The same motive which led Wesley to dispute with Law actuated him in his separation from the Moravians.  In justice to that exemplary body it must be remembered that they were not well represented in London when Wesley split from them.  The mischievous notion that it was contrary to the Gospel for a man to search the Scriptures, to pray, to communicate—­in fact, to use any ordinances—­before he had faith, that it was his duty simply to sit still and wait till this was given him, would, if it had gained ground, have been absolutely fatal to Wesley’s efforts.  He could not even tacitly countenance those who held such tenets without grievous hindrance to his work.[720] One is thankful to learn that he resisted his besetting temptation, and did not send to the Herrnhut brethren a rude letter which he had written,[721] and thankful also to find that he did full justice to the good qualities of Count Zinzendorf.[722] But as to his separation from the London Moravians, Wesley could not have acted otherwise without seriously damaging the cause which he had at heart.  His dispute with Whitefield will come under our notice in connexion with the Calvinistic controversy, which forms a painfully conspicuous feature in the Evangelical movement.  It is sufficient in this place to remark that the Antinomianism which, as a plain matter of fact, admitted even by the Calvinists themselves, did result from the perversion of Calvinism, was, if possible, a more fatal hindrance to Wesley’s work than the Moravian stillness itself.  This was obviously the ground of Wesley’s dislike of Calvinism,[723] but it did not separate him from Calvinists; so far as a separation did ensue the fault did not lie with Wesley.[724]

His misunderstanding with some of the Evangelical clergy of his day arose from the same cause as that which led him into other disputes.  An overpowering sense of the paramount importance of the great work which he had to do made him set aside everything which he considered to be an obstacle to that work without the slightest hesitation.  Now, much as Wesley loved the Church of England, he never appreciated one of her most marked features, the parochial system.  Perhaps under any circumstances such a system would have found little favour in the eyes of one of Wesley’s temperament.  To a man impatient of immediate results the slowly but surely working influence of a pastor resident in the midst of his flock, preaching to them a silent sermon every day and almost every hour by his example among them, would naturally seem flat, tame and impalpable when compared with the more showy effects resulting from the rousing preaching of the itinerant.  Such a life as that of the parish priest would have been to Wesley himself simply unbearable.  He was of opinion—­surely a most erroneous opinion—­that if he were confined to one spot he should preach himself and his whole congregation to sleep in a twelvemonth.  He never estimated at its proper value the real, solid work which others