On the Doctor’s Advice: Details from ML-J’s Correspondence with Arnold Dallimore

The March 2006 issue of the Banner of Truth Magazine (no. 510) was dedicated to the memory of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, on the 25th anniversary of his death. That issue included some fascinating detail about how Dr Lloyd-Jones (henceforth ML-J) assisted Arnold Dallimore in the writing of his two-volume biography of George Whitefield. The article on this assistance, presumed to be by the magazine’s then-editor, Walter Chantry¹It is possible that the article is the work of Iain H. Murray, unattributed in the issue at hand., is reproduced here.

Dr Arnold Dallimore of Cottam, Ontario, the author of the two-volume biography, George Whitefield (Banner of Truth, vol.1, 1970; vol.2, 1980) was one of many authors helped and encouraged by Dr Lloyd-Jones, as numbers of unpublished letters from ML-J to him show. The first was dated February 5, 1960. In the last of November 24, 1980, less than four months before his death, ML-J wrote, ‘I rejoice in the fact that I was able to play some small part in helping in the production of your two most excellent volumes on Whitefield, and I am glad to hear they are selling so well.’ ‘Small part’ was a considerable understatement. When Dallimore first visited England in 1959 he had already prepared a good deal of a life of Whitefield. But that visit, further research and study which followed, and the urging of the Banner of Truth Trust, led him to envisage a much larger work. In a letter to ML-J of March 14, 1963, he explained why the biography had become ‘a long drawn-out affair’. One reason was, ‘Upon returning from England [in 1959], I scrapped what I had previously written, and started afresh.’ At that point in 1963 there were hopes that the first volume would be out by December 1964, the 250th anniversary of Whitefield’s birth. In fact it was not to appear till 1970. Various problems impeded the writing. One was the fact that the author was in a pastoral charge until 1973; another that S. M. Houghton, the Trust’s senior adviser, set very high standards, and he and Iain Murray were particularly concerned that, in his concern to give Whitefield his true place in the Evangelical Revival, Arnold Dallimore verged on discrediting John Wesley’s importance. On all these and other problems the author sought ML-J’s advice, and the latter, more than once, was put into a mediating role with the Trust’s editors. Happily differences were finally settled, more or less to the satisfaction of all. The following is an example of the kind of help ML-J gave. In 1976, when Volume 2 was in progress, Dallimore sent him some draft chapters of volume two and raised particular points for his comment. ML-J replied on December 1, 1976:

With regard to the medical questions you put to me I fear I cannot agree with your conclusions.

With regard to Whitefield what you describe is clearly not ‘cardiac asthma’. This condition never lasts 22 years and is generally a terminal event. I have always believed that Whitefield eventually died of it but, as you say, it could not have lasted from 1748 to 1770. What happened to him then on this occasion? The puzzling element is the vomiting of blood. That does not occur in any heart condition, and I do not recall that he had symptoms that would indicate a gastric ulcer. My suggested explanation is as follows: The pain on breathing again is not consistent with any heart condition such as a coronary condition; but taking that plus the hoarseness and strained throat which he describes I come to the conclusion that he must have had a burst blood vessel in his throat, that he swallowed the blood and then vomited it again. Then, having rested himself and having refrained from preaching, this recovered, and so he was able to go on preaching for over 22 years. I remember how this kind of thing happened to the great tenor Caruso who frequently tended to strain himself and his throat while singing. It was that that eventually led to his death.²For how Dallimore handled and used this information see his Whitefield, vol. 2, p.253.

With regard to Howell Harris, again I am not happy about your theory.³Howell Harris was one of the leading preachers in the Evangelical Revival in Wales until the later 1740s when increasingly erratic behaviour and speech greatly curtailed his influence. Dallimore, an admirer of Harris, thought he had discovered the reason for the change in the man in the physical assault and blow on the head that he suffered in Bala in 1748. On this point he only partially gave way to the advice in this letter from ML-J. See Whitefield, vol. 2, p. 298. The account of the incident and his making light of it clearly indicates that he never even suffered from concussion, and I am not aware that such an incident leads to mental trouble. What it does lead to sometimes is a tumour on the brain, but I am not aware that he ever gave any symptoms of that. My view of what happened to Harris during that period is that it is rightly explained by nervous exhaustion and what is virtually a nervous breakdown. His behaviour fits that perfectly, and explains his obstinacy in continuing to preach about the blood of God, and his increasing feeling that everyone was turning against him and failing to understand him, and especially as they tried to persuade him to do less. This in turn made him a ready prey to Madam Griffith and her adulation of him. It is all a part of the well known picture in such cases. It is interesting to note that a similar breakdown occurred in Evan Roberts who was so prominent in the last Welsh Revival of 1904/5. The same happened also in the case of a man called Humphrey Jones, who was the means under God of bringing the Revival of 1857 from the USA to Wales, and there are other examples also, as you will agree. I feel that your references to Harris and Madam Griffith are somewhat misleading and might well lead people to the conclusion that there was something morally wrong. Gomer Roberts has clearly demonstrated that there was nothing wrong in that respect, and I believe this is generally accepted now . . .

The correspondence between Dallimore and ML-J indicates the immense labour involved in taking on such a major biography. As the work went on it grew, and anticipated finishing dates were to be changed many times. ML-J well understood the difficulty of combining a pastoral charge with authorship. He commented to Dallimore in a letter of August 28, 1968:

I am glad you confirm the wisdom of my retiring from Westminster Chapel. What really finally decided me to do this was the feeling that I should bring out in book form some of the material I have gathered during the years and especially what I have tried to do on the Epistle to the Romans.

As Lloyd-Jones settled down to more desk work it was his turn to receive encouragement from his Canadian correspondent. In a letter of April 30, 1973, he replied to Dallimore:

It was very good indeed of you to write in this way. It not only warmed my heart but encourages me in bringing out these books, which I find to be a considerable ‘weariness to the flesh’.

Reading these letters now, we can be thankful that both men sacrificed themselves to enrich the church with books of enduring value.

Arnold Dallimore’s biography of Whitefield: