Part 113

To proceed: again you say, page 11. “We think it highly proper to bear our testimony against Mr. _Whitefield_, as we look upon him to be a _deluder_ of the people. And here we mean more especially, as to the collections of money, which, when here before, by an extraordinary mendicant faculty, he almost _extorted_ from the people.” Extorted from the people? How, Gentlemen, could that be, when it was a public contribution? I never heard the people themselves make any such objection. Nor did I ever see people, in all appearance, offer more willingly: they seemed to be those chearful givers, whom GOD declares he approves of. You go on to prove me a deluder thus: “As the argument he then used was, ‘The support and education of his dear lambs at the Orphan-house,’ who (he told us, he hoped) might, in time, preach the gospel to us and to our children; so it is not to be doubted, that the people were greatly encouraged to give him largely of their substance, supposing they were to be under the immediate tuition and instruction of himself, as he then made them to believe; and had not this been their thought, it is, to us, without all peradventure, they would never have been persuaded to any considerable contribution upon that head; and this notwithstanding, he hath scarce seen them for these four years.” But how does all this prove me a deluder of the people? For can it be proved, that what was collected, was not made use of for the support and education of the dear lambs at the Orphan-house? Or did I promise that any of these dear lambs should come in four years time to preach in _New-England_? Or did I in the least intimate that I had a design to be always resident at the Orphan-house? And if by various and unexpected interpositions of Providence, I have been prevented seeing them these four years, can I help that? “And besides, you say, he hath left the care of them with a person, whom the contributors know nothing of.” I suppose, Gentlemen, you mean Mr. _Barber_. But do these contributors know nothing of him? Did I not mention him publicly at the time of collecting, as one of their own countrymen, and one bred up in one of their own colleges? Was he not with me in person? And did I not again and again declare, that he was to be intrusted with the education and spiritual concerns of the children and family? Assuredly I did. But you add, “And we ourselves have reason to believe that he is little better than a Quaker.” What reason, Gentlemen, you may have thus to judge of him, I cannot tell, but I have great reason to believe he is a thorough Calvinist, and a dear man of GOD, much acquainted with the divine life, and sweetly taught rightly to divide the word of truth. I heartily wish all that had the care of youth, were like-minded, whatever name you are pleased to give him. But you say, “Furthermore, the account which Mr. _W――――_ hath given the world of his disbursements of the several contributions, for the use of his Orphan-house, (wherein there are several large articles, and some of about a thousand pounds our currency charged in a very summary way, ‘For sundries,’ no mention being made therein what the sum was expended for, nor to whom it was paid) is by no means satisfactory.” Would you not, Gentlemen, have done well to have said, by no means satisfactory to us? For, I am well persuaded most of the contributors depended on my veracity, and would have been satisfied as to themselves, though I had given no account of the disbursements at all. Besides, Gentlemen, did you ever see an account of that nature more particular? Is that of the Society for propagating the gospel more so? Or would you yourselves, Gentlemen, be more particular, supposing an account of what has been received and disbursed for _Harvard-College_, should ever be required at your hands?