Old Light on the New Side John Thomson and Gilbert Tennent on the Great Awakening Peter J. Wallace I. Introduction A. History of Interpretation History is generally written by the winners--and most historians tend to side with the winners as those who were most culturally adapted to succeed, and therefore more "modern" than their outdated opponents. Such is frequently the case with respect to the Great Awakening in the colonial Presbyterian church. Until recently, the vast majority of historians have written from a perspective sympathetic to Gilbert Tennent and the New Side revivalists. Such historians have naturally viewed John Thomson, one of the leaders of the Old Side, in the terms which Tennent and his colleagues portrayed him. In 1743, Tennent had inveighed against Thomson's The Doctrine of Convictions Set in a Clear Light (1741) as a "detestable and inconsistent performance....Hardly anything can be invented that has a more direct tendency to destroy the common operations of God's Holy Spirit, and to keep men from Jesus Christ." What historians often neglect, however, are Tennent's own comments six years later, in his Irenicum (1749), where he praised Thomson's Government of the Church (1741) for breathing "the candid, humble spirit of true Christianity," and declared that Thomson's writings spoke in a "candid charitable Strain, to the Honour of the late Revival of Religion, as well as the Honour of the ministers he opposed." Charles Briggs states the received opinion regarding Thomson when he claims that, "Thomson was a narrow and opinionated man. He became the father of all the discord and mischief in the American Presbyterian Church." This sentiment, although toned down, remains prevalent in Leonard Trinterud's account. Although he admitted that Thomson and Alison "seem in themselves to have been upright men," he claims that their followers used anti-revivalism as a cloak for immorality. While most historians have generally followed Trinterud in painting a gloomy though not quite as libellous portrait of Thomson and the Old Side, the two early twentieth-century historians who studied Thomson's life came to radically different conclusions. W. H. T. Squires, while examining Thomson's life and ministry concludes that: "The abounding success that followed him wherever he went, his ability to cope with the difficulties of frontier life, his long and arduous labor as a missionary, evangelist, pastor, author, educator, and presbyter make him a conspicuous figure of colonial days. It is to regret that his name and fame have become obscured." John G. Herndon, after completing an exhaustive study of every record of Thomson's life and ministry declares: "his every recorded work bears testimony to his own humility of spirit, to his constant desire to preach among those who have not heard the Gospel message, and his insistence upon a constant search for the riches of Christ." Nybakken reverses Trinterud's approach, having more sympathy for Thomson than for Tennent, approving his actions and writings during these years as "reasoned, temperate and firm," while finding Tennent inconsistent and erratic. Milton Coalter identifies Tennent's revival techniques as the instrument of schism, portraying the controversy as a clash between "the advocates of order and doctrine and the disciples of terrors and conversion." Most studies of colonial Presbyterianism have assumed at least three distinct "parties" in the Synod: 1) the Scotch-Irish (also known as the subscriptionists or the Old Side); 2) the New Englanders (also known as the moderates, anti-subscriptionists, or the New York Presbytery); and 3) the revivalists (also known as the Methodists, Log College men or New Brunswick Presbytery)--the latter two comprising the New Side. The blending of regional, ethnic and doctrinal or experiential categories, however, creates certain difficulties and misperceptions. Only the New Yorkers are an identifiable party. The others do not always match their descriptions. The obvious difficulty is the fact that the majority of the "revivalists" were Scotch-Irish ministers who voted for subscription. The Old Side itself does not appear to have acted as a distinct party until 1739-40. Some concern had been raised among Thomson and others during the late 1730s, but no concerted action is discernable until a few years after a recognizable revivalist party appeared in the proteges of William and Gilbert Tennent. B. Thesis Since the Scots-Irish appeared on both sides of the Great Awakening (as Hodge and Westerkamp point out), it would be improper to assume that ethnicity has sufficient explanatory power over these events. Westerkamp correctly identifies the Scottish roots of a piety which was conducive to religious awakenings--but fails to account for a pastor like Thomson, who is not opposed to religious awakenings, but heartily inveighs against Tennent's revival doctrines and methods. Trinterud's thesis of a New England influence accurately portrays the sympathy between Jonathan Dickinson in New York and Tennent in New Brunswick, but fails to explain Dickinson's agreement with Thomson on the anti-intrusion and educational acts. The differences between the New England revivals sponsored by Jonathan Edwards and Jonathan Dickinson, and those conducted by Tennent and the Log College men gives credence to Coalter's suggestion that Continental Reformed Pietism influenced the radical nature of the revivals during the 1730s and early 40s through the instrumentality of Tennent's friendship with Theodore Frelinghuysen. Naturally, George Whitefield's own brand of incendiary itinerancy fueled the flames, causing more unrest in the middle colonies, largely because there was no established church to rein in the enthusiasm--as existed in portions of New England--and the existing Presbyterian Synod was still too weak to govern its extensive territory effectively. The conversionist strain, the increased focus on charismatic preaching, and the corresponding attack on unconverted ministers in middle colony revivalism appears to have been heightened by the Pietist influence, and strengthened by a similar approach in Whitefield. These extremes were tempered once the New Side formed their own Synod by three factors: the coming of the Moravians; the mediating force of the New York Presbytery; and the realities of church government and discipline. This study will attempt to document this understanding of the Great Awakening and the schism of 1741 through the polemical writings of Gilbert Tennent and John Thomson. Starting from a common foundation of Scottish Presbyterian theology, piety and ecclesiology, the two churchmen diverge as Thomson remained more or less consistent in his Scottish Presbyterianism while Tennent absorbed elements of Continental Reformed Pietism. Still, the importance of Pietism should not be unduly pressed. The two would have had slightly different approaches even without the influence of Frelinghuysen and Whitefield, because of the differences within Scottish Presbyterianism and the various ways in which the two pastors applied these models in the colonial wilderness. II. Historical Background A. Tennent and Thomson 1. John Thomson John Herndon's biographical sketch of Thomson shows that he was probably born around 1690 in Northern Ireland, and entered the University of Glasgow on March 1, 1706, where he received the B.A. Being licensed in 1713 by the Presbytery of Ardmagh, he crossed the Atlantic in 1715, and placed himself at the disposal of the General Presbytery. He was ordained and settled at Lewes, Delaware in 1717, and became a charter member of the Presbytery of New Castle as well as the newly established Synod. Quickly rising in the estimation of his colleagues, he was chosen moderator of Synod twice in the first six years of its existence (1719 and 1722), of New Castle Presbytery in 1718, 1722, and 1730, and after moving to Pennsylvania, was elected as the first moderator of Donegal Presbytery when it was founded in 1732. From this it appears that his brethren recognized his gifts and abilities, and granted him the highest office in the church after less than three years among them, when he was not much past the age of thirty. Like most ministers, Thomson was frequently required by the Presbytery to supply nearby (and sometimes not-so-nearby) churches. These preaching tours eventually took him to Virginia in 1738. Around this time his congregation became dissatisfied, most likely due to the combination of the revivalists' attacks and the fact that his itinerancy in backwoods Virginia took him away from Chestnut Level for months at a time. He petitioned Donegal Presbytery to dissolve his pastoral relationship with Chestnut Level in 1739, so that he could pursue his ministry in Virginia, but his request was denied. In 1741, influenced by Tennent's rhetoric, some members of his congregation brought charges against him, but Donegal Presbytery discovered that most of the signatures were forgeries, and rejected them as fictitious. The majority of the congregation stood by him, and by 1743 the issues were resolved. The following year his request to be released to Virginia was finally granted, and he spent the last decade of his life preaching over a wide territory in Virginia in North Carolina. At first, when Thomson came to Hanover, Samuel Davies warned his people against him, but was astonished to discover that Thomson supported the revivals in Virginia. Realizing that Thomson had been honest when he had said that he was only opposed to the manner in which the Tennent party had conducted themselves, Davies wrote to his friend Joseph Bellamy: "Thomson acknowledged that the Revival had done much good in Hanover and rejoiced in the prosperity of religion." 2. Gilbert Tennent William Tennent, Sr, an immigrant from Northern Ireland, had established the "Log College" in the late 1720s in order to train young ministers, including his four sons. The eldest, Gilbert, after studying with his father, received the M.A. from Yale in 1725, and a year later was called to a pastorate in New Brunswick, New Jersey. During much of the 1730s he itinerated from this base, engaging in a tour of New England for George Whitefield in the winter of 1740-41. Two years later, Tennent accepted a call to pastor the nondenominational tabernacle which Whitefield's followers had opened in Philadelphia two years before. Once settled in the city, Tennent began moving away from his earlier extemporaneous preaching style and rustic dress, drawing the caustic criticism of one disillusioned follower that he was "turning back to Old Presbyterianism, and a State of dead Forms." Trinterud, in keeping with his belief in New England influence on the revivals, claims that Tennent's revivals had a particularly New England character. Milton Coalter has argued in response that Tennent was significantly influenced by the pietist theology and techniques of the Dutch Reformed pastor Theodore Jacobus Frelinghuysen. Suggesting that the Dutchman's abrasive belligerence may have worn off on the younger pastor, Coalter points out that Tennent's theological and rhetorical approach seems to have undergone some significant transformation through his contact with Frelinghuysen, particularly in his homiletic techniques of the "terrors of the Lord," and a systematic searching of men's hearts to undercut their slumbers. Publishing two years later (and with no reference to Coalter), Marilyn Westerkamp has argued that Tennent's brand of revivalism may be explained almost entirely in terms of the Scots-Irish communion seasons. Admitting that German influence is possible, she nonetheless concludes that Tennent's style and content approximate the Scottish models closely enough to render the question superfluous. Going a step further, Janet Fishburn has rejected Coalter's argument explicitly, suggesting that Ulster Scot spirituality is an entirely sufficient background for understanding Tennent's revivalism. Agreeing with Westerkamp, she traces the influence of the communion season on Tennent, through his sermons and communion practices, concluding that "Tennent is the paradigmatic Scots-Irish Presbyterian." Trinterud, Coalter and Fishburn all appear to overpress their arguments. It is likely that Tennent appropriated some of Frelinghuysen's rhetorical strategies, but it should not be supposed that these approaches were wholly alien to the New England or Scottish churches in which Gilbert had been trained. The difference was not so much one of theology, but of intensity (which naturally had subtle influences on theology). Jerald Brauer argues that the revivals shortened the time which the Puritans had given for the conversion experience, but he does not satisfactorily explain why the change took place. Coalter, nonetheless, claims to see a gradual shift in Gilbert's preaching toward the Pietist model, and suggests that Frelinghuysen refined and channeled some of Tennent's early training, giving more emphasis to conversion and preparation, rather than his father's emphasis on growth in grace. This may be maintained as long as it is noted that the Gilbert's conversion preaching was generally in continuity with his father-- but heightened in its sharpness by his contacts with Frelinghuysen. 3. Subscription and Revivalism As early as 1724, Thomson's presbytery of New Castle began requiring candidates for the gospel ministry to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Concerned over the rise of Moderatism in Scotland and Ireland, Thomson drew up an overture to the Synod in 1727, presenting it in 1728, proposing subscription to the Westminster Standards as the best way to prohibit the influx of "gross errors or heresies in doctrine." Believing that the Synod was still pure and basically uninfected, he set forth four dangers which beset the church: 1) since she had no agreed upon doctrine, there was no common standard to test candidates and to judge cases of heresy; 2) the threat of "Arminianism, Socinianism, Deism, Freethinking, &c.," in the reformed churches of Europe; 3) the lack of a theological seminary, which led to "the danger of having our ministry corrupted by such as are leavened with false doctrine before they come among us;" and 4) the lack of zeal among current ministers "boldly, openly, and zealously to appear against those errors," which might be strengthened by a common stand. One point which is often forgotten, it would seem, is that Thomson himself was the one who proposed that the Synod allow for scruples. He suggested that if any minister should teach or preach contrary to the Westminster Standards, "unless, first, he propose the said point to the Presbytery or the Synod to be by them discussed, he shall be censured so and so," clearly allowing for scruples, as long as the presbytery had approved it first. This does not read like an overture for rigid, ironclad subscription. After some misunderstanding and debate, Thomson sat down with Jonathan Dickinson and six others to come to an agreement at the Synod of 1729. Their differences appear to have been fairly easily resolved, and the rhetoric of the previous two years dissolved into the Adopting Act of 1729, which required all ministers to subscribe to the Westminster Confession and catechisms, but allowed for them to propose any particular scruples to their presbytery, which could be admitted if it was concerning "articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship and government." The Synod took less than seven hours to discuss and resolve their scruples--an indication of the orthodoxy and graciousness of all involved-- before unanimously adopting the Westminster Standards, after which they gave thanks to God for the "unanimity, peace, and unity which appeared in all their consultations and determinations in the affair of the Confession." Some questions remained in the minds of many, due to some confusing language in the Adopting Act, but after the Hemphill controversy of 1734-35, the Synod clarified their position on subscription in 1736. Many historians have viewed the New Brunswick party as looser in polity and discipline than the Old Side. While there is doubtless an element of truth in this--as reflected in the arguments of the New Side during the controversy--the actual practice of the revivalists demonstrates their deeply ingrained Presbyterian convictions. William Sr. and Gilbert signed the Adopting Act in 1729, John subscribed later that year in the "strictest" presbytery, New Castle (the Act's presbytery of origin), and William Sr. and William Jr. both voted for the Act of 1736, showing that they had no qualms with Thomson's subscription policy. There were no significant divisions on doctrine or government between the Tennents and Thomson until after the revivals started. Therefore I would suggest that as the New Brunswick men began objecting to several particular decisions of the Synod which they believed were prejudiced against the revivals, they began to develop looser views of polity for pragmatic reasons- -views which evaporated as soon as they had their own Synod. B. The Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies By 1735 Gilbert had been joined in the Raritan Valley by his brother, William, Jr., along with John Cross, Samuel Blair and Eleazar Wales, who came at various times to finish their pastoral training under his ministry. These five preachers spearheaded the revival movement, and attempted to convince the Synod that their practices should be implemented throughout the church. In 1734, Gilbert Tennent overtured the Synod to examine candidates, and even current ministers for "the evidences of the grace of God," in which he brought together the three strands of Scottish, New England and Continental influence. The Synod, hearing this in terms of the traditional Scottish interest in vital piety, agreed, but in very different words. Rather than support an examination of conversion, they required all presbyteries to "diligently examine all the candidates for the ministry in their experiences of a work of sanctifying grace in their hearts..." Rather than focus on conversion, the Synod's directive emphasized sanctification--the difference being that whereas the former rests upon testimony, the latter is founded upon, to use the Synod's words, "conversations, conduct, and behavior." At this point the Synod rejoiced to hear of the revivals occurring in New Jersey, and urged their ministers to greater efforts to see the sanctifying work of the Spirit increase. 1. Intrusions and Education Nonetheless, by 1738 two issues had arisen to disturb the Synod: the continuing intrusions of the revivalists (including the vicious sermons which accompanied them), and the apparent disparagement of educational standards by the Tennent party. Starting at the latest in 1737, Tennent and his supporters had begun to preach in congregations outside their own Presbytery of East Jersey without the permission of the proper Presbyteries. This would not have been too disagreeable to other ministers, except for the disturbing fact that wherever they went, division and disorder seemed to follow. The Synod decided that congregations could only invite a minister to supply their pulpit if the Presbytery first approves him. Realizing that this created huge amounts of bureaucratic red tape, the Synod modified this until in 1739 they declared that any minister may preach by invitation of the congregation, but if his preaching led to division, the Presbytery had the right to forbid him to continue preaching there--an act which did not receive a single dissenting vote. Leonard Trinterud has argued that as early as 1734, "the Scotch-Irish party were driving for an all-powerful synod through which they would be able to root out the growing revival." A careful examination of the record reveals that this judgment cannot stand. If they had wished, the hypothetical "Scotch-Irish party" had enough of a majority to crush the Tennent's at one blow--even if Dickinson and the New York Presbytery objected. But no one has ever exhibited one scrap of evidence that suggests that the Scotch- Irish were trying to oust the revivalists until 1741, after the attacks of the Tennent party had reached their zenith. The frequent compromises and the number of times that the Synod simply gave in--even to the point of setting up the revivalists in their own presbytery with the power of licensing anyone they pleased--are not the actions of a ruthless band of power-hungry ministers. Rather, these actions suggest that they attempted to maintain unity and peace in the church, giving in where they could, but standing firm in matters where they could not yield. During the same period there had been a growing concern that the education which the revivalists had received was insufficient. Alexander Craighead and Charles Tennent had not done superbly in their presbytery exams, but had passed. In 1738, however, New Castle Presbytery found John Rowland to be "remarkably deficient in many parts of the useful Learning required in our Directory." Several other students were just finishing their training under William Tennent, Sr., and the revivalists grew concerned that their proteges might receive the same treatment elsewhere. So, at that year's Synod they requested the shuffling of the presbyteries of East Jersey and Long Island, to form the presbyteries of New York and New Brunswick, the former consisting of New England men who maintained high educational standards, while the latter comprised of the Tennent party: Gilbert and William Tennent, Samuel Blair, Eleazar Wales, and John Cross. On the Synod's side, Ingersoll is warranted in suggesting that they "hoped that this concession would lessen conflicts within the other presbyteries and sanction the revivals in the Raritan Valley. If the revivalists were gathered into their own presbytery they might confine themselves to this area and cease their unwelcome intrusions into other presbyteries." But even while shuttling the revivalists into their own presbytery, they intended to maintain high educational standards. Lewes Presbytery successfully overtured the Synod to require either a European or a New England diploma for all candidates for the ministry. It was Thomson who proposed that anyone lacking this should be examined by a committee of the Synod "skilled in the several branches of philosophy, divinity, and the languages." Where they studied was not important. As long as they had the requisite knowledge, they could be ordained. Here was a simple way to ensure a basic minimum of academic training, perfectly suited to a wilderness church. Moreover, it would require private instructors (of whom they certainly included Tennent) to be thorough in their teaching, by providing for ecclesiastical accountability. This overture passed by a great majority. Nevertheless, it struck a blow to the Tennent party, who protested vehemently, seeing this Act as merely an attempt by the anti-revivalists to undermine the revivals by refusing to pass any graduate of the Log College until he succumbed to their views. Therefore, in open defiance of the Synod, New Brunswick Presbytery at their first official meeting, licensed Rowland, and on the same day he began preaching within the bounds of Philadelphia Presbytery. Naturally, that presbytery objected to his presence, and invoked both the itinerancy act and the examining act in ruling Rowland guilty of intrusion. Coalter claims that this "hostile action startled the New Brunswick Presbytery." It is far more likely that New Brunswick Presbytery's utter disregard for their authority startled the Presbytery of Philadelphia. Preferring to avoid further division, the Philadelphia Presbytery allowed his followers to form a separate congregation under the jurisdiction of New Brunswick Presbytery. Nonetheless, the following year (1739) the Synod refused to allow Rowland to sit as a member until he had submitted to the appropriate examination. The New Brunswick Presbytery then walked out. . The one point upon which all historians are agreed is that the unexpected coming of George Whitefield in the fall of 1739 turned the tide in favor of the revivalists. His charismatic preaching and inflammatory rhetoric provoked his colleagues to similar excesses, and his opponents to stricter denunciations. Prior to his arrival, the revivalists had failed to significantly influence congregations outside their own bounds. The Synod had worked out a series of compromises which left the New Brunswick Presbytery virtually isolated--permitted to carry on their activities, but without gaining any significant power in the Synod. Whitefield's dramatic preaching and marketing techniques won thousands to the revivalist camp--including many within the Old Side churches. After hearing Whitefield's sloppy theology and experiencing his followers' violent attacks on ministers who questioned his preaching, the vague uneasiness of Thomson and his associates concerning the revivals was stirred up into a resolute opposition. Nonetheless, Whitefield's tour sparked the second phase in the Great Awakening in the middle colonies as the revivals broke out in force throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Log College men itinerated throughout the area, even reaching up into New York Presbytery where they received only mild approval, which led to some tension with Aaron Burr and Jonathan Dickinson. Coalter suggests that while the New Yorkers' agreed with the revivalists emphasis on experiential piety, their hesitance to fully support the revivals may be explained by their Puritan insistence on "doctrinal enlightenment, respect for the ordained ministry, and the recognition that God alone knew the true state of the human soul." Hence they remained noncommittal, and perhaps uncomfortable at times, with the Dutch aspects of the revivalists' ministry. The crucial contest, however, was reserved for the Pennsylvania area, a region where neutrality became impossible. Finally, in 1740, weary of contention and seeking peace with the Tennent party, the Synod repealed the anti-Intrusion Act altogether, and allowed presbyteries to ordain whomsoever they wished. Since the examination act was being so flagrantly ignored, several ministers, led by George Gillespie, proposed a compromise: presbyteries could ordain anyone they wished, but in order to sit in the Synod, they would have to pass the Synodical examination. This would allow the New Brunswick men to have as much leeway as they wanted within their own presbytery, while preventing this small minority from increasing their numbers in the Synod by means of direct violations of the Acts of the church. After passing this compromise, the Synod presented "two expedients for peace," not to the New Brunswick Presbytery, but to Gilbert Tennent, asking him if he would allow the Synod to oversee presbyterial examinations. Tennent agreed. But, in Ingersoll's words, The sigh of relief quickly died when Dickinson, seeking some clarification, exposed the loophole that had encouraged Tennent to accept the compromise. Dickinson posed the situation of a presbytery's candidate being found deficient in learning by the synod. Could that body censure the young man and bar his preaching until he had studied further? No, was Tennent's reply. The synod can censure the presbytery but not the candidate. In other words, the ignorant fellow in question would be considered a regular minister of the synod whether or not it considered his learning adequate....The synod then dropped the measure since it obviously could not serve the end of obtaining a learned clergy. Immediately thereafter, Tennent and Blair declared in formal papers that a number of the ministers present were unregenerate, but declined to make any formal charges. Rather they declared that anyone who was opposed to the revivals was opposed to the Work of God, and therefore was devoid of the spirit of God. Further, those who refused to judge a ministerial candidate's conversion experience thereby demonstrated that they were either ignorant of divine things, or else hypocrites who cared not for Christ's flock. In the Minutes, the Synod's only response was to enjoin their members "seriously to consider the weight of their charge," but after discovering that neither Tennent nor Blair had spoken with these unnamed individuals, or had contacted their presbyteries, the Synod told them to follow the biblical procedure before bringing anonymous accusations before the Synod. After initially agreeing to present evidence, Blair gave up, claiming he did not have time. Tennent was willing to name names--mentioning to Gillespie that John Thomson was "one of the unconverted Pharisee Preachers"--but declined to press charges. After the Synod, the attacks grew worse as Blair refused to allow Adam Boyd to assist with the Lord's Supper, claiming to be unsatisfied with Boyd's "description of his personal conversion experience." 2. The Trial of David Alexander and Alexander Craighead In 1740, Samuel Black, who had originally favored the revivals, but demurred as the excesses increased, complained that David Alexander had intruded into his congregation, and stirred up unsubstantiated accusations against his moral character. Meanwhile, Alexander Craighead intruded into Francis Alison's congregation in New London. The main target, however, was Thomson. Alexander, Finley, Blair, and Craighead all intruded into Thomson's congregation before the year was out. At the September meeting of Donegal Presbytery in 1740, John Thomson and Alison brought charges against David Alexander and Alexander Craighead (both members of Donegal) for their intrusions, and the trial was set for Craighead's church. While Craighead was being tried, Alexander lectured a large crowd outside regarding the moral failures of various members of presbytery. Inside the church, another crowd prevented the presbytery from actually trying the case. Escaping to a private house, the presbytery heard both men freely confess to their intrusions, but also that they would do it again. Astonished by the impudence of the pair, the presbytery suspended Craighead, but could not take action against Alexander because he had refused to stay long enough to be tried. Donegal declared that: "We have not known a parallel instance Since we have been capable to mark any thing in the world." That spring Alexander finally came to trial, but he declared that since the presbytery was opposed to the Work of God, he could not obey it. He was promptly suspended. III. The Debate Elizabeth Ingersoll Nybakken has identified the theological issue between the New Side and the Old Side as centered around the propriety of demanding "a convincing description of an individual's conversion experience before admitting him to membership," but she may not be entirely accurate in her attribution of this approach to the New England Puritans. Her definition of what Presbyterians had traditionally required--"men of outward piety"--is even less satisfactory. Certainly the Tennent party began to require a stricter visible saints criterion--with a heavy emphasis on experience--but their conversionist emphasis indicates an influence from Continental Pietism. But while the New Side may be seen as a blend between Scottish, New England and Continental piety, the Old Side is accurately portrayed as more solidly Scottish. It is particularly here that Westerkamp and Schmidt's insights regarding Scots-Irish piety prove most useful, because they can account for Thomson's favorable stance toward religious awakenings in general, while disapproving of the particular manifestations of revivalism in colonial Presbyterianism. A. Gilbert Tennent: The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry Gilbert Tennent's famous sermon of March 8, 1740 is the classic example of the revivalist emphasis on conversion, charismatic preaching, and the denunciation of unconverted ministers. Alan Heimert has called this sermon "the most influential sermon of the Awakening and perhaps of the century," while William Glen Houser has characterized it as "unmatched in its power to vilify and to alienate." Identifying duly ordained ministers of one's own church as unregenerate was unheard of in Scottish Presbyterian circles. Accusing such ministers of heresy or immorality was appropriate, because such charges could be substantiated, but the charge of being unconverted had no means for verification. Such a move placed Tennent closer to the Pietist orbit--although Houser points out that since he did not call for their excommunication, he should not be classified with the outright separatists. Nonetheless, Tennent told the Nottingham congregation that it was easy to spot unconverted ministers, because such "Pharisee- Teachers will with the utmost Hate oppose the very Work of God's Spirit upon the Souls of Men; and labour by all Means to blacken it, as well as the Instruments, which the Almighty improves to promote the same; if it comes near their Borders, and interferes with their Credit or Interest. Thus did the Pharisees deal with our Saviour." A converted minister is also easy to spot because of the number of conversions that follow wherever he goes. He encouraged his hearers to pray that the Lord would send out laborers into the harvest, but challenged them that "it looks hypocrite-like to go no further, when other Things are required, than cheap Prayer." Instead, in order to combat the "subtle selfish Hypocrites [who] are wont to be scar'd about their Credit, and their Kingdom," his hearers and readers should contribute whatever they were able "to encourage private Schools, or Seminaries of Learning, which are under the Care of skilful and experienced Christians; in which those only should be admitted, who upon strict Examination, have in the Judgment of a reasonable Charity, the plain Evidences of experimental Religion." All the troubles of the church he blames upon "the Swarms of Locusts, the Crowds of Pharisees, that have as covetously as cruelly, crept into the Ministry, in this adulterous Generation! who as nearly resemble the Character given of the old Pharisees, in the Doctrinal Part of this Discourse, as one Crow's Egg does another." Advocating the charismatic nature of the Christian ministry, Tennent encourages the "one who lives under a pious Minister of lesser Gifts...[to] get Benefit by his Ministry," but if he gets greater benefit elsewhere, "I say, he may lawfully go, and that frequently, where he gets most Good to his precious Soul, after regular Application to the Pastor where he lives, for his Consent...without rash Anger, or vain Curiosity." Of course, if the minister is unconverted, or refuses to let the person go, then Tennent most certainly does not say that the individual should abide by that decision! Proper order and discipline is only to be obeyed as long as it is conducive to true piety and godliness. Once Tennent determines that an act of the presbytery or synod no longer suits his convictions, he will not only violate it, but will encourage others to violate it too--claiming that a lesser good is comparatively evil. Conversion itself, for Tennent, consists of an experience of grace, identified variously as the "new birth," spiritual conviction, or as he puts it most elaborately: an "Experience of a special Work of the Holy Ghost, upon . . . [the] Soul." He orients this experience around the preaching of the terrors of the law, followed by the promise of the gospel, both of which should (or perhaps even, must) be included in a true conversion. Certainly Tennent believed that the true preaching of the gospel required pastors to "thrust the Nail of Terror into sleeping Souls," so that they might experience conviction of sin--which would then issue forth in true conversion. Although he later denied it, Tennent frequently sounds as if he is saying that all valid conversions must be instantaneous and strongly experiential. This impression is heightened by his assumption that his hearers would be able to identify the regenerate and flee from the Pharisee-preachers which he warned them against. He probably had no idea how far his hearers and readers would take his sermon. Within a year of its publication, more than a dozen congregations had split, in order to avoid the ministrations of "unregenerate" pastors. B. John Thomson: The Doctrine of Convictions Becoming increasingly concerned over the direction the revivals had gone, John Thomson attempted to refute Gilbert Tennent's doctrine of conversion, presenting the Westminster doctrine in its place. It is significant that Thomson did not accuse the revivalists of heresy, or of "fundamental error," but rather of errors which only become hurtful and corrupting to the doctrine of conversion and regeneration when too zealously propagated. He found seven disturbing elements in Tennent's doctrine: 1) that before any saving grace comes, there must be a conviction of sin--unconnected with regeneration, preparing for grace, but not containing any saving grace, bringing the person to the brink of despair, which are called "the Terrors of the Law, sometimes a Law Work, sometimes Legal Conviction..."; 2) that "all true converts are as sensibly assured of their converted State, of the Grace of God in them and the Love of God unto them and of the Spirits working in them, as they can be of the Truth of what they perceive by their outward Senses"; 3) those who are not assured of their salvation are therefore unregenerate; 4) true converts may know by ordinary conversation whether another person is regenerate; 5) inward experience of conversion, not orthodox profession, godly life, and good conversation, is the test whereby to judge other's spiritual estates; 6) unless a man can identify the internal call of God to the ministry, he is only called by man, not by God; 7) these unconverted ministers cannot be the ordinary means of conversion for others. In response, Thomson argued that the work of grace was a whole. When applying the work of Christ to the believer the Holy Spirit does not, first work one Grace and afterwards another, and again a Third, viz. he doth not first work Faith and afterward Repentance, and again Love, and then good Resolutions, &c. but rather that the very first Beginning of true Grace consists of one intire radical Grace . . . which is at once diffused and spread throughout the whole Soul and all its Faculties, and is therein the Seed and Root of all particular Graces. There is but one source and spring of all true grace, therefore where one saving grace is evident, there must all other graces be found. The various graces (faith, love to God, hatred of sin, humility, etc.) are actually not "distinct Entities or Qualifications in the Person, which might be separated from, and exist independently of one another: . . . they are all but one intire and individual Grace or Principle of Spiritual Life putting it self forth in its various Actings." This fundamental unity of all saving grace is found in the work of regeneration; at the moment that the Holy Spirit begins to implant this spiritual principle of new life into the sinner, the twofold deliverance from the guilt as well as the power of sin is effected, from which the Spirit applies all the benefits of redemption, "by working Faith and all other Graces in him, and thereby unites him to Christ in his effectual Calling: Hereby the Condition of the Covenant is fulfilled in him and according to Gospel Terms he becomes actually interested in Christ and all his Benefits." The newly converted may not be immediately aware of the presence of every saving grace at once, but that does not alter the reality of what the Scriptures teach. Some will be sensible primarily of hatred against sin and the desire to be free from bondage; others will experience a great desire for Christ and love toward him. But neither will remain wholly unconscious of the other, because the seed of new life planted in regeneration will bear its fruit in due time. Indeed, the person may not yet be certain that regeneration has already taken place. Nonetheless, the root and ground of all graces is found in that the person has been placed in a "justified and sanctified State, & is by Faith united unto Christ Jesus, and so united to all his Benefits; tho' he may be long without the Evidence thereof, not being able to plead his Claim." What is definitive is the reality which Christ has accomplished through the inward working of the Holy Spirit. If the root is true, the fruit will come. Hence, when the Spirit begins the Work of Grace, all graces are thereby present, by means of our union with Christ. Love to God and holy living is at least as important to the regenerate life as conviction of sin, and longing for Christ to be our wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption, includes "the very essence of justifying faith." Where the evidence of sanctifying grace is present, "that Person is certainly in a justified and sanctified State, & is by faith united unto Christ Jesus and so united to all his Benefits; tho' he may be long without the Evidence thereof." Tackling the issues of the revivalists' doctrine of convictions, Thomson argued that any conviction which is void of true grace is therefore a hindrance to conversion. Thomson acknowledged that there are such things as common convictions, which arise from the natural conscience of sinners, or from the common work of the Holy Spirit, in conjunction with the preaching of the Word, which have no saving grace. Further, he allowed that sometimes these common convictions may be followed by saving convictions, but denied that such legal convictions are properly connected to any saving grace. Such convictions, he declared, are utterly opposed to grace, for five reasons: 1. Saving convictions create a deep sense of the vileness and hatefulness of sin as offensive to the lovely nature and holiness of God; Common convictions merely bring fear of God's wrath and the misery of his judgment. 2. Saving convictions bring hearty grief for sin, and the person loathes himself for his wicked nature, thoughts, and actions; Common convictions only fear the consequences of sin. 3. Saving convictions are accompanied by love for God and the saints, and a deep longing to be free from the bondage to sin; Common convictions have no love for holiness in itself or hatred for sin, but only seek after the reward of the saints. 4. Saving convictions do not stop with actual sin, but penetrate to the source of all corruption in their grief for their sinful nature; Common convictions stop only with actual sin. 5. Saving convictions remain throughout life, so that though terrors may abate, convictions increase so that "when he enjoys the clearest Evidences of Divine Love and free Grace; O then how vile & aggravated do his Sins appear..."; Common convictions are removed as soon as comfort comes, and they remain in false peace. Underlying Thomson's objection to any doctrine which encouraged ungracious convictions was his doctrine of the unity of all saving graces in our union with Christ. He could not imagine that "legal convictions"--which were supposedly devoid of all saving grace-- would be of any benefit. Therefore he strongly opposed the idea that such convictions could be preparatory to grace, and denounced the practice of bringing people "unto the very Brink and Border of Despair," before offering the gospel. The danger of such an idea is that those who experience such legal convictions may confuse them with gracious convictions and think that their "trusting in the Merits of Christ is all the Faith that's required," even though they have never received Christ as "Prophet, Priest and King." Turning to Tennent's discussion of "unconverted ministers," Thomson carefully distinguished between the inward and the outward call to the ministry. He insisted that true grace is absolutely necessary to the proper and faithful discharge of the gospel ministry, but refused to say that an unregenerate minister could not be a regular means of the salvation of others. Pointing out that Judas' ministry must have been attended with the same results as the other eleven, Thomson contended that the church has the right and obligation to act on behalf of God on earth, and so when the church calls a man to the ministry, it is a call from God-- "whatever his personal Qualifications be as to sanctifying Grace"-- and thus all regularly ordained ministers are to be obeyed, regardless of their personal states--as Jesus said regarding the scribes and pharisees. So while agreeing with Tennent on the necessity of a sanctified ministry, Thomson rejected his way of getting it. Certainly presbyteries must inquire as to their experience of saving grace, but a hypocrite regularly called and ordained, has the authority to preach the Word, and many may be converted under his preaching. To say that the efficacy comes through the minister is as fallacious concerning the preaching of the Word as the Roman doctrine of the administration of the Sacraments. IV. Historical Post-Script Gilbert Tennent's own experience in the years following the schism led him to reconsider the direction of his ministry. The extremes of James Davenport and the practical weakness of George Whitefield's commitment to Calvinism in the face of the Moravian threat, led Tennent to move towards a more balanced position. Never actually repudiating anything he had said or done, he nonetheless attacked the Moravians for their emphasis on spiritual experience and general disregard for sound theology. John Hancock's anonymous pamphlet The Examiner; Or Gilbert against Tennent caused no little embarrassment for him, as it showed that all of his objections to the Moravians were virtually identical to the antirevivalists objections to him! As Coalter puts it, "Hancock believed that these shifts in Tennent's policy were easily explained. Quite simply, the Moravians had treated Tennent 'in the same uncharitable, censorious, imperious, divisive Manner' that he had treated 'the Body of the Clergy.'" Realizing that he had left himself open to misinterpretation, Tennent began to articulate a more moderate position in relationship to his Old Side enemies. George Whitefield's opposition to Tennent's pastorate in the "New Building" led to heightened tensions between the two, and resulted in Tennent's explicit declaration that although he remained supportive of Whitefield, he acknowledged certain shortcomings in his Anglican colleague. Tennent's reversal might be seen essentially as a return to traditional Scottish and New England piety from the exaggerated Pietism of Frelinghuysen. Hodge correctly points out that "Tennent, like other vehement men, often said more than he meant. He acted more from feeling than principle." After his experience with radical enthusiasts in the Moravians, Tennent returned to the Scottish principles of his youth. Jonathan Dickinson, John Pierson and others of the Presbytery of New York had remained with the Old Side in 1741, and tried for four years to work for reunion. They believed that the schism had been unwarranted, since there had been no ecclesiastical trial, and hoped that peace could be restored by compromise. But Philadelphia minister Jedidiah Andrews, who had formerly been a member of the Presbytery of New York, disagreed, and wrote to Pierson after the Synod of 1741: "But, brother, you that way don't see, hear, and feel what we do...Did you know how sorely we have been handled, and what loads of affliction we have laboured under...? Did not you know these things, which we have suffred, to the wounding of our souls, disturbance of our peace, and almost to death? Surely you could not be altogether ignorant of it? The New Yorkers had never felt the sting of the revivalists' attacks, and hence were less acutely aware of the excesses which were being propagated. Rather, seeing the change of heart in the revivalists and the continued wariness of the Old Side to compromise, the Presbytery of New York finally grew weary of waiting, and in 1745 requested to be allowed to form the Synod of New York with the Tennent party, working in harmony with the Synod of Philadelphia. Reluctantly the Synod agreed, and the New Side was formed. By 1749, Tennent had come back substantially to the Scottish piety of his upbringing, which blended order and vitality. Eschewing his previous emphasis on requiring a conversion experience for fellow ministers, Tennent declared: "When Persons are sound in the Fundamental Truths of Religion and regular in Life, we ought to hope well of them, till they prove the contrary by their Practice; and receive them to Communion. Charity thinks no Evil, and hopes all Things, that are good; whatever jealousies we may have and perhaps sinful ones, they should be kept Secret, and not divulg'd to our Neighbors Prejudice, and far less made Terms of Communion." Taking this further to the admission of the laity to the Lord's table, Tennent admitted that he could not "find that the Christians of the three first Centuries after CHRIST made gracious experiences, or the Church's Judgment about them Terms of Communion." So rather than judge the spiritual state of others, Tennent now advocated union with the Old Side because they were orthodox in doctrine and regular in life. Gone is the pietist probing into the states of others, or his previous calling for people to abandon "unconverted ministers." While this return to Scottish piety drew the ire of some of his revivalist colleagues, and did not allay the suspicions of the Old Side ministers, it did provide the initial groundwork for the reunion nine years later. V. Conclusion The distinction between the doctrines of conversion held by Gilbert Tennent and John Thomson rests at the foundation of the controversy itself. Thomson's attempt to remain fully consistent with the Westminster doctrines contrasts sharply with Tennent's Reformed eclecticism, which drew on several strands of Calvinistic piety. As he saw the experiential conclusions of Continental Pietism fleshed out before him in the Moravians and the extremes of Whitefield's revivalism embodied in James Davenport, Tennent moved more and more back toward the Scottish Presbyterianism of his youth. Thomson's encouragement of the revivals in Virginia (which had always remained on a Scottish foundation) suggests that the lines of disagreement cannot be drawn around the issue of revivalism per se, but around the practices which accompanied revivalism. Thomson insisted upon a more regular and orderly pattern, rooted in the doctrine of union with Christ, and oriented toward sanctification and growth in grace; Tennent encouraged a more spectacular awakening, rooted and oriented toward conversion and an experience of grace which would provide the foundation for sanctification. Bibliography: Primary Sources: Dickinson, Jonathan. "Remarks upon a Discourse Intituled an Overture..." New York: Peter Zenger, 1729.* "An Examination and Refutation of Mr. Gilbert Tennent's Remarks Upon the Protestation Presented to the Synod of Philadelphia..." Philadelphia: BFranklin, 1742.* Finley, Samuel. "Christ Triumphing and Satan Raging; a Sermon on Matth. 12:28,...preached at Nottingham, Jan 20, 1740." Philadelphia: B. Franklin, 1741.* "The Querists, Part III, or, An Extract of sundry Passages taken out of Mr. G. Tennent's Sermon preached at Nottingham of the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry, together with some Scruples propos'd in proper Queries raised on each remark." Philadelphia: B. Franklin, 1741.* Roberts, William H., ed. Records of the Presbyterian Church 1706- 1788, 1904. Tennent, Gilbert. "The Apology of the Pby of New Brunswick..." Philadelphia: Benjamin Franklin, 1741. ** _____. "The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry... A Sermon Preached at Nottingham, March 8, 1740." Philadelphia: Benjamin Franklin, 1740.* _____. "Irenicum Ecclesiasticum..." Philadelphia: W. Bradford, 1749. * _____. "Remarks Upon a Protestation..." Philadelphia: Benjamin Franklin, 1741.** Thomson, John. "An Appendix Containing the Articles of the Church of England...," Williamsburg, VA: Parks, 1749.* _____. The Doctrine of Convictions set in a clear Light, Or An Examination and Confutation of several Errors relating to Conversion. Being the Substance of a Sermon Preached by the Author to his own and a Neighbouring Congregation, with some Enlargements. By John Thomson Minister of the Gospel. Philadelphia: Printed by A. Bradford, at the Sign of the Bible in Front-street, 1741. ____. An Essay upon the Faith of Assurance: being The Substance of Several Sermons Preached by the Author to his own Congregation. To which is added An Appendix Containing a modest Resolution of Two important Cases relating to Assurance. By a Minister of the Gospel. Philadelphia: Printed by B. Franklin, for the Author, M,DCC,XL (1740). _____. "Excerpts from The Poor Orphan's Legacy," manuscript, Presbyterian Historical Society, Originally published, 1734 (typed from the 1792 edition).* _____. An Explication of the Shorter Catechism Composed by the Assembly of Divines, Commonly called, the Westminster Assembly. Wherein The several Questions and Answers of the said Shorter Catechism, are resolved, divided, and taken apart into several Under-Questions and Answers; in order to render the Whole more plain and easy to be understood, not only by the young arising Generation, but also, by the more Weak and Ignorant, of more advanced Years; that they all may be helped forward in their Growth in Knowledge, and Acquaintance with the Doctrines of Faith, and Principles of our holy Protestant reformed Christian Religion. By John Thomson, M.A. & V.D.M. Williamsburg: Printed by William Parks, MDCCXLIX (1749). _____. The Government of the Church of Christ, And the Authority of Church Judicatories established on a Scripture Foundation: And the Spirit of rash judging arraigned and condemned. Or The Matter of Difference between the Synod of Philadelphia and the Protesting Brethren justly and fairly stated. Being An Examination of two Papers brought in by two of the Protesting Brethren, and read Publickly in open Synod in May 1740. And also of an Apology brought in, subscribed by the Protesting Brethren, and read also in open Synod in May 1739. By John Thomson Minister of the Gospel. Philadelphia: Printed by A. Bradford, at the Sign of the Bible in Front-street, 1741. Secondary Sources: General: Ahlstrom, Sydney E. "From Puritanism to Evangelicalism: A Critical Perspective," in The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are, Where They Are Changing, edited by David F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge. Abingdon, 1977. Armstrong, Maurice W. "English, Scottish, and Irish Backgrounds of American Presbyterianism, 1689-1729," Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, 34:1 (March 1956): 3-18. Beardsley, John W, III. "Orthodoxy and Piety: Two Styles of Faith in the Colonial Period," in Word and World: Reformed Theology in American, edited by J. Van Hoeven. Eerdmans, 1986. Brauer, Jerald C. "Conversion: from Puritanism to Revivalism," Journal of Religion 58 (July 1978): 227-243. Briggs, Charles. American Presbyterianism: Its Origin and Early History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1885. Crawford, Michael J. Seasons of Grace: Colonial New England's Revival Tradition in Its British Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Fishburn, Janet. "Pennsylvania "Awakenings," Sacramental Seasons, and Ministry," in Scholarship, Sacraments and Service: Historical Studies in Protestant Tradition, edited by Daniel B. Clendenin and W. David Buschart. Edwin Mellen, 1990. Fraser, James W. "The Great Awakening and New Patterns of Presbyterian Theological Education," Journal of Presbyterian History 60:3 (Fall 1982): 189-208. Harlan, David C. "The Travail of Religious Moderation: Jonathan Dickinson and the Great Awakening," Journal of Presbyterian History 61:4 (Winter 1983): 411-426. Harmelink, Herman, III. "Another Look at Frelinghuysen and his 'Awakening,'" Church History 37 (December 1968): 423-438. Heimert, Alan, and Miller, Perry, eds. The Great Awakening: Documents Illustrating the Crisis and Its Consequences. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967. Hodge, Charles. Constitutional History of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1851 (original, 1839). Houser, William Glen. "Identifying the Regenerate: The Homiletics of Conversion during the First Great Awakening." Ph.D. dissertation, Notre Dame, 1988. Ingersoll, Elizabeth A. "Francis Alison: American Philosophe, 1705-1779." Ph.D. dissertation, U. Delaware, 1974. Klett, Guy Soulliard. Presbtyerians in Colonial Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1937. Lambert, Frank. "Pedlar in Divinity": George Whitefield and the Transatlantic Revivals, 1737-1770. Princeton: Princeton University, 1994. LeBeau, Bryan F. "The Acrimonious, Controversial Spirit among Baptists and Presbyterians in the Middle Colonies during the Great Awakening," American Baptist Quarterly 9 (Summer 1990): 167-183. Miller, Glen T. "God's Light and Man's Enlightenment: Evangelical Theology of Colonial Presbyterianism," Journal of Presbyterian History 51 (Summer 1973): 97-115. Nybakken, Elizabeth I. "New Light on the Old Side: Irish Influences on Colonial Presbyterianism," Journal of American History 68:4 (March 1982): 813-832. Schmidt, Leigh Eric. Holy Fairs: Scottish Communions and American Revivals in the Early Modern Period. Princeton, 1989. _____. "Jonathan Dickinson and the Making of the Moderate Awakening," Journal of Presbyterian History 63:4 (1985): 341-353. Singer, C. Gregg. "The Scotch-Irish in America," in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, edited by W. Stanford Reid. Zondervan, 1982. Stout, Harry S. The Divine Dramatist. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Tanis, James. "Frelinghuysen, the Dutch Clergy, and the Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies," Reformed Review 38 (Winter 1985): 109-118. Tracy, Joseph. The Great Awakening: A History of the Revival of Religion in the time of Edwards and Whitefield. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1989 (1842). Trinterud, Leonard. The Forming of an American Tradition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949. Westerkamp, Marilyn J. "Enthusiastic Piety: From Scots-Irish Revivals to the Great Awakening," in Belief and Behavior: Essays in the New Religious History, edited by Philip R. VanderMeer and Robert P. Swierenga. Rutgers, 1991. -----. Triumph of the Laity: Scots-Irish Piety and the Great Awakening, 1625-1760. New York: Oxford, 1988. On the Subscription Controversy Barker, William S. "The Hemphill Case, Benjamin Franklin and Subscription to the Westminster Confession," American Presbyterians 69:4 (Winter, 1991): 243-256. _____. "A Response to Professor George Knight's article "Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms," Presbyterion 10 (Spring and Fall, 1984). 64-71. _____. "Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms" Presbyterion 10 (Spring and Fall, 1984). 1-19 Knight, George W. "A Response to William Barker's Article "Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms"" in Presbyterion 10 (Spring and Fall, 1984). pp. 56-63. _____. "Subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms" in Presbyterion 10 (Spring and Fall, 1984). pp. 20-55. LeBeau, Bryan. "The Subscription Controversy and Jonathan Dickinson," Journal of Presbyterian History 54:3 (Summer, 1976): 317-335. Loetscher, Frederick W. "The Adopting Act," Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, 13:8 (December 1929): 337-355. Nichols, James Hastings. "Colonial Presbyterianism Adopts its Standards," Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, 34:1 (March 1956): 53-66. Stevenson, J. Ross. "The Adopting Act of 1729 and the Powers of the General Assembly," Princeton Theological Review. 22:1 (January 1924): 96-106. On John Thomson: *Herndon, John G. John Thomson: Presbyterian Constitutionalist, Minister of the Word of God, Educational Leader and Church Builder. Privately Printed, 1943. _____. "Some of the Descendents of the Reverend John Thomson (1690-1753)" The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 51:4 (Oct, 1943) 394-404. _____. "The Reverend John Thomson" Journal of The Presbyterian Historical Society 21:1 (March 1943): 34-59. Squires, W.H.T. "John Thomson: Presbyterian Pioneer" Union Seminary Review 32:2 (1924): 149-161. On Gilbert Tennent Coalter, Milton J. Gilbert Tennent, Son of Thunder: A Case Study of Continental Pietism's Impact on the First Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies. New York: Greenwood, 1986. -----. "The Radical Pietiesm of Count Nicholas Zinzendorf as a Conservative Influence on the Awakener, Gilbert Tennent," Church History 49 (March 1980): 35-46. Fishburn, Janet F. "Gilbert Tennent, Established 'Dissenter,'" Church History 63 (March 1994): 31-49. Kansfield, Norman J. "The Ghost of Revivals Past," Reformed Review 37 (Autumn 1983): 25-37. Old, Hughes Oliphint. "Gilbert Tennent and the Preaching of Piety in Colonial America: Newly Discovered Tennent Manuscripts in Speer Library," Princeton Seminary Bulletin 10:2 (1989): 132-137. Pals, Daniel L. "Several Christologies of the Great Awakening," Anglican Theological Review 72 (Fall 1990): 412-427. Tanis, James R. "A Child of the Great Awakening," American Presbyterians 70 (Summer 1992): 127-133. *Located at the Presbyterian Historical Society **Located at the Library Company of Philadelphia (rare book collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania) Copyright 1995, All rights reserved.