him in point of ability and learning, no less than in selfcontrol; and this very feeling furnishes a strong excuse for the unseemly language and conduct of Whitefield. There is no doubt that he felt very strongly both the truth and the importance of his own doctrine, and the uncomfortable conviction that he was not strong enough to enforce it against his powerful antagonist may at least furnish a reason for his behaviour which is consistent with his truly Christian. character. He was rash, and listened too much to talebearers and put too unfavourable a construction upon Wesley's words; but he had some provocation. On the other hand, it is unjust to Wesley to say that 'he seems to have parted with his old companion with great coldness.' We have his own words, which bear on the face of them the evidence of their sincerity, to prove that he felt most bitterly his alienation. from Whitefield. After many stabs in the dark,' he writes, 'I was publicly attacked, not by an open enemy, but by my own familiar friend [Whitefield]. But I could not censure him. I could only cover my face and say, kai où eis ékɛívov; kaì σù, Tékvov;' there is no need to enter further into the details of the dispute. How Wesley, instead of acting on his own good judgment, which rarely failed him, foolishly drew lots to decide whether he should preach and print the sermon on predestination which gave Whitefield so much offence; how Whitefield, with equal folly, was reminded by the 'lot sermon ' to tell the tale of the 'lot letter' of 1738; how Wesley tore up Whitefield's letter before his congregation, saying, 'I will do what I believe Mr. Whitefield would if he were here himself; how the immediate results of the separation were for a time disastrous to Whitefield's work, so that, 'instead of having thousands to attend him, scarce one of his spiritual children came to see him from morning to night,' and 'members who a year before would have plucked out their eyes for him ran by him whilst he was preaching, disdaining to look at him, and some of them putting their fingers in their ears, that they might not hear one word he said '-all this and other details of the unfortunate quarrel may be found in any history of Wesley or Whitefield.

1

It is a far pleasanter task to record that in course of time 1 Tyerman's Life of Wesley, i. 400.

the breach was entirely healed, though neither disputant receded one jot from his opinions. No man was ever more ready to confess his faults, no man ever had a larger heart or was actuated by a truer spirit of Christian charity, than George Whitefield. Never was there a man of a more forgiving temper than John Wesley. Ten thousand times would I rather have died than part with my old friends,' said Whitefield of the Wesleys. 'Bigotry flies before him and cannot stand,' said John Wesley of Whitefield. It was impossible that an alienation between two such men, both of whom were only anxious to do one great work, should be permanent.

From 1749 the Calvinistic controversy lay comparatively at rest for some years. The publication of Hervey's 'Dialogues between Theron and Aspasio' in 1755, with John Wesley's remarks upon them, and Hervey's reply to the remarks, reawakened a temporary interest in the question, but it was not till the year 1771 that the tempest broke out again with more than its former force.

The occasion of the outburst was the publication of Wesley's 'Minutes of the Conference of 1770.' Possibly John Wesley may have abstained for some years, out of regard for Whitefield, from discussing in Conference a subject which was calculated to disturb the re-established harmony between him and his friend.' 1 At any rate, the offending Minutes, oddly enough, begin by referring to what had passed at the first Conference, twenty-six years before. 'We said in 1744, We have leaned too much towards Calvinism.' After a long abeyance the subject is taken up at the point at which it stood more than a quarter of a century before; the reader must be left to judge whether the reason suggested above is a probable one or not.

The Minutes have often been quoted; but, for clearness' sake, it may be well to quote them once more.

'We said in 1744, We have leaned too much towards Calvinism. Wherein

'1. With regard to man's faithfulness, our Lord Himself taught us to use the expression; and we ought never

'Not, of course, that he waited until the death of Whitefield before reopening the question; for Conference met in August, and Whitefield did not die until September, 1770.

to be ashamed of it. We ought steadily to assert, on His authority, that if a man is not "faithful in the unrighteous mammon" God will not "give him the true riches."

'2. With regard to working for life, this also our Lord has expressly commanded us. "Labour" ('Epyáceo@e-literally, "work") " for the meat that endureth to everlasting life." And, in fact, every believer, till he comes to glory, works for, as well as from, life.

'3. We have received it as a maxim that " a man can do nothing in order to justification." Nothing can be more false. Whoever desires to find favour with God should "cease to do evil and learn to do well." Whoever repents should do "works meet for repentance." And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?

'Review the whole affair.

'I. Who of us is now accepted of God?

'He that now believes in Christ, with a loving, obedient heart.

'2. But who among those that never heard of Christ?

'He that feareth God and worketh righteousness, accord

ing to the light he has.

'3. Is this the same with "he that is sincere"? 'Nearly, if not quite.

'4. Is not this salvation by works?

'Not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition. '5. What have we, then, been disputing about for these thirty years?

'I am afraid about words.

'6. As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid, we are rewarded according to our works—yea, because of our works.

'How does this differ from "for the sake of our works"? And how differs this from secundum merita operum, "as our works deserve"? Can you split this hair? Can you split this hair? I doubt I can

not.

'7. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn from matter of fact. God does in fact justify those who, by their own confession, "neither feared God nor wrought righteousness." Is this an exception to the general rule?

'It is a doubt if God makes any exception at all. But how are we sure that the person in question never did fear God and work righteousness? His own saying so is not proof; for we know how all that are convinced of sin undervalue themselves in every respect.

'8. Does not talking of a justified or a sanctified state tend to mislead men, almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done in one moment? Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to our works, according to the whole of our inward tempers and our outward behaviour.'1

So great was the alarm and indignation caused by these Minutes that a 'circular printed letter' was, at the instigation of Lady Huntingdon, sent round among the friends of the Evangelical movement, the purport of which was as follows:'Sir, whereas Mr. Wesley's Conference is to be held at Bristol on Tuesday, August 6, next, it is proposed by Lady Huntingdon and many other Christian friends (real Protestants) to have a meeting at Bristol at the same time, of such principal persons, both clergy and laity, who disapprove of the under-written Minutes; and, as the same are thought injurious to the very fundamental principles of Christianity, it is further proposed that they go in a body to the said Conference, and insist upon a formal recantation of the said Minutes, and, in case of a refusal, that they sign and publish their protest against them. Your presence, sir, on this occasion is particularly requested; but, if it should not suit your convenience to be there, it is desired that you will transmit your sentiments on the subject to such persons as you think proper to produce them. It is submitted to you whether it would not be right, in the opposition to be made to such a dreadful heresy, to recommend it to as many of your Christian friends, as well of the Dissenters as of the Established Church, as you can prevail on to be there, the cause being of so public a nature. I am, &c., Walter Shirley.'

The first thing that naturally strikes one is, What business had Lady Huntingdon and her friends to interfere with Mr.

1 Extracts from the Minutes of some Late Conversations between the Rev. Mr. Wesley and others at a Public Conference, held in London, August 7, 1870, and printed by W. Pim, Bristol. Take heed to your doctrine.'

Wesley and his Conference at all? But this obvious objection does not appear to have been raised. It would seem that there was a sort of vague understanding that the friends of the Evangelical movement, whether Calvinist or Arminian, were in some sense answerable to one another for their proceedings. The Calvinists evidently thought it not only permissible but their bounden duty not merely to disavow but to condemn, and, if possible, bring about the suppression of the obnoxious Minutes. Mr. Shirley said publicly 'he termed peace in such a case a shameful indolence, and silence no less than treachery.' John Wesley did not refuse to justify to the Calvinists what he had asserted. He wrote to Lady Huntingdon in June 1771 (the Conference did not meet til August), referring her to his 'Sermons on Salvation by Faith,' published in 1738, and requesting that the 'Minutes of Conference might be interpreted by the sermons referred to.' Lady Huntingdon felt her duty to be clear. She wrote to Charles Wesley, declaring that the proper explanation of the Minutes was Popery unmasked.' 'Thinking,' she added, 'that those ought to be deemed Papists who did not disavow them, I readily complied with a proposal of an open disavowal of them.'2

All this augured ill for the harmony of the impending Conference; but it passed off far better than could possibly have been expected. Very few of the Calvinists who were invited to attend responded to the appeal. Christian feeling got the better of controversial bitterness on both sides. John Wesley, with a noble candour, drew up a declaration, which was signed by himself and fifty-three of his preachers, stating that, 'as the Minutes have been understood to favour justification by works, we, the Rev. John Wesley and others, declare we had no such meaning, and that we abhor the doctrine of justification by works as a most perilous and abominable doctrine. As the Minutes are not sufficiently guarded in the way they are expressed, we declare we have no trust but in the merits of Christ for justification or salvation. And though no one is a real Christian believer (and therefore cannot be saved) who doth not good works when there is time and opportunity, yet our works have no part in meriting or Life of Lady Huntingdon, ii. 236.

2 Id. 240.