A History of the Episcopal Church (Third Revised Edition). Robert W. Prichard

by dramatic conversion meant that he also departed from the covenant teaching of many of his coreligionists in another way. In Catechetical Lectures, Thomas Bray had equated renewal of the covenant with baptism and the Eucharist; Whitefield connected it with personal conversion.

      After a not particularly successful missionary stint in Georgia and conversion experiences of their own, John and Charles Wesley followed Whitefield on the preaching circuit in England. Never quite as dramatic in the pulpit as Whitefield, they had other gifts that Whitefield lacked. In particular, they had a gift at organization and were able to create a network of societies that sustained the revival between visits of the great preachers.

John and Charles Wesley had loosely patterned the Holy Club at Oxford, which Whitefield had joined, on the English religious society Anthony Horneck (1641–97) had introduced in 1687. Horneck’s society, based on German pietistic models, had been an exclusively male group devoted to prayer, Bible study, and conversation about practical piety. John and Charles Wesley’s father, Church of England clergyman Samuel Wesley (1662–1735), had introduced one such group in his Epworth parish. Samuel, however, dissolved the organization when his wife Susanna (1669/70–1742) insisted on active participation.¹⁹

Whitefield and the Wesleys worked with existing religious societies and also helped to form new ones. They began, however, to change the Horneck model in significant ways, in part to conform to what they had learned from Moravian pietists. (John Wesley had been deeply impressed by the Moravians he met on the ship to Georgia in 1735, had joined their Fetter Lane Society organized by Peter Böhler in London, and had visited the Moravian community in Germany in 1738.) The newer religious societies segregated those who had not yet experienced the new birth from those converted Christians who were seeking holiness of life. The Wesleys opened membership to women, and introduced the singing of hymns, the lyrics of many of which were written by Charles Wesley.²⁰

While Whitefield and the Wesleys both made use of such societies, the Wesleys would develop a structure with which to coordinate and connect them. By 1746, John Wesley had established a hierarchy with “class leaders” presiding over “classes” or “bands” of a dozen or so and “lay preachers” leading societies composed of several such classes. The societies were, in turn, grouped into circuits led by “superintendents.” The lay preachers and superintendents (some of whom were clergy of the Church of England) then met together in “annual conferences.”²¹ Thus, while Whitefield’s visits produced more immediate effect, the long-term influence of the Wesleys would be greater.

The Progress of the Awakening

      Whitefield’s tour of 1739–40 left a permanent mark on the churches in the American colonies. The call for revival was so strong that it was impossible for American Christians to ignore. They had either to align themselves with it or become outside critics of the movement. Congregationalists who approved of the Awakening formed “New Light” congregations. Presbyterian clergy and congregations created a separate “New Side” synod (1741–58). Other supporters of the Awakening came to see adult baptism as an appropriate sign of the awakening of adult faith. They left Presbyterian and Congregational churches altogether and formed Baptist congregations. A small denomination prior to the Awakening, the Baptist Church would grow rapidly and by the nineteenth century become larger in size than either the Congregational or the Presbyterian Church.

Not all were happy with the preaching of George Whitefield and the increasing religious fervor of the American religious scene, however. Sizeable portions of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches feared that zeal for personal experience compromised traditional Reformed theological formulations. These “Old Light” Congregationalists and “Old Side” Presbyterians insisted on strict adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith and continued to support the communal implications of covenant theology.²²

With the exception of Lewis Jones (ca. 1700–44) and Thomas Thompson (fl. 1740) of South Carolina, most Church of England clergy outside of Virginia and Maryland rejected Whitefield by the end of his 1739–40 tour. He was not consistent in his use of the Book of Common Prayer for public worship, he didn’t subscribe to the high church version of covenant theology with its emphasis on episcopal succession, and he questioned the salvation of those who could not attest to conversion. Timothy Cutler, one of the Yale converts, summed up the opinion of many when he wrote to the Bishop of London about Whitefield’s theology: “He contradicted himself, the Church, and whatever Your Lordship has delivered. …”²³ Thus, while Congregationalists and Presbyterians were divided by the Awakening, New England members of the Church of England were united in their opposition to it.

That opposition in New England had an unexpected result. While some did leave the Church of England to follow the revival, as a whole the church grew rapidly in numbers. Timothy Cutler, writing to the secretary of the SPG on behalf of laypersons in Simsbury, Connecticut, shortly before Whitefield’s third visit to the colonies (1744–47), explained his understanding of the phenomenon in this way: “Enthusiasm has had a long Run … so that many are tired of it, and if the Door were open would take Refuge in our Church from Error and Disorder.”²⁴

In the middle colonies, the Awakening contributed to a rapid growth of the Presbyterian Church, which was already expanding as a result of Scotch-Irish immigration. The number of Presbyterian congregations in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, which stood at one hundred twenty-five in 1740, doubled in the thirty-five years after Whitefield’s first visit. Many Church of England clergy in the middle colonies shared their New England counterparts’ negative estimation of Whitefield, but some of the laity, especially in Delaware and along the Pennsylvania-Maryland border, were touched by the Awakening. Delaware clergymen John Pugh (d. 1745) and William Beckett (d. 1743) complained of losing parishioners in 1740 and 1741 to an awakened religious society. In Pennsylvania, William Currie of Radnor and Alexander Howie of Oxford made similar complaints.²⁵ Yet, as in New England, Church of England congregations grew as well. In New Jersey, for example, the number of parishes increased from ten to twenty-one in the years between 1740 and 1765²⁶

One indirect result of this anti-Awakening growth was a rising concern for education. Members of the Church of England, believing that sound education could refute what they saw as the errors of the Awakening, became acutely aware of the lack of educational institutions in New England and the middle colonies. The diverse religious climate in the middle colonies made the establishment of colleges that were solely linked to the Church of England unlikely and probably unwise. Members of the Church of England therefore cooperated with Old Side Presbyterians and other who shared some of their misgiving about the Great Awakening.²⁷ In New York, a group of interested persons secured a charter in 1753 for the establishment of King’s College (renamed Columbia during the Revolution). Church of England members were prominent in the leadership, providing two-thirds of the governors (i.e., trustees) of the school and many of the faculty. Trinity Church contributed the land.²⁸ Samuel Johnson, one of the Yale converts, served as the school’s first president and was followed in 1763 by a second Church of England cleric, Myles Cooper (1737–85). Neither man had much sympathy for Whitefield or the Awakening.

In order to become president of King’s College, Samuel Johnson had to decline an invitation to head a second institution, the College of Philadelphia.