But how, Gentlemen, do you prove this charge, That I am an uncharitable, slanderous man? Why, page 9. “From his monstrous reflections upon the great and good Archbishop Tillotson, (as Dr. Increase Mather stiles him) comparing his sermons to the conjuring books which the Apostle persuaded the people to destroy.” But this, I humbly apprehend, does not prove that I cast reflections, which you call monstrous, upon Archbishop Tillotson as to his personal character, but only his books, which Dr. Increase Mather himself, as I have been informed by the Reverend Mr. Gee, who was brought up under his ministry, and directed by him in his studies, constantly warned the students against. And by the way, I cannot but observe, that this holy venerable man of God, Dr. Increase Mather, if we may credit the writer of his life, dealt as much in impressions and inward feelings, as the person against whom you are pleased to publish this testimony. And though he might call the Archbishop a great and good man for his eminency in station, and great generosity and moderation towards the Dissenters, yet I believe he never called him a great and good divine; nor do I think he would blame me for what I have said concerning Mr. G——n, and Mr. H——n.
But that which affords you the greatest occasion to denominate me a censorious, uncharitable, and slanderous man, and which I apprehend chiefly stirs up your resentment against me is, to make use of your own expression, page 9. “My reproachful reflections upon the Society which is immediately under our care.” I think the reflections are these: “And as far as I could gather from some who well knew the state of it, [the College] not far superior to our Universities in piety and true godliness. Tutors neglect to pray with, and examine the hearts of the pupils; discipline is at too low an ebb; bad books are become fashionable among them; Tillotson and Clarke are read, instead of Shepard, Stoddard, and such like evangelical writers.” And, Gentlemen, were not these things so at the time when I wrote? Wherein then, in writing thus, have I slandered Harvard College? But then you say, page 10, he goes further still, when he says, page 96, both of Yale College, as well as ours: “As for the Universities, I believe it may be said, Their light is now become darkness, darkness that may be felt.” And must it not be so, when tutors neglect to pray with, and examine the hearts of the pupils, &c. And this is all I meant. For I had no idea of representing the Colleges in such a deplorable state of immorality and irreligion, as you, Gentlemen, in your testimony, seem to object. I meant no more, than what the Reverend President meant, when speaking of the degeneracy of the times, in his sermon at the annual convention of ministers, May 28, 1741, he adds, “But, 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, yet it is evident, that the power of it is greatly decayed.” However, I am sorry, I published my private informations, though from credible persons, concerning the colleges, to the world: and assure you, that I should be glad to find, the Reverend President was not mistaken when he undertook, from his own examination of things, seven months after, to “assure that venerable audience on the day of the convention, that their society hath not deserved the aspersions which have of late been made upon it, either as to the principles there prevalent, or the books there read:” and assure you further, that what he adds is true in respect of me, “That such as have given out a disadvantageous report of us, have done it in a godly jealousy for the churches of Christ, which are supplied from us.” I would bless God, and at the same time, I would ask pardon for the mistake, if I was mistaken therein; for I unfeignedly wish your prosperity, and therefore was as willing to publish the reformation in the College, as ever I was to speak of its declension. From thence may there always proceed those streams, which may make glad the city of our God!
To proceed: again you say, page 11. “We think it highly proper to bear our testimony against Mr. Whitefield, as we look upon him to be a deluder of the people. And here we mean more especially, as to the collections of money, which, when here before, by an extraordinary mendicant faculty, he almost extorted from the people.” Extorted from the people? How, Gentlemen, could that be, when it was a public contribution? I never heard the people themselves make any such objection. Nor did I ever see people, in all appearance, offer more willingly: they seemed to be those chearful givers, whom God declares he approves of. You go on to prove me a deluder thus: “As the argument he then used was, ‘The support and education of his dear lambs at the Orphan-house,’ who (he told us, he hoped) might, in time, preach the gospel to us and to our children; so it is not to be doubted, that the people were greatly encouraged to give him largely of their substance, supposing they were to be under the immediate tuition and instruction of himself, as he then made them to believe; and had not this been their thought, it is, to us, without all peradventure, they would never have been persuaded to any considerable contribution upon that head; and this notwithstanding, he hath scarce seen them for these four years.” But how does all this prove me a deluder of the people? For can it be proved, that what was collected, was not made use of for the support and education of the dear lambs at the Orphan-house? Or did I promise that any of these dear lambs should come in four years time to preach in New-England? Or did I in the least intimate that I had a design to be always resident at the Orphan-house? And if by various and unexpected interpositions of Providence, I have been prevented seeing them these four years, can I help that? “And besides, you say, he hath left the care of them with a person, whom the contributors know nothing of.” I suppose, Gentlemen, you mean Mr. Barber. But do these contributors know nothing of him? Did I not mention him publicly at the time of collecting, as one of their own countrymen, and one bred up in one of their own colleges? Was he not with me in person? And did I not again and again declare, that he was to be intrusted with the education and spiritual concerns of the children and family? Assuredly I did. But you add, “And we ourselves have reason to believe that he is little better than a Quaker.” What reason, Gentlemen, you may have thus to judge of him, I cannot tell, but I have great reason to believe he is a thorough Calvinist, and a dear man of God, much acquainted with the divine life, and sweetly taught rightly to divide the word of truth. I heartily wish all that had the care of youth, were like-minded, whatever name you are pleased to give him. But you say, “Furthermore, the account which Mr. W—— hath given the world of his disbursements of the several contributions, for the use of his Orphan-house, (wherein there are several large articles, and some of about a thousand pounds our currency charged in a very summary way, ‘For sundries,’ no mention being made therein what the sum was expended for, nor to whom it was paid) is by no means satisfactory.” Would you not, Gentlemen, have done well to have said, by no means satisfactory to us? For, I am well persuaded most of the contributors depended on my veracity, and would have been satisfied as to themselves, though I had given no account of the disbursements at all. Besides, Gentlemen, did you ever see an account of that nature more particular? Is that of the Society for propagating the gospel more so? Or would you yourselves, Gentlemen, be more particular, supposing an account of what has been received and disbursed for Harvard-College, should ever be required at your hands?
The manner of my preaching you seem, page 12. “as much to dislike, and bound to bear a testimony against, as the man himself.” And why? because it is extempore preaching. This, to use your own words, page ibid., “We think by no means proper; for that it is impossible that any man should be able to manage any argument with that strength, or any instruction with that clearness in an extempore manner, as he may with study and meditation.” But, Gentlemen, does extempore preaching exclude study and meditation? Timothy, I believe, was an extempore preacher, and yet the Apostle advises him to give himself to reading: and I am of Luther’s opinion, that study, prayer, meditation, and temptation, are necessary for a minister of Christ. Now you say, “Mr. W—— evidently shows, that he would have us believe his discourses are extempore.” And so they are, if you mean that they are not written down, and that I preach without notes: but they are not extempore, if you think that I preach always without study and meditation. Indeed, Gentlemen, I love to study, and delight to meditate, when I have opportunity, and yet would go into the pulpit by no means depending on my study and meditation, but on the blessed Spirit of God, who I believe now, as well as formerly, frequently gives his ministers utterance, and enables them to preach with such wisdom, that all their adversaries are not able to gainsay or resist. This, I think, is so far from being a lazy manner of preaching, and the preacher in doing thus, is so far from offering that which cost him nothing, as you object, page ibid. that I have generally observed, extempore preachers are the most fervent, laborious preachers, and I believe (at least I speak for myself who have tried both ways) that it costs them as much, if not more close and solemn thought, as well as faith and confidence in God, as preaching by notes. And however you are pleased to add, page ibid. that this way of preaching “is little instructive to the mind, still less cogent to the reasonable powers,” yet, I believe it is the preaching which God hath much honoured, and has been frequently attended with very great success in many ages of the christian church. And if we may pray, I see no reason why we may not preach extempore. The rashness of some of my expressions, as well as the dangerous errors, which you are pleased to say, page 13, have been vented in my extempore discourses, I humbly apprehend, are no sufficient objections against extempore preaching itself; because we often see, that those who preach by notes, and write too, as may be supposed, with study and meditation, are guilty of as rash expressions, and vent as dangerous errors, as those who, you say, preach either without study or meditation. What the dangerous errors are, that have been vented in my extempore discourses, you have not thought proper to specify, unless it be that once or twice through mistake I said, “That Christ loves unregenerate sinners with a love of complacency; nay, and that God loves sinners as sinners.” These were indeed unguarded expressions; but I recalled it publicly as soon as I was made sensible of my mistake: and I think too before your testimony against me was published. Were these my settled principles, I would agree with you in your enlargement upon it, page 13, “Which, if it be not an unguarded expression, must be a thousand times worse; for we cannot look upon it as much less than blasphemy, and shows him to be stronger in the Antinomian scheme, than most of the professors of that heresy themselves.” But as it was only a lapsus linguæ, and the whole current of my preaching and writing was, and is directly contrary to such principles, I would not have you, Gentlemen, by thus representing me as an Antinomian, enroll yourselves in the number of those “that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for them that speak in the gate.” Indeed, Gentlemen, I utterly detest Antinomianism, both in principle and practice. And though you are pleased to say, “That it is not unlikely, and that it is to be suspected, (that I am an Antinomian) because the expression was repeated; and when he was taxed with it by a certain gentleman, he made no retraction:” yet I did, [♦]I thought, what amounted to it: for when he told me of my mistake, (if we understand the same gentleman) I bowed and thanked him for his kind information: as I would willingly do all, who at any time are so kind as to come in the spirit of meekness, to tell me of my faults, and freely converse with me face to face.
[♦] removed duplicate “I”
Lastly, you are pleased to say, page ibid. “We think it our duty to bear our strongest testimony against that itinerant way of preaching, which this Gentleman was the first promoter of among us, and still delights to continue in.” Now by an itinerant preacher (you say) “We understand one that hath no peculiar charge of his own, but goes about from country to country, or from town to town, in any country, and stands ready to preach to any congregation that shall call him to it: and such a one is Mr. W——.” I own the charge; and am willing to put the case on the same issue as you do, page 14: “Indeed if there were any thing leading to this manner of management, in the directions and instructions given either by our Saviour or his Apostles, we ought to be silent, and so would a man of any modesty; if (on the other hand) there be nothing in the New-Testament leading to it. And surely (you add) Mr. W—— will not have the face to pretend he acts now as an evangelist.” But indeed, Gentlemen, I do, if by an evangelist you mean, what the scripture I presume means, “One who hath no particular charge of his own, but goes about from country to country, or from town to town, in any country, and stands ready to preach to any congregation that shall call him to it.” For does not that general commission given by our Lord to his Apostles, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” authorize the ministers of Christ, “even to the end of the world,” to preach the gospel in any town and country, though not of their own head, yet whenever or wherever Providence should open a door, even though it should be in a place “where officers are already settled, and the gospel is fully and faithfully preached.” This, I humbly apprehend, is every gospel minister’s indisputable privilege, and therefore cannot judge that it is being wise above what is written, to give it as my opinion, as you say I have done, page 14. “That itinerant preaching may be very convenient for the furtherance of the good of the churches, if it were under a good regulation.” For itinerant preaching is certainly founded upon the word of God, and has been agreeably approved of, and practised by many good men, with great and happy success both in ancient and later times? Was not the reformation begun and carried on by itinerant preaching? Were not Knox, Welch, Wishart, and those holy men of God, several of the good old puritans, itinerant preachers? Are not itinerants sent forth by the societies for propagating the gospel and promoting christian knowledge both in England, Scotland and Denmark? And did not holy Mr. Baxter in his appendix to his Gildas Salvianus or Reformed Pastor, in conjunction with others, earnestly and with weighty reasons recommend itinerant preaching, even where the gospel was fully and faithfully preached, in 1657? Which is expressed in the following terms:
“To the Reverend and faithful Ministers of Christ in the several Counties of this Land, and the Gentlemen and other natives of each County, now inhabiting the City of London.
“Reverend and beloved Brethren,
THE whole design and business of this discourse, being the propagation of the gospel, and the saving of men’s souls, I have thought it not unmeet to acquaint you with another work to that end, which we have set on foot in this county, and to propound it to your consideration, and humbly invite you to an universal imitation. You know, I doubt not, the great inequality in ministerial abilities, and that many places have ministers that are not qualified with convincing, lively, awakening gifts: some must be tolerated in the necessity of the church, that are not likely to do any great matters towards the conversion of ignorant, sensual, worldly men: and some that are learned, able men, and fitted for controversies, may yet be unfit to deal with those of the lower sort. I suppose if you peruse the whole ministry of a county, you will not find so many and such lively, convincing preachers as we could wish. And I take it for granted, that you are sensible of the weight of eternal things, and of the worth of souls; and that you will judge it a very desirable thing that every man should be employed according to his gifts, and the gospel in its light and power should be made as common, as possible we can: upon these and many the like considerations, the ministers in this county resolved to chuse out four of the most lively, yet sober, peaceable, orthodox men, and desire them once a month to leave their own congregations, to the assistance of some other, and to bestow their labour in the places where they thought there was most need; and as we were resolving upon this work, the natives of this county, inhabiting the city of London, having a custom of feasting together once a year, and having at their feast collected some monies by contribution, for the maintaining of a weekly lecture in this county, (besides other good works) did (by their stewards) desire us to set up the said lecture, and to dispose of the said monies in order thereto: and their judgments upon consultation did correspond with our design. So that the said money, being sufficient to satisfy another, that shall in their absence preach in their own places, we employ it accordingly, and have prevailed with some brethren to undertake this work.