such evils, if they existed at all, were but trivial, in comparison with the good accomplished by these fraternal visits, and they were evils which a judicious pastor could easily counteract. Nothing is more natural than for those who are living continually in that state of mental excitement produced by a revival, to say and do rash things, and to be uncharitable toward those who are behind them in zeal. The infirmities of our nature will often mar our holiest undertakings. But shall we attempt no good because that good may not be unmixed with evil? In every extensive revival yet witnessed, there has been something which a sound judgment could not approve. But there was less that was exceptionable in connection with those revivals in which the visits of the associated brethren of New Haven formed such a prominent feature, than in connection with some more recent revivals; far less than in the "great awakening" a century ago.

In 1742, the General Assembly of Connecticut, chiefly at the instance of "certain ministers near New Haven," passed "An act for regulating abuses and correcting disorders in ecclesiastical affairs;" an act directed against itinerant preachers and exhorters, forbidding them "to preach, or exhort the people, in any parish not immediately under their charge," unless expressly invited by "the settled minister and the major part of the church of said parish," under penalty of being "denied and secluded the benefit of

any law of this colony, made for the support and encouragement of the ministry," if settled within the colony, or of being "sent, as a vagrant person, by warrant from any one assistant or Justice of the peace, from constable to constable, out of the bounds of this colony," if not an inhabitant thereof.*

The Consociation of New Haven county, at its meeting in September of the same year, thanked the Legislature for passing this Act, and prayed that it might continue in force.

The Association of the county of New Haven, assembled in New Haven, Feb. 19th, 1744-5, and issued a "Declaration, concerning the Rev. Mr. George Whitfield, his conduct, and the state of religion at this day." In this declaration they say,† “We can in no wise approve of his itinerancy, in going from country to country, from town to town, and from one place to another, under a pretence of preaching the Gospel. We think him guilty of uncharitable censoriousness, and slanderous reproaching, in the vile aspersions, bitter reflections, and condemnatory censures he hath passed upon the main body of the ministry in this land, though the most of them he was a perfect stranger to, and of most of them it may be boldly said, that they are sound in the faith, and of blameless conversation, and his superiors both in age and abilities." Among the "evils and mischiefs * Trumbull.

† Am. Bib. Rep. Vol. vii. p. 187.

which have followed his conduct," they enumerate the following: "The ministry is cast into much contempt, and their usefulness greatly clogged and obstructed;―unchristian censoriousness and hard judging abound; love stands afar off, and charity cannot enter;-numbers of illiterate exhorters swarm about, as locusts from the bottomless pit. For all which reasons, and others which might be mentioned, it is our judgment that the said George Whitfield should not be allowed to preach any where, or to have communion; and we do hereby publish and declare, that it is our purpose and determination, that we will not admit the said Mr. Whitfield into any of our pulpits, nor receive him to communion in any of our churches, and that we will caution the people under our charge against going to hear him any where, till he hold forth repentance according to the Gospel rule, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance."

If Mr. Whitfield fared so badly at the hands of settled ministers, if his labors were considered so prejudicial to their usefulness, and his occasional extravagances so injurious to their influence, it would not be surprising if the labors of these unlicensed, though not "illiterate" exhorters, who sometimes, it must be owned, spoke plainly and perhaps injudiciously of the faults of ministers, excited jealousy and apprehension in the minds of some of the clergy. Here and there a minister who questioned the expediency of inviting the New Haven brethren into his

parish, but was constrained to do so by his people, may have felt that lay-visiting and lay-preaching were serious evils. Yet as these brethren were for the most part intelligent and judicious men, and as they never visited a church knowingly without the approbation of its pastor, no open difficulty occurred between them and the pastors. We have seen, in fact, that their labors were very generally approved and encouraged by pastors in all parts of the State, and that many instead of apprehending a visit as an evil, were apprehensive only that their churches would not be favored with these visits of love. precedent, however, was thought by some to be dangerous; perhaps it was abused by improper and incompetent men.

The

Several years after, the Consociation of the Eastern District of New Haven County, feeling that the "encroachments of private members of the churches on the ministerial office" were so frequent and injurious as to call for their animadversion, adopted a minute upon the subject, which they ordered to be published. After expressing their approbation of "meetings among the brethren for prayer, for free conversation on religious subjects, and the familiar investigation of the Scriptures,-meetings for mutual exhortation and comfort," and of a "readiness to visit and converse with the impenitent on their guilt, their danger and duty," they proceed to say:

"In reference to religious meetings conducted by

private members of other churches, even if such persons may be in a course of preparation for the ministry, but unlicensed to preach: the Consociation are unanimous in the opinion, that meetings so conducted have not unfrequently a very unhappy influence on the brethren of the churches where they are held; sometimes by producing or cherishing a sense of inferiority in their minds, and preventing them from acquiring those qualifications which would enable them essentially to aid their pastor in seasons when he needs their assistance; and sometimes by producing a feverish excitement, which leads to disorders and divisions. Such meetings have an unhappy influence also on the private Christians who are sent, or who voluntarily go forth for the purpose of conducting them; and such meetings are most generally so conducted, as to encroach on the appropriate duties or services of authorized preachers of the Gospel. The whole history and experience of the church show, that they are highly detrimental to the peace and prosperity of Zion. They beget or strengthen a desire to be teachers. They tend to produce divisions in churches, to disparage the work and importance of the ministry, and bring in the disorders which have so frequently swept over fair portions of the Lord's visible heritage, and turned the fruitful field into a wilderness.

"While we do therefore express an opinion that great caution is requisite on the part of pastors and