Mr. Fletcher’s connection with Trevecca College terminated in his
resigning, in consequence of a dispute which arose out of certain minutes
by the Wesleyan Conference in opposition to the doctrine of
predestination, first brought into prominence by the great Geneva
reformer, Calvin. Lady Huntingdon invited all in connection with the
college to write their sentiments respecting them, adding a strong hint
that all who did not repudiate the views contained in Mr. Wesley’s
minutes must prepare to quit. Mr. Fletcher wrote strongly in favour of
his friend Wesley, and resigned his appointment. These expressions of
his views brought him in opposition to his patrons, the Hills, two of
whom, Richard (afterwards Sir Richard) and Rowland, used their pens in
defence of Mr. Fletcher’s opponent, a brother-clergyman named Toplady,
then the great champion of Calvinism. Mr. Wesley, who had laid the train
which led to the explosion, either from want of time or inclination to
remain on the field, left two of his preachers to sustain the shock, and
these proving unequal to the task, Mr. Fletcher was left to fight the
battle single-handed. This he did in a series of cleverly-written works,
entitled “Checks to Antinomianism,” in speaking of one of which in a
letter to a friend, dated March 20, 1774:, he says:—“I do not repent of
my having engaged in this controversy; for though I doubt my little
publication cannot reclaim those who are confirmed in believing the lie
of the day, yet it may here and there stop one from swallowing it all, or
at least from swallowing it so deeply.” Two years after he says—“I have
almost run my race of scribbling; and I have preached as much as I could,
though to little purpose; but I must not complain. If one person has
received good by my ten years’ labour it is an honour for which I cannot
be too thankful, if my mind were as low as it should be.”
A not very friendly critic, the _Christian Observer_, speaking some time
afterwards of this discussion, says:—
“We have no hesitation in saying that we believe Mr. Fletcher’s
motives in writing them to have been pure and upright. We also think
that in his manner of conducting the controversy, now happily almost
forgotten, he had decidedly the advantage of his antagonists. He was
an acute and animated disputant; a brilliant imagination rendered his
argumentation imposing, splendid, and dazzling, while it enabled him
to paint the doctrines of his adversaries in the darkest and most
odious colours; and whatever may have been the merits of the cause
which he defended,—into these we do not mean to enter,—he was
undoubtedly superior in talents and learning to all his opponents.”
Mr. Wesley says:—“One knows not which to admire most, the _purity_ of the
language (such as scarce any foreigner wrote before); the _strength_ and
_clearness_ of the argument; or the _mildness_ and _sweetness_ of the
spirit that breathes throughout the whole.” Those who read these
discussions in the present day feel surprised at the warmth and
bitterness exhibited by the antagonists, but allowance must be made for
the temper of the times.