THREATENED RUPTURE BETWEEN THE WESLEYS. 439

dated London, Dec. 22, 1752,' must stand alone, and make its own impression, which will probably be something like this: the brothers had a partial misunderstanding with each other, which Whitefield deprecated, while he felt that it was not always easy to keep on good terms with the elder one, and that therefore Charles might ultimately be compelled to separate from him. Nor is it any injustice to say that Wesley was not a man with whom it was easy to be on good terms; for his lofty claims must have fretted his brethren, and created uneasiness. The letter ran thus: I have read and pondered upon your kind letter with some degree of solemnity of spirit. In the same frame I would now sit down to answer it. And what shall I say? And what shall I say? Really I can scarce tell. The connexion between you and your brother hath been so close and continued, and your attachment to him so necessary to keep up his interest, that I would not willingly for the world do or say anything that may separate such friends. I cannot help thinking that he is still jealous of me and my proceedings; but, I thank God, I am quite easy about it. I more and more find that he who believeth doth not make haste; and that if we will have patience, we shall find that every plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted, however it may seem to have taken very deep root, shall be plucked up. I have seen an end of all perfection, and expect it only in Him, where I am sure to find it, even in the ever-loving, ever-lovely Jesus. He knows how I love and honour you and your brother, and how often I have preferred your interest to my own. This, by the grace of God, I shall still continue to do.' It does not need to be added that the evil was averted, and that the brothers worked together to the last.

It was Christmas 1752 when Whitefield wrote this letter. Looking round upon the circle of his friends at this friendliest season of the year, we miss some kind,

familiar faces. His mother's face is not there; she had died a year before, while he was paying his last visit to America. Doddridge's face is not there; he died at Lisbon, and the news of his decease followed Whitefield to America. Like the soldier on the battlefield, who can but drop a word of pity for a fallen comrade and lift up a prayer for himself, Whitefield could only say, Dr. Doddridge, I find, is gone; Lord Jesus, prepare me to follow after!' The face of 'good Bishop Benson' is not there; he died on August 30, 1752. His last days verified the remark of the Countess of Huntingdon. My Lord! mark my words: when you are on your dying bed, Whitefield's will be one of the few ordinations you will reflect upon with complacence.' On his dying bed, he sent Whitefield a present of ten guineas for the orphan-house as a token of his regard, and begged to be remembered in his prayers. The face of Whitefield's only sister is not there. Her house in Bristol had been his home and also his early Sunday morning preaching room in that city; and when she died he believed that she had entered into the rest that remains for the people of God.' The face of Ralph Erskine is not there. His death occurred on November 6, 1752; and when the intelligence was brought to Ebenezer, he said with great emotion, And is Ralph gone? He has twice got the start of me; he was first in Christ, and now he is first in glory.' But the start was not a long one; for Ebenezer Erskine was now an old man, and worn with heavy labours. On June 2, 1754, he followed his brother quietly and gently; as one sleeping and resting himself after toil, he went to his reward.

6

CHAPTER XII.

1753-1770.

CHAPEL BUILDING-ATTACKS BY ENEMIES-INFIRMITIES-HIS DEATHTHE RESULTS OF HIS WORK.

No small portion of the year 1753 was spent by Whitefield in what he called cross-ploughing the land; and what that work was is well enough known without our following him from field to field. But while he thought that he was the happiest man who, being fond neither of money, numbers, nor power, went on day by day without any other scheme than a general intention to promote the common salvation amongst people of all denominations, his attention was forcibly called to the work of providing a permanent place of worship for his followers in London. The churches were as inaccessible to Methodists as ever; but had they been open probably few would have cared to enter them, for the freedom of the Tabernacle was in their estimation preferable to the unalterable forms of the Church. The Tabernacle was still the wooden building that was hastily erected at the time of the division between the Calvinists and the Arminians. The idea of a permanent building seems to have been first suggested by the Countess of Huntingdon; but Whitefield was slow to move. In the winter of 1752 she and Lady Frances Shirley again urged the work upon his attention, and this time he was brought to their side, and began to collect money. His people responded with their usual liberality, and contributed a hundred and seventy six pounds on one Sunday. With eleven hundred

pounds in hand, he, on March 1, 1753, laid the first brick of the new Tabernacle, which was to be eighty feet square, and built around the old place. The ceremony was performed with great solemnity, and Whitefield preached a sermon from the text-'In all places were I record my name, I will come unto thee and bless thee.' Three months later the Tabernacle was ready to receive its congregation; and he opened it by preaching in it morning and evening, to four thousand people or more.

In the spring of this year Whitefield came into serious collision with the Moravians. The reports of their proceedings and of their financial position which he published in An Expostulatory Letter' to Count Zinzendorf, were brought to his ears by one whom Peter Böhler stigmatises as an apostate; but there can be no doubt that Whitefield had his information from more sources than one; and as Böhler was assailed in the letter, his phrase must be somewhat discounted. A man might be an apostate from Moravianism, and yet a true witness. Whitefield opened his letter with a protestation that a real regard for his king and country, and a disinterested love for his Saviour and his Saviour's church, would not let him keep silence longer with respect to the shocking things of which he had heard, and the offences which had swelled to such an enormous bulk. According to the statements which he had received, there had been much foolishness and some wickedness practised by the Brethren. On Easter-day they would walk round the graves of their deceased friends, attended with hautboys, trumpets, French-horns, &c. They perfumed their meeting-rooms to prepare them for the entrance of our Lord. They had pictures of particular persons painted and exposed in their assemblies. They dressed the women with knots of particular colours, to indicate whether they were married or marriageable, single or widows, together with other distinctions that cannot be named. Many of thein

THE CONDITION OF MORAVIANISM.

443

were in debt to an enormous amount. Zinzendorf was directly taxed with owing sundry persons forty thousand pounds. Böhler was charged with some ridiculous follies. The Royal Exchange rung with the tale of their money delinquencies. Families were ruined by them, or kept in anxious suspense. Whitefield, therefore, exhorted them to remember their former days, and to return to the simpler and holier communion which they had forsaken. He warned them that God generally suffers 'Babels to be built pretty high' before He comes down to confound the language of the builders; that if knaves are employed, as they commonly are, God's honour is concerned to discover them; and that if any of His children are undesignedly drawn into the mischief, He will, for their sakes, rebuke the tempter, and make a way for them to escape.

Böhler wrote to Whitefield, and denied the particular things with which he had charged him. He also said that the Brethren had been charged with faults of which they were not guilty, either in whole or in part; but how that denial can be made to agree with Böhler's words to his congregation on April 9, 1753 (fifteen days before Whitefield's letter was written), I cannot see :'Brother Böhler "wished the brethren might attain such converse with the Saviour, that all old things might be done away thereby, and particularly the guilt any of us may have contracted, in these intricate and confused times, by want of sufficient love to Him and His bloodbought congregation." It is true that he does not confess to any other guilt than that of a declension in love; but the spiritual condition which he deplores testifies of other faults. Neither does Whitefield appear to have been so rash and heedless as Böhler asserts he was; for even in respect of Böhler's character he had not spoken until after some of the Brethren themselves had expressed dissatisfaction with their teacher. A month before the