different auspices, and with quite another class of effects. In view of these facts, it cannot but afford high satisfaction to every individual of Connecticut capable of forming a just opinion on this subject, that such decisive proof exists of the estimation in which Harvard College was held in this community by the first planters of Connecticut, and several succeeding generations. Their sense of its value is manifest in the small voluntary contributions of towns, while the institution was in its infancy; and, for the time, liberal donations of individuals. Not that we would represent the assistance early afforded to Harvard College from Connecticut, as a compensation for the benefits received, for we do not suppose that such good is to be estimated in pounds sterling; but reference is made more particularly to the proof which exists of the early regard for literature in the two colonies, when there stand conspicuous among the early patrons of Harvard, Governor Eaton of the colony of New Haven, Governor Hopkins of the colony of Connecticut,-and with the explanations made there is no objection to his being styled a patron, and Governor Saltonstall of Connecticut after the two original colonies were united. Every thing else was in accordance with the spirit and conduct of these distinguished men; and as to hostility to Harvard College, or indifference to its interests, no evidence has been, nor, do we suppose, can be, produced.*

Connecticut, in many respects and for a long period, might be considered a part of Massachusetts. Its institutions were similar; the character of the inhabitants showed little diversity; the same great objects were pursued; there was the same love of liberty, and the same zeal for the promotion of religion, morals and literature. If there had been some little prominency given in this work to the former relation in which these two colonies stood towards each other, more particularly as illustrated in the case of Harvard College, the author would have done, in our opinion, no more than historical justice. It should be remembered here, that Yale College, so far as we have heard, never laid claim to any portion of the bequests of Governor Hopkins; and there was no obvious ground for its so doing.

* Governor Eaton is credited forty pounds in 1642. Vol. II. p. 458. He is mentioned, however, only as Theophilus Eaton; and few from this entry would know where he resided, could infer his rank and character, and the importance of his patronage to the new institution.

It is well known that Whitefield in his first visit to New England, in 1740, expressed very unfavorable opinions of the colleges. "As for the universities," says he, "I believe it may be said, that their light has become darkness; darkness that may be felt, and is complained of by the most godly ministers." Yale College is here denounced as well as Harvard. These colleges, indeed, were, at that time, the only institutions of the kind in full operation in British America. William and Mary College in Virginia, was chartered a very short time before Yale College; but no degrees, it is believed, were conferred there till after 1750. Whitefield likewise refers to Harvard College separately. His language is: "The chief college in New England has one president, four tutors, and about a hundred students. It is scarce as big as one of our least colleges in Oxford, and, as far as I could gather from some, who well knew the state of it, not far superior in piety and true godliness."

Here President Quincy goes into some detail of the efforts which were made at Cambridge, to show that these representations of the religious and moral state of Harvard College were erroneous. He says, that in 1744, "the president, professors, tutors and instructors deemed themselves compelled to come forward in defence of the institution, and to publish, in December of that year, their 'Testimony against the Reverend George Whitefield and his Conduct;' denouncing him as an enthusiast, a censorious, uncharitable person, and a deluder of the people,' and stating at large the reasons of their denunciation. The reproachful reflections Whitefield had cast upon the college, they pronounced 'rash and arrogant,' and his representation of the 'deplorable state of immorality' in the seminary as 'a most wicked and libelous falsehood;' 'uncharitable,' 'censorious,' and slanderous."" A separate pamphlet was subsequently published against Whitefield by Professor Wigglesworth; and President Quincy has furnished some extracts from the manuscript diary of Henry Flynt, a tutor of the college, giving his opinion of Whitefield at the time of his first appearance at Cambridge; with which opinion, in many respects unfavorable, the author believes it probable, those of "the immediate government of the college were in unison." In his further account of the events of that period, President Quincy seems to suppose, that "the most zealous of the Calvinistic sect," the advocates of "high Calvinism," were the chief friends and patrons of Whitefield, and that opposition to Whitefield was active, just in pro

1

portion as Calvinistic principles were modified or discarded. He says: "In Boston and its vicinity, and along the seaboard of Massachusetts, clergymen of great talent and religious zeal openly avowed doctrines, which were variously denounced by the Calvinistic party as Arminianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Socinianism and Deism. The most eminent of these clergymen, were alumni of Harvard, active friends and advocates of the institution, and in habits of intimacy and professional intercourse with its governors;" but it is said, that "their religious views received no public countenance from the college." These were the opponents of Whitefield, and the strict Calvinists were his advocates. That this picture may not want its finishing touch, it is said, that "at this period the high Calvinistic doctrines prevailed throughout New England, but chiefly predominated in the interior of Massachusetts, and in the colony of Connecticut."* The reader is left to infer, that as "high Calvinistic doctrines predominated in Connecticut," the progress of Whitefield was there unresisted and irresistible.

It is not our object in these remarks to determine whether Calvinism or anti-Calvinism is right; nor is it the question, whether the supporters and opponents of Whitefield were universally, the one Calvinists and the other anti-Calvinists. If it were, we should have something to object to the statements in this work. Our only inquiry here will be, assuming President Quincy's representation as correct,-that the stricter Calvinists were the advocates of Whitefield, and that "high Calvinistic doctrines predominated in Connecticut," whether this theory corresponds with the facts. This is the point to which we will direct our attention. Is it true, then, that Whitefield was a general favorite in Connecticut?

The Association of the county of New-Haven assembled in New-Haven, February 19th, 1744-5, and issued a " Declaration concerning the Rev. Mr. George Whitefield, his conduct, and the state of Religion at this day." We can give but a few extracts from this official paper. The Association 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." After explaining themselves more fully on this subject, and declaring against "the itinerant and strolling way of proceeding, by reason of which the way of truth is evil spoken of," they say under their second

* Vol. II. p. 52.

head: "We account the said Mr. Whitefield hath been a publisher of false doctrines, in sundry articles," and undertake to confirm this position by particulars. In the third place, they say: "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." They refer to Whitefield's remarks upon "Archbishop Tillotson, to whose name the venerable Dr. Increase Mather hath affixed the epithets of Great and Good," and add: "Yet a raw and unstudied young man starts up and assaults the character of the great and good archbishop in more opprobrious language, than that which the wicked children used toward the prophet, Go up thou bald head; for he hath had the front to say, and print, that the archbishop knew no more of Christianity than Mahomet; which we think is very injurious, though we agree not in all points with the archbishop. Bold and daring youth! Go, tarry at Jericho, until thy beard be grown."

They allude to Whitefield's censure of the colleges. "And upon our colleges, our beauty and our glory, which have been, are, and we pray that they may be, and hope that they will be, even to the latest posterity, great and rich blessings; but Mr. Whitefield hath said of them, that their light is become darkness, even darkness that may be felt. We are astonished at the impudence of the man, and that he dare so closely imitate the accuser of the brethren."

The Association go on to say, that Whitefield "appears to us to be justly accused of uncommon pride, arrogance and vanity of mind," and speak of him as "a great enthusiast, in being led by impulses and impressions, and construing his little feelings, or the sudden workings of his own mind, and his dreams, to be the suggestions of the Holy Spirit, without any good Scripture ground so to do." They add in another place: "Nor can we forbear to enumerate some of the evils and mischiefs, which have followed his conduct." "The ministry is cast into much contempt, and their usefulness greatly clogged and obstructed; the minds of people in matters of religion are strangely unhinged and fluctuating-insomuch that many know not what to think or where to fix, and are tempted to suspect all revealed religion to be a mere flam and nullity. Antinomian principles are ad

vanced, preached up, and printed; Christian brethren have their affections widely alienated; 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." After more in the same style, they declare: "For all which reasons, and others that might be mentioned, it is our judgment that the said George Whitefield should not be allowed to preach anywhere, 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. Whitefield 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 anywhere, till he hold forth repentance according to gospel rule, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance."

We invite the particular attention of the reader to the following extract, in which he will see the Association of New Haven county administering solemn reproof to the liberal Dr. Colman, to Dr. Sewall, Mr. Webb, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Gee, and other friends and supporters of Whitefield among the clergy of Boston. "It hath truly been matter of grief to us, that so many of the ministers of Boston did caress, applaud and follow the said Mr. Whitefield, and even bowed before him, at his first coming into the country, which we conceive hath had an unkind influence, and set the things of a bad and dangerous tendency a going; and it is still more grievous to us, that so many ministers in Boston appear so attached to him since his return, after the effects of his former visit are so manifest and glaring; nor do we see reason to dissent from the Rev. Mr. Nathaniel Eells, whose words in his printed letter are these: I verily believe, that God in judgment, and not in mercy to his people, hath sent him again into this country.'

We shall make but one more extract. The Association say: "We gladly improve this opportunity to send our public thanks to the Reverend and Honorable gentlemen of Harvard College, the Reverend associations and particular ministers, who have appeared so valiant for the truth, against the errors, enthusiasm and encroaching evils of the present day."* This declaration was signed by all the clergy of the county, with the exception of, we believe, two, one of whom was the Rev. Philemon Rob

This "Declaration" was written by the Rev. Isaac Stiles, of North Haven, the father of President Stiles.