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.
"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]
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!"
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.