Chapter XX: Part II (5)

Wesley was at his wits’ end; numbers came to him every day, once full of peace and love, but now plunged into doubts and fears. Just at this juncture, his brother printed his fine hymn, of twenty-three stanzas, entitled “The Means of Grace,” and circulated it “as an antidote to stillness.”[351] “Many,” said Charles, “insist that a part of their Christian calling is liberty _from_ obeying, not liberty _to_ obey. ‘The unjustified,’ say they, ‘are _to be still_; that is, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate, not to do good, not to endeavour, not to desire; for it is impossible to use means, without trusting in them.’ Their practice is agreeable to their principles. Lazy and proud themselves, bitter and censorious towards others, they trample upon the ordinances, and despise the commands of Christ.”

Wesley preached from the text, “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die;” and “demonstrated to the society, that the ordinances are both means of grace, and commands of God.”[352] It was also probably at this period that he preached his able and discriminating sermon on the same subject, and which is published in his collected works. He specifies as the chief _means of grace_:—1. Prayer. 2. Searching the Scriptures; which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon. 3. Receiving the Lord’s supper. He allows, however, that, if these _means_ are used as a kind of _commutation_ for the religion they were designed to serve, it is difficult to find words to express the enormous folly and wickedness of thus keeping Christianity out of the heart by the very means which were ordained to bring it in. All outward means whatever, if separate from the Spirit of God, cannot profit the man using them. They possess no intrinsic power; and God is equally able to work by any, or by none at all. Wesley then proceeds to prove from Scripture, that, “all who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in the means which He hath ordained; in using, not in laying them aside.” He likewise answers the following objections:—1. You cannot use these means without _trusting_ in them. 2. This is seeking salvation by works. 3. Christ is the only means of grace. 4. The Scripture directs us to _wait_ for salvation. 5. God has appointed another way—“Stand _still_, and see the salvation of God.” Finally, Wesley concludes thus:—“1. Retain a lively sense that God is above all means, and can convey His grace, either in or out of any of the means which He hath appointed. 2. Be deeply impressed with the fact, that there is no _power nor merit_ in any of the means. The _opus operatum_, the mere work done, profiteth nothing. Do it because God bids it. 3. In and through every outward thing, seek God alone, looking singly to the _power_ of His Spirit, and the _merits_ of His Son.” The whole sermon is intensely _Wesleyan_; full of keenly defined and powerfully enforced Scripture truths. Let the reader read it: it will benefit both his head and heart; and, perused in the light of these painful facts, it possesses historic interest of great importance. Such a sermon must have had a powerful influence at such a time, and bold was the man, who, in the midst of such disputers, had the fidelity to preach it.

It was a time of great anxiety. The work in London was in danger of being wrecked; and, more than that, some of Wesley’s oldest and most trusted friends, in this afflictive emergency, proved unfaithful.

The Rev. George Stonehouse, vicar of Islington, was converted in 1738, chiefly through the instrumentality of Charles Wesley, who, for a time, officiated as his curate. Many were the warm-hearted meetings, held, by the first Methodists, in the vicar’s house. His affection for the two Wesleys was great; and, in November 1738, when they were forsaken by all their friends, and well-nigh penniless, he offered to find them home and maintenance; and yet, six months afterwards, he yielded to his churchwardens, and allowed Charles Wesley to be excluded from his church. Imbibing Molther’s heresies, Stonehouse sold his living, married the only daughter of Sir John Crispe, joined the Moravians, and retired to Sherborne, in the west of England, where he fitted up a place capable of accommodating five hundred people, in which to hold Moravian meetings. In 1745, he had a lovefeast, the room being grandly illuminated with thirty-seven candles adorned with flowers; and all the sisters present being dressed in German fashion. Shortly after this, he abandoned the Brethren altogether,[353] and appears henceforth to have spent his days in inglorious _stillness_, enjoying the benefits of a _quiet_ religion and a harmless life.[354]

Wesley sought counsel of his friend Ingham, and received in reply the following letter, full of piety and mistiness, and now for the first time published.

“OSSET, _February 20, 1740_.

“MY DEAR BROTHER,—You ask, what are the marks of a person that
is justified, but not sealed?

“I cannot give you any certain, infallible marks. One to whom
the Lord has given the gift of discerning could tell; but
without that gift none else can know surely. However, it may be
said, that justified persons are meek, simple, and childlike;
they have doubts and fears; they are in a wilderness state;
and, in this state, they are to be kept _still and quiet_, to
search more deeply into their hearts, so that they may become
more and more humble. They are likewise to depend wholly upon
Christ; and to be kept from confusion; for, if they come into
confusion, they receive inconceivable damage.

“On the other hand, if they continue meek, gentle, still,—if
they search into their hearts, and depend on Christ, they will
find their hearts to be sweetly drawn after Him; they will
begin to loathe and abhor sin, and to hunger and thirst after
righteousness; they will get strength daily; Christ will begin
to manifest Himself by degrees; the darkness will vanish, and
the day-star will arise in their hearts. Thus they will go on
from strength to strength, till they become strong; and then
they will begin to see things clearly; and so, by degrees, they
will come to have the assurance of faith.

“You ask whether, in this intermediate state, they are
‘children of wrath,’ or ‘heirs of the promises’?

“Without doubt, they are children of God, and in a state
of salvation. A child may be heir to an estate, before it
can speak, or know what an estate is; so we may be heirs of
heaven before we know it, or are made sure of it. However, the
assurance of faith is to be sought after. It may be attained;
and it will be, by all who go forward.

“We must first be deeply humble and poor in spirit. We must
have a fixed and abiding sense of our own weakness and
unworthiness, corruption, sin, and misery. This it is to be a
_poor sinner_.

“If I were with you, I would explain things more largely; but I
am a novice; I am but a beginner; a babe in Christ. If you go
amongst the Brethren, they are good guides; but, after all, we
must be taught of God, and have experience in our own hearts.
May the Spirit of truth lead us into all truth!

“I am your poor, unworthy brother,

“B. INGHAM.

“Rev. John Wesley, at Mr. Bray’s, Brazier,
in Little Britain, London.”

This is a curious letter, and will help to cast light on some of the expressions which Wesley himself had used concerning his own experience. As yet, the Methodists had much to learn. Meanwhile, Ingham and Howel Harris came to London. Charles Wesley says, the latter, in his preaching, proved himself a son of thunder and of consolation. Cavilling, however, followed. Honest, plain, undesigning James Hutton “was all tergiversation, and turned into a subtle, close, ambiguous Loyola;” while Richard Bell, watch-case maker, seemed to think, that he and Molther and another were all the church that Christ had in England. A man of the name of Ridley rendered himself famous by saying, “You may as well go to hell for praying as for thieving;” and John Browne asserted, “If we read, the devil reads with us; if we pray, he prays with us; if we go to church or sacrament, he goes with us.”[355]

Ingham also, as well as Harris, “honestly withstood the deluded Brethren; contradicted their favourite errors; and constrained them to be _still_.” In the Fetter Lane society, he bore a noble testimony for the ordinances of God; but the answer was, “You are blind, and speak of the things you know not.” Wesley preached a series of sermons—1. On the delusion, that “weak faith is no faith.” 2. On the bold affirmation, that there is but one commandment in the New Testament, namely, “to believe.” 3. On the point, that Christians are subject to the ordinances of Christ. 4. On the fact, that a man may be justified without being entirely sanctified. These discourses were followed by five others, on reading the Scriptures, prayer, the Lord’s supper, and good works.

The result was increased commotion. Some said, “We believers are no more bound to obey, than the subjects of the king of England are bound to obey the laws of the king of France.” Bell declared that, for a man not born of God to read the Scriptures, pray, or come to the Lord’s table, was deadly poison. And Wesley, after a short debate, was prohibited preaching at Fetter Lane.

This brought matters to a crisis. Wesley had done all he could to correct the growing errors; but Molther was a greater favourite than Wesley; and the man, who had founded Fetter Lane society, was now, by Moravian votes, commanded to go about his business, and to leave the pulpit to his German superiors.

The thing had become an intolerable evil; and, at all hazards, the heresies must be checked. Substantially they may be reduced to two:—1. That there are no degrees of faith; or, in other words, that there is no justifying faith where there is any doubt or fear; or, in other words (for we feel it difficult to gripe such an abortive dogma), no man believes and is justified, unless, in the full sense of the expression, he is sanctified, and is possessed of a clean heart. 2. That to search the Scriptures, to pray, or to communicate, before we have faith, is to seek salvation by works; and such works must be laid aside before faith can be received.

This is not the place to confute such errors. Suffice it to say, that, before half-a-dozen years had passed, the London Moravians dropped the very doctrines, for opposing which Wesley was expelled from preaching in Fetter Lane. Their _stillness_ was declared to mean, that “man cannot attain to salvation by his own wisdom, strength, righteousness, goodness, merits, or works. When he applies for it, he must cast away all dependence upon everything of his own, and, trusting only to the mercy of God, through the merits of Christ, he must thus _quietly wait_ for God’s salvation.”[356] This is a doctrine to which Wesley raised no objection; but it was not the doctrine of Molther, Browne, Bell, Bray, and Bowers, in 1740. Then as to the doctrine concerning degrees in faith, it is right to add, that such a dogma was never taught by the general authorities of the Moravian _church_; but it was taught by Spangenberg, Molther, Stonehouse, and other Moravians in London,[357] the result being the disastrous confusion to which we are now adverting. Indeed, it is a notable fact, that, only two months after the Fetter Lane disruption, Wesley himself clears the Moravian _church_ from the aspersion, that it held such heresies. They were the spawn of foolish fanatics, who regarded themselves Moravians, but were hardly worthy of the name. On September 29, 1740, Wesley having stated what the errors were, observes:—“In flat opposition to this, I assert: 1. That a man may have a degree of justifying faith, before he is wholly freed from all doubt and fear; and before he has, in the full, proper sense, a new, a clean heart. 2. That a man may use the ordinances of God, the Lord’s supper in particular, before he has such a faith as excludes all doubt and fear, and implies a new, a clean heart. 3. I further assert, that I learned this, not only from the English, but also from the Moravian church; and I hereby openly and earnestly call upon that church, and upon Count Zinzendorf in particular, to correct me, and explain themselves, if I have misunderstood or misrepresented them.” Wesley thus puts the blame on the right shoulders. It was not the Moravian _church_, but a few of its foolish ministers and members, at Fetter Lane, that circulated these heresies.

What was the result? If the Fetter Lane society did not exclude Wesley from their membership, they, on the 16th of July, expelled him from their pulpit; and hence, four days afterwards, he went with Mr. Seward to their lovefeast, and, at its conclusion, read a paper stating the errors into which they had fallen, and concluding thus:—“I believe these assertions to be flatly contrary to the word of God. I have warned you hereof again and again, and besought you to turn back to the ‘law and the testimony.’ I have borne with you long, hoping you would turn. But, as I find you more and more confirmed in the error of your ways, nothing now remains, but that I should give you up to God. You that are of the same judgment, follow me.”

Without saying more, he then silently withdrew, eighteen or nineteen of the society following him.

Two days afterwards, he received a letter from one of the Brethren in Germany, advising him and his brother to deliver up the “instruction of poor souls” to the Moravians; “for you,” adds the writer, “only instruct them in such errors, that they will be damned at last. St. Peter justly describes you, who ‘have eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin;’ and take upon you to guide unstable souls, and lead them in the way of damnation.”

The day following, the seceding society, numbering about twenty-five men and fifty women, met for the first time, at the Foundery, instead of at Fetter Lane; and so the Methodist society was founded on July 23, 1740.

A fortnight later, Wesley, “a presbyter of the church of God in England,” wrote a long letter “to the church of God at Herrnhuth,” in which he states, that, though some of the Moravians had pronounced him “a child of the devil and a servant of corruption,” yet, he was now taking the liberty of speaking freely and plainly concerning things in the Moravian church which he deemed unscriptural. He enumerates the heresies which have been so often mentioned. He tells them, that a Moravian preacher, in his public expounding, said: “As many go to hell by praying as by thieving.” Another had said, “I knew a man who received a great gift while leaning over the back of a chair; but kneeling down to give God thanks, he lost it immediately through doing so.” He charges the Moravians with exalting themselves and despising others, and declares, that he scarce ever heard a Moravian owning his church or himself to be wrong in anything. They spoke of their church as if it were infallible, and some of them set it up as the judge of all the earth, of all persons and of all doctrines, and maintained that there were no true Christians out of it. Like the modern Mystics, they mixed much of man’s wisdom with the wisdom of God, and philosophised on almost every part of the plain religion of the Bible. They talked much against mixing nature with grace, and against mimicking the power of the Holy Ghost. They cautioned the brethren against animal joy, against natural love of one another, and against selfish love of God. “My brethren,” concludes Wesley, “whether ye will hear, or whether ye will forbear, I have now delivered my own soul. And this I have chosen to do in an artless manner, that if anything should come home to your hearts, the effect might evidently flow, not from the wisdom of man, but from the power of God.”

On September 1, Charles Wesley wrote to Whitefield in America, as follows:—

“The great work goes forward, maugre all the opposition of
earth and hell. The most violent opposers of all are our
own brethren of Fetter Lane, that were. We have gathered up
between twenty and thirty from the wreck, and transplanted
them to the Foundery. The remnant has taken root downward,
and borne fruit upwards. A little one is become a thousand.
They grow in grace, particularly in humility, and in the
knowledge of our Lord Jesus. Innumerable have been the devices
to scatter this little flock. The roaring lion is turned a
_still_ lion, and makes havoc of the church by means of our
spiritual brethren. They are indefatigable in bringing us off
from our ‘carnal ordinances,’ and speak with such wisdom from
beneath, that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very
elect. The Quakers, they say, are exactly right; and, indeed,
the principles of the one naturally lead to the other. For
instance, take our poor friend Morgan. One week he and his wife
were at J. Bray’s, under the teaching of the _still_ brethren.
Soon after, he turned Quaker, and is now a celebrated preacher
among them. All these things shall be for the furtherance of
the gospel.”[358]

Whitefield’s reply to this is unknown; but on November 24 he wrote as follows to James Hutton:—

“I have lately conversed closely with Peter Bohler. Alas!
we differ widely in many respects; therefore, to avoid
disputations and jealousies on both sides, it is best to
carry on the work of God apart. The divisions among the
Brethren sometimes grieve, but do not surprise me. How can it
be otherwise, when teachers do not think and speak the same
things? God grant we may keep up a cordial, undissembled love
towards each other, notwithstanding our different opinions. O,
how I long for heaven! Surely, there will be no divisions, no
strife there, except who shall sing with most affection to the
Lamb that sitteth upon the throne. Dear James, there I hope to
meet thee.”[359]

Here, for the present, we leave the London Moravians. We say, for the present, for unfortunately we shall have to recur to them.

The year 1740 was a year of troubles. A month previous to the Fetter Lane secession, a man of the name of Acourt bitterly complained, that he had been refused admission to the society-meeting, by order of Charles Wesley, because he differed from the Wesleys in opinion. “What opinion do you mean?” asked Wesley. He answered, “That of election. I hold, a certain number is elected from eternity; and these must and shall be saved; and the rest of mankind must and shall be damned; and many of your society hold the same.” Here we have another bone of contention.

Up to the time of Whitefield’s visit to America, he and the Wesleys had laboured in union and harmony, without entering into the discussion of particular opinions; but now, across the Atlantic, Whitefield became acquainted with a number of godly Calvinistic ministers, who recommended to him the writings of the puritan divines, which he read with great avidity, and, as a consequence, soon embraced their sentiments. Secrecy was no part of Whitefield’s mental or moral nature. With the utmost frankness, he wrote to Wesley, informing him of his new opinions.[360]

Wesley was the son of parents who held the doctrines of election and reprobation in abhorrence. While at college, he had thoroughly sifted the subject for himself, and, in letters to his mother, expressed his views in the strongest language. Whitefield, on the contrary, was no theologian. His heart was one of the largest that ever throbbed in human bosom; but his logical faculties were small. When he read the Calvinistic theory, he was not conversant with the arguments against it; and hence, with his characteristic impulsiveness, he adopted a creed, which far more powerful minds than his had not been able to defend. Southey remarks, with great truthfulness, that, “at the commencement of his career, Wesley was of a pugnacious spirit, the effect of his sincerity, his ardour, and his confidence.” No wonder then that these two devoted friends were soon at variance.

One of Whitefield’s letters, dated June 25, 1739, has been already given. The following is another, hitherto unpublished, written a week later:—

“GLOUCESTER, _July 2, 1739_.

“HONOURED SIR,—I confess my spirit has been of late sharpened
on account of some of your proceedings; my heart has been quite
broken within me. I have been grieved from my soul, knowing
what a dilemma I am reduced to. How shall I tell the Dissenters
I do not approve of their doctrines, without wronging my
own soul? How shall I tell them I do, without contradicting
my honoured friend, whom I desire to love as my own soul?
Lord, for Thy infinite mercy’s sake, direct me so to act, as
neither to injure myself nor my friend! Is it true, honoured
sir, that brother Stock is excluded the society because he
holds predestination? If so, is it right? Would Jesus Christ
have done so? Is this to act with a catholic spirit? Is it
true, honoured sir, that the house at Kingswood is intended
hereafter for the brethren to dwell in, as at Herrnhuth? Is
this answering the primitive design of that building? Did the
Moravians live together till they were obliged by persecution?
Does the scheme at Islington succeed? As for brother Cennick’s
expounding, I know not what to say. Brother Watkin I think no
way qualified for any such thing.

“Dear, honoured sir, if you have any regard for the peace of
the church, keep in your sermon on predestination. But you have
cast a lot. Oh! my heart, in the midst of my body, is like
melted wax. The Lord direct us all! Honoured sir, indeed, I
desire you all the success you can wish for. May you increase,
though I decrease! I would willingly wash your feet. God is
with us mightily. I have just now written to the bishop. Oh,
wrestle, wrestle, honoured sir, in prayer, that not the least
alienation of affection may be between you, honoured sir, and
your obedient son and servant in Christ,

“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.

“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, at Mrs. Grevil’s,
a grocer, in Wine Street, Bristol.”

This was within three months from the time when Wesley, at Whitefield’s request, began his career of out-door preaching at Bristol. Two months later, Whitefield was, a second time, on his way to America. Wesley wrote to him, opposing the doctrine of election, and also enforcing the doctrine, that, though Christians can never be freed from “those numberless weaknesses and follies, sometimes improperly termed sins of infirmity,” yet it is the privilege of all to be saved “entirely from sin in its proper sense, and from committing it.”[361]

In reply, Whitefield wrote as follows:—

“SAVANNAH, _March 26, 1740_.

“MY HONOURED FRIEND AND BROTHER,—For once hearken to a
child, who is willing to wash your feet. I beseech you, by
the mercies of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, if you would
have my love confirmed towards you, write no more to me
about misrepresentations wherein we differ. To the best of
my knowledge, at present, no sin has _dominion_ over me; yet
I feel the strugglings of indwelling sin day by day. I can,
therefore, by no means, come into your interpretation of the
passage mentioned in your letter, and as explained in your
preface to Mr. Halyburton. If possible, I am ten thousand times
more convinced of the doctrine of _election_, and the _final_
perseverance of those that are truly in Christ, than when I
saw you last. You think otherwise. Why then should we dispute,
when there is no probability of convincing? Will it not, in
the end, destroy brotherly love, and insensibly take from us
that cordial union and sweetness of soul, which I pray God may
always subsist between us? How glad would the enemies of the
Lord be to see us divided! How many would rejoice, should I
join and make a party against you! How would the cause of our
common Master suffer by our raising disputes about particular
points of doctrines! _Honoured sir_, let us offer salvation
freely to all by the blood of Jesus; and whatever light God has
communicated to us, let us freely communicate to others. I have
lately read the life of Luther, and think it in nowise to his
honour, that the last part of his life was so much taken up in
disputing with Zuinglius and others, who, in all probability,
equally loved the Lord Jesus, notwithstanding they might differ
from him in other points. Let this, dear sir, be a caution to
us. I hope it will to me; for, provoke me to it as much as you
please, I intend not to enter the lists of controversy with
you on the points wherein we differ. Only, I pray to God, that
the more you _judge me_, the more I may _love you_, and learn
to desire no one’s approbation, but that of my Lord and Master
Jesus Christ.”[362]

Two months after this, Whitefield wrote again:—

“CAPE LOPEN, _May 24, 1740_.

“HONOURED SIR,—I cannot entertain prejudices against your
conduct and principles any longer, without informing you. The
more I examine the writings of the most experienced men, and
the experiences of the most established Christians, the more
I differ from your notion about not committing sin, and your
denying the doctrines of election and final perseverance of
the saints. I dread coming to England, unless you are resolved
to oppose these truths with less warmth than when I was there
last. I dread your coming over to America, because the work of
God is carried on here (and that in a most glorious manner),
by doctrines quite opposite to those you hold. Here are
thousands of God’s children, who will not be persuaded out of
the privileges purchased for them by the blood of Jesus. There
are many worthy experienced ministers, who would oppose your
principles to the utmost. God direct me what to do! Sometimes,
I think it best to stay here, where we all think and speak
the same thing. The work goes on without divisions, and with
more success, because all employed in it are of one mind. I
write not this, honoured sir, from heat of spirit, but out of
love. At present, I think you are entirely inconsistent with
yourself, and, therefore, do not blame me, if I do not approve
all you say. God Himself teaches my friends the doctrine of
election. Sister H—— hath lately been convinced of it; and,
if I mistake not, dear and honoured Mr. Wesley hereafter will
be convinced also. Perhaps I may never see you again, till we
meet in judgment; then, if not before, you will know, that
sovereign, distinguishing, irresistible grace brought you
to heaven. Then will you know, that God loved you with an
everlasting love; and therefore with lovingkindness did He draw
you. Honoured sir, farewell!”[363]

A fortnight later, on the 7th of June, Whitefield, writing to James Hutton, says:—

“For Christ’s sake, desire dear brother Wesley to avoid
disputing with me. I think I had rather die, than see a
division between us; and yet how can we walk together, if we
oppose each other?”[364]

He wrote again to Wesley as follows:—

“SAVANNAH, _June 25, 1740_.

“MY HONOURED FRIEND AND BROTHER,—For Christ’s sake, if
possible, never speak against election in your sermons. No
one can say, that I ever mentioned it in public discourses,
whatever my private sentiments may be. For Christ’s sake, let
us not be divided amongst ourselves. Nothing will so much
prevent a division as your being silent on this head. I am glad
to hear, that you speak up for an attendance on the means of
grace, and do not encourage persons who run, I am persuaded,
before they are called. The work of God will suffer by such
imprudence.”[365]

On the 16th of July, Howel Harris wrote to Wesley:—

“DEAR BROTHER JOHN,—Reports are circulated that you hold _no
faith_ without a full and constant assurance, and, that there
is no state of salvation without being wholly set at liberty
in the fullest sense of perfection. It is also said, that I
am carried away by the same stream, and, that many of the
little ones are afraid to come near me. Letters have likewise
informed me, that, the night you left London, you turned a
brother out of the society, and charged all to beware of him,
purely because he held the doctrine of election. My dear
brother, do not act in the stiff, uncharitable spirit which
you condemn in others. If you exclude him from the society and
from the fraternity of the Methodists, for such a cause, you
must exclude brother Whitefield, brother Seward, and myself. I
hope I shall contend with my last breath and blood, that it is
owing to special, distinguishing, and irresistible grace, that
those that are saved are saved. O that you would not touch on
this subject till God enlighten you! My dear brother, being a
public person, you grieve God’s people by your opposition to
electing love; and many poor souls believe your doctrine simply
because you hold it. All this arises from the prejudices of
your education, your books, your companions, and the remains of
your carnal reason. The more I write, the more I love you. I
am sure you are one of God’s elect, and, that you act honestly
according to the light you have.”[366]

On the 9th of August, Wesley addressed Whitefield as follows:—

“MY DEAR BROTHER,—I thank you for yours of May the 24th. The
case is quite plain. There are bigots both for predestination
and against it. God is sending a message to those on either
side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of
their own opinion. Therefore, for a time, you are suffered to
be of one opinion, and I of another. But when His time is come,
God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind.
Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we
count our lives dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our
course with joy. I am, my dearest brother, ever yours,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[367]

In the same month, Whitefield wrote to Wesley:—

“CHARLESTOWN, _August 25, 1740_.

“MY DEAR AND HONOURED SIR,—Give me leave, with all humility,
to exhort you not to be strenuous in opposing the doctrines of
election and final perseverance; when, by your own confession,
you have not the witness of the Spirit within yourself, and
consequently are not a proper judge. I remember brother E——
told me one day, that he was convinced of the perseverance of
saints. I told him, you were not. He replied, but ‘he will be
convinced when he has got the Spirit himself.’ Perhaps the
doctrines of election and of final perseverance have been
abused; but, notwithstanding, they are children’s bread, and
ought not to be withheld from them, supposing they are always
mentioned with proper cautions against the abuse of them. I
write not this to enter into disputation. I cannot bear the
thought of opposing you; but how can I avoid it, if you go
about, as your brother Charles once said, to drive John Calvin
out of Bristol. Alas! I never read anything that Calvin wrote.
My doctrines I had from Christ and His apostles. I was taught
them of God; and as God was pleased to send me out first, and
to enlighten me first, so, I think, He still continues to do
it. I find, there is a disputing among you about election and
perfection. I pray God to put a stop to it; for what good end
will it answer? I wish I knew your principles fully. If you
were to write oftener, and more frankly, it might have a better
effect than silence and reserve.”[368]

A month later he wrote again as follows:—

“BOSTON, _September 25, 1740_.

“HONOURED SIR,—I am sorry to hear, by many letters, that you
seem to own a _sinless perfection_ in this life attainable. I
think I cannot answer you better, than a venerable minister
in these parts answered a Quaker: ‘Bring me a man that hath
really arrived to this, and I will pay his expenses, let him
come from where he will.’ I know not what you may think, but
I do not expect to say indwelling sin is destroyed in me,
till I bow my head and give up the ghost. There must be some
Amalekites left in the Israelites’ land to keep his soul in
action, to keep him humble, and to drive him continually to
Jesus Christ for pardon. I know many abuse this doctrine, and
perhaps wilfully indulge sin, or do not aspire after holiness,
because no man is perfect in this life. But what of that?
Must I assert, therefore, doctrines contrary to the gospel?
God forbid! Besides, dear sir, what a fond conceit is it to
cry up _perfection_, and yet cry down the doctrine of _final
perseverance_. But this, and many other absurdities, you will
run into, because you will not own _election_. And you will not
own _election_, because you cannot own it without believing the
doctrine of _reprobation_. What then is there in _reprobation_
so horrid? I see no blasphemy in holding that doctrine, if
rightly explained. If God might have passed by all, He may
pass by some. Judge whether it is not a greater blasphemy to
say, ‘Christ died for souls now in hell.’ Surely, dear sir,
you do not believe there will be a general gaol _delivery_ of
damned souls hereafter. O that you would study the covenant of
grace! But I have done. If you think so meanly of Bunyan and
the puritan writers, I do not wonder that you think me wrong. I
find your sermon has had its expected success. It has set the
nation a disputing. You will have enough to do now to answer
pamphlets. Two I have already seen. O that you would be more
cautious in casting lots! O that you would not be too rash and
precipitant! If you go on thus, honoured sir, how can I concur
with you? It is impossible. I must speak what I know. About
spring you may expect to see,

“Ever, ever yours in Christ,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[369]

Wesley’s sermon was already published. Let us look at it. It was preached at Bristol; and, in some respects, was the most important sermon that he ever issued. It led, as we shall shortly see, to the division which Whitefield so devoutly deprecates; and also to the organisation of Lady Huntingdon’s Connexion, and to the founding of the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales; and, finally, culminated in the fierce controversy of 1770, and the publication of Fletcher’s unequalled “Checks;” which so effectually silenced the Calvinian heresy, that its voice has scarce been heard from that time to this. Viewed in such a light, the difference between Wesley and Whitefield was really one of the greatest events in the history of Wesley and even of the religion of the age.

Wesley’s sermon, entitled “Free Grace,” was founded upon Romans viii. 32, and was printed as a 12mo pamphlet in twenty-four pages. Annexed to it was Charles Wesley’s remarkable “Hymn on Universal Redemption,” consisting of thirty-six stanzas of four lines each.[370] It is also a noteworthy fact, that, notwithstanding its importance, it was never included by Wesley in any collected edition of his sermons; and, in his own edition of his works, it is placed among his controversial writings. There is likewise a brief address to the reader, as follows:—

“Nothing but the strongest conviction, not only that what is
here advanced is ‘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!

“Should any believe it his duty to reply hereto, I have only
one request to make,—let whatsoever you do be done in charity,
in love, and in the spirit of meekness. Let your very disputing
show, that you have ‘put on, as the elect of God, bowels of
mercies, gentleness, longsuffering,’ that even according to
this time it may be said, ‘See how these Christians love one
another.’”

Having laid down the principle that God’s “free grace is free in all, and free for all,” Wesley proceeds, with great acuteness, to define the doctrine of predestination; namely, “Free grace in all is not free for all, but only for those whom God hath ordained to life. The greater part of mankind God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this He absolutely decreed, because it was His sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives, He gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their damnation.”

Having effectually answered the objections of well meaning people, who, startled at a doctrine so spectral, say, “This is not the predestination which I hold, I hold only the election of grace,” he sums up as follows:—

“Though you use softer words than some, you mean the selfsame
thing; and God’s decree concerning the election of grace,
according to your account of it, amounts to neither more nor
less than what others call, ‘God’s decree of reprobation.’
Call it therefore 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.”

This presents the doctrine in all its naked, hideous deformity; but it is fair, and no Calvinian dexterity can make it otherwise.

Wesley then proceeds to state the objections to such a doctrine:—

1. It renders all preaching vain; for preaching is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with it or without it, will infallibly be saved. And it is useless to them that are not elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned.

2. It directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after holiness, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell.

3. It directly tends to destroy several particular branches of holiness; for it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ, and leads a man to treat with contempt, or coldness, those whom he supposes to be outcasts from God.

4. It tends to destroy the comfort of religion.

5. It directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works; for what avails it to relieve the wants of those who are just dropping into eternal fire!

6. It has a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation; for it makes it unnecessary.

7. It makes the Christian revelation contradict itself; for it is grounded on such an interpretation of some texts as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenour of Scripture.

8. It is full of blasphemy; for it represents our blessed Lord as a hypocrite and dissembler, in saying one thing and meaning another,—in pretending a love which He had not; it also represents the most holy God as more false, more cruel, and more unjust than the devil; for, in point of fact, it says that God has condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire for continuing in sin, which, for want of the grace He gives them not, they are unable to avoid.

Wesley sums up the whole thus:—

“This is the blasphemy clearly contained in _the horrible
decree_ of predestination. And here I fix my foot. On this
I join issue with every asserter of it. You represent God
as worse than the devil. But you say, you will prove it by
Scripture. Hold! what will you prove by Scripture? that God is
worse than the devil? It cannot be. Whatever that Scripture
proves, it never can prove this; whatever its true meaning be,
this cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, ‘What is its true
meaning then?’ If I say, ‘I know not,’ you have gained nothing;
for there are many scriptures, the true sense whereof neither
you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But
this I know, better it were to say it had no sense at all, than
to say it had such a sense as this.”

In Whitefield’s letter, already given, and dated September 25, 1740, he states that already he had seen two pamphlets published against Wesley’s sermon. One of these probably was the following: “Free Grace Indeed! A Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, relating to his sermon against absolute election, published under the title of Free Grace. London: 1740. Price sixpence.”

In a subsequent advertisement, Wesley writes, “Whereas a pamphlet, entitled, ‘Free Grace Indeed!’ has been published against this sermon, this is to inform the publisher that I cannot answer his tract till he appears to be more in earnest; for I dare not speak of ‘the deep things of God’ in the spirit of a prizefighter or a stageplayer.”

With great respect for Wesley, we feel bound to say, that this is not worthy of him. The pamphlet referred to is before us, and is written with great ability, earnestness, and good temper. Wesley was not bound to answer it; but he had no right thus to brand it.

About the same time, another pamphlet was published, on the other side, entitled, “The Controversy concerning Free-will and Predestination; in a Letter to a Friend. Recommended to Mr. Whitefield and his followers.” 8vo, pages 36. As the controversy continued, it waxed warmer. Here Whitefield is spoken of as a man of “heated imagination, and full of himself”; “very hot, very self-sufficient, and impatient of contradiction”; “dogmatical and dictatorial” in his way of speaking, and wont to finish his oracular deliverances “with his assuming air, _Dixi_.”

The pamphlet concludes with a verse which contains the pith of the whole production:—

“Why is this _wrangling world_ thus _tossed_ and _torn_?
_Free-grace_, Free-will, are both together born;
If God’s free grace rule _in_, and _over_ me,
His will is mine, and so my will is _free_.”

In the month of October, Howel Harris took up the question, and wrote to Wesley, telling him that preaching electing love brings glory to God, and benefit and consolation to the soul. He adds: “Oh, when will the time come when we shall all agree? Till then, may the Lord enable us to bear with one another! We must, before we can be united, be truly simple, made really humble and open to conviction, willing to give up any expression that is not scriptural, dead to our names and characters, and sweetly inclined towards each other. I hope we have, in some measure, drank of the same Spirit, that we fight the same enemies, and are under the same crown and kingdom. We travel the same narrow road, and love the same Jesus. We are soon to be before the same throne, and employed in the same work of praise to all eternity. While, then, we are on the road, and meet with so many enemies, let us love one another. And if we really carry on the same cause, let us not weaken each other’s hands.”[371]

In another letter, addressed to John Cennick, and dated October 27, Harris writes in less temperate language:—

“DEAR BROTHER,—Brother Seward tells me of his dividing with
brother Charles Wesley. He seems clear in his conviction,
that God would have him do so. I have been long waiting to
see if brother John and Charles should receive further light,
or be silent and not oppose election and perseverance; but,
finding no hope of this, I begin to be staggered how to act
towards them. I plainly see that we preach two gospels. My dear
brother, deal faithfully with brother John and Charles. If you
like, you may read this letter to them. We are free in Wales
from the hellish infection; but some are tainted when they come
to Bristol.”[372]

In November, Whitefield wrote to Wesley as follows:—

“PHILADELPHIA, _November 9, 1740_.

“DEAR AND HONOURED SIR,—I received yours, dated March 11, this
afternoon. Oh that we were of one mind! for I am persuaded
you greatly err. You have set a mark you will never arrive at,
till you come to glory. O dear sir, many of God’s children are
grieved at your principles. Oh that God may give you a sight of
His free, sovereign, and electing love! But no more of this.
Why will you compel me to write thus? Why will you dispute? I
am willing to go with you to prison, and to death; but I am not
willing to oppose you. Dear, dear sir, study the covenant of
grace, that you may be consistent with yourself. Oh build up,
but do not lead into error, the souls once committed to the
charge of your affectionate, unworthy brother and servant, in
the loving Jesus,

“G. WHITEFIELD.”[373]

A fortnight later he wrote again to Wesley:—

“BOHEMIA, MARYLAND, _November 24, 1740_.

“DEAR AND HONOURED SIR,—Last night brother G—— brought me
your two kind letters. Oh that there may be harmony, and very
intimate union between us! Yet, it cannot be, since you hold
_universal redemption_. The devil rages in London. He begins
now to triumph indeed. The children of God are disunited
among themselves. My dear brother, for Christ’s sake, avoid
all disputation. Do not oblige me to preach against you; I
had rather die. Be gentle towards the——. They will get great
advantage over you, if they discover any irregular warmth in
your temper. I cannot for my soul unite with the _Moravian
Brethren_. Honoured sir, adieu!

“Yours eternally in Christ Jesus,
“GEORGE WHITEFIELD.”[374]

Just at this time, Wesley was expounding Romans ix. at Bristol, where Calvinism was becoming rampant in the society. Charles Wesley writes: “Anne Ayling and Anne Davis could not refrain from railing. John Cennick never offered to stop them. Alas, we have set the wolf to keep the sheep! God gave me great moderation toward him, who, for many months, has been undermining our doctrine and authority.”[375]

The difference was continued by Whitefield writing his “Letter to the Reverend Mr. John Wesley; in answer to his sermon, entitled ‘Free Grace’;” with the motto attached, “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

The “Letter” is dated, “Bethesda, in Georgia, December 24, 1740.” After reiterating his reluctance to write against Wesley, he proceeds to state, that he now did so at the request of a great number of persons, who had been benefited by his ministry. He accuses Wesley of having propagated the doctrine of universal redemption, both in public and private, by preaching and printing, ever since before his last departure for America. He says that Wesley, while at Bristol, received a letter, charging him with not preaching the gospel, because he did not preach election. Upon this, he drew a lot; the answer was, “_preach and print_;” and, accordingly, he preached and printed against election. At Whitefield’s desire, he deferred publishing the sermon until after Whitefield started for America, when he sent it out. Whitefield asserts, that, if any one wished to prove the doctrine of election and of final perseverance, he could hardly wish for a text more fit for his purpose than that (Romans viii. 32) which Wesley had chosen to disprove it. He charges him with giving an “equivocal definition of the word _grace_,” and a “false definition of the word _free_;” and adds: “I frankly acknowledge, I believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give 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.” In reply to Wesley, he argues that, because preachers know not who are elect, and who reprobate, they are bound to preach promiscuously to all; that holiness is made a mark of election by all who preach it; that the seventeenth article of the English Church asserts, that the doctrine of “predestination and election in Christ is full of unspeakable comfort to godly persons;” that dooming millions to everlasting burnings is not an act of injustice, because God, for the sin of Adam, might justly have thus doomed all; that God’s absolute purpose of saving His chosen does not preclude the necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through which He has determined the decree shall take effect; that the doctrine of election does not make the Bible contradict itself, for though it asserts, that “the Lord is loving to every man, and His mercy is over all His works,” the reference is to His _general_, not His _saving_ mercy; that it is unjust to charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy; and that, on the other hand, the doctrine of universal redemption, as set forth by Wesley, “is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of His blood;” and Whitefield challenges Wesley to make good the assertion, “that Christ died for them that perish,” without holding, as Peter Bohler had lately confessed in a letter, “that all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell;” for “how can all be universally redeemed, if all are not finally saved?”

In conclusion, he writes:—

“Dear sir, for Jesus Christ’s sake, consider how you dishonour
God by denying election. You plainly make man’s salvation
depend not on God’s _free grace_, but on man’s _free will_.
Dear, dear sir, 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 will 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.”[376]

About three weeks after the date of this letter, Whitefield set sail for England, bringing his manuscript with him. On his arrival in London, in March, 1741, he submitted it to Charles Wesley, who returned it to the author, endorsed with the words: “Put up again thy sword into its place.” The pamphlet, however, was published; and Whitefield gave Wesley notice, that he was resolved publicly to preach against him and his brother wherever he went. Wesley complained to Whitefield—1. That it was imprudent to publish his letter, because it was only putting weapons into the hands of those who hated them. 2. That, if he really was constrained to bear his testimony on the subject, he might have done it by issuing a treatise without ever calling Wesley’s name in question. 3. That what he had published was a mere burlesque upon an answer. 4. That he had said enough, however, of what was wholly foreign to the question, to make an open, and probably irreparable, breach between them. Wesley added:—