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.