"_February 17, 1741._
"I have been enabled to prepare nine discourses for the press.
My body waxes stronger; and, last night, the great God, in a
glorious manner, filled and overshadowed my soul. I am panting
for the complete holiness of Jesus my Lord. At the receipt of
this, turn your prayers into praises, and then turn your praises
into prayers, in behalf of your affectionate brother,
"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."
The following was addressed to Mr. Jonathan Barber, whom he had
left at Bethesda, to officiate as a sort of chaplain, during his
absence:--
"_February 17, 1741._
"We have hitherto had scarce any contrary winds, and are now
near the Western Isles. We had one storm the first week, but
almost ever since have been favoured with weather, as well as
wind. O that you would call the family together, and praise the
Lord for the mercies conferred on us, the unworthiest of the
sons of men! I long to hear what the Lord has done for your
souls. Do you live in love? Do you strive together with me in
your prayers? Does Bethesda answer its name? Is it, indeed, a
house of mercy? I hope to have these questions answered in the
affirmative."
Strangely enough, though Whitefield was in debt, and was constantly
speaking as though he was about to be sent to prison, he was, at the
same time, contemplating marriage. Hence the following to a friend
at Charleston:--
"_February 17, 1741._
"My soul is in a heavenly frame, swallowed up in God. It is
almost too big to speak. I will give it vent by writing to you.
Our Master has shewn me several tokens for good, which I desired
of Him in secret prayer. Last night, I think I received as full
satisfaction as I could desire, in respect to _my marriage_. I
believe what I have done is of God; though I know not when my
heart was more disengaged from earthly thoughts than now. I only
desire that Jesus may be glorified in me, whether it be by life
or by death."
To Mr. James Habersham, Whitefield's overseer at Bethesda, he wrote
as follows:--
"_February 18, 1741._
"Yesterday we humbled ourselves[416] before God, and, by prayer
and fasting, sought for a blessing, and direction in all our
affairs. I wish I had kept family fasts at Savannah. Suppose
you had one monthly at Bethesda? I shall make all possible
haste back, and remit money to you as often as I can. I am
persuaded, God will not let you want. I would not have anything
left undone, that is necessary for the family's comfortable
subsistence. The Lord is our shepherd; therefore, we shall not
want. My dear friend, let us study to be holy, even as Christ is
holy. Let these be your daily questions, 'Am I more like Christ?
Am I more meek and patient? Does my practice correspond with my
knowledge? and am I a light to enlighten and inflame all that
are around me?'"
[416] Whitefield had companions in his voyage to England.
The Rev. Ralph Erskine and his friends occupied a position in
Scotland, similar to that occupied by the Wesleys and by Whitefield
in England. Up to the present, Whitefield and Erskine had never met;
but they had exchanged letters. Some of these have been already
given. The following is another:--
"ON BOARD THE 'MINERVA,' _February 16, 1741_.
"REVEREND AND VERY DEAR SIR,--You and your brethren are dearer
to me than ever. Your 'Sonnets and Sermons' have been blessed
to me and many. The former are reprinted in America. I want
all your own and your brother's works. Since I have been on
board, I have been much helped by reading the 'Marrow of Modern
Divinity.' I have just perused 'Boston on the Covenant;' and,
this morning, have been solacing myself with your 'Paraphrase
upon Solomon's Song.' Blessed be our Lord, for helping you in
that composition!
"Thanks be to rich and sovereign grace! I have experienced
much of the Spirit's influences in making nine sermons, which
I intend to print by subscription towards carrying on a Negro
School, I am going to settle in Pennsylvania. The price of them
bound will be four shillings. If you or your friends would
take a few, it might be for the glory of God. My Journal,
which I bring over, will acquaint you how the work of God goes
on abroad.[417] Indeed, it is wonderful. The Orphan House
has succeeded far beyond expectation. I will send you the
particulars as soon as I print my 'Account.'
[417] This was published soon after his return to England. The
title was, "A Continuation of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield's Journal,
from a few days after his Return to Georgia, to his Arrival at
Falmouth, on the 11th of March, 1741: Containing an Account of
the Work of God in Georgia, Rhode Island, New England, New York,
Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The Seventh Journal. London:
printed for W. Strahan, 1741." (8vo. 85 pp.)
"I am now going to England, expecting to suffer great things.
I hear, there are sad divisions and errors sprung up among the
brethren. In the spirit of meekness I have answered dear Mr.
Wesley's sermon, entitled 'Free Grace;' and trust God will
enable me to bear a full and explicit testimony to all His
eternal truths.
"I believe it is my duty to marry. You will help me with your
prayers in this, as in all other respects. You see, dear sir,
how freely I open my heart to you, though I have never seen you
face to face. If it be the will of God, I shall be glad to come
into your parts before I leave England; but I fear my speedy
return to America will not permit me. I purpose to embark again
in the latter end of July or the beginning of August.
"I hope my love will find acceptance with your dear brother, and
all the Associate Presbytery. My prayers always attend them. I
should be glad to sit at their feet, and be taught the way of
God more perfectly. Excuse this long letter. You are very dear
to your unworthy friend, brother, and servant in the blessed
Jesus,
"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."[418]
[418] Life and diary of Rev. Ralph Erskine, p. 320.
Every chapter of Church history amply illustrates the Divine
utterance, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your
ways my ways, saith the Lord." Whitefield intended to re-embark for
America in four months; but forty months elapsed before he again set
sail. Great events occurred during this large section of his life;
and, of these, not the least important was his visit to Ralph and
Ebenezer Erskine. But more of this anon.
In the foregoing letter, Whitefield mentions his having written
an answer to Wesley's sermon on "Free Grace." The two loving
friends were now at variance. This painful episode in the lives of
Whitefield and Wesley must be briefly noticed.
Soon after Whitefield embarked for America, in August, 1739, Wesley
published the following:--"Free Grace: a Sermon preached at Bristol.
By John Wesley, M.A., Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. Bristol:
printed by S. and F. Farley, 1739." (pp. 35.) "Wesley's sermon on
'Free Grace,'" says the late Rev. Thomas Jackson, "is the most
powerful and impassioned of all his compositions." The Calvinistic
doctrine of election, involving, as Wesley contends, the doctrine
of reprobation, is condemned in the strongest terms. Wesley, with
his accustomed conciseness, puts the matter thus: "Call it by
whatever name you please, 'election, preterition, predestination,
or reprobation,' it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense
of all is plainly this,--by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable,
irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly
saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any
of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be
saved." Wesley states his objections to such a doctrine; and, it
is not too much to say, that his objections are unanswerable. His
publication of this famous sermon was not an act of wantonness. In
a brief address to the reader, he says, "Nothing but the strongest
conviction, not only of what is here advanced as 'the truth as it is
in Jesus,' but also that I am indispensably obliged to declare this
truth to all the world, could have induced me openly to oppose the
sentiments of those whom I esteem for their works' sake; at whose
feet, may I be found in the day of the Lord Jesus!"
This was written and published in 1739. Dr. Whitehead says, Wesley
sent a copy of his sermon "to Commissary Garden, at Charleston,
where Mr. Whitefield met with it; and though the subject of
predestination was treated in that sermon, in a general way, without
naming or pointing at any individual, yet Mr. Whitefield found
himself hurt, that Mr. Wesley should publicly oppose an opinion
which he believed to be agreeable to the word of God."[419]
[419] Whitehead's "Life of Wesley," vol. ii., p. 133.
This, however, was not the only thing which gave offence. In 1740,
appeared the following: "Hymns and Sacred Poems. Published by
John Wesley, M.A., Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, and Charles
Wesley, M.A., Student of Christ Church, Oxford. London: printed by
W. Strahan; and sold by James Hutton, 1740." (12mo, 207 pp.) To
these "Hymns and Sacred Poems," Wesley prefixed a preface of eleven
pages, in which he taught and enforced his doctrine of Christian
perfection. That doctrine he never set higher than in this memorable
preface; indeed, in after life, he wished to modify some of its
strong assertions. The reader has already seen, in the extracts
from letters already given, that, Whitefield was as strongly opposed
to the views of Wesley on this subject, as he was to Wesley's
opinions on predestination. But more than this: Wesley's "Hymns and
Sacred Poems" contained certain hymns on "Universal Redemption,"
one of which, consisting of thirty-six stanzas, had been affixed to
Wesley's sermon on "Free Grace." The hymn was written by Charles
Wesley, and includes the following verses:--
"_For every man He tasted death,
He suffer'd once for all_;
He calls as many souls as breathe,
And all _may_ hear the call.
A power to choose, a will to obey,
Freely His grace _restores_;
We all _may_ find the living way,
And call the Saviour ours.
When God invites, shall man repel?
Shall man the exception make?
'Come, freely come, _whoever will_,
And living water take.'
Thou canst not mock the sons of men;
Invite us to draw nigh,
Offer Thy grace to all, and then
Thy grace to most deny!
Horror to think that God is hate!
Fury in God can dwell!
God could a helpless world create,
To thrust them into hell!
Down there an endless death to die,
From which they could not flee:--
No, Lord! Thine inmost bowels cry
Against the dire decree!"
Charles Wesley's strongly worded verses offended Whitefield. They
exhibited his favourite doctrine in a repulsive light. Hence, on
December 24, 1740, he wrote, at Bethesda, his "Answer to Wesley's
Sermon on Free Grace,"--an answer which will be noticed shortly.
Meanwhile, on his passage to England, he addressed the following to
Charles Wesley and his brother conjointly:--
"_February 1, 1741._
"MY DEAR, DEAR BRETHREN,--Why did you throw out the bone
of contention? Why did you print that sermon against
predestination? Why did you, in particular, my dear brother
Charles, affix your hymn, and join in putting out your late
hymn-book? How can you say, you will not dispute with me about
election, and yet print such hymns, and your brother send his
sermon, against election, to Mr. Garden, and others in America?
Do not you think, my dear brethren, I must be as much concerned
for truth, or what I think truth, as you? God is my judge, I
always was, and hope I always shall be, desirous that you may be
preferred before me. But I must preach the gospel of Christ, and
that I cannot _now_ do, without speaking of election. My answer
to the sermon is now being printed at Charleston; another copy I
have sent to Boston; and another I now bring with me, to print
in London. If it occasion a strangeness between us, it shall not
be my fault. There is nothing in my answer exciting to it, that
I know of. O my dear brethren, my heart almost bleeds within me!
Methinks, I could be willing to tarry here on the waters for
ever, rather than come to England to oppose you."[420]
[420] Whitehead's "Life of Wesley," vol. ii., p. 133.
All this occurred previous to Whitefield's landing at Falmouth,
on the 11th of March, 1741. A year and a half ago, Whitefield
had left England with a popularity unequalled. He returned under
circumstances which, to a temperament like his, must have been
exceedingly distressing. His important friend, William Seward, was
dead. James Hutton, who had hitherto been his publisher, had refused
to act in this capacity any longer, because Whitefield had embraced
the Calvinian creed.[421] For the same reason, an estrangement
between Whitefield and his most tenderly beloved friends, John and
Charles Wesley, seemed to be inevitable. He had contracted large
debts, and had nought to pay them. By his injudicious censures
pronounced against Tillotson and the author of "The Whole Duty
of Man," thousands of his former admirers had been prejudiced
against him. Many of his quondam friends were now his foes; but
a few remained faithful, and had already commenced to build him
a "tabernacle," closely adjoining Wesley's Foundery, in the
neighbourhood of Moorfields. A fortnight after he landed in England,
he wrote the following letter to James Habersham, at Bethesda:--
[421] Hutton uniformly acted upon the principle, that he ought
not to publish anything which he himself did not believe to be in
accordance with the word of God. ("Memoirs of James Hutton," p. 69.)
"LONDON, _March 25, 1741_.
"MY DEAR SIR,--We arrived at Falmouth last Wednesday
seven-night, and got here the Sunday following. Blessed be God!
we had a summer's passage.[422]
[422] Whitefield brought a negro boy with him. When he arrived
in London, he committed the boy to the care of the Moravians,
who undertook to provide for him until he should be of the age
of twenty-one. He was sent to Germany. When Whitefield was
returning to America, in 1744, he wished to take the boy back
to his mother, in Carolina. The Moravians objected; Whitefield
had to submit; and, in the same year, the boy was baptized at
Lindheim, and was named Andrew. ("Memoirs of James Hutton," p.
81.)
"I find, many of our friends are sadly divided, and, as far as
I am able to judge, have been sadly misled. Congregations, at
Moorfields, and Kennington Common, on Sunday, were as large
as usual: on the following weekdays, quite contrary; twenty
thousand dwindled down to two or three hundred.
"It has been a trying time with me. I have a large orphan
family, consisting of near a hundred persons, to be maintained,
about four thousand miles off, without the least fund, and in
the dearest part of his Majesty's dominions. I am, also, above
£1000 in debt for them, and am not worth £20 in the world
of my own. I am threatened to be arrested for £350, drawn
for, in favour of the Orphan House, by my late dear deceased
friend and fellow-traveller, Mr. Seward. My bookseller, who,
I believe, has gotten some _hundreds_ by me, being drawn away
by the Moravians, refuses to print for me. Many, very many of
my spiritual children, who, at my last departure from England,
would have plucked out their own eyes to have given me, are
so prejudiced, by the dear Messrs. Wesleys' dressing up the
doctrine of election in such horrible colours, that they will
neither hear, see, nor give me the least assistance: yea, some
of them send threatening letters, that God will speedily destroy
me. As for the people of the world, they are so embittered by
my _injudicious and too severe expressions_ against Archbishop
Tillotson, and the author of the 'Whole Duty of Man,' that they
flee from me as from a viper. And, what is most cutting of all,
I am now constrained, on account of our differing in principles,
publicly to separate from my dear, dear old friends, Messrs.
John and Charles Wesley, whom I still love as my own soul.
"Through infinite mercy, however, I am enabled to strengthen
myself in the Lord my God. I am cast down, but not destroyed;
perplexed, but not in despair. A few days ago, in reading
Beza's 'Life of Calvin,' these words were much impressed upon
me, 'Calvin is turned out of Geneva, but, behold a new church
arises!' Jesus, the ever-loving, altogether lovely Jesus, pities
and comforts me.
"My friends are erecting a place, which I have called a
_Tabernacle_, for morning's exposition. I have not made, nor
can I, as yet, make any collections; but let us not fear. Our
heavenly Father, with whom the fatherless find mercy, will
provide. Let us only seek first the kingdom of God, and His
righteousness, and all other necessary things shall be added
unto us.
"In about a fortnight, though I scarce know an oak from a
hickory, or one kind of land from another, I am subpoenaed to
appear before Parliament, to give an account of the province of
Georgia, when I left it. This, I suppose, is occasioned by the
party, which has been so inveterate against the honourable the
trustees, whom they accuse of misemploying the public moneys.
The event, which undoubtedly will be in favour of the trustees,
you may know hereafter. In the meantime, believe me to be yours
most affectionately,
"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."
Trouble awaited Whitefield, not only in London but at Kingswood. In
1739, he commenced a school for the colliers in Kingswood, and left
Wesley to finish it. In the spring of 1740, Wesley opened it, and
appointed John Cennick to be its master. Soon after his appointment,
Cennick turned Calvinist, and imbued some of the members of
Kingswood Society with his principles. "Alas!" wrote Charles Wesley,
on November 30, 1740, "we have set the wolf to keep the sheep. For
many months, John Cennick has been undermining our doctrine and
authority." Cennick, and those who entertained his views, formed
themselves into a separate society, and held meetings apart from
their brethren. He also wrote to Whitefield in America, urging him
to return without delay, to assist him in the doctrinal warfare he
was waging among the poor colliers. A few days before Whitefield
landed at Falmouth, the Kingswood controversy reached its crisis.
After various warnings and expostulations, Wesley, on March 6th,
called on the people to make their choice between him and Cennick.
Fifty-two seceded with Cennick, and upwards of ninety remained with
Wesley. From this time, to use Wesley's words, "there, were two
sorts of Methodists; those for particular, and those for general,
redemption."[423]
[423] Wesley's Works, vol. viii., p. 335.
As soon as Whitefield arrived in London, Cennick informed him of
what had taken place; and, in reply, Whitefield wrote as follows:--
"LONDON, _March 25, 1741_.
"MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--Hasten hither with all speed; and then
we shall see what God intends to do for us and by us. It is a
trying time now in the church. The Lord give us a due mixture
of the lamb and lion! Some, who have been led astray, begin to
recover. The Lord make way for His own truths! My love to the
colliers, and all friends. Many, I suppose, will be shy. I am
become a monster even to several who were wrought upon by my
ministry; but it must needs be that offences should come. Adieu!
Excuse brevity. Hasten, and speak face to face with yours most
affectionately in Christ Jesus,
"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."
Amid all this Methodist confusion, Whitefield arrived in England.
One of his first acts after his coming was to publish his answer
to Wesley's Sermon on "Free Grace." The title was, "A Letter to
the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, in Answer to his Sermon, entitled 'Free
Grace.' By George Whitefield, A.B., late of Pembroke College,
Oxford. London: printed by W. Straham, for T. Cooper." (8vo. 31
pp.) Affixed to it were the Articles of the Church of England,
on "Original or Birth Sin," "Free Will," and "Predestination and
Election;" and also a hymn, by the great Dissenter, Dr. Watts,
containing the following verses:--
"Behold the potter and the clay,
He forms his vessels as he please;
Such is our God, and such are we,
The subjects of His high decrees.
Doth not the workman's pow'r extend
O'er all the mass, which part to choose,
And mould it for a nobler end,
And which to leave for viler use?
May not the sov'reign Lord on high
Dispense His favours as He will;
Choose some to life, while others die,
And yet be just and gracious still?
What, if to make His terror known,
He lets His patience long endure,
Suff'ring vile rebels to go on,
And seal their own destruction sure?
Shall man reply against the Lord,
And call his Maker's way unjust,
The thunder of whose dreadful word
Can crush a thousand worlds to dust?"
Of set purpose, the theological arguments of both Wesley and
Whitefield are here omitted. The reader must be satisfied with
those parts of Whitefield's letter that are purely personal.
"BETHESDA, IN GEORGIA, _December 24, 1740_.
"REVEREND AND VERY DEAR BROTHER,--God only knows what
unspeakable sorrow of heart I have felt on your account, since I
left England last. Whether it be my infirmity or not, I frankly
confess, that, Jonah could not have gone with more reluctance to
Nineveh, than I now take pen in hand to write against you. Were
nature to speak, I had rather die than do it; and yet, if I am
faithful to God, I must not stand neuter any longer. I am very
apprehensive that our common adversaries will rejoice to see us
differing among ourselves. But what can I say? The children of
God are in danger of falling into error. Nay, numbers have been
misled, whom God has been pleased to work upon by my ministry;
and a greater number are still calling aloud upon me, to shew
also my opinion. I must then shew, that I know no man after the
flesh, and that I have no respect of persons, any further than
is consistent with my duty to my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.
"This letter, no doubt, will lose me many friends. Perhaps
God has laid this difficult task upon me, to see whether I am
willing to forsake all for Him, or not. From such considerations
as these, I think it my duty to bear an humble testimony, and
to plead earnestly for the truths which, I am convinced, are
clearly revealed in the word of God; in the defence whereof, I
must use great plainness of speech, and treat my dearest friends
upon earth with the greatest simplicity, faithfulness, and
freedom, leaving the consequences of all to God.
"For some time before, and especially since, my last departure
from England, both in public and private, by preaching and
printing, you have been propagating the doctrine of _universal
redemption_. And, when I remember how Paul reproved Peter for
his dissimulation, I fear I have been sinfully silent too long.
O then be not angry with me, dear and honoured sir, if now I
deliver my soul, by telling you, that I think, in this, you
greatly err.
"Before I enter upon the discourse, entitled 'Free Grace,'
give me leave to notice what, in your preface, you term an
indispensable obligation to make it public to all the world. I
must own, that, I always thought you were quite mistaken upon
that head. The case, you know, stands thus: When you were at
Bristol, I think, you received a letter from a private hand,
charging you with not preaching the gospel, because you did
not preach election. Upon this, you drew a lot: the answer
was, 'preach and print.' I have often questioned, as I do now,
whether, in so doing, you did not tempt the Lord. A due exercise
of religious prudence, without a lot, would have directed you in
that matter. Besides, I never heard that you enquired of God,
whether or not election was a gospel doctrine. But, I fear,
taking it for granted, it was not, you only enquired, whether
you should be silent, or preach and print against it?[424]
However this be, the lot came out, '_preach and print_;'
accordingly, you preached and printed against election. At my
desire, you suppressed the publishing of the sermon whilst I was
in England; but soon sent it into the world after my departure.
O that you had kept it in! However, if that sermon was printed
in answer to a lot, I am apt to think, one reason why God
should so suffer you to be deceived was, that, hereby a special
obligation might be laid upon me faithfully to declare the
Scripture doctrine of election.
[424] Thirty-seven years' after this, during the great Calvinian
controversy, Rowland Hill taunted Wesley by stating that he
cast "lots for his creed." Thomas Olivers, the confidential
friend of Wesley, in his "Rod for a Reviler," replied to this
as follows:--"It is hard not to believe that the relaters of
this story are totally void of veracity, honour, and conscience.
The well-known fact is neither more nor less than this. When
Mr. Whitefield, by embracing and preaching Calvinism, turned
aside from the original doctrines of Methodism, it was a doubt
with Mr. Wesley, not whether he should _believe_ Calvinism,
but whether he should _preach and print_ against it. What
made this a matter of doubt was, if he did expressly preach
and print against it, he would oppose Mr. Whitefield, whom he
dearly loved. On the other hand, if he did not preach and print
against it, Mr. Whitefield's great influence would draw vast
multitudes into his mistake. In this strait, it is true, he cast
a lot, which came up to this effect, 'As thou hast long believed
Calvinism to be a delusion, regardless of friends and enemies,
preach and print against it.' Now, will good men, will men of
honour, will men who make the smallest pretence to integrity,
conscience, truth, justice, or anything else that is good, call
this 'Casting lots for his creed'?" ("A Rod for a Reviler."
London, 1777, pp. 9, 10.)
* * * * *
"I frankly acknowledge, I believe the doctrine of reprobation,
in this view, that God intends to give His saving grace, through
Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, and that the rest of
mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to
continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death, which
is its proper wages.
* * * * *
"I would not judge of the truth of election, by the experience
of any particular persons. If I did, (O bear with me in this
foolishness of boasting!) I think I might glory in election. For
these five or six years, I have received the witness of God's
Spirit. Since that, I have not doubted a quarter of an hour of
a saving interest in Jesus Christ. And, if I must speak freely,
I believe your fighting so strenuously against the doctrine of
election, and pleading so vehemently for a sinless perfection,
are among the reasons or culpable causes, why you are kept out
of the liberties of the gospel, and from that full assurance of
faith, which they enjoy, who have experimentally tasted, and
daily feed upon, God's electing, everlasting love."
* * * * *
"Dear, dear sir, O be not offended! For Christ's sake, be not
rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace.
Down with your carnal reasoning! Be a little child; and, then,
instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late
hymn-book, if the doctrine of _universal redemption_ be not
true; instead of talking of _sinless perfection_, as you have
done in the preface to that hymn-book; and instead of making
man's salvation to depend on his own _free will_, as you have
in this sermon, you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign
distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving
to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another
sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it, 'Free Grace
_Indeed_.' Free, because not free to all; but free, because God
may withhold or give it to whom and when He pleases.
"Dear sir, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but
a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter
from me. I love and honour you for His sake; and, when I come to
judgment, will thank you, before men and angels, for what you
have, under God, done for my soul."
The spirit breathing in this letter is beautiful. The opinions of
Whitefield and Wesley were wide apart; but their heartfelt affection
for each other was undiminished. Had they been left to themselves,
they would lovingly have agreed to differ. John Cennick, a good
man, and brave evangelist, was violently prejudiced against the
Wesleys, and had more influence with Whitefield than was profitable.
Noble-hearted Howell Harris, also, felt so strongly respecting the
disagreement, that, in a letter dated October 27, 1740, his godly
wrath branded Wesley's opposition of the Calvinian doctrines with
the offensive epithet, "hellish infection." Joseph Humphreys, whom
Wesley had employed to preach in the Foundery, London, renounced
his connection with Methodism's founder, embraced Whitefield's
tenets, and became an ardent and active partisan. J. Lewis started
the first Methodist newspaper ever published, and succeeded in
securing Whitefield, Cennick, Harris, and Humphreys as its principal
contributors.[425] Under such circumstances, division became almost
inevitable. Whitefield's letters plainly shew that this was a
disaster which he devoutly dreaded; and Wesley, nearly forty years
afterwards, declared that he and his brother endeavoured to prevent
it. He writes:--
"Who made the division? It was not I. It was not my brother.
It was Mr. Whitefield himself; and that notwithstanding all
admonitions, arguments, and entreaties. Mr. Whitefield first
wrote a treatise against me by name. He sent it to my brother,
who endorsed it with these words, 'Put up again thy sword into
its place.' It slept a while; but, after a time, he published
it. I made no reply. Soon after, Mr. Whitefield preached
against my brother and me by name. This he did constantly,
both in Moorfields, and in all other public places. We never
returned railing for railing, but spoke honourably of him, at
all times, and in all places. But is it any wonder, that those
who loved us should no longer choose to hear him? Meantime,
was it we that turned their hearts against him? Was it not
_himself_?' It was not merely the difference of doctrine that
caused the division. It was rather Mr. Whitefield's _manner_
wherein he maintained his doctrine, and treated us in every
place. Otherwise difference of doctrine would not have created
any difference of affection; but he might lovingly have held
particular redemption, and we general, to our lives' end. Even
when he preached in the very Foundery, and my brother sat by
him, he preached the absolute decrees in the most peremptory and
offensive manner.[426] What was this, but drawing the sword,
and throwing away the scabbard? Who then is chargeable with the
contention and division that ensued?"[427]
[425] The title was, "The Weekly History; or, an account of the
most remarkable particulars relating to the present progress of
the Gospel. London: printed by J. Lewis. Price one penny." The
newspaper was a small folio of four pages; and the first number
appears to have been issued on April 11, 1741, exactly a month after
Whitefield's arrival from America. In No. 4, the editor says: "The
Rev. Mr. Whitefield intends to supply me with fresh matter every
week." The periodical was continued weekly until November 13, 1742,
when No. 84 was issued, to which the editor appended the following
note: "Now that this first volume is finished, we purpose to begin
the next in a more commodious manner. It is to be printed in a neat
pocket volume, and to be delivered (every week, as it was at the
first,) at the Tabernacle, and at people's houses, at the price of
one penny."
[426] No doubt, Whitefield evinced bad taste in doing this; but the
error, in Wesley's meeting-houses, was not repeated. At the time
of Whitefield's death, Wesley, in a letter published in Lloyd's
_Evening Post_, remarked: "Mr. Whitefield did not everywhere preach
the eternal covenant and absolute predestination. I never heard him
utter a sentence on one or the other. Yea, all the times he preached
in West-street chapel, and in our other chapels throughout England,
he did not preach these doctrines at all, no, not in a single
paragraph." (Wesley's Works, vol. xiii., p. 378.)
[427] Wesley's Works, vol. xi., p. 463.
This seems to bear somewhat hardly against Whitefield; but there
is no means of disproving it. Whitefield, naturally impetuous, had
impulsive advisers; and, no doubt, with the best intentions, said
things which probably he himself afterwards regretted. No zeal
is more rabid than that engendered by theological disputes; and,
very often, the fierceness of the zeal is increased by the godly
earnestness of the disputers.
In one respect, Wesley had thrown down the gage; that is, he had
published a sermon against predestination, in which Whitefield now
believed; but he had not mentioned Whitefield's name, nor had he
used a single expression that could be thought to allude to him. He
had, also, six weeks before Whitefield's arrival in London, done
another thing which partisans might perhaps interpret maliciously.
By some means, a private letter, which Whitefield had written to
Wesley (and which is referred to, p. 414), had been printed;[428]
no doubt, because it condemned Wesley's doctrine of perfection,
and the publication of his sermon on "Free Grace." This letter,
dated "Boston, September 25, 1740," was printed without either
Whitefield's or Wesley's leave; and a great number of copies were
distributed in the Foundery, and at its door. Of course, Wesley,
at once, perceived the meanness and malice of this proceeding; and
wrote:--
"1741. February 1, Sunday. Having procured one of the copies, I
related, after preaching, the naked fact to the congregation,
and told them, 'I will do just what I believe Mr. Whitefield
would, were he here himself.' Upon which I tore it in pieces
before them all. Every one who had received it, did the same. So
that, in two minutes, there was not a whole copy left. Ah! poor
Ahithophel!"
[428] See _Weekly Miscellany_ of March 14, 1741.
It is highly probable that Whitefield's friends and admirers
would resent this public tearing up of one of his epistles; but,
remembering the surreptitious character of the whole proceeding,
and also the malevolence of the object to be accomplished, every
right-minded man will at once acknowledge, that, apart from the
thing being done in a place of public worship, there was nothing in
Wesley's act to be condemned.
How did the matter end? The following are extracts from Wesley's
Journal:--
"1741. March 28, Saturday. Having heard much of Mr. Whitefield's
unkind behaviour, since his return from Georgia, I went to him
to hear him speak for himself, that I might know how to judge.
I much approved of his plainness of speech. He told me, he and
I preached two different gospels; and, therefore, he not only
would not join with me, or give me the right hand of fellowship,
but was resolved publicly to preach against me and my brother,
wheresoever he preached at all. Mr. Hall (who went with me) put
him in mind of the promise he had made but a few days before,
that, whatever his private opinion was, he would never publicly
preach against us. He said, that promise was only an effect of
human weakness, and he was now of another mind.
"April 4, Saturday. I believed both love and justice required
that I should speak my sentiments freely to Mr. Whitefield,
concerning the letter he had published, said to be in answer to
my sermon on 'Free Grace.' The sum of what I observed to him was
this: 1. That, it was quite imprudent to publish it at all, as
being only the putting of weapons into their hands, who loved
neither the one nor the other. 2. That, if he was constrained
to bear his testimony (as he termed it) against the error I
was in, he might have done it by publishing a treatise on this
head, without ever calling my name in question. 3. That, what
he had published was a mere burlesque upon an answer, leaving
four of my eight arguments untouched, and handling the other
four in so gentle a manner, as if he were afraid they would
burn his fingers. However, that, 4. He had said enough of what
was wholly foreign to the question, to make an open (and,
probably, irreparable) breach between him and me; seeing 'for
a treacherous wound, and for the betraying of secrets, every
friend will depart.'"
The last sentence, of course, refers to Whitefield's imprudent and
unfriendly revelation respecting Wesley casting lots to ascertain
whether he should "_preach and print_;" and it is only fair to add,
that this was the only part of Whitefield's letter that was "wholly
foreign to the question" in debate.
So much in reference to the difference respecting Calvinism. There
was, however, another bone of contention--Kingswood School, and the
school at Bristol. It seems that Whitefield, somewhat petulantly,
had complained of the adornment of the chapel Wesley had built at
Bristol, and of the "lodgings" which had been provided in it for
him and for his brother. He had found fault, "that the children
at Bristol were clothed as well as taught;" and that "those at
Kingswood had been neglected." Wesley, in the month of April, 1741,
wrote a long letter in reply to these accusations. He tells his
old friend, that the only adornment in Bristol chapel consisted of
"a piece of green cloth nailed to the desk; and two sconces, for
eight candles each, in the middle." In reference to the "lodgings,"
he says, "There is a little room by the school where I speak to
persons who come to me; and a garret, in which a bed is placed for
me. And do you grudge me this? Is this the voice of my brother, my
son, Whitefield?" The accusation of the children of Kingswood School
being neglected is positively denied. "One master and one mistress,"
writes Wesley, "have been in the house ever since it was capable of
receiving them. A second master has been placed there some months
since; and I have long been seeking for two proper mistresses; so
that as much has been done, if not more, than I can answer to God
and man." Wesley concludes his letter thus:--
"You rank all the maintainers of universal redemption with
Socinians. Alas! my brother, do you not know that the Socinians
allow no redemption at all? that Socinus himself speaks thus:
_Tota redemptio nostra per Christum metaphora?_ and says
expressly, 'Christ did not die as a ransom for any, but only as
an example for mankind'? How easy were it for me to hit many
other palpable blots in that which you call an 'Answer' to my
sermon! And how above measure contemptible would you then appear
to all impartial men, either of sense or learning! But I spare
you; mine hand shall not be upon you. The Lord be judge between
me and thee! The general tenor both of my public and private
exhortations, when I touch thereon at all, as even my enemies
know, if they would testify, is, 'Spare the young man, even
Absalom, for my sake.'"[429]
[429] Wesley's Works, vol. xii., p. 148.
Whitefield and Wesley were separated; but, within eighteen months
after the publication of Whitefield's letter, their old friendship
was entirely re-established; and ever afterwards, to the end of
life, Wesley and Whitefield loved each other with a love like that
of David and Jonathan. This will be amply shewn in succeeding pages.
Meantime, however, Whitefield was in great distress. He, afterwards,
wrote as follows:--
"I had written an answer" [to Wesley's sermon on Free Grace],
"which, though revised and much approved of by some good and
judicious divines, I think had some too strong expressions
about absolute reprobation, which the apostle leaves rather to
be inferred than expressed. The world was angry with me for
writing my letters against the author of 'The Whole Duty of
Man' and Archbishop Tillotson; and numbers of my own spiritual
children were angry with me for writing my Answer to Mr.
Wesley. Instead of having thousands to attend me, scarce one
of my spiritual children came to see me from morning to night.
Once, at Kennington Common, I had not above a hundred to hear
me. Never had I preached in Moorfields on a week-day; but, in
the strength of God, I began on Good Friday. For some time, I
continued to preach twice a day under one of the trees, and had
the mortification of seeing numbers of my spiritual children,
who but a twelvemonth ago would have plucked out their eyes
for me, running by me whilst preaching, disdaining so much as
to look at me; and some of them putting their fingers in their
ears, that they might not hear one word I said. Ten thousand
times would I rather have died than part with my old friends. It
would have melted any heart to have heard Mr. Charles Wesley
and me weeping, after prayer, that, if possible, the breach
might be prevented. Once I preached in the Foundery, on Gal.
iii., but no more. All my work was to begin again. A like scene
opened at Bristol, where I was denied preaching in the house I
had founded. Busybodies, on both sides, blew up the coals. A
breach ensued. But, as both sides differed in judgment, and not
in affection, and aimed at the glory of our common Lord, (though
on both sides we hearkened too much to tale-bearers,) we were
kept from anathematizing each other, and went on in our usual
way; being agreed in one point, endeavouring to convert souls to
the ever-blessed Mediator."[430]
[430] Gillies' "Life of Whitefield."
Thus, in England, Whitefield found trouble; from America he derived
joy. Towards the end of the month of March, his two superintendents
in the Georgia Orphan House, Messrs. Habersham and Barber, wrote
him letters respecting a remarkable religious movement among the
children there. Two young men, employed on the estate, had been
converted since Whitefield left; and a number of the children had
been put into two bands, and were "allowed to spend two or three
hours every day in reading, praying, and singing hymns together."
One day, Joseph Periam left them in the school picking cotton, when
one of them exclaimed, "If we do not believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, we shall all go to hell." At once, the entire company fell
upon their knees, and began to pray, "Lord God Almighty, have
compassion upon us. Prick us to the heart. Pluck us as firebrands
out of the burning. O Lord Jesus Christ, wash us in Thy blood. Take
away our hard, stony hearts, and give us hearts of flesh." No wonder
that Habersham wrote to Whitefield, saying, "Does not your soul leap
for joy, and say, 'Bless the Lord, O my friends, and let us magnify
His name together'?"[431]
[431] The _Weekly History_, July 25, 1741, and August 22, 1741.