rev. Mr.
Gillies, of Glasgow:――

“LONDON, _December 27, 1753_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I am surprised to find, by your
last kind letter, that my poor Journals are not come to hand.
My wife informs me that they were sent to one Mr. E――――, who was
to send off goods the very next day.

“Perhaps it will please you to hear that Messrs. Tennent and
Davies supped with me last night. May the good Lord prosper
the work of their hands! I hope they will be introduced soon
to the Marquis of Lothian, and, by him, to Lord Leven. I shall
help them all I can. At the great day, all things will be laid
open.[352]

“Would you think it, I am this day thirty-nine years of
age.[353] Did not business require my attendance, I could
lock myself up, and lie prostrate all the day long in deep
humiliation before God. My dear sir, let none of my friends cry
to such a sluggish, unprofitable worm, ‘Spare thyself.’ Rather,
spur me on, I pray you, with an ‘Awake, sleeper, and begin to
do something for thy God!’ The Lord being my helper, I will. Do
Thou strengthen me, my Lord and my God! and I will go for Thee,
at Thy command, to the uttermost parts of the earth. O break,
break my heart; Look to Him, whom thou hast pierced! Look and
love; look and mourn; look and praise! Thy God is yet thy God!

“Every day, sir, we hear of fresh work. Scores of notes are put
up by persons brought under conviction; and God’s people are
abundantly refreshed. Last night, the glory of the Lord filled
the Tabernacle. I cannot tell you half. I am lost in wonder. For
the present, my dear sir, adieu!”

In such a spirit Whitefield ended the year 1753. On Tuesday, January 1,
1754, he preached, in the Tabernacle, to a densely crowded congregation,
from the parable of the barren fig-tree. His American friends, Tennent
and Davies, were present, and the latter wrote: “Though the discourse
was incoherent, it seemed to me better calculated to do good to mankind
than all the accurate, languid discourses I had ever heard. After the
sermon, I enjoyed his pleasing conversation at his house.”

Whitefield spent the first two months of 1754 in London, and was fully
occupied, partly in preaching, and partly in preparing for his intended
voyage to America. He wrote: “I meet with my share of trials. Every
sermon preached this winter has been fetched out of the furnace. But
what are we to expect, as Christians and ministers, but afflictions?
Our new Tabernacle is completed, and the workmen all paid. What is best
of all, the Redeemer manifests His glory in it. Every day, souls come
crying, ‘What shall we do to be saved?’ I expect, in a fortnight, once
more to launch into the great deep, with about ten or twelve destitute
orphans under my care.”[354] He embarked at Gravesend, on the 7th of
March; and, in another chapter, we must follow him.

_FIFTH VISIT TO AMERICA._

MARCH 1754 TO MAY 1755.

NINE days after leaving England, the ship, in which Whitefield sailed,
anchored in Lisbon harbour, where it remained about a month. This
was a long detention for Whitefield and his “destitute orphans;” but
he usefully employed the time in making himself acquainted with the
full-blown Popery of the metropolis of Portugal. His letters on this
subject fill twenty-four closely printed pages, in his collected works.
At his return to England, in 1755, four of these letters were printed,
with the title, “A brief Account of some Lent and other Extraordinary
Processions and Ecclesiastical Entertainments, seen last Year at Lisbon.
In four Letters to an English Friend. By George Whitefield.” (8vo. 29
pp.) Whitefield’s letters were extensively quoted by the newspapers and
magazines of the day; and even the _Monthly Review_――no great friend to
Whitefield――said, “Our celebrated itinerant preacher expresses a just
and manly resentment of the miserable bigotry of the Portuguese, and
the priestly delusion with which they are led into even more ridiculous
fopperies than ever disgraced the pagan theology.”[355]

What did Whitefield see? Extracts from the letters――as brief as
possible――shall supply an answer.

“LISBON HARBOUR, _March 17, 1754_.

“Yesterday we anchored in this port. We are now lying before
a large place, where we see hundreds going to worship in their
way. We have just been at ours. Though sent without a friend,
yet I am not left alone. ‘O my God, Thy presence on earth, Thy
presence in heaven, will make amends for all!’ Indeed, Jesus
Christ is a good master. He has given me the affections of all
on board, and as kind a captain as we could desire.”

“LISBON HARBOUR, _March 19, 1754_.

“As yet, I have not been on shore, but expect to go to-morrow.
To an eye fixed on Jesus, how unspeakably little do all
sublunary things appear! My dear sir, let us be laudably
ambitious to get as rich as we can towards God. The bank of
heaven is a sure bank. I have drawn thousands of bills upon it,
and never had one sent back protested. God helping me, I purpose
lodging my little earthly all there. I hope my present poor
but valuable cargo will make some additions to my heavenly
inheritance.”

“LISBON, _March 21, 1754_.

“This leaves me an old inhabitant of Lisbon. A very reputable
merchant has received me into his house, and every day shews me
the ecclesiastical curiosities of the country. All is well on
board; and Lisbon air agrees with me extremely. I hope what I
see will help to qualify me better for preaching the everlasting
gospel. O pray for me; and add to my obligations by frequently
visiting my poor wife. Kindnesses shewn to her, during my
absence, will be double kindnesses.”

“LISBON, _March 26, 1754_.

“I have been here above a week. I have seen strange and
incredible things,――not more strange than instructive. Never did
civil and religious liberty appear to me in such a light as now.
What a spirit must Martin Luther and the first Reformers have
been endued with, who dared to appear as they did for God! Lord,
hasten the happy time, when others, excited by the same spirit,
shall perform like wonders! O happy England! O happy Methodists,
who are Methodists indeed! And all I account such, who, being
dead to sects and parties, aim at nothing else but a holy method
of living to and dying in the blessed Jesus.”

“LISBON, _March 29, 1754_.

“O my dear Tabernacle friends, what a goodly heritage has the
Lord vouchsafed you! Bless Him, O bless Him, from your inmost
souls, that you have been taught the way to Him, without the
help of fictitious saints! Thank Him, night and day, that to you
are committed the lively oracles of God! Adore Him continually
for giving you to hear the Word preached with power; and pity
and pray for those who are led blindfold by crafty and designing
men!”

“LISBON, _April 1, 1754_.

“On my arrival here, what engaged my attention most was the
number of crucifixes and little images of the Virgin Mary, and
of other real or reputed saints, which were placed in almost
every street, or fixed against the walls of the houses almost
at every turning. Lamps hung before them; the people bowed to
them as they passed along; and near some of them stood little
companies, singing with great earnestness.

“Soon after my arrival, I saw a company of priests and friars
bearing lighted wax tapers, and attended by various sorts of
people, some of whom had bags and baskets of victuals in their
hands. After these, followed a mixed multitude, singing, and
addressing the Virgin Mary. In this manner, they proceeded to
the prison, where all was deposited for the use of the poor
persons confined therein.

“At another time, I saw a procession of Carmelite friars,
parish priests, and brothers of the order, walking two by two,
in divers habits, holding a long lighted wax taper in their
right hands. Among them, was carried, upon eight or ten men’s
shoulders, a tall image of the Virgin Mary, in a kind of man’s
attire, with a fine white wig on her head, and much adorned with
jewels and glittering stones. At some distance from the Lady,
under a large canopy supported by six or eight persons, came a
priest, holding in his hand a noted relic. After him, followed
thousands of people, singing all the way. These processions,
from one convent to another, were made daily, for the purpose
of obtaining rain.

“In a large cathedral church, I saw a wooden image of our
blessed Lord, clothed with purple robes, and crowned with
thorns, and surrounded with wax tapers of prodigious size. He
was attended by many noblemen, and thousands of spectators of
all ranks and stations, who crowded from every quarter, and, in
their turns, were admitted to perform their devotions. This they
did by kneeling, and kissing the _Seigneur’s_ heel, by putting
their left and right eye to it, and then touching it with their
beads.”

“LISBON, _April 3, 1754_.

“On Friday, I saw a procession chiefly made up of waxen or
wooden images, carried on men’s shoulders through the streets,
and intended to represent the life and death of St. Francis,
the founder of one of their religious orders. They were brought
from the Franciscan convent, and were preceded by three persons
in scarlet habits, with baskets in their hands, in which they
received the alms of the spectators, for the benefit of the poor
prisoners. After these, came two little boys, in party-coloured
clothes, with wings fixed on their shoulders, in imitation of
little angels. Then appeared the figure of St. Francis, very
gay and beau-like, as he used to be before his conversion. In
the next, he was introduced under conviction, and consequently
stripped of his finery. Then was exhibited an image of our
blessed Lord, in a purple gown, with long black hair, and St.
Francis lying before Him, to receive His orders. Then came the
Virgin Mother, with Christ her son on her left hand, and St.
Francis making obeisance to them both. Here, if I remember
aright, he made his first appearance in his friar’s habit, with
his hair cut short, but not yet shaved in the crown of his head.
After a little space, followed a mitred cardinal gaudily attired,
and St. Francis almost prostrate before him, to be confirmed
in his office. Soon after this, he was metamorphosed into a
monk, his crown shorn, his habit black, and his loins girt with
a knotted cord. Here he prayed to our Saviour, hanging on a
cross, that the marks of the wounds in His hands, feet, and
side, might be impressed on him; and the prayer was granted, by
a representation of red waxen strings, reaching from those parts
of the image to the corresponding parts of St. Francis’s body.
In a little while, St. Francis was carried along, as holding
up a house which was falling. Then he was brought forth lying
in his grave, the briars and nettles under which he lay being
turned into fine and fragrant flowers. After this, he was borne
along upon a bier covered with a silver pall, and attended by
four friars lamenting over him. He then appeared, for the last
time, drawing tormented people out of purgatory with his knotted
cord, which the poor souls caught and held most eagerly. Then
came a gorgeous friar, under a splendid canopy, bearing in
his hand a piece of the holy cross. After him, followed two
more little winged boys; and then a long train of fat and
well-favoured Franciscans, with their _calceis fenestratis_,
as Erasmus calls them; and so the procession ended.

“One night, about ten o’clock, I saw a train of near two hundred
penitents, making a halt, and kneeling in the street, whilst
a friar, from a high cross, with a crucifix in his hand, was
preaching to them and the populace with great vehemence. Sermon
being ended, the penitents went forwards, and several companies
followed after, with their respective preaching friars at their
head, bearing crucifixes. These they pointed to and brandished
frequently, and the hearers as frequently beat their breasts
and clapped their cheeks. At proper pauses, they stopped and
prayed, and one of them, before the king’s palace, sounded the
word _penitentia_ through a speaking trumpet. The penitents
themselves were clothed and covered all over with white linen
vestments, only holes were made for their eyes to peep out at.
All were bare-footed, and all had long heavy chains fastened
to their ancles, which, when dragged along the street, made
a dismal rattling. Some carried great stones on their backs.
Others had in their hands dead men’s bones and skulls. Some bore
large crosses upon their shoulders; whilst others had their arms
extended, or carried swords with their points downwards. Most of
them whipped and lashed themselves, some with cords, and others
with flat bits of iron. Had my dear friend been there, he would
have joined me in saying, that the whole scene was horrible;
so horrible it was, that, being informed it was to be continued
till morning, I was glad to return whence I came about midnight.”

“LISBON, _April 12, 1754_.

“I have now seen the solemnities of a _Holy Thursday_, which
is a very high day in Lisbon, and particularly remarkable for
the grand illuminations of the churches, and the king’s washing
twelve poor men’s feet. I got admittance into the gallery where
the ceremony was performed. It was large, and hung with tapestry,
one piece of which represented the humble Jesus washing the feet
of His disciples. Before this, upon a small eminence, sat twelve
men in black. At the upper end, and in several other parts of
the gallery, were sideboards with large gold and silver basins
and ewers most curiously wrought; and near these a large table
covered with a variety of dishes, set off and garnished after
the Portuguese fashion. Public high mass being over, his majesty
came in attended with his nobles. The washing of feet being
ended, several of the young noblemen served up dishes to the
king’s brother and uncles. These again handed them to his
majesty, who gave, I think, twelve of them to each poor man.
The whole entertainment took up near two hours.

“After dinner, we went to see the churches. Many of them were
hung with purple damask trimmed with gold. In one of them was a
solid silver altar of several yards’ circumference, and near
twelve steps high; and in another a gold one, still more
magnificent, of about the same dimensions. Its basis was studded
with many precious stones, and near the top were placed silver
images, in representation of angels. Each step was filled with
large silver candlesticks, with lighted wax tapers in them. The
great altars of other churches were illuminated most profusely.
Go which way you would, nothing was to be seen but illuminations
within, and hurry without; for all persons, princes and crowned
heads themselves not excepted, are obliged on this day to visit
seven churches or altars, in imitation of our Lord’s being
hurried from one tribunal to another, before He was condemned to
be hung upon the cross.”

“LISBON, _April 13, 1754_.

“On Good Friday, I witnessed, in a large church belonging to
the convent of St. De Beato, the crucifixion of the Son of God.
Upon a high scaffold, hung in the front with black bays, and
behind with purple silk damask laced with gold, was exhibited
an image of the Lord Jesus at full length, crowned with thorns,
and nailed on a cross between two figures of like dimensions,
representing the two thieves. At a little distance, on the right
hand, was placed an image of the Virgin Mary, in plain long
ruffles, and a kind of widow’s weeds, her veil of purple silk,
and a wire glory round her head. At the foot of the cross, lay,
in a mournful, pensive posture, a living man, dressed in woman’s
clothes, who personated Mary Magdalen. Not far off, stood a
young man, in imitation of the beloved disciple. He was dressed
in a loose green silk vesture and bob-wig. Near the front of
the stage, stood two sentinels in buffs, with formidable caps
and long beards. Directly in the front, stood another, yet more
formidable, with a large target in his hand. From behind the
purple hangings, came out about twenty little purple-vested
winged boys, each bearing a lighted wax taper, and wearing a
crimson and gold cap. At their entrance upon the stage, they
bowed to the spectators, and then kneeled, first to the image on
the cross, and then to that of the Virgin Mary. At a few yards’
distance, stood a black friar, in a pulpit hung with mourning.
When he had preached about a quarter of an hour, a confused
noise was heard near the great front door. Four long-bearded
men entered, two carrying a ladder on their shoulders, and two
bearing large gilt dishes, full of linen, spices, etc. Upon
their attempting to mount the scaffold, the sentinels presented
the points of their javelins to their breasts. Upon this, a
letter from Pilate was produced; and the sentinels withdrew
their javelins. The four men then ascended the stage, and
retired to the back of it. All the while, the black friar
continued declaiming; Magdalen wrung her hands; and John stood
gazing on the crucified. The ladders were erected and ascended.
The superscription and crown of thorns were taken off. White
rollers were put round the arms of the image. The nails, which
fastened the hands and feet, were knocked out. The orator lifted
up his voice, and almost all the hearers beat their breasts
and smote their cheeks. The body was gently let down; Magdalen
received the feet into her wide-spread handkerchief; and John
seized the upper part of it in his clasping arms, and, with
his fellow-mourners, helped to bear it away. Great preparations
were made for its interment. It was wrapped in linen and spices;
and, being laid upon a bier richly hung, was carried round the
churchyard in grand procession. The image of the Virgin Mary
was chief mourner, and John and Magdalen, with a whole troop
of friars bearing wax tapers, followed after. In about fifteen
minutes, the corpse was brought back, and deposited in an open
sepulchre. John and Magdalen attended the obsequies; but the
image of the Virgin Mary was placed upon the front of the stage,
in order to be kissed, adored, and worshipped by the people.
Thus ended this Good Friday’s tragic-comical, superstitious,
idolatrous farce. I cannot stay to see what they call their
_Hallelujah_ and grand devotions on Easter-day. That scene is
denied me. The wind is fair, and I must away.”

Thus terminated Whitefield’s visit to the city of Lisbon, a city
containing 36,000 houses, 350,000 inhabitants, a cathedral, forty
parish churches, as many monasteries, and a royal palace; and yet
a city which, a year and a half afterwards, by an earthquake, which
shook almost the whole of Europe, was reduced to a heap of ruins, and
in which, in six minutes, not fewer than 60,000 persons met with an
untimely death. The terrific judgment was not unmerited. No act of
the Supreme Ruler is capricious. Some of the sights which Whitefield
witnessed were hateful, hideous caricatures of the greatest and most
solemn truths and facts ever made known to human beings. They were
theatrical idolatries, which no system, except Paganism and Popery,
would dare to practise. Popery in Lisbon was unchecked, and,
therefore, undisguised. In England and America, it chiefly existed in
lurking-places. The thing, as it really is, Whitefield had never seen
till he went to the Portuguese metropolis. Favourable circumstances
are always needful for its full development. The system is essentially
_semper idem_; and if the sights seen by Whitefield are not _at
present_ seen in England, the reason is, not because the Popish
hierarchy deem them wrong, but, because such profanities are
impracticable.

Whitefield was about a month in Lisbon, without preaching a single
sermon. Why? To have attempted preaching would have ensured his
immediate expulsion or imprisonment. His heart yearned over the
deluded inhabitants, but he was powerless to afford them help. On
hearing of the just judgment of 1755, he wrote, “O that all who were
lately destroyed in Portugal had known the Divine Redeemer! Then the
earthquake would have been only a rumbling chariot to carry them to God.
Poor Lisbon! How soon are all thy riches and superstitious pageantry
swallowed up!”

Whitefield, for once in his life, was gagged and silent; but his time
was not unprofitably spent. He was learning lessons which could not
be learned in England or America, and which, he hoped, would make him
a better man and a better preacher, to the end of life. He became a
stauncher Protestant, and felt more than ever how invaluable were the
privileges enjoyed by the inhabitants of Great Britain. “Every day,”
said he, “I have seen or heard something that has a tendency to make me
thankful for the glorious Reformation. O that our people were equally
reformed in their lives, as they are in their doctrines and manner of
worship! But alas! alas! O for another Luther! O for that wished-for
season, when everything that is antichristian shall be totally
destroyed by the breath of the Redeemer’s mouth, and the brightness of
His appearing!” “O with what a power from on high must those glorious
reformers have been endued, who dared first openly to oppose and
to stem such a torrent of superstition and spiritual tyranny! And
what gratitude we owe to those who, under God, were instrumental
in saving England from a return of such spiritual slavery, and such
blind obedience to the papal power! To have had a papist for our king;
a papist, if not born, yet, from his infancy, nursed up at Rome; a
papist, one of whose sons is advanced to the ecclesiastical dignity
of a cardinal, and both of whom are under the strongest obligations to
support the interests of that Church, whose superstitions and political
principles they have imbibed from their earliest days! Blessed be God,
the snare is broken, and we are delivered. O for Protestant practices
to be added to Protestant principles! O for an acknowledgment to the
ever-blessed God for our repeated deliverances!” “The present is a
silent, but, I hope, an instructive period of my life. Surely England,
and English privileges, civil and religious, will be dearer to me than
ever. The preachers here have also taught me something; their action
is graceful. _Vividi oculi――vividae manus,――omnia vivida._ Surely our
English preachers would do well to be a little more fervent in their
address. They have truth on their side. Why should superstition and
falsehood run away with all that is pathetic and affecting?”

Whitefield set sail, for America, on Saturday, April 13th, and, after
a pleasant passage of six weeks’ duration, landed, in South Carolina,
on May 26th. With his “orphan-charge,” he, at once, proceeded to
Bethesda, in Georgia. After a short stay at his Orphanage, he returned
to Charleston, where, on July 12, he wrote, “The Bethesda family
now consists of above a hundred. He, who fed the multitude in the
wilderness, can and will feed the orphans in Georgia.” Eight days
afterwards, when “on board the _Deborah_” bound for New York, he
wrote:――

“I found and left my orphan family comfortably settled in
Georgia. The colony, as well as Bethesda, is now in a thriving
state. I have now a hundred and six black and white persons to
provide for. The God whom I desire to serve will enable me to
do it. I stayed about six weeks in Carolina and Georgia. My poor
labours have met with the usual acceptance; and I have reason to
hope a clergyman has been brought under very serious impressions.
My health has been wonderfully preserved. My wonted vomitings
have left me; and though I ride whole nights, and have been
frequently exposed to great thunders, violent lightnings, and
heavy rains, yet I am rather better than usual.”

On July 26th, Whitefield landed at New York, where he continued about
a week. He wrote:――

“NEW YORK, _July 28, 1754_.

“Here our Lord brought me two days ago; and, last night, I had
an opportunity of preaching on His dying, living, ascending, and
interceding love, to a large and attentive auditory. Next week,
I purpose going to Philadelphia, and then shall come here again,
in my way to Boston. Whether I shall then return to Bethesda,
or embark for England, is uncertain. I fear matters will not be
settled at the Orphan House, unless I go once more. I have put
some upon their trial, and shall want to see how they behave.
I owe for three of the negroes, who were lately bought, but hope
to be enabled to pay for them at my return from the north. My
God can and will supply all wants. His presence keeps me company,
I find it sweet to run about for Him. I find the door all along
the continent as open as ever, and the way seems clearing up
for the neighbouring islands. Had I a good private hand, I could
send you the account of my family; but perhaps I may deliver it
to you myself.”

Further brief extracts from his letters will enable the reader to track
Whitefield in his wanderings.

“New York, July 30. To-morrow, God willing, I preach at Newark;
on Wednesday, at New Brunswick; and hope to reach Trent Town
that night. Could you not meet me there? You must bring a chair:
I have no horse. O that the Lord Jesus may smile on my feeble
labours! I trust He has given us a blessing here. Yesterday, I
preached thrice: this morning I feel it. Welcome weariness for
Jesus!”

“Philadelphia, August 7th. Yesterday, I was taken with a
violent cholera morbus, and hoped, ere now, to have been where
the inhabitants shall no more say, ‘I am sick.’ But I am brought
back again. May it be to bring more precious souls to the
ever-blessed Jesus! This is all my desire. My poor labours
seem to be crowned here, as well as at New York. I received
the sacrament at church on Sunday; and have preached in the
Academy; but I find Mr. Tennent’s meeting-house abundantly more
commodious.”

“Philadelphia, August 15. My late sickness, though violent, has
not been unto death. With some difficulty, I can preach once a
day. Congregations increase rather than decrease. The time of my
departure is fixed for next Tuesday; and all the following days,
till Sunday, are to be employed between this and New Brunswick.
Whilst I live, Lord Jesus, grant I may not live in vain!”

“Philadelphia, August 17. Were you on this side the water,
you would find work enough. There is a glorious range in the
American woods. It is pleasant hunting for sinners. Thousands
flock daily to hear the word preached.”

“New York, September 2. Blessed be God, we have had good seasons
between Philadelphia and New York. In the New Jerusalem, yet
more glorious seasons await us. Some time this week, I expect to
sail for Rhode Island.”

It is impossible to determine where the next three weeks were spent;
but, after that, his journeys may be traced. The first of the following
extracts is taken from a letter addressed to the Countess of Huntingdon.
Whitefield appears to have visited New Jersey for the purpose of being
present at the opening of a new session of Governor Belcher’s New
Jersey College, the president and trustees of which, with almost
unseemly haste, began to exercise the powers conferred upon them by the
royal charter obtained from George the Second only six years before.
They created Whitefield an M.A.!――a dubious honour, which the B.A. of
Pembroke College, Oxford, for ten or twelve years afterwards, had good
taste enough not to use.[356]

“Elizabeth Town (New Jersey), September 30. I am now at Governor
Belcher’s, who sends your ladyship the most cordial respects.
His outward man decays, but his inward man seems to be renewed
day by day. I think he ripens for heaven apace. Last week was
the New Jersey commencement, at which the president and trustees
were pleased to present me with the degree of A.M. The synod
succeeded. Such a number of simple-hearted, united ministers,
I never saw before. I preached to them several times, and the
great Master of assemblies was in the midst of us. To-morrow, I
shall set out, with the worthy president,[357] for New England;
and expect to return back to the Orphan House through Virginia.
This will be about a two thousand mile circuit.”

In another letter, written on the same day, Whitefield says:――

“Just two months ago, I arrived at New York, from South
Carolina; and, ever since, have been endeavouring to labour for
the ever-loving, ever-lovely Jesus. Sinners have been awakened,
saints quickened, and enemies made to be at peace with me. In
general, I have been enabled to travel and preach twice a day.
Everywhere, the door has been opened wider than ever.”

It has been already stated, that, about the year 1750, Georgia was
placed under a kind of civil government, in lieu of the military one,
which had been exercised from the time when the colony was founded; and
that James Habersham, Whitefield’s first manager at Bethesda, and now a
merchant at Savannah, was appointed provincial secretary. A change had
become imperative. There was a general discontent among the inhabitants.
They quarrelled with one another and with their magistrates. They
complained; they remonstrated; and, finding no satisfaction, many
of them removed to other colonies. Of the two thousand emigrants
who had come from Europe, not above six or seven hundred were left.
The mischief grew worse and worse every day; until, at length, the
Government revoked the grant to the trustees, took the province into
their own hands, and placed it on the same footing as Carolina.[358]
On August 6, 1754, his Majesty King George II., in council, appointed
John Reynolds, Esq., “to be Captain General and Governor-in-Chief of
Georgia;” and James Habersham, “to be Secretary and Registrar.”[359]
The following letter, addressed to Habersham, refers to these events:――

“BOSTON, _October 13, 1754_.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,――It has given me concern, that I have not
been able to write one letter to Georgia, since my arrival at
New York. Sickness, travelling, and preaching prevented me.

“This letter leaves me at Boston, where, as well as in other
places, the word has run and been glorified. People are rather
more eager to hear than ever. After staying a short time here,
I purpose to go through Connecticut to New York, and thence, by
land, to Georgia.

“Blessed be God, that a governor is at length nominated. I wish
you joy of your new honour. May the King of kings enable you
to discharge your trust, as becomes a good patriot, subject,
and Christian! I wish I knew when the governor intends being in
Georgia. I would willingly be there to pay my respects to him.

“O my dear old friend, and first fellow-traveller, my heart is
engaged for your temporal and eternal welfare. You have now,
I think, a call to retire from business, and to give up your
time to the public. I have much to say when we meet. God deals
most bountifully with me. Enemies are made to be at peace, and
friends everywhere are hearty.”

Glimpses will be obtained of Whitefield’s labours, at Boston and other
places, in the following extracts from his letters:――

“Boston, October 14. Surely my coming here was of God. At Rhode
Island, I preached five times. People convened immediately, and
flocked to hear more eagerly than ever. The same scene opens
at Boston. Thousands waited for, and thousands attended on,
the word preached. At the Old North (church), at seven in the
morning, we generally have three thousand hearers, and many
cannot come in. Convictions fasten; and many souls are comforted.
Dr. Sewall has engaged me once to preach his lecture. The polite
are taken, and opposition falls. I preach at the _Old_ and the
_New North_ (churches). Mr. Pemberton and Dr. Sewall continue to
pray for me. A governor for Georgia being nominated, determines
my way thither. The door opens wider and wider. Pray tell Mr.
H――――, that I left his horse a little lame, at Long Island,
with one who, in contempt, is called _Saint_ Dick. All hail such
reproach!”

“Portsmouth, New Hampshire, October 24. About a month ago,
I wrote you a few lines from New Jersey. Since then, I have
advanced about three hundred miles further northward. But what
have I seen? Dagon falling everywhere before the ark; enemies
silenced, or made to own the finger of God; and the friends of
Jesus triumphing in His glorious conquest. At Boston, though
the four meeting-houses, in which I preached, will hold about
four thousand, yet, at seven o’clock in the morning, many were
obliged to go away, and I was helped in through the window. In
the country, a like scene opens. I am enabled to preach always
twice, and sometimes thrice a day. Thousands flock to hear,
and Jesus manifests His glory. I am now come to the end of my
_northward_ line, and, in a day or two, purpose to turn back,
and to preach all the way to Georgia. It is about a sixteen
hundred miles journey. Jesus is able to carry me through. Into
His almighty and all-gracious hands I commend my spirit. Gladly
would I embark for England, but I should leave my American
business but half done, if I were to come over now.”

“Portsmouth, October 25. At Salem, we were favoured with a sweet
Divine influence. Sunday (October 20) was a high day at Ipswich,
where I preached thrice. Hundreds were without the doors. On
Monday, at Newbury, the like scene opened twice. On Tuesday
morning, also, we had a blessed season. Too many came to meet
and bring me into Portsmouth, where I preached on Tuesday
evening; also twice the next day. Yesterday, I preached at York
and Kittery. In the evening, I waited on General Pepperell,[360]
who, with his lady, was very glad to see me. I am now going to
Greenland; and, to-morrow, shall preach at Exeter. The Sabbath
(October 27) is to be kept at Newbury. Monday, I am to preach
thrice,――at Rowley, Byfield, and Ipswich; Tuesday, at Cape Ann;
and Wednesday night, or Thursday morning, at Boston.”

“Rhode Island, November 22. With great difficulty, I am got to
this place, where people are athirst to hear the word of God.
I shall, therefore, stay, God willing, till Monday, and then
set out to Connecticut, in my way to New York, which I hope to
reach in about a fortnight. O that you may see me humbled under
a sense of the amazing mercies which I have received during this
expedition! It seems to me to be the most important one I was
ever employed in. Very much have I to tell you when we meet.”

The next is an extract from a letter addressed to the Rev. John Gillies,
of Glasgow:――

“RHODE ISLAND, _November 25_.

“Is it true that your father-in-law and your dear yoke-fellow
are dead? I sympathise with you from my inmost soul. Surely
your time and mine will come ere long. Meanwhile, may I be
doing something for my God! I am now going towards Georgia,
from Boston, where my reception has been far superior to that
of fourteen years ago. There, and at other places in New England,
I have preached near a hundred times since the beginning of
October; and, thanks be to God! we scarce had so much as one dry
meeting. Not a hundredth part can be told you. In Philadelphia,
New Jersey, and New York, the great Redeemer caused His word
to run and be glorified. In Georgia, I expect to see our new
governor. Blessed be God! Bethesda is in growing circumstances;
and I trust it will more and more answer the end of its
institution. I was exceedingly delighted at New Jersey
commencement. Surely that college is of God. The worthy
president, Mr. Burr, intends to correspond with you. O that I
could do it oftener! but it is impracticable. Travelling, and
preaching, always twice and frequently thrice a day, engross
almost all my time. However, neither you nor any of my dear
Glasgow friends are forgotten by me. No, no; you are all
engraven upon my heart. O that God may give you hearts to
remember poor sinful and hell-deserving me! Fain would I
continue a pilgrim for life.

‘Christ’s presence doth my pains beguile,
And makes each wilderness to smile.’

“I have a fourteen hundred miles ride before me; but _nil
desperandum, Christo duce, auspice Christo_.”

More than a month intervenes between the date of this letter to
Mr. Gillies, and the next preserved letter of Whitefield. The reader
must try to imagine the great preacher gradually pursuing his immense
horseback-ride, making the primeval forests ring with his songs of
praise, and preaching the gospel of his Master, twice or thrice every
day. His Christmas was spent in Maryland. Hence the following:――

“BOHEMIA, MARYLAND, _December 27_.

“I have been travelling and preaching in the northern provinces
for nearly five months. I suppose I have ridden near two
thousand miles, and preached about two hundred and thirty times;
but to how many thousands of people cannot well be told. O what
days of the Son of man have I seen! God be merciful to me an
ungrateful sinner!

“I am now forty years of age, and would gladly spend the day
in retirement and deep humiliation before that Jesus, for whom
I have done so little, though He has done and suffered so much
for me.

“About February, I hope to reach Georgia; and, at spring, to
embark for England. There, dear madam, I expect to see you once
more in this land of the dying. If not, ere long, I shall meet
you in the land of the living, and thank you, before men and
angels, for all favours conferred on me. To-morrow, God willing,
I move again. Before long, my last remove will come; a remove
into endless bliss.”

Thus rejoicing in the hope of a blissful immortality did Whitefield
enter upon the year 1755. Early in the month of January, he made his
way to Virginia, a province which he had visited in 1746. For nearly
eight years, the Rev. Samuel Davies had been labouring here with
self-consuming earnestness. His eloquent, faithful, and powerful
preaching had been bitterly opposed; but it had been attended with
great success. His home was at Hanover, about twelve miles from
Richmond; and, as early as 1748, he had collected seven congregations,
which assembled in seven meeting-houses duly licensed, some of them,
however, being forty miles distant from each other. In three years, he
had obtained three hundred communicants, and had baptized forty slaves.
He had had a long controversy with the Episcopalians, who denied that
the English Act of Toleration extended to Virginia; and, with great
learning and eloquence, he had contended the point in the Virginian
court, with the famous Peyton Randolph, first President of the American
Congress. During his visit to England, in 1754, he had obtained, from
the English Attorney-General, a declaration that the Toleration Act
did extend to Virginia, which, of course, gave him greater confidence
in the legality of his proceedings. Besides this, in 1751, a new
governor of the province had been appointed, whom Whitefield and his
friends expected to be more favourable to evangelistic efforts than
his predecessor had been. Robert Dinwiddie was brother-in-law of
Whitefield’s old friend, the Rev. Mr. McCulloch, of Cambuslang. He
had been clerk to a collector of customs, in the West Indies, whose
enormous frauds he detected, and exposed to the Government; and, for
this disclosure, was rewarded by the appointment to Virginia. In a
letter to Mr. McCulloch, dated “July 19, 1751,” Whitefield wrote:――

“Mr. Davies’s one congregation is multiplied to seven.
He desires liberty to license more houses, and to preach
occasionally to all, as there is no minister but himself. This,
though allowed in England, is denied in Virginia, which grieves
the people very much. The commissary is one of the council, and,
with the rest of his brethren, no friend to the Dissenters. The
late governor was like-minded. I, therefore, think Mr. Dinwiddie
is raised up to succeed him, in order to befriend the Church of
God, and the interest of Christ’s people. They desire no other
privileges than what dissenting Protestants enjoy in our native
country. This, I am persuaded, your brother-in-law will be glad
to secure to them.”[361]

Under these altered circumstances, Whitefield met with a most
favourable reception. Hence the following extracts from his letters.
The first is taken from a letter to Charles Wesley:――

“January 14, 1755. I suppose my circuit already has been two
thousand miles; and, before I reach Bethesda, a journey of six
hundred more lies before me. Scenes of wonder have opened all
the way. A thousandth part cannot be told. In Virginia, the
prospect is very promising. I have preached in two churches, and,
this morning, am to preach in a third. Rich and poor seem quite
ready to hear. Many have been truly awakened.”[362]

“Virginia, January 13. I have not been here a week, and have
had the comfort of seeing many impressed under the word every
day. Two churches have been opened, and a third (Richmond) I am
to preach in to-morrow. I find prejudices subside, and some of
the rich and great begin to think favourably of the work of God.
Several of the lower class have been with me, acknowledging what
the Lord did for them when I was here before.”

“Virginia, January 17. I am now on the borders of North Carolina,
and, after preaching to-morrow in a neighbouring church, I
purpose to take my leave of Virginia. Had I not been detained so
long northward, what a wide and effectual door might have been
opened. Here, as well as elsewhere, rich and poor flock to hear
the everlasting gospel. Many have come forty or fifty miles; and
a spirit of conviction and consolation seemed to go through all
the assemblies. Colonel R――――, a person of distinction, opened
one church for me, invited me to his house, and introduced
me himself to the reading desk. Blessed be God, I see a vast
alteration for the better. O for more time, and for more souls
and bodies! Lord Jesus, twenty times ten thousand are too few
for Thee!”

Of Whitefield’s ride from Virginia to Georgia, no record now exists;
neither is there any information respecting his work at Bethesda. As
usual, his sojourn at the Orphan House was brief; for, on February
26th, he had returned to Charleston, whence, towards the end of March,
he embarked for England. The following are extracts from two letters
addressed to his housekeeper at Bethesda:――

“Charleston, March 3, 1755. Through Divine goodness, we arrived
here last Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday, Mr. E―――― was
solemnly ordained. The trials I have met with have brought
my old vomitings upon me. My soul has been pierced with many
sorrows. But, I believe, all is intended for my good. Amidst all,
I am comforted at the present situation of Bethesda. I hope you
will walk in love, and that the children will grow in years and
grace. I pray for you all, night and day.”

“Charleston, March 17, 1755. Had I wings like a dove, how
often would I have fled to Bethesda, since my departure from
it! I could almost say, that the last few hours I was there were
superior in satisfaction to any hours I ever enjoyed. But I must
go about my heavenly Father’s business. For this, I am a poor,
but willing pilgrim, and give up all that is near and dear
to me on this side of eternity. This week, I expect to embark
in the _Friendship_, Captain Ball; but am glad of the letters
from Bethesda before I start. They made ♦me weep, and caused
me to throw myself prostrate before the prayer-hearing and
promise-keeping God. He will give strength, He will give power.
Fear not. You are now, I believe, where the Lord would have you
be, and all will be well. I repose the utmost confidence in you,
and believe I shall not be disappointed of my hope. I should
have been glad if the apples had been sent in the boat; they
would have been useful in the voyage. But Jesus can stay me
with better apples. May you and all my dear family have plenty
of these! I imagine it will not be long before I return from
England.”

Whitefield set sail about March 27th; and, after a six weeks’ voyage,
landed at Newhaven, on the 8th of May. More than eight years elapsed
before his next visit to America.

_EIGHT YEARS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM._

1755 TO 1763.

WHITEFIELD and the Wesleys were now not the only evangelical clergymen
in London. Not to mention others, there was the Rev. Thomas Jones,
of St. Saviour’s, Southwark,――a young man of feeble health, but whose
preaching was characterised by great eloquence and power. There was
the Rev. Martin Madan, founder and first chaplain of the Lock Hospital,
near Hyde Park Corner. And there was the Rev. William Romaine, who
had been at Oxford at the same time Whitefield and the Wesleys were,
but without becoming an Oxford Methodist,――one of the most popular
preachers in the metropolis, and now curate of St. Olave’s, Southwark.
The ministry of such men occasioned Whitefield unmingled joy. One of
his first letters, after his arrival in England, was addressed to the
Countess of Huntingdon, in which, with a full heart, he wrote: “Glad
am I to hear that so many have lately been stirred up to preach the
crucified Saviour. Surely that Scripture must be fulfilled, ‘And many
of the priests also were obedient to the word.’ The work is of God, and
therefore must prosper.”

In a letter to Governor Belcher, on the same subject, he remarked:――

“London, May 14, 1755. The word has still free course in this
metropolis. The poor, despised Methodists are as lively as
ever; and, in several churches, the gospel is now preached with
power. Many in Oxford are awakened to a knowledge of the truth;
and, almost every week, I have heard of some fresh minister,
who seems determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him
crucified.”

This was a most important movement,――the commencement of that great
change which gradually came over the Church of England, until hundreds
of its pulpits were filled with converted men, weekly preaching the
doctrines which Whitefield and the Wesleys preached. For sixteen years,
the three Methodist itinerants had been scattering seed, which, in many
thousands of instances, had sprung up, and was bearing fruit; but now a
new fact occurred,――the seed-sowers were being multiplied. In a letter
to a lady, in 1752, stating the case of a poor divinity student, who
needed help, Whitefield wrote: “Every student’s name is Legion. Helping
one of these, is helping thousands.” No wonder that he now exulted in
the increase of gospel ministers.

During his recent visit to America, the Rev. Aaron Burr and the
trustees of New Jersey College conferred on Whitefield an M.A. degree.
Within a week after his return to England, Whitefield commenced an
endeavour to return the compliment. He had formed a high opinion of
Mr. Burr, and wished him to be honoured; but, apart from this, he
doubtless thought that the college would be helped if its president
were made a doctor of divinity. The Marquis of Lothian had been a
generous benefactor of the college, and, through him, Whitefield hoped
to procure the coveted distinction. In a letter to the Marquis, he
spoke of the college as “the purest seminary” he had known, and added,
“If the degree of doctor of divinity could be procured for Mr. Burr,
the present president, it would make an addition to its honours.” The
Marquis replied, “The University of Edinburgh desire me to obtain some
account of Mr. Burr’s literature, or performances. This I hope you
will send; and a diploma will be immediately transmitted.” Whitefield’s
answer, which deserves insertion, was as follows:――

“Mr. Burr was educated at Yale College, in Connecticut, New
England; and, for his pregnant abilities and well-approved piety,
was unanimously chosen to succeed the Rev. Mr. Dickinson,[363]
in the care of New Jersey College. It would have delighted
your lordship to have seen how gloriously he filled the chair
last year, at the New Jersey commencement. His Latin oration
was beautifully elegant, and was delivered with unaffected,
yet striking energy and pathos. As a preacher, disputant,
and head of a college, he shines in North America; and the
present prosperity of New Jersey College is greatly owing to
his learning, piety, and conduct. The students revere and love
him. Your lordship might have testimonials enough from good
Governor Belcher, Mr. Jonathan Edwards,[364] _cum multis aliis_.
I believe they would all concur in saying that, of his age, now
upwards of forty, there is not a more accomplished deserving
president in the world. As for anything of his in print, that
can be referred to, I can say nothing, except a little pamphlet
lately published,[365] in which he has animated the people
against the common enemy, and discovered a close attachment
to the interest of our rightful sovereign, King George.
This piece of Mr. Burr’s I have in London, and hope it is in
Scotland. I wish the diploma may be transmitted against the next
commencement. It will endear your lordship more and more to the
good people of America.”[366]

To say the least, there was a great amount of large-heartedness in this
attempt to distinguish the college of a church with which Whitefield
was not officially connected.

After his arrival in England, Whitefield spent about six weeks in
London, where his preaching was as popular as ever. Writing to the
Countess of Huntingdon, on May 27th, he said:――

“What a blessed week have we had! Sinners have come like a cloud,
and fled like doves to the windows. What a happiness is it to be
absorbed and swallowed up in God! To have no schemes, no views,
but to promote the common salvation! This be my happy lot!”

In another letter, dated “London, June 7th,” he wrote:――

“It will rejoice you to hear that the glorious gospel of
Jesus Christ gets ground apace. Several of the clergy, both in
town and country, have been lately stirred up to preach Christ
crucified, in the demonstration of the Spirit, and with power.
This excites the enmity of the old Serpent. The greatest
venom is spit against Mr. Romaine, who, having been reputed a
great scholar, is now looked upon and treated as a great fool,
because he himself is made wise unto salvation, and is earnestly
desirous that others should be. Methinks I hear you say, ‘O
happy folly!’ May this blessed leaven diffuse itself through the
whole nation! The prospect is promising. Many students at Oxford
are earnestly learning Christ. Dear Mr. Hervey has learnt and
preached Him some years. As for myself, I can only say, ‘Less
than the least of all,’ must be my motto still. I labour but
feebly, and yet Jesus owns my labours. People still flock to the
gospel, like doves to the windows. Will you be pleased to accept
of my _Lisbon_ letters?[367] My little Communion book is not
yet out. God be praised! there is a time coming when we shall
need books and ordinances no more, but shall be admitted into
uninterrupted communion and fellowship with the blessed Trinity
for ever.”

The “little Communion book” here mentioned was a 12mo. volume, of 140
pages, with the following title: “A Communion Morning’s Companion. By
George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain
to the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon. London, 1755.” The
book consists of: 1. Meditations on the five last Questions and Answers
of the Catechism of the Church of England. Extracted from Bishop Ken.
2. The Order for Administration of the Lord’s Supper. After the pattern
of Bishop Wilson. 3. Fifty-nine Sacramental Hymns, and seventeen
Doxologies, extracted from several authors. Except a few written by
the Wesleys, most of the hymns are pious doggerel. The extracts from
Ken and Wilson are intensely religious, and, to a devout mind, must be
useful. The book had an extensive sale. As early as 1758, it had passed
through a third edition; The following is taken from Whitefield’s
preface:――

“There is but little in this ‘Communion Morning’s Companion’
of my own; and, as it is intended purely for the assistance of
the professed members of the Church of England, I thought it
most advisable to extract the meditations and practical remarks
on the public form of administration from our own bishops. I
particularly fixed on Bishop Ken, not only because his sweet
meditations on the Redeemer’s passion were some of the first
things that made a religious impression on my own soul, but
because he was one of those seven bishops who were sent to
the Tower for making a noble stand against popish tyranny and
arbitrary power in the latter end of the reign of King James
the Second. Imagining that the words ‘_real presence_,’ though
evidently meant by the good bishop only of the Redeemer’s
_spiritual presence_ (which is all the presence I know of),
might stumble some, I erased them, and also made a few
alterations in some other passages, which, by some, might be
judged objectionable.

“As for those who are against any offices or set forms at
all, I shall only say, ‘Let not him who useth a form judge
him who useth it not; and let not him who useth it not despise
him who doth use it.’ Though I profess myself a minister of
the Established Church, and never yet renounced her articles,
homilies, or liturgy, I can and, if God’s providence direct my
course thither again, shall join in occasional communion with
the churches of New England and Scotland, being persuaded there
are as many faithful ministers among them as in any parts of the
known world.”

About the middle of the month of June, Whitefield set out on a three
weeks’ tour to Gloucester, Bristol, and the west of England. “Thousands
and thousands,” says he, “flocked in Gloucestershire; and here, in
Bristol, the congregations fall little short of those in London.” At
Bath, he preached several times in the house of Lady Gertrude Hotham;
Lord Chesterfield, Mrs. Grinfield, Mrs. Bevan,[368] and other members
of the aristocracy being among his hearers.

On the 1st of July, Lady Anne Hastings, after a short illness, was
removed to her eternal rest, in the sixty-fifth year of her age.[369]
Whitefield heard of this event at Bristol, and, on his return to London,
wrote as follows to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _July 11, 1755_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Yesterday, about noon, after being worn
down with travelling, and preaching twice and thrice a day in
Gloucestershire, at Bath, and Bristol, a gracious Providence
brought me to town. At Bristol, I heard of the death of good
Lady Anne. Alas! how many has your ladyship lived to see go
before you! An earnest this, I hope, that you are to live to a
good old age, and be more and more a mother in Israel. A short,
but sweet character. God knows how long I am to drag this crazy
load, my body, along. Blessed be His holy name! I have not
one attachment to earth. I am sick of myself, sick of the
world, sick of the Church, and am panting daily after the full
enjoyment of my God. John Cennick is now added to the happy
number of those who are called to see Him as He is.[370] I do
not envy, but I want to follow after him.

“The fields at Bristol and Kingswood were whiter and more ready
to harvest than for many years past. If the new Tabernacle at
Bristol were as large as that in London, it would be filled.
Thrice last Sunday, and twice the Sunday before, I preached in
the fields to many, many thousands. At Bath, we had good seasons.
Good Lady Gertrude, Mrs. Bevan, and Mrs. Grinfield, were very
hearty. God was with us of a truth. O for an humble, thankful
heart! I am now looking up for direction what course to steer
next. I suppose it will be northward.”

Whitefield spent about another month in London. It was at this period
that Cornelius Winter, then a boy in the thirteenth year of his age,
was induced to hear Whitefield preach. Cornelius was an orphan, whose
father had been a shoemaker, and his mother a laundress. At the age of
eight, he was admitted into the Charity School of St. Andrew’s, Holborn.
He then became the inmate of a workhouse. When his “schooling closed,”
he “had merely learned to write, without being set to put three figures
together, or to learn one line in any of the tables.” The half-hungered
child next became errand boy, and a sort of general drudge in the
kitchen and the workshop of a distant relative, Mr. Winter, watergilder,
in Bunhill Row. His master was bad-tempered, and a drunkard, and often
beat young Cornelius so unmercifully that the lad sometimes wished
to die. The boy regularly attended the Church of St. Luke, in Old
Street, but says, he had “strong prejudices against the Methodists and
Dissenters.” “However,” he writes, “when my clothes were disgracefully
bad, which was sometimes the case, I absconded from my own church,
and occasionally wandered into a meeting-house. At last, I got to
hear Mr. Whitefield, and was particularly struck with the largeness
of the congregation, the solemnity that sat upon it, the melody of the
singing, and Mr. Whitefield’s striking appearance, and his earnestness
in preaching. From this time, I embraced all opportunities to hear
him.”[371]

Whitefield remained in London till the commencement of the month
of August, when, unexpectedly, he was requested, by Colonel and Mrs.
Galatin, and the Countess of Huntingdon, to go to Norwich, and re-open
the Tabernacle built for Wheatley, Wesley’s expelled itinerant preacher.
Wesley already had a mongrel Society in Norwich, and disapproved of
Whitefield’s preaching in an apparently opposition chapel.[372] He
complained to Whitefield, who replied as follows:――

“NORWICH, _August 9, 1755_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――Till Tuesday evening” (August 5th)
“I knew no more of coming to Norwich than a child unborn. Had
I been well enough, and my private business permitted, I should
have been some miles on my way towards Donington Park. This I
told Mr. Hartley, and acquainted him with every step. He should
have written himself, and not retailed our conversation. As
I expect to be in town some time next week, I choose to defer
writing more till we have a personal interview. My time is too
precious to be employed in hearkening to, or vindicating myself
against, the false and invidious insinuations of narrow and
low-life informers. Never was I more satisfied of my call to
any place than of my present call to Norwich. The Redeemer
knows the way that I take. I came hither purely for His glory,
without the least design to make a party for myself, or to
please or displease any other party whatsoever. In this way, and
in this spirit, through His divine assistance, I hope to go on.
Blessed be His name! I trust my feeble labours have not been in
vain. Sin, I hope, has been prevented, errors detected, sinners
convicted, saints edified, and my own soul sweetly refreshed.
But I must add no more. That Jesus may give us all a right
judgment in all things, and keep all parties from giving a
wrong touch to the ark, is and shall be the constant prayer of,
reverend and dear sir, yours most affectionately in our common
Lord,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The Society at Norwich were the most refractory set of Methodists in
the United Kingdom. It would be a bootless task to write their history.
Suffice it to say, that Whitefield was satisfied with his visit.
“Here,” says he, “there has undoubtedly been a glorious work of God.
Twice a day, both gentle and simple flock to hear the word; and, I
think, it comes with power.”[373] “Notwithstanding offences have come,
I scarce ever preached a week together with greater freedom.”[374]
After he left, the Rev. William Cudworth took his place, and,
henceforth, became Wesley’s enemy, and the dangerous friend of the
gentle Hervey. Cudworth was assisted by Wheatley and Robert Robinson,
the latter a youth of twenty, but afterwards the famous Baptist
minister at Cambridge. They established preaching stations in the
surrounding villages; and, at Forncett, about twelve miles from Norwich,
a Tabernacle was erected. About five years after this, from 1758 to
1763, the Norwich Tabernacle seems to have been occupied by Wesley and
the preachers in connection with him. He then abandoned it, utterly
despairing to keep in order James Wheatley’s “lambs.” Indeed, he
designates them “_bullocks unaccustomed to the yoke_, who had never had
any rule or order among them, but every man did what was right in his
own eyes.” Lady Huntingdon next bought the Tabernacle for £900, and
vested it in seven trustees, who were to manage its secular concerns,
and appoint or dismiss its ministers at their pleasure.[375]

Notwithstanding the foregoing letter addressed to Wesley, there
continued to be misgiving. It also seems that, at first, Cudworth and
Wheatley found it difficult to co-operate. When Whitefield got back to
London, he wrote, as follows, to the turbulent Norwich Methodists:――

“LONDON, _August 26, 1755_.

“MY DEAR FRIENDS,――I received your kind letters, and likewise
one from Mr. Wheatley; and, last night, a long one from Mr.
Cudworth; but, alas! I have no time for controversy. To their
own Master they must both either stand or fall. All I can say,
in your present circumstances, is, that you had best make a
trial, and let matters, for a while, stand as they are. I have
sent letters, if possible, to prevent the spreading, at least
the _publishing_, of any further tales. Meanwhile, do you
strengthen yourselves in the Lord your God. The cause is His. I
believe you honestly embarked in it, for His great name’s sake,
and He will help you out of all. To-morrow, I must away to the
north. Follow me with your prayers; and assure yourselves that
you and yours, and the dear people of Norwich, will not be
forgotten by me. If ever the Redeemer should bring me thither
again, I can then converse with Mr. Wheatley and Mr. Cudworth
face to face; but I beg to be excused from writing, when I think,
by so doing, I can do no service. The Lord clothe us all with
humility, and give us all true simplicity and godly sincerity!”

On August 27, Whitefield left London for the north of England. On his
way, he spent two or three days with his friend Hervey, at the rectory
of Weston-Favell. Hervey had just published, in three octavo volumes,
his “Theron and Aspasio,” part of which work had been submitted
to Wesley in manuscript, for his revision. Wesley and Hervey had
already become alienated, for Wesley had made more corrections in
the manuscript than Hervey liked. At all events, on January 9, 1755,
Hervey wrote to Lady Frances Shirley: “Mr. John Wesley takes me roundly
to task on the score of predestination; at which I am much surprised,
because this doctrine (be it true or false) makes no part of my scheme.
I cannot but fear he has some sinister design. I do not charge such
an artifice, but sometimes I cannot help forming a suspicion.”[376]
In the interval, Wesley had written to Hervey a long letter, freely
animadverting on “Theron and Aspasio,” and begging him to lay aside
the phrase, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” adding, “It is not
scriptural, it is not necessary, it has done immense hurt.” Hervey, for
once in his lovely life, neglected to exercise his natural gentleness.
Wesley’s letter offended him, and he declined to acknowledge it; but,
whilst Whitefield was his guest, he wrote to his Baptist friend, the
Rev. John Ryland: “I find, by private intelligence, that Mr. Wesley has
shewn his letter in London, and has thought proper to animadvert upon
me, by name, from his pulpit.”

There can be little doubt that Whitefield was Hervey’s informant.
Affairs among these old Oxford Methodists were in a ticklish state. It
is a mournful fact, that, chiefly through the machinations of William
Cudworth, the friendship between Hervey and Wesley was not renewed;
but it was otherwise with the large-hearted Whitefield. In his Journal,
under the date, November 5th, 1755, Wesley wrote: “Mr. Whitefield
called upon me; disputings are now no more; we love one another,
and join hand in hand to promote the cause of our common Master.”
Charles Wesley, also, wrote to his old friend a poetical epistle,[377]
breathing with Christian love, from which the following lines are
taken:――

“Come on, my Whitefield! (since the strife is past,
And friends at first are friends again at last,)
Our hands, and hearts, and counsels let us join
In mutual league, t’ advance the work divine;
Our one contention now, our single aim,
To pluck poor souls as brands out of the flame;
To spread the victory of that bloody cross,
And gasp our latest breath in the Redeemer’s cause.

* * * * *

“In a strange land I stood,
And beckon’d thee to cross th’ Atlantic flood:
With true affection wing’d, thy ready mind
Left country, fame, and ease, and friends behind,
And, eager all heaven’s counsels to explore,
Flew through the watery world and grasp’d the shore.
Nor did I linger, at my friend’s desire,
To tempt the furnace, and abide the fire:
When suddenly sent forth, from the highways
I call’d poor outcasts to the feast of grace;
Urg’d to pursue the work, by thee begun,
Through good and ill report, I still rush’d on,
Nor felt the fire of popular applause,
Nor fear’d the torturing flame in such a glorious cause.

* * * * *

“One in His hand, O may we still remain,
Fast bound with love’s indissoluble chain;
(That adamant which time and death defies,
That golden chain which draws us to the skies!)
His love the tie that binds us to His throne,
His love the bond that perfects us in one;
His love, (let all the ground of friendship see,)
His only love constrains our hearts t’ agree,
And gives the rivet of eternity!”

Just at the time when Whitefield left America, the ministers of
George the Second announced to Parliament that a war with France was
inevitable. The Committee of Supply eagerly voted a million of money
for the defence of their American possessions; and Admiral Boscawen
was sent with a fleet towards the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to intercept
a French fleet which had been prepared in the forts of Rochefort and
Brest, and which was carrying reinforcements to the French Canadians.
America was now in martial confusion. Among others, Whitefield’s old
friend Sir William Pepperell had gone to the field of action; and
Whitefield, while a guest at Hervey’s, wrote to Lady Pepperell and
her daughter, to cheer them in the colonel’s absence, as follows:――

“WESTON-FAVELL, _August 30, 1755_.

“DEAR MISS,――A few days past, as I was going into the Tabernacle
to read letters, yours came to hand. Immediately, I read it
among the rest, and you and my other New England friends had
the prayers of thousands. How did I wish to be transported to
America! How did I long to stir up all against the common enemy,
and to be made instrumental of doing my dear country some little
service! Dear New England,――dear Boston lies upon my heart!
Surely the Lord will not give it over into the hands of the
enemy. He has too many praying ministers and praying people
there, for such a dreadful catastrophe.”

“WESTON-FAVELL, _August 30, 1755_.

“DEAR MADAM,――I find you are once more called to give up your
honoured husband for his country’s good. The God whom you serve
will richly reward you for such a sacrifice, and be better to
you than seven husbands. I long to hear that he is returned
victorious. He is gone upon a good cause, and under the conduct
of the best general, even the Captain of our salvation. To Him
I am praying, night and day, for the temporal and spiritual
welfare of dear, never-to-be-forgotten New England. Courage,
dear madam, courage! A few more partings, a few more changes,
a few more heart-breakings, heart-purifying trials, and we shall
be safely landed.”

Such were Whitefield’s feelings at the commencement of the Seven Years’
War, which was ended by the Peace of Paris, February 10, 1763. The
terrific strife kept Whitefield from his beloved America for the space
of eight long years, and, during this lengthened period, many and great
were his anxieties concerning his Orphan House, and his transatlantic
friends; but more of this anon. An extract from another letter, written
at Hervey’s, and addressed to a rich, but miserly American, is too
characteristic to be omitted.

“WESTON-FAVELL, _August 30, 1755_.

“Your friends everywhere take notice, that the sin which doth
most easily beset you is a too great love of money; and this,
in many cases, makes you act an unfriendly part. If God should
suffer our enemies to prevail, you will wish you had laid up
more treasure in heaven. Blessed be God, mine is out of the
reach of men or devils. Strange that five per cent. from man
should be preferred to a hundredfold from Christ! A word to the
wise is sufficient. I am looking out for more news from dear
America. May the late defeat be sanctified! Adieu, my dear Mr.
V――――! _Non magna loquimur, non magna scribimus, sed vivimus_,
is the Christian’s motto. Mr. D―――― can _English_ it.”

On Sunday, August 31st, Whitefield preached twice, not in his
friend Hervey’s church, but at Northampton. He then proceeded to
Lady Huntingdon’s, at Donington Park. At Liverpool, on September 12th,
“some fallow ground was broken up;” at Bolton, “the cup of many ran
over;” at Manchester, “people heard most gladly;” at Leeds and Bradford,
“what many felt was unutterable;” and at York, “a smart gentleman
was touched.” On reaching Newcastle-on-Tyne, Whitefield wrote to the
Countess of Huntingdon, as follows:――

“NEWCASTLE, _September 24, 1755_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――I know not how long it is since I left
your ladyship; but this I know, a sense of the satisfaction
I felt when at Donington still lies upon my heart. Were I
not called to public work, waiting upon, and administering to
your ladyship in holy offices would be my choice and highest
privilege.

“The only new ground that has been broken up is Liverpool. There
the prospect is promising. I preached in a great square on the
Lord’s-day, and the alarm, I hear, went through the town. At
Bolton, the cup of God’s people ran over; and at Manchester we
had large auditories and blessed seasons. At Leeds, we felt what
is unutterable; and at Bradford, last Sunday, the congregation
consisted of at least ten thousand.[378] But, oh, how has my
pleasure been alloyed at Leeds! I rejoiced there with trembling;
for, unknown to me, they had almost finished a large house,
in order to form a separate congregation.[379] If this scheme
succeeds, an awful separation, I fear, will take place amongst
the Societies.[380] I have written to Mr. Wesley, and have done
all I could to prevent it. O this self-love, this self-will! It
is the devil of devils!

“I write this from Newcastle, where the people, twice a day,
hear the gospel gladly. What to do now, I know not. Calls on all
sides are very loud, and it is too late to go either to Ireland
or Scotland. O my God! winter is at hand, and, in the summer,
how little has been done for Thee! I cannot bear to live at this
poor dying rate.”

Whitefield spent ten or a dozen days in the neighbourhood of Newcastle,
and then set out for London, where he arrived on October 30th. The
following are extracts from his letters:――

“LONDON, _October 31, 1755_.

“Last night, a never-failing God brought me from the north of
England, where I have been enabled to preach twice and thrice
a day to many, many thousands, for two months past. And yet
I cannot die. Nay, they tell me I grow fat. Never did I see
the word more blessed, or so many thousands run after it with
greater greediness. Next to inviting them to Christ, I have
always taken care to exhort them to pray for King George, and
our dear friends in America.”

“LONDON, _November 1, 1755_.

“On Thursday evening, I came to town, after having preached
about a hundred times, and travelled about eight hundred miles.
For more than ten days together, I preached thrice a day. O that
I could preach three hundred times! All would be infinitely too
little to testify my love to Jesus. After about a week’s stay
here, I hope to move westward. O winter! winter! Haste and fly,
that I may again set out! Yesterday, I waited upon the Countess
Delitz, and, on Thursday, I am to dine with her ladyship.”

“LONDON, _November 8, 1755_.

“I hear you have been sitting night and day in council.
All we can do on this side the water is to pray. This, I
trust, thousands are doing every day. I seldom preach without
mentioning dear New England. Blessed be God! the prospect is
promising here. In the north of England, the word runs and is
glorified more than ever. In London, people flock like doves to
the windows.”

To Lady Huntingdon, who had gone to Clifton Hotwells, Bristol,
Whitefield wrote:――

“LONDON, _November 10, 1755_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Your ladyship’s kind and condescending
letter found me just returned from Chatham. The court, in the
best sense of the word, is now removed to Clifton. For there
only is the real court kept, where Jesus reigns, and where He
has erected a spiritual kingdom in the heart. All besides this
is only tinsel and glitter. Here alone is real and abiding
happiness to be found. O for further searches into the heights
and depths of God! O for further leadings into the chambers of
that selfish, sensual, and devilish imagery, that yet lie latent
in my partly renewed heart! This self-love, what a _Proteus_!
This self-will, what a _Hydra_! This remaining body of sin and
death, what an _Antichrist_! what a scarlet whore! what a hell!
what a red dragon! what a cursed monster is it! How hard, how
slow, he dies! O what gratitude do I owe to the Bruiser of this
serpent’s head! O for a heart gladly to embrace every cross,
every trying dispensation, that may have a tendency to poison,
or starve the old man, and cherish, promote, or cause to bloom
and blossom the graces and tempers of the new! Ordinances,
providences, doctrines are of no service to believers, except
as they are attended with this mortifying and life-giving power.
Happy family, who have this one thing in view! Happy retirement,
that is improved to this blessed purpose! Happy, therefore, good
Lady Huntingdon, and the other elect ladies, who are determined
thus to go hand in hand to heaven! All hail, ye new-born,
heaven-born souls! Ye know, by happy experience, that Jesus is
an inward as well as outward Saviour. Were even annihilation
to follow death, who would not but have this redemption whilst
they live? But glory, glory be to God! it is only the dawning
of an eternal day, the beginning of a life that is ere long
to be absorbed in never-ceasing, uninterrupted fruition of the
ever-blessed Triune Deity. O the depth, the height of this love
of God! It passeth human and angelic knowledge. My paper only
permits me to add, that I am, ever-honoured madam,

“Your ladyship’s most dutiful and ready servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Soon after this, Whitefield joined her ladyship at Bristol, where he
spent about a month, but, to a great extent, was prevented preaching.
Hence the following:――

“BRISTOL, _November 30_.

“For near ten days past, I have preached in pain, occasioned by
a sore throat, which I find now is the beginning of a quinsy.
The doctor tells me silence and warmth may cure me; but (if I
had my will) heaven is my choice, especially if I can speak no
longer for my God on earth. However, painful as the medicine of
silence is, I have promised to be very obedient, and, therefore,
I have not preached this morning.”

Whitefield returned to London towards the end of December, and closed
the year by writing to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _December 31, 1755_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Your ladyship’s kind and condescending
letter should not have been so long unanswered, had not bodily
weakness, and my Christmas labours, prevented my writing. It has
been a joyful-mourning season. Saturday last being my birthday,
my soul was deeply exercised, from morning till evening, in
thinking how much, in one-and-forty years, I had sinned against
God, and how little I have done for Him. This impression yet
lies deep upon my heart, and, therefore, I purpose to end the
old year by preaching on these words, ‘I abhor myself, and
repent in dust and ashes.’ O that all things belonging to the
old man may die in me, and all things belonging to the new man
may live and grow in me! But, alas! this is a work of time.
Every day and every hour must we be passing from death to life.
Mortification and vivification make up the whole of the Divine
work in the new-born soul.

“But shall I conceal the goodness of my long-suffering Master?
No, I dare not; for, in spite of my unworthiness, He still
continues to smile upon my poor ministrations. A noble chapel is
now opened in Long Acre, where I am to read prayers and preach
twice a week. Hundreds went away last night, who could not come
in; but those who could, I trust, met with Jesus.”

Long Acre has just been mentioned,――Long Acre, with the London theatres
on the left, and Wesley’s West Street chapel on the right,――then a
fashionable street; now, to a great extent, consisting of workshops
for making and exhibiting all kinds of carriages. In the theatres, John
Rich, the harlequin, with a kind of dumb eloquence, was electrifying
his audiences by the mere gesticulations of his body. Catherine
Clive was cleverly acting the characters of chambermaids, fashionable
ladies, country girls, romps, hoydens, dowdies, superannuated beauties,
viragoes, and humorists. David Garrick, who once said “I would give a
hundred guineas if I could only say ‘Oh!’ like Mr. Whitefield,” was the
celebrated manager of the theatre in Drury Lane. Margaret Woffington
was an admired favourite at Covent Garden. And Samuel Foote was at the
height of his popularity.

The chapel in Long Acre[381] was rented by the Rev. John Barnard, one
of Whitefield’s early converts, who was now an Independent minister,
but afterwards became a Sandemanian, and was ultimately expelled by
that Society for entertaining too exalted notions of his preaching
powers.[382]

The Dean of Westminster, who, in some capacity, claimed some sort of
clerical jurisdiction in Long Acre, was Zachary Pearce, D.D., the son
of a distiller in Holborn; from 1748 to 1756, was Bishop of Bangor;
and, afterwards, Bishop of Rochester;――an accomplished scholar, a
perspicuous writer, a feeble orator, an active prelate, and a hearty
hater of the Methodists.

Whitefield had long wished to have a West-end chapel, which might serve
as the meeting-house, not only of the rich in general, but especially
of the distinguished persons who were accustomed to assemble in the
mansions of the Countess of Huntingdon, Lady Frances Shirley, and Lady
Gertrude Hotham.

These brief memoranda will help to explain the allusions in the
following extracts from Whitefield’s letters.

The first is taken from a letter addressed to the Rev. John Gillies, of
Glasgow:――

“London, January 22, 1756. Ever since I came from the north,
I have had a violent cold and sore throat, which threatened
an inflammatory quinsy. One physician prescribed a _perpetual
blister_, but I have found _perpetual preaching_ to be a better
remedy. When this grand catholicon fails, it is over with me.
You will pray that, if I must put out to sea again, it may be
to take fresh prizes for my God. Every day brings us fresh news
of newly awakened souls. Both at this and the other end of the
town (where I now preach in a chapel twice a week), there is a
glorious stirring among the dry bones.”

The next is from a letter written to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“London, January 29, 1756. I know not how soon I may be called
before my superiors. The sons of _Jubal_ and _Cain_ continue to
serenade me at Long Acre chapel. They have been called before
a justice; and, yesterday, the Bishop of Bangor sent for them,
and enquired where I lived. My house is pretty public, and the
‘Bishop of souls’ shall answer for me. One, who subscribes to
hire men to make the noise, has been pricked to the heart, and
can have no rest till he speaks with me. Thus Jesus gets Himself
the victory. One of the enclosed extracts comes from a person
who, a few weeks ago, was a confirmed Deist; now, I trust, he is
a little child. The Redeemer speaks, and it is done; He commands,
and new creatures instantaneously arise before Him.”

Did these “sons of Jubal and Cain” belong to the adjoining theatres?
Perhaps they did. Still, it is curious that Wesley, in West Street
chapel, had never been disturbed by their unwelcome serenading; and
it is equally remarkable, that though Bishop Pearce did his utmost to
silence Whitefield in Long Acre, he seems not at all to have interfered
with Wesley in a neighbouring street. The annoyance, to Whitefield
and his _West-end_ congregation, was great; but he was more wishful
to convert the serenaders than to punish them. Hence the following,
addressed to the gentleman who had brought some of the disturbers
before a magistrate:――

“January 30. Gratitude constrains me to send you a few lines of
thanks for the care and zeal you have exercised in suppressing
the late disorders at Long Acre chapel. I hear that some unhappy
man has incurred the penalty inflicted by our salutary laws. As
peace, not revenge, is the thing aimed at, I should rejoice if
this could be procured without the delinquents suffering any
further punishment. Perhaps what has been done already may be
sufficient to deter others from any further illegal proceedings;
and that will be satisfaction enough for me.”

But for the meddling of Bishop Pearce, it is possible, perhaps probable,
that these disreputable disturbances might have ceased; but, two days
after writing thus to the gentleman who had commenced a prosecution
of the noisy musicians, Whitefield received a letter from the Bishop,
in which he prohibited Whitefield’s further preaching in the Long Acre
chapel. This led to an important correspondence between the prelate
and the preacher. Whether his lordship had a legal right to issue
such a prohibition, ecclesiastical lawyers must determine; but, to
say the least, his action had the appearance of episcopal persecution.
The Bishop’s letters to Whitefield have not been published; for, with
contemptible cowardice, Pearce informed Whitefield that, if he dared
to publish them, he must be prepared to undergo the penalty due to
the infringement of “the privilege of a peer!” Still, the substance of
his letters may be gathered from Whitefield’s answers; and, as these
answers contain an explanation and a defence of the course of conduct
which Whitefield had pursued for nearly the last twenty years, they are
inserted here at greater length, than, under other circumstances, they
would have been.

“TABERNACLE HOUSE, _February 2, 1756_.

“MY LORD,――A few weeks ago, several serious persons, chosen to
be a committee for one Mr. Barnard, applied to me, in the name
of Jesus Christ, and a multitude of souls desirous of hearing
the gospel, to preach at a place commonly called Long Acre
chapel. At the same time, they acquainted me, that the place
was licensed; that Mr. Barnard either had taken or was to take
it for a certain term of years; that he had preached in it for
a considerable time, as a Protestant Dissenting minister; but
that, notwithstanding this, I might use the Liturgy if I thought
proper, so that I would but come and preach once or twice a week.

“Looking upon this as a providential call from Him, who, in
the days of His flesh, taught all who were willing to hear,
_on a mount_, _in a ship_, or by _the sea-side_, I readily
complied; and I humbly hope that my feeble labours have not
been altogether in vain.

“This being the case, I was somewhat surprised at the
prohibition I received from your lordship this evening. For,
I looked upon the place as a particular person’s property;
and being, as I was informed, not only unconsecrated, but also
licensed according to law, I thought I might innocently preach
the love of the crucified Redeemer, and loyalty to the best
of princes, our dread sovereign King George, without giving
any just offence to Jew or Gentile, much less to any bishop
or overseer of the Church of God. As I have, therefore, given
notice of preaching to-morrow evening, and every Tuesday and
Thursday whilst I am in town, I hope your lordship will not look
upon it as _contumacy_, if I persist in prosecuting my design,
till I am more particularly apprized wherein I have erred.

“Controversy, my lord, is what I abhor; and, as raising
popular clamours and ecclesiastical dissensions must be quite
unseasonable, especially at this juncture, when _France_ and
_Rome_, and _hell_ ought to be the common butt of our resentment,
I hope your lordship will be so good as to inform yourself
and me more particularly about this matter; and, upon due
consideration, as I have no design but to do good to precious
souls, I promise to submit. But, if your lordship should judge
it best to decline this method, and I should be called to answer
for my conduct, either before a spiritual court, or from the
press, I trust the irregularity I am charged with will appear
justifiable to every true lover of English liberty, and (what
is _all_ to me) will be approved of at the awful and impartial
tribunal of the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, in obedience
to whom I beg leave to subscribe myself, your lordship’s most
dutiful son and servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The Bishop of Bangor replied to this straightforward letter; but, of
course, his threat, as a peer of the realm, suppressed his
communication. Whitefield’s next letter was as follows:――

“TABERNACLE HOUSE, _February 16, 1756_.

“MY LORD,――I this evening received your lordship’s kind letter;
and, though it is late, and nature calls for rest, I now sit
down to give your lordship an explicit answer.

“God can witness, that I entered into holy orders, according
to the form of ordination of the Church of England, with a
disinterested view to promote His glory, and the welfare of
precious and immortal souls. For near twenty years, as thousands
can testify, I have conscientiously defended her Homilies
and Articles, and, upon all occasions, have spoken well of
her Liturgy. So far from renouncing these, together with her
discipline, I earnestly pray for the due restoration of the one,
and daily lament the departure of too many from the other. But,
my lord, what can I do?

“When I acted in the most regular manner, and when I was
bringing multitudes, even of Dissenters, to crowd the churches,
without any other reason being given than that too many followed
after me, I was denied the use of the churches. Being thus
excluded, and many thousands of ignorant souls, that perhaps
would neither go to church nor meeting-houses, being very hungry
after the gospel, I thought myself bound in duty to deal out to
them the bread of life.

“Being further ambitious to serve my God, my king, and my
country, I sacrificed my affections, and left my native soil, in
order to begin and carry on an Orphan House in the infant colony
of Georgia, which is now put upon a good foundation. This served
as an introduction, though without design, to my visiting the
other parts of his Majesty’s dominions in North America; and I
humbly hope that many in that foreign clime will be my joy and
crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus.

“Nay, my lord, if I were not assured that the blessed Redeemer
has owned me for the real conversion and turning of many
from darkness to light, the weakness of my decaying body, the
temptations that have beset my soul, and the violent opposition
with which I have met, would long since have led me to accept
some of those offers that have been made me to nestle, and by
accepting which I might have screened myself from the obloquy
and contempt which, in some degree or other, I meet with every
day. But, hitherto, without eating a morsel of the Church of
England’s bread, I still continue to use her Liturgy, wherever
a church or chapel is allowed me, and preach up her Articles,
and enforce her Homilies. Your lordship, therefore, judgeth me
exceeding right, when you say, ‘I presume you do not mean to
declare any dissent from the Church of England.’ Far be it from
me. No, my lord, unless thrust out, I shall never leave her; and
even then I shall still adhere to her doctrines, and pray for
the restoration of her discipline, to my dying day.

“Fond of displaying her truly protestant and orthodox principles,
especially when Church and State are in danger from a cruel and
popish enemy, I am glad of an opportunity of preaching, though
it should be in a meeting-house; and I think it discovers a good
and moderate spirit in the Dissenters, who quietly attend on the
Church service, as many have done, and continue to do at Long
Acre chapel, while many, who style themselves the faithful sons
of the Church, have endeavoured to disturb and molest us.

“If the lessor of this chapel has no power to let it, or if
it be not legally licensed, I have been deceived; and if, upon
enquiry, I find this to be the case, I shall soon declare, in
the most public manner, how I have been imposed upon. But if
it appears that the lessor has a right to dispose of his own
property, and that the place is licensed, and as some good, I
trust, has been done by this foolishness of preaching, surely
your lordship’s candour will overlook a little irregularity,
since, I fear, that, in these dregs of time wherein we live, we
must be obliged to be irregular, or we must do no good at all.

“My lord, I remember well (and O that I may more than ever
obey your lordship’s admonition!) that awful day, wherein I was
ordained priest, and when authority was given me, by my honoured
friend and father, good Bishop Benson, to preach the word of
God; but never did I so much as dream that this was only a
local commission, or that the condition annexed, ‘Where you
shall be lawfully appointed thereunto,’ was to confine me to any
particular place, and that it would be unlawful for me to preach
out of it. It is plain my Lord Bishop of Gloucester did not
think so; for when his secretary brought a license for me, his
lordship said, it would cost me thirty shillings, and therefore
I should not have it. And when, after being presented to the
late Bishop of London, I applied to him for a license, his
lordship was pleased to say I was going to Georgia, and needed
none. Accordingly, I preached in most of the London churches,
under his lordship’s immediate inspection; and why any other
license than my letters of orders should now be required, I
believe no substantial, I am positive no scriptural, reason can
be assigned.

“It is true, as your lordship observes, there is one canon that
says, ‘No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in
any place, without examination and admission of the Bishop of
the Diocese.’ And there is another, as quoted by your lordship,
which tells us, ‘Neither minister, churchwarden, nor any other
officers of the Church shall suffer any man to preach within
their chapels, but such as, by shewing their license to preach,
shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorised thereunto.’
But, my lord, what curacy or parsonage have I desired, or do
I desire to be admitted to serve in? or, into what church or
chapel do I attempt to intrude myself, without leave from the
churchwardens or other officers? Being, as I think, without
cause, denied admission into the churches, I am content to take
the field, and, when the weather will permit, with a table for
my pulpit, and the heavens for my sounding-board, I desire to
proclaim to all the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ. Besides,
my lord, if this canon should be always put into full execution,
I humbly presume, no bishop or presbyter can legally preach at
any time out of the diocese in which he is appointed to serve;
and, consequently, no city incumbent can even occasionally be
lawfully assisted by any country clergyman; or even can a bishop
himself be lawfully permitted to preach a charity sermon out of
his own diocese, without a special license for so doing.

“As for the other canon which your lordship mentions, and which
runs thus, ‘Neither shall any minister, not licensed as is
aforesaid, presume to appoint or hold any meetings for sermons,
commonly termed, by some, prophecies or exercises, in market
towns or other places, under the said pains,’――I need not inform
your lordship, that it was originally levelled against those who
would not conform to the Church of England, and that, too, in
such high-flying times as not one of the present moderate bench
of bishops would wish to see restored. If this be so, how, my
lord, does this canon belong to me, who am episcopally ordained,
and have very lately published a small tract recommending the
communion office of the Church of England?

“But, my lord, to come nearer to the point in hand. And, for
Christ’s sake, let not your lordship be offended with my using
such plainness of speech. As in the presence of the living God,
I would put it to your lordship’s conscience, whether there
is one bishop or presbyter, in England, Wales, or Ireland, who
looks upon our canons as his rule of action? If this opinion
be true, we are all perjured with a witness, and, in a very
bad sense of the word, _irregular indeed_. If the canons of
our Church are to be implicitly obeyed, may I not say, ‘He,
who is without the sin of acting illegally, let him cast the
first stone at me, and welcome.’ Your lordship knows full well,
that canons and other Church laws are good and obligatory,
when conformable to the laws of Christ, and agreeable to the
liberties of a free people; but, when invented and compiled
by men of little hearts and bigotted principles, to hinder
persons of more enlarged souls from doing good, or being more
extensively useful, they become mere _bruta fulmina_; and,
when made use of as cords to bind the hands of a zealous few,
who honestly appear for their king, their country, and their
God, they may, in my opinion, like the withes with which the
Philistines bound Samson, very legally be broken. As I have
not the canons at present before me, I cannot tell what pains
and penalties are to be incurred for such offence; but, if
any penalty is incurred, or any pain to be inflicted on me,
for preaching against sin, the Pope, and the devil, and for
recommending the strictest loyalty to the best of princes, his
Majesty King George, in this metropolis, or in any other part
of his Majesty’s dominions, I trust, through grace, I shall be
enabled to say,――

‘All hail reproach, and welcome pain!’

“There now remains but one more particular in your lordship’s
letter to be answered,――your lordship’s truly apostolical canon,
taken out of 2 Cor. x. 16,――upon reading of which, I could not
help thinking of a passage in good Mr. Philip Henry’s life.
It was this. Being ejected out of the Church, and yet thinking
it his duty to preach, Mr. Henry used, now and then, to give
the people of Broad-Oaks, where he lived, a gospel sermon; and
one day, as he was coming from his exercise, he met with the
incumbent, and thus addressed him: ‘Sir, I have been taking the
liberty of throwing a handful of seed into your field.’ ‘Have
you?’ said the good man. ‘May God give it His blessing! There
is work enough for us both.’ This, my lord, I humbly conceive,
is the case, not only of your lordship, but of every minister’s
parish in London, and of every bishop’s diocese in England; and,
therefore, as good is done, and souls are benefited, I hope your
lordship will not regard a little irregularity, since, at the
worst, it is only the irregularity of doing well. But, supposing
this should not be admitted as an excuse at other seasons, I
hope it will have its weight at this critical juncture, wherein,
if there were ten thousand sound preachers, and each preacher
had a thousand tongues, they could not be too frequently
employed in calling upon the inhabitants of Great Britain to
be upon their guard against the cruel and malicious designs of
_France_, of _Rome_, and of _hell_.

“After all, my lord, if your lordship will be pleased to apply
to Mr. Barnard himself, who, I suppose, knows where the place
is registered; or if, upon enquiry, I shall find that the lessor
has no power to let it, as I abhor every dishonourable action,
after my setting out for Bristol, which I expect to do in a
few days, I shall decline preaching in the chapel any more.
But, if the case should appear to be otherwise, I hope your
lordship will not be angry, if I persist in this, I trust, not
unpardonable irregularity; for, if I decline preaching in every
place, merely because the incumbent may be unwilling I should
come into his parish, I fear I should seldom or never preach at
all. This, my lord, especially at the present juncture, when all
our civil and religious liberties are at stake, would to me be
worse than death itself.

“I humbly ask pardon for detaining your lordship so long; but,
being willing to give your lordship all the satisfaction I could,
I have chosen rather to sit up and deny myself proper repose,
than to let your lordship’s candid letter lie by me one moment
longer than was absolutely necessary.

“I return your lordship a thousand thanks for your favourable
opinion of me, and for your good wishes; and, begging the
continuance of your lordship’s blessing, and earnestly praying
that, whenever your lordship shall be called hence, you may give
up your account with joy, I beg leave to subscribe myself, my
lord, your lordship’s most dutiful son and servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Such was Whitefield’s midnight letter to Bishop Pearce. Its length is
gigantic, but, throughout, it is pointed, manly, and respectful; and,
because of its historical facts, and its statement of the principles
which regulated Whitefield’s life, it is of great importance. A summary
of it could not have done it justice.

A week later, Whitefield wrote a third letter to the bishop, informing
him he had ascertained that the chapel was duly licensed, and that Mr.
Barnard’s committee were resolved to retain possession of it. He added,
“As your lordship would undoubtedly choose that the Church liturgy
should be read in it sometimes, rather than it should be entirely
made use of in a Nonconformist way, I hope your lordship will not
be offended, if I go on as usual after my return from Bristol. I am
sorry to inform your lordship, that, notwithstanding the admonitions
which, I hear, your lordship has given them, some unhappy persons have
still endeavoured to disturb us, by making an odd kind of noise in a
neighbouring house. I hear that some of them belong to your lordship’s
vestry, and, therefore, wish you would so far interpose, as to order
them once more to stop their proceedings.”

Whitefield went to Bristol; and, on Sunday, March 14, opened his
“spring campaign, by preaching thrice in the fields, to many thousands,
in Gloucestershire.”[383] Immediately after this he returned to London,
and found it necessary to write again to Bishop Pearce.

“TABERNACLE HOUSE, _March 20, 1756_.

“MY LORD,――Upon my coming up to town, I found, to my great
surprise, that the disturbances near Long Acre chapel had been
continued. On Thursday evening last, when I preached there
myself, they were rather increased. Some of the windows were
stopped up, to prevent, in some degree, the congregation being
disturbed by the unhallowed noise; but large stones were thrown
in at another window, and one young person was sadly wounded.

“This constrains me to beg your lordship to desire the persons,
belonging to your lordship’s vestry, to desist from such
irregular proceedings. For my own irregularity in preaching,
I am ready at any time to answer; and were I myself the only
sufferer, I should be entirely unconcerned at any personal
ill-treatment I might meet with in the way of duty. But to have
the lives of his Majesty’s loyal subjects endangered, when they
come peaceably to worship God, is an irregularity which, I am
persuaded, your lordship will look upon as unjustifiable in the
sight of God, and of every good man.

“Your lordship will allow that, as a subject of King George, and
a minister of Jesus Christ, I have a right to do myself justice;
and, therefore, I hope, if the disturbances be continued, that
your lordship will not be offended, if I lay a plain narration
of the whole affair, together with what has passed between your
lordship and myself, before the world. I beg you not to look
upon this as a threatening. I scorn any such mean procedure.
But, as Providence seems to point out such a method, I hope your
lordship will have no just reason to censure me if I do it.”

The bishop replied, and Whitefield wrote to him again, as follows:――

“LONDON, _March 25, 1756_.

“Your lordship needed not to inform me of the privilege of
a peer, to deter me from publishing your lordship’s letters,
without first asking leave. Nothing shall be done in that
way, which is the least inconsistent with the strictest honour,
justice, and simplicity. But, if a public account of the
repeated disturbances at Long Acre chapel be rendered necessary,
I hope your lordship will not esteem it unreasonable in me, to
inform the world what previous steps were taken to prevent and
stop them.

“Such a scene, at such a juncture, and under such a government,
as has been transacted in your lordship’s parish, in the house
or yard of Mr. Cope, who, I hear, is your lordship’s overseer,
ever since last _Twelfth-day_, I believe is not to be met with
in English history. It is more than noise. It is _premeditated
rioting_. Drummers, soldiers, and many of the baser sort, have
been hired by subscription. A copper furnace, bells, drums,
clappers, marrow-bones, and cleavers, and such-like instruments
of reformation, have been provided for them, and repeatedly have
been used by them, from the moment I have begun preaching, to
the end of my sermon. By these horrid noises, many women have
been almost frightened to death; and mobbers have, thereby, been
encouraged to come and riot at the chapel door during the time
of divine service; and, after it has been over, have insulted
and abused me and the congregation. Not content with this, the
chapel windows, while I have been preaching, have repeatedly
been broken by large stones of almost a pound weight, which,
though levelled at me, missed me, but sadly wounded some of my
hearers. If your lordship will only ride to Mr. Cope’s house,
you will see the scaffold, and the costly preparations for such
a noise upon it, as must make the ears of all who shall hear it
to tingle.

“I am informed that Mr. C―――― and Mr. M―――― are parties greatly
concerned. I know them not, and I pray God never to lay this
ill and unmerited treatment to their charge. If no more noise
is made, I assure your lordship no further resentment shall be
made. But if they persist, I have the authority of an apostle,
on a like occasion, to appeal unto Cæsar. I have only one
favour to beg of your lordship. As the above-named gentlemen are
your lordship’s parishioners, I request that you desire them,
henceforward, to desist from such unchristian, such riotous, and
dangerous proceedings. Whether, as a chaplain to a most worthy
peeress, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a steady
disinterested friend to our present happy constitution, I have
not a right to ask such a favour, I leave to your lordship’s
mature deliberation. Henceforward, I hope to trouble your
lordship no more.”

Certainly, it was high time to bring matters to a crisis. The Rev.
Zachary Pearce, D.D., though himself the son of a rich distiller in
Holborn, and though the husband of a wife, who, as the daughter of
another Holborn distiller, brought him a large fortune, was a pluralist.
Twenty-three years ago, by the exertions of the Earl of Macclesfield,
he had been presented with the fat living of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields,
even after it had been promised to another man. For seventeen years,
he had been dean of Winchester; and, in 1748, had exchanged the deanery
for the bishopric of Bangor. And now, in this memorable year of 1756,
the Duke of Newcastle conferred upon him the see of Rochester and
the deanery of Westminster. No doubt, it was in his capacity of vicar
of St. Martin’s, that this wealthy pluralist prohibited Whitefield’s
preaching in Long Acre, and, if he did not actually employ, yet
connived at the noisy ruffians who disturbed Whitefield’s services.
Whitefield’s language to the Bishop of Bangor was too respectful. Such
a man deserved rebuke, quite as strong as the liquors, by which his own
father and the father of his wife had made their fortunes.

Notwithstanding all the efforts of Whitefield to obtain peace, the
disturbances at Long Acre were continued. Besides this, early in
the month of April, Whitefield received three anonymous letters,
threatening him with “a certain, sudden, and unavoidable stroke,”
unless he desisted from preaching, and refrained from prosecuting the
rioters of Long Acre. It is impossible to suspect Bishop Pearce of
being implicated in the sending of these disgraceful threats; but there
can be little doubt that the known animosity of himself and others gave
encouragement to the masked assassins. For years past, the bishops and
clergy of the Established Church, comparatively speaking, had ceased
from their open and violent persecution of the poor itinerant preacher;
but their rancorous feelings towards him, perhaps, were not at all
abated. Even free-thinking Dr. Herring, Archbishop of Canterbury, who
was now within twelve months of his decease, wrote, in the very midst
of the Long Acre riots, to William Duncombe, Esq., as follows:――

“CROYDON HOUSE, _January 25, 1756_.

“Your judgment is right. Whitefield is Daniel Burgess[384]
_redivivus_; and, to be sure, he finds his account in his
joco-serious addresses. Wesley, with good parts and learning,
is a most dark and saturnine creature. His pictures may frighten
weak people, who, at the same time, are wicked; but, I fear,
he will make few converts, except for a day. I have read his
‘Serious Thoughts’;[385] but, for my own part, I think the
rising and setting of the sun is a more durable argument for
religion than all the extraordinary convulsions of nature
put together. Let a man be good on right principles, and
then _impavidum ferient ruinae_. So far, Horace was as good a
preacher as any of us. I have no constitution for these frights
and fervours; and, if I can but keep up to the regular practice
of a Christian life, upon Christian reasons, I shall be in
no pain for futurity; nor do I think it an essential part of
religion, to be pointed at for any foolish singularities. The
subjects of the Methodist preaching, you mention, are excellent
in the hands of wise men, not enthusiasts. As to their notion
that men are by nature devils, I can call it by no other name
than wicked and blasphemous, and the highest reproach that man
can throw upon his wise and good Creator.

“I am, etc.,

“THOMAS CANTUAR.”[386]

Under the circumstances of the time, Whitefield was almost driven to
seek redress. First of all, he consulted the Honourable Hume Campbell,
brother of Lady Jane Nimmo, and solicitor to the Princess of Wales,
Lord Clerk Registrar of Scotland, and one of Whitefield’s occasional
hearers. In a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, dated “Canterbury,
April 10, 1756,” Whitefield wrote:――

“The noise at Long Acre has been infernal. I have reason to
think there was a secret design for my life. Some of my friends
were sadly used; they applied for warrants; and that occasioned
the sending of a threatening letter. I have written to Sir
Hume Campbell for advice. Here all is peaceable. It is most
delightful to see the soldiers flock to hear the word; officers
likewise attend very orderly.”

On his return to London, Whitefield was introduced to the Earl of
Holdernesse, one of his Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State. Hence
the following to Lady Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _April 18, 1756_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Since my last, from Canterbury, I have
received two more threatening letters. My greatest distress
is, how to act so as to avoid rashness on the one hand, and
timidity on the other. I have been introduced to the Earl of
Holdernesse, who received me very courteously, and seemed to make
no objection against issuing a reward for the discovery of the
letter-writer. Whether I had best accept the plan, I know not.
Sir Hume Campbell says the offence is not felony; and he advises
me to put all concerned into the Court of King’s Bench. Lord
Jesus, direct me, for Thy mercy’s sake! A man came up to me in
the pulpit, at the Tabernacle; God knows what was his design. I
see no way for me to act, than, either resolutely to persist in
preaching and prosecuting, or entirely to desist from preaching,
which would bring intolerable guilt upon my soul, and give the
adversary cause to blaspheme. Blessed be God! I am quite clear
as to the occasion of my suffering. It is for preaching Christ
Jesus, and loyalty to King George. Alas! alas! what a condition
would this land be in, were the Protestant interest not to
prevail! If Popery is to get a footing here, I should be glad
to die by the hands of an assassin. I should then be taken away
from the evil to come.”

The result of all this battling with the vestry mobs of Bishop Pearce,
and of the apprehension created by these anonymous popish menaces, was
the publication of the following announcement in the _London Gazette_
of May 1, 1756, and in the two next succeeding numbers of that official
journal. The italics and spelling are as they appear in the original:――

“WHITEHALL, _April 30, 1756_.

“Wheras it has been humbly represented to the King that an
anonimous letter, without date, directed, _To Doctor Whitefield,
at his Tabernacle, by the Foundery in Moorfields_, was, on the
6th of this instant April, received by the Reverend Mr. George
Whitefield, by the penny post; and that two other letters,
viz., one of them dated the 7th of the present month of April,
subscribed, Your Friendly Adversary, and directed, _To Mr.
Whitefield, at his Tabernacle, near Hogston, beyond the Upper
Moorfields_; and the other, anonimous, without date, and
directed, _To the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, at the Tabernacle, near
Moorfields_, were also received by the said Reverend Mr. George
Whitefield, by the penny post, on the 8th of this instant
April; and that the said letters, written in very abusive terms,
contained threats of injury and destruction to the said Reverend
Mr. George Whitefield; His Majesty, for the better discovering,
and bringing to justice the persons concerned in writing and
sending the said three letters, as above-mentioned, or any one,
or more, of them, is pleased to promise his most gracious pardon
to any one of them, who shall discover his, or her, accomplice,
or accomplices therein, so that he, she, or they, may be
apprehended and convicted thereof.

“HOLDERNESSE.

“And as a further encouragement, James Cox, jeweller, in Racquet
Court, Fleet Street, does hereby promise a reward of twenty
pounds, to be paid by him, to the person or persons making such
discovery as aforesaid, upon the conviction of one or more of
the offenders.

“JAMES COX.”

So ended one of the toughest battles that Whitefield ever fought,
but its issue was of great importance; for, before the appearance of
the third advertisement in the _London Gazette_, Whitefield had taken
successful steps for the erection of his own Tottenham Court Road
chapel, where, for awhile, at least, he and his people were permitted
to worship God in peace. But more of this anon.

Remembering that Wesley and his Society were permitted, throughout
the whole of these disgraceful proceedings, to conduct their services,
in their neighbouring West Street chapel, in perfect quietude, it is
difficult to account for the disturbances Whitefield had to encounter
in Long Acre. Were the “infernal” noises, in the first instance,
promoted by the adjoining theatres? Probably they were. Wesley’s
preaching in West Street was regarded, by dramatical actors, with less
alarm than Whitefield’s in Long Acre. They, probably, felt that, with
the great dramatical preacher so near to them, they might soon have
to utter a wailing cry, analogous to that of the old Ephesians, under
circumstances somewhat similar: “Not only is this our craft in danger
to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess
Diana should be despised, and her magnificence destroyed.” But,
even admitting that the theatres began the noises, there cannot be
a doubt that the vestries of the Church continued them. Bishop Pearce
undeniably prohibited Whitefield’s preaching; and, considering his
hatred of the Methodists, perhaps, it is not ungenerous to suppose that
he secretly did more than this. As it respects the three threatening
letters, it is probable that they emanated, neither from the theatre
nor Church, but from popish politicians, who, during the “seven years’
war,” which was now in terrific progress, were full of angry excitement,
and far more active than they often seemed to be. Whitefield had
bitterly offended them by the publication of a “Short Address,” a copy
of which he sent to Bishop Pearce on February 23;[387] and, as there
can be little doubt that this small publication had to do with the
riots and the threatening letters, a brief description of it may be
useful.

The title was, “A Short Address to Persons of all Denominations,
occasioned by the Alarm of an intended Invasion. By George Whitefield,
Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon. London,
1756.” (8vo. pp. 20.) The pamphlet had a large sale, not only in
Great Britain, but in America. Even during this selfsame year of
1756, as many as six editions were issued at Boston in New England.
Its publication was opportune. A Royal Proclamation had recently
been published in the _London Gazette_, setting forth that the king
commanded all officers and ministers, civil and military, within their
respective counties, to cause the coasts of England to be carefully
watched, and, in case of any hostile attempt to land upon them, to
immediately order all horses, oxen, and cattle, which might be fit for
draught or burden, and not actually employed in his Majesty’s service,
and also, as far as practicable, all other cattle and provisions, to
be removed at least twenty miles from the place where such a hostile
attempt was made, so as to prevent them falling into the hands of
the enemy. Besides this, “on the 6th of February, a public fast was
observed, by all ranks of the people. The churches and meeting-houses
were thronged; and there was, in appearance, an entire cessation
from business throughout London and the suburbs, and all over the
kingdom.”[388] From such facts the reader may imagine the state of the
country, when Whitefield wrote his “Short Address.” The following are
extracts from it:――

“An insulting, enraged, and perfidious enemy is now advancing
nearer and nearer to the British borders. Not content with
invading and ravaging our rightful sovereign King George’s
dominions in America, our popish adversaries have now the
ambition to attempt, at least to threaten, an invasion of
England itself; hoping, no doubt, thereby, not only to throw
us into confusion at home, but also to divert us from more
effectually defeating their malicious designs abroad. That such
a design is now actually on foot, the late Royal Proclamation
renders indisputable.”

Having referred to the recent public fast, Whitefield proceeds to
say:――

“Artful insinuations have been industriously published, in order
to lay all the blame of this war upon us. But bold assertions
and solid proofs are two different things; for it is plain,
beyond all contradiction, that the French, fond of rivalling
us both at home and abroad, have unjustly invaded his Majesty’s
dominions in America; and have also, by the most vile artifices
and lies, been endeavouring to draw the six nations of Indians
from our interest. In short, almost all their proceedings, since
the late treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, have been little else than a
tacit declaration of war. But He that sitteth in heaven, we may
humbly hope, laughs them to scorn; and, as He once came down to
confound the language of those aspiring projectors, who would
fain have built a tower, the top of which should reach to heaven,
so, we trust, He will frustrate the devices of our adversary’s
most subtle politicians, and speak confusion to all their
projects; who, by aiming at universal monarchy, are attempting
to erect a more than second Babel.”

Whitefield goes on to shew that good Christians may be soldiers, and
writes:――

“The British arms were never more formidable, than when our
soldiers went forth in the strength of the Lord; and, with a
Bible in one hand, and a sword in the other, cheerfully fought
under His banner, who has condescended to style Himself ‘a
man of war.’ What Bishop Saunderson says of study may be said
of fighting: ‘Fighting without prayer is atheism, and prayer
without fighting is presumption.’ I would be the more particular
on this point, because, through a _fatal scrupulosity_ against
bearing arms, even in a defensive war, his Majesty has been in
danger of losing the large province of Pennsylvania, the very
centre and garden of all North America. Such very scrupulous
persons, grasping at every degree of worldly power, and, by
all the arts of worldly policy, labouring to monopolize and
retain in their own hands all parts both of the legislative
and executive branches of civil government, certainly act a
most inconsistent part. Say what we will to the contrary, civil
magistracy and defensive war must stand or fall together. Both
are built upon the same basis; and there cannot be a single
argument urged to establish the one, which does not corroborate
and confirm the other.”

Whitefield then adverts to the recent earthquakes, at Lisbon and
elsewhere, and proceeds to say:――

“Were even the like judgments to befal us, they would be
but small, in comparison of our hearing that a French army,
accompanied with a popish pretender, and thousands of Romish
priests, was suffered to invade England, and to blind, deceive,
and tyrannize over the souls and consciences of the people
belonging to this happy isle. How can any serious and judicious
person be so stupid to all principles of self-interest, and so
dead to all maxims of common sense, as to prefer a French to an
English government; or a popish pretender, born, and bred up in
all the arbritary and destructive principles of the court and
Church of Rome, to the present _Protestant succession_, settled
in the illustrious line of Hanover?”

Whitefield next refers to popish persecutions of Protestants, and
remarks:――

“After perusing this,” (a late declaration of ‘his Most
Christian Majesty’ Louis XV.,) “read, also, I beseech you, the
shocking accounts of the horrid butcheries and cruel murders
committed on the bodies of many of our fellow-subjects in
America, by the hands of _savage Indians_, instigated thereto
by more than _savage popish priests_.[389] And if this be
the beginning, what may we suppose the end will be, should a
_French_ power, or popish pretender, be permitted to subdue
either us or them? Speak, _Smithfield_, speak, and, by thy
dumb but persuasive oratory, declare to all who pass by and
over thee, how many _English_ Protestant martyrs thou hast seen
burnt to death in the reign of the cruel popish queen, to whom
the present pretender to the _British_ throne claims a distant
kindred! Speak, _Ireland_, speak, and tell how many thousands
and tens of thousands of innocent, unprovoking Protestants were
massacred, in cold blood, by the hands of cruel Papists, within
thy borders, about a century ago! Speak, _Paris_, speak, and
say, how many thousands of Protestants were once slaughtered, to
serve as a bloody dessert, to grace the solemnity of a marriage
feast! Speak, _Languedoc_, speak, and tell how many Protestant
ministers have been lately executed; how many more of their
hearers have been dragooned and sent to the galleys; and how
many hundreds are now lying in prisons, fast bound in misery
and iron, for no other crime than that unpardonable one in the
_Romish_ Church, hearing and preaching the pure gospel of the
meek and lowly Jesus!

“And think you, my countrymen, that _Rome_, glutted with
Protestant blood, will now rest satisfied, and say, ‘I have
enough’? No, on the contrary, having through the good hand
of God upon us, been kept so long fasting, we may reasonably
suppose, that, the popish priests are only grown more voracious,
and, like so many hungry and ravenous wolves pursuing harmless
and innocent flocks of sheep, will with double eagerness,
pursue after, seize upon, and devour their wished-for Protestant
prey; and, attended with their bloody red coats, these Gallic
instruments of reformation, who know they must either fight or
die, will necessarily breathe out nothing but threatening and
slaughter, and carry along with them desolation and destruction,
go where they will.”

This was strong language, but, under the circumstances, not too
strong.[390] No wonder, however, that infuriated Papists sent the
writer threatening letters. Whitefield expresses his confidence
in God’s interposition, and in England’s “glorious fleet,” and
“well-disciplined army;” and then finishes with the following
peroration:――

“If we can but make God our friend, we need not fear what
_France_ and _Rome_ and _hell_ can do against us. All the
malicious efforts and designs of men and devils shall, so far
from obstructing, be made to subserve the enlargement of His
interests, who, in spite of all the strivings of the potsherds
of the earth, will hold the balance of _universal monarchy_ in
His own hands, and, at last, bring about the full establishment
of that blessed kingdom, whose law is truth, whose King is love,
and whose duration is eternity. _Fiat! fiat!_ Amen and amen!”

These are long quotations, but they help to shew the excited state
of public feeling in 1756; and, perhaps, they may help the reader
to understand the secrets of the disgraceful clangours, riots, and
threatening letters already mentioned.

In his pamphlet, Whitefield refers to the persecution of Protestants
in France. Much might be said respecting this; but suffice it to
remark, that, on the general fast day, February 6th, Whitefield made
a collection in his Tabernacle, eighty pounds of which he devoted to a
fund which was being raised for the assistance of these poor persecuted
people.[391] Remembering that, in 1756, money was probably of four
times greater worth than it is at present, this collection of the poor
Methodists was a noble one; but even this fell far short of the sum,
which Whitefield, three months afterwards, obtained, within a week,
towards the erection of his Tottenham Court Road chapel. Hence the
following, addressed to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _May 2, 1756_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Various have been my exercises since
I wrote you last; but, I find, all things happen for the
furtherance of the gospel. I suppose your ladyship has seen
his Majesty’s promise of pardon to any who will discover the
letter-writer; and this brings you the further news of my
having taking a piece of ground, very commodious to build
on, not far from the Foundling Hospital. On Sunday, I opened
the subscription, and, through God’s blessing, it has already
amounted to near £600. If He is pleased to continue to smile
upon my poor endeavours, and to open the hearts of more of His
dear children to contribute, I hope, in a few months, to have
what has long been wanted,――a place for the gospel at the other
end of the town. This evening, God willing, I venture once more
to preach at Long Acre. The enemy boasts that I am frightened
away; but the triumph of the wicked is short. On Tuesday next,
I hope to set out for Wales.”

The site of Whitefield’s new chapel was surrounded by fields and
gardens. On the north side of it, there were but two houses. The next
after them, half a mile further, was the “Adam and Eve” public-house;
and thence, to Hampstead, there were only the inns of “Mother Red
Cap” and “Black Cap.”[392] The chapel, when first erected, was seventy
feet square within the walls. Two years after it was opened, twelve
almshouses and a minister’s house[393] were added. About a year after
that, the chapel was found to be too small, and it was enlarged to its
present dimensions of a hundred and twenty-seven feet long, and seventy
feet broad, with a dome a hundred and fourteen feet in height. Beneath
it were vaults for the burial of the dead; and in which Whitefield
intended that himself and his friends, John and Charles Wesley, should
be interred. “I have prepared a vault in this chapel,” Whitefield used
to say to his somewhat bigotted congregation, “where I intend to be
buried, and Messrs. John and Charles Wesley shall also be buried there.
We will all lie together. You will not let them enter your chapel
while they are alive. They can do you no harm when they are dead.”[394]
The lease of the ground was granted, to Whitefield, by General George
Fitzroy, and, on its expiration in 1828, the freehold was purchased for
£14,000. The foundation-stone of the chapel was laid in the beginning
of June, 1756, when Whitefield preached from the words, “They sang
together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because
He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the
people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because
the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid.” (Ezra iii. 11.)[395]
Among others present on the occasion, were the Rev. Thomas Gibbons,
one of the Tutors of the Dissenting Academy at Mile End; Dr. Andrew
♦Gifford, Assistant Librarian of the British Museum; and the celebrated
Rev. Benjamin Grosvenor, D.D., for many years the pastor of the
Presbyterian congregation in Crosby Square, and who, after preaching
in London for half a century, had recently retired into private life.
The chapel was opened for divine worship on November 7, 1756, when
Whitefield selected, as his text, the words, “Other foundation can no
man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. iii. 11).[396]

Tottenham Court Road chapel has a history well worthy of being
written. From this venerable sanctuary sprang separate congregations in
Shepherd’s Market, Kentish Town, Paddington, Tonbridge chapel, Robert
Street, Crown Street, and Craven chapel.[397] Much also might be said
of the distinguished preachers who, in olden days, occupied its pulpit:
Dr. Peckwell, De Courcy, Berridge, Walter Shirley, Piercy, chaplain
to General Washington, Rowland Hill, Torial Joss, West, Kinsman,
Beck, Medley, Edward Parsons, Matthew Wilks, Joel Knight, John Hyatt,
and many others; but want of space prevents the insertion of further
details. Whitefield’s Tabernacle in Moorfields has been demolished, and
a Gothic church erected on its site.[398] Whitefield’s Tottenham Court
Road chapel is now his only erection in the great metropolis; and long
may it stand as a grand old monument, in memory of the man who founded
it! Thousands have been converted within its walls, and never was it
more greatly needed than at the present day.

No sooner had Whitefield raised £600 towards the erection of his
intended chapel, than away he went to the west of England, where he
spent about a month. He preached at Bristol, Bath, Westbury, Gloucester,
Bradford, Frome, Warminster, Portsmouth, and other places. One letter,
written during this preaching tour, must be inserted.

The Rev. Thomas Haweis, D.D., was now a student at Christ Church
College, Oxford. He had been educated at the Grammar School, Truro,
and had been converted under the preaching of the Rev. Samuel Walker,
whose ministry, in that town, during the last few years, had been the
means of turning a large number of people “from darkness to light, and
from the power of Satan unto God.” Young Haweis had formed a Society
at Oxford,[399] analogous to the “Holy Club” of the Wesleys and their
friends, more than a quarter of a century previous to this. He and
a few of his fellow-collegians, all animated by the same views and
feelings, met together, in his room, at stated times, for the purpose
of reading the Greek Testament, and of conversing on religious subjects.
Mr. Walker, the Methodist clergyman of Truro, in a letter, dated “April,
1757,” wrote, “Tom Haweis is at Christ Church, and doing service among
a few of the young gentlemen there. He tells me, he is remarked as
a dangerous fellow; and adds, that Romaine has been again in the
university pulpit, where he preached imputed righteousness, but, it is
said, will be allowed to preach no more there.”[400] In another letter,
written a few months afterwards, Walker remarked, “Tom Haweis has good
speed at Oxford. There are pretty many already coming to him in private,
and he hopes very well of a few of them.”[401] Haweis, in fact, had
founded a second Society of “Oxford Methodists,” a Society which grew
into such importance, and became so obnoxious to the heads of houses,
as to lead, in 1768, to the expulsion of six students, belonging to
Edmund Hall, “for holding Methodistical tenets, and taking upon them to
pray, read, and expound the Scriptures in private houses.”[402]

As yet, Whitefield had never met with Haweis, but he had heard of him,
and, while at Bristol, he addressed to him the following letter:――

“BRISTOL, _May 20, 1756_.

“MY VERY DEAR SIR,――For so I must address you, having had you
in a peculiar manner upon my heart, ever since I read a letter
that came from you some months ago. It bespoke the language of
a heart devoted to Jesus. Glory be to God! that there are some
young champions coming forth. Methinks, I could now sing my
_nunc dimittis_ with triumphant joy. Though I decrease, may you
increase! O that you may be kept from conferring with flesh and
blood! O that you may be owned and blessed of God! I believe
you will, and never more so than when you are reviled and
despised by man. It is a fatal mistake to think we must keep
our characters in order to do good. This is called _prudence_;
in most, I fear, it is _trimming_. Honesty I find always to be
the best policy. Them who honour Jesus, He will honour. Even
in this world, if we confess Him, His truth, and His people, we
shall receive a hundredfold. But whither am I going? Excuse the
overflowings of a heart that loves you dearly for the glorious
Redeemer’s sake. I am here preaching His cross. Next week, I
have thoughts of being at Bath and Westbury. I lead a pilgrim
life. Ere long, I hope my heavenly Father will take me home. I
am ambitious; I want to sit upon a throne. Jesus has purchased a
throne and heaven for me. That you may have an exalted place at
His right hand, is the prayer of, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

On his return to London, Whitefield took advice respecting the trust
deed to be drawn up for his new chapel, and wrote to the Countess of
Huntingdon as follows:――

“LONDON, _June 4, 1756_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――At Bristol, the Redeemer caused us to
triumph, and likewise in Gloucestershire, and at Bradford, Frome,
Warminster, and Portsmouth, where I have been the last three
weeks. I am now come to London, for about ten days, to keep
Pentecost. I trust it will be a Pentecost to many souls at Long
Acre.

“Blessed be God! a new building is now in progress at Tottenham
Court Road. We have consulted the Commons about putting it under
your ladyship’s protection. This is the answer: ‘No nobleman
can license a chapel; a chapel cannot be built and used as such,
without the consent of the parson of the parish; and, when it
is done with his consent, no minister can preach therein without
license of the Bishop of the diocese.’ There seems then to be
but one way,――to license it as our other houses are: and thanks
be to Jesus for that liberty, which we have.”

From this it is evident that Whitefield wished his new erection to be a
chapel in connection with the Established Church; and, that, because of
the difficulties mentioned, he was driven to avail himself of the Act
of Toleration, and license it as a Dissenting meeting-house.

Whitefield had another trouble of a different kind. William Law, one
of the oracles of the Oxford Methodists, had become a Behmenite; and
Wesley had recently published a large pamphlet, with the title, “A
Letter to the Rev. Mr. Law, occasioned by some of his late writings.”
(8vo. 102 pp.) This production has never been entirely reprinted, an
extract only being given in Wesley’s collected works. Its language
in some places was unusually, perhaps undeservedly, severe. At all
events, Law was deeply offended; and, what was more amusing, Whitefield
was implicated, by its being rumoured that he was a party to the
publication of Wesley’s letter. The following, to Lady Huntingdon,
refers to this:――

“LONDON, _June 10, 1756_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――I have just come from bed, where I have
been sweating for a cold and colic. From your ladyship’s kind
and condescending letter, I see your ladyship is touched in
a very tender point. Generous minds are always thus affected,
when a friend is abused. I find more and more, that our own
mother’s children will be permitted to be angry with us. The
contradiction of saints is more trying than that of sinners.
I do not deny, that I might say, ‘Some of Mr. Law’s principles,
in my opinion, are wrong;’ but that I ever put Mr. Wesley upon
writing, or had any active hand in his pamphlet, is utterly
false. I think it is a most ungentlemanlike, injudicious,
unchristian piece. However, Mr. Law knows too much of the Divine
life, not to see some call even in this cross; and I hope your
ladyship will not suffer it to burden your mind any longer.

“My present work in London seems to be over, and, on Monday
or Tuesday next, I hope to set out for Bristol, and then come,
through Leicestershire, on my way to Scotland. This, I hope,
will be a three months’ circuit. The prospect in London is very
promising. Every day we hear of fresh conquests.”

Whitefield did not set out to Bristol until June 22; and, instead of
proceeding thence to Scotland, he returned to London on July 9. The
following letters belong to this period.

Whitefield had a large family in America; but, because of the war, he
could not visit it. He wrote to his housekeeper there as follows:――

“LONDON, _June 21, 1756_.

“Nothing in your last letter concerns me, except your having the
least suspicion that I was not pleased with your conduct, or was
not satisfied with your being at Bethesda. I know of no person
in the world that I would prefer to you. I think myself happy
in having such a mother for the poor children, and am persuaded
God will bless you more and more. I care not how much the family
is lessened. As it is a time of war, this may be done with great
propriety; and the plantation will have time to grow. Never
fear; Jesus will stand by a disinterested cause. I have aimed
at nothing, in founding Bethesda, but His glory and the good
of my country. Let Lots choose the plain; God will be Abraham’s
shield and exceeding great reward. All is well that ends well.
To-morrow, I set out upon a long range.”

The next letter is curious and full of interest. Benjamin Franklin,
who, in later years, through unhappy embroilments, became an enemy
of England, and took an active part in bringing about the American
revolution, was, at present, one of the most loyal subjects of King
George the Second. Only a year before, when the expedition of General
Braddock, to dispossess the French of some of their encroachments, was
in preparation, a difficulty arose for want of waggons, and Franklin,
at the risk of ruining his own fortunes, supplied not fewer than a
hundred and fifty. After this, he was instrumental in passing a militia
bill, and was appointed colonel of the Philadelphia regiment of twelve
hundred men, which command he held until the troops were disbanded
by order of the English government. In the midst of these exciting
occurrences, Franklin wrote to Whitefield, as follows:――

“NEW YORK, _July 2, 1756_.

“DEAR SIR,――I received your favour of the 24th of February with
great pleasure, as it informed me of your welfare, and expressed
your continued regard for me. I thank you for the pamphlet
you enclosed to me.[403] As we had just observed a provincial
fast on the same occasion, I thought it very seasonable to
be published in Pennsylvania; and accordingly reprinted it
immediately.

“You mention your frequent wish that you were a chaplain to
the American army. I sometimes wish that you and I were jointly
employed by the Crown to settle a colony on the Ohio. I imagine
that we could do it effectually, and without putting the nation
to much expense; but, I fear, we shall never be called upon
for such a service. What a glorious thing it would be to settle
in that fine country a large, strong body of religious and
industrious people! What a security to the other colonies,
and advantage to Britain, by increasing her people, territory,
strength, and commerce! Might it not greatly facilitate the
introduction of pure religion among the heathen, if we could,
by such a colony, shew them a better sample of Christians than
they commonly see in our Indian traders?――the most vicious and
abandoned wretches of our nation! Life, like a dramatic piece,
should not only be conducted with regularity, but, methinks, it
should finish handsomely. Being now in the last act, I begin to
cast about for something fit to end with. Or, if mine be more
properly compared to an epigram, as some of its lines are but
barely tolerable, I am very desirous of concluding with a bright
point. In such an enterprise, I could spend the remainder of
life with pleasure: and I firmly believe God would bless us with
success, if we undertook it with a sincere regard to His honour,
the service of our gracious king, and (which is the same thing)
the public good.

“I thank you cordially for your generous benefactions to the
German schools. They go on pretty well; and will do better,
when Mr. Smith, who has at present the principal charge of them,
shall learn to mind party-writing and party-politics less, and
his proper business more; which, I hope, time will bring about.

“I thank you for your good wishes and prayers; and am, with
the greatest esteem and affection, dear sir, your most obedient
humble servant,

“BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

“My best respects to Mrs. Whitefield.”[404]

As is well known, this remarkable man wound up the drama of his
eventful life, not by founding a new English colony on the Ohio, but by
assisting to wrest the colonies which England already had, from English
government, and by becoming the plenipotentiary of the rebellious
provinces to the court of France!

After his return from Bristol, on July 9, Whitefield, with the
exception of a run to Kent, employed nearly the next three weeks in
London. Hence the following letters, the first to the Countess of
Huntingdon, the second to his housekeeper at Bethesda:――

“LONDON, _July 17, 1756_.

“EVER-HONOURED MADAM,――Your kind letter found me just returned
from Bristol, and just setting out for Maidstone and Chatham,
where I have been to preach the gospel, and to visit a poor
murderer.[405] I hope my labours were not altogether vain in
the Lord. I am now preparing for my northern expedition. My
motions must be very quick, because I would hasten to Scotland
as fast as possible, to have more time at my return. Eternity!
Eternity! O how I do long for thee! But, alas, how often must
we be like pelicans in the wilderness, before we arrive there!
Solitariness prepares for the social life, and the social life
for solitariness again. Jesus alone is the centre of peace and
comfort in either situation. Springs fail; the Fountain never
can, nor will.”

“ISLINGTON, _July 27, 1756_.

“Pray lessen the family as much as possible. I wish I had none
in the house but proper _orphans_. The plantation would then
suffice for its support, and debts be paid; but we must buy
our experience. Troubles seem to beset us here; but we are
all secure in God. His gospel flourishes in London. I am just
returned from preaching it at Sheerness, Chatham, and in the
camp. This afternoon or to-morrow I set off for Scotland.”

Whitefield arrived at Leeds on Sunday evening, August 1. The account
of his labours during the next fortnight is contained in the following
letter:――

“SUNDERLAND, _August 14, 1756_.

“It is now a fortnight since I came to Leeds. On the Sunday
evening, a few hours after my arrival, many thousands were
gathered in the fields, to whom Jesus enabled me to speak with
some degree of power. The following week, I preached, in and
about Leeds, thrice almost every day, to thronged and affected
auditories. On Sunday last, at seven in the morning, the
congregation consisted of about ten thousand; at noon and in the
evening, at Birstal, of near double the number. Though hoarse,
the Redeemer helped me to speak, so that all heard. It was
a high day. In the evening, several hundred of us rode about
eight miles, singing and praising God. The next morning, I
took a sorrowful leave of Leeds, preached at Tadcaster[406] at
noon, and at York in the evening. God was with us. On Tuesday,
I preached twice at York. Delightful seasons. On Wednesday, at
Warstall, about fifty miles off; on Thursday, twice at Yarm; and
last night and this morning here. After spending my Sabbath here,
and visiting Shields,[407] Newcastle, and some adjacent places,
I purpose to go on to Scotland.”

The Sunday spent at Bradford and Birstal was a day never to be
forgotten; and the singing cavalcade, at the end of it, has hardly
ever been equalled. Among the thousands then assembled, was a boy,
sixteen years of age, upon whom Whitefield’s sermons had a powerful
and permanent effect. They led to his conversion; and the youth, then
an apprentice, became the well-known Rev. John Fawcett, D.D., for
fifty-four years, one of the most faithful preachers among the West
Yorkshire mountains. After hearing Whitefield at Bradford, early in the
morning, young Fawcett trudged ten or a dozen miles to Birstal, where
Whitefield stood on a platform, at the foot of a hill near the town,
and, on the slopes of the hill, had twenty thousand people grouped
before him, “thousands of whom, during the delivery of his two sermons,
vented their emotions by tears and groans. Fools who came to mock,
began to pray.”[408]

One of the places “about Leeds,” at which Whitefield preached, was
Haworth, where a scaffold was erected in the churchyard, and he took
for his text, “Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope” (Zech.
ix. 12). Here, again, there was a young Yorkshireman who never forgot
that memorable season. Samuel Whitaker wrote: “I got among the crowd
nearly under the scaffold, and it was the most affecting time I ever
experienced. Mr. Whitefield spoke as if he had been privy to all my
thoughts, words, and actions, from the tenth year of my age. The day
following, I heard him at Leeds; and the day after that, at Bradford.”
Twelve months subsequent to this, Samuel Whitaker became a member of
Wesley’s Society; for many years was a class-leader and local-preacher
at Keighley; and, exactly sixty years after first hearing Whitefield at
Haworth, tranquilly expired, in the eighty-second year of his age.[409]

Whitefield has left no account of his labours in Scotland; but the
following particulars, taken from the _Scots’ Magazine_ for 1756, will
partly fill up the gap.

He arrived at Edinburgh, on Friday, August 20, where he remained for
the next three weeks, and “preached every day, morning and evening, in
the Orphan Hospital Park, to very numerous audiences” (p. 414).

On Friday, September 10, he went to Glasgow, where he preached the same
evening, twice on Saturday, and four times on Sunday, September 12, to
large congregations.

Six days afterwards, he returned to Edinburgh; and, as the new governor
of Georgia desired to converse with him, before embarking for the
colony, Whitefield started for England, on Wednesday, September 22.[410]

The _Scots’ Magazine_ proceeds to say: “Before Mr. Whitefield set out
for Glasgow, the managers of the Orphan Hospital made him a present
of fifty guineas to defray his travelling charges; but he returned
ten guineas, saying that forty guineas were sufficient to defray the
charges, and likewise to pay upwards of £14, which he had laid out
here for coarse linen to be sent to his Orphan House in Georgia. For
accommodating the audience, when he preached, the managers had erected
seats in the park; and, though only a halfpenny each was asked from the
hearers for their seats, the money thence arising, and the collections
at the park gates, amounted to upwards of £188 sterling; so that the
hospital has about £120 clear gain, over and above the expense of the
seats, and the present made to Mr. Whitefield.”

The magazine relates further, that “scarcity at home” had induced
a greater number of Highlanders than usual to come to Edinburgh for
“harvest work.” The harvest, however, was not ready. They had nothing
to live upon. “Contributions were set on foot, to give them two meals
a day at the poorhouse; and, on the evening of September 21, after
a sermon suitable to the occasion by Mr. Whitefield, a collection
was made for them, in the Orphan Hospital Park, which amounted to £60
11s. 4d. sterling, of which half a guinea was given by Mr. Whitefield
himself” (p. 465).

To these items of intelligence may be added the following from the
_Edinburgh Courant_: “During his stay, Mr. Whitefield preached, morning
and evening, in the Orphan Hospital Park, not excepting the evening
of the day on which he arrived, or the morning of that on which he
departed. As he was frequently very explicit in opening the miseries
of popish tyranny and arbitrary power, and very warm in exhorting his
hearers to loyalty and courage at home, and in stirring them up to pray
for the success of his Majesty’s forces, we have reason to believe that
his visit, at this juncture, has been particularly useful.”

In 1756, a considerable number of Wesley’s preachers and Societies were
strongly inclined to declare themselves Dissenters. Charles Wesley was
excessively annoyed; and, as soon as his brother’s annual conference
was ended, he set out to entreat the Methodists “to continue steadfast
in the communion of the Church of England.” Throughout life, Whitefield
was a peace-maker, and, on his return from Scotland, he rendered
service for which Charles Wesley was profoundly thankful. Under the
date of Friday, October 8, Charles wrote:――

“Returning to Leeds, I met my brother Whitefield, and was much
refreshed by the account of his abundant labours. I waited on
him in our Room, and gladly sat under his word.”

Again: “Sunday, October 10. At Birstal, my congregation was less
by a thousand or two, through George Whitefield preaching to-day
at Haworth.”

“Monday, October 11. Hearing Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Grimshaw
were returning to our watch-night, I waited for them at their
lodgings, with zealous, humble, loving Mr. Crook. It rained so
hard, that Mr. Whitefield was agreeably surprised, at eight,
to find our House as full as it could cram. They forced me to
preach first; which I did from Zech. xiii.: ‘The third part I
will bring through the fire.’ My brother George seconded me in
the words of our Lord: ‘I say unto all, Watch.’ The prayers and
hymns were all attended with a solemn power. Few, if any, went
unawakened away.”

“Manchester, Monday, October 25. Here I rejoiced to hear of the
great good Mr. Whitefield has done in our Societies. He preached
as universally as my brother. He warned them everywhere against
apostacy; and strongly insisted on the necessity of holiness
_after_ justification, illustrating it with this comparison:
‘What good will the king’s pardon do a poor malefactor dying
of a fever? So, notwithstanding you have received forgiveness,
unless the disease of your nature be healed by holiness, ye
can never be saved.’ He beat down the separating spirit, highly
commended the prayers and services of our Church, charged our
people to meet their bands and classes constantly, and never to
leave the Methodists, or God would leave them. In a word, he did
his utmost to strengthen our hands, and deserves the thanks of
all the churches, for his abundant labour of love.”[411]

The author of “The Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon” states,
that, in his itinerancy through Lancashire, Whitefield was accompanied
by the Revs. Messrs. Grimshaw, Ingham, and Milner, and that, among
other places, they visited Manchester, Stockport, and Chinley.[412]
From an old manuscript ‘History of Methodism in Leigh,’ it appears,
that Whitefield also visited Shackerley, where, at that time, a large
number of Unitarians were located, the disciples of Dr. Taylor, the
divinity tutor of the Unitarian Academy at Warrington. The writer
relates, that, Whitefield preached on Shackerley Common, and that a
man, a mile distant, leaning upon a gate, distinctly heard many of his
sentences, was convinced of sin, and soon converted.

Whitefield’s own account of his labours in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and
Cheshire, is extremely meagre. On his return to London, from what he
calls his “thousand miles’ northern circuit,”[413] he wrote to the
Countess of Huntingdon, as follows:――

“LONDON, _October 27, 1756_.

“I wrote you a few lines, not long ago, from Leeds. Since then,
I have been in honest Mr. Grimshaw’s and Mr. Ingham’s rounds,
preaching upon the mountains to many thousands. One, who was
awakened three years ago, is gone to heaven, and desired to be
buried in the spot where she was converted. The sacrament at
Mr. Grimshaw’s was awful; and the watch-night at Leeds exceeding
solemn. I would have continued my circuit, but I found that
preaching so frequently in those cold districts was bringing on
my last year’s disorder. Being, therefore, grown very prudent,
I am come to open our new chapel in Tottenham Court Road. Lord,
what am I, that Thou shouldest suffer me to put a pin in Thy
tabernacle! Never did I know the fields more ready unto harvest,
than I have seen them in the north.”

Builders, in former days, were more expeditious than at present.
Whitefield’s chapel was neither a small nor a flimsy structure, and yet,
only half a year after its commencement, it was ready for being opened!

Whitefield was now in his “winter quarters,” where he remained for the
next six months;――an unusually long period for him to spend in London.
The following extracts from his letters will, it is hoped, interest the
reader:――

“London, November 17, 1756. At Tottenham Court chapel, we have
had some glorious earnests of future blessings. My constant
work now is preaching about fifteen times a week. This, with a
weak appetite, want of rest, and much care lying upon my mind,
enfeebles me. But the joy of the Lord is my strength; and my
greatest grief is, that I can do no more for Him, who has done
and suffered so much for me.”

The Rev. Henry Venn was now one of the most active clergymen of the
Church of England. Besides being curate of Clapham, he held three
lectureships in the city. His _regular_ duties consisted of a full
service at Clapham on the Sunday morning; a sermon, in the afternoon,
at St. Alban’s, Wood Street; and another, in the evening, at St.
Swithin’s, London-stone. On Tuesday morning, a sermon at St. Swithin’s;
on Wednesday morning, at seven o’clock, at St. Antholin’s; and, on
Thursday evening, at Clapham.[414] Whitefield had become acquainted
with him, and wrote to Hervey, at Weston-Favel, as follows:――

“London, December 9, 1756. I hope that my dear friend prospers
both in soul and body. Conviction and conversion work goes on
here. Lord, keep us from tares! All is well at Clapham. I have
expounded there twice. God has met with us in our new building.”

To the Rev. Aaron Burr, the President of New Jersey College, for
whom he had done his best to obtain a D.D. degree from the Edinburgh
University, Whitefield wrote:――

“London, December 9, 1756. Night and day, our hands are lifted
up for dear America; but, I fear, we are to be brought into
far greater extremity, both at home and abroad, ere deliverance
comes. I am sorry you have not your degree. It is ready, if
testimonials were sent from those who know you. This not being
done, it looks as though the character given you on this side
the water was not justly founded. I wish you would write oftener.
How glad would I be to see America, but my way is hedged up.
The awakening both in town and country continues. More ministers
are coming out to preach the gospel. I am strengthened to preach
fourteen times a week, and I trust it is not in vain.”

“London, December 15, 1756. Last Sunday, in the new chapel,
there was a wonderful stirring among the dry bones. Some great
people came, and begged they might have a constant seat: an
earnest this, I believe, of more good things to come.”

“London, December 30, 1756. God is doing wonders in the new
chapel. Hundreds went away last Sunday morning, who could not
come in. On Christmas Day, and last Tuesday night (the first
time of burning candles), the power of the Lord was present,
both to wound and to heal. A neighbouring doctor has baptized
the place, calling it ‘Whitefield’s Soul-Trap.’ I pray that
it may be a _soul-trap_ indeed, to many wandering sinners.
Abundance of people round about, I hear, are much struck. O
for humility! O for gratitude! O for faith! Wherefore should I
doubt? Surely Jesus will carry me through, and help me to pay
the workmen.”

In such a spirit, Whitefield ended another year of his eventful life.
He was now attracting to his meeting-house some of the “_great people_”
of the western parts of the metropolis; and, yet, his preaching was as
faithful as ever. Let the following serve as a specimen:――

“Woe unto you, who are at ease in Zion, and, instead of staying
to be tempted by the devil, by idleness, self-indulgence, and
making continual provision for the flesh even tempt the devil
to tempt you! Woe unto you, who, not content with sinning
yourselves, turn factors for hell, and make a trade of tempting
others to sin! Woe unto you, who either deny Divine revelation,
or never use it, but to serve a bad turn! Woe unto you, who
sell your consciences, and pawn your souls, for a little worldly
wealth or honour! Woe unto you, who climb up to high places, in
Church or State, by corruption, bribery, extortion, cringing,
flattery, or bowing down to, and soothing the vices of those
by whom you expect to rise! Woe unto you! for, whether you will
own the relation or not, you are of your father the devil; for
the works of your father you do. I tremble for you. How can you
escape the damnation of hell?”[415]

Such preaching was needed in the days of Whitefield, and it is equally
needed now. For lack of it, thousands, even in churches and chapels,
are dreaming elysian dreams, while in the utmost danger of perishing.

In more respects than one, the year 1756 was a year of turmoil; but
the Methodists were not without their friends. One pamphlet, published
during the year, undesignedly in Whitefield’s favour, had the following
inordinately long title: “The Great Secret Disclosed; or an Infallible
Salve for Opening the Eyes of all such as the God of this World has
Blinded; by once applying which, the Person will be able to see the
true cause why Religion decays amongst us, and why Methodism started
up, and daily increases; and, with it, all that train of Vice and
Immorality so common to be met with in every corner of the Nation;
with an effectual method for bringing about a Reformation by destroying
Methodism.” (8vo. 52 pp.)

The title shews that the pamphlet was not _intended_ to promote the
interests of Methodism. Like Balaam, the writer purposed to curse his
enemies, and, yet, he blessed them. Two extracts must suffice.

“It is generally reported that Mr. Whitefield has a hundred
thousand followers, most of whom, before his preaching, were the
vilest of mankind, but are now sober and religious persons, good
members of society, and good subjects of the king. It is also
said that Mr. Wesley’s preaching has had as good an effect on
the like numbers; most of whom have been brought to be members
of the Church of England; namely, to baptize their children,
and to receive the sacrament there: for, as he and his brother
preach only betimes in a morning and in the evening, and order
their followers to go, the other parts of the day, to their
respective places of worship; and, as most of them went to
no place of worship before, and as such always looked upon
themselves as Church people, they go, forenoon and afternoon,
to its services. Thus, instead of weakening the Church, by
taking members from it, the Methodists have strengthened it, by
adding thousands of members to it; for the Methodists, properly
speaking, are no Church, having no ordinances administered among
them.[416]

“Mr. Whitefield seems to have been the first whom the clergy of
a whole nation agreed to prevent preaching, without ever proving
that he had broken either the ecclesiastical, moral, or national
law. His chief crime was that he appeared to be in earnest both
in reading prayers and preaching.”

The author’s “effectual method” to destroy Methodism was: 1. That
the clergy should “treat the Methodists as Church members, and not
molest them in performing the duties of religion;” and, 2. They should
“out-pray and preach them.”

Another pamphlet, of the same Balaam-like character, was published in
1756, with the title, “Methodism Displayed, and Enthusiasm Detected;
intended as an Antidote against, and a Preservative from, the delusive
Principles and unscriptural Doctrines of a Modern _Sett_ of seducing
Preachers; and as a Defence of our Regular and Orthodox Clergy, from
their unjust Reflections.” (8vo. 36 pp.)

This was an enigmatical production. After giving to the “_Modern Sett
of seducing Preachers_” a number of hard names, the author writes as
follows:――

“If for a steady adherence and firm attachment to the doctrines
of the Church of England I am accounted a _Methodist_, I am
content. May I live and die a Church of England _Methodist_!
A _Methodist_! Why, really it is a simple and inoffensive name,
and I do not see much reason to be ashamed of it. The world
does not usually fix this apellation upon persons of an openly
wicked and scandalously sinful life. A gaming, pleasure-taking,
playhouse-frequenting person, who lives in debauchery and excess
of drinking, is sure to escape the name of _Methodist_. Nor
has a minister that name given him, who, notwithstanding his
solemn declarations, subscriptions, and oaths to assent to and
to abide by the Articles of our Church, preaches contrary to
them,――denies the _fall of man_,――_original sin_,――contends for
justification by works, instead of by faith,――is an enemy to
the doctrine of imputed righteousness,――from whose sermons
you seldom hear the name of Jesus, or the agency and influence
of the Holy Spirit, unless utterly to deny, inveigh against,
and explode all spiritual _inspiration_ and inward feelings:
these and such-like preachers escape from the imputation of
_Methodism_. So, again, that decent, regular person, who, freed
from the _irksome care of souls_, comfortably lolls in his
chariot, thinks it is time for him to have done with praying and
preaching, and, therefore, has _left off trade_, and is content
with a bare £1000 per annum Church preferment; he, who loves
the Church, rails at your popular, mob-driving preachers, and
is sure they would not take half the pains they do, if views of
money-getting were not at the bottom,――this sort of gentleman
stands very clear of being deemed a Methodist.”

Another extract must be given. The picture it draws was not a
caricature.

“Take knowledge of that _thing_. He is parson of St――――’s church.
Lest the people should be seduced and deceived by hearing the
doctrines of the Church of England preached, he denies these
true ministers[417] the pulpit, and says they are _Enthusiasts_;
and the people, as ignorant as himself, join the cry. An
enthusiast! What is that? Oh, ’tis the cant word of the day
for the many-headed monster, the bugbear of the times. ‘Ah,’
says a constant church-goer, ‘I heard one of those preachers
at our church. He preached such a sermon! It was almost an hour
long, and he said downright, that all unconverted people were
in a state of damnation, and would go to hell, if they did not
believe on the Lord Jesus! Truly, he set the parish in an uproar,
for we are not used to such sort of preaching. Thank God for a
good parson, say I; for the Sunday after our parson (God bless
him!) preached a sermon against such doctrine; and, though he
was no longer than a quarter of an hour, he made us all easy
again. He told us we were in no danger of going to hell, and
that there was no fear of our being damned, for we were all
good _Christians_, if we paid every one their own, and did as
we would be done by.’”

Whitefield began the year 1757 with mingled feelings. He rejoiced
because of the prosperity of the work of God; he was distressed by
political and Church contentions; and he was full of care respecting
his distant Orphan House. Hence the following selections from his
letters:――

“LONDON, _January 12, 1757_.

“A wide door seems to be opening at Tottenham Court chapel.
The word flies like lightning in it. O that it may prove a
Bethel――a house of God――a gate of heaven! I believe it will. As
the awakening continues, I have some hopes that we are not to be
given up. Alas! alas! we are _testing_ and _contesting_, while
the nation is bleeding to death. We are condemning this and that;
but sin, the great mischief-maker, lies unmolested, or rather
encouraged by every party.”

To his housekeeper at Bethesda, Whitefield wrote:――

“LONDON, _February 5, 1757_.

“Tottenham Court chapel is made a Bethel, and the awakening
increases every day. O that it were so in Georgia! Surely the
great Shepherd and Bishop of souls will bless you, for taking
care of the lambs in that distant wilderness. Mr. P.’s leaving
Bethesda sadly distresses me. I desire that all, who are capable,
may be put out, and the family reduced as low as possible, till
the war is over, and the institution out of debt. Lord, remember
me and all my various concerns! God bless and direct you in
every step! He will, He will. What is to become of us here, God
only knows. A year perhaps may determine. The best sign is, that
the awakening continues.”

Four years ago, Whitefield had published his pamphlet against
Zinzendorf and the Moravians. Things since then had altered for the
better. Hence the following:――

“LONDON, _February 17, 1757_.

“O to be an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!
Simplicity and godly sincerity are all in all. A want of
this, I fear, has led the Count into all his mistakes. With
great regret, I speak or write of any people’s weaknesses;
but I thought Divine Providence called me to publish what you
mention. The Redeemer gave it His blessing. I do not find that
their fopperies are continued, and I hear also that they have
discharged many debts.”

At this period, one of the most popular of the metropolitan actors was
a young man of twenty-seven――Edward Shuter, born in a cellar adjoining
Covent Garden――“the offspring of a chairman on the one side, and of an
oyster-woman on the other.” He had been a marker at a billiard table,
and a tapster at a public-house. He had joined a company of strolling
players, among whom, by his drolleries and good nature, he soon
acquired the appellation of _Comical Ned_. At length, Garrick engaged
him at Drury Lane. “He was so thoroughly acquainted,” says a critical
authority, “with the _vis comica_, that he seldom called in those
common auxiliaries, grimace and buffoonery, but rested entirely on
genuine humour. He had strong features, and a peculiar turn of face,
which, without any natural deformity, he threw into the most ridiculous
shapes.” His facetiousness was irresistible. Being in disgrace, on
one occasion, for some irregularity in his performance, the audience
demanded an apology, and vehemently called for him, after he had made
his exit. At the time they were vociferating “Shuter! Shuter!” an
actress happened to be the only person on the stage, when Shuter,
poking out his comical face, from behind one of the scenes, called out,
“Don’t _shoot her_!” which restored the good temper of the spectators
for the rest of the evening.

It is a strange fact, that, this remarkable man――“the greatest comic
genius I ever saw,” said Garrick[418]――was now one of Whitefield’s
constant hearers. Hence the following to the Countess of Huntingdon:――

“LONDON, _March 2, 1757_.

“Not many mighty, not many noble, are called; but some come to
hear at Tottenham Court. Shuter, the player, always makes one
of the auditory, and, as I hear, is much impressed, and brings
others with him.”

The good Countess, from this, was led to take an interest in Shuter’s
welfare. In a letter, to Lady Fanny Shirley, she says:――

“I have had a visit from Shuter, the comedian, whom I saw
in the street, and asked to call on me. He was wonderfully
astonished when I announced my name. We had much conversation;
but he cannot give up his profession for another more reputable.
He spoke of Mr. Whitefield with great affection, and with
admiration of his talents. He promised to come some other time,
when he had more leisure for conversation. Poor fellow! I think
he is not far from the kingdom.”[419]

It is related that on one occasion, when Shuter was in the height of
his reputation, as the representative of “Ramble,” and while he was
seated in a pew exactly in front of the pulpit of Tottenham Court
chapel, Whitefield was inviting sinners to the Saviour, with his
accustomed earnestness, and, at the moment, caught Shuter’s eye, and
exclaimed, “And thou, poor _Ramble_, who hast long _rambled_ from Him,
come thou also. Oh, end thy _ramblings_ by coming to Jesus!”[420] This,
certainly, was more personal than polite; but poor Shuter bore it. Long
after, when his friends used to rate him as a Methodist, he would say,
“A precious _method_ is mine! No, I wish I were; for if any be right,
the Methodists are.”[421]

On Monday, April 25, Whitefield set out for Scotland. Sixteen days
afterwards, he arrived in Edinburgh, where he at once commenced
preaching in his old open-air cathedral, the Orphan Hospital Park,
and, for nearly a month, preached twice a day, morning and evening,
“to very numerous audiences.”[422]

In all respects, this was a memorable visit. A week after Whitefield’s
arrival, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland met at
Edinburgh, Charles, the ninth Baron of Cathcart, being his Majesty’s
commissioner,――“a nobleman no less distinguished for the virtues which
adorn private life, than he was eminent for all those which exalt
a public character. In the capacity of father, husband, and friend,
his lordship had few equals, and was exceeded by none in discharging,
with dignity and ability, the duties of the high stations in which
he had been placed by his sovereign.”[423] The Rev. William Leechman,
D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, was chosen
moderator. Leechman was a celebrated preacher, a popular lecturer, “a
man,” says Sir Henry Moncreiff, “of primitive and apostolic manners,
equally distinguished by his love of literature and his liberal
opinions.”[424] The sessions of the Assembly were continued from the
19th to the 30th of May, and Whitefield attended every one of them.
“On Saturday, the 28th, he dined, by invitation, with the commissioner,
(though not at the same table,) and said grace after dinner.”[425]
Much important business was transacted. A committee was appointed “to
consider the laws relating to the _election_ and _qualifications of
members of Assembly_.” An act of the Synod of Argyle, “that the use
of sermons on the Saturday before, and Monday after, dispensing the
sacrament of the Lord’s supper, be discontinued in all time coming,”
occasioned a long debate, but was ultimately approved. A minister was
arraigned for attending a theatre. A second minister, accused of the
same offence, pleaded “that he had gone to the playhouse only once, and
_endeavoured to conceal himself in a corner_.” Lengthened discussions
followed, and a resolution was passed, “earnestly recommending the
several Presbyteries to take care that none of their ministers do,
upon any account, attend the theatre.” Another resolution was approved,
forbidding “_simoniacal practices_.” Several cases of “_double
presentation_” to livings had to be decided. A scandal respecting the
Rev. William Brown occupied considerable time; but the result was, the
Assembly “assoilzied Mr. Brown.” Appeals and petitions from ministers
were heard, and resolutions were passed respecting the fund for
ministers’ widows, and “anent ministers making _agreements with their
heritors_ concerning the extent of their stipends.”

Listening to learned and long debates on these and kindred subjects
was Whitefield’s daily recreation between his morning and evening
preachings.

On June 6, he set out for Glasgow, where he continued several
days.[426] An extract from the _Scots’ Magazine_ for 1757, page 322,
may be welcome:――

“In a letter from Glasgow, of June 19, we have the following
account: ‘On Monday last, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, at the desire
of several of our magistrates, preached a sermon for the benefit
of the poor of this city, from Mark vi. 34. At the conclusion of
his discourse, he pressed the charity with many solid arguments.
A number of the magistrates and elders stood up to collect at
the outside of the congregation; who went away with regularity,
and gave their contributions very cheerfully. The whole amounted
to £58 sterling, which is all to be applied to the relief of our
poor. After the sermon, the magistrates waited on Mr. Whitefield,
and thanked him for this good office, which has given great and
general satisfaction.’”

At Whitefield’s farewell sermon in the Orphan Hospital Park, Edinburgh,
there was a young Scotchman present, who afterwards became one of
Wesley’s most faithful and sturdy itinerants. Thomas Rankin, born at
Dunbar, was now resident at Leith, and came to Edinburgh to hear the
great preacher. He writes:――

“I had often before had thoughts of hearing Mr. Whitefield; but
so many things had been said to me of him, that I was afraid
I should be deceived. He preached in the field adjoining the
Orphan House yard. His text was Isaiah xxxiii. 13–17. The sermon
exceeded all the sermons I ever heard. About the middle of
it, I ventured to look up, and saw all the crowds around Mr.
Whitefield bathed in tears. I listened with wonder and surprise,
and had such a discovery of the plan of salvation as I had never
known before. I was astonished at myself that I had listened to
the idle tales concerning him, and thereby have been kept from
hearing a burning and shining light, who had been instrumental
in the hand of God for the good of so many thousands of souls.
When I understood he was about to leave Edinburgh, I was
distressed. I remembered more of that sermon than of all the
sermons I had ever heard. I had a discovery of the unsearchable
riches of the grace of God in Christ Jesus; as also of how a
lost sinner was to come to God, and obtain mercy through the
Redeemer. From this time, I was truly convinced of the necessity
of a change of heart.”[427]

As already stated, Thomas Rankin became one of ♦Wesley’s most valuable
preachers. His labours, both in England and in America, were of great
importance; and, if no other end had been accomplished by Whitefield’s
present visit to the Scotch metropolis, the conversion of Rankin was an
ample compensation for all his toil and travelling.

Whitefield’s account of his visit is brief and imperfect. He writes on
May 31st: “Attendance upon the Assembly, and preaching, have engrossed
all my time.” In another letter, dated Glasgow, June 9, 1757, he
remarks:――

“At Edinburgh, I was so taken up all day, and kept up so late at
night, that writing was almost impracticable. Surely, my going
thither was of God. I came there on the 12th of May, and left
the 6th of June, and preached just fifty times. To what purpose,
the great day will discover. I have reason to believe to very
good purpose. Being the time of the General Assembly, (at which
I was much pleased,) many ministers attended, perhaps a hundred
at a time. Thereby prejudices were removed, and many of their
hearts were deeply impressed. About thirty of them, as a token
of respect, invited me to a public entertainment. The Lord High
Commissioner also invited me to his table; and many persons of
credit and religion did the same in a public manner. Thousands
and thousands, among whom were a great many of the best rank,
daily attended on the word preached; and the longer I stayed,
the more the congregations and Divine influence increased. Twice
I preached in my way to Glasgow; and, last night, opened my
campaign here. The cloud seems to move towards Ireland. How
the Redeemer vouchsafes to deal with me there, you shall know
hereafter.”

Whitefield’s previous visit to Ireland had been greatly blessed. The
people longed to give him another welcome. One section of his converts
had laid the foundation of a prosperous Moravian church. Another had
formed a Baptist congregation. A number of others were scattered, and
needed encouragement.[428] He went to help them, and his visit was
memorable. To the day of his death, a deep scar in his head was a
memento of it.[429] He shall tell his own story.

“DUBLIN, _June 30, 1757_.

“The door is open, and indeed the poor Methodists want help.
Here, in Dublin, the congregations are very large, and very
much impressed. The Redeemer vouchsafes to me great freedom in
preaching, and arrows of conviction fly and fasten. One of the
bishops told a nobleman, he was glad I was come to rouse the
people. The nobleman himself told me this yesterday. Alas! that
so few have the ambition of coming out to the help of the Lord
against the mighty. Not one clergyman, in all Ireland, is as
yet stirred up to come out _singularly_ for God. Pity, Lord, for
Thy mercy’s sake! I think God will yet appear for the Protestant
interest. My route now is to Athlone, Limerick, and Cork; and to
return here about July 21st.”

“DUBLIN, _July 3, 1757_.

“The infinitely condescending Jesus still vouchsafes to follow
the chief of sinners with His unmerited blessing. In Scotland,
His almighty arm was most powerfully revealed; and here, in
Dublin, many have begun to say, ‘What shall we do to be saved?’
Congregations are large, and very much impressed. All sorts
attend, and all sorts seem to be affected. I should be glad
to come to London, but cannot in conscience as yet. Not one
minister, either in the Church or among the Dissenters, in this
kingdom, as far as I can hear, appears boldly for God. To-morrow,
therefore, I purpose to set out for Athlone, Limerick, and
Cork. God only knows where, after that, will be the next remove.
Perhaps to London; perhaps to the north of Ireland, which,
I hear, lies open for the gospel. Winter must be the London
harvest. O for more labourers, who will account the work itself
the best wages!

“July 5. Since writing the above, I have been in the wars; but,
blessed be God, am pretty well recovered, and going on my way
rejoicing. Pray hard.”

“_July 9, 1757._

“You have heard of my being in Ireland, and of my preaching to
large and affected auditories in Mr. Wesley’s spacious room.
When here last, I preached in a more confined place on the
week-days, and once or twice ventured out to Oxmanton Green,
a large place like Moorfields, situated very near the barracks,
where the _Ormond_[430] and _Liberty_ (that is, _high and low
party_) _Boys_ generally assemble every Sunday, to fight with
each other. The congregations then were very numerous, the word
seemed to come with power, and no noise or disturbance ensued.
This encouraged me to give notice, that I would preach there
again last Sunday afternoon.

“I went through the barracks, the door of which opens into the
Green, and pitched my tent near the barrack walls, not doubting
of the protection, or at least interposition, of the officers
and soldiery, if there should be occasion. But how vain is the
help of man! Vast was the multitude that attended. We sang,
prayed, and preached, without much molestation; only, now and
then, a few stones and clods of dirt were thrown at me. It being
war time, I exhorted my hearers, as is my usual practice, not
only to fear God, but to honour the best of kings; and, after
the sermon, I prayed for success to the Prussian arms.[431]

“All being over, I thought to return home the way I came; but,
to my great surprise, access to the barracks was denied, so that
I had to go near half a mile, from one end of the Green to the
other, through hundreds and hundreds of papists, etc. Finding
me unattended, (for a soldier and four Methodist preachers,[432]
who came with me, had forsook me and fled,) I was left to their
mercy. Their mercy, as you may easily guess, was perfect cruelty.
Vollies of hard stones came from all quarters, and every step
I took, a fresh stone struck, and made me reel backwards and
forwards, till I was almost breathless, and was covered all over
with blood. My strong beaver hat served me, as it were, for a
skullcap for a while; but, at last, that was knocked off, and my
head left quite defenceless. I received many blows and wounds;
one was particularly large near my temples. Providentially,
a minister’s house stood next door to the Green. With great
difficulty I staggered to the door, which was kindly opened to,
and shut upon me. Some of the mob, in the meantime, broke part
of the boards of the pulpit into splinters, and beat and wounded
my servant grievously in his head and arms, and then came and
drove him from the door of the house where I had found a refuge.

“For a while, I continued speechless, expecting every breath
to be my last. Two or three of my friends, by some means, got
admission, and kindly washed my wounds. I gradually revived, but
soon found the lady of the house desired my absence, for fear
the house should be pulled down. What to do, I knew not, being
near two miles from Mr. Wesley’s place. Some advised one thing,
and some another. At length, a carpenter, one of the friends
who came in, offered me his wig and coat, that I might go off
in disguise. I accepted of them, and put them on, but was soon
ashamed of not trusting my Master to secure me in my proper
habit, and threw them off in disdain. Immediately, deliverance
came. A Methodist preacher, with two friends, brought a coach;
I leaped into it, and rode, in gospel triumph, through the oaths,
curses, and imprecations of whole streets of papists, unhurt.

“None but those who were spectators of the scene can form an
idea of the affection with which I was received by the weeping,
mourning, but now joyful Methodists. A Christian surgeon was
ready to dress my wounds, which being done, I went into the
preaching place, and, after giving a word of exhortation, joined
in a hymn of praise and thanksgiving to Him, who makes our
extremity His opportunity, and who stills the noise of the waves,
and the madness of the most malignant people.

“The next morning, I set out for Port Arlington, and left my
persecutors to His mercy, who out of persecutors has often made
preachers.”[433]

The hard knocks Whitefield received from the Dublin papists did not
prevent the carrying out of his plan to visit the towns already
mentioned. Hence the following:――

“CORK, _July 15, 1757_.

“Everywhere the glorious Emmanuel so smiles upon my feeble
labours, that it is hard to get away from Ireland. At
Port-Arlington, Athlone, Limerick, and this place, the word has
run and been glorified. Arrows of conviction seem to fly; and the
cup of many has been made to run over. I have met with some hard
blows from the Dublin rabble; but, blessed be God! they have not
destroyed me.”

In another letter, addressed to the Rev. John Gillies, of Glasgow, and
dated, “Wednesbury, Staffordshire, August 7, 1757,” he wrote:――

“Though Mr. Hopper promised to write you an historical letter,
from Dublin, I cannot help dropping you a few lines from this
place. At Athlone, Limerick, Cork, and especially at Dublin,
where I preached near fifty times, we had Cambuslang seasons.
With the utmost difficulty, I came away. The blows I received
were like to send me where all partings would have been over.
But, I find, we are immortal till our work is done.”

Whitefield found it difficult to get away; but it is a notable fact
that he never went again. This was his last visit to Ireland! He
went but twice, and both of his visits put together were not of three
months’ continuance. Wesley made twenty visits, most of them of long
duration. Ireland’s debt to Whitefield is but small; but to Wesley
great.

After an absence of about four months, Whitefield got back to London.
One of the first things that claimed his attention was the business of
his Orphan House, which had recently been visited by the governor of
Georgia. The following was addressed to his housekeeper:――

“LONDON, _August 26, 1757_.

“I think myself happy, in finding you are satisfied in your
present situation. I would rather have you to preside over the
orphan family than any woman I know. I do not love changes.
Sometimes I wish for wings to fly over; but Providence detains
me here.[434] I fear a dreadful storm is at hand. Lord Jesus,
be Thou our refuge! At Dublin, I was like to be sent beyond the
reach of storms. A most blessed influence attended the word in
various parts of Ireland; and here, in London, the prospect is
more and more promising. As to outward things, all is gloomy.
I hope Bethesda will be kept in peace. I am glad the governor
has been to visit the house. May God make him a blessing to the
colony! I wish you would let me know how the English children
are disposed of. I would fain have a list of black and white,
from time to time. Blessed be God for the increase of the
negroes! I entirely approve of reducing the number of orphans as
low as possible; and I am determined to take in no more than the
plantation will maintain, till I can buy more negroes. Never was
I so well satisfied with my assistants as now.”

Whitefield’s stay in London was short. Accompanied by the Revs. Martin
Madan and Henry Venn, he soon set out, on a six weeks’ journey, to the
west of England. Extracts from two of his letters will furnish an idea
of his spirit and his work.

“EXETER, _September 28, 1757_.

“Blessed be God! I can send you good news concerning Plymouth.
The scene was like that of Bristol, only more extraordinary.
Officers, soldiers, sailors, and the dockmen attended, with the
utmost solemnity, upon the word preached. Arrows of conviction
flew and fastened; and I left all God’s people upon the wing for
heaven. Blessed be the Lord Jesus for ordering me the lot of a
_cast-out_! I am glad that Mr. Madan and Mr. Venn returned safe.
May an effectual door be opened for both! If so, they will have
many adversaries. If the weather should alter, I may be in town
before long; if not, I may range farther. This spiritual hunting
is delightful sport, when the heart is in the work.”

The next is taken from a letter to the Rev. John Gillies. The
“Counsellor” mentioned was Mr. Madan, who, before his ordination,
practised at the bar.

“LONDON, _October 16, 1757_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I thank you for your sympathising
letter sent to Ireland. The Friend of sinners stood by me, or
I had been stoned to death. Stones were thrown at me, not for
speaking against the papists in particular, but, for exciting
all ranks to be faithful to King Jesus, and to our dear
sovereign King George, for His great name’s sake.

“Seven gospel ministers were together at Bristol, when the
Counsellor preached. We have had blessed seasons, for these six
weeks last past, at Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol, Gloucester, and
Gloucestershire. This comes from my winter quarters.”

Whitefield was again in London, where he continued for seven months.

The “Counsellor,” the Rev. Martin Madan, was now a red-hot evangelist.
He had preached through Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire,
Warwickshire, Worcestershire, and Gloucestershire.[435] The number of
Methodist clergymen was rather rapidly increasing. Besides Whitefield,
the Wesleys, Hervey, Grimshaw, Romaine, Madan, Venn, Walker, and others
already mentioned in this biography, there were now the Rev. James
Stillingfleet, ultimately rector of Hotham, in Yorkshire; the Rev.
Mr. Downing, chaplain to the Earl of Dartmouth; and the Rev. William
Talbot, LL.D., vicar of Kineton, in Warwickshire, a man of aristocratic
family.[436] In this year, 1757, not fewer than five of these earnest
clergymen, Messrs. Walker, Talbot, Downing, Stillingfleet, and Madan,
at the request of Lord Dartmouth,[437] had preached at Cheltenham.[438]
On three or four occasions, Mr. Downing obtained the pulpit of the
parish church; but the rector and the churchwardens interposed, and
the zealous Methodist was excluded. Lord Dartmouth then opened his
own house for preaching, twice a week; and, sometimes, the seminary of
Mr. Samuel Wells was used for the same purpose.[439] In a letter to the
Countess of Huntingdon, his lordship wrote:――

“I wish your ladyship would use your influence with Mr.
Whitfield and Mr. Romaine to pay us a visit. Mr. Stillingfleet
has been obliged to return to Oxford, and I know not where to
direct to Mr. Madan or Mr. Venn. Mr. Talbot has promised to come
as soon as possible; and, next month, I expect good Mr. Walker,
of Truro. The rector was so displeased with Mr. Downing
preaching, and the great crowds who flocked to hear him, that
he excluded him from the pulpit after three or four sermons, and
refused to admit Mr. Stillingfleet, though I said everything I
could to induce him to do so. Since then, I have opened my house,
but find it too small for the numbers who solicit permission to
attend. I have no hopes of again obtaining the use of the parish
church.”

Just at this time, Madan came to Cheltenham, and was soon after
joined by Venn, and by Maddock, the latter the curate of Hervey, of
Weston-Favel. Contrary to the expectations of Lord Dartmouth, both
Madan and Venn were several times admitted to the parish pulpit. Then
came Whitefield, and an immense crowd collected, expecting that he
also would preach in the church. Attended by Lord and Lady Dartmouth,
and by Messrs. Madan, Venn, Talbot, and Downing, the renowned preacher
proceeded to the church door. They found it closed against them.
Whitefield, never at a loss for pulpits, mounted a neighbouring
tombstone, and preached. The Rev. Henry Venn shall tell the remainder
of the story. In a letter to Lady Huntingdon, he wrote:――

“Under Mr. Whitefield’s sermon, many, among the immense crowd
that filled every part of the burial ground, were overcome with
fainting. Some sobbed deeply; others wept silently; and a solemn
concern appeared on the countenance of almost the whole assembly.
When he came to impress the injunction in the text (Isaiah
li. 1) his words seemed to cut like a sword, and several in
the congregation burst out into the most piercing bitter cries.
Mr. Whitefield, at this juncture, made a pause, and then burst
into a flood of tears. During this short interval, Mr. Madan and
myself stood up, and requested the people to restrain themselves,
as much as possible, from making any noise. Twice afterwards, we
had to repeat the same counsel. O with what eloquence, energy,
and melting tenderness, did Mr. Whitefield beseech sinners to be
reconciled to God! When the sermon was ended, the people seemed
chained to the ground. Mr. Madan, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Downing, and
myself found ample employment in endeavouring to comfort those
broken down under a sense of guilt. We separated in different
directions among the crowd, and each was quickly surrounded by
an attentive audience, still eager to hear all the words of this
life.

“The next day, a like scene was witnessed, when dear Mr.
Whitefield preached to a prodigious congregation from Isaiah
lv. 6. In the evening, Mr. Talbot preached at Lord Dartmouth’s,
to as many as the rooms would hold. Hundreds crowded round his
lordship’s residence, anxiously expecting Mr. Whitefield to
preach. Exhausted as he was from his exertions in the morning,
when he heard that there were multitudes without, he stood
upon a table near the front of the house, and ♦proclaimed the
efficacy of the Saviour’s blood to cleanse the vilest of the
vile.

“Intelligence of the extraordinary power attending the word
soon spread, and the next day we had Mr. Charles Wesley and
many friends from Bristol, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Rodborough,
and the villages in the neighbourhood; but all loud weeping and
piercing cries had subsided, and the work of conversion went on
in a more silent manner. For several days, we have had public
preaching, which has been well attended, and much solid good has
been done.

“Mr. Whitefield and myself purpose leaving this for London the
day after to-morrow; and Mr. Madan and Mr. Talbot go in a few
days to Northamptonshire.”[440]

This was a glorious “mission week,” in Cheltenham churchyard, a hundred
and twenty-nine years ago. It is rather remarkable that Whitefield
himself has left no account of it; but, shortly after, he wrote, as
follows, to Mr. Madan, pursuing his “mission” work in Northamptonshire.

“LONDON, _November 3, 1757_.

“Your kind letter was very acceptable. Ere now, I trust, the
Redeemer has given you the prospect of the barren wilderness
being turned into a fruitful field. Never fear. Jesus will
delight to honour you. Every clergyman’s name is Legion. Two
more are lately ordained.[441] The kingdom of God suffereth
violence, and, if we would take it by force, we must do violence
to our softest passions, and be content to be esteemed unkind
by those whose idols we once were. This is hard work; but, Abba,
Father, all things are possible with Thee!

“Blessed be God! for putting it into your heart to ask my pulpit
for a week-day sermon. Are we not commanded to be instant in
season and out of season? If dear Mrs. Madan will take my word
for it, I will be answerable for your health. The joy resulting
from doing good will be a continual feast. God knows how long
our time of working may last. This order undoes us. As affairs
now stand, we must be disorderly, or useless. O for more
labourers!

“I am told thousands went away last Sunday evening from
Tottenham Court, for want of room. Every day produces fresh
accounts of good being done. At this end of the town, the word
runs, and is glorified more and more. Last Friday, we had a
most solemn fast. I preached thrice. Thousands attended; and,
I humbly hope, our prayers entered into the ears of the Lord of
Sabaoth. More bad news from America about our fleet. God humble
and reform us! Go on, my dear sir, and tell a sinful nation,
that sin and unbelief are the accursed things which prevent
success. Thus, at last, we shall deliver our souls, and be free
from the blood of all men.

“That you may return to London in all the fulness of the
blessings of the gospel of Christ, is and shall be the prayer of,
dear sir,

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

While Whitefield was acquiring new friends, he was losing old ones.
Jonathan Belcher, governor of the province of New Jersey, died on
August 31, 1757; and Aaron Burr, President of New Jersey College,
within a month afterwards. “The deaths of Governor Belcher, and
President Burr,” wrote Whitefield, “are dark providences; but Jesus
lives and reigns. Lord, raise up Elishas in the room of ascended
Elijahs!”[442]

Whitefield’s correspondence was enormous. As a rule, no letters have
been introduced in the present work, except such as contained facts
and statements illustrative of his work and history. Mere _friendly_
letters, though existing in great numbers, have been excluded. As a
specimen of hundreds of others, which might have been inserted, the
following, hitherto unpublished, may be welcome. They relate to the
marriage of the grandfather and grandmother of James Rooker, Esq.,
solicitor, at Bideford, by whom they have been courteously lent:――

“LONDON, _November 15, 1757_.

“DEAR MISS MOLLY,――Though weak in body, yet, as perhaps it may
be the last time I may write to you in your present position, be
pleased to accept a few valedictory lines.

“I think you may cheerfully say, ‘I will go with the man.’
Providence seems to have directed you to one who, I trust, will
love you as Christ loves the Church. My poor prayers will always
follow you. That you may be a mother in Israel, and, in every
respect, be enabled to walk as becometh the wife of a true
minister of Jesus Christ, is, and shall be, the ardent desire of,
dear Miss Molly, your affectionate friend and ready servant for
Christ’s sake,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

“To Miss Molly Shepherd.”

“LONDON, _January 17, 1758_.
“_Seven in the morning._

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――I wish you joy, from my inmost soul,
of being married to one of the best-women, and of being admitted
into one of the best families in England. I never had the least
doubt of your affair being of God. You have called Jesus and His
disciples to the marriage; and your letter sent me to my knees
with tears of joy and strong cryings that the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus may bless you both. You need not ask, my dear sir,
the continuance of my friendship. I value you as a dear minister
of Christ, and as the husband of one who was presented by her
honoured father at the table of the Lord. I doubt not of her
being a help-meet for you,――a mother in Israel. May you, like
Zachary and Elizabeth, be enabled to walk in all the ordinances
and commandments of the Lord blameless! I am glad the dear
little female flock at Bideford will have such an agreeable
addition to their society. That grace, mercy, and peace may be
multiplied on them and you, is, and shall be, the hearty prayer
of, reverend and dear sir, your affectionate friend and ready
servant in our common Lord,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

“My wife joins in cordial respects.
“To the Rev. Mr. Lavington.”

Scores of such letters might be introduced,――the spontaneous effusions
of a warm-hearted Christian friendship.

Whitefield’s incessant and arduous labours began to affect his health.
Hence the following extracts from his correspondence:――

“London, November 26, 1757. Last week, my poor feeble labours
almost brought me to the grave; but preaching three times,
yesterday, on account of the late success of the Prussians,
has somewhat recovered me. It was a high day: thousands and
thousands attended.”

“London, December 14, 1757. By New Year’s Day, I hope, we shall
be able to discharge our Tottenham Court chapel debts. Every day
proves more and more that it was built for the glory of Christ,
and the welfare of many precious and immortal souls. But my
attendance on that, and the Tabernacle too, with a weak body,
outward cares, and inward trials, has, of late, frequently
brought me near to my wished-for port. I am brought to the short
allowance of preaching but once a day, and thrice on a Sunday.

“Round the Tottenham Court chapel there is a most beautiful
piece of ground, and some good folks have purposed erecting
almshouses on each side, for godly widows. I have a plan for
twelve. The whole expense will be £400. We have got £100. The
widows are to have half a crown a week. The sacrament money,
which will be more than enough, is to be devoted to this purpose.
Thus will many widows be provided for, and a standing monument
be left, that the Methodists were not against good works.”

Thus did Whitefield end the year 1757 in caring for widows, as, for the
last twenty years, he had cared for orphans.

He began the new year, 1758, with a devout outburst of patriotic
gratitude. As already stated, Frederick, King of Prussia, had recently
won a most important battle; and Whitefield wished to recognize
the hand of God in the defeat of his country’s enemies. “Monday,
January 2,” says the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1758, p. 41, “was
observed as a day of thanksgiving, at the chapel in Tottenham Court
Road, by Mr. Whitefield’s people, for the signal victories gained by
the King of Prussia over his enemies.”

It was a trial to Whitefield to be obliged to preach but once a day on
week-days, and thrice on Sundays; but, as usual, he was thankful and
jubilant. The debt on the chapel in Tottenham Court Road was paid; his
friend Martin Madan had become a son of thunder; numbers of sinners
were being saved; and the political horizon was growing brighter. The
following are extracts from his letters:――

“London, January 12, 1758. A more effectual door than ever seems
to be opening in this metropolis. A counsellor, lately ordained,
turns out a Boanerges. Thousands and thousands flock to hear the
everlasting gospel. Let us wrestle in prayer for each other.”

“London, January 17, 1758. What can reconcile us to stay longer
on earth, but the prospect of seeing the kingdom of the Lord
Jesus advanced? It is very promising in London. Mr. Madan is a
Boanerges. The chapel is made a Bethel. Blessed be God! all the
debt is paid.”

The godly and benevolent John Thornton, Esq., was now a young man
rising rapidly into notice. In his house, at Clapham, Whitefield
frequently expounded to large assemblies.[443] To Miss Gideon,[444]
the friend and correspondent of Venn, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“London, February 3, 1758. I am reduced to the short allowance
of preaching once a day, except thrice on a Sunday. At both ends
of the town, the word runs and is glorified. The champions in
the Church go on like sons of thunder. I am to be at Clapham
this evening. Mr. Venn will gladly embrace the first opportunity.
Bristol, in all probability, will be my first spring excursion.”

In another letter, of the same date, he wrote:――

“The plan concerted some time ago is likely to be put into
execution. The trenches for the wall are begun; and, by the
1st of May, the almshouses are to be finished. If possible, I
would furnish them, that the poor might be sure of goods, as
well as a house. The thing has scarce, as yet, taken wind. By
thoughtfulness, frequent preaching, and a crazy tabernacle, my
nightly rests are continually broken; but the joy of the Lord is
my strength. I hope ere long to be where I shall keep awake for
ever.”

The next letter, addressed to Professor Francke, of Germany, though
containing but little additional information, is too interesting to be
omitted.

“LONDON, _March 5, 1758_.

“MOST REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――Through grace, the fields are as
ready to harvest as ever. In the summer, I range; and, with a
table for my pulpit, and the heavens for my sounding-board, I
am enabled, generally thrice a day, to call to many thousands
to come to Jesus that they may have life. In the winter, I am
confined to London; but, to my great mortification, through
continual vomitings, want of rest, and of appetite, I have been
reduced, for some time, to the short allowance of preaching
only once a day, except Sundays, when I generally preach thrice.
Thousands attend every evening, at both ends of the town; and,
on Sundays, many, many go away for want of room. The Divine
presence is amongst us, and every week produces fresh instances
of the power of converting grace.

“Blessed be God! we meet with no disturbances in town, and very
seldom in the country; but last year, while I was preaching
in the fields in Ireland, a popish mob was so incensed at my
proclaiming the Lord our Righteousness, and at my praying for
our good old King, and the King of Prussia, that they surrounded,
stoned, and almost killed me. But we are immortal till our work
is done. Glad should I have been to have died in such a cause.

“Mr. Wesley has Societies in Ireland and elsewhere; and, though
we differ a little in some principles, yet brotherly love
continues. When itinerating, I generally preach among his people,
as freely as among those who are called our own.

“In London, several new flaming preachers are come forth; and
we hear of others, in various parts of the kingdom, who seem
determined to know and preach nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified.

“Thousands and thousands are now praying daily for success to
the Prussian and Hanoverian arms. Your fast-days were kept here
with great solemnity; and will be so again, God willing, when
I know the day. Our Joshuas are in the field. Many a Moses is
gone up into the mount to pray. ‘_Nil desperandum Christo duce,
auspice Christo._’ He who wrought such wonders for the Prussian
monarch last year, can repeat them this. The distresses of
German Protestants, we look upon as our own. We have also
endeavoured to give thanks for the great mercy vouchsafed your
Orphan House, and the Protestant cause.”

In the third week of the month of May, Whitefield left his “_winter_
quarters,” and set out for the west of England, and for Wales. He began
his journey in a one-horse chaise; but driving prevented his reading,
and the vehicle nearly shook him to pieces.[445] His servant, also,
“who rode the fore-horse, was often exceedingly splashed with dirt,
when the roads were bad.” For such reasons, Whitefield wished to
exchange his humble conveyance for a more convenient one. He arrived
at Gloucester, on Saturday, May 20; and, on the following day, preached
thrice and administered the holy sacrament. On Tuesday, May 23, he came
to Bristol, and, for the next five days, preached twice daily, either
at Bristol, Bath, or Kingswood. His chaise still troubled him, and he
longed for “a good four-wheel carriage for £30 or £40.” “I would not,”
says he, “lay out a single farthing, but for my blessed Master.” On
Monday, May 29, in the best way he could, he started for Wales. On
his return to Bristol, he wrote a series of letters to a number of
his aristocratic friends. The following are extracts:――

To the Countess Delitz:――

“Bristol, June 16, 1758. Never was I brought so low as on my
late circuit in Wales; but, as far as I can hear, it was one of
the most prosperous I ever took. Twice every day, thousands and
thousands attended, in various towns in South Wales; and, on the
Sundays, the numbers were incredible. Welcome, thrice welcome,
death in such a cause!”

To Captain H――――y:――

“Bristol, June 16, 1758. The Welsh roads have almost demolished
my open one-horse chaise, as well as me. I am almost ashamed of
your being put to so much trouble, in procuring a close chaise
for me; but I like the purchase exceeding well. The legacy is
wonderful. I can give it away with a good grace. At present, I
think the Orphan House shall have the whole. It is much wanted
there.”

To Lady Huntingdon:――

“Bristol, June 17, 1758. This leaves me returned from Wales. It
proved a most delightful trying circuit. I suppose your ladyship
has heard how low I have been in body,――scarce ever lower,――not
able to sit up in company all the time, yet strengthened to
travel without food, and to preach to thousands every day. The
great congregation at Haverfordwest consisted of near fifteen
thousand. O for some disinterested soul to help at the chapel
during the summer season! Spiritual, divine ambition, whither
art thou fled? But I see such honours are reserved for few. I
rejoice in the increase of your ladyship’s spiritual routs; and
can guess at the consolations such uncommon scenes must afford
you.”

The “spiritual routs,” here mentioned, were meetings held twice a week,
in the house of the Countess of Huntingdon, and at which Romaine, Madan,
and Venn officiated. They were remarkable gatherings, and included,
among others, the Duchess of Bedford, the Duchess of Grafton, Lady Jane
Scott, Lord and Lady Dacre, Mr. and Lady Anne Connolly, Lady Elizabeth
Keppell, Lady Betty Waldegrave, Lady Coventry, Lord Weymouth, Lord
Tavistock, the Duchess of Hamilton, the Duchess of Richmond, Lady
Ailesbury, Lord and Lady Hertford, Lady Townsend, Lord Trafford, Lord
Northampton, Lady Hervey, Lady Pembroke, Lady Northumberland, Lady
Rebecca Paulet, Lord Edgecumbe, Lord Lyttleton, Lady Essex, etc.,
etc.[446] It is impossible to estimate the far-reaching results of
meetings like these. A current of Christian influence was created,
which affected a large portion of the aristocracy of the land, and,
through them, a countless number of other people.

Whitefield bewails the want of men to preach in his Tottenham Court
Road chapel. At this very time, he was corresponding with a young
man, twenty-three years of age, Robert Robinson, afterwards the famous
Dissenting minister at Cambridge. Robinson had recently left London,
and gone to Norwich. Here, on May 10, 1758, he wrote Whitefield a long
letter, telling him that, six years ago, curiosity drew him to the
Tabernacle, to pity Whitefield’s folly, and to abhor the doctrines
he preached. Whitefield took for his text, “O generation of vipers,
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Robinson says, he
“went pitying the poor deluded Methodists; but came away envying their
happiness.” He constantly attended the Tabernacle for two years and
seven months before he found peace with God. He had now begun to preach,
and writes:――

“How often do I tremble lest I should run before I am sent; yet
I dare not say the Lord has left me without witness. Multitudes
of people come to hear the word, both in Norwich and the
country.”[447]

Whitefield replied to Robinson’s letter as follows:――

“BRISTOL, _May 25, 1758_.

“Why did you not make your case known to me before you left
London? What motives induced you to leave it? How came you to
go to Norwich? What prospect have you of a growing people? You
may send a line to London, and it will be forwarded to me in the
country. I have now opened my summer’s campaign. The Redeemer
has given us a good beginning. Who knows but we shall have a
glorious ending? He is all in all. You find that He strengthens
and blesses you in His work, and causes your rod to bud and
blossom. That your bow may abide in strength, that you may be
clothed with humility, and that the arms of your hands may be
continually strengthened by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob,
is the earnest prayer of your affectionate friend in our common
Lord,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[448]

Robinson answered Whitefield’s questions:――

“You ask, sir, why I did not make myself known to you in London?
The plain truth is this, I had such a sense of my unworthiness,
that I thought your conversation too great an honour for me to
enjoy.”

Robinson assigns as his reasons for leaving London, the desire of his
relatives to see him; a hope that residing in the country would improve
his health; and especially a fear that, if he stayed, his London
friends would make him preach before God called him. As to the reason
of his going to Norwich, he writes:――

“My intention was to settle in the farming business in the
country; but there I found many souls awakened, who had the word
preached but now and then. We met in the evenings to sing and
pray and speak our experience. They often solicited me to preach
among them, as did some neighbouring Dissenting ministers. I
long refused; till they wrung their hands, and wept bitterly,
and told me they were starving for the word. With many doubts
and fears, I, at last, agreed to their request. People came from
adjacent towns to hear me. I was invited higher up the country.
At length, some of Mr. Wheatley’s friends informed him of me.
He sent his clerk, entreating me to come to Norwich. I did come;
and, according to the present appearance of things, I apprehend
I shall be fixed here.”

In reply to Whitefield’s fourth question, Robinson remarked:――

“As to the ‘prospect of a growing people,’――sometimes I think
it bids fair for it; sometimes I think otherwise. The church I
preach to has near forty members, and many more are desirous of
being received. On the Lord’s-day, we have several hundreds of
hearers, who seem very serious, and enquiring the way to Zion.
On the week-days, we have abundance of people to hear; and, I
hope, the Lord does not let His word return void. The country
people frequently send for me, on the days I do not preach at
Norwich; and multitudes come to hear, so that the preaching
houses will not hold them. However, I can go upon the commons;
and, blessed be God! there is room there; and, what is best of
all, there is room enough and to spare in my Master’s house. By
the time I have preached in public, and have visited, exhorted,
and prayed with the people in private, and have kept a little
time to enjoy my God in my closet, I find my day is gone; but it
is an honour to be busy for Christ. O that my soul may be found
living and dying in it!

“My dear sir, I rejoice in your prosperity in the gospel. Go
where I will, I find some of your spiritual children;――some
awakened by hearing you, and some by reading your sermons. Dear
sir, go on preaching; and we will go on praying for you; and who
knows what a prayer-hearing God may do? I am really ashamed of
my long letter; but, methinks, I am now opening my heart to a
tender father, who, I trust, will excuse my infirmities.

“I remain, dear sir, your affectionate son and servant in Christ,

“ROBERT ROBINSON.”[449]

Thus did Robert Robinson become a preacher,――a man who rose to
sufficient eminence to have one of his publications discussed in
both the House of Commons and the House of Lords; whose learning and
services were such as to procure for him the offer of the diploma
of D.D. from a Scotch University; and yet, lamentable to relate, who
became so loose in his theology as to die under the imputation of being
a Socinian.

After his return from Wales, Whitefield’s stay in London was brief.
Towards the end of July, he set out for Scotland; in journeying towards
which, he formed an acquaintance with another recently converted
clergyman, who, for nearly thirty years afterwards, annually rendered
important service in Whitefield’s London chapels. John Berridge, the
well-known Vicar of Everton, had recently found peace with God, through
faith in Christ; and, six months after the time of Whitefield’s visit,
occurred those puzzling phenomena, the _stricken cases_, mentioned in
Wesley’s Journal. It is rather remarkable, that, though Whitefield’s
preaching was much more sensational than Wesley’s, no such effects
seem to have been witnessed at Everton by him, as were witnessed by his
friend. At all events, if such happened, he is silent concerning them.
All that is known of his visit, is contained in the following letter:――

“NEWCASTLE, _July 31, 1758_.

“All the last week was taken up in preaching at Everton,
St. Neots, Keysoe, Bedford, Olney, Weston-Favel, Underwood,
Ravenstone, and Northampton. Four clergymen lent me their
churches, and three read prayers for me in one day. I preached
also in John Bunyan’s pulpit; and, at Northampton, I took the
field. Good seasons at all the places. Mr. Berridge, who was
lately awakened at Everton, promises to be a burning and shining
light. Yesterday, we had good times here; and, to-morrow, I
shall set off for Edinburgh. My bodily strength increases but
very little. Sometimes I am almost tempted to turn back; but I
hope to go forward, and shall strive, as much as in me lies, to
die in this glorious work.”

Whitefield arrived at Edinburgh on August 4, and, despite physical
weakness, preached, for nearly a month, in the Orphan Hospital Park,
to enormous congregations, morning and evening, every day.[450]
Mr. Gillies invited him to Glasgow; but he replied:――

“I fear your kind invitation cannot be complied with. For above
three months past, I have been so weak, that I could scarcely
drag the crazy load along. I preach at Edinburgh twice a day;
but I grow weaker and weaker. I suppose you have heard of the
death of Mr. Jonathan Edwards. Happy he!”

In another letter he wrote:――

“EDINBURGH, _August 19, 1758_.

“I came here a fortnight ago, very low indeed; but, by preaching
about thirty times, I am a good deal better. Multitudes, of all
ranks, flock twice every day. I thought to have moved on Tuesday
next, but, as it is the race week, and my health is improving,
friends advise me to stay.”

On August 29, he went to Glasgow, where he remained a week. Here, after
one of his sermons, he made a collection, amounting to nearly £60, on
behalf of a Society, established in 1727, for educating and putting to
trades the sons of Highlanders, and of which the Duke of Argyll was the
principal member.[451]

Whitefield also preached three thanksgiving sermons, for the taking
of Cape Breton, by Boscawen, Amherst, and Wolfe; for the defeat of the
Russians, at the great battle of Custrin, by Frederick, King of Prussia;
and for the victory over the Austrians and Imperialists, at Crevelt, by
Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick. “By his warm and repeated exhortations
to loyalty, and a steady adherence to the Protestant interest,” said
the _Glasgow Courant_, “Mr. Whitefield’s visit here has been useful to
the community in a civil, as well as a religious, light.”

On September 6, Whitefield returned to Edinburgh, and, during another
week, preached twice every day. On September 13, he set out for London.
“By his visit,” says the _Scots’ Magazine_, “the Edinburgh Orphan
Hospital has drawn upwards of £200, by the collections at the entry to
the Park, and by the seat-rents.”

Remembering the value of money in 1758, these were enormous sums. No
wonder, that, even on such a ground, the canny Scots were always ready
to give to Whitefield a hearty welcome.

Glimpses of his preaching tour to London will be obtained in the
following extracts from his letters:――

“DARLINGTON, _September 21, 1758_.

“At Edinburgh and Glasgow, my health grew better, and I was
enabled to preach always twice, and sometimes thrice a day, to
very large and affected auditories. In my way to Newcastle, I
preached twice; and thrice in and about that place. Yesterday,
I hope, some gospel seed fell on good ground at Durham and
Bishop-Auckland. I am now on my way to Yarm, and hope next
Lord’s-day to be at Leeds.”

“LEEDS, _October 11, 1758_.

“Though I have preached twice and sometimes thrice a day for
above a fortnight past, preaching does not kill me. God has
been giving blessed seasons. By next Lord’s-day, I am to be at
Rotherham and Sheffield. Change of weather will alone drive me
to winter quarters. Lord, prepare me for winter trials! They are
preparative for an eternal summer.”

To his friend Mr. Gillies, of Glasgow, he wrote:――

“ROTHERHAM, _October 15, 1758_.

“Since my leaving Scotland, in various parts of the north of
England, as at Alnwick, Newcastle, Leeds, etc., the ever loving,
altogether lovely Jesus has manifested His glory. Thousands
and thousands have flocked twice, and sometimes thrice a day to
hear the word. Never did I see the fields whiter for a spiritual
harvest. Praise the Lord, O our souls! If the weather continues
fair, I hope to prolong my summer’s campaign. It shocks me to
think of winter quarters yet. How soon does the year roll round!
Lord Jesus, quicken my tardy pace! As they were in debt, at
Leeds, for their building,[452] last Lord’s-day I collected for
them near £50. Lord Jesus, help me to know no party but Thine!
This, I am persuaded, is your catholic spirit. O for an increase
of it among all denominations!”

From Sheffield, Whitefield proceeded to Staffordshire; and intended to
go from there to Bristol; but “change of weather and the shortness of
the days drove” him to his “winter quarters.” On reaching London, he
wrote:――

“October 28. My health is somewhat improved, but a very little
thing soon impairs it. Lord, help me! How very little can I do
for Thee! We have had fine gospel seasons. Grace! grace!”[453]

These fragmentary records are truly marvellous. How a man, in such
health, performed such labours, for months together, it is difficult to
imagine.

Once again in London, his Orphan House demanded his attention. The
family had been reduced, and he now had it in his “power to pay off all
Bethesda’s arrears.” He sent a number of “Bibles and other books.” “He
longed for an opportunity” to go himself; but the war prevented him,
and he knew not how to get supplies for his two London chapels. He was,
however, quite satisfied with the management of his housekeeper, and
sent her “ten thousand thousand thanks.” He wished his superintendent
to consign him “a little rice and indigo,” that his “friends might see
some of the Orphan House produce.” Taken altogether, his affairs in
Georgia were less embarrassing than usual.[454]

During the year, Whitefield had gained a new clerical friend, in
Berridge of Everton; but, before it ended, he lost a friend, whom he
dearly loved. James Hervey died on Christmas-day, 1758. Within a week
of this mournful occurrence, Whitefield wrote the following pathetic
letter to the dying rector of Weston-Favel:――

“LONDON, _December 19, 1758_.

“And is my dear friend indeed about to take his last flight?
I dare not wish your return into this vale of tears. But our
prayers are continually ascending to the Father of our spirits
that you may die in the embraces of a never-failing Jesus, and
in all the fulness of an exalted faith. O when will my time
come! I groan in this tabernacle, being burdened, and long to be
clothed with my house from heaven. Farewell! My very dear friend,
f――a――r――e――well! Yet a little while, and we shall meet,――

‘Where sin, and strife, and sorrow cease,
And all is love, and joy, and peace.’

“There Jesus will reward you for all the tokens of love which
you have showed, for His great name’s sake, to yours most
affectionately in our common Lord,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

“P.S. God comfort your mother, and relations, and thousands and
thousands more who will bewail your departure!”[455]

In the year 1758, Whitefield, comparatively speaking, “had rest” from
persecution. The only exception was in the case of scurrilous Dr. Free,
Vicar of East Coker, and Lecturer at St. Mary Hill, London, and at
Newington, Surrey. On Whitsunday, this vehement defender of the Church,
preached a sermon, before the University, at St. Mary’s, Oxford, which
he immediately published, with a “Preface” and an “Appendix,” and a
“Dedication” to the Archbishop of Canterbury. (8vo. 65 pp.) In his
“Dedication,” Free informs the Archbishop, that, Wesley and Whitefield
“have, by _secret_ advances, so far _stolen_ upon the _common people_,
as to seduce _many_ of all _denominations_ from their proper _pastors_;
and, aided by this _mixed_ multitude, they threaten the Church of
England, the _bulwark_ of the _Protestant_ cause, with a general
_alteration_, or total _subversion_.” Free’s “Appendix” chiefly
consists of extracts from Whitefield’s Journals, by which he pretends
to prove――1. That the “Methodists experiment upon women in _hysteric_
fits, and upon young persons in _convulsions_, under pretence of
exorcising devils.” 2. That Whitefield professed to have received
“extraordinary inspirations in his _office_ as a _preacher_.” 3. That
he and others had “attempted to set up a new form of church-government,
through the kingdom, in contempt of the _authority_ of the _Bishops_,
and without any _authority_ from the state.” 4. That they had
propagated “_atheistical doctrines and propositions_, quite destructive
to the morality and well-being of a state.” 5. That they had “abused
the _clergy_ in _general_, and the _great lights_ of the Church in
_particular_.” 6. That they “imagined God had made them the instruments
of a _great work_.” 7. That they used “religiously amorous, melting,
and rapturous expressions.”

Whitefield treated the ravings of the Rev. Dr. Free with silent
contempt. Wesley wrote the doctor two “letters,” and then left him “to
laugh, and scold, and witticise, and call names, just as he pleased.”

Little is known respecting Whitefield’s health, labours, and success,
during the first four months of 1759.

On the 4th of January, the Countess of Huntingdon went to Bristol to
meet Wesley, who accompanied her to Bath, and preached, to several of
the nobility, in her house. Early in February, her ladyship returned
to London, and, on Friday, the 16th, the day appointed for a public
fast, she went to the Tabernacle, where Whitefield addressed an immense
congregation from the words, “Rend your hearts, and not your garments.”
At half-past eight in the evening, she heard Wesley at the Foundery,
where he preached, to an overflowing multitude, from “Seek the Lord
while He may be found.” Her ladyship, profoundly impressed with a
conviction of the necessity and power of prayer, arranged for a series
of intercession meetings in her own mansion. On Wednesday, February 21,
the officiating ministers were Whitefield, Charles Wesley, Venn, and
Thomas Maxfield. On Friday, the 23rd, the meeting was conducted by
Romaine, Wesley, Madan, and Jones. On Tuesday, the 27th, Wesley writes:
“I walked with my brother and Mr. Maxfield to Lady Huntingdon’s.
After breakfast, came in Messrs. Whitefield, Madan, Romaine, Jones,
Downing, and Venn, with some persons of quality, and a few others.
Mr. Whitefield, I found, was to have administered the sacrament; but
he insisted upon my doing it: after which, at the request of Lady
Huntingdon, I preached on 1 Cor. xiii. 13. O what are the greatest
men, to the great God! As the small dust of the balance.”[456] Charles
Wesley adds to this account, by saying, “My brother preached, and won
all our hearts. I never liked him better, and was never more united to
him since his unhappy marriage. We dined at Mr. Madan’s, who took us
in his coach.”[457] On Wednesday, the 28th, the service was conducted
by Wesley, Venn, and Madan, and, at its close, Whitefield delivered a
short exhortation. On Thursday, March 1, the Rev. Thomas Jones preached,
and Romaine prayed. On Friday, the 2nd, Charles Wesley gave an address,
and Whitefield, Romaine, Downing, and Venn prayed.

These remarkable meetings seem to have been concluded on Tuesday,
March 6, when, besides the clergymen already mentioned, there was
another present, who afterwards attained a distinguished eminence――John
Fletcher, the immortal Vicar of Madeley. First of all, the sacrament
was administered by Whitefield. Among the communicants were the Earl
and Countess of Dartmouth, the Countess of Chesterfield, Lady Gertrude
Hotham, Sir Charles Hotham, Mrs. Carteret, Mrs. Cavendish, Sir Sidney
Halford Smythe, Mr. Thornton (of Clapham), the Rev. Messrs. Venn,
Jones, Maxfield, Downing, Fletcher, and others. Whitefield addressed
the communicants; “and all were touched to the heart,” said Lady
Huntingdon, “and dissolved in tears.” Whitefield, Romaine, and Madan
prayed. The sacramental service being ended, the Earls of Chesterfield
and Holderness, and several others of distinction, were admitted.
Whitefield preached, with his accustomed eloquence and energy, from
“Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.” The word,
remarked Lady Huntingdon, “drew sighs from every heart, and tears
from every eye. Mr. Fletcher concluded with a prayer, every syllable
of which appeared to be uttered under the immediate teaching of the
Spirit; and, he has told me since, that, he never had more intimate
communion with God, or enjoyed so much of His immediate presence, as
on that occasion.”[458]

Glorious men, and glorious meetings! No wonder God was present! Who
can estimate the results of these godly gatherings? Fresh from such
meetings, the Countess of Huntingdon went to Brighton, longing, panting,
and praying for the salvation of sinners. She carried to the mansions
of the nobility the influence of the services held in her London
residence. She took to the houses of the poor the glad tidings of
salvation. A soldier’s wife, at Brighton, manifested such anxiety,
that the Countess was induced to repeat her visit. The apartment was
contiguous to a public bakehouse, and the people, who came to the
oven, listened, through a crack in the partition, to her ladyship’s
conversations, readings, expositions, and prayers. In a little while,
she had, in this humble home, a regular congregation. At first, none
but females were admitted; but a blacksmith, named Joseph Wall, a man
notorious for his profligacy, by some means, gained admission, was
converted, and, for a period of twenty-nine years, adorned the doctrine
of God his Saviour. The Countess had become a _preacheress_, and a
successful one! In the midst of her Brighton meetings she sent for
Whitefield. Whitefield went. His first sermon was preached under a tree,
in a field behind the White Lion Inn. Among his hearers was a youth,
eighteen years of age, Thomas ♦Tupper, ready to stone the preacher,
but who was so affected by Whitefield’s cry of “Turn ye! turn ye!”
that he was converted, and became the predecessor of the well-known
William Jay of Bath. Another convert, gained on the spot, was Edward
Gadsby, who, for more than a quarter of a century afterwards, “walked
in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” After this,
conversions were multiplied; and the Countess built a small, but neat
meeting-house, on the site of the present one in North Street, the
expense of which she, either wholly, or in part, defrayed by the sale
of her jewels. In 1761, the chapel was opened by Martin Madan; and,
in succession, Romaine, Berridge, Venn, and Fletcher, severally took
charge of the congregation.[459]

As usual, Whitefield was greatly encouraged by the prosperity of the
work of God in London. In a letter to his housekeeper at Bethesda,
dated “March 26, 1759,” he wrote, “We live in a changing world, but
Bethesda’s God liveth for ever and ever. His word runs and is glorified
daily, especially at Tottenham Court. Strange! that nobody will relieve
me, that I may once more flee to America. But, heavenly Father, our
times are in Thine hands: do with us as seemeth good in Thy sight!”

Before leaving London for his “spring campaign,” Whitefield issued
a small publication with the following title: “A Sermon on Christ
Crucified. Preached at Paul’s Cross, the Friday before Easter. By John
Foxe, the Martyrologist. With a recommendatory preface by the Rev. Mr.
Whitefield. London, 1759.”

Nothing need be said of John Foxe’s sermon, but Whitefield’s preface is
too good to be omitted.

“To all who attend on the word, preached at the Tabernacle, near
Moorfields, and at Tottenham Court chapel.

“MY DEAR HEARERS,――The ensuing discourse was lately put into my
hands. The title-page informs you when, where, and by whom it
was delivered――namely, near two hundred years ago, in the open
air, from a pulpit made in the shape of a cross in Cheapside,
commonly called Paul’s Cross, and by that venerable man of God,
Mr. John Foxe, Prebend of St. Paul’s, whose Book of Martyrs was,
by order of the government in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, fixed
in all churches, and remains in many to this day. Though some
of the expressions in this sermon may seem to be obsolete, and
others want a little explication, I choose to publish it in its
native dress, not only on account of its being designed for the
instruction and comfort of heavy-laden souls, who are too deeply
impressed to mind the elegancy and correctness of the words and
phrases, but also chiefly that you might have a specimen of that
foolishness of preaching, which, in the days of our forefathers,
was so mighty through God to the pulling down of the outward
strongholds of popery in these kingdoms; and what was infinitely
more (though less discernible by the natural man), the mightier
inward strongholds of sin and corruption, in the hearts of both
Papists and Protestants.

“And would to God, that not only all the ministers of our
Established Church, but of all the Protestant Reformed Churches,
were not only almost, but altogether, such preachers! How would
their hearers’ hearts then burn within them, whilst they were
opening to them, from the Scriptures, man’s original apostacy
from God,――the only means of reconciliation through faith in
the blood of Christ,――a universal morality, as the sole fruit
and proof of such a faith,――an establishment and growth in grace
here,――and, as the blessed and certain consequences of all these,
a perfect consummation of bliss, both of body and soul, in the
full and eternal enjoyment of a Triune God in the kingdom of
heaven hereafter. These are the grand truths delivered in the
following sermon.

“My chief reason for dedicating it to you is to let you see
that the doctrines you daily hear are no new doctrines, but the
very same which were preached two hundred years ago, and that in
the streets too, by the excellent compilers of the Liturgy and
Articles, and who had the honour of being banished and burned,
in the bloody reign of Queen Mary, for adhering to the same.
And, if it should ever happen in our times, that any of their
true-born faithful sons and successors should be excluded pulpits,
denied licenses, or put into spiritual courts for preaching in
the same manner, let them remember, that we live under a reign,
when, though pulpits are shut, the highways and hedges lie open.
Paul’s Cross, as I am informed, was burnt down at the Fire of
London; but Christ crucified, whom Paul preached, may yet be
exalted in the streets and lanes of the city. Our Lord has given
us a universal commission: ‘Go ye, and preach the gospel to
every creature.’ When thrust out of the synagogues, a mountain,
a ship were his pulpit, and the heavens were his sounding-board.
Thus Latimer, Cranmer, Ridley, and Mr. John Foxe, the famous
martyrologist, preached. And who needs be ashamed of copying
after such unexceptionable examples? But I am detaining you too
long. Haste, and read; and if, in reading, you feel what I did,
you will be glad of this sermon.

“I am, my dear hearers, your affectionate friend and ready
servant, in our common Lord,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

“London, May 4, 1759.”

A few days after the date of this Protestant preface, Whitefield left
London on another of his gospel tours. Hence the following:――

“BRISTOL, _May 25, 1759_.

“This day se’nnight, I came hither. The next day, the spring
campaign was opened. On the Lord’s-day, we took the field.
Thousands and thousands attended: full as many as in London. The
power of the Lord was present at the three meetings, as well as
at the holy sacrament. Ever since, I have been enabled to preach
twice, and sometimes thrice a day. Never did I see the Bristol
people more attentive or impressed. My body feels the heat, but
no matter. If souls are benefited, all is well.”

Leaving Bristol, Whitefield made his way to Scotland, arriving at
Edinburgh on Saturday, the 30th of June.[460] Three days afterwards,
he wrote as follows:――

“Edinburgh, July 3, 1759. There has been a long interval between
my last and this. My quick motions and frequent preaching have
been the causes. O what am I that I should be employed for
Jesus! In Gloucestershire, the cup of many of His people ran
over. In Yorkshire, I preached for a week twice a day. Great
congregations! great power! Blessed be the name of the Great God
for ever and ever! Here, also, people, high and low, rich and
poor, flock as usual, morning and evening. I am growing fat; but,
as I take it to be a disease, I hope I shall go home the sooner.
Happy they who are safe in harbour.”

Whitefield spent nearly seven weeks in Scotland, a fortnight in Glasgow,
and the remainder of the time in Edinburgh. Of course, his cathedral
in the latter city was the Orphan Hospital Park, as usual, where he
preached every morning and evening without exception. He did the same
in Glasgow, only on the two Sundays that he was there, he preached ten
times! He set out for London on Tuesday, August 14;[461] but, before
following him, further extracts from his letters must be given. To the
Rev. John Gillies, he wrote:――

“Edinburgh, July 7, 1759. I purpose to see Glasgow; but cannot
as yet fix the day. I preach, and people flock as usual; but
Scotland is not London. The Redeemer is doing wonders there.
Every post brings fresh good news. God’s Spirit blows when and
where it listeth. O for a gale before the storm! I expect one is
at hand. The refuge is as near. Jesus is our hiding-place. O for
a hiding-place in heaven! When will my turn come? Some say, not
yet; for I am growing fat. So did Mr. ♦Darracott a little before
he died.”

Whitefield’s obesity was one of his troubles. He disliked it; for it
was cumbersome, and made his work more difficult. It was not the result
of less labour, or of more physical indulgence. Disease had already
seized the strong, active man, and, as Whitefield judged, this was one
of its early symptoms. It helped, however, to cure him of a fault. “My
friend Mr. Whitefield,” says Romaine, “one day told me, that there was
a time in his life when he thought he had never well closed a sermon
without a lash at the _fat_, downy doctors of the Establishment.
‘At that period,’ said he, ‘I was not lean myself, though much
slenderer than since. I went on, however, and seldom failed to touch
pretty smartly upon the objects of my dissatisfaction, till one day,
on entering the pulpit at Tottenham Court Road, I found the door
apparently narrowed, and moved in obliquely. The idea then struck me,
that I was becoming, at least in appearance, a downy doctor myself;
and, from that time, I never more made the downy doctors a subject of
castigation.’”[462]

“Edinburgh, July 12, 1759. It is well that there is a heaven to
make amends for our disappointments on earth. It is a dead time
in Scotland. There is little or no stirring among the dry bones.
It is not so in London, and several other parts of England. On
Monday, God willing, I go to blow the gospel trumpet at Glasgow.
Lord, what am I, that I should be one of Thy run-abouts! If this
be to be vile, Lord, make me more vile.”

“Glasgow, July 18, 1759. I see the disease, but know not how to
come at a cure. I dread a corpulent body; but it breaks in upon
me like an armed man. O that my heart may not wax gross at the
same time! Congregations in Scotland are very large.”

During his present visit to Scotland, Whitefield preached nearly
a hundred times, to ever-increasing congregations. His collections,
for the Orphan Hospital, amounted to £215. In most of his sermons,
he stirred up the zeal of the people for God, for King George II.,
and for their country. His last service, on Sunday evening, August 12,
was a thanksgiving sermon for the victory of Prince Ferdinand of
Brunswick over the French, at Minden, on July 31. Another fact also
must be mentioned. Miss Henderson, a young lady of considerable
fortune, offered him a gift of £700, which he courteously refused.
She then proposed to give it to his Orphan House; but, for some reason,
this offer also was declined.[463] This was the mercenary man, who,
according to his enemies, was always endeavouring to amass a fortune
for himself!

At the end of August, Whitefield was once more in London, and, a
fortnight afterwards, wrote the following concerning his Orphan
House:――

“London, September 13, 1759. Your letter, dated May 25, which
I received yesterday, gave me unspeakable satisfaction. God
be praised for your success in silk-worms! God be praised that
Bethesda is out of debt! God be praised for all His tender
mercies to me and mine! Praise the Lord, O our souls! I wish
some of the children could be bred up for the ministry. What a
pity that I cannot have a grammar school! I shall think and pray,
and then write to you on this head. It is a most discouraging
thing, that good places cannot be found for the boys when fit to
go out. By this means, they are kept in the house beyond their
time, both to their own hurt, and to the further expense of
the institution. Could you let me know what stock of cattle you
have, and what hogs you kill? The more particular you are about
everything, the better. I long for the account. I am glad you
received the books. More are to be sent from Scotland. I do not
much care for R――――’s being at Bethesda, unless he is a true
penitent. How does my nephew go on?”

It is a remarkable fact, that hardly anything is known of Whitefield’s
public ministry for the next five months. During this interval, however,
he is not entirely shrouded from the public eye.

Nearly sixty years ago, had died the Rev. Samuel Clarke, M.A., one
of the noble brotherhood of Christian clergymen, ejected from their
pulpits by the Act of Uniformity in 1662. His father was one of the
best oriental scholars of the age; and father and son combined quitted
livings worth £600 a year. The son settled at High Wycombe,――“a
man of considerable learning; a good critic, especially in the
Scriptures; a great textuary; an excellent preacher; a great enemy
of superstition and bigotry; yet zealous for unaffected piety and
extensive charity.”[464] He was the author of several works, but his
principal publication was “Annotations on the Bible,”――a work designed
at the Oxford University, and the labour of his life. A new edition of
this valuable, but almost unknown, Commentary, was published in 1759;
and, for the new edition, Whitefield wrote a recommendatory preface,
which is dated “London, October 1, 1759.” No useful end would be
answered by the insertion of Whitefield’s preface. A brief extract
from it must suffice:――

“In my poor opinion, next to holy Mr. Matthew Henry’s
incomparable Comment upon the Bible, the Rev. Samuel Clarke’s
Annotations seem to be the best calculated for universal
edification. Though short, they contain, generally speaking,
a full and spiritual interpretation of the most difficult
words and phrases. A great many parallel scriptures are most
judiciously inserted. And an analysis of the contents of every
book and chapter is added. It may be, that, the curious and very
critical reader may meet with a few exceptionable expressions;
but, alas! if we forbear reading any book or comment, till we
meet with one that will suit every taste, and is liable to no
exception, I fear, we must never read at all. The best of men’s
books, as well as the best of men themselves, are but men and
the books of men, at the best. It is the peculiar property of
Thy life, and of Thy Book, O blessed Jesus! to be exempt from
all imperfections.”

News having arrived of Boscawen’s capture of the Toulon fleet off
Cape Lagos, in Portugal; and of the victory on the heights of Abraham,
and the surrender of Quebec, Whitefield, too impulsive to wait for
royal proclamations, preached three thanksgiving sermons, on Friday,
October 19. This, forsooth! gave great offence to the notorious
anti-Methodist, Dr. Free, who wrote:――

“From Mr. Whitefield’s great _booth_, we had a pompous article
in _St. James’s Evening Post_, of October 20, 1759, stating
that, the day before, ‘the Rev. Mr. Whitefield preached three
thanksgiving sermons, two in the morning at the Tabernacle,
and one at his chapel at Tottenham Court, to numerous audiences
of persons of distinction.’ By which, it appears, that,
being _without law_, he did not think it decency to wait
till his Majesty appointed the day of thanksgiving; but
pert,――forward,――an enthusiast,――he sounds his own trumpet,
sets up his own standard, and is attended in his irregularities
by numerous persons of distinction.”[465]

Dr. Free was not the only clergyman who pleased himself by attacking
Whitefield. The Rev. Mr. Downes, rector of St. Michael’s, Wood Street,
and lecturer of St. Mary-le-Bow, published his “Methodism Examined and
Exposed” (8vo. 106 pp.), in which Whitefield and Wesley were abused
with a vehemence unbefitting a Christian minister.[466]

Towards the end of the year, Whitefield stirred a nest of hornets. He
preached a sermon against attending theatres. This evoked a sixpenny
pamphlet, with the title, “A Discourse concerning Plays and Players.
Occasioned by a late and very extraordinary Sermon, in which some
sentiments relative to the above subjects were delivered in a very
copious and affecting manner, from the Pulpit of a certain popular
Preacher of the Society called Methodists.” The writer of the pamphlet
professed to be a Methodist himself. As such, he had long entertained
an “ignorant” zeal against theatres; but he had recently been cured of
his “blind prejudice,” by conversing with a comedian, and by seeing
Garrick act. In consequence of this conversion, he had been much
offended by the sermon in question, because it threatened attenders
at theatres with damnation. Whitefield’s sermon brought upon him other
attacks, besides this of a professed Methodist; but it must suffice at
present to insert an extract from the _Monthly Review_, for November,
1759, in which the “Discourse” of the theatre-going Methodist is
noticed:――

“We hope the pious orator, Mr. Whitefield, made some reserve in
favour of those who frequent the theatres in the neighbourhood
of Moorfields, Tottenham Court, Cow Cross, and Broad St. Giles.
But, after all, it were no wonder, that a Whitefield, or a
Wesley should be jealous of so powerful a rival as a Garrick;
or even a Woodward, a Shuter, or a Yates. However, it must
be allowed uncharitable in any performers, or managers, thus
to consign each other’s audiences to the devil. We hope our
good friends of Drury Lane and Covent Garden have never been
chargeable with such unfair and unchristian dealings. Emulation
is certainly commendable, while accompanied with honesty
and decency; and if we can improve and extend our traffic by
furnishing a better commodity than another can, why, it is all
fair; but neither decency nor honesty will allow us to break
the windows, or to abuse or frighten away the customers, of _our
rivals in trade_.”

These were the first mutterings of one of the most violent storms that
ever burst upon the head of Whitefield; but more of this anon.

Whitefield began the year 1760 by enlarging the Tottenham Court chapel,
opened only three years before. He wrote to a friend in America:――

“London, February 5, 1760. I am growing very corpulent, but, I
trust, not too corpulent for another voyage, when called to it.
Every day the work increases. On Sunday last, a new enlargement
of the chapel was opened, and a great concourse of people
assembled.”

Immediately after this, Whitefield published a 12mo. pamphlet of
twenty-four pages, entitled “Russian Cruelty; being the substance
of several Letters from sundry Clergymen, in the New Marche of
Brandenburg.” The letters are full of horrible details respecting
the cruelties practised by the Russian army in Germany; and, in his
preface, Whitefield ardently asks for sympathy and help on behalf
of the distressed Protestants in that country. The preface is dated
“March 2, 1760.” Friday, March 14, was appointed to be observed by a
general fast; and, on the Sunday previous, says _Lloyd’s Evening Post_,
“the Rev. Mr. Whitefield preached at his Tabernacle, at Tottenham Court
Road, to a very numerous audience. In his discourse, he took occasion
to mention the cruelties exercised by the Russian Cossacks upon the
Protestant subjects of the Duchy of Mecklenburg, and earnestly to
recommend a collection for their relief on the day of the public fast.
The money is to be paid into the hands of the minister of the Lutheran
chapel in London, by him to be transmitted to Germany, and there to
be distributed in a proper manner to the objects worthy of relief.”
Remembering the worth of money a hundred years ago, Whitefield’s
collections were enormous. The following is taken from _Lloyd’s Evening
Post_, of March 17, 1760:――

“On the Fast-day, upwards of £400 were collected at Mr.
Whitefield’s chapel in Tottenham Court Road, and at the
Tabernacle, in Moorfields, for the relief of the distressed
Protestants in and about Custrin, in the New Marche of
Brandenburg; many of whom have been not only plundered and
stripped of all they had, but have likewise been cruelly
tortured and abused by the savage Cossacks and other irregular
troops of the Russian army.”[467]

It is a strange and disgraceful coincidence, that, on the very
Fast-day, when Whitefield was so nobly exerting himself to redress
the Russian cruelties in Germany, one of Whitefield’s friends, within a
dozen miles of London, was being treated with cruelty dishonourable to
the character of old England. Hence the following taken from _Lloyd’s
Evening Post_, of March 21, 1760:――

“Last Friday (the Fast-day) a terrible riot happened at Kingston,
in Surrey, occasioned by a Methodist preacher, who came there,
and assembled a great number of people together in a barn to
hear him. Whilst he was preaching, an impudent fellow threw some
dirt at him, which created a great disturbance; and the mob, at
last, dragged the preacher into the street, and rolled him in
a ditch; and, had it not been for the humanity and good-nature
of a gentleman near the spot, who took him into his house,
he, in all likelihood, would have been murdered. Some of the
Inniskilling dragoons being there among the mob, with their
swords, wounded and bruised several of the people, and put the
whole town into an uproar; but, by the prudent behaviour of
their commanding officer, all ill consequences were prevented.
He ordered the drums to beat, assembled the dragoons in the
yard of the Sun Inn, and kept them there for some time, and
then ordered them to their quarters.”

One of the notable events of 1760 was the trial and the execution of
the half mad and intensely wicked Earl Ferrers, for the brutal murder
of Mr. Johnson, his steward. The notorious Earl being nearly related
to the Countess of Huntingdon, she and all her Methodist friends felt
a profoundly painful interest in the case. The trial, which lasted
three days, commenced in Westminster Hall, on April 16. Charles Wesley
writes:――

“April 17, 1760. Yesterday morning, my heart was overwhelmed
with sorrow. Not in my own will did I enter the place of
judgment. George Whitefield and his wife sat next me. The lords
entered with the utmost state: first the barons, then the lords,
bishops, earls, dukes, and Lord High Steward. Most of the royal
family, the peeresses, and chief gentry of the kingdom, and the
foreign ambassadors were present, and made it one of the most
august assemblies in Europe; but the pomp was quite lost upon
me.”[468]

After his condemnation, the Earl was often visited, in the Tower of
London, by the Countess of Huntingdon, and twice by Whitefield, to whom
he behaved with great politeness. At her ladyship’s request, Whitefield
repeatedly offered up public prayer for the unhappy murderer. “That
impertinent fellow,” said Horace Walpole, “told his enthusiasts that
my lord’s heart was stone.” So it was. Earl Ferrers ended his ignoble
life, on the scaffold, May 5, 1760. “With all his madness,” sneered the
flippant writer just mentioned, “Lord Ferrers was not mad enough to be
struck with Lady Huntingdon’s sermons. The Methodists have nothing to
brag of his conversion, though Whitefield prayed for him, and preached
about him.”[469]

At the period when Whitefield was visiting Earl Ferrers in the Tower,
there was another convict, belonging to another class of society,
who secured his pity and attentions. Robert Tilling, coachman to Mr.
Lloyd, a merchant living in Devonshire Square, Bishopsgate Street, had
presented himself at the bedside of his master, at four o’clock in the
morning of February 19; pointed a pistol at his head; demanded the keys
of his escritoir; and threatened to blow out his brains, unless the
demand was granted. The keys were given up; the merchant was robbed
of his money; the coachman was arrested; was tried at the Old Bailey;
confessed his crime; was sentenced to be hanged; and, in company with
three others, was executed, at Tyburn, on Monday, April 28. The body
was conveyed to Whitefield’s Tabernacle in Moorfields, where, _horresco
referens!_ it was exposed to the public view. On April 30, it was
carried to Tindall’s burying ground in Bunhill Fields. The rest of
the story may be told by an extract from _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of
the 5th of May:――

“We are informed that there was a prodigious concourse of people
to hear Mr. Whitefield speak in Bunhill Fields, at the grave
of Robert Tilling; some think not less than twenty thousand.
There was no burial office read; but, after the corpse had been
laid in the ground some time, Mr. Whitefield came, and, in a
declamatory way, shewed how the wages of sin was death,――gave
some account of the malefactor’s penitence,――exhorted all
in general to turn from their vices and come to Christ,――and
pressed all servants in particular to take warning by the
criminal’s execution, and shew all fidelity to their masters.”

Having “spent all the last winter in London,” Whitefield set out, in
the month of May, on another of his evangelistic tours. First of all,
he went to Gloucestershire; in June he went to Wales; in July, to
Bristol; and in August came back to London. In September and October,
he had “a ramble of two months in Yorkshire;”[470] after which, as
usual, he returned to his “winter quarters,” in the metropolis.[471]
Hardly anything is known of these preaching journeys. The following are
extracts from his letters:――

“Bristol, July 5, 1760. When in the fields, ten thousand,
perhaps more, assemble here. When under cover, there are more
than the Tabernacle will hold; at least, in the evening. Every
time, the house is a Bethel, a house of God, a gate of heaven. I
thought my wife’s illness would have hastened me to London; but,
as she is now recovering, I would fain proceed in my summer’s
campaign. I am persuaded I am the better for your prayers. Never
were they more charitably bestowed. I am a worm, and no man.
O blessed Jesus, how good Thou art! With all Thy other mercies,
give, O give me an humble and a thankful heart!”

“Bristol, July 8, 1760. I have sympathised with you, in respect
to your fears about the _Indian_ war. Lord Jesus, grant the
Indians may not come near Bethesda! In heaven, all alarms will
be over. I long for those blessed mansions. But nothing kills
me. My wife was lately just got into harbour, but is driven back
again. Blessed be God, we are sure of getting in at last. Jesus
is our pilot. I am going on in my old way, saving that I grow
fatter and fatter every day. Lord, help me to work it down! But
it seems working will not do it.”

“London, August 15, 1760. How do I long to hear of God’s
appearing for Georgia and Bethesda! I trust the Indians will not
be permitted to disturb a family planted by God’s own right hand,
and for His own glory. But the Divine judgments are a great deep.
I trust some Bethesda letters will soon put me out of suspense.
I wrote to you by the convoy that took your new governor. I hope
he will behave friendly to the Orphan House. If we make the Lord
Jesus our friend, all will be well. Many here are seeking His
friendship. Satan is angry. I am now mimicked and burlesqued
upon the public stage. All hail such contempt! God forbid that
I should glory, save in the cross of Jesus Christ! It is sweet!
It is sweet! What a mercy is it, that we have got an abiding
inheritance in the kingdom of heaven! Of this we can never be
robbed. _Hallelujah!_”

It is a remarkable fact, that, though the burlesquing of Whitefield, in
1760, was a most disgraceful, and almost unparalleled outrage against
all propriety, the above and another introduced hereafter are the only
instances, in Whitefield’s published letters, where he mentions it. The
subject is disgusting; but it must be noticed.

Samuel Foote was born at Truro, in Cornwall. His father was member of
Parliament for Tiverton. Young Foote was educated at Worcester College,
Oxford. On leaving the University, he became student of law in the
Temple. He married a young lady of a good family and some fortune;
but, their tempers not agreeing, harmony did not long subsist between
them. Foote now launched into all the fashionable follies of the age,
gambling not excepted; and, in a few years, squandered all his money.
His necessities led him to the stage. In 1747, when about twenty-six
years of age, he opened the little theatre in the Haymarket, taking
upon himself the double character of author and performer. His first
dramatic piece was called “The Diversions of the Morning,” and was
chiefly a description of several well-known living persons. For years
after, Foote continued to select, for the entertainment of the town,
such public characters as seemed most likely to amuse the attendants
at his theatre. In 1760, he published and performed “The Minor,” a
filthy and profane burlesque of Whitefield and his followers. Six
years afterwards, he broke his leg, and was compelled to undergo an
amputation. His last piece was brought out in 1776, and was called
“The Trip to Paris.” In this, he made a pointed attack on the character
of the Duchess of Kingston. The Lord Chamberlain interdicted the
performance. Foote made some alterations in the play, and brought it
out under the title of “The Capuchin.” In this, he levelled his satire,
not only against the Duchess, but against her bosom friend, Dr. Jackson,
the editor of a newspaper. Foote grew in wickedness, as he grew in
years. He was charged with an unnatural crime, but was acquitted. The
man, however, who had been stigmatizing public and living persons,
for the last thirty years, was annoyed at being stigmatized himself.
His spirits sank; his health failed; and, while on the stage, he was
seized with paralysis. Soon afterwards, he set out for France; but died
suddenly, at Dover, on October 21, 1777. He was privately interred in
Westminster Abbey.[472] “Foote,” said Boswell to Johnson, both of whom
were well acquainted with the zany, “Foote has a great deal of humour.”
Johnson: “Yes, sir.” Boswell: “He has a singular talent for exhibiting
character.” Johnson: “Sir, it is not a talent――it is a vice: it is what
others abstain from. It is not comedy, which exhibits the character of
a species, as that of a miser gathered from many misers: it is a farce,
which exhibits individuals.” Boswell: “Pray, sir, is not Foote an
infidel?” Johnson: “I do not know, sir, that the fellow is an infidel:
but if he be an infidel, he is an infidel as a dog is an infidel; that
is to say, he has never thought upon the subject.”[473]

This profane and filthy-minded comedian was the author of the infamous
production, which brought upon Whitefield an unequalled torrent of
abuse and ridicule. Its title was, “The Minor, a Comedy, written by
Mr. Foote. As it is now acting at the New Theatre in the Hay-Market.
By authority from the Lord Chamberlain.[474] _Tantum Religio potuit
suadere malorum._ London, 1760.” (8vo. 91 pp.)

“The Minor” was first acted early in July, 1760.[475] It would be
far worse than offensive to give an outline of it in a work like this.
How educated and respectable people could listen to such ribald and
blasphemous outpourings it is difficult to imagine. The whole thing
is so steeped in lewdness, that it would be criminal even to reproduce
the plot. Suffice it to say, that Foote was not only the author of the
piece, but its chief actor. He performed the three characters, “Shift,”
“Smirk,” and “Mrs. Cole.” He declaimed against “the Itinerant Field
Orators, who are at declared enmity with common sense, and yet have
the address to poison the principles, and, at the same time, to pick
the pockets of half our industrious fellow-subjects.” He lays it down,
that, “ridicule is the only antidote against this pernicious poison.
Methodism is a madness that arguments can never cure; and, should
a little wholesome severity be applied, persecution would be the
immediate cry. Where then can we have recourse but to the comic muse?
Perhaps the archness and severity of her smile may redress an evil,
that the laws cannot reach, or reason reclaim.” Such, forsooth,
were the virtuous motives which prompted Foote, in the profanest
language, and in the character of a _bawd_, to ridicule the greatest
evangelist of his age, and one whom all men now delight to honour. In
a literary point of view, “The Minor” is despicable; in a moral, it is
_unquotable_.

The Countess of Huntingdon waited on the Duke of Devonshire, the Lord
Chamberlain, and requested its suppression; but was told her request
could not be granted. She had an interview with Garrick, who professed
to be offended with the comedy;[476] and yet, shortly after, admitted
it into his own theatre in Drury Lane.

In the very month when it first appeared, even the _Monthly Review_, no
friend to the Methodists, condemned it. Hence the following:――

“The spirit of puffing, which so strongly characterizes the
present age, is become so universal, that almost every class
seems to be moved by it. In time past, it was chiefly confined
to quack doctors, booksellers, and advertising tailors; but
now even the wits of the town are seized by it, and every
farce-writer ostentatiously styles his _petit piece_ of three
acts, a comedy. This of Mr. Foote’s is one of the number;
but it no more deserves the title of a comedy than ‘The Stage
Coach,’ ‘The Devil to Pay,’ or any of those inferior dramatic
productions, which usually appear as the humble attendants upon
works of the higher order――the tragedies and comedies of _five
acts_.

“The success of the present performance, during the
representation, arose from the author’s extraordinary talent
at mimicry; but it is not calculated to please equally in
the perusal. The satire levelled at the great leader of the
Methodists seems to be extremely out of character. It is no
less unjust to Mr. Whitefield, than absurd, to suppose a man
of his penetration, either conniving at, or being the dupe of,
an old bawd’s hypocrisy, in continuing to follow her iniquitous
occupation, while she frequents the Tabernacle, and cants about
the new birth. And when we are told that an occasional hymn
is given out, and a thanksgiving sermon preached, on occasion
of Mother Cole’s (Douglas’s) recovery from sickness, who can
forbear smiling――not with approbation of the conceit, but,
with contempt for the author of such improbable scandal? We
despise and abhor all enthusiastic flights, and high pretentions
to extraordinary sanctity, as much as Mr. Foote can do; but,
without entering into the enquiry whether or not these are
proper objects of playhouse ridicule, it is most certain, that
no man, or body of men, ought to be charged with more than they
are guilty of; and that there is not a juster maxim in the moral
world, than, ‘_Give the devil his due[477]_.’”

In the month of August,[478] 1760, there appeared a pamphlet with the
title, “Christian and Critical Remarks on a Droll, or Interlude, called
‘The Minor,’ now acting by a Company of Stage-Players in the Hay-Market,
and said to be acted by Authority; in which the Blasphemy, Falsehood,
and Scurrility of that Piece are properly considered, answered, and
exposed. By a Minister of the Church of Christ. London, 1760.” (8vo.
41 pp.) The writer says Foote “has gone beyond any of his competitors
in debauching, if possible, and debasing the stage. He has done this,
by doing that which nobody else in these kingdoms had the confidence to
attempt; I mean by the introduction of real and living characters into
his pieces.” And then, it is correctly added, “The name of the Spirit
of God is bandied about from the mouth of vagabond to vagabond, in
order to raise a laugh in honour of the devil.”

A month later, was published a 4to. shilling pamphlet, entitled, “A
Satyrical Dialogue between the celebrated Mr. F――te and Dr. Squintum,”
which the _Monthly Review_ pronounced, “Dirty trash: intended to vilify
Mr. Whitefield.” Also, a folio publication (price 1s.), with the title,
“A Letter of Expostulation from the Manager of the Theatre in Tottenham
Court, to the Manager of the Theatre in the Hay-Market, relative to a
new Comedy, called ‘The Minor.’” In this infamous and lewd production,
Whitefield is represented as being jealous of Foote in gulling the
public, and, therefore, proposes that they become partners. Much of it
cannot be quoted. The following are among the less objectionable lines.
Addressing Foote, Whitefield, at the Tabernacle, is made to say:――

“Your talent of humour shall have its full swing,
Here pleasure and profit are both on the wing:
Love-feasts――and ladies intriguing――and cash――
Keep on but the vizor,――have at ’em slap-dash――
No bait shall be wanting the trade to advance,
We’ll now and then tip ’em a drum and a dance.”

In the month of October, the storm was continued, and, if possible,
became more furious. A long letter was inserted in _Lloyd’s Evening
Post_, in which, after praising Foote for his mimicry in “The Minor,”
the writer adds: “Religion is too sacred (be it exercised in ever so
absurd a manner) to become the butt of public mockery. If the exercise
of it should be unwarrantable, the laws will check it, without calling
theatrical buffoonery to their assistance.”

Three months before, as soon as “The Minor” appeared, there was
published, a shilling pamphlet, with the false title: “A Genuine
Letter from a Methodist Preacher in the Country, to Laurence Sterne,
M.A., Prebendary of York.” Now, in the month of October, the same
“nonsensical and profane” thing was re-issued with an altered title:
“A Letter from the Rev. George Whitefield, B.A., to the Rev. Laurence
Sterne, M.A., the supposed Author of ‘The Life and Opinions of Tristram
Shandy.’” Even the _Monthly Review_ now became indignant, and said,
“The impudence of our low dirty, hedge-publishers is risen to a most
shameful height. To take such scandalous liberties with names, as is
here done with that of Mr. Whitefield, is surely insufferable in any
well-regulated community. If it is not in that gentleman’s power to
procure redress of such a flagrant injury, it is high time to provide
the means of punishing such audacious proceedings for the future.”

The volatile Foote also added to his previous crime, the publication
of an 8vo. pamphlet, of 40 pages, entitled, “A Letter from Mr. Foote
to the Reverend Author of the Remarks, Critical and Christian, on ‘The
Minor.’” The mendacious reviler writes:――

“I am extremely puzzled in what manner to address you; it being
impossible to determine, from the title you assume, whether you
are an authorised pastor, or a peruke-maker,――a real clergyman,
or a corn-cutter.”

Again:――

“I have heard George Whitefield’s mother frequently declare that
he was a dull, stupid, heavy boy, totally incapable of their
business at the ‘Bell,’ a principal inn at Gloucester.

“The force and miserable effects of Whitefield’s mystic
doctrines are obvious enough. _Bedlam_ loudly proclaims
the power of your preacher, and scarce a street in town but
boasts its tabernacle; where some, from interested views, and
others――unhappy creatures! mistaking the idle offspring of a
distempered brain for divine inspiration, broach such doctrines
as are not only repugnant to Christianity, but destructive even
to civil society.

“I believe Whitefield is too cunning to let anybody into the
secret as to the quantity of wealth he has amassed; but, from
your own computation of males fit to carry arms, who are listed
in his service, and the price they are well known to pay for
admittance, even into the gallery of his theatre, I should
suppose his annual income must double the primate’s. To this
may be added private benefactions and occasional contributions.”

One more specimen of Foote’s audacious scurrility must suffice. He
concludes his pamphlet thus:――

“You a reformer! Are these the proofs of your mission? Repent,
and, by way of atonement and mortification, summon your
misguided flock; reveal your impious frauds, and restore the
poor deluded people to their senses and their proper pastors.
If you still persist, I must, after your example, conclude
with wishing that those teachers amongst you, who are mad, were
confined closely in _Bedlam_, and those who are wicked, were
lodged safely in _Bridewell_; and then, I think the public would
get rid of you all. But, whilst you continue triumphantly at
large, spiritualized and divine as you may think yourselves,
I shall still take the liberty to follow you, as the boy did
Philip, with a loud memento that you are merely men.”

The reader must pardon these long extracts from such a writer; for,
without them, it is difficult to convey an adequate idea of what a
sensitive man like Whitefield must have suffered from the publication
of such falsehoods and abuse. Unfortunately more must follow.

In the month of November, Garrick permitted “The Minor” to be acted in
Drury Lane Theatre, but with some insignificant alterations, the chief
of which was, in lieu of a filthy and profane sentence, which cannot be
quoted, Mrs. Cole, the bawd, was represented as saying, “Dr. Squintum
washed me with the soap-suds and scouring sand of the Tabernacle, and
I became as clean and bright as a pewter-platter.”[479] The theatre was
crowded, and thus even Garrick, as well as Foote, began to make money
by holding up Whitefield to the ridicule of the large and fashionable
assemblies of the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. It was now that one
of the personal friends of Whitefield stepped into the lists. The
Rev. Martin Madan[480] published an 8vo. pamphlet of 48 pages,
entitled, “A Letter to David Garrick, Esq.; occasioned by the intended
Representation of ‘The Minor’ at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane.” In
an advertisement, Mr. Madan states that the first performance of ‘The
Minor’ in Drury-Lane had been fixed for October 25, but the sudden
death of King George the Second, on the morning of that day, occasioned
a short postponement. Madan refrains from discussing “the absolute
unlawfulness of stage entertainments,” because that point had been
“ably and unanswerably proved by the masterly pen of the Rev. Mr.
William Law.” He says, “Mr. Whitefield knows nothing of the writing of
this letter;[481] and I will not say one word in behalf of him. I shall
put him as much out of the case as if there was no such man breathing.
I profess no attempt to defend anything but the truths of the Bible,
and consequently the religion of this country, as by law established.”
Madan declares that, instead of “The Minor” being styled a comedy, it
deserved the name of “A Dramatic Libel against the Christian Religion;”
and, by quotations, proceeds to state his reasons, for this assertion,
adding:――

“Does Mr. Garrick think such language as this is fit for the
entertainment of polite ears? Would any one imagine that these
speeches, if weighed one moment in the balance of reason (to
say nothing of religion), could possibly be introduced, with the
least degree of approbation, before any audience, except the
inhabitants of Bridewell or Newgate? I blush for my countrymen,
when I recollect, that even this _vile stuff_ was attended to in
the Hay-Market, by crowded audiences, for above thirty nights,
and that with applause; whereas it was dismissed, with deserved
abhorrence, after being _one_ night _only_ offered to the people
of Ireland, at one of their theatres. This I have been credibly
informed of, and believe it to be true.”

After furnishing other quotations from “The Minor,” Madan again
addresses Garrick thus:――

“Now, sir, give me leave to appeal to your own _good sense_ and
_judgment_, whether, upon the foregoing view of ‘The Minor,’
you think it a proper entertainment for his Majesty’s comedians
to exhibit, or his Majesty’s subjects to attend to; whether
you think there is such a veneration for our holy religion
among the people, as to need any retrenchment; and whether
making the language of the Scriptures and the doctrines of the
gospel ridiculous, can be likely to answer any other end, than
increasing the daily growth of impiety and infidelity amongst
people of all degrees?”

“As to Mr. Foote, I would charitably think, that all the
knowledge he has of the several expressions and doctrines he
has ridiculed, is, in consequence of his attendance upon the
preaching of Mr. Squintum, in order to laugh at him. Hence
he thought (as he had not been used to such language) that
they were the vapours of a distempered brain, and treated them
accordingly; so that, like Solomon’s madman, he has been casting
about firebrands, arrows, and death, and saying, ‘Am I not in
sport?’ I hope, however, Mr. Foote will endeavour to inform
himself better, and then make what amends he can to the public,
for having been the promoter of an open attack upon the truths
and _language_ of the _sacred volume_, by the mouths of the
most profligate and wicked of the people; for we can hardly walk
the streets, but we hear ballads, in which the _very words_ of
our blessed Saviour are blasphemed, and treated as the _rare
doctrine_ of Dr. Squintum.”

It is hoped that quotations like these will justify the treating of
this subject at so great a length. To say nothing of Foote, and his
lewd audiences in the little theatre in the Haymarket, it was a serious,
almost a national, crime and evil when such profanity and pollution
were introduced into His Majesty’s Theatre Royal, in Drury Lane; and
when, prompted by such a high example, Grub Street began to supply
ballads, of the same horrible description as the farce of Foote, to
the boys and girls, the drunkards and profligates, of England’s great
metropolis.[482]

Besides Mr. Madan’s pamphlet, another was published, in Whitefield’s
favour, in November, 1760, namely: “A Letter to Mr. Foote, occasioned
by his Letter to the Reverend Author of the Christian and Critical
Remarks on ‘The Minor;’ containing a Refutation of Mr. Foote’s Pamphlet,
and a full Defence of the Principles and Practices of the Methodists.
By the Author of the Christian and Critical Remarks.” (8vo. 28 pp.)

This was a well-written pamphlet; but another, by the same author,
published in the same month, was not so prudently composed. Its title
was, “An Exhortatory Address to the Brethren in the Faith of Christ.
Occasioned by a Remarkable Letter from Mr. Foote to the Reverend Author
of Christian and Critical Remarks on ‘The Minor.’ With a serious word
or two on the present Melancholy Occasion. By a Minister of the Church
of Christ.” The “serious word or two” spoilt all the rest; for the
author rashly insinuated that the encouragement given to Foote was the
sin which had brought upon the nation a Divine judgment, in the recent
sudden death of George II. As might be expected, this gave an advantage
to Foote and to his friends. On reading the pamphlet, the _Monthly
Review_ exclaimed, “_O thou wrong-headed leader of the wrong-heads!
Fie on thee! Fie on thee!_”

On the other side, a long letter, filling nearly a page, was inserted
in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of November 14. It began as follows: “We now
have the pleasure of seeing Methodism ushered in in comic characters,
and the ridiculous gesture of the Tabernacle Impostor mimicked in the
easier attitude of the stage.” The writer proceeds to criticise what
he calls Methodism’s “favourite tenet, the _grace of assurance_, good
works being not significant;” and then wishes “we had some formal
Court of Judicature, to detect the cunning cant and hypocrisy of all
pretenders to sanctity and devotion, for then we should be able to
guard against those who preach to us salvation with a view to make us
undergo a _temporal fleecing_.” With a sneer, he concludes thus:――

“What a monstrous piece of inhumanity are we venerators of
apostolic doctrine and episcopal dignity to these pretended
saint errants and non-apostolical preachers! To complete their
unhappiness, we have made them a theatrical scoff, and the
common jest and scorn of every chorister in the street.”

Five days afterwards, there appeared, in the same journal, a letter
by Wesley, replying to this “very angry gentleman,” whom he presumed
to be “a retainer of the theatre.” This evoked a disgracefully abusive
answer, on November 24, which concluded with the polite assertion, that
“arguing with Methodists is like pounding fools in a mortar.” Wesley
again replied, on December 3; and his opponent, angrier than ever, in a
long epistle, on December 12. In one of his quiet, but caustic letters,
Wesley concluded the correspondence on December 26.

During this lengthened controversy, between Wesley and his nameless
adversary, two more pamphlets were given to the public. The first
was entitled, “A Letter to Mr. F――te. Occasioned by the Christian
and Critical Remarks on his Interlude, called ‘The Minor.’ To
which is added an Appendix, relative to a Serious Address to the
Methodists themselves.” (12mo. 28 pp.) The thing was full of banter
and badness,――bespattering Whitefield, and extolling Foote. The second
was an equally vile production: “Observations, Good or Bad, Stupid or
Clever, Serious or Jocular, on Squire Foote’s Dramatic Entertainment,
entitled ‘The Minor.’ By a Genius.” (12mo. 15 pp.) In the _Genius’s_
estimation, “the _fable_ of ‘The Minor’ is pretty and entertaining; the
_manners_ happily described; the _sentiments_ just and natural; and the
_language_ easy and spirited!!!” The critique of the _Monthly Review_
on this production of “a Genius” was contained in a single line: “All
the humour of this lies in the title-page.”

These lengthened details may be somewhat tedious; but they show the
terrible _fracas_ in which Whitefield was involved during the year
1760. This certainly was one of the most painful years of his eventful
life. The persecution also was novel. He had been abused by clergymen
in England, Scotland, and America, by pamphleteers learned and
illiterate, and by mobs; but now, for the first time, he was ridiculed
by theatrical comedians and their friends. Other opponents had been
severe; but, as a rule, they had not been ribald and profane. Now it
was otherwise. The farce of Foote, and the ballads in the streets, were
steeped in blasphemy and filth. And yet, with the exception already
mentioned, they are never noticed in any of Whitefield’s published
letters. That he suffered――keenly suffered――it is impossible to doubt;
but there is no evidence that he murmured or complained. No man more
fully realized the truth and meaning of the Saviour’s beatitude,
“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
shall say all manner of evil against you _falsely_, for my sake.”

“The Minor” was not the only farce published against Whitefield. At
least, three other kindred productions were printed during the ensuing
year. First, there was “An Additional Scene to the Comedy of ‘The
Minor.’ London, 1761.” (8vo. 19 pp.) In this, Whitefield was described
as “a priestly-looking man, with a cast in his eyes, and wearing a
white flaxen wig,” and who, on being introduced to Foote, presented a
comedy of his own composing, and requested Foote to act it. Then, there
was “The Register Office: a Farce of Two Acts. Acted at the Theatre
Royal in Drury Lane. By J. Reed. London, 1761.” (8vo. 47 pp.) A filthy
thing, in which Whitefield is called “Mr. Watchlight,” instead of
“Dr. Squintum;” and “Mrs. Snarewell” answers to “Mrs. Cole” in “The
Minor” by Foote. “Lady Wrinkle” and “Mrs. Snarewell” are both _dramatis
personæ_ in the printed farce; but a foot-note states, “These two
characters were not _permitted_ to be played.” Then, finally, there
was “The Methodist: a Comedy: being a Continuation and Completion of
the Plan of ‘The Minor’ written by Mr. Foote: as it was intended to
have been acted at the Theatre Royal in Covent Garden, but for obvious
reasons suppressed. With the original Prologue and Epilogue. London,
1761.” (8vo. 60 pp.) This, if possible, was even more profane and
polluted than “The Minor” itself; and, though not acted, it soon passed
through three editions. “Squintum” and “Mrs. Cole” were both among the
leading characters; but to quote what they are made to say would be
a crime. Half a dozen lines, however, taken from the prologue, may be
given:――

“No private pique this just resentment draws,
Or brands a wretched _Squintum_, or his cause;
But, since the laws no punishment provide
For such as draw the multitude aside,
The poet seizes the corrective rod,
To scourge the bold blasphemer of his God.”

A disgusting specimen of the audacious falsehoods of the _blaspheming_
Foote! To use one of Whitefield’s own expressions, none but a wretched
being, “_half a beast and half a devil_,” could have written “The
Minor” and “The Methodist.” The following is the _Monthly Review’s_
critique on the latter of these infamous productions:――

“Mr. Foote’s ‘Minor’ is the foundation of this despicable
superstructure, by means of which the scandalous abuse of
Mr. Whitefield, under the opprobrious name of Dr. Squintum,
is carried to such a height, as, in our judgment, reflects
the utmost disgrace upon literature.”[483]

It is mournful to relate, that the wretched Foote hunted Whitefield,
with undiminished hatred, to the end of Whitefield’s life. Two months
after the great preacher’s death, in 1770, Foote was acting “The
Minor” in the theatre at Edinburgh. The first night’s audience was
large; but the indecency of the piece so shocked the people, that,
at the following night’s performance, only ten of the female sex had
effrontery sufficient to witness such profane impurity. Meanwhile,
the news arrived of Whitefield’s decease, and loud was the outcry
against ridiculing the man after he was dead. The Revs. Dr. Erskine,
Dr. Walker, and Mr. Baine denounced Foote’s outrageous behaviour from
their respective pulpits. “How base and ungrateful,” exclaimed the
last-mentioned minister, “is such treatment of the dead! and that,
too, so very nigh to a family of orphans, the records of whose hospital
will transmit Mr. Whitefield’s name to posterity with honour, when
the memory of others will rot. How illiberal such usage of one, whose
seasonable good services for his king and country are well known; and
whose indefatigable labours for his beloved Master were countenanced by
heaven!”[484]

Here, while the buffoon, as it were, gesticulates, capers, and makes
grimaces over Whitefield’s corpse, we take our leave of Foote for ever.

Before passing from the year 1760, one more publication must be
mentioned. Its title was “Pious Aspirations for the use of Devout
Communicants, either before, at, or after the Time of Receiving.
Founded on the History of the Sufferings of Christ, as related by
the Four Evangelists. Extracted from the English Edition of the three
Volumes of the Rev. Mr. J. Rambach, late Professor of Divinity in the
University of Giessen. By George Whitefield, Chaplain to the Right
Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon. London, 1760.” (12mo. 104 pp.)
This little book is often beautiful, and always intensely earnest and
devout.

The first glimpse of Whitefield, in 1761, is on February 21, when he
wrote as follows:――

“London. The distance that Plymouth lies from London, is one
great cause of my coming there so seldom. What can I do, who
have so many calls, and so few assistants? London must be minded;
for, surely, there the word runs, and is glorified more and
more. I returned in post-haste, last month, from Bristol. Both
in going and coming, dear Mr. H―――― and I were in great jeopardy.
Once the machine fell over; and, at another time, we were
obliged to leap out of the post-chaise, though going very fast.
Blessed be God, we received little hurt. Good was to be done. On
the Fast-day, near £600 were collected for the German and Boston
sufferers. Grace! grace! I wish you had collected at Bristol.
When can you move? Pray let me know directly. I want my wife to
ride as far as Plymouth. Nothing but exercise will do with her.”

The general fast, here mentioned, was held on Friday, February 13. On
that day, Whitefield preached early in the morning, at the Tabernacle,
from Exodus xxxiv. 1, etc., and collected £112. In the forenoon, at
Tottenham Court Road, he selected, as his text, “Blow the trumpet in
Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly.” Here the collection was
£242. In the evening, he preached again in the Tabernacle, choosing for
his text, “The Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into
the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.”
The third collection amounted to £210.[485] The ridicule of Foote, so
far from lessening, had increased Whitefield’s popularity. On the day
in question, not only did his congregations crowd the two chapels, but
comprised an assemblage of the aristocracy of England rarely witnessed
in a Methodist meeting-house. Among others present, there were the
Countess of Huntingdon, Lady Chesterfield, Lady Gertrude Hotham, Lady
Fanny Shirley, Lord Halifax, Lord Holdernesse, Secretary of State; Lord
Bute, who soon succeeded him in his office; the Duke of Grafton, then
rising rapidly into public life; Lady Harrington; Charles Fox then a
boy, but, afterwards, the celebrated statesman and orator; William Pitt,
Lord Villiers, and Soame Jennys, who held office in the Board of Trade,
and acquired imperishable fame by his “View of the Internal Evidences
of the Christian Religion.” The collections, made on the occasion,
were for a twofold purpose, partly for the benefit of the plundered
Protestants in the Marche of Brandenburg, and partly to relieve the
distresses of the inhabitants of Boston, in New England, where a fire
had destroyed nearly four hundred dwelling-houses. No wonder that they
amounted to upwards of £560.[486]

Soon after this, Whitefield received assistance in his London work,
from Berridge, of Everton, late moderator of Cambridge. Hence the
following extracts from his letters:――

“LONDON, _February 23, 1761_.

“The Redeemer’s work is upon the advance. All opposition is
over-ruled for the furtherance of the gospel. A new instrument
is raised up out of Cambridge University. He has been here
preaching like an angel of the churches.”

Again, to the Rev. John Gillies, of Glasgow:――

“LONDON, _March 14, 1761_.

“One Mr. Berridge, late moderator of Cambridge, has been
preaching here with great flame. The awakening is rather greater
than ever. Satan’s artillery has done but little execution.

“‘Thoughts are vain against the Lord,
All subserve His standing word;
Wheels encircling wheels must run,
Each in course to bring it on.
Hallelujah!’”

The truth is, Whitefield needed help. During his late visit to the
city of Bristol, he had caught a cold, which so seriously affected his
health, that, in one of the London newspapers, it was announced that he
was dead.[487] His illness disabled him during the whole of the months
of March and April. Hence the following, from _Lloyd’s Evening Post_:――

“April 13. The Rev. Mr. Whitefield is so well recovered from his
late illness, that he appeared abroad on Saturday last.

“April 29. The Rev. Mr. Whitefield was so well on Sunday, as to
assist in administering the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.”

The following letters were written when Whitefield was convalescent:――

“CANONBURY HOUSE, _April 27, 1761_.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,――Accept a few lines of love unfeigned
from a worthless worm, just returning ♦from the borders of the
eternal world. O into what a world was I launching! But the
prayers of God’s people have brought me back. Lord Jesus, let
it be for Thy glory, and the welfare of precious and immortal
souls! O how ought ministers to work before the night of
sickness and death comes, when no man can work! You will
not cease to pray for me, who am indeed less than the least
of all. Weakness forbids my enlarging. Hearty love to all
who are so kind as to enquire after a hell-deserving, but
redeemed, creature. Not only pray, but also give thanks to the
never-failing Emmanuel, who has been ease in pain, health in
sickness, life in death, to yours, for His great name’s sake,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The next was addressed to the Rev. John Gillies, of Glasgow.

“CANONBURY HOUSE, _May 2, 1761_.

“Indeed, my dear friend, the news you have heard was true. I
have been at the very gates of what is commonly called death.
They seemed opening to admit me, through the alone righteousness
of the blessed Jesus, into everlasting life. But, at present,
they are closed again. For what end, an all-wise Redeemer can
only tell. I have, since my illness, once assisted a little
at the Lord’s supper, and once have spoken a little in public.
But my locks are cut. Natural strength fails. Jesus can renew;
Jesus can cause to grow again. By His divine permission, I
have thoughts of seeing Scotland. If I relapse, that will be a
desirable place to go to heaven from. I love, I love the dear
people of Scotland! Ten thousand thanks to you, and all my dear
Glasgow friends.”

It is a disgraceful fact, that, while Whitefield was thus tottering
back from the margin of the grave, the _St. James’s Chronicle_, of
April 28, filled a column and a half of its folio sheet, with what it
was pleased to call “Similes, Metaphors, and Familiar Allusions made
use of by Dr. Squintum.” Only the last in the list shall be given.

“I will tell you the very picture of damned souls in hell. Have
you never seen a potter’s oven, where he bakes his pots? Now the
longer these pots bake, the harder they grow. Just so does one
of these damned souls. God keep you and me, dear brethren, from
ever being one of their unhappy number! (Sighing by the people.)”

For the next twelve months, Whitefield was an invalid, and, with a
few exceptions, was obliged to refrain from preaching. The following
extracts from his letters are painfully interesting. His health was
gone, and yet, when he could, he tried to preach.

“PLYMOUTH, _June 5, 1761_.

“Through Divine mercy, I am somewhat improved in my health
since my leaving London. At Bristol, I grew sensibly better, but
hurt myself by too long journeys to Exeter and hither. However,
blessed be God! I am now recovered from my fatigue, and hope
bathing will brace me up for my glorious Master’s use again.
The few times I have been enabled to preach, the infinitely
condescending Redeemer has breathed upon the word. Who knows but
I may get my wings again? Abba, Father, all things are possible
with Thee!”

“BRISTOL, _June 11, 1761_.

“These few lines leave me rather hurt by my late western
journey. I strive to put out to sea as usual, but my shattered
bark will not bear it. If this air does not agree with me,
I think of returning, in a few days, to my old nurses and
physicians. Blessed be God for an interest in an infinitely
great, infinitely gracious, and sympathising, unchangeable
Physician! I hope you and yours enjoy much of His heart-cheering
consolations. These have been my support in my younger days;
these will be my cordials in the latter stages of the road.
Jesus lives when ministers die.”

In the beginning of July, Whitefield had returned to London. Meanwhile,
news had arrived of the English fleets having taken Belleisle, on
the coast of Brittany, and Dominica in the West Indies. Pondicherry,
also, the capital settlement of the French in the East Indies, had been
surrendered to the British troops, and the English were left undisputed
masters of the rich coast of Coromandel, and of the whole trade of the
vast Indian Peninsula, from the Ganges to the Indus. Considering how,
for the last quarter of a century, Whitefield’s whole soul had been
absorbed in the great work of preaching Christ and saving souls, it is
curious to see him so profoundly interested in the war which was now
raging in the four quarters of the earth, and in the victories won by
the British arms. Hence the following:――

“London, July 6, 1761. Blessed be God, I am better! Blessed be
God that you are so likewise! Who knows what rest and time may
produce? Oh to be blanks in the hands of Jesus! When shall this
once be? What good news by sea and land! Grace! Grace!”

Wesley was now in Yorkshire, and was anxious about the health of
his old and much-loved friend. He had been in company with Venn, who
had become vicar of Huddersfield, and Venn had created fears that
Whitefield’s labours and life were almost ended. Hence, in a letter
to Mr. Ebenezer Blackwell, the London banker, Wesley wrote:――

“Bradford, July 16, 1761. Mr. Venn informs me that Mr.
Whitefield continues very weak. I was in hope, when he wrote
to me lately, that he was swiftly recovering strength. Perhaps,
sir, you can send me better news concerning him. What need have
we, while we do live, to live in earnest!”[488]

For weeks after this, Whitefield was almost entirely silent. To an
afflicted friend, he wrote:――

“LONDON, _October 13, 1761_.

“MY DEAR FELLOW-PRISONER,――I hope the all-wise Redeemer is
teaching us to be content to be buried ourselves, and to bury
our friends. This is a hard but important lesson. I have not
preached a single sermon for some weeks. Last Sunday, I spoke a
little; but I have felt its effects ever since. Father, Thy will
be done! Glory be to God, that some good was done at Plymouth!
The news drove me to my knees, and stirred up an ambition to
be employed again. I have met with changes. My two old servants
are married, and gone. Mr. E――――” (query John Edwards?) “has
preached for me some time. As yet, the congregations are kept
up.”

Immediately after this, Whitefield set out for Edinburgh, to obtain
medical advice. While halting at Leeds, he received news of the death
of one of his assistants at Bethesda; and wrote as follows:――

“Leeds, October 24, 1761. I am still in this dying world, but
frequently tempted to wish the report of my death had been
true, since my disorder keeps me from my old delightful work
of preaching. But Jesus can teach us to exercise our passive as
well as active graces. Fain would I say, ‘Thy will be done!’
I know now what nervous disorders are. Blessed be God that they
were contracted in His service! I am riding for my health; but
I think a voyage would brace me up. I impute my present disorder,
in a great measure, to the want of my usual sea voyages.

“What sudden changes here! O that my great change were come!
Happy Polhill! Bethesda’s loss is thy gain! To be carried to
heaven in an instant; from a ship’s cabin into Abraham’s bosom;
O what a blessing! God sanctify and make up the loss! We shall
find few Polhills.

“I see you are running in arrears. Some way or other, I trust,
they will be discharged. But I would have the family reduced as
low as can be. The keeping of those who are grown up hurts them,
and increases my expense. I have little comfort in many whom I
have assisted. But our reward is with the Lord. I can at present
bear very little of outward cares.”

Five days later, Whitefield had reached Newcastle, where he wrote the
following to Mr. Robert Keen, of London:――

“NEWCASTLE, _October 29, 1761_.

“MY DEAR STEADY FRIEND,――Hitherto the Lord has helped me.
Surely His mercy endureth for ever. I bear riding sixty miles a
day in a post-chaise quite well. Friends, both here and at Leeds,
are prudent, and do not press me to preach much. But, I hope,
I am travelling in order to preach. If not, Lord Jesus help
me to drink the bitter cup of a continued silence with a holy
resignation, believing that what is, is best! Everywhere, as I
came along, my spiritual children gladly received me. I hope you
go on well at London. It is the Jerusalem――the Goshen. To-morrow,
I may set forwards towards Edinburgh.”

At Edinburgh, Whitefield consulted four eminent physicians.[489] There
are only two more letters to tell the remainder of his story during the
year 1761: the first addressed to the Rev. John Gillies, of Glasgow;
the second to Mr. Robert Keen, of London.

“Edinburgh, November 9, 1761. Though I have been very ill since
my coming to Edinburgh, yet I must come to see my dear friends
at Glasgow. I cannot be there till noon on the 12th inst. Little,
very little, can be expected from a dying man.”

“Leeds, December 1, 1761. It is near ten at night and I am to
set off to-morrow in the Leeds stage for London. Silence is
enjoined me for a while by the Edinburgh physicians. They say my
case is then recoverable. The great Physician will direct.”

The poor fellow apparently was dying; but, even under such
circumstances, his enemies could not restrain their malice. It
is a painful thing to advert again to hostile publications, but
Whitefield’s history cannot be fully told without it. Some, belonging
to 1761, have been already noticed; others, unfortunately, are, as yet,
unmentioned:――

1. “A Funeral Discourse, occasioned by the much-lamented Death of Mr.
Yorick, Prebendary of Y――k, and Author of the much-admired ‘Life and
Opinions of Tristram Shandy.’ Preached before a very mixed Society of
_Jemmies_, _Jessamies_, _Methodists_, and _Christians_, at a nocturnal
meeting in Petticoat Lane; and now Published, at the unanimous request
of the hearers, by Christopher Flagellan, A.M. London, 1761.” (8vo.
48 pp.) It is enough to say that this profane and filthy production was
dedicated to “the Right Honourable the Lord F――――g, and _to the very
facetious Mr. Foote_!”

2. “A Journal of the Travels of Nathaniel Snip, a Methodist Teacher of
the Word. Containing an Account of the many Marvellous Adventures which
befel him in his way from the town of Kingston-upon-Hull to the City
of York. London, 1761.” (8vo. 32 pp.) This was an infamous production,
full of burlesque and banter; but the foot-note, at the end of it, will
be quite enough to satisfy the reader’s craving:――

“As Snip’s manuscript concludes thus abruptly, I beg leave
to finish the whole with an account of what I observed at a
puppet show, exhibited at one of the principal towns in the
west of Yorkshire. Punch was introduced in the character of
Parson Squintum, the field-preacher, holding forth to a number
of wooden-headed puppets, mostly composed of old women and
ungartered journeymen of different callings. The more noise
Punch (_alias_ Squintum) made, the more the audience sighed and
groaned. At last, _Squintum_ said something about _a woman with
the moon under her feet_, and pointed up to the sky, on which he
desired them to fix their eyes with steadfastness. They did so;
and, while their eyes were thus fixed, he very fairly picked all
their pockets, and stole off. Oh, Punch, Punch! Thou Alexander
the Coppersmith! thou Ananias Inlignante! what will become of
thee hereafter, for thus vilifying the _Inspired of Heaven_, the
_Grand Obstetrix_ of those _chosen few_, who are _impregnate_
with the _New Birth_!”

3. A third of these malignant productions _professed_ to have for
its author the most notorious quack of the age, “Dr. Rock,” and was
entitled, “A Letter to the Reverend Mr. G――e Wh――――d, A.B., late
of Pembroke College, Oxford.” (12mo. 8 pp.) The purport of this
bantering tract was, a proposal that, as Rock and Whitefield were
both quacks, they should enter into partnership. The thing displayed
cleverness,――perhaps too great to affiliate it on the great empiric.
One or two extracts must suffice:――

“If you set up for a copy of St. Paul (as it is observed you
do, even to the mimicking of Raphael’s picture of him at Hampton
Court), I do the same by the old stager――_Hypocrites_, I think
they call him. If you undertake to cleanse and purify the soul,
I do the like by the body. If you are an enemy to the regular
drones of your profession, I am as much to those of ours. If you
profess to serve the public for the sake of the public, so do
I. Do you pocket the fee when it is offered?――I do the same. Are
the mob your customers?――they are mine likewise. Are you called
a quack in _doctrinals_?――I bear the same reproach in practice.
Are you the scorn and jest of men of sense?――I want but very
little of being as much their jest and scorn as you. In a word,
as it is said that you turn the brains of your patients, it is
affirmed, with equal truth, that I destroy the constitutions of
mine.”

Supposing Whitefield might have objections to the proposed partnership,
Rock pretends that he has objections too; for, says he:――

“Nobody, I thank God, can upbraid me with devouring widows’
houses; leading captive silly women; confounding the peace and
ruining the substance of families; preaching up Christ, and
playing the devil; blindly recommending charity, and, at the
same time, guilty of the worst oppression by squeezing the last
mite out of the pockets of the poor.”

Dr. Rock concludes by stating that Whitefield “is a public pest, an
incendiary of the worst kind, and a deceiver of the people.”

This was bad to bear, especially for a man in Whitefield’s state of
health; but more must follow:――

4. “The Crooked Disciple’s Remarks upon the Blind Guide’s Method
of Preaching for some years; being a Collection of the Principal
Words, Sayings, Phraseology, Rhapsodies, Hyperboles, Parables, and
Miscellaneous Incongruities of the Sacred and Profane, commonly,
repeatedly, and peculiarly made use of by the Reverend Dr. Squintum,
delivered by him, _viva voce ex Cathedra_, at Tottenham Court,
Moorfields, etc. A work never before attempted. Taken _verbatim_
from a constant attendance. Whereby the honesty of this Preacher’s
intentions may be judged of from his own doctrine. By the learned
John Harman, Regulator of Enthusiasts. London, 1761.” (8vo. 48 pp.)

This was one of the vilest pamphlets ever published. Its trash cannot
be quoted. It is enough to say that, besides “A Short Specimen of the
Rev. Dr. Squintum’s Extemporary Sermons,” it contains what it calls one
of Whitefield’s prayers, prefaced thus:――

“The following preamble is Dr. Squintum’s fervent, solemn form
of prayer; delivered by him in an attitude similar to that of
_Ajax_, in _Ovid’s Metamorphoses_. His body erect, his hands
extended, his face thrown upwards, with his eyes gazing towards
the stars. _Torvo vulto, tendens ad sidera palmas._ Alternately
changing from his theatrical astonishments into violent
enthusiastical agitations and distortions, accompanied with
weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth! _Strange vicissitudes!_
which he strictly keeps up to, throughout the whole of his
preaching.”

5. “The Spiritual Minor. A Comedy. London.” (8vo. 32 pp.) Another
infamous production, with a “Prologue,” by Mrs. Cole, and an
“Epilogue,” by Dr. Squintum. The _dramatis personæ_ are Mr. Squintum,
Mr. Rakish, Mr. Screamwell, Mr. Scruple, Mr. Cheatwell, Feeble,
Mrs. Cole, and Miss Ogle.

All this is extremely loathsome, and worthy of Foote, the comedian.
Two other names, much more respectable than Doctor Rock and John
Harman, must now be introduced.

6. Jonas Hanway, the distinguished merchant, traveller, and
philanthropist, was now in the fiftieth year of his age. Eight years
before, he had published his travels, in four 4to. volumes, under the
title of “An Historical Account of the Caspian Trade over the Caspian
Sea; with a Journal of Travels from London, through Russia, into
Persia, etc.; to which are added the Revolutions of Persia during
the present Century, with the particular History of the Great Usurper,
Nadir Kouli.” In 1754, he called the attention of the Government to the
bad state of the streets in London and Westminster. In 1756, he took
steps which ultimately led to the establishment of the Marine Society.
In 1758, he made strenuous exertions to improve the Foundling, and
to establish the Magdalen Hospitals. And now, in 1761, he published
“Reflections, Essays, and Meditations on Life and Religion; with a
Collection of Proverbs in Alphabetical Order; and Twenty-eight Letters,
written occasionally on several subjects――viz., The Absurd Notions of
the Sect called Methodists; The Customs of foreign Nations in regard
to Harlots; The Lawless Commerce of the Sexes; The Repentance of
Prostitutes; And the great Humanity and Beneficence of the Magda_lane_
Charity. By Mr. Hanway. London, 1761.” (Two vols., 8vo., pp. 280
and 317.)

As Mr. Hanway became so notable a man, that, two years after his death,
a monument, by public subscription, was erected to his memory, in
Westminster Abbey; his sentiments on Whitefield deserve insertion. At
all events, the critique of the benevolent old bachelor, who had the
courage to be the first who appeared in the streets of London carrying
an umbrella, will, perhaps, amuse the reader.

“I intended, a long while since,” says he, “to hear Mr.
Whitefield at Tottenham Court, and I have at length compassed
my design. The _prayers_ were performed with as much devotion
as one generally finds at any church, and, as well as I remember,
without any _excursions_ foreign to the Church Service. Fame
had represented him to me as a great _orator_; but in this I
was a little disappointed, not but he performs, upon the whole,
_tolerably well_. The _tunes_ and _concordance_ of the singing
are also very _proper_ and agreeable; though I thought that
_psalms_, or _anthems_, would be better than _hymns_; or the
true harmony of sense and numbers, than such _poor poetry_ as
was sung.

“When he began his _sermon_, the oddness of some of his
_conceits_, his _manner_, and turn of _expression_, had I not
been in a place of public _worship_, would have excited my
laughter. As he went on, I became _serious_, then _astonished_,
and at length _confounded_. My confusion arose from a mixture
of _sorrow and indignation_, that any man bearing the name of
a _minister_ of our _meek and blessed Redeemer_, or the dignity
of the _Christian priesthood_, should demean himself like an
inhabitant of _Bedlam_. I thought I saw human nature in distress,
as much as in the cells of _lunatics_; with this difference,
that he was permitted to go abroad, and make others as _mad_ as
himself; which he might be able to accomplish by means of the
_credulity of his audience_, joined to the _art_ of making them
think that himself and his _fraternity_ are the only people _in
their senses_.

“I must inform you, that, opposite to this _celebrated_ preacher,
sat a dozen or more of old women, of that class who, within this
half-century, might easily have been persuaded, by _threats_ or
_promises_, that they had rode in the air on _broomsticks_, and,
confessing it, might have been put to death by people as much
bewitched as themselves. Their intellectual powers are so far
decayed, that they do not distinguish between _receiving alms_,
in relief of their misery, and _receiving hire_, as _hummers
and hawers_. This is the denomination given, by many sober
persons, to these _old women_, some of whom, I am assured, have
_confessed_ that they are retained ♦by hire, for _sighing and
groaning_.”

Mr. Hanway proceeds to say that he had been to the Haymarket, to see
“The Minor” acted, but “had not health, nor patience to sit out above
half of it.” He adds:――

“I wish the _principles_ of the Methodists may be understood
more clearly by being brought on the _stage_; but I question if
the character of the _bawd_, in ‘The Minor,’ has any existence,
and, if so, the whole fabric of the _drama_ is built on false
grounds. If it does exist, is it so proper a subject for the
theatre, as for _St. Luke’s Hospital_? This dramatic piece
may possibly intimidate some from becoming _Methodists_; but,
however _popular_ it may be, I am very doubtful concerning the
_propriety_ of the measure, as to the end of correcting the
_enthusiasm_ in question. It is said, that, this comedy ‘has
shaken the _pillars of Tottenham Tabernacle_,’ and I must add,
that, I believe no harm would happen were it to tumble, provided
the poor people, who frequent it, were at their _work_, or
saying their prayers in their parish churches.

“As to the _peruke_ and _shoemaker_ declaimers, whose
recommendation is consummate impudence, warm imaginations,
and the remembrance of texts which they have no capacity to
understand, it would be an indignity offered to the Christian
priesthood to call such persons _Teachers_ or _Preachers_ of the
Gospel. And as to the _gentlemen_ of Methodistical tenets, who
have had a scholastic education, how few among them are there
who would not _face about to the right_, for the consideration
of a good ecclesiastical benefice. I have very _particular
reasons_ to believe the major part of them would conform to
Church orthodoxy and _intelligible_ Christianity, if they did
not find a better living in another way.”

7. So much for the eccentric Jonas Hanway. Another pamphleteer――much
more able, though not so well known to fame――must now be introduced.
Whitefield had already been attacked by the Bishop of London, the
Bishop of Lichfield, and the Bishop of Exeter. Now, he came under
the lash of the Rev. John Green, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln. In 1760,
Dr. Green published an 8vo. pamphlet of seventy pages, addressed to
Berridge, of Everton; but that must be passed without further notice. A
year later, he issued another pamphlet with the title, “The Principles
and Practices of the Methodists farther considered; in a Letter to the
Reverend Mr. George Whitefield. Cambridge, 1761.” (8vo. 74 pp.) The
Bishop of Lincoln wrote with great ability. The chief fault to be found
with him is, that, he based his strictures upon the first editions of
Whitefield’s Journals, and his “Short Account of God’s Dealings with
him,” published in 1740. This was hardly fair, because Whitefield,
since then, had, more than once, publicly expressed his regret
for having used certain loose and extravagant expressions in these
productions. Dr. Green was either not acquainted with Whitefield’s
apologies, or he chose, for some hidden purpose, not to acknowledge
them. Anyhow, remembering that such apologies had been made, and that
Whitefield’s health was now even dangerously affected, paragraphs, like
the following, were neither courteous nor fair:――

“In that curious repository of religious anecdotes, called your
Journals, I have often seen and pitied the distress you have
been in between strength of inclination and want of ability;
when you have recited several things, which bordered on the
marvellous, and which, notwithstanding, you did not care to
vouch for miraculous.

“All the exalted things you have said, and all the wonderful
things you have done, will pass, I fear, with many, only for the
frenzy and rant of fanaticism. They will be apt to think your
journeyings the effects of a roving and itinerant temper, and
ascribe them to a strong tincture of that heroical passion, by
which so many saints of the Romish communion have been actuated.

“Though possessed of so happy a talent at opening the hearts
and purses of the people, that you were traduced under the
name of ‘the Spiritual Pickpocket,’ yet you have not ventured
to trust your support to the precarious offerings of voluntary
contribution. Though you have not chosen to put yourself in a
situation to claim any legal dues; yet you have lately dispensed
your instructions, on the stipulation of certain periodical
payments, and under the sanction of that unquestionable truth,
‘that the labourer is worthy of his hire.’

“We have instances on record, how an audience has been dissolved
into tears by an orator, without knowing a single syllable of
that which he uttered; have been moved by the efficacy of words
which they did not understand, and by the goodly appearance of
the speaker, whom they knew nothing of, to yield the sincerest
proofs of their convictions by a liberal supply of such good
things as he wanted. Some incidents of the same sort are said
to have happened to yourself, and that the bare sight of your
blessed gown and wig, though out of the reach of that elocution
which so much surprises, and that pathos which so much moves,
has not only softened the hearts and moistened the eyes, but
drawn large pecuniary supplies to your charitable designs from
the pity and benevolence of your female disciples.”

These were taunts unworthy of a bishop of the Established Church, and
undeserved by poor afflicted Whitefield. Doubtless, they were painful;
but they were patiently endured.

Whitefield’s health was somewhat better. On January 8, 1762, he wrote:
“The Scotch journey did me service. I preached on New Year’s Day, and
am to do so again to-morrow. I had a violent fall upon my head, from
my horse, last Thursday, but was not hurt. Mr. Berridge is here, and
preaches with power. Blessed be God that some can speak, though I am
laid aside!”

No information exists as to how Whitefield spent the first three months
of 1762. He still, however, was the subject of disgraceful persecution.
During this interval, there was published a small 8vo. volume (price 2s.
6d.), entitled, “A Plain and Easy Road to the Land of Bliss, a Turnpike
set up by Mr. Orator ――――.” No good end would be answered by quotations
from it. “It is,” said the _Monthly Review_, “contemptible for its
stupidity. It is a filthy, obscene thing, for which the dirty author
ought to be washed in a horse-pond.”[490]

In April, Whitefield went to Bristol, where he continued for about a
month. The following extracts from his letters will shew the progress
he was making:――

“Bristol, April 17, 1762. Bristol air agrees with me. I have
been enabled to preach five times this last week, without being
hurt. Were the door open for an American voyage, I believe it
would be serviceable in bracing up my relaxed tabernacle. But
He who knoweth all things, knoweth what is best. I see more and
more, that grace must be tried. O for a heart to be made willing
to be nothing, yea, less than nothing, that God may be all in
all!”

“Bristol, April 18, 1762. Sunday. This morning I have been
administering the ordinance; and this evening I hope to be upon
my throne again. Who knows but I may yet be so far restored as
to sound the gospel trumpet for my God? The quietness I enjoy
here, with the daily riding out, seems to be one very proper
means. Be this as it will, I know ere long I shall serve our
Lord without weariness. A few more blows from friends, and from
foes, and the pitcher will be broken. Then the wicked one will
cease from troubling, and the weary traveller arrive at his
wished-for rest.”

“Bristol, May 4, 1762. I see it is always darkest before the
break of day. O that we could always remember that blessed
promise, ‘At evening-tide it shall be light’! The archers have
of late shot sorely at me and grieved me; but blessed be God for
a little revival in my bondage. For these three weeks past, I
have been enabled to preach four or five times a week; but you
would scarce know me, I am so swollen, and so corpulent. Blessed
be God for the prospect of a glorious resurrection!”

On his way back to London, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“Rodborough, May 21, 1762. I hope to be in London on Tuesday
or Wednesday next. Through Divine mercy, preaching four or five
times a week has not hurt me; and twice or thrice I have been
enabled to take the field: in my opinion, a greater honour than
to be monarch of the universe. London cares and London labours,
I expect, will bring me low again; but I hope soon to slip away,
and to get strength, and then to hunt for precious souls again.
How gladly would I bid adieu to ceiled houses, and vaulted
roofs! Mounts are the best pulpits, and the heavens the best
sounding-boards. O for power equal to my will! I would fly from
pole to pole, publishing the everlasting gospel of the Son of
God. I write this at a house built for dear Mr. Adams.[491] From
his window is a prospect perhaps of thirty miles. I have wished
you here with your telescope. But if the footstool is so
glorious, what must the throne be!”

“London, May 28, 1762. I am just now come to town for a few days,
sensibly better for my country excursion. Once more, I have had
the honour of taking the field, and have now some hopes of not
being as yet quite thrown aside as a broken vessel. Help me to
praise Him, whose mercy endureth for ever.”

In the month of June, Whitefield sailed to Holland, where his health
was further benefited. At the end of July, he was preaching at Norwich,
and wrote:――

“Norwich, July 31, 1762. The trip to Holland, last month, was
profitable to myself, and, I trust, to others. If my usefulness
is to be continued in London, I must be prepared for it by a
longer itinerancy both by land and water. At present, blessed
be God! I can preach once a day; and it would do your heart good
to see what an influence attends the word. All my old times are
revived again. On Monday next, God willing, I shall set forwards
to Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, etc.”

Ten days after this, Whitefield attended the annual Conference of
Wesley and his itinerants, in the town of Leeds. This was a notable
assembly, for, besides the brave band of Wesley’s helpers, there were
present the two Wesleys, Whitefield, Romaine, Madan, Venn, and, last
but not least, the Countess of Huntingdon![492] Wesley wrote:――

“We had great reason to praise God for His gracious presence,
from the beginning to the end.”

From Leeds, Whitefield proceeded to his beloved Scotland, where he
wrote:――

“Edinburgh, September 2, 1762. I am just this moment returned
from Glasgow, where I have been enabled to preach every day,
and twice at Cambuslang. Auditories were large, and Jesus smiled
upon my feeble labours.”

“Edinburgh, September 9. I came here a week ago. Since then, I
have been helped to preach every day. The kirk has been a Bethel.
Grace! Grace! On Monday, the 13th inst., I shall set off. Follow
me with your prayers.”

On Sunday, September 19, Whitefield was at Sunderland;[493] and on the
following Sunday at Leeds. Here he wrote to his friend, Mr. Robert Keen,
as follows:――

“I am just now setting forwards towards London, but fear I
cannot reach it before Sunday. My chaise wanted repairing here.
O how good hath Jesus been to a worthless worm! Once a day
preaching, I can bear well; more hurts me. What shall I do with
the Chapel and Tabernacle? Lord Jesus, be thou my guide and
helper! He will! He will! Send word to the Tabernacle that you
have heard from me. We have had sweet seasons.”

The “Seven Years’ War” was now nearly ended. The campaign of 1762 was
eminently successful. Frederick the Great and Prince Ferdinand had
been victorious in Germany; Burgoyne had aided Portugal in repelling
the Spaniards; and the English fleet and army in the West Indies
had taken the Carribbean Islands and Havannah. Lord Bute, the prime
minister of England, strongly desired peace, for the English people
were complaining loudly of increased taxation. He engaged the neutral
king of Sardinia to propose to the court of France negotiations for
a termination of the war. Louis XV., like a drowning man, caught at
the proposal. The Duke of Bedford was selected as plenipotentiary and
ambassador extraordinary to Paris; and the high-born and gallant Duke
de Nivernois came to London in the same capacity. This was in September;
and the negotiations proceeded with such rapidity, that _preliminaries_
for peace were signed at Fontainebleau on the 3rd of November following.

In consequence of these events, Whitefield now had a prospect of
carrying out his long-cherished wish to visit his Orphan House, and
his numerous friends, across the Atlantic. He wrote, as follows, to
the housekeeper of his Orphanage:――

“London, October 15, 1762. I wish to answer your letter in
person. I hope the time is now drawing near. I count the weeks,
and days, and hours. Blessed be God that you live in such
harmony! A house thus united in Jesus will stand. I write this
in great haste. I am enabled to preach once a day. Give thanks!
give thanks!”

In November, Whitefield went to Bristol, where his “congregations were
large, and a most gracious gale of Divine influence attended the word
preached.” Having promised to visit Plymouth, he wrote to his friend
there, the good Andrew Kinsman:――

“Let grand preparations be made,――as a candle, a book, and a
table; above all, much prayer, that I may not again relapse at
Plymouth, as the Bristol people say I shall do, by coming at
this season of the year.”

On reaching Plymouth, he wrote:――

“Plymouth, December 4, 1762. Being under a positive promise to
come here before I left England, I embraced this opportunity.
Through mercy, I preached last night, and find no hurt this
morning. Many young people, I hear, are under great awakenings.
O to begin to wage an eternal war with the devil, the world, and
the flesh! I would fain die sword in hand.”

Whitefield had an old trusty servant, Mrs. Elizabeth Wood,[494] to whom
he wrote as follows:――

“Plymouth, December 5, 1762. You did very wrong, in not letting
me know of your mother’s necessities. She was a widow indeed;
but now she is above the reach of everything. I am weary of the
world, of the Church, and of myself. I cannot get up to London
till near Christmas Day. As affairs are there circumstanced,
everything there tends to weigh me down. O that patience may
have its perfect work! Let me always know your wants. It is your
own fault if you lack anything, whilst I have a farthing.”

Kind-heartedness was a prominent trait in Whitefield’s character. It
was during this, or some other visit to Plymouth, that an incident
occurred which is worth telling. “Come,” said Whitefield to his
friend and host, Andrew Kinsman, “come, let us go to some of the poor
and afflicted of your flock. It is not enough that we labour in the
pulpit; we must endeavour to be useful out of it.” Away the two friends
went, and Whitefield not only gave counsel to those they visited,
but monetary aid. Kinsman reminded him that his finances were low,
and that he was more bountiful than he could afford. “Young man,”
replied Whitefield, “it is not enough to pray, and to put on a serious
countenance: ‘pure religion and undefiled is this, to visit the
fatherless and widows in their affliction,’ and to administer to their
wants. My stock, I grant, is nearly exhausted, but God will soon send
me a fresh supply.” In the evening, a gentleman called, and asked to
see Whitefield. “Sir,” said he, “I heard you preach yesterday: you are
on a journey, as well as myself; and, as travelling is expensive, will
you do me the honour of accepting this?” The present was five guineas,
and came from a man noted for his penuriousness. “Young man,” cried
Whitefield, on his return to Kinsman, “young man, God has soon repaid
what I bestowed. Learn, in future, not to withhold when it is in the
power of your hand to give.”[495]

Whitefield, on his way to London, halted at Bristol, and wrote to
Kinsman, as follows:――

“Bristol, December 12, 1762. We got here yesterday, all well,
excepting that I lost my watch in the way. If it teach me to be
more on my _watch_ in the best things, the loss will be a gain.
Lord, help me in everything to give thanks! I do not repent my
Plymouth journey. Thanks to you all for your great kindnesses.
Thanks, eternal thanks, to the God of all, for giving us His
presence! It is better than life. I have not yet seen your
daughter; but I hear she is well. Tell Sarah not to murder so
dear a child. Hugging to death is cruelty indeed. Adieu! I must
away to sacrament. O for such a one as we had last Sunday! Mind
and get up in a morning to pray, before you get into shop.”

Whitefield wished to embark for America; but, before doing so, had
a difficulty to encounter. He had erected two large and flourishing
chapels in London, which, in consequence of the sites on which they
stood being granted to himself on lease, were practically his own
property. The money by which the chapels had been built was not his;
and he felt that it would be unjust if, by his decease, they came into
the possession of his heirs and successors. Hence, as he was hoping
soon to sail, and as his health was such as to render his return to
England a doubtful matter, he was anxious to have the Tabernacle and
the Tottenham Court Road chapel so settled, that the purpose for which
they had been erected might never be frustrated. Hence the following to
Mr. Robert Keen:――

“_January 15, 1763._

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――Do meet me to-morrow, at one o’clock, at
Mr. B――――n’s, Canonbury House. I have something of importance
to communicate. It is to beseech you, jointly with Mr. Hardy and
Mr. B――――n,[496] as trustees, to take upon you the whole care of
the affairs of Tottenham Court chapel, and of the Tabernacle, and
all my other concerns in England. This one thing being settled,
I have nothing to retard my visit to America, to which I think
there is a manifest call at this time, both as to the bracing up
my poor, feeble, crazy body, and adjusting all things relating
to Bethesda. Your accepting this trust will take off a ponderous
load that oppresses me much.”

There can be little doubt, that, Messrs. Keen and Hardy consented to
take the management of the two chapels during Whitefield’s absence
in America; but it is also clear that no trust deed, transferring the
chapels to these two gentlemen, was at that time executed. Hence the
following clause in Whitefield’s will, dated March 22, 1770:――

“Whereas there is a building, commonly called the Tabernacle,
set apart many years ago for Divine worship, I give and bequeath
my said Tabernacle, with the adjacent house in which I usually
reside, when in London, with the stable and coach-house in
the yard adjoining, together with all books, furniture, and
everything else whatsoever, that shall be found in the house
and premises aforesaid; and also the buildings commonly called
Tottenham Court chapel, together with all the other buildings,
houses, stable, coach-house, and everything else whatsoever
which I stand possessed of in that part of the town,――to my
worthy, trusty, tried friends, Daniel West, Esq., in Church
Street, Spitalfields, and Mr. Robert Keen, woollen-draper in
the Minories, or the longer survivor of the two.”

This is a curious clause. In the year of his decease, Whitefield
evidently believed the London chapels and their adjacent premises
to be his own property, but he had no wish for them to pass to his
representatives and heirs. His desire was that they should be used in
perpetuity, for preaching the same glorious gospel, as he had preached
for more than the last thirty years; and hence the above bequest. The
oddness of the thing, however, is, that Whitefield’s will created no
_trust_; and that, by it, these two chapels became as absolutely the
property of Messrs. West and Keen as they had been his own.

It is only right to add, that, in making his will, Whitefield was his
own lawyer. At all events, the will was in his own handwriting. And,
further, it is due to Mr. West and Mr. Keen to say, that, though they
might have appropriated this property to their own private use, they
faithfully carried out the intentions of Whitefield, and managed the
chapels, not for their own benefit, but, for the glory of God and the
good of their fellow-men. Mr. Keen died on January 30, 1793; and Mr.
West on September 30, 1796.[497] The last-mentioned gentleman, as the
survivor of the two “trusty friends” mentioned in Whitefield’s will,
bequeathed the property to Samuel Foyster and John Wilson, both of them
well known in the Christian world. This, however, is not the place to
pursue the history of the glorious old Tabernacle in Moorfields, and of
the aristocratic chapel in Tottenham Court Road.

Whitefield took leave of his London congregations on Wednesday,
February 23, when he preached a farewell sermon, from “The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” In the earlier parts of this
biography, lengthened extracts were given from Whitefield’s sermons,
for the purpose of conveying an idea of the character of his preaching,
at that period of his ministry. For the same purpose, other extracts
from sermons, belonging to the present date, may be given here.

In the sermon, preached on February 23, 1763, Whitefield is reported as
having said:――

“‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you _all_.’ It
is not said, all ministers, or all of this or that particular
people; but with all believers. Mr. Henry said, he desired to be
a Catholic, but not a Roman Catholic. There is a great reservoir
of water from which this great city is supplied; but how is it
supplied? Why, by hundreds and hundreds of pipes. Does the water
go only to the Dissenters, or to the Church people,――only to
this or that people? No: the pipes convey the water to all; and,
I remember, when I saw the reservoir, it put me in mind of the
great reservoir of grace, the living water that is in Christ
Jesus.

“What a horrid blunder has the Bishop of Gloucester been guilty
of! What do you think his lordship says, in order to expose the
fanaticism of the Methodists? ‘Why,’ says he, ‘they say they
cannot understand the Scriptures without the Spirit of God.’
Can any man understand the Scriptures without the Spirit of
God helps him? Jesus Christ must open our understanding to
understand them. The Spirit of God must take of the things of
Christ, and shew them unto us. So, also, with respect to all
ordinances. What signifies my preaching, and your hearing, if
the Spirit of God does not enlighten? I declare I would not
preach again, if I did not think that God would accompany the
word by His Spirit.”

“Are any of you here unconverted? No doubt too many. Are any
of you come this morning, out of curiosity, to hear what the
babbler has to say? Many, perhaps, are glad it is my last sermon,
and that London is to be rid of such a monster; but surely you
cannot be angry with me for my wishing that the grace of God may
be with you all. O that it may be with every unconverted soul!
O man! what wilt thou do if the grace of God is not with thee?
My brethren, you cannot do without the grace of God when you
come to die. Do you know that without this you are nothing but
devils incarnate? Do you know that every moment you are liable to
eternal pains? Don’t say I part with you in an ill humour. Don’t
say that a madman left you with a curse. Blessed be God! when I
first became a field-preacher, I proclaimed the grace of God to
the worst of sinners; and I proclaim it now to the vilest sinner
under heaven. Could I speak so loud that the whole world might
hear me, I would declare that the grace of God is free for all
who are willing to accept of it by Christ. God make you all
willing this day!”

Was Whitefield still a Calvinist? Language like this can hardly be
harmonized with Whitefield’s holding the doctrine of election, and, by
consequence, the doctrine of reprobation. Two or three extracts from
other sermons, preached at this period of his history, may be useful.

“Woe! woe! woe! to those who, in the hour of death, cannot say,
‘God is my refuge.’ O what will you do, when the elements shall
melt with fervent heat? when the earth with all its furniture
shall be burnt up? when the archangel shall proclaim, ‘Time
shall be no more!’ Whither then, ye wicked ones, ye unconverted
ones, will ye flee for refuge? ‘O,’ says one, ‘I will flee to
the mountains.’ Silly fool! flee to the mountains, that are
themselves to be burnt up! ‘O,’ say you, ‘I will flee to the sea.’
That will be boiling! ‘I will flee to the elements.’ They will
be melting with fervent heat. I know of but one place you can go
to, that is to the devil. God keep you from that! Make God your
refuge. If you stop short of this, you will only be a sport for
devils. There is no river to make glad the inhabitants of hell:
no streams to cool them in that scorching element. Were those in
hell to have such an offer of mercy as you have, how would their
chains rattle! how would they come with the flames of hell about
their ears! Fly! sinner, fly! God help thee to fly to Himself
for refuge! Hark! hear the word of the Lord! See the world
consumed! See the avenger of blood at thy heels! If thou dost
not take refuge in God to-night, thou mayest to-morrow be damned
for ever.[498]

“Tremble for fear God should remove His candlestick from among
you. Labourers are sick. Those who did once labour are almost
worn out; and others bring themselves into a narrow sphere, and
so confine their usefulness. There are few who like to go out
into the fields. Broken heads and dead cats are no longer the
ornaments of a Methodist. These honourable badges are now no
more. Languor has got from the ministers to the people; and,
if you don’t take care, we shall all be dead together. The Lord
Jesus rouse us! Ye Methodists of many years’ standing, shew the
young ones, who have not the cross to bear as we once had, what
ancient Methodism was.[499]

“Don’t be angry with a poor minister for weeping over them who
will not weep for themselves. If you laugh at me, I know Jesus
smiles. I am free from the blood of you all. If you are damned
for want of conversion, remember you are not damned for want
of warning. You are gospel-proof; and, if there is one place
in hell deeper than another, God will order a gospel-despising
Methodist to be put there. God convert you from lying a-bed
in the morning! God convert you from conformity to the world!
God convert you from lukewarmness! Do not get into a cursed
Antinomian way of thinking, and say, ‘I thank God, I have the
root of the matter in me! I thank God, I was converted twenty
or thirty years ago; and, though I can go to a public-house, and
play at cards, yet, I am converted; for once in Christ, always
in Christ,’ Whether you were converted formerly or not, you are
perverted now. Would you have Jesus Christ catch you napping,
with your lamps untrimmed? Suffer the word of exhortation. I
preach feelingly. I could be glad to preach till I preached
myself dead, if God would convert you. I seldom sleep after
three in the morning; and I pray every morning, ‘Lord, convert
me, and make me more a new creature to-day!’”

These extracts are neither eloquent, nor particularly instructive;
but they serve to shew the declamatory and colloquial style used by
Whitefield in the latter period of his ministry. His sermons were
_earnest talk_, full of anecdotes, and ejaculatory prayers.

It is only just to add, that the sermons, from which the foregoing
extracts are taken, were not written and published by Whitefield
himself, nor yet with his permission. They were “taken verbatim in
shorthand, and faithfully transcribed by Joseph Gurney;” and were
“Revised by Andrew Gifford, D.D.” The sermons, in Gurney’s volume,
issued in 1771, were eighteen in number; but, two or three were
published separately previous to that. To one of these, Whitefield
raised strong objections. “It is not _verbatim_,” said he; “in
some places Mr. Gurney makes me to speak false concord, and even
nonsense.”[500] The publication of Gurney’s volume (8vo. 455 pp.)
created great unpleasantness. In the first instance, Whitefield’s
executors consented to the publication, and agreed to remunerate the
transcriber for his labour; but, when half the sermons were “worked
off,” they were so dissatisfied with them, that they informed the
shorthand writer, they were “not able to recommend them to the public.”
No doubt, the objections of the executors were well founded; but
still, though the sermons might not be reported with perfect accuracy,
they may be fairly taken as a specimen――though an imperfect one――of
Whitefield’s style of preaching during the last few years of his
eventful life.

After his farewell sermon, at the Tabernacle, on February 23,
Whitefield set out for Scotland. On his way, he preached for Berridge
at Everton;[501] Berridge, together with Thomas Adams, having engaged
to supply his place in London.[502] He visited Sheffield, and preached
in Wesley’s, unplastered, though white-washed, chapel in Mulberry
Street, taking as his text, Romans v. 11. Here, as in the extract
above given, he warned the people against resting satisfied with a
_past_ conversion. “In your Bibles,” said he, “you have registered
your births; and some of you the time when you were born again; but
are you new creatures _now_?”[503]

On March 4, he arrived at Leeds, and here, besides preaching, he
employed himself in writing his “Observations on some Fatal Mistakes,
in a Book lately published, and entitled, ‘The Doctrine of Grace; or,
the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit Vindicated from the
Insults of Infidelity and the Abuses of Fanaticism. By William, Lord
Bishop of Gloucester.’ In a Letter to a Friend. By George Whitefield,
A.M., late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain to the Countess
of Huntingdon. London, 1763.” (12mo. 35 pp.)[504]

This was, I believe, the first instance in which, in England, A.M. was
attached to Whitefield’s name; and even now the degree, conferred by
New Jersey College in 1754, was not appropriated by Whitefield himself,
but was foolishly used by his friends, who printed his pamphlet after
he embarked for America.

So far as the Methodists were concerned, the book of Bishop Warburton
was levelled against Wesley, rather than against Whitefield. The worst,
indeed, almost the only sneer against Whitefield, was, that, though
both Wesley and he were mad, Whitefield was “the madder of the two.”
Wesley’s reply to Warburton was published in a 12mo. volume of 144
pages; but, with a single exception, need not be quoted here. In answer
to one of the Bishop’s contemptuous remarks, that Whitefield set up
himself as Wesley’s rival, Wesley says: “We were[505] in full union;
nor was there the least shadow of rivalry or contention between us. I
still sincerely ‘praise God for His wisdom in giving different talents
to different preachers;’ and particularly for His giving Mr. Whitefield
the talents which I have not.”

Whitefield’s “Observations” were smartly and rather ably written; but
two extracts must suffice. He admits that the “modern defenders of
Christianity, in their elaborate and well-meant treatises, against
the attacks of Infidels and Free-thinkers, have shewn themselves, as
far as human learning is concerned, to be masters of strong reasoning,
nervous language, and conclusive arguments;” but they lacked a “deep
and experimental knowledge of themselves, and of Jesus Christ.” With
regard to Bishop Warburton in particular, he affirms, that, his
lordship, “in his great zeal against fanaticism, and to the no small
encouragement of infidelity, has, as far as perverted reason and
disguised sophistry could carry him, robbed the Church of Christ of
its promised Comforter; and, thereby, left us without any supernatural
influence or Divine operations whatsoever” (pp. 5, 6). Then turning to
Warburton’s abuse of the Methodists, Whitefield remarks:――

“To set these off in a ridiculous light, this writer runs from
Dan to Beersheba; gives us quotation upon quotation out of the
Rev. Mr. John Wesley’s Journals; and, to use his own simile
upon another occasion, by a kind of Egyptian husbandry, draws
together whole droves of obscene animals, of his own formation,
who rush in furiously, and then trample the Journals, and this
sect, under their feet. Our author calls the Rev. Mr. John
Wesley ‘paltry mimic, spiritual empiric, spiritual martialist,
new adventurer.’ The Methodists, according to him, are ‘modern
apostles, the saints, new missionaries, and illuminated doctors.’
Methodism itself is modern saintship; Mr. Law begat it; Count
Zinzendorf rocked the cradle; and the devil himself was midwife
to their new-birth” (p. 24).

In reference to Wesley’s Journals and his own, Whitefield says:――

“Whatever that indefatigable labourer, the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,
may think of his, I have long since publicly acknowledged that
there were, and doubtless, though now sent forth in a more
correct attire, there are yet many exceptionable passages in my
Journals. And I hope it will be one of the constant employments
of my declining years to humble myself daily before the Most
High God, for the innumerable mixtures of corruption which
have blended themselves with my feeble, but, I trust, sincere
endeavours to promote the Redeemer’s glory. If his lordship
had contented himself with pointing out, or even ridiculing,
any such blemishes, imprudences, or mistakes, in my own, or in
any of the Methodists’ conduct or performances, I should have
stood entirely silent. But when I observed his lordship, through
almost his whole book, not only wantonly throwing about the
arrows and firebrands of scurrility, buffoonery, and personal
abuse, but, at the same time, taking occasion to vilify, and
totally deny the operations of the blessed Spirit, by which
alone his lordship, or any other man, can be sanctified and
sealed to the day of eternal redemption, I must own that I was
constrained to vent myself to you, as a dear and intimate friend,
in the manner I have done. Make what use of it you please.

“At present, I am on the road to Scotland, in order to embark
for America; and only add, that the method used by his lordship
to stop, will rather serve to increase and establish what he is
pleased to term a ‘sect of fanatics.’ Bishop Burnet prescribed
a much better way to stop the progress of the Puritan ministers.
‘_Out-live, out-labour, out-preach_ them,’ said his lordship.
That the Rev. Mr. John Wesley himself, that famed leader of the
Methodists, and every Methodist preacher in England may be thus
outed and entirely annihilated is, and shall be, the hearty
prayer of George Whitefield” (pp. 33–35).

Having completed his pamphlet at Leeds, Whitefield proceeded to
Newcastle, where he wrote:――

“NEWCASTLE, _March 13, 1763_.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,――I cannot go further without dropping
you a few lines. They leave me thus far advanced in my journey
to Scotland. My friends write me word, that the ship _Jenny_,
Captain Orr, a very discreet person, sails from Greenock to
Boston the middle of April. You will pray that the God of the
sea and dry land will give me a safe and speedy passage. On
the road, we have been favoured with some sweet seasons. I have
preached at Everton, Leeds, Kippax, Aberford, and this place.
Next Sabbath I hope to be at Edinburgh. On my way, I finished a
little thing in answer to the present Bishop of Gloucester. If
my friends think proper to print it, you will find a testimony
left behind me for the good old Puritans and free-grace
Dissenters, whom he sadly maligns.”

Whitefield arrived at Edinburgh, as he expected; but, instead of
sailing in the middle of April, his embarkation was deferred until the
4th of June. During this unexpected detention, his old friend Wesley
came to Scotland, and wrote: “Sunday, May 22. At Edinburgh, I had the
satisfaction of spending a little time with Mr. Whitefield. Humanly
speaking, he is worn out; but we have to do with Him who hath all power
in heaven and earth.”[506] Though “worn out,” Whitefield continued
preaching, as often as he could. He spent eleven weeks in Scotland, and,
towards the end of that interval, had an alarming illness. In _Lloyd’s
Evening Post_, for June 6, it was announced, “The Rev. Mr. Whitefield
is so ill in Scotland, as not to be able to embark for America.”
But, four days later, the same journal contained the following: “Last
week, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, being recovered from his indisposition,
sailed from Greenock, on board the _Fanny_, Captain Galbraith, bound
to Rappahanock, in Virginia.”[507]

The best glimpses of Whitefield, during his stay in Scotland, will
be obtained by brief extracts from his letters. To his old servant,
Elizabeth Wood, he wrote:――

“Edinburgh, March 19. I was quite concerned to see you so ill. I
charge you to want for nothing. Speak to Messrs. Keen and Hardy:
they will supply you at any time. Do not be afraid to go near
the Tabernacle House. I will own and stand by my dear, steady,
and faithful servants and helpers. Such a one you have been. O
for heaven! There are no thorns and briars amongst God’s people
there. In about a month, I expect to sail.”

In a letter to a friend, he said:――

“Edinburgh, March 26, 1763. After my return from Glasgow, I may
be here a fortnight. My poor body is so far restored, that I
can mount the gospel throne once a day. Perhaps the sea air may
brace me up a little more; but, after all, it is only like the
glimmering of a candle before it goes out. Death will light it
up in a better world. O that I had done more for the blessed
Jesus! O that I could think more of what He has done for me! The
Edinburgh prescriptions have been blessed to me. My spirits are
much brisker than when here last.”

To Mr. Keen, who now, in conjunction with Mr. Hardy, had the management
of his London chapels, Whitefield wrote:――

“Edinburgh, March 26, 1763. I thank you for your kind letter;
and thank the Lord of all lords that matters go on so well. I
am more than easy. The Lord has directed my choice, and will
bless, assist, and reward those employed. Ten thousand thanks
to you all. You may act as you please with respect to Mr. ――――.
His attending the Tabernacle when I was well, and leaving it
ever since I have been sick, does not look well at all; but
please yourselves, and you will please me. Do not consult me
in anything, unless absolutely necessary. On Monday, I am going
to see about the ship. I am sorry my little piece, entitled
‘_Observations_,’ etc., is not come out yet.”

In another letter to Mr. Keen, he observed:――

“Leith, May 14, 1763. Why so fearful of writing a long letter?
The longer the better. Though disappointed in embarking, by
reason of sickness, I can read and write, and hope soon to get
upon my throne again. I have been able to go upon the water
to-day for several hours. Others can die, but I cannot. Father,
Thy will be done! What a God do I serve! Physicians, friends on
every side of me! And what is all in all, the great Physician
comforting my soul! Thank, O thank Him in behalf of a worthless
worm!”

Whitefield’s last letter, before his departure, was the following:――

“GREENOCK, _June 4, 1763_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,――A thousand thanks for your kind letters. Jesus
is kind. I am better, and just going on board the _Fanny_, bound
to Rappahanock, in Virginia. Yours to good Lady Huntingdon is
taken care of. I hear her daughter died well,[508] and that
her ladyship is comforted and resigned. Blessed be God! Adieu!
Follow me with your prayers.

“Ever yours,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Thus ended Whitefield’s eight years’ wanderings in the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland. During this interval, he had reached
the zenith of his usefulness and fame. His health was now broken; and,
though he lived for seven years afterwards, he, comparatively speaking,
continued to be, what Wesley called him, a “worn-out” man.

_SIXTH VISIT TO AMERICA._

JUNE 4, 1763, TO JULY 8, 1765.

WHITEFIELD’S voyage to America was long, but pleasant. Nearly twelve
weeks were spent upon the ocean. His letters will best display his
feelings.

“AT SEA, _July 15, 1763_.

“This leaves me looking towards Virginia, but only as a harbour
in my way to an infinitely better port, from whence I shall
never put out to sea again. I have been surprisingly kept up
during the voyage,――long, but not tedious. Jesus has made the
ship a Bethel. I have enjoyed that quietness which I have in
vain sought after for some years on shore. Not an oath has
been heard even in the greatest hurry. All has been harmony and
love. But my breath is short, and, since my relapse in Scotland,
I have little hope of much further public usefulness. A few
exertions, like the last struggles of a dying man, are all that
can be expected from me.”

On landing in Virginia, Whitefield wrote two pastoral letters, one to
his “dear Tabernacle hearers;” the other to those at Tottenham Court
Road. Both were written on the same day, and the following is an
extract:――

“VIRGINIA, _September 1, 1763_.

“For some weeks, I was enabled to preach once a day when in
Scotland, and, I trust, not without Divine efficacy. But,
being taken ill of my old disorder at Edinburgh, I had to
remain silent for near six weeks, and sometimes I thought my
intended voyage would be retarded, at least, for one year longer.
Having, however, obtained a little strength, I embarked, for the
eleventh time, in the ship _Fanny_, and I have not been laid by
an hour, through sickness, since I came on board. Everything has
been suitable to my low estate,――a large and commodious cabin,
a kind captain, and a most orderly and quiet ship’s company, who
gladly attended whenever I had breath to preach. Often, often
have I thought of my dear London friends, when I guessed they
were assembled together; and as often prayed, when I knew that
they were retired to rest, that He, who keepeth Israel, would
watch over them, and make their very dreams devout. How I am to
be disposed of, when on dry land, is best known to God. Had I
strength equal to my will, I could fly from pole to pole. Though
wearied, and now almost worn out, I am not weary of my blessed
Master’s service, O love Him! Love Him! Make Him your portion,
and He will be your confidence for ever. Through His leave, I
hope to see you again next year. Meanwhile, as long as I have
breath, it shall be my heart’s desire and prayer to God, that
the labours of the dear servants of Jesus, who are called to
preach amongst you, may be so blessed that I may not be missed
a single moment.”

As soon as he left the ship, Whitefield set out for a cooler climate
than that of Virginia. Hence the following:――

“VIRGINIA, _September 7, 1763_.

“We are now on dry land. Christian friends, whom I never before
heard of, were prepared to receive me; and I have preached four
times. This leaves me on my way to Philadelphia, still visited
with my old disorder. Well: He that cometh will come, and will
not tarry. Blessed are all they who wait for Him.”

“PHILADELPHIA, _September 29, 1763_.

“Ebenezer! Hitherto the Lord hath helped! I have been here above
a week; but am still an invalid. When you write, mention nothing
but what relates to the eternal world. I have no thoughts to
throw away on the trifling things of time. Tender love to all
who are travelling to the New Jerusalem.”

Whitefield spent two months among his old acquaintance at Philadelphia,
but his health was not improved. His interest, however, in the work of
God was as profound as ever. To his friend Mr. Keen, he wrote:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _October 21, 1763_.

“The bearer of this is a young, sober gentleman, intended for
the temple, and will be glad to see and hear Mr. Romaine, and
other gospel ministers. I hope all are flaming for God. Some
young bright witnesses are rising up in the Church here. I
have already conversed with about forty new-creature ministers,
of various denominations. I am informed that sixteen hopeful
students were converted at New Jersey College last year. What
an open door, if I had strength! But, Father, Thy will be done!
Blessed be His name, I can preach now and then. Last Tuesday, we
had a remarkable season among the Lutherans. Children and grown
people were much impressed. If possible, I intend returning with
Mr. Habersham (now here) to Georgia.”

Poor Whitefield was not able to fulfil his intentions. Instead of
visiting his Orphan House, he was, for more than a year, obliged to
content himself with writing to its managers. The following is an
extract from the first of these letters:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _November 8, 1763_.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIENDS,――Man appoints; and God, for wise reasons,
disappoints. All was ready for my coming, by land, to you at
Bethesda, with Mr. Habersham; but several things concurred to
prevent me; and the physicians all agree, that the only chance
I have for growing better, is to stay and see what the cold
weather will do for me. At present, I make a shift to preach
twice a week; but, alas! my strength is perfect weakness. What
a mercy that Jesus is all in all! You will let me hear from you
very particularly. I want to know the present state of all your
affairs in every respect.”

There was, however, another reason, besides his state of health, why
he deferred his visit to Bethesda. True, after the long “Seven Years’
War,” peace had been proclaimed between France and England; but, during
the war, the opponents had cruelly employed the Indians in carrying out
their purposes; and now it was far from easy to keep the Indians quiet.
Hence the following, addressed to Mr. Robert Keen:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _November 14, 1763_.

“I am about to make my first excursion, to the New Jersey
College. Twice a week preaching, is my present allowance.
Many, of various ranks, seem to be brought under real concern.
Physicians are absolutely against my going to Georgia, till I
get more strength. Besides, it is doubtful whether the southern
Indians will not break out; and, therefore, a little stay in
these parts may, on that account, be most prudent.”

Towards the end of November, Whitefield and Habersham started from
Philadelphia; but, instead of getting to Georgia, Whitefield was
obliged to halt at New York, where he remained about two months.
Extracts from his letters written here will be useful.

“NEW YORK, _December 1, 1763_.

“Some good impressions have been made in Philadelphia, and
we had four sweet seasons at New Jersey College, and two at
Elizabeth Town, on my way hither. Some said they resembled old
times. My spirits grow better; but thrice a week is as often
as I can preach. To-day, I begin here, and have thoughts of
returning with Mr. Habersham to Georgia, but am fearful of
relapsing by such a fatiguing journey.”

Again, Whitefield was unable to proceed to Georgia. Hence the
following, written to the managers of his Orphan House:――

“NEW YORK, _December 7, 1763_.

“MY DEAR FRIENDS,――What a mortification it is to me not to
accompany my dear Mr. Habersham to Bethesda. Assure yourselves,
I shall come as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I have desired
Mr. Habersham to assist in supervising and settling the accounts,
and to give his advice respecting the house, plantation, etc.
I beg you will be so good as to let me have an inventory of
every individual thing, the names and number of the negroes,
and what you think is necessary to be done every way. I would
only observe in general, that I would have the family lessened
as much as may be, and all things contracted into as small a
compass as possible. Once more, adieu, though, I trust, but for
a short season. My heart is too full to enlarge. I purpose going
to New England; but it will be better to go to heaven. Come,
Lord Jesus, come quickly.”

“NEW YORK, _December 16, 1763_.

“Jesus continues to own the feeble labours of an almost worn-out
pilgrim. Every day, the thirst for hearing the word increases,
and the better sort come home to hear more of it. I must go soon
to New England. Cold weather and a warm heart suit my tottering
tabernacle best.”

“NEW YORK, _December 18, 1763_.

“I am in better health than when I wrote last. Preaching thrice
a week agrees pretty well with me this cold season of the year.
I am apt to believe my disorder will be periodical. New Jersey
College is a blessed nursery, one of the purest, perhaps, in
the universe. The worthy president and three tutors are all
bent upon making the students both saints and scholars. I was
lately there for a week. The Redeemer vouchsafed to own the word
preached. Prejudices in New York have most strangely subsided.
The better sort flock as eagerly as the common people, and are
fond of coming for private gospel conversation.”

The year 1763 will be suitably closed by a warm-hearted letter to
Charles Wesley.

“NEW YORK, _December 26, 1763_.

“MY DEAR OLD FRIEND,――Once more I write to you from this dying
world. Through infinite, unmerited mercy, I am helped to preach
twice or thrice a week, and never saw people of all ranks more
eager in Philadelphia and in this place, than now. Lasting
impressions, I trust, are made. At New Jersey College, we had
sweet seasons among the sons of the prophets, and I have had the
pleasure of conversing with new-creature ministers of various
denominations. Ere long, we shall join the elders about the
throne. Then shall we all greatly marvel, and try who can shout
loudest, ‘He hath done all things well.’ Neither you, nor your
brother, nor the highest archangel in heaven, shall, if possible,
outdo even me, though less than the least of all. Continue to
pray for me, as such. I hope your brother lives and prospers.
Remember me to your dear yoke-fellow, and all enquiring friends;
and assure yourselves of not being forgotten in the poor
addresses of, my dear friend,

“Yours in Jesus,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[509]

In more than one of these extracts, Whitefield makes grateful mention
of his conversing with what he calls “_new-creature ministers_.”
This is a notable fact. Compared with his first visits to America,
the difference, in this respect, was great. It ought always to be
remembered, that the revival, in the days of Whitefield and the
Wesleys, was remarkable, not only for the quickening of churches
and the saving of sinners, but also for the raising up of a host of
converted ministers, in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and America.
This was not the least of its glorious results.

Whitefield longed to be at Bethesda, but the hope of being benefited by
the colder atmosphere of the northern colonies still detained him. The
following is taken from another letter addressed to the managers of his
Orphan House:――

“New York, January 12, 1764. The cold braces me up a little.
I am enabled to preach twice or thrice a week. Congregations
continue very large, and, I trust, saving impressions are made
upon many. O for a blessed gale of Divine influences when we
meet at Bethesda! From thence, or from Charlestown, I purpose
to embark for England. But future things belong to Him, who,
whatever may be our thoughts, always orders all things well.”

The following extract from the _Boston Gazette_ confirms the foregoing
statements, respecting Whitefield’s congregations in New York:――

“New York, January 23, 1764. The Rev. Mr. George Whitefield has
spent seven weeks with us, preaching twice a week, with more
general acceptance than ever. He has been treated with great
respect by many of the gentlemen and merchants of this place.
During his stay, he preached two charity sermons: one on the
occasion of the annual collection for the poor, when double
the sum was collected that ever was upon the like occasion;
the other for the benefit of Mr. Wheelock’s Indian School, at
Lebanon, in New England, for which he collected (notwithstanding
the prejudices of many people against the Indians) the sum of
£120. In his last sermon, he took a very affectionate leave of
the people of this city, who expressed great concern at his
departure. May God restore this great and good man (in whom
the gentleman, the Christian, and the accomplished orator
shine forth with such lustre) to a perfect state of health,
and continue him long a blessing to the world, and the Church
of Christ!”

Immediately after this, Whitefield set out for New England, and, on
his way, preached in Long Island, Shelter Island, and other places. On
arriving at Boston, about February 13, he received a hearty welcome,
not only from his old acquaintance, but from the people in general.
His enormous collections, in 1761, for the distressed Protestants in
Germany, and for the sufferers by the great fire at Boston, have been
already mentioned. Now, as was fitting, the Boston people thanked him
for his assistance. Hence the following:――

“Boston, February 20. Monday last, at a very general meeting of
the freeholders and other inhabitants of this town, it was voted
unanimously that the thanks of the town be given to the Rev.
Mr. George Whitefield, for his charitable care and pains in
collecting a considerable sum of money in Great Britain, for the
benefit of the distressed sufferers by the great fire in Boston,
1760. And a respectable committee was appointed to wait on Mr.
Whitefield, to inform him of the vote, and present him with a
copy thereof; which committee waited upon him accordingly, and
received the following answer:――

“GENTLEMEN,――This vote of thanks for so small an instance of
my goodwill to Boston, as it was entirely unexpected, quite
surprises me. Often have I been much concerned that I could do
no more upon such a distressing occasion. That the Redeemer may
ever preserve the town from such-like melancholy events, and
sanctify the present afflictive circumstances to the spiritual
welfare of all its inhabitants, is the hearty prayer of,

“Gentlemen, your ready servant in our common Lord,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[510]

A few days after this, Whitefield wrote to his friend, Mr. Robert Keen,
as follows:――

“Boston, March 3, 1764. I have received letters from my wife and
Mr. C――――, dated in October and November. I have been received
at Boston with the usual warmth of affection. Twice have we seen
the Redeemer’s stately steps in the great congregation. But, as
the small-pox is likely to spread through the town, I purpose
making my country tour, and then to return to Boston in my way
to the south. Invitations come so thick and fast from every
quarter, that I know not what to do. I cannot boast of acquiring
much additional bodily strength. The cool season of the year
helps to keep me up. Twice a week is as often as I can, with
comfort, ascend my throne. Till I hear from you, and see what is
determined concerning Bethesda, I cannot think of undertaking a
long voyage. Sometimes I fear my weakness will never allow me to
go on shipboard any more. But I will wait.”

Whitefield lived to be a blessing to his fellow-creatures. He had just
been thanked, by the inhabitants of Boston, for the assistance he had
rendered them in 1761. Now, his heart was set on helping others.

A hundred and thirty-four years ago, the Puritans of New England had
advanced £400 towards the erection of a college at Newton, which, on
the founding of the college there, had its name changed to Cambridge.
In 1638, the Rev. John Harvard, minister of Charlestown, near Boston,
died, and bequeathed to the college one half of his estate and all his
library. In honour of its benefactor, the college henceforth was called
“Harvard College.” There cannot be a doubt that this venerable school
of learning exerted a powerful influence in forming the character of
the people of New England. Magistrates and men of wealth were profuse
in their donations to its funds; and once, at least, every family in
the colony gave to the Harvard College twelvepence, or a peck of corn,
or its value in unadulterated wampumpeag.[511] Now, in 1764, a great
calamity had befallen this, the oldest college in America. Its library
was burnt. Whitefield heard of this, and wished to render some
assistance.

Further. In 1754, the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, D.D., first president
of Dartmouth College, founded a charity school, at Lebanon, for
the education of Indian youths, with a view of preparing them for
labouring as missionaries, interpreters, or schoolmasters, among the
Indian tribes. He now had more than twenty of these young men under
his care and management, his school being supported partly by private
subscriptions, and partly by assistance rendered by the Legislatures
of Connecticut and Massachusetts, and by the Commissioners in Boston
of the Scotch Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge. The idea
was a noble one, though its ultimate success was not so great as some
expected.

Four years ago, Whitefield had rendered valuable assistance to
Dr. Wheelock.[512] In a letter, dated “London, 1760,” he wrote:――

“Upon mentioning and a little enforcing your Indian affair, the
Lord put it into the heart of the Marquis of Lothian to hand me
£50. You will not fail to send his lordship a letter of thanks
and some account of the school. Now the great God has given us
Canada, what will become of us, if we do not improve it to His
glory and the conversion of the poor heathen? Satan is doing
what he can here to bring the work into contempt, by blasphemy
and ridicule at both the theatres. But you know how the bush
burned and was not consumed; and why? Jesus was, and is in it.
Hallelujah! My hearty love to the Indian lambs.”[513]

This letter was written in the midst of the terrible persecution
arising out of the performance of Foote’s infamous farce, “The Minor.”
Whitefield’s interest in the temporal and eternal welfare of the
heathen Indians was as profound as ever; and, hence, he now made
a fresh application to his friends, not only on behalf of Harvard
College, but of Wheelock’s school. Hence the following, addressed to
a friend in London:――

“Concord, twenty miles from Boston, March 10, 1764. In New York,
we saw blessed days of the Son of man; and, in my way to these
parts, a Divine influence has attended the word preached, in
various places. How would you have been delighted to have seen
Mr. Wheelock’s Indians! Such a promising nursery of future
missionaries, I believe, was never seen in New England before.
Pray encourage it with all your might. I also wish you could
give some useful Puritanical books to Harvard College Library,
lately burnt. Few, perhaps, will give such; and yet a collection
of that kind is absolutely necessary for future students, and
to poor neighbouring ministers, to whom, I find, the books
belonging to the library are freely lent from time to time. You
will not be angry with me for these hints. I know your ambitious,
greedy soul: you want to grow richer and richer towards God. O
that there may be in me such a mind! But my wings are clipped.
I can only preach twice or thrice a week with comfort. And yet
a wider door than ever is opened all along the continent.”

Notwithstanding his ill-health, Whitefield continued preaching, and, as
usual, with great success. To Mr. Charles Hardy, one of the managers of
his London chapels, he wrote:――

“Portsmouth, March 23, 1764. How was my heart eased by receiving
yesterday your kind letter, dated October 22. If you and dear Mr.
Keen will continue to manage when I am present, as well as when
I am absent, it may give another turn to my mind. At present,
my way is clear to go on preaching till I can journey southward.
The enclosed will inform you of what has been done by one sermon
at Providence, formerly a most ungodly place. At Newbury, which
I left yesterday, there is a stir indeed. On Lord’s-day, I shall
begin here. O for daily fresh gales!”

A month after this, Whitefield had returned to Boston, and wrote as
follows to Mr. Dixon, the superintendent of his Orphan House:――

“Boston, April 20, 1764. I have been at my _ne plus ultra_
northward, and am now more free, and capable of settling my
affairs southward. When that is done, how cheerfully could I
sing, ‘Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace!’ I
hope you are not offended at my giving a power of attorney to
Mr. Habersham. It was not owing to a distrust of any of you, but
only, in _case of my death_, that he might testify to the world
the integrity of your actions, and the veracity of your accounts.
I am persuaded, he will not desire to interfere, but will act
and consult jointly with yourselves, as occasion offers; and you
will go on in your old way. I wish I was assured of your stay
at Bethesda. I am satisfied, you will not distress me by leaving
the place destitute of proper help. My tottering tabernacle
will not bear grief, especially from those whom I so dearly
love, and who have served the institution so faithfully and
disinterestedly for so many years. What I have in view for
Bethesda, may be better spoken of when we meet, than by letter.
By my late excursions, I am brought low; but rest and care
may brace me up again for some little further service for our
glorious Emmanuel. A most blessed influence has attended the
word in various places, and many have been made to cry out,
‘What shall we do to be saved?’”

Whitefield now entertained the thought of an escape to the southern
colonies; but “the Boston people sent a hue and cry after” him, and
brought him back.[514] He resumed his ministry among them on April 24,
and, as far as he was able, continued to preach to them for about the
next eight weeks. They begged “for a six o’clock morning lecture,” and
he was willing to accede to their request, saying, “I would fain die
preaching.”[515] To Mr. Charles Hardy, he wrote:――

“Boston, June 1, 1764. You see where this leaves me. Friends
have constrained me to stay here, for fear of running into the
summer’s heat. Hitherto, I find the benefit of it. I am much
better in health, than I was this time twelvemonth, and can now
preach thrice a week to large auditories without hurt. Every
day I hear of some brought under concern. This is all of grace.
In about a fortnight, I purpose to set forward on my southern
journey. It will be hard parting; but heaven will make amends
for all.”

Whitefield left Boston, as he intended, and travelled to New York,
where he continued for about three months. In reference to his New
England visit, he wrote to Mr. Keen, as follows:――

“New York, June 25, 1764. The New England winter campaign is
over, and I am thus far on my way to Georgia. Mr. Smith, my
faithful host, at Boston, writes thus: ‘Your departure never
before so deeply wounded us, and the most of this people. They
propose sending a book full of names to call you back. Your
enemies are very few, and even they seem to be almost at peace
with you.’ To crown the expedition, after preaching at Newhaven
College, and when I was going off in the chaise, the president
came to me, and said, the students were so deeply impressed by
the sermon, that they were gone into the chapel, and earnestly
entreated me to give them one more quarter of an hour’s
exhortation. Not unto me, O Lord, not unto me, but unto Thy
free and unmerited grace be all the glory!”

Whitefield’s health continued better; and, besides preaching in the
chapels of New York, he, at the beginning of August, mentions his
having preached twice in the open air.[516] His popularity was enormous.
Hence the following to Mr. Keen:――

“New York, August 25, 1764. Still I am kept, as it were,
a prisoner in these parts, by the heat of the weather. All
dissuade me from proceeding southward till the latter end of
September. My late excursions upon Long Island have been blessed.
It would surprise you to see above a hundred carriages at every
sermon in this new world. I am, through infinite mercy, still
kept up. I wrote to Mr. Hardy and my dear wife very lately by
a friend; and I have sent many letters, for a _letter-day_, to
the care of Mrs. E――――s, in Bristol.”

Towards the end of September, Whitefield removed to Philadelphia,
whence he again wrote to Mr. Keen:――

“Philadelphia, September 21, 1764. After a most solemn and
heart-breaking parting at New York, I am come thus far in my way
to Georgia. There I hope to be about Christmas; and in spring
to embark for England. However, let what will become of the
substance, I herewith send you my shadow. The painter, who gave
it me, having now the ague and fever, and living a hundred miles
off, I must get you to have the drapery finished; and then, if
judged proper, let it be put up in the Tabernacle parlour. I
have only preached twice here, but the influence was deep. I am
better in health than I have been these three years. I received
the hymn-books.”[517]

Immediately after his arrival, Whitefield, by request, preached at
the commencement of a new term of the College of Philadelphia,――an
establishment which he pronounced to be “one of the best regulated
institutions in the world.”[518] The provost of the college was the
Rev. William Smith, D.D., a native of Scotland, and educated at the
University of Aberdeen,――an episcopally ordained clergyman, and a
gentleman whose learning and popular talents contributed greatly to
raise the character of the college over which he presided.

“Dr. Smith,” says Whitefield, “read prayers for me; both the
present and the late governor, with the head gentlemen of the
city, were present; and cordial thanks were sent to me from all
the trustees, for speaking for the children, and countenancing
the institution. This is all of God. To me nothing belongs but
shame and confusion of face. O for a truly guileless heart!”[519]

While at Philadelphia, Whitefield wrote the following characteristic
letter to his old friend Wesley:――

“PHILADELPHIA, _September 25, 1764_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,――Your kind letter, dated in January last,
did not reach me till a few days ago. It found me here, just
returned from my northern circuit; and waiting only for cooler
weather to set forwards for Georgia. Perhaps that may be my _ne
plus ultra_. But the gospel range is of such large extent, that
I have, as it were, scarce begun to begin. Surely nothing but
a very loud call of Providence could make me so much as think
of returning to England as yet. I have been mercifully carried
through the summer’s heat; and, had strength permitted, I might
have preached to thousands and thousands thrice every day.
Zealous ministers are not so rare in this new world as in other
parts. Here is room for a hundred itinerants. Lord Jesus, send
by whom Thou wilt send! Fain would I end my life in rambling
after those who have rambled away from Jesus Christ.

‘For this let men despise my name;
I’d shun no cross; I’d fear no shame;
All hail reproach!’

“I am persuaded you are like-minded. I wish you and all your
dear fellow-labourers great prosperity. O to be kept from
turning to the right hand or the left! Methinks, for many years,
_we_ have heard a voice behind us, saying, ‘This is the way;
walk ye in it.’ I do not repent being a poor, despised, cast-out,
and now almost worn-out itinerant. I would do it again, if I
had my choice. Having loved His own, the altogether lovely Jesus
loves them to the end. Even the last glimmerings of an expiring
taper, He blesses to guide some wandering souls to Himself. In
New England, New York, and Pennsylvania, the word has run and
been glorified. Scarce one dry meeting since my arrival. All
this is of grace. In various places, there has been a great
stirring among the dry bones.

“If you and all yours would join in praying over a poor
worthless, but willing pilgrim, it would be a very great act
of charity, he being, though less than the least of all,

“Rev. and very dear sir,

“Ever yours in Jesus,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[520]

Whitefield continued a month at Philadelphia; and, on leaving it,
about October 21, exclaimed, “O what blessings have we received in
this place! Join in crying, Hallelujah!”[521]

On his departure from Philadelphia, Whitefield proceeded to Virginia,
and to North and South Carolina. He met with the “new lights” at
almost every stage: a nickname given to evangelical preachers and their
converts, and analogous to that of “Methodists” in England. The present
was a marvellous contrast when compared with the state of things, at
the time of Whitefield’s first visit to Virginia a quarter of a century
before; and no wonder that he wrote, “It makes me almost determine to
come back early in the spring. Surely the Londoners, who are fed to
the full, will not envy the poor souls in these parts, who scarce know
their right hand from the left.”

On December 3, he left Charleston for Georgia, and, about a week
afterwards, reached Savannah,――more than a year and a half from the
time of his embarkation for America. His detention, in the northern
colonies, had been long; but no time was wasted after his arrival.
Within a week, he had the boldness to ask the governor of Georgia, and
the two Houses of Assembly, for a grant of two thousand acres of land,
to enable him to convert his Orphan House into a college. The story
will be best told by the insertion of Whitefield’s “Memorial,” and the
answers it evoked:――

“To His Excellency James Wright, Esq., Captain-General and
Governor-in-Chief of His Majesty’s Province of Georgia, and
to the Members of His Majesty’s Council in the said Province.

“The Memorial of George Whitefield, Clerk,

“_Sheweth_,――That about twenty-five years ago, your memorialist,
assisted by the voluntary contributions of charitable and
well-disposed persons, at a very great expense, and under many
disadvantages, did erect a commodious house, with necessary
out-buildings, suitable for the reception of orphans, and other
poor and deserted children; and that with the repair of the
buildings, purchase of negroes, and supporting a large orphan
family for so many years, he hath expended upwards of £12,000
sterling, as appears by the accounts, which from time to time
have been audited by the magistrates of Savannah.

“That your memorialist, since the commencement of this
institution, hath had the satisfaction of finding, that, by
the money expended thereon, not only many poor families were
assisted, and thereby kept from leaving the Colony in its infant
state, but also that a considerable number of poor helpless
children have been trained up; who have been, and now are,
useful settlers in this and the neighbouring Provinces.

“That in order to render the institution aforesaid more
extensively useful, your memorialist, as he perceived the
colony gradually increasing, hath for some years past designed
within himself, to improve the original plan, by making further
provision for the education of persons of superior rank; who
thereby might be qualified to serve their king, their country,
or their God, either in Church or State. That he doth with
inexpressible pleasure see the present very flourishing state of
the Province; but with concern perceives that several gentlemen
have been obliged to send their sons to the northern Provinces;
who would much rather have had them educated nearer home, and
thereby prevent their affections being alienated from their
native country, and also considerable sums of money from being
carried out of this into other Provinces.

“Your memorialist further observes, that there is no seminary
for academical studies as yet founded southward of Virginia; and
consequently if a College could be established here (especially
as the late addition of the two Floridas renders Georgia more
centrical for the southern district) it would not only be highly
serviceable to the rising generation of the Colony, but would
occasion many youths to be sent from the British West India
Islands and other parts. The many advantages accruing thereby
to this Province must be very considerable.

“From these considerations, your memorialist is induced
to believe, that the time is now approaching, when his
long-projected design for further serving this his beloved
Colony, shall be carried into execution.

“That a considerable sum of money is intended speedily to
be laid out in purchasing a large number of negroes, for the
further cultivation of the present Orphan House and other
additional lands, and for the future support of a worthy,
able president, and for professors, and tutors, and other good
purposes intended.

“Your memorialist therefore prays your Excellency and Honours
to grant to him in _trust_, for the purposes aforesaid, two
thousand acres of land, on the north fork of the Turtle River,
called the Lesser Swamp, if vacant, or where lands may be found
vacant, south of the River Altamaha.

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

“Savannah, in Georgia, _December 18, 1764_.”

Whitefield’s case was a strong one. There cannot be a doubt that
Georgia had had no benefactor superior to himself; and it must also be
admitted further, that his proposed academy, or college, was greatly
needed. In addition to this, there was another fact favourable to
the success of his application. His old friend, James Habersham, the
first Superintendent of his Orphanage, was now raised to the dignity
of being the “president of the Upper House of Assembly.” Under such
circumstances, it is not surprising, that, only two days after the date
of Whitefield’s Memorial, the following “Address” was presented to the
Governor of Georgia:――

“The Address of both Houses of Assembly, Georgia.

“To His Excellency James Wright, Esq., Captain-General and
Governor-in-Chief of His Majesty’s Province of Georgia.

“MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,――We, his Majesty’s most dutiful
and loyal subjects, the Council and Commons House of Assembly
of Georgia in General Assembly met, beg leave to acquaint your
Excellency that with the highest satisfaction, we learn that
the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield has applied for lands, in order
to the endowment of a College in this Province. The many and
singular obligations Georgia has been continually laid under to
that reverend gentleman, from its very infant state, would in
gratitude induce us, by every means in our power, to promote
any measure he might recommend; but, in the present instance,
where the interest of the Province, the advancement of religion,
and the pleasing prospect of obtaining proper education for our
youth, so clearly coincide with his views, we cannot in justice
but request your Excellency to use your utmost endeavours to
promote so desirable an event, and to transmit home our sincere
and very fervent wishes, for the accomplishment of so useful, so
beneficent, and so laudable an undertaking.

“By order of the Upper House,

“JAMES HABERSHAM, _President_.

“_December 20, 1764._

“By Order of the Commons House,

“ALEX. WYLLY, _Speaker_.”

The reply of the governor of Georgia was as courteous and generous as
the address of the Houses of Assembly:――

“GENTLEMEN,――I am so perfectly sensible of the very great
advantage which will result to the Province in general, from
the establishment of a seminary for learning here, that it gives
me the greatest pleasure to find so laudable an undertaking
proposed by the Rev. Mr. Whitefield. The friendly and zealous
disposition of that gentleman, to promote the prosperity of this
Province, has been often experienced; and you may rest assured,
that I shall transmit your address home, with my best endeavours
for the success of the great point in view.

“JAMES WRIGHT.

“_December 20, 1764._”

These documents greatly redound to Whitefield’s honour, and are too
important to be omitted in the memoirs of the poor, persecuted preacher.
Another of the same class must also be inserted. On three previous
occasions, Whitefield’s Orphan House accounts had been subjected to
an official audit. On April 16, 1746, it was ascertained that, up to
that date, Whitefield had expended £5,511 17s. 9¼d.; and had received,
£4,982 12s. 8d.; leaving him out of pocket, £529 5s. 1¼d. From that
date to February 25, 1752, he expended £2,026 13s. 7½d., and received
£1,386 8s. 7½d., leaving another deficiency of £640 5s. From February
25, 1752, to February 19, 1755, he spent £1,966 18s. 2d., towards which
he received £1,289 2s. 3d., leaving a third deficiency amounting to
£677 15s. 11d. On the 9th of February, 1765, the fourth audit of the
accounts took place, from which it appeared that, during the last ten
years, Whitefield had expended the sum of £3,349 15s. 10d., and had
received £3,132 16s. ¼d., he being a fourth time out of pocket to the
amount of £216 19s. 9¾d. These four deficiencies put together make
£2,064 5s. 10d., the amount of Whitefield’s own private contributions
to his Orphanage in Georgia. Remembering that the value of money then
was four times greater than its value now, this was an enormous sum for
the unbeneficed Methodist clergyman to give. Whitefield was born and
bred in a public-house; the expense of his collegiate education had
been met partly by private benefactions, and partly by his submitting
to perform the drudgeries of a college servitor; the only church living
that he had ever had was Savannah, and even that only for a few short
months; fixed income he had none; all his life, he had contentedly
and joyously relied on Providence for the supply of his daily needs.
Providence had never failed him. He had had enough, and to spare. To
say nothing of his other gifts, in London and elsewhere, it was now
officially and publicly declared that, out of his own private purse,
he had given more than £2,000 to his Orphan House in Georgia. The two
attestations, declaring this, were as follows:――

“GEORGIA.

“Before me, the Honourable Noble Jones, Esq., senior, one of
the Assistant Justices for the Province aforesaid, personally
appeared the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, and Thomas Dixon of
the Province aforesaid, who, being duly sworn, declare that the
accounts relating to the Orphan House, from folio 82 to folio
98 in this book, amounting on the debit side to £3,349 15s. 10d.
sterling, and on the credit side to £3,132 16s. ¼d., contain,
to the best of their knowledge, a just and true account of all
the monies collected by, or given to them, or any other, for
the use or benefit of the said house, and that the disbursements,
amounting to the sum aforesaid, have been faithfully applied to,
and for the use of the same.

“_Signed_, { GEORGE WHITEFIELD,
{ THOMAS DIXON.

“_February 9, 1765._

“Sworn this 9th day of February, 1765, before me, in
justification whereof I have caused the seal of the General
Court to be affixed.

“_Signed_, N. JONES. _Sealed._”

“GEORGIA.

“Before me, the Honourable Noble Jones, Esq., senior, personally
appeared James Edward Powell and Grey Elliot, Esqrs., members of
His Majesty’s Honourable Council for the Province aforesaid, who,
being duly sworn, declare that they have carefully examined the
accounts containing the receipts and disbursements, for the use
of the Orphan House of the said Province, and that, comparing
them with the several vouchers, they find the same not only
just and true in every respect, but kept in such a clear and
regular manner, as does honour to the managers of that house;
and that, on a careful examination of the several former audits,
it appears that the sum of £2,064 5s. 10d. has, at several times,
been given by the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield for the use of the
said house; and that, in the whole, the sum of £12,855 5s. 4¾d.
has been laid out for the same house since the 7th of January,
1739, to this day. Also, that it doth not appear that any charge
has ever been made by the said Rev. Mr. Whitefield, either for
travelling charges or any other expenses whatever; and that no
charge of salary has been made for any person whatever, employed
or concerned in the management of the said house.

“_Signed_, { JAMES EDWARD POWELL,
{ GREY ELLIOT.

“_February 9, 1765._

“Sworn this 9th day of February, 1765, before me, in
justification whereof I have caused the seal of the General
Court to be affixed.

“_Signed_, N. JONES. _Sealed._”

These are lengthy documents to insert, but the honour of Whitefield’s
memory requires them; and they, also, without the need of further
evidence, triumphantly acquit the great itinerant from the numerous
mercenary charges, which, from time to time, were brought against him.
No wonder that poor afflicted Whitefield was full of gratitude. The
following extracts from his letters will be welcome:――

“Bethesda, January 14, 1765. I have been in Georgia above
five weeks. All things, in respect to Bethesda, have gone on
successfully. God has given me great favour in the sight of the
Governor, Council, and Assembly. A memorial was presented for
an additional grant of lands, consisting of two thousand acres.
It was immediately complied with. Both houses addressed the
Governor in behalf of the intended College. As warm an answer
was given; and I am now putting all in repair, and getting
everything ready for that purpose. Every heart seems to leap
for joy, at the prospect of its future utility to this and
the neighbouring colonies. The only question now is, whether
I should embark directly for England, or take one tour more to
the northward. He, who holdeth the stars in His right hand, will
direct in due time. I am here in delightful winter quarters.
Peace and plenty reign at Bethesda. His Excellency dined with me
yesterday, and expressed his satisfaction in the warmest terms.
Who knows how many youths may be raised up for the ever-loving
and altogether lovely Jesus? Thus far, however, we may set
up our Ebenezer. Hitherto, the bush has been burning, but not
consumed. Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief!”

“Bethesda, February 3, 1765. We have just been wishing some
of our London friends were here. We have lovefeasts every day.
Nothing but peace and plenty reign in Bethesda, this house of
mercy. God be praised for making the chapel, in London, such
a Bethel. I believe it will yet be the gate of heaven to many
souls. Whether we live or die, we shall see greater things.
Remember, my dear friend, to ask something worthy of a God to
give. Be content with nothing short of Himself. His presence
alone can fill and satisfy the renewed soul.”

“Bethesda, February 13, 1765. A few days more, and then
farewell Bethesda, perhaps for ever. The within audit, I sent
to the Governor. Next day, came Lord J. A. G――――n, to pay his
Excellency a visit. Yesterday morning, they, with several other
gentlemen, favoured me with their company to breakfast. But how
was my Lord surprised and delighted! After expressing himself
in the strongest terms, he took me aside, and informed me that
the Governor had shown him the accounts, by which he found
what a great benefactor I had been;――that the intended College
would be of the utmost utility to this and the neighbouring
Provinces;――that the plan was beautiful, rational, and
practicable;――and that he was persuaded his Majesty would highly
approve of it, and also favour it with some peculiar marks of
his royal bounty. At their desire, I went to town, and dined
with him and the Governor at Savannah. On Tuesday next, God
willing, I move towards Charleston, leaving all arrears paid
off, and some cash in hand, besides the last year’s whole crop
of rice, some lumber, the house repaired, painted, furnished with
plenty of clothing, and provision till the next crop comes in,
and perhaps some for sale. Only a few boys will be left, two of
whom are intended for the foundation; so that, this year, they
will be getting rather than expending. Near ten boys and girls
have been put out. The small-pox has gone through the house,
with the loss of about six negroes and four orphans. Before
this, I think not above four children have been taken off these
twenty-four years. As an acknowledgment of Mr. and Mrs. Dixon’s
faithfulness and care, I have made them a present of a bill of
exchange drawn upon you. And now, farewell, my beloved Bethesda!
surely the most delightfully situated place in all the southern
parts of America.”

On Thursday, February 21, Whitefield arrived at Charleston,[522] where
he wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Dixon, and other friends, as follows:――

“Charleston, March 5, 1765. My very dear, dear friends. Often
have we thought and talked of Bethesda. No place like that for
peace, and plenty of every kind. This leaves me, aiming, in my
poor way, to do a little for Him, who has done and suffered so
much for me. People of all ranks fly to the gospel, like doves
to the windows. The word begins to fall with great weight, and
all are importunate for my longer stay; but next week I expect
to move. The negroes’ shirts, etc., are in hand. O that these
Ethiopians may be made to stretch out their hands unto God! I
feel a great compassion for them.”

“Charleston, March 15, 1765. I have had a most pleasant winter.
Words cannot well express what a scene of action I leave behind.
My American work seems as yet scarce begun. My health is better;
and every day the word of God runs and is glorified more and
more. In two days, my wilderness range commences afresh. In
about six weeks, I hope to see Philadelphia. From thence, they
say, I am to set sail for my native country. But heaven, a
blessed, long-wished for heaven, is my home.”

“Wilmington, Cape Fear, March 29, 1765. Thus far hath the Lord
brought me in my way to Philadelphia. We had a most cutting
parting from Charleston. I preached thrice in my way to this
place. At the desire of the mayor and other gentlemen, I shall
stay till next Sunday. This pilgrimage kind of life is the very
joy of my heart. Ceiled houses and crowded tables I leave to
others. A morsel of bread, and a little bit of cold meat, in a
wood, is a most luxurious repast. Jesus’ presence is all in all,
whether in the city or the wilderness.”

Whitefield seems to have spent about a month in the journey between
Charleston and Philadelphia, but has left no detailed account of his
labours. Possibly, he made another tour through Virginia and Maryland.
Indeed, this seems to be hinted in the letter about to be quoted.
He was now on his way to England, but he wished to be permanently
exempt from the responsibility of supplying the pulpits and managing
the affairs of his London chapels. Hence the following addressed to
Mr. Keen:――

“Newcastle, 30 miles from Philadelphia, May 4, 1765. I am just
come here, in my way to embark from Philadelphia. But how shall
I do it? All along, from Charleston to this place, the cry is,
‘For Christ’s sake, stay and preach to us.’ O for a thousand
lives to spend for Jesus! He is good, He is good! His mercy
endureth for ever. Help, help, my dear English friends, to bless
and praise Him! Thanks be to God! all outward things are settled
on this side the water. The auditing the accounts, and laying a
foundation for a college, have silenced enemies and comforted
friends. The finishing this affair confirms my call to England;
but I have no prospect of being able to serve the Tabernacle
and the chapel. I cannot preach once now, without being quite
exhausted. How, then, shall I bear the cares of both those
places? I must beg you and dear Mr. Hardy to continue trustees
when I am present, as well as in my absence. I am praying night
and day for direction. The word runs here, and is glorified; but
the weather, for two days, has been so hot, that I could scarce
move. I dread the shaking of the ship; but if it shakes this
tottering frame to pieces, it will be a trading voyage indeed.”

Instead of finding a ship at Philadelphia, as he expected, Whitefield
was obliged to proceed to New York, where he embarked on June 9, and,
after a quick passage of twenty-eight days, landed in England on July 7.

During his absence in America, Whitefield was, comparatively speaking,
exempt from persecution. The principal exception was a maniacal attack
by John Harman, who published an 8vo. shilling pamphlet, with the title,
“Remarks upon the Life, Character, and Behaviour of the Rev. George
Whitefield, as written by himself, from the Time of his Birth to the
Time he Departed from his Tabernacle.”

There also appeared in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ an article, which was a
combination of censure and eulogy. The writer condemned “the incoherent,
wild, and unconnected jargon” of Whitefield and his friends; but,
at the same time, he acknowledged they had greater success than the
regular clergy of the Church of England. He was profoundly grieved
to witness “irreverent behaviour” at the Church services,――such as
the “gaping and yawning” of the people, “picking their noses, and
rubbing their faces, admiring and exposing to admiration their little
finger with its ring on, and staring all round the church, even when
rehearsing the most solemn prayers.” All this he attributed to the
clergy’s “being taken up with too great eagerness for the things of
this life,” and also to their “sloth and idleness.” On the other hand,
the Methodist preacher “strains his voice to the utmost, that every one
may hear, and affects a tone of voice and manner of pronunciation” most
likely to impress and please his hearers. “In this really severe and
fatiguing manner of utterance, he gives long discourses, and exposes
his person anywhere, in any corner, on any dunghill, and gets well
pelted every now and then.”

_WHITEFIELD’S LAST FOUR YEARS IN GREAT BRITAIN._

FROM JULY 7, 1765, TO SEPTEMBER 5, 1769.

UPON the whole, Whitefield’s health was not improved by his visit to
America. He had worked when others would have rested. If he had them
with him, which perhaps is doubtful, he had worn “gown and cassock,”
when it would have been more prudent to have lounged and travelled
in a tourist’s dress. No doubt, his preaching in America had been
of inestimable service; but he came back to England scarcely able to
preach at all. On his arrival, he thus wrote to Mr. Keen:――

“Plymouth, July 12, 1765. I left the Halifax packet, from New
York, near the Lizard; and, by the blunder of a drunken fellow,
missed the post on the 8th inst. I want a gown and cassock.
Child, in Chancery Lane, used to make for me, and perhaps knows
my measure. Amazing, that I have not been measured for a coffin
long ago! I am very low in body, and, as yet, undetermined
what to do. Perhaps, on the whole, it may be best to come on
leisurely, to see if my spirits can be a little recruited. You
may write a few lines, at a venture, to Bristol. Had I bodily
strength, you would find me coming upon you unawares; but that
fails me much. I must have a little rest, or I shall be able to
do nothing at all.”

Six days after this, he was at Bristol, in “a fine commodious house,
and kept from much company,” but still begging “not to be brought into
action too soon.” He wrote, “The poor old shattered bark has not been
in dock one week for a long while.”

A fortnight afterwards, he arrived in London, and wrote as
follows, probably to one of his old assistants, John Edwards, now
Congregationalist minister in Leeds:――

“London, August 3, 1765. I am very weak in body, but gratitude
constrains me to send you a few lines of love unfeigned,
for your labours during my absence abroad. I rejoice to hear
they were blessed. Our friends tell me that the sound of your
Master’s feet was heard behind you. To Him, and Him alone, be
all the glory! Thanks be to God! we do not go a warfare at our
own charges. The Captain of our Salvation will conquer for, and
in us. Let us but acknowledge Him in all our ways, and He will
direct and prosper all our paths. Our enemies shall be at peace
with us. The very ravens――birds of prey――shall be obliged to
come and feed us. O for an increase of faith! I hope you have
refreshing times from the presence of the Lord, among your
own flock. O to end life well! Methinks, I have now but one
more river to pass over,――Jordan; and we know who can carry
us over, without being ankle deep. Yet a little while, and all
true labourers shall enter into the joy of their Lord. Amen!
Hallelujah!”

Despite his wish that Messrs. Keen and Hardy would continue to manage
his London chapels, Whitefield was obliged to obtain supplies for them
himself. To Mr. Andrew Kinsman, whom he was accustomed to address as
his “dear Timothy,” he wrote:――

“London, September 20, 1765. Pray, when are we to have the
honour of a visit from you? I believe more than three weeks
are elapsed since you came to Bristol. Mr. Adams[523] is to
be your colleague here. I purpose for both of you to preach at
the” (Tottenham Court Road) “chapel as well as at the Tabernacle.
Write an immediate answer, fixing your time of coming; and
you must not think of returning soon. I have been better in
health for a week past than I have been for these four years.
My wife,[524] last night, returned well, from Bury. She indulges
this morning, being weary; but, I take it for granted, that, you
and I rise at five. Mr. Adams’s room will be large enough for you
to breathe in. I shall never breathe as I would, till I breathe
in heaven.”

Mr. Kinsman, in reply, evidently proposed that, if he came to supply
in London, Whitefield should supply in Bristol. Apart from his health,
Whitefield had no liking for this proposal. His labours at Bristol
had not been so successful and happy as in other places. Hence the
following extract from a second letter to Mr. Kinsman:――

“LONDON, _September 28, 1765_.

“Nothing is wanting at Bristol, London, and elsewhere, but
labourers full of the first old Methodistical spirit; but where
to get them is the question. Those, who are thus minded, are
almost worn out. I would gladly fly to Bristol if I could; but
I see it is best to be here for some time. Besides, things have
always been at such a low ebb, when I have been at Bristol, and
matters carried on with so little spirit, that I have generally
come away mourning. If a few, such as Mr. Collet,[525] would
exert themselves steadily and perseveringly, and if proper
preachers were sent, something might be done to purpose; but,
as neither of these things is likely to happen, my expectations
are not much raised. However, the residue of the Spirit is in
the Redeemer’s hands. Fain would I have you up at London for some
time, at this season. Mr. D――r expects to see you in a clerical
habit about Christmas. He asked me if I would get him a scarf?
I answered, that, you must have one first. You may guess how
he smiled. However, I really intend you shall preach in the”
(Tottenham Court Road) “chapel. I want you also to read the
letters, and give me leave to comment upon them, as my breath
will allow.”

Without unduly commenting on Whitefield’s letter, there are five
facts in it, which must be apparent to every careful reader;――three of
them interesting, and two of great importance. 1. Tottenham Court Road
chapel was considered to occupy a higher position, than the Tabernacle
in Moorfields. 2. Meetings for reading letters were still held
among Whitefield’s followers. 3. Bristol was not one of Whitefield’s
favourite preaching places. 4. _In Whitefield’s opinion, Methodist
preachers were already deteriorated._ 5. _That, without right preachers
and a working Church, spiritual progress is next to impossible._

On October 1, Whitefield set out for Bath. For twenty-five years, the
Countess of Huntingdon had been accustomed to visit that fashionable
city. Wherever she went, she took her religion with her, for her
religion was a part of herself. Her position, in many respects, was
new and peculiar. She seemed to be a combination of Puritan, Churchman,
Dissenter, and Reformer. Her chief characteristic, however, was
heartfelt and practical religion. Her lighted “candle” was never “put
under a bushel.” On all suitable occasions, she was ready to speak of
the sins and errors of her early life, and to tell of her conversion
to God, and to insist that the same change is necessary in all. At
Bath, she had conversed on religious subjects, with many of the most
distinguished personages of the time. Whitefield, Charles Wesley,
and others, had conducted religious services in her lodgings, and the
services had been attended by considerable numbers of the aristocracy,
who would have declined to enter an ordinary Methodist meeting-house.
To meet the case of such, her ladyship, years ago, had built chapels
of her own at Brighton, and at Bristol; and now she erected a third at
Bath; and, soon afterwards, built a fourth at Tunbridge Wells,――all of
them places of fashionable resort.

The chapel at Bath being completed, the Countess summoned six clergymen
of the Church of England to the opening, namely, Whitefield, Romaine,
Venn, Madan, Shirley,[526] and Townsend.[527] On October 6, Whitefield
and Townsend preached, and an immense crowd attended, including a
large number of the nobility, who had been specially invited by her
ladyship.[528] Whitefield mentions this event in the following letter
addressed to Mr. Keen:――

“BATH, _October 7, 1765_.

“The Chapel is extremely plain, and yet equally grand. A most
beautiful original![529] All was conducted with great solemnity.
Though a very wet day, the place was very full; and assuredly
the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, by His presence,
consecrated and made it holy ground. I preached in the morning,
and Mr. Townsend in the evening. I am to preach to-morrow night,
and have hopes of setting off on Wednesday morning.”

Whitefield, probably, spent the remainder of the year in London. Wesley
breakfasted with him on October 28, and spoke of him as “an old, old
man, fairly worn out in his Master’s service, though he has hardly seen
fifty years.”[530] No doubt, he preached as often as he could. He was
also occupied with his project for converting his Orphan House into a
college. In a letter to Mr. Dixon, his manager, he wrote:――

“LONDON, _October 26, 1765_.

“Bethesda matters are likely to come to a speedy and happy issue.
We talk of my coming over again. It is not impossible, if my
health admits. At present, blessed be God! I am better than I
was last year. The word runs and is glorified in London.”

This was written only two days before he and Wesley breakfasted
together. Evidently, he scarcely considered his case so serious as
Wesley did. Hopefulness, throughout life, was one of his prominent
characteristics. This was true at present, both in reference to his
health and to the affairs of Bethesda. He was pushing the proposal for
a college as much as possible; but the accomplishment of his wish was
more remote than he expected. He had sent a memorial to the king, in
which he embodied nearly the whole of his memorial to the Governor and
Council of Georgia. That to the king concluded thus:――

“Upon the arrival of your memorialist, he was informed that this
address, ‘of the General Assembly to the Governor of Georgia,’
was remitted to, and laid before the Lords Commissioners for
Trade and Plantations; and, having received repeated advices
that numbers both in Georgia and South Carolina are waiting
with impatience to have their sons initiated in academical
exercises, your memorialist therefore prays that a charter,
upon the plan of New Jersey College, may be granted; upon which
your memorialist is ready to give up his present trust, and make
a free gift of all lands, negroes, goods, and chattels, which
he now stands possessed of in the Province of Georgia, for the
present founding, and towards the future support of a college,
to be called by the name of Bethesda College, in the Province
of Georgia.”

At this stage of the business, Bethesda must be left until the
beginning of the year 1767.

One of the first of Whitefield’s good deeds, in 1766, was to heal a
breach. Four years before, Wesley’s Society in London had been thrown
into great confusion, by a large number of its members using the most
fanatical expressions in reference to the doctrine of Christian
Perfection. Thomas Maxfield, generally reputed (though incorrectly)
to have been the first layman, whom Wesley authorised to preach, and
George Bell, a corporal in the Life Guards, and who, for a season,
seemed to be insane, became the chief agitators. The result was a
great scandal, a reduction of Wesley’s metropolitan Society from 2,800
members to 2,200, and a Society debt of more than £600. After many
strange vicissitudes, Bell was brought back to a better state of
feeling, and Whitefield was the means of it. Wesley writes:――

“January 3, 1766. Mr. Bell called upon me, now calm, and in his
right mind. God has repressed his furious, bitter zeal, by means
of Mr. Whitefield.”

And again, a month later:――

“January 31. Mr. Whitefield called upon me. He breathes nothing
but peace and love. Bigotry cannot stand before him, but hides
its head wherever he comes.”[531]

Another event occurred about the same time, but of a painful character.
In _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, for February 10, 1766, the following
announcement was made:――

“Lately died suddenly, at the Countess of Huntingdon’s, at Bath,
Mr. James Whitefield, formerly a merchant of Bristol, and
brother of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield.”

At the commencement of the year, Whitefield was invited to Sheerness,
where there existed a Society of what might be considered his followers.
Some of Wesley’s preachers had visited the town. The simple-minded,
but somewhat bigoted people took alarm. They were angry at their
Calvinistic enclosure being approached by Arminian forces. Cornelius
Winter, then in Kent, heard of this, and went and preached to them,
from――“Gideon said unto him, O my lord, if the Lord be with us, why
then is all this befallen us? And where be all His miracles which our
fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us out of Egypt? but
now even the Lord hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of
the Midianites.”[532]

The people now wanted Whitefield to visit them, and his affecting and
admonitory answer was as follows:――

“LONDON, _January, 18, 1766_.

“DEARLY BELOVED,――Not want of love, but of leisure and health,
has occasioned you the trouble of writing a second letter. And
now I am sorry to acquaint you, that it is not in my power to
comply with your request. For want of more assistance, I am
confined in town, with the care of two important posts, when
I am only fit to be put into some garrison, among the invalids,
to stand by an old gun or two. However, my former ambition still
remains, and, through the help of your prayers, who knows but
I may yet be strengthened to annoy the enemy? If others are
blessed to do any execution, God forbid that I should hinder,
though in all things they follow not with us. Let the Lord send
by whom He will send. So that Christ is preached, and holiness
promoted, I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”

Whitefield was glad to get away from London. The care of his two
chapels was too much for him. He went to Bath and Bristol, and was
willing, if not wishful, to visit Wales. Hence the following to
Mr. Keen:――

“Bristol, March 17, 1766. A desire to be free from London cares
has made me indifferent about frequent hearing from thence. If
dear Mr. Howell Davies will continue to officiate, I have a mind
to visit Wales for him. Last Friday evening, and twice yesterday,
I preached at Bath, to thronged and brilliant audiences.[533]
I am told it was a high day. The glory of the Lord filled the
house. To-morrow, God willing, I return thither. Mr. Townsend
is too ill to officiate. If any urgent business requires, be
pleased to direct either to this place or Bath. Pray shew my
wife this. Cordial respects attend her, yourself, dear Mr. Hardy
and sisters, and Mr. Howell Davies. Many think old times are
coming round again.”

At this period, England was visited by a man who rose to great
notoriety. Samson Occum was a descendant of Uncas, the celebrated
chief of the Mohegans, and was born at Mohegan, about the year 1723.
His parents led a wandering life, dwelt in wigwams, and depended
chiefly upon hunting and fishing for subsistence. During the religious
excitement, at the time of Whitefield’s first visits to America, Occum
was converted, chiefly by the preaching of Whitefield and Gilbert
Tennent, and became desirous of acting as the teacher of his tribe.
In a year or two, he learned to read the Bible, and then went to the
Indian school of Mr. Wheelock, of Lebanon. Here he remained for four
years. During the next ten or eleven years, he taught a school among
the Indians, and also preached to them, in their own language. Many of
his hearers became Christians. He lived in a house covered with mats,
and changed his abode twice a year, to be near the planting ground in
the summer, and the woods in the winter. Amongst his various toils for
sustenance, he was expert with his fish-hook and his gun; he bound old
books for the people at East Hampton; and made wooden spoons, cedar
pails, piggins, and churns. In 1759, he was ordained by the Suffolk
Presbytery. During his late visit to America, Whitefield met with
Occum, took him along with him in his travels, and sometimes heard
him preach.[534] Now, in 1766, in company with the Rev. Mr. Whitaker,
Occum was sent to England, to obtain subscriptions towards the support
of Wheelock’s school.[535] He was the first Indian preacher who
had visited Great Britain. The chapels, in which he preached, were
thronged. Between February 16, 1766, and July 22, 1767, he delivered,
in various parts of the kingdom, above three hundred sermons. He and
Mr. Whitaker met with the most liberal patronage from Christians of
all denominations, and of all ranks in society. His majesty, King
George III., gave a subscription of £200, and the whole contributions,
in England and Scotland, amounted to £12,500.[536] After his return,
Occum sometimes resided at Mohegan, but was often employed in missionary
labours among distant Indians. In 1786, he removed to Brotherton, near
Utica, in the neighbourhood of the Stockbridge Indians, where he died
in 1792.[537] Upwards of three hundred Indians attended his funeral.
A portrait of him appeared in the _Evangelical Magazine_ for 1808.
Whitefield refers to him and his mission, in the following letter to
the Rev. Mr. Gillies, of Glasgow:――

“LONDON, _April 25, 1766_.

“REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,――Not want of love, but of leisure
and better health, has prevented you hearing from me more
frequently. I find I cannot do as I have done; but, through
infinite mercy, I am enabled to ascend my gospel-throne three
or four times a week; and a glorious influence attends the word.
People have a hearing ear, but we want more preachers.

“The prospect of a large and effectual door opening among the
heathen is very promising. Mr. Occum, the Indian preacher, is
a settled humble Christian. The good and great, with a multitude
of lower degree, heard him preach last week at Tottenham Court
chapel, and felt much of the power and presence of our common
Lord. Mr. Romaine has preached, and collected £100; and, I
believe, seven or eight hundred pounds more are subscribed. Lord
Dartmouth espouses the cause most heartily, and His majesty has
become a contributor. The King of kings, and Lord of all lords,
will bless them for it.

“I trust you and all my other dear friends at Glasgow are so
grown as to become tall cedars in the spiritual Lebanon. I pray
for them, though I cannot write to them. I hope all is well at
Cambuslang. Blessed be God! all will be well in heaven. I will
not interrupt you. You want to say, _Amen! Hallelujah!_ I only
add, when upon the mount, put in a word for an old friend, who
retains his old name, ‘the chief of sinners, less than the least
of all saints’――but, for Jesus Christ’s sake,

“Reverend and very dear sir, your willing servant,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Shortly after this, Whitefield formed a friendship with Thomas
Powys, Esq., a gentleman in Shropshire, of large fortune and of high
connections, who, in conjunction with Sir Richard Hill, in that county,
became conspicuous for zeal in the cause of God and truth.[538] To
Mr. Powys, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“Tottenham Court, May 15, 1766. Though at present almost in
a breathless state, by preaching last night, yet I hope to be
strengthened to give the holy sacrament at seven next Sunday
morning; and, if able, to preach afterwards at ten. If good
Mr. R―――― and lady will come, at near seven, to the Chapel
House, they shall be conducted to a proper place. I wish them
a Pentecost, not only on Whit-Sunday, but every day, every hour,
and every moment of their lives.”

In the month of June, Whitefield set out for Bath and Bristol. He
complained of the continuance of his “feverish heat,” and drank the
water of the Hot Wells twice a day; but managed, at six o’clock, in the
mornings, “to call thirsty souls to come and drink of the water of life
freely.”[539]

On his return to London, he and the Wesleys met several days in
succession, for the purpose of promoting a closer union between
themselves and the Countess of Huntingdon. Wesley had set out on one
of his gospel tours, but was summoned back to join in these important
conferences. He writes:――

“My brother and I conferred with Mr. Whitefield every day; and,
let the honourable men do what they please, we resolved, by
the grace of God, to go on, hand in hand, through honour and
dishonour.”[540]

One of their arrangements was, that the Wesleys should preach in the
chapels of the Countess of Huntingdon, as Whitefield, for many years,
had been accustomed to preach in theirs. Charles Wesley was delighted.
In a letter to his wife, he wrote:――

“London, August 21, 1766. Last night, my brother came. This
morning, we spent two blessed hours with George Whitefield. The
threefold cord, we trust, will never more be broken. On Tuesday
next, my brother is to preach in Lady Huntingdon’s Chapel at
Bath. That and all her chapels (not to say, as I might, herself
also) are now put into the hands of us three.”[541]

Some, however, were dissatisfied. In another letter to his “Dear Sally,”
written within three weeks afterwards, he remarks:――

“September 9, 1766. This morning, I spent in friendly,
close conference with George Whitefield, who is treated most
magnificently, by his own begotten children, for his love to
us.”[542]

On the other hand, the Countess of Huntingdon approved of the
arrangements made. In a letter to Wesley, she wrote:――

“September 14, 1766. I am most highly obliged by your kind offer
of serving the chapel at Bath during your stay at Bristol. _I
do trust that this union which is commenced_ will be for the
furtherance of our faith and mutual love to each other. It is
for the interest of the best of causes that we should all be
found, first, faithful to the Lord, and then to each other.
I find something wanting, and that is, a meeting now and then
agreed upon, that you, your brother, Mr. Whitefield, and I,
should, at times, regularly communicate our observations upon
the general state of the work. Light might follow, and would be
a kind of guide to me, as I am connected with many.”[543]

This “quadruple alliance,” as Charles Wesley called it, lasted till
Whitefield’s death. Then, as all readers of Methodist history are well
aware, there was, in more respects than one, a distressing rupture.

Whitefield continued his pulpit labours, as far as he was able; and
also wrote letters in abundance. Hence the following extracts from his
correspondence.

John Fawcett, afterwards Doctor of Divinity, and, for above half a
century, a laborious minister of Christ in Yorkshire, had recently
begun to preach, and, having been convinced of sin under Whitefield’s
ministry, he wrote to him, asking his advice. Part of the answer was
as follows:――

“London, September 1, 1766. I have been so often imposed upon
by letters from strangers, that it is high time to be a little
more cautious” [in answering them]. “Besides, bodily weakness
prevents my writing as formerly; but your letters seem to
evidence simplicity of heart. If truly called to the glorious
work of the ministry, of which I can be no judge at this
distance, I wish you much prosperity in the name of the Lord.
The language of my soul is, ‘Would to God that all the Lord’s
servants were prophets!’ A clear head, and an honest, upright,
disinterested, warm heart, with a good elocution, and a moderate
degree of learning, will carry you through all, and enable you
to do wonders. You will not fail to pray for a decayed, but,
thanks be to God! not a disbanded soldier. Whether I shall ever
visit Yorkshire again, is only known to Him, who holdeth the
stars in His right hand.”[544]

The next extract is from a letter addressed to a gentleman at
Wisbeach:――

“London, September 25, 1766. I am sorry your letter has been
so long unanswered; but bodily weakness, and a multiplicity of
correspondents, at home and abroad, must be pleaded as excuses.
The shout of a King is yet heard in the Methodist camp. Had
I wings, I would gladly fly from pole to pole; but they are
clipped by the feeble labours of thirty years. Twice or thrice
a week, I am permitted to ascend my gospel-throne. Pray that
the last glimmering of an expiring taper may be blessed to the
guiding of many wandering souls to the Lamb of God.”[545]

The next was written to Mr. Gustavus Gidley, an officer of Excise, who
was the principal founder of Wesley’s Society in Exeter, and the chief
promoter of Wesley’s first chapel in that city:――

“London, October 2, 1766. The love of Christ constrains me
to wish you joy. Of what? Of being made partaker of the grace
and cross of Christ. You will find that both are inseparably
connected. God be praised that you have an inclination to invite
others to partake of your joy in the Lord. Thus, your brother
Matthew the publican did. He made a feast. Jesus, that friend
of publicans and sinners, was there. With such He is now; and
with such, to all eternity, He will be surrounded in the kingdom
of glory. There you and I must strive which will shout loudest,
‘Grace, grace!’ And why should not this contest begin on earth?
It will, it must, if the kingdom of God be _within us_. Look
continually unto Jesus. That He may be the Alpha and Omega――the
beginning and end of all your thoughts, words, and deeds, is the
earnest prayer of, dear sir,

“Your brother sinner,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[546]

Not unfrequently was Whitefield accused of disloyalty. From first to
last, all such charges were absolutely false and calumnious. If he
erred at all, it was in expressing his attachment to the throne and
government of the day, in language stronger than they merited. His
eulogiums of George II. were extravagant, but it would be unjust to
designate them insincere. Everywhere, at home and abroad, he availed
himself of every opportunity to evince his fidelity to his rightful
sovereign, and his respect for the House of Hanover. This, at the time,
was of more than ordinary importance. Jacobite and popish plots were
numerous. Traitors existed in abundance. Loyal men were needed, and
declarations of loyalty were of greater value than at present, when
treason is not so rampant as it was in the days of the Pretender. Such
facts will help to explain the following incident:――

On October 1, Her Royal Highness Princess Caroline Matilda, sister of
George III., at the age of sixteen, was married to the worthless king
of Denmark. The ceremony was performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
in the Grand Council Chamber at St. James’s, in the presence of the
Royal Family and a large number of the English nobility. The puny
king of Denmark was not present; but Her Royal Highness’s brother,
the Duke of York, acted as his proxy. On the day after the marriage,
at half-past six o’clock in the morning, the young queen set out for
Harwich, to embark for Denmark, being escorted by a detachment of
Horse Guards, and a numerous train of attendants. On the same day,
says _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, “The Rev. Mr. Whitefield preached, at
the Tabernacle, in praise of the queen of Denmark, and concluded with
a fervent prayer for her preservation and good journey.”

This was an odd kind of service for worn-out Whitefield to undertake;
but loyalty to the House of Hanover led him for once to use his
“gospel-throne” in sounding the praises, not of King Jesus, but of
the unfortunate queen of Denmark.

Among others, who now began to render assistance in Whitefield’s
London chapels, was the saintly Fletcher, vicar of Madeley.[547] It
is not improbable that this was one of the results of the “quadruple
alliance,” formed two months before. Be that as it may, the following
extract from Whitefield’s letter to Mr. Powys will interest the
reader:――

“London, November 1, 1766. Dear Mr. Fletcher is become a
scandalous Tottenham Court preacher. I trust he will come down
into your parts, baptized with the Holy Ghost. Dear Mr. Romaine
has been much owned in good Lady Huntingdon’s chapel” (at Bath).
“I am to go thither next week. Dear Mr. Madan is detained at
Aldwinkle, by his children having the small-pox in town. The
shout of a King is yet heard in the Methodist camp. The glorious
cry, ‘What shall I do to be saved?’ is frequently sounding in
our years. Had we more reproach, and were we more scandalous,
more good would be done. Several promise well. Some say
_shibboleth_ with a good grace, and very proper accent; others,
as yet, can only say _sibboleth_; but I have heard of one who
can teach the tongue of the stammerer to speak plain. Good Lady
Huntingdon is an excellent school-mistress in this way. But
I must have done. A dear company of ministerial cast-outs are
coming to breakfast under my despised roof. I cannot die. Cold
bathing and cool weather brace me up.”

Whitefield went to Bath, as he intended; and, whilst there, wrote to
his faithful friend, Mr. Keen, as follows:――

“Bath, November 12, 1766. I have been low ever since my coming
here. The Bath air, I believe, will never agree with me long.
However, if good is done, all will be well. They tell me, that
Sunday and last night were seasons of power. Some, we trust,
were made willing. I hope you enjoy much of God in town. Surely,
London is the Jerusalem of England. Happy they who know the day
of their visitation! Remember me to all at the Tabernacle. I
hope to write to Mr. Fletcher to-morrow or next day.”

“Bath, November 20, 1766. On Tuesday evening, I preached at
Bristol, to a very crowded auditory, though the weather was
very foul. Last night” (Wednesday) “I administered the sacrament
there. We used near eight bottles of wine. I trust some tasted
of the new wine of the kingdom. I want just one week more to
settle Bristol affairs; and have, therefore, written to dear
Mr. Jesse[548] to stay two or three weeks at London. Mr. Howell
Davies,[549] who, they say, is expected here next week, may then
officiate for that space of time at Bath, and, at Mr. Jesse’s
leaving London, may go up to town. I beg that Captain Joss
would go through with the Tabernacle work, and stick to it
with his whole heart. I hope, at farthest, to be in London by
next Tuesday se’nnight, and to preach at the Tabernacle the
following evening. I was afraid my wife would get cold by her
late excursions, as, at other times, she is so much confined.
Be pleased to show this to her.”

“Bristol, November 23, 1766. Such a numerous brilliant assembly
of the mighty and noble, I never saw attend before at Bath.
Everything is so promising, that I was constrained to give
notice of preaching next Sunday. Congregations have been very
large and very solemn. O what Bethels has Jesus given to us! O
that God would make my way into every town in England! I long to
break up fresh ground. I am just come here, weary, but am going
to speak a few words.”

Captain Joss has just been mentioned, and deserves further notice.
Torial Joss was born on September 29, 1731, at Auck-Medden, a small
village, on the sea coast, about twenty miles north of Aberdeen. His
father died when Torial was very young; his mother neglected him; and
he went to sea. The vessel in which he sailed was taken by the French,
and he became an inmate of a foreign prison, where his sufferings
were great. At the age of fifteen, he returned to Scotland; was seized
by a press-gang; and sent on board a man-of-war. He made his escape;
travelled to Sunderland; and bound himself an apprentice to the captain
of a coasting vessel, belonging to Robin Hood’s Bay. By overhearing
a religious conversation, and by reading the works of Bunyan, and “The
Whole Duty of Man,” he was converted. The Methodist preachers visited
Robin Hood’s Bay; a number of the people were convinced of sin; and
Wesley came and formed them into a Society. Previous to this, Torial
had begun to pray and exhort in public; and Wesley encouraged him to
continue. He was now about eighteen years of age, and became a member
of Wesley’s Society. When his apprenticeship expired, he was appointed
first mate of his captain’s vessel. Wherever the ship put into port, he
tried to preach, and, in some instances, suffered cruel persecution. At
Shields, a press-gang dragged him through the town, amid shoutings and
triumph, and sent him on board a tender, where he was kept a prisoner
for seven weeks. The profane swearing and the obscene language of
the crew were terrific trials; and, added to this, having but twenty
minutes in forty-eight hours on deck, he was nearly suffocated with
the foul air and heat. Soon after his release, he was made captain
of a ship, set up regular worship, and, as often as the weather would
permit, preached regularly to his crew. During a long detention at
Berwick-upon-Tweed, his preaching to the crowds was so successful,
that a gentleman wrote to Whitefield, telling him Joss was sailing to
London, in a vessel named the _Hartley Trader_, but which the people
nicknamed “The Pulpit.” On arriving in the Thames, Joss was surprised
by being told that Whitefield had announced him to preach in the
Tabernacle. Whitefield was so gratified with the sermon, that he urged
the captain to quit the compass, the chart, and the ocean, for the
Christian pulpit. After considerable delay, Joss, in 1766, yielded to
Whitefield’s wish, and, henceforth, acted as one of his assistants.
In London, his congregations were crowds, and his sermons full
of converting power. Four or five months every year he spent in
itinerating, regularly visiting Bristol, Gloucestershire, and South
Wales, and, occasionally, other parts of the kingdom. In Wales,
especially, the people followed him in multitudes, and, on Sundays,
would travel twenty miles to hear him. He died in 1797, and was
interred in Tottenham Court Road chapel.[550] Berridge used to call
him “The Archdeacon of Tottenham.”[551]

Another of Whitefield’s helpers must be introduced. Captain Scott, son
of Richard Scott, Esq., of Betton, in the county of Salop, belonged
to the 7th regiment of dragoons. He was present at the famous battle,
at Minden, on the 1st of August, 1759, attached to the cavalry of the
right wing, commanded by Lord George Sackville. After this, he became
the subject of powerful religious impressions, and made it his daily
practice to read the psalms and lessons of the day. In due time, he
heard Romaine, and found peace with God. He soon began to preach.
Fletcher of Madeley, in a letter to Lady Huntingdon, wrote:――

“I went last Monday to meet Captain Scott――a captain of the
truth, a bold soldier of Jesus Christ. He boldly launches into
an irregular usefulness. For some months, he has exhorted his
dragoons daily; for some weeks, he has preached publicly at
Leicester, in the Methodist meeting-house, in his regimentals,
to numerous congregations, with good success. The stiff regular
ones pursue him with hue and cry; but, I believe, he is quite
beyond their reach. I believe this _red coat_ will shame many
a black one. I am sure he shames me.”

Whitefield heard of the military preacher, and, on February 12, 1767,
wrote to him as follows:――

“What, not answer so modest a request as to send dear Captain
Scott a few lines! God forbid! I must again welcome him into
the field of battle. I must entreat him to keep his rank as
a captain, and not suffer any persuasions to influence him to
descend to the lower degree of a common soldier. If God shall
choose a red-coat preacher, who shall say unto Him, ‘What doest
Thou?’

‘Strong in the Lord’s almighty power,
And armed in panoply divine,
Firm may’st thou stand in danger’s hour,
And prove the strength of Jesus thine.
The helmet of salvation take;
The Lord the Spirit’s conquering sword;
Speak from the word; in lightning speak;
Cry out, and thunder from the Lord.’

“Gladly would I come, and, in my poor way, endeavour to
strengthen your hands; but, alas! I am fit for nothing but,
as an invalid, to be put into some garrison, and then put my
hand to some old gun. Blessed be the Captain of our salvation
for drafting out young champions to reconnoitre and attack the
enemy. You will beat the march in every letter and bid the common
soldiers not halt, but go forward. Hoping one day to see your
face in the flesh, and more than hoping to see you crowned with
glory in the kingdom of heaven, I am, my dear captain, yours in
our all-glorious Captain-General,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[552]

As yet, Whitefield had not seen Captain Scott; but he requested him
to come and preach in London. “I have invited the captain,” said
Whitefield to the Tabernacle congregation, “to bring his artillery to
the Tabernacle rampart, and try what execution he can do here.” Soon
after this, Captain Scott sold his commission, and, for upwards of
twenty years, was one of the supplies of the Tabernacle pulpit.[553]

In this same year, 1766, Whitefield entered into correspondence with
another distinguished man, who was destined, for a brief period, to
be one of his successors at the Tabernacle and at Tottenham Court Road
chapel. Rowland Hill, the sixth son of Sir Rowland Hill, Bart., was now
twenty-one years of age. He had been to school at Eton, and, for the
last two years, had been an undergraduate at Cambridge. Here he became
intimately acquainted with good old Berridge, of Everton, and scarcely
a week elapsed without their holding religious intercourse with each
other. Rowland, even now, was full of religious fire and energy and
boldness. He had already been the means of awakening anxiety about
their souls in several of his fellow-students. He had also visited
the gaol, and the sick, and had begun to preach in several places in
Cambridge, and in the adjacent villages. This brought upon him the
severest censure of his college. Mobs also commenced to insult him;
and, at length, the opposition he encountered became so serious, that
he wrote to Whitefield for advice. Whitefield’s reply was as follows:――

“LONDON, _December 27, 1766_.

“About thirty-four years ago, the master of Pembroke College,
where I was educated, took me to task for visiting the sick,
and going to the prisons. In my haste, I said, ‘Sir, if
it displeaseth you, I will go no more.’ My heart smote me
immediately. I repented, and went again. He heard of it,
and threatened; but, for fear he should be looked upon as
a persecutor, let me alone. The hearts of all are in the
Redeemer’s hands. I would not have you give way, no not for
a moment. The storm is too great to hold long. Visiting the
sick and imprisoned, and instructing the ignorant, are the very
vitals of true and undefiled religion. If threatened, denied
degree, or expelled for _this_, it will be the best degree you
can take――a glorious preparative for, and a blessed presage
of, future usefulness. I have seen the dreadful consequences
of giving way and looking back. How many, by this wretched
cowardice, have been turned into pillars, not of useful, but of
useless salt! _Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum._ Now
is the time to prove the strength of Jesus yours. If opposition
did not so much abound, your consolations would not so abound.
Blind as he is, Satan sees some great good coming. We never
prospered so much at Oxford, as when we were hissed at and
reproached as we walked along the street. Go on, therefore,
my dear man, go on. Old Berridge, I believe, would give you
the same advice. You are honoured in sharing his reproach and
name. God be praised, that you are helped to bless when others
blaspheme. Do not drop the Bible and old books. You write good
sense. Nothing is wanting but to write it in a proper manner.
God bless, direct, and prosper you! He will, He will. Good Lady
Huntingdon is in town. She will rejoice to hear you are under
the cross. You will not want her prayers, or the prayers of, my
dear young honest friend,

“Yours, in the all-conquering Jesus,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.[554]

“To Mr. Rowland Hill,

“At St. John’s College, Cambridge.”

For above thirty years, Whitefield had been the butt of persecution,
and, therefore, was not unprepared to give advice to young Rowland
Hill. He was still hunted by the hatred of his enemies. Among other
publications, there was issued, about this period, a sixpenny pamphlet,
in folio, with the title, “The Celebrated Lecture upon Heads,” most
of which is too coarse and blasphemous to be quoted. One specimen,
concerning Whitefield, must suffice.

“Behold here one of the _righteous over-much_――yet nought doth
he give away in charity! No, no! He is the bell-wether of the
flock, who hath broken down _orthodoxy’s bounds_, and now riots
on the _common of hypocrisy_. With _one_ eye he looks up to
heaven, to make his congregation think he is _devout_, that’s
his _spiritual_ eye; and with the other eye he looks down to
see what he can get, and that’s his _carnal_ eye; and thus,
with jokes flowing down his face, he says, or seems to say,
or, at least with your permission, we’ll attempt to say for him,
‘Bretheren! bretheren! bretheren! The word bretheren comes from
the Tabernacle, because we all _breathe-there-in_. If ye want
_rouzing_, I’ll _rouze_ you. I’ll beat a _tat-too_ upon the
parchment cases of your consciences, and whip the _devil_ about
like a _whirl-a-gig_.’”

_Quantum sufficit!_ The remainder is a great deal worse than this.

Another pamphlet of the same description, price eighteen-pence, was
entitled “The Methodist and Mimic. A Tale in Hudibrastic Verse. By
Peter Paragraph. Inscribed to Samuel Foote, Esq.” The gist of this foul
publication is, that Whitefield sends one of his congregation to Foote,
with a proposal that the comedian should turn preacher; and, of course,
Samuel Foote, Esq., rejects the proposal with disdain.

One more must be mentioned: “The Methodist. A Poem. By the Author of
the Powers of the Pen, and the Curate. London, 1766.” (4to. pp. 54.)
Some parts of this impious publication are obscene, and attribute
to Whitefield behaviour of the most infamous and impure description.
The general purport of it is to describe the devil making a tour of
discovery, to find some one to manage his affairs on earth, so that he
himself might have leisure to attend to his government in hell. With
this object in view,

“he searched, without avail,
Each meeting, dungeon, court, and jail,
Each mart of villainy, where vice
Presides, and virtue bears no price.”

But nowhere could he find an agent suited to his mind, till he got to
Tottenham Court Road chapel, where he discovered Whitefield. For the
sake of gold, Whitefield became his terrestrial viceroy, and swore
fealty to him. One of the devil’s requirements was, that, because what
Whitefield _did_ was contrary to what he _said_, his eyes ought to
look different ways; and, accordingly, they were twisted. Describing
Whitefield’s sermons, the writer says:――

“He knows his _Master’s_ realm so well,
His sermons are a _map_ of hell,
An _Ollio_ made of conflagration,
Of _gulphs_ of brimstone, and _damnation_,
_Eternal torments_, _furnace_, _worm_,
_Hell-fire_, a _whirlwind_, and a _storm_.”

An apology is almost needed for the insertion of such profanity as
this, and yet, without it, it is impossible to convey to the reader
an adequate idea of the ridicule and odium cast upon dying Whitefield.
Vile as are the extracts given, much viler remain unquoted.

Whitefield concluded the year 1766 by writing one of his characteristic
letters to Thomas Powys, Esq., who was entertaining, at his mansion
in Shropshire, during Christmastide, the Rev. Messrs. Venn, Ryland,
Dr. Conyers, and Powley, vicar of Dewsbury.[555]

“AT MY TOTTENHAM COURT BETHEL,

“_Six in the Morning, December 30, 1766_.

“MY VERY DEAR SIR,――The Christmas holiday season has prevented
me sending an immediate answer to your last kind letter.
The love therein expressed shall be returned, by praying
for the writer’s whole self, and the honourable, Christian,
and ministerial circle with which you are at present happily
surrounded. _Four Methodist parsons!_ Honourable title! so long
as it is attended with the cross. When fashionable, we will drop
it. _Four Methodist parsons!_ Enough, when Jesus says, ‘Loose
them and let them go,’ to set a whole kingdom on fire for God.
I wish them prosperity in the name of the Lord.

“To-morrow, God willing, and on Thursday also, with many
hundreds more, I intend to take the sacrament upon it, that I
will begin to be a Christian. Though I long to go to heaven, to
see my glorious Master, what a poor figure shall I make, among
saints, confessors, and martyrs, without some deeper signatures
of His divine impress――without more scars of Christian honour!

“Our truly noble mother in Israel is come to London full of them.
_Crescit sub pondere virtus._ Happy they who have the honour of
her acquaintance! Highly honoured are the ministers, who have
the honour of preaching for and serving her!

“O this single eye,――this disinterested spirit,――this freedom
from worldly hopes and worldly fears,――this flaming zeal,――this
daring to be singularly good,――this holy ambition to lead the
van! O, it is, what? a heaven upon earth! O for a plerophory of
faith! to be filled with the Holy Ghost! This is the grand point.
All our lukewarmness, all our timidity, all our backwardness
to do good, to spend and be spent for God,――all is owing to
our want of more of that faith, which is the inward, heartfelt,
self-evident demonstration of things not seen.

“But whither am I going? Pardon me, good sir. I keep you from
better company. Praying that all of you (if you live to be
fifty-two) may not be such dwarfs in the Divine life as I am,
I hasten to subscribe myself, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield began the year 1767 by writing a preface to the third
edition of the collected works of Bunyan, published in two large folio
volumes (pp. 856 and 882), admirably printed, and containing curious
and well-executed illustrations. The title was, “The Works of that
Eminent Servant of Christ, Mr. John Bunyan, Minister of the Gospel,
and formerly Pastor of a Congregation at Bedford. With Copperplates,
adapted to the Pilgrim’s Progress, the Holy War, etc., in Two Volumes.
The Third Edition. To which are now added The Divine Emblems, and
several other Pieces, which were never printed in any former Collection,
with a Recommendatory Preface by the Reverend George Whitefield, M.A.,
Chaplain to the Right Honourable the Countess of Huntingdon. London:
printed for W. Johnston, in Ludgate Street; and E. and C. Dilly, in the
Poultry, near the Mansion House. 1767.”[556]

Whitefield’s preface is dated January 3, 1767. Two extracts from it
must suffice. In reference to the fact that Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress
was written in Bedford Gaol, Whitefield remarks:――

“Ministers never write or preach so well as when under the
cross. The Spirit of Christ and of glory then rests upon them.
It was this, no doubt, that made the Puritans of the last century
such burning and shining lights. When cast out by the black
Bartholomew Act, and driven from their respective charges to
preach in barns and fields, in the highways and hedges, they, in
an especial manner, wrote and preached as men having authority.
Though dead, by their writings they yet speak. A peculiar
unction attends them to this very hour. For these thirty years
past, I have remarked that the more true and vital religion
has revived, either at home or abroad, the more the good old
Puritanical writings, or the authors of a like stamp, who lived
and died in the communion of the Church of England, have been
called for.”

Then again, with reference to what, throughout the whole of his career,
was one of Whitefield’s favourite virtues, namely, catholicity of
spirit, he writes:――

“I must own that what more particularly endears Mr. Bunyan to my
heart is this, he was of a catholic spirit. The want of _water
adult baptism_, with this man of God, was no bar to outward
Christian communion. And I am persuaded, that if, like him, we
were more deeply and experimentally baptized into the benign
and gracious influences of the blessed Spirit, we should be
less baptized into the waters of strife, about circumstantials
and non-essentials. We should have but one grand, laudable,
disinterested strife, namely, who should live, preach, and exalt
the ever-loving, altogether lovely Jesus most.”

Just at this period, Whitefield took under his patronage a young man,
who, if not a tinker, was quite as poor as the “immortal dreamer.”
Cornelius Winter, the son of a shoemaker, and bred in a workhouse,
was now in the twenty-fifth year of his age. For twelve long years,
he had been the drudge and the butt of a drunken brute in Bunhill Row.
The poor workhouse lad had been converted by attending Whitefield’s
Tabernacle, and had become a member of its Society. During the last
year or two, he had been an itinerant preacher, and now he applied
to Whitefield to send him, as a minister, to America. Whitefield
replied:――

“LONDON, _January 29, 1767_.

“DEAR MR. WINTER,――Your letter met with proper acceptance.
The first thing to be done now is to get some knowledge of the
Latin language. We can talk of the method to be pursued, at
your return to London. Mr. Green[557] would make a suitable
master. No time should be lost. One would hope that the various
humiliations you have met with were intended as preparations for
future exaltations. The greatest preferment under heaven is to
be an able, painful, faithful, successful, suffering, cast-out
minister of the New Testament. That this may be your happy lot
is the hearty prayer of yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[558]

On coming to London, Cornelius Winter waited upon Whitefield. He
writes:――

“Mr. Whitefield gave me a mild reception. The interview was
short. He said he should expect me to preach in the Tabernacle
next morning at six o’clock, and he appointed a time when
I should come to him again. I heard him in the evening. He
announced that a stranger, recommended by Mr. Berridge, would
preach on the morrow morning. I had little rest that night, and
prayed, rather than studied for the service.”

This was in February, 1767. The result was, Whitefield desired Winter
to procure testimonials from the places he had visited, and also to
write him an account of his conversion. Winter says:――

“For several days, Mr. Whitefield kept me in suspense. At
last, he set me upon a little business, and told me he should
expect me to preach two mornings in the week. He appointed
me particular times when I was to call upon him; and, besides
sending me upon errands, of which he always had a great number,
he set me to transcribe some of his manuscripts. He shewed
himself much dissatisfied with my writing and orthography; but
he desired me to take a lodging near the chapel, where he could
conveniently send for me; gave me a little money to defray my
expenses; and, by degrees, brought me into a capacity to be
useful to him. Soon after, he proposed my going to Mr. Green’s
for a few hours in the day, to be initiated into the Latin
grammar; but he interrupted the design by requiring a close
attention to his own business, and the large demand he made of
my pulpit services. A single quarter of a year closed my school
exercise, in which I hardly gained knowledge enough to decline
_Musa_. It was plain Mr. Whitefield did not intend to promote
my literary improvement. Indeed, he said, Latin was of little
or no use, and that they who wish to enter upon it late in life,
had better endeavour to acquire a good knowledge of their mother
tongue. Having recently attended Mr. Wesley’s conference, and
having heard him speak to the same effect, he was confirmed in
this sentiment, and discouraged my perseverance.

“Perhaps it would be putting the picture of so valuable a man,
as Mr. Whitefield was, into too deep a shade, to say that he was
not a fit person for a young man in humble circumstances to be
connected with. He was not satisfied with deficient abilities,
but he did not sufficiently encourage the use of the lamp
for their improvement. The attention of a youth, designed
for the ministry, was too much diverted from the main object,
and devoted too much to objects comparatively trifling. I was
considered as much the steward of his house as his assistant
in the ministry. While I was kept in bay and at anchor, many,
piloted by him, set sail, and I at last knew not whether I was
to indulge a hope for America or not. My fidelity being proved,
I became one of the family, slept in the room of my honoured
patron, and had the privilege to sit at his table. I judged I
was where I should be, and was determined never to flinch from
the path of duty, nor intentionally to grieve the man, who had
many burdens upon him, and for whom I could have laid down my
life.”[559]

Considering the circumstances of Cornelius Winter, there is a little
unseemly grumbling in the foregoing extract; but let it pass. The
quondam workhouse boy seems to have been an inmate of Whitefield’s
house for about eighteen months; and as he is the only one, _thus
privileged_, who has left behind him any account of Whitefield’s
domestic habits and public life, this is a fitting place to introduce
what he says concerning the patron to whom he owed so much.

In reference to the composition of sermons, the mode of conducting
public services, and action in the pulpit, Winter writes:――

“The time Mr. Whitefield set apart for preparations for the
pulpit, during my connection with him, was not distinguished
from the time he appropriated to other business. If he wanted to
write a pamphlet, he was closeted; nor would he allow access to
him, except on an emergency, while he was engaged in the work.
But I never knew him engaged in the composition of a sermon,
until he was on board ship, when he employed himself partly in
the composition of sermons, and partly in reading the history
of England. He had formed a design of writing the history of
Methodism, but never entered upon it. He was never more in
retirement on a Saturday than on another day; nor sequestered
at any particular time for a period longer than he used for his
ordinary devotions. I never met with anything like the skeleton
of a sermon among his papers, with which I was permitted to
be familiar, and I believe he knew nothing of such a kind of
exercise as the planning of a sermon.

“Usually, for an hour or two before he entered the pulpit, he
claimed retirement; and, on the Sabbath morning especially, he
was accustomed to have Clarke’s Bible, Matthew Henry’s Comment,
and Cruden’s Concordance within his reach. His frame at that
time was more than ordinarily devotional; I say more than
ordinarily, because, though there was a vast vein of pleasantry
usually in him, the intervals of conversation then appeared to
be filled up with private ejaculation and with praise.

“His rest was much interrupted, and he often said at the close
of an address, ‘I got this sermon when most of you were fast
asleep.’ He made very minute observations; and, in one way or
another, the occurrences of the week, or of the day, furnished
him with matter for the pulpit. When an extraordinary trial
was going on, he would be present, and I have known him, at the
close of a sermon, avail himself of the formality of the judge
putting on the black cap to pronounce sentence. With his eyes
full of tears, and his heart almost too big to admit of speech,
he would say, after a momentary pause, ‘I am now going to put
on my condemning cap. Sinner, I must do it. I must pronounce
sentence upon thee.’ And then, in a strain of tremendous
eloquence, he would recite our Lord’s words, ‘Depart, ye cursed.’
It was only by hearing him, and by beholding his attitude and
his tears, that the effect could be conceived.

“My intimate knowledge of him enables me to acquit him of the
charge of affectation. He always appeared to enter the pulpit
with a countenance that indicated he had something of importance
to divulge, and was anxious for the effect of the communication.
His gravity on his descent was the same. As soon as he was
seated in his chair, he usually vomited a considerable quantity
of blood.

“He was averse to much singing after preaching, supposing it
diverted attention from the subject of his sermon. Nothing
awkward, nothing careless appeared about him in the pulpit.
Whether he frowned or smiled, whether he looked grave or
placid, it was nature acting in him. Professed orators might
object to his hands being lifted up too high, and it is to be
lamented that in that attitude, rather than in any other, he is
represented in print. His own reflection upon that picture was,
when it was first put into his hands, ‘Sure I do not look such
a sour creature as this sets me forth. If I thought I did, I
should hate myself.’ The attitude was very transient, and always
accompanied by expressions which would justify it. He sometimes
had occasion to speak of Peter going out and weeping bitterly;
and, then, he had a fold of his gown at command, which he put
before his face with as much gracefulness as familiarity.

“I hardly ever knew him go through a sermon without weeping, and
I believe his were the tears of sincerity. His voice was often
interrupted by his affection; and I have heard him say in the
pulpit, ‘You blame me for weeping, but how can I help it, when
you will not weep for yourselves, though your souls are upon
the verge of destruction, and, for aught I know, you are hearing
your last sermon!’ Sometimes he wept exceedingly, stamped loudly
and passionately, and was frequently so overcome, that nature
required some little time to compose itself.

“When he treated upon the sufferings of our Saviour, it was with
great pathos. As though Gethsemane were in sight, he would cry,
stretching out his hand, ‘Look yonder! What is that I see? It is
my agonizing Lord!’ And, as though it were no difficult matter
to catch the sound of the Saviour praying, he would exclaim,
‘Hark! Hark! Do you not hear?’ This frequently occurred; but
though we often knew what was coming, it was as new to us as
if we had never heard it before.

“The beautiful apostrophe, of the prophet Jeremiah, ‘O earth,
earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord!’ was very subservient
to him, and was never used impertinently. He abounded with
anecdotes, which, though not always recited verbatim, were very
just as to the matter of them. On the Sabbath morning, he dealt
far more in the explanatory and doctrinal mode of preaching,
than, perhaps, at any other time; and occasionally made a little,
but by no means improper, shew of learning. If he had read
upon astronomy in the course of the week, you would be sure
to discover it. He had his charms for the learned as well as
for the unlearned. The peer and the peasant alike went away
satisfied.

“This was his work, in London, at one period of his life. After
administering the Lord’s supper to several hundred communicants
at half-past six o’clock in the morning, he, in the forenoon,
read the Liturgy, and preached full an hour. In the afternoon,
he again read prayers and preached. At half-past five, he
preached again, and, afterwards, addressed a large Society.
At the Society meeting, widows, married people, young men, and
spinsters were placed separately in the area of the Tabernacle.
Hundreds used to stay, and receive from him, in a colloquial
style, various exhortations, comprised in short sentences, and
suitable to their various stations.

“Perhaps he never preached greater sermons than at six in the
morning; for at that hour he did preach, winter and summer, on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. At these times,
his congregations were of the select description. Young men
received admonitions similar to what were given in the Society
meetings. ‘Beware of being golden apprentices, silver journeymen,
and copper masters,’ was one of the cautions I remember
being given. His style was now colloquial, with little use of
motion; pertinent expositions, with suitable remarks; and all
comprehended within the hour.

“Christian experience principally was the subject of his
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evening lectures; when,
frequently having funeral sermons to preach, the character and
experience of the dead helped to elucidate the subject.

“Mr. Whitefield adopted the custom of the inhabitants of New
England, in their best days, of beginning the Sabbath at six
o’clock on Saturday evenings. The custom could not be observed
by many, but it was convenient to a few. Now ministers of
every description found a peculiar pleasure in relaxing their
minds from the fatigues of study. It was also an opportunity
peculiarly suited to apprentices and journeymen in some
businesses, which allowed of their leaving work sooner than on
other days, and of availing themselves of, at least, the sermon.

“The peculiar talents he possessed can be but faintly guessed
from his sermons in print. The eighteen, taken in shorthand, and
faithfully transcribed by Mr. Gurney, have been supposed to do
discredit to his memory, and, therefore, they were suppressed;
but much of his genuine preaching may be collected from them.
They were far from being the best specimens that might have been
produced. He preached many of them when, in fact, he was almost
incapable of preaching at all. His constitution, long before
they were taken, had received its shock, and all of them, except
the two last, were the productions of a Wednesday evening, when,
by the business of the day, he was fatigued and worn out. He
was then like an ascending Elijah, and many were eager to catch
his dropping mantle. In the sermons referred to, there are many
jewels, though not connected in proper order. Whatever invidious
remarks may be made upon his written discourses, they cannot
invalidate his preaching. Mr. Toplady called him the prince of
preachers, and with good reason, for none in our day preached
with the like effect.”

So much in reference to Whitefield as a preacher, to which may be
added another fact stated by Cornelius Winter, namely, that, excepting
Andrew Kinsman, most of Whitefield’s substitutes at the Tabernacle
and at Tottenham Court chapel were very inferior preachers to himself,
and that, in consequence, the congregations, during his absence, were
greatly diminished. Notwithstanding this, however, “conversions were
very frequent.”[560]

Winter’s portraiture of Whitefield will not be perfect without the
addition of what he says respecting the renowned preacher’s private
character and habits. He continues:――

“Mr. Whitefield was accessible but to few. He was cautious in
admitting people to him. He would never be surprised into a
conversation. You could not knock at his door and be allowed
to enter at any time. ‘Who is it?’ ‘What is his business?’
and such-like enquiries usually preceded admission; and, if
admission were granted, it was thus, ‘Come to-morrow morning at
six o’clock, perhaps five, or immediately after preaching. If
later, I cannot see you.’

“A person consulting him upon going into the ministry, might
expect to be treated with severity, if not well recommended, or
if he had not something about him particularly engaging. One man,
on saying, in answer to his enquiry, that he was a tailor, was
dismissed with, ‘Go to rag-fair, and buy old clothes.’ Another,
who was admitted to preach in the vestry one winter’s morning
at six o’clock, took for his text, ‘These that have turned
the world upside down have come hither also.’ ‘That man shall
come here no more,’ said Mr. Whitefield. ‘If God had called
him to preach, he would have furnished him with a proper text.’
A letter well written, as to style, orthography, and decency,
would prepossess him much in favour of a person.

“He used too much severity to young people, and required too
much from them. He connected circumstances too humiliating with
public services, in a young man with whom he could take liberty;
urging that it was necessary as a curb to the vanity of human
nature, and referred to the young Roman orators, who, after
being exalted by applauses, were sent upon the most trifling
errands. His maxim was, if you love me, you will serve me
disinterestedly; hence he settled no certain income, or a very
slender one, upon his dependants, many of whom were sycophants,
and, while they professed to serve him, underhandedly served
themselves. Through this defect, his charity in Georgia was
materially injured, owing to the wrong conduct of some who
insinuated themselves into his favour by humouring his weakness,
and letting him act and speak without contradiction. He was
impatient of contradiction, but this is a fault to be charged
upon almost all great people.

“No time was to be wasted; and his expectations generally went
before the ability of his servants to perform his commands. He
was very exact to the time appointed for his stated meals. A
few minutes’ delay would be considered a great fault. He was
irritable, but soon appeased. Not being patient enough, one day,
to receive a reason for his being disappointed, he hurt the mind
of one who was studious to please; but, on reflection, he burst
into tears, saying, ‘I shall live to be a poor peevish old man,
and everybody will be tired of me.’ He never commanded haughtily,
and always took care to applaud when a person did right. He
never indulged parties at his table; but a select few might now
and then breakfast with him, dine with him on a Sunday, or sup
with him on a Wednesday night. In the last-mentioned indulgence,
he was scrupulously exact to break up in time. In the height of
a conversation, I have known him abruptly say, ‘But we forget
ourselves;’ and, rising from his seat and advancing to the door,
would add, ‘Come, gentlemen, it is time for all good folks to be
at home.’

“Whether only by himself, or having but a second, his table must
be spread elegantly, though it produced but a loaf and a cheese.
He was unjustly charged with being given to appetite. His table
was never spread with variety. A cow-heel was his favourite
dish, and I have known him cheerfully say, ‘How surprised would
the world be, if they were to peep upon Dr. Squintum, and see
a cow-heel only upon his table.’ He was extremely neat in his
person, and in everything about him. Not a paper must be out
of place, or be put up irregularly. Each part of the furniture,
likewise, must be in its proper position before we retired to
rest. He said he did not think he should die easy, if he thought
his gloves were not where they ought to be. There was no rest
after four in the morning, nor sitting up after ten in the
evening.

“He never made a purchase without paying the money immediately.
He was truly generous, and seldom denied relief. More was
expected from him than was meet. He was tenacious in his
friendship. He felt sensibly when he was deserted, and would
remark, ‘The world and the church ring changes.’ He dreaded the
thought of outliving his usefulness. He often dined among his
friends; and usually connected a comprehensive prayer with his
thanksgiving when the table was dismissed, in which he noticed
particular cases relative to the family. He never protracted his
visit long after dinner. He often appeared tired of popularity;
and said, he almost envied the man who could take his choice of
food at an eating-house, and pass unnoticed. He apprehended he
should not glorify God in his death by any remarkable testimony;
and he desired to die suddenly.”

Cornelius Winter’s critique on Whitefield is unartistic, but it is not,
on that account, the less valuable. Facts are not lost among words,
as is the case too often, in the philosophic and eloquent eulogies,
or censures, written by men who have a greater wish to display their
own cleverness than to pourtray the life and character of the person
on whom they exercise their skill. In some of his statements, Winter
may have been, unconsciously to himself, somewhat swayed by his
relationship to Whitefield; but, generally speaking, his description
of Whitefield’s preaching, and of his spirit and habits in domestic
life, is the most exact that has ever yet been published. The foregoing
extracts may be long, but they were written by a man who, during
Whitefield’s last two years in England, read prayers in Whitefield’s
Tottenham Court Road chapel, assisted in Whitefield’s study, sat at
Whitefield’s table, and occupied a bed in the same room as Whitefield
did. The man knew his master, and wrote with the utmost frankness
concerning him.

It is now time to return to Whitefield’s history. Little is known
concerning him during the first three months of 1767. They seem,
however, to have been chiefly spent in London, where his “feeble hands
were full of work.”[561]

The Orphan House in Georgia still occupied his attention. He was
anxious for “Bethesda to put on its college dress.”[562] The warm
friendship between him and Wesley yet continued. On Ash-Wednesday,
March 4, Wesley wrote, “I dined at a friend’s with Mr. Whitefield,
still breathing nothing but love.”[563] On the 20th of the same month,
the Countess of Huntingdon, at Brighton, had all her chaplains around
her, and Whitefield re-opened her ladyship’s enlarged chapel, in that
town, by preaching, to a crowded congregation, from “Grow in grace, and
in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: to Him be glory
both now and for ever. Amen.”[564]

In April, Whitefield set out for Norwich, and visited Rowland Hill
and his Society, at Cambridge, on his way.[565] A month later, he
was introduced to a young clergyman, who, afterwards, became famous.
Richard de Courcy was the descendant of an ancient and respectable
family in Ireland, and was distantly related to Lord Kinsale. He
had been educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and, at the age of
twenty-three, had received deacon’s orders, and become curate of the
Rev. Walter Shirley. Being invited to preach in St. Andrew’s Church,
Dublin, his fame brought a crowded congregation. Whilst the prayers
were being read, and because the young preacher was a reputed Methodist,
the pulpit was seized by order of the metropolitan, Dr. Arthur Smythe,
and De Courcy was not allowed to enter it. Upon this, he immediately
left the church; the congregation followed him; and, mounting a
tombstone, he at once commenced preaching in the open air. This was a
crime too great to be forgiven. The bishop refused to ordain him priest.
Shirley wrote to the Countess of Huntingdon, and, at her request,
De Courcy came to England, expecting, by the help of her ladyship,
to obtain ordination by an English bishop. On arriving in London, he
immediately called on Whitefield at the Tabernacle House. Whitefield
being told who he was, took off his cap, and bending towards De Courcy,
and, at the same time placing his hand on the deep scar in his head,
said, “Sir, this wound I got in your country for preaching Christ.” De
Courcy was captivated, and became Whitefield’s guest, Cornelius Winter
being charged to take care of him. The next day, which was Sunday, the
young Hibernian preached in Tottenham Court Road chapel, and, by his
sermon, laid the foundation of his future popularity. Whitefield and he
became ardent friends.[566]

About the middle of the month of May, Whitefield set out for the west
of England and Wales. His progress will be best told by extracts from
his letters. On arriving at Rodborough, where his old assistant, Thomas
Adams, lived and preached, he wrote to Mr. Keen as follows:――

“Rodborough, May 13, 1767. My new horse failed the first night;
but, through mercy, we got here last evening. I was regaled with
the company of some simple-hearted, first-rate old Methodists,
of near thirty years’ standing. God willing, I am to preach
to-morrow morning, and to have a general sacrament on Friday
evening. Perhaps, I may move after Sunday towards Wales; but,
I fear, I shall be obliged to take post-horses. I care not,
so that I can ride post to heaven. Hearty love to all who are
posting thither, hoping myself to arrive first. This tabernacle
often groans under the weight of my feeble labours. O when shall
I be unclothed! When, O my God, shall I be clothed upon! But I
am a coward, and want to be housed before the storm.”

A week after this, he reached Gloucester, where he spent several days,
and wrote as follows:――

“Gloucester, May 20, 1767. We have had good seasons at
Rodborough. I have been out twice in the fields. Lady Huntingdon
has been wonderfully delighted. She and her company lay at
Rodborough House. Dear Mr. Adams is about to be married to a
good Christian nurse. He is sickly in body, but healthy in soul.”

“Gloucester, May 21, 1767. I have preached twice in the open
air. Thousands and thousands attended. I am about to preach here
this morning, in my native city. On Sunday I hope to take to
Rodborough wood again. Good Lady Huntingdon and her company were
wonderfully delighted. They honoured dear Mr. Adams’s house with
their presence. He is but poorly, and wants a nurse. Perhaps,
before next Sunday, he may be married to a simple-hearted, plain,
good creature, who has waited upon him and the preachers near
twenty years. She has no fortune, but is one who, I think, will
take care of, and be obedient to him, for Christ’s sake.”

“Gloucester, May 25, 1767. I am just setting out in a
post-chaise for Haverfordwest; and I have therefore drawn upon
you” (Mr. Keen) “for £20. This is expensive; but it is for One
who has promised not to send us a warfare on our own charges.
We had a most blessed season yesterday. Thousands and thousands
heard, saw, and felt. Mr. Adams preached in the evening, on
‘The Lord is my portion, therefore will I trust in Him.’ A good
text for a new-married man. I have advised him to preach next on
these words, ‘The Lord’s portion is His people.’ He is now here.”

“Haverfordwest, May 31, 1767, Sunday. I am just come from my
field-throne. Thousands and thousands attended by eight in the
morning. Life and light seemed to fly all around. On Tuesday,
God willing, I am to preach at Woodstock; on Friday, at Pembroke;
here again next Sunday; and then for England. Rooms are not so
lofty or large, prospects not so pleasant, bedsteads not so easy,
in these parts, as in some places in or near London; but all are
good enough for young and old pilgrims who have got good breath.
I have been pushing dear sick Mr. Davies to go out and preach
six miles off. He is gone finely mounted, and, I am persuaded,
will return in high spirits. Who knows but preaching may be
our grand catholicon again? This is the good, Methodistical,
thirty-year-old medicine.”

“Gloucester, June 10, 1767. Blessed be God, I am got on this
side the Welsh mountains! Blessed be God, I have been on the
other side! What a scene last Sunday![567] What a cry for more
of the bread of life! But I was quite worn down. I am now better
than could be expected. To-morrow, God willing, my wife shall
know what route I take. O when shall I begin to live to Jesus,
as I would! I want to be a flame of fire.”

A week after this, Whitefield was in London. During his absence, he
had tried to secure the services of Fletcher of Madeley, and Fletcher’s
reply to his application is too characteristic to be omitted:――

“MADELEY, _May 18, 1767_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,――Your mentioning my poor ministrations
among your congregations opens again a wound of shame that was
but half healed. I feel the need of asking God, you, and your
hearers’ pardon, for weakening the glorious matter of the gospel
by my wretched, broken manner, and spoiling the heavenly power
of it by the uncleanness of my heart and lips. I should be
glad to go and be your curate some time this year; but I see
no opening, nor the least prospect of any. What between the
dead and the living, a parish ties one down more than a wife.
If I could go anywhere this year, it should be to Yorkshire, to
accompany Lady Huntingdon, according to a design that I had half
formed last year; but I fear that I shall be debarred even from
this. I set out, God willing, to-morrow morning for Trevecca,
to meet her ladyship there, and to show her the way to Madeley,
where she proposes to stay three or four days in her way to
Derbyshire. What chaplain she will have there I know not; God
will provide. I rejoice that, though you are sure of heaven,
you have still a desire to inherit the earth, by being a
_peacemaker_. Somehow, you will enjoy the blessings that others
may possibly refuse.

“Last Sunday seven-night, Captain Scott preached, to my
congregation, a sermon, which was more blessed, though preached
only upon my horse-block, than a hundred of those I preach in
the pulpit. I invited him to come and treat her Ladyship next
Sunday with another, now the place is consecrated. If you should
ever favour Shropshire with your presence, you shall have the
captain’s or the parson’s pulpit at your option. Many ask me
whether you will not come to have some fruit here also. What
must I answer them? I, and many more, complain of a stagnation
in the work. What must we do? Everything buds and blossoms
around us, yet our winter is not over. I thought Mr. Newton,[568]
who has been three weeks in Shropshire, would have brought
the turtle-dove along with him; but I could not prevail upon him
to come to this poor Capernaum. I think I hardly ever met his
fellow for a judicious spirit. Still, what has God done in him
and in me? I am out of hell, and mine eyes have seen something
of His salvation. Though I must and do gladly yield to Mr.
Newton and all my brethren, yet I must and will contend, that my
being in the way to heaven makes me as rich a monument of mercy,
as he, or any of them.

“I am, reverend and dear sir, your willing, though halting and
unworthy servant,

“JOHN FLETCHER.”

Rowland Hill has been mentioned. Though not ordained, and still
an undergraduate at St. John’s College, Cambridge, he had begun to
preach. He had also formed a small Society of his fellow-students,
and was infusing into them a portion of his own ardent zeal. For
these proceedings he was bitterly assailed. His father and mother were
decidedly opposed to the action he had taken. His superiors in the
University condemned, in the strongest terms, what they were pleased
to call his infringements of discipline; and hints were given him of a
refusal of testimonials and his degree, as the probable result of his
irregularities. In the midst of all this, Whitefield wrote to him as
follows:――

“HAVERFORDWEST, _June 4, 1767_.

“MY DEAR PROFESSOR,――I wish you joy of the late high dignity
conferred upon you――higher than if you were made the greatest
professor in the University of Cambridge.[569] The honourable
degrees you intend giving to your promising candidates, I trust,
will excite a holy ambition, and a holy emulation. Let me know
who is first honoured. As I have been admitted to the degree of
doctor for near these thirty years, I assure you I like my field
preferment, my airy pluralities, exceeding well.

“For these three weeks past, I have been beating up for fresh
recruits in Gloucestershire and South Wales. Thousands and
thousands attended. Good Lady Huntingdon was present at one of
our reviews. Her ladyship’s aide-de-camp preached in Brecknock
Street; and Captain Scott, that glorious field-officer, lately
fixed his standard upon dear Mr. Fletcher’s horse-block at
Madeley. Being invited thither, I have a great inclination
to lift up the Redeemer’s ensign, next week, in the same
place;――with what success, you and your dearly beloved candidates
for good old Methodistical contempt shall know hereafter. God
willing, I intend fighting my way up to town. Soon after my
arrival thither, I hope thousands and thousands of vollies
of prayers――energetic, effectual, fervent, heaven-besieging,
heaven-opening, heaven-taking prayers――shall be poured forth for
you all.

“Oh, my dearly beloved and longed for in the Lord, my bowels
yearn towards you. Fear not to go without the camp. Keep open
the correspondence between the two Universities.[570] Remember
the praying legions. They were never known to yield. God bless
those who are gone to their respective _cures_! I say not
_livings_,――a term of too modern date. Christ is our life.
Christ is the Levite’s inheritance. Greet your dear young
companions whom I saw. They are welcome to write to me when
they please.

“I am, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[571]

At this period, there was great excitement in the English colonies
of America respecting the proposed introduction of bishops of the
Established Church. The Rev. Thomas Bradbury Chandler, D.D., was now in
the forty-first year of his age. He had graduated at Yale College, but,
in 1751, came to England, and was episcopally ordained. He returned
to America as a missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts, and became rector of St. John’s Church, at
Elizabeth Town, New Jersey, where he long maintained a high character
for talent and learning. In the present year, 1767, he published “An
Appeal to the Public in Behalf of the Church of England in America,”
and dedicated his able performance to Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury.
The object of it was to secure the designation of two or more bishops,
to reside and to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in ♦the transatlantic
settlements.

He alleged that the appointment of commissaries had been a failure,
and that, as a consequence, such appointments had ceased for near
twenty years. The result of this was, the episcopal clergy in America
had no ecclesiastical superiors to unite or to control them; they were
independent of each other; and the people were free from all restraints
of ecclesiastical authority. For want of bishops, candidates for the
ministry had to come to England for ordination, at great hazard and
expense; and, because of this, numerous congregations were without
ministers. In the province of New Jersey, there were twenty-one
churches and congregations, eleven of which were entirely destitute of
clergymen, and there were but five to supply the pulpits of the other
ten. In Pennsylvania, there were in the city of Philadelphia three
churches, and but two ministers; and, in the rest of the province,
the number of the churches was twenty-six, and that of the clergy
only seven. In North Carolina, there were six clergymen, to supply the
wants of twenty-nine parishes, each parish containing a whole county.
Another argument adduced by Dr. Chandler was “the impossibility
that a bishop residing in England should be sufficiently acquainted
with the characters of those coming to them for Holy Orders. To this
it was owing, that ordination had been sometimes fraudulently and
surreptitiously obtained by such wretches, as were not only a scandal
to the Church, but a disgrace to the human species.” Dr. Chandler
further stated that the white population of America numbered about
three millions; and that, of these, about a third were professed
members of the Church of England; “the Presbyterians, Independents,
and Baptists were not so many; and the Germans, Papists, and other
denominations, amounted to more.” Besides these three millions, however,
there were, in the different colonies, about 840,000 negroes, most of
whom “belonged to the professors of the Church of England.” And there
were also the native Indians, the conversion of whom had been almost
altogether neglected. It was proposed that the “two or more bishops”
to be sent should “have no authority, but purely of a spiritual and
ecclesiastical nature; that they should not interfere with the property
or privileges, whether civil or religious, of Churchmen or Dissenters;
that, in particular, they should have no concern with the Probate of
Wills, Letters of Guardianship and Administration, or Marriage Licences,
nor be judges of any cases relating thereto; but that they should only
ordain and govern the clergy, and administer confirmation to those who
might desire it.” It was also proposed that they should be supported,
not by _tithes_, but by “perquisites such as the people might freely
grant them;” by the interest arising from a fund already in existence
for the purpose, in connection with the Society for the Propagation of
the Gospel in Foreign Parts; and, if need were (which was not likely),
by the levying of a tax at the rate of fourpence in £100.

Such was the substance of Dr. Chandler’s temperate “Appeal,”――an
appeal which embodied the general views and feelings of the clergy and
members of the Church of England in America. Considerable excitement
existed previous to its publication; but now the subject became one
of the great controversies of the day. An American writer affirms
that “it had more to do with the American Revolution than is generally
supposed.”[572] The _American Whig_, a weekly newspaper, stoutly
opposed the scheme of Dr. Chandler. So also did the _Philadelphia
Centinél_. Their articles on the subject were reprinted in several
of the colonies; and a general agitation followed. The chief opponent,
however, was Dr. Chauncy, minister in Boston, who, more than twenty
years before, had made a vigorous onslaught upon Whitefield and his
co-revivalists. The general apprehension was, that the taxation of
the colonies, and the proposal to send them bishops, were parts of the
same system, the object of which was to infringe upon the political
and religious privileges of the people. Chauncy and his friends were
afraid, and perhaps not without reason, that the power and influence
of the government were being used to give ascendancy to the Episcopal
Church. They were angry with the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts for sending so many of their clergy to New
England, where they were not wanted. At this time, there were at least
five hundred and fifty educated ministers in the province, and not a
town, unless just settled, without a pastor. Besides, the clergy thus
sent were arrogant. They spoke of all the inhabitants of the town, in
which they lived, as _their_ parishioners, and as bound both by the
law of God and the state to be in communion with the Church of England.
Other churches were represented as mere excrescences or fungosities,
and their ministers were declared to be unauthorised, and their
ordinances invalid. All this naturally created opposition among the
non-episcopal churches. And, further, though Dr. Chandler professed
that the bishops to be sent would be no burden to the population,
the people feared it would be otherwise. Already the support of the
episcopal clergy had been thrown upon the community in South Carolina,
Virginia, and Maryland; and it was thought to be possible and probable
that the bishops, if sent, would have to be sustained, at least in
part, by the public taxes.

Amid this state of things, Whitefield commenced a correspondence
with the Archbishop of Canterbury, respecting the conversion of
his Orphanage into a College; and a remembrance of the facts just
noticed will help to a better understanding of some parts of that
correspondence. The letters are too long to be inserted _in extenso_,
but their substance shall be given. They were first published in
the month of May, 1768, with the title, “A Letter to his Excellency
Governor Wright, giving an Account of the Steps taken relative to the
converting the Georgia Orphan House into a College; together with the
Literary Correspondence that passed upon that Subject between his Grace
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Reverend Mr. Whitefield. To which
also is annexed the Plan and Elevation of the present and intended
Buildings,[574] and Orphan House Lands adjacent, By G. Whitefield,
A.M., late of Pembroke College, Oxford, and Chaplain to the Countess
of Huntingdon. London, 1768.” (8vo. 31 pp.)

In his letter to “Governor Wright,” Whitefield mentions the deep
interest which his Excellency and the Council of Georgia had taken
in the scheme to convert the Orphan House into a College. He relates
that, since his return to England, in 1765, he had exerted his utmost
efforts to accomplish this; but various circumstances had impeded the
fulfilment of his plan. He had “delivered a memorial into the hands
of the late Clerk of his Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council.”
The memorial had been “transmitted to the Lord President;” and the
Lord President had submitted it “to the consideration of his Grace
the Archbishop of Canterbury.” He (Whitefield) had had “a literary
correspondence” with his Grace; but the correspondence, and the
negotiations, were now ended. He, therefore, wished to lay an account
of the whole transactions before his Excellency, and the Council and
Assembly of Georgia, and also before “all the other American colonists,
and the public in general.”

Whitefield commenced his correspondence with the Archbishop on June 17,
1767, and terminated it on February 12, 1768, within six months of his
Grace’s death.

He begins by reminding the Primate that the Lord President had
submitted his memorial to his Grace’s consideration, and that the Earl
of Dartmouth had put into his hands a copy of the intended charter for
the College. The Archbishop had made “judicious corrections,” and had
suggested that the charter should provide that the president of the
College should be a member or minister of the Church of England. In
reply to this, Whitefield writes:――

“I cannot in honour and conscience _oblige_ the master of the
Georgia College to be a member or minister of the Church of
England. Such an obligation has greatly retarded the progress
of the College of New York; as, on the contrary, the letter
signed by your Grace, Proprietor Penn, and the late Dr. Chandler,
engaging that the College of Philadelphia shall be continued on
a _broad bottom_, has promoted the growth of that institution.
The trustees of that seminary (as your Grace is pleased to
observe) have agreed ‘That their provost shall always be a
minister of the Established Church.’ But they are not thereto
enjoined by their charter. That is entirely silent concerning
this matter. Their agreement is purely voluntary. The wardens
of the College of Georgia will not be prohibited by charter
from following the example of the trustees of the College of
Philadelphia,” if they choose.

“The first master will assuredly be a clergyman of the Church
of England. By far the majority of the intended wardens are, and
always will be, members of that communion; and, consequently,
the choice of a master will always run in that channel. I
also desire that some worthy duly qualified minister of that
Church may be always found for this office. But, as persons of
all denominations have been contributors, I dare not confine
or fetter the future electors. The monies for the erecting
a college in New York were given by persons of all religious
persuasions, in confidence that the college would be founded on
an enlarged basis; and great numbers think themselves injured
by its being confined within its present contracted boundary.
Hence, many fine promising youths are sent from the college in
their native city to that of New Jersey. I dread giving the same
occasion of offence, and, therefore, am determined to avoid it
in the wording of the Georgia College charter.”

The Archbishop had further suggested that the charter should provide
for the daily use of the liturgy of the Church of England in the
College, and that the doctrines to be taught in it should be specified.
Whitefield objected to these suggestions, and wrote:――

“For the same reasons, I dare not enjoin the daily use of our
Church liturgy. I myself love to use it. I have fallen a martyr,
in respect to bodily health, to the frequent reading it in
Tottenham Court chapel. It has, also, been constantly read twice
every Sunday in the Orphan House, from its first institution to
this very day. The wardens, likewise, when the power is devolved
upon them, may determine this point as they please. But I cannot
enjoin it by charter; and have, therefore, in the accompanying
draught, not only omitted the paragraph concerning public prayer,
but also that concerning doctrinal articles.

“Your Grace further wisely observes, ‘His Majesty should be
well advised, whom he names for the first master.’ I trust he
will be so. I believe the Earl of Dartmouth will be so good as
to present the first master to your Grace’s approbation; but,
in the meanwhile, you may be assured the lot will not fall upon
me. My shoulders are too weak for such an academical burden. My
capacity is by no means extensive enough for such a scholastic
trust. To be a Presbyter at large is the station which Divine
Providence has called me to for near thirty years past. During
that space, I trust my eye has been single, and my views
disinterested; and my highest, my only ambition is that the
last glimmerings of an expiring taper may be blessed to guide
some wandering sinners to the practical knowledge of the great
Shepherd and Bishop of souls.

“I desire to bless His name, that I have been spared long enough
to see the colony of the once-despised Georgia, and the yet more
despised Orphan House, advanced to such a promising height. My
honoured friend and father, good Bishop Benson, from his dying
bed, sent me a benefaction for it of ten guineas, and poured
forth his dying breathings for its future prosperity. That your
Grace may be instrumental in promoting its welfare, when turned
into a College, is the earnest prayer of, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

On July 1, the Archbishop acknowledged the receipt of Whitefield’s
letter, and stated that he had put Whitefield’s draught of a charter
for the College into the hands of the Lord President, who had promised
to consider it, but, meanwhile, desired to know how Whitefield proposed
to endow the College. Whitefield replied to this three days afterwards
to the following effect:――

“The present annual income of the Orphan House is between four
and five hundred pounds sterling. The house is surrounded with
1,800 acres of land. The number of negroes employed on this
land, in sawing timber, raising rice for exportation, and corn,
with all other provisions for the family, is about thirty.
The College will also be immediately possessed of 2,000 acres
of land near Altamaha, which were granted me by the Governor
and Council, when I was last in Georgia; and 1,000 acres more,
left, as I am informed, by the late Rev. Mr. Zububuhler.[575] By
laying out £1,000 in purchasing an additional number of negroes,
and allowing another £1,000 for repairing the house and building
the two intended wings, the present annual income may easily and
speedily be augmented to £1,000 per annum.

“Out of this standing fund may be paid the salaries of the
master, professors, tutors, etc., and also small exhibitions be
allowed for orphans or other poor students, who may have their
tutorage and room-rent gratis, and act as servitors to those who
enter commoners.

“At present, I would only further propose, that the negro
children, belonging to the College, shall be instructed, in
their intervals of labour, by one of the poorer students, as
is done now by one of the scholars in the present Orphan House.
And I do not see why provision may not likewise be made for
educating and maintaining a number of Indian children, which,
I imagine, may easily be procured from the Creeks, Choctaws,
Cherokees, and the other neighbouring nations.”

Such was Whitefield’s scheme. Further correspondence followed. The Lord
President expressed the opinion that the head of the College must be
a member of the Church of England, and that “the public prayers in the
College should not be extempore ones, but the liturgy of the Church,
or some part thereof, or some other settled and established form.”
Whitefield’s reply is dated, “Tottenham Court, October 16, 1767.” He
again objected to any clause being inserted in the charter, making
it _obligatory_ that the head of the College should be a member of
the Established Church. He reminded the Archbishop that “by far the
greatest part of the Orphan House collections and contributions came
from _Dissenters_, not only in New England, New York, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Scotland, but in England also.” He stated that,
since the announcement of the design to turn the Orphan House into a
College, and of the approval of that project by the Governor, Council,
and Assembly of Georgia, he had visited most of the places where the
benefactors of the Orphan House resided, and had frequently been asked,
“Upon what bottom the College was to be founded?” To these enquiries he
had answered, indeed, he had declared from the pulpit, that “it should
be upon a _broad bottom, and no other_.” He then continues:――

“This being the case, I would humbly appeal to the Lord
President, whether I can answer it to my God, my conscience, my
king, my country, my constituents, and Orphan House benefactors
and contributors, both at home and abroad, to betray my trust,
forfeit my word, act contrary to my own convictions, and greatly
retard and prejudice the growth and progress of the institution,
by narrowing its foundation, and thereby letting it fall upon
such a bottom, as will occasion general disgust, and most justly
open the mouths of persons of all denominations against me. This
is what I dare not do.”

Whitefield concludes by telling the Archbishop, that, as the influence
of his Grace, and of the Lord President, “will undoubtedly extend
itself to others of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council,” he
will not trouble them again about the business, but will himself “turn
the charity into a more generous and extensively useful channel.”

Thus the matter ended. Whitefield tried to convert his Orphan House
into a College; but, because the Lord President of the Privy Council,
and the Archbishop of Canterbury, insisted that it should practically
be an institution of the Church of England, by insisting that its
provost should be a member of that Church, his design, together with
that of the governor and rulers of Georgia, was frustrated. He was
well aware, that, in the present state of excited feeling among the
non-episcopalians of America, it would have been worse than useless to
turn his Orphanage into a Church of England College. His decision was,
at once, just and prudent. When the correspondence with the Archbishop
was concluded, Whitefield wrote as follows “To his Excellency James
Wright, Esq., Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the Province of
Georgia”:――

“Thus, may it please your Excellency, concluded my
correspondence with his Grace; and, I humbly hope, the Province
of Georgia will, in the end, be no loser by this negotiation.
For, I now purpose to superadd a public academy to the Orphan
House, as the College of Philadelphia[576] as constituted a
public academy, as well as charitable school, for some time
before its present college charter was granted in 1755.”

Whitefield then suggests that the Orphan House estate, which, for three
years, had been neglected, should be vigorously improved, so as to make
permanent provision for the maintenance of indigent orphans, and to
convert the Orphan House itself into a suitable academy for opulent
students. He proposes to send from England proper masters to “prepare
for academical honours the many youths, in Georgia and the adjacent
provinces, waiting for admission.” He expresses his willingness to
settle the whole estate upon trustees, with the proviso, that no
opportunity should be neglected “of making fresh application for a
college charter, upon a _broad bottom_, whenever those in power might
think it for the glory of God, and the interest of their king and
country, to grant the same.” And he concludes by hoping, that, in this
way, his “beloved Bethesda will not only be continued as a house of
mercy for poor orphans, but will be confirmed as a seat and nursery of
sound learning and religious education, to the latest posterity.”

On Whitefield’s return to London, in the month of June, 1767, he
continued his correspondence with Rowland Hill. The latter had left
Cambridge, for the long vacation, and had returned to Hawkstone, the
residence of his father. Here he was warmly welcomed by Richard, his
elder brother, who, like himself, had lately become a village preacher,
and a visitor of prisons; but his parents were profoundly grieved at
his religious irregularities; and his walks, amid the beautiful scenery
of his father’s grounds, were often sorrowful. To cheer him and his
brother, Whitefield wrote as follows:――

“LONDON, _July 14, 1767_.

“Blessed be God, for what he has done for your dear brother!
A preaching, prison-preaching, field-preaching esquire strikes
more than all black gowns and lawn sleeves in the world. If I am
not mistaken, God will let the world, and His own children too,
know that He will not be prescribed to, in respect to men, or
garbs, or places, much less will He be confined to any order,
or set of men under heaven. I wish you both much, very much,
prosperity. You will have it. This is the way: walk in it.
Both the Tabernacle and the chapel pulpits shall be open to a
captain or an esquire sent of God. The good news from Oxford is
encouraging.[577] Say what they will, preaching should be one
part of the education of a student in divinity. _Usus promptos
facit._ Write often and let me know how you go on. What says
your friend Mr. Powys. God bless him, and help him to go
forwards!”[578]

A week later, Whitefield wrote again:――

“London, July 21, 1767. I hope, ere this comes to hand, you
will have taken your second degree. A good degree indeed! To
be a preacher,――a young preacher,――a mobbed, perhaps, a stoned
preacher,――O what an honour! How many prayers will you get, when
I read your letter at the Tabernacle! And the prayers of so many
dear children of God will do you no hurt. When we are fighting
with Amalek below, it is good to have a Joshua praying for us
above. Jesus is our Joshua――Jesus is our intercessor. He liveth,
He ever liveth to make intercession, especially for His young
soldiers. Yonder, yonder He sits! Whilst praying, He reaches
out a crown. At this distance, you may see written in capital
letters, ‘_Vincenti dabo_.’ All a gift――a free gift, though
purchased by His precious blood. Tell churchmen, tell meetingers,
tell the wounded, tell all of this. Tell them when you are
young; you may not live to be old. Tell them whilst you are
an undergraduate; you may be dead, buried, glorified, before
you take a college degree. Tell those who would have you spare
yourself, that time is short, that eternity is endless, that the
Judge is before the door. God bless you! God bless you! Yours in
Jesus,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Before proceeding with Whitefield’s history, extracts from three other
letters, to Rowland Hill, may be welcome:――

“London, August 6, 1767. The enclosed made me pity, smile, and
rejoice: pity the writer’s ignorance, smile at his worn-out
sarcasms, and rejoice that you are called to be a living martyr
for our common Lord. Fear not; only go forward. You know Jesus,
and, by preaching, will know more. If you write, let him know
that Jesus has revealed Himself not only _to_ you by His word,
but _in_ you by His spirit; that you look upon those whom he is
pleased to term _fanatics_, as the excellent of the earth; and
that you choose rather to suffer reproach with them, than to
enjoy all the pleasures of sense, and all the preferments in the
world.”

“London, August 8, 1767. God be praised, if another of your
brothers is gained! What grace is this! Four or five out of one
family! It is scarcely to be paralleled. Who knows but the root,
as well as the branches, may be taken by and by. Steadiness and
perseverance, in the children, will be one of the best means,
under God, of convincing the parents. Their present opposition,
I think, cannot last very long. If it does, to obey God rather
than man, when forbidden to do what is undoubted duty, is the
invariable rule. Our dear Penty[579] is under the cross at
Cambridge; but _crescit sub pondere_. I should be glad if any
one’s exhibition was taken from him for visiting the sick,
etc.[580] It would vastly tend to the furtherance of the Gospel;
but Satan sees too far, I imagine, to play such a game now.
Let him do his work――he is only a mastiff chained. Continue to
inform me how he barks, and how far he is permitted to go in
your parts; and God’s people shall be more and more stirred up
to pray for you all, by yours, in our all-conquering Emmanuel,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[581]

“London, August 26, 1767. Go to Jesus. Learn to pray of the
threatened apostles. (Acts iv. 23–30.) I am afraid they will
only threaten. If an expulsion should be permitted, it will
take place, I believe, only for a little time, and will soon
be repented of. Thousands of prayers were put up for you last
Monday, at the Tabernacle letter-day. The verses sung were
these:――

‘Give him thy strength, O God of pow’r!
Then, let men rage and devils roar,
Thy faithful witness he shall be:
’Tis fixed, he can do all through Thee.’”

While Whitefield was acquiring new friends, he was faithful to his
old. The friendship between him and Wesley was never tenderer than
now. During the month of August, Wesley held his annual Conference,
in London, and wrote:――

“1767, August 18. Tuesday. I met in Conference with our
assistants and a select number of preachers. To these were added,
on Thursday and Friday, Mr. Whitefield, Howell Harris, and many
stewards and local preachers. Love and harmony reigned from the
beginning to the end.”[582]

Such a re-union of old friends, fellow-labourers, and fellow-sufferers,
must have been delightful. A trio, like Wesley, Whitefield, and Howell
Harris, was a sight worth seeing,――three great reformers, because three
great revivers of pure and undefiled religion.

In reference to this Conference, Thomas Olivers remarks:――

“Mr. Whitefield not only attended the Conference, but also
invited the preachers to the Tabernacle, ordered them to be
placed round the front of his galleries, and preached a good
sermon, to encourage them in their holy calling. When he had
done, he took them to his house, by ten or twenty at a time,
and entertained them in the most genteel, the most hospitable,
and the most friendly manner.”

Olivers, who was one of the preachers thus entertained, continues:――

“While Mr. Whitefield lived, he was glad to confirm his love
to the members of Mr. Wesley’s Societies, by preaching in their
chapels, by sitting at their tables, by lying in their beds, and
by conversing with them, late and early, in the most friendly
and Christian manner. When he preached in Mr. Wesley’s pulpits,
in the north of England, he several times did me the honour
of making my house his home. On all such occasions, multitudes
can tell what expressions of the highest esteem he frequently
made use of, in exhorting Mr. Wesley’s Societies; in keeping
lovefeasts, and watch-nights with them; in his table talk; and
as he travelled with them by the way. Nay, strange as it may
seem, he has been known to say, that he found _more Christian
freedom_ among Mr. Wesley’s people than he did among his own in
London. As to the preachers in connexion with Mr. Wesley, these
have frequently received very great marks of Mr. Whitefield’s
esteem. In private, he conversed with them, as with _brethren_
and _fellow-labourers_. In public, he frequently said far
greater things in their favour than Mr. Wesley thought it
prudent to say. He never seemed happier than when he had a
number of them about him. When he had opportunity, he gladly
attended our Conferences; sometimes _listening_ to our debates,
and at others _joining_ in them. On these occasions, he more
than once favoured us with a suitable sermon; and often said
such things in our behalf, as decency forbids me to mention.”[583]

A testimony like this from a man of great acuteness, and inflexible
veracity, is more than ordinarily valuable. Immediately after Wesley’s
Conference, Whitefield was anxious to make another of his gospel tours.
Writing to his old assistant, Thomas Adams, on August 14, he says:――

“I have been sick; but, blessed be God! I am better. Who knows
but I may be strengthened to take a trip to Scotland. This itch
after itinerating, I hope, will never be cured till we come
to heaven. Though laymen occupy the pulpits, both at Tottenham
Court chapel and the Tabernacle, the congregations increase.
‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord
of hosts.’ No weapon, formed against Sion, shall or can prosper.
Our Thursday morning six o’clock lecture at the Tabernacle is
crowded.”

Whitefield was not able to extend his “trip” as far as Scotland;
but he travelled what he called his “northern circuit,” reaching, at
least, from Sheffield to Newcastle. He started about the beginning of
September, and, on his way, preached at Northampton and Sheffield. He
arrived at Leeds on Thursday, September 10,[584] accompanied by the
Countess of Huntingdon. Here, they were joined by Captain Scott, who
preached to amazing crowds.[585]

From Leeds, Whitefield proceeded further north. He preached at York;
and, among many other curious entries in the old book of the Methodist
Society in that city, is the following: “1767. September 16. By
expenses on account of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, 14s. 9d.”

On reaching Newcastle, he wrote, as follows, to Mr. Keen:――

“NEWCASTLE, _September 20, 1767_.

“MY DEAR, VERY DEAR FRIEND,――Preaching and travelling prevent
writing. Through unmerited mercy, I am well; but, for several
reasons, I decline going to Scotland this fall. I have a blessed
Methodist field, street-preaching plan before me. This afternoon,
in the Castle Garth. To-morrow, Sunderland. Next day, at
Mr. Romaine’s mother’s door (at Hartlepool.)[586] Then to
Yarm, etc. You may venture to direct for me at Mr. William
Shent’s, peruke-maker, at Leeds; but send me no bad news, unless
absolutely necessary. Let me enjoy myself in my delightful
itinerancy. It is good, both for my body and soul. I have been
enabled to preach in the street at several places; and hope
to go to Guisborough, Whitby, Scarborough, Malton, York, Leeds,
Liverpool, Chester, Manchester, etc., etc. You shall know
particulars as we go on. Tender love to all friends. Golden
seasons! Golden seasons! Grace! Grace!”

Immediately after Whitefield’s departure from London, Bartholomew
Carrol and three other burglars broke into his house, stole a large
quantity of linen and other articles, were arrested, and committed
for trial at the Old Bailey.[587] In the following letter to Mr. Keen,
Whitefield refers to this unpleasantness:――

“Thirsk, September 28, 1767. Never was I so long a stranger to
London affairs before. What part of the paragraph is true, about
the commitment of several persons for a certain robbery? I hope
that death will not be the consequence to any of the criminals.
Father, convict, and convert them for Thy infinite mercy’s sake!
I should be glad to ramble till their trial is over. I trust
there will be no necessity of my appearing in person. To-morrow,
God willing, I go to Dr. Conyers.[588] He earnestly desires to
see me. Where the next remove will be, I know not. Be pleased to
direct to Leeds. Every stage, more and more, convinces me, that
old Methodism is the thing. Hallelujah!”

Two days after the date of this letter, Whitefield was at Leeds, and
wrote: “I have been enabled to go forth into the highways and hedges,
into the streets and lanes of the towns and cities. Good old work! Good
old seasons! Help, help to praise Him, whose mercy endureth for ever!”
Whitefield’s labours were still of sufficient importance to attract
the attention of the public press. _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ of October 2
had the following announcement: “For about a fortnight past, the Rev.
Mr. Whitefield has been travelling, and preaching, at York, Thirsk,
Yarm, Hartlepool, Stokesley, Sunderland, and Newcastle, where his
congregations have been very numerous.”

Whitefield was requested to visit Fletcher at Madeley, but the distance,
and the season of the year, deterred his going. He, however, spent two
or three days at Huddersfield,[589] with Venn, who had recently lost
his wife by death. While in Venn’s home of sorrow, he wrote:――

“Huddersfield, October 6, 1767. How is death scattering his
arrows all around us? The call to us is loud, very loud. Its
language is quite articulate. ‘Watch and pray, for ye know not
at what day or hour the Son of Man cometh.’ What is this world?
Nothing, less than nothing. What is the other world? An eternity
of endless misery or endless bliss. We have no time to trifle,
to be light, foolish, or worldly-minded.”

It ought to be kept in mind, that, in all the towns mentioned in
the foregoing extracts, Wesley and his preachers had already formed
Societies, and that Whitefield went among them, not as Wesley’s
rival, but as his helper. For many years, in his country excursions,
Whitefield, without ostentatiously professing it, acted in this
capacity,――an important fact, which Whitefield’s biographers, for
some reason, have not noticed. Whitefield and Wesley were never firmer
friends than now. Writing to Mrs. Moon, of Yarm, a few weeks after
Whitefield’s return to London, Wesley says:――

“In every place where Mr. Whitefield has been, he has laboured
in the same friendly, Christian manner. God has indeed
effectually broken down the wall of partition which was between
us. Thirty years ago we were one; then the sower of tares
rent us asunder; but now a stronger than he has made us one
again.”[590]

On reaching London, Whitefield, in a jubilant strain, wrote to his old
helper, Thomas Adams:――

“LONDON, _October 12, 1767_.

“MY VERY DEAR TOMMY,――Good-morrow! This comes to enquire how you
and yours do. I am just returned from my northern circuit. It
has been pleasant, and, I trust, profitable. Praise the Lord,
O our souls! Everywhere the fields have been white, ready unto
harvest. I am become a downright street and field preacher. I
wish the city, and want of riding, may not hurt me. No nestling,
no nestling on this side Jordan. Heaven is the believer’s only
resting place. Mr. Joss has been much blessed here.”

If possible, Whitefield was more popular than ever, as the following
extract from _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of October 30, will tend to
show:――

“Wednesday morning, October 28, was preached, by the Rev. Mr.
Whitefield, at his Tabernacle near Moorfields, a sermon, for the
benefit of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge among
the Poor, by distributing Bibles and other good books, before
a very polite audience of upwards of six thousand people, and
above forty ministers of different persuasions. Near £200 was
collected.”[591]

In reference to this remarkable service, on a busy week-day morning,
Whitefield simply says: “I would reflect upon Wednesday with humility
and gratitude. Lord, what am I? ‘Less than the least of all,’ must be
my motto still.”

Whitefield’s text on this occasion was “Thy kingdom come.” The
collection was four times larger than usual, and eighty persons became
new subscribers. After his sermon, Whitefield dined with the ministers
present at Draper’s Hall, and was treated with great respect.[592]

The troubles of Rowland Hill and his associates, at Cambridge,
have been repeatedly mentioned, and are alluded to in the following
letter, addressed “To the Rev. Mr. Fletcher, Rector of Madeley, near
Bridgenorth, Shropshire”:――

“London, October 22, 1767. What more offences! Surely, my dear
friend, you must have done Satan some late harm; otherwise, I
think, he would not be so angry. I hope he has lost some ground
in the north. Street and field-preaching were made very pleasant
to me, and, I trust, they were equally profitable. Our truly
noble Lady Sussex sends good news from Bath. She recovers
strength apace. There is hot work at Cambridge. One dear youth
is likely to be expelled. Mr. Lee is suspended without private
admonition, or having a moment’s warning. What would become of
us, if a hook were not put into the leviathan’s jaws? Adieu! In
great haste, but greater love, I hasten to subscribe myself, my
dear sir, yours in our all-conquering Emmanuel,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[593]

The storm, which, in one of the universities, burst a few months
afterwards, was already brewing. The Methodist students, both at
Cambridge and Oxford, were in trouble; and Whitefield did his best
to comfort and encourage them. Hence the following extracts from his
letters, written at this period:――

“London, October 23, 1767. By your brother’s letter, it appears
the hour of expulsion is not yet come. Surely they will not be
so imprudent, or act so contrary to the laws of English liberty.
I long to know what statutes they say you have broken, and what
concessions have been made. Your diocesan will make a strict
enquiry. I wish you could recollect all circumstances; the
rise and progress of the present contest; with all the various
pleadings, threats, conferences, _pro_ and _con_. If confined
to college, this will be a good exercise for you. You may lodge
it in court, as a proof whether you understand to write plain
English, or sound, practical, experimental divinity. This can
do you no harm; it may do good. Do, therefore, set about it. Who
knows? Sauls may yet become Pauls.”

“London, October 24, 1767. Supposing you made this addition to
the motto of your coat of arms,――‘_Nemo me impune lacessit_?’ He
who toucheth God’s people, toucheth the apple of His eye. That
is a very tender part. I am glad your diocesan is expected soon.
I have no expectation of his beating a retreat. ‘To arms! to
arms!’ must be the watchword now. The company of the Son of Man
is never so sweet as when He walks with us in the fiery furnace.
Nothing can stand before an honest, truly Israelitish heart.
Those who endeavour to entangle Christ’s followers in their talk,
will, in the end, be entangled themselves.”

“London, November 14, 1767. All know my mind. Go forward, I
think, is the royal word of command. We may then indeed have a
Red Sea to pass through; but the threatening waves shall become
a wall on the right hand and on the left. I am ashamed to find
so many silenced by mere _bruta fulmina_.”

“London, December 1, 1767. You meet like apostles now; but, when
they met between the time of our Lord’s death and resurrection,
what trouble did they endure, for fear of the Jews? But be
not discouraged. Continue instant in prayer. A risen, an
ascended Jesus, will yet appear in the midst of you, renew your
commission, and endue you with power from on high. O think of
this, ye little college of cast-outs! Do not deny Him in any
wise.”

On the day the last extract was written, the Earl of Buchan died at
Bath. For some time, his lordship had been in declining health. In Bath,
as long as his health permitted, he was a most regular attendant at the
chapel of the Countess of Huntingdon, and was in the constant habit of
hearing Whitefield, Wesley, Romaine, Shirley, Venn, Townsend, Fletcher,
and other Methodist clergymen, who supplied the pulpit there. His death
was most triumphant. A few days before its occurrence, Lady Huntingdon
went to see him, at his particular request. As soon as he could speak,
he said: “I have no foundation of hope whatever, but in the sacrifice
of the Son of God. I have nowhere else to look,――nothing else to depend
upon for eternal life; but my confidence in Him is as firm as a rock.”
Among his last sayings, were the words, “Happy! happy! happy!” Thus,――

――“on his dying lips,
The sound of glory quiver’d.”

“His lordship’s departure,” wrote Lady Huntingdon, “was not only happy,
but triumphant and glorious.”

The event, to these grand old Methodists, was too important to pass
unimproved. Whitefield was summoned from London; and, for five days,
in the chapel of the Countess of Huntingdon, a series of services were
held, which, probably, have no parallel. “The corpse of the late Earl
of Buchan,” says _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of December 16, “lay in state,
at the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapel, from Sunday to Thursday night.
Two sermons on the occasion were preached each day by the Rev. Mr.
Whitefield and others.”

The story, however, will be best told in the words of Whitefield
himself. To the Reverend Walter Shirley, Whitefield wrote:――

“Bath, Tuesday, December 8, 1767. The Earl of Buchan sweetly
slept in Jesus last week. His corpse lies deposited in the
chapel of good Lady Huntingdon, and is not to be removed
till next Friday morning. There have been public prayers and
preaching twice every day. The noble relatives constantly attend,
and all is more than solemn. Great numbers, of all ranks, crowd
to see and hear. The Earl died like the patriarch Jacob; he
laid his hands on, and blessed his children; assured them of his
personal interest in Jesus; called most gloriously on the Holy
Ghost; cried, ‘Happy! happy!’ as long as he could speak; and
then――you know what followed.”

In another letter, Whitefield wrote:――

“Bath, Wednesday, December 9, 1767. All has been awful, and more
than awful. Last Saturday evening, before the corpse was taken
from Buchan House, a word of exhortation was given, and a hymn
sung, in the room where the corpse lay. The young Earl stood
with his hands on the head of the coffin; the Countess Dowager
on his right hand; Lady Ann and Lady Isabella on his left;
and their brother Thomas[594] next to their mother, with Miss
Orton, Miss Wheeler, and Miss Goddle on one side. All the
domestics, with a few friends, were on the other. The word of
exhortation[595] was received with great solemnity, and most
wept under the parting prayer. At ten, the corpse was removed
to good Lady Huntingdon’s chapel, where it was deposited (within
a place railed in for that purpose), covered with black baize and
the usual funeral concomitants, except escutcheons.

“On Sunday morning all attended, in mourning, at early sacrament.
They were seated by themselves, at the feet of the corpse;
and, with their head servants, received first, and a particular
address was made to them. Immediately after receiving, these
verses were sung for them:――

‘Our lives, our blood, we here present,
If for Thy truths they may be spent;
Fulfil Thy sovereign counsel, Lord,――
Thy will be done, Thy name ador’d!

Give them Thy strength, O God of pow’r!
Then let men rave or devils roar,
Thy faithful witnesses they’ll be;
’Tis fixed――they can do all through Thee.’

Then they received this blessing: ‘The Lord bless you and keep
you! The Lord lift up the light of His countenance upon you! The
Lord cause His face to shine upon you, and give you peace!’ and
so returned to their places. Sacrament being ended, the noble
mourners returned to good Lady Huntingdon’s house, which was
lent them for the day.

“At eleven, public service began. The bereaved relations sat in
order within, and the domestics around the outside of the rail.
The chapel was more than crowded. Near three hundred tickets,
signed by the present Earl, were given out to the nobility and
gentry, to be admitted. All was hushed and solemn. Proper hymns
were sung, and I preached on these words, ‘I heard a voice from
heaven, saying unto me, Write, blessed are the dead that die
in the Lord.’ Attention sat on every face, and deep and almost
universal impressions were made.

“The like scene, and if possible more solemn, was exhibited in
the evening; and I was enabled to preach a second time. A like
power attended the word, as in the morning.

“Ever since, there has been public service and preaching twice a
day. This is to be continued till Friday morning. Then all is to
be removed to Bristol, in order to be shipped for Scotland. The
inscription on the coffin runs thus:――

“His life was honourable,
His death blessed;
He sought earnestly peace with God;――
He found it,
With unspeakable joy,
Alone in the merits of Christ Jesus,
Witnessed by the Holy Spirit to his soul.
He yet speaketh:
‘Go thou, and do likewise.’”

These were strange scenes, but who can find fault with them? And who
can estimate their permanent influence upon the eleventh Earl of Buchan,
and upon his illustrious brother, then only seventeen years of age, but
afterwards Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain?

Whitefield continued preaching at Bath, Bristol, and Kingswood, till
December 21, when he set out for London. Meanwhile, the young Earl of
Buchan had also come to town, from his father’s funeral in Scotland,
and, at once, associated himself with Lord and Lady Dartmouth, Mrs.
Carteret, Mrs. Cavendish, and a numerous circle of distinguished
persons, the friends of Whitefield and the Methodists. Whitefield
refers to this, in the following letter to the Rev. John Gillies:――

“London, December 28, 1767. The present noble Earl of Buchan,
I believe, has got the blessing. He seems to determine to know
nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. He has behaved
in the most delicate manner to the Countess, and other noble
survivors. He stands here in town against all opposition, like
an impregnable rock; and I humbly hope will prove the Daniel
of the age. He has already been thrown into a den of lions;
but he has One with him, who stops the lions’ mouths. You will
encourage all God’s people to pray for him. What if you wrote
him a line? I am sure it will be taken kindly; for I know he
honours and loves you much.

“I am now fifty-three years old. Did you ever hear of such a
fifty-three years’ old barren fig-tree? So much digging, so
much dunging; and yet so little fruit. God be merciful to me a
sinner! A sinner! A sinner! A sinner! He is merciful! His mercy
endureth for ever! He yet vouchsafes to bless my feeble labours.”

The young Earl of Buchan did not disappoint Whitefield’s hopes
concerning him. Besides maintaining the dignity of the Scottish
peerage, and becoming an ardent lover and promoter of literature and
the fine arts, he made a public avowal of his religious principles;
and, though this drew down upon him the laugh and lash of wits and
witlings, he defied their sneers, and dared “to be singularly good;”
and, acting under the advice of the Countess of Huntingdon, appointed
Venn, Fletcher, and Berridge to be his chaplains.[596]

Benjamin Franklin, the poor printer, was now a man of great distinction.
He had visited Holland, Germany, and France; and, for the last two
years, had been in England. The degree of LL.D. had been conferred upon
him by the three Universities of St. Andrew’s, Edinburgh, and Oxford.
In France Louis XV. had shown him marked attention. But, in the midst
of all his honours, he still respected his old friend Whitefield. The
following letter, which the great preacher addressed to Franklin, is
highly characteristic of the writer:――

“TOTTENHAM COURT, _January 21, 1768_.

“MY DEAR DOCTOR,――When will it suit you to have another
interview? The” (Bethesda) “College affair is dormant. For above
a week, I have been dethroned, by a violent cold and hoarseness.
Who but would work and speak for God while it is day! ‘The night
cometh when no man can work.’ Through rich grace, I can sing, ‘O
death, where is thy sting?’ but only through Jesus of Nazareth.
Your daughter, I find, is beginning the world. I wish you joy
from the bottom of my heart. You and I shall soon go out of
it. Ere long we shall see it burst. Angels shall summon us to
attend on the funeral of time; and we shall see eternity rising
out of its ashes. That you and I may be in the happy number of
those who, in the midst of the tremendous blaze, shall cry Amen!
Hallelujah! is the hearty prayer of, my dear Doctor,

“Yours, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[597]

Not long after this, Franklin wrote to Whitefield respecting the
disturbances at Boston, which resulted in the American rebellion.
Though his affection for Whitefield was undoubtedly sincere, he found
it difficult to conceal his scepticism even when writing to his friend.
The following is an extract from his letter:――

“I am under continued apprehensions that we may have bad news
from America. The sending soldiers to Boston always appeared to
me a dangerous step; they could do no good, they might occasion
mischief. When I consider the warm resentment of a people who
think themselves injured and oppressed, and the common insolence
of the soldiery who are taught to consider that people as in
rebellion, I cannot but fear the consequences of bringing them
together. It seems like setting up a smith’s forge in a magazine
of gunpowder. I _see_ with you that our affairs are not well
managed by our rulers here below; I wish I could _believe_ with
you, that they are well attended to by those above; I rather
suspect, from certain circumstances, that though the general
government of the universe is well administered, our particular
little affairs are perhaps below notice, and left to take the
chance of human prudence or imprudence, as either may happen to
be uppermost. It is, however, an uncomfortable thought, and I
leave it.”

No wonder that Whitefield endorsed his friend’s letter with the words,
“_Uncomfortable_ indeed! and, blessed be God, _unscriptural_; for we
are fully assured that ‘the Lord reigneth,’ and are directed to cast
_all_ our care on Him, because He careth for us.”[598]

Lady Huntingdon was multiplying her chapels; but none of them were
episcopally consecrated. Whitefield, the Wesleys, Romaine, Madan,
Fletcher, and other Methodist clergymen preached in them as far as they
had opportunity; but, it was evident, that, without lay evangelists,
the work would be impeded. Captain Scott, Captain Joss, Thomas Adams,
and others rendered efficient help to Whitefield in his London chapels;
but they were not sufficient to meet the growing wants of himself and
the Countess. Hence, her ladyship began to make preparation for the
training of converted and zealous men to supply the existing pulpits,
and to extend the work. At Trevecca, not far from the residence of
Howell Harris, stood an ancient structure, part of an old castle,
erected in the reign of Henry II. The date over the entrance is 1176.
This venerable ruin belonged to Harris, who rented it to the Countess,
for the purpose of its being turned into a sort of ministerial college.
The repairs were now in hand, and Harris acted as supervisor. In a
letter addressed to him, she wrote:――

“London, February 22, 1768. I think the work cannot be finished,
for the furniture, before June; and, therefore, conclude the
opening of the school must be delayed until the end of August.
I shall be glad to have an exact account of the expenses as they
go on.

“What must I say of this poor city? Religion is _fashion_, not
faith. Disputing and church party is the subject of all I see.
Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield hold up their heads above it.
Sandeman principles make some noise. May my soul and spirit,
life, mind, and talents, be ever devoted to Christ alone!”[599]

The proposal of her ladyship was to admit none into her school
except such as were truly converted to God, and resolved to dedicate
themselves to His service. They were to be at liberty to stay three
years, during which time they were to have their education gratis, with
every necessary of life, and a suit of clothes once a year. Afterwards,
those who desired it might enter into the ministry, either in the
Established Church, or among Protestants of any other denomination.
The plan for the examination of candidates was drawn up, and approved
of by Romaine, Venn, Wesley, and others; and Fletcher was fixed upon to
be the president.[600]

Little did the Countess think that the time was near when such a
provision would become more important than either she or any of her
advisers had imagined. A storm had long been gathering, in both the
Oxford and Cambridge Universities; and now it burst. A correspondent
of _Lloyd’s Evening Post_[601] wrote as follows:――

“St. Edmund’s Hall is the place where a lady sends all those
who have a mind to creep into Orders. The other day, several of
the undergraduates of that Hall disobliged their tutor; and this
one spark set their whole Methodistical foundation on fire. The
tutor went immediately to their visitor, and laid open all their
proceedings, upon which he appointed a meeting of the heads of
houses, where seven of them, one of whom is a gentleman commoner,
were accused of their several offences. One, I think, was for
procuring a false testimonium;[602] another for preaching in
the fields before he was in orders; a letter was read publicly,
which the tutor had received from a gentleman, testifying that
this man had made him a very good periwig only two years before;
two or three for frequenting illicit conventicles; but another
was accused only of ignorance, impudence, and disobedience,
and is acquitted. All the others were expelled, not only for
the offences I have mentioned, but, likewise, for preaching
doctrines contrary to the Church of England.”

The “lady” referred to in this letter was the Countess of Huntingdon;
but there is not the slightest proof of the accusation brought against
her.[603] It might contain a modicum of truth; but the base part of the
allegation was false and slanderous. The names of the undergraduates
were Benjamin Kay, James Matthews, Thomas Jones, Thomas Grove, Erasmus
Middleton, and Joseph Shipman. This is not the place to relate the
history of the six expelled students; but, it may be added, that, Mr.
Kay was of respectable family, and an excellent scholar. Mr. Matthews,
who was charged with having been instructed by Fletcher, of Madeley,
with being the associate of known Methodists, and with attending
illicit conventicles, was afterwards received into Lady Huntingdon’s
Academy at Trevecca. Thomas Jones was the periwig-maker, but, for
some time, had resided with John Newton, curate of Olney, under
whose instruction he had acquired a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew
Scriptures. Besides the crime of being brought up to the trade of a
hair-dresser, he was accused of praying, singing hymns, and expounding
the Scriptures in private houses. After his expulsion, he was ordained,
became curate of Clifton, near Birmingham, and married the sister of
the poet Cowper’s friend, the Lady Austin. Mr. Grove confessed to the
Archbishop of Canterbury that he had been led into irregularities;
the Chancellor consented to his re-admission; but the Vice-Chancellor
refused; and the future history of the submissive undergraduate is
unknown. Mr. Middleton was ordained in Ireland by the Bishop of Down;
became curate of Romaine and Cadogan; wrote his _Biographia Evangelica_;
and finally was presented to the rectory of Turvey, in the county of
Bedford. Mr. Shipman, after his expulsion, was admitted to the Academy
of the Countess of Huntingdon at Trevecca. His ministry was soon ended;
but, at Plymouth, Bristol, Rodborough, and Haverfordwest, his preaching
was singularly useful. He died October 31, 1771.

The tutor, who preferred the charges against the Methodist students,
was Mr. Higson, who was not always _compos mentis_, and had been
treated as insane. The Vice-Chancellor was the Rev. Dr. Durell, who
was the determined enemy of the accused. Their friend, the Rev. Dr.
Dixon, was the principal of their college. Their judges were Drs.
Durell, Randolph, Fothergill, Nowell, and Atterbury. The expulsion took
place on March 11, 1768.[604]

The event, as might be expected, created a national sensation. A large
number of persons warmly approved of the sentence of the judicial junta;
among whom was the famous Dr. Johnson. “Sir,” said Johnson to his
friend Boswell, “the expulsion was extremely just and proper. What have
they to do at a University, who are not willing to be taught, but will
presume to teach? Where is religion to be learnt but at a University?
Sir, they were examined, and found to be mighty ignorant fellows.”
Boswell: “But was it not hard, sir, to expel them, for I am told they
were good beings?” Johnson: “I believe they might be good beings,
but they were not fit to be in the University of Oxford. A cow is a
very good animal in the field, but we turn her out of a garden.”[605]
Johnson’s similitude was more forcible than appropriate; but, even
admitting that, in a literary point of view, the expelled were not
fit for the University, it may be asked, who were responsible for
their admission? Really, their only crimes were, that some of them had
been ignobly bred, and all of them had sung, and prayed, and read the
Scriptures in private houses. In this respect, they were not alone.
Dr. Stillingfleet, Fellow of Merton College, and afterwards Prebendary
of Worcester; Mr. Foster, of Queen’s College; Mr. Pugh, of Hertford
College; Mr. Gordon, of Magdalen; Mr. Clark, of St. John’s; and
Mr. Halward, of Worcester College, had done just the same; but these
were gentlemen whom it would have been somewhat perilous to treat
with the same collegiate tyranny that was exercised towards the humble
undergraduates who were ignominiously expelled.

The latter, however, were not without friends. Rowland Hill and his
Methodist associates, Pentycross, Simpson, Robinson, and others, at
Cambridge, were in intimate communion with them; and Rowland Hill’s
brother, afterwards Sir Richard Hill, became their principal defender.
He published his “Pietas Oxoniensis.” (8vo. 85 pp.); which was answered
by Dr. Nowell, principal of St. Mary’s Hall. Other pamphlets, _pro et
con_, were issued, too numerous to be mentioned here; but Whitefield’s
must have attention. It was the last he published, and was entitled,
“A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Durell, Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Oxford; occasioned by a late Expulsion of Six Students from Edmund
Hall. By George Whitefield, M.A., late of Pembroke College, Oxford; and
Chaplain to the Countess of Huntingdon.” (8vo., 50 pp.) The “Letter”
was dated, “London, April 12, 1768,” and was one of Whitefield’s most
spirited productions. In reply to “one article of impeachment, namely,
that some of” the six expelled students “were of trades before they
entered the University,” he reminded the Vice-Chancellor that there
was no “evil or crime worthy of expulsion” in this, for “God took
David from the sheep-fold;” “David’s Lord had for his reputed father a
carpenter, and, in all probability, worked at the trade of a carpenter
Himself;” He “chose poor fishermen to be His apostles;” and St. Paul
“laboured with his own hands, and worked at the trade of a tent-maker.”

In reference to the charge of using extempore prayer, Whitefield
argued, that, though the “English liturgy is one of the most excellent
forms of public prayer in the world,” yet no form “can possibly suit
every particular case.” Besides, said he, “what great sinners must they
have been, who prayed, in an extempore way, before any forms of prayer
existed? The prayers we read of in Scripture,――the prayers which opened
and shut heaven, the effectual, fervent, energetic prayers of those
righteous and holy men of old, which availed so much with God, were
all of an extempore nature. And I am apt to believe, if, not only
our students and ministers, but private Christians, were born from
above, and taught of God, as those wrestlers with God were, they would
want forms of prayer no more than they did.”[606] “The crime of using
extempore prayer is not so much as mentioned in any of our law books;
and, therefore, a crime for which, it is to be hoped, no student will
hereafter be summoned to appear at the bar of any of the reverend
doctors of divinity, or heads of houses in the University of Oxford.”
“It is also to be hoped that as some have been expelled for extempore
praying, we shall hear of some being expelled for extempore swearing.”

One extract must suffice respecting the charge of “singing hymns”:――

“Were the sons of the prophets more frequently to entertain
themselves thus, it would be as suitable to the ministerial
character as tripping up their heels, skipping and dancing at
the music of a ball-room, or playing a first fiddle at a concert.
The voice of spiritual melody would be as much to the honour of
the University as the more frequent noise of box and dice, at
the unlawful games of hazard and back-gammon.”

On the subject of “giving private exhortations,” Whitefield aptly
observed:――

“Our all-wise Master sent His disciples on short excursions,
before He gave them the more extensive commission to go into
all the world; and were our students in general, under proper
limitations, to be thus exercised, they would not turn out to be
such mere novices, as too many raw creatures do when they make
their first appearance in the pulpit. I remember, above thirty
years ago, some young students had been visiting the sick and
imprisoned, and had been giving a word of exhortation in a
private house; and, upon meeting the minister of the parish on
their return to college, they frankly told him what they had
been doing; when he turned to them, and said, ‘God bless you! I
wish we had more such young curates;’――a more Christian sentence
this, than that of a late expulsion for the very same supposed
crimes and misdemeanours.”

Whitefield proceeded to remind Dr. Durell of the effort which was being
made to establish the episcopacy in the American colonies, and of the
opposition of the colonists to the scheme, and then added:――

“That persons of all ranks, from Quebec down to the two Floridas,
are at this time more than prejudiced against it, is notorious;
but how will the thought of the introduction of lord bishops
make them shudder, if their lordships should think proper to
countenance the expulsion of religious students, whilst those
who have no religion at all meet with approbation and applause.”

Turning to the general subject of Methodism, Whitefield continued:――

“It is notorious that the grand cause of these young men’s
expulsion was, that they were either real or reputed Methodists.
Scarce any now-a-days can pray extempore, sing hymns, go to
church or meeting, and abound in other acts of devotion, but
they must be immediately dubbed Methodists.”

And then, in reference to the first Oxford Methodists, he added:――

“If worldly church preferments had been their aim, some of
them, at least, might have had ladders enough to climb up by;
but having received a kind of apostolical commission at their
ordination, they would fain keep up the dignity of an apostolic
character; and, therefore, without ever so much as designing
to enter into any political cabals, or civil or church factions,
without turning to the right hand or the left, or troubling the
world with a single sermon or pamphlet on the bare externals of
religion, they have endeavoured to have but one thing in view,
namely, to think of nothing, to know nothing, and to preach of
nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified; to spend and be
spent for the good of souls, and to glory in nothing saving in
the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto them
and they unto the world.”

Such was Whitefield’s last description of the first Methodist preachers.
May this be the character of all their successors to the end of time!

Of course, Whitefield’s “Letter” to Dr. Durell evoked replies; but only
one of these can be noticed here. It was entitled, “Remarks upon the
Rev. Mr. Whitefield’s Letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Oxford; in a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Whitefield. By a late Member of
the University of Oxford. Oxford, 1768.” (8vo., 62 pp.) Two or three
extracts from this angry and abusive production must be given. In
reference to Whitefield himself, the author says:――

“I address you without any hope of reforming you, for, it would
be absurd in me to prove a person insane, and, at the same
time, attempt to convince him of that insanity. That would be
supposing him in his senses in order to satisfy him that he is
out of them. My design is to deal with you as magistrates do
with an offender, whom they despair of bringing to any good.
They animadvert upon him for the good of others, and, by open
punishment, aim at suppressing the influence which his advice
or example may have had upon his acquaintance.

“Your sermons are off-hand harangues,――mere enthusiastic
rant,――a wild rhapsody of nonsense,――the foam of an over-heated
imagination,――like old wives’ fables, or profane and
vain babblings,――proceeding from a spirit of pride and
ignorance. Such teachers as yourself, are blind leaders of the
blind,――jack-o’-lanthorn meteors, or _ignes fatui_, drawing
the mazed follower through briars and bogs, till he is plunged
into inextricable ruin. But, however absurd and ridiculous
your sermons――the _spuings_ of the heart upon the people, in
unconcocted sentences――they are tolerable in comparison of your
extempore prayers to the Deity.”

This was hardly polite to come from “a late member of the University
of Oxford;” but let it pass, and listen to what the accomplished author
says of the six expelled students:――

“These low mechanics were moved with the spirit of pride and
ignorance, and had no other calls but of vanity, idleness, and
hunger; and, I make no doubt, had their attempt to creep through
some privy holes, or to climb over the fences into the ministry
been crowned with success, they would have scorned the dust from
whence they sprung, and, spurred on with the turbulent spirit
of ambition, would never have ceased clambering after the higher
places, and would even have been dissatisfied, though they
reached the highest round of the ecclesiastical ladder.”

One sentence more from this elegant publication:――

“If a large stock of pride, with the profoundest ignorance,
and a brow harder than adamant, be sufficient to set up a
Methodistical spouter, what occasion is there to send him to
the University?”

In order to get rid of a subject so unpleasant, it may be added
here, that, besides this, there were several other pamphlets published
against Whitefield and the Methodists during the year 1768. For
instance, there was “The Troublers of Israel, in which the Principles
of those who turn the World upside down are displayed. With a Preface
to the Rev. Dr. ――――. To which is prefixed a short introductory
Description of Modern Enthusiasts.” (4to.) A kind of opera, exceedingly
incoherent, and profanely foolish. 2. “Sermons to Asses” (12mo., 212
pp.), dedicated to Whitefield, Wesley, Romaine, and Madan,――chiefly a
political publication, with a fling at the Methodists. 3. “Enthusiasm
Detected and Defeated. By Samuel Roe, A.M., Vicar of Stotfold, in
Bedfordshire.” (8vo., 319 pp.) Principally an attack on Wesley, but not
altogether exempting Whitefield. “I humbly propose to the legislative
powers,” said the Rev. Samuel Roe, “to make an example of Tabernacle
preachers, by enacting a law to _cut out their tongues_, who have
been the incorrigible authors of so many mischiefs and distractions
throughout the English dominions. And, by the said authority, to _cut
out the tongues_ of all field-teachers, and preachers in houses, barns,
or elsewhere, without apostolical ordination and legal authority, being
approved and licensed to enter upon that most sacred trust.” 4. “The
Hypocrite: a Comedy. As it is performed at the Theatre Royal in Drury
Lane” (8vo.),――in which a Tabernacle enthusiast occupied a prominent
position.

Then, in 1769, before Whitefield sailed for America, there were
published: 1. “Methodism, a Popish Idol; or the Danger and Harmony
of Enthusiasm and Separation. By Booth Braithwaite.” (8vo.) “A raving
pamphlet,” said the _Monthly Review_, “against sectaries, with abundant
zeal, little knowledge, and less charity.” 2. “A Letter to a Young
Gentleman at Oxford, intended for Holy Orders” (8vo.),――in ardent
language warning the “young gentleman” against Confessionalists,
Monthly Reviewers, Blasphemers, Reprobates, and Methodists. 3. “The
Pretences of Enthusiasts Considered and Confuted; a Sermon preached
before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, June 26, 1768. By
William Hawkins, M.A., Prebendary of Wells. Published by desire.”
(8vo., 27 pp.) Mr. Hawkins confesses that he has “little hope of
converting spiritual dishonesty, or convincing religious infatuation;”
but he insists that “all pretences of illiterate laymen, and ignorant
mechanics, _to expound the way of God more perfectly_, in consequence
of supernatural inspiration and spiritual illumination, are plainly
to be resolved into the artifice of imposture, or the insanity of
enthusiasm.”

On the other hand, there was published a curious and well-executed
engraving, of folio size, entitled, “The Tree of Life: likewise a View
of the New Jerusalem, and this present Evil World; with the Industry
of Gospel Ministers in endeavouring to pluck sinners from the wrath
to come.” The copy before me is the only one I have ever seen, or
heard of; and, therefore, a brief description of it may be welcome.
The “Tree of Life” is large and fantastic. Its roots are entitled,
“Glorious,” “Gracious,” “Holy,” “Just,” “Wise,” “Almighty,” and
“Omnipresent.” On its stem and two lowest branches is a representation
of the crucified Saviour. Its twelve fruits are “Everlasting Love,”
“Election,” “Pardon,” “Righteousness,” “Refuge,” “Security,” “Peace,”
“Sanctification,” “Promises,” “Good-will,” “Perseverance,” and “Eternal
Redemption.” Its foliage is inscribed with the words, “Circumcision,”
“Baptism,” “Fasting,” “Temptation,” “Victory,” “Poverty,” “Obedience,”
“Shame,” “Reproach,” “Imprisonment,” “Stripes,” “Buffeting,” “Death,”
and “Resurrection.” “The New Jerusalem” is resplendent with the divine
glory, and is surrounded with lovely scenery. “The present Evil World,”
at the bottom of the picture, contains a large number of male and
female figures, some of them in “the Broad Way,” others indulging in
“the Pride of Life,” and others in “Chambering and Wantonness.” In
the right hand corner is the “Bottomless Pit,” with sundry demons,
and ablaze with fire; while, at its mouth, sits “Babylon, Mother
of Harlots,” with a large goblet in her hand; and out of the pit an
avaricious-looking wretch is endeavouring to escape, for the purpose
of clutching his money bags, which are inscribed with the word
“Extortion,” but a grinning fiend has seized him by the long flowing
hair of his head, and prevents him going farther. In the midst of one
crowd, Wesley is preaching, and represented as crying, “Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ.” In another crowd, _close_ to the “Bottomless
Pit,” stands Whitefield, the likeness excellent, and bearing a strong
resemblance to the portrait in the present volume. The multitude
around him evince great excitement. One man, on his right hand, cries,
“What shall I do to be saved?” Another, on his left, whose coat-tail
a demon grasps, exclaims, “Save, Lord, or I perish.” And Whitefield,
in the midst, dressed in full canonicals, and with hands uplifted,
shouts, “Behold the Lamb.” The whole thing is ludicrous; but it was
friendly, and, no doubt, was published in favour of Whitefield and
his fellow-labourer. Whether it was calculated to answer the artist’s
purpose is another question. Sometimes man has need to pray, “Save me
from my friends!”

To return to Whitefield’s history. Little is known of his proceedings
during the first four months of 1768. The interval seems to have been
spent in London, and, doubtless, was well employed in preaching and
other religious duties. On Wednesday, March 23, he had to perform
a painful duty, to which he had been long accustomed. James Gibson,
attorney-at-law, had been found guilty of the crime of forgery, and
had been sentenced to suffer death. On the morning of the culprit’s
execution, Whitefield attended him in Newgate prison, prayed with him,
and administered to him the holy sacrament. Gibson, a good-looking man
of about forty-five years of age, professed to rely on the merits of
his Saviour; and, in a mourning coach, dressed in black, and wearing a
ruffled shirt, was driven to Tyburn, where his behaviour was devout and
manly, and his sentence was executed.[607]

At Whitsuntide, Whitefield visited Tunbridge Wells, Lewes, and Brighton.
At the first of these places, Lady Huntingdon had procured a permanent
residence, on Mount Ephraim; and Whitefield preached twice in the open
air. “Very many,” says her ladyship, “were cut to the heart. Sinners
trembled exceedingly before the Lord, and a universal impression seemed
to abide upon the multitude. Truly God was in the midst of us to wound
and to heal.”[608]

The following letter, addressed to Whitefield by Rowland Hill, refers
to this visit to Tunbridge Wells, but is chiefly valuable as containing
a sketch of the proceedings of the Methodist students at Cambridge, and
as exhibiting some of the peculiarities of young Rowland’s character:――

“CAMBRIDGE, _May 12, 1768_.

“REV. AND VERY DEAR SIR,――I am glad to hear we are to expect a
smaller edition of your valuable ‘Letter.’[609] I doubt not but
it will be of further utility. It has been read much in this
place. That and the _Shaver_[610] have been sent for to all the
coffee-houses in this University; so that, no doubt, all our
heads have seen all that has been written. But if you think it
any advantage to send each of our heads a separate copy, I will
contrive my best to get it done.

“God be praised for what is doing by the endeavours of dear Lady
Huntingdon at Tunbridge Wells! How wonderfully is she carried
from one place of dissipation to another! How glorious is her
continued progress!

“Blessed be God! we are not without being steeped more than ever
in shame in this place; or, as the old proverb goes, we have
eaten shame and drank after it, and I trust it digests well.
Though we always endeavour to keep clear of a mob, in letting
no more know than our different houses will hold, yet, in spite
of all that can be done, more or less of the gown constantly
attend. The Lord, through much grace, generally keeping me clear
of the fear of man, gives me some little strength to tell you all
about it; and, as I find burs generally stick faster to people’s
clothes than roses, I am sometimes apt to deal in that rough
ware. They have hitherto always stood, like poor brow-beaten
things, with much attention till we have done, when they
generally get together to compare notes, which they afterwards
retail among others of the University, drest up in a droll
fashion, well embellished, with the addition of many ludicrous
lies.

“This makes all, as I pass the streets, stop to wonder at me,
as a strange oddity; but, as I am more than ever convinced
that the only way God ever will carry on His work, is by the
manifestation of His own almighty power, without any of our
assisting influence or trimming, I find the only way to meet
with a blessing is to be honest and open in telling them the
simple truth, and leaving God to bless it. This, I trust, has,
in some measure, been the case at Cambridge. Four of the many
gownsmen, that have been at times my hearers of late, have never
missed an opportunity of attending, and have been at much pains
to enquire the time and place of our meeting. After hearing,
they wish me a good eve; and, when absent, speak respectfully
of the word. Many others, too, having been convinced in their
judgments, approve of its being right; while others, filled with
the hottest madness, dress me up as a fool, and cudgel me as a
knave.

“The other night, the mob of the gown, which raised a second
of the town, ran so high at the house where we had a meeting,
that the constable, who is a friend, was forced to attend,
that no riot might ensue; but, as I thought to be attended with
constables was yet too high an honour for such a poor beginner,
I hope it was nothing more than what Christian prudence would
advise, to be more private the next time, and be contented
with a house full, attended only with a few gownsmen by way
of bringing up the rear.

“As for our Doctors, ’tis remarkable how very patiently they
bear with my conduct, as they now know that as I have but
a little while to stay, an expulsion from Cambridge would
hardly answer. They seem now to have come to the following
compromise――that I am to continue to be possessor of my
_professorship_, and to be still bishop over all their parishes,
provided I will be contented with houses or barns, and leave
them alone with quiet possession of their streets, fields,
and churches, and, by and by, they will be glad to sign my
_testimonium_, in order to get rid of me. Thus, in the end,
I hope, through grace, I shall be enabled to make good what
I promised to one, who asked me, when we enthusiasts intended
to stop. My answer was, ‘Not at all, till such time as we have
carried all before us.’

“I am in the greatest hope that the Lord will soon give dear
―――― a heart to help me. He is a steady, warm, lively Christian,
and grows prodigiously, and bids by far the fairest for the
predicted phœnix of any that are in this place.

“Do continue to be earnest in prayer to God for us. I want much
humbling. Spiritual pride, at present, is my grand temptation.

“Having not any spare time, I am forced to write thus in haste,
and conclude with subscribing myself your poorest son and
servant for Christ’s sake,

“ROWLAND HILL.”[611]

The foregoing letter is valuable for its facts, if for nothing else.
Rowland Hill was evincing courage hardly inferior to that of the first
Oxford Methodists. Without courting persecution, he was not afraid of
it. To be laughed at was not pleasant, but it was not heeded. Rowland
was no longer threatened with expulsion; but he was made the object of
collegiate ridicule. Eight months after this, he proceeded to his B.A.
degree, and his name appeared in the list of honours.

There can be no doubt that one of the best ways to propagate any
new creed or system is to implant it in the national Universities.
Whether designedly or otherwise, Methodism had thus been rooted at
both Oxford and Cambridge. The Heads of Houses at Oxford did their
utmost to destroy it. Those at Cambridge were not so ruthless. Why?
Was it because the expelled at Oxford were of low degree? and because
the Cambridge leader, Rowland Hill, was the son of an English baronet?
Perhaps it was.

Whitefield was generally jubilant. His path was often rough and
difficult, but he pursued it singing. The following was addressed to
Captain Joss:――

“LONDON, _May 17, 1768_.

“MY DEAR MAN,――Go forward! go forward! is the watchword of
the present day. Never mind the envious cry of elder brethren.
Had they been hearkened to, the Prodigal must never have come
home, nor Goliath’s head have been cut off. All temple-builders,
especially when called to work in the field, must endure, not
only the contradiction of sinners, but, the contradiction of
saints. Happy are they who are so deeply engaged in building as
not to have time to hearken to either. I long to come and lend
a helping, though feeble hand. But Welsh horses move slowly. If
the Welsh apostle comes, I purpose, in the Whitsun week, to make
a short excursion into Sussex and Kent, and then for Bristol.

“Blessed be God! the shout of a King is heard in our camps. Let
us march forward, with palms of victory in our hands, crying,
‘Hallelujah! The Lord God omnipotent reigneth!’”

A month after the date of this letter Whitefield was in Edinburgh; but
how he went, and why he went, no one seems to know. His popularity,
however, in the northern metropolis, was as great as ever. Hence he
writes:――

“EDINBURGH, _June 15, 1768_.

(TO MR. KEEN) “You would be delighted to see our Orphan
House Park assemblies; as large and attentive as ever.
Twenty-seven-year-old friends and spiritual children remember
the days of old. They are seeking after their first love, and
there seems to be a stirring among the dry bones. I cannot tell
you when I shall move. Probably within a fortnight.”

“EDINBURGH, _July 2, 1768_.

(TO MR. ANDREW KINSMAN) “My dear Timothy, I am much obliged to
you for your staying in London, till I return from Scotland. My
journey hither was certainly of God. Could I preach ten times a
day, thousands and thousands would attend. I have been confined
for a few days, but, on Monday or Tuesday next, hope to mount my
throne again. O to die there! Too great, too great an honour to
be expected! I thank my wife for her kind letter just received.
I am here only in danger of being hugged to death. Friends of
all ranks seem heartier and more friendly than ever. All is
of Grace! Grace! I go on in my old way, without turning to the
right hand or to the left. Providence says every day, ‘This is
the way; walk in it.’ Tender love to all, particularly to my
dear wife. Next post she may expect to hear from me.”

“EDINBURGH, _July 9, 1768_.

(TO MR. KEEN) “God be praised that all is so well in London.
Everything goes on better and better here; but I am so worn down
by preaching abroad, and by talking at home almost all the day
long, that I have determined to set off for London next Tuesday.
As you do not mention my wife, I suppose she is out of town.”

Exactly a month after this, Whitefield’s wife was dead. On his return
to London, she was attacked with fever, and died on August 9. Five
days afterwards, he preached her funeral sermon;[612] and, noticing
her fortitude, remarked,――“Do you remember my preaching in those
fields by the old stump of a tree? The multitude was great, and many
were disposed to be riotous. At first, I addressed them firmly; but
when a desperate gang drew near, with the most ferocious and horrid
imprecations and menaces, my courage began to fail. My wife was
then standing behind me, as I stood on the table. I think I hear her
now. She pulled my gown, and, looking up, said, ‘George, play the
man for your God.’ My confidence returned. I spoke to the multitude
with boldness and affection. They became still, and many were
deeply affected.”[613] A monument to the memory of Whitefield’s
wife was put up in Tottenham Court Road chapel, with the following
inscription:[614]――

“To the memory of Mrs. Whitefield, who, after thirty years’
strong and frequent manifestations of her Redeemer’s love, mixed
with strong and frequent strugglings against the buffetings of
Satan, and many sicknesses and indwellings of sin, was joyfully
released, August 9, 1769.”[615]

Whitefield submitted to his bereavement with Christian resignation. Two
days after he preached his wife’s funeral sermon, he wrote, in a letter
to Captain Joss:――“Let us work whilst it is day. The late unexpected
breach is a fresh proof that the night soon cometh, when no man can
work. Pray, where may I find that grand promise made to Abraham after
Sarah’s death? May it be fulfilled in you, whilst your Sarah is yet
alive! Sweet bereavements, when God Himself fills up the chasm! Through
mercy I find it so. Adieu.”

On Wednesday, August 24, Whitefield opened the College of the Countess
of Huntingdon at Trevecca, by preaching from the words: “In all places
where I record My name, I will come unto thee, and bless thee.” The
next day, he gave an exhortation to the students, from: “He shall be
great in the sight of the Lord.” And, on Sunday, August 28, preached
in the court before the College, to a congregation of thousands, from:
“Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is
Jesus Christ.”[616]

He then hurried back to London, where he arrived on September 1. His
health was broken, and he was again an invalid. In a letter, dated
September 6, he wrote to a sick and suffering friend:――

“Why should not one invalid write to another? What if we should
meet in our way to heaven unembodied,――freed from everything
that at present weighs down our precious and immortal souls? For
these two days past I have been almost unable to write: to-day,
I am, what they call better.”

Immediately after this, he ruptured a blood-vessel; and, on
September 12, remarked:――

“I have been in hopes of my departure. Through hard riding,
and frequent preaching, I have burst a vein. The flux is, in
a great measure, stopped; but rest and quietness are strictly
enjoined.”[617]

Rashly enough, Whitefield re-commenced preaching before the month was
ended. One of his friends, Mr. Middleton, died a triumphant death,
and Whitefield must preach a funeral sermon. His text was, “I have
chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.” The word “chosen” gave
him an opportunity to dwell upon the doctrine of election. “I know
no other doctrine,” said he, “that can truly humble man; for either
God must choose us, or we must choose God.” As usual, his sermon was
interspersed with anecdotes, one of which may be given here. “A noble
lady,” said Whitefield, “told me herself, that when she was crying on
account of one of her children’s death, her little daughter came to her
and said, ‘Mamma, is God Almighty dead, you cry so?’ The lady replied,
‘No.’ ‘Mamma, will you lend me your glove?’ said the child. The
mother let her take it; and, in due time, asked for it again. ‘Mamma!’
remarked the child, ‘shall I cry because you have taken back your
glove? And shall you cry because God has taken back my sister?’”[618]
A reference is made to the death and burial of Mr. Middleton in the
following extract from a letter:――

“London, September 26, 1768. For some days, the flux of blood
has stopped entirely. Praise the Lord, O my soul! Mr. Middleton
is now made perfectly whole. He was buried from the Tabernacle
last Wednesday evening, and a subscription is opened for his
four orphans.”

“Where is Mr. Middleton now?” cried Whitefield in the sermon just
mentioned. “Where is my dear fellow-labourer, that honest, that steady
man of God? If in the midst of torture, he could answer his daughter
and say, ‘Heaven upon earth! heaven upon earth!’ surely now that he
sees God, and sees Christ, he must cry, ‘Heaven in heaven!’”

A few weeks after this, Whitefield set out for Bath and Bristol; and
began to have a longing to go to his orphans at Bethesda. He writes:――

“Bristol, November 12, 1768. Bethesda lies upon my heart night
and day. Something must be determined speedily. As, I trust, my
eye is single, God will assuredly direct my goings. Hitherto, He
has helped. He will do so to the end. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!”

By the end of November, he was back to London, and wrote:――

“November 30, 1768. Many thought I should not hold out from Bath
to London; but I cannot as yet go to Him whom my soul loveth.
Last Sunday, I creeped up to my gospel-throne; this evening,
the same honour is to be conferred upon me. Mr. Wright is going
with his brothers to Georgia to finish the wings of the intended
College, and repair the present buildings.”

Whitefield’s weakness continued; but he preached as often as he
was able. “I love the open bracing air;” said he, on December 14;
“preaching within doors, and especially to crowded auditories, is apt
to make us nervous.”

In another letter, dated “December 15,” he remarked:――

“You cannot tell how low my late excursion to Bath and Bristol
brought me. I would leave future events to God, and, like you
merchants, would improve the present _now_. Time is short;
eternity is endless. I have considered the affair of the picture.
What think you? A limner, who lately drew me, and hung the
picture in the Exhibition, asks forty guineas for a copy.[619] I
shall not mind him, but send a bust taken several years ago. It
shall be presented as a token of my hearty, hearty love to the
Orphan House at Edinburgh, and its never-to-be-forgotten friends.”

The first three months of the year 1769 were spent in London.
Whitefield was extremely feeble. Wesley wrote:――

“1769. Monday, January 9. I spent a comfortable and profitable
hour with Mr. Whitefield, in calling to mind the former times,
and the manner wherein God prepared us for a work which it had
not then entered into our hearts to conceive.”

And again:――

“Monday, February 27. I had one more agreeable conversation with
my old friend and fellow-labourer, George Whitefield. His soul
appeared to be vigorous still, but his body was sinking apace;
and, unless God interposes with His mighty hand, he must soon
finish his labours.”[620]

Comparatively speaking, these three months were a time of inaction;
and yet, to Whitefield and others, they were a time of great enjoyment.
Lady Huntingdon was now in London, and, at her residence in Portland
Row, Cavendish Square, there were delightful re-unions of Methodist
clergymen. Whitefield, the two Wesleys, Romaine, Venn, and others, were
often assembled there, for preaching, sacramental administration, and
Christian fellowship. On the 10th of January, Whitefield administered
the sacrament, and Wesley preached on, “By grace are ye saved, through
faith.” A week afterwards, Romaine administered the Lord’s Supper,
and Whitefield preached. On February 28, Whitefield was present, but
wholly unable to take any active part in the services of the day. The
Rev. Messrs. Green and Elliott administered the sacrament and Romaine
preached. Sometimes Venn administered, and at others preached. When
he was able, Whitefield would preach in her ladyship’s drawing-room
on several days successively. At the last meeting, previous to the
Countess leaving London, Charles Wesley exhorted all present to “stand
fast in one mind and in one judgment;” Romaine administered the Lord’s
Supper; Venn and Whitefield prayed; and all sang the glorious doxology,
“Praise God, from whom all blessings flow.”[621]

By the month of March, Whitefield’s health was considerably improved.
In letters, addressed to his old friend, Thomas Adams, he wrote:――

“London, March 11, 1769. My very dear Tommy. Through infinite
mercy, I am enabled to preach thrice a week, besides engaging
in other occasional exercises. The shout of the King of kings
is amongst us. After Easter, I hope to make an elopement to
Gloucestershire, and some western parts. I feel the loss of my
right hand[622] daily; but right hands and right eyes must be
parted with for Him, who ordereth all things well.”

“London, March 31, 1769. Through infinite mercy, I have been
enabled to preach four days successively. We have been favoured
with a blessed Passover season: all to make us shout louder,
‘Grace! Grace!’”

Whitefield still longed to get away to his beloved Bethesda. On
March 17, he wrote to Mr. Dixon, his manager there:――“I am every day,
every hour, almost every moment, thinking of, and preparing for America.
A pilgrim life to me is the sweetest on this side eternity.” No wonder
that Whitefield wished to be at his Orphan House. He had sent workmen
to erect the new buildings already mentioned, and, only eight days
after the date of this letter to Mr. Dixon, the foundation stones
were laid with as much ceremonial pomp as the colony of Georgia could
contribute. Hence the following letter, dated “Savannah, in Georgia,
March 29, 1769,” and published in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of June 2:――

“The Rev. Mr. George Whitefield having sent over proper workmen
to erect the necessary additional buildings for the intended
Academy at the Orphan House, on Saturday last, being the
anniversary of laying the foundation of that house in the year
1739, his Excellency, the Governor, attended by most of the
members of the Honourable Council and a great number of other
gentlemen, after the service of church was performed, and
a sermon preached by the Rev. Mr. Samuel Frink, Rector of
Christ Church parish, laid the foundation of both the intended
wings; and the whole company, being entertained at dinner in
a plentiful and decent manner, returned to their habitations
seemingly much pleased with the occasion of their meeting,
and their treatment there. From this beginning, we have the
most sanguine hopes, that, in a short time, we shall enjoy the
advantage of educating our youth within ourselves; a benefit we
have, in a great measure, been deprived of, for want of such an
establishment.”

Early in April, Whitefield set out to Bath, on a visit to the
Countess of Huntingdon. Here and in the neighbourhood, he spent a
month, preaching at a large number of places, to most of which he
was accompanied by her ladyship, and by Lady Anne Erskine.[623]
Bath and Bristol were the chief scenes of action; but he had “a
good field-preaching at Kingswood;” had “a blessed day in Bradford
_church_;” and also another in “the fields at Frome, where thousands
attended.” He had “golden seasons” at Chippenham, Castle-Combe,
Dursley, Rodborough, Painswick, Gloucester, and Cheltenham. On his
way back to London, he wrote, to Captain Joss:――

“Rodborough, Thursday, May 11, 1769. Ebenezer! Ebenezer! Blessed
seasons at Chippenham, Castle-Combe, and Dursley, in our way
from Frome. Have been enabled to preach five times this week.
It is good to go into the highways and hedges. Field-preaching,
field-preaching for ever!”

A week after this, he was in London, and wrote to Thomas Adams, at
Rodborough, in the most jubilant strain:――

“London, Thursday, May 18, 1769. My very dear old friend.
On Monday we reached Letchlade, on Tuesday Maidenhead, and
yesterday London. Never was Rodborough so endeared to me, as
at this last visit. Old friends, old gospel wine, and the great
Governor ordering to fill to the brim!

‘O to grace what mighty debtors!’

“If we should die singing that hymn, what then? Why, then,
welcome, welcome eternity! Christ’s grace will be sufficient for
us. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!”

The next three months were chiefly spent in London. Whitefield
complained of a “hoarseness, gotten in the highways and hedges;” but he
was as full of holy buoyancy as ever. He had now determined to sail for
America, and began to make the necessary preparations for his voyage.
He bought “Osnaburg linen,” for his negroes; he begged maps and books
for his Bethesda Institution; and, in thanking his friend Mr. Keen for
a benefaction to his Orphanage, wrote: “Our Lord will write Himself
your debtor for it. His interest is pretty good――‘a hundredfold.’ A
hundredfold! What can the most avaricious trader desire more?”

One of his last public services was the opening of the Countess of
Huntingdon’s chapel at Tunbridge Wells. This took place on Sunday,
July 23. The Countess, Lady Anne Erskine, Lady Buchan, and Miss Orton
went with him.[624] Early in the morning, a large number of persons
assembled at the front of Lady Huntingdon’s residence, and, in the
open air, sang hymns and prayed, till the time announced for the
commencement of public service in the chapel. “Never,” said her
ladyship, “can I forget the sensations of pleasure I felt, on being
awoke by the voice of praise and thanksgiving.” The chapel, of course,
was thronged. De Courcy read the prayers of the Established Church; and,
then, a large crowd not being able to get inside the chapel, Whitefield
came out, followed by those who had joined in the reading of the
liturgy, and preached to the assembled thousands, from “How dreadful
is this place! This is none other but the house of God, and this is
the gate of heaven.”[625] The sermon was said to be “a perfect piece
of oratory.” “Look yonder!” cried the preacher, as he stretched out
his hands “Look yonder! What is that I see? It is my agonizing Lord!
Hark! hark! hark! Do not you hear? O earth, earth, earth, hear the
word of the Lord!” Simple words, but producing effects which cannot
be described. In connection with these and all Whitefield’s utterances,
the reader must bear in mind that Whitefield’s face was language, his
intonation music, and his action passion. Garrick used to say of him,
that, he could make men weep or tremble by his varied pronunciation of
the word “Mesopotamia.” This was an exaggeration; but it expressed the
opinion of the greatest of theatrical orators concerning the power of
Whitefield’s eloquence.

The day at Tunbridge Wells, a hundred and seven years ago, was probably
one of the most remarkable in the history of that resort of fashionable
gaiety. After Whitefield’s sermon, the sacrament of the Lord’s supper
was administered, at which four clergymen attended, besides Whitefield
himself. During the day, three of these clergymen, at three different
times, preached to the assembled multitudes, from a small mount raised
for that purpose at the front of the chapel.[626] One of these was
Richard de Courcy,[627] the fervid young Irishman, already mentioned,
and whose talent and eloquence made him immensely popular. The chapel
itself, said _Lloyd’s Evening Post_[628], “has been inspected by some
ingenious artists, and is looked upon to be the most complete piece of
Gothic architecture that has been constructed for many years!”

Whitefield’s days in England were now nearly ended. In a letter to
Captain Joss, dated “Tottenham Court, August 9, 1769,” he wrote:――

“My hands and heart are full. Last night, I went on board
the _Friendship_. The captain is to dine with me to-morrow.
I expect to sail the first week in September. You must then be
in town.[629] Mr. Brooksbanks will supply your place. I hope
all things will be settled on a right plan. I have the greatest
confidence in you. I only wish some means may be found to save
the late great expense of coach hire. It has mounted very high.”

In another letter, dated ten days later, and addressed to Mr. Adams,
Whitefield wrote:――

“My very dear Tommy, talk not of taking a personal leave.
You know my make. Paul could stand a _whipping_, but not a
_weeping_ farewell. Many thanks for your intended present. God
bless you and yours! God bless all our never-to-be-forgotten
Gloucestershire friends! I can no more. Adieu! Cease not to pray
for, my very dear steady old friend,

“Less than the least of all,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Six days after this, on Friday night, August 25, Whitefield held one of
his last sacramental services in England. This was in the Tabernacle,
near Moorfields. Nearly two thousand communicants were present![630]

On the Sunday following, he preached his last sermon in Tottenham Court
Road chapel. The text was, Genesis xxviii. 12–15. A few extracts must
be given. Besides the interest they possess as being among Whitefield’s
_last words_ in England, they will help to illustrate his style of
preaching, when his work was nearly ended.

“When we are travelling in the woods of America, we are obliged
to light a fire; and that keeps off the beasts from us. I have
often got up in the night, and said to them that were with
me (and God forbid I should ever travel with any one, even a
quarter of an hour, without speaking something of Jesus!)――‘This
fire,’ said I, ‘is like the fire of God’s love, which keeps off
the devil and our own lusts from hurting our souls.’

“It comforts me much, I assure you, to think that, whenever
God shall call for me, angels will carry me into the bosom of
Abraham; but it comforts me more to think, that, as soon as they
lay hold of me, my first question to them will be, ‘Where is my
_Master_? Where is my _Jesus_?’ And that, after all my tossings
and tumblings here, I shall be brought to see His face at last.

“It is now high time for me to preach my own _funeral sermon_.
I am going, for the thirteenth time, to cross the Atlantic.
When I came from America last, my health was so bad that I
took leave of all friends on the continent, from one end to
the other, without the least design of returning to them again.
But, to my great surprise, God has been pleased to restore to
me some measure of strength; and, though I intended to give up
the Orphan House into other hands, God has so ordered it, that
his Grace the late Archbishop of Canterbury refused me a charter,
unless I would confine it to episcopacy. I could not, in honour,
comply with this, as Dissenters, and other serious people of
different denominations, had contributed towards its support.
I would sooner cut off my head than betray my trust. I always
meant the Orphan House to be kept upon a broad bottom, for
people of all denominations. I hope, by the 25th of March next,
all intended alterations and additions will be completed, and a
blessed provision be made for many hundreds; and a comfortable
support for poor orphans and poor students. This is my only
design in going. I intend to travel all along the continent.
I am going in no public capacity. I am going trusting in God
to bear my charges. I call heaven and earth to witness that I
have never had the love of the world one quarter of an hour in
my heart. I might have been rich; but now, though this chapel
is built, and though I have a comfortable room to live in, I
assure you I built the room at my own expense. It cost nobody but
myself anything, and I shall leave it with an easy mind. I have
thought of these words with pleasure, ‘I will bring thee again
to this land.’ I know not whether that will be my experience;
but, blessed be God! I have a better land in view. I do not
look upon myself at home till I land in my Father’s house. My
greatest trial is to part with those who are as dear to me as my
own soul. O keep close to God, my dear London friends. I do not
bid you keep close to chapel. You have always done that. I shall
endeavour to keep up the word of God among you during my absence.
I might have had a thousand a year out of this place, if I had
chosen it. When I am gone to heaven, you will see what I have
got on earth. I do not like to speak now, because it might be
thought boasting.”[631]

Whitefield’s last sermon[632] in London was preached in the Tabernacle,
Moorfields, at seven o’clock on Wednesday morning, August 30.[633]
The text he selected was, John x. 27, 28. The sermon (if so it may be
called) was earnest talk, incoherent, and, some would say, egotistic;
but it was interspersed with characteristic sentences.

“Sheep,” said Whitefield, “love to be together. They don’t love
to be alone. You seldom see a sheep by itself; and Christ’s
people may well be compared to them in this. Oh, think some, if
we had great people on our side, the King, Lords, and Commons!
What then? Alas! alas! Do you think the Church of God would go
on a bit the better? No! no! Religion never prospers when it
has too much sunshine. Dr. Marryat was not ashamed to preach
in _market language_; and I once heard him say at Pinner’s Hall,
‘God has a great dog to fetch His sheep back when they wander.’
Yes, when God’s people wander, He sends the devil after them,
and suffers him to bark at them; but instead of barking them
further off, he only barks them back again to the fold of
Christ.”

In another part of his discourse, Whitefield, unnecessarily if not
egotistically, stated that, before he was twenty-two years of age,
he had the offer of two parishes, by Benson, Bishop of Gloucester;
that, when he first came to London, most of the metropolitan churches
were open to him; and that twelve or fourteen constables had to guard
the doors of the churches where he preached. He then referred to his
intention to turn the Orphan House into a College; and highly eulogised
Mr. and Mrs. Dixon, his “old servants” there, and also the Messrs.
Wright and Mr. Crane, whom he had sent out to execute the improvements
and additions to the building. He concluded as follows:――

“This is the thirteenth time of my crossing the mighty waters.
It is a little difficult at this time of life; but I delight in
the cause, and God fills me with a peace that is unutterable. I
expect many trials while on board. Satan always meets me there;
but God, I believe, will keep me. I thank God, I have the honour
of leaving everything quite well and easy at both ends of the
town. If I am drowned, I will say, if I can, while I am drowning,
‘Lord, take care of my English friends!’ Some of you, I doubt
not, will be gone to Christ before my return; but, though parted,
it will be to meet again for ever. God grant that none who
weep now at my parting, may weep at our meeting at the day of
judgment! Come, sinner, come, see what it is to have eternal
life! Haste! haste! haste away to the great, the glorious
Shepherd! I care not what shepherds you are under, so that you
are kept near the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls. The Lord
bless you and keep you! The Lord make His face shine upon you,
and be gracious unto you! The Lord lift up His countenance upon
you, and give you peace!”

Such was Whitefield’s final benediction upon his Tabernacle
congregation, on Wednesday _morning_, August 30. In point of fact,
this was a _second_ farewell sermon, in the same building; for, on the
Wednesday night previous, he had addressed those of the congregation
who were unable to attend a week-day morning service. His sermon, on
that occasion, was, in all respects, superior to his final one. The
text was, “And thy God thy glory” (Isaiah lx. 19). He then made his
last London collection.

“The Tabernacle has been repaired,” said he; “and I wish
to leave it unencumbered. I told my friends, I would make a
collection. Remember, it is not for me, but for yourselves――for
the place where you are to meet, when I am tossing on the water,
and in a foreign clime. The arrears are nearly £70. I hope you
will not run away. If you can say, God is my glory, you will
not push one upon another, as though you would lose yourselves
in a crowd, and say, Nobody sees me. Does not God Almighty see
you? You must excuse me. I cannot say much more. I beg you will
excuse me from a particular parting with you. Take my public
farewell. I will pray for you when in the cabin; I will pray for
you when tempests are about me; and this shall be my prayer, ‘O
God, be Thou their God! and grant their God may be their glory!’”

A few other extracts, from Whitefield’s last sermons in London, may be
welcome. They are taken from the 8vo. volume, published by Gurney
immediately after Whitefield’s death.[634]

“_The Devil’s Children._――‘O,’ says one, ‘I never felt the
devil.’ I am sure thou mayest feel him now. Thou art _dadda’s_
own child. Thou art speaking the very language of the devil; and
he is teaching thee to deny thy own father. Graceless child of
the devil, if thou hast never felt the devil’s fiery darts, it
is because the devil is sure of thee. He has got thee into a
damnable slumber. May the God of love awaken thee before real
damnation comes!” (p. 262.)

“_Persecution._――Our suffering times will be our best times. I
know I had more comfort in Moorfields and on Kennington Common,
especially when rotten eggs, cats, and dogs were thrown upon
me,――I had more comfort in these burning bushes than I have
had when I have been in ease. I remember when I was preaching
at Exeter, and a stone made my forehead bleed, the word came
with double power; and a labourer, wounded at the same time by
another stone, came to me and said. ‘The man gave me a wound,
but Jesus healed me; I never had my bonds broken till my head
was’” (p. 268).

“_Penitents._――I have reason to believe, from the notes put
up at both ends of the town, that many of you have arrows of
conviction stuck fast in your souls. I have taken in near two
hundred, at Tottenham Court Road, within a fortnight. God is
thus at work. Let the devil roar; we will go on in the name of
the Lord” (p. 280).

“_Self-condemnation._――I wish I could make you all angry. I am a
sad mischief-maker; but I don’t want to make you angry with one
another. Some people, who profess to have grace in their hearts,
seem resolved to set all God’s people at variance. They are like
Samson’s foxes with firebrands in their tails, setting fire to
all about them. Are any of you come from the Foundery, or any
other place, to-night? I care not where you come from. I pray
God you may all quarrel; that is, I want you to fall out with
your own hearts” (p. 289).

“_Baptismal Controversy._――It is a strange thing how bigots can
set the world on fire by throwing water at one another; and that
people cannot be baptized, without shewing that the chief thing
they have been baptized into, are the waters of strife. This is
making sport for the devil. For my part, I do not enter into the
debate about infant or adult baptism, nor yet about its mode.
I believe you might as well attempt to draw two parallel lines,
and bring them to meet at some certain place, as to bring these
learned combatants together; for, of all disputants, religious
disputants are the most obstinate and fiery” (p. 297).

“_Catholicity._――The world pretty well knows the temper of my
mind, both in respect to politics and church-government. I am
a professed avower of moderation. I don’t care whether you go
to church or meeting. I profess to be a member of the Church of
England; but, if they will not let me preach in a church, I
will preach anywhere. All the world is my parish; and I will
preach wherever God gives me an opportunity. You will never find
me disputing about the outward appendages of religion. Don’t
tell me you are a Baptist, an Independent, a Presbyterian, a
Dissenter: tell me you are a Christian. That is all I want. This
is the religion of heaven, and must be ours upon earth” (p. 310).

“_Whitefield’s Salary._――I intend to give you a parting word on
Sunday evening, and to take my last farewell in the ensuing week,
for I must have a day or two to dispatch my private business.
As this place has been repaired, and I am wishful to leave
everything clear before I go, a collection must be made for
defraying the expense incurred. The world thinks I am very rich.
A man, the other day, sent me word, that, if I did not lay £30
in a certain place, I should be killed. You yourselves, perhaps,
think I get a great deal for preaching here; and, therefore, now
that I am going away, I will tell you my stated allowance for
preaching at the Tabernacle. I have no more from this place than
£100 a year; and, yet, when I asked last night how the accounts
stood, I was told there were £50 arrears. ‘Well,’ I said,
‘ungrateful as it is to me, I will make a collection, that all
may be left free.’ There are not six people in this Tabernacle
from whom I have had the value of a guinea from last January to
the present month of August; nor have I had a guinea from all
the ordinances of the place towards bearing the expenses of my
voyage” (p. 372).

These _Whitefieldiana_ might easily be multiplied, but sufficient
have been given to shew the familiar, and (as some will think) the
objectionable style used by Whitefield at the close of his public
ministry. His sermons now, as compared with those he published at the
commencement of his career, were notably inferior. As compared with the
sermons preached and printed by Wesley, they were a perfect contrast.
They were neither scriptural expositions nor doctrinal disquisitions;
but free and easy talk, intermixed with anecdotes, personal
reminiscences, and quaint quotations. Matthew Henry’s Exposition was
Whitefield’s favourite Commentary; and to this circumstance Wesley
attributed the quaintness of Whitefield’s style. In the preface to his
“Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament,” published in 1765, Wesley,
with an obvious reference to Whitefield, says:――

“I omit” (in these Notes) “abundance of Mr. Henry’s quaint
sayings and lively antitheses; as, ‘God feeds His _birds_. Shall
He not feed His _babes_?’ I used once to wonder, whence some,
whom I greatly esteem, had so many pretty turns in preaching.
But when I read Mr. Henry, my wonder ceased. I saw they were
only copying after him: although probably without designing
it. They generally consulted his exposition of their text, and
frequently just before preaching. And, hence, little witticisms
and a kind of archness insensibly stole upon them, and took
the place of that strong, manly eloquence, which they would
otherwise have learned from the inspired writers.”

Two of Whitefield’s _last sermons in England_ were preached at
Gravesend, on Sunday, September 3, 1769. Hence the following, taken
from _St. James’s Chronicle_, for September 7: “On Saturday last, the
Rev. Mr. Whitefield went from town to Gravesend, where he preached, on
Sunday morning, in the Methodist Tabernacle, and, in the evening, in
the Market Place.” Whitefield himself writes:――

“Sunday, September 3. Preached this morning at the Methodist
Tabernacle, from John xii. 32. The congregation was not very
large, but God gave me great freedom of speech. In the afternoon,
I preached in the Market Place, from Genesis iii. 13, to a much
larger, but not more devout auditory. In the outskirts, some
were a little noisy, but most were very attentive, and I was
enabled to lift up my voice like a trumpet. The evening was
spent, as the night before, with my Christian friends from
London.”

“Monday, September 4. Had my dear Christian friends on board
to breakfast with me this morning. Conversation was sweet,
but parting bitter. However, I was helped to bear up; and,
after their departure the Divine Presence made up the loss of
all.”[635]

_SEVENTH VISIT TO AMERICA._

SEPTEMBER, 1769, TO SEPTEMBER, 1770.

WHITEFIELD embarked for America on September 4th; but it was not
until the end of the month that he looked his last look on glorious
old England. His detentions were annoying; but they gave him the
opportunity of writing last letters to his friends.[636] Extracts from
these will be welcome.

To his old assistant, Thomas Adams, of Rodborough, he wrote:――

“On board the _Friendship_, (Captain Ball,) September 5, 1769.
Six in the morning. My very dear Tommy, I could not write you
whilst ashore, but drop you a few lines now I am come on board.
Just now we have taken up the anchor; and I trust my anchor
is within the veil. I have not been in better spirits for
some years; and I am persuaded this voyage will be for the
Redeemer’s glory, and the welfare of precious souls. Our parting
solemnities have been exceedingly awful. O England! England! God
preserve thee from every threatening storm!”

To a lady and her daughter, at Gravesend, who had shewn him kindness,
he thus expressed his thanks:――

“September 6, 1769. God bless and reward you and your daughter!
Gravesend Bethels, I trust, will not easily be forgotten. I
am sure you do not forget to pray for a very worthless worm.
Jesus, the never-failing, ever-loving, altogether-lovely Jesus,
comforts me.”

To other friends Whitefield wrote:――

“September 7, 1769. I am comforted on every side. Fine
accommodations. A civil captain and passengers. All willing to
attend on divine worship. Praise the Lord, O my soul! I am brave
as to my bodily health. Grace! Grace!”

“September 8, 1769. O these partings! Without Divine support,
they would be intolerable. But with that, we can do even this
and everything besides, which we are called to do or suffer.
Everything turns out beyond expectation, as to bodily health,
ship accommodation, and civility of passengers. I only want
somebody with more brains about me. O the privilege and honour
of leaving a little all, for the great unfailing All, the
ever-blessed God!”

To his faithful friend, Mr. Robert Keen, Whitefield addressed the
following:――

“September 8, 1769. Ebenezer! Ebenezer! Hitherto the Lord helps.
We have had contrary winds to the Downs, but not violent. The
young soldiers are not yet sick, though the ship has some motion.
I seem to be now, as I was thirty years ago. Praise the Lord,
O my soul! The care of my annual pensioners, with all money
matters, I must beg you to take wholly into your hands.”

His letter to Wesley shall be given at full length:――

“THE DOWNS, ON BOARD THE ‘FRIENDSHIP,’ _September 12, 1769_.

“REV. AND VERY DEAR SIR,――What hath God wrought _for_ us, _in_
us, _by_ us! I sailed out of these Downs almost thirty-three
years ago. O the height, the depth, the length, the breadth of
Thy love, O God! Surely it passeth knowledge. Help, help us,
O heavenly Father, to adore what we cannot fully comprehend!
I am glad to hear that you had such a Pentecost season at
the College.[637] One would hope that these are earnests of
good things to come, and that our Lord will not remove His
candlestick from among us. Duty is ours. Future things belong to
Him, who always did, and always will, order all things well.

‘Leave to His sovereign sway,
To choose and to command;
So shall we wondering own His way,
How wise, how strong His hand.’

“Mutual Christian love will not permit you, and those in
connection with you, to forget a willing pilgrim, going now
across the Atlantic for the thirteenth time. At present, I am
kept from staggering; being fully persuaded that this voyage
will be for the Redeemer’s glory, and the welfare of precious
and immortal souls. O to be kept from flagging in the latter
stages of our road! _Ipse, Deo volente, sequar, etsi non
passibus aequis._ Cordial love and respect await your brother,
and all that are so kind as to enquire after, and be concerned
for,

“Reverend and very dear sir,

“Less than the least of all,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[638]

It is a remarkable fact that, at the very time Whitefield was making
his last voyage to America, Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor,
Wesley’s first two missionaries to the same field of labour, were being
borne, through the same storms and tempests, to their destination.
Whitefield’s work in America was nearly ended; but he had prepared the
way for Wesley’s preachers, and for the founding of a church, now the
largest on that immense continent.

Three days before Whitefield wrote to Wesley, he and his
fellow-voyagers encountered a tremendous storm. One ship, in their
immediate neighbourhood, was wrecked; and, when opposite to Deal, the
_Friendship_ became _wind-bound_, and was detained three weeks. This
gave Whitefield an opportunity to stand once more on the shores of his
native land. It so happened, that, just as the ship arrived at Deal,
the Rev. Dr. Gibbons, the eminent tutor of the Dissenting Academy at
Mile End, and the Rev. Mr. Bradbury, of Ramsgate, came to Deal for the
purpose of ordaining a young Dissenting minister. Having ascertained
that the _Friendship_ was lying in the Downs, Gibbons and Bradbury
went on board, and so urgently desired Whitefield to come on shore,
that, contrary to his intention, he left the ship, and attended the
ordination services. Mr. Bradbury prevailed upon him to go to Ramsgate,
where he preached on Friday and Saturday, September 15 and 16. These
were Whitefield’s _last sermons_ in England.[639] They are referred
to in the following extracts from Whitefield’s letters. Writing to
Mr. Robert Keen, he said:――

“Deal, September 14, 1769. For wise reasons, we are detained in
the Downs. Who knows but it may be to awaken some souls at Deal?
A peculiar providence brought me here. Warm-hearted Dr. Gibbons
came on board to pay me a visit, was sick, lay in my state-room,
and learnt experimentally to pray for those who occupy their
business in great waters. Mr. Bradbury, of Ramsgate, and young
Mr. G――――ner, who was ordained yesterday, followed after. At
their request, I came ashore yesterday morning. The ordination
was very solemn. I have not been more affected under any public
ministrations a great while. At the request of many, I preached
in the evening to a crowded auditory; and spent the remainder of
the night in godly conversation. If the wind continues contrary,
perhaps I may make an elopement to Margate. I wish I could see
my sermon that is printed. If I die, let not the Hymn Book be
cashiered. I am glad to hear of the _Amens_ at Tottenham Court.
The ship that was lost has been taken up and brought in. The
passengers escaped in the boat. What are we that we should be
preserved? Grace! Grace!”

In another letter to Mr. Keen, Whitefield wrote:――

“Deal, September 15, 1769. Mr. Bradbury put me under an arrest,
and is carrying me away to Ramsgate. I hope to arrest some
poor runaway bankrupts for the Captain of our Salvation. For
Christ’s sake, let all means be used to keep up and increase the
Tottenham Court and Tabernacle Societies.”

In a third letter to the same gentleman, is the following:――

“Deal, September 17, 1769. I have just returned from Ramsgate,
and am going on board. Never did any creature shew greater
civility, heartiness, politeness, and generosity than Mr.
Bradbury. His friends were hearty too. I preached on Friday
and Saturday. It was hard parting this morning. I expect a long
passage, but all is well. I could not go to Margate.”

Whitefield’s congregations at Ramsgate were not large, but attentive,
and the behaviour of the people delighted him.[640] Early on Sunday
morning, he hastened back to Deal, went on board, and preached in the
afternoon; but it was not until the Tuesday following that the ship
again set sail, and even then the attempt to proceed turned out a
failure. Whitefield wrote:――

“Monday, September 25. Weighed anchor last Tuesday morning,
with a small favourable gale and fine weather. So many ships,
which had lain in the Downs, moving at the same time, and gently
gliding by us, together with the prospect of the adjacent shore,
made a most agreeable scene. But it proved a very transient
one. By the time we got to Fairlee, the wind backened, clouds
gathered, very violent gales succeeded, and, for several days,
we were so tossed, that, after coming over against Brighton,
the captain turned back (as did many other ships), and anchored
off New Romney and Dungenness. Lord, in Thine own time, Thou
wilt give the winds a commission to carry us forward towards our
desired port.”[641]

It was not until nine weeks after this that Whitefield landed in
America. His travelling companions were Cornelius Winter and Mr. Smith.
His time was chiefly spent in writing letters, composing sermons, and
reading the History of England. Whenever the weather would permit, he
preached, with his accustomed energy, to the crew and passengers, all
of whom treated him with profound respect. Sometimes he suffered great
languor, and depression;[642] but, upon the whole, he was, at the end
of his voyage, in better health than he had been for years past.[643]
Arriving at Charleston on Thursday, November 30, he commenced preaching
on the following afternoon, and, for ten days, continued to delight and
profit large congregations. Mr. Wright, his manager at Bethesda, met
him; and, on Sunday, December 10, he and his party set sail for Georgia.
Hence the following, addressed to Mr. Keen:――

“Charleston, December 9, 1769. So much company crowds in, that,
together with my preaching every other day, etc., I have scarce
the least leisure. To-morrow, I set off by water to Georgia, the
roads being almost impassable by land. Mr. Wright is come to go
with me, and acquaints me that all is in great forwardness at
Bethesda.”

The voyage to Savannah was made in an open boat. Cornelius Winter
writes:――“We had a pleasant passage through the Sounds, and frequently
went on shore, and regaled ourselves in the woods. The simplicity
of the negroes, who rowed us, was very diverting. We stopped at a
plantation called Port Royal, where we were most kindly refreshed
and entertained; and safely arrived at Savannah on December 14. Mr.
Whitefield was cheerful and easy, and seemed to have lost a weight
of care.”

At the beginning of the year 1770, Whitefield was at his beloved
Bethesda, and wrote:――

“Bethesda, January 11, 1770. Everything here exceeds my most
sanguine expectations. I am almost tempted to say, ‘It is good
to be here.’ But all must give way to gospel-ranging. Divine
employ!

‘For this let men revile my name,
I’d shun no cross, I’d fear no shame.’

“I hope London friends meet with enough of this. It is bad, more
than bad, when the offence of the cross ceaseth. This cannot be,
till we cease to be crucified to the world, and the world ceases
to be crucified unto us: and, when that is the case, things are
very bad.”

Four days after this, Whitefield wrote his last letter to Charles
Wesley, a letter breathing with the love of a warm-hearted friendship
of more than thirty years’ continuance. It shall be given in its
entirety:――

“BETHESDA, _January 15, 1770_.

“MY VERY DEAR OLD FRIEND,――I wrote to your honoured brother
from on board ship. Since then what wonders have I seen! what
innumerable mercies have I received!――a long, trying, but, I
humbly hope, profitable passage.

“My poor, feeble labours were owned in Charleston; and
everything is more than promising in Georgia. The increase of
this once so much despised colony is indescribable. Good, I
trust, is doing at Savannah, and Bethesda is like to blossom
as the rose; the situation most delightful, very salubrious,
and everything excellently adapted for the intended purpose.
All admire the goodness, strength, and beauty of the late
improvements. In a few months, the intended plan, I hope, will
be completed, and a solid, lasting foundation laid for the
support and education of many as yet unborn. Nothing is wanted
but a judicious and moderately learned single-hearted master.
Surely the glorious Emmanuel will point out one in His own due
time. Do pray. I am sure, prayers put up above thirty years ago
are now being answered; and, I am persuaded, we shall yet see
greater things than these. Who would have thought that such
a worthless creature as this letter-writer should live to be
fifty-five years old? I can only sit down and cry, ‘What hath
God wrought!’ My bodily health is much improved, and my soul is
on the wing for another gospel range.

“You and all your connexions will not cease to pray for me. I
would fain begin to do something for my God. My heart’s desire
and incessant prayer to the God of my life is, that the word of
the Lord may prosper in your hands, and run and be glorified
more and more. O to work while it is day! O to be found on the
full stretch for Him who was stretched, and who groaned, and
bled, and died for us! Unutterable love! I am lost in wonder and
amazement, and, therefore, although with regret, I must hasten
to subscribe myself, my very dear sir, less than the least of
all,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

“P.S. Cordial love awaits your whole self, and enquiring friends,
and all that love the ever-living, altogether-lovely Jesus
in sincerity. I hope to write to your honoured brother soon.
Brethren, pray for us.”[644]

Sunday, January 28, was a remarkable day in the history of Bethesda.
James Wright, Esq. (created a baronet in 1772), Governor of Georgia,
the Council of Georgia, the House of Assembly with their president,
James Habersham, Esq., and a large number of colonists, assembled at
Whitefield’s Orphan House, for the purpose indicated in the following
extract from the Journals of the House of Assembly:――

“COMMONS HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, _January 29, 1770_.

“Mr. Speaker reported, that he, with the House, having waited
on the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, in consequence of his invitation,
at the Orphan House Academy, heard him preach a very suitable
and pious sermon on the occasion; and, with great pleasure,
observed the promising appearance of improvement towards
the good purposes intended, and the decency and propriety of
behaviour of the several residents there; and were sensibly
affected, when they saw the happy success which has attended
Mr. Whitefield’s indefatigable zeal for promoting the welfare of
the province in general, and the Orphan House in particular.

“Ordered, that this report be printed in the _Gazette_.

“JOHN SIMPSON, Clerk.”

The article printed in the _Georgia Gazette_, and which Gillies gives
in his “Life of Whitefield,” states, among other things, that “the two
additional wings for apartments for students were a hundred and fifty
feet each in length, and were in a state of forwardness.” Instead,
however, of inserting here the official announcement of the Georgian
Legislature, a letter, written the day after the rulers of the Province
assembled at Bethesda, is introduced, as containing the same facts, but
in greater detail. It was addressed to a friend in London:――

“SAVANNAH, _January 29, 1770, Monday morning_.

“You would have been pleased to have been at the Orphan House
Academy yesterday, where his Excellency our Governor, the Hon.
the Council, and the Commons House of Assembly, were agreeably
entertained in consequence of an invitation given them by the
Founder, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield. Everything was conducted
with much decency and order. His Excellency was received at
the bottom door by the officers, orphans, and other domestics;
and was then escorted upstairs by Mr. Whitefield, through a
gallery near sixty feet long, into a large room thirty feet in
length, with six windows, canvassed and made ready for blue paper
hangings. In a room of the same extent over against it (intended
for the library, and in which a considerable number of books is
already deposited), was prepared, on a long table and adjacent
sideboard, cold tongue, ham, tea, etc., for the gentlemen to
refresh themselves with, after their ten miles’ ride, from
Savannah. Between eleven and twelve, the bell rung for public
worship. A procession was formed in the long gallery, and moved
forward to the chapel in the following order: The orphans, in
round, black, flat caps, and black gowns; the chaplain in his
gown; the workmen and assistants; the steward and superintendent,
with their white wands; the clerk of the chapel; the Founder
in his university square cap, with the Rev. Mr. Ellington, now
missionary at Augusta, and designed to be chaplain, and teacher
of English and elocution at the Orphan House Academy; then his
Excellency, followed by his Council and the Chief Justice; then
the Speaker, succeeded by the other Commons, and a number of
gentlemen and strangers, among whom were the Governor’s two sons.
As the procession moved along, the clerk of the chapel began
a doxology, the singing of which was harmonious and striking.
At the chapel door, the orphans, officers, and domestics broke
into ranks on the right hand and the left; and, as his Excellency
with his train went up the chapel stairs, the orphans sang,――

‘Live by heaven and earth ador’d,
Three in One, and One in Three,
Holy, holy, holy Lord,
All glory be to Thee!’

“The Governor being seated fronting the chapel door, in a great
chair, with tapestry hangings behind, and a covered desk before
him, divine service began. Mr. Ellington read prayers; and then
Mr. Whitefield enlarged, for about three-quarters of an hour, on
‘The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house;
his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the
Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you. For who hath despised the
day of small things?’ (Zech. iv. 9, 10.) His whole paraphrase
was pertinent and affecting; but when he came to give us an
account of the small beginnings of our now flourishing Province,
of which he was an eye-witness; and also of the trials and
hardships, obloquy and contempt, he had undergone in maintaining,
for so long a term, such a numerous orphan family, in such
a desert; as well as the remarkable supports and providences
that had attended him in laying the foundation, and raising
the superstructure of the Orphan House Academy to its present
promising height; especially when he came to address his
Excellency, the Council, Speaker, etc., etc.,――the whole
auditory seemed to be deeply affected; and his own heart seemed
too big to speak, and unable to give itself proper vent. Sermon
being ended, all returned in the same manner as they came, the
clerk, orphans, etc., singing as they walked,――

‘This God is the God we adore,
Our faithful, unchangeable friend,
Whose love is as large as His power,
And neither knows measure nor end.
’Tis Jesus, the first and the last,
Whose Spirit shall guide us safe home;
We’ll praise Him for all that is past,
And trust Him for all that’s to come.’

“In about half an hour the bell rung for dinner. All went
down, in order, to a large dining room, intended hereafter for
academical exercises. It is forty feet long, with eight sash
windows, and the Founder’s picture, at full length, at the upper
end. Two tables, the one long and the other oval, were well
covered with a proper variety of plain and well-dressed dishes.
After dinner, two toasts were given by his Excellency, viz.,
‘The King,’ and ‘Success to the Orphan House College.’ The whole
company broke up, and went away, in their several carriages,
about five in the afternoon. One thing gave me particular
pleasure: when the Governor drank ‘The King,’ Mr. Whitefield
added, ‘And let all the people say, Amen;’ upon which a loud
amen was repeated from one end of the room to the other.

“Upon the whole, all seemed most surprisingly pleased with their
spiritual and bodily entertainment, as well as with the elegance,
firmness, and dispatch of the late repairs, and additional
buildings and improvements. The situation is most salubrious and
inviting; the air free and open; and a salt-water creek, which
will bring up a large schooner east and west, ebbs and flows
at a small distance from the house. I suppose there might be
above twenty carriages, besides horsemen; and there would have
been as many more, had not the invitation been confined, by way
of compliment, to the Governor, Council, and Commons House of
Assembly. A strange sight this, in the once despised, deserted
Province of Georgia, where, as Mr. Whitefield told us in his
discourse, about thirty years ago, scarce any person of property
lived; and lands, which now sell for £3 an acre, might have been
purchased almost for threepence.

“But I must have done. Excuse me for being so prolix.
Yesterday’s scene so lies before me, that, to tell you the truth,
I wanted to vent my feelings. If Mr. Whitefield intends, as I
am informed he does, to give a more general invitation to the
gentlemen in and about Savannah, I will endeavour to be amongst
them. Accept this hasty scribble (as I hear the ship sails
to-morrow), as a mark of my being, dear sir, your obliged friend
and servant.”

The “more general invitation,” mentioned at the close of this long
letter, was issued. Hence the following extract from the _Georgia
Gazette_:――

“Bethesda, January 29, 1770. A more particular application
being impracticable, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield takes this method
of begging the favour of the company of as many gentlemen and
captains of ships in and about Savannah, as it may suit to
accept this invitation, to dine with him at the Orphan House
Academy next Sunday. Public service to begin exactly at eleven
o’clock.

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Of this second assembly at Bethesda, no record now exists. Bethesda
was ten miles from Savannah, a considerable distance for the rulers
and legislators of Georgia to travel. They all went by Whitefield’s own
invitation. They gratefully acknowledged the great service which he had
rendered, not only to the Orphan House in particular, but to Georgia in
general. They had “a handsome and plentiful dinner.” This could hardly
be avoided, considering the distance the company had travelled; but
the entertainment would have been more appropriate on a weekday than
on a Sunday.[645] The new buildings were in a state of forwardness,
and were tasteful, and well executed. Whitefield’s sermon was “suitable
and pious.” And the behaviour of the Orphan House inmates was decent
and proper. Perhaps, the official reports of the Assembly and of the
_Gazette_ of Georgia were, in some respects, more eulogistic than they
should have been. At all events, Whitefield’s _Sunday_ entertainment,
his orphans, and Mr. Wright, the architect and builder of his
additional accommodations, were unfavourably regarded by certain of his
friends in England. Berridge, often his honest and hearty assistant at
Tottenham Court Road, in a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, dated
May, 1771, observed:――

“Cornelius Winter, who went to Georgia with Mr. Whitefield,
says there are but few orphans in the House, and no symptoms of
grace in any. Mr. Wright has the management of the whole house,
and seems neither to have zeal nor grace enough for the work.
Mr. Whitefield made a sumptuous feast on a Sunday, for all the
better-dressed people, intending to renew this every year by
way of commemoration; but I hope you will put a stop to this
_guttling_ business. I wish the Orphan House may not soon become
a mere blue-coat hospital and grammar school. If Mr. Fletcher
would go to Georgia for a year, things might be on a better
footing. I never could relish Mr. Wright; he seems a mere
cabinet-maker, without godliness.”[646]

Berridge was dissatisfied; but it is only fair to add, that, when
he thus wrote to Lady Huntingdon, he was looking at things through
the spectacles of young Cornelius Winter, and that Winter was
disappointed and soured because Whitefield had not done all he wished
in endeavouring to obtain for him episcopal ordination.

Whitefield’s sermon on this memorable Sunday was one of his best;
but want of space prevents the insertion of lengthened extracts. He
expressed the opinion that the colonies in America were likely to
become “one of the most opulent and powerful empires in the world.” He
told his congregation that, when he first came to Georgia, “the whole
country almost was left desolate, and the metropolis, Savannah, was but
like a cottage in a vineyard, or as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers.”
He reminded them that it had been reported to the House of Commons,
that “the very existence of the colony was, in a great measure, if not
totally, owing to the building and supporting of the Orphan House.”
One peculiar feature of his sermon was his addressing personally
and severally the different sections of his congregation. “I dare
not conclude,” said he, “without offering to your Excellency our
pepper-corn of acknowledgment for the countenance you have always shewn
Bethesda, and for the honour you did us last year in laying the first
brick of yonder wings: in thus doing, you have honoured Bethesda’s
God.” Then turning to his old friend Habersham, now President of the
Upper House of Assembly, Whitefield said: “Next to his Excellency,
my dear Mr. President, I must beg your acceptance both of thanks and
congratulation. For you were not only my dear familiar friend, and
first fellow-traveller in this infant province, but you were directed
by Providence to this spot; you laid the second brick of this house;
and watched, prayed, and wrought for the family’s good. You were a
witness of innumerable trials, and were the partner of my joys and
griefs. You will have now the pleasure of seeing the Orphan House a
fruitful bough, its branches running over the wall. For this, no doubt,
God has smiled upon and blessed you, in a manner we could not expect,
much less design. May He continue to bless you with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus! Look to the rock from
whence you have been hewn; and may your children never be ashamed
that their father married a real Christian, who was born again under
this roof!” Whitefield then proceeded to address the “Gentlemen of
his Majesty’s Council,” and the “Speaker and Members of the General
Assembly,” and, finally, his “Reverend Brethren,” and “the inhabitants
of the colony” in general.

After his sermon, a speech was delivered by one of Whitefield’s
orphans;[647] then came the “handsome and plentiful dinner;” and so
ended the proceedings of the memorable Sunday at Bethesda, January 28,
1770.

Five days after this, Whitefield and his manager, Thomas Dixon,
appeared “before the Honourable Noble Jones, Esq., Senior Assistant
Justice for the Province of Georgia,” for the purpose of being sworn
that the Orphan-house accounts, from February 9, 1765, to the present
date, and which amounted on the debit side to £2,548 17s. 0½d., and on
the credit side to £1,313 19s. 6¾d., “contained, to the best of their
knowledge, a just and true statement of all the monies received and
expended during this period. The accounts thus presented were handed to
James Edward Powell and Grey Elliot, members of his Majesty’s Council
for Georgia, who, after carefully examining them, swore, before Noble
Jones, that they were perfectly correct; and added:――

“We find that the whole of the sums expended on account of
the Orphan House amount to £15,404 2s. 5¼d. sterling, and the
whole receipts to £12,104 19s. 1½d.; and that the benefactions
of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield to the Orphan House have, at
different times, amounted to £3, 299 3s. 3¾d. sterling; and that
no charge whatever has been made by the Rev. Mr. Whitefield,
either for travelling charges or otherwise, nor any other charge
for the salary of any person whatever, employed or concerned
in the management of the said Orphan House; and that clear and
distinct vouchers for the whole amount of the sums expended
have been laid before us, except for four articles, amounting
together to £40 1s. 1d., being monies expended and paid by the
said Mr. Whitefield on several occasions, the particulars of
which are laid before us, but no receipt had been by him taken
for the same.

“JAMES EDWARD POWELL.
“GREY ELLIOT.

“Sworn this second day of February, 1770, before me; in
justification whereof, I have caused the seal of the general
Court to be affixed.

“N. JONES.”

This is a notable document. The Orphan House had been built thirty
years, and had been continuously maintained. The sum of £15,404 had
been expended, and, excepting £40, vouchers for the whole of this
amount were now produced. Not a penny had been paid out of the general
fund to either Whitefield of any of his managers; and Whitefield
himself, out of his own private means, had contributed £3299 3s. 3¾d.!
As a curiosity, the following general balance sheet of receipts and
expenditure, from December, 1738, to February, 1770, taken from the
Orphan House’s authenticated book, may interest the reader:――

RECEIPTS. £ s. d.

Benefactions and Collections in England 4471 0 6¼
Ditto, in Scotland 978 2 5½
Ditto, in Georgia 275 5 7½
Ditto, in Charleston 567 1 9¾
Ditto, in Beaufort 16 10 7
Ditto, in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, etc. 1809 6 10½
Ditto, in Lisbon 3 12 0
Cash received for payment of boarders, cocoons,
rice, lumber, indigo, provisions, etc. 3983 19 3
The Rev. Mr. Whitefield’s benefactions, being
the sums expended more than received 3299 3 3¾
──────────────
£15,404 2 5¼
══════════════

EXPENDITURE. £ s. d.

To April 16, 1746—Sundries, per audit 5511 17 9¼
To Feb. 25, 1752, do. 2026 13 7½
To Feb. 19, 1755, do. 1966 18 2
To Feb. 9, 1765, do. 3349 15 10
To Feb. 2, 1770, do. 2548 17 0½
──────────────
£15,404 2 5¼
══════════════

During the thirty years that had elapsed since the Orphan House was
built, 140 boys and 43 girls had been “clothed, educated, maintained,
and suitably provided for;” and, besides these, “many other poor
children had been _occasionally_ received, educated, and maintained.”

The Orphan House family now consisted of _whites_: Managers and
carpenters, 9; boys, 15; girl, 1; total, 25. And of _negroes_: Men 24,
of whom 16 were fit for any labour; 7 old, but capable of some service;
and 1 so old as to be useless; women, 11, of whom 8 were capable of the
usual labour; 2 old, but able to assist in the business of the house;
and 1 almost incapable of any service; children, 15, all employed as
far as their strength permitted; total, 50.

The lands granted to Whitefield, in _trust_ for his Orphan House, were
a tract of 500 acres, called Bethesda, on which the Orphan House was
erected; another of 419 acres, called Nazareth; a third of 419 acres,
called Ephratah, on which were the principal planting improvements;
and a fourth of 500 acres, adjoining Ephratah, and called Huntingdon.
Besides these, three other tracts, amounting to 2,000 acres, and
contiguous to the former, had been granted to him, _in trust_, for
the endowment of his College.

As one object of Whitefield’s present visit to America was to start his
College, or, to speak more properly, his Academy, he drew up a set of
Rules, to be observed by the inmates of his establishment, of which the
following is a summary:――

1. Morning Prayer was to begin constantly, every day in the year,
at half-past five o’clock. Evening Prayer every night. On every
Sunday, besides a short prayer with a psalm or hymn early in
the morning, full Prayers and a Sermon at ten; the same at three
in the afternoon; a short prayer and a hymn at half-past six in
the evening; the first Lesson to be read at dinner; the same at
supper; and a short hymn at each meal.

2. Great care to be taken, that all read, write, speak, and
behave properly.

3. All the statutes to be read to every student at admission,
and thrice a year, at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas,
publicly.

4. No cards, dice, or gaming of any kind to be allowed, on pain
of expulsion; and no music but divine psalmody.

5. All to be taught _Bland’s Manual Exercise_, but not bound to
attend on musters or other exercises, unless on account of an
alarm.

6. No one to be suffered to run into arrears for above half a
year; and a certain amount of caution money to be paid.

7. All students to furnish their own rooms, and to sleep on
mattresses.

8. No one suffered to go to Savannah without leave.

9. Breakfast at seven; dinner at twelve; supper at six, through
all the year; and the utmost neatness to be observed and
maintained in every room.

10. All orphans and students to learn and repeat the Thirty-nine
Articles.

11. The Homilies[648] to be read publicly, every year, by the
students in rotation.

12. All to be thoroughly instructed in the history of Georgia,
and the constitution of England, before being taught the history
of Greece and Rome.

13. The young negro boys to be baptized and taught to read; the
young negro girls to be taught to work with the needle.

14. The following divinity books to be read:――The Commentaries
of Henry, Doddridge, Guise, Burkit, and Clarke; Wilson’s
Dictionary, Professor Francke’s Manuductio, Doddridge’s Rise and
Progress, Boston’s Fourfold State, and his book on the Covenant,
Jenks on the Righteousness of Christ, and also his Meditations,
Hervey’s Theron and Aspasio, Hall’s Contemplations, and other
works, Edwards’s Preacher, Trapp on the Old and New Testament,
Poole’s Annotations, Warner’s Tracts, Leighton’s Comment on the
first Epistle of Peter, Pearson on the Creed, Edwards’s Veritas
Redux, and Owen and Bunyan’s Works.

It is a singular fact, that, except reading, writing, history, and
divinity, Whitefield entirely omits the education to be given. To
prevent a recurrence to the subject, the future history of Whitefield’s
Orphanage and Academy may here be added to the foregoing details.

By his will, Whitefield bequeathed the Orphan House and other buildings,
together with all the lands already mentioned, and also all his negroes,
to the Countess of Huntingdon, for the same purposes as he himself held
them. The Governor and Council of Georgia had expected the property
to be placed under their direction, and considerable disappointment
was felt. Most, however, of the religious people in the colony were
satisfied; and a letter from her ladyship to the Governor and Council
reconciled even many of them to the disposition in her favour.[649]
The Countess determined to send from England a president and master
for the Orphan House, and, at the same time, to dispatch a number of
her Trevecca students as missionaries to the Indians and to the people
in the back settlements. The students, summoned from all parts of the
kingdom, assembled at Trevecca, on the 9th of October, 1772. The Hon.
and Rev. Walter Shirley, the Rev. Mr. Glascott, the Rev. John Crosse,
afterwards vicar of Bradford, and the Rev. Mr. Piercy, rector of
St. Paul’s, Charleston, met them. Public services were held daily
for a fortnight. At the end of the month, Piercy and the missionaries
embarked for Georgia. Piercy was to be the president of the Orphan
House, the Rev. Mr. Crosse was to be the master, and the Countess’s own
housekeeper was sent to regulate the household matters according to her
ladyship’s direction.[650] The missionaries were welcomed by the people,
and, for a brief period, affairs at the Orphan House seemed to prosper.

In the month of June, 1773, this historic edifice was burnt. Francis
Asbury, one of Wesley’s missionaries in America wrote:――

“New York, July 2, 1773. Arrived the sorrowful news of the
destruction of Mr. Whitefield’s Orphan House. As there was no
fire in the house, it was supposed to have been set on fire
by lightning. The fire broke out about seven or eight o’clock
at night, and consumed the whole building, except the two
wings.”[651]

Lady Huntingdon lamented the loss, but wrote: “I could never wish
it for one moment to be otherwise, believing the Lord removed it out
of our way, and that it was not somehow on that right foundation of
simplicity and faith our work must stand upon.”[652] Honest Berridge,
of Everton, entertained the same opinion. “It excites in me no
surprise,” said he, “that the Orphan House is burnt. It was originally
intended for orphans, and as such was a laudable design; but it ceased
to be an Orphan House, in order to become a lumber-house for human
learning; and God has cast a brand of His displeasure upon it. But how
gracious the Lord has been to Mr. Whitefield, in preserving it during
his lifetime.”[653]

This is not the place to recite the annoyances and troubles which
Whitefield’s bequest entailed on the Countess of Huntingdon. Suffice
it to say, that, in 1782, during the war with England, the Americans
confiscated the Orphan House estates;[654] and that, in 1800, when the
place was visited by a Methodist preacher, the two unburnt wings were
fast decaying. In one of them, lived a small family of whites; in part
of the other, a family of negro slaves, the remainder being converted
into a stable. The brick walls which formerly enclosed the whole of
the Orphan House premises were levelled with the ground, and, in many
places, the foundations were ploughed up. There was no school of any
kind; and the whole was rented for thirty dollars per annum.[655]

“The ruins,” writes Dr. Stevens, “the only memorial of a
great and benevolent scheme, were also the memento of the
great Methodist evangelist. If the ostensible design of the
institution had failed, it had accomplished a greater result
which was destined never to fail; for it had been the centre of
American attraction to its founder, had prompted his thirteen
passages across the Atlantic, and had thus led to those
extraordinary travels and labours, from Georgia to Maine,
which quickened with spiritual life the Protestantism of the
continent, and opened the career of Methodism in the western
hemisphere.”[656]

We return to Whitefield’s history. After the auditing of his Orphan
House accounts, he went to Charleston, where he remained about a month.
He was now in better health than he had been for many years, and was
“enabled to preach almost every day.” The establishment of his College,
however, was still a great anxiety. In a letter to Mr. Keen, dated
“Charleston, February 10, 1770,” he wrote:――

“I have, more than once, conversed with the Governor of Georgia,
in the most explicit manner, concerning an Act of the Assembly
for the establishment of the intended Orphan House College.
He most readily consents. I have shewn him a draught, which he
much approves of; and all will be finished on my return from the
northward. Meanwhile, the buildings will be carried on. Since
my being in Charleston, I have shewn the draught to some persons
of great eminence and influence. They highly approve of it, and
willingly consent to be some of the wardens: near twenty are to
be of Georgia, about six of this place, one of Philadelphia, one
of New York, one of Boston, three of Edinburgh, two of Glasgow,
and six of London. Those of Georgia and South Carolina are to be
qualified; the others to be only honorary corresponding wardens.”

In the same month, Wesley wrote to Whitefield; and, because the letter
happened to be the last he addressed to his old friend, and because it
expressed Wesley’s opinions respecting the intended College, it shall
be given at full length.

“LEWISHAM, _February 21, 1770_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,――Mr. Keen informed me some time since of
your safe arrival in Carolina; of which, indeed, I could not
doubt for a moment, notwithstanding the idle report of your
being cast away, which was so current in London. I trust
our Lord has more work for you to do in Europe, as well
as in America. And who knows, but, before your return to
England, I may pay another visit to the New World? I have been
strongly solicited by several of our friends in New York and
Philadelphia. They urge many reasons, some of which appear to
be of considerable weight; and my age is no objection at all;
for, I bless God, my health is not barely as good, but abundantly
better in several respects, than when I was five-and-twenty. But
there are so many reasons on the other side, that as yet I can
determine nothing: so I must wait for further light. Here I am:
let the Lord do with me as seemeth Him good. For the present, I
must beg of you to supply my lack of service, by encouraging our
preachers as you judge best, who are as yet comparatively young
and inexperienced;[657] by giving them such advices as you think
proper; and, above all, by exhorting them, not only to love one
another, but, if it be possible, as much as lies in them, to
live peaceably with all men.

“Some time ago, since you went hence, I heard a circumstance
which gave me a good deal of concern; namely, that the College
or Academy in Georgia had swallowed up the Orphan House. Shall
I give my judgment without being asked? Methinks, friendship
requires I should. Are there not, then, two points which come
in view――a point of mercy, and a point of justice? With regard
to the former, may it not be inquired, Can anything on earth be
a greater charity, than to bring up orphans? What is a college
or an academy compared to this? unless you could have such
a college as perhaps is not upon earth. I know the value of
learning, and am more in danger of prizing it too much, than too
little. But, still, I cannot place the giving it to five hundred
students, on a level with saving the bodies, if not the souls
too, of five hundred orphans. But let us pass from the point
of mercy to that of justice. You had land given, and collected
money, for an Orphan House. Are you at liberty to apply this
to any other purpose,――at least, while there are any orphans in
Georgia left? I just touch upon this, though it is an important
point, and leave it to your own consideration, whether part
of it, at least, might not properly be applied to carry on the
original design.

“In speaking thus freely, I have given you a fresh proof of
the sincerity with which I am your ever affectionate friend and
brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[658]

Wesley’s letter, though it may lack Whitefield’s gushing lovingness,
is the letter of a fond and faithful friend, and fully proves that,
to the last, the two great evangelists were not rivals, as some have
represented them, but affectionate and confiding fellow-workers.
Whitefield dearly loved Wesley, and by his actions shewed he did;
and Wesley equally felt for Whitefield warm affection. “In every
place,” said he, after Whitefield’s death, “I wish to shew all possible
respect to the memory of that great and good man.”[659] “I believe he
was highly favoured of God; yea, that he was one of the most eminent
ministers that has appeared in England, or perhaps in the world, during
the present century.”[660]

Early in the month of March, Whitefield returned to Bethesda, where
he continued till near the end of April. In a letter to Mr. Keen, he
wrote:――

“SAVANNAH, _March 11, 1770_.

“MY VERY DEAR WORTHY FRIEND,――Blessed be God, the good wine
seemed to be kept till the last at Charleston. Last Thursday”
(March 8) “I returned, and found all well at Bethesda. I am come
to town to preach this morning, though somewhat fatigued with
being on the water three nights. Upon the whole, however, I am
better in health than I have been for many years. Praise the
Lord, O my soul!”[661]

Further extracts from letters to Mr. Keen will pourtray Whitefield’s
views and feelings at this period of his history. He was happy in a
luxuriant wilderness.

“Bethesda, April 6, 1770. How glad would many be to see our
_Goshen_, our _Bethel_, our _Bethesda_! Never did I enjoy such
domestic peace, comfort, and joy, during my whole pilgrimage.
It is unspeakable, it is full of glory. Peace, unutterable
peace, attends our paths, and a pleasing prospect of increasing
prosperity is continually rising to our view. I have lately
taken six poor children, and purpose to add greatly to their
number. Dear Mr. Dixon and his wife are to sail next month for
Portsmouth. We part with great respect. Fain would I retain
such an old, tried, disinterested friend, in the service of the
sanctuary, and near my person; but what scheme to pursue I know
not, being so uncertain as to the path I shall be called to take.
A few months will determine: perhaps a few weeks.”

“Bethesda, April 16, 1770. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! All is
well, all more than well here! Never, never did I enjoy such
domestic peace and happiness. I have taken in about ten orphans.
Prizes! prizes! Hallelujah! Join, join in praising Him whose
mercy endureth for ever! If possible, I shall write a line to
the Welsh brethren. They have indeed sustained a loss in the
death of Mr. Howell Davies. God sanctify it! Surely my turn will
come by-and-by.”[662]

“Bethesda, April 20, 1770. We enjoy a little heaven upon earth
here. With regret, I go northward, as far as Philadelphia at
least, next Monday. Everything concurs to shew me, that Bethesda
affairs must go on, as yet, in their old channel. A few months
may open strange scenes. O for a spirit of love and moderation
on all sides, and on both sides of the water! In all probability,
I shall not return hither till November. Was ever man blessed
with such a set of skillful, peaceful, laborious helpers! O
Bethesda, my Bethel, my Peniel! My happiness is inconceivable.
Nine or ten orphans have been lately taken in. Hallelujah!
Hallelujah! Let chapel, tabernacle, heaven, and earth, resound
with hallelujah!”

“Savannah, April 24, 1770. Five in the morning. I am just going
into the boat, in order to embark for Philadelphia. This will
prove a blessed year for me, at the day of judgment. Hallelujah!
Come, Lord, come! Mr. Robert Wright is a quiet, ingenuous, good
creature, and his wife an excellent mistress of the family.
Such a set of helpers I never met with. They will go on with
the buildings, while I take my gospel range to the northward.”

Whitefield had now left his beloved Bethesda for ever. He arrived in
Philadelphia on Sunday, the 6th of May, and met with the missionaries
of his old friend Wesley, Messrs. Boardman and Pilmoor, whom he
encouraged to proceed to their arduous work.[663] Writing to Mr. Keen,
he says:――

“Philadelphia, May 9, 1770. I arrived here on the 6th instant.
The evening following, I was enabled to preach to a large
auditory, and am to repeat the delightful task this evening.
Pulpits and hearts seem to be as open to me as ever. Praise
the Lord, O our souls! I have my old plan in view, to travel in
these northern parts all summer, and return late in the fall to
Georgia. Through infinite mercy, I continue in good health, and
am more and more in love with a pilgrim life.”

“Philadelphia, May 24, 1770. I have now been here nearly three
weeks. People of all ranks flock as much as ever. Impressions
are made on many, and, I trust, they will abide. To all the
_Episcopal Churches_, as well as to most of the other places of
worship, I have free access. My health is preserved; and, though
I preach twice on the Lord’s-day, and three or four times a week
besides, I am rather better than I have been for many years.
This is the Lord’s doing. To Him be all the glory!”

Three weeks after this, Whitefield wrote again to Mr. Keen:――

“Philadelphia, June 14, 1770. I have just returned from a
hundred and fifty miles’ circuit, in which I have been enabled
to preach every day. So many new, as well as old, doors are open,
and so many invitations sent from various quarters, that I know
not which way to turn myself. However, at present I am bound for
New York, and so on further northward.”

He arrived at New York on Saturday, June 23, and, in another letter to
Mr. Keen, remarked:――

“New York, June 30, 1770. I have been here just a week. Have
been enabled to preach four times, and am to preach again
this evening. Congregations are larger than ever. Next week,
I purpose to go to Albany: from thence, perhaps, to the Oneida
Indians. There is to be a very large Indian congress. Mr.
Kirkland accompanies me. He is a truly Christian minister and
missionary. Everything possible should be done to strengthen his
hands and his heart.”

A word must be interposed respecting this valuable man. Samuel Kirkland
had been educated in Dr. Wheelock’s school, and in New Jersey College.
While at school, he had learned the language of the Mohawks; and, in
1764, commenced a journey to the Senecas, among whom he spent a year
and a half. In 1766, he was ordained a missionary to the Indians; and,
in 1769, removed with his wife to the Oneida tribe, for whose benefit
he laboured more than forty years. His son, Dr. Kirkland, became
president of Harvard College. No wonder Whitefield fell in love with
such a man. Unfortunately, no record of his visit to the “Indian
congress” now exists; but an idea of his enormous labours may be
gathered from the following letter to Mr. Keen:――

“New York, July 29, 1770. During this month, I have been above
a five hundred miles’ circuit, and have been enabled to preach
every day. The congregations have been very large, attentive,
and affected, particularly at Albany, Schenectady, Great
Barrington, Norfolk, Salisbury, Sharon, Smithfield, Powkeepsy,
Fishkill, New Rumburt, New Windsor, and Peckshill. Last night,
I returned hither, and hope to set out for Boston in two or
three days. O what a new scene of usefulness is opening in
various parts of this new world! All fresh work where I have
been. The Divine influence has been as at the first. Invitations
crowd upon me, both from ministers and people, from many, many
quarters. A very peculiar providence led me lately to a place
where a horse-stealer was executed. Thousands attended. The
poor criminal, hearing I was in the country, had sent me several
letters. The sheriff allowed him to come and hear a sermon
under an adjacent tree. Solemn! solemn! After being by himself
about an hour, I walked half a mile with him to the gallows. His
heart had been softened before my first visit. He seemed full
of Divine consolations. An instructive walk! I went up with him
into the cart. He gave a short exhortation. I then stood upon
the coffin; added, I trust, a word in season; prayed; gave the
blessing; and took my leave. I hope effectual good was done to
the hearers and spectators.”

While travelling this “five hundred miles’ circuit,” Whitefield, one
day, dined, with a number of ministers, at the manse of his old friend,
the Rev. William Tennent. After dinner, as often happened, Whitefield
expressed his joy at the thought of soon dying and being admitted into
heaven; and, then, appealing to the ministers present, he asked if his
joy was shared by them. Generally they assented; but Tennent continued
silent. “Brother Tennent,” said Whitefield, “you are the oldest man
among us. Do you not rejoice that your being called home is so near at
hand?” “I have no wish about it,” bluntly answered Tennent. Whitefield
pressed his question, and Tennent again replied, “No, sir, it is no
pleasure to me at all; and, if you knew your duty, it would be none to
you. I have nothing to do with death. My business is to live as _long_
as I can, and as _well_ as I can.” Whitefield was not satisfied, and a
third time urged the good old man to state, whether he would not choose
to die, if death were left to his own choice. “Sir,” answered Tennent,
“I have no choice about it. I am God’s servant, and have engaged to
do His business as long as He pleases to continue me therein. But now,
brother Whitefield, let me ask you a question. What do you think I
would say, if I were to send my man Tom into the field to plough, and
if at noon I should find him lounging under a tree, and complaining,
‘Master, the sun is hot, and the ploughing hard, and I am weary of my
work, and overdone with heat: do, master, let me go home and rest’?
What would I say? Why, that he was a lazy fellow, and that it was his
business to do the work I had appointed him, until I should think fit
to call him home.” For the present, at least, Whitefield was silenced,
and was taught, that it is every Christian man’s duty to say, “All the
days of my appointed time will I wait till my change come.”[664]

Whitefield’s preaching was never more popular and powerful than now.
Sharon has been mentioned in the foregoing extract. The minister
here was the Rev. Cotton Mather Smith, who offered him his pulpit.
Whitefield selected his favourite subject, and preached from, “Ye
must be born again.” The immense congregation was moved and melted
throughout, but the pronunciation of the concluding words of the sermon,
it is said, produced a life-time impression on those who heard them:
“Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon this garden, that
the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into this garden,
and eat his pleasant fruits.” (Solomon’s Song, iv. 16.) Simple words,
but uttered in a manner and with a pathos which thrilled the enormous
crowd, and which caused many of them to follow him into the adjacent
towns for several successive days.[665]

Another anecdote may be inserted here. An eminent shipbuilder being
invited to hear Whitefield, at first made several objections, but at
last was persuaded to go. “What do you think of Mr. Whitefield?” asked
his friend. “Think,” said he, “I never heard such a man in my life. I
tell you, sir, every Sunday, when I go to church, I can build a ship
from stem to stern, under the sermon; but, were it to save my soul,
under Mr. Whitefield, I could not lay a single plank.”[666]

Whitefield sailed from New York on Tuesday, July 31st, and arrived at
New Port on the Friday following. With the exception of six days, on
five of which he was seriously ill, he preached daily until he died.
From August 4th to 8th inclusive, he preached at New Port; August 9th
to 12th, at Providence; August 13th, at Attleborough; and 14th, at
Wrentham. With the exception of the 19th, when he discoursed at Malden,
he officiated every day at Boston, from the 15th to the 25th. On August
26th, he preached at Medford; on the 27th, at Charlestown; and on the
28th, at Cambridge. The next two days were employed at Boston; August
31st, at Roxbury Plain; September 1st, at Milton; 2nd, at Roxbury; 3rd,
at Boston; 5th, at Salem; 6th, at Marble Head; 7th, at Salem; 8th, at
Cape Ann; 9th, at Ipswich; 10th and 11th, at Newbury Port; and 12th and
13th, at Rowley. On the 14th and two following days, he was disabled
by violent diarrhœa. From September 17th to 19th, he again preached at
Boston; and on the 20th, at Newton. The next two days he was ill, but
managed to travel from Boston to Portsmouth, where he preached on the
23rd to the 25th.[667] The 26th, he employed at Kittery; the 27th, at
Old York; the 28th, at Portsmouth; and the 29th, at Exeter.[668] At six
o’clock in the morning of the 30th, he died.

Thus were spent the last two months of Whitefield’s life. He was too
much occupied to have time for his wonted correspondence with his
friends; but there are two letters, belonging to this interval, which
must be quoted: the first to Mr. Wright, his manager at Bethesda; the
second to his beloved and faithful friend, Mr. Keen, of London.

“BOSTON, _September 17, 1770_.

“DEAR MR. WRIGHT,――Blessed be God! I find all is well at
Bethesda; only I want to know what things are needed, that I
may order them from Philadelphia, by Captain Souder. Fain would
I contrive to come by him, but people are so importunate for my
stay in these parts, that I fear it will be impracticable. Lord
Jesus, direct my goings in Thy way! He will, He will! My God
will supply all my wants, according to the riches of His grace
in Christ Jesus. Two or three evenings ago, I was taken in the
night with a violent lax, attended with retching and shivering,
so that I was obliged to return to Boston. Through infinite
mercy, I am restored, and to-morrow morning hope to begin _to
begin_ again. Never was the word received with greater eagerness
than now. All opposition seems, as it were, for a while to cease.
I find God’s time is the best. The season is critical as to
outward circumstances. But when forts are given up, the Lord
Jesus can appoint salvation for walls and bulwarks. He has
promised to be a wall of fire round about His people. This
comforts me concerning Bethesda, though we should have a Spanish
war. You will be pleased to hear I never was carried through the
summer’s heat so well. I hope it has been so with you, and all
my family. Hoping ere long to see you, I am, etc.,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

The letter to Mr. Keen, written only seven days before Whitefield’s
death, was to the following effect:――

“PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE, _September 23, 1770_.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,――By this time, I thought to be moving
southward: but never was greater importunity used to detain me
longer in these northern parts. Poor New England is much to be
pitied; Boston people most of all. How falsely misrepresented!
What a mercy that our Christian charter cannot be dissolved!
Blessed be God for an unchangeable Jesus! You will see, by the
many invitations enclosed, what a door is opened for preaching
His everlasting gospel. I was so ill on Friday, that I could
not preach, though thousands were waiting to hear. Well, the
day of release will shortly come, but it does not seem yet;
for, by riding sixty miles, I am better, and hope to preach here
to-morrow. I hope my blessed Master will accept of these poor
efforts to serve Him. O for a warm heart! O to stand fast in the
faith, to quit ourselves like men, and to be strong! May this
be the happy experience of you and yours! If spared so long, I
expect to see Georgia about Christmas. Still pray and praise.
I am so poorly, and so engaged when able to preach, that this
must apologize for not writing to more friends. It is quite
impracticable. Hoping to see all dear friends about the time
proposed, and earnestly desiring a continued interest in all
your prayers, I must hasten to subscribe myself,

“My dear, very dear sir,

“Less than the least of all,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

This was Whitefield’s last letter; at all events, no letter of a
subsequent date has been published.

Though Whitefield scarcely alludes to the circumstance, it ought to
be noted, that, the last six months of his life were spent in the
midst of great political excitement. It is a well-known fact, that the
inhabitants of the British colonies in America strongly objected to
pay taxes upon goods imported from England; and defended themselves by
the famous aphorism, “Taxation, without representation, is tyranny.”
So stout was their resistance, that, during the year 1769, the exports
of English merchants fell short of what they had been to the value
of three-quarters of a million sterling; and, since the year 1767,
the revenue, received by government from duties paid in America, had
decreased from £110,000 to £30,000. In consequence of this state of
things, Lord North, on the 5th of March, 1770, moved in the House of
Commons for leave to bring in a bill to repeal all the American taxes
and duties, except the duty upon tea. Great debates followed. On the
1st of May, the opposition called for the correspondence with the
American colonies. Eight days later, Burke moved eight resolutions
censuring the plan the government were pursuing. On the 14th of May,
Chatham moved that, in consequence of “the alarming disorders in his
Majesty’s American dominions,” an humble address be presented to the
king, beseeching him “to take the recent and genuine sense of the
people, by dissolving this present parliament, and calling another,
with all convenient dispatch.”

So much as it regards England. In America, the excitement had
become dangerous. In nearly all the principal seaports of the
colonies, committees had been appointed, by the people, to examine
cargoes arriving from Great Britain, and to prevent the sale of taxed
commodities. At Boston, meetings were regularly held, and strong votes
of censure passed upon every one who dared to introduce or sell any
of the prohibited goods; and, still further to increase the odium and
danger of such departures from the popular will, the names of offenders
were published in the newspapers, with comments representing them as
slaves and traitors.

As might naturally be expected, riots followed. In the month of
February, 1770, the shop of Theophilus Lillie was attacked. A friend of
Lillie’s seized a gun, and fired upon the assailants. The shot killed
Christopher Snider, a dirty boy, who, as “the first martyr to the
glorious cause of liberty,” was buried with great pomp, the procession
which followed the young reformer to his grave being a quarter of a
mile in length. In the meantime, the inhabitants of Boston, and the
soldiers quartered there, were perpetually quarrelling. No man in
a red coat could go through the streets without being insulted, and
no discipline could prevent the soldiers from retorting. Words led
to blows. On the 2nd of March, a private of the 29th Regiment got
into a quarrel, and was beaten by a set of ropemakers. A dozen of
the soldier’s comrades chastised the ropemakers, and made them run
for their very lives. The townspeople were exasperated, and armed
themselves with clubs. Meetings were held by the mob; and, on the 5th
of March, a crowd, with sticks and clubs, marched to Dock Square, and
made an attack upon the soldiers. Muskets were fired, and the rioters
ran away; but three were killed, and five were dangerously wounded. The
subject need not here be pursued at greater length. In point of fact,
the American Rebellion was begun, and, during the last six months of
his eventful life, Whitefield preached among the excited and angry
discontents. In some degree, he evidently sympathised with their
protests concerning their grievances; and, hence, the exclamations in
his last letter to Mr. Keen: “Poor New England is much to be pitied!
Boston people most of all! How falsely misrepresented!” No doubt,
both sides were misrepresented. The hour was pregnant with the most
disastrous events. For years afterwards, the roar and ravages of war
were terrific. Fortunately for himself, Whitefield escaped to the
land of love, and peace, and blessedness, while the storm was only
gathering, and before it burst in all its devastating deadliness.

On Saturday morning, September 29, Whitefield set out from Portsmouth
to Boston, with the intention of preaching at Newbury Port next morning.
On the way, he was stopped at Exeter, fifteen miles from Portsmouth,
and was prevailed upon to give a sermon to the people there. A friend
said to him, “Sir, you are more fit to go to bed than to preach.” “True,
sir,” replied Whitefield; and then, clasping his hands, and looking up
to heaven, he added, “Lord Jesus, I am weary in Thy work, but not of it.
If I have not yet finished my course, let me go and speak for Thee once
more in the fields, seal Thy truth, and come home and die!” An immense
multitude assembled. He mounted a hogshead.[669] His text was, “Examine
yourselves, whether you be in the faith.” One, who was present, thus
described the preacher and his sermon:――

“The subject was ‘Faith and works.’ He rose up sluggishly and
wearily, as if worn down and exhausted by his stupendous labours.
His face seemed bloated, his voice was hoarse, his enunciation
heavy. Sentence after sentence was thrown off in rough,
disjointed portions, without much regard to point or beauty. At
length, his mind kindled, and his lion-like voice roared to the
extremities of his audience. He was speaking of the inefficiency
of works to merit salvation, and suddenly cried out in a tone of
thunder, ‘Works! works! a man get to heaven by works! I would as
soon think of climbing to the moon on a rope of sand!’”[670]

Another gentleman, who was present, wrote:――

“Mr. Whitefield rose, and stood erect, and his appearance alone
was a powerful sermon. He remained several minutes unable to
speak; and then said, ‘I will wait for the gracious assistance
of God; for He will, I am certain, assist me once more to
speak in His name.’ He then delivered, perhaps, one of his best
sermons. ‘I go,’ he cried, ‘I go to rest prepared; my sun has
arisen, and by aid from heaven, has given light to many. It is
now about to set for――no, it is about to rise to the zenith of
immortal glory. I have outlived many on earth, but they cannot
outlive me in heaven. Oh, thought divine! I soon shall be in
a world where time, age, pain, and sorrow are unknown. My body
fails, my spirit expands. How willingly would I live for ever
to preach Christ! But I die to be _with_ Him.’”[671]

Whitefield’s sermon was two hours in length,――characteristic of the
man, but, in his present health, quite enough to kill him.

The Rev. Jonathan Parsons, who, for the last twenty-four years, had
been the Presbyterian minister at Newbury Port, met him at Exeter. In
piety, the two were kindred spirits. Mr. Parsons’ congregation was one
of the largest in America. As a preacher, he was eminently useful; his
imagination was rich, and his voice clear and commanding. He was well
skilled in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages; and many were the
seals of his faithful ministry, which closed six years after that of
his friend Whitefield’s.

After Whitefield’s enormous sermon, the two friends dined at Captain
Gillman’s, and then started for Newbury Port. On arriving there,
Whitefield was so exhausted, that he was unable to leave the boat
without assistance, but, in the course of the evening, he recovered
his spirits.[672]

Newbury Port was an ordinary New England village; in fact, it remains
such at the present day,――its streets narrow, and not overcrowded with
either traffic or passengers.[673] It is a remarkable coincidence,
that, _exactly_ thirty years before his death, Whitefield, for the
first time, visited the place which contains his sepulchre. In his
Journal, he wrote:――

“Tuesday, September 30, 1740. Preached at Ipswich in the morning
to many thousands. There was a great melting in the congregation.
Dined. Set out for Newbury, another town twelve miles from
Ipswich, and arrived about three. Here again the power of the
Lord accompanied the word. The meeting-house was very large.
Many ministers were present, and the people were greatly
affected. Blessed be God!”

Little did the great preacher think, that, on the same day, thirty
years afterwards, his work would terminate in the meeting-house’s manse.
The venerable building still stands, in a narrow lane, and, though
now used as two comfortable residences, the spacious entrance hall yet
exists, and likewise the fine oak staircase which led to the room in
which Whitefield died.[674]

While Whitefield partook of an early supper, the people assembled at
the front of the parsonage, and even crowded into its hall, impatient
to hear a few words from the man they so greatly loved. “I am tired,”
said Whitefield, “and must go to bed.” He took a candle, and was
hastening to his chamber. The sight of the people moved him; and,
pausing on the staircase, he began to speak to them. He had preached
his last sermon; this was to be his last exhortation. There he stood,
the crowd in the hall “gazing up at him with tearful eyes, as Elisha
at the ascending prophet. His voice flowed on until the candle which
he held in his hand burned away and _went out in its socket_! The next
morning he was not, for God had taken him!”[675]

Mr. Richard Smith, who had accompanied Whitefield from England, and had
attended him in his journeyings, followed him to his chamber. He found
him reading the Bible, and with Dr. Watts’s Psalms before him.
Whitefield drank some water-gruel, knelt by his bedside, engaged in
prayer, and then went to rest. He slept till two in the morning, when
he asked for cider, and drank a wine-glassful.

“He panted for want of breath,” says Mr. Smith. “I asked him
how he felt. He answered, ‘My asthma is returning; I must have
two or three days’ rest. Two or three days’ riding, without
preaching, will set me up again.’ Though the window had been
half up all night, he asked me to put it a little higher.
‘I cannot breathe,’ said he, ‘but I hope I shall be better
by-and-by. A good pulpit sweat to-day may give me relief. I shall
be better after preaching.’ I said to him, I wished he would
not preach so often. He replied, ‘I had rather wear out, than
rust out.’ He then sat up in bed and prayed that God would bless
his preaching where he had been, and also bless his preaching
that day, that more souls might be brought to Christ. He prayed
for direction, whether he should winter at Boston, or hasten
southward. He asked for blessings on his Bethesda College
and his family there; likewise on the congregations at the
Tabernacle and Tottenham Court chapel, and on all his English
friends.

“He then lay down to sleep again. This was nigh three o’clock.
At a quarter to four he awoke, and said, ‘My asthma, my asthma
is coming on again. I wish I had not promised to preach at
Haverhill to-morrow. I don’t think I shall be able; but I shall
see what to-day will bring forth. If I am no better to-morrow,
I will take a two or three days’ ride.’ He then asked me to
warm him a little gruel; and, in breaking the firewood, I awoke
Mr. Parsons, who rose and came in. He went to Mr. Whitefield’s
bedside, and asked him how he felt. He answered, ‘I am almost
suffocated. I can scarce breathe. My asthma quite chokes me.’
He got out of bed, and went to the open window for air. This was
exactly at five o’clock. Soon after, he turned to me, and said,
‘I am dying.’ I said, ‘I hope not, sir.’ He ran to the other
window, panting for breath, but could get no relief. I went for
Dr. Sawyer; and, on my coming back, I saw death on his face.
We offered him warm wine with lavender drops, which he refused.
I persuaded him to sit down and put on his cloak; he consented
by a sign, but could not speak. I then offered him the glass of
warm wine; he took half of it, but it seemed as if it would have
stopped his breath entirely. In a little while, he brought up
a considerable quantity of phlegm. I was continually employed
in taking the mucus from his mouth, bathing his temples, and
rubbing his wrists. His hands and feet were as cold as clay.
When the doctor came, and felt his pulse, he said, ‘He is a dead
man.’ Mr. Parsons replied, ‘I do not believe it. You must do
something, doctor.’ He answered, ‘I cannot. He is now near his
last breath.’[676] And indeed so it proved; for he fetched but
one gasp, stretched out his feet, and breathed no more. This was
exactly at six o’clock.”[677]

Thus died the most popular and powerful evangelist of modern times,
on Sunday morning, September 30, 1770. “I shall die silent,” remarked
Whitefield at the dinner table of Finley, the president of New Jersey
College: “I shall die silent. It has pleased God to enable me to bear
so many testimonies for Him during my life, that He will require none
from me when I die.” Whitefield’s words were strangely verified. In
this respect, his death was a contrast to that of his friend Wesley.

Whitefield was interred on Tuesday, October 2. “At one o’clock, all the
bells in Newbury Port were tolled for half an hour, and all the ships
in the harbour hoisted signals of mourning. At two o’clock, the bells
tolled a second time. At three o’clock, the bells called to attend the
funeral.”[678] Meanwhile, a large number of ministers had assembled
at the manse of Mr. Parsons, and had spent two hours in conversation
respecting Whitefield’s usefulness, and in prayer that his mantle
might fall on them and others. The pall-bearers were the Revs.
Samuel Haven, D.D., of Portsmouth; Daniel Rogers, of Exeter; Jedediah
Jewet and James Chandler, of Rowley; Moses Parsons, of Newbury; and
Edward Bass, D.D.,[679] the first bishop of the Church of England
in Massachusetts. The funeral procession was a mile in length. About
6,000 persons crowded within the church, and many thousands stood
outside.[680] The corpse being placed at the foot of the pulpit, the
Rev. Daniel Rogers offered prayer, in which he confessed that he owed
his conversion to Whitefield’s ministry, and then exclaiming, “O my
Father! my Father!” stopped and wept as though his heart was breaking.
The scene was one never to be forgotten. The crowded congregation were
bathed in tears. Rogers recovered himself, finished his prayer, sat
down, and sobbed. [681] One of the deacons gave out the hymn beginning
with the line,――

“Why do we mourn departing friends?”

Some of the people sang, and some wept, and others sang and wept
alternately. The coffin was then put into a newly prepared tomb,
beneath the pulpit; and, before the tomb was sealed, the Rev. Jedediah
Jewet delivered a suitable address, in the course of which he spoke
of Whitefield’s “peculiar and eminent gifts for the gospel ministry,
and his fervour, diligence, and success in the work of it.” “What a
friend,” cried Jewet, “he has been to us, and our interests, religious
and civil; to New England, and to all the British colonies on the
continent!”[682] After this, another prayer was offered, and the
immense crowd departed, weeping through the streets, as in mournful
groups they wended their way to their respective homes.[683]

The sensation occasioned by the sudden decease of the “man greatly
beloved” was enormous. The people came in crowds, begging to be allowed
to see his corpse. Ministers of all denominations hastened to the
house of Mr. Parsons, where several of them related how his ministry
had been the means of their conversion. Two days before his death,
he had preached at Portsmouth, and one of his hearers was a young
man named Benjamin Randall, then unconverted, and also cherishing a
dislike to Whitefield. “O how wonderful he spoke!” wrote Randall. His
soul inflamed with love, his arms extended, and tears rolling from his
eyes――with what power he spoke!” At noon on Sunday, a stranger was seen
riding through the streets of Portsmouth, and crying at the different
corners, “Whitefield is dead! Whitefield is dead!” Young Randall heard
the announcement. It pierced his heart. He afterwards wrote: “It was
September 30, 1770――that memorable day! that blessed day to Whitefield!
that blessed day to me! A voice sounded through my soul, more loud
and startling than ever thunder pealed upon my ears, ‘_Whitefield is
dead!_’ Whitefield is now in heaven, but I am on the road to hell.
He was a man of God, and yet I reviled him. He taught me the way to
heaven, but I regarded it not. O that I could hear his voice again!”
Whitefield’s death led to Randall’s conversion. He became a Baptist
minister, and _founded_ the Free-Will Baptist denomination, which now
numbers sixty thousand church members, more than a thousand ministers,
two colleges, and one theological seminary; and also has its weekly
periodicals, its _Quarterly Review_, and its flourishing missions in
India.[684]

The effect of Whitefield’s death upon the inhabitants of Georgia was
indescribable. All the black cloth in the colony was bought up. The
pulpit and desk, the chandeliers and organ, the pews of the Governor
and Council in the church at Savannah were draped with mourning;
and the Governor and members of the two Houses of Assembly went in
procession to the church, and were received by the organ playing a
funereal dirge.[685] A sum of money also was unanimously voted for
the removal of Whitefield’s remains to Georgia, to be interred at his
Orphan House; but the people of Newbury Port strongly objected, and the
design had to be relinquished. Forty-five years later, however, when
a new county was formed in Georgia, it received the name of Whitefield,
in memory of his worth and useful services.[686]

Jesse Lee, in his “History of the American Methodists,” (page 36,)
remarks: “Mr. Whitefield had often felt his soul so much comforted in
preaching in the Presbyterian meeting-house at Newbury Port, that he
told his friends long before his death, that, if he died in that part
of the world, he wished to be buried under the pulpit of that house.
The people, who remembered his request, had it now in their power to
grant it; and they prepared a vault under the pulpit, where they laid
his body.” During the last hundred years, thousands of persons have
visited that vault; and, as time flows on, the numbers still increase.
The _Christian’s Magazine_, for 1790, inserted a startling letter,
written by “J. Brown, of Epping, Essex,” to the following effect:――

“In 1784, I visited my friends in New England, and, hearing that
Whitefield’s body was undecayed, I went to see it. A lantern and
candle being provided, we entered the tomb. Our guide opened the
coffin lid down to Whitefield’s breast. His body was perfect.
I felt his cheeks, his breast, etc.; and the skin immediately
rose after I had touched it. Even his lips were not consumed, nor
his nose. His skin was considerably discoloured through dust and
age, but there was no effluvium; and even his gown was not much
impaired, nor his wig.”

If this were true in 1784, it had ceased to be a fact in 1796.
In a letter dated “Newbury Port, August 15, 1801,” William Mason
remarks: “About five years ago, a few friends were permitted to open
Whitefield’s coffin. We found the flesh totally consumed, but the
gown, cassock, and bands were almost the same as when he was buried in
them.”[687] After all, the two statements are not incompatible; and it
has been asserted, that “several other corpses are in the same state,”
as Whitefield’s was said to have been in fourteen years after his
decease, “owing to the vast quantities of nitre with which the earth
there abounds.”[688]

A cenotaph in honour of Whitefield’s friends, John and Charles Wesley,
has recently been erected in Westminster Abbey. That is a distinction
which has not been conferred on Whitefield.

Indeed, I am not aware that England has now any monument of Whitefield
whatever. Gillies says that, at the bottom of Mrs. Whitefield’s
monument, in Tottenham Court Road chapel, an inscription was placed in
memory of Whitefield himself; but that monument, years ago, was broken,
and has disappeared. The inscription, composed by Titus Knight, of
Halifax, is not worth quoting. One cenotaph exists――and, so far as
I know, only one, in either England or America. That is in the chapel
containing Whitefield’s bones and dust. It is a plain, but tasteful
tablet, surmounted by a flame burning from an uncovered urn; and its
history is the following. The Rev. Dr. Proudfit, a former pastor of the
old South Church, Newbury Port, remarked at its centenary anniversary
in 1856:――

“As my eye rests on that monument, let me recall the way in
which it came there. I called one evening on Mr. Bartlett. He
told me he had heard Whitefield, when he was boy, and had never
forgotten the impression made upon him by his preaching. He
expressed a desire to have a suitable monument erected to his
memory in this church. He asked if I would look after the matter,
and employ an eminent artist to do the work. I enquired how much
he was willing it should cost. ‘On that point,’ he replied, ‘I
leave you entirely at liberty. Let it be something worthy of a
great and good man.’ That monument, designed by Strickland, and
executed by Strothers, is the result. I used the liberty he gave
me moderately. Had it cost ten times as much, he would, no doubt,
have paid it cheerfully. When the artist presented the demand,
Mr. Bartlett gave him one hundred dollars above the amount. When
I was in England, the congregations at Tottenham Court and at
the Tabernacle intimated a desire to have Whitefield’s remains
removed to England; but when I told them what Mr. Bartlett had
done, they said, if any American gentleman was willing to give
£300 to do honour to Whitefield’s memory, America was well
entitled to his remains.”[689]

This monument was not put up until the year 1828. The inscription,
written by Dr. Ebenezer Porter, of Andover,[690] is as follows:――

This Cenotaph
is erected, with affectionate veneration,
To the Memory of
THE REV. GEORGE WHITEFIELD,
Born at Gloucester, England, December 16, 1714;
Educated at Oxford University; ordained 1736.
In a ministry of thirty-four years,
He crossed the Atlantic thirteen times,
And preached more than eighteen thousand Sermons.
As a soldier of the cross, humble, devout, ardent,
He put on the whole armour of God:
Preferring the honour of Christ to his own interest,
repose, reputation, and life.
As a Christian orator, his deep piety, disinterested
zeal, and vivid imagination,
Gave unexampled energy to his look, utterance, and action.
Bold, fervent, pungent, and popular in his eloquence,
No other uninspired man ever preached to so large assemblies,
Or enforced the simple truths of the Gospel by motives so
persuasive and awful, and with an influence so powerful,
on the hearts of his hearers.
He died of asthma, September 30, 1770:
Suddenly exchanging his life of unparalleled labours
for his eternal rest.”

It ought to be added that another, and more imposing, monument to
Whitefield’s memory, was proposed to be erected in 1839. In that year,
the Congregational ministers of Gloucestershire associated themselves
together in a society called the “Christian Union,” and determined to
preach, in the open air, in every town, village, and hamlet of their
county. They went forth, like the seventy of old, by two and two, in
the prosecution of their mission. While these services were being held,
many of the missioners met in a central town, when one of them proposed,
that, as the present year was “the centenary of Whitefield’s labours
in reviving the apostolic practice of open-air preaching,――that as
Whitefield was a native of Gloucester,――and that as Stinchcombe Hill
was one of the places where Whitefield preached a century ago,”――it
would be well to hold a monster meeting there for the promotion of
evangelical religion. The proposal was favourably received; and, on
Tuesday, July 30, nearly one hundred ministers and twenty thousand
people assembled on the summit of this memorable hill. Drs. Redford,
Ross, and Matheson, with the Rev. Messrs. East, Hinton, and Sibree,
preached upon appropriate subjects, previously announced; and hymns,
specially composed by J. Conder, Esq., and others, were sung on the
occasion. The rain, during the afternoon, fell in torrents, but, till
about five o’clock, when they adjourned to Dursley, the vast assemblage
preserved the utmost order and compactness. The party partook of dinner
and tea upon the hill, in large booths and tents erected for the day;
and the services were, in all respects, remarkable. A few fastidious
persons thought the preachers dwelt more on Whitefield than was seemly,
forgetting, however, that the design of the commemoration was specially
to use Whitefield’s character and example for the glory of God, the
illustration of piety, the instruction of the world, and the revival
of religion. The results were, the ministers of the county re-entered
with ardour upon their itinerant engagements, the churches of the
neighbourhood were refreshed, and several modes of perpetuating the
influence of Whitefield’s piety were proposed.

At the half-yearly meeting of the Gloucestershire Association, held in
Bristol soon after, an “Address to the Christian Public” was read and
adopted, and afterwards published, to the following effect:――

“It is proposed to erect, by small subscriptions, a plain
monumental column, surmounted by a statue, on the summit
of Stinchcombe Hill, near Dursley, to commemorate the life
and labours of the Rev. George Whitefield. The site appears
peculiarly eligible, as being situated in the centre of his
native county, the scene of some of his earliest itinerant
labours, surrounded by churches established by his ministry, and
commanding a prospect of twelve or thirteen counties, together
with much of the Bristol Channel. A noble column, upon such
a base, to testify that tens of thousands regard his labours
as blessed of God to the revival of religion in our land, will
exert a moral influence which many may undervalue, but which few
can calculate. Thousands, as they travel on the great highway,
almost beneath the shadow of the statue, will think and talk of
Whitefield,――of his life, his labours, and his holy success, as
they have never done before. Its erection would open a chapter
in the book of providence, which many, who never enter our
sanctuaries, will be obliged to read; and will cherish, perhaps,
amongst themselves, an imitation of those zealous labours, which
God made so pre-eminently useful. We suggest a subscription
of a shilling each person; and hope, by this means, to erect
a magnificent testimonial of one who was in England as great
a blessing to his country, as he was in America an honour.
Whitefield was a man of no sect; the sphere of his labours had
no boundary; holding office, as it were, in every church, his
communion was with the pious of every name. In the erection of
this cenotaph all may unite――the Episcopalian, who would say
with Toplady, that ‘he was a true and faithful son of the Church
of England,’――the Dissenter, who considers his whole course
but practical independency,――the Calvinist, who admires his
conscientious adherence to the truth,――and, likewise, the
Wesleyan, who remembers him as, in life and death, the dearest
friend of Wesley.”[691]

An instinctive awe pervades thoughtful men when in the presence of the
last earthly remains of those who wielded a controlling influence upon
their times. Napoleon lingered thoughtfully and reverently in the tomb
of Frederick the Great. The Prince of Wales took off his hat at the
grave of Washington. This may be a sort of hero-worship, but it is
not a weakness. Thousands have entered the vault beneath the pulpit at
Newbury Port, to look at the open coffin of Whitefield, the good and
eloquent. The coffin, apparently of oak, is yet undecayed, and rests
upon the coffin of a Mr. Prince, a blind preacher, and one of the first
pastors of the church. The skull, the bones of the arms, the backbone,
and the ribs are in good preservation. Many years ago, Mr. Bolton, an
Englishman, and one of Whitefield’s great admirers, wished to obtain
a small memento of the great preacher. A friend of Bolton’s stole the
main bone of Whitefield’s right arm, and sent it to England in a parcel.
Bolton was horrified with his friend’s sacrilegious act, and carefully
returned the bone, in 1837, to the Rev. Dr. Stearns, then pastor of the
church at Newbury Port. Great interest was created by the restoration
of Whitefield’s relic; a procession of two thousand people followed it
to the grave; and it was restored to its original position.[692] That
bone now lies crosswise near the region of the breast; and the little
box, in which it was returned, is laid upon the coffin.[693]

The good taste of those who exhibit the dust and bones of Whitefield
may be fairly doubted; but so long as they are exposed to the public
view, Whitefield’s sepulchre will have its visitors. Of the numerous
descriptions published by those whose curiosity or piety had brought
them to Whitefield’s resting-place, one only shall suffice,――and that
by an outsider. Henry Vincent, the eloquent English lecturer, thus
described his visit in 1867[694]:――

“We descended into a cellar, through a trap-door behind the
pulpit, and entered the tomb of the great preacher. The upper
part of the lid of Whitefield’s coffin opens upon hinges.
We opened the coffin carefully, and saw all that was mortal
of the eloquent divine. The bones are blackened, as though
charred by fire. The skull is perfect. I placed my hand upon
the forehead, and thought of the time when the active brain
within throbbed with love to God and man; and when those silent
lips swayed the people of England, from the churchyard in
Islington to Kennington Common,――from the hills and valleys
of Gloucestershire to the mouths of the Cornish mines, and on
through the growing colonies of America. In these days of High
Church pantomime, would it not be well to turn our attention to
the times of Whitefield and his glorious friend Wesley? Not by
new decorations and scenery,――not by candles and crosses,――not
by what Wycliffe boldly called the ‘priests’ rags,’――not by
Pan-Anglican Synods, or by moaning out bits of Scripture in
unearthly chants; but by such lives as those of Whitefield
and Wesley, are the people to be reached and won. I confess
that, as an Englishman, I envy America the possession of the
earthly remains of dear George Whitefield; but perhaps it is
appropriate that, while England claims the dust of Wesley, the
great republic should be the guardian of the dust of his holy
brother.”[695]

The Americans are proud of their possession, and, to this day, not only
preserve his sepulchre, but, at Newbury Port, still use in the pulpit
the old Bible out of which Whitefield was wont to read his texts, and
still keep the old chair in which he died, and still shew the ring
taken from the finger of his corpse.

Excepting the value of the copyright of his publications, Wesley died
almost penniless; and the same would have been Whitefield’s case, but
for certain legacies bequeathed to him only a short time before his
death. By the decease of his wife, in 1768, he became possessed of
£700. Mrs. Thomson, of Tower Hill, bequeathed him £500; Mr. Whitmore,
£100; and Mr. Winder, £100;[697] making a total of £1,400. This, in
round figures, was the sum disposed of in Whitefield’s “last will and
testament.” The Orphan House buildings, furniture, slaves, and lands
might be regarded as property held in trust, and, as such, were left
“to that elect lady, that mother in Israel, that mirror of true and
undefiled religion, the Right Honourable Selina, Countess-Dowager of
Huntingdon;”[698] and, in case of her death, to Whitefield’s “dear
first fellow-traveller, and faithful, invariable friend, the Honourable
James Habersham, Esq., President of His Majesty’s Honourable Council,”
in Georgia. The Tabernacle, and Tottenham Court Road chapel, with the
adjacent manses, coach-houses, stables, and other buildings, having
been erected, in great part, by the subscriptions of the public, were
also, in a certain sense, trust properties; and were left to be managed
by Whitefield’s “worthy, trusty, tried friends, Daniel West, Esq.,
in Church Street, Spitalfields; and Mr. Robert Keen, woollen draper,
in the Minories.” The remainder of Whitefield’s bequests were as
follows:――

£ s. d.
Lady Huntingdon 100 0 0
The Honourable James Habersham, for mourning 10 0 0
Gabriel Harris, Esq., of Gloucester 50 0 0
Ambrose Wright, a faithful servant 500 0 0
Mr. Richard Whitefield, a brother 50 0 0
Mr. Thomas Whitefield, a brother 50 0 0
Mr. James Smith, a brother-in-law 80 0 0
Mrs. Frances Hartford, a niece 70 0 0
Mr. J. Crane, steward at the Orphan House 40 0 0
Mr. Benjamin Stirk, for mourning 10 0 0
Peter Edwards,[699] at the Orphan House 50 0 0
William Trigg, at ditto 50 0 0
Mr. Thomas Adams, of Rodborough 50 0 0
Rev. Mr. Howell Davies, for mourning 10 0 0
Mr. Torial Joss, for ditto 10 0 0
Mr. Cornelius Winter, for ditto 10 0 0
Mr. Ambrose Wright’s three brothers, for
ditto 30 0 0
Ditto’s sister-in-law, for ditto 10 0 0
Mr. Richard Smith 50 0 0
The old servants in London, the widows,
etc., for mourning 100 0 0
───── ── ──
£1330 0 0
═════ ══ ══

The residue of Whitefield’s monies, if any, were to be given to the
Orphan House Academy. His wife’s gold watch, he bequeathed to James
Habersham; his wearing apparel, to Richard Smith; to his four executors,
James Habersham, Charles Hardy, Daniel West, and Robert Keen, each a
mourning ring; also, he added:――

“I leave a mourning ring to my honoured and dear friends and
disinterested fellow-labourers, the Rev. Messrs. John and
Charles Wesley, in token of my indissoluble union with them, in
heart and Christian affection, notwithstanding our difference in
judgment about some particular points of doctrine. Grace be with
all them, of whatever denomination, that love our Lord Jesus,
our common Lord, in sincerity.”

The conclusion of Whitefield’s will is too characteristic to be
omitted:――

“To all my other Christian benefactors, and more intimate
acquaintance, I leave my most hearty thanks and blessing,
assuring them that I am more and more convinced of the undoubted
reality and infinite importance of the grand gospel truths,
which I have, from time to time, delivered; and am so far from
repenting my delivering them in an itinerant way, that, had I
strength equal to my inclination, I would preach them from pole
to pole, not only because I have found them to be the power of
God to the salvation of my own soul, but because I am as much
assured that the Great Head of the Church hath called me by
His Word, Providence, and Spirit, to act in this way, as that
the sun shines at noonday. As for my enemies, and misjudging,
mistaken friends, I most freely and heartily forgive them, and
can only add, that the last tremendous day will soon discover
what I have been, what I am, and what I shall be when time
itself shall be no more. And, therefore, from my inmost soul,
I close all, by crying, ‘_Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly!_ Even
so, Lord Jesus! Amen and amen!’

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”

Whitefield’s will was written by himself, and signed, at the Orphan
House, on March 22, 1770, in the presence of Robert Bolton, Thomas
Dixon, and Cornelius Winter, as witnesses. It was proved in the
Prerogative Court of Canterbury, on February 5, 1771.[700]

When great men die, poets sing. So it was in the case of Whitefield. To
say nothing of poems printed in newspapers and magazines, the following
were a few of the elegies published separately: “Zion in Distress, an
Elegy on the Death of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield. By W. S.” “The
Bromsgrove Elegy, in blank verse, in which are represented the Subjects
of his Ministry, his Manner of Preaching, the Success of his Labours,
his excellent Moral Character, and his Death. By John Fellows, of
Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire.” “An Elegy. By Jacob Rowel.” “An Elegy,
exhibiting a brief History of the Life, Labours, and Glorious Death
of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield. By T. Knight, Minister of the
Gospel at Halifax.”[701] “A Monody on the Death of the Rev. Mr. George
Whitefield.” “An Elegiac Poem, dedicated to the Memory of the Rev. Mr.
George Whitefield. By James Stevens, Preacher of the Gospel.” “Elegiac
Lines. By Rev. Mr. De Courcy.”[702] “A Pastoral. By the Rev. Walter
Shirley.”[703]

All these were pious, and some of them respectable. The best published
was by Whitefield’s oldest friend: “An Elegy on the late Reverend
George Whitefield, M.A., who died September 30, 1770, in the 56th year
of his age. By Charles Wesley, M.A., Presbyter of the Church of England.
Bristol: 1771.” (8vo. 29 pp.) No one knew or loved Whitefield better
than Charles Wesley did; and the following extracts from his “Elegy”
may be acceptable:――

“And is my _Whitefield_ enter’d into rest,
With sudden death, with sudden glory blest?
Left for a few sad moments here behind,
I bear his image on my faithful mind;
To future times the fair example tell
Of one who lived, of one who died, so well,
Pay the last office of fraternal love,
And then embrace my happier friend above.”

“Can I the memorable day forget,
When first we, by Divine appointment, met?
Where undisturb’d the thoughtful student roves,
In search of truth, through academic groves,
A modest, pensive youth, who mus’d alone,
Industrious the frequented path to shun:
An Israelite without disguise or art
I saw, I loved, and clasp’d him to my heart,
A stranger as my bosom friend carest,
And unawares receiv’d an angel-guest.”

“Through his abundant toils, with fixt amaze,
We see reviv’d the work of ancient days;
In his unspotted life, with joy we see
The fervours of primeval piety:
A pattern to the flock by Jesus bought,
A living witness of the truths He taught,――
He shew’d the man regenerate from above,
By fraudless innocence, and childlike love.
For friendship form’d by nature and by grace,
(His heart made up of truth and tenderness),
Stranger to guile, unknowing to deceive,
In anger, malice, or revenge to live,
Betwixt the mountain and the multitude,
His life was spent in prayer and doing good.”

“Though long by following multitudes admir’d,
No party for himself he e’er desir’d,
His one desire to make the Saviour known,
To magnify the name of Christ alone:
If others strove who should the greatest be,
No lover of pre-eminence was he,
Nor envied those his Lord vouchsaf’d to bless,
But joy’d in theirs as in his own success,
His friends in honour to himself preferr’d,
And least of all in his own eyes appear’d.”

“Single his eye, transparently sincere,
His upright heart did in his words appear,
His cheerful heart did in his visage shine;
A man of true simplicity divine,
Not always as the serpent wise, yet love
Preserv’d him harmless as the gentle dove;
Or if into mistake through haste he fell,
He shew’d what others labour to conceal;
Convinc’d, no palliating excuses sought,
But freely own’d his error, or his fault.”

“Shall I a momentary loss deplore,
Lamenting after him that weeps no more?
What though, forbid by the Atlantic wave,
I cannot share my old companion’s grave,
Yet, at the trumpet’s call, my dust shall rise,
With his fly up to Jesus in the skies,
And live with him the life that never dies.”

Charles Wesley often wrote more polished poetry than this, but his
loving lines truthfully pourtray some of the features of Whitefield’s
character, and, likewise, shew the profound affection which he
cherished for his brother George.

Before leaving the poets, another extract may be welcome. There is no
evidence to shew that Whitefield and William Cowper were personally
acquainted, but John Newton and some other of Cowper’s friends were
among Whitefield’s most ardent admirers; and, therefore, it is not
surprising that Cowper should have enshrined the famous preacher in
his poesy. Soon after Whitefield’s death, Cowper wrote his well-known
poem, entitled “Hope,” in which Whitefield was graphically described
as follows:――

“Leuconomus (beneath well-sounding Greek)
I slur a name a poet must not speak,
Stood pilloried on infamy’s high stage,
And bore the pelting scorn of half an age,
The very butt of slander, and the blot
For every dart that malice ever shot.
“The man that mention’d _him_, at once dismiss’d
All mercy from his lips, and sneer’d and hiss’d;
His crimes were such as Sodom never knew,
And Perjury stood up to swear all true;
His aim was mischief, and his zeal pretence,
His speech rebellion against common sense;
A knave, when tried on honesty’s plain rule,
And when by that of reason, a mere fool;
The world’s best comfort was, his doom was pass’d,
Die when he might, he must be damn’d at last.
“Now, Truth, perform thine office; waft aside
The curtain drawn by prejudice and pride,
Reveal (the man is dead) to wondering eyes
This more than monster in his proper guise.
“He loved the world that hated him; the tear
That dropp’d upon his Bible was sincere.
Assail’d by scandal and the tongue of strife,
His only answer was a blameless life,
And he that forged and he that threw the dart,
Had each a brother’s interest in his heart.
Paul’s love of Christ, and steadiness unbribed,
Were copied close in him, and well transcribed;
He follow’d Paul; his zeal a kindred flame,
His apostolic charity the same;
Like him, cross’d cheerfully tempestuous seas,
Forsaking country, kindred, friends, and ease;
Like him he labour’d, and, like him content
To bear it, suffer’d shame where’er he went.
“Blush, Calumny; and write upon his tomb,
If honest eulogy can spare thee room,
Thy deep repentance of thy thousand lies,
Which, aim’d at him, have pierced the offended skies;
And say, Blot out my sin, confess’d, deplored,
Against Thine image in Thy saint, O Lord!”

No higher eulogy on Whitefield than this of the poet Cowper can be
properly pronounced. It elaborates that of the celebrated Rev. Benjamin
Grosvenor, D.D., who, after listening to one of Whitefield’s sermons
about the year 1741, remarked, “If the Apostle Paul had preached to
this auditory, he would have preached in the same manner.”[704]

“If you should die abroad,” said Mr. Keen, “whom shall we get to preach
your funeral sermon? Must it be your old friend the Rev. Mr. John
Wesley?” This question was often put, and as often Whitefield answered,
“He is the man.”[705]

The news of Whitefield’s death reached London on November 5.[706] At
the time, Wesley was at Norwich; but, five days afterwards, he wrote:――

“Saturday, November 10, 1770. I returned to London, and had
the melancholy news of Mr. Whitefield’s death confirmed by his
executors, who desired me to preach his funeral sermon on Sunday,
the 18th.[707] In order to write this, I retired to Lewisham
on Monday; and, on Sunday following, went to the chapel in
Tottenham Court Road. An immense multitude was gathered together
from all corners of the town.[708] I was at first afraid that
a great part of the congregation would not be able to hear; but
it pleased God so to strengthen my voice, that even those at the
door heard distinctly. It was an awful season: all were still
as night; most appeared to be deeply affected; and an impression
was made on many, which one would hope will not speedily be
effaced.

“The time appointed for my beginning at the Tabernacle was half
an hour after five; but it was quite filled at three; so I began
at four. At first, the noise was exceeding great; but it ceased
when I began to speak; and my voice was again so strengthened
that all who were within could hear, unless an accidental noise
hindered here or there for a few moments. O that all may hear
the voice of Him with whom are the issues of life and death; and
who so loudly, by this unexpected stroke, calls all His children
to love one another!”

In addition to the services on November 18, Wesley, on two other
occasions, improved the death of his old and much-loved friend. Hence
the following extracts from his Journal:――

“Friday, November 23. Being desired by the trustees of the
Tabernacle at Greenwich to preach Mr. Whitefield’s funeral
sermon there, I went over to-day for that purpose; but neither
would this house contain the congregation. Those who could not
get in made some noise at first; but in a little while all were
silent. Here, likewise, I trust God has given a blow to that
bigotry which had prevailed for many years.

“Wednesday, January 2, 1771. I preached, in the evening, at
Deptford, a kind of funeral sermon for Mr. Whitefield. In every
place, I wish to shew all possible respect to the memory of that
great and good man.”

Wesley’s sermon was official; and was published, with the title, “A
Sermon on the Death of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield. Preached at the
Chapel in Tottenham Court Road, and at the Tabernacle near Moorfields,
on Sunday, November 18, 1770. By John Wesley, M.A., late Fellow of
Lincoln College, Oxon., and Chaplain to the Right Honourable the
Countess-Dowager of Buchan. 1770.” (8vo. 32 pp.)

No man was so well qualified to form a correct estimate of Whitefield’s
life as Wesley was. For thirty-seven years, they had been loving, frank,
confiding friends. Wesley was a singularly keen observer of human
character; and, moreover, he was without envy, was incapable of using
flattery, and was far too honest to say anything but what he thought.
In this instance, he took a text (Numbers xxiii. 10) without expounding
it. His sermon was simply a review of Whitefield’s “life, and death,
and character,” with an enquiry how his sudden removal ought to be
improved. The first dozen pages are filled with a condensed summary of
Whitefield’s Journals down to the year 1741;――“Journals,” says Wesley,
“which, for their artless and unaffected simplicity, may vie with any
writings of the kind.” And then, in reference to Whitefield’s labours
already sketched, Wesley adds:――

“How exact a specimen is this of his labours, both in Europe and
America, for the honour of his beloved Master, during the thirty
years that followed! as well as of the uninterrupted showers of
blessings wherewith God was pleased to succeed his labours! Is
it not much to be lamented, that anything should have prevented
his continuing this account till at least near the time when
he was called by his Lord to enjoy the fruit of his labour? If
he has left any papers of this kind, and his friends count me
worthy of the honour, it would be my glory and joy to methodize,
transcribe, and prepare them for the public view.”

Wesley then gives an extract from the _Boston Gazette_, which he
virtually adopts as expressing his own opinions:――

“In his public labours, Mr. Whitefield has for many years
astonished the world with his eloquence and devotion. With what
divine pathos did he persuade the impenitent sinner to embrace
the practice of piety and virtue! Filled with the spirit of
grace, he spoke from the heart; and, with a fervency of zeal
perhaps unequalled since the days of the apostles, adorned the
truths he delivered with the most graceful charms of rhetoric
and oratory. From the pulpit he was unrivalled in the command
of an over-crowded auditory. Nor was he less agreeable and
instructive in his private conversation: happy in a remarkable
ease of address, willing to communicate, studious to edify.”

Wesley next proceeds to give his own sketch of Whitefield’s character,
and which, abbreviated, is as follows:――

“Mention has already been made of his unparalleled _zeal_,
his indefatigable _activity_, his _tender-heartedness_ to the
afflicted, and _charitableness_ toward the poor. But should we
not likewise mention his deep _gratitude_ to all whom God had
used as instruments of good to him? of whom he did not cease
to speak in the most respectful manner, even to his dying
day.[709] Should we not mention, that he had a heart susceptible
of the most generous and the most tender _friendship_? I
have frequently thought, that this, of all others, was the
distinguishing part of his character. How few have we known
of so kind a temper, of such large and flowing affections! Was
it not principally by this that the hearts of others were so
strangely drawn and knit to him? Can anything but love beget
love? This shone in his very countenance, and continually
breathed in all his words, whether in public or private. Was
it not this, which, quick and penetrating as lightning, flew
from heart to heart? which gave life to his sermons, his
conversations, his letters? Ye are witnesses.

“He was also endued with the most nice and unblemished _modesty_.
His office called him to converse, very frequently and largely,
with women as well as men; and those of every age and condition.
But his whole behaviour toward them was a practical comment on
that advice of St. Paul to Timothy, ‘_Intreat the elder women
as mothers, the younger as sisters, with all purity._’[710]

“The _frankness and openness_ of his conversation was as
far removed from rudeness on the one hand, as from guile and
disguise on the other. Was not this frankness at once a fruit
and a proof of his _courage_ and _intrepidity_? Armed with these,
he feared not the faces of men, but used _great plainness of
speech_ to persons of every rank and condition, high and low,
rich and poor; endeavouring only _by manifestation of the truth_
to _commend himself to every man’s conscience in the sight of
God_.

“His _steadiness_ appeared in whatever he undertook for his
Master’s sake. Witness one instance for all, the Orphan House
in Georgia, which he began and perfected, in spite of all
discouragements. Indeed, in whatever concerned himself, he was
pliant and flexible. In this case, he was _easy to be intreated_,
easy to be either convinced or persuaded. But he was immoveable
in the things of God, or wherever his conscience was concerned.
None could persuade, any more than affright him, to vary in the
least point from that _integrity_, which was inseparable from
his whole character, and regulated all his words and actions.

“If it be enquired, what was the foundation of this integrity,
or of his sincerity, courage, patience, and every other valuable
and amiable quality, it is easy to give the answer. It was not
the excellence of his natural temper; not the strength of his
understanding; it was not the force of education; no, nor the
advice of his friends. It was no other than faith in a bleeding
Lord; _faith of the operation of God_. It was _a lively hope
of an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth
not away_. It was _the love of God shed abroad in his heart
by the Holy Ghost, which was given unto him_, filling his soul
with tender, disinterested love to every child of man. From
this source arose that torrent of _eloquence_, which frequently
bore down all before it; from this, that astonishing force of
_persuasion_, which the most hardened sinners could not resist.
This it was, which often made his _head as waters_, and his
_eyes as a fountain of tears_. This it was, which enabled him to
pour out his soul in _prayer_, in a manner peculiar to himself,
with such fulness and ease united together, with such strength
and variety both of sentiment and expression.

“I may close this head with observing, what an honour it pleased
God to put upon His faithful servant, by allowing him to declare
His everlasting gospel in so many various countries, to such
numbers of people, and with so great an effect on so many of
their precious souls. Have we read or heard of any person since
the apostles, who testified the gospel of the grace of God,
through so widely extended a space, through so large a part
of the habitable world? Have we read or heard of any person,
who called so many thousands, so many myriads of sinners to
repentance? Above all, have we read or heard of any, who has
been a blessed instrument in the hand of God of _bringing_ so
many sinners from _darkness to light, and from the power of
Satan unto God_?”

Like all Wesley’s writings, this sketch of Whitefield’s character
is concise, but terse, pointed, and comprehensive. He concludes by
improving Whitefield’s death. The grand lesson to be learned was to
“keep close to the _grand doctrines_ which” Whitefield “delivered;
and to drink into his _spirit_,” a lesson which the Methodists of
the present day have more need to study and to lay to heart than the
Methodists of any previous generation.

The “_grand doctrines_” specified by Wesley were, that “There is _no
power_ (by nature) and _no merit_ in man. All power to think, speak,
or act aright, is in and from the Spirit of Christ: and all merit is
in the blood of Christ. All men are _dead in trespasses and sins_: all
are _by nature children of wrath_: all are _guilty before God_, liable
to death, temporal and eternal. We become interested in what Christ
has done and suffered, _not by works, lest any man should boast_;
but by faith alone. _We conclude_, says the Apostle, _that a man is
justified by faith, without the works of the law_. And _to as many as_
thus receive Him, giveth He power _to become the sons of God: even to
those that believe in His name, who are born, not of the will of man,
but of God_. And except a man _be thus born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God_. But all who are thus _born of the Spirit_, have _the
kingdom of God within them_. That _mind is in them which was in Christ
Jesus_, enabling them to _walk as Christ also walked_. His indwelling
Spirit makes them both holy in heart, and _holy in all manner of
conversation_.”

These were the doctrines of Wesley, Whitefield, and the first
Methodists, _par excellence_, and no pulpit of the present age has
a right to be designated _Methodist_, in which these doctrines do
not occupy the same prominent position. “May they not,” says Wesley,
“be summed up, as it were, in two words, _The new birth_, and
_justification by faith_”?

Immediately after the publication of his sermon, Wesley was attacked by
the _Gospel Magazine_, and charged “with asserting a gross falsehood,”
in saying that “the grand fundamental doctrines which Mr. Whitefield
everywhere preached,” were those just specified. In an unamiable
outburst of Calvinistic zeal, the editor maintained that Whitefield’s
“grand fundamental doctrines, which he everywhere preached, were the
everlasting covenant between the Father and the Son, and absolute
predestination flowing therefrom.”

To this Wesley quietly replied:――

“I join issue on this head. Whether the doctrines of the
eternal covenant, and of absolute predestination, are the grand
fundamental doctrines of Christianity or not, I affirm again,
1. That Mr. Whitefield did not everywhere preach these; 2. That
he did everywhere preach the new birth, and justification by
faith.

“1. He did not everywhere preach the eternal covenant, and
absolute predestination. In all the times I myself heard him
preach, I never heard him utter a sentence, either on one or
the other. Yea, all the times he preached in West Street chapel,
and in our other chapels throughout England, he did not preach
these doctrines at all,――no, not in a single paragraph; which,
by the bye, is a demonstration that he did not think them the
fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

“2. Both in West Street chapel, and all our other chapels
throughout England, he did preach the necessity of the new birth,
and justification by faith, as clearly as he has done in his two
volumes of printed sermons. Therefore all that I have asserted
is true, and proveable by ten thousand witnesses.”[711]

It is scarcely necessary to add to Wesley’s delineation of his
much-loved friend and fellow-worker; and yet there are other sketches,
by those who were intimately acquainted with the great evangelist,
which may be briefly noticed. “Funeral sermons were preached in the
principal cities of America,”[712] including one at Newbury Port,
by the Rev. Jonathan Parsons; three at Savannah,[713] by the Rev.
Samuel Frink, rector, the Rev. Edward Ellington, and the Rev. John
Joachim Zubley,[714] Presbyterian; two at Charlestown, by the Revds.
Mr. Whitaker, and Josiah Smith; at least, one at Philadelphia, by the
Rev. James Sproat, D.D., the successor of Gilbert Tennent; and two
at Boston, one by the Rev. Ebenezer Pemberton, D.D., and the other by
the Rev. Samuel Cooper, D.D.[715] In England, sermons were preached
by Wesley, Venn, Romaine, Madan, John Newton, Berridge, Haweis, and
several other clergymen of the Church of England; also by the Rev.
Thomas Gibbons, D.D.; the Rev. John Trotter, D.D.; the Rev. John
Langford; the Rev. Samuel Brewer; the Rev. Charles Skelton;[716] and
others among the Dissenters.[717] Besides Wesley’s, the following
sermons were _published_:――1. “To Live is Christ, to Die is Gain.
A Funeral Sermon on the Death of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield,
who died suddenly of a fit of the Asthma, at Newbury Port, at six of
the clock, Lord’s-day Morning, Sept. 30, 1770. The Sermon preached
the same day (afternoon), by Jonathan Parsons, A.M., and Minister of
the Presbyterian Church there. To which are added, An Account of his
Interment; the Speech over his Grave, by the Rev. Mr. Jewet; and some
Verses to his Memory, by the Rev. Thomas Gibbons, D.D. 1771.” (8vo.
35 pp.) 2. “Heaven, the Residence of the Saints: a Sermon, delivered
at the Thursday Lecture at Boston, in America, October 11, 1770.
By Ebenezer Pemberton, D.D., Pastor of a Church in Boston, 1771.”
(8vo. 31 pp.) 3. “The Reproach of Christ the Christian’s Treasure:
a Sermon preached at Christ Church, Savannah, in Georgia, on Sunday,
November 11, 1770. By Edward Ellington, V.D.M. London, 1771.” (8vo.
31 pp.)[718] 4. “A Minister Dead, yet Speaking. Being the Substance of
two Discourses, preached November 11, 1770. By the Rev. Mr. D. Edwards.
London.” (8vo. 24 pp.) 5. “A Token of Respect to the Memory of the Rev.
George Whitefield, A.M. Being the Substance of a Sermon preached on his
Death, at the Right Hon. the Countess of Huntingdon’s Chapel at Bath,
the 18th of November, 1770. By the Rev. Mr. Venn, London, 1770.” (8vo.
20 pp.) 6. “The Exalted State of the Faithful Ministers of Christ,
after Death, described and considered. A Sermon preached on Sabbath-day
Evening, December 2, 1770. By John Langford, Minister of the Gospel,
and Pastor of that part of the Church of Christ, meeting in Black’s
Fields, Southwark. London, 1770.” (8vo. 40 pp.) 7. “Grace and Truth,
or a Summary of Gospel Doctrine, considered in a Funeral Discourse,
preached on the Death of the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, A.B. By R.
Elliot, A.B. London, 1770.” (12mo. 46 pp.)

From these, and from contemporaneous publications, many extracts
might be furnished. Mr. Parsons told his congregation that he had
enjoyed Whitefield’s friendship for thirty years; and that it was by
Whitefield’s “advice and influence” that he had settled at Newbury Port
a quarter of a century ago. Mr. Parsons continued:――

“When Mr. Whitefield first came to Boston, Dr. Coleman wrote
to me, that, ‘the wonderful man was come, and they had had a
week of sabbaths; that Mr. Whitefield’s zeal for Christ was
extraordinary; and yet he recommended himself to his thousands
of hearers, by his engagedness for holiness and souls.’ I soon
had opportunity to observe, that, wherever he flew, like a
flame of fire, his ministry gave a general alarm to all sorts
of people, though, before that, they had, for a long time, been
sunk into dead formality. Ministers and their congregations
seemed to be at ease; but Mr. Whitefield’s preaching appeared
to be from the heart. We were convinced that he believed the
message he brought to us, to be of the last importance. His
popularity exceeded all that I ever knew. The last sermon that
he preached only yesterday, though under the disadvantage of
a stage in the open air, was delivered with such clearness,
pathos, and eloquence, as to please and surprise the surrounding
thousands. As, for many years, he had been waiting and hoping
for his last change, he then declared that he hoped it was the
last time he should ever preach. His countenance shone like the
unclouded sun.”

Dr. Pemberton, in his sermon, founded upon 1 Peter i. 4, observes:――

“I am not fond of funeral panegyrics, which are oftener adapted
to flatter the dead than to instruct the living. But where
persons have been distinguishedly honoured by heaven, and
employed to do uncommon service for God’s Church on earth, it
would be criminal ingratitude to suffer them to drop into the
dust without the most respectful notice. Posterity will view Mr.
Whitefield, in many respects, as one of the most extraordinary
characters of the present age. His zealous, incessant, and
successful labours, in Europe and America, are without a
parallel. We beheld here a new star arise in the hemisphere
of these western churches, and its salutary influences were
diffused through a great part of the British settlements in
these remote regions. We heard from a divine of the Church of
England those great doctrines of the gospel, which our ancestors
brought with them from their native country. In his repeated
progresses through the colonies, he was favoured with the same
success which attended him on the other side of the Atlantic. He
preached from day to day in thronged assemblies; yet his hearers
never discovered the least weariness, but always followed him
with increasing ardour. When in the pulpit, every eye was fixed
on his expressive countenance; every ear was charmed with his
melodious voice; all sorts of persons were captivated with the
propriety and beauty of his address. Many in all parts of the
land were turned from darkness to light, and from the power
of Satan unto God. He was no contracted bigot, but embraced
Christians of every denomination in the arms of his charity, and
acknowledged them to be children of the same Father, servants
of the same Master, heirs of the same undefiled inheritance. He
was always received by multitudes with pleasure when he favoured
us with his labours; but he never had a more obliging reception
than in his last visit. Men of the first distinction in the
province, not only attended his ministry, but gave him the
highest marks of respect. With what faithfulness did he declare
unto us the whole counsel of God! With what solemnity did he
reprove us for our increasing degeneracy! With what zeal did
he exhort us to remember from whence we were fallen, and repent
and do our first works, lest God should come and remove our
candlestick out of its place. On every occasion, he expressed
an uncommon concern for our _civil_ as well as our _religious_
privileges, the dear-bought purchase of our heroic ancestors.
With what fervency did he pray that they might be transmitted
entire to the most distant posterity! He embraced every
opportunity, in public and private, to persuade us to lay aside
our party prejudices and passions, that with undivided hearts
we might unite in every proper method to secure our future
prosperity. Perhaps no man, since the apostolic age, preached
oftener, or with greater success. If we view his private
character, he will appear in the most amiable light: the polite
gentleman, the faithful friend, the engaging companion――above
all, the sincere Christian――were visible in the whole of his
deportment. With large opportunities of accumulating wealth,
he never discovered the least tincture of avarice. What he
received from the kindness of his friends, he generously
employed in offices of piety and charity. His benevolent mind
was perpetually forming plans of extensive usefulness. I have
not drawn an imaginary portrait, but described a character in
real life. I am not representing a perfect man; but this may
be said of Mr. Whitefield with justice, that, after the most
public appearances for above thirty years, and the most critical
examination of his conduct, no other blemish could be fixed upon
him, than what arose from the common frailties of human nature,
and the peculiar circumstances which attended his first entrance
into public life. The imprudences of inexperienced youth he
frequently acknowledged from the pulpit with a frankness which
will for ever do honour to his memory. He took care to prevent
any bad consequences that might flow from his unguarded censures
in the early days of his ministry. The longer he lived, the more
he evidently increased in _purity of doctrine_, in _humility,
meekness, prudence, patience_, and the other amiable virtues of
the _Christian life_.”

A testimony like this, coming from, not only a distinguished minister,
but one who had been intimately acquainted with Whitefield for the last
thirty years, is of more than ordinary importance.

The sermon, written by Cornelius Winter, and preached by the
Rev. Edward Ellington, in Whitefield’s old church in Savannah, is
respectable, but contains no facts not already noticed. The same may
be said respecting the Rev. D. Edwards’s two discourses.

The sermon by the Rev. Henry Venn is what might be expected from a man
of his piety and talents; and as he and Whitefield were loving friends,
and Methodist co-workers, the following extract will be acceptable:――

“Mr. Whitefield’s doctrine was the doctrine of the Reformers, of
the Apostles, and of Christ; and the doctrine which he preached,
he eminently adorned by his zeal, and by his works. If the
greatness, extent, success, and disinterestedness of a man’s
labour can give him distinction amongst the followers of Christ,
we are warranted to affirm, that scarce any one of His ministers,
since the days of the apostles, has exceeded, scarce any one has
equalled, Mr. Whitefield.”

Venn proceeds to state, that, for many years, Whitefield preached
from forty to sixty hours every week, besides “offering up prayers and
intercessions, and singing hymns and spiritual songs in every house to
which he was invited.”

Mr. Langford’s sermon supplies no additional information respecting
Whitefield; neither does Mr. Elliot’s. Toplady wrote:――

“I deem myself happy in thus publicly avowing the inexpressible
esteem in which I held this wonderful man, and the affectionate
veneration which I must ever retain for the memory of one whose
acquaintance and ministry were attended with the most important
spiritual benefit to me, and to tens of thousands besides.
It will not be saying too much, if I term him the apostle
of the English empire, in point of zeal for God, a long
course of indefatigable and incessant labours, unparalleled
disinterestedness, and astonishing extensive usefulness. If the
most absolute command over the passions of immense auditories
be a mark of a consummate orator, he was the greatest of the
age. If the strongest good sense, the most generous expansions
of heart, the most artless but captivating affability, the most
liberal exemption from bigotry, the purest and most transpicuous
integrity, the brightest cheerfulness, and the promptest wit,
enter into the composition of social excellence, he was one
of the best companions in the world. If to be steadfast, and
unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; if a
union of the most brilliant with the most solid ministerial
gifts, ballasted by a deep and humbling experience of grace,
and crowned with the most extended success in the conversion
of sinners and the edification of saints, be signatures of a
special commission from heaven, Mr. Whitefield cannot but stand
highest on the modern list of Christian ministers. He was the
prince of preachers. On the whole, he was the least imperfect
character I ever knew. It appears, from a book in which this
great man of God minuted the times and places of his ministerial
labours, that he preached upwards of eighteen thousand sermons,
from the time of his ordination to that of his death. To which
we may add, upwards of one thousand four hundred and sixty
letters, written to his friends and acquaintance.”[719]

John Newton, in a sermon, preached in his church at Olney, on November
11, said: “I have had some opportunities of looking over the history
of the Church in past ages, and I am not backward to say, that I have
not read or heard of any person, since the days of the apostles, of
whom it may more emphatically be said, ‘He was a burning and shining
light,’ than of the late Mr. Whitefield. The Lord gave him a manner
of preaching, which was peculiarly his own. He copied from none, and
I never met any one who could imitate him with success. Those who
attempted, generally made themselves disagreeable. Other ministers,
perhaps, could preach the gospel as clearly, and in general say the
same things; but, I believe, no man living could say them in his way.”

“I bless God,” added the Olney curate, “that I have lived in
the time of Mr. Whitefield. Many were the winter mornings in
which I got up at four, to attend his Tabernacle discourses
at five; and I have seen Moorfields as full of lanthorns at
these times as, I suppose, the Haymarket is full of flambeaux
on an opera night. If any one were to ask me who was the second
preacher I ever heard, I should be at some loss to answer; but,
in regard to the first, Mr. Whitefield exceeded so far every
other man of my time, that I should be at none. He was the
original of popular preaching, and all our popular ministers are
only his copies.”[720]

Honest Berridge took for his text, at Everton, “Help, Lord, for the
godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of
men.” He told his hearers that the £1,500, of which Whitefield had died
possessed, was money which he had only recently received. By the death
of his wife, two years ago, he had become entitled to £800; and the
remaining £700 had been bequeathed to him, in four separate legacies,
by friends not long deceased.[721]

Many of the newspapers and magazines of the day contained sketches
of Whitefield’s career and character. The following, published in the
_Scots’ Magazine_, is a fair specimen of others:――

“Mr. Whitefield was well known over all the British empire, as a
faithful, laborious, and successful minister of the gospel of
Christ. The character of this truly pious and extraordinary
person must be deeply impressed upon the heart of every friend
to true, genuine, vital Christianity. For above thirty years, he
has astonished the world, as a prodigy of eloquence, by which he
was enabled to melt the most obdurate and stubborn sinners.
Though, in the pulpit, he often found it necessary _by the
terrors of the Lord to persuade men_, he had nothing gloomy
in his nature, being singularly charitable and tender-hearted;
and, in his private conversation, cheerful, communicative, and
entertaining. To the very meanest, he was always easy of access,
and ever ready to listen to, and relieve their bodily as well as
their spiritual necessities; shewing himself, in every respect,
a faithful steward of the extensive charities he drew from his
numerous and compassionate hearers. He constantly enforced upon
his audiences every moral duty, particularly industry in their
different callings, obedience to their superiors, and in a most
especial manner loyalty to our amiable Sovereign, never once
endeavouring in these distracted times to make a factious use
of the great influence he held among his numerous adherents.”

The _Pennsylvania Journal_ also published a letter, dated “Boston,
October 1, 1770,” from which the following is an extract:――

“In his public performances, Mr. Whitefield has, for a long
course of years, astonished the world as a prodigy of eloquence
and devotion. With what divine pathos did he plead with the
impenitent sinner! Filled with the spirit of grace, he spoke
from the heart; and with a fervency of zeal perhaps unequalled
since the days of the Apostles. He was unrivalled in the command
of an ever-crowded and admiring auditory; nor was he less
entertaining and instructive in his private conversation.
Happy in a remarkable ease of address, willing to communicate,
studious to edify, and formed to amuse――such, in more retired
life, was he whom we now lament.”[722]

Except the Wesleys, perhaps no one was better acquainted with
Whitefield than the Rev. Dr. Gillies, of Glasgow, whose “Memoirs of
Whitefield” were published in the month of June, 1772.[723] Omitting,
as far as possible, the traits of Whitefield’s character already
noticed, Dr. Gillies’ sketch may fitly close these eulogies by
Whitefield’s friends.

“Mr. Whitefield’s person was graceful, and well proportioned.
His stature was rather above the middle size. His complexion was
very fair. His eyes were of a dark blue colour, and small, but
sprightly. He had a squint with one of them, occasioned either
by the ignorance, or carelessness of the nurse who attended him
in the measles, when he was about four years old. His features
were in general good and regular. His countenance was manly,
and his voice exceeding strong; yet both were softened with an
uncommon degree of sweetness. He was always very clean and neat,
and often said pleasantly, that ‘a minister of the gospel ought
to be without spot.’ His deportment was decent and easy, without
the least stiffness or formality; and his engaging polite manner
made his company universally agreeable. In his youth, he was
very slender, and moved his body with great agility of action,
suitable to his discourse; but about the fortieth year of his
age, he began to grow corpulent; which however, was solely
the effect of his disease, being always, even to a proverb,
remarkable for his moderation both in eating and drinking.
Several prints have been done of him, which exhibit a very bad
likeness. The best resemblance of him in his younger years,
before he became corpulent, is that mezzotinto scraping which
represents him at full length, with one hand on his breast,
and holding a small Bible in the other; but the late paintings,
the one by Mr. Hone,[724] and the other by Mr. Russell, are
certainly the justest likenesses of his person.

“In reviewing the life of this extraordinary man, we are struck
with his unwearied diligence. Early in the morning, he rose to
his Master’s work, and, all the day long, was employed in a
continual succession of different duties. When he was visited
with any distress or affliction, preaching, as he himself tells
us, was his catholicon, and prayer his antidote against every
trial. When we consider what exertion of voice was necessary
to reach his large congregations,――also that he preached
generally twice or thrice every day, and often four times on
the Lord’s-day, and above all, the waste of strength and spirits
every sermon must have cost him, through the earnestness of his
delivery,――it is astonishing how his constitution held out so
long.

“His eloquence was great, and of the true and noblest kind.
He was utterly devoid of all appearance of affectation. He
seemed to be quite unconscious of the talents he possessed. The
importance of his subject, and the regard due to his hearers,
engrossed all his concern. He spoke like one who did not seek
their applause, but was anxious for their best interests. And
the effect, in some measure, corresponded to the design. His
congregations did not amuse themselves with commending his
discourses, but entered into his views, felt his passions, and
were willing, for the time at least, to comply with his requests.
This was especially remarkable at his charity sermons, when
the most worldly-minded were made to part with their money in
so generous a manner, that, when they returned to their former
temper, they were ready to think that it had been conjured from
them by some inexplicable charm.

“He had a strong and musical voice, and a wonderful command
of it. His pronunciation was not only proper, but manly and
graceful. He was never at a loss for the most natural and
strong expressions. The grand sources of his eloquence were an
exceeding lively imagination, and an action still more lively.
Every accent of his voice spoke to the ear; every feature of his
face, and every motion of his hands, spoke to the eye. The most
dissipated and thoughtless found their attention involuntarily
fixed; and the dullest and most ignorant could not but
understand. Had his natural talents for oratory been employed in
secular affairs, and been somewhat more improved by refinements
of art and embellishments of erudition, it is possible they
would soon have advanced him to distinguished wealth and renown.

“But not to dwell longer on his accomplishments as an orator,
one thing remains to be mentioned of an infinitely higher order,
namely, the power of God, which so remarkably accompanied his
labours. It is here Mr. Whitefield is most to be envied. When
we consider the multitudes that were brought under lasting
religious impressions, and the multitudes that were wrought upon
in the same manner by the ministry of others, excited by his
example, we are led into the same sentiment with Mr. Wesley in
his funeral sermon, ‘What an honour hath it pleased God to put
upon His faithful servant!’

“True, this excellent character was shaded with some
infirmities. What else could be expected in the present condition
of humanity? But it ought to be observed, that, as there was
something very amiable in the frankness which prevented his
concealing them, so, through his openness to conviction, his
teachableness, and his readiness to confess and correct his
mistakes, they became still fewer and smaller as he advanced
in knowledge and experience.

“When he first set out in the ministry, his youth and
inexperience led him into many expressions which were contrary
to sound doctrine, and which made many of the sermons he first
printed justly exceptionable; but reading, experience, and a
deeper knowledge of his own heart, convinced him of his errors,
and, upon all occasions, he avowed his belief of the Thirty-nine
Articles of the Church of England, and the Standards of the
Church of Scotland. ‘He loved his friend’ (Wesley), ‘but he
would not part with a grain of sacred truth for the brother of
his heart.’”[725]

My task is nearly ended. I am not conscious of having omitted a
single fact, of any importance, in Whitefield’s history. His life is a
suggestive one; but want of space prevents enlargement on the countless
incidents in his remarkable career. These have been narrated with as
much clearness as the writer could command. The reader can form his own
reflections. Preachers, especially, will do well to make Whitefield the
subject of prayerful study. Let them try to imitate him in the use of
his matchless voice. A man had better not preach at all, than preach
so mumblingly that only half of what he says is heard. He vexes his
hearers without doing them any good. If Whitefield had tried to add to
his facial beauty, by omitting to shave his upper lip, even he would
not have spoken so distinctly and audibly as he did. Whitefield’s
preaching was always warm, earnest, pointed,――addressed to the heart
rather than the head. He left the impression that he intensely believed
what he said. “_Clear but cold_, is too descriptive of much modern
preaching. It is the frosty moonlight of a winter’s night, not the
warm sunshine of a summer’s day.”[726] If such had been Whitefield’s
preaching, what would his success have been? The man’s faith filled and
fired him with enthusiasm. On themes such as the ruin of man, the love
of God, the death of Christ, the salvation of souls, the felicities
of heaven, and the torments of hell, it was impossible for Whitefield
to be calm. If Whitefield had preached on _little subjects_, he might
have been as cool as many of his fellows, and might have courted favour
by yielding to the fastidious tastes of respectable congregations,
desiring the sentimental, the picturesque, and the imaginative, but
turning with disgust from the solemn, the alarming, the awakening.
Whitefield was not a coward. No fetters of custom, or trammels of
conventionality, could enslave him. He never unmanned himself by
prophesying smooth things, for fear of offending his auditors. His
life was spent in _testifying_ a _few_ great truths in which he had an
intense, divinely given, vivid faith,――truths, always unpopular among
philosophers, but truths everywhere needed by human beings,――the only
truths which meet the yearnings of human nature. Whitefield had no time
for lesser truths. He durst not amuse his hearers by preaching them. He
saw the people perishing, and he had not the hardihood to trifle in his
attempts to save them. His congregations always knew what would be the
substance of his sermons. Added to all this, Whitefield was full of
religious feeling. Except when sleeping, he seemed to pray and praise
always and everywhere. He was “full of faith and the Holy Ghost.” A
vivid spirituality inflamed his soul. His ideas of God and Christ, of
sin and holiness, of faith and pardon, of heaven and hell, were not
merely thoughts, but sentiments. Without this, Whitefield’s eloquence
would only have been elocution, and his sermons, instead of being
“mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds,” would have
been――what?――theatrical orations!

Whitefield left no “_Societies_,” as his friend Wesley did; but
Whitefield’s ministry was the means of converting tens of thousands
of sinners from the errors of their ways. O that this could be said
of twenty of the preachers of the present day! Their influence,
direct and indirect, would set “the kingdoms on a blaze.” Not a few of
Whitefield’s converts became ministers; and, as children often resemble
their parents, most of the ministers who owned Whitefield as their
spiritual father, were, though in an inferior degree, a resemblance
of himself, in their spirit, labours, and success. Except at the
Tabernacle and Tottenham Court Road, Whitefield created no “golden
candlestick” (Rev. i. 20), but he everywhere carried a torch kindled
at the altar of heaven, and with it lighted “candlesticks that had gone
out.” He is inseparably connected with the history of the _evangelical_
party of the Church of England, beginning with men like Berridge,
Venn, Madan, Romaine, Newton, and others, and resulting in a fact of
inconceivable importance, namely, that, thousands of the pulpits of the
Established Church are now occupied by ministers of a kindred spirit.
Plenty of evidence has been furnished, in the first volume of the
present work, of the apathy and worldliness of the Congregationalists
of England and the Presbyterians of Scotland. The contrast between the
state of these churches in 1739 and 1876 is almost a contrast between
life and death. Whitefield is credited with having preached for the
Dissenters of England to a greater extent than he is entitled to; but
he did preach for them, in Northamptonshire, Herts, Gloucestershire,
and other places, and they, not improperly, attribute much of their
revived religion to his instrumentality. His usefulness in Scotland
is much more apparent and undoubted. With no wish to depreciate the
Erskines and their friends, it is not too much to say, that, Whitefield
was the first great agent of that resuscitation of religion, which has
effectually counteracted the Socinian and semi-infidel tendencies which
prevailed in the Presbyterian Churches across the border, and which
has infused into them the new and universal life they now exhibit.
Whitefield’s service to Ireland was small,――a contrast to that rendered
by his friend Wesley; but his usefulness in Wales was incalculable.
Though not the founder of the Calvinistic Methodists, he was, for years,
and until he resigned the honour, their elected moderator; and, to
the end of life, he took a warm and active interest in their welfare
and prosperity. Their chapels are found in every town and almost every
village of the Principality; their ordained ministers number more than
four hundred; their communicants nearly a hundred thousand; and their
hearers about a quarter of a million. What is called “Lady Huntingdon’s
Connection” was not formally established until thirteen years after
Whitefield’s death; but Whitefield chiefly, in connection with other
clergymen of the Established Church, had prepared the way for this;
and now, in the days of its decline, it possesses about half a hundred
chapels, and its Cheshunt College, the substitute of the one at
Trevecca, which Whitefield opened two years before he died.

In other ways, Great Britain was immensely benefited by Whitefield’s
labours. Methodists especially, and other evangelists, must not
forget that Whitefield was the first who revived the good old practice
of preaching out of doors. He was not formally one of Wesley’s
“assistants;” but, for many years, he preached, in the north of
England, and other places, to Wesley’s congregations, and fostered and
promoted their religious life. His enormous collections, also, were, to
a great extent, the beginning of the marvellous beneficence which now
distinguishes the British churches. And, once again, his catholicity
of spirit greatly tended to usher in the age of friendliness among
professing Christians.

All this may be said with truthfulness respecting the influence he
exerted in his native country; but, perhaps, his usefulness in America
was greater even than in England. An American author,[727] of great
eminence, observes:――

“The ‘Great Awakening’ here had commenced before his arrival,
but it was comparatively local, and its visible interest at
least had mostly subsided. Edwards and some of his ministerial
associates were yet praying and writing respecting it in New
England; and the Tennents, Blairs, Finley, Rowland, and others,
were devotedly labouring, in detail, in the Middle States,
against the moral stupor of the times; but Whitefield’s coming
at once renewed the revival and gave it universality, if not
unity. He alone of all its promoters represented it in all
parts of the country; and, at every repeated visit, renewed
its progress. In the South, he was almost its only labourer.
His preaching, and especially his volume of sermons, read by
Morris, founded the Presbyterian Church in Virginia; for, before
that period, there was not a Dissenting minister settled in
the colony. In the Middle States, Whitefield’s labours had a
profound effect. He was an apostle to Philadelphia; he rallied
around him its preachers, and stimulated them by his example.
In New Jersey and New York, he exerted a similar influence;
and the frequent repetition of his visits through about thirty
years did not allow the evangelical interests of the churches
to subside. The ministers in the Synod of New York more than
tripled in seven years after his first visit. In New England,
the effects of Edwards’s labours were reproduced and rendered
general by Whitefield’s frequent passages. One hundred and
fifty Congregational Churches were founded in less than twenty
years; and it has been estimated that about forty thousand
souls were converted in New England alone. The effects of
the great revival, of which Whitefield had thus become the
ostensible representative, have been profound and permanent.
The Protestantism of the United States has taken its subsequent
character from it; and the ‘Holy Club’ at Oxford maybe
recognized as historically connected with the evangelical
religion of all this continent. The effect of the ‘awakening’ on
the character of the ministers was one of its greatest results.
Since that period, the ‘evangelical’ character of the American
pastorate has not, as before, been exceptional, but general.
Its influence on the discipline of the Church was also one
of its most important blessings. It banished the ‘Halfway
Covenant,’ which had filled the eastern churches with unconverted
members. It made personal regeneration a requisite among the
qualifications for the Christian ministry; and it introduced
that general and profound conviction of the essential
spirituality of religion, and the necessary independence
of Church and State, which soon after began, and has since
completed, the overthrow of all legal connection between the two
throughout the country. It gave origin to Princeton College and
its distinguished Theological Seminary, and also to Dartmouth
College; for both were founded by Whitefield’s fellow-labourers,
and the Methodists of England contributed their money to both.”

This, written by one so well acquainted with the history of America
as Dr. Stevens, deserves more than ordinary attention. One more fact
must be noticed, though included in the general statement just given.
There cannot be a doubt that Whitefield’s labours in America prepared
the way for Wesley’s itinerants. The first two, Richard Boardman and
Joseph Pilmoor, arrived before his last visit; and, in Philadelphia, he
gave them his blessing. That was in the year 1769. Now the _Methodist
Episcopal Church alone_ has 12 bishops;[728] 81 annual conferences;
10,923 itinerant preachers; 12,881 local preachers; 1,580,559
church members; 15,633 church edifices, valued at $71,353,234; 5,017
parsonages, valued at $9,731,628; 19,287 Sunday-schools; 207,182
Sunday-school officers and teachers; and 1,406,168 Sunday-school
scholars. It has also two large “book concerns,” at New York, and at
Cincinnati; and 20 periodicals, published under the direction of the
General Conference, besides a number of others edited and published by
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church on their own responsibility.
It has publishing houses at Bremen in Germany; Gottenberg in Sweden;
in the city of Mexico; and at Foochow in China. It has seven _German_
conferences, with 511 itinerant preachers; 556 local preachers; 47,698
church members; 610 church edifices; 294 parsonages; 940 Sunday-schools;
7,908 Sunday-school officers and teachers; and 46,998 Sunday-school
scholars. Its Foreign Missionary Society has 369 missionaries and
assistant missionaries; 310 teachers; 16,127 church members; 111
church edifices, valued at $396,171; 55 parsonages, valued at $70,750;
426 Sunday-schools; 18,971 Sunday-school scholars; and 180 day-schools,
with 5,329 pupils. Besides these, the same Foreign Missionary Society
employs 251 missionaries “among foreign populations in the United
States,” and 2,307 “domestic missionaries,” who have under their care
unitedly 56,241 church members. The Methodist Episcopal Church has its
“Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society,” with 19 missionaries; 100 schools;
108 Bible-women and teachers; 159 orphans; and an annual income of
$64,309. It has its “Freedmen’s Aid Society,” with an income of $86,560
yearly. It has a “Tract Society,” the receipts of which, for the year
1874, were $19,840. It has 27 “universities and colleges,” with 216
“instructors,” and 5,090 students; also 69 “academies and seminaries,”
with 504 “instructors,” and 14,100 students; the estimated value of
these collegiate properties being about seven million dollars. To
these must be added the “Boston University School of Theology,” with
90 students; the “Drew Theological Seminary,” with 125 students; the
“Garrett Biblical Institute,” with 156 students; the “Martin Mission
Institute,” with 10 students; and the “India Conference Theological
Seminary,” with 27 students.

These statistics, which could be multiplied if it were desirable,
belong to the “Methodist Episcopal Church” alone; but, since it was
founded in 1769, the following Methodist Churches have seceded from it,
namely:――

Itinerant Local Church
Ministers. Preachers. Members.
───────── ───────── ───────
Methodist, Episcopal, South 3,485 5,356 712,765
Coloured Methodist Episcopal 635 683 80,000
African Methodist Episcopal 600 1,450 200,000
African Methodist Episcopal Zion 1,200 800 225,000
Evangelical Association 835 503 95,253
United Brethren 967 1,709 131,850
The Methodist Church 775 507 55,183
Methodist Protestant Church 650 200 54,319
American Wesleyan Church 250 190 20,000
Free Methodists 90 80 6,000
Primitive Methodists 20 25 2,800
Congregational Methodists 23 9,500

The financial and other statistics of these seceding Methodist Churches
might easily be given; but it is enough to say, that, including the
mother of them all, “The Methodist Episcopal Church,” there are now,
in the United States of America, where Whitefield laboured with such
marvellous success, 20,453 ordained Methodist ministers; 24,384 lay
preachers; 3,173,229 church members; and, according to the returns of
the Government census of 1870, more than six millions and a half of
people, who, under the head of “Religious Denominational Preferences,”
entered themselves as “Methodists.”

_Laus Deo!_

FINIS.

INDEX.

NAMES OF PERSONS AND PLACES.

Aberdeen, i. 522.

Aberdeen, Earl of, ii. 210.

Aberford, ii. 234, 464.

Abergavenny, i. 196, 530; ii. 79, 87, 225.

Abingdon, i. 264.

Abingdon (America), i. 332, 374.

Adams, Rev. Dr. William, i. 10, 15.

Adams, Thomas, ii. 57, 63, 114–119, 148, 148, 224, 287, 317,
453, 462, 488, 517, 532, 534, 558, 560, 562, 569, 588, 609.

Aglionby, William, i. 139.

Ailesbury, Lady, ii. 407.

Aldridge, ii. 86.

Allen, William, i. 378.

Allens Town (America), i. 384.

Allt, William, ii. 112.

Alnwick, ii. 285, 312, 412.

Alpraham, ii. 315, 316.

America, i. 127.

Amwell (America), i. 379.

Ancaster, Duchess of, i. 78, 160; ii. 209.

Annapolis (America), i. 340.

Appleton, Rev. Dr. Nathaniel, i. 423.

Argyll, Duchess of, ii. 209.

Asbury, Francis, ii. 584.

Ashby, ii. 256, 258, 265, 269.

Athlone, ii. 238, 273–275, 397.

Attleborough (America), ii. 592.

Avebury, ii. 111.

Axminster, ii. 77.

Baddiley, Rev. William, ii. 242, 259.

Badsey, i. 200, 201.

Ball, Roger, ii. 274.

Bandon, ii. 274, 275.

Bangor, Bishop of, ii. 39.

Barber, Jonathan, i. 445, 460, 476; ii. 24, 60.

Barker, Rev. John, ii. 73.

Barnard, Rev. John, ii. 355, 357, 362.

Barnardcastle, ii. 313.

Bartlett, Mr., ii. 603.

Bascombe, Judge, ii. 181.

Basingstoke, i. 175, 264–267.

Baskinridge (America), i. 433.

Bass, Rev. Dr. Edward, ii. 600.

Bate, Rev. James, i. 289.

Bateman, Rev. Richard Thomas, ii. 62, 160, 186, 189, 197, 214.

Bath, i. 2, 73, 78, 106, 176, 184, 550; ii. 109, 161, 282, 345,
346, 374, 406, 489, 493, 496, 500, 539, 557, 559.

Bath, Earl of, ii. 193, 211, 318.

Bath, Countess of, ii. 208, 249.

Beard, Thomas, ii. 105.

Beauclerk, Lord Sidney, ii. 37.

Beaulieu, Earl of, ii. 210.

Beaumont, James, ii. 109.

Beaumont, John ii. 48, 49, 57.

Bedford, i. 231; ii. 315, 410.

Bedford, Rev. Arthur, i. 74, 151.

Bedford, Duchess of, ii. 407.

Belcher, Hon. Jonathan, i. 410, 418, 421, 425, 434; ii. 227, 252,
255, 334, 341, 342, 402.

Belfast, ii. 274, 276.

Bell, George, ii. 492.

Bell, William, ii. 304.

Benezet, Anthony, i. 384.

Bengeworth, i. 200.

Bennet, John, ii. 235.

Bennet, Rev. Mr., ii. 78, 253, 254.

Bennett, Mr., i. 173.

Benson, Bishop, i. 43, 47, 72, 106, 157–159, 261, 310, 349.

Bermudas, ii. 179.

Berridge, Rev. John, ii. 410, 417, 441, 452, 462, 504, 539–541,
578, 584, 620, 625, 631.

Bertie, Lady Eleanor, ii. 209.

Berwick, ii. 262, 285, 312.

Bethell, Mrs. Bridget, i. 106.

Bevan, Mrs., ii. 345, 346.

Beveridge, Bishop, i. 88.

Bexley, i. 162, 239, 241–246, 249, 272.

Bideford, ii. 78, 102, 254, 270.

Birmingham, ii. 81, 82, 87, 113, 161, 315.

Birstal, ii. 236, 285, 310, 315, 380–383.

Bishop Auckland, ii. 412.

Bishop Stortford, i. 251.

♦Bisset, Rev. John, i. 522; ii. 16.

Bissicks, Thomas, i. 530, 536.

Blackheath, i. 239, 241, 244–246, 272, 276, 277.

Blackwell, Ebenezer, i. 255, 309, 378; ii. 236, 280.

Blair, Rev. Dr. Robert, ii. 72.

Blair, Rev. Samuel, i. 322, 386, 477.

Blendon, i. 239.

Boardman, Richard, ii. 571, 586, 588, 633.

Bohemia (America), ii. 170, 178, 337.

Bohler, Rev. Peter, i. 148, 379, 382, 437; ii. 303–305.

Bolingbroke, Lord, ii. 194, 210, 215.

Bolton, ii. 259, 285, 315, 352.

Bolton, Duke of, ii. 37.

Bolton, Robert, ii. 610.

Boltzius, Rev. John Martin, i. 137, 141.

Boscawen, Mrs., ii. 209.

Boston (America), i. 407–411, 417, 424, 434, 476; ii. 12, 130,
144–147, 152, 174, 335–337, 472, 475, 592–596, 600.

Boswell, James, ii. 544.

Boulter, Archbishop, i. 147.

Bovey-Tracey, ii. 215.

Bradbury, Rev. Mr., ii. 571, 572.

Bradford (Wilts), ii. 374, 559.

Bradford (Yorkshire), ii. 310, 352, 381.

Brainerd, Rev. David, ii. 152.

Braintree, ii. 112.

Braithwaite, Booth, ii. 549.

Brattle, Colonel, i. 423.

Brecon, ii. 59.

Brewer, Rev. Samuel, ii. 620.

Brewood, ii. 112, 113.

Brighton, ii. 416, 515, 551.

Brislington, i. 185.

Bristol, i. 2, 7, 33, 36, 73, 77, 78, 106, 177–186, 194, 258–263,
474, 477–483, 533, 540, 547; ii. 54, 64, 109, 161, 204, 206,
214, 216, 224, 229, 249, 270, 282, 317, 345, 346, 354, 363,
374, 377, 399, 406, 407, 419, 427, 443, 452, 454, 487, 488,
493, 496, 500, 539, 557, 605.

Bristol (America), i. 384.

Broad-Oaks, i. 249.

Brockden, Mr., i. 436.

Bromsgrove, ii. 82.

Broughton, Rev. Thomas, i. 14, 54, 56, 60, 149, 349.

Browne, Rev. Moses, ii. 264, 265, 268.

Bryan, Hugh, i. 349, 448, 449, 459.

Bryan, Jonathan, ii. 23.

Buchan, Earl of, ii. 536–539.

Buchan, Lady, ii. 560.

Buckingham, Duchess of, i. 78, 160; ii. 37.

Bunyan, John. ii. 507.

Burder, Rev. George, ii. 563.

Burgess, Rev. Daniel, ii. 365.

Burlington, Earl of, ii. 210.

Burr, Rev. Aaron, ii. 256, 337, 342, 385, 402.

Burscough, Bishop, i. 146.

Bute, Lord, ii. 440.

Butler, Bishop, i. 66, 182, 233, 349.

Butterfield, Colonel, ii. 181.

Byles, Rev. Dr. Matthew, i. 411.

Byrom, Dr., i. 254.

Caerleon, i. 167, 196.

Caerphilly, i. 539.

Cambridge, i. 516, 551.

Cambridge (America), i. 409, 410, 418, 421, 423, 477, 495;
ii. 592.

Cambuslang, ii. 2, 5, 6, 29, 454.

Campbell, Hon. Hume, ii. 366.

Campbell, Rev. Mr., i. 379.

Campbell, Lady Betty, ii. 209.

Canterbury, ii. 266.

Cape Ann (America), ii. 592.

Cape Breton (America), ii. 149.

Cardiff, i. 188, 189; ii. 58.

Cardigan, Lady, ii. 209.

Carmarthen, ii. 58, 59, 226.

Carolina (America), i. 129.

Carteret, Mrs., ii. 416.

Castle-Combe, ii. 559.

Cathcart, Lord, ii. 391.

Causton, Thomas, i. 142.

Cennick, John, i. 467, 471, 483–485, 490, 492, 508, 523, 536,
539, 548, 553; ii. 4–6, 40, 48, 49, 61, 98, 100, 103, 111,
113, 114, 147, 148, 158, 174, 224, 238, 294.

Chafford Common, i. 258.

Chalford, i. 199.

Chandler, Dr. Samuel, i. 67.

Chandler, Rev. Isaac, i. 396.

Chandler, Rev. James, ii. 600.

Chandler, Rev. Dr. Thomas Bradbury, ii. 520.

Chapman, Rev. William, i. 73, 193, 550, 552; ii. 54.

Charleston (America), i. 345, 346, 357–359, 395, 401, 402, 404,
405, 448–450, 459, 477; ii. 169, 179, 278, 279, 340, 484,
573, 585, 587.

Charlestown (America), i. 592.

Charlton, i. 241, 254.

Chatham, i. 272; ii. 264, 353, 379, 380.

Chauncy, Rev. Dr. Charles, ii. 125–130.

Checkley, Rev. Samuel, i. 409.

Chelmsford, ii. 112.

Cheltenham, i. 199; ii. 400, 401, 560.

Chepstow, i. 197.

Chester, ii. 316.

Chester (America), i. 337, 386.

Chesterfield, Countess of, ii. 244, 245, 415, 440.

Chesterfield, Earl of, ii. 194, 211, 318, 345, 416.

Cheyne, Dr., i. 106.

Chinley, ii. 285, 384.

Chippenham, ii. 77, 559.

Christian Bridge (America), i. 339.

Chubb, Thomas, i. 176.

Church, Rev. Thomas, ii. 95–97.

Cirencester, i. 255, 256, 264.

Clap, Rev. Nathaniel, i. 406.

Clap, Rev. Thomas, i. 430; ii. 134, 138.

Clapham, ii. 385, 404.

Clarke, Rev. Samuel, ii. 421.

Clayton, Rev. John, i. 14, 56, 148, 149.

Clements, William, ii. 108.

Clive, Catherine, ii. 355.

Coal-Pit Heath, i. 185.

Cobham, Lady, i. 78, 160.

Coc, Captain, i. 146.

Cochrane, Colonel, i. 123.

Cockman, Dr., i. 73.

Cole, Rev. Thomas, i. 41, 204, 349.

Collet, Mr., ii. 489.

Collumpton, ii. 76.

Colman, Rev. Dr. Benjamin, i. 330, 352, 408, 411, 417, 418, 425;
ii. 38, 127, 144, 621.

Columbine, General, i. 117.

Comihoy, i. 196.

Concord (America), i. 425.

Conjuet, Anthony, ii. 107.

Connolly, Lady Anne, ii. 407.

Conyers, Rev. Dr., ii. 506, 533.

Cook, George, ii. 110, 111.

Cooke, Rev. Samuel, ii. 142.

Cooper, Rev. Dr. Samuel, ii. 620.

Cooper, T., i. 118.

Cooper, Rev. William, i. 408, 422, 424, 459.

Corbusiers, Colonel, ii. 181.

Cork, ii. 238–241, 245, 261, 274, 275, 397.

Cottell, Isaac, ii. 111.

Courcy, Rev. Richard de, ii. 516, 561, 611.

Coventry, ii. 316.

Coventry, Lady, ii. 407.

Cowper, William, ii. 613.

Cox, James, ii. 367.

Cox, Lady, i. 106, 349.

Crane, Mr. J., ii. 564, 609.

Cross, George, ii. 112.

Cross, Rev. Mr., i. 433, 434, 477.

Crosse, Rev. John, ii. 584.

Crossly, Rev. David, ii. 105.

Croswell, A., i. 361.

Cruttenden, Robert, ii. 98, 214, 217, 277.

Cudworth, William, ii. 347, 348.

Cumberland, Duke of, ii. 37.

Cutler, Rev. Dr. Timothy, ii. 123.

Dacre, Lady, ii. 407.

Dacre, Lord, ii. 407.

Dagge, Mr., i. 178, 179.

Darien, i. 139, 357.

Darlington, ii. 411.

Darney, William, ii. 316.

Darracott, Rev. Risdon, ii. 75, 77, 113, 250, 419.

Dartmouth, Countess of, ii. 415.

Dartmouth, Earl of, ii. 399–401, 415, 495, 524, 525.

Davenport, Rev. James, i. 446; ii. 126, 397.

Davies, Rev. Henry, ii. 48.

Davies, Rev. Howell, ii. 48, 57, 62, 187, 188, 493, 500, 518,
588, 609.

Davies, Rev. James, ii. 48.

Davies, Rev. Samuel, ii. 166, 322–324, 338.

Deal, i. 113, 114; ii. 184, 571.

Delamotte, Charles, i. 60, 75, 130, 135, 250.

Delamotte, Miss Elizabeth, i. 369.

Delamotte, Mr., i. 241, 244, 246, 248–251, 271, 272, 370.

Delamotte, William, i. 250, 355, 394, 415.

Delany, Rev. Dr., i. 147.

Delitz, Countess, ii. 209, 216, 225, 265, 406.

Deptford, i. 109, 272, 485.

Derby (America), i. 386.

♦Dickinson, Rev. Jonathan, i. 331; ii. 342.

Dinwiddie, Governor, ii. 338.

Dirleton, Lady, i. 533.

Dixon, Rev. Dr., ii. 543.

Dixon, Thomas, ii. 559, 564, 610.

Doddridge, Rev. Dr. Philip, i. 66, 220, 231, 313; ii. 34, 71–77,
195, 207, 255, 256, 260, 279, 290.

Dodington, George Bubb, ii. 210.

Dorchester (America), i. 397.

♦Dorrel, Captain, ii. 181.

Downes, Rev. John, ii. 422.

Downing, Rev. Mr., ii. 399–401, 415.

Dublin, i. 147; ii. 235, 238, 273–275, 286, 394–397.

Dudley, ii. 316.

Dulwich, i. 241, 244.

Dummer, i. 56–60, 62, 64, 176.

Durant, Rev. Mr., i. 173.

Durell, Rev. Dr., ii. 543–547.

Durham, ii. 412.

Dursley, ii. 53, 54, 559, 605.

East, Rev. Mr., ii. 605.

Ebenezer (America), i. 392.

Edgecumbe, Lord, ii. 407.

Edinburgh, i. 518, 524, 528; ii. 4, 6, 161, 196–200, 261, 276,
277, 284, 311, 312, 382, 391, 393, 394, 410, 411, 419, 445,
454, 464, 554.

Edwards, Rev. D., ii. 621, 623.

Edwards, Elizabeth, i. 1.

Edwards, Rev. Jonathan, i. 274, 426–429; ii. 19, 22, 32, 138,
343, 410.

Edwards, John, ii. 111, 161, 179, 286, 287, 352, 396, 487.

Edwards, Peter, ii. 609.

Edwin, Mrs., ii. 173.

Eells, Rev. Nathaniel, ii. 130, 139.

Egmont, Earl, i. 241.

Elberton, i. 185.

Elizabeth Town (America), i. 331, 383; ii. 334.

Ellington, Rev. Edward, ii. 576, 609, 619, 621, 623.

Elliott, Rev. R., ii. 558, 621, 624.

Emerson, Rev. Daniel, i. 410.

Emerson, Rev. Mr., ii. 144.

Epworth, ii. 285.

Erskine, David, i. 516.

Erskine, Lady Anne, ii. 559, 560.

Erskine, Lord Chancellor, ii. 537.

Erskine, Rev. Ebenezer, i. 274, 497–510, 516; ii. 9, 22, 32.

Erskine, Rev. Ralph, i. 216, 267–270, 274, 311, 333, 352, 376,
461, 497–510, 517; ii. 15.

Essex, Lady, ii. 407.

Evans, John, ii. 108.

Everton, ii. 410, 462, 464.

Evesham, i. 200, 257.

Exeter, ii. 67, 77, 113–119, 215, 217, 230, 232, 254, 270, 398,
399, 498.

Exeter (America), ii. 593, 596, 597.

Fagg’s Manor (America), i. 386.

Falmouth, i. 459.

Fawcett, Rev. Dr. John, ii. 381, 497.

Fawcett, Rev. Mr., ii. 75, 77.

Fellows, Mr. John, ii. 610.

Ferrers, Earl, ii. 425.

Ferrers, Lady, ii. 209.

Finley, Rev. Dr. Samuel, ii. 167.

Fisher, Rev. James, i. 497.

Fitch, Rev. Jabez, ii. 121.

Fitzroy, General George, ii. 373.

Fitzwalter, Lady, ii. 209.

Fletcher, Rev. John, ii. 415, 417, 499, 502, 518, 520, 535, 539,
542, 543, 578.

Foote, Samuel, ii. 355, 428–439, 505.

Fox, Hon. Charles, ii. 440.

Foxcroft, Rev. Thomas, i. 409, 410; ii. 140.

Foxe, Rev. John, ii. 417.

Francke, Professor, ii. 405.

Frankland, Lady Anne, i. 159.

Franklin, Benjamin, i. 337–339, 360, 374, 377, 439; ii. 228, 250,
283, 378, 539, 629.

Frederica (America), i. 138, 357; ii. 97.

Frederick, King of Prussia, ii. 395, 441.

Frederick, Prince of Wales, ii. 37.

Free, Rev. Dr., ii. 413, 422.

Freehold (America), i. 325, 326, 384.

Frelinghuysen, Rev. T. J., i. 331.

Frenchay, i. 186.

Frey, Andrew, ii. 308.

Frink, Rev. Samuel, ii. 559, 619.

Frome, ii. 374, 559.

Gadsby, Edward, ii. 417.

Galatin, Colonel, ii. 237, 259, 276, 346.

Galatin, Mrs., ii. 237.

Gambold, Rev. John, i. 14.

Garden, Rev. Alexander, i. 142, 357, 359–364, 396–400, 404, 405,
463, 477, 539.

Gardiner, Colonel, ii. 33, 46.

Gardiner, Lady Frances, ii. 33, 37, 262.

Garrick, David, ii. 355, 390, 433.

Gee, Rev. Joshua, i. 409; ii. 144.

Georgia (America), i. 128, 140–142; ii. 23, 334.

Germain, Lady Betty, ii. 209, 216.

German Town (America), i. 337, 374.

Gibb, Rev. Adam, i. 509–513; ii. 22, 200.

Gibbons, Rev. Dr. Thomas, ii. 204, 214, 374, 571, 620.

Gibbs, Rev. Mr., i. 177, 180.

Gibraltar, i. 116–121.

Gibson, Bishop, i. 65, 74, 157, 291, 310, 405, 546; ii. 87–94,
197.

Gibson, James, ii. 550.

Gideon, Miss, ii. 405.

Gidley, Gustavus, ii. 498.

Gifford, Rev. Dr., ii. 243, 244, 374, 461.

Gilbert, Colonel, ii. 181.

Gill, Rev. Dr. John, i. 67.

Gillies, Rev. John, i. 1; ii. 262, 284, 293, 312, 316, 323, 336,
356, 397, 398, 410, 412, 419, 442, 445, 495, 627.

Gillman, Captain, ii. 597.

Gladman, Captain, i. 308, 339, 383.

Glascott, Rev. Mr., ii. 584.

Glasgow, i. 518; ii. 5, 197–199, 262, 276, 277, 284, 311–314, 382,
392, 399, 410, 411, 419, 454, 465.

Gloucester, i. 1–3, 7, 33, 48–53, 79, 106, 197, 256–258, 263, 480,
539, 540, 548; ii. 52, 59, 83, 85, 87, 204, 206, 213, 224,
249, 316, 345, 374, 406, 517, 559.

Gloucester (America), i. 374.

Godwin, E., ii. 109, 110.

Grafton, Duke of, ii. 440.

Grafton, Duchess of, ii. 407.

Granville, Madam, i. 106.

Graves, Rev. Charles Caspar, ii. 260.

Gravesend, i. 111, 162, 239, 241, 272; ii. 568, 569.

Green, Bishop, ii. 450.

Green, Rev. Mr., ii. 558.

Green, William, ii. 257.

Greenwich (America), i. 374.

Grenaw, Rev. Mr., i. 141.

Grevil, Mrs., i. 167.

Grey, Rev. Dr. Zachary, ii. 124, 125.

Grigg, Rev. Mr., ii. 253.

Grigsby, Rev. W., ii. 291.

Grimshaw, Rev. William, ii. 218, 219, 234, 258, 293, 383, 384.

Grinfield, Mrs., ii. 282, 322, 345, 346.

Grosvenor, Rev. Dr. Benjamin, ii. 374, 614.

Grove, Thomas, ii. 543.

Gumley, Colonel, ii. 249.

Gurney, Joseph, ii. 401, 565.

Gwennap, ii. 253.

Habersham, James, i. 84, 110, 113, 114, 119, 122, 125, 140, 350,
351, 388, 395, 461, 465, 476, 485, 491, 493, 517, 531, 538;
ii. 23, 25, 31, 36, 60, 148, 248, 334, 468, 469, 475, 480,
575, 579, 608, 609.

Haddington, Earl of, ii. 210.

Haime, John, ii. 108, 232.

Halifax, ii. 285.

Halifax, Lord, ii. 440.

Hall, Westley, i. 14, 62, 75, 155, 176, 349, 473.

Hally, Rev. William, ii. 32.

Hamilton, Duchess of, ii. 407.

Hamilton, Lady Mary, i. 550; ii. 269.

Hampstead (America), i. 416.

Hampton (America), i. 416.

Hampton Common, i. 256.

Hampton, ii. 54, 63, 87.

Hanway, Jonas, ii. 448.

Hardy, Charles, ii. 457, 464, 475, 485, 566, 609.

Harman, John, ii. 448, 486.

Harrington, Lady, ii. 440.

Harrington, Lord, ii. 244, 245.

Harris, Gabriel, i. 34, 47, 74, 106, 157, 204, 206, 230; ii. 608.

Harris, Howell, i. 167–171, 188–190, 196, 197, 204, 310, 314, 349,
356, 413, 435, 471, 478, 486, 493, 515, 535–537, 541, 552,
560, 561; ii. 28, 30, 36, 40, 47–52, 57, 58, 79, 84, 148,
158–160, 163, 167, 168, 171–175, 179, 187–191, 202, 203, 213,
224, 229, 234, 236, 247, 282, 531, 541.

Harris, Rev. Sampson, i. 34, 76.

♦Hartford, Mrs. Frances, ii. 609.

Hartlepool, ii. 532, 533.

Hartley, Rev. Thomas, ii. 256, 265, 270, 290, 347.

Harvard College, ii. 473.

Hastings, Lady Anne, ii. 345.

Hastings, Lady Betty, i. 58, 349.

Hastings, Lady Frances, ii. 265, 269.

Hastings, Lady Selina, ii. 269.

Haughton, John, ii. 241, 245.

Haven, Rev. Dr. Samuel, ii. 592, 600.

Haverfordwest, ii. 226, 517, 518.

Haweis, Rev. Dr. Thomas, ii. 375, 620.

Hawkins, Rev. William, ii. 549.

Haworth, ii. 234, 258, 259, 285, 315, 381, 383.

Healey, Jonathan, ii. 238.

Henchman, Rev. Nathaniel, ii. 137.

Henderson, Miss, ii. 420.

Herring, Archbishop, ii. 365.

Hertford, i. 231, 249.

Hertford, Countess of, i. 282; ii. 407.

Hertford, Lord, ii. 407.

Hervey, Rev. James, i. 14, 55, 60, 64, 184, 201, 314; ii. 47,
71, 78, 186, 195, 212, 222, 226, 233, 256, 259, 263, 265,
270, 279, 281, 290, 344, 347–352, 385, 413.

Hervey, Lady, ii. 407.

Hervey, Lord. ii. 37.

Higson, Mr., ii. 543.

Hill, Rev. Rowland, i. 469; ii. 503, 516, 519, 529, 530, 535,
544, 551.

Hill, Sir Richard, ii. 495, 529, 544.

Hinchinbroke, Lady, i. 78, 161; ii. 210.

Hinton, Rev. Mr., ii. 605.

Hitchin, i. 231, 232.

Hobby, Rev. William, ii. 141.

Hoblin, Rev. Mr., ii. 253.

Hodges, Rev. John, ii. 48.

Holdernesse, Earl, ii. 210, 366, 367, 416, 440.

Holiday, Rev. Mr., ii. 180, 181, 217.

Holland, William, ii. 247.

Holyoke, Rev. Edward, ii. 132–134.

Hone, Nathaniel, ii. 557, 627.

Hood, Rev. Paxton, ii. 204.

Hook, Rev. John, ii. 317.

Hooker, Mr., i. 91, 174, 456, 494.

Hopper, Christopher, ii. 259, 396, 397.

Horneck, Dr., i. 88.

Horsley, ii. 312.

Hotham, Sir Charles, ii. 416.

Hotham, Lady Gertrude, ii. 258, 263, 345, 346, 416, 440.

Hoxton, i. 558.

Huddersfield, ii. 533.

Hume, Baron, ii. 210.

Hume, David, ii. 210.

Humphreys, Joseph, i. 223–227, 471, 480, 483, 495, 530, 536;
ii. 48, 49, 294.

Hunter, Mr., ii. 24.

Huntingdon, Earl of, i. 58, 158; ii. 37.

Huntingdon, Countess of, i. 78, 159; ii. 37, 168, 187, 188,
192–194, 197, 198, 202, 203, 206, 208, 212, 214, 216, 223,
224, 226, 227, 229, 232, 234, 237, 239, 243, 249, 253,
255–264, 269, 270, 274–277, 282, 284, 288–290, 293, 314, 318,
320, 322, 333, 341, 343, 345, 346, 348, 352–356, 366, 372,
376, 377, 379, 384, 390, 400, 407, 414, 425, 427, 430, 440,
454, 489, 496, 497, 502, 515, 517, 518, 520, 532, 537, 541,
542, 551, 555, 558–560, 578, 583, 584, 608.

Hutchins, Rev. Dr. Richard, i. 14, 56, 62, 155, 176, 186, 193,
310, 312, 482.

Hutchinson, John, ii. 321.

Hutton, James, i. 102, 109, 112, 118, 349, 390, 392, 437, 450,
465; ii. 68, 158, 292, 303, 304, 307.

Hutton, Rev. John, i. 82, 109.

Hyndford, Earl of, ii. 210.

Hyndford, Lady, ii. 209.

Ingham, Rev. Benjamin, i. 33, 45, 233, 234, 236, 258, 352, 380,
384, 427; ii. 14, 75, 141, 155, 161, 250, 311, 349, 355,
367, 415.

Ingram, James, ii. 109, 218, 219.

Ipswich (America), i. 416; ii. 592, 597.

Irvine, ii. 276.

James, T., ii. 49, 57.

Jenkins, Herbert, ii. 48, 49, 51, 57, 108, 109, 113, 161, 169,
174.

Jennys, Soame, ii. 440.

Jesse, Rev. Mr., ii. 500.

Jewet, Rev. Jedediah, ii. 600, 620.

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, i. 10, 15, 178, 220; ii. 544.

Jones, J., ii. 48, 49.

Jones, Mrs., ii. 247.

Jones, Rev. Griffith, i. 169, 184, 189; ii. 48, 187, 222, 345.

Jones, Rev. Lewis, ii. 48.

Jones, Rev. Thomas, ii. 341, 415.

Jones, Thomas, ii. 542.

Jortin, Dr., i. 66.

Joss, Captain Torial, ii. 500, 553, 555, 560, 562, 609.

Kay, Benjamin, ii. 542.

Keen, Robert, ii. 445, 454, 457, 458, 465, 466, 468, 469, 472,
476, 485, 487, 490, 493, 500, 517, 532, 533, 554, 560, 565,
570–573, 585, 587–589, 593, 608, 609, 614.

Ken, Bishop, i. 5; ii. 344.

Kendal, ii. 259, 277.

Kennedy, Mr., ii. 114, 116.

Keppell, Lady Elizabeth, ii. 407.

Kettering, ii. 256, 315.

Keynsham, i. 185.

Kidderminster, ii. 82, 316.

Kilrush, i. 146.

Kilsyth, ii. 2, 5, 32.

Kinchin, Rev. Charles, i. 14, 58–60, 64, 155, 176, 201–203, 349.

Kingsbridge, ii. 103, 113, 114, 215.

Kingston, ii. 425.

Kingston, Duke of, ii. 210.

Kingswood, i. 179, 187, 190, 195, 259, 268, 271, 467, 490; ii.
346, 406, 539.

Kinsale, ii. 274, 275.

Kinsman, Rev. Andrew, ii. 216, 455, 456, 488, 554, 566.

Kirkby, Rev. John, ii. 266.

Kirkland, Rev. Samuel, ii. 589.

Kittery (America), ii. 336, 592.

Knight, Rev. Titus, ii. 603, 610.

Land, Rev. Tristram, i. 286.

Langdon, Rev. Dr., ii. 592.

Langford, Rev. John, ii. 620, 621, 624.

Langworthy, Edward, ii. 609.

Lardner, Dr. Nathaniel, i. 66.

Lauderdale, Earl of, ii. 210.

Lavington, Bishop, i. 11, 282; ii. 201, 219–222, 230, 271.

Lavington, Rev. Mr., ii. 403.

Law, Rev. William, i. 16, 59, 281; ii. 259, 377.

Lee, Jesse, ii. 588, 602.

Leechman, Rev. Dr. William, ii. 391.

Leeds, ii. 234–236, 258, 285, 286, 310, 312, 315, 352, 380, 383,
384, 412, 444, 445, 453, 462, 464, 532.

Leicester, ii. 284, 310, 502.

Leigh, Lady Barbara, i. 159.

Leominster, ii. 59, 109.

Leven, Earl of, i. 519, 523, 524, 530, 531.

Lewes, ii. 551.

Lewis, J., ii. 48, 49, 57.

Lewis, Rev. Thomas, ii. 48, 51, 57.

Lewis, Thomas, ii. 112.

Lewis Town (America), i. 388.

Lewisham, i. 244.

Liddiard, i. 1.

Limerick, i. 146; ii. 274, 275, 397.

Lincoln, Lady, ii. 209.

Lindsay, Rev. Henry, i. 501.

Lisbon, ii. 325–332.

Lisburn, ii. 274.

Lisburne, Lady, i. 78, 161.

Liverpool, ii. 316, 352.

♦Llanelly, ii. 58.

Locke, John, i. 129.

Log College, i. 325, 332.

London, i. 55, 74, 82–87, 106, 149, 150–157, 161, 171–175, 204,
214, 233, 267, 273, 466, 477, 485, 538, 551; ii. 45, 60, 193,
218, 232, 239, 263, 266, 270, 282, 286, 300, 315, 322, 324,
343, 346, 353, 354, 376, 379, 384, 397, 399, 401, 412, 421,
453, 457, 459, 488, 491, 518, 528, 550, 557.

Long Acre Chapel, ii. 355–365.

Longden, Mr., i. 2.

Long Island, i. 383.

Lonsdale, Lord, ii. 37.

Lothian, Marquis of, i. 515; ii. 342.

Ludlow, ii. 109.

Lumley, Lady Henrietta, i. 159.

Lunell, William, ii. 238–240, 244, 245, 273, 279.

Lurgan, ii. 274.

Lutterworth, ii. 284.

Luxborough, Lady, ii. 209.

Lyman, Rev. Mr., ii. 592.

Lyttelton, Lord, ii. 210, 407.

McCulloch, Rev. William, i. 528; ii. 2, 5, 6, 30, 224, 255, 338.

Mackay, Captain, i. 123, 124.

McLaurin, Rev. John, ii. 22.

McLeod, Rev. Mr., i. 139, 141, 357.

McMahon, Mr., i. 145.

Madan, Rev. Martin, ii., 263, 265, 341, 398–401, 404, 407, 415,
417, 434, 454, 490, 499, 548, 620, 631.

Maddock, Rev. Abraham, i. 400.

Madeley, ii. 518, 520.

Maidenhead (America), i. 331.

Maidstone, ii. 379.

Mair, Rev. Thomas, i. 497.

Majendie, Rev. J., i. 173, 174.

Malden (America), ii. 592.

Malmesbury, i. 264.

Manchester, i. 148; ii. 237, 258, 259, 285, 315, 352, 383, 384.

Manchester, Duchess of, ii. 209.

Mansfield, ii. 257.

Marble Head (America), i. 417; ii. 592.

March, Earl of, ii. 210.

Margate, i. 112; ii. 572.

Marlborough (America), i. 425; ii. 138.

Marlborough, Duchess of, i. 160; ii. 37.

Marsden, Rev. Joshua, ii. 182.

Marychurch, ii. 215.

Maryland (America), ii. 164.

Mather, Rev. Eleazar, i. 426.

Matheson, Rev. Dr., ii. 605.

Matthews, James, ii. 542.

Maxfield, Thomas, i. 166, 180; ii. 40, 415, 491.

Medford (America), ii. 592.

Meriton, Rev. John, i. 558–560; ii. 39, 44.

Middleton, Rev. Erasmus, ii. 543.

Middleton, Mr., ii. 556.

Milner, Rev. J., ii. 384.

Milton (America), ii. 592.

Minchin, Hampton, ii. 63–67.

Molther, Rev. Philip Henry, i. 392, 394.

Moncrieff, Rev. Alexander, i. 497.

Monson, Lady, ii. 209.

Montagu, Duchess of, ii. 209.

Moody, Rev. Samuel, i. 416; ii. 175, 177.

Moon, Mrs., ii. 534.

Morgan, Rev. Charles, i. 56, 173, 174.

Morgan, William, i. 14.

Morpeth, ii. 285.

Morris, Samuel, ii. 166.

Muir, Rev. Dr., i. 528.

Muirhead, Rev. John, i. 376.

Murray, Grace, ii. 235.

Musselburgh, ii. 276.

Nairn, Rev. Thomas, i. 497.

Nantwich, i. 147; ii. 315, 316.

Nazareth (America), i. 382.

Neal, Rev. Daniel, i. 67.

Neal, Nathaniel, ii. 74.

Nelson, John, ii. 69.

Nesbit, Mr., i. 543.

Neshaminy (America), i. 325, 332, 379.

New Brunswick (America), i. 327, 328, 331, 379; ii. 333.

Newbury (America), i. 416; ii. 175, 336.

Newbury Port (America), ii. 592, 596, 597, 602, 606, 607.

Newcastle (America), i. 339, 371, 386.

Newcastle, Duke of, ii. 245.

Newcastle-on-Tyne, ii. 33, 34, 234–236, 284–286, 311, 312, 316,
352, 353, 380, 410, 412, 445, 464, 532.

New Haven (America), i. 429, 477, 495.

New Haven College, ii. 476.

Newport (America), ii. 592.

Newton, Rev. John, ii. 316, 424, 519, 543, 620, 624, 631.

Newtown (America), i. 344; ii. 592.

New York, i. 328, 335, 383, 430; ii. 152, 162, 172, 175, 332,
469, 476, 486, 589, 590, 592.

Nimmo, James, ii. 261.

Nimmo, Lady Jane, ii. 262, 366.

Nitschmann, Bishop, i. 89, 382.

Nitschmann, Hannah, ii. 302.

Niven, James, ii. 284.

Nixon, Mr., i. 457.

Noble, Mr., i. 328, 341, 356, 403, 430, 509, 551.

Norris, Rev. Mr., i. 351, 354.

North, Lord, ii. 210.

Northampton, i. 231; ii. 71, 256, 310, 315, 352, 410, 532.

Northampton (America), i. 426–429.

Northampton, Lord, ii. 407.

North East (America), i. 339.

Northumberland, Lady, ii. 407.

Norwich, ii. 299, 300, 317, 347, 348, 408, 516.

Nottingham, ii. 256, 310, 315.

Nottingham (America), i. 386.

Nowell, Dr., ii. 543, 544.

Occum, Samson, i. 384; ii. 493.

Ogilvie, Rev. Mr., i. 514, 522, 528.

Oglethorpe, General, i. 74, 76, 77, 82, 109, 110, 130, 132, 134,
141, 347, 351, 357, 364, 447; ii. 2, 3, 26.

Olivers, Thomas, i. 395, 470; ii. 204, 531.

Olney, i. 231: ii. 112, 196, 256, 310, 315, 410.

Orchard, Paul, i. 184, 315.

Orphan House, i. 347–352, 355, 359, 368, 380, 390, 434, 441–445,
492–494, 519–521, 543; ii. 35, 36, 43, 60, 97, 153–158, 169,
205, 278, 280, 287, 292, 332, 339, 377, 397, 413, 421, 470,
475, 479–484, 491, 523–528, 559, 573, 588.

Osgood, Rev. John, i. 397.

Osmotherley, ii. 312, 313.

Ottery, ii. 78.

Owen, E., ii. 90.

Oxenhall, i. 199.

Oxford, i. 9, 14, 15, 16, 53, 56, 57, 62, 74, 79, 106, 157, 203;
ii. 542.

Oxford Methodists, i. 18, 31, 57.

Painswick, i. 199, 256, 263: ii. 559.

Palmer, Rev. Henry, ii. 48.

Paul, Rev. Mr., ii. 181.

Paulet, Lady Rebecca, ii. 407.

Park, Rev. Mr., i., 257.

Parker, Mr., i. 364.

Parsons, Rev. Jonathan, i. 422; ii. 597, 599, 600, 619–621.

Pearce, Bishop, ii. 355–364, 368.

Pearsall, Rev. Richard, ii. 250.

Pemberton, Rev. Dr. Ebenezer, i. 329, 333, 335, 341, 384, 430;
ii. 227, 255, 335, 620, 622.

Pembroke, ii. 226, 517.

Pembroke, Lady, ii. 407.

Penn, William, i. 320–323.

Pennsylvania, i. 320–323, 377, 380.

Penrose, Rev. Mr., i. 180.

Pentycross, Rev. Thomas, ii. 530.

Pepperell, Sir William, ii. 121, 149, 175, 336, 350.

Periam, Joseph, i. 227–230, 308, 315, 316, 476.

Perronet, Rev. Vincent, ii. 221.

Pershore, i. 257.

Petersham, Lady Caroline, ii. 209.

Philadelphia (America), i. 320–323, 327, 328, 331, 332, 336, 337,
372, 384, 387, 433, 435, 436; ii, 163, 164, 171, 175, 228,
250, 333, 468, 476, 589.

Philips, Sir John, i. 42, 44, 56, 57.

Pickering, Rev. Theophilus, ii. 139.

Piercy, Rev. Mr., ii. 584.

Pierpont. Mr., i. 429.

Piers, Rev. Henry, i. 148, 239, 241, 244, 272, 349.

Pilmoor, Joseph, ii. 571, 586, 588, 633.

Pitt, Hon. Mrs., ii. 209.

Pitt, William (Earl of Chatham), ii. 210, 440.

Placey, ii. 312.

Plymouth, ii. 100–104, 113, 120, 162, 216, 230, 252, 270, 313,
398, 399, 443, 455, 487.

Pomfret, Countess of, i. 282.

Pontypool, i. 196, 314.

Pope, Alexander, ii. 83.

Port Arlington, ii. 397.

Porter, Dr. Ebenezer, ii. 604.

Porter, Rev. John, i. 422.

Portsmouth, ii. 161, 224, 254, 256, 263, 280, 282, 310, 375.

Portsmouth (America), i. 416; ii. 121, 122, 175, 336, 592, 593,
596.

Potter, Archbishop, i. 74.

Powell, Rev. J., ii. 49.

Powley, Rev. Mr., ii. 506.

Powys, Thomas, ii. 495, 499, 506.

Prince, Rev. Thomas, i. 423, 424, 539; ii. 127, 131, 146.

Prince, Thomas, ii. 121.

Proudfoot, Rev. Dr., ii. 603.

Providence (America), ii. 592.

Publow, i. 185.

Pugh, F., ii. 112.

Pugh, Rev. Philip, i. 48.

Purfleet, i. 110.

Queensbury, Duchess of, i. 71, 161; ii. 209.

Rae, Lord, i. 515, 518, 539; ii. 3.

Raikes, Robert, i. 47, 87, 106.

Rambach, Rev. J., ii. 439.

Ramsgate, ii. 571, 572.

Randall, Rev. Benjamin, ii. 601.

Randwick, i. 256, 263.

Rankin, Thomas, ii. 393.

Redding (America), i. 418.

Redford, Rev. Dr., ii. 605.

Redruth, ii. 253, 254.

Reed, Rev. Dr. Andrew, ii. 607.

Reedy Island (America), i. 388.

Rees, Rev. Lewis, ii. 48.

Relly, James, ii. 161.

Rhode Island (America), i. 406; ii. 335, 336.

Rhodes, Benjamin, ii. 310.

Rich, John, ii. 355.

Rich, Miss, ii. 209.

Richards, John, ii. 48, 62.

Richmond, Duchess of, ii. 407.

Rimmins, Henry, ii. 301, 304, 306, 307.

Robe, Rev. James, ii. 2, 7–9.

Robinson, Rev. Robert, ii. 229, 347, 407.

Rock, Dr., i. 206; ii. 446.

Rockhampton, i. 1.

Rockingham, Lady, ii. 209.

Rodborough, ii. 453, 517, 559.

Rodgers, Rev. John, ii. 592.

Roe, Rev. Samuel, ii. 548.

Rogers, Rev. Daniel, ii. 600.

Rogers, Rev. Jacob, i. 231.

Romaine, Rev. William, ii. 341, 343, 375, 400, 407, 415, 417,
420, 454, 490, 495, 499, 532, 542, 543, 548, 558, 620, 631.

Rooker, James, ii. 402.

Ross, Rev. Dr., ii. 605.

Rotherham, ii. 257, 285, 310, 315, 412.

Rowel, Jacob, ii. 610.

Rowland, Rev. John, i. 331, 379.

Rowlands, Rev. Daniel, i. 169, 171, 487, 541; ii. 48, 49, 51,
52, 187.

Rowley (America), ii. 592.

Roxbury (America), i. 410; ii. 592.

Royal, Isaac, ii. 175.

Rudge, Mr., i. 233.

Rundle, Bishop, i. 147.

Ryland, Rev. John, ii. 349.

Sabine, Governor, i. 117, 119, 120.

Saffron Walden, i. 251.

St. Albans, i. 232.

St. Gennys, ii. 79, 253.

St. Ives (Cornwall), ii. 253.

St. John, Lady, ii. 209.

St. John, Lord, ii. 210, 214.

St. Mary de Crypt, i. 5.

St. Neots, ii. 410.

Salem (America), i. 416; ii. 336, 592.

Salisbury, i. 176.

Salmon, Matthew, i. 62, 148.

Sandwich, Earl of, ii. 210.

Savage, Richard, i. 178.

Savannah (America), i. 122, 125, 130–140, 143, 157, 171, 347,
351, 354, 364, 388, 390, 402, 434, 437, 446–448; ii. 97,
573, 585, 587, 588, 601.

Sawyer, Dr., ii. 599.

Schaubs, Lady, ii. 210.

Scott, Captain, ii. 502, 519, 520, 532.

Scott, Dr. John, ii. 96.

Scott, Lady Jane, ii. 407.

Seagrave, Rev. Robert, i. 212, 278, 285; ii. 294.

Secker, Archbishop, i. 66, 157; ii. 399, 523–528.

Selwyn, George Augustus, ii. 210.

Selwyn, Lady, i. 41, 106.

Sewall, Rev. Dr. Joseph, i. 408, 411, 417, 418; ii. 131, 144,
335.

Seward, Benjamin, i. 163, 166, 200, 349.

Seward, Henry, i. 164–166.

Seward, Rev. Thomas, i. 163, 251.

Seward, William, i. 164–168, 175, 179, 186–188, 192, 194, 197,
200, 204, 230, 251, 308, 319, 348, 349, 365, 371, 373, 378,
381, 382, 388, 412, 466, 548.

♦Shackerley, ii. 384.

Sharon (America), ii. 591.

Sheerness, ii. 380, 492.

Sheffield, ii. 257, 285, 286, 310, 315, 412, 462, 532.

Shenstone, William, i. 15.

Shent, William, ii. 319, 533.

Shepherd, Miss Molly, ii. 403.

Sherburne, Mr., ii. 121, 151.

Sherlock, Bishop, i. 66, 71; ii. 42.

Shields, ii. 380.

Shipman, Joseph, ii. 543.

Shippack (America), i. 379.

Shirley, Lady Fanny, ii. 209, 225, 237, 265, 268, 290, 440.

Shirley, Rev. Walter, ii. 490, 537, 584, 611.

Shrewsbury, ii. 161.

Shurtleff, Rev. William, ii. 121.

Shuter, Edward, ii. 390.

♦Shutlift, Rev. Mr., i. 416.

Sibree, Rev. Mr., ii. 605.

Silvester, Rev. Tipping, i. 151.

Simpson, Rev. Mr., ii. 260.

Sinclair, Major, i. 117.

Skelton, Rev. Charles, ii. 620.

Skerret, Rev. Dr., i. 254.

♦Sladdin, John, ii. 219.

Smalbroke, Bishop, ii. 99, 147.

Smith, Rev. Cotton Mather, ii. 591.

Smith, James, ii. 608.

Smith, Rev. John, i. 530.

Smith, Rev. Joseph, i. 357.

Smith, Rev. Josiah, i. 421, 491; ii. 620.

Smith, Richard, ii. 573, 598, 609.

Smith, Rev. Dr. William, ii. 477.

Smyth, Aquila, i. 454.

Smythe, Sir Sidney Halford, ii. 416.

Somerset, Duchess of, i. 280; ii. 209, 268.

Somerset, Duke of, ii. 268.

Sproat, Rev. Dr. James, i. 328; ii. 620.

Stanhope, Dean, i. 71.

Staten Island (America), i. 433.

Stearns, Rev. Dr., ii. 606.

Stebbing, Rev. Dr., i. 261, 286.

Stephens, William, i. 131, 140, 351, 360, 395.

Stephenson, Rev. John, ii. 182.

Stevens, Dr. Abel, i. 451; ii. 631, 633.

Stevens, James, ii. 610.

Steward, Rev. Mr., ii. 298.

Stillingfleet, Rev. James, ii. 399, 400.

Stinchcombe Hill, ii. 604.

Stirk, Benjamin, ii. 609.

Stockport, ii. 285, 315, 384.

Stockton-on-Tees, ii. 312.

Stoddard, Rev. Solomon, i. 426, 428.

Stokesley, ii. 533.

Stonehouse, i. 76, 77, 106, 199; ii. 54.

Stonehouse. Rev. Dr. James, ii. 195, 200, 213, 233, 256, 279, 290.

Stonehouse, Rev. Mr., i. 148, 204, 205, 234, 393.

Stroud, i. 106, 199, 256, 548; ii, 53, 54.

Suffield (America), i. 428.

Sunderland, ii. 286, 315, 380, 454, 532, 533.

Sutherland, Countess of, ii. 493.

Sutherland, Earl of, ii. 493.

Sweetly, Rev. Thomas, ii. 48.

Swindells, Robert, ii. 266.

Swindon, ii. 40, 41.

Syms, John, ii. 57, 68, 160, 308.

Tabernacle (London), i. 484; ii. 45, 290, 291, 293, 298, 310,
374.

Tadcaster, ii. 380.

Tailfer, Dr., i. 447.

Talbot, Rev. Dr. William, ii. 399–401.

Tanner, Rev. Henry, ii. 104.

Taylor, David, ii. 59, 300.

Taylor, Rev. Dr., ii. 384.

Taunton, ii. 250, 270.

Tavistock, ii. 217.

Tavistock, Lord, ii. 407.

Tedbury, i. 264.

Tennent, Rev. Charles, i. 325, 371, 431.

Tennent, Rev. Gilbert, i. 326, 328, 331, 332, 335, 352, 376, 379,
380, 384, 423, 433, 434, 476, 496, 531, 548, 549; ii. 12, 14,
31, 125, 127, 128, 153, 164, 268, 322–324, 333.

Tennent, Rev. John, i. 325.

Tennent, Rev. William, i. 324, 325, 332.

Tennent, Rev. William, jun., i. 326, 332, 339, 356, 384, 477;
ii. 152, 590.

Tewkesbury, i. 257; ii. 161.

Thanet, Lady, ii. 209.

Thaxted, i. 251.

Thirsk, ii. 533.

Thomas, B., ii. 49.

Thomas, Rev. John, ii. 47.

Thomas, Lady Sophia, ii. 209.

Thompson, Rev. G., i. 106, 184; ii. 78, 79, 231, 253, 254.

Thompson, Rev. James, i. 497.

Thomson, Mrs., ii. 608.

Thornbury, i. 196, 261, 263.

Thornton, John, ii. 404, 416.

Thorold, Sir John, i. 59, 349.

Thorpe, Rev. John, ii. 257.

Tibbut, R., ii. 48.

Tilling, Robert, ii. 426.

Tillotson, Archbishop, i. 360, 372, 452–454, 466.

Tilly, Rev. Mr., i. 402.

Tomo Chici, i. 132–135.

♦Topcliffe, ii. 198, 312.

Toplady, Rev. Augustus, ii. 624.

Tottenham Court Road Chapel, ii. 368, 372–374, 376, 384, 389.

Townsend, Rev. Joseph, ii. 490, 493.

Townshend, Charles, ii. 210.

Townshend, Lady, i. 78, 160; ii. 211, 407.

Townshend, Marquis of, ii. 210.

Trafford, Lord, ii. 407.

Trapp, Rev. Dr., i. 206–214, 236–238, 279, 454.

Trelegg, i. 197.

Trent (America), i. 328, 332; ii. 333.

Trentham, Viscount, ii. 210.

Trevecca, ii. 62, 187, 191, 541, 555, 570, 584.

Trigg, William, ii. 609.

Trotter, Rev. Dr. John, ii. 620.

Tucker, Rev. Josiah, i. 253, 287; ii. 16.

Tunbridge Wells, ii. 551, 560.

Tupper, Rev. Thomas, ii. 417.

Tweeddale, Marquis of, ii. 210.

Tytherton, ii. 40–43, 77, 80, 100.

Ulverstone, ii. 261.

Upper Marlborough (America), i. 340, 342.

Usk, i. 196.

Venn, Mr., i. 172.

Venn, Rev. Henry, ii. 385, 398, 400, 407, 415, 417, 444, 454,
490, 506, 534, 539, 542, 558, 620, 621, 623, 631.

Villiers, Lord, ii. 440.

Vincent, Henry, ii. 607.

Virginia (America), ii. 165, 338, 467, 478.

Wakefield, ii. 285, 286.

Waldegrave, Lady, ii. 407.

Wales, Rev. Mr., i. 379.

Walker, Rev. Samuel, ii. 375, 400.

Walter, Rev. Nehemiah, i. 409.

Wantage, i. 1.

Warburton, Bishop, i. 281; ii. 462.

Warminster, ii. 375.

Warne, Rev. Jonathan, i. 285.

Waterford (Wales), ii. 54.

Waterland, Dr., i. 66.

Watts, Rev. Dr. Isaac, i. 66–71, 137, 162, 330; ii. 72, 203, 294.

Webb, Rev. John, i. 409, 417, 425; ii. 144.

Webster, Rev. Alexander, i. 527; ii. 29.

Wednesbury, ii. 81, 82, 86, 316.

Well, Rev. Nathaniel, i. 187.

Wellington, ii. 77, 113, 230, 250, 270.

Wells, Samuel, ii. 400.

Welstead, Rev. Mr., i. 411.

Wesley, Rev. Charles, i. 12, 14, 16, 17–20, 23, 28, 32, 53, 59,
60, 62, 75, 87–89, 112, 138, 142, 148, 149, 155, 161, 164,
166, 167, 192, 204, 216, 234, 239, 240, 245, 250, 251, 267,
307, 309, 347, 392, 411, 450, 464, 476, 478–482, 535–538,
547; ii. 34, 69, 86, 176, 177, 184, 218, 229, 235, 236, 238,
246, 247, 263, 288, 289, 294, 298, 299, 310, 311, 319, 320,
339, 349, 373, 383, 401, 415, 425, 470, 496, 497, 558, 570,
574, 603, 609, 611.

Wesley, Rev. John, i. 12, 14, 23, 28, 32, 33, 39, 42, 46, 53,
56, 60, 65, 75, 87, 93, 97, 103, 114, 115, 130, 133, 135,
142, 148, 149, 155, 161, 167, 192–195, 222, 226, 244, 245,
250, 252, 258–263, 268, 275, 292, 294, 334, 360, 366, 389,
403, 412–415, 432, 435, 439, 440, 450, 462–476, 479, 482,
484, 530, 535–538, 546, 553; ii. 33, 34, 69, 72, 80, 96,
160, 165, 176, 184, 189, 214, 218, 221, 229, 235, 238, 243,
245–247, 261, 263, 266, 275, 276, 279, 288, 289, 294–296,
299, 308, 310, 313, 317, 319, 320, 322, 347–349, 352, 355,
365, 368, 373, 377, 383, 395, 397, 406, 414, 415, 444,
462–464, 477, 490–492, 496, 497, 515, 531, 534, 542, 548,
557, 558, 568, 570, 574, 586, 603, 607, 609, 614–620, 631.

Wesley, Mrs. Susannah, i. 12, 176.

West, Daniel, ii. 458, 566, 609.

Westbury, ii. 374.

Weston-Favell, ii. 348, 351, 410.

Weymouth (America), ii. 137.

Weymouth, Lord, ii. 407.

Wheatley, Rev. Charles, i. 288.

Wheatley, James, ii. 299, 317, 347, 348, 409.

Wheelock, Rev. Dr., ii. 473, 589.

Whitaker, Rev. Mr., ii. 620.

Whitaker, Samuel, ii. 381.

White, Rev. George, ii. 218.

Whiteclay Creek (America), i. 325, 339, 386.

Whitefield, Andrew (brother), i. 2.

Whitefield, Elizabeth (sister), i. 2.

Whitefield, James (brother), i. 2; ii. 492.

Whitefield, John (brother), i. 2.

Whitefield, Richard (brother), i. 2; ii. 608.

Whitefield, Thomas (father), i. 1.

Whitefield, Thomas (brother), i. 2; ii. 608.

Whitefield, Elizabeth (mother), i. 1; ii. 28, 240, 281.

Whitefield, Elizabeth (wife), i. 530–533; ii. 5, 36, 71, 85, 87,
120, 122, 168, 170, 171, 173, 180, 226, 268, 269, 272, 275,
298, 309, 316, 554, 558.

Whitehead, Dr. John, i. 463.

Whitelamb, Rev. John, i. 14.

Whitemarsh (America), i. 374.

Whiting, Captain, i. 116.

Whitmore, Mr., ii. 608.

Wickwar, ii. 110, 111.

Wigglesworth, Rev. Dr. Edward, ii. 132, 135, 136.

Wilder, Rev. John, i. 287.

Willard, Josiah, i. 408.

Williams, Colonel, ii. 255.

Williams, Joseph, ii. 63, 82, 83.

Williams, Rev. Peter, i. 541.

Williams, T., ii. 49, 57, 238.

Williams, Rev. William, i. 541; ii. 48, 49, 51, 57.

Williamsburg (America), i. 343.

Williamson, William, i. 447.

Willis, Rev. Mr., i. 185.

Willison, Rev. Mr., i. 514, 529; ii. 2, 21, 26.

Wilmington (America), i. 339, 372, 386.

Wilson, Bishop, ii. 344.

Wilson, Rev. William, i. 497, 518.

Winder, Mr., ii. 608.

Windsor, i. 175.

Winter, Cornelius, i. 532; ii. 346, 492, 508–515, 573, 578, 609,
610, 623.

Winterbourne, i. 186.

Witton, Rev. Mr., ii. 72.

Woffington, Margaret, ii. 355.

Wolverhampton, ii. 112, 113, 315.

Wood, Elizabeth, ii. 455, 456.

Woodbridge (America), i. 383.

Woodstock, ii. 517.

Worcester, ii. 83.

Wrentham (America), ii. 592.

Wrexham, ii. 315, 316.

Wright, Ambrose, ii. 608, 609.

Wright, Sir James, ii. 523–528, 575.

Wright, Mr., ii. 564, 573, 578, 593.

Wynn, Sir Watkin William, ii. 203.

Yale College (America), ii. 138.

Yarm, ii. 380, 412, 532–534.

York, ii. 285, 286, 311, 312, 315, 352, 380, 532, 533.

York (America), ii. 121, 178, 592, 593.

Ziegenhagen, Rev. F. M., i. 137.

Zinzendorf, Count, i. 89; ii. 68, 91, 291, 292, 301, 304, 306,
307, 389.

Zubley, Rev. John Joachim, ii. 620.

Zububuhler, Rev. Mr., ii. 526.

Footnotes.

1 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. i., p. 399.

2 – “Life of John Erskine, D.D.,” p. 107.

3 – Gillies’ “Historical Collections,” vol. ii., pp. 339–398.

4 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1742, p. 580.

5 – Ibid., pp. 437, 580.

6 – _Weekly History_, June 26, 1742.

7 – _Christian’s Magazine_, 1792, p. 20.

8 – _Weekly History_, July 3, 1742.

9 – _Weekly History_, July 3, 1742.

10 – In one of his last sermons in London, in 1769, Whitefield
exclaimed: “Once, when I was preaching in Scotland, I saw
ten thousand people affected in a moment, some with joy,
others crying, ‘I cannot believe,’ others, ‘God has given
me faith,’ and some fainting in the arms of their friends.
Seeing two hardened creatures upon a tombstone, I cried
out, ‘You rebels, come down,’ and down they fell directly,
and exclaimed, before they went away, ‘What shall we do to
be saved?’” (Whitefield’s Eighteen Sermons, published by
Gurney, 1771, p. 290.)

11 – Mr. Robe had been the pastor of the Kilsyth church for
twenty-nine years.

12 – Robe’s Narrative, p. 87.

13 – Robe’s Narrative, p. 159.

14 – An appellation given, by the French, to the Calvinists of
the Cevennes, who formed a league, in 1688; and who, in
their boldness, crimes, and enthusiasm, resembled the
Circumcelliones of Africa.

15 – In reply to this monstrous edict, a pamphlet was published,
with the title. “A Friendly Caution to Seceders,” in
which they were persuaded not to make Whitefield’s success,
and the word of God at Cambuslang and elsewhere, the
reasons of their fast. The author treats “The Associate
Presbytery,” and especially Adam Gibb, with great, but
deserved, severity, for their behaviour to Whitefield.

16 – “Fraud and Falsehood Detected” was not published in
Erskine’s collected works. For the sermons here mentioned,
see “The Sermons and other Practical Works of the Rev.
Ralph Erskine.” 8vo. 1777, vol. vii., p. 373, etc., p. 423,
etc., and p. 441, etc. The first of these sermons was
preached at Stirling, June 13, the second at Dunfermline,
June 11th, and the third at Abbotshall, August 9th, 1742.
Further attacks on the great revival may be found in vol.
viii., pp. 47, 104, 190, etc.

17 – The nine sermons were selected from Whitefield’s sermons
already published.

18 – General Oglethorpe’s Proclamation.

19 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., pp. 453–459.

♦20 – The _Christian’s Magazine_, vol. i., 1790, p. 160.

21 – The two intervening days were spent in writing letters
respecting his Orphan House, and other matters.

22 – _Glasgow Weekly History_, No. 39.

23 – _Weekly History_, October 16, 1742.

24 – “Robe’s Narrative, 1742,” pp. 99–107.

25 – Methodism had recently been introduced into Newcastle by
Wesley, and Moravianism into Yorkshire by Ingham.

26 – Doddridge’s Correspondence, vol. iv., p. 113; and
Doddridge’s “Life of Gardiner.”

27 – Charles Wesley was now at Newcastle, preaching with
amazing power and success. (See John Nelson’s Journal.)

28 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1742.

29 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 199.

30 – These particulars are gleaned from a part of Cennick’s
diary, for the first time published in the _Primitive
Methodist Magazine_ for 1865.

31 – _Primitive Methodist Magazine_, 1865, p. 595.

32 – Whitefield’s suggestion was not adopted. Mr. Meriton, soon
after this, became one of Wesley’s clerical helpers in
England.

33 – The Society consisted of widows, married people, young men,
and spinsters. At the Society meetings, these different
classes of persons occupied separate places in the
Tabernacle, each class receiving from Whitefield, in the
colloquial style, various exhortations suitable to their
different stations. (See Dr. Campbell’s “Services at the
Centenary Celebration of Whitefield’s Apostolic Labours,
held in the Tabernacle, Moorfields, May 21, 1839,” p. 26.)

34 – Ingham had recently married Lady Margaret Hastings, one of
the daughters of the Earl of Huntingdon.

35 – “The Oxford Methodists,” p. 223.

36 – Hervey was now a curate at Bideford, in Devonshire.

37 – _Glasgow Weekly History_, No. 48.

38 – Howell Davies was a remarkable man. Having spent some
time at a country school, he was put under the care of
the Rev. Griffith Jones, the founder of the “moveable
free schools.” With the assistance of Mr. Jones, he made
great proficiency in the Latin and Greek languages, and in
other branches of learning. In due time, he was ordained
a minister of the Church of England. The first church
in which he was called to officiate was Lys-y-fran, in
Pembrokeshire; but he was soon dismissed, on account of
his zeal for Christ and the salvation of sinners. For some
time, the largest churches throughout Wales were open to
him; and thousands upon thousands flocked to hear him.
The attendance at the monthly sacraments in his church
at Haverfordwest was seldom less than two thousand, and
sometimes was more than twice that number; the church
being frequently emptied to make room for remaining
communicants. He _statedly_ preached in four different
places, besides his daily labours in houses, barns,
fields, commons, and mountains. He became the chief leader
of Calvinistic Methodism in Pembrokeshire; and was an
intimate friend of Whitefield, whom he often accompanied
in his journeys. To the day of his death, he was one of
the regular supplies at the Tabernacle and at Tottenham
Court Chapel, London. He also was a frequent preacher
in the Tabernacles at Bristol and Kingswood, and in
the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapels at Bath, Brighton,
Tunbridge Wells, and other places. He died in the same
year as Whitefield, and was buried in Prengast Church,
Haverfordwest.――_Evangelical Magazine_, 1814.

39 – _Glasgow Weekly History_, No. 44.

40 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 98.

41 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 130.

42 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 107.

43 – Ibid., p. 126.

44 – The _Gospel Magazine_, 1771, p. 33.

45 – Thomas Adams was one of Whitefield’s lay-preachers. We
shall hear of him again.

46 – _The Gospel Magazine_, 1771, p. 68.

47 – The _Gospel Magazine_, 1771, p. 69.

48 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 99.

49 – In a contemporary letter, Howell Harris says, “Whitefield
preached at Aberdaw, and _stopped_ at Fonmon Castle.”
(“Life and Times of Howell Harris.”)

50 – Harris says that, on this day, Whitefield also preached at
Penmark. (Ibid.)

51 – Harris says, he also preached at Margam.

52 – Howell Harris says, “Several gentlemen attended, and were
much affected and pleased.” (“Life and Times of Howell
Harris,” p. 127.)

53 – Harris says, the sermon was preached near one of Howell
Davies’ churches, and that twelve thousand were present.
(Ibid., p. 127.)

54 – I believe several of these proper names are wrongly spelt,
but I give many of them as I find them. I despair of being
able to correct them all.――L. T.

55 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 24.

56 – This sermon is included in Whitefield’s collected
works. It is very long, but contains nothing demanding
observation.

57 – There was, however, a little discordance. A letter was
read, from J. Richards, one of the public exhorters, “in
which he objected to the division of the members of the
Society into _married_, _single_, and _widows_.” (“Life
and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 101.)

58 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 62.

59 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1814, p. 418.

60 – Journals of J. and C. Wesley, and Minutes of Conferences,
1744–1798, p. 39.

61 – _Christian History_, 1747.

62 – Whitefield writes “Hampton,” but the full name of the
place was Minchin-Hampton.

63 – The title of Whitefield’s pamphlet was, “A Brief Account
of the Occasion, Process, and Issue of a late Trial at the
Assize held at Gloucester, March 3rd, 1743, between some
of the People called Methodists, Plaintiffs, and certain
Persons of the Town of Minchin-Hampton, in the said County,
Defendants. In a Letter to a Friend. By George Whitefield,
A.B., late of Pembroke College, Oxford. London: printed
for J. Robinson, at the Golden Lyon, in Ludgate Street;
and sold at the Tabernacle, and by Mr. John Syms, in
Pitfield Street, Hoxton, 1744.” (8vo. pp. 15.)

64 – “Memoirs of James Hutton,” p. 112.

65 – Ibid., p. 121.

66 – “Memoirs of James Hutton,” p. 128.

67 – Jackson’s “Life of C. Wesley,” vol. i., p. 350.

68 – C. Wesley’s Journal.

69 – Wesley’s Works, vol. ii., p. 28.

70 – See it in Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 401.

71 – Doddridge’s Correspondence, vol. iv., p. 254.

72 – Ibid., p. 265.

73 – Doddridge’s Correspondence, vol. iv., p. 270.

74 – The Rev. John Barker was now in the sixty-first year of
his age. He began his ministry in 1709, and for four years
acted as assistant to the Rev. Benjamin Grosvenor, D.D.
On the death of the celebrated Matthew Henry, in 1714,
Mr. Barker became his successor, in Mare Street, Hackney.
In 1738, for unknown reasons, he resigned his pastorate at
Hackney; and, after three years of rest, became, in 1741,
minister of the congregation at Salters’ Hall, where he
continued until a short time before his death, in 1762.
He numbered among his _intimate_ friends Doddridge, Watts,
Gilbert West, Lord Lyttleton, etc. (Wilson’s “Dissenting
Churches in London.”)

75 – Doddridge’s Correspondence, vol. iv., p. 284.

76 – Wilson’s “Dissenting Churches,” vol. iii., p. 101.

77 – Doddridge’s Correspondence, vol. iv., p. 275.

78 – Doddridge’s Correspondence, vol. iv., p. 289.

79 – Doddridge’s Correspondence, vol. iv., p. 293.

80 – See _Primitive Methodist Magazine_, 1865, p. 602.

81 – The Rev. Risdon Darracott, one of Doddridge’s pupils,
mentioned in the foregoing letter, dated, December 12,
1743. He was an eminently devout and useful Dissenting
minister, at Wellington, Somersetshire, where he died,
at the early age of forty-two, in the year 1759.

82 – A young Dissenting minister at Taunton. Also mentioned in
Doddridge’s letter.

83 – The reader has already seen the fluttering which these
services created among the London Dissenters.

84 – Doubtless, the Rev. Mr. Bennet, perpetual curate of
Tresmere. (See C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. i., pp. 369, 376;
and J. Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 197).

85 – The Rev. James Hervey, author of “Meditations among the
Tombs,” etc., had been curate at Bideford for the last
three years, and had left the town only four months before
this visit by his friend Whitefield.

86 – One of the “public exhorters” or itinerant preachers in
Wales.

87 – _Primitive Methodist Magazine_, 1865, p. 661.

88 – At the very time when Whitefield was on his way to brave
the murderous rioters in Staffordshire, he was being
sanctimoniously attacked by “The Associate Presbytery” in
Stirling. On December 23, the members of that body met, to
renew “The Solemn League and Covenant, in a way and manner
agreeable to” their “_present_ situation and circumstances.”
A full account of their proceedings was published in 1744;
and, among the many sins of which they accuse themselves,
the following was one:――

“We desire to be humbled before the Lord, that some of us
were not timeously enough aware of Mr. George Whitefield,
a priest of the Church of England, and the danger of his
way, nor timeously enough employed in warning the Lord’s
people against the same; and that all of us have been
too remiss, in our endeavours to prevent the sad effects,
which have attended and followed upon his ministrations,
particularly in this land; that we have been too little
humbled for the entertainment which hath been given him;
that we have been too little affected before the Lord,
with the bold attack made upon the order and institutions
of the Lord’s house, by the _latitudinarian_ principles
which he hath propagated, and with the awful delusion
wherein he has been an instrument of the Lord’s wrath
unto this generation; that we have not been duly exercised
in searching into the grounds of the Lord’s controversy
this way; and in crying unto Him, that He would pity
His heritage, and rebuke the devourer, casting the false
prophet and the unclean spirit out of the land.” (Act of
the Associate Presbytery, etc., 1744.)

89 – Whitefield, probably guided by the pronunciation of the
word, writes “_Wedgbury_.”

90 – In another letter, Whitefield says: “It is near eleven
at night, and nature calls for rest. I have preached five
times this day (Tuesday, December 27), and, through Christ
strengthening me, I could preach five times more. I was
scarce ever so happy before. It is surprising how the Lord
Jesus has made way for me in these parts. I lose nothing
by being quiet, and leaving all to Him. The weather is
like spring.”

91 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 134.

92 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 49.

93 – Wesley’s Works, vol. i., p. 427.

94 – Hutton’s Memoirs, pp. 157–167.

95 – Besides the pamphlets already noticed, another may be
mentioned: “A Fine Picture of Enthusiasm, chiefly drawn
by Dr. John Scott, formerly Rector of St. Giles’s in the
Fields. To which is added, An Application of the Subject
to the Modern Methodists, exposing the Principles and
Practices of all such. Dedicated to the Bishop of London.
1744.” (8vo. 40 pp.) The writer says, “Thousands are
flocking after those _enthusiasts_, Whitefield and Wesley,
and are being deluded into a _passionate_, _mechanical_
religion. Wesley attempted, for some time, at the opening
of his mission, to exorcise the devil out of a parcel
of _weak_, if not _worse_, women; whom he had taught
to go into _agitations_ and _screamings_ in the public
assemblies of his people.” The author acknowledges that
the Methodists “have got some of the _most melodious_
tunes that ever were composed for church-music; there
is _great harmony_ in their singing, and it is very
_enchanting_; but the hymns they sing are immediate
addresses to the _Son of God_, as the supreme object
of worship, and represent Him as much more friendly and
compassionate to the human world than God the Father ever
was. And, lest men should not be enough affected with the
_name_ and the _sufferings_ of Jesus, one of those _artful
teachers_ has ordered the _tickets_ for his people to be
impressed with the _crucifix_.”

96 – Cruttenden was, first of all, a Dissenting minister;
but, as he did not believe the truths he preached, he
relinquished the pulpit, and betook himself to business.
This he pursued with considerable success, and, in process
of time, was chosen the Lord Mayor’s Common Hunt. After
the loss of his property, he principally subsisted upon
the profits of a place in the post office. He became a
member of the Miles Lane congregation, and died, happy in
God, in 1763. We shall hear of him again.

97 – _Primitive Methodist Magazine_, 1865, p. 662.

98 – Seymour’s “Memoirs of Whitefield,” p. 66.

99 – _Christian History_, 1744.

100 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1805.

101 – A Sermon on Samson, a type of Christ. To which is added an
Exposition of Ephesians v. 22–33; prefaced and recommended
by the Rev. Mr. Whitefield. Sold by Mr. John Syms, in
Ironmonger Row, near St. Luke’s Church, Old Street; John
Lewis, printer, in Bartholomew Close, near West Smithfield;
or Mr. Wharton, at the Tabernacle.

102 – _Christian History_, 1744.

103 – Ibid.

104 – _Christian History_, vol. vi., p. 40, 1744.

105 – Though “printed and sold by J. Lewis, in Bartholomew
Close,” the _Christian History_ was really under the
control of Whitefield. In an advertisement appended to
No. 3, vol. vi., 1744, it is stated, that the publication
“contains a general account of the progress of the
gospel, under the ministry of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield,
his fellow-labourers, and assistants;” that, though
originally published in the folio size, “_Mr. Whitefield_
had _ordered_ it to be printed in a pocket volume, as
judging it less cumbersome;” and that it was “the Rev. Mr.
Whitefield’s desire to have the volumes made as public as
possible.”

It may be added, that, on Whitefield’s return from America,
in July, 1748, the _Christian History_ was discontinued.
The last letter in it is dated “June 23, 1748;” and on the
last page is the following:――“N.B. This is the last number
of the _Christian History_ that will be printed.”

106 – At this time, the only Methodists in Exeter were the
followers of Whitefield.

107 – Mr. Kennedy, Adams’s host.

108 – Mr. Kennedy went with Mr. S. (Kennedy’s Letter.)

109 – In Prince’s _Christian History_, vol. ii., p. 320, there
is a letter, written by “William Shurtleff,” minister at
Portsmouth, stating that Whitefield came to Portsmouth on
November 6. Shurtleff and the Rev. Jabez Fitch, another
Portsmouth minister, met him. Fitch asked him to preach
that evening in his meeting-house. Whitefield did so; and
was to have preached again next morning, but was taken ill.

Respecting Prince’s _Christian History_, it may be
stated here, once for all, that it was a periodical,
in two octavo volumes, of 416 pages each, entitled, “The
Christian History, containing Accounts of the Revival and
Propagation of Religion in Great Britain and America, for
the years 1743 and 1744. Boston: printed by S. Kneeland
and T. Green, for T. Prince.” No. 1 was issued on March 5,
1743; and No. 103, the last, on February 16, 1745. Many
of the correspondents seem to trace to Whitefield the
beginning of the revivals both in Scotland and New England.

110 – Sir William Pepperell, the son of a Cornish fisherman,
but bred a merchant. In 1727, he was chosen one of His
Majesty’s Council, and was annually re-elected until his
death in 1759. In 1745, he had the command of the troops
which invested and conquered Louisbourg. The king, in
reward of his services, conferred upon him the dignity of
a baronet of Great Britain, an honour never before, and
never since, conferred on a native of New England. Just
before his death, he was appointed lieutenant-general.

111 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

112 – _Christian History_, No. 3, vol. vi.

113 – A nick-name given to Whitefield’s converts and admirers in
America, and analogous to that of “Methodists” in England.

114 – Nichols’ “Illustrations of Literature,” vol. iv., p. 303.

No wonder that, soon after the receipt of this letter, the
Rev. Zachary Grey, D.D., wrote and published a pamphlet,
with the following title:――“A serious Address to Lay
Methodists, to beware of the false Pretences of their
Teachers. With an Appendix containing an Account of the
fatal and bloody effects of Enthusiasm in the case of
the Family of the Dutartres, in South Carolina. 1745.”
(8vo. 29 pp.) Dr. Grey tells his readers, as Dr. Cutler,
his correspondent, would have done, that “the Methodist
preachers are wandering lights, gadding about with canting
assurances, and leading people into bogs of delusion.”
In justice to Whitefield, it must be added that he had no
connection whatever with the family of the Dutartres. The
family consisted of father, mother, four sons, and four
daughters. In the highest degree, they were all fanatics.
They withdrew from all society, believing that they alone
had the true knowledge of God, and were taught by Him by
signs and impulses. They refused to perform militia and
highway duty, and threw off all obedience to the civil
magistrates. These facts, coupled with adultery on the
part of one member of the family, led Justice Simmons to
issue a writ for Judith Dutartre. In executing the writ,
Simmons was killed by a shot which the Dutartres fired
at him and his men. Six of the fanatics were carried
prisoners to Charleston, and five of them were sentenced
to be hanged for murder. Three were executed, and two,
on confessing their error, were pardoned. (“The Great
Awakening,” by Tracy, p. 79.)

115 – It was unfair to attribute this to Whitefield. In
“An Account of the Revival of Religion in Boston, in
1740–1–2–3. By Thomas Prince, one of the Pastors of the
Old South Church,” the following testimony is given by the
Rev. Dr. Colman:――“I do not remember any crying out, or
falling down, or fainting, either under Mr. Whitefield’s
or Mr. Tennent’s ministry, all the while they were at
Boston, though many were in great concern of soul.”
(p. 13.)

116 – “A large majority in the Presbyterian Church, and many,
if not most, of the Congregationalists, in New England,
held that the ministrations of unconverted men, if neither
heretical in doctrine nor scandalous for immorality, were
valid, and their labours useful.” (The Great Awakening,
by Tracy, p. 66.) Gilbert Tennent was one of the first
to publicly attack this monstrous error, in his famous
Nottingham sermon, on “The Danger of an Unconverted
Ministry.” For years afterwards, the error was furiously
maintained.

117 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

118 – “Some,” says Mr. Hobby, “object to Mr. Whitefield,
because in England he is a _Churchman_, in Scotland
a _Kirkman_――here he is a _Dissenter_, and there an
_Anabaptist_――that is, he has communion with _all_ these
churches, and therefore ought to have communion with
_none_.”

119 – The Rev. Samuel Cooke was ordained in 1739, and died in
1783, aged seventy-four.

120 – In a pamphlet, published in 1745, and entitled, “The
Question whether it be right to turn Methodist considered,”
the Methodists are divided into four sections; namely,
“_Moravians, Inghamites, Westleyites, and Whitefieldians_.”

121 – _Methodist Magazine_, 1855, p. 1111.

122 – A river, near Portsmouth.

123 – Probably, the Rev. Thomas Prince, co-pastor with the Rev.
Dr. Sewall, of the Old South Church, Boston. He died in
1758, leaving behind him a large collection of public and
private papers relating to the civil and religious history
of New England. During the siege of Boston, the Old South
Meeting House was used for a riding school, nearly all the
timber of the pews and galleries being used for warming
it, and a large portion of Prince’s manuscripts, and
invaluable pamphlets employed in kindling the fires.

124 – _Primitive Methodist Magazine_, 1865, p. 715–16.

125 – The Rev. Edward Morgan, in his “Life and Times of Howell
Harris,” gives several extracts from a manuscript volume,
called “A Conference Book――including a general account
of the affairs of the Tabernacle, before and after
the separation of John Cennick; and an account of the
Preachers, Labourers, and Trustees, in connexion with
Mr. Whitefield, from December 1743 to 1749.” One of these
extracts relates, that, an association was held in London,
in 1745, at which Cennick, Harris, Hamond, Adams, Pugh,
Godwin, Heatly, Thorn, Simns, and Salmon, were present.
Cennick stated, that, he thought himself called to join
the Moravians. He delivered up the care of the Tabernacle
to Harris. The Societies in Wiltshire were given to
Cennick, because they chose him as their leader. Two
or three of the preachers went with him. It was agreed
that Harris should remain at the Tabernacle till the
commencement of 1746; and that he should then be succeeded
by Herbert Jenkins.

126 – These were probably the following: “Twenty-three Sermons
on various Subjects: to which are added several Prayers.
By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College,
Oxford. A new edition, revised and corrected by the author.
London: printed by W. Strahan. 1745.” (12mo. 388 pp.)

127 – _London Magazine_, 1745.

128 – Whitefield’s influence at Boston was enormous. Among
the anecdotes, extant, of his power as a preacher, the
following is a specimen. When preaching in Boston, on one
occasion, a violent storm of thunder and lightning came
on; and, in the midst of his sermon, the congregation
sat in almost breathless awe. Whitefield, observing the
consternation of the people, fell on his knees, and, with
characteristic pathos, repeated――

“Hark, _the Eternal_ rends the sky!
A mighty voice before Him goes,――
A voice of music to His friends,
But threat’ning thunder to His foes:
‘Come, children, to your Father’s arms;
Hide in the chambers of my grace,
Until the storm be overblown,
And my revenging fury cease.’”

The great preacher then rose up, and, addressing his awed
auditors, exclaimed, “Let us now devoutly sing the ‘Old
Hundred.’” The congregation started to their feet, and
burst into a song of praise too memorable to be forgotten.
(Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 469.)

129 – Brainerd was a native of Connecticut, and was now about
twenty-eight years of age. In 1739, he was admitted a
member of Yale College; but was expelled in 1742, because
he expressed his belief that one of the tutors had no
religion, and because he had been guilty of attending a
religious meeting prohibited by the collegiate authorities.
In 1743, he began his Christian labours among the Indians.
He lived in a wigwam, slept upon a bundle of straw, and
fed on boiled corn, hasty pudding, and samp. His success
was great. He died in the house of Jonathan Edwards,
October 9, 1747, aged twenty-nine.

130 – “Life of Howell Harris,” 1791, p. 176.

131 – “Further Account of God’s Dealings with Rev. G. Whitefield,”
1747, pp. 29 and 37.

132 – _London Magazine_, 1745, p. 603.

133 – Habersham had now left the Orphan House.

134 – _London Magazine_, 1745, p. 603.

135 – The war.

136 – Oglethorpe was now in England, and Major Horton was his
military deputy in Georgia.

137 – “Life of Howell Harris,” 1791, p. 175.

138 – Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 189.

139 – James Hutton’s Memoirs, p. 191.

140 – “Life of Howell Harris,” 1791, p. 63.

141 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” pp. 111–114.

142 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 9.

143 – _Ibid._, p. 99.

144 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 16.

145 – Ibid., p. 174.

146 – Ibid., p. 54.

147 – Ibid., p. 142.

148 – Ibid., p. 78.

149 – Ibid., p. 60.

150 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 156.

151 – Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 286.

152 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 11.

153 – In the same year, a second edition was printed in Boston
(8vo 22 pp.), and a third in London (8vo, 24 pp.).

It may be added, that, about the same time, a volume of
sermons was printed at Philadelphia, and entitled “Five
Sermons, on the following subjects, namely: 1. Christ
the Believer’s Husband. 2. The Gospel Supper. 3. Blind
Bartimeus. 4. Walking with God. 5. The Resurrection of
Lazarus. By George Whitefield. With a Preface by the Rev.
Mr. Gilbert Tennent.” Tennent’s Preface, of twelve pages,
is dated, “Philadelphia, May 30, 1746;” and is laudatory,
but honest and earnest.

154 – Pounded rice, or Indian corn.

155 – Indian corn ground with the husks, and fried.

156 – The shell of a fruit so called.

157 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., pp. 83, 84.

158 – _Arminian Magazine_, 1778, p. 418.

159 – In 1618, a law was passed in Virginia, which enacted,
that, “Every person should go to the Established Church
on Sundays and holidays, or lie neck and heels that night,
and be a slave to the colony the following week! For the
second offence, he was to be a slave for a month; and,
for the third, a year and a day!” (History of Virginia. By
Rev. William Stith, President of William and Mary College,
Virginia, 1747. 8vo.)

160 – Mr. Davies was born in November, 1724. In his twenty-third
year, he was sent, by the Presbytery of Newcastle,
Pennsylvania, to Hanover, Virginia. He encountered many
obstacles, from the prejudice, bigotry, profaneness,
and immorality of the people; but his earnest and able
ministry triumphed over opposition, and produced great
results. In 1753, by the request of the trustees of New
Jersey College, he accompanied Gilbert Tennent to Great
Britain. He died February 4, 1761, at the early age of
thirty-six. His sermons, in three volumes, used to be
exceedingly popular.

161 – Gillies’ “Historical Collections,” vol. ii., p. 331.

162 – The Rev. Samuel Finley, D.D., was an exceedingly devout
and able man. Ordained in 1740, the first years of his
ministry were spent in itinerating with Whitefield,
Gilbert Tennent, and others, and in promoting the
remarkable revival of that period. For preaching to a
Presbyterian congregation in New Haven, he was arrested
by the civil authority, and carried out of the colony
as a vagrant. In 1744, he became minister at Nottingham,
Maryland, where he also opened an academy. On the death
of the Rev. Samuel Davies, he became his successor as
president of ♦Princeton College, in New Jersey. In his
last illness, on being asked how he felt, he answered, “I
am full of triumph; I triumph through Christ.” Being asked
again what he saw in eternity that made him wish to die,
he exclaimed, “I see the eternal goodness of God; I see
the fulness of the Mediator; I see the love of Jesus. Oh
to be dissolved, and to be with Him!” Dr. Finley died in
1766, at the age of fifty, and was buried by the side of
his friend Gilbert Tennent.

163 – Gillies’ “Historical Collections,” vol. ii., p. 333.

164 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 26.

165 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 29.

166 – Two months before this letter was written, the Countess
of Huntingdon, at the age of thirty-nine, became a widow.
Her husband, the Earl of Huntingdon, died on October 13th,
1746.

167 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 88.

168 – See p. 158, vol. i.

169 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 30.

170 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 34.

171 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 117.

172 – The large building erected in 1740. See page 377, vol. i.

173 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 119.

174 – The wife of John Edwin, Esq., M.P., the grandson of Sir
Humphrey Edwin, Lord Mayor of London. The only daughter
and heir of Mr. and Mrs. Edwin became a Methodist, was
a particular friend of the eccentric Lady Townshend,
and married Charles Dalrymple, Esq. (“Life and Times of
Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 87.)

175 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 121.

176 – Ibid., p. 83.

177 – The disputes respecting Kingswood School.

178 – Three months after this, Herbert Jenkins was preaching
in Scotland with such success, that, “at Glasgow, he
was complimented with the freedom of the city, and was
entertained by the magistrates, and likewise by the
Presbytery.” (_Scots’ Magazine_, 1747, p. 403.)

179 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 128.

180 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 128.

181 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 146; and Whitefield’s Works,
vol. ii. p. 126.

182 – Whether designedly or not, Whitefield, in his political
sermon, pronounced eulogies on George the Second and his
Government, which they hardly merited.

183 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 141.

184 – _Christian History_, 1747, p. 178.

185 – Ibid., p. 209.

186 – _Christian History_, p. 211.

187 – _Christian History_, p. 225.

188 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

189 – _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1748, p. 329.

190 – See Tracy’s “Great Awakening,” pp. 388–433.

191 – _Christian History_, p. 192.

192 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 86.

193 – Ibid.

194 – Ibid., vol. ii., p. 375; and “Life and Times of Howell
Harris,” p. 117.

195 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 115.

196 – Ibid.

197 – “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” 1791, p. 63.

198 – William Pulteney, Earl of Bath, a statesman of great
ability, who was born in 1682, and died in 1764. For some
years, he regularly attended Tottenham Court Road chapel.
In a letter to the Countess, written in 1749, he says:
“Mocked and reviled as Mr. Whitefield is by all ranks
of society, still I contend that the day will come when
England will be just, and own his greatness as a reformer,
and his goodness as a minister of the Most High God. I
earnestly beg your ladyship’s intercession on my behalf;
that, amidst the bustle, the cares and anxieties of
public life, I may have my mind roused only by the great
concerns of an eternal world, and fixed on those scenes of
immortality to which we are all quickly hastening.” (“Life
and Times of Countess of Huntingdon.”)

199 – The celebrated nobleman, of whom Dr. Johnson once remarked,
that, he was “a wit among lords, and a lord among wits.”
Born in 1694, and died in 1773. At the time referred to
in Whitefield’s letter, his lordship had recently resigned
the office of Chief Secretary of State; and, in a letter
to Lady Huntingdon, written nine months afterwards, he
said, “Mr. Whitefield’s eloquence is unrivalled――his zeal
inexhaustible; and not to admire both would argue a total
absence of taste, and an insensibility not to be coveted
by anybody. Your ladyship is a powerful auxiliary to the
Methodist Cabinet; and I confess, notwithstanding my own
private feelings and sentiments, I am infinitely pleased
at your zeal in so good a cause.” (Ibid.)

200 – In a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, Lord
Bolingbroke said, “Mr. Whitefield is the most
extraordinary man in our times. He has the most commanding
eloquence I ever heard in any person; his abilities are
very considerable; his zeal unquenchable; and his piety
and excellence genuine――unquestionable. The bishops and
inferior orders of the clergy are very angry with him, and
endeavour to represent him as a hypocrite, an enthusiast;
but this is not astonishing――there is so little real
goodness or honesty among them. Your ladyship will be
somewhat amused at hearing that the King has represented
to his Grace of Canterbury, that Mr. Whitefield should
be advanced to the Bench, as the only means of putting
an end to his preaching. What a keen, what a biting
remark! but how just, and how well earned by those mitred
lords!” (“Sketches of the Life and Labours of Whitefield,”
published by “the Committee of the General Assembly of the
Free Church of Scotland, for the publication of the works
of Scottish Reformers and Divines,” p. 271.)

201 – Subsequent letters will shew that Dr. Doddridge complied
with Whitefield’s wish.

202 – The following jottings, respecting Whitefield’s visit,
appeared in the _General Advertiser_:――

“Edinburgh, September 15. Yesterday, arrived here from
London the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, who has lately
returned from the West Indies. He is to preach this
afternoon in the Orphan Hospital Park, where a tent was
erected this morning for that purpose.”

“Edinburgh, September 26. Mr. Whitefield has preached
every day, since his arrival, in the Orphan Park, to
numerous auditories; and yesterday afternoon, in the
Tolbooth Kirk. He set out this morning for Glasgow.”

The _Scots’ Magazine_ supplies further information; namely,
that Whitefield made collections for the Orphan Hospital;
that, on his arrival at Glasgow, he preached every day at
the Gorbals, the magistrates having refused him the use
of the high-church yard; that he also preached in several
churches in and about Glasgow, and at Falkirk; that, after
his return to Edinburgh, he preached at Fife; that his
farewell sermon was delivered in the Orphan Hospital Park
on October 26; and that the next day he set out for London.

203 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

204 – “Life of John Erskine, D.D.,” p. 134.

205 – _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1748, p. 523; and _General
Advertiser_, Nov. 24, 1748.

206 – The meaning is, Whitefield did not make collections for
his Orphan House.

207 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 198.

208 – “Life of Howell Harris,” 1791, p. 196.

209 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 109; and Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 225.

210 – _Gospel Magazine_, 1776, p. 40.

211 – The Rev. E. Paxton Hood, in his recently published “Life
of Dr. Watts,” says, on the authority of Dr. Gibbons, the
story just related “is entirely fictitious.” Dr. Gibbons
published his “Memoirs of Watts,” in 1780, thirty-two
years after Watts’s death. The reader must decide whether
the doctor or the _Gospel Magazine_ of 1776 is the better
authority.

212 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 201.

213 – Ibid., p. 207.

214 – Ibid., p. 201.

215 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 212.

216 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 107.

217 – The following extract from one of Doddridge’s letters
will cast light on this. “Northampton, October 2, 1748.
The spread of Moravianism has infected several weak, but
affectionate people of my flock, and now appears, in spite
of long dissembling, to have effected rank Antinomianism
in principle, joined with a contempt of almost all
external ordinances, and an entire alienation of affection
from me, though among persons who have always had great
reason to love me.” (Doddridge’s Diary and Correspondence,
vol. v., p. 78.)

218 – Doddridge was now completing his “Family Expositor.”

219 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 220.

220 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

221 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 105.

222 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., pp. 220, 224.

223 – It is somewhat strange that this is not mentioned in
Wesley’s Journal.

224 – Dr. Gibbons was a very learned and able man. His degree
of Doctor of Divinity was conferred by the University of
Aberdeen, in 1764, when he was one of the tutors of the
Dissenting Academy at Mile-End. He was a voluminous author,
his different publications being forty-six in number. He
died in 1785, and was buried in Bunhill Fields. (Wilson’s
“History of Dissenting Churches.”)

225 – “Life and Times of Countess of ♦Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 112.

226 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 98.

227 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 229.

228 – Ibid., p. 230.

229 – Ibid., p. 231.

230 – Whitefield’s home, at Plymouth, during this and every
subsequent visit, was the house of Andrew Kinsman. Mr.
Kinsman was now in the twenty-fifth year of his age. Seven
years ago, he had been converted by reading Whitefield’s
sermons. In 1745, he was married to Miss Tiley, another
of Whitefield’s converts. He and his wife gave the piece
of ground, at Plymouth, on which the Tabernacle was built,
and also contributed generously towards the erection of
that edifice. In 1750, Kinsman began to preach out of
doors, at Plymouth Dock, and was subjected to the most
violent persecutions. Sometimes, he was surrounded by
eight or nine military drums, to drown his voice; and
often he had to flee for his life. After this, he became
an _itinerant_, and preached with great acceptance in
Bristol, London, and elsewhere. At the Tabernacle, London,
Shuter, the celebrated comedian, was one of his hearers,
and was deeply affected by his ministry. In 1763, he was
ordained as the pastor of the Society at Plymouth Dock,
to which he henceforth chiefly confined his labours, with
the exception of visits to London and Bristol. He died,
in 1793, aged sixty-eight. (_Evangelical Magazine_, 1793,
pp. 45–60.)

231 – C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 53.

232 – Just about the time when this was written, Wesley,
Grimshaw, and Thomas Colbeck were in the utmost danger of
being murdered, at Roughlee, by a drunken mob, raised and
encouraged by this same clerical Mr. White. (See Wesley’s
Journal.)

233 – White’s sermon, with its dedicatory letter, addressed to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, was printed at Preston.

234 – Just at this time, another hostile pamphlet was published,
not far from Colne: “A brief description of the Methodists;
and a confutation of their dangerous principles. By John
Sladdin, of Ovenden, near Halifax, a Layman. York: printed
by Cæsar Ward; and sold by all the distributors of the
_York Courant_. 1749.” (12mo. 16 pp.) The following is
a brief specimen of Mr. Sladdin’s style and sentiments:
“Though, before they fancied themselves to have been
converted, the Methodists were openly lewd and profane,
would swear and be drunk, and wallow in sensuality
and voluptuousness, yet they might have a few amiable
qualities; perhaps they were courteous, affable, kind,
obliging, and faithful in their promises. But now, alas!
by passing through those dismal stages of conversion, they
have contracted such a mass of melancholy humours as hath
quite soured their formerly sweet and engaging tempers
into pride and envy, peevishness and faction, insolence
and censoriousness. Nothing now will satisfy them but
heats of fancy and transports of passion. Whilst they
should be attending to the sober dictates of Scripture and
right reason, they are looking for _incomes_, _impulses_,
and secret _manifestations_; and are apt to interpret
every odd whimsy for an innate whisper from heaven, and
every brisk emotion of their spirits for a smile of God’s
countenance. Go, ye proud wretches, you that have swelled
yourselves with conceit――you who, like a company of
bladders, are blown up with your own breath, and swell and
look big, and yet have nothing but wind within you; go,
bring forth fruits meet for repentance, and let people see
you grow more humble and lowly in your opinions.”

235 – Methodist preaching was begun, in this neighbourhood, in
the year 1746, by John Cennick, Thomas Adams, and other
“assistants” of Whitefield. A Society was formed, chiefly
consisting of members of the Rev. Mr. Williams’s church
at Gosport, and of the Rev. Mr. Norman’s at Portsmouth.
In 1754, they erected Portsmouth “Tabernacle.” (Seymour’s
“Memoirs of Whitefield.”)

236 – He was expecting her arrival from America.

237 – Whitefield’s Sunday congregation at Haverfordwest was
estimated at nearly twenty thousand. (Whitefield’s Works,
vol. ii., p. 264.)

238 – Her ladyship was at Bristol for the benefit of her health,
and had apartments in the house of Whitefield’s brother.
She was also begging money towards the erection of Bristol
Tabernacle. (“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,”
vol. ii., pp. 378–380; and Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii.,
p. 258.)

239 – Hodge’s “History of the Presbyterian Church in America,”
part ii., p. 241.

240 – “Memoirs of Franklin,” vol. i., p. 185.

241 – Franklin’s wife was a Miss Read, before he married her.

242 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1803, p. 28.

243 – “Life of Rev. Robert Robinson,” p. 18.

244 – Both the Wesleys were now in Bristol, and they, Whitefield,
and Howell Harris had a conference. Hence, the following
from Charles Wesley’s Journal:――“1749, August 3. Our
conference this week with Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Harris
came to nought; I think through their fleeing off.”
Was this another attempt to amalgamate Wesley’s and
Whitefield’s Societies?

245 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 269.

246 – Ibid., p. 272.

247 – The Rev. Mr. Thompson was rector of St. Gennys, near
Camelford, in Cornwall. After being educated at Exeter
College, Oxford, he became chaplain to the _Tiger_
man-of-war, in which he went to America. On his return
to England, he succeeded to a family estate of about £500
a year, and settled at St. Gennys. Though not an “Oxford
Methodist,” he preached the doctrines of the Methodists,
and was ardently attached to their leaders. He was an
intimate friend of Hervey, who dedicated to Mr. Thompson’s
eldest daughter the first volume of his “Meditations.”
Mr. Thompson was a man of considerable genius, and is said
to have been the author of a volume of religious poems,
which were published anonymously. He died in 1781. (“Life
and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon.”)

248 – For Haime’s own account of his success at Shaftesbury, and
his unjust imprisonment, see the _Arminian Magazine_ for
1780, p. 308. He was one of the best of Wesley’s martial
preachers.

249 – Whitefield, Howell Harris, and others held an
“Association” in London, on September 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7.
(See “Life and Times of Howell Harris,” p. 115.)

250 – At Dublin, they had made a contract _de præsenti_, to
which Wesley attached great importance, and not without
reason. “Any contract made, _per verba de præsenti_, was,
before the time of George II., so far a valid marriage,
that the parties might be _compelled_, in the spiritual
courts, to celebrate it _in facie ecclesiæ_:” (“The
Student’s Blackstone,” by Robert Malcolm Kerr, LL.D.,
p. 103.)

251 – C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 178.

252 – Tradition says, that when Whitefield preached at Birstal,
his voice was heard on Staincliffe Hill, a mile and a half
from where he stood, crying, “O earth, earth, earth, hear
the word of the Lord!” (Gledstone’s “Life and Travels of
George Whitefield.”)

253 – John Wesley’s Journal.

254 – Ibid.

255 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 264.

256 – “Life of Howell Harris,” p. 200.

257 – Whitefield calls him “captain;” but, if not now, he soon
afterwards was colonel.

258 – Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 406.

259 – For further details, see “Life and Times of Wesley,”
vol. ii., pp. 37–39.

260 – John Haughton, one of Wesley’s brave itinerants, who
afterwards became an ordained clergyman of the Church
of England. (Myles’s “Chronological History of the
Methodists.”)

♦261 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 120.

262 – _Arminian Magazine_, 1779, p. 375.

263 – Lady Chesterfield was a natural daughter of King George
the First, and therefore half-sister to his present
Majesty George the Second. Her mother was Melosina de
Schulenberg, Duchess of Kendal. (“Life and Times of the
Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 462)

264 – Wesley’s Journal.

♦265 – James Hutton’s “Memoirs.”

266 – The letter was _franked_ by Martin Madan.

267 – _Wesleyan Methodist Magazine_, 1875, p. 643.

268 – “Memoirs of Oglethorpe,” pp. 370, 371.

269 – Three years after this, Mr. Pearsall published his
“Contemplations on the Ocean, Harvest, Sickness, and the
Last Judgment” (12mo. 220 pp.),――a work written in the
same style as Hervey’s “Meditations.”

270 – Sixty-three years after this, the life of Darracott was
published, with the title, “The Star of the West; being
Memoirs of the Life of Risdon Darracott. By James Bennett.”
(12mo. 172 pp.)

271 – The meeting-house built for Whitefield in 1740.

272 – Mr. Bennet, of Tresmere, a warm-hearted friend of the
Methodists, and who had been an acquaintance of Wesley’s
father, the Rector of Epworth. (Charles Wesley’s Journal,
vol. i., p. 369.)

273 – The preacher here resuming his “old armour” was probably
one of the two mentioned in the following extract from
Charles Wesley’s Journal:――

“1743. Sunday, July 17. At St. Ives, I heard the rector
preach from Matt. v. 20. His application was downright
railing at the new sect――those enemies to the Church,
seducers, troublers, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,
etc. At Wednock, Mr. Hoblin, the curate, entertained us
with a curious discourse on ‘Beware of false prophets.’ I
stood up over against him, within two yards of the pulpit,
and heard such a hodge podge of railing, foolish lies, as
Satan himself might have been ashamed of.” For an account
of the horrible persecutions at St. Ives, see the “Life
and Times of Wesley.” In those days, it required a bold
heart for a Methodist to attempt to preach in this part
of the peaceful fold of Bishop Lavington.

274 – James Hervey, the Oxford Methodist, had been curate here.

275 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 140.

276 – The Rev. Aaron Burr was now thirty-six years of age. He
had graduated at Yale College, and had been the pastor
of the Presbyterian Church at Newark, in New Jersey. He
died in 1757, aged forty-three. He married a daughter of
the celebrated Jonathan Edwards; and his son, Aaron Burr,
became vice-president of the United States. The College at
Princeton was greatly indebted to its first president.

277 – Thomas Hartley, M.A., was rector of Winwick, in
Northamptonshire. He was a man of great ability, an
earnest Christian, a millenarian, and a mystic. His
“Paradise Restored” is one of the ablest books, respecting
the millennium, in the English language, and deserves
attention.

278 – It was about this period that John Thorpe was converted.
Thorpe was a young man of twenty, and a most virulent
opposer of the Methodists. In a public-house, he and his
convivial companions, for a wager, agreed to mimic the
preaching of Whitefield, the Wesleys, and others. Each
performer was to open the Bible, and hold forth from
the first text that met his eye. After three, in their
turn, had mounted the table, and exhausted their stock of
buffoonery, it devolved on Thorpe to close the irreverent
scene. “I shall beat you all,” he said, as he ascended the
table. He opened the Bible, and the text his eye fell upon
was, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
Conviction of sin at once seized him, and he proceeded to
preach a sermon, not in banter, but with the most serious
earnestness. When he left the table, not a syllable was
uttered concerning the wager. Profound silence pervaded
the company. Thorpe immediately went home. This was his
last bacchanalial revel. He soon joined Wesley’s Society,
at Rotherham. In 1752, he became one of Wesley’s itinerant
preachers, and continued to act as such for twelve years
afterwards. He then turned Calvinist. The Rotherham
Society was rent in twain. The seceders formed themselves
into a Dissenting Church. Thorpe became their minister;
and, in 1776, died, “the pastor of the Independent Church
at Masborough.” (_Evangelical Magazine_, 1794, pp. 45–50.)

279 – William Green, a schoolmaster, was the principal Methodist
at Rotherham. His house was the preachers’ home. On one
occasion, the mob caught William by the hair of his head,
and dragged him through the streets. On another, he was
hunted by hounds, and escaped by climbing a tree, and
hiding himself among its foliage. (Everett’s “Methodism in
Sheffield,” pp. 84–86.)

280 – Charles Wesley, under the date of “July 16, 1751,” writes:
“The door at Sheffield has continued open ever since Mr.
Whitefield preached here, and quite removed the prejudices
of our first opposers. Some of them were convinced by him,
some converted, and added to the Church.” (C. Wesley’s
Journal.)

281 – Methodism in Manchester was begun in 1747, when a few
young men formed themselves into a Society, and hired a
garret in which to hold their services. Christopher Hopper
speaks of preaching in this attic meeting-house, in 1749,
when his “congregation consisted of not more than from
twenty to thirty persons.”

282 – Wesley and his preachers had encountered violent
persecutions at Bolton. (See “Life and Times of Wesley.”)

♦283 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon.”

284 – Wesley had been in Ireland since April 7th. At Cork, the
mayor, the town drummers, and his serjeants, followed by
an innumerable mob, had marched to Wesley’s meeting-house.
The rabble pelted Wesley with whatever came to hand. Many
of the congregation were roughly handled. All the seats
and benches of the chapel, the floor, the door, and the
frames of the windows, were burnt. The mob patrolled
the streets, abusing all who were called Methodists. The
windows of Mr. Stockdale’s house were smashed to atoms.
At length, the soldiers appeared, and the mayor and his
myrmidons turned cowards.

285 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1750, p. 302.

286 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 186.

287 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1750, p. 348.

288 – Ibid.

289 – Ibid.

290 – “The Oxford Methodist,” p. 260.

291 – Hervey’s Letters.

292 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 164.

293 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 163.

294 – The letter was probably addressed to Robert Swindells,
against whom the notorious grand jury at Cork, in 1749,
made a presentment, and prayed for his transportation.
For more than forty years, Robert Swindells was one of
Wesley’s itinerant preachers. “He died,” says Atmore, in
his “Methodist Memorial,” “in 1783, full of days, riches,
and honour.” Wesley writes: “In all those years, I never
knew him to speak a word which he did not mean; and he
always spoke the truth in love. One thing he had almost
peculiar to himself,――he had no enemy.”

295 – The Duke of Somerset, who died in 1748, entertained a high
opinion of Mr. Browne. When his grace was not able to lead
the prayers of his family himself, he was accustomed to
employ the poet as his chaplain. (“Life and Times of the
Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 127.)

296 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 167.

297 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 406.

298 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 410.

299 – The reference here is not to anything done by Wesley, as
Southey and Philip imagined, but to the fact that, during
the previous year, an immense amount of mischief had been
effected by an infamous man, named Roger Ball, who had
gained access to the pulpits of the Methodists, and had
even been domiciled as a member of Wesley’s Dublin family.
The man was an Antinomian of the worst description, a
crafty debauchee, full of deceit, and teaching the most
dangerous errors. (See “Life and Times of Wesley.”)

300 – Wesley’s Journals.

301 – Kindly supplied by Mr. Stampe, of Grimsby.

302 – The _Scots’ Magazine_ for 1751 (p. 356) says: “Mr. George
Whitefield arrived at Glasgow, from Ireland, July 10th;
preached there some days, and came to Edinburgh on the
18th, where he preached generally twice a day in the
Orphan Hospital Park. He set out for England on the 6th
of August.”

303 – Doddridge’s Diary and Correspondence, vol. v., p. 217.

304 – Wesley had just published his “Serious Thoughts upon the
Perseverance of the Saints.” (12mo. 24 pp.)

305 – See Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 462.

306 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 453.

307 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 438.

308 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

309 – The _Scots’ Magazine_ for 1752 (pp. 414 and 462), says:
“Mr. George Whitefield arrived at Edinburgh on September
2nd, and preached, morning and evening, every day, in
the Orphan Hospital Park. He made a tour to the west on
September 27th; returned to Edinburgh, October 5th; and,
on the 10th, set out for England.”

310 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 152.

311 – “Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 138.

312 – Both were now in London.

313 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 477.

314 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 203.

315 – The Rev. W. Grigsby, the present minister of the _third_
Tabernacle, writes: “June 13, 1876. The only thing,
besides the name and memory of Whitefield, at the
Tabernacle, is the pulpit in which he preached; which,
when the old place was taken down, was transferred to the
new one, unaltered in form or size, but not in outward
appearance.”

316 – The new plantation at Bethesda.

317 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 194.

318 – “Life of Charles Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 19.

319 – The French Church, in Grey Eagle Street, Spitalfields, of
which Wesley had taken possession in 1750. It stood where
the brewery of Truman, Buxton, and Hanbury stands now.

320 – “Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. ii., pp. 121–126.

321 – Hutton’s Memoirs, pp. 579, 580.

322 – Rimius’s “Supplement to the Candid Narrative,” etc.,
pp. 93–96.

323 – The story was, that Mr. William Bell was one of the
Moravian financial agents, and that, in order to revive
his “drooping spirits,” in reference to the Moravian debts,
Bohler requested him to come to his house in “Nevil’s
Alley, Fetter Lane.” After much persuasion, Bell came,
and “was introduced into a hall, where was placed an
artificial mountain, which, upon singing a particular
verse, was made to fall down; and then, behind it, was
discovered an illumination, representing Jesus Christ
and Mr. Bell, sitting near each other, while, out of the
clouds, was represented plenty of money falling round
about them.” It is notable that Bohler, in his letter,
does not deny the actual occurrence of the “artificial
mountain scene.”

324 – Rimius’s quotation from Zinzendorf’s book was, “The
_Economists_ of the Society may say to a rich young man,
‘Either give us all thou hast, or get thee gone.’”

325 – Hutton’s Memoirs, pp. 304–306.

326 – In 1755, Zinzendorf and James Hutton, his editor,
published in two parts, making together more than 200
octavo pages, an amusing, but extremely foolish, answer
to the accusations brought against the Moravians by
Whitefield and others. The following was the confused
title, punctuation and italics not excepted:――“An
Exposition, or True State, of the Matters objected to
in _England_ to the People known by the name of _Unitas
Fratrum_: In which, _Facts_ are related as they are;
the true _Readings_ and sense of _Books_, said to be his,
(which have been laid to his Charge sometimes without
sufficient Proof that they were so, and been moreover
perverted and curtailed) are restored; _Principles_
are laid down as they ought, fairly; the _Practice_,
as it has been, is at present, and is intended for the
future, is owned. By the _Ordinary_ of the Brethren. The
_Notes_ and _Additions_, by the _Editor_. London: printed
for J. Robinson, in Ludgate Street. 1755.” This was an
odd production; but no good end would be answered by
quotations from it.

327 – Under the date of “November 3, 1753,” Wesley wrote: “I
read Andrew Frey’s Reasons for leaving the Brethren. Most
of what he says, I knew before; yet I cannot speak of them
in the manner in which he does: I pity them too much to be
bitter against them.”

328 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 16.

329 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 203.

330 – Benjamin Rhodes, now a boy of eleven years of age, but
afterwards one of the best of Wesley’s itinerant preachers,
was present at Birstal. He writes: “I went with my father
to Birstal to hear Mr. Whitefield. I found my soul deeply
affected under the word. At first, I had a kind of terror;
but, before the sermon was ended, my heart was melted into
tenderness, and sweetly drawn after God.” (_Arminian
Magazine_, 1779, p. 358.)

331 – No doubt Wesley’s old chapel, the Orphan House.

332 – When he had a chance, Wesley reciprocated this. Under the
date of “August 14th, 1753,” the very time when Whitefield
was preaching in the “Orphan House” at Newcastle, Wesley
wrote: “I willingly accepted the offer of preaching in the
house lately built for Mr. Whitefield, at Plymouth Dock.
Thus it behoveth us to trample on bigotry and party zeal.
Ought not all who love God to love one another?” (Wesley’s
Works, vol. ii., p. 287.)

333 – The original Society Book of the Osmotherley Methodists
still exists, and contains the following entry: “1753.
August 21st. Mr. George Whitefield preached here in the
evening.” From a manuscript “History of Methodism in
Barnardcastle,” it appears that, at this time, Whitefield
also paid a visit there. On arriving, he enquired if
there were any religious persons in the town. “Yes,”
was the prompt reply, “There are the _Lilty Pattens_”――a
nickname given to the Barnardcastle Methodists, from the
circumstance that they went to their meeting-house in
_pattens_. He preached in a yard, out of the Horse Market,
from Ezekiel xxxiii. 11.

334 – The _Newcastle Journal_, of August 11, 1753, contained a
paragraph to this effect.

335 – This was one of Wesley’s Societies. In fact, Whitefield’s
former friends, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, had no
Societies in the north of England; nor had Whitefield
himself.

336 – This is only true in the sense that Whitefield had not
been in this part of the kingdom until now. John Bennet
and others had already formed Methodist Societies in all
the places mentioned, except, perhaps, Wrexham.

337 – Twelve months before, when Wesley was at Chester, there
was great disturbance; and, a few days after his departure,
the mob destroyed his meeting-house.

338 – Probably this was John Newton, then a tidewaiter at
Liverpool, but afterwards curate of Olney, and rector of
St. Mary, Woolnoth, London.

339 – Probably William Darney, one of Wesley’s itinerants.

340 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 343.

341 – It is a curious fact that this remarkable man was
sometimes almost fascinated by Whitefield’s preaching.
On one occasion, when the great preacher was representing
the sinner under the figure of a blind beggar, whose dog
had broken from him, and who was groping on the brink
of a precipice, over which he stepped, and was lost,
Chesterfield was so excited by the graphic description,
that he bounded from his seat, and exclaimed, “By heavens,
the beggar’s gone.” It is also related, that when it was
proposed in the Privy Council that some method should be
used to stop Whitefield’s preaching, Chesterfield, who
was present, turned upon his heels, and said, “Make him
a bishop, and you will silence him at once.”

342 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
pp. 378–380.

343 – The centenary services of this venerable edifice were held
on November 25th, 1853, when a sermon was preached by the
Rev. John ♦Angell James, and addresses were delivered
by the Revs. G. Smith, Henry Quick, J. Glanville, and Dr.
Joseph Beaumont; the whole of which were published, in a
12mo. volume of 159 pages.

344 – Mrs. Grinfield, one of the ladies who attended on Queen
Caroline.

345 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 381.

346 – _Arminian Magazine_, 1779, p. 318

347 – A Methodist from Leeds,――one of Charles Wesley’s most
devoted friends. When Charles was summoned to London,
on account of his brother’s illness, Mr. Hutchinson, who
was staying at Bristol, for the benefit of his health,
resolutely determined to bear him company. He died,
at Leeds, seven months after this, on which occasion
Charles Wesley composed two beautiful hymns. In a letter
to his wife, dated “Leeds,” Charles exclaims, with his
characteristic ardour, “I have been crying in the chamber
whence my John Hutchinson ascended. My heart is full of
him, and I miss him every moment; but he is at rest.”
(C. Wesley’s Journal.)

348 – “Life of C. Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 33; and Whitefield’s
Works, vol. iii., p. 45.

349 – “Life of C. Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 33.

350 – Hodge’s “Presbyterian Church in the United States,”
part ii., p. 243.

351 – Ibid.

352 – Mr. Davies kept a diary, from which the following extract
is made:――“Wednesday, Dec. 26, 1753. Mr. Whitefield
having sent us an invitation to make his house our home
during our stay here, we were perplexed what to do, lest
we should blast the success of our mission among the
Dissenters, who are generally disaffected to him. We at
length concluded, with the advice of our friends and his,
that a public intercourse with him would be imprudent in
our present situation; and we visited him privately this
evening. The kind reception he gave us revived dear Mr.
Tennent. He spoke in the most encouraging manner of the
success of our mission, and, in all his conversations,
discovered so much zeal and candour, that I could not but
admire the man as the wonder of the age. When we returned,
Mr. Tennent’s heart was all on fire, and, after we had
gone to bed, he suggested that we should watch and pray;
and we arose and prayed together till about three in the
morning.” (Wakeley’s “Anecdotes of Whitefield,” p. 258.)

353 – According to the “_old style_,” Whitefield was born on
December 16th. In 1751, an Act of Parliament was passed
for the adoption of the “_new style_” in all public and
legal transactions; and ordered that the day following the
2nd of September of the year 1752 should be accounted the
14th of that month. This explains the seeming discrepancy
in Whitefield’s letter.

354 – Gillies says, Whitefield took twenty-two destitute
children with him.

355 – Vol. xii., p. 479.

356 – No doubt, New Jersey College had legal authority to confer
the degree: but, under the circumstances then existing,
the degree was worthless. The first time that M.A. was
attached to Whitefield’s name in England was in 1763.
This was done in his “Observations” on the Bishop of
Gloucester’s book; but it is right to add that the
pamphlet was printed by Whitefield’s friends, _after_ he
had embarked for America.

357 – The Rev. Aaron Burr, President of New Jersey College.

358 – “Account of European Settlements in America, 1778,”
vol. ii., p. 270.

359 – _London Magazine_, 1754, p. 381.

360 – Sir William Pepperell, the Cape Breton hero.

361 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. ii., p. 419.

362 – “Life of Charles Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 67.

363 – A charter to found a college was granted by the Governor
of New Jersey on October 22, 1746, and Mr. Dickinson
was appointed president. Dickinson, however, died a year
afterwards, and before the charter was carried into
operation. Besides this, the provisions of the charter
were not liked; and hence, in 1748, Governor Belcher
obtained a new one from George II., Burr was chosen
president, a commencement was made, six students graduated,
five of whom became ministers. (Hodge’s Presbyterian
Church in the United States.)

364 – Burr had married one of Edwards’s daughters.

365 – A fast-day sermon, on the encroachments of the French,
published in 1755.

366 – Mr. Burr died three years after this. One of his two
children became vice-president of the United States.

367 – The publication of these letters has been already noticed.

368 – Mrs. Bevan was the widow of Arthur Bevan, Esq., who, for
fourteen years, represented Carmarthen in Parliament. She
was converted under the ministry of the famous Griffith
Jones. For twenty years after his death, she supported
his schools in Wales, and in her will left £10,000 to
perpetuate their good effects. She was an elegant and
accomplished woman; and, at every visit, Whitefield was
wont to preach in her house at Bath. (“Life and Times of
the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 454.)

369 – Ibid., p. 195.

370 – Cennick died exactly a week before this letter was written.

371 – “Memoirs of Rev. Cornelius Winter.” By William Jay.

372 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
pp. 336, 337.

373 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 132.

374 – Ibid., p. 136.

375 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 344.

376 – “The Oxford Methodists,” p. 290.

377 – This was afterwards published, with the following title:
“An Epistle to the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield: written in
the year 1755. By Charles Wesley, A.M., late student of
Christ Church, Oxford. London, 1771.” (8vo. 8 pp.)

378 – The place at Bradford where Whitefield preached was “in
an open part of the town, near the water-side. His texts
were, John iii. 14, and 1 John iii. 8.” (“Memoirs of John
Fawcett, D.D.,” pp. 15–17.)

379 – There had been a schism among the Leeds Methodists.
A considerable number had seceded; John Edwards had
formed them into a separate Society; and, probably, the
meeting-house Whitefield mentions was intended for Edwards
and his congregation. Wesley’s first chapel in Leeds was
built two years afterwards, in St. Peter’s Street.

380 – Wesley’s Societies. Except the Societies formed by
Ingham and his friends in the West Riding of Yorkshire,
Lancashire, Westmoreland, and Cumberland, none others
existed in the north of England.

381 – The Long Acre chapel does not now exist. In Charles Street,
a few yards from Long Acre, there is a building called
“Whitefield’s Presbyterian Church;” but its minister,
the Rev. C. J. Whitmore, tells me it is not the chapel in
which Whitefield preached.

382 – Wilson’s “Dissenting Churches in London,” vol. iii.,
p. 365.

383 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 166.

384 – A popular, and also persecuted preacher, who had
died forty-three years before. He was the son of a
clergyman, ejected for nonconformity in 1662. In 1709,
Dr. Sacheverell’s mob attacked Daniel’s meeting-house, in
New Court, Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields, broke all the windows,
and burnt the pulpit and all the pews. His sermons, like
Whitefield’s, contained many pertinent and useful stories.

385 – On the earthquake at Lisbon.

386 – “Letters from Dr. Thomas Herring.” (12mo. pp. 355.)

387 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 16.

388 – _London Magazine_, 1756, p. 89.

389 – See a pamphlet, entitled “A Brief View of the Conduct of
Pennsylvania for the Year 1755.”

390 – Even the _Monthly Review_――no friend to Whitefield――in
its number for March, 1756, wrote concerning Whitefield’s
“Short Address”: “Mr. Whitefield here makes good use of
the influence he has acquired over the common people, by
endeavouring to animate them, at this critical juncture,
with a lively sense of the duty they owe to their God,
their king, and their country. It is with sincere pleasure
we find that this seasonable exhortation has had so
considerable a spread as to occasion a demand for three
editions; the first of which did not appear till after the
late general fast.”

391 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 158.

392 – _Gospel Magazine_, 1831, p. 563.

393 – The almshouses and the minister’s house do not now exist.
In “Whitefield Street,” and annexed to the chapel, a
commodious Day and Sunday school has been built. In one
of the chapel vestries there is a large original portrait
of Whitefield, without, however, the painter’s name. The
likeness is not a pleasing one. On each side of the chapel
is a burial ground, now closed.

394 – MS. Letter by John Pawson.

395 – “Centenary Commemoration of the Opening of Tottenham Court
Chapel,” p. 5.

396 – _New Spiritual Magazine_, 1783, p. 20.

397 – _Home Missionary Magazine_, 1827, p. 35.

398 – Its name is “Whitefield Tabernacle,” and connected with it
are “Whitefield Tabernacle Schools,” for boys, girls, and
infants.

399 – Wilson’s “Dissenting Churches,” vol. iii., p. 118.

400 – Sydney’s “Life of Rev. Samuel Walker,” p. 329.

401 – Ibid., p. 436.

402 – _St. James’s Chronicle_, March 16, 1768.

403 – Doubtless, Whitefield’s “Short Address to Persons of all
Denominations.”

404 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1803, p. 51.

405 – The following is taken from the _London Magazine_ for
1756, p. 402:――“August. At Maidstone late assizes, Mr. John
Lauder, an officer in a regiment of foot, was tried for
killing, with his sword, in the heat of passion and liquor,
William Forster, a post-boy. Mr. Lauder behaved very
decently at his execution.”

406 – Whitefield’s old friend, Benjamin Ingham, was now resident
at Aberford, about five miles from Tadcaster. (“The Oxford
Methodists,” p. 139.)

407 – One of Whitefield’s texts was, “Wherefore, glorify ye
the Lord in the fires” (Isa. xxv. 14), in illustrating
which he was wont to say: “When I was, some years ago,
at Shields, I went into a glass-house, and saw a workman
take a piece of glass, and put it into three furnaces
in succession. I asked, ‘Why do you put it into so many
fires?’ He answered, ‘Oh, sir, the first was not hot
enough, nor the second, and therefore we put it into
the third; that will make it transparent.’ ‘Oh,’ thought
I, ‘does this man put this glass into one furnace after
another, that it may be made perfect? Then, O my God!
put me into one furnace after another, that my soul may
be transparent!’” (Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,”
p. 370.)

408 – “Memoirs of John Fawcett, D.D.,” p. 19.

409 – _Methodist Magazine_, 1819, p. 56.

410 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 190.

411 – C. Wesley’s Journal.

412 – Vol. i., p. 266.

413 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 191.

414 – “Life of Rev. Henry Venn,” p. 24.

415 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. v., p. 275.

416 – This is hardly correct. Whitefield and the Wesleys
administered the sacraments, in London, Bristol, and other
places. Their unordained preachers, however, were not
allowed to do this until many a long year afterwards.

417 – Meaning the Methodist clergymen.

418 – “Life of Garrick,” by Fitzgerald.

419 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 208.

420 – “Memoirs of Cornelius Winter,” p. 26.

421 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
pp. 207, 208.

422 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1757, p. 260.

423 – “Annals of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
from 1739 to 1766,” vol. ii., p. 373.

424 – “Annals of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
from 1739 to 1766,” vol. ii., p. 394.

425 – Ibid., p. 102.

426 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1757, p. 260.

427 – Thomas Rankin’s MS. Journal.

428 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 154.

429 – Ibid., p. 158.

430 – The “Ormond Boys” were in favour of the popish pretender,
and were so designated after the arch-traitor, the Duke
of Ormond. The “Liberty Boys,” of course, were their
opponents.

431 – Frederick, King of Prussia, was rendering England
important service; for while the English were fighting the
French in America, he was fighting and conquering them in
Europe. “The wonderful battle of Rossbach,” says Voltaire,
“was the most inconceivable and complete rout mentioned
in history. Thirty thousand French and twenty thousand
Imperial troops there made a disgraceful precipitate
flight before five Prussian batallions and a few squadrons.”
In England, Frederick was styled the “Protestant hero;”
his birthday was kept as a holiday; public subscriptions
were proposed for him; and Parliament granted him a
subsidy of £670,000 per annum to enable him to prosecute
the war.

432 – Christopher Hopper was now one of Wesley’s preachers
in Dublin. In his autobiography, Christopher is silent
respecting Whitefield’s perilous adventure.

433 – Most of Whitefield’s biographers, and some writers of
the History of Methodism, say John Edwards, of Leeds, was
converted under Whitefield’s sermon on Oxmanton Green.
This is an egregious blunder. John Edwards was converted,
and was himself a Methodist preacher, many a long year
before this. As a rule, I refrain from noticing the errors
of previous biographers.――L. T.

434 – Whitefield was strongly urged to visit America. In an
hitherto unpublished letter, by the Rev. James Davenport,
dated, “Hopewell, January 17, 1757,” the writer says:
“Pray come to see our dear America once more, as soon
as you can. You cannot tell what God might do at this
juncture. Many, no doubt, would rejoice greatly. Oh, my
dear brother, that there were a heart in our land, under
our present dangers and distresses, to turn to God! Then
we might, in the Lord’s strength, soon drive out our
temporal enemies, and come off more than conquerors over
our spiritual ones. I hope you remember our agreement to
pray for each other, in secret, every Sabbath morning.
Oh, how sweet are the thoughts of heaven, where we may
converse, and rejoice, and praise, and enjoy and glorify
God, our Father, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, without any
stop, world without end. My soul joins with yours in
saying, ‘Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly! Amen!’”

435 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 428.

436 – Dr. Talbot, in 1767, became vicar of St. Giles’s, Reading.
He was an able preacher, and remarkable for the gift of
prayer. When Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury, was dying,
Talbot visited him. “You will pray with me, Talbot,” said
Secker. Talbot rose and went to look for a Prayer-Book.
“That is not what I want now,” remarked the Archbishop:
“kneel down by me, and pray for me in the way I know you
are used to do.” Dr. Talbot died, on the 2nd of March,
1774, in the 57th year of his age, in the house of his
friend, the great philanthropist, William Wilberforce.
(_Evangelical Magazine_, 1815, pp. 393–400.)

437 – Lord Dartmouth succeeded to the earldom in 1750, being
then about twenty-five years of age. In 1755, he married
the only daughter and heiress of Sir Charles Gunter
Nicholl. Shortly after his marriage, he became the
intimate friend of Lady Huntingdon, to whom he was
introduced by the Countess of Guildford. It was in Lady
Huntingdon’s house, that he first became acquainted with
Whitefield, the Wesleys, Romaine, Jones, Madan, etc.
George the Third appointed him principal Secretary of
State for the American department, which office his
lordship afterwards exchanged for that of Lord Keeper of
the Privy Seal. Some years later, he was made Lord Steward
of His Majesty’s Household. He contributed largely towards
Whitefield’s Orphan House. He was the early patron of
the Rev. Moses Browne; obtained ordination for the Rev.
John Newton; and was celebrated by Cowper, in his poem on
Truth:――

“We boast some rich ones whom the gospel sways,
And one who wears a coronet and prays.”

438 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1815, p. 394.

439 – Ibid., p. 395.

440 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 431.

441 – Fletcher, of Madeley, was ordained in 1757.

442 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., pp. 220, 221.

443 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 219.

444 – Miss Gideon was the daughter of Sampson Gideon, Esq.,
of Belvidere House, Kent, and sister of the first
Lord Eardley. She was converted in the drawing-room of
Lady Huntingdon. (“Life and Times of the Countess of
Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 3.)

445 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 232.

446 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 228.

447 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1803, p. 333.

448 – “Memoirs of Robert Robinson,” p. 25.

449 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1803, p. 535.

450 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1758, p. 388.

451 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1758, p. 609.

452 – There can be little doubt that this was Wesley’s chapel,
in St. Peter’s Street. It was built in 1757.

453 – The _Daily Advertiser_, of October 27, 1758, says: “We
hear that, for this month past, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield
has been preaching twice a day, to very large audiences,
in various parts of Yorkshire, Lancashire, and
Staffordshire, and is expected in town this week.”
The same journal, on the following day, announced, “On
Thursday evening (October 26), the Rev. Mr. Whitefield
came to town, from Scotland and the north of England; and
will preach to-morrow at Tottenham Court chapel, and at
the Tabernacle in Moorfields.”

454 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., pp. 246–250.

455 – _New Spiritual Magazine_, 1783, p. 164.

456 – Wesley’s Journal.

457 – C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 219.

458 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 307.

459 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 314.

460 – _Scots’ Magazine_, 1759, p. 378.

461 – Ibid.

462 – Cadogan’s “Life of Rev. W. Romaine,” p. 37.

463 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

464 – Calamy’s “Nonconformist’s Memorial,” vol. i., p. 237.

465 – Free’s edition of Wesley’s Second Letter.

466 – See “Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 343.

467 – Whitefield’s text, at Tottenham Court Road, was Hosea xi.
8, 9; and the collection £222 8s. 9d. At the Tabernacle,
his text was Psalm lxxx. 19; and the collection £182 15s.
9d. (Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”) The Rev. John Newton
stated, that, at one of these services, after the sermon,
Whitefield said, “We shall sing a hymn, during which those
who do not choose to give their mite may sneak off.” None
of the congregation stirred. Whitefield ordered all the
doors to be shut but one; at which he himself held the
plate. (“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,”
vol. i., p. 92.)

468 – C. Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 235.

469 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 408.

470 – Lady Huntingdon also was now in Yorkshire. Whitefield
joined her, at Ingham’s, at Aberford. Great confusion
prevailed in Ingham’s Societies. The Countess and
Whitefield tried to restore peace; but their efforts
were ineffectual. Sandemanianism produced a schism. Out
of eighty flourishing Societies, only thirteen continued
under Ingham’s care. (“Oxford Methodists,” p. 145.)

471 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., pp. 260–263.

472 – Cook’s “Memoirs of Foote;” and “Biographica Dramatica.”

473 – Boswell’s “Life of Johnson.”

474 – The Duke of Devonshire was Lord Chamberlain.

475 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, July 14, 1760.

476 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 209.

477 – _Monthly Review_, July, 1760.

478 – Ibid., August, 1760.

479 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, Nov. 24, 1760.

480 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 209.

481 – Madan did not attach his name to his letter, but signed it,
“Anti-Profanus.”

482 – It might be added, that portraits――hideous ones――of
Whitefield were published, with the offensive words
“Dr. Squintum” underneath them. One lies before me.

483 – _Monthly Review_, November, 1761.

484 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

485 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

486 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 210.

At and about this period, Whitefield made several other
collections for the suffering Protestants in Germany, the
aggregate amount of which was upwards of £1500. For this,
he received the thanks of the King of Prussia, Frederick
the Great. (“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,”
vol. i., p. 209.) The freeholders of Boston, also, held
a meeting, at which they passed a vote of thanks to
Whitefield for the assistance he had rendered them.
(Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”)

487 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, March 27, 1760.

488 – Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 177.

489 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

490 – _Monthly Review_, March, 1762.

491 – Thomas Adams, to whom Whitefield, in his last will and
testament, bequeathed £50, and whom he therein described
as, “my only surviving first fellow-labourer, and beloved
much in the Lord.”

492 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 281.

493 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 281.

494 – _Gospel Magazine_, 1771, p. 65.

495 – _Wesleyan Protestant Methodist Magazine_, 1831, p. 29.

496 – Query? Mr. Beckman, on whose death, Whitefield
subsequently preached a sermon. (See Eighteen Sermons, by
Whitefield, taken in shorthand by Joseph Gurney, 1771.)

497 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1796, p. 518.

Mr. West’s residence was in Southampton Place, but
he died in the house of his old friend Whitefield,
adjoining the Tabernacle, in Moorfields. For thirteen
years, his sufferings were terrible; but his patience and
cheerfulness were surprising to all who knew him. A few
days before his death, he became very ill while attending
service in the Tabernacle. The doctor would not permit
him to be removed to his own house, as it was probable the
removal would issue in his death. To the minister of the
Tabernacle, he said, “Christ is kind to me. I long for my
dissolution. O! my dear boy, preach, preach Christ to the
people! Never spare them. Be faithful to them; and think
of the worth of a precious soul. Go on, and never be
tired.” Mr. West was interred under the communion table
of Tottenham Court Road chapel, in a vault containing the
remains of Whitefield’s wife, also of his own wife, and of
Mr. Keen, his “trusty” colleague. It is worth mentioning
that Whitefield and West died on the same day of the year,
the 30th of September, and that they and Keen all died on
the same day of the month. (_Evangelical Magazine_, 1796,
pp. 518–21.)

498 – Eighteen Sermons, by Whitefield, transcribed by Gurney,
p. 44.

499 – Ibid., p. 75.

500 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 406.

501 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 286.

502 – Eighteen Sermons, by Whitefield, p. 24.

503 – MS.

504 – Whitefield’s pamphlet had an enormous circulation. At
least, six editions were issued in 1763.

505 – In 1739.

506 – Wesley’s Journal.

507 – Soon after his embarkation, it was reported that
Whitefield was dead. (_Lloyd’s Evening Post_, September 26,
1763.)

508 – Lady Selina Hastings, who died of fever, on May 12, 1763.

509 – “Life of C. Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 221.

510 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, April 16, 1764.

511 – Bancroft’s “History of the United States.”

512 – For enlarged views, indomitable energy, and arduous toils,
and for the great results of his labours in the cause
of religion and learning, Dr. Wheelock had few superiors.
For forty-five years, he was one of the most eloquent
and successful ministers in New England. He conducted his
Indian Mission School until his death, in 1779.

513 – “Lady Huntingdon and her Friends,” p. 151.

514 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 310.

515 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 311.

516 – Ibid., p. 313.

517 – These, probably, were a supply of his own “Collection
of Hymns,” the twelfth edition of which was this year
published: 16mo., 182 pp.

518 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 315.

519 – Whitefield’s catholicity of spirit won him friendships
almost everywhere. On one occasion, when preaching from
the balcony of the Courthouse, in Philadelphia, in an
apostrophe, he exclaimed, “‘Father Abraham, who have you
in heaven? any Episcopalians?’ ‘No.’ ‘Any Presbyterians?’
‘No.’ ‘Any Baptists?’ ‘No.’ ‘Any Methodists, Seceders,
or Independents?’ ‘No, no!’ ‘Why, who have you there?’
‘We don’t know those names here. All who are here are
Christians.’ ‘Oh, is that the case? Then, God help me!
and God help us all to forget party names, and to become
Christians in deed and truth.’” (Belcher’s “Biography of
Whitefield,” p. 207.)

520 – _Arminian Magazine_, 1782, p. 440.

521 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 317.

522 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, April 10, 1765.

523 – Thomas Adams, one of Whitefield’s helpers, when he was
moderator of the Calvinistic Methodists, but now the
founder and pastor of the Tabernacle at Rodborough, in
the county of Gloucester. (“Bristol Tabernacle Centenary
Services,” p. 90.)

524 – Notwithstanding Whitefield’s long absence, and the
recentness of his return, she had been a fortnight in the
country! (Whitefield’s Works vol. iii., p. 330.)

525 – Messrs. Collet and Ireland were the chief men in the
Bristol Tabernacle. (“Memoirs of Cornelius Winter,”
p. 148.)

526 – The Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, brother of the notorious
Earl Ferrers, and a first cousin of the Countess of
Huntingdon. He had been converted under the ministry of
Venn, and was now an evangelical and earnest minister of
Christ.

527 – The Rev. Joseph Townsend, son of the celebrated Alderman
Townsend, of London, and fellow of Clare Hall; Cambridge,
and rector of Pewsey, in Wiltshire. He also heartily
co-operated with the Methodist clergymen of the day.

528 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 468.

529 – “The chapel,” wrote Horace Walpole, “is very neat,
with true Gothic windows.” (“Life and Times of Wesley,”
vol. ii., p. 558.)

530 – Wesley’s Journal.

531 – Wesley’s Journal.

532 – “Memoirs of C. Winter,” p. 63.

533 – On this occasion, the Earl and Countess of Sutherland were
among Whitefield’s hearers. Immediately after, the Earl
was attacked with a putrid fever. For twenty-one nights
and days, without intermission or retiring to rest, the
Countess watched over her noble husband. She then sunk
and died, the Earl himself dying seventeen days afterwards.
The Earl of Sutherland was in his thirty-first, and
his Countess in her twenty-fifth year. They left behind
them an infant daughter, who succeeded her father in the
honours of Sutherland, and married the Marquis of Stafford.
She died in 1839. (“Life and Times of the Countess of
Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 473.)

534 – Old Newspaper.

535 – This Indian school was ultimately merged in Dartmouth
College, of which Wheelock was the first president.

536 – Brown’s “History of Missions,” vol. iii., p. 481.

537 – It is said, that the first Sunday school in the United
States was founded in the house of Occum’s sister, a
few months after his death. (Belcher’s “Biography of
Whitefield,” p. 387.)

538 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 375.

After the death of Mr. Powys, in 1775, his widow became
the second wife of Sir Rowland Hill, of Hawkeston, Bart.

539 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 338.

540 – Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 250.

541 – Charles Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 247.

542 – Charles Wesley’s Journal, vol. ii., p. 249.

543 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 476.

544 – “Life of John Fawcett, D.D.,” p. 36.

545 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1810, p. 351.

546 – _Methodist Magazine_, 1808, p. 376.

547 – “Mr. Whitefield,” says Fletcher, “was not a flighty orator,
but spoke the words of soberness and truth, with divine
pathos, and floods of tears declarative of his sincerity.”
(Fletcher’s Works, vol. i., p. 298.)

548 – Another Methodist clergyman, who, afterwards, resided at
West Bromwich. “He is,” said Henry Venn, “a very excellent
man, and seems appointed to evangelise the _Wolds_, the
inhabitants of which are dark almost as the heathens.”
(“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 41; and Wesley’s Works, vol. iii., p. 161.)

549 – The famous Methodist clergyman, in Wales.

550 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1797, pp. 397–407.

A small monument, in memory of Torial Joss, exists at
Tottenham Court Road chapel; but, strangely enough, it is
placed in one of the vestries, and, therefore, scarcely
ever seen.

551 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 214.

552 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1815, p. 272.

553 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
pp. 317–319.

554 – “Life of Rev. Rowland Hill,” p. 25.

555 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 378.

556 – The volumes were published in numbers. Hence the following
advertisement, taken from an old newspaper: “This day
is published, recommended by the Rev. Mr. G. Whitefield,
Number I., containing five sheets, and a head of the
author, price only sixpence, of a new and beautiful
edition of the works of Mr. John Bunyan, the whole to
be comprised in eighty-four numbers. Those who incline
to take the work in complete sets, may subscribe for the
same, paying one guinea at the time of subscribing, and
the remainder on the delivery of the two volumes; and those
who subscribe for six sets shall have a seventh gratis.”

557 – Mr. Green was one of Whitefield’s occasional assistants,
but subsisted by teaching a school. (“Winter’s Memoirs,”
p. 45.)

558 – “Winter’s Memoirs,” p. 68.

559 – “Winter’s Memoirs,” p. 75.

560 – “Winter’s Memoirs,” p. 21.

561 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 344.

562 – Ibid.

563 – Wesley’s Journal.

564 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 379.

565 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 344; and “Life of Rev.
Rowland Hill,” p. 29.

566 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 158.

567 – This was Whit-Sunday. The following is from _Lloyd’s
Evening Post_ of June 15, 1767: “They write from
Haverfordwest that, on Whit-Sunday, about eight in the
morning, the Rev. Mr. Whitefield’s congregation consisted
of upwards of ten thousand people.” The ensuing extracts
are taken from the archives of the Moravian Church at
Haverfordwest:――

“1767. May 31. Many people flocked from the country to
hear Mr. Whitefield preach. At the conclusion of his
sermon, at eight in the morning, he bid the people go
to any place of worship where Christ alone is preached.
Numbers hastened to our chapel, and crowded it; and
Brother Nyberg preached to them on, ‘We preach Christ
crucified.’ Our dear Saviour was in our midst.

“June 7 (Whit-Sunday). Such a crowd came from hearing
Mr. Whitefield, that we were obliged, as on Sunday last,
to drop our morning meeting; and Brother Nyberg prayed the
Litany in the pulpit, and preached on, ‘He shall testify
of me: and ye also shall bear witness.’ A still greater
number attended the afternoon preaching, when Brother
Parminster discoursed on Proverbs i. 20–24. Amongst the
hearers were four Methodist preachers.”

568 – The Rev. John Newton, who, after many rebuffs, had three
years before obtained ordination, and was now curate at
Olney.

569 – The reference here is probably to the Society of Students
just mentioned, and of which Rowland Hill was the _leader_.
(“Life of Rev. Rowland Hill,” p. 26.)

570 – As will soon be seen, there was, at this time, a Society
of Methodist Students at Oxford, similar to the Society at
Cambridge.

571 – “Life of Rev. Rowland Hill,” p. 29.

572 – Dr. Hodge’s “History of the Presbyterian Church in America,”
pt. ii., p. 395.

♦573 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, May 4, 1758.

574 – The “intended buildings” were thirty-two small dwellings
for the students, sixteen on each side of the Orphan House.
Also two residences for tutors, a kitchen, and a laundry.

575 – The Rev. Mr. Zububuhler was the rector of Savannah.
(“Memoirs of Rev. Cornelius Winter,” p. 109.)

576 – Whitefield subjoins a note to this, saying, “This college
was originally built, above twenty-eight years ago, for a
charity school, and preaching place for me, and ministers
of various denominations, on the bottom of the doctrinal
articles of the Church of England.”

577 – Rowland Hill had called at Oxford, on his way home, and
had a profitable meeting with the Methodist students there.
(“Life of Rev. R. Hill,” p. 31.)

578 – “Life of Rev. R. Hill,” p. 32.

579 – Thomas Pentycross, who soon after became an earnest and
useful clergyman of the Church of England.

580 – This was threatened in the case of one of Rowland Hill’s
college friends. (“Life of Rev. R. Hill,” p. 34).

581 – “Life of Rev. R. Hill,” p. 34.

582 – Wesley’s Journal.

583 – “Rod for a Reviler. By Thomas Olivers, 1777,” p. 58.

584 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 352.

585 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 299.

586 – Ibid., vol. i., p. 291.

587 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, September 21, 1767.

588 – The Rev. Richard Conyers, LL.D., vicar of Helmsley,
another earnest Methodist clergyman.

589 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 356; and “Life and Times
of Countess of Huntington,” vol. i., p. 299; and “Life of
Rev. Henry Venn,” p. 134.

590 – Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 253.

591 – A foot-note, in Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 360,
says the collection amounted to £105 13s.

592 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

593 – MS. Letter.

594 – Afterwards ennobled as Baron Erskine and Lord High
Chancellor of Great Britain.

595 – Doubtless by Whitefield himself.

596 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 18.

597 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes of Whitefield,” p. 122.

598 – Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 415.

599 – “Brief Account of Howell Harris, Esq., 1791,” p. 95; and
Morgan’s “Life and Times of H. Harris,” p. 243.

600 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
pp. 78–81.

601 – March 25, 1768.

602 – This was absolutely false. (_Lloyd’s Evening Post_,
March 30, 1768.)

603 – A letter, in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, March 30, 1768, says
it was “utterly false.”

604 – “Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 425.

605 – “Boswell’s Life of Johnson.”

606 – In the Journal of his second visit to America, Whitefield
remarked, “When the spirit of prayer began to be lost,
then forms of prayer were invented.” There is more truth
in this than some will be willing to allow.

607 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, March 23, 1768.

608 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 126.

609 – This edition of the “Letter” to Dr. Durell was in 12mo.,
47 pp.

610 – Macgowan’s pamphlet on the same subject.

611 – “Life of Rowland Hill.” By Sidney, p. 44.

612 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

613 – _Christian Miscellany_, 1856, p. 218.

614 – Some years ago, when the chapel was seriously injured by
fire, this monument was destroyed.

615 – “Annual Register,” 1769, p. 110.

616 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

617 – Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”

618 – “Whitefield’s Eighteen Sermons,” transcribed by Gurney,
p. 199.

619 – There can be little doubt that this was the portrait by
Hone, of which the engraving in the present volume is a
copy. The Royal Academy was founded in 1768, and Hone was
one of its first members.

620 – Wesley’s Journal.

621 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 128.

622 – His wife.

623 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 27.

624 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 27.

625 – Whitefield preached again in the evening, and also on
the day following, when his text was 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12.
(Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”)

626 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, July 31, 1769.

627 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 129.

628 – August 9, 1769.

629 – Captain Joss was now in Bristol. (Whitefield’s Works,
vol. iii., p. 392.)

630 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, August 28, 1769.

631 – “Two Farewell Sermons, by Rev. G. Whitefield, 1770;” and
“Eighteen Sermons, by Rev. George Whitefield, 1771.”

632 – In the crowds who listened to Whitefield’s last sermons
in London, was a youth, seventeen years of age,――George
Burder, afterwards a devoted and useful minister of
Christ, the originator of the Religious Tract Society,
secretary of the London Missionary Society, editor of
the _Evangelical Magazine_, and author of the well-known
“Village Sermons.” Burder’s conversion has been attributed
to the ministry of Whitefield and Fletcher of Madeley.
(“Jubilee Memorial of the Religious Tract Society,”
p. 24.) In his Journal, he wrote:――“1769. August.
About this time, I heard Mr. Whitefield preach several
sermons, particularly his two last in London; that at
Tottenham Court chapel on Sabbath morning, and that at
the Tabernacle on Wednesday morning at seven o’clock. I
remember a thought which passed my mind, I think, as I
was going to hear his last sermon, ‘Which would I rather
be, Garrick or Whitefield?’ I thought each, in point of
oratory, admirable in his way. I doubt not conscience told
me which was best. I wrote Mr. Whitefield’s sermons in
shorthand, though standing in a crowd.” (“Life of Rev.
George Burder,” by his Son.)

633 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

634 – It has been already stated, that, the publication of
this volume led to great unpleasantness. Joseph Gurney
was a bookseller, in Holborn, opposite Hatton Garden. From
an 8vo. pamphlet of eight pages, published at the time,
and entitled, “J. Gurney’s Appeal to the Public,” it
appears, that, on November 13, 1770, an agreement was made
between Gurney and Mr. Keen, whereby Keen bound himself
to “recommend and authenticate” Gurney’s publication,
and Gurney agreed to give to Keen a shilling upon every
copy sold. Gurney drew up an advertisement, which Keen
engaged to have read in the pulpits of the Tabernacle and
Tottenham Court Road chapel; but his engagement was not
fulfilled. When the printing of the volume was nearly
completed, Gurney sent the first nine sermons to Keen,
and, a few days afterwards, met Mr. Hardy, who told him
the “sermons were like the ravings of a madman, and were
utterly unfit for publication.” Messrs. Keen, Hardy, and
West offered to pay Gurney all the money he had spent,
on condition that the sermons should not be issued to the
public; but Gurney refused the offer. Mr. Kinsman read a
notice from the Tabernacle pulpit, that, such a volume was
about to be published, but stated that the “sermons were
not Mr. Whitefield’s, either in sentiment or expression;”
though, as Gurney alleges, Kinsman had previously
acknowledged “the sermons were as delivered by Whitefield,
but that Whitefield’s discourses, of late years, were
very unfit for the press without undergoing considerable
alterations.” Gurney had another angry interview with
Keen and Hardy. The latter, on September 14, 1771,
published the advertisement, printed, as a foot-note, in
Whitefield’s collected Works, vol. iii., page 406. Gurney,
however, persisted in publishing his book, but announced
that if any purchasers were of opinion the “sermons were
not genuine,” he would return to them their purchase money.
He sold upwards of six hundred copies, but “not a single
buyer expressed the least dissatisfaction.”

635 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

636 – With one or two exceptions, the _whole_ of these letters
were subscribed, “_Less than the least of all_, George
Whitefield.”

637 – Wesley had recently joined in the services held in
connection with the Countess of Huntingdon’s Academy at
Trevecca. These services extended from the 18th to the
24th of August. The scene was memorable. Besides the
Countess and a number of her aristocratic friends, there
were present eight clergymen of the Church of England,
a host of Welsh exhorters, the students, and an immense
concourse of communicants and spectators. On leaving
Trevecca, Wesley set out for Cornwall, so that he had
no opportunity of a final hand-shake with his old friend,
embarking for America.

638 – _Arminian Magazine_, 1783, p. 274.

639 – “Memoirs of Cornelius Winter,” p. 88.

640 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

641 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

642 – “Memoirs of Cornelius Winter,” p. 89.

643 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 408.

644 – “Life of Charles Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 244.

645 – Still, if the drinking of toasts had been omitted, there
was nothing more objectionable in Whitefield’s gathering,
than is sometimes witnessed among English Methodists at
the present day; when a whole cavalcade wend their way, on
the holy Sabbath, to some country town, to be present at
the opening of some new meeting-house, and to be charmed
and profited by some popular preacher.

646 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 255.

647 – Whitefield’s Works, vol. iii., p. 501.

648 – Whitefield intended to publish a new edition of the
Homilies, and wrote a preface and compiled a number of
prayers and hymns to be bound up with them. He strongly
urged the reading of the Homilies from the pulpits of
the Established Church, in accordance with the direction
given in the Thirty-fifth Article, and very justly argued
that, if this were done, “the desk and pulpit would not so
frequently contradict each other.” (See Whitefield’s Works,
vol. iv., pp. 441–454.)

649 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 256.

650 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,”
pp. 259–267.

651 – “Asbury’s Journal,” vol. i., p. 78.

652 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 263.

653 – “Memoirs of Cornelius Winter,” p. 144.

654 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii.,
p. 269.

655 – _Wesleyan Methodist Magazine_, 1825, p. 841.

It is right to add, that the authorities of Savannah, out
of respect to Whitefield’s memory, secured what they could
of the ruined property, and invested the proceeds in a
school, which yet flourishes. (Belcher’s “Biography of
Whitefield,” p. 458.)

656 – Stevens’ “History of the Methodist Episcopal Church,”
vol. iii., p. 50.

657 – Boardman commenced the itinerancy in 1763, and Pilmoor
in 1765.

658 – “Wesley’s Works,” vol. xii., p. 149.

659 – Ibid., vol. iii., p. 400.

660 – Ibid., vol. xi., p. 289.

661 – A strange rumour was circulated, at this time, in the
London newspapers, that Whitefield had returned to England.
_Lloyd’s Evening Post_, of April 2, announced, “Saturday,
March 31, arrived in town, the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield,
from Georgia.”

662 – It is a noticeable fact that two of Whitefield’s oldest
fellow labourers died in the same year as himself,――the
Rev. Howell Davies, “the head of Calvinistic Methodism in
Pembrokeshire,” and faithful Thomas Adams, the leader of
the same cause in Gloucestershire and Wilts. (“Memoirs of
Cornelius Winter,” p. 147.)

663 – Jesse Lee, who became a Methodist preacher in America,
twelve years after Whitefield’s death, says in his
“History of the Methodists in America” (p. 36), “In the
year 1770, Mr. Whitefield passed through Philadelphia, and,
calling on our preachers who were in that city, expressed
to them his great satisfaction at finding them in this
country, where there was such a great call for faithful
labourers in the vineyard of the Lord. His labours, as an
itinerant preacher, had been greatly blessed to the people
in America; and, thereby, the way was opened for our
preachers to travel and preach in different parts of the
country.”

664 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1807, p. 292.

665 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes of Whitefield,” p. 358.

666 – _Methodist Magazine_, 1811, p. 788.

667 – In the _Pennsylvania Journal_, a letter was published,
bearing date “Portsmouth, September 28, 1770.” The writer
said, “Last Sunday morning came to town, from Boston, the
Rev. George Whitefield; and, in the afternoon, he preached
at the Rev. Dr. Haven’s meeting-house: Monday morning,
he preached again at the same place, to a very large
and crowded audience. Tuesday morning, a most numerous
assembly met at the Rev. Dr. Langdon’s meeting-house,
which, it is said, will hold nearly 6,000 people, and was
well filled, even the aisles. In the evening, he preached
at the Rev. Mr. John Rodgers’ meeting-house in Kittery;
and yesterday, at the Rev. Mr. Lyman’s, in York, to
which place a number of ladies and gentlemen from town
accompanied him. This morning (Friday) he will preach
at the Rev. Dr. Langdon’s meeting-house in this town.”
(Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 433.)

668 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

669 – Lee’s “History of American Methodists,” p. 36.

670 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes of Whitefield.”

671 – Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 435.

672 – _St. James’s Chronicle_, November 8, 1770.

673 – _Methodist World_, February 1, 1870.

674 – _Methodist World_, Feb. 1, 1870.

675 – Stevens’ “History of Methodism,” vol. i., p. 466.

676 – There can be but little doubt that the disease which
terminated Whitefield’s life was _angina pectoris_.

677 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

678 – “Funeral Sermon,” etc., by Rev. Jonathan Parsons, p. 28.

679 – Ibid.

680 – Ibid.

681 – Stevens’ “History of Methodism,” vol. i., p. 467.

682 – “Funeral Sermon,” etc., by Rev. Jonathan Parsons, p. 31.

683 – Whitefield’s friends, at Boston, intended to have him
buried there. Hence the following, from a letter dated
“Boston, October 2, 1770”:――“A number of gentlemen set out
from hence, early this morning, for Newbury Port, which
is forty miles from Boston, in order to make the necessary
preparations for conveying the corpse of the Rev. Mr.
Whitefield to this town, where he is to be interred,
agreeable to his own request.”

684 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes of Whitefield,” p. 385.

685 – Winter’s “Memoirs,” p. 104.

686 – Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 447.

687 – _Gospel Magazine_, 1802, p. 12.

688 – Southey’s “Life of Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 379.

689 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes of Whitefield,” p. 399.

690 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes of Whitefield,” p. 400.

691 – _Evangelical Magazine_, 1839, pp. 443, 590.

692 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes,” p. 389.

693 – _The Methodist_ (New York), Sept. 12, 1863.

694 – In 1834, the Rev. Andrew Reed, D.D., of London, and the
Rev. James Matheson, D.D., of Durham, visited America as
a deputation from the Congregational Union of England and
Wales; and, in 1835, a similar deputation, consisting of
the Rev. Dr. Cox, and the Rev. Dr. Hoby, was sent from
the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland. Both the
deputations entered Whitefield’s sepulchre, and have left
descriptions of what they saw and felt; but for want of
space, their reports cannot be inserted here.

695 – _Methodist Recorder_, Dec. 27, 1867.

♦696 – Wakeley’s “Anecdotes,” p. 396.

697 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, February 11, 1771.

698 – Whitefield’s adulations, especially of those belonging to
the higher classes of society, were often objectionable.
Southey, noticing one of his letters to the Countess
of Huntingdon, remarks: “Wesley would not have written
in this strain, which, for its servile adulation, and
its canting vanity, might well provoke disgust and
indignation, were not the real genius and piety of the
writer beyond all doubt. The language, however, was natural
in Whitefield, and not ill suited for the person to whom
it was addressed.” (Life of Wesley.) This animadversion
is somewhat strong; but, a few passages in Whitefield’s
letters to the nobility, almost justify the Poet-Laureate’s
critique.

699 – Peter Edwards was one of Whitefield’s orphans, and, at
the anniversary of laying the foundation of the Orphan
House, on March 27, 1771, delivered a long address to the
Governor of Georgia, many members of the Council, and a
great number of the principal inhabitants of the province,
assembled together in the Orphan House chapel, which on
this day was opened, and solemnly dedicated to the service
of God. The Rev. Edward Ellington, minister of the parish
of St. Bartholomew, in South Carolina, read prayers, and
preached a sermon from Matt. xviii. 20. Divine service
being ended, the young gentlemen of the recently commenced
academy recited passages from some of the best English
authors; and the day’s proceedings were concluded with
a speech from the tutor, Mr. Edward Langworthy.
(“Whitefield’s Works,” vol. iii., pp. 503–509.)

700 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, February 6, 1771.

701 – In a foot-note, Titus Knight makes a statement which was
doubtless true, though almost incredible; namely, that
even after the arrival of the news of Whitefield’s death,
Foote’s execrable comedy, “The Minor,” was acted in the
theatre at Edinburgh.

702 – De Courcy, in the preface to his “Elegiac Lines,” remarks:
“What a pattern of flaming zeal, and faithfulness in the
ministry, was this servant of the Lord! With what unabated
assiduity, fortitude, and patience, did he persevere
in holding forth the word of life! How great was his
disinterestedness of spirit! With what a catholic, loving
heart did he embrace all of all denominations, who loved
the Lord Jesus in sincerity!” In a foot-note to his poem,
the author relates that, in his sermons, Whitefield often
said, “The moment I leave the body, and plunge into the
world of spirits, the first question I shall ask will
be――_Where’s my Saviour?_”

703 – An elegy was published in the _New York Gazette_, of
October 19, 1770, from which the following lines are
taken:――

“Methinks, I see him in the pulpit stand,
With graceful gesture and persuasive hand;
Whilst, with attention deep, the list’ning throng
Admire the words proceeding from his tongue,
Struck by his arrows, harden’d sinners start,
Their looks betray the anguish of their heart
With terror fill’d, to God they lift their eyes,
And fill His ear with penitential sighs.”

704 – Gillies’ “Memoirs of Whitefield.”

705 – Ibid.

706 – Ibid.

707 – The following appeared in one of the London
newspapers:――“We hear that, on Sunday next, funeral
sermons, on the death of the late Rev. Mr. Whitefield,
who, it is said, died worth £30,000, will be preached
at all the Methodist meeting-houses in and about London,
particularly the Tabernacles in Tottenham Court Road and
Moorfields. Yesterday, a caveat was entered at Doctors
Commons by a principal creditor of the late Rev. Mr.
George Whitefield.”

708 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ of November 19, 1770, remarked:
“The front of the gallery round the chapel was
quite covered with black cloth, as were the pulpit,
reading-desk, and communion-table, which had escutcheons
of Mr. Whitefield’s arms and crest. The many thousands
who attended was almost incredible, who, being clothed in
black, chiefly out of respect to their much-loved minister,
together with the hanging, had a most uncommon appearance.”

709 – Wesley had a reason for thus referring to himself and his
brother Charles. At his Annual Conference, held in London
within the last four months, he had announced his _Theses_,
shewing in what way he and his preachers had “leaned too
much toward Calvinism.” This hugely offended the Countess
of Huntingdon and her friends, and led to the bitterest
controversy in Wesley’s history.

710 – This was a dignified rebuke administered to the infamous
Samuel Foote, and the admirers of his profane and filthy
“Minor.”

711 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, March 1, 1771.

712 – Stevens’s “History of Methodism,” vol. i., p. 467.

713 – _Gospel Magazine_, 1771, p. 80.

714 – Mr. Zubley was first minister of the Presbyterian Church
at Savannah, and entered upon his charge in 1760. He
originally came from Switzerland, and preached in English,
German, and French, as occasion required. He was a man of
great learning, and died in 1781.

715 – Dr. Cooper was converted by Whitefield’s instrumentality,
and became one of the most popular preachers in America.
One of the publications of the period, in describing
the scene in Brattle Street Church, when Cooper preached
Whitefield’s funeral sermon, said: “Pews, aisles, and
seats were so crowded, and heads and shoulders were in
such close phalanx, that it looked as though a man might
walk everywhere upon the upper surface of the assembly,
without finding an opening for descending to the floor.”

716 – Mr. Brewer preached in Spitalfields, from Psalm xxxvii. 37;
and Mr. Skelton, one of Wesley’s seceded itinerants, in
Maid Lane, Southwark, from Acts xiii. 36. (Old Newspaper.)

717 – As a curiosity, the following may be added: “Yesterday
morning, about eight o’clock, a man, mounted on a stool,
at the Seven Dials, preached a funeral sermon on the death
of his dear master, Mr. George Whitefield.” (_Lloyd’s
Evening Post_, Monday, Nov. 12, 1770.)

718 – Cornelius Winter says that he himself composed and
wrote the sermon preached by Mr. Ellington. (“Memoirs
of Cornelius Winter,” p. 104.) The letters attached to
Mr. Ellington’s name suggest the thought that Winter was
also the publisher of the sermon.

719 – _New Spiritual Magazine_, 1783, pp. 849 to 851.

720 – “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i.,
p. 92.

721 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, December 19, 1770.

722 – Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 446.

723 – _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, June 20, 1772.

724 – At the founding of the Royal Academy, in 1768, Nathaniel
Hone was chosen one of the members, and maintained his
reputation till his death, in 1784. The portrait in the
second volume of this work is a faithful representation of
a very fine engraving, published in 1769, and taken from
the painting by Hone. The portrait in the first volume
is copied from an engraving, published, by the authority
of Whitefield himself, in his “Christian’s Companion, or
Sermons on several subjects,” in 1739. (12mo. 335 pp.)

725 – Another testimony may be welcome. The celebrated
Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to a gentleman in Georgia,
wrote:――“I cannot forbear expressing the pleasure it gives
me to see an account of the respect paid to Mr. Whitefield’s
memory by your Assembly. I knew him intimately upwards
of thirty years. His integrity, disinterestedness, and
indefatigable zeal in prosecuting every good work, I
have never seen equalled, and shall never see excelled.”
(Belcher’s “Biography of Whitefield,” p. 447.)

726 – Rev. John Angell James.

727 – The Rev. Abel Stevens, LL.D.

728 – The following statistics are all taken from “The Methodist
Almanac, for 1876; edited by W. H. De Puy, D.D.,” and
published, under the direction of the General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Transcriber’s Notes.

The following corrections have been made in the text:

Page viii:
Sentence starting: Embarks for America——Letter....
– ‘Ophan’ replaced with ‘Orphan’
(Memorable Sermon there――Orphan House)
– ‘Centotaph’ replaced with ‘Cenotaph’
(His Cenotaph――Proposed Monument)

Page 6:
Sentence starting: “I arrived here, last Saturday....
– ‘Cambernauld’ replaced with ‘Cumbernauld’
(at Cumbernauld; and twice on)

Page 14:
Sentence starting: He is followed by all sorts....
– ‘prefered’ replaced with ‘preferred’
(is preferred to him.)

Page 16:
Sentence starting: In conclusion, Mr. Bisset writes:...
– ‘Episopacy’ replaced with ‘Episcopacy’
(the cause of Episcopacy,)

Page 29:
Sentence starting: On Sunday, August 22nd,...
– ‘Mearnes’ replaced with ‘Mearns’
(and twice at Mearns;)

Page 30:
Sentence starting: Whitefield came back to Edinburgh....
– ‘Edinbugh’ replaced with ‘Edinburgh’
(Whitefield came back to Edinburgh)

Page 31:
Sentence starting: He speaks many things,...
– ‘Ged’ replaced with ‘God’
(which comes from God.)

Page 191:
Sentence starting: He became dissatisfied with....
– ‘Lllanidloes’ replaced with ‘Llanidloes’
(at an Association held at Llanidloes)

Page 200:
Sentence starting: Similar resolutions were adopted....
– ‘Tweedale’ replaced with ‘Tweeddale’
(the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale)

Page 202:
Sentence starting: When I saw the pamphlet,...
– ‘delaration’ replaced with ‘declaration’
(I mean a declaration from)

Page 238:
Sentence starting: He gave £400 towards....
– ‘Janes’ replaced with ‘James’
(and Mr. Thomas James, of Cork,)

Page 249:
Sentence starting: “Some young fellows,”....
– ‘emnity’ replaced with ‘enmity’
(is enmity against God.)

Page 285:
Sentence starting: On leaving Edinburgh, Whitefield....
– ‘Alnwich’ replaced with ‘Alnwick’
(preached at Berwick, Alnwick, and Morpeth.)

Page 286:
Sentence starting: I am returning to Leeds;...
– duplicated word removed ‘next’
(at Sheffield next Lord’s-day.)

Page 292:
Sentence starting: The premises were large....
– missing word added ‘of’
(as the offices of a body)

Page 340:
Sentence starting: They made me weep,...
– ‘we’ replaced with ‘me’
(They made me weep,)

Page 374:
Sentence starting: Among others present....
– ‘Giffard’ replaced with ‘Gifford’
(Dr. Andrew Gifford, Assistant Librarian)

Page 393:
Sentence starting: As already stated,...
– ‘Welsey’s’ replaced with ‘Wesley’s’
(one of Wesley’s most valuable preachers)

Page 401:
Sentence starting: Exhausted as he was....
– ‘proclaimes’ replaced with ‘proclaimed’
(and proclaimed the efficacy of)

Page 417:
Sentence starting: Among his hearers was a youth,...
– ‘Tuppen’ replaced with ‘Tupper’
(eighteen years of age, Thomas Tupper)

Page 419:
Sentence starting: So did Mr. Darracott....
– ‘Darracot’ replaced with ‘Darracott’
(So did Mr. Darracott)

Page 442:
Sentence starting: Accept a few lines of love....
– ‘the from’ replaced with ‘from the’
(returning from the borders of the)

Page 450:
Sentence starting: This is the denomination....
– ‘bb’ replaced with ‘by’
(are retained by hire,)

Page 521:
Sentence starting: The object of it was....
– duplicated word removed ‘the’
(in the transatlantic settlements)

Page 636:
Sentence starting: Bisset, Rev. John,...
– ‘Bissett’ replaced with ‘Bisset’
(Bisset, Rev. John,)

Page 637:
Sentence starting: Dickinson, Rev. Jonathan,...
– ‘Dickenson’ replaced with ‘Dickinson’
(Dickinson, Rev. Jonathan,)
Sentence starting: Dorrel, Captain,...
– ‘Dorrell’ replaced with ‘Dorrel’
(Dorrel, Captain,)

Page 639:
Sentence starting: Hartford, Mrs. Frances,...
– ‘Hartfort’ replaced with ‘Hartford’
(Hartford, Mrs. Frances,)

Page 640:
Sentence starting: Llanelly,...
– ‘Llanelley’ replaced with ‘Llanelly’
(Llanelly,)

Page 643:
Sentence starting: Shackerley,...
– ‘Shackerly’ replaced with ‘Shackerley’
(Shackerley,)
Sentence starting: Shutlift, Rev. Mr.,....
– ‘Shutlif’ replaced with ‘Shutlift’
(Shutlift, Rev. Mr.,)
Sentence starting: Sladdin, John,...
– ‘Sladden’ replaced with ‘Sladdin’
(Sladdin, John,)

Page 644:
Sentence starting: Topcliffe,...
– ‘Topcliffe’ replaced with ‘Topcliff’
(Topcliffe,)

Footnote 20:
– Footnote on page 28 was not referenced in the text.

Footnote 162:
– ‘Princetown’ replaced with ‘Princeton’
(as president of Princeton College)

Footnote 225:
– ‘Huntingdom’ replaced with ‘Huntingdon’
(“Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon,”)

Footnote 261:
– 1st footnote on page 242 was not referenced in the text.

Footnote 265:
– 2nd footnote on page 247 was not referenced in the text.

Footnote 283:
– Footnote on page 260 was not referenced in the text.

Footnote 343:
– ‘Angel’ replaced with ‘Angell’
(by the Rev. John Angell James)

Footnote 573:
– 1st footnote on page 523 was not referenced in the text.

Footnote 696:
– Last footnote on page 607 was not referenced in the text.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Life of the Rev. George Whitefield, Vol. 2 (of 2)" ***

Home