One would have thought that John Wesley, at any rate, considering his expertness in logic, would have been aware of the utter hopelessness of disputing upon such a point; but the key to that great man's conduct in this, as in other matters, is to be found in the intensely practical character of his mind, especially in matters of religion. He felt the practical danger of Antinomianism, and, feeling this, he did not, perhaps, quite do justice to all that might be said on the other side. In point of fact, however, he shrank, especially in his later years, from the controversy more than others did, who were far less competent to manage it.

The dispute did not wholly turn upon the question of predestination, but included the five points of the Quinquarticular controversy and other collateral issues. Are a certain number predestined to eternal life? Are others destined to eternal condemnation? (Perhaps a logical result of the former question being answered in the affirmative, but not admitted-at any rate, not dwelt upon-by many of the Calvinists.) Have all a day of grace? Is justification a result of sanctification, or does it precede it, or are the two identical? Is Christ's righteousness imputed or imparted to the believer, or both? Is it possible to attain to a state of sinless perfection on earth? Is God's grace indefectible, so that one who is once a believer must always be a believer, and, no matter what sins of infirmity he may fall into, his final perseverance certain? Are there two justifications, the one by faith at the time of conversion, the second by works-that is, by the evidence, not the merit, of works-at the Day of Judgment? Are we to work for life or from life? Has the expression 'a finished salvation' any other meaning than that of a finished redemption'? Is the liberty of the will consistent with the operations of Divine grace? Did Christ die for the whole world, or practically only for the elect?

These are some, and only some, of the profound questions which were agitated in this unhappy Calvinistic controversy; for, look at it from what point of view one will, it was a most unhappy one. It is an unhappy thing to see men leaving work which they did admirably well for work which they did very badly. It is an unhappy thing to see good men railing at one another and forgetting the plainest rules

of Christian charity and Christian courtesy. All these things one may see in the Calvinistic controversy. The questions. at issue are those which require the profoundest theological and philosophical training; and those who discussed. them were certainly neither profound theologians nor philosophers.'

In other controversies which agitated the eighteenth century there is some compensation for the unkindly feelings and unchristian and extravagant language generated by the heat of dispute in the thought that if they did not solve, they at any rate contributed something to the solution of, pressing questions which clamoured for an answer. The circumstances of the times required that the subjects should be ventilated. Thus, for example, the relations between Church and State were ill understood, and some light, at any rate, was thrown upon them by the tedious Bangorian controversy. The method in which God reveals His will to man was a subject which circumstances rendered it necessary to discuss. This subject was fairly sifted in the Deistical controversy. The pains which were bestowed upon the Trinitarian controversy were not thrown away. But it is difficult to see what fresh light was thrown upon any subject by the Calvinistic controversy. It left the question exactly in the same position as it was in before. In studying the other controversies, if the reader derives but little instruction or edification on the main topic, he can hardly fail to gain some valuable information on collateral subjects. But he may wade through the whole of the Calvinistic controversy without gaining any valuable information on any subject whatever. This is partly owing to the nature of the topic discussed, but partly also to the difference between the mental calibre of the disputants in this and the other controversies. We have at least to thank the Deists and the Anti-Trinitarians for giving occasion for the publication of some literary masterpieces. Through their means English theology was enriched by the writings of Butler, Conybeare, Warburton, Waterland, Sherlock, and Horsley. But the Calvinistic controversy,

1 For a somewhat ruthless exposure of the intellectual weakness of Methodism generally, and of the Calvinistic and anti-Calvinistic literature in particular, see I. Taylor's Wesley and Methodism, pp. 16, 110–118, 125.

from the beginning to the end, contributed not one single work of permanent value to theology.

This is a sweeping statement, and requires to be justified. Let us, then, pass on at once from general statements to details.

The controversy seems to have broken out during Whitefield's absence in America (1739-1740). A correspondence arose between Wesley and Whitefield on the subject of Calvinism and collateral questions, in which the two good men seem to be constantly making laudable determinations not to dispute-and as constantly breaking them. Thus we find Whitefield writing to Wesley in March 1740: 'The doctrine of election and final perseverance of those who are in Christ I am ten thousand times more convinced of, if possible, 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 may always subsist between us? . . . 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. Provoke me to it as much as you please, I will not enter the lists.' As Wesley also made a similar resolution, one might have hoped that all disputing would have been avoided. But, alas! it was not so. Two months after Whitefield had made the wise determination recorded above we find him writing to Wesley again. 'Honoured sir, I cannot entertain prejudices against your principles and conduct any longer without informing, you. The more I examine the writings of the most experienced Christians, the more I differ from your notion about not committing sin and your denying the doctrines of election and final perseverance.' After much more to the same effect which is not worth quoting, he concludes with an artless simplicity, which might have convinced anyone how utterly useless it was to contend with him: 'God Himself, I find, teaches my friends the doctrine of election. Sister H. hath lately been convinced, and, if I mistake not, dear and honoured

1

1 See Whitefield's Letters (ut supra), passim; also Gledstone's Life of Whitefield, pp. 200, 218, 219, 224, 227, 232, 242.

Mr. Wesley will be.' To this Wesley replied, with his usual good sense: 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-viz. make us both of one mind.' Whitefield, however, could not forbear recurring to the forbidden subject. 'I write not,' he says, 'to enter into disputation. I cannot bear the thoughts of opposing; 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 John Calvin wrote; my doctrines I had from Christ and His Apostles. I find there is 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. Did you write oftener and more frankly, it might have a better effect than silence and reserve.' Wesley seems to have recommenced the argument, for we find Whitefield writing a little later: 'Dear brother Wesley, what mean you by disputing in all your letters? May God give you to know yourself, and then you will not plead for absolute perfection or call the doctrine of election a doctrine of devils,' &c.; and again about the same time: Why did you throw out that bone of contention ? Why did you print that sermon against predestination? Why did you, in particular, my dear brother Charles, affix your hymn and join in putting out your late hymn-book? Why did your brother send his sermon against election over to America?' To these questions Wesley made the obvious reply: 'If you had disliked my sermon you might have printed another on the same text, and answered my proofs without mentioning my name.' It is needless to quote more of this unprofitable correspondence, the gist of which has been wittily summed up thus: 'Dear George, I have read what you have written on the subject of predestination, and God has taught me to see that you are wrong and that I am right. Yours affectionately, J. Wesley.' And the reply: 'Dear John, I have read what you have written on the subject of predestination, and God has taught me that I

am right and you are wrong. Yours affectionately, G. Whitefield.'1

If the dispute between these good men was warm while the Atlantic separated them, it was still warmer when they met. In 1741 Whitefield returned to England, and a temporary alienation between him and Wesley arose. Whitefield is said to have told his friend that they preached two different Gospels, and to have avowed his intention to preach against him whenever he preached at all. Then they turned the one to the right hand and the other to the left. As in most disputes, there were, no doubt, faults on both sides. Both were tempted to speak unadvisedly with their lips, and, what was still worse, to write unadvisedly with their pens. It has already been seen that John Wesley had the knack of both saying and writing very cutting things. If Whitefield was rash and lost his temper, Wesley was certainly irritating. Whitefield, for instance, had made an unfortunate slip in saying that Wesley's views of redemption were Socinian. Of course Wesley could reply at once that the Socinians did not hold the doctrine of redemption at all-Tota redemptio metaphora'-but he need not have added these contemptuous remarks, which would be more galling than positive abuse: '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 hands shall not be upon you; my general tenor is, Spare the young man, even Absalom, for my sake.' Wesley always kept perfectly cool in controversy; but, though cool and calm, he was not a cold man. It is not doing justice to him to say, as it has been said, that 'Whitefield felt the chilling influence of Wesley's imperiousness,' and that 'there was a measure of coldness about Wesley which repelled him.' 3 It would probably be nearer the truth to say that Whitefield felt himself over-matched; his opponent was too strong for

See the Christian Observer for October 1857, p. 696, Review of The Coronet and the Cross,' by Rev. A. H. Mew.

2 See J. Wedgwood's John Wesley, &c., p. 238, &c. ; Life of Lady Huntingdon, &c., p. 198, &c.; Philip's Life of Whitefield, p. 209, &c.

Life of Lady Huntingdon, i. 198.