17. "Let the Name of Whitefield Perish" 151
17
"Let the Name of Whitefield Perish "Upon reaching Bermuda, Whitefield received a vigorous welcome and was immediately asked to preach. Accordingly he did so twice, and after dining with the governor he preached before the council and an assemblage of the island's dignitaries.
Thereafter he kept on preaching—twice and often three times a day in churches, in meeting-houses, in homes, and in the open air. He ministered in the towns and also in the unsettled areas, and again he witnessed the presence and power of God.
Even while in Bermuda, he received letters that asserted that he must return immediately to England. Whitefieldian Methodism had suffered severely through the loss of John Cennick, and recently a brilliant young preacher, William Cudmore, had also left, taking three hundred people from the Tabernacle and establishing his own Society near by. Howell Harris had given leadership to Whitefield's cause, but his time was limited, and he and the Tabernacle officials wrote declaring that Whitefield must sail for England by the first vessel available.
To do so meant that Mrs. Whitefield would be left to return home alone. But she had agreed that she would never stand in the way of her husband's work, so he embarked for England, leaving her in America.
He had come to Bermuda with the thought of keeping his doctor's orders that he rest, but throughout his two months on the island he had preached continually. And he anticipated declaring the gospel during his passage home, for he prayed, "Oh may God give me all the souls that sail with me!"
Whitefield had been out of England for four years. His people had been yearning for him to return, and when he reached London he was welcomed by crowds. Their joy rose especially from seeing that he was alive, for the news of his long illness in America had been followed by the report that he had died. The Gentleman's Magazine, for instance, had recently included in its "LIST OF DEATHS" "The Reverend Mr George Whitefield, the famous itinerant and Founder of the Methodists." Other papers had published similar statements.
The work of the Tabernacle immediately sprang into new life. Excited yet worshipful congregations crowded its services, and vast hosts gathered in Moorfields for Whitefield's open-air preaching. He visited Gloucester and Bristol, and in each place he found the same enthusiasm.
At the same time, Whitefield was now forced to give strong consideration as to what course he should follow. For one thing, he knew that much of the balance of his life would be devoted to America and that he could give but a portion of his time to Britain.
Moreover, Whitefield was determined not to enter a scene of conflict again. During his preceding years in England—1741 to 1744—although he had brought Wesley into an attitude of reconciliation, he had also sensed a constant spirit of rivalry. The same spirit had been manifest between many of the people of the Foundery and the Tabernacle, and it was evident that several of his people were waiting for his ministry to flourish again and that they intended to use it to claim a triumph over Wesley and his followers.
But Whitefield utterly deplored this whole spirit of competition between the people of God, and he resolved to overcome it.
He first felt that much difficulty would be avoided if Arminian Methodism and Calvinistic Methodism could be united. He broached the idea to Howell Harris, but received no encouragement. "It will never do," said Harris, "because neither of the sides can submit to the other head—Mr Wesley or Mr Whitefield."1
Since John Wesley was not in London at the time, Whitefield conferred with his brother Charles. Charles had by now matured considerably and had altered in his theological views to such an extent that some lay preachers had reported to John that he agreed with Whitefield, both as to predestination and in his opposition to the perfection teaching. This was an exaggeration, though Charles had mellowed on each of these teachings and had come to a position much nearer to that of Whitefield. As Charles and Whitefield met, their fellowship was warm and sweet, and Charles declared his willingness to enter into closer cooperation.
Whitefield also wrote to John Wesley. His letter reads, in part,
Rev and Dear Sir:
My not meeting you in London was a disappointment to me. . . .
What have you thought about an union? I am afraid an external one is impracticable. I find by your sermons that we differ in principles more than I thought... .
My attachment to America will not permit me to abide very long in England. .. . I hope you don't forget to pray for me. You are always remembered by, Reverend and dear Sir,
Yours most affectionately in Christ Jesus,
G.W.2Whitefield and Harris next arranged a conference to consider the matter. Present were John and Charles Wesley, Whitefield and Harris. Harris said of the event,
.. . we opened our hearts about the points in dispute and saw a possibility of coming to terms ... keeping off the controversial way, to adopt each other's expressions as much as possible, each to give up all we can. Agreed to draw up such rules as may prevent the law of love from being broken any more.
I mentioned my fears lest he (J.W.) should affect to be head and to be a party. Mr Whitefield mentioned his objection to his monopolising the name of Methodist to himself only.
Whitefield recognized, however, that notwithstanding this increased measure of cooperation there was little possibility of uniting the two branches of Methodism. There were deep hostilities among the people, and he also knew, as Howell Harris and Lady Huntingdon stated, that John Wesley, possessing as he did unusual gifts of administration, would not be satisfied without being first.
Accordingly, Whitefield came to a tremendous, self-sacrificing decision. He determined that he would give over his position as the head of Calvinistic Methodism, and although he would retain warm fellowship with his Societies he would no longer lead them as a movement. Furthermore, he would locate some man who would serve as pastor of the Tabernacle, and its affairs would be governed by its chief men.
By this act he would free himself to preach the gospel without the least ties or organizational responsibilities, and he would become, as he said, "... simply the servant of all." And by this act he would spare the movement from strife and would allow John Wesley to be the one head of Methodism.
Whitefield then asked Howell Harris to take the pastorate of the Tabernacle. But Harris refused. Whitefield next offered it to three men jointly, but this invitation also was not accepted. It was evident the people of the Tabernacle would accept as their pastor no one but himself, and therefore he agreed to retain it. But he made no attempt to obtain someone to serve as president of the Calvinistic Methodist Association, and although the Societies continued, the organization began to die away.
Whitefield's renunciation of his position was strongly objected to by his people. They had borne with his four years of absence in America, and now that he was home they wanted to see him go on in his ministry and even to add new triumphs. But with his announcement their hopes were shattered. Several of them asserted that thereby he would lose his fame and that it would cause him finally to be forgotten by future generations. But he made such replies as,
Let the name of Whitefield perish, but Christ be glorified.
Let my name die everywhere, let even my friends forget me, if by that means the cause of the blessed Jesus may be promoted.
But what is Calvin, or what is Luther? Let us look above names and parties; let Jesus be our all in all—So that He is preached. .. . I care not who is uppermost. I know my place . . . even to be the servant of all.
I am content to wait till the judgement day for the clearing up of my reputation; and after I am dead I desire no other epitaph than this, 'Here lies G.W. What sort of man he was the great day will discover.'3
Whitefield's magnificent surrendering of his position has remained virtually unnoticed by his biographers. One, however, the Rev. Luke Tyerman, Methodism's chief historian, has alluded to it. Yet it may well be asked, "Where in all church history do we find such magnanimous selflessness?" So noble an action is all but unknown.
By his act Whitefield saved the revival from further discord and strife. And because of it, John Wesley, not George Whitefield, is known today as "the leader and founder of Methodism."
Whitefield, however, started out afresh to fulfill his particular mission as "the servant of all."
