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; suchprejudices 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 thiscorporation 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 “surprisedand 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.”