ally in his later years,
from the controversy more than others did, who were far less competent
to manage it.

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, 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