Chapter L: Tyerman (25)

"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.

The Rev. Gilbert Tennent, also, wrote to Whitefield as follows:--

"NEW YORK, _April 25, 1741_.

"VERY DEAR BROTHER,--In my return homewards, I have been
preaching daily, ordinarily three times a day, and sometimes
oftener. Through grace, I have met with success much exceeding
my expectations. In Boston, there were many hundreds, if not
thousands, under soul-concern. When I left that place, many
children were deeply affected, and several had received
consolation. Some aged persons in church communion, and some
open opposers, were convinced; and divers of the young and
middle-aged, together with several negroes, were converted.
At Charleston, multitudes were awakened. At Cambridge, in the
college and town, the shaking among the dry bones was general;
and several of the students have received consolation. In these
places, I found fruits of your ministry. In Ipswich, there was
a general concern among the inhabitants; and here, also, I saw
some of the results of your labours. The concern at Newport was
very considerable. Divers Quakers and children, with others,
came to me, in distress about their souls. At Newhaven, the
concern was general, both in the college and town. About thirty
students came, on foot, ten miles to hear the word of God. I
believe thousands have been awakened. Glory be to God on high!

"I thank you, sir, that you did excite me to this journey. The
work of God spreads more and more. My brother William has had
remarkable success this winter at Burlington. I hear that there
are several Religious Societies formed there. Mr. John Cross has
had great success at Staten Island; and many have been awakened
by the labours of Mr. Rollinson in divers places of the York
government. Mr. Mills has had much success in Connecticut; and
Mr. Blair, in Pennsylvania. The Lord bless you, dear brother!

"GILBERT TENNENT."[432]

[432] Gillies' "Historical Collections," vol. ii., p. 132.

Six months ago, Whitefield had persuaded Gilbert Tennent to become, _pro tempore_, an intinerant preacher; and now such was the evangelist's report of his success. Whitefield had consolations, as well as trials. "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country" (Prov. XXV. 26).

After his arrival from America, Whitefield remained about six weeks in London, during which, he employed himself in preaching to diminished congregations on Kennington Common, and in Moorfields. He was also summoned to "the Parliament House" to give evidence on Georgia affairs; and also urged his "appeal" against the decision of Commissary Garden's Court in Charleston. He writes:--

"London, April 10, 1741. I have been at the Parliament-house.
The Georgia affair was adjourned. The gentlemen seemed
apprehensive that my account of the colony would have too much
weight. It was somewhat of a trial to be in the House. My
'Appeal' will come to nothing, I believe. I have waited upon the
Speaker. He received me kindly."[433]

[433] Whitefield's Works, vol. i., p. 258.

On April 22, Whitefield left London for Bristol, where he remained a week. The following letters were written during this brief visit; the first and second to friends in London, the third probably to Howell Harris.

"BRISTOL, _April 25, 1741_.

"Dear brother Charles" (Wesley) "is more and more rash. He
has lately printed some very bad hymns. To-day, I talked with
Brother N----. He tells me, that, for three months past, he has
not sinned in thought, word, or deed.[434] He says, he is not
only free from the _power_, but the very _in-being_ of sin. He
now asserts it is _impossible_ for _him_ to sin. I talked with
three women. One said she had been perfect these twelve months;
but, alas! she shewed many marks of imperfection whilst I was
with her. I asked her if she had any pride. She said, 'No.' I
asked if she ever prayed for pardon, at night, for her sins and
infirmities. She said, 'No; for she did not commit any sin.' I
spoke to another woman, who said she had not sinned in thought,
word, or deed, this twelvemonth. I asked her, and every one of
the rest, whether they ever used the Lord's Prayer. They were
unwilling to answer, but afterwards said, 'Yes.' I asked them
whether they used it for themselves, and could say, 'Forgive
us our trespasses.' They said, 'No; they used it for others
only.'"[435]

[434] If Whitefield acquired his knowledge of Wesley's doctrine of
Christian perfection mainly from witnesses such as these, no wonder
that he was prejudiced against it.

[435] The _Weekly History_, No. 4.

BRISTOL, _April 27, 1741_.

"My dear Friend and Brother,--On Tuesday, April 22, I left
London; and preached, on Wednesday and Thursday morning, at
Newbury, to large congregations. On Friday evening, I preached
at Bristol; and have continued to do so, twice every day, to
great and affected auditories. Great manifestations of the
Divine presence have attended my sermons. Praise the Lord, O my
soul! My body is sometimes weak, but my soul rejoices in God my
Saviour. I find it necessary, through the increase of awakened
souls, to get a society room built adjoining our new Tabernacle.
I pray God to fill it with His glory; and beg leave to subscribe
myself your affectionate friend, brother, and servant in Christ,

"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."

* * * * *

"BRISTOL, _April 28, 1741_.

"MY DEAR BROTHER,--Blessed be God for knitting us together in
love! It is now a trying time with the church. Our Lord is now
chiefly wounded in the house of His friends. The Lord keep us
both from a party spirit on one hand, and from too much rashness
and positiveness on the other! I speak thus, because you seem
offended that some affirm, 'there is no such thing as dominion
over indwelling sin, nor rest from working for life wholly.' Now
this is certainly true in one sense. We shall never have such a
dominion over indwelling sin as to be entirely delivered from
the stirring of it; and the greatest saint cannot be assured,
but, some time or other, for his humiliation or punishment
for unfaithfulness, God may permit it to break out into some
actual breach of His law, and in a gross way too. Let us not be
high-minded, but fear. It is equally true, that we shall not
rest wholly from working for life; for, whilst there is any
part of us unregenerate, that part will be always leading us to
the old covenant. But I suppose you have been tinctured with
the doctrine of _sinless perfection_. No wonder, therefore, you
write thus. As for _assurance_, I cannot but think, all who are
truly converted must know that there was a time in which they
closed with Christ; but, then, as so many have died with only a
humble hope, and have been under doubts and fears, though they
could not but be looked upon as Christians, I am less positive
than once I was, lest haply I should condemn some of God's dear
children. The farther we go in the spiritual life, the more cool
and rational shall we be, and yet more truly zealous. I speak
this by experience.

"Many have been convinced in London. I preach here twice daily,
to large congregations, with great power. The Lord, I believe,
will yet bring mighty things to pass.

"I am, your most affectionate brother,

"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."

Passing by the question of Whitefield's orthodoxy, it may be added, that, though his friend Charles Wesley was in Bristol at this period, and was preaching with great success, there seems to have been no intercourse between them. In Whitefield's letters, Wesley is not mentioned; and, in Wesley's Journals, there is no allusion to Whitefield, except, perhaps, in the following paragraph:--

"1741. May 4. I met the bands in Kingswood. One, who, in the
fear of God, and mistrust of himself, had heard Mr. W----,
assured me, he had preached barefaced reprobation. The people
fled from the reprobating lion. But, again and again, as he
observed them depart, the preacher of sad tidings called them
back, with general offers of salvation. Vain and empty offers
indeed! What availed his telling them that, for _aught he knew_,
they might be _all_ elect? He did not believe them all elect; he
could not: therefore, he only mocked them with an empty word of
invitation; and if God sent him to preach the gospel to every
_creature_, God, according to his scheme, sent him to _deceive_
the greatest part of mankind."[436]

[436] C. Wesley's Journal, vol. i., p. 272.

Charles Wesley regarded Whitefield's Calvinism with abhorrence; and Whitefield regarded some of Wesley's doctrines as pernicious heresy. In a letter, dated "Gloucester, May 5, 1741," Whitefield writes: "At Bristol, error is in a great measure put a stop to." And, in another, dated "Bristol, May 16, 1741, he says: "Sad tares have been sown here. It will require some time to pluck them up. The doctrines of the gospel are sadly run down, and most monstrous errors propagated. They assert, that, 'the very in-being of sin must be taken out of us, or otherwise we are not new creatures.' Oh, dear sir, exhort all to pray for us, that I may be faithful to my Lord, and yet be kept gentle in my temper. At present, our dear Lord causes me to triumph in every place."

After paying a short visit to Gloucester, Whitefield returned to Bristol, where he continued till the end of the month of May. There can be no doubt, that, at this time, the Bristol Methodists marshalled themselves under two different banners. Whitefield and Charles Wesley were in the city, but there is no evidence that they ever sought each other's company. Whitefield, as he thought, was successfully plucking up the tares that his former friends, the Wesleys, had sown; and Charles Wesley was labouring with all his might to destroy Whitefield's doctrine of reprobation. He writes:--

"May 19. I am more and more confirmed in the truth by
its miserable opposers. I talked lately with Mr. H----,"
(Humphreys?)[437] "and urged him with this dilemma: 'For what
did God make this reprobate--to be damned, or to be saved?' He
durst not say that God made even Judas to be damned, and would
not say that God made him to be saved. I desired to know for
what third end He could make him; but all the answer I could get
was, 'It is not a fair question.' Next I asked, 'Whether he that
believeth not shall be damned, because he believeth not?' 'Yes,'
he answered; and I replied, 'Because he believeth not what?'
Here he hesitated, and I was forced to help him out with the
Apostle's answer, 'That they all might be damned who believed
not the truth.' 'What truth?' I asked again, 'but the truth of
the gospel of _their_ salvation? If it is not the gospel of
_their_ salvation, and yet they are bound to believe it, then
they are bound to believe a lie, under pain of damnation; and
the Apostle should have said, 'That they all might be damned who
believed _not a lie_.' This drove him to assert, that no man
was damned for _actual_ unbelief, but only for what he called
_original_; that is, for not believing before he was born. 'But
where,' said I, 'is the justice of this?' He answered, not
over-hastily, 'I confess there is a mystery in reprobation.' Or,
to put it in Beza's words, which I then read him, 'We believe,
though it is incomprehensible, that it is just to damn such as
do not deserve it.' Further, I asked him, 'Why does God command
all men everywhere to repent? Why does He call, and offer His
grace to, reprobates? Why does His Spirit strive with every
child of man for _some_ time, though not always?' I could get
no answer, and so read him one of his friend Calvin's: 'God
speaketh to them, that they may be the deafer; He gives light
to them, that they may be the blinder; He offers instruction to
them, that they may be the more ignorant; and uses the remedy,
that they may _not_ be healed' (Calvin, Instit. l. iii., c. 24).
Never did I meet with a more pitiful advocate of a more pitiful
cause. And, yet, I believe he could say as much for reprobation
as another. I told him _his_ predestination had got a millstone
about its neck, and would infallibly be drowned, if he did not
part it from reprobation."[438]

[437] There can be little doubt that "Mr. H----" means Joseph
Humphreys, already noticed in a previous chapter. Humphreys says:
"The division between Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley was a sore trial
to me. I loved them both, but, for a while, thought of joining with
neither, because I seemed to think there were extremes on both
sides. However, afterwards, I had by much the greatest satisfaction
on Mr. Whitefield's side, with whom I openly joined at the beginning
of May, 1741. At which time, I first preached in the Bowling-green,
at Bristol, for a while, to a congregation distinct from that of
Wesley's; afterwards, at the Tabernacle, in London," etc. ("Account
of Joseph Humphreys' Experience." Bristol, 1742. p. 42.)

[438] C. Wesley's Journal, vol. i., p. 277.

The two Methodist leaders felt strongly on the subject of their respective doctrines; and that their partisans were quite as zealous as their leaders will be evident from the following extracts from Charles Wesley's Journal, written at and about the time of Whitefield's visit to Bristol:--

"May 25. While I was passing by the Bowling-green, a woman cried
out, 'The curse of God light upon you,' with such uncommon
bitterness, that I could not but turn and stop to bless her.
When I asked her why she cursed me, she answered, 'For preaching
against Mr. ----.' I had, indeed, a suspicion, from her dialect,
that she was one of the self-elect; but stayed heaping coals of
fire upon her head, till at last she said, 'God bless you all!'

"May 31. To several, God shewed Himself the God of consolation;
particularly to two young Welshmen, whom His providence sent
hither from Carmarthen. They had heard most dreadful stories of
us Arminians, Freewillers, Perfectionists, Papists, which all
vanished like smoke when they came to hear with their own ears.

"June 8. A woman spoke to me of her husband. He was under strong
convictions, while he attended the word; but the first time he
heard the _other gospel_, he came home _elect_, and, in proof of
it, _beat his wife_. His seriousness was at an end. His work was
done. God doth not behold iniquity in Jacob. He uses his wife
worse than a Turk (his predestinarian brother), and tells her,
if he killed her he could not be damned."

Charles Wesley was far more alarmed by the Calvinian controversy than his brother John. The following letter, kindly supplied by Mr. G. Stampe, of Grimsby, has not before been published. It is addressed "To the Rev. Mr. Wesley, at Mr. Hooper's, maltster, Bristol," and is endorsed, in John's handwriting, "September 28, 1741. In a panic about G. W." It begins abruptly, as follows:--

"Extract of a letter from Bristol.--'I am exceedingly afraid
lest predestination should be propagated among us in a more
subtle and dangerous manner than has hitherto been attempted.
Mr. Whitefield preaches holiness very strongly, and "free
grace" to all; yet, at the same time, he uses expressions which
necessarily imply reprobation. He wraps it up in smoother
language than before, in order to convey the poison more
successfully. Our Society, on this account, go to hear him,
without any scruple or dread. We have sufficiently seen the
fatal effects of this devilish doctrine already, so that we
cannot keep at too great a distance from it. For my part, by the
grace of God, I never will be reconciled to reprobation, nor
join with those who hold it. I wish there might be a _real_ and
_thorough_ union betwixt us.'

"O thou eternal Phrygian! I am too full to write or speak! Do
you know the value of souls! precious, immortal souls! yet trust
them within the sound of predestination? This is outdoing your
own outdoings. Stop the plague _just now_, or it will be too
late. Send me word, first post, that you have warned our flock
from going to hear the other's gospel. O how you are outwitted!
The subtle Scots[439] (those sons of Zeruiah) are too hard
for you. I pity you and those few sheep in the wilderness,
who are left to the wolf. For mine, and your own, and theirs,
and Christ's sake, open your eyes; regard not fair speeches;
renounce your credulity and George Whitefield, till he renounces
reprobation. 'But that he does already, and preaches holiness
and free grace for all!' And are you, can you be so easily
caught? O that virtue of credulity! Send me word, I say, by
next post, that you have restrained the unwary; or I shall, on
the first preaching night, renounce George Whitefield on the
house-top.

[439] John Wesley was now in Bristol, and Whitefield was in
Scotland.

"P.S. When it was told the Grand Turk that all the princes
of Christendom were entering into a confederacy against him,
he answered, 'When these fingers are joined,' (holding them
up,) 'then will the Christians agree.' So the world may say
concerning our Societies and the Predestinarians joining against
them.

"I have received a letter from Mr. Hutchins, of Lincoln College,
with an order upon his brother to pay you £12 (I think it is).
You should send me your order to receive it.

"CHARLES WESLEY."

These extracts furnish glimpses of a lamentable state of things in Bristol, where, within the last three years, both Whitefield and the Wesleys had witnessed some of their most glorious triumphs. Old friends were divided, and loving Christians had become furious partisans. In the midst of this unhallowed strife, Whitefield wrote as follows:--

"Bristol, May 16, 1741. I rejoice that God lets you see more
and more into the corruptions of your heart. The more perfect
you are, the more you will see and bewail your imperfections in
thought, word, and deed; the more will you be able to sing, 'In
the Lord alone, and not in myself, have I complete righteousness
and strength.' The doctrine of electing love is precious to
my soul. I am enabled to speak of it feelingly to others. My
soul is kept in peace and sweetness. Our Lord's cause needs not
noise and rashness. I desire that none of my wild-fire may be
mixed with the pure fire of holy zeal coming from God's altar.
Brother H----" (Humphreys?)" is more and more enlightened; but,
withal, more and more quickened every day. He finds there is no
such thing as _sinless_ perfection, and yet is pressing after
holiness of heart and life rather more than ever."

"Bristol, May 18, 1741. I am just setting out for Wiltshire.
The Lord has been much with us. Yesterday, I preached three
times. At every sermon, a sweet melting was observed in the
congregation. Last evening, I gave your sister the sacrament.
She is recovering. I afterwards administered the sacrament at
Mr. T----'s, and had a love-feast. Jesus was in the midst of us.
I know not but I may come towards London next week. I wonder not
at your heaviness. Before every increase of your work, you must
expect some trials. Humblings are necessary for your spirit, and
mine." (Extract from a letter to John Cennick.)

"Bristol, May 23, 1741. The Lord only knows how He will be
pleased to dispose of me. Great afflictions I am sure of having;
and a sudden death, blessed be God! will not be terrible. I
know that my Redeemer liveth. I every day long to see Him, and
enjoy Him without interruption for evermore. I desire patiently
to wait, till my blessed change shall come. The Lord has been
with me here. There is a great awakening in Wiltshire; and the
work is most wonderfully carried on in New England. I leave
Bristol, and go, through Wiltshire, to London, next Monday. I
then purpose going to Staffordshire, and then, through Wales,
to Scotland. A wider door than ever is opened for preaching the
everlasting gospel."

"Bristol, May 23, 1741. I thank you and the other gentlemen
for their kind invitation to me to Scotland. I believe it will
be near three months before I can see Edinburgh. On Monday,
I set out for London; then I purpose to go into Essex, and
then to return through Bristol and Wales in my way to you. I
intreat all my brethren to pray for me, that I may come in
the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. I am a
poor, weak, unworthy worm. God has been with me here, and in
Gloucestershire. In Wiltshire there is a great awakening. Oh,
dear sir, never was a weak wretch sent on such an important
errand. I have many trials, of various kinds. Jesus supports me;
Jesus makes me more than conqueror. Dear sir, help me to praise
Him."

Whitefield and Wesley now had not only separate congregations, but separate meeting-houses. In Bristol, Wesley occupied the chapel which he had built in Broadmead; and in Kingswood, the school-room which had been begun by Whitefield, and completed by himself. As yet, Whitefield had no chapel in Bristol; but, in Kingswood, John Cennick and others assisted him in building a room near the one which Wesley used.[440] In London, Wesley had converted the ruinous old Foundery, near Moorfields, into a place of worship; and now, in 1741, the friends of Whitefield procured a piece of ground close to Wesley's Foundery, and employed a carpenter to build a large temporary shed to screen his Moorfields congregations from the cold and rain. It is a curious fact, that, Whitefield never mentions this erection till it was ready to be opened. Its promoters were Calvinistic Dissenters; and originally it was only intended to be used during the few months he might stay in England, prior to his return to Georgia. Providence, however, had otherwise determined. Notwithstanding its unseemly proximity to Wesley's Foundery, within this wooden fabric, of large dimensions, immense crowds were gathered; a great spiritual awakening took place; a Society was formed; and, during Whitefield's absence, and at the desire of the people, Messrs. Cennick, Adams, Jenkins, Howell Harris, Seagrave, Humphreys, and others, were employed to assist in carrying on the worship, in succession.[441] Two facts respecting this original tabernacle must be remembered: 1. It sprang, not from Whitefield, but from a voluntary movement among his adherents, composed chiefly, if not wholly, of Protestant Dissenters; and, 2. The expense of its erection was borne, not by him, but by them. For twelve years, this wooden shed was Whitefield's metropolitan cathedral. As will be seen hereafter, the history of its society and congregations was chequered; but still, beneath its roof, there were many displays of God's abounding mercy. In 1753, it was superseded by the erection, on the same site, of the substantial brick building which, for more than a hundred years, was used by Whitefield's successors.[442]

[440] "Life and Times of Countess of Huntingdon," vol. i., p. 198.

[441] Gillies says, Whitefield "disliked the place fixed upon,
because it was so near the Foundery, and looked like erecting altar
against altar."

[442] _New Spiritual Magazine_, 1783, vol. i., p. 20; _Christian
Witness_, 1847, p. 204; etc.

This uncouth structure seems to have been opened for public worship about a month after Whitefield's return from America; for, on April 19, 1741, he made collections in it, for his Orphan House, amounting to £23 11s. 1d.[443] It is mentioned in the following letters, the first to James Habersham, at the Orphan House in Georgia, and the second to John Cennick, Whitefield's _locum tenens_, at Bristol.

[443] Continuation of the Orphan House Accounts, 1742.

"LONDON, _June 1, 1741_.

"MY VERY DEAR FRIEND AND BROTHER,--I have sent several letters
to Georgia, and lately also a parcel of things for the children.
God appears much in our congregations. We seldom have a dry
meeting. As to outward things, I never was more embarrassed; but
my consolations are equivalent. Praise the Lord, O my soul! I
am not apprehensive of any opposition from Government. I have
waited on the Speaker. He treated me kindly, and assured me that
there would be no persecution in this king's reign.[444] They
know I am loyal from principle; but, I believe, I shall yet be
greatly humbled. I hope you enjoy peace. May the Lord bless you
and the whole household! I am sometimes enabled to pray with
great faith for you all. The Lord will yet provide.

[444] The reference here is probably to the action taken against
Whitefield, by Commissary Garden, in Charleston.

"I am to preach thrice to-day. It is now past five in the
morning. I am going to the _Tabernacle lately erected_, for a
morning lecture. We have sweet meetings. Blessed be God!

"I subscribe myself yours eternally,
"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."

* * * * *

"LONDON, _June 3, 1741_.

"I have enjoyed the especial presence of God ever since I came
to London. I preach three times daily. Congregations increase. I
am going to have a society room joined to the _Tabernacle_. The
Lord is really on our side. O let us be meek and quiet. O let us
wait, and we shall see the salvation of God. I preach daily at
Deptford. Our dear Master helps me to preach and pray with great
power. Your ministry has been blessed. Let us both give glory
to Everlasting Love. Remember me most kindly to all in Wine
Street.

"Ever yours in the blessed Jesus,
"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."

To all intents and purposes, Whitefield was now a Dissenting minister. In America, his ministerial associates and friends were almost, without exception, Nonconformists. In England, nearly all the churches were closed against him. Protestant Dissenters had built him a wooden chapel, and, without either the ground or the edifice being rendered sacred by episcopal benedictions, Whitefield became its chief minister. Yea, more, like his friend Wesley, obtaining no help from the English clergy, he hesitated not to employ laymen to occupy his pulpit during his evangelistic wanderings.

"All," says he, "was wonderfully over-ruled for good, and for
the furtherance of the gospel. A fresh awakening immediately
began. Congregations grew exceeding large; and necessity
reconciling me more and more to lay-preaching, I sent, at
the people's desire, for Messrs. Cennick, Harris, Seagrave,
Humphreys, and others, to assist." (M. S.)

Howell Harris was the first that Whitefield invited to supply his place in London. Hence the following, written soon after the Tabernacle was opened:--

"LONDON, _June 6, 1741_.

"MY BROTHER HOWELL HARRIS,--I do assure you that my heart is as
your heart. I am quite sick of _Christless consenters_. They
talk, and that is all. I, like you, am heartily despised by most
of them. I am resolved to preach against their lukewarmness and
worldly-mindedness. May God open my mouth wide when I come to
Wales! Outward enemies are now more quiet. Enemies within the
church--carnal professors and self-righteous Pharisees--most try
us. Let us not fear. Jesus Christ will give us the victory over
all.

"God mightily strengthens me. Our congregations are very large
and solemn. I never had greater freedom in preaching.

"You need not fear my believing any reports to your
disadvantage. I love you in the bowels of Jesus Christ. I was
not in the least offended when B---- H---- wrote me word that
'you thought in some things I did not act as a _little child_.'
The more open you are with me the better. If nature and pride
rise in my heart, I will go to Jesus, abhor myself, and pray for
my dear reprovers.

"I want to see you face to face. Satan does not love that
Christ's ministers should come together. I wish you could
come up immediately, and stay in London whilst I am in the
country; or, rather, go and preach in Bristol, Gloucester, and
Wiltshire, for about a fortnight, and then come up to London.
This, I believe, will be best. About that time, God willing, I
shall return from Essex; and then we can consult what is best to
be done for the cause of our dear Master. I am glad to hear that
Brother Rowlands is with you. Go on, in the strength of our dear
Lord, and you shall see Satan, like lightning, fall from heaven.
Times are not yet dark enough for the dawning of a thorough
reformation. At eventide, God speaks.

"Cease not to pray for yours eternally in Christ Jesus,

"GEORGE WHITEFIELD."

The "brother Rowlands," mentioned in this letter, was probably the Rev. Daniel Rowlands, Rector of Llangeitho, in the county of Cardigan. Rowlands was a remarkable man. He entered the ministry of the Establisment when unconverted, and was wont to descend from his pulpit to join in the athletic games of his parishioners. Through curiosity, he went to hear Griffith Jones; became a changed man; and began to preach, "like thunder," among the Welsh mountains. This was about the year 1737. Like Whitefield, he became an itinerant clergyman. Besides serving his own Church, for a salary of £10 a year, he made frequent detours through the mountainous regions of Wales and into England, preaching in the Methodist chapels, in the open air, and wherever he had a chance. Multitudes followed him from town to town; and his overwhelming eloquence often kindled an enthusiasm which it is difficult to describe. Whitefield writes: "The power of God, under the ministry of Mr. Rowlands, was enough to make a person's heart burn within him. At seven in the morning, have I seen perhaps ten thousand from different parts, in the midst of a sermon, crying, _Gogoniant!_ (Glory!) ready to leap for joy." Even when repeating the Church service, tears and convulsive sobs, followed by cries of _Gogoniant_, would break out, and run through the multitude like a contagious fever. As early as 1746, Rowlands had as many as three thousand communicants to whom he was accustomed to administer the sacrament.[445] At length, his irregular labours evoked warnings from his bishop, and, at last, his license was rescinded. "And now," says an able writer in the _London Quarterly_ _Review_ (1849), "from every part of Wales--from the mouth of the Wye up to the Dovey and the Conway--people flocked to hear the eloquence, and to receive the sacrament from the hands, of one who had acquired the dignity of a martyr."

[445] _Evangelical Magazine_, 1814, p. 418.

This is not the place for further details of the life of Daniel Rowlands. The reader will meet with him again; but, it may be added, that, in a preface to three of his sermons, published in 1778, (8vo. 98 pp.,) it is stated that, "for about forty years," he had been "the most laborious and successful minister in Wales;" and that he still travelled "through most of the counties yearly, to spread abroad the riches of God's grace." No places, though some were very large, were sufficient "to hold his auditories. Above a hundred preachers in Wales esteemed him as their father, most of whom met him four times a year to consult about the most likely means of promoting the Redeemer's interests; and he administered the Lord's supper to thousands monthly, some of the communicants coming a distance of upwards of fifty miles."

In the foregoing letter, to Howell Harris, Whitefield says, "Outward enemies are now more quiet." Compared with the opposition encountered in previous years, this was true; but the "outward enemies" were not entirely silent. One of the pamphlets published against him was the following: "A Comparison between the Doctrines taught by the Clergy of the Church of England, and the Doctrines taught by Whitefield, Seagrave, and others: in which the true notion of preaching Christ is stated; the doctrinal preaching of the Established Church is vindicated; and the Methodists proved guilty of not preaching the Gospel of Christ. To which is added, the Wisdom of fleeing from Persecution, exemplified in the Conduct of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield at Charleston, in South Carolina. London: 1741." (8vo. 28 pp.)

The _Gentleman's Magazine_, also, ministered to the gratification of its readers by scurrility like the following. After pointing out the doctrinal differences between Wesley and Whitefield, it continued:--

"It is plain that one of them has a lying spirit; and, since
their pretences are so much alike, we may conclude that it is
the same spirit in both. The controversy has grown to so great
a height, that Mr. Whitefield tells his auditors, that, if they
follow Mr. Wesley's doctrines, they will be _damned, eternally
damned_. On the other hand, Mr. Wesley tells his congregations,
that, if they follow Mr. Whitefield, it will bring all to
_distraction and confusion_ at last. Now, here is oracle against
oracle, revelation against revelation, and the God of truth in
one is declared to be a liar, by what He mentions in the other"
(p. 321).

The _Weekly Miscellany_, as usual, excelled all other publications by the grossness and violence of its personal abuse. In the numbers for March 14, 21, 28, there were long leading articles against Whitefield. Throughout the whole of April, there were similar articles against Wesley. On May 2, both Whitefield and Wesley were vigorously attacked, and the opinion was expressed, that, "they are privately set on by popish emissaries, to promote their interests, and to take advantage of our being engaged in a war abroad to raise disturbance at home; and, in the end, to bring in the Pretender upon us, and so to involve us in blood, ruin, and confusion, to the utter subversion of both church and state."

These mendacious onslaughts were continued every week up to June 27, when Mr. Hooper's infamous _Weekly Miscellany_ expired, and was succeeded by the _New Weekly Miscellany, or Westminster Journal_. As a specimen of its final foamings against Whitefield, the following is taken from its concluding number:--

"Observations on Mr. Whitefield's conduct in America.--Mr.
Hooker,--You have heard in all the public prints of the designed
insurrection of the blacks in New York, to murder all the
English on that continent,--how many houses they set on fire
with that intention,--how they armed themselves with guns and
knives for that purpose,--how near they were to execute their
design,--with what difficulty it was suppressed,--how many
persons have been executed upon that account,--and how many are
still in prison in order to take their trials for that bloody
conspiracy.

"What I submit to your consideration is, how far Mr. Whitefield
has been instrumental in bringing this about. He tells us, in
his Journals, how he has travelled above fourteen hundred miles
in America, particularly to Pennsylvania, New England, New York,
Rhode Island, and South Carolina: and that, in all these places,
he has taken care to inveigh against the clergy of the Church
of England; that he has frequently preached in the dissenting
meetings, and has been carressed by their teachers. Now the
consequence of all this is to raise feuds and animosities among
ourselves. Mr. Whitefield has contended very strenuously for
the conversion and baptizing of the negroes. The design is
good, if well managed; but it does not appear that he made
much application to the _planters_, their masters, who ought
principally to be consulted. For the education of the negroes,
he has purchased five thousand acres of land in Pennsylvania,
which he has taken care to settle, upon himself and his heirs
for ever, for that purpose."

By such perversions and insinuations, this malignant writer proceeds to assert, that, one result of Whitefield's preaching has been to make the negroes discontented and turbulent, so "that all the planters are forced to be doubly on their guard, and are not sure, when they go to bed, but that they shall have their throats cut before the next morning. The same preaching may be the overturning of several of the colonies. How far Mr. Whitefield is answerable before God, for the consequences of these proceedings, must be left to his own conscience to determine."

It is remarkable, that, in the very midst of these weekly libellous attacks, Whitefield placidly remarks, "Outward enemies are now more quiet." Their falsehoods and bitterness were now comparatively disregarded. He had become accustomed to violent abuse, and, in defiance of it, went on his way rejoicing. He had foes, but he also had friends. To John Cennick, at Kingswood, he wrote as follows:--

"LONDON, _June 8, 1741_.