David Chambers is an ordained minister in the PCA. He is married to Brittany, and they have two wonderful boys. David graduated with his MDiv from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, and is currently pursuing a ThM in Church History at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI. He serves at a PCA church in Lincoln, Nebraska. His focus is the history of the Presbyterian Church in the 18th century, especially the works of Jonathan Dickinson and Gilbert Tennent.
To understand revivalism in the First Great Awakening, one must engage with the preaching and preachers of the day.The giants of the Great Awakening, Whitefield, Wesley, and Edwards, were known for preaching untold thousands of itinerant sermons across the colonial plains and saturating these evangelistic sermons with pietism in light of their views on the holiness of God and the proper human response. However, the rhetoric of the Great Awakening was not only found in the sensational revival sermons and services, it also spread through newspaper articles, denominational meetings, letters, and polemical sermons. In the polemical preaching of the day, one can see the pastoral conflict between pro-revival parties in the church and the anti-revivalism parties. This dynamic is observable in the debates and inevitable schism of the Colonial Presbyterian Church.
At the outset of the Great Awakening, the Colonial Presbyterian Church was still reeling from the near split related to the Adopting Act of 1729. This Act, a compromise about the adoption of subscription to the Westminster Standards as a requirement to ordination in the Colonial Presbyterian Church, was still a sore subject at the outbreak of revivalism. Battle lines had already been drawn between the anti-subscription Presbytery of New York and the pro-subscription Presbytery of Philadelphia and schism was barely avoided through the allowing of acceptable scruples and exceptions to the standards. It is in that context that the revivalism debate began in the Colonial Presbyterian Church, and in which Gilbert Tennent preached his infamous sermon, The Danger of An Unconverted Ministry on March 8, 1740.
The Danger of An Unconverted Ministry was a landmark sermon in the history of the Colonial Presbyterian Church that would impact how the Presbyterians engaged during the Great Awakening as a whole, and the polity of the church in the years to come. However, there is no recent study on the body, intention, and overall thrust of the sermon itself and its effect on the young Presbyterian church. In order to fill this gap this paper will examine the context of Gilbert Tennent’s life and ministry, the logical flow of The Danger of An Unconverted Ministry, its polemical implications against the anti-revivalist Presbyterians, how it exposes Tennent’s practical theology on revivalism and pastoral ministry in general, and the church-wide reception and consequences of the sermon. To do this, I will engage with the minutes and context of the Synods before and after the sermon, the church split that took place, the polemics employed by both sides in the fallout, and Tennent's understanding of pastoral ministry and revivalism through engaging with his mentors and his other writings, letters, and sermons.
Gilbert Tennent: His Historical Context
Gilbert Tennent was born to William and Catherine Tennent on February 5, 1703. He died on July 23, 1764. Unfortunately, little is known about Gilbert Tennent’s early years and he does not reveal much about this life in his letters, pamphlets, or sermons. What is known is that he began his ministry in 1725 with a disciplinary mark on his pastoral record in the Colonial Presbyterian Church’s Synod minutes. At the beginning of his ministry in 1725, Tennent was installed as a pastor in New Castle Deleware. However, he left the church in a matter of weeks for an opportunity in New Brunswick, which he felt was a better fit. At the Synod of 1726, his actions were examined and he was reprimanded by the Synod moderator after a discussion on the floor which determined he acted “too hasty” without seeking serious counsel or wisdom. His arguably renegade attitude and rashness would hound his early ministry and cause regular conflict between Presbyters and laymen alike. As I will mention later these actions include preaching out of the bounds of his Presbytery against the Synod’s ruling, supporting and preaching alongside George Whitefield while leaving his church for extended periods, and arguing for revivalism in a harsh tone against ordained Presbyterian ministers.
He struggled at Synod and with local church leadership, but one area he excelled at was preaching. As George Whitefield wrote in his journal, “[Gilbert Tennent] has learned experimentally to dissect the heart of a natural man. Hypocrites must either soon be converted or enraged at his preaching. He is a son of thunder and does not fear the faces of men.” The reason for Tennent’s fire and enthusiasm for pietistic preaching lies in three formative experiences and influences in his life. First and foremost, his introduction to theological education and pastoral training under his father William Tenennt, Sr. Second, the controversies and polemics he sat through within the Synod of the Colonial Presbyterian Church. And third, serving alongside the Dutch Reformed minister Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen.
William Tennent Sr. founded the Log College in 1727 and aimed to train young men for pastoral ministry without the need for an expensive education. Gilbert Tennent studied under his father before the founding of the Log College, finished his Master's at Yale in 1725, and then tutored at the Log College following his ordination. While this experience for Tennent was formative, the method and style of William Tennent’s Log College were controversial in the Synod.
Leading up to the founding of the Log College, to become a minister in the Colonial Presbyterian Church required training at either a New England school, namely Harvard or Yale, or from a school in the Old World where all of the migrated Irish and Scottish ministers had studied. There was a fear that the Log College was not rigorous enough and would produce unqualified pastors. As was stated at Synod in 1739, “Mr. William Tennent set up a School among us where some were educated and afterward admitted to the Ministry without sufficient qualifications as was judged by many of the synods. And what made the Matter look worse was those that were educated in this private way decried the Usefulness of some Parts of Learning that we thought very necessary.” Whereas Yale and Harvard focused heavily on the languages and academic aspects of education, the Log College emphasized practical theology, mentorship, and personal piety in a way that deeply impacted the lives and ministry of the students. Tennent’s father coming under fire by the Presbytery was another early conflict and piece of friction for the young preacher and the Presbyterian Church.
Following Tennent’s education and ordination, the Synod entered a season of controversy and near schism. As more Presbyterian ministers arrived from the Old World, they saw the Colonial Presbyterian Church as unorganized and out of step with Presbyterian polity by not requiring subscription to the Westminster Standards. This led to fear that the church was ill-equipped to handle real cases of discipline. This was a far cry from Scotland where Presbyterianism was firmly established and confessionalism was the order of the day. Opposing lines formed and a split in the Synod seemed imminent. The controversy boiled over in 1728 when John Thomson made a motion that the church should “maintain and defend the truths of the gospel” against the dangers of heresy, schism, and moral failures that he believed the church was not ready to deal with. The gauntlet for subscription was thrown down. In the months following, Tennent would witness the rebuttals against confessionalism that included arguments that the early church’s triumph over heresy before confessionalism, that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted through requiring strict dogmatic subscription, and that Scripture was sufficient for church polity. Tennent accepted the idea of subscription, and would himself subscribe to the standards with acceptable scruples. Regardless, Gilbert Tennent’s entrance into the Colonial Presbyterian Church started with a reprimand and was followed by a drawn-out debate surrounding subscriptionism.
Following his instruction under his father and during his Synodal strife, Gilbert Tennent met the other key influence in his life, the Dutch Reformed minister Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen. Gilbert Tennent met Frelinghuysen when he was called to the pastorate in the Raritan Valley after prematurely leaving his first call in New Castle Delaware in 1725-26. The two ministers quickly found that they shared the same understanding of piety and ministry and began working closer with each other than with their own denominations. In his biographical account of Gilbert Tennent, Coalter recounts Tennent’s testimony of when he met Frelinghuysen. As Tennent wrote:
When I came there, I had the pleasure of seeing much of the fruits of his ministry: divers of his hearers with whom I had the opportunity of conversing, appeared to be converted persons, By their soundness in principle, Christian experience, and pious practice… This together with a kind letter which he sent me respecting the necessity of dividing the Word aright, and giving every man his portion in due season, through the divine blessing, excited me to greater earnestness in ministerial labors. I began to be very much distressed about my want of success; for I knew not for half a year or more that anyone was converted by my labors.
It was in his working relationship with Frelinghuysen that Tennent picked up on three major principles of Frelinghuysen’s preaching that caught the ire of his Presbyterian contemporaries. The preaching of terrors, showing and proving the horrors of hell and consequences of disbelief. Holding the mirror to the hearer’s soul, showing the personal reasons they deserve hell and punishment individually or as a church. And the searching method, removing obstacles and rationalizations that could stifle repentance. Frelinghuysen would be at odds with his Dutch Reformed brethren but would see much of his influence bleed through the ministry of Tennent and his preaching.
Gilbert Tennent’s relationship with his father gave him a base of practical theology and a desire for revival. His time in Presbytery and Synod bred in him a distrust of the strict subscriptionist party, which would be anti-revivalist in the years to come. His relationship with Frelinghuysen set the tone for his understanding of preaching and form of ministry through the Awakening. These three combined influences shaped the life of Tennent leading up to the Great Awakening, so when the Presbyterian Church was cautious of the revival, Tennent was willing and ready to push back.
Revivalism and a Controversial Sermon
With these formative experiences under his belt, Tennent once again found himself under the Synodical bus. In 1737 the Synod approved an overture that did not allow a minister to preach in a neighboring Presbytery without the consent of the local Presbytery. It effectively banned itinerant preaching which had played a key role in the spread of the Great Awakening. When not preaching at his home pulpit, Gilbert Tennent preached at the church at New Maidenhead which fell in the bounds of the Presbytery of Philadelphia. By not seeking their approval, the Presbytery was offended at the assumed polity slight by Tennent against them, especially considering that he was preaching a pro-revival message in a majority anti-revival Presbytery. In 1737 The Synod declared that “no congregation take upon them to invite… any minister or probationer… without the consent of their own Presbytery.” This overture was upheld the following year. In 1739 it was put in the minutes that any who continued the practice was promoting “division” and undermining both the Gospel ministry and authority of the offended Presbytery. The Presbytery did everything but personally name Tennent in that overture. Considering the fact that Tennent was indeed continuing and promoting preaching without the Presbytery of Philadelphia’s consent, the stage was set for a fight.
In 1739 the pulpit in Nottingham was left vacant, and to help aid that local church the Presbytery assigned five ministers to fill it until a pastor was called. Two of the five, Alexander Craighead and David Alexander were staunch revivalists, while the other three were not. The pulpit was split between the two sides. It was in this context that Gilbert Tennent stepped into the pulpit on March 8, 1740, to deliver The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry.
The sermon text was Mark 6:34, “And Jesus, when he came out, saw much People and was moved with Compassion towards them, because they were as Sheep not having a Shepherd.” Tennent’s opening remarks left no room for guessing the targets of his sermon, “As faithful Ministry is a great Ornament, Blessing and Comfort, to the Church of GOD; even the Feet of such Messengers are beautiful: so on the contrary, an ungodly Ministry is a great Curse and Judgment: These Caterpillars labour to devour every green Thing.” It is important to remember that this line, and sermon, were delivered to a church looking for a pastor while being supplied by pro-revival and anti-revival pastors. Tennent was, from the start, equating the anti-revival position as being anti-Gospel and a product of an unregenerate heart. Therefore, to Tennent in 1740, those who disagreed with revivalism were unquestionably “enemies of the Kingdom of God.”
Tennent then moved on to the most divisive accusation that would make up the bulk of the sermon: that the anti-revivalists were nothing more than the new generation of Pharisees. He set up that accusation by showing Jesus’ disposition toward the crowd “We are informed, That our dear Redeemer was moved with Compassion towards them. The Original Word signifies the strong|est and most vehement Pity, issuing from the innermost Bowels.” After setting up the state of Christ and his pity on the people Tennent expounds the cause “But what was the Cause of this great and compassionate Commotion in the Heart of Christ? It was because he saw much People as Sheep, having no Shepherd.” The issue, according to Tennent, was not the lack of teachers, but the abundance of false ones:
…they had Heaps of Pharisee-Teachers, that came out, no doubt after they had been at the Feet of Camaliel [sic] the usual Time, and according to the Acts, Cannons, and Traditions of the Jewish Church. But notwithstanding of the great Crowds of these Orthodox, Letter-learned and regular Pharisee, our Lord laments the unhappy Case of that great Number of People, who, in the Days of his, had no better Guides: Because that those were as good as none (in many Respects) in our Saviour's Judgment. For all the the People were as Sheep without a Shepherd.
Tennent concluded the introduction with the thesis that “the Case of such is much to be pitied, who have no other but Pharisee-Shepherds, unconverted Teachers.”
To prove his thesis, Tennent argued on three fronts: First, if one was against the revivals and, therefore, the work of God, they were unconverted and spiritually dead. Second, it was the duty of a Christian to attend a pro-revival church if their local parish minister did not promote revivalism. Third, a true minister must preach the formula of revival sermons as it represents the only acceptable model for proclaiming the Word of God.
First, regarding the relationship between the spiritually dead rejecting the revival, Tennet preached “Is it reasonable to suppose, that they will be earnestly concerned for others Salvation when they slight their own?” He argued this by going back to the piety experientialism he picked up from Zizendorf. Tennent wrote that “...Pharisee-Teachers, having no Experience of a Special Work of the Holy Ghost, upon their own Souls, are therefore neither inclined to, nor fitted for, Discoursing, frequently, clearly, and pathetically, upon such important Subjects.” And “Although some of the old Pharisee-Shepherds had a very fair and strict Out-side; yet were they ignorant of the New-Birth.” For Tennent, if a preacher had not undergone the terrors and travails in their soul, and if they did not exhibit and promote pietistic fervor and experience, they were unable to care for the souls of the lost. This is where Tennent would receive a great deal of pushback. Archibold Alexander later charged Tennent with attempting to judge the soul of those who disagreed with him on the practical application of the Christian life, not on proper soteriological grounds. Alexander not only stated that Tennent was out of line in his judgment, but that it was in total error, he wrote that “...they were not the enemies of vital godliness, but were opposed to what they apprehended to be spurious religion.” The main issue the anti-revival party had was not with conversion, but with what they saw as emotionalism and manipulation from the pulpit.
Not only was their preaching deficient in the context of piety, according to Tennent but also their prayers, pastoral visitation, doctrine, and character. It is these personal attacks that caused Archibald Alexander to declare that this sermon was “...one of the most severely abusive sermons which was ever penned.”
Due to the inconsistent and unfair treatment of Presbyterian ministers, Tennent’s complaint against the anti-revivalists now receives universal pushback. By making the entire debate about practical theology, Tennent missed the fact that all of his opponents were trying their best to be faithful to the Scriptures, Reformed doctrine, and work of the Holy Spirit.
After attacking the character and ministry of the anti-revival ministers, Tennent closed the first major thrust of his argument at the end of the sermon with a biting criticism of his anti-revival opponents. Tennent wrote:
They are as good as none, nay, worse than none, upon some Accounts. For take them first and last, and they generally do more Hurt than Good. They strive to keep better out of the Places where they live; nay, when the Life of Piety comes near their Quarters, they rise up in Arms against it, consult, contrive and combine in their Conclaves against it, as a common Enemy, that discovers and condemns their Craft and Hypocrisie.
While Tennent's first issue with the anti-revivalists was based on a difference in opinion regarding pastoral ministry and experiential piety, his second was a charge directed to the laity. Tennent warned the congregation of the dangers of sitting under an unconverted minister “From what has been said, we may learn, That such who are contented under a dead Ministry, have not in them the Temper of that Saviour they profess.” The argument here is that only the unregenerate heart can sit under the preaching of an unregenerate minister, and all haste should be taken to run from such a ministry.
Tennent further argued that “If the Ministry of Natural Men be as it has been represented; Then it is both lawful and expedient to go from them to hear Godly Persons” This was another clear attack against the Synod’s position and ruling regarding itinerant preaching. If one’s local minister was not a revivalist, according to Tennent, it was the responsibility of the laity to leave the bounds of their church and listen to itinerant revivalist preachers. This blurred the covenantal lines of church membership, which would later be condemned at the Synod. If one stayed in such a church, Tennent charged them with spiritual blindness. He wrote:
O! think the poor Fools, that is a fine Man indeed; our Minister is a prudent charitable Man, he is not always harping upon Terror, and sounding Damnation in our Ears, like some rash-headed Preachers, who by their uncharitable Methods, are ready to put poor People out of their Wits, or to run them into Despair; O! how terrible a Thing is that Despair! Ay, our Minister, honest Man, gives us good Caution against it. Poor silly Souls!
It is important to note that Tennent did not place the value of a pastor in a congregation on their rhetorical ability or skills. Marilyn Westerkamp argued that Tennent was calling out the inadequate gifting of the anti-revival party. However, that does not square with the point Tennent made in his sermon that it would be better to sit under a less gifted minister who held to the experiential revival views rather than a gifted, and spiritually dead rhetorical genius. Skill was not the point of Tennent’s sermon, rather he believed that the congregation must sit under a regenerated (revivalist) preacher, or else they would be in severe spiritual danger. Tennent’s final charge on this front to the pastorless Nottingham congregation was to call a revivalist minister.
And O! that vacant Congregations would take due Care in the Choice of their Ministers! Here indeed they should hasten slowly The Church of God is commended, for Trying them which said they were Apostle, and were not; and for finding them Liars. Hypocrites are against all Knowing of others, and Judging, in order to hide their own Filthiness; like Thieves they flee a Search, because of the stolen Goods.
The third and final thrust of Tennent’s argument in this sermon was related to preaching. The logical flow of Tennent’s argument was that if a preacher is unregenerate, it would be evident in their method and dryness of preaching. Tennent’s pietistic formula for preaching is again visible in his complaint that “They have not the Courage, or Honesty, to thrust the Nail of Terror into sleeping Souls; nay, sometimes they strive with all their Might, to fasten Terror into the Hearts of the Righteous, and so to make those sad, whom God would not have made sad!” For Tennent, by not preaching the terrors and holding up the mirror to the soul, the anti-revivalists failed to understand and preach the Gospel. And this is why “the old Pharisee-Shepherds had a very fair and strict Out-side; yet were they ignorant of the New-Birth.” He would compare such preachers to the spiritual dead scribes in the time of Christ:
Natural Men, not having true Love to Christ and the Souls of their Fellow-Creatures, hence their Discourses are cold and sapless, and as it were freeze between their Lips. And not being sent of GOD, they want that divine Authority, with which the faithful Ambassadors of CHRIST are clothed, who herein resemble their blessed Master, of whom it is said, That He taught as one having Authority, and not as the Scribes.
Unregenerate preachers would also fail to show any work of the Holy Spirit in their sermons seeing that “...Pharisee-Teachers, having no Experience of a Special Work of the Holy Ghost, upon their own Souls, are therefore neither inclined to, nor fitted for Discoursing, frequently, clearly, and pathetically, upon important Subjects.” Their applications would fall short. They would fail to cut to the heart of man. They would misapply the text. And, finally, they would strengthen the will and evil actions of the wicked.
In closing out the infamous sermon, Tennent summarized “And with what Art, Rhetorick, and Appearances of Piety, will they varnish their Opposition of Christ's Kingdom? As the Magicians imitated the Works of Moses, so do false Apostles, and deceitful Workers…” There is no mistaking it, Gilbert Tennent denied the salvation of the anti-revivalist ministers in the Colonial Presbyterian Church and declared them false teachers.
Aftermath and Schism
It is important to note when considering the fallout from this sermon that Tennent did not truly deal with any of the issues he had with the Synod. He did not directly address any of his complaints, but rather, as Wilbourn explains, he ranted out of his preconceived assumptions about the character, piety, and salvation of the anti-revival ministers. Without any substantive critiques of the Synod or anti-revival side, Tennent opened up himself, and the pro-revival party to immediate reprisal. Benjamin Franklin printed and distributed the sermon which enabled the sermon to have a far-reaching impact. There were several immediate reactions to the sermon, all of which led to the split of the Colonial Presbyterian Church. First, Presbyterian minister and anti-revivalist Robert Cross penned and distributed the 1741 Protestation. This document brought up the old debates regarding subscription and itinerary preaching, as well as complaints against Samuel Blair and Gilbert Tennent for their tone at the 1740 Synod. But a large portion of the document was a detailed refutation of the nature of Tennent’s preaching and especially his sermon The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry. Cross directly refuted the preaching style of Tennent stating that there is no scriptural base for the preaching of terrors, that declaring assurance of salvation as guaranteed for the believer was dangerous and burdensome to the soul, and that Tennent undermined the nature of the church when he denied the “sacred tie or relation to their own Pastors lawfully called, but may leave them when they please, and ought to go where they think they get most good.” Robert Cross finished the Protestation by stating
…how monstrously absurd is it, that they should so much as desire to join with us, or we with them, as a judicatory, made up of authoritative outliers of Jesus Christ, while they openly condemn us wholesale; and, when they please, apply their condemnatory sentences to particular brethren by name, without judicial process, or proving them guilty of heresy or immorality, and at the same time will not hold Christian communion with them!
This Protestation was signed by 12 other ministers and presented to Synod on June 1, 1741, and it began a series of events and votes resulting in the split of the Colonial Presbyterian Church. When it was read before the floor it was read to a majority anti-revival group. The pro-revival party was in the minority due to a large contingent of ministers from New York being absent that year. When it was received and voted favorably, the minority party (pro-revival) was ejected from the Synod on shaky procedural grounds. The ejected group immediately founded their own Synod with 10 ministers and added more in the following months. Jonathan Dickinson and the New York group immediately tried to reunite the Synod after the schism happened, but both sides rejected restoration. In 1742 Jonathan Dickinson put forth that the Synod had acted in error, that there is a requirement of a trial before deposition and ejection, and that the brethren, therefore, were never ejected from the Synod, this motion was shot down. The anti-revival side was willing to speak with the ejected ministers if they submitted to a harsh system of readmitance, due to this, the two sides would remain split until 1758.
The final major effect that this sermon had was the change in Gilbert Tennent himself. Shortly after he preached this sermon, he wrote to Dickinson stating his sorrow over his temperment. He told his former colleague that “[I] mismanaged in doing what I did, I do look upon it to be my duty, and should be willing to acknowledge it in the openest manner. I cannot justify the excessive heat of temper which has sometimes appeared in my conduct.” And that during his revival trip to New England “I have been of late, since I returned from New England visited with much spiritual desertion and distresses of various kinds, coming in a thick and almost continual succession, which have given me a greater discovery of myself than I think I ever had before.” The key to this change in spirit was seeing the dangers of untempered revivalism in the Moravians, and how Whitfield sided with them over and against Tennent’s protests.
While it is far beyond the scope of this paper to deal with the intricacies of the reunification of the Colonial Presbyterian Church, it is important to note that it was Tennent who led the reunification efforts with the Synod in the following years. He preached a calmer message of union within the fractured Colonial Presbyterian Church up to the point of reunification. His change of heart is acutely seen in his work Irenicum Ecclesiasticum, in which he wrote the following:
THE divided State of the Presbyterian Churches, in this Part of the World, where divine Providence has cast our Lot, has opened a melancholy Prospect to my View for some considerable Space of Time! Which I did not think proper to communicate to others for a Season; not knowing what were the Sentiments of my Brethren upon either Side of the Question, because I thought, however expedient, honourable and advantageous to the Redeemer's Kingdom, a Reunion might be, yet it was not practicable, unless the Body of both SYNODS was inclin'd thereto.
He then signed off on his message to the church in his preface “Reverend, Honoured and beloved Father and Brethren I remain, your affectionate Friend, unworthy Brother, Son, and Servant. Gilbert Tennent.”
Conclusion
Preaching was the bedrock of the Great Awakening. The itinerant preaching ministry of people like Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards, and others shaped the face of American evangelicalism for years to come, for better or worse. While not as known as Whitefield, Wesley, or Edwards, the influence of Tennent’s preaching is important in the history of the Presbyterian Church. The Polemical rhetoric in The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry fractured an already struggling Synod. And yet, following a season of humbling it was the same passionate preaching, albeit tempered, that was a catalyst to bring the groups back together (which is an essay for another day). The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry was a landmark sermon in Presbyterian history that shaped the polity and posture of the Colonial Presbyterian Church for decades. It shows us how Gilbert Tennent and other pro-revival ministers viewed the anti-revival party, and how Presbyterian polity was shaped in the context of controversy.
Alexander, Archibald. The Log College: Biographical Sketches of William Tennent and His Students. Port St. Lucie, FL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2008.
Bauman, Michael. “Jonathan Dickinson and the Subscription Controversy. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41(3), (1998): 455-468.
Bendler, Bruce A. "Matter and Substance: The Tennent-Evans Controversy and the Presbyterian Schism of 1741." The Journal of Presbyterian History 97, no. 2 (2019): 48-59.
Blair, Anthony L. “Shattered and Divided: Itinerancy, Ecclesiology, and Revivalism in the Presbyterian Awakening.” Journal of Presbyterian History 81, no. 1 (January 2003): 18–34.
Calhoun, David. “The Log College” in Colonial Presbyterianism: Old Faith in A New Land, ed. S Donald Fortson, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007.
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. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Coalter, Milton J. 1980. “The Radical Pietism of Count Nicholas Zinzendorf as a Conservative Influence on the Awakener, Gilbert Tennent.” Church History 49 (1): 35–46.
Cross, Robert. 1741 Protestation, in Ed. Samuel J. Baird, A Collection of the Acts, Delieverances, and Testimonies of the Presbyterian Church. Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia: 1855.
Dickinson, Jonathan. Remarks Upon a Discourse (New York: Smith-Street, 1729) Printed by J. Peter Zenger, in Smith-Street. in New-York, 1729.
Feldmeth, Nathan P., S. Donald Fortson, Garth M. Rosell, and Kenneth J. Stewart. Reformed and Evangelical Across Four Centuries: The Presbyterian Story in America. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2022.
Fishburn, Janet Forsythe. “Gilbert Tennent, Established ‘Dissenter.” Church History 63, no. 1 (March 1994): 31–49.
Hart, D.G. “Old Side New Side Schism and Reunion” in Colonial Presbyterianism: Old Faith in A New Land, ed. S Donald Fortson, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007.
Kidd, Thomas S. The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2009.
Klett, Guy S. Minutes of the Presbyterian Church in America 1706-1788. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, 1976).
Leyerzapf, Amy. “George Whitefield and the Great Awakening: Implications of the Itinerancy Debate in Colonial America” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42(1), 2012, 44–64.
Lodge, Martin Ellsworth. The Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago: 1964.
Maxon, Charles Hartshorn. The Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago, 1920.
Old, Hughes Oliphant. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: Moderatism, Pietism, and Awakening. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2004.
Schnittjer, Gary Edward. “The Ingredients of Effective Mentoring: The Log College as a Model for Mentorship.” Christian Education Journal 15, no. 1 (Fall 1994): 86–100.
Sweeney, Douglas A. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.
Tanis, James. Dutch Calvinistic Pietism in the Middle Colonies: A Study in the Life and Theology of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967.
Tennent, Gilbert, Irenicum Ecclesiasticum, W. Bradford, Philadelphia, 1749.
Tennent, Gilbert, Letter to Jonathan Dickinson, 1742 in A History of Presbyterian Church in America with Biographical Sketches of its Early Ministers, ed. Richard Webster, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, 1857.
Tennent, Gilbert, The danger of an unconverted ministry: considered in a sermon on Mark VI.34. Printed by Benjamin Franklin, in Market-street, 1740.
Thomson, John, An Overture Presented to the Reverend Synod of Dissenting Ministers (Philadelphia, 1729).
Westerkamp, Marilyn. “Division, Dissension, and Compromise: The Presbyterian Church during the Great Awakening.” The Journal of Presbyterian History, 78.1 (2000): 3–18.
Whitefield, George. George Whitefield’s Journals. London, UK: Banner of Truth, 1960.
Wilbourn, C.N. “Gilbert Tennet Pietist, Preacher, and Presbyterian” in Colonial Presbyterianism: Old Faith in A New Land, edited by S Donald Fortson, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007.