memories assured him admission to the pulpit first occupied by John Davenport. But Mr. Noyes' "Old Light" sympathies were too manifest to be concealed from Davenport's spiritual sagacity, and he pronounded him unconverted. Among the students in college his influence may have prevailed to a limited extent; but his visit took place just at the time of the fall vacation, nor can we find, on the list of under-graduates of that date, more than two or three of any note whose subsequent career could have been modified by Davenport's erratic proceedings.

Such a course as he had pursued created a prejudice, not only against himself, but against his sympathizers, and against itinerants generally. Of these, Wheelock was one, and not the least conspicuous,† and he was subjected to his share of reproach. A minister by the name of Cotton-perhaps Rev. John Cotton, of Halifax, Mass.-communicated to Mr Gaylord, of Norwalk, Wheelock's brother-in-law, his objections to Wheelock's course. The latter wrote to Cotton, asking him to be specific. But the reply was not satisfactory, and the result was the following letter from Wheelock in his own. vindication. It bears date, July 17, 1741, just as Davenport, having made himself notorious on Long Island, was commencing his career on the mainland at Stonington. From Winterbury Wheelock writes:

"REV'D AND HON'D SIR.-Yours of the 9th inst. I received, but han't had leisure before now to answer it, and I am as much at a loss to understand your letter, as I was before you wrote, to know what the objections were which you had against my conduct. Mr. Gaylord told me that you had some objections against my conduct, but could not give me to understand what they were. Whereupon I wrote to you, desiring you to acquaint me what they were. In answer to it you say, I don't acquaint you what the objections are which you have to make. Then you enter into a discourse about the unlawfulness of ministers leaving their own people from time to time, Pro arbitrio, on purpose to preach in other places where there are pastors fixed, constantly and painfully attending their charge, etc. And then towards the close of your letter, you seem to suggest that I do it, and therein break Christ's institution, contemn his authority, and please myself with a notion of doing eminent service for Christ,

* Webster says, "Probably Buell and others." Buell was graduated, and probably left New Haven at about the time that Davenport reached it.

+Chauncy in his Seasonable Thoughts, 1743, classes him, Pomeroy, etc., with Davenport.

in a direct opposition to his declared will, trampling upon his authority, and casting his laws behind my back, etc. If that be the greatest head which you have to object against me, why can't you write it plain, without so much ambiguity, and then I shall know what to answer to, and if that be what you have to object, as I suppose it is, I answer:

1, I don't know that any good people among my flock, or any neighboring ministers who have known what my labors among my own people have been, have ever charged me with unfaithfulness to my charge. 2, I never went into any pulpit to preach without an invitation from the pastor, if there was any. nor of late without being desired more than once to do it. Others have often urged upon me that the evident success that has of late accompanied my endeavors, is a call of Providence to labor abroad when I can do it without neglecting my own flock, and it is evident to me that God, by owning and blessing the labors of the least and meanest of Christ's ministers, designs to mar the pride of the great ones of the earth, and get all the glory of his own work to himself. I know that there are some that call these things imaginary, and I pray God to give them better light and better hearts. I am fully persuaded it is the great power of God, and the very things that they have been so long praying for, and those that oppose it are found fighting against God. I can't but think it would be worth your while to take a journey down to Lebanon, Hebron and Coventry, and discourse with the Rev. Messrs. Meachem, Steel. Sol. Williams, etc. There you will be under advantage to satisfy yourself, if it be truly a work of God, if it is of the last importance for you to be satisfied of it."

But whatever might be said of Wheelock's zeal, or his laborious itineracy, he indulged in no extravagancies like those of Davenport. The name of the latter was becoming a reproach to the cause. Edwards freely expressed his disapproval of his course. He wrote to Burr at Newark, that he believed Davenport did more towards giving Satan and other opposers an advantage against the work, than any one person. He conferred with Stephen Williams on the subject, as the following lines from the latter, under date of Enfield, Sept. 19, 1741, while Davenport was yet in New Haven, indicate:

"The account the Rev'd and dear Mr. Edwards has given me of our dear Br. James Davenport), has filled (me) with a great concern. Mr. E. fears that the measures which he pursues, will really hinder and obstruct the work of God in the land. O, can we do nothing-but by our prayers? Will he not be persuaded to lay aside such measures, that are stumbling-blocks in the way of some that (I trust) are truly religious. . . What need of discriminating and separating by m(en)? Won't Christ separate the chaff, and in his own time order the tares to be burned?"

At this point, another revivalist, ultimately only less obnoxious than Davenport, emerges into notice. Andrew Croswell, a graduate of Harvard College in 1728, was settled some eight years later over the church in North Groton. He was as jeal

ous of unconverted ministers, and as ready to pronounce upon the condition of his brethren as Davenport himself, except that he lacked opportunity. His excessive zeal and theological crudities subsequently (1742) brought him into controversy with Jonathan Dickinson, of New Jersey, and (1746) Solomon Williams, of Lebanon, Ct. His first letter to Wheelock displays something of his character, which will be further elucidated as we proceed. Under date of Sept. 20, 1741, he writes:

"I am this day informed by a very credible person that Mr. Mills of Canterbury told him, he durst not pretend to say that he was a converted man that if ever, he was converted by degrees; that he could not see through people's being struck-and that Mr. Mills spake slightingly of Mr. Davenport, which is suspicious. I was before jealous of that man, because I heard that his brother, who is too charitable, (as 'tis called,) questioned his estate something. Wherefore, being in the utmost haste, I charge you and Brother Pomroy, by your allegiance to Christ, to search him thoroughly, and to bear testimony against him if found wanting."

To the above, Hezekiah Huntington, of Norwich probably, and a relative of Wheelock, appends the following:

"The above I was desired by the Rev. Mr. Croswell to forward. I think him a good soldier of Jesus Christ, and now would suggest to you the low ebb religion seems to be at. I hear not of any new converts in this Society since Mr. Pomroy left us (except one hopefully converted at Mr. Croswell's.)... the people anxiously inquiring after your coming to us, since Mr. Turner spake of the encouragement you gave of your coming this week. Mr. Lord hath not come forth in his public ministry to us since Mr. Davenport left us, and when he will is uncertain. The Rev. Mr. Moseley, we heard, is to preach to us the next Sabbath. I pray that I might wait on you here next Monday or Tuesday. I must speak with you before I go to the Assembly, as my affairs are so perplexed that I can't leave home at present. Our people in general will be exceeding glad of a sermon or two from you, tho' to some 'twill be very unwelcome; but let it not discourage you. I hope God's glory and the interest of souls will be promoted by your coming."

Repeated applications were made to Wheelock similar to this from Norwich. The following from New London-as Wheelock became more acquainted with Davenport's imprudences-would scarcely appeal so strongly to his sympathies. It is from John Curtiss, under date of Oct. 15, 1741, and represents, undoubtedly, the extremists of the revival, soon to take their ground as declared Separatists:

"This salutes you from the Brotherhood in our Imanuel at New London, a little flock of lambs, greatly opposed, especially since our dear Br. Davenport, was here, and there is not one i. e. old professing Christian in the town perhaps

that comes out in favor of us. We therefore become a fit object of the care and ministrations of those who are set for the defence of the gospel, and knowing no man like minded, earnestly entreat you to visit this vine, and the town, poor town of New London, and rescue the ark from captivity and insults of the Philistines. . . . I can't assure you the meeting house if you come, but hope Mr. Adams will consent."

ART. V. PROGRESS OF THE REUNION MOVEMENT.

By J. G. MONFORT, D. D., Cincinnati, Ohio.

The signs of the times are full of promise in behalf of the speedy reunion of the separated branches of the Presbyterian Church in this country. The parted stream is soon to flow again in one channel. Those who rejoice in the present, and can remember the painful past, are "like them that dream." To younger men, now upon the stage, who would learn the lessons of the past, and act well their parts in the closing scenes of the separation, the record of strife, so speedily followed by division; the prevalence of jealousies and competitions, marking so many years of the period of separation, and the rapid return of brotherly kindness and charity, hastening the fullness of time for reunion, must be an intensely interesting study.

For nearly a quarter of a century, Old School and New School were generally regarded as honorary titles, by those who accepted the one or the other. Until within a few years, a declaration in favor of uniting the divided church was generally received with suspicion, and very often with reproach. On either side, it was taken for granted that the sin of schism was chargeable upon the opposite party, and that the breach could only be healed by retraction or absorption. A great change has taken place in the spirit and views of both parties. The last few years of discussion and negotiation have been characterized by a rapid renewal of charity and confidence, and a growing evidence of oneness of sentiment and spirit, that are as surprising as they are grateful to every Christian heart. As the contest, which so soon ended in disruption, was mainly fed by evil surmisings and mutual accusations, so

the work of peace is to be a short work, because of the prevalence and power of love and meekness, of patience and forbearance, under the guidance of the God of peace.

Though reunion is almost universally regarded as an event of certain and speedy accomplishment, much may depend on what remains to be done, in order that it may be happy and permanent. The time and the manner of its completion should be wisely chosen, to render sure the harvest of blessing for which we have been sowing in tears. In order that the steps yet to be taken may be wise, it may be well to trace the progress of the movement thus far, and note the indications of Providence, pointing out the way by which the end may be best secured. The present posture of the question has not been attained by man's wisdom, but by Divine guidance, and there is still need of wisdom from on high. The providential leadings, from the first, seem to have been in favor of the method of consummation to which both churches are now tending. A retrospect of the discussions, overtures, negotiations and ecclesiastical action, in the progress of the reunion movement, will show that its friends, in contradistinction from those who have been unprepared for it or opposed to it, have ever been for it, on equal terms and without concessions or pledges. They have regarded both churches as intelligent and honest in their adherence to their common standards, and they have desired no other basis or bond of union. Whatever they may have done, in proposing explanations and pledges as a part of terms of union, has been by way of concession to others, and for the sake of union, which they feared might not otherwise be gained. The early friends of reunion, and all who from time to time have been brought to stand with them, have exhibited a remarkable unanimity of spirit and views on the whole subject. They have ever been prepared, for themselves, to form the union upon the basis of the standards alone, and they have ever declared the prevalence of restored confidence and fraternity to be the necessary and sufficient evidence of readiness for it. There is no doubt but this is the prevailing view, at this time, in both branches.