“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 HarvardCollege, 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 followingparagraph 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:—