Such was the literary storm through which Whitefield had to pass when he visited America in 1744. There is much in the publications, so briefly noticed, which invites remark; but want of space precludes comment. It is certainly amusing that liberty-loving Connecticut should pass and enforce the despotic Act it did. Puritanism was becoming as intolerant as prelacy. As to Whitefield’s aspersions of New England ministers, the accusation was scarcely true. He rarely, if ever, mentioned names; but rather denounced, in general terms, the employment of an _unconverted_ ministry. No doubt, in many instances, the pulpits of America were occupied by sincere, earnest, able, godly men; but it is equally certain, that, in many other instances, the ministers were culpably defective. Even President Holyoke seems to admit this; and Dr. Chauncy becomes its apologist. It is also true, that, during Whitefield’s residence in England, the American revival had been disgraced by many scenes of fanatical confusion, and by a bitterness of spirit indulged by some of its converts; but it is difficult to see how absent Whitefield deserved blame for this. It is absolutely false, that Whitefield had been suspended from the ministry, and excluded from the communion of the Church of England. The taunts, likewise, in reference to his Orphan House accounts, were unmerited, inasmuch as he had printed and published a balance-sheet, which his enemies in New England might have read if they had wished. The power and the practice of bishops to license ordained ministers to become itinerant preachers is a point which must be left to Church lawyers. There is, however, one other subject too important to pass unnoticed. In England and in Wales, he and others associated with him had formed a considerable number of Societies, and had employed an earnest band of itinerant preachers and exhorters, and had instituted quarterly and other associations, or conferences. In short, almost without intending it, he had formed a _party_, he himself being its “moderator,” the Tabernacle, Moorfields, its head-quarters, and the _Christian History_ its literary magazine.[120] Whitefield, however, refrained from the formation of a sect across the Atlantic. He honestly told the faculty of Harvard College, that he had “no intention of setting up a party for” himself; and he faithfully adhered to this declaration. In America, at least, he was not the founder of a sect. It is true, that, in New England and elsewhere, separate congregations were formed in several places, by illiterate, but pious, preachers; but this was not done by the authority and immediate help of Whitefield. These “Separatists” and “New Lights,” as they were called, might have been converted, or benefited by Whitefield’s preaching; but their organizations were their own. In many instances, their former pastors failed to feed them with the bread of life, and, naturally enough, they sought it somewhere else.