_TREVECCA COLLEGE.--THE CALVINIST CONTROVERSY._
In the summer of 1768 Fletcher undertook an office which greatly
increased his labours and responsibilities. The religious movement
directed by the Countess of Huntingdon continuing to develop, a
considerable number of chapels had, by this time, been built or hired
in various parts of the country. The pulpits were generally supplied by
clergymen of the Established Church, procured by the countess's
personal influence. But such arrangements became increasingly difficult
to make. Their 'irregularity' was disapproved in high quarters. Lady
Huntingdon's chaplains were, in fact, as 'irregular' in their labours
as Wesley's itinerant preachers. The system that found no place for the
one could not long sanction the other; whilst her ladyship's
ecclesiastical authority was a still greater anomaly than that of
Wesley.
It became necessary therefore to meet the demand for earnest,
evangelical preachers in some other way than by the services of the
regular clergy. Meanwhile, the expulsion of six students from the
University of Oxford for "being attached to the sect called Methodists,
and holding their doctrines," showed that the university was hardly
likely to be the nursing mother of such men as were required.
In these circumstances the countess resolved to found a school or
college for the training of godly young men for the work of the
ministry. She proposed to admit such as were truly converted to God and
gave evidence of being called to preach the gospel, and to give them
the advantage of three years' residence and instruction, at the close
of which they might enter the ministry, either in the Church of
England, or among Protestants of any other denomination. After taking
counsel with Whitefield, Romaine, Venn, Fletcher, and others, Lady
Huntingdon established the institution on which her heart was set.
Fletcher appears to have been in thorough sympathy with the countess's
aims from the first. Being consulted as to the selection of books for
the college, he writes: "Having studied abroad, and used rather foreign
than English books with my pupils, I am not acquainted with the books
Great Britain affords well enough to select the best and most concise.
Besides, a plan of studies must be fixed upon first, before proper
books can be chosen. Grammar, logic, rhetoric, with ecclesiastical
history, and a little natural philosophy, and geography, with a great
deal of practical divinity, will be enough for those who do not care to
dive into languages. Mr. Townsend and Charles Wesley might, by spending
an hour together, make a proper choice; and I would recommend them not
to forget Watts's 'Logic,' and his 'History of the Bible by Questions
and Answers,' which seem to me excellent books of the kind for
clearness and order. Mr. Wesley's 'Natural Philosophy' contains as much
as is wanted, or more. Mason's 'Essay on Pronunciation' will be worth
their attention. Henry and Gill on the Bible, with four volumes of
Baxter's 'Practical Works,' Keach's 'Metaphors,' Taylor on the Types,
Gurnal's 'Christian Armour,' Edwards on Preaching, Johnson's English
dictionary, and Mr. Wesley's Christian Library, may make part of the
little library. The book of Baxter I mention I shall take care to send
to Trevecca, as a mite towards the collection, together with Usher's
'Body of Divinity,' Scapula's Greek lexicon, and Lyttleton's Latin
dictionary."
But while Lady Huntingdon received counsel and assistance from many
quarters, and from Fletcher amongst the rest, there was one service for
which she looked to him alone. Would Fletcher allow himself to be
placed at the head of her college? Would he accept the presidency,
visiting Trevecca as often as he conveniently could, to direct the
studies and discipline of the place, and test the character and
qualifications of the students? From his profound esteem for the
countess, and in the hope of assisting in the good work of raising up
an earnest ministry, Fletcher accepted the office, and, without fee or
reward of any kind, threw himself heartily into its duties.
An old mansion, known as Trevecca House, in the parish of Talgarth,
South Wales, was altered and adapted to the requirements of a college;
tutors were procured, and the house was soon filled with students, the
first of whom was a young man from Madeley, converted under Fletcher's
ministry. Lady Huntingdon herself took up her residence there, and by
her presence stimulated the zeal of the household. Much of the time of
the students was employed in evangelistic work. On foot or on horseback
they visited the towns and villages for twenty or thirty miles round,
preaching in chapels and houses, in field and market-places, as
opportunity allowed. The pious founder soon saw a revival and extension
of the work of God which filled her heart with joy, and assured her
that the undertaking, concerning which some of her best friends had
their misgivings, was approved by God. At the dedication of the college
and chapel, on August 24th, 1768, Lady Huntingdon's birthday,
Whitefield was the preacher, and large numbers of people came together
from all parts of the country. The following year, the anniversary was
the occasion of a still more remarkable gathering, and of a series of
religious services marked by great manifestations of spiritual power.
The most eminent ministers that Lady Huntingdon's summons could
assemble were present. The congregations, too large for the chapel,
assembled in the court. Day by day, and almost all day long, for a week
together, vast crowds were moved to tears, to rapture, and to awe under
the preaching of the gospel. Howel Harris, Howel Davies, and Daniel
Rowlands, men whose names are household words in Wales to-day, preached
in Welsh; and Wesley, Fletcher, and Shirley in English. Thousands of
voices rose in hymns of praise, and joined in fervent responses and
cries of prayer. On the Saturday and Sunday, and again on the following
Thursday, the Lord's supper was administered, and Fletcher addressed
the communicants with an earnestness and pathos that it seemed
impossible to withstand. Many were awakened and converted. "Truly God
was in the midst of us," said Lady Huntingdon, "and many felt Him
eminently nigh. The gracious influences of His Spirit seemed to rest on
every soul.... Words fail to describe the holy triumph with which the
great congregation sang--
'Captain of Thine enlisted host,
Display Thy glorious banner high.'"
After a week of never to be forgotten blessings, the great crowds
slowly dispersed, and the tireless evangelists took horse and rode
away, each to his work, with strength renewed, and spirit refreshed as
from the presence of the Lord.
Although Fletcher did not reside at the college, his connexion with it
was by no means a nominal one. His journeys to Trevecca were frequent,
involving fatigue and privations, which his feeble frame could ill
endure, though he counted them less than nothing. As to the character
of his visits, and the influence that accompanied him, the testimony of
Mr. Benson, the headmaster, himself a man of exceptional intelligence
and sanctity, is well known, but is too important to be omitted here:
"Mr. Fletcher visited them frequently, and was received as
an angel of God. It is not possible for me to describe the
veneration in which we all held him. Like Elijah in the
schools of the prophets, he was revered, he was loved, he
was almost adored; and that, not only by every student, but
by every member of the family. And indeed he was worthy. The
reader will pardon me if he think I exceed. My heart kindles
while I write. Here it was that I saw, shall I say an angel
in human flesh? I should not far exceed the truth if I said
so. But here I saw a descendant of fallen Adam so fully
raised above the ruins of the fall, that though by the body
he was tied down to earth, yet was his whole conversation in
heaven, yet was his life, from day to day, hid with Christ
in God. Prayer, praise, love, and zeal, all ardent, elevated
above what one would think attainable in this state of
frailty, were the element in which he continually lived. And
as to others, his one employment was to call, entreat, and
urge them to ascend with him to the glorious Source of being
and blessedness. He had leisure comparatively for nothing
else. Languages, arts, sciences, grammar, rhetoric, logic,
even divinity itself, as it is called, were all laid aside
when he appeared in the schoolroom among the students. His
full heart would not suffer him to be silent. He must speak,
and they were readier to hearken to this servant and
minister of Jesus Christ than to attend to Sallust, Virgil,
Cicero, or any Latin or Greek historian, poet, or
philosopher, they had been engaged in reading. And they
seldom hearkened long before they were all in tears, and
every heart catched fire from the flame which burned in his
soul.
"These seasons generally terminated in this. Being convinced
that to be filled with the Holy Ghost was a better
qualification for the ministry of the gospel than any
classical learning (although that too be useful in its
place), after speaking awhile in the schoolroom, he used
frequently to say, 'As many of you as are athirst for this
fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my room.' On this many
of us have instantly followed him, and there continued for
two or three hours, wrestling like Jacob for the blessing,
praying one after another, till we could bear to kneel no
longer.
* * * * *
"Such was the ordinary employment of this man of God while
he remained at Trevecca. He preached the word of life to the
students and family, and as many of the neighbours as
desired to be present. He was 'instant in season, and out of
season'; he 'reproved, rebuked, exhorted, with all
longsuffering.' He was always employed, either in
illustrating some important truth, or exhorting to some
neglected duty, or administering some needful comfort, or
relating some useful anecdote, or making some profitable
remark or observation upon some occurrence. And his devout
soul, always burning with love and zeal, led him to
intermingle prayer with all he uttered. Meanwhile his manner
was so solemn, and at the same time so mild and insinuating,
that it was hardly possible for any one who had the
happiness of being in his company not to be struck with awe
and charmed with love, as if in the presence of an angel or
departed spirit. Indeed, I frequently thought, while
attending to his heavenly discourse and Divine spirit, that
he was so different from, and superior to, the generality of
mankind, as to look more like Moses or Elijah, or some
prophet or apostle, come again from the dead, than a mortal
man, dwelling in a house of clay. It is true, his weak and
long-afflicted body proclaimed him to be human; but the
graces which so eminently filled and adorned his soul
manifested him to be Divine: and long before his happy
spirit returned to God who gave it, that which was human
seemed in a great measure to be 'swallowed up of life.'"
Benson was not alone in the impressions he received of Fletcher's
character, and of the influence he exercised at Trevecca. The
references of others are in the same strain; and although his connexion
with the college came to an abrupt end, and was followed by a period of
painful controversy, we hear no disparagement of his piety, or
suggestion of anything unworthy of his reputation for Christian
meekness and purity.
But why did Fletcher so soon withdraw from the presidency of the
college? To use the words of Mr. Benson: "Why did he give up an office
for which he was perfectly well qualified, which he executed so
entirely to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, and in which
it pleased God to give so manifest a blessing to his labours?" The
answer is, that it was one of the first results of a controversy which,
for intensity, for duration, and for the strifes and divisions to which
it gave rise, is unhappily memorable in the history of the Revival.
Its very name--the Calvinistic controversy--will suggest to the
experienced reader the range of questions involved, and the
improbability of agreement being arrived at, however prolonged might be
the discussion.
It should be borne in mind that, from its very beginning, the Revival
had advanced along two different lines, in connexion with certain
well-marked doctrinal distinctions. Whilst the work and the workers in
the two spheres were, in the best and deepest sense, one, they were
divided upon those questions concerning predestination and free will,
which, since the time of Augustine, have given rise to two distinct
types of doctrine, each susceptible of modifications and developments
of its own. This difference was represented, first in the little band
of Oxford Methodists, and then in the more evangelical and expansive
Methodism that succeeded it. Wesley was an Arminian, and Whitefield a
Calvinist. Harmonious co-operation between them was at times difficult;
but mutual love and largeness of heart prevailed upon the whole.
Under Wesley's leadership, Arminian Methodism developed in organic
form, and is still found in all parts of the world in visible,
organized Churches. Calvinistic Methodism spread with similar, if not
equal, rapidity, but without unity of administration, and failed to
develop any principles of Church life. It revived the Calvinistic
nonconformity of England, and may almost be said to have taken
possession of Wales; but the main current of its strength flowed into
the Church of England, and is to be traced in the rise and progress of
the Evangelical or Low Church party. There may be difference of opinion
as to which development has been on the whole of greater service to the
Christian Church, but few persons will deny to either a high place in
the order of Providence.
At the period we have now reached in Fletcher's history, a certain
uneasiness may be discovered in the relations of Arminian and
Calvinistic Methodism, not incompatible however with such union and
brotherliness as were seen at the great gathering at Trevecca. But
Wesley was observing with concern the spread of a practical
antinomianism, which on every possible ground he hated and feared. The
openly wicked were hopeful and comparatively harmless compared with
persons who talked fluently of being justified and sanctified, while
they were guilty of drunkenness, uncleanness, and dishonesty. This
state of things he could not and would not endure, if it was to be
prevented by plainness of doctrine or rigour of discipline. He knew
that while such abuses were not the necessary accompaniment of the
Scriptural doctrine of faith, they arose from a perversion to which
that doctrine will always be exposed, and against which it will be
needful to guard, as long as human nature is what it is. Any language
therefore that tended to weaken the sense of moral responsibility, or
lower the standard of Christian duty, was doubly dangerous in presence
of a tendency to dwell upon the Divine sovereignty in redemption, to
the neglect of the Divine requirements, as they are revealed to man in
the gospel. In Wesley's judgment, his preachers were in danger of
encouraging, or at least giving opportunity to, antinomian error by
using expressions that had received a kind of general sanction, and
refraining from certain others which were thought too legal and
unevangelic. But what had this to do with Calvinism? Some writers, more
jealous for the character of Wesley's societies than he was, will have
it that the abuses referred to were mainly or entirely to be found
amongst the Calvinists. But that is not the case. As Mr. Watson has
well said: "To show however that antinomianism can graft itself upon
other stocks besides that of the Calvinistic decrees, it was found also
among the Moravians, and the Methodists did not escape.... In fact,
there is no such exclusive connexion between the more sober Calvinistic
theories of predestination and this great error, as some have
supposed." With this statement Wesley would, we think, have agreed; but
he undoubtedly held that antinomianism was a much more natural and
likely result of Calvinistic than of Arminian principles.
In the one case the principles must be violated, in the other they had
only to be developed and applied to produce the evils referred to.
Moreover Calvinism, as popularly understood, had lost what safeguards
it possessed, and had little in common with that of Owen, and Leighton,
and Matthew Henry. Spiritual pride and carnal indulgence flourished
along with a crude and coarse belief in unconditional election and
imputed righteousness. With Calvinism in its purely theological and
philosophical aspects Wesley felt no call to deal. It was wholly a
practical question with him. He saw, or thought he saw, that its
principles were doing actual mischief, and that, amongst other things,
the every-day language of religion was being corrupted by phrases and
catchwords that encouraged serious error. A quarter of a century ago,
at the first Methodist Conference, the question was asked, "Have we not
unawares leaned too much to Calvinism? _Answer:_ We are afraid we
have." Might it not be time to ask this question again, and answer it
in a less uncertain manner? Wesley judged it was. Accordingly, the
"Minutes of Conference" for 1770 contain the following statement:
"We said, in 1744, 'We have leaned too much toward
Calvinism.' Wherein?
"1. With regard to _man's faithfulness_. Our Lord Himself
taught us to use the expression. And we ought never to be
ashamed of it. We ought steadily to assert, on His
authority, that if a man is not 'faithful in the unrighteous
mammon,' God will not give him '_the true riches_.'
"2. With regard to _working for life_. This also our Lord
has expressly commanded us. 'Labour ([Greek: ergazesthe],
literally, 'work') for the meat that endureth to everlasting
life.' And, in fact, every believer, till he comes to glory,
works _for_ as well as _from_ life.
"3. We have received it as a maxim that 'a man is to do
nothing in order to justification.' Nothing can be more
false. Whoever desires to find favour with God, should
'cease from evil, and learn to do well.' Whoever repents
should do 'works meet for repentance.' And if this is not
_in order_ to find favour, what does he do them for?
"Review the whole affair.
"1. Who of us is _now_ accepted of God?
"He that now believes in Christ, with a loving and obedient
heart.
"2. But who among those that never heard of Christ?
"He that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, according
to the light he has.
"3. Is this the same with 'he that is sincere'?
"Nearly, if not quite.
"4. Is not this 'salvation by works'?
"Not by the _merit_ of works, but by works as a _condition_.
"5. What have we then been disputing about for these thirty
years?
"I am afraid, _about words_.
"6. As to _merit_ itself, of which we have been so
dreadfully afraid: we are rewarded 'according to our works,'
yea, 'because of our works.' How does this differ from _for
the sake of our works_? And how differs this from _secundum
merita operum_? As our works _deserve_.
"Can you split this hair?
"I doubt I cannot."[9]
The reader, who has, it may be, glanced rapidly over the preceding
paragraphs, without perceiving in them anything very portentous, will
be surprised to learn that their publication gave rise to the longest
and sharpest controversy in the history of Methodism. An ancient
controversy has this in common with an extinct volcano, that after
generations may walk all unconscious over the cold ashes of what was
once a glowing lava torrent. To Wesley's contemporaries these "Minutes"
were full of meaning; every allusion was recognised, every phrase
touched some active belief or disbelief. Amongst the Calvinists
generally, and more particularly in Lady Huntingdon's circle, they
caused the utmost indignation and alarm. Wesley was denounced as a
heretic, an apostate, a papist unmasked. Lady Huntingdon wept over
them, called them "horrible and abominable," and declared that
"whosoever did not fully, and without any evasion, disavow them should
not stay in her college." Lady Glenorchy "must bear her feeble
testimony against the sentiments contained in them.... She has always
countenanced Mr. Wesley's preachers, but now she finds this cannot be
done by her any longer." Mr. Shirley pronounced them "dreadful heresy,"
"injurious to the very fundamental principles of Christianity," and
said publicly that he deemed "peace in such a case a shameful
indolence, and silence no less than treachery." Active measures were
taken for the vindication of outraged orthodoxy. Every Arminian must
quit the college. Mr. Benson, the headmaster, declined to disavow the
sentiments of the "Minutes," and was consequently dismissed. Fletcher
felt compelled to write: "Mr. Benson made a very just defence when he
said he held with me the possibility of salvation for all men; that
mercy is offered to all, and yet may be received or rejected. If this
be what your ladyship calls Mr. Wesley's opinion, free-will, and
Arminianism, and if 'every Arminian must quit the college,' I am
actually discharged also." In the hope of mediating between Wesley and
the countess, Fletcher went to Trevecca. He tried to soften matters,
but in vain. He then absolutely resigned his office, advised Lady
Huntingdon to choose a moderate Calvinist in his place, and recommended
Rowland Hill. His letter to Wesley (first published by Mr.
Tyerman[10]), giving an account of his interview with Lady Huntingdon,
and beseeching his venerated friend to believe "that the college and
its foundress mean well, and give them all the satisfaction you can,"
is in his finest vein of good sense, elevated and illumined by
Christian feeling.
But, unhappily, no private and friendly understanding was arrived at.
As the time for Wesley's next Conference drew near, a circular letter,
signed "Walter Shirley," was sent round among the friends of the
Evangelical movement, proposing that those who disapproved the
obnoxious minutes "should go in a body to the said Conference, and
insist upon a formal recantation of the said minutes, and in case of a
refusal sign and publish their protest against them." This proposed
demonstration however, from various causes, dwindled down to a small
deputation, which presented itself, meekly enough, at the Conference at
Bristol, and was received by Wesley and the preachers in a friendly
manner. The spirit of conciliation was in the ascendant. Wesley and all
his preachers present, except one, signed a declaration admitting that
the minutes were not sufficiently guarded in the way they were
expressed, and repudiating the meaning which had been put upon them,
viz. that of justification by works. Mr. Shirley, in return, wrote a
memorandum to the effect that "the declaration agreed to in Conference,
August 8th, 1771, had convinced him that he had mistaken the meaning of
the doctrinal points in the 'Minutes of the Conference, held in London,
August 7th, 1770'; and he hereby wished to testify the full
satisfaction he had in the said declaration, and his hearty concurrence
and agreement with the same."
Why did not the matter end here? Might not such explanations and
concessions have secured peace? Was a seven years war absolutely
necessary? To this question we have met with no really satisfactory
reply. But it must now be mentioned that, prior to the assembling of
the Conference at Bristol, Fletcher had written a "Vindication" of the
much discussed minutes in the form of "Five Letters" to Mr. Shirley.
The manuscript of this "Vindication" was in Wesley's hands, and was, in
fact, being set up in type at the very time that Shirley and his
friends were having their interview with Wesley and the Conference. The
question is, whether the publication should have been proceeded with in
the turn that things had taken. Shirley, hearing that Fletcher's
"Letters" were in the press, not unnaturally requested that the issue
might be stopped. Fletcher himself wrote to his friend Mr. Ireland: "I
feel for poor dear Mr. Shirley, whom I have (considering the present
circumstances) treated too severely in my 'Vindication of the Minutes.'
My dear sir, what must be done? I am ready to defray, by selling to my
last shirt, the expense of the printing of my 'Vindication,' and
suppress it. Direct me, dear sir. Consult with Mr. Shirley and Mr.
Wesley about the matter. Be persuaded I am ready to do everything that
will be brotherly in this unhappy affair." But in Wesley's judgment
nothing that had taken place required the suppression of so admirable a
"tract for the times," and accordingly it was published. Opinions will
be divided as to the wisdom and propriety of the step. It may be said:
"The merely personal aspect of the question was now disposed of. But
the evils which had led to the recording of the 'minutes' were real
evils, and were not to be got rid of by an interchange of courtesies
between Wesley and the Conference on the one hand, and Lady Huntingdon
and Mr. Shirley on the other. Circumstances, or rather Providence, had
discovered--nay, raised up--in Fletcher the very man for the present
need. What could be better, in the interest of true religion, than to
send forth broadcast, not merely a 'Vindication of the Minutes,' and of
Wesley's action, but a powerful defence of the gospel itself against
the chief and most dangerous error of the day?" There could be no
mistake as to the value of what Fletcher had written. His argument was
clear in outline, and convincing in detail. The gospel way of salvation
was defended on the right hand and on the left. Popular errors were
exposed, paradoxes explained, and misunderstanding removed, with a
knowledge of the Scriptures and a skill in reasoning that astonished
every one. The meek Vicar of Madeley was a master of controversy. He
had learning and logic for scholars, with imagination, wit, and pathos
to charm the common people. The style was genial and easy, abounding in
lively comparisons and illustrations, while a gentle vein of humour,
stopping short of bitterness on the one hand, and burlesque on the
other, mingled, not unbecomingly, with passages of the most exalted
devotion. "Those letters," wrote Wesley, "could not be suppressed,
without betraying the honour of our Lord." This decided his action.
Of course Fletcher's letters had their reply from Mr. Shirley, and
that, in turn, required to be answered. Then Richard Hill entered the
field, and him also Fletcher encountered, and as the controversy grew
it spread out over the wide area of questions speculative and practical
which the term Calvinism covers or suggests, and called fresh
combatants into the field. We have no heart to pursue the details of
this history. It is complicated and unremunerative in the last degree.
It deepened into bitterness and scurrility, till its baser literature
becomes unreadable for very shame; it separated brethren; it turned
allies into adversaries; it offered to a sceptical and ungodly age the
spectacle of good men "smiting one another _un_friendly," and consumed
time and strength that were wanted, and more than wanted, for the
Christianising of the country.
Through all this strife and confusion we can at least follow Fletcher
without shame, if not without regret. We have already quoted Southey's
eulogy on him. It is not excessive. He kept his temper through seven
years of trying controversy. He lived and wrote "as ever in his great
Taskmaster's eye." Love to God is manifest in every page, and only
second to it is love for those with whom he must needs contend, a
veritable "longing after them in the bowels of Jesus Christ."
Fletcher's "Checks" were the best thing born of the controversy. They
did not,--need it be said?--finally dispose of the problems respecting
God's foreknowledge and sovereignty, and the free agency and
responsibility of man. These problems are perhaps much where they were
when first confronted. If they are less discussed in our own day than
formerly, it is not that the difficulties they present have been
solved, but that a juster estimate of the limits of our powers,
together with a deeper sense of the antinomies of Divine law, has in a
great measure withdrawn the Christian mind from these questions to more
remunerative ones. That the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic
logically lead either to presumption or despair, may perhaps fairly be
urged; that they do so as matter of fact, and on any wide scale, would
be difficult to prove. But whether the vulgar antinomianism of
Fletcher's day had or had not its roots in Calvinistic doctrine, his
handling of it as a practical matter is vigorous and effective in the
highest degree. He pursues it in all its forms. He exposes and refutes
those one-sided reasonings which "make for _un_righteousness"; he sets
forth law in gospel, and gospel in law, with admirable balance and
proportion; he exhibits Christian holiness as the sum of duty and the
crown of privilege, and breathes throughout a heavenly spirit, which
the warmth of controversy seldom, if ever, disturbs.
May we say then, as some one has said, "it was worth while to have the
Calvinistic controversy, if it were only for the sake of Fletcher's
contribution to it"? Our answer is, most emphatically, No. We have too
deep a sense of the evils of a long and embittered strife between good
men to pass any such judgment. Nor can we suppose that such a
controversy furnished the only, or even the most favourable, conditions
for the exercise of Fletcher's gifts. We should have preferred for
him--can we doubt that he would have preferred for himself?--the
opportunity of writing books "touching the King" without the necessity
for splitting hairs with Shirley, and for winnowing the coarse abuse of
Toplady, and the extravagances of Rowland and Richard Hill.
But while we regard the controversy as both an error and an evil, we
are far from denying that it had its compensations, for which we are
indebted almost exclusively to Fletcher. His writings undoubtedly
served to fasten deep discredit upon that imperfect gospel--"another
gospel, which is not another,"--which permits its followers "to
continue in sin that grace may abound." Without lowering or lessening
the doctrine of justification by faith, Fletcher gave new emphasis and
clearer setting to the doctrine of Christian holiness, and rescued
Christian ethics from disparagement and neglect. Without taking away
from the virtue of the atonement in its relation to the whole standing
of the believer, he enforced that great practical end of redemption,
"the righteousness of the law, fulfilled in men walking not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit." Towards the close of the year 1774 Wesley
wrote, "If we could once bring all our preachers, itinerant and local,
uniformly and steadily to insist on those two points, 'Christ dying for
us,' and 'Christ reigning in us,' we should shake the trembling gates
of hell. I think most of them are now exceeding clear herein, and the
rest come nearer, especially since they have read Mr. Fletcher's
'Checks,' which have removed many difficulties out of the way."
Fletcher's "Checks to Antinomianism" at once took a foremost place in
the literature of Methodism. Wesley recommended them to his followers
with all the weight of his authority. The interest awakened by the
controversy, the popular style in which they were written, and the
elevation and fervour of piety manifest throughout, carried them into
every Methodist household. They were studied by the preachers, and read
for spiritual edification by all the more earnest members of the
Society. They did much to nourish the spiritual life of such men and
women as Bramwell, and Carvosso, and Hester Ann Rogers, names that
adorn and interpret the Methodist doctrine of "Entire Sanctification."
It is not too much to say that for many years they were not least among
the instruments employed in connexion with the ever-extending Revival,
"for the perfecting of the saints, ... for the edifying of the body of
Christ."
In more recent times the influence of this, Fletcher's principal work,
is indirect rather than direct. It fills the atmosphere of the
Methodist Churches with a kind of after-glow. Its light and heat linger
in the air, and are reflected from the regions where its first full
strength was felt. Should these writings come, in course of time, to be
entirely neglected, that influence would still be felt, for it has
passed beyond recall into the theology and devotional literature of
Methodism all the world over. Two of the most competent historians of
Methodism, Dr. Stevens and Mr. Tyerman, give it as their opinion that
Fletcher's "Checks" are as much read to-day as they were a hundred
years ago. From this opinion we are constrained to dissent, and should
be content to refer the matter to the Methodist publishing houses for
decision. We believe, on the contrary, that they are very little read;
but none the less are we persuaded that the results of Fletcher's
controversial labours are, in many respects, permanent; and, in
addition to those that have been referred to, we would instance the
fact that Calvinistic doctrine has come to be better guarded against
the perversions of antinomianism, and that disputes arising out of it
have become less frequent and more moderate, to the great advantage of
the Christian Church.
In passing from this subject we cannot refrain from quoting a few
paragraphs from his "First Check," in which Fletcher reveals his love
and reverence for Wesley:
"A gray-headed minister of Christ, an old general in the
armies of Emmanuel, a father who has children capable of
instructing even masters in Israel; and one whom God made
the first and principal instrument of the late Revival of
internal religion in our Church.... One word more about Mr.
Wesley, and I have done. Of the two greatest and most useful
ministers I ever knew, one is no more. The other, after
amazing labours, flies still with unwearied diligence
through the three kingdoms, calling sinners to repentance,
and to the healing fountain of Jesus' blood. Though
oppressed with the weight of near seventy years and the care
of near 30,000 souls, he shames still, by his unabated zeal
and immense labours, all the young ministers in England,
perhaps in Christendom. He has generally blown the gospel
trump, and rode twenty miles, before most of the professors
who despise his labours have left their downy pillow. As he
begins the day, the week, the year, so he concludes them,
still intent upon extensive services for the glory of the
Redeemer and the good of souls. And shall we lightly lift up
our pens, our tongues, our hands against him? No; let them
rather forget their cunning! If we _will_ quarrel, can we
find nobody to fall out with, but the minister upon whom God
puts the greatest honour?
"Our Elijah has lately been translated to heaven.[11]
Gray-headed Elisha is yet awhile continued upon earth. And
shall we make a hurry and noise, to bring in railing
accusations against him with more success?... Shall the sons
of the prophets, shall even children in grace and knowledge,
openly traduce the venerable seer, and his abundant
labours?"
This description of Wesley may serve to introduce an incident showing
Wesley's opinion of Fletcher.